Loading...
Minutes-PC 2008/09/29City of rta ei Planning Cor~rr~ission _ . in ~ tes Mondav, September 29, 2008 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: Chairman: Joseph Karaki Kelly Buffa, Gail Eastman Stephen Faessel, Panky Romero Peter Agarwal, Victoria Ramirez CJ Amstrup, Pianning Services Manager Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Ted White, Senior Planner Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer David See, Senior Planner David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner Grace Medina, Senior Secretary Scott Koehm, Associate Planner ponna Patino, Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 24, 2008, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, Septernber 18, 2008 • Call to Order • Preliminary Plan Review 1:00 P.M. ~ STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) ~ PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 AGENDA • Recess to Public Hearing • Reconvene to Public Hearing 2:30 P.nA. Attendance: 10 • Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Romero • Public Comments • Consent Calendar m public Hearing Iterns • Adjournment H:\TOOLS\Planning Commission Administration\PC Action Agendas - Minutes~2008 Minutes~2008 MinutesWC092908.doc SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION fVII1VUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. .. Public Comments: None Consent Calendar: Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Buffa and MOTION CARRIED, forapproval of Consent Calendar Itern 1A and 1B and to continue Item 5 as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Minutes ITEM i A Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planni~g Commission Meeting of September 3, 2008. Continued from the September 15, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. NOTE: Meeting minutes have been provided to the Planning Commission and are available for review at the Planning Department. ITEM 1 B Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of September 15, 2008. MOTE: Meeting minutes have been provided to the Planning Commission and are available for review at the Planning Department. Consent Calendar Approval Motion: Faessel/Buffa VOTE: 4-0 Commissioners Agarwal and Ramirez absent Consent Calendar Approval Motion: Karaki/Buffa VOTE; 3-0 Commissioner Eastman abstained as she was not present for the meeting Commissioners Agarwal and Ramirez absent O9/2s/Os Page 2 of 19 SEPTENiBER 29, 2008 PLAfVIdING COMMISSIOM MINUTES Public Hearinq Items• ITEM fVO. 2 CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROV~D) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3939 (Trackina No. CUP2008-05311) Owner: Changiz and Rebecca Zomorodian 301 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Applicant: Milad Oueijan B-Hive Group 2751 Rio Lempa Drive Hacienda Heights, CA 91745 Location: 301 and 327 South Anaheim Boulevard: This property is approximately 1.35 acres, having a frontage of 263 feet on the south side of Broadway, 315 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and 116 feet on the north side of Elm Street. Request to permit a two-story retail and storage addition to an existing service station and full-service car wash with fewer parking spaces than required by code. Approved, added new condition Resolution No. PC2008-94 (Buffa) VOTE: 4-0 Commissioner Karaki abstained Commissioners Agarvval and Ramirez absent Project Planner. Elaine Thienprasiddhi ethien Co1 anaheim. net Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner presented the staff report. Staff read into the record an additional Condition of Approval; That Exhibit Nos. 3 through 6 shall be revised to be consistent with the site plan, including a modification to the size of the vacuum canopy to comply with structural setbacks required by Code. Timing for this condition will be prior to issuance of building permits. Chairman Pro Tempore, Panky Romero, opened the public hearing. Milad Oueijan, Architect, 2751 Rio Lempa Drive, Hacienda Heights, 91745, stated since his last conversation with the owner they are in agreement with the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Pro Tempore Romero asked the applicant if he understood and agreed to all the Conditions of Approval and the recommended changes. Mr. Oueijan replied yes. Chairman Pro Tempore, Panky Romero, asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, he closed the public hearing. 09/29/OS Page 3 of 19 SEPTEfVIBER 29, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSIOfV MINUTES Commissioner Buffa offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution to determine the Previously-Approved Negative Declaration as the adequate CEQA ~,__ documentation and to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 3939 with the new condition read into the record by staff. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with 4 aye votes. Chairman Karaki abstained. Commissioner's Agarwal and Ramirez were absent. OPPOSITIOPI: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 21, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (2:31 to 2:36) O9/29/08 Page 4 of 19 SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM PIO. 3 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05330 Owner: Mariano Molteni Architectural Inc. 1505 North State College Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92806 Applicant: Greg McCafferty 901 Dove Street, #140 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: 1505 North State Colleqe Boulevard: This property is approximately 0.51 acres and is located at the northwest corner of State College Boulevard and Via Burton Street with frontages af 138 feet on the north side of Via Burton Street and 138 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard. Request to permit the wholesale and retail sales of architectural salvage materials with fewer parking spaces than required by Code, structural and landscaped setbacks adjacent to State College Boulevard and Via Burton Street that are less than required by Code, and a fence that is taller than permitted by Code. Scott Koehm, Associate'Planner, presented the staff report. Approved, modified . ;. -_ Condition Mo. 4, added new condition Resolution No. PC2008-95 (Faessel) VOTE: 5-0 Commissioners Agarwal and Ramirez absent Project Planner: Scott Koehm skoehm ~anaheim.net Commissioner Buffa asked staff about their concerns over the location of the trash enclosure. Mr. Koehm also stated that staff discussed various alternative locations for the trash enclosure with the applicant and the Streets and Sanitation Division staff. Streets and Sanitation staff expressed concems regarding their trucks backing up to pick up the trash containers. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Greg McCafferty, 901 Dove Street, #104, stated that Amighini is a 45 year old company that started in New Jersey as a family owned company. They are now relocating to the west coast. One of their main reasons why they decided to relocate is that a significant portion of their internet sales are on the west coast. They decided to invest in the Ciry of Anaheim instead of incurring all the shipping costs for their customers. Most of their sales are to trades such as contractors, carpenters, or architects, and over the internet or a combination of both. There are very little on-site sales. They took the abandoned service station site and are cleaning it up and making a significant investment in the architecture and landscapi~g to upgrade the site. 09/29/08 Page 5 of 19 SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 PLAP1P11NG COMMISSION MINUTES He showed a PowerPoint presentation with examples of products that would be stored and explained the proposed site plan. The applicant explained that they have worked with staff and gone through the architectural review process and they believed they received good input during the process. Mr. McCafferry stated that the staff report indicates that they are asking for five waivers but they are only asking for four. He explained each one of the waivers so that the Planning Commission could understand that it is a function of the site and they are not choosing to ignore the City's development codes. David Seidner, Cardinal Investment Properties, 375 Bristol Street, Costa Mesa, stated that he owns the property to the north of this site. He supports staff as they have done a good job evaluating this project. He recognizes the money and time the applicant put into this project and thinks it would be an improvement to the neighborhood. His concern is the location of the fence and the line of sight. He observed footings that have been installed on the property line and is concerned that a 6 to 8 foot high fence would constrain his line of sight coming out of the driveway. He suggested that they have a landscape setback to be consistent with the property to the north. His fence is 10 feet back from the property line, even with the building location. He thought this was a reasonable request. He also would like to see landscaping in front, and other than that he thinks it is a great project and is available for any questions. Commissioner Eastman disclosed that she met with the applicant. She thought the project would be a wonderful addition to the City of Anaheim. The concern she expressed to the applicant was with the tremendous amount of asphalt that would be left. She also recomrnended that any landscape areas contain drought tolerant plant materials. Mr. McCafferty stated that he spoke with the property owner. They are willing to consider other landscaping options. Commissioner Eastman stated that maybe the fence could be set back further so that they are able to line up with the property to the north. Mr. McCafferty replied yes. Commissioner Eastman stated that it might be reasonable if they could come up with the right kind of drought resistant plants that would blend with the architectural items that they would display. She thought it would be a great compromise and she would support that. Chairman Karaki shared the same concern as staff that the enclosed yard would become a storage area He would support moving the fence back but would like to ensure that this fence does not create a storage area in the front. He agreed with staff in terms of moving the fence back. He asked the applicant if he was open to that suggestion. Mr. McCafferty stated that they are willing to move the fence. He would like to know what the Commission collectively thought in terms of how far back the fence should be. He thought they would 09/29/08 Page 6 of 19 SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION flflINUTES appreciate being able to push the fence back as far as they extend the landscape setback which would be approximately 8 to 10 feet. ..._ Chairman Karaki stated that he would also like to see more landscaping along State College Boulevard because it would go well with the architectural features that this building was designed for. Mr. McGafferty stated that in speaking with the owner one of the issues that they had with placing the fence all the way in to where the exterior display would be, is that the items that they have in the exterior display are decorative gates and statuary urns that are not easily moved. They want to have the ability to be able to take a gazebo or an urn and to take it in or out to load it onto a flatbed or a truck. If the fence is located against the exterior display they would have less room to do that. Chairman Karaki understood what the applicant meant. He suggested that the fence could be moved at least on Via Burton Way which would leave room for trucks to load materials. The Commission could add to the language that this area would be free and clear from any storage if this project is approved. Mr. McCafferty stated that they would agree to that condition. Commissioner Romero asked Mr. McCafferty what the percentage of the business would be from a walk-in basis. Mr. McCafferty replied it would be u~der 10 percent of their business. It is 5 to 10 percent of the total sales. Their website shows inventory and information needed to make a purchase, at which point the customer is working with an architect or contractor. It is a niche market and there are not a lot of people searching for 12 foot tall gothic doors. They do not envision parking to be an issue. Commissioner Romero asked if a contractor or customer ordered something off the web site, would they be coming in to load it or would they have it delivered. Mr. McCafferty explained that they have a delivery service where they could deliver to job sites. They also have a freight service that will pick it up and deliver it to the contractor. Commissioner Romero also disclosed that he met with the applicant. Chairman Karaki disclosed he did not meet with the applicant but he spoke with him on the phone. Mr. McCafferty wanted to comment on what Mr. Seidner indicated with regards to line of sight. He understood Mr. Seidner's concern and they do not want to create a safety hazard for anyone. They did not think there was a safety hazard because if the property owner to the north exited their site would be looking north on State College not south, so he did not think this would cause a safety hazard. Commissioner Faessel also disclosed that he met with the applicant regarding the project. He asked for clarification with regards to the setback of the property to the north. He believed that they discussed the potential of moving the fence back to be consistent with that building setback. Mr. McCafferty stated that the owner went out to look at it and it is ten feet. 09/29/08 Page 7 of 19 SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 PLANPdIP1G COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Faessel agreed with Commissioner Eastman. He liked the mosque arrangement_. located south of the freeway on State College Boulevard wherein their fence is behind the landscaped area. He believed that the applicant initially offered to the Planning Commission to move the fence behind the landscape area but at that point the applicant was only discussing a 4 foot landscape area. He sensed that this could be greater on the State College. He asked the applicant i he was comfortable with that. Mr. McCafferty stated that they are willing to go back 10 feet. Commissioner Faessel wanted to make sure of that number. He asked if the applicant was willing to move the fence back 10 feet and add landscaping in the front ten feet. Mr. McCafferty replied yes. Commissioner Faessel agreed that fence should be moved back on the State College frontage to a level consistent with the property to the north which he hoped would address Mr. Seidner's concerns. Commissioner Buffa agreed. It seems the Planning Commissioners are in agreement that the fence needs to be moved back away from the street 10 feet and that there is landscaping between the sidewalk and fencing, and that there is a need for drive aisle between the fence and outdoor display area. She thought it would make sense to label the drive aisle on the site plan so that it is clear that the area behind the landscaping and in front of the outdoor storage is not for the purpose of outdoor storage. She would like to see the site plan modified to create that zone. She thought the applicant's parking analysis made sense. She could find justification for the parking as proposed by the appficant. She has an issue with regards to the trash enclosure because she did not think it made sense for land use decisions to be made for the convenience of the Streets and Sanitation Division. It would be great if there was a way to move the trash enclosure over closer to Via Burton so that trucks could pull in, lift up, and then back out. But to create a turn-around to accommodate weekly trash pick up and use up the land and remove two parking spaces seemed to be very excessive. She did agree with staff that they do not want the bin rolled out into the road and left there because that would be a mistake. She thinks there is a way to solve the problem. She thinks there needs to be more landscaping on Via Burton and State College. She did not think the fence needed to be set back 10 feet on Via Burton. Commissioner Faessel asked the applicant if the enclosed show room would be 18 feet from the side walk on State College. Mr. McCafferry stated that it would be 18 feet from the right-of-way on State College. Commissioner Faessel commented that they have discussed taking 10 feet of that away for purposes of landscaping which would leave 8 feet as a drive-aisle, he asked if that would be wide enough to get a forklift to handle the equipment and fountains that they would be handling. Mr. McCafferty replied that the owner said it would be sufficient. 09/29/OS Page 8 of 19 SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 PLAMMIfdG COBflflflISSION MINUTES Chairman Karaki asked if there was anyone who would like to speak about this item; seeing none, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa asked staff about the conditions of approval. The way they are written does not necessarily reflect the direction that they are headed. She asked staff how they would proceed with the conditions that are in front of them. Ted White, Senior Planner, thought it would be appropriate to re-cap the proposed changes. He thought there needed to be further discussion with regards to Via Burton so that staff could put that decision into a form of a condition of approval. If he understood what the Planning Commission wanted with regards to State College it would be that there would be a 10 foot setback to the fence which would be fully landscaped along State College Boulevard. There could be a revised exhibit that would come to staff to confirm that as a condition of approval. In addition, the 8 feet that is behind the fence location would be utilized for access only. Staff could craft the condition to state that this would be maintained free and clear of display items and shall be used for access purposes only. He does not believe it is the intent of the Commission to change trash storage location. The only issue that is not clear is with regards to the fence location and the landscaping on Via Burton. The traffic engineer recommended that for safety purposes the fence be setback 20 feet. He is aware of conditions where there are fences located closer than 20 feet, however, staff still recommends that the area adjacent to Via Burton, be fully landscaped. The remainder of the conditions of approval are standard conditions and the one condition that staff would want to specifically change would be Condition No. 4. He thought they could amend Condition No. 4 to reflect the proposed location of the 6 foot high fence in its revised location 10 feet from State College and whatever the Planning Commission would like to do with regards to Via Burton. Commissioner Romero asked for clarification with regards to the landscaping on Via Burton. He understood that staff would like the applicant to fully landscape the area. He asked if that would be the entire 10 feet - Mr. White replied that is correct, with the exception of the driveway entrances. Commissioner Romero was concerned because the other buildings in the vicinity are not set back as far. He thought this would be a unique requirement for this applicant because afl the rest of the buildings on either side of Via Burton do not have that requirement. Mr. White stated that those other buildings are legally non-conforming and do not meet current Code requirements. The other buildings were constructed before Code required a landscape setback. Commissioner Eastman commented on the same issue. She did not see the purpose of requiring the applicant to do more landscaping on Via Burton. They already added additional landscaping along State College where it would be more important for the public and everyone's benefit. She went out and looked at the area and thought it would be an additional burden on the land owner and thought they did not need to impose that. She does not support this condition. os/29/o8 Page 9 of 19 SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 PLANNING COIIAMISSIOIV MINUTES Commissioner Faessel asked staff if they knew what the dimension to the setback to the building on Via Burton was. Mr. Koehm replied he did not know. He estimated it would be 8 to 10 feet similar to State College. Commissioner Faessel believed the Commission was comfortable in establishing the fence line along State College consistent with the property to the north. He asked if the Commission would feel comfortable with establishing the fence line on the Via Burton side adjacent to the property to the west. Commissioner Buffa had a question as they talked about this specific dimension. She commented that the applicant indicated something that she did not remember reading in the staff report. She said the applicant was being asked to dedicate 8 feet of land along Via Burton. She assumed that the landscape area that is shown on the site plan is the 8 feet they proposed to dedicate. She thought the new property line is the fence line that they showed on the site plan and if that is true, she asked ii the Commission wanted to set their fence back at least a few feet to be sure the footings for the fence were at least on their property. She thought they should be sure that fence is far enough back to at least have its footings on their properry. She thought it should be at least 10 feet from the current sidewalk. David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner, stated that his main concern along Via Burton is the proposed gate that the applicant would like to have installed at the first driveway coming away from State College. Even though there are other properties that have gates right up to the property line, this particular driveway is immediately adjacent to a busy intersection even though Via Burton itself is not that busy of a street. He pointed out some unique characteristics of the intersection. He explained how the intersection is off-set with a slant approach from the east. The north bound left turn is set back from the intersection for a vehicle that would want to turn onto Via Burton. For example, if a truck that is coming to make a delivery to the site, which would be about 20 to 30 feet in length, wants to turn left and if the gate is closed, the truck would block west bound Via Burton. All it would take is the one vehicle that would want to turn left onto State College to compietely block Via Burton. The concem is that with the gate being closed during business hours that this intersection would potentially be blocked by a vehicle that would try to access the site why the gate is closed. This is a reason why they like to have their gate set back from the right-of-way so that vehicles that need to access this site will not affect traffic going through on the public street. Chairman Karaki stated that it occurred to him after he read the report that it would be difficult to deal with the requirements for an industrial building on this corner. He respects the amount of time the applicant has put into this project and is in support of the small business and the nature of this business would fit in this industrial property. However, he was concerned with the traffic as weil. He thought since the applicant agreed to the 10 foot setback along State College, he did not think those two additional feet on Via Burton will harm the project. He thought they should address the co~cerns of the traffic engineer and the landscape issues and make the changes to make this corner beautiful even if the rest of the block was not well designed. 09/29/OS Page 10 of 19 SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 PLAPINING COMII~ISSION MINUTES Commissioner Romero believed that the improvements being proposed are significant improvements to this corner. The applicant worked with staff to try to get a project that would be a nice improvement to the corner lot and they worked within the boundaries that they were provided. He was concerned about the additional cost that the applicant had to incur to have the design review. He was not sure if they had criteria that determined if a project would have to go for design review. The applicant went through the process and did incorporate some of the features that were suggested and he thought it resulted in a building that would be a nice addition to the corner. He is in support of the project based on that. Mr. McCafferty wanted to clarification that on Via Burton the fence would be located 2 feet behind the ultimate right-of-way, or 10 feet from the existing sidewalk. Chairman Karaki replied that is correct. Mr. McCafferty stated that the only other thing he needed clarification on was the back 30 feet on State College putting shrubs, trees, and a garden setting. He asked if they could address that as well. Chairman Buffa stated that this may be the kind of project where the Planning Commission might consider adding a condition of approval that states, they get inspections for a couple of years at their expense to verify compliance with the outdoor storage conditions. She thought they should do this in order to make sure that they stay in compliance with the plan and that they understand there shall be absolutely no outdoor storage. Mr. White stated that the suggested condition of approval would read: "The plans submitted for building permits shall show the proposed 6' foot 9" inch high fence shall be located 10 feet from State College Boulevard and 2 feet from the ultimate right-of-way on Via Burton. The area in front of the fence shall be fully landscaped." Chairman Karaki asked if they need to impose the yearly inspection on this before the Planning Commission concludes. He suggested once a year for two years: Commissioner Buffa offered her opinion on the park like setting. She thought it would be a bad idea. She stated that they will be driving a forklift around their sculptures and fountains. She did not think it would be park like in the outdoor storage area. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, commented with regards to the parking. When the applicant portrays the site as warehouse and show room, it implies that some areas will be for public access and some areas will be for employee access only. Staff is concerned about this. He would like to characterize this as a waiver from the standards that staff called out for home furnishings and home repair that requires 20 stalls. They would still go with the parking that is provided but it would only be a clarification in the record for the fact that the whole site was to be accessed by the public to inspect the merchandise. Commissioner Faessel offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution to approve the Categorical Exemption Class 1 with the modified conditions and to approve the Conditional Use Permit 2008-05330 with the modified conditions that have been read i~to the record by staff. 09/29/08 Page 11 of 19 SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 aye votes. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke regarding traffic safety concerns. Mark Gordon, Assistant Ciry Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 21, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 72 minutes (2:36 to 3:48) (Commissioner Eastman left the meeting at 3:48) 09/29/08 Page 12 of 19 SEPTEIVIBER 29, 2008 PLAPlIdIIdG COMMISSIOM MINUTES ITEM NO. 4 Appiicant: Jean Mullis 17311 South Main Street Gardena, CA 90248 Location: Citywide Request to amend Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code to permit pump top video monitors at service stations. Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Approved (Romero) Recommended City Council approval, with modification to the restrictions applicable to pump top video display terminals regarding privacy screening, audibility, and limitation of operation. VOTE: 3-1 Commissioner Buffa voted no Commissioner Eastman abstained Commissioners Agarwal and Ramirez absent Project Planner: Scott Koehm skoehm C~?anaheim. net Jean Mullis, United Oil Company, 17311 South Main Street, Gardena, 90248, stated that in 2006 the company was reminded that they were not supposed to have pump-top video monitors so they started the pre-file process with the City to see if they could add the pump-top video monitors. They hoped to get the Code amended so that they could add the pump-top monitors. The company agreed to enclose the monitors where they would look like they would be part of the pump. The pump-top video monitors would be helpful to the public showing news, weather, advertisement, and employment opportunities within their company. They would operate from the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. and would be situated where they could not be seen frorn the street. Commissioner Buffa asked the applicant what percentage of the time these video monitors would show general community interest as opposed to advertising. Ms. Mullis stated that she did not know the percentage but the company donates a lot of the time to community interest. They have 120 statians but only one in the City of Anaheim. The company advertises programs with their own commercials that remind the public of safety, news, and any emergency that may come up. The monitors have been blank since last year until the company could make sure they had done everything required by the City. Commissioner Buffa asked the applicant if they sold advertising and if an outside company could purchase time to run their own commercials. 09/29/08 Page 13 of 19 SEPTEnABER 29, 2008 PLAfVNING COIVIMISSIOPd MINUTES Ms. Mullis stated that the video monitors have not had anything an them in a long time and they would have to re-program the whole network. Chairman Karaki elaborated that United Oil owns 120 stations. The United Oil Company makes their own commercials to advertise on their pumps. Other gas stations have companies that place monitors with their own advertising. 7he gas station owner does not have the luxury to dictate what advertisement will be on the monitors. United Oil does their own advertising for their stations. There are companies that sell advertisement and are in control of the ads because they pay the gas station owner a certain amount of money per month to let them advertise on top of the pump. He did not think it was the appropriate time to ask the applicant if they would advertise community services and activities because the applicant is only asking the Planning Comrnission to allow them to use the monitor on top of the pump. Ms. Mullis stated that the company takes a lot of pride in building their stations. They invest 1 to 2 million dollars in their service stations and they look better with the monitors instead of paper advertising. Ms. Mullis also stated that they have commercials to remind the pubtic to replace their nozzle. They advertise this because there are many people who drive off with them and it costs $100 to $1,000 to replace and re-certify the nozzles that have been broken. This is a reason that the company feels it is worth it to have these monitors on top of the tanks. Commissioner Romero asked if this only applied to one station in Anaheim. Ms. Mullis replied there is only one station owned by United Oil in Anaheim. Chairman Karaki asked if there was anyone who would like to speak about this item; seeing none, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel addressed staff and stated that it is his understanding that this was going to be enclosed, shaded, or shrouded. In looking at the visual image he does not see that feature in the photos. Mr. Koehm replied that what he saw were images from the internet that were used solely for the purpose of identifying a pump-top monitor. Staff proposes that the applicant would have to use a screening element that would not allow the monitor to be seen from an angle. This could be accomplished by a physical barrier or other type of privacy screen that only allows direct viewing of the monitor. Commissioner Faessel reiterated that at this point staff does not have a photo of what their desired model would be. Mr. Koehm replied no. Cornmissioner Buffa was concemed with the signage. She stated that this could be the first step in allowing any kind of advertisement. She understood that the monitors would generate revenue for the owners of the gas stations but it is not related to their business. This operator is probably the best 09/29/08 Page 14 of 19 SEPTEBABER 29, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSIOPI MINUTES that they will see but she was not sure of the rest. She does not know if every other operator in Anaheim would be careful about whom they allow to advertise on these monitors. She is notsure why they would want to go from the business of selling gasoline and providing a normal convenience mart into allowing them to advertise any product, any service, and anything that is not [elated to their core business. Chairman Karaki stated that monitors are allowed right now on the pump itself. Anyone can have a 12" monitor built within the face of the pump. It is done all over. He did not see any harm with the monitor since they have been in place for many years. Commissioner Buffa stated that she did not think it was something they should encourage by tacilitating the economics of it. She did not think it was a great idea. Commissioner Faessel stated that he finds these monitors offensive. He agreed with Commissio~er Buffa. He thought this being one of the best service stations, that they would put together a wonderful program with the added City requirements. However, he recently visited one of these stations and he could not converse with his wife because there were several loud pumps in various islands. He stated that he is supportive of small businesses but he was concerned with the volume of the advertisement. If the advertisement was not so loud he does not think he would be so concerned. He did not like the naise pollution and thought the noise was overpowering whe~ there is a large station with loud monitors. He supports the businessman and their need to find other means of income but he does not think the loud monitors are necessary. Commissioner Romero thought it may seem intrusive from an audio standpoint but the City is already inundated with things of this type. If you go to the grocery store they have the same sort of monitors where they are advertising as you at check out, so he does not see where it would be any different. He has seen stations with these types of monitors and the audio level has been fairly low. He is in support of this because he thinks it is something that will eventually happen in the future. Chairman Karaki concurred with Commissioner Romero and stated there are other methods of advertisement such as music systems. He is in support of this proposal. Commissioner Faessel added that he might be agreeable to this proposal if there were some way to limit the volume level. The condition states that it shall not be heard beyond 25 feet from the pump. If there are 6 pumps at a number of islands and the pump distance is 20 feet apart there would be a large concentration of sound in the area. He thought if they could include a condition where the sound could not be heard beyond 10 feet from a pump it would be more reasonable. Chairman Karaki stated 15 feet opposed to 25 feet would be reasonable. Ted White, Senior Planner responded to Commissioner Faessel's comment with regards to the question about the screening hood. He suggested that the Ordinance Section .0402 could read: "That the monitors contain a privacy screen or screening hood which eliminates or reduces the ability to view the screen from any angle except from directly in front of the screen at the pump dispenser." He thinks this would give the applicant different options to use, as far as the technology is concerned. 09/29/08 Page 15 of 19 SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 PLAfVNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Faessel believed they should incorporate that the monitor should turn off when the pump is not in use because he feels that they would be giving the applicant more range to modify_ their equipment. He would feel more comfortable if it was written that the advertising screen and sound be off when the pumps were not in use. Otherwise, even though they are operating like this now, it does not mean they will not change in the future. Chairman Karaki suggested that they could re-state Ordinance Section .0403 to read: "That sound emanating from the pump-top video display terminal shall not be audible to a person of normal hearing acuity at any point on the property line or at a dista~ce in excess of fifteen (15) feet from the pump-top video monitor display terminal equipment, whichever is less and pump-top video monitors shall be turned off when the pump is not in use." Mr. Koehm wanted clarification on Ordinance Sectionk .0404. He asked if the Planning Commission wanted to maintain hours of operation from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Chairman Karaki replied yes. Commissioner Romero offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution and to approve that the Previously Certified Final Environmental Impact Report No. 330 to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation and recommend to the City Council that the attached draft ordinance for Zoning Code Amendment No. 2008-00070 be approved with the modifications to Code Sections discussed by Mr. White and proposed by Chairman Karaki. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with 3 aye votes. Commissioner Buffa voted no. Commissioners Faessel, Romero, and Karaki voted no. Commissioners Eastman, Ramirez and Agarwal were absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m, on Tuesday, October 21, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 26 minutes (3:48 to 4:14) 09/29/08 Page ~ 6 of 19 SEPTEIVIBER 29, 2008 PLANNIIdG COMflflISSiOfV MINUTES ITEM NO. 5 Owner: Lennar Platinum Triangle, LLC 25 Enterprise Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Applicant; Donna Kelly Lennar 25 Enterprise Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Location: 1404 East Katella Avenue: This property is approximately 41.4 gross acres, generally iocated between Katella Avenue and Gene Autry Way, extending from State College Boulevard to just west of Betmor Lane. Approximately 7.1 gross acres are located with The Platinum Triangle, Gene Autry District, and 34.3 gross acres are within The Platinum Triangle, Katella District. Request to arnend the Development Agreement to extend the term by an additional three years. This would provide for the development of a previously-approved master planned community with up to 2,681 dwelling units, up to 150,000 square feet of commercial uses, two public parks, public streets and related infrastructure in four phases over a period of 23 years. Continued to _ __ October 13, 2008 Motion: Romero/Eastman VOTE: 5-0 Commissioners Agarwal and Ramirez absent Project Planner. Ted White twhite ~ anaheim.net Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to continue this item until the Planning Commission meeting of October 13, 2008. Motion passed with 5 aye votes. OPPOSITIOPI: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 09/29/os Page 17 of 19 SEPTEfVIBER 29, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION fVIINUTES ITEM NO. 6 Owner Shakour Cyrus and 2600 West Lincoln Avenue Applicant: Anaheim, CA 92801 Location: 2600 West Lincoln Avenue: This property is approximately 0.32 acres and is located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia Avenue and has frontages of 128 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and 85 feet on the west side of Magnolia Avenue. Request to amend and reinstate an existing automobile repair facility with a deletion of a time limitation. Dave See, Senior Planner presented the staff report. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Approved ,_ Resolution No. PC2008-96 (Buffa) VOTE: 4-0 Commissioner Eastman abstained Commissioners Agarwal and Ramirez absent Projecf Planner: David See dsee ~anaheim. net Shakour Cyrus, property owner, 2600 West Lincoln Avenue, stated that he was available to answer any questions. Chairman Karaki asked if there was anyone who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution to approve the Categorical Exemption and to approve the Conditional Use Permit No. 3843 as recomme~ded by staff. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with 4 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 21, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (4:14 to 4:20) 09/29/08 Page 18 of 19 SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 PLANNING COMIVIISSION MINUTES GEMERAL DISCUSSIOM: The Planning Commission held a discussion regarding the Gity's architectural review process. The Commission raised concerns about the cost to the applicant, the time involved for the review, and the projects that were subject to an architectural peer review. There was no conclusion made regarding this rnatter. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:30 P.M. TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2008 AT 1:30 P.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Respec#ully submitted, s./~'YU7'ZCi'_~~~1 L~(1 Donna Patino Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on October 13, 2008. 09/29/08 Page 19 of 19