PC 2006/04/03 (2)Anaheim Planning
Commission Agenda
Monday, April 3, 2006
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard. Anaheim. California
Chairman: Gail Eastman
Chairman Pro - Tempore: Cecilia Flores
Commissioners: Kelly Buffa, Joseph Karaki, Ed Perez,
Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez
. Call To Order
Preliminary Plan Review 12:00 P.M.
• Workshop on Multiple - Family Development Parking
• Staff update to Commission on various City developments and issues
(As requested by Planning Commission)
• Preliminary Plan Review for items on the April 3, 2006 agenda
Recess To Afternoon Public Hearing Session
• Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M.
For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any
item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to
the secretary.
Pledge Of Allegiance
Public Comments
Consent Calendar
Public Hearing Items
. Adjournment
You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following
e -mail address: plan ningcommission(Wanaheim.net
H: \docs \clerical \agendas \040306.doc 04/03/06
Page 1
Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M.
Public Comments:
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 will 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.
Reports and Recommendations
1A.(a) CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY -
APPROVED
(b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005 -04975
(TRACKING NO. CUP2006- 05074)
Agent: Reky Hiramoto, Beazer Homes, 1800 East Imperial
Highway, Suite 200, Brea, CA 92821
Location: 1818 South State College Boulevard: Property is
approximately 3.4 acres located south and east of the
southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Katella
Avenue with frontages of 327 feet on the east side of State
College Boulevard and 105 feet on the south side of Katella
Avenue (Platinum Centre Condominiums).
Request to determine substantial conformance for modifications to
previously- approved exhibits for an attached 265 -unit condominium
project within the Platinum Triangle.
Continued from the March 6, and 20, 2006, Planning Commission meetings.
1B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission
Meeting of March 20, 2006. (Motion)
Project Planner.
(a vazquez@ anaheim. net)
H: \docs \clerical \agendas \040306.doc 04/03/06
Page 2
2a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY -
APPROVED)
2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003 -04800
(TRACKING NO. CUP2006- 05073)
Agent: Hossein Zandi, Caliber Motors, 5395 East La Palma
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807
Location: 200 North Via Cortez: Property is approximately 5.7 acres
located at the northeast terminus of Via Cortez and south of
the SR -91 (Riverside Freeway), with a frontage of 161 feet
on the northeast terminus of Via Cortez, located 837 feet
north of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road. (Caliber
Motor - Mercedes Benz).
Request to determine substantial conformance of revised
elevation and sign plans for a previously- approved automotive
dealership
This item was set for public hearing from the March 6, 2006, Planning
Commission meeting. Project Planner:
(a vazquez @anaheim.net)
3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -05066
lc� 1= 10Y VAN 1VA=61:LCe3rod_1A210101111V
Owner: Brian Dror, 5967 West 3re Street, Suite 102, Los Angeles,
CA 90036
Agent: Rey Berona, Condo Conversions.com, 7439 La Palma
Avenue, Unit 309, Buena Park, CA 90620
Location: 729 South Knott Avenue: Property is approximately 1.47
acres, having a frontage of 150 on the west side of Knott
Avenue and is located 193 feet north of the centerline of
Rome Avenue.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006 -05066 — Request to convert a 54 -unit
apartment complex into a 54 -unit residential condominium complex.
Tentative Tract Map No. 17016 —To establish a 1 -lot, 54 -unit airspace
attached residential condominium subdivision.
Continued from the March 20, 2006, Planning Commission meeting Project Planner.
Up ra mire z@ a n a h eim. n et)
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
H: \docs \clerical\agendas \040306.doc 04/03/06
Page 3
4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION —CLASS 1
4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006.05070
Owner: Samuel Magid, Ball Euclid Plaza, LLC, P.O. Box 5272,
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Agent: John Dodson 1330 Olympic Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA
90404
Location: 1717 -1723 West Ball Road: Property is approximately 7.3
acres and is located at the northwest corner of Ball Road
and Euclid Street.
Request to permit the division of a retail unit into three units and establish
land use conformity for an existing commercial retail center. Project Planner:
(a vazquez @anaheim. net)
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
Sa. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION —CLASS 11
Request for
5b. VARIANCE NO. 2006 -04681
continuance to
May 1, 2006
Owner: Karl A. Bergstrom, 1662 La Loma Drive, Santa Ana, CA
92705
Agent: Steve Sheldon, 901 Dove Street, Suite 140, Newport
Beach, CA 92660
Location: 200 West Alro Way: Property is approximately 1.5 acres,
having a frontage of 100 feet on the south side of Alro Way,
and is located 115 feet east of the centerline of Manchester
Avenue (Bergstroms).
Request waivers of (a) prohibited freestanding signs and (b) maximum
wall sign letter height to retain one non - conforming business identification
pole sign with electronic message board and one non - conforming
business identification wall sign.
Project Planner.
(dherrick@ anaheim. net)
Variance Resolution No.
H: \docs \clerical \agendas \040306.doc 04/03/06
Page 4
6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -05071
Owner: Gary Hui -Li Dou, Dou Family Trust, 15538 East Gale
Avenue, Hacienda Heights, CA 91745
Agent: Robert Lombardi, P.O. Box 270571, San Diego, CA 92198
Location: 500 North Brookhurst Street: Property is approximately
1.22 acre and is located at the northeast corner of
Brookhurst Street and Alameda Avenue.
Request to permit a new commercial retail center with a drive - through
freestanding restaurant with waivers of (a) minimum number of parking
spaces and (b) permitted number of tenants on a monument sign.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No.
Request for
Continuance to
April 17, 2006
Project Planner.
Qnixon @anaheim.net)
Adjourn To Monday, April 17, 2006 at 1:00 P.M. for Preliminary
Plan Review.
H: \docs \clerical\agendas \040306.doc 04/03/06
Page 5
CERTIFICATION OF POSTIPIG
I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at:
4:00 a.m. March 30. 2006
(TIME) (DATE)
LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND
COUnNC}I~L/~D/ISPLAY KIOSK
SIGNED: if'/I//I,CP~~ I '/ /' I~~4PA.E'~
-~,
If you challenge any one of these City of Anaheim decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in a written
correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission or City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
RIGHTS OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL FROM PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
Any action taken by the Planning Commission this date regarding Reclassifications, Conditional Use
Permits and Variances will be final 22 days after Planning Commission action and .any action regarding
Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps will be final 10 days after Planning Commission action unless a timely
appeal is filed during that time. This appeal shall be made in written form to the City Clerk, accompanied
by an appeal fee in an .amount determined by the City Clerk.
The City Clerk, upon filing of said appeal in the Clerk's Office, shall set said petition for public hearing
before the City Council at the earliest possible date. You will be notified by the City Clerk of said hearing.
ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
In compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the Planning Department, (714) 765-5139. Notification no later than 10:00 a.m.
on the Friday before the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure
accessibility to this meeting..
Recorded decision information is available 24 hours a day by calling the Planring Department's
Automated Tele hone S stem at 714-T65-5139.
H:\dots\clerical\agendas\040306.doc 04/03/06
Page 6
SCHEDULE
2006
April 17
May 1
May 15
May 31 (Wed)
June 12
June 26
July 10
July 24
August 7
August 21
11 September 6 (Wed) 11
11 September 18 11
October 2
October 16
October 30
November 13
November 27
December 11
II December 27 (Wed) II
H: \docs \clerical \agendas \040306.doc 04/03/06
Page 7
Item No. 1A
' 4G (Res. of to SE)
RCL 90 -0- 97 -17
RCL 66- 4
60-61-113
RCL 56 -57 -93 O-L (PTMU)
I(PTMU) Q 04 -9 O -L (PTMU)
CUP 3957 RCL20 0012
TTM 16618 TOWN PLACE CUP 3406 RCL 99 -00.15
0-15 > BALLY FITNES es. of Int. to SE
RCL 99 -00-15 LU SUITES CUP 690 )
Res. of Int. to SE) J VAR 2765 RCL 90.91 -17
to SE) ( RCL 66 -67 -14 � --------- - - - - -- RCL 5 6 - -74
-19 ��� RCL 56-57-93
5-42 RCL 55 -56 -19 Q —�� ���� CUP 4747
RCL 54 -55-42 00 CUP 3957
T -CUP 2004 -04939 CUP 3406
CUP 2004 -04906 CUP 3386 LU BANK \
CUP 2862 VAR 4129 (D O- L(PTMU) PARKING RcO -L ((OP)
CUP 1427 LU
DAG 2005 -00010 J \ CUP
DAG 2004 -00002 J O- L(PTMU)
RCL 90 -97 -17 \ \ OFFICE
X15 STADIUM LOFTS RCL 66-67-14
o SE) MIXED USE U RCL 56 -57 -93 _L (PTMU)
\( \\
-14 RESIDENTIAL T -CUP 2000 -04260 O -L (PTMU)
' CONDOMINIUM LU CUP 4141 FOOD t \
-7 CUP 3957 REST. COURT \ \
� Q CUP 3406 \
CUP 690
U) TPM NO. 97 -155 (CUP 3356 T)
REST.
KATELLA AVENUE
105'
(PTMU)
R&o6 -15 (PTMU)
I(PTMU) Int to SE) I T RCL 99 - 00 -
RCL 99 -00 -15 667 -14 CUP cuPV4 (Res. of lnt. to SE)
2es. of Int. to SE) 6 57 -93 MCOONALBS CuP2598 RCL66 -67 -14
3836 VAR 24080RNE THRU cuP 2425 Z
RCL66 -67 -14 1370 vAR1822 REST CUP 1814 RCL 59 -60 -61 r RCL 56 -57 -93 S_ VAR 2U8 Res of Intent to MIA) o- 4
CUP 1652 RCL 56 -57 -93 — >
CUP 447 5 I (PTMU) CUP 2226 VAR 2466
VAR 2618 RCL 99 -00 -15 CUP 447 S CUP 1745
MOTEL (Res. of Int. CUP 1319 VACANT
to SE CUP 447 S 0� (PTMU) CUP 2005 -04967
MOTEL TTM 16825 DAG 2005 -00004
- - RCL 99-00.15 ESP 2005 -00004 KAYOOP
I(PTMU) (Res_ of Int to SE) GPA 2005 -00435 OFFICE BLD
I(PTMU) RCL 99 -00 -15 RGL 868722 MIS 2005 -00113
RCL 99 -00.15 (Res. of Int. to SE) m RCL 5 � -93 ZC A 2005 -00044
(Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 66-67 -14 (PTMU)
RCL 56 -57 -93 RCL 56 -57-93 T C P 2 01 RCL 99 -00.15
CUP 447 S CUP 7377 CUP200584975 (Res. of Int. to SE)
- - - -- IND_ -- - - - - -- CUP 447S CUP 2883 RCL 59 -60-61
— VAR 2561 CUP 1111
.----- - - - - RETAIL TILE FSP 2005 -00805 (Res of Intent to MIA) - - -- ---- - - - - -- DAG 2005 -00005 RCL 56 -57 -93
1 (PTMU) VACANT VAR 2466
1(PTMU) RCL 99 -00.15
RCL 99 -00 -15 (Res. of Int. to SE)
(Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 66 -67 -14
RCL 56 -57 -93 RCL 56 -57 -93
CUP 447 S CUP 2 00 3 -04721
IND. FIRM CUP 447 S
SMALL IND.
FIRMS ANGEL STADIUM
OF ANAHEIM
PR (PTMU) „
RCL 9 -00-15
1(PTMU) (Res. of Int. to SE)
RCL 99 -00-15 RCL 56 -57 -9
(Res. of Int. to SE) CUP 2400 N
on cc 91 oa CUP 750
ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -04975 Subject Property
TRACKING NO. CUP2006 -05074 Date April 3, 2006
Scale 1"=200'
Requested By REKY HIRAMOTO Q.S. No. 118
1818 South State College Boulevard 10009
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 1 -A
1 -A. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY- APPROVED)
b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005 - 04975— DETERMINATION OF
for continuance)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly- shaped, 3.4 acre property is located south and east of the southeast corner
of State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue with frontages of 327 feet on the east side
of State College Boulevard and 105 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue (1818 South
State College Boulevard - Platinum Centre Condominiums).
REQUEST:
(2) The petitioner requests a determination of substantial conformance for modifications to
previously- approved exhibits for an attached 265 -unit condominium project within the
Platinum Triangle under authority of Code Section No. 18.60.190.020.
BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is currently vacant and is zoned I (PTMU) and O -L (PTMU) (Industrial;
Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay and Low Intensity Office; Platinum Triangle Mixed
Use Overlay). The Anaheim General Plan designates this property as well as properties to
the north (across Katella Avenue), east, south and west (across State College Boulevard)
for Mixed Use land uses. The PTMLUP further indicates the property is located in the
Katella District of the PTMU Overlay.
(4) This item was continued from the March 6 and March 20, 2006, Planning Commission
meetings in order for the applicant to submit revised plans based on the
Commission's concerns with the proposed elevations. The applicant, Karen Sully,
has submitted the attached e-mail, dated March 29, 2006, requesting a further
continuance to the April 17, 2006, Commission meeting in order to further refine and
work on the architectural details of the building elevations.
RECOMMENDATION:
(5) That the Commission, by motion, continue this item to the April 17, 2006, Planning
Commission meeting.
SR -CU P2006- 05074(cont.4- 3- 06)akv
Page 1
April 3, 2006
Reky Hiramoto, Beazer Homes
1800 East Imperial Highway, Suite 200
Brea, CA 92821
Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of
April 3, 2006.
1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
1A. (a) CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY - APPROVED)
(b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005 -04975
(TRACKING NO. CUP2006- 05074)
Agent: Reky Hiramoto, Beazer Homes, 1800 East Imperial Highway, Suite 200,
Brea, CA 92821
Location: 1818 South State College Boulevard: Property is approximately 3.4
acres located south and east of the southeast corner of State College Boulevard
and Katella Avenue with frontages of 327 feet on the east side of State College
Boulevard and 105 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue (Platinum Centre
Condominiums).
Request to determine substantial conformance for modifications to previously- approved
exhibits for an attached 265 -unit condominium project within the Platinum Triangle.
ACTION: Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and
MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to
determine substantial conformance for modifications to previously- approved exhibits for an
attached 265 -unit condominium project within the Platinum Triangle and does hereby
determine that the previously- approved Mitigated Negative Declaration serves as adequate
environmental documentation for this request for determination of substantial conformance.
Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and MOTION
CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the request for substantial
conformance, and does hereby determine that the revised plans are in substantial
conformance since the revised exhibits substantially conform to the approved exhibits and
the findings of the original approval, and because the modifications would enhance the
design and livability of the project.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary
Anaheim Planning Commission
Cr em.doc
Page 1 of 1
Attachment - Item No. 1-A
Amy Vazquez
From: Karen Sully [Karen~sheldongrp.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 29, 2006 2:52 PM
To: Amy Vazquez
Cc: Steve Sheldon; Gregg Gipe; bplatzerC~earthlink:com; Veronica Torres; Jay Wu
Subject: Request for Continuance -Platinum Centre Condos CUP No. 2005-04975
Hi Amy,
This a-mail serves as a formal request for a continuance of the Substantial Conformance determination for the Platinum
Centre Condos (CUP No. 2205-04975 and CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration (previously approved)) that is set to go
before the Planning Commission on Monday, April 3, 2006. We respectfully request atwo-week continuance from that
date to be heard at the April 17, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. The continuance is being requested so that we can
further refine and work on the architectural details of the building elevations.
Thank you in advance for you consideration in this regard.
Sincerely,
Karen S. Sully
Project Manager, Land Use
Sheldon Group
901 Dove Street, Svite 140
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(949) 777-9400 Phone
(949) 355-2011 Mobile
(949) 777-9410 Fax
karen®sheldonorp.com E-mail
www.sheldongrp.com Website
3/29/2006
Item No. 2
T
RCL 67 -68 -55
VACANT g1 g G S�gry�y
G' 1S' 6S' yo ry1
G G� Q Q , VD (�goo yP �P.a
d 6
P
�JP
G', Q6.g 6g
g �GJQ vQOO o�GSV�
GJQtivG ob , � !��
GGJ i ,/
i
,p i
O ,�O J .\O
G oo�p9,o5Q� 3�SGlCCC���� i i• \ RS-3(SC) 1
G vOg �gpOdS.L'1 P �O R 54 I I
G Q ry vO G Cr 1 i� ��% T -VAR 2002 -04525 1
,\GGP �lioC11P VAR2001 -04443 n I
J
T -SPT 2002 -00005 I
1 U E H GP' SPT 2001 -00001
f SPT 98-01
/ 1 DU EACH
161
f O 1 I I
837'Na,7h ofg 1 DU CH \ m )
a ir m
oM
EL RAS
C-G (SC) CUP 2395
RCL 71-72 -05
RCL CUP 3219 m \
2005 55 CUP 2348 =
n \
T -CUP 2005 -05014
2004-04876
0 94 CUP 2261 CUP 2372
CUP \ \
CUP CUP 1757 RS -3 \ \ 1
N PLAZA T -CUP 2003 -04809 CUP 1735 1 DU EACH
G CENTER CUP 2003 -04750 CUP 1727 ) _`
CUP 2001 -04428 CUP 1608 D
CUP 2001 -04406 VAR2 00 5 -0467 0 (-) \\ _ �
CUP 2000 -04241 T -VAR 2005 -04657 O ^` `PE
T C CUP �00 VA R 4209 10 , / 'CREE
CUP 4021
CUP 3747 VAR 2802 N CUP 3629 VAR 2310
S /\
CUP 3221 (CUP 1616) 1 ORU gPGN
_ N
ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY ZONE.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -04800 Subject Property
TRACKING NO. CUP2006 -05073 Date: April 3, 2006
Scale: 1"=200'
Requested By: HOSSEIN ZANDI Q.S. No. 185
No Address 10011
Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -04800
11 CL[41:1I0 [el. [•�zrIrI:lSrb7rrRl
Requested By: HOSSEIN ZANDI
No Address
ED Subject Property
Date: April 3, 2006
Scale: 1"=200'
Q.S. No. 185
10011
ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY ZONE. Date of Aerial Photo:
July 2005
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 2
2a.
2b.
(Motion)
(Motion)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly- shaped, 5.7 -acre property is located at the northeast terminus of Via Cortez
and south of the SR -91 (Riverside Freeway), with a frontage of 161 feet on the northeast
terminus of Via Cortez, a maximum depth of 1,370 feet and is located 837 feet north of the
centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road (200 North Via Cortez — Caliber Motors).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests a determination of substantial conformance of revised elevation and
sign plans for a previously- approved automotive dealership under authority of Code Section
No. 18.60.190.020.
BACKGROUND:
(3) This item was originally before the Commission on March 6, 2006, as a Reports and
Recommendations item and was set for a public hearing. Notices were distributed to
neighboring properties within 300 feet of the property.
(4) This property is currently under construction and is zoned C -G (SC). The Anaheim General
Plan designates this property for General Commercial land uses.
(5) General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -00415 (to amend the Land Use Element of the
Anaheim General Plan redesignating the property from the Hillside Low - Medium Density
Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation) and
Reclassification No. 2003 -00113 (to reclassify this property from the RS -5000 (SC)
(Residential, Single - Family; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone to the CL (SC) (Commercial
Limited; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone was approved by the City Council on February 10,
2004.
(6) Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -04800 (to permit and construct an automotive sales
dealership with accessory roof - mounted equipment with a structural height greater than 35
feet (32 foot building plus 10 foot equipment enclosure) with waivers of a) maximum
number of wall signs, b) maximum structural height adjacent to a single - family residential
zone, c) minimum structural setback adjacent to a freeway and d) required landscape
setback adjacent to an interior site boundary line abutting a residential zone) was
approved, in part by the City Council on February 10, 2004. The proposed structural height
(totaling 42 feet consisting of a 32 -foot high building plus a 10 -high equipment enclosure)
was approved in part, to permit a maximum overall height of 32 feet.
(7) Resolution No. CC2004 -26, adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-
04800, contains the following conditions of approval:
"8. That the petitioner shall submit a Final Sign Plan to the Zoning Division for review and
approval. Said plan shall show no signage on the vehicle preparation building. Any decision made by the
Zoning Division regarding the Final Sign Plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission or City
Council. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 2
42. That 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 Nos 1 through 10 and as
conditioned herein including that the maximum structural height shall be thirty two (32)
feet"
DISCUSSION:
(8) The applicant is requesting a determination of substantial conformance with previously -
approved elevation and sign exhibits for revised elevation and sign plans for a new
Mercedes Benz automotive dealership.
(9) The original elevation plans for the vehicle sales building (Final Plan No. 3) indicate that the
entire building would be enhanced with slate stone columns and vertical sheets of blue
glass. The south elevation (facing single - family homes) would be completely covered with
slate stone with the exception of 8 -foot high windows that would be inset 2 feet from the
exterior of the building to provide building depth and to mitigate potential light impacts on
the neighborhood to the south. The entrances located on the east and west elevations
would be offset 9 feet and covered in slate to create more building interest. The plans
show a contemporary architectural design consistent with the Mercedes Benz image, while
integrating decorative stone to create a warmer building that would be more compatible
with the community, as previously suggested by the Commission (detailed minutes
attached). Staff feels that the originally approved elevations achieved the Commissions
request for a quality building that incorporates rich materials and articulation that blends
with the surrounding commercial and residential neighborhood.
(10) The revised elevations (Revision No. 1, Final Plan No. 3) indicate the addition of blue
painted metal columns on the north, east and west elevations that would support an
extended roof canopy. The applicant has indicated that this modification is being
requested because these columns are an essential component to the Mercedes Benz
image. The staff report submitted to the Commission at the March 6, 2005, meeting
indicated that the stone columns would be eliminated. The applicant submitted
revised renderings in order to clarify that the columns would not be eliminated, but
the blue metal posts would be located in front of the columns. The plans continue to
propose a reduction in the stone around the entrances on the east and west
elevations, a contemporary blue band has been added to the entry features and the
window mullions have been eliminated.
(11) When this request was originally before the Commission in 2004, specific design
criteria was suggested to ensure that the vehicle sales building would be compatible
with the surrounding land uses and the rural character of the surrounding
neighborhood. Staff appreciates the desire for Mercedes Benz to portray a distinct
image, but believes the proposed modifications to the elevations deviate from the
original approval and the direction provided to staff from the community and
Commission for a warm building that would blend with the surrounding community.
Although the changes to the building are minor, the addition of the blue metal poles,
elimination of the window mullions and the reduction of stone at the entrances of the
showroom creates a more contemporary building design and decreases the warmth
of the building. Therefore, given the prior direction of the original conditional use
permit approval, staff is recommending the Commission determine that the revised
elevations do not substantially conform to the previously- approved exhibits.
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 2
(12) The elevation plans indicate the following square footages for the wall signs:
Elevation
Square footage
(approved)
Square footage
revised
North
63
180
South
N/A
N/A
East
54
46
West
54
180
(13) The approval of this application included a waiver of the maximum number of wall signs.
This waiver was justified by the Commission and Council due to the fact that the signs were
smaller that what the Code allows (code permits wall signs not to exceed ten (10) percent
of the building elevation or 200 square feet, whichever is less). This justification still applies
since Code allows wall signs to be constructed up to 200 square feet and the proposed
signs do not exceed the ten (10) percent maximum area. Therefore, staff is supportive of
the proposed increase in size of the wall signs.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(14) Staff has reviewed the request for a review of revised elevation and sign plans and the
previously- approved Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds there are no changes to the
originally- approved conditional use permit and that the request will not result in any
significant adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, staff recommends that the
previously- approved Mitigated Negative Declaration serve as the required environmental
documentation for this request-
FINDINGS
(15) Minor amendments require Planning Commission to determine whether the amendment is
in substantial conformance with the use and /or the plans that were originally approved.
Such review authority may approve in whole or in part, conditionally approve or deny the
amendment. Minor amendments do not require a public hearing unless the review authority
determines, in its discretion, that a public hearing is appropriate.
0201 The original approval of the permit occurred less than ten (10) years prior to the
request for amendment;
0202 The underlying zoning and the General Plan land use designation for the area in
which the amendment is proposed have not changed significantly since the permit
was originally approved;
0203 No new waivers of code requirements are needed;
0204 The conditions of approval are not proposed to be amended;
0205 No substantive changes to the approved site plan are proposed;
0206 The nature of the approved use is not significantly changed;
0207 The approved use is not intensified; and
0208 No new or substantially greater environmental impacts would result.
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 2
(16) Before the Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact
that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
(a) That the use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by
the Zoning Code, or is an unlisted use as defined in Subsection .030 (Unlisted
Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority);
(b) That the use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and
development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
(c) That the size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular
area or to the health and safety;
(d) That the traffic generated by the use will not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area;
and
(e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if
any, will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of
Anaheim-
RECOMMENDATION
(17) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the
meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the
evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, determine that the previously- approved Mitigated Negative Declaration is
adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the subject
request.
(b) By motion, approve in part, the request for Determination of Substantial
Conformance by taking the following actions:
Deny the request to revise the elevation plans (Final Elevation Plan No
3), for a previously- approved automotive sales dealership because the
proposed revisions do not conform to the Commission's original
approval. The design change incorporating metal blue posts,
elimination of the window mullions and the reduced entry features
contribute to a more contemporary building design which would be
contradictory to the original approval.
(ii) Approve the request to revise the sign plans (Final Elevation Plan No. 3), for
a previously- approved automotive sales dealership by approving the
increase in size since the revised signs would still be smaller than the Code
would allow and would be proportional to the building elevations.
Page 4
City of Anaheim
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
April 3, 2006
Hossein Zandi
Caliber Motors
5395 East La Palma Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92807
Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of
April 3, 2006.
2a.
2b
Agent: Hossein Zandi, Caliber Motors, 5395 East La Palma Avenue.,
Anaheim, CA 92807
Location: 200 North Via Cortez: Property is approximately 5.7 acres located at the
northeast terminus of Via Cortez and south of the SR-91 (Riverside
Freeway), with a frontage of 161 feet on the northeast terminus of Via
Cortez, located 837 feet north of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road
(Caliber Motor-Mercedes Benz).
vuvw,anaheimnel
Request to determine substantial conformance of revised elevation and sign plans for a
previously-approved automotive dealership.
ACTION: Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and MOTION
CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the request to determine
substantial conformance of revised elevation and sign plans for apreviously-approved
automotive dealership and does hereby determine that the previously-approved Mitigated
Negative Declaration serves as adequate environmental documentation for this request.
Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and MOTION
CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby take the following actions:
(i) Denv the request for Determination of Substantial Conformance to revise the elevation
plans (Final Elevation Plan No. 3), for apreviously-approved automotive sales dealership
because the proposed revisions do not conform to the Commission's original approval
since the implementation of the metal blue posts, elimination of the window mullions and
the reduced entry features contribute to a more contemporary building design which
would be contradictory to the original approval.
(ii) Approve the request to revise the sign plans (Final Elevation Plan No. 3), for a
previously-approved automotive sales dealership by approving the increase in size since
the revised signs would still be smaller than the Code would allow.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary
Anaheim Planning Commission
Excerpt-CU P2006-05073
29B South Anaheim Boulevartl
P.0. Box 3222
Anaheim, California 92803
TEL (714) 765-5139
Attachment - No. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -26
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
2003- 4800. IN PART.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive an
application for a conditional use permit with a waiver of certain provisions of the Anaheim
Municipal Code to construct an automotive sales dealership with accessory roof - mounted
equipment with a structural height greater than 35 feet (proposed 32 -foot building plus 10 -foot
equipment enclosure totaling 42 feet) upon certain real property located within the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, legally described as:
PARCEL 2 IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, AS PER MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 225, PAGES 20 THRU 22, OF PARCEL
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
SAID COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing upon said
application at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim, notices of which public hearing were duly
given as required by law and the provisions of Title 18, Chapter 18.03 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and studies
made by itself and in its behalf and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing, did adopt its Resolution No. PC203 -173 granting, in part, Conditional Use Permit
No. 2003 -4800; and
WHEREAS, thereafter, within the time prescribed by law, an interested party or
the City Council, on its own motion, caused the review of said Planning Commission action at a
duly noticed public hearing; and
WHEREAS, at the time and place fixed for said public hearing, the City Council
did duly hold and conduct such hearing and did give all persons interested therein an opportunity
to be heard and did receive evidence and reports; and
WHEREAS. the City Council finds, after careful consideration of the
recommendations of the City Planning Commission and all evidence and reports offered at said
hearing, that:
1. The proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized
by the Anaheim Municipal Code.
2. That the proposed use will not, under the conditions imposed, adversely affect the
adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be
located because the site design and location of the proposed building and the design and
operational measures incorporated into the project are such that the adjacent and nearby
properties will not be negatively affected.
3. That the size and shape of the site for the proposed use is adequate to allow full
development of the proposal in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace,
health, safety and general welfare; and that, with the exception of the approved waivers which
are necessary due to site constraints, the proposal complies with the provisions and standards set
forth in the Zoning Code.
4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden on
the streets and highways designed and improved to carry traffic in the area because the proposed
business operation will generate an average 200 daily trips which is less than the traffic that
would be generated by the previously- approved residential development for 22 single - family
homes, which has not been constructed.
5. That granting this conditional use permit, under the conditions imposed, will not
be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of
Anaheim based on the compatibility of the site design and business operation with the adjoining
residential and commercial land uses.
AND WHEREAS, the City Council does further find, after careful consideration
of the action of the City Planning Commission and all evidence and reports offered at said public
hearing before the City Council regarding said requested waiver(s), that all of the conditions set
forth in Section 18.03.040 of the Anaheim Municipal Code are present and that said waiver(s)
should be granted, for the following reasons:
1. That waiver (a), maximum number of wall signs, is hereby approved because the
property has no visibility from surrounding pubic streets and, therefore, will rely on identification
towards the freeway; that the proposed wall signs face the freeway and will have no impact on
adjacent and surrounding residential properties; and that the proposed wall signs are smaller than
would otherwise be allowed by right and similar waivers have been granted for other commercial
businesses in the vicinity.
2. That waiver (b), maximum structural height adjacent to a single - family residential
zone, is hereby approved because there are special circumstances applicable to this property
consisting of its long, linear and narrow shape; and that the existing 15 -foot wide sewer
easement across the property will provide an additional buffer since the easement restricts
development of the underlying area and, therefore, provides further protection to the residential
neighborhood to the south.
- 2 -
3. That waiver (c), minimum structural setback adjacent to a freeway, is hereby
approved because there are special circumstances consisting of property's long, linear and narrow
shape, which restricts development of the property, and the existing flood control channels and
50 -foot wide pipeline easement, which further restrict development.
4. That waiver (d), required landscape setback adjacent to an interior site boundary
line abutting a residential zone, is hereby approved based on the constraints imposed by the
location of an existing flood control channel at the south end of the property which limits
placement of landscaping abutting the residential zoning; and that the proposed landscaping to
the north of the flood control channel will act as a sufficient buffer for the residential
neighborhood to the south.
5. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property consisting of its
shape, location and surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the
vicinity.
6. That strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Anaheim that, for the reasons hereinabove stated, Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -4800 be, and
the same is hereby, granted, in part, as follows: the proposed automotive sales dealership is
approved but the proposed structural height (totaling 42 feet consisting of a 32 -foot high building
plus a 10 -foot high equipment enclosure) is approved in part to permit a maximum overall height
of 32 feet on the hereinabove described real property with a waiver of the following provisions of
the Anaheim Municipal Code:
(a) Sections 18.05.091.020
Maximum number of wall signs.
and 18.84.062.040
(1 wall sign per building unit permitted in the
"CL(SC)" Commercial, Limited - Scenic Corridor
Overlay Zone; 3 wall signs proposed)
(b) Sections 18.44.062.010.011 -
Maximum structural height adjacent to a
and 18.84.062
single- family residential zone.
(16 -feet height permitted where located 32 feet from
" RS- 5000(SC)" Residential, Single- Family - Scenic
Corridor Overlay zoning to the south; 32 feet
proposed)
(c) Section 18.84.062.010.011 -
Minimum structural setback adjacent to a freeway.
(100 feet, fully landscaped, required adjacent to the
SR 9] /Riverside Freewav;
5 to 40 feet, fully landscaped, proposed)
- 3 -
(d) Section 18.84.062.010.014.0142 - Required landscape setback adjacent to an interior
site boundary line abutting a residential zone.
(10 feet, fully landscaped, required adjacent to
"RS- 5000(SC)" zoning to the south; none to 10
feet, fully landscaped, proposed)
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the property owner /developer shall be responsible for compliance with all the
mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 122 created specifically for this
project, and for complying with the monitoring and reporting requirements established by the
City in compliance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. Furthermore, the
property owner /developer shall be responsible for any direct costs associated with the monitoring
and reporting requirements to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures identified in
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 122, which are made a part of these conditions of approval by
reference.
2. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for storage or
other outdoor use.
3. That outdoor special events shall be subject to review and approval by Zoning
Division staff and shall be conducted in a manner that will not adversely affect the adjoining
residential land uses. Any decision made by the Zoning Division regarding such an event may be
appealed to the Planning Commission or City Council as a'Reports and Recommendations' item.
4. That only light vehicle preparation shall be permitted; and that no repair or
maintenance work shall be permitted.
5. That all roof and /or ground - mounted equipment shall be contained within an
acoustical enclosure and shall be completely screened from visibility to surrounding properties,
streets and the SR- 91/Riverside Freeway in conformance with subsection 18.84.062.030.032 of
Section 18.84.062 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (pertaining to development standards for
roof - mounted equipment in the "(SC)" Scenic Corridor Zone Overlay). Said information shall be
specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
6. That a plan for test driving new vehicles at this site shall be submitted to the City
Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval. Said plan shall incorporate a
test - driving route that does not include any residential streets, and the plan shall be implemented
continuously during the course of the operations permitted under this Conditional Use Permit.
7. That vehicles shall not be delivered by automotive transport trucks. All inventory
shall be independently delivered to this site (i.e.. each vehicle shall be individually driven to this
site].
- 4 -
8. That the petitioner shall submit a Final Sign Plan to the Zoning Division for
review and approval. Said plan shall show no signage on the vehicle preparation building. Any
decision made by the Zoning Division regarding the Final Sign Plan may be appealed to the
Planning Commission or City Council. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans
submitted for building permits.
9. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through
the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of
graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence.
10. That a Final Landscape and Fencing Plan for the entire site, specifying type, size
and location of proposed landscaping, irrigation and fencing, shall be submitted to the Zoning
Division for review and approval. Any decision made by the Zoning Division may be appealed
to the Planning Commission or City Council. Said information shall be specifically shown on
the plans submitted for building permits. Said plan shall include landscape screening for the
north side of the vehicle preparation building to eliminate graffiti opportunities.
11. That any tree and/or landscaping planted on -site shall be replaced in a timely
manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dies.
12. That trash storage area(s) shall be provided and maintained in location(s)
acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, and in accordance
with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage area(s) shall be designed, located
and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of
the storage area(s) shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plants such as
minimum one (1) gallon sized clinging vines planted on maximum three (3) foot centers or tall
shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building
permits.
13. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling
shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, for review
and approval.
14. That the water backflow equipment shall be above ground and located outside the
required street setback area, and fully screened from all public streets. Any other large water
system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in
either underground vaults or outside the required street setback area in a manner fully screened
from all public streets. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted to the
Water Engineering and Cross Connection Inspector for review and approval.
15. That because this project has landscaping areas exceeding two thousand five
hundred (2,500) square feet. a separate irrigation meter shall be installed in compliance with
Chapter 10.19 (Landscape Water Efficiency) of Anaheim Municipal Code and Ordinance No.
5349. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
- 5 -
16. That the accessory car wash building shall comply with all state laws and local
ordinances for Water Conservation Measures.
17. That the developer /owner shall submit a set of improvement plans to the Public
Utilities Water Engineering Division for review and approval to determine the conditions
necessary for providing water service to the project.
18. That an on -site trash truck turn - around area shall be provided in accordance with
Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. Said turn- around area shall be specifically shown
on the plans submitted for building permits.
19. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway in a manner which may
adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street. Installation of any gates shall
conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 609 and shall be subject to review and approval by
the City Traffic and Transportation Manager.
20. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for
review and approval showing conformance with the current versions of Engineering Standard
Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject
property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said approved plans.
21. That the developer shall submit a grading plan to the Public Works Department,
Development Services Division, for review and approval. Grading shall conform to the
requirements of Chapter 17.06 (Grading, Excavations and Fills in Hillside Areas) of the Anaheim
Municipal Code.
22. (a) That the developer shall submit street improvement plans for the
intersection of Via Cortez and the driveway to the commercial center on the west side of Via
Cortez to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division, for review and
approval.
(b) That said street improvements, as approved, shall be installed prior to final
zoning and building inspections.
23. That the legal property owner shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan
( "WQMP ") specifically identifying the best management practices that will be used on -site to
control predictable pollutants from storm water runoff. The WQMP shall be submitted to the
Public Works Department, Development Services Division, for review and approval prior to
obtaining a grading permit.
24. That the locations for future above- ground utility devices including, but not
limited to, electrical transformers, water backflow devices, gas, communications and cable
devices, etc., shall be shown on the plans submitted for building permits. Such plans shall also
identify the specific screening treatment of each device (i.e., landscape screening, color of walls,
- 6 -
materials, identifiers, access points, etc.) and shall be subject to review and approval by the
appropriate City departments.
25. That prior to submittal of the water improvement plans, the developer /owner shall
submit a water system master plan, including a hydraulic distribution network analysis, to the
Public Utilities Water Engineering Division for review and approval. The master plan shall
demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed on -site water system to meet the project's water
demands and fire protection requirements.
26. That prior to application for water meters or fire lines or submitting the water
improvement plans for approval, the developer /owner shall submit an estimate of the maximum
fire flow rate and the average day, maximum day and peak hour water demands for this project to
the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division. This information will be used to
determine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide for the estimated water demands.
Any off -site water system improvements required to serve the project shall be installed in
accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations.
27. That the legal property owner shall provide the City of Anaheim with an easement
for electrical service lines to be determined as electrical design is completed. Said easement
shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim prior to connection of electrical service.
28. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's
expense. Landscape and /or hardscape screening of all pad- mounted equipment shall be required
and shall be shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
29. That four (4) foot high street address numbers shall be displayed on the roof of the
building in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible to adjacent
streets or properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted to the
Police Department, Community Services Division, for review and approval.
30. That prior to commencement of business at this location or prior to occupancy of
the building, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall file an Emergency Listing Card, Form
APD -281, with the Anaheim Police Department.
31. That prior to commencement of any construction, all necessary permits required
by the State of California shall be obtained to develop over the flood control channels.
32. That any lighting adjacent to the south property line shall be arranged and directed
so as to reflect the light away from the adjoining residential properties, and shall not exceed a
height of twelve (12) feet; provided, however, that the lighting adjacent to the freeway may be
increased to a height not to exceed eighteen (18) feet if said height increase has the same lighting
affect on the adjoining residential properties to the south as twelve (12) foot high light standards
would have. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building
permits.
- 7 -
33. That plans showing enhanced paving at the entry to the property at Via Cortez
shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Any decision made by the
Zoning Division regarding such plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission or City
Council. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building
permits.
34. That the design and placement of any proposed security bollards shall be
submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Any decision made by the Zoning
Division regarding such plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission or City Council.
Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
35. That a plan showing the method(s) for preventing light from inside the main
building from shining onto residential lots to the south shall be submitted to the Zoning Division
for review and approval. Any decision made by the Zoning Division regarding said plan may be
appealed to the Planning Cotmmission or City Council. Said information shall be specifically
shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
36. That a plan showing the design and placement of the security kiosk shall be
submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Any decision made by the Zoning
Division regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission or City Council. Said
information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
37. That the daily hours of operation shall be limited to 7am to 9 pm, as stipulated by
the petitioner.
38. That no loud speakers shall be permitted.
39. That no off -site signage shall be permitted.
40. That all plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the
building shall be fully screened by architectural devices and/or appropriate building materials;
and that such information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building
permits.
41. That the approval of this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to adoption of
General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -00415 and finalization of Reclassification No. 2003- 00113.
42. That 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 Nos. 1 through 10, and as conditioned herein,
including that the maximum structural height shall be thirty two (32) feet.
43. That prior to issuance of a building permit or within a period of one (1) year from
the date of this Resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17,
- 8 -
18, 19, 20, 21, 22(a), 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 41, 46 and 47(a),
herein - mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said
conditions may he granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 (Time Limit for Amendments,
Conditional Use Permits, Administrative Use Permits, Variances and Administrative
Adjustments) of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
44. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 22(b) and 42,
above - mentioned, shall be complied with.
45. 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.
46. That final elevation plans, which incorporate the suggestions made by the
Planning Commission at the December 15, 2003, public hearing regarding the architecture, shall
be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a
'Reports and Recommendations' item. Said plans shall incorporate any roof - mounted equipment
into the design of the building, and the maximum over -all structural height, including any
roof - mounted equipment, shall be thirty two (32) feet.
47. (a) That the plans submitted for building permits shall include information
demonstrating that the lighting from the signs shall not cause excessive light and/or glare towards
the residences to the south.
(b) That the on -site advertising signs shall be illuminated only during hours of
operation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance
with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such conditions, or any part
thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent
jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein, shall be deemed null and void.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council
of the City of Anaheim this 10th day of February, 2004, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Pringle, Council Members Tait, Chavez
NOES: Council Members McCracken, Hernandez
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
- 9 -
CITY OF AHEIM
By 6
MAYOR OF THPtrryl OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
MY CLER OF
a4l,c -
TYIE CITY OF ANAHEIM
53115.]
- 10 -
Attachment - No. 2
Council Chambers, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California
CHAIRPERSON: JAMES VANDERBILT
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PAUL BOSTWICK, KELLY BUFFA, GAIL EASTMAN,
CECILIA FLORES, JERRY O'CONNELL, DAVID ROMERO
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE
STAFF PRESENT:
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary
Sergeant Michael Lozeau, Vice Detail Elly Morris, Senior Secretary
Charity Wagner, Planner Ossie Edmundson, Planning Commission Support Supv.
AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 11:30 a.m. on
Wednesday, December 10, 2003, 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, November 20, 2003.
CALL TO ORDER
PLANNING COMMISSION MORNING SESSION 10:00 A.M.
• STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY
DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY
PLANNING COMMISSION)
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE DECEMBER 15, 2003 AGENDA
RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION
RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M.
For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please
complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chairperson James Vanderbilt
PUBLIC COMMENTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
--- ------------- ---------------------------------- I---- ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------
i*\nOCS \CLERICAL \MINUTES \SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES 121503OOC pl anninq com mission(o)anah eim. net
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES
9a.
9b.
9C.
9d.
9e.
9f.
AGENT: Hossein Zandi, Caliber Motors, 5395 East La Palma
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION; Property is approximately 5.7 acres, located at the
northeast terminus of Via Cortez and south of the SR -91
(Riverside Freeway), having a frontage of 161 feet on the
terminus of Via Cortez, located 837 feet north of the
centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road (No address).
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2003 - 00415 —To amend the Land
Use Element Map of the Anaheim General Plan redesignating the
property from the Hillside Low- Medium Density Residential land use
designation to the General Commercial land use designation.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003 -00113 — To reclassify the property from
the RS -5000 (SC) (Residential, Single - Family; Scenic Corridor Overlay)
zone to the CL (SC) (Commercial, Limited; Scenic Corridor Overlay)
zone.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003 -04800 —To permit and construct
an automotive sales dealership with accessory roof - mounted equipment
with a structural height greater than 35 feet with waivers of: (a) maximum
number of wall signs, (b) maximum structural height adjacent to a single -
family residential zone, (c) minimum structural setback adjacent to a
freeway, and (d) required landscape setback adjacent to an interior site
boundary line abutting a residential zone.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003 -171
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003 -172
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003.173
Approved
Recommended adoption of
Exhibit "A" to City Council
Granted
Approved
Granted, in part
Recommended City Council
review.
sr8673ay.doc
(mmplans /planl22)
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 9 as a petitioner's request for:
(1) A General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Element of the Anaheim
General Plan redesignating the property from the Hillside Low- Medium Density
Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation.
(2) A reclassification of the property from the RS -5000 (SC) (Residential, Single - Family;
Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone to the CL (SC) (Commercial Limited; Scenic Corridor
Overlay) zone.
(3) An approval of a Conditional Use Permit to permit and construct an automotive sales
12 -15 -03
Page 2 of 14
OWNER: Melvin R. Schantz, 21 Chelsea Point, Dana Point, CA
92629
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILEL) MINUTES
dealership with accessory roof - mounted equipment with a structural height greater
than 35 feet (32 foot building plus 10 foot equipment enclosure) with the following
waivers:
(a) Maximum number of wall signs (not more than one (1) wall sign per building
unit permitted; three (3) wall signs proposed).
(b) Maximum structural height adjacent to a single - family residential zone
(16 -feet permitted; 32 -feet proposed).
(c) Minimum structural setback adjacent to a freeway (100 feet, fully landscaped
required; 5 -40 feet, fully landscaped proposed).
(d) Required landscape setback adjacent to an interior site boundary line abutting
a residential zone (10 feet, fully landscaped required; 0 -10 feet, fully landscaped
proposed).
Applicant's Testimony:
Don Bering, 5395 E. La Palma, Avenue, Anaheim, CA, Chief Financial Officer of Caliber Motors,
stated that he and other members of the company and their consulting team were present to
answer questions that the Commission might have about the project. He started by giving a
background on Caliber Motors about where they had been and where they would like to go in the
future.
He stated that Caliber Motors began operations in 1984 as a Mercedes Benz Dealer on La Palma
Avenue in Anaheim, and coming March 2004 they would have been there 20 years. They have
grown from the initial 25 employees to 170 employees, and expected their sales for the next year
to top 200 million dollars. Caliber Motors generates over 1 million dollars a year in sales tax
revenue for the City of Anaheim, and has real property assessed evaluation of around 10 million
dollars. Although they feel the dealership has been successful in its present location, and they
enjoy doing business in the City of Anaheim, they have several problems with the current
location:
They suffer from the lack of visibility; it is hard for people to really know that they are
there. They have spent 20 years advertising, and still a lot of people in the community
do not know where they are located. Also, because the business has grown a lot in
the last few years, they are short of vehicle display space, vehicle storage places,
and office space. They have been trying to solve the problems and have been
looking around a long time for another location, a location that especially gives them
better visibility, and ideally visibility from the freeway. They have located a site
adjacent to the 91- Freeway on the south side of the freeway just east of Imperial
Highway. They admit that it is not an ideal site for a variety of reasons, but is the
best site they could find in Anaheim that would meet their needs. They propose to
build it as a satellite vehicle sales facility that would consist of a vehicle showroom
and office building that would be two- stories, a separate one -story building for the
cleaning and detail of cars to get them ready to put on display or to get them ready to
sell. The additional location would permit the expansion of Caliber Motors as
aforementioned. They feel it would generate considerable additional sales tax
revenue for the City of Anaheim in the future as they try to grow the business further
and would increase Anaheim's property tax base. There would be no servicing of
vehicles at the location; it would be a satellite sales facility only. Caliber would
continue to operate its main facility on La Palma Avenue just west of Imperial
Highway, and would continue to sell vehicles and service them at that location.
- Although there is a lot of freeway exposure, the site is long and narrow (185 -195 feet)
and has a lot of development constraints. Originally, it was proposed to be part of the
adjacent Canyon Oaks residential development (the residential development that is
12 -15 -03
Page 3 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILtzD MINUTES
currently in final stages), but was dropped from the project due to a large number of
easements, flood control and drainage channels found on the property.
They knew when they set about to design the project that there would be some
concerns from the community, because the Canyon Oaks property and the subject
property has been subject to many different proposals over the years as to what to do
with it. So they tried to design a project that would meet their needs, and meet the
needs and concerns of the community. They presented the plans to the City and
community a number of months ago, and after receiving feedback from the members
of the community and the City Planning Department, they made changes to their
operations and to the building and facility that they thought would meet the concerns
of the community and the issues that were raised by the Planning Department staff.
The project would be an attractive addition to the community that would allow Caliber
to stay in the Anaheim Hills area and grow the business and grow the sales tax
dollars for the City. And the look of the site should definitely improve, as well as the
design of the project would be compatible with the surrounding property uses.
Joseph Marca, Escondido, CA, presented a 1- minute video of the project site, illustrating the
boundary conditions.
Public Testimony
Mark A. Garcia, 249 Calle Da Gama, Anaheim, CA, stated that he has lived in Anaheim Hills for
over 20 years and does not know of one neighbor that he has talked to in the last 4 -5 months that
is interested in having a car lot at that site. It is supposed to be a green belt; a Scenic Corridor; a
residential area; and the only commercial area there was adjacent to it; a hotel that was put in
next to Imperial and the on -ramp to the 91- Freeway eastbound. The rest of the area included a
fitness center, which used to be a local market for the area Albertson's, a couple of banks and
general "mom- and -pop- type" stores, approximately 5 schools; a high school, a handicap school,
an elementary school, and a Montessori school located a quarter of a mile west of the site. And,
no matter how a car lot is dressed up, it is still a car lot; the purpose is to have ingress into that
location, and it would increase the public through there unknown. A Mercedes dealership should
be in an industrial area, and he is opposed to either a variance or having it rezoned to
commercial.
Stefanie O'Neill, 216 S. Mohler Drive, Anaheim, CA, representing the Concerned Citizens of the
Canyon, stated that their organization was founded in 1998 during the fight to preserve a historic
piece of land called Magg Ranch. They were able to stop commercial development and were
forced to deal with 106 houses. Although, as a community, they desperately wanted the land for
a park, they knew that the Planning Commission and City Council, at the time, did not have the
best interest of the residents in mind, and they worked with the developer to get the best project
possible for the community. After fighting so hard to keep commercial off of Magg Ranch, they
were once again faced with it, and it felt like a slap in the face. Their board and the community
were immediately outraged at the project. They held a town hall meeting of over 120 people in
attendance. Petitions and a -mails were circulated in opposition, and after having several
meetings with Caliber, and sometime to calm down and look at the deeper issues, such as the
City potentially losing tax revenue at a time where layoffs were imminent, the Concerned Citizens
began working with City staff and Caliber to see what could be done to make the project livable to
those in the surrounding neighborhoods if it were to be approved.
She stated that the subject project is not what they wanted to see for Anaheim Hills. They would
love to still be a royal community, and pray that the overdevelopment the city has allowed in other
parts of town would not one day haunt the hills as well. The land is not ideal for a park or houses.
Studies have been done over and over, to no avail. The land would not remain undeveloped.
The owners would want to sell their property to make income off of their land. Since houses
could not be built on the property and the City refused to buy the property for a park, it would be
utilized for commercial use. If not the subject car dealership then perhaps a strip mall or office
12 -15 -03
Page 4 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILLV MINUTES
building that could potentially have more impacts than what was being proposed. The
homeowners and the new D. R. Horton Project signed disclosure for a dealership far bigger than
what was being proposed. The nearest homeowner and the older neighborhood were in support
of the project.
Sonja Grewal, P.O. Box 17224, Santa Ana, CA, stated that additional signage and building height
waivers and would not be harmonious with the surrounding areas. The project did not adhere to
the goals and policies of the Scenic Highway Element of the Anaheim General Plan. In addition,
the type of lighting proposed would have a significant impact on the highway. A regular 30 -foot
streetlight emitted from 10 to 20,000 lumens. The majority of the 69 light poles in the project
each output 110, 000 lumens, and the light poles would create a stunning solid block of light 24
feet high over virtually the entire length and width of the finished grade of the parcel. And even
though the initial study Mitigated Negative Declaration stated that not much light would spill into
the homes, it did not address the amount next to the hotel and the impact from light that would
spill onto the freeway; whether or not it would cause an impact on the freeway drivers. The
nighttime daylight effects would dramatically interrupt residents, hotel visitors and motorist's
enjoyment of the night viewscape. The impact would exist seven nights a week, and at 9 o'clock
would change to an undefined security level, but it would still be there and would continue to
generate a block of light unlike that generated by any business or center next to residential uses
in the Canyon.
She stated the following regarding the noise, aesthetics and storage facility impacts:
Noise: The air conditioners barely met the minimum exterior noise standards, and the
impacts on surrounding residences from other commercial uses and residential uses
would not be as much.
Aesthetics: The building was modern in design with glass sides, totally inconsistent with
commercial and residential buildings in the immediate vicinity.
Storage Facility: The architectural style of the building must agree with the
neighborhood; it had to look like it belonged next to homes. The building was
incompatible with the architectural of other commercial centers in the area. The other
centers harmonized with their residential neighbors' building design and color scheme.
The project is in the heart of the Scenic Corridor and abuts the Scenic Highway.
Because of the Canyon Area's general plan, goals, and policies, development has been
guided that retained the semi - rural, uncongested character of the Santa Ana Canyon
Area, a primary goal of the Canyon Area General Plan. Existing development did
promote identification and visual quality in the Canyon Area among residents and visitors
per the Canyon Area General Plan, and for the most part development adhered to the
controls of the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone, which had stipulations on landscape
setbacks, signage and roof mounted equipment. The drive on the stretch of 91- Freeway
from Lakeview to Weir Canyon was scenic, not just because of the surrounding hills on
both sides but also because of a visual clarity on either side of the driver. There was a
regional park on one side and an almost uninterrupted stretch of various types of walls
and landscape on the other side. They take this visual clarity for granted, especially at
night. They do not see the type of intense lighting proposed by the project until they
would get to Weir Canyon from car dealerships located farther away from the freeway in
the large commercial area of Savi Ranch. This type of project belongs in a purely
commercial area. The impacts of the project would diminish the quality of life for some of
their newest residents or visitors and for established homeowners who have fought long
and hard to retain the residential character of their neighborhood.
Cheryl Thompson stated that she is unique to speak on the project and could not really say that
she was speaking in opposition of it and did not really want to speak for it, but believed that she
was a good person to speak for it. She is the project's manager for the Canyon Oaks
development that sat next to the particular piece of property and was in due diligence on the
property for over a year. She stated that she knows the property better than most people. She
12 -15 -03
Page 5 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES
knew what was possible on the property and what was not possible on the property. She was
unique because she worked for D. R. Horton and lived in Canyon Oaks; a resident and also a
project developer on the neighboring development. They looked at the property very seriously to
put 22 homes on it and she spent a solid year trying to understand the constraints on the
property. There are many intense constraints on the property. If it were left the way it was,
Scenic would not really fit the bill. She worked very hard with the City staff on her project trying to
understand what they could do to purchase the property at one point. It did not work. Her
concerns really are not for or against, but hoped the Commission would take seriously some of
the issues that have been brought up, not necessarily to oppose it, but to make sure that when it
was developed, it would be developed in such a manner that would be aesthetically pleasing to
those who lived there. That the landscaping would be mature landscaping so as to really buffer
the sound; that the street was designed responsibly and appropriately so as to handle truck
traffic. And, when trucks traveled to and from there, the City would consider putting the kinds of
restrictions that would be least intrusive for them to back out; and that it could be done in such a
time frame that they would not be coming in during the middle of the night so that it would not be
a burden on the people who lived there.
Betty Delligatia, 6059 Camino Manzano, Anaheim Hills, CA, presented a petition of approximately
600 names. She stated that she walked her shoes off getting the petition against the project, and
that nobody in the area wanted it there. She recalled a few years back when she got a letter from
the City telling her to take down her television antenna because she was in the Scenic Corridor.
The subject project would not increase her Scenic Corridor it would deteriorate it.
Anita Steageley, a representative of D. R. Horton, stated they were in their final phases at the
construction at the Canyon Oaks project. They conducted extensive feasibility on the subject
property and under their guidelines determined that it was not suitable for residential
development. Also, as soon as they became aware of the initial application submitted to the City
for the Caliber Motors project, they immediately and separately disclosed it to their homebuyers.
Lastly, the one thing she remembered vividly in her due diligence of the project was that they
were specifically conditioned to take access from another location off of Solomon Drive because
of the City's concern of the negative impact that the traffic would have on Via Cortez.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that he was trying to reconcile the petition and Ms. O'Neill's
statement because her statement sounded like there was not an opposition but the petition
indicated opposition.
Ms. O'Neill responded that a lot of the petitions were gathered when they were under the
assumption it was a three -story building which was double the size currently being proposed.
The Concerned Citizens' policy is that they do not make decisions on their own. They present the
facts as they are given to them and explain them to the residents. She wanted the land to be a
park. She would love it to be houses. It is ugly the way it is. It is rat infested. They have done
their research since they started the initial petitions and the e-mail campaigns, etc. There is not a
lot of feasibility for other things on the site. It is not going to be left vacant. The owners have a
right to sell it. While she does not want to see a car dealership there she felt at this point it was
the best use for the land. She stated that the petition was based on the original plans, which
were absolutely hideous.
Applicant's Rebuttal:
Mr. Bering responded that they just hoped Commission would give all of the issues brought forth
careful consideration. They tried to accommodate many of the concerns and issues regarding
lighting and access and test drives. That only during the construction phase would there be trucks
going by, and that one of the conditions in the requirements is that they not deliver cars to the
property on the traditional flatbeds or car haulers that haul 7, 8, 9 cars. The cars would be
delivered to their main facility on La Palma Avenue where they would do a "pre- delivery
inspection" and driven one by one to the new dealership.
12 -15 -03
Page 6 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILE
L MINUTES
Commissioner Eastman stated that there were several things that troubled her. Commission
would have to reverse something that they did not long ago as far as general plan and turning
from residential back to commercial. From all of the documentation they have gotten, she
understood the difficulties in trying to develop it for home sites, so she would not be opposed to
the commercial use of it or not even opposed to the car dealership; but she opposed the plans.
She concurred with the speaker who said it was insensitive to the rural feel of the Canyon. In
other areas in the City residents have fought very hard to have standards, and it seemed a two -
story building would be intrusive, especially along with the variance. It would not be compatible
with the area.
Commissioner Buffa concurred with Commissioner Eastman and stated that it was an appropriate
use on the site and although it was a fairly creative site plan for a site that is extremely difficult to
develop, the design of the building and architectural style was not compatible with the residential
or commercial uses that were already in the area. She understood the Mercedes dealerships
desire to have a contemporary building, especially since they were selling what they advertised
as a very high -tech product and that they probably would not be interested in pink stucco and red
tile roof, but she did not believe it was appropriate to have the highly reflective glass looming over
the backyard fence of the neighbors or pointed towards the 91- Freeway, which could create a
visual distraction. She was concerned that the building has more articulation, and would be more
compatible with its residential neighbors and the commercial uses that were already there.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to speak on the choice of design for the project because he
believed it was not consistent with what Caliber Motors wanted and was much different than what
was seen throughout the Canyon Area.
Mr. McCafferty responded that staff did not have design view per se but that when something was
adjacent to other architectural they tried to make it complimentary. Given that Caliber Motors
wanted a contemporary look, staff focused on how to make it as compatible as possible with its
surroundings.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if there was a screening process that justified the reasons so that
Commission could understand it better.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, concurred that it did not fit in with the other architectural
immediately adjacent to it but was closer to what was seen on Imperial Highway and La Palma
Avenue and on Savii Ranch, in terms of being a modern, non - traditional type of architectural. At
the time staff first saw the plans, it was a much larger scale and has since been scaled back
tremendously in terms of the size and some of the other operational features of the site in terms
of the glass; that it was something the City has along Weir Canyon Road and the 91- Freeway,
which was part of the Scenic Corridor. Staff was not expecting this type of automotive to actually
look like the adjacent properties simply because it was not residential nor was it a retail
commercial shopping center or a hotel -type of look and if Commission was looking at something
more traditional, the project would not make it because it would stand out from the rest of the
architectural in the area. Staff was not too concerned about the fact that they pick and change
some other type of look out there. There was no architectural statement that had been adopted
for the area. It just so happened that most of the architectural just kind of followed it along in the
pattern that currently existed.
Commissioner Flores stated if the signage were illuminated in the nighttime, the two on the sides
would be affecting some of the residents.
Mr. Bering responded that they would be illuminated at night, but that he did not believe they
would be as high degree of illumination as the Mercedes Benz Starr, and the words Mercedes
Benz.
Commissioner Flores asked if there could be any agreement of one sign at the front or if it was
necessary to have all three signs.
12 -15 -03
Page 7 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAIL,,b MINUTES
Mr. Bering responded that the trees growing up along the property would shade most of the
residences from view of the signs at night.
Commissioner Flores stated that she was not comfortable with the three signs and the look of the
building.
Commissioner O'Connell stated to continue the look (the red tile roof, etc) for this type of show
piece or display would be very difficult and would take away from what it was; a car dealership, a
showroom. It would be a negative to try to change the entire thing. He agreed with Ms. O'Neill
that there was not a whole lot that could be done with the property. He believed having the high
caliber building and display would be fantastic for the site. He was not too concerned about
traffic on the 91- Freeway as far as accidents, etc., because it was slow, and he did not see any
real opposition present. Regarding the schools, they were pretty far away from the immediate
business and he did not see any real impact to local businesses, but would help the shopping
center with people coming in. It could be a real plus for Anaheim Hills.
Commissioner Buffa stated the project would be a very positive use and appropriate use for the
site but they would need to work out some of the design details. She suggested approving the
use so that Caliber Motors could go back to Mercedes and say that they had gotten their site
approved and wanted to expand and work with them to become a bigger dealership in the
Mercedes Benz family. She suggested adding a condition of approval on a project 'that required
Caliber to bring their architectural back to the Planning Commission and that there be some
redesign of the facility so that it would be designed in such away as to have less of an impact on
adjacent residences; to have some characteristics that were more compatible with the
surrounding uses, the commercial, hotel and the residential and more in keeping with the style
and the feeling in the Canyon.
Commissioner Bostwick concurred with Commissioners Buffa and Eastman and felt there were
some issues that needed to be addressed. He suggested maybe they could put red the on the
roof and do a parapet roof and hide the equipment behind the parapet; reduce the glass or put
some other articulation to the building. He stated that in the Savii Ranch area there was a Chevy
dealer, the GMC dealer, which was on a property that also had constraints, and also a Honda and
Acura dealership. That all had very nicely designed buildings, not as much glass, and yet could
get the message across so that they could be seen. They did not have to have a wall of glass to
be a dealership. He was truly impressed with the Concerned Citizens of the Canyon particularly,
Stephanie in her statement about being realistic. He would rather have seen the whole site
commercial and have it border in Anaheim and not in Yorba Linda, but nobody liked that idea.
Now there were 100 plus homes on the site with a little piece of land left over. W hen the
decision was made he questioned the developer about the strip of land and how they were going
to access it and they said they could do it. It did not pan out and now was a very difficult site,
very constrained and required certain variances. He suggested looking at a four -week
continuance for them to work on their architectural, issues of signage, and the back lighting of the
sign so that it would not show or reflect on the neighborhood. He asked if on the strip between
the sound wall and the other retaining wall tieing built now, if they were planning to plant trees
there or if they were planning to plant in front of the other wall.
Mr. Bering responded they would not be planting anything on the Horton property. They would
have to plant everything on their property, north of the drainage channel running east and west.
Scott Koehn, representative of D. R. Horton, stated regarding the new retaining wall going up,
there would be a chain link on top of the wall, green coated and vineage running through the
chain link so that eventually there would be plantation going through it.
Mr. McCafferty asked if there would be any planting on the north side of the sound wall, other
than the vines.
Mr. Koehn responded no.
12 -15 -03
Page 8 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILEL) MINUTES
Commissioner Bostwick wished to clarify that they were going to build another wall on their side
of the drainage ditch and plant there.
Mr. Marca stated that there was already a large sound wall constructed that was the back wall of
most of their adjoining neighbors. There was a 15 -foot tour easement and then the Caliber
property began. For the majority of the site there was the drainage channel, and directly to the
north of that they were planning extensive 36 -inch boxed trees that would grow approximately
between 12 and 16 feet tall in the beginning and then approximately 2 feet a year. The goal of
the boundary was to create quickly a very dense visual screen between the residential property,
and they would have the benefit, because of the sewer easement, of being set 15 feet farther
back. There would be a substantial tree line, which would assist them both in terms of sound
from the freeway and light from their site. As indicated, in today's modern optics although the
lumens are very high, the photo metrics of the lights would direct their lighting straight down so
that the cut -off along the property line with the shield would be less than a half a foot- candle. The
City requested that they go to 12 -foot lighting along the property line with residences, and they
proposed 24 feet. He felt 12 feet would be a real hardship because the lighting dispersion was
very bad when those types of heads were close to the ground. Many cities required lighting near
a residential area to be 16, 18 or 20 feet. Regarding the architectural, he stated that Mr. Zandy of
Caliber Motors indicated that if the Commission should find a general approval for the project they
would be happy to present alternate designs to the Commission for something more in keeping
with a residential scale. As an architect who spends 85% of his time doing auto dealerships he
felt Mercedes Benz signages were extremely subdued; essentially a dark blue background with a
fine emblem in it. So at night the dark blue would not be a highly objectionable color for them.
Mercedes Benz preferred the contemporary, high -tech type and they desired to please Mercedes
Benz as well as staff in their concern about the reflection on the glass.
The glass was highly studied and determined to be less reflective than clear glass. The second
floor by the building was pulled in 20 feet from the exterior glass so that light projecting out at the
upper level would be minimized. The reflective surface was turned inward on the interior of the
dual -.pane thermal glass they were proposing to use on the building. Which would mean that
there was no brightness projected on the outside. It would reflect but it was not categorized as a
highly reflective surface by the glass industry.
The north side of the building facing the 91- Freeway reflected nothing because no direct light
shone on it from a major light source. The south side of the building would project the majority of
the glare and they minimized that to the maximum extent that technology allowed and that
presented a screen system. He felt they had made a lot of good efforts.
Mr. McCafferty stated the Mitigated Negative Declaration went to Caltrans with the photo metrics
analysis and they did not comment on the lighting.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that for sometime now Commission had been looking at both
freeway oriented signs and telecommunication, essentially mobile telephone antennas. And he
wanted to encourage that maybe as a bonus to certain businesses that wanted to have freeway
oriented signs that they allow the signs to include some kind of telecommunication equipment.
Often mobile phone companies would state that they proposed to a company but the company
was not interested. He asked staff if there was a way there could be some sort of "gentleman's
agreement" that stated as part of the support for the project would be the understanding that the
applicant would be open to talking to the telecommunication companies in terms of having their
equipment located on the building since it would save the Canyon the need from another stand
along structure or Commission would not be faced with the situation where the applicant would
say they went to a company and it was not interested so they would have to build a separate
structure.
Mr. Marca stated they would agree to it.
Mr. McCafferty stated staff would always encourage that to happen, if possible.
12 -15 -03
Page 9 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILCD MINUTES
Mr. Marca stated usually antennas were placed on taller buildings where they could not be seen
from ground level, and asked if Commission would want antennas on the top of Caliber.
Mr. McCafferty responded they should not be visible but integrated into the architectural design of
the building, and sometimes the antennas could be lower if there were other facilities in the area.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked, regarding the location on La Palma Avenue if it was the intent of
the applicant to actually move all of its facilities to the new site or if the one on La Palma Avenue
was still going to be in operation. And if so, how would they advertise them.
Mr. Bering responded that it obviously presented them with a lot of operational and advertising
difficulties, but they thought the benefits would outweigh those type issues. They intended to
keep the location on La Palma Avenue as vehicle sales and service facility. People had known
about it for almost 20 years and they have outgrown the space. The landlord did not renew their
lease of the building at 5401 East La Palma Avenue where the Land Rover dealer would be
expanding. They needed extra room and would be willing to put up with the operational
difficulties to get it.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that the Conditional Use Permit would not permit a public address
system and asked that since salesmen would be scattered all over the property, how they
intended to overcome that.
Mr. Bering responded that they would use cell phones that included paging features where they
could press one button or enter a couple of keys and talk to anybody any place in the facility or
anywhere in town.
Mr. McCafferty asked Commission's guidance on the architectural design with the types of
materials or style they wanted such as the Kaiser Health Care Building which was different but
still contemporary; incorporating more stone and less glass that had a contemporary feel but also
had a bit of craftsman to it to with the stone.
Commissioner Eastman responded that it was an excellent example of a building that was
contemporary and gave the warmth of a residential or more rustic feel that some of the other
things in the Hills had.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated the palm trees were bothering him more than the architectural.
Some of the other dealerships off of the 101- Freeway in the Ventura area had tall eucalyptus
trees that were very elegant looking, and felt they would be an example of something that might
blend in more with the area without calling for greater changes in the architectural of the
buildings.
Commissioner Flores felt the eucalyptus might block the view of the vehicles.
Debbie O'Neil responded that the eucalyptus on her property dripped a sap down and had cones
on them so that if they were to hit a car with any moisture on it, the car would be bright red. She
suggested a weeping willow or something.
Chairperson Vanderbilt recalled his idea and stated in the Canyon area more evergreen trees
than eucalyptus trees were found.
Mr. Marca stated unfortunately there were very few trees compatible with automobile dealership
uses. The palm tree was relatively common as one that got used a lot because they were tall;
they were a part of Southern California's heritage; and they did not shed a lot; they could be
controlled the heads could be shaped and controlled without having things fall from them. Trees
that attracted birds; trees that dropped seed pods; tons of leaves, etc. were incredible
maintenance problems and many of them would actually damage the finish of the vehicles and
systematically overtime the dealers would find a way to get rid of them. Many types of grass
wouid have a difficult time growing under eucalyptus. The front portion of their site would be as
12 -15 -03
Page 10 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNIiNG COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILcD MINUTES
close to a park as they could get it and yet would be commercial. There would be an awful lot of
landscaping in the front portion of the site and he would hate to see Commission require them to
eliminate the palm trees in favor of eucalyptus.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that it would be sort of a shock to change from one field
temporarily to the other field and further down in the Canyon return to the look that was consistent
for the entire corridor.
Commissioner Eastman suggested incorporating a design where the applicant would come back,
having taken into consideration all of the remarks made, that would give more of a comfortable
feeling as far as blending in with the residential area.
Mr. McCafferty suggested changes to the conditions as follows: Modify Condition No. 10 to
indicate that a final landscaping and fencing plan for the entire site ... and the rest remained the
same. Modify Condition No. 32 to say that all lighting should be arranged and directed as to
reflect the light away from joining residential properties and should not exceed a height of 12 feet
so that restriction on the lighting would apply to the entire site of 12 foot high standards.
Commissioner Eastman suggested 18 feet since they needed it to be a little bit higher closer to
the freeway.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, suggested an 18 -foot by the freeway if they could show
that the lighting would not be obtrusive. Also on the specific signage to the Scenic Corridor, the
signage would be required to be turned off at midnight. Since they were only going to operate
until 9 p.m. it would not serve other than advertising purposes after hours to have the signage on
after 9 o'clock.
Commissioner Buffa stated she was not sure that she would be comfortable asking them to turn
off their signage at 9 o'clock when Home Depot could leave theirs on during hours of operation,
which could be 24 hours a day.
Commissioner Eastman stated that across the freeway Commission also required Armstrong not
to have their lights on at night.
Mr. Hastings clarified that Condition No. 32 restricted the hours to what the applicant requested
from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Mr. McCafferty stated a Final Elevation Plan should be submitted to the Zoning Division for
review and approval by the Planning Commission as a reports and recommendation item. And
that Condition No. 44 should state that prior to final Building and Zoning inspections, Condition
No. 42, above mentioned should be complied with. That the only waiver related to the building
would be the maximum structure height adjacent to a single - family residential zone, which was
essentially a two to one requirement.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if they were providing a sound buffer. He understood that the
project would develop some signs but asked if they would also represent a barrier between the
freeway and the residential area.
Mr. McCafferty responded that there might be some acoustical value of the building being there
and with regards to the building itself the only noise created was from the HVAC equipment, and
that would be acoustically enclosed to comply with both Title 24 and the City Municipal Code.
Commissioner Bostwick stated that from the standpoint of someone who owned property along
the Santa Ana Freeway and who has had a sound wall next to his property, from going from
landscaping, that the landscaping was a much better buffer for noise than the wall. The wall
tended to bounce the sound and was actually louder and dirtier than landscaping.
12 -15 -03
Page 11 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNINu COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILcO MINUTES
FOLLOWING,IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: 6 people spoke in opposition (one represented the Anaheim Hills Citizens'
Coalition).
A petition was received with 661 signatures in opposition.
Correspondence was received in opposition to the subject request.
IN GENERAL: 3 people spoke in general but did not express support or opposition (one
represented the Concerned Citizens of the Canyon).
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Flores
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent), that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby determine that the CEQA Mitigated Negative
Declaration in conjunction with Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 122 is adequate
to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request.
Recommended City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No.
2003 -00415 (to redesignate this property from the Hillside Low - Medium Density
Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use
designation) by adopting Exhibit "A ".
Granted Reclassification No. 2003 -00113 (to reclassify this property from the
RS- 5000(SC) Zone to the CL(SC) Zone), subject to the conditions of approval
as stated in the staff report dated December 15, 2003.
Approved Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows:
Approved waiver (b) pertaining to maximum structural height adjacent to a
single - family residential zone, with a stipulation made at today's meeting that
the maximum structural height including any roof - mounted equipment, shall be
32 feet.
Vote: 5 -1 (Commissioner O'Connell voted no and Commissioner Romero absent)
Approved waivers pertaining to (a) maximum number of wall signs, (c) minimum
structural setback adjacent to a freeway, and (d) minimum landscape setback
adjacent to an interior site boundary line abutting a residential zone.
Vote: 6 -0 (Commissioner Romero absent)
Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -04800 (to permit and
construct an automotive sales dealership with accessory roof- mounted
equipment with a total structural height not to exceed 32 feet), subject to the
conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated December 15, 2003,
with the following modifications:
Modified Condition Nos. 10, 32 and 44 to read as follows:
10. That a final landscape and fencing plan for the entire site, indicating type,
size and location of proposed landscaping, aad irrigation and fencing,
shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department for
review and approval. Any decision made by the Zoning Division regarding
said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission, and /or City
Council. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted
for building permits. Said plan shall include landscape screening for the
north side of the vehicle preparation building, to eliminate graffiti
opportunities.
12 -15 -03
Page 12 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNIN COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAIL�J MINUTES
32. That any lighting adjacent to the south property line shall be arranged and
directed as to reflect the light away from adjoining residential properties and
shall not exceed a height of twelve (12) feet. Any lighting adjacent to the
freeway may be increased to a height not to exceed eighteen (18) feet
provided that said increase in height would have the same lighting
affect on the adjoining residential properties to the south as the 12-
foot high light standards. Said information shall be specifically
demonstrated on plans submitted for building permits.
44. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 42,
above - mentioned, shall be complied with.
Added the following conditions of approval to read as follows:
That final elevation plans incorporating suggestions made by the Planning
Commission at the December 15, 2003, public hearing regarding the
architecture shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and
approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations
item. Said plans shall incorporate any roof - mounted equipment into the
design of the building.
That on -site advertising signage shall only be illuminated during hours of
operation. Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate that the
lighting from the signage shall not cause excessive light and /or glare for
the residents to the south.
Recommended City Council consideration of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and associated Mitigation Monitoring Plan, Reclassification, Waiver of Code
Requirement, and Conditional Use Permit requests in conjunction with City
Council's mandatory review of the General Plan Amendment.
VOTE: 6 -0 (Commissioner Romero absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this item would be set for a public hearing before the
City Council.
DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 56 minutes (5:07 -7:03)
12 -15 -03
Page 13 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNI N,i COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAIL-0 MINUTES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:04 P.M.
TO MONDAY, JANUARY 12, 2004 AT 10:30 A.M.
FOR A PRESENTATION ON THE BROWN ACT AND
DUE PROCESS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW.
RECEIVING AND APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED
MINUTES FOR ITEM NO. 9, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
2003 - 04800, FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
DECEMBER 15, 2003, SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD AS A PUBLIC
HEARING ITEM BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON TUESDAY,
FEBRUARY 10, 2004.
Respectfully submitted:
1 4 (��Uut�
Pat Chandler
Senior Secretary
Received and approved by the Planning Commission on 2003.
I �
12 -15 -03
Page 14 of 14
Item No. 3
RM-4
RCL 70 -71 -11 RM-4
VAR 2199 4 DU EACH
EL MIRADOR
APARTMENTS
29 DU
0
z
w
w
F
z
z
0
O
RM-4
RCL 62 -63-78
CUP 375
VAR 2990
CONDO
88 DU
RM-4
RCL 73 -74-12
VAR 2544
APARTMENTS
125 DU
RM-4
RCL 62- 63-104
CUP 407
T LU
VAR 1197
nM
T �
LU
VAR 1197
Q AR
1 DU EACH
18!
2 372]
RCL 77 -78-57
f
I
0
RS -2
}
- Z
Y
1 DU
I
¢
R
-2
1 DU
RCL 87 -88-33
VAR 3739
VAR 1611
SAVANNA ST
I -
nM
RM-3
RCL 79 -80.02
1 DU EACH
I I
2 372]
RCL 77 -78-57
I
}
(Res. of Intent
R
¢
RM-4
¢
to RS -7200)
VAR 3097
3-4
RCL 838423
RM -2
RCL 80.81 -0
RCL 85 -86-24
m m
APARTMENTS
VAR 3384
VAR 3163
AVANNA VILLA
tjaa�
¢
8DU
VAC
NT
CONDOS
APARTMENTS
»'
UUU
toL
10 DU
fW -fi0
d'
tt
RM -3
n
RCL 636460
z
iDU El CH
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006 -05066
Tentative Tract No. 17016
Requested By: BRIAN DROR
729 South Knott Avenue
N
t000s 1
ROME AVE
a
E
RS -2
1 DU EACH
RW2
RCL21)(I1-00059
TLUP2001i 92
CUP2001-0 453
VAR 1946
RW2
RCL21%11-0 059
T�UP2001- 92
CUP21EI1-04453
18 DU
T C.IIPi.
Subject Property
Date: April 3, 2006
Scale: 1" = 200'
Q.S. No. 2
U
z
0
z
z
0
F 2
O
Date of Aerial Photo:
July 2005
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006 -05066
Tentative Tract No. 17016
ED Subject Property
Date: April 3, 2006
Scale: 1"=200'
Requested By: BRIAN DROR
729 South Knott Avenue
Q.S. No. 2
10003
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 3
3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion)
3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -05066 (Resolution)
3c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17016 (Motion)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly- shaped, 1.47 -acre property has a frontage of 150 on the west side of Knott
Avenue, a maximum depth of 374 feet, and is located 193 feet north of the centerline of
Rome Avenue (729 South Knott Avenue).
REQUEST:
(2) The petitioner requests approval of the following:
(a) Conditional Use Permit No. 2006 -05066 - to convert a 54 -unit apartment complex into
a 54 -unit residential condominium complex under authority of Code Section Nos.
18.06.030.090 and 18.38.100.020.
(b) Tentative Tract Map No. 17016 — to establish a 1 -lot 54 unit airspace attached
residential condominium subdivision-
BACKGROUND
(3) This property is developed with an apartment complex and is within the RM-4 (Multiple -
Family, Residential) Zone. The Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Medium
Density Residential land uses. The Anaheim General Plan designates properties to the
south for Medium Density Residential land uses, properties to the east (across Knott
Avenue) for Low Density Residential land uses, properties to the west for Low - Medium
Density Residential land uses, and properties to the north for Water Uses (flood control
channel).
PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS:
(4) Variance No. 3555 to construct a 54 -unit apartment complex with waiver of maximum
structural height within 150 feet of a single family residential zone (one story permitted, two
stories proposed within 11 feet of a single family residential zone) was approved by the
Planning Commission on April 28, 1986.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
(5) The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit and tentative tract map to convert a 54-
unit apartment complex into a 54 -unit residential condominium complex. The site plan
(Exhibit No. 1) and tentative tract map indicate the following site characteristics:
CUP05066 PCO32006 SRJR
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 3
Development Standards
Proposed Project
RM -4 Zone Standards
Site Area
1.47 acres 64,727 s.f.
N/A
Number of Dwelling Units
54 dwelling units **
54 units maximum
Average Land Area per Unit
1,198 s.f. **
1,200 s.f. minimum **
Lot Coverage
47.0%
55% maximum
Avg. Rec /Leisure Area per
DU
378 s.f. per unit (20,420 s.f.
total)**
200 s.f. per unit (10,800 s.f.
total
"Existing site characteristic as previously-approved-
(6) The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) and tentative map indicate the following setbacks:
Direction
Existing Structural and
Code - Required
Adjacent Zoning
Landscaped Setbacks
Structural Setbacks
RM -4
North (adjacent to flood
4 -33 feet structural **
15 feet structural
NA
channel)
0 -21 feet landsca ed **
5 feet landscaped
East (adjacent to Knott
20 feet structural **
20 feet structural
RS -2
Avenue)
20 feet landscaped **
20 feet landscaped
(across Knott
Avenue
East (adjacent to single
5 -15 feet structural **
15 feet structural
T
family residences)
0 feet landsca ed **
5 feet landscaped
South (adjacent to
5 -15 feet structural **
15 feet structural
RM-4
multiple - family residences)
0 -11 feet landscaped**
5 feet landscaped
West (adjacent to
5 -16 feet structural **
15 feet structural
RM -2
multiple - family residences)
0 feet landscaped
5 landsca ed
** Existing site characteristic as previously - approved.
(7) The site plan further indicates a setback of 18 to 45 feet, between the various buildings on
site. Code requires a minimum of 30 feet between these structures based upon the wall
type and number of stories (primary wall of two stories in height). The site plan indicates an
existing 6 -9 foot high concrete block wall along the south, west and east property lines
(adjacent to single family homes), and an existing 7 -9 foot high combination block wall with
wrought iron located along the north property line (adjacent to the flood control channel).
Concrete brick pavers or colored /stamped concrete would be incorporated into the
driveway entry as a decorative treatment. Code permits fences at a maximum of three feet
in height within the required street setback and a maximum height of six feet within all other
required setbacks, except where a multiple - family development abuts a single - family zone,
the wall or fence may be extended to eight (8) feet in height.
(8) Vehicular access would be provided via a thirty -foot wide driveway from Knott Avenue
leading into both the surface and subterranean parking areas. The parking plan (Exhibit No.
2) indicates 135 parking spaces are available on site (9 spaces within the surface lot).
Code requires a total of 128 parking spaces based on the requirement of three (3) spaces
for a 3- bedroom unit (3 x 8 units = 24 spaces) and 225 spaces for a 2- bedroom unit (225 x
46 units = 103.5 (104) spaces. Of the 135 parking spaces, nine (9) are designated as visitor
spaces. The applicant has indicated that five (5) spaces within the structure would be
designated as "guest' spaces with access obtained by a call box. Code requires fourteen
(14) of the spaces on site to be designated for guests (025 spaces x 54 units = 13.5 (14)).
There is an existing gate across the entry into the subterranean parking area.
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 3
(9) The floor plans (Exhibit Nos. 3 and 4) indicate single -story units consisting of living and
dining rooms, kitchen, bathroom (s), and outdoor deck and balcony areas. Each unit also
has a separate utility /storage area which contains approximately 100 cubic feet of storage
space. Although the units do not have individual laundry facilities, the four (4) existing
laundry rooms would be upgraded so that the number of new washers and dryers would be
doubled (from fourto eight) in each facility (with the use of stackable units). No
modifications to the interior floor plans are proposed; however, the petitioner has indicated
that the following improvements would be made to each of the units prior to the sale of the
units:
• Replace the flooring (carpet and vinyl)
• Replace the countertops and cabinetry (including fixtures) in kitchen and restrooms.
• Install smoke detectors in all bedrooms
• Replace AC units
• Replace forced air units
• Replace all front doors and utility doors
• Replace gas ranges
• Replace dishwashers
(10) The units are located within five (5), two -story buildings located on site and are summarized
as follows:
Plan
No. of Units
Total Living Area*
No. Of
Bedrooms/
Bathrooms
A
44
848 square feet
2 Bedrooms
2 Bathrooms
B
8
1,056 square feet
3 Bedrooms
2 Bathrooms
C
2
860 square feet
2 Bedrooms
1 Bathrooms
*Code requires a minimum floor area of 825 square feet for two bedroom units and a
minimum of 1,000 square feet for three bedroom units.
(11) Elevation plans (Exhibit No. 5) indicate photographic renderings of the proposed
modifications to each of the five buildings on site. The site contains five, two -story
buildings consisting of beige and peach colored buildings, with concrete "S' tile rooftops,
aluminum windows, and turquoise wrought iron fencing and balcony /stairway railing. The
proposal includes painting the buildings complementary colors (Creamy Apricot and August
Morning) on the building wall planes to highlight the existing building articulation. The
turquoise wrought iron would be painted brown (Colorado Trail). All the windows and doors
would be enhanced with the installation of foam molding treatments and shutters in some
instances (painted an accent color — Colorado Trail). The renderings further reflect the
replacement of all entry doors with Cherry Wood 6 -Panel doors with brushed nickel finish
door handles, decorative light fixtures and address number panels. The second floor
wrought iron and balcony railings would be painted brown (Colorado Trail) and privacy
screening would be affixed to the railing to screen the balconies. Interior courtyard posts
would be enhanced with a decorative Roman Doric style column treatment with decorative
base.
(12) Elevation and hardscape plans (Exhibit No. 5) indicate the parking area adjacent to Knott
Avenue would be refinished with a stamped concrete decorative treatment. The renderings
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 3
further reflect a decorative concrete treatment within all interior courtyards and the pool
recreation area. The turquoise wrought iron adjacent to the pool area would also be
painted brown (Colorado Trail) and the exterior finish to the restrooms and walls would be
painted to match the other buildings on site.
(13) The site plan and elevation plans (Exhibit Nos. 1 and 5) indicate a twenty (20) foot wide
landscaped setback adjacent to Knott Avenue consisting of eight (8) existing trees, planter
areas and sod. The plan also shows planter areas located within the surface parking lot,
and within the interior courtyard areas within the complex. The site also contains a
landscaped area at the northwest corner of the property. The renderings reflect the
enhancement of the street setback landscape area with the addition of low flowering shrubs
and plants ( "Birds of Paradise ") to provide color along the base of the building. Shrubs are
also proposed to screen an existing backflow device within the setback area. Terra Cotta
planter boxes would be added in front of each space in the surface parking area and would
be planted with flowering shrubs and set with a drip irrigation system. Interior courtyard
planters would be enhanced in the same manner as the front setback area. Circular Terra
Cotta planter pots would also be added throughout the courtyard areas and planted with
flowering shrubs and set with a drip irrigation system. All the planter areas within the front
setback and within the interior courtyard areas would be finished with a stacked slate
veneer to add visual interest and update the look of the exterior building finishes. The pool
area would be equipped with patio seating and new lounge chairs, as well as the circular
Terra Cotta planter pots. The rear recreation /picnic area adjacent to the pool would be
enhanced with the addition of trees and shrubs along the perimeter wall, as well as the
addition of a covered seating area and new barbeque grill.
(14) California Government Code Section 66427.1 contains specific requirements for approval
of a final map for a subdivision created from the conversion of residential real property into
a condominium project. California Government Code Section 66427.1 reads as follows:
"(a) Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project --- has received, pursuant to
Section 66452.9, written notification of intention to convert at least 60 days prior to the filing
of a tentative map pursuant to Section 66452. There shall be a further finding that each
such tenant, and each person applying for the rental of a unit in such residential real
property, has, or will have, received all applicable notices and rights now or hereafter
required by this chapter or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 66451). In addition, a
finding shall be made that each tenant has received 10 days' written notification that an
application for a public report will be, or has been, submitted to the Department of Real
Estate, and that such report will be available on request. The written notices to tenants
required by this subdivision shall be deemed satisfied if such notices comply with the legal
requirements for service by mail.
(b) Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project... has been, or will be, given
written notification within 10 days of approval of a final map for the proposed conversion.
(c) Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project... has been, or will be, given
180 days' written notice of intention to convert prior to termination of tenancy due to the
conversion or proposed conversion. The provisions of this subdivision shall not alter or
abridge the rights or obligations of the parties in performance of their covenants, including,
but not limited to, the provision of services, payment of rent or the obligations imposed by
Sections 1941, 1941.1, and 1941.2 of the Civil Code.
Page 4
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 3
(d) Each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project... has been, or will be, given
notice of an exclusive right to contract for the purchase of his or her respective unit upon
the same terms and conditions that such unit will be initially offered to the general public or
terms more favorable to the tenant. The right shall run for a period of not less than 90 days
from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report pursuant to Section 11018.2 of
the Business and Professions Code, unless the tenant gives prior written notice of his or
her intention not to exercise the right.
(e) This section shall not diminish, limit or expand, other than as provided herein, the
authority of any city, county, or city and county to approve or disapprove condominium
projects.'
The applicant has indicated that written notification of intention to convert the apartments to
condominiums has been provided at least 60 days prior to the filing of a tentative map
(Tenants notified on April 28, 2005; application filed on January 19, 2006). Additionally the
applicant has submitted copies of prospective tenant notifications as required in subsection
(a) indicated above. Thus far, the applicant has demonstrated compliance with applicable
Government Code sections pertaining to condominium conversions. The additional
requirements set forth above for tenant notification prior to filing of a public report with the
Department of Real Estate, and noticing requirements for the final map and termination of
tenancy, as well as the exclusive right of the tenants to contract for the purchase of his or
her respective unit would be included as conditions of approval on the tentative map.
(15) In the project summary, the applicant has indicated that all the common areas (interior
courtyards, parking areas, pool and picnic areas, children's playground and basketball
court areas and common walkways would be maintained by the Homeowners Association
(HOA). The responsibility for on -site management would be transferred to a professional
condominium association management company to work with the HOA for maintenance
and daily upkeep of the property. Additionally the applicant indicates that for any tenants
who do not exercise their right to purchase their unit, they will be given one month's rent, or
$1,200, and reimbursement for relocation expenses, not to exceed $500.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(16) Staff has reviewed the proposal and the Initial Study (a copy of which is available for review
in the Planning Department) and finds no significant environmental impact and, therefore,
recommends that a Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the Planning
Commission that the Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the lead
agency; and that it has considered the proposed Negative Declaration together with any
comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the
Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect on the environment-
EVALUATION
(17) The conversion of existing multiple- family structures to condominiums or other common
interest development is permitted in the RM -4 Zone subject to the approval of a conditional
use permit. A tentative tract map is required for the subdivision of airspace for
condominium purposes.
Page 5
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 3
(18) With the exception of setbacks and distance between buildings, the existing complex
complies with all the development standards required for projects within the RM-4 zone.
The buildings were constructed in 1989 and complied with Code at that time (with the
exception of the referenced waiver pertaining to maximum structural height within 150 feet
of a single family residential zone). Based upon review of the project, the site complies
with the General Plan and underlying Zoning Code, and is suitable for the conversion of the
existing multiple family structures to a condominium development.
(19) Goal 4.1 of the Community Design Element of the General Plan reads as follows
"Multiple-family housing is attractively designed and scaled to complement the
neighborhood and provides visual interest through varied architectural detailing."
Several policies are indicated in order to implement this goal. In summary, the design
policies include the following:
• Reduce the visual impact of large- scale, multiple - family buildings by requiring
articulated entry features, such as attractive porches, and detailed fagade treatments,
which create visual interest and give each unit more personalized design.
• Discourage visually monotonous, multiple - family residences by incorporating different
architectural styles, a variety of roof - lines, wall articulation, balconies, window
treatments, and vaned colors and building materials on all elevations.
• Require appropriate setbacks and height limits to provide privacy where multiple -
family housing is developed adjacent to single family housing.
• Reduce the visual impact of parking areas by utilizing interior courtyard garages,
parking structures, subterranean lots, or tuck - under, alley - loaded designs.
• Require minimum lot size criteria in the Zoning Code to encourage professional,
responsible, on -site property management.
Page 6
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 3
Provide usable common open space amenities. Common open space should be
centrally located and contain amenities such as seating, shade and play equipment.
Private open space may include courtyards, balconies, patios, terraces and enclosed
play areas.
Provide convenient pedestrian access from multiple - family development to nearby
commercial centers, schools, and transit stops.
Where possible, underground or screen utilities and utility equipment or locate and
size them to be as inconspicuous as possible.
(20) Several of the design features indicated in the Design Element have been incorporated into
the proposed condominium conversion of the existing apartment complex. Examples
include providing detailed fagade treatments (shutters and surrounds on the windows and
doors), and varied colors on the building wall planes to enhance articulation. The common
open space amenities will be enhanced with permanent seating and shade structures and
additional landscaping to make the pool and associated picnic area more inviting. Existing
utility equipment (gas meters and backflow device) would be painted and screened with
landscaping where possible. Additionally, all landscaped planter areas would be
enhanced with the use of stacked stone, and all surface concrete areas would be enhanced
with decorative concrete treatment.
(21) Staff has included standard conditions of approval relating to landscape installation and
maintenance. Detailed final elevation and landscape plans are required for final review and
approval by staff prior to issuance of building permits associated with the various upgrades
proposed. Staff believes the proposed project is compatible with existing and surrounding
land uses (which are also multiple - family residences) and that modifications /upgrades
proposed to the buildings on site would enhance visual impact of the property and livability
for residents within and around the project, and result in a project that is compatible and
consistent with surrounding land uses and consistent with other recently approved
condominium subdivisions.
(22) Although the project is not a housing opportunity site, the proposed project would provide
for ownership housing and contribute to the City's Housing Element goals by improving
existing housing and adding to the variety of housing opportunities already found within the
City. The General Plan designates this property for Medium Density Residential land uses
and implementation of this project would be consistent with that designation.
(23) Staff received one letter in support of the project from a representative of a homeowner's
association from a condominium complex immediately west of the site. Although the letter
expressed support, the representative's letter also expressed concerns pertaining to the
exterior appearance of the complex, long -term maintenance issues, noise, and available
on -site parking. Based on these concerns, staff included a condition of approval requiring
the following issues to be addressed within the CC &Rs.
• That assigned parking be maintained for vehicle parking in compliance with code.
• That guest spaces will only be used as such and will be clearly designated at all
times.
• That balcony/ patio areas will not be used for storage.
• Overall general maintenance of the property.
Page 7
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 3
FINDINGS:
(24) Before the Planning Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding
of fact that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
(a) That the proposed use is properly one forwhich a conditional use permit is
authorized by the Zoning Code, or is an unlisted use as defined in Subsection .030
(Unlisted Uses Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approved Authority);
(b) That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth
and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
(c) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area
or to the health and safety;
(d) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden
upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the
area; and
(e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, will not
be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
(25) Before the Planning Commission approves a conditional use permit to convert existing
multiple - family dwellings to a condominium or other common interest development, it shall
make the following findings:
(a) That the project complies with the General Plan, including the Land Use Element;
(b) That the existing structures and other improvements conform to the site
development standards for the underlying zone or any applicable specific plan.
(c) That the existing structures and other improvements are in compliance with the
Uniform Building Code and other applicable codes as adopted by the City of
Anaheim;
(d) That the vehicular and pedestrian access are adequate;
(e) That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use are adequate to allow full
development of the proposal in a manner not detrimental to the particular area;
(f) That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden
upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the
area; and
(g) That granting the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will
not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of
the City of Anaheim.
(26) "The State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code, Section 66473.5) makes it mandatory
to include in all motions approving, or recommending approval of a tract map, a specific
finding that the proposed Subdivision together with its design and improvement is
consistent with the City's General Plan.
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 3
Further, the law requires that the Commission make any of the following findings when
denying or recommending denial of a tract map:
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable General and Specific
Plans.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with
applicable General and Specific Plans.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat.
6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause
serious public health problems.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision."
RECOMMENDATION:
(27) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the
meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Planning Commission, including
the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Planning Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, aoorove a Negative Declaration for the project.
(b) By resolution, aoorove Conditional Use Permit No. 2006 -05066 to convert a 54 -unit
apartment complex into a 54 -unit residential condominium complex by adopting the
attached resolution including the findings and conditions contained therein.
(c) By motion, approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17016 to establish a 1 -lot, 54 unit
attached residential condominium subdivision based upon the attached conditions of
approval and the findings that the design and improvement of the subdivision is
consistent with the General Plan, and the site is physically suitable for the type and
density of the proposed development.
Page 9
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006 - * **
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -05066 BE GRANTED
(729 SOUTH KNOTT AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional
Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California,
described as:
PARCEL 1: THAT PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY LYING
EAST OF THE PROLONGATION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 13 OF TRACT NO. 743, IN
THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A
MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 22 PAGE 10 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS RECORDS
OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PORTION OF THE EAST ONE -HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 15, IN TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 11, WEST, SAN
BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 743, AS SHOWN A MAP
THEREOF, RECORDED IN BOOK 22 PAGE 10, MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID
ORANGE COUNTY, DISTANT SOUTH 89° 39' WEST 314 FEET FROM THE EAST LINE OF
SAID SECTION 15; RUNNING THENCE NORTH, PARALLEL WITH THE EAST LINE OF SAID
SECTION 15, 155 FEET, THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY TO A POINT IN THE WEST LINE OF
THE EAST ONE -HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SAID SECTION 15, DISTANT THEREON 35 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTH LINE OF LOT 15
OF SAID TRACT NO. 743; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID WEST LINE, 35 FEET TO THE
NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 15; THENCE NORTH 89 39' EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID TRACT NO. 743,350.61 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 2: THAT PORTION OF THE EAST ONE -HALF OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION FIFTEEN IN TOWNSHIP FOUR
SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, IN THE COUNTY OF
ORANGE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE NORTHERLY
LINE OF LOT 1 OF TRACT NO. 743, AS PER MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 22, PAGE
10 MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, WITH THE EAST LINE
OF SAID SECTION 15; RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 89 39' WEST ALONG SAID EASTERLY
EXTENSION AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT 743, 314 FEET; THENCE
NORTH PARALLEL WITH THE EXCEPT LINE OF SAID SECTION 15, 130 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 89 39' EAST PARALLEL WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 743,314
FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION 15, THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE,
130 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 3: LOT 12 OF TRACT NO. 743, COUNTY OF ORNAGE, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 22 PAGE 10 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS,
IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 299 FEET THEREOF.
PARCEL 4: THAT PORTION OF LOT 13 OF TRACT NO. 743, COUNTY OF ORANGE,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 22 PAGE 10 OF
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,
AS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Cr\PC2006 -0 -1- PC2006-
BEGINNNG AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 13 RUNNING THENCE EAST
118.65 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE
EXCEPT LINE OF SAID LOT 96 FEET; THENCE WEST PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID LOT 118.65 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID
WEST LINE 96 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING FROM SAID PARCELS 1 -4 THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO THE ORANGE
COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 30, 1959 IN BOOK 4780
PAGE 62 OFFICIAL RECORDS.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on April 3, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as
required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to
hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and
make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and that said public hearing was continued
from the March 20, 2006, Planning Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself
and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find
and determine the following facts:
1. That the proposed conversion of existing multiple - family structures to a condominium or
other common interest development is permitted in the RM -4 Zone subject to the approval of a conditional
use permit under authority of Code Sections 18.06.030.090 and 18.38.100.020.
2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and
development of the area as the apartment complex has been in operation for sixteen years, and no
expansion or increase of units is proposed. The proposed conversion is compatible with existing and
surrounding multiple - family residential developments. The proposed conversion would be compatible with
existing and surrounding land uses (which are also multiple - family residences) and that modifications and
upgrades proposed to the buildings on -site would enhance the visual impact of the property on surrounding
properties and livability for residents within the project, and result in a project that is compatible and
consistent with surrounding land uses and other recently approved condominium subdivisions.
3. That the proposed conversion would not create any new units or additional square footage
and therefore would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area
in which it is proposed because the size and shape of the site for the project has been adequate for the full
development of the existing use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area.
4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area because the project is already
existing with 54 dwelling units (as previously approved) and would be implementing the Medium Density
Residential land use designation of the General Plan. No increase in the number of units is proposed.
5. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any, will not
be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
6. That' *' indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no
correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING That the Anaheim Planning
Commission has reviewed the proposal to convert a 54 -unit apartment complex into a 54 -unit residential
condominium complex and establish a 1 -lot, 54 -unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision;
and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that the declaration reflects the independent
judgment of the lead agency and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any
comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial study and
any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on
the environment-
-2- PC2006-
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does
hereby grant subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, upon the following conditions which are hereby
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the
safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
1. That final landscape, fencing plans and hardscape plans shall be submitted to the Planning Services
Division for review and approval. The landscape plan shall incorporate layered landscaping within the
front setback and clinging vines, shrubs and groundcover adjacent to all block walls visible from the
public right of way. Plans shall reflect the following:
• Common open space amenities enhanced with permanent seating and shade equipment and
additional landscaping to make the pool area and associated picnic area more inviting.
• Existing utility equipment (gas meters and backflow device) shall be painted and screened with
landscaping where possible.
• All landscaped planters shall be enhanced with the use of stacked stone and all surface concrete
areas would be enhanced with a decorative concrete treatment.
Any decision made by the Planning Services Division regarding said plan may be appealed to the
Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendation" item.
2. That all air - conditioning facilities and other ground- mounted equipment shall be properly shielded from
view and the sound buffered from adjacent residential properties. Said information shall be specifically
shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
3. That all plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall be fully
screened by architectural devices and /or appropriate building materials. Said information shall be
specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
4. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape
maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty -four (24) hours from time
of occurrence.
5. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to the approval and recordation of Tentative Tract
Map No. 17016, now pending.
6. That any tree planted on -site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed,
damaged, diseased and /or dead.
7. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense. That
landscape and /or hardscape screening of all pad- mounted equipment shall be required and shall be
shown on plans submitted for building permits.
8. That five (5) additional guest spaces shall be designated within the parking area for a minimum of
fourteen (14) spaces as required by Code. A call box shall be installed to facilitate access to this area
by guests. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
9. That a written Solid Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to the Public Works Department,
Streets and Sanitation Division. Said program shall include information on the following: a detailed,
scaled site plan showing the storage and collection areas and the location of any trash enclosure with
enclosure details drawings, and truck access.
10. That a minimum of two additional collection areas for on -site refuse shall be installed within the existing
subsurface parking area. Each area shall contain a minimum of one storage bin. On -site maintenance
shall be responsible for transporting refuse to the primary enclosure at the front of the site. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits-
-3- PC2006-
11. That the existing trash enclosure shall be refurbished and gates installed per City Standards. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
12. That any new backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street setback area in
a manner fully screened from all public streets. Any backflow assemblies currently installed in a vault
shall be brought up to current standards. Existing large water system equipment shall be fully
screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be shown on plans and approved by
Water Engineering and Cross Connection Control Inspector before submittal for building permits.
13. That if this site does not already have a separate irrigation meter, a separate irrigation meter shall be
installed and shall comply with City Ordinance No. 5349 and Chapter 10.19 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code. Said information shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits.
14. That all existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Services Standards
Specifications. Any water service and /or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if
continued use is necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. The
owner /developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water service or fire line.
15. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications
submitted to the City of Anaheim by the applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning
Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5, as conditioned herein.
16. That final detailed elevation plans and colors and materials shall be submitted to the Planning Services
Division for review and approval. Plans shall reflect detailed fagade treatments (shutters and
surrounds on the windows and doors), and varied colors on the building wall planes to enhance
articulation of the building. Any decision by staff regarding said plans may be appealed to the Planning
Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item.
17. That the developer shall submit a landscaping and irrigation plan to the Public Works Department,
Development Services Division to improve Magnolia Avenue prior to issuance of a building permit. The
parkway irrigation shall be connected to the on -site irrigation system and maintained by the property
owner. A Right -of -Way Construction Permit shall be obtained from the Development Services Division
for all work performed in the right -of -way. The improvements shall be constructed prior to final building
and zoning inspections.
18. That the Home Owners Association (HOA) shall have the responsibility to maintain the building
exteriors and use of the property for residential development. All common facilities such as recreational
areas, parking areas, community buildings and landscaping, as well as the general appearance of the
premises and buildings, shall be adequately and professionally maintained.
19. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this
resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1. 2. 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16 and 17
above - mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may
be granted in accordance with Chapter 18.60 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
20. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 15 and 17, above - mentioned, shall
be complied with.
21. 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-
-4- PC2006-
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and
all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared
invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related
to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or
prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges
shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
April 3, 2006. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Zoning
Provisions — General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced
by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN. ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SENIOR SECRETARY. ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission
held on April 3, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
.2006.
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-5- PC2006-
City of Anaheim
P~ANNfNG ~E~A~'~'IiREI®i~
April 3, 2006
Brian Dror
5967 West 3rd Street, Suite 102
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Following is an excerpt from the minutes of the Anaheim Planning Commission meeting of
April 3, 2006.
3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05066
3c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17016
Owner: Brian Dror, 5967 West 3`d Street, Suite 102, Los Angeles, CA 90036
www.anaheim.net
Agent: Rey Berona, Condo Conversions.com, 7439 La Palma Avenue, Unit 309,
Buena Park, CA 90620
Location: 729 South Knott Avenue: Property is approximately 1.47 acres, having
a frontage of 150 on the west side of Knott Avenue and is located 193
feet north of the centerline of Rome Avenue.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05066 -Request to convert a 54-unit apartment
complex into a 54-unit residential condominium complex.
Tentative Tract Map No. 17016 - To establish a 1-lot, 54-unit airspace attached
residential condominium subdivision.
ACTION:
Commissioner XXX offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner mCXand MOTION
CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to establish a
1-lot, 54-unit airspace attached residential condominium subdivision and does hereby
approve the Negative Declara0on upon a finding that the declaration reflects the independent
judgment of the lead agency; and that it has considered the Negative Declaration together
with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis
of the Initial Study and comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the
project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Commissioner X)OCoffered a motion, seconded by Commissioner XXX and MOTION
CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed
tentative map, including its design and Improvements, is consistent with the Anaheim General
Plan., and does therefore approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17016, to establish a 1-lot, 54-unit
airspace attached residential condominium subdivision subject to the following conditions:
200 South Anaheim Boulevard
P.0. Box 3222
Anaheim, California 92803
TEL (714) 765-5739
1. That the final map shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Anaheim and the
Orange County Surveyor and then shall be recorded in the Office of the Orange County
Recorder (Subdivision Map Act, Section 66499.40).
2. The vehicular access rights to Knott Avenue, except at the driveway opening, shall be
released and relinquished to the City of Anaheim.
3. That prior to final map approval, a maintenance covenant, shall be submitted to the
Subdivision Section and approved by the City Attorney's office. The covenant shall include
provisions for maintenance of private facilities, including compliance with approved Water
Quality Management Plan, and a maintenance exhibit. The covenant shall be recorded
concurrently with the final map.
4. That approval of this parcel map is granted subject to the approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. 2006 - 05066, now pending.
5. That CC &R's recorded on the property shall include provisions requiring the following:
• That assigned parking shall be maintained for vehicle parking in compliance with
code.
• That guest spaces shall only be used as such and will be clearly designated at all
times.
• That balcony /patio areas shall not be used for storage.
• Overall general maintenance of the property.
6. That the property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim, on the
final map, an easement 60 -feet in width from the centerline of Knott Avenue for road, public
utility and other public purposes.
7. An improvement certificate shall be placed on the final map to construct street
improvements along Knott Avenue to the width required by the Planned Roadway Network
Plan and Public Works Standard Detail 160 -A prior to final building and zoning inspections
for future building or grading site development plans.
8. That prior to final tract map approval, the subdivider shall submit evidence to the Public
Works Department, Subdivision Section that all requirements of Section 66427.1 of the
Subdivision Map Act, pertaining to condominium conversions, have been met, including
the following:
• That each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project will receive 10 days'
written notification that an application for a public report will be submitted to the
Department of Real Estate, and that such report will be available on request. The
written notices to tenants required shall be deemed satisfied if such notices comply
with the legal requirements for service by mail.
• That each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project will be given written
notification within 10 days of approval of a final map for the proposed conversion.
• That each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project will be given 180
days' written notice of intention to convert prior to termination of tenancy due to this
conversion. The provisions of this subdivision shall not alter or abridge the rights or
obligations of the parties in performance of their covenants, including, but not limited
to, the provision of services, payment of rent or the obligations imposed by Sections
1941, 1941.1, and 19412 of the Civil Code.
That each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project will be given notice of
an exclusive right to contract for the purchase of his or her respective unit upon the
same terms and conditions that such unit will be initially offered to the general public
or terms more favorable to the tenant. The right shall run for a period of not less
than 90 days from the date of issuance of the subdivision public report pursuant to
Section 110182 of the Business and Professions Code, unless the tenant gives
prior written notice of his or her intention not to exercise the right.
9. That prior to final map approval, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, above -
mentioned, shall be complied with.
10. 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.
Sincerely,
Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary
Anaheim Planning Commission
Cr em.dm
Attachment - Item No. 3
SPRING LAKE CONDOMINIUMS I
PROJECT ADDRESS: 729 South Knott Ave, Anaheim, Ca 92804
To convert an existing 54 -unit apartment complex to an attached airspace residential condominium complex.
utp Tnfarmatiion
Project address: 729 South Knott Avenue
Project name: SPRING LAKE CONDOMINIUMS
Current zone: RM-4 QS #: 2
General Plan Designation: Medium Density
Flood Channel NA
Residential
Current use: Developed with Apartments
No. of parcels: 1
Low- Medium Density
Residential
South
-
Code Enforcement Notice of Violation? No
Redevelopment area: NA
Previous zoning actions: _
(a) Variance No. 3555 to construct a 54 -unit apartment complex (with waiver of maximum
structural height within 150 feet of a single family residential zone one story permitted,
two stories proposed within 11 feet of a single family residential zone) was approved by
the Planning Commission on April 28, 1986.
Surrounding Land Uses
Direction
zoning
U se zoning-
General Plan
Iesignation
North
Flood Channel NA
NA
East,
- Condominiums RM -2
Low- Medium Density
Residential
South
-
Apartments /Single Family T/RM -4
Medium Density
Residential
Nest
SIR RS -2
Low Density Residential
Attachment - Item No. 3
SPRING LAKE CONDOMINIUMS
I. PROJECT SUMMARY
r7
A. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The 54 unit proposed project is located along Knott Avenue and consists of five
(5) buildings over a partial subterranean parking garage with 133 parking spaces.
The buildings are in fair overall condition. (See property condition report) The
unit mix includes (2) two 2- Bedroom/1 -Bath (850 sq ft), (44) forty-four 2-
Bedroom/2 -Bath (900 sq ft) and (8) eight 3- Bedroom/2 -Bath (1100 sq ft).
Landscaping consists of ground cover, low growing shrubs and palm trees.
Site amenities (see landscaping & amenities plan) include:
a. four laundry rooms
b. Pool & spa area with adjacent rest room - one in- ground swimming pool, one
in- ground spa
c. Kid's playground area
d. Picnic area and 2 barbeques
e. Basketball court
B. PROPOSED PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS
A Project Pre -file has been submitted to the city of Anaheim. The Planning Staff
has responded with a list of proposed items that they would like to see
implemented with this project. The applicant will diligently work with the city
planners to comply with the proposed changes. (see applicant responses to staff
comments.)
The applicant has retained Greg Lavasse, a Professional Registered Engineer of
Land America, to conduct an on site survey and property condition of the project.
The purpose of the this report is to identify the physical condition of the property
and to identify immediate maintenance issues and also to provide a 12 year
replacement reserve schedule. (see property condition report) The applicant will
address all identified maintenance issues.
C. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT
The proposed condo conversion project will benefit the surrounding areas by
providing needed home ownership in the affordable range and will not negatively
impact the rental market. Surveys show that 85% of condominium conversion
buyers are first time home buyers. This project will provide home ownership to 54
families. The applicant will assist any and all of the existing tenants that expresses
an interest in purchasing their units.
According to the latest census (2000) figures, Anaheim and Stanton has about
110,730 housing units with an ownership rate of about 49% . Using theses figures
for the cities of Anaheim and Stanton, there is 56,472 rental units. The proposed
conversion will displace 54 units or less than 1 /10 of 1% of the rental stock in
these two cities. This percentage does not take into account the rental stock of the
adjacent cities of Cypress and Buena Park.
Attachment - Item No. 3
SPRING LAKE CONDOMINIUMS
D. APPLICANT RESPONSE TO STAFF COMMENTS.
• Note: Staff comments are in Italics, Applicant comments in Bold
STAFF CO'NfiS
1. A conditional use permit and tentative tract map would need to be processed for
the requested condominium conversion.
*The Applicant will file the necessary applications.
2. The Planning Commission has expressed interest in amenities provided for
multifamily development. A detailed description of on -site amenities should be
included. An enlarged landscape plan of the pool /recreation area should also be
provided. In addition to concerns pertaining to amenities, the Planning
Commission has also expressed greater interest in the level of detail of building
elevations and architectural quality of residential projects.
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request. Please see
Proposed Design Motif.
3. The elevation plans should have more articulation. This can be achieved by using
color, arrangement offaVade elements, a change in material or other
architectural devices. By varying the texture, the addition of colors, provides a
contrast to the building. In addition, adding elements such as decorative stone
and tile gives the building a more aesthetically, pleasing appearance.
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request. Please see
Proposed Design Motif.
4. Please provide a tree /plant legend indicating the botanical name, common name
and size of plants, including the graphic reference or symbol used to identify the
plant material on the landscape drawing. Please identify the size and separation
ofplantings at time of installation (i.e., 5- gallon at 3 feet on- center). This
information should be included for all existing and proposed landscaped areas.
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request. Please see
Proposed Design Motif.
5. California Government Code Section 66427.1 contains specific requirements for
approval of a final map for a subdivision created from rom the conversion of
residential real property into a condominium project. In addition to the findings
required, you will be required to provide written notification to your tenants that
an application for a public report will be, or has been, submitted to the
Attachment - Item No. 3
SPRING LAKE CONDOMINIUMS
Department of Real Estate, and that such report will be available on request. I
have attached relevant sections of the California Government Codes, please
ensure your submittal complies with these sections as well as any other
requirements as necessary by the California Department of Real Estate. For
information regarding the filing of a public report, visit
http / /www.dre.ca eov /� dots /sppdf rag Upon formal submittal, you must
demonstrate that you have complied with the Department of Real Estate
guidelines and requirements and relevant Government Code Sections pertaining
to the conversion of residential property into a condominium project.
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request. With this
application are proof of notices that were sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt
requested, copies of the notices that were sent to each tenant, a copy of the New
Tenant Notice prior to and during the application period. The applicant will
comply with the noticing requirements of the Subdivision Map Act of California,
Section 66452.9
6. Please submit a detailed relocation plan for the current tenants and explain how
this plan complies with the Department of Real Estate requirements.
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request.
Each eligible Tenant who decides not exercise their required 90 Day Right of
First Refusal to purchase their unit will be given one month's rent or $1200 plus
actual relocation expenses, not to exceed $500. The monies will be given upon
proof vacating their respective tenancy and receipts showing actual moving
expenses.
7. Please provide detailed information regarding current rental rates for all unit
types, and pricing for units subsequent to conversion to a condominium project.
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request. The
following are the rental rates for each type of unit.
a. 2 Br / 2 Ba .......... $1200
b. 2 Br / 1 Ba .......... $1100
b. 3 Br / 2 Ba .......... $1450
Number of units available: 44
Number of units available: 2
Number of units available: 8
8. The Police Department does not support /recommend the use of common laundry
facilities. Staff recommend facilities be installed in each unit (stackable units
would work as well). If you are unable to install individual laundry facilities in
each unit, staff recommends the existing facilities be expanded to provide an
adequate number of machines for all fifty four units. Currently the site is served
by eight washers and eight dryers, which in insufficient.
Attachment - Item No., 3
SPRING LAKE CONDOMINIUMS 5
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request. Per
previous discussions with Mr. John Ramirez, Anaheim City Planner, the
applicant will double the number of washerldryer units in the existing common
laundry facilities, by adding stackabte units. In addition, the applicant will work
with the city to install additional security monitoring devices throughout the
facility, especially at certain strategic locations, such as the laundry area, the
parking area and as recommended by the city.
9. Please indicate if any on -site management would remain subsequent to
conversion and indicate how long you would be involved in the HOA after
conversion.
*After completion of the conversion and sale of each of the units, the
Applicant will turn over the on -site management to a professional condominium
management company. At the city's request, the applicant can supply the names
of two management companies.
10. Please provide a detailed description of on site amenities that would be provided
(clubhouse, pool, etc)
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request.
The site amenities include:
a. Swimming pool and spa area with adjacent restroom
b. Picnic area & 2 barbeques
c. Kid's playground area
d. Basketball court
11. Please provide the following information upon submittal:
s Please label and provide dimensions for all setbacks, property
lines, and ultimate public right -of -way, and between buildings, on
all plan sheets.
• Please provide a recreation area plan, indicating areas included in Q
the per -unit calculation for required open space.
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request, as shown
on the Tentative Tract Map drawing.
s Revise exterior elevations to reflect new materials, colors, accents,
etc.
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request. Please see
Proposed Design Motif.
J
Attachment - Item No. 3
SPRING LAKE CONDOMINIUMS
• Elevation plans should indicate overall height of each building.
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request. Please see
respective elevation drawings of the buildings.
• The site plan should identify/outline adjacent uses and buildings to
the south and west of the site.
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request. Please see
respective drawings and pictures of the complex and adjacent areas.
• A decorative pavement treatment should be installed at the
entrance of the complex within the 20 foot setback area.
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request. Please see
Proposed Design Motif.
• Revise the parking tabulation. The code requires 2.25 spaces for
each 2- bedroom unit and 3 spaces for each 3- bedroom unit, for a
total of 128 spaces for the project
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request, as shown
on the respective drawings. There are currently 133 parking spaces which
exceeds the city requirements. Each unit will be given designated spaces and all
® the guest parking spaces will be labeled as such.
• Please provide across section detail along the south and west
property lines to demonstrate the topography and building
orientation adjacent to these property lines and uses (to
demonstrate compatibility).
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request. Please see
Tentative Tract Map drawing.
• Please provide a narrative parking plan describing how parking
areas would be controlled /accessed, how spaces would be
assigned, and where guest parking areas would be located. The
current tandem configuration is acceptable provided the tandem
spaces are assigned to the same unit.
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request.
Currently, there is subterranean parking with a gated access and additional
guest parking at the entrance of the complex. Each parking space, regular and
tandem, will be numbered and each unit will assigned a specific numbered
space(s). The applicant will work with the city to install a state of the art security
access control system. Additional guest parking is available in the subterranean
parking area and will be labeled as such. Guest entry will be controlled by the
new security access system.
Attachment - Item No. 3
SPRING LAKE CONDOMINIUMS
• Please provide a floor plan for building one, reflecting the interior
of the clubhouse area and any proposed modifications to the
leasing office area.
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request. The
existing leasing office area will be converted back to its original use as part of the
original 3 Bedroom unit.
• Please provide a complete set of landscape plans for the entire
site.
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request. Please see
Proposed Design Motif.
12. Please describe the modifications proposed to distinguish this proposed
condominium project from the current apartment complex. The comments
expressed in this document reflect these sentiments. Staff recommends the
following modifications:
• Update the window and doors to all units. French doors for
balcony areas should replace aluminum sliding doors.
• Add shutters, trim, cornice treatments around windows and doors
• Install decorative lighting throughout the common areas and porch
lighting
• Install upgraded hardware on all the unit entryway doors and
common area facilities
• Upgrade and install additional landscaping in the courtyard areas
(currently there is a lot of concretelhardscape)
• Supplement /enhance existing landscaping areas
• Paint the existing wrought iron railing and fencing throughout the
complex to compliment the building colors
• Replace balcony railing with decorative railing that contains view
obscuring material on the lower 30% as required by code
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with the above request.
Please see Proposed Design Motif.
Secondary waste collection location (s) should be installed and a
plan should be provided indicating how on -site management would
transport the waste to the main collection location at the front of
the complex
I
1
1
a
Attachment - Item No. 3
SPRING LAKE CONDOMINIUMS
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request. Per
previous discussions with Mr. John Ramirez, the applicant will install two (2)
additional collection bins at opposite locations in the parking area. During the
trash collection days, these bins will be moved to the main trash for collection by
an outside contractor paid for by the Rome Owner Association.
® Exterior elevations should be upgraded with the use decorative
accent elements and stone or tile veneer.
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request. Please see
Proposed Design Motif.
13. Please resubmit one fill set ofplans with the above - mentioned modifications for
an informal staff review prior to submitting your formal application. See
attached code sections for reference.
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request.
14. Please note the attached comments from other City Departments.
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request. Please see
Proposed Design Motif.
Please feel free to call or meet with me prior to submitting your public hearing application. I will be glad to
answer any questions you have.
Public hearing initial deposits:
Variance $10,000
Tentative Tract Map $570 ,
Total: $10,570
*The Applicant will work with the city to comply with this request. With this
application is a check for $11,700 as deposit.
Item No. 4
I RS -2
1 DU EACH
MI N ERVA AV E
D
o C)
z r J
Z M ;Q
Q a.NLL
LL J F
U
o! �
JUNO AVENUE
-4 I
VAR 11 _ I
. RCL RM 56 -57-60 J
62
MULTI - FAMILY DU
RM-4
RCL 56 -57 -60
RCL 5556 -11
MULTI - FAMILY DU
RCL 57 -58-23
MULTI - FAMILY DU
Conditional Use Permit No- 2006 -05070
Requested By: BALL EUCLID PLAZA, LLC
1717 -1723 West Ball Road
C -G
RCL 54 -55 -17
CUP 2006 -05070
CUP 1266
VAR 1542
VAR 1865 S
BALL- EUCLID
SHOPPING CENTER
1 DU EACH I I I p r
i
C Ir
VAR 277 29 S A
CUP 2000-042
VAR 1865 S
0
C -G
RCL 53 -54 -26
W CUP 3093
LLI CUP 915
CUP 278
VAR 3247
VAR 1971 S
rn VAR 1776 S
❑ SHOPPING CENTER
J F
U
UJ C-G C -G
RCL 53 -54-26 RCL 53 -54-2
CUP 3093 CUP 3093
VAR 3247 VAR 1721 S
REST. VAR 3247
RM -4
SOU EACH
—416' IN
BALL ROAD
ED Subject Property
Date: April 3, 2006
Scale: 1"=200'
Q -S- No- 48
10015
C-G
RCL 2003 -00094 C-G
RCL 61 -62 -27 RCL 64 -65 -11
CUP 693
RCL 612 -27
N
I
I RS -2
,I
1 DU EACH
o p
RS -2
J
1 DU EACH
r _
N
(6 LL
VAR 1125s
I
J —
CHATEAU AVENUE
cUP2350
CHATEAU PL
RCL 58 -59 -12
~
- 1 DU EACH
Z
I
CUP 2350
OU
r
CUP 3578
RS-2
Q
VAR 119s
1 DU EACH
LL
VAR 109 5
VAR 913
BEACON AVENUE
BEACON AVE
I RS -2
1 DU EACH
MI N ERVA AV E
D
o C)
z r J
Z M ;Q
Q a.NLL
LL J F
U
o! �
JUNO AVENUE
-4 I
VAR 11 _ I
. RCL RM 56 -57-60 J
62
MULTI - FAMILY DU
RM-4
RCL 56 -57 -60
RCL 5556 -11
MULTI - FAMILY DU
RCL 57 -58-23
MULTI - FAMILY DU
Conditional Use Permit No- 2006 -05070
Requested By: BALL EUCLID PLAZA, LLC
1717 -1723 West Ball Road
C -G
RCL 54 -55 -17
CUP 2006 -05070
CUP 1266
VAR 1542
VAR 1865 S
BALL- EUCLID
SHOPPING CENTER
1 DU EACH I I I p r
i
C Ir
VAR 277 29 S A
CUP 2000-042
VAR 1865 S
0
C -G
RCL 53 -54 -26
W CUP 3093
LLI CUP 915
CUP 278
VAR 3247
VAR 1971 S
rn VAR 1776 S
❑ SHOPPING CENTER
J F
U
UJ C-G C -G
RCL 53 -54-26 RCL 53 -54-2
CUP 3093 CUP 3093
VAR 3247 VAR 1721 S
REST. VAR 3247
RM -4
SOU EACH
—416' IN
BALL ROAD
ED Subject Property
Date: April 3, 2006
Scale: 1"=200'
Q -S- No- 48
10015
C-G
RCL 2003 -00094 C-G
RCL 61 -62 -27 RCL 64 -65 -11
CUP 693
RCL 612 -27
N
Date ofAerial Photo:
July 2005
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006 -05070
ED Subject Property
Date: April 3, 2006
Scale: 1"=200'
Requested By: BALL EUCLID PLAZA, LLC
1717 -1723 West Ball Road
10015
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 4
4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION —CLASS 1 (Motion)
4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -05070 (Resolution)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This 7.3 -acre, rectangularly- shaped property is located at the northwest corner of Ball Road
and Euclid Street with frontages of 416 feet on the north side of Ball Road and 740 feet on
the west side of Euclid Street (1717 -1723 West Ball Road).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit under authority of Code
Section No. 18.08.030.040.0402 to permit the division of a retail unit into three (3) units and
establish land use conformity for an existing commercial retail center.
BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is developed with a non - conforming commercial retail center and is zoned
C -G (General Commercial). The Anaheim General Plan designates this property for
Neighborhood Commercial land uses. Surrounding properties to the north (across Beacon
Avenue), south (across Ball Road) and east (across Euclid Street) are also designated for
Neighborhood Commercial land uses, and to the west for Medium Density Residential land
uses.
PREVIOUS ZONING ACTIONS:
(4) The following zoning actions pertain to this property:
(a) Conditional Use Permit No. 2000 -04245 (to construct a drive - through restaurant with
waiver of minimum number of parking spaces and minimum drive - through lane
requirements) was approved by the Planning Commission on September 11, 2000.
(b) Conditional Use Permit No. 1266 (to permit on -sale beer and wine in an existing
restaurant) was approved by the Planning Commission on October 4,1971 -
(c) Variance No. 1865 (to waive the maximum number of freestanding signs and
minimum distance between freestanding signs) was approved by the Planning
Commission on March 27. 1967.
(d) Variance No. 1542 (to waive the minimum number of parking spaces and required
parking area) was approved by the Planning Commission on December 27, 1962.
(e) Variance No. 576 (to permit a service station) was approved on June 18, 1956. This
service station no longer exists on the site, and therefore staff recommends that this
variance be terminated.
PROPOSAL:
(5) The applicant requests a conditional use permit to permit the division of one (1) retail tenant
space into three (3) units and to establish land use conformity for an existing, non-
conforming commercial retail center.
sr- cup2006- 05070akv.doc
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 4
(6) The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicates that the property is currently developed with a 7-
building, 36 -unit commercial retail center. No exterior building modifications are proposed
with this request.
(7) The floor plan (Exhibit No. 2) indicates that an existing 8,400 square foot tenant space
would be divided into three (3), 2,800 square foot tenant spaces. Each unit would be
improved with a restroom. Other specific improvements would be submitted to plan check
once individual tenants have been identified.
an •�..
lAa
a
Proposed floor plan
(8) Access to the site is currently obtained via five (5) driveways from Euclid Avenue and two
(2) driveways from Ball Road. The site plan indicates a total of 479* parking spaces. Code
requires a total of 548 spaces based on the following table:
USE
TOTAL
SQUARE FEET
CODE - REQUIRED
PARKING RATIO
(per 1,000 s.f.)
PARKING
REQUIRED
Full Service Restaurant
6,000
8
48
Fast -Food Restaurant
4,632
16
74.1
Take -Out Restaurant
2,650
5.5
14.6
Retail
70,350
5.5
386.9
Medical
4,000
6
24
TOTAL
i
i
1 548
CUP No. 2000 -04245 included a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces; permitting
the existing deviation. Future businesses occupying the new tenant spaces will be
limited to uses that require no more than 5.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 4
Businesses that require additional parking above this standard retail requirement,
will not be permitted without providing additional parking or applying for a parking
variance.
(9) Staff inspections and submitted photographs indicate the elevations consist of a stucco
building with storefront windows and a parapet roof. No modifications to the elevations are
proposed in conjunction with this request. The property is adequately maintained, however
it is an aging commercial center that could use facade improvements.
E '
lit
Photograph of retail unit to be divided
(10) No sign plans were submitted with this proposal, however, photographs and staff
inspections have confirmed two (2), non - conforming multi- tenant pole signs and two (2)
building mounted pole signs. All freestanding signs are in compliance with the approved
sign plans on file in the Building Division. In addition, each tenant has an individual wall
sign. Code allows the total aggregate area of wall sign(s) affixed to the face of the buildings
to which such sign(s) are attached to a maximum of ten percent (10 %) or two hundred
(200) square feet, whichever is less. Code further allows a maximum letter height of 24
inches for a one story building. Any new wall signs would have to comply with current code
requirements. The existing wall signs for the entire center are a combination of cabinet
signs and individual channel letter signs that were permitted under the prior code which did
not have a letter height limit, however, most of the signs would comply with current code
requirements. The building mounted pole signs are non - conforming signs. Window signs
are permitted not to exceed ten percent (10 %) of the area of the window. Site inspection
indicates that some of the tenants may have window signage in excess of code limitations.
A condition of approval has been added requiring that the window signage for the center
comply with code.
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 4
Existing Multi- tenant Pole Signs
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(11) Staff has determined that the proposed request to permit the division of a retail unit into
three (3) units and establish land use conformity for an existing commercial retail center
falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing
Facilities), as defined in the State CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) Guidelines
and is, therefore categorically exempt from the preparation of further environmental
documentation.
Page 4
Building Mounted Pole Signs
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 4
EVALUATION:
(12) The division of an existing retail unit to create additional units is permitted in the C -G zone
subject to approval of a conditional use permit. The existing center was constructed prior to
the Code provision requiring a conditional use permit for a commercial retail center.
Therefore, the applicant is also requesting to establish land use conformity for the retail
center. The existing commercial center is an aging center that is non - conforming as to land
use, but also in terms of signage and landscaping, both within the parking lot and street
setback. Although staff would encourage landscaping, signage and facade improvements,
the requested action on its own would not require the property owner to make these
improvements.
(13) Staff is supportive of the request to permit the division of one (1) retail tenant space into
three (3) units and to establish land use conformity for an existing, non - conforming
commercial retail center because it would be compatible with the underlying zone and would
bring the retail center into greater conformity with current code land use requirements. In
addition, the recommended standard conditions of approval would ensure proper
maintenance, landscaping, sanitation and screening of roof - mounted equipment-
FINDINGS
(14) Before the Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact
that the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
(a) That the use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the
Zoning Code, or is an unlisted use as defined in Subsection .030 (Unlisted Uses
Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority);
(b) That the use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and
development of the area in which it is proposed to be located;
(c) That the size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area
or to the health and safety;
(d) That the traffic generated by the use will not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
(e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any,
will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim-
RECOMMENDATION
(15) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the
meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Planning Commission, including
the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, aoorove a CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 1 (Existing Facilities).
(b) By resolution, aoorove Conditional Use Permit No. 2006 -05070 to permit the
division of a retail unit into three (3) units and establish land use conformity for an
Page 5
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 4
existing commercial retail center by adopting the attached resolution including the
findings and conditions contained herein.
Page 6
[DRAFT]
RESOLUTION NO. PC2006 -'
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -05070 BE GRANTED
(1717 -1723 WEST BALL ROAD)
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Conditional
Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California,
described as:
THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 236 AND 237, TRACT 2377 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 75, PAGES 29 THROUGH 35 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, AND ALSO SHOWN AS PARCEL 2, AS SHOWN
AND DESCRIBED IN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT LLA- 0000480 RECORDED MARCH 12, 2001
AS INSTRUMENT NO. 20010139330 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA, AS MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT
237 AND A LINE PARALLEL TO AND DISTANT NORTHERLY 150 FEET FROM THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 237, ALSO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY AS
SHOWN ON SAID MAP; THENCE NORTH 00 04'40" EAST, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE
594.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY
AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 15 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90 29'22" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 23.69 FEET TO THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 236 ALSO THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF BEACON AVENUE;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND SOUTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY SOUTH 89
35' 18" WEST, 420.43 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT; THENCE
SOUTH 00 02' 15" WEST, ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOTS 236 AND 237
758.80 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 237 ALSO THE NORTHERLY
LINE OF BALL ROAD; THENCE NORTH 89 42 15' EAST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE
OF SAID LOT AND NORTHERLY RIGHT -OF -WAY 285.02 FEET TO A LINE PARALLEL WITH
AND DISTANT WESTERLY 150 FEET FROM THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 237; THENCE
NORTH 00 04' 40" EAST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, 150.00 FEET TO SAID FIRST
MENTIONED PARALLEL LINE; THENCE NORTH 89° 42'15" EAST, 150.00 FEET ALONG
SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM:
THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 2, AS SHOWN AND DESCRIBED IN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
LLA- 0000480 RECORDED MARCH 12, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 20010139330 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AS MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 2; THENCE ALONG
THE WEST LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 NORTH 00 02' 15" EAST 0.02 FEET; THENCE
NORTH 89 42' 15" EAST 15.74 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE
NORTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1190.00 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG
SAID CURVE 68.61 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03 18' 13 ", THENCE
NORTH 86 24' 02" EAST 68.49 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE CONCAVE
SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1209.00 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG
SAID CURVE 85.12 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 04 02' 02 "; THENCE SOUTH
89 33'56" EAST 47.30 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2;
THENCE SOUTH 00 04' 40" EAST 726 FEET ALONG THE SAID EASTERLY LINE OF
PARCEL 2 TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF BALL ROAD AS SHOWN ON SAID LOT LINE
Cr\PC2006 -0 -1- PC2006-
ADJUSTMENT, SAID LINE ALSO BEING THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2;
THENCE SOUTH 89 42'15" WEST 285.02 FEET ALONG THE SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF
PARCEL 2 TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
BY FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED DECEMBER 31, 2002 AS
INSTRUMENT NO- 2002-1205533 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM:
THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 2, AS SHOWN AND DESCRIBED IN LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
LLA- 0000480 RECORDED MARCH 12, 2001 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 20010139330 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AS MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF EUCLID STREET AND BALL ROAD
AS SHOWN ON SAID LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT; THENCE NORTH 00 04'40" EAST 199.66
FEET ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF EUCLID STREET; THENCE NORTH 89 55'20" WEST
53.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT ALSO BEING A POINT ON
THE WESTERLY LINE OF EUCLID STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP, SAID WESTERLY
LINE OF EUCLID STREET ALSO BEING THE EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2; THENCE
SOUTH 89 42' 15" WEST 9.03 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2;
THENCE NORTH 00 04' 09" EAST 69.81 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1209.00 FEET; THENCE
NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 75.50 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03 34'
41 "; THENCE NORTH 03 38' 50" EAST 70.51 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A CURVE
CONCAVE TO THE NORTHWEST HAVING A RADIUS OF 1190.00 FEET; THENCE
EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 74.14 FEET THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03 34'
10" TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF EUCLID STREET; THENCE SOUTH 00 04'
40" WEST 289.66 FEET TO THE SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
BY FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION RECORDED DECEMBER 31, 2002 AS
INSTRUMENT NO. 2002 - 1205533 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on April 3, 2006 at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as
required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60, to
hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and
make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself
and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find
and determine the following facts:
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by
Anaheim Municipal Code Section.
2. That the existing and continued use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the
growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located.
3. That the size and shape of the site is adequate to allow the full development of the proposed
use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area or the health and safety in that there is no new square
footage proposed with this request-
-2- PC2006-
4. That the traffic generated by the use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and
highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area since the retail space is existing and the
division of the unit by itself does not generate a significant increase in traffic.
5. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed will not be
detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
6. That * ** indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no
correspondence was received in opposition to the subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING Staff has determined that the
proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Section 15301, Class 1 (Existing
Facilities), as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to
prepare additional environmental documentation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does
hereby grant subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit, upon the following conditions which are hereby
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the
safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
1. That all public phones shall be located inside the building.
2. That a minimum of 479 parking spaces shall be maintained on site. Said information shall be
specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
3. That the number of tenant spaces shall be limited to 36 as indicated on the site plan exhibit
submitted by the applicant.
4. That adequate lighting of parking lots, driveway, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses
and grounds contiguous to buildings shall be provided with lighting of sufficient wattage to provide
adequate illumination to make clearly visible the presence of any person on or about the premises
during the hours of darkness and provide a safe, secure environment for all persons, property, and
vehicles on -site. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not
to unreasonably illuminate the window areas of the adjacent residential properties. Said information
shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Police Department, Community Services Division
approval.
5. 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.
6. That no roof - mounted balloons or other inflatable devices shall be permitted on the property.
7. That no outdoor vending machines shall be permitted on the property.
8. That 4 -foot high street address numbers shall be displayed on the roof of the building in a color that
contrasts with the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the streets or adjacent
properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
9. That there shall be no outdoor storage permitted on the premises.
10. That the property owner shall submit a letter to the Planning Services Division requesting termination
of Variance No. 576 (to permit a service station).
11. That any new roof - mounted equipment shall be screened from view in accordance with the
requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.38.170 pertaining to the C -G (General
Commercial) Zone. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building
permits-
-3- PC2006-
12. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by the provision of regular
landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24)
hours from time of occurrence.
13. That all new backflow equipment shall be located above ground and outside of the street setback
area in a manner fully screened from all public streets. Any backflow assemblies currently installed
in a vault shall be brought up to current standards. Any other large water system equipment shall be
installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or outside
of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Water Engineering Division approval.
14. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or
abandonment's of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through Water
Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department.
15. That all existing water services and fire lines shall conform to current Water Service Standards
Specifications. Any water service and /or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be
upgraded for continued use if necessary or abandoned if the existing water service is no longer
needed. The owner /developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade or to abandon any water
service of fire line.
16. That the locations for future above - ground utility devices including, but not limited to, electrical
transformers, water backflow devices, gas, communications and cable devices, etc., shall be shown
on plans submitted for building permits. Plans shall also identify the specific screening treatments of
each device (i.e. landscape screening, color of walls, materials, identifiers, access points, etc.). Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
17. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense.
18. That the property owner /developer shall provide the City of Anaheim with a public utilities easement
to be determined as electrical design is completed.
19. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage, collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the
Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division for review and approval.
20. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public
Works Department and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said
storage areas shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from
adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shall be protected from graffiti
opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum one - gallon size clinging vines planted
on maximum three -foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the
plans submitted for building permits.
21. That an Emergency Listing Card, Form APD -281 shall be completed and submitted in a completed
form to the Anaheim Police Department.
22. That all new plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall
be fully screened by architectural devices and /or appropriate building materials. Said information
shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
23. That within sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, all window signs on the property shall not
exceed ten percent (10 %) of the window area in compliance with code.
24. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plans and
specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the
Planning Department Exhibit Nos. 1 through 2, and as conditioned herein.
25. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this
resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 4, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 19, 20 and 22 -above
mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be
granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 of the Anaheim Municipal Code-
-4- PC2006-
26. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 1, 21 and 24, above mentioned,
shall be complied with.
27. 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.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and
all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared
invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant is responsible for paying all charges related
to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or
prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges
shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval of this application.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
April 3, 2006. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60, "Zoning
Provisions — General" of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced
by a City Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRMAN. ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
1, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission
held on April 3, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of
, 2006.
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
-5- PC2006-
Item No. 5
�,.....,.,.,...,
0o ryOJ �o e� SABC Overlay Zone)
'9 G JQQ ryo�6P "\,p� o RCL 78 -79-02
�y QG \fieoz o0 ^ R CIL 7
0 CUP373 6
8
0 CUP 2005 -04981 CUP 3350
�i SP� CUP 308
'n � G g'` $9A CUP 2326
�KJ1 �pJ �3� 0 CUP 1849
O G Q 3 �" O � CUP 1569
'f�� GGJQQ � g VAR 3166 S
J r y VAR 3025 S
�' �' JQ g'` ry5 ANAHEIM
� jPPQ_ BUSINESS PARK
J
G Z Q CERRITOS AVE.
9
ANAHEIM RESORT �l CUP 2002-04611
SPECIFIC PLAN 92 -2 CUP 2002 -04610 CUP 3350
RCL 66 -67 -61 (108) RCL 2000 -00023 CUP 2374 Cl
RCL 66 -67 -14 (Res of Int to CUP 4 49 \
RCL 55 -56 -24 0; SA BC Overlay Zone)8UP 1589
CUP 2004 -04848 RCL 78 -79-02 VAR 3166 S
INDUSTRIAL S SP 92-2 RCL 57 -58-16 VAR 3025 S
BUILDING RCL 66 -67- 61(10 CUP 3738
VACANT ,
1 F
—goo ,, �`/�.
15
SP 92 -1
RCL666761 (188) 9P 92 -1
CUP2060
BAKERY RCL 77 -78 -58 % 9 i(� S O
co RCL 66 -67 -61 (108) , O 0
N CUP 2964 ,
sP 92 1 VAR 2006 -04681 ,
RcLWfi 7s1 p98) VAR 3009 �
SP 92 -1 Bisr- VAR 730
RCL 66 -67-61 (27) CENTER CHILDRENS STORE
RCL 6465 -112 %
CUP 755 SP 92 1 '9
CUP 54 CUP 32 RCL 77 -78 -58 �,
VAR 20745 RCL66- 67- 61(108) ,
DISNEYLAND VAR 3009 /2 j,,
PARKING
SMV ND7 FIRM � ,
LANDSCAPED SP 92 -1 SP 92 -1
EASEMENT RCL66 -67 -61 (108) RCL CUP 66 - 67 -61 (108)
�9
DIgNFY WAY ,
SP 92 -1
RCL 66 -67-61 (76)
T -CUP 2004 -04941 i
CUP 4078 r�'
(RCVACANT 2) I 1 �t
ED Subject Property
Variance No. 2006 -04681 Date: April 3, 2006
Scale: 1"=200'
Requested By: STEVE SHELDON Q.S. No. 87
200 West Alro Way
10016
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 5
5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 11 (Motion for continuance)
5b. VARIANCE NO. 2006 -04681
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly- shaped 1.5 -acre property has a frontage of 100 feet on the south side of Alro
Way, a maximum depth of 246 feet, and is located 115 feet east of the centerline of
Manchester Avenue (200 West Alro Way — Bergstroms).
REQUEST:
(2) Applicant requests waiver of the following to retain one non - conforming business identification
pole sign with electronic message board and one non - conforming business identification wall
sign:
(a) SECTION NO. 18.114.130.0207.01
Prohibited free - standing sign
(Pole sign and readerboard sign
prohibited; one pole sign with electronic
message board existing)
(b) SECTION NO. 18.114.130.0207.01
BACKGROUND:
Maximum letter height
( inches for registered trademark name
permitted; 60 -inch existing wall sign
proposed)
(3) This property is zoned SP92 -1 (The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan). The property and all
surrounding properties are designated for Commercial Recreation land uses by the Anaheim
General Plan.
(4) The applicant has submitted the attached letter requesting a continuance to the May 1, 2006,
meeting in order for staff to readvertise the waiver relating to the pole sign.
RECOMMENDATION:
(5) That the Commission, by motion, continue this item to the May 1, 2006, Planning Commission
meeting.
SR- VAR2006 -04681 contd.
Page 1
03/24/2006 04:52 FAX
Attachment - Item No. 5
2002
SHEL M y j GROUP
March 24, 2006
Ms. Della Herrick
Associate Planner
City of Anaheim
200 Anaheim Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92805
Ms. Herrick:
On behalf of Bergstroms Children Stores, we respectfully request a continuance of our April 3`
planning commission hearing to Tuesday, May I".
1%edo%,
Pursuant to conversations with City Planning Staff, we will need additional time to clarify and
resolve code issues pertaining to our request for a use variance for business signage in the
Disneyland Resort Area Specific Plan District,
We appreciate your consideration of this request and thank you for your patience.
Sincerely,
Stephen R. Sheldon
Cc: Karl Bergstrom, President, Bergstroms Children Stores
Item No. 6
T
BROOKHURST
JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
T
RCL9 &9411
RCL 81 -82 -13
R Intent to RM -3808)
UP 2003-04739
CUP 2292
PC2004-00035
F RETARDING BA51 C -G
4 OREHK RCL 98 -99-11
RCL 72 -73-8
CG T -VAR 4408
;L99-0& 11 VAR 4389
;L9 &9¢11 VAR 2403
;L 812 -13 ADJ 0176
es of Intent OFFICE BLDG.
RM -3000)
3UP2292
RKING LOT
W
W
U)
Cn
U)
Cn
� o
= I
Y 1 + I
O
O
Of
00
VAR 4115
RCL 98--99 -11
RCL 72 -73-03
VAR 4013
CUP 2006 -05071
OU
C-G
VAR 3894
O
RCL 98 -99-11
(CUP 3421)
Q ly
RCL 72 -73-8
w
fj 0_
VAR 2403
— 240'
0; ti
ADJ 0080
o�FCD
LU z
Ly
PROFESSIONAL
F-
OFFICES
Q
o 0-
RCL 62 -63 -91
U�
CUP 2480 J
RM -4
CUP 396
APARTMENTS j
=LU
T
RM4 RCL98 -99-11
FIRESTATION
Q o
VACANT VAR 4115
NO. 2
z�
AR 4013
Q
C-G
LU
RCL 98-99-11
1
W
RCL 63 -
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
(Res of Intent to RM -1200)
to RM-
CG C�
RCL 6465 -68
RCL RCL 9 &9 &11
CUP 561
VAR 1684
PROFESSIONAL
P
CUP 2906 2906 9
OFFICES
W
W
U)
Cn
U)
Cn
� o
= I
Y 1 + I
O
O
Of
00
C -
VAR 4115
RCL 98--99 -11
RCL 72 -73-03
VAR 4013
CUP 2006 -05071
(O
C -G
VAR 3894
CUP 4113
}
(CUP 3421)
C)
R ES A 1594 TCLUB ND
w
NIGHTCLUB
— 240'
ALAMEDAAVE
o�FCD
F-
In
Q
RM-4
}
RCL 62 -63 -91
19325
CUP 2480 J
RM -4
CUP 396
APARTMENTS j
RCL 89 -90 -34
T
RM4 RCL98 -99-11
FIRESTATION
VACANT VAR 4115
NO. 2
AR 4013
1
CRESCENTAVENUE WESTANAHEIM COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
1
CG C�
RCL RCL 9 &9 &11
RCL 72 73-0 3 RCL 72 -73-03
P
CUP 2906 2906 9
5 S 8 VM 319D
VAR 310
FOOD MART PC 03
FFIGE
eLDC_
BLDG
LU
W
W
C -G
RCL 98 -99 -11
RMA
RCL 72 -73 -03
U)
RCL69 -70-48
CUP 2004 -04858
>-
1225
CUP 1594
LU
VAR
VAR 2616
VAR 2717 S
OFFICE BLDG.
J
TARA HILL
Q
APARTMENTS
>
368 DU
C -
RCL 98--99 -11
RCL 72 -73-03
CUP 2006 -05071
T -CUP 2003 -04781
0
CUP 4113
(CUP 3421)
C)
R ES A 1594 TCLUB ND
NIGHTCLUB
— 240'
ALAMEDAAVE
1
F-
In
RM-4
}
RCL 62 -63 -91
19325
CUP 2480 J
CUP 396
APARTMENTS j
4 DU EACH
BROWNWOOD AVE
C-G
RCL 98 -99-11
— RCL 67-68 -36 —
EL RANCHO PLAZA
ANIM G
RCI 4&99 -11 ruo�sc
Conditional Use Permit No. 2006 -05071
Requested By GARY HUI -LI DOU
500 North Brookhurst Street
9325 RM-4
RCL 62 -63 -91 R(
CUP 396
1932 5 VAR 3439
APARTMENTS
4 DU EACH
N
ED Subject Property
Date April 3, 2006
Scale 1"=200'
Q.S. No. 39
10017
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
April 3, 2006
Item No. 6
6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion for continuance)
6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT
6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006 -05071
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This rectangularly- shaped 122 -acre property is located at the northeast corner of
Brookhurst Street and Alameda Avenue, having frontages of 180 feet on the east side of
Brookhurst Street, 240 feet on the north side of Alameda Avenue, and 180 feet on the
westside of Valley Street (500 North Brookhurst Street - Brookhurst Retail Center).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests approval of a conditional use permit under authority of Code
Section No. 18.08.030.040.0402 to construct a commercial retail center and a fast food
restaurant with a drive - through and outdoor seating with waivers of the following:
(a) SECTION NO. 18.44.080.060 Permitted number of tenants on a
monument sign
(6 permitted; 8 proposed)
(b) SECTION NOS. 18.08.070 AND Minimum number of parking spaces
18.42.040.010 (71 required, 63 proposed)
BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is currently developed with a freestanding restaurant (to be demolished) and
is zoned C -G (General Commercial). The Anaheim General Plan designates this property
for Office -Low land uses. Surrounding properties to the north and west are also designated
for Office -Low land uses, to the east and south for Medium Density Residential land uses.
(4) The applicant, Robert Lombardi, has submitted the attached letter dated, March 22, 2006,
requesting a continuance to the April 17, 2006, Commission meeting in order to complete
revisions to the proposed new commercial retail center.
RECOMMENDATION:
(5) That the Commission, by motion, continue this item to the April 17, 2006, Planning
Commission meeting-
SR-CU P2006- 05071(con't- 4- 3- 06)jkn
Page 1
Page 1 of 1
Attachment - Item No. 6
Jessica Nixon
From: Robert Lombardi [rlombardi @4gdev.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 10:27 AM
To: Jessica Nixon
Subject: Continuance Request
Jessica,
We would like to request a two week continuance for our project located at 500 N. Brookhurst St. in Anaheim. It
is our understanding that the new hearing date will be on April 17tH
Respectfully,
Robert Lombardi
President
4G Development and Consulting, LLC
858 - 231 -0071 phone
866 - 311 -3658 fax
rlombardi @4gdev.com
3/22/2006