Loading...
Minutes-PC 2010/05/24City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Monday,May 24, 2010 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present :Chairman: Panky Romero Peter Agarwal, Todd Ament, Kelly Buffa, Stephen Faessel,Joseph Karaki,Victoria Ramirez Commissioners Absent :None Staff Present : CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerAbel Avalos, Redevelopment Manager Jonathan Borrego,Principal PlannerRaul Garcia,Principal CivilEngineer Mark Gordon, Assistant City AttorneyDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner David See, Senior Planner Eleanor Morris, Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at4:30 p.m. onWednesday,May 19, 2010, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published:Orange County RegisterNewspaper onMonday, May 3,2010 Call to Order-3:30 p.m. Audience Attendance: 7 Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissionerBuffa Public Comments Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items Adjournment MAY 24, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda -3:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Minutes ITEM NO. 1AMotionto approve minutes (Faessel/Agarwal) Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Approved Commission Meeting of April 26, 2010. VOTE: 7-0 Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel, Karakiand Ramirez voted yes. 05/24/10 Page2of 10 MAY 24, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Public Hearing Items: ITEM NO. 2 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2010-00478 Resolution No. 2010-033 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2010-00236Resolution No. 2010-034 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05483 Resolution No. 2010-035 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17351Resolution No. 2010-036 (DEV2010-00026) (Faessel) Owner: Abel Avalos GPA Anaheim Redevelopment Agency Approved, recommended City 201 S. Anaheim Blvd. Council Approval Anaheim, CA 92805 RCL & TTM Applicant: Cheryl Casanova Approved Brookfield Homes 3090 Bristol Street, Suite 200 CUP Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Approved,correctedparagraph 5 on page 2 of the draft resolution Location:407-425 South Anaheim Boulevard pertaining tothe total number of parkingspaces; and added two The applicant proposes to amend the Land Use Element of conditions of approval pertaining to the General Plan to redesignate the property from the installation of a railroad warningsign, andPlanning Commission review of Mixed Use to the Medium Density Residential land use final plans for vehicle circulation and designation; reclassify the property from the I (SABC) to the building elevations. RM-4 (SABC) zone; construct a 52 unit affordable condominium project with a deviation in zoning VOTE: 7-0 development standards and a density bonus; and establish Chairman Romero and a 6-lot, 52 unit attached condominium subdivision. Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel, Karakiand Ramirez Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration has voted yes. been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Project Planner: David See dsee@anaheim.net Dave See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated May 24, 2010,along with a visual presentation.As recommended by the Public Works Department, he read an additional condition of approval into the record that reads as follows: “Prior to final building and zoning inspection,a railroad crossbuck sign shall be installed on the private drive atSanta AnaStreet”. Commissioner Buffa referred to the exhibit and stated the 7½ foot setback is to the right-of-way line andshe asked about the distancefrom the right-of-way line to the curb. Mr. See responded that the applicant states that is 9½ feet from property line to curb. 05/24/10 Page3of 10 MAY 24, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Ramirez asked for clarification regarding the total parking spaces, including the total number of spaces included on the adjacent public streets. Mr. See responded that the spaces on the public streets are supplemental spaces available for the development but they don’t count towards code-required parking;the project complies with the code required parking. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, clarified and stated thatthe project is consistent with state standards for affordable housing parking requirements and that there are additional parking spaces available on the adjacent streets which are not included within the boundaries of the project or on the private streets contained within the project. Commissioner Buffa referred to the Conditional Use Permit draft resolutionon page 2, item no. 5, and asked for clarification on the language that states “122 spaces are proposed within the subdivision.” Mr. See responded the languageis not accurate and staff will ensure itis corrected. Commissioner Faessel said he is concerned about the width of Elm Street, and asked staff if Elm Street will be widened by 5 feet. RaulGarcia, Principal Civil Engineer, responded that is correct, and stated that the proposed width is allowed in the Anaheim Downtown Guidelinefor Development document, and they are working with the Redevelopment Agency to construct the street improvementsper the guidelines. Abel Avalos, Redevelopment Manager, responded that it is the intent of the Agency toimprove Elm Street as depicted on the plans, and they are building to the approved downtown design guidelines which provides the parameters for the various streets in and around the downtown area. Commissioner Karaki expressed his concerns pertaining to the size and design of the parking garages. Chairman Romero concurred with Commissioner Karaki and indicated he has the same concerns. Commissioner Karaki expressed concern regarding the number of garages that access to the motor court area. Commissioner Agarwal expressed his concerns regarding the increased lot coverage and lack of open space. He asked staff if one of the justifications for the increased lot coverage,from 45% to 53%,is the increased open space. Mr. See responded yes. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. John O’Brien,Brookfield Homes, applicant, stated he consolidated his presentation today toinclude both projects ontoday’s agenda. Brookfield isexcited about the improvements taking place in the downtown area, including the Center Street Promenadeand Elm Street apartments.The renovation of the Packing House,a new restaurant, and possibly other small shops and food uses will be a great 05/24/10 Page4of 10 MAY 24, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES amenity to the community and the downtown. He said Brookfieldwent through a lot of market analysisandmet with focus groups and residents from Colony Park to produce the plans and architecture for these projects. He referred to the design of the Packing House and said they went to great lengths with their study and reviewed historic photos from downtown from years past. The photos represent a civic type of architecturewith vertical facades that are reminiscentof 1920’s, including style elements such as those included in theBroadway Arms project, as well as the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica. They also worked closely with Public Works and Community Development Departments to find solutions in order to enable Elm Street to have parking on both sides while wideningthe street to allow for better access. Mr. O’Brien providedfurther information regarding the elevations, and said they produced an image board illustrating the different types of buildings that usedto exist in the area. He indicated the colors and materials are still being refined, and they have agreed to work with the Redevelopment Agency and then come back to the Planning Commission once it is finalized. He also provided information on the floor plans and the interiorauto court, and said they conducted awheel alignment/path of travel study and said it is similar to what they did at Colony Parkeven though that project is a little different. They haven’t had any complaints or problems with the parking configuration for any of the parking stallsfor the Colony Park project,and that wheel alignment studies are availablefor the Commission. He indicated that more than 33% of the sales at Colony Park are based on referrals from existing residents. They believe the same willcarry over to these two projects. Commissioner Faessel referred to the proposed elevators and asked ifthere is an additional cost to the residents to cover maintenance of the elevators. Mr. O’Brien responded there is a trade-off regarding the convenience of the elevatorsand units are assessed about $20 a monthto cover their maintenance costs. Commissioner Karaki commended Brookfield Homes for all the good work they have done in the city of Anaheim. He reiterated his concern regarding the parking garages and how a car could get in and out of such a tight space, and said in his opinion there is not enough turning radius. He asked Mr. O’Brien to address the issue. Mr. O’Brien responded they can provide their wheel alignment studies to show the path of travel and how it would work. Mr. See added that staff will provide the Commission with additional information pertaining tothe parking garages. Commissioner Faessel referred to the solid waste management plan and the placement of the trash barrels and stated it appears that the intent is that on trash day all the trash barrels willbe brought out to the main private drive area. That brings the right-of-way down to about 20 feet on the subject project and down to alittle more than15 feet for their other project on today’s agenda.He asked Public Work’s staff to address the issue because 15 feet appears to be tight once all the trash cans are placed in that area. 05/24/10 Page5of 10 MAY 24, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Garcia responded the plan was worked out with the Streets and Sanitation Division and staff believed that they would be able to effectively collect the trash barrels without hindering circulation on the private street. Mr. O’Brien said on the 52 unitprojectthey do have adequate room for barrels on both sides of the private drive and still allow a full 20 foot wide aisle width. Regarding the next agenda item,they have sufficient room to store all the trash barrels on one side of the street,but after reviewing it with Streets and Sanitation staff,their recommendation was to alternate them and pick them up on both sides of the street;therefore,the plans can be revised to place all of the barrels onone side. Commissioner Faessel stated on trash day they are reducing the right-of-way by about 7 feet and he expressed concern if there is a need for emergency vehicles to access the alley on trash day. Mr. O’Brien responded it isn’t proper for them to compromise health and safety issues with a reduced right-of-way on any day; therefore,they will ensure that the sanitation plan does allow for a 20-foot access. Commissioner Agarwal commended Mr. O’Brien ontheBrookfield Home projects built in Anaheim. He asked Mr. O’Brien if they are required to have a mass evacuation planin the event of an emergency. Mr. O’Brien responded no. Commissioner Agarwal expressed his concerns regarding a fire-related emergency in the area. Commissioner Buffa responded that it wouldn’t be a wild fire situation where the fire moves rapidly as it would in the Anaheim Hills area. Only building fires would occur in the area.In addition, it’s unlikely that residents would rush out to theirgarages and clog the motor courts. Rather, they would most likely leave the area on foot. Chairman Romero commented that Commissioner Agarwal has a valid concern regarding having an emergency type evacuationplan. Commissioner Agarwal suggested thatthey have some type of emergency plan. Mr. O’Brien responded he would ask the cooperation of City staff to work with him to come up with an evacuation analysis/plan to offer suggestions of how residents would get out. They can include that in their disclosures to the homeowners, and if it involves signage in and around the community then they can do that. Commissioner Agarwal stated that the commission doesn’tneed to review the evacuation plan because Brookfield is a responsible builder. Further discussion took place amongst Planning Commissioners and Mr. O’Brien regarding the proposed parking garage configurations and other Brookfield projects with similar parking configurations. 05/24/10 Page6of 10 MAY 24, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. O’Brien concluded by stating he will come back in 60to 90 days withfinal building elevation colors and materials.They will also study potential evacuation plans and will ensurethat the sanitation plan allowsfor a minimum 20 foot clear access on the adjacent alleys on trash day. They will also present the wheel alignment path studies. Chairman Romero commended Mr. O’Brien on the project. Chairman Romero asked if anyone was present to speak on the item. Joe Joseph, 504 S. Landmark, Anaheim, relayed concerns pertaining to traffic, noise, pollution and dust during the construction of the project. Mr. Garcia responded to the construction concerns. He referred to the grading operation and said the City requires the applicant to provide grading plans andthe applicant will also need to mitigateany potential fugitive dust issues. The Public Works inspector will also require the contractorto address erosion dust control during construction. With regard to noise,there is a noise ordinance that limits the hours of construction every day. Night time construction is notallowed unless there is some extraordinary traffic control issue. David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner, in response to a question regarding traffic generation, stated that based on the number of units provided for the peak hour, the 52 unit project would generate 38 peak hour trips on average and on a daily basis there would be approximately 400 trips per day. Santa Ana Street currently carries 5,500 vehicles per day, and the intersection of Anaheim Boulevard and Santa Ana Street operates at level of service (LOS) A,and the only time there is any real congestion is when the railroad crossing gate is down. Considering that there was a previous industrial use on the site, we don’t expect an overall significant change in trafficand the intersections in the area should not be significantly impacted by the residential project. Commissioner Faessel referred to the recent Elm Street construction and stated that is an equivalent type of construction and asked Public Works staff if there were any construction concernson that project. Mr. Garcia responded that Colony Park, one block east of the subject site,was a project recently completed by Brookfield Homes and they had very minimal construction issues as they are very conscientious about providing access and being a good neighbor. Staff doesn’t foresee any issues; however,if the resident has any concerns during construction he can contact the Public Works Department and the issues would be addressed with by both the City and Brookfield Homes. Commissioner Faessel concurred with Mr. Garcia and stated Brookfield Homes is a responsible builder in the community. Further discussion took place amongst the Planning Commission and Mr. Kennedy regarding the railroad tracks, including trainoperationsand routes. Mr. O’Brien addressed the neighbor’s concerns and stated they want to be responsible to the surrounding homeowners and every 30-60 days they will circulate a newsletter to the surrounding community regarding anupdate of what can be expected over the next period of construction and phases of completion. 05/24/10 Page7of 10 MAY 24, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Romero asked about the timeline for starting construction. Mr. O’Brien responded their current plan is to start construction in October/November, 2010. Chairman Romeroclosed the public hearing. Commissioner Faesseloffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the May 24, 2010 staff report,determining that a Negative Declarationis the appropriate environmental documentation for this requestandrecommending approval of the General Plan Amendment No. 2010-00478, Reclassification No. 2010-00236, Conditional Use Permit No. 2010- 05483with the two added conditions of approval pertaining to installation of a railroad warning sign, and Planning Commission review of final plans for vehicle circulation and building elevations,and approving Tentative Tract Map No. 17351 (DEV2010-00026). Eleanor Morris, Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith sevenyes votes. IN GENERAL: Oneperson spoke with general concerns pertaining to traffic, noise, pollution and dust duringthe construction of the proposed project. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 3, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :1 hour and 18minutes (3:32to 4:50) 05/24/10 Page8of 10 MAY 24, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 3 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2010-00479 Resolution No. 2010-037 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2010-00237Resolution No. 2010-038 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05484 Resolution No. 2010-039 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17350Resolution No. 2010-040 (DEV2010-00027) (Agarwal) Owner: Abel Avalos GPA Anaheim Redevelopment Agency Approved, recommended City 201 S. Anaheim Blvd. Council Approval Anaheim, CA 92805 RCL & TTM Applicant: Cheryl Casanova Approved Brookfield Homes 3090 Bristol Street, Suite 200 CUP Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Approved,correctedparagraph 5 on page 2 of the draft resolution Location:518-538 South Anaheim Boulevard pertaining to the total number of parking spaces; and added two The applicant proposes to amend the Land Use Element of conditions of approval pertaining to the General Plan to redesignate the property from the Low installation of a railroad warning sign, andPlanning Commission review of Medium Density Residential to the Medium Density final plans for vehicle circulation and Residential land use designation; reclassify the property building elevations. from the I (SABC) to the RM-4 (SABC) zone; construct a 36 unit affordable condominium project with a deviation in VOTE: 7-0 zoning development standards and a density bonus; and Chairman Romero and establish a 2-lot, 36 unit attached condominium subdivision. Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel, Karaki and Ramirez Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration has voted yes. been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impactsof this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Project Planner: David See dsee@anaheim.net Dave See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated May 24, 2010,along with a visual presentation.As recommended by the Public Works Department, he read an additional condition of approval into the record that reads as follows: “Prior to final building and zoning inspection, a railroad crossbuck sign shall be installed on the private drive at Santa Ana Street”. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. John O’Brien,Brookfield Homes, applicant, statedthe previous presentation/discussion on the prior agenda item are to be duplicated for this subject item. Chairman Romero asked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no other persons indicating to speak, he closed the public hearing. 05/24/10 Page9of 10 MAY 24, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Agarwaloffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the May 24, 2010 staff report,determining that a Negative Declarationis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and recommendingapproval of the General Plan Amendment No. 2010-00479, Reclassification No. 2010-00237, Conditional Use Permit No. 2010- 05484 with two added conditions of approval pertaining to installation of a railroad warning sign, and Planning Commission review of final plans for vehicle circulation and building elevations, and approving Tentative Tract Map No. 17350 (DEV2010-00027). Eleanor Morris, Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith seven yes votes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 3, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :7minutes (4:51 to4:58) DISCUSSION: Jonathan Borrego, Principal Planner, indicated that staff has scheduledan Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) workshop for the Planning Commission meeting of June 21,2010; Chairman Romero suggested,and it was decided,to postponethe workshop to a future date since two Planning Commissioners’terms will be expiring on June 30, 2010. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:00P.M. TO MONDAY, JUNE 7,2010AT 3:30P.M. Respectfully submitted, Eleanor Morris Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on July 19, 2010. 05/24/10 Page10of 10