The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1998/07/20SUMN9ARY ACTION AGENDA CITY OF AfVAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MEET~N~ M~JNDAY, JULY 20, 1998 11:04 A.M. • COMMUNITY PLANNING PROGRAM - PRESENTATION OF PREI_fMINARY WEST ANAHEIM ACTION PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF V~RIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • P~ELIMIf~ARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. • I'UBLiC HEARING TEST{MONY COMMI~SIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, NAPOLES, PFRAZA, WILLIAMS ONE VACANT SEAT STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg Hastings Cheryl Flores Linda Eaves Aifred Yalda Peter Gambino Ramona Castaneda Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Senior C~de Enforcement Officer Principai Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Community Development - Project Manager Acting PC Support Supervisor Senior Secretary 07-20-98 Page 1 DISCUSSIQN ITEM: REQUEST FOR APPOINTII+IENT OF A REPRESEN7ATIVE TQ THE FOLLOWING: 1j UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SUBCOMMITTEE Commissioner Bostwick was LREPR~SEN7ATIVE AND ALTERNA7E1 appointed as the representative and ACTION: Chairman Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles as Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), the aiternate. aheim Cit Plannin Commission does hereby appoint that the An y 9 Commissioner Paui Bostwick, as representative, and Commissioner Robert Napoles, as aiternate, to attend the Utilities ~ Underground Conversion Subcommittee meetinos. 2) PARK~ AND RECREATI01~ COMMISSION (VACANT Commissioner Boydstun was POSITION appointed. CA TION: Chairman Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim Cily Planning Commission does hereby appoint Commissione; Phyllis Bcydstun tu ihe Parks and Recreation Commission. 3) COMMUNITYWIDE CDBG CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Continued to a future meetiny COMMITTEE FOR THE C~MMUNITY SERVICES BLOCK (until there is a full GRANT PROGRAfN (ALTERNATE ONLY) Commission on the board) ITEMS OF PUBLIC IN7EREST: None 07-20-98 r'ags 2 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ~1. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION IPREV.•APPROVED~, Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3711 - REQUEST FOR Oetermined that the sign DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: plan is not in substantial Marvin Stober, 1811 East Mauretania Street, Wilmington, CA conformance and that 90744, requests determination of substantial conformance to the unpermitted 16 permit and retain a 16 square foot addition to an existing square foot panel shall freestanding sign in conjunction with a previously-approved be removed within 10 automobile service station with accessory uses. PropeRy is days. located at 5650 East La Palma Avenue - Texaco Service Station. Cor,tinued from the Commission meetings of June 22, and July 6,1998. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CAF~RIED (one vacant seat), ;hat the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that Sign Plan "A" indicating an existing unpermitted 16 square foot panel (2-foot, 6-inch high by 8-foot, 2-inches wide) constructed below the existing sign cabinet of the 60-foot high, 204-square foot freestanding sign at the corner of Imperial Highway and La Palma Avenue is not in substantial conformance with previously approved plans and that the unpermitted panel shall be removed within ten (10) days from the date of the meeting (by July 30, 1998). JK.DOC Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated this is a request to retain a 16-square foot sign panel on an existing freestanding sign. One panel was added to the bottom of the sign to advertise a discounted car wash price. By ~ioing this they removed a diesel price sign which is in violation of the Business and Professions Code. S!aff had a difficult time with the plans that were submitted, they plans were not dimensioned and in conflict with the actual sign that is there now. It was difficult to determine the amount of square footage that they are asking for versus what is there now. However, the sign that is permitted is 204 square feet on a 60-foot high sign. For the record, a fax ~ ~as received from Fred Fielder and Associates. Applicant's Statement: Charles Bakovic, representing the Ray Stober Company: They are requesting a continuance because Texaco is thinking of redoing the whole sign to conform to the conditional use permit. Cheryl Flores: Asked if they could remove the 16-square foot unpermitted signage during this time period to consider any new requests that they mi~ht have? Charles Bakovic: Asked if there is a time limit for removing the signage? Commissioner Bostwick: Responded 10 days. 07-20-98 Page 3 Cheryl Flores: If the 1 S-square foot portion is removed then the sign would be in conformance. It would ba a matter of determining what kind of sign it is that they would be reques8ng and staff determining whather it would require a re~~vertlsement if there were waivers involved. But by removing the 16-square foot portion the sign would be in conformance. Cheryl Flores: They could do anolher substantial conformance. Commission could act on this stipulating that they remove the 16-square fo~t portion. If that were removod then that would be the action on this and when they return with new plans then they could retum with another substantial conformance. B. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 98-99-01 - REQUEST FOR INITIATION Initiated OF RECLASSIFICATION PROC~EDINGS: City of Anaheim reclassification (Planning Department), 200 South Anaheim Blvd., request for proceedings initiation of reclassification proceedings from the ML (Limited Industrial) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. Property is located at 1773 West Lincoln Avenue. CQ TION: Commissioner Napoles offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARP.IED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby initiate reclassification proceedings to reclassify this property from the ML (Limited Industrial) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. 5R7164TW.DOC Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Stated this is a request from staff asking the Planning Commission to initiate reclassification praceeding on this property. CurrFntly the property is zoned ML (Limited Industrial) Zone and is developed with a commercial office building. 07-20-98 Page 4 C. a) ADDENDUM FOR THE KOLL ANAHEIM CENTER (PREV.-CF•RTIFIED) b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3695 - REQUEST FOR RF.VIEW OF FINAL SIGN PLANS: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, 201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Rm.1003, Anaheim, CA 92805, requests review and approval of final sign pians for a previously-approved ice skating rink, approved with an amusement arcade and an on-site restaurant with the on-premise sale and consumption of beer and wine. Property is located at 300 West Lincoln Avenue - Disney Ice. CQ TION; Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commissian does hereby determine that the previously-approved Addendum for Koll Anaheim Center serves as th~ required environmeiital documentation for this request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Williams and MOTION CARRIED (one vacant seat), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final sign plans on the basis that the signs are compatible in size, color and maieriai with the underlying building, and that the plans indicate compliance with the signage requirements of the CL Zone. Approved Approved final sign plans Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated this is a request for two wall signs which will be placed on a wall which is attached to the northern elevzticn. The plans submitted show that the signs are compatible in size, colar and material as to the original plans and appear compatible with the buiiding. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked whether something could be done to screen the back of the building such as planting a tree at the corner of Lincoln and Clementine or planting some higher type shrubs between the palm trees and t~ie back door which opens to L~ncoln Avenue, a major street. Higher shrubs would close off the view so the back of the building woulcl nut be seen. Ramona Castaneda, Project Manager: Responded she would check with her supervisors. Commissicner Boydstun: F?aquested that Ms. Castaneda che~;k into that. There have apparently been many complaints from citizens about the ~ppearance of the br~ck area. 07-20-98 Page 5 D. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV.-APPROVEDI Continued to b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3994 - REQUEST FOR 8-3-98 DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Howard CDM, Steven Phillips, 2161 Gundry Avenue, Signal Hill, CA 90806, request for determination of substantial conformance to permit temporary above- ground utiliry lines in conjunction with an outdoor swapmeet operation. Property is located at 1500 North Lemon Street (formerly Anaheim Drive- In). Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated this is a request for a substantial conformance to install temporary the above-ground electrical power lines for a previously-approved ;he swapmeet. Staff is recommending that the above-ground power lines are not in compliance for the reasons listed in paragraph 11(b) of the staff report. Chairman Bristol: Did the plans ever show that they were going t~ have above-ground electricai power lines? Cheryl Flores: Responded no, they were not shown on the plans as above-ground. There was a request to the Police Department for additional lighting but there was nothing shown on the plans that there would be above-ground utility electrical power lines. Commissioner Williams: Asked if staff has asked them to put their lighting underground? Cheryl Flores: Responded they have a conditional of approval to provide the lighting. It was not ever discussed as to how it would be provided. Applicants Statement: ~teve Phillips, Howard CDM, 2161 Gundry Ave., Signal Hill, CA: (Submitted photographs of the site.] Explained the photographs by stating pictures 1-3 taken from Lemon Street the light poles. The power poles are in blue and the City utilities poles around the site are the darker ones. Pictures 4-7 are taken in front of the site lighting poles which were required by the Anaheim F'olice Department. Commissioner Bostwick: When the drive-in theater was in operation, was there any power provided to the swapmeet? Steve Phiilips: Referred the question to Jay Swerdlow. Jay Swerdlow, Pacific Theaters: Responded they did provide power to the szllers when they had the swapmeet. When they demolished the drive-in they eliminated all of that. Steve Phillips: Emphasized this is a temporary use, for 18 months and is a rental contract, f~r power poles. The Anaheim Public Utilities and Building Divisiun heve been involved with the permits for those power poles. Much of the site is screened due to the Caltrans construction and Lemon Street being closed. Therefore, many of the poles are not seen from the street. Chairman Bristol: Staff is concerned that these power poles could remain longer than the 18 months. Jay Swerdlow: It would be agreeable with them if there was a firm statement that they be removed after the 18 month period expires. Cheryl Flores: The other option would be a continuance so they could verify the building permits and the exact requirements from Electrical Engineering. 07-20-98 Page 6 Cheryl Flores: Requested from the applicant that they submit something in writing regarding the remova; of the poles. Seima Mann, Assistant City Attomey: If the appiicant has recelved an exception from the Utilities Department pursuant to Section 17.24.080 of the Code then hs could provide a copy of that as weil, Commissioner Bostwick: Offered a motion for a continuance to August 3,1998, secondad by Commissioner Boydstun and motion was carried. 07-20-98 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Gontinuance to 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMf7 N0. 3676 (READVERTISED} F3-3-98 INIT~ATED BY: City Anaheim, Redevelopment Agency, 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCAYION: 411 West Broadwav. Property is 5.28 acres located on the north side of Broadway,150 feet west of the centerline of Clementine Street. To consider reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain temporary classrooms and office space within the ground floor retail space area of an existing parking garage with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meeting of June 8,1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOlUTION N0. SR7169NV.DOC • • • • • • OPPOSITION: None A~TION: Continued subject request to the August 3, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow time for Community Development Department staff to submit a revised parking study, floor plans and a letter of operation, VOTE: (6-0, one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed, 07-20-98 Page 8 3b. CONDITIOIVAL USE PERMIT N0. 3830 (READVERTISED) Denied reinstatement of CUP 3830 OWNER: Dennis and Edith Berger,1920 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Phillip Schwartze, 31682 EI Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOCATION: 1130 West Lincoln Avenue and 1203 West Center Street- Ace Fixtures Companv. Property is 0.22 acre, located on the south side of Lincaln Avenue, 505 feet east of the centerline of Villa Place. To consider reinstatement of this permit by the modification or deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation to retain outdoor storage of materials for an existing retail restaurant supply store. Continued from the Commission meetings of February 18, March 16, March 30, April 13, May 11 and July 6,1998. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC98•109 SR7165KB.DOC e • • • • a Chairman Bristol: 5tated for the record, there was a letter received from Jim and Crystal Atry just prior to the meeting. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated she distributed to Commission rnemorandums from the Code Enforcemen+ !]ivision dated February 5, April 8, and May 7,1998 identifying Code Enforcement violations on the property. ApplicanYs Statement: Phil Schwartze, representing Ace Fixtur~s: Stated a letter was submitted from him dated July 13, 1998 to Commission and stated the following items: . Loading Zone - Commission requested that they meet with the Traffic and Transportation Manager to , install a loading zone. That loading zone has been installed or. the property in the conditional use pern~it area. . Employee Parking - As noted in his letter, they have 18 parking spaces for their 13 employees plus they have parking on-site for the 4 pickup trucks that are used for the business. . Caltrans Realignment - The letter addressed what they perceived as the current state of the issue as of July 13th which ceuld change depending on Caltrans. . Additional Scraening - They installed 2 feet of additional screening around the single-family home, located in a commercial zone. In additic~n to a slatted chain link fence, there is a black canvas that also surrounds it now. He responded as follows to memorandum from Code Enforcement: A tractor-trailer being off-loaded on West Center Street. It noted that they had installed the fencing with the exception of a small section adjacent to the single-family residence near the garage. That 07-20-98 Page 9 area is the part that is used by Pacific Airbrush. That is the area that Caltrans is going to bulldoze along a portion of that. It noted that there was a truck parked in the new loading zone but it is not one of their trucks. 5. Storage visibiliiy - It notes that there is ctorage visible above the 8 foot chain link fence viewed from West Center Street. That would probably have to be across the area along the westerly property line where Pacific Airbrush is where they could see it. Pacific Airbrush takes their cardboard and uses it in his operation. 7. It noted flattened cardboard ar~d cardboard boxes on top of adjacent building. That cardboard area ihat is on that roof is on an area not part of the CUP. It is up there on a non CUP area. He has not discussed this witn the applicant. 8. Indicated that discarded cardboard boxes were lying outside the slatted chain link fence. 9 The debris barrier has been installed. Public Testimony: Chris A!ry,1122 W. Center Street, Anaheim, CA: Stated she hand delivered a letter to the Planning Depa~tment for the Comrnission. She also mailed Commission a letter on July 7th which included several signatures of other residents on their street who were also in agreement. She lives directly across the street from Ace Fixtures. Mr. Schwartze stated in his letter that ihey have 18 parking spaces for their employees which is her main concern. They park in front of their homes. When she left 30 minutes ago from her home there were no employees parked in that parking lot. She counted 16 spaces ancl those 16 spaces are shared with Five Points Liquor store. There were S employee vehicles parked on the street, in front of the residents homes al~ng Center Street. The brown truck parked in the loading zone is their personal company vehicle. It was still parked there when she left home today. Sharon Becker, 1129 W. Cei ~ter Street, Anaheim, CA: Stated she is happy that tiiey installed a fence. She was hoping for a sound wall because just today they had a 45-footer backed in approximately 3 feet from her bedroom window and it had its reefer unit running for about 1'/s hours. She sleeps days and her main concern is the safety, heaith and welfare of their neighborhood. 7hey have struggled with this for 15 years. She does not seem to be abie to get any sleep due to Ace Fixtures. They wanted a sound wall, the chain link fence is great but you can still visibility see things from the street. The portion that Mr. Schwartze referred to is not up against the Lincoln side but r~;her it is in her back yard. The merchan~ise is stacked as tall as her garage making the merchandise very visible and there is no fence there just a little small fence approximately 5 feet high. She s:ated she had a recording on a cassette tape of the noise level of the 45 footer to illustrate what she has to listen to everyday. She recorded the sound this afternoon because it woke her uF. S;~e can hear the loud speaker that announces ;o pick up the phone, etc. She has taken pictures of large semis in front of her house in the past. The residents just want to have control back of their neighborhood and be able to back out of their ~riveways without worrying. ApplicanPs Rebuttal: Phil Schwartze: StatEd he reviewed the photos (~o. 8 and 9) and they are teken of the non CUP area, the area further down Center Street. The brown truck (loaded with merchandise) in the loading zone is not theirs. The area shown in the photos adjacent to Pacific Airbrush is the part that is Caltrans now, it is not their property. All the frontaye along Lincoln and along that side is not theirs. They agree with the new conditions that are being suggested by staff. One of them is that as soon as Caltrans is complsted with the work on Lincoln Avenue that Mr. Berger and Ace Fixtures install new landscaping along that area within 30 days. That is fina with them. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Linda Eaves, Senior Code Enforcement Q~cer: Stated as noted in her report and the p;,otos that are ~vailable to Commission she noted that there is still storage visible from the Center Street side above the 07-20-98 Page 10 chain link fence which is in the photo packet referred to as no. 5. That was cleariy above and not from the side from Pacific Airbrush, directly in front of the chain link fence, behind ihe fence on Center Street. Chairman Bristol: The conditional use permit for this use states that any vehicle over 10,000 Ibs. must load and unload on-site. The materials stored ars finished materials for sale by the store. Asked if she felt a truck can load and unload on that site? Linda Eaves: If it were over 10,000 Ibs. it would be very difficult to gain access and have that truck safely on that area. She was not sure whether the type of grading and asphalt would accommodate the weight of the vehicle in that yard. From her inspections, the materials being stored are finished material product for sale inside the yard. Commissioner Boydstun: The base of the racks are over the fence. According to the photo, if they put anything on them they are well over it. Linda Eaves: At this point, with the S foot fence it is very difficult to see things except at the one location that she no!ed. If they are going to add additional materia! product then they would be vis:ble. The brown truck referred to on photo no. 4 a loading zone, during her 35 to 40 minutes at the site, at no time did anyone approach that vehicle. That is not to be used as a parking space, it is a 20-minute loading zone. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated when she visited the site, the other side of the Center Street was full of cars and according to the neighbors they were not cars from any of those homes and this happens repeatedly. They are not parking where they should be parking. Linda E~ves: Without running a specific license plate for each vehicle she would not be able io determine that which are the assertions of the neighbors. Parking is very compromised on Center Street. Commissioner Wiliiams: He has known several employees who have worked there and has asked them where they park. They have been told to either park on Center Street or on Lincoln Avenue. Chairman Bristol: He visited the site yesterday and it still has "customer parking only" and has not changed. Linda Eaves: When Code Enforcement goes and does an inspectior, they report on all the conditions that they observed at the property. Regarding the refuse and wast~: ':hat is in that particular Caltrans area, she is aware that area is Caltrans but it was cardboard boxes, etc. which appeared to have come from the yard. Commissioner Bostwick: Stated he had a difficult time maintaining that this proposed use would not adversely affect the adjoining land uses growth and development of the area which is proposed or located, or that the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways. Therefore, he felt he could not support the renewal of the CUP. Commissioner Boydstun: It would not do any good to add new conditions to this CUP when the oric~inal conditions were not complied with. The parking situation is a prime example. Commissioner Peraza: After reading Mr. Atry's letter, the owner does not appear to want to cooperate with the neighbors and does not seem to be sensitive to the their concerns. Therefore, he felt he could not support this request. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Asked if Commission was interested in hearing Ms. Becker's cassette recorded tape regarding the noise related to the CEQA? Chairman Bristol: Asked Ms. Becker to play the cassette tape which will, in turn, be submitted to staff as part of the record. Steve Berger: Stated he is the son of the owner Dennis Berger who is the owner of Ace Fixtures. Every time they come before Commission there are a new list of requirements. To the best of their abilities each time they have fulfillsd those requirements. There are now complaints that there are a few cardboard boxes on the top of a one story building. Cardboard boxes wei~e never previously discussed. He did not notice 07-20-98 Page 11 them but tomorrow they will be removed. He reviewed the photos. They offered to put in the cfiain link fence up another 2 feet. Originally it was 6 feet. it is not their intention to do anything other than cooperate with the neighbors. He felt they h~' ~e done everything that staff has requested and have gone beyond the "call of duty" by blocking it. If there is something over the 8 feet it is unintentional. Regarding the landscapi~g, they will trim that tomorrow. The pickup truck did not belang to them. In the past staff came out and tested the noise level and found them to be in compliance. They know that the neighbors have tried to rally new neighbors against them because one of their x-employees lives on Centzr Street and everyday the neighbors come and have offered him money to rally against Ace Fixtures. They have complied by putting a loading zone, raising the fence, cleaning up the daily debris. Pacific Airbrush does come to take the boxes, they pick up the boxes from their yard. Caltrans is building and putting a fire hydrant in front of their store on Lincoln Avenue which took up a public parking spot for a client. Their employees were told to psrk in the parking spaces. They have discussed in the past with staff whether to give their employees st~ckers so they can b.^.. monitored. They are not knowingly attempting to violate the law. They have complied witti every request over the y~aars and again are happy to continue to comply. They feel that they are being pushecl ou:. Code Enforcemen"5 list of violations consists of small items which they can comply with. Chairman Bristol: Mr. Berger sta!ed they are happy to comply with everything yet on March 4,1996 the condition which stated that the loading and unloading of delivery shall take place on-site un~ess the applicant obtains approval from City Traffic and Transportation Manager. It was arly recently that the applicant applied for this. Most times when he has driven by the site, he has seen large trucks in front of their building. According to the testimony of the public a~d th2 Code Enforcement Division they have both indicate the same concerns which leads him to believe that th~is a?te is not large enough for the business. Steve Berger: It is true tha; this particular matter "fell through the cracks" and he will let Phil Schwartze respond to that. Chairman Bristol: Emphasized that was a primary condition of approval. Commissioner Boydstun: The applicant never designated parking spaces for employees, they say "customer parking only" and it has always been :hat way. Steve Berger: That is for the liquor store. Commissioner Boydstun: Commission was told that one side of that was for their employee parking but it ;s actually marked as customer parking only. Steve Berger: They can change that but he was not sure that their parking spaces adjacent ta their wall indicate customer parking only, he thought it did nut say anything. Commissioner Boydstun: Commission asked for that some time ago but it never happened. Chairman Bristol: Stated "customer parking only" is on the wall. Steve Berger: They are trying to comply that is v:hy Mr. Schwartze asked staff to visit the si?e after they had installed the chain link fence and canvas to approve and review al~ the issues to ensure they were in compliance. He parks at thuse parking spaces as well as his mother and the rest of the employees but if it needs to be more clear then they will do that. Phillip SchwarU_e: Wanted to respond regarding the issue of the loading zone. The reason they did not apply for the loading zone is that he called Alfre~ Yalc~a and Alfred responded that he would not give it to him. So they did not do anything during that period. When the item came back up before Commission, the Commission requested that Alfred Ydlda meet with him which he did. They came to an agreement and the loading zone was established. It is still inappropriate for large scale trucks to be parking there, there is no question about that, they have never disputed that. It is easy enough for them to put "employee parking" on the east side wall of Ace Fixtures. 07-20-98 Page 12 Much of the operation that they are discussing is an existing non-conforming use under which the City has n~~ controi. The issue is screening the outdoor storage. That is what the CLfP was about. If it is not screened then one portion of that area he can not have outdoor storage. They do not have anymore controls over landscaping or any of the other issues because that CUP only deals with one portian. He is trying to do the best he can to mitigate this for the City as well his client. In his opinion, the optimum situation is getting the most they can for landscaping and screening off Lincoln and Center Street. If they have additional conditions that they would like to apply to Ace Fixtures that they give that consideration and install those. He thought the conditions that have been mentioned will help mitigate the issue which is screening the outdoor. If Commission would like to have them add wording regarding the wall that designates the parking spaces as "employee parking only" then he will taken care of that alsu. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: Stated one solution would be for the residents to request limited parking be posted on their side, in the form of a petition. Traffic Engineering could then limit the parking for 1 or 2 hours, this will take care of the employees parking there all day. If that is something they would like to do then Traffic Engineering would be happy to work with them. Commissioner Bostwick: But there still is a problem with enforcement and a lot of City resources being wasted. The problem is the business has superseded the size of the property and the applicant really needs to find a commeicial building to store their materials and have their deliveries and utilize the property they are at as a retail facility. If they ~vere really intent in being a good corporate citizen in the City of Anaheim then that is what tF~ey would do. An example is the Anaheim Fireside and Patio who use to be located on Lincoln Avenue. They rented an off-site corrimercial storage space for thair warehouse and when something was purchased the customer went to the warehouso location to pick up the merchandise. Chairman Bristol: Asked to listen to Ms. Becker's cassette tape recording. Sharon Becker: Sta;ed this recording of a reefer unit just on the opposite side of her bedroom window. The truck was on the opposite side of her bedroom window. About 1'/= weeks ago a trailer backed in as a drop trailer and it was parked there for about 1 week. Ttiat does occur because she has taken photographs of those occurrences over the cauple of years since they have been using this as outdoor storage. She then played the recordirr of the "reefer uniY' running just outside of her bedroom window, approximately 4 feet from her window. It started at noon and it was still going when she left at 1:30 p.m. (The tape was then submitted, for the record.) Steve Berger: Staff had request~d that they unload on their property, the fact that Ms. Becker sleeps from 6:30 a.m. to 4:Q0 p.m. is not something that he needs to worry about. They are running a business legally. The fact that they unloaded at staff's request, exactly where staff request. He invited staff to come out and test the noise level. They have been more than sensitive to their residential neighbor living next to an existing business. In fact, they offered Ms. Becker at one point to purchase her house if she was interested. She said that would be great and asked them to buy it at double the fair market value, which they felt was a bit unreasonable. Every time they return before Commission there seems to be new issues that come up, but the issues actually get smaller and smaller. They are in good faith trying to resolve the problems but every time they come back it is another few issues. Chairman Bristol: The condition was they would load and unload on-site, There was never a condition for them to be on the street and stated only if they received permissiun. That is his main concern. He did not feel that they can have a viable business and load and unload on-site. According to the testimony that he has given indicated that it is very difficult to do that. Even with the permit that they have now (10,000 Ibs. or less), according to Mr. Schwartze's letter they do not think fhey can adhere to it because they can not guarantee what trucks are going to pull up there or not. Alfred Yalda: They do not allow loading and unloading on a public street. He said that two years ago. All the vehicles should load and unload on-site. They allow loading and unloading on some area for a smaller truck such as UPS truck because they have small items to deliver but not for a large truck with a fork Iift using a public street to load and unload. That was their position two years ago and that still applies today. All the property owners should do their loading and unloading on their own side, not on a public street. 07-20-98 Page 13 Steve Berger: If this CUP is not granted then they will have to take other measures, however, there are legal things they can do with that property. As Mr. Schwartze point out if they are not bound by the CUP then there are things that they do not have to comply with. He felt it is better for all pa~ties concerned that they try to come to a happy medium. Commissioner Bostwick: They have exceeded what the property can do in their business usage and he did not want to slow their business down, he wants them to grow but they need to grow by putting a warehouse somewhere else and utilizing the site as their retail base. Following the action: Steve Berger: The question is that everything that did not apply to the CUP was "grandfathered" none of that w~s at issue. It is the outdoor storage that the CUP has now been denied for. Asked where do they get a list of what can be done with that piece of property7 Cheryl Flores: Responded the Zoning counter can provide that information. OPPOSITiON: 2 people spoke in opposition ACTIQN: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is not adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Denied the request for reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 3830 based on the following: 1. That the property owner has not complied with the terms and conditions of Resolution No. PC96-28, adopted in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 3830, specifically Condition Nos. 3(that the outdoor storage shall not exceed the height of the perimeter fencing) and 11 (pertaining to curb side loading as permitted by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager). 2. That the property owner has been unable to maintain the property free from trash and debris generated by the business. 3. That the property is not large enough to contain all of the activities pertaining to the existing retail restaurant supply store and its accessory outdoor storage due to the continuing curbside delivery of inventory to the site by trucks and traclor-trailer rigs which exceed the 10,OOQ Ibs. limitation set by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. 4. That the curbside delivery by heavy trucks and tractor-trailer rigs generated by the existing use will impose an undue burden upon Center Stree!, which is not designed and improved to carry this type of truck traffic in this area, and the continued heavy truck traffic will continue to damage the pavement on Center Street, a public right-of-way. 5. That the evidence submitted at the public hearing shows that said use will be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the adjoining neighbors. V07E: (6-0, one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 51 minutes (1:55-2:46) 07-20-98 Page 14 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 4b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 357 Continued to 4c. RECLASSIFICA710N N0. 97-98-20 8-3-98 4d. WAIVER OF COUNCIL POLICY NO. 542 4e. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 4f. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4042 4g. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0.15704 4h. REQUEST FOR CiTY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 4a. 4c. 4d. 4e. 4f and. 4q - OWNER: Florence Plaza, L.L.C., 550 West "C" Street,10th Floor, San Diego, CA 92101 AGENT: 4Villiam Lyon Ho~nes, Inc., Attn: Mitchell Bradford, 4490 Von Karman, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 1203-1245 South Knott Street. Property is 4.75 acres located south and west of the southwest corner of Knott Street and Ball Avenue. Generai Plan Amendment No. 357 - to re~esignate this property from the General Commercial land use designation to the Low-Medium Density Residential land use designation. Reclassification No. 97-98-20 - to reclassify this property from the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to the RM- 3000 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone. Waiver of City Council Policy No. 542 - sound attenuation in residential projects. Conditional Use Permit No. 4042 - to construct a 45-lot (including 4-lettereri lots) 41-unit, 2-story, detache~ residential condominium development with waivers of (a) minimum struc!ural setback abutting a major highway, (b) minimum distance between buildings, (c) minimum private street standards and (d) permitted encroachment in setback area. Tentative Tract Map No. 15704: to estabiish a 45-lot (including 4-lettered lots) subdivision for the development of a 41-unit, 2-story, detached residential condominium complex. Continued from the Commission meeting of July 6,1998. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RESOLUTION N0. RECLASSIFICATION RESQLUTION N0. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT t~ESOLUTION NO. °;: FOLLQINING IS.ASUMMARY OF 7'HE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ' ApplicanPs Statement: Mitchell Bradford, Director of Land Acquisitions with William Lyon Homes, 4490 Von Karman, Newport Beach, CA: (Submitted handouis to Commission.J Stated in January of this year they had a property come to their attention. It was a shopping center that was closed, located at Ball and Knott. 7he piece of property is owned by First Cornmercial Capital Corporation that had taken the property back via a trustee sale. There had been signs !.ip at the site trying to lease or sell the property but there were was no interest. First Commercial had contracted the property with the Olson Company prior to their involvement. The Olson Company had submitted a proposal to build 46 lots which is a similar type program to that was recently 07-20-98 Page 15 approved at Brookhurst and Lincoln Avenue. The Olson Company dropped their escrov~ for reasons that they presume are related to concems about not gaining support for ihe density they desired. After reviewing sites, they wen± to the City and reviewed the files of recent projects that had been approved and tried to see if there was something that they could propose. They reviewed several Olson prcjects and felt lhat what they were currently redesigning and building elsewhere was a far bette; alternative in terms of buyer profiles. The reoccurring theme they heard as they began their design efforts was expressed by Esther Wallace and others from WAND. They wanted larger residentiai housing thak would be less likely to be converted to rentals after the project was built. They knew that in order to achieve the neighborhood goal the plan must incorporate those elements that promoted pride of ownership and offered homeowners and their families a reason to stay for a longer period of time. In order to create a neighborhood like this, owners needed larger houses with enough bedrooms for new and growing children and they needed the security of a gated environment. The majority of the streets in the communiry provide for parking on one or both side of the street. There is one short street that is only 28 feet wide for which they have provided some off-street parking. They provided side~valks that lead to a community area that promotes sociai interaction and helps people to develop friendships in the neighborhood. This a unique site in terms of its characteristics. There are off-street parking condominiums to the south, apartments to the west and a smog test center and a railroad tracks on the north side. They are proposing a neighborhood consisting of 41 (detached residential) lots averaging 3,600 square feet. The housing proposed is a traditional home design with front, side and rear architecture with two floor plans of approximately 2,200 square feet. The street widths were designed to maximize on-street parking. The sidewalk locations were selected in order to create a consistent flow of pedestrian traffic throughout the neighborhood. WAND has made it very clear that they do not want a neighborhood that becomes another rental project in West Anaheim. The size, quality and pricing of the proposed homes promotes owner occupied housing. The price range is $250,000 to $260,000. The pricing is well above the new home options that have been designed to date. They are proposing a traditional house. The land plan is a tight fit to design 50 foot wide lots that average 70 feet in depth, design streets, provide sufficient parking and achieve a density that is financially feasible. Tttiese are elements to the community that should be the most important as they seek to revitalize this area of the City. The aesthetics of the perimeter of the community are not without importance. The la~dscape planter along Knott Avenue has become the primary focal point of their discussions with Plannir~y Department as well as the Public Works Department. They hope there is a solution that does not compromise the quality of the proposed community. Whatever landscaping is approved along Knott Avenue will be maintained by the homeowners within the proposed neighborhood. The larger the planter area the greater the monthly obligations to the homeowner. (He submitted photographs.] What currently exists along Knott Avenue is 10 feet of sidewalk adjacent to the curb with a 10 foot area inside the property line. Along Knott Avenue they originally proposed to replace the 10 foot sidewalk with a new 5 foot sidewalk, then take th~e remaining 5 feet and incorporate it into an additional 6 feet of landscaping inside their property line for a total of 11 feet of landscaping outside the perimeter wall that they will build along Knott Avenue. They agreed to plant the proposed 11 foot planter area as densely as the City desires. Their original proposal called for a combination of turf adjacent to the city sidewalks and medium and high shrubs, creeping fig on the wall and trees planted at 25 feet on center to eventually create an impervious landscape barrier along Knott Avenue. What is proposed by the Ciry is a 4 to 5 foot parkway adjacent to curb, a 5 foot sidewalk and an additional 15 feet of landscaping to their perimeter wall. This requires an additional 9 feet of the site being ir~corporated into the landscape area. They can not afford to sacrifice a row of lots to gain the 9 feet. That 9 feet must come out of streets, backyards and side yards. The redesign 07-20-98 Page 16 wil4 result in ~ reduckion of the average lot size and width, a reduction in the square footage of each floor ~slan. Without a spscific zoning or code requirement for the landscape planter along Knott Avenue, they propase an area that was deep enough to incorporate dense shrub and trees and allowed them to maintain a large; lot size than the minimum allowed under the RM-3000 Zone. In their case 3,000 square feet is the minimum. They are at 3,600 square foot at average. The product they are proposing for the community also triggered several of the waivers that they are requesting. The first waiver is far the house on Lot 3. it encroaches 1 foot into a 15 foot architectural setback zone from the property line and taking the property from east to west put 50 foot lots on it and adds a 6 foot landscape area which makes it one foot sliort of keeping that house out of the architeciural area. Also, their perimeter wall along Knott Avenue is located within an architectural setback area that requires a waiver for any wall that is taller than 3'/: feet. The proposed wall height is 6 feet. The other waiver is to ailow sidewalks on only one side of the street which is a standard deviation ihat has been approved on other projects. They believe in this project. For these new infill opportunities, they need to achieve higher densities to be able to afford the cost of the land. They believe so much in this project that they have funded the demolition of the buildings on the site. Code Enforcement had been after the owners, First Commercial, to demolish the buildings. They have also funded $60,000 to remove all the asbestos in the buildings. They funded the cleanup of toxic soils resulting from the dry cieaning operation that was burned out several years ago. As they looked at other projects, either built or approved to be built, on the west side of Anaheim, they were confident that their proposal of lower density with larger, more expensive homes would be an alternative that the City would approve. They requested approval of this project rather than a continuance as staff has requested relative to the two waivers. He indicated Fred Cornwell, their civil engineer, was also available to answer an,~ questions. They asked to take into consideration ;he property to the north and how they looked at that property because it was a commercial facility when they designed the project. They created wider setback areas from the existing building to the north. in light of the fact that the ouilding is a state smog test center, the noise created from that building is less than what you would expect from ~ facility that changes tires, etc. There are rights that they own to Ball Road from their property and they are abandoning those. They will work with the owner to dedicate that property to him. Public l"estimony: Garnik Galayjian, owner of the property at 3524 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA: Stated he is objecting to the project based the followiny reasons: 1. Changing the commercial zoning to residential zoning is a very bad and shortsighted. The City of Anaheim is constantly giving up good commercial property for residential uses. This practice is undermining the commercial and revenue base for the City. in this pa~ticular case, instead of making it easier for a developer to come in and develop a feasible commercial project, it is encouraging the west Anaheim residents to shop in neighboring cities of Cypress or Buena Park. Such a zone change adds to population and becomes a burden on the Iocal schools, and civic services. Anaheim is known for its corner lot residential developments, such as Lincoln and Brookhurst, Lincoln and Muller. 2, This project is designed and developed without any regards to his rights or to the impact on his business. His property is located on the north side of subject property. His prope~ty has historically been part of this shopping center. He has written and prescriptive easement right from this shopping center to Knott Avenue. This developer and the Ciiy staff, despite his repeated requests, have not mentioned this matter. Condition No. 4, page 14 of the st~ff report, calls for abandonment of access rights to Knott Avenue. He has an interest in such a right and does not consent to such abandonment. 07-20-98 Page 17 The City's attempt in changing the zoning an~ approving this project will be detrimental to his project. He will lose vehicular and visual access to Knott A~r~nue. In the event of this approval, he wiii fiie a law suit to recover his damages from all parties fnvolved. (Ne submiited a letter to Commission whlch consisted of his public testimony, in writing.] Chairman Bristol: Asked Mr. Galayjian if he felt he had a right to go from his property to Knott Avenue? Garrik Galayjian: Responded yes. If the shopping center is not there then he Is going to be isolated. For years his property was pa~t of the shopping center. They used the driveway in and out from Ball Road to Knott Avenue. If he is going to be isolated from the shopping center then his business is going to go down. if the homes are built there is going to be isolated from Knott Avenue and no one will be abie to see it. He is going to be forced to put a high sign to show that there is a shop. Commissioner Boydstun: Ball Road is his front entrance and is the address of his business. Asked if the applicant was willing to work something out regarding that piece of land? This would give him more frontage. Asked him if that was better than going across the railroad tracks to Knott Avenue? Garnik Galayjian: He is not sure what can happen, but this is his condition and his demand. For years part of his property was used for a driveway for this shopping center. Commissioner Bostwick: He did not know that the City has any bearing on any prescriptive easement that he may feel he has. Commission has to look at this in terms ~' land use and whether this land use is appropriate for the land. He has to work those easements out with his attorney and the applican!'s attorney. Gommi~sion is here today to determine if this project fits appropriately on this piece of land. He is going to have many new potential customers that are going to move in right next to him which should benefit him. Secondly, he should not put up any signs that are illegal because that will get him in trauble with tFie City. This Commission has looked at many shoppinn, centers and he can ;appreciate Mr. Galayjian's concern with loosing the revenue in the City but there is ar. excess of commercial properties in the City of Anaheim. To allow additional residential to come in adds to the base of customer:~ for those commercial centers that are already here. The shopping center died because of lack of business and the other centers will hopefully benefit from the addition of customers in these residential homes. He suggested he speak with the property owner. He might make a good deal and if they are willing to give him that 15 foot by 65 foot driveway on that side in addition to his property then that wouid be a big benefit to him. Garnik Galayjian: Stated he appreciated his opinion but he is not interested at all in trading visibility and access to Knott for 15 feet of land. Also, his business is veiy noisy and he is concerned with possible complaints from the residential neighborhood in the future and put him out of business. ApplicanPs Rebuttal: Mitchell Bradford: Their goal is to coonerate with existing businesses and adjacent neighbors. They have some adjacency issues to the west of their property. The shopping center is demolished and the property is now surrounded by a chain link fence. It has exposed a portion of the apartment building to the west so they would also like to work with those owners such as painting some decks so that their owners will be looking at some trees and buildings that have fresh paint on them. Mr. Galayjian iakes his primary access on their property and so they f~;:;1 ~he best transition would be to grant that property to him. There were CC&R's recorded with thE shopping center in order to demolish the building and get rid of a parcel map that had previously existed which created these reciprocal rights to both Ball and Knott Avenue. The current o~vner has car.celed thosP CC&R's because there is no longer a use for them and with them. The way the CC&R's read and the way ;hey were set up wera to the benefit of the majority of the shopping center and the reason that was set up was because they did not want any of the property owners under that parcel map to block anyone's access when it was a shopping center. The CC&R's have been canceled. There is actually a section in the CC&R's that provides for cancellation by 75% or more of the owners of the shopping center. The subject property makes up over 85°/a percent of the 07-20-98 Page 18 shopping center. Technical rights are one thing and practical rights working with the adjacent properry are another. They are trying to be good neighbors with Mr. Galayjian. They had the following concems regarding some conditions within the staff report: • Page 1, under Request, (d)(1), Section No.18.31.063.011- discusses minimum structural setbacks abutting a major highway. The 18'/~ foot average is actually 20 feet, on the site plan there is an architectural "pop ouY' on one of their plans for a kitchen nook and because that is ~he closest architectural projection to Knott Avenue, the rest of the homes extended and so the average gets reduced because of the pop out but in fact when the average setback is taken on the homes pop out and when the pop out is gone the setback of the homes about 20 feet. It is not their intention to create sometning that is of great controversy but looking at the architecture of those houses the pop out creates unique architecture to the houses and breaks up flat architecture. It also creates a better opportunity for a nook in the house. The averages is about 19.5 to 19.6 feet. • Page 1, (d), (2), Section No.18.31.063.02~ - refers to 18 feet re~auired and 5 to 10 feet proposed. There are 10 feet between I~omes. They have non-livable structures pop outs for fireplaces and for entertainment centers on the sides of the houses that impede into the side yard setback 2 feet. It is a standard setup allowable in cities. It can not be a walkable, livable area. • Page 5, The architectural projections and lhe side yards are single story elements only. • Page 12, Condition No.13 - It varies from Public Works in different cities. He wanted to confirm that typically what happens even though they have private str2ets, sewer storm drain faciliiies, etc. are built by them and then they provide an easement to the City to maintain those facilities. Commissioner Boydstun: .4sked staff for their responsP. Peter Gambino, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works Department: Responded typically with the new tracts coming in the sewer and drainage improvements are private and maintained as private facilities and designed to a different standard than what they would require. It may be a possibility that they could look at that being a public system if they wanted to dedicate it to the City. They would have to design it to a higher standard and that is something that they could re-evaluate. Typically these improvements are privately maintained. Commissioner Bostwick: They could condition it that sewer and drainage improvements within the tracts shall be privately maintained unless built to City standards and approved by the Anaheim Public Works Department. Peter Gambino: Along with giving the City the appropriate easements, etc. but usually it is more advantageous for the developer to utilize and design for private standards. Commissioner Boydstun: Recommended deleting Condition No. 21,18 and 24. Mitchell Bradford: Regarding Condition No.12 - There is concern about trucks with deliveries that can not make the turnarounds behind !`~e gates but off the public right-of-way. What has been designed recently in the City, although it provides for a turnaround of those trucks, it creates a situation. They now have a design in the City that allows fo~ those trucks to do what they may and that situation would possibly occur only once or twice a month. Tliey now have a call box instead of having a center island which is standard for private gated communities. There are two lanes, one lane for owners and the other lane for visitors who can pull in off the street to a call box and buu in to a resident; the resident presses a code; the gate opens and they enter. The way some of the designs have i;een created, the call box is on the side of the gated entry. In theory a truck comes in and makes a turnaround, but in practice they back up the truck. They are designing for an occurrence that does not happen very often anyway. At Knott Avenue there are two lanes of traffic but then there is another 12 feet clear for par'King along there. So there is an area where a truck can park. They are proposing a more standard setback a person can drive up to a call box on a center island, get out of their car and stsp into the tra~c lane of the drive to get out, to the cail box on the right 07-20-98 Page 19 hand side to get buued into the community. So they are proposing a center island which they feel will be a more practical altemative wh!ch allows visitors to actually got into the community quicker and not be stepping tnto the drive lanes because of the access to the call box. Their proposal would allow visitors to the community to be safe and dry when they come in to visit. Alfred Yalda: Stated their intention is not for the applicant to design a turnaround for the 18-wheei trucks, their concern is when there is a delivery to a resident and a truck comes in, they do not want the truck to back up on a public street because it is unsafe. They should be able to make a three point turnaround. They will be happy to work with the applicant to have the three point turnaround. Mitchell Bradford: Page 13, Condition No. 30 - They are concerned with the timing of certain of these conditions that relate to building permits. Typically, they grade the site and start working on their tract facilities to get to the point where they can start the model homes. That means the perimeter wall may not be completed yet. Although they will have security fencing, up, are trying to phase the project and want to make sure that these conclitions work so they can start models and get the project going withaut having to have certain conditions completely met. Greg Hastings: Stated the intent of these conditions have to do with submitting a plan that would indicate this information. The actual work on this does not need to be done until the final inspection. Condition No. 30 is compiling all the conditions that are required to be met prior to issuance of a building permit and looking at each of those. For instance, Condition No. 2 which states that "Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits:' That is the only part of this condition that needs to be compiled with prior to issuance of building permits. Mitchell Bradford: He thought that might be the intent but wanted to be certain. It seems a bit ambiguous but the intent is clear what the Flanning Department desires. If they want to see plans before they build, that makes sense to them. Condition No. 5, page 14 - They were hoping not to have to incorporate the existing palm trees into their proyram. Creeping fig, evergreens, lush shrubs but palm trees were not in their program. As much as the proposal may end up with sidewalks adjacent to curb, they would prefer to put a new sidewalk in and not have those palm trees as an eiement. If they need to stay they can modify their designs. But in terms of screening, they do not do any, in fact, there may be a bit of a site distance pro~lem because they are planted where the medium parkway is proposed to be planted that requires no plants higher than 24 inches, 7hey are hoping to be allowed to have those removed. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked staff how wide is the existing sidewalk? Peter Gambino: He believed it was 10 feet wide existing. Commissianer Bostwick: Mr. Bradford's proposal was a 5 foot sidewalk and 11 feet of landscape. Staff is requesting a 4 foot parkway and 5 foot sidewalk and then 15 feei of landscape. Asked if the townhomes to the south have 10 foot sidewalk before their landscape begins? Mitchell Bradford: Yes and they have 15 feet of landscape. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if the sidewalk is 10 feet? Mitchell Bradford: Yes, There is actually a photo (submitted) illustrating this. The uniqueness of that is that at the back o'r the 11 feet is then a 6 foot wall that is pianted and has creeping fig. It is not reaily an architectural structure that he felt as overbearing as the adjacency to the south of the car ports that are 8 feet. The back of that is stucco, white with a liitle gray cap and for the 75% of the run of that property where those car ports are there is no vegetation on it at all. It is the same zoning but much more of a high density uss. They propose to make this site plan work by "beefing up" the landscaping and to hold their landscapiny bond for as long as it takes to get the landscaping to the extent that the City likes what they have planted in there. 07-20-98 Page 20 Chairman 6ristol: The conformity of the site would not conform if Commission did what staff was requesting regarding the parkway, sidewalk and landscaping and asked the Community Development representative for her opinion. Ramona Castaneda: Responded Community Development wanted to see more landscaping and open space. They were not specific on where ttie direction was but simply to have more of it. Commissioner Williams: 5tated a 5 foot sidewalk would get rid of that parkway which the sprinklers are going to get broken and not maintained. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated that would give it a better look and an association after a few years is not going to ~~ant to maintain that parkway because there is going to be foot traffic, people stepping on sprinklers, etc. It seems that it would conform with just the sidewalk next door and have the other landscaping, with heavy landscape. Commissioner Williams: If they removed the palm trees then they would not need more than 5 feet of sidewalk. Mitchell Bradford: There are a few primary challenges with HOA's (Home Owner Associations). They will sit on the Board through the sale of the last house. They will include in the CC&R's as strictly as possible enforcement of certain requirement within the community. Too often the first thing they do is cut costs of their HOA which may affect the landscaping. They feel their site works as they have proposed. They do wanted a lot of landscaping because it promotes more value in the house while they are selling them, as ~vell as the houses down the road. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked the applicant if one lot were removed from the south line of homes and allowed all the other lots to come together, they would get away from the waiver on the southwest corner and on the southeast corner regarding setback. They could either expand the lots or add a"toY' lot somewhere on that side of the property. Mitchell Bradford: Stated he actually had a design of that if Commissioner Bostwick would like to review it. Commissioner Boshvick: Responded yes he would. Chairman Bristol: The driveways come tegether on the northwest and southwest and the lot is cement, by taking one of those lots away they might be able to separate that a little to get away from the total cement look. Mitchell Bradford: The cement look is the exception to the rule. Some of the other projects in town have some great designs to them but they really do not hav2 mucn interior landscaping. Mitchell Bradford: (Su6mitted a design of the lots.] He gave credit to Commissioner Boydstun for the design of the 40-lots. They would clearly like 41-Iot but this particular, 40-lot, design does make sense. Cheryl Flores: Regarding waiver 2, it refers to distance belween the buildings. There is a situation with lot 10 near the west property line where there is a 5 foot setback but there is also only 5 feet between each of the models that have a fireplace with an entertainment center facing each other. The only permitted encroachment that code allows would be the fireplace itself but not the entertainment center. Mitchell Bradford: He agreed with that ard he looked at that condition. First of all it is a single story condition. Secondly, the reason some of these Code requirements came out is because visually he did not want architecture to close together. From a practical standpoint, what they are going to do is design architectural pop outs to not be adjacent to each other. But thers are occasions where that might happen. Bear in mind that th~se are projections and the remainder of the house is a 10 foot setback. Those architectural projections are single story projects. 07-20-98 Page 21 ~ __ ... _ . .. . _..____ _. _ ~., On the revised land plan they have puiled Lot 3 so that it is at the 20 foot minimum setback zone from the property line. They have pulied lot 9 to the 10 ioot minimum and the tot lot, as proposed by Commissioner Boydstun, Is 38 feet wide by approximately 73 feet deep. So it adds another 3,000 square feet in landscape area. If they want to condition that to a design that is approved by the appropriate department, then they would agree to that. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated that is an improvement that gives them an area on both sides of the complex. Commissioner Williams: Asked the applicant what they have to do to the price of the homes or quality of homes to drop a lot? Mitchell Bradford: They will probably raise prices. Each lot costs about $80,000 in land price. if it does anything it affects their return a little bit, but the market is getting better. What they show as an 8°/a return today may very well be 10 or 12% by the end of the project. The carrying cost of waiting probably off-set any gain they would receive. Commissioner Williams: Asked if they need to make the homes a smaller. Mitchell Bradford: No, not on this design. If they have to create that larger landscape setback along Knott then they would have to start reducing lot depths and house sizes. Their proposal is a 5 foot sidewalk and 11 feet of landscaping which would be 5 feet of the City's, 6 feet of their property and they would maintain the landscape in its entirety even the City por#ion. Cheryl Flores: Staff has not had the opport~nity to review the 40-lot pian that has been submitted and would like to do that. Commissioner Bostwick: He felt that a continuance would be appropriate in order to return with a better proposal. He then offered a motion for a continuance to August 3,1998, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and motion was carried. OPPOSI710N: 1 person spoke in opposition to st!bject request. ACTION: Continued subject request to the August 3,1998 Planning Commission meeting in order to give staff time to review the revised plans showing a 40-lot development. VOTE: (6-0, one vacant seat) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 14 minutes (2:46-4:00) ~fhe~e was a short break taken after this item.] 07-20-98 Page 22 5b. VARIANCE NO. 4340 OWNER: Anaheim Hills Plaza, Inc., Attn: Bob Courtney, P.J. Box 16700, Encino, CA 91416 AGENT: LEADS, Inc., Attn: Eric Hu11,1820 East 1st Street, Suite 550, Santa Ana, CA 92705 LOCATION: 460 South Anaheim Hills Road - Anaheim Hills Plaza. Property is 11.4 acres located at the northeast corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Anaheim Hills Road. Waiver of (a) permitted commercial center identification and (b) maximum number of permitted wall signs to permit 3 monument signs for ihe existing retail center and 5 wall s!gns for a proposed retail store (Sav-on). Continued from the Commission meetings of June 22, and July 6,1998. VARtANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC98•110 Granted (Approved Sign Plan C with the elimination of the "Liquor Sign") SR1048J ~ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY O~ THE PCANNING.COMMISSION AC710N: I Applicant's Statement: Eric Hu11,18 20 E.1st St., Santa Ana, CA: Stated he works for LEADS Incorporated. They represent Sav- on which is owned by American Stores Properties. They are ~eeking approval of some additional wall signs for lhis site. The center has suffered from a lack of patronage in the past and now there is a Sav-on Express store currently in the shopping center that h.as plans to relocate and expand into the vacant facility and is approximately 25,OQ0 square foot building. The additional four secondary signs read "pharmacy, one hour photo, liquor and food marP' which are the four main departments that will be contained within the Sav-on store in addition to a Hallmark greeting card section. (Ne submitted phofographs.J The photographs that he submitted are of the Hughes Center. It is a shopping center of similar size and zoning classification where four secondary signs are currently in existence. The secondary signs that Sav-on is proposing are of high quality and are attractive, considerably more so that what exists at the Hughes Center. Sav-on's success depends largely on their ability to inform not only residents but also visitors of their products and services that are available in that store. The average Sav-on prototype is about 15,000 square feet so he is proposing an additional 10,000 square feet af floor area, which do allow for expanded departments such as a food mart. A food mart is a use that would not necessarily be associated with a drug store. Some Sav-on's do have that department, In addition to the Cepartments such as liquor and 1-hour photo that are not always associated with drug stores. So they feel it is important to inform the public of aIl the departments and services available. Ultimately the success of the Sav-on store means the success of the center, given the troubled track record of this large anchor tenant store, Sav-on has th~ opportunity to revitalize this center. He addressed his concern for Condition No. 4, referring that the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 3108 for a restaurant that is no longer existing. He is not representing the owner of the property so it is difficult to comment on that particular item. The owner is Anaheim Hills Plaza Inc. Commission Boydstun: If the owner wants them as a tenant then the owner has to comply, 07-20-98 Page 23 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. . Commissioner Boydstu~: She felt the center needs all the help it could get and this sheuld be a good "anchor" and should draw a lot of business in and help fill it up. Commissioner Williarris: Felt their sign are done tastsfully on most of their stores. Chairman Bristol: Stated in the moming session it was brcught up if the signs were all as one sign it would be too high and would be considered a roof• mounted sign. • Cheryl Fiores, Senior P-anner: Yes, it would be. Staffs preference with this sign on the parapet would be Sign Pian "A" which is the Sav-on Drugs with the pharmacy and the 1-hour photo incorporaled into one sign. To get all the other secondary services on the same sign it would make it rather large and become a roof sign. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked how Hughes gets all of their signs that the have? He thought their proposed sign on the building looks better than what is sitting out in front of Hughes. Cheryl Flores: Stated Hughes has a permit for the large sign over their main entrance. The secondary signs below they were unable to find permits for those. It was her understanding that the Chairman was referring to combining all of these sign into one that would extend above the parapet and therefore be a roof sign. Commissioner Williams: Asked the applicant if he meant going all the way across the parapet wall with the signs and not extending above the roof line? Eric Hull: Responded that was correct. Commissioner Boydstun: Recommended dropping the liquor sign with the drugs, pharmacy, food mart and 1-hour photo (Sign Plan C minus the liquor). Commissioner Bostwick: Felt this shopping center needs some definite help and there is some real justification to getting a good anchor tenant into this center and keep it viable. The option of puttinp signs on the windows is not going to work because of the visibility of the shade of the roof canopy, the way it comes over and blocks the view of those windows. The property does have some definite visible handicaps. Therefore, he would be in favor of the waivers. OPPOSITION: None ACTfON: Concurred with staff that the proposed project fails within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirements to prepare an EIR. Granted Variance No. 43d0, as follows: Approved waiver (a) pertaining to permitted commercial center identification signs based on thE following: (i) This property is irregularly-shaped with unique topography which affects the visibiliry of this commercial center. (ii) Aithough the property has three frontages, access into the center is only provided at two driveways (ono on Anaheim Hills Road and one on Canyon Rim Road) and the double-faced sign will better direct patrons traveling both directions on Czny~n f:i~m Road into the center at the driveway. 07-20-98 Page 24 Approved waiver (b) pertaining to permitted number of wall sfgns, as follows: VOTE: SIGN PLAN C Si n Size s.f. Text C1 133.0 "Sav-on dru s" C2 15.9 "Pharma C3 98.0 "Food Mart" C4 21.1 "1 Hour Photo" Said waiver (b) was approved on the basis that Save-On would become the anchar tenant that would help to draw more customers into the shopping center, that any window sfgnage wouid be blocked by the canopy, that the unique topography affects the visibility of tnis commercial center, and that the sign plan that was submitted was tastefuily done. (6-0, one vacant seat) Selma Mann, Assis+ant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 13 minutes (4:06-4:19) 07-20-98 Page 25 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROV~D) 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Continued to 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3915 (READVERTISED) 8-17-98 OWNER: Hussein Berri,16205 Hemp Circle, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 LOCATION: 1199 South State ColleQe Boulevard - Mobil service station . Property is 0.5 acre located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and State Coilege Boulevard. Review of revised plans pertaining to the retention of an existing non- conforming biliboard and enlargement of the previously-approved car wash facility in conjunction with a previously-approved service station and convenience market, with waivers of a) prohibition of addition to non- conforming use, b) maximum area of monument sign, c) maximum monument sign width and d) minimum structural setback from an arterial highway. Property is 0.5 acre located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and State College Boulevard (1199 South State College Boulevard - Mobil service station). CONDITIONAL U9E PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR71 FOL:LOWING IS:A SUMMARY OF,TH~ PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. <: ` I THIS IS A DETAILED SUMMARY OF 17EM N0. 6- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3915. I Chairman Bristol: Last agenda item is Itern No. 6 at 1199 South State College Boulevard, the Mobil Service Station. Applicant's Statement: David Berri: Good a~terroon to the Commission and staff. My name is David Berri and my address is 8441 Emerado, E M E R A L' 0, Place in Westminster, 92683. I v~ant to start by addressing some issue. I was at the pre-hearing this morning and there were some issues that were brought up and I have some documentation to prove they were incorrect. Because I wanted to clarify those things if I could hand them to you. jSubmitted 3 exhibit documents.] i here ~re 3 exhibits in there and ...I wanted to start by expressing that this project was approved last June. The ~UP was approved and we have been in Plan Check for approximately 10 months and we started construction and we received approval on approximately 9 inspections and then midstream during the process approximately during the first week of May the applicant, Hussein Berri, received.... he spoke with Kevin Bass and was informed that they had a complaint frorn their competitor the 76 Station. I'm sure you're aware of the recently opened across the ~lreet, Two to three weeks after that is when the problems started. As you know now we're having a littie bit of trouble witr~ the conditional use permit. I want to start with Exhibit 1 which is an excerpt from the March 31, '97 hearing on this project and I wanted to direct your attention to ihe second paragraph where it says "Chairman Messe". He asked if the billboard would stay because if we look at the last sentence on page 3 of today's report (staff report], staff indicated that it was assumed that the billboard would not be removed prior ~xpansion of this service station because 07-20-98 Page 26 that is the first waiver concerning the billboard. This clearly shows that David Rose was the gentleman that was representing us at the last hearing, clearly shows he was asked if it was going to stay and he answered that it was. Now Planning raised that as an issue, that it was unknown that the biliboard was going to stay. I don't know if there are any questions on that. It also states that no waiver was sought by the petitioner which is ourselves, to permit the expansion of uses while the non-conforming billboard remained. We were never informed of that and it was very clear that the billboard was going to remain and I believe this shows that. Second issue on Exhibit 2. I heard sume talk about that some work was commencing on the property after the "Stop Work" Notice and these will show that that's not the case because we would not be working on the property if we had a Stop Work Notice. On June 2nd, we received a Stop All Work Notice and we did stop working and on June 9th there was a second notice which as you can see amended the first notice which allowed us to work in all areas except the car wash area because of the billboard posts being in the car wash. So that i wanted to clear up. It didn't sound good on our part and I don't want that to be perceived as something that we condone. That was the first waiver, so i mean, the sign has been there for several... over 20 years and I think over 30 years and it was indicated on the plan and this would show that staff was aware and Commission was aware of it. On the second waiver, I am not sure why it was turned into.... it says the second waiver and third waiver for number 15 and 16. I applied for one waiver. I don't know why it was turned into hvo. I want to show that the second waiver says that revised plans indicate an 8.5 square foot monument sign which is incorrect. Look at Exhibit No. 3 at the bottom right hand corner. It says 56.93 square feet which is under the allowable 65 square foot monument sign, so I really don't see what the problem is there why we would need a variance. The sign width, we had received a varianr.e before and also we did receive... what happened is the applicant... we showed plans to Planning and verbally they were approved because there was a small difference in the sign, nothing significant and we asked for a stamp on the plans and my brother, Hussein Berri, spoke with Kevin Bass and he was told "don't worry about it", so thaPs something that we now are facing. This sign was approved and now staff is saying that it is not, so I don`t know what to do there. On the third waiver, in reference to the car wash, we do have a stamped set of plans because I heard in the pre-hearing that Commission asked if it went through Planning, and it did and we do have a stamped set of plans, however we only have one set of plans that are the working set. So I don't know how you want to see that or what not. That was stamped according to staff today. I believe they said we didn't have a stamped set of pians. So the addition to the car wash through that extra 9%: feet did ga through Planning. I don't know why it is a problem right now. So these are !he things that we're going through. I~!ant to state that the original south wall of the building was at 29 feet from the ultimate right-of-way, as currently the car wash is at approximately 36 feet frorr~ the right-of-way which is actually less than the old south wall was because as you know that was modified. So therefore, I don't see why there's a problem there when it was approved. We have an approved set of plans by Flanning and now its a problem. One last thing , also, Section 18, I don't know why it is here bacause this ~s something that was worked out well in advance and I don't know why it was put in here to make it look like another obstacle. We dropped ttiis in an agreement with Plznning, we drnpped the Mobil logo. We're keeping the Mobil signs on canopy one per fascia, one per elevation, thaYs four signs and we dr~pped the idea of the logo and that was the reason why if you look further down the fast-food signs were approved. Originally we had two signs on each elevation of the building. We had a pegasus disk and the olher one wasn't clear what it was going to be but it just said "food tenanP'. So what we did is combined those into one sign of the same square footage and that was approved by Planning. So we are still within the 40 square foot per elevation on the wall signs. Also if you look on page 5 of the report of today's report about the third line down it says, "the developer subsequently completely removed the main building leaving only the two canopies". They did leave the two canc~ies and they did not completely remove the building. f heard talk of that earlier. We still have several of the footings and the slabs and the last main wall that was remaining was converted to work with the word building that was approved. What hzppened w~s that when we came here last year, Commission didn't want to see a pitch roof so we had to remove the roof, and in removing that, there was that only last wall. Ir 07-20-98 Page 27 order to convert it to work with wood, we left the post for that wall and if you ever want to come out and look at the site, we can show you where the slabs and footings remain. These are the things I need answered and we had applied for waivers on some of these items I don't see why we had to apply for waivers. IYs clear that staff was aware of the billboard sign and this Exhibit No. 3, RC Lighting, the owner of that company tried to submit that to Planning and they wouldn't accept it at the time because they weren't taking any of our permits. I'm open to any other questions. Chairman Bristol: Thank you. Is there anybody eise who wishes to speak on this item7 David Berri: 1 have somebody from the biliboard company. He wants to speak. Chairman Bristol: Fine, come on up. Public Testimony: Charles Taylor: My name is Charles Taylor and I'm the neiglibor of the Mobile Station thaYs being reconstructed. The last name is T A Y L 0 R and I live right next door to the Mobile Station. The reason I'm here is to express, as I know we all have, we all have a business and want to make our money, but the main thing that I'm concerned with is... I have some pictures here to show what kind of impac! it is having on us as far as that pa~ticular car wash, as for the sign in between the buildings. Chairman Bristol: You're directly west of him7 Charles Taylor: Yes we are, we're right next door, the green store that shows the orange letters on the front at 1911 East Ball Rocd. Chairman Bristol: Were you here last year when we approved this? Charles Taylor: No, we never got a card. We got the card this time, but the address was penciled in writing, but the name was typed. So if the card went into that shop, we never got it. This is the first time we ever receiv~d a notice of this in Villa Park. i wanted to make a point that my dad owned the building and he died, so ev~-rything went to that store, so we never got it. This is the first time we ever got a thing (notice] on this. But I was just trying to explain, as far as being neighborly like, this car wash thing, if you look at the front picture there where the store is, do you see the air conditioner there? Alorg that wall is an office where we do all of our business, all our phone communications. I was just wondering how would the impact of a car wash with the dryers, how can we do our business? What kind of impact, how much noise7 That is what I'm worried about. I have no objections of the reconstruction, but the car wash thing I'm worried about how we are goiny to run our business, how iPs going to affect us and when they built it. IPs further out, it overpasses our store clear out 3 to 5 feet or so from the store, which blocks people on the road. They can't see our store anymore, it's totally blocked with that wall as long as it is now. You can see the location of that sign, between those two buildings, the maintenance crews are going up on our roof now. I guess that gives them access to our property, I don't mind, you know, if tl~e maintenance crews have to go up in the sign if theyjust ask instead ofjust doing it. The maintenance crew for that sign/poster just go on through. I was also wondering, which way thP cars are going to exit out of that car wash and how iYs going to affect the traffic as far as the flow goes and how iYs going to affect us and people on that side of the stret;. 7he main thing is also how big are the car dryers going to be? Because we aren't be able to hear our phone, we can't with it so close. With that wall we can't ever paint the building, again now on that side of that side/section. That's all I have to say. Th,~~k you for your time. Chairman Bristol: We'll get some answers for you. Thank you, Mr. Tayior. Anybody else wish to speak? 07-20-98 Page 28 Charles Taylor: Thank you. David Ryan: Good afternoon, my name if David Ryan. I'm with Outdoor Systems, we're the owners of the biliboard sign on Mr. Berri's property. My work address is 1731 Workman Street, Los Angeles, 90031. My last name is spelled R Y A N. The reason I'm here today is to represent my company's interest at this property and also to see if it's possible to work out a amicable solution on the property. I was present at this morning's meeting and did hear some of the discussion and would like to address a few of the points, if I may, that were brought up during that meeting. One of them was a reference made to an ordinance made here in the City of Anaheim that states that if a property has a non-conforming use, that the City, if ! understand the law correctly, the City requires that the property owner must bring the property into compliance before the property can be developed further. If one considers thE billboard a non-conforming use, which the City of Anaheim does, then I think iYs safe to deduce that what the City is saying is, that if a property owner has a billboard sign on his property, then before the City will allow or as a condition to issue a permit, the City will require that the billboard sign be removed. I'd like to read, if 1 may, from the California Business and Professional Code Section 5412-6 and I'll paraphrase here, 'Under that section requiring that a lawfully erected billboard be removed as a condition or prerequisite for the is:suance or continued effectiveness of a permit or other approval, constitutes a compelled removal requiring compensation under Section 5412'. Our position is that we have a billboard sign on the propeRy that we are being compelled to remove by the City of Anaheim. If Sam wants to get his permits for his building, if Sam wants to continue with the work on his building etc., the City is saying to our company that, or actually to Sam and Sam to us that if this project is going to continue, then the billboard sign must be removed. Again, according to California State Law, if that is going to happen, if the City does want to require us to remove the billboard sign, if they compei us to remove the billboard sign, we will do so but we are entitled to compensation. The compensation for the billboard, I'm not an attorney, I don't know what kind of formula would be used, but I can teli you that our income on the billboard is somewhere in the neighborhood of $600 a month. The billboard has been on the property f~r probably 20 years; l can find the exact dates. Sam and I would like to ke2p the billboard structure up for another 20 years. If the billboard sign were up for 10 more years, we're talking about $72,000 worth of income that my company will receive. I don't know if we would be entitled to all of that or what percentage of that, quite frankly, but our position is that we would like the billboard sign to remain on the property, but we are willing to work with the City Council and the staff here. Chairman Bristol: Let me stop you right there for a minute. We're up here to talk land use, we can't get into moneys and things like that and even to answer you... City staff couldn't answer that. So if you have another thought... David Ryan: Again, the only reason I bring these up is because this morning I did hear that particular section of the ordinance. Chairman Bristol: Yes, I understand, we can't get into that, we're talking land use issues. But I'il get you an answer from the City Attorney. David Ryan: Sure, very good. What I'd also like to say, is that, my first intention here is that I don't want to get into any problems with the City of Anaheim. We have other billboard structures in town and we'd like to continue to do business in the City of Anaheim on a pleasant footing. If it will iri any way help the situation, apparently, there is some issue that was raised with the Building Department about the actual structure being located within the car wash area. As the Building and Safety staff, I thin,: testified, there are no substantial hurdles that cannot be overcome. We have biliboards in the City of LA that go through three story buildings. IPs a fairly simple process in this particular case. This property doesn'; present any major difficulties, you simply punch a hole through the roof at the column, box it in and put some flashing up around it and tar it, it's that simple. If there's a problem with that structure being located where it is, we're 07-20-98 Page 29 offering to relocate it on the same lot to another area if that wouid satisfy the City. Thank you, any questions? Commissioner Boydstun: How do you service that sign? David Ryan: Thank you for bringing that up, the gentleman mentioned that he's having a problem next door. The sign has always been serviced to the best of my knowledge, from Sam's property, Mr. Hussein's property. There was a ladder that was hanging down and we removed it during the construction process on a temporary basis. There was a wall to be built with some scaffoldings. So if the gentleman, next door is having a problem and crews are now on his roof, I'll talk to my construction immediately and resolve that. We'd like to put our ladder back up and that will preclude any problems in the future. Commissioner Williams: How long does your lease run on that property David Ftyan: Sam and ~ have agreed to another ten year term. Commissioner Williams: As of what date? Prior to the start of this or after the start of this7 David Ryan: I don't know if I'm prepared to answer that right now Chairman Bristol: Anything else, sir? Okay, I'd like to ask Mr. Berri to come back up. Excuse me Mr. Berri, before I continue. Is there anybody else who wants to speak on this item? Okay come on up sir, first. Hussein Berri, 16205 Hemp Circle, Fountain Valley, CA: I'm the owner of the property, I live on 16205 Hemp Circle, Fountain Valley, CA. I've been working on this project from day one with everyone in Building, Planning, everything. I started the construction based on appruved set of plans and we have not deviated from these plans whatsoever. We have had property inspections, no problem with anyone. One day I get a call from Kevin Bass. He tells me that my competitor complained (thaYs the UNOCAL across the street from me who just opened up) because I demolished my building. I told him I did not demo my building, go there and look for yourself. He said I did. I'm at the site everyday. The footings, beams are there, but we just had to do repair of the slab. He asked me, "What are you going to do so you can remedy the problem with this guy7" I said, "I don't have a problem with this guy:' He said, "Would you dedicate the right-of-way to the City so we will not revoke your CUP?" I said. "I don't know why you want to revoke my CUP; I have done nothing wrong, I'm v~orking accurding to the plans." He said, "Okay we're investigating this and we'll get back to you." He never got back to me for two to three weeks. Then we did have sign issue problems. We worked it out. I was going to come into Planning Commission here because of the four pegasus under canopy fascia. We finally worked out a deal over the counter that he will approve my monument sign, my wall signs, and I will drop the four mobile pegasus then we won't have to come back here to Planning Commission. We had a deal and I said, "Okay." I told him, "Okay, why don't you stamp my site plan for approval for those signs?" He said, "Sam, I'm here. Don't worry about it. When you want pull the permit just come on in:' I figured, "Heck thaPs good enough for me." One day, I was working at the site and the inspectors come in and put a"Stop Work" Order. From the day they put a Stop Work Order, about nine days later they could not figure out what problems to point out to me. This started out with the dedication. Then they said the billboard is the problem. Then they said the car wash is the problem, then they said the setback is the problem, and then i got problems with my signs. I mean, I really believe there's politics behind this thing. I mean I was in plan check for nine months. They had every opportunity to point out anything they wanted and I would gladly address it. They waited until I constructed my site and shut me down. I've been shut down for over 45 days. I'm losing a lot of money everyday. Do they care? Obviously not. With the approval of the extension of the car wash, I did not do this on my own. I went to Planning, I talked to them. The reason for that is 1 called the car wash company after my site was approved, they went ahead and did a layout how the car wash equipment is going to go in the bay and they told me that the length of the existing car wash is not enough. i said my projecPs been approved. They told me to go back and talk to Planning and see what you can do so I did. They told me, after research (thaYs Kevin and two other guys et the counter), they researched it and they told me if thaPs all you're going to do, as long as you are not 07-20-98 Page 30 extend the market along with car wash you're going to be okay because you're not going to have to require anymore parking. I said, "I cannot provide anymore parking so I am just extending the car wash." They said. "Okay that does not require parking " So we put that on the plan. It's been on the plan for at least six or seven months. It's been through many reviews and nobody ever said anything about it. Now it's a problem. I have an approved set of plans. I'm glad to show it to you guys. I got my field set. Commissioner Williams: You have a set stamped by the Building Department approved for construction? Hussein Berri: Oh yes. Commissioner Boydstun: With that extra nine feet on there? Commissioner Williams: With building permits? Hussein Berri: Oh yes. I have them right here, can I bring it? I'll show it to you. Commissioner Williams: However, we'll have to give that back to him. Commissioner Boydstun: Can we look at it Selma? Selma Mann: Illegible conversation. Commissioner Boydstun: Would the Building Department have a copy? Mr. Berri: Excuse me, you guys have a copy, Building Department has a complete set. Commissioner Williams: Yes, they would have a complete set on file. Commissioner Boydstun: So can we just look at his7 Commissioner Williams: We'll get the set from the Building Department Chairman Bristol: Do you have something more to say? Mr. Berri: Yes I can add a littie bit more. You know we had the footing trenched, the rebar, the concrete. ~Ve had inspection every step of the way according to plan and we were going up the walf. Every three feet we have to stop and get an inspection. We have all kinds of inspections without any problem because we're working according to plan. Suddenly, thaYs not what was approved. If they would have told me that I would have to come back to Planning Commission, I would have. In fact, or my signs, I did give Kevin Bass a check for $404 for him to bring me here into Planning Commission, so we can try to get the four Pegasus on the canopy fascia and he said Sam we're not going to support those. But once we got an agreement, I dropped the four Pegasus and they still in fact have my check. I'm not trying to deceive anyone, I'm not trying to pull a fast on anybody. All I would like is to be left alone so I can finish this project. It's been shut down for 50 days. I bought the car wash equipment, it's been on-site for approximately two months now. I can't guard the site, l can't move it, I can't do nothing with it. I'm very vulnerable, my insurance policy will not cover the equipment because iYs not fixed to the ground. I'm very vulnerable now and i need help. Now also I got my CUP completely revoked, for what? What did I do wrong? Following the plans? I got anott~er problem. I got a problem with the Water Department. One day the City water line leaked. I called them up. They waited seventeen, eighteen hours before they came out and shut the water. I complained to Planning, Building, to the Water Department, nobody cares. I have to pay for a new service. I don't need a new service, I have a senrice. All I want them to do is fix their own lines. I've been out of water for probably over three months. Nobady is willing to listen. If I don't pay approximately $3,000 they tell me I'm not going to have any water. I'm workinc~ off a temporary meter. Now we haven't done nothing, any kind of work on the site for probably more than two weeks because any subcontractor has to come in. 07-20-98 Page 31 His work fs part of the car wash. We cannot do anything. I'm just sinking financially. I need help with ali that stuff. Chairman Bristol: Okay, why don't we ask the staff a few questions. I close the public hearing. I'm going to close the Public Hearing. . Commissioner Boydstun: Did we get the plans to loak at them? Commissioner Bostwick: They're coming. How did we add the distance onto the car wash without coming back. When we measure this, we had some figures this moming as far as distances. Is ihat from the ultimate right-of-way or is that from the right-of-way that's present that we're dealing with? Greg Hastings: The measurement is taken from the face of the car wash to the ultimate right-of-way line which is 12 feet in from the existing right-of-way line. IYs a critical intersection. ThaPs the way code requires it tu be measured. Commissioner Bostwick: IYs 12 feet and originally... Greg Hastings: Originally it was 12 feet also. We've always used that same line on the pian Commissioner Bostwick: But he extended the car wash? Greg Hastings: Yes. Chairman Bristol: He had to have to had a variance before the car wash, right Greg? Greg Hastings: The variance had to do with the west property line. There's a requirement that trees be placed up against that propefty line and because the car wash is right at the property line, those trees vrere relocated elsev~here. Commissioner Bostwick: So he didn't need a variance from the extension of the car wash to ultimate right- of-way on Ball? Greg Hastings; Yes, that was never looked at by tne Planning Commission. What the Planning Commission looked at was the distance of the extension of the service station towards the west property line, but not out towards Ball Road. (Conversation occurs among Commissioners and staff which is inaudi6le.] Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Commissioners your microphones are not picking up your conversations. Commissioner Peraza: Greg, am I to understand that they submitted a different set of plans to the Planning Oepartment and a different set to the Building Department? Greg Hastings: I'd be glad to put any of that on record. Chairman Bristol: LeYs do that because I'm really confused because we are looking at a different set of plan here. Commissioner Bostwick: So the plans that we approved are different from the set that the Plai~ning Department approved. And also there are different sheets within the plans that are approved that show different dimensions for this car wash. Greg Hastings: ThaPs correct, it does show distances, one of which meets a requirement, one of which, I believe the four foot encroachment and another one is a ten foot encroachment, so the plans don't match themselves in that on2 set. Also, there is a conditional use permit on the property where there is a condition that basically says that there needs to be compliance with all other city codes as well as, approval does not 07-20-98 Page 32 include any action or findings as to compiiance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance regulation or requirement. So, basically, there stiii is a requirement as well as another condition that says that the property shall be developed substantially In accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner in which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Vision No.1 of Exhibit Nos.1, 2 and 3 including the landscaping requirements of Condition No. 32, above specified. Regardless of what that says, that set of building plans, there still is a conditional use permit that needs to be complied with and it is up to the applicant to ensure that the conditions are complied with. Staff through Plan Check normally does, in fact, we do review these conditions. Commissioner Bostwick: The Exhibits listed as 1, 2, and 3, one of those is the plot plan that we approved here in Planning Commission, correct? Greg Hastings : Yes, thaYs the site plan, floor plans and elevations. Commissioner Boydstun: (Conversation inaudi6le.] Julie Seay, Building Division Manager: That amended notice, I believe, is dated June 11th and that put into writing an agreement ihat was reached over the counter with Mr. Berri on June 3rd. Actually when he came in to discuss the Stop Work Order that was issued, At that time that was the agreement that we had. Commissioner Bostwick: I have a problem for the fact and it has nothing to do with who said what, but when we originally, the intent of this Commission, I believe, was that this was just a remodel of the existing building, and that was why we made special concessions to the roof and adoptions to the roof to be flat to more or less match the standard station across the street and some things. But when they tear it completely down and rebuild it, then I think we should have some type of a full compliance with ail the other new stations that zre going in. You can say that the footings are there, but that isn't the building. That is just the concrete slab and some footings, that isn't the structure, that isn't the roof line, that isn't anything that was existing that we had exhibits of when this was brought to us. So, I'm sorry Mr. Berri, but it isn't quite what you meant it to be. We were working with a remodel and not a complete tear down and start over again. I think if that was the case, you'd look more like what the Union station is across the street, with whole new canopies and an entirely different look to it. Let me ask Selma what... obviously, the billboard can remain if we provids the waiver, is that correct7 Selma Mann: I was informed by the Building Department they would still need to submit structural plans that integrate the two together, but what the grant of that waiver would do would be to correct something that needs to happen in order for the project to proceed because of the legal analysis that is in the staff report. Apparently, there is information that has been submitted that suggests that paragraph no. 13 which indicates that it was assumed that the billboard would be removed was not an assumption that was shared by the Planning Commission, at the prior hearing. However, there's still the city code that indicates that while the non-conformity exists, there can't be the expansion and there is an additional City code that I did read this morning and I'd like to read agzin. That is Section 18.03.030, Subsection .040, "That says, "That no waiver, nor variance from any specific provisions of the code shall be deemed to have been granted unless such waiver or variance is specifically set forth in the resolution granting such conditional use permit." A waiver from that provision with regard to the nnn-conformity was not set forth in the CUP resolution. The Planning Commission can correct that, this afternoon, by granting that waiver then the project can proceed subject, of course, to meeting the building requirements for the actual construction itself. Commissioner Boydstun: I have no problem with the sign being there as long as they meet all the codes and criteria with Building with that sign in their building. But, I do have problem with the extension of that building because I voted would have never had... I voted for these plans and I would have never have voted for it with that coming out nine feet because it that does block the building next door. And my understanding was that it was going to be cut off at the same place as it, which then I do not feel would have hurt their business. 07-20-9$ Page 33 Commissioner Bostwlck: I think it also inhibits the flow of traffic across the area driveways. Chairman Bristol: Mr. Taylor has quite a bit of influence on that site. I'd like ta ask the applicant about the noise. Mr. Taylor did ask a question about ihe noise level with the tunnel next to his building. Commissioner Boydstun: I think with two concrete walls that won't be a problem. Chairman Bristel: I just want to ask him. David Berri: In reference to the noise, as you know the car wash structure is made of biock wall which is all filled with concrete and I believe the neighbors building is tilt-up wall and I believe with those two walls, I don't think there is going to be a problem with the r,oise to buffer that. Commissioner Boydstun: (Conversation inaudible.] ~Peop/e from ihe audience speaking amongst themselves, inaudible. j Commissioner Peraza: Steve, have them come to the microphone. They should not be arguing among themselves. Chairman Bristol: Yes, thaPs right. You need to speak in the microphone, sir. David Berri: Okay, that was all you wanted7 You said you were going to call me back up. Could I clarify one thing though? Chairman Bristol: Yes. David Berri: In reference to the car wash sticking out pass the building, it doesn't affect it because there is an access between our property and out neighbors property. Cars are parked there and fhere's a planter, as he said, the car wash sticks out about four or five feet pass the planter but the cars actually stick out further, I don t think that it... Chairman Bristol: While you're up there, why did you change the plans? From what we saw and what... David Berri: As my brother stated, was when he talked to the car wash company, they relooked at the plan and said that the car wash wasn't going to work wiih the shorter tunnel because the wash wouldn't worlc to get all the equipment in there and thaYs why, I mean, I don't know what it is you guys were saying about submitting two separate plans, but I'm sure thaYs not the case and we have plans to prove it. We did not submit separate plans at different Departments. Commissioner Boydstun: What you had approved here did not have that extension on it. David Berri: But thaYs why we got it approved with Planning, once they stamped it how were we supposed to know? Commissioner Bostwick: But there are two separate sheets even in those plans. One that is just exactly what we approved and one that adds the footage so they're not the same. They're not the same plans. David Berri: I understand that and that was simply that they didn't go back and redo every page. They went back and did the cover page, they didn't go back and .. they did the pages that concerned the car wash. They didn't go back and redo every single page that had like something that had to do with the inside of the building and so forth. They didn't go back and do every page and that was the simple fact of that part of it. Commissioner Boydstun; But this is a CUP and the plans have to be what was approved for the CUP. David Berri: Well then Planning shouldn't have stamped it and we went to them and we thought that we were going to have to come back here and then they said no you don't have to go back. 07-20-98 Page 34 Chairman Bristol: The Conditional Use Permit, I believe, Selma corcect me if I'm wrong, takes precedent over anything, as far as any action and they state that on the pians when they stamp them. Am I correct staff that.... Commissioner Boydstun: Yes, the stamo says that it has to meet all.... Greg Hastings: Yes it is true, and I pointed out and I probably should mention this too, that there's no Zoning stamp on that front page of the... Chairman Bristol: Oh there isn't7 Greg Hastings: No, not the set we looked at. David Berri: There's not a Planning stamp? (Conversation among Commissioners, inaudible.] Hussein Berri: If what you say is correct, I don't think that they should have led us on that this is acceptable and allowed us to go through the whole process and then tell us that everything we did was wrong. They should have stopped us in the beginning. What they were saying about the stamp for the..... (Discussion among Commissioners and ihe applicant, inaudible.] Chairman Bristol: Okay, I think we're getting an idea of what we want to do up here, I think. Is there something new here? Selma ~vlann: Mr. Chairman, after the hearing of applicant to take that to the Planning Department, the Planning Department could make a copy of just the applicable portion where he is indicating fhat there are stamps that are not on the building set, so he can keep his original set. (More conversation among Commissioners and the applicant.] Chairman Bristol: Do you have anything that's been stamped that shows the extension? It appears that we don't have any set of plans that have... the site plan with the extension that has heen approved. An extension, therefore, we have to assume that the original plans, somebody charged them. Commissioner Peraza: He can buil~ the car wash to iPs original planl ThaYs what he has to do? Commissioner Bostwick: We'll give him a variance for the sign and the sign board and whatever else he's going ;o have to the car wash....(Conversation becomes inaudible.J Let me skip subject here for a minute to the monument sign. Their drawing shows a 8 foot high by 14' 8" which they are saying is 56.93 square feet. It comes within the square footage but iPs the length, is that the problem? Greg Hastings: There's actually two things, first there is a condition of approval on this CUP that says signage for subject facility should be limited to the monument sign and wall signage shown on the approvQd exhibits submitted y the petitioner, which I have a copy here. Any additional signage sha~l be subject to th~ prior approval of the Planning Commission as a reports and recommendation item. So even if the new sign met code you'd still need to look at it and approve it. The original sign, I don't have the dimensions here, but is different than the second sic~n. I believe the applicant is probably is just measurinc~ the area of the plastic for the sign rather than the whole sign structure, which we measure th~ whole sign structure. That's probably where the difference is. Commissioner Bosiwick: Okay. Greg Hastings: I be~ieve that the square footage meets as close to the requirement, but actually they need a waiver on thdt. The length as well. There is 65 foot permitted, 80.5 square foot proposed on the area then tlie length is required to not exceed 10 feet. I might point out also, that when 4his was first approved there 07-20-98 Page 35 was a differant sign ordinance and it would have bEen "locked in" o~ "grandfathered in" at the time a building permit would have been issued, which still hasn't occurred. The Code changed last September, so we're coming upon a year an~ there would need to be comp!iar~;~ with the new Code or if the Commission feels as such, these waivers were advertised to aliow the Commission to look at that, if you'd like to grant a waiver. I might point out that I don't believe we have had any waivers from the sign code and there does need to be some hardship findings. Once the findings are made on this, they'il obviously be utilized by any future person in this area or any others to be utilized for sign variance, so we're very carefui about that. Commissioner Boydstun: How wide can it be with the new Cade? Greg Hastings: Ten feet wide, this is approximately 16' 1" taken in...... Commissioner Bostwick: The base7 Commissioner Boydstun: I'm measuring from the top and iYs 14.7. I'm not counting the base, the base is wider. Greg Hastinys: This plan that you just received is different than the one that the applicant gave us, which we have on file here. David E3e~ri; I can explain that... Chairman Bristol: Hold on sir. Hold on. Commissioner Bostwick: I'm going to, and maybe I'm wrong, I don't know, but I guess I would cons?der a four week continuance for t~em to redra~v the plans, get this whole thing with signs and what they're actually going to present to us in one package with the waivers that are required, if they are required, or brinc~ it into conformance and figure ~ut how they're going to put the building back to the drawing that was approved ~riginally. ThaYs where ! would want to go with it so that ~ve can approve one thing once and for all ihat all matches and is correct. I feel like I'm dealing with a lot ~` different things happening and I don't know what we're really approving. Who's drawing are we really approving? Chairman Bristol: Yes, the applicant says that they have an approved set of plans in there that are different than what we approved, yet there is nothing that anybody can show us that they've been approved with the extension. Therefore, it looks like it was r,xtended without approval, which would be against the CUP. David Berri: How can that be when we have a stamped... Chairman Bristol: What you just shawed us, sir, is no stamp on the site plan. Hussein 5erri: What I wanted to say concerning this waiver was, it says the stamp can identify any P~ardship but the 76 that just went up across the street was not required to do the same...what made it our sign tough, why it had to be so wide is that we have to have a three foot berm under the sign for the first three feet. I went over there and measured their sign and iPs less than two feet underneath. and if you measure theirs, iYs probably over 65 feet if you're going to count... He said that we were only counting the plastic, If you go over to theirs, I'm sure they're over 65 feet because they have a big huge pedestal next to the sign.. So I mean we are not bei~g met with the same.. We're being met with harder restrictions. We had to raise the sign three feet. If we didn't have to rais;~ the sign three feet, when we originally opposed, the sign wasn't so wide, but whsn we have go with such a short sign, five feet, we had to widen the sign. But since we were required to do three feet, right on the same corner, same zoning, they weren't required to ga so high. Vlihy7 Greg Hastings: i believe that there are a lot of differences between these two service stations and the other service station owner is concerned about some of the liberties that were taken on this one. It kind of works back and forth. That particular sign either was approved before the ordinance changed or if it was after it should comply with our Code. 07-20-98 Page 36 Commissioner Bostwick: I believe it was approved before and that station v~as in progress befiore this one eWer came before us. Chairman Bristol: I guess I can summarize my feelings. ThaYs probably what you want to know, Is that I was concerned that maybe we didn't do something right which stopped your project, but !'m kind of convinced that what I see right now that you've extended the car wash. One, without t~s kndwmg about it, and without, perhaps staff, knowing about it. IPs not stamped that way. Hussein Berri: I got the stamp right on this, can ! show it to you? Chairman Bristol: On the site plan? Hussein Berri: Yes. Chairman Bristol: By whom? Hussein Berri: You want Building cr Piann:~g? Commissioner Bostwick, Commissioner Boydstun and Chairman Bristol: Planning? Husa•ein Berri: Planning should be on the other one because it did not stamp all the sheets. If you look at all the sheets, they ara not all stamped. Can you look at th^ other set? Commissioner Bostwick: It's not on there. There is not a plan stamp on there, that's where we (oaked. There is not a Planning stamp on it, ~o when they changed sheets, somewhere along the line they switched sheets, they didn't hdve it stamped. Hussein Berri: Nothing was switched, I was handing this dra~ving to Brian. Chairman Bristol: I agree with Commissioner Bostwick, there are so many potentially.... Commi~s:oner Peraza: You need to ask for a continuance.... Chairman Bristol: There are lega! issues that need to be addressed on this. Commissioner eostwick: I think you need to have one cunsistent set o~ plans that are going to be utilized and coriform with what we approv~d in the beginning. Then we need to look at the ~vaivers and see if there are any waivers in that point in time that are needed and the justifica:ions for them. I proposed four week continuance to August 17th. David Berri: Can we look at those sets of plans before iPs closed? Because when he goes in there and they don't want to stamp every page, now we pay the price for it. They don't want to iake the time to stamp every page so now we're called liars, basic~~+y, and thaYs ridiculous, four weeks, this project has already been closed for how long? Chairman Pr~~tol: Cheryl, if the site plan were changed, would not the site plan be stamped? Cummissioner Peraza: Was that a motion, Pau17 Commissioner Bostwick: Yes. Commissioner Peraza: I second. Selma Mann; I believQ that also building had a question, and at this time they are not abie to proceed with the c~nstruction pending resolution of all of these is~Ues. That might be a consideration for the Commission as well. 07-20-98 Page 37 Commissioner Bostwick: I don't think. they have ~, _ugh time for two weeks to flush out all the Issues and iPs what I'm afraid of. I appreciate thsir problem, but I think we need to make sure that this is right once and for ail rather than continuing to have questions and a problem with whaPs actually going to be build there. David Berri: Can I make a suggestion? With regards to the biilboard, drawing the plans is not going to change anything to the billboard. I like to see If we can resolve what we can today and the rest of it, if you feel that we have to go back and do something, I don't know. We have had this proJect closed down for so long and for so long they wouldn't even let us submit permits until we went to the Mayor's office and the Mayor's office had to call Planning and teli them to let us submit permits because they were just blocking the whole project. So, if you can see where I'm coming from. Commissioner Boydstun: !sn't the only thing that they are held up on is the car wash7 Can't they work on the rest of it? Am I right therel Julie Seay: Actually their building permits in total have been revoked for `'- ; entirety of the project based on the Building Code Section which talks about inconsistencies and incorrec~ information on thr, plans. What they have done out on ihe site is in conflict with the plans that we have approved, so their F=rmits have been revoked in total. In order for them to be renewed, we need zoning issue to be resolved first. Commissioner Bostwick: That is why I say they need a set a plans that we see that are going to be acted on. Greg Hastings: Perhaps I a can answer the Chairman's question, also. We do stamp and sign every site plan. Typically, there are three sets of plans that come in. We stamp all three of those. Chairman Bristol: Period. Chairman Bristol: Okay, so I am totally in agreement !hat this is a boot leg extension, so I think we need to continue it for how long? We have mction for a four week continuance and we had a second? Commissioner Bostwick: Yes. David Berri: This is a zoning issue. Chairman Bristol: Okay, we have motion for a four week continuance all those in favor say Aye?....Opposed? Motion is carried. Selma Mann: Mr. Chairman, there may be a pocsibility, as well, that I might point out to the applicant and to Bui~ding, to permit continuation of some construction at the applicanPs risk. That would be something that would need to be worked out between the applicant and Building. Chairman Bristo~: Okay, that is good. Did you hear that, sir? Julie Seay: Actually, the Building Division is open to something along those !'~es and I believe your office, Selma, is working on something as we speak. Chairman Bristol: Did you hear than Mr. Berri? Hussein Berri: Yeah, I am aware of that, but can I say something7 Chairman Bristol: Yes. Hussein Berri: You guys say that my sheet is not stamped. None of your plans are stamped either, so how did I get my building permit if none of your plans if none of your plans are stamped. Can somebody help me understand th?- ~a~p Julie Seay: I think there was inconsistent informat~on on the plans and that is the reason the permit was issued. 07-20-98 Page 38 Hussein Berri: Inconsistency? Commissioner Bostwick: Yeah, there is inconsistencies within the plans belween what was approved here at the Planning Commission and what you submitted to the Building Department. Sa we want a set of plans that are consistent with what was submitted here at the Planning Commission. It will have to take into consideration, you're leaving the sign board or not leaving the sign board, whatever you are going to do with that. So all portions of it are encompassed within the pians. Okay? This includes your signage, every bit of it needs to come back to us as you are going to build it not as what... something else. We want to see a clean set of pians but I am going to tell you that I don't think any of us want to see the building extended, the 9 feet that you've extended it out front. So maybe you need to look at how you're going to do that, what you're doing to do with it. That's why I suggested the 4 weeks so you can have time to look at it. If the equipment does not fit rnaybe you need to back it up on the other end or whatever you need to do but that isn't what we approved here and then the plans all need to be consistent. The plot plan doesn't match the building plan, so all sheets need to match the same thing. They need to match the plot plan. Julie Seay, Building Division Manager: I would add also that Mr. Berri will need to ultimately resubmit new building plans showing everything that you just described as well because thaYs part of the basis for the revocation of the building permits. We'll have to reanalyze and reassess those building plans in accordance with what actually took place on-site. Hussein Berri: I mean there's really no chanc~es. I really don't see what we're going to spend all ~hat time for? Commissioner Bostwick: Well, your plans don't match their plans and they don't match what we have on file. So you need to sit down and you need to show how the sign is going to come through the room and all of those things so that the structure people can look at it and how you're going to flash it and what you are going to do with it. Hussein Serrl: We have submitted ~hose to Julie over a month ago and we have not gotten a response from her and the same set that she has is exactly copy of what i have. I mean, you guys keep saying I hav~ something different that what she has. They were made out of the same vellament at the same time. Commission Williams: Your plot pla~ shows the building coming ou! 4 feet beyond the existing structure next door. Your building plans shows it coming out 10 feet. ThaYs the inconsistencies. Commissioner Bostwick: What was approved here, I thought, was that the building was all in Iine. It had no extension to it. The original building line lined up perfectly. The end of the car wash was lined up perFectly so it nee~s to conform to what you showed us originally what we approved. Chairman Bristol: There were concerns that Mr. Taylor ta(ked about, the extension, is what we're talking about, thaYs the same reason. This group would not have approved, I don't think, your plans, no way,' ~~ way you are doing them right now. Hussein Berri: I heard you, I hear what you are saying now but back then I got approval of the Building Department becausa I have no access to you guys. Commissioner Bostwick: Yes you do. You can come back to us and ask a substantial conformance. Through reports and recommendation you can say that I want to change this and have us approve it as a substantial conformance. You always hav2 access to us. Hussein Berri: They did not tell me that. They gave me an okay on it. I submitted it, they accepted all this time. I'm just being blamed for somethinc~... far some misinformation that I got from Planning somewhere down the line and I'm paying that price. Greg Hastings: Mr. Chairman, could we also get direction on the monument sign just so Mr. Berri doesn't have to keep redrawing. Obviously, the pl2n that was submit is different than what he currently is r2questing, but we would like to try to see if the Plannfng Commission....what their direction is. 07-20-98 Page 39 CommissionEr Boydstun: Inaudible. Commissioner Bostwick: IYs not in conformance. Greg Hastings: It's very similar. Commissioner Bostwick: I would say it has to conform with what we approvad. Chairman Bristol: IPs got to be conforming, I think. I mean, this is rot near the sight, <is far as pads across the street anyway. That is a big sign. And we went through a lot of hoops to......Paul (BostwickJ indicated to reconfigure that sight, you know, the canopies, I think most of us wanted to remove those canopies, we stayed with the applicant, okay, we worked with the applicant... Greg Hastings: Our latest plan does show hvo signs in the canopy. Mr. Berri has indicated he just wants one, so we will bring that one back corrected, as well. Chairman Bris~ol: I am sorry, what Greg? Greg Hastings: The canopy signs that they are speaking about, originally with the Pegasus as well as the word Mobile, both of those are shown on the latest plan that was submitted. We will ask Mr. Berri to chose one or the other. Julie Seay: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to add that in a letter to Mr. Berri, dated June 26, the Building Division requirements were autlined and to date he has not turned in any plans and that is partially because of the timing of the Planning Commission meeting and so forth, but we do not have any of that information that we need in order to move ahead with building permits, should that get apprcved. Hussein Berri: Which plan? Julie Seay: You need to refer to the letter that was written to you on June 26th. It outlines the requirements for !~ ~e Building Division in terms of the structural needs and so forth. Hussein Berri: We did submit structural, I am waiting for a response from you to know what I have to do. Julie Seay: To date, we do not have that information. Hussein Berri: I gave you guys that information over a month ago. Ct~airman Bristol: Okay, the meeting is over, so ~nrhy don't you take it over with staff. David Berri: I just want to state one last thing and then I will leave you alone. The old south wall was further towards ;~,e street by about seven feet than where the car wash is now. Sc....you are talking about... we went actually in from where the old building was. So now it is a problem, but before it wasn't, so why does make any sense. Now, it is a traffic problem, but before it wasn't. The old south wall of the building, which was actually moved in was twenty nine feet from the ultimate right of way whereas the car wash, right now as it sits, with a nine and a half foot extension is thirty five feet from the ultimate right of way. So how is that any worse? Cpmmissioner Bostwick: you are considering it to the present ultimate right of way not..... David Berri: No, the future. i am only using the future right of way. Commissioner eostwick: That is not what's. I don't think that is number you.. Commissioner Peraza: That is what the difference is. 07-~0-98 Page 40 Greg Hastings: That woutd me~n that the whole buildfng has been moved forward, wnich it does no: appear to be the case. It is only the car wash that has been moved fonxard. David Berri: Only the cars wash, coRect, but it ls still closer than the old wall was. The old wall was 29 feet from the ultimate right of way. You guys are talking about traffic issues and that would be the same. Commissioner F~oydstun: Inaudible. David Berri: Because you guys are talking about traffic issues and that wouid Chairman Bristol: Sir, when you taik ab~ut this type of use in that small of lot, with traffic, yeah it is a problem. It is a real big problem, that is what they do here, circulation. Commissioner Williams: When you say wall though, you are talking about a block wali. Are y~u talking about a block wall or a building wall? David Serri: The old building wall. Where the building ended was closer to the st~eet then wheFe the r;ar wash is now. Chairman Bristol: We have one more thing... We have to get on a couple of more things here. Hussein Berri: One more thing, please. Now, what am i suppose to do, tear down the building down? Chairman Bristol: Your suppose to meet with Planning staff. Greg Hastings: Mr. Berri, if you can meet with Kevin Bass tomorrow, he'll give yoc.~ the iristructions on what we need in the way of new pians for the Pianning Commission. Hussein Berri: Okay, thank you very much. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposition to subject proposal. ACTION: Continued subject request to the August 17,1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to meet with staff and to submit an accurate, precise and consistent set of pians in 3ccordance with what was approved by the Commission at the March 31,1997 Planning Commission meeting. VOTE: (6-0, one vacant seat) DISCUSSION 3'IME: 1 hour and 12 minutes (4:20-5:32) 07-20-98 Pago 41 ,_ .... . - . . . ... . . . ~ , .... .: . . ., . . . . . . . . ~..».»............« .............«................».........«.........«.............................«.~.............»......»........... . ~ .....................................................«~ ~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:45 P.M. j ~ TO MONDAY, AUGUST 3,1998 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR ~ J PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. ~ 8ubmitted by: Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary 07-20-98 Page 42