Loading...
Minutes-PC 2008/04/28• /O~ ~. ~ ~~ ~HE111~ P c,~ lr~ 0 r D ~~ o% Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Monday, April 28, 2008 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 None Staff Present: CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Linda Johnson, Principal Planner • Della Herrick, Associate Planner Ted White, Senior Planner John Ramirez, Senior Planner Scott Koehm, Associate Planner Jamie Lai, Principal Civil Engineer Kimberly Wong, Planner Diane Bathgate, Consultant Planner Elly Morris, Senior Secretary Donna Patino, Secretary Julie Hourani, Office Specialist II Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, April 24, 2008, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, April 17, 2008 • 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 APRIL 28, 2008 AGENDA DISCUSSION REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION COMPENSATION • Recess to Public Hearing • Reconvene to Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 14 • Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Agarwal Public Comments • Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items • Adjournment H:\TOOLS\Planning Commission Administration\PC Action Agendas - Minutes\2008 Minutes\2008 Minutes\AC042808.doc APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Consent Calendar: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Item 1B as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Item 1-A was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Reports and Recommendations ITEM NO. 1A FINAL SUBSEQUENT EIR NO. 332 and (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2006-00008 (Tracking No. FSP2008-00002) Owner: Orangewood Platinum Investors, LLC 1849 Sawtelle Boulevard, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Applicant: Derek Baak West Millennium Homes 1849 Sawtelle Boulevard, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Location: 2211 East Orangewood Avenue: Property is approximately 3.8-acres, with frontage of approximately 273 feet on the north side of Orangewood Avenue and is located approximately 1,035 feet east of the centerline of State College Boulevard. Request for a determination of substantial conformance with previously-approved exhibits to change a 341- unit condominium project to a 320-unit apartment project. Approved Approved request for determination of substantial conformance. Motion: Romero/Agarwal VOTE: 6-1 Commissioner Karaki voted no Project Planner: Ted White Twhite@anaheim.net (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) Chairman Buffa explained that this is a request for a finding of substantial conformance for a project hat the Commission has already reviewed. She wanted to talk with the applicant about what is going on in the market place. She stated that this is not the first project the Commission has seen that has been changed from an ownership project to a rental project. She acknowledged the applicant owns the land and has every right to build it as apartments and that is not a decision the City makes. 04/28/08 Page 2 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES `However, the Commission has seen a trend and she is uncomfortable with the percentage of units in the Platinum Triangle that are now rental units. When the Commission first approved the site plan, they noticed it had an unusual and unique roof top patio as open space. This made the project unique and now it has been eliminated. The change makes this an ordinary apartment project. She would like the applicant to discuss what prompts these changes and what they see happening in the market that drives these changes. When the Commission approved this project originally, they also approved a conditional use permit for an encroachment into the setback area. If she would have known the project would be an ordinary apartment project, she might have been less willing to do that. This is the reason she wants to discuss this project. She asked the Commissioners if they had any opinions. She clarified to the applicant that they could build the apartments, but she would like to hear their point of view. Chairman Buffa opened the public meeting. Derek Baak, West Millennium Homes, 1849 Sawtelle Boulevard Suite 600, Los Angeles, 90025, stated that it was not their plan to have apartments. Their plan has been to build these units as condominiums. The units in the revised plan are slightly larger than previously approved. With regards to the market conditions, it is a tough market. West Millennium Homes has been working to get the project financed. The finance companies want to see a worst case scenario. Their pro-forma indicates what would happen if the project were to be apartments, but that is not their intent. West Millennium Homes expects that in two or three years, the market will improve and the units will sell as condominiums. Chairman Buffa stated that she was glad to hear that information. The staff report indicates that the project will be changed from a 341-unit condominium project to a 320-unit apartment project and she thinks, from the applicant's explanation, that it was to satisfy the requirements of the company's lender to show the worst case scenario of 320 apartment units. Mr. Baak stated that the number of two bedroom units has not changed and they have not decreased any of the material specifications or quality of the original plan. Chairman Buffa asked him what happened to the roof top open space patio. Mr. Baak stated that he did not remember a roof top patio. His architect is present and can answer questions regarding this issue. Chairman Buffa stated that there was something in the staff report that alluded to the elimination of the patio where you can see Angel Stadium. Ted White, Senior Planner, stated that the applicant proposed a different arrangement of their podium decks. The approved plan provided for views into the Angel Stadium parking lot. It was not a roof mounted deck, it was a podium deck. The recreation areas will be at the same level as the previous .plan; however, the views from the patio area would change. Chairman Buffa asked if he could point out the patio areas on the plan. 04/28/08 Page 3 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES `Mr. White showed her the original plan. He pointed out the views from the patio area were oriented towards the Angel "hats". The change in the plan calls for a traditional internal courtyard system. The patio areas are on the podium level and not the roof top. Commissioner Karaki asked the applicant to explain the reasons behind this change to the patio area. Mr. Baak replied they did not believe they could get financing for the project as originally designed. The approved six story project involved a different type of construction that would cost a lot more. This project is now a 5 story building and they believe they can get financing to construct the project. Commissioner Romero stated for the record that he met with the applicant before the Planning Commission meeting. He said he must also have misread the staff report because he was under the impression that this project was being changed solely to an apartment complex. The applicant reassured him that this was market driven and they were making the changes because of that fact. The applicant's intent was to start them off as market, "for sale", units. Commissioner Velasquez wanted clarification on the applicant's statement that all of the units have increased in size. Only the one and two bedrooms units have increased slightly, while the three bedroom units have decreased. The units are still above the City's standards, and she wanted a clarification, but did not have any issues with the plan. Chairman Buffa asked staff to go back to the original site plan. Mr. White clarified, with regards to the minimum floor areas, that the staff report indicates the overall average square footage decreased by 10 square feet for all of the units combined. The approved plan indicates one type of three bedroom unit. The proposed plan indicates some units with two bedrooms plus a den. These units are 1,084 square feet in size. The Code categorizes these types of units as three bedroom units. Most of the three bedroom units are in the range of 1,300 to 1,500 square feet. Commissioner Faessel commented to staff that an explanation would be helpful in the future because with staff's explanation, it is now clear that a limited number of three bedroom units will be 1,084 square feet in size. Mr. White stated that in future reports they could add the range of units with the minimum and maximums. They have approximately 10 to 15 different types of units and it could get complicated to add the different square footages in the staff report, but they could provide a range. Chairman Buffa stated that frequently the information shows up on the submitted plans and maybe staff could refer the Commission to the plan sheet where they could find that information. She observed the Orangewood Avenue frontage has not changed and from the public's perception of the project, there will not be much difference except on the stadium parking lot side. Commissioner Karaki stated that the Commission is looking at the apartment vision of a project verses having a condominium project. He is afraid they are setting the example for other developers to turn other projects to apartment rentals. This will change this whole area. The openness of the site plan was a better site plan verses what is in front of the Commission now. The applicant described the market as going down and they had to change the site plan as an apartment building. 04/28/08 Page 4 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 'He was concerned because the market might get better in two years and now they would be stuck with apartment buildings. He is not comfortable looking at this site plan the way it has been presented. Chairman Buffa stated that during the preliminary meeting, there was a question specifically addressed to staff on how they would define substantial conformance. If the applicant is not increasing the intensity, expanding the footprint, and not making a change that increases the intensity and the impact of the use, the plan can be found in substantial conformance. Commissioner Karaki agreed. However, this site plan is not what was approved. It is true that the numbers of units have not changed but it is not the same concept. When the project was approved as condominiums, certain elements pertained to a condominium project verses an apartment project. Mark Gordon stated that this project is mapped as a condominium project. At some point and time, the map may become final if all the conditions have been complied with; however, it does not become a condominium project until condominium units are sold. There is nothing in the Development Agreement that would prohibit the property owner from renting any unit that is developed on the property under the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement does not require the property owner to create a project that is "for sale" only. Commissioner Karaki agreed. However, his issue was with the design criteria of what was approved. He was not in disagreement with the uses. They were discussing the different criteria between impartments and condominiums. Mark Gordon stated there is some distinction, but he believes it is minimal. There is not a huge distinction between the standards that apply to a rental unit and the standards that apply to a condominium unit under the City's Code. The Final Site Plan was submitted, reviewed, and approved by the Planning Director. The approved Final Site Plan was added as an exhibit to the Development Agreement. The determination today is whether the proposed revised Final Site Plan, which might include different embellishments or details, is substantially in conformance with that plan. Commissioner Velasquez stated that the Commission consistently expects more of projects in The Platinum Triangle. It is not an issue whether the project is a condominium or apartment project. It is an issue of what the units should look like. The applicant by right can sell or rent the units, but the question is whether the project is at the expected level of quality for The Platinum Triangle. She thought this was the issue Commissioner Karaki was suggesting. Whether the market is in an up or down cycle, this project is something that will be there for many years and so the decision is not based on whether this is in the down cycle of the real estate market. Commissioner Karaki clarified that his position is not that he is objecting to the units as rentals. The issue is to keep the same quality among The Platinum Triangle projects. Chairman Buffa asked staff to show the site plan. She stated that there is a big difference in the layout. The applicant testified that they were not proposing to change the specifications for the units. ~fhe applicant added open space to the plan. The revised plan has slightly more open space than the approved plan. 04/28/08 Page 5 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 'rVlr. White indicated that on a per unit basis, the revised plan has slightly less open space area, but the plan still meets Code requirements. Chairman Buffa stated that if they make a determination that the project is not in substantial conformance, they need to make findings and there needs to be a basis for those findings. Commissioner Romero felt that the original layout had more open space and thus appeared to be more buyer friendly and by approving this revised plan that we may in fact be changing the original concept of the Platinum Triangle which is driven by "home ownership" and now we would be allowing more 'rental" units. Chairman Buffa stated that the applicant testified the plan is still home ownership driven. She thought the apartment issue should be left out of the discussion because it is an issue of site design and layout. Commissioner Eastman agreed with Commissioner Velasquez and thought the Commission had been clear on wanting things to be unique and to the highest standard in The Platinum Triangle and that was a significant factor in the Commission approving the original project. It is disappointing that a project, which was unique and different from others they have approved, has been revised to look like an ordinary apartment project. She is disappointed but she does not find that she has any legal grounds to say no. It feels like a bait and switch. The Commission approved one thing and now they .have something else. Paul Essick, Architect, 315 Washington Boulevard, Marina Del Rey, 90292, stated that he wanted to address questions of why the developers realigned this project. He wanted to clarify the purpose of the revisions and stated that there were other potential developers that considered making the units smaller. West Millennium decided to keep the property and retained him as the architect because he specializes in many "for sale" housing projects. They reviewed the approved plan and believed they could create more hospitable units that are more livable for people who would continue to live there permanently, rather than apartment dwellers who move and are not satisfied. They set the plans up to look identical to what the City approved on the exterior believing it was already approved by the City. They maintained the same quality as the approved plans. They improved the parking layout including adding more space, a bigger turning radius, more single stalls and easier access to elevators and stairways. They did not believe a six story building was necessary for the market place then or now. With regards to the court yard, more units have been upgraded to look into the courtyard and the units are bigger and wider. The dimensions are 68 feet apart and not 40 feet. They feel they have much more of an inviting window view from the units. Their goal is to have finer units, wider living rooms, modern kitchens that share space with the dining room, living room and dens, and workable living spaces that can be furnished. The intent of the change is all about marketing for a better product. It is a tough economy with tough competition right now and some units will sell and some will not. It is a limited market place. Their goal is to create units that will sell. ~hairman Buffa asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, she closed the public meeting. 04/28/08 Page 6 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 'Mr. Baak thought any apartment developer would not do this project as an apartment complex because they need units that are an average of 700 to 900 square feet. Their units are a little over 1,000 square feet which is a significant difference. The courtyards are larger and it is an improvement. They believe it is a better project than it was before. Commissioner Agarwal commented that if this project turned out to be a condominium project and sold as a condominium project, he is okay with that. However, if it is sold as an apartment complex, it would be a big disappointment. His opinion is that apartment complex dynamics are different. There are different demographics of renters and different quantities of people living in the same apartment units. He noted traffic and utilities are also other concerns with apartments. He hopes this project is sold as a condominium project. He believes this is a test case and there will be more of these projects coming before the Commission. Commissioner Faessel agreed with the other Commissioner's that the first version of the plans looked more interesting. He was pleased with Mr. Essick's point of view because he answered many of his questions. It is hard enough for the developer to put a project together and submit plans but it is another issue to have the project built and sold, and he is sensitive to that issue. If the developer feels they have improved the project so it would be more attractive to the prospective purchaser, then they have done their due diligence, and it is their responsibility to build it and to sell it. It is not the Commission's responsibility to critique them to say they can or cannot build this project. He is satisfied with the information that has been provided to the Commission. commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Agarwal to approve the previously-certified Final Subsequent EIR No. 332 and its second Addendum to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this project and to determine that this request is in substantial conformance with Final Site Plan No. 2006-00008. Motion passed with 6 aye votes and no vote. Commissioner Karaki voted no. DISCUSSION TIME: 30 minutes (2:35-3:05) • 04/28/08 Page 7 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to approve the April 14, 2008 Planning Commission Minutes. Motion passed with 7 aye votes. ITEM NO. 1 B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of April 14, 2008 Consent Calendar Approval Motion: Eastman/Faessel VOTE: 7-0 NOTE: Meeting minutes are available for review at the Planning Department. • 04!28/08 Page 8 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Public Hearing Items: ITEM NO. 2 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3935 (Tracking No. CUP2006-05115) Owner: Bhikhu Patel Anaheim -Magnolia LLC 6732 Westminster Boulevard Westminster, CA 92683 Eastman Location: 1125 North Magnolia Avenue: Property is approximately 1.5 acres, having a frontage of 271 feet on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, approximately 280 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. Request for reinstatement of a permit for a restaurant and banquet facility with the on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, amendment of the conditions of approval to remove the time limitation, and modification of the permitted uses on the site from professional office uses to medical office uses with fewer parking spaces than required by Code. Kim Wong, Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Resolution No. PC2008-48 Approved CEQA and CUP (request for reinstatement), with deletion of Condition No. 9 in the draft resolution. VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner. Kimberly Wong Kwong2@anaheim.net Bhikhu Patel, property owner, 6732 Westminster, CA 92683, stated that a parking study was prepared for this project. He indicated he was available to answer any questions. Chairman Buffa asked if there was anyone present who would like to address this item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Chairman Buffa asked staff if the restaurant operates by a conditional use permit. Ms. Wong replied that the restaurant is a use permitted by right in the zone. A conditional use permit is required for the banquet use and for the sales of alcoholic beverages. .Chairman Buffa wanted to know if the property owner could decide, without any other City approval, to replace the restaurant with a use that would have a parking demand during the day. 04/28/08 Page 9 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 'Ms. Wong replied that any changes in use would need to be evaluated in light of the parking demand study. If the proposed use were to result in any changes to the findings in the study, it would need to be updated so staff could evaluate whether there would be an adequate amount of parking spaces for the proposed use. Commissioner Faessel referred to Condition of Approval No. 9, pertaining to the hours of operation for the restaurant. The Commission has taken hours of operation into consideration recently. He would like to extend the hours of operation to midnight. He wondered if this could be considered. He is not suggesting that they would have to operate beyond limited hours. Chairman Buffa stated that the Commission recently eliminated the hours of operation restrictions so that if the hours changed, the applicant would not have to come back to the Commission to ask for a change in the condition. She thought a change would be appropriate since the business is in the middle of a commercial area. She does not think there will be an impact on residences. She thought it would be appropriate to either eliminate the condition or pursue a letter of operation on file with the City. Commissioner Faessel stated that this is consistent with previous discussions. Chairman Buffa agreed. Commissioner Agarwal supported Commissioner Faessel's observation. Commissioner Faessel asked staff to remove Condition of Approval No. 9 or to modify it so that it refers to the fetter of operation. Chairman Buffa asked staff what they thought might be preferable. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, stated that it would be within the Commission's discretion to eliminate the condition. If the condition was structured to refer to the applicant's letter of operation, it would be the same as if the hours of operation were stated in the Conditions of Approval. If the applicant proposes to change the hours, it might put them in the same predicament of needing to seek an amendment to the permit. He was not sure if that wou{d really help them. It seemed to him that the whole purpose of limiting the hours of operation is to eliminate or mitigate as much as possible the impacts of the business on the surrounding environment outside of those hours of operation. He believes what the City intended to do in the past is to adopt a letter of operation as a condition of approval. He believed that is a practice the City has carried forward and that is why the hours are stated in the resolution. The Commission is not required to limit them to those hours if they find there is no present need to do so or if there is no specific circumstance. He thought revising the condition to say that they have to operate consistent with their letter of operation does not help the applicant. Chairman Buffa stated that she would be inclined to take the condition out. •v1s. Wong commented that staff is comfortable with eliminating the condition since the City has not received any complaints about the business operations and since the property is well maintained. 04/28/08 Page 10 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mark Gordon stated that if the hours of operation do prove to be a problem, it would certainly be within the discretion of the Planning Commission to initiate the modification of the permit to limit the hours of operation. Commissioner Faessel suggested the Commission request staff to delete Condition of Approval No. 9. Commissioner Eastman offered a resolution determining the previously approved Negative Declaration serves as the appropriate environmental determination and approving the reinstatement and amendment of Conditional Use Permit No. 3935 with the elimination of Condition No. 9. Julie Hourani, Office Specialist II, announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 20, 2008. • DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (3:08-3:19) 04/28/08 Page 11 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 3 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to JPREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) May 28, 2008 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-04244 (Tracking No. CUP2007-05256) Owner: David R. Jackson TR Motion: Faessel/Eastman 1575 West Maple Street Anaheim, CA 92802 VOTE: 7-0 Applicant: Rob Chandler Fairmont Private Schools 1575 West Maple Street Anaheim, CA 92802 Location: 2200-2240 West Sequoia Avenue: Property is approximately 5.7 acres, having a frontage of 895 feet on the south and west sides of Sequoia Avenue approximately 180 feet east of the centerline of Siesta Street. • Request to amend the conditions of approval to permit Project Planner: additional students and staff at apreviously-approved private Kimberly Wong school (Fairmont Private School) with fewer parking spaces Kwang2@anaheim.net than required by Code. Chairman Buffa asked if there was anyone who would like to speak on this item; seeing none, she continued with the motion. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to continue this item until May 28, 2008. Motion passed with 7 aye votes. A gentleman from the audience asked if the residents in the area would receive notices in the mail. Chairman Buffa asked staff if there would be additional notifications sent out for the continuance. Kim Wong, Planner, replied staff will send out new notices to remind the surrounding property owners. • 04/28/08 Page 12 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. C7 • 04/28/08 Page 13 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM N0.4 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05307 Owner: Adlakha Enterprises 910 South Euclid Street Anaheim, CA 92802 Applicant: Joe Hassan P.O. Box 2742 Redondo Beach, CA 90278 Faessel Location: 910 South Euclid Street: Property is approximately 0.79-acre, having a frontage of 130 feet on the east side of Euclid Street, approximately 140 feet south of the centerline of Beacon Avenue. Request to permit the division of a retail unit into four (4) units and establish land use conformity for an existing commercial retail center. Resolution No. PC2008-49 Approved CEQA and CUP, with modifications to Condition Nos. 2 and 3 of the draft resolution. VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: Della Herrick dherrick@anaheim.net Diane Bathgate, Consultant Planner, presented the staff report. She indicated that staff provided the Commission with a revised draft resolution which changed the timing of Condition No. 2 from prior to issuance of building permits to prior to final building and zoning inspections to permit the applicant to have additional time to remove the existing recycling kiosk tenant on the site. The number of the condition was also changed to Condition No. 10. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Barsoum M. Barsoum, architect, 130 Manhattan Avenue, Huntington Beach, 90254, stated that the building was too big for one small tenant and too small for a large company. This is the reason the owner decided to divide this unit into reasonable square footage. There is one issue he would like to address with regards to the colors of the exterior of the building. This issue pertains to Condition No. 2 which requires the building color to match existing or neighboring adjacent buildings. The adjacent building is old and the paint color has faded from the ultra violet rays. The existing color is not the original and it is difficult to match the exact color. He would like the Condition to be modified to read, "compatible", with the neighbor. Chairman Buffa asked him if there were any other conditions of concern. Mr. Barsoum replied the owner addressed the issue of the recycling kiosk. Chairman Buffa indicated that the revised resolution included a change that he has agreed to. 04/28/08 Page 14 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Buffa asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eastman wanted to address the issue of the large pole sign that is by the street. Since the applicant is making nice modifications to the architecture of the building, she wondered if the applicant considered updating the sign to make the property more compatible with new properties throughout the city that are in compliance with new standards. Joe Hassan, property owner, P.O. Box 2742, Redondo Beach, CA 90278, stated that they do have a plan for the sign. He explained that the sign will be better looking than it is now. Commissioner Eastman stated that if there are changes to the sign, then it would have to come back to the City to comply with current standards. She asked staff if this was correct. . Della Herrick, Associate Planner, replied yes. The Code applies to any modification or any expansion of the sign. Face change is the only thing the Code allows for non-conforming signs. If the applicant makes any changes to the sign that would require a building permit, including adding to or modifying the sign structure, the sign would become non-conforming and the sign would need to be taken down. Chairman Buffa was not clear if the applicant was proposing anything that would require a building permit. l~rls. Herrick replied that the applicant could change the sign face, but any other modification requiring a building permit would make the sign non-conforming. Mr. Hassan indicated that he is proposing to change the sign face. Chairman Buffa stated that she would like to see this sign replaced with something that is contemporary and blends better with the building. Mr. Hassan stated that the moment they change the face, the lettering will look more presentable. Commissioner Faessel asked if the upper portion of the sign that rotates will remain stationary. Mr. Hassan replied it will stay stationary. Commissioner Faessel wanted to know if the rotating component will be removed. Mr. Hassan stated that he will make sure it stopped and would not rotate. Commissioner Faessel wanted to make sure it would not be left at an odd angle. Mr. Hassan stated that they could change it to any angle. commissioner Faessel stated if it cannot be removed and replaced with something contemporary, at least rotate the upper portion so that the sign is aligned consistent with the lower portion. 04/28/08 Page 75 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Karaki wanted to know if the applicant was going to reserve sign space to reflect the businesses. Mr. Hassan replied yes. Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution approving a Class 1, Categorical Exemption and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05307. Chairman Buffa asked if that recommendation included the change to Condition No. 2; to read that colored building elevations shall be provided for review and approval by the Planning Department to ensure building colors and materials are "compatible" with the immediately adjacent commercial retail center to the south. Commissioner Faessel replied yes. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None • Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 20, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (3:20-3:32) r~ U 04/28/08 Page 16 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 5 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 AND Karaki CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05189 Owner: Michael Daskalakis 300 North Wilshire Avenue Anaheim, CA 92801 Applicant: Theodoros Daskalakis P.O. Box 3880 Anaheim, CA 92803 Location: 2401 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately 0.53-acre, located at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue, and Gilbert Street, having approximate frontages of 127 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and 120 feet on the west side of Gilbert Street . Request to permit a commercial retail center with a landscape setback adjacent to Gilbert Street that is less than required by Code. Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Resolution No. PC2008-50 Approved CEQA and CUP, with modification to Condition No. 1 of the draft resolution. VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: Scott Koehm skoehm@anaheim.net Michael Marcos, 151 S. Donna Court, Anaheim, 92807, stated that he is present to answer any questions. In reviewing the conditions he was concerned with the first Condition which requires review of the elevations through the City architectural consultant. He does not see a need for this because they trust staff and will work with them. Chairman Buffa stated that the Commission will take his request into consideration as they discuss the project. Commissioner Faessel asked if the applicant was requesting the requirement for the project design to be considered as a Report and Recommendation item to be removed so he could work directly with staff. Mr. Marcos replied yes. Chairman Buffa asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on this item; seeing none, ~he closed the public hearing. Chairman Buffa stated that in the preliminary hearing they discussed the architecture. The consensus of the Commission was that it was somewhat confusing. There are too many styles at 04/28/08 Page 17 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES work on the building. She thought it was an odd assortment of Spanish details and Georgian looking details, with dental molding with a half round window. She found it to be confusing and lacked clear focus. She thought the architecture needed to be changed. The architectural style on the facade needs to be changed before the building is finished. Commissioner Eastman agreed. She referred to the second page of the elevation plans. Her concern was the appendages that stick out and the peaked the roof that did not seem to work with the rest of the building. The building is too small to have so many things going on. It is confusing to her and it lacks focus. She is hesitant to remove Condition No. 1 based on the staff report because it appeared staff might have expressed the same concerns about the architecture. She was looking forward to speaking with the owner of the project so that he could explain what he was trying to achieve and also to give the Commission justification for approving a design that has all the elements that were discussed. Commissioner Velasquez suggested that they should keep the condition as it is already stated. Mr. Marcos stated that they are willing to work with staff instead of going to outside consultants. Chairman Buffa stated that it is City policy to have new projects go through outside independent review. The City does not have members of staff who are qualified design professionals. The City sends almost every new project out for independent review and that is standard practice. ~r. Marcos asked if that was applied to small projects because it is an add-on project. Chairman Buffa indicated that even small projects are being reviewed by the independent architectural firms. Commissioner Karaki referred to the previous project that came before the Commission and stated that they remodeled those elevations. He asked if that project was sent to a consultant. He also asked for clarification on which projects go to the consultant and which projects do not go to the consultant because developers of large projects can afford to go to consultants and smaller projects cannot. Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, stated that the previous project had a minor facade change which was not reviewed by the City's architectural review consultant. However, the City's Contract Planner, Diana Bathgate, is with RRM Design, and that is one of the City's design firms. As part of her review, she consulted with others in her firm on that project. The project was filed before the City started sending new construction projects through a formal architectural review process. The City is implementing their new development review process and all new construction projects that come in will be going through the design review process. This process will be part of the initial application stage. For this particular project, staff would feel more comfortable having the City's architectural review consultant review the plans and then having the applicant report back to the Planning Commission. Staff recommends keeping this condition. commissioner Karaki asked if there are exceptions or would every project have to go for review. Ms. Johnson stated that staff is putting together criteria to define which projects will go through the formal architectural review process and will be scheduling a workshop with the Planning Commission to review the criteria. 04/28/08 Page 18 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Karaki wanted to know the average cost of a consultant. Linda Johnson replied the average cost ranges from approximately $2,500 to $6,000 for large projects. City staff is working with the architectural review consultants to identify the appropriate level of design review needed so that reviews can be standardized and costs reduced. Commissioner Karaki stated that it is a lot of money for small projects to obtain a consultant. He thought mega projects like the Platinum Triangle or buildings that exceed 5,000 to 20,000 square feet should have to go to a consultant firm. He was concerned because this was not affordable to the smaller projects. Ms. Johnson stated that, as part of the criteria, staff will work with the consultants to limit the costs. Chairman Buffa gave an example and stated if the cost of this design review for this addition was $2,500 dollars, it would be almost $1.00 a square foot. Commissioner Eastman stated that she was concerned with a process that would require that because she has been on the Planning Commission where she has seen this type of situation resolved. In the past, if an applicant came before the Commission and found out what the City was looking for, and if the Commission expressed they were not happy with something, the applicant had to come back with something else that was acceptable to the Commission without using an outside consultant. To add something like this to a small developer is concerning to her. Chairman Buffa stated that they have had projects where there were no outside consultants used. The property owner and their architect worked with staff and brought it back to the Commission as a Reports and Recommendation item, and the Commission said "no", it's still not there go back and give it another try. There were projects that have been through the design review process with an outside consultant and she was not sure if they had one they looked at and said, "That's great", and then voted for it. If the outside consultants were eliminated from this review process and it was suggested that the applicant work with staff, they would come back to the Commission with a Reports and Recommendation. She felt like it could be done that way and may be risky, but it could save money. Mr. Marcos stated that he had an estimate from Gensler and the cost to review this project is $8,000 dollars. Chairman Buffa suggested a change to Condition No. 1; that the final detailed elevation plan including colors and materials shall be submitted for staff review and provided to the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. Staff has heard the Commission's concern with regards to $2,500 dollars, if he has an estimate of $8,000 dollars, they will have strong opinions about the criteria that are developed requiring design review because that is a lot of money. Commissioner Velasquez stated that the Commission has had a major project with a lot of changes hat did not go through design review. She thought major projects like the Platinum Triangle should go through design review because it would make it easier. Those projects should have outside review if they have architectural changes. 04/28/08 Page 19 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Karaki offered a recommendation to adopt the attached resolution approving a Class 1, Categorical Exemption and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05189 with changes to Condition No. 1 to eliminate the requirement that the colors and materials shall be reviewed by the City's architectural consultant. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 7 aye votes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 20, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes (3:33-3:53) r1 LJ • 04/28/08 Page 20 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO.6 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0.2008-00464. Buffs Resolution No. PC2008-51 RECLASSIFICATION N0.2008-00216, Resolution No. PC2008-52 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05309 AND Resolution No. PC2008-53 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR Resolution No. PC2008-54 NECESSITY NO. 2008-00040 Owner: Ishkhan K. Sahagian Recommended City Council 1 Bormes Street approval of GPA Irvine, CA 92614 Approved CEQA, RCL, CUP and .. Applicant: Joseph Karaki PCN, and recommended City Western States Engineering Council review and approval. 4887 East La Palma Avenue, Suite 707 Anaheim, CA 92807 CUP Added a condition of approval Location: 770 North East Street: Property is regarding a lighting plan and approximately 0.57-acre, located at the final landscape plan. • southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and East a frontage of 150 feet on the south Street havin , g side of La Palma Avenue and 230 feet on the VOTE: 6-0 east Side Of East Street. Commissioner Karaki was absent due to a recorded conflict of interest Request to permit a service station with a car wash and a convenience market with sales of beer and wine for off- premises consumption. This project requires approval of the following actions: General Plan Amendment No. 2008-00464 - to amend the Land Use Element Map of the General Plan to redesignate the property from the Low-Medium Density Residential designation to the General Commercial designation. Reclassification No. 2008-00216 - to reclassify the property from the Single-Family Residential (RS-2) zone to the General Commercial (C-G) zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05309 - to permit a service station with a car wash and a convenience market with sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption. • Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2008-00040 - a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit Project Planner.• sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption. scoff itoehm skoehm@anaheim.net 04/28/08 Page 21 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 'Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He reported that this property previously was a service station. The service station did not have a convenience store and it was only a service station. The property has been vacant for approximately nine years and the tanks have been removed. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Leon Alexander, Biggs and Alexander Law, 558 S. Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, stated that he is representing the applicant, Ishkahn Sahagian. He wanted to give a brief history on this property. This property was approved as a Texaco in 1962 and has been around for many years. This gas station was closed in 1992 and in 1998 his client Ishkahn Sahagian purchased the property. At the time it was purchased, it had a major soil condition that needed to be cleaned up. The property had severe environmental problems. He spent approximately $50,000 dollars to clean up the soil and he had to wait to get the financing to pay for this project. This project is approximately 2 to 2.5 million to build. Milad Oueijan, architect, 4887 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite # 707, Anaheim, stated that he is available to answer any questions. Commissioner Velasquez asked about the blank wall that is in the back of the building. She asked if they planned to landscape the wall. ~r. Oueijan replied that there will be a planter on the bottom of the wall and this would allow ivy to grow up the wall. Commissioner Faessel asked if the concrete block wall will remain or get increased in size. Mr. Oueijan replied the block wall will be increased to eight feet tall on the two sides. Ed Waite, 1216 E. La Palma, P.O. Box 1164, Placentia, 92871, stated that he and his wife own a nine unit building that is adjacent to the project. The building has condominium style apartments with all the bedrooms upstairs. There are nine families that would be overlooking this project and over the wall. The wall is approximately six feet high. The nine family units have patios and he feels this project would definitely be detriment to the patios if the wall is going to go up another two feet, making it eight feet high. He wrote a letter to the Commission with the reasons why they oppose the project. He does not feel it would be an improvement for the neighborhood based on what is around there. There is apre-school on one side and there is a nine unit building on the other side. There is also a 7-11 convenience market across the street. The noise, litter, commercial activity and commercial lightening will greatly impact the quiet life-style of the tenants throughout each day and night of every week. The apartment building is maintained very well and the tenants are long term residents of Anaheim. He asked if the Commission had a copy of the letter. Chairman Buffa stated that they do not. ~r. Waite submitted copies of the letter. Mr. Waite stated that there is already heavy traffic at the corner, even without the proposed commercial activity. 04/28/08 Page 22 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Faessel asked the applicant if his property was on the La Palma frontage. Mr. Waite replied yes. It is oriented in such away that all the nine units would be facing the service station. Mr. Alexander stated that he represents the applicant. This is the first he has heard of issues with Mr. Waite. With regards to the wall, he is sure it is an architectural decision. This issue can be discussed with the architect about the height. The reason he is present is to discuss that in 2004 his client did not know that there was a General Plan Amendment that changed the site from a commercial into a residential designation. During the planning stages, his client did not know about this situation and unfortunately, they now have to request a General Plan Amendment to change it from residential back to commercial. He submitted a letter to the Commission. He is appealing the cost involved with the General Plan Amendment. He talked to staff and they stated that the property was abandoned, but it had to be knocked down to have it cleaned up. He referred to the draft resolution on Page 3 and requested that the Planning Commission take into consideration the small businessman's clean up of the soil and environment without the knowledge that it was changed from commercial to residential. It has been a commercial site since 1962. He is aware that there is a conditional use permit cost and Mr. Sahagian has no problem paying that fee but he did ask to appeal to the Commission for the misunderstanding and the additional cost if possible. He would like the condition on Page 3 modified and waived due to the fact the applicant ~as put considerable expense and time into the parcel that has been vacant so long and something now is being done there. Chairman Buffa asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, she closed the public hearing. Chairman Buffa addressed Mr. Alexander's request and recommended that the City Council review this matter. Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, stated that the applicant previously requested a waiver of fees from the Planning Department and in January 2007, the Planning Director sent the applicant a fetter indicating the prior history of the site and the timing when items occurred and the fact the property was demolished by the time the Citywide Code update went into effect. The Planning Director indicated that the fees would not be able to be waived for the processing of these cases. Chairman Buffa addressed concerns regarding the Police Department's recommendation that the Planning Commission not make a finding of public convenience or necessity based on an over concentration of licenses. The Police Department is not supporting this application. Her opinion is that it does not make sense to purchase gas and then drive across the street to purchase alcohol. Commissioner Agarwal agreed because the alcohol sales are for off-site consumption. commissioner Eastman stated that she was in agreement with the public necessity and convenience request. She thought this project was already at a busy corner and the on-premise alcohol safes would help avoid a problem with people having to go from one site to the other. She did not feel it would impact crime statistics by much. However, she wanted to discuss the impact on the single 04/28/08 Page 23 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES family residences to the east of the project. There was no information on how high the canopy and lighting would be. Usually they have a high canopy over the pumps, and lighting could be an issue if someone lived on the other side of the fence. There has been no discussion with staff regarding the security involved. The security issue might be an important subject to the Commission to ensure that this operator will be doing the job of policing. The other issue she wanted to address was the landscaping of the wall. She wanted an explanation of what would help mitigate the lights or if there would be lights against the wall. Mr. Koehm stated that the canopy meets Code requirements. Staff discussed with the applicant adding more trees along the east property line, and the applicant agreed. Code requires that the trees be spaced twenty feet on center, which the applicant doubled to provide trees ten feet on center. The applicant changed the landscaping plans to include additional trees. Chairman Buffa stated that evergreen trees rather than palm trees should be required to create sufficient screening in order to protect the neighboring property and the quality of life for those residents. Commissioner Velasquez commented that the vacuum area is also of concern. Chairman Buffa asked staff if any provisions have been made to screen the noise generated by the vacuum. She asked if it would be staff's opinion that the eight feet high wall would be the noise .buffer. Mr. Koehm replied yes. Staff considered that the wall, along with the landscaping and the accompanying ambient noise of East Street and La Palma Avenue, would address the potential for noise impact. Commissioner Velasquez asked if there wilt be a time restriction to use the vacuums. Mr. Koehm stated that the Conditions of Approval indicate the hours of operation shall be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. to coincide with the applicant's letter. Commission discussed provisions for securing the alcohol in the display coolers, and whether locks on the coolers were appropriate. The applicant let Mr. Koehm know that they will be closing the doors at 11:00 p.m. and locking the entrance to the convenience market, and operating through a cashier window only. Commissioner Eastman thought it was important to have provisions connected with this because it is a residential area and also to ensure that people could not come in to take merchandise. Chairman Buffa clarified that the mini market would be open for walk-in business until 11:00 p.m. After this time, all transactions will be done through the window. The gasoline sales would occur through the night. commissioner Romero asked if the vacuums would be on a timer since the store will be closed. Commissioner Velasquez was concerned with the noise generated through the vacuums that would disturb the neighbors if the vacuums were to be used late at night or early morning. She understood 04/28/08 Page 24 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES the eight foot high wall would help with the sound, but she wanted to know if staff knew the decibel level of noise that the vacuums would generate. The other concern she had was with regards to the lighting. Mr. Koehm stated that he did not know the exact noise level that the vacuums generated, but it would be subject to the Code sound pressure levels, so it would be limited to 60 decibel at the property line with a duration of a minute or two at one time. Commissioner Eastman asked if there is a study to show the decibel level to be 60 or below. Mr. Koehm replied that a study had not been prepared. Commissioner Velasquez thought they should have a study done. Chairman Buffa stated that the vacuum cleaner makes some noise and is setback ten feet from this property line with an eight foot high wall and a row of dense evergreen trees. She wanted to make sure the trees were evergreen with dense foliage. She did not think they needed an acoustical study. Commissioner Faessel stated that he remembered the Mercedes Benz site. They gave the Commission a cross section of the property and geometry that showed the spill fight that might be expected on the adjoining property. This might have been helpful in this situation because there is a fifteen foot high canopy lighted with 400 watt high intensity discharge lighting and he is concerned ~nrith the spill light given all the mitigating issues. He thinks there may be high potential for light spill on the nine unit apartment complex. Chairman Buffa stated that there will be light spill, even though the direct rays of light will directed downwards, because the ambient light is significant. Commissioner Velasquez wanted to know what could be done to minimize this. Chairman Buffa stated that it is all about the trees, that is how they solve the problem. Mr. Koehm referred to Condition No. 18 on the draft resolution for the conditional use permit, which requires the lighting to be positioned and shielded in such a manner as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby residences. The applicant needs to show that information on the building plans. Staff will take into consideration experiences with the Mercedes Benz dealership. Commissioner Agarwal asked if the lights will be turned off at night. Mr. Koehm stated that the convenience market will close at 11:00 p.m. However, they will continue to serve and allow pumping of gas throughout the night. The carwash will also be limited from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Faessel asked if there is a lighting plan that shows the mitigation of the issues that ~ave been discussed, then he would be satisfied. 04/28/08 Page 25 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 'Mr. Ramirez stated that they could do that and they could potentially request larger trees at the time of planting along a particular property line of concern. Staff could take care of the design of the lighting plan and start off with larger canopy trees. Chairman Buffa stated that at the end of the recommendation they need to also request that the Council review the Reclassification, Conditional Use Permit, Public Convenience or Necessity finding, and the General Plan Amendment. Commissioner Faessel wanted clarification with regards to staff discussion about the lighting and stated that he understood that it is part of the process and it need not be incorporated as an additional condition, he asked if this was correct. Mr. Ramirez stated that they could add it as a condition of approval to ensure that the points made during the public hearing and the questions raised by the Commission are addressed. Chairman Buffa offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission approve the attached resolutions determining that a CEQA Negative Declaration serve as the appropriate environmental document for the project and approve Reclassification No. 2008-00216, Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-005309 with the addition of a Condition of Approval requiring a lighting plan to be approved by staff and a review by staff of the final landscape, plan and Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2008-00040 and recommend that the City Council review re-classification, Conditional Use Permit, ublic Convenience or Necessity and the General Plan Amendment. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with 6 yes votes. Commissioner Karaki was absent due to a recorded conflict of interest. OPPOSITION: A person spoke in opposition to the request and indicated he submitted a letter in opposition. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 20, 2008, and stated the subject items are recommended for City Council review and approval, therefore this item would be scheduled for a public hearing before the City Council. DISCUSSION TIME: 50 minutes (3:54-4:44) • 04/28/08 Page 26 of 27 APRIL 28, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:45 P.M. TO MONDAY, MAY 12, 2008 AT 1:00 P.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Respectfully submitted: Julie Hourani, Office Specialist II Received and approved by the Planning Commission on May 12, 2008. • 04/28/08 Page 27 of 27