Loading...
Minutes-PC 2007/09/05• /O~ ~~ u~ ~jiEll~j P~ c~ _ lr~ 0 ~ ~ _ D Wednesdav, September 5, 2007 ~ • %'~ ~$% Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California Chairman: Kelly Buffa Peter Agarwal, Gail Eastman, Stephen Faessel, Joseph Karaki, Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Scott Koehm, Associate Planner Dave See, Senior Planner Sandip Budhia, Associate Engineer Kimberly Wong, Planner Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 30, 2007, 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, August 9, 2007 • Call To Order • Preliminary Plan Review 1:00 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 AGENDA • Recess To Public Hearing • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 16 • Pledge Of Allegiance: • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Adjournment Commissioner Velasquez H:\TOOLS\PCAD M I N\PCACTI ONAGEN DA~2007MI N UTES~AC090507. DOC ~ _NDED SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Planning Commission Appointments: Appointment for Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee: Chairman Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to appoint Commissioner Agarwal to the Housing Element Ad Hoc Committee. Motion passed. Chairman Buffa stated the necessity to agendize the appointment for an additional Commissioner to serve with Commissioner Romero on the Undergrounding Subcommittee of the Public Utilities Commission. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero to agendize the additional appointment for the Public Utilities Commission to the Planning Commission meeting of September 17, 2007. Motion passed. Consent Calendar: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel and • MOTION CARRIED for approval of Consent Calendar Items 1-A and 1-C as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Item 1-B was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED 1A.(a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY- Concurred with staff APPROVED) (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05101 Approved (Tracking No. CUP2007-05244) Agent: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency Consent Calendar 201 South Anaheim Boulevard Approval Anaheim, CA 92805 vote: ~-o Location: 700 East South Street Request a retroactive time extension to comply with conditions of approval to construct a 63-unit attached condominium complex with affordable units and a density ProjectPlanner.• • bOf1US. (ethien(a~anaheim.net) 09-05-07 Page 2 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1B.(a) MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Karaki/Eastman (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) (b) FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2004-00007 Karaki/Eastman (Tracking No. FSP2007-00012) Agent: James W. Farmer 4116 West Magnolia Boulevard Suite 203 Burbank, CA 91505 Location: 1761 and 1781 South Campton Avenue Request determination of substantial conformance with previously-approved exhibits for an attached 196-unit condominium development within the Platinum Triangle Approved Approved VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner.• (ethienQanaheim. net) (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) Chairman Buffa opened the hearing. Commissioner Karaki stated he would like to address the minor comments for the project resubmitted to the Commission for the proposed new elevations which were • proposed in the "Santa Barbara" style. He stated he and Mr. Farmer were discussing earlier the proposed elevations versus what they had before. He stated the Commission liked the elevations as proposed to them however, they have some comments with regard to the elevations facing Katella Avenue. He stated what the Commission anticipated to receive from the applicant. James Farmer, Chandler Partners, stated Philip Tiu, landscape architect and Eric Grip were with him to address the questions. Mr Farmer addressed the landscape questions on Katella Avenue. Eric Gripp, E.G. L. A., Eric Gripp Landscape Architectural, 2894 Rancho, Rancho, Calrsbad, CA, also addressed the landscape questions to the Commission ... Commissioner Karaki asked Commissioner Eastman to address the landscape issue first. Commissioner Eastman stated that bougainvillea vines, which is usually a major landscape feature with the Santa Barbara architectural style, is missing. She suggested possibly adding vines such as bougainvillea or some similar type of landscape treatment along Katella because it is plain and repetitive. The Katella front only has one of the main entry features and everything else is more of a colonnade look which she does not have a problem with, but feels the repetitiveness would be better with the use • of landscape enhancements. Rather than changing the architecture, landscaping would help soften it and give it more interest. 09-05-07 Page 3 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Gripp asked if she wanted vines on the colonnade. Commissioner Eastman stated she was not sure how he would do it. Commissioner Karaki suggested discussing the repetition of the arcades before addressing the landscaping issue. He stated there are a lot of arcades along Katella and that the Commission wants to make it more symmetrical and arcaded on both sides by making it more appealing and reducing the repetitiveness along Katella. Once this is done, then they could add vines. Mr. Gripp stated he's done that by breaking things up and create interest with color, texture and type. Me agrees with Commission's suggestion of using bougainvillea. He feels the plant materiat selections will work very well with the architecture. Also, the planters are all drip irrigated, and will solve water conservation issues. He feels both of those items have been addressed. Phillip Tiu, representing KTGY Group Architects, 1411 5th Street, Suite 300, Santa Monica, CA, stated the Katella elevation is more elaborate than what was previously approved. The plain walls were enhanced with more pop-outs. The Katella faCade is plainer than the Campton view because Campton is the main street for the project where the main entrance is located. • Commissioner Karaki stated Katella is the major corridor that takes you to that area and the Commission feels that elevations on Katella should be just as important. Commission doesn't have a problem with the upper portion but asked to consider modifying the arches on the lower portion. Mr. Tiu responded the arches look like a plain arcade going straight, but if you look at it in plain view, the arcades are popping out on the corner and the center part is actually recessed back and has deep arches for the windows. The arcade is not straight from the street view if you are driving down Katella, especially if the landscape architect adds more colors to the trees and planting. It is going to look nice. Commissioner Karaki stated Commission would appreciate it if they could break up. the arches more. Mr. Tiu asked how they could accomplish that. Commissioner Karaki suggested double arches versus the single ones and also bring vertical elements of the building down to the ground level. The Commission doesn't necessarily want to tell him how to do it, but feels there is a better way to do it. Commission asked staff to work with the applicant so they don't have to come back before the Commission at a later date. • Commissioner Faessel stated Anaheim's resident owned Public Utilities Department is working very hard to include as many green components in the Platinum Triangle and encouraged the applicant to speak with a representative from the Public Utilities 09-05-07 Page 4 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Department. One important advantage of partnering with Public Utilities is you are allowed an accelerated plan check process. He feels with a project of this scale, it would be important for them. He is hopeful, with the passage of this today that the work with the Public Utilities Department so the project can include some green en components. Mr. Tiu responded they will meet with the Public Utilities Department. y will ergy Commissioner Agarwal also encouraged the applicant to incorporate some green energy components into the project. Mr. Tiu stated this project is very mature and he will address Commissioner Agarwal's suggestion, but it will be difficult to include green components because they are not starting from scratch. OPPOSITION: None • DISCUSSION: 7 minutes (2:40-2:47) • 09-05-07 Page 5 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1 C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2007. (Motion) • ~ Continued to September 17, 2007 Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 7-0 09-05-07 Page 6 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Pub lic Hearina Items: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED) Continued to 2b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00460 September 17, 2007 2c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00190 2d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05175 Motion: Velasquez/Agarwal 2f. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17139 VOTE: 7-0 Owner: Natalie Tran 3100 Lindacita Anaheim, CA 92804-1715 Quyen Tran 237 South Beach Anaheim, CA 92804-1815 Agent: Mertco Attn: Roy Ward 2614 Ocean Blvd. Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Location: 237 South Beach Boulevard and 3100 West • Lindacita Lane: Portion A: This irregularly-shaped 0.27-acre property has a frontage of 47 feet on the southeast side of Lindacita Lane and a maximum depth of 142 feet (3100 West Lindacita Lane). Portion B: This irregularly-shaped 1.68 acres property is a land-locked parcel with a maximum depth of 287 feet and is located north across a flood control channel from 3067 and 3079 West Orange Avenue and is located 175 feet south of the centerline of Grand Avenue (237 South Beach Boulevard). General Plan Amendment No. 2007-00470 - Request withdrawn by applicant. Reclassification No. 2006-00190 - Request reclassification of Portion B from the T(Transition) zone to the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family) zone, or a less intense zone and • to remove the Mobile Home Park Overlay zone. 09-05-07 Page 7 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05175 - Request to construct a 9-unit detached single-family residential subdivision with waiver of improvement of private street for Portions A and B, and waiver of minimum lot area for Portion A. Tentative Tract Map No. 17139 - To establish a 12 numbered and 1 lettered lot, 10-unit detached single-family residential subdivision for Portions A and B. Continued from the June 11, June 25, July 9, and August 20, 2007 Planning Commission Meetings. *Advertised to include Reclassification of Portion A from the RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family) zone to the RS-4 (Residential, Single- Family) zone, or a less intense zone. Reclassification Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. Project Planner.• (kwong2~anaheim. net) • Dave See, Senior Planner, advised staff is requesting continuance until September 17, 2007, meeting. Rhonda Larsen, 206 S. Loma Linda Drive, Anaheim. Asked how this Creekside project is going to improve the community, especially when most of the residents don't support it. Hillcrest Heritage Estates residents have put yellow ribbons on trees and doors to signify opposition to this development. She asked Commission to deny the request. Chairman Buffa stated they were all welcome to return on September 17th when an action is expected to be taken. She closed the public hearing. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Agarwal to continue this item until September 17, 2007. Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary, announced the motion passed with 7 ayes votes. OPPOSITION: A person spoke in opposition to the subject request. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (2:48 to 2:50) • 09-05-07 Page 8 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ~ • 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 3b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00456 October 29, 2007 3c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00200 3d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05204 Motion: Romero/Faessel 3f. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17047 Agent: La Vue LLC VOTE: 7-0 30622 La Vue Street Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Location: 121 and 131 South Dale Avenue: Property is approximately 0.82-acre, having a frontage of 150 feet on the west side of Dale Avenue and is located 310 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. General Plan Amendment No. 2007-00456 - Request to amend the land use element map of the General Plan redesignating the property from the Corridor Residential designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential designation. Reclassification No. 2007-00200 - Request reclassification of the subject property from the RM-4 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone to the RM-3 (Multiple-Family Residential) zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05204 - Request to construct a 14-unit attached single-family condominium planned unit development with modification of development standards and waiver of minimum setback befinreen buildings. Tentative Tract Map No. 17047 - Request to establish a 1- lot, 14-unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision. Continued from the August 20, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. General Plan Amendment Resolution No. Reclassification Resolution No. ProjectPlanner.• Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. (ethien(c~anaheim.net) 09-05-07 Page 9 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ • 09-05-07 Page 10 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT October 1, 2007 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05209 4d. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00063 Motion: FaesseUEastman Owner: Brandon Rainone Outer Spring Volcano LP VOTE: 7-0 3364 East La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806-2814 Agent: Brandon Rainone 3364 East La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92806 Location: 3364 East La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately 2.8 acres, having a frontage of 252 feet on the north side of the Riverside (SR-91) Freeway, a maximum depth of 524 feet, and is accessed via a 652 foot long, 32 foot wide ingress/egress easement on the south side of La Palma Avenue, 1,240 feet east of the centerline • of Shepard Street. Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05209 - Request to remodel an existing bowling facility including an expansion for a management office, four telecommunications towers and two electronic reader board signs with waivers of (a) floor area ratio, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, (c) maximum number of freeway-oriented signs, and (d) maximum size of a freeway oriented wall sign. Zoning Code Amendment No. 2007-00063 - Request to amend the sign code to permit marquee or electronic reader board signs in conjunction with bowling and billiards facilities with other uses subject to a conditional use permit. Continued from the May 30, June 25, and July 23, 2007, Planning Commission meetings. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. ProjectPlanner. (ethienQanaheim.net) Zoning Code Amendment Resolution No. • 09-05-07 Page 11 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • David See, Senior Planner, advised staff recommends continuance until the October 1, 2007, meeting. Commissioner Velasquez noted that a decision had to be made by November 2007 for Item 2 and asked if item 4 also had a similar deadline. She stated that item 2 has been continued several times and there is a lot of public interest in that item. She asked staff what kind of notice they provide for these items. Chairman Buffa indicated an issue came up late last week and staff wanted to resolve it prior to the hearing; therefore, staff contacted the applicant and requested that they continue the item. Staff sent out courtesy notices to inform residents it would be continued. Mr. See stated item 4 was accepted on May 7, 2007; therefore, action needs to be taken by November 7, 2007. The applicant can request a 90-day extension in which case action would not need to be taken until February 2008, with the applicant's concurrence. • OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 09-05-07 Page 12 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) September 17, 2007 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4177 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2007-05221) Motion: Eastman/Agarwal Owner: Price-James Company VOTE: 7-0 110 N. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Agent: EMI Attn: Rod Wilson 4737 West 156~' Street Lawndale, CA 90260 Location: 1303-1371 North Euclid Street: Property is approximately 6.42 acres and is located at the northwest corner of Medical Center Drive and Euclid Street. Request to amend conditions of approval to permit a freeway- ~ oriented electronic readerboard sign in conjunction with an existing automotive dealership with waivers of (a) minimum lot size for an automotive dealership to permit a freeway-oriented sign (b) maximum area for the face of sign, (c) maximum permitted height of a freeway-oriented sign.* *Advertised as "within 300 feet of single-family residential". Continued from the July 23, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Project Planner.• (kwong2(d anaheim. net) Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. u 09-05-07 Page 13 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Q Continued to 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT October 1, 2007 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05243 Owner: The Zachary Taylor Pedicini Trust 1v~otion: JOhn PediCini Velasquez/Eastman P.O. Box, 15033 Newport Beach, CA 92659-5033 VOTE: 7-0 Agent: John Pedicini 20051 Cypress Street Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: 1841 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately 0.9-acre and is located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Crescent Way. Request to expand an existing commercial retail center and to establish land use conformity with waiver of minimum landscape setback abutting a residential zone boundary. • P t Pl • rojec anner. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. (kwong2@anaheim.net) Chairman Buffa opened public hearing. Kimberly Wong, Planner, presented the staff report. John Pedicini, 20051 Cypress Street, Newport Beach, 92659 stated that he was present to answer questions. Commissioner Eastman asked staff if they have minutes from the Commission meeting when Commission approved the site plan. She still has a question regarding the setback. Dave See, Senior Planner, stated records from November 27, 2006, meeting had no discussion on conditions or setbacks. Commission approved a tentative parcel map and reclassification for the Target parcel. Since that time the parcel has been rezoned to RM-3. Commissioner Eastman asked if they were concise minutes because a number of the Commissioners and City Attorney recalls a discussion over having an agreement of ~ whether to provide or not provide that landscape buffer. 09-05-07 Page 14 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. See presented a copy of the minutes. Commissioner Eastman stated they are abbreviated minutes that did not provide much detail of the discussion and that is why the minutes are now in a more detailed format. Chairman Buffa wanted clarification that the applicant was proposing to put up a wall along the property line. Mr. Pedicini stated yes. Chairman Buffa asked if it was part of his project and not part of the future residential project. Mr. Pedicini stated it may be a requirement of his project but they already have an agreement in place that the wall will be built by the residential developer. Chairman Buffa stated the Commission's concern is that by granting the waiver, and having no ability to enforce the agreement with the residential developer, they might not provide more of a landscape setback and they might not build the wall. She doesn't have a problem with him having less landscaping as long as there is certainty that there will be a wall and code required landscaping on the other side of the wall. His agreement with a future developer could change hands several times befinreen now and . when permits are pulled. Mr. Pedicini stated that the agreement was set up that way because it will ultimately be a residential development; however, it is currently a Target store. If he were to build the Target store today, the City would not require him to install a wall. The aspect of the wall was presented to the residential developer because he wants it, the City wants it, it is a requirement of the residential developer, and should not be installed now because the Target property was rezoned. He has sufficient documentation that the wall is to be paid for by the residential developer. The wall and grading will be constructed before the homes. If the homes don't get built, the wall probably won't be required by the City or wanted by anyone. He is comfortable with the aspect that it will be required by the City because of the residential developer and not because of his commercial addition. Chairman Buffa asked if staff can help Commission understand the mechanism they will use to ensure the wall will be installed when the residential site plan comes forward. Ms. Wong advised staff discussed it after the preliminary review. They can note in the GIS database indicating the 5-foot requirement for the landscape setback; require a recorded unsubordinated covenant befinreen the residential developer and applicant to be approved by the City's Planning Department and City Attorney's office; or, applicant can modify his plan to accommodate the 10-foot setback along the north and west property lines by adjusting his parking lot if the residential developer cannot provide the ~ 5-foot landscape setback. 09-05-07 Page 15 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairman Buffa stated that answered the question. She asked the Commission if they wanted to require the applicant to get an unsubordinated agreement with the developer who may or may not be the developer when the time comes or that staff provide a note in the GIS tracking system. One question is how do they get assurance, second, what do they want assurance about. Do they want another 5 feet of landscaping on the other side of the wall or are they confident that a wall will get built? Commissioner Velasquez asked staff to repeat the last option. Ms. Wong stated the plan today meets the minimum code requirement parking for the combination of uses. In order to maximize the ability to get a tenant, the applicant has parked the new addition at a restaurant parking ratio. If he modifies plans to accommodate the 10-foot setback adjacent to the residentially zoned property, he would lose parking and no longer be able to get a restaurant tenant, but he would be able to meet minimum landscape setback and meet code required parking for general retail/commercial land uses. Commissioner Romero asked what the timeline is. Mr. Pedicini stated his timeline, once approved, is finro to three months depending on when plans are approved. Construction would start in November or December lasting four to five months. Target wants to have their new project built and open before the • future development for residential is to be built. He stated the project was built before the property line was created. The 10-foot setback was not in the original design. It wasn't until everything was finalized that they were told the Target site would be residential and that he would need to provide a 10- foot setback. He was able to create a 5-foot setback quite easily with his existing site plan, but could not accommodate a 10-foot setback. They created the property line so the site could be sold off separately. After everything was done and the map was completed, they were able to adjust 5 feet for the setback. The residential development could easily provide a 5-foot setback because they are going to have back yards. Commissioner Agarwal stated he sees a lot of gray areas and asked if it is fair to ask the developer to limit his spaces then he can't put in a restaurant if he wants to. Commission needs assurance that there will be 10-foot setbacks. He'd like to see notes in the file for the potential developer stating they have to provide a wall and 5 feet of landscaping. He doesn't know the mechanics of how they can get assurance when the plan is brought forward to the Commission. He doesn't want to tie the developer's hands so he can put a restaurant in if he wants to, especially when the codes were brought in after the project was developed. Commissioner Eastman agreed with Commissioner Agarwal. She stated a wall and houses will be there someday and she is concerned about providing the 5 feet of • landscaping between the commercial and residential uses. She wants to prevent graffiti from occurring and also wants to add trees to the rear even though they may be limited to a 5-foot planter width. She doesn't support the architecture and it could be 09-05-07 Page 16 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • because of the sameness of color, so she will defer her comments on that to the architect on the Commission. She wants the architecture to be the best that it can be. Commissioner Karaki stated this area hasn't had any new projects in the last 20 years. Since the project is so large, he'd like to see something more interesting. Mr. Pedicini stated he is only adding 3,000 square feet, which is over 50% of the existing building floor area. It isn't a great deal of money to redo the entire shopping center. He has done much of what staff has requested. As for the existing architecture, he is trying to keep the same building line that currently exists. He will remove the metal roof and will put stone tile on it. He will also add a stucco cap on top of the roof which will give it more embellishment. The front pylons will have brick on them. He is trying to update the project to keep everyone happy. Commissioner Karaki stated that he would like to see a better looking building. Mr. Pedicini stated staff wants him to keep it consistent with what exists so it isn't a new 3,000 square foot building stuck on a 5,000 square foot building. Commissioner Karaki clarified he wanted Mr. Pedicini to come up with a new elevation for the existing building as well as the addition. He won't approve the project as it is today. • Mr. Pedicini stated he is improving his entire site. Commissioner Karaki clarified that isn't what he meant. Slate is being proposed on the roof. He isn't asking for granite or marble. The new 3,000 square feet should match the existing building. Mr. Pedicini asked if Commissioner Karaki wants him to improve the 3,000 square feet and not the 5,000 square feet? Commissioner Agarwal wanted to help with the clarification. He stated he thinks Commissioner Karaki would like to see the existing 5,000 square feet aesthetically improved. The addition should match the remaining 5,000 square feet, rather than the reverse. Mr. Pedicini understood. Commissioner Velasquez stated the 5 feet is really important, whether the wall is built or not. She is comfortable with staff making a note that whatever development comes up later, they will assure a 10-foot setback. Will staff deal with the design or will it come back to Commission? ~ Commissioner Karaki stated they have to separate the issues and the design should come back as a consent calendar item, not a public hearing. 09-05-07 Page 17 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairman Buffa asked staff if they approved the item with the variance and added finro conditions to the proposed resolution. Staff should add a note in the City's GIS system to track that a condition be placed to require an additional setback and wall on the property when the residential project comes in. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, stated he can't envision a circumstance as it applies to the adjacent property that this matter won't come before the Commission at some point in time. A residential development will have a request for a subdivision map and at that time they can address the wall and landscaping issues. The only concern is this remains a retail/commercial use and it doesn't require any discretionary approval from the City. They have a variance, so any use at that location would have to be consistent with the approved parking, if not they would have to get a modification of the variance. From a planning perspective, there will be the ability, whether it is noted or not, to look at any proposal to redevelop the adjoining property and ensure that it is properly conditioned. From a legal perspective, for the benefit of the applicant, an obligation of some form of an agreement should be imposed. Even though the property owner may think they have the consent of the adjoining property owner to enter into such an agreement, if they don't have the cooperation of the owner, this could prove to be a condition that might end up being impossible for the applicant, then they will have to come back before Commission for a modification of the conditions of approval at a great deal of time and expense. Commission should consider that in today's decision, should look at the land use being approved today and have some level of assurance ~ that any future development of the adjoining site will be here in the future. Chairman Buffa agrees but is concerned that the issue will be forgotten and Commission won't recall today's conversation at a future public hearing. There could be a new Commission and she wants be sure there is a reminder in the system regarding the Commission's intent. What is unusual is Commission is asking this applicanYs CUP to bear the burden of that reminder. She can't think of a better way to do it, barring getting a legal agreement which is too cumbersome and potentially impossible to do. Commissioner Karaki agreed they cannot ask the applicant to put up a wall at this point. Chairman Buffa suggested instead of adding a condition, put something in the introductory portion of the resolution stating the Commission requests a wall be constructed at the appropriate time by the adjacent owner. A second condition should be included requiring the applicant to work with staff to revise architectural elevations and bring the plans back to Commission as a Reports and Recommendation item. Commissioner Velasquez asked how they can include a condition that requires compliance from the adjacent property owner. Chairman Buffa advised that is why it isn't appropriate that it be a condition, but be in the introductory section of the resolution to express the intent. This way it doesn't • obligate applicant to build a wall or provide landscaping on property he doesn't own. 09-05-07 Page 18 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Velasquez agreed that the wall should be the responsibility of the neighboring owner. Chairman Buffa stated they shouldn't impose the wall requirement on this applicant, so the wall should only be referenced in the recital portion of the resolution. This way, the resolution expresses intention and the future developers and owners of the residential site will be informed of this requirement. Mr. Gordon advised it is a good suggestion. The landscape setback is required if this project adjoins a residential use which doesn't even exist at this time. They are looking into the future presuming a residential use will be built. When they are faced with approving a residential project, they will know what the situation is and it will apparent to everyone. Mr. See wanted to add a few clarifications. The condition includes a wall and landscaping because it is required by Code. A 15-foot setback is required for a finro- story home or condo. He pointed out that condition no. 17 requires landscaping and fencing as part of this project. Condition no. 14 requires review of elevation plans and staff suggests a modification to include refurbishment of existing building and new expansion come back to Commission as an Reports and Recommendation item. Chairman Buffa agreed condition no. 14 makes sense. Condition no. 17 is a problem because it needs to be satisfied one year from today or before the issuance of a • building permit, whichever comes first. If it's still Target and not residential, the wall isn't needed so condition no. 17 needs to be amended so it is not triggered with his building permit or one year. Commissioner Karaki advised if the applicant's building permits are ready before the other project gets built, then he has no obligation to build the wall. Mr. See added they would have to re-advertise and re-notice the item to include an additional waiver for that wall since it separates commercial and residential. Commission would have to waive that requirement if that portion were deleted from condition no. 17. Mr. Pedicini stated that the property is not zoned residential. Ms. Wong clarified it is zoned residential as part of the reclassification approved in November 2006. Chairman Buffa asked Mr. Pedicini if he was agreeable to continue for 2 weeks so the item could be re-advertised with a waiver of the wall so he doesn't have to construct the wall when the building permit is pulled. Commission agrees that it doesn't make sense for him to have to build it. ~ Mr. Pedicini asked if Commission is willing to waive the notice for a wall for a residential that isn't built yet. 09-05-07 Page 19 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairman Buffa stated they don't have a choice because it is zoned residential and has to be treated that way. Mr. Pedicini clarified Commission proposed to continue it and re-issue it so the wall is not a condition of his approval. Chairman Buffa stated yes. Commissioner Karaki added this gives him time to revise his elevations and bring them back. Mr. See suggested a continuance until October 1, 2007 because they lost two days due to the holiday and can't make the advertisement timeline for a finro week continuance. Commissioner Agarwal concurred and it will help the applicant revise elevations. Chairman Buffa didn't think they had to hold the applicant up while he revises elevations. The goal is to let him get an entitlement before he spends a lot of money on architecture. Commission can approve it or continue it to October 1, 2007, then he is relieved from building the wall. Mr. Pedicini clarified that as it reads now, he has to build an 8 foot high wall. ~ Chairman Buffa stated the fact that he has an agreement with another party stating there is no financial obligation, it is between them. Mr. Pedicini agreed to continue until October 1, 2007. Chairman Buffa stated condition no. 17 says final fencing plan shall be submitted and asked staff where it says the wall will actually be built. Ms. Wong advised that staff reviews all the conditions of approval to make sure the project gets built in conformance with the approved plans upon final occupancy when they do the inspection for the building permit. Prior to final approval that wall would need to be built. Commissioner Eastman indicated the condition doesn't actually state that. Commissioner Velasquez suggested adding wording saying that the building of the fence would be triggered by the filing of building plans of adjacent property. Mr. Gordon stated the problem with that is in the enforcement of the condition. Normally they require conditions to be completed before building permits are issued or final zoning and building approval. After that they lose control, it is a matter of institutional ~ memory, then things get missed and there is an unintended undesired result. 09-05-07 Page 20 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Pedicini stated the system requires that residential development have an 8-foot wall. What will it take to make sure that wall will be built? Chairman Buffa stated it is not a requirement of the residential property, it is the requirement of the first land use that is different. If the residential went first it would have been their responsibility. Mr. Pedicini asked if the residential is exempt because he added on. He asked if conditions would require it and automatically trigger it? Chairman Buffa explained requirements don't work like that. It is zoned residential so it has to be treated like that even though it is a Target store. Commission has to grant a specific waiver so that he doesn't have to build the wall, but they didn't advertise the waiver, so they can't take action on it today. The law is very clear that they don't take action something that is not on the agenda. By October 1 St the language will be changed and he won't be conditioned to create a fence plan. He'll have a waiver for the fence and the five foot landscape setback. Based on today's conversation, he can be very optimistic about the waiver. ~ PPOSITION: None O DISCUSSION TIME: 41 minutes (2:55 to 3:36) ~ 09-05-07 Page 21 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3947 (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05240) Owner: Crescent Southern Baptist Church 622 North Gilbert Street Anaheim, CA 92801 Agent: Howard Osborn 622 North Gilbert Anaheim, CA 92804 Location: 622 North Gilbert Street: Property is approximately 1.89 acres, having a frontage of 124 feet on the east side of Gilbert Street and is located 334 feet north of the centerline of Crescent Avenue Request to amend a conditional use permit to allow grades K- 12 for a private school in an existing church. ~ ~ Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-105 Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented staff report. Concurred with staff Approved Motion: Romero/Eastman VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner.• (skoehm~anaheim. net) Howard Osborn, 622 N. Gilbert, agent for Crescent Baptist Church was present to answer questions. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on September 27, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (3:37-3:42) 09-05-07 Page 22 SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mark Gordon Assistant Cit Attorne added to an earlier uestion concernin the action , Y Y q 9 of the Planning Commission on a permit that has been continued and how it relates to the Permit Streamlining Act. There are times when an item is faced with reoccurring continuances and despite the deemed approval provisions of the Permit Streamlining Act, a permit may not be deemed approved until the agency has been provided with notice of the applicanYs intent to invoke the Permit Streamlining Act. It is a rule that is required before the deemed approved provisions can come into play, giving the Commission an opportunity to act before an action is deemed approved. The deemed approved provision is also qualified in two other ways. It is dependent upon approval of CEQA or compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Since the discretionary actions are being considered concurrently with the CEQA consideration and there has been no action on CEQA, the Permit Streamlining Act provisions do not come into play. Furthermore, Permit Streamlining Act doesn't apply if the action involves any legislative act which both items 2 and 4 on this agenda did involve legislative action (item 2 includes a General Plan Amendment and item 4 involves a Zoning Code Amendment). ~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:45 P.M. TO MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 AT 1:00 P.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. ~ Respectfully submitted: ~ ~ic~-~J Simonne Fannin P/T Senior Office Specialist Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~~U~~ ( , 2007. 09-05-07 Page 23