Loading...
Minutes-PC 2008/06/23City of naheirn lanning Co ission MINIlTES Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Staff Prese~t: CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager Linda Johnson, Principal Planner Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney David See, Senior Planner Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner Kimberly Wong, Planner Jamie Lai, Principal Civil Engineer David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Grace Medina, Senior Secretary Donna Patino, Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, June 19, 2008, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Builetin Newspaper on Thursday, June 12, 2008 . Call to Order o 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 JUNE 23, 2008 AGENDA . Appreciation Plaque Presented to Commissio~er Pat Velasquez • Recess to Public Hearing • Reconvene to Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 18 . Pledge of Aliegiance: Commissioner Velasquez • Appreciatio~ Plaque Presented to Commissioner Pat Velasquez o Public Comments o Consent Calendar Mondav, June 23, 20U8 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Chairman: Kelly Buffa Peter Agarwal, Gail Eastman, Stephen Faessel, Joseph Karaki, Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez None • Public Hearing Items • Adjournment H:\TOOLS\Planning Commission Administration\PC Aclion Agendas - Minules\2008 Minutes\2008 MinutesWC062308.doc June 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Consent Calendar: Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Items 1A through 1 D and to continue Items 4 and 8 as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Reoorts and Recommendations: ITEM NO. 1A CEQA CLASS 1 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05189 (Trackinq No. CUP2008-05328) Owner: Michael Daskalakis 300 North Wilshire Avenue Anaheim, CA 92801 Applicant: Theodoros Daskalakis P.O. Box 3880 Anaheim, CA 92803 Location: 2401 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately 0.53-acre, located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue, and Gilbert Street, having approximate frontages of 127 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and 120 feet on the west side of Gilbert Street Request for review of final elevations plans to comply with conditions of approval for a previously-approved commercial retail center. Consent Calendar Approval Motion: Velasquez/Eastman VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: Scott Koehm SKoehm@anaheim.net 06/23/08 Page 2 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 1 B Applicant: New Urban West Inc. 1733 Ocean Avenue Suite 350 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Location: The Platinum Trianqle: Property encompasses approximately 820 acres located at the confluence of the Interstate 5 Freeway and the SR-57 Freeway, west of the Santa Ana River channel, south of the Southern California Edison easement, and north of the Anaheim City limit. Request for Planning Commission initiation of applications to consider an amendment to The Platinum Triangle to transfer 68,000 square feet of commercial space and 119,000 square feet of office space from The Platinum Triangle, Gateway District (Subarea A) to the Gene Autry District (Subarea B) in connection with a proposed amendment to the Experience at Gene Autry Way project. Consent Calendar Approval Motion: Velasquez/Eastman VOTE: 7-0 Project P/anner. Scott Koehm SKoehm@anaheim.net 06/23/08 Page 3 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 1C CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY - APPROVED) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05241 (Tracking No. CUP2008-05328) Owner: Karcher Partners 1200 North Harbor Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92801 Applicant: DMJM Design 999 Town and Country Road Orange, CA 92868 ~ocation: 1325 North Anaheim Boulevard Request a determination of substantial conformance with previously-approved colored renderings. nutes ITEM NO. 1D Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of May 28, 2008. NOTE: Meeting minutes have been provided to the Planning Commission and are availabie for review at the Planning Department. Consent Calendar Approval Motion: Velasquez/Eastman VOTE: 7-0 Project P/anner. Kimberly Wong Kwong2@a~aheim.net Consent Calendar Approval Motion: Velasquez/Eastman VOTE: 7-0 O6/23/OS Page 4 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES p~ablic Hearina Items: ITEM NO. 2 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND Faessel CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05326 WITH A WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS Owner: Caruthers Properties 2107 Yacht Mischief Newport Beach, CA 92660 Applicant: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 1003 Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 502 - 524 East Julianna Street: Property is approximately 1.68 acres, located at the southeast corner of Julianna Street and Sabina Street. Request to permit a towing service and impound yard with the washing of towing vehicles and a waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces. Kimberly Wong, Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Resolution No. 2005-66 Approved, added condition to provide modified site plan for city review if future expansion(s) occur VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner. Kimberly Wong Kwong2@anaheim.net Paul Kott, 1225 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, stated that he represents the current property owner and the proposed tenant for this property. His client would be relocating from a property on Atchison Street due to Redevelopment Agency projects. He wanted the Commission to be aware that there would be an amendment to the CUP at the ~ext meeting. His client would like to have the same entitlements on this property as on their existing property, including auto body repair, and would not like to be denied anything that he currently has in place on the Atchison property. They would like to be allowed to expand into Buiidings 1 or 2 in the future without coming back for a public hearing. He is available to answer any questions. Chairman Buffa understood that the only entitlement that has been advertised today is for the towing facility in the building that is shown. They could not grant a different entitlement than what was already advertised. The Planning Commission understands from stafF that the applicant will come back asking for other things to duplicate his existing business. Mr. Kott stated that although the applicant is the City of Anaheim, the end user is the one who has to exercise the entitlements. If the end user was the applicant, they would have continued this request 'and waited until it was re-advertised. They would have not gone through this two step phase and they are only doing this pursuant to Redevelopment Agency request. 06/23/08 Page 5 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Ms. Wong added to Mr. Kott's testimony about future expansion into Buildings 1 or 2 and indicated ~hat staff would be interested in adding a new condition of approval: "that anytime DuBois Towing facility chooses to expand into either buildings 1 or 2 or both, they could do so as long as the impound facility does not generate an additional number of parking spaces required but they would come back to the Planning Commission as a substantial conformance to update their site plan to indicate the expansion to Building 1 or 2 as a Reports and Recommendations item." The City would advertise an amendment of the permit to allow automotive repairs as requested by the business owner. Chairman Buffa asked if there were any questions for the applicant's representative. Mr. Kott reiterated that the business is not asking for anything more, they just want what they presently have on their existing property. Chairman Buffa understood what was being requested. Staff is trying to make this as easy as possible to replicate the existing business. Chairman Buffa asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution approving the Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05326 with a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces which includes an additional condition of approval that staff will read into the record. Ms. Wong, read: that in the future if the towing and impound facility expands into either buildings 1 or 2 or both, the modified site plan shall be presented to the Planning Commission for substantial conformance as a reports and recommendation item. Commissioner Velasquez thought it was important to clarify that Mr. Kott referred to other entitlements on the Atchison property and what would be approved today was only what is before the Planning Commission, ~ot the mirroring of other entitlements. Chairman Buffa agreed and thinks that the Planning Commission will have another item in front of them that deals with the auto repair side of the business in the future. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeai rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 15, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (2:39 to 2:51) (Following this item, Item No. 5 was heard) 06/23/08 Page 6 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ITEM NO. 3 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2007-232 Owner: North Anaheim Associates 3185 Pullman Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Applicant: BKM Development 3185 Pullman Avenue Costa Mesa, CA 92626 'Location: Assessor Parcel No. 035-010-80: Property is approximately 4.61 acres, having a frontage of 131 feet on the west side of Patt Street and 229 feet on the west side of Kemp Street approximately 452 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. Requestto establish a 3-lot industrial subdivision Continued to August4, 2008 Motion: Karaki/Romero VOTE: 6-Q Commissioner Eastman abstained Project Planner: Kimberly Wong Kwong2@anaheim.net Commissioner Eastman abstained from this item since she received a campaign contribution from the developer. Kimberly Wong, Planner, presented the staff report. She indicated that a letter from the applicant was distributed to the Commissioners on Friday. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Brian Malliet, BKM Development, 3185 Pullman Avenue, Costa Mesa, 92626 stated that he would an additional solution other than a floating easement on the property as proposed by staff. He submitted an exhibit of staff's proposal and the cost of the easeme~t including taking of the land that cannot be used for development as well as the cost to construct the easement. The two property owners adjacent to the property have submitted offers to purchase a portion of the property. An easement would deter both buyers from using the land as an adjacent parcel of land to the building they already own. The other issue brought up by staff is the unsafe corner at La Palma Avenue and Kemp Street, which has been the condition for 70 years. Twenty acres of the property has been reduced down to the 4.5 acres and has limited almost ail truck access off the site. Furthermore, there are smaller lots in demand verses large lots. 06/23/OS Page 7 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNING GOMMISSION MINUTES The proposed lots are small parcels that will only accommodate small warehouse uses, deterring ~arge trucks. He is available to answer any questions. - Commissioner Agarwal asked the applicant if the proposed parcels would be divided into smaller lots and who the potential owners would be. Mr. Malliet replied that there is the possibility to subdivide Parcel 3 in half and sell the properties to the two adjacent building owners. This request is different from what is on the planning staff report. These properties would then be used by a company that installs epoxy and flooring i~ homes and the other is a soil testing and lab sampling company. Both businesses would have trucks stored on the property. There has been limited interest in Parcels 1 and 2. The neighboring truck terminal business owner has expressed interest in Parcel 1 and the neighboring catering business is interested in Parcel 2. The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency has also expressed an interest in purchasing a portion of Parcel 2. Commissioner Agarwal asked whether the proposed subdivision would still result in 18-wheeler trucks to come on Kemp Street. Mr. Malliet replied that a building must be a minimum of 12,000 square feet to have a truck dock. A property of an acre or less would be unlikely to have a business that had 18-wheeler trucks accessing the building. Commissioner Agarwal stated that there is no certainty that a 40,000 square foot building will not be 5uilt with three or four-truck loading dock. Mr. Malliet stated that a building cannot be built on parcel lines and the location of the proposed property almost insures that a large building will be built unless they amended the map at a public hearing. There is a little guarantee if they were to sub-divide the parcel now and put the small lots in place that a smaller building would be built on these Iots. Commissioner Agarwal asked staff if they were concerned about the type of uses that could locate on the property. Given the applicant's testimony, it may be unlikely large trucks would need to access Kemp Street. He disclosed that he met with the applicant. He wanted a compromise. David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner, stated that there are industrial land uses that require large trucks and the Code permits these industrial uses without an entitlement. These businesses typically use large trucks that are 55 to 60 feet in length. Some industrial businesses only need a single unit truck or a modified pick up truck. Mr. Malliet stated that the previous industrial businesses used Kemp Street. Staff is asking him to give up those vehicular rights since the streets already prohibit truck access on Kemp Street. He questioned why the City wanted him to relinquish his vehicular rights if the City already won't allow trucks on the street. He believed it was inappropriate of the City to put a condition on the property and cloud on his title for limiting vehicle access. He is agreement to limit access for Parcel 3 to only Patt Street but not the other parcels. He referred to the City's diagrams indicating the unsafe corner at La Palma Avenue onto Kemp Street because trucks would turn into oncoming traffic on Kemp Street. However, the street is only 456 feet long and 06/23/08 Page 8 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES there is little traffic on Kemp Street. There would be no commercial or industrial users on this street except these three lots. Trucks have been turning onto Kemp Street for years and it has worked because it is only a 456 foot long street with a dead end. Steve Valdez, 1014 N. Kemp St, Anaheim, 92805, stated that he has lived on Kemp Street 45 years. There were trucks from the previous industrial business but they were only up 35 feet long and the traffic on the street was different. He is concerned about trucks and increased traffic. There are childre~ and elderly adults that use the street. The street is not designed as a commercial street for heavy traffic. He is concerned that vehicles from this property will use the alleys and create more traffic in the neighborhood. The neighborhood has been dealing with the trucking terminal for over 20 years inhaling the diesel fumes and noise. He hopes vehicles will only use Patt Street or another street. He showed the Commission pictures of the diesel fumes from the trucks. Chairman Buffa clarified that the exhibit he provided is an alternative subdivision to divide Parcel 3 in half. Mr. Malliet verified that the division and sales of Parcel 3 was contingent on access to the site. He did not want to block access to a corner lot that does not have any street frontage. Commissioner Agarwal asked the applicant whether he had pursued other development options and what his recommendations would be for vehicular access onto Patt and Kemp Streets. Mr. Malliet stated that he had submitted a proposal for a housing development. The Anaheim Redevelopment Agency indicated to him that a residential project would only work if it included the truck terminal on La Palma Avenue. He cannot solve the problem of the industrial uses on Kemp Street. If the zone is not changed or an overlay permitting housing is not added, the property will remain industrial. This property is currently zoned industrial. Commissioner Velasquez reiterated that the applicant wanted to keep access on Kemp Street. She asked if there were signs that prohibited trucks and whether this property would need to comply and what is the consequence of not complying. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, replied that there is a weight limit of 6,000 pounds so it precludes most commercial vehicles. A double axel single unit truck would not be permitted. A vehicle greater than 6,000 pounds can still use the street for the purposes of delivery but the preclusion relates to through traffic. Commissioner Velasquez wanted clarification that the applicant is correct in saying that he has a current right. Mr. Amstrup replied currently he does have that right. Commissioner Velasquez understands the applicanYs point of view. She asked staff whether they would permit access on Kemp Street if the applicant proposed smaller parcels which would limit the type and size of pote~tiai industrial uses. 06/23/OS Page 9 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Amstrup stated that it depends on the size of the parcels. There are issues with smaller parcels. ~ot line adjustments can be used to merge parcels that have already been divided. This is an administrative process and the parcels could be rejoined without a public hearing. If the parcels are small enough it would limit the size of vehicles that are going in. Unfortunately, there are no safe guards that staff could take at this point that preclude a lot line adjustment from a future owner and merging the properties into a larger lot. There would be a situation that larger buildings could be built than anticipated. Commissioner Velasquez asked is there a way to preclude a lot line adjustment. Mr. Amstrup stated that lot line adjustments are ministeriai approvals provided the parcel complies with Code requirements. Staff would not have the discretion to deny the permit. Commissioner Velasquez asked staff whether they considered allowing small vehicles use Kemp Street. She understands the concern regarding large trucks not being able to make a safe turn. Mr. Amstrup s#ated that allowing small vehicles would have unintended consequences. Even if only small vehicles were allowed access from Kemp Street, a floating easement would still be required to give access to Parcels 1 and 2 so commercial vehicles could get back to those parcels. This easement would now open up Patt Street to Kemp Street again to through traffic. It would require passing over three parcels of private property but it could be a shortcut to La Paima Avenue. Staff was not suggesting that all the workers in this industrial park would be flooding through that area but it might be safe to say there might be some ~nticipated traffic from that result. Staff is proposing a"floating easemenY' or reciprocal access, not a private street. There would not be a loss of developable area; it would simply be that the drive aisles would need to be done for parcels one, two, and three. The drive aisle would be able to be used by all the tenants on parcels one, two and three. He compared the size of the proposed parcels to those of the adjacent industrial park the property owner previously developed. These parcels are large enough to have the loading docks just like in the industrial park. Parcel 2 could have up to a 45,000 square foot building, which is not an insignificant size for a light manufacturing use. Parcel 1 could have a building approximately 20,000 square feet and Parcel 3 approximately 30,000 square feet' Staff is open to finding ways of limiting vehicular traffic, but they have not successfully come up with something that does not inadvertently create a through situation. Chairman Buffa wanted to know what the volume of traffic was on Kemp and Patt Streets. Mr. Kennedy replied the volume of traffic on Kemp Street is less than 1,000 vehicles per day and is in the range of two or three hundred based on old counts. He estimated that Patt Street was approximately two or three thousand. Mr. Kennedy stated that he does not have that number at this time. Commissioner Agarwal asked if the City has a design for the easement and what the size of the easement should be. 06/23/08 Page 10 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES :,J Amstrup stated they did not have a specific design for the easement. It would need to have a standard drive aisle width that is required in a parking lot, approximately 26 feet for adequate fire accessibility width and it be designed to provide access from Parcels 1, 2 and 3. Commissioner Romero wanted to know if the adjacent buildings were individually owned. CJ Amstrup was not sure of the current situation but based on the applicanYs testimony they were individually owned. Chairman Buffa verified that based on the applicanYs testimony, at least two of the buildings in the adjacent industrial park were individually owned. It would be the buildings that are adjacent to Parcel 3. These owners would like to acquire additional land. Chairman Buffa expressed that Parcel 1 should take access from Kemp Street. It seemed ludicrous that there would be property that fronts on a public street that could not use the public street. There is a conflict between the industrial and residential edge. The City has taken steps to try to limit the size of the vehicles and she doe not believe there is will be a huge volume of large trucks. It is a public street and she thinks the applicant has the right to use the public street for the property that fronts on it. Parcels 2 and 3 could take access off of Patt Street similar to the adjacent property. A solution would be that Parcel 1 can access off Kemp Street, and Parcels 2 and 3 would have a reciprocal access agreement to Patt Street. This would limit the impact on the neighborhood while also allowing the applica~t to use his property. Commissioner Karaki agreed. However, there would need to be a condition that Parcel 1 cannot give access to Parcels 2 and 3. Also, a block wall or similar mechanism would need to be required to prevent any through access onto Parcel 1. This is an appropriate compromise. Commissioner Faessel inquired about future street improvements on La Palma Avenue between Kemp and Patt Street. Mr. Kennedy stated that there are no plans to widen La Palma Avenue between Kemp and Patt Streets due to the residential uses on the street. Widen the street to the standard width of 53 feet requires a substantial amount of right-of-way acquisition. The general plan it would be a very long term project but nothing has been identified at this point and time, it is not in the Capitol Improvement Program. Commissioner Faessel referred to the Kemp Street right-of-way that is very narrow. He was concerned that the narrow width would create unsafe vehicular access for Parcel 1. He asked if there is the possibility that the applicant could dedicate future right-of-way for Parcel one so that at least that portion of the width of the street could be increased. In the future, the truck terminal property would dedicate the additional right-of-way. Ms. Wong stated that on Condition No. 4 of the draft resolution requires a 10-foot wide easement for road and public utility purposes. This dedication would for a residential collector street. If the Commission allowed Parcel 1 access onto Kemp Street, staff would recommend the condition be modified for a of dedication 18 feet for the width of an industrial street. 06(23/08 Page 11 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Buffa thought it seemed like double jeopardy to her and thought it was unfair that the City would not let him use trucks on Kemp Street but can make him dedicate enough land so that they could drive trucks. Commissioner Velasquez concurred and thought it would be better to keep the condition at ten feet, unless they were trying to make it a true commercial street. If so, they may as well consider giving access to Parcel 2 and 3. Commissio~er Romero asked what would have happened if the owner of the truck terminal added a driveway on Kemp Street. Ms. Wong replied there is a condition of approval on the business' CUP prohibiting vehicular access on Kemp Street. Commissioner Faessel appreciated CJ's understanding of the potential easement. However, that would be a"floating easemenf'. CJ stated for the record what the Planning Commission has before them is not what staff intended, and he takes this all into account. However, he is concerned that if there is any additional easement as an unintended consequence of re-connecting Kemp, his feeling is, if they were going to try to do that they need to look at the City alley and restore that to a roadway as it originally was which is not before them nor would he suggest it. He was concerned if the Planning Commission were to allow access to Parcel 1 to Kemp Street, the concern would be about access from Parcel 2 all the way down to Patt Street which could be done in a 26 foot drive aisle but it is up to the applicant to see if he could manage that. The applicant has given testimony that the two adjacent property owners have expressed a desire to purchase a portion of Parcel 3 for their use. The applicant has indicated that a floating easement precludes the potential sale of Parcel 3 to the adjoining property owners. He believes this wiU put a hardship on the applicant. He has not heard anything that he satisfied with as far as access for Parcel 2. Chairman Buffa thought the two buildings that are at the top of the property take access to Patt Street through what is probably a reciprocal access easement over the lots between them and Patt Street. It is a private drive and is probably 26 feet wide that goes from Patt Street all the way to the back of the property. This is what staff is suggesting for Parcels 2 and 3. It is misleading on the exhibit that the City owns property adjacent to Patt Street. The respective of the City's negotiating position from a land use prospective is that the property has a limited value for the City and is unfortunate that the City has not been able to reach some accommodation with the land owner. She would encourage the City to be reasonable in its negotiating position. Some of the City parcels would give him access driveway opportunities that might make the land adjacent the two existing buildings a little more usable. Commissioner Faessel agreed. Chairman Buffa stated that the applicant could lay out the easement wherever he wants. Commissioner Romero reiterated that the Commission needs to be careful and not connect the traffic from Patt Street onto Kemp Street. 06/23(08 Page 12 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Agarwal asked staff what the difference would be between the 6,000 pound and the big rigs that can turn on that street. He asked if they had 16,000 pound delivery trucks. Mr. Kennedy replied the ability for a vehicle to turn on the street is based on its length and number of axles. The California Vehicle Code only allows them to restrict access by weight. An empty semi- trailer could sometimes be lighter than a fully loaded single unit truck. Commissioner Karaki asked the applicant what is preference would be of the proposals discussed. Mr. Malliet stated he is okay with giving up access rights for Parcel 3 onto Kemp. He disagrees with the assumed building square footages for the parcels indicated by Planning. The coverage on these properties is only 40 to 42 percent. A 90,000 square foot parcel cannot accommodate a 45,000 square foot building. The maximum would be 16,000 square feet building. Further, there is not enough width or length to design a building. There has to be a certain amount of width and Iength to construct a building that is useable. The site is too narrow to construct a building with a drive aisle. They would become odd shaped buildings. For phase two of the industrial park, he gave up rights to use Kemp Street in order to get phase 2 approved. He thinks there may be some restrictions that limit his ability to have access from the subject property. He is sure he can work out access for Parcel 2 with staff. He is okay with giving up access rights for Parcel 3 and possibly gives up access rights to Parcel 2 if he can come from the existing industrial park. The question he was not sure of is what staff was requesting when they indicated access rights. He wanted to know if they were taiking about cars that cannot access these parcels through Kemp Street or all vehicles as well. Commissioner Karaki stated they are suggesting cars would have access but not trucks. Mr. Malliet stated that he was open to restricting parcel three and parcels one to have public rights that it has on it. Parcel two is difficult because of the rights he does not know if he has or if he gave them up. Commissioner Karaki stated that the real question is Parcel 2 vehicle access. He asked the applicant if he would be willing to continue this item to another Commission meeting. Mr. Malliet stated that he does not mind coming back as it has already been a six month process. He needs staff to work with him to get a solution. When staff pulls out the diagram they say it is unsafe which does not get him anywhere. He would like a solution. Commissioner Karaki suggested that they not make a decision today and he work it out with staff. Then they can see what goes on with the Engineering Department to see if there is a solution for parcel two because this is the only parcel still in question. Chairman Buffa asked him if he still owns any of the lots on his existing previous map. 06/23/OS Page 13 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES iVlr. Malliet replied he owns six of the remaining buildings on the one parcel. He does not own either lot adjacent to Parcel 2, the second building from the bottom against parcel 3 is the one he has an offer in escrow that he does own. That is the only one he owns. Commissioner Velasquez stated that Iegaily it would be the property owners and not him that would have to allow access. Mr. Malliet stated that through his CC&R's the developer owner controls the CC&R's and controls access issues until he sells the last building on the property. Legally he can amend the CC&R's to allow access off of the industrial park onto those parcels. He stated the only concern with working with staff is that if they allow access from parcel two off and then parcel 2 still has car access to Kemp Street it creates a loop that people do not want to create, 6ecause if you divide parcel two into two the back of parcel two would have access off the industrial park and the front half off of Kemp Street. Commissioner Karaki stated that they would not suggest anything but they will ask him to work it out with staff. The Commission is open to Kemp Street. Mr. Amstrup clarified that the Parcel 1 would be allowed both passenger vehicle and truck access onto Kemp Street, but he was unclear on Parcel 3, whether they were talking about limiting all access to Kemp Street orjust limiting commercial vehicle access to Kemp Street. Commissioner Karaki stated they would allow cars through Kemp Street as there is no reason not to go through if they are on parcel three. Chairman Buffa stated the reason would be if there is a driveway from Kemp Street into Parcel .3, trucks will go there. She thought Parcel 3 need to relinquish vehicular access rights to Kemp Street. She did not think it put an unreasonable burden on the land owner because he would have plenty of public street access on Patt Street that would then mitigate part of the traffic to the residential neighbors on Kemp Street. Commissioner Velasquez stated it is necessary because we have to keep that balance in protecting that residential neighborhood and one of the applicanYs concerns was having that easement going to parcel three so they would have a buildable area and that is why the idea of working through parcel two . She does not think they would be encroaching on the applicant because he would have plenty of street access through Patt Street. Commissioner Faessel, Commissioner Karaki, and Commissioner Romero disclosed they met with the applicant. Commissioner Karaki offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero to continue Item No. 3 until August 4, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Eastman abstained. 06/23/O8 Page 14 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNWG COMMISSION MINUTES OPPOSITION: One person spoke in opposition to the subject request. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 6 minutes (3:09 to 4:15) (This item was trailed) Commissioner Easfman left the Chamber at 3:10 p.m osr2sios Page 15 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 4 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05324 Owner: Lawrence A Greco P. O. Box 473 Kihei, HI 96753 Applicant: Dick Evitt 5905 Winncliff Drive Riverside, CA 92509 Locakion: 1695 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately 0.44-acres, having a frontage of 143 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and is located approximately 100 feet east of the centerline of Euclid Street. Request to permit the retail sales and installation of automobile wheels, tires, window tinti~g, audio systems and auto detailing and upholstery. Continued to August4, 2008 Motion: Faessel/Eastman VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: Diane Bathgate dbathgate@anaheim. net Chairman Buffa stated that this item is an application to permit and retain auto related uses. She asked if there was anyone who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, she continued with the motion. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to continue Item No. 4 until the Planning Commission meeting of August 4, 2008. Motion passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 06/23/08 Page 16 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 5 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Eastman Resolution No.2008-67 (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) AND AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4033 ~Trackinq No. CUP2008-05318) Approved Owner: Kindred Community Church 8712 East Santa Ana Canyon Road VOTE: 7-0 Anaheim, CA 92808 Applicant: Terry Jacobson J7 Architecture, Inc. ' 1470 Jamboree Road, Suite 200 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: 8712 East Santa Ana Canyon Road: Property is approximately 37 acres, having a frontage of 155 feet on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road approximately 3,759 feet west of the centerline of Gypsum Canyon Road. Request to amend exhibits for a previously-approved church to Project Pla~ner.• add three modular units for Sunday school classrooms. Elaine rhienprasiddni ethien@anaheim.net Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Pastor Philip De Courcy, 2708 N. Whitehall, Orange 92867, stated that he is Senior Pastor of Kindred Community Church and is present along with Terry Jacobson, the architect, and one of the church elders, Doug McGuiness. They have read the conditions of the approval and are happy with them. They are available to answer any questions. Chairman Buffa asked if there was anyone who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel asked staff if they have received any written or verbal communication from the surrounding neighbors regarding the proposed addition of the modular classrooms. Ms. Thienprasiddhi replied that staff has not received any inquiries. Commissioner Eastman offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution determining that the Previousiy Approved Negative Declaration serve as the appropriate environmental document and approving the amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4033. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes. 06/23l08 Page 17 of 25 June 23, 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, July 15, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (2:51 to 2:55) 06/23/OS Page 18 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 6 LL Agarwal TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17251 Owner: Mike Mcguirk CIM Group 6922 Hollywood Boulevard, 9th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90028 Location: 203 South Anaheim Boulevard 290 South Lemon Street, and 180 West Center Street (Parcels A1 - A3 within Downtown Anaheim): Property is approximately 2.5 acres and is located at the southwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Center Street Promenade, with frontages of 173 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard, 429 feet on the north side of Broadway, and 283 feet on the south side of Center Street Promenade. Requests to establish a 14-lot (1-Iettered and 13-numbered) airspace subdivision for an existing mixed use project. Dave See, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Resolution No. 2008-68 Approved VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner. David See dsee@anaheim.net Mike Mcguirk, CIM Group, 6922 Hollywood Boulevard, 9~h Floor, Los Angeles, 90028, stated that he is available to answer any questions. Chairman Buffa asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Agarwal offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution determining that the Previously Certified Environmental Impact No. 189 with the addendum to call Anaheim Center as the appropriate environmental determination for this request and to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17251. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes. 06/23/OS Page 19 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 3, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (2:55 to 3:00) 06/23/08 Page 20 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 7 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1 Owner: Wayne Morganthaler 32 Sidney Bay Drive Newport Coast, CA 92657-2105 Applicant: Trac Bao Cong Bui and Van Le Dinh 511 West Chapman Avenue Anaheim, CA 92802 Romero Location: 511 West Chapman Avenue: Property is approximately 1.7 acres and is located 324 feet east of Harbor Boulevard, with a frontage of 373 feet on the north side of Chapman Avenue (Orange Mini Market). Request to exchange an existing Type 20 ABC beer and wine license to a Type 21 ABC license allowing beer, wine, and distilled spirits for off-premises consumption as an accessory use to its primary operation as a convenience market. Dave See, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Resolution No. 2008-69 Approved, modified Condition No. 3 VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: David See dsee@anaheim.net Michael Ayaz, Attorney, 2107 N. Broadway St. #106, Santa Ana 92706 stated that he represents the applicant and they reviewed the conditions of approval and agree with them. Mr. See wanted to correct one condition which relates to the percentage of floor space for display of alcoholic beverages. Mr. See indicated that the applicant referred to Condition No. 3, which should indicate a maximum of 25% display area which is a restriction of alcoholic beverage control recommended by the Police Department. Chairman Buffa replied that it would make the condition consistent with staff report. Mr. Ayaz stated that he is available to answer any questions. Chairman Buffa asked if there was anyone who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Romero offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution determining that Class 1, Categorical Exemption and a Determination of Public 06/23/OS Page 21 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Convenience or Necessity No. 2008-00044 which includes the modification to Condition No. 3 read into the record by staff. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant Gity Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 15, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (3:00 to 3:05) O6/23/08 Page 22 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNWG COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 8 CEQA DETERMINATION: SECTION 21080 PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE EXEMPTION AND ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2008-00067 Applicant: Planning Depa~ment City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: Citvwide This is a request initiated by the City of Anaheim Planning Department to amend a section of Title 7(Morals and Conduct) and various sections of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code as follows: Title 7- to amend Chapter 7.24 (Handbills) by adding language related to the distribution of handbills at public venues; Title 18 - to amend Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) by adding specia'I event provisions for The Platinum Triangle, to clarify existing citywide special event provisions and to amend provisions related to the establishment of carnivals and circuses; to amend Chapter 18.10 (Industrial Zone) to clarify permitted outdoor activities; to amend Chapter 18.04 (Single- Family Residential Zones) to amend various sections pertaining to permitted encroachments for accessory uses/structures; and to amend Chapter 18.52 (Density Bonus) pertaining to apptication review to provide consistency with recent changes in project processing procedures. Motion: Buffa/Faessei Continued to August 4, 2008 VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner. Vanessa Nonvood vnonvood@anaheim. net Chairman Buffa stated that this item is a City initiated Citywide Code Amendment. She asked if there was anyone who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, she continued with the motion. Chairman Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to continue Item No. 8 until the Planning Commission meeting of August 4, 2008. Motion passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 06/23/08 Page 23 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNING GOMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 9 CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Faessel Resolution No. 2008-70 (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) AND RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2008-00217 Approved Applicant: Planning Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard VOTE: 7-0 Anaheim, CA 92808 Location: 8300 - 8306 East La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately 3.7 acres, located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Weir Canyon ' Road having frontages of 776 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and 321 feet on the east side of Weir Canyon Road. This is a request initiated by the City of Anaheim Planning Project Pla~ner. Department to reclassify the western 1.95-acre portion of Vanessa Nonvood subject property from the CG (SC) (General Commercial, vnorwood@ananeim.ner Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone, to the OS (SC) (Open Space, Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone. Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Romero asked staff if there was somebody who monitors this "gnat-catcher" to make sure that it continues to be there. Ms. Norwood replied the fish and wild life agency monitors. Chairman Buffa opened the pubiic hearing. Chairman Buffa asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution determining that the previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental determination for this request and to approve Reclassification No. 2008-00217. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None 06/23/08 Page 24 of 25 June 23, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 15, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (3:05 to 3:09) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:21 P.M. TO MONDAY, AUGUST 4, 2008 AT 1:00 P.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Respectfully submitted: ,~r ~ . ~~'~'~~~~/ :`~~~~' Do~na Patino Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on August 4, 2008. 06/23/08 Page 25 of 25