Loading...
Minutes-PC 2009/05/11City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Monday,May 11, 2009 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present :Chairman: Joseph Karaki Peter Agarwal, Kelly Buffa,Stephen Faessel,Victoria Ramirez Commissioners Absent :Gail Eastman and Panky Romero Staff Present : CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerElaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner Linda Johnson,Principal PlannerRaul Garcia,Principal CivilEngineer Mark Gordon, Assistant City AttorneyDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Della Herrick, Associate PlannerDora Delgadillo, Solid Waste Programs Administrator Eleanor Morris, Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at2:00 p.m. onWednesday,May 6, 2009, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published:Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper onThursday, April 23,2009 Call to Order-2:30 p.m. Attendance: 10 Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissioner Victoria Ramirez Public Comments Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items Trash Collection CirculationWorkshop presented by Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer Adjournment MAY 11, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda -2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None ITEM NO. 1A –Meeting MinutesMotionto approve minutes (Faessel/Agarwal) Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Approved Commission Meeting of April 27, 2009. VOTE: 5-0 Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted yes.Commissioners Eastman and Romero were absent. Public Hearing Items: ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05417Motion to continue this item toMay 27, 2009 Owner/ Allan Ansdell(Agarwal/Faessel) Applicant :Dolly and Daisy, LLC Approved 1238 South Beach Boulevard Anaheim, CA92804 VOTE: 5-0 Location:1238 South Beach Boulevard Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, The applicant proposes a banquet facility with alcohol service.Faessel and Ramirez voted yes.Commissioners Eastman Environmental Determination:The proposed project is and Romero were absent. Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare Project Planner: additional environmental documentation per California David See Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1. dsee@anaheim.net OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME :This item was not discussed. 05/11/09 Page 2of 14 MAY 11, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05407 AND Resolution No. 2009-053 VARIANCE NO. 2009-04781 (Faessel) Owner: Maguire Properties Approved 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Applicant:VOTE: 5-0 Karen Graham Maguire PropertiesChairman Karaki and 3200 Park Center Drive, Suite 1150Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, Costa Mesa, CA 92626Faessel and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Eastman and SAARomero were absent. 3300 Irvine Avenue Newport Beach, CA92660 Location:1900 South State College Boulevard The applicant proposes to establish an educational Project Planner: Della Herrick institution (DeVry University) in an existing office building dherrick@anaheim.net with fewer parking spaces than required by code. Environmental Determination: The proposed project is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1. Della Herrick,Associate Planner,provided a summary of the staff report dated May 11, 2009 along with a visual presentation. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Nicole Gay, 17333Plain Tree Circle, Fountain Valley, representing DeVry University, stated she was available for questions. Commissioner Agarwalasked how many students would be on the property at any one time. Ms. Gayresponded that a maximum of 231 students would be on the property at one time. Commissioner Agarwal askedwhen the student enrollment went up to 500, whether more than 231 studentswould be entering orexitingthe property at one time. Ms.Gayresponded that while a maximum of 500 students could be enrolled per semester, the actual number of students on the property would fluctuateon a daily basis,with no more than approximately 200students on the property per day. 05/11/09 Page 3of 14 MAY 11, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Faessel asked if there hadbeen any conflicts between cars parking in this 1,300 parking lotand traffic associated with the stadium activities. Ms. Gayresponded she did not believe there hadbeen any conflicts. She said there werebarriers in the parking lot toidentify the boundaries of the parking lot for this building. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faesseloffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the May 11, 2009 staff report, approving a Categorical Exemption, Class 1, and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05407 and Variance No. 2009-04781. Eleanor Morris,Secretary announced that the resolution passed with fiveyes votes. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Eastman and Romero were absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 2, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :8minutes (2:35-2:43) 05/11/09 Page 4of 14 MAY 11, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ITEM NO. 4 AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. Resolution No. 2009-054 2005-00002(TRACKING NO. DAG2009-00002) (Faessel) Owner:Recommended City Council Leslie Love approval of Amendment No. 1 to 1515 East Katella Avenue, LLC the Development Agreement with 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1450 amodification to Condition No. 74 Irvine, CA 92614 requiring the applicant to submit Applicant:a fencing plan for approval by the Nicolle Ferrier Planning Director. The applicant Huitt Zollars would replace the chain link 430 Exchange, Suite 200 fencing along Katella Avenue with Irvine, CA 92602 wood fencing. This fence would Location:1761 and 1781 South Campton Avenuebe located adjacent to the sidewalk, with no additional landscaping required. The The applicant proposes an amendment to Development fencing along Campton Avenue Agreement No. 2005-00002 to extend the original and Wright Circle would remain in approval date of June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2015. The the existing location, with no Development Agreement authorizes construction of a additional landscaping required. 196 unit condominium development. VOTE: 4-1 Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Negative Declaration, which was previously-approved, has been Chairman Karaki and determined to serve as the appropriate environmental Commissioners Buffa, Faessel and documentation for this project in accordance with the Ramirez voted yes; Commissioner provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act Agarwal voted no; Commissioners (CEQA).Eastman and Romero absent Project Planner: Elaine Thienprasiddhi ethien@anaheim.net Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated May 11, 2009 along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Faessel asked if there had been a transfer in property ownership since BRE Properties entered into a Development Agreement with the City in 2005. Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded that BRE Properties sold the property to Chandler Partners and the property is now owned by IStar Financial.Huitt Zollars has been the engineer of record since the start of the project. Commissioner Agarwal asked about the fencing proposed to temporarily screen the project site. He asked if a fence standard to screen vacant properties had been developed for The Platinum Triangle. 05/11/09 Page 5of 14 MAY 11, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Ms. Thienprasiddhiresponded that when the most recent Development Agreement extension was approved, staff had considered recommending that a standard be added to the Code. However, this would not affect properties that had already entered into a Development Agreement with the City.So, staff recommended ascreening requirement be added if adeveloper requested an extension to an approved Development Agreement. Commissioner Agarwal asked if staff intended todevelop aconsistent fencing standard. Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded that it is the intent to have uniform fencing for vacant properties. The fencing described in the staff report for this project is consistent with the fencing approved on the south side of Katella Avenuefor the Lennar project. Chairman Karaki asked about the status of the fencing for the Lennar project and whether specifications had been developed for the fencing.He also recalled they were supposed to add in trees behind the fence, but he had not seen any improvements yet. Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded that the Lennar Company was in the process of installing atemporary wood fence on the south side ofKatella Avenue.The fence would be six foot tall with a one-foot setback to be planted with vines. Thedeveloperwouldalso be planting 48-inchbox trees behind the fence. Staff did not believe that trees were necessary for this project on the north side of Katella Avenue because trees had already been planted in the adjacent parkway. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Robert Sundstrum, Huitt Zollars, 430 Exchange, Suite 200, Irvine, representing theapplicant, stated he had reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreementwith the exception of the conditions requiring landscaping and fencing along the project boundaries.He recognized that Lennar was obligated to install fencing. In this particular case, since there werestreet improvements installed adjacent to this property, he did not believe there was a need for landscape improvements behind the right-of-way. He agreedwith the conditionof approvalregarding installing the wood fence adjacent to Katella Avenue, but hadasked fora specification for the fence. He objectedto moving the existing chain link fence adjacent to Wright Circle and Campton Avenueto add in landscaping and irrigation because theadjacent parkways had already been landscaped. He referred to photographs ofthe site he had submitted and described the existing improvements along these streets. Commissioner Buffaasked the applicant to describe the landscape improvements that hadbeen installed along Katella Avenue. Mr. Sundstrum responded that palm trees with shrubs had been planted in the public right-of-way along Katella Avenue between Campton Avenueand AuburnWay. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa stated she continued to opposerequiring the installation of temporary landscape and irrigation to make something pretty. She stated concerns that this was shortsighted and would be a waste of the developer’s money and water resources. She agreed with the replacement of the fence along Katella Avenue witha more permanent type of fence since the temporary chain link 05/11/09 Page 6of 14 MAY 11, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES fencing with green fiber lining was not holding up well. She stated the fence should be installed behind the sidewalk. Commissioner Ramirez asked whether staff would be providing a specification for the wood fence to the applicant.She wanted to ensure there would be some consistency with the fence being installed by the Lennar Company across the street from this project. Ms. Thienprasiddhiresponded that staff anticipatedthe Lennar Company to complete installation of the fence on their property in approximately two weeks. She did not know the type of wood used for the fence, but the fence would be a 6-foot tallwood fence with clinging vines. Commissioner Faessel stated his concern that all of these propertieswill require some type of temporary fencing. He would like consistent fencing and agreed with Commissioner Buffa’s appraisal of this issue. He believed the public right-of-way adjacent to this property looks nice. He stated staff’s recommendation is to require the relocation of the existing fence back three feet to install landscapingand provide an irrigation system. He stated if this requirement had already been imposed on other developers, he did not believe it would be fair to allow this developer to do something different. However, since a consistent screening modelhadnot been established and a plan hadbeen approved for the Lennar property, he agreed with Commissioner Buffa that the fencing for this property was adequate. Commissioner Agarwal agreed. He believed there needed to be consistent screening requirements forall of the developers. When the standard is developed, he would like to review it. Chairman Karaki stated that the Lennar Company had not completed improvements in the public right-of-way along their property boundary. The right-of-way improvements hadbeen completed along this property frontageand there was no need to ask for additional screening.It would not be fair to ask the developer to moveback the fence and add more landscaping. He believed that a consistent standard needed to be implemented on all of the vacant propertiesexcept if improvements in the public right-of-way had already been completed. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated staff was concernedabout the landscaping along the inner edge of the sidewalk. Staff’s concern was not just with the aesthetics of plantingnew landscaping adjacent to the fence. Staff was also concernedwith graffiti.He suggested planting vines behind the fence so that vines would grow through the fence and cover the fence. Chairman Karaki stated that staff’s suggestion would help solve the graffiti problem.He had wanted to have panels with an artist’s design, but that could also be an issue with graffiti. Commissioner Buffa stated she did not agree with this suggestion because it would involve installing hundreds of feet of pipeto irrigate the vines. She believed that if graffiti becomes a problem, the developerwould need to manage it. If this becomes a difficulty for the developer, they will come up with a solution.She statedit was shortsighted to waste water resources by planting and irrigating landscaping adjacent to a temporary fence. Commissioner Ramirez agreed with Commissioner Buffa. She did not want the developer to have to install landscaping and waste water. She asked staff whether there was a requirement to remove graffitiwithin a certain period of time. 05/11/09 Page 7of 14 MAY 11, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Ms. Thienprassiddhi responded there was a Code requirement that graffitineeded to be removed withinthree days of discovery. Chairman Karaki stated that he believed that there were three issues. He has not seen any standard fencing specification which he could approve. He believed that drip irrigation would address the concern about wasting waterresources. He stated concerns about the potential for graffiti to occur on this fence. He believed they needed to choose a system that would address these issues and also address aesthetics. Since thatwasnot before the Commission, he believed they should approve this request without requiring the applicant to move the existing fencing. Since thedeveloper had improved their side of the street, he believed they had done their share. Commissioner Buffa asked Chairman Karaki whether he was suggesting that the chain link fencing along Katella Avenue should remain in place. Chairman Karaki responded yes. He stated he was reluctant to require the fencing along Katella Avenue to be replaced with wood fencing when he had not seen a specification for the wood fencing. Commissioner Agarwal asked whether the suggestion was to strike the fencing requirement. Chairman Karakiresponded yes. Commissioner Buffaasked where the new conditions for fencing and landscaping were listed in the documents. Ms. Thienprassiddhi referred to the three new conditions onpage 3, Section 3 of Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement. Commissioner Buffa stated she did not see anything in Condition No. 74 that addressedthe required landscaping. Mr. Amstrup stated thatCondition No. 74 related to the requirement for the fencing plans. The fence plans werediscussed in the staff report. He suggested the Planning Commission could provide direction in the form of a motion to clarify the type of fencing for this project. Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel, that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the May 11, 2009 staff report without the requirement to relocate or change the fencing and that no new landscaping be required. Commissioner Faessel asked for a clarification of the motion. Commissioner Buffa stated this motion did not require any changes to the currentfencing. Mr. Amstrup stated for clarification, this motion would mean the eliminationof Condition No. 74. Commissioner Buffa amended her motion to include theeliminationof Condition No. 74. 05/11/09 Page 8of 14 MAY 11, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Chairman Karaki stated he did not support requiring the existing fencesto be moved back from the sidewalk to install landscaping or requiring the chain link fence on Katella Avenue to be replaced with a wood fence because the right-of-way adjacent to this property had been fully developed with a sidewalk and parkway landscaping.Thiswasdifferent from the property on the south side of the street. There had been no improvements on that side of the street, so the Planning Commission had required wood fencing with vines. Commissioner Ramirez stated she did not agreein terms of the fencing. The applicant stated he was willing to install the wood fencing. In order to ensure consistency with the Lennar property, she believed they should install the wood fencing. She did not believe they should be required to add in the additional landscaping. Chairman Karaki stated they should require the same type of fencing on Katella Avenue in this area as near Disneyland in order to provide consistency.He asked if this fencing would be consistent with other properties along Katella Avenue. Linda Johnson, Principal Planner responded yes. She stated that the fencing on the south side of the street, whichwasbeing installed by Lennar, wouldbe a 6-foottallfence, setback one foot from the sidewalk, with mulch ground cover and vines planted on 10-foot centers. The fence wouldhave a graffiti resistantcoating. Chairman Karakistated if the applicant was willing to install awood fencealong Katella Avenue, that he would support that change. Commissioner Faessel stated he had heard the applicantwas willing to change the portion of the fence along Katella Avenue to wood, provided that the fences along Campton Avenue and Wright Circle stayed the same. Commissioner Buffa stated that was not included in the motion andsuggested theyvoteon the motion. Chairman Karaki stated there was still some discussion on the motion. He askedstaff if the applicant was proposing to install the fence along Katella Avenue and keep the fencing along Campton Avenue and Wright Circle in the same location. Ms. Thienprassiddhistated the applicant did not object toinstallingawood fence along Katella Avenue and a 25-foot return along Campton Avenue or plantingthe landscaping requested along Katella Avenue. Commissioner Agarwal asked whether the motion would leave the existing site screening as it is, not moving the fence and not installing vines. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney,stated for clarification, that Commissioner Buffa’smotion was suggesting the elimination of Condition No. 74. Chairman Karaki called for a vote on the motion. 05/11/09 Page 9of 14 MAY 11, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Mark Gordon announced that the motion failed with one yes vote and four no votes. Commissioner Buffa voted yes and Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, Faessel and Ramirez voted no. Commissioners Eastman and Romero were absent. CommissionerFaessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Buffa,to amend staff’s recommendation consistent with the applicant’s request. The applicant would replacethe chain link fencing along Katella Avenue with wood fencing. This fence would be located adjacent to the sidewalk with no additional landscaping required. The fencing along Campton Avenue and Wright Circlewould remain in the existing location, with no additional landscaping required. CommissionerRamirez asked for clarification if this was a motion to provide direction to staff on the site screening. Following discussion on the motion, Commissioner Faesselofferedarecommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the May 11, 2009 staff report, determining that the previously approved Mitigated Negative Declaration serves as the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and recommending to City Council approval ofAmendment No. 1 to Development Agreement No. 2005-00002with a modification to Condition No. 74 requiring the applicant to submit a fencing plan forapproval by the Planning Director. The applicant would replace the chain link fencing along Katella Avenue with wood fencing. This fence would be located adjacent to the sidewalk, with no additional landscaping required. The fencing along Campton Avenue and Wright Circle would remain in the existing location, with no additional landscaping required. Eleanor Morris, Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith four yesvotesand one no vote. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Buffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted yesand Commissioner Agarwal voted no. Commissioners Eastman and Romero were absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 2, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :36 minutes (2:44-3:20) 05/11/09 Page 10of 14 MAY 11, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ITEM NO. 5 AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. Resolution No. 2009-055 2005-00003 (TRACKING NO. DAG2009-00003) (Buffa) Owner: Bob Linder Recommended City Council BRE Properties approval of Amendment No. 1 to 5141 California Avenue, Suite 250 the Development Agreement with Irvine, CA 92614 removalofCondition No. 74 Applicant: Nicolle Ferrier Huitt Zollars VOTE: 5-0 430Exchange, Suite 200 Irvine, CA92602Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, Location:1551 East Wright Circle Faessel and Ramirez voted yes; Commissioners Eastman and The applicant proposes an amendment to Development Romero absent Agreement No. 2005-00003 to extend the original approval date of June 15, 2010 to June 15, 2015. The Development Agreement authorizes construction of a 255 unit apartment development. Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Negative Project Planner: Elaine Thienprasiddhi Declaration, which was previously-approved, has been ethien@anaheim.net determined to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated May 11, 2009 along with a visual presentation.She also recommended that Condition No. 74 pertaining to site screening be removed from Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement (Attachment No. 3 to the staff report). Commissioner Buffa stated the staff report referred to a Katella Avenue frontage. This parcel does not have frontage along Katella Avenue. She asked staff if the Planning Commission supported the removal of Condition No. 74, whether this would mean not requiring fencing and landscaping improvements alongCampton Avenue and Wright Circle. Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded yes. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Chairman Karaki, seeing no one indicating to speak, closed the public hearing. 05/11/09 Page 11of 14 MAY 11, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Buffaoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the May 11, 2009 staff report, determining that the previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration serves as the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and recommending to City Council approval of Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement No. 2005- 00003, with the removal of Condition No. 74. Eleanor Morris, Secretary announced that the resolution passed with five yes votes. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, Faessel and Ramirez voted yes.Commissioners Eastman and Romero were absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, June 2,2009. DISCUSSION TIME :3minutes (3:21to 3:24) 05/11/09 Page 12of 14 MAY 11, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES ITEM NO. 6 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2009-00078Motion to continue this itemto May 27, 2009 Applicant: Christiane Dussa(Ramirez/Agarwal) DMJM 999 Towne and Country Approved Orange, CA 92868 Location:Citywide VOTE: 5-0 The applicant proposes an amendment toTitle 18 of the Chairman Karaki and Anaheim Municipal Code to allow properties larger than Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, five acres to display up to four flags or banners,includingaFaessel and Ramirez voted yes. flag for non-fraternal organizations.Commissioners Eastman and Romero were absent. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Project Planner: Elaine Thienprasiddhi Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 4 ethien@anaheim.net (Minor Alterations to Land). This item was continued from the April 27, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME :This item was not discussed. WORKSHOP –Trash Collection Circulation: A presentation was provided by Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer. DISCUSSION TIME: 24minutes (3:25-3:49) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:50P.M. TO WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 2009AT 2:30P.M. 05/11/09 Page 13of 14 MAY 11, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Respectfully submitted, Grace Medina Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on May 27,2009. 05/11/09 Page 14of 14