Loading...
MIN 12 14 2015_Item 11DECEMBER 14, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES PC 12-14-2015 Page 1 of 4 ITEM NO. 11 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2015-00499 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2015-00276 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2015-05780 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17846 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17992 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (DEV2014-00095) Location: 1110-1116 North Anaheim Boulevard and 115-125 West La Palma Avenue Request: The following land use entitlements are requested to permit the development of a mixed use project to include 162-unit attached single family residential units with ground floor commercial space: amend the General Plan land use designation from Open Space to Mixed Use; amend the General Plan Circulation Element to modify circulation maps; reclassify the subject properties from the C-G (General Commercial) and I (Industrial) Zones to the MU (Mixed Use Overlay) Zone; a conditional use permit to allow a mixed-use development with modified development standards; a tentative tract map to create a 152-unit residential subdivision; and a tentative tract map to create a 10-unit residential subdivision with ground floor commercial space. Environmental Determination: The Planning Commission will consider whether a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request under the California Environmental Quality Act. Resolution No. PC2015-107 Resolution No. PC2015-108 Resolution No. PC2015-109 Resolution No. PC2015-110 Resolution No. PC2015-111 Resolution No. PC2015-112 (Caldwell / Dalati) Recommended City Council Approval VOTE: 6-1 Chairman Lieberman and Commissioners Bostwick, Caldwell, Dalati, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. Commissioner Henninger voted no. Project Planner: Scott Koehm skoehm@anaheim.net Scott Koehm, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated December 14, 2015, along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Seymour referred to the staff report, page 7, relating to the chart of the proposed setbacks, and he asked Mr. Koehm for clarification regarding the reference of the 40 foot distance between the buildings. Mr. Koehm responded that it is an error, and stated that the proposed setback and the required setback should be reversed – proposed setbacks are 10-20 feet, and the required setback is 40 feet; and he also indicated that the same error was made in the Development Summary document. DECEMBER 14, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES PC 12-14-2015 Page 2 of 4 Commissioner Bostwick referred to the draft CUP resolution and he asked for clarification on the language in Condition Number 16 that states “the street improvement plan shall be submitted for required vehicle sign bridge mitigation measure”. Rafael Cobian, Associate Traffic Engineer, responded that currently there is what’s called a “free right turn”, now that it will be more of a traditional four-legged intersection - people that are headed northbound need to know what lane they will be seated in – in order to continue to travel northbound. The major moves are north and south, so it would be a sign bridge on Anaheim Boulevard – south of La Palma for vehicles traveling northbound so it tells them the left turn lane is for those who want to continue northbound on Anaheim Boulevard; and similarly for the Anaheim Boulevard southbound traffic as well. Commissioner Bostwick referred to the proposed 5 foot sidewalks and 8 foot parkway, and he asked why the standards are greater than normal for the proposed project. Mr. Cobian explained that the sidewalk and parkway requirements are established based on the street’s classification. Commissioner Bostwick referred to the scheduled street improvements for the area, and he asked if the corner intersection will be remodeled at the same time that they are constructing part of the proposed project. Mr. Cobian responded yes, that would be part of the applicant’s submittal and it would all need to be concurrently done with their development construction. Further discussion took place amongst Commissioner Henninger and staff clarifying specifics of the storm drain easement for the proposed project. Commissioner Ramirez asked if there is a minimum requirement for the mixed-use overlay zone, as the retail space appears to be really small in comparison to the overall project. Mr. Koehm responded that there is no minimum designation for mixed use, and explained that what staff identified on the project was that they had 3-story buildings that were right up on the street, along with the small amount of commercial that they identified would probably do very well with the success of the dog park across the street. The 3-story component with 40 and 50 foot heights along Anaheim Boulevard and La Palma Avenue represented the urban design that staff was looking for; and while the density did not quite meet what staff envisioned and there wasn’t a lot of market demand for more commercial at the site, that staff felt that the attempt was to provide something for those visiting the very popular dog park, and creating the urban edge on the two arterial highways which met the intent of the mixed-use overlay zone. Commissioner Ramirez asked Mr. Koehm what happens if the corner parcel is unable to get developed. DECEMBER 14, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES PC 12-14-2015 Page 3 of 4 Mr. Koehm responded if that’s the case, they would need to revisit it with an amended CUP to remove the mixed-use component from the commercial portion of it, as residential only developments are permitted by CUP in the mixed-use overlay zone; so they could amend the CUP to remove the commercial component should they not be able to acquire the corner parcel. Chairman Lieberman opened the public hearing. Ed Galigher, applicant, stated with the proposed project that they will be enhancing the area by completely redoing the intersection and beautifying the intersection, corner area. He stated that they are also contributing to a traffic signal at Carl Karcher and Anaheim Boulevard, and contributing to street improvements on Harbor Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. Along with paying approximately 2.5 million to 3 million dollars in permit and impact fees to the city. And, they will also be purchasing remnant pieces from the city. Chairman Lieberman asked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no one indicating to speak, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Henninger pointed out that the subject area is the focal point for Anaheim Boulevard, and he suggested relocating the storm drain along the project’s private drive so that it drains in the parking area. Therefore, at some point in the future when the area is more developed and is able to support additional commercial that maybe the east driveway can go away and you can put a driveway where the four parking spaces are instead. Therefore, you can have a nice commercial building that has some vertical massing and it becomes a focal point for Anaheim Boulevard. Therefore, he suggests an added condition of approval to relocate the storm drain so it comes out where the parking is. Further discussion took place amongst Commissioner Henninger and staff related to the suggestion of relocating the storm drain. Commissioner Seymour expressed his indifference to Commissioner Henninger’s suggestion of relocating the storm drain. Ted Reynolds, Assistant City Attorney, responded that in relocating the storm drain you would in effect asking the applicant to go back to the drawing board and create a different design of the project. Commissioner Henninger expressed his disapproval of the sign bridge condition of approval as the subject area is not a freeway on ramp. Mr. Cobian responded that the language “sign bridge” may not be the best term, as it could be as simple as a traffic signal that has reflective signs on top of it, as it doesn’t have to be a big Caltrans type of freeway sign. He further explained that the actual size and design has not yet been determined. DECEMBER 14, 2015 PLANNING COMMISSION [DRAFT] MINUTES PC 12-14-2015 Page 4 of 4 Commissioner Caldwell offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Dalati and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Henninger voted no), recommending that the Planning Commission adopt the resolutions attached to the December 14, 2015 staff report, determining that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request along with Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 325, and recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 2015-00499, Reclassification No. 2015-00276, Conditional Use Permit No. 2015-05780, and Tentative Tract Map Nos. 17846 and 17992 (DEV2014-00095). Eleanor Morris, Secretary announced that the resolution passed with six yes votes. Chairman Lieberman and Commissioners Bostwick, Caldwell, Dalati, Ramirez and Seymour voted yes. Commissioner Henninger voted no. OPPOSITION: None Three pieces of written correspondence were received from various public agencies regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City’s environmental consultant prepared responses to these comments and copies were provided to the Planning Commission. It was determined that no additional mitigation measures would be required. DISCUSSION TIME: 31 minutes (9:18 to 9:49 p.m.)