Loading...
Minutes-PC 2003/06/16~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES J U N E 16, 2003 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California i ~ I COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann, Depu Greg McCafferty, P Greg Hastings, Zor AGENDA POSTIN~ June 12, 2003, ins~~ display kiosk ; PUBLISHED: An CALL TO ORDER ~~ 5~ '~;, ,~ , °g~ PLANNI~~. COMI~11 • PRES~~~'ATIC GROUP t~~OW~ • STAFF UP'T~~T DEVELOPM~`~ PLANNfNG CO • PRELIMINARY ROMERO, B~LT AND ONE VACANT SEAT ~ °,~~~~. ~ ~ ~w Ossie Edmunds~n .~F?.C~S.u~pc~~~Supervisor Pat Chandler, Senior S~~~r-.e~ary. ,, , ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ,S ~ z ~ ~<.Cor~aamissiora„Agenti~ wa~ p~tec~at 3:00 p.m. on >yer of tf~e C~~n~il Cham~i~rs,~ar~c~also in the outside ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ µ~ ~~~~ ? , ~ a~~ sgp ~ E~OM1t~fl~f~;I~'1' D~VELQ~N~C-~1~T DEPARTMENT ON THE CIM JUNE 16, 2003 AGENDA RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLtC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, p/ease complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner David Romero PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT - - - - - - - - - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- li H:\DOCS\CLERICAUMINUTESWC061603.DOC planninqcommission(cr~anaheim.net 06-16-03 Page 1 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MlNUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. iTEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance: New Planning Commissioner - Jerry O'Connell. Jerry O'Connell was sworn in as Planning Commissioner by Sheryli Schroeder, City Clerk. 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-D on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A through 1-D) as recommended by staff. Commissioners Bostwick and O'Connell abstained on Item No. 1-D. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED . 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATION~ A. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved (b) VARIANCE NO. 2001-04431 Approved retroactive (TRACK(NG NO. VAR2003-04560) extension of time for one Robert Tabares, 1819 East Granada Court, Ontario, CA 91764, year (to expire April 9, requests a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of 2004) approval for a 4-lot single-family subdivision with waiver of minimum lot depth adjacent to an arterial highway and minimum lot frontage. Property is located at 1253 North State College Boulevard. (Vote: 6-0, with one Commission vacancy) ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for a one (1) year retroactive extension of time to expire on April 9, 2004, based on the following: (i) That this is the second and final request for an extension of time to • comply with conditions of approval. 06-16-03 Page 2 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES (ii) That the property has been properly maintained and that there are ~ no outstanding complaints or violations on file with the Code Enforcement Division. (iii) That there have been no changes to the Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element and zoning code that would affect this project. No additional information or changed circumstances are present which would contradict the facts used to support the required findings for approval of this variance. ~ • sr8616av.doc 06-16-03 Page 3 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ B. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved (c) VARIANCE NO. 2002-04542 Approved Final (TRACKING NO. VAR2003-04567) Landscape Plan Hieu Phan, 10402 Westminster Avenue, Suite 100, Garden Grove, CA 92843, requests review of a final landscape plan for a previously- approved 5-lot detached single-family residential subdivision. Property (Vote: 6-0, with one is located at 610 South Sunkist Street. Commission vacancy) ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final landscape plan (Final Plan No. 1) as stipulated below based on the following: (i) That the final landscape plan creates an aesthetically pleasing buffer between Sunkist Street and the residential development. (ii) That the final landscape plan complies with code requirements and conditions of approval and provides a variety of landscaping to be installed within the front and visible side yards of the single-family sr8616av.doc residences. • • 06-16-03 Page 4 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ C. (a) CEQA EXEMPTION - PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION Concurred with staff 21080.17; CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15282 (i) AND 15305 (b) ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2003-00021 Approved revised (TRACKING NO. ZCA2003-00023) "Deficiencies Area" map City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests review and (Vote: 6-0, with one approval of the revised second unit deficiencies area map. Commission vacancy) RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-80 ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that approval of this resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as set forth in the Environmental Impact Analysis set forth in Paragraph No. 7 of the staff report dated June 16, 2003. Approved the revised "Deficiencies Area" map based on the discussion outlined in Paragraph No. 5 of the staff report dated June 16, 2003. sr1178jd.doc ~~ • 06-16-03 Page 5 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ D. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meetings of June 02, 2003. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick and O'Connell abstained; with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of June 2, 2003. ~ • Approved (Vote: 4-0, Commissioners Bostwick and O'Connell abstained; with one Commission vacancy) 06-16-03 Page 6 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . PUBLIC HEARIN ITEMS: 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04551 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04696) OWNER: Southern California Edison, Attn: Robert Teran, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770 AGENT: Novak & Associates, Inc., Orest Dolynikuk, 132 North Maryland Avenue, Glendale, CA 91206 LOCATION: 2721 Stonvbrook Drive. Property is approximately 3.1 acres, having a frontage of 265 feet on the north side of Stonybrook Drive, located 130 feet west of the centerline of Sherrill Street Request to amend a condition of approval pertaining to a required landscape planter. Continued from the June 2, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. • CONDITiONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-81 Approved Approved amendment to conditions of approvaf. sr8605vn.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 2 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04551, 2721 Stonybrook Drive, Anaheim, CA, a request to amend a condition of approval pertaining to a required landscape planter. Commissioner Koos abstained from Item No. 2, due to his relationship with the wireless telecommunications carrier on the subject of proposal. ApplicanYs Testimony: Oresf Dolyniuk, 132 N. Maryland Ave., Glendale, CA, with Novak & Associates, Inc., on behalf of Sprint PCS, states Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in August 2002, and requested a landscape buffer be included. At that time, Novak & Associates, Inc., agreed to that condition. Unfortunately, because it was brought up at the hearing, they did not have the opportunity to discuss the matter with the property owner. Having had time to discuss with the property owner, they have indicated they have no objection to a landscape buffer, but simply ask that it be reduced somewhat from 10 feet wide to 4 feet wide. They believe that the 4-foot wide buffer does provide adequate screening, which is clearly the intent of the condition. A screening of 4 feet meets both the spirit and intenfion of what the Commission had originally asked for and it helps Novak & Associates, Inc., accommodate the needs of the property owner. Additionally, as it was continued two-weeks ago, there was a question with regard to fencing and green fencing materials. Novak & Associates, Inc., spoke to staff and the condition will reflect green fencing material as opposed to plain chain link. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • •~ ~ ~~~~-~n-~ei tiy_E.Y~mimire~:aY~li~:I~J ~_1-1-Ih [KK~li~nvu ti~.7 ~•~- ~e~•i~c•~- OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commission Koos abstained; with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the project is 06-16-03 Page 7 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Categorically Exempt under Section 15301, Class 1, (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA ~ guidelines. Approved request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04551 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04696) to reduce the required landscape planter from 10 feet to 4 feet in conjunction with a previously-approved telecommunication facility. Incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC2002-120 into a new resolution with the following conditions of approval (Conditions 17 and 18 are new or revised conditions): 1. That this permit shall expire on August 12, 2007. That the telecommunications facility shall be limited to a maximum of 65 feet in height, with 3 sectors consisting of 2 panel antennas per sector with maximum dimensions of 4.5 feet in height by 8 inches in width and 2.75 inches thick on the existing tower; and a maximum 24-inch diameter microwave dish at a maximum height of 50 feet on the tower, and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. No additional antennas or equipment cabinets shall be permitted without the approval of the Planning Commission. 3. That the antennas shall be finished and painted to match the existing lattice tower structure. If the finish or color of the lattice tower is modified, the antennas shall be modified accordingly. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. • 4. That the portion of the property being leased to the telecommunication provider shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 5. That no signs, flags, banners, or any other form of advertising shall be attached to the antennas or the transmission tower structure. 6. That the cable connecting the equipment shall be underground and shall not be visible to the public; and that said information shall be specifically shown on plans for building permits. 7. That the operator of this use (the "Operator") shall ensure that this installation and choice of frequencies will not interfere with the 800 MHz radio frequencies required by the City of Anaheim to provide adequate spectrum capacity for public safety and related purposes. 8. That at all times, other than during the 24-hour cure period provided in Condition No. 10 below, the Operator shall not prevent the City of Anaheim from having adequate spectrum capacity on the City's 800 MHz radio frequency. 9. That before activating its facility, the Operator shall submit to a post-installation test to confirm that the facility does not interfere with the City of Anaheim's public safety radio equipment. This test shall be conducted by the Communications Division of the Orange County Sheriff's Department or a Division-approved contractor at the expense of Operator. • 10. That the Operator shall provide a 24-hour telephone number to the Zoning Division (to be forwarded to the Fire and Police Departments) to which 06-16-03 Page 8 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES interference problems may be reported, and shall resolve all interference • complaints within 24 hours. 11. That the Operator shall provide a"single point of contacY' in its Engineering and Maintenance Departments to ensure continuity on all interference issues. The name, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of that person shall be provided to Citys designated representative. 12. That the Operator shall ensure that each of its contractors, sub-contractors or agents, or any other user of the facility, shall comply with these conditions of approval. 13. That the installer shall obtain a right-of-way construction permit form the Public Works Department for any work within the public right-of-way, including but not limited to installation of conduit, cable and electrical service lines. 14. That should this telecommunication facility be sold, the City of Anaheim shall be notified within 30 days of the close of escrow. 15. That all equipment, including supply cabinets and power meter shall be installed on private property and shall be screened from public view, as approved by the Zoning Division. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 16. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1 • Revision No. 1, Exhibit Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 as conditioned herein. 17. That within a period of two months (2) months from the date of this resolution, the applicant shall submit final landscaping plans to the Zoning Division for review and approval showing a four (4) foot wide densely landscaped planter along Stonybrook Drive. Said landscaping shall be installed within two (2) months following approval of the landscaping plans; and that the landscaping shall thereafter be maintained in a live and healthy condition. 18. That a maximum 6-foot high green, vinyl coated chain link fencing material shall be used adjacent to Stonybrook Drive. The new fence shall be setback a minimum of 4 feet from the public right-of-way and north of the required landscape setback. 19. 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. 2, 3, 6, 10, 11 and 15, 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. 20. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 9 and 16 above- mentioned, shall be complied with. 21. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal 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. 06-16-03 Page 9 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained; with one Commission vacancy) • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (1:43-1:46) i C~ 06-16-03 Page 10 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNiNG COMMISSION MINUTES 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved ~ 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04702 Granted OWNER: Oliviero Migneco, 597 Brambles Way, Orange, CA 92869 AGENT: Daniel Estay, 945 3`d Street, Suite C, Encinitas, CA 92024 LOCATION: 2130 East Oranqewood Avenue. Property is approximately 1.3 acres, located at the southwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Dupont Drive. Request to permit and retain an outdoor storage yard with waivers of: a) maximum fence height, b) minimum number of parking spaces, and c) minimum landscaped setback. Continued from the June 2, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. Sr3025(a)ey.doc CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-82 Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 3 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04702, 2130 East Orangewood Avenue, Anaheim, CA, a request to permit and retain an outdoor storage yard with waivers of: (a) maximum fence height, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, and {c) minimum landscaped setback. • Applicant's Testimony: Daniel Estay, 945 3`d Street, Suite C, Encinitas, CA, states they request three waivers based on the business performed on the property: (a) maximum fence height, (b) minimum number of parking spaces based on the activity at the business, which is not direct sells, only warehouse, and (c) minimum landscaped setback, which is nonexistent, since they are not the purchasers of the building. The landscape, which is out of the property line through the right-of-way, is already maintained by Tileclub and has been there since the project was built. The subject proposal is in regards to the barbed wire razor fence. The fence has been there since the time the building was purchased, and presently it serves as a security purpose for the parking and outdoor storage. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Bostwick states the problem with leaving the chain link and the razor wire is the fact that the property fronts onto a major arterial street and Code will not allow it. Mr. Estay states the chain link fence has slats so there is no view, and the wire is to protect anything that remains overnight. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states as long as the storage cannot be seen from the public right-of- way, the razor wire is fine for security reasons, as long as it is set on the inside of the fence and not visible from the public street. Commissioner Vanderbilt states he visited the site two-weeks ago, and at that time at the parking lot in front, there were cars parked against the sidewalk that fronts the building. He asked if it is a frequent occurrence, because it appeared to be an attempt to over utilize parking in front. • Mr. Estay responded most are the cars of employees and should be accommodated perfectly in the 32 spaces, leaving enough space for any friend of any owner. 06-16-03 Page 11 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Koos referred to staff and stated routinely Commission must make findings to the support of a variance, and based on the findings on page 7, paragraph 25, in comparison to the findings on page 6, paragraph 23, he is not sure why staff believes there are special circumstances aside from the general statements about the whole litany of things that one would find to support a variance finding. In the ML- zone permitted by right, projects would have to adhere to the development standards of the ML-zone. He asked if the property was developed incorrectly or was it once the MH-zone, and how would it have gone through the Building Division with characteristics that do not comply with the code. Mr. McCafferty responded with regard to the code, he concurs it is a 5-foot landscape setback from the property line. In the subject case, City records indicate the property was developed without the landscape setback. Staff feels that with the subject type use it was not an appropriate nexus to require the applicant go back in and install the setback. Additionally, there are other fences within that industrial subdivision that are likewise adjacent to the property line. Commissioner Koos states staff routinely uses the entitlement process as a means to bring properties into compliance with the Zoning Code. The subject property is within the gateway section of the Anaheim Stadium Master Land Use Plan, and he wonders whether staff feels the current design compliments the efforts of that plan. It seems that a 9-foot tall chain link fence is inconsistent with the long-range plans for the stadium area. Mr. McCafferty concurs the property is in the Anaheim Stadium Master Land Use Plan District, and the plan is a voluntary plan. When the Planning Commission and City Council adopted the plan, they were not intending to take away the property rights that the individual owners have; to keep their industrial property the way it currently is. There are two findings that must be made with regard to state law: (1) Does it deprive the property owner privileges of enjoying the area? Based on the circumstances in that area, staff believes it does. (2) With regard to the existing condition, staff feels it is inappropriate and not sufficient nexus to require the property owner to move the fence back to accommodate the landscaping. ~ lt is basically an industrial use, and the percentage of outdoor area in which they are storing equipment exceeds the definition of what an accessory outdoor area would be. Therefore, it kicks it into the outdoor material storage yard. Staff feels that based on how the property is developed, the fact that there is landscaping, albeit it is in the City right-of-way that the owner maintains, and the fact that this was an existing condition that staff would be asking the subject owner to comply with, even though it is really not an intensification beyond any other industrial use, staff would not, in this particular circumstance, require landscaping be installed. Commissioner Koos states he was not referencing the landscaping as much as he was the fence height. They both would have been required under the Zoning Code. Mr. McCafferty states code requires that you have a fence as high as what you are storing. So, it is a question of is it there or is it 5-feet back. If it were 5-feet back, then they would be required under City code to store as high as the fencing material. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, states Condition No. 11 requires vines to be planted to screen the fence as well. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Estay the height of the material he stores. Mr. Estay responded the material is pallets with tiles and may go as high as you would fike, but usuaNy they are not higher than 9 or 10 feet, because they become too heavy when using a forklift. OPPOSITION: None . ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration 06-16-03 Page 12 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Approved Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: ~ Approved waiver pertaining to (b) minimum number of parking spaces. (Vote: 6-0; with one Commission vacancy) Approved waivers (a) pertaining to maximum fence height, and (c) minimum landscaped setback. (Vote: 5-1; Commissioner Koos voting no, with one Commission vacancy) Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04702 (to permit and retain an outdoor storage yard subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 16, 2003. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 13 minutes (1:47-2:00) ~ • 06-16-03 Page 13 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04705 Granted OWNER: Calvary Baptist Church, 2780 East Wagner Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Cingular Wireless, 3345 Michelson Drive, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92612 Jim Todaro, The Consulting Group, 5440 Trabuco Road, Irvine, CA 92620 LOCATION: 2780 East Waqner Avenue. Property is approximately 1.97 acres, having a frontage of 144 feet on the south side of Wagner Avenue, located 144 feet east of the centerline of Marjan Street. Request to permit a telecommunications antenna (disguised as a bell tower) with accessory ground-mounted equipment. Continued from the June 2, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-83 Sr8603vn.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 4 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04705, 2780 East • Wagner Avenue - Calvary Baptist Church of Anaheim, a request to permit a telecommunications antenna with accessory ground-mounted equipment. Commissioner Koos indicated he would be abstaining on the item, as his firm has a contract with Cingular W ireless. ApplicanYs Testimony: Jim Todaro, The Consulting Group, 5440 Trabuco Road, Irvine, CA, on behalf of Cingular-Wireless, states they proposed a 45-foot tall church steeple with a wireless communications facility stored within the steeple. They worked with staff to come up with the design, and it is unmanned 24 hours. It is a facility that requires maintenance about every 6-weeks, and takes approximately 1 hour for the maintenance. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if the church plays any bell sounds. Mr. Todaro responded there is nothing in their project that has any kind of sound put into the facility. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states for the benefit of the applicant, staff is requesting that Commission add a condition to the conditions of approval requiring that prior to operating the facility that they obtain a City of Anaheim business license. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ OPPOSITION: None 06-16-03 Page 14 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration • Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04705 (to permit a telecommunications antenna disguised as a bell tower with accessory ground-mounted equipment) subject to the condition of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 16, 2003, with the following added to the condition of approval: 21. That prior to operation, if required by Code, the applicant will obtain a business license for the facility. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained; with one Commission vacancy} Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (2:01-2:07) ~ • 06-16-03 Page 15 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04701 (READVERTISED) OWNER: Gary Heil, 837 South East Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 City of Anaheim Redevelopment A~qency, Attn: Kerry Kemp, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, 10t floor, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1610. 1620 & 1640 South Claudina Wav. r Parcel 1: Property is approximately 0.92-acre, having a frontage of 140 feet on the east side of Claudina Way, located 1591 feet north of the centerline of Anaheim Way. Parcel 2: Property is approximately 0.70-acre, having a frontage of 135 feet on the east side of Claudina Way, located 1440 feet north of the centerline of Anaheim Way. Parcel 3: Property is approximately 0.99-acre, having a frontage of 151 feet on the east side of Claudina Way, located 1305 feet north of the centerline Anaheim Way. Request to establish an outdoor contractor/vehicle storage yard with waivers of: (a) required recorded parking agreement for off-site parking and (b) minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the June 2, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-84 Approved Approved, in part Granted Sr5010jr.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 5 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04701, Parcel 1: 1610 South Claudina Way, Parcel 2: 1620 South Claudina Way and Parcel 3: 1640 South Claudina Way, a request to establish an outdoor contractor/vehicle storage yard. Applicant's Testimony: Gary Heil, 837 South East Street, Anaheim, CA, states he is present to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for a contractor storage yard. He has read the staff report and agrees with the conditions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Denied waiver (a) pertaining to required recorded parking agreement for off-site parking since it has been deleted and approved waiver (b) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces. • Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04701 (to establish an outdoor contractor/vehicle storage yard) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 16, 22003. 06-16-03 Page 16 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (2:08-2:10) • • 06-16-03 Page 17 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4187 June 30, 2003 ,{TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04704) OWNER: Islamic Institute of Orange County, P.O. Box 1236, Brea, CA 92822 AGENT: Gamal E. Nour, 1221 North Placentia Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1220 -1230 North State Coileqe Boulevard. Property is approximately 1.93 acres, located north and east of the northeast corner of Piacentia Avenue and State College Souievard (islamic Institute of Orange County). Request to amend exhibits for a previously-approved church to permit phased construction of the main building and parking lot. Continued from the June 2, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. sr5016jr.doc CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ~ ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the June 30, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow more time to address site design and coordination issues with staff. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 06-16-03 Page 18 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES w 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04373 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04708) OWNER: Maris E. Vanags, 1510 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Patricia Pereyra, 555 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 555 North State Colleqe Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.89-acre, located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and State College Boulevard. Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on June 18, 2001, to expire June 18, 2003) to retain a mobile magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) unit and generator. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-85 Approved Approved reinstatement for 2 years (to expire on June 18, 2005) sr8597vn.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 7 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04373, 555 North State CoUege Boulevard, 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 18, 2001, to expire June 18, 2003) to retain a mobile magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) unit and generator. ~ Applicant's Testimony: Patricia Pereyra, of Edward Medical Group, 555 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, states she understands there was a request to have permanent power source. They also thought they could obtain permanent power source, but have been looking since June 12, 2002. They are not the property owners but are tenants, and approximately 7 months ago the property owner said he might sell the property. She was given a quote between $11,000 to $13,000, and being that they are tenants they did not think they could make the investment since they are not sure if they will be permanent. They have had the generator for the last two years, and there have not been any complaints brought to their attention. Public Testimony: • James Cerami, 1900 E. La Palma Ave., Anaheim, CA, states he is in an office building immediately west of the subject site. Sometime ago the applicant started parking an 18-wheeler on their lot until he complained to the City, and Code Enforcement cited them (he presented photos to the Commission to illustrate his complaints). After they were cited, they applied for a Conditional Use Permit for two years with a two-year time limitation. The area is commercial general office, but there is an 18-wheeler parked on site on Saturdays. It is parked along the edges, the west end of their property, which is the east end of his property. The 18-wheeler is 150 feet long; 150 feet from their building and 80 feet from his building. He has two very nice tenants, which are hard to come by these days, occupying the east end of the building. One is a Christian Education firm and the other is Financial Planners and both work on Saturdays. He does not feel his tenants and their clients appreciate looking out their windows and seeing the giant 18-wheeler 80 feet away. Additionally, the generator is major size and can be heard all over. So not only is the visual aspect horrific, but so is the noise. As owner of the building, he feels he owes it to his tenants not to have their clients come in on Saturday with a giant 18-wheeler parked 80 feet away. Two years ago the applicants were granted a Conditional Use Permit, and now they request an additional two years, but no effort has been made within the two years granted. 06-16-03 Page 19 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner O'Connell asked if the 18=wheeler could be moved to another part of their property that is ~ not as visible. Mr. Cerami responded it would definitely help. It is parked the farthest from their buifding and the closest to his building, and he would rather have it removed than to just have it extended another two years. Mr. O'Connell wished to clarify that the 18-wheeler alternately leaves and returns. Mr. Cerami responded yes. Commissioner O'Connell referred to the generator noise occurring on Saturdays. Mr. Cerami responded to run the MRI scanner there is a big generator. It is a major piece of equipment, and deteriorates the area. It bothers him when he comes on Saturdays and sees the 18-wheeler parked along the edge of his parking lot. So not only the noise of the generator, but it deteriorates the area. It is a nice corner of State College and La Palma, and he has had the building since it was built 22 years ago. He has worked hard and maintained the building for his benefit as well as the City. The building looks very nice and it bothers him when he comes on Saturdays and sees the 18-wheeler parked at the edge of his parking lot. Applicant's Rebuttal: Ms. Pereyra states the generator is about the size of a Volkswagen bug, but taller. It would not be a problem to move the MRI unit towards the opposite wall towards the church, because the church does not hold services on Saturdays. Commissioner Vanderbilt wished to clarify the nature of the generator. He understands it is a self- • contained unit on some sort of trailer, but he asked if there is an insufated version. Chairperson Bostwick states there are quieter generators with baffling and sound dampening materials on them used particularly for sound stages or movie productions so that there is no noise in the background while they are filming. Commissioner Romero asked the applicant if they found out they could stay there for a long time, would they make it permanent at that point. Ms. Pereyra responded the unit and property is not theirs. The generator and MRI unit is leased from a company on Saturdays for patient convenience. So, they are at the mercy of other companies. Commissioner Koos asked if the medical office building on the property is used and occupied on Saturdays. Ms. Pereyra responded the medical offices are opened from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. and the MRI is there until 7 p.m. They have one receptionist, and the reason they have the MRf unit parked across the street is because they have a silent alarm. They have one technician running the MRI unit and their receptionist is able to see out the door. If there were ever an emergency she would be able to press the silent alarm to have Police come to their rescue. Upstairs there is an optical unit, an insurance agent, etc., but they are not opened on Saturdays. Their office is the only one opened on Saturdays. Commissioner Koos referred to staff and asked if they were comfortable with the notion that the unit takes up required parking for the office building. Mr. McCafferty states parking was covered in the prior entitlement Commission granted, and they were granted a waiver. • Commissioner Koos asked how many years remained on the lease. 06-16-03 Page 20 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Ms. Pereyra responded they have two remaining years on the current lease. ~ Commissioner Koos states if the property changes hands, the lease would carry on to the next owner. So everything beyond two years is of uncertainty, because they do not know if the new owner or the existent owner would want to keep them. He feels five years might be a stretch and it might be safer to do a two- year approval, but requiring them to relocate the truck away from the business to the west. Mr. McCafferty suggested putting the generator as far east on the south property line as possible, and putting the MRI unit to the west of the generator so it would be near State College Boulevard on the south property. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: 1 person with concerns relating to subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions under Section 15311, Class 11 (Accessory Structures), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved the request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04373 (Tracking No. CUP 2003-04708) to retain a mobile magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) unit and generator for an additional two (2) years to expire June 18, 2005. ~ Amended Resolution No. PC2001-78 in its entirety and replaced it with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: 1. That this conditional use permit shall expire in two (2) years, on June 18, 2005. 3. That no compact parking spaces shall be permitted. 4. (a) That the hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 7p.m. on Saturdays, and (a) The equipment shall not arrive after 8 p.m. on Fridays, and (b) The unit shall be removed by 8 p.m. on the day of operation. 5. That minimum one (1) gallon sized clinging vines on maximum three (3) foot centers or tall shrubbery shall be maintained adjacent to the existing trash enclosure. 6. That the property shall be maintained in compliance with the most current versions of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations for commercial properties as approved by the Traffic and Transportation Manager. 7. That subject property shall be maintained 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 No. 1 and as conditioned herein. 06-16-03 Page 21 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 8. That the MRI trailer and generator shall both be maintained at the south ~ property line; the generator shali be located along the eastern most end of the south property line and the MRI trailer located adjacent to and west of the generator. The petitioner shall maintain compliance with the revised site plan which illustrates the approved focation of the MRI Trailer. 10. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it compiies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 18 minutes (2:11-2:29) ~ C ~ 06-16-03 Page 22 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04263 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04709) Approved Approved reinstatement for 4 years (to expire on October 23, 200~) OWNER: Living Stream Ministry, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: John Pester, Living Stream Ministry, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2441 West La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 27.9 acres, located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street (Living Stream Ministry). Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on October 23, 2000 to expire October 23, 2003) to retain a temporary teleconferencing center and private conference/training center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-86 ~ sr3029ey.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 8 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04263, 2441 West La Palma Avenue - Living Stream Ministry, a request for reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on October 23, 2000 to expire October 23, 2003) to retain a temporary teleconferencing center and private conference/training center. Applicant's Testimony: John Pester, Living Stream Ministry, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA, states they have reviewed the conditions and stipulations as set forth by the Planning Commission and are in fuli agreement with them. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved the request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04263 (Tracking No. CUP 2003-04709) to retain a temporary teleconferencing center and private conference/training center for a period of four (4) years to expire on October 23, 2007. Amended Resolution No. PC2000-118 in its entirety and replaced it with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: 1. That subject use permit shall expire upon the issuance of a permanent • Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Division for a permanent facility located at 1212 Narth Hubbell Way, or on October 23, 2007, whichever occurs first. 06-16-03 , Page 23 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 2. That the petitioner shall maintain a dedicated westbound right-turn lane on La Palma Avenue at Gilbert Street. 3. That no church activities shall be permitted unless a separate conditional use permit is approved by the Planning Commission. 4. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. 5. That no compact parking spaces shall be permitted. 6. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be maintained per Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and as required by the Maintenance Division. 7. 1"hat the project shall maintain adequate passenger loading and unloading areas acceptable to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. 8. That the property shall be maintained in conformance with plans approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager pertaining to Engineering Standard No. 137 concerning sight distance visibility for any future sign/fence locations. 9. That the petitioner shall be responsible for paying the full cost associated with the use of any Police Department and/or Traffic Management Center staff who may be needed for traffic control purposes. 10. That this facility shall be limited to the following operational characteristics: ~ (a) The public teleconferencing shall be limited to a maximum of 1,500 persons to ensure adequate parking for all businesses on-site. The hours of operation shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. (b) The private conferencing/training center shall be limited to a maximum of 4,000 persons. The facility shall be utilized for this purpose a maximum of 21 days per year, including two (2) six day conferences during winter and summer vacation. The hours of operation shall be limited to 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday for the two (2) bi-annual conferences; and 2:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Saturday and Sunday, for the remaining conference/training dates. 11. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped and maintained with decorative lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernable the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the window areas of nearby residences. 12. That the petitioner shall make every effort to coordinate activities with the Sa Rang Presbyterian Church (north and west of the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Brookhurst Street) to schedule large events at separate times to ensure adequate circulation on the surrounding publ+c streets. 13. That an on-site pedestrian circulation plan shall be maintained to the • satisfaction of the Zoning and Traffic Engineering Divisions. Said plan shall indicate all pedestrian paths of travel from the parking areas to the teleconference/training center. 06-16-03 Page 24 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 14. That the provisions of the approved event traffic management plan shall be continuously implemented on the property to ensure efficient and safe ingress/egress of traffic during events. 15. That evening traffic (after 5:00 p.m.) departing the site shall be prohibited from using Gilbert Street south of La Palma Avenue. 16. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 17. That this facility shall only be used for teleconferencing, conferences and training activities. 18. That the petitioner shall pay for the full cost of installation of protected east/west left turn signal phasing at Gilbert Street and La Palma Avenue. Prior to installation of the left turn signal phasing, the petitioner shall provide for the use of and pay the full cost associated therewith, for Police Department and/or Traffic Management staff to ensure the orderly ingress/egress of traffic on La Palma Avenue. Installation of the easUwest left turn signal phasing shall be completed and operational thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution. 19. That 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 No. 1, Revision • No. 1, and Exhibit Nos. 2, and 3, and as conditioned herein. 20. That within 30 days from the date of this resolution, Condition No. 18 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 21. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (2:30-2:32) ~ 06-16-03 Page 25 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04710 Granted OWNER: Living Stream Ministry, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: John Pester, Living Stream Ministry, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2411-2461 West La Palma Avenue and 1212 North Hubbell Wav. Property is approximately 40.4 acres, located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street, and at the northern termini of Hubbell Way and Electric Way (Living Stream Ministry and former Hubbell site). Request to permit a teleconferencing center and private conference /training center. sr3028ey.doc CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-87 Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced ttem No. 9 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04710, 2411-2461 West La Palma Avenue and 1212 North Hubbell Way- Living Stream Ministry and former Hubbell Site, a request to permit a teleconferencing center and private conference/training center. ~ Applicant's Testimony: John Pester, Living Stream Ministry, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA, states they have reviewed the conditions and stipulations as set forth by the Planning Commission and are in full agreement with them. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • • ~ ~- • ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04710 (to permit a teleconferencing center and private conference/training center) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated June 16, 2003 and with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: Modified Condition No. 28 to read as follows: 28. (a) That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04263 (temporary public teleconferencing and private training center). (b) That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Variance No. 3110 (waiver of permitted location of flashing • signs and maximum height of signs within 750 of a residential structure to construct a freestanding sign) to the Zoning Division. The request for 06-16-03 Page 26 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES termination of Variance No. 3110 shall be submitted prior to issuance of a ~ building permit. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: 31. Signage shall be limited to the existing and approved signage and any additional signs shall be submitted to Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations Item. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (2:33-2:35) ~ ~ 06-16-03 Page 27 JUNE 96, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Continued to 10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT June 30, 2003 10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04435 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04712) OWNER: Palmall Properties Inc., 1428 West Bay Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92661 AGENT: Louis Garret, Fat Daddy's Auto Spa, 900 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 928Q6 LOCATION: 900 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.58-acre, located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Ohio Street (Fat Daddy's Hand Auto Spa & Chicago Eatery). Request to amend or delete conditions of approval for a previously- approved car wash with accessory take-out fast food service and to permit a modular office trailer with waiver of minimum number of parking spaCes. sr5015jr.doc CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 10 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04435, 900 West Lincoln Avenue - Fat Daddy's Hand Auto Spa & Chicago Eatery, a request to amend or delete conditions ~ of approval for a previously-approved car wash with accessory take-out fast food service and to permit a modular office trailer with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Applicant's Testimony: Louis Garret, Fat Daddy's Auto Spa, 900 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA, states they agree with staff's recommendations except for the enclosure of the vacuum area. He.pointed out a photograph of the vacuum area illustrated in the staff report, and stated if they were to fully enclose it they would not be able to make it the vacuum area, because the space would be too tight and they could not repair the vacuums. He asked, if at all possible, they be allowed to put mufflers on the vacuum, in order to quiet the noise down. Chairperson Bostwick states if he were to put walls around it and a roof over the top, he would have a doorway somewhere in order to open the door, go inside, and empty the containers. Mr. Garret states there are two small motors in the back of the vacuum area, and if they enclose it the only place they could put the two doors would be in the front of the vacuum area. Therefore, they would not have any way to repair the back motors if something were to happen. Chairperson Bostwick asked why he could not put a door where their carts typically sit. Mr. Garret responded it is the detail area. Chairperson Bostwick states he could still put a door there, install a block, and cut the door in the end of it when he encloses it. He feels it is not impossible to do, but the applicant needs to figure out how to make it work. ~ 06-16-03 Page 28 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Public Testimony: ~ Steve White, 115 S. Ohio St., Apt., D, Anaheim, CA, states he lives at the apartment complex immediately to the south of the subject project, and he was present at the Planning Commission meeting in September 2001, when the concern was noise. One of the conditions was that the car wash should be closed on Sundays, and the vacuum cleaning equipment would be enclosed. Since that time they have had 72 Sundays, every one of which is a violation. Therefore, he asks that the request be denied, because there is an obvious intent not to comply. His tenants, who live in the adjacent building, are awakened 8:00 in the mornings by the sound of vacuums and cars, and it has been going on since day one. Gene Choi, a tentative buyer of the subject business, states the previous owner owned the car wash for approximately 17 years, and told him the car wash and the apartment building that Mr. White currently owns, was built together by one contractor so that the apartment has no windows to the car wash side. It is all block and the only opening is the block garage door. So, it is already prevented from the noise. The condition of not doing business on Sundays was imposed on Mr. Garret when he was trying to put a restaurant in the car wash business. Therefore, since the restaurant is no longer in business, the car wash business should be allowed on Sundays, the same as other car wash businesses. Mr. Garret states his car wash was already there when Mr. White bought the apartment building, and every car wash is open on Sundays. The busiest days are Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Chairperson Bostwick states the current hours are the hours requested by Mr. Garret in his statement that he was not open on Sundays. They were not the hours dictated by the Planning Commission. He has been operating on Sundays, instead of stating he wanted to be open on Sundays when he requested the food. Now, Mr. Choi wants to buy it and he wants to operate on Sunday. However, he is of the opinion that the car wash should not be open before 9:00 on Sunday mornings to give people a chance to enjoy their Saturday night, Sunday morning sleep-in. ~ Mr. Garret states it was his understanding the stipulation was with regards to the restaurant. He never looked at the stipulation as applying to the car wash for the simple fact all car washes are open on Sundays. With regards to the 9:00 operation hour, most of their business happens between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. because many people want their cars clean before they go to church. Commissioner O'Connell asked if it has been established that the muffling of the generators, etc., is going to be taken care of. Mr. McCafferty states typically what staff has seen with most new car washes that come into the City is that if.the block wall is grounded all the way down and enclosed it does the trick. But, if that does not quite do it, there is also an acoustical material that could be put on the interior part of the wall to deaden the sound. Commissioner O'Connell asked if the new owner, Mr. Choi, who is going to buy the property, would be willing to enclose the wall. Mr. Garret responded the stipulation referred to him and he would enclose the wall. Commissioner Koos asked Mr. Garret what he could tell Commission today that would make them believe he was going to do any of the conditions of approval set forth when he has failed to do two of the biggest ones (the hours of operation and the fast food signage issue) that they had discussions about the last time. Mr. Garret states everything is gone. In regards to the car wash opening on Sundays, every car wash is open on Sundays so he did not think the stipulation applied to the car wash, but only to the restaurant. In ~ regards to the enclosure, they put two walls on the vacuum area and the inspectors came out, felt that was good enough to hold off the noise from the neighbors, and past it. 06-16-03 Page 29 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Koos asked how he would address the fact that Condition No. 4 states he would not do ~ any advertising of food, and yet the signage emphasized "car wash and food". Mr. Garret responded they changed their name from Anaheim Car wash to Fat Daddy's Auto/Chicago Eatery, and they have a right to advertise their legal name. Commissioner Koos states so that would be a note to a(f business owners that if they wanted to get around a condition, just change their name to reflect the condition of approval prohibition. Commissioner Eastman referred to Condition No. 3, "no portable canopies", and states one of the things the applicant did was eliminate the tables with umbrellas that were approved, and put up a very obvious portable-type structure in the area where customers wait. Mr. Garret responded according to the Building Division, the canopy is okay there, but he has to get his contractor to come down and give him the specifications. It is completely in compliance with the code. Commissioner Eastman states the canopy that is legal and needs approval, is the canopy over the detailing area and not the one by the curb, because it is within a 20-foot setback which is too close to the street. Mr. McCafferty states there are two separate levels. There are the codes that the Building Division enforces which are the technical codes, and there is what Commission approved and memorialized both to the exhibits and resolution. When it was approved, Commission's assumption was that there would be no portable canopy next to Ohio Street that would be umbrellas. Commission approved the canopy for the detail area, provided they obtain appropriate building permits. Chairperson Bostwick wished to clarify that Commission is not allowed to make approval on a piece of ~ property where there is a nonconforming use. Mr. McCafferty clarified the Municipal Code reads if there is a legal nonconforming use on a property, and the owner requests Commission approve a discretionary use, in that circumstance the legal nonconforming use needs to be brought up to code. In the subject circumstance, the legal nonconforming use is the car wash from a long time ago. The use the applicant introduced through the last action, and that Commission took action on, was the use permitted by the code. Therefore, that provision did not apply with regard to bringing it up. But, through the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process if they are asking for additional items to be included in their legal nonconforming use, Commission still has the ability to make the findings in the staff report with regard to compatibility. That would be where Commission could make the link with regard to getting the appropriate permits for the canopy, for enclosing the blower equipment, etc. Chairperson Bostwick wished to clarify if it would be necessary to continue the CUP for four weeks, in order to aAow the applicant a chance to get all of the items that were in the original CUP completed, so that everything would be in accordance to the original CUP granted, before approving any farther. Mr. McCafferty states in the past that has been an incentive for someone to comply quickly with his or her conditions. When he visited the site during the weekend it appeared the applicants were already moving towards complying with the conditions, as they have already changed the signage back. They need to move the modular trailer off the site, remove the one canopy, and enclose the blower and vacuum equipment. Mr. Garret states the modular trailer will be gone by morning. Chairperson Bostwick states they need to put it into conformity with the original CUP before Commission considers longer hours and more days. ~ Mr. Garret states the canopy in the waiting area complies with code. 06-16-03 Page 30 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairperson Bostwick clarified there are two canopies. Regarding the one over the detail area, the ~ contractor needs to visit the Building Department so that they give a final inspection and a sign off for it. The canopy over the waiting area on Ohio Street is prohibited under the original CUP, which states "no portable canopies or awnings". It would need to go. Mr. Garret states if possible they would like to have the CUP removed because they chose to use the canopies so that customers could have shade without the inconvenience of the umbrellas breaking. Chairperson Bostwick states in order to have made that change, plans would need to have been brought before Commission to change his CUP to request the canopy as an additional item. Mr. Garret states they have presented the Planning Department plans with regards to the new canopy. Chairperson Bostwick clarified it was prohibited. Mr. Garret asked if they could have the prohibition waived. Chairperson Bostwick clarified he would need to apply for a waiver. Commissioner Eastman suggested putting a more permanent structure there. Mr. Garret replied the structure is permanent. It cost $3,500 to put it there. Commissioner Eastman clarified it was not allowed and did not come before Commission for review. So, the process was backwards. Mr. Garret asked since he has already spent the money to put the canopy there, what could be done. ~ Mr. McCafferty responded there is a condition of approval that prohibits the canopy from being there and from a Building Code perspective; it is not a permanent structure. There is not a Building Code issue with the one on Ohio Street. There is a structure setback requirement and the answer is "no". It is a very old zone of the City (CG zone), and it does not require the structure setback requirement. The applicant would have to convince Commission to delete the condition that prohibits him from having the canopy. Mr. Garret states that is what he is asking for. Commissioner Koos concurred with Chairperson Bostwick; the request needs to be continued. Commissioner Romero asked if Code Enforcement has looked at the canopy. Mr. McCafferty responded Code Enforcement has been working since last year on gaining compliance with all the conditions of approval. Commissioner Romero asked if the canopy in the waiting area has specifically been mentioned. Mr. McCafferty responded it has been mentioned continuously. Mr. Garret states financially, he does not have four weeks to pay his employees; Mr. Choi would like to purchase the car wash; and Lincoln Avenue is torn up. So, if Commission could let Mr. Choi know that it is okay for him to be open on Sundays, he could go ahead and get the wall enclosed, and get everything taken care of, because he feels he is already out of business and there is not too much more he could do. Commissioner Koos states it is irrespective to Commission who owns it. It is a land use issue and there is a history of ignoring conditions of approval that were attached to the CUP. Those need to be resolved. The discomfort is granting another approval where the key items have not been adhered. • 06-16-03 Page 31 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Garret states it is not that they were in direct conflict on not doing it or that they were trying to rebel ~ against Commission, but felt that was the best way to do it at the time. They did not fully enclose the vacuum area, because they had no way to do maintenance on the motor. The inspectors came out and felt it was good enough and signed it off. But if given permission to go ahead, Commission has his word, he would fully enclose the vacuum area within the next 30 days and try to be in compliance. Commissioner O'Connell asked if they are currently open for business. Mr. Garret responded yes. Commissioner O'Connell asked if he was saying he does not have enough money to keep business going and that is why he is selling it. Mr. Garret responded correct. They have had the car wash for three years and Lincoln Avenue has been torn up for two years. Construction was supposed to have been finished in May, and now completion has been moved to August. His business has been trying to survive, and he does not have the funds to continue. Commissioner O'Connell asked if he felt that a condition of Mr. Choi buying the car wash is that it be open on Sundays. Mr. Garret responded yes, every other car wash is open on Sundays, and he does not want to lose money on the busiest day because they cannot be open. Commissioner Vanderbilt states regarding the traffic conditions, it appears when he travels Lincoln Avenue that the majority of the construction is closer to the freeway, to the west, and not immediately in front of the property. ~ Mr. Garret responded the cones are placed directly in front of his car wash. The street is one-way, it is completely torn up, and directly affecting their business. There is another car wash directly adjacent to his car wash. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if he felt it was an access issue and not just traffic; people are avoiding Lincoln Avenue. Mr. Garret responded vehicles cannot leave his car wash and make a left turn they can only go right. Getting into his car wash vehicles have to go onto Ohio Street. Chairperson Bostwick offered a motion for a four-week continuance. DURING THE ACTION: Mr. Garret asked clarification with regards to the canopy. Chairperson Bostwick clarified the canopy has to go. Commissioner O'Connell wished to clarify what would go in the place of the canopy, because it looked like a permanent structure. The canopy has a soft top. Mr. McCafferty clarified he could have umbrellas to give shade to his patrons while they are waiting. Commissioner O'Connell asked what is the difference between having the canopy and having the umbrellas. ~ Mr. McCafferty responded there is no practical difference in the use, but Commission prefers the umbrellas. 06-16-03 Page 32 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Eastman clarified at the time the decision was made the tables had umbrellas. ~ Commissioner O'Connell asked Mr. Garret if he replaced the umbrellas because they were continuously breaking. Mr. Garret responded yes. He wished to clarify if Commission is stating he has to tear down a$3,500 canopy even though all Commission would have to do is revise the condition. The canopy is a permanent structure, and would have to be removed with a concrete jackhammer. Chairperson Bostwick states he is sure it was attached to the concrete by some method so it could be removed even with the concrete. Commissioner O'Connell states he does not know the past history on the project, but to him the current canopy with the cement bottom attached to poles provides more shade and comfort for the guest than umbrellas. Commissioner Koos states it is a Conditional Use Permit issue because the conditional use process is legislated in the City Code. Everything Commission does is just as good as the Zoning Code. There was a lot of discussion on the issue, and he can understand the practical issues of the merits over a canopy versus umbrellas, but Commission cannot have applicants taking actions that are against the face of their Conditional Use Permit, especially when the issue was beaten to death at the hearing and his only excuse is that he spent a lot of money on it. Anybody can break the law and say they spent a lot of money on it. Commissioner Vanderbilt feels the money issue is relevant because the CUP is talking about a portable canopy. When he looks in the paper and sees a portable canopy it is things made of aluminum that could be packed into a bag and assembled and disassembled. But, when listening to the applicant discuss the ~ particular one he owns, he is speaking of an investment he has made in order to withstand wind, rain, increment weather, etc. It seems to have elements of a permanent structure, and therefore he understands where the applicant is coming from. He concurs with Commissioner O'Connell with respect to the benefit to the customers being greater than umbrellas; because he has visited the business and set under the canopy while his car was being dried, and on a hot day that is the kind of place he is glad exist. Commissioner Eastman states one of the issues she recalls discussing, and that she especially remembers because it is in her neighborhood, is the attractive way the umbrellas looked in an area that is on the marginal side to begin with. When the applicant was present before, Commission complimented him on the fact that there were nice tables, and nice looking umbrellas, and that was more of an aesthetically pleasing look than putting up something that looks very much like the temporary structure. She concurs with Commissioner Koos in that it was not just this condition, but many of the conditions, that were not fully complied with in the CUP. Code Enforcement has been working on it for the past year. It is very concerning in that, why go through the entire process, if the businessperson can do whatever he decides he is going to do. Chairperson Bostwick wished to clarify if the Commission would like to re-vote on the four-week continuance already voted in. It would allow the applicant time to get things fixed and corrected and then come back for the adjustment, operation hours and the canopy. The trailer has to go; the vacuum has to be cleaned up; and all the signage has to be corrected. If everything in Code Enforcement comes back in compliance, the applicant could ask for the canopy and it would be up to the Commission to either grant or deny it. Commissioner Romero wished clarification on the plants around the trash enclosure. Chairperson Bostwick clarified there should be plants around the trash enclosure. He suggested while the applicant has the contractor out to cut the concrete block building to put doors in it, he could have him ~ cut the asphalt around the trash enclosure and begin planting plants. 06-16-03 Page 33 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. McCafferty states one item on the agenda is fo amend conditions of approval. Conceivably it could ~ be the retention of the canopy, so that the applicant does not go through the exercise of removing it and then come back later and there is support for it to be retained. Commissioner Romero states he would be supportive of keeping the canopy if the applicant were to bring the other conditions into compliance by the time he returns. Commissioners Vanderbilt and O'Connell concurred. Commissioner Eastman states she would like to see staff work with the applicant to get something more aesthetically pleasing around it. Commissioner Koos concurred with Commissioner Eastman. To support it he would like to see a site plan that indicated other aesthetic improvements. Commissioner O'Connell asked Mr. Garret if he could complete everything within two weeks. Mr. Garret responded yes. Commissioner O'Connell suggested a two-week continuance. Commissioner Koos offered a substitute motion for the four-week continuance to two weeks. Commissioner Eastman seconded. Motion passed. • • ~ ~ - • ~ • • • OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition relating to subject request. SUPPORT: 1 person (prospective buyer) spoke in favor of subject request. ~ ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the June 30, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order to comply with previous conditions of approval and submit revised plans. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: 44 minutes (2:36-3:20) ~ 06-16-03 Page 34 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 11b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3571 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04706) Approved Approved reinstatement for 5 years (to expire on June 29, 2008) OWNER: City of Anaheim, P.O. Box 3222, Anaheim, CA 92803 AGENT: Dale Stubblefield, Spectra Site Communications, 2301 Dupont Drive, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92612 LOCATION: 1527 East Broadwav. Property is approximately 0.08- acre, located north of Broadway, has a depth of 36 feet and a width of 100 feet and located 520 feet north of the centerline of Broadway (A portion of Lincoln Park). Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on May 11, 1998, to expire March 2, 2003) to retain a telecommunications monopole antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-88 r~ U sr8612vn.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 11 as Conditional Use Permit No. 3571, 1527 East Broadway - a portion of Lincoln Park, a request for reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on May 11, 1998, to expire March 2, 2003) to retain a telecommunications (monopole antenna and 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. Applicant's Testimony: John Bitterly, project representative for Spectra Site Communications, 2301 Dupont Drive, Suite 200, Irvine, CA, states the project is an existing cell tower and they are asking for reinstatement of the CUP for another 5 years. It is located in a portion of Lincoln Park on City property. As always, it complies with the conditions of approval, and they are not aware of any complaints. It is in the 10th year of a 15-year lease, and Verizon is the sole tenant. Spectra Site desperately needs the site. If they were not to have the CUP extended, there basically would be no coverage in the middle of Anaheim. They agree with all of the conditions and ask for Commission's support. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt states in the morning session, the response given to him when he asked about plans for the future with respect to the appearance of towers, was that some have been unstealthed earlier versions and as newer ones have come, the City has started a stealth-look to them and now the older ones are coming up for reapproval. In the morning session he asked if there were any plans to approach that at this junction, and staff indicated it would be more appropriate at the end of the CUP since that would be the end of the lease. Mr. Bitterly states the lease has automatic extensions, but Spectra Site is a tower ownership company. They have bought a number of towers from Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, etc., and then came back in and co- ~ located other carriers so there is not such a proliferation of cell sites. Spectra Site understands that a number of their resources from the past are older cell towers that do not have an aesthetic appearance. They would be willing, in the future, to change the appearance, but one of the pre-requisites that triggers 06-16-03 Page 35 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES that is getting another carrier added on. Currently, they do not have anybody lined up for the site, but • have a great deal of interest from a number of carriers and a number of their sites have increased over the last year. The reason being, they are starting to run out of places to put cell sites, and will have to go back to the other sites. Spectra Site would have to come back to Planning Commission for a Conditional Use Permit to add the other carrier. At that time, they would entertain changing it to something more stealth; perhaps a tree in the park, which seems to make sense. Therefore, Spectra Site asks for an extension of the CUP with the understanding that when a future carrier is added they would be very interested in working with the City on changing the appearance. Chairperson 8ostwick states the staff report indicates the City probably will not renew the lease after the 15-year lease runs out. He asked if Spectra Site has plans to find another location close to the subject site. Mr. Bitterly states it is the first he has heard of it. He feels lease negotiations would have to be taken up between the City and Spectra Site. If the City wants Spectra Site to go away after the next five-year period, there is nothing they can do about it. However, if at that time there could be some sort of agreement on design, etc., that would also be workable. ~] ~ R~PJI I-~[rl Fc1_!.'iU 1~11-~I /_1:, L~] ~ 1:1 ~~ A_1-1- I h[t~K~] IU I141 E•'~y [~] ~ I_~~ ~[~] ~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos abstained; with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously- approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. ~ Approved the request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3571 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04706) to retain an existing telecommunication monopole antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment to expire on June 29, 2008. Amended Resolution Nos. 93R-39 and PC98-79 (as corrected by Nunc Pro Tunc Resolution PC2000-19) their entirety to be replaced by a new resolution with the following conditions of approval (Conditions Nos. 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are new conditions): 1. That this permit shall expire on June 29, 2008, concurrent with the remaining five years on the term of the lease with the City of Anaheim. No additional reinstatements of this permit for a non-stealth facility shall be permitted in this location. 2. That the telecommunications facility shall be limited to a maximum of 75 feet in height, with 3 sectors consisting of 4 panel antennas per sector with maximum dimensions of 4 feet in height by 1-foot in width on the existing tower and accessory ground-mounted equfpment. No additional antennas sha(I be permitted without the approval of the Planning Commission. That the number of dishes and antennas shall be limited to those shown on Exhibit No. 1. Any additional dishes or antennas shall be subject to further Planning Commission review and approval. 4. That the petitioner shall maintain an encroachment license with the Real Property Section of the Public Works Department. . 5. That security lighting shall be maintained on the building in a manner that prevents light from glaring into the adjacent residences to the north. Security lights shall not 06-16-03 Page 36 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES be installed on the tower. Said lights shall be shown on the plans submitted for . building permits. 6. That no emergency on-site generator(s) shall be permitted. 7. That landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with plans on file in the Planning Department. 8. That the portion of the property being leased to the communication provider shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash and debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 9. That no signage, flags, banners, or any other form of advertising shall be attached to the antennas or the transmission tower structure. 10. That the operator of this use (the "Operator") shall ensure that this installation and choice of frequencies will not interfere with the 800 MHz radio frequencies required by the City of Anaheim to provide adequate spectrum capacity for public safety and related purposes. 11. That at all times the Operator shall not prevent the City of Anaheim from having adequate spectrum capacity on the City's 800 MHz radio frequency. 12. That within thirty (30) days from the approval of this resolution, the Operator shall provide a 24-hour telephone number to the Zoning Division (to be forwarded to the Fire and Police Departments) to which interFerence problems may be reported, and shall resolve all interference complaints within 24 hours. ~ 13. That within thirty (30) days from the approval of this resolution, the Operator shall provide a"single point of contact" in its Engineering and Maintenance Departments to ensure continuity on all interference issues. The name, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of that person shall be provided to the City's designated representative. 14. That the Operator shall ensure that each of its contractors, sub-contractors or agents, or any other user of the facility, shall comply with these conditions of approvaL 15. That should this telecommunication facility be sold, the City of Anaheim, Zoning Division shall be notified within 30 days of the close of escrow. 16. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the 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 through 5, and as conditioned herein. ~ 06-16-03 Page 37 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 17. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained; with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (3:21-3:25) • • 06-16-03 Page 38 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 12b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2003-00410 Recommended adoption of 12c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00097 Exhibit "A" to City Council Granted, unconditionally CITY-INITIATED: City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: Properties total approximately 31.0 acres, located north and south of Orangethorpe Avenue, 660 feet west of the centerline of Kellogg Drive. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2003-00410 - City-initiated (Planning Department) request to amend the Land Use Element Map of the General Plan redesignating the properties from the Low Density Residential designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential designation. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00097 - City-initiated request to reclassifiy several properties from the County of Orange zoning designation,R-1 "Single-Family Residence", to the RS-5000 (Residential, Single-Family) zone or a less intense zone for annexation into the City of Anaheim. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-89 RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-90 sr8614av.doc ~ Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 12 as General Plan Amendment No. 2003-00410, properties located north and south of Orangethorpe Avenue, a City-initiated (Planning Department) request to amend the land use element map of the General Plan redesignating the properties from the Low Density Residential designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential designation. Reclassification No. 2003-00097 - City-initiated request to reclassify several properties from the County of Orange Zoning Designation, R-1 "Single-Family Residential", to the RS-5000 (Residential, Single- Family) zone or a less intense zone for annexation into the City of Anaheim. ApplicanYs Testimony: Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states the General Plan Amendment would be a recommendation to the City Council, and the reclassifications would be an unconditional reclassification. Public Testimony: Dennis Sorenson, 1043 S. Cardiff St., Anaheim, CA, states he and his wife live approximately three blocks from the river's edge, the west side of the riverbank, and is interested in keeping the zoning agricultural as opposed to a combination of agricultural land and residential zoning. They have a nice view of the riverbed and wildlife, and they enjoy going down to the area. They would like to keep it rustic. OPPOSITION: 1 person requested clarification regarding the proposed reclassification. • ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration 06-16-03 Page 39 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Recommended the City Gouncil adoption of Generai Plan Amendment No. 2003-00410, • to redesignate properties from the Low Density Residential and Low-Medium Density Residential land use designations to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation. Granted Reclassification No. 2002-00097 to reclassify several properties from the County R1 "Single Family Residence" zone to the City of Anaheim RS-5000 zone, unconditionally. Recommended City Council review of Item 12c. of the above-mentioned entitlements, in conjunction with their mandatory review of the General Plan Amendment. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (3:26-3:31) ~ • 06-16-03 Page 40 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 13a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 13b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00098 CITY-INITIATED: City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: Properties total approximately 185 acres, located west of the Santa Ana River, east of the Orange (SR-57) Freeway, south of South Street and north of Cerritos Avenue. City-initiated (Planning Department) request for reclassification of several properties from the County of Orange zoning designation A-1, "General Agriculture" to the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone for annexation into the City of Anaheim. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-91 Approved Granted, unconditionally sr8614av.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 13 as Reclassification No. 2003-00098, West of the Santa Ana River, east of the Orange Freeway, south of South Street and north of Cerritos Avenue, a city-initiated (Planning Department) request for reclassification of several properties from the County of Orange zoning designation, A1, "General Agriculture" to the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone for annexation into the City of Anaheim. ~~ Applicant's Testimony: Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states the General Plan Amendment would be a recommendation to the City Council, and the reclassifications would be an unconditional reclassification. Public Testimony: Dennis Sorenson, 1043 S. Cardiff St., Anaheim, CA, states he and his wife live approximately three blocks from the river's edge, the west side of the riverbank, and is interested in keeping the zoning agricultural as opposed to a combination of agricultural land and residential zoning. They have a nice view of the riverbed and wildlife, and they enjoy going down to the area. They would like to keep it rustic. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 2003-00098 to reclassify several properties from the County A1 "General Agriculture" zone to the City of Anaheim RS-A-43,000 zone, unconditionally. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (3:32-3:33) ~ 06-16-03 Page 41 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 14a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 14b. RECLASStFICATION NO. 2003-00099 CITY-INITIATED: City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: Properties total approximately 177 acres, located south of the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway, north of Lincoln Avenue, and are divided by Glassell Street. City-initiated (Planning Department) request for reclassification of several properties from the County of Orange zoning designation, A-1, "General Agriculture", to the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricuftural) zone for annexation into the City of Anaheim. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-92 Approved Granted, unconditionaily sr8614av.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 14 as Reclassification No. 2003-00099, South of the Riverside Freeway, north of Lincoln Avenue and is divided by Glassell Street, a city-initiated (Planning Department) request for reclassification of several properties from the County of Orange Zoning Designation, A1, "General Agriculture", to the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone for annexation into the City of Anaheim. Applicant's Testimony: ~ Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states the General Plan Amendment would be a recommendation to the City Council, and the reclassifications would be an unconditional reclassification. Public Testimony: Dennis Sorenson, 1043 S. Cardiff St., Anaheim, CA, states he and his wife live approximately three blocks from the river's edge, the west side of the riverbank, and is interested in keeping the zoning agricultural as opposed to a combination of agricultural land and residential zoning. They have a nice view of the riverbed and wildlife, and they enjoy going down to the area. They would like to keep it rustic. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 2003-00099 to reclassify several properties from the County A1 "Genera! Agriculture" zone to the City of Anaheim RS-A-43,000 zone, unconditionally. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (3:34-3:35) • 06-16-03 Page 42 JUNE 16, 2003 PLANNlNG COMMISSION MINUTES S Chairperson Bostwick requested staff to inform Streets and Sanitation Division of the need for South Street (near the river bed) to be swept and cleaned. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:35 P.M. TO MONDAY, JUNE 30, 2003 AT 10:30 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. ~ LJ Respectfully submitted: ~~ Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2003. 06-16-03 Page 43