Loading...
Minutes-PC 2003/04/07CITY OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AP RI L 7, 2003 Council Chambers, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California CH/~:ld~~R~ ~I F~`A~l ~~BOSTWICK COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ~~~YL°'LIS ~Q~YD~TI~'N~~S7EPF~[~I~l BRISTOL, ~~ GA~~E~S~GM~N;SJ"O~i~l KDO~, DA~ID ROMERO, ~ ~~ $ ~a'' ~~,~~ME~'S~-~1 DERB;lL;f ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ¢ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ COMMISSIONERS A~hSE~IT ~ ~~OIVE ~. ~°°``~ ~~'~`~"" ` ~ ~~~ ~ F~~ ~~ ~ . , ~.,.;~, . n ~~ e. ~'~- , ~ STAFF PRESENT:,t=/",>r' Selma Mann, Asse's~ar Greg Hastings, Z~Oninc Greg McCafferty, ~~i~ Linda Johnson ~~rinc~ Susan Kim, Asspcia~e • ~ ~ ~~: AGENDA POS~ING: ~ Thursday, April ~3; 2~(?fl; a3 outside display kiosk. PUBLISHED: Artahe CALL TO m ~ ~ Ted White, Ass~c Thomas Smith, Elly Morris, Sen Pat Chandler, S 11:OO,~A.M. ~~~r~,F 11:30 a.m. on , and also in the • PRES~~T,~~I'i0N~8~ THrF' BLIC ~IVORKS Q~P,~RI¢Mtf~1 I UN~' THE Cl~~[~'-WICS~~RR~E MEDIAN ~~L~4~,f D ~'ROGRRM~ ~ • STAFF l'1PDAT~E~~~fl CQMIVC~~~~,;C~FF~ARIOIf~IT~Y~ ~~ DEVELOPII~~TS~A1V1~~~5~`ES (RS R~QUE~T~~'~~ PLANNING CO`NlMIS~10~1) ~..,.~ ~:,,,,~ ~~'` • PRELIMINARY PLAN"RSEy~~W FOR fT~VIS~L~N THE APRIL 7, 2003 AGENDA ~~x:;. RECESS TO AFTERNOON PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING 1:30 P.M. For record keeping purposes, if you wish to make a statement regarding any item on the agenda, please complete a speaker card and submit it to the secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Romero PUBLIC COMMENTS CONSENT CALENDAR • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS ADJOURNMENT H:\DOCS\CLERICAUMINUTESWC040703.DOC planninqcommission(c~anaheim.net APRIL 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • RECONVENE TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC COMMENTS: NONE This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim City Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. CONSENT CALENDAR: Items 1-A through 1-C on the Consent Calendar will be acted on by one roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items prior to the time of the voting on the motion unless members of the Planning Commission, staff or the public request the item to be discussed and/or removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Each of the Consent Calendar Items was acted upon separately due to Commission clarifications on Items 1-B and 1-C. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE NO. 2003-00024 - REQUEST Determined to be TO DETERMINE CONFORMANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM GENERAL in conformance with PLAN FOR THE CONTINUED LEASE OF OFFICE SPACE: the Anaheim General • Linda Berry, County of Orange Probation Department, 909 North Main Plan Street, Suite 1, Santa Ana, CA 92701-3511, request to determine conformance with the Anaheim General Plan for the continued lease of office space to the County of Orange Probation Department. (Vote: 7-0) Property is located at 160, 306, 310, and 312 West Cerritos Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the Orange County Probation Department's proposal to renew its lease of office space at 160 West Cerritos Avenue and 306, 310 and 312 West Cerritos Avenue to provide daily educational instruction, counseling services and vocational guidance to youths on probation, is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. General Plan Conformity items have a statutory guideline limitation of 40-days from the date the application is submitted, therefore it is given accelerated processing and provided to the City Council at an early time. (The 40-day time limitation as required by Section 65402(b) of the Government Code requires the City to act on this item by April 21, 2003, as the application was submitted on March 12, 2003 for the subject request.) sr1141 tw.doc • 04-07-03 Page 2 APRIL 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved, with Meeting of March 10, 2003. (Motion) modifications to page 31. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boydstun and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the (Vote: 7-0) Planning Commission meeting of March 10, 2003, with the following modifications: Corrected page 31, 15th paragraph as follows: "Commissioner Vanderbilt states ' . he does not know if the new owner would allow the existing church to rent. ~se:,, C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Approved Meeting of March 24, 2003. (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by (Vote: 7-0) Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby receive and approve the minutes for the Planning Commission meeting of March 24, 2003. • ~ 04-07-03 Page 3 APRIL 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04628 Granted, in part, for 5 years (to expire on April 7, 2008), OWNER: Ronald P. Beard Trustee, 5120 Birch Street, Suite 120, with a stipulation made by Newport Beach, CA 92660-2153 the applicant at today's meeting. AGENT: Jim Todaro, The Consulting Group, 5440 Trabuco Road, Irvine, CA 92620 LOCATION: 1216-1254 South Maqnolia Avenue and 2424 West Ball Road. Property is approximately 7.7 acres located south and east of the southeast corner of Ball Road and Magnolia Avenue. To establish conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center and to permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment with waiver of maximum structural height within 150 feet of a single-family residential zone boundary*. *This waiver has been deleted. Continued from the January 13, January 27 and February 10, 2003, Planning Commission meetings. • sr8578vn.doc CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-52 Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 2 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04628, 1216-1254 South Magnolia Avenue, and 2424 West Ball Road, as a request to establish conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center and to permit a telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment with waiver of maximum structural height within 150 feet of a single-family residential zone boundary. Commissioner Koos indicated he would be abstaining on the item due to his close relationship with the wireless telecommunications industry. That while he has previously conferred with the City Attorney and determined that he does not have any financial conflict of interest; he abstains to avoid any potential perceived conflict. Applicant's Testimony: Jim Todaro, The Consulting Group, 5440 Trabuco Road, Irvine, CA 92620, states the last time they met they took the Council's recommendation and applied them to the project to lower the structure and move the structure in front. It seems they came up with a design that staff supports and likes and it meets what they discussed in their last meeting. The issue they would like to address today would be a couple of the conditions placed on the site: ^ One of them is the kiosk, Condition No. 17, page 13, of the Planning Commission report of January 27, 2003. They request removal. The kiosk is actually on another owner's property. He spoke to staff and discussed cleaning it up, giving it a facelift and painting the facility because it is • a revenue source for the other property owner. Staff seemed to be okay with that. 04-07-03 Page 4 APRIL 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ^ The second is Item No. 18, there are public telephones and once again, the telephones are on the adjacent property owner's property and not the property owner that would be installing the facility. They would like to turn the phones into outbound dialing only. The concern with the pay phones is that inbound calls let people run illicit businesses from the pay phone banks. ^ Lastly, Condition No. 23, which is the number of parking spaces. The property owner that they are negotiating the iease space with has the majority of the spaces on his property and plans to expand the property in the future. If the spaces are limited, it limits his ability to change the facility, clean the facility up and also create a new building. He presented a parking lot study to the Commissioners. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states staff removed the condition that required the removal of the kiosk. Chairperson Bostwick asked if Ronald P. Beard Trustee owned the entire center. Mr. Todaro responded no, they do not, and the pay phones are actually on the adjacent property. Chairperson Bostwick asked if the center is under one management even though there are different owners of the parcel. Mr. Todaro responded no, Ron Beard manages his property, which consists of Chia Market and another property owner owns the remaining portion of the property in the southerly direction. Chairperson Vanderbilt asked staff if the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) applies to both parcels. Mr. McCafferty responded yes, staff considered the entire property when the proposal was evaluated and • the separate ownership to be one contiguous retail center, even though there are two parcels. The applicant argues that they have control over conditions that are applicable to their property, but not the property to the south. Mr. Todaro states the other item is the parking issue, which as it stands the project is conditioned to count up all the spaces in the entire shopping center. However, most of the spaces are on Ron Beard's property, and if the entire parking lot count were used and conditioned as a fixed number, it would not allow Ron Beard to expand or make changes to his property. Commissioner Bristol asked if Ron Beard is the owner of the property he is negotiating with. Mr. Todaro responded that is correct. Commissioner Bostwick states they would qualify for the parking. They have 26,000 square feet of the store on their property, with the parking. He wished to know if that would make the other parcel nonconforming. Mr. McCafferty states staff would withdraw the land use conformity, to make it easier. The property owner only has control of the northerly parcel and under the Municipal Code it would require land use conformity. Therefore, the only thing before Commission today would be the telecommunication antenna. Commissioner Bristol asked if there was any reciprocal agreement between the two property owners. Ron Beard, the property owner, states there is reciprocaf parking between the two sites, but it specifically states that the parking on either site is not to count for the parking on the other site toward any entitlements or anything else. So, even though they would like to put up a cell tower, it does not make sense to do so if one of the conditions that get imposed is that all of the surplus parking on his site applies • to their site, when that was never the case. 04-07-03 Page 5 APRIL 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Also, he did not request conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for the existing commercial center, but since that is being removed he would not have to address that. He does not have any problem with making sure his property conforms because he can control his property, but they are two entirely separate properties and he does not have anything to do with the adjacent property and cannot control it. His feeling was that the City's goal is to have stealth communications and to have the cell towers less visible. Originally, they had proposed it for the back of the center because there is an area in the back where it really would not be visible from the major streets, but would be visible from the backfield of the high school. So, if the City were looking for beautification it really would have something better if it were done that way, but he is not opposed to having it being in the front. He feels if they did not have the conditions put upon them for things that were completely beyond their control, the applicant was willing to provide the 10-foot of landscaping on his property so that they actually get beautification up front. He feels Mr. Todaro made one misstatement on the pay phones. Apparently, there are pay phones on the adjacent property, but he also has pay phones on his property and is willing to try to get them as "outbound onl~', but he does not have the right to get them removed because there is a lease for seven (7) years. So, he asked that Condition No. 19 be deleted and that Condition No. 22 would no longer be applicable. Chairperson Bostwick responded if the shopping center is not being considered entirely, then none of the conditions after 16 would be there. Mr. McCafferty asked Commission to consider the stipulation in their decision since the applicant stipulated putting additional landscaping on his own. Chairperson Bostwick asked if the applicant would stipulate Condition No. 24 or it could be added as Condition No. 17. • Mr. Beard responded either way is acceptable. Chairperson Bostwick asked Mr. Todaro if he still intended to place the tower close to the gas station. Mr. Todaro responded yes, the wireless telecommunication facility would be just off Magnolia Avenue. Mr. McCafferty wished to clarify if the property owner is agreeing to put in the 10-foot setback along Magnolia Avenue. Secondly, if they add the general requirement with regard to graffiti, then Condition No. 8 could be replaced with Condition No. 24. Mr. Beard clarified they are speaking of Magnolia Avenue and Ball Road, but only for the property that he owns. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DURING THE ACTION: Commissioner Vanderbilt states the condition asks that the telephones be moved inside, but there is a pre-existing lease for the telephones. He asked if there have been other instances where Commission has run into the same thing, and removed the requirement for pay phones to be moved indoors. Mr. McCafferty responded in the past they have modified the condition so that it was consistent with the lease term. So if the lease were negotiable in a year, they would suggest they be relocated inside. In the case where the applicant has objected, they have modified the condition to tailor to their concern. Commissioner Bostwick asked what the lease term on the phones were. ~ Mr. Beard responded the telephone lease goes to 12-21-07, with a seven-year option to renew but at the telephone vendor's option, not his. 04-07-03 Page 6 APRIL 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Boydstun asked if he would agree to make the phones "dial out oniy' and no calls could be received. Mr. Beard responded they have had the discussion and the vendor seemed interested, but did not commit. Commissioner Vanderbilt wished to clarify if his consultant did not state that would be an action that he was authorized to have made done. Mr. Beard responded he supposes that means he is going to try to negotiate a deal with the vendor to accomplish that goal. The vendor has a contract, and therefore has a contractual legal right. Commissioner Boydstun states she would like the applicant to try to negotiate to have outgoing calfs only. • ~ . .- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None IN GENERAL: The applicant submitted material. ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Denied waiver pertaining to maximum structural height within 150 feet of a single- family residential zone boundary since the waiver has been deleted. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04628, to permit a • telecommunications antenna and accessory ground-mounted equipment for a period of five (5) years, to expire on April 7, 2008, (the request to establish conformity with existing zoning code land use requirements for an existing commercial retail center was withdrawn) subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated April 7, 2003, with the following modifications: Deleted Condition Nos. 17 through 23, and 25 through 33 (since the commercial retail center portion of the application was withdrawn). Renumbered Condition No. 24 to read as follows: 8. That the property shall be permanently maintained in an orderly fashion by providing regular landscape maintenance, removal of trash or debris, and removal of graffiti within twenty-four (24) hours from time of occurrence. Renumbered and Modified Condition Nos. 34 through 37 to read as follows: 17. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 4, and as conditioned herein. 18. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13 16, ~7 ~Q '1O '^ ''' '4 '° ~^ ~'', ~'_ ~^~! ?? above-mentioned, shall be e ! ~~raz~~ _'~ __~ __ __ _ _ complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. ~ 19. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No~. 11, "~;.~ above-mentioned, shall be complied with. 04-07-03 Page 7 APRIL 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . 20. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and any other applicable city, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. Based upon a stipulation made by the property owner at the public hearing that landscape planters would be provided adjacent to Ball Road and Magnolia Avenue, the following condition of approval has been added: That prior to issuance of a building permit, a landscape plan shall be submitted to the Zoning Division for review and approval. Said plan shall indicate minimum 10 foot wide landscape planters adjacent to Ball Road and Magnolia Avenue, and incorporate minimum 24-inch box sized trees. Any decision made by the Zoning Division may be appealed to the Planning Commission as a"Reports and Recommendations" item. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Koos abstained) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 28 minutes (1:42-2:10) ~ ~ 04-07-03 Page 8 APRIL 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT April 21, 2003 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04665 OWNER: Kenneth B Isenhart, 302 South Benwood Drive, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Karen Isenhart, 302 South Benwood Drive, Anaheim, CA 92804 LOCATION: 302 South Benwood Drive. Property is approximately 0.19-acre, located at the southeast corner of Academy Avenue and Benwood Drive. To permit and retain an attached second unit in conjunction with an existing single-family residence with waiver of minimum side yard setback. Continued from the March 10, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. sr8583vn.doc • • • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the April 21, 2003, Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant in order to finalize review of permits issued by Orange County relative to the subject property. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 04-07-03 Page 9 APRIL 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLASS 1 Continued to 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04669 April 21, 2003 4c. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2003-00010 OWNER: Yong Sub Kim, Thomas Liquor, 1015 West Orangethorpe Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92833 AGENT: Leon Alexander, Briggs and Alexander, 558 South Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1000 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is approximately 0.35-acre, located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Illinois Street (Thomas Liquor). Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04669 - To permit the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction with an existing legal non-conforming convenience market. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2003-00010 - To upgrade an existing Type 20 (Off-Sale Beer and Wine) to a Type 21 (Off-Sale General Alcohol) alcoholic beverage license to permit the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption within an existing legal non-conforming convenience market. Continued from the March 24, 2003, Planning Commission meeting. ~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY sr8575av.doc RESOLUTION NO. Commissioner Vanderbilt introduced Item No. 4 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04669, 1000 West Lincoln Avenue - Thomas Liquor, to permit the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption in conjunction with an existing legal nonconforming convenience market. Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2003-00010, to permit the retail sales of alcoholic beverages for off- premises consumption within an existing legal nonconforming convenience market. ApplicanYs Testimony: Leon Alexander, from the law office of Briggs and Alexander, representing the applicant, Yong Sub Kim, Thomas Liquor, 1015 West Orangethorpe Avenue, Fullerton, CA, states he is present on the basis of a hardship. It is a 2,400 square foot convenience market, and his clients have been operating the market since 1992. They essentially sell grocery items; beer and wine, automotive oil, etc. It is a quick-stop convenience market. In February 2002, the City of Anaheim initiated a resolution to take approximately 900 square feet of their frontage property for the widening of Lincoln Avenue at Illinois Street and Lincoln Avenue. As a result, there was a hardship to the client. The site requires 13 parking spots and now they are reduced to 10. They lost approximately 900 square feet so as a result thereof they lost potential expansion or improvement to the premises. They also lost their landscaping along Lincoln Avenue. As a result, the client would like to upgrade from an existing Type 20 beer and wine Ifcense to a general alcohol license and seeks to utilize the proceeds they received from the City of Anaheim to revitalize the property. It is a fairly old building and needs refurbishing; new faCade, sign panels, asphalt, paint, ~ landscaping, wherever they can put it without hindering the parking, sidewalk area, etc. The staff report did not mention that the property was subject to imminent domain, but it was, and that is the reason they are present. It is a nonconforming property without any existing conditions by the City of Anaheim; they 04-07-03 Page 10 APRIL 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • could operate their beer and wine license forever. However, they have been working with the City and the City has come around with 26 conditions, but it is coming down to one major condition that they cannot agree to. It would cause a hardship to their small business. Condition No. 19 states, "that beer shall not be sold in packaging containing less than a six-pack and that wine coolers shall not be sold in packages containing less than a four-pack": Of the 26 conditions they have agreed to 25. In the census, there is only one off-sale license; five required. The area they are in has a 30% crime rate, which is a little high but it is also located near the Anaheim Police Department. So, that may cause the percentage to be high. The Anaheim Police has not filed a report since January 2001, on that property. The front of the store has newspaper racks, vending machines, telephones, etc., and part of the conditions is that the applicant would pull those out. But, they will not agree to Condition No. 19 because it is a convenience market, not a Vons, where people go to do their bigger shopping. It is a convenience market for quick in and out shopping. The typical purchase total per client is approximately $10. Therefore, it would cause a hardship and the applicant would not be able to survive even though it is elevating from an existing beer and wine to a general alcohol. There will be very little profit made, if any, because a lot of people do not buy the expensive premium alcohol, it is the beer and wine that essentially sales for their business. They are hoping with the general alcohol it would help pay for their refurbishing and cost, and to allow the City of Anaheim to have conditions on the property and beautify the premises there. The crime rate is low. There has only been one police report since January 2001. So there is really no correlation to the one beer sale to the crime rate. At this point, they are at a standstill that his client (the applicant) would have #o probably withdraw the application and just cannot handle it because of the hardship, because he does need the single can beer and wine sale due to the low sales at the business. They are not coming in for a new license it is an existing license. It is not like some of the gas stations or Arco's, which is large, and want to sell the single can. It is an existing condition they have a right to and • they just want to modify it and allow the City the conditions to beautify the premises. They have racks in front of the windows approximately 5 feet high and have agreed to lower it down to 3 feet, but the staff report says also 3 feet away from the window. He understands the Sergeant Smith wanting lowered in order to have the police see through the windows incase of criminal activity. However, it is only a 2,400 square foot convenience market so there is very little room to play in there. He presented the Commission plans of what the applicants were going to do for the refurbishing. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos states considering what the Commission just did on the last item regarding the telephones he is wondering if it might be a good idea regarding the lease the applicant referenced if Commission could reword it to the effect that the outside telephones be removed or relocated inside within two years. He has a problem with Condition No. 11 and asked Mr. Alexander if he could see it to be any sort of hardship in terms of tracking the information and conducting business in that manner. Mr. Alexander responded the Planning Department had a lower percentage and they agreed to increase it. It is a small business, just a matter of putting the numbers together. It is going to be an administrative hassle. Commissioner Koos states Commission has done it before with respect to restaurants that have accessory dancing with alcohol sales, in the goal that they would not become nightclubs. However, he wished to clarify if Commission has ever conditioned as such on liquor stores or convenience markets and if there were ever any problems with it. He is concerned whether Commission can effectively enforce it and whether it is something that they want to get into with respect to the sales of products of individual business. If Commission puts in conditions that are ambiguous or even hard to track, then how effective are they? He states conditions about sales of singles, etc., are tangible issues that are hard and fast, but on the subject proposal he is concerned that it is a moving target, and wonders when would ~ they call it in because there would not be a time limit on the CUP. So, unlike another CUP where they had to come in for reinstatement and then prove their sales, he wondered when would the subject CUP come up, who would complain about it, and who would ever know. 04-07-03 Page 11 APRIL 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Greg McCafferty, Principal Pianner, states if they at least have the condition there, it is something they could police through the approving resolution. Staff has tried to be proactive and basically take a look at what the business owners operation is. The applicant states it is a local market. Therefore staff feels they should operate as a local market in terms of how they sell their products. That is how staff collectively came up with the condition of approval that limited the gross sales of the liquor. If it is a liquor store, the emphasis is on selling spirits, but if it is a local market, as indicated through the floor plan and the letter of operation, then that gives a safeguard to go back on if there are problems within the neighborhood later on with the establishment. Commissioner Koos understands staff's point of view, in that they do not want it to be something it is not; a full liquor store with only alcohol, but he does not want to micro-manage the applicanYs sales. They shot up at 60% in a three-month period and they fell down to 40% in the following three-month period. He would not want to penalize them if they somehow sold more alcohol than 49%. Commissioner Bristof feels it is going to be a good outlet for liquor, and that the applicants have been operating for a long time selling singles and Commission is intensifying the alcohol use. They would be going from the sale of beer and wine to potentially hard liquor and no one is saying not to do it. They have been complying with a condition for approximately 20 years and now Commission is going to condition it almost as a grandfather. So he asks why. Sgt. T. J. Smith responded that the recommendation on the increase to full alcohol, is not of concern to the police, but the concern is the singles issue. The City of Anaheim, in most areas, has transient problems. Transients tend to buy alcohol in a single container, because they do not have the money to buy multiple quantities of alcohol, but only have enough to buy a$1.50 or $2.00 bottle of beer or small bottle of wine, which they will take and drink somewhere in the alley or park, etc. There is a problem with littering and other crimes related to transients in the City. Another issue is transients do not have a • means to keep their alcohol cold. Often times they will buy a 40 oz., bottle of beer for under $2.00 and they will drink it and then try to find a way to make $2.00 and buy another bottle of beer. This is just one way that the Police Department is recommending on new Conditional Use Permits to try and curb the problem. The police is trying to maintain a consistency on its recommendations and cannot go back on all business of the City, but can only address the new businesses or new Conditional Use Permits. Chairperson Bostwick concurs it is consistent with all the applications Commission has processed recently for all of the mini-markets, gas stations, etc. It is a policy. They would be hard pressed to come back and look at the Arco across the street and say once again that he cannot have singles. Mr. Alexander states the Arco is not existing and his clients have an existing right. Chairperson Bostwick states he was existing originally and also when he returned for a second approval it was not given to him. Commission has maintained the same policy with all convenience markets it has looked at recently. The other issue is the reporting district, where the subject one is only 30% but the one right next door to it is1155% over. Mr. Alexander responded there is a reason for that it is next to the Anaheim Police Department. Sgt. T. J. Smith responded it is the district that encompasses the Police Station and most reports that are reported at the front counter get tacked on to the reporting district. So that reporting district in and of itself is something they have to look at separately when something comes into that district. Commissioner Bristol asked why Condition No. 12, regarding graffiti as recommended by the police, was not included in the conditions of approval. Mr. McCafferty responded it was an oversight. ~ Commissioner Bristol asked if the building directly south of the parking lot was Grover Escrow and not the applicant. 04-07-03 Page 12 APRIL 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. McCafferty responded Grover Escrow is immediately to the south. Commissioner Bristol states he assumes the conditions would be that they would rework the trash enclosure so that it is not attached to someone else's property. Mr. Alexander states he checked with his clients and they would do something to accommodate Grover Escrow to help alleviate the situation. Commissioner Bristol states he has been in there before and heard a crashing sound and it turned out to be the trash enclosure hitting the wall. Mr. Alexander states they will take whatever recommendation the City has to alleviate the problem. Commissioner Romero states it appears refurbishing is already being done on the inside. Mr. Alexander states they are remodeling inside; moving some of the coolers and painting the walls; minor interior cosmetic work inside. Commissioner Eastman states she lives within a block and a half of the market and is very familiar with it. She is thrilled that they are going to refurbish and fix it up. She understands the Police DepartmenYs concern on a first hand basis and no longer goes to the market because of the people she has personally encountered who drink in the parking lot, and the trash that is generated because of it. She walks in her neighborhood regularly and used to go to the market for her Sunday morning paper, but it is no longer a comfortable place to be between 7 and 8:00 on Sunday mornings. Mr. Alexander states the applicants run the business themselves and when they see a vagrant or drunk ~ they do not sell to them. Commissioner Eastman responded some of them are not vagrants and drunks but are people who live in the neighborhood. She understands the condition of not selling singles encourages people and they are not as likely to go out and sit on a nearby curb, sidewalk, bus bench, etc., and drink when they have a six- pack, but are likely to go home with it. Mr. Alexander states they have agreed to one of the conditions that they are not allowed to consume alcohol on the premises and if necessary she could call the police and have them removed. Also, the Five-Point Liquor Store moved out, so there is no full general liquor store in the area. Commissioner Eastman states that was her reason for understanding that it is possibly a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity, but she feels the applicant wants the liquor added to it therefore, they should not have to have the single sales to survive. Regarding Commissioner Koos' comments, she can understand where this is kind of an unusual situation with the percentage. From an administrative standpoint, she would hope they wouldn't sell more than 50% of their sales in liquor because she does not feel that would be good for the neighborhood. However, she can understand the administrative part of it and feels if that were a cumbersome administrative thing she would be more inclined to see withdrawing that type of condition versus withdrawing Condition No. 19. For the good of the neighborhood, that is an important condition. Mr. Alexander states he would concur if he could survive, but he cannot, and that is the reason why. They are using the money they received from the City of Anaheim to beautify and improve the place. They are surviving and doing well with the beer and wine and to take that away is essentially a wash for them. So, they have agreed to 25 of 26 conditions, but they just cannot survive without it. This is a small business, it is not an Arco, it is not a big gas station that has plenty of advertising or a billion dollar company behind it or big franchises. It is just a small family-operated business that already had the right • and unfortunately must have it to survive. It is not a big percentage increase for them to sell general alcohol because the neighborhood does not buy premium liquor. However, the beer and wine does sell and they cannot let that go. 04-07-03 Page 13 APRIL 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Commissioner Boydstun concurs with Commissioner Eastman, they are going to pick up a lot of business from Five-Points Liquor being closed and will off-set. Commission has kept the same policy with every station and every store that has come before them for at least two years. Mr. Alexander states his client is aware of that, but says he cannot survive and is present on a hardship. The City took some property and he has lost the parking, landscaping, and the place looks bad. The applicant planned to use the money to refurbish it. Commissioner Koos concurs with Chairperson Bostwick, it is pretty much a policy and to deviate from the policy would have to be overwhelming reasons. Commissioner Eastman states the business would benefit greatly from all of the improvements and not having people hanging out in the parking lot drinking, but might attract back other neighbors who live within walking distance to the store because they are the closest to them. It is nice to be able to walk to the store and get one or two items, a newspaper, etc. Mr. Alexander conferred with his clients and states they feel the business would go broke if he agrees to this so he would let it go. His client is a businessman and has to survive and feels he will not be able to survive at all. Mr. McCafferty states if the Planning Commission approves it as recommended„ there is nothing that prevents the applicant from just operating as it is and they could make a decision later. Mr. Alexander suggests it would be good to let his client think about it and maybe they could come back if there is anything. He feels the time limitation or restriction would allow them six months until the construction is done. He requested Commission consider a minor modification of the percentage. • Chairperson Bostwick feels Condition No. 11 would be eliminated and Condition No. 17 would remain. Commissioner Bristol states if there is $10.00 per sale and if they remove the singles the applicant would go broke, that tells him they are already selling a disproportionate amount of beer to make their overhead. Mr. Alexander states they are over 35%. Chairperson Bostwick suggested a two-week continuance so that he could talk to his client, at which time they could ask for a withdrawal. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, states one of the other alternatives would be to readvertise it as a liquor store. Commissioner Koos feels it is clearly a convenience store. Mr. Alexander asked if they could issue the approval subject to Condition No. 19, and he could always come back in two weeks to inform the Commission what his client decided. Commissioner Koos states there is nothing to come back to. They either decide or you exercise your CUP or not. Mr. Alexander states his clients would like to approve it as is and he could possibly come back in two weeks. Commissioner Boydstun asked if Commission approves it as is, they would be coming back with a new project. r~ ~ 04-07-03 Page 14 APRIL 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Mr. McCafferty responded if the Commission approves it today, they could approve it with the amended conditions and the applicant at any time after one year could come back and ask for a modification to the conditions if they are not to his liking. Commissioner Boydstun asked if he would have to pay for it. Mr. McCafferty responded yes, but feels the applicant wants to move forward with an approval and that could be done with deleting the one condition about the gross sales. Chairperson Bostwick wished to clarify if Commission approved a CUP today the applicant could always ask for it to be removed. Mr. McCafferty responded he could ask for an amendment or deletion of certain conditions. Chairperson Bostwick wished to clarify if the client could ask for deletion of the CUP, and go back to the prior CUP. Mr. McCafferty states he would not have to request it be deleted, but he could not exercise it and go back to the prior CUP. Chairperson Bostwick wished to clarify that if he did not change his license and not put in the liquor it would not take effect. Mr. McCafferty responded that is correct. Mr. Alexander states he appreciates the efforts of the Commission but his clients decided to withdraw the Conditional Use Permit, because unfortunately they cannot go without the one condition. He is a small • businessman, husband and wife, and they cannot operate it themselves. Chairperson Bostwick offered a motion for a two-week continuance. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None IN GENERAL: The applicant submitted material, along with photographs. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Koos and MOTION CARRIED, to continue the subject request to the April 21, 2003, Planning Commission meeting in order to allow the applicant additional time to consider the recommended conditions of approval, and whether to submit a request for withdrawal. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: 39 minutes (2:11-2:50) ~ 04-07-03 Page 15 APRIL 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 Concurred with staff 5b. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. Approved 2003-00011 OWNER: Rachael Moorhead, FJS INC., 1030 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT: Paul Sanford, The Anabella Hotel, 1030 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802 LOCATION: 1030 West Katella Avenue. Property is approximately 6.8 acres, having a frontage of 470 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue, located 190 feet east of the centerline of West Street (Gift Cachet at the Anabella Hotel). To permit sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption within an existing gift shop. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-53 sr8574sk.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 5 as Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2003-00011, 1030 W. Katella Avenue - Gift Cachet at the Anabella Hotel, a request to permit sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption within an existing gift shop. ~ Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, states the Gift Cachet at the Anabella Hotel, which is located at 1030 West Katella Avenue, has requested a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to allow the retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption. The zoning designation for this property permits a retail shop integrated within a hotel complex to sell beer and wine for off-premises consumption in order to provide such sales as a convenience for hotel visitors. As indicated in the staff report, based upon a review of the proposed request, the uses allowed by the code and the location of the gift shop, staff recommends approval of the request subject to the recommended conditions of approval with one potential correction to Condition No. 1(i), which pertains to the percentage of retail sales. Sergeant T. J. Smith, Police Department, states on a standard off-sale they recommend 35°/a of alcohol to the overall gross sales. The purpose of alcohol in this gift shop is incidental to the overall sales of the items. If it is a full-blown alcohol store where it is their primary goal to sell alcohol and that is all they are going to sell then there are certain codes for the City that they require a different type of license, etc. But, when it is a convenience market, if that is what they are applying for and that is what they are telling us they want, then he prefers to stick to what their purpose is and that is to sell convenience items with alcohol as an accessory. Thirty-five percent (35%) has been recommended on individual cases but in this case, the applicant said their sales would be 15%. So that is what was recommended for the condition of gross sales. Applicant's Testimony: Sue Lee, 1030 W. Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA, states frequently patrons come in and request to purchase a single beer or a six-pack and she refers them to Seven-Eleven on the right hand side or the liquor store on the left hand side of her shop, and they are usually afraid to walk in the evening hours and they are really unhappy to have to go out onto the street. Chairperson Bostwick asked if she anticipates selling small bottles of wine, etc. ~ Ms. Lee responded just full bottles and six-packs of beer. Sometimes the patrons stay a week or two weeks and they would like to have a beer without having to go out into the street to a liquor store. 04-07-03 Page 16 APRIL 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Koos asked if she plans on selling beer cans individuaily. Ms. Lee responded no just six-packs. Sgt. Smith states he took it to be hotel guest as the primary customers at the gift shop who would buy one or two bottles of beer for their room or the pool area, and their customer base would not come from the street. That is why the Police Department chose to allow singles on this issue, but if the applicant is only going to allow six-packs and nothing less then he would recommend putting the same condition on them also. Commissioner Bristol states he would feel better had the Cachet been directly inside but they are only a few feet from the street. He asked Ms. Lee if she is okay with only selling the six-pack; if most of her patrons come from the hotel; and if most wanted a six-pack of beer. Ms. Lee responded yes they ask for a six-pack. They have a restaurant on site, but perhaps they do not want to pay the high price. Chairperson Bostwick states there is a bar in the restaurant so if patrons wanted a single beer they would go in there and get a cold beer and go back to their room or stay in the restaurant and drink it. The applicant proposes to sell six-packs of beer, four-packs of wine coolers and full bottles of wine. • • . .- ~ • • ~ ~ • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1(Existing Facilities), as defined in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation. Approved the request for Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2003-00011 (to allow the retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption within an existing gift shop at The Anabella Hotel) based upon the discussion in paragraph (14) of the staff report dated April 7, 2003, subject to staff's recommended conditions of approval included in the staff report dated April 7, 2003, with the following modifications: Modified Condition No. 1(i) to read as follows: 1(i). The gross sales of beer and wine shall not exceed a-5 35 percent of all retail sales during any three (3) month period. The applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amounts of sales of beer and wine and other items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim official, when requested. Added the following condition of approval to read as follows: ~ 1(I). That beer shall not be sold in packages containing less than a six (6) pack, and that wine coolers shall not be sold in packages containing less than a four (4) pack. 04-07-03 Page 17 APRIL 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeai rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 11 minutes (2:51-3:02) ~ • 04-07-03 Page 18 APRIL 7, 2Q03 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 6a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 6b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 6c. COND1T10NAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-04673 OWNER: Lewis R. Schmid, 1725 South Douglass Road #C, Anaheim, CA 92806 AGENT: Nora Phillips, 1725 South Douglass Road #C, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1725-1751 South Douqlass Road. Property is approximately 3.3 acres having a frontage of 750 feet on the west side of Douglass Road, located 448 feet south of the centerline of Katella Avenue. To permit and retain industrially-related office uses within an existing industrial complex with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC2003-54 Approved Approved Granted, with a stipulation made by the applicant at today's meeting. sr8581 av.doc Chairperson Bostwick introduced Item No. 6 as Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04673, 1725-1751 South Douglass Road, a request to permit and retain industrially-related office uses with an existing industrial complex with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Applicant's Testimony: • Nora Phillips, representing Schmid Development, states they have an industrial complex that is asking for a waiver of minimum number of parking spaces or office use. A parking study was performed and it resulted in looking for 22 extra parking spaces, which is very minimum. In noticing the parking study, one of the days the information was compiled for the study the circus was in town. The subject site is between the Edison Field and the Pond and there is an occasional encroachment on their lot during events. The day that the circus was in town, they were at 98% occupied but did not have any problems. Even during the times they have been 100% occupied they have never had a problem with parking issues, and have had excessive parking during those times also. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bristol asked if she was okay with the uses that were being asked of her property. Ms. Phillips responded yes, she feels it is a list that would be in addition to the list that is currently in place with the ML zone i.e., storage, and there is another list they go by with ML zoning. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states the uses in the ML zone are permitted by right and there is no reason to fist them out. They are all inclusive. Commissioner Bristol asked if during off peak hours she ever reciprocate or give up her parking to venues at the Pond or the stadium. Ms. Phillips responded they do, and sometimes they have to control it because if not they would have tailgated parties and vandalism, etc. Commissioner Eastman asked if she would have the handicap parking spaces reinstalled. ~ Ms. Phillips responded yes, the removal of the handicap parking spaces was a contractor mistake. 04-07-03 Page 19 APRIL 7, 2003 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Bristol referred to page 5 of the study where it stated parking in unmarked spaces on the west side, and asked if they had a lot of cars that would park on the west side, parallel park, which would in effect narrow the drive. Ms. Phillips responded they had planned to do that at one time but never did but if the City would approve it they would have no objections to it. Greg McCafferty, Principal Planner, states as long as the applicant is stipulating it would be as to the exhibit that the Planning Commission approves for. • • ~ ~- • ~ • • ~ • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved CEQA Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04673 (to permit and retain industrially-related office uses within an existing industrial complex), subject to the conditions of approval as stated in the staff report dated April 7, 2003, with a stipulation made by the applicant at today's meeting pertaining to exhibits that the parallel parking spaces shown on the site plan (Exhibit No. 1) along the west property line will be striped to provide additional on-site parking. • VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (3:03-3:07) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:08 P.M. TO MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2003 AT 11:00 A.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. ~ Res ully submitted: at Chandler, Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2003. 04-07-03 Page 20