Loading...
Minutes-PC 2003/01/13~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, JANUARY 13, 2003 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California • CHAIRPE COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PHY,.LL[; COMMISSIONERS ABSE STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann, Assistant Greg Hastings, Zoning~ Greg McCafferty, Prin Linda Johnson, Princ~~ Scott Koehm, Assist~r~i ~R ~ ~ -, ~ .r~ ~ g ~ ~::~~,~ AGENDA POSTING A~complete,cop`y€of t ~~,~P~f~ Friday, January 10, 2~D3,~in~~de``the d~~p1~y case the outside display ki~~k "~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~n ~ : y ~y 3~ ff , PUBLISHED: Anahe[rn Bullet~~Newspaper.i~h' CALL TO ORDER ~~ ~ ~ ~y, ~ecember 19;E 2042. ~~..- ~ ~~a ~ rator 11:00 a.m. on ~rs. and also in PLANNING COMMISSIt)N 1(I~€~R~IING SE~S 10 1~t~0~i4 M~ ~~~ ''' • STAFF UPDA'~~ T~33 fC~:7MlV~1SS`~I~~OF ." RI~US~~ITI' ,,, ~ DEVELOPMENTS~±NI~~15SU~S,~f~~S FtEQUEST~D Bl~ " PLANNING COMMIS~bN~ _«~~; ~~~`~ ` `"~~` • COMMUNITY DEVELOPME~'VT~l~P[~l'~;~N DANIEL'S FURNITURE/HOME DEPOT SITE. • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE JANUARY 13, 2003 AGENDA • RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. Foc 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 ALIEGIANCE: Commissioner Eastman PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARlNG 1TEMS ADJOURNMENT H:~DOCS~CLERICAL\MINUTES~P,C011303.DOC planninqcommission(a~anaheim.net JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-C on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A through 1-C) as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS r~ L_J • A. a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(3) AND Concurred with staff GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NOS. 2002-00408 AND Approved initiation of a 2002-00409 - REQUEST FOR INITIATION: City of Anaheim, General Plan Amendment Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests Planning Commission initiation of a General Plan (Vote: 7-0) amendment to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate two County pockets from the Low Density Residential land use designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation and the General Commercial land use designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation. Properties are two County pockets throughout Anaheim. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that this action is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3) since the environmental analysis of this action will occur in conjunction with the future public hearing on the proposed redesignation and reclassification. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the initiation of General Plan Amendment Nos. 2002-00408 and 2002-00409 in anticipation of the proposed annexation to redesignate several properties within the County of Orange from the Low Density Residential land use designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation, and the General Commercial land use designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation, respectively. SR8527AV.DOC 01-13-03 Page 2 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • B. a) CEQA EXEMP710N SECTION 15061(b)(3) AND Concurred with staff RECLASSIFICATION 2003-00093 - REQUEST FOR INITIATION: Approved initiation of Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Attn: Elisa Stipkovich, 201 S. reclassification Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 requests Planning Commission initiation of a reclassification from the CL (Commercial, (Vote: 7-0) Limited) zone to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) zone. Property is 4.4 acres with a frontage of 330 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and is located 650 feet east of the centerline of Gilbert Street (2300 West Lincoln Avenue - Daniel's Furniture). ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that this action is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3) since the environmental analysis of this action will occur in conjunction with fhe future public hearing on the proposed redesignation and reclassification. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the initiation of Reclassification No. 2003-00093 to reclassify the property from the CL zone to the RM-3000 zone, or a less intense zone. SR2123DS.DOC • u 01-13-03 Page 3 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Pianning Commission Approved Meeting of December 16, 2002. (Motion) (Vote: 7-0) ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of December 16, 2002. • • 01-13-03 Page 4 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. CONDITiONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04626 OWNER: Nevada Investment Holdings, Inc., 5405 Morehouse, Suite 250, San Diego, CA 92121 AGENT: Keith Francis, 5405 Morehouse, Suite 250, San Diego, CA 92121 LOCATION: 1891-1899 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 10.46 acres located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Muller Street (Target Shopping Center). To permit and retain an existing automotive repair and parts installation facility. Continued from the November 18, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. • ~ OPPOSITION: None Continued to January 27, 2003 SR8475JR.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the January 27, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to allow more time to address issues pertaining to the remodel and upgrade of the automotive facility. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 01-13-03 Page 5 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MIMUTES • 3a. C~QA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04627 Granted 3d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16430 Approved OWNER: Clada M. Pletz, 3302 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Olson Company, 3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 400, Seal Beach, CA 90740-2751 LOCATION: 3302 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 2.5 acres with a frontage of 393 feet on the south side of Ball Road located 140 feet east of the centerline of Oakhaven Drive.* *Advertised as 2.4 acres. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04627 - To construct a 21-unit detached one-family residential condominium subdivision with waivers of: a) minimum private street standard, b) maximum fence height, c) maximum structural height adjacent to a single-family residential zone, d) minimum structural setback abutting an arterial highway, e) minimum distance between building walls and f) minimum landscaped setback adjacent to a single-family residential zone. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16430 - To establish a 6-lot, 21-unit airspace detached residential condominium subdivision. • Continued from the November 18, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-1 SR1106CW.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 3 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04627, 3302 West Ball Road, Anaheim, CA, a request to construct a 21-unit detached one-family residential condominium subdivision with waivers of (a) minimum private street standard, (b) maximum fence height, (c) maximum structural height adjacent to a single-family residential zone, (d) minimum structural setback abutting an arterial highway, (e) minimum landscaped setback adjacent to a single-family residentia( zone and (f) minimum distance between building walls, and a request to establish a 6-lot, 21-unit airspace detached residential condominium subdivision. ApplicanYs Testimony: Eric Everhart, 3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Seal Beach, CA, Director of Development for The Olson Company, presented a project for 3302 Ball Road known as the "Vineyard Walk". The project would have twenty-one (21) single-family detached homes bordering along single-family to the south and west. To the east there would be town homes. The Olson Company has tried to design a project to mirror what was previously built in the early 1960's along the single-family detached product that is along Ravenswood and Oakhaven Drive. Additional landscaping has been added in order to mitigate concerns by the homeowners on issues of privacy. The Olson Company is happy with the product and feel it will fit well within the community and will be what people are looking for when they come to reside and earn a living in Anaheim. ~ Questions and Answers: Q. Is it a low-income project? 01-13-03 Page 6 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ A. The project will be sold at a market-rate with prices in excess of $400,000. Q. How would the front of the development along Ball Road be landscaped? A. To The Olson Company's 400-foot stretch of frontage on Baii Road, they have added 16 more trees, bringing the total number of trees to 30, in addition to the shrubs, groundcover and vines growing along the perimeter wall. Q. Does this project exceed density limits? A. The City's General Plan Designation for fhis site is low-medium density, which allows up to 18 dwelling units per acre. The Olson Company's proposal is for 21-single family homes for density of 9 units per acre. Q. Will homeowners in this project have individuai trash service? A. Yes, each wif( have curbside service. Q. Wifl this project have a turn-lane from Ball Road? A. Striping a center turn lane for motorists to turn in and out of the residential development will enhance Ball Road. Q. Have you met with the community to review your concepts? A. The Olson Company has had three separate community meetings and two separate meetings with WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development). • Q. How has this project been modified to address the concerns of adjacent residents' privacy? A. To mitigate privacy concerns, the following features have been added: ^ Enhanced the second floor elevations. ^ Small opaque rear windows raised above eye-level to permit light only. ^ Small raised side windows at the corner lots. ^ 24-foot boxed trees set every 20 feet in the south and west perimeters of the backyards. ^ 6-foot block wall along the south and west perimeters Public Testimony: Celia Larson, 3263 Ravenswood Drive, states she has resided in her home for 20 years and is in favor of the project. She knows that her house, which is 50 years old with a huge lot, is a iuxury. Today, the setbacks on houses are 10 or 11 feet. There has to be progress and homes have to be built for people to live in and she would be very happy to have The Olson project behind her house. Ron Ostergaard, 1212 S. Oakhaven Drive, preferred not to speak but submitted a Speaker's Card in concern with his privacy and desire to have an 8-foot brick wall built, Alex Hernandez, 3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Seal Beach, CA submitted a Speaker's Card in favor of the project. ~ Scott Newcomb, (no address given), submitted a Speaker's Card in favor of the project. 01-13-03 Page 7 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Robert Liccardo, 3161 Teranimar Drive, states his present concern is the direction of the City of Anaheim with regards to the minimum lot standards. It states condominiums on the plan, but the applicant states single-family residents and he wishes to understand what defines the 3,000 lot, the condominium or the single-family residence. He feels it is perpetuating and every part of the City is getting denser and denser, particularfy West Anaheim. Schools are saturated at the present time due to the increase in density and population. He hopes the City Council has preparations for the increasing in schools. He asks if 3,000 on a single-family residence is the direction the City Council is going. Chairperson Bostwick responded there are different zones for different areas in the City and they vary in lot size from one-acre up lots, down 3,000, multi-family. Due to the fact that the City of Anaheim does not have a lot of land in which to build homes, most developments look to do what is called, "the small lot sub-divisions". There are 3,000 square feet subdivisions, which are small lot developments and the subject project is what a typical development will look like for the rest of the City. Ruth Gurnari, 3259 W. Ravenswood Drive, states the community met with The Olson Company to address some of the concerns of the community such as window treatments, trees, block wall, turning lane, etc. However, she still has a problem with the density. The homes going in are going to have children and the nearest park area for them to play in is at Hanson, down Ball Road and down Knott Avenue. For children to get there, they would have to go down a busy street or go down Oakhaven Drive to cross through a storm drain area and a railroad track. She feels that is just an accident waiting to happen. At the last meeting it was requested that Olson revise their site plan to possibly remove two homes (the two corner homes - 9 feet and 10 feet away from the wall). Her suggestion would be to put in a greenbelt or a child area there with a swing and sandbox, etc. Also, 20-foot trees are suggested but some neighbors are wondering if there could not be 10 feet between trees, and how soon they could expect privacy based on the growth rate of the Afghan Pines to be installed. , There are approximately 5 pools in the area. Neighbors feel a 6-foot wall is not high enough and wonders if it could not be 8 feet. At the last meeting the community spoke regarding the block wall, as to whether it would be slump stone or split face. The one thing the community does not want is a trash enclosure look. Richard Larson, 3263 Ravenswood Drive, states he is excited for the project. It looks very nice and is consistent with what has been developed on other properties of equa! size. He and his wife moved to the neighborhood approximately 20 years ago and the property had an adjacent piece of land one-third of its size. A few years' back very nice looking townhouses were built on it and they really thought that was the best they could hope for. However, from what he can see in the conceptual drawings, he is very happy. They are nice looking houses and they hope to get good neighbors. Jeff Hartley, 1204 S. Oakhaven Drive, states his concern is with the wall. He has a pool and can live with a 6-foot wall. Recently, he was informed that the City wants to buy part of his land to expand Ball Road. 7hat would put him closer to the street and would be an inconvenience. He feels the expansion of Ball Road is because of the new project. Chairperson Bostwick states his property stands on its own and he would have to speak with Public Works about his individual property. Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development), 604 Scott Lane, states WAND has a concern with the property. The gentleman's property sits right next to the sidewalk. The sidewalk backs right up to his block wall fence. When his house was built in 1960, the houses were not that close to Ball Road. Ball Road has been widened and apparently will be widened again. The Olson Company is planning to put in a sidewalk and go back 7 feet for open space. She asks if the street is ~ going to be widened, how much opened space would there be. 01-13-03 Page 8 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • There is supposed to be a 25-foot greenbelt on highways. The subject area is a highway, the same as Knott Avenue. On the homes that were built at the southwest corner of Knott Avenue and Ball Road, a 15-foot setback was put in. The one next door was bigger, approximately 25-feet. The difference was obvious. When the project was built on Knott Avenue (The Comstock project) they set back about 10 feet behind the sidewalk. However, there was a compromise there. The builder said, "I can give the houses in the back a 25-foot setback, but I will have to move closer to the streeY'. The neighbors thought it would be a good idea to give neighbors a big backyard. The same thing is not happening with the subject project. There is a 7-foot setback from the sidewalk and 9 to 14 feet in the back yards lined up next to the neighbor's house in the back of the tract. Regarding the 400-foot frontage in front of the tract, a 7-foot setback does not give the greenbelt desired. West Anaheim is dense with apartments, etc., and the community needs to see some green belt. The property that is east of the project sits back much farther. Neighbors would like to see The Olson Company adjust their setback to the same thing that is on the property to the east of the project. Judithanne Gollette, 649 S. Roanne St., representing WAND's Land Use and Business Development Committee, states the Land Use Committee is not in support of the project. There are several conditions they feel The Olson Company has taken advantage of and a better design could be put there. The community, as well as the Planning Commission, asked them to take out two of the homes; the community asked them and to come back with another plot plan and they have refused to do so and to even talk about it. The setback on Ball Road is 7 feet where there is supposed to be 25 feet. This is not something new. They are things that are basic to the developments in West Anaheim or throughout the City of Anaheim. At the WAND meeting, The Olson Company stated numerous times that they had one neighbor in favor of the project. However, they have ten (10) neighbors who face the project and nine (9} of them have concerns. They will all say they are afraid of apartments and it is better than having apartments go there. She feels 8.4 is a good density for West Anaheim with what they have received lately, but when there are so many encroachments on setbacks and waivers it is not a good design. • WAND Land Use and the neighbors they support requests: ^ The Olson Company remove the two homes in the corner. ^ The setback to Ball Road be increased. ^ That the homeowner west to the project, who has received a letter from the City asking to have approximately 400 feet of his land sold, know more information about the sale prior to the approval here today. ^ A greenbelt for the children to play in. ^ Opaque windows be required on all windows that face existing single-family residences and condominiums and not just the upper bathroom windows. Condominiums and homes need to have a quality of life. Although, 8.4 homes are not dense in today's standards, the subject project is asking for waivers due to design flaws; setbacks on Ball Road, back fence setback, distance between homes, street widths, etc. There are architectural details missing on all the sides of the homes that face single-family homes on Ball Road. Olson said that they were in the City of Anaheim to stay in support of their developments. However, their last project in West Anaheim was Stonegate, and as soon as they got approval from the City Council, they sold the project to Kaufman and Broad and Kaufman built it. She states as far as the history of The Olson Company living up to their word, it is not there. She asks that the development be a good development for everyone concerned. Let Olson go back to the drawing board, remove the two houses and then come back with the setbacks that are in favor of City standards. ~ 01-13-03 Page 9 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i Applicant's Rebuttal: Mr. Everhart states the Olson Company stands respectfully available to answer any questions the Commission may have. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Bostwick wished to clarify if Public Works is aware of any kind of purchase agreement to be made regarding the widening of Ball Road. Melanie Adams, Principal Civil Engineer, responded she did not have the details on the Ball Road project, but feels it includes some areas of localized widening, primarily parkway improvements; widening sidewalks and adding landscape parkways. Chairperson Bostwick asked Mr. Everhart if The Olson Company has already dedicated and did the City talk to him about coming back farther than his present setback to the curb line. Also, did the City talk to him about any farther intrusion into the property. Mr. Everhart responded they are dedicating the additional property for the widening of the street. Commissioner Boydstun wished to know how much in depth would be dedicated. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, responded the plan shows approximately 23 feet of dedication along Ball Road. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify how farther out was the property than the rest of the street. , Ms. Adams responded the exact depth is not currently available, but they are dedicating 53 feet from the centerline of Ball Road, which matches the requirements for the circutation elements. Chairperson Bostwick wished to clarify if the 23 feet would also include the property that is now in the roadway and also the curb, parkway and sidewalk. Ms. Adams responded that is correct. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Everhart if The Olson Company is proposing to do the front yard landscaping of the homes. Mr. Everhart responded yes. Commissioner Koos wished to explore with the Commissioners and the applicant the request of the neighbors regarding an 8-foot wall or extension of the wall 7 feet or 8 feet. Commissioner Eastman concurs it is a reasonable request to ask of the developer. Commissioner Romero wished to know if Mr. Everhart could also speak of the material of the wall. Mr. Everhart states the wall on their side of the property line is 6 foot, but on the residential side of fhe single-family detached, it is lower. Therefore, there are areas along the south side where a 6-foot wall on their side would be an 8-foot wall on the adjacent neighbor side. They are planning on doing a slump stone wall with a nice cap. Commissioner Koos asked if there would be any problems in constructing a 7-foot wall. • Mr. Everhart responded aesthetic-wise their preference would be to go with the 6-foot wall. If they put up a 7-foot wall, neighbors would be looking at a pretty high wall, especially in some areas. They plan 01-13-03 Page 10 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • to put a nice cap on top of the 6-foot wall, and believe it will benefit both their future residents and the current residents by not having a huge wall in their backyard. Commissioner Bristol recalled discussing the drainage in the last meeting and wished to clarify if the pad elevation would be that much of a difference between the neighbors and the subject site. Ms. Adams responded along the south property line there is a difference in elevation, but along the west property line close to Ball Road there should not be such a great difference. Chairperson Bostwick recalls they are putting drainage inside their property to take it out to Ball Road. Commissioner Koos feels the overall proposal is high quality in terms of circulation. It blends in well with the existing environment and is what is being developed in master plan communities throughout South Orange County and other new areas. He is not too sure what losing two homes would get in any real sense towards a better project. Therefore, he is not supportive of any substantial changes to the proposal. He states the applicant has come along way with the cosmetic changes. It is often the little things that make a great difference and they have gone a long way. Throughout communities in Orange County and Los Angeles County The Olson Company have demonstrated that they are not only building a project and then moving on, they are developing a portfolio. Commissioner Eastman wished to clarify in regards to the houses facing Ball Road and the architectural enhancements to the sides, if they would be looking at plain stucco walls and windows with no architectural enhancements such as what is being put on the homes facing the single-family residences. Mr. Everhart responded on the plan submitted for Planning Commission review it does show the enhanced side elevations along Ball Road. In addition to that, the wall itself has been enhanced with • additional landscaping and vines that will be growing on that wall and would eventually be a total4y green wal1. OPPOSITION: 5 people spoke in opposition to the subject request (2 people were representing West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council [WAND]). 1 person who was present filled out a speaker card with concerns, but did not wish to speak. IN SUPPORT: 2 people spoke in favor of the subject request. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirements, as follows: Approved waiver (a) pertaining to minimum private street standard based on the recommendation from Public Works Department that the proposed street width and design is adequate to serve the development as proposed. Approved waivers pertaining to (b) maximum fence height, (c) maximum structural height adjacent to a single-family residential zone, (d) minimum structural setback abutting an arterial highway, (e) minimum distance between building walls and (f~ minimum landscaped setback adjacent to a single-family residential zone based on the special circumstances of this property due to its location being surrounded on two sides by single-family residential zones; and that the RM-3000 Zone standards were intended • for attached townhouse-style development and not "small-lot single-famil~' development; and that these waivers have been granted for similar small lot single-family developments. 01-13-03 Page 11 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04627 (to construct a 21-unit detached one- family residential condominium subdivision) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 13, 2003, with the following modifications: Added the following conditions of approval to read as follows: That all required trees including those meant to screen the residences from adjacent single-family homes shall be professionally maintained by the homeowner's association. That all obscure window glass used to provide privacy to the single-family residences shall be maintained and not replaced with non-obscure glass. That a decorative 6-foot high block wall shall be constructed along the perimeter of the subject property lines. Said wall shall be designed to afford the maximum possible privacy to the single-family residences to the south and west. The height of the wall shall be measured from the highest grade on either side of the wall. Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 16430 (to establish a 6-lot, 21-unit detached residential airspace condominium subdivision), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 13, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 5 and 6 to read as follows: 5. That prior to approval of the final map or grading plan, whichever occurs first, the developer shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) specifically ~ identifying the post construction best management practices that will be used on-site to control predictable pollutants from stormwater runoff. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division for review and approval. 6. That prior to final map approval, a maintenance covenant shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section and approved by the City Attorney's office. The covenant shall include provisions for maintenance of common area landscaping, (including provisions requiring front yard landscaping to be maintained by the homeowner's association, and that opaque glass and highly placed windows shall be maintained and not removed for lots 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 as mentioned in the exhibits and staff report dated January 13, 2003), perimeter walls and private facilities, including compliance with approved Water Quality Management Plan and a maintenance exhibit. The covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Manrr, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map and the 22-day appeal rights for the Conditional Use Permit. DISCUSSION TIME: 53 minutes (1:42-2:35) ~ 01-13-03 Page 12 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 4b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00084 January 27, 2003 4c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04614 OWNER: INC AN-LO, 408 North Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: William Taormina, 128 West Sycamore Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 400-424 North Anaheim Boulevard and 411-417 North Claudina Street. Property is approximately 1.32 acres located at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Adele Street. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00084 - Request reclassification of the property from the RS-5000 (Residential, Singie-Family) and CG {Commercial, General) zones to the CL (Commercial, Limited) zone, or a less intense zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04614 - To establish land use conformity with existing zoning code iand use requirements and to expand an existing legal non-conforming retail center and to permit on- premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a proposed restaurant with waivers of: a) maximum structural height ~ within 150 feet of a residentially zoned property, b) minimum structural and landscaped setback abutting arterial highway, c) minimum structural and landscaped setback abutting a local street, and d) minimum structural and landscaped setback abutting residential zone boundary. Continued from the December 2, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8488JR.DOC FOLLOWING 1S A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the January 27, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to allow additional time to redesign the project. VOTE: 7-0 • DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 01-13-03 Page 13 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Continued to 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT February 24, 2003 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04629 OWNER: David Ly, Lyman Legacy, 2841 South Croddy Way, Unit A, Santa Ana, CA 92704 AGENT: Deena Detry, Nextel Communications, 310 Commerce, Irvine, CA 92602 LOCATION: 1201 and 1211-1231 South Euclid Street. Parcel 1 is approximately 0.6-acre located at the southwest corner of Ba(( Road and Euclid Street. Parcel 2 is approximately 1.6 acres having a frontage of 350 feet on the west side of Euclid Street and located 170 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road. Request to establish land use conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing legal nonconforming commercial center and liquor store and to permit a telecommunications antenna with accessory ground-mounted equipment with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and maximum structural height adjacent to a residential zone. Continued from the December 2, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8483VN.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 5 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04629, Parcel 1: 1201 South Euclid Street and Parcel 2: 1211-1231 South Euclid Street, a request to establish land use conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing commercial center and liquor store and to permit a telecommunications antenna with accessory ground-mounted equipment. Commissioner Koos indicated he would be abstaining on the item due to his close relationship with the wireless telecommunications industry. That while he has previously conferred with the City Attorney and determined that he does not have any financial conflict of interest; he abstains to avoid any potential perceived conflict. ApplicanYs 7estimony: Deena Detry, 310 Commerce Irvine, CA, representing Nextel Communications, requested a continuance on the item, as she noticed there were 24 conditions on the staff report that she has not spoken to her landlord about, which affect his core business. Ms Detry states regarding the search-ring and how they picked the subject area, they were basically just looking on the intersection where they did the expansion of the road. She spoke with the person just north of their parcel who was interested, but did not have enough parking. Nextel, along with their construction manager architecf visited their site many times and could not find a way to incorporate a ceU tower there. Directly on the site are apartments and a Seven-eleven where there is no room as well. Cady-corner, not only would there be parking problems, but there would be a lot of the same issues that the landlord conditions with the subject site. • Nextel began working with staff in May 2002. They have looked at six different tower designs; it was started at 64 feet and has been brought down to 46 feet; it was brought in from 20-foot wide to 13-foot 01-13-03 Page 14 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ wide; they have added a roof-top that coordinates with the tower; the top 4 feet of the tower couid be taken off. It is completely decorative to match the roof; they added a landscape buffer of 10 feet. MartyZimmerman, 310 Commerce, Irvine, CA, representing Nextel Communications, states it seems like the cleanest piece of ground for them to go on and wondered what they could put up there that would look good to the City. They are basically open to anything and have been trying to throw out designs to find something that the City would like. They brought their broadcast height down, and are willing to put anything there that would look good. They only have one-story buildings to work with. The tower is more mass in the air but that is what they are required to do to meet the stealth requirements. Public Testimony: Judithanne Gollette, 649 S. Roanne St., Anaheim, CA, submitted a Speaker's Card in opposition to Item No. 5. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Bostwick suggests they move the tower out to the corner near the freestanding sign and develop some type of clock tower signage all in one item, rather than trying to stick it behind the building where it would look as though it were added on. Commissioner Bristol states it is an awfully big structure to place immediately behind the residence because even though the Palm trees owned by the neighbors are approximately 40 feet high, where the structure is proposed, in the back of the building, would be massive. Ms. Detry responded they would have no problem moving it to the front. The reason they chose the back area is because there is dead space back there that is not being used for parking, landscape, etc. ~ Chairperson Sostwick made a motion for continuance until February 24, 2003. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the February 24, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order to work with staff on potential alternate locations for the clock tower on the property and to al(ow the applicant/landlord additional time to review the conditions of approval in the staff report dated January 13, 2003. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained) DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (2:36-2:48) ~ 01-13-03 Page 15 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Concurred with staff 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04620 Granted for 1 year OWNER: Katella LLC, 1404 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGEN7: Oscar Ramirez, 12052 Jennifer Lane, Garden Grove, CA 92840 LOCATION: 1383 East Gene Autrv Wav. Property is approximately 4.8 acres having a frontage of 302 feet on the north side of Gene Autry Way located 260 feet east of the centerline of Betmor Lane. To permit a banquet hall facility with on-premises consumption, but not sales of beer and wine with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the November 4, November 18 and December 2, 2002, Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-2 SR8517EY.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 6 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04620, 1383 East Gene . Autry Way, a request to permit a banquet hall facility with on-premises consumption, but not sales of beer and wine with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ApplicanYs Testimony: Elliezer EI Gallardo, 11932 Gary St., Garden Grove, CA, states the purpose of the business is to provide a banquet hall for family gatherings and special occasions. The establishment will not be a nightclub nor have a cover charge. It will be under contract prior to every event. Facilities around their unit operate Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. Their hours of operation will be from 5 p.m. to midnight, mainly on Friday, Saturday and Sundays. We will provide tables, food, drinks, and musical entertainment. There will not be any cooking involved on the facilities or on the premises; everything will be catered. They will not sell alcohol. The guest hosting the event must provide beer and wine. However, they will serve drinks so that they can monitor the amount of drinks per guest. Guests must prove they are 21 years of age or older, with a valid I.D. (identification card). After providing the I.D. they will sign a drinking card, which will ensure only six (6) drinks per card. After every drink being purchased their card will be hole-punched. No drinks will be allowed outside the premises. Their establishment will have a minimum of 3 security guards; one inside the building, one outside, and one at the front door. The maximum occupancy would be 270. There are 155 parking sites around the building, plus 45 parking sites on both sides of the street. They would have an outside cleaning crew during and after the event. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol states concern with the traffic study. He feels the project would take up every single space in the entire project and the private street. He wished to clarify if the owner that the applicant is negotiating with owns everything on the site map. Also, he wished to clarify why the host would have to provide beer and wine since the applicant has a Type-41 License for the restaurant. ~ Oscar Ramirez, 12052 Jennifer Lane, Garden Grove, CA, states his brother owns a restaurant known as Old Mexico, and the Type-41 License covers it. 01-13-03 Page 16 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . Commissioner Bristol clarifies that ABC (Alcohol Beverage Control) states it is necessary to obtain a Type-58 Caterer's Permit however; they would need a Type-47 License in order to obtain the Type-58 License. Mr. Ramirez states if the host who rents out the establishment to have a party provides the drinks and his establishment is only serving it, they would not need a liquor license, as stated by ABC. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states the staff planner checked with ABC in order to confirm the two possible scenarios they could operate under: (1) that they change their license and get a Caterer's Permit or have an existing business that has a Caterer's Permit cater the event, and (2) Whoever is going to have the event at the banquet facility, provide the liquor to the business owner and the business owner serves it to the patrons, but no compensation would be permitted. Commissioner Romero wished to clarify that the plans submitted states the maximum drinks would be 5 but in the presentation 6 was stated. Mr. Gallardo clarified the maximum drinks would be 5. Commissioner Vanderbilt wished to clarify that in the opening statements it was stated that the maximum capacity of events would be 270, but the staff report, page 5, Condition No. 21, states 230. Mr. McCafferty states the conditions of approval limit the maximum occupancy to 230. Mr. Gallardo states they will adjust their sales. ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero 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 the Waiver of Code requirement pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04620 (to permit a banquet hall facility with service but not sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption) for a period of one (1) year (from the date that the petitioner obtains a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Division), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 13, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 4, 9, 12, 26, 27 and 30 to read as follows: 4. That use of promoters +s shall be prohibited. 9. That as determined by the Anaheim Fire Prevention Division, a maximum occupancy of 230 persons shall be permitted on the premises at any one time. Signs indicating the occupant load shall be posted in a conspicuous place on a sign approved by the Anaheim Fire Prevention Division near the main exit from the room. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building ~ permits. 01-13-03 Page 17 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 12. That at all times when the facility is being utilized, a minimum of three 3 uniformed security guards shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department to deter unlawful conduct on the part of patrons, and promote the safe and orderly assembly and movement of persons and vehicles. a~~~e~ 26. That this business shail be equipped with an alarm system (silent or audible). Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 27. That trash storage areas shall be refurbished, inciuding the installation of trash enclosure gates, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division to comply with approved plans on file with said Department. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 30. 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. 9, 23, ar~d 25, 26 and 27, above mentioned shall be complied with. Extensions of further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Deleted Condition Nos. 11 and 20. VOTE: 7-0 ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (2:49-2:59) • 01-13-03 Page 18 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNtNG COMMISSION MlNUTES ~ 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11 7b. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04546 OWNER: Frances Cascio, 2364 Damascus Court, San Jose, CA 95125 AGENT: Dennis Stout, 871 North Maplewood Street, Orange, CA 92867 LOCATION: 915 South Harbor Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.42-acre with a frontage of 110 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard located 195 feet south of the centerline of Vermont Avenue (Carrows Restaurant). Waiver of maximum number of wall signs to install two business identification wall signs on existing restaurant building. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-3 Concurred with staff Granted SR8524SK.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 7 as Variance No. 2002-04546, 915 South Harbor Boulevard - Carrows Restaurant, a request to permit two business identification wall signs. Applicant's Testimony: ~ Dennis Stout, 871 Maplewood St., Orange, CA, representing Global Sign Co. on behalf of Carrows Restaurant, asked for a variance to allow two wall signs where the Anaheim Resorts Specific Plan allows only one. Carrows originally had a double post sign, which very adequately supplied their visibility northbound vn Harbor, but due to the conditions of the Specific Plan, had to remove it. Removing the sign left them totally unidentified by southbound traffic on Harbor Boulevard. Carrows concur with staff's findings and emphasize that it is the only property that does not have adequate setback requirements for a monument sign to alleviate the problem. Code allows 140 square feet and they are only asking for 40 square feet. Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, states staff reviewed the proposal and recommends approval of the variance, primarily because there is no room in the front setback area to install an Anaheim Resort Monument sign. Installation of the second wall sign would provide the restaurant with visibility from southbound Harbor Boulevard traffic. 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 11 (Construction or replacement of minor structures accessory to existing commercial, industrial or institutional facilities, including, but not limited to, on-premise ~ signs}, as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. 01-13-03 Page 19 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Granted Variance No. 2002-04546, subject to staff's recommended conditions of approval included in the staff report dated January 13, 2003, waiving the permitted number of wall signs and the Sign Standards Matrix requirements to permit a total of two business identification wall signs, inasmuch as the submitted evidence does identify special circumstances with regard to the configuration of the property and the existing building which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity, and, that the strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties within the identical zone classification in the vicinity as described in paragraphs (7) through (10) of the staff report dated January 13, 2003. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (3:00-3:02) ~ ~ 01-13-03 Page 20 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATtON Approved 8b. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04542 Granted 8c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16340 Approved OWNER: Thao Tran, 6651 Silent Harbor Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 AGENT: Hieu Pha, 10402 Westminster Avenue, Suite 100, Garden Grove, CA 92843 LOCATION: 610 South Sunkist Street. Property is approximately 1.07 acres with a frontage of 268 feet on the east side of Sunkist Street located 400 feet north of the centerline of South Street. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04542 - Request waivers of: a) minimum lot width and frontage and b) orientation of residential structures adjacent to arterial highways to construct five (5) single-family residences. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16340 - To establish a 5-lot, 5-unit detached single-family residential subdivision. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-4 SR8525AV.DOC ~ Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item no. 8 as Variance No. 2002-04542, 610 South Sunkist Street, a request to construct five (5) single-family residences with waivers of: (a) minimum lot width and frontage, and (b) orientation of residential structures adjacent to arterial highways. Applicant's Testimony: Thao Tran, Design Architect for the project, states the projects basically consists of 5-detached homes, ranging from approximately 2,900 square feet, with the option of one of the plans to approximateiy 3,010 square feet. Currently the property is one big property approximately 46,000 square feet (1.07 acres), with one existing home on it; built in 1953. They propose to divide the land into 5 separate lots, approximately 9,300 square feet for each detached home. The styles of the homes are basically the Contemporary California Style, seen in the area of Irvine or Newport Coastal. The homes consist of 5 bedrooms upstairs, including the master bedroom and one downstairs, with a 4-car garage. With the land being deep but not wide enough, they ask for variance of lot width. The requirement is 70 feet, but they are able to provide approximately 50 feet across and approximately 174 foot deep. In return the requirement for a single home lot for that particular area is 7,200 square feet. They would provide approximately 9,300 square feet. The surrounding area is primarily residential, single-family. Across the street is a cul-de-sac and a two-story home estimated at 25 to 3,000 square feet. In reviewing the staff report, they have one correction. On page 2, relating to the front setback, they ask for 35 feet instead of 25 feet for Lot Nos. 2& 5. All houses would line up and it would still provide approximately a 45 feet setback in the backyard. Public Testimony: Jan Myers, 2443 E. Alden Ave., Anaheim, CA, states it is the first time she has heard of homes that would really fit in and feels having single-family homes in that area is a good idea. ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 01-13-03 Page 21 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioners Koos states the renderings show a high-level of detail but the site plans do not reflect the same level of detail. He wished to clarify why the applicant did not show the level of detail on the elevations and the site plan with respect to the concrete driveways, and some of the landscaping depicted on the rendering. Mr. Tran responded typically in home development similar in this area and Irvine, CA, what the homebuyer is buying is basically the home. The rest of the landscape is depending on the homebuyer to design according to his personal taste. Therefore, in his rendering he is only suggesting what can be done to landscape their property. Commissioner Koos states his concern is that given that Sunkist Street is a heavily traveled route in Anaheim, and is seen by a lot of people, if it were left entirely up to the homeowners they may not put in as much effort as shown on the renderings when they actually do their own landscaping. He suggests giving the applicant an opportunity to come back with an actuai landscape plan or to agree that the renderings are exhibits that must be adhered to as part of the development of the project, rather than leaving it up to the homeowners. Mr. Tran responds they propose the sides, keeping the same except they would like to push the retaining wal{ back a couple of feet providing the landscaping is based on economic reasoning. Some of the landscaping could be very expensive which would add to the selling price and that would not make it attractive to the buyer from an economy standpoint. Commissioner Koos states he would not want homebuyers to purchase a home and not have the cost of high quafity landscaping factored in. It might take the mystery out of the equation if it is done for them. Mr. Tran responds they typically show the buyer the actual plan and explain it to them and a contract is written to define exactly what they will provide. ~ Chairperson Bostwick states under the Tract Map on Condition No. 1, it should be changed to read that the existing house shall be moved or demolished and the property owner shall obtain a demolition permit from the Building Department. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: One person spoke in favor of the subject request. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Variance No. 2002-04542 (to construct five single-family residences), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 13, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 2 and 11 to read as follows: 2. That the property owner/developer shall install street lights on Sunkist Street and a bond shall be posted for said installation prior to issuance of building permits. The street lights shall be installed prior to occupancy for the first unit. 11. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one year from the ~ date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 above mentioned shall be complied with. 01-13-03 Page 22 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recommendations" item, and thereafter that the landscaping shall be installed and maintained in accordance with approved plans. Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 16340 (to establish a 5-lot, 5-unit single-family residential subdivision), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 13, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 1 and 6 to read as follows: 1. That the existing house shall be demolished or removed. The legal property owner shall obtain a demolition permit from the Building Division. 6. That prior to approval of the final parcel map, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5, above- mentioned, shall be complied with. ~ • VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map and the 22-day appeal rights for the Variance. DISCUSSION TIME: 15 minutes (3:03-3:18) 01-13-03 Page 23 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMiSSION MINt7TES ~ 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4121 (TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04648) OWNER: Landry Properties LP, 517 12th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90406 AGENT: Paul Kott, 1225 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 2861 East Miraloma Avenue. Property is approximately 4.7 acres with a frontage of 330 feet on the north side of Miraloma Avenue located 980 feet west of the centerline of Red Gum Street (California Auto Dealers Exchange). Reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on June 21, 1999, to expire January 31, 2003) to retain an automobile storage lot with a modular office unit. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-5 Approved Approved reinstatement for 5 years (to expire on January 31, 2008) SR8514EY.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 9 as Conditional Use Permit No. 4121, 2861 East Miraloma Avenue - California Auto Dealers Exchange, a request for reinstatement of the permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on June 21, 1999 to expire ~ January 31, 2003) to retain an automobile storage lot with a modular office unit. Applicant's Testimony: Commissioner Koos indicated he would be abstaining on the item due to his close relationship with the wireless telecommunications industry. That while he has previously conferred with the City Attorney and determined that he does not have any financial conflict of interest; he abstains to avoid any potential perceived conflict. Paul Kott, 1225 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA, representing California Auto Dealers Exchange, which currently operates the subject facility at 2861 East Miraloma Avenue, states the property consists of 4.7 acres and is currently industrially zoned. It facilitates their mother campus, which is close by at 1320 N. Tustin Avenue. They have occupied the property for approximately five years and have been an excellent addition to that area. They have been very good neighbors in terms of what they have done to the area. They have greatly improved the property; they have put very tasteful landscaping in the front; provide 24 hour - 7 days a week security; and, they have complied with all imposed conditions with no code violations. They request reinstatement of the permit. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None • ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offe~ed a motion, seconded by Cammissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine 01-13-03 Page 24 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4121 (Tracking No. CUP2002- 04648) to retain an automobile storage facility with a modular office unit for a period of five (5) years to expire on January 31, 2008. Amended Resolution No. PC99-110 in its entirety and replaced it with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: 1. That this permit shall expire on January 31, 2008. 2. That no customers or dealers shall be permitted on site, and, that no sales shall be permitted on this property. 3. That no Special Events shall be permitted at this property. 4. That this storage facility shall be limited to automotive vehicles only in conjunction with the primary business, California Auto Dealers Exchange located at 1320 North Tustin Avenue. No other types of materials shall be stored on-site. 5. That gates shall not be installed across the driveway in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street. Installation of any gates shall conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 609 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. ~ 6. That fencing, landscaping and irrigation shall be maintained in conformance with the approved plans, including the PVC slats interwoven into the chainlink fencing along the west, north and east property lines where any existing slats are missing or in disrepair. 7. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 8. That the owner of subject property shall be responsible for the removal of any on-site graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours of its application, excluding weekends. 9. That subject property shall be maintained in conformance with Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations as approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. 10. That trash storage areas shall be maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. 11. That the locations for any future above-ground utility devices including, but not limited to, electrical transformers, water backflow devices, gas, communications and cable devices, etc., shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits. Plans shall also identify the specific screening treatments of each device (i.e. landscape screening, color or walls, materials, identifiers, access points, etc.) and shall be subject to the review and approval of the appropriate City departments. ~ 12. That no signs what so-ever shall be permitted. 01-13-03 Page 25 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u ~ VOTE: 13. That a valid business license shall be maintained with the Business License Division of the Finance Department. 14. That three (3) foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the roof of the office in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible to the view from the public street. 15. That a maximum of twelve (12) cars per hour shall be transported to and from this facility; and that no transporter trucks shall be utilized in conjunction with the drop-off or removal of automobiles at this facility. 16. That on-site maintenance of automobiles or trucks shall not be permitted. 17. That the gates shall be closed when the business is not in operation. 18. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3; and as conditioned herein. 19. That within 60 days from the date of this resolution, condition no. 14 above- mentioned, shall be complied with. 20. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. 6-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (3:19-3:20) ~ ~ 01-13-03 Page 26 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 10b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00407 January 27, 2003 10c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00087 10d. WAfVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 10e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04641 OWNER: Atlantic Richfield Co., P.O. Box 512485, Los Angeles, CA 90051 AGENT: Leslie Burnside, Tait & Associates, 9089 Claremont Mesa Boulevard, # 300, San Diego, CA 92123 LOCATION: 1201 South Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 1.7 acres located at the southwest corner of Ball Road and Brookhurst Street (Arco AM/PM Service Station). GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00407 - To amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate a portion of the property from the Low Density Residential designation to the General Commercial designation. RECLASSfFICATION NO. 2002-00087 - Request for reclassification of a portion of the property from the County C-1 (Commercial) zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) zone, or a less intense zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04641 - To establish conformity with zoning code land use requirements for an existing drive-through ~ restaurant and to permit a service station with accessory car wash and convenience market with the sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption with waivers of: a) nonconforming structures and uses - general, b) nonconforming signs and billboards - general and c) maximum structural height abutting a single-family residential zone boundary. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFlCATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8519JR.DOC OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the January 27, 2003, Planning Commiss+on meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to allow more time to purchase a Type 20 Beer and Wine License and to revise the acoustical analysis to demonstrate compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance. ~ VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 01-13-03 Page 27 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ~ 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 11 b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2Q02-00088 Granted 11c. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04547 Granted 11d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16452 Approved 11e. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2002-00007 Approved OWNER: Ruitson Ouyang, 8641 Hillcrest Road, Buena Park, CA 90621 AGENT: Carla Frakes, Starlight Oaks, LLC, 2 McLaren, Unit B, Irvine, CA 92618 LOCATION: 6161 East Santa Ana Canvon Road. Property is approximately 1.1 acres with a frontage of 174 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road located 442 feet west of the centerline of Quintana Drive. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00088 - Request reclassification of the subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (SC) (Residential/Agricultural; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone to the RS-5,000 (SC) (Residential, Single- Family; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone. VARIANCE NO 2002-04547 - Request waiver of minimum lot depth adjacent to a Scenic Expressway. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16452 - To establish a 6-lot, 6-unit detached single-family residential subdivision. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2002-00007 - To remove one (1) specimen Oak tree. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-6 VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-7 SR8528AV.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 11 as Reclassification No. 2002-00088, 6161 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, a request for reclassification of the subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (SC)(Residential/Agricultural; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone to the RS-5000 (SC)(Residential, Single- family, Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone. ApplicanYs Testimony: Carla Frakes, 2 McLaren #B, Irvine, CA, representing Starlight Oaks, LLC, states the subject property is currently a single-family detached 1.1 acres property. They are requesting for reclassification to subdivide to six (6) single-family detached lots ranging from 5,800 to approximately 9,000 square feet. The proposed units would be of like design and features 4 bedrooms, 3-car garages to the existing community that is on all sides of it. The request includes removal of one specimen tree, which would be replaced with two (2) 36-inch box trees. r 01-13-03 Page 28 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Public Testimony: Brent Bissennette, 6154 E. Paseo Rio Verde, Anaheim, CA, states he is also representing his neighbors who live at 6153, 6151 and 6152 E. Paseo Rio Verde. They are all opposed to having their dead end opened up. He feels his home will go from being on the end to the middle, and when they were looking to buy a house they had a young daughter, 3 years of age, they wanted a good community to live in and believed Anaheim Hills fit that criteria, including the schools. When they found the house they were really overwhelmed by the location of it. They now have an additional daughter 3 months old, and want to raise their family at that location. They can only envision their daughter running across the street to go play with a friend and there would be traffic coming through the area. His neighbors feel the same way with their children, because currently there is minimum traffic and the children do not have to look both ways before crossing the street. He feels not having an end house would lower the value of his property. Yasmin Fletcher, 131 N. Avenida Cienega, Anaheim, CA, states from her perspective it is okay to have homes there. Her largest concern is regarding Lot No. 3, in that the applicant is proposing to build the home 7 feet away. The minimum requirement is 5 feet, but 7 feet is rather close and does not adhere with the current spacing in the neighborhood. All the houses backup yard to yard and it feels nice to walk into the backyard and not feel crammed against each other like most of the new developments. She asks that it be reconsidered to move the home on Lot No. 3 farther away from the current property or removing the home and putting a small park for the neighborhood. Jacqueline Eurich, 6145 E. San Lorenzo Lane, states she moved into her home in 1975, and the area was promised to be a very rural area; lots of greenbelts, trees and nature, and they are losing it constantly. She is very concerned with the area being such dense housing. Her second issue is the traffic. She feels any more homes off of Santa Ana Canyon Road is going to perpetuate the traffic problem. For example, during rush hour, you have to take your life into your hands when you try to cross ~ the street. She crosses daily at Quintana Drive and it is very dangerous quite a few hours of the day. Ms. Eurich is concerned that another six homes that could bring an easy 20 more cars coming in and out of the neighborhood, and wonders what the City plans on doing about keeping the integrity and preserving the trees and vegetation. Commissioner Bristol presented a statement on behalf of Joseph E. Kerr, who lives on Paseo Rio Verde on the corner of Avenida Cienega, (no specific address given), stating Mr. Kerr wanted him to raise the concern of the water drainage to his house from the property as he feels it is higher by 3 to 4 feet. He is not in opposition of the project. Applicant's Rebuttal: Ms. Frakes stafes as a mother of young children she shares the concerns of the neighborhood however: ^ She does not feel the traffic speed in the cul-de-sac wilf generate such that it is going to greatly impact children. ^ Regarding drainage, she would have to defer to her engineer. ^ Regarding the area becoming rural, unfortunately there are a lot of people in Orange County and land is running out everywhere. ^ Regarding side yard setback, they meet or exceed all of the side yard setbacks. Commissioner Bristol states when he visited the property yesterday he discovered neighbors had never heard about the project until they received the City notice. He asked why she had not met with them. Ms. Frakes responded they were planning to once they got farther down the road, but as of today had not met with them. Commissioner Bristol asked if she understood the concerns of the neighbors since her property would • impact them. Ms. Frakes responded they have not met with the neighbors, but would be willing to do so. 01-13-03 Page 29 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Bostwick states the only waiver on the project is the lot depth on Santa Ana Canyon Road. Similar homes have been approved on Santa Ana Canyon Road and Anaheim Nills Road. The applicants are proposing to remove one specimen Oak tree, and it fits in with the neighborhood and the surroundings. Commissioner Bristol suggested a two-week continuance so the applicant couid speak with the neighbors. Commissioner Koos states the developer goes through a planning process and it is not stated that they must meet with the neighbors. While it could provide courtesy, it is not a requirement of the process. There is public notification, the concerns have been heard, and when Commission continues a project it is for an identifiable reason. Such as the project needs to be tinkered with to make it more acceptable to the Commission, but other than just being neighborly, he could not identify anything that would result from the meeting. Commissioner suggested being neighborly was a good reason and he offered a motion for a two-week continuance, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt. The motion failed to carry 4 to 3. Commissioners Koos, Romero, Boydstun and Chairperson Bostwick voting nay. Chairperson Bostwick made a motion to approve the item, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun. Motion carried 7 to 0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: One person spoke in opposition to the subject request. A letter was received, prior to the meeting, with opposition/concerns to the subject request. ~ IN SUPPORT: One person spoke in favor of the subject request. IN GENERAL: One person spoke in general relaying a few concerns/questions. MOTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION FAILED TO CARRY, to continue the subject request to the January 27, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to meet with the neighbors to address their concerns. (Vote: 3-4, Commissioners Bostwick, Boydstun, Koos and Romero voted no) ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 2002-00088 (to reclassify this property from the RS-A-43,000 (SC) zone to the RS-5000 (SC) zonej, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 13, 2003. Granted Variance No. 2002-04547 (to construct six single-family residences), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 13, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 11 to read as follows: 11. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one year from the • date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10, above mentioned, shall be complied with. 01-13-03 Page 30 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Deleted Condition No. 3. Approved Tentative Tract Map No. 16452 (to establish a 6-lot, 6-unit single-family residential subdivision), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 13, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 1, 5 and 9 to read as follows: Prior to approval of the ~a~se{ tract map, the existing house shall be demolished. The legal property owner shall obtain a demolition permit from the Building Division. That the developer shall submit street improvement plans, including the removal of the existing driveway on Santa Ana Canyon Road to the Public Works Department; Development Services Division and a bond shall be posted to guarantee that Paseo Rio Verde shall be improved in accordance with Standard Plans for a local street and as approved by the City Engineer. Street plans shall include landscape and irrigation plans for the public parkway. The improvement shall be constructed prior to final zoning and building inspections. 9. That prior to approval of the final ~a~sel tract map, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ar~-~, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Approved Specimen Tree Removal Permit No. 2002-00007 (to allow the removal of one (1) Oak specimen tree in order to construct a new single-family residence), subject to ~ the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 13, 2003. VOTE: 7-0 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, Variance and Specimen Tree Removal Permit. DISCUSSION TIME: 24 minutes (3:21-3:45) A 10-minute break was faken (3:46-3:56) ~ 01-13-03 Page 31 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 12b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00406 February 10, 2003 12c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00085 12d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 12e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04635 12f. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16465 12g. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVtEW OF ITEMS 12c 12d 72e AND 12f OWNER: Toura #2, 3927 Barranca Parkway, J-425, Irvine, CA 92606 AGENT: Mahmoud Bdaiwi, 4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250, Irvine, CA 92604 LOCATION: 1597 West Katella Avenue. Property is approximately 1.07 acres with a frontage of 150 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue located 160 feet east of the centerline of Carnelian Street. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00406 - To amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan redesignating the property from the Commercial Professional designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential designation. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00085 - Request reclassification of the subject property from the RS-10,000 (Residential, Single-Family) zone to ~ the RM-2,400 (Residential, Multiple-Family) zone, or a less intense zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04635 - To construct a 16-unit attached residentiai condominium subdivision with waivers of: a) minimum private street standards, b) minimum number of required parking spaces, c) maximum structural height within 150 feet of a single-family residential zone, (d) maximum site coverage, (e) minimum landscape setback abutting a single-family residential development and (f) minimum required recreational leisure area. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16465 - To establish a 1-lot, 16-unit attached residential airspace condominium subdivision. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR1105CW.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 12 as General Plan Amendment No. 2002-00405, 1597 West Katella Avenue, to amend the land use element of the General Plan redesignating the property from the Commercial professional designation to the low-medium density residential designation. Applicant's Testimony: ~ Donna Chessen of Chessen and Associates, located in Laguna Woods, representing Taura L.P., developers and owners of a 1 acre parcel at 1597 West Katella Avenue, request a zone change and a 01-13-03 Page 32 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • CUP to construct a 16-unit attached residential condominium. The rectangular shaped parcel has a 150 front footage by 300 feet deep and is surrounded by high density to the east and single-family residence to the west. Chessen feels that these types of condominium units serve as a good transition between the high density and the single-family residence. The developer feels Orange County is a good market place for the first time homebuyers. And, it cleans up a vacant lot that has produced vandalism and other nuisances to the neighborhood. Ms. Chessen states the neighbors are excited that they are going to have new homes near them instead of an empty lot. The retail is also excited about the new project, believing it will help support their retail. Staff has suggested continuing the item based on several waivers and she feels it is inherent in an in-field project that there would be waivers in the City of Anaheim due to the codes. She discussed waivers she feels are easily resolved and those they will have problems with as follows: ^ Minimum number of parking; 4 parking spaces away and can easily be corrected. ^ Minimum structure height; staff states it is not a hardship but Chessen feels it is a mere fact that it is an infield surrounded by single-family homes which makes the development extremely difficult. ^ The General Plan zoning has created special circumstances beyond the control of the property owner and the developer. It makes it extremely difficult to obtain with today's land prices. ^ Waiver to lot coverage; Chessen is at 41 % instead of 40°/a. The 1% can easily be accomplished. ^ Landscape waiver; Chessen realizes a landscape plan is needed and they are more than willing to provide landscaping above and beyond what the code asks for. ~ ^ Required open space; Chessen was initially informed that according to code, they must provide 19,000 square foot of open space, and noted that is half of their land. Currently it is reduced to 12,000 square foot and that is one-third of their land. She feels the City is telling them to: - Give one-third of Chessen land for open space. - Help widen Katella Avenue. - Give 150 feet for single-family homes. - Give 24 feet for landscape and buffer. - And after all is done, they can then develop19-units according to code. Ms. Chessen states that is like fitting a round peg into a square block. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Bosfinrick states staff has problems with: ^ The "drive-in dungeon look" of the parking and the entryways of the units to the rear. ^ There are no doors off the front of the street. If someone parks in the driveway for the additional parking he would have to walk through a gated entry way to the parking to get to the front door at the back of the units. ^ Staff suggests centering the driveway and the project, and putting buildings on both sides with • the standard garages in front which would be a better-designed project. 01-13-03 Page 33 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. McCafferty states staff would be willing to look at a more livable project, one that incorporates more direct entries, more landscaping and more useable open space. If hardship is found on the site, staff would be willing to work with the applicant to find out what it is. If it is supportable, staff will support it. However, staff has not supported the project throughout its inception from pre-file to present. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify that staff does support the General Plan Reclassification and zone change. Mr. McCafferty responded yes. Staff feels instead of selectively stating which waivers are okay and which are not, that it would be better served if a continuance was approved in order to work through all the waivers together as one project. Commissioner Koos offered a motion for a four-week confinuance, seconded by Commissioner Eastman. Motion carried 7 to 0. JLLUWING 15 A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTIC OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTlON CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the February 10, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order to redesign to promote a more livable project by eliminating Code waivers and addressing concerns mentioned throughout the staff report dated January 13, 2003. VOTE: 7-0 ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 18 minutes 3:57-4:15 ~ ) ~ 01-13-03 Page 34 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 13a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 13c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04640 OWNER: Evangelical Christian Credit Union, 955 West Imperial Highway, Brea, CA 92821 AGENT: Ray Chang, Ambassador Church, 2801 North Brea Boulevard, Fuilerton, CA 92835 LOCATION: 2568 West Woodland Drive. Property is approximately 0.35-acre with a frontage of 69 feet on the west side of Woodland Drive located 680 feet east and south of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue. To permit a church within an existing office building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-8 Approved Approved Granted for 2 years SR8518VN.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item no. 13 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04640, 2568 West Woodland Drive, Anaheim, CA, a request to permit a church within an existing office building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ~ Applicant's Testimony: Mark Lee, 941 Sandlewood Avenue, Anaheim, CA, Associate Pastor of Ambassador Church, states they agree with all the conditions for approval but request an amendment to Condition No. 8 found on page 7, which states, "That the adult congregation at any one time shall be limited to 80 adults ..." They request to increase the limitation to 110 adults. He states that according to fire safety and square footage in the sanctuary area (1,660 square feet) it allows them to have 110 congregates. The number of spaces required is 36, which is less than 48 required by the square footage of the area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt states there is an adult club in the vicinity and he wished to clarify if there is some distance requirement that a church and those type facilities should be. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, states it is the reverse; if there were a pre-existing church there would be some distance limitations for a sex-oriented business. However, a church can voluntarily locate as close to a sex-oriented business as it chooses. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, states according to the parking study, it was approved for 67, and if the applicant's are allowed 110 congregates, the parking study would need to be revised. Rev. Lee states the parking study states 67 however, at the current time they have reciprocal covenant parking agreements with some of the surrounding businesses for 73 spaces. ~ Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states on their site they only have 20 spaces and he concurs with the applicant, the Conditional Use Permit does permit outside parking agreements however, the code requires 52 spaces. The Transportation Planner would have to determine, with the parking waiver recommended for approval, whether the 80 adults could be increased and still meet the parking demand of the church. 01-13-03 Page 35 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • • ~ ~- • ~ • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04640 (to permit a church wifhin an existing industrial office building) for a period of two (2) years, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 13, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 8 and 11 to read as follows: 8. That the adult congregation at any one time shall be limited to ~8110 adults. If the number of congregates exceeds this number of inembers, at any one time, the petitioner shall then submit an updated parking study to the Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval, prior to review and approval by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing. 11. That the legal owner of subject property shall prepare an unsubordinated covenant providing reciprocal parking for the church use for a minimum of 53 off-site parking ~ spaces. Said covenant shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic and Transportation manager and Zoning Division and in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, then recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. A copy of the recorded covenant shall be submitted to the Zoning Division. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (4:16-4:27) ~ 01-13-03 Page 36 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 14a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 14b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT January 27, 2003 14c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04628 OWNER: Ronald P. Beard Trustee, 5120 Birch Street, Suite 120, Newport Beach, CA 92660-2153 AGENT: Jim Todaro, The Consulting Group, 5440 Trabuco Road, Irvine, CA 92620 LOCATION: 1216-1254 South Maqnolia Avenue. Property is approximately 7.7 acres located south and east of the southeast corner of Ball Road and Magnolia Avenue. To establish conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center and to permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment with waiver of maximum structural height within 150 feet of a single-family residential zone boundary. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8516VN.DOC • • • ~ ~- • ~ ~ • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the January 27, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to revise plans. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 01-13-03 Page 37 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 15a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 15b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04647 OWNER: Tap v. Phi, 1643 West Cerritos Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 1643 West Cerritos Avenue. Property is approximately 0.8-acre with a frontage of 114 feet on the north side of Cerritos Avenue located 685 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street. To permit an attached granny unit in conjunction with an existing single- family residence. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-9 Concurred with staff Granted SR8507VN.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 15 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04647, 1643 West Cerritos Avenue, a request to permit an attached granny unit in conjunction with an existing single-family residence. Applicant's Testimony: Quin Phi, son of Tap V. Phi, the owner of 1643 West Cerritos Avenue, Anaheim, CA, states his parents purchased the vacant lot in 1991 and built a custom home. With his parents growing older, father 64 and ~ mother 60, their master bedroom is upstairs and his father with arthritic problems is having trouble climbing the stairs. Therefore, they would like to build a granny unit, 456 square foot attached to the house; a simple bedroom with bathroom. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Bostwick suggested getting a Building Permit to add onto the house. Mr. Phi states they tried that, but the issue with the City is that if they add onto the house there would have to be continuance motion throughout the house. Whereas, the granny unit would be in the back of the house and it would not have to have full accessibility to the house. Commissioner Koos asked why attach the granny unit to the house if they did not want continuance motion. Mr. Phi responded originally they wanted an extension, but putting an extension onto the house cosmetically would not look good because of the way the house was built. They feel the only place they could put it is on the back of the house to the side, where it would blend into the house as part of the custom home look. OPPOSITION: None ~ ACTION: Commissioner Bristol 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 falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, 01-13-03 Page 38 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Class 3(New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categoricaily exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04647 (to permit a 456 square foot attached granny unit in conjunction with an existing single-family residence), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 13, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 5 and 6 to read as follows: 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, and 2, ar~d-3, 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. 6. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. ~ 4, above- mentioned, shall be complied with. ~ ~ VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (4:28-4:33) 01-13-03 Page 39 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 16a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 Concurred with staff 16b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04643 Granted OWNER: Joseph T. Kung, 20866 East Quail Run Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91789 AGENT: William Flory, 5711 Rocking Horse Way, Orange, CA 92869 LOCATION: 5579 East Santa Ana Canvon Road. Suite 102. Property is approximately 5 acres located at the northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway (Alexander's Grand Salon). To permit and retain a massage business in an existing beauty salon. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-10 SR8515AV.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 16 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04643, 5579 East Santa Ana Canyon Road - Alexander's Grand Salon. ApplicanYs Testimony: ~ Sandra Morris, 412 Mountainview Court, Orange, CA, states the City would like her to eliminate some of the signs on her property. Commissioner Bristol asked if she would like to keep the neon sign on top of the roof. Ms. Morris responded yes, it is the long red sign. Commissioner Bristol referred to the sign she has on the door. Ms. Morris states the sign was already over the door when she moved in, and it has been there for approximately 10 years. The sign is her business name, "Alexander's Salon and Spa". It is in silver and makes a circle; it is right in front of the door, but cannot be seen from the street. It is strictly for people coming off of the elevator so that as they step into her business, they are guided which way to go. Otherwise, there is nothing to guide them. There is another sign, which is lettering on top of the awning, and she would be glad to eliminate it. She would like to maintain: ^ The red neon sign on the outside of the street, so that it would be visible to people on the street and in the parking lot. ^ The one that is in a circle, right outside the doorway. Otherwise, she would not have a way to show people how to get to her business. She would like to eliminate: ~ ^ The one on the elevator. ^ The blue neon sign. 01-13-03 Page 40 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ^ The sign on the awning. Commissioner Romero asked if she is currently offering massage services. Ms. Morris responded yes, they have been operating for 4'/2 years and everyone is licensed. However, it is a salon, not a massage parlor. Commissioner Romero states one of the conditions indicate therapists have to wear uniforms and name badges with their photos on them and he asked if that is currently happening. Ms. Morris responded yes, they all wear smocks and badges. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, states there is a requirement in the City ordinance which indicates, "that the massage technician shall wear or have on his or her person, a photo identification card prepared and issued by the City at all times when present in the massage establishment. Such identification shall be provided to City regulatory officials upon demand. The identification card shall be worn on outer clothing with the photo side facing out..." ~ FULLUWING 15 A SUMMAKY OF THE PLANNWG GOMM1551UN AGTIUN. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol 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 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. 2002-04643 (to permit a massage business within an existing salon), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 13, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 10 to read as follows: 10. That the signage for the salon be limited to er~e-F13 two (2) wall signs (one red neon wall sign and one round sign by the salon entrance) as permitted by code for Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. That the remaining t-F~ee~3} two (2) signs (canopy and blue wall sign located on exterior wall of the stairwell) shall be removed prior to operation of the massage business. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (4:34-4:46) C ~ 01-13-03 Page 41 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 17a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 17b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 17c. CONDITONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04646 OWNER: J& J Food Store Inc., P.O. Box 2305, Fullerton, CA 92837- 0805 AGENT: Pradeep Singh, 6251 Rosemary Drive, Cypress, CA 90630 LOCATION: 3174 West Bali Road. Property is approximately 0.34-acre located at the southeast corner of Bali Road and Western Avenue (A-1 Food Mart). Establish conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing convenience market with off-premise sales and consumption of beer and wine and to permit a truck rental facility as a secondary primary use with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-11 Approved Denied Denied SR8520JR.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 17 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04646, 3174 West Ball Road - A-1 Food Mart, to establish conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing convenience market with off-premise sales and consumption of beer and wine and to permit a ~ truck rental facility as a secondary primary use with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. ApplicanYs Testimony: Perdee Singh, 6251 Rosemary Drive, Anaheim, CA, states he owns a convenience store at 3174 West Ball Road at the corner of Ball Road and Western Avenue. He would like to conduct a U-Haul rental business within a convenience store with a minimum of two (2) trucks. The hours of operation would be from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. Public Testimony: Joseph and Helen Szilagyi, 1202 Ramblewood Dr., Anaheim, CA, submitted a Speaker's Card in opposition of the request. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun asked if more than two trucks were to come in would he have a place to store them. Mr. Singh responded yes, there are other U-Haul facilities, which are big centers where trucks are dispatched, but he only wants to use two (2) spaces. Chairperson Bostwick states the applicanYs request came about because he was doing the business without a permit and parking trucks all over the neighborhood. He asked how would he avoid having trucks all over the neighborhood. Mr. Singh responded the U-Haul has a main traffic dispatch center and he would be limited to only two ~ spaces. Anything more than two would be dispatched to the main centers. Commissioner Bristol asked if he would always know when a truck would show up. 01-13-03 Page 42 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Singh responded it would only be local rentals. Commissioner Bristol asked what would happen if they were to break down. Mr. Singh responded they would be repaired or replaced. Commissioner Koos asked what would happen if his two trucks were rented out and a third customer came in to rent a truck. Mr. Singh responded he would refer the customer to another center. Chairperson Bostwick wished to clarify if he would not call the dispatch center and have them bring two more trucks while the others are rented out. Mr. Singh responded no, he wishes only to limit to two locals. Commissioner Vanderbilt states it does not sound like a very good business model to be inconsistent with rentals because he would have to put an asterisk at the bottom of the contract to indicate, "When trucks are available". He feels the applicant is bending over backwards to accommodate the rules of the City in believing as long as he has only two trucks on the property at any one time he is conforming to the City's rules and therefore, that is the only way the City can regulate it. Mr. Singh states he is also providing a service to the citizens of Anaheim. Commissioner Bristol asked the applicant if he is aware how restricted the City would be on his convenience store if he co-joined the two businesses. • Mr. Singh responded the parking spaces were the biggest problem. The convenience store has 15 parking spaces. The main concern of the City is that it would conflict with traffic and parking spaces of the customers. Commissioner Bristol states he wants him to be aware that all the conditions would be applicable to his existing business for the duration of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP); meaning, any phones on the outside would have to come inside, etc. Commissioner Koos asked the applicant if he understands that Condition No. 12 states he cannot have any advertising for beer and wine on the windows. He wished to clarify if he is saying it is more valuable to rent two U-Haul trucks than to advertise to sell beer and wine. The CUP would run with the land. So, if he decided within a year that the U-Haul was not working out for him, the conditions would stiA apply. Chairperson Bostwick states he is torn between the two things because obviously it brings the property into conformity on a lot of items, but at the same time he is not certain how the applicant could control two trucks. Commissioner Bristol states concern with taking a convenience store and making a U-Haul. There are security issues; there is no storage, etc. He states as tempting as it is to bring the property into conformance, he is not certain how it would be controlled. And, he does not feel the property is appropriate for a U-Haul business. OPPOSITION: None ~ IN SUPPORT: A petition with 56 signatures in favor of the subject request was received prior to the meeting. 01-13-03 Page 43 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ACTION: A rov pp ed CEQA Negative Declaration Denied the Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces based on the unpredictability of the number of rental vehicles on-site at any time and the potential circulation conflicts due to the size of the rental trucks associated with the proposed vehicle rental business and based upon the testimony presented at today's meeting. Denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04646 (to establish conformity with existing zoning code requirements for an existing convenience market with off-premise sales and consumption of beer and wine and to permit a truck rental facility as a second primary use) based upon the testimony presented at today's meeting and based upon the findings as follows: (i) That although a vehicle rental business is a conditionally-permitted use within the CL Zone, because of the unpredictability of the proposed business operation, and based upon the previous illegal business operation, staff believes that the granting of this conditional use permit would be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the local community, and that the proposed use would be incompatible with the surrounding area and character of the local residential neighborhood. (ii) That although the size and shape of the of the subject property may be able to accommodate the rental and storage of two 2 vehicles, the probability of the proposed business operating beyond this capacity is very high. It is reasonable ~ to anticipate that the full development and growth of the proposed use would be more than the proposed two (2) vehicles indicated in the letter of operation. The "full developmenY' of this proposed use would result in an over- intensification of use of the subject property and would negatively impact adjacent and surrounding properties. (iii) That adjacent and nearby residential properties would be affected by additional traffic and noise that would occur as early as 7:00 a.m. and as late as 11:00 p.m. anv dav of the week. These added traffic or parking impacts would occur because of the nature of the proposed vehicle rental business is unpredictable and difficult for the business owner to regulate. (iv) That denial of the land use conformity request for the existing convenience market would allow the establishment to continue to lawfully operate. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 15 minutes (4:47-5:02) • 01-13-03 Page 44 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 18a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 18b. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04539 Approved Granted OWNER: Tomas Rodriguez, P.O. Box 8521, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Jeffrey Jonsson, 20331 Irvine Avenue, # 7, Santa Ana Heights, CA 92702 LOCATION: 542 South Atchison Street. Property is approximately 0.46-acre with a frontage of 150 feet on the east side of Atchison Street located 530 feet south of the centerline of Santa Ana Street. Waivers of: (a) maximum fence height in the front setback area and (b) minimum number of parking spaces to retain an unpermitted second story office expansion to an industrial building. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-12 ~ SR8526EY.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 18 as Variance No. 2002-04539, 542 South Atchison Street, a request to retain an unpermitted second story office expansion to an industrial building with waivers of: (a) maximum fence height in the front setback area, and (b) minimum number of parking spaces. ApplicanYs Testimony: Thomas Rodriguez, 542 South Atchison Street, Anaheim, CA, states he has been made aware of a problem with parking spaces. Currently he has seven (7) employees, three (3) working nights, and four (4) working days. Therefore, he feels he does not have parking problems. The reported cars parking on the sidewalk are not his cars. They are from the body shop. His property is in the middle of the body shop and the fence company. The fence company has approximately eight (8) employees, but uses the entire side of the street in the morning, all the way to Santa Ana Street. Sometimes he cannot pass to go to his business in the morning from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. because the fence company lowers their trucks and parks a lot of cars on the street. Sometimes there are cars parked outside his business for approximately two-weeks, and he does not know whom they belong to. His street sweepers cannot sweep because of the numerous cars. Chairperson Bostwick asked if he was responsible for adding the metal roof, and the previous owners responsible for the office expansion. Mr. Rodriquez responded yes. Commissioner Bristol asked how many people he employed. Mr. Rodriquez responded eight. Commissioner Bristol asked if he had anything to do with the property at 540 South Atchison Street. Mr. Rodriquez responded he has two separate buildings, 540 and 542 South Atchison Street. Commissioner Bristol asked how many employees worked at 540 South Atchison Street. ~ Mr. Rodriquez responded three (3); the owner, his son and one other person. Commissioner Bristol states that would be a total of 11 employees. He asked how many parking spaces did he have for them to park on the property. 01-13-03 Page 45 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Rodriquez responded inside the property he has six (6) spaces and outside he has approximately 5 spaces. Commissioner Bristol asked where the employees would park when the sweepers were in the warehouse. Mr. Rodriquez responded the sweepers are only inside if they have to repair them or if it is raining. Commissioner Bristol asked how many parking spaces were on 540 South Atchison Street. Mr. Rodriquez responded three (3) parking spaces. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, states they have been out to the site several times and noticed there is no define parking space. Employees park everywhere; on the sidewalk, inside and outside, etc. Mr. Rodriquez states he told Code Enforcement that the cars are not theirs and therefore, they are free to take them. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if he is saying that all the vehicles parked outside his fence are free for Code Enforcement to come along and take, and it would not have anything to do with him. Mr. Rodriquez responded yes, and there are two spaces where they can park on the street. He has one employee who sometimes park on the street, but mostly everyone parks inside because he tells his employees to move their sweepers and park their cars inside, and when the job is finished, put the sweeper inside and take their cars outside. ` Commissioner Bristol states staff has suggested he lower his fence and move it in. Mr. Rodriquez responded whatever is asked of him, he will have to do. Commissioner Koos states since the subject fence is located in an industrial lot, for security purposes, the applicant could have a 6-foot fence, but perhaps re-slat it and remove the razor wire. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Variance No. 2002--04539 (to retain an unpermitted second-story office expansion to an existing industrial building), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 13, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 8 and 14 to read as follows: 8. That a lot line adjustment plat shall be submitted to the Subdivision Section (Development Services Division) and approved by the City Engineer and then recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder (a) to combine the three (3) existing lots. . 14. That within 60 days from the date of this approval, Condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, ~ 10, ar~-~12 and 13, 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. 01-13-03 Page 46 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Deleted Condition No. 15 Added the following conditions of approval to read as follows: That the address on the building (542 South Atchison Street), shall be professionally repainted. That there shall be three (3) unscheduled Code Enforcement inspections within one year, at the applicanYs expense. That the applicant shal{ provide 10 marked parking spaces in compliance with City standards. VOTE: 7-0 (Commissioner Koos left the Council Chambers at 5:20 p.m., but voted prior to leaving.) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 22 minutes (5:03-5:25) ~ S 01-13-03 Page 47 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ! 19a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 1 Concurred with staff 19b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04645 Granted for 1 year OWNER: Michael Bagguley, 701 Concord Street, Glendale, CA 91202 AGENT: Rodolfo Ramirez, Networks Ultra Express, 531 South Wayside Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 3010 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 1.58 acres located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard. To permit and retain a computer rental and internet amusement (arcade) business. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-13 SR1104CW.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 19 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04645, 3010 West Lincoln Avenue, a request to permit and retain a computer rental and internet amusement (arcade) business. Applicant's Testimony: ~ Rodolfo Ramirez, 3010 A West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA, requests a Conditional Use Permit for a continued service for an internet cafe, computer sales, repairs and rentals. He states the business is similar to Kinko's, leaning more toward the amusement side for children who also come to the center. The environment is practically noise free, as headsets are provided. Parents bring their children to the center to enjoy the computer games and often times stay and play along with them. The internet cafe takes diligence in promoting a better service to the customers in the sense that they are being helped to understand new technology and their benefits. Therefore, it is bettering the community and making citizens more aware of the technology advances that have come with the computer age. Additionally, he asks Commission to reconsider Condition Nos. 2 and 18. Condition No. 2 refers to the operating hours. They request to change it from 10 a.m. - 10 p.m. to 8 a.m.- midnight, Sunday through Thursday and on Fridays, from 10 a.m. -12 midnight to 8 a.m. to 2 a.m. for the availability of adults to come in after long hours of work to process resumes', e-mails, etc. He finds it very constraining for the clients to come in and have to be out by 10:00 p.m. Condition No. 18 refers to license security. He feels there are two reasons for the statement to be waived: (1) it is a family business and currently, the business itself, does not provide for another salary, and (2) they moved to the building in July 2000 and have been licensed to work in the internet cafe business since September 2001. As of today, there has not been an incident. Mostly, due to adult supervision on the premises at all times. Most of the customers are children or parents who come with their children. There have not been any problems. Public Testimony: Jack Cushing, the owner, states he is responsible for all the property management there. States they bought the property approximately 5 years ago and have worked extremely hard to increase the value and the desirability of the property. When they moved there there was a tattoo parlor, which did body piercing and sold hippie clothes and they had a raunchy group hanging around so when they were not ~ buying they were hanging around the parking lot. There have been a lot of changes in the 5 years. The entire area is on the upswing. 01-13-03 Page 48 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ There is a good mix in there now and they are always working to be cautious of the type of tenants they get in. They do not just rent to the first guy who comes along. Mr. Cushing states Rodolfo is in the computer business as his main business and his dad works in there to help him all the time. He runs a nice shop. He has never come in there and seen anything loud or out of whack or anything. They have been there for approximately 2 years. He cannot say enough of what a good tenant he is and what a good business he runs. He noticed in the staff report there were 16 complaints and he did not know how long that period is from the center. There have been four robberies during that time; two of them to the cigarette shop. The other calls have been through the Numero Uno. There has never been a complaint or a problem with the internet cafe or computer business. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt states he concurs with Chairperson Bostwick in the characterization of the business being more of an arcade in nature. He is comfortable with staff's recommendation and would not extend the hours because the location already has a pizza place and a donut shop and the donut shop has late hours. He asked Mr. Ramirez what would be the percentage of individuals of all the customers to come in to work on their resume' after hours versus play the internet games. Mr. Ramirez responded he gets at least 5 to 6 every night to not only do resumes' but office-type work; things they cannot do at home, or download software, send an e-mail, print something for their children because they are home and tired and do not want to come out, etc. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if they are too tired does he really feel they want to come in at midnight. Mr. Ramirez responded yes, he has actually had a customer to complain that he was closing too early . and he could not finish his work. If compared to Kinko's, Kinko's is opened 24 hours and he has been there at 3 a.m. and has seen people rushing out to get their work done for the next day. He provides printing services, computers available at any time, a color printer, etc. Commissioner Eastman states in all of the other operations Commission has considered, no one has asked for hours as early as 8 a.m. Mr. Ramirez responded most of the places she has visited probably have a younger teenager-type of crowd who are only there to play games. His establishment gets more working business adults who need the computer for business purposes. Commissioner Romero asked what the hours were for Numero Uno Pizza. Mr. Cushing responded Friday and Saturday nights it is opened until 1 a.m. and the rest of the time it is 11 p.m. or 12 a.m. Commissioner Bristol asked if Numero Uno Pizza has a security guard on site. Mr. Cushing responded yes, sometimes. Commissioner Vanderbilt feels incidents in other city's are clear justifications for the presence of security at the subject site. • • - - ! 1 I 1 I ! : • . ± . - . • 11 11 • . ! • . OPPOSITION: None • ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur 01-13-03 Page 49 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 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. 2002-04645 (to permit and retain a computer rental and internet access amusement [arcade] business) for a period of one (1) year, subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated January 13, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 2, 4 and 18 to read as follows: 2. That the hours of operation shall be limited to ~aa-A-~ 8 a.m. to 12 midnight, Sunday through Thursday, and ''^ ~.~. •^ '" ^~~~^~^"+ 8 a.m. to 2 a.m., Friday and Saturday. 4. That the number of computer workstations shall be limited to f~'~=~:-~e-{33} twenty-eight (28). Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Zoning Division approval. 18. That at least one (1) state-licensed security guard shall be on the business premises , , from 9 p.m. to closing, daily. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos absent following Item No. 18) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 26 minutes (5:26-5:52) ~ 01-13-03 Page 50 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 20a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 20b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4069 (TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04634) OWNER: Khoda Ostowari, K. Ostowari Construction 878 North Main Street, Orange, CA 92868 LOCATION: 805 South Harbor Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.8-acre located at the southwest corner of South Street and Harbor Boulevard. Reinstate permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on June 20, 2000 to expire September 13, 2003) to retain the sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption and amend previously-approved exhibits and conditions of approval pertaining to signage (to permit and retain three (3) unpermitted informational signs, one (1) existing directional sign, one (1) car wash menu sign and construct three (3) wall signs and modify conditions of approval pertaining to hours of operation for the convenience market and the sales of beer and wine for a previously-approved service station with an accessory convenience market with sales of beer and wine for off- premises consumption and self-serve car wash. Continued from the December 16, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to January 27, 2003 SR8523AV.doc FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the January 27, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to request a change in conditions of approval pertaining to the sales of beer and wine and consider signage modifications. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 01-13-03 Page 51 JANUARY 13, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mark Asturias, Redevelopment Manager indicated he would like to arrange a "Workshop/Bus Tour" for the Planning Commission to view various projects being developed primarily by developers they are currently working with in Central and West Anaheim, in order for the Planning Commission to better understand the type of products they propose to see in downtown and the west side of Anaheim. Planning Commission scheduled the Redevelopment "Workshop/Bus Tour" for February 3, 2003 at 12:00 p.m. ~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:00 P.M. TO MONDAY, JANUARY 27, 2003, AT 9:00 A.M. FOR REVIEW OF CITYWIDE LAND USE ALTERNATIVES PREPARED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CODE UPDATE PROGRAM AND PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: Pat Chan er, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2003. ~ 01-13-03 Page 52