Loading...
Minutes-PC 2006/11/27~~PNE'M ~~~ . City of Anaheim . _ ~ ~4 r~ Plannin Commission g ~ ~ ~ ~ M i.n utes '. ~~a°° . Mondav, November 27; 2006 : ~ e, : ''~'~ c~`~ Council Chamber, City Hall UN D E D~$ 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRMAN: GAIL EASTMAN : Commissioners Present; KELLY BUFFA, STEPHEN FAESSEL, CECILIA FLORES, JOSEPH KARAKI, PANKY ROMERO, PAT VELASQUEZ Commissioners Absent: NONE Staff Present: Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney David See, Senior Planner ~ Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner Jamie Lai, Associate Engineer Judy Dadant, Senior Pfanner Della Hemck, Associate Planner Ted White, Senior Planner John Ramirez, Associate Planner Natalie Meeks, Deputy City Engineer Jessica Nixon, Assistant Planner Bruce Freeman, Public Works Operations Danielle Masciel, Word Processor ~ Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 22, 2006, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, , and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, November 2, 2006 • Call To Order Preliminary Plan Review 1:00 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMlSSION ON VARlOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE NOVEMBER 27, 2006 AGENDA, • Recess To Afternoon Public Hearing Session • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 17 Forrecord keepinq Aurposes, if vou wish to make a statement repardinp anv item on fhe aqenda, p/ease complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secreta-v. • Pledge Of Alfegiance: Commissioner Ftores • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing ltems • • Adjournment _ You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following < e-mail address: planninacommissionCa~anaheim.net ' H:\TOOLS\PCADMIN\PCMI N IAC112006MI NUTESWC 112706.DOC NOVEMBER 27, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item underthe jurisdiction of the Anaheim Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. _ Mr. Hatem Hajali, 1701 S. State College Bouievard, Anaheim, (Stone Age Tile, Inc.}, addressed the Planning Commission with concerns he had with street improvements in the Platinum Triangle area. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, suggested for Jamie Lai from Public Works Department to get `' Mr. Hajali's information regarding his concerns in order to address the issues. Consent Calendar: The items on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Items 9-A and 1-B as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Items • 1-C through 1-F were continued as requested by staff. UNANIMOUSLYAPPROVED ' Reaorts and Recommendations : 1A.(a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-0503T (TRACKING NO. CUP2006-05162) Agent: Sylvano Ibay, Anaheim White House Restaurant, 887 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 887 South Anaheim Boulevard: Property is approximatelyA.82-acre has a frontage of 106 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard, and is located 132 feet south of the centerline of Midway Manor (Anaheim White House Restaurant). Requests Commission review of a status report pertaining to outdoor dining activities and associated parking for a previously-approved restaurant with sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages with outdoor dining and a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces Concurred with staff Approved Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner. Qnixon@anaheim.net) NOVEMBER 27, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 16. (a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 Concurred with staff (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNO. 2005-05030 Approved retroactive (TRACKING NO. CUP2006-05159) extension of time'for Agent: Yan-Cing Song, Feng Run Garden„ 184 South 6~h Avenue, 1 year, (to ezpire on October 3, 2007) City of Industry, CA 91746 : Location: 1500 South State Coileqe Boulevard: Property is Consent Calendar approximately 2.1 acres, located at the southeast corner of State Approva~ College Boulevard and Cerritos Avenue having frontages' of 193 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and 909 feet on the south voTE: ~-o side of Cerritos Avenue. Request a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of ' approval for a previously-approved plant nursery with accessory retail Pro~ect Piannec (kwong@anaheim.net) Sa12S. . NOVEMBER 27,.2006 ` PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Minutes 1C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Continued to Meeting of October 2, 2006. (Motion) December 11, 2006 " Continued from the October 16, 30, and November 13; 2006, Planning Commission meetings. Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 7-0 1D. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission cont~nuea to Meeting of Octo6er 16, 2006. (Motion) December 11, 2006 Continued from the October 30, and November 13; 2006, Planning Commission meetings. ' Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 7-~ ~ 1 E. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Continued to ' Meeting of October 30, 2006. (Motion) December li, 2006 Cont+nued from the November 13, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 7-0 1F. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission I Continued to Meeting of November 13, 2006. (Motion) December 11, 2006 Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 7-0 NOVEMBER'27, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Za. ` CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION FaesseURomero Approved : 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT FaesseURomero Approved, with modification 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2006-05148 Faessel Granted Owner: Jewel Menth Family Trust, Attn: Jewel Menth, 2983 East ~'~'An'ER Miraloma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92808-1805 Approved with modifications regaTding sidewalk improvements A ent: Don Dorme er, 2680 North Glenside Oran e, 'CA 92865 on lvtiraloma Avenue and Red 9 Y ~ 9 Gum Street. Location: ` 2983 East Miraloma Avenue: Property is approximately vote: 5-2 - 0.71-acre, having frontages of 172 feet on the east side of ' Commissioners Flores and Karalci Red Gum Street and 175 feet on the north`side of Miraloma voted no Avenue and is located at the northeast corner of Miraloma ' Avenue and Red Gum Street (Red Gum Creative Campus). CUP Request to permit a photo-studio and caretaker's unit with waiver of Moa~~-ea conaicion rro. i i : vote: 7-0 required street improvements: ' Continued from the November 13, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. Conditional Use Permit Resolution NaPC2006-104 P-~iectPianner. (jpramirez@anaheim. net) Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. ~ John Ramirez, Associate Planner, introduced this item and stated the proposed business would create commercial, photographic and video images primarily for the automotive and food industries, typical clients include Toyota, Lexus and Land Rover. The items used for production would be delivered in small transport vans, the pool and pool house would be used for aquatics special effects associated with the business, and due to the unique nature of the clientele and the need for security on site the business would operate daily from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. He further gave information regarding the proposed waiver and landscaping, and stated since the proposed use is industrial in nature and would be compatible with adjacent and surrounding land uses, staff recommends approval of the request with the exception of the requested waiver. ApplicanYs Statement: Don Dormeyer, applicant, stated he is currently the owner of fhe property as escrow has closed on the • property. The subject project is not a typical photo studio; it would be a park like center for media production with initial emphasis on the automotive corporations that are his current clients. It would become an industry magnet attracting not just automotive advertising production but also other desirable digital media to the Anaheim Canyon Center for Advanced Technology. He addressed a concern pertaining to the grading and water quality management plan requirements and feels it should bewaived because the open space versus the building space ratio proposed is much larger than what is required, the lot is virtuat(y flat, the rear of the property is 8 inches higher than the front and the existing natural grade is exceUent for drainage. They are only digging footings for the building slab, the added surtace . area after deducting the removal of the old surface areas is less than the 5,000 square foot threshold to require a water quality management ptan, and they are making the project much more r~aturally : absorbent. He indicated the project is in the best interest of the community and advances the goals for the Anaheim Canyon Center for Advanced Technology and the waivers requested are worthy of the Commission's consideration. • : : , 11-27-06 Page 5 NOVEMBER'27, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Public Testimony: Anthony Nex, 3221 Hutchinson Avenue, Los Angeles, CA, stated he is an advertising photographer and he has reviewed the plans for Red Gum Creative Campus and has visited the site. The project has no equal that he is aware of on the West Coast and it really is an incredible facility and most certainly would draw photographers from both the United States and abroad. He feels the subject project greatly benefits the photographic community, the local community: and our environment and he urged the Commission to support the request: THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED: Commissioner Buffa referred to Conditions Nos. 15 and 16 and asked staff what the thresholds are that trigger a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Nafalie Meeks, Deputy City Engineer, stated the City's'permit is a jo+nt permit with the County that regulates the WQMP and anything oVer 5,000 square foot is considered a significant redevelopment and it does fall under the classification of requiring a WQMP. She stated they are not indicating that he is having a negative impact on the water quality, but that he does fall into the category of requiring the WQMP for his property. Further discussion took place amongst Mr.'Dormeyer, Commission and staff regarding the WQMP requirements and clarification of the guidelines; and regarding the waiver of required street improvements. Judy Dadant, Senior Planner, stated the subject property is located in the Development Area 1 of the Northeast Area SpecificPlan, which is a General Industrial area so there are a list of industrial related uses that are allowed by right. If the subject tenant or owner were to vacate #he site, they could have • anything from a manufacturer, wholesaler, or a warehouse as those are all uses that are permitted by right in the zone which do not require a conditional use permit. The land use would allow up to 49% of the building to be used as accessory office provided that sufficient parking was provided on site, but 100% office use for a professional type office would require a conditional use permit for this particular zone. She said tf~af accessory office uses in conjunction with the primary industrial use that can occupy up to 49% of the building. Commissioner Velasquez asked if the maximum use is less than 3,000 square feet for office use then how does that change the requirement? Ms. Meeks responded it would not change the requirement, it would still be an intensification of the use going from existing residential to a commercial use, therefore improvements would be required. Commissioner Buffa stated as a general rule when a use is intensified the City asks that the applicant improve the public frontage. In the subject situation, the applicant is saying it is an expensive improvement as he has to improve two rights-of-way, and no one in the area has already done it: She feels the issue is, does it make sense to have sidewalks on Miraloma Avenue and Red Gum Street, and if so where should the sidewalks be, and if not, they grant a waiver recognizing that some day when it is . time to put in sidewalks the City paysfor them not the subject applicant. ' Further discussion amongst Ms. Meeks and the Commission took place pertaining to the sidewalks, parkway area and landscaping. - Chairman Eastman clarified that the applicant would leave the curbs the same, but would have the burden of improving the handicap access ramp and his three driveway entrances as well as putting in the sidewalks. ~, Ms. Meeks responded yes, that is the current condition. 11-27-06 Page 6 NOVEMBER 27, 2006 . PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Dormeyer stated the specifications are required as an office, but it is not an office. Ne is providing 12 parking spaces but is not providing it because he anticipates that many people, 6ut because he was told that was the requirement. He asked the Commission for some compromise in order to make the project happen, and he suggested that he put fhe sidewalk on;Miraloma Avenue, do the ADA ramp, and improve his driveway entrances. Also, on Red Gum side to make it similar or better to what is across fhe street by putting in landscape and irrigation, but not put the sidewalks. - Chairman Eastman responded she feels the Commission understands the applicanYs point, and asked ' for clarification from Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, regarding the Commission's position on the matter. ; Mr. Gordon responded it is a waiver to be considered, an all or nothing approach is before the Commission, however if there is some modification under the circumstances if the Commission feels it is justified then'certainly it is something the Commission may consider. However, there are certain standards'that Public Work's Department is responsible for enforcing and these are citywide standards and to deviate from those standards there would need tobe some careful consideration as they have to consider the fact there is going to be future development in the subject area. The subject request is a devetopmenfthat is bringing new development to the area which is creating an intensification of use in : the area and the applicant is responsible for their fair share of the improvements. Further discussion took place befinreen staff, Commission and Mr. Dormeyer regarding the costs of the' right-of-way improvements and the applicant's overall development. Commissioner Romero stated they may be placing an undue burden on the applicant because of the fact of how the rest of the neighborhood looks, and feels the waiver should be granted in order for the applicant to proceed with the project. ~ Commissioner Karaki expressed his opposition in granting the proposed waiver. Commissioner Buffa concurred with Commissioner Karaki as she is not able to justify the granting of the waiver. OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: One person spoke in favor of the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant Cityr At~omey, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 19, 2006. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 16 minutes (2:42-3:58) ~ : , 11-27-06 Page 7 NOVEMBER 27, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ` 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 3b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00187 Decemberll, 2006 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05150 3d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0.17081 Motion:' Velasquez/Flores Owner: Manasseh and Magdy Bareh; Attn: Mike Bareh, P.O. Box 10038, Costa Mesa, CA 92627 voTE: ~-o Location: 3319 ~ 3321 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is - . , approximately,0.83-acre, having a frontage of 122 feet on the north side of Lincoin'Avenue and is located 174 feet west of the centerline of WestchesterDrive. Reclassification No. 2006-00187 =Request reclassification of the subjectproperty from the C-G (Generaf Commercial) zone to the RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone, or a less intense zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05150.- Request to construct a 12- unit attached single family residential planned unit development. Tentative 'fracf Map No.17081- To establish a 1-lot, 12-unit airspace attached single family residential condominium subdivision. Continued from the November 13, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. • Reclassification Resolution No. Pro~ect Pianner. Conditional Use Permit Resolution Na Qpramirez@anaheim. net) NOVEMBER27, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 32 Continued to 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT December 11, 2006 4c. CONDITIONAL USEPERMIT N0. 2006-05163 4d. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2006-131 : Motion: Flores/Faessel Owner: Anaheim Housing Authority, P.O. Box 3222, Anaheim, CA 92803-3222 VOTE: 7-0 Location: 322-328 East Julianna Street: Property is approximately 0.27-acre, having a frontage of 90 feet on the south side of Julianna Street and is located 139 feet west of the centerline of Olive Street. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05163 - City-initiated request to construct a 4-unit, affordable attached single-family planned unit ' ' development with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-131 - To establish a 4-1ot, 4-unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision. Project Planner.~ Conditional Use Permit ResolutionNa (dsee@anaheim.ner) , ~ OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. NOVEMBER 27, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Velasquez/Karaki Concurred with staff 5b. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE Velasquez Approved OR NECESSITY NO. 2006-00027 - -0wner: Badalian Enterprises,Jnc., 1540 South HarborBoulevard, ' Anaheim, CA 92801-2312 Modifea Conait;on No. 2 Agent: Patrick Yau, 1628 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, CA VOTE: 7-0 92802 Location: 1520 South Harbor Boulevard: Property is approximately 9.35 acres, having a frontage of 101 feet onthe east side of HarborBoulevard and is located 693 feet south of the centerline of Manchester Avenue (Anaheim Camelot Inn and Suites). _ RequestDetermination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption within an existing gift shop in a hoteL Project Planner. Public Convenience or Necessity Resolution No. PC2006-105 (dnerrick@ananeim.net) Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. ~ Della Herrick, Associate Planner, introduced this item and stated staff recommends approval of the request based upon a review of the proposed request, the submitted information from the Police Department, and the recommended conditions of approval in the draft resolution. ApplicanYs Statement: Patrick Yau, applicant, stated he agrees with the staff report and recommended conditions of approval in the draft resolution. He referred to the hours of operation and asked to be open until 11:00 p.m. THE PUBLIC HEAR(NG WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 19, 2006. DISCUSSION 71ME: 7 minutes (3:59-4:06) NOVEMBER 27, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION '- CLASS 9 Romero/Flores Concurred with staff ' 6b. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE Romero Approved OR NECESSITY N0. 2006-00026 Owner: Anaheim Hotel; LLC, 600 East Riverpark Lane, Suite 205, Modified Condition No. 2 Boise, ID 83706-6562 VOTE: 7-0 Agent: Patrick Yau, 1628 South Clementine Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 Location: 1855 South Harbor Boulevard: Property is approximately ' 10.4 acres, having frontages of 789 feet on the east side of Hotel V11ay, 571 feet on the north side of Convention Way, _ and 790 feet on fhe west side of Harbor Bouievard and is located atthe northwest corner of Convention Way and Harbor Boulevard (Sheraton Park Hotel). Request Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption within an existing gift shop in a hoteL Project Planner. Public Convenience or Necessity Resolution No. PC2006-106 Qnixon@anaheim.net) - ~ ne the ublic hearin . Chairman Eastman ope d p g Jessica Nixon, Assistant Planner, introduced this item and stated staff recommends approval of the request based upon a review of the proposed request, the submitted information from the Police Deparfinent, and the recommended conditions of approval in the draft resolution. ApplicanYs Statement: Patrick Yau, applicant, stated he agrees with the staff reporf and recommended conditions of approval in - the dratt resolution. He referred to the hours of operation and asked to be open until 11:00 p.m. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 19, 2006. NOVEMBER 27, 2006 - ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Karaki/Faessel 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04852 Karaki (TRACKING NO. CUP2006-05151) Owner: Cellar Mountain, LLC, 910 East Walnut Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92835 , Agent: Leon Alexander, Briggs and Alexander, 558 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 2916 West Lincoln Avenue: ' Property is approximatety 0.7-acre; having a frontage of 89 feet on the south side of ' Lincoln Avenue and is located 315 feet east of the centerline of Laxore Street (EI Calor Restaurant). Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification ordeletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain a previously- approved nightclub, and amend conditions of approval to allow alcohol consumption within an outdoor patia Conditional Use Permit Resolution Na PC2006-107 ~ i Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Concurred with staff Approved reinstatement with deletion of time . iimitation; and approved request to allow alcohol consumption within the outdoor patio. Modified Condition No. 23 VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner.• (dherrick@anaheim. net) Della Herrick, Associate Planner, introduced this item and stated the applicant is requesting that the permit be reinstated without a time limit. The permit was originally approved in 2004, and reinstated for one year in 2005. In conjunction with the prior approvals, the applicant requests consumption.of alcohol within the outdoor patio at the rear of the restaurant, and this was denied due to concerns over potential noise disturbances because of the patio's proximity to the residences to the south. The Police Department indicates that out of the 17 calls for service befinreen October 29, 2005 and October, 2006, a total of 5 police reports were taken at the subject location. During the prior reinstatement period, 24 police reports were taken. The police department has been working closely with the applicant and commends efforts to minimize police caRs and disturbances. As a result, the calls for seroice have significantly decreased, and the applicant is meeting with the Police Department on a quarterly basis which the Police Department wishes to continue this practice in order to ensure that criminal activity continues to decrease at the subject location. The Police and Planning Departments' do not oppose the reinstatement and elimination of the time limitation for the night club, subject to the conditions contained in the draft resolution. However, staff continues to oppose the applicanYs request for alcohol service in the patio area due to its proximity to the apartment building to the south. The patio area is not fully enclosed and noise could disturb the bedrooms of the apartments located approximately 270 feet to the south. A Police Department inspection also confrmed that there is limited visibility from the interior of the night club to the patio making it difficult to monitor the activities within the patio. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission approve the request for reinstatement to permit a night club without a time limitation, and deny the applicanYs request for alcohol consumption within an outdoor patia Applicant's Statement: Leon Alexander, applicant, referred to Condition Na 23 and asked the Commission for some consideration to allow alcohol consumption within the outdoor patio area, and included that there is a security guard at all times in the patio area. He stated he talked to the owner of the club, Albert Bushala, and he has agreed to limit the hours of alcohol service to 9:00 a.m. rather than 2:00 a.m.- ' 11-27-06 Page 12 NOVEMBER 27; 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Luis Martin Del Capo, 558 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA, referred to Exhibit "C", 4th page, pertaining to pictures of the rear patio and rear patio hallway, and stated there is a concrete wall enclosure surrounding the patio area but within the confines there are 4 tables, 2 arcade video games and it is an outdoor lounge, ``smoking area" for the patrons. There is a security guard by #he exit. Basically, When patrons want to go outside and relax in the patio area,'they have to put their drinks in the hallway and that could impose an array of different issues as far as drinks not being attended to, and they feel their clients should have the opportunity to bring their drinks',outside. Albert Bushala, owner, 2916 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated he would like the opportunity to be given a chance to prove that there will be no noise in the back area to the neighbors. In the 90s, for about 5 years they senred alcohol in the patio area and they did not have one complaint from the neighbors. He stated #he subject business has been there for 48 years, under the same operation, and asked the Commission for their consideration. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Faessel stated the Police Department has given the applicant high praise on their ability to mitigate the number of calls for service; however, they are very strong in their recommendation for a denial of alcohol consumption in the outdoor patio area and expressed concern pertaining to the screened patio area and if it is high enough to mitigate visibility for#he residents in the adjacent aparEments. Commissioner Buffa stated she doesn't see how people having a drink in the patio,area would be any louder than people smoking in the patio area. CommissionerKaraki concurred with Commissioner Buffa, and expressed his:support of allowing alcohol ~ consumption in the patio area as they have a security guard and surveillance cameras. He asked staff is the recommendation for denial based on the Police DepartmenYs recommendation. Greg McCafferty, Principa! Planner, responded that the Police Department has consistently opposed drinking in the patio. Staff feels it is more of a surveillance issue than a noise issue because the noise issue is already there as people are out there smoking. He feels the applicant has offered some constructive measures that would assist in mitigating the issues, and he suggested that the floor plan be modified in order to allow visibility for surveillance into the outdoor patio and also some time to monitor it so it doesn't get out of hand. Commissioner Karaki concurred with Mr. McCafferty. Commissioner Flores commended the applicant and stated with the help of security it has reduced the calls for service. She expressed support of installing a window and asked that no speakers be installed in the patio area. Mr. Alexander was in agreement to increase the visibility and will work with the Building Division to see how large of a window they need to install, and they will limit the occupancy and will have a security guard present at all times. Commissioner Romero expressed concern with video games in the patio area as patrons may linger in the area longer. Mr. Alexander responded there are only 2 video games. Commissioner Velasquez expressed support for the applicant's request as long as they are able to mitigate the issues raised by the Police Department. ~ Commissioner Buffa stated shefeels the applicant has done a great job and doesn't feel they need to come back before the Commission. ' 11-27-06 : Page 13 : NOVEMBER 27, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairman Eastman concurred with Commissioner Buffa. Judy Dadant, Senior Planner, sfated that a revised version of the draft resolution was distributed by staff today at Preliminary Plan Review and was also submitted to the applicant. She read into the record a modification to Condition No. 23. OPPOSITION: None ' Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 19, 2006. DlSCUSSION TIME: 28 minutes (4:13-4:41) NOVEMBER 27, 2006 PLANNING COMMISStON MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Buffa/Velasquez Approved 8b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00189 Buffa Granted , 8c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0. 2006-265 Buffa/Flores Approved Owner: Scott Nelson, Target Corporation, 1000 Nicollett Mali, TTN- 121-1; Minneapolis, MN 55403 - ' VOTE: 7-0 Agent: Brett Whitehead, BrandywineDevelopment, 16580 Aston, Irvine, CA 92606 Location: = 1841 and 1881 West Lincoln Avenue: Portion A: Property is approximately 9.53-acres; having frontages of : '' 404 feet on the west side of Crescent Way, 540 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and 544 feet on the east side of Muller Street, located north antl west of the northwest corner of Crescent Way and Lincoln Avenue (18$1' West Lincoln Avenue). Portion B: Prope~ty is approximately 0.92-acre, having frontages of 235 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and 155 feet on the west side of Crescent Way and is located at the northwest corner:of Crescent ' Way and Lincoln Avenue (1841 West lincoln Avenue Reclassification No. 2006-00189 - Request reclassification of Portion A of the subject property from the GG (General Commercial) zone to the RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone, or a less intense zone for a future residential development. ~ Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-265 - To establish a 2-lot, residential - and commercial subdivision for Portions A and B. Reclassification Resolution No. PC2006-108 Pro~ectPianner. (jpramirez@anaheim.net) Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. John Ramirez, Associate Planner, introduced this item and stated since the request is consistent with the General Plan, the Housing Element and adjacent residential land uses staff is recommending approval of the reclassification and associated parcel map. Applicant's Statement: Donna Chessen, 3420-3A Calle Azul, l.aguna Woods, CA, stated she is representing Brandywine Homes and is present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Parcel Map ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 7, 2006; and presented the 22-day appeal rights for the Reclassification ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 19, 2006. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (4:42-4:46) 11-27-06 ` Page 15 NOVEMBER 27, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~; 9a. CEQA PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED SUBSEQUENT FaesseUFlores Recommended City EIR NO. 332 AND ADDENDUM AND MITIGATION - Council Approval MONITORWGPROGRAM N0.106A and MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN N0.138 . _ 9b. ADJUSTMENT N0.1 TO THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE Faessel Recommended City MAST~R LAND USE PLAN IMIS2006-00160) Council Approval 9c. A-TOWN METRO PUBLIC REALM LANDSCAPE FaesseUFlores Approved AND IDENTITY PROGRAM (MIS2006-00161) Applicants: City of Anaheim, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Ste, 162, Anaheim, CA 92805 voTE: 6-0 Commissioner Velasquez ' Lennar Platinum Triangle, LLC, 25 Enterprise, 3`~ Floor, Aliso absent Viejo, CA 92656-2601 Location: The Platinum Triangle encompasses approximately 82Q'acres located at the confluence of the Interstate 5 Freeway and the SR-57>Freeway, in the City of Anaheim in Orange County, California. The Platinum Triangle is located generally east of ; theJnterstate 5 Freeway, west of the Santa Ana River channel and SR-57 Freeway, south of the Southern California Edison easement, and north of the Anaheim CityJimit. The A-Town Metro project site ("A-Town Metro") consists of approximately 41.4-acres generally located between Katella Avenue and Gene Autry Way, extending from State Co~lege ~ Boulevard to just west of South Betmor Lane within The Platinum Triangle. A-Town Metro has frontage of approximately 1,626 feet on Katella Avenue, located approximately 366 feet west of the centerline of State College Boulevard; frontage of approximately 453 feet on State College Boulevard, located approximately 201 feet south of the centerline of Kate!!a Avenue; and, frontage of approximately 850 feet on Gene Autry Way, located approximately 844 feet west of the centerline of State Coflege Boulevard, as depicted on the map below. : Adjustment No.1 To The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (MIS2006-00160) Request to amend the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan, including but not limited to, amending light fixture standards, street trees and groundcover for Market Street and the Connector Streets within the Mixed Use Districts; add appendices including standard details for newspaper racks; the Platinum Triangfe Median and Parkway Planting Matrix; and, A-Town Metro Public Realm Landscape and Identity Program. _ A-Town Metro Public Realm Landscape and Identity Program (MIS2006-00161) Request for review and approval of the A-Town Metro Public Realm Landscape and Identity Program. * This item was advertised as Amendment No. 5 to the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan. Project Plannec Adjustment No.1 To The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan l~h~te@ananeim.net~ ~ Resolution No. PC2006-109 11-27-06 , Page 16 NOVEMBER 2T, `2006 PLANNINGCOMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. ' Ted White, 8enior Planner, introduced this item and stated the subject request is an appficant and City ' initiated request for an adjustment to the Platinum Triangle Masterland Use Plan antl an applicant initiated request for the review and approVal of the A-Town Metro Public Realm Landscape andJdentity Program. Since adoption of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan in 2004, there have been four amendments to the plan to increase the intensity of development and expand the boundaries.: The proposed adjustments before the Commission today are considered to be technical refinements and do not change the intensity of the development or the boundaries of the mixed use'overlay zone. He gave a - brief presentation and overview of the proposed. changes to`the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan and stated the changes would apply to al~properties within the mixed use overlay,zone and would regulate the design,of future Connector Streets and any Market Street expansion that may occur. The ` proposed adjustment would have no negative impact on any development currently underway, especially since no developers have ordered any of the street lightsthat we're contemplating changing. The second part of the request is an applicant initiated review of the Public Re81m LandsCape and ldentity _ Program forthe A-Town Metro site, and stated the project applicant is presenf to provide a brief overview of the public realm program and status of the project Applicant's Statement: Donna Kelly, Lennar Homes, LLG 25 Enterprise, 3`° Floor, Aliso Viejo, CA, applicant, stated about a year ago they presented before the Commission theirmaster site plan for a 41 '/ acre assemblage. She gave a detailed presentation and overview of the public realm, and stated it describes the landscape components of A-Town. The design of the landscape plan was to coincide well with a contemporary architectural expression which they felt was important for the Platinum 'friangle and A-Town. ! THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CL4SED. Commissioner Flores asked if A-Town is going to have different signage regarding banners in the area. : Mr. White clarified on the type of banners which would be allowed on Market Street in A-Town. Commissioner Faessel asked Mr. White to address the streetscape standards for the project. Mr. White responded that no changes were proposed to the streetscape standards, and the original vision for the General Plan and as shown in the irnplementation document of the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan is consistent for the subject project. Staff feels the proposed landscaping is an upgrade to what was laid out in the master land use plan. ' Commissioner Faessel asked for further clarification regarding the public st~eetscape. Mr. White responded the proposed adjustments to the master land use plan are applicable to the entirety of the mixed use areas within the Platinum Triangle. The presentation that Ms. Kelly just presented on the public realm program is specific to just A-Town, Market Street, and the waythe master land use plan is set up Market Street is currently only in A-Town. He explained that the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan only designates one Market Street, core commercial area; and the remaining streets that they're anticipating to be constructed in the Platinum Triangle are Connector Streets. Further discussion took place amongst the Commission and staff pertaining to current and future developments on the Connector Streets throughout the Platinum Triangle. Commissioner Faessel asked who fumishes and maintains the banners. ~ . _ : 11-27-06 ' Page 17 NOVEMBER 27, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. White responded the enhanced pavings, street sweeping, maintenance of banners, etc., will be maintained by the homeowner's association for Market Street. On the Connector Streets, the street - sweeping,'sidewalk sweeping and maintenance of the parkways, etc., will be under the purview of the City's Public Works Operations, Resort Services. Therefore, 'Market Street and the Connector Streets will have maintenance similarto the Resort District and will be enhanced maintenance. Commissioner Faessel stated he wanted to ensure they were going to have a similar level of maintenance as they have for the Disney Resort area. Bruce Freeman; Public Works Operations, Resort Services Superintendent, stated once the maintenance - district is established for the PlatinumTriangle he would also be managing!that project.' They have put together a cost estimate which wilt be coming forward in a few months. Regarding the maintenance level it will be similar'to theResort District but not to the sameJevel because of cost constraints. They will be in Charge to ensure the project is enhanced and maintained per the standards.' Commissioner Faessel stated his personal concern is.that the developer isputting in a very sophisticated palette of street materials and he would expect to see the maintenance of the materials' be on-going at a very high level and expressed a concern if there is cost constraints where the City is not able to maintain the streetscape at the level that it deserves. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated in the A-Town project the homeowner or commercial association will maintain those hardscape finishes, therefore the level of maintenance on those could be at a higher level than the Connector Streets and the iandscaping that the City would maintain. Further discussion took place amongst staff and the Commission pertaining to the level of maintenance for the project; and Mr. Freeman clarified it would be the normal maintenance provided by the City, anything above that would be funded through the district. ~ OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 19, 2006. DISCUSSION TIME: 38 minutes (4:47-5:25) Commissioner Velasquez leff the Council Chambers at 5:05 p.m. NOVEMBER 27, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ ~. There was a general discussion amongst the Planning Commission and staff pertaining to residential care facilities and group homes. MEETINGADJOURNED AT 5:45 P.M:' TO MONDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2006 AT 1:45 P.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~ ~~~~~ ~~`ti~ Elly Morris Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on c~ ~_ , 2007.