Minutes-PC 2005/06/01~~,,~EIM ~~ CITY OF ANAHEIM
~ `~~ ~r~' Planning Commission
0 0
~ ~, Supplemental Detailed Minutes
..., ~
" ~ Wednesday, June 1, 2005
. ,~-~~~o~ .
~~ (CUP N0. 2005-04975, TTM NO. 16825 and
~~~ l$~~ DAG NO. 2005-00005 - Item No. 2)
NUED
: Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California
CHAIRMAN: GAIL EASTMAN
Commissioners Present: KELLY BUFFA, JOSEPH KARAKI, ED PEREZ,
PA7 VELASQUEZ (arrived at 2:30 p.m.), (ONE VACANCY)
' Commissioners Absent: CECILIA FLORES
• Staff Present:
Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney
Greg Hastings; Planning Services Manager
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner
Della Herrick, Associate Planner
Janet Baylor, Deputy Fire Marshal
Cathy Mobley, Fire Inspector II
Linda Eaves, Sr. Code Enforcement Officer
James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer
Amy Vazquez, Associate P{anner
Kimberly Wong, Pianning Aide
Jessica Nixon, Planning Aide
Elly Morris, Senior Secretary
You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following
• e-mail address: planninacommissionCa~anaheim.net
' H:ITOOLSIPCADMIN~2005 MINUTES\SUPPLMINUTES060105 (Item 2).DOC
06-01-05
_ Page1
2a. CEQA Mitiqated Neaative Declaration and Mitiqation Perez/Karaki
Monitorin~ Plan Na 129
2b. Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04975 Perez
2c. 7entative Tract Map No. 16825 Perez/Eastman '
2d. Development Aqreement No. 2005-00005 (Readvertised) perez
Owner: US Southeast Corporation, 1818 South State Coliege
Boulevard; Suite 200, Anaheim, CA 92806
Agent: John Stanek, lntegra! Partners, 160 Newport Center Drive,
Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660
tocation: 1818 South State Colleqe Boulevard. Property is
approximately 3.1 acres, located south and east of the
southeast corner of State Co{lege BouleVard and Kateita
AVenue, having a frontage of 327 feet on the east side of State
College Boulevard and 105 feet on the south side of Katella
Avenue (Platinum Centre Condominiums).
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04975 - Request to. modify the required
setback abutting State College BouleVard and the proposed private street for a
265-unit residential condominium project
~
~
Tentative Tract Map No. 16825 - Request to establish a 1-lot, 265-unit
airspace attached residential condominium subdivision.
Devefopment Agreement No. 2005-00005 - Request to adopt a Development
Agreement between the City of Anaheim and U.S. Southeast Corporation for a
265-unit residential condominium project.
Continued from the May 2, 2Q05 Planning Commission meeting.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2005-83
Development Agreement Resolution No. PC2005-84
Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing.
Recommended City Council
approval
Granted
Approved
Recommended City Council
approval
CUP
Added a condition of approval `
pertaining to the applicant
submitting building/architectural
' plans for review and approval by
the Planning Commission.
TTM
Modified Condition
Nos. 3, 4, 17 and 19
DAG
Modified Condition
Nos. 3, 4, 17 and 19
VOTE: 5-0
Commissioner Flores absent and
with one Commission vacancy
avazquez@anaheim.nef
Amy Vazquez, Associate Planner, stated prior to her introduction of the item that Associate Civil Engineer
James Ling from Public Works Department will read into the record modifications to the conditions of
approvaL
James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer, referred to the Draft Tentative Tract Map No. 16825 staff report.
Modify condition no. 3 to read that the developer shall submit street, sewer and landscape improvement
plans for the public improvements along State College Boulevard, Katella Avenue and a private street to
the Public Works Department, Development Services Division" A bond shall be posted in an amount
approved by the City Engineer and a form approved by the City Attorney prior to issuance of a building
permit or plan approval whichever occurs first. The rider of destruction permit sha11 be obtained from the
Development Services Division for all work performed in the right-of-way. The improvements shall be
constructed prior to certificate of occupancy:' They added the word "sewer" and "Katella Avenue" to the
first sentence. In condition No. 4, "that the developer shall acquire the necessary dedications from the
adjacent property owner for that portion of a private street outside the tract boundary to be revocably '
offered for dedication to the City as an easement for emergency access, public utility and other public
06-01-05
` Rage 2
JUNE 1,`2005
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTALDETAILED MINUTES
• purposes". Condition No. 17, "that the legal owner of subject property shall irrevocably offer to dedicate
to the City of Anaheim easements for street, public utility and other pubic purposes for the,widening of
Katella Avenue to the ultimate right-of-way and emergency access, public utility, and other public
purposes over the private street.` Condition No. 19 `'that the developer shall construct a 15" and 18"
sewer fine in Katella Avenue to connect to the State College trunk line. ;fhe project civil engineer shall
prepare final construction drawings of complete sewer line.' Costs associated with #he design and
construction'of the sewer line maybe used to offset the Sewer Impact fees. lf the developer's costs
exceed the required impact fees,'the devefoper may request creation of a reimbursement agreement to
provide for reimbursement of the constructed sewer )ine as such time as the adjacent properties develop
and connectto the sewer line". _ :
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated the companion conditions in the' Developmenf Agreement :
would also change accordingly since the tentative tract map conditions are mirrored as an exhibit
attachment to the development agreement.
Commissioner Buffa asked what the change was.
James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer, advised the change in condition na 19 is the deletion within the
proJect frontage. The developer is required to construct an entire sewer line to the point of connection at
` State College.
Amy Vazquez advised this request is for a 265 unit condominium project to be located at 1818 S. State
College. ' Proposal includes a CEQA mitigated negative declaration, conditional use permit, tentative tract
map, and "development agreement. The conditional use permit is in order to modify the required setbacks
adjacent to State College Boulevard and proposed private street. The modification is requested afong ,
State College in order to provide a transition for a future right hand tum lane. The required landscaping :
would be provided however, a portion of that landscaping will be within the ultimate right-of-way: The
• setback modification along the private street is requested in order to provide for sidewalks and parkways
and to meet the standards for a private street. Staff worked with the applicant to ensure it meets the City
standard and be urban in nature as well as aesthetically pleasing. Enhanced asphalt will create a
cobblestone effect with a landscaped parkway and sidewalk. Project is a high-quality condominium
development that incorporates architectural elements, open space and landscaping that is consistent with
the Platinum Triangle mixed use overlay. Staff recommends approval of the project.
Introduced Item No. 2, and presented a PowerPoint presentation which was provided by the applicant
illustrating a visual simulation of the project.
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated at the Preliminary Plan Review staff discussed some issues
pertaining to the elevations and it has been discussed with the applicant. The applicant is prepared #o
address not only the amenities within the landscape court yard area, but also issues with regard to how
the State College elevation looks, specifically the north elevation adjacent to the McDonald's property:
ApplicanYs Statement:
John Stanek, 160 Newport Center Drive, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA, stated he is a partner with
Integral Partners and they are the applicant and developer for the subject property. The architect and
civil engineer are also present to answer any questions. He stated there are a couple of elevation
elements both along the corners of State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue , as well as the southerly
corner of the building that they feel they should enhance the elevation by wrapping stone around the
building. As far as the amenities for the residents, there is a two story main entrance off of State College.
It is a secured entrance which allows access to the residence. On the next level there is a 4,300 square
foot meuanine level that will be programmed to act as the indoor/outdoor recreation tied to the pool. M
that 4,300 square feet there will be public meeting rooms, coffee bar, and types of things that will draw
the residents together within the building. They can sit out by the pool or fire pit. The key on the -
• drawings show all the details of where things are. They have taken a great deal of time to create home5
for people. 7hey are not apartments, they are condominiums for people#o own and take pride in
ownership with a place to entertain their friends in. Jt is a complex building which is new to the Fire
06-01-05
Page 3
JUNE 1, 2005
PLANNWG COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES
:• Department, therefore, they spent a lot of time on the design of the pro}ect'and how the surrounding
setback areas could meet thepublic safety standards. They have worked hard with Public Works and
Traffic too, and pians include a lot of detail. He reiterated they would like to make additional
enhancements regarding the elevations, and would make it consistent around the whole building.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Perez referred to the digital rendering of the exterior of the building and stated he did not
see a lot of greenbelt and asked if that issue could be addressed.
Mr. Stanek stated they did not include the color rendering to the Commission and indicated that the
Platinum Triangle Code requires a setback for parkway and landscaping 6etween the building and the '
edge of the property 1ine; and he explained and illustrated that the building is surrounded by greenery and
stated the exact plant types are listed in the preliminary planting list. There is an index key with all the
proposed plants. :
Chairman Eastman stated the Commission was not provided with that material, and she expressed her
cancerns regarding the`IacR of greenery. In the past.they have received photographs with the type of
plants that are going to:be used: Stated she was disappointed with the lack of lushness in the interior.
Landscaping seems to have a lof of palm trees and low plants but not much in the middle that gives the
feeling of lushness.
Mr. Stanek stated landscape architect who is present can explain. He feels the plant palette itself is
consistent with what is called out in the Platinum Triangle requirements.
Mark Schadenger, President, MJS Design Group, Landscape Architecture, stated the design guidelines
for the Platinum Triangle are very clear about what they like to see on the streetscapes, medians and the
~ landscape setbacks, therefore, they have followed those guidelines. There is a canopy tree on State
College in the median then alternate palms and canopy tree in the parkway behind the sidewalk.` There
was a discrepancy in the flythrough that Commission saw, there weren't as many palm trees in the
median on State College, that is actually a canopy tree. In regard to palms in the corridor and the
recreation center and lushness, they use palm trees for scale because of the 4 stories. There is also an
intermediate level of trees that can be seen more clearly in the colored drawings. There are 24" high
planters that create a sense of privacy in the patios, 42" high for specimen plant material along with 36"
box material and palms. The three levels are there, the human scale that is 4 feet high, canopy trees
which create a canopy over the walkways, then the palm trees to soften the 4 story element. They've
expanded the private patios in order to put bikes, BBQ's and furniture, but you get less plant material
because of that. They also put in 8 foot walkways through the corridors instead of a 4 or 5-foot walkways
which was a tradeoff. There are also HOA considerations because they will be paying fees for all the
landscape maintenance and the more landscaping you have, the higher the HOA fees are.
Commissioner Buffa added color renderings which show the actual, conceptual design was not in the
initial presentation. In the future look at something more presentable to the Commission so they can
grasp it.
Mr. Stanek stated one of the first screen check comments from staff was to be more specific about the
pfant material. Palette describes which plants will be used where. It is very descriptive in what they wilf
be using.
Chairman Eastman stated they like pictures. Asked if they will have CC&R's that prohibits people from
storing a bike on the patio or installing a satellite dish.
Mr. Stanek responded yes, but there is also a condition of approval in the tentative tract map which
prohibits satellite dishes. The technology is such that the building will be self-wired so digital cable will be
• distributed to every home. There won't be any dishes and nothing will be allowed on the patio other than
tables and chairs and plants.
06-01-05
_ Page 4
, JUNE 1, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL'DETAILED MINUTES
Chairman Eastman asked if there will be planting material guidelines in the CC&R's.
• Mr. Stanek stated they haven't gotten that detailed yet but will work with staff for that language in the
CC&R's.
Commissioner Buffa advised that makes her uncomfortable, enough is enough.
Chairman Eastman stated she` is thinking in terms of giving people guidelines, it easier than creatively
improvising:' _
Mr. Stanek stated they would be happy to help them along fhraugh fhe CC&R's
Chairman Eastman added things that would enhance the architecture rather than distract from it, isn'Y
sure how far you can go with it, but would like to see them go as far as they can. "
Commissioner Buffa added they should be careful in the area of regulating personal taste:
Mr: Stanek said they would be more limited to the sizes more than anything' else verses styles of plants
and types of trees.
Commissioner Buffa indicated that there were concerns raised at the Preliminary Plan'Review session
regarding the architecture.
Commissioner Karaki commended the architect for the amount of work done on the project, but he
expected to see a statement. This project needs to give a statement to the residents around that stands
alone by itseff. The elevations did not come through with that, they're typical elevations.that you see
everywhere. One area to address is, the outside elevations did not reflect the concept of the Pfatinum
~ Triangfe in terms of grandiosity of the units. As a resident there is not enough parking, if somebody wants
to buy into it, they have to see something that makes them proud to be living in, you have to give them
something outstanding on the outside because the inside is limited to 800 -1,200 square feet, so they
don't have much to ask about. Two, the interior courtyard is narrow, barely any landscape, mostly
hardscape and he wanted to see mural or artwork on the interior elevations for the courtyard. Tum it into '
something artistic. There is no sculpture, there is nothing interesting for people to look at except to look
at a balcony with a bike or chair, then looking down to see a little courtyard with a pooL He isn'tagainst
the density, we are not in New York where the land is too valuable. It needs something to give the
residents, if not landscape, maybe a good hardscape.
Mr. Stanek stated he would be happy to work with staff to enhance those areas, such as colored
enhanced paving. The color of decking around the pool and the public walkways was to match the
current proposed elevations of the building.
Commissioner Karaki suggested giving a statement to the entrance of the building on the exterior ,
elevation. Put something grandiose along State College that identifies the building. The inside elevations
are too close to each other, he can't imagine someone buying near the pool and be able to sleep at night
because they are too close. However, give him something visual instead of distance. ,
Mr. Stanek said he wiU commit to doing it.
Chairman Eastman expressed concerns pertaining to the towers. Stated she would rather see a blank
wall with artwork on it rather than a group of uncomplimentary bathroom windows, it is a big tower with
many bathroom windows. She'd like to see a solution to that because it is the first impression that people
are going to get of the building when traveling either direction on State College.
• Mr. Stanek explained those are not bathroom windows they are bay windows, additional windows off ofi
the living room.
06-01-05 '
: Page 5
JUNE 1, 2005 ;'
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES
~ Chairman Eastman said she checked the plans and they are bathroom windows.
Jay Wu, KTGY.Architects, stated the elevations illustrated are bay windows that are designed off of the
bedroom. The configuration on the plan and the configuration on the floor plan is that the plan wiU be
, modified to have the bay window off of the bedroom. He clarified that the windows Chairman Eastman is
referring to are going to be windows designed into the walk-in closets.
Chairman Eastman'said they look fike bathroom windows on the back of'a tract house and doesn't feel
that is what they want to see on a major spot. Her preference would be a blank wall utilized for artwork,
rather than'something thatiooks like a 60's tract home.
Mr. Wu stated the windows are`3 by 2's. This elevation will be enhanced further with a corner statement :
where the living roam is off the corner.
Chairman'Eastman asked if the south elevation will have stone like the other elevations.
Mr. Wu stated there is a solid walt facing the parking lot. The enhancement is on the 6 foot perimeter wall
which protects the ground floor units against the parking lot.' The enhancement was placed on the solid
wall becauseyou would not see it on the building.
: Chairman Eastman observed that plans say stucco'finish to match building.
Mr. Stanek asked what she prefers it to be.
Chairman Eastman stated that usually waUs have the required vine covering to eliminate graffiti.
~ Commissioner Buffa stated that plans show that 95%0 of the surfaces on the building are stucco finish,
plain and simple with not much decorative enhancement that can create the statement they are looking
for. Since Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard, which are located in the Platinum Triangle
District, are important intersections in Anaheim, they need to make an impressive statement at that
corner. She expressed concems that the proposed project has too much stucco and lack of treatment on
the corner and the corner at McDonalds. Everything around that McDonalds is so visible to the City and it
is plain and stark. Commission is looking at a way to enhance the elevations either through other .
material, decoration or change in floor p{an. She referred to the interior elevation and stated that the
City's General Plan policy does not allow them to require public art. It is encouraged by the Commission,
but the decision is up to the applicant.
Mr. Stanek stated there are some treatments they can consider which should please the Commission.
With regards to concerns raised pertaining to the other exterior elevations, he explained that they made
sure every single home in the building had its own patio/deck and with that, they start to run out ways to
just have a building that meets building codes. There are a couple of things they can do to make
Commission more comfortable and will do that within the next two weeks. He doesn't think they are that
far off and can fix it.
Commissioner Buffa stated they are not that far off and suggests that the final building plans come back
to the Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item on the Consent calendar.
Chairman Eastman said she would be uncomfortable approving this without the ability to see what the
reality is here. There are many items missing that woufd help raise their comfort level and knowing it is
going to be the quality project that they say it is. Commission hasn't dealt with them before, don't know
any other projects that they've done in the City and they are looking for a fabulous project, if it's not, ,
Commission will be pleased about that.
~ Commissioner Buffa stated the good news is they are focused on the details of the architecture.
06-01-05
Page 6
JUNE 1, 2005
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES
• Commissioner Perez stated the delayed process is not a denial, it is a wonderful design but they are just
looking for character enhancement. He'iikes the layout, conceptual design, and what it is bringing to
' Anaheim, iY just needs that little more ref'inement of character.
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner sfated if the Commission has a comfort level with the design,
_ amenities and the architecture, and because this is a Development Agreement that is before the City
Council, they need to make sure that the expectations are reflected in the exhibits that are attached to the
Development Agreement. He suggests if Commission is inclined to approve, they can direct the applicant
to come back on June13th as a consent calendar item and provide Commission with the architecturaf
detail mentioned iri tha comments. The consent calendar item will catch up with the Gity Council item and
those revised exhibits will be attached to the Development Agreement at the time it gets to City CounciL
The other option is to continue the entire item. -_ _
Chairman Eastman asked if Commissioner Velazquez had any comments
Commissioner Velazquez agrees with Commissioner Buffa that they need to see it again. She suggests
they continue this'item,in order to see the complete project again. Unless staff recommends otherwise,
what else could be put in place. There is nothing to achieve ff they only do part of it. ,
Commissioner Buffa stated if they approve the project #oday with the requirement that they bring back the
building elevations, staff may move the project forward to a City Council hearing later in June.` If the item
is continued, staff cannot begin that step and won't be able to'get to City Council in June. Her preference
is to approve the project today, but add a condition that they must bring their building plans back and
have Commission's approval of those plans prior to going to Council. If Commission is not satisfied at the
nexthearing, if will be held up, butlet them keep moving.
Commissioner Velazquez agreed with that, she didn't understand that work could be done in preparation
~ for the Council meeting.
Commissioner Karaki asked if 11 x 17" fuN set elevations to view them easier.
Mr. Stanek advised he'll try to get them to Commission by next Friday.
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, advised staff wil{ need the revised exhibits by mid-week in order to '
prepare the report for Commission's review. That includes colored renderings of the courtyard to
demonstrate how that area will be elevated and landscaped, the entry off of State College, the north and
south elevations with regard to window placement and enhancement of those elevations and section
drawings. Recommends incorporating the conditions of approval that James Ling read '+nto the record for
the tract map and corresponding conditions on the Development Agreement. Also, add a condition ta the
conditional use permit resolution that requires them to come back as a consent calendar item with
building elevations and other plans to address the issues that were raised today at the hearing.
OPPOSITION: None
Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative 7ract Map, and
the 22-day appeal rights for the Conditional Use Permit; and he stated the recommendation concerning
the Development Agreement is subject to review by the City Council.
DISCUSSION TIME: 57 minutes (2:20-3:17)
• ..
{Commtssconer Velazquez arrtved to the Councal Chambers at 2: 30 p m)
. 06-01-05
Page 7 ' '
Chairman Eastman suggesfed changing the public hearing portion of the meeting
to a later time than 2;00 p.m., in order to allow adequate time to discuss the
Preliminary Plan Review items. Therefore, discussion was made and it was
determined to agendize the matter to the June 13, 2005; Planning Commission
meeting,
There was also general/informal discussion amongst thePlanning Commission and
staff regarding various issues related to'Planning Commission and regarding
Platinum Triangle projects.
~
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5;45 P.M.
TO MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2005 AT 12:00 P.M.
FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW.
~
~
Respectfully submitted:
' ~ ~ ~ :
.,...+y,-
Simonne Fannin
Senior Office Specialist
Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~u t~J 2-5 , 2005.
T