Loading...
Minutes-PC 2007/05/30~~~,HEIM ~~~ City of Anaheim • 4 r~' ~ • ' o ~ Planning Commission ~ ~ M i n utes U D , ~~~a~ , Wednesdav, Mav 30, 2007 o er Council Chamber, City Hall ' ~~~ 1$~~ 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California NDED CHAIRMAN: GAIL EASTMAN Commissioners Present: KELLY BUFFA, STEPHEN FAESSEL, CECILIA FLORES, JOSEPH KARAKI, PANKY ROMERO, PAT VELASQUEZ Commissioners Absent: NONE Staff Present: _ Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Della Herrick, Associate Planner Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner Kimberly Wong, Assistant Planner Dave See, Senior Planner Jamie Lai, Principal Civil Engineer - : Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner Elly Morris, Senior Secretary Scott Koehm, Associate Planner • Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 11:00 a.m. . on Thursday, May 24, 2007, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, May 3, 2007 • 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 MAY 30, 2007 AGENDA • Recess To Public Hearing • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 30 • Pledge Of Allegiance: Commissioner Flores • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Adjournment ` • H:\TOOLS\PCADMIN\PCACTIONAGENDA~2007MINUTESWC053007.DOC MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Consent Calendar: Commissioner Faessei offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez and MOTION CARRIED, for approval ofConsent Calendar Items 1-B and 1-C as recommended by staff: Consent Calendar Item 1-A was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Reaorts and Recommendations 1A. (a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 11 Romero/Karaki Concurred with staff (b) SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WAIVER NO. 2007-00037 Romero/Karaki Approved request to waive Special Event Permit Agent: Deana Morgan ' requirements (to expire on Burnham USA October l, 2007). 1100 Newport Center Drive, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 VOTE ON CEQA: 7-0 Location: 2430 East Katella Avenue: VOTE ON SCW: 6-1 Commissioner Flores voted no • Request for approval of a Special Circumstances Waiver to waive Special Event Permit requirements of permitted duration and location of banner to retain four (4) banners until October 2007 on a trellis structure. Pro~eoc r~anner: (kwong2@anaheim.net) {This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Ms. Dadant stated that she would like to point out that the Commission asked earlier if there were any special event permits issued for the center since the opening, and staff's records indicated one special event permit issued for a grand opening event that would be occurring on June 2"d of this year. Staff did not show any records of other special event permits for grand opening banners for this site. Commissioner Flores clarified that the event was for one day only. Ms. Dadant responded yes, it is a one day event. Deana Morgan, 1100 Newport Center Drive, #150, stated she is the property manager representing the landlord for this particular center. She stated the ultimate plan for the banners is to provide adequate exposure to their tenants and because it is a new center in the Platinum Triangle it has not been exposed as much as they would have liked. She stated currently a few of their big name tenants such as Starbucks have been closed on weekends due to the fact that business has been substantially lower than expected. So as landlords, they felt they needed to step in and help their tenants and that is why it is so • necessary at this time to have the requested kind of exposure, They are trying to get the maximum exposure they can get for the center. She stated that she believes the signage is beneficial to the ° 5-30-07 Page 2 MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Platinum Triangle by promoting more pedestrian traffic for all major venues and that the signage itself would attract new and returning visitors to their center and the Platinum Triangle. The more visitors, the more revenue for the center, which would be more revenue for the City therefore, as they previously requested; they were only seeking to keep the banners until October 1 St; the end of baseball season and then they`would take them down. They would keep them in excellent condition, repairing as necessary and maintaining the banners. Ms. Morgan stated that they believe the banners are unique and fit in very well wifh the center and the Platinum Triangle's theme, therefore, it is imporfant for them to try to get the maximum exposure to their tenants. She stated it would only be on a temporary basis and they are not looking to have them on a permanent basis. ' Chairman Eastman closed the public heat~ing. Commissioner Karaki asked if there was a banner for grand opening on the wall itself. Ms. Morgan responded yes, but the landlord did not promote that, it was something the tenants did themselves and they did not advise them to do it. She stated that the tenants had their own little grand opening and the landlord told them to take it down. Also, a Code Enforcement Officer was in the area and cited them for it. CommissionerKaraki asked if the current request was part of it. Ms: Morgan responded it is completely separate and it is on a trellis outside that faces the carner. Commissioner faessel asked staff if they could delineate what the special event permit allows. Ms. Dadant responded that commercial properties within the City are permitted to apply for a special `' event permit. They are allowed one grand opening banner for a period of 30 days at the grand opening of • any business establishment. In addition they are also entitled to four special event permits; each for a period of 9 days up to a maximum of 36 days per calendar year. Commissioner Flores asked if the applicant would be able to apply for the banner now even though it had already been up for a long period of time. Ms. Dadant responded that actually there are a couple of issues with the banners that are requested today. They are not attached to a building wall which is typically the guideline for special event permit banners. To date, there has not been a special event permit issued for a grand opening banner for any of the businesses located within the subject commercial center. Typically if a facility has had a banner that is already up staff would like to.go back and make the permit from the date that they had the banner because that's really how long they have been enjoying the use of the banner, but in this particular case the location of the banners would not be appropriate, so they would need to locate them to a position that would be permitted and then they would be able to apply for a grand opening banner for the individual tenant spaces. Commissioner Flores wished to clarify that even if the City were to allow their cequest they would have to relocate the banners to the front anyway and they could not keep them where they are currently located. Ms. Dadant responded that is correct, because the guidelines for the special event permit would require them to be located on a building wall and currently they are attached to a trellis structure. Commissioner Karaki commented that the Commission could find an aesthetic reason not to put them on the building because he does not think it is appropriate to have them on the building and believes they fit and match well where they currently are. Ms. Dadant responded that the location of the banners is a part of the special circumstances waiver. • Therefore„since it is a part of the request before the Commission, if the Commission determined thaf the special circumstances waiver is appropriate it would include the location as welL 5-30-07 Page 3 MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Karaki stated that the T-mobile banner looks as though it does not belong there because it is a stone wall. He is inclined to keep them where they are because of the aesthetics of the banners, not because the special circumstances are found. Chairman Eastman asked if they could actually apply for special event banners and put them on the back of their building facing the street or would they have to put them on the front. Ms. Dadant responded they could put them on the back but it would have to be on the building wall of the tenanYs space that is being advertised on the banner. Chairman Eastman stated in the same manner that T-Mobile currently has one without a permit that she is leaning to the direction of staff because it seemed to be a more tasteful way of advertising their grand opening. Commissioner Velasquez stated the first issue is if there should be banners at all and the second issue is where should they be placed if they were approved. She asked if the applicants were made aware that banners could not go on the property. She stated she is aware that Commission took action March 20, 2006 when the applicant received approval for the signs therefore, she asked if the applicants were made aware that in order for them to put up banners they needed to apply for a specia{ event permit. Ms. Dadant responded that she could not tell her definitively because the planner that worked on the project is no longer with the City but thatthey did obtain a waiver for the signs that are currently on the : building. She stated that it could have been in the discussions staff had with the original applicant informing them that there were provisions in the Code relative to promotional events and banners because the subject of signage did come up under their entitlement. She added that staff did not find out about the banners until after they were constructed. • Commissioner Velasquez referred her question to the applicant and asked if she knew they needed to apply for a permit to put the banners up. _ Ms. Morgan responded she was not aware of that and added that she just recently took over management approximately a year ago and was not involved in the entire pfanning of the property and the way she found out was when they received a citation from a Code Enforcement Officer. Commissioner Buffa asked how long had the banners been in the current location. Ms. Morgan responded currently they have been up since the end of January. r Commissioner Buffa referred to Commission and stated that her question for her fellow Commissioners would be, if they were to allow banners at the subject location what would be the justification that would : make this site different than any other. She stated the fact that business is slow, to her mind, would not distinguish this site from any other property in the City. Commissioner Faessell responded that what the applicant indicated is that one of the main anchors is closing down on the weekend and to him that is not a good sign for a very expensive center. He stated that he knows the area very well and since the wall is not spread out and they are there right now he could grant it. He suggested that maybe the applicant ought to remove them and put them back so it could count for another four months from this time on. His only explanation to allow them is because they are shutting down on the weekend because there is no business. Commissioner Flores stated that she agrees with Commissioner Buffa because if they were to allow this applicant the banners because of the underperforming business, the next person could come in and say the same thing and then what room would Commission have to deny them. She stated she is sure there are other means of advertisement which they have not seen which is probably out there since they have ' 5-30-07 Page 4 MAY 30, 2007 PL~INNING COMMISSION MINUTES • had the banners since January and who is to say they will get more business now. So thaf is why the City has ordinances that are implemented for the banners and Commission has to decide based on them. Ms.'Morgan responded theirlast tenant which was California Pizza Kitchen just opened in January so they are putting on a grand opening for the center this weekend and trying as much as they can to get the place exposed and the word out thatthey are there so they thought this would be another extra step: It is just temporary and not anything they are planning for a long term. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, stated that the special circumstance waiver is, by its very nature, something that is discretionary permit. It would be considered on a case by case basis as other discretionary entitlements. lt does not necessarily set a precedent because it rises and falls on its own - facts, and here the facts that would drive the determination would be whether or not the waiver would serve the public interes_t in the context of this setting or whether there is extraordinary circumstances that apply to this unique situation. So thaYs the nature of the decision that the Commission is faced with. It is highly discretionary. It is fact driven and it is not the kind of decision that necessarily sets a precedent. _ Each request would rise and fall on its own facts. Commissioner Faessel stated that he just wanted clarification that should the Commission grant the permit the expiration date would be October 1, 2007. And that is roughly under 4 months. Ms. Dadant responded correct. Commissioner Buffa stated the Assistant City Attorney's comments were very helpful to her because her concern was setting a precedent that would alfow any struggling business to }ust start hanging banners anyplace in town. She stated the subject development has taken a risk in the Platinum Triangle while the Platinum Triangle is in its infancy and has few residents. Although there are a lot more residents coming, there are not that many people living close by who are going to come to the Platinum Triangle for their • morning cup of coffee everyday or for their sandwich on the weekend, etc. Since they have made an investment in the City of Anaheim she is willing to cut them a little slack because they are taking a chance on the Platinum Triangle, and that's the only reason because to her that tips the scale. ' It does not set a precedent but gives the City the opportunity to try and help businesses get established in a portion of the City that Commission really wants to be successfuL Commissioner Velasquez asked the applicant what other actions they were taking to drive business to the subject center. Ms. Morgan responded they have tried to contact the Honda Center during events, and the same with the Angel Stadium, they have done advertisements at their own cost for the tenants and some of the tenants have taken it upon themselves to do their own marketing. She stated they have taken a cost for a grand opening event this Saturday and they have been trying to stretch in every angfe to get them exposed as much as possible and they are working with the tenants on that as well for them to get more involved also. Commissioner Velasquez wished to clarify what specific actions had they taken again like perhaps newspapers, etc. Ms. Morgan responded yes, newspapers and their owner is in a real estate and belong in a couple of organizations such as Bomer and Iram and have been posting advertisement in there so a lot of it is advertisement out right now. They are trying to use word of mouth as well as contacting the Angels, the Ducks and the Convention areas. Chairman Eastman asked if they are planning any changes to the banners. Ms. Morgan responded what you see now is exactly what is going to stay. They would not be changing ,• anything. The landlord put up a lot of money to put up what they have right now and they are very nice so they would not be changing them. - 5-30-07 Page 5 .. ~. . ~ . ^~ A V 9ff Aflfl7 ~ . ~ . . ~ . ~ . ~ . . • Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki to approve the CEQA Categorical Exemption - Class 11. Motion passed by seven affirmative votes. Commissioner Romero' offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki to approve the Special Circumstance Waiver with the conditions noted by staff giving the applicants an additional 5 months to drum up business for the center. Motion passed by six affirmative votes, with Commissioner Flores voting no: _ DISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes (2:35-2:55) • MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r _ Min s 1B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved,with Meeting of April 30, 2007. (Motion) modifications topages 2, 5and16 Continued from the May 14, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting. Consent Calendar Approvai VOTE: 7-~ 1C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of May 14, 2007. (Motion) ~ • Approved, with modifications to pages 9; , 10 and 11 Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 7-~ _. 5-30-07 Page 7 MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • P bli He rin Items: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED) Velasquez/Romero Approved 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Velasquez/Romero Approved, in part 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05164 Velasquez Granted Owner: Daniel Rubalcava 508 North East Street LLC WA~VE1tS Anaheim, CA 92807 Approved waiver (b), and denied waiver (a) since it was withdrawn by the applicant. Agent: Greg Howell 20561 Suburbia Lane CUP Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Added two conditions of approval Location: 508 North East Street: Property is approximately 1.15 acres and is located at the northeast corner of Sycamore Street and East Street (La Reina Market). VOTE: 7-0 Request to permit the expansion of an existing legal non-conforming , market with sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption and to establish land use conformity for an existing legally non-conforming commercial retail center with waivers of (a) minimum number of required parking spaces, and (b) minimum landscape setback. Continued from the January 8, March 5, March 19, April 2, and May 14, 2007, • Planning Commission meetings. Project Planner. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-49 (kwong2@anaheim.net) ` Kimberly Wong, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report and added one condition of approval. That within 60 days from the date of this resolution all window signs, graffiti, outdoor storage and unpermitted structures attached to buildings, vending machines and telephone booths shall be removed in compliance with Code. The applicant, Ed Perez, 176 South Vista Grande, Anaheim Hills, CA, stated that he would like to thank staff member Kimberly Wong, in working through this somewhat arduous process. He further stated present in the audience is the owner and staff of the La Reina Market and also the architect, Greg Howell, who is available for any comments. He continued by stating La Reina Markets has proposed an action plan. They have come up with an 8 point action plan to help mitigate any concerns and issues. La Reina Markets will implement the plan and have initiated those actions effective immediately. They have withdrawn the plans for the second story office and storage area. They have added 8 more parking spaces to the design plan and relocated the trash enclosure. La Reina will use parking permits to identify to each employee. They have also initiated a carpool rideshare program to allow for more available parking spaces on site. Also, there are a number of the employees that are on a carpool program that are utilizing a taxi, bus, or getting a ride to work and one or two of the employees walk to work since they live within close proximity. They have a table of employees that are commuting to work and believe that it is a very effective carpool plan and they want to encourage it. They initiated a community neighborhood support campaign introducing the new changes and he has had the opportunity to meet with Mrs. Lois Heney to discuss the new plans. Lastly, La Reina has incorporated a strong clean up campaign with the tenants. He stated they are very cognizant and aware of the photos that were submitted with regards to Code Enforcement and they will expedite the clean up campaign, and some of the tenants have already ~ started a vigorous clean up of their backyards. He added that they appreciate all,that staff has done and 5-30-07 Page 8 MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMiSSION MINUTES • the time,they have spent on the project and would appreciate the consideration of Commission's support and approval and also would be available for any questions as'would the architect, Commissioner Suffa referred to the handout and stated that on the table on page 2, there are a number of employees, approximately 62 total employees. She would assume that not all of them are working at the same time, and there would be different shifts and some businesses would be closed during the day, etc: : Mr. Perez responded that was correct, first and second shifts. Daniel Rubalcava, Jr., Vice President, La Reina Markets, 250 N. Rose Blossom Lane, Anaheim, Hifls, CA, stated his father is the President; and that he would answer any questions in regards to the operation of the business and that the architect is present to answer questions in regards to the structure. Chairperson Eastman asked if he had reviewed all,the conditions and was okay with them. Mr. Rubalcava responded yes. Chairperson Eastman stated that it was the biggest thing Comm'sssion needed to know. Chairperson Eastman stated she also had a card from Lois Heyne and that the card indicated she was in opposition. Lois Heyne, 1240 East Glenwood Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated she originally submitted a petition from 39 of her neighbors because they did not like the parking situation or the second story situation, and then Mr. Perez gave her a copy of the handout depicting the elimination of the second story which was a part : of their problem and they also added a few more parking spaces. She stated in talking to him yesterday, he indicated there would be cameras along Glenwood Avenue to maintain the cleanliness of the property • and that would be a condition of this permit so therefore, as far as she and the few people she was able to talk to are concerned, the new changes meet the requirement of her petition. Commissioner Faessel thanked Mrs. Heyne for taking the initiative to go ahead and work with the neighborhood to bring the issues to Commission's attention because if it had not been for their involvement they would not have known the situation and they certainly do not want to be responsible for passing a project that could cause detriment to their neighborhood. He added that he was raised not far from the subject location and believes what they are presenting to Commission now is much improved over what was initially presented. Chairperson Eastman stated the fetter Mr. Perez passed out said Williamson Street and asked if he intended it to mean Glenwood Avenue. She announced that he indicated yes from the audience. She stated staff would change it for the record. Commissioner Karaki asked when the faCade remodel would take place. Judy Dadant stated that plans had not been submitted for the faCade remodel at this point and suggested perhaps Mr. Perez could answer the question: Judy Dadant stated that the conditions of approval did not include a provision for security cameras so if it was the desire of the Commission to require that, staff would need to add a condition of approval to that extent. Commissioner Karaki stated that his question to Mr. Perez is when the applicant intended to remodel the shopping center to give it the new look. Mr. Perez responded once the project is approved, they woufd go through the formaf process of • exercising the permit. He stated that again management would be willing to move forward to be compliant. Additionally he stated that because it was his oversight he wanted to add that the additional < 5-30-07 Page 9 MAY 30, 2007 PLANNlNG COMMISSION MINUTES cameras, in his discussion with the neighborhood; became a safety measure and he wanted to note that it ~ is a good ,will effort on behalf of the applicant to identify and to incorporate the cameras which they feel is relatively important to the project. He referred to Mr. Karaki and stated to answer his question, they would begin the timeline as soon as they are permitted to do so. Commissioner Flores stated that she was out at the property yesterday and met one of the owners while she was there and one of the questions that was asked was regarding the trash bin: She asked if there would be any possibility of reducing the size of the trash enclosure by using more pick ups to open it up for one more parking space. Ms. Dadant responded staff did not have an answer to that question yet, but that they would note that it is the Commission's desire to keep the minimum amount oftrash enclosure areas required. Staff would work with the Streets and Sanitation Division to see if they could reduce the amount of bins. Commissioner Flores stated after looking at the plans she believed it might open up another parking space and also once this is done she feels the area would look nicer. She stated that because of the big trash bins, she never knew the market was there even though she passed by regularly. She feels that once the renovation is done, the area would iook a lot nicer and the neighborhood would prosper. She supports the project. Mr: Perez indicated they have pick-up six (6) days' a week. Commissioner Flores indicated there was no need to further modify the trash bins based on that. Chairman Eastman closed the public hearing., ~ ~ Commissioner Romero stated that he meet with a representative of the applicant to discuss the proposed . changes. Commissioner Faessel asked the Commission if they intent on including the action plan as a part of the approvaL Chairman Eastman responded that she believes that if it is the desire of the Commission, for them to have the cameras concentrated on Glenwood Avenue, they would need to put that into a form of an additional condition. Ms. Dadant responded that is correct, and that staff had not seen the document and did not know what all the details were but if the Commission wished to include all the items in the document, staff could add a condition of approval stating that the operation shall comply with the action items identified in a letter dated May 28, 2007, to the Planning Commission and staff could include it in the file. Mr. Faessel stated that he just wanted to ensure that the action items are taken seriously, and the parking permits would continue to be monitored and that the cameras installed on Glenwood Avenue are maintained in a workable condition. He had concerns about the continued adherence to the action plan. Ms. Dadant stated that staff recommends a new condition of approval that stipulates that the market and commercial center shall maintain and implement the action items identified in the letter submitted to the Planning Commission dated May 28, 2007. She stated staff would make sure the letter was placed in the file and that would be made a part of their approval. Commissioner Buffa stated that rather than add one blanket condition, since there are items on the list that have already been done, she would rather see a specific condition. She suggested that they pull out the items that are requirements, particularly, Item No. 4 and 5 that say employees are being given ID's to put in their car. The rideshare program and adding security cameras on Glenwood Avenue should also be included. She stated that those are the things that she would like to see as conditions rather than just a 6lanket condition because maybe it would be a little clearer in the future. 5-30-07 Page 10 MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Gommissioner Velasquez stated that she was ready to make a motion. Commissioner Flores stated she just had one more question. She asked, if they would open up a gate behind the building, and if they were going to remove the telephone pole or if it was just for pedestrians. She'added that currently it is one entire block walL Ms. Dadant responded that staff did not believe there were any plans for a gate or access at the back of the building. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve a CEQA Negative Declaration. Motion passed by seven affirmative votes. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero to approve waiver (b) and deny waiver (a) since it had been withdrawn by the appficant. Motion passed by seven affirmative votes. Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit Na 2006-05164 and to add contlitions of approval as stated by Commissioner Buffa. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, stated there was also an additional condition as read into the record by Kimberly Wong. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, stated that the resolution passed with 7 ayes votes. • OPPOSITION: None IN GENERAL: A person spoke and indicated that the previous concerns raised at the last public hearing have been resolved. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 21, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 24 minutes (2:56-3:20) MAY 30, 2007 ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Karaki/Faessel Approved (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) (READVERTISED) 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Karaki/Buffa Approved, in part 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERM17 NO. 2003-04800 Karaki Approved, in part (TRACKING NO: CUP2007-05199) _ WAIVERS Owner: Ellas Properties Inc. Approved waivers (a) and (d), 5395 East La Palma Avenue and denied waivers (b) and (c) Anaheim, CA 92807 since theyhave been withdrawn by the applicant. _ Agent: HosseinZandi, Caliber Motors CuP ' 5395 East La Palma Avenue Added a condition of approval Anaheim, CA 92807 Modified Condition No. 23 Deleted Condition No. 45 Location: 200 North Via Cortez: Property is approximately 5.7 acres and is located at the northeast terminus of Via Cortez and voTE: ~-o south of the SR-91 (Riverside Freeway), with a frontage of 161 feet on the northeast terminus of Via Cortez and is located 837-feet north of the centerline of Santa Ana _ Canyon Road. Request to amend plans and conditions of approval for a previously- approved automotive sales dealership topermit additional signs, modify the elevations and construct a canopy and outdoor vacuum facility with waivers of (a) minimum landscape and structural setback, (b) maximum ~ number of wall signs and (c) maximum number, type and size of signs. Continued from the April 30, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Project Planner. (skoehm@anaheim. net) Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-50 Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He clarified that Condition No. 23 of the resolution should read, after the word `eliminated' bn the south elevations'. Joseph Marca, Project Architect, 240 N. Market Place, Escondido, CA, stated that he was not able to be present due to illness at the Planning Commission Meeting held on April 30, 2007. He stated that the Commission had four issues in front of them and as reported by staff, his client has withdrawn the issues relative to canopies and the additional signage on the front of the showroom building. In addition, staff , recommended approval for the window signs on the freeway elevation of the building and they appreciate staff's support and in that regard to keep their presentation brief they would be happy to answer any questions Commission should have about the window signs and the new location of the proposed star. It would be relocated from where it was previously approved on the east side of the showroom building to the east side of the detail building. It seems that the major remaining area of concern has to do with the site landscaping and there is a long history there. He stated that the applicant or the owner and he thought that they had gone through the process correctly to gain the proper reviews of all the site plans issues throughout this process. He indicated that they found out today that staff is also concerned about the 5-foot setback near the entrance. They thought it had been fully approved by staff previously. Their comments relative to the landscaping of the eastern portion of the site are simply that when it was determined that the enclosure of the open channel, which was in great disrepair, along the eastern • section of the site was financially feasible, the work was undertaken. Permits were received through Caltrans, and they had discussed the permitting process with the Public Works Department. The city : 5-30-07 Page 12 MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ basically indicated that they did not want to have ownership of that channel and that they should go ahead and get permits through Caltrans. They also processed a grading permit through their civil engineer fior that portion of this site and received grading approval in which the grading approVal also showed the enclosure of the pipe. So, they moved the landscaping to create additional parking places along the eastern portion of this site and instituted the reduced landscape strip which is shown in red on the right side of the drawing. That was consistent with the width of the landscape strip that had been previously approved, and those plans had been part of the various building permit submittals, approvals and staff reviews prior to submittal to the Building Department. When they received Building Permits for those areas they thought that staff had approved them and that those areas were within the purview of the staff as an administrative approval. The landscape strip obviously is nof 10 feet, which staff would like to see in that area. It is 5 feet but it is consistent with the major area that has been previously approved. The screening that benefits the neighbors is consistent with what has been approved originally. The horizontal aspect, of course, is 5 feet instead of 10 and they believe that the value of a 5 foot of horizontal landscaping adjacent to a 20 foot wide sewer easement and a 20 foot high, screen wall is of little additional value to the neighbors themselves and certainly is not seen by anybody driving by the site from the freeway. They believe the horizontal aspect of the landscaping is nowhere near as important as the vertical aspect of the landscaping which does provide screening ofJighting; freeway noises and freeway lighting. When in its position closer to the neighbors it is a better screen than where it had previouslybeen located. In addition, as indicated by Mr. Koehm, both the department of urban . forestry and their landscape architect indicate that a tree should thrive in this location. Lon Pettis, 5841 East Camino Manzano, Anaheim, CA, stated he was present last month and would like to thank Mr. Koehm for his help in resolving some of the issues and the principals themselves. The lighting issues had been greatly improved, however there were still a couple ofthings they needed to work on. There are some of the light bulbs that are still below the fixture on the north side of the property that shine directly at the residences. The homeowners have permission from their association to put window tinting on the windows, which was not allowed before. One of the other issues are the flags at • the east end of the property. They are all at the same height. They are up all night long and they don't have the correct lighting. They are only lit by the lighting that surrounds the property. He wanted to bring the issue to the applicanYs attention before he called Code Enforcement. He believes the flags should be correctly lit. He wasn't sure if the flags were in the original plan, but one of the homeowners complained about the noise from the flags. Mr. Pettis stated that he was not crazy about the setback issue but the biggest issue last time was the lighting and the tents. The tents have been withdrawn and their comment would be that even if they were to be made a permanent structure in that particular area, the fence is only 6 feet high there. The sound wall is reduced where they want to put them and they would be highly visible from their side of the property. Chairperson Eastman confirmed that the vacuums and tent have been withdrawn. Mr. Pettis wanted to know when the rest of the lighting would be corrected. He indicated that they did a survey over the holiday and there are 107 homeowners there and they found out that there are 38 Mercedes-Benz vehicles in the neighborhood, so that is a very good customer base. Chairperson Eastman stated they should be happy to hear that. Commissioner Karaki asked if he is okay with the 5 foot setback. Mr. Pettis responded no, he is not. They would like to see the 10-foot stay. They like the larger setback and there are obvious reasons; that the perimeter wall is not really a sound wall, it is just a big block wall. The farther every thing is away from the wall the better. - Chairperson Eastman asked the architect or another representative of the owner to talk about the lighting • and when that would be accomplished. 5-30-07 page 13 MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •' Mr. Marca stated that he appreciated Mr. Pettis' comments and the reasonableness of them. The applicant in the intermittent 30 days has made great strides to solving the lighting issues for the neighbors and is committing to continuing to do sa Wherever possible, they are happy to shield lights, remove lights and potentially downsize the bulbs within #he lamp itself. He didn't know how many exact items remain to be done. Relative to the flags, they certainly would light them properly as quickly as possible and make sure that there is a differential between the American flag height and the other flags that are flown there. Both of those issues will be taken care of and are not a problem to the management there. He reiterated that the currenf landscaping benefits the neighborhood and achieves the screening desired initially by the Planning Departmenf. He indicated that fhey have put in larger than required trees in almost every focation. Chairperson Eastman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa asked about a specific point on the plan and indicated that she recalled the landscape setback being no less than 10 feet except immediately across from the sales building. She asked staff if this exhibit correctly depicts the area of theproposed waiver. She recognized the driveway configuration is a little different than it was before, but she wanted to make sure the waiver, if granted, was granted correctly. She commented that the lights near the residenfs still need to be shielded downward more than they currently are because the homes still have a lot of light shining on them. She feels it is partly Commission's fault for not noticing that the condition regarding the lighting issue was not properly crafted in the first place. She is reluctant to ask the applicant to bear the brunt and expense of a City error, - however if they shield all the lights they can achieve what Commission meant to originally achieve. Commissioner Flores asked staff to explain the signage in the window and asked if staff would review the signs each time they are changed. ~ Mr. Marca explained they may change signage a couple of times a year because of the high quality of the graphics. There will be not text or advertising. He added they will continue to work with neighbors to shield the lights that are bothersome to them. He doesn't want it to be a condition that applies to all the lights. Judy Dadant advised they are not allowed to have any advertising text and as long as they are in compliance with that, there is no reason for staff to review the signs. The waiver is before the Commission because the graphics cover the entire window which exceeds 10% of the window elevation. Commissioner Buffa explained the City needs an enforcement mechanism and needs a condition that is specific. Lights all need to be angled down instead of out onto the homes. Mr. Marca stated it does go down and photo metrics have been provided which indicate that there is no light spillover. It is 0 to 0.1 foot candles beyond the property line. He agrees with the shielding but not for all the lights on all four sides. Commissioner Buffa suggested polishing up condition 23 to provide protection to the neighbors and - clarify terms to be specific. Commissioner Karaki stated he has visited the site and thinks the dealer is turning lights off in the back after 10 p.m. Spill over comes from other areas. Neighbors need to point out which lights are causing the problem instead of saying all the lights are the problem. There are other types of lighting they could probably use, such as the kind airports use which don't have so much glare. He suggested cutting the lights off in the back and having neighbors work with the dealer. Mr. Zhandi with Caliber Motors advised they reduced the lights from 65% to 45% at 8:30 but they can't go ' • much lower for security reasons. 5-30-07 Page 14 MAY 30, 200T PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Marca stated a neighbor said there are 3 lights that are still problematic and they will work with them to resolve the lighting. Judy Dadant suggested adding a condition stating "a lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to provide protection to the neighborhood, including but not limited to shielding of the light poles., A photo metric plan and lighting plan shall be submitted to demonstrate how the existing lights will be modified to achieve this effort and the decision of staff may be applealable #o the Planning Commission as a reports and recommendations item. Staff needs to reduce the amount of overspill to all homes and to address the shielding where the light source is clearly visible from the adjacent homes. Changes may include modifying the light poles or reducinglights at certain times. ' Commissioner Buffa advised condition 24 seems to be an exact duplicate of condition 45. Commissioner Karaki asked the applicant to move the Mercedes sign on the preparation building in between the two bays. CommissionerKaraki offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to approve a CEQA Negative Declaration for the project. Motion passed by seven affirmative votes. Commissioner Karaki offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Buffa to approve a waiver (a) and (d), and deny (b) and (c). Motion passed by seven affirmative votes Commissioner Karaki offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit 2003-04800. Judy Dadant clarified that staff is modifying condition 23 for the lighting and deleting 45, and added a condition to reflect the fact that the logo on the east elevation of the vehicle prep building shall be ' relocated to the stucco area in between the two open service doors. • Elly Morris, Senior Secretary stated the resolution passed with 7 ayes votes. OPPOSITION: A letter was received from the Anaheim Hills Citizens' Coalition with concerns regarding the subject request. A person spoke and indicated some previous concerns raised have been resolved, but : relayed issues regarding the waiver of landscape setback and some lighting issues that still need to be fully resolved. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 21, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: ~7 minutes (3:21-4:08) • MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR7 N0. 313 Continued to (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) June 11, 2007 4b. - WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05198 Motion: FaesseUFlores Owner: Steiner Corporation, VOTE: 7-0' 505 East South Temple, Salt Lake City, UT 84102-1004 Agent: Geoff Bonney, Bonney Architects, 300 East State Street Suite #620, Redlands, CA 92373 Location: 1740 South Zevn Street 1755 and 1763 South Anaheim Boulevard: Property is approximately 2.1 acres, having a frontage of 326 feet on the east side of Zeyn Street and is located 250 feef north of the centerline of Katella Avenue. Request to expand a legal non-conforming commercial laundry facility with waivers of (a) minimum landscape and structural setback adjacent to Zeyn Street and Anaheim Boulevard, (b) maximum permitted fence height, (c) minimum distance between driveways serving adjacent parcels, and (d) minimum number of required parking spaces. Continued from the April 30 and May 14, 2007, Planning Commission meetings. ~ r t Pl Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. . anne Projec (kwong2@anaheim.net) ' Chairperson Eastman asked if there was anyone present at the public hearing for this item. Seeing none she accepted a motion. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by C ommissioner Flores to continue Item No. 4 to June 11. Motion passed with seven affirmative votes. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 330 (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) - 5b. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00059 Buffa/Romero BuffalRomero Agent: Planning Department City ofAnaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard , Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: Citvwide: City-initiated request (Planning Department) to amend Section Na 18.40.060 (Dedications and 1mprovements) of Chapter 18.40 (General Development Standards) of Title 18 "Zoning" of the Anaheim Municipal Code to authorize the City Engineer to grant discretionary exemptions for dedication and improvement requirements when appropriate findings can be made, without the requirement for a public hearing and the deletion of "multiple-family residential" from the definition of "Minor Addition" exemptions for required dedication and improvements. Recommended City Council Approval Recommended City Council Approval VOTE: 5-2 Commissioners Faessel and Velasquez voted no Project Planner. (dherrick@anaheim.net) ' Della Herrick, Associate Planner presented the staff report. ~ Jack Marsten, 411 South Ohio asked if the agent is the Planning Department, not the Commission. Staff report states the City Engineer can grant discretionary exemptions where appropriate findings can be made without the requirement for a public hearing and deletion of multi-family residential from the definition of minor addition exemptions. He interprets it to say that the City Engineer will have the power to build a minimum 5 unit residential home regardless of the current zoning anywhere in the City. Della Herrick clarified that anything zoned multiple family is not part of this discretionary exemption by the City Engineer. Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner clarified that the basic request is a code amendment regarding dedications and improvements and provided an explanation of when this provision would be applicable. She explained this has nothing to do with building homes or structures; it purely is a code amendment that changes the approval authority for a development proposal that does not want to make all of or part of the required dedications or improvements to the public right of way. This changes the authority from the Planning Commission to the City Engineer so that the Planning Commission doesn't have to have a hearing on the item. Commissioner Buffa asked for clarification about the portion relating to multiple family exemptions. Della Herrick indicated that multiple family additions would not be exempt from possible dedication and improvement requirements because the intensity of multiple family additions may be greater. She added they can work with the City Engineer to come up with the appropriate dedication for what they are developing, maybe they can provide a bond or provide a partial improvement. Sometimes the street improvement plans outweigh the actual building of a site. She provided an example to the Commission. Commissioner Faessel asked Della Herrick to define improvements. • Della Herrick stated that would include streets, gutters, curb, sidewalks, street widening, parkway, ADA compliant ramps. If the applicanfidoesn't or can't agree with the City Engineer, they can come before the Planning Commission. : 5-30-07 ' Page 17 MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMM1SSlON MINUTES ~ Commissioner Romero asked if the public still retained the right to bring an appeal process to the Commission if they wanted ta Judy Dadant advised the decision of the City Engineer is appealable to the Planning Commission. CommissionerVelasquez asked if there was a cap placed on the'improvements and is concerned about allowingsomeone to,give limitless exemption, Jamie Lai, Principal Engineer advised they would have to look at the improvement calculations and details of the costs and work with the applicant to see if the improvements are justified. ` , Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, inferjected and put the issue in context. When these kinds of issues come up, it is typically the Public Works Department that demands the exactions and dedications that are requested from the applicant; whether it is in connection with a discretionary approval or a building permit that does not require any discretionary approval. The City Engineer is responsible for implementing the City policies under the General Plan and pursuant to the `development standards that the CityCouncil and Planning Commission has advocated. The applicant could come back and say it is too much, the City Engineer will have the discretion to review that and make decisions based upon the applicant's justification. ' _ Commissioner Velasquez is concerned that the decision would be at one person's sole discretion. Mark Gordon advised the City Engineer is still guided by the City policies and development standards and obligated to follow them. Appeals can always be made: Commissioner Velasquez asked what checks and balances are in place and Mark Gordon advised the ~ appeal process allows for review to be requested. Commissioner Buffa stated they wouldn't know to appeaL Mark Gordon assured the Commission that the City Manager's office is made aware of all decisions like ' this that occur. Two or more members of the City Council or two or more members of the Planning Commission could appeal. Typically the City Manager reviews Planning Commission decisions and City Manager's office makes City Council aware of the decisions. The same circumstance would prevail with the City Engineer and the Commission would know if the City Engineer was playing favorites or taking action against the City's goals and policies. Jamie Lai, assured they comply with and are bound by Title 17 and Municipal Code requirements. ' Jack Marsten stated he would rather see this in the hands of the Planning Commission instead of in the hands of one City Engineer. Gail Anderson, 923 West Broadway didn't understand the deletion of multi-family from the definition. She said this was poorly written and hard to understand. Della Herrick stated any addition to multiple family would not be exempt, it would have to come before , Commission. Mark Gordon, City Attorney, clarified some projects are automatically exempt and this language removes multi-family from that list of automatic exemptions. The language that referenced multi-family is being ' deleted from the section dealing with automatic exemptions when a building permit is being sought for minor additions. The second part is the discretionary exemptions and that is when the automatic exemptions doesn't apply and they would have to make an application and certain findings would have to ~ be made. 5-30-07 Page 18 MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Buffa wanted clarification on language because it specifically relates to building permit exemption and asked if anything related to a multi family exemption would come back to Planning Commission. Judy Dadant clarified multiple family projects, less that 1,000 square feet of improvement would not be exempt, which means the dedication and improvement requirements would apply and if the applicant is willing to make those improvements, nothing needs to come before the City Engineer or P(anning Commission. It is only if they disagree with making the improvement that they can then request waiver from the City Engineer with the decision appealable to the Planning Commission. _ Jack Marsten asked Commission to keep the authority because things aren't clear enough. Commissioner Flores asked if the City Engineer would only be looking at modifications, not building. Commissioner Velasquez stated it could be a sizeable project in the Platinum Triangle. She asked for an example of what kind of project would fall under this exemption. Mark Gordon stated a Platinum Triangle type project requires discretionary approval and is processed the same way as they always have before the Planning Commission. An example would be a commercial development, permitted as a matter or right with no waivers or CUP's. He explained how the process works and who reviews the project: Commissioner Karaki explained there is nothing wrong with the City initiating this, other cities are doing it and there is always a right to appeaL Judy Dadant explained the City is trying to streamline the process for reviewing waivers of dedication and improvement requirements. Bringing it before Commission costs the applicant 3 months in time and ~ processing costs which may amount to $10,000 and it is a burden for the applicant. Staff would like to allow the City Engineer to consider the items, then let items that cannot be resolved by the City Engineer come before the Commission if that is what the applicant requests. Jack Marsten stated it is clear by the amount of discussion that the Commission should recommend that this proposal be written more clearly, definitively and comprehensively. Chairman Eastman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa commented she thinks the staff is right. If the City Engineer grants an $1,000,000 exemption, the City Manager will know. The City Engineer is far less likely to grant an exemption than the Commission is. There are checks and balances with people within City HaIL Commissioner Velasquez understands but states that none of it is spelled out. Commissioner Buffa stated the Zoning Code doesn't have to include iYs own provisions for checks and balances. Commissioner Velasquez stated what is unclear is how the process works when the City Engineer makes a decision and what checks and balances will be in place. What is the oversight once something is granted. Jamie Lai clarified that this process isn't for large projects, but the ones with small improvements. Commissioner Buffa asked what the rational is to exclude a 1,000 sq. ft. addition to a multi-family project. She asked if it is a more intense use than a 1,000 sq. ft. to an industrial/commercial use. ~ Jamie Lai stated it is to provide adequate review for projects that might be seeking increased density. 5-30-07 Page 19 MAY 30,1UU/ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CommissionerBuffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero recommending to the City ~ Council #hat the previously-certified Final EIR 330 is adequate to serve as the required environmental determination. The motion passed with 5 affirmative votes (Commissioners Faessel and Velasquez voted no, ayes from Gommissioners Buffa, Eastman, Flores, Karaki, Romero). Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to recommend to City Council that Zoning Code Amendment No. 2007-00059 be approved. The motion passed with 5 affirmative votes (Commissioners Faessel and Velasquez voted no, ayes from Commissioners Buffa, Eastman, Flores, Karaki, Romero). OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke with concerns and questions regarding the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 21, 2007: DISCUSSION TIME: 41 minutes (4:09-4:50) ~ ~ 5-30-07 ' Page 20 MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Romero/Faessel 6b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00201 Romero 6c. MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT N0. 2007-00197* Romero/Flores I Owner: Edwin and Lucille Sackett 934 South Webster Avenue Anaheim, CA 92804 Marvin Lloyd and Dorothea A. Streiff Family Trust ' P.O. Box 4345 Chatsworth, CA 91313 Agent: Sequoia Standard 801 Park Center Drive #101 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Location: 928-934 South Webster Street: Property is approximately .87-acre, having a frontage of 129 feet on the east side' of Webster Street and is located 273 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. Reclassification No. 2007-00201 - Request reclassification of the subject property from the T(Transition) zone to the RM-4 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone, or a less intense zone. Miscellaneous Permit No. 2007-00197 - Request for Flanning • Commission determination of conformance with Density Bonus Ordinance to construct a 28-unit affordable apartment complex with incentives.* * This request was withdrawn by the applicant. Reclassification Resolution No. PC2007-51 APProved "' Granted, unconditionally Withdrawn : VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: (kwong2@anaheim.net) Kimberly Wong, Planner presented the staff report. Chairman Eastman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to approve the CEQA Negative Declaration. Motion passed by seven affirmative votes. Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to approve Reclassification No. 2007-00201. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary stated the resolution passed with 7 ayes votes. Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Flores to accept the applicant's request to withdraw MIS No. 2007-00197. Motion passed by seven affirmative votes. . 5-30-07 Page 21 MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • OPPOSITION: None IN GENERAL: An e-mail was received from the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND) with some concerns pertaining to the request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on : Thursday, June 21, 2007. ' DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (4:51-4:55) • MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES •' ° 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Velasquez/Buffa Approved 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Velasquez/Buffa Approved 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05208 Velasquez " Granted Owner: J Gene Lee and Debra D. Lee 41 Valley View VOTE: 7-0 Irvine, CA 92613-3211 Agent: Phil Schwartze PRS Group ' 31872 San Juan CreekRoad San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Location: 1360 South Anaheim Boulevard: Property is approximately 2.3 acres, having a frontage of 276 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard and is located 127 feet north of the centerline of Palais Road. Request to establish a vocationat college with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Project Planner.. - Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-52 (dsee@anaheim.net) David See, Senior Planner presented the staff report. i Phil Schwartze representing Summit College clarified that paragraph 9 on page 2 of the staff report regarding the proposed uses should afso include massage therapy. He indicated they have read and agree with the staff report. Commissioner Flores asked if they were going to have permit parking and who owned the barbed wire fence around the parking on the north side. Phil Schwartz advised there will be permit parking and the barbed wire belonged to the car dealer not the property owner. Chairman Eastman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel stated the Cerritos Avenue location on the site plan in the presentation is incorrect, it is actually a block north. Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner stated the street is Palais. Commissioner Velasquez motioned, seconded by Commissioner Buffa to approve the CEAQ Negative Declaration. Motion passed by seven affirmative votes Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Buffa to approve the requested waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Motion passed by seven affirmative votes. Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05208. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary stated the resolution passed with 7 ayes votes. MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney; presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 21, 2007. . DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (4:56-5:04} ~ MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Velasquez/Faessel Approved (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4174 Velasquez Approved amendment (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05207) Owner: Michael L Cramer Fairmont 100 Investors LP Mod~fed conaition No. 9 24800 Chrisanta Drive Suite 130 vo'rE: 7-0 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Agent: Michelie Macis 116 South Fairmont Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92808 Location: 116 -124 South Fairmont Boulevard: Property is approximately 2.5 acres and is located at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmont Boulevard. Request to amend conditions of approval #o permit the consumption of beer and wine in an existing outdoor dining area for a restaurant. Project Planner. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-53 (ethien@anaheim.net) ~ Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner presented the staff report. Michelle Macis, owner, 116 south Fairmont Boulevard stated she read and understands all recommendations. Commissioner Buffa asked if they had a permit for the banner. Michelle Macis stated it has been removed and that it was there for the grand opening. Commissioner Karaki asked if they sell jeans or serve food. Michelle Macis explained that it is a new concept where they have both a boutique and fine dining/casual venue where people can shop while their friends or family eat while waiting for them. Chairman Eastman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to approve the CEQA Negative Declaration. Motion passed by seven affirmative votes. Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to approve the request to modify conditional use permit 4174 with tracking number CUP No. 2007-05207. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary stated the resolution passed with 7 ayes votes. MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r _ OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 21, 200Z DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (5:05-5:10) MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION ' 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05209 ' Owner: Brandon Rainone ' Outer Spring Volcano LP 3364 East La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806-2814 Agent: Brandon Rainone 3364 Eastla Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806 Location: 3364 East La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately 2.7 acres, having a frontage of 252 feet on the north side of the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway, a maximum depth of 524 feet, and is accessed via a 652 footJong, 32 foot wide ingress/egress easement on the south side of La Palma ' Avenue, 1,240 feef east of the centerline of Shepard Street. Request to remodel of an existing bowling facility including an expansion for a management office and permit telecommunications towers with waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) maximum letter height. (c) floor area ratio, (d) required landscaping adjacent to a freeway, and (e) maximum size of a freeway oriented wall sign. ~ Conditional Use Permit Resolution Na Continued to June 25, 2007 Motion: Flores/Buffa VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner.~ (ethien@anaheim. net) Chairperson Eastman asked if there was anyone present at the public hearing portion for this item. Seeing none, Chairperson Eastman indicated the applicant requests a continuance to the June 25 meeting. Commissioner Flores offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Buffa to continue this item to the June 25 Planning Commission meeting. Motion passed with seven affirmative votes. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 5-30-07 Page 27 MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION FaesseUFlores 10b: RECLASSIFICATION N0. 2007-00192 Faessel ' 10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2007-05186 Faessel 10d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17115 FaesseUFlores , Owner: Mehdi M Ebrahimzadeh La Vue LLC 30622 La Vue Street Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Agent: M. Mehdi Ebrahimzadeh 30622 La Vue Street Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Location: 1745 South Easv Wav: Property is approximately 0.4-acre, having a frontage of 164 feet on the west side of Easy Way and is located 188 feet north of the centerline of Kafella Avenue: Reclassification No. 2007-00192 - Request reclassification of the subject property from the GG (General Commercial) zone to the RM-3 (Multiple- Family Residential) zone. - Conditional Use Permit Na 2007-05186 - Request fo construct a 5-unit attached residential planned unit multiple-family development with modification to standards. r Tentative Tract Map No. 17115 - To establish a 1-lot, 5-unit airspace attached single-family residential condominium subdivision. Reclassification Resolution No. PC2007-54 Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-55 Approved Granted Granted Approved ' CUP Added rivo conditions of approval VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner. (ethien@anaheim. net) Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner presented the staff report. An additional condition was read into the record for the draft resolution for the conditional use permit under general conditions: "That the CC&R's for the development shall include provisions that 1) requires that the 2 car garages be utilized for the parking of vehicles and 2) that any parking in tandem private garages shall not preclude vehicular access for any other units." George Benham, architect for the project stated they accept the conditions of approvaL Chairman Eastman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel asked what was the original intended use for the parcel and staff advised it was a moteL Chairman Eastman commented that the bathroom windows are of concern. Mr. Benham indicated they can easily change it by removing it and will work with staff for an acceptable resolution. • Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Flores to approve the CEQA Negative Declaration. Motion passed by seven affirmative votes. 5-30-07 Page 28 MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~' Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use PermitNo. 2007-05186. Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner clarified that it includes the additional condition read into the record - by Elaine Thienprasiddhi and a condition to reflect the Commission's desire for small windows on the east ! elevation of the building to be replaced with an architectural element. : Elly Morris, Senior Secretary stated the resolution passed with 7 ayes votes. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Flores to approve the Tentative Tract Map Na 17115. Motion passed by seven affirmative votes. OPPOSITION: None Mark'Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map ending at 5:00 p.m. on Saturday, June 9, 2007, and presented the 22-day appeal rights for the Reclassification and Conditional Use Permit ending at 5;00 p.m. on Thursday, June 21; 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 10 minutes (5:11-5:21) ~ MAY 30, 200Z PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Buffa/Velasquez Approved 11b. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE Buffa Approved OR NECESSITY NO. 2007-00034 VOTE: 7-0 Owner: Anaheim West Plaza Partners, LLC 3029 Wilshire Boulevard #202 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Agent: Eli Beas The Bergman Companies 13745 Seminole Drive Chino, CA 91710 Location: 3170 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately 5.8 acres and is located at the southwest corner of Lincoln _ Avenue and Topanga Drive. Reguest Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within a proposed grocery store. Project Plannec Public Convenience or Necessity Resolution No. PC2007-56 (skoehm@anaheim.net) • Chairman Eastman o ened the ublic hearing. P p Scott Koehm, Associate Planner introduced staff report. David McCombs was present to answer any questions. Chairman Eastman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to approve the CEQA Negative Declaration. Motion passed by seven affirmative votes. Commissioner Buffa offered a resolution to approve Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2007-00034. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary stated the resolution passed with 7 ayes votes. OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: An e-mail was received from the West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND) in favor of the subject request. • 5-30-07, Page 30 MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 21, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (5:22-5:26) ~ ~ 5-30-07 Page 31 MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 12a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 FaesseUBuffa 12b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04667 Faessel (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05206) ~, Owner: Michael Bagguley 701 Concord Street Glendale, CA 91202 Agent: Chang K Kim Joodae Lee Restaurants 3010 West Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, CA 92801 Location: 3010 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately 1.6 acres and is located at the southwest corner.of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard. Request to amend conditions of approval and exhibits for a previously- approved restaurant with beer and wine to permit and retain private karaoke/banquet booths. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-57 Concurred with staff Approved amendment VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner. (skoehm@anaheim. net) ~ Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Scott Koehm, Associate Planner presented the staff report. Chang Kim, owner of restaurant stated that he read and understands the staff report. Chairman Eastman closed the public hearing. ' Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Buffa to approve a CEQA categorical exemption. Motion passed by seven affirmative votes. Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to approve the amendment to CUP2003-04667, tracking number CUP 2007-05206. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary stated the resolution passed with 7 ayes votes. Commissioner Flores asked staff if an owner could rent out or sell parking spaces and if they could use permit parking for commercial uses. Judy Dadant, Acting Principal Planner advised if parking they provide exceeds code requirements, then the numbers in excess of code can be sold or rented. When it comes to permit parking for commercial/industrial properties, the code is silent. Staff looks to see that they are providing the cumulative spaces that are required for the land use. They can designate parking as long as the number of required spaces are available. Commissioner Flores asked if there was a way to check if units in the Platinum Triangle were providing ~ only one parking space for residents then making them buy extra parking. 5-30-07 Page 32 MAY 30, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Judy Dadant explained parking arrangements are in CC & R's and if the City finds out they are selling spaces that arerequired, then City has the mechanism to stop them from selling spaces, but staff does not go back and revisit the parking once final inspection is complete. OPPOSITION: None IN GENERAL: An e-mail was received fram the Wesf Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND) with some concerns pertaining to the request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 21, 2007. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (5:27-5:34) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:40 P.M. TO MONDAY, JUNE 11, 2007 AT 1:00 P.M. FOR A WORKSHOP ON ARTIC AND PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Respectfully submitted: ~~ ~~u;c~~~l Pat Chandler Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on cTv w~ t` , 2007: