Loading...
Minutes-PC 2005/06/27~A~EIM ~~ CITY OF ANAHEIM ~ ~ ~f~' Planning Commission 0 0 ~ ~ Supplemental Detailed Minutes .~ - " ~' Monday, June 27, 2005 ' , ~ ~~~~~~ , ~~ (TTM N0. 16826 and DAG NO. 2005-00006 - Item No. 4) ~O~ 1$~^ IVD'E~ Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRMAN: GAIL EASTMAN Commissioners Present: CECILIA FLORES, JOSEPH KARAKI, ED PEREZ, PANKY ROMERO, PAT VELASQUEZ Commissioners Absent: KELLY BUFFA Staff Present: • Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation PI , Greg Hastings, Planning Services Manager James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner Janet Baylor, Deputy Fire Marshal Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator John Ramirez, Associate Planner Ted White, Senior Planner Elly Morris, Senior Secretary Dave See, Senior Planner • You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address'planninacommission(a~anaheim.net H:\TOOLS\PCADMIN12005 MINUTES\SUPPLMINUTES062705 (ITEM 4).DOC JUNE 27, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINI • 4a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN N0. 131* Perez/Romero 4b. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 16826 ' Perez/Romero 4c. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. DAG2005-00006 Perez Owner: Stadium Land Partners, LLC, Brad Redelsperger, c/o Newport Federal, 4425 Jamboree, #250, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Agent: John Stanek, Integral Partners, 160 Newport Center Drive, " Suite 240, Newport' Beach, CA 92660 Location: 2045 South State Colleqe Boulevard. Property is approximately 3.8 acres with a frontage of 292 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard and located 337 feet north of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue (Gateway Centre Condominiums). Request to approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the : project and circulated for public/responsible agencyreview in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State and City of Anaheim CEQA Guidelines. The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for public review (May 19, 2005 until June 7, 2005) and copies of the document are available for review at the City of Anaheim Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim CA 92805. • Development Agreement No. DAG2005-00006 - Request to recommend City Council adoption of Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and Newport Federal for the Gateway Centre Condominium Project to construct a 266-unit residential condominium project. Tentative Tract Map No. 16826 - To establish a 1-lot, 266-unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision. Continued from the June 13, 2005 Planning Commission meeting. Development Agreement Resolution No. PC2005-96 Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. ITES Approved Approved Recommended City Council approval VOTE: 6-0 CommissionerBuffa absent Project Planner: jpram irez@anaheim.net Greg McCafferty, Principle Planner, stated prior to introducing the project that Janet Baylor, Deputy Fire Marshall, would be present to address any questions the Planning Commission may have. John Ramirez, Associate Planner, introduced Item No. 4, stated that there are 3 items before the Commissioner today for consideration. The motion of approval for a Mitigated Negative Declaration associated with the project. Approval of a tentative tract map to establish a 1-lot, 266-unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision. And recommendation of approval for the Development Agreement No. DAG2005-00006 to recommend City Council to implement the entire project. He stated that the proposed project would include the construction 266 multiple-family units contained in one building, subdivided into one (1) lot for condominium purposes. The project would also include • construction of an associated pub{ic street. The applicant is proposing to develop a five-story building with driveways, sidewalks and associated onsite and right-of-way landscaping. The development would be constructed in a"podium" style building where there are four levels of residential units over two levels 06-27-05 Page 2 JUNE27, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • of subterranean and surface parking. The connector street is located in the conceptual location as indicated in the Platinum Triangle,Master Land Use Plan, is proposed associated with the project. Primary pedestrian access would be located off of State College Boulevard and primary vehicular access would be from the connectorstreet that leads from a signalized intersection with State College Boulevard into the main parking garage where the signage'is located. Within the building site amenities would include three courtyards;; one of which would house a pool, spa area and an outdoor barbeque area and would be adjacent to an' interior gym, kitchen and meeting room. The Planning Director has reviewed the proposal. Both the architectural elevation as well as the site plan design and approved the final site plan on June 9, 2005. Staff has taken particular concern with the elevation'rendering proposed as part of this project based upon those items expressed from the Planning Commission at the June 1, 2005 Planning Commission meeting on another item. To my left you can see the various colored renderings pertaining to the project both landscaping renderings of the overall site , plan and cross section details showing the relationship between the street scene and the proposed building, as well as expanded views of the interior courtyard associated with the project. The;other board shows colored renderings of the elevations. The elevations reflect four sided architecture with primary visibility from State College Boulevard and the connector streets. You would also be able to see the south elevation as you're traveling north bound on State College Boulevard because of an adjacent parking Iot. -The applicant has incorporated architectural details that have the same level of quality and attention on each of the four building elevations. Three of the building elevations on the corners are cut at an angle so that it provides added interest at the intersection ofState College Boulevard and the new connector street'as well as the northwest and southeast corners of the building. The entryway way was enhanced to be a two-story lobby entrance and two different colors of brick veneer along the entry way as well as a secondary tower elements along the State College Boulevard view point. North of the entryway you can see how the column goes upward that contains the brick veneer to the full • height of the building and throughout the tower. There is also a water feature incorporated at the intersection of State College Boulevard and the new connector street as required and encouraged by the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay. Staff has reviewed the site plan, elevation drawings, and the materials and is recommending approval of the Tentative Map and is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Development Agreement to the City CounciL The Project as proposed is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Master Land Use Plan and the project is consistent with the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay zone. At the conclusion of this presentation the applicants provided staff with a computer rendering to play for the Commission. Also, staff from the Building Division are available for any question that may rise pertaining to Building Code requirements for entry ways in and out of the building. Mr. Ramirez played the computer rendering of the project for the Commissioners and the public. Applicant's Statement: John Stanek, Integral Partners, 160 Newport Center Drive, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660, stated that the only comment he had is that the animation doesn't accurately reflect the color schemes that the property will ultimately look like therefore I would encourage you to look more closely review the color renderings that the architecture has prepared to really see the true color scheme. We were trying to give you a perspective of what the building would look like from the street scene. Chairman Eastman confirmed that the Commissioners have received a copy of the architecture's pictures. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Eastman stated that there was a question in regards to having only one access in and out of • the parking structure. 06-27-05 Page 3 : JUNE 2T, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAfLED MINUTES • Commissioner Karaki inquired into whaf types of requirements does the Fire Department have for parking structures. Janet Baylor, Deputy Fire Marshall, responded by stating that they did review this project and like other- projects that are submitted with the "podium' style. They are being reviewed on a case by case basis. Regarding the one access, if has been reviewed and approved. What has been done is'to have the DeVeloper agree to some additional life safety features in the building such as upgraded sprinkler systems, and in some cases asked for additional elevators that are accommodate a gurney for medical aid. ln this particular project before us today, we will not access under a building. Our Fire trucks will stop and thaYs why there is a wide'road on one side and access on the other. You will be seeing more of these. They may not look the same but we do deal with them on a case by case basis. The Code is not real clear. Commissioner Karaki asked how the perimeters were decided for'an applicant to have to set the access with one or two entrances. Mr. Stanek stated that when the other project was originally designed it only had one entrance. And what happens is that the Fire Department requires access around the entire building as such we were required to put in that private cul-de-sac on the other property that was to become nothing more than a fire access lane. There was to be no ingress or egress to our building off of that. That private lane ended up becoming joined with theproperty next door. And the property next'door could not get access off Katella or frontage near "The Grove" theytook all their ingress and egress off of that plan. So we decided to add one for ease of traffic off of State College Blvd. There weren't any Fire or Health standards that we were required to adhere ta It just made the access easier. All of these properties have difficulty in gaining access so what we did provide a 26-foot wide Fire Department access road completelyaround the new building. So now there is that connector street that is shown as Public Street A, State College Boulevard • is on #he right side. Along the bottom of the property and along the western edge there is a 26-foot wide permanent fire access road constructed that is part of the parking lot but it is a dedicated fire access lane to provide 100% of the time emergency access to all sides of the building. Commissioner Karaki asked if the Fire Department had any requirements or standards for that type of building. : Ms. Baylor stated that the code does state that we should have access within 150 feet of all the portions of the exterior of the building, which they've met. In cases where they don't meet the total restrictive code , they can go by a performance based evaluation by a Fire Protection Engineer. We do review and approve some projects like that and may ask for additional safety features to mitigate a problem that doesn't quite fit the code. Commissioner Karaki acknowledged that the Fire Department did address the issues of the upper level by providing fire exit, stair cases and elevators which is good. But it didn't seem to address is the underground parking that only has one access area. And in the event of a fire they would need to get on foot and escape through only one of the exits which are the concern I have. Ms. Baylor addressed the underground parking issues and stated that the history of fires in underground parking is a lot less severe than they are in residential units, which is why you see one entrance in and out. You are still required to provide pedestrian exiting at strategic locations and then there are stand pipes at those locations where we can hook up hoses and fight fires. Chairman Eastman asked about the interior units that are on the podium that are 4-stories high. Is there any ability for the Fire Department to get in and fight a fire on the second or third floor with the difficulty getting a fire truck so close to the building? • Ms. Baylor explained that they took field trips to different podium style buildings and discovered that there is great access around the entire perimeter but you have condominiums that face the court yard. Those units have what is called rescue window by building code definition. We looked very closely at how we 06-27-05 Page 4 JUNE 27, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • would carry a ladder up the stairs to the upper level and we have areas where we can place the ladders on firm ground for the rescue windows. We have reviewed thaf on the entire interior and they will be meeting that requirement. ` Chairman Eastman confirmed that it is required to be sprinklers. Ms. Baylor stated that the developer has even upgraded the sprinkler system in this case for us which gives us even more time. Commissioner Flores acknowledged that this is a major improvement with the large windows added and the rails. The developer had done a great job. The fire safety issues have been addressed very well. The main purpose is not#o get a vehicle out but to get a pedestrian out and they have gone beyond what is required to satisfy this concern. She further stated her support for this project. Commissioner Perez stated that during the,initial request the developer had exceeded"expectations. We' posed a series of questions earlier. My questions were regarding the actual architectural design and it is visible to see the good effort that went into the renderings and all the work that went into this He thanked the developer for all the exceeded etfort thaf he put into this project and expressed his,support, .With the initial renderings that were presented to us verses what we have before us to review speaks volumes for this project. We welcome this project to the City of Anaheim.' Commissioner Romero addressed a question to John Ramirez regarding a letter dated June 8, 2005 from CalTrans. He asked if the concerns theyhad regarding the traffic flow issues were addressed to staff's satisfaction. Mr. Ramirez deferred the question to Alfred Yalda. ~ Alfred Yalda, Principle Traffic Engineer, Anaheim Public Works Department, stated that they had not yet responded to the fetter. We will be contacting CalTrans and respond to their methodology and the questions that they are asking us. We don't feel that they are appropriate but we will deal with it when we discuss it with CalTrans. They have a different methodology on calculation on a level of service and the City of Anaheim does have a citywide modeling. We know exactly what the traffic flow is and will share this information with them within the next few days. Chairman Eastman thanked this developer because we gave you a real challenge on your previous project three weeks ago on your other project. We do appreciate that you listened to our input and took it very seriously and it show both on the consent items that we approved and now with this project that you are requesting approval on. Commissioner Karaki added that the developer did a wonderful job with the previously approved consent calendar items as well as this project. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Deputy City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 7, 2005; and stated the Development Agreement is subject to review and approval by the City CounciL • DISCUSSION TIME: 27 Minutes (2:33-3:00) JUNE 27, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES • ~~ Ted White„Senior Planner, stated that a special Planning Commission meeting ~ertaining tothe Mountain Fark Project has been scheduled for Wednesday, July27, 2005, at 6:00 p.m., at the EI Rancho Junior High School Auditorium. MOTION: Commissioner Perez offered a motion, seconded by Chairman Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Buffa absent), that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby continue the scheduled workshop on Telecommunication Facilities #rom the Planning Commission meeting of July 11, 2005, to the August 8, 2005 meeting; MOTION: Chairman Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Buffa absent), to place on the July 25, 2005 agenda the selection of Planning Commission Chairman for 2005/06.' MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:50 P.M. TO MONDAY, JULY 25, 2005 AT 11:30 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. (The scheduled Planning Commission Meeting of July 11, 2005 was cancelled due to no new cases filed) • Respectfully submitted: r~~~~ Danielle Masciel Word Processor Received and approved by the Planning Commission on ~ , 2005.