Loading...
Minutes-PC 2002/02/11~ • CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2002 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRPF„~SQN ~"4hfY~ARNOLD AGENDA POSTING Friday, February 8, : the outside display k PUBLISHED: CALL TO ORDER ~ ~ ~~~ PLANNING COMM~S~SlOI • STAFF UPDATE ~`U~i DEVELOPMENTS'=A~ ~~~ , PLANNING COMMfS, • PRELIMINARY PLAN 19:00 a.m. on :rs, and also in RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Bostwick • PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARiNG ITEMS ADJOURNMENT H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTESMN021102.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C ~ RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 1-A through 1-D on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the publie request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-B through 1-D) as recommended by staff (with a correction on pages 15 and 18 of the January 28, 2002 Planning Commission Minutes). Consent Calendar Item (1-A) was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. Vote: 6-0, (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) MODIFICATION TO THE ADDENDUM TO THE POINTE ANAHEIM ~ Approved Revised • C J INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE Addendum and Mitigated DECLARATION/MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. Negative 004 Declaration/Modified b) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00393 Mitigation Monitoring Plan and directed staff to provide c) AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC any comments of the PLAN NO. 92-1 (TRACKING NO. SPN 2001-00012) Planning Commission to the d) AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE ANAHEIM RESORT PUBLIC REALM City Council; and LANDSCAPE PROGRAM (TRACKING NO. MIS 2001-00027) Determined that approval of e) AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. the Revised Addendum is 4078(TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04356) consistent with the f) FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT recommendations, findings NO. 99-01 (TRACKING NO. DAG 2001-00003): Anaheim Center for and conditions of approval Entertainment, LLC, Attn: Robert H. Shelton, on behalf of Excel adopted by the Planning Commission on 11-19-01 for Pointe Anaheim LLC, Anaheim Center for Entertainment, LLC, 11 Items 1 b, 1 c, 1 d, 1 e and 1 f Keats Court, Coto de Caza, CA 92679, requests that the Planning Commission review certain proposed modifications to the Addendum to the Pointe Anaheim Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration/Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004 pertaining to the use of excess Pointe Anaheim parking for convention center overFlow parking and that Commission confirm that the modifications do not change the land use recommendations that the Planning Commission made on November 19, 2001. INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION/MODIFIED MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 004 RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-22 SR8229AS.DOC (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) 02-11-02 Page 2 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMtSSION MINUTES • Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 1-A as a request to review and approve a revised addendum for Pointe Anaheim Initial Study and Modified Mitigated Negative Declaration, direct staff to provide Commission's comments to the City Council and to find the approval of the revised addendum consistent with Commission's recommendations, findings and conditions of approval of November 19, 2001. He stated it is a Pointe Anaheim Addendum and is largely a revision for the purpose of accommodating overflow parking from the Convention Center. Annika Santalahti, Planning and Zoning Administrator, informed staff recommends review and approval of the recommended revisions; copies of which were attached for the specific pages in the addendum and to the staff report. Public Testimony: Joel P. Kew of Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm and Waldron, Attorneys, 2603 Main St., Anaheim, CA, representing Pyrovest, the owners of the Anaheim Plaza Hotel property at the southeast corner of Disney Way and Harbor Boulevard, stated his understanding is that the purpose of the modification is to allow further negotiations for the disposition and development agreement in the form of an excess parking space lease agreement; a way to provide a development subsidy. He stated before that is done, the City needs to make sure there will be such spaces for which it is agreeing to pay and whether it will have access to those spaces. He states in support of the current request for modification, there is a report from Meyers and Mohaddes Association and it assumes one basic law of assumption. It calculates both the availability of excess spaces and the access to those spaces based upon the complete build out of the Pointe Anaheim project. Pyrovest owns the 9 acres that sits at Harbor Boulevard and Disney Way; it is a part of phases D and E. In fact, phases D and E include all of PyrovesYs property and a portion of the Pointe Anaheim property • and most relevant the portion that includes the Disney Way ingress and egress. With regard to the availability of excess spaces, if they are to be leased they should be there. There is no calculation of excess spaces based upon the build out of just A, B and C. If Pyrovest does not build D and E, what will the City be buying and will there be excess spaces for the project? If in fact D and E are not built the project will lose 18% of its commercial space and 34% of its parking. The report bases part of the reason for the recommendation of Meyers and Mohaddes is to cut off some of the property coming to the Convention Center. That is the cut-off of the project. Part of the traffic will come off the freeway at Disney Way and be able to make a left-hand turn at Disney Way and into the project. The Disney Way exit, which is the focus of access to that property, sits in phase D, which includes Pyrovest property. The latest proclamation of the City has been that no phase, which overlaps an interior property boundary, will be permitted construction absent to cooperation of both property owners. In the current situation cooperation is unlikely. What that means is A, B and C will be developed to its full capacity without the driveway on Disney Way: Without its principal access anybody driving north on Harbor Boulevard who wishes to turn right at Katella Avenue cannot make a left hand turn because there is no median break on Katella Avenue into the entrance. Going forward a block and turning right on Disney Way with the desire to enter is impossible because it does not exist. The same problem is faced people coming off the freeway where there is a "new, ready-to-go, glossy" median break into an entrance that is phased with Pyrovest property. So a driver ends up circling the block until eventually a right-hand turn is possible on Katella Avenue and that will be the only way in. He suggests if after A, B and C are built and that is the only way in, the backup on Katella Avenue waiting to turn right to get into the center will be so deep that Katella Avenue could be renamed "Pointe Anaheim Annex Parking". The lease payments could be saved because parking would be in the street and there would be no need to make lease payments. He feefs in the current climate, cooperation is unlikely and offers a solution, which he believes everyone • needs in order to find a way to get along without needing each other: - Include the phased entrance on Disney Way within phase C. - Building A, B and C would let patrons in on 3 sides. 02-11-02 Page 3 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • - That can be done by taking what is in phase D to the east of the property line and including it in phase C. - This method puts all of A, B and C in Meyer Mohaddes' property and all of D and E in PyrovesYs property. - This allows Pyrovest the opportunity to adhere to the setbacks and boundary line requirements should they so choose or if an agreement can be met that brings everyone together. - It also eliminates the conflict between the existing ordinances in the City of Anaheim about setbacks and the Pointe Anaheim overlay. Since 1992 Pyrovest has consistently stated the property is theirs and they would like to control its development. So for the benefit of Pyrovest and Meyer Mohaddes phasing should be separated. Access to Disney Way is needed to build phases A, B and C. Applicant's Response: Michael Meyer, Meyer Mohaddes, Associates, 900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200, Los Angeles, CA, stated an analysis of the parking supply and demand by each individual phase was performed and study shows for each of the phases there would be surplus parking. So there would be parking available to potentially provide overflow parking for the Convention Center. Parking is less in phase A alone but on a typical day when there is peak demand in all the uses there are 32 spaces of excess demand, but in phases A, B and C there are over 300 spaces available. The number of parking spaces increase to approximately 1,100 with the inclusions of phases D and E. There are going to be times during the year when there are no conferences or when the tourist volume is • lower so there would be significantly higher surplus parking available potentially for the Convention Center overflow. Regarding the driveway access issue, the driveway on Disney Way is on Pointe Anaheim's property and will be developed as part of phase A. So there will be access to the north right at the beginning of the project. Staff's Response: Annika Santalahti responded to Mr. Kew's comment regarding phasing not being consistent and stated the edge of the Pyrovest/Anaheim Plaza property is not the same as the edge of phase D. A significant portion of phase D is on Pointe Anaheim's property therefore there is more parking on the Pointe Anaheim portion than is needed for the uses. Regarding the development of the access onto Disney Way, one of the conditions approved by Commission is that as each phase comes in for final plan review, the applicant is required to submit an analysis of parking needs, present and future, and a validation that the numbers, based on the specific combination of square footages of uses in the phases, is done to the satisfaction of the City. So hopefully the City will never end up in a position where parking is behind in the density of the project. Commissioner Bostwick recalls from the drawing that the driveway off of Disney Way is on Pointe Anaheim's property. PUBLIC COMMENTS: An e-mail was received today with concerns from the Law Firm of Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm and Waldron LLP on behalf of Pyrovest; 1 person spoke representing the Law Firm of Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm and Waldron LLP with concerns on • behalf of Pyrovest. 02-11-02 Page 4 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ACTION: Approved the Revised Addendum to the Pointe Anaheim Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration/Modified Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 004 and directed staff to provide any comments of the Planning Commission to the City Council; and Determ+ned that approval of the Revised Addendum is consistent with the recommendations, findings and conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission on November 19, 2001 for: • General Plan Amendment No. 2001-00393 (Resolution No. PC2001-160) . Amendment No. 5 to The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1, including Amendments to the Land Use Plan, Design Plan, and Zoning Development Standards (Resolution No. PC2001-161) • Amendment No. 3 to the Anaheim Resort Public Realm Landscape Program (Resolution No. PC2001-162) • Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4078, including waiver of minimum number of parking spaces (Resolution No. PC2001-163) . Approval of First Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99-1 (Resolution No. PC2001-164) VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated the subject item would be considered by the City Council at a public hearing scheduled for February 12, 2002, but a continuance has been requested to the February 26, 2002 City Council meeting. • DISCUSSION: 14 minutes (1:45-1:59) • 02-11-02 Page 5 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C ~ B. a) DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM Determined to be in GENERAL PLAN - GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2002- conformance with the 00013: County of Orange, Public Facilities and Resources Anaheim General Plan Department, Attn: Ron Restivo, 300 North Flower Street, Santa Ana, CA 92702, request to determine conformance with the Anaheim (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner General Plan for the proposed lease of office space by the County of Vanderbilt was absent) Orange Public Facilities and Resources Department. Property is located at 1725 South Douglass Road. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the County's proposal to lease office space for its Environmental Resources staff at 1725 South Douglass Road is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights, and indicated that General Plan Conformity items have a statutory guideline limitation of 40-days from the date the application is submitted, therefore it is given accelerated processing and provided to the City Council at an early time. (The 40-day time limitation as required by Section 65402(b) of the Government Code requires the City to act on this item by March 5, 2002, as the application • was submitted on January 24, 2002 for the subject request.) SR0003TW.DOC u 02-11-02 Page 6 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • . ~ C. a) VARIANCE NO. 127 (TRACKING NO. VAR 2002-04483) - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Larry Henry, 329 North Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests termination of Variance No. 127. Property is located at 329 North Manchester Avenue. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-21 Terminated (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) SR8215NA.DOC 02-11-02 Page 7 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ D. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of January 28, 2002. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of January 28, 2002 with the following modifications to Pages 15 and 18: Modified the 10th paragraph of Page 15 to read as follows: "Cha+rperson Arnold thanked the applicant for conditions already complied with and clarified for him that Commission has a responsibility to apply standard conditions to each applicant" Modified the 7th paragraph of Page 18 to read as follows: "Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify why the indication in December, which was a little over a month ago that he was looking for 93 students, currently has 67 and now wants 130:' r~ ~J ~ Approved, with correction to Pages 15 and 18 (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) 02-11-02 Page 8 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ PUBLIG HEARING ITEMS• 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 2b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00061 February 25, 2002 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04455 OWNER: Camino Grande Villas Homeowners Association, TSG Independent Property Management, 27129 Calle Arroyo, # 1801, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 AGENT: Tetra Tech Wireless/Whalen, Attn: Lorena Martinez, 357 Van Ness Way, Suite 150, Torrance, CA 90501 Southern California Edison, Attn: Robert Teran, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770 LOCATION: (No addressl. Property is approximately 16.6 acres located at the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Stage Coach Road. Reclassification No. 2001-00061 - To reclassify subject property from RM-3000(SC) (Residential, Multiple-Family - Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the RS-A-43,000(SC) (Residential/Agricultural - Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04455 - To permit a • telecommunication antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Continued from the November 5, December 3 and December 17, 2001 and January 14, 2002 Planning Commission meetings. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8225VN.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos declared a conflict of interest as he is employed by the agent and Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), to continue the subject request to the February 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting as requested by Lorena Martinez, Project Manager, in order to finalize plans. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Koos declared a conflict of interest as he is employed by the agent and Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) • DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 02-11-02 Page 9 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04464 OWNER: Jillbridge Corp., 2141 Glendale Galleria #107, Glendale, CA 91210 AGENT: Lee, Lee & Pao. LLC, Attn: Gei-Jon Pao, 1407 North Batavia #201, Orange, CA 92867 LOCATION: 851 South Harbor Boulevard. Property is approximately 1.6 acres with a frontage of 338 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard located 340 feet south of the centerline of South Street. Request to permit a self-serve laundromat. Continued from the November 19, December 3 and December 17, 2001 and January 14, 2002 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to February 25, 2002 SR1056CW.DOC ~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None u ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), to continue the subject request to the February 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant. Furthermore, the applicant agrees to a 90-day extension of time in which the City must take action on the project in accordance with the Permit-Streamlining Act. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 02-11-02 Page 10 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04469 OWNER: Thrifty Oil Company C/O Arco Products, P. O. Box 512485, Los Angeles, CA 90051 AGENT: Sager Associates, Attn: Jonathan Sagherian, 109 East Harvard, Suite 306, Glendale, CA 91205 LOCATION: 1881 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 0.43- acre located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Nutwood Street (Shatilla Bakery). Request to permit the conversion of a vacant service station to a full service bakery with a 793 square foot addition. Continued from the December 3, 2001 and January 14, 2002 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to March 11, 2002 SR8217AN. DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIOIV ACTION. . OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), to continue the subject request to the March 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant additional time to submit revised plans for landscaping, signage and design of the proposed addition for review by the Planning Department. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 02-11-02 Page 11 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 3 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04489 OWNER: Cal Asia Property Development, 1517 South Sepulveda Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90025 AGENT: MPA Architectural Group, Attn: Jennifer Gerner, 1205 J Street, Suite F, San Diego, CA 92101 LOCATION: 1001 North State Colleqe Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.5-acre located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and State College Boulevard. Requests to construct a five-unit commercial retail center. Continued from the January 14 and January 28, 2002 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. C~ ~ OPPOSITION: None Continued to March 11, 2002 SR1057CW.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), to continue the subject request to the March 11, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant additional time to provide information regarding the proposed uses/tenants and to meet with the adjacent property owner. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 02-11-02 Page 12 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. - APPROVED) Approved 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1322 Approved reinstatement (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04497) to expire on March 1, 2003 OWNER: Sidney E. Bickel Trust, 5585 Via Dicha, #B, Laguna Hills, CA 92653 AGENT: The PRS Group, Attn: Phillip Schwartze, 31682 EI Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOCATION: 633 South East Street. Property is approximately 1.9- acres with a frontage of 240 feet on the west side of East Street located 182 feet north of the centerline of South Street (Quartz Dealer Direct). Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on February 1, 2000 to expire October 1, 2001) to retain an automobile wholesale and retail auction facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-23 SR8219VN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 6 as Conditional Use Permit No. 1322, a request for • reinstatement to retain an automobile wholesale and retail auction facility. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends reinstatement of the permit for a period of one year to expire October 11, 2002. Consistent with the recommendation is a change to the conditions of approval on page 5. Condition No. 1 should read: "that the Conditional Use Permit should expire on October 11, 2002". Applicant's Statement: Phil Schwartze, 633 South East Street, Anaheim CA, representing Quartz Dealer Direct, stated they have been diligently trying to find a new site for Quartz and believe they have located the appropriate site. The property is immediately adjacent to the City of Anaheim. Its easterly border is the city limit line of the City of Anaheim and the property itself is in the City of Buena Park. Fortunately it is approximately 5 times bigger than the current site. He concurs with staff's recommendation for Item No. 1 to expire on October 11, 2003 because it would take at least 18 months to get the building built and move to the City of Buena Park. Chairperson Arnold stated he is impressed the applicant is able to have the externalities on the City of Anaheim without any of the tax revenues. Mr. Schwartze responded it is the best he could do. Commissioner Boydstun stated starting with October of this year it is not practical that the building would be complete. She feels a full year is more appropriate and if a few months extension is requested it would not be a problem. ~ Commissioner Bostwick wished to clarify her recommendation would be untii February 11, 2003. Commissioner Boydstun responded yes or March 1, 2003. 02-11-02 Page 13 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Arnold stated the concern is if completing the project lingers too long the Conditional Use Permit would go with the property. Mr. Schwartze stated he is concerned about the amount of time it takes to get a building permit inside governmental jurisdictions and anticipates, under the best of circumstances, an 18-month window. He would be happy to come back in a year to ask for an extension because if building runs as smoothly as anticipated a year might be sufficient. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 1322 (Tracking No. CUP2001- 04497) to retain an automobile wholesale and retail auction facility, to expire on March 1, 2003. Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 2000R-18 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition No. 1 was modified ~ at today's meeting): 1. That this conditional use permit shall expire on , March 1, 2003. 2. That the hours of operation, except for off-loading of vehicles, shall be limited to the following, as stipulated by the petitioner: 8:30 a.m. - 9:00 p.m. on Monday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday through Saturday Automotive auctions on Monday and Friday (maximum 3-hours on each day) during hours specified above. That all auction vehicles shall be operable and parked in the screened storage area only. 4. That the 10-foot wide landscaped planter area adjacent to East Street shall be properly maintained with ground cover and shrubs as approved by the Planning Department. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor uses other than parking. 6. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 7. That the chain-link fence shall be maintained and screened with PVC slats. Said ~ slats shall be maintained in good condition. 02-11-02 Page 14 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to the existing and legally permitted signage. Any additional signage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 9. That trash storage areas shall be maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shaH be protected from grafFiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines, planted on maximum 3-foot centers, or tall shrubbery. 10. That the applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the premises free of litter at all times. 11. That auto maintenance and repair shall not be permitted, nor shall there be any retail sales/display. 12. That there shall be no off-loading of vehicles during the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. 13. That off loading of vehicles shall be limited to Rose Street behind the auction facility. 14. That on-site car washing shall be limited to washing with tap water or deionized water without the use of soaps or detergents. Solvents or degreasers may be used on a spot basis, but must be wiped off before the vehicle is rinsed. ~ 15. That any use of loud speakers shall not be audible to the residential properties. 16. That the applicant shall record and maintain an agreement with nearby property owners for the appropriate number of parking spaces for this use, as required by the Traffic and Transportation Manager, at the shopping center located at 1215 East Lincoln Avenue and/or such other nearby sites. The number of parking spaces shall be in excess of that which is required by Code by said commercial retail center and / or any other off-site parking site. The covenant shall be submitted for review and approval by the Zoning Division of the Planning Department and the City Attorney's Office and shall then be recorded in the Office of the Orange County Recorder. A recorded copy of the agreement shall be submitted to the Zoning Division. 17. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1, Revision No. 1, of the approval dated February 1, 2000, and as conditioned herein. 18. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilf was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. • DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (2:00-2:07) 02-11-02 Page 15 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ J 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04499 OWNER: Tosco Corp., 2585 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Olfati Design Group, Attn: Ali R. Dogmetchi, 5199 East Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 320N, Long Beach, CA 90804 LOCATION: 2585 West La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 0.52-acre located at the northeast corner of Magnolia Avenue and La Palma Avenue (Union Oil (76) Service Station). Requests to establish conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing automobile service station and to permit the conversion of the existing service station building into an accessory food mart with sales of beer and wine for off premises consumption. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to February 25, 2002 SR8218AN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 7 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04499, a request to establish conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing automobile service station and to permit the conversion of an existing service station building into an accessory food mart with sales of beer and wine for off premises consumption. Property is located at 2585 West La Palma Avenue (Union Oil 76 Service Station). He acknowledged Nathan Zug and Lindsey Climer, 437 N. Colorado St., Anaheim, CA., who were available to speak on the item and informed them that the applicant requested a continuance until February 25, 2002, and at that time a full hearing would be heard. He asked if they wished to go ahead and speak on the item. Recognizing their inference he admonished that the records reflect the speakers wished to wait until the public hearing of Item No. 7. OPPOSITION: None ACTION; Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), to continue the subject request to the February 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow additional time for the applicant to submit revised plans for landscaping and design of the proposed addition for review by the Planning Department. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) ~ DISCUSS(ON TIME: This item was not discussed. 02-11-02 Page 16 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISS(ON MtNt1TES ~ 8a. 8b. 8c. ~ CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 1 Continued to CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04513 February 25, 2002 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2002-00005 OWNER: Bonnie M. Weberg, 1360 East Maple Street, Glendale, CA 91205 AGENT: Alicia Cornejo, 1301 San Ponte Road, Corona, CA 92882 LOCATION: 1287-A East Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 4.2-acres with a frontage of approximately 430 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, located approximately 513 feet east of the centerline of East Street (Mama's Mini Mart). Requests approval to permit the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction with an existing legal non-conforming convenience market. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY SR8221AN.DOC RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), to continue the subject request to the February 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to submit a complete application. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 02-11-02 Page 17 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREV. - APPROVED A rove ) pp d 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4098 Approved reinstatement (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04498) with deletion of time limitation OWNER: Mission C. Praise, 1565 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802 AGENT: Praise Mission Church, Attn: Paul Hwang, 1726 South Angel Court, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 1565 West Katella Avenue. Property is approximately 0.71-acre with a frontage of 101 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue located 286 feet west of fhe centerline of Bayless Street (Praise Mission Church). Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on February 17, 1999 to expire February 17, 2002) to retain a church in a converted single-family residence. SR8210KB. DOC CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-24 Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 9 as Conditional Use Permit No. 4098, 1565 West Katella ~ Avenue, Praise Mission Church, a request for reinstatement to retain a church in a converted single- family residence. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval of the reinstatement along with the modified hours in Condition No. 7 and no deletions or additions to the staff report. There was no one available to speak on Item No. 9. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol stated the first time Item No. 9 was discussed the applicant came forward and stated concerns regarding noise from the neighbors directly to the north. He asked if there were any opposing neighbors from the north. There were none. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject ~ request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4098 (Tracking No. CUP2001- 04498) to retain a church in a converted single-family residence without a time limitation. 02-11-02 Page 18 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Incorporated the conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC99-31 into a new resolution with the following revised conditions of approval: That twenty four (24) inch box trees shall be planted and maintained in the landscaping planters immediately adjacent to Katella Avenue and in the west and north required setback areas in accordance with Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.44.063.010. and 18.44.063.040. 2. That all landscaped planters shall be permanently maintained with live and healthy plant materials. 3. That the existing wrought iron gates shall be maintained on the premises in order to secure the property. ~ 4. That the block wall adjacent to the east property line shall be repaired and maintained in good repair and at a maximum height of six (6) feet. 5. That the maximum occupancy for this building type is forty-nine (49) persons and, therefore, the maximum number of congregates at any one time shall be limited to forty-nine (49) persons. 6. That all church activities shall end at 9 p.m. on weeknights and parked vehicles shall be removed by 9:30 p.m., except on special church holidays (not exceeding ten (10) days per year). 7. That the hours of operation for church services shall be limited as follows: Sundays: - 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Wednesdays: - 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Thursdays: 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. The Pastor's office hours: Sundays: Wednesdays: Thursdays through Fridays: 7:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. 6:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. 8. That no exterior bells or chimes and no exterior amplification devices shail be permitted. That lighting for this facility shall be designed, positioned and maintained in a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate or cause glare onto adjacent or nearby properties. 10. That no outdoor services shall be conducted. 11. That signage for the subject facility shall be limited to that which is shown on the exhibits submitted by the petitioner and approved by the Planning Commission. Any additional signage shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. ~ 12. That no school facilities shall be operated on this site, inclusive of pre-school operations. 13. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be 02-11-02 Page 9 9 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walis of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum one (1) gallon, clinging vines planted on maximum three (3) foot centers or tall shrubbery. 14. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be maintained in accordance with Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Streets and Sanitation Division. 15. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3, as conditioned herein. 16. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (2:08-2:09) ~ 02-11-02 Page 20 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 10b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00066 March 25, 2002 10c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 10d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04501 (READVERTISED): 10e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16227 OWNER: Micheal Daskalakis, 623 North James Place, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: Brandywine Development Corporation, 1801 East Edinger Avenue, Suite 125, Santa Ana, CA 92705 LOCATION: 820-824 South Magnolia Avenue. Property is approximately 1.4-acres with a frontage of 280 feet on the east side of Magnolia Avenue located 120 feet south of the centerline of Rome Avenue. Reclassification No. 2001-00066 - Requests reclassification of the subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) zone to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04501 - To construct a 13-unit detached one-family residential condominium subdivision with waivers of a) maximum structural height adjacent to a single-family residential zone, b) minimum structural setback abutting an arterial highway, c) minimum ~ landscape setback abutting a single-family residential zone, d) minimum distance between building walls, e) minimum required recreational leisure area, fl maximum fence height, and g) minimum privafe street standards. Tentative Tract Map No. 16227 - To establish a 1-lot, 13-unit detached residential airspace condominium subdivision. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUtION NO. SR1055CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 10 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04501, a request for a 13-unit residential condominium subdivision to be known as Magnolia Cottages at 820-824 South Magnolia Avenue. Commissioner Koos abstained from Item No. 10 as he accepted in excess of $250 from the applicant within the last 12 months. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends approval of all actions listed in the recommendation section of the staff report. He stated after the staff report was printed it was discovered that the centerline from Magnolia Avenue was not accurately depicted on the site plan. The general plan has a width along Magnolia Avenue of 53 feet from the centerline and the site plan shows 50 feet. So there needs to be some modification to the site plan to accommodate the right-of-way and landscaping along Magnolia Avenue. Staff is currently trying to obtain housing element information to determine whether it is a housing opportunity site and what segment of housing it would fulfill if it were implemented. ~ 02-11-02 Page 21 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Applicant's Statement: Donna Chessen, of Chessen and Associates, Inc., 3420-3A Calle Azul, Laguna Woods, CA, representing Brandywine Development, requested approval to reclassify the property and to construct 13-units of detached single-family homes. She stated the developer of the property, Jim Barrisic, an active Orange County builder for over 30 years, has developed over 1,500 homes ranging from entry level at $60,000 to custom homes of over $1,000,000. The company specializes in the acquisition and development of infield locations evident by the recent construction sales of 36 homes in the City of Garden Grove. As a 30-year resident of Orange County Mr. Barrisic and Brandywine Development are proud to present the project of 13 detached cottage homes and believe they provide many benefits to the City: • Improvement of Magnolia Avenue by adding sidewalks, curbs and gutters which would give the street an overall cleaned up appearance. • Increase the land values and help support the neighborhood commercial businesses. • Add to and improve the housing stock and help to promote the revitalization of the neighborhood. • Promote an overall feeling of neighborhood community. In an effort to have a welcomed and accepted project by the neighborhood they visited over 30 residents in the neighborhood. The purpose was to explain the project and to answer any questions or concerns. The enthusiasm by the neighborhood was overwhelming and they expressed excitement that they would no longer have to deal with an empty, dusty lot and it would help clean up graffiti which they were ~ presently experiencing. They were also very excited with the architectural design and the beauty of the homes. The lovely cottages, which will be 1,870 square feet to 2,000 square feet, will have a price range of $330,000 to $336,000. The innovative and creative project is exciting and will be a win-win for all; the City of Anaheim, neighborhood and the developer, Brandywine has worked hard for a very long time to bring the project to Commission and has redone and revisited the project over and over in order to present the best possible project that everyone could be proud of. Ms. Chessen thanked staff for their extreme diligence and cooperation, especially Charity Wagner, Assistant Planner, who made it a pleasant experience for everyone. She states they have read and are willing to comply with all of the conditions placed on the project, excluding Condition No. 19. Because of the special attention paid to details in the enhancement of the architectural design of the homes, the architectures will present the architectural detail of the project and explain why Condition No. 19 excludes concurrence with staff's recommendations. Jim Langston, LSA Architecture, 1801 E. Edinger #225, Santa Ana, CA, a representative of Brandywine Development, stated they have chosen a traditional look with bungalow, craftsman design and on the main street where the homes back up, Brandywine has added a vast amount of siding, which most developers do not do. Brett Whitehead, 1801 E. Edinger Ave., Suite 125, Santa Ana, CA, a representative of Brandywine Development, stated in working with staff and the neighbors over the past year Brandywine feels they have come up with a great concept. Because there has been enthusiasm over the type products where a neighborhood feeling is created, the project was modeled after the cottages in Brea, CA. Therefore the porches are designed on the front so that people can sit outside and watch their children play. ~ To address a concern raised by one of the neighbors (Linda) they proposed to slide down three of the homes by 5-feet. That would take the home next to the tot lot and move it down 5-feet where there is a 5- foot sideyard which would move the other two houses down giving her a 10-foot offsite instead of 5-foot. 02-11-02 Page 22 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Trees will be planted in the 10-foot sideyard so that it would block the sides of the house and give more privacy. In regards to Condition No. 19, the majority of the windows have been placed up high, which is a typical design of all Brandywine projects to prevent intrusion into neighboring property. Unfortunately there is one window in which the solution is very difficult. The window will be kept as small as possible but it is in the bedroom and therefore an egress window. Public Testimony: Charles Gemma, 2567 Eola Drive, Anaheim, CA, stated his home is bordering onto the development and he would like to make sure when a brick wall is built around his premises it be limited to 6 feet. He would like to see a wall around the premises for his protection and privacy and is in favor of the development because it will improve the neighborhood. Lois Leikness, 2566 West Eola Drive, Anaheim, CA, states her property is on the "L" portion of the property and she wonders if the road proposed is actually going to be built and the alley extended or if entrance would be from the main road. Children run through the alley and she would not like to encounter additional children coming through the alley. Nathan Zug, 721 S. Velare Street, Anaheim, CA, states he is a staff member at Magnolia Baptist Church, 720 S. Magnolia Avenue, which is down the street from his house and is also involved with the community and his children in public school. He appreciates West Anaheim and the place to live that it provides his family and is expecting to be a long termed resident of West Anaheim. Mr. Zug passes by the vacant property frequently and can envision it as a nice destination for families. • However, he feels the quality of life would be better for the homes in the long run if they were limited to 10 or 11 homes as opposed to 13 which would require many variances in order to exist in that area. In participating with West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Counsel (WAND) for many years and knowing what West Anaheim desires he is aware of other developers staying within the ratio of 8 or 9 homes per acre and feels Brandywine should be cognizant of the standards. He feels, however, as nonresidents of the community Brandywine is asking to go beyond the limits, disregarding the needs and desires of the neighborhood. As a resident and very involved person in the community Mr. Zug asks the project be limited to 10 homes or less in order to afford a good quality of life for the entire community. Esther Wallace, 604 Scott Lane, Anaheim, CA, Chairman of WAND, stated no one in the community would say they are not happy to see a development with houses the sizes proposed because they have asked for the "move-up house" and feel this is definitely a"move-up house". It has 1,900 to 2,100 square feet, which is what the community is looking for. However, the number of variances Brandywine is asking is too many. She suggests a reduction of two houses on the proposed site. In viewing Brandywine Developments projects in Garden Grove, CA, she noticed that they tend to build very close to the street but West Anaheim would like to see greenbelt on their streets. Also, she noticed all garbage has to be collected in one central area because the garbage truck cannot go down the longer street and she is not sure the new residents are going to want to take all of their garbage down daily into one central area. She is concerned about the windows and asks 1) if they are not looking down on the homes that are behind them are they looking out of each other's homes, and 2) which direction are the windows going? And, if it is only 10 feet or so between some of the homes, she is not sure that is a good idea either. She woufd like to see some of the variances taken away and feels the City of Anaheim tend to allow too many variances and it does not give a good construction site. WAND has asked for 9 homes or less in ~ the previous housing developments and feels the housing developments that asked for 10 or more were done a considerable number of years ago. The one on Brookhurst Street and Lincoln Avenue is only 57 homes; approximately 9 per site. The development on Twila Reid Park is only 7 per site. Ms. Wallace would like to see that ratio kept. 02-11-02 Page 23 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Charles Bradley, 3208 W. Faircrest Drive, Anaheim, CA, a representative of WAND, states he lives one mile west of the project off Western Avenue between Ball Road and Orange Avenue. The developers came before WAND and their Land Use and Business Development Committee Meeting on May 2, 2001 and announced their plans for the project. WAND agrees with the idea of building houses on vacant lots; that is an improvement. The developers did not know what the Planning Department required so WAND asked them to return to the Planning Department and come back with something that is a little more feasible. He feels, however, today they are proposing the same thing to the Planning Commission as proposed to WAND, 13 houses on a small site. They never returned to WAND with the plan and the next WAND heard from them was the notice, which was obtained from the Anaheim Bulletin, informing the location and date of today's meeting. He agrees with Ms. Wallace, trash trucks cannot pull up to the front of the building; the developers propose to put all trash bins straight ahead coming off of Magnolia Avenue. He feels that is wrong, people should have a place to put their trash on a piece of property, which is 1.3 acres. Mr. 8radley objects to a 6-foot wall at the front of the building and states 3 feet is the code and that is what should be adhered to. The developers are asking for 20-foot wide interior streets but 24 feet is the code, and that should be adhered to so that trucks can go in and out, otherwise how would potential residents get moving vans onto the street to unload possessions. The developers are asking for a total of 26 covered parking spots and 34 uncovered for a total of 70 but with a lot size of 4,188 feet that is really squeezing it. The homes off of Holiday Street on Ball Road and Knott Avenue have a lot more acreage, at least 5,200 per house. He suggests Commission not go along with the variances the developers are asking. He concurs with Mr. Zug there are too many units requested for the property. Richard Flacy, 830 S. Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated two weeks ago a gentleman came to his door with a handout stating "Brandywine Development Presents Anaheim Magnolia Cottages". At that ~ time the gentleman was told additional information would be appreciated; namely, the size of the lots, how high they were going to be and what they were going to do to include the overhead easement on the center of the property; 100 feet total. Where the telephone and power lines are located is an alley that comes in on Heffron Drive, which is the only garage access for himself and his neighbors to the south and north. He compares the proposed project with the project on Bel Air Street and Orange Avenue where a few years ago when the development company built the property they started with a humongous number of homes which they proposed to build to the north of Bel Air Apartments. They didn't indicate at that time that the north wall along the apartments was going to disappear and somehow when it was rebuilt was not going to be in the same place. So now where the north wall was is the back yard of some of the homes. The current proposal appears to be two-story houses with windows outlooking on the upper side; there is a two-story window looking south, looking east, and looking north. Mr. Flacy states that permits looking into people's back bedrooms and there is no way around it unless the walls are completely blanked. He feels if the property is built the alley wiA have to be extended {currently a 20-foot alley) which means part of the property will remain undeveloped and residents will most likely use it for entrance and exit because it would be less travel than trying to get onto Magnolia Avenue, particularly to make a left hand turn onto Magnol+a Avenue coming off the property. Mr. Flacy has lived in his home since the summer of 1959 and has witnessed several accidents. A couple of them ended up in his front yard, waiting for the paramedics. With no more information than he has at the present time he would sincerely request Commission refuse the variances proposed; there are too many. He feels the developers are asking for carte blanche. They do not want to adhere to the height restrictions, street widths or setbacks and WAND never received any documentation or information from the developer indicating what they were actually going to do. ~ He feels he has not been given enough information to make specific objections except in granting of the variances and the fact that there are too many houses for the property. It is 300 feet long; roughly it is 100 feet because half of it would be 150 by 106 feet if the developers go with the current curbs that are in 02-11-02 Page 24 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ the City of Anaheim, back to where the alley is that is 106 feet. The RS lots tf~at are there now are 66 feet by 106 feet and there is room for 3 until they reach the middle of the property and from there on out where the streets would be located is questionable. He sat through 3 evening sessions of the City Council Meetings regarding the bid on Heffron Drive and Bel Air Street, and kept hearing the promises of how everything was going to be fine and to just continue to trust them. He states with all due respect, he does not anymore. He asks to be shown something hard in writing like a tract map, etc. He asks Commission give consideration to the proposal but not "give away the store". Judithanne Gofletfe, 649 S. Roanne Street, Anaheim, CA, a representative of WAND, states there are several things that they have to clarify: Commission has heard from several speakers of the West Anaheim community and no one is objecting to new construction in West Anaheim, everyone applauds it but they are all concerned about the quality of life for two communities; the neighborhood that already exist and the neighborhood that it is going to be built in. Brandywine Developers presented the plan to WAND last year and at that time they were told it impacts the property too much. In visiting other Brandywine Developments she noticed their typical development style and told the developers that is not what West Anaheim is looking for. The developers jokingly laughed and said, "if you think that you are going to get a development without the waivers then you are mistaken". Ms. Gollette feels the City of Anaheim has a choice; the right to accept or to say we have standards, rules and codes and we want to abide by them. As a West Anaheim resident she was very much impacted by a property development such as this one in her own back yard. She has a two-story building and had a swimming pool in her back yard approximately 30 feet from the fence and a typical 6-foot block wall. The City Council admonished the developers, "do not take this family's privacy away from them, they have a quality of life that they are ~ assured of, they have been there for a number of years and we need to protect thaY'. There were to be no windows and no side aligned to her back yard. There were to be mature landscaping and a setback of approximately 30 feet. She states what they got were windows and doors facing their backyard and mature landscaping that every year is trimmed and it comes down to twigs. They now have a 10-foot wall on her side and a 12-foot wall on the developers side just to protect some type of privacy. They had to take out their pool because they lost all sense of it. Ms. Gollette states WAND, along with the City, knows all the rules that were broken in the '70's and the `80's. Everyone is aware of what went on and is also aware that West Anaheim is impacted with a number of properties and there are not enough greenbelt amenities, She suggests they have to use what they have learned in the past to protect the development for the future. Commission has heard the residents state that there are two many properties or homes being designed for the proposed property. Brandywine is known to have a typical development where there is very small landscaping from the street. Everyone objected to Muller, which is the properties across from Target, coming in and said that it was a bad development. She feels Muller looks like a park compared to Brandywine Developments and suggests if the City is going forward, to use Stonegate on Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard as a pattern of what they are looking for so that as people drive by and see the City of Anaheim they will see impressive developments, not something that is just shoved in because there is a vacant lot. There are numerous vacant lots in West Anaheim; the old farmhouse contains large rectangular lots. The City of Anaheim needs to protect the community, the people that are coming in and build for the future. WAND asks that Brandywine be continued, permitting them an opportunity to go back to the drawing board with fewer homes, and if they wish speak to WAND, so that everyone can work together to build a project that the neighborhood appreciates. No one supports the proposed project as is; not one neighbor present spoke in favor of the property. Three neighbors said they had questions, and out of the 30 homes ~ the developers went to not one person favors the project as is. Ms. Gollette suggests, "IeYs go back to the drawing board, IeYs come back with a better project so that it is a win-win situation for everybody". 02-11-02 Page 25 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Applicant's Response: Mr. Whitehead states there are a number of variables on the property and if is a very difficult site to develop. He admits he has never dealt with L-shaped properties but rather those that are rectangular or square in nature and feels in order to make the proposed development work it must be squeezed somewhat. Originally they came to WAND with 14 units and decided that was too many units so one was dropped and feels with 13 units the project is feasible. Additional expenses were considered; power lines going through the property have to be undergrounded and all the streets have to be improved, incfuding Magnolia Avenue. The alleyway behind the homes will remain and a block wall will be built to the end of the property line preventing anyone from entering or exiting the alleyway; so the alleyway will be safe. Chairperson Arnold stated that a speaker from the audience voiced concerned with how the alley is displayed and asks if it is just his particular parcel. Mr. Whitehead stated that is correct. In regards to the trash, they met with the Sanitation Department and was assured their proposal was okay. They have used a central trash collection point in cities such as Cypress, Garden Grove, Tustin, etc., and it has worked for 19, 20, even up to 30 unit developments. He feels the reason they have to use that solution is because the trash truck cannot tum around unless units are lost. In regards to how Magnolia Avenue is going to look there will be a landscaped city parkway, a sidewalk and a 7-foot planter, which will be landscaped with 20 foot trees on center. Regarding the windows, one window is a problem. He feels the only way they can deal with it is to make the pop-out window pop out 4 feet more, which will probably be more intrusive and then put a window on the side of the pop-out which is necessary for egress purposes because it is a bedroom window. Chairperson Arnold asked if Commission were to say 11 units is the most we can see feasibly working on ~ this property, would the response be, "I am sorry, at this point it is just not feasible might as well just deny it and we are going to walk away"? Mr. Whitehead responded yes, due to the price of land and construction. Land is very expensive and in order to make a project work you have to have the density. If two units are lost the project is dead. Commissioner Boydstun states safety is her main concern and the City's minimum street requirement is 28 feet but the developer is proposing 22 to 24 feet. She understands that there is a fire hydrant upon entry to all streets but states hypothetically if a fire were to happen deep within the community and an ambulance is needed an engine for the hydrant would block the other streets. Convenience is her other concern; with the community being impacted with so many houses and the streets being so narrow, street parking is compfetefy eliminated. She suggests eliminating two houses at the back, which would cancel the need for waivers or eliminate two houses to the east, so there is extra parking and some extra space. Mr. Whitehead responded that he spoke to the Fire Department several months ago and was told because the distance was less than 150 feet that the location of the fire hydrant would be okay. Jerry Austin, Fire Marshall, responded with regard to the 24-foot access identified on the plans, it appears based on the uniform fire code, the developers meet the minimum requirements of 20-foot for fire engines; on one street there is 24 feet and on the other street it is 22 feet. In regards to the fire hydrant location, the contractor will submit the plans showing the waterlines and where they are going to be located and also provide a fireflow for the hydrant that they want to install. The fireflow figure will determine the distance from the public accessway where the hydrant will be placed. He states there are other facilities in the City that the Fire Department has dealt with, which has similar type access problems and they take under consideration a prefire plan. For example, since the farthest distance from the street of Magnolia Avenue to the very back portion of the development is less than 300 ~ feet the code determines they do not have to provide a cul-de-sac. If they were more than 300 feet away they would have to provide a turnaround (cul-de-sac) of 78-feet which is the total aggregate distance, approximately a 38-foot radius turnaround for the fire engines. The proposed property is laid out in a 02-11-02 Page 26 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • fashion that puts them approximately 260 feet in total distance; therefore they would not have to meet that requirement. In dealing with a fire as hypothetically stated, the Fire Department would do one of two things: 1) A "layin", which is basically hitting the hydrant on the way in and that will provide water so that hoses can be connected to the fire engine and make it possible to go in and fight the fire and 2) If it is found that the fire is on the opposite side of where the hydrant may be located, a"3-point turn" can be done which includes an "alleylay" where the Fire Department actually backs the fire engine up to where the fire is burning, pull the hose off, drive the fire engine to the fire hydrant and connect, making it possible to have water. Regarding the potential need for an ambulance and fire engine at the same time, approximately 12 feet is needed on each side of each unit in order to get them passed each other but under those circumstances since it is such a short distance, one unit will pull in and the other unit will pull in behind it. If there were a fire that required two fire units, both sides of the street would be used to store fire engines and the equipment would be taken off to fight fF~e fire. Commissioner Boydstun asked if 12 feet is needed for each vehicle and the street is 22 feet wide, how would it be possible to get two fire engines side by side. Mr. Austin responded the vehicles are not 12 feet in width therefore 12 feet on each side of each unit would be more than adequate width to drive two fire engines along side each other. There is no code requirement saying 12 feet is needed as far as access of having two engines side by side. The code only says that they have to provide a minimum of 20 feet for access. Commissioner Bostwick asked Mr. McCafferty to explain the reason for so many of the waivers. ~ Mr. McCafferty responded in terms of development standards the product that the developers are building is a small lot single-family product and the zoning code that they have to develop under is the City's multiple-family zone. Because the City does not currently have zoning in the market that accounts for that type product it often results in waivers. For example waiver A, which is the minimum structure height, is almost always a waiver as seen by Planning Commission. Another one is the minimum distance between buildings; the code anticipates a product similar to a large condominium project where there would be certain distances for light and ventilation between buildings. However in this case the developers are setting the project up with 5-foot side yards similar to what is normal for a single-family zone. Commissioner Bostwick asked if the developers chose to set the project up as RS5000, would waivers A and B be nonexistent. Mr. McCafferty responded that is correct and neither would there be a need for waiver D. Commissioner Bostwick clarified waivers A, B and D wo~ld be by right and the developers are in effect building something that is more dense but it really is a housing project (RS 5000) but on a smaller lot. Mr. McCafferty responded that is correct, and on a private street. Chairperson Arnold asked comments from the Housing and Development Department regarding concerns about the density and what kinds of flexibility the Commission needs with respect to housing development since it is 2000 demographic profile done by the center for demographic research for the City of Anaheim, which indicates that the City's population the last 10 years grew 23.1 %, but the housing stock actually grew 6%2%. West Anaheim residents indicate there is a hope for more homeownership; more stability in terms of residences that the City is building, and are concerned about how that impacts the schools and community. At the same time reports from the State-Housing Department is received ~ about how zoning codes create barriers to the development of housing. Bertha Chavoya, Housing and Development Department Manager, stated Department of Housing is waiting to get its housing element certified. The City Council adopted it, it was submitted to the state and 02-11-02 Page 27 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ has gone through two revisions and is still pending. There is a requirement by the state to add 11,103 new construction units to the City of Anaheim. There are approximately seven cities in the county that have not had their housing element certified. The number is broken down as such: very low = 2,475; low = 1, 469; moderate = 2,625; and above moderate = 4,534 for the total of 11,103. Depending on the sales price, the proposed project would probably meet the new construction need for moderate and above should it go forward. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify the City is under pressure to look for as many housing opportunities as possible. Ms. Chavoya responded the proposed project is not one of the City's potential affordable housing sites. It would be in addition to, so if it goes forward Department of Housing would definitely revise its chart and add it to the new housing stock available. Chairperson Arnold appreciates the number of well argued concerns raised but is concerned if at some point Commission is too stringent on these type issues and developers walk away, housing of a higher end nature would disappear and the City would continue to see multi-family projects coming in on every single site. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Eastman stated putting the fence height at the street tends to make it walled in and takes away from its looks by separating it from the rest of the neighborhood, however the zone is for a single- family neighborhood. She asked the developer if he could give some reason why that is something he really has to have. ~ Ms. Chessen stated she would have the developer respond to Commissioner Eastman but she would first like to answer Commissioner Boydstun's question. A change has been made so that there are two places to park in front of each garage and guest parking is exceeded by 10 spaces (guest parking = 20 and Brandywine = 30). Mr. McCafferty responded if parking is arranged as a single-family house there would need to be a two- car garage and two spaces in tandem therefore the developers meet the parking code with the type of product they are constructing. Commissioner Boydstun responded she is aware of the code but is concerned that there is no street parking such as normal neighborhoods would have. Mr. Chessen responded designing fwo-car parking spaces in front of the garages accommodates extra parking. Mr. Whitehead responded to Commissioner Eastman stating his original feeling was to have the houses facing onto Magnolia Avenue, which would put the backyard behind Magnolia Avenue. However the back yards would be visible to people driving into the community and the way the site is so constrained back yards became side yards. With that in mind they thought that having typical back yards on the units would be better for the homeowners, which then requires the 6-foot wall on Magnolia Avenue. Mr. McCafferty stated code requires 20 feet landscape setback from Magnolia Avenue but as designed, if they were to relocate the wall farther back they could not count the area between the wall as currently proposed in the unit as the recreational leisure area for that particular unit. Currently the rear of the units face Magnolia Avenue so the 10 feet between the wall and the unit is their back yard. Commissioner Bristol asked what about a zero lot line to allow a couple areas to have more of a setback. ` Mr. Whitehead responded, its okay depending on where it is located. For example, the one unit by the tot lot is going to be moved down 5 feet and that one will become a zero lot line. However staff recommends 10 feet between each unit. 02-11-02 Page 28 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. McCafferty stated there might not be a problem with it bein zero lot line but at minimum for clearance 9 around the unit there should be 5 feet from that unit to the developers imaginary setback or property line. If one unit is shifted 5 feet to make it zero lot line that means they have a larger open area on the other side and personal items could be carted on that side. He states staff would not have a problem with that. Commissioner Bostwick concurred with the residents that the project is crowded. He states the developers have done a good job in designing it and getting it where it is but perhaps eleven units would be better and would allow room to widen out the entry street, put in parking and provide more open space. He realizes there are garages and parking in front but in reality they are 4 bedroom houses and that would mean all of four and maybe five or six cars. It is normal today for each child and parent to have a car in one family so there really has to be additional parking. To have an extra car between somebody's driveway is not a great idea because it takes up the greenbelt. He suggests shifting the houses on that road towards the tot lot to the west and moving the tot lot down in the corner would give more open space and get houses away from neighboring houses. He states as the project is presented today he would not support it. Commissioner Boydstun concurred that it would be a great idea if the zero lot line method were implemented so that each house has more room on one side instead of a little bit on each side but definitely more parking space is needed. She suggests if two units were eliminated it would make it possible to have more parking, the tot lot and the houses could be moved down to get rid of the waiver. Commissioner Bristol stated the project has changed since he first saw it. He believes the applicant moved parking off the entrance and integrated it within the project. He feels the project is too dense but on the other hand he appreciates the elevations. He likes the project but is concerned with the variances on Rome Avenue facing the north side. He asks if approximately two homes were removed and the zero ~ lot line adjustments addressed would that improve the project enough. Mr. McCafferty stated in order to comply with code in regards to waiver A, within 50 feet of any single- family property line there could be absolutely no two-story structures. Commissioner Boydstun asked if this were zoned RM5000, would they be able to put 11 units in and eliminate some of the waivers and be able to build closer to the line because then the sefback would be less. Mr. McCafferty responded with RM5000 the rear setback would be 5 feet for the first story and 10 feet for the second and that works out to approximately 8.7 dwelling units to the acre. Commissioner Bristol stated as vehicles ingress off of Magnolia Avenue there is a driveway to the left on the corner, which means going directly to a trash enclosure and a tot lot and to the right there would be two driveways and it does not look good. He feels the problem would not be resolved by eliminating two homes because the site is configured incorrectly. He advises there are other things that can be done. Chairperson Arnold stated it is clear Commission is not satisfied with the current configuration and feels the application would most likely go before the Ciry Council where they would make further efforts to get it revised and it would result in continued visits back and forth with the City Council. However he feels it would be too bad if the development were limited with respect to how it relates to the proposed parcel size and configuration. He concurs with Commissioner Boydstun regarding where guest would park because residents will park their own cars in their driveways and if lots were shifted downward that could impact some of the other variances. Also, the trash is a major concern as well as emergency vehicle access. So the choices are either between a continuance for some sort of redesign or a denial and have it all played out in front of the City Council again. • Mr. McCafferty stated in order to have parking on a private street on one side there would have to be a width of 32 feet and on two sides there would have to be a width of 36 feet. 02-11-02 Page 29 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Arnold clarified one thing Commissioner Boydstun asked was whether at the very ends of the private drive if some of that, without upsetting the amount of the recreational space available, could not be turned into paved parking spaces. Commissioner Bristol stated he visited a project in South County which is very similar to the proposed project and the driveways were so narrow that it was necessary to get out and walk because they could not be driven through. He feels if it ever deemed necessary for a fire truck in the project as proposed that would limit further access. He favors giving the applicant an opportunity to redesign the project as opposed to declining it. Chairperson Arnold asked the applicant if it were not a waste of his time. Mr. Whitehead responded no. Chairperson Arnold stated there would be a continuance to March 25, 2002 giving the applicant an opportunity to redesign the project. Commissioner Bostwick admonished notices would not be sent out so it would be necessary to remember the continuance date and time. ~ • ~ ~ ' ~ ~ • • ~ • OPPOSiTiON: Six people spoke in opposition (three representing West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Counsel [WAND]) pertaining to the number of homes being proposed; the height of the proposed homes/walls; and relayed their objection to the requested waivers as there are too many. • CONCERNS: A person spoke with a concern pertaining to the existing alley. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos declared a conflict of interest as he accepted in excess of $250 within the last 12 months for campaign contributions; and Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent), to continue the subject request to the March 25, 2002 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to take into consideration the concerns raised at today's meeting and come back to the Planning Department with a new proposal/redesign of the subject request. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Koos declared a conflict of interest as he accepted in excess of $250 within the last 12 months for campaign contributions; and Commissioner Vanderbilt was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 5 minutes (2:10-3:15) i 02-11-02 Page 30 FEBRUARY 11, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:17 P.M. TO MONDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2002 AT 91:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~ ~ Pat Chan er, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2001. • ~ 02-11-02 Page 31