Loading...
Minutes-PC 2009/05/27City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Wednesday,May 27, 2009 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present :Chairman: Joseph Karaki Peter Agarwal, Kelly Buffa, Gail Eastman, Stephen Faessel,Panky Romero Commissioners Absent :Victoria Ramirez Staff Present : CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerElaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner Linda Johnson,Principal PlannerMark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney David See, Senior PlannerRaul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer Ted White, Senior PlannerDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Della Herrick, Associate PlannerMichele Irwin, Senior Police Services Representative Vanessa Norwood, Associate PlannerGrace Medina, Senior Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at5:30 p.m. onWednesday,May 20, 2009, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published:Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper onThursday, May 14,2009 Call to Order-2:30 p.m. Attendance: 28 Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissioner Buffa Public Comments Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items Adjournment MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda -2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Minutes ITEM NO. 1A –May 11, 2009 Meeting MinutesMotionto approve minutes (Faessel/Romero) Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Approved Commission Meeting of May 11, 2009. VOTE: 4-0 Chairman Karakiand Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, and Faesselvoted yes. Commissioners Eastman and Romero abstained. Commissioner Ramirezwas absent. 05/27/09 Page 2of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Public Hearing Items: ITEM NO. 2 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2009-00078Motionrecommending City Council approval Applicant: Christiane Dussa(Eastman/Romero) DMJM 999 Towne and Country Approved Orange, CA 92868 Location:Citywide VOTE: 6-0 The applicant proposes an amendment toTitle 18 of the Chairman Karaki and Anaheim Municipal Code to allow properties larger than five Commissioners Agarwal, acres to display up to four flags or banners,includinga flag for Buffa, Eastman, Faessel, non-fraternal organizations.and Romerovoted yes. Commissioner Ramirezwas Environmental Determination: The proposed action is absent. categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 4 (Minor Alterations to Land). Project Planner: Elaine Thienprasiddhi This item was continued from the May 11, 2009 Planning ethien@anaheim.net Commission meeting. Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated May 27, 2009,along with a visual presentation. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. David Luxton, Vice President Construction, 21942 Cosala, Mission Viejo, stated the purpose of this code amendment was to have four flag poles on theproperty, similar totheflag poles on the adjacent property.He stated the four flags, including three flags in front of the building and one large American flag next to the 91 Freewaywere identified on the approved site plan for the new building. He stated they found out that four flag poles were not permitted at the time they applied for permits for the flag poles. Chairman Karaki asked if the revised ordinance recommended by staff was acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Luxton responded he thought the amendment was fair. Hereiterated his comments about the four flag poles being identified on the approved site plan and then subsequently finding out the fourth flag pole did not comply with the code. He stated the intent for applying for the code amendment was to retain the large American flag. 05/27/09 Page 3of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Faessel stated the ordinance prepared by staff would allow three flag poles, with one of the flags allowed to be a business flag. He asked the applicant if they would remove the smaller American flag and install a large American flagby the freeway. Mr. Luxton described the existing flags and stated theirintent was to keep the large American flag on the old site or possibly relocate it to the new site. Commissioner Faessel askedthe applicant if they planned on moving the tall flag pole and keeping the two permitted poles at the front of the building. Mr. Luxton responded they needed to decide what type of flags they wouldfly in front of the building. Commissioner Faessel asked staff to describe the applicant’s options if the revised code amendment recommended by staff were adopted. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated the applicant could apply for a variance to keep the fourth flag, but did not know what kind of hardship findings could be made for this property. Commissioner Faessel statedhe wassensitive to the need to be consistent in theapplication of zoning rules and regulations across the City. Commissioner Agarwal asked if commercial or industrial properties had a minimum lot size. Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded no. Commissioner Agarwal asked if there was a minimum lot size to have three flag poles. Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded that any property, regardless of size, could have three flag poles. The applicant had proposed a five acre minimum lot size in order to have a fourth flag pole. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero, that the Planning Commission determine that a Class 4 Categorical Exemption serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and recommend to the City Council approval of Zoning Code Amendment No. 2009-00078, as modified by staff. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, announced the motion carriedwith six yes votes. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, Eastman, Faessel and Romero voted yes. Commissioner Ramirez was absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 18, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :13minutes (2:37to 2:50) 05/27/09 Page 4of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ITEM NO. 3 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITResolution No. PC2009-056 NO. 2008-05301 (Agarwal) (TRACKING NO. CUP2009-05419) Approved Owner/ Patrick McLaughlin Applicant:VOTE: 6-0 Advanced Clinical Research Institute 1211 West La Palma Avenue, Suite 302Chairman Karaki and Anaheim, CA 92801Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, Eastman, Faessel, Location:1085 North Harbor Boulevard andRomerovoted yes. Commissioner Ramirez The applicant proposes to amend the conditions of approval for was absent. a previouslyapproved clinical research facility. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare vnorwood@anaheim.net environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated May 27,2009, along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Romero asked if there were any other similar medical research facilities with extended stays in Orange County. Ms. Norwood responded she did not know. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Patrick McLaughlin, Advanced Clinical Research Institute, 1211 West La Palma Avenue, Suite 302, Anaheim, applicant, described the proposal. He stated when they completed work on the facility, they reviewed the conditions of approvalandfound modifications were needed to reflect their operation. He said the modified conditions listed in the staff report were acceptable.He also stated there was a large extended stay medical research facility in the City of Cypress named West Coast Medical Trials. Commissioner Faessel asked what percentage of all of the clinical trial volunteers would stay 30 consecutive days. Mr. McLaughlin responded approximately 20percent would stay 30 consecutive days. He stated the volunteers would be compensated for their time and could leave at any time. Commissioner Faessel said the applicant’s letter statedmost of the patients were uninsured, unemployed or underemployed. He asked why this was used as justification for increasing the length of stayfor the volunteers, especially since on-site medical supervision would not be provided at all times. 05/27/09 Page 5of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Mr. McLaughlin responded that physicians would be in attendance every day and other medical personnel would be in the facility at all times for oversight. Commissioner Faessel statedthat two day stays were previously approved and now, the request was for stays of up to 30 consecutive days. He asked if this was standard operating procedure for these types of facilities. He said he wanted to make sure that extending the length of stay would not impact the neighborhood. Commissioner Romero asked whether the volunteers could leave at any time, even 3 a.m. Mr. McLaughlin replied the volunteers couldwithdraw their consent and leave the facility at any time. They would be discharged from the study. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)is responsible for regulating these studies and conducting regular inspections. Chairman Karaki asked who fundedthe medical trials. Mr. McLaughlin replied pharmaceutical companies underthe jurisdiction of the FDAfunded the medical trials. Chairman Karaki, seeing no other speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa stated she did not share the other Commissioners concerns since these medical trials needed to meet certain criteria and were regulated by the FDA. Commissioner Eastman commented the City of Anaheim should be honored to have a facility of this quality. She stated she knew these facilities were highly regulated and thought this would be a good use in the City. Commissioner Faessel stated he concurred with Commissioner Buffa’s comments. Commissioner Agarwal stated his support of the proposed amendmentsto the conditions of approval. Commissioner Agarwal offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the May 27, 2009 staff report, determiningthat a Class 1 Categorical Exemption serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approvingan amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05301. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, announced the resolution passedwith six yes votes. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, Eastman, Faessel and Romero voted yes. Commissioner Ramirez was absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 18, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :12minutes (2:51to 3:03) 05/27/09 Page 6of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ITEM NO. 4 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Resolution No. PC2009-057 NO. 2007-05202 (TRACKING NO. CUP2008-05371)AND------------------------------------------------------- VARIANCE NO. 2009-04784Motion to adopt a resolution * approving the office and training Owner:facility only. The Andrew C. Edward Trust(Agarwal/Faessel) 1230 South Lewis Street Motion Failed Anaheim, CA 92805 Applicant:VOTE: 2-4 RogerDeitos GAA ArchitectsCommissioners Agarwal and Faessel 4 Park Plaza, Suite 120voted yes. Irvine, CA 92614Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Buffa, Eastman, and Romero voted no. Location:1055 East Ball Road Commissioner Ramirez was absent. ------------------------------------------------------- Motion to adopt a resolution The applicant proposes to modify a previously- approving all requestedactions except approved permit to construct a 7-story office the public dance hall, with building with a height exceeding 100 feet and to modifications to Condition Nos.8 and permit a restaurant with outdoor dining and a public 38 and the addition of new conditions dance hall**with the sales of alcoholic beverages pertaining to a drivewayand with fewer parking spaces than required by code limitations on the hours of operation. and a greater floor area ratio than allowed by code. (Buffa/Faessel) Environmental Determination: An Addendum to a Motion Approved previouslyapproved Mitigated Negative Declaration has been determined to serve as the appropriate VOTE: 6-0 environmental documentation for this requestin accordance with the provisions of the California Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).Agarwal, Buffa, Eastman, Faessel and Romero voted yes. *A Request for Determination of Public Convenience or Commissioner Ramirez was absent. Necessity No. 2008-00052 was advertised for this project. It is no longer required and has been withdrawn. Project Planner: **The public dance hall componentwas originally advertised Elaine Thienprasiddhi as a nightclub. ethien@anaheim.net Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated May 27, 2009,along with a visual presentation. She recommended Condition Nos. 8 and 38 be revised as follows: Condition No. 8 –Plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval showing conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Detail No. 473 pertaining to driveway locations. The subject property shall be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 05/27/09 Page 7of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Condition No. 38 –Existing sewer deficiencies are identified in City sewers on East Street and Ball Road adjacent to this property, provided that the sewer connection is made to the manhole at the intersection of Lewis Street and Ball Road or at a downstream location from this point improvements need not be made relative to these existing deficiencies as a result of this development. The owner/developer shall verify through a sewer study that no additional deficiencies are created based upon the completion of this development. Ms. Thienprasiddhi also stated that staff received two phone calls from residents concerned about potential late night traffic on East Street from the restaurant and dance hall guests. To address this, staff recommended that a condition of approval be added to require the easterly driveway to be closed nightly beginning at 10:00 p.m. in a manner satisfactory to the City Transportation Manager. She stated the applicant has agreed to this additional condition. Commissioner Buffa asked staff to explainthe revisions to the sewer condition. Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer, responded therewasan existing sewer deficiency on Ball Road which wouldbe addressed by a City improvement project. The applicant could connect their project sewer lines to the sewer lines at the intersection of Lewis Street and Ball Roadbased onthe volume of sewage that was consideredat the time the project was originally approved. If theapplicant wantedto connect their sewer lines to the east of the intersection, then they would have to provide additional improvements. This same requirement would apply to a sewer connection to East Street. To the west of the intersection of Lewis Street and Ball Road, a City project wouldprovide additional capacity; however, the applicant wouldneed to submit a sewer study to determineif the increased size of the proposed project would cause any additional deficienciesand require additional improvements. Commissioner Buffa said this building would presumably create more demand for sewer treatment or pipe sizing because it is a larger building. She asked ifthe applicant would be asked to share in the cost of the improvement.She also asked ifupsizing of the pipes would be required to support this proposal or wouldthe City’s improvement project accommodate this growth. Mr. Garcia responded the City’s sewer project accounted for the size of the previous proposal. A sewer study would be needed to determine ifthe addition of the two floors of office space would cause impacts to the sewer lineand require additional improvements. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Roger Deitos, GAA Architects, 4 Park Plaza, Suite 120, Irvine, CA, applicant, stated the main differences between this proposal and the previously approved plan wasthe additional two floors of officearea,the proposed restaurant with outdoor seating and an entertainment venue which wouldbe located on the west side of the ground floor. The theme of the restaurant would be upscale, catering to the demands of the “rancher” community, tourists,and overflow of local sporting events and conventions. Live entertainment would be provided by mainly local bands, major music artists,and disc jockeys on selected nights. During the day, the restaurant would only cater to employeesand those using the training facilities. Commissioner Faessel asked if the project would be designed for LEED certification. 05/27/09 Page 8of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Mr. Deitos responded the project is not currently slated to be a LEED certified building. Commissioner Faessel asked if energy efficient improvements would be incorporated into the building design. Mr. Deitos responded yes. Commissioner Faessel asked why a restaurant was being incorporated into the building. Mr. Deitos responded the restaurant would provide in-house catering for employees in the building. This catering has previously been outsourced. This use would also reduce traffic since employees using the training facilities would not need to leave the facility for meals. The entertainment venue for the steakhouse was requested by the owner of Extron who wanted to have an upscale country music establishment to serve the community. Commissioner Agarwal stated he was concerned about the incidental sales of wine for off-site consumption and asked the applicant to explain this use. Mr. Deitos stated that high qualitybottled wine, similar to types of wines available in wine cellars, would be sold to patrons of the restaurant. Other types of alcohol would not be sold for off-site consumption. Commissioner Agarwal asked if wine would only be sold to patrons dining in the restaurant. Mr. Deitos responded yes. Commissioner Romero statedwhen he was talking to the property owner about this building;he had suggested that a restaurant be incorporated into the building. He supported this use. Larry Tomlinson, Ridgeview Park Condominiums, 1155 South Dover Circle, Anaheim, stated he opposed the project. He stated the following concerns: he had received the notice about this hearing only the Friday before this meeting; a 100-foot building would be highly visible from his neighborhood; he opposed the bar; he believed the traffic at the East Street and Ball Road intersection was already congested and adding a left turn lane would add more traffic and create more of a negative impact; he was concerned that customers of the site would park in the residential neighborhood; he had talked with several of the neighborhood residents and all were opposed to this project; and, he believed the building was too big for the site. Chairman Karaki asked if the speaker had received notice of this project when it was originally proposed. Mr. Tomlinson responded that he had not received a notice of the previous hearing. Ailene Dewas, 1123 South Clifpark Circle, Anaheim, stated she lived across thestreet from this property and she opposed the project. She did not receive a notice of the previous hearing. She received the notice for this hearing the previous day. She believed that Extron has been a good neighbor. She thought a five-story building would have been okay and would be a positive effect to 05/27/09 Page 9of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES the neighborhood. She stated she opposed the restaurant and bar and stated the following concerns: she believed there would be negative impacts on the neighborhood since the outdoor dining area would be open until 2:00 a.m.;there would be smokers and intoxicated customers talking in the parking lot;she was concerned about potential crime being brought to the neighborhood because of the dance facility including drug use and other crimes associated with customers congregating in the parking lot; and, she believed this use would significantly impact the quality of the neighborhood and asked that these impacts be taken into consideration. Charles Wilson, 1237 East Bell Avenue, Anaheim, stated he opposed this project. He stated the following concerns: this use wouldnegatively impact the neighborhood; the building wastoo tall and would obstruct views; there wasnot enough parking; and, this use wouldcause an inconvenience to the neighbors. He also stated he did not receive a notice for the previous public hearing on this building. Jesus Diaz, 1140 South Clifpark Circle, Anaheim, stated he wasopposed to this project and had not received a notice for the previous public hearing. He was concerned that parking would become an issue if this project was approved. He wason the homeowner’s association board and hadbeen approached by several neighbors who also opposedthis project. Dedric Rogers, 2333 Cotner Avenue, Los Angeles, representing the owners of 1201 East Ball Road, an industrial building immediately to the east of the proposed project, stated they were opposed to this project. They wereconcerned their property would become an overflow parking area for the proposed project and that after hour criminal activity would increase. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing. Mr. Deitos requested permission to address the neighbors’ concerns. Chairman Karaki reopened the public hearing. Mr. Deitos, said the parking demands for the facility wouldbe from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. and there wasa shared agreement with the property to the north to allow adequate parking for office related uses.He said 527 parking spaces were required for the office related use; however, in the evening, when only therestaurantand entertainment venuewere open, 284parking spaces were required. They would provide 210 on-site parking spaces. The parking area on the east side of the property would be for employees only and the driveway to East Street would be closed off after 10:00 p.m. The Police Department required that on-site security be provided. As for noise concerns, all entertainment would take place in an enclosed area with soundproof walls, the doors would remain closed and the business would comply with the City’s noise ordinance. Chairman Karaki asked if music would be played outside the building. He also asked Mr. Deitos to elaborate on the steakhouse restaurant. Mr. Deitos responded that music would only be played inside the building. He said the western side of the building would includethe steakhouse and entertainment venue. The north side of the building would be occupied by the restaurant and kitchen area. There would be two doors serving the patio area, which would be enclosed by gates and soundproof plexiglass. The entertainment venue would be on the south side of the building in a controlled vestibule lobby area with doors leading to the entertainment venue. West of that, on the furthest most western portion of the building,there would bean enclosed smoking area. He said they would comply withthesound attenuationconditions and requirements. 05/27/09 Page 10of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Chairman Karaki asked the applicant to confirm this would be an upscale restaurant with entertainment, not a bar. He asked if music from the entertainment venue would be audiblein the restaurant area. Mr. Deitos responded this would be a steakhouse/entertainmentvenue. He said that music from the entertainment area would not be audible in the restaurant area.He also stated there would be a perimeter fence surrounding the sitewith controlled access.This would make it difficult for anyone parking on the street to access the property. Commissioner Faessel asked the applicant to describe the outdoor seating area. He understood it would have asix-foot plexiglass wall and be accessed from the inside of the building. He asked if music would be played in the outdoor seating area. Mr. Deitos said there would only be controlled background musicin the outdoor seating area, not music from the entertainment venue. Commissioner Faessel asked how many tables would be in this area. Mr. Deitos responded they proposedto allow seating for approximately 100pluspatrons. Commissioner Faessel asked if this would accommodate appropriately 20 to 25 tables. Mr. Deitos responded yes. Commissioner Buffa asked if they had contemplated removing the wrought iron fencing between the two parking lots so it would seem like one parking lot. Mr. Deitos responded there would be an access point between the two properties through the center of the site. If required, there could also be another access point in the eastern portion of the site through an access gate. He saidapproximately 100 parking stalls on the northerly site wererequired for the restaurant and entertainment venue and that would be accommodatedby the first two rows of parking spaces located closest to the subject property. During the daytime hours, 317 spaces would berequired for the office building. Commissioner Agarwal asked if soundproofingwould be provided in the entertainment areaand whether patrons sitting in the patio area could hear the inside entertainment music. Mr. Deitos said a lobby, bar area and restrooms would separatethe restaurant and entertainment venue whichwould attenuate noise between the two areas. Sound traveling to the outside of the building would be minimized by design and soundproofing of the exteriorfacadeof the building. They would also have a study performed to determineif additional soundproofing wouldberequired to meet the City’s noise ordinance. Commissioner Buffa asked what percentage of the two additional floors wouldbe used for offices and what wouldbe used for training purposes. 05/27/09 Page 11of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Mr. Deitos responded the training area would remainapproximately the same as the previous proposal. The additional floors wouldbe used for office space. Commissioner Buffa stated staff calculated the parking requirement for this building based upon a parking ratio of 2.4 spaces per 1000 square feetto address the mixof training and office uses. She asked staff why an office or industrial parking ratio was not usedfor the new office square footage. She also asked staff to describe the parking requirement for office and restaurant uses. Ms. Thienprasiddhi said a2.4parking ratio was used to determine the number of parking spaces for this project. This ratio was fromthe original parking study that determined the appropriate parking ratio for the mix of office and training uses. The original parking study was based on parking counts at the existing facility. The same ratio was used for this proposalto be consistent with the original parking study.She also stated that the code required 3 spaces per 1000square feet for office use. The Code also required 15 spaces per1000square feet for a freestanding restaurant and 8 spaces per 1000square feet for restaurants integrated in a center. Staff used a ratio of 15 spaces per 1000 square feet for this restaurant including the outdoor diningarea. Commissioner Buffastated she understood staff’s explanation, but did not necessarily agree with the methodology. Mr. Deitos stated the parking ratio was 2.4 per thousand plus a ten percent buffer. Commissioner Buffa asked staff to describe the total parking demand for the existing building and the seven story building combined. Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded 795 parking spaces were requiredand 808 spaces would beprovided, for a surplus of 13 spaces. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing.He asked staff to provide adefinition of a floor area ratio for the benefit of the audience. Ms. Thienprasiddhi explained floor area ratio is the total gross square footage of each floor of the building divided by the square footage of the land. Commissioner Faessel asked staffto describe thezoning requirements addressing line-of-sight issues for buildings adjacent to residential properties.He stated the plans show that the top two stories of the building has been stepped back in height. He also stated that Commission was provided with isometric drawings showing views of the building from across the street on East Street. Ms. Thienprasiddhi respondedthere were two standards applicable to line of sight. The submitted elevationplanshows the roof-mounted equipment on the office building wouldnot be visiblefrom a point six feet above the ground across the street from the subject property. She also stated the Code required the maximum height of office buildings locatedwithin 200 feetof a residential property lineto belimited to one half the distance betweenthe building andthe property line.The submitted plans show the building complied with this requirement. Commissioner Eastman thanked the residents for attending the meeting and apologized on behalf of the City andthe Planning Commission for them not being notified of the public hearing at which the 05/27/09 Page 12of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES five story building was approved. She also commented the owner/developer should have met with the residents to advise them of this projectand answer their questions.She stated it was her impression that the company owner wasresponsible and woulddo everything in his powerto not cause negativeimpacts tothe neighborhood. She understood the concerns of the residents and hoped they had been addressed. She stated hersupportofthe project. Commissioner Romero stated he was supportive of thisproject.He believed the concerns expressed about potential negative activities associated with this project would not be condoned by the owner or the Police Department. He believed this would be a good addition to the City. Commissioner Buffa stated she was concerned that the wrought iron fence between the two sites would create a significant barrier and not be conducive to shared parking. She stated that people would probably park in the parking lot closest to East Street because they would not understandthere was an opening in the fence. She stated she didnot object to the height of the buildingsince the height exceeded the code by only four feet. She was concerned with the restaurant and dance hall being open until 2:00 a.m., seven days a week which would be a tremendous burden on the neighborhood. Although the facilitywasdesigned for the noise to travel away from the residences, the noise created by patrons would be a disturbance and wouldnot beappropriate this close to residences. She stated a concern that the dance hall would operate similar to the House of Blues and did not believe this would be compatible with a residential neighborhood.She was in favor ofthe building, but not in favor of the dance hall. Commissioner Agarwal suggested dividing the motion into two -one for the building and the other for the restaurant. Chairman Karaki stated his office used to be located in this areaand believed this project would be a benefit to the area. He stated the applicant, at the Commission’s request, had willinglyrevised the project elevation to include additional enhancements.He stated that restaurant projects were concentrated in the Katella area. Hebelieved this project would alleviate some of the traffic from heading to Katella and provide some convenience to the residents. He stated he supported this project based upon all of the information submitted for this project, including the noise, traffic and parking studies. Commissioner Eastman stated she was disappointed the owner was not proposing a LEED certified building and encouraged the applicant to reconsider this decisionbecause it would be a long-term benefit for the building and area. Mr. Amstrup addressed Commissioner Agarwal’s question regarding a split motionand described potential motions to address approval of all, part or none of the project actions. Commissioner Agarwal offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel, to adopt a resolution approving the office and training facility without the restaurant or dance hall. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced the motion failed with two yesvotes and four novotes. Commissioners Agarwal and Faesselvoted yes. Chairman KarakiandCommissioners Buffa, Eastman and Romero voted no. Commissioner Ramirez was absent. 05/27/09 Page 13of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel, to adopt a resolution approving anamendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05202 for the requested actions except the public dance hall; and approving Variance 2009-04784 with amendments to Conditions of Approval Nos. 8 and 38 as read into the record by staff; the addition of a new condition pertaining to the easterly driveway; and limiting the hours of operation to 12:00 a.m. on Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings and 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Wednesday. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, announced the resolution passed with six yes votes. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, Eastman, Faessel and Romero voted yes. Commissioner Ramirez was absent. OPPOSITION: 5 persons spoke in opposition to the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 18, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :73minutes (3:03to 4:16) 05/27/09 Page 14of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ITEM NO. 5 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05422 ANDResolution No. PC2009-058 REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2009-00060Resolution No. PC2009-059 (Eastman) Owner: KF Harbor LLC 6125 San Vicente Blvd. CUP No. 2009-05422 Los Angeles CA90048 Approved Applicant: Jacob Poozhikala PCNNo. 2009-00060 7101 Monroe Avenue Approved with deletion of Buena Park, CA90620 Condition No. 5 Location:859 South Harbor Boulevard VOTE: 4-2 The applicant proposes to operate a convenience market with Chairman Karaki and the sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption in an Commissioners Buffa, Eastman, existing commercial building.The applicant also requests a and Romerovoted yes. determination that the public convenience or necessity would CommissionersAgarwal and be served by the issuance of a Type 20 (off-sale beer and Faessel voted no. wine) alcoholic beverage license for this convenience market.Commissioner Ramirez was absent. Environmental Determination:The proposedaction is categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare Project Planner: Della Herrick environmental documentation per California Environmental dherrick@anaheim.net Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines,Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Della Herrick, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated May 27, 2009,along with a visual presentation. She also stated that one piece of correspondence was received in opposition to the project. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Jacob Poozhikala, 7101 MonroeAvenue, Buena Park, applicant, described the project. He said the use would operate more as agrocery store than a convenience market. He stated the following concerns about the conditions ofapproval: Condition No. 2 prohibitedadvertisement of beer and wine sales. He would like the option to advertise with one sign. Condition No. 5statedonlyemployees 21years of age or older couldsell alcoholic beverages. He asked the Planning Commission to change the condition to allow an underage sales clerk to sell alcohol so long as an employee of legal agewason the premises. Condition Nos. 6and7prohibitedthe sale ofsingle size servings of beeror wine.He would like the ability to sell single servings of imported beer and would only sell 4-packs of wine coolers. Hestated he did not think it wasnecessary to keep one of the two doors closed atnight. 05/27/09 Page 15of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Eastman asked if the applicant would be the owner and operator of the business and whether he had experience operating this type of business. Mr. Poozhikala responded he would be owner and operator of the business and that he had experience as a manager of a similar market. Commissioner Buffa stated she understood the applicant’s concern about keeping one of the two doors closed at night, but did not see it as a condition of approval. Mr. Poozhikala stated it was not a condition of approval; however, since the Police Department raised the issue, he wanted to bring it up as a concern. Commissioner Romero asked staff to comment on Condition Nos. 2, 5, 6 and 7. Michelle Irwin, Senior Police Services Representativestated the Police Department recommended approval of the convenience market, but not the alcohol use since this property waslocated in an area with a high crime rate,near a school and a church. She stated the following regarding the conditions of approval: Condition No. 2, which would prohibit advertising of alcoholic beverages on the exterior of the market or interior areas visible to the outside, has beenapplied to all permits with alcohol uses. Condition No. 5,which would prohibit any person under 21 years of age to sell beer or wine, couldbe deleted since the Alcoholic Beverage License regulations allowedpersons 18 years or older to sell beer and wine under the supervision of a person 21 years of ageor older. Condition Nos. 6 and 7,which would prohibit the sale of single bottles of beer and wine,has been applied on a case by case basis. Staff recommended these conditions be applied to this permit. Condition No. 7, which would requirewine-coolers tobe sold in manufacturer pre-packaged multi-unit quantities,would permit the sale of pre-packaged containers of four bottles as described by the applicant. Ms. Irwin also stated the recommendation that one of the doors be closed at night was a safety suggestion, not a requirement. Mr. Poozhikala stated while he understood the conditions limiting the sale of single beverage containers was a rule;he believed the Police Department should conduct more research on this item. KhodaB. Ostowari, 805 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, stated he owned a gas station in the vicinity of the proposed market. He stated he had submitted a piece of correspondence indicating his opposition to this proposal. He opposed this use because the property was located in an area with a high crime rate and there were already more ABC licenses inthis area than allowed by the census tract. He also did not see anything that would justify a finding of convenience or necessity since there were already businesses in the area that sold alcoholic beverages. He stated the resolution approving alcoholicuses on his property was based upon the number of alcoholic beverage licenses in the property’s census tract at the time. He stated a concern that approval of this new license would put his license in jeopardy since it would add another ABC license to the census tract. Commissioner Eastman recalled that when the speaker’s gas station was proposed, there was significant opposition from the neighborhood. She complimented him on operating a well-run station. 05/27/09 Page 16of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES She also stated she observedsome blade signs on his property which didnot comply with code and suggested that he take care ofthose signs. She statedshe did not believe approval of this request would jeopardize the speaker’s ABC license. Mr. Poozhikala stated there were four vacant tenant spaces in the commercial center. There was a grocery in the center; however, it was not successful. This wouldbe a different market geared towards the neighborhood. Chairman Karaki asked the applicant if he had owned another similar business. Mr. Poozhikala stated he was a manager of a store on Brookhurst Street. Chairman Karaki, seeing no other speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel stated staff had previously provided the Commission with criteria for considering Public Convenience or Necessity requests. He requested that these criteriabe included with the staff report for future requests. Commissioner Eastman stated she lived in the neighborhood in the vicinity of the proposed market and had patronized this center. She defined convenience as being able to not have to go to more than one location to get items. Commissioner Buffa agreed with this definitionof convenience.She did not support changing the conditions regarding exterior signage and selling single beverage containers. These conditions are imposed on every project. She recommended deleting Condition No. 5 regarding the age of the sales clerk, as it is regulated by the ABC. Chairman Karaki stated small stores are coming backand believed the market would be a benefit to the area. He did not support changing the conditions. Commissioner Eastman offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the May 27, 2009 staff report, determiningthat a Class 1 Categorical Exemption serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05422 and a Request for Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2009-00060 with the deletion of Condition No. 5. Chairman Karaki asked staff whether they supported the deletion of Condition No. 5. Ms. Irwin stated that staff supported the deletion of Condition No. 5 as ABC had regulations which allowed a sales clerk under 21 to sell alcoholic beverages provided they were supervised by a person over 21 years of age. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney,announced the resolutionpassed with four yes votes and two no votes. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Buffa, Eastman and Romero voted yes. Commissioners Agarwal and Faessel voted no. Commissioner Ramirez was absent. 05/27/09 Page 17of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OPPOSITION: One piece ofcorrespondencewas received and oneperson spoke in opposition to the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 18, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :97minutes (4:16to 5:53) 05/27/09 Page 18of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ITEM NO. 6 VARIANCE NO. 2009-04778 Request for withdrawal No action required Owner: Joey Santos 132 S Eucalyptus Drive Anaheim,CA92808 Applicant: EJB Designs 3730 Tovar Way Chino Hills, CA 91709 Location:132 South EucalyptusDrive Project Planner: The applicant proposes to retain an existing two-story Della Herrick detached racquetball court with a side yard setback less than dherrick@anaheim.net required by code. Environmental Determination: The proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1(Existing Facilities). OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME :This item was not discussed. 05/27/09 Page 19of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ITEM NO. 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05417Resolution No. PC2009-060 (READVERTISED) (Faessel) Owner/ Allan Ansdell ApplicantApproved :Dolly and Daisy, LLC 1238 South Beach Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92804 VOTE: 6-0 Location:1238 South Beach Boulevard Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, The applicant proposes to allow church services and a banquet Buffa, Eastman, Faessel, facility with alcohol service in an existing two story building on and Romerovoted yes. the Hobby City property (the former Hobby City Doll and Toy Commissioner Ramirez Museum).was absent. Environmental Determination:The proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare Project Planner: David See environmental documentation per California Environmental dsee@anaheim.net Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1(Existing Facilities). David See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated May 27, 2009,along with a visual presentation. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Allan Ansdell, 1238 South Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, applicant and property owner, described the project. He stated that during the 30 years of its existence, the doll museumhadbeen used for club meetings, weddings, large parties and introduction of new products, etc. Five years ago, when they decided to close themuseum, theydiscovered they were only licensed as a retail store,which is why they have applied for a Conditional Use Permit. Commissioner Faessel asked if the church use would be for an existing or a new congregation. Mr. Ansdell stated if this use was approved, they would look for a congregation interested in using the space. Chairman Karaki, seeing no other speakers, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eastman said she supported the project. Commissioner Faesseloffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the May 27, 2009 staff report, determiningthat a Class 1 Categorical Exemption serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approvingConditional Use Permit No. 2009-05417. 05/27/09 Page 20of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney,announced the resolutionpassed with six yes votes. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, Eastman, Faessel and Romero voted yes. Commissioner Ramirez was absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 18, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :8minutes (4:53to 5:01) 05/27/09 Page 21of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ITEM NO. 8 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1322 Motion to continueitem to (TRACKING NO. CUP2008-05356),June 22, 2009 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4014 (Eastman/Faessel) (TRACKING NO. CUP2009-05428) AND VARIANCE NO. 2009-04776 VOTE: 6-0 Owners: Sidney BickelChairman Karaki and 5585 Via Dicha#BCommissioners Agarwal, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Buffa, Eastman, Faessel and Romerovoted yes. First Southern Baptist ChurchCommissioner Ramirez 1275 East Broadwaywas absent. Anaheim, CA 92805 Applicant: Phil Schwartze PRSGroup 31872 SanJuanCreekCircle SanJuanCapistrano,CA92675 Location:633 South East Street (Quartz Dealer Direct) 1275 East Broadway (First Southern Baptist Church) The applicant proposes toreinstate a previously-approved Project Planner: Ted White conditional use permitfor Quartz Dealer Direct, an automotive twhite@anaheim.net wholesale and retail auction facility with fewer parking spaces than required by Code, and delete a condition of approval which sets an expiration date for the permit; and,amend a previously-approved conditional use permit for the First Southern Baptist Church and private school to permit satellite parking for the Quartz Dealer Direct business with fewer parking spaces than required by Code. Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration has been determined to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this requestin accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This item was continued from the April 13, 2009 Planning Commission meeting . Ted White, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated May 27, 2009,along with a visual presentation. He recommended Condition No.1 of the Conditional Use Permit and Variance resolutions for the church site be changed to reflect 124 parking spaces. Commissioner Agarwal asked about staff’s recommendation on the time extension. 05/27/09 Page 22of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Mr. White stated staff recommended a two year retroactive time extension to expire in 2010. Commissioner Faessel asked for clarification that staff is recommending a two year time extension. Mr. White clarified that the retroactive two year time extension would be from August 20, 2008 to August 20, 2010. Commissioner Agarwal asked how much time was approved for the last time extension. Mr. White responded the last time extension was for a one year period. Commissioner Agarwal asked if staff was recommending atwo year extension because Quartz had an agreement for off-site parking. Mr. White said that was correct. Chairman Pro-Tempore Romeroopened the public hearing. Phillip Schwartze, PRS Group, 31872 San Juan Creek Circle, San Juan Capistrano, representing the business owner, described the project. He said the automobile business had experienceda major change over the last year, which had affected their business. It has beenextremely slow over the last year, to the point where they havenot needed any off-site parking. They have secured a permanent location closer to the facility. Hebelievedmany issues experienced by the neighbors wouldbe eliminated. Mr. Schwartze provided the Commission with a copy of a flyer given to all the brokers, indicating the areas where they would be allowed to park. The business would provide for uniformed security guards todirect brokers to park in the appropriate locationso they couldbe shuttled back and forth to the auction. The auctions are held on Monday and Friday afternoons. Commissioners Faessel, Eastman and Buffa stated they had met with the applicant regarding the project.Chairman Karaki disclosed he had spoken to Mr. Schwartze by phone. Commissioner Agarwal asked if the parking agreement had an expiration date. Mr. Schwartze responded the parking agreement was for anindefiniteperiod. BarbaraPiembert, 1225 East Crestbrook Place,Anaheim, stated she opposed the project. She stated the following concerns about the auto auction business: customers of the business parked their cars in her neighborhood and left debris on the street and on private property; theyparked in advance of the auction and waited for long periods of time in their cars;theytest drove vehicles in the neighborhood; customers waiting for the auctions in their neighborhood could be heard discussing the auction and negotiating terms; the noise level of the auction sound system was loud and could be heard in her neighborhood. She had observed a business employee monitoring the neighborhood and talking to people about parking once in a while, but not everyday when an auction was conducted. She also stated that if customers parked in the church site and took a shuttle to the auction facility, that might besufficient. Peggy Chollete-Guibert, 1218 East Crestbrook Place,Anaheim, stated her opposition to the project. She stated the following concerns: customers of the business continue to park in her neighborhood; 05/27/09 Page 23of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES trucks on the auction property idled for long periods of time; and,the noise level of the auction sound system negatively impacted the neighborhood. Joanne Burdick Gottlieb, 1237 East Crestbrook Place,Anaheim,stated her opposition to the project. She stated the following concerns: the noise level of the auction sound system was high and could be heard in her neighborhood; she had not observed anyone from the auction business monitoring the parking in her neighborhood; and, she had attended previous Planning Commission meetings on this business and believed that no further time extensions should be allowed. Susanne Chavez, 1211 East Crestbook Place,Anaheim, spoke on behalf of her father. She stated her opposition to the project and provided the following concerns: customers of the auction business continuedto park in front of their homes; the customers who parkedin the neighborhood leftdebris on the front lawns andin the street; and,the use has creatednegative impacts on the neighborhood andis inappropriatebecause children play in the neighborhood. Leslie Anderson, 1209 East CrestbrookPlace,Anaheim,stated his opposition to the project. He stated the following concerns: this business has been negatively impacting the neighborhood for ten years; he had attended previous Commission meetingsand submitted a number of complaints to Code Enforcement; and, he hadwritten at least a dozen e-mail messages informingCode Enforcement staff that cars were parked in front of his residence. Mr. Schwartze responded to the concerns with the following information: the auction business does not allow test driving of vehicles; auction business is conducted inside the building and the speakers are in the building; and,off-site parking would be provided for the brokers on the church site. Mr. Anderson stated that off-site parking lots had previously been provided for this business; however, there were still issues because brokers continued to park in their neighborhood. He believed people would continue to keep parking in the neighborhood because it was convenient. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eastman agreed that there was a problem and it neededto be fixed. She stated one suggestion might be to restrict entrance to the auction to only those who parked in the off-site lot and were transported to the site by a shuttle. She suggested that the applicant work on a solution that would guarantee no parking in the neighborhood. Commissioner Agarwal stated that he had some experience with this facilityand that these issues have been an ongoing concern. He believed the business should relocate. He believed the neighbors should not have to clean up the debris left in their neighborhood by the customers of the auction business.He could not support another time extension, unless it would be for one year in order to allow the business time to relocate. Chairman Karaki suggested this item be continuedto allow time for the applicant to provide a solution to prevent customersof the auction facility from parking in the neighborhood streets. Commissioner Agarwal concurred with this suggestion. He also wanted the applicant to address pollution issues associated with the cars on the auction facility site, specifically from engines constantly being turned on and cars idling. 05/27/09 Page 24of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Buffastated she believed Commissioner Eastman’s suggestionwould address the parking issue by preventing customers from entering the auction facility unless they came to the site by a shuttle. She also concurred with Commissioner Agarwal’s comments that every time this project has come before the Commission for a time extension, they have heard the same testimony about the impacts on the neighborhood. Chairman Karaki stated that he did not want to suggest a solution and believed that it was up to the applicant to come up with a solution. Commissioner Buffa concurred. Commissioner Romero stated it was not fair to impose a burden on the residents. He believed the applicant needed to come up with a solution and demonstrate that the business would be a good neighbor. Commissioner Eastman stated the applicant should gettogether with the neighborhood. She suggested a continuance and stated the applicant appeared to indicatea four week continuance would be acceptable. Commissioners Faesselstated he concurred with the Commissioner’s comments. He had visited Crestbrook Place and believed it was a wonderful neighborhood.He believed the impacts on the neighborhood have been ongoing and have had not been mitigated. He believed that a continuance was in order for the applicant to develop a plan to address the neighbor’s concerns. Commissioner Agarwal stated that Commissioner Eastman had offered a valuable suggestion. He saidthe applicant should also provide a solution to address how noise and air pollution associated with the business could be controlled. He stated concerns about cars leaking oil and the impact of the pollution on the neighborhood. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel, that this item be continuedfour weeks to the June 22, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney,announced the motion passed with six yes votes. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, Eastman, Faessel and Romero voted yes. Commissioner Ramirez was absent. Following the vote on the motion, the Commission asked staff to send out notices regarding the June 22, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. The Commission also discussed the potential of extending the continuance to six weeks, but did not take any action to change the meeting date. OPPOSITION: 5persons spoke in opposition to the subject request. DISCUSSION TIME :41minutes (5:01to 5:42) 05/27/09 Page 25of 26 MAY 27, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:42P.M. TO MONDAY, JUNE 22, 2009AT 2:30P.M. Respectfully submitted, Grace Medina Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on June 22, 2009. 05/27/09 Page 26of 26