Minutes-PC 2006/10/30A~P~~IM ~~~ City of Anaheim :
~ 04 r~ Pianning Commission
~ ~
~ D Minutes
. ~o~ . Mondav, October 30, 2006
: o e,
'~'~~ ,$c~~ Council Chamber, City Hali
lyp ~D 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California
CHAIRMAN: GAIL EASTMAN
Commissioners Present: KELLY BUFFA, STEPHEN FAESSEL, CECILIA ~LORES,
JOSEPH KARAKI, PANKY ROMERO,'PAT VELASQUEZ `
Commissioners Absent: NONE
Staff Present:
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Della Herrick, Associate Planner
Greg McCafferty, TPrincipal Planner David See, Senior Planner
Judy Dadant, Senior.Planner Jamie Lai,'Associate Engineer
Kim Wong, AssistanfPlanner Jessica Nixon, AssistantPlanner
David Gottlieb, Redeve~opment Manager Marie Witkay, Senior Secretary ,'
Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 10:00 a.m.`
• Thursday, October 26, 2006, inside the display caselocated in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and _
also in fhe outside display kiosk.
Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, October 5, 2006
• Call To Order
Pre(iminary Plan Review 2:00 P.M.
• Staff update to Commission on various City developments and issues
(As requested by Planning Commission)
• Preliminary Plan Review for items on the October 30, 2006 agenda
• Recess To Afternoon Public Hearing Session
• Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M.
Attendance: 32
For record keepinp purposes if vou wish fo make a statement reqardinq anv item on the
aqenda please complete a sneaker 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 Ptann+ng Commission using the following
e-mail address: planninncommission~anaheim.net
H:\TOOLS\PCADMIN\PCMINIACT\2006MINUTESWC103006.DOC `
OCTOBER 30, 2006
'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 fhe
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 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 Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez and MOTION CARRIED,
#or approval of Consent Calendar Item 16, 1 E and 1 F. "UNANIMOUSLY-APPROVED
Reports and Recommendations
1A. (a) CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved
(PREVIOUSLY-PPROVED):
• (bj FINAL SI~'E PLAN NO. 2005-00003 : Approved
(TRACKING NO. FSP2006-00009)
Owner: Edwin Sundareson, 3 Jenner, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 1Kotion: Velasquez/Flores
92618 :
VOTE: 7-0
Locafion: 2045 South State Colleae Boulevard: Property is
approximately 3.41-acres, located on the southwest
corner of State College Boulevard and Artisan Court
(Gateway Centre Condominiums).
Request for determination of substantial conformance with
previously-approved exhibits for an attached 250-unit condominium
project within the Platinum Triangle.
(This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.)
Project Planner.•
(jpramirez@anaheim. net)
JohnRamirez, Associate Planner, introduced this item by providing a visual presentation of the
project and noted that the proposed modifications are reflected in a revised podium deck, roof
plan, elevations, and a reduction in the number of units as wel! as a modification to the individual
unit floor plans. Furthermore, the original podium plan provided all the common recreational
facilities for the project (pool, spa, barbeque, and a club room). The revised plan will maintain
the pool and spa with decorative modifications to the stone and changes to the organization of
the area. He explained one of the main changes is the location of the club room, and the club
• room amenity will be extended and will consist of levels along the second, third, f0urth and fifth
10-30-06
Page 2
OCTOBER 30, 2006
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
floors'of the building and would be adjacentto the main entrylobby;:and a roof deck andprivate
• outdoor dining area are now being proposed
Me stated that the intent of modifying and adding amenities is to create opportunities for
homeowners to interact and not reduce any elements to the interior courtyards or the '
landscaping along the primary pool deck area. 'Staff is supportive of the proposed modifications
since the plans substantially conform to the approved :exhibits, and meets the development
standards and design criteria of the Platinum Triangle`Overlay Zone and they are intended to
improve the design and livability of the project. '
Commissioner Velasque~ expressed her support of the changes, and is in support of the subject
project. `
Commissioner Karaki commended the applicant on the project.
- Chairman Eastman expressed her support of the project and thanked the applicant for making
an extra effort and going beyond what the Commission approved and for making the project
even better. , _
DISCUSSION: : 5 minutes (2:40-2:45)
•
OCTOBER 30, 2006
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 1B. (a) CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT NOS. 1896,'2073, 2189, 2491 AND Terminated
3744 (TRACKING NO. CUP2006=05132)
Agent: Eric Hull, 701 North Parkcenter Drive, Santa Ana, CA Consent Calendar Approval
' ' 92705 vOTE: 7-0
Location: 605-611 South Brookhurst Street: Property is
approximately 2.32 acres located at the southwest corner
of Brookhurst Street and OrangeAvenue, having
frontages of 337 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue :
and 299 feet on the west side of Brookhurst Street (Sav-
On Drugs).
'Request to terminate Conditionat Use Permit No. 1896 (to permit a
pawn shop), Conditional U5e Permit No. 2073 (to permit on-sale beer
and wine in an existing restaurant in the CL zone), Conditional Use
Permit No. 2189 (to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing ,
restaurant in the CL zone), Conditional UsePermit No. 2491 (to
permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant with waiver of
minimum number of parking spaces) and Conditional Use Permit Na
` 3744 (to permit a 720 square foot expansion of an existing 3661
square foot enclosed restaurant with on-premise sale and -
consumption of beer and wine).
Project Planner.:
Termination Resolution No. PC2006-99 (mothot~@anaheim.net),
•
• : ~
10-30=06
Page 4
OCTOBER 30, 2006
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 1C.(a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Motion: Romero/Faessel
(b) VARIANCE N0:2006-04687 - Motion: Romero/Flores
(TRACKING:NO. VAR2006-04708)
Agent: ingram Sheng, 1135 East Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92805 Approvea
Location: .529 South West Street: 'Property is approximafely 0.43- voTEr 7-0
acre having a frontage of,316 feet on the wesf side of West ` :
Street and is located 367 feet south of Santa Ana Street.
Request for review of final landscaping and elevations plans for a
previously=approved 2-lot, 2-unit detached single-family residential ,
subdivision with waiver of minimum lot depth and orientation adjacent Proiect P~anner.•
to a freeway. (dherrick@anaheim.net)
(This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) °
Della Herrick, AssociatePlanner, introduced this item.
Chairman Eastman expressed concerns regarding the landscape drawingsthe Commission
received, and wanted to ensure that all of the landscaping is reflected in the landscape
architectural plans.
Ms. Herrick referred to the landscape plans and stated there are 21 trees in that area, and there
~ are shrubs, groundcover, and vines. It is a conceptual elevation but it does have the
landscaping that meets all therequirements of the code and it is a layered landscape look.
Chairman Eastman asked if there would be 21 trees as shown.
Ms. Herrick responded there would be more than what is shown, as the landscape plan is to give
a conceptual idea of what it would look like.
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated during the plan check process through the Building
Division, the planner will ensure on the plan check, site plan and drawings that they have what is
shown today, and have the required number of trees
Chairman Eastman expressed her appreciation for the applicant taking the direction from the
Planning Commission and working with the Historic Preservation, and making changes that :
would make it a better fit into the subject neighborhood.
DISCUSSION: 5 minutes (2:46-2:51)
•
10-30-06
Page 5
OCTOBER 30, 2006
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 1D.(a) CEQA FINAL`EIRFOR THE WEST ANAHEIM COMMERCIAL Approved
CORRIDORS REDEVELOPMEN7 PROJECT AND ADDENDUM
(PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED)
(b)' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04603 Approved '
(c) PUBLIGCONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2002-00008 'Approved
(TRACKINGNO. CUP2006-05161 AND PCN2006•00029)
Motion: FaesseUBuffa
Agent: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201 South Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim; CA 92805 :
VOTE: ,7-0
Location: 200 - 328 North Beach Boulevard and 2951 - 2969 West
Lincoln Avenue: The site consists'of multiple?properties
with a combined area of approximately 30 acres and is
located north and east of the northeast corner of Beach '
Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue, having a frontage of 1,295 '
fe6t On the east side of Beach Boutevard and 490 feet on
the north side of Lincoln Avenue. '
' Requesf for an extension of time to comply with conditions of approval
for a previously-approved contlitional use permit and public
convenience or necessity to construct a commercial retail center of Pro~ectPianner.• "
regional significance. (dsee@ananeim.net)
(This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.)
•
Judy Dadant, Senior Planner, introduced this item.
Commissioner Faessel referred to the past extension of time requests, and asked Community
Development staff how much longer will they wait for the subject site to be constructed.
David Gottlieb, Redevelopment Manager, stated in terms of establishing a date, that he would
say soon, and he explained the main obstacles of the subject site pertaining to it being a landfi(I
which has a number of different constraints to rapid development. One is completing a thorough
environmental assessment of the landfill, and second was the preparation of a remedial action
plan. They enticipate that they will be receiving the approved remedial action plan from the
Water Quality Control Board sometime in December. Later this year, or very early next year,
they are hoping to have on the City Council agenda the disposition and development agreement;
and work could start on the subject site very early next year in 2007.
Commissioner Faessel asked why today's request for an extension of time is until 2008.
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, interjected and explained that the sitehas an interesting
history to it, and stated initially when the Planning Commission granted the permit in 2002, they
explicitly granted it with the initial 2-year term. Normally under a permit you have one year to
comply with conditions of approval and exercise your entitlement but in the subject case, when
the Commission originally approved it, it was approved for 2 years to 2004, therefore, the
applicant is asking for what the Municipal Code allows which is two extensions which would take
them to 2008, they may not need all that time, but it is better to do it now then have to come ,
. . . .. . w _ _______ __~ ____a~ _ __"" __._I:~~t:~.,. .....1 ..II iM.. r....w.ii fne~e~ ~r„1 .uhiri~ mov /'~C~^J\/+N1P . .
OCTOBER 30, 2006
PL"ANNWG COMMISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 30, 2006
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Min es
1E. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Continuedto
Meeting of October 2, 2006 (Motion) November 13, 2006
Continued from the October 16, 2006, Planning Commission meeting.
Consent Calendar Approval
Vote: 7-~
1 F. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission continuea to
Meeting of October 16, 2006. ' (Motion) November 13, 2006
Consent Calendar Approval
Vote: 7-0
•
OCTOBER 30, 2006
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Public Hearina ltems:
, 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION - Romero/Ftores Approved
2b. - CONDITIONAL USEPERMIT NO. 2006-05135" Romero Granted
Owner: SPK - Stadium Towers LLC, Property Tax Department, vOTE: 7-0
P.O.-Box A-3879, Chicago, lllinois 60690-3879
Agent: ' Rob Perez, 19752 Mac Arthur. Boulevard, Suite 240, Irvine, -'
CA 92612
location: 2460 East Katella Avenue: Property is approximately 6.4
acres, and is located at the terminus of Howell Avenue;.at
'#he southwest corner of Katella Avenue and the Orange'
(57) Freeway (Stadium Towers).
Request to permit ground-mounted telecommunications facilities
disguised as light poles on an existing parking structure;
:
Projecl Planner.•
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2006-89 (dherrick@anaheim.net)
Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing.
~ Della Herrick, Associate Planner, introduced this item.
ApplicanYs Statement: '
Rob Perez, applicant, representative for Sprint Nextel and is present to answer a ny questions. -
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Faessel asked for clarification if the light poles are actual light poles which provide lighting
to theparking structure.
Mr. Perez responded yes, they do provide lighting.
Commissioner Romero commended the applicant on their project as he strongly agrees with the stealth
design of the antennas.
OPPOSITION: None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on
Tuesday, November 21, 2006.
DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (3:02-3:08) :
•
10-30-06
Page 9
OCTOBER 30, 2006 .
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Flores/Faessel Approved
3b. VARIANCE NO. 2006-04703 Flores Granted, in part
3c. 'TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 17045 Flores/Faessel Approved
Owner: ' Calvin Graham, 104 West Tiller Avenue, Anaheim, CA vOTE: 7-0 .
92802
Agent: Carl Van Der Hoek, 4109 East Fernwood Avenue, Orange,
CA 92869 :
Location: `2248 South Loara Street: Property is approximately Q.51-
acre, having frontages of 77 feet on the east side of Loara
- Street and is located 710 feet south ofthe centerline of
Lorane Way.
: Variance No. 2006-04703 - Request waivers of (a) minimum required
landscaped setback, and (b) maximum permitted wall length to construct
five (5) attached singfe-family residences.
Tentative Tract Map Na 17045 -'To establish a 1-lot; 5-unit attached
single-family residential condominium subdivision. Pro~ectPianner. :
(kwong2@anaheim. net)
Variance' Resolution No. PC2006-90
Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing.
•
Kimberly Wong, Assistant Planner, introduced this item.
ApPlicanYs Statement: :
Carl Van Der Hoek, applicant, architect for the project, stated he is present to answer any questions.
THE PUBUC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Buffa suggested that the carport and garage be the applicant's choice, not dictated by the
City, but if it is an open carport that they need to 6e illuminated, and the lighting should be hard wired into
the building with a dusk to dawn sensor. She further expressed for the applicant to work with staff on the
exterior elevations facing Loara Street. :
OPPOSITION: None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map
ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 9, 2006; and presented the 22-day appeal rights for the
Variance ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 21, 2006.
DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (3:09-3:17)
.
10-30-06
Page 10
OCTOBER 30, 2006
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Buffa/Velasquez
4b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00184 Buffa
4c.' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.NO. 3020 Buffa `
(TRACKING NO. CUP2006-05136)
4d. VARIANCE NO. 2006-04701 Buffa
4e. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2006-221 Buffa/Faessel -
Owner: East Anaheim Christian Church, 2216 East South Street,
Anaheim, CA 92806
Agent: Craig Kosma, Manning Homes, 20151 Southwest Birch
Street,'Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660
Location: 2216 East South Street: Property is approximately 1.58
acres, and is located at the soufheast corner of South'
Street and Priscilla Street (East Anaheim Christian Church).
Reclassification No.2006-00184 - Request reclassification of the
subject property from the'T (Transition) zone to the RS=2 (Single-Family
Residential) zone, or a less intense zone:
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05136 - Request to amend exhibits
for a previously approved church to subdivide and establish a three-lot
single family residential subdivision.
Variance Na 2006-04701 - Requests waiver of minimum lot width to
~ establish'a detached single family residential subdivision.
Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-221 - To establish a 4-lot, 3-unit
detached single family residential subdivision.
Reclassification Resolution No. PC2006-91
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2006-92
Variance Resolution No. PC2006-93
,~
Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing.
Project Planner.•
(jpramirez@anaheim.net)
John Ramirez, Associate Planner, introduced this item by providing a visual presentation of the project.
He stated local area residents expressed concerns with the proposed project, the concerns related to on
street parking by the church, light and glare from vehicles exiting the driveway on Priscilla Street and
concerns with the impact the additional homes would have on the neighborhood. Currently, the church
has 36 parking spaces on site, after the reconfiguration, 13 more spaces would be provided on site for a
total of 49 spaces. The newly configured parking areas would also be closer to the church sanctuary
which would make them more accessible for congregants. With regards to light and glare, the church
does not have any evening services except for Christmas Eve, they do have an evening bible study every
Wednesday, with about 6-7 attendees.
He stated this item was also heard at the October 16, 2006, Planning Commission meeting and the
Commission indicated concerns pertaining to the elevations facing the single family residences to the
south. Staff has included a modification to Condition No. 9 related to the Variance, requiring that
additional articulation be included on #he elevation, and he read into the record the modified condition of
approval.
10-30-06
Page 11
_ ` OCTOBER 30, 2006
'PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES '
~ He stated the second element that was brought up was the pattern ofplacement of the homes on the
properties and it was suggested to not have all the houses in one line; and noted that staff is adding a
' new condition of approval requiring thafthe homes be off set from Priscilla Street in order to address the
concern. <
Applicant's Statement:
Jim Manning, 20151 Southwest Birch Street, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA, gave a brief overview of the
subject project pertaining`to the lot sizes, density, setback distances and the different elevations.
Robb' Ring, 2216 East South Street, Anaheim, CA, Pastor of the Church, stated he feels when the project
is done if should reduce traffic on Priscilla'Street and also make #he church a lofmore invisible, and he is ,
available to answer any questions.
Chairman Eastman'asked Mr. Ring if he could state some of his statements given from the previous
Planning Commission meeting pertaining to his reasons for the development.
Mr. Ring responded that the demographics thaf the church is serving have changed over the past 43
years, when the church was first builf, Priscilla Street was not there and it was farm land. The church has
gone through a lot of community changes, and at times it is 20 - 30 congregants on Sunday mornings.
He explained they needed'to develop the empty lot in order to be able to beautify the property and to
financially be able to serve the people and the community's needs. He feels the people onPriscilla Street
wiA 6enefit as a lot of the vehicles would come in and out from South Street,
Public Testimony: _
Nancy Edward, 807 Oakstone Way, Anaheim, CA, spoke in general of the subject request and stated she
,. is right behind the bacant lot and asked which way the homes would be facing, and if the wall would be ; ~
extended across the property of the church, as it helps as a sound barrier because from her bedroom she
can hear all the cars coming in and out.
Steven Valvera, 805 S. Priscilla Street, Anaheim, CA, stated he is going to speak for himself, but he also
has a statement to state from someone else who lives on the same street. He is present to voice his
opposition to the proposed relocation of the proponent's parking lot and the replacement of the current lot
with three houses. He feels while the proposal gives the church and the City more revenue it does
nothing to improve the neighborhood from its current condition. If the City had placed restrictions on the
East Anaheim Christian Church when they sold the last property, and make the church complete its
parking lot then they would not be here today. Currently, Priscilla Street residents and the current land
- use enjoy a quiet environment with minimal street parking issues and no real traffic concerns. With the
proposed changes Priscilla Street will have to endure more houses and a dramatic change in the location
of the current parking lot and the entrance and exit. He feels additional traffic from the proposed houses
and church will only add more burden to the neighborhood and existing residents.
Mr. Valvera stated he is speaking on behalf of James Acosta, 813 S. Priscilla Street, Anaheim, CA. Mr.
Acosta states when he found out that the Planning Commission failed to notify the local residents in his
neighborhood of the subject project; he immediately contacted another resident of Priscilla Street and
submitted letters to City Council, and contacted other parties to find out what the City is doing. Eventually
he found out from a City Planner the details of the subject development, which he is opposed to. He feels
the impact to the neighborhood would not be positive, as it would make the street busier and would '
destroy the uniqueness.
Mr. Valvera asked if the proposal is approved, would the parking area be developed first, and he relayed
concerns pertaining to fire safety and traffic issues.
. .
: 10-30-06
Page 12
OCTOBER 30, 2006
PLANNING COMMISSION MlNUTES
• APplicant's Rebuttal:
Mr. Ring stated years ago when the church donated the property that became Priscilla Street and the
reason is because we thought it would bring new members into the church. He clarified that the City
Planning Department never required them to turn the empty lot into parking, and thaf the private street
developed previously was designed to allow access for emergency vehicles. The goal of increased
parking is so there would 6e less people parking on the streets and stated when the proposed parking lot
is in front of #he church that the closest access to the church would be in firont which most people would
most likely be parking. He addressed concerns raised pertaining to vehicularlights coming in and out of
the driveway and stated with the use of shrubs and trees they can mitigate that issue and also with the
new parking on South Street they hope to further reduce that concern, with less traffic than before.
Chairman Eastman asked the applicant to address when they plan to do the changes to the parking lot, if
it would be the first phase of the development.
Mr. Ring responded that the parking lot would be developed first.
Chairman Eastman asked for the developer to come forward to address any issues raised. -
Mr. Manning stated regarding the parking issue, the code requires that there be four parking spaces per
home and he indicated they are providing five parking spaces, as there are three car garages and two
spaces in the driveways. Regarding the sound wall, it was built there because they raised the back of the
site because of the driveway going in, and they had to get some retaining. He indicated he isn't sure if
they are going to build another wall, but they will attempt to use the existing wall. If the existing wall is not
adequate then they would put a new wall in, but their attempt is to keep th'e existing walL Regarding
: safety and fire issues for the private drive, it is built wider than the typical private drive. Lastly, he
believes the proposed development would be an improvement to the neighborhood.
~ THE PUBUC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, responded to public testimony and he clarified that the Planning
Commission's decision is not weighed on revenues that the City may or may not receive. He indicated
the church isn't expanding their floor area, they are simply providing additional parking for their existing
facility. Regarding the noticing issue, staff has made clear what the mistake was in the beginning, and
reiterated it has been corrected which is why people are present today for an opportunity to speak.
Commissioner Faessel asked for clarification regarding access to the church property.
Mr. Ramirez responded the Priscilla Street driveway isn't an additional driveway it is being relocated from
its current location; there hasn't been any indication from the applicant which would be the primary used
driveway.
There was further discussion amongst Commissioners and staff regarding the proposed relocation of the
driveway and current zoning of the subject area
Commissioner Buffa expressed her support of the subject request as she feels it would improve and
benefit the neighborhood, based on the elevations of the proposed homes they appear to be attractive
homes.
Commissioner Velasquez expressed her support of the subject request, and stated she feels the
developer is going above and beyond, by adding a 3-car garage, in essence those residences would
probably not be parking on the street as opposed to the other homes on the street.
Commissioner Romero stated he feels it is a good land use, and also feels the new homes would improve
. the neighborhood.
10-30-06
Page 13
OCTOBER 30, 2006
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
: Commissioner Flores also expressed her support of the request; and Commissioner Karaki concurred
• with fellow commissioners.
Commissioner Velasquez asked the developer for an estimated timeframe for the development of the
parking lot. :
Mr. Manning responded approximately 2 months.
Chairman Eastman expressed her support of the subject request, and feels it will add ~aluable housing #o
Anaheim.
Mr. Ramirez read into the record the added condition of approval to the Variance "draft" resolution.
OPPOSITION: Two persons spoke in opposition to the subject request and included remarks from one
person'not present.
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map
ending at 5:00 p.m. on ThUrsday, November 9, 2006; and presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at
5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 21, 2006.
DISCUSSION TIME: 54 minutes (3:18-4;12)
~
~ -
10-30-06 '
Page.14
OCTOBER 30, 2006
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Flores/Faessel
~ 5 Approved
a.
5b. RECLASSIFICATION N0: 2006-00183 ' Flores Granted
` Owner: Leonard W. Gomez, 2025 f-lall Canyon Drive, La` VoTE: 7-0
Canada/Flintridge, CA 91011
Agent: Leonard Gomez, 14Q West BaII Road, Anaheim,' CA 92805
Location: 140 West Ball Road: Property is approximately 0.14-acre,
having frontages'of 66 feet on the south side of Ball Road
and is located 233 west of#he centerline of Iris'Street. '
Request,reclassification of the su6ject property from the O-L (Low
Jntensity Office) zone to the RS-2 (Single-Family Residential) zone, or a
less intense zone'to retain an existing single-family home.
Projecf Planner.
Reclassification Resolution No. PC 2006-94 ' Qpramirez@anaheim.net)
Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing.
John Ramirez, Associate Planner, introduced this item.
No'comments were indicated by the applicant.
~
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
Tuesday, November 21, 2006. '
DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (4:13-4:15)
~:
` 10-30-06
Page 15 "
OCTOBER 30, 2006
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 FaesseWelasquez
: Approved
~
6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITNO. 2006-05139 Faessel Granted
Owner: Walden C:'Townsend TR, 34300Lantern Bay Drive, #21,
Dana Point, CA 92629-2857 vOTE: 7-0
Agent: Phillip Schwartze, PRS Group, 31682 EI Camino Real, San'
Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Location: 2840 East Coronado Street: Property is approximately
0.69=acre, having frontages of 114 feet on the south side of
Coronado Streef and is located approximately 555 feet east
of the centerline of Blue Gum Street.
Request to permit a vehicle impound yard in conjunction with a towing
company.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution Noa PC2006-95 ProjectPlanner.•
Qnixon@anaheim.net)
Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing.
Jessica Nixon, Assistant Planner, introduced this item.:
ApplicanYs Statement:
~ Phillip Schwartze, applicant, stated he is present to answer any questions.
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
Tuesday, November 21, 2006.
DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (4:16-4:17)
OCTOBER 30, 2006
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 Withdrawn
7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05107
Motion: RomeroBuffa '
Owner: Bruno Serato, Ganlaon, Inc., 887 South Anaheim
Boulevard; Anaheim, CA'92805 VOTE: 7-0
Agent: Sylvano Serato, Anaheim White HouseRestaurant, 887
` South Anafieim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805
Location: ` 887 South Anaheim Boulevard: Property is
- approximately 0.82-acre, having frontages of 106 feef on '
the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and is located 132 feet
south ofthe centerline of Midway Manpr (Anaheim White
House Restaurant). _
Request to erect a permanent canopy within the street setback of an
existing restaurant with waiver of minimum structural and landscape
setback. .
Continued from the June 26, and September 18, 2006, Planning Commission Project Planner.
meetings. (jnixon@anaheim:net)
~
OPPOSITION: None
DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed.
OCTOBER 30, 2006
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Karaki/Flores Approved
8b.. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Karaki/Flores Approved, in part
8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2006-05126 ' Karaki Granted
8d. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0.17092 (READVERTISED) Karaki/Flores Approved
Owner: Sunrise Fountains Apartments, LLC, 1380 South Anaheim
Boulevard, Anaheim; CA 92805 wAIVERs
Approved waivers (a) and
Agent: David:Nix, Newport Capital Advisors, 1400 Quail Street, (b); Deniedwaiver(c) since
Suite 280, Newport Beach, CA 92660 it was deleted.
Location: ` 2100 South Lewis Street:' Property is approximately 3.63 cur
acres, and is located at the southeast corner of Lewis ` Modified Condirion Nos. 7
, Street and Orangewood Avenue. and ~ i
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05126 - Request to convert a 132-
_ unit apartment complex into a 132-unit residential condominium planned voT~: ~-o
' unit development with modification to standards and waivers of (a)
minimum lotarea per dwelling unit,`(b) minimum setbacks between
buildings, and (c) maximum walllength.
Tentative Tract Map No. 17092 - To establish a 1-lot, 132-unit airspace '
attached single-family residential condominium subdivision.
Continued from the September 18, and October 16, 2006, Planning Commission
: ' meetings. '
Project Planner.•
~ Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2006-96 (jpramirez@anaheim.net)
Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing.
John Ramirez, Associate Planner, introduced this item and stated that no new square footage is
proposed. The conversion is permitted in the RM-4 zone, subject to the approval of a conditional use
permit and,approval of a tentative tract map for the subdivision of airspace for condominium purposes.
The General Plan designates this property for medium-density residential land uses which allows up to 36
dwelling units per acre, although the development has a density of 38 dwelling units per acre, State law
prohibits the City from using the density identified in the General Plan as a basis for denial of
condominium conversions which consists of the subdivision of airspace in an existing structure. Since the
City currently does not have any policies in the General Plan related to the conversion of apartments to _
condominiums, provisions of the subdivision map act to deny cannot be applied to this project: He
indicated modifications to the code are requested for setbacks along Orangewood Avenue, the interior
property lines and for the unit size on four of the 1-bedroom units. Staff is recommending approval of the
modifications as conditioned.
He gave a brief overview of the applicanYs proposed upgrades and enhancements to the project. Based
on the review of the project with the requested modification of standards and waivers, and taken into
account the limitations in the map act on denying conversions based on density,'the site would comply
with the intent of the General Plan and underlying zoning code as well as the findings required for the
conversion of multiple family dwellings to condominiums, therefore the development is suita6le for the
conversion from`an existing multiple family apartment complex to a single-family attached condominium
development.
~
ApplicanYs Statement:
David Nix, applicant, gave a brief history of the owners of Sunrise Fountains and:stated they have a long
standing involvement with the City of Anaheim of which they are very proud; the Jones' and Rodriguez'
10-30-06
Page 18
OCTOBER 30, 2006 ,
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ families have every intention to maintain their good standing with the Anaheim community throughout the
Sunrise Fountains conversion process, if approved by the City. The owners have agreed to the
conditions of approval recommended by staff.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Romero asked the applicant if they are going to maintain a certain number that would be
rented.
Mr. Nix responded the intent is to convert all of them to for sale units.
Commissioner Karaki indicated he feels a better job could be done regarding the color scheme, and
suggested different color palettes in order to have a better color scheme
Commissioner Buffa asked Commissioner Karaki forany suggestions on the color scheme.
Commissioner Karaki responded he feels it is something the applicant would need to work out, and stated
the contrast into the scheme is very stark, and suggested to soften the dark color a bit as it appears to be
too dark with the combination of the light color.'
Chairman Eastman suggested to the applicant that they maywant to have a color consultant to assist
them wifh the color scheme.
Mr. Nix responded they do not have a problem with that, and will bring it back before the Commission.
Judy Dadant, Senior Planner, pointed out that Condition No. 11 of the draff resolution, does require that
the final elevation plans come back to the Commission for review as a Reports and Recommendations
• item.
Further discussion took place amongst Commissioners and the applicant regarding the hardscape;
Ms. Dadant referred to Condition No. 11 where it states, `9n addition, a natural stone surface shall be
proVided within the interior courtyard and pool areas in place of the existing gray concrete", and stated it
is consistent with the condition of approval that was added on the prior condo conversion.
Chairman Eastman indicated she was concerned that we were limiting the material they could use to
make this a good project.
Ms. Dadant stated if the Commission desires they can stipulate that the flooring be an enhanced, durable
material and staff can modify the conditional of approval verbiage so it doesn't specifically say "natural
stone". She read into the record a modification to Condition No. 11, and stated staff will work with the
applicant on the issue. :
Mr. Ramirez read into the record a modification to Condition No. 7.
OPPOSITION: None
Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map
ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 9, 2006; and presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at
5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 21, 2006.
OCTOBER 30, 2006
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
• 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 Buffa/Karaki
9b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00182 Buffa
9c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Buffa/Faessel
9d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2006-05130 Buffa '
Owner: Jack A. and Octavia A.'Carlino, Family Choice Senior Care
3105 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim; CA 92804
Agent: Shiv Talwar, Design Concepts, 4091 W: Riverside Drive,
' #110, Chino, CA 91710
Suresh Sabhlok, Alpha Engineering, 1401 North'Batavia,
Unit 204, Orange, CA 92867
Location: 3105 West Oranqe Avenue: Property is approximately
0,38-acre, having a frontage of 90 feet on the north side of
Orange Avenue and is located approximately 320 feet east
of the centerline of Parkview Street (Family Choice Senior
Gare).
Reclassification No. 2006-00182 - To reclassify an existing senior care
center from the 7(Transition) zone to the O-L:(Low Intensity Office) zone,
or a less intense zone.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05130 - To expand a previously-
approved senior care facility from 20 residenfs to 32 residents with waiver
~ of minimum number of parking spaces.
Reclassification Resolution No. PC2006-97
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2006-98
~
Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing.
Jessica Nixon, Assistant Planner, introduced this item and stated vehicular access to the site is provided
by one driveway from Orange Avenue, no on-street parking is permitted on Orange Avenue. A parking
analysis was prepared comparing a similar senior care facility that has a greater number of residences
than the subject proposaL The weekend is a period of peak usage since it could be expected thaf the
available parking spaces would be used more during the week. The parking counts determine that a
maximum of 2 spaces were occupied at any given time on the same weekend because the parking
spaces were not heavily used at either facility, staff has determined that the proposed expansion could be
accommodated with the proposed 9 on-site parking spaces. The proposal is consistent with the
provisions of the code and the manner in which the facility is proposed to operate, would not be a
detriment to the surrounding area, therefore, staff is supportive of the request subject to the
recommended conditions of approvaL
ApplicanYs Statement:
Jack Carlino, owner, stated he is present to answer any questions.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Flores asked for clarification regarding the closets in the extra rooms.
10-30-06
`Page 20
OCTOBER 30, 2006
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
~ Mr. Carlino responded the closets would be consistent with the current room configurations and there
would be a closet in each of the rooms.
Chairman Eastman asked' if the new rooms would have closets.
Mr. Carlino responded yes.
Judy,Dadanf, Senior Planner, stated they consulted with the Building Division regarding if the closets
were required by the building'code and they indicated it is not a specific requirement, and it is the:option
of the develpper whether to provide them formally or informally.
OPPOSITION: None .
Mark Gordon, Assistanf City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at.5:00 p'.m. on
Tuesday, November 21, 2006.
DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (4:40-4:48)
~
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:50 P.M.
TO MONDAY NOVEMBER 13, 2006, AT 1:00 P.M. -
FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW AT THE DOWNTOWN
COMMUNITY CENTER, ASSEMBLY HALL "A" _
~
Respectfully submitted:
~ ~~~~' ~r,y~
Elly Morris
Senior Secretary
Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~v~, r~ ~~ o,.v- ~,~, 2007.
10-30-06 "
' Page 21