Loading...
Minutes-PC 2008/12/08Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present: Chairman: Joseph Karaki Peter Agarwal, Kelly Buffa, Gail Eastman, Stephen Faessel, Victoria Ramirez, Panky Romero Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager Kimberly Wong, Planner Dave See, Senior Planner Raul Garcia, Principal Civii Engineer Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Scott Koehm, Associate Planner Grace Medina, Senior Secretary Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner Julie Hourani, Office Specialist II Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Pianning Commission Agenda was posted at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, December 4, 2008, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Ghamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, November 20, 2008 • Call to Order • Preliminary Plan Review 1:30 P.flA. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) ~ PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE DECEMBER 8, 2008 AGENDA • Recess to Public Hearing • Reconvene to Public Hearing 2:30 P.NI. Attendance: 25 • Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Buffa • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing items o Adjournment DECEMBER 8, 2008 PLkNNING COMMISSIOM MIPlUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2;30 P.M. Public Comments: Mone fUlinutes ITEIIA 1 A Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of November 24, 2008. Niotion: Eastman/Faessel Continued to January 5, 2009 VOTE: 7-0 12/08/OS Page 2 of 18 DECEMBER 8, 2008 PLA~lMIMG COMMISSION NIIfVUTES ITEM NO. 2 WITH A WAIVER OF A CODE REQUIREMEMT (Trackinq No. CUP2008-05355) Owner: Charles Hance 828 West Vermont Avenue Anaheim, CA 92805 Applicant: City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheirn, CA 92805 Location: 828 West Vermont Avenue: This property is approximately 1.29 acres, having a frontage of 246 feet on the south side of Vermont Avenue approximately 107 feet west of the centerline of Citron Street. Request to amend a previously-approved conditional use permit to allow the sales and service of automobiles and automobile parts, to allow full automobile repair services including, but not limited to, engine installation, body work, conversion, installation of parts, modification, painting, repair, smog check and tire installation with outdoor storage with fewer parking spaces than are required by Code. Resolution Mo. PC2008-114 (Buffa) Approved, revised Condition Mos. 1, 4 and 6 VOTE: 5-2 Commissioners Eastman and Romero voted no Project Planner. Scott Koehm skoehm ~anaheim.net Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Staff modified Condition No. 4 to read: "The outdoor storage shall be restricted to the area designated on Revision No. 1 to Exhibit No. 1 and that said storage area shall be completely site screened with chain link fencing interwoven with slats, wrought iron fencing with canvas screening, or other appropriate material; and further, the number of truck trailers used for outdoor storage shall be limited to four (4)". Commissioner Faessel indicated that based on the slide presented, it is unclear whether the new storage area or the old area is 40' x 80'. " Mr. Koehm stated the proposed building, not the storage area, would be 40' x SOY". He showed the previously approved storage area location on the projector slide. Mr. Hance is proposing to reconfigure the area which would amount to the same square footage, only configured differently. The original Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approved the use of storage trailers. The property owner has indicated he would like to replace them with a permanent structure for storage. 12/08/08 Page 3 of 18 DECEMBER 8, 2008 PLA~lNING COMMISSIOM NIINUTES Commissioner Buffa asked staff to show the location of the outdoor storage area for inoperable vehicles. Mr. Koehm showed the location on the projectar slide. - Commissioner Ramirez asked staff to comment regarding the e-mail correspondence received from Ms. Sara D. Solis, in opposition of the subject request. Mr. Koehm indicated that he responded to the e-mail and did not receive further comments or concerns from Ms. Sotis. He indicated he has inspected the property on several occasions and has not observed any parking issues. Commissioner Eastman asked if the e-mail correspondence had initiated any Code Enforcement action regarding the street vendors exceeding time limitations. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated he will forward the information to Code Enforcement. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Mr. Charles Hance, Coast Corvette, 828 West Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, CA. In 1986 his GUP to conduct automotive repairs was approved. The blueprints indicated the facility was built for this type of service. The CUP application stated "general automotive repair". He indicated there is a discrepancy between the final approved resolution and the resolution which was passed at the June 23, 1986 Planning Commission meeting. He had spoken with Annika Santalahti at the Planning Services counter, who agreed that an error had been made. The final resolution was made out to "Robert Sayler" who was also on the agenda that day and may have requested approval for automotive repairs. Mr. Hance was uncertain if the two resolutions may have been switched. If the error had been addressed immediately, he would not have to pay. Now, 22 years later, he is being asked to pay $10,000 to correct the situation. Mr. Hance said he is not able to conduct business if he is not allowed to perform automotive repairs. He was issued a Notice of Violation because he was installing parts, as allowed on his CUP. The misunderstanding seems to be that Code Enforcement staff was under the impression that "retail" meant a part must be sold over the sales counter. Mr. Hance does not believe that the Notice of Violation is justified. Mr. Hance stated he feels the original CUP is being revoked; however, it is being presented as a modification. He did not object to paying for a CUP; he objects to paying twice. He wants to be aliowed to have tow trucks deliver vehicles for repairs and park them at the rear of his building, out of public view. Chairman Karaki asked Mr. Hance for clarification as to what he was objecting. Mr. Hance said the fees are the main objection. He also objected to Condition No. 1 regarding inoperable vehicles. They should be allowed to remain on his property until they can be repaired. He wanted to change Condition No. 6 to allow more time for graffiti removal and did not wa~t his CUP revoked if he did not pay $10,000 within fifteen (15) days. Mr. Hance indicated that the original approved CUP was appropriate for his business. The problem occurred when it was modified. He was told that when a material change is made to a CUP (i.e. automotive repair), it must be brought before the Planning Commission again. This had not occurred. Mr. Hance referred to a copy of the June 12, 1986 Plan~ing Commission Minutes and pointed out that there was no discussion regarding this matter. 12/08/08 Page 4 of 18 DECEMBER 8, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Karaki acknowledged Mr. Hance's objections. He asked if there was anyone who would like to speak to this item; seeing none; he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Agarwal agreed with Mr. Hanee and was open to discussion regarding the. discrepancies on the CUP and the minutes. He asked if there was any flexibility where fees are concerned. Mr. Amstrup explained the fees charged are based on cost recovery. Staff would review and eliminate many of the typical charges, not staff time. This may reduce the fee to one-half or two- thirds of $10,000, possibly between $3,000 and $5,000. Commissioner Agarwal addressed Mr. Hance and advised him that staff is willing to work with him on reducing the fees. Commissioner Faessel disclosed that he had spoken to Mr. Hance last week, by telephone. He referred to the staff report and asked staff to explain "automobile repair services, including, but not limited to, engine installation, body work, conversion, installation of parts, modification, repair, smog check..." etc. He was concerned that Condition No. 5 would allow painting outdoors and requested clarification. Mr. Amstrup referred to Condition No. 1; automotive painting would be permitted only within a structure. Commissioner Eastman disclosed that she met with Mr. Hance. She was opposed to him paying any fees and wanted them waived, as she believed this was the City's error and it was not fair to Mr. Hance. Commissioner Buffa indicated there are technical issues that must be discussed. Exhibit No. 1 is not clear. She wanted clarification on outdoor storage area and where vehicles to be serviced can be parked clearly labeled on the exhibit so as to avoid future confusion. The exhibit should match what the business owner is requesting. She stated that a reasonable time should be allowed for graffiti to be removed, perhaps three days. Additionally, a compromise relating to fees, can reached between the City and Mr. Hance. Commissioner Ramirez disclosed that she spoke with Mr. Hance on the telephone. She commended staff for continuing to work with Mr. Hance. Commissioner Romero disdosed that he met with Mr. Hance and received a copy of his book. He agreed with Commissioner Eastman's comment regarding errors made by the City. He believed the business owner has complied with the CUP as he understood it. Cora~missioner Romero was satisfied #hat the fees will be reduced. Chairman Karaki concurred with the feliow Commissioners; however, he felt the City was calied in to address an issue brought to their attention by the Orange County Assessor's Office and it must be addressed. He asked Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attomey, if the Planning Commission has the authority to.waive fees. Mr. Gordon responded that they do not. 12/OS/08 Page 5 of 18 DECEMBER 8, 2008 PLAfi~fVING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Agarvual disclosed that he spoke to Mr. Hance by telephone last week. Chairman Karaki re-opened the public hearing. Me explained the fee reduction to Mr. Hance. Mr. Hance stated he had already paid his fees and did not agree with paying staff fees once again. He indicated that he would like to keep the original CUP. Commissioner Eastman advised Mr. Hance that the request was for a modification, not a revocation of his CUP. Mr. Gordon explained that modification of the CUP is a City initiated action, not a request by Mr. Hance. He reminded the Commission that approximately one month ago, they had requested staff to set this matter for public hearing. If the Commission decided to reject or deny the amendment of the CUP, the effect would take them back to prohibiting automotive repair with certain exceptions, putting the business owner back in the position of operating or using the property in a manner inconsistent with the CUP. By amending the GUP, it would authorize the use that Mr. Hance intends to carry out and would modify the Conditions of Approval so that it is clear to staff, the Planning Commission and the property owner what is the intended use of the property, the maintenance requirements and the use of the property that is limited by the CUP. Mr. Hance stated that if he had applied for the amendment of the CUP, he would expect to pay the $10,000; however, since this was initiated by the City, he did not feel it is fair. He did not believe he was in violation for installing automotive parts. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing once again. Commissioner Faessel thanked Mr. Hance for providing a copy of the original CUP in its entirety. He asked staff how Mr. Hance can be assured that approving the amendment will not have the consequence of removing what he already had. Cornmissioner Buffa indicated that the new resolution, Attachment No. 2 of the staff report, identifies the uses that would be allowed under the new permit, including full automobile repair services, engine installation, body work, paint, smog, tires, etc. The old resolution limits Mr. Hance's operations, the new CUP allows him to operate in the way he desires. If Mr. Hance is not happy with the fees, he should take it to the City Council as the Commission has no authority to change them. Mr. Amstrup indicated that Exhibit 1 would be revised to clarify that the parking area on the side and the parking behind the gate will be screened from public view (he pointed out the areas on the exhibit slide). He stated two business days is reasonable for the removal of graffiti and that automotive painting will be permitted only inside the structure. M Commissioner Buffa offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution approving the Categorical Exemption Class 1 and approving the Amendment to CUP No. 2798, with a waiver of code requirement and the modification to Condition Nos. 1, 4 and 6 as read into the record by staff. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioners Eastman and Romero voted no. 12/08/OS Page 6 of 18 DECEM'BER 8, 2005 PLAI~MIPIG CQMMISSIOfV MINUTES Commissioner Buffa asked staff to show the location of the outdoor storage area for inoperable vehicles. Mr. Koehm showed the location on the projector slide. Commissioner Ramirez asked staff to comment regarding the e-mail correspondence received from Ms. Sara D. Solis, in opposition of the subject request. , Mr. Koehm indicated that he responded to the e-mail and did not receive further comrnents or - concerns from Ms. Sol}s. He indicated he has inspected the property on several occasions and has not observed any parking issues. Commissioner Eastman asked if the e-mail correspondence had initiated any Code Enforcement action regarding the street vendors exceeding time limitations. CJ Amstrup, Planning Senrices Manager, stated he will forward the information to Code Enforcemen#. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Mr. Charles Hance, Coast Corvette, 828 West Vermont Avenue, Anaheim, CA. In 1986 his CUP to conduct automotive repairs was approved. The blueprints indicated the facility was built for this type of service. The CUP application stated "general automotive repair". He indicated there is a discrepancy between the final approved resolution and the resolution which was passed at the June 23, 1986 Planning Cammission meeting. He had spoken with Annika Santalahti at the Planning Services counter, who agreed that an error had been made. The final resolution was made out to "Robert Sayle~" who was also on the agenda that day and may have requested approval for automotive repairs. Mr. Hance was uncertain if the two resolutions may have been switched. If the error had been addressed immediately, he would not have to pay. Now, 22 years later, he is being asked to pay $10,000 to correct the situation. Mr. Hance said he is not able to conduct business if he is not allowed to perform automotive repairs. He was issued a Notice of Violation because he was instalting parts, as allowed on his CUP. The misunderstanding seems to be that Code Enforcement staff was under the impression that "retail" meant a part must be sold over the sales counter. Mr. Hance does not believe that the Notice of Violation is justified. Mr. Hance stated he feels the original CUP is being revoked; however, it is being presented as a modification. He did not object to paying for a CUP; he objects to paying twice. He wants to be allowed to have tow trucks deliver vehicles for repairs and park them at the rear of his building, out of public view. Chairman Karaki asked Mr. Hance for clarification as to what he was objecting. Mr. Hance said the fees are the main objection. He also objected to Condition No. 1 regarding inoperable vehicles. They should be allowed to remain on his property until they can be repaired. He wanted to change Condition No. 6 to allow more time for graffiti removal and did not wa~t his CUP revoked if he did not pay $10,000 within fifteen (15) days. Mr. Hance indicated that the original approved CUP was appropriate for his business. The problem occurred when it was modified. He was told that when a material change is made to a CUP (i.e. automotive repair), it must be brought before the Planning Commission again. This had not occurred. Mr. Hance referred to a copy of the June 12, 1986 Planning Commission Minutes and pointed out that there was no discussion regarding this matter. 12/OS/08 Page 4 of 18 DECEMBER 8, 2008 PLAidMING COMMISSIOM MINUTES Chairman Karaki acknowledged Mr. Hance's objections. He asked if there was anyone who would like to speak to this item; seeing none; he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Agarwal agreed with Mr. Hance and was open to discussion regarding the , discrepancies on the CUP and the minutes. He asked if there was any flexibility where fees are concerned. Mr. Amstrup explained the fees charged are based on cost recovery. Staff would review and eliminate many of the typical charges, not staff time. This may reduce the fee to one-half or two- thirds of $10,000, possibly between $3,000 and $5,000. Commissioner Agarwal addressed Mr. Hance and advised him that staff is willing to work with him on reducing the fees. Commissioner Faessel disclosed that he had spoken to Mr. Hance last week, by telephone. He referred to the staff report and asked staff to explain "automobile repair services, including, but not limited to, engine installation, body work, conversion, installation of parts, modification, repair, smog check..." etc. He was concerned that Condition No. 5 would allow painting outdoors and requested clarification. Mr. Amstrup referred to Condition No. 1; automotive painting would be permitted only within a structure. Commissioner Eastman disclosed that she met with Mr. Hance. She was opposed to him paying any fees and wanted them waived, as she believed this was the City's error and it was not fair to Mr. Hance. Commissioner Buffa indicated there are technical issues that must be discussed. Exhibit No. 1 is not clear. She wanted clarification on outdoor storage area and where vehicles to be serviced can be parked clearly labeled on the exhibit so as to avoid future confusion. The exhibit should match what the business owner is requesting. She stated that a reasonable time should be allowed for graffiti to be removed, perhaps three days. Additionally, a compromise relating to fees, can reached between the City and Mr. Hance. Commissioner Ramirez disclosed that she spoke with Mr. Hance on the telephone. She commended staff for continuing to work with Mr. Hance. Commissioner Romero disclosed that he met with Mr. Hance and received a copy of his book. He agreed with Commissioner Eastman's comment regarding errors made by the City. He believed the business owner has complied with the CUP as he understood it. Commissioner Romero was satisfied that the fees will be reduced. Chairman Karaki concurred with the fellow Commissioners; however, he felt the City was called in to address an issue brought to their attention by the Orange County Assessor's Office and it must be addressed. He asked Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, if the Planning Commission has the authority to waive fees. Mr. Gordon responded that they do not. 12/08/08 Page 5 of 18 DECEMBER 8, 2008 PLAidNING COMMISSIOM MIMUTES Commissioner Agarwal disclosed that he spoke to Mr. Hance by telephone last week. Chairman Karaki re-opened the public hearing. He explained the fee reduction to Mr. Hance Mr. Hance stated he had already paid his fees and did not agree with paying staff fees once again. He indicated that he would like to keep the original CUP. Commissioner Eastman advised Mr. Hance that the request was for a modification, not a revocation of his CUP. Mr. Gordon explained that modification of the CUP is a City initiated action, not a request by Mr. Mance. He reminded the Commission that approximately one month ago, they had requested staff to set this matter for public hearing. If the Cornmission decided to reject or deny the amendment of the CUP, the effect would take thern back to prohibiting automotive repair with certain exceptions, putting the business owner back in the position of operating or using the property in a manner inconsistent with the CUP. By amending the GUP, it would authorize the use that Mr. Hance intends to carry out and would modify the Conditions of Approval so that it is clear to staff, the Planning Commission and the property owner what is the intended use of the property, the maintenance requirements and the use of the property that is limited by the CUP. Mr. Hance stated that if he had applied for the amendment of the CUP, he would expect to pay the $10,000; however, since this was initiated by the City, he did not feei it is fair. He did not believe he was in violation for installing automotive parts. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing once again. Commissioner Faessel thanked Mr. Hance for providing a copy of the original CUP in its entirety. He asked staff how Mr. Hance can be assured that approving the amendment will not have the consequence of removing what he already had. Commissioner Buffa indicated that the new resolution, Attachment No. 2 of the staff report, identifies the uses that would be allowed under the new permit, including full automobile repair services, engine installation, body work, paint, smog, tires, etc. The old resolution limits Mr. Hance's operations, the new CUP allows him to operate in the way he desires. If Mr. Hance is not happy with the fees, he should take it to the City Council as the Commission has no authority to change them. Mr. Amstrup indicated that Exhibit 1 would be revised to clarify that the parking area on the side and the parking behind the gate will be screened from public view (he pointed out the areas on the exhibit slide). He stated two business days is reasonable for the rernoval of graffiti and that automotive painting will be permitted only inside the structure. r Commissioner Buffa offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution approving the Categorical Exemption Class 1 and approving the Amendment to CUP No. 2798, with a waiver of code requirement and the modification to Condition Nos. 1, 4 and 6 as read into the record by staff. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioners Eastman and Romero voted no. 12/OS/08 Page 6 of 18 DECEMBER 8, 2008 PLt1NNING COMMISSION MINUTES OPPOSITION: One e-mail correspondence 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, December 30, 2008. DISCUSSIOM TIME: 55 minutes (2:38 to 3:33) 12/08/OS Page 7 of 18 DECEMBER 8, 2008 PLAfl1NING COMMISSIOM NiINUTES ITEM MO. 3 WITH A WAIVER OF A CODE REQUIREMENT (Tracking No. CUP2008-05373) Owner Brandon Rainone and 3364 East La Palma Avenue Applicant: Anaheim, CA 92806 Location: 3364 East La Palma Avenue: This property is approximately 2.7 acres, having a frontage of 32 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue through a private access easement, a maximum depth of 523 feet, and located south of the intersection of Ocean Circle and La Palma Avenue. Request to amend a previously-approved conditional use permit to expand an existing bowling alley with a private party room with four additional bowling lanes with fewer parking spaces than required by Code. Resolution Mo. PC2008-115 (Faessel) Approved, modified Condition Mos. 11 and 28 VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner. Dave See dsee ~ anaheim. net Dave See, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Based on input received from the Planning Commission during the Preliminary Plan Review, staff recommended modification of Condition No. 11. Commissioner Ramirez asked staff to modify Condition No. 28 to read "...removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from the time of discovery". Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing and asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak to this item. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution approving the previously approved Negative Declaration and approving the Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05209, with a waiver of code requirement and the modifications to Gondition Nos. 11 and 28. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes. r OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 30, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (3:33 to 3;39) 12/08/OS Page 8 of 18 DECEMBER 8, 2008 PLANMING COMMISSIOfV f1A1NUTES ITEM iVO. 4 Owner: Bryan Industrial Properties, Inc. 146 East Orangethorpe Avenue Anaheim, GA 92801 Hpt Rods, LLC 301 East Orangethorpe Avenue Anaheim, CA 92801 EI Vee, Inc. 200 West'Midway Drive Anaheim, CA 92805 Valentine-Orangethorpe, LLC 15150 Ponderosa Way Moketumne Hill, CA 95245 Applicant: Jim Thayer 9891 Iroine Center Drive Suite #140 lnrine, GA 92618 Location: 95 - 301 East Oranaethorpe Avenue: These properties consist of approximately 16.34 acres, having a frontage of 1,330 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue approximately 322 feef east of the centerline of Lemon Street. Request to amend a previously-approved conditional use permit to allow the expansion of an existing church campus to include a 2,162 seat sanctuary, nursery, indoor recreation area, children's Sunday school rooms and a full service salon. Resolution No. PC2008-116 (Buffa) Approved, revised Condition No. 14, regarding outdoor storage VOTE: 6-0 Chairman Karaki abstained Project Planner. Scott Koehm skoehm @ anaheim. net Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Mr. Koehm requested modification on behalf of the applicant, to Condition No. 14 to read: "That ongoing during business operations, no required parking shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage area." Chairman Pro-Tempore Romero opened the public hearing. Greg McCafferty, Sheldon Group, representing The Rock Church thanked staff for taking the time to understand the church operation. The church has been at that location for over 10 years. Their prior location was at the corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Manchester Avenue before the lnterstate 5 12/08/08 Page 9 of 18 DECEfVIBER 8, 2008 PLA~lMING CONIMISSIOfV MINUTES Freeway widening. They requested a modification to Condition No. 14 which was read into the record by Mr. Koehm. He indicated the church Pastor and the owner of the property were present and available to answer any questions. Chairman Pro-Tempore Romero, Commissioners Ramirez, Faessel, Agarwal, and Eastman disclosed that they had met with the applicant. Chairman Pro-Tempore Romero closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa offered a recommendation that the Planning Comrnission adopt the attached resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 3816 and the modification to Condition No. 14 as requested by the applicant. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. Chairman Karaki abstained. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 30, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (3:39 to 3:44) 12/OS/OS Page 10 of 18 DECEMBER 8, 2008 PLA~NING COMMISSIOP! MINUTES ITEM NO. 5 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEflAPTION, CLASS 3 Owner: William E. Hunter 1621 Lincoln Boulevard Livingston, CA 95334 Applicant: Kris Hanna 1431 North Daly Street Anaheim, CA 92806 Location: 1431 North Dalv Street: This property is approximately 0.4 acres, having a frontage of 304 feet on the south side of Daly Street and located 531 feet west of the centerline of Placentia Avenue. Request to amend conditions of approval of a previously-approved conditional use permit for a dog daycare and boarding facility to increase the maximum number of dogs from 60 to 112. Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Resolution No..PC2008-117 (Romero) Approved VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner. Elaine Thienprasidhhi ethien @anaheim.net Commissioner Faessel commented that since they are requesting a modification, he wanted to know how they arrived at the original sixty dogs permitted. Ms. Thienprasiddhi said that sixty dogs were originally requested by the applicant. lin order to evaluate the parking, they used a children's day care parking requirement. Based upon ten dogs per vehicle and one vehicle per employee, they determined eleven spaces on-site would be adequate. Commissioner Agarwal asked if there was a code requirement regarding the number of employees per dog. Ms. Thienprasiddhi indicated that the City does not have a requirement regarding the number of staff members per dog. The applicant will advise what the requirement is for their franchise. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Kris Hanna, ownerof Camp Bow Wow, 1431 North Daly Street, Anaheim. Ms. Hanna addressed the concern regarding overnight staffing. They have 92 companies in the country and it is policy not to staff overnight because the dogs tend to not sleep as well. It would be costly to have an overnight employee, adding twelve more hours for one staff member every day of the month. Two years ago, a comparison was made between them and Wags & Wiggles, a similar facility located in Rancho Santa Margarita. They do not offer overnight staffing and they are limited to 100 dogs. 12/08/OS Page 11 of 18 DECEMBER 8, 2008 PLANfVING COMMISSIOftI MIiVUTES Commissioner Agarwal indicated he had visited Ms. Hanna's facility and congratulated her on operating her facility. He asked if overnight boarding was provided and how many dogs would be there on weekdays and weekends. Ms. Hanna said that weekdays in the summer, there were up to sixty dogs on three different occasions. That included daycare and boarding. On the weekends, they would have'an average of twenty-five dogs. At Thanksgiving, they had sixty dogs. They expect to have more than sixty dogs - during the holidays. Commissioner Agarwal reiterated that their average is twenty-five dogs, they have had sixty and they are requesting an increase to 112. Ms. Hanna stated that at Thanksgiving, they had to turn five clients away because their facility was full. For the 4th of July holiday, they turned away ten clients. Commissioner Agarwal asked what are the operating hours on the weekends. Ms. Hanna said their hours on Saturday and Sunday are 7:00-10:00 a.m. and 4:00-7:00 p.m. Commissioner Agarwal asked if anyone was on the premises between those hours. Ms. Hanna confirmed there was no one on the premises. Commissioner Faessel asked Ms. Hanna the approximate square footage of the fifty-six cabins and if there were established policies or standards regarding housing certain weights or breeds in one cabin. Ms. Hanna responded that they use a template during the holidays and they map out where the dogs will be housed. She said a small dog would be placed in a 16 square foot cabin; two small dogs in a 32 square foot cabin; and 2 large dogs or 3 medium dogs in a 50 square foot cabin. The large cabin could also hold two small dogs. Dogs housed in the same cabin must be from the same household. Commissioner Romero asked if clients are able to check on their pets via the internet. Ms. Hanna said they have cameras which can be accessed from the internet at anytime. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing. Commissioner Romero offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution approving the Categorical Exemption, Class 3 and approving the Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05193. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution pass'~d with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 30, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 15 minutes (3:44 to 3:59) 12/08/Q8 Page 12 of 18 DECEMBER 8, 2008 PLAiVNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM iVO. 6 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLi4SS 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT iVO. 2008-05368 Owner Aiman Smadi and 720 South Beach Boulevard Applicant: Anaheim, CA 92804 Location: 716 South Beach Boulevard: This property is approximately 1 acre, having a frontage of 150 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevard and 250 feet on the north side of Stonybrook Drive. Request to permit a small market within an existing retail building. Resolution Mo. PC2008-118 (Eastman) ~ ~ Approved VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner. Elaine Thienprasidhhi ethien Ca?a~aheim.net Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Firas Jarnal, 9744 Maple Street #101, Bellflower, CA, representing Aiman Smadi stated they are in agreement with the conditions. Commissioner Romero asked if they had future plans of obtaining a liquor license. Mr. Jarnal said they did not. Chairman Karaki asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak to this item. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eastman offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution approving the Categorical Exemption, Class 1 and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05368. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes. M pPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant Gity Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 30, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (3:59 to 4:03) 12/OS/OS Page 13 of 18 DECEMBER 8, 2008 PLANNIMG COMMISSIOM MINUTES ITEM NO, 7 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1 AMEfVDMENT AND REINSTATENIENT OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-05039 (Trackinq No. CUP2008-05384) Owner: Marina Landscape, Inc. 1900 South Lewis Street Anaheim, CA 92805 Applicant: Robert Cowan Marina Landscape, INC. 1900 South Lewis Street Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 917 East Gene Autrv Wav: This property is approximately 2.3 acres located at the southeast corner of Lewis Street and Anaheim Way, having a frontage of 340 feet on the east side of Anaheim Way, 105 feet on the south side of Lewis Street and 245 feet on the north side of Gene Autry Way. Request to amend and reinstate a previously-approved conditional use permit for a contractor's storage yard with the maintenance of vehicles and equipment and remove the tirne limitation. Kimberly Wong, Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Karaki opened the hearing. Resolution No. PC2008-119 (Eastman) Approved VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner. Kimberly Wong kwonqC~anaheim.net Robert Cowan, Marina Landscape, Inc., 1900 South Lewis Street, Anaheim, stated he was available to answer any questions. Chairman Karaki asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak to this item. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel thanked staff for providing additional docurne~ts which showed the future of the parcel and the surrounding area. This clarified some of the issues for him. ~.. Commissioner Eastman commented that the applicant has made a difference in the area and was pleased to see the follow through with the improvements on the property. She supports the project. 12/08/OS Page 14 of 18 DECEMBER 8, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MIPIUTES Commissioner Eastman offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution approving the Categorical Exemption, Class 1 and approving the Amendment and Reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05039. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITIOM: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 30, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (4:03 to 4:07) 12/OS/OS Page 15 of 18 DECEMBER 8, 2008 PLANMING COMMISSION MIMUTES ITEIVi MO. S CEQA CATEGORICt1L EXEMPTION. CLASS 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05349 WITH A WAIVER OF A CODE REQUIREMEMT Owner: William Cosmo Taormina 128 W Sycamore Street Anaheim, CA 92805-2603 Applicant: Paul Kott Paul Kott Realtors, Inc. 1225 West Lincoln Avenue Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 301 North Anaheim Boulevard: This property is approximately 0.4-acre, located at the northwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Cypress Street, having a frontage of 85 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and 163 feet on the north side of Cypress Street. Request to permit the conversion of an existing 3-unit commercial building into a 5-unit commercial retail center with fewer parking spaces than required by Code. Resolution No. PC2008- (Buffa) Approved, modified Condition Mos. 8 and 17 VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Eastman abstained Project Planner. Kimberly Wong kwonoQanaheim.net Kimberly Wong, Planner, presented the staff report. She indicated e-mail correspondence was received from Esther Viljack where she stated there was an existing parking problem in the area mainly along Lemon, Sycamore, Cypress, Adele and Zeyn Streets. Ms. Viljack said the employees of the AT&T building and patro~s of the recently opened Ember nightclub park on the public streets, not leaving any space for residents in the vicinity. At 10:30 that morning, staff had observed available parking on both Cypress and Lemon Streets. Copies of the e-mails were distributed to the applicants and the Planning Commission during the Preliminary Plan review. Paul Kott, 1225 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim. In 2007, the rear structure as well as the 6uilding in front, were completely rehabilitated; including parking lot lighting and creating new landscape / hardscape. They have not started marketing the property, that is pending on the Planning Commission's decision. Due to the size of the lot, the use will most likely be a small shop tenant or a retailer. He acknowledged the e-mail from Ms. Viljack and indicated he visited the property earlier that morning and took photographs. The photographs were distributed to the Planning Commission and showed the daily appearance of the parking lot on Lemon Street, in the AT&T lot. He said that AT&T has a large employee parking lot. Mr. Kott commented that Condition Nose 8 and 17 did not apply to the property. He asked if the shopping carts referenced in Condition No. 8 were carts left on the property by homeless persons. Condition No. 17 would prevent them from having an auto accessory retailer in the building. He did not want to be restricted to only performing smog checks. 12/08/OS Page 16 of 18 DECEMBER 8, 2008 PLAPINIMG COMMISSION MINUTES Minnie Cho, Orange County Bread of Life Church, 129 East Cypress Street, Anaheim. She supports the project. Ms. Cho mentioned that a Stop Sign was needed in the vicinity of the project. She was contacted by the Traffic Engineering Division after the Planning Cornmission Meeting. Bill Taormina, property owner, 128 West Sycamore, Anaheim. Addressed a question asked earlier by Commissioner Romero regarding #he prior use of the building. Mt Taormina said the facility has been restored to simulate the Signal Gas Station which was at the same location in the 1920's. It is now used as a smog check facility. Commissioner Faessel mentioned the appearance of the facility has improved. He acknowledged the effort Mr. Taormina has made to improve Anaheirn Boulevard. Commissioner Romero indicated he was in support of the project. Commissioner Buffa mentioned the question raised by the applicant concerning Condition No. 8, the monitoring of shopping carts. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, clarified the intent of that condition. lt is a standard condition that is placed on shopping centers. Typically there are one or more businesses which have shopping carts for their own use. Since the proposed project is in a shopping center which will most likely not have a tenant who will need shopping carts, the condition may not be applicable. Removing it would not impact the intent. Mr. Amstrup said they would add language to clarify that in the event a tenant with shopping carts moves into the center, the condition would apply. Commissioner Buffa referenced Condition No. 17, which limited the business owner from operating an automotive related business. In the past, there was a problem with one of the tenants who would use the parking lot to store his clients' cars. She said Mr. Kott raised a valid point that he should be able to have any use that complies with code. If it was a use which raised a higher parking demand that would change the operational characteristics of the center, then the applicant would be required to return to modify their Conditional Use Permit. CJ Amstrup explained Condition No. 17 relates to the parking waiver. Fast turnaround types of repair uses are different than someone bringing a vehicle in for extensive repairs that needed to be stored for an extended period of tirne. Commissioner Buffa referenced the applicant`s concern that he was being limited from even a retail use that sells auto related items. She said that would be an unreasonable limitation, unless the product being sold is installed on the property. Chairman Karaki re-opened the public hearing. M Mr. Taormina indicated that they do not want cars stored on the property waiting to be repaired. If a customer purchases an item which requires installation, it would be replaced at t~iat time. There would not be overnight parking. Mr. Taormina said he did not want inoperable cars on the property. They are hoping to have a strictly retail center, moving away from auto repairs. They are only asking for a flexibility of auto related uses. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing. 12/08/OS Page 17 of 18 DECEMBER 8, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION NIINUTES CJ Amstrup said Condition No. 17 would be modified to read: "That automotive-related activities shall be limited to smog-check only and shall be conducted only in the service bays and shall not be conducted on any vehicles parked in required parking spaces or vehicular circulation area including drive aisles or service bay aprons.° Commissioner Buffa offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution approving the Categorical Exemption, Class 1 and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05349 with modificatio~s to Condition Nos. 8 and 17. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Eastman abstained. OPPOSITION: None IM SUPPORT: One person spoke in favor of the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 30, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 35 minutes (4:07 to 4:42) MEETIMG ADJOURNED AT 4:43 P.M. TO MOMDAY, JANUARY 5, 2009 AT 1;30 P.M. FOR PRELINiIfVARY PLAN REVIEW Resp Ily submitted: Grace edina Senior Secretary M Received and approved by the Planni~g Commission on January 5, 2009. 12/08/08 Page 18 of 18