Loading...
Minutes-PC 2005/09/07~P`~E"~ ~-~ CITY OF ANAHEIM ~ ~. P ~f~ • ~ • o ~ Planning Commission - ~ ~ Minutes ~ ~ ~ ~ ,, ~~D Wednesdav, September 7, 2005 . . e~ _ ~ ~ Councit Chamber, City Hall OU 1g~~ 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California NDED CHAIRMANPRO l'EMPORE: CECILIAFLORES CommissionersPresent: KELLY BUFFA, JOSEPH KARAKI, ED PEREZ PANKY ROMERO, PAT VELASQUEZ (arrived at 3:50 p.m.) Commissioners Absent: GAIL EASTMAN Staff Present: Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner Selma Mann, PlT Assistant City Attorney John Ramirez, Associate Planner Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner Amy Vazquez, Associate Planner Linda Johnson, Principal Planner Mike Lozeau, Police Sergeant Judy Dadant, Senior Planner Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Planner Elly Morris, Senior Secretary • Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 31, 2005, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, August 11, 2005 • Call To Order Preliminary Plan Review 1:00 P.M. STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED SY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIM{NARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON TH~ SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 AGENDA • Recess To Afternoon Public Hearing Session ~ • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. For record ke~inq purposes, if vou wish fo make a statement reqardinp anv item on the apenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretarv. • Pledge Of Allegiance: Commissioner Buffa • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Adjournment • You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following , e-mail address: planninqcommissionCa~anaheim.net H:\TOOLSIPCADMIN\PCMINIACT12005MINUTESWC090705.DOC Page1 SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 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 Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. Consent Calendar: 7he items 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 public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Comm+ssioner Romero and MOTION CARRIED ~(Chairman Eastman and Commissioner Velasquez absent), for approval of Consent Calendar {tems 1-A through 1-E) as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Renorts and Recom~nendations • 1A.(a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04815 - (TRACK/NG NO. CUP2005-05012) Agent: Cindi Gaffin, Pick Your Part, 1301 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 1235 South Beach Boulevard: Property is 4.5 acres having a frontage of 325 feet on the west side of Beach Boulevard, and is located 330 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road (Pick Your Part). Requests a retroactive extension of time to compfy with conditions of approval for a previously-approved automobile glass, stereo and alarm sales and installation bui{ding in conjunction with an existing automobile recycling business. • Concurred with staff Approved retroactive estension of time for one year (to eapire on Janaary 12, 2006) Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 5-0 Chairman Eastman and Commissioner Velasquez absent Project Planner. (jnixon@anaheim.net) ' 09-07-05 Page 2 : SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 PLANNING CQMMISSION MINUTES • ~2i n ~g$ ' 1 B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved Meeting of July 25, 2005 (Motion) Consent Calendar Approval Gontinued from the August 8 and 22, 2005, Planning Commission meetings. VOTE: 5-0 Chairman Eastman and Commissioner Velasquez absent 1 C. Receiving and approving #he Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved Meeting of July 27, 2005 (Motion) Consent Calendar Approval Continued from the August 8 and 22, 2005, Planning Commissi0n meetitlgs. VOTE: 5-0 Chairman'Eastman and Commissioner Velasquez absent 1 D. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Pianning Commission Continued to Meeting of August 8, 2005. September 19, 2005 ~ Continued from the August 22, 2005, Planning Commission meeting Consent Calendar APProval _ VOTE: 5-~ Chairman Eastman and Commissioner Velasquez absent 1E. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 22, 2005 (Motion} Approved Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 5-0 Chairman Eastman and Commissioner Velasquez absent SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i Public Hearina Items• 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1_ Continaed to 2b. VARIANCE NO 1229 September 19, 2005 (Tracking No. VAR2005-04659) Owner: Gregory Parkin, 2500 West Orangethorpe Avenue # V, Motion: KarawBuffa Fullerton, CA 92833 VOTE: 5-0 Agent: Jim Parkin, Covered Wagon Motel, 823 South Beach Chairman Eastman and ' Comxnissioner velasquez Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92804 absent Location: 823 South Beach Boulevartl. Property is approximately' 1:3 acres, having a frontage of 192 feet on the west side of Beach Boulevard and is loca~ed 975 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. Request for reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on May 5, 2003 to expire July 25, 2005) to retain a 70-unit motel and restaurant. (Covered Wagon Motel). Continued from the August 8, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. . Project Planner. Variance Resolutio~ Na (dsee@anaheim.net) • OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION = CLASS 1 Romero/Perez 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04852 (READVERTISED) PerezlKaraki (TRACKING NO. CUP2005-05003) _ 3c. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR Romero/Ftores ° NECESSITY N0. 2005-00021 Owner: Cedar Mountain, LLC, 110 East Walnut Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92835 Agent: Leon Alexander, Briggs and Alexander, 558 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 2916 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.7-acre, having a frontage of 89 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and is located 315 feet east of the centeriine of Laxore Street (EI ~ Calor Nightclub). Conditional'Use Permit Na 2004-04852 - Request for reinstatement of this % permit by the modification'or deletion of a condition of approval pe~taining to a ~ time limitation (approved on July 26, 2004 to expire July 26, 2005), hours of ' operatiori and the outdoor patio for a previously-approved nightclub. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2005-00021 - To permit sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption within a previously-approved nightclub. ~ • Continued from the August 8 and 22, 2005, Planning Commission meetings. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2005-147 Public Convenience or Necessity Resolutian No. PC2005-148 Chairman Pro Tempore Flores opened the public hearing. Concurred with staff Approved reinstatement for one year (to expire on ~ July 26, 2006) Approved CUP Added a condition of approval pertaining to security cameras on the premises: VOTE ON CUP: 4-1 . Commissioner Buffa voted no, Chairman Eastman and Commissioner Velasquez absent ' VOTE ON CEQA AND PCN: 5-0 Chairman Eastman and Commissioner Velasquez absent I Project Planner. ~, (avazquez@anaheim.net) Amy Vasquez, Associate Planner, introduced Item No. 3. In addition, she informed the Commission that this conditional use permit was only granted for one year due to the high crime rate. The Anaheim PoNce Department reports show criminal activity still takes place and has actually increased therefore recommending deniaL The applicant submitted letter stating discrepancies in the Police repo[t. Leon Alexander, Attorney, 558 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, representing the owner Mr. Albert Bushala, stated that this business has been a public entertainment restaurant with alcohot since 1959 and was grandfathered throughout the years, but was termed a nightclub last year. Within the last year, the owner has improved the operation, aesthetic look and budgeted $50,000 for security. They prefer to have only current records reviewed. They did hire security over the summer but due to the lack of communication, they are getting help from the Anaheim Police Department to obtain services from another company. They acknowledge that there were calls made to police by the EI Calor security guards, however some calls do not occur during hours of operation. Staff is recommending 6-8 security guards, but he asked that they consider 5 on the busy nights and a variation on the slower nights. To the applicanYs knowledge Code Enforcement has not recorded any violations of the conditions. The applicant would also like the Commission to consider the service of alcohol on the patio and increase the time limit to 3 years instead of 1 year. Albert Bushala, owner of EI Calor since 1997, 2916 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA, gave history of establishment. He feels he has reduced the amount and severity of calls to the establishment. He believes 09-07-05 Page 5 SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 PLANNfNG COMMfSSiON MINUTES that a lot of calis to the police are from competitors, who know making the calis go on their record. They do • this because he is one of the more successful clubs in the area, He has loyai customers and a respectful operation. He is requesting permission for drinking on the patio which has visibility from insidethe club and has a guard at all times. He'll do whatever it takes and will work closely with the Police Department to ' improve the security. Esther Walface, West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND) Chairman, 604 Scott Lane, ' Anaheim, CA, stated that residents of West Anaheim do not see this site as the owner does. This particular area is heavily inundated with low cost hotels and apartments. Complaints from neighbors are about parking, and not enough police service. She would like darification on their occupancy rate which is 298 people in 4,400 square feet. She'd like to know if they ever got the excess parking from another site like they were supposed to. WAND requested a sign be put in front stating that there'is more parking in rear of club, but she has never seen the sign. Crime rate is 163% to the north, to the west it is 176%, and 187% to the north at Lincoln and Orange/Beach and Dale: She'd like to see°it revertback to a restaurant with no drinking on the patio. Charles Bradley, WAND member, 3208 West Faircrest'Drive, Anaheim, CA, stated that his biggest complaint is lack of available parking. He agrees that it should be retained as a restaurant instead of night club. Mr. Alexander stated Esther Walface said she would keep in touch with the owner, but owner has tried to contact her and has no response. He would be more than happy to talk to the neighbors. Mr. Bushala stated he took pictures the day before at 3:00 in the afternoon. There was no parking at 3:00 in the afternoon or 11:00 in the morning. There is no parking in the area behind. He has an agreement with a neighboring shopping center and he pays for his parking lot. He has over 75 on-site parking spaces plus the off-site parking. There is no parking around there due to the population. He encouraged staff to visit the operation at night to see his clientele. A year ago, at the meeting, he gave his number to all the people who spoke against the project and no ane has ever come to him to talk about what is going on. Police use his ~ operation to bring trainees in and show them what to look for in a'nightclub. Yesterday he asked 6 people outside if they had a problem with parking and they all said no. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Perez stated he didn't see a plan for surveillance with cameras as a security measure. Mr. Bushala stated they have a camera recording at all times. Commissioner Perez asked if the City of Anaheim has ever reviewed the tapes to compare when the calls were made. Mr. Bushala said no one has ever requested them, but he would be happy to supply them. Commissioner Perez asked him what his peak days and hours were. Mr. Bushala stated that the peak hour is about 1 am. Calls made were on a Friday night, which is one of their slowest nights. Wednesday and Saturday are their busiest. Reports show calls were more frequent on Thursday and Friday. They are getting a grip on what nights are causing more problems so they can monitor and work with the Police Department to see what hours they need more security. Commissioner Perez stated he got the police report from Mr. Alexander in the afternoon and feels, in all fairness, if the staff has an opportunity to respond to it and for Commission to make a decision today in terms of trying to come up with an assumption of how many of these items statistically affect EI Calor vs. issues that occurred around the neighborhood. He supports continuance if staff needs to research the matter. . Mr. Alexande~ stated there are a lot of reports and about 2/3 of the reports are legitimate. He met with lnvestigator Irwin about 3 weeks ago and went through the entire report and she agreed it was more like 20% that were questionable. 09-07-05 Page 6 SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Buffa questioned the visibility#o the patio from the inside because itappears differently here :. than it does on the plans. Mr. Alexander suggested that he submit pictures which show this. _ Mr. Bushala stated there is a glass door, and a security guard stands there all the time. _Commissioner Buffa asked how many parking spaces are provided from the center he has the agreement with. Also, where were the pictures of the parking taken? Mr. Bushala said there are over 100 spaces and over 75 on his site. Pictures were taken on Embassy and Ridgeway. Commissioner Romero asked what his plans are for working with the neighbors on parking. Mr. Bushala stated he can't control parking, if they want him to send security guards he will, but he doesn't know where the people who complained live. He gave his number to everyone who complained at the meeting last year and no one every came forth. Chairman Pro Tempore Flores asked staff if he was supposed to post a parking sign and what is the occupancy rate. Mrs. Vasquez said it was a condition of approval and when staff made an inspection, the sign indicating for patrons to park in the back was located in front of the property. The sign has since been stolen. As for occupancy, isn't sure but it is stated in the conditions of approval that they had to submit a seating plan to the Fire Department. According to Fire Department it was done and they were in compliance. Chairman Pro Tempore Flores stated she would like to see more visibility on the patio and doesn't fieel . comfortable with drinking on the patio. She'd like to see him work with police and neighborhood and get new security. Maybe he could clean the keyop and paint the outside. She feels comfortable with 1 or 2 years. But, if he still gets a lot of calls when he comes back, it may have to turn back into a restaurant. Mr. Bushala stated his patio is similar to an EI Torito. Commissioner Karaki stated the issue here is security and communication. He needs to communicate directly with the Police Department due to the fact that the security didn't do a good job of communicating. He doesn't have a problem with the establishment. He suggested using security cameras in the parking lot to help back up the police calls. Let the Police Department determine how many security people he needs. He agrees to give them 2 years on the CUP, but not 3 years. Mr. Alexander stated they are getting the security in gear. A three year time limit would be perfect. They could have 2 meetings a year with the police, and if it goes over 50 calls a year, they can come back to the Commission. Commissioner Karaki asked if they could do the 2 years and if thePolice Department determines he is in violation, bring them back to Commission Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, advised that if the Commission imposes a time limitation on the permit, then the permit would expire at the conclusion of the time period. If there were issues that arose prior to the expiration and staff or Commission wanted to initiate a procedure for modification or revocation of the permit, it would be allowed. Mr. Alexander requested that the Police Department provide an annual report to the Commission. The appficant would be willing to place a camera on the patio if they can serve alcohol. Maybe they can limit the ~ hours of serving alcohol if that is a concern. Commissioner Perez asked if they could add a condition to require a surveillance camera be installed on the patia 09-07-05 Page 7 SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 PLANNING COMM{SSION MINUTES Mr. Gordon stated Commissioner Karaki framed a motion, so that is the matter pending at the presenttime. ' • Either modify the motion by Commissioner Karaki or act on the motion before considering revisions to that motion by another Commission members. He isn't sure what the motion includes because there are 2 issues before the Commission, there is modification/deletion of the time limitation with proposed conditions and also issue ofpermitting on-premises sale and consumption of alcohoL Commissioner Karaki withdrew motion to rephrase it. Commissioner Buffa reiterated what the applicant is requesting. Her view is that the appficant has a performance problem and it was like that ayear ago when he came before the Commission: She is not comfortable expanding the business when they don't have a good tract record of performance. They have taken steps to improve, but those steps have to be well impfemented, and then see a positive result before , we reward bad behavior. Commission has ta see steps that are effective. She suggests one year with close communication with Police and need to satisfy the conditions. . , p are incorporated in the Commissioner Romero made motion to im lement the recommendations that conditions in resolution PC2004-74. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner asked if the motion included modification to Condition No. 37 to reflect the current approved hours of 8-1:30. Commissioner Romero statedyes. Mr. Alexander stated that was a typo last year, it should have been 2:00 a.m. Mr. Gordon reminded Commission that the public hearing has been closed. Asked Commissioner Romero if he was referring to the prior resolution, PC2004-74, but the conditions of approval are contained in the staff report and those should be used with modifications instead of past resolutions. If the issue is modification or ~ deletion of the condition of approval concerning the time limitation which is what is in the staff report, and that condition is modified, all of the prior conditions would remain, unless they are modified by Commission by adopting new conditions of approval that are being added to it. Motion needs to be clear. Commissioner Romero wanted his motion to incorporate items 1-8, 37, 40 and 41 as part of the new conditions that would be implemented in the staff report. Commissioner Buffa asked staff to clarify the hours of operation and why staff now recommends 2:00 a.m. Mrs. Vasquez said they approved 1:30 last year. They are recommending approval of that part of the request because they didn't see an issue with an additiona! %2 hour and Police Department shared that view. Chairman Pro Tempore Flores asked if they could add the video surveillance. Mr. Gordon stated ihere is a motion that has been framed and they need to act on the motion thaYs been framed. After it has been seconded and finalized you can have further discussion. He explained how to proceed if they want to make modifications. Commissioner Buffa and Mr. Gordon discussed clarification of the motion. Commissioner Perez stated he would concur with moving forward a motion, but for 2:00 a.m. not 1:30 a.m. OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition to the subject request. ~ Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 29, 2005. : DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 4 minutes (2:45-3:49) 09-07-05 Page 8 SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION VelasqueziPerez Approved 4b. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO.'2005-0004d Velasquez Recommended City Council approval City lnitiated: City of Anaheim Community SerVices Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: Citvwide. VOTE: 6-0 Chauman Eastman absent Request to amend the zoning code pertaining to the establishment of building and ground-mounted telecommunication facilities on public recreational facilities withirr the Scenic Corridor Overlay, Open Space and Residential zones, to clarify the definition of certain fypes of telecommunication facilities, and to add standard conditions of approVal to the Telecommunication Antenna Review Permit process. Continued from the June 27, July 25, and August 8, 2005; Planning _ Commission meetings. ZONING COD~ AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2005-125 ProjectP/anner.• (jpramirez@anaheim. net) Chairman Pro Tempore Flores opened the public hearing. John Ramirez, Associate Planner, introduced Item No. 4 and stated Community Services Department staff drafted a universallease agreement to be used specifically for faci{ities that would include those maintained by parks, golf courses, Community Services and community centers throughout the City. Currently the • zoning code does not provide for opportunities to site specific types of facilities that would typically be located on parks or golf courses within the Scenic Corridor or within parks that were zoned residential or open space. The other goal was to make more consistent application of standards throughout the City and make the Code more understandable and user friendly, both in format and wording. Changes would create more opportunities for the establishment of telecommunication facilities within the City while maintaining a critical emphasis on the design and location criteria within the entitlement process for each facility. Changes include clarification of definitions, conditions of approval for facilities that would be approved by an administrative review process, as well as additional design and location criteria THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 29, 2005. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (3:50-3:55) Commissioner Velasquez arrived to the Council Chambers at 3:50 p.m. • 09-07-05 Page 9 SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 5a. CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15081(b)(3) PerezlRomero Concurred with staff • 5b. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT N0. 2005=00038 Perez/Romero Recommended City Council adoption of the draft Ordinance City Initiated: City of Anaheim Community Services Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: Ci ide. VOTE: 6-0 Chairman Eastman absenf Request to amend Chapters 18.04 (Single-Family Residential), 18.06 (Multiple-Family Residential) and 18.40 (General Development Standards) to include proVisions for sound attenuation in new residential developments and to amend Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading) to : establish provisions for permitting driveway cuts for single-family , residences with public alley access and to require paved surfaces for parking and outtloor storage areas. Pro~ect Planner. (ethien@anaheim. net) Chairman Pro Tempore Flores opened the public hearing. Elaine Thienprassiddhi, Associate Planner, introduced Item No. 5. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 29, 2005. DISCUSSION 71ME: 4 minutes (3:56-4:00) SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION ~ 6b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2005-00163 6c. VARIANCE NO. 2005-04653 ; 6d. TENTATIVE PARCEL'MAP N0. 2005-132 '~ 6e. WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 542 Owner: Evart C. Fountain, 1432 Roberta Avenue, Fullerton, CA I'~ 92833 Agenf: Alan Nguyen, 15401 Firmona Avenue, Lawndale, CA _ 90260 Location: 1400 East Burton Street. Property consist of two parcels. Parcel 1: Property is an irregularly-shaped parcel having a frontage of 133 feet on the south side ` of Burton Street and is located 889 feet west of the - centeriine`of Acacia Street:: Parcel 2: Property is an irregularly-shaped parcel haVing a frontage of 26 feet on the south side of Burton Street and is Iocated 1022 feet west of the centerline of Acacia Street. Reclassification No. 2005-00163 - Request reclassification of the property from the T(Transition) zone to the RS-2 (Residentiai, Single- Family) zone, or a less intense zone. Variance No. 2U05-04653 - Request waivers of (a) minimum lot width and (b) minimum lot area to construct four single-family residences. ~ Tentative Parcel Map No. 2005-132- Request to establish a 4-lot, 4- unit detached single family subdivision. Waiver of Council Policy No. 542 - Request to waive Council Policy No. 542 pertaining to sound attenuation for residential projects. Continued from the June 27, and July 25, 2005, Planning Commission meetings. Reclassification Resolution No. Variance Resolution No. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. Continued to October 3, 2005 Motion: Perez/Romero VOTE: S-0 Chairman Eastman and Commissioner Velasquez absent ' '~ Projecf Planner. ~i (cf/or~s@anaheim.nef) ~ SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ' 7a. CEQA SUBSEQUENT EIR NO. 332 AND ADDENDUM Perez/Romero ' ~;: AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN N0.138 7b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005-00434 Perez 7C. AMENDMENT TO THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE Flores ' MASTER LAND USE PLAN (MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT NO. 2005-00111) 7d. RESCISSION, IN-PART, OF THE_RESOLUTION OF 1NTENT Flores PERTAINING TO THE RECLASSIFICATION OF SITE 2 (MISCELLANEOUS PERMIT NO. 2005-00116) 7e. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 20d5-00164 Perez 7f. ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2005-00042 perez 7g. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-04999 Buffa Th. DEVELOPMENT~AGREEMENT NO. 2005-OOOQ8 Bufia 7i. REQUEST WITHDRAWAL TO AMEND THE PARKLAND ButfalRomero • DEDICATION PROVISION iN CHAPTER 18.20 AND WITHDRAWAL OF THE REQUESTED APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT DESIGN GUIDELINES Tj. REQUEST FOR C1TY COUNCIL REVIEW OF KarakiNelasquez ITEM NOS. 7e and 7q Agent: Lennar Platinum Triangle LLC, 25 Enterprise, Aliso Viejo, CA s2sss • Location: The Piatinum Trianqle. The "Lennar ProjecY' encompasses approximate 41.4-acre project site is generaliy located between Katella Avenue and Gene Autry Way, extending from State College Boulevard to just west of South Betmor Lane in an area of the City of Anaheim known as The Platinum Triangle. The project site is further identified as Sites 1 and 2 on the map below. Site 1 encompasses 31 acres located at 12d0-1558, 1700, and 1800 East Katella Avenue; 1301-1395 and 1551 Gene Aut-y Way; 1870, 1871, 1880, 1881, 1890, 1891, 1900, and 1901 South Chris Lane; 1833 and 1841 South State College Boulevard; 1800 and 1801 East Talbot Way. Site 2 encompasses 10.4 acres located at 1871, 1881, 1891, 1901, 1870, 1880, 1890, 1900 and 1910 South Betmor Lane and 1100 East Katella Avenue. The project site also encompasses portions of South Chris Lane and South Betmor Lane. Recommended City Council Approval Recommended City Council adoption of Exhibit "A" Recommended City Council Approval of Exhibit "1`' Recommended City Council Approval to rescind, in part, Resolution No. PC2004-$3 and to rescind, in part, City Councii ~, Resolution No. 2004-] 80 ', Approved Recommended City Council Approval, with an inclusion to Chapter 18.20 pertaining to ~, balcony requirements. i Granted Recommended City Council Approval' Withdrawn I Recommended City Council Review VOTE: 5-0 Chairman Eastman absent 09-07-05 Page 12 SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 PLANNING GOMMISSION MINUTES • SUBSEQUENT EIR NO: 332 AND ADDENDUM AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN NO. 138 - Determination that Subsequent (SEIR) EIR No. 332 and its Addendum and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No: 138 are adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed actions. [The Subsequent EIR has been circulated for a 45-day public review and is currently scheduled to be considered by the City Council on September 27, 2005. This SEIR would need to be certified bythe City Council prior to the City Council approving SEIR No. 332 and ' ' its Addendum for the proposed project actions described in this notice.] GPA2005-00434 - Request to amend the Land Use Element of the City of Anaheim General Plan to redesignate Site 2 from the Office High land use designation to the Mixed Use iand use designation. This request would not change the permitted overall intensity for these uses as set forth in the Generai Plan. MIS20d5-00111 - Request to amend The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan to incorporate Site 2 into thePlatinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone, Katella District. MIS2005-00116 - Request for Planning Commission to rescind, in part, Resolution . No. PC2004-83 and recommend that the City Council rescind, in part, Resolution No. 2004-180 pertaining to Reclassification No: 2004-00127 in order to rescind resolutions of intent pertaining to the reclassification of Site 2 from the l(Industrial) to the 0-M (High Intensity Office) Zone. RCL2005-00164 - Request to reclassify Site 2 from the I(Industrial) to the I(PTMU) (Industrial-Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay) Zone. ~ ZCA2005-00042 - Request to amend Chapter 18.20 {PTMU Overlay) of Title 18 (Zoning Code) of the Anaheim Municipal Code to add educational institutions and condominium hotels as authorized uses subject to the approval of a conditional use permit, to amend the minimum size of balconies for high-rise towers and to amend the parkland dedication requirements.* * The request to amend the parkland dedication requirements has been withdrawn by the applicant. CUP2005-04999 - Request to permit residential tower structures up to 400 feet in height on Site 1 within Development Areas B, D, E, F, M and N of the Master Site Plan. DAG2005-00008 - Request to adopt a Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Lennar Platinum Triangle, LLC and Sellers (as listed in the Development Agreement) to provide for the development of a Master Site Plan with up to 2,681 residences in a mix of housing types, including high rise residential towers, street townhomes, podium townhomes, and lofts with 150,000 square feet of street-refated commercial development adjacent to a new street designated as Market Street. The plan also includes public park space and new connector streets. Continued from the August 22, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. General Plan Amendment Resolution No. PC2005-126 , Miscellaneous Permit No. 2005-00111 Resolution Na PC2005-127 Miscellaneous Permit No. 2005-00116 Resolution No. PC2005-128 Reclassification Resolution No. PC2005-129 Zoning Code Amendment Resolution No. PC2005-130 • Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2005-131 Development Agreement Resolution No. PC2oo5-132 P.o,ecr P~a~ner. (cflores@anaheim. net) 09-07-05 Page 13 SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Pro Tempore Flores opened the public hearing: • Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 7 and stated that staff recommends Commission approve all of the requested actions to implement the A-Town project as described on pages 15 and 16 of the staff report. Commission has received revised wording pertaining to balconies and high-rise structures which staff recommends Commission to approve. Rich Knowland, Division President for Lennar in Orange County, 25 Enterprise, Aliso Viejo, CA, explained ' the history of Lennar's involvement in the Platinum Triangle. Lack ofland, lack of affordable housing and commutes that people make to work and live in Orange County to sustain the economy are going to require that cities and developers be able to go up and create more urban environments. He explained the positive ' aspects of an urban environment. They found you have to have a'critical mass so they assembled as much land as they could to create enough synergy in land area and density of housing, retail, recreation and public spaces to create a downtown. They have assembled 20 - 30 parcels. 'They wiU not develop the entire , neighborhood; there will be other homebuilders,' retail developers and hotel developers. It will have a blend of architecture and variety of different builders and developers which will create a competitive environment to keep it a dynamic, new neighborhood. An elaborate visual presentation of project was provided. Tim Paone, AMB Property Corporation, 695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor; Costa Mesa, CA 92626, AMB has ~wned property to the west for over 10 years. They are not opposed to the Lennar project. They want to point out some unintended consequences of the Commission's actions in the last few weeks and how they relate back to the original Platinum Triangle concept. The Lennar project overlaps the Gene Autry District and Katella. The Platinum Triangle Plan talked about Gene Autry Way being a gateway to the stadium then a few weeks ago the height restrictions changed along Gene Autry Way. One of the unintended consequences is that it allowed for more units within the district. Property owner on one side of the street going up to 300 feet could add units. The other side of the street; there are only 1,000 units available for the , entire district, it means you cannot do on the west side, what is being done on the east side. This should have been handled with an increase in the number of units that would be permitted in the Gene Autry District so that you could have the planning symmetry and cohesiveness that was intended for this area. Now you can have within the same planning district, potential for 2 totally different types of development. They don't believe that was the intent ofi the original approvals for the Platinum Triangle. They are supportive of the height restrictions but ask that they ~nd a way to have a commensurate increase in the total number of units. Also, staff reports that within the Gene Autry District it includes 7 acres and 491 units. There are 1,000 total units allowed, so this is 50% of the allowable units on less than 20% of the land. This has a significant - impact on what happens elsewhere. One clarification that needs to be made in the staff report is the Lower Market District. That district appears to include a{I of the property which is within the Gene Autry District that Lennar owns and then some. It shows only 422 units, and in another table it shows 491 units, then areas D, F, and G appear to include all of the Gene Autry District holdings of Lennar plus some of the Katella District, but they only add up to 5.9 acres for 567 units. It is critical for other land owners in the district that they know exactly how many units are being approved. In looking at thebig picture, you need to be certain of those numbers, and find a way to add more units. They are concerned that by not doing it all at once, it leaves a lot of property owners at great risk that was never intended and leaves #he integrity of the plan for the Gene Autry district at great risk. They ask Commission to seriously consider getting some units back and make it equitable without taking anything ` away from Lennar. You are now looking at a master site plan. The property owner can come in and tie up for 20 years, as the development agreement would do, a number of units. It is a majority land owner tying up half of the units and they need to find a way to work around it. Nikki Moreno, Communications Director for Anaheim Chamber of Commerce, 201 East Center Street, Anaheim, CA, read a Letter of Support from the Chamber of Commerce to Commission. ~ Jim Adam, Council Representative for the Los Angeles/Orange County Building and Construction Trade Council, 436 South Camellia Street, Anaheim, CA 92804, they are not necessarily opposed to the project, but they have concerns. There are no high rises near ttfe proposed site. They are a lot different than building residential homes. They want to make sure qualified, local contractors will be used to constructthe 09-07-05 Page 14 SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES buildings. Want to make sure they are skilled in high rise construction, provide benefits to workers, pay area ~ standard wages, do they give back to the community. They would like an opportunity to meet with the developer prior tofinal approval of City CounciL Bill Hall, 1914 S. Betmore in Anaheim,' CA, 92805, owns property near 4he project. They are fans of the development and feel fortunate to have that property. It needs to be clear that many of the owners of the ,` property that Lennar acquired were not occupants, they were property owners as investors and the people within their buildings have to relocate. A manufacturing site will still be there, and that site makes noise, has fights and has traffic 24 hours a day. Value was given to the owners, but not every owner was given an opportunity to sell at a level that allowed them to move out. Bring balance to it, not everyone was a winner, people who occupied those businesses and had to leave, did not get any benefit. Capital improvements they did to those properties did not get reimbursed, theyhad to pick up their equipment and move. He would like Commission to know there is another businesslike his on the other end and they wi1( remain #here for a long time to come. He would Iike Commission to support the program. Applicant's RebuttaL Mr. Knowland stated regarding Mr. Paone's comments, he doesn't disagree that there are some consequences for some, they intend on building every home that they are planning and don't feel that they are taking more than their#air share. Regarding Mr. Adams' comments, he doesn't feel there is aproblem. Clearly high rise construction is different than typical frame construction and many of the trades are already organized. They would be happy to sit down with the trades when it is appropriate to do sa Some people did hit the fottery when they sold their land. Some leases were expiring but those owners were preparing to sell. No one was forced.out and some very good arrangements were made for some people. He felt it was done in a legal and generous, sensitive manner in order to avoid disruption. There are edges in the Platinum Triangle that you have to deal with now because there will be newer residential neighborhoods adjacent fo older non-residential edges. They wi11 provide buffers once the development begins. He feels the industrial buildings will not remain because the economic motivation won't be there. ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Buffa asked staff to address comments that Mr. Paone made. Her recoflection of the original ' Platinum Triangle Plan was for a fair amount af retail along Gene Autry Way and didn't intend it to be entirely residential. Mr. Paane's comments echo that. Asked staff what was the original plan for Gene Autry Way and is the proposal before Commission in compliance with the expectations. Linda Johnson, Principal Planner stated the plan for the mixed use overlay zone has not changed in the sense fhat along Market Street and Gene Autry Way, there is required ground floor commerciaL Since the plan was enacted, it has always been a first come, flrst serve allocation of density. Each project that has come forward to date have aU had final siteplans, development agreements, have complied with the code and have been allocated a certain amount of density. On August 22, Commission recommended approval the creation of a process called master site plan where properties over 12 acres can be allowed to come in with more of a planned concept. Number of units per development area still need to be allocated, still needs to comply with density allocation but allows them to look at it in a broader sense to locate connector streets, parks and where different land uses are going to be placed. When they looked at the Lennar project they iooked at what was required for that segment and kept the density back. They want to make sure there is enough commercial density so thaf projects that implement those properties need to comply with zoning. With regard to residential units, it is first come, first serve and the summary and table on page 11, paragraph 24 of the staff report, goes through each of the development areas and indicates what the density is. The bottom of the table shows a summary of how much of Lennar's acreage is in the Gene Autry District and how much is in the Katella District. It indicates there is 7 acres in Gene Autry with a total of 491 rooms. The confusion may be that when you look at D, F and G development areas, parts of them are within the Gene Autry District, other parts of D and G straddle the Katella District. Lennar takes up 491 out af the available 1,000 units. They allocated number of units based on what the infrastructure could suppo~t. If a developer • wanted to add more than the allocated units, more studies would have to be done to support it. Commissioner Buffa asked how many total acres are in the Gene Autry district and how many commercial square feet are allowed and whaf other uses are allowed otherthan commercial and residentiaL ` 09-07-05 ` Page 15 SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mrs. Johnson pointed out a table on page 24 of the Master Land Use Plan indicates the Gene Autry District has 1,000 housing units, 100,000 square feet of office and 174,100 square feet of commercial. Commissioner Buffa asked what provisions are included in the Master Plan that allow the flexibility to move uses around and assure we get the end result thatwe want. ; Mrs. Johnson responded when the General Plan was prepared they allocated a certain amount of density to the whole mixed use designation, then in the Master Land Use Plan they allocated that density per district. They did not include any density transfer provision because it related to the infrastructure studies. Staff is not opposed to supporting somethinglike that but the proper environmental studies would need to be done to see if the infrastructure capacity could'accommodate that. There is a density transfer provision in the development agreement for Lennar that is within the development agreement boundaries. Mr. Paone brought up the height. Since the Code was adopted they put in 100 foot height limit and allowing heights above 100 feet by CUP. They did it because they had enough environmental clearance for up to 100 feet. Along the north and south sides of Gene Autry Way, they had further height restrictions to accommodate enhanced views from the freeway. As part of their recommended amendments to Gene autry way; they are recommending the'elimination of that helght 1i1711t. Commissioner Buffa stated one of the provisions in #he development agreement is that the number of dwelling units transferred from one development area to another cannot exceed 50°l0 of the target density of the receiving development area. If they are going to allow 50% of the units in any development area to be transferred, she wants to be sure that there is a balancing provision that ensures they do get a diversity of housing type; and don't just keep pressing the density and build-out all the mid-rise then end up having to build up. Mrs. Johnson stated staff shared the same concerns and section 10.3 of the development agreement requires density transfers be processed in the same manner as a final site plan at a noticed public hearing. "~ Staff would carefuAy look at any transfers. ' Commissioner Buffa doesn't believe that they have identified a specific number or range of product types. At this point she doesn't think Lennar has been asked to commit to a specific number of different product types. Mrs. Johnson stated on page 12, paragraph 25 of the staff report is a district plan that has different types of ~ products listed as well as the number of units in each district. Commissioner Buffa asked if there were defined terms in the development agreement. Mrs. Johnson stated no. Commissioner Buffa suggested a provision in the development agreement or conditions of approval that says there will be at least 4 different housing types or a number that the developer is comfortable with, so : you don't end up with mid-riselhigh-rise in order to achieve the units. ' Mrs. Johnson explained the density is allowed to be up to 100 units per acre. It is a total of 32 acres. Commissioner Buffa is concerned about the mix of uses that are allowed, a certain number of square feet of commercial/office space, certain number of units on a certain land area. If so many of the units are being allocated to 7 acres, the amount of land left is going to support the remaining uses. Knowing how much land is left will give an indication of the character of the uses that are going to be developed. Mrs. Johnson stated they have had a number of inquiries to increase the density within the boundaries and the mixed use. Staff is thinking it may be appropriate to evaluate any expansion of the area. Commissioner Buffa expressed concerns with businesses being displaced and job opportunities being lost. ~ She would like to see if the infrastructure can support the Change by inCreasing the officetcommercial use, if the market place will bear that. She wants to be sure there will be jobs available for the residents'in this area. 09-07-05 Page 16 SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINU7ES • Mrs. Johnson stated staff had the same concerns. ) Commissioner Velasquez asked how they monitor how the site will look like. Mrs. Johnson advised that those issues were irr the'development pian which is in the development agreement. The exhibit, district plan, development plan, publicfacilities plan are aA in the development agreement: Furthershe explained that along with Lennar, theyworked together on the district plan to , comply with the intent of the code to provide for a variety of product types and we wi11 need to implement the plan tiowever the development agreement does allow for the density transfer provision. Any changes would need to be considered in public hearing before the Planning Commission. ' Commissioner Velasquez inquired about the timeline for staff to review the density of this project. : Mrs: Johnson anticipated that discussions will take place over the next couple of months to determine ' whether staff will proceed with any city initiated actions that we would recommend to you. It is a long process because we need to determine what kind of capacity is left in the infrastructure and if there is any left. Atso, what kinds of improvements would be needed. We would have to do an appropriate environmental document for that. Commissioner Perez stated that in the future if there are issues of concern or matters that are raised between the agency and developer, that he has confidence in staff that they will make the right decision and that they will guide us through the legal process and development process with mitigating measures to protect our City's interest. He also took this opportunity to compliment Mr. Knowland on this project and stated his support for this plan. Commissioners Buffa and Romero echoed Commissioner Perez compliments. ~~ ~ OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: 4 people spoke in favor of the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, stated the item is subject to review and approval by the City ~ouncil. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 35 minutes {4:00-5:35) ~ 09-07-05 _ Page 17 SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMP710N - CLASS 1 KarakilRomero Concurred with staff 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005=05016 Karak~ Granted Owner: Miguel Vasquez, 1506 SantaAna Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 VOTE: 5-0 Commissioner Velasquez Location: 804 North Anaheim Boulevard: Property is temporarily absent and approximately 0.16-acre, having a frontage of 50 feet on Chairman Eastman absent the east side of Anaheim'Boulevard and'is located 95 feet north of the centerline of North Street. Request to permit and retain an automotive sales 1ot. ' Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2005-133 Project Pianner.• (avazquez@anaheim, net) Chairman Pro Tempore Flores opened the public hearing. Amy Vazquez, Associate Planner, introduced ifem No. 8. The applicant was not able to stay for the ` duration of the public hearing therefore provided a written s#atement informing staff that they concur with all of the conditions of approval and recommendation. She signed the statement for the public record. THE PUBUC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ` ~ - OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 29, 2005. : DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (5:36-5:38) SEPTEMBER7, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION:(PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) YelasquezlBuffa Approved • 9b. ' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04640 Velasquez Approved reinstatement `(TRACK/NG NO. CUP2D05-05013) with deletion of time limitation Owner: EVangelical Christian Credit Union, 955 West Imperial Highway, 'Brea, CA 92822-2400 Agent: Gloria Lee, Ambassador Church, 19800 MacArthur Boulevard, VOTE: 5-0 Commissioner Karaki Irvine CA 92612 temporarily absent and ~ Location: 2568 West Woodland Drive: Property is approximately 0.35- ~ Chauman Eastman absent \ acre, having a frontage of 69 feet on the'west side of Woodland _ Drive and is {ocated 680 feet east and south of the centerline of , Magnolia Avenue. Request for ~einstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on January 13, 2003 to expire January 13, 2005) to retain apreviously-approved church within an existing office building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2005-134 Pro~ectP~anner. (dherrick@anaheim. ne t) Chairman Pro Tempore Flores opened the public hearing. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 9. ~ The applicant was not present during the public hearing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, Septerimber 29, 2005. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (5:39-5:43} • Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~ c~ eb~.r 3~, 2005.