Loading...
Minutes-PC 2001/12/03~ ~ ~ DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Items 1-A through 1-C 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. Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), for approval of Consent Calendar Items (1-A and 1-C) as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Item (1-B) was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion and was unanimously approved. Vote: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick was absent) 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS • A. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION SECTION 15061 (b)(3) b) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2001-00399 AND R~CLASSIFICATION NO. 2001-00063 - REQUEST FOR PLANNING COMMISSION INITITATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND RECLASSIFICATION PROCEEDINGS: City of Anaheim, Redevelopment Agency, Attn: Lisa Stipkovich, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, #1003, Anaheim, CA 92805, City-initiated (Community Development Department) request to consider initiation of a General Plan amendment from the General Commercial and Medium Density Residential land use designations to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation and a reclassification from the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple- Family) Zone. Property is located at 2330-2340 West Lincoln Avenue. Continued from the November 19, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick absent) to continue the subject request to the December 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for Community Development Department staff to further address the Commission's concerns. ~ Continued to December 17, 2001 (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bostwick was absent) SR2105DS.DOC 12-03-01 Page 2 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ B. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04350 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04484): Meta Housing Corporation, Attn: Sean Clark, 4100 West Alameda Avenue, #205, Burbank, CA 91505, requests review and approval of final building, elevations, colors and materials, landscaping, signage, lighting, mechanical equipment and patio plans in conjunction with a proposed 34-unit affordable senior citizens apartment complex (935 South Gilbert Street). (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion). ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commission Bostwick was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. • Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final building elevation, exterior building materials and colors, landscaping, lighting, signage, mechanical equipment, and patio area plans in conjunction with a previously- approved 34-unit "affordable" senior citizen's apartment complex for Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04350 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04484) based on Commission's concurrence with staff that the final plans are substantially in compliance with the corresponding conditions of approval identified in staff report dated December 3, 2001 with the following stipulations which should be noted on plans submitted for building permits: (i) That high quality, "architectural grade" roofing shingles shall be provided. The color of the roofing shingles shall be brown to match the color scheme for the building. (ii) That the design of the freestanding monument sign shall match the colors, materials, and architectural style of the overall apartment complex. The numeric address in minimum 9-inch letters and an 18-inch high base shall also be provided on said sign. (iii) That the proposed electrical transformer, and any other proposed mechanical or utility equipment located within the front setback areas adjacent to public rights-of-way, shall be screened with shrubs of sufficient size to screen 75 percent of the equipment at the time of planting. (iv) That all proposed trees shall be a minimum 24-inch box in size. (v) That additional light fixtures and clinging vines on maximum 3 foot centers shall be provided around the trash enclosure area. u DISCUSSION: 1:50-1:52 (2 minutes) Approved Approved Final Plans with stipulations (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bostwick was absent) SR2102DS.DOC Chairperson Arnold informed that Item 1-B is a variety of project design specifications. 12-03-01 Page 3 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item 1-B as a review of final pians for Conditional Use Permit Na. 2001-04350 for property located at 935 South Gilbert Street. Staff recommends approval of the final plans subject to the stipulations contained in paragraph 14b of the staff report, with the added stipulation that in addition to the roofing being architecture grade that it also be brown to match the colors of the building itself. ApplicanYs Statement: Sean Clark, Housing Corporation, 4100 West Alameda, Burbank, CA, stated he understands the conditions of approval and is in agreement with them. He states they will work with staff to make sure the conditions are implemented over the course of the project. They are in the process of the final phase of trying to get their tax credit financing put together and experience from past projects proved to have rigorous time constraints. They hope to be under construction, at the latest, by the end of January and anticipate about an 11-12 month construction window for the project. Commissioner Koos stated he wanted to pull Item 1-B so he could have the applicant comment on whether or not they were in favor of the stipulations for the public record. L ~ • 12-03-01 Page 4 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Continued to Meeting of November 19, 2001. (MOTION) December 17, 2001 (Vote: 6-0, Commissioner Bostwick was absent) • ~ L_~ 12-03-01 Page 5 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: ~ • 2a. 2b. 2c. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED) Approved WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04366 Granted OWNER: Living Stream, A California Non-Profit Corporation, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: John Pester, 2431 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2411 - 2461 West La Palma Avenue and 1212 North Hubbell Way. Property is approximately 40.4 acres located at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Gilbert Street, and at the northern terminuses of Hubbell Way and Electric Way (Living Stream Ministry and former Hubbell Site). To permit a teleconferencing center and private conference/training center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the June 4, July 16 August 27, September 10, September 24, October 22, November 5 and November 19, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-167 SR1115TW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 2 as property located at 2411-2461 West La Palma Avenue and 1212 North Hubbell Way, which is the Living Stream Conference Center. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff's recommendation is for approval. They have met with the Police Department, Traffic Management Staff as well as the Traffic Engineering Division to work on the graph and Traffic Management P(an is in support of the proposal. There is one change to the mitigation monitoring plan, page 2, the last mitigation measure, where it begins the bold type, that sentence should actually be part of the sentence before that. The plan will be amended so that it reads clearly. Applicant's Statement: John Pester, 513 South Valley, Anaheim, CA, stated as Mr. McCafferty has indicated they had an opportunity to meet with the Anaheim Police Department, the Traffic & Engineering Department, and also the Planning Department. He felt they had a very productive conversation in an effort to really provide the assurances that Commission asked for relating to traffic flows on the streets as well as the interior of their properties. They are in agreement with all of the conditions staff recommend and are willing to work to implement them as soon as possible. They have already completed some and are currently working on the ones relating to signage. They have the contract for the installation of the traffic signal in place for Gilbert Street and La Palma Avenue. They have contacted a company to come and remove the large freeway standing oriented sign on their existing property and have removed the temporary wooden sign on La Palma Avenue. Commissioner Boydstun asked if they were holding any classes or orientation meetings at the Ball Road facility now that they are in the new one. 12-03-01 Page 6 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Pester responded they had some situation arise with SaRang Community Church where they were allowing youth education classes to occur on Sundays but when they got a clarification from the City that it was considered to be a church service they subsequently sent a letter to SaRang Church and indicated they cease that activity. A 30-day notice was submitted to them and the activity is supposed to cease on December 20, 2001. Commissioner Boydstun clarified she was referring to the Ball Road facility and wondered if they were giving any of the classes or orientations like they used to now that they are in the new facility. Mr. Pester responded no, the activities that are occurring at 8all Road are continuing to occur at Ball Road. The activities scheduled for 2431, the Anaheim Palms Corporate Center, are related to the teleconferences and trainings but they have not done the movement of the classes, facilities or the conferences. He assures the activities occurring at Ball Road will continue to occur at Ball Road. Commissioner Boydstun asked if he still had training classes at Ball Road. Mr. Pester responded yes. Commissioner Boydstun asked what kind of numbers he had at those. Mr. Pester responded approximately 200. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify concerning the impact recorded in the traffic report on phase 1 and on phase 2, regarding the average vehic(e occupancy of each shuttle and the fact that from the onset the applicant agreed to educate the attendees for the conferences about the shuttle availability, etc. So just focusing on phase 1, with 133.5 (half of 267) shuttles coming and 3 occupants that would leave him to • believe that there would be a lot of hotels, in over a hundred different locations, from which people would come. Rock Miller, Traffic Engineer for Katz, Okitsu & Associates, stated he prepared the initial traffic study and the traffic management plan was excerpted from the study. The number of shuttles were based upon a variety of factors, including assessment of the way people arrived at the Balf Road facility when it had its larger conferences. It is possible that a certain number of the shuttles may in fact be a private party occupancy drop off and then go to other places but it is basically representative of the fact that about 15- 20% of the expected arrival at the events will be people that arrive in smaller vehicles and in the vehicle that parts the facility at the end of the event. The number was brought forth primarify to calculate what the parking demand would be for the various events because it is basically representative of a vehicle that will not be in the parking lot during the event. That is what shuttles represent in the Traffic & Parking Analysis. Commissioner Bristol asked if some of the events took place at the Ball Road facility, would there be any indication of the participants that would come to the conferences, and of how many differenf locations would they come from. Mr. Miller responded the larger events draw more people than would originate from this region so they tend to have people that stay at area hotels although they will not necessarily be in the immediate Anaheim area they could be staying at other area hotels within Southern California from 30-50 miles away and then they would go to the events. They come from other communities, small groups stay at hotels together and then come in courtesy shuttles to this event at the same time. Commissioner Bristol asked if they would be able to comply with recommendations of approval regarding notifying the City. • Mr. Pester responded certainly, most of the conditions involved notifying the City of when the events are going to occur and how specific transportation is being planned and arranged. Whether buses are going to be of more significant factor or less significant factor would depend on the event. 12-03-01 Page 7 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol appreciates staff and the applicant getting together and taking more time to look at the internal circulation. It appears that it is more thought out than it was the last time. He states Mr. Yalda, Principal Traffic & Transportation Manager, said it correctly, the first or second event will get more of a beat on what type of internal circulation will have to be improved upon. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Mitigated Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to the minimum number of parking spaces based on the City Traffic and Transportation Manager's review and recommendation that the proposed number of parking spaces is adequate to serve the existing uses and the proposed use as indicated in the analysis described in paragraph nos. 4, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 of staff report dated December 3, 2001. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04366 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated December 3, 2001 with the following modification made to the Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 117 (page 2): • "That a final traffic management plan (TMP) shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval. Said plan shall include measures to efficiently and safely move ingress/egress traffic during events as identified in the draft TMP dated November 28, 2001. The TMP may be amended subject to review and approval of the Traffic and Transportation Manager, as appropriate, in order to improve the efficiency of said plan." VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1:53-2:05 (12 minutes) ~ 12-03-01 Page 8 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES \ J 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1424 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04446) (READVERTISED) OWNER: Corky Robert Smith Trust, P. O. Box 5440, Los Angeles, CA 90054 AGENT: Excel Auto Body, Attn: Jon Thompson, 554 South Atchison Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 2223 East Katella Avenue, Unit C. Property is approximately 5.48 acres located north and west of the northwesterly corner of Katella Avenue and Howell Avenue. Request to permit an automotive cenfer with three independent automotive businesses, including an automotive sales dealership with accessory auto finance services, and an automotive repair facility with a modular office building. Continued from the October 8 and November 19, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to December 17, 2001 SR8165KB.DOC Chairperson Arnold informed that Item No. 3 is 2223 East Katella Avenue, Unit C, involving an automobile center with three different activities occurring. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated staff is recommending denial of this permit based on the recommendations in the staff report. Staff believes that three independent auto-related uses on the smaller 1.9-acre portion of the property are too many. As indicated in the staff report originally there was one dealership intended for that property. lt was subsequently meant in 1996 for two dealerships and now essentially what's happening is that you have the auto body uses approved on the larger acreage along Katella Avenue and then for this 1.9-acre portion you have three independent auto related uses. Staff believes for the reasons described in the staff report that is too much. Changes to the staff report are as such: • Page 3, paragraph 7, the last sentence refers to a resolution that should be Resolution No. PC96- 122. • Page 9, Condition No. 1, add to the last sentence, "for the northern 1.9 acre portion of the property". Also add conditions of approval. • • A new Condition No. 17, That a landscape plan showing 13, 24-inch box sized trees shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval and said plan shall incorporate trees from the plant pellet contained in the Anaheim Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan Document; "landscaping shall be installed within 30 days of the Zoning Division Approval". • Some of the asphalt on the property is deteriorated so staff is recommending Commission add a condition to say that the asphalt parking in vehicle storage area shall be repaired and slurry seafed as needed. 12-03-01 Page 9 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • Delete the timin on Condition No. 17. 9 • The new timing on Condition No. 96 would become 18 and the new timing would be that Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 17 shall be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of this resolution. ApplicanYs Statement: John Thompson, 4408 East Alderdale Avenue, Anaheim, CA., owner of Excel Autobody has been doing business in The City of Anaheim since 1999. He stated the site proposed currently has a conditional use permit for the automotive dealership, autobody mechanical repair and auto sales and they are asking for that to be split into separate ownership, which would be a separate owner of the autobody business. There would also be a separate owner of the automobile sales portion, which is located on Howell Street (this portion of the property does not have exposure on Katella Avenue). SLS, which is a company that has been operating there for the last 5 years would only be using a portion of the lot for storage of repossessed, turnback vehicles headed to the auction. The only addition to that would be to add a module office building inside the parking lot out of sight that would add additional office space. Commissioner Bristol asked if the applicant intended to add a module building or if he was referring to the module building currently in use. Mr. Thompson responded it was the module building currently in use, behind the gated area. Commissioner Bristol asked the applicant how long he had been there. ~ Mr. Thompson responded 2%2 months. Commissioner Bristol asked the applicant if he was aware of the 1996 conditional use permit. Mr. Thompson responded not until after they had moved there and attempted to add the modular building. Commissioner Bristol quoted the conditional use permit as "the significant repairs or painting will be contracted to offsite automobile repair paint facilities". He wished to clarify if the applicant used his building to paint vehicles. Mr. Thompson responded that is correct. The autobody portion and the equipment were already there and SLS had operated in the autobody business prior to them moving in. Commissioner Bristol stated apparently the business south was already in operation but the site was originally designed to be two sales facility zoning. Mr. Thompson responded that the people to the south of them took over a portion that did not include any of the autobody area and the autobody area is what they occupy. Commissioner Bristol retorted that the portion that the applicant is currently using and that staff mentioned is one sales facility and then two, and now the third use. So staff is saying that there are three uses inside the small area. Mr. Thompson responded it is actually a fairly large area but it is three uses that have existed there for the past 5 years but under a different ownership. There were car sales, automotive repair and certainly the parking, which was there previously. They are asking to split the ownership of that. • Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if the applicant heard when staff mentioned planting significant trees, etc. Mr. Thompson responded today is the first he heard of it. 12-03-01 Page 10 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Bristo! asked if the CUP were a roved would he have the abilit to sa whether or not PP Y Y trees could be planted on the facility. Mr. Thompson responded no, Bill Roof, the owner of SLS, has the original conditional use permit and would have the authority to do so. Chairperson Arnold asked Mr. Roof to come forward to answer questions regarding landscaping, etc. Wilfred Roof, 2223 Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA, stated he is the subleasor from the original leasor, and has been there almost 6 years and operated 5 of those 6 years as a retail automotive sales area on Howell. They operated a paint and body facility and also the storage facility in question. Subsequent(y they decided to sublease the areas out and contracted with Gillette Auto Sales who has been in Anaheim for many years and they operate the retail facility on Howell which they relinquished and at the same time negotiated a sublease with Excel Autobody for the body and paint business. As far as the landscaping, they talked with Mr. Kevin Bass, Planner, numerous times but this is the first time anyone has mentioned landscaping. He asked do you have the scope, etc. of what staff is referring to by planting trees. Chairperson Arnold asked Mr. McCafferty to reiterate the plans. Mr. McCafferty stated it would be 13, 24-inch box sized trees within the front landscape setback along Howell. Mr. Roof wished to clarify the exact location of the 13 trees. Mr. McCafferty stated they would be along the grassy area next to the street, within the existing • landscape planner that is along Howell. Mr. Roof asked if staff was aware that there are presently vacant spaces in the sidewalk area. Commissioner Boydstun asked if the space was left for the trees when the sidewalk was poured and if they were supposed to be City trees. Mr. Roof responded he was not sure but they are good-sized areas, 2%2 x 2%2 square with dirt, etc., but nothing in the planter boxes. He stated they have not had anything in them since they have been tenants there. Commissioner Boydstun asked how far apart the spaces were. Mr. Roof responded approximately 3 of the areas in the frontage area where they are speaking about placing trees. Mr. McCafferty directed Commissioner Boydstun to look at the photograph on page 2 of the staff report to see landscaping on the proposed property and indicated that is where staff recommend the trees placed. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if they were 20-foot centers. Mr. McCafferty responded staff would work with the applicant to place the trees however they wished to place them. Commissioner Boydsttan wished to clarify that the applicant could group the trees or whatever so as not to block things. ~ Commissioner Boydstun asked the applicant if he had a chance to review the package to see the photograph and the strip across the front that Mr. McCafferty referred to. Mr. Roof responded no. 12-03-01 Page 11 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Arnold directed additionai staff reports were located out front in the foyer of the Cit Council Y Chambers. He stated it seems the conditional use permit initially approved indicates any painting would occur offsite, any significant repairs or painting will be contracted to offsite automotive repair and paint facilities and what Commission is hearing is that for the past several years that has been occurring onsite which is not consistent with the original permit approved. He asked the applicant to explain? Mr. Roof responded he was not familiar with the verbiage in the conditional use permit because there are two paint booths on the premise that have been there ever since they have been on the property and are licensed by the agency that covers that area. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify if the applicant had been at the present location for 6 years. Mr. Roof responded they commenced in February 1996. Mr. McCafferty stated the only business license The City of Anaheim has on the site for this portion is for SLS; not for Gillette or Excel Autobody. Commissioner Bristol asked Mr. McCafferty what would happen if the CUP were denied, what use could be on the property. Mr. McCafferty responded there could be a second automotive dealership which was SLS originally and that would be it. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify that Gillette Auto Sales and Excel would not be permitted. • Mr. McCafferty clarified that it would be one coordinated single dealership with the accessory uses that were permitted under the original use permit. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if Commission wanted to approve it, he would recommend it for one year. Mr. McCafferty concurred if Commission was to approve it then staff would recommend a one year approval. Commissioner Boydstun clarified that each business would need to get independent business licenses. Mr. Roof replied that each business has a business license. Commissioner Boydstun responded that Mr. McCafferty stated there was only one business license. Mr. Thompson responded when he originally agreed to release the autobody portion he called the City and was told since it was an existing autobody business that he was going into, moving from one place to another within The City of Anaheim, that he would only need to do a change of address on his business license. Since then the City has sent him his license with the new address. Commissioner Boydstun wished to clarify if the only change the applicant is asking for, besides what is already there and what they have business licenses for, is to have an office for rental. Chairperson Arnold clarified that it would be to allow the repairs and painting which has not previously been incorporated into the CUP. He stated he wanted to be sure before final decisions were made that everyone was clear on the landscaping because it does seem that would really help in terms of mitigating the impacts. It would provide a visual buffer between what is happening on the property and the street. • He asked the applicant if he was clear on the landscaping recommendations. 12-03-01 Page 12 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Roof responded not exactly because the photograph from behind the service station looking toward the side of the property and the palm trees couid be seen in the front and are a part of the landscape. He wondered if it meant putting the landscaping in front of the used car display area. Chairperson Arnold responded yes, between where it says Gillette Auto Sales and the palm trees down towards the end. Mr. Roof wished to clarify if the purpose would be to conceal the cars that are being displayed for sale. Chairperson Arnold clarified it is to make it more visually attractive to soften the impact of seeing the cars from the edge of the property. Commissioner Boydstun asked if there were some planters across the asphalt because some of the trees could be put there. Mr. Roof responded there were some planters in the sidewalk area. It depicts in the photograph to the far right, where the walkway goes out to the curb, and within that area are approximately 3 planter boxes that are vacant. Commissioner Boydstun asked what are the ones on the corner at the left hand of the photograph that only pieces could be seen. Mr. Roof responded that it was part of a planter that is also vacant. Commissioner Boydstun stated he could put some of the trees in those and group them so that it would not block the displayed cars but would soften the view. She explained to have asphalt and no trees gave • a sparse appearance. Mr. Roof responded that is a common area, which does not belong to either business owner in their location. He felt Gillette Auto Sales would be pretty disturbed to have the view of their sales items blocked by 13 trees and would object to heavy foliage in front of his display area. Commissioner Koos suggested a two-week continuance until Commission received a proposal from staff on where to put the trees and have the applicant understand the exact location. Commissioner 8ristol asked Mr. Roof if he spent time reading staff's recommendations. Mr. Roof reiterated that this is the first time staff has brought landscaping to their attention. Commissioner Bristol cautioned the main issue is that staff is recommending denial of the CUP, so it would mean Gillette would not have a facility and would not have to worry about the site. It is a very serious matter. Staff is recommending not fo have Gillette, not to have Excel, just your original business. If Commission did go ahead and vote and approve it they are asking for a very short time because they feel the property is too intense, it is not visually aesthetic anywhere, both from height, from the building surrounding you and across the street from Howell. He explained these are things that perhaps they should spend some more time to see if they could correct some of the issues before bringing them back to a Planning Commission Meeting. Mr. Roof asked whom would they work with, Mr. McCafferty responded Kevin Bass would be the planner for this item. He pointed out that when Commission approved Caliber Cohercion part of their approval was due to the fact that they are making a tremendous monetary investmenf in the frontage along Katelia Avenue and staff is ortly asking for 13 ~ trees. Chairperson Arnold stated it really is going to be critical given staff's concern, and the City's overall concern, both in the Planning Commission and the City Council with the Sports Entertainment Overlay 12-03-01 Page 13 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Zone and the businesses going in there, etc. to have a good landscape plan. Commission approved the other facility on the basis that they were investing quite a bit in their landscaping to make it compatible with the surrounding business community. He cautioned that maybe business has not operated in that manner in the last few years, but it is crucial and therefore really important within the next couple of weeks to work this out. Mr. Roof responded they would endeavor to comply. ~ ~ Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, wished to clarify with regards to the business licenses. The business license is a revenue certificate and the face of the license states that it is not a regulatory approval and any certificate being granted is subject to compliance with all zoning laws. It is entirely a revenue raising mechanism for the City, not a regulatory approval. I FOLLOWING 15 A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMM15S1(]N ACTION_ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), to continue the subject request to the December 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order for the owner to meet with Planning Department staff to discuss the location of trees and also have the applicant present at the following public hearing. DISCUSSION TIME: 24 minutes (2:06-2:30) VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick was absent) 12-03-01 Page 14 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES \ J . 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 4b. RECLASS(FICATtON NO. 2001-00061 December 17, 2001 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04455 OWNER: Camino Grande Villas, Attn: Steven Butterfield, 24422 Avenida De La Carlota, Laguna Hills, CA 92633-3636 AGENT: Tetra Tech Wireless, Attn: Lorena Martinez, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770 Southern California Edison, Attn: Robert Teran, 2244 Walnut Grove Avenue, Rosemead, CA 91770 LOCATION: (No address). Property is approximately 16.6 acres located at the northwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Stage Coach Road. Reclassification No. 2001-00061 - To reclassify subject property from RM-3000(SC) (Residential, Multiple-Family - Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the RS-A-43,000(SC) (Residential/Agricultural - Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04455 - To permit a telecommunication antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment. Continued from the November 5, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8159VN.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANN(NG COMMISSiON ACTtON. OPPOSITION: None ACTtON: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Koos abstained and Commissioner Bostwick was absent), to continue the subject request to the December 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting in order to provide staff with coverage maps and a site selection analysis for the telecommunication family. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained and Commissioner Bostwick was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~~ ~~ 12-03-01 Page 15 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMtSSION MiNUTES • ~ 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 11 Continued to 5b. VARIANCE NO. 2001-04461 January 14, 2002 OWNER: Heinz-Crowiey Company, 303 Poppy Avenue, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 AGENT: Plasti-Line West, Attn: Frank Witherington, 1625 Taylor Avenue, Corona, CA 92882 LOCATION: 1231-1251 Auto Center Drive. Property is approximately 6.91 acres focated at the northwest corner of Auto Center Drive and Phoenix Club Drive (Hardin Buick Pontiac GMC). Waiver of (a) maximum number of signs, (b) maximum sign area, (c) minimum distance between freestanding or monument signs, (d) maximum height of freestanding or monument-type signs and (e) maximum sign width, to construct a third sign (one monument existing, one approved and one freestanding sign proposed) for an existing auto dealership on a property with (ess than 600 feet of frontage. Continued from the November 5, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. SR1042CW.DOC VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), to continue the subject request to the January 14, 2002 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner, Dan Acosta, Project Manager, in order to submit revised plans to the Planning Department. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick was absent.) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 12-03-01 Page 16 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. - APPROVEDI Continued to 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4128 January 14, 2002 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04462) OWNER: Yassini Marteza, P. O. Box 2110, Ventura, CA 93002 AGENT: Dan Van Rosen, 700 North Brookhurst, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 600 - 626 North Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 4.8 acres located at the southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Gramercy Avenue. Request for an amendment to a condition of approval to permit the sales of propane in conjunction with a previously-approved gasoline service station. Continued from the November 19, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. SR1041 CW.DOC CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), to continue the subject request to the January 14, 2002 Planning Commission meeting to allow the petitioner, Steve Mahan, President of Merit Propane, additional time to submit revised plans to the Planning Department. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 12-03-01 Page 17 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION. CLASS 1 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04464 OWNER: Jilibridge Corp., 2141 Glendale Galleria #107, Glendale, CA 91210 AGENT: Lee,Lee & Pao. LLC, Attn: Gei-Jon Pao, 1407 North Batavia #201, Orange, CA 92867 LOCATION: 851 South Harbor Boulevard. Property is approximately 1.6 acres with a frontage of 338 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard located 340 feet south of the centerline of South Street. Request to permit a self-serve laundromat. Continued from the November 19, 2001 Planning Commission meeting. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOlUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Continued to January 14, 2002 SR1040CW.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), to continue the subject request to the January 14, 2002 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner, Gei-Jon Pao, in order to allow additional time to submit the sewer study required by the Public Works Department. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 12-03-01 Page 18 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Approved 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04465 Granted, in part OWNER: Santa Ana Canyon Associates, 1300 Quail Street, Unit 106, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: Brian S. Kim, 20202 Village Green Drive, Lakewood, CA 90715 LOCATION: 5642 East La Paima Avenue. Property is approximately 3.2 acres located south of the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway. Request to permit a computer rental and internet access business with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-168 SR1039CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 8 as 5642 East La Palma Avenue, an application from Santa Ana Canyon Associates for computer rental and Internet access business. Mr. McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff is supportive of this use and recommends approval for ~ one year. He states this is a new use in the City of Anaheim and Commission has already approved one in West Anaheim. This will be the first permitted one in East Anaheim and staff wants to make sure they are operating in conformance with the conditions. Amendments to the staff report are as such: paragraph $, two-thirds of the way down where it indicates it require 15 spaces, it should actually be 5 spaces. The last sentence of paragraph 8 should indicate that 373 spaces would be required by Code. The total of the chart on page 4, instead of 375 should be 373 spaces. Paragraph 17 should indicate 5 spaces. Staff recommends Condition No. 10 state, "No window tinting or other view obstructing material, including signs, shall be permitted". Staff made available to Commission and the applicant a copy of e-mail correspondence from the City of Yorba Linda. Applicant's Statement: Brian Kim, 20202 Village Green Drive, Lakewood, CA, compared the hours awarded the property on 3714 West Lincoln Avenue (9-24-01 Planning Commission Meeting) to his present request and hoped to receive similar favor. He requested a permit for 3 years with the hours of operation being 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Monday through Thursday, and Fridays and Saturdays 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. Regarding window tinting he asks consideration because their office is facing west and sunlight hits after 1:00 p.m., therefore he would like to have minim~m window tinting. He points out that next door, Togo's Eatery has window tinting and the business facing their west side has minimum blinds or window tinting. Chairperson Arnold asked the applicant regarding the awareness of the proposed center and the number of children and youth that frequent the site, if he anticipated a significant number of young people using the computers and playing games. He pointed out that the area consists of the Nickel Nickel Five Cent Games Arcade, Togo's Eatery, IN~N~Out Burger, etc. Mr. Kim responded that he believed it due to the Nickel Nickel Five Cent Games but would not base his business on the number of patrons visiting the Nickel Nickel Five Cent Games. He feels his business is • not significant of a lot of people and basically in opportune hours there would probably only be about 20 people. Chairperson Arnofd asked if he believed the patrons using the games would be young people. 12-03-01 Page 19 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISS(ON MINUTES • Mr. Kim responded currently there are approximately 16-30 people because they know how to use the computer plus access the Internet. Chairperson Arnold asked what did he envision as the primary use and what kind of computer acfivity did he anticipate occurring. Would there be people contacting (over the internet) people in other countries in different time zones, people playing games, people doing research and writing papers, etc. Mr. Kim responded all of the above; half computers using the Internet with cameras to talk overseas. He plans to provide everything possible; people that come in for games, people who would want to chat overseas, etc. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked for a comparison of the proposed 68 workstations to the number of printers proposed. He stated the concern centers around the potential to see whether the proposed facility fits more into the definition of an arcade or more of a Kinko's type business use. Mr. Kim responded the computers network together so that one printer serves the needs for all and there would also be one line so that every station could interact one with the other. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if he would say that the envision use is consistent closer to the business described at the September 24, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting or some other business use that may exist already. He stated he has had a chance to see quite a few businesses that are exclusively geared towards gaming. Mr. Kim responded 50/50; it all depends on what kind of customers' come into the store. If patrons are willing to do more interaction overseas then there would be more computers with cameras, if patrons • want to do homework then the appropriate service would be provided for that. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if he was aware of any businesses in Orange County that are 50/50. Mr. Kim responded they are more geared towards gaming, about 80%. Commissioner Bristol asked regarding the parking demand traffic study, which indicates that a great number of young people would walk to the site but the other two Internet sites indicate that approximately 60% would walk or be transported to their site. He asked Mr. Kim if he agreed with that? Mr. Kim responded yes. Commissioner Bristol asked satirically if he actually thought people in that location would walk to the proposed site. Mr. Kim responded because the school is not that far from the freeway it might be possible. Chairperson Arnold asked the applicant if he himself had ever tried to walk to that location across the freeway. Mr. Kim responded that one car could probably transport 4-5 people but he did not know about walking because he never tried it. Commissioner Bristol referred to Mr. McCafferty and directed his attention to the staff report on page 4, where it indicated 373 spaces were required and noted that there were only 355 spaces. Mr. McCafferty responded the center provides a total of 355 spaces. ~ Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify why there was not a waiver. 12-03-01 Page 20 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. McCafferty clarified the reason it is not a waiver is because the use is established by a parking study and if the ratio square footage were calculated to the parking demand approved by the Traffic and Transportation Manager, it would indicate less than 5.5 spaces per thousand which is staff's standard retail requirement. He explained anyone coming in over the counter for a business license for that sort of use would not require a parking waiver. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if he is stating because it is less than 5.5 spaces per thousand feet, for 2300 square feet there should only be 355 spaces. Mr. McCafferty clarified based on the demand reviewed and approved by the Traffic and Transportation Manager he is indicating that it is 5 spaces for that totaf square footage. Commissioner Bristol responded that West Anaheim was approved for 1,704 square feef and 20 spaces for a similar use. Mr. McCafferty responded the Traffic Engineer indicated that since that time they have had the opportunity to review internet businesses operating and the actual demand that is being experienced is what he is recommending in the parking study, which is 5 spaces for the amount of square footage. Commissioner Bristol states 5 spaces for 64-66 workstations do not add up. It seems odd to have only 5 spaces and to say 20 children will walk over to the location and not have any traffic issues. So he asked the applicant where he planned to have the people park their vehicles because with all due respect, if there were only 64-66 stations and 20 patrons, he believed the applicant would not make it. Mr. Kim responded Nickel Nickel Five Cent Games do not use more than 5 spaces. ~ Commissioner Bristol asked but whom do Nickel Nickel Five Cent Games try to attract. Mr. Kim responded the little kids. Commissioner Bristol retorted okay, are you going to be attracting kids at 2:00 a.m. Mr. Kim responded no but most of the stores close before 5:30 p.m. so there would be enough parking space available. Commissioner Bristol asked what would be his peak hours. Mr. Kim responded after 5:30 p.m. when patrons were no longer in school or at work. Commissioner Boydstun stated there is always lots of parking in that area because there are a lot of offices and after 5:30 p.m. they are all closed and she has never been out there, weekends or doing the week when there was not plenty of parking. Commissioner Bristol stated he has a tendency to agree with her because of what has happened in the past but what he is trying to do is set some type of precedent regarding the parking issue, who they are trying to attract and the type of individual who would be there at a specific time. He explained he agrees with Commissioner Boydstun's statement but feels children are going to drive there and not walk, so he disagrees with the traffic study. Chairperson Arnold concurred with Commissioner Boydstun that the parking as it is now has not been a problem but cautions there is the question of how the City plans for this as some of the other spaces fill up. He states the other thing he is concerned about, that does seem to be a real problem, is circulation. It is in part how there is a deep dip from La Palma into the center causing everybody to slow down ~ exceedingly and therefore traffic backs up. Also there is the IN~N~Out Burger where people slowly go through the drive through, drive all the way to the end and back around. He noted there are a lot of teenage drivers who use the site as a hang out place, stopping and visiting with friends and eating at the IN~N~Out Burger, Togo's Eatery or going to visit their friends who are working there or going to the Nickel 12-03-01 Page 21 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Nickel Five Cent Games Arcade. He is concerned if the City is adding to that kind of circulation problem and if they are sending more young people back in there that are going to be, for one perhaps, even taking up parking spaces or creating a long slow drive into the facility. He feels the reason the number of cars is fewer is because the patrons are all coming together and that creates a problem of hanging out, becoming more of a congregation of youth than a business facility. Mr. McCafferty responded definitely there is congestion there for all the reasons mentioned above and due to a single point of access on La Palma and just mixing all the uses together makes accessing in and out difficult. He explained that although this is a use recommended to have a parking demand less than its standard retail requirement, it would not be any different from any other 5.5 per thousand use that might go in there, for example a nail or a hair salon that would have similar trip characteristics; people arriving for appointments and so forth. Chairperson Arnold asked if it were possible there might be different traffic patterns if there were busy people going to a destination for an appointment and then leaving. Mr. McCafferty responded that is correct because obviously with the Internet business it is going to be a random choice that a person would make, not a fixed time. Chairperson Arnold referred to Mr. Yalda and explained there are two different sets of questions going on; one related to parking and the other concerns circulation; with teenage drivers and stacking up and hanging out and going slowly and tying up the lanes. Commissioner 8ristol explained he wants to make sure there is a lot of discussion on this type proposal so when the next internet center is proposed everything is documented on paper because he disagrees with the traffic study that children or anyone would walk to this site. He believes they are either going to • be dropped off or they are going to drive. He states there may be a 16-year old that is going to have a car and drive his friends and cause a lot of people to congregate, which is alright as long as it is done before 10:00 p.m., and then another group of people will come in. Alfred Yalda, Public Works Principal Transportation Planner, concurred with Commissioners Bristol and Arnold and stated because the site is integrated Traffic & Transportation looked at the entire site to see the total number of parking spaces available. Based on the study and field observation over 300 parking spaces were available. The highest number picked for the study was on Saturday, approximately 155 cars. That indicates sufficient parking even though the parking study calls for 5. The parking study looked at two other sites not in the City of Anaheim because the other project was not available at the time and that was the indicated demand. Regarding circulation, it is fairly good most of the time except during the peak hour lunch and that is due to a lot of people rushing into IN~N~Out Burger. He feels a combination of Imperial Highway and La Palma Avenue not having enough time and some differentiation in the grade (which causes you to slow down when entering) creates backing up of traffic, but overall the site moves pretty well and have not brought many complaints except occasionally for lunchtime. Chairperson Arnold stated traffic seems to backup with teenager drivers, people who are there for movies, IN~N~Out Burger, Togo's Eatery, and Nickel Nickel Five Cent Games, etc. and people start doing crazy things such as turning around where they are not supposed to. Mr. Yalda stated Imperial Highway and La Palma Avenue has been approved for critical intersection and all construction plans are ready to go. However, there is a problem with one corner, an environmental issue with the gas station and as soon as they take care of that that whole intersection is going to undergo construction and they are hoping that the levels of service will change drastically. Once that • happens all the signals updated at Imperial run by CalTrans will be coordinated with Traffic & Transportation because if there is a better synchronization of traffic the traffic moves better. Hopefully that will take care of some of the problems regarding driving and the slow difference between the street and the side. 12-03-01 Page 22 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES t Commissioner Vanderbilt stated based on Mr. Yalda's statement, if there is ample parking available and Commissioner Bristol is suggesting 5 spaces are not adequate then why not just simply require parking for this use. Mr. Yalda responded there is not a sample anywhere in the City of Anaheim, this is very new. There are only a couple of cities known that have required spaces but they are very new also, otherwise there would be a better sense on this demand but the conclusion is that the site has adequate parking for this use. Commissioner Vanderbilt concurred but feels it important to set required parking at 13 parking spaces so that when the next use comes in there would be justification because if there is a parking issue with an applicant for a vacant spot then at least there is a little installation when they say, "you just said they only needed 5 parking spaces so it makes sense for us too, and you have 10 spaces for 136 workstations". Mr. Yalda responded Traffic & Transportation always verifies their information and that is the option they have but if Commission wishes to change their determination, that is fine but they do not have any conclusive data that tells if there is a 10, 5 or 20 space requirement. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Arnold states the uses are legitimate and there will be a lot more of them over the next number of years. It is going to be a mix and not all of them will turn into a totally computer gaming facility. There are a whole variety of ways in which they are going to attract a variety of different kinds of customers. His concern is about the synergy of uses on this particular site; there are a number of youth oriented uses on this site and it already serves as a place for teenagers to hang out and this only exacerbates the problem. By adding this particular facility there will be an exponential increase in that • kind of activity because there is going to be a place for teenagers to go and play the computer games, etc. Therefore he has some reservations and feel there may be some problems with it in the future. On the other hand, making good productive use of these facilities makes a lot of sense but supports only a 1 year permit because this one needs to be monitored. Commissioner Koos asked staff since, Garden Grove tends to have a lot of these and they are probably not the only city that has more than one or two, has there been any indication from the City of Garden Grove that the ones that they have are causing police calls for service or problems in the community. Charity Wagner, Planning Assistant Planner, responded no. Commissioner Koos wished to know if they have had them for in excess of a year. Charity Wagner believes the flourish of them just recently came this year; possibly 18-20. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify if staff was saying they did not have police activity. Ms. Wagner responded they do not cause extra calls of service in the Police Department but have the potential for noise and loitering. They have concerns for the growing number in certain areas. Commissioner Koos stated he did not see a major concern of locating the facility at the proposed site. He concurs with Commissioner Bristol in terms of the numbers on the traffic and understands what Commissioner Boydstun and Mr. Yalda said regarding the center having a surplus of spaces. However he would not want anyone to believe that 5 spaces were enough, but if it was in the center like a mini market or something it would be hard to swallow because the one on Lemon Street had every computer station filled and mosf of the 18 year old guys were not walking there. The nearest housing is way too far for the average person to walk. He stated those concerns did not cause him to not want to grant this ~ approval without any evidence of the aforementioned being a problem. There is only one in Anaheim and it will take some time to figure them out, that is true. 12-03-01 Page 23 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ In regard to the applicanYs request on the 3 conditions of approval he feels he would have a hard time not justifying 3 years enlight of Commission's grant of approval fo the one in West Anaheim. Although he doesn't believe one of the major uses was talking to people over seas. He voted with the full understanding that it is probably gaming 95% of the time. So he is not sure where the difference is here and also because the proposed site is probably one of the better crime rate census tracts or reporting districts in the City of Anaheim. Along the same lines the hours of operation, the only concern he has with the applicant's request is window tinting. Since not having glare seems to be the main concern, he asked the applicant if there was a way for him to face the monitors away from the glass and if that would solve the problem. Mr. Kim responded no, when there is direct sunlight it would be very hard to adjust the monitors because one way or the other you are going to have gfare prob(ems. Commissioner Koos asked the speaker to state his name and address for the records. The speaker responded my first name is Chung and my last name is Kim. Commissioner Koos wished to clarify that Mr. Chung Kim had the same address as Mr. Brian Kim. Mr. Kim responded yes. Commissioner Koos asked if the monitors were not facing the window but the backs of the monitors were towards the window why would it be necessary to have extreme darkness. Mr. Kim responded it is not so much darkness they are looking for, it is the direct sunlight they want to avoid not to mention the heat during the summer. ~ Commissioner Koos referred to staff and asked since Mr. Kim mentioned Togo's Eatery has tinting, is there a certain level of tinting that is permitted by Code on just the average w+ndows to reduce glare on any business. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated he did not believe there was anything in the City Code, it has been by conditions of approval. Commissioner Bristol stated he did not think the applicanYs requests were unreasonable and it is unlikely Code Enforcement would raid an Internet place during the day and at night it would be so that you can see through it if it is tinted. Commissioner Eastman concurred tinting will not prevent you from seeing in the evening when the lights are on. Mr. Hastings suggested Commission might want to indicate that it is the type of tinting where one could look in at night because there are types where you can't see in day or night. Commissioner Vanderbilt referred to Mr. Kim and stated the business in West Anaheim faces west and in that particular case Commission was insistent that the visibility not be obstructed in anyway in terms of signage or tinting and they were agreeable. Mr. Kim responded that the previous applicant's store is facing east. Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if it were not next to the police station. Mr. Kim responded yes. • Commissioner Vanderbilt clarified fhat the police station faces west. 12-03-01 Page 24 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNJNG COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. McCafferty stated the tenanYs space faces east because it is diagonally across from the police substation. Mr. Hastings clarified that it is a separate building from the police substation, it is a satellite building in the parking lot. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated that when he raised the question it was before Mr. Hastings mentioned the requirement that tinting should be a certain grade, which would not prevent visibility at nighttime. Which is probably the situation is at the gaming location on Lemon where it is completely pitched dark and regardless the time of day you cannot see inside. He believes they used pfywood that is painfed black to block visibility. Mr. McCafferty stated there was no condition of approval in the one in West Anaheim prohibiting window tinting but there are conditions to ensure that we could see the activities inside. Commissioner Vanderbilt stated given that, I think the rationale here is just that visibility is permitted at least in the evening and so maybe that is the condition that Commission needs to steer towards; one that has tinting of a certain grade that is not so dark that you can't see in at nighttime. He asked Mr. Kim at night would the computer screens have regular lighting or would there just be illuminating computer screens. Mr. Kim responded they would have adequate lighting because they do not want anyone to trip. Commissioner Vanderbift wished to clarify that it would not sacrifice the ability to see the screens. Mr. Kim responded there is a difference between indirect sunlight and direct sunlight, direct sunlight ~ makes it very hard to view the screen. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated she was somewhat concerned at some of the discussion because one conditional use permit has been approved for a particular type of use with certain conditions, that there seems to be an entitlement for a similar request for a similar type of use to be approved again subject to the same conditions. She knows P(anning Commission is aware of this but just to be sure that it becomes public record that the reasons there are conditional use permits is so they can be approved subject to conditions that reflect the unique circumstances of a particular use and that circumstance may deal with some of the factors that have been identified here where one is near a police substation. Another one has a very high percentage of juvenife users in the center that may very well justify totally different conditions or even denial of one while there is approval of another. There certainly is no vesting of another type of use coming in and requesting that that is the purpose of having a conditional use permit process in the first place. Why it is so important in situations like a parking waiver that there is discussion in the staff report whether something like approval of 5 spaces for a use that indicates it is only approved for 5 spaces on the basis that there are over 300 spaces in a situation where there is a maximum observed need for 155 and that it is only under these circumstances so that we don't have the next use as was pointed out coming in and saying, "but you approved the last one with only 5". Commissioner Eastman asked the applicant if he wished to be open until 4:00 a.m. a couple of nights a week, it is a big difference between the recommendation from staff. She indicated 4:00 a.m. seems kind of late and asked staff and Commission for their input. Mr. McCafferty responded staff patterned their recommendation of the hours based on their recommendations for the one in West Anaheim in terms of the hours. He believes the applicant is asking for the exact schedule Commission gave the one in West Anaheim, which is Sunday through Thursday 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday from 10:00 a.m, to 4:00 a.m. ~ Commissioner Eastman wished to clarify that this one is somewhat different because stafF recommended 10:00 a.m. to midnight daily so she wanted to know staff's reasoning on this, if it was in fact the difference in the make up of this center or exactly what the thinking is. 12-03-01 Page 25 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMlSSlON MINUTES . Commissioner Koos responded that it was consistent with the original recommendation of West Anaheim, which Commission gave them more time on. Chairperson Arnold stated he would like to vote for this because it is a reasonable use but he is concerned about the synergies and would like to vote for it only if it has a one year time limit because if it were 3 years or longer there could be a lot of problems. The other changes are reasonable but this is a different site than the West Anaheim site and needs a little more scrutiny and maybe after a year of good record, 3 years would be possible. During the Action: Commissioner Vanderbilt asked enlight of the hour expansion, just referring to the letter of operation about the number of employees, he wondered if staff could remind him if there was any minimal number of staffing that was asked for of the previous internet cafe discussed. Chairperson Arnold responded it was taken out because they felt like it would be variable over the day and they would have enough because they care about their machines and so forth and they would have enough when their peak demands were but Commission could not really anticipate that. Commissioner Koos stated he supports the project but not the 1-year limitation because he could not see what the problem would be on this site. He pointed out they were instructed by the City Attorney that there obviously is no precedence setting value of the conditional use permits, and he was not saying that either, but I cannot see that this project is going to be anymore problematic than the other one. Commissioner 8oydstun stated she would be more comfortable giving them 2 years. ~ Commissioner Bristol clarified the reason Commission gave 3 years before is because a lot of money was put into the business and therefore Commission felt comfortable. He stated he does not have any problem with 3 years but 2 years is fine. Commissioner 8oydstun asked if Commissioners would be comfortable with 2 years. Commissioner Eastman stated she did not have a problem with 3 years. Chairperson Arnold stated he would not be comfortable with 2 years and would vote against anything more than a year. Commissioner Bristol stated the compromise would be 2 years. Commissioner Boydstun stated it is hard to get a business started and going in a year to the point of knowing what the capacity would be. She suggested 2 years. ~~l ~~~~4~1 h[t~ F•'~_E.'1U 1411-I /_1:~ L~l i 1:1 a ~~9-1-1 h[KK~] P11141 F•'f•'i [~l- /_[y ~[~l- OPPOSITION: None CORRESPONDENCE: An e-mail was received on November 27, 2001 from the City of Yorba Linda inquiring about the project. The e-mail was provided to the Commission and applicant at today's meeting. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning ~ Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. 12-03-01 Page 26 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSlON MINUTES ~ Denied Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces as it is no longer neCessary. (Vote: 5-1, Commissioner Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioner Bostwick was absent) Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04465 for two (2) years subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated December 3, 2001 with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 10 to read as follows: That the subject use permit shall expire in two (2) years from the date of this resolution. 2. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 10 a.m. to 2 a.m., Sunday through Thursday; and 10 a.m. to 4 a.m., Friday and Saturday. 10. That window tinting may be permitted only to the extent it does not obstruct visibility into the tenant space, and that no other view-obstructing material including window signs shall be permitted. VOTE: 4-2 (Commissioner Arnold and Vanderbilt voted no; Commissioner Bostwick was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. • DISCUSSION TIME: 54 minutes (2:31-3:25) • 12-03-01 Page 27 bECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMtSSfON MINt1TES • 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, CLASS 1 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N~. 2001-04467 Approved Approved Granted OWNER: Anaheim Interfaith Shelter, P. O. Box 528, Anaheim, CA 92815 AGENT: Anaheim Interfaith Shelter, Attn: Cindy Floriani, P. O. Box 528, Anaheim, CA 92815 LOCATION: 624 North Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.17-acre with a frontage of 54 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, located 90 feet south of the centerline of Wilhelmina Street. Request to permit an extended hours pre-school and infant care facility for up to 32 children with waiver of minimum number of required parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-169 ~ SR8163VN.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 9 as 624 North Anaheim Boulevard which is a pre-school and infant care facility. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner, informed staff is recommending approval of Item No. 9 with recommended changes to the conditions of approval. Condition No. 6, to read: That a minimum of 5 on- site (including 1 handicapped parking space) parking spaces in conformance with the minimum dimensions for perpendicular parking stalls shall be shown on plans submitted to the Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval and provided on-site at all times. That Condition No. 9 be deleted. That we add to Condition No. 15, Condition No. 6 to that timing. That we add some additional conditions as follows: that the fabric awnings shall be maintained in a like new condition; that a 6-foot high block wall shall be constructed and maintained along the south property line to be even with the front building line and that the building shafl be maintained in conformance with the design guidelines in the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan dated 1999. With regard to the parking waiver, and additional condition that says that the granting of the parking waiver is contingent upon operation of the use in conformance with the assumptions and/or conclusions relating to the operation and intensity of use as contained in the parking demand study that formed a basis for approval of said waiver. Exceeding, violating or intensifying or otherwise deviating from any said assumptions and/or concfusions as contained in the parking demand study shall be deemed a violation of the expressed conditions imposed upon said waiver of which shall subject this permit to termination or modifications to the provisions of Sections 18.03.091 and 18.03.092 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. ApplicanYs Statement: Cindy Floriani, of Anaheim Interfaith Shelter, P.O. Box 528 Anaheim, CA, stated they are really excited to be at this point before the Commission with their proposed childcare facility and know staff has done a great job presenting it to the Commission, so she was present to answer any questions. Bob Renzo, 114 E. Wilhelmina Street, Anaheim, CA, stated he is basically 100% in favor of everything ~ with a few reservations that he wished to have addressed for his family. The alley that runs northsouth from Wilhelmina Street to Alberta Street run right along side their house, it is on the west side of their house which would be the east end of the property where the daycare would be, their bedrooms are on the alley side. So his concern is with parking: (1 } the church has created a parking situation that is almost 12-03-01 Page 28 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ intolerable by parking in the alley on a daily basis and in the evenings and they seem to get no resolution. The automobile repair shop across the street, there is a similar situation and with Hope House also around the corner parking on Wilhelmina Street in front of the houses, they rarely have an opportunity to park in front of their house unless it is at 4:00 a.m. The gate that runs along the back of the property is a sliding gate that allows opening and enfering info the property for parking. (The applicant indicated to Cindy regarding the opening and entering gate: "!t is going - okay - because that creates a lot of noise when it is opened and closed - so that problem is resolved".) The other concern is with children being dropped off and picked up and the hours that they are going to come and go, and the noise that may be created. He stated after 8:00 p.m. it would be nice it the front door on the Anaheim Boulevard side would be used. He is also slightly concerned about children making noise as they are playing early in the mornings because on rare occasions he and his wife may sleep late when they are not working during the weekends. The windows of their three bedrooms face the subject property. He stated Cindy is willing to work that out and the HALCYON has been more than a great neighbor for the City and it is a wonderful project. He offered to work on it for free. ApplicanYs Response: Cindy Floriani stated the staff they hire would be sensitive to Mr. Renzo's issues and would work with him. She cautioned children would make noise, that is a given but they would try to keep them inside early in the mornings and late in the evenings, especially since that is not a time they would be out anyway. Commissioner Vanderbift referred to the letters from the applicant with regard to parking issues and appreciates the fact that they have made arrangements with the neighboring business to park across the street. He stated it seemed that would automatically be necessary because if there were only 4 parking spaces and 1 handicap parking space for 4 empfoyees unless one of the employees is abfe to use a handicapped parking space there would not be a parking space for drop-offs and pickups. So he asked if ~ the intent is to automatically take advantage of the parking offered across the street. Ms. Floriani responded yes they intend to take advantage of the offer, but would not have 4 staff members there from 6:00 a.m. until midnight. She explained that as the children filter in and depart, t would adjust their staff accordingly, and only at prime time would they have 4 employees; not early in morning and not (ate at night. She feels the eariy morning people would probably park onsite and the mid-day people would be asked to park across the street so there would be one empty space for drop and pickup. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if the applicant was aware of the conditional changes made by staff and if she had any concerns. hey the -off Ms. Floriani responded no. Chairperson Arnold stated that one of the challenges Commission has seen with childcare and daycare type of facilities is indeed the parking. He cautioned the critical point in this issue is all of the facts surrounding this particular operation and how very few of the people using this facility are going to drive. That is why staff read the condition into the parking waiver because sometimes a facility starts out in one direction and then gradually moves to having more and more children, more and more traffic, more and more drop-off, etc. He wanted to be sure Ms. Floriani was aware of the condition of the waiver and that the facility operated in that manner. Commissioner Eastman called the applicant's attention to the neighbor's request for use of the front door because submitted photos indicated it was a fire exit only. She asked if that is a reasonable thing to accommodate the neighbors on because late evening pickups, etc. would create a disturbance after 10:00 p.m. ~ Ms. Floriani responded the reality of it is they are not going to use the front door. They want to keep that door locked for the safety of the children. She stated they did not want unaufhorized peop(e coming in so there would only be one door locked from the inside and a staff member would have to let people in and out. She explained an alternative would be to have customers come around the front of the building to 12-03-01 Page 29 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • the back door rather than coming through the alley, but would rather not open the front door because it would be one more avenue for some unauthorized person to come into the facility. Commissioner Eastman wished to clarify that there is access for people to walk around the building to get to the backdoor. Ms. Floriani responded correct, there is a walkway all the way down the property on the northside. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol stated it is a great use. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION; None FAVOR: One person spoke in favor of the subject request but relayed some concerns and suggestions pertaining to parking and potential noise created by children. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRiED (Commissioner Boydstun abstained and Commissioner Bostwick was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1 (Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. + Approved Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to minimum number of parking spaces based upon the recommendation for approval by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager, and based on the findings as stated in the staff report dated December 3, 2001. (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner Boydstun abstained and Commissioner Bostwick was absent) Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04467 subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated December 3, 2001 with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 6 and 15 to read as follows: 6. That a minimum of 5 on-site (including 1 handicapped parking space) parking spaces in conformance with the minimum dimensions for perpendicular parking stalls shall be shown on submitted plans to the Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval, and provided on-site at all times. 15. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution Condition Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 12 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. Deleted Condition No. 9 Added the following conditions of approval to read as follows: • That the fabric awnings shall be maintained in a"like new" condition. That a 6 foot high concrete block wall shall be constructed and maintained along the south property line even with the front setback building line. 12-03-01 Page 30 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANN(NG COMMISSION MtNUTES ~ That the building shall be maintained in conformance with the design guidelines contained in the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan dated 1999. That the granting of the parking waiver is contingent upon operation of the use in conformance with the assumptions and/or conclusions relating to the operation and intensity of use as contained in the parking demand study that formed the basis for approval of said waiver. Exceeding, violating, intensifying or otherwise deviating from any of said assumptions and/or conclusions, as contained in the parking demand study, shall be deemed a violation of the expressed conditions imposed upon said waiver which shall subject this permit to termination or modi~cation pursuant to the provisions of Sections 48.03.091 and 18.03.092 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Boydstun abstained and Commissioner Bostwick was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 14 minutes (3:26-3:40) ~ ~ 12-03-01 Page 31 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) Approved 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4035 Approved reinstatement (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04471) for 3 years (to expire on December 5, 2004) OWNER: Alex Bahrami, 24895 Stonegate Lane, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 AGENT: Jay Dee Alabastro, 331 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 329-331 North State College Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.37-acre with a frontage of 158 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard located 150 feet south of the centerline of Redwood Avenue (Kris Kars). Requests reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on December 5, 2000 to expire on December 5, 2001) to retain an existing automotive sales lot with a maximum of five (5) display vehicles. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2007-170 SR8162KB.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 10 as 329-331 North State College Boulevard, Kris Kars. ~ Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends Commission reinstate the permit for a period of 1 year and also amend Condition No. 1, page 4 to say, "The subject use shall expire on becember 5, 2002". Applicant's Statement: Alex Bahrami, 329-331 North State College Boul~vard, owner of the property, stated they were present for reinstatement of the CUP and asked for deletion of the time limitation. He discussed it with Kevin Bass, Planner, and was told it was not acceptable because of historical violations. He wished fo cfarify that last year they were present about the same time for renewal and Planning Commission denied it and he believes it was because of the misunderstanding between Code Enforcement and conditions City Council originally put on the property. He explained, for example, Code Enforcement alfowed them 5 cars for display and there were 8 cars. However an appeal to the City Council proved there were only 5 cars for display and the other 3 cars belonged to neighboring businesses (for example; an employee of the carpet pface, etc.j. Also City Council made it very clear they did not want any banners or balloons on the cars. They received a citation for having Buyer's Guides on the cars, which was a requirement of the state and is not a banner. He admitted there has been mistakes due to the hiring of unprofessional employees, which made things difficult for them and made the City hesitant to trust the operation. Therefore he asks if there are no further complaints from neighbors that Commission consider more than a 1-year time limitation. Mr. Bahrami explained that his tenant is paying for the hearing which costs him between $700-$20Q0 a year and because he is a one man operation and a very small business which operates probably 3 to 4 hours a day (the rest of the time he has to run errands) that it becomes a large sum of money for him. Chairperson Arnold referred to staff and stated it was mentioned in the morning's meeting that the applicant has not had any more problems and that they have been in compliance. ~ Mr. McCafferty responded for this last reinstatement period they have been in compliance. However, Code Enforcement did indicate there has been 3 citizen complaints of people parking vehicles for sale on the street next to the proposed property but Code Enforcement has not been able to tie it to this use. 12-03-01 Page 32 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ Commissioner Eastman stated she also observed a car with a"for sale" sign on it upon her recent visit to the site. Mr. Bahrami explained people take advantage and park cars "for sale" on their property and as a result get their potential customers. He states he usually ca!!s the number on the car and ask them to remove their vehicle because they sell cars as a business and do not desire to deal with the unauthorized competitors. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos stated he voted to deny this project on two occasions and the first time it was approved by Commission. The second time Planning Commission voted to deny and was overwritten by City Council. This year given the fact that they have not had any problems, and at this hearing as well as the previous hearing there was no one to speak in opposition of the project, he would then support the reinstatement for 3 years. Commissioner Bristol stated he also voted no on this project on two occasions because from a land use standpoint he does not think this is the right area for it, it is a little strip commercial center and people are taking advantage of it and parking in the street. On the other hand because the applicant has pretty much complied with conditions and to be consistent with the precedent City Council has set, he did not feel it appropriate to deny the project. During the action: Commissioner Vanderbilt wished to get clarification in regards to automobile storage versus display, in that Code prohibits storage of vehicles overnight. Mr. McCafferty responded in commercial zones outdoor storage is not permitted. I think in the past the limitation on the number of displayed vehicles have been determined to be vehicle sales display and not outdoor storage. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, clarified Code has provisions for automobile sales lots. So it is exempted from outdoor storage if it is part of the CUP. ~ ~ 1 - ! 11 I I ! : • . ! - - - • I I 11 • - ! • - OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4035 (Tracking No. CUP 2001- 04471) for three years (to expire on December 5, 2004) to retain an existing automotive sales lot with a maximum of five (5) display vehicles based on the findings as listed in the staff report dated December 3, 2001. Incorporated conditions of approval contained in 2000R-252 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition No. 1 was modified at today's meeting): • 1. That subject use permit shall expire on December 5, 2004. 2. That the on-site landscaping shall be in conformance with the plans on file, which were approved by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations 12-03-01 Page 33 DECEMBER,3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • item. Landscaping shall include a minimum of seven (7) minimum 15-gallon trees planted adjacent to State College Boulevard. 3. That no on-site maintenance of automobiles or trucks, including cleaning and detailing, or storage of vehicle lubricants or vehicle parts, shail be permitted. 4. That a valid business license shall be maintained with the City of Anaheim, Business License Division of the Finance Department. 5. That minimum 1-gallon size fast-growing clinging vines shall be maintained on maximum three-foot centers adjacent to the southern and western property line masonry walls. 6. That a maximum of one (1) vehicle may be displayed inside of the showroom. 7. That the outdoor display of vehicles shall be limited to five (5) vehicles. Said vehicles shall be displayed in the parking area along the southern property line, only in the area specifically identified for said display on Exhibit No. 1. No price signs or other advertising shall be placed on or around these five (5) vehicles, with the exception of information required by the State Division of Motor Vehicles. 8. That there shall be no vehicles displayed in any landscaped areas. 9. That flags, banners, pennants, balloons, and other outdoor displays shall not be permitted in conjunction with the business authorized by this conditional use permit. ~ 10. That window signs shall not be permitted. 11. That the business hours sha(( be limited to 10 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily. 12. That this property shall be maintained in conformance with plans previously submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager showing conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601, and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. No overhang of parked vehicles into landscape areas shall be permitted. 13. That the existing wafl sign shail not be altered unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. 14. That no outdoor speakers or amplified sound system shall be permitted in conjunction wifh fhe operation of this business. 15. That subject property shall be maintained 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 No. 1, and as conditioned herein. 16. That the subject business shall be subject to monthly inspections by the City's Code Enforcement Division during the entire duration of the business. That the costs of such inspecfions (not to exceed the cost of one inspection per month) shall be borne by the business owner and paid to the Code Enforcement Division in an amount established by the Code Enforcement Division of the Planning Department. The purpose of the inspection shall be to determine compliance with conditions of approval. Payment of said fee shall be made within ten (10) days following receipt of • an invoice. 17. 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 12-03-01 Page 34 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ appiicable 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. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (3:41-3:53) ~ ~ 12-03-01 Page 35 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 11a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVED) 11b. CONDITIONQL USE PERMIT NO. 3532 (TRACKING NO. CUP 2001-04472): OWNER: Sunbelt Corporate Center, C/O Sunbelt Management Company, 220 Congress Park Drive, Suite 215, Delray Beach, FL 33445 AGENT: Three Brothers III. Inc., Attn: Steve Silverstein, 2036 North Tustin Street, Orange, CA 92865 LOCATION: 5570-5572 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately 10.63 acres located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial Highway, Request to expand a previousiy-approved semi-enclosed restaurant with beer and wine sales for on-premises consumption and an amusement arcade. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2001-171 Approved Approved expansion SR1038CW.DOC Chairperson Arnold introduced Item No. 11 as 5570-5572 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Zito's Pizza. ~ Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, informed staff recommends Commission approve this request. The changes to the staff report are as follows: Page 1, paragraph 4, under the surrounding land uses, across Imperial Highway should only be commercial office and the Canyon High School; there should not be retail on that side. Paragraph 5, Subparagraph D, the address should be 5572 not 5626. With regard to Condition No. 1-I, staffwished to add an additional sentence that says, "Said information shall be shown on plans submitted for Police Department, Community Services, a division approval", and that same sentence should also apply to Condition 1-m. Amend Condition No. 2 to say, "Said information shall be shown on plans submitted for Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division of Approval". In Condition No. 9, strike Condition Nos. 1-h and 1-i. In Condition No. 10, add Condition No. 1-h. Delete Condition Nos. 11 and 12. ApplicanYs Statement: Steve Silverstein, 5572 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim Hills, President of Three Brothers, d.b.a., Zito's Pizza, stated staff has done a great job in the report. He informed he has four other locations, one in Anaheim, and three in Orange. He referred to page 7, Item G, the comment made about live entertainment and stated they are a pizza business and do not have live entertainment but would like to be able to kick off the proposed location with entertainment. Chairperson Arnold wished to clarify with staff if it would be a special events permit. Mr. McCafferty responded they could apply for a special event permit for the grand opening in accordance with the Municipal Code requirements. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Arnold stated he has a concern with Item 1-h. He noted that staff mentioned in the morning session that the police recommended it, but suggested Commission take it out due to the aesthetic impact on that center as a whole. 12-03-01 Page 36 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved Negative Declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved expansion for Conditional Use Permit No. 3532 (Tracking No. CUP 2001-04472) to expand a previously-approved semi-enclosed restaurant with beer and wine sales for on-premises consumption and an amusement arcade subject to the conditions of approval as stated '+n the staff report dated December 3, 2001 with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 1 I, 1 m, 2 and 9 to read as follows: 11. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shaJ! be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby residences. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for review and approval by the Police Department, Community Services Division. ~ 1 m. That the outdoor dining area shall be completely enclosed by fencing or other such permanent structure as approved by the City, at least forty (40) inches in height, into which entry is only possible from the interior of the business. Emergency exits required by the Uniform Fire Code shall be maintained, but not utilized by patrons/employees other than in an emergency. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for review and approval by the Police Department, Community Services Division. 2. That trash storage areas shall be refurbished to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division to comply with approved plans on file with said Department. Said information shall be specifically shown on pfans submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. 9. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or 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. 11, 1 m, 2, 3 and 7, 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. Deleted Condition Nos. 1 h, 11 and 12. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (3:54-4:00) 12-03-01 Page 37 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 12a. CEQA NEGAT(VE DECLARA710N Continued to 12b. AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE ANAHEIM HILLS FESTIVAL SPECIFIC December 17, 2001 PLAN (SP90-1) (TRACKING NO. SPN 2001-00018) OWNER: State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, Attn: Karen Finke, 8020 East Santa Ana Canyon Road, Anaheim, CA 92808 AGENT: Coast Sign, Attn: Don Poole, 1345 South Aliec Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 8182 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately 85 acres located at the southwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Roosevelt Road (Anaheim Hills Festival Shopping Center). Request to amend the sign criteria contained in the Festival Specific Plan (SP 90-1) to allow additional wall signage for in-line tenants that rear onto Santa Ana Canyon Road (one wall sign per tenant permitted; two wall signs proposed). SR8160VN.DOC SPECIF(C PLAN RESOLUTION NO. ~ • • ~ ~- • ~ ~ • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), to continue the subject request to the December 17, 2001 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner, Agustin Pinzon, in order to finalize plans. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 12-03-01 Page 38 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 13a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION CLASS 1 Continued to 13b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04469 January 14, 2002 OWNER: Thrifty Oil Company C/O Arco Products, P. O. Box 512485, Los Angeles, CA 90051 AGENT: Sager Associates, Attn: Jonathan Sagherian, 109 East Harvard, Suite 306, Glendale, CA 91205 LOCATION: 1881 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 0.43- acre located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Nutwood Street (Shatilla Bakery). Request to permit the conversion of a vacant service station to a full service bakery with a 793 square foot addition. SR8158AN.DOC CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None ~ ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Bostwick was absent), to continue the subject request to the January 14, 2002, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to submit revised plans for landscaping, signage and design of the proposed addition for review by the Planning Department. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bostwick was absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 12-03-01 Page 39 DECEMBER 3, 2001 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~', MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:03 P.M. TO MONDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2001 AT I 10:30 A.M. FOR AN UPDATE FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~'~ DEPARTMENT ON CALTRANS REMNANT FREEWAY PARCELS AND FOR ' PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. ~ ~ Respectfully submitted: ~ ~~ Pat Cha er Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2001. 12-03-01 Page 40