The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1996/12/09SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1996 11 A.M. PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSIONI 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: PERAZAUN, BOSTWICK, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, MAYER, MESSE, COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Assistant City Attorney Mary McCloskey Deputy Planning Director Annika Santalahti Zoning Administrator Greg Hastings Zoning Division Manager Greg McCafferty Associate Planner Karen Freeman Associate Planner Karen Dudley Associate Planner Bruce Freeman Code Enforcement Supervisor Alfred Yalda Princioal Transportation Planner Melanie Adams Associate Civil Engineer II Margarita Solorio Senior Secretary Ossie Edmundson Senior Word Processing Operator P:W OCSICLERICALIMINUTE51pC120998.WP ;. 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ~. A, r•~N~ITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. _ 572 AND'VARIANCE Nn a215 -REQUEST FOR TERMINATI ~I: The Olson Company, Attn: Alex G. Hernandez, 3010 Old Ranch Parkway, Suite 400, Seal Beach, CA 90740-2750, requests to terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 572 (to expand a non- conforming bowling alley wfth restaurant/cocktail lounge) and Variance No. 4215 (to waive (a) permitted residential structures, (b) maximum structural height within 150 feet of a single-family zone and (c) minimum structural setback abutting asinge-family zone and minlmum distance between parallel walls to construct a 2-story, 74 unit detached condominium complex). Property is located at 1925 West Lincoln Avenue. TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. pc=g~-120 B. CONDITI NAL E PERMIT NO. 368 - Rt: UE T FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMACA 92 048 relquestse~ 140 South Imperial Highway, Anaheim, determination of substantial conformance relative to modifying the materials used for the perimeter wall and pilasters from a slumpstone block rnaterial to a framed wall with stucco finish and a concrete blacks orated atu100 finish, both with a brick cap. Property South Canyon Crest Drive. DETAILED TRANSCRIPT FOR ITEM 9-B Terminated Determined to be in substantial conformance with originally approved plans C saarreque t to find~ubs antial conformanceB I thinkthe staff wou d I kleHo present this please. Mary McCloskey: Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director. The petitioner has submitted a request for a substantial conformity review relative to modifying the materials that would be used for a permitted wall around the proposed EII Hoom~e. Basically back in June of 1995 the Planning Commission reviewed and app fencing plans that showed a 6-foot high concrete block wall around the Canyon Crest, the east property line along Santa Ana Canyon and then on front setback area was a wall that would have pilasters and wrought iron setting on a two foot base. mhaterialerThe petitionerlis now reig9esting thattinstead oof She slump st ne that they "Y_ 12-9-96 Page 2 have a concrete block wall with a stucco plaster with a brick cap that would match 1 the color of the exterior of the house and that would be along the east, the north and - '~ the portions of the west property line where they would still have the plaster with wrought iron condition. And then along Canyon Crest ft would be again a fi-foot high wall that would be a framed wall that was wrapped and it would have the stucco finish as well as the brick cap. For all intense and purposes look exactly like the balance of the wall. Staff is recommending approval of the request in that, basically, the wall will be in the same location, the same height and is generally the same treatment. The only difference would be between the stucco plaster vs. the slump stone finish and there would be a brick cap on top. There are a variety of walls in the area and we have a packet of pictures that The EII Home representatives have submitted as well as staff has taken some pictures in the Immediate area showing the variety of walls including one that looks exactly the same as the one being proposed. I will have staff bring those up to you now. Chairman Messe: None of the landscaping requirements change around this ..... Mary McCloskey: The landscaping plans that you approved required that there to be planting materials, vines. In fact, ft was a Virginia Creeper, i believe, to be planted on the Santa Ana and the Martin Street side. There was no need to provide that on the east property line because ft was to an adjacent property; and along the south property line ft wasn't feasible in that ft would have encroached into the public right-of-way. So along the Santa Ana Canyon and the pilasters along Martin would have the Landscape materials and you have already previously looked at that (the landscape plan) and approved it and there would be no change at this time on that. Chairman Messe: No change. Any questions from the Commission? Any other Input from staff? Is there anybody here in the audience that wishes to address this? :~. Gene Seacrest: Good Afternoon, Gene Seacrest, 121 S. Ca~~yon Crest. My question was only perhaps clarification. The section of wall that is proposed to run along Santa Ana Canyon Road originally was a slump stone block wall. I believe I heard Mary say just a few minutes ago. And in a conversation with her earlier today she said there has been no request for change of that material at this time and ff necessary that would be requiring a public hearing and a public notice within 300 feet ,etc. What we are trying to make sure of on, on the plans that were submitted in our review this morning there are some definite architectural notes that can be considered changes of the material and the construction components of that wall. I wouldn't want the Planning Commission to without specifically addressing the fact that that wall will remain slump stone block until further notice approve something that may be assumed to be a approval of a change of wall material and construction along Santa Ana Canyon Road. Chairman Messe: Let's ask Mary to confirm that. Mary McCloskey: To clarify about the wall along Santa Ana Canyon Road, the plan now shows it as being a 6-foot high concrete block wall with the stucco plaster finish. It would be the same as around the rest on the east and on the pilasters on the west side. Chairman Messe: So it would not be a slump stone. c~ t 2-9-96 Page 3 Mary McCloskey: It would not be a slump stone. They are asking for substantial Conformity for the material to be consistent with the balance of the wail. If there is ary other material such as a wood fence or anything of that nature that wouldn't be considered a wail that would need to ~ at aaseparate hearing and ithat wo d h a n amendment to the conditions of app fully noticed hearing to everyone within 300 feet as we would an advertised public hearing. But they are asking for a substantial conformity for that wall now so it is not a slump stone wall but instead a concrete wall with the plaster... Chairman Messe: It will look the same essentially all the way around. Mary McCloskey: Right. Santa Ana Canyon Road willhremain anconc ete block ,wall mss is that wall along Mary McCloskey: With a stucco finish and a brick cap. Gene Seacrest: Not a wood framed wall with a stucco finish? Mary McCloskey: Along Santa Ana Canyon Road right now the detail shows a concrete block wall with a stucco finish. It does not show a f ou cou d IdoNhat today Planning Commission were wanting to provide that flexibility y could not dohs consider any sort of waood fencingatbecause that would Inot be hat you considered a wall. Gene Seacrest: Currently we have in the field a newly constructed cedarwood fence. Chairman Messe: We are not considering that today. Gene Seacrest: Okay. Unless they have a substance conformance or a change on that wall then the conditional use permit terms are not meet and, therefore, they could not open under the conditional use permit as currently governed by the City. Is that correct? Mary McCloskey: For clarification purposes on that, the condition requires that prior to final building and zoning inspections ors the structure, which would be the very last point before the issuance of C of 0, tha'~ block wall would need to be in place and that it would be... again they would need to amend conditions to do anything else. Gene Seacrest: So that wall would need to be in place prior to them occupying it as a shelte(t Chairman Messe: That is correct. That is what Mary said. Gene Seacrest: But Mary also has told me that they could go ahead and occupy it as asingle-family reskence which would throw tha burden on the Ciry's Code Enforcement as to whether or not it's asingle-family residence or a shelter with the existing wood fence thsy 3ust put up last weekend. 12-9-96 Page 4 Mary McCloskey: For clarification on that, basically the fencing that is presently l under construction on the site, the property right now is viewed as asingle-family dwelling that is in a state of remodeling and they could put any fencing around the property that would meet Code. Chairman Messe: They wouldn't fall under the CUP? Mary McCloskey: They don't fall under the CUP until they occupy lt as a shelter. Now if someone wanted to come in and occupy that single family dwelling as a single family, basically, they would have the right, as you would with any other structure, to occupy lt. When they exercise the CUP, which is a home for abused mothers and their children, they would at that point all of the conditions within the conditional use permit kick in and lt is at that point that the time starts ticking on the activity itself as well as ail of the conditions of approval. Chairman Messe: I think that is all pretty straight forward. Gene Seacrest: Right, but l understand that what we've seen coming in the past has come to pass and I would have to prophesy that you'll see that occupied with that wood fence there with the City's deflnftion of single-family which is an unrelated group of people wfth an common bond which will end up being a, perhaps, a nightmare for Code Enforcement to define "shelter". Thank you. Chairman Messe: Thank you Mr. Seacrest. Okay Commission. Commissioner Henninger: I would offer a motion that the new detail on the wall substantially conforms wfth the previously approved one and I'd like to make a point that the wall that's on the plans is indeed a wall. It's a block wall, with a stucco finish and a brick cap and in one area just along (the) place where they have an existing retaining wall they're going to do a framed stucco wall. And so that wall with those sorts of characteristics does substantially conform. Commissioner Bostwick: Second. Chairman Messe: There is a motion and a second, all those in favor? All Commissioners: Ayes. Chairman Messe: Opposed? (no response). That's been carried. Selma Mann: Mr. Chairman before we move on beyond 1-B I just would Ilke to point out that this matter is before the City Council as an "Informational Item" for tomorrow's City Council Meeting, The Eli Home matter. So the information regarding the Planning Commission's determination will be placed before the City Councl as an "Informational Item" only. Chairman Messe: At tomorrow's City Councl) Meeting? Selma Mann: At tomorrow's City Council Meeting. Chairman Messe: Thank you very much. `' 12-9-96 Page 5 C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 2562 -REQUEST FOR Terminated TERMINATION: AMB Instftutional Realty Advisors, Inc., Attn: Roger C. Slmsiman, 505 Montgomery Street, San Francisco, CA 94111, request termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 2562. Property (s located at 1939 South State College Boulevard. TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. -_.~`,?~121 D. ,SITY INITIATED REQUEST TO INITIATE A GENERAL SSIFICATION: City- I lain amendment P PLAN AMENDMENT AND RECLA initiated (Community Development Department aril Planning and reclassffication h Department) 200 S. Anaheim Bivd., Anaheim, CA 92605, Planning Commission to initiate a General th f e proceedings for t entire property e or requests Plan Amendment of subject property from the General s io Industrial and Medium Density Residential land use map locat attached to the designations to the Generai Commercial land use initiate the reclass~(cation of subject d t December 9, 1996 o designation, an property from the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple Family) and staff report the ML (Umited, Industrial) Zones to the CL (Commercial, Limited) and/or RS-A-43,000 (Residential Agricultural) Zone. Property is located at 500-850 North Brookhurst Street and 2141-2171 West Crescent Avenue. at 12-9-96 Page 6 E, CITY INITIATED REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFI ATION: Initiated City-inftiated request to reclassffy the subject property ftom reclassffication the CG (Commercial, General) Zone to the CL (Commercial, proceedings for Limited) Zone. Property is located at 1801 West Katella aunbdjethcte tvvo arty Avenue. properties located immediately to the west Commissioner Bostwick asked why they are not doing all three parcels at once? Greg Hastings, Planning Department, respond~l the real wasonotnwasa nftiated by because it is a project proposal in a specific property. staff. Normally ft is taken on a case by case basis unless Commission feels etht em know ha Commiss oneis interested in admittling their properties as well and 12-9-96 Page 7 Approved F. a. EIR NO 313 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIEDI b. FINAL SIFE PLAN REVIEW NO 95-03 (REVISION fJ . 1 : Approved JWDA Architects, 430 S. Garfield Ave., Suite 400, Aii~ambra, CA 91801, request review and approve, of revised final site plans, including site plan, floor plans, eievation plans and landscape plans to construct a new 4-story, 72-room hhotel. Property is lacated at 505 West Katella Avenue. Karen Dudley, Planning Department, stated the request before Commissi~m is to revise apreviously-approved Final Site Plan for afour-story, 72-room suite type hotel at 505 W. Katella Avenue. The previously-approved plan Included a five-story hotel, 74-room with an accessory restaurant and gift shop and what they have done is eliminated one of the stories reduced the rooms by two and eliminated the restaurant and the gih shop. The footprint of the plan is the same as the previously approved plan. It meets all of the site development standards with regard to setback, height limits room densities. It also meets the design crRerla, as far as lan!'~;,aping. Placement of the sign will be determined at a future date. Ms. oval as bein bns~ on the information provided on the plan, staff recommends app g compliance with the Anaheim Resort Specffic Plan documents. Chairman Messe stated in the staff report there was some discussion regarding adding something to the Mitigation Monitoring and asked whether the developer aware of that? Mary McCloskey, Planning Department, responded when they developed the Mitigation Montoring Plan with the initial application the first time around there was one Mitigation Measure that was applicable to this project that was inadvertently not included. It deals with the television reception. If there are any problems with that they will address that Issue. There was also revised wording in ono of the Mitigation Measures subsequent to that hearing that Council did adopt an ordinance in order to implement the Mtigation Measure. There is an ordinance that has been adopted and basically it's been changed to reflect the payment of that fee per that ordinance would satisfy that measure. Yes, the developer has been advised. Commissioner Henninger asked if revisions were being added to the Environmental Documentation wfth their motion? Mary McCloskey responded staff has given Commission a revised Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Chairman Messes asked Selma Mann ff Commission should be making a motion to revise the Mtigation Montoring Plan? Selma Mann responded there actually hasn't been anything on the agenda to directly address any modffications to a Mitigation Monitoring Plan. Commissioner Henninger stated the EIR is on the agenda. 12-9-96 Page 8 Mary McCloskey stated ~eacb I t the project.t Itdwas Just inadverte tly not i~cluded. measure was always app ~~- The Mftigation Monftoring Program for the AnahEiim Resort Area was developed and then as each project comes in staff looks at those Mftigation Measures (master program) and they take out those measures applicable to any particular project. So the measure has always been in the master program and ft always was applicable to this project, ft just was not listed wfthin this plan previously. Chairman Messe stated he did not understand how Commission could not approve something that is being added? Mary McCloskey responded the measure was always applicable. it wasn't included wfthin the plan that was presented to you inadvertently. Chairman Messe asked how ft was applicable through the Mftigation Monitoring Program? Mary McCloskey responded at the time the Specific Plan was adopted for the Anaheim Resort ,EIR No. 313 was certified and adopted a Mftigation Montoring Program which served as a master for all properties in that area so the properties would not have to come In one by one. So what is done when a final site plan is submitted is they submit an environmental compliance form which staff reviews the project to see that ft falls within the perimeters of what the EIR addressed which this project did and then staff takes that master program and pull out those measures applicable to this project. When staff did that inere was one measure that was applicable and they failed to put that me<<sure in. When staff looked at ft ft was determined that measure should have been in this program. So ft is not that they have added any new measure, ft is one for the master program that was applicable ~`° but is now is indicated in this plan. The other measure is one that said before basically that the property owner/developer needed to do a number of things and basically ft was to satisfy the water system Improvement requirements subsequent to when that program was adopted. We have adopted a new water facilfties fee rule, 15-E, in order to implement that mftigation measure so ft is the implementation tool the City uses now for that measure. So we lave put that wording into the master program and all future mitigation measure that you see in the plans will be this wording. Before that ordinance was adopted ft was a mechanism to say that ft had to be paid, for now the Clry has codffied ft. ~ - 12-9-96 Page 9 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS m 2a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION COun~rnuer rrcF aERMIT NO. 1424 (READVERTISED) 2b Approved I Approved for a . period of 5 years OWNER: OXFORD RESOURCES CORP., Attn: Ralph (To exp!re 12-9-01) Pascucci, 270 South Service Road, Melville, New York 1147 AGENT: DAVID ALDERMAN, 18500 Von Karman Ave., #150, Irvine, CA 92715 LOCATION: 2221 -2227 East Katella Avenue. Property is approximately 5.48 acres located Werth and west of the northwest comer of Katella Avenue and Howell Avenue. To permit a second automotive sales dealership with accessory automotive repair. This item was continued ftom the Planning Commission meeting of November 25, 1996. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC96-122 SR6389KB.WP FOLLOWING I5 A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Doug Hadden, General Manager of Oxtord Resources, 2225 E. Katella, Anaheim, stated after reviewing the staff report he with had only one item of concern which is the section no. 5 of the Recommendations. They are in agreement with all the recommendations except for the time limit of one year. They believe the standard lease that they are proposing with the owner of the property, which is a 5-year option wfth another 5-year option is a fairly standard ccmmercial lease. Mr. Hadden stated there is a current lease in the back of the property that expires in the year 2000, with the same type of use and they are asking to run concurrent wfth that and at the end of that to reapply with the City for a CUP. Commissioner Henninger asked fo~• ~<: clarification on the terms of lease. Doug Hadden responded their lease is condftioned upon the permfts is a 5-year lease wfth s:r ability to review ft again for another 5-year option. CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING 12.-9-96 ~, Page 1Q Greg Hastings responded to Chaim>an Messe by indicating the CUP actually goes along wfth the original CUP for the auto dealership which extends back to 1973. ~'~ r ardin the Commissioner Bostwick stated he had a question on Item No. 5, No. 15 (on page 7) eg g banners and flags, and asked if they can still apply for a special permit or is ft being eliminating? Greg Hastings stated the way ft is worded ft would not allow for any at this point. This is in an industrial zone which does not allow special event permfts. Annika Santalahti stated the reason the condftfon was put in, specifically, is there have been a number ~f dealership type activfties which while they might have been industrial zoned immediately abutted commercial. There were other dealerships like Ball Road and Anaheim Boulevard and they were thinking in that instance they were not going to look at ft favorably. Where in other cases they were willing to consider that type of activity but they are not willing to do that in this instance. Commissioner Henninger asked what type of amendments will be made to that sloped area when the Katella "Smart" Street is constructed and when is that likely to happen? Melanie Adams, Public Works, stated the Katella 'Smarty Street project actually only goes up to the I-5 Fwy. The segment beyond that to the east is a separate project and she was not certain of improvements made in that area. Alfred Yalda, Public Works, stated that whole project was approved for the Kateiia "Smart" Street but there is no funding at this time for that portion. It is going to be widened wfthin the next 10-15 years. It is just a matter of funding available. In some portion of ft will be four lanes of traffic on each d~~s~iion and a portion that goes to the City of Orange is going to go back to three lanes of 'traffic on each direction. ""' Chairman Messe asked ff ft would be possible for some of that landscaping to be effected by that street widening. Alfred Yalda responded, yes. Commissioner Bristol asked ff the cars coming into the site come one at a time? Mr. Hadden responded they are actually transported by rail from all over the United States. They are a nationwide company. The area i~• completely fenced. As transporters are brought in the gates are siiut behind them. No one can see the vehicles loaded and unloaded since they are only unload in the fenced area in the back. There was discussion about the actual operation of the comp<;ny and how they fly in dealers fram all over the country and market directly to import dealers. Chairman Messe stated that petitioner should understand the reason for staffs recommendation of for one year. There is a big change coming into this area and they look upon this use as temporary. Mr. Hadden responded they did understand that and they wanted to be a good neighbor to Anaheim and become part of the C'dy. He did not know' what the time schedule is for five years would fd into that time schedule they would come in and make the necessary changes to the landscaping. Their focus is remarketing vehicles which has become a huge Industry in the Unfted States due to the fact that leasing 12-9-96 ~~ Page 11 is now so big wfth vehicles. Most of the time activity is not noticed since ft is done behind the fenced area. ;> Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22~day appeal rights. ACTION: Approved NegatNe Declaration Approved Condftional Use Permit No. 1424, as readvertised. Resolution No. PC73-208, adopted in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 1424, was amended as fellows: (i) Approved a second automotive sales and service facility; (ii) Deleted the following waiver: (~ Maximum cennitt~ sf~ .• (ill) Amended the following waivers to read as follows: (IV) (C) Minimum landscaoed setback. (Required: 10 feet of landscaping adjacent to Katella Avenue; Proposed: 4 feet of landscaping shall be provkled between the vehicle display area and the slope in the Katella Avenue right-of-way) (E) M imum number of free standing ~r^"~ end minimum distance between ~P- t~ andina signs. (permitted: ne i n in the front setback of an industrially zoned parcel; Proposed: two signs. one new monument sign [replacing the existing 57-foot high, 144 square-foot pole sign] on Katella Avenue and one existing sign on Howell Avenue advertising "SLS Auto," located approximately 250 feet apart) Amended Condftion No. 11 to read as follows: "11. Thai prior to commencement of the activity herein approved, subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and spec'rfications submitted to the Planning Department by the petftioner and which plans are labeled Revision No. 2 of Exhibit No. 1, and Exhibft Nos. 2 and 3; provided, however, that: (a) between the vehiclefdisplaylarea and the s ope in tthe Katella Avenue right-of-way; (b) The existing pole sign on Katel!a Avenue shall be removed and replaced with a monument type sign having a maximum size of one hundred (100) square feet and a maximum height of eight (8) feet, and that said monument sign may be located adjacent to, and on the west side of, the drNeway on Katella Avenue; and (c) t e Katella Avenue/Howell St self interigseciion~"g ~~ towards 12-5-96 Page 12 '14. That the second automotive dealership shall expire five (5) years ftom the date of this resdution, on December 9, 2001. 15. That in connection with the operation of the second automotive dealership there shall be no special events, no flags or banners or dher temporary signs or other advettising devices, and no automobile auctions or other special sales events. 16. That prior to commencement of the activity herein approved: (a) The petitioner shall submft detailed landscape plans to refurbish the slope landscaping in the Katella Avenue right-of-way and in the minimum four (4) feet of additional landscaping between the Katella Avenue slope and the vehide display area Qncluding a minimum of thirteen [13] trees plus vines planted in ftont of the existing chain link fence facing Katella Avenue for additional site screening, in accordance wftho~ s Reports aond tanning Commission review and app Recommendations' item. (b) The owner of subject property shall submit a landscaping and maintenance agreement for the refurbishment and maintenance of the slope area adjacent to Katella Avenue to the Co I, and Community Services Department for review and app to the City Attorney for review as to form. 17 the petitioner/owner shall rem3ove thesexistingroof sign Ihocated above the showroom ' VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION: 12 minutes 12-9-96 Page 13 3a. CE(;IAA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) Approves EADVERTISED) ModiNed conditions 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3253 (R of approval OWNER: IMPERIAL PROMENADE PARTNERS, 5289 Afton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92604 AGENT: MARIA FOSKARIS, 5645 E. La Palma Avenue, #170, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 5 - 75 E st La Palm Av n Im erial Pr menade . Property is approximately 4.4 acres located north and west of the northwest comer of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway. To amend or delete a condition of approval pertaining to maximum cumulative square-footage for restaurant uses. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC96-123 SR6399DS.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ~~ Maria Foskaris, owner of Foskari's Italian Cuisine, 5645 E. La Palma Ave., stated they would like to the following: (1) Add another wall sign on the south portion of the building. The reason for adding a third wa sign is that first time patrons have a difficult time finding their business. (2) Add a patio to the building. They would like to have outdoor seating because ft will encourage more casual dining. (3) The alcoholic beverage license to be upgraded to a full bar license. Currently t~iey are operat ng with ms srin additionltoetheir beer and winelthat theycurrently offeelection of fine spirits to their Gusto PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED Greg Hastingectio on box 4 should read 51779 squaretfeet (nat 4`616 s.f.) and box 5 should reads box chart. A co 12,907 square feet (not 14,070). Chhithe outdone seat ghwas toemain ain~the same number~of seats as she presently hassting even wit 12-9-96 Page 14 :, Maria Foskaris responded yes that was right. She understands that is a problem with the amount of restaurant space that has been allocated to the shopping center and they currently have plenty of seating. Patron are coming in parties of 2 or 3 and their tables are seat for 3 and 4, so they would outsidet Theretia a no ante tons oft m ng the estaurant Into a bang, th y want t keep it a n ce elegant dining restaurant in Anaheim Hills. Greg Hastings responded to Chairman Meese by indicating there are two separate plans (which indudes the seating), one showing the Interior and the other showing the exterior. Commissioner Bostwick stated he had a question relative to the sign, would relocating the sign over the front door to the south facing wall solve the problem? Maria Foskaris responded then the wall over the ftont door would look empty. If you look at, for example, Starbuck's they have three sign, their logo over their ftont door, one on the east wail and a third on the south wall. Commissioner Boydstun stated the first time she went out their she had to go all around the shopping center to locate the restaurant. There was further discussion regarding the sign request. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negatNe declaration is adtquate to serve as the required environ,~~ntal documentation for subject request. te'e`" Approved c~~:;est. Modified Condition No. 37 of Resolution No. PC95-160 to read as follows: "37. The total area of restaurant uses shall not exceed 26,040 square-feet and shall be limited to the following: Juice Ber Foot Food Faot Food Rssteura~ts with service bl t Resteuronts with outdoor seating (Space #135) restaurants with restaurants with e a 10 customer seats 10 customer sseU 11 customer seeb or less 300 sq.ft. total 1 or kss ,1,612 sa.ft. total or more ,4442 sa.it. total 5 T/g sg.ft. total 12907 s.f. total . - fLrquired parking: Required parking: Required parking: Required parking: er Required parking: 8 s r i.5 spaces per 5.5 spaces per 16 spaces per ft 000 sq 1 a spaces p 1,000 sq.tt. ~ ~ ~ 1,000 sq.i!. 1,000 sq.ft. . . , staurants requ nng ass par ing may a su sUtute or restaurants requ r ng more p ng i.e., a restauran rant with 11 customer seats or more)' t d au res table service may occupy space entitled for a fast foo 12-9-~d Page 15 Added the following condition: ~, 'That this amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 3253 (Readverti ro )~( forranted subject to the approval of, and compliance wfth, all condftions of app Conditions Use Permit No. 3881, now pending. Further, that the Increase to the maximum area of restaurant uses (1,163 square-foot), shall be specfflc to the proposed furthe~thait the subject business shalPbe limfted to a maximu of 118 seats (both) and interior and exterior) VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION: 25 minutes 12-9-96 Page 16 ti \., Approved 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION_ Approved, in part 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Granted, in part 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3881 OWNER: IMPERIAL PROMENADE PARTNERS, 5289 Alton parkway, Irvine, CA 92604 AGENT: MARIA FOSKARIS, 5645 East La Palma Avenue, #170, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 5645 East La Palma Avenue #170 (Foscari's Italian Cuisinel• Property is approximately 4.4 acres located north and west of the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway. To permit on-premises sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages and outdoor dining (1,163 square-foot) for an existing restaurant (4,390 square-foot) with waivers of (a) permitted wall signs, (b) minimum structural setback and (c) minimum number of parking spaces. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC96-124 I SR6388DS.WP ------------------------------------ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Greg Hastings stated there was a correction on the page 13 of staff report, Condition iNo. 26, 'that any tree which is damaged or removed resulting from the proposed construction shall be replaced wfth a minimum 24-inch box tree (rather than 15-gallon tree) of the same variety". Maria Fo:skaris stated on Condition No. 20, requested whether they could have music piped outside, regarding Condition No. 20. Commissioner Henninger stated it would be alright as long as they meet wfth the sound standards at the property line. Maria Foskaris stated on pays 11, Condition No. 12, requested to be able to keep the patio open later on New Year's Eve only. Chairman Henninger stated it would be added to the conditions, extending the hours on New Year's Eve only. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. 12-9-96 Page 17 ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement, in part, as follows: Denied Waiver (a) on the basis that: a. The petitioner has previously been granted approval for a second wall sign. (Code permfts.4n~ sign per business) within the Scenic Corridor Overlay Zone. A third sign would grand a special prNilege to the subject tenant space which has not been granted to other similar spaces; b Orangetharpei Avenuepwith the existing wall signo nt he east elevat on andy and c. Adequate business identification is currently provided toward the parking lot to the south with the existing wall sign on the southeast (main entrance) elevation. d. Recommended that the previously approved interior sign program for Imperial Promenade be amended to provide on-site directional signs and that one of the two existing signs may be relocated to face south. Approved Waivers (b) and (c). Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3881 with the following changes to condtions: Deleted Condition Nos. 20, 25 and 28. Modified Condition Nos. 12, 26, 29, 31 and 32 to read as follows: -_ 12. That sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of 10 a.m. and 12 a.m. seven days a week with the exception of New Year's Eve. 26. That any tree which is damaged or removed resulting from the proposed construction shall be replaced with a minimum 24-inch box tree of the same variety. 29. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file wfth the Planning Department marked Exhibft Nos. 1 and 2, provided that a maximum of one hundred eighteen seats (both indoors and outdoors) shall be permitted at any time. 31. That prior to the commencement of the activity anal prior to the construction of the outdoor dining area, Condtion Nos. 18, 19 and 22, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordancE wfth Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. ~\ ,. 12-9-96 Page 18 32 29, above-meet oned ashall be complgied wfthtions, Condition Nos. 15, 17, 23 and VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION: 25 minutes 12-9-96 ~ Page 19 1_ 5a. CEOA NEGATNE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY~APPROVED) Co 97ued to 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT EADVERTISED) 5c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2798 (R OWNER: CHARLES HANCE c/o Coast Corvette, 828 West Vermont, Unft A, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: MICHAEL SACKS, 828 W. Vermont Ave., Unit F., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 808 820 West Vermont Avenue. Property is approximately 0.5 acre located approximately 190 feet west of the centerline of Cftron Street and focated easterly of the Santa Ana (I-5) Freeway. To establish a second used-car dealership in conjunction with a previously-approved automotNe sales and service facility wfth waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. This item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of October 28, 1996. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESf?r.UTION NO. - I SR63g4MA.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 6, 1997 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to prepare and submit additional information pertaining to subject proposal. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION: This ftem was not discussed. 12-9-96 Page 20 Approved ~. CE NEGATIVE DECLAiRATION Approved, in part 6b. WAIVE F CODE REQUIREMENT GmM~~ in part ~. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3882 OWNER: W ~ marMkE8M6.5 South igueEoa Street, Suite 3500, Los Angeles, CA 90017 AGENT: AEGIS CONSULTING ALLIANCE, 5140 East la Palma Avenue, #201, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 5550 East Sarta Ana Canvon Road. Propery is approximately 10.63 acres located at the southwest comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and imperial Highway. To permit the conversion of a vacant bank in a commercial retail center to a 5,209 square-foot fast food restaurant with outndnimum seating and roof-mounted equipment with waivers of (a) number of parking spaces; (b) minimum stn:otural sermittcekd, type of maximum number of permitted wall signs and (d) p signs. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC96-125 SR6391DH.wp FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Lee Olsen, Aegi~Ca ketustated they have reviewedthe sstaff report and indicated theyllhad con enms with Bos o the following conditions: 1. Condition No. 1 -they did not feel it is their responsibility to repair that center sign. Sot ey request this condition be removed and they not be held accountable. 2. Condition No. 7 - Mr. Smkh addressed Commission on this iater.ro osed to put into the setback 3. Condition No. 11 dealt with the trash enclosure location. They p p area along The felt ft was anmoredconvonient place for~the trash tn~cks to ent rand pick up f the cente Y the debris and then to make their tumarourJi. 4, Conditioha i ~ Keefe ftom ?ublic Utilities for anlaltetmate locationdfor the t nsformer They~feel wtth Mic the location Public Utilities has recommended was the best location. It is a possible 20- oot run from the to fo ow staff's recomumendation t4 andscape tthe area heavily, with sufficient se. They propose 12-9-96 Page 21 landscaping the transformer should be shielded ftom the tenants and reskferrts to the north and east. Mr. Olsen presented photos to the Commission which he indicated Michael Smith would be discussing. Michael Smfth, Project Manager for Boston Market, stated !n regards to Condftion No. 7 (signage), staff has recommended that a logo sign only be placed on the west elevation of the building and they are andunoticed by those driving bymThey rrequested arroof-mounmsignton t e front elevation, chalnnelad letters as depicted on the rendering. Mr. Olsen stated he also wanted to discuss outdoor seating in the north sloe of the Boston Market. in the staff report the square footage was Incorrect, which was shown as S00 s.f., i< should be 380 s.f., 190 the s'de Iwitheped striansr ditnis also ohming out oMargarita as well asf om the east side of he unit. of Mr. Olsen stated they agree with staff h would be a pleasant area to dine. It would add some Interest to that corner as well. There was some concern with the setback, it is probably a little closer to 20 to 25 feet rather than 15 feet. It was suggested that the sign be 13 feet at the base of the slope and then going up the slope and h flattens out and that is where the seating area would be. Mr. Olsen referred to the 4th sheet of the photos, photo G, the white pickup truck is approximately 18 feet long and the proposed outdoor seating would be on the top of that bank towards the back end of the truck in the photo. The sign is on the front of the truck. They propose to leave the area all the existing trees that are there and to follow staff recommendations on their report to add landscaping potted plants to tables and they concurrwith that IThoy proiposed tphesuse ofrsOppedsawn~in9~ (red, white and lackc)rete rather than solid color awnings. Commissioner Bostwick asked what was the width of the walkway. Mr. Olsen responded the existing walkway is about five or six feet wide. Commissioner Bostwick asked what the proposed patio at the top would widen it out to. Mr. Olsen responded it would actually incorporate the sidewalk so it would be part of it. It widens it out to 10 feet, coming off of the building. Commissioner Bristol asked if they were gaing to remove the windows on the west and north elevation. Mr. Olsen responded on the north elevation the windows will stay as shown, on the west elevation there are not windows on that elevations. Michael O'keefe, Public Utilities Department, stated they have done a study of the location of the transformer and the location depicted on the plans best suits the customer and Utilities, once the facil.ties are put in the belong to Utilities and if for some reason they gc- bad the Utilities pays for them. The cost differences is estimated at 150 feet instead of 240 feet was approximately $9, 500 where the existing location would be about $2,200, there is a difference of almost $7,300. Commissioner Henninger asked how tall is the transfomser and what Is their foot print. 12-9-96 Page 22 Michael O'keefe responded on an average transformers of 4Y~ to 5 feet tall and sitting on an 6 by S foot concrete pad. They do have many transformers throughout the City with landscaping around them and Mr. O'keefe recommends landscaping be placed around this transformer to blend them in. Chairman Messe asked how much clearance do you need between the transformer and the landscaping? Michael O'keefe responded depending the type of landscaping it can be at the sides up to the pad and out in the front closer to the sidewalk area. Utilities generally Ickes ten feet in front of the pad but ff it is not a very tall landscaping in the ftont they can have landscaping within a couple of feet. There was further discussion on landscaping around the transformers. Michael O'keefe stated the transformer will be sitting in ftont of the gas meteors and will be hkJing the gas meters plus with the landscaping around the transformer. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Commissioner Henninger asked Traffic Engineering their opinion of impact of this development on the existing driveway in front of the Bank of America which is already faimiy congested. Is there anything that can be done with that to ease the congestion on that location? Alfred Yalda, Traffic Engineering, responded they recommend although it is stripped, people are still parking there and that is the cause for most of the congestion created. They recommended the property owner change that to a landscaping area so the unwanted parking area could be eliminated. There are a couple of driveways there of concern. One of the drive-outs does not show any stopping there and they recommended adding a stop sign in order to gNe more room for people coming to the center to make n easier for them to reduca backing of the traffic on Imperial Hwy. Chairman Messe stated there was no request for roof-mounted equipment in time application, it this unusual for a rectau-ant? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager, it is part of the rondftional use permit. The remainder of the building currently has (referred to photos, page 4 'H") that would be continued out to the rest of the building and staff is requiring that they paint the equipment to match the building and that would be approved in the CUP. Commissioner Bristol evhile referencing photo 'B' the setback on the north elevation outdoor dining ar9a, asked staff about the concern to the monument sign possibly getting damaged, . Greg Hastings responded staffs concern was mainly the reduction of the required landscape area with precedent sending nature of that. It appeared the majority of the landscaping in that location had to be reduced down from 20 to 15 when the Santa Ana Canyon Rodd was widened a few years ago. Chairman Messe asked ff the outdoor patio eating area to the east side? Greg Hastings responded from a Zoning perspective that would work and deferred to Alfted Yalda to respond regarding the traffic circulation. ~ 12-9-96 ~- Page 23 Alfred Yalda responded that area is not heavily used and does not mow s nce~ he did not feel it would heavily it is going to be used but ff it is goin to be two or three pa 9 Pa ~• be much of an impact on the while area Co Ce i in~hat ome nil create thama9ea with a rodtiron fence around ft t makke R a patio.~o ~~ng spa Chairman Messe asked ff there was a~~~~ alcohd imroived in Boston Market. Mr. Olsen responded, no. Commissioner Henninger stated it appeared on photo'G' that the curtain wall along the north elevation is recessed behind the face of the building and ff so by how much? Mr. Olsen responded, yes, it Is recessed approximately four or five feet. Commissioner Bristol asked ff the front door woul~j be facing Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mr. Olsen responded the main door will actually be facing the center, on the east side. Chairman Messe asked Mr. Olsen their feeling about putting a patio on the east sloe. Mr. Smfth passed three photos to Commission to betts.• help explain, his opinion is ff they are extending havinidthatlarea aas aupatio would be much more pelietizpng that sitting in thleyparking ot. They wou d 9 prefer that ttie patio be located at the proposed sfte. Chairman Messe asked ff there were front plans on the patio that includes landscaping. ~. Greg Hastings responded there is a floor E~lgn which shows the outside of the building. There was discussion about the proposed location of the patio. Commissioner Boydstun asked on the east elevation how many parking spaces over does their part of the building go? Mr. Smith responded they believed it was seven parking stalls. They rather not take parking away from the front of the building. Chairman Messe suggested petftioner to might want to work with staff on the plans and resubmit revised plans. stated they would lik to havedthe othe issuesebe resdveditoday and et t islissue, o tinue. Smith Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. t 2 ~'-9fi Page 24 // ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration l~ Approved Waiver of Code Requirement, in part, as follows: Approved Waiver (a); Approved Waiver (b), in part. Approved trash enclosure setback, ao promo e~the~ do setback but not to exceed i0 feet ftom the building face, and ap sed ~~ room with proposed transformer or proposed hardscape leading to a propo ttY regard to setback adjacent to Avenida Margarita. Approved WaNer (c); and Denied Waiver (d). Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3882 with the fdlowing changes to conditions: Modified Condition Nos. 1, 9 and 13 to read as fellows: 1. That the damaged fteestanding monument sign at the southeast comer of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Avenkla Margarita shall be removed or repaired within thirty (30) days of the date of this resdution. g. That the proposed umbrellas for the outdoor seating area shall match or complement the color of the building exterior. That any signs or logos on the subject umbrellas shall not be readable from the adjacent rights-of-way. 13. That the developer shall obtain aright-of-way construction permit from the Public Works Department to reconstruct the sdewalk between Santa Ana ~.,,. Canyon Road and the driveway into the shopping center along Avenida Margarita, damaged by on-site trees. The sidewalk shall be reconstruc-ed in conformance with Engineering Standard Detail No. 110. Added the following new condftions: That both trash enclosures located along the setback of Santa Ana Canyon Road shall be fully landscaped. That the improvements to the driveway immediately south of the Intersection of Santa Ana Canyon and Imperial Highway shall be completed as recommer-ded by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file wfth the Planning Department marked Exhibft Nos. 1 and 2, except as changed by these conditions of approval. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION: 55 minutes 12-g-96 t Page 25 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMR NQ:,_ 4¢~ (R~~RTISED) OWNER: FRED HATAMI, 23891 Bridger Road, Lake Forest, CA 92630 AGENT: HARRY ERICSON, 3328 Alabama Cirde, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 LOCATION: 1771 South Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 0.32 acre located at the northwest comer of Katella Avenue and Brookhurst Street. To permit two (2) gasoline Pump island canopies for apreviously- approved automobile service station with waiver of minimum structural setback. Continued to 1.6-97 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. I SR6386JIC.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Jeff Farano, 2100 S. State College, Anaheim, representing the applicant, gave an explanation of the project in order to understand why a simply project has become complicated. This is an abandoned gas station on Brookhurst and Katella, it had been abandoned for several years. The tanks were leaking and were partially removed or had a problem where they should have been removed but was in a foreclosure situation and nobody wanted to assume the responsibility, so it sat vacant for quite a while. His client agreed to buy the property and to reopen the gas station. When the tanks had to be removed the tanks were underneath the pumps and the pumps had to be removed. When they came to put the pumps back in there was a problem whether a conditional use permit would be required for that and whether canopies would be required nn the axisting regulations. As part of the conditional use permit it turns out this property was going to loosa half of its property to street widening critical intersection; almost half the property was going to be lost and he was tdd in order to rebugd the gas station that he would not be able to build a future right-of-way where this new widening would take place. The next discussion was they would let him put it in the area but had to agree to take out the tanks and the pumps when eventual wkfening took place. This seemed to be tied to the canopy situation. It was grandfathered in from the County and it seemed dear that it you go ahead and reopen the gas .`.anon, put in the tank, put the pumps back in bu'. not put a canopy in because it seemed to be creanng th+e co:iditionai use permit requirement. The applicant did not go forward and complete the tanks and the pumps. He then asked for a conditional use permft of the canopy because the Buliding Division would not inspect the foundation for the canopy which is was going to put in and then wont' about later. So he thought he would submit the CUP. Now they are with the CUP for the canopy and as part of the CUP for the canopy there are a lot of restrictions, conditions and actually some confusion. The problem 12-9-96 Page 26 is that the applicant was in the middle of construct~iarnt t ~ >~~ ~8 i~jO~or Mer~arnae~ ~~ s~• Code Enforcement had been pressuring the appl what they haee f~the structurembecause of the eventual widening aThe gas stationvhas gralixifathered setback waN rights to pumps, the buUding, etc. is all there just reopening. Mr. Farano's first concern is with the recommendation, page 5 Qtem No. 24) he is not certain whether it reads they are allowed one or two canopies. Mr. Farano stated they have concerns with the fdlowing Coixlitions in the staff report: 1, Condition No. 3, which they recommended remodeling to make it a unisex restroom to satisfy the ADA, but there is no room to put two restt'oomro ne tanks are not permitted and the staff 2, Condition No. 7, he has not yet determined whY P Pa report dk1 not really elaborate why that was. 3. Condition No. 12, regarding the drNeways on Katella Avenue and Brookhurst Street. 4. CondVeon he • havehsome sight con~ints a Ind~isthe drNewa~ ftself, that lscdrieatingh a turns, howe Y problem. 6. Cond~in n'mmen~ce of the conjstruct on of tihe ultirmate right-of waY whicheveroccurs flrst.~Mrn or u; _ Farano indicated that creates two problems: 1) That five years only apply only to the canopy or to the gas station in its entirety, 2) They the CUPfiwhich inhaffect he would have to take it down at applicants exlpec sehas a result loses of the street widening. 6, Condition No. 23 applicant will bs agreeing to put the vines along the fence along the back adjacent to the resklential properties which requires Irrigation etc. through an existing asphalt parking lot which is at substantial expense. 7. Condition No. 24 the remaining two drfvewa~ openings, landscaping shall be a minimum of ten feet wide on Katella and Brookh frs~pr~ ~ ~t ~~hm~y ~ reofduced tot the three feet where Avenue and Brookhurst Street, p a ten-foot width would interfere with the pump island on Brookhurst St. His understanding is the ten feet requirement but to allowed to go down to three fiat on Brookhurst. There is no room on Bso~oknur n the comer and all around the outside but the 10 footdlatndscaping physically does land P 9 not fit. S CnnKatella Avenue therefore darffications needede the pumps and he can not have t e canopy 0 Mr. Farano summarized by stating they recommend to allow the canopy to be built over both pumps. The landscaping is submitted around the planter around the wall and the vine permitted, there be no limit of time of the CUP for the canopy and the landscaping on Katella and Brookhurst 10 feet (s really unreasonable and applicant should be permitted to have the Propane. The propane is necessary Income. Mr. Farano concluded by stating, regarding the drfveways, there seems to be no reason whY putting up the canopies wo~~d result in a change of traffic which would not justify removing existing curbs and put in new driveways. PUBLIC HEARING CEASED Commissioner Henninger asked for a daarffication regarding the Permit issued' 12-9-96 Page 27 Greg Hasting, Zoning Manager, stated in 1964, CUP 640 was approved for an existing service station. basically ft was At the time there was no conditions nor were there any plans that they were tied to, ~~ accepting the establishment of what was already there. In the meantime the dosedto be takenffout~s purchased and the tanks were being taken out and because of that the pumps because they were over the tank area. So what remained was simply the shell of the former service station building which was in bad repair. They did come in and a&sSk t`~oule ocncu ~~~ re e~we~ennot klentically to the way ft was which they agreed for zoning purpos permits required for pumps themselves; the service station building was existing. Basically, ft was to refurbish the existing building and to put pumps in, however, they knew, at the time, that they could not operate the pumps wfthout having the canopies over those and the canopies did req~ ~ do this, ton's approval and they were aware that ft was at their oHm risk. There was a permft appl however, Engineering would need to respond since ft is an Engineering's requirement, as to the status of the canopy sftuation. Commissioner Henninger asked is this a she that has been troublesome. Greg Hasting responded, yes, because ft was dosed for qute some time. Chairman Messe stated since this was a CUP and although Mr. Farano referred to ft as CUP for canopy, ft is really for a gasoline station. service stallion neve~ wen away ft was Justtherellabandonied. t It wasvneverCrevoked. is still there. The Commissioner Henninger asked when a permit was given, ft was assum4d the old CUP was still in effect. Greg Hastings responded, he was pure that the permft was issued, however, they were given a zoning stamp of approved to refurbish the building, to put landscaping in. That is what ft amounted to but the ~~ canopies were never approved. Commissioner Henninger stated the position was taken wfth them that the existing CUP was still val(d. Greg Hastings responded that was correct. Commissioner Henninger asked Was there setup negotiat ont wfth the new owner? fte and the previous owner was in bankcrupty. Bruce Freeman responded during the purchasing of property they did meet with the developer and the real estate agent as well and the Realtor had proposed reopening an existing service station in the same conformity that ft was. They were going to remodel the buiding but yes this has been a problem for well over two years. Code Enforcement at the time felt very posftive about the proposed Improvement. Commissioner Bristol asked if the applicant was fully aware that the street wklening on Brookhurst and fCatelta is going to happen in seven years and would remove 5096 of this property. Alfred Yalda responded that there were extensive public hearings on this and there was an EIR prepared, everyone of the property owners within that segment were notff(ed and he was certain that the Realtor that sold them the property would have known about the condftion of lCatella 'Smart' Street and ft has been approved for quite a few years. 12-9-96 Page 28 .~ Commissioner Bristol asked ff there would be any type of grandfathered clause that would be applicable to ked conft naU Ingo verify whethee~wahs understood that therie appearedmo be noPway that anyone in ~_, ~ as above iG this City could operate a pump fuel without a canopy Melanie Adams responded the requirement is for a canopy over pump islands. There is a provision to ask for some kind of relief from speciftc requirements under the NP'OS but they would be speciftcally showing that you had some other alternative mechanism to do the ,~ is the position of theaPublic Works reviewing this site they have not offered any alternatives, therefore, Department that they recommended the canopies as they are the standard best management practice for a gas station. Commissioner Henninger asked but h could be done by putting up a berm around and have some way to capture the frst flows, an on-site fliter before it went off into the storm drain. Melanie Adams responded that was a potential but then you are really treating the whole she. Commissioner Henninger stated the purpose of canopies are to try to prevent gasdine fallen out of the vehicles by accklent from washing off into the storm drain. Melanie Adams responded, that was correct. Commissioner Bristol stated the pads on this sfte are going to be 9md~ eked whether an afteratlonet it appeared the storage tanks and pumps on both islands are in; tue~oo ~~ able to store ff they didn't at this time be the best time for this cement that is going to be po have a canopy on the islands. Wouldn't tt~ s be the best time to redesign as far as the water and the drain? °'~ Commissioner Bostwick stated ff a canopy is denied on the Katella skle then how do they comply ff they are required to have a canopy" If you do not have canopies an alternative would be to slope into a catch basin of some type within the center of the station to where the water is held and can be pumped out. Commissioner Henninger stated it is basically something that would take the first flow and then the clean water goes to the top. Jeff Farano stated the engineer who designed and has done many gas stations and oil properties was also add shade to the patron pumping gas andrymproves the appearan a of ahgas station itself canopies Commissioner Henninger stated but that is a dffferent program then you are asking for a change in your somethinmolu m ghtpwantto come ands ask for to improve the bus nesstand the o he ~isoto meet a 9Y regulatory requirement. Jeff Farano stated there may be some difference of opinion as to whether a canopy ib redq htand the is required when you have changes. Mr. Farano stated this is an existing gas station, y g pumps, tanks, etc. are being replaced. Mr. Farano did not feel ft is a requirement to put a pump in unless you put a canopy in. Chairman Messe asked a clarification whether Mr. Farano was arguing for or against a canopy? t 2-9-96 Page 29 Jeff Farano responded the applicant wanted a canopy for one reason because of appearance and shade, etc. Chairman Messe asked then the applicant dkl not want a canopy for environmental regulatory issues? Selma Mann stated for darffication purposes, the decision with regard to the canopy and the environmental Issue is something that is City Engineer's preview and it is not really something that can be modified or deckled by the Planning Commission. This has been an abandoned station which in itself is sufficient grounds for modification or termins!.ion of the entire CUP induding the history of problems ghat there has been at this station to that there should not be the feeling that this is the only opportunity that is available to the Planning Commission to imposed conditions upon this site. Greg Hastings stated Bruce Freeman (ftom Code Enforcement) brought to his attention that they have photographs that originally there were two separate restrooms. Jeff Farano responded the problem with them is that they are both very small and neither one would comply wfth ADA regulations so combining them both and having a unisex restroom would comply with the handicap requirements. Greg Hastings stated that was not a Code requirement etcher it was just something that Commission and Council have asked for in the past. Mr. Hastings stated, regarding the propane tank, Commission may wish to note that the propane tank is not shown on the plan, however, they do have an exhibit penciled in an area that is proposed which is approximately 10 feet within the reskiential property. The one concern staff has was that because of the proximity of the residential but also because of the size of the property there really is not an area available where a car, RV, etc. could park without being in the way of other customers. Chairman Messe asked was there a propane tank before? Greg Hastings responded staff w2s not aware that there was, there were no permits showing that. Jeff Farano confirmed, no there was not. Alfred Yalda responded to Commissioner Boydstun by stating they looked at the circulation on-site and there is enough room for the circulation. There was further discussion regarding the driveways. Greg Hastings pointed out that on paragraph 21, it erroneously referred to the corner or Orangewood and Harbor and Condition No. 24 the words that are between commas provkled that "be a minimum of 10 feet under on Katella Avenue and Brookhurst Scree:', that whole section should be stricken out which will make more sense. It should read 'That except, that the remaining two drNeway opening, landscaping shall a minimum of ten (10) feet wide on Katella and Brookhurst, provided that saki width may be red~;ced to three (3) feet where a ten (10) foot width would Interfere with the pump island on Brookhurst Street". Melanie Adams stated consistently Public Works has stressed the need for canopies throughout all discussions. Chairman Messe stated ff you can do other things then the canopy is not required. 12-9-96 Page 30 Melanie Adams responded at this time, the applicant has not made a formal request for these other alternatives. ~_ , Jeff Farano stated the applicant wants to do the canopy because it is beneficial to all irnolved, tha conditions that come along with ft make it undoable. There was further discussion concerning the canopies. Please note: Commissioner Bristol left following the completion of Item No. 7. ACT10N: Continued subject request to the January 6, 1997 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to meet with staff to discuss the conditions of approval placed upon the proposal. V01'E: 7-0 DISCUSSION: 55 minutes 12-9-96 Page 31 rEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 8a. Approved eb. WAVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3345 (READVERTISED) A~pdroved,~as OWNER: PECICHAM FAMILY TRUST, Attn: R. Peckham, P.O. (fo expire 12-9-01) Box 552, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: LOS ANGELES FREIGHTIJNER, Attn: John Oviyach, 700 E. Katella Ave., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 7^^ °°°"r°f°0° Avenue (Los Anaelee Frei htlt er Property is approximately 2.06 acres located at the proposed southeast comer of Katella Avenue and Anaheim Way. To modify a time limitation and to review submitted revised exhibits for approval to retain an existing truck sales/leasing and repair facility wfth waivers of minimum structural setback adjacent to an arterial highway and minimum structural setback adjacent to a fteeway ftontage road. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PCg6-126 I $R6410I{B.WP ------------------------------------ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Mike McRoberts from Los Angeles Freightliner, presented their request to Commission. They are Looking fora 5-year CUP with no extension. Landscaping is important to their facility as it is to the City and they are certainly willing to be cooperative. Freightliner is a truck manufacture by Mercedes Benz. In the recommendation it stated this item t. a cSni 3tted for four weeks until the January 6, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, however they o ~ ~: at have the luxury to wait due to the Cal Trans activity. Dick Peckham, landlord, owner of West Side Building Material, and a tenant of Anaheim since 1953 stated West Side employs over 80 employees. When they went to the Planning Commission they found that Cal Trans was running late with their project. They went to them and realized that the fteeway widening was a slower process than they thought it was going to be 6 years ago. Therefore, they approached the Planning Commission wRh a request of a time extensioto talk to buildingmcontractorssite They went to considerable expense to prepare plans, artist renderings, and City staff to make this application. They feel they need an extension of the CUP. One is the I-5 Fwy. is now scheduled to have the work continued to the year 2000. That means 3 years of widening the I-5 plus the Katella "Super' Street, although they understand it is onlrtloniogtheir~ o"S~alreadyt in front of their property. If they lose their tenant, and they have lost a po P pertY with Cal Trans widening the Freeway, they are probably not going to be able to replace that tenant and have a vacant piece of property sitting on the comer. They would like to see a 5-year extension of the conditional use permit to give them a chance to build the resources necessary to renovate the property at the end of that time and attract the type of tenant wfth the type of use that the City of Anaheim would like to see. Creating a vacancy at this time, costing jobs, costing sales is not in the best interest for the Page 32 taxpayers of the City of Anaheim. Time is of the ease ice Cb~ry io demidlsh the building and if Aso eLos filed for eminent domain to actually take this property ~_ Angeles Freightliner will be out of business. It is going to cause an economic Impact to their company as well as to the Cfry. Commissioner Henninger stated he would like to review the graphic that shows the property and the fteeway, etc. which was seen earner today. Commissioner Bostwick asked ff they are taking a building that they are presently using. Mike McRoberts stated they are physically taking a portion of a building that they are presently using. -Ar. McRoberts stated the way the bays are laid out currently they are physically taking half of the bays there. There is a aranc of he p operty and the bay will actually increase by 24 feet onl themnewe to improve the app property. Commissioner Henninger asked what the nature of the buildfng thoy are going to build? Mike McRoberts responded the nature Is a service center. i ~, Commissioner Henninger asked the thought is this is only a temporary buildfng for 3 years. Dick Peckham responded they are thinking for five years at which time they are hoping to get compensation for the building that is tom down and with that compensation they can build a new building. Dick Peckham stated they would like to see a fNe-year usage aPProval strictly because of the investing involved for staying on the property in a new building. Chairman Messe asked ff there are new landscape plans etc. Commissioner Bostwick asked why they had a problem with the setback requirements. Mike McRoberts responded in looking at the setbacks, it is required to go fffty feet off of Katella it would would be much bettertolnhave th fentce line running at the ten-foot section rather~han the fifty foots ff setback due to the parking area. Dick Peckham stated there is a restaurant and bar next door and whe arWk~n Shere anddwhen they came they had their parking line outside the fence and the bar they end up p 9 out in the morning there would always be debris in the parking !ot that had to be picked up. They way the plan is submitted where the fence is in the back of the landscaped area, there is ten feet of landscaping and then the fence is slotted chain linked fence and then parking spaces in there. Another consideration on the parking spaces is they are a large truck repair facil'dy and large trucks come in and pick up parts, ff you start putting planted meridians between there that works fine with autos and pickup !rucks but when you are talking about semi-tractor it actually Impedes the flow to such an extension that they are counterproductive in that area but the parking lot would be fully screen ftom the view of the street from the view of the street wfth landscaping. Chairman Messe referred to the area behind the new building, between the fence and the street, how they were going to finish the fence. 12-9-9fi Page 33 Mike McRoberts responded that would be asphalt so that could be a pass through between the opposite ends of the building. ~- Dick Peckham stated they would be open to any suggestions Commission would have. theaurseawas goingtto be temporary twaftingifor theP-5 to go h otugh and now it is appo irnatelY sbc~t years later. Commissioner Henninger stated he thought this might work well as an interim use. Chairman Messe was a little disappointed with the appearance of the ftont of this business after it was discussed at the last meeting. He felt tt could have been kept up better that is his reasoning for asking about the landscaping. Mike McRoberts responded by assuring Commission that they are aware of their image there and committed to what they are to do on this landscaping Issue. Dick Peckham stated they presently have four feet of landscaping which was the conditional use permft six years ago and part of that is being taken by the Katella widening, and then from the new property line that will be there they are showing ten feet of landscaping from the new curb line, it will be ten feet of landscaping beyond that and then a fence. It will be a substani<ial improvement. At the property at the very back of the building along the new building in talking wfth them they do not have a problem if the feeling is that it will be advantageous to make that it landscaping, that was Just a 15-foot road to provide some additional mobility around the site and it would not be a problem to landscape the area around the building and the other landscaping. Commissioner Henninger stated he would like to have some agreement that puts everyone on effective notice so that n is understood that this is a temporary use and the CUP written so it expires In five years. Selma Mann stated ~in unsubordinated covenant could be required to be recorded against the property that indicates that a conditional use permit has been approved for a temporary use to expire on a specified date. Chairman Messe stated that does not take away the right to come back and ask for another five or ten years later. Commissioner Henninger stated it Just puts everyone on notice. Mike McRoberts stated they noticed it was a year past from when the freeway was suppose to start and it is still another half a year before it gets started. At that point they became aware of Just how much was going to be taken from their property initially and they were going to loose a building. Their solution woulc' be to extend the CUP for a period of time that would make it worthwhile for them to stay during the freeway construction. Dick Peckham stated currently it Is represented as a pole sign. It is enclosed and has black aluminum wfth silver stripes to improve the appearance of that sign. Mr. Peckha'~ stated they have always used that to promote their business, to let the public to know they are at the location which in tum brings business into the City. They requested permission to be allov~ d to keep that sign in tact rather than to start to pull down signs and a construct new one that would nc, be visible to the traffic coming across Katella and the I-5 Fwy. Mr. Pe~;kham again emphasized the viss.,ility aspect of that sign fs important to their business. They also know that the appearance is Important to tha Commission and to the City as "' ~ 12-9-96 Page 34 well. Mr. Peckham indicated, therefore, possibly a mutual agreement could be worked out to keep that pole sign there and also recognize the appear of it has been improved. Commissioner B i~oln Stotbe vfisiblert She ftteeweye It isegoingto be uch more beneficial thena pde the building tha g 9 sign and the ultimate operation of the property. Dick Peckham stated that is not a problem. Nich Club.aThey ha ego sweep eoparking lot each morning due to the debris left ftom the night dub 9 patronage. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Modified Condition No. 1 of Resolution No. 90R-452, adopted in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 3345, to read as follows: "1. That this use shall be permitted for a period of five (5) years, to expire on December 9, 2001." Added the following conditions: "That an unsubordinated covenant shall be prepared by the City Attorney's Office and shall be signed by the property owner and the lessee and recorded against the property indicating that Conditional Use Permit No. 3345 was approved for a temporary usg (to retain an existing truck sales/leasing and repair facility with waivers of minimum structural setback adjacent to an arterial highway and minimum structural setback adjacent to a freeway frontage road) and that saki condftional use permit shall expire on December 9, 2001. That the applicant shall submi4 a final landscape plan showing the area between Anaheim Way and the building fully landscaped with minimum 20-foot high palm trees clustered around the wall sign to the Zoning Division of the Planning Department for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Report and Recommendation item. That the existing freestanding 35-foot high pde sign shall be removed and ff replaced, on subjectproperty shall fi st be reviewedand aff-roved by theiPlanningsCommissionlasd a Report and Recommendation item. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristd absent) DISCUSSION: 33 minutes ~ _ 12-9-96 Page 35 ~._. Continued to 9a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1-6-97 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMR N0.3896 OWNER: KERN COUNTY EMPLOYEE'S RETIRnE~M~9ement, Attn: ASSOCIATION, c/o Heitrnan Capital Tim Bums, Assistant Manager, 180 Na~th La Salle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60601-2886 AGENT: Cooper, 9 6 Narth WestemE3lvd Suite 225 S n Ped o, CA 90732 LOCATION: 1135 North Stato rnnt+~ae Boulevard. Property iS approximately 0.19 acre located on the west side of State Cdlege Blvd., approximately 332 feet south of the centerline of Romneya Drlve. To permit the conversion of a vacant bank budding to a lube and oA change facility within an existing commercial retail center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. SR6411JKWP --------------------------------- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSI?ION: None Item No. 9 No discussion -was continued to 1-6-96. ACTION: f ° the petitioner to submit a preliminary tide report for the subjects propertyeting in order VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION: This item was not discussed. 12-9-96 Page 36 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 10b. RECLASSIFICATION N0.98.97~2_ 10c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 10d. SeOND~ f10NAL USE PERMIT NO.3898 OWNER: WIWAM C. TAORMINA, P.O. Box 309, Anaheim, CA 9T.815 AGENT: PAUL KOTT, 1225 West Uncdn Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: ~2o North Anaheim Boulevard. Property is approximately 0.74 acre located at the southeast comer of Anaheim Boulevard and Adele Street. A Cfty-inftiated request to redassffy the subject property from the CG (Commercial, General) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone; to permft an automotive body and repair facilty within two existing buildings (18,235 square-foot total) wfth waiver of minimum nurnber of parking spaces. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC96.127 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC98.128 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke in opposftion. Approved Granted, unc~ ~,ionally Approved Grartted SR6395KB.WP Paul Katt, 213 North Anaheim Blvd., representing the applicant William Taormina as well as the proposed tenant to the project, stated the owners currently own a body shop and #ende- repair facflfty in east Anaheim and have done so frr the past 27 years. They have a very successful business and are active in the communfty. Mr. Kott stated he visfted their facility and found ft to be very dean. Mr. Kott stated there were ciarificaticns to the staff report. On page 7, par:?graph 28w (bdd portion) on the second paragraph ft states 'There will be no outdoor activfties, and wfth the anticipation of one or two customers per day; ft was not 'per day' in the letter of operation ft was 'at one time°. Mr. Kott stated they are in agreement wfth all the condftions except for Condftion No. 11 which is the existing chainlink fence to be replaced with wrought-iron fence, which is something never mentioned before by staff. Apposition: Charles Schultz, business address is 312 North Anaheim Blvd. and residence address is 209 East Adele. Mr. Schultz stated he is a director of anon-profit public benefit organization called God's international Resources link (GIRL), located next door to the proper-7 In question. They were established in 1991, They have 8 to 15 volunteer employees also full-time pakf staff. Mr. Schultz ~ ~ air ~~e~~,m was for his staff, in particular an employee wfth asthma. The rwematic opera He fait the dust the air dust and there is nothing but a chainlink fence separating the two properties. would be in everything that they own through air ducts, open doors. Mr. Schlutz stated the amount of volume they would have to do to cover their operation would be expensive. He has the same concerns 12-9-96 Page 37 since he lives three doors down in a residence. On a weekly basis their organization disMbutes perishable food to about 150 families. The smell and the dust from the carryover ftom next door would make their aperatton quite difficult. Paul Kott responded by stating he was surprised by the Mr. Schuttz's objections to the facAity. He is not aware that Mr. Schultz is privBeged to the :nforrnatlon concerning the amoh~ronce~rr>s~.i ~ ~ uld be Kott stated h should be noted Mr. Schultz has never contacted him regarding noted that Mr. Schultz was a former tenant of his diem, WAliam Taormina, at no charge for many months, it almost came to an eviction because of AI cooperation. All work is going to be done inskfe. There will be no work done outside; K will all be done in the Interior. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED Chairman Messe asked staff how many parking spaces were on-site. Greg Hastings responded there is actually 25 parMng spaces, 19 are outdoors, 6 are Indoors and the wheee theiconfusionais~The (nformation~was taken~ft m the parking demand study. report and that is Commissioner Peraza asked what about the issue of the wrought-iron fence. Is that something that we proposed? Greg Hastings responded that is something that came out of the Planning Department just In terms of esthetics. Chairman Messe asked whether large access doors on Claudina Street wsre going to be open? Paul Kott responded yes, that is how people are going to be coming in and out of the body shop. ~~ Chairman Messe stated he was concerned with the possible noise to the neighborhood to the reskJential area of Claudina. Paul Kott responded the residents do not start until for one ontii e~idoy t~ ~~S of start untq R goes across on Claudina. There is quite a distance Nrobably app Commissioner Henninger asked what means are being taken to prevent this use ftom impacting the local neighbors? Paul Kott responded he agreed that most body shops are messy and dirty and not necessarily in good repair but he has been to the facility several times and each time was very impressed with how business is kept up. Commissioner Henninger stated that CUP's go with the property they do not go with the tenants and so if this is approved they are not approving just for the current tenant but for any sort of tenant that may come. Paul Kott asked if the City has receNed any complaints relative to this area? There is one across the street and has been for years. came ioshaverthe proposed B tratckoacross the street.eThis not a neighbor that hasenot been ~~ without problems. 12-9.96 Page 38 Paul Kott stated getting businesses that have good track records is the first step to mffigating those problomms and this has a 27 year track record in that area Mr. Koff stated ht across thenstreet,fand that him he is just trying to make the record dear that there is a body shoe rig body shop has not been dNesting to the nelghbors business a^business to the downtown area and~r Kott stated this area has been very difficult to attract good q nY ht to consider et that. they finally have one that prefers this location to other and thought the City oug Commissioner Henninger asked again what sort of rrt~;thods have been taken t~~ protect the neighbors ftom the body shop use in this location. Pau' goof bus, sw ou dnbe onflned with nuthe interior of the structu ;fit would arise ftom his nom~al cou s .~ Chairman Meese asked about noise. Paul Kott responded he did not know what normal circumstances ~i~ ~a~~Cr~p~ greet, theno noise complaints of the one that has the door wide open and ope garage doors open up to Anaheim Blvd. Commissioner Boydstun asked ff the door on Ciaudina could be used Instead. Con;;nissioner F~raza stated there are some doors on Adele. Paul Kott responded yes, those are the doors that are going to be opened. Mr. Kott corrected himself by stating the doors on Adele are to be opened. Chairman Mess© asked ff he was stipulating that the overhead doors during business hours on gaudina will be dosed? Paul Knott responded no. Paul Kott walked over to the drawings to further explain to Commissbners his n~sponse. Further discussion regarding the location of the doors continued. A hand-held microphone was used during that discussion. sftellin otonread stripedlrathe~r strippedsthen asfked stanff ffifethere wage any offmments.10 ~ ~Rected, the P 9 Greg Hastings stated they would need to add a condition ff theme rk~e ~ eel ~~0~~ ~h heing of parking variance for this use is contingent upon the opera assumptions relating to the operation and'rntensity of the use as contained in the parking demand study as formed the basis for said waNer exceeding, vitiating, lntensffying or othanuise deviating ftom any saki assumptions as contained in the parking advance study should be deemed a vitiation the expressed modification pursuantto the provis one of Sectionsa18.03091 land S ff.09n2 of Anaheim Muni p~ lion or Code.' Chairman Meese asked Mr. Kott ff he urxierstod the new condition regarding the parking H•aNer and summarized by stating as long as the operatlNi remains the same and there are not problems with the parking then the waNer would be granted. Paul Kott responded Yes• `` _ 12-9-96 Page 39 Mr. Schultz requested to speak again. Charle.~ Schultz stated his conc,:~m was still with the dust and asked wether they are not allowed to do auto body work in the parking. Chairman Messe stated there would be no work permitted to be done outdoors. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22~ay appeal rights. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 96-97-02 Approved Waiver cif Code Requirement (90 spaces required; 25 existing, including 6 within the building) G Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3898 with the fdlowing added conditions: Modified Condition Nos. 1 and 10 to read as fellows: 1. That the property owner/petitioner shall submit a revised landscape plan to the Zoning DNision, indicating minimum 10-foot diameter in-ground for tree wells, each planted with three (3) minimum 15 gallon trees, adjacent to Anaheim Boulevard and that the landscaping for the southeast comer of subject property shall include (which is to~bel setba k a minirnum of 5-foot from gaudlna Street)rfohre lew and approval by staff. 10. That the parking lot shall 5e slurry-sealed and restriped to match approved Exhibit No. 1. Added the fidlow~ng new conditions: That the granting of the parking waiver is contingent upon operation of the use In conformance with the assumptions relating to the operation and intensity of use as contained in thV parking demand study that formed the basis for approval of said waver. Exceeding, vitiating, intensHying or otherwise deviating from any of said assumptions, as contained in the parking demarxf study, shall be deemed a vitiation of the expressed conditions unposed upon saki waver which shall subject this condiional use permit to termination or modification pursuant to the provisions of Sections 18.03.091 and 18.03.092 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. That the cell up door facing south shall remain dosed during business hours, except for deliveries. That the opening and dosing of the cell up door facing Claudina Street shall be subject to it shall ~emain d~osednduring busiDness hours, but Code Enforcemen clef rmines the ~am ara no problems, then it may remain open. That four (4) randomly scheduled code enforcement inspectionsi~ I occur within the first year of operation. Said inspections shall be paid for by the appl ~- 12-9-96 Page 40 VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Bristd absent) '~ DISCUSSION: 38 minutes MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:40 P.M. TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION MORNING WORK SESSION OF JANUARY 6, 1997 AT 11:00 A.M. Respectfully submitted, Ossie Edmundson Senior Word Processing Operator 12-9-96 Page 41 c " ^t ~.;~r{~"'e`~~,i'J~'rf*p ,~$ ~"Y- ~"~,5.~.~rvr, ~,` ;3 2~~ ~ ~ 5 ^.~ i is ~kt'~''~ ~i y',. .r i' j~~y~ ~ t °' ` ~ 2F.++Yp t~.? " :hr!'n n ~~~ , `~ ,~~ _. \~ ,~