Loading...
Minutes-PC 2002/12/02i ~~ ~ CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~E~ `E ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ `, EE F I E€R~Y , `~' •--s+- ~'~x ~~ ~5', " COMMISSIONERS ABSENT, ; N~I~E,~ ~ ,~ ~, ~ ~ ~ n'-~-~_~s .~ ~5~4 ~ ~f~ us~' STAFF PRESENT: ~ ' "~ ~ ' ~~' Selma Mann, Assistant !~ify A#torrte~ `~'" Jonathan Bo ego; f~ri~'ci~a~ Planner ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Greg Hastings, Zonmg~ivis~c~n~l~fan~~ger Cheryl Flores, ~Se~i~r ~nn~r ~= Greg McCafferty, Prmcipal Planner~ ' Elly Morris, Senio~Se~'r~#ary~~ ~~ Linda Johnson, Princ~pal Rlar~r~~r ~~~~ ..,.; p DanieAe Masciel, ~or~ Processing~Operator ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~` ~ ~~~~ .~ ~ ~E ~ t $ ~ ~~ ~ .~ ~,~„ [~°" ~~ ~~ _ . Y u, ~~ ,~,.~.~ ~ g ~ ~ "~ ~ E ;:. MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2002 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAI RPEf~SQN~~RAUI~ .~,(~STWICK COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PHYl~L .~BO"~CpS~"U~I, S~F~'HEN BRISTOL, GAIL EASTMAN, .lOHN~C~~ ~A~ID~ROM~Rd :1AMES VANDERBILT AGENDA POSTING~ ~A ~ample~~ t~opy~qf„~h~~lanning ~ommr~~~n ~`c~e~ ~nras~o d';at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, November~26; 2~O~~nsi~1~ th~=daS~~ay cas~.loCatec~~i~t~e ~oye~ o~~e ~ounal Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ Y§ €€ ~ ~ - 4 = 4- ~ ~ ~§ s , ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ :. E ~°`~,~~''/ ~ , .~ PUBLISHED: Anaherm B Ile~in~~lewspap~r or~"fhctrs~f~~x ~lover~ber 7, ~002 ~- ;E~ ; ~~ ~ ~ fE: ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~ ,. ~~~. ~ ~ ,~,~~ ~,,,.~~.,~ ~ ~ 7,~ ..:= CALL TO ORDER ~~ ~ ` ~ ~~ ~-~ ~~~~~~ gW, t ~ ~ € ~ - ~.~~~; ~ ~ ~. / ";. ~ PLANNING 'G~OMM~SSI~I~~VIORNING~ESSION ~ ~':0 ,M - ? . ~ ~~ STAFF UP1~~T~E T~E~~CC~I~ltMI~SI~~I OF~~VAR ., ~l)'' I~ ~, ,, ~ DEVELOPM~~i~TS~Afil~1~SUES ~Aa R~~`~E E Y~ ~ ~. PLANNING COMM,I, ~d~l ~~ ~z E ~ ~ ~~ • PRELIMINARY PLA~VI~~V F~R 1TEM~ Qf~TH~``DECEMBER 2, 2002 AGENDA ~, ._.~.m~__.. ,,.,. ~ ~~_.,~ ~~u. RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Eastman PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT H:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MINUTESWC120202.DOC lannin commission anaheim.net DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Ptanning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. Public Testimony: Sanford Opperman, 3200 Palm Dr., Fullerton, CA, states he owns the property at 419 and 421 N. Claudina St., Anaheim, CA, and wishes to express his opposifion to Conditional Use Permit No. 2002- 04614. Chairperson Bostwick informed it is Item No. 4 on the Agenda and a request for continuation had been made for January 13, 2003. He extended an opportunity for the speaker to come back on January 13 or to present a testimony when the item was recognized in the current meeting. Mr. Opperman preferred to give his testimony in the current meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 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 Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, for approval of Consent Calendar Item (1-C) as recommended by staff. Consent Calendar Items (1-A & 1-B) were removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED A. a) CEQA EXEMPTION - SECTION 15061(b)(3) GENERAL RULE b) ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2002-00020-CITYWIDE: City of Anaheim Planning Department, 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 162, Anaheim, California, 92805. Planning Department staff requests Planning Commission comments regarding parking standards for single-farnily residences. (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) Directed staff to prepare a "draft" code amendment for Commission consideration. SR8481CF.DOC Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, introduced Item No. 1-A as a request for comments from the Commission concerning the single-family Parking Code Amendment that became effective approximately 1 year ago. The new code requires three-car garages and three-driveway spaces for 5 bedrooms or more. The former code required a two-car garage and two-driveway spaces regardless of the number of bedrooms in the home. Following are two parts to the request: 1) What constitutes a bedroom? The Code calls every room a bedroom that is not a kitchen ~ dining room, hall, bathroom, lobby, closet or pantry. Many houses have computer rooms, attached bedrooms, with bedroom retreats, libraries, game rooms, etc, that are considered as 12-02-02 Page 2 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • bedrooms by the current definition. Therefore, they require a three-car garage and three- driveway spaces. 2) Should five bedrooms trigger additional parking? The current requirement works well for new housing. However, many residents in established neighborhoods feel the code is too restricted and prevents them from adding bedrooms or accessory rooms such as dens, lofts, etc., particularly when they can provide 6 parking spaces but do not have room for extra garage space. At least nine Orange County cities require a three-car garage for five or more bedrooms. The City of Fullerton has that requirement. However, they also have an exception. When five bedrooms are caused by a remodel they only require a two-car garage. Comments of the Commission are appreciated for Code interpretation or possible Code amendment if determined necessary by the Commission. Chairperson Bostwick states many items pertaining to the subject issue were brought up in the morning session, particularly tandem parking where the garage is in the alley and there is no way in which to have additional parking. He asked if there is a square footage requirement for bedrooms. Ms. Flores states the Building Code specifies the minimum size of a bedroom, and she wonders what the decision should be if a room does meet the minimum requirement for a bedroom. Chairperson Bostwick states at that point it would be considered a bedroom because a wall could be installed. Commissioner Koos states he is concerned about micromanaging people's use of their private property. He grew up in a home that was built in 1963. His father built a significant non-bedroom that they used as a massive TV room, air-hockey, etc. The current code woutd make that type of expansion difficult. There ~ are people who have only good intentions in mind that want to add onto their houses because houses were built to be approximately 1,300 square feet in 1960, but people have different needs today. Whatever future owners may do, he is not sure he wants to lay that burden on current owners. Chairperson Bostwick states Commission has to consider what the ramification of decisions today are going to be on decisions for the future. Regarding tandem parking, If residents are putting in an entire second-story on a 1,200 square foot house, maybe they would give up 800 square feet downstairs at the corner of the house to give them 5-car parking. Commissioner Romero states calling a room a bedroom because it has a closet is not a good gauge. He is open to a little lead-way but understands lead-way runs into more problems and then it is too late. Commissioner Bristol states there is such a thing as Floor Area Ratio (FAR) where there is a possibility they could be all cement, and that is the thing they wish to avoid in the new projects. So even taking the square footage of the home existing, adding the new portion and considering what the new FAR is going to be with the driveways, it could be 30-40% of the lot coverage. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states typically in most of the West Anaheim properties the zonings are 7200, which is 40% lot coverage. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, states the issue is that Commission needs to look at the Floor Area Ratio because if allowed to go up two-stories, it would impact the property, even if maintaining the minimum requirement for lot coverage. Commissioner Bristol wished to clarify if driveways counted in the ratio. Mr. Hastings responded no, but there is a Code requirement that driveways cannot encroach into the ~ front setback areas unless they lead up to an operable garage or lead into the backyard. 12-02-02 Page 3 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairperson Bostwick states on the list of page 2, No. 7, Commission has agreed on Item No. 7(b) and ~ (d). Item No. 7(c) Commission is willing to try to find some type of definition, maybe a square footage to make it work. Mr. Hastings states another option on Item No. 7(c) would be to require that a certain percentage of it be opened into another room. Chairperson Boswick wished to clarify if Commission is in agreement on Item No. 7(a). Commissioner Boydstun states parking is needed and she feels Commission needs to have something in the condition concerning houses in town that do not have any driveways and have "alley onl~' parking because there is no place to expand. There should be something in the condition referring to what is needed to put a garage in so people can park off the street. Mr. Hastings states staff could look at a standard relative to alley access where there is no access from the public street in front of the property. Commissioner Boydstun states there are areas where there are no driveways and no place to put cars on street sweeping days. Commissioner Koos states a development standard has to be created such as how it opens, etc. He is concerned with the gray area because he would not want homeowners to have to find more parking spaces if they are just trying to improve their property in a bona fide way. Ms. Flores states staff is also striving to define whaf is an entertainment room that is obviously not a bedroom. She suggests using the criteria 50-75°/a, and open into another room might work in a lot of cases, but there may be some where the bonus room is at the end of an upstairs hallway where access to . it is through a normal bedroom door, but it is still not a bedroom. Therefore, Commission may have to take into consideration whether or not it has closets, as well as how much it opens into another room. Commissioner Vanderbilt states when it comes to homes that have garages that are used for storage rather than for storing cars, there may be situations where individuals choose not to deal with the ordinance and will build their garages into whatever they want it to be, including a bedroom. Ms. Flores responded when there are reported violations, Code Enforcement investigates and require them to be converted back into garages so that cars can be parked inside. The discussion was summarized to state staff should work on a Draft Code Amendment to be brought back to the Commission. ACTION: Commission discussed this item, including the staff recommendation contained in the staff report and directed staff to prepare a"drafY' code amendment. The "draft' code amendment may include provisions for tandem parking and allow greater flexibility in determining what constitutes a bedroom for parking purposes. DISCUSSION: 26 minutes (1:38-2:04) r ~ ~ 12-02-02 Page 4 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ B. a) GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY NO. 2002-00022 - REQUEST TO DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM GENERAL PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY: LSA Associates, Attn: Steven D. Ross, 2215 Fifth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710, requests to determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed acquisition of property for the construction of Southwest Middle School by the Placentia/Yorba Linda School District. Property is located at 2875-2891 East La Jolla Avenue. (This item was removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion.) Determined to be in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan (Vote: 7-0) SR1140TW.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 1-B as General Plan Conformity No. 2002-00022, 2875-2891 East La Jolla Avenue, a request to determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the proposed acquisition of property for the construction of southwest middle school by the Placentia/Yorba Linda School District. ~ ApplicanYs Testimony: Sherry Roussin, Assistant Planner with the School District of Placentia/Yorba Linda, was available for questions. Chairperson Bostwick wished to clarify whether the school would be an elementary schooi as weN as jr. high schooL Ms. Roussin responded yes, at the corner of La Jolla and Melrose Streets there would be an elementary school, K-5, which would have approximately 700 students. Approximately 500 students would come from Rio Vista. The middle school would have approximately 700 students from Anaheim, grades 6-8th. Commissioner Bristol asked when it would be built, Ms. Roussin responded approximately 4 years. Commissioner Bristol asked if it is safe to assume if students that typically go to Rio Vista would stay on that side. Ms. Roussin responded they are at the beginning stages and have not had an opportunity to look at the boundaries. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the Placentia/Yorba Linda School DistricYs proposal to acquire property for the construction of Southwest Middle School is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. General Plan Conformity items have a sfatutory guideline limitation of 40-days from the date the application is submitted. (The 40-day time limitation as required by Section 65402(b) of the Government Code requires the City to act on this item by December 25, 2002, as the application was submitted on November 15, 2002 for the subject request.) ~ ~ ~ DISCUSSION: 2 minutes (2:05-2:07) 12-02-02 Page 5 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMlSSION MINUTES ~ C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved Meeting of November 4, 2002. (Motion) (Vote: 7-0) ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of November 4, 2002. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission ---------------------------------- Continued to Meeting of November 18, 2002. (Motion) December 16, 2002 (This item was not discussed.) ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning (Vote: 7-0) Commission does hereby continue the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of November 18, 2002. ~ ,~ 12-02-02 Page 6 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS• 2a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 2b. VARIANCE NO. 2002-04540 OWNER: Samuel Rodriquez, 505 N. Rose Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Yenie Rodriquez, 505 N. Rose Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 505 North Rose Street. Property is approximately 0.13- acre with a frontage of 50 feet on the west side of Rose Street located 81 feet north of the centerline of Sycamore Street. Waiver of maximum fence height to retain and permit an existing 5-foot, 6-inch high fence within the front yard setback. Continued from the November 18, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-173 Concurred with staff Denied SR8476(2)JR.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 2 as Variance No. 2002-04540, 505 N. Rose Street, as a request to retain an existing 5-foot, 6-inch high fence within the front yard setback and waiver of maximum fence height. ~ ApplicanYs Testimony: Yeni Serrano, 505 N. Rose St., Anaheim, CA, the owner of the property, states they reconstructed the front fence and did not know that the original owner had not gotten a permit for the fence. They decided to repair the fence because children would ride pass on their bikes and grab it, but they did not expect to have to come before Commission because of it. They would like to comply with the Code, but also are not satisfied with having to reduce or remove the fence since they used their savings to improve the property and prevent potential accidents. ~ Commissioner Koos asked how tall the existing fence was when they bought the property. Ms. Serrano responded it was exactly the same size as the newly installed one. Commissioner Koos asked what type fence it was. Ms. Serrano responded it was exactly the same as the newly installed one, iron with pilasters in the middle. Commissioner Koos asked how old the previous fence was. Ms. Serrano responded it was very old. They tried to paint and repair it, but it was falling apart and they felt it was dangerous. Commissioner Bristol asked if the contractor hired was licensed and bonded to operate in the City of Anaheim. Ms. Serrano responded she was not certain, but assumes he would have informed them whether or not the previous fence had a permit. 12-02-02 Page 7 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol asked what she thought about bringing the fence down to 3 feet according to City Code. Ms. Serrano responded she would not be happy with the decision since it is exactly the same, but new. Commissioner Bristol referred to staff and asked if the contractor should have come to the City for a permit to replace an existing permitted fence. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, responded yes, both from the Zoning Division and Building Division. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Bostwick states Commission declined the one on the west side with a similar type situation and he would like to see all fences brought down to the correct height. The Code needs to be enforced. Commissioner Koos referred to staff and asked about the amortization program of Costa Mesa addressing overall concerns for the heights of fences. He feels there is a disconnect with the residents and the zoning code. He does not feel there are vigilantes out there trying to break the rules, but that people just do not know. He states a more proactive measure should be taken. It is costly to spend approximately $1,000 to have a new fence installed, an additional $500 for a variance and then be told to rip it apart. Mr. McCafferty states staff responded to two issues at the request of Commissioner Koos: 1) They inserted information into pamphlets and circulated them out to the Historic Colony, and 2) They surveyed other cities with historic districts to observe what they do with regard to fencing and historic areas. Staff would have a report to present by early 2003. • Commissioner Koos states it is reported in the staff report that City Council identified some findings they felt were relevant to the property next door, and why they agreed to approve it based on the traffic off the corner of 17th and Walnut Streets. Chairperson Bostwick states the height should not matter even if it is on a corner lot. Commissioner Koos states there are 17 fences on the street and the applicants were basically replacing the fence. He feels the applicants are not being allowed to enjoy the rights of some of the other residents on the same street. Commissioner Boydstun travels the street frequently and concurs the previous fence was very similar to the newly installed fence. She feels unless all 17 residents are going to be brought in, it would be wrong to require the applicant to reduce her fence. She feels the fence is grandfathered in because it existed before. It is not a block wall and is compfetely open. Commissioner Eastman and Commissioner Bristol state it is the responsibility of homeowners who desire to make changes to their property, to research to see if anything has changed in order to comply with the updated rules. ~ • ~ • • ~ ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Koos offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, ~ Class 3(New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. 12-02-02 Page 8 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING GOMMISSION MINIlTES • Commissioner Koos offered a resolution to grant Variance No. 2002-04540 by approving waiver of maximum fence height (to retain and permit an existing 5-foot, 6- inch high fence within the front yard setback), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated December 2, 2002, and the resolution FAILED TO CARRY with the following vote: AYES: Boydstun, Koos, Vanderbilt NOES: Bostwick, Bristol, Eastman, Romero ABSENT: None Commissioner Bristol offered an alternate resolution to deny Variance No. 2002-04540 by denying waiver of maximum fence height (to retain and permit an existing 5-foot, 6- inch high fence within the front yard setback) and the resolution PASSED with the following vote: AYES: Bostwick, Bristol, Eastman, Romero NOES: Boydstun, Koos, Vanderbilt ABSEN7: None Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 26 minutes (2:11-2:37) ~ • 12-02-02 Page 9 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Concurred with staff 3b. CONDI710NAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04451 Approved reinstatement (TRACKING NO. CUP2002-04621) for 4 years (to expire on November 5, 2006) OWNER: Jill Richter, Richter Farms Trust, 5505 Garden Grove Boulevard, Suite 150, Westminster, CA 92683 AGENT: Interpacific Asset Management, 5505 Garden Grove Boulevard, Suite 150, Westminster, CA 92683 Jose Castallanos, J.C. Fandangos, 1086 North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1084 and 1086 North State Colleqe Boulevard. Property is approximately 6.9 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and La Palma Avenue (J.C. Fandango). Reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on November 5, 2001 to expire November 5, 2002) to retain public entertainment and on- premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with an existing restaurant. Continued from the November 4 and 18, 2002, Planning Commission meetings. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-174 SR8478VN.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 3 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04451, 1084 and 1086 N. State College Boulevard - J. C. Fandango, a request for reinstatement of the permit by modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on November 5, 2001 to expire November 5, 2002) to retain public entertainment and on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with an existing restaurant. He states the applicant is out of conformance with the condition of approval due to selling more food than liquor sales from last year up to the current year. Commissioner Koos informed he listened to the tape and would therefore vote on the item. Applicant's Testimony: Jose Marco and Hector Jose Castellanos, 1086 N. State College, Anaheim, CA, state their mother dismissed the entire crew and has taken over the kitchen herself. Last year was at 53% and the current year is at 51 %. They do not have any hotdogs, wings, potato skins, etc., things that are pulled out of a freezer to fry. Everything is made from scratch, especially the paella, which is a gourmet dish. They have clients from San Diego and a couple that comes in from Arizona once a month just to have the paella. They state the food is awesome. There are fried items, but they are made from scratch. Some places either have good entertainment and mediocre food or vice versa but J. C. Fandango has both great food and great entertainment afl the time. Both the Code Enforcement and Police Force endorsed them because they take pride in patrons being able to go to their place and have a good time. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. • Commissioner Vanderbilt asked if he were to go in before 9:30 p.m. (the time set for collecting a cover charge) would he only be able to eat and not be permitted to stay for the entertainment. 12-02-02 Page 10 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Castellanos states if he were to have dinner, they would waive the cover charge. Commissioner Boydstun feels it is a good business and at a good location. Commissioner Koos states he is comfortable with the applicants' request to have a 5-year permit. They have done a good job, they have a full menu, it is obvious what the operation is and they are willing to waive coverage to encourage dinner. Chairperson Bostwick feefs it is going in the right direction and would not like to see it changed. He suggests keeping the condition for 1 year in place. Mr. McCafferty states technically the findings for reinstatement cannot be made. They are not in compliance with the conditions of approval and that is why staff recommended 1 year. He read a modification to Condition No. 28 that stated, "That the applicant shall continue to increase the ratio of food sales to beverage sales such that the quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales of food during the same period commencing with the 2"d quarter of 2003. The licensee shall at all times maintain records which reflect separately the gross sale of food and the gross sales of alcoholic beverages of the licensed business. Said records shall be kept no less frequently than on a quarterly basis and shall be made available to the Anaheim Police Department on demand". He states it gives the applicant time to build up the inequity between the two. Commissioner Koos asked where in the City of Anaheim would the Commission ever support an entertainment establishment where alcohol is served without being paranoid about it. Commissioner Bristol states the applicants were honest and came forward with the reported numbers, but if they were not there, the City of Anaheim would have a nightclub. He prefers to see a restaurant with a ~ nightclub versus strictly a nightclub. The restaurant is in a residential area, but the applicanYs are running a remarkable business. Commissioner Boydstun concurs and adds that there are no residents present to complain as they have had on other restaurants. Commissioner Eastman states there were petitions and letters of objection. Commissioner Koos states the applicants are running a good establishment. He asked who decided 50% is the ideal and who of the Commission or staff knows how to run a restaurant? Commissioner Eastman states the applicants are not complaining that they have a hard time with staff's suggestion of 50-50. Commissioner Koos states but they did not meet the requirement. Commissioner Eastman states she would like to hear the applicants' feelings to staff's recommendation. Mr. Castellanos States they are not complaining but it has been incredibly stressful, especially since they are legitimate. They are not owned by the MGM or Disneyland, they are a family-owned business and take a lot of pride in the product they give to the public. Commissioner Boydstun states the applicants have done an outstanding job in the area for 18 years. She suggests at least 3 years, in order to prove they can accomplish the goal of 50-50. • • ~ ~~ ~ ~ • • ~ • ~ OPPOSITION: None 12-02-02 Page 11 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED, 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 reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04451 (Tracking No. CUP2002-04621) to retain public entertainment and on-premises sale and consumption of afcohofic beverages in conjunction with an existing restaurant for a period of four (4) years, to expire on November 5, 2006. Amended Resolution No. PC2001-155 in its entirety and replaced it with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 1 and 28 were modified at today's meeting): That this conditional use permit shall expire on November 5, ~AA3 2006. 2. That a valid business license shal{ be maintained with the City of Anaheim, Business License Division of the Finance Department. 3. That there shall be no live entertainment, ampfi~ed music or dancing permitted on the premises at any time without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. 4. That the sales of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. ~ 5. That the activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this establishment shall not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties. Entertainment provided shall not be audible beyond the indoor area under the control of the licensee(s). 6. That at anytime the premises are providing entertainment, the licensee(s) shall provide adequate licensed uniformed security guard(s) as determined by the Police Department for the interior and parking lot and shall maintain order therein and prevent any activity, which would interfere with the quiet enjoyment of the patrons and nearby residents. 7. That all doors serving subject establishment shall comply with the requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and shall be kept closed and unlocked at all times during hours of operation except for ingress/egress, deliveries and in cases of emergency. 8. That the on-site security officers shall periodically monitor the rear of the property to ensure that no loitering or illegal dumping occurs. 9. That loitering shall be prohibited on or around these prerr~ises. 10. 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 shafl be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby residences. 11. That there shall be no pool tables, amusement devices or video games maintained ~ within subject establishment without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. 12-02-02 Page 12 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 12. That the business operator shall comply with Section 24200.5 of the Business and Professions Code so as not to employ or permit any persons to solicit or encourage others, directly or indirectly, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. 13. That there shall be no public telephones on the premises located outside the building. 14. That there shall be no window signs permitted. 15. That all trash generated from this facility shall be properly contained in trash bins kept within approved trash enclosures. The number of bins shall be adequate and the trash pick-up shall be as frequent as necessary to ensure the sanitary handling and timely removal of refuse from the property. The Code Enforcement Division of the Planning Department shall determine the need for additional bins or additional pick-up. All costs for increasing the number of bins or frequency of pick-up shall be paid for by the business owner. 16. That the plan sheet for solid waste storage, collection and recycling shall be maintained as approved by the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. 17. That the on-site trash truck turn-around area shalf be maintained per Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. 18. That no vending machines shall be permitted on the property, which are visible from . the public right-of-way. 19. That there shall be no posting of flyers or handbills advertising subject establishment permitted on public property (e.g. utility poles, or utility boxes). The business owner shall reimburse the Code Enforcement Division for any costs associated with the removal of such handbills in the City of Anaheim. 20. That any existing or proposed roof-mounted equipment shall be subject to the screening requirements of Anaheim Municipal Code Section No. 18.44.030.120 pertaining to the CL Zone. 21. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage use. 22. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 23. The licensee(s) shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter, trash or debris, the area adjacent to the premises over which said licenses has control. 24. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to all legal existing signage as of the date of this resolution. Any additional signage shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 25. That at all times when the premises are open for business, the premises shal{ be maintained as a bona fide restaurant and shall provide a menu containing an ~ assortment of foods normally offered in such restaurants. 12-02-02 Page 13 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 26. That full and complete meals shall be served whenever the privileges of the ~ Alcoholic Severage Control license are being exercised. 27. That no "happy hour" type of reduced price alcoholic beverage promotion shalf be allowed. 28. That the appiicant shall continue to increase the ratio of food sales to beverage sales such that the quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed the gross sales of food during the same period commencing with the 2"a quarter of 2003. The licensee shall at all times maintain records which reflect separately the gross sale of food and the gross sales of alcoholic beverages of the licensed business. Said records shall be kept no less frequently than on a quarterly basis and shall be made available to the Anaheim Police Department on demand. 29. That the rear doors of the premises shall be equipped on the inside with an automatic locking device and shall be closed at all times, and sha41 not be used as a means of access by patrons to and from the licensed premises except during emergencies. Temporary use of these doors for delivery of supplies does not constitute a violation. 30. That there shall be no exterior advertising or sign of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. Interior displays of alcoholic beverages or signs, which are clearly visible to the exterior, shall constitute a violation of this condition. 31. That no person under the age of 21 sha11 sell or deliver alcoholic beverages. 32. That licensee(s) shall not share any profits, or pay any percentage, or commission ~ to a promoter or any other person, based upon monies collected as a door charge, cover charge, or any other form of admission charge, including minimum drink orders, or the sale of drinks. 33. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, and as conditioned herein. 34. That within sixty (60) days from the date of this reso{ution, the landscape planter along the east property line shall be refurbished to the satisfaction of the Zoning Division. 35. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that iY compfies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That the hours of operation shall be limited to 6 p.m. to 2 a.m., daify. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. ~ DISCUSSION TIME: 18 minutes (2:38-2:56) 12-02-02 Page 14 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 4b. RECLASSIFICA710N NO. 2002-00084 January 13, 2003 4c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04614 OWNER: INC AN-LO, 408 North Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: William Taormina, 128 W. Sycamore Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 400-424 North Anaheim Boulevard and 411-417 North Claudina Street. Property is approximately 1.32 acres located at the northeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Adele Street. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2002-00084 - Request reclassification of the property from the RS-5000 (Residential, Single-Family) and CG (Commercial, General) zones to the CL (Commercial, Limited) zone, or a less intense zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04614 - To establish land use conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements and to expand an existing legal non-conforming retail center and to permit on- premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a proposed restaurant with waivers of: a) maximum structural height ~ within 150 feet of a residentially zoned property, b) minimum structural and landscaped setback abutting arterial highway, c) minimum structural and landscaped setback abutting a local street, and d) minimum structural and landscaped setback abutting residential zone boundary. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8488JR.DOC Chairperson Bostwick informed Item No. 4, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04614, is a request for continuance until January 13, 2003. He offered an opportunity for any speakers present to come forward and speak on the item or return on January 13 when the item would be introduced for discussion and decision. Public Testimony: Sanford Opperman, 3200 Palm Dr., Fullerton, CA, states he owns the property at 419 and 421 N. Claudina St., Anaheim, CA, which is immediately adjacent to the subject property. He would not like to see an expansion of traffic use and alcoholic beverages served on the property. He hopes the property would be used for residential purposes because there is a big need for residential property in Anaheim, especially of affordable housing in the area. Rola Esparza, speaking on behalf of her mother, Marisela Esparza, the owner of the property at 423 N. Claudina St., Anaheim, CA, which is immediately adjacent to Mr. Opperman's property. Her mother is opposed to the expansion because of the alcohol being sold. Previously, there was a liquor store in the ~ corner, and when the store burned down they stopped seeing bottles all over the street. She actually had a drunken man in her front yard when she woke up one morning. She is very worried about having alcohol served until 1 and 2 a.m. 12-02-02 Page 15 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Vanderbilt states Commission received a memo requesting a continuance and part of the reason for the continuance is to address concerns expressed by the neighbors. Therefore, it appears the applicant is going to try and resolve issues, and he encourages the residents to make themselves available to the applicant. • • ~ ~- • • • • • ~ • OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition to the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the January 13, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to redesign the proposal to address concerns expressed by staff and by members of the local community. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained) DISCUSSION T1ME: 2 minutes (2:08-2:10) u r 12-02-02 Page 16 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Concurred with staff 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04625 Granted OWNER: Gary A. Rudie, 10635 Equestrian Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92705 AGENT: George Cavanaugh, 1116 Calle Jazmin, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 LOCATION: 2861 East Coronado Street. Property is approximately 0.9-acre with a frontage of 132 feet on the north side of Coronado Street located 795 feet east of the centerline of Blue Gum Street. To permit a vehicle rental agency. Continued from the November 18, 2002, Planning Commission meeting CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-175 SR8486AV.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 5 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04625, 2861 East Coronado Street, a request to permit a vehicle rental agency. George Cavanaugh, 1116 Caey Jasmine, Thousand Oaks, CA, representing Enterprise Rental Car, states they have read the staff report and have submitted a drawing that complies with staff's requests. ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Romero asked what they planned to do about the signage. Mr. Cavanaugh responded signage has not been proposed. Typically Enterprise would have some indication of their presence. It is not a rental branch but an administrative branch. Commissioner Bristol asked if they have enough room on the lot to keep their vehicles. Mr. Cavanaugh responded yes, the proper space needed for the administrative offices and employees is adequate. They are submitting a proposal requesting a supply of parking spaces for vehicles, not as a staging area, but as a supply-end as vehicles are needed. Commissioner Bristol states he drove by over the weekend and observed a vehicle outside the fence. Mr. Cavanaugh states outside the fence are two spaces and a garbage facility. Everything behind the fence that was allotted parking spaces is striped and marked. Out front are a red zone and a small space for delivery, but beyond that people do not park in the areas. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and • MOTfON CARRIED, 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 12-02-02 Page 17 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNWG COMMISSION MINUTES (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorical4y exempt from the requirement to ~ prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04625 (to permit a vehicle rental agency), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated December 2, 2002. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TtME: 5 minutes (2:57-3:02) s ~ 12-02-02 Page 18 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4097 (TRACKIfVG NO. CUP2002-04630) OWNER: Joel Saltzburg, 18022 Medley Drive, Encino, CA 91316 AGENT: Charles Perez, C&M Automotive, 420 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 420 South State Colleqe Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.4-acre located at the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and Westport Drive (C&M Automotive). Reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on November 19, 2001, to expire December 31, 2002) to retain an automotive repair facility. ~ J CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-176 Approved Approved reinstatement for 1 year (to expire on December 31, 2003) SR8482EY.DOC Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 6 as Conditional Use Permit No. 4097, 420 South State Col{ege Soulevard - C&M Automotive, a request for reinstatement of the permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on November 19, 2001 to expire December 3, 2002) to retain an existing automobile repair facility. ApplicanYs Testimony: Charles Perez, 420 S. State College, Boulevard - C&M Automotive, states he is present to request an extension of Conditional Use Permit No. 4097. He has complied with all rules and regulations and has no outstanding citations. He referred to page 3, Condition No. 12 which states, "staff has included a condition of approval requiring that the secondary "C&M Automotive" painted wall sign be removed because it repeats the same message as the sign directly above iY'. He has had the sign for the last several years and both Planning Department and Commission have approved it. He states the reason it is there is because underneath the sign, in small letters, it informs people that he has been in Anaheim since 1975, and he would like to keep it if possible. ~ Commissioner Vanderbilt states it looks as though all staff is requesting is that the C&M Automotive be removed, not that the year of establishment be removed. Mr. Perez states the year 1975 tells people he has been there for a long time and that he has done something right so far. Commissioner Vanderbilt states the issue is not what the sign says but the amount of signage he has. The requirement is that he can only have 10% of wall space dedicated to signage. Mr. Perez states if it is going to be a hassle he would remove it. Commissioner Boydstun states he is only asking for 1 year and she cannot see painting over the sign for that short period of time. 12-02-02 Page 19 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Bristol states he passes the site many times during the day and see many vehicles • overnight, mornings, etc., but the condition states there cannot be any vehicles stored outside. He asked Mr. Perez to state the typical time that he would have a vehicle on the lot. Mr. Perez states normally 48-hours. However, he has been at the site for 27 years and feels he has become the neighborhood shop. People trust him and will sometimes request that he fix their car while they are away on vacation for a week. He does not store vehicles. • • ~ ~ - • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, 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. 4097 (Tracking No. CUP2002- 04630) to retain an automotive repair facility for a period of one (1) year to expire on December 31, 2003. Amended Resolution No. PC2001-166 in its entirety and replaced it with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 1, 11 and 18 were modified at today's meeting): 1. That this permit shall expire on December 31, ~A95 2003. ~ 2. That a six (6) foot high masonry block wall shall be maintained along the east property line. Minimum five (5) gallon sized clinging vines shall be maintained on five (5) foot centers adjacent to said wall to eliminate graffiti opportunities. Said vines shall be properly irrigated and maintained. 3. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 4. That a minimum of six (6), twenty-four (24) inch box, trees shall be maintained in the landscape planter areas along and immediately adjacent to State College Boulevard and Westport Drive. 5. That all fandscaped planters along the east, south and west property lines shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. 6. That public telephones shall be permitted and maintained either within the building or within fifteen (15) feet of the entry to the building. 7. That no vending machines shall be permitted. 8. That no window signage shaN be permitted 9. That no propane tanks shall be permitted. 10. That no banners or other temporary advertising shall be displayed and that no ~ special event permits shall be issued for this automotive repair business. 12-02-02 Page 20 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 11. That signage for subject facility shall be limited to that shown on the exhibits • submitted by the petitioner and approved by the Planning Commission e*se~ « „ ~ed. Any additional signage shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations item. 12. That the property shall be maintained as approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager in conformance with the current version of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. 13. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage uses. 14. That trash storage areas shall be provided and maintained in a location acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage areas shall be located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. The walls of the storage areas shafl be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plant materials such as minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers or tall shrubbery. 15. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shall be maintained with the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. ~ 16. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area per Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. 17. That no outdoor storage shall be permitted on this property. 18. That no overnight storage of inoperable vehicles, other than vehicles enclosed within the building, shall be permitted for this property. 19. That outdoor storage of, display of, or work on vehicles or vehicle parts or materials shafl not be permitted. 20. That lighting for this facility shall be maintained in a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate or cause glare onto adjacent or nearby streets and/or properties. 21. That no freestanding sign shall be permitted. 22. That subject property shall be maintained substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and as conditioned herein. 23. That the subject facility shall be subject to quarterly inspection by the Code Enforcement Division. The cost of such inspection shall be borne by the operator of the facility. ~ 24. That within 60 days from the date of this resolution, condition no. 11 above- mentioned, shall be complied with. 12-02-02 Page 21 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 25. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request ~ only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (3:03-3:14) ~ ~ 12-02-02 Page 22 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04629 OWNER: David Ly, Lyman Legacy, 2841 S. Croddy Way, Unit A, Santa Ana, CA 92704 AGENT: Deena Detry, Nextel Communications, 310 Commerce, Irvine, CA 92602 LOCATION: 1201 and 1211-1231 South Euciid Street. Parcel 1 is approximately 0.6-acre located at the southwest corner of Ba11 Road and Euclid Street. Parcel 2 is approximately 1.6 acres having a frontage of 350 feet on the west side of Euclid Street and located 170 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road. Request to establish land use conformity with existing Zoning Code land use requirements for an existing legal nonconforming commercial center and liquor store and to permit a telecommunications antenna with accessory ground-mounted equipment with waivers of minimum number of parking spaces and maximum structural height adjacent to a residential zone. u CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to January 13, 2003 SR8483VN.DOC FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSIT{ON: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the January 13, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant in order to revise plans and submit a parking letter for review by the Traffic Engineering Division. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. i 12-02-02 Page 23 DECEMSER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 8c. COND1710NAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04620 OWNER: Katella LLC, 1404 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Oscar Ramirez, 12052 Jennifer Lane, Garden Grove, CA 92840 LOCATION: 1383 East Gene Autrv Wav. Property is approximately 4.8 acres having a frontage of 302 feet on the north side of Gene Autry Way located 260 feet east of the centerline of Betmor Lane. To permit a banquet hall facility with on-premises consumption, but not sales of beer and wine with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the November 4 and 18, 2002, Planning Commission meetings. u CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Continued to January 13, 2003 SR8492NA.DOC ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the January 13, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to continue to address Building Code issues. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~ 12-02-02 Page 24 DECEMBER 2, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:15 P.M. TO MONDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2002 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~.,+/2~y~~-L~ Pat handler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2002. ~ ~ 12-02-02 Page 25