Loading...
Minutes-PC 2002/03/11~ COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PA .L~~~' lCK~PHXLU~«~~Y~DSTUN, STEPHEN BRISTOL, G~+~L~~}~S~ At~l, ,1~~I~N KO~~, J,~M~S VANDERBILT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT,~`~ NQ~F ~~~ m~~ .~~„~ ~~~~~~~ ~. ` „ _ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSIOfV MINUTES MONDAY, MARCH 11, 2002 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAI RPEF~SaN'~Tf3~lY~AF~NOLD STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann, Assistant Greg Hastings, Zoning Greg McCafferty, Prin~ Linda Johnson, Princip; Della Herrick, Associ~t+ Cheryl Flores, Senio~ ~ ~~ ~. AGENDA POSTING~A Thursday, March 7, ~( the outside display kio~ , ll PUBLlSHED: • CALL TO ORDER ~~ PLANNING Cd1~M~SSIQI • STAFF UPD~4~~T~1 DEVELOPMENT ~.;~el~ PLANNING COMMI~: • PRELIMINARY PLAN Alfred Yalda;~Pr Melanie Adams: Dave See, Seni Elly Fernandes, ~ RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:3Q 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 PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT H:~DOCS\CLERICALUvIINUTES~AC031102.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. Sonja Grewal, P.O. Box 17578, Anaheim, CA 92817, representing the Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition, stated citizens in the Hills are continuing to see a lot more request for telecommunications equipment. General consensus informs her that the City does not really want to get involved in having them on public rights-of-way because it could be perceived that the City is in business or somehow benefiting by it. So speaking on behalf of the board of Anaheim Hills Citizens Coalition, they would like to request that if it is a firm policy, or if it is not really a policy, that it is looked at. However, noticing that at least one of the items continued on the agenda is a telecommunications item she points out that it appears there is quite a lot of finagling in order to even get it to a public hearing. She feels if it is valuable enough for the City to spend that much staff time on making it acceptable to the public hearing format it would seem the City is already involved in facilitating the telecommunications location. She asks why not consider locating them in public rights-of-way with the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) so that the public could look at it and if they found it objectionable or acceptable they could input. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-E 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 Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt abstained on Item 1-E since they were absent from the February 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-B, 1-C and 1-E) as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Consent Calendar Items (1-A and 1-D) were removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. A. a) CEqA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) Continued to b) RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00047 (TRACKING NO. RCL 2002- March 25, 2002 00069), VARIANCE NO. 2001-04432 (TRACKING NO. VAR 2002- 04492) AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2000-211 (TRACKING (Vote: 7-0) NO. SUB 2002-00002) - REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS: Donald Skjerven, 1020 North Batavia Street, Suite Q, Orange, CA 92867, requests review of final floor, elevation, site and fencing plans. Property is located at 1628 West Orangewood Avenue. (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) SR2106DS.DOC • 03-11-02 Page 2 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Arnold introduced Item 1-A as a request to review final floor, elevation, site and fencing plans for a proposed 2-lot single-family residential subdivision located at 1628 West Orangewood Avenue. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends Commission find the final plans in conformance with the previously-approved exhibits and approve the request consistent with paragraph No. 12 of the staff report. ApplicanYs Testimony: Don Skjerven, 1020 North Batavia, Anaheim, CA, stated they would add more shutters and enhance the elevations of the homes and that it would not be a problem to remove the water heater as recommended. He thanked staff for their cooperation and recommendations and is eager to move forward on the project. Public Testimonies: Barbara Selleck, 2080 Della Lane, Anaheim, CA, stated she approves the project now that it has been changed drastically however, she is not happy about the block wall fence and feels block wall fences should be banned. Tony Juliani, 2118 Della Lane, Anaheim, CA, states his entire property runs on the south side of the subject property and he approves the block wall. He states he would like to see the block wall erected on behalf of the people who are living there as well as for himself in order to be protected from the two monstrous homes, which will be erected. He states the homes will look totally out of place for the area however, this is a capitalistic society and everybody can do what they like with their property. He feels his privacy is going to be invaded, instead of living in his one-story home everybody would be looking down • on him. Mr. Juliani states he spoke with Mr. Skjerven prior to the project regarding a block wall and was informed that a block wall could be erected along his property if he was willing to pay for part of it. He was presented with a fee of $3,500 and determined it was more than he anticipated and decided not to go half on the wall. After which he was told there was no way they could put up a block wall. So he asks how did all of a sudden things change because he was not in agreement to pay for half of the wall that really did not benefit him financially in any way? Mr. Juliani states he would like to see a block wall because if a wood wall were erected there would be an 8-inch space and if the space were filled with dirt it would benefit nothing. He points out that the surrounding projects that have come up in the last year have been erected with block walls around the entire job site and it looks nice. He states maybe most of these type job sites are in Garden Grove but he does not feel Garden Grove has anymore respect for their community than Anaheim has for its community and with all the new changes Anaheim has made, a wood fence would not give an aesthetic appearance and will not endure with time. Chaulare Nokes, 1634 W. Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated she and her husband live on the west side of Mr. Skjerven's property and at the September 25, City Council Meeting, Mr. Skjerven was granted a residential conditional variance to permit a two-lot subdivision on his property. She feels the two-story homes Mr. Skjerven is planning to build will be totally out of proportion to existing neighboring homes and will be physically and visually as intrusive as large buildings or apartments. And, if the homes are built they will stand for years ahead as a prime example of how changes in existing zoning requirements can result in an inappropriate and destructive land use within a neighborhood. The 2-house subdivision would have basically the same problems as the previously proposed 3-house development. The access entry and exiting road on the last property on the east property line is even more inadequate than the former one. It has been narrowed in order to make room for two larger homes. It still dead-ends and it does not provide parking space for anyone other than the residents. It could easily become blocked and emergency vehicles would have no access to the homes. Service vehicles and homeowners who • have extra cars and trucks would be diverted to curb side parking and that would cause congestion on Orangewood Avenue and Della Lane. Drainage for the south lot of the subdivision is unsatisfactory and probably violates the City code and it most certainly causes a severe water problem for the residents living in the showcase condominiums and apartments on the southeast corner of Orangewood Avenue 03-11-02 Page 3 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • and Della Lane. When heavy rains or continuous rains occur the drainage pipe from Mr. Skjerven's property drains over into their parking right-of-way and entrance to their parking garages and cars and people walking are walking in a flood of water. Mr. and Mrs. Nokes would like Mr. Skjerven to build finro single 2-story homes of an appropriate size for the two lots that they will be built on. She recalls at the September 25, 2001 City Council Meeting she requested as a condition of approva! that Mr. Skjerven be required to build a block wall to separate his property from theirs. She feels a permanent wall would be needed in order to protect their retaining wall from being damaged by the homeowners in Mr. Skjerven's subdivision and to keep adults and children from using their backyard as a shortcut to Della Lane and Orangewood Avenue. She states they need a wall that would provide and protect their privacy and the privacy of the homeowners in the subdivision and the wall should be built on Mr. Skjerven's property at his expense. She requests Mr. Skjerven stop his abusive tactics of threatening and trying to intimidate them with illegal demands in an effort to be excused from his responsibilities as a developer to build a permanent wall around his subdivision. B. J. Beauchamp, 1648 W. Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim, CA, states he lives on the other side of Mrs. Nokes and is in complete agreement with her. She points out that Mr. Skjerven does not live in the house or neighborhood and does not do business in the City of Anaheim, his business is in the City of Orange. The current house is in complete and total disrepair and looks worst than her house, which was built in 1920. She states the neighborhood is a nice neighborhood and the fact that two homes are going to be built on one property is not a good thing, they do not fit the neighborhood and she does not know how it got passed accept for the fact that most people work during the day so they cannot come to the City meetings. She feels Mr. Skjerven is not working with the neighborhood, has decided that he wants to get money from one neighbor to help him build a block wall and has threaten Mrs. Nokes with legal action and she has lived there for approximately 40 years. She points out their Homestead Act states that pretty much that is the way it has been and after a certain amount of time that is the way it is and does not feel • after living in her home for 40 years Mrs. Nokes should have to do anything. She feels the proposed project is not in the best interest of the neighborhood because Mr. Skjerven is not going to play nice with the neighborhood and he does not really care about the neighborhood. Applicant's Response: Mr. Skjerven stated he is amazed Mrs. Nokes felt threatened since he merely informed that their footing was on his property and did not threaten or ask her to remove it or anything. He admits he worked hard to get the project with 3 houses last year however it was not approved because of the restricted size of the lots. He feels the 2 houses will be compatible to the area because everything that has been built in the last 20-30 years is two-story and that is the way it is today. Regarding a block wall fence he feels he would lose pretty close to 2 feet 8 inches of property to put his footing along side Mrs. Nokes'. He states Mrs. Nokes' property and the property owner to the south intrudes his property approximately 18 inches but that is not a problem because a vinyl or wood fence could be placed on top of their retainer walls and it would suffice the situation. He feels both properties will benefit from a block wall. Mrs. Nokes has lived on her property for 40-45 years without a fence. He states there have been people living all over, United States and southern California without fences, it is not the end of the world and he proposes a wood and/ or vinyl fence. The durability of the vinyl fence is better than block walls because block walls do crack when earthquakes hit but the vinyl fence will not, it is ease of maintenance and there are many desirable looks to choose from. Commissioner Bristol referred to staff and asked if Condition No. 9 and the map of the proposed plans indicate a block wall or a multiple-scored block wall. He feels Mr. Skjerven would like to put the plastic and/or wood fence on top of the 2-foot block wall in lieu of the block wall. Mr. McCafferty responded that is correct but the block wall is required specifically along the east property line but not the west property line. • Commissioner 8ristol wished to clarify if staff is okay with anything on top of an existing block wall. 03-11-02 Page 4 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. McCafferty responded code does not require a block wall it gives the property owner the freedom of a wood fence or block wall and in this case staff does not have a preference. Commissioner Boydstun asked why a block wall is required on the east side and not the west side. Mr. McCafferty responded his understanding is that the developer and the property owner to the east agreed to the decision prior to the public hearing but again the code would not require a block wall to be constructed along the east property line but it was conditioned through the variance that way. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if when Commission first saw the plans there was a block wall all the way around. Commissioner Bostwick concurred. Mr. McCafferty stated the case planner, David See, indicate they did not have a block wall all the way around. Commissioner Boydstun asked if he could put a wood fence or a vinyl on top of Mrs. Nokes' wall why couldn't it be extended as a block wall. Mr. McCafferty stated there is probably added expense for constructing the block wall because it would be impossible to construct the wall on top of the existing retaining wall because the footings are not appropriately sized. The footings would have to be dug out and another retaining wall would have to be constructed to make it possible to add the additional blocks on top. Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Skjerven to explain further. • Mr. Skjerven responded normally a footing suffices 2-feet retaining and if 6 or 8 feet were placed on top of that a larger footing would be required. The 2-feet retaining wall (which they installed today) has a footing of approximately 2 feet 6 inches wide and fhat should suffice. A retaining wall that would be put up for a 8 foot wall would be approximately 2 feet 4 inches past Mrs. Nokes' wall and that footing is pretty close to 4 feet wide just for the freestanding wall and to retaining her 2 feet. He states however, without structural engineering and a structural engineer to verify everything it is impossible. He feels Mrs. Nokes' wall would have to come out otherwise he would lose 2 feet 8 inches of his property. Commissioner Koos asked Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, generally Commission does not place new conditions on Reports & Recommendations items so he wonders what discretion Commission has regarding fencing. In the City Council's approval, paragraph 5, Condition No. 16, states, "the fencing plan shall specifically indicate the proposed fencing around the perimeter of both properties including the fencing height materials and grade separations between the subject property and adjacent properties". He wonders if Commission has discretion to say, block wall, no block wall, fence, vinyl fence, wood fence, etc. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, responded the City Council approved the parcel map and the reclassification subject to certain conditions of approval. There are two conditions of approval that relate to the fencing: 1) One in which the City Council determined and decreed that the 6-foot high decorative masonry block sound wall be constructed and maintained along the east property line and 2) The only other indication on that is the fencing plan shall specifically indicate the proposed fencing around the perimeter of both properties including the height materials and grade separations. The conditions of approval states the final site building elevation and fencing plans required shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. The fact that it is submitted for approval suggest that there is a certain amount of flexibility in terms of approval or denial and Commission is not • given specific standards in the approval other than along the property line that is set forth in Condition No. 9. 03-11-02 Page 5 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i Therefore there is a little room to determine or Commission could just take the position that the developer has indicated what was required in the condition; take a very narrow reading of that in that the developer indicated the height and all of the other requirements of the condition, and approve it on that basis with the knowledge that the decision of the Planning Commission on this Reports and Recommendation Item is appealable to the City Council. Commissioner Koos states it seems since the City Council was so specific on the east property line that by default they were not quite as concerned about the south and west property lines. Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, stated the neighbor brought up an issue regarding drainage and she feels it requires additional review. Parcel No. 2 is proposing to drain to the rear of the lot into an existing pipe that crosses the street and since the matter came to her attention as recent as Thursday, March 7, 2002, she would like an opportunity for the Public Works Department to do additional review whether it is indeed an appropriate drainage pattern for the site. She states if it is not appropriate that would mean that the developer would be bringing in fillers so that they could drain to Orangewood Avenue and that would have an impact on what type of wall and fencing is constructed on the property. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if she is asking Item No. 1-A be continued in order to allow Public Works an opportunity to review the situation. Ms. Adams responded yes, a two-week continuance would be sufficient for Public Works. Chairperson Arnold concurred it is a critical issue but given the fact that so many people were present for regarding the subject project he felt it necessary to at least reach a conclusion with respect to fencing so as not to detract too much from the discussion already taken place. • Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if Mr. Skjerven indicated his property is 1628. Mr. Skjerven responded according to the map, yes. Commissioner Bristol stated so therefore you are indicating that the 2-foot retaining wall is on 1634? Mr. Skjerven responded yes sir. Commissioner Bristol stated and you are maintaining that you cannot put a fence on your side because of the footing. Mr. Skjerven responded yes sir. Commissioner Bristol asked if Mrs. Nokes has agreed or had the opportunity to look at the fencing he is considering. Mr. Skjerven responded, "I exposed the footing with Mr. and Mr. Nokes and said if we cooperate in putting up a block wall, but her footing is encroaching on my ability there. But the wood fence, she is totally against. So no, I have not confronted her to wood and/or vinyl". Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify that his argument and/or thoughts are that the footing encroaching on his property restricts him from building on his property line. Mr. Skjerven responded yes sir, between Mrs. Nokes' wall and his new block wall he would have a 2-foot 8 inch void from her property to his fence which would be 4 inches of her property and about 2 feet of his. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Skjerven if that was not safer than having the easement, prescriptive and • etc., versus the fence on something that is not his. 03-11-02 Page 6 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Skjerven responded she has to agree for the vinyl fence to go on top of hers or she can tear out her fence, her block wall and participate in putting up a block wall. He states he offered her both options but she elected to say no to wood and no participation. Commissioner Bristol asked him if he did not understand why. He stated it is because you are asking her to come up with a lot of money. Mr. Skjerven responded well half the fence is hers. Commissioner Bristol stated well not if it were on your side and the footing was not there. Mr. Skjerven responded well she is still looking at half of it. Commissioner Bristol stated okay, I am just trying to get an understanding of the circumstances. Mr. Skjerven responded but children could fall in the void and there would be trash and rodents, etc. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify that Mr. Skjerven had not shown Mrs. Nokes the vinyl fencing and what vinyl fencing offers today that never needs any maintenance. Mr. Skjerven responded, "1 believe she has seen it from somebody else". Mrs. Nokes inferred she had not seen the fencing. Mr. Skjerven responded no, "I did not show her that but there are plenty of brochures here today". • Commissioner Bostwick feels a two-week continuance is appropriate to allow Mr. Skjerven an opportunity to show her the fencing. Commissioner Boydstun concurred and also admonished him to tell her where to visit in order to see one of the fences in place because she feels they are certainly an improvement over wooden fences. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition to the subject request. IN SUPPORT: 2 people spoke in favor of the subject request (with one supporting a block wall and one in opposition of a block wall). ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the March 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the Public Works Department time to review the proposed drainage pattern; and to allow the applicant and adjacent neighbor (Nokes) time to discuss the matter pertaining to the fencing. DISCUSSION: 30 minutes (1:48-2:18) C~ 03-11-02 Page 7 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • B. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04470 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2002-04524) - REVIEW OF FINAL SIGN PLANS: Dr. Jayaratne, 6254 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA 92807, requests review of final plans to permit one wall sign. Property is located at 6254 East Santa Ana Canyon Road - Anaheim Hills Montessori School. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. • • Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final sign plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 2001- 04470 (Tracking No. CUP2002-04524) because it is in compliance with applicable codes, condition no. 10 of Resolution No. PC2002-15, and is architecturally compatible with the existing building. Approved Approved Final Sign Plans (Vote: 7-0) SR8241VN.DOC 03-11-02 Page 8 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ C. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) b) TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16233 (TRACKING NO. SUB2002- 00003) - REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Comstock Homes, Attn: Andy Byrne and Brad Porter, 321 12~' Street, Suite 200, Manhatten Beach, CA 90266, request determination of substantial conformance to modify the private street width on the tentative tract map. Property is located at 832 South Knott Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. • u Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the revised Tentative Tract Map No. 16233 (Tracking No. SUB2002-00003) is in substantial conformance with the original tentative tract map as previously reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04453, and the other exhibits on file for this condominium complex. Approved Determined to be in substantial conformance (Vote: 7-0) SR8247KB.DOC 03-11-02 Page 9 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • D. a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061 b 3 GENERAL RULE Continued to b) ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00015 - REQUEST FOR March 25, 2002 REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A DRAFT ORDINANCE: City- initiated (Planning Department), request for review and approval of a (Vote: 7-0) draft ordinance containing Zoning Code [Title 18] modifications related to entitlement and parking requirements for computer rental/internet access businesses. (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) SR8204CF.DOC • Chair erson Arnold Introduced Item No. 1-D as a draft zonin ordinance re ardin com uter rental and P 9 9 9 P Internet Access Businesses. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, stated Item 1-D is to request Commission's review and approval of the attached draft ordinance related to computer rental and Internet Access Businesses. The draft ordinance would provide a definition in City code, which is not currently available for these types of businesses. It would also allow them the authorization for approval under Conditional Use Permit in the CL-Commercial Limited Zone and the Sports Entertainment Overlay Zone and add parking requirements for the businesses shown on page 2 of the staff report. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated during the morning session he raised a question with regard to the purpose of the extra fee businesses paid for amusement devices to try to determine what the City's logical rationale was and then maybe apply that to the current ordinance in terms of the language and see if he felt comfortable with it. He states the reason he is concerned is because the proposed ordinance sort of lumps together different uses and feels what it is saying is any business that has a computer terminal on the network and makes it available for rent could possibly be used for amusement purposes and that brings a certain type of clientele generally and potential problems and there may be other uses that are more benign. Ms. Flores feels at this time there would be no licensing of the individual computers for the Internet Business and the others are licensed because they are coined operated. She offered to check further and return with more in-depth information. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated as indicated in the materials from Westminster one of the • issues that they identified was attempts to evade existing laws and perhaps not being completely honest about the primary use of the location and using that labeling to conceal the true purpose. One of the issues that the City Attorneys' face in trying to draft the ordinance is that it is very difficult when the use is first coming in to really be able to divine what will be actually happening on the property 6 months down 03-11-02 Page 10 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ the line. To call a use back is much more difficult than having a Conditional Use Permit up front that has conditions of approval to address potential impacts. Commissioner Vanderbilt feels the language reads, "many uses can be used for computers and if your computer use is any of these possible uses then you are going to comply with these rules" and therefore one ordinance is written that addresses them all at once. He understands the City Attorney's position where applicants come before Commission and say they are going to create a particular cafe for the use of corresponding overseas and preparing documents much in the same way as one would at Kinko's, etc., and then as time goes on the use actually becomes more of an 'arcade. He feels it would be better to draw the line and say, "alright applicant what is your intention, is it going to be arcade use, and if that is the case these rules apply to you"; "is it going to be e-mail and overseas correspondence and document production then these rules apply to you". He states that is the distinction he believed might be addressed in the ordinance however, that is not what he is seeing and that is why he is raising the question. Commissioner Bostwick stated for example most hotels have one or two computers and Kinko's, etc., would have 4 or 5 and so by setting the criteria that if an establishment has more than 5 computers then it would fall under the ordinance of something more than a casual business for the traveler or for the person who wants to check their e-mail; they would have actually gone into the amusement and/or entertainment business. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify 1) the idea is that with the proposed type businesses there would be Conditional Use Permits required and the conditions imposed in the Conditional Use Permit would be designed to regulate the various land use impacts, including the potential for crime and loitering, etc., and that there would be various safety and security oriented conditions including in many circumstances a standard requiring the presence of a security guard, 2) it is Commission's understanding that this does • not apply to the kind of limited event computer provider; somebody who is providing computers for a convention meeting or some sort of gathering in a hotel which warrants a day or a few days. The ordinance is not really designed to apply to that particular type of business. Ms. Flores responded that is correct, it applies to a computer business for somebody who pays by the hour for the use of the computer. The Business License Department and Chapter 4 of the Municipal Code regulate the amusement device arcades. The reason a permit is required for each device is due to the same types of problems that could be experienced with all Internet Cafes; a concentration of young people together. The permit would help to know where they are and how many of them are in any specific place. In the future with the Conditional Use Permits and more Internet Cafes coming into the cities, staff would be addressing that issue in the Municipal Code but have not made a distinction to date but is aware that they are very similar just different in some respects. Chairperson Arnold stated his understanding is that the analysis of the parking requirements does not include cars that are parked in the parking lot that are just kind of loitering and the existence of security to try to discourage or prevent loitering would more closely approximate the assumptions on which the parking analysis is based. Alfred Yalda, Public Works Principal Transportation Planner, responded yes that is correct. Commissioner Koos asked Ms. Flores in her studies of other cities what would she approximate the average number of computers to be in the amusement oriented Internet Businesses. Ms. Flores responded staff's study was just to ask whether or not they required a Conditional Use Permit and not to ask how many computers were in the establishment. Mr. Yalda feels the average is between 50 and 60 computers. • Commissioner Koos stated maybe it somehow gets to Commissioner VanderbilYs point of what is the threshold that Commission is looking at in terms of looking at a legitimate cafe, by right that has coffee. He asks, what if an establishment wanted 6 computers would it kick it into a CUP. And, is Commission's 03-11-02 Page 11 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • threshold of 5 too low, and should Commission maybe look at 10 because for example, the Kinko's in Huntington Beach has 9. He feels it would prevent an establishment such as Kinko's from having to get a CUP if they had 7 computers because they are obviously doing legitimate business. He suggests raising the threshold a little bit but still have it well below what would be considered the minimum number that an Internet Cafe amusement device could have in order to stay in business. Another concern is to make sure that when a public notice goes out that it is named appropriately so that people in the public understand what is being proposed in their neighborhood. He suggests Internet Amusement or Internet Amusement Facility. Ms. Flores wished to clarify if he desired to change the wording in the draft definition. She states if the wording were to remain the same, Computer Rental/Internet Access Business, then staff would probably add into the advertisement something to the effect for playing video games on the Internet or primarily to play video games on the Internet but definitely something to let the public know exactly what was being proposed. Mr. McCafferty stated this is a recommendation to the City Council so if Commission approves it with changes it would be forwarded to City Council. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify there would not be a public hearing. Mr. McCafferty stated that was not the intent. Commissioner Boydstun stated if the businesses are close to schools they would acquire a lot of school use and also people use it for the Internet when they are traveling to avoid going to a place where there are 100 machines and a lot of commotion. So something should be in there that says anything over 10 there will be a licensing fee. • Mr. McCafFerty stated the Police Department is not present and therefore it is not known from their perspective where the critical masses start to create problems and in their experience with talking to officials in other cities whether 10 would be too high. Staff chose 5 based on the survey of other cities to try to distinguish it between Kinko's and a gaming facility. Ms. Flores suggested continuing the project in order for staff to speak with the Police Department, as they were involved in the determination of 5 or more computers at the initiation point. She states the Police mentioned there could be problems even with 1 computer. Commissioner Bostwick stated Commissioner Boydstun's comments brought up a good thought because in the current CUP staff has proposed not having it in the Brookhurst Redeve{opment Area but yet there is going to be college offices in the area in what was once the Martin Luther King Hospital. He feels there could potentially be a Kinko's type operation close to the school that the students might want to use and regulations would inhibit that progress. He wished to consider whether Commission really wanted to leave it in the Redevelopment Area or not. Mr. Yalda feels most schools provide computers in the school libraries and it is unlikely for a student to go to a Kinko's to use their computers when they can use the school's for free. He feels clients typically go to Kinko's when they want to create some kind of flyers or they want to use specific Kinko's software to put their business plan together or do a resume. Chairperson Arnold expressed a different opinion, being involved in higher educational institutes with large enrollments of students, and feels that students get themselves into deadlines where computer usage at schools are all occupied or they would want to do a special project such as color photocopying and also schools now charge for each page printed and the cost is as much or more than Kinko's. So his experience is that quite a number of college, graduate and professional school students go to Kinko's. • He states there have been a number of good pofnts raised that staff needs to take back and look at further; 1) is the number of computers at which the threshold will kick in, 2) Commissioner Koos makes a 03-11-02 Page 12 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • good point and it might be useful to see that as just part of the title (Computer Rental/Internet/Internet Amusement Business, etc.), and 3) whether or not there should be a licensing. Commissioner Boydstun concurred there should be something so that there is some control over the numbers and if there are changes or more control to see if they are not being used as they should be used. • • ~ - e iiiie: ~ . e-. - •iiii •- ' •- OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the March 25, 2002, Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to address questions raised at today's meeting pertaining to establishing the number of computers being used in order to distinguish subject computer rental/internet access businesses from a "Kinkos" type establishment; whether issuing a license for each computer is necessary; and for subject business type to have a distinct title in order to better distinguish the type of operation. DISCUSSION: 17 minutes (2:19-2:36) • ~ 03-11-02 Page 13 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r • • E. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of February 25, 2002. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt abstained), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of February 25, 2002. Approved (Vote: 4-0, Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt abstained since they were absent for the February 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting) 03-11-02 Page 14 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 2b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00061 May 20, 2002 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04455 OWNER: Camino Grande Villas Homeowners Association, TSG Independent Property Management, 27129 Calle Arroyo, # 1801, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 AGENT: Tetra Tech Wireless/Whalen, Attn: Lorena Martinez, 357 Van Ness Way, Suite 150, Torrance, CA 90501 Southern California Edison, Attn: Robert Teran, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770 LOCATION: (No address). Property is approximately 16.6 acres located afi the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Stage Coach Road. Reclassification No. 2001-00061 - To reclassify subject property from RM-3000(SC) (Residential, Multiple-Family - Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the RS-A-43,000(SC) (Residential/Agricultural - Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04455 - To permit a telecommunication antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Continued from the November 5, December 3 and December 17, 2001, January 14, February 11 and February 25, 2002 Planning Commission meetings. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8249VN.DOC OPPOSITION: 4 letters were received in opposition (one representing the Anaheim Hills Citizens' Coalition). ~ !N SUPPORT: A letter was received in favor of the proposed design changes for the subject request. IN GENERAL: A letter was received requesting a continuance and correspondence was received requesting a continuance from the Camino Grande Villas Homeowner's Association Board, and the Camino Grande Villas Hameowners with 38 signatures. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bosfinrick and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the May 20, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the property owner, Camino Grande Villas Homeowner's Association, additional time to consider the proposal. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 03-11-02 Page 15 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 3 C oncurred with staff 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04489 Granted OWNER: Cal Asia Property Development, 1517 South Sepulveda Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90025 AGENT: MPA Architectural Group, Attn: Jennifer Gerner, 1205 J Street, Suite F, San Diego, CA 92101 LOCATION: 1001 North State Colleqe Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.5-acre located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and State College Boulevard. Requests to construct a five-unit commercial retail center. Continued from the January 14, January 28 and February 11, 2002 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-33 SR1062CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 3 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04489, a request to construct a 5-unit commercial retail center, 1001 North State College Boulevard. • Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval of the request as conditioned in the staff report with one change to page 8, Condition No. 14; add an additional sentence to the last part to say, "said information shall be specifically shown on plans permitted for building permits". Micheal Palmer, 1205 J. St., San Diego, CA, representing MPA Architects, stated all of the conditions contained in the staff report are acceptable to the developer. Commissioner Boydstun asked Mr. Palmer if he had any kind of contract which permitted him to construct the unit. Mr. Palmer responded it is a verbal agreement and they would have something written forthcoming. The property is owned by a large corporation and it is taking awhile to find the right people who could make that decision but it has been agreed to at principal and everyone seems to be happy with it. Commissioner Boydstun asked if he did not have a problem with maintenance and waterlines to the unit, etc. Mr. Palmer responded no. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DURING THE ACTION: Mr. McCafferty wished to clarify that on page 7 the recommendation for a Negative Declaration should actually read "Categorical Exemption" so that it could be determined that the project is Categorically Exempt under Class 3 of the CEQA guideline. • Chairperson Arnold admonished that the records reflect staff's request and a resolution with one change to Item No. 14. 03-19 -02 Page 16 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • ~ ~- • ~ ~ • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol 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 3 (New Construction), 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. 2001-04489 (to construct a three-unit commercial retail center) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 11, 2002 with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 14 to read as follows: 14. That since this project has a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet, a separate irrigation meter shall be insta!!ed in compliance with Chapter 10.19 of Anaheim Municipal Code No. 5349 regarding water conservation. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. VOTE: 7-0 ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (2:37-2:42) • 03-11-02 Page 17 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 4b. RECLASSIFICA710N NO, 2001-00066 Granted 4c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 4d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04501 (READVERTISED) Granted 4e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16227 Approved OWNER: Micheal Daskalakis, 623 North James Place, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Brandywine Development, 1801 East Edinger Avenue, Suite 125, Santa Ana, CA 92705 LOCATION: 820-824 South Magnolia Avenue. Property is approximately 1.4-acres with a frontage of 280 feet on the east side of Magnolia Avenue located 120 feet south of the centerline of Rome Avenue. Reclassification No. 2001-00066 - Requests reclassification of the subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04501 - To construct a 12-unit detached one-family residential condominium subdivision with waivers of a) maximum structural height within 150 feet of a single-family residential zone, b) minimum structural setback abutting an arterial highway, c) • minimum landscape setback abutting a single-family residential zone, d) minimum distance between building waHs, e) maximum fence height, and fl minimum private street standards. Tentative Tract Map No. 16227 - To establish a 1-lot, 12-unit detached residential airspace condominium subdivision. REClASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-34 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-35 SR1064CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 4 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04501, Residential Condominium Subdivision, 820-824 South Magnolia Avenue. The Conditional Use Permit was advertised as involving more units but now is a 12-unit proposal with modifications to the design. He informed Commissioner Koos declared a conflict of interest as indicated at the February 11, 2002, hearing. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff would like to revise some of the conditions of approval: On page 14, Condition No. 25, add Condition No. 22 to the timing; Condition No. 11, page 15, revise the first sentence of Condition No. 11 to read, " that the CC&R's recorded in conjunction with the final map shall indicate to future homeowners that no structures are permitted within the landscape setback areas abutting the single-family residential zone boundaries"; Condition No. 12, page 15, add Condition Nos. 8, 10 and 11. Applicant's Testimony: • Donna Chessen, 3420-3A Calle Azui, Laguna Woods, CA, representing Brandywine Developments, stated they have returned to seek a win-win solution for an unusually shaped parcel. She feels the City is in agreement with them by applying the current codes and zonings that it has not resulted in the solution 03-11-02 Page 18 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ that benefits the City of Anaheim or the neighborhood and that is reflected by the variances they need to have on the proposed Magnolia Cottages. She states at the previous Planning Commission Meeting (February 11, 2002) Commission spoke loud and clear and they listened and they also listened to the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Counsel and tried to incorporate everyone's practical solutions and solid direction to improving the subject project. She presented the following revisions: 1. The smaller plan A has replaced a larger plan B. Instead of their original plan of 14 homes it has been reduced to 12. 2. Additional guest parking has been added. That brings the total guest parking to 32, which exceeds code by 14. 3. The tot lot has been moved because they believe that both from a visual look and a safety factor for the children it is better off towards the back. The tot lot will continue to have the normal recreational facilities for the children. 4. The trash enclosures have been upgraded with decorative design. 5. The 10-foot set aside discussed at the February 11, 2002 Meeting has been provided. It gives every neighbor a sideyard and each home will also have additional landscaping. 6. Staff requested additional 53-foot setback and that has been designed into the site plan. She states everyone knows that the subject site is not the most perfect site plan and is so difficult to do on the proposed piece of land but she believes it is certainly a good plan and a whole lot better than leaving the lot empty. Ms. Chessen states she has talked to neighbor after neighbor that surrounds the parcel and they have said to her "oh my gosh, I can't tell you how excited we are that we are finally going to get homes, we were worried we were going to get apartments and we have had so much problems with this lot". They have talked to her about their children walking to school across the subject lot and • cutting their feet; they talked to her about the dust, vagrancy and the graffiti and said they have seen vagrants sleeping in the lot. She states they have told her they are fed up with the dust and what happens when you don't have curbs and gutters and sidewalks when it rains. The neighbors have asked her on their behalf to please ask Commission to approve the project. She presented letters from approximately 14 different homeowners who asked for support of the project and asked to read the names into the record. Chairperson Arnold stated she could submit the letters to Commission and they would become a part of the public record. Ms. Chessen stated she has submitted them to their package but in addition to the letters and petition she had other names that she would like to have in the record at the request of the neighbors so that they would be in the public record as being in support of the project. Chairperson Arnold permitted the request. Ms. Chessen read: • Charles Gamma, 2567 Leola Drive • Lois Likeness 2566 Leola Drive • Patricia Manning, 2562 Leola Drive • Patricia Griswell, 2564 West Rome • H. Curtis Cole (address not read) • Teresa Martinez, 2551 West Rome Avenue • Tran Winn, 2568 West Rome Avenue • Shirley McGurelin, 2569 West Rome Avenue • • • T. Portist 2565 Rome Avenue Ken Jenky, 2579 West Rome Avenue • Jim Lewis, 2565 West Heffron Drive • Lisa Guzman, 2564 Heffron Drive 03-11-02 Page 19 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • She feels with Commission's input they now have a significantly enhanced project that is a win-win for the City, neighborhood, new homeowners and developer. Bret Whitehead, 1801 E. Edinger Avenue, Suite 125, representing Brandywine Development, Corp., states once again they stand in front of Commission with a great project. It is a very unique product and he feels it will really enhance the City of Anaheim, particularly the neighborhood on Ball Road and Magnolia Avenue. He states their experience on these type infield projects is that there are first time homebuyers and people who would like to upgrade their home and most of them are young professionals who are trying to get a start in their family and/or in the community. Some of them have lived in the community and don't want to move out but want a brand new home for their new family. He states what they have seen in these typical projects is that the young professionals are driving brand new BMW's (Bavarian Motor Works) and Mercedes Benz and feels this brings money into the community and starts to revitalize the commercial. Mr. Whitehead states he has taken a look at commercial around the area and determined that it needs to be revitalized. One example is in Garden Grove, the City approached them and asked them to clean up a couple of sites. One was on Garden Grove Boulevard and Newland Street and another was on ~ampson Boulevard and Magnolia Avenue. He states, "if you had taken a look at the commercial 2 years ago you would have said nobody would build or buy there. Today, if you go back and look at the commercial, it is being revitalized, a number of sites have sold and have been `reskinned', new tenants have moved in and parking lots are now full". He feels the proposed product is going to be a very successful project and the neighbors have asked for Commission's approval. Public Testimonies: • Linda Mayes, 817 S. Ira Ct., Anaheim, CA, states she is a homeowner of 36 years. Her property is in the back of the subject property. She supports the projecf and feels it will improve the area a great deal however, there are some things she is concerned about; her privacy for one and the fact that the site is not going to be very far from her fence. Brandywine is proposing a 6-foot fence along the backline and there is a difference in their properties of varying height. Her property is higher than Brandywine's property. Currently there is 6-feet on her side and she is concerned that when the developers build the project she is going to have 4-feet on her side if they are not allowed to build 8-feet across the back. Otherwise, she feels the project is outstanding. Charles Bradley, 3208 W. Faircrest Dr., Anaheim, CA, representing WAND, states they have met with Brandywine a couple of times (the week of March 3, 2002 and in May 2001). The project has been reduced 2 houses since origina(ly proposed to WAND 10 months ago. He states his current concerns are 1) The setback from Magnolia Avenue. He feels the City Code is not being adhered to and should apply in this particular case, 2) the interior streets are not as wide as they could be however, at the February 11, 2002 meeting the Fire Department did not seem to think there was any big problem and 3) the original request was for 14 houses and now it is down to 12. He feels it is still dense but it is Commission's decision to make. Richard Flacy, 830 S. Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, CA, states he is present to oppose the proJect. He feels the development is requesting too many waivers; the setbacks, height, density and number of condos requested are too many for the proposed lot size in addition to a very narrow sidewalk. He lives two houses south of the project and would like to see Brandywine adhere to the City Code. Judithanne Gollette, 649 S. Roanne St., Anaheim, CA, representing WAND, states first of all across the board there is not anybody in West Anaheim who does not want a blighted, vacant, trash-thrown lot, to be a beautiful site. Nobody is going to argue with that one but suggests getting down to the basics. "What is ~ this project and is it going to benefit and give quality of life to the residents that have lived there for a long time and the residents that are going to move in?" 03-11-02 Page 20 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ She concurs with Mr. Bradley and Mr. Flacy, the City has a code of 20-foot setback on Magnolia Avenue and on main arterial highways and Brandywine is proposing 9 feet. She states there are huge homes with great acreage on that side of Magnolia Avenue and asks when Commission talks about zoning restrictions are they talking about whether or not it is going to be a benefit or detriment to the existing housing and to the pertaining areas. She feels at RS-7200 a 9-foot setback is going to be a big detriment however the current site is adjusted to fit the zoning code by reducing it down to a single-family home on a condominium size lot. Although Ms. Chessen states they are not condominiums Ms. Gollette feels they are detached condominiums on a condominium size lot; they are 3,000 and under lots. Ms. Gollette states the width of the interior streets is an issue and recalls Commission themselves have stated it may not be an issue for the Fire Department because it meets the minimum standards. She asks, "is that a quality of life and are we just meeting minimum standards or we giving a product that is well worth the community buying in there and well to their safety"? She states the trash enclosure is another issue because as one enters the property the trash enclosure is immediately visible. She feels this does not beautify the neighborhood. She recalls Ms. Mayes told Commission about a 6-foot wall and the difference of the grades. She asks Commission look at a possible 8-foot wall in the back area and opaque windows across the back. When WAND spoke to Brandywine at the February 11, 2002 meeting they were asked if they could possibly move the windows around to the south side of the housing to give her a standard of quality and privacy. She suggests, " let's not talk about putting in a number of trees. Trees just don't cut it for privacy. Trees can die and trees can be trimmed and this is a person who has lived there for 38 years". She asks that opaque windows be mandated to go into the second-story facing of any abutting residential area. She asserts "it can be done, we did it at Stonegate, let's look at it again". • Ms. Gollette recalls Ms. Chessen stated they relocated the tot lot. She clarifies they did not relocate the tot lot they eliminated it and labeled the open space that was there once before a tot lot. And, when Brandywine attended the WAND Land Use Meeting they were asked if there would be recreational facilities for the children and they said no that they did not plan on putting any facilities there, maybe a park bench and a light, if that. It would be possibly up to the Homeowner's Association to approve it however they wanted it. Regarding other issues she states she is confused on page 5, Item No. 14, where it states their landscape indicates 7-24 inch box magnolia trees and 7-15 inch box given the total of 14 trees abutting Magnolia Avenue. However, on page 11, it states under the recommendation that the developer shall plant 7-24 inch trees on 30-foot centers fronting Magnolia Avenue. Ms. Gollette asks, "where did we lose and why did we lose 7 trees"? She states on page 6, the redesign is one home removed to increase 6 parking spaces the tot lot was removed; "that is removable open greenbelt". Regarding the diagram, She asks, "on their diagram, on the front elevation of the wood fence are the homes being separated, is the surrounding area property being surrounded by the wood fence, or is that the frontage on the trash enclosure"? Parking is another issue and she recalls discussing the driveway being adjacent to the public street and having no gates, but she is also concerned about parking on Magnolia Avenue and would like to know if it is going to be allowed or is it going to be constricted somehow. She feels there is potential for overflow parking onto the main street and where semi-trucks are currently parking it becomes a nuisance and a visual problem. Ms. Gollette stated WAND has stood for a quality of life for West Anaheim residents and business owners. They want to see green; green landscaped open spaces, green beautified main streets and ~ green tax generated dollars coming into the City. She asks, "when we talk about a vacant, blighted field, yeah, we are going to create green there but is it going to be quality of life for the residents that are there now, those that have been in the neighborhood for many, many years and for the residents that are 03-11-02 Page 21 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • buying in or is it just another `piece-work', `quilt-work' of West Anaheim being thrown in because it is an irregularly shaped lot?" ApplicanYs Response: Mr. Whitehead stated regarding the issue of the setback off of Magnolia Avenue, it is labeled 9 feet but the 9 feet is actually a planter. So the setback to the wall is actually 19 feet off the front of the curb. He feels they are deviating by 1 foot on that waiver. He states "in regards to the windows and looking down into Linda's (Ms. Mayes) yard, I have talked with Linda extensively over the past 3 months and we have told her that opaque windows will be installed so that the homeowners will not be looking down into her yard and she seems to be okay with that. As you saw, she is in support of the projecY'. Mr. Whitehead states regarding the size of streets, "yes we do have to have some smaller streets. Buyer is okay with it, engineering is okay with it, and neighbors are okay with it. To me a smaller street means a safer street; people won't be driving as fast and you don't have to worry as much that way'. He responded "regarding the wood fence on the plan, we do have wood fences that would be in between lots so that residents would know where their backyards and sideyards are and that is what is being represented on the plan". He states he looked at moving the trash enclosure but according to Anaheim City Code and the 7rash Division, the proposed location is where they would like to have it. The turn-around there deems it necessary to be located there. The trash enclosure has been decorated with vines and landscaping to make it disappear as much as possible. • He confirms as far as he knows there will not be any parking on Magnolia Avenue. He stated the tot lot was open space originally and it was relocated because they heard loud and clear at the February 11, 2002 meeting Planning Commission wanted more guests parking. They looked at putting guest parking at the ends of the street and could not make it work because of backup and turn- around access so they decided to move the tot lot down and put in more guest parking. Ms. Chessen stated at the WAND Land Use Meeting they were asked about the tot lot and it seemed an important issue however, they have found in other developments that it is not an important issue to the homebuyers. She states nevertheless they are more than willing to make the tot lot happen if that is the will of the Commission and will provide Commission with their plan of appropriate sandboxes, swing sets, or whatever is needed. She responded to Ms. Gollette's statement and clarified the only reason they said it was going to be recreational and left up to the will of the Planning Commission is because some Commissioners prefer barbecues and benches and feel they are more usable. Other Commissioners feel that it is more usable to have a tot lot. She states they have the space and it does not matter to them what is put there. Commissioner Boydstun admonished she is a strong believer in tot lots and would like Ms. Chessen to specify they will put sandboxes, blocks to climb through, swings, etc., in the tot lot. She states she is in the process of selling a home and though it may seem buyers do not care, a lot of times that is the first things her buyers point out to her. Ms. Chessen responded it is a mix bag, some Homeowner Associations say it is nothing but maintenance problems because the sand gets on everything and bugs live in the sand however, they do not have a problem and will provide a tot lot if that is the will of the Commission. • Commissioner Boydstun admonished she did not have to use sand because there are numerous kinds of safety toys available but she wants it specified the equipment would be there. Ms. Chessen responded, "okay, we can do that". 03-11-02 Page 22 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Eastman asked if there was any consideration given to increasin the hei hts of the fence, 9 J especially in the area where it seems of concern to particular property owners. Mr. McCafferty stated the code says that you could measure the fence from the higher side so if the applicant were willing to measure it from Mrs. Mayes property line he could very well do that. Commissioner Bostwick stated it has to be 6 feet from the highest elevation. Ms. Chessen stated it is only Ms. Mayes' property that is being effected. Commissioner Eastman stated I thought she mentioned that she would like to see the fence 8-feet near her property because she is the one so concerned about her privacy being affected. Commissioner Boydstun stated it has to be 6 feet from the highest point so the low side is going to be 8 feet. Commissioner Eastman asked if she was being told it could not be 8 feet. Mr. McCafferty stated that the height of the perimeter wall is measured from the highest side and is limited to a maximum height of 6 feet. He responded "yes, it can be 8 feet but not at this public hearing because the item would need to be readvertised to include a code waiver for maximum fence height". Melanie Adams, Associate Engineer, wished to clarify a few points: 1) Regarding setbacks, the applicant stated they have a 19 foot setback but she feels he was measuring from the curb when they should be measuring from the property line. She states they do not have a 19 foot front setback because from the • curb there is an additional 10 feet of public right-of-way and the applicant needs to start measuring from the back of the sidewalk and, 2) On page 11, Condition No. 1 relates to trees within the public right-of- way and the public parkway and she asks in the last sentence, strike out building permits and instead put public street improvements. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify there were 14 mentioned earlier and the report shows 7. Mr. McCafferty clarified that is distinguishing the public right-of-way from the private setback. They are two separate plans. Ms. Adams asked to add a new condition on page 15 of the Tentative Tract Map conditions that the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim on the final map an easement 53 feet from the centerline of Magnolia Avenue. Mr. McCafferty stated the exhibit reflects that so it is appropriate. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated in terms of the setbacks he sees similarities between the plans of the subject project and the Kaufman Broad Projects, which he has lived in for the last 10 years. He feels the quality of life is high there. He has had neighbors on three of the four sides who have lived there as long as he has and are the original owners. He states his sense is that for families that are young and need a starter house that the proposed project provides an opportunity for them to take part in home ownership and feels it is possible, given the restrictions of the tot lot, to still have a high quality of life. Commissioner Vanderbilt suggests perhaps when that quality of life is no longer suitable once a higher income is reached then residents could move up into other neighborhoods that have existed longer and have bigger lots. He feels it is a good project and the fact that there was reduction in the original number of houses • shows a good effort on the part of the developer to try to accommodate concerns of existing neighbors. Chairperson Arnold concurs with Commissioner Vanderbilt and feels it is exactly the type of housing product residents of West Anaheim have been seeking. He states he was excited to see the project at 03-11-02 Page 23 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ the first hearing but concerned a little bit about the particular layout, the rear setbacks, the fact that 13 houses seemed to be a tight squeeze, and all other concerns addressed in the hearing. He assures he understands the concerns about the variances but the reality is some lots in West Anaheim are constrained and it is unfortunate that it cannot be restructured from the beginning. He admonishes that there are certain housing markets that we all have to take into account of the realities that not everything we would like to see is necessarily going to be exactly the way we would like to see it. On the whole it is a good project and the type of housing product that everyone would like to see in West Anaheim and that is the overriding goal. • • ~ ~ - • ~ • ~ ~ • OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concerns, and 2 people spoke in opposition to the subject request. IN SUPPORT: 1 person spoke in favor of the subject request, but expressed concerns pertaining to the proposed fence. The applicant submitted 10 letters and a petition with 3 signatures in favor of the subject request. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 2001-00066 (to reclassify this property from the RS-A-43,000 zone to the RM-3000 zone) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 11, 2002. • Approved Waiver of Code Requirements, as follows: Approved waivers pertaining to (a) maximum structural height within 150 feet of single family residential zone, (b) minimum structural setback abutting an arterial highway, (c) minimum landscaped setback abutting a single-family residential zone and (e) maximum fence height based on the special circumstances of this property due to its location being surrounded on three sides by single-family residential zones, depriving this property of the ability to develop detached condominiums in compliance with RM-3000 zone development standards. Approved waiver (d) pertaining to minimum distance between buildings since the RM-3000 Zone development standards anticipate large multiple-unit buildings rather than individual detached dwelling units designed with setbacks similar to other single-family zone development standards; and that similar developments of this type have been granted this waiver in the past. Approved waiver (f) pertaining to minimum private street standards waiver based on the recommendation of the Public Works Department that given the size of the development and the site constraints, the proposed street widths are adequate to serve the residences. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04501 (to construct a 12-unit detached one-family residential condominium subdivision) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 11, 2002 with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 1 and 25 to read as follows: • 1. That the developer shall plant seven (7) 24-inch box street trees on 30-foot centers in the parkway, fronting Magnolia Avenue. Minimum width of parkway/tree wells shall be 60 inches and tree species shall be determined upon the adoption of a new plan 03-11-02 Page 24 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ by the City's Street Beautification Task Force. Said information shall be shown on plans submitted for l~+I~g. flec~ai~s public street improvements. 25. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 22, 23 and 24, above-mentioned, shall be compfied with. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That the tot lot shall be provided with play equipment to the satisfaction of the Planning Department. Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 16227 (to establish a one-lot, 12-unit detached residential condominium subdivision) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 11, 2002 with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 11 and 12 to read as follows: 11. That the CC & R's recorded in conjunction with the final map shall indicate to future homeowners that no structures are permitted within t#3is~a~ea the landscape setback areas abutting the single-family residential zone boundaries. In addition, the CC & R's shall indicate the responsibility of the Homeowners Association to maintain all required trees, including those planted adjacent to the surrounding single-family residences. 12. That prior to final tract map approval, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and • 11, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim, on the final map, an easement (for street purposes) 53 feet from the centerline of Magnolia Avenue. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos declared a conflict of interest) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map and the 22-day appeal rights for the Reclassification and Conditional Use Permit. DISCUSSION TIME: 38 minutes (2:43-3:21) r 03-11-02 Page 25 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 5b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00067 March 25, 2002 5c. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04480 OWNER: Daniel E. Stauffer, 23861 EI Toro Road, # 700, Lake Forest, CA 92630 David Gabaee, 10701 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90024 AGENT: Marko Botich, 16630 Aston, Irvine, CA 92660 LOCATION: 2823 West Ball Road. Property is 0.57-acre with a frontage of 110 feet on the north side of Ball Road, located 328 feet west of the centerline of Dale Avenue. Reclassification No. 2002-00067- Requests reclassification of this property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the RM- 1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone, or a less intense zone. Variance No. 2002-04480 - Requests waivers of a) maximum structural height and, b) *minimum structural setback adjacent to an arterial highway to construct a two and three-story, 18-unit apartment complex. *Waiver (b) has been deleted. • Continued from the February 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. SR8244KB.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ' OPPOSITION: None A few people were present to speak but stated they would be present to speak at the March 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. • ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the March 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant additional time to prepare a detailed management plan which will set forth the requirements for management and maintenance for the subject request. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 03-11-02 Page 26 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 6b. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2001-00004 OWNER: FJS Inc., 1030 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, Ca 92802 AGENT: Cachet 2, Attn: Sue Lee, 1030 West Katella Avenue, CA 92802 LOCAT{ON: 1030 West Katella Avenue. Cachet 2. Property is approximately 6.8-acres with a frontage of 470 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue, located 190 feet east of the centerline of West Street (Anabella Hotel). Requests approval to permit sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption within an existing gift shop at the Anabella Hotel. Continued from the February 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. ~ DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Withdrawn SR8252SK.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal of Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2001-00004. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION T1ME: This item was not discussed. • 03-11-02 Page 27 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 7a. CE A CATE Q GORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 1 Concurred with staff 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04506 Granted for 5 years OWNER: J. D. Verburg, 1331 East Maple Avenue, Orange, CA 92866 Kathleen Verburg Family Trust, 2302 Dupont Drive, # 200, Irvine, CA 92612 AGENT: The Consuiting Group, Attn: Paul Kim, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 1460 North Red Gum Street. Property is approximately 2.88-acres with a frontage of 130 feet on the east side of Red Gum Street, located approximately 810 feet north of the centerline of La Jolla Street. Requests approval to permit the co-location of a telecommunication antenna on an existing telecommunication tower and accessory ground- mounted equipment. Continued from the February 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUT{ON NO. PC2002-36 SR8232VN.DOC • Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 7 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04506, a request to permit the co-location of a telecommunication antenna on an existing telecommunication tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment, 1460 North Red Gum Street. He announced Commissioner Koos is abstaining from this item due to his involvement in the telecommunications industry. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval of Item No. 7 as indicated in paragraph No.17 of the staff report and there are minor changes to conditions of approval: 1) Condition No. 1 the expiration date should be March 11, 2007, instead of February 25, 2007 and 2) add a condition that the property owner shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3408 (to retain a temporary office trailer to the Zoning Division). That would reflect the fact that the Conditional Use Permit had expired in 1993. ApplicanYs Testimony: Paul Kim, 18500 Von Karman, Suite 870, frvine, CA, stated he read the staff report and has no comments other than they accept all the conditions and hopefully the additional landscaping they are providing will help clean up the area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None • ACTION: Commissioner Bristol 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 03-11-02 Page 28 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ (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. 2002-04506 (to permit the co-location of a telecommunications antenna on an existing telecommunication tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment) for 5 years, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 11, 2002 with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 1 to read as follows: That the proposed co-location of a telecommunications facility on an existing telecommunication tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment shall be permitted for a period of five (5) years, from the date of this resolution on ~°~ March 11, 2007. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That the property owner shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3408 (to retain a temporary office trailer) to the Zoning Division. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained in order to avoid any potential perceived conflict of interest due to his close relationship with the wireless telecommunications industry.) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. • DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes 3:22-3:25 ~ ) • 03-11-02 Page 29 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION A roved pp 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04507 Granted for 5 years OWNER: Hunters Pointe Homeowners, 14600 Goldenwest Street, Suite A-102, Westminster, CA 92683 AGENT: The Consulting Group, Attn: Paul Kim, 18500 Von Karman Avenue, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 6930 East Canvon Rim Road. Property is approximately 3.1 acres with a frontage of 545 feet on the south side of Canyon Rim Road, located 180 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard. Request approval to permit a telecommunication antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower and accessory ground- mounted equipment. Continued from the February 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-37 SR8234VN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 8 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04507, a request to permit a telecommunication antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower and • accessory ground-mounted equipment located at 6930 East Canyon Rim Road. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approva! of Item No. 8 and recommends a change to Condition No. 6 to read, "that the cable connecting the equipment shall be underground and shall not be visible to the public and shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits". Applicant's Testimony: Paul Kim, 18500 Von Karman, Suite 870, Irvine, CA, stated he was present at the earlier hearing and is aware of comments raised by the concerned citizens regarding locating some of the uses near homes, etc. He stated at the onset the subject project was a good example of working with the homeowners prior to bringing everything to fruition. He states they received consent from the Anaheim Hills Planning Community Association and the Hunter's Pointe Homeowners Association, owners of the property, and hopes that involvement, the additional landscaping and the equipment cabinet being sunk into the grade will help to reduce some of the concerns about visibility issues. He reiterates this particular case is a good example of working with the homeowners up front to bring about a situation where everyone agrees to the specific design. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration • Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04507 (to permit a telecommunications antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower with accessory ground- mounted equipment) for 5 years (to expire on March 11, 2007), subject to the conditions of 03-11-02 Page 30 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . approval as stated in the staff report dated March 11, 2002 with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 6 to read as follows: 6. That the cable connecting the equipment shall be underground and shall not be visible to the public and shali be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained in order to avoid any potential perceived conflict of interest due to his close relationship with the wireless telecommunications industry.) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (3:26-3:28) • • 03-11-02 Page 31 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 Concurred with staff 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04502 Granted OWNER: Foodmaker inc., C/O Graffings Food Services, 9330 Balboa Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123 AGENT: Robert A. Martinez Architects, Attn: Robert A. Martinez, 15487 Seneca Road, Suite 203, Victorville, CA 92392 LOCATION: 100 South State College Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.44-acre, located at the southeast corner of Center Street and State College Boulevard (Jack In The Box). Requests approval to expand an existing fast food, drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the February 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-38 SR8245KB.DOC • Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 9 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04502, a continued item from the Planning Commission Meeting on February 25, 2002, having to do with the expansion of an existing fast food, drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces, 100 South State College Boulevard - Jack in the Box. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner informed staff recommends approval of Item No. 9 as recommended in paragraph 23 of the staff report and as conditioned. Commissioners Boydstun, Bostwick and Vanderbilt stated they listened to the recording and read the minutes of the February 25, 2002, Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Arnold approved their request to vote on Item No. 9. ApplicanYs Testimony: Jose A. Morales, 2862 Executive Place, Escondido, CA, wished to clarify that Commission received the revised plans. Chairperson Arnold stated yes and a report is not necessarily needed if that is the only issue. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04502. The resolution passed, unanimously. After the action: • The applicants were asked to remain and participate in further discussion regarding Condition No. 16. Commissioner Bristol asked fellow Commissioners to note Condition No. 16, on page 9 and asked for their comments. 03-11-02 Page 32 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mark Graffius, 38 Coronoda Pointe, La una Ni uel, CA, the a licant, stated in the last meetin 9 9 PP 9 (February 25, 2002) they stated 6 trees on State College Boulevard was going to be too many. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Graffius if he remembered from the meeting that he agreed with him. He states staff remembered the agreement however, the resolution just passed with out being changed to that effect. He feels it is not necessary to have that many trees on State College Boulevard and the site is nicely landscaped with sufficient trees on the Center Street. Commissioner Boydstun stated they could put some low shrubs in there. Commissioner Bristol clarified the applicants have done that and staff has stop the proceedings in order to correct the action and he is in favor of removing the condition regarding trees on State College Boulevard. He apologizes that he missed it. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, suggested looking upon it as the recommendation of the Planning Commission from the last meeting was not to include that one and have the revised conditions reflect what that recommendation was, if that is the desire of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Bristol stated they currently have one tree on State College Boulevard. Mr. Graffius responded there are 2. Commissioner Bristol stated they currently have low shrubs and it is indicated in the plans. Ms. Mann suggested re-offering the resolution with the revised condition. • Commissioner Bristol re-offered the resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04502 with the changes to Condition No. 16 (that the applicants are not required to have anymore than the 2 trees they already have on State College Boulevard). OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol 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. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces based on the recommendation of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager that 24 spaces is adequate for this drive-through restaurant, and based on the findings as discussed in paragraph no. (18) of the staff report dated March 11, 2002. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04502 (to expand an existing fast food drive- through restaurant) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 11, 2002 with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 16 to read as follows: • 16. That a finai iandscape and irrigation plan for subject property shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Said plan shall specify all trees planted on-site be a minimum 24-inch box size (for a total of 6 2 trees on State College 03-11-02 Page 33 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Boulevard) and 1-gallon vines planted on 3-foot centers adjacent to the existing block wall. Any decision made by the Zoning Division regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. VOTE: 7-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun and Vanderbilt indicated that they read the minutes/listened to the tape from the Planning Commission meeting of February 25, 2002 since they were absent on that date where the item was discussed and continued.) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (3:29-3:36) AFTER ACT10N: There was further discussion amongst Planning Commission, staff and the applicant pertaining fo Condition No. 16. Commissioner Bristol then re-offered the resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04502 with a modification to Condition No. 16. • • 03-11-02 Page 34 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 Concurred with staff 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04469 Granted OWNER: Thrifty Oil Company C/O Arco Products, P. O. Box 512485, Los Angeles, CA 90051 AGENT: Sager Associates, Attn: Jonathan Sagherian, 109 East Harvard, Suite 306, Glendale, CA 91205 LOCATION: 1881 West Bali Road. Property is approximately 0.43- acre located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Nutwood Street (Shatilla Bakery). Request to permit the conversion of a vacant service station to a full service bakery with a 793 square foot addition. Continued from the December 3, 2001, January 14 and February 11, 2002 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-39 SR8246AN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 10 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04469, a request to permit the conversion of a vacant service station to a full service bakery with a 7693 square-foot addition, • 1881 West Ball Road - Shatilla Bakery. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval of Item No. 10 with changes to conditions as follows: Condition No. 1, page 5, that the hours of operation "shall" be limited to 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. daily; Condition No. 10, to include that the two drive-ways closest to the intersection shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter and that the remaining driveway shall be reconstructed with 10-foot radius curb returns as required by the City Engineer in conformance with Engineering Standard No. 137; Condition No. 28, add a sentence, " that said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits". Add Condition No. 6 to Condition No. 36. Applicant's Testimony: Johathan Sagherian, 109 E. Harvas St., #906, Glendale, CA, thanked staff for the very hard effort they put into the project and stated Mike is currently the operator of a similar bakery in Glendale and was very excited about the ability to open a second branch in Anaheim. They agree with all conditions staff placed on the project. Public Testimonies: Harry Goyer, 943 S. Nutwood St., Anaheim, CA presented photographs to Commission and stated since one picture is worth a thousand words he could eliminate a whole lot of comments just by submitting two sets of photographs. He explained the only picture that might need a bit of clarification is the one where it looks like a picture of just a bunch of dirt but actually it shows the conduit and electrical wiring that was there previously for an elevated sign. He asks that any signage approved for the location only be a monument type sign and if there is any signage other than the signage which is in the same location that it be something that would enhance the look of the building rather than something that would draw more attention to the sign. • He explains there is a piece of an enclosure on the property with a piece of machinery that looks like a smoke stack coming out of it and that is for clearing up the soil contamination because when it was a service station it was extremely contaminated. He strongly recommend Commission consider that as a 03-11-02 Page 35 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • red flag and that nothing be permitted, approved or anything be done until the environmental issue of the soil be totally cleared up and the environment is proven safe. He states it is not only for the safety of the neighborhood but for the people who would work there because it was once a service station and he would hate to go inside the building now that its been closed up for several months and stay for more than 5 to 10 minutes because he fears even the interior of the building is contaminated. He explains the reason he makes that statement is for several years it was not only a service station but it was also an auto repair station and on the east end of the building the rollup doors, which are going to be eliminated, held automobiles inside the building for the mechanics to work on and he is suspicious of how much that is still a problem. He recommends Commission be very careful in considering the Conditional Use Permit. He states the other thing is the addition on the rear of the building, which is to the north of the building between the existing building and the building to the north, which is a convenience market. The pictures illustrate a wall of the convenience market and the wall to the service station and the dimensions are 28 feet wall to wall. The 3 trees are part of the property of the convenience market and the trunk of the trees are 4%2 feet away from the building itself so it has at least 4%z feet, if not more than that, as an overhang to the south and thus it is going to effect any kind of addition. He explains that with the addition being 13 feet, that means instead of 28 feet from wall to wall there is an additional 13 feet which means there is only going to be 15 feet and that does not include the trees. He asks in the matter of landscaping do not remove the trees and states if an addition to the buiiding is approved the trees will have to be eliminated because there is no way there is going to be any easement between the two properties. Again, he reiterates please do not affect the trees that are already there. There are 3 trees on the east • property line, there are 3 trees to the north, 2 trees on the planter side on Nutwood Street which is to the west and 2 trees between the curb and parking strip, both palm trees; one on Nutwood Street and one on Ball Road. "So please, I totally ask do not affect the trees". He states regarding the other landscaping, the planting definitely needs to be improved considerably because it is an eyesore as it is now. He states for as long as the building was there it has been a rather boxy looking building, really plain and not very attractive and he asks that something be done to enhance the look of the property, especially on the front of the building that faces Ball Road. He feels the portion that is painted white is nothing more than an invitation to graffiti. Mr. Goyer states the last graffiti put there was the 18th of November and the entire area was almost blocked out with graffiti. But the worst part of that is it happened on the 18th of November and it was not removed until the 26th of December, six weeks later. He states the Code Enforcement Department and he has gone round and round about getting something done in terms of the machinery making noise, the graffiti that is there, the trash that accumulates and the fence being knocked down constantly. Mr. Goyer states he is by no means opposed to a business being in the facility, but is merely asking please take a look at the property and the building and make sure the building is safe. He states if he were an employee of the proposed project he would think the worst part is that there is only one window in the entire building as it currently exist and that is the window that was previously the cashier's window. Obviously it is a very small window and a portion of the door to the entry is glass. He admits he has not looked inside the building and has no idea whether there are restroom facilities or not. He asks Commission to please look carefully particularly at the distance between the two buildings because if there is an addition there will not be enough room to get through there other than on a bicycle. It would mean that there would only be 15 feet and add at least 5 feet to that for the trees, and that gives 9 feet, approximately 9-feet space between the two buildings and a car can hardly be driven in that • distance. He states currently the garbage enclosure is at the northeast of the property and the applicant is proposing to put it closer to Ball Road, about midway in the property and he totally objects to that 03-11-02 Page 36 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ because he only knows of one business in the entire area that takes care of their garbage in a proper way and that is Jack-In-The-Box Fast Food Restaurant on Ball Road and Brookhurst Street. He states they even have people out there everyday mopping, washing down the drive-way and making sure that there is no access to the garbage bin other than by the truck that picks up the garbage. Mr. Goyer cautions that applicants say they will do so many wonderful things; they will hide it, they will make it look nice, they will put vines up on it but he knows from experience, especially with the convenience market adjacent to it. "They hardly ever even put the dumpster inside the garbage enclosure much less dressing it up to make it look favorable." He asks please let the garbage enclosure remain where it is with no addition so that the garbage trucks have access to it. Judithanne Gollette, 649 S. Roanne St., Anaheim, CA, representing WAND, stated first of all they would love to have new businesses in West Anaheim. They would love to see old blighted areas turned into beautiful sites and would love to have a new ethnic specialty bakery to go to because there are not too many places in West Anaheim where they can grab something great to eat, therefore they welcome the subject request however, they do have a couple of concerns: She states everything was sited by the gentleman proceeding her; the distance between the two facilities, the convenience store that used to be the old Circle-K has not been properly maintained and it has been a blighted convenience store that has turned over to many hands however, that is not the issue today. The issue is the distance between the two buildings. She explains if you take an extension of what you have and what they need to add on to and according to their blue prints it looks as though there is a difference of 8 feet. However, the trees are there and you take the 4-foot overhang and to get trucks in there it is going to be a problem. To get cars in there is possible, but to get trucks in there and to store trucks in there could be a problem area in the future. ~ She states taking the garbage cans out to Ball Road is another problem. There are not many clean trash enclosures on Ball Road, so it is another concern. The front elevation is another concern. The front fa~ade has not changed too much. WAND suggests there be a cosmetic enhancement to the front faCade and then add the "gingerbread" to increase the friendliness of the building so that it changes the hands from an old gas station to something they would like to use. Ms. Gollette states the mission tank is a problem although it may have to stay there. She suggests that the actual tank be included in the actual design so that it is painted, increased or built around so that its enclosure is enhancing the faCade of the building and not just a"blue tank sitting there or purple tank or whatever color they make iY'. Regarding the monument sign she asks that the opportunity is not missed to have a monument sign on the property. She states in reality they are concerned about the distance between the two buildings and the front faCade. They applaud the 30-foot planter and feel it is an awesome effect but hope it is maintained and fresh plants are seen there. F. E. Britt, 1637 N. Mountain, Claremont, CA, representing Arco Products, stated he was not present to make any comments on the development itself, but needed to make a comment on a couple of statements by Mr. Goyer because it is a matter of public record. Regarding environmental conditions at the site: The site is not extensively or exceedingly polluted. It is fairly typical of its age and size. Remediation at the site has been ongoing for over a year now. A letter dated February 6, 2002 from Thrifty Oil Company to the Planning Department gives the hydrocarbon removal and the conditions of the general cleaning efforts. The remediation compound is expected to remain approximately 1 year. It could be 6 months, it coufd be 13, 14 months; it is hard to say on matters • of this type. He explains it is like trying to guess when your newborn child is first going to use the word rabbit, eventually he will but no one knows when that is going to happen. 03-11-02 Page 37 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i He states there is no surface contamination or emittence from the site nor in the building. The building is sealed concrete floors. He feels, in fact, the bay area is cleaner than a lot of kitchens he has seen. He welcomes anyone to come and see even though the building has not been used for 7 years. He asserts he merely wanted to respond to the issues because they are a matter of public record and indifferent to Thrifty Oils, Arco and to the City of Anaheim and feels everyone needed the correct understanding of what is happening there and what has happened in the past. He states the building has been out of service for approximately 2%2 years and there are problems with graffiti, etc., but that is unfortunately a normal problem with unused structures. He reiterates he is present only to answer questions for the landlord or Arco and has no comments on the development or the proposed use of the tenant. Mr. Sagherian, stated "the old use was a gas station not a nuclear power plant and definitely no emissions or nuclear waste has been found in the building". He states the contamination is definitely in the soils and they are being remediated "as we speak" and they definitely have no control on when the remediation machine will be removed. He assures they would like to see them out as soon as possible so that the site has a more "homey" look rather than a power plant. He states he has worked with staff and with other cities also and the requirement of landscaping is definitely in the projects. The site plan reflects the increase of the landscaping strip from its current 5 feet to 10 feet in width. He explains in Condition No. 28 they exceed certain criteria of landscaping to the point of requiring a second meter. So not only are they increasing but they are increasing so much that they are being penalized for not being able to use a single meter for the matters on hand. Therefore he feels they are not reducing landscaping but actually increasing it. • As shown on the site plans the trees to the north and east are remaining where they are. The trash enclosure is being relocated because Traffic and the Waste Recycling insisted on having a direct approach to it rather than a secondary approach. So in response to the request of the review they had to move the trash enclosure. He states it is definitely not a very pleasant structure to look at but nevertheless an evil of any business that needs to generate waste and they also added landscaping around it which increased their landscaping by presenting buffer zones to the south and around the trash enclosure. He states they are aware of that and are doing their best to comply. He feels the owner, Thrifty/Arco, is excited about having a facelift to their building, however he is not too sure the tenant is excited but will grudgingly have to agree. They hope to bring a revised faCade that shows more improvement. He states the owner will not be able to sell anything off of the faCade but will need to be able to bake in order to sell goods. The owner will need the square footage and they have worked with Transportation and Engineering to make sure that they have a very functional site. The two driveways that are closest to the intersection are being closed in order to reduce the impact to traffic as well as facilitate a normal course on the site. He feels the building will comply fully with all the City and State regulations as far as construction, installation, temperature control as well as a safe environment for employees and patrons. Commissioner Bristol asked Melanine Adams, Associate Engineer, if she agreed that is the reason the trash enclosure is where it is. Ms. Adams requested time fo research the information. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. Sagherian what he planned to do with the elevations. • Mr. Sagherian responded enhance them. Commissioner Bristol asked him to be more specific. 03-11-02 Page 38 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Sagherian responded probably develop the river rock a little more and carry it throughout as part of the fa~ade. He states the operator has some budget restrictions and obviously he needs to buy a lot of equipment to be able to bake rather than spend it on the overall improvements. However, he has read the conditions and specifically Condition No. 33, as it reads, "7hat the building wall surFaces shall be enhanced with additional architectural features, such as stucco wall pop-outs, columns, pediments, tile motifs, color variety, or other similar elements". He states it is a condition of approval and they will try to comply with it as best they can although he does not know how much and hesitates to promise something that is not practical but feels definitely there will be some efforts placed into enhancing the existing facades. Commissioner Koos asked if he was aware that Condition No. 36 not only mentions a number of conditions that must be complied with prior to the issuance of a building permit including Item No. 28 and Item No. 33. Mr. Sagherian responded yes. Commissioner Koos admonished therefore he would have to come back to Commission with detailed elevations. Mr. Sagherian responded he is not familiar with the process in Anaheim but basically when a CUP is approved in other municipalities that it is up to the Planning Department and their planners to concur with some general direction that the staff recommends. Commissioner Koos stated in the City of Anaheim the following procedures are followed: At the beginning of the meeting there were a number of items that were part of the Consent Calendar, a couple of them were pulled off, a couple of them were not and that is where that will appear. The applicant works with • staff and Commission determines whether or not to take staff recommendations on its face value. He admonishes "so essentially you will be coming back to the Planning Commission with the details". Mr. Sagherian responded if that is the way it works he does not have a problem and neither would the operator. He states they will work with staff to enhance the appearance of the building and make it as anti-graffiti as possible. He states regarding the monument sign, it is proposed to remove the existing pole sign and not replace it with any sign but just have a wall sign and some signage on the building. At this time the owner is satisfied with that. Mr. Sagherian understands that if in the future the owner wants to discuss monument signs and has the budget for it, they obviously would have to come before Commission to get their comments, concerns and direction. Assuming Anaheim is buying the goods at a prodigious rate he feels he will come back. Ms. Adams wished to clarify if Commissioner Bristol was concerned on the trash enclosure appearance from Ball Road. Commissioner Bristol responded he is concerned with comments by some of the speakers regarding the trash enclosure being so close to Ball Road and the applicant indicating it was the trash. Ms. Adams responded she is not certain whether it has to remain in that location. There are potential restrictions to the trash truck going to the rear of the property. There are a number of trees along the rear and she does not know how low the tree overhang is. The City trash truck needs a minimum of 12-foot clearance. She feels that may be one thing that is restricting the site. She suggests if Commission wanted to add flexibility into the condition giving time to examine looking at moving the trash further back, and if it were possible they would do that. However, she states in front of the trash enclosure along the Ball Road frontage there would be landscaping to somewhat mask its appearance. • Commissioner Bristol stated the reason he brought it up is because comments have been made about landscaping and the trees and the desire to keep the trees on abutting properties. He states there are restrictions to the property and in order to keep the landscaping sometimes they may have to do 03-11-02 Page 39 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ something they may not want to do and it appears the trash enclosure being a little closer to Ball Road may be one of them. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked Ms Adams about the decontamination on the site because a question was raised about it. He states it seems that the tanks were pulled sometime ago along with the canopies and he does not know if the soil was treated at that time. However today there is a device that airs out the soil and according to Thrifty Oil, is expected to operate for another 12 months before remediation is complete. Ms. Adams responded the Public Works Department is not directly involved in remediation efforts. However in terms of tank removal the City Fire Department oversees that effort, and in terms of soil remediation there are times that the City Public Utilities Environmental Division has involvement and are also concerned about conditions with the ground water. Ms. Adams wished to let the applicant, Arco, explain whose directly overseeing the remediation. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated it would seem the City of Anaheim would want the contamination to be completed before allowing another use on the property. Mr. McCafferty responded it is actually an independent regulatory process that the City handles through its Public Utilities Department. It has its own permit for its remediation activities that are occurring now and the Utilities Department examines it in comparison with what the threshold levels are that the state requires for clean up. Once that is done, remediation is complete. However, it is really independent from this land use decision that Commission is making today. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated Commission is expected to declare a Negative Declaration that is CEQA, and there is no need for an environmental impact report. He states it seems to him that it is germane to • their decision but it sounds like staff is saying because it is another agency's area and they serve it independently, Commission can go ahead and approve the use and he does not see how that is possible. Mr. McCafferty stated staff is recommending a categorical exemption facility for existing facilities and is not saying that Commission does not have purview but is explaining that there is a permit process that the property owner is currently going through with the City Utilities Department and that has its own separate regulatory process that is handled through the state and through the City. Chairperson Arnold states on the CEQA issues the contamination already exist. The use of the property for a bakery is not going to create additional environmental impacts that are not already there. So presumably the entire process for the remediation is also subject to CEQA in its own independent process but in order for it to be relevant to the CEQA process the bakery itself would have to have some sort of impact separate from the existing contamination. Commissioner Vanderbilt feels it is important to raise the question given the use is going from a gas station to a bakery. Commissioner Bostwick stated if the contamination is in the soil then that is under the asphalt and concrete and it is really not something that is going to effect the surface it is on. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked given what the City is aware of in terms of the ongoing remediafion efforts are they comfortable with the use existing at the proposed site. Mr. McCafferty asked permission to have Arco respond to what permits they have obtained from the Utilities Department and what track they are on to make sure fhat the site is remediated. Mr. Britt responded he is representing Arco and speaking on behalf of Thrifty but not for Thrifty. He • explained that the remediation process is a federally mandated process and is not exclusive of or specific to municipaf codes, etc. It is something that as a generator, which could be anybody who spills oil to an oil company to several other things, it has the responsibility to clean up certain concentrations of certain elements beyond a certain level. The contamination at this site, as he understands, obviously is at a 03-11-02 Page 40 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ significant level of 500 or 600 feet or more below the surface. So, 1) it is nowhere near the surface and 2) it can be in the form of what is caffed "producY', which means that there could have been seepage of a period of years that is now floating on perhaps a pool of water or something called a"plume", it could be in an air gas mixture where a probe is sent down like a sniffer and gives a reading where it may be found that it has a little more of an odor than perhaps is permissible. He states how long it takes to remediate this is really up to question because it depends on the soil; the soil types, the depths and the porosity of the soil. He illustrates he could suck air through a feather pillow much easier than he could through a brick. So depending on whether the sub-soil is shell or clay or sand or whatever it is will determine how long the process takes. The elements that are in the soil now although they are above a permissible level for that particular type of element at that particular level is not a surface or a type of contaminate that is coming to the surtace. It is not at the surface, it is not 5 or 6 feet below the surtace. It is much deeper than that. You will not even find it at that particular point. The remediation effort can continue for months and/or it can continue for years. The machine has been there now for approximately 1 year. He understands according to Thrifty Oil its latest findings from the lab the machine may be there another year. He states it is all guesswork and he does not have all of his materials with him but it could be 9 months, it could be 13 or 14 months. There is not necessarily a restriction on utilizing a land as long as it is contaminated within certain specific guidelines. He states in this particular type of endeavor, and there are several in the industry as you can imagine, of stations which have been closed. There is remediation going on in the City of Anaheim as we speak where there is a Jack-In-The-Box, where there is a Carroll's, where there is another element currently in business and the remediation continues. It does not effect the business, it does not come to the surface, and it does not inhibit the business anyway, shape or form. It is just that one day it is there and the next day there may be a notice of no further action issued by the agency, which would be the County of Orange Hill Department and a Federal Agency, Regional Water Quality Control and all of a sudden the equipment disappears. So it does not inhibit the use of the property in anyway shape, or form at the levels and at the particular type of remediation that is being performed on the subject site at this time. Mr. Britt states he cannot speak directly to the remediation because that is ~ handled and coordinated by Thrifty Oil Company but feels he has given a general guideline of the type of remediation and the type of soil for what they are dealing with. Commissioner Vanderbilt thanked him for the explanation and feels he and the audience understands a lot better. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: One person spoke with concerns regarding the building elevations, freestanding signage, access and the location of the trash enclosure. A person representing the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Counsel (WAND) expressed similar concerns relative to the subject facility. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTfON 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. 2001-04469 (to permit the conversion of a vacant service station to a full service bakery with a 793 square foot addition) subject to the • conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 11, 2002 with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 1, 6, 10, 28 and 36 to read as follows: 03-11-02 Page 41 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 1. That the hours of operation s#e~l~ shall be limited to 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. dail . Y 6. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 10. That the driveways closest to the intersection shall be removed and replaced with curb and gutter. That the remaining driveways shall be reconstructed 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. 28. That since this project has a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet and a separate irrigation meter shall be installed in compliance with Ordinance No. 5349 regarding water conservation. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 36. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 27, 28 32, 33 and 34, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. VOTE: 7-0 • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 43 minutes (3:37-4:20) ~ 03-11-02 Page 42 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 11a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 311 (PREV.-CERTIFIED) 11 b. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04485 11c. FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2001-00033 AGENT: Concepts 4 Inc., Attn: Bill Azzalino, 3229 East Spring Street, Suite 200, Long Beach, CA 90806 Desert Palm Inn and Suites, Attn: Shirish Patel, 615- 631 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 615-631 West Katella Avenue. Property is approximately 1.7-acres with a frontage of 365 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue located 195 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard (Desert Palm Inn and Suites}. Variance No. 2002-04485 - Waiver of a) minimum interior structural setback and yard requirements from adjacent interior lots, b) minimum structural setback from abutting public rights-af-way, c) minimum number of parking spaces and d) minimum dimensions of parking spaces. Final Site Plan No. 2001-00033 - Request for approval of a Final Site Plan to remodel and expand the existing 4-story, 10Q-room Desert Palm Inn and Suites for a new total of 175 hotel rooms with accessory uses. • VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-40 Approved Granted Approved SR8216DH(6).DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 11 as Variance No. 2002-04485, a request to review and approve finaf site pians to remodel and expand the existing 4-story, 100-room Desert Palm Inn and Suites for a new 175 room hotel, 615-631 West Katella Avenue - Desert Palm Inn and Suites. Della Herrick, Associate Planner, informed staff recommends approval of both Variance No. 2002-04485 and Final Site Plan No. 2001-00033 to remodel and expand existing 4-story, 100-room Desert Palm Inn and Suites for a new total 172 hotel rooms with accessory uses as indicated in paragraph 30 of the staff report and as conditioned on pages 12, 13 and 14 of the staff report. Appficant's Testimony: William Azzalina, A/A, 3229 E. Spring St., Suite 200, Long Beach, CA, stated he is present primarily to thank staff for their diligent effort and cooperation with the owners in the very complex site and expansion of the existing hotei. He states the Planning Staff was very cooperative and worked very hard and he would especially like to thank Ms. Herrick for her efforts. • Commissioner Bristol feels it is a great improvement. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None 03-11-02 Page 43 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ACTION: Commissioner Bristol ofFered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby defermine that the previously-certified EIR No. 311 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the subject request. Granted Variance No. 2002-04485 approving waivers pertaining to (a) minimum interior structural setback and yard requirements from adjacent interior lots, (b) minimum structural setback requirements from the abutting Katella Avenue public rights-of-way, and (d) minimum dimensions of parking spaces inasmuch as the submitted evidence does identify special circumstances with regard to the size of the property which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity and that strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties within The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Zone as described in paragraphs (24), (25} and (27) of the Planning Commission staff report dated March 11, 2002; and approving waiver (c) pertaining to the minimum number of parking spaces based upon the City Traffic and Transportation Manager's review and recommendation that the proposed number of parking spaces is adequate to serve the proposed project as discussed in the analysis described in paragraph (26) of the Planning Commission staff report dated March 11, 2002; and subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 11, 2002. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plan No. 2001-00033 to remodel and expand the existing 4-story, 100-room Desert Palm Inn and Suites for a new total of 172 hotel rooms with 4,400 square feet of accessory uses, as being in conformance with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan (with the exception of • those waivers requested as part of Variance No. 2002-04485) subject to staff's recommended conditions of approval set forth in the Planning Commission staff report dated March 11, 2002 and based upon following: (i) That the plans and supporting documentation submitted by the applicant, which support the findings that the evidence presented shows that the proposed remodel and expansion of the hotel will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located; (ii) That the size and shape of the site is adequate to allow for the full proposed development in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor the peace, health, safety and general welfare; and (iii) That the approval of the Final Site Plan will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim as indicated in the analysis described in paragraph (28) of the Planning Commission staff report dated March 11, 2002. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Final Site Plan and the 22-day appeal rights for the Variance; and also indicated that action taken by the Planning Commission for approval of the Final Site Plan will be before the City Council as action taken, rather than a recommendation. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (4:21-4:24) ~ 03-11-02 Page 44 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 12b. OWNER: California Drive-In Theaters, 120 North Robertson Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048 AGENT: James Beam, 3745 West Chapman Avenue, Orange, CA 92868 LOCATION: 2150 South State College Boulevard. Property is approxima e y . acres wi a ron age of 635 feet on the east side of State Coilege Boulevard located 280 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue (Orange/Anaheim Swap Meet). Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on April 9, 2001, to expire April 09, 2002) to retain an outdoor swap meet facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-41 Approved Granted SR8242KB.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 12 as Conditional Use Permit No. 4125, to request a reinstatement of an existing outdoor swap meet facility at 2150 South State College Boulevard. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff had two changes to the condition of approval: 1) On page 5, Condition No. 3 should read, "That said property shall be maintained in conformance with the current versions of Engineering Standard Nos. 436 and 602 pertaining to parking, standards and driveway locations and 2) The last sentence should be stricken. He wished to clarify on page 7, Condition No. 16 the Conditional Use Permit mentioned in that first sentence is a Conditional Use Permit in the City of Orange. Applicant's Testimony: Jay Swerdlow, 120 N. Robertson Blvd., Los Angeles, CA, representing California Vice President of Pacific Theatres in California Drive-Ins, stated he has been with the company for 33 years and is involved with the swap meet operations that have been there and that are going forward. He states with him also is Mark Miller, Executive from Robertson's Properties Development Group, to talk about this interim use as it leads to a higher and better more permanent use. Mark Miller, 120 N. Robertson Blvd., Los Angeles, CA, Director of Real Estate for Robertson's Properties Group, states he is with the real estate development arm of the corporate entity. He states should Commission decide to allow the extension of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), they have no problem with any of the conditions that have been placed nor the two changes that have just been made. They respect staff's decision on the CUP and understand they have been consistent on it for several years. He states he has been before Commission two or three times asking for the extension and hope Commission understands it is in fact an interim use and they definitely have one of the most promising and exciting long-term projects proposed for the site which everyone will be seeing and hearing a lot about very soon. ~ Commissioner Koos stated he met with the applicant earlier regarding the potential Archstone Development as well as the proposal and asked when he thought he would be formerly applying for entitlements for that project. 03-11-02 Page 45 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMfSSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Swerdlow responded he anticipated within the next 3 to 4 weeks or as soon as the use study that the two cities have requested have been completed and commented upon they will immediately be prepared to file the application. Commissioner Koos stated "given that, conservatively you would expect that process to probably be done within a year, I would imagine". Mr. Swerdlow responded he would hope so and feels it certainly could be done in a year. However, the fact that it involves finro cities adds an extra layer but it certainly could be done within a year but there is no guarantee. Commissioner Koos recalled the last time around he was probably one of the more critical ones of the two-year time period and everyone felt that a one-year time period was better. He states he is almost ready to go the other way considering there is so much movement in the positive direction that he would rather not see them return in a year. He feels the applicants would probably want to continue the swap meet forever considering the value of the land. He asked fellow commissioners if they would consider two years this time around. Commissioner Bostwick recalled he voted no because he wanted them to have two years the last time and had that been done there would not be a meeting regarding the issue today. He states he knows it takes at least that long for the development to get handled and as they said, working with two cities is not easy. Commissioner Boydstun feels they should be given enough time. She states the applicants have finally come up with something positive and if they can do it in less time than Commission gives them then that is to their advantage and Commission's also. • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Arnold concurred with Commissioner Koos and jokingly stated he just wanted to see some movement and see them come back but he agrees given the movement. He noted for the record that Commission received a packet of the sorts of things that Beem and Associates does as kind of an indication of their potential plans. However, there is no specific plans at this time but wished to make it clear that was indeed a part of the sense of vision for the parcel. OPPO5ITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4125 (Tracking No. CUP2002-04515) to retain an outdoor swap meet facility, to expire on April 9, 2004 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 11, 2002 with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 1, 3, and 16 to read as follows: 1. That this permit shall expire , IIA~rnh 4~1 ~nnz, on Apfil 9, 2004. r • 3. That said property shall be maintained in conformance with the current versions of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 602 pertaining to 03-11-02 Page 46 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ parking standards and driveway locations. 16. That this use permit is granted subject to the adoption of City of Orange Conditional Use Permit No. 2290-99, remaining as an entitlement on the property; and that any changes, revisions, modifications, etc., to said use permit shall necessitate additional action by the Anaheim Planning Commission or City Council, as determined to be necessary by the Anaheim Planning Department. Approval of this use permit shall be contingent upon compliance with all conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2290-99. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (4:25-4:34) ~ • 03-11-02 Page 47 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 13a. CE A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 11 C r Q oncur ed with staff 13b. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04484 Granted OWNER: Western Exterminators, 305 North Crescent Way, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Michael Katz, 305 North Crescent Way, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 305 North Crescent Wav. Property is approximately 2.0 acres with a frontage of 250 feet on the west side of Crescent Way located 275 feet north of the centerline of Penhall Way (Western Exterminator Company). Requests waiver of permitted location of freestanding or monument type sign to construct a new monument sign. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-42 SR1063CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 13 as Variance No. 2002-04484, a request for a waiver of permitted location of freestanding or monument type sign to construct a new monument sign, 305 North Crescent Way - Western Exterminator Company. ~ Greg McCafferty, informed staff recommends approval of Variance No. 2002-04484 with one change to Condition No. 6 on page 4, deleting Condition No. 4 from that timing. So it would be Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3 above mentioned. Chairperson Arnold announced there were no speaker cards received for the subject item. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project fa{Is within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11 (Accessory Structures), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Variance No. 2002-04484 (to construct a new monument sign with waiver of permitted location of freestanding or monument type signs) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated March 11, 2002 with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 6 to read as follows: 6. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3 a~d-4 ~ above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 03-11-02 Page 48 MARCH 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES +~ VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (4:35-4:37) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:38 P.M. TO MONDAY, MARCH 25, 2002 AT 10:30 A.M. FOR A PRESENTATION ON DEMOGRAPHICS AND PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. ~ • Resp c ully submitted: ~~~~ ~~~~~ Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2002. 03-11-02 Page 49