Loading...
Minutes-PC 2008/03/31• /NE1M P cy~r 0 a z ~~ ~ Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: StafF Present: CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney • Ted White, Senior Planner John Ramirez, Senior Planner Scott Koehm, Associate Planner /C4 ~. ~ _~ V Kimberly Wong, Planner Darrell Gentry, Consultant Planner Jamie Lai, Principal Civil Engineer Elly Morris, Senior Secretary Donna Patino, Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 27, 2008, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, March 20, 2008 • Call to Order • Preliminary Plan Review 1:30 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE MARCH 31, 2008 AGENDA • Recess to Public Hearing • Reconvene to Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 17 • Pledge of Allegiance: Public Comments Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items Adjournment Commissioner Agarwal City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Monday, March 31, 2008 Council Chamber, City Ha(I 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Chairman Pro Tempore: Joseph Karaki Peter Agarwal, Gail Eastman, Stephen Faessel, Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez Chairman: Kelly Buffa H:\TOOLS\Planning Commission Administration\PC Action Agendas - Minutes\2008 Minutes\2008 MinutesWC033108.doc MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Consent Calendar: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel and MOTION CARRIED (Chairman Buffa absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Item 1A as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED 1A. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of March 17, 2008. (Motion) • Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 6-0 Chairman Buffa absent NOTE: Meeting minutes have been provided to the Planning Commission and are available for review at the Planning Department. • 03/31 /08 Page 2 of 23 MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 2 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 330 (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT N0.2008-00064 Agent: Planning Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: Cit~nnride City-initiated request (Planning Department) to amend various sections of Title 18 "Zoning" of the Anaheim Municipal Code to establish maximum size requirements for flags and banners, to modify and clarify non-residential parking requirements as shown in Table 42-A , to establish maximum height of logos and trademark symbols for wall signs, to add provisions for reconstruction of non- • conforming qualified historic structures in adopted Historic Districts to modify provisions related to prohibited locations of Second Residential Units, to modify irrigation requirements for required landscaping to amend Chapter 18.92 "Definitions", and to modify procedures to process appeals for public hearing items. Continued from the March 3, 2008 Planning Commission meeting Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Pro Tempore Joseph Karaki opened the public hearing. Approved Approved Motion: Velasquez/Eastman VOTE: 6-0 Chairman Buffa absent Project Planner: Cheryl Flores cflores@anaheim.net Chairman Pro-Tempore Joseph Karaki asked if anyone would like to speak to this item; seeing none, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eastman commented with regards to sections that were discussed in the preliminary meeting. She realized that banners in the public right-of-way are not under the purview of the Code. She requested that staff work to help facilitate a sign banner program that would be available for non- profit and public service organizations in the city. She thought the organizations might be able to take advantage of banners that would be displayed across major arterial streets. She would like staff to move forward on this issue if everyone agreed. he also expressed support for the issue of second units in historic neighborhoods. She would like ff to continue to work through ideas that would help the City to preserve and incentivize historic omeowners to make their homes more livable while keeping the historic fabric of the neighborhoods 03/31 /08 Page 3 of 23 MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES tact. She stated that people are faced with road blocks with the City's current Code. She ncouraged staff to work on this issue. Chairman Pro-Tempore Joseph Karaki asked, with regards to signs in public right-of-ways for non- profit organizations, whether the City would allow the use of public right-of-way for signage within the entire City or if it would be limited to certain areas of the City. Commissioner Eastman indicated that this issue would need to be researched. She stated that there were other cities that do a good job of using a pattern where they use banners effectively across their major streets so citizens would know what is going on within the city. A city she is thinking of also has a good handle on the issue of allowing residents to maximize development of historic properties while not taking away from the historic fabric of the city. Chairman Pro-Tempore Joseph Karaki agreed. Commissioner Faessel commented on the proposal that would grant the City Engineer the ability to allow exemptions for second units. He asked staff if the applicant could appeal a decision of the City Engineer staff, in an event that the Engineer turns down an application based on insufficient sewer capacity. He asked staff if the applicant would have another opportunity to come before the Planning Commission or the City Council on appeal. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated that he believed there was not anything specified in e Code regarding the provisions to appeal that decision. The decision is a technical decision that is ~t based on a discretionary review of the action but based on whether the sewer capacity is adequate for the house. The City updates maps and public work improvements annually that come up periodically through-out the year. This provision would provide relief for a property owner so that they would not have to wait for the update of a map, once capacity exists in the street. Commissioner Faessel stated that he understood. However, he thought the City was not allowing residents any further opportunity to have their case heard other than at the City Engineer level. Jaime Lai, Principal Civil Engineer, stated that as part of the development entitlement process, when it comes to the Public Works Department, the City would check to see if there is sufficient sewer capacity for the second units, or the residents will come to the city, if it does not go through the entitlement process, to see if there is capacity for the development. If the City finds insufficient sewer capacity then the City would not approve their building permit or allow them to build. This is separate from the appeal process that they have currently. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to recommend to City Council that the Previously Certified Final Environmental Impact Report No. 330 serve as the appropriate environmental documentation. Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Chairman Buffa absent. Commission Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to recommend to City Council that the attached draft ordinance for Zoning Code Amendment No. 2008-00064 be approved. otion passed with 6 aye votes. Chairman Buffa absent. 03/31 /08 Page 4 of 23 MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~PPO$ITION: None IN GENERAL: A letter was received. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 22, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (2:35-2:47) • 03/31 /08 Page 5 of 23 MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES EM NO.3 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION NO.2007-00214, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2005-285 AND VARIANCE NO. 2007-04745 Owner: Dale Street Property, LLC 8191 Kaiser Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92808 Applicant: Phil Bennett 8191 Kaiser Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92808 Agarwal Agarwal Agarwal Location: 717 South Dale Street: Property is approximately .74 acre, having a frontage of 189 feet on the west side of Dale Street approximately 130 feet north of Stonybrook Drive. Request to subdivide the property to establish a 4-lot, 4-unit single- family detached residential subdivision. This project requires approval of the following actions: Reclassification No. 2007-00214 - reclassification of the subject property from the Transition (T) zone to the Single-Family Residential (RS-3) zone; Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-285 - to establish a 4-lot, 4-unit detached residential subdivision; and Variance No. 2007-04745 - to permit a lot depth that is less than required by Code. Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Pro Tempore Joseph Karaki opened the public hearing. Resolution No. PC2008-39 Resolution No. PC2008-40 Resolution No. PC2008-41 Approved the following: CEQA, RCLS, TPM 8~ VAR VOTE: 6-0 Chairman Buffa absent Project Planner: Scott Koehm skoehm@anaheim. net Phil Bennett, Dale Street Properties, 717 South Dale Avenue, stated that he is available to answer any questions. Commissioner Eastman noted that she had noticed a for sale sign on the property. She asked the applicant if he was trying to sell the property or if they were in escrow to purchase it. Mr. Bennett replied no. He stated that Dale Street Properties purchased the property and they are waiting to see what the market will bear in the future. He stated that they have the existing house currently listed and if someone wanted to buy that house, or the entire parcel they could. However, their intention is to move forward and develop the three new homes. ommissioner Eastman asked the applicant if he was aware that the house is on the City's potential of historically significant homes. 03/31 /08 Page 6 of 23 MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~r. Bennett stated that he was surprised to hear that because before he purchased the property he ame down to the City to find out if it was on the register for Historical Homes and it was not at that time. Commissioner Eastman explained that the City was in the process of expanding the list of Historic homes outside of the designated Historic Districts. The list has been compiled and there are homes eligible but not formally adopted by the City Council as the list of Historic homes. Mr. Bennett replied it would definitely work to his advantage. Commissioner Eastman stated that if the property were to be included on the list, the home would be "Mills Act" eligible, which would be an advantage to a future home buyer. Mr. Bennett asked if she knew the time frame on that. Commissioner Eastman indicated it is in the process but she was not sure of the time frame. The process would not take years but there is a lot of work that goes into that process. Commissioner Romero asked the applicant if his intentions were to create a homeowner's association or create CC&R's. Mr. Bennett replied no. The only issue in the agreement would be that the four individual new home owners would be required to maintain the private street. lommissioner Romero wanted to make sure there would be no other common maintenance obligations. Mr. Bennett replied there would be no other CC&R's. Ron Bauer, resident, 703 S. Dale Avenue, stated that he believed the project has come before the Commission too quickly. It appeared to him that the applicant is trying to get the zoning changed without there being a specific project. He did not believe in changing the zone to four parcels because the applicant would then have the ability to sell four different parcels. He stated that one of the concerns of the community would be the parking. He did not believe there would be adequate parking and the neighbors are not sure what will be developed on a parcel because they do not have a project. Mr. Bauer further stated that the applicant mentioned that the only condition would be that the four property owners would maintain the street but in the report it addressed the sanitation, drainage, and other items that must be maintained by the property owners also. He thought by not having the minimum depth of the lots it contributes to what would be lack of adequate parking on their property, which would then infringe on the current neighborhood parking. This parking issue is a real concern. In today's market there are multiple families that live in one house in order to maintain and pay for property. He indicated that his own property has adequate parking for his family's five vehicles. airman Pro Tempore Joseph Karaki asked how big Mr. Bauer's property was. 03/31 /08 Page 7 of 23 MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~r. Bauer replied his property is 9,000 square feet and his home is 2,100 square feet. He noticed at the applicant's property calls for dedication of an easement at 45 feet from the center of Dale Street and some of the property could be lost for future widening which would make that property even smaller. He also noticed a five foot sidewalk is to be constructed. He was not sure if there was a parkway from the sidewalk to the street which would seem to make the applicant's property narrow. The opening of a private street or fire lane according to the lot width would seem to be too narrow and would be less than 20 feet. He did not think there was enough space to have adequate width for a vehicle coming in or out. The report shows the property width of parcel one, at 91 feet, and parcel three at 79 feet, and would total 170 feet, which leaves less than 20 feet for that area. The proposal does not mean that it would come before the City when it would be re-zoned into four different lots. He realized this project is with good intent by the property owner. However, he would like the area to be developed with a project rather than having it brought back to the City with individual parcels for sale. Mr. S. Lockwood, resident, 621 S Birchleaf Drive, stated that he disagreed with the request for Variance of the lot size. The reason is that the 200 through the 700 blocks of Dale Avenue have rear access to the alley and they have the potential to continue that access to the alley which is more consistent with the neighborhood. He thought it was a poor idea to grant the applicant a waiver when all of the other property owners who front onto Dale are not allowed to drive in and out, and they have to have rear access. ~he partnership Dale Street Properties, LLC, have not been good neighbors. They have minimally aintained the property and have done so for the last three years. Since Dale Street Properties purchased the property they have taken out the existing landscaping and are working towards subdividing the lot. The applicant has not done a good job with maintenance of the property. He agreed with Commissioner Eastman's concerns on the property. He stated that Code Enforcement has the authority over the maintenance of the property but the Code Enforcement is not enforcing weed abatement. There is a property on Westhaven Street that has eighteen inch weeds and the City is not responding to maintenance in that area. He recommended that the Commission disapproves the four houses on one lot. Doris Jimenez Esparza, resident, 2810 W. Stonybrook Drive, stated that her main concern with this project was that the owner who bought this property wanted to build two-story homes in the future. If they build these homes she is concerned because people who would live there could be able to look into her house. She recently moved into the area and does not want to live where people could look into her home. The prices of homes are expensive and she did not want her neighbors looking into her home. She is concerned for the safety of her children because people would be able to look into her yard. She did not feel there was enough parking in the neighborhood at the present time and there would not be enough with the four new homes being built in the area. hairman Pro Tempore Joseph Karaki wanted to know if she lived adjacent to the applicant's perty. 03/31 /08 Page 8 of 23 MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~s. Esparza replied no. She stated that she didn't mind if they built two houses but not four because f the parking conditions. James Scott, resident, 716 Newcastle Drive, stated that his home is closest to this project. The applicant plans to build two story homes and the neighbor's are all one story. He wondered what kind of barrier would be placed around the property..He was concerned that the new owners would be able to look into the neighborhood homes. The other concern was if the new neighbors would have access from the alley and whether the parking would be adequate. He visualized that the new neighbor's would park on Newcastle Street and walk down the alley to get access to the property. He asked if the Commission was aware that there may be an environmental problem with the applicant's property in terms of the buried fuel tanks on the property. He understood there were diesel and gasoline tanks that are buried there. He wanted to know how the City will treat this potential problem. Chairman Pro Tempore Joseph Karaki asked staff if they had any records on the issue with regards to the fuel tanks. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated that the staff does not have any information regarding the presence of the tanks, but removal of those tanks is regulated by County and State regulations, for removal of the underground tanks. Those provisions would be required to be adhered to. ~hairman Pro Tempore Joseph Karaki asked the applicant if he could provide information on this issue. Mr. Bennett stated that he was surprised that staff did not have any information because this information was turned into the City along time ago. He stated that Dale Street Properties, LLC, bought this project approximately 2 1/2 years ago. During that period of time they have gone through two different pre-files and three different planners. They have submitted everything the City has asked for and have been through Fire, Traffic, and Public Works Departments. He realized the public was not aware of this information but maybe they should have been because it appears that people think they are trying to hurry up and get this project through. He wished the process could have gone faster than it has. When the property was bought the report came with it and those tanks have been tested. The tanks were abandoned years ago. They are clean tanks and all that needs to be done is to pull permits to take them out. There has been one citation from Code Enforcement for weed abatement, which were taken care of. The Code Enforcement also asked to get rid of all the trees, shrubs, and brush adjacent to the fences in the back, which were removed. The previous owners, unfortunately, butchered all the trees that were on the side and left the stumps sticking out of the ground. The property is in the current shape s when the property was purchased. fter the purchase of the property, the company spent approximately $40,000 refinishing floors, re- doing walls, upgrading the air conditioning, upgrading the heating, and fixing windows on the existing 03/31 /08 Page 9 of 23 MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES me. After that job was complete there were several vandalisms on that property, which they have olice reports for. There was over $50,000 worth of damage from kids who decided to make a game out of breaking into that house and destroying it. He had the police go out and they suggested that there was not anything they could do about this vandalism. They knew it was kids and the Police Department did not have the manpower to have someone sit on the property to wait for the kids to do it again. The Police suggested that the owner guard the home, so he did. The applicant caught a few kids and they have been going to court trying to enforce a restitution package. The kids come from broken homes and chances of him getting any money are slim to none. There was insurance on the property to take care of the damage. The insurance has taken three months to repair everything and it has taken a long time. The windows had to be custom made and repaired because no one makes that type of wood casement window. They have spent a small fortune on this project repairing it. The property is not in the greatest shape because they are waiting to get started on this project. There were a lot of processes up to this date. With regards to the parking issues, the Fire Department does not require access onto the property but there is a trash truck turn-around in the rear of the property. He mentioned to staff that the trash only comes once a week. The other six days of the week there can be parking in those two areas where the sign says no parking on a certain date; this would leave six parking spaces at that time. Each property would have a two car garage with the ability to park two cars in front of it, so there would be four cars spaces per property. There were concerns that people might see into the homes the adjacent properties; however, there are a limited number of windows that would be looking ~wn into any of the neighbor's yards from the second floor level. There are minimal windows in the rear elevation with the windows over a stairwell and a bathroom. The developer has done everything to respect the privacy of others while maintaining a good quality project in trying to match the style of architecture that is currently on site. Commissioner Romero stated that it appeared to him that parcel two would be the property that has access to the alley. He wanted to know if the applicant planned to abandon that. Mr. Bennett discussed that issue with staff and he was not allowed to have access from that alley. The staff requested that all access for all four homes come off of Dale Street and that was the reason for providing the private street down the middle. There will be a six foot high block wall all the way around this property. Commissioner Eastman was pleased with the way the applicant addressed the fence and parking issues of the neighborhood. She stated that not having seen the plans has made it difficult to know what the applicant was planning to do with the property but she realized it was because the Commission was not ruling on it. It appeared to her that all the houses would meet the number of driveway spaces in addition to the extra parking that was indicated at the end of the street. The four lots would have more private parking available than what is required by the Code. She is pleased with the applicant's elevations and the fact that he is honoring the Historic houses on e property. It appears to her that the applicant is trying to keep the property original and marketed that. The elevations appear to be complimentary to the property and she is pleased that the pplicant made an attempt to honor the neighbor's privacy. 03/31 /08 Page 10 of 23 MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~e issue that the neighborhood may not be aware of is that anyone of them could decide tomorrow put a second story on their house where they would have to come down and get permits to do that so they could look down into their neighbor's yards. The Code allows that to happen and she is not convinced by that argument that it is an invasion of their privacy. She thought the community did not realize that anyone on their private property can build a two story house that is allowed by the Code. It appeared to her that the applicant has respected the neighbor's privacy with the configuration and the windows. The applicant has removed most of her doubts she had coming in to this hearing which were unanswered questions and appreciates the applicant's testimony. Mr. Bauer was concerned that the developer was allowed to bring up his proposed project that the Commission was not ruling on. The Commission is suppose to rule on zone change and that does not mean that this project is the project that is going to go on that parcel. He would like to see a project along with zoning change. The community would feel a lot more comfortable with regards to the access drive, sanitary sewer, and storm drains, which were not addressed by the property owner. He wanted to know who was going to pay for that. The applicant only mentioned the street as private. Chairman Pro Tempore Joseph Karaki replied that it was his understanding that the new homeowners would pay for that. He stated that staff would be addressing those issues. ~r. Bauer stated that the whole community was concerned about the project. With regards to the rking issue, it takes away parking one day a week and the new home owners will be parking in the neighborhood. Chairman Pro-Tempore Joseph Karaki closed the public hearing. Commissioner Velasquez addressed staff and stated that it was difficult to see from the aerial the sizes of the other lots in the neighborhood. Staff has shared with the Commission that most of the lots in the neighborhood are similar size than the proposed lot that stands before the Commission. A gentleman testified his lot is approximately 9,000 square feet; she wanted to know if that was one of the exceptions. Most of the lots in the neighborhood ranged under 6,000 square feet or about 6,000 square feet. Mr. Koehm stated that most of the lots in the neighborhood are 70 feet by 100 feet and that is 7,000 square foot range. The proposed lots are over 5,000 square feet but not quite 7,000 square foot size. There a few others lots that are larger than that. Commission Velasquez re-iterated that these lots or approximately 2,000 square feet less than most of the homes in the neighborhood. Mr. Koehm stated that the typical home in the neighborhood is approximately 7,000 square foot lot. The proposed homes are a little over 5,000 square foot. ~mmissioner Faessel commented that it would be less than a 2,000 square foot difference. 03/31 /08 Page 11 of 23 MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ommissioner Velasquez stated that the proposed homes would be one of the smaller lots in the eighborhood. Mr. Koehm stated that the proposed lots do meet the minimum lot size requirements for the RS-3 Zone, which is 5,000 square feet. Chairman Pro-Tempore Joseph Karaki stated that before the Commission there are no conditions of approval that address the concerns of the neighbors, which is their privacy from the applicant who wants to build atwo-story homes. The Commission has seen the elevations but cannot approve them. The applicant could come in to the City with a different type of elevation plan, having windows overlooking the neighbors, and the Commission has no control over it. He wanted to know what the Commission could do in order to address the privacy concerns and to regulate what the applicant could or could not do. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, stated that although there are no specific standards or developmental guidelines that come into play hopefully the concerns expressed by the neighbor's in the area and the concerns raised by the Planning Commissioners would help the property owner or the subsequent developer to make good choices about the development of the property. There are no specific standards that are in place that would require control of the development in the fashion that has been discussed. The City does have particular standards in the Code presently that involve the up keep of property, and that requires minimum parking standards applicable to the velopment of these properties and also that do allow the development of a two-story structure. The ~ty does have development standards in place that do control the development of the property but not to the level of placement of windows in relationship to other properties. Hopefully the discussion today will lead to a good result. Chairman Pro-Tempore Joseph Karaki asked if it would be possible to include a condition requiring the elevations to come back as a Consent Calendar Item so that in the future when homes are developed there would be a condition that had to come before the Commission to make sure this situation does not happen. Mark Gordon stated that it is not typically a requirement that the City would impose on the development of a single family structure. Under the Subdivision Map Act, the conditions that the City imposes are imposed because the police power allows the City to impose those conditions. The guide and precept is always reasonableness. The City wants to make sure they have a level playing field because they do not want to impose standards on this property owner that they wouldn't impose on any property owners under similar circumstances. Chairman Pro-Tempore Joseph Karaki asked this question to give assurance to the residents that the Commission shares their concerns about their issues. Commissioner Velasquez asked if at the time the developers are going to build the proposed homes, if their plans would have to come before the Planning Commission. ~rk Gordon stated that at the time the developer plans to build then they would come to the building ounter and they would apply for a building permit. They would be required to comply with all of the 03/31 /08 Page 12 of 23 MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ilding standards that apply to the development of the parcel as a well as the zoning and evelopment standards that the City has enacted that applies to the development of the property. Commissioner Velasquez asked whether at that point it is without the benefit of a public hearing. Mark Gordon replied that there are no public hearings generally involved with the development of single family structure. This would be something that is permitted as a matter of right. Commissioner Faessel stated that before the Commission there was a zoning issue. The Commission is aware of renderings of what could be nice homes and we hope they are built, but they are not before the Commission today. The Commission has no control over those homes if and when they ever get built. The Commission has heard the applicant's testimony that he would be eager to sell the whole parcel if someone offered him the opportunity. In reviewing the requirements of the property, based upon the decisions that the Commission has to make, the four parcels meet the RS-3 standards in terms of square footage. The parcels meet the minimum lot width, which is 50 feet, and although there is a small deviation of the minimum lot depth, it is not efficient enough to prevent the Commission from going forward in this. At this point the applicant has made a good case, regardless of how anyone may personally feel about the two-story issue. Any resident, by right, can put up atwo-story home to look right over their neighbors without consequence. He thinks that there should be more of an oversight on this property ensure the quality of the buildings once they are built. Unfortunately, as the City Attorney stated, e City is not in that position. Commissioner Eastman concurred and thought that the Commission has thoroughly discussed this project and she is ready to move forward. Commissioner Agarwal concurred with Commissioner Faessel. He stated that they have heard neighbors concerns but also have to respect the right of the individual property owner. Once the codes and zoning have been met, it is the owner's right and the applicant could build anything they want within the Codes. There is not a whole lot the Commission could do about that issue and he thinks that they should not place extra conditions on this development. He defers to Commissioner Karaki and thinks that the applicant should not have to bring the project back to the Commission or put conditions on the property owner as to where they can or cannot put windows. He is supportive of this project. Chairman Pro-Tempore Joseph Karaki agreed with his colleagues. He stated that the Commission shares the communities concerns about their privacy and parking issues. However, the applicant has addressed the issues in good faith and he has heard all concerns of the neighbors. The project deserves to be approved on its merits. Commissioner Agarwal offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached esolution to approve a Negative Declaration and Reclassification No. 2007-00214, Tentative Parcel iap No. 2005-285, and Variance No. 2007-04745. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. 03/31 /08 Page 13 of 23 MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OPPOSITION: A petition was received with 15 signatures in opposition to the request. 4 people spoke in opposition to the request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Parcel Map ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 10, 2008; and presented the 22-day appeal rights for the Reclassification and Variance ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 22, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 44 minutes (2:48-3:32) U 03/31 /08 Page 14 of 23 MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES EM N0.4 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 11, AND VARIANCE NO. 2008-04747 Owner: Target Corporation 1000 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55403 Applicant: Swain Sign Incorporated 1384 East Fifth Street Ontario, CA 91764 Romero Location: 101 South Euclid Street: Property is approximately 10.4 acres, located at the southwest corner of Euclid Street and Lincoln Avenue (Target). Request to install wall and monument signs at a Target store with the wall signs having a larger sign area and greater letter height than allowed by code and the monument signs taller and wider than allowed by code and with a larger sign area and less distance between monument signs than allowed by code. ~imberly Wong, Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Pro-Tempore Joseph Karaki opened the public hearing. Resolution No. PC2008-42 Approved CEQA and Variance VOTE: 6-0 Chairman Buffa absent Project Planner: Kim Wong kwong2@anaheim.net Kevin Parker, 1384 E. 5th Street, Ontario, agreed with staff. He is available to answer any questions. Chairman Pro-Tempore Joseph Karaki asked if anyone would like to speak regarding this item; seeing none, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Romero offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to approve a Class 2 Categorical Exemption, Accessory Structures and approve Variance No. 2008- 04747 to permit the letter height of 32 -inches for a wall sign on the east elevation and a cumulative area of signs on the east elevations of 244 square feet, where the code allows a maximum letter height of 24-inches and area of 200 square feet. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. • 03/31 /08 Page 15 of 23 MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 22, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (3:33-3:35) • 03/31 /08 Page 16 of 23 MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~EM NO.S CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2008-05301 WITH WAIVER OF A CODE REQUIREMENT Owner: Patrick McLaughlin and Dennis Riff Advanced Clinical Research Institute 1211 West La Palma Avenue, Suite #303 Anaheim, CA 92801 Applicant: Rick Blomgren, 18652 Florida Street, Suite #200 Huntington Beach, CA 92844 Velasquez Location: 1085 North Harbor Boulevard: Property is approximately 0.87 acre, having a frontage of 78 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, approximately 156 feet south of the centerline of Romneya Drive. Request to permit a clinical research facility and institute to conduct medically supervised clinical trials of pharmaceutical products on paid study volunteers with overnight stays within an existing medical office building and to permit fewer parking spaces than required by code. Darrell Gentry, Consultant Planner, presented the staff report. Resolution No. PC2008-43 Approved CEQA, CUP and WAIVER VOTE: 6-0 Chairman Buffa absent Project Planner: Darrell Gentry dgentry@anaheim.net Commissioner Eastman indicated that the Commission received a hand written letter. She wanted to know if staff knew who submitted the letter and what they were objecting to. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated that this letter was submitted prior to the meeting. On the second paragraph they made reference to "their hotel rooms", so his guess would be that it is the hotel that is directly adjacent to this property. Chairman Pro Tempore Joseph Karaki opened the public hearing. Dennis Riff, Advanced Clinical Research Institute, 1211 W. La Palma, Suite #306, stated that he has been practicing in Anaheim for thirty years. He introduced his associate Patrick McLaughlin and stated that they have been doing clinical research in his facility in Anaheim for over 20 years. Advanced Clinical Research Institute has expanded their horizons for what they are doing to allow them to buy this building. Dr. Riff indicated that one of his concerns about buying the building was the motel. The company has previously turned down buying this building as a place to re-locate his ffice because of the motel. He is available to answer any questions about what they would be doing this facility. 03/31 /08 Page 17 of 23 MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES mmissioner Eastman wanted clarification with regards to the plans for the inside of the building. It pears that people staying over night would be on the second floor. She asked if someone needed to be taken to the hospital because of a problem whether they would go down the elevator and out the front door. Dr. Riff stated that all the patients in this facility are fully mobile and healthy volunteers. Commissoner Eastman wanted to make sure the people were not at risk. Dr. Riff replied nobody is at risk. The facility would be staffed by either a nurse or a paramedic at all times. There will be a physician available 24 hours a day. Commissioner Eastman asked if anyone at the facility should ever need an ambulance would they be transported through the front door. Dr. Riff replied yes. Commissioner Faessel commented that according to the staff report, he has been engaged with Anaheim Memorial since 1977. He asked if this was correct. Dr. Riff replied yes. ~ommissoner Faessel stated that the Planning Commission considers all correspondence seriously d the Commission has received a letter of concern from the motel owner. He asked staff if they received complaints by Code Enforcement or any other person within the thirty years this doctor has been in operation at Anaheim Memorial Hospital. He wanted to know if they should expect to have anything different now than there has been in the last thirty years. Darrell Gentry stated that the Code Enforcement did not indicate any existing problems at their existing facility. However, it is fair to point out; that the existing facility does not have over night stays and that would be something new at this location. Dr. Riff stated that the facility is under the jurisdictions of the FDA and they are heavily monitored, regulated, and scrutinized on a regular basis. These are regulated trials that are supervised federally and by other organizations. These trials are all under the sponsorship of major pharmaceutical companies. There is nothing that the clinic is doing that is not in compliance with these organizations. Chairman Pro-Tempore Joseph Karaki asked what kind of procedures and cases they have at this facility. Dr. Riff replied what the clinic is doing are phase one studies. Applications for new drugs or changes in the labeling of an existing drug would require that studies be done where they monitor blood absorption levels in healthy volunteers or patients with some abnormalities, kidney disease, renal disease, or sometimes in special populations, Hispanics, Japanese, diabetic, etc. ~e studies, for the most part, are designed to administer one pill to a patient which will have no enefit or detriment to them. The patients will be monitored and their blood levels over a period from 03/31 /08 Page 18 of 23 MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~e day to a week. The reason a patient would be doing a study is out of altruism or because they re compensated. Commissioner Romero indicated that the staff report explained that the patient would be there from one to two nights. He asked if the patient would not be allowed to leave, once they were staying at the facility. Dr. Riff replied the reason the patients would be contained is that the pharmaceutical company and the FDA wants to make sure that the patient follows a strict regimen of diet and doesn't consume alcohol, drugs, or do any exercise or anything else. The patients are contained and are not allowed to leave or have anyone enter the facility. Patrick McLaughlin, 1211 W. La Palma Avenue, clarified that these people are patient volunteers that have given their consent to be at the facility. They are welcomed to leave at any time but by doing so they are discharged out of the study and cannot continue. He wanted to clarify that they are not being held against their will. Dr. Riff stated that this facility is regulated. There are people at the facility to monitor the patients to ensure that patients are staying within their confined space and that nobody else enters. The patients do not have visitors. Commissioner Agarwal asked if the FDA has site visits. He asked if they approved this site and anted to know how the volunteers are housed. Dr. Riff replied no. The FDA does not come out to visit the site because they are short staffed. The FDA only replies to problems or to routine requests from a pharmaceutical company for approval of a drug. Each pharmaceutical company comes out to the site before they give approval their site. The clinic has to fit high standards to allow the pharmaceutical companies to give them work. The applicant stated that if the clinic did not meet the criteria of international companies, then they would have no work or patients. The clinic has hired consultants to tell them what needs to be done in order to meet the high standards. The clinic has invested a lot of money into this project and they need to be sure they meet all qualifications. Commissioner Agarwal wanted to know if somebody other than Doctor Riff would approve the facility of being adequate for the clinical trials. Dr. Riff replied yes. Chairman Pro-Tempore Joseph Karaki asked if anyone would like to speak to this item; seeing none, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Velasquez offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution to approve Class 1, Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit No. 2008- 05301. •ly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. 03/31 /08 Page 19 of 23 MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • OPPOSITION: A letter was received in opposition to the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 22, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 14 minutes (3:36-3:50) • t 03/31 /08 Page 20 of 23 MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~EM NO.6 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2008-05302 Owner: Paul Shinil Lee Inter-Ocean Trade Corp 2601 Greenhill Drive Fullerton, CA 92833-2025 Applicant: Fernando Echandi 2500 West Lincoln Avenue, #5 Anaheim, CA 92801 Faessel Location: 2500 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately 1.62 acres, located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gain Street. Request to include a cover charge for an existing restaurant with entertainment and sales of alcoholic beverages (Costa Rica Restaurant). ~arrell Gentry, Contract Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Pro Tempore Joseph Karaki opened the public hearing. Resolution No. PC2008-44 Approved CEQA and CUP VOTE: 6-0 Chairman Buffa absent Project Planner: Darrell Gentry dgentry(a~anaheim. net Elsa Echandi, Costa Rica Restaurant, 2500 W. Lincoln Avenue, stated that she and her husband are the owners of the Costa Rica restaurant, for almost 10 years. She would like to continue as a family restaurant. Their clients are from all over the country but most of the clients are from Costa Rica. They are requesting to continue the Conditional Use Permit to have live entertainment and cultural events so that their people could feel at home. She asked the Planning Commission to take this petition into consideration. Commissioner Faessel asked the applicant to describe the type of entertainment they would have at this restaurant. Mrs. Echandi replied that her husband is a piano player and he has a drummer. They play American, Costa Rican and different types of music. This is a family oriented restaurant but there are no young kids in the entertainment area, it is mainly for adults. Commissioner Eastman disclosed that she met with the applicant. She went to the restaurant and met with the applicant, her granddaughter, daughter, and son-in-law. They discussed what they do there and she feels it is a nice family restaurant. hairman Pro-Tempore Joseph Karaki asked if anyone would like to speak to this item; seeing none, closed the public hearing. 03/31 /08 Page 21 of 23 MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~mmissioner Faessel offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached solution to approve a Class 1, Categorical Exemption and Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05302. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 22, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (3:51-3:58) • • 03/31 /08 Page 22 of 23 MARCH 31, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:00 P.M. TO MONDAY, APRIL 14, 2008 AT 1:30 P.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Respectfully submitted: » ~Q~ ~~ Elly Morris, Planning Commission Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2008. • 03/31 /08 Page 23 of 23