Loading...
Minutes-PC 2006/01/09~AHEr~, ~q CITY OF ANAHEIM ~ ~ P ~r~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ Planning Commission ~ ~ Minutes ~ ~ ~o~ Mondav, Januarv 9, 2006 ` ,. . ~ o~ ,n ~ Councii Chamber, City Hall ~ g~ 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California UNDE~ ~ : CHAIRMAN: GAIL EASTMAN ~ Commissioners Present: KELLY BUFFA, CECILIA FLORES, JOSEPH KARAKI, ED PEREZ, PANKY ROMERO,' PAT VELASQUEZ Commissioners Absent: NONE Staff Present: Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney James Ling, Principal Civil Engineer Greg Hastings, Planning Services Manager John Ramirez, Associate Planner Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner Amy Vazquez, Associate Planner Judy Dadant, SeniorPlanner Jessica Nixon, Planning Aide Della Herrick, Associate Planner Danielle Masciel, Word Processing Operator ~ Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, January 6, 2006, 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 15, 2006 • Call To Order Preliminary Plan Review 1:00 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE JANUARY 9, 2006 AGENDA • Recess To Afternoon Public Hearing Session • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 102 For record keepinq purposes if you wish to make a statement reqardinq anv item on the aqenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to the secretarv. • Pledge Of Allegiance: Commissioner_Buffa • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Adjournment .' You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following e-mail address blanninacommissionCc~anaheim.net H:\TOOLS\PCADMIN\PCMINIACT12005MINUTESWC010906.DOC _ JANUARY 9, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. Consent'Calendar: The items on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There wili be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on`the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Commissioner Flores offered a motion, seconded by Chairman Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, for ; approval'of Consent Calendar Items 1-A through 1-D as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED _ Renorts and Recommendations 1A.(a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved ~ (b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2871 Approved retroactive (Tracking No. CUP2005-05047) eztension of time for 1 year (to expire on Agent: Ron Sorenson, HGA Inc., 1410 Rocky Ridge Drive, September 20, 2006) - Suite 250, Roseville, CA 95661 Location: 2323 West Broadwav: Property is approximately 6.5 Consent Calendar - acres, having a frontage of 454 feet on the north side of Broadway and Approvai is located 860 feet east of the centerline of Gilbert Street (Cornelia Connelly High School) VOTE: 7-0 Request a retroactive time extension to comply with conditions of approval for a previously-approved gymnasium in conjunction with an P,~~ect Pianner. existing private educational institution. (kwonq@anaheim.net) JANUARY 9, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Min • _ 16. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved Meeting of November 14, 2005. (Motion) Continued from the November 28, and December 12, 2005, Planning ' ConsentCalendar Approval Commission meetings. VOTE: 7-0 1C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved , Meeting'of November 28, 2005. (Motion) Continued from the December 12; 2005, Planning Commission meeting. Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 7-~ 1 D. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Continued to Meeting of December 12, 2005. (Motion) January 23,'2006 Consent Calendar Approval ~ VOTE: 7-0 JANUARY 9, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . Public Hearing Items: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION FloresBuffa Approved 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Flores/Romero Approved 2c. CONDITIONAL USE'PERMIT N0. 2005-05045 Flores ' Granted 2d. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR Flores Approved NECESSITY N0. 2005-00023 ` Owner: ' Interpacific Asset Management, Richard Farms Trust, 5505 Vo'rE: 7-0 Garden Grove Boulevard, # 150, Westminster„CA 92683 Agent: Milestone Management, 21196 Jasmines Way, Lake Forest, CA 92630 Location: 2011 East La Paima Avenue: Property is approximately 9' acres, located north and east of the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and La Palma AVenue.' Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05045 - Request to permit a pharmacy with a drive-through and accessory sales of alcoholic beverages-for off-premises consumption with waiver of maximum letter heightfor wall signage. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2005-00023 - To permit sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within a proposed pharmacy. ~ Continued from the December 12, 2005, Planning Commission meeting. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2006-4 Public Convenience or Necessit Resolution No. PC2006-5 ProjectPlanner. Y (dherrick uC~.anaheim.net) ' Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Della Herrick, Associate Planner, introduced Item No. 2. ApplicanYs Statement: Roger Barboso, Milestone Management, 21196 Jasmines Way, Lake Forest, CA, thanked the Commission for having the opportunity to resolve concerns that were expressed previously. Commissioner Flores stated her disappointment for tearing down a restaurant in order to develop fast food establishments. CommissionerRomero asked the applicant to identify the changes thaf were made. Ms. Herrick described the changes to the landscaping and the loading area. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ 01-09-06 Page 4 JANUARY 9, 2006 JANUARY9, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3a. CEQA NEGATNE DECLARATION Continued to 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT January 23, 2006 3c. CONDITIONAL USEPERMIT N0. 2005-05031 Owner: Mark Ghassemi, 301 East Ball Road, Anaheim; CA 92805 Motion: FtoresBuffa Agent: Patrick Anderson, 16022 Aria Circle, Huntington Beach, CA vOTE: 7-0 92649 Location: 301 East Ball Road: Property is approximately 0.93-acre, : having a frontage of 150 feet on the north side of BaII Road : and is located 333 feef easf of the centerline of Technology Drive (Ollin lnternational, lnc.). Request to permit and retain an existing outdoor storage area and to install an overhead crane to load trucks with slab materials in conjunction ' with an existing wholesale building material (stone) distribution business with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. . Continued from the October 31, November 14, and December 12, 2005, Planning Commission meetings. Project Planner.~ Conditional Use Permit Resolution Na (ipramirezan.anaheim.net) ~ OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. JANUARY 9, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 AND 15 ~ Continued to ' 4b. ' TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.'16958 ', January 23, 2006 Owner: Anaheim Hotel Partnership, LCP, 777 Convention Way, Suite 110, Anaheim, CA 92802 _ Motion: Buffa/Perez Agent: Kelly Carlyle, Psomas, 3187 Red Hill, Suite 250, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 voTEc 7-0 Location: 777 Convention Wav: Property is approximately 8.5 acres, located at the northwest corner of Hotel Way and Convention Way (Anaheim Hilton). Request to establish a 1-lot, airspace hotel subdivisionfor investment purposes. , , Continued from the December 12, 2005; Planning Commission meeting. Project Planner.• (cflores an.anaheim.net) ~ OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. JANUARY 9, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Buffa/Perez Approved . 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4073 Buffa Approved reinstatement for (Tracking No. CUP2005-05051) 5 years (to expire on January 3, 2011), and ' Owner: Limited P. Harlo-Kinder, 9808 Pangborn Avenue, bowney, CA amendment to conditions of 90240 approval pertaining to hours of operation. Agent: Sun H Ko, Golden Pain Control, 2054 South'Euclid Street, Anaheim, CA 92802 vOTE: 7-0 Location: 2054 South EuciidStreet, Unit H: Property is approximately 2.43'acres located at the:northeast corner of Orangewood ' Avenue and Euclid Street (Golden Pain Control). Request for reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition`of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved January 17, 2001 to expire January 3, 2006*) to retain an acupressure (massage) facility . and to amend** a condition of approval pertaining to hours of operation. _ * Advertised as January 6; "" Advertised as `de~ete': Project Planner.. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2006-7 ~nixon@anaheim.net) Chairman Eastman opened thepublic hearing. , • Jessica Nixon,Planning Aide, introduced Item Na 5. Public Testimony: Jonah Kim, 2057 S. Lida Lane, Anaheim, CA, expressed his family's concerns of the adjustment in the hours of operation and the impact that it may have on the property value. There are specific connotations : associated with massage parlors opened in the evening. Commissioner Romero asked Mr. Kim if they had experienced problems in the past as a result of this business. Mr. Kim stated that his father had only resided there for the past 2 years. He isn't aware of any specific problems that had occurred. The concern is for this type of business located next to his home. Commissioner Buffa stated that she was comfortable with approving this request after receiving the Police DepartmenYs report indicating that the business is operating in compliance with the requirements of the City codes. • ApplicanYs Statement: Sun Hui Ko, Golden Pain Control, deferred any questions to her fiance, Peter Han, 2054 S. Euclid Street, Unit H, Anaheim, CA, stated that in 1998 they were approved for one year. In 1999 they were approved for _ another year. In 2001 they were approved #or 5 years. They feel that they have been on probation for an extended period of time. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ Chairman Eastman stated that 5 years is a standard time frame permitted for a reinstatement for this type of business. 01-09-06 , Page 8 JANUARY9, 2006 _ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ OPPOSITION: A person relayed concerns pertaining to the hours of operation. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 31, 2006. DISCUSSION TIME: 99 minutes (5:21-5:40) , This item was trailed and heard following ltem No. 6, in order fo ensure that the applicanf was present. Following acfion of this item, ltem No. 7 was heard. ~ JANUARY 9, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION =' CLASS 1 Flores/Eastman Concurred with staff 6b. ' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2670 Flores Approved request to (Tracking Na CUP2005-05048) amend conditions of approval, relating to ' hours of operation. Owner: Beatrice Quintero, EI PatioRestaurant, 1750 West La Patma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 VOTE: 7-0 Agentc David M. Swerdlin, Swerdlin & Associates, 31125 Via Cristal, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 ~ Location: 1750 West La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately 1.12 acresJocated at the southeast corner ofla Pafma Avenue and Mohican Avenue (ElPatio Restaurant). Request to amend a condition of approval pertaining to hours of operation for a previously-approved semi-encfosed restaurant with the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. ''Advertised as `on-premises consumption and a public dance halP: Conditional Use PermitResolution No. PC2006-6" ProjecrPianner.• _ (avazquez@anaheim.net) ' Chairman Eastman opened the pu6lic hearing. ~ Amy Vazquez, Associate Planner, introduced Item No. 6 ApplicanYs Statement: David Swerdlin, Swerdlin & Associates, 31125 Via Cristal, San Juan Capistrano, CA, stated he was present to address any questions or concerns by Commission. Ms. Vazquez informed the Commission there is a valid dinner dance permit until January 16, 2006. They have 30 days to renew the permit. The permit does allow them to have a 4,to 9 piece band and the applicant` has indicated that no cover charge would be taken at the door. Commissioner Perez clarified this as a yearly issued permit. Beatrice Quintero, 1261 N. Woodglen Drive, Anaheim, CA, manager of EI Patio Restaurant, stated her concurrence with staff s recommendations. Chairman Eastman addressed the previous concerns with the trash pick up. Mr. Swerdlin stated they are moving to vacate the alley. He stated they have to go through a process called a "Quit Claim" then they can come back to the City with plans to expand the parking lot and adhere to any` additional conditions that may be added. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Romero asked why is it necessary to set the operating hours to remain open until 2 a:m. ~ Mr. Swerdlin stated the desire was to maintain similar operating hours to that of the competition. , , 01-09-06 Page 10 ' JANUARY 9,'2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Eastman stated she recalled granting the previously approved Conditional Use Permit to have their ~ hours be more competitive. She complimented the applicant for operating a responsible business. Commissioner Buffa offered simitar compliments to the applicant for the improvement to their operation. OPPOSITION: None - ' Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 31, 2006. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes{5:15-5:20) ' Following fhis item, Item No. 5 was heard. ~ ~ 01-09-06 : Page 11 JANUARY 9, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 7a: CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION -: Buffa/Perez Approved 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Buffa/Romero Approved 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-05042, Buffa 'Granted Owner: Turner Anaheim LLC, 1500 Quail Street, Suite 150, ModiTied Condition No. 2 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Agent: Word of Faith, 13451 Pinenut Path, Corona, CA 92880 vOTE: 6-0 Commissioner Karaki ` abstained Location: 1251 North Manassero Street. Suites 403 and 404: ' Property is approximately 8.1" acres located at the ' northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Manassero Street. Request #o establish a church in an existing industriaUoffice complex with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Project Planner.• , Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2006-8 ~dnerrick@anaheim.net) Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Della Herrick, Associate Planner, introduced Item No. 7. ApplicanYs Statement: ~ Morris Delaney, 1848 Providence Way, Corona, CA, stated he is the assistant Pastor of the church and that he concurs with the findings of the staff report. Commissioner Buffa clarified for the benefit of the applicant that this approval does not permit the operation of a school as an accessory use to the church. She stated that it is a separate permit. Commissioner Romero asked why there was signage posted at the site prior to approvaL Mr. Delaney admitted that they were a bit anxious for the City's approvaL Commissioner Perez asked what the specific hours of operation would be. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, encouraged the applicant to ask for the hours that they anticipate needing for future use at this time, rather than wait until later. Mr. Delaney stated that they would like to have extended hours on Mondays from 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Buffa suggested changing Condition No. 2 to read as follows (a) Church Services Sunday 10:00 a.m. and 11;30 a.m. (b) Bible Study Week nights 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. JANUARY 9, 2006 JANUARY 9, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION ' Buffa/Romero , Approved ' 8b. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 2005-00172 Buffa Granted 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005-05052 Buffa Granted , 8d. TENTATIVE'TRACT MAP NO. 16974 ' Buffa/Romero Approved Owner: Manasseh Bareh, 1934 Newport Boulevard, Costa Mesa, , CA 92627 ` TTM Added a condition of approval Location: 648 South Maqnolia Avenue: Property is approximately pertainingto aprovision to'be * included in the project CC&Rs 0.41-acre having a frontage of75 feef on the east side of Which requires homeowners to` Magnolia Avenue and is located 335 feet south of the use the garage for parkin~ and '- centerline of Westhaven Drive. not for storage. *Advertised as 85 feef of frontage on Magnolia Avenue. VOTE: 7-0 Reclassification No. 2005-00172 - Request to reclassify the property from the T(Transition) zone to the RM-3 (Residential, Multiple-Family) zone or less intense zone. Conditional Use Permit Na 2005-05052 = Request to construct a 7-unit semi-attached residentiai condominium complex. . Tentative Tract Map No. 16974 -To establish a 1-1ot, 7-unit semi- attached single-family residential condominium subdivision. ' Reclassification Resolution No. PC2006-9 Project Planner.• ~ Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2006-10 ~ramirez@ananeim.ner) " Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. ' John Ramirez, Associate Planner, introduced Item No. 8. ApplicanYs Statement: George Benum, 1150 E. Orangethorpe Avenue, Suite 109, Placentia, CA, architect of record, stated that they concur with the staff report. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. _ Commissioner Romero stated this location appeared to be ideal for a gated community. He asked the applicant why that type of use was not considered at this location. Mr. Benum stated his understanding from the Traffic Engineering Department was if a gate was installed it would increase the distance between the property line and the gate to allow for 3 cars queing and there isn't enough room. Commissioner Velasquez asked why the square footage for the 3 and 4 bedroom homes were the same. Mr. Benum stated they have observed many homes using this type of space as a home office rather than a ~ bedroom: In addition it allows compliance with code for the standard parking requirements. Commissioner Velasquez inquired where the guests would be permitted to park. 01-09-06 Page 14 JANUARY 9, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Benum stated the provisions for the parking exceeds the minimum requirements for the Code. Chairman' Eastman asked what size was the loft in'these units. Mr. Benum confirmed that it was about 7 feet by 11 feet. It was too small #o enable even a closet to be installed in this space. ' CommissionerBuffa asked that a condition of approval be added that discloses to the buyers that they are required to park inside their garages per the Municipal Code, and they are not permitted to use the surface parking. Mr. Benum suggested this condition be added to the CC&R's. Commissioner Buffa stated her desire to add a condition to the CC&R's for it to contain a stipulation that homeowners are required to park inside their garages:' OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 19, 2006; and presented the 22-day appeal rights for the balance of the items ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 31, 2006. • DISCUSSION TIME: 17 minutes (5:48-6:05) dANUARY 9, 2006 ~ PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - : . 9a. CEQA NEGATIVE bECLARATION ' Perez/Eastman Denied 9b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005-00439 ' Flores Denied 9c.' RECLASSIFICATIONNO.2005-00168 Flores Denied ' 9d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT FloresNelasquez Denied 9e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2005-05046 Flores Denied - 9f. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16932 Flores/Velasquez Denied ` Owner: Property Reserve Inc., Attn: Mark`Gibbons, 5 7riad Center, Suite 650, Salt Lake City, Utah 84180 VOTE ON CEQA: 6-Q Agent: Jackie Rodarte, The Olson Company, 3020 Old Ranch Commissioner velasquez '` Parkway, Suite 400, Seal Beach, CA 90740 abstained Location: 1731 Medical Center Drive: Property is approximately 2.5 voTE or1 GrA, RCL, acres, having a frontage of 462 feef on the north side of wArvER, CUP A1VD TTM: 7-0 , Medical Center Drive and is located 587 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street. ' General Plan Amendment Na 2005-00439 - Request to redesignate ` the property from the Public Institutional land use designation to the Low- Medium Density Residential land use designation. Reclassification No. 2005-00168 - Request to reclassify the property from the GG Commercial (Genera( Commercial) zone to the RM-3 (Residential, Multiple-Family) zone or less intense zone. • Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-05046 - Request to permit a 32-unit, single-family attached residential condominium project with waivers of (a) , permitted encroachments mto required street setback and (b) minimum distance of monument sign from public right-of-way. Tentative Tract MapNo. 16932 - Request to permit a 1-lot, 32-unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision. General Plan Amendment Resolution No. PC2006-1 Reclassification Resolution No. PC2006-2 Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2006-3 ProlecrP~anner.• (dherrick@anaheim. net) Chairman Eastman opened the public hearing. Della Herrick, Associate Planner, introduced Item No. 9. ApplicanYs Statement: Jacqueline Rodarte, 3020 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 400, Seal Beach, CA, represented the Olson Company. She provided the Planning Commission with an even more comprehensive presentation of this project. She stated that the Olson Company is the leading infill housing developer in working with the cities and redevelopment agencies in creating housing solutions. She gave examples of "Village Walk" in Claremont, "C+ty Walk" in Brea, and "The Promenade" in Huntington Beach. This is a 2:5 acre parcel that the Olson Company is in escrow to purchase from the Church of Latter Day Saints. Our neighborhood surroundings to the north are Emerald Court, who is leasing from the Church of LatterDay Saints; to the west is Anaheim • Shores Estates, a mobile home park; to the east a Toyota Dealership antl to the south some medical offices. 01-09-06 : , Page 16 JANUARY 9, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES In the site plan there are 32 homes being proposed; 19 are 2 bedrooms, 2%2 baths, 13 are 3 bedrooms, 3 • baths. Both plans are 1570 square feet. The parking requirement is being met in this development community.` In addition, this site is maintained under an access agreement and the ingress and egress is shared with fhe assisted living facility to the north. There is also a conditional use permif that contained a condition that we maintain the parking adjacent to the egress and ingress area. ' Each home is equipped with :` a 2-car garage and 18 additiona{ guest spaces throughout the community. We exceed the open space ' requirements. There are provisions for parking signage throughout the community and we disclose to our home buyers the parking limitation. We will enter into a licensed agreement with the facility to the north, Emerald Court, so both facilities would have towing rights for unauthorizedvehicles. There is a plan to retain the existing trees, provide additional trees and added some enhanced paving to areas that were noted from conversations. There was a line-of-sight study that showed the compatibility between the assisted Jiving facility and what is being proposed. She elaborated on the provision that would be made for the existing residences during the construction phase.' She stated that the proposal is for craftsman like elevations. In conclusion; she stated that the Olson Company has met with the community on several different occasions - and is committed fo proyiding the very best product they can. Commissioner Buffa asked about the License Agreement that would provide towing rights to both the Home Owners`Association and the Emerald Court residents. .She asked if this would be a recorded agreement and would it be irrevocable. ` Ms. Rodarte wasn't certain if that agreement would be recorded: She did respond that the License ` : Agreement does expire and at that time the agreemenf could be removed. ` Commissioner Buffa asked what prevents the homeowners association from removing it the second year that they are in operation. Ms. Rodarte confirmed that the Olson Company does stay involved with their development projects for a . 10 year period with the homeowners associations. ` Commissioner Buffa asked the applicant what she felt about this proposed project blending in the area and with the mixed use area across the street. : Ms. Rodarte stated that the fronting along Medical Center Drive gives the impression of friendly pedestrian access. Commissioner Velasquez followed up with additional questions regarding the license that Emerald Court would be involved with. How would a guest of the Olson project and a guest of Emerald Court differentiate the parking? In addition she asked what the motivation was for building 2 and 3 bedroom homes with the same square footage. Ms. Rodarte reiterated that the signage proposed would clearly indicate which parking areas they are associated with. She explained that these homes were designed with the intent that it would be for first time buyers. The 2 bedrooms were designed to give them maximum square footage of living space. The 3 bedrooms were designed to provide more bedroom space. Chairman Eastman asked if the Olson Company would be allowed any type of tax credit from making this project an affordable housing project and what is the anticipated price range for this project. Ms. Rodarte stated that there would not be any type of tax benefit attained from this project and the price range is below the Orange County median for homes at this time. The current value is in themid $500's range. Commissioner Buffa asked about the floor plans. What provisions are being made to prevent the 2 bedroom home with a den becoming a third bedroom? • _ ; Ms. Rodarte responded that it did not have a full bathroom or a closet, and that the homeowners association would be responsible to overseeing any changes. 01-09-06 Page 17 JANUARY 9, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Greg McCafferty, Frincipal Planner, stated that if the homeowner made interior changes without pulling permits it would be a code violation that would be difficult to monitor.' . Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney; addressed the License Agreement and sfated that it is an agreement that is not an interest in iand. It is a personal license in the form of a contract. It does not run with the land - and would not bind assigners or transferees or subsequent purchasers. It is terminable at wilL It is not a recordable document. Commissioner Buffa stated that her concern is if the Olson Company stays involved for 10 years, in year 11, when the Olson Company is no longer involved, could the HOA potentially say this is not working to our benefit and the benefit of ourmembers, the licensing agreement could therrbe terminated: ` Mr. Gordon concurred fhat they could do that. Commissioner Romero asked if this is an agreemenf of both parties or can just one interested party terminate it at will.' Mr. Gordon restated tfiat the person giving the license can take it away. Chairman Eastman stated there is a Conditional Use Permit for the Emerald Court facility which requires them to have right-of-way access. Mr. Gordon stated 4ypically under those situations a recorded covenant would be required that would define the parking and access use. It would bind successors. It depends on the nature of the use. It isn't an agreement that could be removed at will and if it was tied to a Conditional Use Permit then it would require to be maintained. • Chairman Eastman asked if this type of an agreement was incorporated into the Emerald Court Conditional use Permit conditions. Mr. Gordon had not reviewed it and could not confirm its status. Commissioner Flores asked if the use stays as is then the parking agreement remains intact. However, if the use changes then could the agreement change? Mr. Gordon stated that the approval runs with the land and until a termination is approved it would not change : or be removed. James Ling, Principal Civil Engineer, stated there is a recorded parcel map for the project and a recorded ingress easement on that parcel map. Public Testimony: Mary Jo Hesketh, 832 N. Redondo Drive; Anaheim, CA, stated her concern is when Emerald Court is filled she would like the adjacent property to be developed in the same way in order to provide facilities for our aging population. The street is a very narrow and there isn't enough parking. Diane Sargent, 2733 W. Savoy Place, Anaheim, CA, representing West Anaheim Neighborhood Development Council (WAND), stated her familiarity with the Olson Company projects. She is concerned with the Olson Company's lack of commitment to their agreements. She concurs with the need for outdoor activity facilities for the senior citizens at this location. Elena Cuevas, 11101 Emerson Way, Stanton, CA, Assistant Sales and Marketing Director of Emerald Couct, ~ stated her concerns with the emotional aspect that is being affected. She provided many signatures in opposition of the rezoning of the Emerald Courf property. By rezoning the land`it would interfere with the 01-09-06 page 18 JANUARY 9, 2006 PLANNiNG COMMISSION MINUTES activities that take p~ace by the senior citizens. The outdoor activities take place on the lawn area that is ` ~ owned bythe Church and maintained by Emerald Court. Juli Sanchez, 201 E. Rosecrest, La Habra, CA, representing Emeratd Court, stated her concern for how the zoning change will affect the health issues of the neighbors at Emerald Court. She feels the Emerald Court residents deserve to have some pea,ce, not to be sandwiched in between the 91 Freeway, the Toyota Dealership and town homes as this would change their comfort and security. : ' James Karsch, 1:731 W. Medical Center Drive, Anaheim, CA, ~xecutive Director of Emerald Court. He _ informed the Planning Commission of the operatior-al information about Emerald Court. He further stated that there are several different types of service vehicles arriving on a daily basis. He mentioned vendor; delivery and emergency vehicles. He pointed out a section on the exhibit that is identified as existing trash enclosure to remain. :This is the location of our permitted diesel powered emergency generator. The emergency : generator is tested weekly for one hour. Other operations of the generator wil{ be done during routine maintenance of the equipment or when there is a power outage. On the south side of the plan which fronts on Medical Center Drive there is a note to relocate the existing backflow prevention'valve: This is the main source of water flow for the'community. Any interruption of our water supply, even with sufficient notice is potentially devastating to our operation. The minute the water goes'off the phones start ringing: Available parking for our customers and associates will be a major problem. We are considered good neighbors now. Once we have cars towed as'a result of this agreement that will jeopardize our standings. There is a major concern in the ability to exit Emerald Courts' driveways without possibility of injury. Kisco SeniorLiving, the owner of Emerald Court retains the services of a company named Stack Fole and Associates to determine resident's satisfaction with Emerald Court. Residents stated, through these surveys, the following: Emerald Court is a very comfortable community complex; beautiful and clean; parking is available; it is'a spacious well maintained appearance; it is like my home now; it is secured; Emerald Court is a most desirable place to reside and spend my senior years. Commissioner Buffa asked how many trucks need to back out of the driveway on a daily or weekly basis? ~ Mr. Karsch stated that the trucks back into the driveway for pick up and delivery purposes. Commissioner Flores asked if the residents were picked up by bus. Mr. Karsch confirmed Commissioner Flores' inquiry. Commissioner Romero asked if there were any laws in place that protect a verbal agreement between land owners when they share portions of their properties. Mr. Gordon stated there are no prescriptive rights that they would acquire because people are aware that fhey are using the property for the intended purpose so they are not adversely gaining any rights or interest in the ' property by using it in a manner that is inconsistent with the interest that the adjoining landowner has. It is either a license agreement or a lease akin to that. Commissioner Karaki clarified the property is zoned commercial. He asked Mr. Karsch what he felt would be a desirable development at this location. Mr. Karsch stated a desirabfe development would be for Kisco Senior Living to build bungalows for Seniors. Then they would have a true continuum for progressive living for their current residents. Commissioner Perez asked if there was ever a point in time when Mr. Karsch or Kisco Senior Living entered into an agreement with the land owners of the neighboring site requesting that this type of development be made. Did Emerald Court engage a dialog for building this type of plan for our senior community? Darleen Yee, 1731 W. Medical Center Drive, Anaheim, CA, Marketing Director of Emerald Court. She ~. informed the Commission of the good will that the Emerald Court facility has established with their community. She highlighted some of#he most significant senior citizen events that are sponsored by Emerald Court on an annual basis. They are designed to coincide with the City of Anaheim's senior programs. Emerald Court is ' 01-09-06 _ Page 19 JANUARY 9, 2006 ' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES recognized by the City of Anaheim at their annual awards ceremony. The four major events are the Mother's • Day high tea, a classic car show, crafts bazaar, and the Anaheim Senior Olympics. The largest event is the November Health Fair and Flu Clinic. In addition it is a Polling place for the City of Anaheim elections. At the very least should this project go through as if i§ proposed it will make Emerald CourYs continued sponsorship and hosting of these dramatically significant functions difficult, at best. She also stated her concern to the proposed curb appeal of the new development and#he cohesiveness that it will have with Emerald Court. Mary G. Rainbolt, 2928 N. Maple Tree Drive, Orange, CA, Assistant Executive Director at Emerald Court, stated the opposition of Mr. Wilfred Hanson as he could not attend the meeting. He has two major objections of this proposaL First is the dust in the air: His wife is suffering ofJung disease and is on oxygen 24 hours per day. The dust that would develop would cause them to have to consider moving along with other residents in the`same health situations. Second is the zone change request. Over the course of the next ten years there will be an increase in demand for Senior Citizen housing. She submitted a petition containing ' apProximately 250 signatures. ' William Wewer, 1731 W. MedicaC Center Drive, Apt 372, Anaheim, CA, a retired educator. He expressed his concern with the increased traffic that will occur as a result of this development. He is also concerned with the change'in the environment and activity level in which he resides. This facility not only allows a certain type of living standard for the residents but also for the visiting Anaheim Community. He request that the ' residents of Emerald Court can maintain a peaceful, restful environment for the duration of their lives. Velda Brunet Wilson, 1731 W. Medical Center Drive, Apt 178, Anaheim, CA, distributed a picture of the facilities to the Commission.` She has resided there for approximately 5 years. She selected Emerald Court to be able to be close to her friends, family, church and familiar surroundings Emerald Court has'provided afl of that plus a friendly home environment in a beautiful setting and location where she feels safe and secure. There are many residents that share her sentiments. She doesn't feel this project is complimentary or compatible with the existing area. She expressed her concerns with the parking that will increase and the allotted parking on the street. She doesn't feel that this parcel is adequately taking care ofthe needs of the • families that will reside here. Another grave concern is with the children living in the condos with.little or no play area outdoors. Children often visit family at Emerald Court but with children there on a permanent basis would not be a safe environment to raise them in. We have emergency vehicles and large trucks frequenting our facility on a daily basis, dropping off or picking up which contributes to the traffic already. Leo Shapiro, 1731 W. Medical Center Drive, Anaheim, CA, stated he is 101 years old, and January 4th is the 10th Anniversary as a resident of Emerald Court. The traific increase is a major concern for him. He has retained his drivers' license and will maintain it for another 2 years. However, with this proposal the traffic will increase significantly. He is opposed to replacing the existing landscape and foliage with town homes and devetopment. Gordon Walker, 1731 W. Medical Center Drive, Apt 348, Anaheim, CA, stated he has been a resident of West Anaheim for 49 years and a resident of Emerald Court for the past 5 years. He stated that the Olson Company is not an easy company to work with. They have been known to tell the public one thing and then present something different to the Planning Commissions. Their philosophy is to build it, sell it and then move on, not worrying about what they leave behind. A second concern is about parking that has been discussed in great length~s. The proposed project should be something that is compatible with Senior Living. If the zoning is kept the same there is room fo~ Senior Bungalows, for couples that no longer want to maintain a large residence and can downsize. There is a great demand for this now. He gave examples of how the properties could be utilized better to fit in with the Emerald Court facility. Mitchell Brown, Executive Vice President of Development, Kisco Senior Living, 5790 Fleet Street, Suite 300, Carlsbad, CA, stated Emerald Court was built in the mid 1980's. At that time the ~entire 7 acres Was master planned by Transamerica Senior Living to include 178 units of congregate living without assistance and a skilled nursing facility. The plan was to phase the property which caused the creation of 3 parcel maps. The 4%z acres under Emerald Cou~t is still under the ground ~ease with the Church of Latter Day Saints. There is • still 30 - 32 years left on the lease. The 2'/2 acre parcel between the existing Emerald Court and Medical , Center Drive was laid out for a nursing home facility. The entire project was planned as a unified campus with , kitchen, service access, entry driveway and parking all intended to be shared with a like use. The City 01-09-06 Page 20 JANUARY 9, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES acknowledged this campus approach by recording reciprocal access easements which was recorded and also ~: at the end of the project required a reciprocal parking agreement. We have been maintaining and utilizing the driveways,'parking and landscaping on this front parcel for 17 years. The development of this front parcel with a non related use will potentially have a significantly adverse impact on' Emerald Court. We'have programs that encourage the independence of individuals for as long as they are ableto. This project sets up incompatibility issues that will adversely affect this area for years to come. We disagree wifh the findings of the negative declaration that there is no substantial evidence that this project will have an adverse impact to the area, because the built environment just as much as the natural environment is included in CEQA. The five major concerns are parking designation and enforcement, maintenance of parking and driveways, operational impacts of Emerald Court on the homeowners and the safety impacts of this project on Emerald Court residents and the: aesthetic impairment'of Emerald Court. The parking and towing would be an endless tai( chase. Dealing with a Homeowner's Association with 32 residents is more cumbersome that dealing with an independent Commercial property owner. The License Agreement isn't something we are comfortable with at all. The safety impacts are significant because at the west side ofthe driveway the emergency medical vehicles arrive and depart. Having cars backing in and out of a fairly heavly traveled street is not a good tlesign from a safety stand poinf. Moving into the Emerald Court facility is a difficult decision for our families and the curb appeal is a vital element of our ability to do business. This project and product with its design and location hinders greatly our ability to create an attractive entry sequence into Emerald Court. We are notbpposed to responsible development ofthis property: 0ur desire is to see a senior related use on this property. We have spoken with the Church to try to come to a business arrangement to re-lease or acquire the frontparceL We found out from theBroker that the land was being sold. Thisprojecf is contingent on entitlements going through. We don't want to violate thaf contract and we don't want to be sued. However if this project does'not move forward, we would entertain entering into a long-term' ground lease for the entire 7 acres so that you can build your bungalows or more compatible use. We would view that project as a non economicproject to protectEmerald Court. Our goal is to protect the long-term viability of Emeratd Court. Esther Wallace, 604 Scott l:ane, Anaheim, CA, President of West Anaheim Neighborhood Development •' Council (WAND), stated they spoke with the Olson Company and were told that there aren't any variances on this parceL Which we found out there were. They said they had a written parking agreement with Emerald Court, which Emerald Court was not aware of. They also said there was plenty of parking in back of Emerald Court but when we checked out the Conditional Use Permit, when the addition was made to this property in 1993 we found out there was a deficiency of approximately 100 parking spaces. So that is why they need the space along the sides of this piece of property for the additional parking. That agreement probably needs to stay with that property because the property is going to stay there: Senior citizens in our area have said they ` want condominiums to move into when they finally sell the homes they raised their children in. There are _ none for "Seniors Only" in West Anaheim. They want to own their own place without a landlord. Over 250 ' apartments for low income seniors have been built in thepast 3 years in West Anaheim. 7hese properties do not pay any real estate taxes because it is low cost housing. There have been no nursing homes or convalescent hospitals built to handle the growing need for seniors in Anaheim. According to the Anaheim Senior Commission there is a need for quality nursing homes. People in West Anaheim want to remain in the area they are familiar with and stay close to family and friends. The down side to this project is that a developer can always out bid other uses because of the high prices of what homes are sold. These proposed prices for these homes are not for first-time home buyers. Applicant's RebuttaL• Ms. Rodarte confirmed that the Olson Company is in escrow to purchase this property from the Church of Latter Day Saints and not to enter into some sort of ground lease agreement. We will be providing a secondary access along Medical Center Drive during the construction of our project. This is to ensure no disruptions will occur during the construction. The noise from the various trucks and emergency vehicles on, a daily basis will be disclosed to home buyers. We will have them sign a disclosure where they are fully aware of the type of surroundings and noise they will be adhering to. There will be erosion control measures with the frequent use of water trucks. Our Homeowners Association will enforcethe proper use of the garages. The parking that we are providing to our Community to meet code is within our own community boundaries. • We could revisit the access agreement to incorporate the parking and easements together. To address concerns regarding the den conversion, #he Olson Company provides a deed restriction to the home buyer to , avoid the possibility of a den being converted to a bedroom. She further pointed`out that the recreational 01-09-06 , Page 21 JANUARY 9, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES amenity consists of a trellis, benches and trees. We could reconsider incorporating a tot lot instead. With ~ regards to the parking concerns for visitors who park in unauthorized locations, the solution is a monitoring element for both parties to be responsible to enforce the parking. Commissioner Romero asked how the monitoring of parking would be the responsibility of both parties. In ' addition,' he asked how they would enforce people'from parking on the street. Ms. Rodarte clarified that it would be enforced by both the Home Owners Association and Emerald Court. We could revisit the idea of installing a plaquered system. She also stated that the parking arrangements are set to meet the City code, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Buffa acknowledged the City's need for affordable housing. She stated that $540,000 is not affordable by anyone's definition, however it is less expensive than the median housing price. She stated that she is hard pressed to ever deny,a housingproject. However in this case there is. significant amount of evidence on the record that presented in testimony today by #he resitlents and property owner, letter received today, her own visit to the property and meeting with the applicant, it is evident that this pro}ect is not an appropriate use for this site. The setback along Medical Center Drive is very concerning. Orientating front doors along this street when there isn't anything across the street isn't really helping create a mixed use ' district there. There are concerns about the proximity. of residences,`only outdoor living space on their front patio and front entry being close'to a relatively busy street. The truck traffic in a residential area and the noise ' : of a generator being tested once a week, for an hour, is very noisy and it won't be bufferetl enough for the residents. The single biggest concern is that it is all a 3-story building massing with no relief at the ends of the building even with an effort to soften the very box-like nature of these structures. If it was stackedflats or a combination of condos and stacked flats so that it could aggregate a taller building mass even more than 3- story on the westem sitle of the property and the back of the building being adjacent to the more heavily • ' utilized truck road and step down as you get towards the eastern entry: She doesn't see this as a compatible use for the area. Chairman Eastman concurred with Commissioner Buffa sentiments and findings. Additionally, the recommendation to change the Generaf Plan designation isn't supporting the best proposed use of the land. " Commissioner Romero stated for the record that he met with the developers of this project and the Emerald Court residents. He also concurred with Commissioner Buffa. Commissioner Velasquez stated her opposition for this project. Commissioner Perez complimented the Emerald Court residents for their efforts today. He also stated his opposition for this project. Commissioner Flores also concurred with Commissioner Buffa. She encouraged the developer to consider building something suited for senior living. Commissioner Karaki stated that he was originally supportive of the project. However the testimony received at today's hearing pointed out the need for senior housing. Therefore he reconsidered his original decision and will deny the proposed project. Ms. Rodarte requested a continuance in order to revisit the concems expressed at today's hearing. JANUARY 9; 2006 ` PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ OPPOSITION: 13 people spoke in opposition, and a letter was received in opposition to subject request: A petition was submitted with 229 signatures in opposition. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 19, 2006; and presented the 22-day appeal rights for'the balance of the items ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 31,2006. DISCUSSION TIME: 2 hours and 10 minutes (2:45-4:55) A 1 D-minute break was taken (4:5~5:05) • ~ _ ' JANUARY 9, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10b. VARIANCE NO. 2005-04655 10c. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0. 2005-157 Owner; Gary Ca{kins Trust, 6263 East Treil Drive, Anaheim, CA _ 92807 , Agent: Steve Ellis, 4742 Yorba Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 Location: ' 8263 East Trail Drive: Property is approximately 3.2 acres having a fror-tage of 47 feet at the terminus of Trail Drive and is located 145 feet west of the centerline of Whitestone Drive. Variance No. 2005-04655 - Request waivers of (a) maximum structural Continued to January 23, 2006 Motion: Romero/Eastman VOTEs 7-0 height, (b) maximum retaining wall height and (c) lot frontage on a public or, private street to construct a single-family residence. Tentative Parcet Map No. 2005-157 - To establish a 2-lot, 2-unit detached single-family residential subdivision. Projecf Planner.~ VariBnCe ResOlution N0. (avazquez@anaheim.net) ~ OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:20 P.M. TO MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 2006 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~ G~~~ ~ ~ Danielle Masciel Word Processing Operator Received and approved by the Planning Commission on t~G ~o , 2006.