Loading...
Minutes-PC 1994/07/25ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, JULY 25, 1994 11:00 A.M. - DISCUSSION RELATED TO SCAG REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING DISCUSSION (NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY ACCEPTED) 1:30 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARINGS BEGIN (PUBLIC TESTIMONY) COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, CALDWELL, HENNINGER, MAYER, PERAZA, TAIT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: MESSE PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. The proponents in applications which are not contested will have five minutes to present their evidence. Additional time will be granted upon request if, in the opinion of file Commission, such additional time will produce evidence Important to the Commission's consideration. ~~ 2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to present their case unless additional time is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. The Commission's considerations are not determined by the length of time a participant speaks, bu[ rather by what is said. 3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission in each hearing. Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting. 4. The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing is closed. 5. The Commissicn reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing ff, in its opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served. 6. All documents presenter) to the Planning Commission for review in connection wfth any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable visual representations or non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by the Commission for the public record and shall be available for public inspections. 7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on items of Interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda items. Each speaker will be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak. AC072594.WP ~~/ 'I 1a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Previously Approved) 1b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 1c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2667 (Readvertised) OWNER: KENNETH W. HOLT and HELEN L HOLT, TRUSTEE, 1557 W. Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92702 AGENT: FAIRMONT SCHOOLS, INC., Attn: Glen Noreen, Bus. Mgr., 1557 W. Mable Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 121 S Citron Street (Fairmont Citron Camous). Property is approximately 0.73 acres located at the northwest corner of Chestnut Street and Citron Street. To permR a486-square foot modular classroom, a 450-square foot expansion for classroom/storage use and amendment to a condRion of approval pertaining to maximum student enrollment with waiver of minimum structural setback. Approved Approved Approved expansion and amonded condftions of approval Continued from the July 11, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94-95 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Glen Noreen, representing Fairmont Schools, Inc., 1557 W. Mabel Street, Anahelm. He explained there was one major objection that dealt wfth the problem of going north on Citron Street, l.e., a queue of cars waiting to turn left onto Citron Street. He approached the exhibit board and elaborated. He spoke with the Traffic Engineer about the problem and they are proposing that they move the gate which would make a long queue and should minimize the queue on Citron Itself. He had a revised plan for the parking. He explained that the Traffic Engineer suggested that they hold 1-3 spaces for their customers. Staff could park at the First Baptist Church where they are renting parking spaces. Discussion took place regarding the buses stopp!ng. They will instruct bus drivers in the fall not to stop and stay. They are to stop, drop off and pick up passengers only. The street does have "No Parking" signs posted. The Traffic Engineer tells him that does allow them to stop and drop off people as long as the motor is running. The Traffic Engineer also suggested that they change the designation to a 2 minute parking. 07/25/94 Page 2 Alfred Yaida, Traffic Engineering, stated they are not able to change the signage to "No - Parking Anytime" on Chestnut. He explained that the California Vehicle Code states you can pick up or drop off someone within 5 minutes as long as someone is sitting in the car. Mr. Noreen stated they will explain to the parents that the preferred method of drop off is on Chestnut Street. Chairman Peraza asked H Mr. Yaida preferred the bus to stop on Citron? Mr. Yaida explained if the bus is larger than a regular van, then they would recommend that they stop on Citron Street Instead of Chestnut as Chestnut is not wide enough. It is approximately 22 feet wide. Mr. Noreen explained the buses they currently have are 15 passenger. They are small buses but they are not vans. It was determined that they are wider than vans, but not as wide as the regular size buses. He addressed the exhibfts. He stated they couid look at the green zoned area where they have 15 minute parking for a certain period of time for buses only. This (s how they addressed their Mabie Street problem and it has worked out quite well. Mr. Yaida stated it would be diff(cult to say the buses would stop for 15 minutes and the rest of the day automobiles. Commissioner Caldwell asked about parking for automobiles in front of the school? He stated ff they designate that for buses only, there would never be a problem wkh dropping off or picking up. ~r Mr. Noreen explained the only problem they would have is when parents came to pick up their children. Commissioner Caldwell asked if the parking on the north side of the site would accommodate the parents? Mr. Noreen stated if that were the case then the staff would have to park at the Baptist Church. His concern was that some of the staff would need to bring in things from their cars. Commissioner Caldwell stated they couid unload and then move their cars to the Baptist Church site. He explained that would allow them to have a safe Ingress and egress for the buses and parking for the parents. He stated there will be some inconvenience based on the over development of the she. Mr. Noreen stated there was merft to what Commissioner Caldwell was saying. THE PUBLlC HEARING WAS CLOSEO. DISCUSSION: No further discussion took place. 07/25/94 Page 3 e P .c 1 ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved WaNer of Code Requirement Modified Condftional Use Permit No. 2667 Approved expansion Modified Condition No. 2 of Resolution No. PC85-207 to read: "2. That the maximum student enrollment shall not erceed 257 students." Added the conditions found on pages 6 and 7 of the July 25, 1994 staff report to the Planning Commission. Added the following conditions: 1. That the student access gate located on Chestnut Street shall be moved as far west as practical. 2. That additional striping and access shall be provided on the northeast corner of the site and shall be reviewed and approved by the Traffic and Transportation Manager. 3. That the parking on the northeast side of the property shall be designated as "Visitor Parking Oniy". 4. That part of the curb along Cftron Street (directly in front of the school) shall be designated for bus parking only to the satisfaction of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. i-.. _. VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Messe absent) .. ~,'.~:1p~~ 07/25/94 Page 4 ~/ 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Previously Approved) Approved 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.3417 (Readvsrtised) Approved amendment to conditions of OWNER: A.G. CASSIS, 413 Sharon Road, Arcadia, CA 91007 approval AGENT: ADVANCED PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL, Attn: Sim C. Hoffman, M.D., 585 S. Knott Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 545-595 South Knott Street. Property is approximately .68 acres located at the northwest corner of Knott Street and Orange Avenue. Requests for the deletion or amendment to conditions of approval pertaining to the time limitation of a previously approved mobile medical unit within an existing medical complex. Continued from the July 11, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC9496 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None '- PETITIONER: Dr. Sim C. Hoffman, owner, 585 S. Knott Street, Anaheim, CA. This year they have especially tried to make sure they did all of the things they were suppose to do. The only thing that was a surprise is that there were complaints that he was net aware of. He spoke with Linda Matthew from Code Enforcement some time in May to ask ff there were any complaints or violations and she Indicated there were none. These could have been taken care of with a phone call had he known about it. He has been In communication with the manager of the office next door. He stated several months ago that someone was complaining about the noise at 3:OOa.m. Evidently it was a street cleaner working across the street. He just wants to be aware of anything that pertains to his unit and he will be on top of ff. They have been operating within the conditional use permit and what they were suppose to be doing. They do have a petition signed by 100 residents and many physicians in the area that feel there is a need for the mobil MRI services. It does allow them to provide the medical services at a lower price. An in-house facility would be extremely expensive. The cost is approximately 520,000 a month. He reiterated if he knows there is a problem, he can take care of it. 07/25/94 Page 5 Every year he does a noise study and it has been less then the ambient noise. He added the comer is a very noisy corner. He stated he will tali Code Enforcement every month to verffy ff there is a complaint. He explained the neighbors, for whatever reason, do not want to talk to him. Next year he will hava a listing everyday the MRI unit is there so they can see the time ft is delivered, the tiros ft is picked up and how much time is involved. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Caldwell asked John Poole, Code Enforcement Manager, ff the Information Dr. Hoffman provided today meets wfth Code Enforcement information? Mr. Poole explained Dr. Hoffman is talking about the memorandum that the Code Enforcement Supervisor submftted to the Planning Commission and he states recently they received two complaints about excessive noise. Dr. Hoffman was talking about the study that was done. He explained many times when you have noise from loading or unloading of the trailer ft would not violate the City Ordinance, but it would still disturb the peace. The point of contention was that the trailer was not picked up until 10:OOp.m. He agrees with Dr. Hoffman that he has worked very hard to control the problem, but they have seen historically, with these types of operations that even with the best intentions of the people on the property, that the people that haul the trailer sometimes do not pick ft up on time and there are various problems and ft is difficult for the medical people on•site to control this. The only 2 complaints they had were about not picking the triler up till 10:OOp.m. and that is where the noise came from and not about the ,' operation of the trailer when it is there operating. Dr. Hoffman explained most of their patients are done very early in the rooming starting at 7:30a.m. and they are normally through by 2:OOp.m. If he had known about this and had been called, the one or two times they were late, because there was no reason to be late, he could have taken care of it. He added ft is a correctable matter. Commissioner Boydstun asked if there would be a problem with them changing the conditions that it will be picked up by 6:OOp.m. so this doesn't happen at night? Dr. Hoffman explained right now ft is 7:OOp.m. and he knows they can comply wfth that without a problem. In fact he is making sure 100% that they are doing this and he will stay on ft. And as he said, he will contact-ff for example, there is no reason why they should be there that late. They are done at 3:OOp.m. and he will personally talk to the Code Enforcement and he will take care of it. He said they go and come there 52 weeks a year (104 times). They may have made a mistake once or twice. He can be on top of it and personally try to take care of it. Commissioner Caldwell stated the problem is that they have the trailer there under these conditions and they have had problems. 07/25/94 1,,.,,~ Page 6 He stated the question ir. GIs mind is whether or not this is an adequate place to have this trailer and ff they did not have any complaints h would be difficult for them to say anything about it. He added they have had these assurances in the past. Dr. Hoffman stated he was thinking what he could do about h and the one thing is talk to Code Enforcement because he has to find out exactly if there are any problems and take care of it right then. Commissioner Caldwell stated that is the same thing that staff and the Commission are thinking, i.e., what they can do to somehow protect the Interest of the people who choose to live in that location with the trailer and try and make it a more pleasant experience. Dr. Hoffman stated he understands. They also have to understand ft Is a noisy place. He stated one person who has an Ice cream truck, who is one of the neighbors next door, broke into the building and used the electricity to the building to cool his air conditioning on his ice cream truck. He stated one person last week parked his diesel semi trunk right next to the MRI illegally in the morning, left it there and they had to call the police to have it towed. He is doing the best Job he can and if he knew about this it could have been taken care of with a phone call. He stated there are also other noises in the area that have nothing to do with this particular Issue. He added his landlord Is behind him to have the trailer there. Commissioner Caldwell stated the fact that someone else parked a truck and stole his electricity is Irrelevant as well. We are talking about the noise of picking ft up and dropping it off and the fact that he appears to not have complete control over the company that they hire to move this trailer (n and off the front of their office. Dr. Hoffman stated if he could personally pick it up himself he did not think it would be a problem, but 97 to 99% of the time they do not have the problem and that is why ff he knew about it he would take care of it. Thay have had a very good record this year and as he said he thinks they would be 99% In compliance and he did not think they could expect much more from anybody. Commissioner Caldwell asked ff they were to allow this trailer to remain on site, could it be condklaned that the first time they have a complaint verified by Code Enforcement, that the applicant could be brought back to discuss whether or not they want the trailer left there or not? Chairman Peraza stated he thought they could add any conditions, but he would defer to the attorney. Selma Mann, Deputy Ciry Attorney, stated they need to look at the enforceability and the feasibility of whatever condition they are in-.posing. The reason they impose conditions where it expires after a particular length of time, is that the burden of proof is then no longer on the City but rather on the applicant to have to come in and get a new CUP or get an extension of the CUP. 07/25/94 ~ Page 7 the staff can bring it up or the Planning Commission always has the authority to bring - something back for a public hearing for modffication or termination of a conditional use permft. That would always be available, but the burden then would be on the City to establish that. Commissioner Caldwell asked if she had any rec~mr,andations as to how to word That, so ff there is a problem they can bring it back and the burden would not be on the City. Chairman Perazn stated the difflculry is ff somebody heard something and then reported ft. Commissioner Caldwell sta'rxa he would not want the Doctor to lose it because somebody brought up a false claim of a problem. Dr. Hoffman stated one of the things he was thinking was to Just be in communication with the Code Enforcement Officer. That is the best. He stated he thought they do communicate to Code Enforcement and he would personally call them every month to make sure or they may bo happy to call him any time. He is there 9:OOa.m. to 5:OOp.m. or leave a message. Commissioner Henninger asked Code Enforcement ff there were basically just two complaints over the entire year? Mr. Poole stated yes there were only two. Commissioner Henninger asked what the two complaints were regarring? Was ff regarding the morning drop off or the evening pick up? \~ Mr. Poole stated the evening pick up-ths noise that that caused. Commissioner Henninger asked Mr. Poole if there more people unhappy than just 2 times out of the year? ' Mr. Poolo stated there has been. If the Commission might recall, they have had problems, but the Doctor has worked very hard in the past to correct those. He was surprised to see there were complaints this time. He might offer as a possible solution that they work with Dr. Hoffman very, very closely and they would substantiate any complaints because somatimes complaints are not well founded. He stated they can work on both sides very closely and that he has made a lot of Improvements. During this year ft would be a good indication if that use could continue. He stated it is going to be a tough one. As he said before they have always had a problem wfth a company that puts those trailers out and not picking them up early enough in the evening. He does not know what happens, i.e., ff they get behind in their schedule or what, but that is usually where the complaints come from, etcher dropping the trailer off or picking it up i~.id not the operation of the trailer. Commissioner Henninger stated why don't we move the hour up one hour? They discussed doing that and let them try it for another year and see what happens. He has a hard time telling them to stop this use over 2 complaints. 07/25/94 ~ Page 8 :t a He stated he made a goad point. This trailer is dropped off once a week all year long and to have a problem two evenings out of 52 weeks does not seem Tike a crime worth putting him out of business for. Commissioner Caldwell stated that is why he is having a difficult time wffh this. Commissioner Tait stated they will see this within a year so they at least have that check. Commissioner Boydstun stated then move it to 6:OOp.m. so this way maybe the company can put it at the beginning of their list if they are through with it by 2:30p.m. or 3:OOp.m. Dr. Hoffman stated one of things they have been trying to do is to bring the trailer the day before by 6:30p.m. so it is parked there before operation. He thought ff was easier to bring h the night before. They have been getting there at 6:30p.m. so it is parked and then shut off the day before so the next day ff is used and that is why they have been trying to do that before 7:o0p.m. It should make it a little bit tighter for them because of peak traffic hours and everything else. That is the only thing. It may make ft a little more difficult. They may want to give +~~ a little more leeway just because of peak traffic hours from 5:OOp.m. to 7:OOp.m they can get it parked. Leaving it at 7:OOp.m. would be a big help. Commissioner Henninger stated so your existing condition is that the trailer be delivered either prior to 9:OOp.m. -we are going to change that to B:OOp.m. now and move it up one hour or after 7:OOa.m. and that ff be picked up prior to B:OOp.m. He reiterated we are going to move that up to B:OOp.m. from 9:OOp.m. '.~. Dr. Hoffman stated that will be fine, because !think that will be a little bit easier that way. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Modified Condition Nos. 1a. and 11 of Resolution No. 92R-105 to read as follows: 1a. That subject medical trailer shall be permitted to operate on-she two (2) days every week. The trailer shall be delivered to the she no later than 8:00 p.m. the evening before the first day of operation and shall be removed no later than 8:00 p.m. on the evening of the second day of operation. The air condffioner unit shall not be operated prior to 7:00 a.m. 11. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted for a period of one (1) year until June 3, 1995, at which time the use shall terminate unless a time extension is requested by the petitioner and granted by the Planning Commission (or by the City Council ff appealed) following a duly noticed public hearing. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Messe absent) 07/25/94 Page 9 i t ;b 3a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 21 3b. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT N0.88-05 OWNER: TERRY DICKENS, CALIFORNIA DRIVE-IN THEATRES, 120 N. Robertson Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90048 LOCATION: 291 North State College Boulevard. Citv of Orange {Orange Drive-In Theatre). Property is approximately 6.7 acres located on the east side of State College Boulevard approximately 570 feet south of Orangewood Avenue. Termination of Development Agreement with Calffornia Drive-In Theaters, Inc. for the development of one 18-story commercial office building and a 2,843 space 6-level parking structure In Anaheim In conjunction wfth two 10-story and two 18-story commercial ofOce buildings in the City of Orange (IDM Business Center). No action Recommended termination to the City Council FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: The Planning Commission recommended to the Cfty Council that they approve the Termination Agreement for Development Agreement No. 88-05 and the Reimbursement Agreement for Dreinage Facllfties. .-. l "" VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Messe absent) 07/25/94 Page 10 Approved Approved Granted OWNER: HERBERT P. DOUGLASS, ELEANOR C. DOUGLASS, THEODORE R. DOUGLAS, 1409 E. Rose Avenue, Orange, CA 92667 AGENT: TEJAS PARTNERS LTD., ATTN: J. Michael Moore, 1717 W. Collins, Orange, CA 92667 LOCATION: 1557 South Douglass Road. Property is approximately 7.3 acres located on the west side of Douglass Road and approximately 690 feet north of the centerline of fCatella Avenue. To establish and construct a parking area adjacent to an indoor sports and entertainment facilRy (Anaheim Arena) with waiver of required k,~ndscaping. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC9497 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Wayne Allen, on behalf of Tejas Partners Limited, agent for Herb, Eleanor and Theodore Douglass, 1 City Blvd. West, Sufte 308, Orange, CA 92668. He stated the development of - the lot will be consistent wfth their application. They are In agreement with staff fn respect to their report and ask for approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, addressed Condition No. 6. He stated that should be reworded to read: That prior to paving the property, the property owner shall comply with all applicable revisions of the "Williamson Act" etc. Currently it reads, "prior to removal of any citrus trees." Commissioner Caldwell asked about the single-family home that appears to be older. Mr. Allen explained it is not the subject of any historical classification. The house was built in 1930. Commissioner Caldwell asked if there was any thought or effort that it could be moved and saved? Mr. Allen stated it was his understanding that the way it was built the answer is no. However, a lot of the Internal contents are going to be salvaged and used at various other locations. 07/25/94 Page 11 Mr. Hastings clarified for the record in the staff report the trees that are on Douglass Avenue indicate both 25-foot and 30-foot centers. Tha plans are 25-foot, but staff recommends 30-foot intervals. Commissioner Taft addressed Condition No. 7. He asked what was the purpose of the 45-foot and 39-foot dedication and why was it being requlred7 Alfred Yaida, Traffic Engineering, stated h is to provide additional right-of-way for northbound and southbound traffic lanes. He added it was addressed in a traffic study. (Caren Freeman, Planning Department, read changes to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 71-A into the record. It is noted by the Planning Commission Secretary that these changes are on file in the Planning Department and will not be repeated here for the sake of brevity. ACTION: Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration with revisions to Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 71-A Approved Waiver of Cade Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3700 Modified Condition No. 6 to read: 6. That prior to paving the property, the property owner shall comply with all applicable provisions of the "Williamson Act" which relate to the removal of the property's current agricultural preserve status. All applicable regulations shall be followed through the duration of the protect. i^ VOTE: 5.0 (Commissioners Henninger and Messe absent) "~s 07/25/94 Page 12 i~ 5a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Continued to 5b. VARIANCE N0.4256 8.8-~ OWNER: R.H. SIEGLE, 919 E. South Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: PHIWP R. SCHWARTZE, 31682 EI Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92678 LOCATION: cio E. South Street. Property is approximately 3.6 acres located at the northwest curner of South Street and Rose Street. Waiver of dedication and improvements for Tentative Parcel MaN No. 91-164. VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. Commissioner Boydstun declared a conflict of interest. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Ray Siegle, 832 N. West Street, Anaheim, CA. He stated the petition for the waivers would be a financial hardship imposed on him and a lack of necessity for the dedications. In 1984 he ~'-' was required to construct an 8-foot high, B00•foot long concrete block wall within the confines of the perimiter of this property, and this was approved by all departments involved. Subsequently, in 1987 when upgrading the operation, 270-foot truck scales were installed parallel to the fence within the area that the City is requesting that they dedicate to them. He explained when they purchased the property there were two buildings in existence. One thelfenc a that ru s algong the alley. To dtedicate and do what the City is requesting, woluldo require them to destroy all of this at a cost of approximately $300,000 which has been invested in constructing this material, not to mention the cast of the property Itself which is approximately 13,600 square feet that the City is requesting they dedicate. He added the Ciry has not demonstrated any need or use for the dedication. He stated to their knowledge there has been no traffic count nor any traffic study that demonstrates the need of widening this existing alley Into a street. There is also nothing on the General Plan that said this alley would be made Into a street. Therefore, he does not see a need or requirement for them to do so. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. i ~I f` 07/25/94 i Page 13 earl DISCUSSION: Natalie Meeks, Public Works Engineering. She stated the applicant recently filed a Parcel Map and these condtions were imposed as part of the Code requirement, Section 17.08, that he make the dedication and Improvements. Council did approve an extension of time to comply with those conditions and that those conditions did not need to be met until tho time of redevelopment of his property. At the time he pulls the permts to redevelop the property, he would need to make the dedications and Improvements and that was to be noted on the Parcel Map. They feel that is an appropriate decision. They do understand he is not changing the use of the property +~~;ht now and he can continue to use the property as it is. However, at such time as the property is redeveloped they think it is Important to get the dedications and Improvements to provide general circulation around this property. Commissioner Henninger asked could it be that the redevelopment of this property would occur in such a way that it would not warrant these improvements? Ms. Meeks explained the dedication and Improvements on South Street are necessary at this time, although they are being delayed. She further explained there is sidewalk up to this property and the frontage of this property is unimproved and those Improvements need to be made to meet the rest of the character of the street. She referenced the Rose Street Improvements. She stated the alley is a street that has been developed as a very narcow alley but it does carry quite a bft of truck traffic serving the Industrial area. Therefore, those Improvements would be needed. Commissioner Caldwell asked Ms. Meeks, by denying this request, they are not placing upon Mr. Slagle any immediate need to perform this work and this work would only be necessary when and ff the owner decides to develop the property which includes building permfts? Ms. Meeks indicated that was correct. It will be noted on his Parcel Map that at the time of further development of the property dedication and improvements are required. Commissioner Caldwell asked Ms. Meeks what would kick that Into motion? Ms. Meeks stated ff would be construction. She explained it may ^ome up on a change of use ff there was a conditional use permit or something that would require it, then they would have an opportunity to impose conditions. She added however, in general, ff would be with a building permit. Commissioner Henninger stated he thought it was theoretically possible that whatever is to come in the future on these two parcels, would not of themselves warrant this sort of dedication. He thought perhaps they should take Condition No. 2 on the Parcel Map. He was referring to paragraph 6, page 2 of the staff report and change the second "shall" (last line) to "may Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated that really leaves that open for a nexus determination as such time there Is a change in use or there is a development of the property different from what is existing at this time without waiving the City's opportunity to have placed these conditions at the time that the Parcel Map is approved. 07/25/94 ~ Page 14 Mr. Siegle stated they have a requirement that this is an irrevocable offer to dedicate, however, it also states that any time they take a building permit for anything, essentially because it is not specifically stated what type of a building permit, that all of these hems would be Imposed, i.e., they would take the dedication, they would have to do all of the demolftion at his own expense and for no demonstrated need for any of the street constru~lon to take place and they are talking in excess of one million dollars out of his pocket. Commissioner Henninger stated his proposal on Condftion No. 2 is to change the second word "shall" to 'may." Whether he will have to do that depends on what you want to build in the future, and it depends on the relationship of what you want to build to the need that generates for these circulation improvements, therefore, they are not making that decision today. Mr. Siegle stated he understood that, however, the real problem he has is that when City Council waNed these requirements on June 10th, it specifically was not in the motion that there would be a certficate placed on the Parcel Map. He expressed his concerns regarding encumbering and burdening the tftle with a certificate of improvement. Anyone who purchases the property for development is naturally aware ff they are going to create needs for streets or other improvements, then than v+ould be part of their building permft requirements. Commissioner Henninger stated that is not the point at all, the point is that a competent developer would expect that, but this is just to give the buyer fair warning that depending on how they develop, there may be some street improvements that they need to consider and he thought that was only fair. Discussion took place regarding Condition No. 1: a comer cutoff at the northwest comer of „~ South Street and Rose Street. ~_ Ms. Meeks explained they require the dedication to provide adequate handicapped access and they are In a program where they are going out and replacing access ramps at various locations and then try to obtain that right-ofway to make those Improvements when they have the funds. Mc Siegle stated he'ust cannot see why this dedication is being placed on this property at this time when the need has not been demonstrated. Commissioner Henninger explained they are not doing that with the condition as amended. Ms. Meeks addressed Commissions, Henninger and stated when he changed the condtion to "may be required," is that as directed by the Director of Public Works? Commissioner Henninger stated he thought that was probably true. Commissioner Henninger asked considering what has been done today, do they need this variance? What is the appropriate procedure now that they made this minor change? They are really talking about a minor change to the conditions of approval to the Tentative Parcel Map which is not even on the agenda today. 07/25/94 b„/ Page 15 :i i _ Ms. Mann stated she would need to defer to Engineering 4o see if this is a waiver from their Code requirement even as amended. She is not aware whether the change wfth the comer cutoff is different than what would bo required under Code. She stated probably the safest course would be to just make a decision with regard to the waNer, then that would bo appealable to the City Council ff the applicant is so inclined. Ms. Meeks explained that modifying this condition as proposed would not be a waNer of the requirements. That is one thing that was established at the Council Ievei when they established Condition No. 2, that h did not fall under the waiver, but only a extension of time to meet the requirements of the Code. Commissioner Henninger stated the way he views this, is that he agrees with the applicant that this lot split-he does not see how they connect that to the requirement for these dedications and they do not have enough Information to do that today because he does not know what is ultimately going to be built there. The proposed change in the wording of the condition reflects that, i.e., depending on what is built in the future, they may need to do these things. He asked how they can get this done? Ms. Mann stated they need to make a decision on what the applicant's request is and that would ba denial of the waiver. Commissioner Henninger asked how do they get the language changed on Condition No. 2 on the map changed? Can they direct staff to do that? Ms. Mann stated this appears that this could be done as a partial dental of the request because ft wouid be dented in the sense that you would not be approving what the applicant has asked for, but it would be modification in that the conditions would not remain exactly as ~^ they had been previously. The Commission's recommendation of the denial wouid be that h was denied but with the recommendation that ftem no. 2 be changed to change that one word. Commissioner Henninger asked If staff could administratively change that one word in the condition? Ms. Mann explained the safest thing to do if there is going to be a change in the Parcel Map Condition, would be to readvertise the Parcel Map. The only thing that has been advertised here fs the waiver of dedication and Improvements. Commissioner Henninger asked ff the Parcei Map is done by the Zoning Administrator? Ms. Mann explained that the decision on the Parcel Map has already been made by the City Council which Is actually the final decision maker with regard to this item. She stated she was not ready to make a recommendation on this based upon what she has heard here. In terms of how they would bring it back again for rE, onsideration, she would need to take a look at the Code Sections that are involved. She would need a 2 week continuance for the City Attorney's Office to take a look at this. It may be within that time, the applicant and Public Works Engineering could meet and work out some kind of solution that would be satisfactory to both sides. 07/25/94 Page 16 (Variance No. 4256 continued) ~ . ACTION: Continued subJect petition to the August 8, 1994 Pianning Commission meeting. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Boydstun declared a conBlct of Interest and Commissioner Masse was absent) ~~~ I i 07/25/94 Page 17 6c. OWNER: THE BY7J\NTINE CATHOLIC BISHOP OF VAN NUYS, 8131 North 16th Front, Phoenix, AZ 85020 AGENT: REV. GECRGE N. VIDA, 319 North Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 999 N. West Street. Property is approximately 2.5 acres located on the west side of West Street and approximately 590 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. To permit an 8,355-square foot church, a 6,950-square foot, 2-story social hall with basement and a 30-foot high bell tower with waivers of maximum structural height, minimum front yard setback, minimum setback of Institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone, : ninlmum rear yard setback, permitted accessory buildings, permitted signs and required parking lot landscaping. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC9498 Approved Approved Granted FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ~- OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke in opposition/correspondence was received IN FAVOR: 4 people spoke in favor PETITIONER: John Brewster, representing The Byzantine Catholic Church. He resides at 331 S. Old Bridge Rd., Anaheim, CA. They are proposing a 6,475 square-foot church with a 1880-foot loft reaching a maximum height of 50 feet with a dome which is 32 feet in circumference. The rest of the building is 34 feet or lower. The Social hall is approximately 5,000 square foot with a partial second floor and a basement for storage underneath. They have established a Site Plan along with the densfty of the landscaping. They put all of the parking in the rear so no parking will be seen from West Street or any public viewing from the street. They Inadvertently submitted a point on thb southwest comer which they ultimately found out belonged to the City of Anaheim. He has also provided an alternative plan with 132 spaces in the event that this does not work out, however, he met wfth Richard Mayer and Richard Santo [his morning and they are going to entertain the idea of buying the property from the City of Anaheim and that is their wish also. He explained it is a bare piece of property that they have been taking care of for several years and nobody realized, including the Ciry, that it belonged to the Ciry. It is located right behind the Little League field along the flood control. 07/25/94 Page 18 The entrance to the church is located on the west side in the back. There is no entranca from the street and no intrusion of the neighborhood whatsoever. He referenced page 6, ne. 20 of the staff report regarding projections above roof lines. He read language from the Code. He explained that the dome is symbolic of the Byzantine right of the Catholic Church. It is no different than a tower or a skylight. He did not think it was in violation of the Code as indicated. He stated the setback was established like It is in order to keep the parking in the back so it is not obtrusive to the neighbors. In the back they have a flood control channel and across from that there is some commercial. He referenced Waiver No. C regarding minimum setback of institutional uses. He explained on the south side of the property they have approximately 235 feet that (s less than 15 feet, it is 10 fret. It basically affects two houses. He submitted pictures. He stated their is a lot of conflicting Codes regarding the rear yard setback as far as 2-story goes. It represents commercial, residential or institutional. He explained they are 18 feet at the northwest corner which means the social hall has that corner Into the rear yard setback. They are 15 feet as required by Code from the north property Ilne, but ft is residential. In addition, there is a stairway also on that side which is required by the Fire Department for access which can be conditioned for emergency purposes only and they do not have a problem with that. They have heavy, heavy landscaping to the north and to the west so that the Zoning Department's concern regarding the 2-story windows of 2 classrooms do not look Into someone's rear yard. He submitted pictures. The sign is a modest 4' X 6' basic sign with Byzantine Catholic Church on it. He has a hard time wfth the cross on the dome being considered a sign. That is a symbol that is symbolic world wide. Commissioner Boydstun asked iF the cross would be lighted? Mr. Brewster stated not that he was aware of. He was not certain, but did not think so. He stated in either drawing, i.e., Site Plan 1 or 1A, they provided in one, 135 parking places which is 3 more than they need including a drop off area in front of the church for handicap, elderly, small children, Inclement weather or funerals. The social hall is basically for wedding receptions, church functions, etc. It is not a big hall In comparison to most. He had a layout done by the architect that will show the heights of the homes in relationship to the church and the dome. He stated the landscaping will eliminate anyone looking at the flood control channel. He added it will also clean the site up considerably. He stated they did send out letters to the neighborhood and asked them to voice their opinion a week ayo Saturday and they answered most of their concerns. FAVOR: Doug Brown, i51 S. ~unitana, Anaheim, CA; Charlie Kanenbley, 2434 S. Redwood Dr., Anaheim, CA. 07/25/94 Page 19 OPPOSITION: ~~ Dave Chen (no address given). He is a resident directly across from the proposed site. He expressed his concens about the traffic conditions on West Street; there are ingress and egress problems; overflow parking; visibility problems; privacy concems; safety and noise were other factors to be considered. He suggested that the City negotiate alternative sftes. He submitted a letter. Don Parson, 700 West Julianne, A~~aheim, CA. He expresses! his concerns regarding the amount of variances that the petitioner is asking for. He added this Is a residential neighborhood. Mr. Barrajn, 1131 W. La Entrada C!rcle, Anaheim, CA. He expressed his concems ab~ ut his property being backed up to the parking lot of the proposed church; and security. He asked ff they will have a security gate, access, and lighting in the parking lot, l.e., will it be on throughout the entire night? IN FAVOR: Ed Sapego, (phonetically ^pelled), project architect, 24831 Alicia Parkway, Laguna :fills, CA. He stated some of the concerns can be handled in several ways. He explained 90% of the activity that will go on for the entire duration of a 7-day activity will occur on a weeken~ In file morning. They are required by Ciry Code to keep the Iight(ng at a minimal illumined level. They will also provide some minimal Ilght along the perimeter at night for security purposes. He explained the dome only encompasses 2D% cf the roof structure. The structure is 34 feet and it graduates to a dome height of 50 feet. There are some existing trees about 40 feet in height to the south of the church. They provided a site survey of existing structures as far as compatibility to existing heights and they do have a site line cut of some of those views. Part of their concern is how to address a different type of stn~ctura in a residential neighborhood. They are permitted to have this in that type of zoning under a conditional use permit. They are being careful to meat the guidelines set before them. They believe that the variances they are requesting does meet in conformance with the overall Intent of the neighborhood for such use. They believe it would be a Benefit for the neighborhood and that the traffic issue is a mute item in this case. Mrs. Eleanor Howe, 609 N. Janss Way, Anaheim, CA There are 2 other churches in the area and it has not bothered anyone. Treva Brown, 1800 W. Gramercy, Anaheim, CA. She addressed the traffic issue. This property is just south of la Palma. She explained on the corner of West and La Palma on both sides, is commercial. Sha stated we are not talking about a church in the middle of a residential area. The church is on the perimeter of a residential area. She explained the parishioners could come in from La Palma rather than the south through the residential area. She referenced the security gates. She explained that Father Vida (phonetically spelled) will have a permanent residence on the property. Most of the traffic will be on Sunday morning. This church draws from ad over Southern CalHornia. 07/25/94 ~ Pagu 20 REBUTTAL: ,~'~ Mr. Brewster addressed the lighting. He stated tho lighting will be a maximum of 12 feet and ` anything aiong the perimeter has to be forward throw, i.e., the lighting goes out to the parking lot and not behind the standards to light up the people's rear yards. Chairman Peraza asked about the seccurity. Mr. Brewster stated Father Vida does live there and you cannot always keep evoryone out, however, he does not anticipate any type of security. When the project is finished you wills not see the parking lot. Chairman Peraza asked ff lhey were planning on any food distribution at the church site? Mr. Brewster stated they do not anticipate any kind of distribution whatsoever. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Archftect. Name not audible for record. He stated one of the concerns was compatibility between the surrounding use and the church use. landscaping will help reduce noise to surrounding residents. They have also made a very strung site line along the street in an effort to reduce traffic noise. Commissioner Henninger referenced paragraph's of the staff report which summarizes a letter given to the planning staff on the operations of this facility. They will have Sunday services beginning at 10:OOa.m. and then during the week days they will leave services for about 20-25 merr:br:-s between 9:OOa.m. and 9:30a.m. They make no mention of any evening services and there are no plans for a school child care facility or playground areas. Mr. Brewster Indicated that was correct. He stated unless there is something species that might come up, there are no evening services anticipated. Commissioner Mayer stated she does live next to a church and a church parking lot. She stated they are planning on having wedding receptions, dinners, rummage and bake sales and committee meetings. She asked ff some of those were slated for evening use and would they be able to have a closure on what time those uses would cease and the parking lot would be closed? Mr. Brewster stated most of the functions would be day time functions and they are very small groups of about 6 to 12 members. Rev. George Vida, 999 N. West Street. Tlie office is presently located at 319 N. Harbor Blvd., Anaheim, CA. They do have some evening services, but not regularly. He explained they do have some holy days throughout the year and they do have some evening services around 7:30p.m. During lent they have services usually on Friday. They do have one big fund raiser which Is usually held in November, however, they have changed that to the i(rst pea>. of June. It is an annual affair that has beon going on for 11 years. He addressed the parking issue. Presently they have to park along Cypress. They do not anticipate on having catering for wedding receptions. Most weddings would be held in larger halls then their facility would offer. ~ 07/25/94 ~ Page 21 t j t S He addressed the Iight(ng and noise. They are not a boisterous group. They have been ~ having some monthly dinners after the morning service on some Sundays. There may be some music going on at that time. There is a Little League field in the back and there are night lights on constantly which do shine into the residential area. They also shine into their property. Commissioner Mayer stated then they can have a time in the evening where there are no activities such as 9:OOp.m. and after. She asked ff there was a security gate they could close so no unauthorized uses would be going on? Father Vlda stated they have not planned one as such. Commissioner Boydstun asked ff that could be added? Father Vida stated it could be looked Into. Commissioner Caldwell stated then we can assuma that your activties Monday through Friday evenings are minimal and that he would not have anymore than 20 to 25 people on any given night after 9:OOp.m.? Father Vida stated there are ..o services after 9:OOp.m. Commissioner Henninger stated they want everybody to vacate the site by 9:OOp.m. or 9:30p.m. Commissioner Caldwell stated the gate would be locked by 9:30p.m. Commissioner Henninger stated it sounds like they do not do that too often and maybe they should have some number of nights a years. He stated perhaps limit it to 50 nights a year that they have over 20 people on site in the evenings and even at those times they would have to leave by 9:30p.m. Commissioner Boydstun asked ff they would have more than one meeting a week at night? Commissioner Henninger asked if they had one large meeting a week? Father Vida stated they have some large meetings, i.e., some committees meet. At the most there are 30 people depending on the committee. Commissioner Caldwell stated the purpose is to try and eliminate a full congregation meeting. Commissioner Boydstun stated they could put a limit of not to have more than 50 people. This way they can have their smaller committee meetings because that will not provide any traffic that would amount to anything. Mr. Brewster stated I think he has this a little confused, but like he earlier said during Lent there are special services, usually on Friday night and holy days where the whole congregation may show up, but these services should be over by 9:OOp.m. Commissioner Boydstun stated not more than 52 times a year. 07/25/94 ~ Page 22 Commissioner Henninger stated he was not intending to limff ff to one meeting a week, but to 52 times a year which is an average of one a week. Commissioner Mayer asked for clarffication on the annual event. Mr. Brewster stated they have one big event a year that they have been having at the Red Lion. Commissioner Mayer asked ff this would be moved to the site? Mr. Brewster stated they have what is called a flea market and that is held during the day. Commissioner Mayer asked ff that would be subject to a special events use? Mr. Brewster explained this is something they have been doing for years. Commissioner Mayer asked but not at this site? Mr. Brewster stated at the old site. Commissioner Boydstun asked if they get a special permR when they have a festival on premises? Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, explained they do, however, it probably would not be subject to the normal type of speciai events permits that you would have for a commercial type of business. They look at these a little bit differently, but they would be required to come to the City for review and they would have to meet all pertinent Codes in regards to parking ~ and noise that is generated by the use and the types of banners and such that they fly . Commissioners Mayer and Boydstun expressed their concerns regarding their annual event. Mr. Brewster explained they do not have any rides or carnival. Their parking lot will not be closed and their flea market would all be on the plaza over towards the social hall and in the social hall. He added the parking lot would still be available. Chairman Peraza stated this morning Mr. Borrego indicated he was concerned that the social hall was too close to the residents. He asked ff he still had that concern? Mr. Borrego stated they still do have that concern ff they are still going to use ff for functions such as weddings. Typically them is some noise associated wffh that type of activity such as a band or people chatting outside. The hall would be 15 feet away from the backyards of those residences which line the property to the north. He stated as mentioned earlier, it should be conditioned so that that exit along the north elevation would only be used for emergency purposes. Commissioner Boydstun asked for clarification ff they held receptions with a band and dancing? Mr. Brewster explained it is such a small facility that ff ff was, k would be a very Iimffed and a small event. 07/25/94 0~ Page 23 4 4 y Mr. Brewster stated he also agrees wfth Mr. Borcego that the stairway should be condkioned for emergency only. The Fire Department is making them do ft. Commissioner Caldwell asked in order to meet their Code requirements for the setback, what is the possibility of moving the building 5 feet, angle ft and not have k be an Issue at ail? Mr. Borcego explained it was actually to the property line to the west to the channel and not the property line to the north. Mr. Borcego explained ft Is really the noise that they are concerned about and to the extent that that can be condftioned. Mr. Brewster stated they have added a tremendous amount of screening on the north side. He will put as much in ft as he can get. Chairman Peraza asked ff there have been any complaints from the residents in the back or do they all belong to his church? A person from the audience Indicated there have been complaints. Commissioner eoydstun asked if Code Enforcement have had any complaints? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated he did not know in reference to the property on Harbor. They Just asked Code Enforcement about the existing property. He added they can certalniy find out. Commissioner Boydstun stated she knows they have had parking problems because they have a very small parking lot. ,'~ Commissioner Henninger asked about the exterior illumination of the building. He asked ff he had plans of illuminating the dome in the evenings and was the cross to be illuminated? Mr. Brewster indicated no. Commissioner Henninger asked abt~ut the operation of the bell tower. Mr. Brewster stated they have talked mainly about electronic bell chimes and ft Is not something that will go on all night or all day long. A lot of ft Is symbolic, but ft will be used occasionally. Commissioner Henninger asked for further clarification as to how they were going to use the chimes and bells? Father V(da stated the donor had in mind having real bells, however, if that is a problem, not more than 3. If that is a problem then the electronic bells are controlled by volume control. He added they use them on Sundays before the services start. Commissioner Mayer asked ff the bells were amplified and how far Into the neighborhood would you hear the bells? Father Vida stated he guessed ft would depend on how the wind was blowing. He was not certain. Real bells are not amplified and usually the ringer is electrffied so the bells do not swing. 07/25/94 1~ Page 24 Commissioner Henninger asked if it was his desire to use these bells just as a call to service !'~ on Sunday mornings and at noon and 6:OOp.m.? Father Vida stated he would like the bells at noon and 6:OOp.m., but he was agreeable to using them for call to service only. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Pennft No. 3699 Added the following condftions: II 1. That the church services shall be limfted to one weekday service (beginning at 9:00 a.m.) and one Sunday service (beginning at 10:00 a.m.). ~ This condition shall not preclude special religious services on holy days. 2. That there shall be no overlapping activities between the church and social hall (with the exception of Sunday school actNftles). 3. That this conditional use permft does not include approval of any school, child care facilfty or playground. 4. That the church shall be allowed evening operations for committee meetings with a maximum attendance of fifty (50) persons. The church shall be allowed a maximum of fifty two (52) evening events that would accommodate the total congregation. The events shall end early enough ~l' so that the parking lot is empty by 9:30 p.m. 5. That the stairway located on th:~ north side of the social hall shall be used for emergency exft purposes only. The door shall be kept closed during events. 6. That the property owner/developer shall install a device (i.e. vehicular access gate or fence) to control people coming onto the she after hours. 7. That the bell tower may be used at 12 noon and 6 p.m. seven days a week, and for call to service on Sundays. 8. That the dome and cross shall not be illuminated. VOTE: 5-1 (Commissioner Mayer voted no and Commissioner Messe was absent) 07/25/94 Page 25 i Continued to 8-8-94 Readvertised AGENT: WEST STREET DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., Attn: Doug Browne, P.O. BOX 18021, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 6270 E. Santa Ana Canvon Road. Property Is approximately 0.94 acre located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and approximately 515 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard. To permit a private educational facility and a church with waiver of minimum setback of institutional uses adjacent to residential zone boundary and maximum fence height. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the August 8, 1994 Planning Commis3lon meeting. VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Messe absent) ,..~~, ~, 07/25/94 ~ Page 31 Approved Approved revised plans OWNER: PRESI.EY COMPANIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Attn: Richard Sohn, 19 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: Subiect oroaerties are irregularly-shaaed parcels of land located at the weste•n terminus of Canyon Creek Road. ~,.~eteit.,,..,r s ~~fnr nt as lots Isa lots within Tract No. 12889 23 lots within Tract No. 12690. and 6 lots within Tract No 12891) located wHhin Deveioament Area 1 of The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specific Plan (SP87-11. Petitioner requests approval of a revision to the previously approved she plans for Tract Nos. 12689, 12690, and 12691 within The Highlands at Anaheim Hills Specfflc Plan (SP87-1) in order to construct 82 single-family structures ranging from 3,343 to 4,094 square feet. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: .- Thomas Mauer (phonetically spelled), Presley Company, Vice President and Director of Architecture, 19 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA. He Is asking that they approve their request for the change in Site Plan. They are in the fifth year of their development and they are looking for a change. They have had a slow down in gales and they ars looking for somathing new. In order to do this they felt a change in plan and elevation would create some excitement and they would have more sales. Dennis Flynn, 22659 Old Canal Road. The architect for the proposed project. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner rlenninger asked for clarification M these proposed units are larger than the ones they previously built? Mr. Mauer indicated that was correct. The sales person reported that the people looking were looking for larger bedrooms and family roams. There was also a need expressed for more rear yard area and they cut 7 to 12 feet out of the depths of the houses in order to accomplish that. Commissioner Boydstun stated the plans looked good and she liked the floor plans. ii 07/2E/94 " i ~~ Page 32 ACTION: Approved EIR 273 (Previously Certified) ~-. Approved revised plans submitted for Tentative Tract Map Nos. 12689, 12690 and 12691. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Messe absent) .--~ i ';,~;,. ~r.,~K 07/25/94 Page 33 ~. t0a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved 10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved, in part 10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3698 Granted, in part OWNER: SHELL OIL COMPANY LOS ANGELES, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ATTN: J.N. Stegman, Southern CalHomia Dist. Engineer, P. 0. Box 4848, Anaheim, CA 92803 AGENT: TAIT & ASSOCIATES INC., ATTN: Timothy Virus, P.O. Box 4429, Orange, CA 92613 LOCATION: 1200 N. Euclid Street. Property is approximately 0.84 acre located at the northeast corner of Romneya Drive and Euciid Street. To permit a service station with car wash facilities and a convenience market with waiver of (a) required structural setback, (b) required landscape setback, (c) landscape requirements adjacent to street frontages and (d) landscape requirements at Interior boundary lines. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94100 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. Commissioner Tait declared a conflict of Interest. OPPOSITION: Nono PETITIONER: Timothy Virus, staff architect for Tait and Associates and the appilcant, 1100 Town and Country Road, Sufte 1200, Orange, CA. They have an existing service station that over the years has seen its business adjust to the point that customers are no longer dealing with the corner service station. They tend to go to the quick lube, the fire store, etc., and therefore, they have seen his service business adjust accordingly. The change in the market has been to provide a convenience type mart for the fast paced life style of today He stated three years ago, the market Indicated, and the business was adjusted to remove one of the service bays of the facility and to incorporate an auto laundry operation in the service bay. They are now requesting permission to remove the 2 other remaining service bays and convert the entire building to a food mart operation. The appilcant initially had looked at a beer and wine use for this facility and based on the recommendation of the Police Department in the pre review process, that portion of the application was removed at this time. He explained they have worked wfth staff to develop the Site Plan and they are very pleased with this layout. They have a couple of comments regarding the staff report that were a 11tt1e inaccurate. He referenced paragraph 7 of the staff report regarding the hours of the car wash. 07/25/94 Page 34 He explained there was no Ilmtation on the car wash operation in the previous CUP and they are asking for no limitation on the carvvash operation at this time. He stated ft has minimal use in the evenings, but ft is open 24 hours. There Is no dryer operation ft is simply a drNe-through and the cars are washed. He asked that the time limitation be removed from the staff report so the operation can continue as ft is currently existing and as previously approved. He referenced the recommendation on page 7 of the staff :eport. He stated they have no objection to the Increase in trees; they can easily be accommodated. The waNer is requested primarily based on the driveway to the adjacent Commercial center which Iimfts the abilfty to plant trees in that area and also restriction of any trees further out onto Euclid which would impede visibility along the traffic corridor. The other recommendation of staff (s to increase the corner planter up along Romneya in the area of the driveway which was closed during the carwash CUP. They would have no objection to that either as long as they maintain an adequate traffic lane out of their service Island. He added they feel that would be an added benefit also. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Henninger stated wfth the changes they are basically doing what they can do there. He asked staff ff the hours had previously not been Iimfted for the operation of the carwash? Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated he did not think h was, and k was not their intent, to limit it as a part of this conditional use permft. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Waiver of Code Requirement -Approved, in part, as follows: Denied Waiver (a) on the basis that ft was deleted following public notiflrztion. Approved Waiver (b) Approved Waiver (c) for Euclid Street only. Approved, in part, Waiver (d) -the property owner/developer shall provide additional trees to meet the cooa required number of trees on less than 20 foot centers. Added the following conditions: 1. That the code required number of trees shall be provided on less than twenty (20) foot centers along the north and east property lines. 2. That ^ 3-foot wide planter area shall be provided adjacent to Romneya Drive just east of the Intersection. 3. That the signage plan for this she shall meet all Code requirements. VOTE: 5.0 (Commissioner Taft declared a conflict of Interest and Commissioner Messe was absent) '~4 07/25/94 Page 35 11a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPT-CLASS 11 No action 11b. VARIANCE N0. 4255 Granted OWNER: TOBISHIMA DEVELOPMENT CO., 201 E. Sandpofnte, Ste. 450, Santa Ana, CA 92707 AGENT: PATRICK FARANAL, YOUNG ELECTRIC SIGN CO., 1413 E. Philadelphia St., Ontario, CA 91761 LOCATION: 8205 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road IPe B~ Property is approximately 3.34 acres having a frontage of approximately 120 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, having a maximum depth of approximately 600 feet and befog located approximately 1050 feet west of the centedine of Weir Canyon Road Waiver of permitted wall signs to construct a 100-square foot wall sign. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC94101 FOLLOWINa IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Commissioner Taft declared a conflict of interest. ~ ~.. PETITIONER: Armando Gonzalez, Reeves Associates Archftects, 170 Fairoaks, Pasadena, Ca. He is representing the Pep Boys. He stated they want to increase the square footage on this sign. They are requesting to construct one 100-square foot wall sign on a portion of the south storefront elevation. They feel by increasing the sign ft will be proportionate to the entire elevation and secondly :hey want to have more identffication and visibility from Santa Ana Canyon Road. John Heemstra, Young Electric Sign Company, 1413 E. Philadelphia Street, Ontario, CA 91761. They feel this is very appropriate considering the architecture structure. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Henninger stated he thought this looked like a reasonable rec~,est. ACTION: Granted Variance No. 4255 VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Taft declared a conflict of interest and Commissioner Messe absent) 07/25/94 Page 36 12. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: n A. REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INITIATION OF THE Initiated ANAHEIM RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 92-2 AND GENERAL PLAN applications for AMENDMENT NO. 333. The proposed 549.5-acre Anaheim Resort SP 92-2 and Speciflc Plan and General Plan Amendment project area are generally GPA 333 located adjacent to and southwest of Interstate 5 between Ball Road and Orangewood Avenue. RESOLUTION N0. PC94-102 B. VARIANCE NO 3041 -REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO Approved AMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Andrew W. Klein, M.D., (to expire 9-19-95) 191 South Starlight Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807 requests an extension of time to comply wfth conditions of approval for Variance No. 3041 (waiver of maximum fence height and minimum structural setback to construct an accessory living quarter, garage, and fence) to expire September 19, 1995. Property is located at 191 South Starlight Drive. Continued from the June 27, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. `- This per on did not identify himself. He stated he was yofng to do a redesign of the footprint of the -" building ff that was acceptable pending staff approval. Commissioner Henninger explained ff it is substantially in conformance with the old footprint, staff will approve it. If ft is not, they will bring ft before the Commission and there is a process to go tnrough. APPOINTED JULIE MAYER AS PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE AND PHYL~IS BOYDSTUN AS HER ALTERNATE. MEETING ADJOUFNED AT4:45 P.M. TO THE AUGUST 8, 1994 PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION AT 11:00 A.M. +T, 07/25/94 ~ Page 37