Loading...
Minutes-PC 1994/02/07 ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1994, AT 11:00 A.M. PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW PUBLIC HEARING (PUBLIC TESTIMONY) 11:00 A.M. 1:30 P.M. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: CALDWELL, HENNINGER, MAYER, MESSE, PERAZA, TAIT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: BOYDSTUN PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. The proponents in applications which arca not contested will have five minutes to present their evidence. Addtional time will be granted upon request ff, in the opinion of the Commisslon, such addRional time will produce evidence Important to the Commission's consideration. 2. In contested applications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to present their case unless additional time is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. The Commission's considerations are not determined by the length of time a participant speaks, but rather by what Is said. 3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission in each hearing. Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting. 4. The Commission will withhold questions until the public hearing is closed. 5. The Commisslon reserves the . •iht to deviate from the foregoing H, in its opinion, the ends of fafiness to all concerned will be served. .-,~ 6. All documents presented to the Planning Commisslon for review in connection wfth any hearing, Including photographs or other acceptable visual representations or non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by the Commisslon for the public record and shall be available for public inspections. 7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed to speak on hems of Interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda ftems. Each speaker wi11 be allotted a maximum of fNe (5) minutes to speak. AC020794.WP 02/07/94 Page 1 ,-• 1a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 21 Continued to 1b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT March 21, 1994 1 c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3253. 3414 AND 2905 (Readvertised) INITIATED BY: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 OWNERS: SO CAL CINEMAS, INC., Attn: Bruce Sanbom, 13 Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660; DEBEIKES INVESTMENT CO., Attn: Richard Debeikes, 2300 Michelson Drhie, #200, Irvine, CA 92715-1336 LOCATION: CINEMAPOLIS -Property (s approximately 5.54 acres located on the north side of La Palma Avenue and approximately 300 feet west of the centedine of Imperial Highway (5635 E. La Palma Ave.). IMPERIAL PROMENADE -Property is approximately 4.4 acres located cn the northwest comer of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway (5645-5675 E. La Palma Ave.). Request for possible revocation or modification to condftions of approval of an existing movie theater complex and commercial retail center. Continued from the January 10, and 24, 1994 Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Initiated by the City of Anaheim. Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering Department. He spoke with Mr. Sanbom, and he informed him that he was going to mall the check, however, he has not received it as of yet. They did receive a check from Imperial Promenade. As soon as they receive the other check they can start the parking study. Commissioner Henninger asked ff all of the parties have agreed on the funding of the traffic signal? Mr. Yalda stated when he spoke w{th Mr. Sanbom, he agreed, and Mr. Lee, with Imperial Promenade agreed to pay for traffic signal installation. 02/07/94 ~, Page 2 Mr. DeBeikes stated they are in agreement that they will pay for their portion of the traffic ,-~ signal, however, they need to make certain, that prior to release of the funds for the signal, that the access to their property cannot be changed. He elaborated. He explained they will participate with the traffic signal contingent upon knowing that their circulation will not be altered so they can have benefff of the traffic signal. Two of the three access points were unilateralley altered without their pemtlssian. They are requesting that access will unequfvocably be determined and that the access cannot be altered Ilke ff was before. Commissioner Henninger stated he would prefer that he did not hold this traffic signal hostage. He did not like the feel of that. He felt these were separate issues and they need to be sure that the on-she ciraiiation is one of the things that is covered in the traffic study. He would like to hear Mr. Sanborn say that they are on board with the traffic signal unconditionally. Mr. DeBeikes stated ff they do not have benefft of the traffic signal through direct access to it, they cannot agree to k. Commissioner Henninger asked ff he had access to that driveway now? Mr. DeBeikes stated they do. It was changed back, so they do have it now. He requested assistance from the City to return their circulation to where ff was originally agreed. This was discussed with Jonathan Borrego in June. He advised him that the Planning Commission had the power to put condfffons on the theatre property so that their property could not have been changed and none of that has been addressed. They were disappointed, that although people are pushing them to help pay for a traffic signal, no one is willing to do what they can dote help them from having their access altered. Commissioner Messe asked ff that was the reason for the parking and circulation study that they are currently going through? Mr. DeBeikes indicated that was correct. Mr. Yalda explained that the parking study will also take Into consideration the existing circulation. They will make a recommendation for the Improvement of the circulation-not only for Cinemapolis, but Imperial Promenade as well. Commissioner Messe asked for clarification ff that study would address the two pieces of property so that the optimum circulation will be the result.? Mr. Yalda indicated that was correct. Commissioner Messe stated he did not knew why thsy were holding the signal hostage. Mr. DeBeikes explained they have no access to La Palma Avenue. !f they do not have circulation and access to the traiflc signal which is satisfactory to them, then there is no benefd in them being a part of the traffic signal. 02/07/94 ~ Page 3 ~~ ~Y w 'µ. Commissioner Henninger stated if his request is to make sure they have access where this 'x traffic signal will go, then he understands. He asked if that was as simple as his request or is h more complicated then that? Mr. DeBelkes explained 4heir request is to make certain that H there is a traffic signal placed on La Palma Avenue, that they have uninhibfted access to that signal. Right now it has been changed and they are not satisfied. Commissloner N,ssse asked if k was the one way circulation? I I Mr. DeBeikes indicated that was correct. Commissloner Henninger stated there are a couple of options they have today. They could eliminate his parking waiver and ask, as the existing restaurant leases come due, to change those Into non restaurant uses. That is a condRlon they could put on their CUP today. This is whera he wants to go today if he continues to hold this traffic signal hostage. He does not like being treated this way. Mr. DeBeikas stated he did not appreciate having their access altered and not having anyone on their side to help them out. Commissioner Henninger stated they have been trying to help them out for a long time and they have spent an awful lot of time doing k. Commissioner Mayer stated they have explored all of the aitematfves which is to put the properties back to their existing skuation. They can put in a leff•turn only to the opposke side c'~ the street restricting access on their side to a right-tum only. However, they all agreed that they gather not do any of those and they would rather see a solution among the parties which is what the traffic study is going to bring them. She stated the signal is a separate issue and the other parties are willing to participate. Dan(ef Lee, 11150 W. Olympic t31vd., Los Angeles, 90064. He stated the Commission has worked very hard for the last few years for them to get together an easement agreement. The documents were recopied before they developed the retali center. He explained in that document they have 3 accesses; one has been unilaterally changed by Cinemapolls, and that has not been understood by the Planning Commission. They would like to have that access retumed to what was recorded in the document. That is all they are requesting. They are not holding the traffic signal as a hostage. They are proposing to deposit the money wRh the City, get the ~ ~ork started and have the traffic study continue on and have the results resolveu so they can have their access returned to what was public record. Commissioner Messe stated the ;ircuiation study shows that they should not have that one way changed. Mr. Lee explained that the Planning Commission worked very hard the past few years in order to finalize that document. Commissioner Mayer stated what ff the Circulation Study comes back and says that the circulation needs to stay the way h is now? She asked iF they were then going to pull out of the whole protect fl the study did not say what they want it to say? 02/07/94 ._ Page 4 ,~ ~~ Mr. Lee stated that is something they would have to consider at that time. ~i r-. tf Commissioner Masse asked then h is a possibility and Mr. Lee stated h was a distinct possibtiity. They are asking for their accesses to be returned to what was of public record. That is all they are asking. Mr. Yaida stated he believed that Mr. Sanborn made changes to his driveway in front of the area where they are selling tickets which is the second driveway. They made ft one- way northbound, therefore, ff you are In that area, you have to go back around the parking structure. It would make it inconvenient for someone who Is on Imperial Promenade. He elaborated. Commissioner Henninger stated K was too premature to discuss this and that is the purpose of the traffic study. He suggested they wak for the traffic study, then have a full discussion. He explained the place he objects to today is the apparent attempt to link this Issue with the traffic signal which he did not think was appropriate. He would like to see everyono get their agreements signed and their money in for the traffic signal as it is apparently needed. Further discussion took place and Mr. DeBeikes stated they will weigh what the options are and determine R` they will continue to participate. If ff is satisfactory they will. If they recommend one-way access ail around the theater then there is no benefit to the signal. He agrees that they should do the traffic study first then address the signal based on what the options are. Commissioner Henninger stated he did not feel they fully took a look at the possibllfties and what their down sides are. He did not feel that they should come before the Commission and try'to arm twist them this way. Mr. DeBeikes stated. they were not arm twisting. The Planning Commission was trying to separate the two Issues. This Is one Issue-their access to La Palma Avenue. Further discussion took place regarding these Issues between Mr. DeBeikes and the Planning Commissian. Mr. Yaida stated they time Ilmit on the study is 2 weeks. Just the paper work will take a couple of weeks arNj the construction could take up to 8 weeks. They will have sufficient time to proceed with both projects and have the determination by the parking study as far as the recommendation for internal circulation to the she. He explained that the parking study will not address the installation of the traffic signal. They will basically be looking at the Internal circulation. Further discussion clarified that Mr. Yaida felt these two Issues were indirectly related. Commissioner Catclwell stated part A is the traffic signal and part B is the circulation. They want the monies for both of those projects from all of the parties involved. If they do not get that then ttielr caurse is set. They have options to exercise ff they cannot get tha parties fo agree on A and B. 02/07/94 Page 5 Audrey Williams, 1300 Quail Street, Sufte 106, Newport Beach, CA. She is the property -'"~ manager for the Anaheim HIIis Village and she is authorized to represent the three owners of that property. They would like to go on record that they would love to have a meeting on the court house steps with their certified checks and to give them the money, sign the agreements and get this started. A median will put all of her people out of business. She needs to get people in and out in all directions. She stated the access Is so dangerous now that the number of customers for her tenants has decreased signHicantly. One of the most important things her tenants are concerned about is the safety Issue. 1t is a very dangerous situation right now. She has been authorized by all three owners to wdte the checks tomorrow. Mr. Yaida explained that the agreement has been prepared by an attorney and should be mailed some time this week. Commissioner Messe stated the parties will have to ha~~s their attorney's look at the agreement and that may take 2 ; r 3 weeks. Commissioner Henninger clarified the study would Include internal circulation on the she; overall parking requirement for the two sftes; and allocate the parking demand according to the two sftes. Mr. Yaida explained they will actually recommend the parking ratio for Cinemapolis, Imperial Promenade and a shared parking ratio for both of them as well. He elaborated. It will be a very detailed study when completed and presented to the Commission. Commissioner Henninger asked when the traffic signal agreement would be ready? Mr. Yaida stated the RedP'+elopment Agency is preparing h. The last time he spoke with them, Mr. Bruckner said ft was ready and it was Just a matter of time to mall it out. He could call ail of the parties and let them know h Is coming. Commissioner Henninger moved fora 4 week continuance. He hoped that the traffic study would be done by the next meeting so they can discuss it and he hoped that all 3 of the participants come wfth their signed agreements and cashier checks. It was later determined that this hem be continued to March 21, 1994. ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 21, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent) 02/07/94 Page 6 \.~ 2a. CEQA NE~ATiVE DECLARATI(,ZN Previously Approved Approved 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3413 Readvertfsed Approved request to tlelete time OWNER: NORBERT WATERS, 2501 E. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92806 Iimitatlon AGENT: GUS BIKER, 2525 E. Bail Read, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 2521 E. Bali Road. Property is approximately 1.89 acres located at the northeast comer of Ball Road and Sunkist Street. Petitioner requests modification or deletion of condition of approval pertaining to the time Iimitatlon of a previously approved restaurant expansion with on-premise sales and consumption of beer and wine. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RE~7LUTION NO. PC9412 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. ~~ OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Gus Riker, owner of ttie German restaurant located at 2501 E. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92806. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Henninger stated it was appropriate that they change this condition. Eliminated time limitation. ACTION: Approved request by deleting Condition No. 7 of Resolution No. 91 R-225. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent) 02/07/94 Page 7 e "c :{ LOCATION: 5665 E. La Palma Ave. Property is approximately 4.4 acres located north and west of the northwest comer of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway. Petkioner requests modkfcation or deletion of condkion of approval pertaining to the prohlbkion of pool tables wkhin an e.:isting enclosed restaurant. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Previously Approved Continued to 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3514 Readvertised March 21, 1994 OWNER: IMPERIAL PROMENADE PARTNERS, 2300 Michelson Dr., #200, Irvine, CA 92715 AGENT: ZENDEJAS MEXICAN RESTAURANT, 665 W. Arrow iiwy., San Dimas, CA 91773 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: ,- Tony Zendejas, Zendejas Mexican Restaurant, 5665 E. La Palma, Imperial Promenade Shopping Center. It was suggested that this kem be continued for 4 weeks in order to wak for the trafOc report. (March 21, 1994). Mr. Sanborn stated he will not be in town on March 7th and he asked fora 6 week continuanca. ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 21, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent) n?~ 02/07/94 ~• Page 8 4a. FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT I Approved REPORT N0. 316 Previously CertiFled 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PEFiM1T N0. 3566 Readvertised Approved OWNER: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, 7667 Folsom Blvd., Sacramento, CA 95826 AGENT: O'CONNOR REATH ADVISORS INC., Attn: Mike Strle, 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90025; DONAHUE SCHRIBER, Attn: Emie Weber, 3501 Jamboree Rd., Ste. 300, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 500 -600 North Euclid Street. Subject property consists of two parcels of Land: Parcel 1 is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 36.25 acres bounded on the north by Crescent Avenue, on the east by Loara Street, on the south by the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5) and on the west by Euclid Street (Anaheim Plaza); Parcel 21s arectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6.82 acres located at the northeast corner of Crescent Avenue and Euclid Street, having approximate frontages of 620 feet on the north side of Crescent Avenue and 640 feet on the east side of Euclid Street, and further dascribed as 500.600 North Euclid Street. Petftioner requests modification or deletion of condition o'r approval pertaining to the orientation of automotive service bays in conjunction wfth apreviously-approved major regional shopping center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC9413 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL fJI1NUTES. Chairman Peraza and Commissioner Taft declared a conflict of Interest. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: The following speaker d(d not Identify himself. This condftfonal use permft is to allow an automotive service use on the previously approved regional retail center on the Anaheim Plaza Site. The real issue is a request to change a condition of approval that is currently suppose to be a southerly orientation to the openings to automotNe service hays. They are requesting that the bays be aligned east and Nest to accommodate the way thai the Walmart will be utilizing these traffic bays. i C_ `07/94 Paga 9 t 3 i~ 4 a Brad Deck, 3501 Jamboree Road, Newport Beach, CA. They previously misunderstood i the way Walmart operates their Tire Lube Express. It requires a dri\re-through type of an operation and the•afore, the orientation previously agreed to, from an operational standpoint, simply does not function. Therefore, they have been asked to come back and look for a modification of that condftion such that the openings would face both east and west permitting the ddve-through operation. They have had a sound analysis done and they have looked at the level of decibels that are produced at the property line. They have some mftigation measures that they suggested and Introduced including construction of a 12-foot sound wall. According to their sound engineer, ft will mftigate the sound impact of that orientation. THE PU9LIC HEARING WAS CLOSEL. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Henninger stated this use is faldy far setback from the adjacent residences and he likes the Idea of a sound wall. He wanted to make sure k really does the Job. He would like to see ft tested after ft is constructed and ff ft does not meet the predictions, to have ft Improved until ft does. Commissioner Messe recommended a noise study after about the third month of operation. Mr. Deck explained they have an actual sound analysis done from a Poway store that Walmart afforded them to supplement the sound analysis that they had prepared. They ha~~e a representative available to address some of the technical matters, however, since they have an existing sound study from an existing operation that is in use today, that r information is relatively accurate. Comrlssloner Messe stated he would prefer an actual sound study of the Walmart operation. Commissioner Henninger stated ft looks good on paper and ff k meets predictions, he is comfortable with ft, but he wants to make sure ft meets those predictions. Commissioner Messe stated that would include a willingness on their part to make any corrections that ff the sound study should prove that it is detrimental to the departments to the east. Mr. Deck stated they are simply an agent for Walmart. f 1e was sure what they are looking for is whatever condftions are Imposed be the final conditions. Commis~'«ner Henninger stated their sound consultant has made a projection and ft is right or ~ the edge of meeting the City's normal noise ordinance. They need to test ft and make s ~tre ft lives up to expectations and he would like them to bear that risk. Mr. Deck was relatively comfortable that ft will work as designed, taking into consideration that the sound study assumed that all of the noise generating activfties were taking place at the same time. 02/07/94 Page 10 A t ~ ACTION: Approved Previously Certified EIR No. 316 Approved amendment to Condftions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 3566 by amending Condition No. 3 of Resolution No. 93R-162 to read as follows: j 3. The drive-through automotive service bay area shall be acoustically screened by a minimum twelve (12) foot high sound barrier wall to be located approximately forty-flue (45) feet east of the service bay exft and parallel with Loam Street. The service bay area shall be screened from public view from all rights-of-way, including the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5) by a six (6) foot high block wall, landscaped berm or combination thereof. Trees shall be planted adJacent to the automotNe service bay area to ensure adequate screening and to further reduce noise Intrusion Into nearby residential properties. Rubber mats shall be Installed and used around tool areas to Tower noise levels from dropped tools. Hours of automotve service operations shall be Iimfted to 7:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M., seven (7) days a ~ week. Furthermore, precise plans Illustrating the full automotive service area (Including the aforementioned screening methods) shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for consideration by the Planning Commisslon as a Reports and Recommendations item. These plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commisslon prior to the Issuance of a building permit. Added the following condition of approval: '~ That a noise study shall be conducted ninety (90) days after the commencement of the auto service operation. If sold study Indicates that the noise generated exceeds permitted levels, the petitioner shall take appropriate action to mftigate noise Impacts to an acceptable Ievei. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Peraza and Tak declared a conflict of Interest and Commissioner Boydstun was absent) I 02/07/94 Page 11 A I'i s Sa. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 No action 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3661 Granted OWNER: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM, 7667 Folsom Bivd., Sacramento, CA 95826 AGENT: MARK WHITFIELD, c/o DONAHUE SCHRIBER, 3501 Jamboree Rd., Ste. 300, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: ~0o North Euclid Street. Property is approximately 38.25 acres bounded on the north by Crescent Avenue on the east by Loara Street, on the south by the Santa Ana Freeway (Interstate 5) and on the west by Euclid Street. To permit an outdoor plant nursery in conjunction wfth a major retail establishment. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC9414 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF 7HE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. Chairman Peraza and Commissioner Taft declared a conflict of Interest. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Brad Deck explained when they originally processed the entfUements for the original CUP on this project, they somehow overlooked ona of the principal operating departments of the Walmart stores and that was the Garden Center which is a signHicant part of their business. He referenced condtion no. 1 regarding that a requirement for a minimum 6•foot high masonry wall be constructed to screen non plant materials from view. He asked that the height of the wall be Ilmfted to height enough to screen non plant material from view. He suggested deleting the words '6 feet " He referenced condition no. 2. Walmart has planned for customer entry directly from the parking lot into the garden facllfty. He explained there are two entries. One (n the enclosed portion and one in the unenclosed portion. In the current design both of those entries are screened from view from the west elevation from the main parking lot facing Loara by design. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Messe would like to know where the people are going to park who enter the garden shop? 02/07/94 Page 12 Mr. Deck explained they will park in the primary parking area which is directly in front of .. the Walmart store. The two entrances are located south of the main Walmart entrance and screened from view by design. They are tucked Into an alcove. Ono entrance services the enclosed portion and one entrance services the unenciosed entrances. Commissioner Henninger asked staff why they feel this restricted access is necessary. Brad Hobson, Redevelopment, stated from a Redevelopment perspective, they do not have a problem with the addftional access specifically for the garden shop. Jonathan Borcego, Senior Planner, stated they would not have a probiem wfth it being deleted as far as Zoning is concerned. Mr. Borcego referenced the 6-foot wall and recommended that the condftion stay in as worded because ft would be difficult to control iF the wall were any lower than 6 feet high. He expressed concern that at a lower height screening may not be effective. Commissioner Messe asked what N the wording was that the wall be high enough to screen everything? Mr. Borrego stated he did not know ff there was much of a difference between 3 feet and 6 feet, but they would rather play ft safe. Commissioner Henninger asked how high they were planning on storing things and what height wall were they planning on building? ~ Mr. Deck explained they were pianning on building a 10-foot wail and that is what the current elevation showed today-it is a combination of a masonry wall that would match the exterior of the Walmart building and decorated with a wrought iron fencing material. They are certainly willing to go along with the condkion that would screen non-plant items from view from the main parking lot. They found that the height of the wall really depends upon how they merchandize from the garden center area. Mr. Hobson explained what Brad Deck is describing, Is consistent wfth one of the conditions that they have on the garden center and that fs to be primarily a solid wall with large openings from which you can only view plant material. The agency would be reviewing and approving those ultimate elevat!ons. They would be comfortable taking out the 6-foot requirement. Mr. Bcrrego stated he was under the impression that they wanted to go lower, so he could word the condition to say a minimum of 6 feet. Mr. Deck explained 7-foot would be wrought Iron and 3 feet masonry. Commissioner Henninger asked if they would be stacking compost material any higher than 2 feet? Mr. Deck explained they typically stack that type of material in the rear portion of the garden center and then take the plant material and merchandize it on the front, so what you are actually looking at is plant material and not bags of compost, etc. 02/07/94 Page 13 ~- Greg Hastings, Zoning DNislon Manager, stated as a reminder, any of those block walls ~, need to be planted with vines on the exterior--anything facing out. Technically anything that is available for grafffti facing towards the public. Mr. Hobson stated they have not seen or reviewed any of the elevations for Walmart including this garden center. It was one of the condftlons of approval by the Redevelopment Commission. One of their recommendations was to have primarily a solid wall with archftectural cutouts behind which you can only see plant material and they cannot store materials above that wall. One of their goals (s to have the wall consistent with the rest of the material befog used for the Walmart store in general. Commissioner Masse stated according to the Code the wall would have to be planted with vines. He asked if the 12-foot wall outside of the loading dock be planted wfth vines also? Mr. Hastings indicated that was correct. Commissioner Henninger stated they do not have a waiver for that today. ACTION: Granted CondRional Use Permit No. 3661 as follows: MadHfed Condition No. 1 to read as follows: 1. That all visible outdoor storage/displays shall be Iimfted to INe plant materials only. All areas devoted to outdoor storage of Rams other than INe plant material shall adequately be screened from view by a masonry wall ffnished to match the eMerior walls of the building. Such storage shall not exceed the height of tho wall and shall be limited to botanically-related materials only. All outdoor storage or displays shall be contained wfthin the garden shop enclosure at all times. Modffled Condtion No. 2 to read as follows: 2. That the delNery accessways shall be Iccated on the south or east side of the outdoor garden shop area and oriented away from the Euclid Street frontage. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Peraza and Taft declared a conflict of Interest and Commissioner Boydstun was absent) 02/07/94 ~I Page 14 ~~z 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3859 OWNER: NOHA KHOURAKI and MOHAMMED KHOURAKI, 1217 S. Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: WARREN PITT, 8872 Beilshire Drive, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 LOCATION: 1217 South Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 0.31 acres located on the west side of Brookhurst Street and approximately 280 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road. To permft the expansion of an existing market/grocery store. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. PC9415 Approved Granted for 3 yrs. & 7 months (until 9-30-97) FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Warren Pitt, 8672 Bellshire Drive, Huntington Beach, CA, representatNe for the owners. A variance has just been approved and a number of conditions have already been approved and taken care of through the enactment of this variance and submittal of the plans. He referenced condftlon no. 3. One of the recommendations is that this construction under this variance be completed prior to Issuance of a building permft for this condftional use permft. The plans have been approved through the Building Department. They would like to go forward wfth the construction of the 2 of them as soon as they can obtain the permfts on this condftional use permft so they can have the same contractor build the both of them at the same time. There are some questions on condtlons 8 and 9. They are not changing anything on the exterior of the building whatsoever. Everything is inside. He did not know why the subject of water quality management plan has come up. He referenced condition no. 9. He explained the property owner bought this property a few years back and he was told by the Public Works-Engineering Division that they had no record of a subdivision map. They have In their possession, the warranty deed for the property showing a legal description. He referenced condition no. 10. He explained that variance was procured years ago for an Italian restaurant 4hat no longer exists. They will write a letter. He clarified most of this has been taken care of through the process of the building permit for the previous variance. ~.~ 02/07/94 Page 15 Melanie Adams, Public Works-Engineering, stated regarding condition no. 8. This is a new requirement for new projects. This Is in connection wRh the Water Quality Act and. the National '4 Pdlutant Discharge EIImination System. The County has the main permit and the City is a co- <4 '~ permittee. They are attempting to decrease the amount of pollutants that are coming off of parking lots and Just general activity that get washed Into the storm drain system and gets all the way down to the ocean or Into their recharge basins. it is to decrease pollutants like oli and grease from parking lots. Regarding condftion no. 9, beginning In 1972, any property subdivided or conveyed would have been required to have a parcel map recorded on the property. They would be looking to determine when the first t(me that this property was subdivked or conveyed. If k was before , 1972 ft would be satisfactory, however, H ft was done after March 4, 1972, k would be a violation of the Map Act and they would be requesting a CertHicata of Compliance to br(ng the property back Into conformance. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Further d(scussion took place between Ms. Adams and the Planning Commission. Chairman Peraza asked Mr. Borrego about the condftfons that Mr. Pitts said were already completed. Mr. Borrego explained some of the conditions Mr. Pitt was referring to may have been on the previous variance application, but they would recommend that they would also remain as a part of this application in case the variance Is not fully exercised and if he has complied with them, then it would not be an issue with him regarding this application. Staff would Just verify that they were taken care of under the previous application and go ahead and write them off. Commissioner Henninger asked what sort of improvements are anticipated in this new area of the market? Mr. Pitt explained they basically want to knock out the wall and add on 20 feet more to the store area. Commissioner Henninger asked ff they could t(me condftlon no. 3 to occupancy of the new space? Mr. Borrego stated they could but they do not have the teeth that they would have ff they could catch h at the time of the building permk being issued. Mr. Borrego asked that condition no. 12 be modHfed to read: "Thai prior to issuance of a building i ,~rmlt, or prior to commencement of activity, or within a period of one-year from the date of this resolution.. ' . Commissioner Henninger asked about condition no. 3 so that it was worded "prior to the commencement of activity." Mr. Borrego said they could, however, it would be the same as tying ft to the issuance of a building permit. ~-' 02/07/94 Page 16 a Commissioner Henninger explained he meant wfthout doing that so that they could get one ~- building permft for ali of this actNity or they could pull a building permft before the work was ? complete on this storage shed. Commissioner Messe asked ff Mr. Pitt was aware that he was being requested to close one of the driveways? Mr. Pitt stated that has been addressed and approved by Traffic per the other permft tar the wall. He already has ft signed off. Further discussion took place and ft was determined that Mr. Pitt's lease runs out December of 1997, however, they have to gNe their request for continuing the option in October of 1997. Commissioner Messe stated They will probably iimft this CUP to the October 1, 1997 time. Mr. Pitt stated they do have a permft to build on the south. When that property is built, these will be substantial parking on both properties. There is a condftion whereby a reciprocal access agreement will be granted between the two properties. Commissioner Messe asked Mr. Yalda asked if he teas looked at the layout of the parking? Mr. Yalda stated they would be happy to look at it. The approval he gave Mr. Pitt was for the wall only. It was not for the circulation but for the wall for visibility. Mr. Borrego stated there is a condition (condition no. 7) requiring Mr. Pitt to submit a plan to Traffic Engineering showing the parking and driveway locations. They coNd modify that condition to Incorporate circulation. Chairman Peraza stated there was a Code violation regarding the trash. Mr. Pitt stated Maintenance did look at ft and made recommendations to them. They are complying wfth that per the new permit for the walls. They have agreed to those recommendations. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permft No. 3659 for three (3) years and seven (7) months wfth the following changes to conditions: Modified Condition Nos. 3, 7 and 12 to read as follows: 3. That prior to commencement of actNity, the construction authorized under Variance No. 4214 (storage shed and block wall) shall be completed and the b:tilding permit for such construction tingled. 7. That plans shall be submitted to the City Traffic and Transportation Manager for his •evlew and approval showing conformance with the latest revision of Engineering Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 602 pertaining to parking standards and driveway locations {Including on-site vehicle circulation). SubJect property shall thereupon be developed and maintained in conformance wfth said plans. 2 07 94 0 / / Page 17 12. That prior to Issuance of a building permft, or prior to commencement of actNity authodzed by this resolution, or within a period of one (1) year from ' the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, CondRion Nos. 2 and 4 through 10, above-mentioned, shall be complied wflh. EMersslons for further time to complete said condftions may be granted in accordance wfth Soctlon 8.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent) ;,~~ 02/07/94 Page 18 :~ NOTE: REFERRED FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF ThURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1994. 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3656 Granted OWNER: RALPH E. & LEILA LOUISE SLAYTCrt, 1821 Ceders Vista, Fullerton, CA 92835 AGENT: LUCIANO DI VISCONTI, 2682 West Llncotn Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 2862 West Lincoln Avenue: Property is approximately .49 acre located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Stinson Street. To permk on-premise sate and consumption of beer and wine, in conjunction wkh an existing full service restaurant wkh waNer of minimum number of parking spaces, and required parking lot landscaping (deleted). Gortfnued from the January 6, 1994 Zoning Administrator meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94-16 FOLLOWING IS' A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE CONSIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Luciano DI Visconti, 2662 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA, Luciano's restaurant. They are requestin;, a condkionai use permk for beer and wine. By obtaining this CUP they are going to generate some more operating income thus being capable to survive. They are willing to stdctiy follow the Commission's suggestion and consideration. The owner, Mr. ~ Ralph Slayton, already approved the(r request. THE PUBLIC H',JIRING WAS CLOSED. ~'i DISCUSSION: Mike Patterson, Anaheim Police Department, Vlce De:ail. The Police Department has recammended approval wkh the attached condkions placed on the condklonal use permit. Alfred Yalda, Tri~~c Engineering, stated that Traffic Engineering recommends that condkion no. 1 on page 6 to be a tot<~I of 36 paring spaces. 'fhe applicant has read the condklons of approval and he is in agreement wkh the condkions including the change to 36 parking spaces. He also agrees to do the landscaping. --~ 02/07/94 Page 19 r ~ ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Condftional Use Permft No. 3656 as fellows: Modified Condftion No. 1 to read: 1. That a minimum of thirty six (36) parking spaces shall be provided for this sfte. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent) ';~~. ~k .-~ NOTE: REFERRED FROM THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING OF THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1994. 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8b. VARIANCE NO.4243 Approved Granted OWNER: KOLL-EOUITEC PARTNERSHIP,4343 Von Kerman Avenue, Newport Beach, CA 92880 AGENT: CB COMMERCIAL, REAL ESTATE GROUP INC., 2400 E. Katella Avenue, 7th Floor, Anaheim, CA 92806.5938, ATTN: Forrest C. Wylder LOCATION: 1590 S. Lewis Street. (Anaheim Business CenterL Property Is approximately 6.8 acres located at the southeast comer of Cerritos Avenue and Lewis Street. WaNer of minimum number of parking spaces, to expand office area in conjunction with apublishing/distribution facility. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC94.17 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. NOT TO BE COf:SIDERED OFFICIAL MINUTES. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Jfm Hotly, President and owner of Data Base Publishing Company, 523 Superior Avenue, Newport Beach, CA. He gave a brief summary of the background of this project. He explained ff they are unable to obtain the parking variance then they wlli leave to tell Koll Company that they cannot close escrow because the building will be of no use to them. There are a number of items in the staff report (conditions) that he canna address. They are not an owner of the property nor do they represent the Koll Company. Ron Keith, representing Koll Real Estate Group, 4343 Von Kerman, Newport Beach, CA 92660. As background he represents the original developer of Anaheim Business Center. To date they own two of the existing 12 buildings that are in the project. The other 9 buildings have been sold off to other small business users. They hope to sell the remaining to other business users such as Mr. Holly. Two conditions relate to a fence and a gate at the rear of the property. Both the fence and gate are unrelated to Mr. Holly, however, there are condftions being placed upon this variance to remove the gate and fence. As background the gate and fence were in the original construction documents that were permitted by the City and Installed during construction when final inspections and sign-offs were receNed. 02/07/94 Page 21 In addition there were a set of CCBRs that were overlayed on the property that governed restrictions on the property that caused one of the yarcJs to be a reserved area for the exclusive use of a certain building. It is now occupied by a practice ice skating rink. If these conditions are placed upon this variance the other owners within the project will not agree to those conditions being placed on it far fear It will affect their day to day operations. Thus the variance would not be acceptable to the owner's associations ar+d thus Mr. Holly would be unable to acquire the building. They have tried to work through to some satisfactory resolution and to date have been ; unable to do so. Ho thought h was Important that the Commission understands that the ~ decision making body on whether or not to accept those condkions fall back on the owners association that owns the buildings and they are not willing nor do they want the gate or fence to be removed. He has 9 letters from 11 of the building owners. They request that they consider approving the variance with the deletion of items 3 and 7 that relate to the fence condition. As far as emergency access, it has been reviewed with the Fire Department. The Fire Department has asked that a knox box be installed and that would be acceptable to them. It is in the process of happening ff it has not happened already. The Planning Commission determined that conditions 5 and 7 should be deleted. Mr. Keith stated when the fence and gate were originally Installed, there was also parking indicated on the plans where staff now feels it was Intended to be a circulation point. As evidenced by the fence and the parking stalls that were striped, it was not Intended to be circulation at the inception of the plan. Marie, 1560 Lewis. She and her husband purchased one of the buildings. The reason they are concerned about the fence Is because when they purchased the building they said the fence was to stay there in order to divide the properties. They agreed ff the gate was locked all of the time then that would be floe. They found out later on they would like to take the fence down. If they do that, then the people from the skating rink will come to their side. They would not have any parking whatsoever for themselves. Paul Greenwell, 1550 S. Lewis. They do not want the fence or the gate to come down. He expressed his concerns regarding the parking situation should the gate and fence come down. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, stated none of these properties have the right to park in the gated area, but the ice skating rink has the right to park anywhere they choose to. In order for people to park, they use the city streets to make their circulation to the site and that may create sn unsafe situation on the city street because there is a gated area. This Is a circulation problem that Traffic Engineering has. The Fire Department and the Utility Department also would like to have access to this gated area either open all of the time, or if they choose to leave the gate closed, they would like to have a Knox Box wfth a key so they could enter and exit and also maybe the parking spaces in front of the gate be removed and provided at some other locations. 02/07/94 Page 22 Commissioner Messe stated the owner of Building H has taken an opportunity to erect a chain link fence around what he deems his parking area. He was there personally on ' Saturday and ft was cloeed off. Commissioner Caldwell asked ff this could be brought back at a future date and not inflict Mr. Holly's request wfth ft. Commissioner Henninger stated the fence does not relate to this particular unft. Commissioner Messe stated they have their own CC&R's and ft Is up to the owners to correct ft themselves. Commissioner Henninger asked staff ff h was necessary to bring this fencing back as a Report and Recommendation hem? Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated there is an existing condftional use permft for the Ice skating rink so there is authority for modfflcatlon or termination of a use permft that would permit the Planning Commission to require the applicant on the Ice rink to return since that seems to be the property where the Issues are centered. Commissioner Messe stated there Is no problem except for the circulation back onto the Cfty streets. Evidently the gate was there on the plans that the Commission approved and ft would destroy the other property owners to have the Ice skating rink patrons park in front of their offices. Mr. Borcego stated under the original CUP for the Ice skating rink, there was actually a through drNe way that went in front of the building and subsequently that area was landscaped in. You now have to exit out onto the street. Commissioner Messe asked staff to give them, under Reports and Recommendations In the future, a report of all of this type of activfty including the fencing and the circulation and then they will make a decision. ,~ 02/07/94 Page 23 r~ ;~ ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Granted Variance No. 4243 as follows: Modified Condftion No. 2 to read as follows: 2. The total number of employees on any g(ven shift shall be Iimfted to not more thantwenty-five (25) persons, inclusive of part time employees. Deleted Condftlon Nos. 5 and 7. Added the following candftion: That a minimum of three hundred and eight (308) parking spaces shall be maintained on the she. VOTE: fr0 (Commissioner Boydstun absent) ._yt "4 r. 02/07/94 Page 24 9. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3466 -REQUEST FOR_RETROACTIVE Request was EXTENSION OF TIME: Applicant (MNW Development, P. O. Box 5513, Fullerton, withdrawn CA 92635) requests a retroactive extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 3466 (permitting a 2-story, 13-unft senior cft(zen's apartment complex) to expire on November 4, 1994. Property is located at 1204 W. Center Street. Continued from the January 10, 1994, Planning Commission meeting. B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1564 -REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS: Approved Flnal Sean Hulsh, 1041 N. Shepard St., Anaheim, CA 92806, requests review of precise plans plans for a previousiyapproved kiddie camivai. Property is located at 1041 N. Shepard Street. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3425 AND 2758 -REQUEST FOR Terminated TERMINATION: Jerry O'Donnell, Principal, InterpacfOc Asset Management for Doris K Richter, 5505 Garden Grove Blvd., Ste. 150, Westminster, CA 92683, requests temtlnation of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 3425 and 2578. Property is located 1086 N. State College Bivd. and 1098 N. State College Blvd. TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. PC9418 D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2617 AND 3200 -REQUEST FOR Terminated TERMINATION: Anaheim Disposal, 1121 N. Blue Gum Ave., P.O. Box 309 Anaheim, CA 92815, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit Nos. 3200 and 2617. Property is located at 2761 E. Whitn Star, 1131 and 1151 N. Blue Gum Street. TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. PC94-19 02/07/94 Page 25 s CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 105. 837. 2118 AND. VARIANCE 111. Terminated 329 437 547 779 987. 1082. 1388. 1537. 1738. 1829. 1923. 2513. 2010 AND 3484 -REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: City of Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805, requests termination of Conditional Use Permft Nos. 105, 837, 2118, and Variance Nos. 111, 329, 437, 547, 779, 987, 1082, 1388, 1537, 1738, 1829, 1923, 2513, 2010 AND 3484. Property is arectangular-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 20 acres, generally bounded by Lincoln Avenue on the north, Broadway on the south, East Street to the east and the Atchison-Topeka and Santa Fe railroad right-of-way to the west. TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. PC94-20 F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3217 -RETROACTIVE EXTENSION Approved OF TIME: Nanu C. Patel, 417 W. Allen, #112, San Dimas, CA 91773, requests a (to expire 1-23-95) one-year retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permft No. 3217 (to construct a 750-room, 17-story, 156-foot high, 532, 270 square foot hatel facility) to expire January 23, 1995. Property is located at 2061 S. Harbor Blvd. G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3096 -REQUEST FOR AONE-YEAR Request was RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS withdrawn OF APPROVAL: Roger J. Work requests aone-year retroactive extension of time to comply with conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 3096 (to permit a 3-story, 43-unit "affordable' senior cftizen apartment complex) to expire November 21, 1994. Property Is located 3601 W. Ball Raad. Continued from the December 1, 1993 and January 10, 1994 Planning Commission meetings. The Planning Commission adjourned at 3:30 p.m. to the February 23, 1994 morning session at 9:30 a.m. for a field trip to'the Summit Point Protect at Anaheim Hills. `~ 02/07/94 Page 26