Loading...
Minutes-PC 1997/06/09S A Y ACTION AGN®A ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COM ISSION EETING MONDAY, JUNE 9, 1997 1 1:00 A.M 1:30 P.M ® PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW ® STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (INCLUDING A DISCUSSION OF OVER-CONCENTRATION DETERMINATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL HEALTH CARE FACILITIES) ® PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, BOSTWICK, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, MESSE, PERAZA COMMISSIONER ABSENT: MAYER ' STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg Hastings Cheryl Flores Karen Freeman Bruce Freeman Tim Dunn Rob Zur Schmiede Melanie Adams Tom Engle Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Associate Planner Code Enforcement Manager Code Enforcement Officer Revelop./Property Services Manager Associate Civil Engineer Vice Detail Senior Secretary Senior Word Processing Operator P:\DOCS\CLERICAL\NIINUTESWC060997. WP REPORTS APdD RECOMMEPID~4TIOPdS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1476 AND VARIANCE NO. 1545 - REQUEST .FOR TERMINATION: The Unitarian Church of Orange County, 511 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805-4525, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. 1476 (to establish an office in an existing residence with waivers of: (1) requirement that all parking shall be provided to the rear of the residential structure, (2) vehicular access dedication, (3) maximum wall sign area, (4) minimum side yard setback and, (5) maximum number of wall signs) and Variance No. 1545 (to waive maximum permitted structural height). Property is located at 511 South Harbor Boulevard. TERMINATION RESOLUTION NO. PC97-70 Terminated (Vote: 5-0, Commissioners Mayer and Messe were absent) SR6650JK.WP Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, Zoning Division: Stated this item is a termination request as a result of another conditional use permit that was approved for the church at that location. B. a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION IPREV: APPROVED' b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3916 -REVIEW OF FINAL SIGN PLANS: Yousef Ibrahim, 1200 Quail Street, #220, Newport Beach, CA 92660, requests review and approval of final sign plans for apreviously-approved convenience market. Property Is located at 1200 South Brookhurst Street. Continued to July 21, 1997 in order for applicant to submft a revised sign plan showing a 40-square foot sign. SR6492DS.WP Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, Zoning Division: Stated staff felt that the sign being proposed is larger than it needs to be for this location. There was a condition of approval approved by the Commission that was meant to reduce the size of this f[eestanding but and that will not be happening according to the plan that was submitted by the petRioner. Applicants Statement: Hassan Amadi: Stated the size and square footage they believe it is not enough for their market. They are intending to occupy a large portion of that shopping center but have very small slgnage at that location. They believe their request is within City Code requirements and percentage. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked 'rf he has a sign on the face of the building. What is the total square footage of all of the signs? 06-09-97 Page 2 Hassan Amadi: Responded he could not say how much the total square footage is. They are requesting 80 square feet. The existing sign is much more than that. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked how many square feet are being used In the building, and ff 3,765 was the accurate figure? How many square feet would they have? Cheryl Flores: Stated the sign would be 96 square feet. The new sign they are asking for is 10 feet high by 6 feet wide. They want to leave a pizza sign that is already existing that is 2 feet high by 8 feet wide with a total of 96 square feet. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked how much did their other signs total? Commissioner Henninger. Stated he recalled previous discussion on this sign regarding reduction of the sign size and he agreed with staff's interpretation. Cheryl Flores: Stated the report states that there are three wall signs, approximately 15 square feet. Regarding the sign on Brookhurst, they only have a panel in that sign that they were going to replace and was not certain the size of that panel. Commissioner Bostwick: Stated they actually have mare slgnage than what they are entitled to fallowing the original request. Cheryl Flores: Stated there was a condition of approval that they remove one of the facia signs facing Brookhurst Street. That would allow two 15 square foot signs facing Brookhurst as well as a freestanding sign facing Ball and then another on Brookhurst. Commissioner Bristol: Asked what slgnage is the applicant proposing to remove on the freestanding sign? Gheryl Flores: Responded he would be removing one tenant sign which is right above the pizza sign that is two feet high and the tall portion that says "liquor now". So they would end up wfth the sign for the market and the sign for the pizza establishment below. Commissioner Henninger: Stated the question is whether Commission wants them to have a sign 8 feet wide and 10 feet tall or half that height (5 feet tall). Hassan Amadi: Asked about the sign on the shop facing Brookhurst. Cheryl Flores: Stated there is a condition that states that there can be one wall sign not to exceed 10°k on the building wall on the north elevation and that would be facing- -- Ball Road. That would be 1 on the northern elevation, 2 facing Brookhurst and then the freestanding sign. Hassan Amadi: Stated he was referring the to one on the building itself facing the service station on Brookhurst. There is no indication on the allowable square footage. Cheryl Flores: Stated there are currently three facing Brookhurst and the condition is that the applicant can keep two of those rather than the three that there is currently. Hassan Amadi: Asked ff they can keep one sign for the one in the building ftseif facing Brookhurst for the same allowed size, one instead of two? 06-09-97 Page 3 Commissioner Bostwick: Asked staff if k spec'rfically says one or two signs? Cheryl Flores: Responded it says that two of the existing facia signs on the west elevation shall also be permitted. The condition would have to be modified in order to do anything other than what is stated. Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Stated the reason for that is for the uniformity of all of the signs along the that particular side of the shop. Rather than having 1 large one at the end staff was making sure that they were all the same size. Hassan Amadi: Stated not all of the signs are the same size or appearance. Commissioner Bostwick: Suggested he meet with staff to discuss the conditions and the plans. 06-09-97 Page 4 C. a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 21 Informational Item - b. VARIANCE NO. 7229 -REVIEW OF TIME SCHEDULE No Action AND MANAGEMENT PLAN: Gregory Lee Parkin, 2500 West Orangethorpe, Suke V, Fullerton, CA 92633, requests review and approval of a submitted management plan and a schedule of compliance to abate Code violations fora 70-unit motel and restaurant. Property is located at 823 South Beach Boulevard - Covered Wagon Motel). SR6493DS.WP Applicant's Statement: Gregory Parkin, operator of the Covered Wagon Motel: Stated he submitted proposed operating statements, etc. which Commission had before them. However, the handout which was distributed at the meeting, addressed additional concerns. The handout also included a letter requesting the cocktail lounge permit be terminated, as suggested by staff. Commissioner Henninger: Suggested a continuance to July 21, 1997 and stated today was only to a status report from staff. Tim Dunn, Code Enforcement Officer, Code Enforcement: Stated they received the information from Mr. Parkin and find most of their concerns were addressed, however, there were some items that were not addressed including the security guard issue, the 30 day maximum stay limit. Otherwise they see that he is making the attempts to put together a plan that all parties should be in agreement on at the end of the 90 days. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked the applicant if he understood what staff was looking for? Mr. Parkin: Responded yes. Commissioner Bostwick: Stated then the item will come before Commission again on July 21, 1997. 06-09-97 Page 5 D. a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION {PREV: APPROVED) Approved b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RIO. 2699 - REQUEST FOR Determined to be in SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: Brad Fllss, substantial representing Wodd Oil Marketing, 9302 South Garfield conformance Avenue, South Gate, CA 90280, requests determination of substantial conformance to construct one gasoline pump island canopy. Property is located at 3450 West Ball Rd. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Mayer and Messe absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby find that the Negative Declaration previously approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 2699 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation in connection wRti this request. Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Mayer and Messe absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the proposed gasoline pump island canopy and canopy signage are in substantial conformance with the .previously-approved plans with the stipulation by the applicant that a total of two E~ocon Logos shall be permitted on the canopies. SR6686TW.WP Applicant's Statement: Brad Fliss, representing Word Oil Marketing: Stated they are proposing to remove two canopies, making ft more uniform with one canopy, enlarging it somewhat and use the existing foundations, columns and base plates. Commissioner Bostwick: Stated apparently there are 6ocon signs on all four comers, is that necessary? Brad Fliss: Responded no, they can get by with less, depending on what Commission's findings are. He was under the belief that those were previously permitted. Commissioner Henninger: Stated staff looked through to try to verify that they had previously been permitted and could not do that for whatever reasons. Asked petitioner 'rf they could get by with two? Mr. Fliss: Responded yes two would be fine. 06-09-97 Page 6 E. a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREY: APPROVED) Approved b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3662 -REQUEST FOR Determined to be in SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE: substantial Doug Browne, P.O. Box 18021, Anaheim, CA 92817, conformance requests determination of substantial conformance for a previously approved private school and church in conjunction with an office building. Property is located at 6270 East Santa Ana Canyon Road. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Mayer and Messe absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby find that the Negative Declaration previously approved in connection with Conditional Use Permft No. 3662 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation in connection with this request. Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Mayer and Messe absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine the following: (1) That the requested mod'rfications are in substantial conformance with the previously approved exhibits; (2) That previously-approved plans show a playground area without play equipment, if play equipment is to be proposed, a revised plan shall come back before the Planning Commission for review and approval; and (3) That the existing height of the wall conforms with approved plans, therefore, a taller wall shall not be permitted. SR6677MA.WP Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, Zoning Division: Stated a copies of the revised staff report were placed adjacent to the lectern. Cheryl Flores: Stated the request is to Increase the square footage of the church area - - that was previously approved on the plans and to reduce the office building size. There would be no change to the school. While staff has evaluated the plans and found that the changes requested are in substantial conformance with the previously approved plans, the playground equipment there now was not shown on the original exhibits nor has it been shown on the modified plans that were submitted for the meeting. Dcug Browne, 151 South Quintana, Anaheim: Stated he was Informed that morning that the staff report was revised slightly, and was available to answer any questions. 06-09-97 Page 7 Ray Pontius, 6276 Calle Jaime, Anaheim: Stated his property joins subject property. They have no argument with Mr. Borwne's business but they do have an objection to Item No. 8 on of the staff report. At the present time no one to his knowledge from the Planning Commission or staff had looked at the existing playground equipment that has been put on the property. Viewing from his backyard to the playground equipment, the playground equipment looks right down on his backyard. Some time ago Mr. Browne had a report done regarding decibel levels. He agreed with Mr. Browne at that time, except, he felt Mr. Browne has not been completely honest with him. The playground equipment has to be a minimum of 12 feet high. It is overlooking a wall that has been built up just under 9 feet and still ovedooks that at a 10 foot setback right down to his backyard. If the playground sfts 25 to 30 feet from his back bedroom window he questioned whether screams from the playground would exceed the decibel level that was originally done as far the engineering is concerned. Mr. Pontius recommended it be moving the playground equipment from the western boundary to the eastern boundary of subject property. He felt the property values are going to be effected. He asked staff to visit his property and look at this situation. Photos were submitted to Commission of the playground equipment by Mc Allen. Bart Allen, 6278 Calle Jaime, Anaheim: Stated his property is adjacent to the property line of the school going in at Doug Browne's building. He felt the playground equipment and the nalse level from 100 to 150 small children in a playground impacts him the most. He recently moved into his current residence nine months ago. When he moved in he heard that a preschool was going to be located nearby but he had no idea that it was going to be next to his bedroom window. He felt that the neighbors/property owners have not been heard in the past and, on the other hand, Mr. Browne has received all that he has requested. He felt putting 100 to 150 children within 10 feet of his property line is going to destroy his peace of mind. The equipment is a major structure, approximately 35 feet wide by 50 feet long. It covers a ground of approximately 1,500 square feet. It has 3 to 4 platforms, 4 sides, 2 swing sets of hand- held equipment and could hold approximately 40 children at one time. It is a structure that needs to be set back according to its height. Currently it is located within 10 feet of his wall and three feet over his wall. Doug Browne asked Mr. Allen permission to build up the wall to reduce noise and he responded no because he did not want the wall, which is already 9 feet tall, on his side any taller due to the blocking of the sun. Mr. Allen concluded by stating he would like Mr. Browne to :move his .playground equipment to the west side of the property. That would be up against the commercial bluff which he felt would reduce noise and getitfartheraway from the neighbors. Applicant's Rebuttal: Doug Browne: Stated the property has been divided Into 3 parcels. He has sold the rear parcel to an independent school operator and the play equipment was placed according to their specifications. He is not asking for any approval of its placement and he thought the impact can be addressed at the staff level. He has also spoken to Mr. Allen regarding what he felt was the best way to mitigate the problem which is to raise the height of the wall. During the original planning applicant some height variance or modification was allowed for the raising of the wall from 8 feet 8 inches to 9 feet 4 inches. That is a part of Conditional Use Permit No. 3662. When he measured the wall he measured from the low side but after speaking with staff he found out the wall should be measured from the high point of the ground, therefore, he has not built the wall as high as was required by the specifications. After speaking with Mr. Allen he (Revised: 09.23.98) 06-09-97 Page 8 Indicated that he does not want it built up that high and he is a different property owner from the one that was there at the time this was approved. He stated his has volunteered to raise the wall. Another condition of approval was Italian Cypress trees would be planted at three foot centers along the westerly property line. The landscape architect projected the height of those Cypress trees in four to seven years .providing a landscape barrier which Mr. Allen stated would block out the sun. Mr. Allen also stated he does not particular care whether the tree are there. Mr. Browne considers h his responsibility to produce a viable product and at the same time does not desire to create any enemies. He feels raising the wall would seem to be a more permanent solution. Along the eastedy property Ilne to Mr. Allen there has never been any landscape to mitigate the impact of that wall.. He stated he has raised the wall somewhat already to comply but measured it the low side of the property line. If he raises it the believes that the playground equipment will be blocked out . He may need to take ft eight inches higher than what was approved by the original Conditional Use Permit. That is a matter which he would be happy to consider through an administrative adjustment at a separate time, after meeting with Planning Department staff and arriving at a solution. Commissioner Bostwick: Stated on the plans submitted there was no indication that there would be playground equipment. Doug Browne: Stated the playground was specified on the original application and playground equipment was not shown. He would work with staff on whatever steps are necessary to resolve the location of the playground equipment he would work with staff. He continued to indicated that currently he requests a determine for substantial conformance for the building on lot 2 of the lot line adjustment which .has been designed by him to be smaller in terms of assembly area and office size than what was originally applied for. It complied with the original parking requirements, etc. and as staff has reviewed i[ they have found it to be in substantial which is the only matter which he is applying. If the playground Issue wants to be taken up separately then by the time Planning has to do an inspection to finalize that bu(Iding he is certain that the Planner and himself will be able to approach that matter and resolve it. But he feels this is a different situation. This is a situation where he has plans in Plan Check for the building on lot 2 and is complying with the extension for his Conditional Use Permit and desires only that they rule on substantial conformance of lot 2. He is not asking nor is the staff recommending that Commission approve substantial conformance for the location of the playground equipment. _ Commissioner Boydstun: Stated by changing lot 2 does that effect what fs on lot 3? - - Mr. Browne: Responded lot 3 was left exactly the same in terms of lot size, building placement, etc. There is no change in the square footage or footprint of lot 3. Continued to state that the playground equipment is something that was placed by him as a contractor as directed by the owner. He refterated he considers the best mitigation would be the raising the of wall. According t an acoustical engineer, any equipment should probably be placed as close to the wall as possible because the sound would reverberate off the wall back. After discussing that with Mr. Allen, he was not in concurrence. He felt that 'rf the equipment was put back farther then the sound would have a longer distance to travel. Once the acoustical engineer gives Mr. Browne a final report then he feels he will have a better handle on what to actually do. 06-09-97 Page 9 F. a. CE(aA NEGATIVE DECLARATION IPREV: APPROVED) Approved b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3915 -REVIEW OF Approved FINAL PLANS: Hassan Berri, 16205 Hemp Circle, Fountain Valley, CA 92708, requests review and approval of final building elevation plans for apreviously-approved service station. Property is located at 1199 South State College Boulevard - (Mobil Oil). ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Mayer and Messe absent), that the Anaheim C'tty Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby find that the Negative Declaration previously approved in connection with Conditional Use Permit No. 3915 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation in connection with this request. Commissloner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Mayer and Messe absent)., that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the final building elevation, landscape, and sign plans with the stipulation that the proposed sign shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height, measured from the sidewalk level.. SR6683KB.WP Applicant's Statement: Hassan Berri: Stated he is available to answer any questions Commissioner Bostwick: Stated there was a concern regarding the height of the sign on the corner. He is taking the height from the top of the berm rather than from the sidewalk elevation. Mr. Berri: Responded correct, because Planning requested to have the berm there so they had to put the berm, support rt and put the sign on top of it. Commissioner Bostwick: Stated Commission would like to see that the a feet be from the sidewalk level even though the berm is there so that the total height does not - exceed 8 feet. Mr. Berri: Responded he discussed it wfth staff and was tpld that would be acceptable even though the height of the sign is going to be 8 feet. He stated this is a standard Mobil sign. They originally asked not to have a berm so they would not exceed the 8 feet in height. Commissioner Peraza: Stated his understanding was that staff indicated a shorter base would be used. 06-09-97 Page 10 Mr. Berri: Responded they could put it right on top of the ground, flush wRh the ground which this would reduce it 10 inches to 1 foot. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated the height is normally figured from the sidewalk level. Mr. Berd: Responded that is what he originally proposed but was told no that he had to have a berm. Commissioner Boydstun: Clar'rfied by stating that would be the height of the sign from the sidewalk. Mr. Berri: Responded that was the sign that Mobil has and is being used. He thought they were asking for a special sign. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated no, not a special sign just cut the pole off 2 feet, shorten the sign 2 feet -not change the sign, so ft is 8 feet tall. Mr. Berri: Responded, as he Indicated previously, they could set the sign on top of the berm. Commissioner Bristol: Stated the 8 feet sign requirement fs standard and that is what Commission is asking for. He suggested cutting into the berm. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated just lower the pole. He did not have to change the sign. Mr. Berri: Responded the sign itself is 7 feet, 8 inches and what do they suggest that he do? Commissioner Bostwick: Stated the applicant needs to request Mobil provide a sign that conforms with the request to have the specifications in the original conditions use permit. Mr. Berri: Stated this is the sign that was given to him and asked ff the berm could be shortened some and shorten down the sign about 8 inches and cut the berm down to iry to get something that would be acceptable? Commissioner Henninger: Stated Commission would like him to go back to Mobil and ask them iF they have a 5 foot tall sign. _ Mr. Berri: Stated he would really like to get this protect done since it is causing h1m --- some serious problems with Mobil. Commissioner Henninger: Stated Commissioner could give h1m approval on the plans with the stipulation that he have a 5 foot tall sign that measures 8 foot overall height from the sidewalk level. Mr. Berri: Responded alright. What about the width of the sign? Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Responded it appears to be alright Commissioner Bostwick: Stated the width is find it is just the height. 06-09-97 Page 11 Mr. Berri: Stated he will have to see what other sign they have. If the sign is going to be slightly more than 8 is that going to be a problem? Commissioner Bostwick: Stated that the applicant notify Mobil and request the sign not exceed 8 feet from the sidewalk level. 06-09-97 Page 12 G. a. EIR NO. 319 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) Approved b. VARIANCE NO. 4303 -REVIEW OF FINAL PLANS: Approved Francis C. Chu (presenting Home Depot), 15101 Red Hill Avenue, #200, Tustin, CA 92680, requests review and approval of final elevation, landscape and sign plans for a previously-approved home improvement building and garden center. Property is located at 714 North Brookhurst Street. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Mayer and Messe absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal and does hereby find that the previously-cert'rfied EIR No. 319 Is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for this request. Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissloner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Mayer and Messe absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the submitted final roof, elevation, and landscape plans with the following recommendations: 1. That the proposed 10-foot high fence be properly engineered so as to support the weight and growth of the vine plantings; and 2. That the fabric portion of the screening material be colored to match the metal mesh and treated to resist fading. SR6684i03. W P Rob Zur Schmiede, Redevelopment and Property Services Manager, Community Development Department: Stated the proposal is for consideration of landscaping and elevation plans for a proposed Home Depot in the Brookhurst Redevelopment Area. The plans were considered by the Redevelopment Commission last week under their disposition and development agreement wfth Home Depot. They were approved with a few modifications. The first modification is to the landscaping plans to Include a vegetation screen along the Valley Street frontage of the building (east side of the building). It also included a condition that vine pockets be added the east building wall and a condition that an arrangement of mature palm trees matching the variety used along Gramercy be included along the main entrance to the store at Sequoia. The final design of those would be at the review and approval of staff. One item not included in their review today are signs which would come back ai a later date as well as to the Redevelopment Commission and Agency. Commissioner Bostwick: Stated there was a question at the morning session regarding the outdoor storing of carts. 06-09-97 Page 13 Applicant's Statement: Francis Chu, project Architect representing Home Depot; Stated regarding the cart storage, they typically have personnel designated to retrieve carts at 30 to 45 minute intervals ail the carts in the parking lot and essentially put them In two areas. One is' in the partly enclosed main entrance and the .rest of them would be underneath the entrance canopy adjacent to the .main entrance. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked If there are any designated lanes or Isles in the parking .area stripped off for the carts or are they left between cars? Francis Chu: Responded there Js no designated area for cart storage in the parking lot but they would be designated along the main entrance of the building. Commissioner Bristol: Asked Mr. Chu ff this means they are not going to have a designated area in the parking lot for the carts? Some the carts are very large and can damage a vehicle. If not that would mean customers would need to return the carts to the main entrance and asked if he thought customers would actually do that? Francis Chu: Responded no and that is the reason they designated their personnel to collect the carts. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked if that was on the original CUP that there was a collection during a designated time frame? Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Responded yes, there was a condition of approval that required that there be a person at a minimum each 30 minutes out in the parking lot to collect carts. Jeff Nichols, Real Estate Manager for Western Regional for Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., 601 Placentia, Fullerton, CA 92631: Stated carts at the front of the store is typically handling on an ongoing basis. It is a condition they manage because they have people that are assigned to gather carts from the parking lot. Typically what they attempt to do is keep the larger carts (the flatbeds and heavier carts) in the loading areas located in front of the store because at that point the customer can then pull up and employee can help them load. The cart can be wheeled back Into the holding bins. Some people want to load on their own vehicles and In that case employees have to retrieve those carts. Another issue is that the carts have a tendency to be taken off-site. Mr. Nichols suggested in order to alleviate the problem they would have security which was one of the conditions of approval. The individual will be an employee of Home Depot and will communicate with the store when there is a buildup of carts in the parking lot. _ _ Commissioner Henninger: Asked whether they are going to have a collection point for the smaller carts for customers to return the carts, such as their Orange store? Jeff Nichols: Responded typically they do not work very well because they have found that even 'rf metal holding bins for the carts are provided customers do not use them. If they had a lot of room, they would install them knowing full well that everyone will ignore them anyway but in this case they do not have the opportunity because the are so tight at the site. Employees will quickly retrieve them so that customers can use them and they do not damage customers cars. It does not make economical sense to leave them out In the parking lot. 06-09-97 Page 14 Commissioner Boydstun: Asked whether they are going to have security out in the parking lot that will stop people from taking the carts off-site? Jeff Nichols: Responded yes. Their carts are very expensive. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, Zoning Division: Asked Commission if they would like o determine that the green mesh fencing material on the fence along Valley Street would be appropriate as per the letter submitted in the morning. Commission .also had a concern about whether that type of fence would be able to support the proposed vine planted against it. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated as she recalled that fence was quite sturdy when they saw the sample of ii, but is it something that will sustain the growth? Francis Chu: Responded yes, it would sustain the growth. Asked for a determination of whether Commission prefers a black or green mesh fence? Cheryl Flores: Also asked Commission which color would they want on the garden center and also staffs recommendation was that the fabric portion of the screening material around the garden center be the same color of the mesh fence below R. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he agreed the two should be the same color but he felt that the color should be left up to the architect to match the rest of the building. 06-09-97 Page 15 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) I Continued to 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3812 (READVERTISED) July 21, 1997 OWNER: TW INVESTMENT AND IW INVESTMENT CORPORATION, c/o Rape Properties, P.O. Box 6474, Beverly Hlils, CA 90212 AGENT: MICHAEL BATES/MB TECHNICAL SERVICES, 1539 West Spring Street, Long Beach, CA 90810 LOCATION: 1315-D. 1321. 1325. 1331 and 1341 North Blue Gum Street. (advertised as 1325-1341 North Blue Gum Street. Property fs 9.7 acres located at the northwest corner of Miraloma Avenue and Blue Gum Street . To expand an existing automotive van conversion and modification plant within an existing Industrial park. Continued from the Commission meetings of April 28, 1997 and May 12, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR6681 KP.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the July 21, 1997 Planning Commission meeting In order for the applicant to work with the property owner and Code Enforcement staff regarding compliance with past conditions of- - approval. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Henninger, Mayer and Messe absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 06-09-97 Page 16 3a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3932 OWNER: ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, Attn: Paul Loubet, P:O. Box 2485, Los Angeles, CA 90051-0485 AGENT: RHL DESIGN GROUP, Attn: Monica Maa or Tom Riggle, 1201 South Beach Boulevard., #207, La Habra, CA 90631-6366 LOCATION: 1201 South Brookhurst Street -Arco Service Station. Property Is 0.60 acre located on the southwest corner of Brookhurst Street and Ball Road. To permit the expansion of an existing service station to include a convenience market with retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption wfth waivers of minimum structural setback adjacent to residential zone boundaries and minimum retail sales floor area. Continued from the Commission meeting of May 12, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to June 23, 1997 SR6681 KP.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING OPPOSITION: ACTION VOTE: DISCUSSION TIME: None ACTION. Continued subject request to the June 23, 1997 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow additional time for the petitioner to address comments received from staff. 4-0 (Commissioners Henninger, Mayer and Messe absent) This item was not discussed. 06-09-97 Page 17 4a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) Continued to 4b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT June 23, 1997 4c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3855 (READVERTISED) OWNER: JAMES A. SHAB, 1900 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: LEON ALEXANDER, 558 South Harbor Boulevard, #100, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1985 South Santa Cruz Street. Property is 2.44 acres located at the northwest corner of Santa Cruz Street and Stanford Court. To permit a total of two industrially-related sales and office uses within an existing 33,666 square-foot industrial building with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meeting of May 28, 1997 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR6682KB.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the June 23, 1997 Planning Commission meeting in order allow additional time for the petitioner to submit the Code required parking study. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Henninger, Mayer and Messe absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This Rem was not discussed. 06-09-97 Page 18 5a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 5b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Sc. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3936 OWNER: fCC. CHANG, 1265 Manassero Street, #303, Anaheim, CA 92807 LOCATION: 2625 West Lincoln Avenue. Property is 1.04 acres located 265 feet west of the centerline of Magnolia Avenue. To construct a 2-story, 12-unit detached condominium complex with waiver of minimum distance between buildings. Continued from the Commission meeting of May 28, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-71 Approved Approved Granted SR6494DS. W P FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. IN FAVOR: 1 person spoke in favor of subject proposal. OPPOSITION: None Applicant's Statement: KC. Chang, 1265 Manassero Street, #303, Anaheim, CA: Stated the property has a history of entitlement but yet nothing has been built to date. He feels this project will help revitalize the section of the City by bringing some quality of ownership. Their proposal is 20°~ less dense than the previously approved use in terms of the number of units. This Is a "win win" situation for the neighbors to see their property values enhanced as well as the City to have more home ownership of descent housing. Biil Taormina, 1131 Blue Gum, Anaheim, CA: Stated he has reviewed this project, read the staff report and he was very please to see this is going to be condominiums. He endorsed the _ project and felt this is what is needed in Anaheim. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, Zoning Division: Stated there is one change to Condition No. 22. She would like to take Condition No. 3 which has to do with some old entitlements on the property and put that in Condition No. 21 Instead. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Condftlonal Use Permft No. 3936 with the following change: 06-09-97 Page 19 Modified Condition Nos. 21 and 22 to read as follows: 21. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (i) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, it, 12, 13, 16, 17 and 18 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. F~ctensions for further time to complete said conditions .may be granted In accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 22. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 8, 15 and 20, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Mayer and Messe absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (2:40-2:45) 06-09-97 Page 20 6a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) I Continued to 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3606 (READVERTISED) June 23, 1997 OWNER: LEDERER ANAHEIM LTD, Attn: Les Lederer, 1990 Westwood Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90025 AGENT: ANAHEIM INDOOR MARKETPLACE, Attn: Robert Weiss, 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1440 South Anaheim Boulevard -Anaheim Indoor Marketolace. Property is 14.74 acres located north and east of the .northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard. To request amendment or deletion of a condtion of approval pertaining to the time limitation of an existing restaurant wRh sales of beer and wine for on-premises consumption. [Note: This request was inadvertently advertised as sales of alcoholic beverages for on- premises consumption.] CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR6626JK.WP --------------------------------------------------------- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Commissioner Bostwick: Stated he was declaring a conflict of interest and asked Commissioner Bristol to conduct this item. Applicant's Statement: Robert Weiss, General Manager of the Anaheim Marketplace: Requested deletion of a condition of approval pertaining to the time limitation on their existing restaurant with a beer and wine sales for on-premises consumption. _ - Commissioner Peraza: Asked staff if they have checked to see who is responsible for the ---- landscape? Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Supervisor, Code Enforcement Division: Stated in respect to landscaping that was altered during the widening of Anaheim Boulevard, it was his understanding that it is the responsibility of the Public Works to restore the landscaping that was previously at that location. Since that project is complete, he felt that the remainder of the landscaping Is the responsibility of the owner of the property. Commissioner Peraza: Asked how the landscape was doing? 06-09-97 Page 21 Bruce Freeman: Stated prior to the widening the landscaping was in dire need of repair, it was torn up by people using ft for a bus bench, etc. They had agreed with Mr, Lederer at the time to hold off in making them bring their property up to compliance with their landscaping requirements until after the widening of the project. A he last saw it, it was In very bad need of restoration at both ends of the driveway in addition to the area that the City built a retaining wall .along the side the sidewalk in the landscaped area. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if their landscape was a requirement of their overall CUP? Bruce Freeman: Responded that was correct. At one time the Commission had required they put rod around it to protect the landscaping. With the widening project they had to back off to allow for the construction. Commissioner Henninger: Asked 'rf the restoration of the landscaping out there is something that Code Enforcement could require wRh their enforcement powers under the existing CUP? Bruce Freeman: Responded yes. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if there was anything that Mr. Freeman would like asked regarding the CUP? Bruce Freeman: Responded, yes. Responded that would move the situation along much quickerrf they were to continue this for two weeks to allow them to bring their landscaping up to par. Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested a continuance for two weeks to get the landscaping up before Ccmmission hears this item. Robert Weiss: Stated he was not aware of the landscaping situation. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked petitioner if the item was continued for two weeks would that allow him enough t(me? Robert Weiss: Responded yes. ACTION: Continued subject request to the June 23, 1997 Planning Commission meeting in order for landscaping issues to be resolved. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioner Bostwick declared a conflict of Interest and Commissioners Mayer and Messe absent) _ DISCUSSIOtd TIME; 5 minutes (2:45-2:50) 06-09-97 Page 22 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3937 OWNER: RALPH E. SLAYTON AND LEILA LOUISE SLAYTON, 2166 West Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92801 AGENT: MIR SHABHAR ALI, 5532 Woodruff Avenue, #192, Lakewood, CA 90713 LOCATION: 2664 Wes4 Lincoln Avenue. Property is 0.49 acre located at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Stinson Street. To establish a 705 square foot produce market fn a vacant store located within an existing commercial retail center. CONDITIONAL USE .PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to June 23, 1997 SR6490DS.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Applicant's Statement: Mir Alf, 5532 Woodruff, #192, Lakewood, CA 90713: Stated was submitting a request fpr a conditional use permit and was available to answer any questions. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked Mr. Ali if he had read the staff report? Mr. Ali: Responded yes. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked about Item No. 8 on page 4, 'That window signage shall not be permitted. All fixtures, displays, merchandise and other materials shall be set back three (3) feet from all window areas." Asked applicant ff he agreed wfth the condition. Mr. Ali: FTesponded yes. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked Mr. Ali about Item No. 13 on page 5, 'That a minimum of two (2) minimum 15-gallon size trees shall be painted, irrigated and permanently maintained in the parking lot area adjacent to Lincoln Avenue". Mr. All: Responded they can not comply because they do not own the building. This is a shopping center and they are renting a small shop within the center. Commissioner Henninger: Askedrf the applicant had asked the landlord to see if the landlord would be willing to plant the two trees? Mr. Ali: Responded no he had not. 06-09-97 Page 23 Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested this item be continued? Mr. Ali: Stated there is a pica place also for dine-out, carry-out and delivery. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated there is a big pole sign there at the corner that was planted... without losing .any parking spaces along the pole sign. Perhaps he should speak with the landlord about this. Something needs to be done to make it look better. Commissioner Henninger: Stated perhaps the applicant could ask the owner to attend the hearing ff there is no resolution since the owner has an interest on this matter. Mr. Ali: Stated his concern that there has been a lot of time already spent on this item. Commissioner Henninger: Asked the Mr. Ali if he could afford a two week continuance. Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested Condition No. 5 be changed to read, 'That there shall be no coin-operated games maintained upon the premises at any time". Commissioner Bdstol offered a motion to continue this item until June 23, 1997, and motion was carried. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked the Mr. Ali to please bring his landlord to the next meeting and suggested the applicant give the landlord a copy of the conditions. ACTION: Continued subject request to the June 23, 1997 Planning Commission meeting in order for the landlord to be present at the meeting. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Mayer and Messe absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 7 minutes (2:50-2:57) 06-09-97 Page 24 8a. EfR NO.316 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED) Continued to 8b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS July 21, 1997 8c. .CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3938 OWNER: CALIFORNIA STATE TEACHER'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM, 7667 Folsom Boulevard, Sacramento, CA 95826 AGENT: DONAHUE SCHRIBER, Attn: Mark Whitefield, 3501 Jamboree Road, #300, Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: 590 North Euclid Street -Anaheim Plaza. Property is 38.25 acres located at the southeast corner of Crescent Avenue and Euclid Street. To construct a 3,156 square-foot drive-through restaurant with waivers of minimum structural setback and yard requirements adjacent to an arterial highway and minimum drive-through lane requlrements. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR6668KB.WP --------------------------------------------------------- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Lorenzo Reyes, representing Boston West ALC: Requested a continuance of this item, ACTION: Continued subject request to the July 21, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, as requested by the petitioner. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Mayer and Messe absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 2 minutes (2:57-2:59) 06-09-97 Page 25 9a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3939 Granted 9c. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY Approved NO. 97-09 OWNER: DONALD MILLER, LOIS MILLER, EDWIN MILLER JR. AND BARBARA STEPHEN MILLER, 1544 Buckingham, La Jolla, CA 92703 AGENT: GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMPANY, 12362 Beach Boulevard,Sufte 110, Stanton, CA 90680 LOCATION: 301 South Anaheim Boulevard. Property is 0.93 acre located at the southwest corner of Broadway and Anaheim Boulevard To construct a 3,750 square foot service station with adrive-through car wash and two fast-food restaurants in a convenience market with retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption. To determine public convenience or necessity for retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption. CONDITIONAL'USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-72 DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTION NO. PC97-73 SR6489DS.WP --------------------------------------------------------- FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. IN FAVOR: 1 person spoke in favor and 1 letter was received in favor of subject proposal OPPOSITION: None Shan Shaw, Growth Management Company, 12362 Beach Bivd., Suite 110, Stanton, CA 90680: Stated they are the architect and engineer for the project. They did not have any objections except a few minor items and some clariffcatfons. The property has been vacant for a long _ time to do the lot which is not feasible for a business to open at this location. They are proposing a super gas station, convenience market, take-out restaurant and car wash and beer...... and wine with the off-site consumptlon. The project is in the Redevelopment Area. They are proposing a very plush landscape. They implemented the resort landscape for this project, even though h was .not required. They tried to match the museum's Spanish style. Exhibit was taken over the Commission for their review p6-09-97 Page 26 Mr. Shaw: Stated they will work very closely with the Planning Department and with the fledevelopment Agency to make sure the project will be one to be proud of. They are presently negotiating with three gas companies (Mobil, Texaco and Arco). He asked for a clarification on Item No. B and questioned whether it had been put in by mistake or whether there is a reason behind it. Mr. Shaw indicated the owner a very active and successful businessman in the City of Anaheim and intends to be the sole operator. Paul Kott, 1225 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim: Stated he has been actively Involved in marketing this project for the past three years. One of the most common concerns about the downtown is that people desire activity, commerce and reason to come downtown. It seems reasonable that the service station of this magnitude is a good use for this type of property. This project asks for no waivers, it meets all setback, parking and landscape requirements. The interior and exterior of the property will have 24-hour security surveillance monitor. Downtown Anaheim will finally have and receNe a gas station. One of its best features is that it is a prNately funded project. This gas station will not sell propane gasoline. Regarding the issue of beer and wine sale, the project is far under crime rates as identified by the Anaheim Police Department and under the site maximum previously identified by the State Board of Equalization. He referenced a letter from the Anaheim Police Department which recommended approval of the application with condtlons which the owner/operator of the project firmly states that he will adhere. Bill Taormina, 716 N, Harbor Blvd., Anaheim: Stated since he merged his business Into a larger company his real estate holdings have become extremely Important to him. Fortunately, due to Paul Kptt, he was able to purchase almost 14 or 15 parcels in Anaheim, all of which are blocks away from this parcel. He thought thoroughly the issue of beer and wine and alcohol sales and felt that a that this could be an .asset 'rf properly controlled and monkored. This proposal has an excellent design, excellent parcel, no conditions. He felt Mr. Zamorodian has a true commitment to our City. He is a businessman that is going to do a lot for our town and this gas station is going to be a "shining Ilght" that the City of Anaheim needs. He stated he fully supports this project. Commissioner Peraza: Asked if Mr. Taormina was the one that purchased north Anaheim and closed liquor stores because he did not want to see liquor in the downtown area? Bill Taormina: Responded absolutely, he did not want see stand alone liquor stores because they promote a lot of loitering, gang member using the paid phone. In a facility like this one they have security control. Mr. Taormina was not asked to come by Mr. Zamorodian, he came on his own. It is going to be available anyway, people are going to buy liquor somewhere - why not make R available at a controlled environment. PUBIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Commissioner Peraza: Stated the testimony referenced a letter from the Police Department endorsing the project and asked the Police Department representative to speak on this. Tom Engle, Investigator - Vlce Unft, Police Department: Stated they submitted two memos on this project, one giving the crime statistics and concentration of liquor licenses; the other one was the conditions requested on the project should it be approved. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she spoke with someone who has a business In the area and 06-09-97 Page 27 they indicated that they were concerned about the problem of litter and trash. They wanted to make sure that there are ample trash containers in order to try to keep this from spreading through the neighborhood. They have to have someone clean up every morning. Mr. Shaw: Stated this project would be well lighted. They have a surveillance camera and a porter 24-hours a day. The .restaurant will be take-out only. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked about the car wash, in looking the plans R appears that if the second driveway is closed (the one farthest west on Broadway) and the other driveway is made a little wider and the car wash is rotated, there would be room for cars waiting to go through. When they came out the other end, they would be heading toward parking spaces. Mr. Shaw: Responded they will be more than happy to work with City staff to make sure this happens. If the driveway is closed he did not think his client would have any objection. Commissloner Bristol: Stated there has been some compelling argument about the use of alcohol at this location. Asked how the applicant would feel about the hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m., with no selling of alcohol after at t0:00 p.m. Instead of 1:00 p.m. Mr. Shaw: Responded, absolutely no problem, Commissioner Henninger: Asked Mr. Engle to describe the boundaries of Census Tract No. 873. Tom Engle: Responded the census tract splits down on Broadway and south of the location, both comers on Broadway (Census Tract No. 873), Into the north it splits at Anaheim Boulevard, one being on the east side and the other being on the west side. Commissloner Henninger: Stated in the last paragraph of the memo, they mention the other two off-sale license being on Lincoln:, one on Vons and the other at Savpn. So these two are in the other census tracts? Commissioner Boydstun: Stated they would be if Broadway is the divider. Tom Engle: Stated he was referring to Reporting Districts not Census Tracts. They are in the same Census Tract. Commissioner Henninger: Asked what is the census tract boundary? Tom Engle: Responded ft runs Sycamore to the north, South Street to the south, East Street to the east and Lemon Street to the west, Commissioner Henninger: Stated this site is centrally located in the tract. When they stated that there were two other licenses in this tract, it sets a good representative of what is actually going on there. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he did not see the wash tunnel on the elevations. Mr. Shaw: Responded the wash tunnel is a separate construction. It is attached to the building although it is a separate construction and it does not show on this elevation. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he recommended changing Condition No. 38 and see some 06-09-97 Page 28 specffic plans come through with perhaps some material samples which should include the signage and see how the tunnel works In regards to the building. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked ff there was going to be any outdoor seating? Mr. Shaw: Responded there are not plans for any outdoor seating. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked where the telephone will be? Mr. Shaw: Responded they prefer to put it inside the market. Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Stated staff recommended Condition No. 23 would require them to be within convenience market. Mr. Shaw: Stated they work very closely with the leaders of the community and with the church and there is a letter supporting their project. Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works Department: Stated she would also tike to modify Condtion No. 2 that currently calls far a parcel map. She would like to change that to a lot Ifne adjustment. The condition should read, 'That the legal property owners shall submit a tot line ad}ustment to merge the three subject parcels into one parcel to the Public Works Department, Development Services Division for review and approval by the City Engineer. The lot Ifne adjustment shall be recorded prior to issuance of the building permit." Commissioner Henninger: Stated when they authorize a liquor sales is there is anyway to put a fairly tight time limit on that? Mr. Shaw: Stated they already have a signed contract from his cilent to start to work on the working drawings. He is very anxious to start and so he did not see a problem with time. Commissioner Henninger: Stated can it be conditioned so that at a year they ask for In extension Commission could pull the beer and wine license at that time but allow the gas station to remain. Selma Mann: Asked for clarification. Did Commissioner Henninger wish the CUP to be for an unlimited period of time with regard to all the approval with the exception of the beer and wine aspect of it which would be for a one year period? Commissioner Henninger: Responded no, the standard conditions state that they have to get going in a"year begin to pull a building permit or get an extension. Suppose in a year 'rf they have not begun their building then they could come back and ask for an extension to meet the_,_ conditions. At that point, he would like to maintain for the Commission the ability to extend the gas station but withdraw the liquor sales without going to another public hearing. Mr. Shaw: Stated 2 months ago he brought a project (corner of Harbor and Ball Road) and there was no condition implemented such as this for that project. Commissioner Henninger. Stated this is something new that he is trying to establish. He Indicated that they were anxious to begin the project so this condition should not effect them. Selma Mann: It comes back to Commission anyway 'rf there is an extension of time. 06-09-97 Page 29 Commissioner Henninger: Stated when the extension of time comes back, he would like to see Commission have the ability to withdraw one of the condftfons of approval, independent of denying the whole thing. Selma Mann: Stated what would come to Commission would be a public hearing for modification of the conditions which would Include modification of .any other conditions as well. It could be readvertised for something different from that or they could put in a separate condition that indicates that the Commission is looking differently upon the approval for the beer and wine aspect of it. There is a one year limitation on the entire operation as far a beginning the construction. Commissioner Henninger: Stated that is the point he is trying to make. If they haven't begun construction and they come and ask for a continuance to start construction later, could the conditions be written in such a way to say, yes, they will let the petitioner have can have that but we are going to wthdraw our Determination of Public Necessity or Convenience? Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if Commission would have that ability to revoke that? Selma Mann: Stated there are two different actions before them. One (s the Conditional Use Permit and that has various aspects to h including the beer and wine aspect to it. They can just change that aspect of it when it comes back to them after one year. Commissioner Henninger: Stated the continuances are normally done as a Report and Recommendation and normally the Commission is not allowed under a R&R to change a condition of approval because it is not a public hearing. Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested putting in a condition in that if this comes back for an extension, there is to be a public hearing. Selma Mann: Stated Commission may also put a condition on the Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity indicating that it is for a limited period of one year unless established otherwise stated. Chairman Messe: Stated this is an interesting question because it probably should be acted on in this way with all the Public Convenience and Necessity Permits. It is something to consider for the future. Commissioner Henninger: Suggested adding a condition regarding the public necessity that it is only valid for one year to establish the business and ff they have not established the business in a year then it dissolves unless extended. Chairman Messe: Asked how ABC acts would act on that? Selma Mann: Stated ABC would require that any license that they issue be in conformance with zoning. If the Commission has concern that this comes back as a Report and Recommendation Item the Commission always has the authority to require that h come back as a public hearing at that point. Commissioner Boydstun: Suggested a condition that if It comes back for an extension then it would comes back as a public hearing. 06-09-97 Page 30 Commissioner Henninger: Stated the discussion regarding the conditioning of the liquor licenses Commission requests this from this point forward on for all of the CUPS. ACTION: Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3939 with the following changes to conditions: Modified Condition Nos. 2, 17, 37 and 39 to read as follows: 2. That the legal property owner shall submit a lot line adjustment (to merge the three subject parcels into one parcel) to the Public Works Department, Development Services DNision for review and approval by the City Engineer. The lot Tine adjustment shall be recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. 17. That beer shall not be sold in packages containing less than a sbr-pack, and that wine coolers shall not be sold in packages less than afour- pack. 37. That sales of beer and wine shall be permitted only between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 10 p.m. 39. 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. 1, 2, 4, 5, 16, 24, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, and 33, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Further, if an extension of time is requested for the alcohol sales portion of this request, it shall be considered at a noticed public hearing. Added the following condtions: That the proposed most westedy driveway on Broadway shall be removed from the plans and that the easterly driveway opening may be enlarged. APPROVED -DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 97-09. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Messe abstained and Commissioner Mayer absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 39 minutes (2:59-3:38) 06-09-97 Page 31 10a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 I Withdrawn 10b. VARIANCE NO. 4306 OWNER: IMPERIAL PROMENADE PARTNERS, Attn: Debeikes Investment Company, 5289 Alton Parkway, Irvine, CA 92604 LOCATION: 5645-5675 East La Palma Avenue -Imperial Promenade. Property is 4.4 acres located west and north of the northwest comer of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway. Waivers of permitted directional signs to construct three on-site directional signs. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. SR6670JK.WP __ FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Mayer and Messe absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's request for withdrawal of subject petition. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Mayer and Messe absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 06-09-97 Page 32 11a. CEOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 11b. VARIANCE NO. 4307 OWNER: WATT COMMERCIAL COMPANIES, INC., 2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 3040, Santa Monica, CA 90405- 5218 AGENT: SIGN METHODS, 1749 East 28th Street, Signal Hill, CA 90806 LOCATION: 5711-5799 East La Palma Avenue -Canyon Village Plaza. Property is 9.91 acres located north and east of the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highway. Waivers of permitted freestanding sign and permitted type of sign to construct two (2) freestanding pole signs and nineteen (19) roof- mounted signs. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. Continued to July 21, 1997 SR6680KP.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subJect request to the July 21, t997 Planning Commission meeting In order for the petitioner to be able to attend the meeting. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Henninger, Mayer and Messe absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. Planning Commission requested that a discussion pertaining the number of continuances they are getting at each meeting be agendized on the June 23, 1997 Planning Commission morning work session. ]'hey would also like to look at how applications are being processed, so that there are not as many continuances. 06-09-97 Page 33 ADJOURIVNIEFIT Rll2eting adjourned at 3:40 p.m. to Monday, June 23, 1997 at 10:00 a.m. for Preliminary Plan Review. Respectfully submitted, Ossie Edmundson Senior Word Processing Operator 06-09-97 Page 34