Loading...
Minutes-PC 2006/06/12~PNEIM ~~ CITY OF ANAHEIM • ~ P ~f'~' ~ ' • o : ~ Planning Commissi°n ~ ~ Minutes ~ ~ ~o~ Mondav, June' 12, 2006 . . e~ , ,~ ^ Council Chamber, City Hall 4~ ,g~~ 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California NDED : CHAIRMAN: GAIL EAS7MAN Commissioners Present: KELLY BUFFA, STEPHEN FAESSEL, CECILIA FLORES, JOSEPH KARi4KI, PANKYROMERO, PAT VELASQUEZ Commissioners Absent: NONE Staff Present: : Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney James Ling, Principal Civil Engineer Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Susan Kim, Associate Planner Greg Hastings, Planning Services Manager Della Nerrick, Associate Planner Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner John Ramirez, Associate Planner Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner Jessica Nixon, Assistant Planner Judy Dadant, Senior Planner Elly Morris, Senior Secretary • Dave See, Senior Planner Marie Witkay, Senior Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, June 9, 2006, 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, May 18, 2006 • Call To Order Preliminary Plan Review 1:00 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE JUNE 12, 2006 AGENDA • Recess To Afternoon Public Hearing Session • Reconvene To Pubfic Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 33 For record keepinq purposes if vou wish to make a statement reqardinp any ifem on the a4enda please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretarv. • Pledge Of Allegiance: Commissioner Velasquez • Public Comments • Consent Calendar .• • Public Hearing Items • Adjournment You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address: planninacommissionCa~anaheim.net H:\TOOLS\PCADMI N\PCMINIACT~2006MI NUTESWC061206.DOC J.UNE 12, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • . Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. ' Items of Public Interest: Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance: New Planning Commissioner - Stephen FaesseL Stephen Faessel was sworn in as Planning Commissioner by Cathy Godoy, Deputy City Clerk. 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: The items on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roli 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 pub~ic request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Flores offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez and MOTION CARRIED, • for approval of Consent Calendar Item 1-A as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Item 1-B was removed from the Consent Calendar for separafe discussion and (tem 1-C was continued as requested by Planning Commission. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Reaorts and Recommendations 1A.(a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-04844 (Tracking No. CUP2006-05095) (c) DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY I N0. 2004-00015 (Tracking No. PCN 2006-00025) Agent: Michelle Alfieri, SSOE, Inc., 80011rvine Center Drive, Suite 400, Irvine, CA 92618 Location: 611 South Brookhurst Street: Property is approximately 2.3 acres, having a frontage of 156 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue and is located 245 feet west of the centerline of Brookhurst Street. Request a retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction with a previously-approved pharmacy. Approved Approved a one year retroactive eatension of time (to ezpire on May 17, 200'n. Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner. Qnixon@anaheim.net) 06-12-06 Page 2 JUNE 12, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1 B. (a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Karaki/Flores Approved (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3902 Karaki/Romero Approved, with revisions (Tracking No. CUP2006-05094) Agent: Andrew Paszterko, 2055 North Alvarado Street, Los' VO'rE: 7-0 Angeles, CA 90039 Location: 1200 South Harbor Boulevard: Property is approximately; 0.98-acre located at the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Ball Road. Requests to review final elevation plans for a previously-approved coffee shop and commercial retail center in conjunction with an ` existing service station with accessory convenience market with beer and wine sales for off-premises consumption and a drive-through Pro~ect P~anner. restaurant. (kwong2@anaheim.net) (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion and was trailed in order ' for the applicant to be present, Item No. 3 was then heard.) John Ramirez, Associate Planner, introduced the item and provided an illustration of the previously submitted west elevation and the revised west elevation. He stated that staff is in agreement with the design and materials portrayed in the final elevation plans and recommends approval of this request. ~ There was a general discussion leading to an agreement between Andrew Paszterko, architect and applicant, staff and the Commission regarding elevation modi~cations to the project. It was stated that the applicant needed to continue working with staff on the modifications but did not need to bring the elevation changes back to the Commission for approval. DISCUSSION: 13 Minutes (3:51-4:04) Item No. 7 was heard following action of this item (4:05 p.m.) JUNE 12, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • M~~~ , 1C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Continued to - Meeting of May 31, 2006 (Motion) June 26, 2006 Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 7-0 • JUNE 12, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Public Hearinq Items: • 2a. CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 280 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) 2b. AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE PACIFICENTER SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 88-3 (TRACKING NO. SPN2006-00034) Owner: Tustin Retail Center, LLC, Attn: Julie Collins, 3670 West Quendo Road, Las Vegas, NV 89118 Agent: Mark Frank, Promotional Signs, 20361 Hermana Circle, Lake Forest, CA 92630 Location: 3610-3720 East La Palma Avenue and 1001-1091 North Tustin Avenue: Property is approximately 25.8 acres and Continued to July 24, 2006 , Motion: Romero/Flores VOTE: 7-0 is located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Tustin Avenue (The Pacificenter Specific Plan No. 88-3). Request to modify the zoning and devetopment standards pertaining to signage and hotel occupancy limitations for the Pacificenter Specific Plan Na 88-3. Continued from the May 31, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. Project Planner. : • Specific Plan Resolution No. (dherrickQanaheim.net) • OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. JUNE 12, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Buffa/Flores Approved 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Buffa/Romero Approved, in part 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2006-05091 Buffa Granted °Owner: Ronald Beard Trust, 190 Newport Center Drive, Unit 210, ~'~'AIV~RS : Newport BeaCh, CA 92660 ' ApProved waivers (a), (b), (d) and (~. Agent: Tyler Carlson, Evergreen Devco, 2390 East CamelbaCk penied waivers (c) and (e) ROad, #710, Phoerlix, AZ 85016 since they were deleted. Location: 1222 South Maanolia Avenue: Property is approximately 4:03 acres and is located south and east of the southeast CUP Added a condition of corner of Magnolia Avenue and Ball Road (Walgreens). approval Request to construct a drive-through pharmacy and permit a commercial retail center within an existing.shopping center with waivers of (a) yOTE: 7-0 minimum landscape setback, (b) minimum number of parking spaces, (c) ' maximum number of wall signs, (d) maximum letter height for a proposed wall sign, (e) maximum number of freestanding signs, and (f) minimum . distance between freestanding signs and location to property line.* 'Advertised as "minimum distance befinreen fteestanding signs" Continued from the May 31, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. _ ' Project Planner. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2006-50 (jnixon(a~anaheim.net) • Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Jessica Nixon, Assistant Planner, introduced this item and provided a visual presentation. Ms. Nixon ' noted that staff recommends approval with the exception of certain waivers that she outlined. ApplicanYs Statement Kayman Wong, 200 North Maryland, Suite 201, Glendale, CA, applicant, offered a PowerPoint presentation of the project and stated that he is in favor of the item. He detailed the need for the proposed 4 foot setback waiver as opposed to the required 15 foot setback; other requested waivers and . described the landscaping plans for #he project. He also noted that the owner of the property will not permit this project to proceed if the 4 foot setback waiver is not granted. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Buffa stated that she was reluctant to impose a condition of approval on a developer or operator on someone else's property. She indicated that the applicant is incapable of implementing the condition of approval that the City wants when the owner does not agree with it. She said the applicant is very responsive to all of the City's demands when it has not interfered with the owner's position. She stated that she is not in favor of requiring the 15 foot landscape setback at this time. She is in favor of the , Walgreen's coming to the neighborhood, bringing in new business and supports the requested 4 foot setback and proposed landscaping plans by the applicant. Chairman Eastman asked what would be a possible future use for this property that would require a higher rate of parking. ~ Judy Dadant, Senior Planner, responded that the property is currently zoned for several types' of businesses that would require a higher parking ratio than the 5.5 parking spaces per 1,000. Examples 06-12-06 , Page 6 : JUNE 12, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • would be a restaurant or medical offices. , If there would be a general retail merchandise store it would still only require the 5.5'parking spaces per 1,000. Commissioner Romero asked about the recycling center that is located on the Walgreens property and that it takes up required parking spaces. He inquired if the recycling center wouid be relocated. -- Greg McCafferty, Principal Pianner, said that the possible relocation of the recycling center would be the : responsibility of either the property owner or the applicant. He stated that the distinction of this property - regarding landscaping is that Walgreen's and the existing market are on the same owner's property therefore there is not a requirement to extend the landscaping south to the other portion of the commercial center. Commissioner Faessel asked what the proposed public right-of-way improvements on both Magnolia and Ball Road would be. James Ling, Principal Civil Engineer, stated that#he applicant will be required to instafl a landscaped parkway and sidewalk as part of the building permit request. Commissioner Karaki stated that he was contacted by the applicant and they have shown a willingness to work with the City'to provide the requested landscaping minus the required 15'foot landscaping on , Magnolia. He said that the arrival of the Walgreens is an asset to the community and he does not want to jeopardize the project because of the 15 foot setback. He is in supporf of the setback waiver for the landscaping on Magnolia. Commissioner Velasquez expressed a concern that because the property owner was not at the meeting that the Commission is setting a precedent in granting greater rights to a tenant rather than to a property owner. She stated that she concurred with Commissioners Buffa and Karaki and their sentiments about •' the waiver setback but she is more concerned with the rights being granted to a tenant and not the owner. Greg Hastings, Planning Services Manager, stated that the conditions that are imposed go with the land and ultimately to the property owner. Variances to the conditions are dealt with on a case by case basis Commissioner Velasquez asked what the motivation would be for the Commission to consider the waiver if the property owner was at the meeting instead of the tenant. Mr. McCafferty interjected that this is a matter of policy for the Commission. From staff s point of view they are giving their best recommendation for the proposal currently presented before the Commission. He stated that with some minor site modifications that the 15 feet can be provided along Magnolia and staff recognizes the position of revitalization of the entire corner by the establishment of a Walgreens. Commissioner Buffa stated that in this case her distinction is the rights between the tenants versus the owner are that the tenant cannot compel the owner to conform to the City's regulation. This issue should be on a case by case basis. Commissioner Flores stated that she also met with the applicant and agreed with the statements made by Commissioner Buffa. She said that the applicant has been agreeable to making changes requested by staff and the Commission. She agreed that the Walgreens would be an asset to the City. There was a general discussion between the Commissioners, applicant and staff as to precedents that may be set by granting the 15 foot waiver and the benefit of allowing this project to continue as an enhancement to the City. The issue of placing a condition of approval on the conditional use permit for Walgreens that indicates that they will cooperate with the property owner in providing any landscape setbacks that are determined to be appropriate pursuant to subsequent development of the property was • also discussed. _ 06-12-06 Page 7 JUNE 12, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. McCafferty said that the landscaping condition should also specificaliy mention the tenant parking fields. Commissioner Eastman asked staff s assistance in crafting of the condition regarding landscaping., Mr. McCafferty stated that at the appropriate time when the Commission is ready to act on the project, staff will provide the wording for the condition. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, read into the record the proposed wording for the condition regarding landscaping issues which was agreed upon by the applicant. OPPOSITION: None Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at S:OO p.m. on Tuesday, July 4, 2006. , DISCUSSION TIME: 42 minutes (2:43-3:25) ~ JUNE 12, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA NEGA7IVE DECLARATION Continued to 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT ,: July 10, 2006 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05083 Motionc Buffa/Velasquez Owner: Guillermo M. Aguirre, 415 North Sunkist Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 VOTE: 7-0 Agent: Rob Perez, Parsons, 19752 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 240, Irvine, CA 92612 Location: . 1920 East Center Street: Property is approximately 0.37- acre, having a frontage of approximately 114 feet on the south side of Center Street and is located approximately 345 feet west of the centerline of State College Boulevard. Request to permif a telecommunications antenna (disguised as apine #ree) with accessory ground-mounted equipment with waiver of maximum permitted fence height. Continued from the May 15, 2006, Planning Commission meeting. Projecf Planner.• ` Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. (dherrick@anaheim.net) • OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. JUNE 12, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL FloresBuffa Approved IMPACT REPORT NO. 330 5b. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 2006-00178 ° Flores Granted _ 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMI7 NO. 2006-05092 Flores Granted Owner: Robert H.'Horn TR, 935 Lotus Circle, San Dimas, CA 91773 _ CUP Modi~ed Condition No. 33 Agent: " Scott Richards, SADI LLC, 5939 Monterey Road, LOS and Paragraph No. 8 in the draft resolution. . Angeles, CA 90042 Location: 111-125 West Elm Street: Property is approximately 0.76- vOTE: 7-0 acre, having frontages of 210 feet on the north side of Elm Street and is located 167 feet west of the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard. Reclassification No. 2006-00178 - Request for a reclassification from the l{Industrial) zone to the I(MU) (Industrial, Mixed Use Overlay) zone to construct 53 affordable multiple-fami(y units on an industrial lot in the historic district. , Conditional Use Permit Na 2006-05092 - To construct a 52-unit* affo~dable apartment complex with a density bonus and incentives for*' (a) minimum lot size, and (b) dedication and improvement of public right- of-way. ~ "Advertised as 53 units **Advertised as "with waivers of (a) minimum lot size, (b) mauimum density and (c) dedication and improvement of public right-of-way." Reclassification Resolution No. PC2006-51 Pro%ect Planner.• Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2006-52 (dsee@anaheim.net) Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Dave See, Senior Planner, introduced this item as a request for a density bonus for an apartment ' complex, provided proposed elevation slides and an aerial map of the project. ApplicanYs Statement: Gary Squier, 3129 6th Street, Santa Monica, CA, applicant, said that he has worked extensively with the community to bring a historic design and affordable housing project to Anaheim. He spoke in favor of this item. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Flores stated that this is one of the nicer affordable housing projects that she has seen. Commissioner Faessel concurred with the statement made by Commissioner Flores and that it will be a very good project for the Colony. He also wanted to know how or if this project might impact the traffic on Elm Street. ~ James Ling, Principal Civil Engineer, stated that Elm Street was built to prior standards and before the proposed project, so the curb to curb width is 30 feet. The current standard is 36 feet curb to curb and , ' 06-12-06 Page 10 _ JUNE 12, 2006 ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i the City is asking for improvements along the frontage of this property to be built to current street standards. Commissioner Karaki agreed that the project is a good combination of affordable housing and elevation design. He wanted to reiterate that the Commission wants the developer to keep the same level of . quality shown in the proposed elevations as the end tesult for the project. Commissioner Buffa wanted to know if there was going to be an on-site resident manager or an individual who only works during the day. Mr. Squier said #hat there will be an on-site manager and an assistant manager that will provide 24/7 coverage. There was a general discussion between:the Commission, staff and the project architect, David Rodriguez, 335 15th Street, San Diego, CA about keeping the combination of wrought iron and cement for the railings and then to bring the revised detailed elevations back #o the Gommission for final approval as - ~ a Report and Recommendations Item. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on ~ Tuesday, July 4, 2006. DISCUSSION TIME: 24 minutes (3:26-3:50) Item No. 1-8 was heard following this item, JUNE 12, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) ' Continued to 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-05028 June 26, 2006 (TRACKING NO. CUP2006-05105) Owner: Shawn banesh, Calvada Development, 26996 La Paz Motion: velasquez/Flores Road, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Agent: Ed Perez, EP Development Corporation,'201 Broadway, vOTE: 7-0 Anaheim,'CA 92805 Location: 1131 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately 0.39-acre and is located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Carleton Avenue. Request to amend a condition ofapproval pertaining to lunch service at a previously-approved drive-through coffee shop (Starbucks) to permit the incidental sales of pre-packed non-beverage lunch'items. ' Project Planner. , Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. (jpramirez@anaheim.net) OPPOSITION: None S DISCUSSION 'fIME: This item was not discussed . JUNE 12, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION = CLASS 1 Romero/Faessel Concurred with staff (READYERTISED) 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04823 Romero Approved amendment (TRACK/NG NO. CUP2006-05096) - Owner: Naresh Patel, NP Gas Inc., 1907 Los Alamitos Drive, Placentia, CA 92807-5512 VOTE: 6-1 Agent: Steve R. Sheldon, 901 Dove Street, Suite 140, NewpoYY Commissioner Karaki voted no Beach, CA 92660 Location: 2530 East La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately 0.48-acre and is located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Sunkist Street (US Gas-Valero). Request to permit the sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption and amend conditions of approval at a previously-approved service station with convenience market and car wash. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2006-53 ProjectP~anner. (dherrick@anaheim.net) ' Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Della Herrick, Associate Planner, introduced this item and stated that two letters were submitted in opposition to this item from the Anaheim City School District and one from an adjacent property owner: The concerns were for the sale of beer and wine at a iocation which is in close proximity to an elementary , school. Staff recommends approval of this request because the location is not within an area of high crime or over concentration of licenses. Applicant's Statement: Stephen Sheldon, applicant, ind'+cated that the business is family owned and run and there is a great sense of pride as evidenced by the improvements to the establishment. The owners agree to all conditionsof approvaL Public Testimony: Kathleen Schmuck, 2944 Frontera Street, #207, Anaheim, CA resident who lives in the area, spoke in favor of the request. Tom Rizzuti, 1001 South East Street, Anaheim, CA from the Anaheim Cify Schooi District spoke in opposition to the item. He provided a letter from the District's Superintendent, Sandra Barry, stating that they do not agree with the item due to the proximity of the business to the Sunkist School and the number of existing establishments that offer the sale of alcoholic beverages in the neighborhood. Hind Jain, 2450 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA owner of Sportsman Spirits Liquor, spoke in opposition to this item stating that there are already sufficient stores in the area in which liquor can be purchased. Jason C~uz, 2259 East Belmont Place, Anaheim, CA spoke against the item stating that the area is already saturated with liquor stores and does not need another one. He provided a petition that was signed by members of the community and some individuals who are out of the area but who frequent the • local establishments. THE PUBL.IC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 06-12-06 , page 13 JUNE 12, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Karaki asked Mr. She~don why he wants to add another liquor license to the present business when the owner has other income coming from this store. Mr. Sheldon responded that the owner's customers have asked for the convenience of being able to purchase beer and wine while patronizing the business. Commissioner Romero said that the store is very clean and may urge other adjacent business owners to upgrade their establishments to attract more customers. He stated that he is in favor of granting the liquor license to the applicant. Commissioner Faessel asked staff to explain how an applicant obtains a liquor license as it pertains to the census tract. Judy Dadant, Senior Planner, stated that the reporting district in which this property is located does not have an above average crime rate nor is it'over concentrated in the number of permitted licenses. - Therefore this request does not include the determination of public convenience or necessity and is strictly a request for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to allow the sale of beer and wine. There was a general discussion between the Commission and staff about the number of allowable liquor licenses in the area, and whether the owner had applied for a liquor license when they remodeled the business and conditions recommended bythe Anaheim Police Department. : Commissioner Flores stated that she is in favor of the item because it may be an incentive for other business owners to improve their sites. Commissioner Karaki said that he is not comfortable with adding another liquor license in the same ~ neighborhood and suggested that the owner purchase an existing license and not buy a new one: Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner responded that purchasing an existing license is very difficult to do and this area is not one that has an over concentration of liquor licenses. He said that the proposal which is currently before the Commission has the recommended conditions suggested and approved of by the Anaheim Police Department. Chairman Eastman stated that since the police department does not have an issue with this request and because of the many reasons that staff has provided for approval she is in agreement with the request. Commissioners Romero and Flores stated their approval of the item. OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke in opposition to the subject request (one representing the Anaheim City School District). A petition was submitted with 312 signatures in opposition and two letters were received in opposition to the request. 1N SUPPORT: A person spoke in favor; and a letter was received in favor of the request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 4, 2006. • DISCUSSION TIME: 25 minutes (4:05-4:30) JUNE 12, 2006- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • e 8a. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Karaki/velasquez nded Ci Council Recomm tY approval 8b. ` GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2006-00442 Karaki Recommended adoption ot : Exhibit ~~A" to City Council 8C. AMENDMENT NO. 7 T0 THE ANAHEIM RESORT Karaki ~tecommended City Council - SPECIFIC PLAN N0. 92-2 (SPN NO. 2006-00036) approvai, including modifications to the recommended draft Agent: City of Anaheim; 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, ordinance , CA 92805 . Location: The Anaheim Resort encompasses approximately 1,078 VOTE: 7-0 acres within the City of Anaheim and is generally located adjacent to and southwest of the Santa Ana Freeway (I-5) between the Disneyland Drive off ramp and Chapman Avenue, with a portion located north;of the 1-5/Harbor Boulevard interchange. The Commercial Recreation General Plan land use designation includes all of the properties within The Anaheim Resort. The Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area is located within The Anaheim Resort and encompasses approximately 580 acres. The proposed Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay involves two sites within theAnaheim Resort Specific Plan area. Site A encompasses approximately 43.7 acres east of Anaheim ' ~ Boulevard and Haster Street in the vicinity of Katella Avenue. Site B encompasses approximately 15.6 acres south of Wilken Way and east of Harbor Boulevard. ' General Plan Amendment No. 2006-00442 - City initiated request to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan to amend Table LU-4 _ and the description for the Commercial Recreation land use designation to allow residential uses in conjunction with full-service hotels within two targeted areas of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area. Amendment No. 7 to the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan (SPN No. 2006-00036) - City initiated request to amend the Zoning and Development Standards (Chapter 18.116 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) for the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2* to establish an overlay (Anaheim Resort Residential Overlay) and standards for the development of residential uses in conjunction with full-service hotels within two targeted areas of the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan area. ' Advertised to include "in its entirety to provide consistency with Title 18 (Zoning Code), and provide minor modifications and clarifications" General Plan Amendment Resolution No. PC2006-54 Project Planner.~ Amendment No. 7 To The Anaheim Resort (skim@anaheim.net) Specific Plan Resolution No. PC2006-55 Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Susan Kim, Associate Planner, in conjunction with Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, introduced the ~ item and displayed an illustrated map depicting the area in question while providin g a detailed explanation of the project. Ms, Kim stated that staff recommends approval of the amendment. _ 06-12-06 Page 15 JUNE 12, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . There was a general discussion between the Commission and staff regarding tenant issues, elevation designs, futureland uses, new construction versus existing construction and the number of residential condominiums for the project. Public Testimony: Michael Capaldi, 4675 Mac Arthur Court, Newport Beach, CA, who is a principal,with Renaissance Pacific Properties; spoke in favor of the amendment stating area revitalization, increased transit occupancy tax and bringing a nationally renowned luxury hotel operator to #he resort area. He described a project that is being planned and that would be affected by this amendment. James Kelley, 4341 Birch Street,' Suite 216, Newport Beach, CA, principal at James T. Kelly & Associates which is a hospitality and real estate consultation firm, stated his approval of the item. He indicated that he has a specific plan that he is involved with that will benefit from this amendment. : Jon Railsback, 2501 East Chapman Avenue, Suite 100, Fullerton, CA an attorney who represents Benkey Pools, spoke in opposition to the request stating that approval of the amendment would increase the owner of Benkey PooPs property taxes'so much that they would possibly have to'go out of business: He also stated that the loss of 27 feet of the Benkey Pool's location would interfere and encroach on the business' parking lot thereby affecting the operation's sales. Franklyn Elfend, 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1260, Irvine, CA representing SunCal Companies, spoke about a project that he is involved in that is located in an area called Platinum Point thaf would be affected by approval of this amendment. He stated his desire to integrate his project with the proposed amendment but will need additional time to accomplish this: Dr. Moni Mosharaf DDS, 2207 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA wanted to know what impact there ~ would be on his property that is across from the proposed project and if there are any costs or traffic ` issues that would affect his business. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Kim said that Dr. Mosharafs property would not be affected by the approval of the amendment and it does not alter his development rights nor does staff anticipate any negative tra~c impacts. There was a general discussion between the Commission and staff if there would be any additional cost to the various business owners' assessments. Mr. Borrego stated that there are no plans to increase costs at this time. He referred any additional questions regarding this matter to Natalie Meeks in the Public Works Department. Sheri Vander Dussen, Planning Director, Commission members and Mr. Elfend discussed and clarified his intentions with regards to the amendment and how it could possibly affect his future project. He stated that he will offer his comments and suggestions to the appropriate entity when he has them completed. Commissioner Karaki said that he is in agreement with the proposed amendment and said that he looks forward to Mr. Elfend's future proposals. Commissioner Romero stated his support of the amendment. Commissioner Faessel commented that he wanted to make sure that there are sufficient parks or payments in-lieu-of for parks in the area. Commissioner Buffa entered into the record that the Planning Commission is not voting on a specific ~ project today, but to expand the parameters of land development and allow certain project applications. This amendment offers more options to land owners than fewer options. 06-12-06 Page 16 JUNE 12, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • IN SUPPORT: 2 people spoke in favor of the request. IN GENERAL: A person spoke with questions pertaining to the request. A person spoke in opposition to an unrelated matter. ' A person spoke and a letter was received expressing concerns regarding the request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, stated this item would be set for a publichearing before the City CounciL , DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 5 minutes (4:31-5;36) - ~ Re ectfuily submitted: ~~ ~ . ~ ~ Marie W itka Y Senior Secretary - Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~~ n2, 02. ~, 2006.