The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2006/03/06Tl ~ 6 abed X90/90/£0) ooP'9090£0\sepua6e;~eoua~o~soop~:H ;au•wiayeue uoissiwwoa u~uue~ asa~ppe view-a 6uin~o~~o; aya 6uisn uoissiwwo~ 6uiuue~d ayl ~o; a6essaw e anew Rew no,~ ;uawu~nofpy swa;~ 6u~~eaH oi~gnd ~epua~e~;uasuo~ s;uawwo~ ai~gnd aouei6a~~y }p a6pa~d e. }ate o; )l;iwgns pue aouenpe ui p~eo ~a~ea s e a~a~ woo asea} epua a ay; uo wadi ue uip~e a~ }uawa~e;s a anew o~ ysinn no !! saso m u~ aaN p~ooa~ ~o~ 'W'd 0£~Z Bu~~eaH oi~gnd of auanuoaaa . uoissag Bui~eaH oi~gnd uoou~a}}y of ssaaaa epua6e 9002 '9 4oJeW ay} uo swa}I ~o; nnalna~ ueld tieulwlla~d (uolsslwwo~ 6uluueld ~(q pa;sanba~ sy) sanssl pue s}uawdolanap ~(}I~ snouen uo uosslwwo~ o} a}epdn }}e}g 'W'd OO~I nna~naa ue~d daeuiwi~a~d aaP~O of Iles zanbselan }ed 'aawoa ~(~{ued _'- K _ 'za~ad P3 y~e~eyl ydaso~ 'e}}ne ~Ilay{ a~auolsslwwo~ o ~~ sa~ol~ ellloa~-a~odwal-o~d uew~ley~ uew}set Iles :uew~iey~ elwolle~'wiayeuy'p~enalno8 wlayeuy y}noS OOZ IIeH ~}I~ '~agwey~ pouno~ 9002 9 u~~e~ epuo~ ISSI UI UPI I ~U~ Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.IIA. 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. eoorts and Recommendations 1A.(a) (b) 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. 1 B. (a) (b) 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 apreviously-approved automotive dealership. H:\docs\cleri cal\age nd as\030606. d oc Project Planner: (a vazquezQanaheim. net) Q. S. 118 Project Planner: (a vazquez@anaheim. nett Q. S. 108 (03/06/06) Page 2 Agent: Reky Hiramoto, Beazer Homes., 1800 East Imperial Highway, Suite 200, Brea, CA 92821 Agent: Hossein Zandi, Caliber Motors, 5395 East La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807 1C.(a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS, 1031 AND 1228 (TRACKING N0. CUP2006-05062) Agent: James Myron, Citadel Law Offices & Financial Services, 4695 Mac Arthur Court, Suite 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Peter Capriotti II, Cotti Foods Corporation, 26111 Antonio Parkway, Suite 100, Las Flores, CA 92688 Location: 100 and 130 North State Colleoe Boulevard: Parcel A: Property is approximately 0.5 acre located at the northeast corner of Center Street and State College Boulevard (100 North State College Boulevard). Parcel B: Property is approximately 0.3 acre located at the southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Underhill Avenue (130 North State College Boulevard). Request to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 1031 (to establish a walk-up restaurant), and Conditional Use Permit No. 1228 (to permit on-sale beer and wine in an existing restaurant). TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. Project Planner. QnixonQanaheim.net) Q. S. 112 1D. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of January 9, 2006. (Motion) Continued from the January 23, and February 6, and 22, 2006, Planning Commission meetings. 1E. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of February 22, 2006 (Motion) H:\dots\clerical\agendas\030606.doc (03/06!06) Page 3 .... ~. <. ..... a, Public Hearina Items: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Request a 2b. VARIANCE NO. 2005-04675 continuance to March 20, 2006 Owner: Therese Hotvedt, The Shops at Stadium Towers, 1100 Newport Center Drive, Suite 150, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Agent: Peter Louis/John Hill, 3195-B Airport Loop Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Location: 2410 - 2420 East Kateila Avenue: Property is approximately 2.4 acres, having a frontage of 600 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue and is located 37 feet east of the centerline of Howell Avenue (Stadium Towers Plaza). Request waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) permitted number of tenants on a monument sign, (c) maximum number of monument signs, (d) maximum height of monument sign, (e) permitted number of wall signs, (f) permitted location of wall signs, and {g) maximum height of lettersllogos on wall signs to waive minimum number of parking spaces .and permitted signs for apreviously-approved commercial center. Continued from the January 23, and February 6, and 22, 2006, Planning Commission :meetings. Variance Resolution No. Project wanner: (avazouez(o~anaheim. net ) Q.S. 118 H:\docs\clerical\agendas\030606.doc (03/06/06) Page 4 ® _ ~ ®. .® 3a. 3b. 3c. NO. 92-1 (TRACKING NO. SPN2005-00032) 3d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 3e. AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4078 (TRACKING NO. CUP2006-05065) 3f. SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 99-01 (AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 3g. 3h. 3i. Owner: Anaheim GW, LLC 17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 310, San Diego, CA 92128 Zabys LP, 444 W. Katella Ave, Anaheim, CA 92802-3606 Pyrovest Corp, 1101 E. Garvey Ave. #208, Monterey Park, CA 91755-3055 Agent: William J. Stone Excel Realty Holdings, 17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 310, San Diego, CA 92128 City of Anaheim, Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162, Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: The Anaheim GardenWalk (formerly known as "Pointe Anaheim") project site is located on .approximately 29.1 acres in The Anaheim Resort between Harbor Boulevard and Clementine Street, and Disney Way and Katella Avenue. The project site has approximate frontages of 1,500 feet on the south side of Disney Way between Harbor Boulevard and Clementine Street, 1,185 feet on the west side of Clementine Street between Disney Way and Katella Avenue (excluding Fire Station No. 3 at 1713-1717 South Clementine Street), 728 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue between Clementine Street and a point 771 feet west of the centerline of Clementine Street, and 585 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard between Disney Way and a point 615 feet south of the centerline of Disney Way. The site is vacant except for the Anaheim Plaza Hotel and Suites at 1700 South Harbor Boulevard, Request: The request is for approval of modifications tp the Anaheim GardenWalk (formerly Pointe Anaheim) project to permit the following: 569,750 square feet of specialty retail, restaurants, and entertainment uses, including movie theaters; 1,628 hotel rooms (including up to 500 vacation ownership units) and 278,817 square feet of hotel accessary uses; a transportation center, and 4,800 parking spaces. The project includes two development phases. The first phase includes the development of approximately 20.3 acres of the project site (Area A) with 439,600 square feet of specialty retail., restaurants, and entertainment uses, H:\docs\clerical\agendas\030606.doc (03/06/06) Page 5 including movie theaters; 1,266 hotel rooms (including up to 400 vacation ownership units) and 216,820 square feet of hotel accessory uses, a transportation center, and 3,200 parking spaces. The remaining 8.8 acres (Area B) would be developed as a subsequent phase with up to 130,150 square feet of specialty retail, restaurants, and entertainment uses, 362 hotel rooms (including up to 100 vacation ownership units) and 61;997 square feet of hotel accessory uses, and 1,600 parking spaces. The proposed actions consist of the following: Second Addendum To The Pointe Anaheim Initial Studv And Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 004a. A request for determination that the Second Addendum to the Pointe Anaheim Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 004a is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the proposed project actions. General Plan Amendment No. 2005-00440 -Request for an amendment to the Land Use Element, Table LU-4, "General Plan Density Provisions for Specific Plans within The Anaheim Resort and far the Platinum Triangle Area" to reflect the proposed modifications to the Anaheim GardenWalk project. Amendment No. 6 to The Disnevland Resort SDecific Plan No. 92-1 - Request for an amendment to the Specific Plan including, but not limited to, the Land Use Plan, Public Facilities Plan, Design Plan, General Plan Consistency, and Zoning and Development Standards to reflect the proposed modifications to the Anaheim GardenWalk project. Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4078 -Request for an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to refect the proposed modifications to the Anaheim GardenWalk project including modifications to the previously-approved waiver of minimum number of parking spaces and conditions of approval. Second Amended and Restated Develooment Agreement No. 99-01 AAmendment No. 3 to the First Amended and Restated Develooment Agreement No. 99-011-Request for a recommendation to the City Council on a proposed amendment to the Development Agreement to reflect the proposed modifications to the Anaheim GardenWalk project. Tentative Parcel Mao No. 2002-205 -Request to establish a 7-lot,.. including 1air-space, non-residential condominium subdivision fora portion of the Anaheim GardenWalk project site (Area A on the attached Location Map). Final Site Plan No. 2006-00002 -Request for approval of a Final Site Plan for approximately 439,600 square feet of specialty retail, restaurants, and entertainment uses, including movie theaters, and parking facilities encompassing 3,200 parking spaces (approximately 125 parking spaces may be developed as part of future hotel phases) and 15 bus parking spaces within Area A. Second Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration/Mitigation Monitoring Program Resolution No. General Plan Amendment Resolution No. Fro)ect ?canner Amendment No. 6 to The Disneyland Resort Specific (twnReQananeim.net) Plan Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. Q:S. 87 Development Agreement Resolution No. H:\dots\clerical\agendas\030606.doc (03/06/06) Page 6 4 .4 ~ ~ m Adjourn To Monday, March 20, 2006 at 12:00 P.M. for a Workshop on Multiple Family Development Parking Requirements and Preliminary Plan Review. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING I hereby certify that a complete copy of this agenda was posted at: 4:00 a.m. March 2. 2006 (TIME) (DATE) LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND COU/N`CIL DISPLAY KIOSK SIGNED: ~~,/ /~,/~t 0 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 Planning Department's Automated Tele hone S stem at 714-765-5139. H: \docs\cl a ricallagendas\030606, d oc (03/06/06) Page 7 ___ ~ d ~ ~ SCHEDULE 2006 March 20 April 3 April 17 May 1 May 15 May 31 (Wed) June 12 June 26 July 10 July 24 August 7 August 21 September 6 {Wed) September 18 October 2 October 16 October 30 November 13 November 27 December 11 December 27 (Wed) H:\docs\clerical\agendas\030606.doc (03106/06) Page 8 Item No. 1A ~) 0-15 to SE) 6-19 5-42 I (PTMU) TTM 16616 RCL 99-DO-15 (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 66-67-14 RCL 55-56-19 RCL 54-55-42 T-CUP 2004-04939 CUP 2004-04906 cuP zafiz CUP 1427 P 3366 VAR 4129 DAG 2005-00010 ) DAG 2004-000D2 its STADIUM LOFTS o SE) MIXED USE -14 RESIDENTIAL '19 CONDOMINIUM -42 '7 KATELLA AVENUE 1(PrMU) RCL 99-0e-05 I (PTMU) (Ree of Inl to 6E) RCL 99-00-15 RCL 6667-14 ies. of Int. to $ E) RCL 56.57.95 RCL 66-67-14 CUP 3836 CUP 1370 RCL 56-57-93 5.6. CUP 1652 CUP 447 S I (PTMU) CUP 447 5 VAR 2616 RCL 99-00-15 CUP 1319 MOTEL (Res. of Int. CUP 447 5 ^ to SE) MOTEL I (PTMU) RCL 99-00-15 RCL 99-00-15 (Res. of Int to SE) (Res, of Inf. to SE) RCL 66-67-14 RCL 56-57-93 RCL 56-57-93 CUP 4475 CUP 1371 ___ INO_FIRM CUP 447 S __ ____ __ -- VAR 2561 ~- .________~__~___ ~__ RETAIL TILE_ ) (RTMU) I (PTMU) RCL 99-00-15 RCL 99-DO-15 (Res. of lnt, to SE) (Res., of InL to SE) RCL fib-67-14 RCL 5&57-93 RCL 56-57-93 CUP 447 5 CUP 2003-04721 IND. FIRM CUP 447 5 SMALL INO. FIRMS - (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 90-91-17 RCL 66-67-i4 60-61-113 RCL 56-57-93 CUP 3957 TOWN PLACE CUP 3406 SUITES CUP 690 VAR 2765 W J m W C7 W J J C] U W f- 0-L (PTMU) 0.L(PTMU) RCL 2004-00129 RCL 99A0-15 RALLY FITNES~yes. of Inf. to SE) RCL 90-91-77 ftCL 66-67-14 -- -~-- RCL Sfi-57-93 ~~ _ CUP 4141 CUP 3957 ;~~. CUP 3406 BANK ~ PARKING 0.L (PTMU) RCL 56-57-93 T-CUP 2000-04260 CUP 4141 CUP 3957 CUP 3406 CUP 690 7PM NO.. 97-155 REST. van moe v~ vAR leza PL (PTMU) ~ O-L (PTMU) FOOD I REST COURT (t (CUP 3356 i) 105' I (PTMU) RCL 99-00.15 zsaa (Res. of Int. to SE) iizc RCL 66-67-14 ~ i tau RCL 69-fi0-6t ~ 4 xue Res of intent to MH) a RCL 56-57-93 - CUP 2005-04967 _. DAG 2005-00004 ~ FSP 2005-00004 I(AYC01 ~) i GPA 2005-00435 OFFICE MIS 2005.00713 ZCA 2005-00044 I (PTMU) ii RCL 99-00-15 5 (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 59-60-61 s (Res of Intent to MH) RCL Sfi-57-93 VAR 2466 O-L (P RC~20; CCUP OFFICE n I(PTMO) RCL 99-00-15 (Res. of Int. to SE) ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE PLATIN Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04975 TRACKING NO. CUP2006-05074 Requested By: REKY HIRAMOTO 1818 South State College Boulevard ANGEL STADIUM OF ANAHEIM PR (PTMU) RCL 9-OD- 5 (R RCL( 51fi!57-9 E) ~/~1 cuP za6D N CUP 750 JM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE. Subject Property Date: March 6, 2006 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 118 loons ~. ~ , - - City of Anaheim PI.Aiiilti>(I~IG ~EPA~'i<'2~~11T'1i' March fi, 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 March 6, 2006. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 1A. (a) (b) NO. CUP2006-05074) Agent: Reky Hiramoto, Beazer Homes., 1800 East Imperial Highway, Suite 200, Brea, CA 92821 Location: 1818 South State Colleoe 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). www.anaheim.nel 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 Commfssioner 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 are intended to enhance the design and livability of the project. Sincerely, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary Anaheim Planning Commission Cr em.doc 200 South Anaheim Boulevard P.0. Box 3222 Anaheim, Calilomia 92803 TEL (714)765-5139 Attachment - R&R 1-A KTGY Gl~®UP, INC. I` Archi}ec}ure Planning 17992 Mitchell South Irvine., California 92674 949/851-2733 FAX 949/651-5156 Fort Lauderdale, FL Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Project Name:Platinum Centre To: Amy Vasquez, City of Anaheim KTGY Job #: 20040488.01 From[ J2V Wu SuhiecFc 1)eci an Tmncnvrment Cnmmarv Remarks: 1.0 Site Plan /Overall Building Plans .1) Pool & Spa Location. Issue: The initial location of the Pool and Spa was compromised with the new addition of the dedicated lefr trrrn lane along State College Boulevard. The width of the courtyard reduced from 75' to 53'. The size of the pool deck prevented adequate 4' clear around the pool per Health and Safety code with lounge chairs. Furthermore, fencing around the pool makes the pool deck visually even smaller. Solution: The design team proposed to move the pool and spa to the roof and centralize the recreational facilities near the entrance lobby facing State College Boulevard. Additional BBQ and pool deck areas are designed to enhance the roof top pool amenities with view to the Anaheim Stadium.. Sun exposure is greatly improved with the pool at the roof deck. The podium deck courtyards are enhanced with multiple active BBQ areas with water fountains to enhance landscape amenities. .2) Common Homeowner Facilities. Issue: Beazer wanted to add fitness room to the recreation program and maintain a centralized location near the entrance lobby. Solution: The design team designed a multistory Homeowner Recreation facility with the fitness center and clubhouse at the podium level overlooking State College. Water fountains were increased in the interior courtyards to provide the residences a place to retreat from the outside world. The third and fourth level is the state of the art mini theater. The fifth level is the multifunctional game room. The roof is the Pool and Spa. .3) Third Level Subterranean Parking Garage providing additional parking from 533 to 580 stalls. Issue: The 2"d level subterranean parking structure footprint incroaches beyond the building envelope into the parkway. Also, Beazer wants to enhance the marketability of the units with the sale of the additional parking spaces to the residences. The additional parking spaces are intended to ease an anticipated greater parking demand for the 1 bedroom units. 1 bedroom units represents 60°/n of 265 units on the project. Other projects in the Platinum Triangle Overlay Zone had an advantage of greater bedroom variety. 1:\5°Cal\44ABplutinum\DncVagency\KTGY MEMORANDUM~rojecLChanges (2) 01 17 OS.doc ~ .~. e KTGY GR®UP, irlc. Architeckure Planning 17992 Mitchell South Irvine, Califomla 92674 949/857-2133 FAX 949/857-5156.. Fart Lautlerdale, FL Solution: The third level parking garage is designed with roll-up garage doors and storage lockers and will provide residents with another private parking space. The third level parking garage is subterranean (below 2"d level) and is incorporated within '/z the building envelope to avoid any impact to the surrounding underground utilities. To construct this level, excavating will consists of an additional 10 feet underground spanning approximately 59,664 square feet. .4) Elevator Core move closer to Katella along private road. Issue: Building entry from Katella is limited. Solution: The elevator core was swapped from the .secondary vehicular entry to closer to Katella. Resident access into the elevators is designed with a entry lobby w/key access. 2.0 Unit Plans` The bulding square footage has not changed significantly form the originnl approval. As a result of the plan changes as detailed below, the bulding square footage has increased from 554,368 s.f, to 572,499 s.f, a 3%change over the approved square footage. Square footage ih certain plans has been increased while others reduced as detailed below: :1) Plan 1 Issue: The plan needs to improve on its efficiency on the party wall for sound insulation. Washer and dryer appliance designed to be a stacked unit. Solution: Plans 1 and 4 revised to simplified the party wall resulted in increasing area for Plan 1 from 651s.f(gross area) to 767s.f. (gross area): Stacked washer and dryer unit relocated to the hallway. .2) Plan 2 Issue: Unit plan sequence follows the size of the unit for coordination purposes. Solution: Plan 2 is revised as Plan 4 of the original design development package. Plan 2 description remains the same as 1 bedroom with 1 bath plan. .3) Plan 3 Issue: Unit plan sequence follows the size of the unit for coordination purposes. Light and ventilation requirement will be difficult for the Den: Solution: Plan 3 is revised as Plan 2 of the original design development package. The Den is redesigned to capture more light and ventilation near the living room. The unit description remains the same as 1 bedroom + den with 1.5 bath. An access door from the Master Bedroom has been added to the original plan forimproving the use of the balconies: .4) Plan 4 L\SoCol\448gplatinumlDocWgency\ICTGY MEMORANDUM_projecl changes (?) OI 17 OS.doc 2 0 o e ~ a Issue: Unit plan sequence follows the size of the unit for coordination purposes. Plan I has been revised to improve on its efficiency of the party wall which affects the design of the Plan 4. Solution: Plan 4 area has been reduced from 984s.f. (gross area) to 983s.f. (gross area) due to redesign of Plan 1. Plan 4 description remains the same as 1 bedroom + den with 1.5 bath. The unit layout formalizes the entry and increase the size of the kitchen to improve cabinet space. Light and ventilation for the den significantly improved with direct access to windows thru the Great Room. .5) Plan 5 Issue: Unit plan lacks sufficient space for the Walk-In-Closet for the Master Bedroom. Bath 2 has no direct access Crom Great Room. Solution: The Master Bedroom has been redesigned to improve the usable Walk-In- Closet and the placement of the Laundry room. Bedroom 2 has been redesign to provide direct access to Bath 2 from both the bedroom and Great Room. Duel balconies are provided to each bedroom as additional unit amenity. .6) Plan 6 Issue: Bedroom 2 entry door is awkwardly placed in the middle of the room. Distance from the entry tG Great Room is not very desirable. Solution: Bath 2 has been relocated toward the party wall for better sound insulation to the bedroom. Kitchen has been revised to shorten the distance between the entry and the great room. A dedicated laundry room has been added to the plan for improving the unit amenity. .7) Plan 7 Issue: The 2-Plan 6 at the comer of Katella and the private road is 18" wider than allowed on site. Solution: Plan 7 is introduced as an alternative [o Plan 6 with a narrower dimension of 38'-4". 3.0 Building Elevations .1) State College Building Entry Elevation Issue: The multi-level common homeowner facility requires a new building elevation. Solution: The State College elevation has been redesigned to reflect more glass to identify significance of the entry. Further enhancements includes full stone veneer to the top of the building and meta] siding on the vestibule canopy. Additional elevation enhancements were introduced on the balconies to reflect more texture by use of siding and metal railing. Katella and State College building elevations remain the same as the development package. 1:\SoCul\4488plminum\DocWgency\ICrGY MEMORANDUM_projec[ changes (?) 01 17 OS.doc ~ o o ~TG~ Cz~~~P, INC. Architecture Planning 17992 Mitchell South Irvine, California 92614 949/851-2133 FAX 949/851-5156. Fart Lauderdale, FL lVlGltll ®fZFil tl®VIVI CCi Mike Platzer, Gregg Gripe, Kazen Sully, Ray Of: Platinum Centre Team Pereda I:\SoCal\4488platinum\DocWgency\KTGY MEMORANDUM~rojec[ chnnges (2) OI 17 OS.doc 4 ..., a ® __ Attachment - R1sR 1-A RESOLUTION NO. zoos - 148 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. OF -- THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.2005-04975. WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive an application for a conditional use pennit to permit modification of required setback es authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.20.090.050 upon certain real property located within the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, legally described as: PARCEL 1: PARCELS A AND B, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 22, PAGE 32 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNLA. PARCEL 2: AN EASEMENT 8.34 FEET IN WIDTH FOR INGRESS AND. EGRESS OVER THAT PORTION OF LOT 5 OF TRACT N0.71, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 10, PAGE 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE: OFFICE OF THE COUNTY: RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID EASEMENT BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF THE 60 FOOT ROAD AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT NO.71 (SAID ROAD BEING NOW KNOWN AS STATE COLLEGE.: BLVD.) SAID POINT BELNG 280.34 FEET SOUTH,< (MEASURED ALONG SAID CENTERLINE) FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, THENCE EAST, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT S: 250 FEET. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION INCLUDED WITHIN SAID 60 FOOT ROAD AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF SAID TRACT NO.71. PARCEL 3; PARCEL 2, AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN - BOOK 50, PAGE 12 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNLA. PARCEL 4: AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS. OVER THE NORTHERLY 16.66 FEET OF THE SOUTHERLY 25814 FEET OF THE WESTERLY 220.00 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND: THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 4 AND 5 OF TRACT NO.71, A5 SHOWN ON A MAP THEREOF RECORDED IN BOOK 10, PAGE 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF THE b0-FOOT ROAD AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT NO. 71, (SAID ROAD BEING NOW KNOWN AS STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD), SAID POINT BEING 280.34 FEET SOUTH. (MEASURED ALONG SAID CENTERLINE) FROM THE' NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHII' 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, .SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; THENCE EAST, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 5, 250 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 08' 00" WEST 2$.34 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 59' 16" EAST 54.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 08' 00" WEST 36.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES. 59'.16" EAST 26.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES OS' 00" WEST 216.11 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY. LINE OF SAID LOT 5, BEING ALSO A POINT IN THE CENTERLINE OF THE STREET DESCRIBED IN THE FINAL ORDER OF CONDEMNATION FII.ED JULY 8, 1960 AND RECORDED IN BOOK 5321, PAGE 397 OF OFFICIAL' RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE EAST ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED CENTERLINE TO THE EAST LINE OF THE LAND CONVEYED IN DEED TO W. H. JEWETT, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 1, 1960 IN BOOK 5400, PAGE 238 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE: COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE. OF SAID JEWETT'S LAND AND THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION, TO THE CENTERLINE OF STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD; THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID CENTERLINE TO THE TRUE POIIVT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION INCLUDED WITHIN SAID 60-FOOT ROAD AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT N0.71. PARCELS THAT PORTION OF LOT 5 OF TRACT N0.71 2 AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 10, PAGE 22 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE CENTER LINE OF PLACENTIA AVENUE, WHICH POINT IS 217 FEET 50UTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE ] 0 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE CENTER OF SAID PLACENTIA AVENUE, 55 FEET; THENCE EAST, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE OF LOT 5 TRACT N0.7], A DISTANCE OF 154 FEET; THENCE NORTH, PARALLEL WITH SAID CENTERLINE OF PLACENTIA AVENUE, 55 FEET; THENCE WEST, PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID LOT 5, A DISTANCE OF 154 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION LYING WITHIN PLACENTIA AVENUE, SHOWNAS A 60.00-FOOT STREET ON SAID MAP, ADJOINING SAID LOT 5 ON THE WEST: APN:232-021-07, 232-021-10 and 231-021-11; 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 heating were duly given as required bylaw and. the provisions of Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and WHEREAS,: said Cotrtmission, after due inspection, investigation and studies made by itself and in its behalf and attar due wnsideration of all evidence and reports offered at said heariag, did adopt its Resolution No.PC2005-83 granting Conditional Use Permit No.2005- 04975; and WHEREAS, thereafter, within the time prescribed bylaw, an interested party or the City Council, on its own motion, caused the review of said Planning Commission action at a duly noticed public heating; and WHEREAS, at the time end place fixed for said public heating, the City Council did duly hold and conduct such hearing and did give all persons interested therein an opportunity to be heard end did receive evidence end reports; and WHEREAS, the City Council fmds, after careful consi- deration of the recommendations ofthe City Planning Commission and all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, that: 1. That the proposed modification to required setbacks is properly one for 3 which a conditional use permit is authorized by Anaheim Municipal Code Section No. 18.20.090.050. 2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and development of the azea in which it is proposed to be located because the proposed project is compatible with existing and surrounding land uses and that the minor deviations from the Code would still achieve a project with architecturally enhanced elevations and layered landscaping, and further provide a project that is compatible and consistent with the General Plan Mixed-Use land use designation and The Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan (PTMLUP). 3. .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 health and safety.. 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 as the proposed project has been analyzed in a Traffic Impact Study dated March, 2005, reviewed and approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager and that the required infrastructure improvements along the adjacent streets will be constmcted in connection with the project. 5. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the wnditions imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. NOW, THEREFORE, BE Tf RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Anaheim that, for the reasons hereinabove stated, Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04975 be, and the same.. is hereby, granted permitting modification of required setbacks adjacent to State College Boulevard and the proposed private street in accordance with plans herein approved on the hereinabove described real property, subject to the following conditions; 1. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to adoption of Development Agreement No. 2005-00005 end Tentative Tract Map No. 16825, now pending. 2. That the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim an easement for adomesticabove-ground water meter in addition to providing a 5-foot wide cleazance around the water meter pad and a 10-foot wide access easement along the water line from the street to the water meter pad for maintenance. 3. That a private water system with separate water service for fire protection and domestic water shall be provided. Said information shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits. 4. That all backflow equipment shall be located above ground outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Any backflow 4 assemblies currentiy installed in a vault shall be brought up to can ant 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 fiilly screened fiurn all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for approval by the Water Engineering Division of the Public UtilitiesDeparknent. 5. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations, or abandonments of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department. 6. ' That prior to submitting the water improvement plans, the property owner/developer shall submit a water system master plan, including a hydraulic distribution network analysis, to the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department 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. 7. That prior to application for water metals, firelines or submitting the water improvement plans for approval, the property owner/developer shall submit to the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department, an estimate of the maximum fire flow rate and maximum day and peak hour water demands for the project. This information will be used to detemvne the adequacy of the existing water system to provide the estimated water demands Any off-site water system improvements required to serve the project shall be done in accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations. 8; > That individual water service and/or fire line connections shall be required for each'pareel and/or residential and commercial unit per Rule 18 of the City of Anaheim's Water Rates, Rules and Regulations. 9. That because this project has a landscaping area exceeding 2,500 square feet, a separate irrigation meter shall be installed in compliance with City Ordinance No: 5349 and Chapter 10.19 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building perrnits. ] 0. ' 111aTsigns shall be posted indicating no on-street parkiag shall be allowed on the adjacent streets except where designated turn-out areas are provided for loading and ' unloading. Such signs shall be shown on plans submitted for the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager: 11. That trash storage areas and trash chutes shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with exhibits approved in conjunction with this Conditional Use Permit, on file with' the Planning Department. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 5 ~_~b. a ~ a,mm 12. That the legal property owner shall provide the City of Anaheim with am 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. -- 13. That an on site trash truck rum around area shall be provided per Engineering Standard Detail No. 476 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, Said turn around area shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits, 14. That the proposed development shall operate in accordance with the written solid waste management plan signed by the project applicant, Integral Partners. Modifications to the solid waste management plan shall only occrs if mutually agreed upon by both the property owner and the City of Anaheim Director of Public Works. 15. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the property owner/developer's expense. Landscape and/or handscape screening of all pad-mounted equipment shall be required. and shall be shown on plans submitted for building permits. 16. That closed circuit television (CCTV) security cameras shall be installed to monitor the parking structure and the mailroom on the second level of the parking structure to the satisfaction of the Anaheim Police Department. CCTV cameras shall be strategically located. throughout the parking structure, covering all areas, especially all pedestrian and vehicular access points. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits..: 17. That each individual building and unit shall be clearly marked with its appropriate building number and. address. These numbers shall be positioned. so they are easily.: viewed from vehicular and pedestrian pathways throughout the complex.. Main building numbers shall be a minimum of 12 inches in height. Main building numbers and address numbers shall be illuminated during hours of darkness.. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building pernrits. 1 g. That 4-foot high address numbers shall be displayed flat on the roof in a contrasting wlor to the roof material. The numbers ahall not be visible from view of the street or adjacent pmperties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for Police Department, Community Services Division approval. 19. That pedestrian and vehicular access control shall be required to prevent unwanted entry. A digital keypad entry system shall be included to facilitate quick response by emergency personnel; :The system's entry code shall be provided: to the Anaheim Police Deparinrent Communications Bureau and the Anaheim. Fire Department. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 20. That adequate lighting on all levels of the parking structure, including 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, properly, and vehicles on-site. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 2L "That decorative french doors acceptable to the Planning Services Division shall be provided on all patio (ground-floor) doors. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 22. That all air conditioning facilities and other roof and ground mounted equipment shall be properly shielded from view. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 23. That all plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the building shall be fiilly screened by architectural devices and/or appropriate building materials. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted.. for building permits: 24. 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-foul (24) hours from time of occurrence. 25. 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: 26. That the property owner/developer shall be responsible for compliance with all mitigation measures within the assigned time frames and any direct costs associated with the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 129 as established by the City of Anaheim and as required by Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code to ensure implementationbf those identified mitigation measures:; 27. That signage for this project shall be limited to that shown on the approved Conditional Use Permit exhibits submitted by the project applicant, on file in the Planning Department. Any additional eignage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director. 28. That gates shell not be installed across any driveway or private sheet in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic on the adjacent public street. Installation of any gates shall conform to the Engineering Standard Plan No. 475 and shall be subject to the review and approval of the City Traffic and Transportation Manager prior to the issuance of the first building permit. 29. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his review and approval showing conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 402, 436, 470, 471, 472,473 and 475 pertaining to parking m e®m . m ~ ®® m standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall theeeupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans.. ._ . 30. That all driveways to the project site shall be constructed with ten (10) foot radius curb returns as required by the City Engineer in conformance with Engineering, , Standard No, 115. 5sid information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 31. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. 32. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval in conformance with the Engineering Standard No. 115 pertaining to sight distance visibility for signs or walllfence locations. Said information shall be specifically shown. on plans submitted for building permits... 33. That assigned parking spaces shall be provided for each residential unit.. Said information shal] be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 34. That visitor parking spaces shall be posted,. "No Overnight Parking, Except by Permission of the Management." Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 35. That all above-ground utility devices shall be located on private groperty and outside any required street setback area. Said information shall be shown on plans submitted for the first building permits. 36. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the Citypf Anaheim by project applicant and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 24, and as conditioned herein. 37. That prior to issuance of the first building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34 and 35, above mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 38. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 36, above mentioned, shall be complied with. 39. That the applicant shall submit enhanced building/architectural plans for review and approva] by the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item prior to City Council action on Development Agreement No. 2005-00005, Tentative Tract Map a No. 16$25 and Conditional Use Permit No.2005-04975. 40. 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 oT findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, . regulation or requirement. BE Pf 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 contained, shall be deemed null and void. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council of the City of Anaheim this 26th Day of scaly , 2005, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Mayor Pringle, Council Member Sidhu, Hernandez NOES: Council Members Chavez, Galloway ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CITY AHEIM By MAYOR OF TH OF ANAHEIM ATT~T: ~~%F~tn,GC ~.~~.~~ /ice ~1TY CLE~Ii C OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM 58867.1 9 s v a rv o i ri T RCL 67-63-55 VACANT 9'1 0~ 9\ Ap9 0~`~J~C 9~ ~ ~ti ~~ gtVA~ P' Jam` Y- p ^o ~ /~P~ GPI p~~ :O6 EL N PLAZA G CENTER No Address P-C'~? r GJ, RS-3(SC) RCL 2001-00054 RCL 67-68-55 C T-VAR 2002-04525 VAR 2001-04443 T-SPT 2002-00005 SPT 2001-00001 SPT 98-Ot 1 pU EAGH ®' 161. ' /' ~ ~ I I I 83T North o75 1 DU ACH \~ m ~ II I~~' a'/a-9na I O I ~~~ C-G SC CUP 2395 ~~ii11~ Z ~ \ \ RCL 71~72~21 CUP 3219 n~ f/ ~ 1 RCL 67-68-55 I T-CUP 2005.05074 CUP 2346 =~ I ~ \` T-CUP 2005-04994 CUP 2261 CUP 200404676 CUP 1757 RS-3 \ 1 T-CUP 2003-04609 CUP 1735 ~ 1 DU EACH \ ~ CUP 2003-04750 CUP 1727 ) CUP 2007-04426 CUP 1606 D _ CUP 2001-04406 VAR 2005-04670 n CUP 2000-04241 T-V VAR 4 224657 O ~~ ~~VSE ~~~ T C CUP 4067 200 VAR 4209 ~ ~ "(FCEEHp CUP 4021 VAR 2636 T ~~~ CUP 3747 VAR 2602 N / 1 (VAR 2310) r,\/ CUP 3221 (CUP 1686) / \ 7 D EpGN U 16611 ~ ~~~ 0 C SPN~ P ~ %~ N City of Anaheim . PI,AI~TIii><I~iG ~E~AI2'fi'I~~Iii'g' March 6, 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 March 6, 2006. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 1B (a) CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) (b) 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). vnvw.anaheim.net 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) Deny 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 for a high quality building that incorporates rich materials and articulation while being sensitive to the adjacent residential neighborhood. (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 Cr em.doc 20p South Anaheim Boulevard P.O. Box 3222 Anaheim, California 92803 TEL (714)785-5139 Attachment - R&R 1-B RESOLUTION NO. 2oD4-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COLINCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NQ. 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 heazing upon said application at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim, notices of which public heazing 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 LJse Permit No. 2003-4800; and WHEREAS, thereafter, within the time prescribed bylaw, 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 al] persons interested therein an opportunity to be heazd and did receive evidence and reports; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds, .after cazeful 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 [he 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 azea 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 particulaz area nor to the peace, health, safety and general welfaze; and that, with the exception of the approved waivers which are necessary due to site constraints, the proposal complies with the provisions and standazds 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 azea because the proposed business operation will generate an average 200 daily trips which is less than the traffic that would be generated by the p>eviously-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 Conmtission 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: l: That waiver{a), maximum number of wall signs, is hereby approved because the property has no visibility from surnounding pubic streets and, therefore, will rely on identification towazds dte 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 similaz waivers have been granted for other commercial businesses in the vicinity. 2. That waiver (b), maximum stnictural heighfadjaeent to asingle-family residential zone, is hereby approved because there are special circumstances applicable to this property consisting of its long, lineaz and narrow shape; and that the existing I S-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 stmctural setback adjacent to a freeway, is hereby approved because there aze special circumstances consisting of property's long, linear and narrow ' shape, which restricts developmenrof 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 [he 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 aze special circumstances,applicab]e to the propertyconsisting 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 - and 18.84.062 (c) Section 18.84.062.010.017 Maximum structural height adjacent to a single-family residential zone.. (16-feet height permitted where located 32 feet from "12S-5000(SC)" Residential, Single-Family -Scenic Corridor Overlay zoning to the south; 32 feet:.. proposed), - Minimum structural setback adjacent to a freeway. (100 feet, fully landscaped, required adjacent to the SR 91/Riverside Freeway; ' S to 40 feet, fully landscaped, proposed) - 3 - (d) Section 18.84.062.010,014.0742- 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 [he 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 pazMng azea 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 regazding such an i;vent may be appealed to the Planning Commission or City Council as a'Reports and Recommendations' item: 4. That only light vehicle prepazation shall be permitted; and that no repaii'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 sun•ounding properties, streets and the SR-91/Riverside Freeway in conformance with subsection ] 8.84.062.030.032 of Section 18:84.062 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (pertaining to development standazds for roof-mounted equipment in the "(SC)" Scenic Corridor Zone Overlay). Said information shall he specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 6. That aplan fortest driving new vehicles at this site shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval. Said plan shall inco[porate 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 Co this site). _ a _ 8. That the petitioner shall submit a Final Sign Plan tc the Zoning Division for review and approval. Said plan shall show no signage on the vehicle prepazation building: Any decision made by the Zoning Division regarding the Final Sign Plan maybe appealed to the Planning Commission or City Council. Said information shall be specifically shown on tht; plans submitted for building permits. 9. That the properly shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion throogh the provision of regulaz landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence, ] 0. 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 maybe appealed to the Planning Commission or City Council. Said information shall he specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. Said plan shall include landscape screening for the north side of the vehicle prepazation building to eliminate graffiti opportunities. 1 ]. That any tree and/or landscaping planted on-site shall beaeplaced 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. Saidstorage 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 aeea(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 br 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 [he 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 wa[cr 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 azeas exceeding two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, a separate irrigation meter shall be installed in compliance with Chapter ]0.19 (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 Fublic 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 tum-azound area shall be provided in accordance with Engineering Standazd Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. Said tum-around azea 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 standazds 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 nor 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 degartments: 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 wlll be used to determine the adequacy of the existing water system toprovide 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 Ciry 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 pf electrical service: 28. That any required relocation of Ciry electrical facilities shat] 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 he 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 3 L That prior to commencement of any constmction, al] 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 lightingadjacent to the freeway maybe increased to a height not to exceed eighteen (1 S) feet if said height increase has the same lighting' affect on the adjoining residenda] 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 [he Zoning Division regazding such plan maybe 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 maybe 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 regazding 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.. 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 lam 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. 4 L 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 aze 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) fee[. 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 be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 (Time Limit for Amendments, Conditional Use Permits, Administrative Use Permits, Vaziances 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 Cormnission at the December 15, 2003, public hearing regazding the azchitecture, 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, inc]uding 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 I'T FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Counci] 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 declazed 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 Ciry 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 - m.m..n a r ®a - 10 - Attachment - R&R 1-B CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04800 MONDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2003 Council Chambers, City Hail 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 Ossia 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 Iodated 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 VARICUS.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 ftem on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it fo the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCEr Chairperson James Vanderbilt PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT m®® -. a®m DECEMBER 15, 20D3 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES 9a. 9b. 9c. 9d. 9e. 9f. OWNER: Melvin R. Schantz, 21 Chelsea Point, Dana Point, CA 92629 AGENT: Hossein Zandi, Caliber Motors, 5395 East La Palma Avenue, Anahelm, 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 - Td amend the Land Use Element Map of the Anahelm General Plan redesighating the property from the Hillside Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003-00113-To redlassifythe properly 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 N0.2003-04800 =To permit and odnstruct 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 residehtlal zone, (c) minimum structural setback adjacent td a freeway, and (d) required landscape setback adjacent td an interior site boundary line abutting a residential zone, ' GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO, PC2003-171 - RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003.172 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESO)UTION NO. PC2003-173 Approved Recommended adoption of Exhibit "A" io City Council Granted Approved Granted, In part Recommended City Council review. sr8673av.doc (mmplans/plan122) Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 9 as a petltlonePs 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•Famiiy; 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 ...a DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILEu 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 (nbt more than one (1) wall sign perbuilding unit permitted; three (3) wall signs proposed):.: (b) Maximum structural height adjacent to a sirigle-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; D-10 feet, fully landscaped proposed). Applicant's Testimony; Don Bertng, 5395 E. La Palma, Avenue, Anaheim, CA, Chief Financial Officer of Caliber Motors, stated that he and other members of the oompany 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 properly 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 adverl(sing, and still a lot of people In the community do not know where they are located. Also, because the business has growh 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 es a satellite vehicle sales facility that would consist of a vehicle showroom and office building that would be two-stories, a sepafate one-story building for the cleaning and detalF 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 donsiderable 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 Idcatlon; it would be a satellite sales facility only: Caliber would continue to operate its main facilityon 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 (165-195 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 ihat is 12-15-03 Page 3 of 14 e. DECEMBER t5, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILtD MINUTES currently in final stages), but was dropped from the project due tb 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 manydifferent 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. Theypresented the plaris 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 cfianges 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 err attractive addition to the community tfiatwould 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 Marco, Escondido, CA, presented a 1-minute video of the project site, illustrating the boundary conditions. Public Testimony: ; Mark A. Garcia, 249 Celle 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 Ik; 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)ocal 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 bf 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, toted that their organization was founded in 1998 during the fight to preserve a historic piece ofiand called Magg Ranch. They were able to stop commercial development and were forced to deal with 106 houses. Although, as a community, they desperately wahted 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 communtty: After.fighting so hard to keep commercial off of Magg Ranch, they were once again faced wfth 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 bpposRlon, and after having several meetings with Caliber, and sometime to calm down and look at the deeperissues, such as the City potentially losing tax revenue at a time where iayoffswere Imminent, the Concemed 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 fn 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 ro make Income off of thefrland: Since houses could not be built on the property and the City refused to buy the property for a park, I! 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 DETAILtJ MINUTES bullding that could potentially have more impacts than what was being prdposed. The homeowners and the new D. R. Horton Protect 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 goats and policies of the Scenic Highway Element of the Anaheim General Plana In addition, the type of lighting proposed would have a signlficani impact on the highway. A regular 30-foot streetlight emitted from 10 to 20,000 lumens. The majority of the 69 light poles to 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 vlewscape. The Impact would exist seven nights a week; and at 9 o'clock would change to an undefined security level, but itwould-still be there and would coniinue to generate a block of light unlike that generated by any business or center next to residential uses fn the Canyon. She stated the following regarding the noise., aesthetics and storage facility impacts: Noise: The air conditioners barely met the minimum exterior noise stahderds, and the impacts on surrounding residences from other commercial uses and residential uses would not be as much: Aesthetics: The bullding 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 bullding 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, uncongesfed character of the Santa Ana Canyon Area, a primary goal of the Canyon Area General Plan. Existing development did promote Identlficatlonand 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 WeirCanyon was scenic, notjust hecause of the surrounding hills nn 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 frdm the freeway in the large commerciatarea 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 tfielr 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 e . ~. _ _.. i DECEMBER 15; 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILrD 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 neighbdring development. They looked at the property very seriously to put 22 homes on it and she spent a solid year trying to understand the bonstraints do the property. There are many Intense constraints brc 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 het project trying'to understand what they could do to purchase the property at ohe point: It did not work, Her concerns really are not for or against, but hoped the Commission wbuld take seriously some bf 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 (twould not be a burden on the people who lived there. Betty DeIllgada, 6069 Camino Manzanp, Anaheim Hills; CA, presented a petition ofapproximately 600 names. She stated that she walked her shoes off getting the petition against theproject; and that nobody in the area wanted it there. SheYecalled a few years back when she-got a letter from the City letting her to take down her television antenna because she was in the Scenic Corridor. The subject project would not indrease her Scenic Corridor itwould deteriorate It: Anita Steagetey, a representative of D. R. Horton, stated they were In their frial 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 lhitial applicatibn submitted td the CRy 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 Solompn Drive because of the City's concern of the negative impact that the lrafFic would have 4n VIa Cdrtez: Chairperson Vanderbilbstated 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 petitidn Indicated opposition. Ms. O'Nefli responded that a lot of ttie petitions were gathered when they were under the assumptionit was a three-story buiidingwhich was double the size currently being proposed: The Concerned Citizens' pol(cy is that they do not make decisions on their own. They presenk the facts as they aye given to them and explain them to Cite residents. -She wanted the land to be a park. She would love it tb be houses. It is ugly the way it is. It is rat infested. They have done their research since they started the initial petitions end the a-mail campaigns, etc. There is not a lot of feasibility for other things bn the site. It is not going to be left vacant, The owners have a right td Bell it. While she does not want td 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 absdlutety 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 lest 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 rtot 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: 12-16-03 Page 6 of 14 a ~ DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES Commissioner Eastman stated that there were several things that troubled. her. Commission would have to reverse something that they did no6long ago as far as general plan and turning from residential tiack 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 io 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 Buffo concurred with Commissioner Eastman and stated that it was an appropriate use oh 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 cdmme~dial uses that were already in the area. She understood the Mercedes dealersh(ps 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 the 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 oh 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 Sav(I Ranch, in terms of being a modern, non-traditional type of ardhitectural. At the time staff first saw the plans, it was a much largerscale 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 Clty 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 itbecause 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.. Thera 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 durrently existed. Commissioner Flores stated if the s(gnage 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 [he front or if it was necessary to have all three signs. 12-15•D3 Page 7 of 14 i DECEMBER 15, 2003 I PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL OETAIL~D MINUTES Mr. Bering responded that the trees growing up along theproperty 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 Icdk (the red file roof, etc) for this type bf 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 notsee 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 comingdn. It could be a real plus for Anaheim Hills: Commissioner Buffo stated the project would be a very positive use and appropriate use for the site but ttteywould need to work outsome 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 sfte 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 w(th Commissidners Buffo and Eastman and felt there were some issues that needed to be addressed. He suggested maybe they could put red file 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 Savil 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 yel 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 statemenfaboutbeing realistic. He would rather have seen the whole site commercial and have it border in Anaheim and not in Yorba Linda, but nobody Ilked that idea: Now there were 100 plus homes on the site with a lithe piece of land left over. When 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, veryconsfrained and required certain variances. He suggested looking at a fdur-week continuance for them to work on their architectural, issues of slgnage, end 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 being 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 theywould 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 Ilnk 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 DETAILtU 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. Marco 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 Tight from their site. As Indicated, in today's modern optics althougFi 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 ahalf afoot-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 neat a residential area to be 16, 18 or 20 feet: Regarding the architectural, he stated [hat Mr. 2andy 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.ln tt: 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 waspulled 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 br(ghtness 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 ft from a major light source. The south side of the building would pro)ect 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 an 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 encourege that.maylie as a bonus to certain businesses that wanted to have freeway, oriented signs that theyallow 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 he 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. Marco 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 i DECEMBER 15, 2003 ~ PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES` Mr. Marco 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 fhe location on La Palma Avenue ifit 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 facilityG People had kndwn 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 thetand Rover dealer would be expanding. They needed extra room and would be willing toputup with the operational difficulties to get IL Chairperson Vahderbilt stated that the Conditional Use Permifwould not permit a public address system end asked that since salesmen would be scattered all over the property, how they intended to overcome that. Mr. Bering responded thatthey would. use cell phbnes that included paging features where they could press one button or enter a couple of keys and talk to anybodyany place in the facility or anywhere (n 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 alsd 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 (coking, and felt they would be an example of something that might blend In more with the area withbut 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 herproperty dripped a sap down and had cones on them so that if they were tb 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 treeswere found: Mr. Marra 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 headscould be shaped and controlled without having things fall from them. Trees that attracted birds; trees that dropped seed pods; tons of leaves, eta. 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 would have a difficult time growing under eucalyptus. The front portion of their site would be as 12-15-03 Page 10 of 14 .~ a _ m r _. m. e DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNIi~u COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAI~cD 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 consistenR 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: Modlry 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 Hastirgs, 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 advertis(ng purposes after hours to have the signage on after 9 o'clock. Commissioner Buffo 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 compiled with. That the only waiver related to the building would tie 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 acousticallyenclosed to comply with both TItIe 24 and the City Municipal Code... Commissioner Bostwick stated that from the standpoint of someone who owned property along the Sanfa 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 focnoise 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 ®e _ ~ a ®_ DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNINu COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES 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 wfth Mitigation Monitoring Plan. No. 122 is adequate to serve as the required envUdnmental documentatidn for subject request. Recommended City Cduncll 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 reportdated December 15, 2003... Approved Waiver of Code Requtrement, as follows: Approved waiver (b) pertaining to maximum structural height adjacent to a single-family residential zone, wltfi a stipulation made at today's meeting that the maximum structural height including any roof•mbuhted equipment, shall be 32 feet. Vote: 5.1 (Commissioner O'Connell voted no and Commiss(oner Romero absent) Approved waivers pertaining to (a) maximum number of wall signs, (c) minimum structural setbadk 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. 20D3.04860 (to permit and construct an automotive sales dealership with accessdry 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, aa+# 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 Bald plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission, and/or City Council. Said Information shall be speciflcally 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 ®.® .m _m® DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNIIV.d COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILLO MINUTES 32. That any Ilghting adjacent to ttte south property Ilne shall be arranged and directed as to reflect the lighEaway from adjoining residential properties and shall not exceed a height of twelve (12) feet. Any Ilghting adjacent to the _. freeway maybe 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 fbllowing conditions of approval to read as follows: That final elevation plans lncorpprating suggestions made by the Planning Commission at the December 15, 2003, public hearfng7egarding 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-slte.advertising signage shall only be Illuminated during hours of operation. Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate that the Ilghting from the signage shall not cause excessive Ilght and/or glare for the residents to the south. Recommended City Council consideration of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation Monitoririg Plan, Reclasslflcatlon,Weiver of Code Requirement, and Conditional Use Pennit7equests In conjuncfion with City CounclPs mandatory review of the General Plan Amendment. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Romero ntsent) Selma Mann, Assistant Clty Attorney, stated th(s Item would beset 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 ®m _ m~ _ ®. ®.® DECEMBER 15, 2003 PLANNIi~,~ COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAI~~D MINUTES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:D4 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. 2D03-0480D, 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: ~~~~~~~- Pat Chandler Senior Secretary Received and approved'by the Planning Commission on , 2003. 12-15-03 Page 14 of 14 .. - Item No. 1( RORC~.. µOTEI 3~ b FUN;c OFFICE BLDG. L-G ANIMgL Nose RS-2 c.G 1 DU EACH VAR 4154 y W U ~. BLANCHARD AVE (^ LL UO J J = RS-2 f9 NU Q 1 DU EACH rn ~ } ~ fii-62-30 ~~ Q = Z ~ ~ Na } _ CUP 2793 F ~ W O N~QU u1 R' ~ 2' (A ~++ ~ ELL U U O F m No ~ ~ F w g ~ UNDERHILL W f~ 125' ~1 GG J ~ Ra fil-6z]o AVENUE J RLL 60-6t~96 p CUP 209fi~05062 O PARLEL6 r GUP 2965~0499T _ cuP 1061 RS-2 qw 99m 1 DU EAC TACO BELL PARCELq GG _ N "RCL fi041&90 - R6-2 ~ ~CNP 2005056fi21 cuP269so4997: DU ACH ,e ~0 ~ CUP 1220 REST -v. ~p4455 '.^. _~R2EL ELATE _m-1REET ~c-c ~- RS-2 RCL 515412 Q ~ 4IUPZ66z-w59z 1 DU EAC JALKIN THE BOX Q~ 9 C P 20~I~02 CL 53 69-12 a 1I CUL-P 16B-~6 II CUP 260] VAR 104 Z R$-2 uP TAMPCO W ~ RCL 5344-12 MOTEL U 1 DU AC g PI27A HUT ?6 D~ WARD TERRACE RCL 65-66-fi8 } a VAR 1948-6 RS-2 ADJ 01fi7 w+m6r 1 DU EACH LINpp~NA~~N E - PnARMACV m ~ . o a o.L o AoJ O1e4 °e~~ ci ees9:i°zl "' u~ cuP tent T D-D 9 ~ w TOMETRr i DU EFDH S aO UP 2 93 RCL 96-97-8 ° ~ vpa~o~s o~ise-59;;1 `°~~ N Conditional Use Permit No. 1228, 1031 TRACKING NO. CUP2006-05062 Requested By: JAMES MYRON AND PETER CAPRIOTTI II Parcel A: 100 North State College Boulevard Parcel B: 130 North State College Boulevard 10010 Subject Property Date: March 6, 2006 Scale: 1" = 200' Q.S. No. 1t2 [DRAFT] RESOLUTION NO. PC2006--*** A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1031 AND 1228 (100 and 130 NORTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD) WHEREAS, on June 3, 1968, the Anaheim Planning Commission did, by its Resolution No. PC68R-162 grant Conditional Use Permit No. 1031 to establish awalk-up restaurant; and WHEREAS, on March 22, 1971, the Anaheim Planning Commission did, by its Resolution No. PC71-47 grant Conditional Use Permit No. 1727 to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant; and WHEREAS, James Myron and Peter Capriotti II, owners of the subject properties have submitted letters requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1031 and 1228 to comply with Condition of Approval No. 11 of Resolution No. PC2005-111 for Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04997 (to construct a fast food restaurant with drive through and outdoor seating and a 3-unit commercial retail center) approved by the Planning Commission on July 25, 2005, since these entitlements are no longer needed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate all proceedings in connection with Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1031 and 1228 on the basis of the foregoing findings. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of March 6, 2006. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter 18.60 "Procedures" 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 March 6, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 2006 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this day of SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION Cr\PC2006- -1- PC2006- Tracking No. CUP2006-05062 T-674 P002/002 F-738 ~~ ~ Amy Vasquez Planning Department LAW OFFICES AND 200 South Anaheim Blvd, Stute 162 FINANCIAL SERVICES Anaheim, CA 92805 Esiate Planning Living Trusts Family Trusts Individual Trusts Irrevocable Trusls Special Needs Trusts °' "'°' Foreign Trosts " " ' "' Foreign Citizen Trusts Foundations ! Charitable Trusts Trust Maintenance Trust Division Trustee Services Estate lltlgetioh Estate Settlement Advanced Tax Plashing 'Insurance Real.EState . Financial Analysis Powers of Attorney Wills Living Wills Pourover Wills Declaration of Intent Corporalions PartneYShips Gift Counseling, Asset Protection, Retirement Plan's Annuities probate Services LiquidltyAnalysis Contracts Arbitration Healih Cara Plans Attachment - R&'R 1-C ~~~~f~~~ J(!L Z 7 2005 Re: Request Termination of Conditional Use Permits for 100 North State College Blvd., Anaheim, California Dear Amy: Tam the owner of the land located at100 N, State College Dlvd., Anaheim, California. For the past several years a Carrows Restaurant was operated on my property. However, now the Carrows has closed, and 1 have leased the property for the purpose of constructing and opening a new Taco Bell restauran. In order to facilitate the issuance of the new permits fol• the construction and operation of the new Taco Bell restaurant at this location, I hereby request that the following two (2) conditional use permits be terminated upon the approval of all of the permits necessat•y for the construction and operation of the new Taco Bell; 1. ] 031 - Walkun Restauratu Permit 2. 1228 -Permit to Sell Beer & Wine If you have any questions, please call my attorney, Daniel C: Hales ai' 949-852- $181. Tk+ar~c you. Sincerely, ~_ James Myron, , Owner, Trustee of the Myron Foundation Cc: Steve Dee2 Cc: Dolly Sandler, J.L. Hare & Associates 4695 MarJUrhur Court, sutra lao, iVEWPpRT BEACH, CA 92fifi0 • TfiL (949) 852'6161 FAX (949) 85?•1015 433 Notth Camden Drive, Suhe fi00, BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 • TEL (800) 662.0682 FAX (310) 288-1801 02-89-'06 15:31 FROM-COTTI FOODS 949-858-9199 ' T-870 P~a2/0~2 F-520 Attachment- R8R 1-C Cotti Foods Corporation A Franchisee of Taco Bell Corp. 26111 Antonio Parkway, Sui[e 100 las Floras, CA 92666 Tel 949/858.9191 Fax 949/858-9199 February 9, 2006 Jessica Nixon City of Anaheim Planning Services Divisioh, Room 162 200 S. Anaheim Blvd, Anaheim, California 92805 Reference; 730 North State College Bivd. Dear Jessica, II~Ia1=11Li~ Please accept this letter as follow up to your request, today, regarding Condltlonai Use Permit No. 1031 (to establish a walk-up restaurant,) I understand that you need to clear this old Conditional Use Permit, on your books, far 130 North State College Blvd. For the past several years I have owned and operated a Taco Bell Restaurant on this property. i am now in the process of opening a new Taco Bell Restaurant, next door on the 100 North State College Blvd, property. Upon completion and move-in of the new building, we plan to demolish the currant restaurant at 13D North State College Blvd, As you are aware, we will be building a retail center on the 100 N State College Blud, site. The grading plane are currently being review by the planning department. As the owner of the land located at 130 North State College Bivd., i am requesting a termination of Conditional Use Permit #1031 to occur after the building has been vacated. We expect this transfer to take place in Jame, If you have any questions, please feel free to call, Cordi Ily, Peter Capr otti II President Itern No. 2 . / ~ h _~ RCL 9~-00-15 5J (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 70.71-29 RCl ]671-2] STADIUM PLAZA BUSINESS PARK SMALL IND. FIRMS w < 1 ?~ RCL 99-00-15 w (Res. at lnt. to SE) > RCL 70-71-29 ~ RCL 70-7t-27 ~ 1 D vai SMALL IND. FIRMS SINCIAIR ST ~~ O-H RCL 200400127 I RCL 9400-75 (Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 66-67-14 RCL 59-fi0-23 T-CUP 2002-04578 T-CUP 2901-64446 CUP 2601-04441 CUP 1424 CUP 1301 VAR 3791 V-1779 S AUTO REPAIR 8 RENTAL VAR 3390 'y() VAR 2152 ~LF~( OFFICE E ``' 9LF ~\~a ~~~ e o5l~n~ItiA V Y~~gS ~ ~PQ 95 g1 IND FIRMS j P~~NU~ ~~~L~ RCL 99-00-U1'S (Res. of Inl. to SE) RCL 99-91-1t RCL 62-83-33 RCL 59-60.23 CUP 3369 CUP 2433 CUP 2257 STADIUM TOWER PLAZA OFFICE BLDG. T-CUP 2003-04774 O-L (PTMU) :RCL 99-OD-15 (Res. of Ini. to SE) RCL 90-91-11 RCL 63-64-24 n h / ~ q_. Q ~ / ..,y~SONTOPFk RCR 99-0M0.15 ggNp q VACANT S (Ras. o1lnl.lo SE) R9t~ NTq FF RCL 56-57-93 Srq TtON Rg7~~gy CUP 2400 CUP 750 RCL 66-07-14 ANGEL STADIUM ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE PTMU (PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE OVERLAY) ZONE Variance No. 2005-04675 Subject Property Date: March 6, 2006 Scale: Graphic Requested By: THE SHOPS AT STADIUM TOWERS Q.S. No. 117 REQUEST WAIVERS OF: (A) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES 8 PERMITTED NUMBER OF TENANTS ON A MONUMENT SIGN C) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF MONUMENT SIGNS D) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF MONUMENT SIGN E) PERMITTED NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS F) PERMITTED LOCATION OF WALL SIGNS ~G) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF LETTERS/LOGOS ON WALL SIGNS TO WAIVE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND PERMITTED SIGNS. 2410-2420 East Katella Avenue -Stadium Towers Plaza A 0 2135 Staff Report to the Planning Commission March 6, 2006 Item No. 2 2a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion for continuance) 2b. VARIANCE NO. 2005-04675 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: (1) This irregularly-shaped, 2.4-acre pioperty has a frontage of 60D feet on the south side of Katella Avenue, a maximum depth of 480 feet and is located 37 feet east of the centerline. of Howell Avenue (2410-2420 East Katella Avenue -Stadium Towers Plaza). REQUEST: (2) The applicant requests approval of the following: Variance No. 2005-04675 Request waivers of (a) minimum number of parking spaces, (b) permitted number of tenants on a monument sign, (c) maximum number of monument signs, (d) maximum height of monument sign, (e) permitted number of wall signs, (f) permitted location of wall signs, and (g) maximum height of Iettersllogos on wall signs to waive minimum number of parking spaces and permitted signs for apreviously-approved cbmmercial center. BACKGROUND: (3) This property is currently developed with an office building and a freestanding restaurant and is zoned C-G (General Commercial). The Land Use Element Map of the Anaheim General Plan designates this property for Mixed Use land uses. Surrounding properties to the east, west and sduth are also designated for Mixed Use land uses; and to the north (across Katella Avenue) for Office High land uses. (4) This item was continued frpm the January 23, February 6 and February 22, 2006, Planning Commission meetings in order to complete revisions to the parking study to allow for outdoor dining. The applicant, John Hill, has submitted the attached a-mail dated, February 23, 2006; requesting a further continuance to the March 20, 2006, Commission meeting to finalize the parking study revisions: RECOMMENDATION: (5) That the Commission, by motion; continue this item to the March 20, 2006, Planning Commission meeting.. SR-VAR2005-04675(con't-3-6-06).doc Page 1 Attachment -Item No. 2 2/23/06 Amy, I am in receipt of your message, Thank you forthe update. We kindly request a continuance for our public hearing. Thank you for your help. We look forward to receiving the comments next week. Sincerely, Sohn Hill RHA, inc. Sent wirelessly via BlackBerry from T-Mobile. IT'Et~ N®. 3 PRINTED SEP~4R,4TELY CEQA SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE POINTE ANAHEIM INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION/MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM NO. 004A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2005-00440 AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-1 (TRACKING NO. SPN2005-00032). WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4078 (TRACKING NO. CUP2006-p5065) SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 99-01 (AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 99-01) (TRACKING NO. DAG2006-00001): TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP N0. 2002-205 (TRACKING NO. SUBTPM2002-205). FINAL SITE PLAN N0.2006-00002. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEM NOS. 3d, 3e, 3g ~ 3h