PC 2006/03/06 (3)Anaheim Planning
Commission Agenda
Monday, March 6, 2006
Council Chamber, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California
Chairman: Gail Eastman
Chairman Pro - Tempore: Cecilia Flores
Commissioners: Kelly Buffa, Joseph Karaki, Ed Perez,
Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez
. Call To Order
Preliminary Plan Review 1:00 P.M.
• Staff update to Commission on various City developments and issues
(As requested by Planning Commission)
• Preliminary Plan Review for items on the March 6, 2006 agenda
Recess To Afternoon Public Hearing Session
• Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M.
For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any
item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card in advance and submit it to
the secretary.
Pledge Of Allegiance
Public Comments
Consent Calendar
Public Hearing Items
. Adjournment
You may leave a message for the Planning Commission using the following
e -mail address: plan ningcommission(Wanaheim.net
H: \docs \clerical \agendas \030606.doc (03/06/06)
Page 1
Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M.
Public Comments:
This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the
Anaheim Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing
items.
Consent Calendar:
The items on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate
discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning
Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and /or removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action-
1 A. (a)
(b)
Agent: Reky Hiramoto, Beazer Homes, 1800 East Imperial
Highway, Suite 200, Brea, CA 92821
Location: 1818 South State College Boulevard: Property is
approximately 3.4 acres located south and east of the
southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Katella
Avenue with frontages of 327 feet on the east side of State
College Boulevard and 105 feet on the south side of Katella
Avenue (Platinum Centre Condominiums).
Request to determine substantial conformance for modifications to
previously- approved exhibits for an attached 265 -unit condominium
project within the Platinum Triangle.
1B.(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 a previously- approved automotive dealership.
H: \docs \clerical \agendas \030606.doc
Project Planner.
(a vazquez @anaheim. net)
Q. S. 118
Project Planner.
(a vazquez@ anaheim. net)
Q. S. 108
(03/06/06)
Page 2
Agent: Hossein Zandi, Caliber Motors, 5395 East La Palma
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807
1C.(a) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1031 AND 1228
(TRACKING NO. 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 College 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.
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: \docs \clerical \agendas \030606.doc
Project Planner.
Qnixon@ anaheim.net)
Q. S. 112
(03/06/06)
Page 3
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION
2b. VARIANCE NO. 2005 -04675
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 Katella 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 letters /logos on wall signs to waive minimum number
of parking spaces and permitted signs for a previously- approved
commercial center.
Continued from the January 23, and February 6, and 22, 2006, Planning
Commission meetings.
Variance Resolution No.
H: \docs \clerical \agendas \030606.doc
Request a
continuance to
March 20, 2006
Project Planner.
( ava zauez(cDa naheim. net)
Q.S. 118
(03/06/06)
Page 4
3a.
3b.
3c.
3d.
3e.
3f. 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)
3g. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 2002 -205
(TRACKING NO. SUBTPM2002 -205)
3h. FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2006 -00002
3i. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF ITEM NOS. 3d, 3e. 3g
and 3h
Owner: Anaheim GW, LLC 17140 Bernardo Center Drive, Suite 310,
San Diego, CA 92128
Zabys LP, 444 W. Katella Ave, Anaheim, CA 92802 -3608
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 to 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 accessory 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 Study 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 for the Platinum
Triangle Area" to reflect the proposed modifications to the Anaheim
GardenWalk project.
Amendment No. 6 to The Disneyland Resort Specific 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 reflect the proposed
modifications to the Anaheim GardenWalk project including modificationE
to the previously- approved waiver of minimum number of parking spaces
and conditions of approval.
Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement No. 99 -01
(Amendment No. 3 to the First Amended and Restated Development
Agreement No. 99 -01) — 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 Map No. 2002 -205 — Request to establish a 7 -lot,
including 1 air - space, non - residential condominium subdivision for a
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.
Amendment No. 6 to The Disneyland Resort Specific
Plan Resolution No.
Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. _
Development Agreement Resolution No.
H: \docs \clerical \agendas \030606.doc
Project Planner.
(twhite@ anaheim.net)
Q.S. 87
(03/06/06)
Page 6
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 g.m. March 2. 2006
(TIME) (DATE)
LOCATION: COUNCIL CHAMBER DISPLAY CASE AND
COUNCfL DISPLAY KIOSK
SIGNED: ~LCO ~/ I~.f
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:\dots\clerical\agendas\030606.doc (03/06/06)
Page 7
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
11 September 6 (Wed) 11
11 September 18 11
October 2
October 16
October 30
November 13
November 27
December 11
II December 27 (Wed) II
H: \docs \clerical \agendas \030606.doc (03/06/06)
Page 8
Item No. 1A
' 4G (Res. of to SE)
RCL 90 -0- 97 -17
RCL 66- 4
60-61-113
RCL 56 -57 -93 O-L (PTMU)
I(PTMU) Q 04 -9 O -L (PTMU)
CUP 3957 RCL20 0012
TTM 16618 TOWN PLACE CUP 3406 RCL 99 -00.15
0-15 > BALLY FITNES es. of Int. to SE
RCL 99 -00-15 LU SUITES CUP 690 )
Res. of Int. to SE) J VAR 2765 RCL 90.91 -17
to SE) ( RCL 66 -67 -14 � --------- - - - - -- RCL 5 6 - -74
-19 ��� RCL 56-57-93
5-42 RCL 55 -56 -19 Q —�� ���� CUP 4747
RCL 54 -55-42 00 CUP 3957
T -CUP 2004 -04939 CUP 3406
CUP 2004 -04906 CUP 3386 LU BANK \
CUP 2862 VAR 4129 (D O- L(PTMU) PARKING RcO -L ((OP)
CUP 1427 LU
DAG 2005 -00010 J \ CUP
DAG 2004 -00002 J O- L(PTMU)
RCL 90 -97 -17 \ \ OFFICE
X15 STADIUM LOFTS RCL 66-67-14
o SE) MIXED USE U RCL 56 -57 -93 _L (PTMU)
\( \\
-14 RESIDENTIAL T -CUP 2000 -04260 O -L (PTMU)
' CONDOMINIUM LU CUP 4141 FOOD t \
-7 CUP 3957 REST. COURT \ \
� Q CUP 3406 \
CUP 690
U) TPM NO. 97 -155 (CUP 3356 T)
REST.
KATELLA AVENUE
105'
(PTMU)
R&o6 -15 (PTMU)
I(PTMU) Int to SE) I T RCL 99 - 00 -
RCL 99 -00 -15 667 -14 CUP cuPV4 (Res. of lnt. to SE)
2es. of Int. to SE) 6 57 -93 MCOONALBS CuP2598 RCL66 -67 -14
3836 VAR 24080RNE THRU cuP 2425 Z
RCL66 -67 -14 1370 vAR1822 REST CUP 1814 RCL 59 -60 -61 r RCL 56 -57 -93 S_ VAR 2U8 Res of Intent to MIA) o- 4
CUP 1652 RCL 56 -57 -93 — >
CUP 447 5 I (PTMU) CUP 2226 VAR 2466
VAR 2618 RCL 99 -00 -15 CUP 447 S CUP 1745
MOTEL (Res. of Int. CUP 1319 VACANT
to SE CUP 447 S 0� (PTMU) CUP 2005 -04967
MOTEL TTM 16825 DAG 2005 -00004
- - RCL 99-00.15 ESP 2005 -00004 KAYOOP
I(PTMU) (Res_ of Int to SE) GPA 2005 -00435 OFFICE BLD
I(PTMU) RCL 99 -00 -15 RGL 868722 MIS 2005 -00113
RCL 99 -00.15 (Res. of Int. to SE) m RCL 5 � -93 ZC A 2005 -00044
(Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 66-67 -14 (PTMU)
RCL 56 -57 -93 RCL 56 -57-93 T C P 2 01 RCL 99 -00.15
CUP 447 S CUP 7377 CUP200584975 (Res. of Int. to SE)
- - - -- IND_ -- - - - - -- CUP 447S CUP 2883 RCL 59 -60-61
— VAR 2561 CUP 1111
.----- - - - - RETAIL TILE FSP 2005 -00805 (Res of Intent to MIA) - - -- ---- - - - - -- DAG 2005 -00005 RCL 56 -57 -93
1 (PTMU) VACANT L / //j
VAR 2466
1(PTMU) RCL 99 -00.15
RCL 99 -00 -15 (Res. of Int. to SE)
(Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 66 -67 -14
RCL 56 -57 -93 RCL 56 -57 -93
CUP 447 S CUP 2 00 3 -04721
IND. FIRM CUP 447 S
SMALL IND.
FIRMS ANGEL STADIUM
OF ANAHEIM
PR (PTMU) „
RCL 9 -00-15 \\ \ \\
1(PTMU) (Res. of Int. to SE)
RCL 99 -00-15 RCL 56 -57 -9
(Res. of Int. to SE) CUP 2400 N
on cc 91 oa CUP 750
ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE (PTMU) OVERLAY ZONE.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -04975 Subject Property
TRACKING NO. CUP2006 -05074 Date March 6, 2006
Scale 1"=200'
Requested By REKY HIRAMOTO Q.S. No. 118
1818 South State College Boulevard 10009
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 6, 2006
Item No. 1 -A
1 -A. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY- APPROVED) (Motion)
b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005 - 04975— DETERMINATION OF
SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE (Motion)
(TRACKING NO. CUP 2006 - 05074)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly- shaped, 3.4 acre property is located south and east of the
southeast corner of State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue with frontages of
327 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and 105 feet on the south side
of Katella Avenue (1818 South State College Boulevard - Platinum Centre
Condominiums).
REQUEST:
(2) The petitioner requests a determination of substantial conformance for
modifications to previously- approved exhibits for an attached 265 -unit
condominium project within the Platinum Triangle under authority of Code Section
No. 18.60.190.020.
BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is currently vacant and is zoned I (PTMU) and O -L (PTMU)
(Industrial; Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay and Low Intensity Office; Platinum
Triangle Mixed Use Overlay). The Anaheim General Plan designates this property
as well as properties to the north (across Katella Avenue), east, south and west
(across State College Boulevard) for Mixed Use land uses. The PTMLUP further
indicates the property is located in the Katella District of the PTMU Overlay.
(4) Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -04975 (to modify the required setbacks adjacent
to State College Boulevard and the proposed private street) and Development
Agreement No. 2005 -00005 (for a 265 -unit attached residential condominium
subdivision) was approved by City Council on July 26, 2005. Final Site Plan No-
2005-00005 was approved by the Planning Director on May 26, 2005.
(5) Resolution No. CC2005 -148, adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit
No. 2005 - 04975, contains the following condition of approval:
"36. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by project applicant
and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos-
1 through 24 and as conditioned herein."
(6) Code Section No. 18.60.190.020 states that minor amendments to a conditional
use permit require Planning Commission consideration to determine whether the
amendment is in substantial conformance with the use and /or the plans that were
originally approved. Such review authority may approve in whole or in part,
conditionally approve or deny the amendment. Minor amendments do not require a
public hearing unless the review authority determines, in its discretion, that a public
hearing is appropriate. Further, the proposed modifications to the final site plan
would not increase the intensity or density of the project, or change the permitted
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 6, 2006
Item No. 1 -A
uses of the property. Therefore, no amendment to the development agreement is
required.
DISCUSSION:
(7) The applicant is requesting a determination of substantial conformance with
previously- approved exhibits for an attached 265 -unit condominium project within
the Platinum Triangle. The proposed modifications are reflected in revised podium,
roof, parking structure, unit floor and elevation plans.
(8) The original podium plan included all common recreational facilities and the pool
and spa. The revised plans indicate the pool and spa would be relocated to a new
roof deck with views to the stadium that would include cabanas, outdoor furniture,
BBQ's and potted plants. All other common facilities were designed as a multi-
story amenity facing State College Boulevard. The podium level would contain a
fitness center and clubhouse and would be enhanced with several water features
and landscape amenities throughout the corridors. The third and forth levels were
revised to include theater rooms and the fifth level would include a multifunctional
game room. Staff believes that the relocation of the pool and spa is an
improvement since the sun exposure would be improved and residents would have
views to the stadium. The new amenities provided throughout the building would
also be an enhancement to the originally approved plans by providing more
common amenities for the homeowners to interact.
(9) A revised parking garage plan was submitted with an additional subterranean level
of parking increasing the number of parking spaces from 533 to 580. The intent of
this revision was to provide additional parking for the residents and to construct a
few private garages for homeowners with larger units. Additionally, private storage
lockers would also be provided for residents. To construct this level, an additional
10 feet would be excavated spanning 59,664 square feet.
(10) The applicant is requesting the unit plans be modified as reflected in the following
table:
Unit No.
Approved square
footage
Proposed
square footage
1
651
767
2
855
912
3
912
984
4
984
983
5
1226
1226
6
1235
1235
7 new unit
N/A
1235
* Gross square footages reflected in table (plans reflect net)
(11) The unit floor plans were also revised by decreasing the square footage of the
private balconies in order to provide more common recreational area. Code
requires 200 square feet of open space per unit (265x200= 53,000 square feet) and
53,697 square feet is provided (without including any of the balconies).
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 6, 2006
Item No. 1 -A
(12) The revised elevations plans indicate changes along State College Boulevard to
facilitate the relocated common facilities. Further enhancements to the entrance
include expansion of the stone veneer to the top of the building, more glass and
metal siding on the vestibule canopy. Additional elevation enhancements were
introduced on the balconies to provide more texture by use of siding and metal
railing. The Katella Avenue (north), private street (east) and stadium side (south)
building elevations would remain the same as the original development package.
(13) Staff is supportive of the proposed modifications since the plans substantially
conform to the approved exhibits, meet the development standards and design
criteria of the Platinum Triangle Overlay Zone and are intended to improve the
design and livability of the project.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(14) Staff has reviewed the request for a review of revised plans and the previously -
approved Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds there are no changes to the
originally- approved conditional use permit and that the request will not result in any
significant adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, staff recommends that the
previously- approved Mitigated Negative Declaration serve as the required
environmental documentation for this request-
RECOMMENDATION
(15) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during
the meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including
the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented
at the public hearing, the Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, determine that the previously- approved Mitigated Negative
Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental
documentation for the subject request.
(b) By motion, approve the request for 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.
Page 3
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
ek * + A
Niff
IO Anniversag
r_Mlra1=1M M M AUM
KTGY GROUP, INC
Architecture
Planning
17992 Mitchell South
Irvine, California 92614
9491851-2133 FAX 9491851 -5156
Fort Lauderdale, FL
I fIZI010-7.7_s ll 0U11Uir, 1
Date: Tuesday, January 17, 2006
To: Amy Vasquez, City of Anaheim
From: Jay Wu
Project Name:Platinum Centre
KTGY Job #: 20040488.01
Subject: Design Improvement Summary
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 left turn 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% of 265 units on the project. Other
projects in the Platinum Triangle Overlay Zone had an advantage of greater bedroom
variety.
I:\ SoCal \4488platinum \Doc\Agency\KTGY MEMORANDUM project changes (2) 01 17 05.doc
ek * + A
Niff
IO Anniversag
KTGY GROUP, INC.
Architecture
Planning
17992 Mitchell South
Irvine, California 92614
9491851-2133 FAX 9491851 -5156
Fort Lauderdale, FL
I f IZI010- 7.7_s T`U11Uir, 1
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 level) and is incorporated within'' /2 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 origianl 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.£, a 3% change over the approved square footage. Square
footage in 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.£(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 for improving the use of the
balconies.
.4) Plan 4
I:\ SoCal \4488platinum \Doc\Agency\KTGY MEMORANDUM project changes (2) 01 17 05:doc
ek * + A
Niff
IO Anniversary
KTGY GROUP, INC.
Architecture
Planning
17992 Mitchell South
Irvine, California 92614
9491851-2133 FAX 9491851 -5156
Fort Lauderdale, FL
I IV, IZIir,W 7_voU11Uir, 1
Issue: Unit plan sequence follows the size of the unit for coordination purposes. Plan 1
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 from 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 to 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 corner of Katella and the private road is 18" wider than
allowed on site.
Solution: Plan 7 is introduced as an alternative to 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 metal 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.
I:\ SoCal \4488platinum \Doc\Agency\KTGY MEMORANDUM project changes (2) 01 17 05:doc
ek * + A
Niff
IO Anniversary
KTGY GROUP, INC.
Architecture
Planning
17992 Mitchell South
Irvine, California 92614
9491851-2133 FAX 9491851 -5156
Fort Lauderdale, FL
I f IZI010- I.r_iv►Ub1v1A I
CC: Mike Platzer, Gregg Gripe, Karen Sully, Ray Of: Platinum Centre Team
Pereda
I:\ SoCal \4488platinum \Doc\Agency\KTGY WMORANDUM_ inject changes (2) 01 17 05:doc
4
EAR MIT,=, a:I &AUM
RESOLUTION NO. 2005 - 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 permit to permit modification of required setback as 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, CALIFORNIA.
PARCEL 2: AN EASEMENT 8.34 FEET IN WIDTH FOR
INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER THAT PORTION OF LOT 5 OF
TRACT NO. 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 BEING 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 5,250 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, CALIFORNIA.
PARCEL 4: AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS
OVER THE NORTHERLY 16.66 FEET OF THE SOUTHERLY
258.14 FEET OF THE WESTERLY 220.00 FEET OF THE
FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LAND:
THOSE PORTIONS OF LOTS 4 AND 5 OF TRACT NO. 71, AS
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
60 -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, TOWNSHIP 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 28.34 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89
DEGREES 59 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 08'00" 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 FILED 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 POINT OF
BEGINNING.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION INCLUDED
WITHIN SAID 60 -FOOT ROAD AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF
TRACT NO. 71.
PARCEL 5: THAT PORTION OF LOT 5 OF TRACT NO. 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 SOUTH
OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 25,
TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 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 NO. 71, 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, SHOWN AS 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 hearing were duly
given as required by law and the provisions of Title 18 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.PC2005 -83 granting Conditional Use Permit No.2005-
04975; and
WHEREAS, thereafter, within the time prescribed by law, an interested party or
the City Council, on its own motion, caused the review of said Planning Commission action at a
duly noticed public hearing; and
WHEREAS, at the time and place fixed for said public hearing, the City Council
did duly hold and conduct such hearing and did give all persons interested therein an opportunity
to be heard and did receive evidence and reports; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds, after careful consi- deration of the
recommendations of the City Planning Commission and all evidence and reports offered at said
hearing, that:
That the proposed modification to required setbacks is properly one for
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 area 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 fiirther 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 constructed in connection with the project.
5. That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions
imposed will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT 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:
I. That this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to adoption of
Development Agreement No. 2005 -00005 and 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 a domestic above - ground water meter in addition to providing a
5 -foot wide clearance 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
assemblies currently installed in a vault shall be brought up to current standards. Any other large
water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division
in either underground vaults or outside of the street setback area in a manner fully screened from
all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for
approval by the Water Engineering Division of the Public Utilities Department.
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 meters, fire lines or submitting the
water improvement plans for approval, the properly 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 determine 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 parcel 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 permits.
10. That signs shall be posted indicating no on- street parking 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.
12. That the legal property owner shall provide the City of Anaheim with an
easement for electrical service lines to be determined as electrical design is completed. Said
easement shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim prior to connection of electrical service.
13. That an on site trash truck turn 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 occur 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 hardscape 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 permits.
18. That 4 -foot high address numbers shall be displayed flat on the roof in a
contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from view of the street or
adjacent properties. 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
Department 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, property, and vehicles on -site. Said
information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits.
21. 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 fully 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-four (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 implementation of 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 signage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Director.
28. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway or private street 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
standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon 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. Said 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 wall /fence 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 shall 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 property
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 City of 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 buildinglarchitectural plans for
review and approval by the Planning Commission as a "Reports and Recommendations" item
prior to City Council action on Development Agreement No. 2005- 00005, Tentative Tract Map
No. 16825 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 or
findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance,
regulation or requirement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance
with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such conditions, or any part
thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent
jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein 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 July 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
B
MAYOR OF THvtrrfOF ANAHEIM
ATTIAT:
ITY CLE K OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
58867.1
0
R &R Item No. 1 -A
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 1, 2005
Item No. 2
2a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING PLAN NO. 129 (Motion)
2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2005 -04975 (READVERTISED) (Resolution)
2c. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16825 (Motion)
2d. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2005 -00005 (Resolution)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly- shaped, 3.1 acre property is located south and east of the southeast corner
of State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue with frontages of 327 feet on the east side
of State College Boulevard and 105 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue (1818 South
State College Boulevard - Platinum Centre Condominiums).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests approval of the following:
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -04975 —to modify the required setbacks adjacent to State
College Boulevard and the proposed private street under authority of Code Section No.
1820.090.050.
Tentative Tract Map No. 16825 —to establish a 1 -lot, 265 -unit airspace attached residential
condominium subdivision.
Development Agreement No. 2005 -00005 - to recommend City Council adoption of a
Development Agreement between the City of Anaheim and U.S. Southeast Corporation for
the Platinum Centre Condominium Project (to construct a 265 -unit condominium complex).
The Planning Commission's role is to review the land use aspects of the Agreement,
specifically to determine if the eligibility criteria has been met, if the Agreement is consistent
with the General Plan and if the project implemented by the Agreement is compatible with
the development of the surrounding area. The City Council will consider approval of the
Agreement-
BACKGROUND
(3) This item was continued from the May 2, 2005, Planning Commission meeting in order to
readvertise the project to include the requested setback modification along the private
street.
(4) On August 17, 2004, the City Council approved the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use
Plan (PTMLUP) to carry out the goals and policies of the General Plan for The Platinum
Triangle including serving as a blueprint for future development and street improvements.
The City Council also adopted the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone
(Chapter 1820 of the Anaheim Municipal Code) and an associated standardized Platinum
Triangle Development Agreement. The PTMU Overlay Zone encompasses approximately
375 acres and five Districts (the Katella, Gene Autry, Gateway, Arena and Stadium
Districts) within The Platinum Triangle, as depicted on the PTMLUP. The PTMU Overlay
Zone provides opportunities for high quality well- designed development projects that could
be stand -alone residential projects or combined with non - residential uses including office,
retail, business services, personal services, public spaces and uses, and other community
amenities within the area. Properties encompassed by the PTMU Overlay Zone can be
operated, developed or expanded under their existing underlying zone or, if the property
owner chooses, developed under the PTMU Overlay Zone standards. Ordinances
adopting the PTMU Overlay Zone requirements and reclassifying certain properties to the
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 1, 2005
Item No. 2
PTMU Overlay Zone (those properties designated for Mixed Uses by the General Plan)
were finalized on September 23, 2004.
(5) This property is currently developed with an office building and is zoned I (PTMU) and O -L
(PTMU) (Industrial; Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay and Low Intensity Office;
Platinum Triangle Mixed Use Overlay). The Anaheim General Plan designates this
property as well as properties to the north (across Katella Avenue), east, south and west
(across State College Boulevard) for Mixed Use land uses. The PTMLUP further indicates
the property is located in the Katella District of the PTMU Overlay.
A M
e46
Existing office building on State College Blvd. (to be demolished)
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL:
(6) The applicant proposes to construct a 5- story, 265 -unit condominium project in a "podium"
style building with residential units located above a partially subterranean parking structure.
The project would also include construction of a 26 -foot wide private street with sidewalks
and parkways that would be shared with a future mixed -use development to the east. The
private street would be utilized for secondary tenant access, fire access, moving plazas,
and sanitation access.
(7) The tentative tract map indicates the subdivision would consist of a 1 -lot, 265 -unit airspace,
residential subdivision for condominium purposes.
(8) The site plan (Exhibit No. 1) indicates the condominium subdivision would contain one (1)
airspace, residential lot developed with one (1) podium style building. The building would
meet Code requirements for minimum floor area, lot coverage and setbacks with the
exception of the requested setback modifications along State College Boulevard and the
private street.
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 1, 2005
Item No. 2
(9) Floor plans (Exhibit Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11) indicate 1 and 2- bedroom condominium
residences ranging from 651 to 1226 square feet. The units would provide kitchens, entry
areas, great rooms, storage areas and private balconies. The sizes and interior features of
the units are in compliance with the PTMU Overlay Zone.
(10) Primary access to the project would be via State College Boulevard. A secondary access
would be provided from a newly constructed private street from Katella Avenue terminating
as a cul -de -sac at the southeast side of the property. The private street meets the City
standards and includes a 5 -foot wide sidewalk, 5 -foot wide parkway and enhanced asphalt
to create a cobblestone finish. The structured parking would be partially subterranean and
at- grade. The project would provide 533 parking spaces with 112 spaces at ground level
and 421 subterranean spaces. No on- street parking would be allowed on the private street
or along the project frontage on Katella Avenue or State College Boulevard. The total
number of spaces would exceed the 450 parking spaces required by Code. Two (2)
moving plazas, designated with a painted curb, would be provided within the private street.
(11) The applicants Solid Waste Management Plan indicates that a trash loading and staging
area would be located at the terminus of the cul -de -sac. Four (4) separate enclosure areas
would be located within the ground level parking area in order to store the refuse dropped
down the chutes. A porter would monitor the trash levels throughout the day and vehicle
designated for towing the trash bins to the pick -up area would be located on-site-
(12) The elevation plans (Exhibit Nos. 8 and 9) indicate the building would be a contemporary
design that incorporates quality architectural elements such as a built -up parapet roof with
canopy accents and painted smooth - textured stucco. Architectural features include deeply
recessed windows, metal canopies, decorative wrought iron railings and gates, stone
veneer and roof and window trim. The building would be a maximum of 57 feet high. Code
permits buildings within the Katella District up to 100 feet high.
Rendering of building from State College Boulevard
(13) The landscape plans (Exhibit Nos-15 and 16) provide depictions of the project's common
amenities such as a recreation area with a pool and spa, restrooms, raised planters,
outdoor furniture and cabanas, an entertainment terrace with enhanced paving, a fountain,
fire pit, raised planters and outdoor furniture for seating; and a common lobby with
enhanced paving, raised planters and seating. Yes, its an open -air, lobby with planters
and paving. Three (3) additional courtyard areas would be located throughout the project.
Page 3
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 1, 2005
Item No. 2
The landscape palette includes a variety of trees, shrubs and groundcover, in compliance
with the landscape requirements of the PTMU Overlay Zone and the PTMLUP.
(14) Project construction is anticipated to commence the Summer of 2006, and be completed by
the Fall of 2007. The construction phase would begin with the demolition of the existing
office building. This phase is anticipated to last four (4) weeks. Materials generated from
demolition would be removed from the site and transported to an appropriate waste
disposal facility. Grading would begin after demolition and would be completed in
approximately five (5) weeks. The actual building construction is expected to be complete
in approximately 2 years.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004 -04975 DISCUSSION:
(15) Code Section No. 1820.090.050 of the PTMU Overlay Zone allows modification of
setbacks when minimum landscape requirements are met, subject to the approval of a
conditional use permit. The applicant requests modification of setbacks in accordance with
the following table:
Property line
Required
Permitted
Proposed
Type of
adjacent to:
Setback
Encroachments
Setback
encroachment
State College
Ground floor units
Boulevard
16 feet
None listed
10 feet
and private patios
Private patios:
Ground floor units
Private Street
10 feet
7 feet
0 feet
and private patios
(16) The requested setback modification on State College Boulevard is necessary to
accommodate a right -turn lane. Code requires a minimum front yard setback of 16 feet and
the site plan indicates a proposed setback of 10 feet to the ultimate right -of -way for a
segment of the setback. Sixteen feet of landscaping (partially installed within the public
right -of -way) is proposed in compliance with Code. In order to comply with City standards
for the new private street, the units along the east side of the building would encroach into
the required setback. This is a secondary access for residents and is designed primarily to
accommodate trash and moving truck access, and to comply with life safety requirements
on the east side of the building. The private street would be developed with a landscaped
parkway and sidewalk that would provide an adequate buffer between the street and the
ground floor units. The building is designed with landscaped pockets interspersed between
the patios. The patio walls would be faced with decorative stone to provide a high level of
architectural finish where the project meets the private street.
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2005 -00005 DISCUSSION:
(17) In 1982, the Legislature of the State of California adopted Section 65864, et. Seq. of the
California Government Code authorizing a city and an applicant for a development project to
enter into a development agreement, permitting cities to contract with property
owner /developers for their mutual benefit in a manner not otherwise available to the parties.
A development agreement is a contract for development which provides a property
owner /developer a vested right to proceed with an approved development, "freezing" the
entitlement along with established regulations and fees, in exchange for the City obtaining
benefits over and above what would otherwise be required by existing regulations and
ordinances.
(18) On November 23, 1982, the City enacted Ordinance No. 4377 making the City subject to
the Statute and adopted Resolution No. 82R -565 (Procedures Resolution) establishing
procedures and requirements for the consideration of Development Agreements upon
Page 4
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 1, 2005
Item No. 2
receipt of an application by the City. On August 17, 2004, the City Council adopted
Resolution No. 2004 -179 approving the form of the standardized Platinum Triangle
Development Agreement to implement projects in the PTMU Overlay Zone. The Agreement
is intended to provide the property owner /developer with a maximum amount of flexibility
while ensuring development and maintenance of high quality projects that carry out the
vision for The Platinum Triangle.
(19) Pursuant to the Procedures Resolution, the Planning Commission is required to make a
recommendation to the City Council relative to the proposed Development Agreement. The
Planning Commission must determine whether the applicant has demonstrated eligibility to
enter into the Development Agreement by finding the project satisfies one or more of the
eligibility requirements set forth below:
(a) That the project shall occupy at least 50 acres; or
(b) That, upon completion, the project shall result in the construction of at least 250
dwelling units, 250,000 square feet of commercial -office space, or 250,000 square feet
of industrial space; or
(c) That the project will be constructed in phases over an anticipated period of not less
than 5 years; or
(d) That a project shall be eligible if the Planning Director finds that the public health,
safety or general welfare of the citizens of Anaheim will best be served by accepting an
application for consideration by the Planning Commission and City Council.
The Commission must also determine whether the proposed Agreement is consistent with
the General Plan, compatible with the uses authorized in and the regulations prescribed for
the applicable zoning district, compatible with the orderly development of property in the
surrounding area; and not otherwise detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of
the citizens of Anaheim.
(20) Staff has reviewed the proposed Development Agreement and finds that the Agreement has
been prepared in conformance with the form of the standardized Platinum Triangle
Development Agreement approved per Resolution No. 2004 -179. Further, the applicant has
demonstrated eligibility to enter into the Agreement since the project will result in the
construction of 265 residential dwelling units, which is consistent with and implements the
goals and policies of the General Plan Mixed Use land use designation for The Platinum
Triangle and the PTMLUP by providing for a high - quality residential project.
(21) The plans associated with the project depict a high - quality multiple - family development that
incorporates a variety of rooflines, prominent entry features, and numerous architectural
details with common and semi - private open space enhanced by landscaping, decorative
paving treatments, low patio walls and detailed wrought iron fencing. Further, in approving
the Final Site Plan for the Platinum Centre Residential Project, the Planning Director
determined that the Final Site Plan was consistent with the PTMU Overlay Zone
requirements, subject to approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 - 04975, Tentative
Tract Map No. 16825 and Development Agreement No. 2005 - 00005.
Page 5
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 1, 2005
Item No. 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(22) On May 25, 2004, the City Council certified Final Environmental Impact Report No. 330,
adopting Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and associated
Mitigation Monitoring Plans (including an Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring
Program No. 106 for The Platinum Triangle) (FEIR No. 330) under Resolution No. 2004-
04, in conjunction with the consideration and adoption of the citywide General Plan and
Zoning Code Update Program and a series of related actions.
(23) On August 24, 2004, the City Council determined that the previously certified FEIR No. 330
was adequate to serve as the environmental documentation for the PTMLUP, the PTMU
Overlay Zone, the form of the standardized Platinum Triangle Development Agreement and
other related reclassification actions. It was also determined that future individual
development projects and infrastructure improvements which are proposed to implement
the PTMLUP and the PTMU Overlay Zone would require further environmental review and
analysis of potential site specific environmental impacts in conjunction with the processing
of discretionary applications. Work has commenced on the preparation of a Subsequent
EIR to provide additional environmental documentation for these requests (it is anticipated
that this will be completed by summer of this year). Projects that precede certification of
the Subsequent EIR require independent environmental review and documentation.
(24) A Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated to public
agencies and interested parties on April 12, 2005, for a 20 -day review period. The NO[ and
associated Initial Study outlined the environmental issues to be addressed in Mitigation
Monitoring Plan No. 129, including: AestheticsNisual, Air Quality, Biological Resources,
Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and
Planning, Noise, Transportation/Traffic, Utilities /Service Systems, and Cumulative Impacts.
(25) Staff has reviewed the Initial Study for the proposed project, a copy of which has been
provided to the Planning Commission and is available for review in the Planning
Department, and finds that with the incorporation of mitigation measures set forth in
Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 129, no significant environmental impacts that cannot be
mitigated to a level of significance would result from the proposed project and therefore,
recommends that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be approved upon a finding by the
Planning Commission that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent
judgment of the lead agency; and that it has considered the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and
further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no
substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment-
EVALUATION
(26) Development in the PTMU Overlay Zone is implemented through the administrative
processing of a final site plan (to show compliance with the Code) and entering into the
standardized development agreement with the City. The Code requires the final site plan to
be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Director
as to conformance with the provisions of the PTMLUP and the PTMU Overlay Zone. Once
approved, the final site plan is incorporated into the Development Agreement as an exhibit.
The Code additionally states that if the final site plan includes a request for a variance or a
conditional use permit that said applications shall be processed concurrently with the
Development Agreement.
(27) The applicant submitted Final Site Plan No. 2005 -00005 to provide for the development of
the Platinum Centre residential project. Based upon a review of the plans and in
Page 6
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 1, 2005
Item No. 2
accordance with the authority set forth in Section 1820.170 (Implementation) of the
Anaheim Municipal Code, on May 26, 2005, the Planning Director approved Final Site Plan
No. 2005 - 00005, subject to the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 - 04975,
Tentative Tract Map No 16825 and Development Agreement No. 2005 - 00005. This
approval was based upon the determination that the Final Site Plan No. 2005 -00005 is in
conformance with the provisions of the PTMLUP and the PTMU Overlay Zone. The
approved Final Site Plan is attached as Exhibit "B" to the Development Agreement.
Following is a summary of the approved Final Site Plan:
FINDINGS:
(28) Before the Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that
the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
(a) That the use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the
Zoning Code, or is an unlisted use as defined in Subsection .030 (Unlisted Uses
Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority);
(b) That the use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and
development of the area in which it is proposed to be located,
(c) That the size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area
or to the health and safety;
(d) That the traffic generated by the use will not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
(e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any,
will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
(29) "The State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code, Section 66473.5) makes it mandatory
to include in all motions approving, or recommending approval of a tract map, a specific
finding that the proposed Subdivision together with its design and improvement is consistent
with the City's General Plan.
Page 7
PTMU Overlay
Development Standard
Proposed Project
Zone Standards
Site Area
3.11 acres
N/A
Minimum 50 units
Number of Dwelling Units /Acre
85 units /acre
required and
(265 total units)
maximum of 100
du /acre
Building Area
360,305 s.f.
Parking Structure Area
194,063 s.f.
N/A
Total Building and Parking
554,368 s.f.
Area
Lot Coverage
58%
Maximum 75%
Height
57 feet
Maximum100 feet
Minimum 200 s.f.
Recreation /Leisure Area
56,200 s.f total
per unit
212 s.f. per unit
FINDINGS:
(28) Before the Commission grants any conditional use permit, it must make a finding of fact that
the evidence presented shows that all of the following conditions exist:
(a) That the use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by the
Zoning Code, or is an unlisted use as defined in Subsection .030 (Unlisted Uses
Permitted) of Section 18.66.040 (Approval Authority);
(b) That the use will not adversely affect the adjoining land uses or the growth and
development of the area in which it is proposed to be located,
(c) That the size and shape of the site for the use is adequate to allow the full
development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental to the particular area
or to the health and safety;
(d) That the traffic generated by the use will not impose an undue burden upon the
streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area; and
(e) That the granting of the conditional use permit under the conditions imposed, if any,
will not be detrimental to the health and safety of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
(29) "The State Subdivision Map Act (Government Code, Section 66473.5) makes it mandatory
to include in all motions approving, or recommending approval of a tract map, a specific
finding that the proposed Subdivision together with its design and improvement is consistent
with the City's General Plan.
Page 7
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 1, 2005
Item No. 2
Further, the law requires that the Commission make any of the following findings when
denying or recommending denial of a tract map:
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable General and Specific
Plans.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with
applicable General and Specific Plans.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat.
6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause
serious public health problems.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property
within the proposed subdivision."
RECOMMENDATION:
(30) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the
meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Planning Commission, including the
evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the public
hearing and the findings included in the attached resolutions, the Planning Commission take
the following actions:
(a) By motion recommend that the City Council, as lead agency for Conditional Use
Permit No. 2005 - 04975, Tentative Tract Map No. 16825 and Development
Agreement No. 2005 -00005 (the "Proposed Actions "), based upon its independent
review and analysis of the Initial Study prepared for the Proposed Actions, pursuant
to CEQA, including Section 21166 of the California Public Resources Code and
Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, unless additional information or contrary
information is received during the public hearing, find and determine, based upon
said Initial Study and the evidence received at the public hearing, that FEIR No. 330
previously certified by the City Council for the Amended General Plan and related
projects, together with the Updated and Modified Mitigation Monitoring Program No.
106 for The Platinum Triangle, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Proposed Actions, together with Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 129, are
adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Proposed
Actions and satisfies all of the requirements of CEQA, and that no further
environmental documentation need be prepared.
(b) Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2005 -04975 based on the findings contained in
the attached resolution.
(c) By resolution based on the findings contained therein, recommend to the City
Council that the applicant has demonstrated eligibility to enter into the Development
Agreement; that the Agreement meets the criteria set forth in the PTMU Overlay and
Page 8
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
June 1, 2005
Item No. 2
the standardized Development Agreement language adopted in conjunction with
Resolution No. 2004 -179; and, that Development Agreement No. 2005 -00005 be
approved and entered into by the City of Anaheim and U.S. Southeast Corporation.
(d) By motion approve Tentative Tract Map No. 16825, to establish a 1 -lot, 265 -unit,
airspace, attached residential condominium subdivision.
Page 9
Item No. 11
T
RCL 67 -68 -55
VACANT g1 g G S�gry�y
G' 1S' 6S' yo ry1
G G� Q Q , VD (�goo yP �P.a
d 6
P
�JP
G', Q6.g 6g
g �GJQ vQOO o�GSV�
GJQtivG ob , � !��
GGJ i ,/
i
,p i
O ,�O J .\O
G oo�p9,o5Q� 3�SGlCCC���� i i• \ RS-3(SC) 1
G vOg �gpOdS.L'1 P �O R 54 I I
G Q ry vO G Cr 1 i� ��% T -VAR 2002 -04525 1
,\GGP �lioC11P VAR2001 -04443 n I
J
T -SPT 2002 -00005 I
1 U E H GP' SPT 2001 -00001
f SPT 98-01
/ 1 DU EACH
161
f O 1 I I
837'Na,7h ofg 1 DU CH \ m )
a ir m
oM
EL RAS
C-G (SC) CUP 2395
RCL 71-72 -05
RCL CUP 3219 m \
2005 55 CUP 2348 =
n \
T -CUP 2005 -05014
2004-04876
0 94 CUP 2261 CUP 2372
CUP \ \
CUP CUP 1757 RS -3 \ \ 1
N PLAZA T -CUP 2003 -04809 CUP 1735 1 DU EACH
G CENTER CUP 2003 -04750 CUP 1727 ) _`
CUP 2001 -04428 CUP 1608 D
CUP 2001 -04406 VAR2 00 5 -0467 0 (-) \\ _ �
CUP 2000 -04241 T -VAR 2005 -04657 O ^` `PE
T C CUP �00 VA R 4209 10 , / 'CREE
CUP 4021
CUP 3747 VAR 2802 N CUP 3629 VAR 2310
S /\
CUP 3221 (CUP 1616) 1 ORU gPGN
N
ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE SCENIC CORRIDOR (SC) OVERLAY ZONE.
Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -04800 Subject Property
TRACKING NO. CUP2006 -05073 Date: March 6, 2006
Scale: 1"=200'
Requested By: HOSSEIN ZANDI Q.S. No. 185
No Address 10011
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 6, 2006
Item No. 1 -13
1 -B. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY - APPROVED) (Motion)
Ii1<KO] 0 1 19]1110]0 1 I_111101`9N,0:7 LTA lid R011WI DRErLf:IrAlD
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(Motion)
(1) This irregularly- shaped, 5.7 -acre property is located at the northeast terminus of Via Cortez
and south of the SR -91 (Riverside Freeway), with a frontage of 161 feet on the northeast
terminus of Via Cortez, a maximum depth of 1,370 feet and is located 837 feet north of the
centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road (200 North Via Cortez — Caliber Motors).
REQUEST:
(2) The applicant requests a determination of substantial conformance of revised elevation and
sign plans for a previously- approved automotive dealership under authority of Code Section
No. 18.60.190.020.
BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is currently under construction and is zoned C -G (SC). The Anaheim General
Plan designates this property for General Commercial land uses.
(4) General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -00415 (to amend the Land Use Element of the
Anaheim General Plan redesignating the property from the Hillside Low - Medium Density
Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation) and
Reclassification No. 2003 -00113 (to reclassify this property from the RS -5000 (SC)
(Residential, Single - Family; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone to the CL (SC) (Commercial
Limited; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone was approved by the City Council on February 10,
2004.
(5) Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -04800 (to permit and construct an automotive sales
dealership with accessory roof - mounted equipment with a structural height greater than 35
feet (32 foot building plus 10 foot equipment enclosure) with waivers of a) maximum
number of wall signs, b) maximum structural height adjacent to a single - family residential
zone, c) minimum structural setback adjacent to a freeway and d) required landscape
setback adjacent to an interior site boundary line abutting a residential zone) was
approved, in part by the City Council on February 10, 2004. The proposed structural height
(totaling 42 feet consisting of a 32 -foot high building plus a 10 -high equipment enclosure)
was approved in part, to permit a maximum overall height of 32 feet.
(6) Resolution No. CC2004 -26, adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-
04800, contains the following conditions of approval:
"8. That the petitioner shall submit a Final Sign Plan to the Zoning Division for
review and approval. Said plan shall show no signage on the vehicle preparation
building. Any decision made by the Zoning Division regarding the Final Sign Plan may
be appealed to the Planning Commission or City Council. Said information shall be
specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
sr- CUP2005- 05073akv
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 6, 2006
Item No. 1 -13
42. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans
and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans
are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos 1 through 10 and as
conditioned herein including that the maximum structural height shall be thirty two (32)
feet."
DISCUSSION:
(7) The applicant is requesting a determination of substantial conformance with previously -
approved elevation and sign exhibits for revised elevation and sign plans for a new
Mercedes Benz automotive dealership.
(8) The original elevation plans for the vehicle sales building (Final Plan No. 3) indicate that the
entire building would be enhanced with slate stone columns and vertical sheets of blue
glass. The south elevation (facing single - family homes) would be completely covered with
slate stone with the exception of 8 -foot high windows that would be inset 2 feet from the
exterior of the building to provide building depth and to mitigate potential light impacts on
the neighborhood to the south. The entrances located on the east and west elevations
would be offset 9 feet and covered in slate to create more building interest. The plans
show a contemporary architectural design consistent with the Mercedes Benz image, while
integrating decorative stone to create a warmer building that would be more compatible
with the community, as previously suggested by the Commission (detailed minutes
attached). Staff feels that the originally approved elevations achieved the Commissions
request for a quality building that incorporates rich materials and articulation that blends
with the surrounding commercial and residential neighborhood.
(9) The revised elevations (Revision No. 1, Final Plan No. 3) indicate that the slate columns on
the north, west and east elevations have been replaced with blue painted metal columns.
The applicant has indicated that this modification is being requested because these
columns are an essential component to the Mercedes Benz image.
(10) When this request was originally before the Commission, specific design criteria was
suggested to ensure that the vehicle sales building would be compatible to the surrounding
land uses and the rural character of the canyon. Staff appreciates the desire for Mercedes
Benz to portray a distinct image, but believes that the proposed modifications to the
elevations deviate from the original approval in a manner that would not be compatible to
the surrounding residential neighborhood. The elimination of the slate columns and the
increase in glass surface area creates a much more contemporary building design and
decreases the warmth of the building. Therefore, staff is recommending the Commission
determine that the revised elevations do not substantially conform to the previously -
approved exhibits.
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 6, 2006
Item No. 1 -13
(11) The elevation plans indicate the following square footages for the wall signs:
Elevation
Square footage
(approved)
Square footage
revised
North
63
180
South
N/A
N/A
East
54
46
West
54
180
(12) The approval of this application included a waiver of the maximum number of wall signs.
This waiver was justified by the Commission and Council due to the fact that the signs were
smaller that what the Code allows. This justification still applies since Code allows wall
signs to be constructed up to 250 square feet. Therefore, staff is supportive of the
proposed increase in size of the wall signs.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(13) Staff has reviewed the request for a review of revised elevation and sign plans and the
previously- approved Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds there are no changes to the
originally- approved conditional use permit and that the request will not result in any
significant adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, staff recommends that the
previously- approved Mitigated Negative Declaration serve as the required environmental
documentation for this request-
RECOMMENDATION
(14) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the
meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the
evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, determine that the previously- approved Mitigated Negative Declaration is
adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the subject
request.
(b) By motion, take the following actions:
(i) Deny the request for Determination of Substantial Conformance to revise
the elevation plans (Final Elevation Plan No. 3), for a previously -
approved automotive sales dealership because the proposed revisions
do not conform to the Commission's original approval 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.
Page 3
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. 2004 -26
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
2003- 4800. IN PART.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive an
application for a conditional use permit with a waiver of certain provisions of the Anaheim
Municipal Code to construct an automotive sales dealership with accessory roof - mounted
equipment with a structural height greater than 35 feet (proposed 32 -foot building plus 10 -foot
equipment enclosure totaling 42 feet) upon certain real property located within the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, legally described as:
PARCEL 2 IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, AS PER MAP
RECORDED IN BOOK 225, PAGES 20 THRU 22, OF PARCEL
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF
SAID COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing upon said
application at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim, notices of which public hearing were duly
given as required by law and the provisions of Title 18, Chapter 18.03 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and studies
made by itself and in its behalf and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at
said hearing, did adopt its Resolution No. PC203 -173 granting, in part, Conditional Use Permit
No. 2003 -4800; and
WHEREAS, thereafter, within the time prescribed by law, an interested party or
the City Council, on its own motion, caused the review of said Planning Commission action at a
duly noticed public hearing; and
WHEREAS, at the time and place fixed for said public hearing, the City Council
did duly hold and conduct such hearing and did give all persons interested therein an opportunity
to be heard and did receive evidence and reports; and
WHEREAS. the City Council finds, after careful consideration of the
recommendations of the City Planning Commission and all evidence and reports offered at said
hearing, that:
1. The proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized
by the Anaheim Municipal Code.
2. That the proposed use will not, under the conditions imposed, adversely affect the
adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be
located because the site design and location of the proposed building and the design and
operational measures incorporated into the project are such that the adjacent and nearby
properties will not be negatively affected.
3. That the size and shape of the site for the proposed use is adequate to allow full
development of the proposal in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace,
health, safety and general welfare; and that, with the exception of the approved waivers which
are necessary due to site constraints, the proposal complies with the provisions and standards set
forth in the Zoning Code.
4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden on
the streets and highways designed and improved to carry traffic in the area because the proposed
business operation will generate an average 200 daily trips which is less than the traffic that
would be generated by the previously- approved residential development for 22 single - family
homes, which has not been constructed.
5. That granting this conditional use permit, under the conditions imposed, will not
be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of
Anaheim based on the compatibility of the site design and business operation with the adjoining
residential and commercial land uses.
AND WHEREAS, the City Council does further find, after careful consideration
of the action of the City Planning Commission and all evidence and reports offered at said public
hearing before the City Council regarding said requested waiver(s), that all of the conditions set
forth in Section 18.03.040 of the Anaheim Municipal Code are present and that said waiver(s)
should be granted, for the following reasons:
1. That waiver (a), maximum number of wall signs, is hereby approved because the
property has no visibility from surrounding pubic streets and, therefore, will rely on identification
towards the freeway; that the proposed wall signs face the freeway and will have no impact on
adjacent and surrounding residential properties; and that the proposed wall signs are smaller than
would otherwise be allowed by right and similar waivers have been granted for other commercial
businesses in the vicinity.
2. That waiver (b), maximum structural height adjacent to a single - family residential
zone, is hereby approved because there are special circumstances applicable to this property
consisting of its long, linear and narrow shape; and that the existing 15 -foot wide sewer
easement across the property will provide an additional buffer since the easement restricts
development of the underlying area and, therefore, provides further protection to the residential
neighborhood to the south.
- 2 -
3. That waiver (c), minimum structural setback adjacent to a freeway, is hereby
approved because there are special circumstances consisting of property's long, linear and narrow
shape, which restricts development of the property, and the existing flood control channels and
50 -foot wide pipeline easement, which further restrict development.
4. That waiver (d), required landscape setback adjacent to an interior site boundary
line abutting a residential zone, is hereby approved based on the constraints imposed by the
location of an existing flood control channel at the south end of the property which limits
placement of landscaping abutting the residential zoning; and that the proposed landscaping to
the north of the flood control channel will act as a sufficient buffer for the residential
neighborhood to the south.
5. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property consisting of its
shape, location and surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the
vicinity.
6. That strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Anaheim that, for the reasons hereinabove stated, Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -4800 be, and
the same is hereby, granted, in part, as follows: the proposed automotive sales dealership is
approved but the proposed structural height (totaling 42 feet consisting of a 32 -foot high building
plus a 10 -foot high equipment enclosure) is approved in part to permit a maximum overall height
of 32 feet on the hereinabove described real property with a waiver of the following provisions of
the Anaheim Municipal Code:
(a) Sections 18.05.091.020
Maximum number of wall signs.
and 18.84.062.040
(1 wall sign per building unit permitted in the
"CL(SC)" Commercial, Limited - Scenic Corridor
Overlay Zone; 3 wall signs proposed)
(b) Sections 18.44.062.010.011 -
Maximum structural height adjacent to a
and 18.84.062
single- family residential zone.
(16 -feet height permitted where located 32 feet from
" RS- 5000(SC)" Residential, Single- Family - Scenic
Corridor Overlay zoning to the south; 32 feet
proposed)
(c) Section 18.84.062.010.011 -
Minimum structural setback adjacent to a freeway.
(100 feet, fully landscaped, required adjacent to the
SR 9] /Riverside Freewav;
5 to 40 feet, fully landscaped, proposed)
- 3 -
(d) Section 18.84.062.010.014.0142 - Required landscape setback adjacent to an interior
site boundary line abutting a residential zone.
(10 feet, fully landscaped, required adjacent to
"RS- 5000(SC)" zoning to the south; none to 10
feet, fully landscaped, proposed)
subject to the following conditions:
1. That the property owner /developer shall be responsible for compliance with all the
mitigation measures set forth in Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 122 created specifically for this
project, and for complying with the monitoring and reporting requirements established by the
City in compliance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. Furthermore, the
property owner /developer shall be responsible for any direct costs associated with the monitoring
and reporting requirements to ensure implementation of the mitigation measures identified in
Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 122, which are made a part of these conditions of approval by
reference.
2. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for storage or
other outdoor use.
3. That outdoor special events shall be subject to review and approval by Zoning
Division staff and shall be conducted in a manner that will not adversely affect the adjoining
residential land uses. Any decision made by the Zoning Division regarding such an event may be
appealed to the Planning Commission or City Council as a'Reports and Recommendations' item.
4. That only light vehicle preparation shall be permitted; and that no repair or
maintenance work shall be permitted.
5. That all roof and /or ground - mounted equipment shall be contained within an
acoustical enclosure and shall be completely screened from visibility to surrounding properties,
streets and the SR- 91/Riverside Freeway in conformance with subsection 18.84.062.030.032 of
Section 18.84.062 of the Anaheim Municipal Code (pertaining to development standards for
roof - mounted equipment in the "(SC)" Scenic Corridor Zone Overlay). Said information shall be
specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
6. That a plan for test driving new vehicles at this site shall be submitted to the City
Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval. Said plan shall incorporate a
test - driving route that does not include any residential streets, and the plan shall be implemented
continuously during the course of the operations permitted under this Conditional Use Permit.
7. That vehicles shall not be delivered by automotive transport trucks. All inventory
shall be independently delivered to this site (i.e.. each vehicle shall be individually driven to this
site].
- 4 -
8. That the petitioner shall submit a Final Sign Plan to the Zoning Division for
review and approval. Said plan shall show no signage on the vehicle preparation building. Any
decision made by the Zoning Division regarding the Final Sign Plan may be appealed to the
Planning Commission or City Council. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans
submitted for building permits.
9. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through
the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of
graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence.
10. That a Final Landscape and Fencing Plan for the entire site, specifying type, size
and location of proposed landscaping, irrigation and fencing, shall be submitted to the Zoning
Division for review and approval. Any decision made by the Zoning Division may be appealed
to the Planning Commission or City Council. Said information shall be specifically shown on
the plans submitted for building permits. Said plan shall include landscape screening for the
north side of the vehicle preparation building to eliminate graffiti opportunities.
11. That any tree and/or landscaping planted on -site shall be replaced in a timely
manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dies.
12. That trash storage area(s) shall be provided and maintained in location(s)
acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, and in accordance
with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage area(s) shall be designed, located
and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of
the storage area(s) shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plants such as
minimum one (1) gallon sized clinging vines planted on maximum three (3) foot centers or tall
shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building
permits.
13. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling
shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, for review
and approval.
14. That the water backflow equipment shall be above ground and located outside the
required street setback area, and fully screened from all public streets. Any other large water
system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in
either underground vaults or outside the required street setback area in a manner fully screened
from all public streets. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted to the
Water Engineering and Cross Connection Inspector for review and approval.
15. That because this project has landscaping areas exceeding two thousand five
hundred (2,500) square feet. a separate irrigation meter shall be installed in compliance with
Chapter 10.19 (Landscape Water Efficiency) of Anaheim Municipal Code and Ordinance No.
5349. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
- 5 -
16. That the accessory car wash building shall comply with all state laws and local
ordinances for Water Conservation Measures.
17. That the developer /owner shall submit a set of improvement plans to the Public
Utilities Water Engineering Division for review and approval to determine the conditions
necessary for providing water service to the project.
18. That an on -site trash truck turn - around area shall be provided in accordance with
Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works
Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. Said turn- around area shall be specifically shown
on the plans submitted for building permits.
19. That gates shall not be installed across any driveway in a manner which may
adversely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public street. Installation of any gates shall
conform to Engineering Standard Plan No. 609 and shall be subject to review and approval by
the City Traffic and Transportation Manager.
20. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for
review and approval showing conformance with the current versions of Engineering Standard
Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject
property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said approved plans.
21. That the developer shall submit a grading plan to the Public Works Department,
Development Services Division, for review and approval. Grading shall conform to the
requirements of Chapter 17.06 (Grading, Excavations and Fills in Hillside Areas) of the Anaheim
Municipal Code.
22. (a) That the developer shall submit street improvement plans for the
intersection of Via Cortez and the driveway to the commercial center on the west side of Via
Cortez to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division, for review and
approval.
(b) That said street improvements, as approved, shall be installed prior to final
zoning and building inspections.
23. That the legal property owner shall prepare a Water Quality Management Plan
( "WQMP ") specifically identifying the best management practices that will be used on -site to
control predictable pollutants from storm water runoff. The WQMP shall be submitted to the
Public Works Department, Development Services Division, for review and approval prior to
obtaining a grading permit.
24. That the locations for future above- ground utility devices including, but not
limited to, electrical transformers, water backflow devices, gas, communications and cable
devices, etc., shall be shown on the plans submitted for building permits. Such plans shall also
identify the specific screening treatment of each device (i.e., landscape screening, color of walls,
- 6 -
materials, identifiers, access points, etc.) and shall be subject to review and approval by the
appropriate City departments.
25. That prior to submittal of the water improvement plans, the developer /owner shall
submit a water system master plan, including a hydraulic distribution network analysis, to the
Public Utilities Water Engineering Division for review and approval. The master plan shall
demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed on -site water system to meet the project's water
demands and fire protection requirements.
26. That prior to application for water meters or fire lines or submitting the water
improvement plans for approval, the developer /owner shall submit an estimate of the maximum
fire flow rate and the average day, maximum day and peak hour water demands for this project to
the Public Utilities Department, Water Engineering Division. This information will be used to
determine the adequacy of the existing water system to provide for the estimated water demands.
Any off -site water system improvements required to serve the project shall be installed in
accordance with Rule No. 15A.6 of the Water Utility Rates, Rules, and Regulations.
27. That the legal property owner shall provide the City of Anaheim with an easement
for electrical service lines to be determined as electrical design is completed. Said easement
shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim prior to connection of electrical service.
28. That any required relocation of City electrical facilities shall be at the developer's
expense. Landscape and /or hardscape screening of all pad- mounted equipment shall be required
and shall be shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
29. That four (4) foot high street address numbers shall be displayed on the roof of the
building in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible to adjacent
streets or properties. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted to the
Police Department, Community Services Division, for review and approval.
30. That prior to commencement of business at this location or prior to occupancy of
the building, whichever occurs first, the applicant shall file an Emergency Listing Card, Form
APD -281, with the Anaheim Police Department.
31. That prior to commencement of any construction, all necessary permits required
by the State of California shall be obtained to develop over the flood control channels.
32. That any lighting adjacent to the south property line shall be arranged and directed
so as to reflect the light away from the adjoining residential properties, and shall not exceed a
height of twelve (12) feet; provided, however, that the lighting adjacent to the freeway may be
increased to a height not to exceed eighteen (18) feet if said height increase has the same lighting
affect on the adjoining residential properties to the south as twelve (12) foot high light standards
would have. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building
permits.
- 7 -
33. That plans showing enhanced paving at the entry to the property at Via Cortez
shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Any decision made by the
Zoning Division regarding such plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission or City
Council. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building
permits.
34. That the design and placement of any proposed security bollards shall be
submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Any decision made by the Zoning
Division regarding such plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission or City Council.
Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
35. That a plan showing the method(s) for preventing light from inside the main
building from shining onto residential lots to the south shall be submitted to the Zoning Division
for review and approval. Any decision made by the Zoning Division regarding said plan may be
appealed to the Planning Cotmmission or City Council. Said information shall be specifically
shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
36. That a plan showing the design and placement of the security kiosk shall be
submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Any decision made by the Zoning
Division regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission or City Council. Said
information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits.
37. That the daily hours of operation shall be limited to 7am to 9 pm, as stipulated by
the petitioner.
38. That no loud speakers shall be permitted.
39. That no off -site signage shall be permitted.
40. That all plumbing or other similar pipes and fixtures located on the exterior of the
building shall be fully screened by architectural devices and/or appropriate building materials;
and that such information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building
permits.
41. That the approval of this Conditional Use Permit is granted subject to adoption of
General Plan Amendment No. 2003 -00415 and finalization of Reclassification No. 2003- 00113.
42. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans
and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file
with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 10, and as conditioned herein,
including that the maximum structural height shall be thirty two (32) feet.
43. That prior to issuance of a building permit or within a period of one (1) year from
the date of this Resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17,
- 8 -
18, 19, 20, 21, 22(a), 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40, 41, 46 and 47(a),
herein - mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said
conditions may he granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 (Time Limit for Amendments,
Conditional Use Permits, Administrative Use Permits, Variances and Administrative
Adjustments) of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
44. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 22(b) and 42,
above - mentioned, shall be complied with.
45. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only
to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable
City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to
compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or
requirement.
46. That final elevation plans, which incorporate the suggestions made by the
Planning Commission at the December 15, 2003, public hearing regarding the architecture, shall
be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a
'Reports and Recommendations' item. Said plans shall incorporate any roof - mounted equipment
into the design of the building, and the maximum over -all structural height, including any
roof - mounted equipment, shall be thirty two (32) feet.
47. (a) That the plans submitted for building permits shall include information
demonstrating that the lighting from the signs shall not cause excessive light and/or glare towards
the residences to the south.
(b) That the on -site advertising signs shall be illuminated only during hours of
operation.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find and
determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance
with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such conditions, or any part
thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent
jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein, shall be deemed null and void.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and adopted by the City Council
of the City of Anaheim this 10th day of February, 2004, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Mayor Pringle, Council Members Tait, Chavez
NOES: Council Members McCracken, Hernandez
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
- 9 -
CITY OF AHEIM
By 6
MAYOR OF THPtrryl OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
MY CLER OF
a4l,c -
TYIE CITY OF ANAHEIM
53115.]
- 10 -
Attachment - R&R 7 -B
Council Chambers, City Hall
200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California
CHAIRPERSON: JAMES VANDERBILT
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PAUL BOSTWICK, KELLY BUFFA, GAIL EASTMAN,
CECILIA FLORES, JERRY O'CONNELL, DAVID ROMERO
COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE
STAFF PRESENT:
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager James Ling, Associate Civil Engineer
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner Pat Chandler, Senior Secretary
Sergeant Michael Lozeau, Vice Detail Elly Morris, Senior Secretary
Charity Wagner, Planner Ossie Edmundson, Planning Commission Support Supv.
AGENDA POSTING: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 11:30 a.m. on
Wednesday, December 10, 2003, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and
also in the outside display kiosk-
PUBLISHED: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, November 20, 2003.
CALL TO ORDER
PLANNING COMMISSION MORNING SESSION 10:00 A.M.
• STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY
DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY
PLANNING COMMISSION)
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE DECEMBER 15, 2003 AGENDA
RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION
RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M.
For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please
complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chairperson James Vanderbilt
PUBLIC COMMENTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
--- ------------- ---------------------------------- I---- ---------------------------------------- -------------------------------
i*\nOCS \CLERICAL \MINUTES \SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES 121503OOC pl anninq com mission(o)anah eim. net
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES
9a.
9b.
9C.
9d.
9e.
9f.
AGENT: Hossein Zandi, Caliber Motors, 5395 East La Palma
Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807
LOCATION; Property is approximately 5.7 acres, located at the
northeast terminus of Via Cortez and south of the SR -91
(Riverside Freeway), having a frontage of 161 feet on the
terminus of Via Cortez, located 837 feet north of the
centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road (No address).
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2003 - 00415 —To amend the Land
Use Element Map of the Anaheim General Plan redesignating the
property from the Hillside Low- Medium Density Residential land use
designation to the General Commercial land use designation.
RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2003 -00113 — To reclassify the property from
the RS -5000 (SC) (Residential, Single - Family; Scenic Corridor Overlay)
zone to the CL (SC) (Commercial, Limited; Scenic Corridor Overlay)
zone.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003 -04800 —To permit and construct
an automotive sales dealership with accessory roof - mounted equipment
with a structural height greater than 35 feet with waivers of: (a) maximum
number of wall signs, (b) maximum structural height adjacent to a single -
family residential zone, (c) minimum structural setback adjacent to a
freeway, and (d) required landscape setback adjacent to an interior site
boundary line abutting a residential zone.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003 -171
RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC2003 -172
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003.173
Approved
Recommended adoption of
Exhibit "A" to City Council
Granted
Approved
Granted, in part
Recommended City Council
review.
sr8673ay.doc
(mmplans /planl22)
Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 9 as a petitioner's request for:
(1) A General Plan Amendment to amend the Land Use Element of the Anaheim
General Plan redesignating the property from the Hillside Low- Medium Density
Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation.
(2) A reclassification of the property from the RS -5000 (SC) (Residential, Single - Family;
Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone to the CL (SC) (Commercial Limited; Scenic Corridor
Overlay) zone.
(3) An approval of a Conditional Use Permit to permit and construct an automotive sales
12 -15 -03
Page 2 of 14
OWNER: Melvin R. Schantz, 21 Chelsea Point, Dana Point, CA
92629
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILEL) MINUTES
dealership with accessory roof - mounted equipment with a structural height greater
than 35 feet (32 foot building plus 10 foot equipment enclosure) with the following
waivers:
(a) Maximum number of wall signs (not more than one (1) wall sign per building
unit permitted; three (3) wall signs proposed).
(b) Maximum structural height adjacent to a single - family residential zone
(16 -feet permitted; 32 -feet proposed).
(c) Minimum structural setback adjacent to a freeway (100 feet, fully landscaped
required; 5 -40 feet, fully landscaped proposed).
(d) Required landscape setback adjacent to an interior site boundary line abutting
a residential zone (10 feet, fully landscaped required; 0 -10 feet, fully landscaped
proposed).
Applicant's Testimony:
Don Bering, 5395 E. La Palma, Avenue, Anaheim, CA, Chief Financial Officer of Caliber Motors,
stated that he and other members of the company and their consulting team were present to
answer questions that the Commission might have about the project. He started by giving a
background on Caliber Motors about where they had been and where they would like to go in the
future.
He stated that Caliber Motors began operations in 1984 as a Mercedes Benz Dealer on La Palma
Avenue in Anaheim, and coming March 2004 they would have been there 20 years. They have
grown from the initial 25 employees to 170 employees, and expected their sales for the next year
to top 200 million dollars. Caliber Motors generates over 1 million dollars a year in sales tax
revenue for the City of Anaheim, and has real property assessed evaluation of around 10 million
dollars. Although they feel the dealership has been successful in its present location, and they
enjoy doing business in the City of Anaheim, they have several problems with the current
location:
They suffer from the lack of visibility; it is hard for people to really know that they are
there. They have spent 20 years advertising, and still a lot of people in the community
do not know where they are located. Also, because the business has grown a lot in
the last few years, they are short of vehicle display space, vehicle storage places,
and office space. They have been trying to solve the problems and have been
looking around a long time for another location, a location that especially gives them
better visibility, and ideally visibility from the freeway. They have located a site
adjacent to the 91- Freeway on the south side of the freeway just east of Imperial
Highway. They admit that it is not an ideal site for a variety of reasons, but is the
best site they could find in Anaheim that would meet their needs. They propose to
build it as a satellite vehicle sales facility that would consist of a vehicle showroom
and office building that would be two- stories, a separate one -story building for the
cleaning and detail of cars to get them ready to put on display or to get them ready to
sell. The additional location would permit the expansion of Caliber Motors as
aforementioned. They feel it would generate considerable additional sales tax
revenue for the City of Anaheim in the future as they try to grow the business further
and would increase Anaheim's property tax base. There would be no servicing of
vehicles at the location; it would be a satellite sales facility only. Caliber would
continue to operate its main facility on La Palma Avenue just west of Imperial
Highway, and would continue to sell vehicles and service them at that location.
- Although there is a lot of freeway exposure, the site is long and narrow (185 -195 feet)
and has a lot of development constraints. Originally, it was proposed to be part of the
adjacent Canyon Oaks residential development (the residential development that is
12 -15 -03
Page 3 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILtzD MINUTES
currently in final stages), but was dropped from the project due to a large number of
easements, flood control and drainage channels found on the property.
They knew when they set about to design the project that there would be some
concerns from the community, because the Canyon Oaks property and the subject
property has been subject to many different proposals over the years as to what to do
with it. So they tried to design a project that would meet their needs, and meet the
needs and concerns of the community. They presented the plans to the City and
community a number of months ago, and after receiving feedback from the members
of the community and the City Planning Department, they made changes to their
operations and to the building and facility that they thought would meet the concerns
of the community and the issues that were raised by the Planning Department staff.
The project would be an attractive addition to the community that would allow Caliber
to stay in the Anaheim Hills area and grow the business and grow the sales tax
dollars for the City. And the look of the site should definitely improve, as well as the
design of the project would be compatible with the surrounding property uses.
Joseph Marca, Escondido, CA, presented a 1- minute video of the project site, illustrating the
boundary conditions.
Public Testimony
Mark A. Garcia, 249 Calle Da Gama, Anaheim, CA, stated that he has lived in Anaheim Hills for
over 20 years and does not know of one neighbor that he has talked to in the last 4 -5 months that
is interested in having a car lot at that site. It is supposed to be a green belt; a Scenic Corridor; a
residential area; and the only commercial area there was adjacent to it; a hotel that was put in
next to Imperial and the on -ramp to the 91- Freeway eastbound. The rest of the area included a
fitness center, which used to be a local market for the area Albertson's, a couple of banks and
general "mom- and -pop- type" stores, approximately 5 schools; a high school, a handicap school,
an elementary school, and a Montessori school located a quarter of a mile west of the site. And,
no matter how a car lot is dressed up, it is still a car lot; the purpose is to have ingress into that
location, and it would increase the public through there unknown. A Mercedes dealership should
be in an industrial area, and he is opposed to either a variance or having it rezoned to
commercial.
Stefanie O'Neill, 216 S. Mohler Drive, Anaheim, CA, representing the Concerned Citizens of the
Canyon, stated that their organization was founded in 1998 during the fight to preserve a historic
piece of land called Magg Ranch. They were able to stop commercial development and were
forced to deal with 106 houses. Although, as a community, they desperately wanted the land for
a park, they knew that the Planning Commission and City Council, at the time, did not have the
best interest of the residents in mind, and they worked with the developer to get the best project
possible for the community. After fighting so hard to keep commercial off of Magg Ranch, they
were once again faced with it, and it felt like a slap in the face. Their board and the community
were immediately outraged at the project. They held a town hall meeting of over 120 people in
attendance. Petitions and a -mails were circulated in opposition, and after having several
meetings with Caliber, and sometime to calm down and look at the deeper issues, such as the
City potentially losing tax revenue at a time where layoffs were imminent, the Concerned Citizens
began working with City staff and Caliber to see what could be done to make the project livable to
those in the surrounding neighborhoods if it were to be approved.
She stated that the subject project is not what they wanted to see for Anaheim Hills. They would
love to still be a royal community, and pray that the overdevelopment the city has allowed in other
parts of town would not one day haunt the hills as well. The land is not ideal for a park or houses.
Studies have been done over and over, to no avail. The land would not remain undeveloped.
The owners would want to sell their property to make income off of their land. Since houses
could not be built on the property and the City refused to buy the property for a park, it would be
utilized for commercial use. If not the subject car dealership then perhaps a strip mall or office
12 -15 -03
Page 4 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILLV MINUTES
building that could potentially have more impacts than what was being proposed. The
homeowners and the new D. R. Horton Project signed disclosure for a dealership far bigger than
what was being proposed. The nearest homeowner and the older neighborhood were in support
of the project.
Sonja Grewal, P.O. Box 17224, Santa Ana, CA, stated that additional signage and building height
waivers and would not be harmonious with the surrounding areas. The project did not adhere to
the goals and policies of the Scenic Highway Element of the Anaheim General Plan. In addition,
the type of lighting proposed would have a significant impact on the highway. A regular 30 -foot
streetlight emitted from 10 to 20,000 lumens. The majority of the 69 light poles in the project
each output 110, 000 lumens, and the light poles would create a stunning solid block of light 24
feet high over virtually the entire length and width of the finished grade of the parcel. And even
though the initial study Mitigated Negative Declaration stated that not much light would spill into
the homes, it did not address the amount next to the hotel and the impact from light that would
spill onto the freeway; whether or not it would cause an impact on the freeway drivers. The
nighttime daylight effects would dramatically interrupt residents, hotel visitors and motorist's
enjoyment of the night viewscape. The impact would exist seven nights a week, and at 9 o'clock
would change to an undefined security level, but it would still be there and would continue to
generate a block of light unlike that generated by any business or center next to residential uses
in the Canyon.
She stated the following regarding the noise, aesthetics and storage facility impacts:
Noise: The air conditioners barely met the minimum exterior noise standards, and the
impacts on surrounding residences from other commercial uses and residential uses
would not be as much.
Aesthetics: The building was modern in design with glass sides, totally inconsistent with
commercial and residential buildings in the immediate vicinity.
Storage Facility: The architectural style of the building must agree with the
neighborhood; it had to look like it belonged next to homes. The building was
incompatible with the architectural of other commercial centers in the area. The other
centers harmonized with their residential neighbors' building design and color scheme.
The project is in the heart of the Scenic Corridor and abuts the Scenic Highway.
Because of the Canyon Area's general plan, goals, and policies, development has been
guided that retained the semi - rural, uncongested character of the Santa Ana Canyon
Area, a primary goal of the Canyon Area General Plan. Existing development did
promote identification and visual quality in the Canyon Area among residents and visitors
per the Canyon Area General Plan, and for the most part development adhered to the
controls of the Scenic Corridor Overlay zone, which had stipulations on landscape
setbacks, signage and roof mounted equipment. The drive on the stretch of 91- Freeway
from Lakeview to Weir Canyon was scenic, not just because of the surrounding hills on
both sides but also because of a visual clarity on either side of the driver. There was a
regional park on one side and an almost uninterrupted stretch of various types of walls
and landscape on the other side. They take this visual clarity for granted, especially at
night. They do not see the type of intense lighting proposed by the project until they
would get to Weir Canyon from car dealerships located farther away from the freeway in
the large commercial area of Savi Ranch. This type of project belongs in a purely
commercial area. The impacts of the project would diminish the quality of life for some of
their newest residents or visitors and for established homeowners who have fought long
and hard to retain the residential character of their neighborhood.
Cheryl Thompson stated that she is unique to speak on the project and could not really say that
she was speaking in opposition of it and did not really want to speak for it, but believed that she
was a good person to speak for it. She is the project's manager for the Canyon Oaks
development that sat next to the particular piece of property and was in due diligence on the
property for over a year. She stated that she knows the property better than most people. She
12 -15 -03
Page 5 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED MINUTES
knew what was possible on the property and what was not possible on the property. She was
unique because she worked for D. R. Horton and lived in Canyon Oaks; a resident and also a
project developer on the neighboring development. They looked at the property very seriously to
put 22 homes on it and she spent a solid year trying to understand the constraints on the
property. There are many intense constraints on the property. If it were left the way it was,
Scenic would not really fit the bill. She worked very hard with the City staff on her project trying to
understand what they could do to purchase the property at one point. It did not work. Her
concerns really are not for or against, but hoped the Commission would take seriously some of
the issues that have been brought up, not necessarily to oppose it, but to make sure that when it
was developed, it would be developed in such a manner that would be aesthetically pleasing to
those who lived there. That the landscaping would be mature landscaping so as to really buffer
the sound; that the street was designed responsibly and appropriately so as to handle truck
traffic. And, when trucks traveled to and from there, the City would consider putting the kinds of
restrictions that would be least intrusive for them to back out; and that it could be done in such a
time frame that they would not be coming in during the middle of the night so that it would not be
a burden on the people who lived there.
Betty Delligatia, 6059 Camino Manzano, Anaheim Hills, CA, presented a petition of approximately
600 names. She stated that she walked her shoes off getting the petition against the project, and
that nobody in the area wanted it there. She recalled a few years back when she got a letter from
the City telling her to take down her television antenna because she was in the Scenic Corridor.
The subject project would not increase her Scenic Corridor it would deteriorate it.
Anita Steageley, a representative of D. R. Horton, stated they were in their final phases at the
construction at the Canyon Oaks project. They conducted extensive feasibility on the subject
property and under their guidelines determined that it was not suitable for residential
development. Also, as soon as they became aware of the initial application submitted to the City
for the Caliber Motors project, they immediately and separately disclosed it to their homebuyers.
Lastly, the one thing she remembered vividly in her due diligence of the project was that they
were specifically conditioned to take access from another location off of Solomon Drive because
of the City's concern of the negative impact that the traffic would have on Via Cortez.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that he was trying to reconcile the petition and Ms. O'Neill's
statement because her statement sounded like there was not an opposition but the petition
indicated opposition.
Ms. O'Neill responded that a lot of the petitions were gathered when they were under the
assumption it was a three -story building which was double the size currently being proposed.
The Concerned Citizens' policy is that they do not make decisions on their own. They present the
facts as they are given to them and explain them to the residents. She wanted the land to be a
park. She would love it to be houses. It is ugly the way it is. It is rat infested. They have done
their research since they started the initial petitions and the e-mail campaigns, etc. There is not a
lot of feasibility for other things on the site. It is not going to be left vacant. The owners have a
right to sell it. While she does not want to see a car dealership there she felt at this point it was
the best use for the land. She stated that the petition was based on the original plans, which
were absolutely hideous.
Applicant's Rebuttal:
Mr. Bering responded that they just hoped Commission would give all of the issues brought forth
careful consideration. They tried to accommodate many of the concerns and issues regarding
lighting and access and test drives. That only during the construction phase would there be trucks
going by, and that one of the conditions in the requirements is that they not deliver cars to the
property on the traditional flatbeds or car haulers that haul 7, 8, 9 cars. The cars would be
delivered to their main facility on La Palma Avenue where they would do a "pre- delivery
inspection" and driven one by one to the new dealership.
12 -15 -03
Page 6 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILE
L MINUTES
Commissioner Eastman stated that there were several things that troubled her. Commission
would have to reverse something that they did not long ago as far as general plan and turning
from residential back to commercial. From all of the documentation they have gotten, she
understood the difficulties in trying to develop it for home sites, so she would not be opposed to
the commercial use of it or not even opposed to the car dealership; but she opposed the plans.
She concurred with the speaker who said it was insensitive to the rural feel of the Canyon. In
other areas in the City residents have fought very hard to have standards, and it seemed a two -
story building would be intrusive, especially along with the variance. It would not be compatible
with the area.
Commissioner Buffa concurred with Commissioner Eastman and stated that it was an appropriate
use on the site and although it was a fairly creative site plan for a site that is extremely difficult to
develop, the design of the building and architectural style was not compatible with the residential
or commercial uses that were already in the area. She understood the Mercedes dealerships
desire to have a contemporary building, especially since they were selling what they advertised
as a very high -tech product and that they probably would not be interested in pink stucco and red
tile roof, but she did not believe it was appropriate to have the highly reflective glass looming over
the backyard fence of the neighbors or pointed towards the 91- Freeway, which could create a
visual distraction. She was concerned that the building has more articulation, and would be more
compatible with its residential neighbors and the commercial uses that were already there.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to speak on the choice of design for the project because he
believed it was not consistent with what Caliber Motors wanted and was much different than what
was seen throughout the Canyon Area.
Mr. McCafferty responded that staff did not have design view per se but that when something was
adjacent to other architectural they tried to make it complimentary. Given that Caliber Motors
wanted a contemporary look, staff focused on how to make it as compatible as possible with its
surroundings.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if there was a screening process that justified the reasons so that
Commission could understand it better.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, concurred that it did not fit in with the other architectural
immediately adjacent to it but was closer to what was seen on Imperial Highway and La Palma
Avenue and on Savii Ranch, in terms of being a modern, non - traditional type of architectural. At
the time staff first saw the plans, it was a much larger scale and has since been scaled back
tremendously in terms of the size and some of the other operational features of the site in terms
of the glass; that it was something the City has along Weir Canyon Road and the 91- Freeway,
which was part of the Scenic Corridor. Staff was not expecting this type of automotive to actually
look like the adjacent properties simply because it was not residential nor was it a retail
commercial shopping center or a hotel -type of look and if Commission was looking at something
more traditional, the project would not make it because it would stand out from the rest of the
architectural in the area. Staff was not too concerned about the fact that they pick and change
some other type of look out there. There was no architectural statement that had been adopted
for the area. It just so happened that most of the architectural just kind of followed it along in the
pattern that currently existed.
Commissioner Flores stated if the signage were illuminated in the nighttime, the two on the sides
would be affecting some of the residents.
Mr. Bering responded that they would be illuminated at night, but that he did not believe they
would be as high degree of illumination as the Mercedes Benz Starr, and the words Mercedes
Benz.
Commissioner Flores asked if there could be any agreement of one sign at the front or if it was
necessary to have all three signs.
12 -15 -03
Page 7 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAIL,,b MINUTES
Mr. Bering responded that the trees growing up along the property would shade most of the
residences from view of the signs at night.
Commissioner Flores stated that she was not comfortable with the three signs and the look of the
building.
Commissioner O'Connell stated to continue the look (the red tile roof, etc) for this type of show
piece or display would be very difficult and would take away from what it was; a car dealership, a
showroom. It would be a negative to try to change the entire thing. He agreed with Ms. O'Neill
that there was not a whole lot that could be done with the property. He believed having the high
caliber building and display would be fantastic for the site. He was not too concerned about
traffic on the 91- Freeway as far as accidents, etc., because it was slow, and he did not see any
real opposition present. Regarding the schools, they were pretty far away from the immediate
business and he did not see any real impact to local businesses, but would help the shopping
center with people coming in. It could be a real plus for Anaheim Hills.
Commissioner Buffa stated the project would be a very positive use and appropriate use for the
site but they would need to work out some of the design details. She suggested approving the
use so that Caliber Motors could go back to Mercedes and say that they had gotten their site
approved and wanted to expand and work with them to become a bigger dealership in the
Mercedes Benz family. She suggested adding a condition of approval on a project 'that required
Caliber to bring their architectural back to the Planning Commission and that there be some
redesign of the facility so that it would be designed in such away as to have less of an impact on
adjacent residences; to have some characteristics that were more compatible with the
surrounding uses, the commercial, hotel and the residential and more in keeping with the style
and the feeling in the Canyon.
Commissioner Bostwick concurred with Commissioners Buffa and Eastman and felt there were
some issues that needed to be addressed. He suggested maybe they could put red the on the
roof and do a parapet roof and hide the equipment behind the parapet; reduce the glass or put
some other articulation to the building. He stated that in the Savii Ranch area there was a Chevy
dealer, the GMC dealer, which was on a property that also had constraints, and also a Honda and
Acura dealership. That all had very nicely designed buildings, not as much glass, and yet could
get the message across so that they could be seen. They did not have to have a wall of glass to
be a dealership. He was truly impressed with the Concerned Citizens of the Canyon particularly,
Stephanie in her statement about being realistic. He would rather have seen the whole site
commercial and have it border in Anaheim and not in Yorba Linda, but nobody liked that idea.
Now there were 100 plus homes on the site with a little piece of land left over. W hen the
decision was made he questioned the developer about the strip of land and how they were going
to access it and they said they could do it. It did not pan out and now was a very difficult site,
very constrained and required certain variances. He suggested looking at a four -week
continuance for them to work on their architectural, issues of signage, and the back lighting of the
sign so that it would not show or reflect on the neighborhood. He asked if on the strip between
the sound wall and the other retaining wall tieing built now, if they were planning to plant trees
there or if they were planning to plant in front of the other wall.
Mr. Bering responded they would not be planting anything on the Horton property. They would
have to plant everything on their property, north of the drainage channel running east and west.
Scott Koehn, representative of D. R. Horton, stated regarding the new retaining wall going up,
there would be a chain link on top of the wall, green coated and vineage running through the
chain link so that eventually there would be plantation going through it.
Mr. McCafferty asked if there would be any planting on the north side of the sound wall, other
than the vines.
Mr. Koehn responded no.
12 -15 -03
Page 8 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILEL) MINUTES
Commissioner Bostwick wished to clarify that they were going to build another wall on their side
of the drainage ditch and plant there.
Mr. Marca stated that there was already a large sound wall constructed that was the back wall of
most of their adjoining neighbors. There was a 15 -foot tour easement and then the Caliber
property began. For the majority of the site there was the drainage channel, and directly to the
north of that they were planning extensive 36 -inch boxed trees that would grow approximately
between 12 and 16 feet tall in the beginning and then approximately 2 feet a year. The goal of
the boundary was to create quickly a very dense visual screen between the residential property,
and they would have the benefit, because of the sewer easement, of being set 15 feet farther
back. There would be a substantial tree line, which would assist them both in terms of sound
from the freeway and light from their site. As indicated, in today's modern optics although the
lumens are very high, the photo metrics of the lights would direct their lighting straight down so
that the cut -off along the property line with the shield would be less than a half a foot- candle. The
City requested that they go to 12 -foot lighting along the property line with residences, and they
proposed 24 feet. He felt 12 feet would be a real hardship because the lighting dispersion was
very bad when those types of heads were close to the ground. Many cities required lighting near
a residential area to be 16, 18 or 20 feet. Regarding the architectural, he stated that Mr. Zandy of
Caliber Motors indicated that if the Commission should find a general approval for the project they
would be happy to present alternate designs to the Commission for something more in keeping
with a residential scale. As an architect who spends 85% of his time doing auto dealerships he
felt Mercedes Benz signages were extremely subdued; essentially a dark blue background with a
fine emblem in it. So at night the dark blue would not be a highly objectionable color for them.
Mercedes Benz preferred the contemporary, high -tech type and they desired to please Mercedes
Benz as well as staff in their concern about the reflection on the glass.
The glass was highly studied and determined to be less reflective than clear glass. The second
floor by the building was pulled in 20 feet from the exterior glass so that light projecting out at the
upper level would be minimized. The reflective surface was turned inward on the interior of the
dual -.pane thermal glass they were proposing to use on the building. Which would mean that
there was no brightness projected on the outside. It would reflect but it was not categorized as a
highly reflective surface by the glass industry.
The north side of the building facing the 91- Freeway reflected nothing because no direct light
shone on it from a major light source. The south side of the building would project the majority of
the glare and they minimized that to the maximum extent that technology allowed and that
presented a screen system. He felt they had made a lot of good efforts.
Mr. McCafferty stated the Mitigated Negative Declaration went to Caltrans with the photo metrics
analysis and they did not comment on the lighting.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that for sometime now Commission had been looking at both
freeway oriented signs and telecommunication, essentially mobile telephone antennas. And he
wanted to encourage that maybe as a bonus to certain businesses that wanted to have freeway
oriented signs that they allow the signs to include some kind of telecommunication equipment.
Often mobile phone companies would state that they proposed to a company but the company
was not interested. He asked staff if there was a way there could be some sort of "gentleman's
agreement" that stated as part of the support for the project would be the understanding that the
applicant would be open to talking to the telecommunication companies in terms of having their
equipment located on the building since it would save the Canyon the need from another stand
along structure or Commission would not be faced with the situation where the applicant would
say they went to a company and it was not interested so they would have to build a separate
structure.
Mr. Marca stated they would agree to it.
Mr. McCafferty stated staff would always encourage that to happen, if possible.
12 -15 -03
Page 9 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILCD MINUTES
Mr. Marca stated usually antennas were placed on taller buildings where they could not be seen
from ground level, and asked if Commission would want antennas on the top of Caliber.
Mr. McCafferty responded they should not be visible but integrated into the architectural design of
the building, and sometimes the antennas could be lower if there were other facilities in the area.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked, regarding the location on La Palma Avenue if it was the intent of
the applicant to actually move all of its facilities to the new site or if the one on La Palma Avenue
was still going to be in operation. And if so, how would they advertise them.
Mr. Bering responded that it obviously presented them with a lot of operational and advertising
difficulties, but they thought the benefits would outweigh those type issues. They intended to
keep the location on La Palma Avenue as vehicle sales and service facility. People had known
about it for almost 20 years and they have outgrown the space. The landlord did not renew their
lease of the building at 5401 East La Palma Avenue where the Land Rover dealer would be
expanding. They needed extra room and would be willing to put up with the operational
difficulties to get it.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that the Conditional Use Permit would not permit a public address
system and asked that since salesmen would be scattered all over the property, how they
intended to overcome that.
Mr. Bering responded that they would use cell phones that included paging features where they
could press one button or enter a couple of keys and talk to anybody any place in the facility or
anywhere in town.
Mr. McCafferty asked Commission's guidance on the architectural design with the types of
materials or style they wanted such as the Kaiser Health Care Building which was different but
still contemporary; incorporating more stone and less glass that had a contemporary feel but also
had a bit of craftsman to it to with the stone.
Commissioner Eastman responded that it was an excellent example of a building that was
contemporary and gave the warmth of a residential or more rustic feel that some of the other
things in the Hills had.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated the palm trees were bothering him more than the architectural.
Some of the other dealerships off of the 101- Freeway in the Ventura area had tall eucalyptus
trees that were very elegant looking, and felt they would be an example of something that might
blend in more with the area without calling for greater changes in the architectural of the
buildings.
Commissioner Flores felt the eucalyptus might block the view of the vehicles.
Debbie O'Neil responded that the eucalyptus on her property dripped a sap down and had cones
on them so that if they were to hit a car with any moisture on it, the car would be bright red. She
suggested a weeping willow or something.
Chairperson Vanderbilt recalled his idea and stated in the Canyon area more evergreen trees
than eucalyptus trees were found.
Mr. Marca stated unfortunately there were very few trees compatible with automobile dealership
uses. The palm tree was relatively common as one that got used a lot because they were tall;
they were a part of Southern California's heritage; and they did not shed a lot; they could be
controlled the heads could be shaped and controlled without having things fall from them. Trees
that attracted birds; trees that dropped seed pods; tons of leaves, etc. were incredible
maintenance problems and many of them would actually damage the finish of the vehicles and
systematically overtime the dealers would find a way to get rid of them. Many types of grass
wouid have a difficult time growing under eucalyptus. The front portion of their site would be as
12 -15 -03
Page 10 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNIiNG COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILcD MINUTES
close to a park as they could get it and yet would be commercial. There would be an awful lot of
landscaping in the front portion of the site and he would hate to see Commission require them to
eliminate the palm trees in favor of eucalyptus.
Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that it would be sort of a shock to change from one field
temporarily to the other field and further down in the Canyon return to the look that was consistent
for the entire corridor.
Commissioner Eastman suggested incorporating a design where the applicant would come back,
having taken into consideration all of the remarks made, that would give more of a comfortable
feeling as far as blending in with the residential area.
Mr. McCafferty suggested changes to the conditions as follows: Modify Condition No. 10 to
indicate that a final landscaping and fencing plan for the entire site ... and the rest remained the
same. Modify Condition No. 32 to say that all lighting should be arranged and directed as to
reflect the light away from joining residential properties and should not exceed a height of 12 feet
so that restriction on the lighting would apply to the entire site of 12 foot high standards.
Commissioner Eastman suggested 18 feet since they needed it to be a little bit higher closer to
the freeway.
Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, suggested an 18 -foot by the freeway if they could show
that the lighting would not be obtrusive. Also on the specific signage to the Scenic Corridor, the
signage would be required to be turned off at midnight. Since they were only going to operate
until 9 p.m. it would not serve other than advertising purposes after hours to have the signage on
after 9 o'clock.
Commissioner Buffa stated she was not sure that she would be comfortable asking them to turn
off their signage at 9 o'clock when Home Depot could leave theirs on during hours of operation,
which could be 24 hours a day.
Commissioner Eastman stated that across the freeway Commission also required Armstrong not
to have their lights on at night.
Mr. Hastings clarified that Condition No. 32 restricted the hours to what the applicant requested
from 7 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Mr. McCafferty stated a Final Elevation Plan should be submitted to the Zoning Division for
review and approval by the Planning Commission as a reports and recommendation item. And
that Condition No. 44 should state that prior to final Building and Zoning inspections, Condition
No. 42, above mentioned should be complied with. That the only waiver related to the building
would be the maximum structure height adjacent to a single - family residential zone, which was
essentially a two to one requirement.
Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if they were providing a sound buffer. He understood that the
project would develop some signs but asked if they would also represent a barrier between the
freeway and the residential area.
Mr. McCafferty responded that there might be some acoustical value of the building being there
and with regards to the building itself the only noise created was from the HVAC equipment, and
that would be acoustically enclosed to comply with both Title 24 and the City Municipal Code.
Commissioner Bostwick stated that from the standpoint of someone who owned property along
the Santa Ana Freeway and who has had a sound wall next to his property, from going from
landscaping, that the landscaping was a much better buffer for noise than the wall. The wall
tended to bounce the sound and was actually louder and dirtier than landscaping.
12 -15 -03
Page 11 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNINu COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILcO MINUTES
FOLLOWING,IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.
OPPOSITION: 6 people spoke in opposition (one represented the Anaheim Hills Citizens'
Coalition).
A petition was received with 661 signatures in opposition.
Correspondence was received in opposition to the subject request.
IN GENERAL: 3 people spoke in general but did not express support or opposition (one
represented the Concerned Citizens of the Canyon).
ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Flores
and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent), that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does hereby determine that the CEQA Mitigated Negative
Declaration in conjunction with Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 122 is adequate
to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request.
Recommended City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No.
2003 -00415 (to redesignate this property from the Hillside Low - Medium Density
Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use
designation) by adopting Exhibit "A ".
Granted Reclassification No. 2003 -00113 (to reclassify this property from the
RS- 5000(SC) Zone to the CL(SC) Zone), subject to the conditions of approval
as stated in the staff report dated December 15, 2003.
Approved Waiver of Code Requirement, as follows:
Approved waiver (b) pertaining to maximum structural height adjacent to a
single - family residential zone, with a stipulation made at today's meeting that
the maximum structural height including any roof - mounted equipment, shall be
32 feet.
Vote: 5 -1 (Commissioner O'Connell voted no and Commissioner Romero absent)
Approved waivers pertaining to (a) maximum number of wall signs, (c) minimum
structural setback adjacent to a freeway, and (d) minimum landscape setback
adjacent to an interior site boundary line abutting a residential zone.
Vote: 6 -0 (Commissioner Romero absent)
Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -04800 (to permit and
construct an automotive sales dealership with accessory roof- mounted
equipment with a total structural height not to exceed 32 feet), subject to the
conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated December 15, 2003,
with the following modifications:
Modified Condition Nos. 10, 32 and 44 to read as follows:
10. That a final landscape and fencing plan for the entire site, indicating type,
size and location of proposed landscaping, aad irrigation and fencing,
shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department for
review and approval. Any decision made by the Zoning Division regarding
said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission, and /or City
Council. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted
for building permits. Said plan shall include landscape screening for the
north side of the vehicle preparation building, to eliminate graffiti
opportunities.
12 -15 -03
Page 12 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNIN COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAIL�J MINUTES
32. That any lighting adjacent to the south property line shall be arranged and
directed as to reflect the light away from adjoining residential properties and
shall not exceed a height of twelve (12) feet. Any lighting adjacent to the
freeway may be increased to a height not to exceed eighteen (18) feet
provided that said increase in height would have the same lighting
affect on the adjoining residential properties to the south as the 12-
foot high light standards. Said information shall be specifically
demonstrated on plans submitted for building permits.
44. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 42,
above - mentioned, shall be complied with.
Added the following conditions of approval to read as follows:
That final elevation plans incorporating suggestions made by the Planning
Commission at the December 15, 2003, public hearing regarding the
architecture shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and
approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations
item. Said plans shall incorporate any roof - mounted equipment into the
design of the building.
That on -site advertising signage shall only be illuminated during hours of
operation. Plans submitted for building permits shall demonstrate that the
lighting from the signage shall not cause excessive light and /or glare for
the residents to the south.
Recommended City Council consideration of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
and associated Mitigation Monitoring Plan, Reclassification, Waiver of Code
Requirement, and Conditional Use Permit requests in conjunction with City
Council's mandatory review of the General Plan Amendment.
VOTE: 6 -0 (Commissioner Romero absent)
Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated this item would be set for a public hearing before the
City Council.
DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 56 minutes (5:07 -7:03)
12 -15 -03
Page 13 of 14
DECEMBER 15, 2003
PLANNI N,i COMMISSION SUPPLEMENTAL DETAIL-0 MINUTES
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:04 P.M.
TO MONDAY, JANUARY 12, 2004 AT 10:30 A.M.
FOR A PRESENTATION ON THE BROWN ACT AND
DUE PROCESS BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND
PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW.
RECEIVING AND APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL DETAILED
MINUTES FOR ITEM NO. 9, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
2003 - 04800, FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
DECEMBER 15, 2003, SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD AS A PUBLIC
HEARING ITEM BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON TUESDAY,
FEBRUARY 10, 2004.
Respectfully submitted:
1 4 (��Uut�
Pat Chandler
Senior Secretary
Received and approved by the Planning Commission on 2003.
I �
12 -15 -03
Page 14 of 14
R &R Item No. 1 -B
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
January 26, 2004
Item No. 1 -C
1 -C. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
a. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY - APPROVED) (Motion)
b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003 -04800 —REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS (Motion)
(Tracking No. CUP 2004- 04827)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly- shaped, 5.7 -acre property is located at the northeast terminus of Via Cortez
and south of the SR -91 (Riverside Freeway), with a frontage of 161 feet on the northeast
terminus of Via Cortez, a maximum depth of 1,370 feet and is located 837 feet north of the
centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road (NO ADDRESS — Caliber Motors).
REQUEST:
(2) The petitioner requests review of final elevation plans to construct a new automotive sales
dealership.
BACKGROUND:
(3) This property is currently vacant and is zoned RS -5000 (SC). The Anaheim General Plan
Land Use Element Map designates this property for Hillside Low - Medium Density
Residential land uses.
(4) General Plan Amendment No. 2001 -00415 (to amend the Land Use Element of the
Anaheim General Plan redesignating the property from the Hillside Low - Medium Density
Residential land use designation to the General Commercial land use designation) and
Reclassification No. 2003 -00113 (to reclassify this property from the RS -5000 (SC)
(Residential, Single - Family; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone to the CL (SC) (Commercial
Limited; Scenic Corridor Overlay) zone was approved by the Planning Commission on
December 15, 2003. The project is scheduled for City Council consideration on February
10, 2004, due to the requirement that Council take final action on all General Plan
Amendment approvals.
(5) Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -04800 (to permit and construct an automotive sales
dealership with accessory roof - mounted equipment with a structural height greater than 35
feet (32 foot building plus 10 foot equipment enclosure) with waivers of a) maximum
number of wall signs, b) maximum structural height adjacent to a single - family residential
zone, c) minimum structural setback adjacent to a freeway and d) required landscape
setback adjacent to an interior site boundary line abutting a residential zone) was
approved, in part. The proposed structural height (totaling 42 feet consisting of a 32 -foot
high building plus a 10 -high equipment enclosure) was approved in part, to permit a
maximum overall height of 32 feet.
(6) Resolution No. PC2003 -173, adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-
04800, contains the following condition of approval:
"46. That final elevation plans, which incorporate the suggestions made by the Planning
Commission at the December 15, 2003, public hearing regarding the architecture,
shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval by the Planning
Commission as a `Reports and Recommendations' item. Said plans shall
Sr8687ay.dcc
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
January 26, 2004
Item No. 1 -C
incorporate any roof - mounted equipment into the design of the building, and the
maximum over -all structural height, including any roof - mounted equipment, shall be
thirty two (32) feet."
DISCUSSION:
(7) This project was approved on December 15, 2003, with a condition of approval stipulating
that final elevation plans be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a `Reports and
Recommendations' item. As a result of elevation changes, the floor plans would also
slightly deviate from the originally approved exhibits.
(8) The floor plans for the vehicle sales building (Final Plan Nos. 1 and 2) reflect a two -story
building with a total of 20,162 square feet. The first floor contains a foyer and reception
area, restrooms, with the showroom comprising the majority of floor area. The second floor
is designated for offices and restrooms. The second floor would still be open to the
showroom below, but the location of the offices would be reconfigured. The original floor
plan was designed with all activity (offices and customer waiting areas) centered toward the
core of the building. The final elevation plans lower the roof height at the north and south
elevations of the building creating an opportunity for the open showroom area to be located
at the center of the sales building, eliminating the potential for light to filter up through the
entire perimeter of the building. Offices would be located within the southern portion of the
second floor and the wall of glass originally proposed for the south elevation would be
reduced to smaller, inset windows with slate comprising the majority of this elevation.
(9) The final elevation plans for the vehicle sales building (Final Plan No. 3) indicate that the
roof -line of the proposed building has been modified to provide more articulation. The
center portion of the building (facing east and west) would be 32 feet high and the north
and south (abutting the residential neighborhood) elevations would step down to a height of
26 feet. The 10 -foot high equipment enclosure has been removed and all roof - mounted
equipment would be installed within a roof well sunk into the building or alternatively, in the
basement of the sales building. The entire building would be enhanced with slate stone
columns and vertical sheets of blue glass. The south elevation would be completely
covered with slate stone with the exception of 8 -foot high windows in contrast to the wall of
glass that was previously proposed. The windows would be inset 2 feet from the exterior of
the building to provide building depth and to mitigate potential light impacts on the
neighborhood to the south. The entrances located on the east and west elevations would
be offset 9 feet and covered in slate to create more building interest. The plans show a
contemporary architectural design consistent with the Mercedes Benz image, while
integrating decorative stone to create a warmer building that would be more compatible
with the community. Staff feels that the revised elevations have achieved the Commissions
request for a quality building that incorporates rich materials and articulation and better
integrates with the surrounding commercial and residential neighborhood.
(10) The final elevation plans (Final Plan No. 4) for the vehicle preparation building indicate that
the north and south elevations would include concrete building walls enhanced with offset
windows surrounded with slate. The east and west elevations would also include offset
building features around the car wash entrance and exit and around the pedestrian doors.
The popped -out building walls and decorative slate would add to the quality design of the
project.
Sr8687ay.dm
Page 2
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
January 26, 2004
Item No. 1 -C
(11) The Commission specifically imposed a condition stating, "Said plans shall incorporate any
roof - mounted equipment into the design of the building, and the maximum over -all
structural height, including any roof - mounted equipment, shall be thirty two (32) feet." Staff
feels that the sunken roof well would satisfy this condition since the equipment would be set
completely below the height of the roofline and architecturally integrated into the design of
the building, thereby limiting visibility from all directions.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS:
(12) Staff has reviewed the request for a review of final elevation plans and the previously -
approved Mitigated Negative Declaration and finds there are no changes to the originally -
approved conditional use permit and that the request will not result in any significant
adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, staff recommends that the previously- approved
Mitigated Negative Declaration serve as the required environmental documentation for this
request-
RECOMMENDATION
(13) Staff recommends that, unless additional or contrary information is received during the
meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Commission, including the
evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the
public hearing, the Commission take the following actions:
(a) By motion, determine that the previously- approved Mitigated Negative Declaration is
adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the subject
request.
(b) By motion, approve Final Elevation Plan Nos. 1 through 4, for a previously- approved
automotive sales dealership because the proposed final plans comply with the
conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2003 -04800 and the
Commission's desire for a high quality building that incorporates rich materials and
articulation while complementing the adjacent residential neighborhood.
Sr8687ay.dm
Page 3
Item No. 1C
C CUP 4163 Oy
TREA WENT OFFICE BLDG.
AL ON� ENTER C -G
ANIMAL
CH rlosP RS -2
C -G 1 DU EACH
VAR 4154
T
ADJ 0124 w
w
CHURCH c�LL BLANCHARD AVE
ti T
0-`-
oFF(� g�00
G EEN pl 111
M OTE L RCl 042
cU c coP GREEN
EN MGTEL�
06j6S
V PFZ 0 R
ME D ` c P`C ENSE
G B5
FC UP 1822
CU QUEE
UP \RY
ROOUP 168627 G -G
REST
GU? 628
UP 773
C -G OFFICES
,CL 57-58-33 O-G
VAR 9525 OFFICE
R 864 BLDG
GU�EMG
NURSINti
rn
�
51- 3
RG�RSING
83
�A iN
N
RCUP
jaM
NOME
VA R 2001 -!
�pU WEINERSCHI
:65.12
z91T S
TEEIO
w
RCL 545529
CLIP 6
W
GG
VAR 693
VAR 1755
C-G_
_ Ell �.._
aFFICE
4DU
VAR 19!&17
INSTATMNEU
(VAR 11 ) RC 52-5 U10
cup PARKIN G
LIN C OLN
'VE
ADJ 0184
RC 6 -1
CUP 6
� I 1015
Conditional Use Permit No- 1228, 1031
TRACKING NO- CUP2006 -05062
CUP 1606
CKIN THE BOX
P 2882-04502 RCL 53 -S
CUP 1686 CUP281
vAR m.
TAMPIC
C -G MUTE
!CL 53 -54 -12
PIZZA HUT
C -G
RCL 65 -66 -68
VAR 1948 -6
ADJ 0167
WALGREENS
PHARMACY
RS -2
1 DU EAC
I
1 DU EA
E RS 2
Q R
3:
Q
a
Z S -2
LLJ
U C
WARDTERRACE
}
Z�A
noa 0167 1
a
a O — I I
I
Z
} _
J Q U Q
< KW
U o
LL
e
1 DU E
� K
COLL I V
CIA —
C-G
rl RCL98-97-8
o��t -- r-
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- 112
rn
�
61 -62 -30
GUP2793
F
LU
:D
O
,w
aLL
LL
o
U
M
w
W
+
G -62 -30
61 -%
O
_
O-0 2
ME
0497
031
LLJ
007
BELL
PARCELA
N
LO
C -G
RCL 68419 -90
CUP 200605062
CUP 2 005 -049 97
�—
P 1228
J y REST
1 ENTE STREET
Subject Property
Date: March 6, 2006
Scale: 1"=200'
Q -S- No- 112
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 6, 2006
Item No. 1 -C
1 -C. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
a. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1031 AND 1228 (Resolution)
— REQUEST FOR TERMINATION
(Tracking No. CUP2006- 05062)
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) Parcel A: This irregularly- shaped, 0.5 -acre property is located at the northeast corner of
Center Street and State College Boulevard, having frontages of 152 feet on the east side of
State College Boulevard and 160 feet on the north side of Center Street (100 North State
College Boulevard).
Parcel B: This rectangularly shaped, 0.3 -acre property at the southeast corner of State
College Boulevard and Underhill Avenue with frontages of 100 feet on the east side of
State College and 125 feet on the south side of Underhill Avenue (130 North State College
Boulevard).
REQUEST
(2) The property owner for 100 North State College Boulevard, James Myron, has submitted
the attached letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1228. The
property owner for 130 North State College Boulevard, Peter Capriotti II, has submitted the
second attached letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1031.
BACKGROUND
(3) These properties are developed with a vacant restaurant and a fast food restaurant and
are zoned C -G (General Commercial). The Anaheim General Plan Land Use Element Map
designates Parcel A for General Commercial and Low Density Residential land uses, and
for Parcel B for General Commercial land uses.
(4) Conditional Use Permit No. 1031 (to establish a walk -up restaurant) was approved by the
Planning Commission on June 3, 1968 (2004 and 2008 Underhill Avenue later changed to
130 North State College Boulevard).
(5) Conditional Use Permit No. 1228 (to permit on -sale beer and wine in an existing
restaurant) was approved by the Planning Commission on March 22, 1971 (100 North
State College Boulevard).
(6) 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) that was approved by the Planning Commission on
July 25, 2005, requires the termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1031 and 1228.
(7) The property owners are requesting termination of these conditional use permits since
these entitlements are no longer needed.
srcupl03ljkn.doc
Page 1
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 6, 2006
Item No. 1 -C
RECOMMENDATION:
(8) Staff recommends that unless additional or contrary information is received during the
meeting, and based upon the evidence submitted to the Planning Commission, including
the evidence presented in this staff report, and oral and written evidence presented at the
meeting that the Commission, by resolution, terminate Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1031
and 1228.
srcupl03ljkn.doc
Page 2
[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 a walk -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.
ATTEST:
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
SENIOR SECRETARY. ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
1, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify that
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Planning Commission held on
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
Cr1PC2006- -1- PC2006-
Tracking No. CUP2006 -05062
FROM -COTTI FOODS
LAW OFFICES AND
FINANCIAL SERVICES
Estate Planning
Living Trusts
Family Trusts
Individual Trusts
Irrevocable Trusts
Special Needs Trusts
...... Foreign Trusts
Foreign Clilizen Trusts
Foundations
Charitable Trusts
Trust Maintenance
Trust Division
Trustee Services
Estate Litigation
Estate Settlement
Advanced Tax Planning
Insurance
Rsal.Estate
Financial Analysis
Powers of Attorney
July 23, 2005
949 - 858 -9199
Amy Vasquez
Planning Department
200 South Anaheim Blvd, Suite 162
Anaheim, CA 92805
T -674 P 0021002 F -738
Attachment - R &R 1 -C
RECEIVE D
JOL 21 2005
Cotta Food's Corp,
Re: Request Termination of Conditional Use Permits for 100 North State College
Blvd., Anaheim, California
Dear Amy:
I am the owner of the land located atl00 N, State College Blvd., Anaheim,
California. For the past several years a Carrows Restaurant was operated on my
property. However, now the Carrows has closed, and I have leased the property for
the purpose of constructing and opening a new Taco Bell restaurant. In order to
facilitate the issuance of the new permits for 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
necessary for the construction and operation of the new Taco Bell:
1. 1031 - Walkup Restaurant Permit
2. 1228 - Permit to Sell Beer & Wine
If you have any questions, please call my attorney, Daniel C. Hales at 949 -852-
8181.
Wills
Thar_k yo ??.
Living Wills
Pourover Wills
Declaration of Intent
Corporations Sincerely,
Partnerships
Gift Counseling,
Asset Protsction James Myron, ,
Retirement Plan's Owner, Trustee of the Myron Foundation
Annuities
Probate Services
Cc: Steve Deez
Liquidity Analysis Cc: holly Sandler, J.L. Hare & Associates
Contracts
Arbitration
Health Care Plans
4695 MacArthur Court, Suite 100, NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 • TEL (949) S52-8181 FAX (949) 352 -1015
433 North Camden Drive, Suite 600, BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90210 • TEL (800) 662 -0882 FAX (310) 288 -1801
02- 09 -'06 15 :31 FROM -COTTI FOODS
949 - 858 -9199 T -870 P002/002 F -520
Attachment - R &R 1 -C
COW Foods Corporation
A Franchisee of Taco Bell Corp.
26111 Antonio Parkway, Suite 100
Las Flores, CA 92688
Tel 949/858.9191
Fax 9491858 -9199
February 9, 2006
Jessica Nixon
City of Anaheim
Planning Services Division, Room 162
200 S. Anaheim Blvd.
Anaheim, California 92805
Reference: 130 North State College Blvd.
Dear Jessica,
Please accept this letter as follow up to your request, today, regarding Conditional
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, for 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 current restaurant at 130 North State College
Blvd. As you are aware, we will be building a retail center on the 100 N State College
Blvd. site. The grading plans are currently being review by the planning department.
As the owner of the land located at 130 North State College Blvd., 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 June.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call.
a _ 41r _ i r
President
Item No. 2
IND. FIRMS
\�0 4 RCL 99 -00 -15 h
RCL 9d-00.15 (Res. of Int. to 70.71 2 SE) I
y J (Res. of Int. to SE) (41
RCL 70-71-28 RCL 70-71-27
RCL 70-71-27 0
STADIUM PLAZA 4
BUSINESS PARK SMALL IND. FIRMS
SMALL IND. l(1
FIRMS ((
SINCLAIR ST
W
O H 0
RCL 200400127
RCL 99- t. to S Q
(Res. of SE) Q;
RCL 83 -83-8 4-19
RCL 70 -71 -28
RCL 27
VAR R 339 3390
"Yo VAR 2152
�F( OFFICE OBLDG. N�E
RCL 99 6 !�L PvE
(Res. of Int. t. to S n ti
RCL 66 -67 -7- 14 4 9e
RCL 59 -60. dk
23 P�39 oy�e ^a N
T -CUP 2002 -04578 P ti y w e o%�' y
T-CUP 2001 -044 �- y9' N C6 (PTMU)
CUP 2001 -04441 F` G�' °
CUP 1424 F`�PF`55 RCL of Int to SE)
(Res. 7-88- CE) REST.
CUP 1301 RCL 85 -88 -26
VAR RCL 8384 -24
V -1779 79 S S RCL 5 9-60 -23
AUTO REPAIR CUP 2005 -04966
CUP 3369
& RENTAL CUP 3165
CUP 2651
VAR 200504675 a Bo
O-L PTMU PARKING O -L (PTMU)
RCL 9-00. 5 AR 4266
(Res. of Int. to SE) RCL 15
RCL 90 -91 -11 (Res. of f Int. Int. to SE)
RCL 82 -8333 RCL 90 -91 -11
RCL 59 -60.23 RCL 83 -84 -24
CUP 3369 RCL 59 -60 -23
CUP 2433 CUP 3369
CUP 3326
CUP 2257 T -CUP 200304774 CUP 3165
STADIUM TOWER PLAZA STADIUM TOWER PL CUP 2651
OFFICE BLDG. OFFICE BLDG. VAR 3608
PARKING
ATCy s0
PR (PTMU) 4 '4�/� VACANT
(Res ofnt0.tto1S 3g
E) NT4F
R CUP 2400 3 RA /` ST AT /O lk
CUP 750
RCL 6 6-67-1 4
ANGEL STADIUM
ALL PROPERTIES ARE IN THE PTMU (PLATINUM TRIANGLE MIXED USE OVERLAY) ZONE
Variance No. 2005 -04675 Eli 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
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
(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 2135
Staff Report to the
Planning Commission
March 6, 2006
Item No. 2
2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (Motion for continuance)
2b. VARIANCE NO. 2005 -04675
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
(1) This irregularly- shaped, 2.4 -acre property has a frontage of 600 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 letters /logos on wall signs to
waive minimum number of parking spaces and permitted signs for a previously- approved
commercial 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 south 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 from 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 e-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.
S R- VAR2005- 04675(c on't- 3- 6 -06). dm
Page 1
F -ARMI iT7'I MIMIiMr-M
2/23/06
Amy,
I am in receipt of your message, Thank you for the 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,
John Hill
RHA, inc.
Sent wirelessly via BlackBerry from T- Mobile.