The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2000/01/19CITY OF ANAHEIM ~ '~rNy,M c,`, s ° ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~~~Nneo ~e~~ DATE: WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2000 MORNING SESSION: Chairperson Boydstun called the Morning Session to order 10:30 a.m. in the Council Chamber. 10:30 A.M. • Planning Commission Workshop on Livable Communities • Staff update to Commission of various City developments and issues (as requested by Planning Commission) • Preliminary Plan Review PUBLIC HEARING: Chairperson Boydstun called the Public Hearing to order at 1:30 p.m. in the Council Chamber and welcomed those in attendance. 1:30 P.M. • Public Hearing Testimony • PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge Allegiance was led by Commissioner Bostwick. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Arnold, Bostwick, Boydstun, Bristol, Koos, Napoles, Vanderbilt COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg Hastings Greg McCafferty Karen Dudley Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Associate Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Planning Commission Secretary Senior Secretary AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 4:00 p.m. on January 13, 2000, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, December 23, 1999. H:DOCS\CLERICALWIINUTESWC011900.DOC www.planningcommission(c~anaheim.net Page 1 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Receiving and approving the Summary Action Agenda for the Planning Approved Commission Meeting of December 20, 1999. (Motion) (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Arnold abstained because he was not present at the 12-20-99 meeting) Receiving and approving the Minutes for the Planning Commission Meeting of Approved January 3, 2000. (Motion) (Vote: 7-0) 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS i The following is a summary taken from staff notes since there were difficulties with the recording equipment which resulted in this item being inaudible. A. a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 313 (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED) Approved b) FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 98-12, REVISION NO. 1: Shirish Patel, Approved 631 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802, request for review and approval of a revised Final Site Plan to construct a new 550-room hotel complex. Property is located at 2065-2085 South Harbor Boulevard. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR 313 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the revised Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 8, 11 through 17, 21 through 24, and 26 through 30, Revision 1, and Exhibit Nos. 3, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20 and 25 on file in the Ptanning Department) on the basis that, upon consolidation of the three parcels that comprise the project site into one parcel, the revised Final Site Plan is in conformance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. SR7656KD.DOC Karen Dudley, Associate Planner, described the modifications to the previously approved Fina( Site Plan as follows: ~ 1. Phase 1(construction of the south hotel building and two surface parking areas located to the north and west of the building): 01-19-00 Page 2 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • Added one story to the hotel building increasing the overall height from 99 feet, 7 inches (6 stories) to 101 feet, 7 inches (7 stories) and increasing the number of guestrooms from 211 to 258 rooms (an increase of 47 rooms). • There were minor interior alterations to the first floor layout and design. The proposed restaurant facilities were relocated to the west side of the building. • Moved the porte-cochere (located on the north side of the building) approximately 25 feet to the east (adjacent to the lobby entrance) and moved the service/delivery bay area (located on the west side of the building) approximately 60 feet south (adjacent to the restaurant kitchen/storage area). • Increased the number of parking spaces from 202 to 282 spaces in compliance with the minimum parking requirement for the Phase 1 construction (240 spaces required by Code). • Modified the landscape/irrigation plans to accommodate the revised parking lot layout and design and to provide additional landscape screening of the surface parking area adjacent to the Harbor Boulevard frontage. 2. Phase 2(construction of the north hotel building and a 5-level parking structure): • Reduced the number of guestrooms in the north building from 398 rooms to 292 rooms (a decrease of 106 rooms). This decrease would result from combining previously-approved guest • room areas to create 'suite-type' rooms. The revised `typical rooms and suites' layout and design plan demonstrates that these suite-type rooms could not be subdivided and used as separate guestrooms without substantial alteration to the floor plan. The proposed modifications are to the interior of the building only and would not affect the height or architectural design of the building as previously approved. With the exception of the proposed modifications identified above, all other aspects of the Final Site Plan as previously approved, including vehicular access, bus layby and passenger drop-off areas, building locations and orientation, landscape setbacks adjacent to the north, east and south property lines, location of utility devices, and the architectural design and finish material, would remain the same. Karen Dudley added staff has reviewed the revised site plans and recommends approval to the Planning Commission. • 01-19-00 Page 3 • JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES B. a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 313 (PREVIOUSLY-CERTIFIED b) FINAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 99-03: R.D. Olson Real Estate Group Inc., 2955 Main Street, 3 floor, Irvine, CA 92614, request for review and approval of a Final Site Plan to construct a new 407-room hotef complex consisting of a 9-story, 264-room full-service hotel and a 7-story, 143-room extended-stay hotel. Property is located at 1855-1925 South Manchester Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR 313 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibit Nos. 1 through 37 on file in the Planning Department) based upon a finding that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2. Approved Approved SR7659KD.DOC ~ The following is a summary taken from staff notes since there were difficulties with the recording equipment which resulted in this item being inaudible. Karen Dudley, Associate Planner, stated the petitioner requests review and approval of a Final Site Plan, including a site plan, etevation plans, floor plans, landscape/irrigation plans, sign plans, site lighting plans and colors and materials board, to construct a new 407-room hotel complex consisting of a 9-story, 264- room full-service hotel with a full-service restaurant and a 7-story, 143-room extended-stay hotel. She stated staff has reviewed the site plan and the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 4153 and recommends approval of the final site plan. • 01-19-00 Page 4 • JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4135 - REQUEST FOR EVALUATION I Recommended the ~ The following is a summary taken from staff notes since there were difficulties with the recording equipment which resulted in this item being inaudible. OF REVISED PLANS FOR INPUT TO CITY COUNCIL HEARING: following to City Joseph Kung, 20886 East Quail Run Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91789, Council: requests evaluation of revised site, elevation and signage plans for input to City Council, to construct one retail pad building with roof-mounted a) That revised equipment, subdivide one unit into an office and retail unit (for a total of 2 plans indicate units), and amend conditions of approval pertaining to permitted improvements to monument signs and maximum number of units in an existing commercial on-site vehicular center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Property is circulation; located at 5555-5665 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. b) That further ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by architectural Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Arnold enhancements abstained), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby should be made to recommend the following to the Council: Building "Y" and shown on detailed (a) That revised plans reviewed by the City Tra~c and Transportation elevations and Manager indicate improvements to the on-site vehicular circulation. photo simulations; (b) That although the architecture of the building has greatly improved c) Approval of the since the initial submittal, Commission is concerned about the petitioner's request quality of the proposed elevations as presented in the submitted to withdraw the renderings. The false columns and arches do not provide sufficient changes to the relief and depth characteristic of the architecture the elevations are monuments signs; attempting to represent. The photo simulation submitted is not a "true" simulation since it consists of 3 photos spliced together with a d) That the "cut ouY' of the new building pasted onto the photo. In previously- Commission's opinion, the submitted photo simulation does not recommended provide an accurate depiction of how the site will appear after conditions of construction of the building and other site improvements. Further approval be architectural enhancements should be made to proposed Building retained; and "Y" and those enhancements should be properly shown on architectural detailed photo simulations. e) Reconfirmed their opposition to (c) That the petitioner's request for withdrawal of the changes to the Building "Y". previously-approved monument signs be accepted. (Vote: 6-0, (d) That the previously-recommended conditions of approval be Commissioner retained to ensure the thorough review of final elevation, sign and Arnold abstained) landscape plans. SR1139JD.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced the proposal by explaining that the petitioner is requesting evaluation of revised site, elevation and signage plans for input to City Council. • He explained that on October 11, 1999, the Planning Commission approved the subject request, in part. The parking waiver and the addition to Don Jose restaurant were approved and the proposed Building Y and the monument signs were denied. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision to City Council and a public hearing before Council has been scheduled for January 25, 2000. Staff has 01-19-00 Page 5 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES r ~ ~ J reviewed the revised plans and recommends that the Planning Commission make the following recommendations to City Council, as stated on Page 4, Paragraph 15 of the staff report: (1 j That revised plans reviewed by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager indicate improvements to the on-site vehicular circulation. (2) That further architectural enhancements should be made to proposed Building "Y" and those enhancements should be properly shown on photo simulations. (3) That the petitioner's request for withdrawal of the changes to the previously-approved monument signs be accepted. (4) That the previously-recommended conditions of approval be retained to ensure the thorough review of final elevation, sign and landscape plans. Commissioner Koos stated he is in agreement with staff's recommendations, but he feels that Council had sent this proposal back to Commission to get more feedback. Commission needs to determine if what we have in front of us is compatible with the rest of the buildings on that center. He is not sure if the yellow color depicted on the drawings matches what is there, it is hard to tell. He feels the Commission needs to forward more information to Council. He is concerned with the starkness of this proposal and compatibility in color with the surrounding buildings. He also suggested more landscaping near Building "Y" and an over hang of the roof to create a more aesthetically pleasing building and to make it match with Don Jose's Mexican Restaurant. • Commissioner Bristol was somewhat unclear as to what Commission is trying to accomplish. He voted against this project because of the traffic problems in the center. Now, if he goes along with staff s recommendation he will be recommending approval? He asked staff for a clarification on their recommendation regarding the revised plans reviewed by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager and if they felt the plans were improved. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, stated both Zoning staff and Traffic Engineering staff have reviewed the revised plans and are comfortable with the circulation. Commissioner Bristol asked if staff is now recommending approval of the project. Greg McCafferty answered staff is still recommending denial. Commissioner Bristol asked if Commission's previous action is now null and void. Greg McCafferty stated when this item got appealed, the Commission's action was set aside. He added that Reports and Recommendation's items are normally not advertised because it is not required, however, staff was directed by Council to notify the property owners within 300 feet of this property. Commissioner Koos stated he still has a problem with Building "Y" and he is not comfortable with the design. Commissioner Bostwick agreed. He stated if Building "Y" is going to be there it needs to match the rest of the buildings in that center. He cannot tell from the drawings if it is going to have an overhang or not. Building "Y" has to be the same color and in conformance with the other buildings on the site. • Commissioner Arnold stated, for the record, that he was going to abstain from voting on this item because he was not present at the previous Commission public hearings related to this item. 01-19-00 Page 6 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairperson Boydstun also agreed with Commissioner Koos with regards to Building Y, but it is not up to Commission to approve it or disapprove it. She also thinks it needs to match with Don Jose's Mexican Restaurant. It needs more landscaping and the color needs to match with the rest of the center. She was concerned with the opening of the driveway off of Imperial Hwy. She thinks they have improved the parking circulation, but the design of the building still bothers her and if there is enough room in that center for it. Commissioner Bristol agreed with Commission. He is not comfortable with Building "Y", either. He agrees with the comment made by Mr. Pepper in his letter dated January 19, 2000, that no new building should be considered until the tra~c impacts from the new driveway are reviewed. Chairperson Boydstun stated for the record there were several letters received in opposition. Greg McCafferty asked Commission if they have any concerns regarding the columns or are they just concerned about the roof over hang. Chairperson Boydstun responded they are concerned with the design as a whole. Commissioner Koos asked if they are false columns? Greg McCafferty responded the columns project out from the building. They are not true columns in the sense that someone may walk underneath them. ~ Commissioner Koos stated he feels Commission should make a notation that they are still opposed to Building "Y". He offered the following motion, as recommended by staff: That Commission recommends the following to the City Council: (1) That revised plans reviewed by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager indicate improvements to the on-site vehicular circulation. (2) That the petitioner's request for withdrawal of the changes to the previously-approved monument signs be accepted. (3) That the previously-recommended conditions of approval be retained to ensure the thorough review of final elevation, sign and landscape plans. (4) That further architectural enhancements should be made to proposed Building "Y" and those enhancements should be properly shown on very robust architectural detail and photo simulations. He added he does not think Council witl be pleased with what was submitted. The plans have to be really clear. The architectural design should be clear as to what the applicant wants to do. Chairperson Boydstun asked if there was anybody in the audience who wished to speak regarding this item. Joseph Kung, 20886 East Quail Run Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91789, stated he would like to comment on the project. ~ Regarding the color of the building, they used "yellow" to try to make it stand out, but the actual color will match the Don Jose and the Wells Fargo buildings. 01-19-00 Page 7 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISStON MtNUTES • Regarding the landscaping, a four foot wide landscape planter is proposed around the north, south and west side of the new building. Regarding the traffic congestion, there will be new right turn "in only" driveway provided along Imperial Highway for incoming traffic. The traffic going to the west side will not take this entrance. They have eliminated the straight through traffic and one-way only. They have done all this in order to reduce traffic and make it more convenient for their customers. Regarding the architectural design, he would like to say that they have fully cooperated with staff. The first time they submitted plans, they had almost exact copies of the other buildings. They were told to reduce the top. They also have a study of the Festival Center on the east side. The same design and type of tile will be used. He is in receipt of the letter from the Anaheim Hills Coalition, but he has not had enough time to review and comment on it because he just received it today. He has the letter from his tra~c engineer. It includes specific comments that the new entrance will not increase any traffic as long as the business remains the same. He has the report at home and will fax a copy to staff and forward another copy to Council. Chairperson Boydstun stated we all agree that traffic has improved. No one else in the audience indicated a desire to speak. Commissioner Koos stated he works with entitlements and it really makes a difference to present photo • simulations instead of drawings to make it clear what the proposal will look like. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if Commissioner Koos' proposed motion regarding the submittal of architectural detail and photo simulations be reviewed at Commission's level. He was not clear about that. Commissioner Koos clarified that he was encouraging the applicant to have that information for Council's review. He did not want Council to be uncertain of what was being proposed. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated he does not feel that Commission has done their job. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated we will not be reviewing them because this proposal is going to Council next week. Greg McCafferty recommended that Commission incorporate some of the language from paragraph 13 of the staff report to provide an explanation to Councit. Commissioner Bostwick stated if Council is satisfied with the project then they can add a condition that full architectural plans and elevations return to Commission as Reports and Recommendations item. Greg McCafferty explained that is condition of approval already. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, explained that City Council is more interested in seeing a better looking buiiding on the revised plans. Chairperson Boydstun indicated that is what Commission is trying to emphasize. ~ Commissioner Koos stated he is still not comfortable with Building Y. Commissioner Bristol agreed but indicated that is not what Council is asking of Commission. 01-19-00 Page 8 r JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Bostwick stated he was recently at the site. The traffic is better but, Don Jose's might be forced out because they will be losing a lot of customers if they put that building in and add twenty cars to the site. If they add the PC Club and additional parking, it will truly impact the center. He is still not in favor of Building "Y". Commissioner Koos wanted to reconfirm, for the record, that the Commission is still opposed to Building ,~Y„ Mr. Kung stated it should be noticed that the new building will not reduce the number of parking spaces. They are going to remove the canopies to increase the number of spaces to twenty. The new building will require thirteen spaces, so there will be more spaces available. Commissioner Koos stated this is an irregularly-shaped tot and people having to travel across the parking lot without pedestrian access is not a good solution. He does not like the orientation. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this is an unusual proceeding and cautioned Commission against sending mixed messages to Council, which could be misleading. Commissioner Koos stated his motion still stands and Commissioner Vanderbilt seconded the motion. ~ ~ 01-19-00 Page 9 ~ ~ JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES The following is a summary taken from staff notes since there were difficulties with the recording equipment which resulted in this item being inaudible. D CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4158 - REQUEST FOR EVALUATION Recommended to OF REVISED PLANS FOR INPUT TO CI7Y COUNCIL HEARING: City Council that Raymond and Joanne Rocks, 5910 East Marsha Place, Anaheim, CA although the 92807, requests evaluation of a revised site, elevation and signage plans Commission is not for input to City Council, to construct a 2-story senior assisted living and in favor of this Alzheimer's care facility with waiver of (a) required setback of institutional project, the revised uses to residential zones, (b) permitted freestanding sign, (c) required rear exhibits yard setback, (d) minimum number of parking spaces and (e) maximum demonstrate an building height adjacent to a residential zone. Property is located at 6900 improvement to the East Santa Ana Canyon Road. project and that if Council chooses to ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by approve this Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City conditional use Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council permit, that approval of the revised exhibits on the basis that the exhibits demonstrate conditions be an improvement to the project. And, further, if the Council approves modified. Conditional Use Permit No. 4158, that the previously recommended conditions of approval be retained and modify the following conditions of (Vote: 7-0) approval as follows: Modify Condition No. 1 to read as follows: "1. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to a small freestanding sign in compliance with Code requirements. Plans for said monument sign and any additional signage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item" Add the following condition of approval: "38. That a minimum 6-foot high block wall shall be provided along the south and east property lines, except within the front twenty-five (25) foot setback area. Said block wall shall be planted with minimum 1- gallon clinging vines 3 feet on-center." Furthermore, the Commission recommended the following: (1) Increasing the landscaping from 15 to 25 feet on Santa Ana Canyon Road as discussed in Paragraph No. 8 above. (2) Providing additional architectural articulation along the south building elevation as discussed in Paragraph No. 14 above. SR1141 JD.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner introduced this item by stating that Conditional Use Permit No. 4158, to • permit a 2-story senior assisted living and Alzheimer's care facility, was denied by the Planning Commission on October 25, 1999. The property owner subsequently appealed the decision to the City Council and a public hearing has been scheduled for January 25, 2000. City Council requested 01-19-00 Page 10 • JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commission evaluation of the revised site, elevation and signage plans for input to the City Council before making their final decision. Applicant's Statement: Ray Rocks (owner), 5910 East Marsha Place, Anaheim, felt this site is a good location for the proposed care facility from surrounding neighbors. This is an irregularly-shaped property and does not foresee any traffic problems created. The original proposal appeared to be too big for the site and there were other problems related to parking and signage. They have revised their site, elevation and signage plans and designed a smaller facility than originally proposed. Their revised plans contain a lot of improvements. They are proposing a high quality facility. Efforts were made to screen the facility from the surrounding neighbors. The architectural features give it a mansion- look facility. They had a meeting with immediate homeowners last week. Eight residents attended. The residents were concerned with tree screening; adequate parking; noise from the trash pickup and sirens, leaves going into their pools, etc. The traffic study conducted recommended twenty four parking spaces and they will be providing twenty five. The City Traffic and Transportation Manager reviewed their study and is recommending approval. The trash pick-up can be scheduled at the same time as residential pick- up. The sirens are regulated by the State of California. The problems with leaves can be resolved by selecting the right type of tree. They have reduced the density. There will be a total of 14 employees. They do not anticipate any major parking impacts. There will be a 6-foot high masonry wall installed along the east property line which will include landscaping. The trash pickup will be in the setback area and its pick-up schedule can be similar to the residential pick-up. They ~ have proposed a reduced freestanding sign which would be more conducive. The south elevation (facing the residentially zoned equestrian easement and the residences beyond) has been enhanced with shutters on most of the windows. They will provide trees to screen the easterly side. The only remaining issue is parking. We need a parking waiver. The Code requires 50 spaces, the Traffic Department is recommending 24 and we are proposing 25 parking spaces. They have eliminated waivers and feel they have a reasonable right for access of the property. Public Testimony: Robert Vigneau, 6117 Baja Drive, Anaheim, stated he is totally opposed to this project. The west side of his house borders on the east side of this property. The proposed project is surrounded by Low-Medium Density zoning. He does not want a commercial buiiding in the residential area. This will be a 24-hour operation and is concerned with the everyday activity as a result of this use such as noise from ambulances, emergency vehicles, trash trucks, etc., and there will not be a buffer to residents. This project should not be in a residential area. Parking will be a problem and felt they should not be permitted the 25 parking spaces they are proposing since 50 spaces are required by Code. Thirteen years ago, Baja Drive was designed as a cul-de-sac and it was cut off so that eventually more homes could be built. He is concerned with depreciation of their homes. They are proposing a 6-foot high wall on the westerly side of his property, creating a gap. He is strongly against this project. Chairperson Boydstun explained that the Commission already voted on this and when this item went before City Council, they requested Commission to make a recommendation of the revised plans before returning this item to the City Council. She informed Mr. Vigneau, as well as anyone else concerned, to make their concerns known at the City Council public hearing scheduled on January 25th. Paul Timoti, 6120 Baja Drive, stated he is concerned with the proposed driveway entrance off of Santa • Ana Canyon Road which would create a real traffic problem. He realizes the applicant needs to be given an entrance but it will create a major traffic concern and prone to possible accidents. His major concern of this proposed project is traffic. 01-19-00 Page 11 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Tom Schneider, 110 South Woodrose Court, stated he attended the community meeting and visited the Mission Viejo site, as suggested by the applicant. The difference with this proposed project and the Mission Viejo site was that it was not near a residential community. It was at a more appropriate location. He spoke with an employee at the Mission Viejo site and was informed that they have 43 parking spaces for a 100-bed facility and that they do not generally have parking problems except during holidays and birthdays. The employee felt their Mission Viejo facility had underestimated the parking situation for their facility, which he is concerned would be a problem at this proposed site. Natalie Meeks, 6148 Baja Drive, Anaheim, stated that she wanted to address some of the changes to the site plan. The applicant has eliminated some of the waivers but the residents are still against the size of this proposed building. They feel it is still a very large facility. The setback waiver at the rear of the building located 15 feet from the south property line is based on the maximum height of the building, it should be at least 50 feet from the south property line to comply with Code. Explained when they shifted the building away from Baja Drive, they pushed it out towards Anaheim Hills Road which then reduced the amount of open space for the residents of this building. There was a walkway on the old site plan. She can appreciate that the applicant is trying to pull it out away from residents but is worried about the usability of the property and the level of operations if they do not provide sufficient amenities for the residents. ApplicanYs Rebuttal: Mr. Rocks stated that there were possible alternative uses mentioned at this site, however, due to the City ~ Code and the Scenic Corridor Overlay the number of alternative uses is extremely limited. Therefore, the uses mentioned are not possible. Regarding buffer zones towards the east side mentioned, it is a 25-foot setback greenbelt before getting to the parking. Tall trees are specified to not only add a visual buffer but also contribute as a sound buffer. He confirmed that a 6-foot wall is provided on the east side toward Baja Drive as well as towards the equestrian trail. A suggestion at the meeting with the neighbors was to provide landscaping on the residents side of the wall and maintain it so it is attractive to them. Regarding the entrance, it is approximately 155 feet from the corner of Anaheim Hills Road. It is a separate lane for other like streets down Santa Ana Canyon, which is very similar. Many people turn right from Anaheim Hills Road to Santa Ana Canyon. If they can not get onto the tra~c then they wait for the green traffic light before making their turn which can be handled by anyone leaving the facility. There is already a lane for those entering the facility. Regarding the Mission Viejo site. He did not know Mr. Schneider's facts but when he spoke with the employees at the Mission Viejo facility and attended the open house; he found the facility not to be as extensive as Mr. Schneider had indicated. The people that he spoke with indicated parking was not a major problem. Regarding the setback towards the equestrian trail. They would meet the existing Code if the equestrian trail and the 15-foot setback to the building was counted as part of the open space. The setback from Anaheim Hills Road remains the same, at 25 feet. It is essentialfy what it was proposed before with very little difference there. ~ Chairperson Boydstun felt that there have been many improvements made on this project. However, she did not like the recommendation of the sign on the building because is tends to look commercial. She 01-19-00 Page 12 ~ JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES would prefer to see a smaller sign in the greenbelt area. This is a residential business and not a commercial business. In reviewing the plans it looks more like a large home rather than an institution. Commissioner Koos agreed with Chairperson Boydstun as well as staff recommendations. If City Council approves this project he would approve of those changes. He was pleased that the changes were made to the site plan but still feels the best use of this property would be to be single-family homes. It would make it consistent with the other corners at this intersection and have a continuation of Baja Drive as a cul-de-sac and part of the existing tract. This would ultimately be the best use for this particular area. If City Council approves this then he would go along with this. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated the fast time his major concern was parking and the applicant has since reduced the size of the building and provided additional parking. The design has been improved. He agreed that the signage needs to be a smaller out front rather than on the building. Commissioner Bristol stated that after meeting with the applicants he concluded that it is better than what was presented before, but again, it gets back to whether this use is appropriate for the site. He was concerned with traffic and having a use at that site that was not intended. Stated he wouid be voting affirmative on this motion that this revised plan is better than what was presented before. ~ C~ 01-19-00 Page 13 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES s E. a) CEQA EXEMPTION SECTION 15061(b)(3) b) RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON CONSIDERING DEEP LOTS AS IRREGULARLY-SHAPED PROPERTIES. Staff recommendation to the Planning Commission on amending the City Council Policy on self-storage facilities. No action was taken SR7667GM.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating that this is a recommendation to Commission considering deep lots as irregularly-shaped regarding the existing Council Policy on self storage. Planning Commission directed staff to return with a recommendation regarding deep lots at the meeting of December 6, 1999 in conjunction with consideration of a self-storage facility at Knott Street that had a deep lot. It is staff's recommendation that the existing Council Policy on self-storage has the flexibility that Commission needs to consider deep lots as irregularly-shaped lots in the existing Council Policy and there is no need at this time to revisit the policy to amend it with regard to deep lots. Commissioner Arnold felt that as a matter of law deep lots are not by their natural irregularly shaped. On the basis of the briefing received from staff at the morning session it is unlikely that Commission is going to see this on a regular basis and it may be unnecessary to address this issue at this time. If it then arises at a further time then they can address it at that point. ~ Commissioner Arnold offered a motion to "table" Item No. 1-E, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and motion carried. L J 01-19-00 Page 14 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ~ • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. VARIANCE NO. 4376 Withdrawn OWNER: John F. Lee, 517 South Broadway, Santa Ana, CA 92706 LOCATION: 942 North Claudina Street. Property is 0.04 acre located on the east side of Claudina Street, 85 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. Waiver of (a) maximum lot coverage, (b) minimum front yard setback, (c) minimum number, type, design and dimensions of parking spaces, and (d) required site screening to construct a single family home. Continued from the Commission meetings of November 22, 1999 and January 3, 2000. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. SR7662KP.DOC There was no discussion of this matter. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bosfinrick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal of Variance No. 4376. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (1:35-1:36) 01-19-00 Page 15 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ . ~ 3a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 323 Continued to 3b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 370 (READVERTISED) January 31, 2000 3c. RECLASStFICATION NO. 99-00-10 3d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4171 3f. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 3a, 3c, 3d, and 3e OWNER: California Drive-In Theaters, Attn: John Manavian, 120 North Robertson Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90048 LOCATION: 1500 North Lemon Street. Property is 26.34 acres located at the southeast corner of Lemon Street and Durst Street. General Plan Amendment No. 370 - An amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the subject property from the General Industrial designation to the General Commercial designation. Reclassification No. 99-00-10 - To reclassify subject property from the ML (Limited Industrial) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 4171 - To construct a 294,632 square foot commercial retail center including a home improvement store, health club, three (3) drive-through fast food restaurants, two (2) full-service restaurants, a multi-tenant pad building, and a freeway-oriented sign with waiver of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) minimum parking lot landscaping, and (c) required dedication and improvement of right-of-way. Continued from the Commission meeting of December 20, 1999. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR6993DS.DOC • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 31, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow additional time for the applicant to respond to comments received on the draft environmental impact report. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 01-19-00 Page 16 ~ JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Withdrawn 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4169 OWNER: Williams Family Trust, c/o J. Tilman Williams and Sally R. Williams, Trustees, 12291 Harbor Boulevard, Garden Grove, CA 92840 AGENT: John F. Swint, 707 West North Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 517 South Brookhurst Street. Property is 1.0 acre located on the west side of Brookhurst Street, 250 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenue (Ryder Truck Rental). To establish conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center and to establish a truck rental facility within a commercial suite. Continued from the Commission meeting of December 20, 1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR7658KB.DOC C~ There was no discussion of this matter. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bosfinrick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 4169. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (1:39-4:40) u 01-19-00 Page 17 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. VARIANCE NO. 4389* OWNER: Goldstone Holdings, LLC., 32685 Caspian Sea Drive, Dana Point, CA 92629 LOCATION: 511 North Brookhurst Street: Property is 1.93 acres located at the southwest corner of Crescent Avenue and Brookhurst Street (Bryman College). Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to permit a private business/trade school within an existing 3-story office building. * Originally advertised as Variance No. 4382. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC20000-8 Approved Denied SR1031TW.DOC Applicant's Statement: Mr. Joon Kim, 32685 Caspian Sea Drive, Dana Point, CA 92629, thanked City staff for their cooperation in working with the applicant. He hoped that Commission's decision would be a favorable one on their ~ proposed project. Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council), stated this is an item that WAND has not had any discussion on except for the members present at the public hearing today. They noticed the waiver for parking that Bryman College requires 265 parking spaces and there are only 179 proposed, a difference of 86 parking spaces. There has been a proposal by Traffic Division that they reduce the number of students from 129 to 100. She did not see how reducing the number of students to 100 would have much affect on that and feft that the student population should be reduced even further, perhaps 75 students. Apart from the student parking they will also need staff parking. There is no street parking on Brookhurst or Crescent. The parking would be across the street at Brookhurst Jr. High School which would not be allowed. The other available parking would be at the Brookhurst Community Center which is quite full during the day because of the senior activities. She noticed there is a dialysis center there. Certainly people coming to a dialysis center could not be expected to park across the street. They would definitely need parking at that lot. They feel that a difference of 86 parking space is too great to allow this variance to be approved. Chairperson Boydstun stated at the last meeting they approved an additional parking lot for them and asked staff how many parking spaces did that add? Greg McCafferty responded that Commission approved a rezoning for a property just west of this proposal and suggested the applicant explain what his plans are for that, such as whether he is going to stripe it and how many spaces would be provided. That was not actually part of this request that the applicant is now proposing, and therefore, not factoring that parking as a part of this request. Chairperson Boydstun stated that was correct, it was not factored in but that will be additional parking for • the applicant. At the last meeting Commission approved a zone change for the lot to the west of Mr. Kim's property and asked if that will also be part of his parking and asked how many spaces that would give him. 01-19-00 Page 19 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES i Mr. Kim responded they can build whatever is necessary but the traffic study found that they have ample parking available for Bryman College. Chairperson Boydstun asked how many additional parking spaces will he have on that back lot that he just had approved? Mr. Kim indicated that they can build up to 90 more parking spaces. However, it is not cost effective utilizing that land by building 90 parking spaces because there should be ample parking spaces available to the tenant. Chairperson Boydstun asked if they are going to improve the lot that was approved two weeks ago for parking? Mr. Kim responded yes. It will not necessarily be 90 parking space but whatever is necessary for the use of that building. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated the last action was to request the approval of the additional parking property but according to Mr. Kim's testimony it is his hope that this proposal be approved, which is a Plan B, so-to-speak, which would allow Mr. Kim the use of the existing parking. Mr. Kim is indicating that if this proposal is approved today then that is his course of action and not to build the additional parking spaces. Mr. Kim explained as of now they do not need to build parking in the back. However, if and when they • need any additional parking spaces they have ample space. They had a traffic study conducted and knowing the nature of the tenants they have, they can provide ample parking spaces. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated in his letter of operation Mr. Kim indicated three sessions; at 8:00 a.m., 12:20 p.m., and 6:00 p.m. Asked if he expected any overlap of those sessions. There is so much time difference befinreen the session that there will hardly be any overlap. In the evening there will be no tenants parking there. Chairperson Boydstun asked Mr. Kim what time the 8:00 a.m. students are out of class. Mr. Kim responded at 12:00. Chairperson Boydstun stated then they are going to have an overlap of students. Mr. Kim stated the afternoon class does not start until 1:30 p.m. Chairperson Boydstun indicated that the fetter of operation states 12:20. Mr. Kim stated in the morning there are not many morning and afternoon students. The Traffic Engineer approved 120 students. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, stated their understanding based on the parking study is that they will be having 8:00 a.m. students come to the site, the second shift is going to be at 12:20 and the third about 6:00 p.m. The parking study analysis indicated that if they have 120 students then they will be at 98% capacity of the parking. They would like to see a 15% vacancy at all time. Based on the 15% vacancy they determined that they should not have at any time more than 100 students, even during the PM peak hour their capacity is up to 84%. Based on that they determined that 100 students would be ~ adequate. 01-19-00 Page 20 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ As far the overlap of students generally at these types of schools you do not have 100% of the students attending. So they feel comfortable with the changes of the classes. Although he emphasized they should not exceed 100 students at any one time. Mr. Kim stated they are good tenants and are planning to be there for many years. He wanted to accommodate them. He does not feel they will need any additionaf parking. Chairperson Boydstun suggested adding a condition that requires a certain percentage more parking. Commissioner Bostwick suggested that Commission deny the variance. The applicant has the CUP for the extra parking. If he adds 90 spaces to the 179 proposed it totals 269, then he would not require a waiver. He thought the parking lot before was going to solve the applicants problem. Mr. Kim stated he would like to have more time to prepare the parking lot proper for a long term basis and this tenant would like to move in right away. That would not given him time to build that parking lot. The other request that was approved at the last Commission meeting, he still has to comply with the requirements and that does not leave time for the tenant to move in. He is also facing significant economic problems. Commissioner Koos asked why Mr. Kim asked for the rezoning of the adjacent parcel? Mr. Kim explained this parcel can only be utilized as a part of this building but he needs more time to properly plan for that zone. Whatever necessary parking spaces are needed they can build them on the basis of necessity and not on an arbitrary basis. • Commissioner Koos stated it is not arbitrary but based on the City Code and that is what they are trying to deal with today. Commissioner Arnold asked the applicant for clarification, is he wanting this variance in order to accommodate ongoing operations until he has time to develop the parking on the other side. Mr. Kim responded he is in the process of negotiating with the County to acquire more land, if that is the case then he can have an overall plan to develop a better way. Chairperson Boydstun asked how long it would take him to improve that parking lot. Mr. Kim stated it depends how soon he can get it improved. He is on a short time frame because the tenants want to move in at the end of next month. Chairperson Boydstun asked what if he was given a variance for 120 days and that would give him more time to get his parking lot completed. Mr. Kim stated he will do whatever is necessary for the tenant. Chairperson Boydstun pointed out that he is far off from the Code. If he is going to have students coming in then this is going to cause a problem. Her suggestion would solve Mr, Kim's problem if Commission was to grant the variance for 120 days or four months. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager exptained that there are findings that need to be made, reference paragraph no. 20 of the staff report, relative to the parking situation and the findings that need to be made. If the findings are made for a period of 180 days and would not extend beyond that then it ~ would need to be framed that way by Commission. He was not certain how those findings would apply for 180 days and then not apply after that period of time. 01-19-00 Page 21 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Arnold indicated there is the possibility that those conditions would change. The findings related to a variety of conditions relevant to the property and if those conditions are in the process of changing then it is possible that the need for a variance would change over time. Commissioner Bristol added especially if they are moving from one location that has 305 students and staff s recommendation is-no more than 100 during any shift then why are they moving to a new location. The assumption would be to have more students which means there would be more parking. Commissioner Koos stated it is obvious when he applied for a rezoning that he was going to need this parking. It makes more sense to attach as a unified proposal as opposed to a variance here and rezoning there. He agreed with Commissioner Bostwick's suggestion of having Mr. Kim start over and iook at both parcels together and deny this variance. Commissioner Bostwick felt Mr. Kim would not have to start over. He has his approval for the parking and if Commission denies the variance all he has to do is develop the parking. He can have his students to the limit of what his 250 parking spaces would allow him. Commissioner Arnold raised a concern regarding Condition No. 2, page 6 of the staff report. This seems to anticipate that the parking situation may be changing as the other adjacent site is developed. He was concerned with the broad granting of discretion to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. There seems to be no standards here for defining what the maximum number of students would be. It seems that some of the suggestions discussed today would be a better way of dealing with that instead of leaving it open-ended. ~ Chairperson Boydstun stated the applicant would have to meet Code on that if they had more students then the Code would allow. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner, advised Commission that they may want to consider denying the applicant's parking variance so they could comply with the parking Code. If he has access parking he could return one year from now and inform Commission the total amount of students and what his needs are. At that time Commission can decide whether they want to reduce the applicant's parking and leave it as is. Mr. Kim was concerned because the applicant is ready to move in next month and it is very critical that he meet that deadline. He suggested Commission let him know how many additional parking spaces are needed. Since they do not have any additional space in the building then no additional students can come in anyway. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked where the other schooi is located? Mr. Kim responded it is located in the city of Orange. Public Testimony: Judith Ann Gollette, representative of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council), stated she is speaking for herself because they did not have any of this information at their last WAND meeting. The information that she has, and wants to give testimony on is what she has gathered from the discussion today and from reading the findings. She is concerned they will be setting a precedent. This is supposed to be the "new and improved" Brookhurst Corridor. This is a landowner that is speaking to Commission about a tenant that is not present to communicate any information to Commission. ~ Generally, schools do not move to another location, unless they have lost their lease, move to increase their attendance, revenue or location. Anaheim is a great city to move into but she wondered why they 01-19-00 Page 22 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • are actually moving. Those questions are not answered because the owner has not given more specific information of what the school is doing. Therefore, she was concerned they are setting a precedent. This property is in the Brookhurst Corridor but also the Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element Map designates this property for golf course and general open space land uses. WAND continues to emphasize that they want more green belts and parks in West Anaheim. When Commission approved at their January 3~d meeting taking this possible green belt area and converting it into asphait is disturbing. She would like to see that decision appealed and put to a public hearing. She wanted to know if the new parking study included the new retail center across the street that is going in. It is a very busy corner. Alfred Yalda responded that project was already approved. They had a traffic/parking study approved; it was already taken into consideration and has nothing to do with this project. Judith Ann Gollette continued that anyone who travels the Brookhurst/Crescent corner knows that they currently have an influx of students at 8:00 a.m. Shortly thereafter there are the 3:00 p.m. students getting out of school which would increase students at that corner, plus the Home Depot, fire station, apartments, and gas station. With all of that include 120 more cars going into that property at that time adding to the traffic. She could not see where that would be a viable advancement for the Brookhurst area. The owner stated that he has the necessary parking needed. However, as Chairperson Boydstun indicated, he is very far off on the parking situation. If you add 120 students plus 46 required for the • dialysis center then it totals 166 parking spaces, subtract that from 179 and there are not enough parking spaces for staff or anyone else. After 5:00 p.m. there are people in that building. She does not know how Commission can vote on a project without the potential tenant being present to answer any of their questions. She asked that Commission take this into consideration and remember that they want to improve the Brookhurst Corridor. She would like to see a college, university, or vocational school come into West Anaheim. It is not that they are against it coming in but this is not the location in West Anaheim. She requested that Commission deny this request. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, regarding the question of a temporary variance. It is certainly not something that would be encouraged as a regular action to be done. Commission has approved one temporary variance that she is aware of, regarding a sign where the conditions were going to be changing and at the end of the variance everyone in the area was going to be required to comply with a certain standard. So for that period of time the applicant would be deprived of privileges enjoyed by others, a temporary variance was granted. The findings for a parking variance are different from an ordinary variance and they are not predicated on an unusual size of the property or privileges enjoyed by others. Rather they are the findings stated in the staff report. To the extent that the Commission can find a justification for making each one of the findings that would be temporary in nature; to the extent that the Commission made findings that a beginning enterprise would have a lesser need for parking and that it was temporary to enable the applicant to construct the parking and yet permit the tenant to occupy the property, and provide the applicant with time for meeting the Code requirements, she thought that type of a temporary variance could be granted where they are referring to a parking variance. Commissioner Bristol stated they are talking about a piece of property, althotagh they ruled on it; it is almost like a nexus. Why are they reviewing this? Because they asked the applicant whether or not he ~ would like to do something on this site and he avoided answering that question. He would tend to believe that the applicant has no intention of doing something for that site now. It has nothing to do with this property un-ess he brings it in. 01-19-00 Page 23 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol asked the applicant if he is referring changing the parking spaces to his current site or is he referring to the reclassification of the property that he just received a few weeks ago? Mr. Kim responded the parking situation at his current site is in good shape and has a great tenant there. But what he is saying is that it takes time to build up a property that was approved to be reclassified. The tenant wants to move in soon and he does not know how long it will take to obtain the City permit approval to go ahead and build whatever necessary parking spaces are needed. Also the traffic study indicates up to 120 students they have ample parking at the existing site and City Tra~c Engineer cited that up to 100 students are no problem. If there are any additional parking spaces needed, and if does not have any means to do it then it would be something of concern; but he does have a means of doing it. He is simply asking for more time. Commissioner Bristol suggested a two-week continuance because he did not feel they are going to answer these questions today and would like to receive more information from Bryman School, such as how many students per shift and perhaps more information on how soon Mr. Kim can get this resolved. Actually Mr. Kim is asking for a variance and they can move in without this. Commissioner Bristol stated Mr. Kim is asking to intensify a site but he is asking for a variance and that is the only reason he is present. If he does not want or need the variance then he does not need to be here. Commissioner Bostwick stated they could open the school in the meantime with fewer students and then when the parking is finished then they could increase to the full student body. If this variance is denied • today then Mr. Kim can go ahead with his project but he can not have that many students until he provides the parking spaces. Commissioner Bristol explained it is to Mr. Kim's advantage to have a two-week continuance to see if the variance, as Ms. Mann indicated, might be possible, if staff concurs. Commissioner Bostwick stated Ms. Mann is not advocating a short-term. Therefore, they either vote yes or not on the variance. He is suggesting no because Mr. Kim can open with the parking spaces he currently has available and as quickly as the parking lot is completed then Mr. Kim can go to a full student body and he will not lose his tenant. Commissioner Arnold stated a concern of policy for Commission that is relevant here to this item, as well as Item No. 1-C where there was a request for photo simulations and other items, is that the applicant did not really come forvvard with what was asked. He does not see that Commission needs to bend over backwards if the applicant has not worked out their proposal thoroughly and carefully beforehand. This is a situation where Commission is being asked for a variance because there is a tenant moving in in a month. If Commission is not satisfied with the need for the variance or that the conditions have been satisfied or the impact on the surrounding community, he is not certain Commission should push ahead or create some type of temporary variance to accommodate this situation simply because the applicant did not have a well-planned proposal prepared in advance. • • ~ ~ - ~ ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition to the proposal. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration ~ Denied Variance No. 4389. VOTE: 7-0 01-19-00 Page 24 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 24 minutes (2:49-3:18) ~, ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~, ~ ~. ~, ~ ~ ~, ~, ~, ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~, ~ ,. ~, ~, ~,. ~, ~, ~ ~ ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~,. ~, ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~, ~, ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~. ~ ~. ~ ~, ~ ~. ~ ~ ~, ~, ~, ~, ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~, ~ ~ ~, ~, ~,. ~ ~ ~, ~, ~, ~, ~ ~ ~, ~ A BREAK WAS TAKEN AFTER TH/S ITEM (3:19-3:24) • ~ 01-19-00 Page 25 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 5b. VARIANCE NO. 4384 January 31, 2000 OWNER: Seaward Properties, 923 North Main Street, Orange, CA 92667 AGENT: Stuart Architecture, Attn: Ernest Stuart, 5031 Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 1500, 1550, 1551,1600.1601. 1650. 1700 and 1701 East Babbitt Avenue and 1531 and 1551 South State CoNeae Boulevard. Property is 11.59 acres Iocated at the northwest and southwest corners of Babbitt Avenue and State College Boulevard. Waiver of (a) minimum structural setback abutting a local street, and (b) minimum number of parking spaces to permit a previously-approved 10- parcel industrial subdivision. Continued from the Commission meeting of December 20, 1999. VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. SR1032TW.DOC • • • ~ •- • ~ ~ ~ • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 31, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the petitioner additional time to provide staff with a revised parking study to reflect the accurate number of proposed parking spaces. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 01-19-00 Page 18 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION 15061(b)(3) 7b. SPECtMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2000-01 OWNER: Heath Terrace California Limited Partnership, C/O Woodbridge Development, Attn: Jon Head, 27285 Las Ramblas, Suite 230, Mission Viejo, CA 92691 AGENT: Woodbridge Development, Attn: Jon Head, 27285 Las Ramblas, Suite 23Q, Mission Viejo, CA 92691 LOCATION: 195 South Heath Terrace: Property is 7.0 acres with a frontage of 38 feet on the south side of Heath Terrace, 331 feet south of the centerline of Rio Grande Drive (Lot No. 2 of Tentative Tract Map No. 15837). To permit the removal of one (1) specimen tree. ApplicanYs Statement: Concurred with staff Approved SR7665KP.DOC John Head, Woodbridge Development, stated he has reviewed the findings and recommendation of staff regarding this tree remova( and is in agreement with their recommendations. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • • • ~ ~- • • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 15061(b)(3), as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.84.038.050, the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Specimen Tree Removal No. 2000-01 to remove one (1) specimen tree on the basis that a reasonable and practical development of the property on which the tree is located requires removal of the tree whose removal is sought, and that any specimen trees removed shall be replaced with the planting on the same parcel of an equal number of trees from the specified list in the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone and subject to the following conditions of approval: That any tree or other landscaping planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 2. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1. These plans specifically identify the removal of one Eucalyptus tree and its replacement with two 24-inch box California Pepper trees (Schinus molle). These trees shall be permanently maintained in good condition. ~ 3. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 2, above- mentioned, shall be complied with. 01-19-00 Page 26 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent tnat it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TiME: 2 minutes (3:25-3:27) ~ ~ 01-19-00 Page 27 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES CJ 8a. CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION 15061(b)13) 8b. SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. 2000-02 OWNER: Begonia Village LLC, 1421 North Wanda Road, Suite 160, Orange, CA 92867 AGENT: Salkin Engineering, 1215 East Chapman Avenue, Suite 2, Orange, CA 92866 LOCATION: 5101 East Copa De Oro Drive: Property is 0.85 acres located on the north side of Copa De Oro Drive, 230 feet north of the centerline of Nohl Ranch Road. To permit the removal of one (1) specimen tree. Concurred with staff Approved SR7666KP. DOC Applicant's Statement: George Kerns, Salkin Engineering, stated he was representing the applicant. They reviewed the staff report and concur with the recommendations and conditions of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 15061(b)(3), as defined in the State EIR Guide(ines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED, that pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.84.038.050, the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve Specimen Tree Removal No. 2000-02 to remove one (1) specimen tree on the basis that a reasonable and practical development of the property on which the trees are located requires removal of the tree whose removal is sought, and that any specimen trees removed shall be replaced with the planting on the same parcel of an equal number of trees from the specified list in the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone and subject to the following conditions of approval: That any tree or other landscaping planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 2. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1. These plans specifically identify the removal of one Eucalyptus tree and its replacement with finro 24-inch box California Pepper trees (Schinus molle). These trees shall be permanently maintained in good condition. 3. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 2, above- mentioned, shall be complied with. ~ 01-19-00 Page 28 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u 4. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Vanderbilt absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minute (3:28-3:29) ~ ~ 01-19-00 Page 29 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 9a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 321 (PREV.-CERTIFIED) 9b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-15 INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Suite 162, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: Property is 807 acres bounded by the Santa Ana River on the east, the Anaheim City limits on the south, the Santa Ana Freeway (lnterstate 5) on the west, and the Southern California Edison Company right-of-way on the north (Anaheim Stadium Business Center). To establish a resolution of intent to reclassify certain properties within the approximately 807-acre Anaheim Stadium Business Center to the Sports Entertainment "(SE)" Overlay Zone (a request to finalize the "(SE)" Overlay Zone on such properties will be required from each property owner). Resolution of Intent to adopt the "(SE)" Overlay Zone would allow individual property owners to request the finalization of the Sports Entertainment Overlay as outlined in Chapter 18.50 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. The proposed Overlay Zone will provide the benefit of enhanced economic opportunities resulting from expanded land uses with ~ greater development intensities. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC20000-9 Approved Granted, unconditionally SR1140JD.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner introduced this item by stating this is City-Initiated request to establish a resolution of intent to reclassify certain properties within the Anaheim Stadium area to the Sports Entertainment Overlay Zone. This is a follow-up request to the Master Land Use Plan and the Environmental Impact Report No. 321 that the Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council on January 20, 1999. This action will not rezone any properties in the Stadium Area but will provide the mechanism for property owners to come in and do it on their own. Public Testimony: Don Watson, 1891 Kris Lane, Anaheim, stated he was present at the January 20, 1999 meeting and it seemed like it was taken for granted that they were going to put this plan through and that properties in that entire area are pretty well developed. lt didn't occur to him then why they are doing this. He asked why they wanted to have all that area as a Sports Entertainment Overlay Zone. Commissioner Boydstun responded in the event that the owners decide that they want to do that then they would have the right to ask for it. But it does not change anything the way it currently is. Mr. Watson stated then he understands that but, why did they even bother to do that in the first place? Greg McCafferty responded that the City Council had directed staff a number of years ago to study land use opportunities in the Anaheim Stadium Area. What they were thinking about back then was the fact ~ that they are doing a number of economic development tools already in the Anaheim Resort Area. With the renovation and expansion of the Convention Center, the second gate to Disneyland and Hotel Circle at that time and also the renovation of Edison Field and the Pond and they felt that these finro tourism and 01-19-00 Page 30 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • visitation areas the City should be connected somehow. The way they thought of doing that was through more of a thematic landscape concept for the whole area by connecting the Anaheim Resort and the Stadium area, which would attract visitors from the Resort Area over to the Stadium Area. They just wanted to pave the way to do that as an economic toot. Commissioner Bristol gave an example at Katella Avenue. Right now at the setback area on Katella it is not conducive to pedestrian walking. This overlay zone will potentially encourage this use. This is simply an option. Mr. Watson stated Katella is the ugliest part of that entire area, between the 5 Freeway and State College Boulevard, the sidewalk is broken and there are parts of it that are interrupted. It seems that it encompasses a large area, about 800 acres. Greg McCafferty stated it is 807 acres. The Planning Commission and the City Council did have a vision that they expressed through the policy document that this is implementing which was the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan. There are a series of improvements that hopefully will go on ultimately, driving on the west side of the 5 Freeway into the Resort Area. There is a vast improvement now with the medians and right-of-ways from what there was a few years ago. In the same vision, Commission and Council had expressed for the other side of Katella east of the 5 Freeway and the Stadium Area and hopefully through funding and Katella Smart Street that will ultimately happen on the Stadium Area side as well. Mr. Watson felt they should also add high rise hotels and office buildings instead of just sports and entertainment. • Commissioner Bristol asked if he lived on Kris Street? Mr. Watson responded that his properties were on Kris Street, Stanford Court, and Betmor. Commissioner Bristol informed Mr. Watson that this overlay zone has a height limitation. Greg McCafferty confirmed that depending on what district he was in would, in fact, allow heights greater than the existing Code currently allows. Commissioner Koos informed Mr. Watson that Mr. McCafferty, the planner involved in the project, could go over the requirements of those developments later and identify where his properties are and their requirements. Commissioner Bostwick stated he agreed with Mr. Watson because he voted against it when it first came before Commission and was going to vote against it today. If they want to improve the streets the City can do that without having this Overlay Zone and still bring a sense of feel to this area. Mr. Watson explained that his concern was from an owner's standpoint and felt that somehow he will be paying more in his property taxes. Greg McCafferty advised that part of the list of actions that was before the Commission and City Council actually reduced Development fees in this area from $9.08 a square foot to just below $2.00 a square foot. It did not increase fees in the area. Commissioner Bostwick asked if there was Assessment Districts? ~ Greg McCafferty responded that there were no Assessment Districts. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 01-19-00 Page 31 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Following the Action: Greg McCafferty referenced an exhibit displayed on the wall. The colored exhibit of the Stadium Area and this SE Overlay Resolution of intent would apply to all the districts with the exception of the existing district which is essentially going to be the area north of the properties that front on Katella to the Edison Easement. That is because in the previous policy document they had indicated, Planning Commission and City Council concurred, that those parcels would remain industrial and would not have the benefit of the Overlay Zone. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concerns. ACTION: Determined that the previously-certified EIR No. 321 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Granted Reclassification No. 99-00-15, unconditionally. VOTE: 6-1 (Commissioner Bosfinrick voted no) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. • DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (3:30-3:39) C ~ 01-19-00 Page 32 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ . 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 10b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 371 January 31, 2000 10c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 99-00-12 INITIATED BY: City of Anaheim (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Blvd., Suite 162, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 848-930 South Knott Street and 3411-3441 West Ball Road: Property is 7.0 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of Knott Street* and Ball Road. General Plan Amendment No. 371 - Request for amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan to redesignate the subject properties from the Low Density Residential designation to the General Commercial designation; and the General Commercial, Low Density Residential, and Medium Density Residential designation to the Low- Medium Density Residential designation. Reclassification No. 99-00-12 - To reclassify subject properties from the CO (Commercial, Office and Professional) Zone to the CL (Commercial Limited) Zone (Portion A); and from the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple- Family) Zone to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone (Portion B). " Originally advertised as Knott Avenue. GENERAL PLAN RESOLUTION NO. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. SR6992DS.DOC Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, introduced this item by stating that this is a City-initiated request and there are two parts to the request. One is a City-initiated amendment to the Land Use Element to the General Plan to redesignate a group of properties that are identified on the exhibit wall from Low Density Residential designation to the General Commercial designation; the Low Density and Medium Density designations to the Low Medium Residential designation. Also a rezoning for Portion A of this request from the CO (Commerciat Office) and Professional Zone to the CL (Commercial Limited) Zone. They are recommending that they not proceed with the reclassification of Portion B since the existing zoning is already consistent with the underlying land use, which are apartments. Public Testimony: Arthur Royer, 835 South Canoga Street, Anaheim, stated he is the spokesperson for some neighbors in his community. They did not see a need to have a large turn out today. He moved into the City of Anaheim in August 1976 when he purchased their home at 835 South Conoga Street. Initially did not like the surrounding area as it was congested and had established apartment buildings, condominiums, and health care facilities for the elderly and handicapped. The area where they live is northeast of the Los Alamitos Race Track, it is southwest from Knotts Berry Farm Amusement Park ~ and Knott Avenue connects to the Garden Grove Freeway, the San Diego Freeway, the Riverside Freeway and the Santa Ana Freeway. The area supports three large hospitals, several of small businesses, professional and independent owner/operator. There are liquor stores on nearly every 01-19-00 Page 33 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ corner; there are traffic-controlled intersections along with gas stations which are also small convenience stores as well, who offer liquor sales. The reason for living where he tives today is greatly in part due to his neighbors and the strong relationships that they have with one another in this community. The City of Anaheim has a tot to offer the people who wish to reside in the City boundaries. They are beautiful parks and recreation facilities. The Pond, Edison Field, and Disneyland are to the east of them and that the City has done well with the architecture of these areas and has buffered the single-family homes and residents who wish to continue living there have made their own adjustments. There is a major effort by the City government to make these areas beautiful and appealing to the eye. There is one underlying issue with the staff report and what its real intent is, that is to increase the density of the property near Knott and Ball Road. He is retired from the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department and spent 21 years in patrol division. He knows the impacts of density and its demands on police, fire, paramedic and City services. He asked if any Commissioners reside near Knott and Ball Road. Commissioner Bristol stated when Mr. Royer was done he will comment on that question. Arthur Royer continued that the reason he asks this question is because if any of them did he would expect a vote against this proposal or an abstention of their vote because they really would not want this to happen to their neighborhood. The City has its fair share of grants and subsides from the State and Federal government, not to mention the taxes received from its residents, business and resort facilities. • There are plenty of land areas available in the City for development that are more suitable for what they want to do. The purpose of the Commission is to make a fair and unbiased decision which will be congruent with the parties who live in the proposed areas. They simply cannot tolerate more density in this area in Anaheim. They are only two city blocks west of one of the largest prostitution areas in the City of Anaheim, Beach and Ball Road. Knott Avenue is terribly congested and it is nearly impossible to exit from their neighborhood, from Rome Avenue southbound to Knott between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and as late as 7:00 p.m. during the weekdays. It would appear by this report that the development and density are synonymous terms. He cannot see how the homeowners can benefit from this with equitability. When Commission makes decisions such as what is before them today that they will have a lasting impact on their community. If they vote for this density increase then they will place residents in the path of a developer who will develop this area. The reclassification will be an irresistible attraction to these properties for later redevelopment for larger facilities, not excluding two-story structures, office buildings, etc. In the Los Angles Times where Mayor Daly suggested that areas such as West Anaheim and Downtown need a timely revitalization effort. He agrees with the Mayor's statement, especially near Knott and Ball Road. They could use stronger graffiti enforcement, raise concrete curb dividers down the middle of Knott Avenue and Ball Road. Since the closure of EI Toro Marine Base and the suspension of military flight operations there has been a significant increase in military aircraft over their homes which they are directly in the flight tanding approach to Los Alamitos Naval Air Station. The noise of these aircraft at times can be deafening and includes all types of aircraft. Mayor Daly stated that there is no project more important than the EI Toro • Airport. He went on to say that EI Toro is critical for supporting Orange County's expected growth and he agreed. 01-19-00 Page 34 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commission has the time to implement, plan, and anticipate arrival of this facility and with the proper planning the communities in that area will have to be taken into consideration. They live near four public school systems, and numerous day care facilities, which align themselves down Ball Road. There is a train crossing at Knott Avenue and across Ball Road. They have the noise, congestion and more density than most areas in Anaheim. They simply do not need more development; more people condensed into smaller living/business areas where they live. They are prepared to proceed from this meeting to a City Council hearing and will post the necessary fees with the City if they are not able to stop this reclassification vote. They are also in the process of obtaining signatures and good neighborhood attendance can be expected at the Council meeting. There was not much time after receiving notice of this hearing and want to be honest and forthright with Commission as to their intentions and how far they, as residents, will pursue these objectives which are in the interest of their community. He requested the Commission to stand with the residents in voting against this Low Medium Density and General Commercial reclassification. Esther Wallace, Chairman of WAND (West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council), stated she knows that the City is interested in consolidating some parcels so something can be done with them rather than "piecemeal" building on one or two acres. However, she has a problem with changing a Low Density to a Medium Density and a Low-Density designation to a General Commercial designation. She would like to see that stay as Low Density. Under the Low Medium Density Residential land use there could be the possibility of 18 dwellings per gross acre. Gross acre means complete acre. Whenever a ~ development is built 1/3 of that acre goes for streets, sidewalks, etc. If there were 18 dwellings built then there would be 1600 square feet to build a unit on, which is not very big. They spoke with the developer who built the 40 homes on the southwest corner and there are approximately 9 homes to a gross acre and there are approximately 300 square foot iots, which are very small. She would not want to see this land redesignated until they know what is going on it. This area is overbuilt with apartments; it is a high crime rate area. She is interested in consolidating land to build, for example, single-family homes but not on this size of lot, and would like to see fewer lots built on an acre. Commissioner Bosfinrick stated this is presently a hospital that is designated Commercial O~ce and the proposal is Commercial Limited. Esther Wallace explained that in the staff report it indicates that they are changing Low Density and changing it into Commercial. Commissioner Koos stated at the morning session Commission was presented with information regarding staff s recommendation and perhaps that should have been addressed at the beginning. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated this was an action item within the West Anaheim Community Planning Program Action Plan. The Community Planning Program typically takes a look at all of the existing General Plan and Zoning designations within the area to make sure that the land use pattern makes sense and that they are reflective of not only what is existing out there, but in some cases, what they think would be the most appropriate future land use for the area. When they looked at this particular corner there were things they noticed. There was a retail market study done sometime ago which was basically, a citywide study looking at commercial development throughout the Central and West Anaheim areas, to determine what to do with many of the mid-block retail, etc. One of the findings of the study was that the City should concentrate future commercial • development at the intersections of it's arterial highways; one of those being Knott and Ball Road. As a result, when they took a look at the convalescent facility which currently exists there, they noticed that the property had a split General Plan designation. It is essentially a commercial use; however, a portion of it 01-19-00 Page 35 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ was currently designated for Low Density Residentiai and another portion of it was currently designated for Medium Density Residential. So they felt it would be appropriate for that entire facility to have a consistent General Plan designation of General Commercial and in the event that property were to ever redevelop in the future, then it would provide a good size commercial parcel. In relation to the surrounding properties, there is a single-family residential tract, which exists to the north on Glen Holly. Those properties to the north are actually zoned RS-5000 and they thought perhaps that on the properties that front on Knott Street, that are the subject of this action today, could be developed with a single-family residential development of that type which would be a compatible land use with the area and would make sense at that location given the existing lot depth. Staff s thinking was to redesignate that from Low Density Residential to Low Medium Density Residential which is consistent with the RS-5000 Zone, that it might spur someone to come in in the future and rezone those properties to RS-5000 for a single-family residential development compatible with the homes there on Glen Holly. Low Density Residential is implemented by the RS-7200 and RSA-43,000 Zone and RS-10,000 actually. They felt that those might not be appropriate zone designations on an arterial highway such as Knott Avenue. In keeping with what has gone on with single-family residential development in the recent past, staff felt that an RS-5000 Zone designation was probably the most appropriate designation for that location. The thinking at that time was not to promote multiple family residential development such as apartments or condominiums; it was to encourage the single-family residential development similar to what exists on Glen Holly. On Ball Road, those properties were designated Medium Density Residential which would allow up to 36 units to the acre. Staff did not feel that that was an appropriate designation, given that it was immediately adjacent to single-family homes to the north. On those properties that front on Ball Road, again, fhe • thinking was that Low Medium Density Residential designation could accommodate the type of development to the north, the RS-5000 development on Glen Holly. He summarized by stating that the intent of the recommendation was to recognize the Commercial Development that exists on the corner and come up with a General Plan designation, which is consistent with it. Also to promote the single-family residential development at a density compatible with what is on Glen Holly. There is actually a balance. While they are increasing the density on Knott Avenue they are also reducing density on Ball Road. Commissioner Bristol asked if Portion B is a part of this or it being withdrawn? Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner responded Portion B is being deleted from the request. Commissioner Bristol asked if Portion A is Medium Density is he saying that Glen Holly is identical. Jonathan Borrego explained that the homes at Glen Holly are actually zone RS-5000 (the map shows RS-7200). The thinking was that the Low Medium Density designation could accommodate RS-5000 development in the future, which would basically be the same type of home as Glen Holly. Commissioner Bristol asked what the density was on the property that was built on the southwest on Ball? Jonathan Borrego responded that it is RM-3000, which is a Low Medium Density compatible zoning. Chairperson Boydstun asked about the gray area (on the map) on Ball Road indicates General Commercial and Low Medium Density, what are they requesting that it be changed to? ~ Greg McCafferty asked if she was referring to the Zoning portion or the General Plan portion? Chairperson Boydstun responded she was referring to both. 01-19-00 Page 36 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Greg McCafferty stated that Portion A is going from CO to CL Zone (page 1 of the staff report). They are recommending it be consistent with the Community Planning Program action item that it change from CO to CL Zone which would be consistent with the underlying land use and also provide a further opportunity consistent with the retait study to allow a larger corner retail development in the future. Portion B, staff is recommending that Commission delete that from the request which would mean the parcel that fronts on the north side of Ball Road would remain RS-1200 but the General Plan designation would change from split designation of Low Density and Medium Density Residential to one designation which would be Low- Medium Density Residential designation. In Low-Medium Density there is essentially three implementation zones that would take it anywhere from no units to 18 dwelling units to the acre that could be implemented by RM-2400, RM-3000 or RS-5000 which is the smallest single-family lots. Commissioner Koos suggested continuing this item so staff could meet with the affected parties so there is a clear understanding of this proposal. Arthur Royer stated he appreciated Commission's consideration of giving more time for this item. Judith Ann Gollette added when they are reviewing this item that they also consider going north to the strawberry fields and vacant lot. Both owners are interested in selling the property and were approached by a developer who would iike to build and try to squeeze as much as they can in that 2-acre property. Also not every corner in that area need to be retail, that whole area could be residential eventually. Commissioner Bristol stated that is exactly what they are trying to accomplish. • Commissioner Bosfinrick offered a continuance for January 31, 2000, seconded by Commissioner Koos and motion carried. OPPOSITION: 3 people spoke in opposition to the subject request. ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 31, 2000 Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to meet with surrounding residents so they can get a good understanding of the proposal. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 29 minutes (3:40-4:09) • 01-19-00 Page 37 JANUARY 19, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ITEMS OF PUBLIC INTEREST: None MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:10 P.M. TO MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 2000 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~ ~.~..o... • Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~~~~' ' ~ ~ • 01-19-00 Page 38