Loading...
Minutes-PC 2004/08/23 (2)~ ~O~ ,~ , ~~ ~~ E~ ~~ Mondav, Auqust 23, 2004 • • ~p~~ ~ ~ DED c,y ~ ~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ %~1 $~/. 1 CITY OF ANAHEIM Planning Commission Minutes Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRMAN: GAIL EASTMAN Commissioners Present: KELLY BUFFA, CECILIA FLORES, JERRY O'CONNELL, DAVID ROMERO, JAMES VANDERBILT-LINARES, PAT VELASQUEZ Commissioners Absent: NONE Staff Present: Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney Greg Hastings, Planning Services Manager Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator Dave See, Senior Planner Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer Elly Morris, Senior Secretary Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Danielle Masciel, Word Processing Operator Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 4:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 18, 2004, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. PubliShed: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, July 29, 2004 • Call To Order Planning Commission Morning Session 11:00 A.M. • DISCUSSION REGARDING CHANGING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TIME • STAFF UPDATE TO COMM1SSlON ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE AUGUST 23, 2004 AGENDA • Recess To Afternoon Public Hearing Session ~ Reconvene To Public Hearing 1:30 P.M. For record keepinp purposes if you wish to make a statement repardinq any item on the ~enda please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretarv. • Pledge Of Allegiance: Commissioner O'Connell • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Adjournment You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: planninacommissionC~anaheim.net H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MI NUTESWC082304. DOC AUGUST 23, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda -1:30 P.M. Public Comments: 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. Sheri McCracken of Anaheim, CA, stated concern with a project on the corner of Broadway and also signatures on today's agenda. Chairman Eastman asked Ms. McCracken to submit her questions to staff in writing for an appropriate response. Consent Calendar: The Report and Recommendation items 1-A through 1-C on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one ro41 call vate. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Flores offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares abstained on Items 1-A and 1-B), for approval of Consent Calendar Items 1-A and 1-B as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Item 1-C was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED • ~. Reports and Recommendations 1A. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 9, 2004. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Flores offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares abstained), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of August 9, 2004. Approved (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares abstained since he was absent for a portion of the meeting) 1 B. Receiving and approving supplemental detailed Minutes for Approved Item No. 5 from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 9, 2004, pertaining to The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and related (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner items. (Motion) Vanderbilt-Linares abstained since he was absent for a ACTION: Commissioner Flores offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Portion of the meeting) Romero and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares abstained), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the supplemental detailed Minutes for Item No. 5 from the Planning • Commission Meeting of August 9, 2004, pertaining to The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and related items. 08-23-04 Page 2 AUGUST 23, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1C. (a) CEQA Environmental Impact Report No. 330 Recommended City Council • ~Previouslv-Certified) Approval (b) Zonina Code Amendment No. 2004-00034 Recommended to City Council adoption of the draft Location: Citywide. The City of Anaheim is surrounded by the cities of ordinance, with modifications. Fullerton, Placentia and Yorba Linda to the north; unincorporated Orange County to the east; the cities of Orange, Garden Grove, Stanton and (Vote: 7-0) unincorporated Orange County to the south; and the cities of Cypress and Buena Park to the west. The City encompasses approximately 50 square miles. City-initiated (Planning Department) request to amend various sections of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code to correct various errors and omissions, clarify certain text, modify the required parking standards for Attached Single-Family Dwellings (18.42.030 "Residential Parking Requirements"), and make it unlawful to mainta'sn any construction, alteration or addition to any building or structure that was done without the required building permit (18.90.110.030 "Building Permits"). (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that in Section 4 there was language that was not substantiated as in other portions of the report where it explained why the request was made. In Section 4 it just simply stated, "we're crossing out "peace and general welfare". He believed that by removing the word "peace" from the findings that Commission had to make, then they would not need to concern themselves ' " • . He asked health and safety with the issues of noise but only be concerned with why the language was pulled. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator, stated it was a request made by the City Attorney's office, and this particular set of conditions would be for a use permit for a conversion of a multiple-family project to a condominium project, and the same findings that are made in a general way are not made, because as a conversion similar to mobile home parks and second units, the state preempted the City in certain areas. She suggested that they take out Section 4 from the amendment so that when there was a second go through on further instances, they would either bring it up again, if further research is needed, and if not then they would leave it the way it reads today. Mr. Gordon responded thaYs one option. They could take the recommendation as it was presently framed and Commissioner Vanderbilt's comments could be attached to it and passed along to the City Council for their consideration on Section 4, so that his concerns could be properly be considered. Commissioner Flores wished to clarify if the reason why they deleted the words "peace and general welfare" was because they were going by the health and safety or the uniform building code. She believed that under the uniform building code and under the health and safety code it just states "health and safety" and not "peace and general welfare". Ms. Santalahti responded that could be. • Commissioner Romero stated that he would prefer to pull Section 4 so that Commission could get more information before they made any recommendations. Commissioner Velasquez and Commissioner O'Connell concurred, specifically sr6666as.doc 08-23-04 Page 3 AUGUST 23, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • since they were not able to make contact with the attorney who made the recommendation. Mr. Gordon stated that they had an option of continuing the item until a later date and time so that the matter could be clarified to the condition or simply pass along their recommendation to the City Council by a motion with the concerns that Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares stated and a{low that to be considered by the City Council. ACTION: Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that City Council determine that the proposed Code Amendment No. 2004-00034 is within the scope of the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 330, and that the previousiy-certified Final EIR No. 330 for Zoning Code Amendment No. 2004-00029, which was a comprehensive update to Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code, is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State and City CEQA Guidelines and is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed Code Amendment and satisfy all the requirements of CEQA; and that no further environmental documentation need be prepared for the proposed Code Amendment. Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt the draft ordinance attached to the staff report dated August 23, 2004, amending various sections of the Anaheim • Municipal Code relating to correcting errors and omissions, clarifying certain text, modifying the required parking standards for Attached Single-Family Dwellings (18.42.030 "Residential Parking Requirements"), and making it unlawful to maintain any construction, alteration or addition to any building or structure that was done without the required building permit (18.90.110.030 "Building Permits"), with the following modifications made at today's public hearing: The Commission requested that staff remove Section 4 from the draft ordinance, which Section would delete several words from a subparagraph of 18.06.030.090.0901, in order to give staff time to verify that those words should be removed. Section 4 in the draft ordinance submitted to Commission read as follows: Section 4 ".07 That granting the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the pease, health, and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim." DISCUSSION: 16 minutes (1:49-2:05) ~ ~ 08-23-04 Page 4 AUGUST 23, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Public Hearina Items: 2a. CEQA Neqative Declaration 2b. Waiver of Code Requirement 2c. Conditional Use Permit No. 2871 (Tracking No. CUP2004-04872) Continued to September 20, 2004 Owner: Connelly S. Cornelia, 2323 West Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92804 Agent: Ron Sorenson, HGA Inc., 1613 Santa Clara Drive, Roseville, CA 95661 Location: 2323 West Broadwav. Property is approximately 6.5 acres, having a frontage of 454 feet on the north side of Broadway, located 860 feet east of the centerline of Gilbert Street (Cornelia Connelly High School). Request to construct a new gymnasium in conjunction with an existing private educational institution with waiver of maximum structural height adjacent to a residential zone boundary. Continued from the August 9, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. • s sr5112jr.doc FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AC710N. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the September 20, 2004, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to allow time to meet with the neighborhood and staff to address concerns expressed at the previous meeting. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 08-23-04 Page 5 AUGUST 23, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA Neqative Declaration Approved 3b. Waiver Of Code Reauirement Approved, in part 3c. Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04857 Granted for 1 year (to expire on Owner: John Lee, 3026 West Bail Road, Anaheim, CA 92804 August 23, 2005) Agent: Chung Myung, 3380 Flair Drive, Suite 222, EI Monte, CA 91731 Location: 3026 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 0.41- acre, landlocked parcel located on the south side of Ball Road located 418 feet west of the centerline of Beach 8oulevard. Request to permit a church within an existing residence with a separate accessory pastor's quarters with waivers of: (a) minimum setback for institutional uses abutting a residential zone boundary, and (b) minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the August 9, 2004, Planning Commission Meeting. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2004-91 sr8756dh(a).doc Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. • Dave See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 3. ApplicanYs Testimony: Myung Chung, CMC Architects & Engineers, 3380 Flair Drive #222, EI Monte, CA, prepared a PowerPoint presentation to clarify issues regarding landscaping, parking, excess from the west bound traffic along Ball Road, and the trash pickups. The PowerPoint presentation illustrated the surrounding condominium neighborhood, trees and the area of landscaping that they are proposing: John Lee, Pastor of The Disciple Church, 3026 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA, stated that he feels the main issue is the size and population of the church; that the property was not going be big enough for the church population. So he wished to reiterate that it is their desire to be a small church. They wished to build a relationship with their neighbor and would not be using their parking lot at anytime. They spoke to Streets and Sanitation and have been allowed to use barrel containers instead of an enclosure. Public Testimony: Sharon McCracken of Anaheim, CA, stated that property owned by individuals are required to have a note on the property to be evidenced by a bank, and she did not notice one on the subject property. Mary McGuire a City certified Korean translator, appeared with Grace Kim, owner of the Realty Club, 3030 W. Ball Road. Ms. Kim appeared in the absence of her husband who was ill. She stated that she is also a Christian but the process was very complicated for her and she really felt that the potential problems were not acceptable: • • Potential fires. She pointed out the entrance of her building and the small corner of the easement where trash bins were located and stated that it would be difficult for fire trucks to gain access through there. 08-23-04 Page 6 AUGUST 23, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • One utility box. The utility box for both properties is in her backyard. Last year the former owner of the subject property had trouble with the plumbing. The plumbing company came out and did a research using cameras, etc. Eventually the problem was found in her kitchen. Her carpet was flooded out so she and the former owner spiit the cost half and half. She is concerned about the liability insurance. If inembers back through the entrance and somebody has an accident, since it is on her property they can sue her because she is the owner. She is a Christian too but does not wish to come face to face with the pastor everyday asking her if she believes in God. She does not feel she should have to explain that to him. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Mr. Lee responded that he is not exactly sure what the problem is. He has no knowledge of the situation with the plumbing and the former residence. However, they are trying very hard to build a relationship with their neighbor and do not desire to win approval of a Conditional Use Permit by determining who is right and who is wrong. They have made major attempts but they have all been stonewalled by Mr. and Mrs. Kim so there has not been a chance to speak about some of their concerns, and today is the first time he has heard any of the complaints, aside from the parking. And for that they apologized and stated that they really do want to win them over and try to do right by them. Mr. Chung responded that the Fire Department has their own safety guidelines and they will abide by the safety guidelines of the Fire Department. As far as parking, there aren't any cars parked on their property, on Sundays all day (as illustrated by the PowerPoint presentation). As far as someone feeling uncomfortable going in and out of a small parking lot, it is a matter of education. The members would have to be educated not to park on the neighbor's property. ~ Mr. Lee stated that they had already settled the trash issue and it had been approved by the Streets and Sanitation Department that there was not going to be a dumpster coming in. They would wheel their barrels out to Ball Road. Commissioner Flores wished to clarify the opponents concerns. Ms. Kim responded that entrance was a small area, just barely big enough for two small cars. She uses small trash cans so that the trash truck can get in and pick up the trash. It will be impossible for the fire truck to get in, and especially if there are 19 cars and 40 additional people there. Their utility box is in her back yard; the circuits are separate from hers, but both housed in the same utility box. Chairman Eastman asked who received the bil1, her or her neighbor. Ms. Kim responded that the bill is separate, but the location is the same. Chairman Eastman wished to clarify if there were separate meters. Ms. Kim responded yes, the meters were separate. And also the plumbing is connected to one sewer line everything. If they have a problem and their pipes are clogged, etc., it backs up in her building. So if there are 40 people using the toilet, she is uncertain what problems she may encounter with the sewer system. The last time the pipes clogged in the neighboring residence, she had to pay half of the bill. Also her husband's school was previously in cession on Tuesday and Thursday mornings but her landlord complained and she changed her time to Tuesday and Thursday nights. She is also short on parking space and people go in and out of the easement and cannot find a parking space. She received an approval from the City for her students use; her landlord is complaining and she does not wish to bother him so they do the best that they can and park as safely as possible, but now with the church it will become an even worse situation. • Mr. Chung stated regarding fire issues, a fire truck would not have to go all the way onto the property. The Fire Department allows 150 feet of distance for the fire hose to reach and the subject property is not big enough to use 150 feet from the where the truck would be and then pull back. And if the meter is 08-23-04 Page 7 AUGUST 23, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • really a concern they could remove it and relocate the meter to their property. He did not feel there should be anything that would be a reason for a big problem. The neighbor also has a gas meter on his client's property. So in a way they are sharing each other's meter locations. He does not feel that it is an intensification of the plumbing use. Also his client is flexible in their schedule of services because they are more of a disciple church and can arrange to start at 10 o'clock or 10:30 depending on the congregation's time. So if the neighbors have a different schedule or changed their schedule his client could make their schedule flexible to meet theirs. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares agrees that the Fire Department probably could run the hoses from the street but stated it seemed whenever there is a two-story structure they always try to bring the truck in with a ladder so they could shoot the water from a height that is equal to or higher than the building itself. He referred to staff and asked if it mattered whether it was a two-story structure or a single-story as far as access was concerned. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, responded that his understanding is that they would not need to take the truck inside the property if it was 150 feet or less but usually wouid carry their equipment inside and go up. The reason for that is if it is more than 150 feet their hose would not reach the house and that's why they would have to provide some other means; ladders and other type of equipment. James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer, stated a{so, through the plan check process the Fire Department could get an opportunity to look carefully at the plans and the structure and would decide at that time whether it needed to be sprinkled or if the hoses could reach. Commissioner Velasquez wished to clarify that the applicants were not exempt of anything. The Fire Qepartment would have to make their requirements, etc. • Mr. Ling responded that's correct. This is just the zoning entitlement and they would have to go through the building permit process and once again all of the departments would have another review. Commissioner Flores suggested three things; (1) Raise the fence two more feet to 8 feet so that it would give the people in the back more privacy; and (2) The education; it would take the members of the church time to start using the parking in the back. Therefore, in the meantime she suggested a security guard to make sure that people park in the area they were supposed to; and (3) a one-year approval. Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares concurred with Commissioner Flores regarding the parking attendant. He stated that he was driving in the parking lot and it was very tight. He did not think that there is any other way that they could park their car and back it out and then make the one way exit with out it being backed in. He feels they would really need to drive through the entire parking lot, make their way around as though leaving the parking lot and then back their car in, in order to use the southern most space. A parking attendant seemed most relevant in these instances because if they tried to do it head first they would be forced to park diagonally, especially if driving a SUV or other large size vehicle. Commissioner Velasquez stated regarding the parking structure and how it would be configured, would be turned over to the Traffic Department to make sure it worked out and whatever they would say the standards were. She would be opposed to requiring a guard. It is a great expense to impose and Commission would have to trust in good faith that the applicant would follow through with their proposal. Commissioner Buffa stated that it is always difficult to tell a church group no but she is unconvinced that this site really is large enough to support the use that is proposed. She does not remember a situation coming before Commission in the past where they had to pick their variance. The applicant would either get the amount of parking or get the amount of setback required, but they could not have both. So that alone tells her that the site is not big enough for the use thaYs proposed. She was not in favor of the • application. Commissioner O'Connell concurred with Commissioner Velasquez and feels that Commission could look at the project over the next year and see if there is any continuing problems. 08-23-04 Page 8 AUGUST 23, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Romero stated that he feels the same way as he did in the August 9, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting, the subject property is very unique and because it is unique there is going to be problems with whatever use that goes in there, and by putting this use in, giving the applicant the CUP for one year, and putting specific conditions on it, then he believed it was the best thing for this situation. DURING THE MOTION: Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares stated that in regards to Commissioner Velasquez's statement with respect to good faith, he supports that idea and concurs that there is the weight of the one year permit hanging over the heads of the applicant in order to make it work, but he wished to add that he would encourage the applicant to use education or signs or whatever means possible in order to figure out a way to make the parking work, because it is very difficuft to maneuver around some of the building structures to get into the parking spaces and while it looked good on paper, in reality it is a much more difficult challenge. OPPOSI7fON: A person spoke in opposition to the subject request. IN GENERAL: A person spoke unrelated to the subject request. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration • Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows: Approved waiver (a) pertaining to the minimum setback for institutional uses abutting a residential zone boundary; and denied waiver (b) pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces since it has been deleted. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04857 (to permit a church within an existing residence with a separate accessory pastor's quarters) for a period of one (1) year, to expire on August 23, 2005; and adoption of the resolution attached to the staff report dated August 23, 2004, including the findings and conditions contained therein, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 18 and 19 to read as follows: 18. That prior to the start of any parking lot construction activities the applicant shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by a registered professional Civil Engineer in the State of California consistent with the requirements of Section 7 and Exhibit 7.11 of the Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP) for New DevelopmenUSignificant Redevelopment projects. The WQMP shall: identify potential sources of pollutants during the long- term on-going maintenance and use of the proposed project that could affect the quality of the stormwater runoff from the project site; define Source Control, Site Design, and treatment Control (if applicable) best management practices (BMP's) to control or eliminate the discharge of pollutants into the surface water runoff; and provide a monitoring program to address the long-term implementation of and compliance with the defined BMP's. • 19. That prior to the start of any parking lot construction activities, the applicant shall submit a Grading Plan prepared by a registered professiona{ Civil Engineer in the State of California consistent with the requirements of Chapter 17.04 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. The grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public 08-23-04 Page 9 AUGUST 23, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Works, Development Services Division for review and approval. A grading permit is required for cut or fills exceeding 500 cubic yards. Allow at least 8 weeks to obtain a grading permit. Deleted Condition No. 10. VOTE ON CEQA: 7-0 VOTE ON WAIVER AND CUP: 6-1 (Commissioner Buffa voted no since she doesn't feel the site is large enough to support the proposed use.) Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 14, 2004. DISCUSSION TIME: 53 Minutes (2:06-2:59) • \J 08-23-04 Page 10 AUGUST 23, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA Neqative Declaration 4b. Waiver Of Code Requirement 4c. Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04876 Owner: Canyon Plaza, LLC. 503 32"d Street, Suite 200, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Agent: Jack Jakosky, 503 32"d Street, Suite 200, Newport Beach, CA 92663 Location: 5747 East Santa Ana Canvon Road. Property is approximately 15 acres, located at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway. Request to construct a freestanding building consisting of three commercial retail tenant spaces, roof-mounted equipment and outdoor dining area in conjunction with an existing commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Dave See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 4. • App{icant's Testimony: Continued to September 20, 2004 sr5111 jr.doc Jack Jakosky, representing Canyon Plaza, Inc., 503 32"d Street, #200, Newport Beach, CA, stated he is the managing partner of Canyon Plaza, Inc., the ownership entity of Canyon Plaza Shopping Center, and the only comment he had in terms of the staff requirements is that they placed a limitation of 3 tenants in the proposed building and he finds that too confining. They are negotiating with a number of tenants for the building's use and are very sensitive to the uses that would compliment whaYs in the shopping center and provide services for the surrounding area. But if numerically they needed a number he could live with 5, but the proposal for 3 would not work. Commissioner Velasquez stated that the way the condition is worded, it looked like the applicant was requesting the 3 tenant spaces. Greg Nastings, Zoning Manager, stated that the original application was advertised for 3 so technically they would have to readvertise. He believed staff would not have a problem with additional units but would need to see where the doorways would be and what impact that would have on the project. They would have to readvertise the project to the public because the Conditional Use Permit restricted the number of units in the shopping center. Mr. Jakosky stated that when we demised the space it was for example purpose only. He did not realize that they were going to be locked into where the demising walls would be located and the number of tenants. Mr. Hastings stated that it was not a question of actually knowing exactly where the demising walls were but staff needed to make sure that if there are 5 units there that it would work out. The demising walls could fluctuate, but staff wanted to set a maximum number of units, and if 5 worked for him they could • readvertise for 5 and bring it back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Jakosky stated 5 would work. 08-23-04 Page 11 AUGUST 23, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Pubiic Testimony: Sheri McCracken asked that it be denied. And stated she would like to know who their building was owned by; where there office was; and what the evidence of assets were before they start to build. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. A motion was passed to continue the item for 4 weeks to September 20, 2004. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None IN GENERAL: A person spoke unrelated to the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the September 20, 2004, Planning Commission meeting in order to readvertise the request to reflect five commercial retail tenant spaces as requested by the applicant. VOTE: 7-0 • DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (3:00-3:08) u 08-23-04 Page 12 AUGUST 23, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA Cateqorical Exemption - Class 1 5b. Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04875 Owner: Kaiser Foundation Hospitai, 393 East Walnut Street, 2nd Floor, Pasadena, CA 91188 Agent: Brian Halle, 10022 Sunrise Lane, Santa Ana, CA 92705 Location: 3400 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 13.6 acres, having a frontage of 470 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, located 697 feet west of the centerline of Grove Street. Request to permit the temporary outdoor storage of new automobiles. Conditionai Use Permit Resolution No. PC2004-92 Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Dave See, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 5. ApplicanYs Testimony: Concurred with staff Granted for 3 years (to expire on August 23, 2007) sr8765av.doc • Brian Halle, 10022 Sunrise Lane, Anaheim, CA, stated he had one issue on the conditions. The restriction on the existing site #8 stated that the vacant industrial buiiding shouid not be utilized while the temporary outdoor storage of vehicies existed on the property. He believed that to be too restrictive and suggested stating, "Without proper permitting demonstrating sufficient parking for the proposed use". Mr. See responded that the rationale behind the condition was the availability of parking. That since the parking would be occupied with stored cars there would not be enough parking spaces to accommodate the building. Mr. Hastings suggested stating that they could only use the portion of the building where there is proper parking associated with the use. He stated that it would be difficult for Code Enforcement to monitor because the entire site fits together. He suggested that the Commission put in the condition and also receiving the assurance from the applicant that they would have the proper parking for any portion of the building that would be used for any use, and staff would like to have the ability to approve any use going in so they could see that the square footage and available parking. Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares stated that although the Fry's property has a traffic light entrance, once entering the driveway you had to make a sharp left turn to enter the property and cars often back up. He asked if there was any intention to use the driveway for access to his property. Mr. Halle responded both Fry's and all the industrial properties all bring in their traffic to the industrial properties. Additionally, Fry's received a semi-sized trucks once every hour. There is no issue traffic wise turning radius or anything because thaYs what it was designed for; to give reciprocal easement between the two. Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares stated that his concern is that there is a lot of intense use of that particular driveway. • Commissioner Buffa stated that in the morning session Commission discussed screening fences. The City's code required this kind of use be screened from the streets, including the 91-Freeway. There is a condition of approva{ that states, the existing chainlink would have PVC slats (polyvinyl Chloride) and 08-23-04 Page 13 AUGUST 23, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commission was not convinced that was the best kind of screening because it would be difficult to Commissioner Buffa stated it needed to be screened and Commission's concern was that if they use PVC maintain. She asked if the applicant had a better suggestion about what kind of screening could be provided around the property. Mr. Halle stated that they were actually indifferent and were going unscreened because from a visibility perspective they were brand new cars sitting there. But if Commission wished to have slats that would be fine with them. slats, they would start to break and people would rip them out and it would not be fulfilling the function that it was designed for. Mr. Hafle stated that they had maintenance requirements on the property included in the conditions but if Commission wanted to include the slats that would be fine. Mr. Hastings stated if the applicant was looking at screening from the freeway and wanted to put slats in he encouraged him to be aware that the fence was the property of Caltrans and that it has been staff's experience that Caltrans generally did not want to have their fences tampered with. He suggested maybe putting in another adjacent to that one on the inside of the property. Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares stated that since the freeway is higher than the property it would not matter what kind of screening they would put in there it was not going to affect the visibility of whaYs in the lot. Mr. Halle explained that it would actually affect the visibility of Fry's and there's about a 10-foot drop from the freeway wall down to the cars. So they would look over the first 50 yards of cars and see the buildings. He believed screening on the freeway fence would impact Fry's more than themselves. • Commissioner Vanderbilt-Linares stated that Fry's had a nice sign, both on their building and on the freeway so he believed they would be okay. Commissioner Flores asked Mr. Halle why he decided on cameras and not have a security person there for the vehicles. Mr. Halle responded that they talked to the dealers and determined: no attractive nuisance, and limited liability; in fact insurance companies reiterated that new cars by themselves were not a security issue whatsoever. The attraction of nuisance entered into play when there were used cars and people leaving their purses, cell phones, etc. Commissioner Romero stated that in the morning session a comment was brought up about a business license. He asked if it was a condition that Commission needed to put on the project as well. Mr. Gordon stated staff would recommend modifications to that condition and the addition of that condition and would read it into the record. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Sheri McCracken stated concern with the authorized insurance of the business. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ • • ~ • ~ OPPOSITION: None IN GENERAL: A person spoke unrelated to the subject request. 08-23-04 Page 14 AUGUS7 23, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ACTION: Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded b Commissioner Velasquez and Y MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the Cafifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04875 (to permit the temporary outdoor storage of new automobiles) for a period of three (3) years, to expire on August 23, 2007; and adoption of the resolution attached to the staff report dated August 23, 2004, including the findings and conditions contained therein, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 3 and 8 to read as follows: 3. That the existing chain link fencing shall be interwoven with PVC slats. The fencing shall be of sufficient height to fully screen the materials stored outdoors from view of the public right-of-way. Said fencing shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion and if damaged, shall be repaired within a period of 24 hours. Said information shall be specifical~y shown on plans submitted to the Planning Services Division for review and approval. 8. That the vacant industrial building ~a~ may be utilized while the temporary outdoor storage of vehicles exists on this property, provided that adequate parking is provided per Zoning Code requirements to accommodate both uses concurrently. A parking plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning • Department prior to the occupancy of said vacant building. Deleted Condition No. 20 Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That prior to the operation of any business on the subject property, a valid business license shall be obtained from the City of Anaheim, Business License Division of the Planning Department. VOTE: 7-0 Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 14, 2004. DISCUSSION TIME: 15 minutes (3:09-3:24) r 0$-23-04 Page 15 AUGUST 23, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ J MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:25 P.M. TO WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~ Pat Chandler, ~ Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2004. • 08-23-04 Page 16