The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 2003/10/20CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2003 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CHAIRP~R~S4N~JAMES VANDERBILT COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PAl~kI~B~~~K G~~~~~~~~MAN, CECILIA FLORES, ~J~F2f21~ O~~G~~N~~L,~~`("~ONEp~filACANT~SEAT) COMMISSIONERS ABSE STAFF PRESENT: ~ ~' ~_ '~ ~`°~ ~a ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~'"' ~., Selma Mann, Assistant ~#~~A~tto~n~By ~~~`'' James Ling, Greg Hastings, Zoning~E~~vr~io~~^~an~geF~ Ossie Edmu Greg McCafferty, Prin~~i~~~f Plar~~~~'~~`~~ Elly Morris, : Michele Irwin Vice D~tai~ ~~ ~~` ~ ~~ d s, ~ ~ .v ~ k 1 ~ ~ ~ q ~aq ~ ~ d p ~^ a~~-- ~° -ss~ ~ n~~~ ~' ~k!.B ~ ~ ~ nssyN-"~ ~P ` ~ f d~ ~t~ ., ~ ~a AGENDA POSTING~ ~ c rrj~let~e ~Opy '~ t~ #?Iat~~~r~gb~aCorrir~~is~i~' Thursday, October 1~~~{~(~3~''~~side t~~~ispl~~~~ase::Co~ated°i~t thi~ the outside display krqsk. @~~,,~~ ~~~~~~~~;~ ~ ~"~~ ~~ ~ ~. ~~ ~` ~ ~ t~'~~'~`~~ ~h~.~,~" 9~"~,3 tr~e:~'~~"~:~ :~ ~~ PUBLISHED: Anah~~`Fn Bullefiin~(eanrsp~~e~~c~~~~~r~~~!,~~m~~R~~r CALL TO ORDER ~~~'~ '~~4; ~ p~$~~''~ `~ '~ ~ `~ '~~a~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~, ~ ~ '"~m '~ PLANNING ~0~111M~°S~tON~~1l(O~~I~I~,VG SE~~ ~, ~ • STAFF UPD~'xE ~`~~C1N~iI~S O~I QN~V E?1~~' DEVELOPMEI~TS,~TN4~ I~~~l~~~~~R~ i~~ES~~E PLANNING COIV~I~i11~~1f7N ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~°~~~ '~ • PRELIMINARY PLAN~~~~`~II~ h ~~R~EMS~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ¢~~,~ ~G_ ~~ RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~'~ ~ aF ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~p ~~~~ ~~~ ~~. ~ ~ , ~ n~~neer 7~MC~~~u qp:o~-t M~ y~ pe C~~Se~~~ ~ ~ ~ °:~ ~ { e ~~~ ~i('{ ~'ae ~ ~ 6 ~~~ 1y ~S ~"xq~ ~~' ~ ~, ,~~ ~~ ~.+R ¢ ~ ~ ~"n~ ~ ~ ~ c~a ~vas~o~~;~~d~~t ~f t~i C~ ~~ ncil G~r .~, ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ s~y ~n ti~i ~ , ~~: ~ ~~,,,.~~~~ ~~ ~"~~ ~ ~t ~~~,~~~= ~~~~. k ~~` ~ '. V_ 1'~~I~OO~A-~M. 1:30 p.m. on nbers, and also in OCTOBER 20, 2003 AGENDA 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\,MINUTESWC102003.DOC planninqcommission(a~anaheim.net OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • REGONVENE 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: Item 1-A 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 mofion 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 Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Flores and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy), for approval of Consent Calendar Item (1-A) as recommended by staff. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS: ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner O'Connell and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy), to continue the appointment of Planning Commission Representatives and Alternates for Boards and Committees to the November 17, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order to have a full Commission present. • REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVES AND ALTERNATES FOR THE FOLLOWING • ANAHEIM TRANSPORTATION NETWORK BOARD OF DIRECTORS (Current Representative: Commissioner Bostwick) • PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (Cearrent Representative: Chairperson Vanderbilt) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY BOARD (CDAB) FOR THE BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (Current Representative: Commissioner Eastman) (Current Alternate: Vacant) • UTILITIES UNDERGROUND CONVERSION SUBCOMMITTEE (Current Representative: Commissioner Bostwick) (Current Alternate: Commissioner Romero) • GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMtTTEE (GPAC) (Current Representative: Commissioner Bostwick) (Current Alternate: Commissioner Romero) • HISTORIC PRESERVATION AD HOC COMMITTEE (Current Representative: Commissioner Eastman) • (Current Alternate: Commissioner Flores) 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10-20-03 Page 2 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • A. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved Meeting of October 6, 2003. (Motion) (Vote: 5-0, Commissioner ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Romero absent and with Commissioner Flores and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent one Commission vacancy) and with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of October 6, 2003. • C ~ 10-20-03 Page 3 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES u PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04736 Approved Granted OWNER: Cal Asia Property Development Company, 1517 South Sepulveda Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90025 AGENT: TW Layman Associates, Attn: Tim Saivar, 16633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1320, Encino, CA 91436 LOCATION: 101 South Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 0.40-acre, located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Brookhurst Street. Request to construct a 3-unit commercial retail center. Continued from the August 11 and September 8, 2003, Planning Commission Meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-138 • • sr5049jr.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 2 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04736, 101 South Brookhurst Street, a request to construct a 3-unit commercial retail center. The item was continued to explore whether a waiver of the required improvement and dedication of right-of-way would be pursued. The applicants met with the Public Works Department to discuss those issues. Therefore, that is not part of the request. The request before Commission is the same as the request presented on September 8, 2003, (to construct a 3-unit commercial retail center) with the exception of relocation of the loading space that has been relocated to the south end of the center near the trash enclosure. Applicant's Testimony: Tom Layman, architect representing Cal Asia, 16633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1320, Encino, CA, along with Tim Salvar, who visited the Planning Commission on September 22, 2003 and October 6, 2003, states that the work they have tried to do is in response to staff's comments, as well as some input from their traffic engineer. During the course of that process, there was a modification on the site plan where they relocated the loading zone, which was previously illustrated at the north end down to the south part of the property in order to make the width wider for the trash truck to be able to come in. The relocation would also facilitate a wider loading area during the time when the trash truck is not at the location. He considers their comment on Condition No. 25 ministerial since they previously have gotten the driveway radiuses approved at 6 feet on Lincoln Avenue and 8 feet on Brookhurst Street. This was to avoid existing improvements so that there would be fire hydrants, etc., and that was agreed to by the Engineering Department. He asked Richard Barretto, Traffic Engineer, with Linscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, to respond to the work that he did on the traffic report in response to Commission's queries as to whether or not two-stories or three-stories would have an impact. Richard Barretto states that he is a principal with the firm and their role on the project is basically to address a couple of issues that were brought up during the prior meetings. One was whether or not a two or three-unit retail center would generate any more traffic. He feels that basically it is a retail of approximately 4,400 square feet, and trip generation for those type uses is based on gross leasable area. So, regardless of whether they have two units or three units, a trip generation potential for the site would be identical. Regarding onsite circulation for trash trucks they looked at the proposed plan, identified issues with the width of the trash enclosure, the loading area, and found that it was not quite wide enough to accommodate a large trash truck to basically pull in and pull out. As a result, they recommended the 10-20-03 Page 4 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • architect relocate the loading space located at the northeastern portion of the retail building adjacent to the trash unloading area. W ith that, they found that it would be acceptable for a trash truck to pull in and pull out without impacting on-site traffic flow. Regarding service delivery-type trucks, they found that they could be accommodated without any problem. They are able to back into the loading space, enter and exit without having to stop within the drive-out. They made sure the trucks could be accommodated without impacting traffic flow onsite and block vehicles that might be parked there when they were trying to exit. Additionally, they made sure that parking driveway aisles all met the standards of the City. Mr. Layman concurs and states that they have reviewed the conditions proposed and have no difficulty with any of the conditions other than the one caveat on Condition No. 25. He presented a large site plan illustrating the relocation of the loading zone from the north side of the property down to the south side of the property, so that the loading zone and the 9-foot wide trash enclosure area would all be the same; approximately a 17%2 foot space for trash trucks to come though. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Flores asked Mr. Barretto if he would expand on what he means by delivery, in that it would not impact onsite traffic flow. Mr. Barretto explained that they were asked to take a look at two things: (1) That the trash truck could enter and exit the site without any problems, and (2) That they could pull into the trash enclosure area, load the trash and then back out and head back onto the street without having to stop in the drive aisle. The verification is shown as Exhibit No. 2 in their report. But, what they did find in going through the evaluation was that the 9-foot wide stall for a trash truck to pull in was not quite wide enough. So hence, the relocated loading and unloading space was relocated adjacent to it (a Ioading and unloading area of • approximately 17%2 feet wide). The second thing they were asked to take a look at was if delivery vehicles of the van size-type; not the larger single-unit or the larger five axle trucks could actually ente and exit and circulate without having to park in the drive aisles. They looked at it and showed that a delivery van (approximately 20 feet long) could actually pull into the loading space, back in and head out without having to stop in the drive-aisle. Commissioner Flores asked if when he spoke of drive-aisles was he speaking of the approach or the parking area. r back Mr. Barretto responded, "the drive-aisles in between the parking areas". He states in looking over the staff report, one of the biggest concerns was a trash truck or a delivery vehicle basically stopping within the drive-aisle, doing what they needed to do and then blocking passenger cars that may be parked there. Therefore, their demonstration is that the delivery vehicles, accommodated with the loading and unloading areas, can get in and out without having to park in the drive-aisles. Chairperson Vanderbilt states it is really helpful to know what kind of businesses will be housed there, and that a sign on the property advertises that there is going to be retail space (to future or perspective tenants). Mr. Layman responded there have not been any commitments made as to leases because they are vacillating as to whether it is going to be two-stories or three-stories. They believe they have a 2,000 square foot tenant that is a retail tenant; they are not restaurant tenants, it is not video stores, and it is not a market. Those are conditioned as tenants that they would not have them there in any event. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he would have a sense for what kind of delivery trucks that possible tenant might utilize. • Mr. Layman responded that on the small stores around 2,000 square feet, typically they see that their delivery is either by United Parcel or small van deliveries. They do not have semi-trailers pulling in and 10-20-03 Page 5 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ off loading goods. Without a market or restaurant there would be no Coca Cola trucks or the potato chip trucks, etc. Commissioner Eastman referred to staff and asked if Commission would be allowed to put in a condition restricting the size of delivery vehicles to that location. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, responded that Commission coutd put on a condition that relates directly to the impact. And they would need to consider the enforceability of any condition like that and whether it wants to put the City in the position of micro-managing the center itself. It is not so much a legal issue because if the nexus could be found, tMe condition could be put on, but it is more of a matter of how they would enforce it. Commissioner Flores referred to staff and asked what type of businesses would be able to go inside the retail. Mr. McCafferty responded based on Commissioner Bostwick's question in the morning session, staff took a look at the underlining zone for the property and founcf that zone, being the BCC, has more restrictions on the typical refail uses that otherwise would be permitted. For example, restaurants with or without on- premises sale in markets or over 30,000 square feet are permitted but subject to a Conditional Use Permit. It is not something they could come in, for example with a restaurant, over the counter and obtain an approval for. They would have to come back to Commission to get approval for either of the uses. The existing zone prohibits markets under 30,000 square feet altogether. So, they would be allowed typical retail uses; anything from a radio shack to a nail salon, etc. Chairperson Vanderbilt states the proposal, as presented, is given with the landscaping to cover the corner. If there is any pedestrian traffic, it basically is laid out such that it would force pedestrians to take the sidewalks, either south or west, to the nearest driveway before they could enter the property. He ~ feels ultimately, unless there is a berm there or some other kind of barrier of high shrubbery, people would just cut through businesses that have that kind of landscaping. The fastest way to get between two points is a straight line. He wonders if the applicant might be open to some sort of stepping-stones, etc. that does not interfere with the signage, but would allow pedestrian traffic to cut through the corner into the parking lot. Mr. Layman responded he is receptive to it if staff would like them to do it. However, there is a pedestrian access that comes off of Brookhurst Street that passes through the landscaping and uses the disabled access parking loading zone in order to gain access to the stores. So, public access would be coming through there. He feels typically when they put in stepping stones, and if they create a travel path that is inconsistent with what the Americans With Disabilities Design Guidelines are, they run into people claiming foul because wheelchairs and other things cannot get across them. Mr. McCafferty stated staff would not be opposed to a sidewalk across the landscaping into the site. Chairperson Vanderbilt states it would be a way to mitigate the traffic problem and would help him to see the project in a more positive light. Commissioner O'Connell understands the applicant is looking for tenants and there may be a tenant that is about 2,000 square feet who is looking at it seriously, but he wonders if there a possibility that he is going to get one other tenant and make it a two-unit facility or if he is going to leave it open. Mr. Layman responded it is a possibility, but he feels based on the nature of retailing today most of the small entrepreneurial retailers are looking for 900 square feet to 1,000 square feet, and the success of the overall project is going to be better when they fulfiN that need. It is not something they are dictating, but is something that is coming from the market to them. The entrepreneurial tenants are interested in a little ~ smaller space and a little less rent. Commissioner O'Connell asked if 101 S. Brookhurst Street is approximately 2,000 square feet. 10-20-03 Page 6 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Layman responded it is and there are two that are about 1,100 square feet. Commissioner O'Connell referred to the site plan and states that 111 S. Brookhurst Street is 2,300 square feet, and he asked if they just had the two units or if they were cutting it into thirds. Mr. Layman responded they are doing two processes: (1) one is to go through and obtain a building permit that complies with City Codes which would be for two tenants. They are currently in plan check with that proposal. They have modified it to be responsive to all of the issues that have come before Commission or that Commission has brought to their attention, and incorporated them on that plan so if they are denied the 3-story building, then they would go forward with the 2-storie building. But, it would incorporate all of the things that they have heard from Commission. (2) The plan that they would like to have approved would have three tenants. One of them is at 2,000 square feet; and they are outlined in the traffic report, and one of them is 1,184 square feet; and Space C is 1,183 square feet. Mr. McCafferty concurs it is consistent with the exhibits on file. Commissioner O'Connell states since the proposal two-weeks prior to this one, he cannot see the difference between two or three units. If the market dictates that they really need three units because of the size, then maybe 1,000 square feet is better than 2,000 square feet as far as leasability, etc. Chairperson Vanderbilt concurs with Commissioner O'Connell and states that especially in light of the fact that the Overlay zone has restrictions on the Code with respect to convenience stores or restaurants. ~ FULLUWING 15 A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ~ OPPOSITION: None • ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04736 (to construct a 3-unit commercial retail center) based on the testimony presented at today's public hearing, and subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated October 20, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 25 to read as follows: 25. That all driveways shall be constructed to accommodate ten (10) foot radius curb returns in conformance with Engineering Standard No. 137 or as approved by the City Engineer. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That the applicant shall provide a pedestrian access from the public sidewalk into the retail center property from both Lincoln Avenue and Brookhurst Street. VOTE: 4-1 (Commissioner Flores voted no, Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. • DISCUSSION TIME: 23 minutes (1:42-2:05) 10-20-03 Page 7 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 3a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2670 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04770) OWNER: Italian R. Brunos, 1750 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENTS: EI Patio Restaurant, 1750 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 Beatriz Quintero, 2812 West Westhaven Drive, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 1750 West La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 1.2 acres, located at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Mohican Avenue (EI Patio Restaurant). Request to amend conditions of approval pertaining to hours of operation in conjunction with a previously-approved semi-enclosed restaurant with on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-139 Concurred with staff Approved amendment, in part, to the conditions of approval for 2 years (to expire on October 15, 2005) sr5050jr.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 3 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2670, 1750 • West La Palma Avenue - EI Patio Restaurant, a request to amend conditions of approval pertaining to hours of operation in conjunction with a previously-approved semi-enclosed restaurant with on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. He states that staff is in support of further amending the conditions consistent with how the City Council approved the request at the last public hearing on the item (City Council, October 15, 2002, Resolution No. 2002R-221 granting request, reversing Planning Commission denial on June 17, 2002, PC Resolution PC2002-96, denying request) and that the Police Department is in concurrence with staff. Currently, the only issue is the amount of time Commission allows them to amend the condition. Secondly, staff heard in the morning session that there is a cover charge being assessed for the business, which would be something that is not currently permitted by the Conditional Use Permit. ApplicanYs Testimony: Beatriz Quintero, 1750 W. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA, states that they have reviewed the staff report and do not have any concerns with the conditions of approval, but would like to extend the hours of operation. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Vanderbilt referred to the representative of the Anaheim Police Department and asked for a summary of what was stated at the morning session. Michele Irwin, Senior Crime Prevention Specialist, responded that they basically covered the calls for service and any kinds of calls for police activity out to the location. She noted that the actual reports taken and calls for service have gone down but that their concern is that the calls that have been out there have been of a violent nature; one assault with a deadly weapon; a domestic violence; two drunk driving; and a couple of 9-1-1 hang-up calls. So, even though it is down from the year before, when she • looks at the year before records, they are pretty much consistent. The calls the year before were of the same consistency as far as the nature of the calls; deadly weapon call and domestic violence calls in the parking lot. Their big concern is the parking lot area. Years ago, when they kept the doors open they had 10-20-03 Page 8 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • more disturbance-type calls and those have gone down, but the parking area still remains a problem for the neighborhood surrounding it. The Police DepartmenYs request would be denial of the 2:00 a.m. time and if they still wanted to consider the 1:30 a.m. time on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays, they would be okay with it for a 1 year check, but not the 5 years that they are recommending. She checked with other dinner/dance establishments in order to give Commission a background on some other calls for service. Plaza Garibaldi is similar to the subject-type restaurant, and they only had two calls for service. Other businesses were: one in Anaheim Hills that had no calls for service; one on Anaheim Boulevard that had no calls for service, and Cuban Pete's had one assault. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Ms. Quintero, given the Police findings, if she would dispute the types of calls referred ta Ms. Quintero responded yes, regarding the assault and battery, it sounds terrible even to her, but the day that the fight took place one of their personnel was hurt and that is currently an issue in court. But, what happened that day is not under their control. It was a guest that claims one of their personnel actually hurt him when in actuality it was the other way around. It is being disputed in court. They have now removed the phone that they had inside where the two 9-1-1 calls were made. They tried to remove it in the past, but one of the previous managers had signed a 10-year lease on it and they were just able to get rid of it approximately 2 months ago. Regarding the violation of people with drunk driving, those were people that drove into their parking lot. They were not leaving their parking lot, but received the ticket outside on the street and drove into their parking lot. It was a big coincidence, because that's where the Police drove in to cite the people. She collected a petition from surrounding neighbors, and there are approximately 8 homes. They signed it last year and they signed it again this year and also one additional signature, and he is also a homeowner. And, there are several apartments in the back of their restaurant and most everyone that was home signed the petition. Mr. McCafferty asked for clarification with regard to charging at the door for banquets. ~ Commissioner Flores asked if it is a family restaurant and wished clarification regarding the sign posted in reference to 25 years of age. Ms. Quintero responded that the sign states if you are under 25 years of age you must be prepared to show identification, and explained that it was in reference to being able to purchase alcohol. Commissioner Flores stated that to her, if she sees the sign coming in, it automatically triggers that it is not a family restaurant. She suggested they might want to place the sign at the bar. Ms. Quintero responded they would do that if Commission likes, but explained that what happens is a lot of times they get a lot of complaints where customers would say, "Well, don't I look old enough?" And, since there really are 18-year olds that look 25, they have no way of knowing the real age if they do not ask them to show their ID. That way their response to the customers is to say, "We have a sign at the door when you come in, and if you do not have identification we cannot sell the liquor to you." She states that they have had people trying to purchase drinks without identification. Commissioner Flores referred to Mr. McCafferty's question regarding cover charge. Ms. Quintero explained they have a buffet that is served. Commissioner Flores asked if the buffet was not usually paid as clients were sitting at the table. Ms. Quintero explained that clients must pay as they come in. Commissioner O'Connell asked if there was a reason why they chose to do it that way. • Ms. Quintero explained that it is because they are operating as a restaurant. 10-20-03 Page 9 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Vanderbilt states that he has eaten at buffets and usually once he sits down the waiter understands he is there for the buffet and afterwards he receives a bill. He wished to know if that method would be difficult for their restaurant to maintain. He expiained that what Commission has a problem with is that they want to make sure there is a clear distinction between the types of operation that is allowed with terms of restaurants versus nightclubs. So charging at the door makes it difficult to see the clear division between those two types of operation. He asked if she had other ways of charging for the buffet other than at the door. Ms. Quintero responded that they have a capacity of 300. People come in constantly and they are very busy. They have a total of 15 employees and it would be very hard to look over 300 people with only 15 employees, they would need more. That is the reason they charge a cover charge at the door and not at the table. Commissioner Bostwick asked if they had a menu. Ms. Quintero responded yes. Commissioner Bostwick asked if he came in for dinner, could he come in and be served and have a menu. Ms. Quintero responded yes, of course. Commissioner Bostwick asked if he would have to pay at the door before he could come in and be served. Ms. Quintero responded no, in the evenings they have the buffet because it is easier for them, after 8:00 p.m. On Sunday, their buffet starts at 3:00 p.m. and there is no buffet on Friday and Saturday. They only • have a lunch buffet and they have an evening buffet on Friday and Saturday, and on Sunday they start at 3:00 p.m. with a lunch/dinner buffet. Commissioner Bostwick asked if he came in on Thursday night at 8:00 p.m. if he would have to pay for the buffet. Ms. Quintero responded not during the week, Monday through Friday they have a lunch buffet. Commissioner Eastman wished to understand if they did not have an evening buffet on Friday. Ms. Quintero responded yes they do, but on Thursday they do not. Commissioner Eastman asked if there was entertainment on Thursday. Ms. Quintero responded that this past Thursday was the first Thursday they started dance classes, but they do not have a live band, the buffet is up and they have music. Commissioner Eastman asked if part of the reasoning they have been okay with closing early on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday is because they did not have live entertainment those three days. Ms. Quintero responded they do stay open later if they are busy; if they have customers coming in for dinner late. But their clientele is a bit earlier. This year they have tried to stay open longer at their customers request, and because they have tried to build up their restaurant business. They have advertised in the Penny Saver and distributed flyers, but have not had much success. Mr. McCafferty explained that it would be a violation of the code and conditions if they were charging a cover charge. And if on a night after 8:00 p.m., he is stopped at the door and mandatorily required to pay • $10.00 to enter, under code it would be considered a public dance hall. If it is a situation as Commissioner Bostwick described, where you are sitting down and you have a choice of the general menu or the banquet, that is an altogether different thing and that would be okay. 10-20-03 Page 10 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner O'Connell asked if someone walked in after 8:00 p.m., at 9:00-10:00 p.m., would they have to have a meal or if they could just go in and have a drink and watch the band. Ms. Quintero responded they tell their clientele they are operating as a restaurant. Commissioner O'Connell asked what if he just wanted to come in and hear music at 10:00-11:00 p.m., would he be required to buy a meal or could he just come in and buy a drink. Ms. Quintero responded they would try to sell him a meai. Commissioner Eastman asked if they would collect at the door from him. Ms. Quintero responded no, not necessarily because they have other menus and they also have an appetizer menu. Commissioner O'Connell wished to clarify if they would try to prohibit him from walking in their restaurant and just ordering a drink. Ms. Quintero responded no. Commissioner O'Connell asked if they would charge at the door to go in; if it is automatic that they charge for the buffet. Ms. Quintero responded they really have not come across this type situation because they advertise as a buffet. • Commissioner O'Connell states he is not so sure that there is a clear understanding of exactly what they do. He asked her to explain what would happen if a couple walked in off the street at nighttime into their establishment. Ms. Quintero explained since it is after 8:00 p.m., there would be someone at the door checking identifications, and they would stamp them, and the next step would be to pay for the buffet. Commissioner O'Connell illustrated they did not want a buffet, but just wanted to come in and hear the music and have a drink. Ms. Quintero responded they should then tell the cashier and they would show them to the bar or wherever they preferred to sit. Commissioner O'Connell wished to clarify that there would not be a charge for the couple. Ms. Quintero responded no, but they really have not come across that situation. Commissioner O'Connell asked if everyone who came in at 10:00 p.m. wanted to eat. Ms. Quintero responded that is what they advertise; buffet with entertainment. Mr. McCafferty stated if someone comes there at 10:00 p.m. he feels they would know what they were coming for, and it is not necessarily the buffet, but it is understood that thaYs basically the cover charge, and that is staff's concern. But staff did not learn this until the discussion at the morning session, and would like to enter a condition to address the cover charge. Commissioner Eastman stated she visited the restaurant on Sunday and would like to commend them for • the place being nice and clean; it looked like there was plenty of security in the parking lot; the lighting is good, and there are a lot of things that are a big improvement from last year. But, she was concerned 10-20-03 Page 11 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ with the fact that as people entered, everyone was paying and that makes it appear it is a cover charge, and there is a pretty clear distinction in the Code about that. Commissioner Flores stated she visited the site Sunday morning before anyone was there, and she talked to some of the people across the street. They stated they had never had any problems with the music and that once the door was closed they never heard the music. The only problem that they had, and they were hoping that you would work with them, is when it is closing time the people seem to linger in the driveway, and would put on their personal music, and that music is loud. They are hoping that the restaurant could work with security so that once it is closed they would hurry and get out of the parking lot and close out. Ms. Quintero responded it would be her word against theirs because they close at 1:30 a.m. and are usually out of there at the latest by 2:15 a.m., and when they walk out they have security with them and they make sure there is no one left in the parking lot because they know that they are liable if something does happen to anyone after hours. Commissioner Flores wished to clarify if security is outside immediately at 1:30 a.m. Ms. Quintero responded security leaves when they leave. They wait until the band takes their equipment out, which takes approximately 20-25 minutes. Commissioner Flores explained the neighbors did not have any concern with the music inside of the business, but when the customers left the building they have a habit of lingering, and visiting with one another. Ms. Quintero responded it would be the customers' word against theirs, but that when they leave they made sure there is no one in the parking lot, and security leaves the lot after everyone else has left out • the door. Chairperson Vanderbilt referred to Officer Irwin and stated her recommendation was based on the laundry list of incidents at the property, and the applicant testified at least with respect to the 9-1-1 hang- ups are concerned, they have taken care of that; and the DUI's could have been that they just happened to be the driveway that the Officer guided the individual onto. He asked if she were to eliminate those from her list if her recommendation would still remain the same. Ms. Irwin responded that she would definitely still recommend it the same. It could very well be that the officers steered the persons into the parking lot, but as far as the 9-1-1 calls, those were from the property. Just because they have removed the phones so no one can make a 9-1-1 call from the property, does not necessarily assist any dilemmas as far as the Police are concerned, and the assault with the deadly weapon and the domestic violence, no matter what the stories, are started on the property and are still attached to the property. Commissioner Flores asked what would be the difference between 1:30 a.m. and 2:30 a.m. Ms. Quintero responded they have always closed at 1:30 a.m. but it just gives them 15 more minutes to get the people out, whereas currently they are trying to get them out earlier so that they are able to close at 1:30 a.m. And the 9-1-1 calls were hang-ups from a public phone; they did not make those calls. People were just dialing but did not say anything and would hang-up. Usually, the Police would return a call to their number to see if they were okay. Chairperson Vanderbilt explained that he asked the police to consider the balance of the other reports without including what their recommendation would be because he was curious if that was enough to change their position, but it did not sound like it was the case. • Commissioner O'Connell asked how many homes were in the immediate area by their restaurant. 10-20-03 Page 12 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. McCafferty responded there are four single-family homes directly to the west of the location and there are apartments to the rear of the location. Commissioner O'Connell asked to see the letter obtaining petitioners signatures and asked Ms. Quintero if, from her knowledge, there were no complaints from the residents in the neighborhood. Ms. Quintero responded no, but two of the residents did not sign the petition and did not have anything to say in favor or against but did not wish to participate. Everyone else signed the petition and also included the years they have been residents in the neighborhood. Commissioner Eastman states one other item brought up in the morning session was the alley behind their parking lot, which Ms. Quintero told her was their property, and which was verified by Don Yourstone of Code Enforcement. Staff feeis they could, together with the restaurant, work towards getting some resolution with the alley, and maybe work with the Walgreen people to make sure that it is not going to interrupt their access. But to get the dead zone in the alley taken care of so they could utilize it as a part of their property and it would not create a dumping ground for people. Ms. Quintero responded, "Alright, as long as we can close it down; thank you". Chairperson Vanderbilt stated his position on the request is that he will be consistent with how he has voted in the past. He is usually compelled when it comes to Police recommendations, and would probably stick with that. Mr. McCafferty stated staff would like to add the additional condition to address the cover charge issue: "That no admission fee, cover charge, advanced prepayment for meals or similar fees shall be imposed upon patrons as a condition of entrance to the premises". That cites the Anaheim Municipal Code, Section 4.16.030.1.010. With regard to the time limit, staff originally recommended five years but given • the testimony and the discussion in the morning session, staff would be amenable to having it less than five years; somewhere between the 1 year and the 5 years because staff feels that if given just one year, it does not give enough time to see how the establishment is running. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None IN SUPPORT: A petition was submitted with 15 signatures in support of the subject request. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy), 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, in part, request for an amendment to a condition of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 2670 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04770) pertaining to hours of operation in conjunction with a previously approved semi-enclosed restaurant with on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages, for a period of two (2) years, to expire on October 15, 2005. • Incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. 2002R-221 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition No. 1 was modified and a condition of approval was added at today's meeting): 10-20-03 Page 13 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 1. That the hours of operation shall be limited to 11:00 a.m. to midnight, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday; and 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. on Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday; provided, however, that effective October 15, ~88~ 2005 (a period of #+ve two years), said hours of operation shall be and remain thereafter as follows: 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., seven days a week. 2. That any tree planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dead. 3. That the on-site landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained in compliance with City standards. 4. That all doors serving the restaurant shall conform to Uniform Fire Code requirements and shall be kept closed at all times during operation of the premises except for ingress(egress, deliveries and emergencies. 5. That all existing and proposed roof-mounted equipment (including the existing satellite dish) shall be completely screened from view in all directions by properly maintained design elements of the building. 6. That the establishment shall be operated as a"Bona Fide Public Eating Place" as defined by Section 23038 of the California Business and Professions Code. 7. That food service with a full meal shall be available from opening time until closing time, on each day of operation. 8. That there shall be no pool tables, vending machines or arcade devices maintained • upon the premises at any time. 9. That subject alcoholic beverage license shall not be exchanged for a public premises (bar) type license nor shall the establishment be operated as a public premise as defined in Section 23039 of the California Business and Professions Code. 10. That the gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 40 percent of gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of beer and wine and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. 11. That there shall be no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premises at any time without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. 12. That the sales of alcohol for off-premises consumption shall be prohibited. 13. That there shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcoholic beverages. 14. That the activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this establishment shall not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties. 15. 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 shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby residences. 10-20-03 Page 14 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 16. 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 indirectiy, to buy them drinks in the licensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profit-sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. 17. That there shall be no public telephones on the premises located outside the building. 18. That signage shall be limited to existing and approved signs. That temporary signs and other advertising devices shall not be permitted except when in connection with an approved Special Event Permit. 19. That no advertising or identification of any type shall be permitted on any outdoor furniture or equipment including umbrellas, by illustration, text or any other means of visual communication. 20. 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. 21. That four (4) foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the flat area of the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material, provided the numbers shall not be visible from the street or adjacent properties. 22. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as conditioned herein. • 23. 7hat trash storage areas shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division to comply with approved plans on file with said Department. 24. That a minimum of four (4) licensed uniformed security guards, approved by the Anaheim Police Department, shall be provided on the premises specifically to provide security, and to discourage vandalism, trespass and/or loitering upon or adjacent to the subject property. Said security guards shall remain on-duty as determined appropriate by the Anaheim Police Department. 25. That the landscape planters shall be permanently maintained with live and healthy plant materials. 26. 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. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That no admission fee, cover charge, events, pre-payment for meals or similar fees shall be imposed on patrons as a condition of entry to the premises. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy) • Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 28 minutes (2:06-2:34) 10-20-03 Page 15 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2001-04466 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04769) OWNER: John Pedicini, P.O. Box 15033, Newport Beach, CA 92659 AGENT: Manuel Gomez, 1540 West La Palma Avenue, #16E, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 1751 West La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 0.4-acre, having a frontage of approximately 125 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue, located approximately 650 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street (EI Rey Del Marisco). Request amendment to conditions of approval pertaining to hours of operation for a previously-approved restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-140 Concurred with staff Approved amendment to the conditions of approval for 5 years (to expire on October 20, 2008) sr8653vn.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 4 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04466 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04769), 1751 West La Palma Avenue, a request to amend the conditions of - approval pertaining to hours of operation for a previously-approved restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on premises consumption. Applicant's Testimony: Virgilo Rodriquez, 2250 S. Phoenix Avenue, Ontario, CA, states that he is the representative of the owner; he has read the staff report and does not have any questions regarding the conditions of approval. Commissioner Flores asked what was his purpose for requesting extra hours. Mr. Rodriquez responded that in the past year Commission has allowed them to extend their business hours and according to their records with the customers, their business has improved and they would like the chance to extend one more hour in the morning. In the past, Commission has allowed them to extend their hours from 10 a.m, to 10 p.m. Commissioner Flores clarified that he would like to extend in the morning and in the evening. Commissioner O'Connell asked if they have music, etc. at the restaurant. Mr. Rodriquez responded yes, from 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. on Friday; on Saturday 2 p.m. to 9 p.m., and on Sunday from 1 p.m to 8 p.m. Commissioner O'Connell asked if it was dance music. Mr. Rodriquez responded no, just music to entertain the customers. Commissioner O`Connell asked if they had a buffet. ~ Mr. Rodriquez responded no. 10-20-03 Page 16 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. McCafferty stated a similar condition (as placed on Conditional Use Permit No. 2670 - Tracking No. CUP2003-04770) could be added if Commission so desired. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked that the condition be added. Mr. McCafferty stated the condition is as foliows: "That no admission, cover charge, events, pre-payment for meals or similar fees shall be imposed on patrons as a condition of entry to the premises." Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he noticed the staff report had bolded Condition No. 2 regarding the landscaping, and as someone who has driven up and down La Palma Avenue he has noticed it could use tender loving care. Mr. Rodriquez responded if he has passed by he could see the way they maintain outside. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if he feels they are providing live and healthy plant material in accordance with City standards. Mr. Rodriquez responded yes, and that in accordance to Commission's request they have taken care of it. Chairperson Vanderbilt wished to clarify if he is saying they are going to take care of it. Mr. Rodriquez responded no, they have taken care of it because after the first year when they requested the Conditional Use Permit, Commission told them what they wanted and they maintained it and planted some roses. Chairperson Vanderbilt referred to staff and asked what their current findings were. • Mr. McCafferty responded that since last year there is a definite improvement and they can see where they have definitely planted things. He explained Condition No. 2 is a maintenance condition, and that the applicants are in compliance with the condition. Commissioner Flores wished to clarify where the landscape was. Commissioner Eastman clarified that there is a patch of landscape near the street, but the property is mostiy pavement and there is not much ground to work with. • • ~ •- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy), 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 request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-04466 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04769) pertaining to hours of operation for a previously-approved restaurant with sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption, limiting the hours of operation from 9 a.m. to 12 midnight daily, for a period of five (5) years to expire on ~ October 20, 2008. 10-20-03 Page 17 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC2002-156 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 1 j. and 2 have been modified and 1 q. has been deleted; a new condition of approval was added at today's meeting): Restaurant With On-sale Beer and Wine: 1. That subject restaurant shall continuously adhere to the following conditions, as required by the Police Department: a. That the establishment shall be operated as a"Bona Fide Public Eating Place" as defined by Section 23038 of the California Business and Professions Code. b. That there shall be no bar or lounge maintained on the property unless licensed by Alcoholic Beverage Control and approved by the City of Anaheim. c. That food service with a full meal shall be available from opening time until closing time, on each day of operation. d. That there shall be no pool tables maintained upon the premises at any time. e. That the sales of beer and wine shall not exceed 40% of the gross sales of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of • sales of beer ~nd wine and other items. These records shall be made available, subject to audit and, when requested, inspection by any City of Anaheim official during reasonable business hours. That there shall be no live entertainment, amplified music or dancing permitted on the premises at any time without issuance of proper permits as required by the Anaheim Municipal Code. g. That the sales of beer and wine for consumption off the premises shall be prohibited. That there shall be no exterior advertising of any kind or type, including advertising directed to the exterior from within, promoting or indicating the availability of alcohol beverages. That the activities occurring in conjunction with the operation of this establishment shall not cause noise disturbance to surrounding properties. j. That the hours of operation for this facility shall be limited to: Daily: 9 a.m. to 12 midnight ~ Further, that this condition shall expire five (5) years from the date of this resolution, on October 20, 2008, after which the hours of operation shall return to those originally approved, as follows: Sunday through Thursday: 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. Friday and Saturday: 9 a.m. to 12 midnight 10-20-03 Page 18 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • k. 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 shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby residences. 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. m. That no vending machines shall be visible from any public right-of-way. n. That all doors serving subject restaurant shall conform to 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, to permit deliveries and in cases of emergency. o. That there shall be no public telephones on the property that are located outside the building and within the control of the applicant. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That no admission fee, cover charge, events, pre-payment for meals or similar fees shall be imposed on patrons as a condition of entry to the premises. • Commercial Retail Center: 2. That landscape planters shall be maintained with live and healthy plant materials in accordance with City standards. 3. That no outdoor storage, display or sales of inerchandise or fixtures shall be permitted. 4. That roof-mounted balloons or other inflated devices shall not be permitted. 5. That no video, electronic or other amusement devices or games shall be permitted anywhere on subject property. 6. That no vending machines shall be permitted on the property which are visible from the public right-of-way. 7. That 4-foot high address numbers shall be maintained on the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material. The numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent properties. 8. 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. 9. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for outdoor storage use. • 10. 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. 10-20-03 Page 19 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 11. That the premises shall be maintained free of litter at all times. 12. That the number of tenant spaces shall be limited to five (5) units as reflected on the site pian (Exhibit No. 1). 13. 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. 14. That the parking lot serving the premises shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to illuminate and make easily discernable the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. Said lighting shall be directed, positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to unreasonably illuminate the windows of nearby residences. 15. 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, 2, and 3 as conditioned herein. 16. 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 Federa! 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: 5-0 (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 8 minutes (2:35-2:43) • 10-20-03 Page 20 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04755 OWNER: Taormina Trust, William Cosmo Taormina, 128 West Sycamore Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Ryan Weils, MMI Titan, 310 Commerce Drive, Irvine, CA 92602 LOCATION: 201 East Center Street. Property is approximately 0.09- acre, located at the northeast corner of Center Street and Claudina Street (Kraemer Building). To permit and retain a roof-mounted telecommunications facility on an existing historic building and accessory ground mounted equipment. Continued from the September 22, 2003, Planning Commission Meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~ C ~ Continued to December 1, 2003 sr8660vn.doc FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the December 1, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to finalize the alternative location and modified design for a stealth installation of the proposed microwave dish antennas. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 10-20-03 Page 21 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 6c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04693 OWNER: Hunter's Pointe HOA, 2 Corporate Park, Suite 200, Irvine, CA 92606 AGENT: Maree Hoeger, Global Telecom Resources, 23332 Mill Creek Drive, Laguna Hil~s, CA 92653 LOCATION: 6920 East Canvon Rim Road. Property is approximately 3.05 acres, having a frontage of 545 feet on the south side of Canyon Rim Road, located 180 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard (AT&T Wireless). To permit a telecommunications antenna and microwave dish on an existing electrical transmission tower and accessory ground-mounted equipment with waiver of minimum front yard setback. Continued from the September 22 and October 6, 2003, Planning Commission Meetings. • CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. OPPOSITION: None Continued to November 17, 2003 sr8655vn.doc ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the November 17, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the petitioner in order to finalize revised plans. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • 10-20-03 Page 22 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 3 (READVERTISED) Continued to 7b. VARIANCE NO. 2003-04574 November 3, 2003 OWNER: Neelam Shewa, 5333 University Drive, Irvine, CA 92616 AGENT: Blash Momeny, 23120 Alicia Parkway, #100, Mission Viejo, CA 92692 LOCATION: 301 and 345 Pennv Lane. Parcel 1: Property is approximately 0.53-acre, having a frontage of 90 feet on the southerly side of Penny Lane, located 70 feet southeast of the centerline of Mohler Drive. Parcel 2: Property is approximately 0.78-acre, having a frontage of 220 feet on the southerly side of Penny Lane, located 160 feet southeast of the centerline of Mohler Drive. Request waivers of: (a) required improvement of right-of-way, (b) maximum structural height, (c) minimum front yard setback, and (d) minimum side yard setback, to construct two single-family homes. Continued from the September 8 and October 6, 2003, Planning Commission Meetings. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. sr5052jr.doc • • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner O'Connell and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy), to continue the subject request to the November 3, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as recommended by staff since the property owner requested a continuance to an unspecified Planning Commission meeting in order to allow time to prepare documentation associated with the subject request. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. i 10-20-03 Page 23 OCTOBER 20, 2003 P~ANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 8a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04771 Concurred with staff Granted OWNER: Harry Elman, Trustee, Elman Family Trust, 9808 Pangborn Avenue, Downey, CA 90240 AGENT: Michelle Truong, 15910 Meagher Street, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 LOCATION: 2090 South Euclid Street. Property is approximately 2.4 acres, located at the northeast corner of Euclid Street and Orangewood Avenue. Request to establish land use conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center and convenience market with sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption and to permit a coin-operated laundromat. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-141 • sr8166vn.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 8 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04771, 2090 south Euclid Street, a request to establish land use conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center and convenience market with sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption and to permit a coin-operated laundromat. Applicant's Testimony: William H. Armet, owner of Development Coordination, representing the tenant of the coin-operated laundromat, 4411 Niantic Place, Yorba Linda, CA, states they reviewed the conditions and finds Item Nos. 35-46 acceptable however the property owner, who is present, wishes clarification to some of the conditions regarding the overall shopping center. Wally Courtney, Paul Kott Realtors, 1225 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA, states the owner of the property, The Elman Family Trust, was a little bit surprised by the conditions placed on some of the other units in the shopping center. The proposed tenant would like to open up the laundromat, but the staff report places restrictions on the entire center and additionally on the existing convenience market. So, they would like to clarify some of those items. For example, page 6 starts with convenience retail markets, and Number 1 states that the space shall be limited to 22 units. While there currently are 22 units, one of the units which is a 4,200 square foot video store, used to be three units that is currently combined into one unit. They do not want to give up the option of someday putting it back into three units. The parking is the same, the square footage is the same, but it is just a matter of whether it is one, two or three units. They would like to delete Item No. 1. And unfortunately, there is some confusion on that because No. 1 is listed twice. It is listed as No. 1 and No. 13. Item Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are listed again as Item Nos. 16, 17 and 14 which makes it more confusing. Mr. McCafferty explained those examples were a part of the modifications he would like to make at the proper time. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to read the modifications. Mr. McCafferty explained that with regard to Condition No. 1, if the applicants wanted to add two • additional units to make the far tenant space with the video store whole, it would be okay with staff. Therefore, that would make it 24 units. With regard to page no. 7, staff would like to delete Condition Nos. 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, because they are duplicates. With regard to timing on page 9, Condition No. 10-20-03 Page 24 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 45, staff would like to add Condition Nos. 32 and 33, and delete Condition No. 41 and replace it with Condition No. 44. He stated that all of the conditions, in addition to the ones just read, would need to be complied with prior to the commencing of the activity authorized by Commission's resolution. The resolution would be renumbered to reflect the change in conditions. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Mr. Courtney if the modification given by staff addressed the concerns he had or if there were other concerns. Mr. Courtney responded it addressed all of the concerns under the heading of the commercial retail center and they were happy with that. But, the next question they had would be concerning the existing convenience market, which starts on page 8. At the top of page 8, Item No. 21, they are not familiar with that Best Management Practices. He asked what it entailed and if there was anything there of immediate concern. Mr. McCafferty explained it is an existing center, and they need to work with Public Works based on new water quality regulations to make sure they are sweeping their lot on a regular basis; cleaning up debris so it does not go into the storm drain. There is nothing that requires any structura{ changes to the center, just good housekeeping. Mr. Courtney responded they have been doing that so it is no problem. But regarding the convenience market, they are a little bit surprised that the request to have an existing business that has been in business in Anaheim for over 20 years he now has to go to an existing tenant and tell him he needs to change his business practices, in order to allow a new tenant into the shopping center. They are a little concern about that because the owner has been allowed CUP's for the shopping center in the last few years and this was never brought up. They did not expect anything like that. In particularly, Item No. 27; they currently have a water machine and a propane gas machine outside of their property that has probably been there for 6 to 10 years. It is fairly innocuous and nobody complains about it or messes • with it, so they do not know why they should have to take that away. He states he could see Commission saying no to future exterior items, but feels they should be allowed to keep anything that is existing which has not been a problem or does not have a code enforcement violation, etc. Regarding Item No. 29, he understands it is a concern of many people when beer and wine licenses are approved, but is not too sure if it is that big of a deal with the existing tenant. For them to go to the applicant and say, "Well, the guy that came in here and bought three beers yesterday, he cannot come in here tomorrow and buy three beers you have got to make him buy six." He is not sure what they can do about that, but would prefer not to have to tell the tenant that he has to change his business practice which he has been doing for the last 20 years. Chairperson Vanderbilt states he can appreciate how sobering it might be to have changes to one tenant who is not the actual applicant, but on the other hand he understands progress. Living standards and changes in laws occur and in order to institute new standards there must be some method to incorporate them. Grandfathering is one way, and another is to wait until a certain parcel of property comes up for a new Conditional Use Permit, and because it applies to the entire property that is when they decide to start instituting them. Mr. McCafferty concurred and explained that a property owner has what he has until they ask for another benefit from the City. In this case, the laundromat to be added to the center and these are the standard conditions that the Commission normally approves for these types of centers. Commissioner Bostwick stated a couple of years ago Commission did the Conditional Use Permit for the massage parlor and asked if any of these conditions were placed on it at that time, were they similar things or was it that the owner just did not pay attention. Mr. Courtney responded he represented that CUP and those conditions were not brought up and that is • why they are a little surprised that they were today. It was just a few years ago. 10-20-03 Page 25 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairperson Vanderbilt stated that since he inadvertently delayed in closing the pubiic hearing he would ask if anyone else in the audience cared to speak. Seeing none. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff to respond to the action taken regarding the massage parlor. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, explained that it appeared to have slipped through the cracks and should have been caught at that time. So, the massage parlor has actually been operating without the CUP for the center that should have been in place from the time of the CUP in 1998, but the provision was in the code at that time also. Commissioner Bostwick wished clarification on the statement, "it was in the code", and he asked if it relates to the outdoor vending. Mr. McCafferty responded that with regard to the code, it is something that Commission has established by policy through looking at these sorts of land use actions. It is entirely up to Commission whether to do that in this case. He suggests what Commission might want to do is take the app{icant up on his suggestion with regard to the two that are there, because in driving by the center those particular ones are not visible to the right-of-way which is the main issue; whether they are visible to the right-of-way or that they are blocking pedestrian access, which is not the case in either circumstance. Commissioner Bostwick suggested they remove the condition for the outdoor vending, but the six-packs wine and beer is a change being asked of all of the mini marts, stores, including his competitors up the street with the gas stations and mini-marts. Therefore, he does not feel Commission is handicapping the applicant in anyway, any different than the neighboring vendors in the area. • Commissioner Flores asked if taking out all of the outdoor vending is something new that Commission is implementing. Mr. McCafferty responded not necessarily, but through Commission's past actions on retail centers they have either not been permitted or they have been restricted when visible to the right-of-way because of the unsightliness. Chairperson Vanderbilt states he is in agreement with Commissioner Bostwick regarding outdoor vending machines given they are innocuous as the applicant has stated, and given that staff is comfortable with the fact that they are not visible to the right-of-way. Additionally, he agrees with Commissioner Bostwick's statements regarding the packaging of the beer and wine, to remain consistent with other Conditional Use Permits that Commission has worked with. DURING THE ACTION. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated there was some discussion regarding the video rental and the possibility of it returning to three original units in the future, and the resolution would include 24 units. Therefore, he asked Mr. Courtney if 24 units would work for him. Mr. Courtney responded that the 24 units are fine. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if Mr. Courtney had another question. Mr. Courtney responded that along with the vending machines, there existed another point in the staff report regarding public telephones needing to be placed inside the building. Currently, they have approximately three public telephones outside of the building that have also been there for 10 years, and there is really no place to put a public telephone inside the convenience market. • Commissioner Bostwick explained that it is a condition that Commission has placed on every shopping center and market, due to the fact that the phones become a nuisance and attraction for drug deals and 10-20-03 Page 26 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • drive-bys, etc. As a result, Commission has conditioned every center in the City of Anaheim that comes before Commission to remove the outside pay phones. Most of the time, stores, offices and restaurants put them somewhere inside rather than on the exterior. Marcos Elman, property owner, stated he understands Commission's concerns and they are also concerned about the kind of element that could be attracted to the phones, but he wondered if underneath the awning is still considered outside. Commissioner Bostwick responded, it is still outside and explained that if the phones were placed on the inside, people are not as likely to go into a restaurant and use the phone if it is a criminal activity. It is a way Commission prevents problems from happening on the property and for the tenants who are leasing the space and makes sure the center and the City are good properties. Mr. Elman states he supports Commission and he understands. Mr. Courtney referred to staff and asked regarding Condition No. 22; lighting, if it is just a standard clause or if something is wrong with the existing lighting. Mr. McCafferty responded there is nothing wrong with the existing lighting, but make sure they maintain it. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy), • that the Anaheim City Planning Gommission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Structures), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04771 (to establish land use conformity with existing Zoning Code requirements for an existing commercial retail center and convenience market with sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption and to permit a coin-operated laundromat), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated October 20, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 1, 27 and 45 to read as follows: 1. That the number of tenant spaces shall be limited to *•••^^+~~-*•~~^ ~"~ twenty-four (24) units. 27. That except for the existing water vending machine and small enclosure for the dispensing of individual barbeque propane tanks, no additional outdoor vending machines shall ~ be permitted on the property. 45. That prior to the commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, a5,-a-6;-~9; 20, 21, 32, 33, 38, 40 and 4~ 44, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions of further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. • Deleted Condition Nos. 13 thr u h 19. og 10-20-03 Page 27 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 21 minutes (2:44-3:05) • • 10-20-03 Page 28 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 9a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 (READVERTISED) 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04773 OWNER: Jerry T. Fieids, 21 Tiburon Bay Drive, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 AGENT: Caeser J. Aguilar, 15340 Paramount Boulevard, Paramount, CA 90723 LOCATION: 3452 East Oranqethorpe Avenue. Property is approximately 2.3 acres, having a frontage of 1,080 feet on the south side of Orangethorpe Avenue, located approximately 900 feet west of the centerline of Miller Street. Request to establish land use conformity with existing zoning code requirements for an existing legal non-conforming commercial retail center and liquor store and to permit an adult day health care facility. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-142 Concurred with staff Granted sr1129cw.doc Greg McCafferty, Principai Planner, introduced Item No. 9 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04773, 3452 East Orangethorpe Avenue, a request to establish land use conformity with existing zoning code requirements for an existing legal non-conforming commercial retail center and liquor store and to permit an adult day health care facility. • ApplicanYs Testimony: Douglas Ferrieri, Property Manager, 1020 N. Batavia, Suite B, Orange, CA, representing the tenants Debra and Steven Wong, stated he reviewed the staff report but has concerns with a division in the staff report regarding page 10, Condition No. 38, "that the landlord must comply with the 26 mentioned items before allowing commencement of the adult day care center at the facilit~'. He wished clarification to approximate(y 10 of the items and feels Condition Nos. 1 through 6, regarding the Adult Day Health Care Center, are acceptable with respect to the tenant, other than he wished a clarification on Condition No. 2, which refers to an onsite manager being present. He asked if it is just during the business hours. Mr. McCafferty responded that is correct. Mr. Ferrieri states Condition Nos. 7 through 21 of the staff report make reference to the liquor store and items that they must comply with the help of him, the landlord, as well as Code Enforcement. Regarding some of the conditions of the amusement devices, he is not sure whether he has any of that in his facility or not, but he does have Lotto and he is not sure whether or not that is considered an amusement device. As spoken by the previous applicant, this too is an old establishment and he wonders how Code Enforcement or the landlord would enforce some of the provisions. ~ Chairperson Vanderbilt explained that since Mr. Ferrieri raised several questions with regard to the conditions of approval, he would open the public floor, giving the public an opportunity to speak before answering his questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. No one wished to speak; and seeing none. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 10-20-03 Page 29 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Ferrieri asked if some of the Condition Nos. 7 through 21 could be deleted or if a ciarification on how a landlord could enforce some of the particular items could be given. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if there were any specific Conditions. Mr. Ferrieri responded, specifically Condition No. 10, "That no window signs shall be permitted in connection with the liquor store". He states he was told that generally on the sign criteria for retail centers, they allow 25% of the window coverage to allow for promoting or advertising the business. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated in a general sense the items really match what he would find if he were to open up the Municipal Code. The requirements are not necessarily specific to the subject tenant, but they are Citywide for businesses of this type. He explained that he was interested in knowing if he felt any of the items were wrong because perhaps he felt they were very unrealistic or he felt there was no way he could comply with them. Mr. Ferrieri responded that he could comply with them, but it is whether or not his tenant could comply with them. He explained that his tenant has been an established center, and his business is not currently the best and being able to see the beer and wine advertisement is helping customers come into his facility. Therefore, he was not quite sure how necessary it is for him to enforce this condition with respect to aflowing the applicant to operate his business. Chairperson Vanderbilt explained new rules are put into place and in order to implement them fairly, businesses that have had them who aren't meeting the condition at the time the condition goes into effect, are essentially grandfathered until they come before a review process such as the subject Conditional Use Permit. At which time, staff could run through aA of the rules that would pertain to the project, if this were a brand new project, and then ask the property owner to make sure they enforce them. He explains that it is probably shocking in some ways, but if they have to come up with a way to implement it City- • wide, this actually is a pretty fair way to do it because businesses are not given the notice the day that it is put into place and said "alright, by the end of the day or the end of this week, you have to put all of these into effecY'. Instead, they were given a grace period that lasts as long as the operation of the center proceeds. Mr. Ferrieri asked if there is a time element for getting this tenant to comply, but yet permitting the adult day care center to commence his business. Chairperson Vanderbilt responded yes, the Commission has the ability to take certain circumstances into account and tinker or retool the conditions with extending the deadline if it feels it should do so. He asked Mr. McCafferty to highlight or add anything to the comments that he just made. Mr. McCafferty responded that staff concurs with everything stated and definitely the Commission has the discretion to put in alternative timing for compliance with the other conditions of approval other than the adult day health care center. For example, they could say that upon operation of the adult day care facility they have a certain amount of time to comply with the other conditions or they could leave it as it is. Commissioner Flores stated there were a couple of outdoors items at question, and she was not aware of the signage, but he does have a telephone that is outside. Mr. Ferrieri responded yes, he has a public telephone that he has to remove and it would not be a problem. Commissioner Bostwick stated in the morning session they discussed the patio area he is going to put on the front of the building for the outdoor activity, and Commission wants to make sure it does not impede the walking traffic and that there is still room to walk from one end of the center and around. • Mr. Ferrieri stated it would not impede. It was intended to have it open for pedestrian cross through. 10-20-03 Page 30 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Flores asked if it would be enclosed in the front and r-ot in the back. Mr. Ferrieri responded yes, just in the front is intended, but he will have to see how it operates. Commissioner Flores asked if there would be chairs, etc., during business hours and would he put everything away in the evening. Mr. Ferrieri responded yes, each day at the end of the business hour at 4:00. Commissioner Bostwick wished to clarify if someone normally brings the patients to the center. Mr. Ferrieri responded that is correct. Commissioner Bostwick asked if they used buses or vans or if individuals come. Mr. Ferrieri responded that what was explained to him when they did the lease was that most of it is bused in or dropped off and the buses would be temporarily parked on the facility as well, over in the triangle portion of the center. Commissioner Flores wished to clarify there would not be any medication issued to the patients, but that it is just day care. Mr. Ferrieri responded yes, that is correct. It makes note of a maximum 120, but he is not sure when that is going to happen. Commissioner Bostwick asked if that is an amount required by state code. • Mr. Ferrieri responded state codes, with respect to the square footage and the restrooms allowances of the facility itself. Commissioner Bostwick asked if it is County or State licensed. Mr. Ferrieri responded the State. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Mr. Ferrieri if there were other items. Mr. Ferrieri responded yes, just a couple. Regarding Item No. 33, the number of trees recommended for the landscape berm along Orangethorpe, there was no number of trees specified. But, there are some existing trees there and some of the discussions of the owner was that they want to do some plantings but did not want to screen off the property at the same time. He asked the committee to be reasonable on what they had in mind. Mr. McCafferty responded that is why the condition was worded the way it is. Staff feft it was unreasonable because of the large frontage to require the number of trees that would normally have to be provided. They will work with the owner to put in a reasonable amount where it maintains their visibility but further dresses up the frontage. That gives staff the flexibility to work with him on that. Chairperson Vanderbilt explained the condition would be crafted in a way that it becomes an administrative decision and it is basically an agreement between the applicant and staff. Mr. Ferrieri stated regarding Item No. 34, they currently have 4 existing trash enclosures. He asked if it was intended they be removed or changed to a different location. Commissioner Bostwick explained it is just a housekeeping item. i Mr. Ferrieri referred to Item No. 36, and stated he is not quite clear with respect to the storm drainage system or what is meant by proper drainage, and is not aware that they are contributing to a drainage 10-20-03 Page 31 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • problem to the area behind them. However, he does have concerns on how the drain itself is being maintained; currently, the water is stagnant and mossy. Commissioner Bostwick wished to clarify if it is the storm drain channel behind his property; between his property and the spreading basin. Mr. Ferrieri responded yes, that is correct. Commissioner Bostwick stated the County Flood Control District is whom he needs to talk to, and the Vector Control Board if he has problems with mosquitoes, etc. Commissioner Flores asked Commission to clarify Mr. Ferrieri's question on the 25% window signage permitted. Mr. Ferrieri asked if it is something permitted or if it is standard practice such as with banners and lettering or explaining whaYs inside if it is a real estate business, property management, etc. For example, in the case of the liquor store, the owner is being asked not to display beer and wine out of the window. Therefore, he wonders if there would be other items that he could display in the place of them or to what amount of the window could he cover. Mr. McCafferty asked if there is a specific condition he is referencing in the staff report. Mr. Ferrieri responded no, he would like to be able to tell his tenant that he has to take his beer and wine signs down, but would like to be able to offer something that might go up in its place. Mr. McCafferty explained that with regards to the liquor store, it has been staff's position that it be maintained opened and visible from the outside. There would be two ways to go: (1) Leave the condition • as is, which would not permit window signage; and (2) Maintain the visibility or delete that and fafi back to what the code permits for any retail business, which is 20% of the window area to be utilized for window signage; or split it in half and permit it, but on the upper portion of the store front so that visibility is maintained inside. Commissioner Flores wished to clarify if the applicant could put up whatever he wanted to except anything that had to do with beer and wine sales. Mr. McCafferty responded that the applicant could do whatever the Commission allowed him to do. But, with the way the CUP is currently conditioned, he could not have anything. However, if Commission amends the condition to allow him to have something other than the advertising of the alcohol of the beer and wine he could do that too. Commissioner Bostwick explained that the reason the Pofice Qepartment does not like signage on the windows, is because if they get a call they cannot see inside to see who is doing what. So, as a protection to the store operator, as well as the Police Department, they want the windows kept clear and that is why the condition is there. It is up to the applicant if he wants to modify it to the upper 20% of the window. Commissioner O'Connell asked if Commission has approved 20% of the window for a past Conditional Use Permit. Mr. McCafferty responded what staff has tried to do consistently on items that have off-premise sales is recommend to Commission that no window signs be placed on the window for security reasons. But, he feels there were perhaps one or two cases in the recent past where Commission has allowed a certain percentage of non-alcohol related advertisement on the windows. • Commissioner Flores wished to clarify that the applicanYs question is because he does have signage but it is alcohol related. So, whether Commission decided or not he could not put up any alcohol signs. 10-20-03 Page 32 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner O'Connell clarified no; Commission could condition how it saw fit. Mr. McCafferty states there are two signs that pertain specifically to the liquor store with regard to window signage: Condition No. 10, "That no window signs shall be permitted in connection with the liquor store"; and Condition No. 11: "That no advertising of beer or wine shall be located, placed or attached to any location outside the interior of the building; and that any such advertising shall not be visible to anyone outside the building". Chairperson Vanderbilt states that Commission has flexibility and the applicant has stated an interest to see if something could be worked out. Commissioner Eastman concurred with staff that maybe up to 10% in the upper portion and nonalcoholic related, but perhaps community announcement, etc. Mr. Ferrieri responded 20% wouid be more workable, due to the visibility from the street because the tenant needs exposure; that is how he promotes his business and that is a part of what he does. Mr. McCafferty suggested that on Condition No. 11 they could delete everything after the semicolon, and that would essentially mean that the applicant could not place any advertisement outside the building. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked the applicant if he had to choose between 20% of nonalcoholic advertising versus 10% of both nonalcoholic and alcoholic advertising, which would he prefer. Mr. Ferrieri responded that he is not the tenant and but he feels he is going to be discouraged when the new conditions are pointed out to him. Mr. McCafferty conferred with Selma Mann, The Assistant City Attorney, and suggested they could do it • either way. Commission could modify the condition that allows him to do 20% nonalcoholic advertisement or alternatively 10% of afcohol advertisement and just leave it in one condition. Commissioner Eastman stated Commission could allow 10% where the applicant was able to advertise the sale of beer and wine, and that would give him the option of showing that it is a liquor store but it would keep the visibility, because she is concerned with the Police and community safety. DURING THE ACTION. Mr. Ferrieri stated that he had concern with one other item on page 4 referencing required parking. The required parking indicated 180 spaces, but the facility only has 173 spaces, and he was told that zoning allows 10% variance on the number of parking allowed. He wondered if that is accurate. Mr. McCafferty responded because the use has a parking ratio per City Code that is less than the standard retail-parking requirement, there is no need for a parking waiver. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated that all of the conditions would need to be complied with prior to the opening of the facility or within 1 year. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked Commissioner O'Connell to modify his resolution to extend the time in order to comply with all of the rules in Condition No. 38. Commissioner Bostwick suggested putting Condition Nos. 7 through 11 to be complied with within six months, and the rest remain in Condition No. 38. Chairperson Vanderbilt explained to Mr. Ferrieri that staff would modify the conditions such that the conditions pertaining to the liquor store would be given an additional six months from the date of the • resolution to comply. 10-20-03 Page 33 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ • • • ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner O'Connell offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy), 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 Structures), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmentaf documentation. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04773 (to establish land use conformity with existing Zoning Code requirements for an existing commercial retail center and liquor store and to permit an adult day health care facility), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated October 20, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition Nos. 10, 11 and 38 to read as follows: 10. That ~e window signs for the liquor store devoted to alcohol and/or non-alcohol advertising shall not exceed 10% of the window area and shall be ~ed +~ placed in the upper portion of the window. • 11. That no advertising of beer or wine shall be located, placed or attached to any location outside the interior of the building.; 38. That prior to commencement of the activity authorized by this resolution or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5,', Q, °, ''^, ''~', 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 35 and 36 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. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That within six (6) months from the date of this resolution, Condition Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 30 minutes (3:06-3:36) ~ 10-20-03 Page 34 OCTOBER 20, 20p3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVEDI 10b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4094 (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04765) OWNER: Frome Investments, 2900-A Bristol Street, No. 201, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 AGENT: Erika Nguyen, The Chance Theater, P.O. Box 3309, Orange, CA 92857 LOCATION: 5552 fcurrentlv 55761 East La Paima Avenue. Property is approximately 8.8 acres, having a frontage of 520 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, located 585 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway (The Chance Theater). Request reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on February 17, 1999 to expire February 17, 2004) to retain and relocate a previously- approved theater to another unit within an industrial complex. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-143 Approved Approved reinstatement with deletion of time limitation sr3046ey.doc ~ Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item No. 10 as Conditional Use Permit No. ~t094 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04765}, 5552 [currently 5576] East La Palma Avenue, a request for reinstatement of the permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation (approved on February 17, 1999 to expire February 17, 2004) to retain and relocate a previously-approved theater to another unit within an industrial complex. ApplicanYs Testimony: Oanh and Erika Nguyen, owners of The Chance Theater, 847 S. Nordica Lane, Anaheim, CA. Mr. Nguyen stated that they read the staff report and have concerns with Title No. 24 of the memorandum, which speaks of T-24 California Accessibility Requirements; the restrooms, parking, path of travel to the facility, etc. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, explained to Commission that Mr. Nguyen was referring to a copy of a memo from the Building Division, which talks about Title No. 24 requirements that are not under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, but under the jurisdiction of the Building Division. He directed the applicant to go to the staff counter for assistance. Mr. Nguyen stated the only other question they had referred to Condition No. 3; the weekend times of operation, because they have matinee shows on Sundays at 2:00 p.m. and matinee shows on Saturdays at 4:00 p.m., and usually do two shows in repertory. Mr. Hastings stated that should not be a problem just based on the difference on the parking requirements or demands in the center. Chairperson Vanderbilt referred to staff and asked, given that there is probably not very much demand in • the park during the weekends, if Commission could broaden the hours even further just to give more flexibility if they wanted to have a 2:00 p.m. Saturday matinee or noon matinee. 10-20-03 Page 35 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. Hastings suggested not restricting the hours on weekends in terms of the start time. Chairperson Vanderbilt wished to clarify that staff would not have a problem if the applicants chose to have a show that went to 3:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday mornings; the 11:00 p.m. Sunday closure and the Saturday 2:00 a.m. closure. Mr. Hastings responded that it sounded like the problem was just with the start time. Commissioner Bostwick suggested taking out the earlier time. Mr. Hastings stated he feels staff would be a little concerned because Friday is a business day. He suggested perhaps it should be 6:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Friday. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated no later than midnight on Saturday and 11:00 p.m, on Sunday. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. AFTER THE ACTION. Mr. Hastings clarified that the applicant requested to remain open until 2:00 a.m. on Saturday to match the time open on Friday. OPPOSITION: None • ACTION: Commissioner Flores offered a motion seconded b Commissioner Eastman and , y MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy), 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 the request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4094 (Tracking No. CUP2003-04765) to retain and relocate a previously-approved theater to another tenant space within the industrial complex without a time limitation. Amended Resolution No. PC99-29 in its entirety and replaced it with a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval (Condition No. 3 was modified at today's meeting): 1. That the pertormances shall be limited to theatrical dramas, comedies and plays; and that activities at this business shall not trigger a requirement for a sex-oriented business permit, as set forth in Chapter 18.89 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 2. That the maximum number of patrons and seats shall be limited to fifty (50). 3. That the operation of this business shall be limited to 7 p.m. to midnight, Monday through Thursday for rehearsals, with performances limited to 6 p.m. to 2 a.m. on Friday, and no later than 2 a.m. on Saturday and no later than 11 p.m. on Sunday. ~ 4. That no alcoholic beverages shall be sold or consumed on the premises. 10-20-03 Page 36 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5. That due to change in use and/or occupancy of the building, plans shall be submitted to the Building Division showing compliance with the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. The appropriate permits shall be obtained for any necessary work. 6. 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. 7. That signage for this property shall comply with all signing requirements of the SP94-1, DA 5(SC) Zone unless a variance allowing sign waivers is approved by the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission or City Council. 8. That any roof-mounted equipment shall be subject to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.84.062.032 pertaining to the Scenic Corridor Overfay Zone. 9. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Revision No. 1 of Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. 10. That prior to issuance of a building permit or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 5, above- mentioned, shall be complied with. 11. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 9, above- • mentioned, shall be complied with. 12. 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: 5-0 (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (3:37-3:46) • 10-20-03 Page 37 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 11a. CEQANEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 11b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 11c. CONDITIONAL tlSE PERMIT NO. 1420 Approved amendment (TRACKING NO. CUP2003-04766) to previously-approved exhibits. OWNER: Marcia S. Halligan, Trustee, Marcia S. Halligan Trust, P.O. Box 388, Langley, WA 92860 AGENT: Jerry Murdock, 5450 Complex Street, Suite 307, San Diego, CA 92123 LOCATION: 5780 East La Palma Avenue. Property is approximately 1.1 acres, having a frontage of 291 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, located 690 feet east of the centerline of Imperial Highway (Armstrong Garden Center). Request to amend previously-approved exhibits pertaining to signage with waiver of maximum number of wall signs for an existing garden center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-144 sr1130cw.doc Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, introduced Item no. 11 as Conditional Use Permit No. 1420 (Tracking • No. CUP2003-04766), 5780 East La Palma Avenue, a request to amend previously-approved exhibits pertaining to signage with waiver of maximum number of wall signs for an existing garden center. Applicant's Testimony: Joseph Amaral, 2200 E. Route 66, Suite 200, Glendora, CA, Director of Real Estate Development and Construction for the Armstrong Garden Center, first thanked Commission for approximately 1 year ago approving their new building on E. La Palma Avenue, stating that at that time they were deadlocked at the present existing issue; 3 and 3 regarding the signage. He returns to still plead their case that with visibility there, with the cars traveling on E. La Palma Avenue going past their site at 40 and 50 mph, it is very hard to see their signage with their building 70 feet back with the buffer zone and setback that they have there also. A year ago the previous store had 3 signs on the building and it had a neon sign at the monument sign. They replaced that monument sign with a very nice sandblasted sign, which at times is a very nice sign, but it is easy not to see it with people traveling along E. La Palma Avenue, sometimes they just go by and that's something that they do not want as a retailer and also for safety reasons. Thirty-two percent (32%) of their customers come from that direction to their location. The more visual impact that the sign on their building has makes it is easier to see and for customers to slow down and turn around. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner O'Connell referred to staff and asked if they could give him another explanation (other than the one that is in the staff report). Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated when staff is looking at whether to recommend approval or denial of a sign they base it on what the code permits and what the required findings for the variance are. Staff felt that although the first finding could be made with regard to the subject business being deprived of privileges enjoyed by surrounding businesses, the second finding which is also required with regard to ~ the uniqueness of the site could not, based on something that was specific to the topography, terrain, or shape of the site that limited visibility. In the subject matter, for the signs that are being proposed on the east elevation of the building, if you were traveling west bound on La Palma Avenue towards the facility 10-20-03 Page 38 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • you are able to see the monument sign before you have to make a decision whether to go into the property or not. And, because of the median that is there, you could not turn there anyway, you would have to go to the intersection on Imperial Highway and make a U-turn and go back. It is staff's claim that it is not an impulse-buy it is a destination, and therefore when people go to the Armstrong Nursery they know why they are going. Commissioner O'Connell asked what the signage situation was as far as the other buildings that are in close proximity. Mr. McCafferty responded with regard to that finding, there are other businesses in the area that have wall signs in addition to monument signs. Staff agrees he meets the first finding. Commissioner Eastman asked of the other businesses that have wall signs as well as monument signs if the wall signs were grandfathered. She could not recall any of those cases coming before Commission since she has been on the Commission. Mr. McCafferty responded both Keno's, Travel Lodge, car wash and the motel. W ith regard to the motel and Keno's he does not recall them coming to the Commission since he has been employed and he is not sure about the car wash. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, stated that those signs have been there a long time. The point is that even though there are some in this area, staff is trying to look at what is considered superfluous signs and there are superfluous signs on the other properties. Commissioner Eastman stated it seems that there are no findings for the two things. But, to her the building is their sign; it is like an icon. Anytime she sees the building, and before she ever sees a sign that is associated with it, she knows it is Armstrong Nursery; "It is like the old McDonald's, you did not • need to see their name." She commends them on doing a good job on the shape of the building and the plantings around it, so it is known that it is Armstrong. To her it seems like the sign is more visual clutter, and that is one of the things Commission has been trying to address in Anaheim; not to add any visual clutter that is unnecessary, Mr. Amaral stated that they go to great extent for that branding; that look; that convenience, but again, 19% of their customers are new customers and they give directions to new people. So, even though they have the barn look, they still need to get the visual impact of the signage. The sign on the east side of the building can be seen from the 91-Freeway, if you are looking in that direction going west on the 91- Freeway. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked if the nursery is opened until 8 or 9 p.m. Mr. Amaral responded that their hours are 8:30 to 5:30 p.m. and their extended hours during daylight savings is until 6:30 p.m. Chairperson Vanderbilt states that he comes from the position of appreciating the hardship because anybody driving, when approaching a turn in the road tends to focus even harder on making the turn, and the subject turn happens to be away from the front of the business. But, that he can also understand the interest in reducing the visual clutter, especially when it is on the edge of the businesses because after that it is the park, and then residential. He wonders if there was any discussion about a non-illuminated sign; a sign that would probably only be visible during business hours but not after hours. Mr. Amaral responded that would be a possibility, and they have done that before in other communities; where there is no neon but only upper lighting on the sign. Commissioner Bostwick stated he could appreciate the position in trying to get the signage, but he feels • the sign on the other end of the building towards the freeway would be more advantageous than the sign along La Palma Avenue. He lives in that direction and drives by all of the time, and he knows that it is there, but feels the applicant would get more business from the freeway. It would be no different than the 10-20-03 Page 39 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Travel Lodge, which puts their sign on the end of the Travel Lodge facing right along Imperial Highway on the freeway where it can be seen from the freeway; and Keno's has a sign on the backside facing the freeway as well as towards La Palma Avenue. If it were called the second frontage or road frontage, he would concur that the freeway is the second street and should have a second sign for the other frontage, Commissioner Flores referred to staff and asked what they would think about having a sign facing the freeway. Mr. McCafferty responded if he had a choice between the two he would prefer the sign on the east elevation because it is a local use, and if Commission is disposed to approving the sign he would do it as recommended by the applicant. Mr. Amaral stated their prior store had a sign in the back; a total of 3 signs. He concurs with McCafferty because he is trying to get the sign on the east for the traffic. Thirty-two percent (32%) of the public coming that way, and at the same time have visibility from the 91-Freeway although it is not in the back, but there is a side visibility off the 91-Freeway that exposes their building signage. DURING THE ACTION. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated he wished to propose his CUP language before making a waiver of code requirements. Mr. McCafferty stated that he could talk in general about how he would address the motion and the CUP together but vote on the motion first. Chairperson Vanderbilt stated his rationale is that what he is going to suggest to Commission in a general sense is a Conditional Use Permit which would allow non-illuminated signage on the east side of the • property, as proposed under the rationale that not only is the property oddly shaped, but because of the direction that La Palma Avenue takes whereby west traveling traffic has to veer to the right, and also because the property is a garden store so it has much greater landscaping than other types of businesses which would suggest to him that it is a less visible business by nature of the types of products that it sells. THE WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT WAS MADE. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Vanderbilt offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy), 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 Waiver of Code Requirement pertaining to maximum number of wall signs based upon testimony presented at today's public hearing that the property is oddly shaped, the direction of westbound traffic on La Palma Avenue veers to the right directing attention away from the structure, since the subject site is a nursery business it has greater landscaping buffer than other type businesses which impacts the visibility of the structure, and that there are other uses in the vicinity with similar zoned properties which do enjoy the privileges of having the additional signage. ~ Approved the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 1420 (Tracking No. CUP2003- 04766) to amend previously-approved exhibits pertaining to signage for an existing 10-20-03 Page 40 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISS{ON MINUTES ~ garden center based on the testimony presented at today's meeting and with the stipulation that the new wall sign proposed for the east elevation of the building as shown on Exhibit 2A shall be non-illuminated. Incorporated conditions of approval contained in Resolution No. PC2002-146 into a new resolution which includes the following conditions of approval: That the water back flow equipment shall be above ground and outside the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Any other large water system equipment shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Water Engineering Division in either underground vaults or outside the street setback area in a manner fully screened from all public streets and alleys. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted to the Water Engineering and Cross Connection Inspector for review and approval prior to submittal of plans for building permits. 2. That prior to grading plan approval, the developer shall submit a Water Quality Management Plan ("WQMP") specifically identifying the post-construction best management practices that will be used on-site to control predictable pollutants from storm water runoff. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division, for review and approval (Anaheim Municipal Code Chapter 10.09 "National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)"). 3. That the driveway on La Palma Avenue shall be constructed with a ten (10) foot radius curb returns as required by the City Engineer in conformance with Engineering Standard No. 137. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. i 4. That all requests for new water services or fire lines, as well as any modifications, relocations or abandonments of existing water services and fire lines, shall be coordinated through the Water Engineering Division of the Anaheim Public Utilities Department. 5. That because this project has landscaping areas exceeding two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet, a separate irrigation meter shall be installed to comply with Chapter 10.19 "Landscape Water Efficienc~' of Anaheim Municipal Code and Ordinance No. 5349. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 6. That all existing water services and fire lines sha{I conform to current Water Services Standard Specifications. Any water service and/or fire line that does not meet current standards shall be upgraded if necessary or abandoned if the existing service is no longer needed. The owner/developer shall be responsible for the costs to upgrade and/or to abandon any water service or fire line. 7. That the legal owner shall provide to the City of Anaheim (Electrical Engineering Division) with an easement to be determined as electrical design is completed for electrical service lines. Said easement shall be submitted to the City of Anaheim prior to connection of electrical service. 8. That any required relocation of City of Anaheim electrical facilities shall be at the developer's expense. Landscape and/or hardscape screening shall be provided for a11 pad-mounted equipment. ~ 9. That the developer/property owner shall install PVC or vinyl slats in the existing chain-link fence located along the south property line adjacent to the horse/bicycle 10-20-03 Page 41 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ trail. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 10. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion through the provision of regular landscaping maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty four (24) hours from time of occurrence. 11. That trash storage area(s) shall be provided and maintained in location(s) acceptable to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, and in accordance with approved plans on file with said Department. Said storage area(s) shall be designed, located and screened so as not to be readily identifiable from adjacent streets or highways. 7he walls of the storage area(s) shall be protected from graffiti opportunities by the use of plants such as minimum one (1) gallon sized clinging vines planted on maximum three (3) foot centers or tall shrubbery. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 12. That a plan sheet for solid waste storage and collection and a plan for recycling shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division, for review and approval. 13. That an on-site trash truck turn-around area shall be provided in compliance with Engineering Standard Detail No. 610 and maintained to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department, Streets and Sanitation Division. Said turn-around area shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. In lieu of providing an on-site trash truck turn-around, the applicant shall submit proof of a recorded reciprocal access easement for ingress/egress with the property directly to the west at 5750 East La Palma Avenue. • 14. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for review and approval showing conformance with the current versions of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436, 601 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations. Subject property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance with said plans. 15. That no required parking area shall be fenced or otherwise enclosed for storage or other outdoor uses. 16. That no 'compact' or `small car' parking spaces shall be permitted. 17. That a landscape plan for the entire site, specifying type, size and location of proposed landscaping, including irrigation facilities, shall be submitted to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department for review and approval. Any decision made by the Zoning Division regarding said plan may be appealed to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 18. That any tree andlor landscaping planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased and/or dies. 19. That the landscaped setback along La Palma Avenue shall be planted wi#h fourteen (14), minimum twenty four (24) inch box sized, trees. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 20. That as required by the Urban Forestry Division of the Community Services ~ Department, street trees (three (3), twenty four (24) inch box sized, Magnolia "Samual Sommer" trees) shall be planted by the devefoper/property owner, within the public 10-20-03 Page 42 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MIMUTES ~ right-of-way adjacent to La Palma Avenue. Said information shall be specifically shown on the plans submitted for building permits. 21. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 2A, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and as conditioned herein. 22. 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. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: That the new wall sign proposed for the east building elevation shall be non-illuminated (externally or internally). VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes (3:47-4:07) • • 10-20-03 Page 43 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 12a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Withdrawn 12b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04764 OWNER: SBD Group Inc., 505 South Viifa Real Drive, #100, Anaheim, CA 92807 AGENT: Mehran Kahenjoo, Salon Boucle, 505 South Villa Real Drive, Suite 106, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 505 South Villa Real Drive. Property is approximately 2.6 acres, located at the southwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Villa Real Drive (Salon Boucle'). Request to permit a massage establishment in conjunction with an existing hair salon. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR8652av.doc OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and ~ MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal of Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04764 due to the inabitity to construct required modifications to the existing salon to comply with the requirements of Title 4 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Romero absent and with one Commission vacancy) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. ~~ 10-20-03 Page 44 OCTOBER 20, 2003 PLANNIPIG COMMISSION MINUTES • Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, stated staff would soon be providing the Schedule for 2004 Planning Commission meeting dates for Commission's review. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:08 P.M. TO MONDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2003 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~ ~.Q-IZ--~~ ~ Pat Chandler Senior Secretary ~ Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2003. 10-20-03 Page 45