Loading...
Minutes-PC 2009/03/16~ty of na ei i~r~no~ Co ission i n ute~ Moncla~, March 16, 2009 Council Chamber, City Hail 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, Califomia Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager Linda Johnson, Principal Planner Jonathan Borrego, Pri~cipal Planner Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney David See, Senior Pla~ner Della Herrick, Associate Planner Tracy Sato, Senior Planner Scott Koehm, Associate Planner Kerry Kemp, Redevelopment Manager Roger Be~nion, Code Enforcement Supervisor Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Grace Medina, Senior Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 12:OO.m. on Wednesday, March 11, 2009, 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, March 5, 2009 • Call to Order by Chairman Pro-Tempore Romero - 2:00 P.M. • Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Faessel • Implementation of SB 375 Workshop (Presented by Planning Staff) • Recess to Public Hearing by Chairman Karaki • Reconvene to Public Hearing 2:39 P.M. Attendance: 13 • Pubfic Comments • Consent Calendar ~ Public Hearing Items . Adjournment Chairman: Joseph Karaki Peter Agarwal, Kelly Buffa, Gail Eastman, Stephen Faessel, Victoria Ramirez, Panky Romero None MARCH 16, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Minutes ITEM N0. 1A Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Cornmission Meeting of January 5, 2009. ITEM NO. 1 B Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of February 18, 2009. ITENi fVO. iC - Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of March 2, 2009. Mation to approve Minutes (Eastman/Rornero) Approved VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Buffa abstained Motion to approve Minutes (Romero/Eastman) Approved VOTE: 7-0 Motion to approve Minutes (Eastman/Buffa) Approved VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Faessel abstained 03/16/09 Page 2 of 15 MARCH 16, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Public Hearina Items: ITEM NO. 2 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT MO. 2009-00079 Applicant: Planning Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim iBoulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: Citvwide Request to amend Chapter 1.12 (Procedures); Chapter 14.60 (Transportation Demand); Chapter 17.08 (Subdivisions); Chapter 18.18 (Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone); Chapter 18.24 (South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone); Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses); Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations); Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading); Chapter 18.44 (Signs); Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening); Chapter 18.56 (Nonconformities); Chapter 18.60 (Procedures); Chapter 18.62 (Administrative Reviews); Chapter 18.64 (Area Development Plans); Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits); Chapter 1874 (Variances); Chapter 18.92 (Definitions);Chapter 18.114 (Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No.92-1); Chapter 18.116 (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No.92-2); Chapter 18.118 (Hotel Circle Specific Plan No.93 1); pertaining to Zoning Administrator authority, drought tolerant landscaping provisions, freestanding sign provisions within the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone and approval/appeal procedures for various zoning actions. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This Item was not discussed. Motion for Continuance to March 30, 2009 (Romero/Eastman) Approved VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood vnorwood ~anaheim.net 03/16/09 Page 3 of 15 MARCH 76, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 3 ZOfiIING CODE Al1AENDMENT NO. 2009-00080 Motion to approve Amendment i {Faessel/Eastman) Appticant: Lederer-Anaheim, LTD 9200 Sunset Boulevard, 9'h Floor Approved tos Angeles, CA 90069-3604 VOTE: 7-0 Greg McCafferty The Sheldon Group 901 Dove Street, Suite 140 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: Citvwide This is a request to amend Title 18 of the Anaheim Project P~anner: Municipal Code to allow up to four Carnival and Circus ' scon Koehm skoehmCanaheim.net permits per year on properties located in the General Commercial (GG) Zone. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Class 4 (Minor Alterations to Land). NOTE: A request for approval of a conditional use permit for the Anaheim Indoor Marketplace to permit up to four Carnival and Circus permits per calendar year was advertised, but is no longer requested since the zoning code amendment, if approved, would allow up to four Carn'wal and Circus permits per year on certain --- properties over 12 acres. Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated March 16, 2009 along with a visual presentation. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Greg McCafferty, 901 Dove Street, Newport Beach, The Sheldon Group, representing the applicant, stated he supported the conclusions and recommendations in the staff report. He stated this amendment would not take any rights away from properties. It would create additional opportunities for properties meeting certain qualifications. Commissioner Romero asked the applicant about the difference between a Special Event Permit and a carnival permit, whether a fifth carnival permit would be permitted with this amendment and whether a carnival or circus would also require a Special Event Permit. 03/i 6/09 Page 4 of 15 MARCH 16, 2009 PLANPlING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. McCafferty cited the Code sections which pertain to carnival and Special Event Permits. He stated this amendment would limit the number of carnival permits to four, so a fifth carnival permit wouid not be allowed. If this amendment passes, carnival permits on the larger commercial properties would not be counted as a Special Event Permit. The larger commercial properties could have four Special Event Permits for other types of events in addition to four carnivai permits. Commissioner Ramirez asked what type of uses would require a Special Event Permit. Mr. McCafferty responded as an example, a Special Event Permit would be required for a commercial tenant that wanted to have a mariachi group perform at an event. Commissioner Faessel stated he had talked to Mr. McCafferty and received answers to his questions. Commissioner Eastman stated she had talked to Mr. McCafferty and received answers to her questions. Chairman Karaki, seeing no one indicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the City has had any issues with carnival permits in the past, such as calls to the Police Department. Mr. Koehm responded that Police Department staff said there have been two crime incidents at carnivals in the past couple of years. As part of the application process for a carnival permit, the application is routed to City departments and conditions of approval, such as security conditions, could be placed on a permit if deemed necessary. Or, if determined appropriate, City staff could deny the permit. Comrnissioner Ramirez asked if there was sufficient parking on these sites since most of the parking lot is taken up with the rides. Mr. Koehm responded that availability of parking is reviewed at the time the applica#ion is submitted. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman, dete~mining that a Class 4 Categorical Exemption serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and recommending to the City Council that the draft ordinance attached to the March 16, 2009 staff repori, be approved. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with seven aye votes 03/16/09 Page 5 of 15 MARCH 16, 2009 PLANNING CQMi1~ISS10N fVIINUTES ITEM NO. 4 COfVDIT10NAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05415 Owner: CIM Group Inc. 6922 Hollywood Boulevard, 9`h Floor Hollywood, CA 90028 Applicant: 5usan Hashioka Epicurean School of Culinary Arts 8500 Melrose Avenue, Suite 103 West Hollywood, GA 920069 Location: 270 South Clementine Street: This property is located at the northeast corner of Clementine Street and Broadway. Request to permit a private culinary arts school, Enviro~mental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmentai documentation per Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Class 1(Existing Facilities). NOTE: A request for approval of a variance to permit fewer parking spaces than required by code was eliminated as adequate parking is proposed for the culinary arts school. Resolution No. PC2009-012 ('Eastman) Approved VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner. Della Herrick dherrick ~anaheim.net Della Herrick, associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated Marcfi~l6, 2009 along with a visual presentation. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Susan Hashioka, 8500 Melrose Avenue, West Hollywood, applicant and owner of the Epicurean School of Culinary Arts, requested Planning Commission approval of the project. She stated she has owned the Epicurean School in West Hollywood for approximately 23 years and this would be the second school location. She said the school caters to working people with approximately 10 to 14 people per class. She did not think parking would be a problem due to the small class size. Commissioner Faessel asked if the school would operate on the subject property in addition to the other location in West Hollywood. Ms. Hashioka responded yes. 03/16/09 Page 6 of 15 MARCH 18, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Faessel asked if the public could watch the cooking demonstrations or would they need to participate in the classes. He asked if the facility could be used as a small event center. Ms. Hashioka responded yes, if the events are tied to cooking. She stated they hold cooking parties for groups such as private businesses or civic organizations. Commissioner Eastman asked if the school experience is for people in the professional field and if the school provides opportunities for community members with an interest in cooking. Ms. Hashioka responded that classes would be for all levels, including beginning, intermediate and professional levels. They also hold classes to teach particular styles of cooking. Barbara Gonzales, 330 South Ohio Street, Anaheim, stated she owns a four-plex across the street from the proposed school location. She applauded the applicant's use of the building, but stated she was concemed about parking. She understood that a ~ariance for parking had initially been included in the public notice and is no longer requested; however, she stated a concern that the students may potentially park in her parking lot. She requested if parking becomes a concern, that she have an opportunity to provide some feedback. She stated AT&T employees and other local business employees and customers park on the public streets in the area in addition to the people in the neighborhood, so there are parking issues. She stated she would like to see the customers of this school use the parking structures. She also asked about the status of installing diagonal parking on Broadway since this type of parking would allow customers to park closer to the businesses. She also stated she learned from a recent seminar that adding more parking and permitting wider streets in a community can cause parking and traffic problems to get worse. Aaron Marswell, 6922 Hollywood Boulevard, Hollywood, CIM, representing the property owner, stated he had worked with the Redevelopment Agency regarding parking for this school in the downtown area. Commissioner Buffa asked Mr. MarsweH if the parking was addressed in the lease agreement with the schooL Mr. Marswell responded, per the terms of the Parking Agreement with the Agency, there are a certain number of designated parking spaces for public retail parking in the lot across the street from the school and in the structure for the building. Commissioner Faessel asked Mr. Marswell to define what he meant by "across the street". Mr. Marswell responded that Parcel C is across the street frorn the school. Parcel C is currently a surface parking lot and would have a three hour parking limit for the culinary school students until such time as the parcel is developed. Comrnissioner Faessel asked about the status of the construction trailers on Parcel C. Mr. Marswell responded that the trailers have been removed and the lot is being resurfaced. Commissioner Romero asked about the status of the additional diagonal parking. 03/16/09 Page 7 of 15 MARCH 16, 2009 PLANNING CONiNiISSION MINUTES Kerry Kemp, Redevelopment Manager, responded there is a plan to add in diagonal parking on Broadway; however, it is not currently in the budget. Commissioner Faessel asked if the diagonal parking would be on both sides of the street. Mr. Kemp replied that the diagonal parking would only be on the north side of Broadway. Commissioner Romero asked about the timeframe for installing the diagonal parking. Mr. Kemp responded that it will depend upon the budget. Chairman Karaki, seeing no other speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eastrnan offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the March 16, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05415. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with seven aye votes. OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: Qne person spoke in favor of the subject request; however, parking issues were a concern. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 7, 2009. DISCUSSIOM TIME: 11 minutes (3:10 to 3:21) 03/16/09 Page 8 of 15 MARCH 76, 2009 PLANNING COMMISS10iV MIfVUTES ITEM NO. 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MO. 2008-05382 Owner: Wilson Tri Freeway LLC 1630 South Sunkist Street, Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Applicant: Krysti Galvin RREEF 1630 South Sunkist Street, Suite A Anaheim, CA 92806 Location: 2111 West Crescent Avenue: This property is located at the northeast corner of Crescent Avenue and Valley Street. Request to permit a trade school for environmental training. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. PC2009-014 (Romero) Approved VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: Della Herrick dherrick ~anaheim.net Della Herrick, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated March 16, 2009 along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Faessel asked if a Public Works yard was previously located on the property. Ms. Herrick responded she did not know. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Chairman Karaki, seeing no one indicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Romero offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resofution attached to the March 16, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental determination for this request and approving Conditional Use Perrnit No. 2008-05382. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced the resolution passed with seven aye votes. OPPOSITFON: None 03/16/09 Page 9 of 15 NI.4RCH 16, 2009 PLANNIPIG COMMISSION MINUTES Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5;00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 7, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (3:21 to 3:24) 03/16/09 Page 10 of 15 MARCH 16, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIOM MINUTES ITEM NO. 6 CONDITIOfVAL USE PERMIT MO. 2009-05401 Owner: Thrifty Oii Company 13116 Imperial Highway Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Applicant: Alex Gurski WD Partners 16808 Armstrong Avenue, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92606 Location: 1881 West Ball Road: This property is located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Nutwood Street. Request to convert a former service station building into a convenience market. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categoricaliy Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) Guidelines Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Resolution No. PC2009-042 (Ramirez) Approved, added condition pertaining to parking areas VOTE: 7-0 Project P/anner. David See dseeC~7anaheim.net David See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated March 16, 2009 along with a visual presentation. Mr. See also read into the record an additional condition of approval as follows: "During project operation, no required parking areas shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storag~ purposes ° - - -• Commissioner Eastman asked Mr. See whether staff was aware of any plans for the property to the north of the subject site. She stated that a convenience market used to be operated o~ that site. Mr. See replied that Living Streams Ministry owned the adjacent property to the north and he was not aware of any proposed plans for that property. Commissioner Eastman also asked if the property to the north of the subject site had an ABC license that was not being exercised. Mr. See replied he did not know. Since the applicant is not requesting the sales of alcoholic beverages as part of this proposal, staff did not analyze existing ABC licenses in the vicinity of this site. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. 03/16/09 Page 11 of 15 MARCH 16, 2009 PLAfViVIMG COMMISSIOfV MINUTES Alex Gurski, 16808 Armstrong Avenue, Irvine, applicant, stated he had reviewed the conditions of approval and is in agreement. Mr. Gurski described the proposed changes to the building including adding new windows, repairing the faqade and adding landscape per code. Commissioner Faessel commented that the sales of alcoholic beverages was not part of this proposal. He asked the applicant whether he intended to propose the sales of alcoholic beverages in the future. Mr. Gurski responded that he does not intend to apply for an ABC license for this property. He understood that an ABC license would require approval of a conditional use permit. The intent of this proposal is to open a market that will serve the neighborhood. Chairman Karaki asked the applicant why he was proposing to keep the existing canopy. Mr. Gurski responded there might be structural implications if the canopy is detached and the canopy could be used for shade over an outdoor seating area. Chairman Karaki asked the applicant if he was planning to convert the building to add in a drive- through lane in the future. Mr. Gurski responded no Commissioner Faessel stated he wanted to make sure that Mr. Gurski's previous response was included in the meeting minutes. Harry Goyer, 943 South Nutwood, Anaheim, stated he lived across the street from the project and was a 32.5 year resident. He provided a history of past proposals requested for this site including a 1999 proposal by ARCO to convert this site from a service station to a convenience market with the sales of alcoholic beverages. He stated the Commission denied the proposal and the appbicant appealed the decision to the City Council, but then later withdrew the appeal. He questioned whether ARCO was still the owner of the property and whether any of the Commissioners were on the Planning Comr~ission in 1999. He also stated he had attended a Planning Gommission meeting in 2002 when a retail bakery was proposed. He believed the bakery was not implemented because there were environmental permits that needed to be obtained for the property. He also stated he supported the proposed use of this property as a convenience market but would not support a beer and wine ABC license on this property. He also described 35 outlets in the vicinity of this site where beer and wine could be purchased. He believed that the property to the north had an ABC license, but it would most likely not be used because the property was owned by the Living Stream Ministry. The Commissioners each indicated they had not been on the Planning Commission in 1999. Chairman Karaki clarified that a beer and wine license is not part of this proposal. Mr. Goyer responded he wanted the Planning Commission to be aware of his opposition to an ABC license because it had been previously proposed for this property. He said he would support other types of neighborhood serving uses on this site. 03/16/09 Page 12 of 15 MARCH 16, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSIOfV MINUTES Chairman Karaki thanked Mr. Goyer and reiterated that no beer and wine license is requested as part of this proposal. He also stated his understanding that Mr. Goyer was in support of the convenience market. Mr. Goyer confirmed his support of the convenience market. Commissioner Faessel thanked Mr. Goyer for providing a history of the subject property. He stated if a beer and wine proposal is ever submitted for the subject property, he anticipated it would be of great importance and interest to the community. Mr. Goyer offered to submit a list of the 35 outlets that sell alcoholic beverages in the vicinity of this property. Commissioner Faessel thanked Mr. Goyer and stated staff could provide this information. Bob Nungester, 1839 West Ball Road, clarified that Living Stream Ministry is a publisher. He stated if beer and wine was proposed for this property, the community would oppose this use. He questioned whether the business would be viable with only food sales. He also stated a concern that the market would provide other items, such as cigarettes, that would not be a positive influence on the neighborhood. Chairman Karaki stated that the selling of inerchandise like cigarettes does not come under the purview of the Planning Commission. Mr. Nungester stated that based upon the possibility of the sales of inerchandise such as cigarettes, he opposed the proposed market. Chairman Karaki, seeing no other speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel asked staff what the hours of operation would be for this market. Mr. See responded that the applicant did not provide the hours of operation and staff was not recommending.a limitation on the hours of operation or the duration of the use. --- Commissioner Eastman stated she was not aware of Thrifty Oil Company operating convenience markets. She inquired if the Thrifty Oil Company would operate this business. Mr. See stated he was not aware whether the Thrifty Oil Company would be involved with operating the convenience market. He said he had oniy worked with the applicant, Mr. Gurski, on this proposal. Commissioner Eastman asked if the Thrifty Oil Company is the property owner. Mr. See responded yes. Commissioner Eastman commented that the abandoned property to the north of the subject property appears to be a vacant run-down site and asked if there were some code provisions that could require the property to be cleaned up. 03/16/09 Page 13 of 15 MARCH 16, 2009 PLANNIfVG COMMISSION MINUTES Roger Bennion, Code Enforcement Supervisor, stated staff would look into the condition of the adjacent property to the north. Commissioner Faessel asked about the chain link construction fence that encloses the subject property and the property to the north. He said that the submitted plans did not show a fence between the two properties and asked how the applicant is addressing fencing. He asked whether the chain link fencing would be required to be taken down and reinstalled to only enclose the vacant property to the north. Mr. Bennion responded that staff would look into this. He also stated that when the market becomes operational, the chain link fence around the market would need to be removed. Commissioner Faessel asked what type of fence would be permitted at the new convenience store. Mr. See stated chain link fencing is only permitted to enclose a property while the property is vacant. New fencing for the market could include a block wall or wrought iron fencing with a maximum height of eight feet at a 15-foot setback from the front property line. Fencing not exceeding three feet in height would be allowed in the front setback area. Commissioner Faessel asked if the property owner is aware that a fence is required between the two properties. Mr. See said the plans do not indicate a proposed fence, but staff will work with the applicant to provide fencing between the two properties. Chairman Karaki asked whether there was an easement between the two properties. Mr. See responded yes. Commissioner Faessel asked whether an easement would mitigate the need for fencing Mr. See responded that an access easement along Nutwood does not preclude a fence being installed between the two properties. ---- Commissioner Faessel stated that he was not proposing a fence. He asked if there is a requirement for a fence, and if so, has the owner been made aware of this requirement. He stated there is no indication of a fence on the materials provided to the Planning Commission. Mr. See said he had not discussed fencing requirements with the owner. Commissioner Buffa stated that there is no requirement for a fence. The vacant property next door is allowed to install a chain link fence to secure their property, but they cannot block the reciprocal ingress/egress to this property. Commissioner Ramirez offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the March 16, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categoricai Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 03/16/09 Page 14 of 15 MARCH 16, 2009 PLAMNING COMIIAISSION MINUTES 2009-05401, with the additional condition of approval as follows: "During project operation, no required parking areas shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage purposes." Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with seven aye votes. OPPOSITION: One person spoke in opposition to the subject request IfV SUPPORT: One person spoke in favor of the subject request. Both speakers said they would oppose any future request for sales of alcoholic beverages at this location. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p:m. on Tuesday, April 7, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME: 31 minutes (324 to 3:55) MEETING ADJOURiVED AT 3:56 P.M. TO MONDAY, MARCH 30, 2009 AT 2:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~j~.(~--- ~/~, Grace Medina Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on March 30, 2009. 03/16/09 Page 15 of 15