Loading...
Minutes-PC 2008/08/18City of nahei lannon o r~isseon inutes _ nAondav, Auqust 1 ~, 2008 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissione~s Present: Chairman: Joseph Karaki Peter Agarwal, Kelly Buffa, Stephen Faessel, Victoria Ramirez, Panky Romero Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager Ted White, Senior Planner Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Della Herrick, Associate Planner Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner Scott Koehm, Associate Planner Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner Gail Eastman Kim Wong, Planner Diane Bathgate, Planning Consultant Keith Linker, Principal Civil Engineer David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Luis Torrico, Project Manager I Grace Medina, Senior Secretary Donna Patino, Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, August 14, 2008, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, August 7, 2008 • 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 AUGUST 18, 2008 AGENDA • Workshop-Presentation on VUater Shortages • Recess to Public Hearing s Reconvene to Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 20 • Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Faessel • Public Comments • Consent Calendar . Public Hearing Items • Appointment of Commissioner Keily Buffa as Historic Presentation Committee Liaison . Adjournment H:\TOOLS\Pla~ning Commission Administration\PC Action Agendas - Minutes~2008 Minutes~2006 MinutesWC08'1808.doc AUGUST 18, aoos PLANNIMG COMMISSIOfV ININUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.IVI. Public Comments: None Consent Calendar: Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Agarwal and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Item 1A and 1 B; and to withdraw Item 7 as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED Renorts and Recommendations ITEM NO. 1A CEQA flAITIGATED MEGATIVE DECLARATION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) AND COfdDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05202 ~Tracking No. CUP2008-053231 Owner Extron Electronics and 1230 South Lewis Street Applicant: Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 1055 East Ball Road: This property is approximately 3.35 acres, located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and East Street with property frontages of 111 feet on the north side of Ball Road and 104 feet on the west side of East Street. Request a retroactive one-year extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for a previously-approved five story office and training building. Consent Calendar Approval Motion: Faessel/Agarwal VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Eastman absent Project Planner: Kimberly Wong kwonq2(o~anaheim.net Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Agarwal, to approve the Gonsent Galendar Item No. 1 A and 1 B. Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Eastman was absent. 08/18/08 Page 2 of 26 AUGUST 18, aoos PLANfdING COIVIIVIISSION MINUTES Minutes ITEM 1B Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 4, 2008. (Motion) MOTE: Meeting minutes have been provided to the Planning Commission and are available for review at the Planning Department. Consent Calendar Approval AAotion: Faessel/Agarwal VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Eastman absent 08/18/08 Page 3 of 26 AUGUST 18, 2008 PLAPJfVIfdG COMMISSION MIPIUTES Public Hearina Items: ITEM P10. 2 CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1 AfdD CONDITIOPIAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05343 Owner: NMC Anaheim, LLC Sanford Sigal 18801 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 300 Tarzana, CA 91356 Applicant: Joey Aliano Ultrasigns 9025 Salboa Avenue, Suite 150 San Qiego, CA 92123 Location: 2280 East Lincoln Avenue: This property (Anaheim Town Square) is located at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and State College Boulevard and is approximately 26.39 acres, having a frontage of 1,535 feet along the south side of Lincoln Avenue and 910 feet along the east side of State College Boulevard. Request to permit the replacement of two existing monument signs to add new electronic reader boards. Resotution No. PC2008-77 (Faessel) Approved VOTE: 5-1 Commissioner Eastman absent Commissioner Romero voted no Project Planner: Diane Bathgate dbathqate(o)anaheim. net Diane Bathgate, Planning Consultant, presented the staff report. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Kevin Cavanaugh, Newmark Merill Companies, 6333 Canola Avenue, Woodland Hilis, Cakifornia, stated that he is availabie to answer any questions. Chairman Karaki asked if there was anyone who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, he closed the public hearing. Commissione~ Buffa stated that she is not a big fan of readerboards. However, this project is a perfect example of where she thinks they are appropriate. She also thinks the readerboards have been designed to fit in with the shopping center. She indicated that the staff report relies heavily on justifying readerboards because they promote community oriented special events. She wanted to clarify that the applicanYs letter of request and justification also makes it clear that the readerboards will be used for advertising. She thinks the readerboards will also be used to advertise special events and promotions as a secondary use. She is in support of the readerboards. Commissioner Romero stated that the applicant indicated that the 36-day limited duration of the special event permits did not allow for annual programming needs. However, he did not agree that 08/18/08 Page 4 of 26 AUGUST 18, 2008 PLANNING COMIIAISSION MINUTES granting this approval would a guarantee that signs or banners would be reduced. He believed the applicant would still have the ability to request the same banners for promotional activities for holiday events. He did not thi~k the applicant had a valid justification. He does not support readerboards and feels they add visual clutter to the streets. These signs are proposed to be bigger in height than what is currently there and he feels they would be a detriment to the neighborhood. Commissioner Faessel thanked Newmark Merrill for cleaning up the shopping center without pubtic funds. He supports the readerboard signs. Commissioner Buffa stated that the applicant correctly identifies that on this property there can be visual clutter because there are competing banners fordifferent special events, grand-openings, and sales. She feels that the electronic readerboards would give the property owner the opportunity to start limiting banners and getting rid of the competing signage by putting the advertisement on the readerboards. Commissioner Agarwal understood from the stafF report and the applicanYs letter that they intend to eliminate or reduce the use of banners. He suggested adding a condition that would limit the number of special events for the property. Chairman Karaki commented that the center has made significant improvements. He commended the owner of the center. He felt that by providing the readerboards, the owner could start reducing the number of banners. He added that the colors on the existing signs are fading and hopefully next time they will have colors that last. He supported the readerboards. Commissioner Romero stated that he thinks that this would be setting a precedent that every grandfathered monument sign that the City currently has will be converted to a readerboard. Chairman Karaki remarked that the code only allows readerboards on sites over 25 acres. Commissioner Buffa responded to Commissioner AgarwaPs comment about adding a condition that would limit the shopping centers use of banners. She does not support that condition because the property owner has the right under the Code to have readerboard signs and special event banners. She would not be in favor of adding conditions that would limit the right that they currently have under the Code. Commissioner Agarvval stated that what he commented upon was the applicant's intent. The applicant's justification is that the readerboard would eliminate the clutter of the banners. He was not trying to take away the property owner's rights as he has always been a big supporter of property owner rights. A discussion of the permissibility of "sign twirlers" at the corner of Lincoln and State Coliege proceeded, with Mark Gordon explaining the Ciry, at present, does not have any particular regulations for these types of activities. 08/18/08 Page 5 of 26 AUGUST 18, 2008 PLAMNIPIG COMMISSION MIPIUTES Commissioner Faessel offered a recommendation to adopt the resolution attached to the staff report determining that a CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 1 serve as the appropriate environmental document for the project and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05343. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with 5 aye votes. Commissioner Romero voted no. Commissioner Eastman was absent. OPPOSITIOM: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 10, 2008. DISCUSSIOPJ TIflAE: 17 minutes (2:36 to 2:53) 08/18/08 Page 6 of 26 AUGUST 18, 2008 PLANNING COMNIISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 3 CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 330 AND ADDENDUM fPREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED), ANIEP1DMEfiIT TO PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED COPIDITIONAL USE PERMIT fd0. 2006-05072 (Treckinq No. CUP2008-05338) AND TENT/~TIVE TRACT MAP iVO. 17295 Owner: Brookfield Olive Street, LLC 3090 Bristol Street, Suite 200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Applicant: Cheryl Stump Brookfield Homes 3090 Bristol Street, Suite 200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Location: (No Address). This property is located at the northeast corner of Olive and South Streets and is approximately 16.6 acres, having a frontage of 789 feet on the east side of Olive Street and 1,113 feet on the north side of South Street. Request to amend a previously-approved conditional use permit and Final Tract Map to modify project site boundaries, building configurations and streets including a reduction in the number of dweiling units from 339 to 270 for an affordable single-family attached condominium planned unit development. The project requires a conditionai use permit for a modification of development standards to provide a reduced building setback adjacent to future Public Street A and a Tier Two Incentive for fewer parking spaces Yhan required by code. Resolutio~ No. PC2008-78 Resolution fVo. PC2008-79 (Buffa) Approved VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Eastman absent Project Planner: Elaine Thienprasiddhi ethien(a~anaheim. net Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Cheryl Casanova, Brookfield Homes, 3090 Bristol Street, Suite #200, Costa Mesa, stated that they are requesting approval of an amendment to their conditianal use permit and tentative tract map for Colony Park. The recent market conditions have required them to make adjustments to the development plan for the community. They have worked closely with staff, the Redevelopment Agency and the Neighborhood Task Force to develop a plan that will allow them to appropriately respond to the current market conditions. 08/18/08 Page 7 of 26 AUGUST 18, aoos PLAfdMIMG COINMISSIOIV MIfdUTES The revised site plan features a revision to the site boundaries and a reduction in the total number of homes. The current plan includes 270 residential homes with a change in the product mix. With the sales rate that they have with the Harmony Product, they feel that this will help to better meet the current market conditions. In addition, they are providing a minimum of 10 percent of the units for affordable housing to moderate and low income families in this community. To date they are on track to well exceed that 10 percent. They have been able to accommodate many families. In revising the site plan they are able to ailow for a larger paseo between the four harmony buildings and a larger setback along the new public street. They think these changes will be beneficial for the project. They are requesting two variances. One is for the setback area along the new public street and the second is the number of parking spaces. They would like to use the Tier Two Density Bonus incentive to reduce the number of required parking spaces. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Chairman Karaki asked if there was anyone who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa commented on the builder's project and stated that they have done a wonderful job of bringing in lovely homes to the neighborhood. They are architecturally very attractive and it is a benefit to the downtown area. She thinks it is wise of the City to support the builder's need to be more market responsive right now. It has been discussed that builders in other cities, as well as in other parts of the city, are struggling. She is delighted to see that this builder is forging ahead in a tough economy, making changes and still building. She also wanted to comment on the affordability of this project. By reducing the amount of units, they are reducing the number of affordable homes which is always a concern to the City. However, that is off set by the fact that in this particular instance the portion of the property which is being removed from the project will be integrated with a project by the Redevelopment Agency that will include approximately 20% affordable units. She thinks they would be gaining affordable units by providing for this change. She disclosed she did meet with the developer. Commissioner Ramirez concurred that it is a great product and she understands why the request is being made. She disclosed that she met with the developers. Commissioner Romero disclosed that he met with the applicant and agrees with what they are trying to do in being responsive to the market. He expressed support of this project. Commissioner Faessel disclosed that he met with the applicant. He was interested in the level of green building that they have incorporated into the project and hopes that will be continued in the new project. He expressed support of this project. Chairman Karaki disclosed that he met with the applicant. He was impressed with the quality of work the developers had done. He expressed support of this project. 08/18/08 Page 8 of 26 AUGUST 18, 2008 PLANP11fdG COflAMISSION MIMUTES Commissioner Buffa offered a recommendation to adopt the resolution attached to the staff report determining that the previously-certified EIR No. 330 and its Addendum are adequate to serve as __ the required environmental documentation for this project, approving the amendment to Conditional Use Permit 2006-05072 and approving Tentative Tract Map No 17295. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, a~nounced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Eastman was absent. 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, August 28, 2008; and the 22-day appeal rights for the Conditional Use Permit ending at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 10, 20Q8. DISCUSSIO(d TIME: 10 minutes (2:53 to 3:03) 08/18/08 Page 9 of 26 AUGUST 18, 2008 PLAiVldING COMMISSIOM MINUTES ITEM NO. 4 CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AfdD MITIGATION MOPIITORING PLAN PIO. D00003, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00051 VARIAPICE NO. 2007-04742, FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2007-00013 AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2006-195: Owner: HICM LLC 18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 850 Irvine, CA 92612 Applicant: Springhill Suites Marriott Vicki Fetterman, Government Solutions 230 Newport Center Drive, Suite 210 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: 1240 South Walnut Street: This "L" shaped property is approximately 5.912-acres with a frontage of 407 feet on the south side of Ball Road and 294 feet on the east side of Walnut Street. Request to construct a new 120-room hotel. Proposed project actions include the following: Specific Plan Amendment Mo. 2007-00051 - Request to amend the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan to redesignate the project site hotel density from Low Density to Medium Density. Variance fdo. 2007-04742 landscaping adjacent to an required by code. - Request to permit less interior property line then Final Site Plan iVo. 2007-00013 - Request for approval of a Final Site Plan for the development of 120-room hotel within the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan zone. Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-195 - Request to subdivide an existing parcel into two parcels. Della Herrick, Associate Planner, presented the stafF report. Resolution No. PC2008-80 Resolution No. PC2008-81 Resolution Mo. PC2008-82 Resolution Flo. PC2008-83 (Romero) Approved VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Eastman absent VAR, FSP, & TPM: Recommended for City Council Review Motion: Romero/Faessel Project Planner. Della Herrick dherrick a(~anaheim.net Commissioner Romero referred to Conditions of Approval Nos. 19 and 21. With regards to Condition No. 19, which has to do with the energy efficiency designs, he asked who makes the determination if it is a~ energy efficient design. Regarding Condition No. 21, the condition states that the property owner shall demonstrate that the fuel efficient model gas powered building 08/18/08 Panc ~ (1 nf 7R AUGUST 18, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION ~fiINUTES equipment has been incorporated into the project to the extent feasible. He wanted to know what was meant by "to the extent feasible." Ms. Herrick replied with regard to energy efficiency, the City's Public Utilities Department always tries to promote green buildings. The City does provide incentives and they will be wo~king with the City's Resource Efficiency Department in compliance with the mitigation measures to build green. The Building Department would review Condition No. 21 and make sure that the notes are on the plans submitted for building permits. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Julie Cavanaugh, Government Solutions, 230 Newport Center Drive, Suite 210, Newport Beach stated that she represents DKN Hotels. DKN Hotels is excited about the Marriot Springs Hills Suites Hotels and is looking forward to moving forward with the project in the City of Anaheim. They view the Marriot Suites as a win win situation for all concerned. They would like to thank staff for their hard work in helping with this project. Government Solutions team is avaitable to answer any questions. Commissioner Agarwal commented that he liked the architectural layout of the plan. He is in full support of this project. Commissioner Faessel indicated that it has been mentioned that in Conditions of Approval 19 and 21, they have to at least meet Title 24. He is hopeful that they would go beyond that and incorporate every green building incentive that the City of Anaheim offers. It wouid be nice to use this development as example for the Resort District to show the fine job that they could do to add an extra level of energy e~ciency. Chairman Karaki noticed that the first floor had a different architectural treatment. He wanted to know if the area would be used for public, restaurant, or retail uses. Randy Itaya, Gene Fone Architects, replied the layout for the first floor of Spring Hills Suites is for a breakfast and sitting area for the hotel guests. Chairman Karaki asked if the area would be open to the public. Mr. Itaya replied it was only for the hotel guests. Chairman Karaki concurred with Commissioner Agarwal on this project The City has done a great job ensuring the quality of the design. He believes this project is what the City is iooking for in terms of the quality of a project. It is project that looks like the developer took time to produce a more than average hotel. Chairman Karaki asked if there was anyone who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Romero offered a recommendatio~ that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the staff report to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and to approve Specific Plan Amendment No. 2007-00051, Variance No. 2007-04742, Final Site Plan No. 20Q7-00013 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 2006-195. 08/18/08 Pana 1'I nf 7R AUGUST 18, zoos PLANMING COMAnISS10N MIPIUTES Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. _ Commissioner Eastman was absent. Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessei, to request that the City Council review the Pianning Commission's decision on the Variance, Site Plan, Final Site Plan and Tentative Parcel Map. Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Eastman was absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Parcel Map ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 28, 2008; and the 22-day appeal rights for the Specific Plan Amendment, Variance and the Final Site Plan ending at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 10, 2008. DISCUSSION TIOAE: 14 minutes (3:03 to 3:17) 08/18/08 Pano 17 nf 7R AUGUST 18, aoos PLANMING COMnAISSION MINUTES ITEflA MO. 5 Owner Gerardo Bermudez and 704 South Lemon Street Applicant: Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 704 South Lemon Street: This property is approximately 0.17 acre, having a frontage of 50 feet on the east side of Lemon Street, 80 feet south of the centerline of Stueckle Avenue. Request to permit the conversion of an existing single~ family residence into a senior second dwelling unit and construct a new single-family residence in the Single- Family Residential (RS-2) zone. Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Resolution No. PC2008-84 (Buffa) Approved VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Eastman absent Project Planner: Scott Koehm skoehm(a) anah e im. net Elvira Bermudez, property owner, 704 S. Lemon Street, 92805, stated that she would fike to build a second unit. Her parents are 62 years old and qualify for the senior second unit or they could offer it to other senior citizens in the community. She is availabie to answer any questions. Chairman Karaki asked the appiicant if she was aware of the Conditions of Approval that the City conditioned in order for this project to be approved. He asked if she agreed to these conditions. Mrs. Bermudez replied yes. Commissioner Buffa stated that staff mentioned that the applicanYs proposed home is in the Historic District. The proposed modifications to the existing structure seem to be fine because it is not a Historic property. However, the design for the proposed home could use architectural enhancement to make it compatible with other historic structures in the neighborhood. Staff mentioned that they have discussed this with the applicant and the applicant had considered additional design treatme~t, at least on the front elevation, because it would help define the style. Mrs. Bermudez confirmed that they would be more than happy to make architectural adjustments. Chairman Karaki agreed with Commissioner Buffa. Commissioner Romero wanted to confirm whether the applicant was building the second unit for her parents or other citizens. Mrs. Bermudez stated it wouid not necessarily be her parents but the stipulations are for anyone 62 years and oider. This unit would be an option for their family. 08/18/08 Page 13 of 26 AUGUST 18, 2008 PLANiViNG COMII~ISSION MINUTES Chairman Karaki asked if there was anyone who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, he closed the public heariRg. ` Commissioner Buffa thought this would be a great use of this property. She was delighted to see younger people making provisions for their parents. She thought it would be very approRriate to have a large house in the front and smaller house in the back. Commissioner Faessel commented that he was happy to hear that she is presumably a life long resident. Commissioner Agarwal agreed with Commissioner Buffa. Commissioner Buffa offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the staff report determining that a CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 3 serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for the project and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05325. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Eastman was absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 10, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes {3:17 to 3:26) 08/18/08 Page 14 of 26 AUGUST 18, 2008 PLANMIfdG COMMISSION MINUTES 1TEM NO. 6 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATIOFI AND RECLASSIFICATION PfO. 2008-00218 Owner and Applicant: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 1003 Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 2748 West Lincoln Avenue: This property is approximately 1.7 acres, having a frontage of 125 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and approximately 669 feet east of the centerline of Dale Street. Request to reclassify the property from the General Commercial (GG) zone to the Multiple-Family Residential (RM-4) zone. Kim Wong, Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Karaki opened the pubiic hearing. Resolution to Approve Failed (Karaki) VOTE: 3-3 Commissioner Eastman absent Commissioners Buffa, Faessel and Romero voted no Recommended for City Council Review Motion: Karaki/Faessel VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Eastman absent Project Planner: Kimberly Wong kwonp2na anaheim.net Luis Torrico, Project Manager I, Redevelopment Agency, stated that the Redevelopment Agency requests to reclassify the property to the RM-4 zone to allow for the future development of a 51- unit affordable housing project. The requested zone is necessary to accommodate the future projecYs density and to address the financiai constraints associated with the project. The density restrictions of the RM-3 zone with a 35 percent density bonus would only permit 42 units. A limitation of only 42 units would not make the project financially feasible. The Redevelopment Agency proposes to request Planning Commission review of the project in the next few weeks. At that point any issues or concerns with the design, height, and impact on the neighborhood could be addressed: He is available to answer any questions. Commissioner Buffa commented that based on the Commission's previous experience of a four- story building proposal, she was concerned with reclassifying the property without a project. The previous project made her realize that she made an error. She had agreed to RM-4 zoning prior to a project being proposed and did not think through the unintended consequence of a four story building adjacent to structures with lower heights. She believed this property was different since there are three story buildings immediately to the east. However, there are one story single-family homes on the other side of the channel, which were not that far away. She indicated that from Tola Avenue, you are able to see the existing three story buildings on Lincoln Avenue. Four stories would be too high for this narrow parcel. She was concerned that putting a four story building in the back of the property may not be compatible with the one-story homes on Tola 08/18/08 Page 15 of 26 AUGUST 18, aoos PLANNIfdG COMMISSIOPI MINUTES Avenue. She recommended that four story buildings be designed closer to Lincoln Avenue since a four story structure would be more appropriate adjacent to the commercial businesses and a RV storage park along Lincoln Avenue. Mr. Torrico stated that preliminary plans indicate the four story buildings would be a minimum of 150 feet from the rear property Iine of the single-family properties and comply with development standards. The preliminary design of the project includes four story structures because of the flood zone designation for the property. Commissioner Buffa reiterated her concern that a four story building would be very visible and intrusive into the privacy and view of the neighbors to the south. The 150-foot setback is probabiy comparable to the three story buildings to the east of this property and those buildings are very visible from the street in front of the homes. She thought from the backyard it would be more intrusive. She was concerned about four stories and the fact that the RM-4 zone provides for that. Chairman Karaki inquired whether the project was proposed in a podium style due to the proximity of the flood control channel. Mr. Torrico replied that the property is in a flood zone which precludes the ability to have subterranean parking and therefore, the project needed to be designed with a combination of at- grade parking and an at-grade parking structure with residential above. Ms. Wong, stated the preliminary plans indicate the podium is at the rear of the property with one level of parking. The rear portion of the property is in a flood zone and therefore, FEMA does not permit subterranean parking. Chairman Karaki shared Commissioner Buffa's concern about a four story building. He believed the project could be designed to maintai~ the privacy of the adjacent residents. For example, the back of the building could have fewer windows facing the neighbors. He also expressed concerns regarding adequate parking. Mr. Torrico stated that if the issue is window placement, the Agency could work with the developer and staff to address these issues. Commissioner Ramirez asked how many stories the Lincoln Inn was previously. Mr. Torrico stated it was three stories. Commissioner Ramirez stated what the Agency was proposing was not substantially different than the height of the Lincoln Inn. Commissioner Ramirez asked for confirmation on why the reclassification was being requested. Mr. Torrico stated that it is important that to get the zoning in place so they could meet the schedule to get funding for the project. 08/18/08 Page 16 of 26 AUGUST 18, 2008 PLAfVNING COMMISSIOfV MIPIUTES Commissioner Ramirez verified that the funding source was the Multipie Family Housing Program and that this funding source is set to expire. It is a huge amount of money that will go away if this project cannot get in on time. Commissioner Faessel agreed with Commissioner Buffa and Chairman Karaki. He understands with the 35 percent Density Bonus they are entitled to get up to 84 units. This will not pencil out in any other way. He asked Mr. Torrico if this was correct. Mr. Torrico replied if the RM-3 zone with a 35 percent Density Bonus would permit only 42 units. The proposal they are working on is for 51 units which would be allowed in the RM-4 zone. Commissioner Faessel stated that he would support the proposed 51-unit project because it is a little higher than the 42 units allowed by the RM-3 zone. However, when the Planning Commission takes action on this today, there is no guarantee that the project will be 51 units. The Redevelopment Agency would have the opportunity to go up to 84 units if the zone was RM-4. He was not comfortable with that density. However, he understands the issue with regards to the subterranean parking. The Planning Commission heard that there will be three stories with one story of grade level parking which means four stories. So he did not agree with Ms. Ramirez because there is a substantial difference between a three story and four story building. He was not sure how he wouid support this request at this point. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the project was coming back before the Planning Commission. Mr. Torrico replied yes. The project will be considered by the Planning Commission in September. The project has been submitted to the Planning Department for review. Ms. Wong stated that staff has reviewed the project. It requires Planning Commission approval of Tier Two development incentives including four story structures. Commissioner Romero asked Commissioner Buffa if her concern was regarding the placement of the windows at the rear of the property on the fourth story or if it was the overall height of the building as it would appear from the neighbor's rear yards. Commissioner Buffa stated that her concern would be the view shed from the single family homes looking out. What was before them was an application for a zone change, not for the approval of a building design. They are considering a zone change that would allow a certain amount of units. By approving an RM-4 zone designation for the property, it wouid allow up to 84 units with a Density Bonus. The purpose of the zone change is to achieve affordable housing. They are trying to find ways to get affordable housing into Anaheim. The Planning Commission recently had an affordable housing workshop and discussed the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Numbers, which the Gity of Anaheim has far exceeded. We have an affordable housing implementation plan that provides more affardable housing in Anaheim than any other community. The City is doing a great job in providing affordable housing, as there is never enough. However, she is not willing to sacrifice the livability of the residents on Tola Avenue. They have taken great care of their properties and have been there for a long time. It 08/18/08 Page 17 of 26 AUGUST 18, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES wasn't fair to them to wedge in 9 more extra affordable units. She thinks if this project does not pencil, it might not be the right project for this site. She is not comfortabie with RM-4 zoning at this site. Commissioner Karaki asked staff to identify the distance between the back of the building and Tola Avenue backyard residents. Ms. Wong replied there is a distance of approximately 176 feet from the building wall of the habitable units to the single-family zone boundary on Tola Avenue. The Code requirement is minimum of 150 feet. Commissioner Karaki asked if approved, will the backyards ofthose homes be facing the four story building. Ms. Wong rep~ied that is correct. Commissioner Karaki asked if someone sat in their backyard and that backyard had a 6-8 foot high block wall, would that person see the roof of that building. Ms. Wong repiied that staff has not reviewed a line of site drawing and did not know what would be visible from the backyards of homes on Tola Avenue. Commissioner Karaki believed that given the 176-foot distance, the residents might only see the roof or the fourth level of the building and not the whole building. They would have to have a wall between the channel and their homes unless they have wrought iron fencing. He does not foresee a problem with a four story building being that far away from those homes assuming they have a 6- 8 foot wall. The property is not within the same neighborhood and it is across a channel. The only other issue he was concerned with is the parking because guests in the future might have to park on the street. Ms. Wong stated unless the applicant were to submit a request for Planning Commission approval of a Tier Two Development Incentive, the applicant wou'Id need to comply with the State requirements for parking for affordable housing. Staff has reviewed a draft version of the plan and it complies with the affordable rental housing parking requirements. Commissioner Buffa reiterated that they are debating the merits of a project that is not in front of them. The Planning Commission will only be vating on the zone change today. Commissioner Karaki stated that he was answering the Commissioner's concern about the four story building height. He was trying to clarify certain points that might be helpful for the Commission to make a decision. Commissioner Agarwal asked staff if the project wouid be reviewed by the Planning Comrnission. Ms. Wong replied that the RM-4 zone permits attached multiple-family housing, not condominiums. If the pian does not have any deviations from the Code, staff can approve the plan. The RM-4 zone allows a maximum of 82 units for this property. With a 35 percent Density Bonus, the RM-4 zone allows up to 82 units. 08/18/08 Page 18 of 26 AUGUST 18, aoos PLAfVNING COMMISSIOtd MIMUTES Commissioner Faessel asked for verification that the RM-3 zone, with a 35 percent Density Bonus, would permit 42 units for this property. He asked if the applicant couid requestthe Planning` Commission to take action to permit additional density up to 51 units. Ms. Wong stated that was correct. The Commission has the option of re-zoning the property to the RM-3 zone which would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium Density ResidentiaL The applicant would then request Planning Commission approval of a Tier Two Incentive and request a density bonus greater than 35 percent to permit up to 51 units. Chairman Karaki asked Mr. Gordon if the Planning Commission was aliowed to decrease or change the zoning from RM-4 to RM-3. Gommissioner Agarvual asked whether the RM-3 zone would be acceptable to the Redevelopment Agency. Mr. Torrico stated that the immediate concern would be the permitted density. The RM-3 zone with a 35 percent density bonus would only permit 42 units. It may not work economically. They would have to figure out something else to do with the site. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Ma~ager, pointed out that regardless whether the action would go to a RM-3 or an RM-4 zone, an incentive is required for a four story structure. The concern is that if the Pianning Commission were to take an action to zone the property to RM-3, staff did not advertise for the consideration of the RM-3 zone. The Commission could only deny the proposed RM-4 zoning and by doing so the Council would not have that in front of them. The way the Code is written, the Planning Commission would only be able to take action on the request for the RM-4 zone. If the Planning Commission recommended an RM-3 zone because they found that to be the appropriate land use designation, their hands would be tied by the action today. A brief discussion took place between the Planning Commissioner's with regards to RM-3 zoning verses the RM-4 zoning. The Planning Commission each addressed issues and concems on why they would or would not take action on this item. Mr. Torrico stated that the Redevelopment Agency was not making any decisions for the project based on a timeline. He is aware that they waited to the last minute to bring this project before the Planning Commission but they are not basing the design of this project on this timeline alone. They believe this is a quality development that would enhance the community. They are replacing a three story motel that provided the City with a lot of problems with Code enforcement calls and calls for service from police. Commissioner Agarwal added for the record that the City had advertised this zone change and he does not see any of the residents objecting to the re-zoning. He thinks the residents would be happy to see the existing buiiding go away and be replaced with a quality project. He asked staff if this was advertised to the residents Iiving on Tola Avenue. Ms. Wong stated that notices were sent to properties within a 300 foot radius of this property. Notices were sent io all of the residences along Tola Avenue. 08/18/08 Page 19 of 26 AUGUST 18, aooa PLAfdfVING COMMISSIOfd MtNUTES Mr. Amstrup wanted to clarify that acting today to deny the RM-4 would stop consideration of the zone change. The project would not be forwarded to the City Council unless the Planning Commission's decision were appealed. Chairman Karaki offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution approving a Negative Declaration and Reclassification No. 2008-00218. , Grace Medina, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution fails with 3 yes votes. Commissioner's Romero, Faessel and Buffa voted no. Commissioner Eastman was absent. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, advised the Planning Commission as a result of the tie, the action fails. If the Planning Commission is unable to act upo~ this particular matter due to the tie vote, the Planning Commission may by motio~ refer the matter to the City Council. The Commission would have to consider a motio~ to ask the City Council to act upon this matter. I~ the absence of a motion to refer the matter to the City Council, the matter is deemed automatically continued to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission for further consideration. Ted White, Senior Planner, stated that if it is the intent of the Commission for the City Council to consider this item, it would be better to refer the item to the City Council than to continue the item. If it is continued, the applicant would not have the ability to meet their deadlines. Commissioner Karaki offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel, to refer this item to the City Council. Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Eastman was absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 10, 2008. DISCUSSIOPI TIME: 44 minutes (3:36 to 4:20) 08l18/08 Page 20 of 26 AUGUST 18, 2008 PLAfdP11NG COIIAMISSIOiV MIfVUTES ITEIIfl N0. 7 CEQA CATEGORIC/~L EXEMPTIOfd C~ASS 1 AND COfdDITIOfVAL USE PERIVIIT MO. 2008-05336 Owner: J& J Food Store, Inc. P.O. Box 2805 Fullerton. CA 92837 Applicant: Sherrie Oison PLRC 1030 North Mountain, Suite 190 Ontario, CA 91765 Location: 3174 West Ball Road: This property is approximately 0.30 acre, located at the southeast corner of Ball Road and Western Street, having a frontage of 112 feet on the south side of Ball Road and 105 feet on the east side of Western Street. Request to exchange and upgrade the ABC license for an existing legal nonconforming convenience market from a Type 20 (Off-Sale Beer and Wine) license to a Type 21 (Off-Sale General) license. Withdrawrn Motion: Agarvval/Romero VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Eastman absent Project Planner: Kimberly Wong kwono2 ananaheim.net Chairman Karaki announced that the Planning Commission received a letter of withdrawal for this item. He asked if there was anyone who would like to speak to this item; seeing none, a motion was offered. Commissioner Agarwal offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Romero to have this item withdrawn from the agenda. Motion passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Eastman was absent. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 08/18/08 Page 21 of 26 AUGUST 18, aoos PLANNIIVG COMMISSIOM MIPIUTES ITEM 'NO. 8 CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) APJD COPIDITIONAL USE PERMIT fd0. 2008-05326 WITH A WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS (Tracking No. CUP2008-05345) Owner. Caruthers Properties 2107 Yacht Mischief Newport Beach, CA 92660 Applicant: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency 201 South Anaheim Boulevard. Suite 1003 Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 502 - 524 East Julianna Street: Property is approximately 1.68 acres, located at the southeast corner of Julianna Street and Sabina Street with a frontage of 389 feet on the south side of Julianna Street and 163 feet on the east side of Sabina Street. Request to permit automotive repairs and modifications in conjunction with a previously-approved towing business, with fewer parking spaces than required by code. The approved towing business also includes a vehicle impound yard and an area for washing towed vehicles. Continued from the August 4, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. Resolution No. PC2008-85 (Buffa) Approved, modified Condition Nos. 5 and 8 VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Eastman absent Project Planner: Kimberly Wong kwonq2(o~anaheim.net Kim Wong, Planner, presented the staff report. StafF read into the record modifications to Condition Nos. 5 and 8. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Paul Kott, real estate broker for the property owner, 1225 West Lincoln Avenue, 92805, stated this request is the amendment to the permit that he spoke about at the June public hearing regarding the application for the towing and impound business in Building 3 on the site plan. He stated that the request is to permit up to 8,200 square feet of automotive repair in Buiiding 2. This CUP is a result of the Redevelopment Agency's desire to purchase the towing businesses on Atchison Street. His client is requesting to have the same entitlements that exist on the Atchison property on this property. At this time his client does not have a specific business for the automotive repair use. This use would not be in conjunction with the towing and impound business. Commissioner Faessel clarified ihat this towing business was DuBois Towing and stated that this is the business' fourth or fifth Iocation. He inquired if the busi~ess planned to stay at this location. 08/18/08 Page 22 of 26 AUGUST 18, 2008 PLANidING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Kotk replied that the business would have a twenty-year lease. Chairman Karaki asked if there was anyone who would like to speak to this item; seeing none; he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the staff report determining that the previously-approved CEQA Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation and approving an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05326 with fewer parking spaces than required by Code and with changes to Conditions of Approval Nos. 5 and 8 as read into the record by staff. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Eastman was absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5;00 p.m. on Wednesday, September 10, 2008. DISCUSSIOFI TIIVIE: 8 minutes (4:20 to 4:28) OS/18/08 Page 23 of 26 AUGUST 1S, 2008 PLANNING COMMiSSION MIfdUTES ITEM NO. 9 CEQA DETERIIAINATION: SECTIOfd 21080 PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE EXEMPTION AtdD ZONING CODE AMENDMEIVT NO. 2008-00067 Applicant: Planning Department City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: Citvwide This is a request initiated by the City of Anaheim Planning Department to amend a section of Title 7(Morals and Conduct) and various sections of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Anaheim Municipal Code as follows: Title 7- to amend Chapter 7.24 (Handbills) by adding language related to the distribution of handbills at public venues; Title 18 - to amend Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations) by adding special event provisions for The Platinum Triangle, to clarify existing citywide special event provisions and to amend provisions related to the establishment of carnivals and circuses; to amend Chapter 18.10 Qndustrial Zone) to clarify permitted outdoor activities; to amend Chapter 18.04 (Single-Family Residential Zones) to amend various sections pertaini~g to permitted encroachments for accessory uses/structures; and to amend Chapter 18.52 (Density Bonus) pertaining to application review to provide consistency with recent changes in project processing procedures. Continued from the June 23 and August 4, 2008, Planning Commission meetings. Approved Motion: Ramirez/Faessel VOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Eastman absent Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood vnorwood(n~anaheim.net Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. An Addendum was distributed to the Planning Gommission noting minor revisions to the Ordinance. Staff requested that if action was taken on this item, that the Addendum be incorporated into the action. Commissioner Romero asked if staff could elaborate on the revisions pertaini~g to the submittal process for Density Bonus. Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, stated that Planning Staff recently revised the development review procedures for processing applications and scheduling items for hearing. The existing Density Bonus Ordinance included references to the pre-file process which no longer exists. This is an amendment to delete references to the pre-file process consistent with recent changes to internal procedures. 08/18/08 Page 24 of 26 AUGUST 18, 2008 PLANNIPIG COMNIISSIOPI MIfdUTES Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Chairman Karaki asked if anyone would like to speak on this item; seeing none, he closed the pubiic hearing. Commissioner Ramirez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessei determining that this action is exempt from CEQA under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code and recommended that the City Council approve the draft Ordinance for Zoning Code Amendment No. 2008-00067 attached to the staff report including the Addendum distributed by staff. Motio~ passed with 6 aye votes. Commissioner Eastman was absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 10, 2008. DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (4:28 to 4:37) 08/18/08 Page 25 of 26 AUGUST 18, 2008 PLAFJNING COMMISSION MIfVUTES MOTIOPJ: Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Karaki and MOTION CARRIED to appointment Commissioner Buffa as the Historic Presentation Committee Liaison. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED MEETING ADJOURiVED AT 4:37 P.M. TO WEDNESDAY, SEPTEnABER 3, 2008 ,4T 1:30 P.NI. FOR PRELIMIPJARY PLAN REVIEW RespectFully submitted: s~~~~/"v~2'~'~ Donna Patino Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on September 15, 2008. 08/18/08 Page 26 of 26