Loading...
Minutes-PC 2003/09/22• ~ ~ SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None This is an opportunity for members of the pub(ic 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. PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS: Chairperson Vanderbilt stated there are two remaining vacancies, and asked staff regarding the Community Design Element Working Group if the body is still in existence. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. Stated that is a function of the General Plan and Zoning Code Update, therefore, he would call Jonathan Borrego from the office to come and respond. Chairperson Vanderbilt trailed the appointments/discussion to a later part of the meeting in order for staff to be present. He indicated he also has questions regarding the appointments made at the last Planning Commission meeting. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES AND ALTERNATES FOR THE FOLLOWING: • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD (CDAB) FOR THE BLOCK GRANT ~ PROGRAM (Current Representative: Commissioner Eastman) (Current Alternate: Vacant) • COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT WORKING GROUP (Current Representative: Vacant) (This section was trailed and discussed following Item No. 5) Following Item No. 5, Commissioner Bostwick stated it might be appropriate to continue the appointments since the City Council is in the process of redoing the Community Development Block Grant Committee and Planning Commission representatives may not be necessary. Commissioner Eastman stated the Community Design Element Working Group was a four meeting agenda and they had their four meetings. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. Stated staff would look into that and would have more information on that by the next meeting, therefore suggested continuing both appointments to the next meeting. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated Commission could then review the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of September 8th when they are ready in order to clarify the appointments made at the previous meeting. After action taken, Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney. Asked if it is the Commission's intent that on the appointments already made that they may wish to reconsider some of those, or just want to be reminded of the appointments made. If Commission would like to reconsider appointments made, then you may • want to put all the appointments back on the agenda. 09-22-03 Page 2 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Vanderbilt stated there were some committees that were ongoing and were having meetings this month and wanted to ensure representation was there. Mr. McCafferty asked if Commission is directing staff to put all the appointments back on. Chairperson Vanderbilt responded yes. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (and with one Commission vacancy), to continue to October 6, 2003 in order to place on the agenda ail previous appointments for consideration. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-F 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. Mr. McCafferty commented on a few modifications for the balance of the Consent Calendar Items, regarding Item 1-B, staff would like to make the time extension for the variance the same as the tentative parcel map, therefore change the expiration date to January 28, 2005 for the variance. Regarding Item 1- C, the recommendation states it is a CEQA Categorical Exemption, it is a previously-approved Negative Declaration, therefore with those stipulations staff would recommend approving the balance of the Consent Calendar Items. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED • (and with one Commission vacancy), for approval of Consent Calendar Item Nos. (1-B, 1-C and 1-F) as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Item Nos. (1-A, 1-D and 1-E) were removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. UNANIMOUSI.Y APPROVED. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDAT(ONS A. (a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3579 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04754) Kim Regan, 473 Saratoga Avenue, Grover Beach, CA 93433, requests determination of substantial conformance to construct a 1,700 square foot horse canopy. Property is located at 233 South Quintana Drive (Canyon Acres Residential Center). (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) OPPOSITION: One person spoke with concerns regarding the project. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Concurred with staff Approved, with a stipulation made by the applicant at today's meeting. (Vote: 6-0, with one Commission Vacancy) sr1127cw.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. Stated the subject item is a request for substantial conformance to construct a 1,700 square foot horse canopy in connection with an existing boarding and lodging house for • children. Staff is recommending that you do find the request in substantial conformance with previously- approved plans, with the stipulation that the color of the roof be more of a neutral tone to blend in with the residential neighborhood. 09-22-03 Page 3 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak. Mike Regan, 473 Saratoga Avenue, Grover Beach. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated this is not a public hearing item, and understands the applicant may not have anticipated any sort of presentation, but we have a speaker card in opposition, therefore, I wouid ask the speaker to speak and then the Commissioners who have questions may raise them after the public hearing portion is closed. Public Testimony: Steve Charpie, 155 Bonnie Gene Lane, Anaheim Hills. Stated his property is the one most affected by the horses. He referred to the existing canopies and asked why they want to add 1,700 square feet if they are not going to add more horses, it might not even be zoned for that, and to make sure that the color of it is going to be in compliance with environmental concerns and certainly the view from his property. Also, he asked that the green belt that currently exists behind his property to the gate, not be destroyed in order for him to maintain the visual impact from his home. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he had a chance to review the staff report. Mr. Charpie responded no, and stated from the neighbors who have been down and gone over the plans before if it was approved they were hopeful of a neutral color, not necessarily green but more of a cream color type which they feel would blend in more with the color of the homes and the surrounding terrain. Chairperson Vanderbilt verified his concerns are the actual need of the canopy and color. • Mr. Charpie responded yes. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he had a question with the zoning. Mr. Charpie responded if you were to approve 1,700 square foot of canopy you would wonder why that would be necessary for the few horses that are over there now. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if that would cover all his issues. Mr. Charpie responded yes. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Commission to reiterate the discussion that occurred in the morning session, since he was not present. Commissioner Eastman stated when discussed this morning part of the reasoning was if they were to follow staff's report of changing the roof colors they would have to make some decision on that. She referred to material received in her packet and asked if the new facility is going to go where the old facility is. Mr. Regan stated the name on the piece of paper is Kim Regan, his wife, she was actually a volunteer at the residential facility, joint donation. Commissioner Bostwick asked if it is replacing one of the existing roofs. Mr. Regan stated there are four existing shade covers, but they only cover a small portion of the horse stable. The horses are continually standing around in wet muddy ground, the horse manure will get wet when it rains, but more importantly they are planning to demolish the existing canopies since they are • pretty "old". They will replace it with a nice roof that goes over the center area and that is where the kids "tack up" the horse. They bring the kids down from the home and the kids get a sense of "tacking up" the horse, and caring for the horse. They can't do that when it is very hot because there is no shade for the 09-22-03 Page 4 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • kids, or it is very cold or rainy. This would provide for a year-round use of the existing horses. The color is not a probiem, his company has graciousiy donated the roofing material and there are seven colors to choose from. They figured the green would fit in with the environment, which is why it was selected, but a light beige would fit in with the sand, which would be more than acceptable. Commissioner Bostwick asked if he would be agreeable to submit they would do the roof in a light stone or desert beige color. Mr. Regan was in agreement, and stated the roof is not going to be substantially any higher than the existing structure and would not be anymore obtrusive standing out from where the existing canopies are. Commissioner Eastman stated it wouldn't be any higher than the existing canopies. Mr. Regan stated it would be slightly higher in the middle because it has a slope, where the existing is it will continue the slope until it meets a peak. The height is about 12 feet high in order to allow a truck go through the center to maintain the property. Commissioner Flores referred to the green belt issue and asked would that be destroyed. Mr. Regan stated the canopy only affects where the existing canopies are now, there are no other construction or any affect of the property with the subject application. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he has the color of the samples and asked staff to give it to Mr. Charpie for his review. Chairperson Vanderbilt referred to the staff report, and stated there was no indication that this would expand the number of horses and the setback wasn't going to interfere with the public right-of-way. He is ~ in support. After the action, Chairperson Vanderbilt suggested through the construction process perhaps the applicant could have other discussion with the neighbors in order to keep them informed. 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 concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3 (New Construction or conversion of Small Structures), as defined in the California Environmental quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner O'Connell and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the request for determination of substantial conformance to construct a 1,700 square foot horse canopy in connection with an existing equestrian program for a children's boarding and lodging house, based on Commission's concurrence with staff that the proposed construction is substantially in compliance with previously-approved exhibits for the existing boarding and lodging house for 30 dependent children; with the stipulation by the applicant that plans submitted for building permits shall indicate a beige or sand color roof material. DISCUSSION: 11 minutes (1:48-1:59) ~ 09-22-03 Page 5 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • B. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVEDI Approved (b) VARIANCE NO. 2001-04471 Approved a two (2) year (TRACKING NO. VAR2003-04575) retroactive extension of (c) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2001-105 time to comply with (TRACKING NO. SUB2003-00008) conditions of approval (to Ernest Stuart, Stuart Architecture, 5031 Birch Street, Newport Beach, expire on January 28, CA 92660, requests a retroactive extension of time to comply with 2005) conditions of approval to establish a tile marketplace and coordinated Approved a one (1) year sign program with associated waivers in conjunction with a 12-lot extension of time (to industrial subdivision for an existing industrial complex with frontage expire on January 28, on a proposed private street. Property is located at 1531-1601 South 2005) State College Boulevard and 1500-1701 E. Babbit Avenue. (Vote: 6-0, with one ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commission vacancy) Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Deciaration is adequate to serve as the required environmentai documentation for subject request. Approved the request for a two (2) year retroactive extension of time for Variance No. 2001-04471 (Tracking No. SUB2003-00008) (to expire on January 28, 2005) based on the following: (i) That this is the first request for an extension of time to comply with conditions of approval. i (ii) That the property is currently being 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 or 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 conditional use permit. Approved the request for a one (1) year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 2001-105 (to expire on January 28, 2005) based on the following: (i) That the request was filed prior to the expiration of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map. (ii) That the request for the extension is for 12 months, and would result in the tentative map approval of not more than three years. (iii) That no modification of the tentative parcel map is included in this request. sr5040jr.doc • 09-22-03 Page 6 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ C. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04641 Approved Final Elevation (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04759) , Plans Tait and Associates, 9089 Claremont Mesa Boulevard #300, San Diego, CA 92123, requests Planning Commission review of final (Vote: 6-0, with one elevation plans for a previously-approved service station with Commission vacancy) accessory car wash and convenience market with the sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption. Property is located at 1201 South Brookhurst Street (Arco AM/PM Service Station). ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and M0710N 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 Sostwick 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 elevation plans as proposed and recommended by staff. sr5042jr.doc • ~ 09-22-03 Page 7 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ~ • D. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04681 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04776) John O'Brien, Brookfield Homes, 3090 Bristol Street, Suite 200, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, requests review of final plans for a previously- approved 82-unit attached and detached "affordable" residential condominium project with a density bonus. Property is located at 2300-2340 West Lincoln Avenue. (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Approved Approved Final Plans (Vote: 6-0, with one Commission vacancy) sr2138ds.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. Stated the subject item is a request to review and approve final building elevation plans for previously-approved 82-unit attached and detached "affordable" residential condominium complex located at 2300-2340 W. Lincoln Avenue. Redevelopment Agency staff is present to make a brief presentation as well as the housing developer of Brookfield Homes. Damien Delaney, Senior Project Manager, Redevelopment Agency. Stated they are present to review the colors and materials and the elevations for the subject project. W hen the project was approved by the Planning Commission back in April, they had before them some elevations that did not have colors on them, although the architectural styles were deemed appropriate at that time, the colors were not. They had three architectural styles for the single-family homes, a Spanish Monterey, Spanish Colonial, and a Colonial, as well as 32 town homes or attached units. On the town homes, one of the Commission's comments was not to have them straight across, not to look like row houses. They created some variation amongst the buildings; there is about a 3-5 foot variation between the buildings as well as some differences in colors. He informed Commissioner Eastman had asked to see the elevations from what was presented at the last meeting in April; therefore he has them today for Commission's review. The developer is present and available to answer any questions. Commissioner Eastman stated she did ask for the elevations so that the new Commissioners would have an opportunity to review it. She believed one of the images was missing. Mr. Delaney stated regarding the street scene which was presented to the Commission this morning, he made the mistake assuming where it was, but it is actually at the base. He referred to the site plan and pointed it out to Commission. Commissioner Eastman asked if they weren't suppose to see the one that was shown to them, the other style. Mr. Delaney responded no, and asked the developer to come up and comment on the issue. He referred to the site plan and stated this is what was presented to the Agency and the Redevelopment and Housing Commission as the street scene, which is going to be Canopy Lane. He would have to ask the architect why Plan 4 was not included in the street scene. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the architect to come forward to speak. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Mr. Delaney to bring forward the last exhibit he was referring to, for Commission's review. Commissioner Eastman stated in the morning session, Mr. Delaney showed them the one plan that is missing from the street scene, which they would like to include in their review. 09-22-03 Page 8 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • John O'Brien, Brookfield Homes, 3090 Bristol Street, Suite 200, Costa Mesa. Stated they have been working with Damien Delaney and Mark Asturias and other members of the Redevelopment staff to achieve a project that has gone through several different layers of design review including one of the City's consultant, Architect, Mr. Steven Ray who has assisted in commentary and critique of the elevations and the architecture. The issue regarding the homes shown with their front elevations, at the time, there was some concern about those lots being narrower than the lots around the perimeter that actually have the driveways. The lots down the center are alley access only, direct drive into the garage from the alley, there was some concern to be sure and depict that in the street scene, therefore that was the street scene selected. They do have color renderings of the Plan 4 elevations that they can present. Commissioner Eastman stated several of the Commissioners were absent for today's morning session and they may wish to review it. The said rendering was submitted to the Commission for review. Commissioner Flores stated she likes what was done in the alley to break them up so they don't go straight, it's a great idea. Mr. O'Brien stated as one of the challenges when they entered the project was how do they create the density that the project needed to have from an economic standpoint while still providing some special community elements and achieve the goals of both Brookfield and the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency that the site plan they ended up with combines rear loaded garage for all the units have a shared driveway, the principle being to remove the garages for the most part from the street scene. Those locations where there are garages towards the front they tried to minimize their impact, developed a single loop street with alleys to access the homes that are in the interior of the project. Again, probably the most predominant theme is the center green park area, that runs along the front of the single family and towards the rear of the town homes and that also includes a gazebo structure in the middle of the • green open space. They provided a transition point for all the residents towards the back of the project to travel down a tree line paseo which is an access towards the gazebo and a similar access and view corridor from Lincoln exists from Lincoln up towards the gazebo structure. The turf areas are designed for some active and more passive entertainment and activities. Today, the color scheme for all the units were depicted on some colored elevations that he believes the Commission received in their packet. Those are from an elevation standpoint and the architecture is what is shown. The colors are more representative of the color and materials board that is available here. They are emphasizing that the color renderings are hard to grab the exact colors and those are really better depicted on the color and materials board. Commissioner Eastman stated those were not in our morning session, therefore, Commission proceeded to review. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if there is going to be a homeowner's association. Mr. O'Brien responded yes. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated generally the homeowner's association for the properties have provisions for repainting them every 5-10 years and he doesn't think there is a problem if the colors are no longer contemporary and they could decide on another color scheme they may want to use. Mr. O'Brien stated there is a homeowner's association and they are in charge of design review, which would require all the homes in the community to receive approval from the HOA, prior to moving forward with the specific color. Regarding the rather subjective interpretation to various colors, the design guidelines call for a uniformed generally accepted color scheme to be used as opposed to pinks or purples. • Mr. McCafferty stated the Community Development Department in their agreement with the developer has some provisions that require those colors be maintained for a certain period of years and then after that it would be subject to approval of the homeowner's association. From staff's perspective what they 09-22-03 Page 9 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ would be concerned about is if there is a color change that it is approved by the board of the homeowner's association so everyone agrees with the colors in the complex. For example, some of the curren t K& B pro duc ts here, c lose to Ci ty Ha l l, you don' t have someone wi t h a pin k house an d someone with a blue house it all looks complementary. They are not in the business of regulating color, but as long as the board approves it. Commissioner Flores referred to the plans and stated they have done a really good job. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he has seen some of the type homes in South County and they look nice, especially when the landscaping is included. Mr. O'Brien stated all the homes would receive front yard landscaping. Commissioner Flores asked if windows will be installed on the side, or just the front and back windows. Mr. O'Brien responded yes, windows would be along the side of the homes. Commissioner Flores asked how the orientation of the windows would be, not set together where someone couid look out their window into the adjacent home windows. Mr. O'Brien responded yes, they have been able to mitigate that in nearly all conditions. ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick 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 Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner O'Connell and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final building elevation plans for a previously-approved 82 unit attached and detached "affordable" residential condominium complex with a density bonus for Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04681 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04776) based on Commission's concurrence with staff that the final plans are substantially in compliance with the corresponding conditions of approval identified in the staff report dated September 22, 2003 and the proposed elevations are nicely enhanced with architectural elements, as required by Condition No. 2 of Planning Commission Resolution No. PC2003-59. DISCUSSION: 13 minutes (2:00-2:13) ~ 09-22-03 Page 10 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ E. (a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061 (bi(3) GENERAL RULE RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00111 Elisa Stipkovich, Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests Planning Commission initiation of a reclassification from the ML (Limited, Industrial) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone or less intense zone. Properties are located at 800 East Broadway, 801 East Santa Ana Street, and 409-421 South Vine Street. (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Concurred with staff Approved initiation of reclassification proceedings (Vote: 4- 2, Commissioners Bostwick and Flores voted no, and with one Commission vacancy) sr2138ds.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated the subject item is a city-initiated request by the Community Deve~opment pepartment to request the Commission to initiate reclassification proceedings for property denoted on the location map in the staff report. This is the first step in the process whereby the Planning Commission will later see at a public hearing a request for reclassification and then subsequent plans will also come back for the Commission to review. The Community Development Department staff is present to answer any questions, as well as the potential developer from Mercy Housing is also in the audience if you have any further questions. • Andy Nogal, Project Manager, Community Development. He stated representatives from Mercy Housing California are available for questions. We just had some minor brief comments regarding some of the concerns that were raised by the Planning Commission in the morning session, a concern was raised regarding the density. He clarified that the project as proposed would be under the permitted density per the proposed General Plan Update for the particular area. Another issue was raised regarding the sound wall and the project site as it relates to the proximity to the rail line. As required for the development, the project would have to provide a form of sound attenuation which would involve some form of sound wall along the perimeter of the property as was done with other projects in the City. One in particular directly across Broadway to the north, there is a market rate development and also immediately adjacent to the rail line. This is the first step in terms of the zone reclassification in updating the General Plan. As the Commission will recall an initiation was approved bythe Planning Commission back in October, 2001, to initiate the General Plan Amendment, This would be the next step in continuing the process in an effort to implement the General Plan for the subject area. Another issue raised with relation to open space, he wanted to address one issue in particular as part of this project the Community Development Department is working with the developer and also the Traffic Engineer to vacate a portion of Santa Ana, the area that is immediately adjacent or abutting the site to the south on Santa Ana, that portion would be vacated and used as part of the site for open space and access. Therefore, not only will the site itself provide open space, but additional area along Santa Ana Street would serve to provide open space for the development as well. Lastly, to reiterate the issue of compatibility the site is currently developed with industrial and commercial uses, the development of a residential site would serve to be more compatible given the adjacent residential uses to the east on Vine Street. Commissioner Flores asked for clarification regarding the density issue, and asked how many homes are proposed. • Mr. Nogal stated at this point, there isn't an approximate number since they haven't developed the site plan as iYs in the process. It would be under the density permitted which is 36 units to the acre, 09-22-03 Page 11 SEPTEMBER 22, 2Q03 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • approximately 72 units. In this case, they have been discussing a number of units but iYs not a set number as of yet. Commissioner Flores referred to the setback and asked would they have some different requirements due to the fact it is right up to the railroad, would there be a special circumstance on the homes near the railroad tracks. Mr. Nogal stated they would certainly look at maximizing the distance between the rail line and the units in order to address the sound attenuation. There would be several mitigating factors that would have to be looked at. One, placing the units as far away from the rail line as possible, in addition to having a sound wall and other forms of sound attenuation that could be implemented. Commissioner Flores asked would there be consideration like they did on the other ones, possibly have the garages placed in the back in order to break up some of the sound. Mr. Nogal stated it is a possibility, that would be one thing they need to take a look at once a site plan was developed. They would have an opportunity to address the site plan issues that may arise. That would be the next step, but they are still in a very preliminary stage. Commissioner Flores stated the reason she asks is because iYs right next to a railroad track. Dara Kovel, Executive Director of Mercy Housing California, City of Orange. Stated it's really exciting to be back before the Commission. The request was initiated by the City to reclassify the site. She stated she would like to address Commissioner Flores' questions and put it in the context of what the process is that they are going to enter into. For them if's been about 3%z years of talking to the Redevelopment Agency and Community Development Department about trying to do multi-family rental housing for working families in Anaheim. They are very excited that a site has been identified by the Redevelopment • Agency, either have acquired or are in contract for the subject site. It is relatively new to them, that the site has been identified as the site for family housing. They just entered into an exclusive negotiating agreement with them this past August. As you can imagine that means they don't have drawings, haven't developed a concept yet, the idea today was to introduce the reclassification first, and then we would be bringing an entittement request through the Planning Department and submitting it about November. They just started working with an architect on a process, which would entail meeting with the neighbors, all the stakeholders in the community, the colony and the downtown groups in order to talk about concerns regarding the site; sound issues, height, open space, etc. Mercy Housing, as part of the process they engage in a very extensive community design outreach process and that would really be what drives the development site plan, the elevation, and the whole look and concept behind the project. When they finish that process, they would submit a pre- application to Planning staff, and work with them to make sure all the concerns have been addressed. She informed their estimation would be they would submit something in November, and hopefully by Februaty they would come back before the Commission to request the specific entitlement approval. Commissioner Bostwick stated he does not support the subject project because he doesn't believe in putting housing next to the railroad tracks and he doesn't believe in the City's plan for the other side of the railroad tracks, for the old Kwikset property, of changing some of that to residential. Given the problems that we've seen, and most recently the railroad track in Los Angeles where they dumped a whole load of lumber into people's backyards and into their homes. He reiterated he doesn't believe in putting residential right next to a railroad track, therefore would be voting no on the issue. Commissioner Eastman clarified the project is going to be multi family, affordable, and rental, and asked if Mercy Housing, as the developer, would retain ownership and management of the property. Dara Kovel responded yes, and stated it is a challenging site because of the proximity to industrial uses • and the railroad, it is in their interest, no matter what community they build, to make sure that the quality is as high as can be and really contributes to the improvement of the lives of the residents who live there. 09-22-03 Page 12 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • That would be their commitment and understands Commissioner Bostwick's concerns, it will have some challenges. Commissioner Bostwick stated he is truly enthused for the fact that the City has engaged you, because Mercy Housing does a good job. Commissioner Flores asked when they build properties how long do they usually stay as the owner. Dara Kovel stated they have properties that date back to the early 1970s. They own about 85 developments across the State and have never sold a piece of property. It is their intent and mission to be the long-term owners of all the properties that they develop and to make sure that they continue to serve the residents who live there and that there quality living environments for those residents. They also provide what they call Community Resident Initiatives which are programs that are tailored to meet the needs of the residents; job training, English as a second language courses, computer training, etc., and that is all part of their management work. ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick and Flores voted no, and with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of CEQA Exemption Section 15061(b)(3), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirements to prepare additional environmental documentation. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bostwick and Flores voted no, and with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve initiation of Reclassification proceedings for properties ~ located at 800 East Broadway, 801 East Santa Ana Street, and 409-421 South Vine Street from the ML (Limited Industrial) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone, or less intense zone. DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (2:14-2:25) C ~ 09-22-03 Page 13 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ~ ~ F. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of September 8, 2003. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOT(ON CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby continue the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of September 8, 2003. Continued to October 6, 2003 (This item was not discussed.) (Vote: 6-0, with one Commission vacancy) 09-22-03 Page 14 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continued to 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3921 October 6, 2003 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04723) OWNER: F.J. Hanshaw Enterprises, Inc., 10921 Westminster Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92843 AGENT: Desapriya Jinadasa, 1112 North Brookhurst Street #1, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 1112 North Brookhurst Street. Suite 1. Property is approximately 0.91-acre, located north and east of the northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and La Palma Avenue (Cheers Market). Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on May 8, 2000 to expire November 28, 2002) to retain the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within a previously-approved convenience market. Continued from the July 28 and September 8, 2003, Planning Commission meetings. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. sr8641av.doc Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. Stated this is a continued public hearing for Cheers Market located at 1112 N. Brookhurst Street, Suite 1. It's a request to reinstate and retain the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction with an existing convenience market. Staff continues to recommend denial of the request for reinstatement of the alcohol based on the evidence presented in the staff report from the Police Department and staff believes that the findings that are required for reinsfatement of the permit cannot be found with the subject permit based on the said evidence. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant or representative come forward to speak, there was no response. Mr. McCafferty stated they have corresponded in writing and left messages for the applicant since the last hearing, Commission has received some additional information this morning that was faxed. Chairperson Vanderbilt informed two weeks ago the Commission chose to continue the subject item because the applicant was not present. Although it was suggested to vote at that time, it was recommended by the City Attorney's Office to continue the item since the recommendation by staff was for denial. Commissioner O'Connell asked if the applicant is aware that they may lose their license or aware of the consequences they may face, by not being present at today's meeting. ~ Mr. McCafferty stated he can't say for sure whether they are aware but does know that staff has been very clear to them, through the case planner that is assigned to this, that they need to show up and what 09-22-03 Page 15 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • staff is recommending to the Commission, that they could lose their land use entitlement to have the ability to sell alcohol at the subject location. Commissioner Romero asked if it's staff's recommendation to postpone the item, again. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney. Stated to be a little conservative since we are talking about somebody's due process rights, in light of the fact that we did receive a letter indicating a request that if there is going to be a hearing to inform someone other than the person of record who has been previously informed about this, she would recommend a continuance one more time and have the correspondence indicate that the hearing will take place on that date whether or not the applicant is present, and to have the notice be sent to both the previous owner and to the person who is indicated as the new owner as of September 6'n After action taken, Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if the notice is generally sent certified mail or return receipt mail. Mr. McCafferty stated they are sent by regular U.S. mail, but they may consider certified mail due to this situation. Commissioner Flores asked if the letter states that we request your presence. Mr. McCafferty stated they applied for the application, and are aware there is a public hearing. Commissioner Romero stated they are corresponding back to us, therefore would assume they are aware. ~ • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner O'Connell offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the October 6, 2003, Planning Commission meeting to continue the hearing an additional time in order to send correspondence notifying of the public hearing and to have the correspondence indicate that the public hearing will take place on October 6, 2003, whether or not the applicant is present. And to have the notice sent to both the previous owner and the person indicated as the new owner as of October 6, 2003. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (2-27-2:31) ~ 09-22-03 Page 16 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • • 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Continued to 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT October 6, 2003 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04693 OWNER: Hunter's Pointe HOA, 2 Corporate Park, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92606 AGENT: Maree Hoeger, Global Telecom Resources, 23332 Mill Creek Drive, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 LOCATION: 6920 East Canvon Rim Road. Property is approximately 3.05 acres, having a frontage of 545 feet on the south side of Canyon Rim Road, located 180 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard (AT&T Wireless). To permit a telecommunications antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment with waiver of minimum front yard setback. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. sr8642vn.doc FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ~ OPPOSITION: None IN GENERAL: A letter of concern was received pertaining to the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (and with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the October 6, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner, in order to relocate and redesign the accessory ground-mounted telecommunications equipment shelter. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 09-22-03 Page 17 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04755 OWNER: Taormina Trust, William Cosmo Taormina, 128 West Sycamore Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGEWT: Ryan Wells, MMI Titan, 310 Commerce Drive, Irvine, CA 92602 LOCATION: 201 East Center Street. Property is approximately 0.09- acre, located at the northeast corner of Center Street and Ciaudina Street (Kraemer Buiiding). To permit and retain a roof-mounted telecommunications facility on an existing historic building and accessory ground mounted equipment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to October 20, 2003 sr8644vn.doc FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to • the October 20, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner, in order to explore alternative locations and modified designs for the microwave dish antennas. VOTE: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 09-22-03 Page 18 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04756 OWNER: Chinh V. Ly, 12561 Redhill Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92780 AGENT: Paul Kott, 1225 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1815 East Center Street and 115 North Coffman Street. Property is approximately 0.5-acre, located at the northwest corner of Coffman Street and Center Street. To permit a church in an existing two-story office building with waivers of: (a) setback for institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone boundary, and (b) minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-132 • ~~ Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to introduce the subject item. Approved Approved Granted for 18 months (to expire on March 22, 2005) sr3043ey.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner. Stated the subject item is a request for a conditional use permit, to permit a church within an existing 2-story office building with proposed waivers. The property is located at the northwest corner of Coffman Street and Center Street, staff is recommending denial of the request, the traffic and transportation manager feels that on-site parking is not adequate to accommodate the parking demands for the use. Therefore, the recommendation is for denial. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if the applicant had a chance to review the staff report. Applicant's Statement: Paul Kott, 1225 W. Lincoln Avenue. Responded yes, and stated he represents the Emanuel Korean Southern Baptist Church in connection with their contemplated purchase and move to the property at 1815 E. Center Street in Anaheim. He informed he was present at the morning session and stated he is also here to address some of the concerns that were raised at the morning session. He pointed out that their are buildings about 8,000 square feet, it has 29 parking spaces as built which makes it under parked just for its current use as an office building. He informed two of the volunteer staff inembers and the pastor who are going to be occupying office space at the facility are present today to answer any questions. Three people would be there on a daily basis through the week. The proposed use of the facility during the week for their anticipated use for worship services include a Wednesday night bible study from 7:30 to 8:30 p.m. which is attended by about 20 people; Friday night, youth bible study from 6 to 8 p.m. which is attended by about 15 people; Saturday service is from 7 to 9 a.m.; and two Sunday services from 9 to 10 a.m. and then an hour goes by and the other service is from 11 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. He referred to discussion in the morning session regarding the hours possibly overlapping, and clarified it is important to recognize there are generally about 50 people currently in attendance for each of the services on Sunday, and not everyone drives their own car. He believes staff is in favor of the land use, but the issue is how to get around the parking issues. Mr. Kott stated it is always a pleasure to work with staff, they are always friendly and helpful in an effort to help everyone along the course of the process. The property has been in escrow since May of this year, in June they had a pre-file application in and went through the process and submitted it in July. They were encouraged through that process and throughout the process of the filing itself for the subject application, without guarantee of course that the proposed use would be likely granted provided they provide sufficient parking for the applicant. The original design allowed for the current office tenants to remain on the property. However, that would be to help defray the cost of the property. It is the investment that they would make, and the building is about a million dollars. With their proposed 09-22-03 Page 19 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • improvements on the interior, they would like to have the current tenant stay in the property but they were instructed that it wouid cause an extra burden for the parking requirement, so they consequently said they wouid ask them to vacate, as they are on a month-to-month basis subject to 30-day notice to vacate and they have already agreed that would be the case. There was some discussion as to why the building is so big compared to their intended use, and that is the reason they were intending to have the tenants there but in light of the fact that it was suggested that they ask the tenant to leave, they are willing to do so. They are also in negotiations with the contiguous landowner to utilize the parking lot on a Sunday basis only. The property owner may have felt he was holding hostage and asked probably double of what the property value was worth, in terms of what was being requested. He had indicated as a backup measure only, that he owns the property around the corner from the property and they would be allowed to utilize his back parking lot on a Sunday morning for their services. At the I.D.C. meeting on September 4th, it was indicated they had staff's support and in the event parking would become an issue with traffic engineering that they woutd suggest that they implement a shuttle service, that would shuttle the congregation members from the site of the nearby property to their facility. Therefore, they thought it wouldn't be an issue because even if they were unsuccessful next door in negotiating with the contiguous land owner, it would be no problem to go from their facility to their parking lot around the corner, incidentally he drove that distance and it was about a minute drive. Anything less than that, it wouldn't require a shuttle. From May until now, they didn't think there was going to be an issue, but last Thursday he received a call from staff, indicating they had to withdraw their support because the traffic engineering staff felt there was too much of a distance between the proposed site and the facility for parking. He stated he would request they take a look at the map which indicates where the site is compared to where they would like the shuttle go. He presented a letter/petition to Commission and staff and informed the letter was just handed to him before the hearing today, and was signed by everyone in the congregation with a driver's • license. He read the letter/petition into the record which was in support of the subject request. He stated the congregation has a commitment. It was brought up by staff this morning that there are other churches that park in residential areas and suggested if they are in violation of their CUP that has to be dealt with, they should be cited and held to their conditional use permit. One shouldn't say that no one else should be allowed a parking waiver in connection with a CUP just because someone else is not conforming. Commissioner Romero asked if the early service hours are from 9-10 a.m. Mr. Kott was in agreement, and stated he has a map which shows the distance between the facility and the proposed parking lot. He stated they view this as a temporary measure only. They reviewed the conditions of approval, and by granting the conditional use permit it allows one year to come up with a formal plan other than what was proposed to park closer to the facility. He referred to page 5 of the staff report, paragraph 18, it indicates it poses no problems or no increase for competition of parking spaces. Page 6, paragraph 20, it shows exactly what it would do, really nothing. There are three staff inembers on a daily basis, and 29 parking spaces. By code, they only need 33 parking spaces and this grants them almost 60 parking spaces. He asked that the Commission grant as submitted, but in the very least that they have a year to fulfill the conditions as described by staff in the staff report. THE PUBUC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick stated across the street next to Gilmore's there is a vacant lot and asked have you consulted those people about utilizing that for parking. Mr. Kott responded no, and stated they have never thought this was going to be an issue, it was led to ~ believe that the shuttle was going to be just fine, up until last Thursday. 09-22-03 Page 20 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bostwick stated the request for getting rid of the office use, it wouid make sense if they had an office use because that would give them less square footage. He feels there is no room for growth, you have the assembly area, Sunday school, kitchen, office, but there is no room. If you have 220 members now and if it grew by 50 members, there is nowhere for them to park. Mr. Kott stated there is room in the interior of the building, but no room for growth in connection with the parking. They are willing not to grow until they accommodate the parking for the growth. Ne informed he doubts previous applicants who have come in for a CUP, church, have been proactive in that effort to state in writing that can be filed with the City. Commissioner Bostwick stated if part of the space was utilized during the week and not available for them on weekends, that it would give some assurance that they are going to be able to park when needed. They are saying the 940 square foot assembly area, the fire department is giving you 134 people in there. That is 65 cars if there are 2 in a car. If there is a family of 4 or 5, the kids are going to come along and be in the Sunday schoof, but to have 29 parking spaces it doesn't quite fit. Mr. Kott stated currently they have at one service 65 people which include youth and congregation members. He informed he believes the numbers given to him was 2.7 person per car which is around 25 parking spaces. At 25 parking spaces they have enough to accommodate that already on site without the ancillary lot. But, with the ancillary lot and 20 more spaces, they have more than double to accommodate. So they can grow, but have indicated will not grow without allowing for parking to accommodate that growth. Commissioner Bostwick stated they are investing a million dollars in the building, they are going to have the desire to utilize it to it's maximum which would pay for the building. But, if they look for a bigger piece of property and had the requirements now they wouldn't have to worry about additional parking. He informed he would hate to see them put the money into it and have to sell it and go somewhere else. • Mr. Kott stated that is the business decision that all churches make, and most churches do start small and get larger and they have to move to a different facility, it is a normal course of what we do as Americans. Even our families, families start with a small home and they grow and move to a larger home, it is part of what we do. Commissioner Eastman referred to the petition received and asked the applicant if everyone in the congregation who has a driver's license has signed the petition. Mr. Kott responded yes. Commissioner Eastman stated there are 41 people listed out of 220 that are members, and asked if only 41 people have driver's license. Mr. Kott clarified they are the people who were in attendance at yesterday's Sunday service, everyone that had a driver's license, but some members were absent. Mr. McCafferty referred to the mixture of office and church, and stated he talked to the traffic engineer who is agreeable with allowing the office use. The parking study assumed there would be a certain level of office usage in the building. He informed they never tell an applicant that something is going to be approved, what they say is what their recommendations would be, Mr. Kott is correct because we did say we would be recommending approval subject to the parking being worked out. The parking consistently, since pre-file, has been an issue and they have been working with the applicant to try to work that out, but they haven't come to a solution. • Commissioner O'Connell asked if the property is still in escrow. Mr. Kott responded yes. 09-22-03 Page 21 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner O'Connell referred to the lease on the other parking, and stated if he owns the property. Mr. Kott responded yes, he wasn't looking for a tenant, I just use it as backup. Commissioner O'Connell stated he has agreed to allow them to use the satellite parking. Mr. Kott responded yes. Commissioner O'Connell asked during the next year, you would continue to look for more of a permanent type situation, c{oser to the church. Mr. Kott responded yes. Commissioner O'Connell clarified yesterday they had 41 signatures. Mr. Kott was in agreement. Commissioner O'Connell stated they have a congregation of 200 and some people, but as in many churches maybe only 20-30% attends on a regular basis. Therefore, your typical attendance would be about 40-50 people. Mr. Kott stated he doesn't have the numbers handy, and asked staff for the numbers. Mr. McCafferty clarified adu{ts there are 120, and youth there are 100, total congregation of 220. If Commission were inclined to approve it today, staff would recommend this be a condition of approval. ~ Commissioner O'Connell asked traffic staff if they have any comments as to why the Commission shouldn't approve the request. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner. He referred to Mr. KotYs comments and stated the churches met the code, exceeded the code and there are still problems. There is currentiy a city-wide parking problem, generally speaking when you go to church you want to park your car as close as possible and walk into the church. Unfortunately, regarding the situation at the subject location if there is no parking in the parking lot, people who attend for the first time will impact the residential neighborhoods, which is what has happened in the other cases. He informed they do not meet the parking code, because the Fire Department requires 7 square feet per person, they could get it approved with the Fire Department for 134 people just on the site. When they look at the parking, they consider 10°/a vacancy because they don't want somebody drive into the parking lot when it is full. He stated if 40 people drive in there, you only have 29 parking spaces, therefore 11 cars would be driving around looking for parking. He explained they usually recommend if you provide a project to provide adequate parking on-site so we don't have to go through a shuttle bus because the next step would be the applicant would have to record the parking. We don't know if the other site they are proposing has adequate parking of its own. The other side may come back later and ask for a conditional use permit to use those parking spaces that have already been dedicated for the subject site. In their opinion, the site does not provide adequate parking. We are recommending approximately 57 parking spaces to be adequate for the site and they should be all on the site. Not shuttling people around, and doesn't believe that has been recommended by Traffic Engineering, anywhere to shuttle people. We generally like to see the project is approved when it does provide adequate parking on the site. In this case, the numbers are very low, 29 parking spaces. He stated between services is only 30 minutes, which would create congestion for the site and it is adjacent to a residential neighborhood. Mr. Kott informed as stated previously, there is an hour between services, 9-10 a.m., and 11 a.m.-12:15 • p.m. He feels this circumstance is different because he owns the other property and will not be coming back for a conditional use permit anytime soon. The property has been empty every Sunday and he has 09-22-03 Page 22 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • owned it for about 13 years. 7herefore, he feels this might be a little different scenario. He stated as far as the church being in a residential area, he can't think of a church that is not in a residential area. He feels they have outlined a plan to have the building utilized for this particular use and would ask Commission's approval. Mr. McCafferty stated Commissioner's Bostwick's point is well taken, the church is already starting at a disadvantage. It doesn't meet the parking demand on site. He feels a pastor of a church wouid want to make the congregation flourish and hopefully add new members. They are already starting with an organization that doesn't have enough parking on the site and has to look off site, in a very urban built up area to find parking that is reasonable for their church congregates. He referred to Mr. Yalda's comments and verified they are already having problems with churches that meet the parking code, because of the occupancy and demands of their members churches are spilling into the neighborhood. Mr. Kott is correct; churches are community uses and are in communities, but there are some unique churches in this community now that just have a very high parking demand and they are impacting and sometimes the people don't even belong to the community they are impacting and they create problems for those communities. They support the land use, but are concerned about the parking. Chairperson Vanderbilt referred to Mr. Kott's comment regarding the process where it was started in the spring and then they just heard about a change in staff's position. Based on what you were stating it seems that staff would have had that position consistently. Mr. McCafferty stated they had the position that they were supportive of the land use provided the parking could be worked out, which was constant from the beginning of the project coming in as a pre-file all the way through the end. They never said it would be approved, their charge is to let people know staff's recommendation. What Mr. Kott is referring to about, last Thursday, is when a solution was provided by the applicant for satellite parking that was reviewed by the Traffic and Engineering Division and found to ~ be unacceptable from his professional stand point. That is the only thing that happened that short time ago. They did not change their recommendation, they always said their recommendation is that they support the land use but have to work out the parking. Mr. Yalda stated from day one, they did not recommend approval of the parking which is dated August 18th, if not mistaken. Mr. Kott was in agreement, and stated it was brought forth at the I.D.C. meeting that a shuttle, given a reasonable distance would be acceptable, that was the alternative method to accommodate the parking requirement. He isn't saying that they guaranteed me that everything was acceptable to them, his opening remarks were that they stated without guarantee that the use would likely be approved provided they could find a reasonable parking solution. He reminded the Commission they are asking for one year to find a permanent solution, and feels they are all striving for the same thing. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he wasn't present this morning, and asked for details on the applicant's other property. Mr. Kott stated it is the commercial building across the street from the pancake house. Chairperson Vanderbilt verified if it is where the optometrist office and video store is located. Mr. Kott agreed. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated behind there is a vacant lot. ~ Mr. Kott stated it is a parking lot Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant if he owns the parking lot and the facility up front. 09-22-03 Page 23 SEP7EMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Kott stated it is all one. Chairperson Vanderbilt referred to a comment made earlier by the applicant, regarding the property being vacant for 13 years or owned for 13 years. Mr. Kott stated since 1989. Commissioner Eastman stated she believes the applicant indicated the businesses that currently occupy the property are not open on Sundays, therefore, the parking lot is vacant. Mr. Kott stated with the exception of the video store, but all their patrons' park out front as there is "legal" street parking out front. No-one parks in the back and it sits empty. Commissioner O'Connell asked how many stalis are in the back. Mr. Kott stated over 30, and stated he used the number of 20 just to allow for some sort of contingency, but could stipulate to more than that if necessary. It is only for Sunday mornings, and doesn't restrict the use from his current tenants. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated generally he understands in terms of using off-site parking, is that the off site use won't interfere with the legal required parking for the existing use. Mr. McCafferty was in agreement. Mr. Kott asked how that would differ from the other suggestions made. ~ Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he doesn't feel it would differ, but wanted to check with staff about the distance and possibility that the neighborhood parking would be more of an attractive use. In terms of the legality of it, if the solution was enacted there's no concern with that particular parking lot in terms of its existing needs as well as the additional proposed needs. In other words, there must be a parking requirement for the video store and optometry office. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney. Stated "For uses other than residential required off-street parking spaces shall be located on the same lot as the new building for which such parking is required or on property immediately contiguous to said lot provided set parking is located thereon within reasonable walking distance from such building. All properties used for such off-site parking shall be under joint ownership or under agreement approved by the City Attorney. She asked for a moment as she was reviewing material. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he feels the proposed solution has some merit, but he is not certain about the parking needs on the site we are now discussing that is adjacent to the cemetery. There are some apartment buildings on La Plaza Street, and would be interested to see what the parking use is during the course of the week and on Sundays, therefore, in order to research that he would be in favor of a continuance. Commissioner Eastman asked the applicant if many of the members are residents of Anaheim, and/or if the pastor is a resident of the area. Mr. Kott stated if there were apartment dwellers in the parking lot, they do so illegally and may be cited and towed. Pastor Ho S. Choi, 5162 New York Avenue, Cypress. The majority of the current memberships are not • residents of City of Anaheim, but they do have members coming from nearby cities. 09-22-03 Page 24 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Eastman asked if this is more like a central location, where you would be drawing people from different directions. Pastor Choi was in agreement. Commissioner Eastman asked if you utilize any sort of shuttle service, such as a church van to bring members to the church. Pastor Choi responded yes. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, if she was ready to proceed with the response to his question. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney. Stated with regard to the requirement that the parking that is provided be in excess of what is required for the particular use. She believes the basis for that is the language in Code Section 18.06.010 that says "Said agreement shall specify the number and location of the off-site parking spaces and shall assure that said spaces shall be accessible and available at all times for parking in conjunction with the use for which such parking spaces are required, and in order to have it be availabfe at all times for the use that it couldn't be double counted". She stated at times there has been studies that have actually done something similar to what is being proposed here where the times don't correspond but the owner of whatever property it is needs to be ready to guarantee that those spaces are going to be available and that is something that we really require to be recorded against the property and the City be notified if there is any change in that. Therefore, it is a fairly significant commitment. Mr. Kott stated he would be willing to stipulate to that, as it is only for one year. ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney. Stated they would ordinarily not approve a covenant that was only for one year, they rather have it be on an on-going basis, and if there was to be any change to that, that the City would need to be notified prior to that time because then the assumption upon which the parking waiver was granted would no longer be true. There would no longer be the availability of the off-site parking. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if it is possible that the off-site parking would commit indefinitely but you say that could change in a year's time, and that would be acceptable to the City. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney. The Commission has options open, if they are looking towards approving a use, recognizing that we have a situation which the applicant is acquiring the property in terms of the types of conditions that are going to be placed upon the use and what the feasibility is going to be after a year to have an owner of a functioning church, in affect be told that they could no longer continue because there is inadequate parking. Commissioner O'Conneil stated that is obviously a business decision on the church and asked if it is the understanding the applicant is aware they would have one year to find more of a permanent parking situation. Mr. Kott stated they would like to have this in perpetuity, however, staff made a recommendation in the report that in the event this were approved that it only be approved for one year. Therefore, in light of what Selma Mann had suggested that it normally is not done for one year, but he would do it for one year in order to diligently try to find a better alternative for the church to accommodate whatever City rationale is implemented. However, he would be willing to go for 5 years. There are 20 ample parking spaces on the site and there will be for as long as he owns the property, they could use them, and they are willing to stipulate to one year if that is all they would be granted by the Planning Commission. They would like the time to seek for a better alternative and will look into the "medical center" that was mentioned earlier as ~ that property may be a good alternative. 09-22-03 Page 25 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MfNUTES • Commissioner Flores referred to the shuttle issue and stated many people get to church late and you usually try to park as close as you can and the shuttle place is the last thing on your mind. Her concern is they are going to start parking in the other businesses in the area, and possibly across the street, which may create accidents. Mr. Kott asked Commissioner Flores for clarification on where she believes people may park. Gommissioner Flores stated they may park across Linco{n Avenue in the residential area on Cliffrose Street and Beechwood Street, etc. Mr. Kott stated he doesn't envision that happening at all, the members have provided an affidavit that indicates they would only park in the designated areas and never park in the residential areas. He doesn't believe anyone would park in the area Commissioner Flores is stating because there are other residential neighborhoods behind the subject property that would be more convenient on Evelyn Drive and Coffman Street, etc., therefore, I don't believe that anybody would realistically park south of Lincoln Avenue. I'm not saying it can't happen but they could also park at Anaheim Stadium, but it is very unlikely that they would do that. Commissioner Flores stated she doesn't believe they would park at Anaheim Stadium. Mr. Kott stated his point is, they could park anywhere, but they have already indicated that they would not park in the residential areas. 7hey are a very reasonable and proactive group. He suggested a stipulation of having a shuttle for late arrivals. Chairperson Vanderbilt referred to the off-site parking solution and asked Mr. McCafferty if last Thursday, he received the property location of the off-site parking plan. • Mr. McCafferty stated he had indicated that the proposal was reviewed and the Traffic and Transportation Commissioner Romero asked what would have been the so{ution acceptable to staff. Manager, last week had said it was unacceptable. A few days prior to that, when it was submitted as a satellite parking proposal but it wasn't way back when it was filed. It was between I.D.C. and the recommendation, within the last 2-3 weeks. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated then there was testimony earlier today about the other adjacent properties. Commissioner Romero asked staff if they are saying it may be approved based on the parking solution. Mr. McCafferty stated they would review with the Traffic and Transportation Manager possible off site locations for parking, but never agreed specifically to recommend approval. Mr. Yalda stated Selma Mann had clearly indicated that when she read through the Municipal Code and asked to be within the same property, not 2,200 feet away, but a reasonable walking distance. Mr. McCafferty referred to the location map, shaded portion of the subject property, there are office buildings to the west and another office building across Coffman Street to the east, therefore, those are sites that would be ideal because they are right next to the church and probably locations that the Traffic and Transportation Manager would likely think are feasible. Commissioner Eastman asked the applicant if he would be acceptable to a continuance in order to allow more time to explore more options, or would he want the Commission to make a decision today. Mr. Kott stated they would prefer a decision; they have extended out their escrow. However, they would stipulate to a shorter period of time. He stated he agrees with Mr. Yalda, it would be nice to have within ~ walking distance because the shuttle would not be needed, the shuttle was offered to us as an alternative. That is the direction we went since we weren't successful the first time around, it's a temporary situation and we would stipulate to 6 months in an effort to try to get a closer site. 09-22-03 Page 26 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Romero asked if it was suggested to the applicant that they get a shuttie as a possible solution. Mr. McCafferty stated he is not sure, but obviously the further you get away from the site the more feasible the shuttle becomes. The goal has been to try to get a site that is closer to the church as possible. If Commission is disposed to give this a chance, staff would suggest they give it a very limited approval with the applicant knowing that obviously if they are doing a business transaction that the entitlement could go away in 1-2 years and they would be left with an office building. He suggested giving a very "short fuse" to see how the parking would work and add a condition that limits the congregation size during that period. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ~ OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: A petition was received with 41 signatures confirming knowledge of parking regulations as it applies to the subject property. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Vote: 5-1 (Commissioner Flores voted no, and with one Commission vacancy.) Approved waiver pertaining to institutional uses adjacent to residential zones. Vote: 5-1 (Commissioner Flores voted no, and with one Commission vacancy.) ~ Approved waiver (b) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces based upon testimony presented at the meeting. Vote: 4-2 (Commissioners Flores and Vanderbilt voted no, and with one Commission vacancy.) Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04756 (to permit a church in an existing office building for a period of 18 months, to expire on March 22, 2005), subject to the conditions of approva4 as stated in the staff report dated September 22, 2003. Modified Condition Nos. 1 and 2 as follows: 1. That subject use shall expire e~e-(~}~2a~ eighteen (18) months from the date of this resolution ^" co„ro.,,tior ~~ ~nnn on March 22, 2~~5. 2. That the hours of operation for the church shall be limited to the fol{owing, as stipulated by the petitioner: Weekdavs: Office Hours Monday -Friday: Adult Prayer and Bible Study Wednesday: Youth Bible Study Friday: ~ 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 7:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. 09-22-03 Page 27 SEPTEMBER 22, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Weekends: Young Adult Bibie Study Saturday: 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. ~ni., co,-.,;..o iG ri.,~ .,,~~.,• o•n~ „ ~n T,~~s#~;P-~~,~~a ~ . a.m:-t~--19:~~m: T~n~~n C~~noo /CGn~nrJ\ 1 ~ .~ m 1n ~'):'I F n „ ~. Worship Service (Early) Sunday: 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Worship Service (Second) 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That the congregation shall not exceed a total of 250 members, including adults and children. Vote on CUP: 6-0 (with one Commission vacancy) • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 6 minutes (2:32-3:38) Discussion on appointments of Planning Commission Representatives and Alternates for boards and committees occurred after the public hearings since the matter was trailed earlier in the meeting. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:41 P.M. TO THURSDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2003 AT 1:30 P.M. FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DISCUSS THE GENERAL PLAN/ZONING CODE UPDATE PROGRAM. ~ Respectfully submitted: E{ly Morris Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on O~~obe.r l~ , 2003. 09-22-03 Page 28