Loading...
Minutes-PC 1999/08/02SUMMAF~Y ACTIO~V AGENDA CIT1( OF ANAHEIM PLANNING COM~liSSION I~EETING M~NDAY, AUGUST 2, 1999 11:00 A.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUE~TED BY PLRNNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M., • PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, KOOS, NAPOLES, VANDERBILT ABSENT: ESPING STAFF PRcSENT: Selma Mann Mary McCloskey Greg Hastings Annika Santalahti Cheryl Flores Greg McCafferty Karen Dudley Don Yourstone Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Ramona Castar~eda Russ Sutter Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Deputy Planning Director Zoning Division Manager Zoning Administrator Senior Planner Senior Planner Associate Planner Senior Code Enforcement Officer Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Community Development Project Manager Police Sergeant Planning Commissioii Secretary Seni~r Secretary P:IDOCSICLERICALIMINUTESWC080299.DOC City of Maheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 1 APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON: Appointed Commissioner Phyilis Boydstun as J9/2000 ACTION: Commissioner 6ostwick offered a motion, secondec; by Chairwoman and ap~ointed Commissioner Vanderbilt f~lOTiON CARRIED (Commissioner Esping Commissioner J~hn Koos as '~ absent) that the Anahefm City Planning Commission does hereby appoint 99l2000 Chairrnan Pro- ~, Commissfoner Phyllis Boydstun as the 1999/2000 Chairwoman. Tempore I APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRPERSON PRO- 7EMPORE: ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissloner Bristol and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby appoint Commissioner John Koos as the 1999/2000 Chairman Pro-Tempore. Receiving and approving the Summary Action Agenda for !he Commission Meeting of: 1. July 7,1999 2. July 19,1999 Approved Approved, as revised (ir,dicating that Item No. 3 was trailed da to lack of a quorum.). [Commissioner Koos abstained on the vote because he was not present at that meeting.] City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 2 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT N0. 313 (PREV: CERTIFIED) Approved b) FINAL SI'~E PLAN REVIEW N0. 98-12 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW Approved with AND APPROVAL OF FINAL SITE PLANS : Shirish Patel, 631 West modifications Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92802, requests review and approval of a final site plan to construct a new ~09-room hotel complex. Property is located at 2065-2085 Sou;ti Harbor Boulevard. ACTION: Commissioner Bo;twick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planninc~ Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 313 is adeq~at:- to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTfON CARFtIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibit Nos. i through 31 on file in the Planning Department) based upon a finding that the Fi;~al Site P~an is in conformance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No. 92-2 with the following stipulations that the applicant agreed to comply with: That the building finish shall have a more pronounced textured stucco finish than the color/materials sample presented at the August 2, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. 2. That the proposed Mexican Fan Palms along Harbor Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue, and interior to the project shail be replaced with Queen Palms. SR7502KD.DOC Chairperson Boydstun: Announced there was a request to trail Item No.1-A. Karen Dudley, Associate Planner: Indicated they are requesting this item be trailed until 2:30 p.m. to allow for the applicanYs architect to arrive and present the materials board. Item 1A, item was heard after#3. Karen Dudley, Associate Planner: This is a request for review and approval of final site plan to construct a new 609-room hotel complex on the northwesl corner of Orangewood and Harbor Boulevard. The complex consists of a 6-story, 211-room hotel; an 8-story, 398-room hotel; and a 5-level parking structure located west of the two hotel structures. Staff reviewed the color and materials board and found them consistent with the elevation plans. The landscape plan incorporates a layered, subtropical planting scheme providing a generous mix of trees and flowering plants. Melaluca and Eucalyptus trees (24" and 48") are proposed to be planted at 10-foot separation within the 20-foot setback adjacent to the west property line providing a dense landscape screen adjacent to the residential properties to the west. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 3 The appiicant agreed to one change in the landscape plan, which was to replace the proposed Mexican Fan Palms along the driveway entrances and at the comer of Harbor and Orangewood with Queen Palms. Staff found the plan to be in conformance with the Anaheim Resort Specific Plan, including the Zoning and Development Standards and Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan. A project-specific Mitigation Monitoring Plan was prepared which incorporates all appiicable mitigation measures from Mitigation Monitoring Program No. 0085. All measures required to be completed prior to Final Site F'lan approvai being satisfied. ApplicanYs Statement: ^.huck Terry, project architect: The applicant had no comments and agreed with the staff report and is ready to proceed as soon as approved. Commissioner Koos: He was please with the renderings. He tMped the buiiding would have as much texture as shown on the renderings; the samples did not appear to have as mu~h texture. Mary McCloskey, Deputy Planning Director: Suggested staff could ensure the architect indicate on the color boards that it will have more of a textured look to it. A note will be put into the file, in the final site plan review, if that is the desire of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Vanderbilt: Regarding the palm trees, he felt it is impo~tant to be consistent with the rest of the Resort Area. Ms. Dudley advised they would make a note in the file to that effect. ~7'here was a break following fhis item.J City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 4 B. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved b) CONDITIONAL USE PERh9lT N0. 4Q90 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW Approved AND APPROVAL OF FINAL SIGN PLANS: Michael Hearn - KDG "Anaheim Hockey Investments, 8180 East Kaiser Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92808, Club" sign only, requests review and approval of final wall sign plans for two previously- additional signage approved indoor roller hockey rinks with accessory retail and concession shail come back for sales to be in conjunction with a future industrial park. Property fs approval located at 2890 East La Palma Avenue and 1000 North Edward Circle - Anaheim Hockey Club. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the 52 foot wide by 3 foot high, 156 square-foot wall sign consisting of the words "Anaheim Hockey Club" on the southern alevation of the building facing the SR-91 freeway, and any additionai signage shall come back for review and approval as a Reports and Recommendations item. SR1137TW.DOC ApplicanPs Statement: Mike Zee: Stated he is representing Michael Hearn. The project is near completion and is in need of identification. At a minimum they are seeking the approval of 2 wall signs for the Anaheim Hockey Club on the freeway and front elevation, as well as a Mission Hockey logo on the freeway elevation only, as noted on the plans. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: The recommendation is for denial of the final sign plans on the basis that they are not in conformance with Condition No. 6. Staff felt that if the sign was condensed so it appeared to be 1 sign, it would then be more in conformance with the condition. The plans submitted show it all the way across the building elevation and it seems to be a proliferation of signage. Mike Zee: There is more than one item involved. There is a wall sign that identifies Anaheim Hockey Club. They also intended to have silhouettes of hocRey players. The original submittal filled every panei in between each of the signs. They then reduced that to a"shooter, goalie and flying puck silhouette". They are willing to pass on that and suggested dealing with it at a Iater date because he was concerned that the project is nearing completion and would like to get identification as soon as possible and exposure or the 91 freeway is significant. Commissioner Koos: Staff's major concern is Condition No. 6 which states that the wall signs for this use shall be limited to one sign facing the freeway. Anaheim Hockey Club, the icons, Mission Hockey Test Facility and a future tenant sign makes a total of 3%: signs. When Commission conditioned it to be one sign on the freeway side, he thought it would be Anaheim Hockey Club with the icons as one sign but the applicanYs request appears to be 3 signs and that is the issue. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda Oa-02-99 Page 5 blike Zee: Asked if they dropped the icons and the future tenant sign, would Commission approve the Anaheim Hockey Club sfgn as well as the M(ssion logo? Commiss(oner Boslwick: Asked staff if the intention is to have two tenants in the building? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Responded yes, there will be a warehouse tenant and the roiler hockey. Commissioner Boslwick: Asked if they have the right for another sign? Cheryi Flores, Senior Planner: Responded the warehouse will be able to have ics own sign. Commissioner Bostwick: Commission would not be dealing with that today. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Confirmed it is strictiy the roller hockey. Commissioner Bostwick: He felt 1f the Anaheim Hockey Club and the icons were displayed and the Mission Hockey Test Facility removed, then it would be appropriate for this building. Commissioner Koos: He did not have a problem witf~ fhe icons or a tenant name. 7he spread-out nature of it is the main issue. If they were to hav~ the Anal; ~im Hockey Club next to the icons, then that would be acceptable. . Mike Zee: The problem is that the icons are not a loga nf Anaheim Hockey Club, or Mission. They want them to be associated together but realize that they are two separate entities. Chairperson Boydstun: Asked if it was necessary to have the Mission Hockey Test Facility on the sign? Mike Zee: Exp~ained that Mission Hockey is a maJor equipment supplier and sponsor of roller hockey. They promote the sporE, which includes team and leadership skilis for chiidren and young adults. He felt they are deserving of identification. Commissioner Bristol: Asked Mr. Zee if he was in agreement with the Anaheim Hockey Club regarding the freeway signage and if he still wants the future tenant sign or is that where he is asking to have the Mission Hockey Test Facility sign? Mike Zee: Responded they would like to have !he Mission logo as well as be allowed to install the future tenant sign. He pointed out that the size of the lettering is significantly sma~ler than what the code will allow. Chairperson Boydstun: Asked if the applicant could put the three things together? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Making it appear as one sign is what staff was trying to get. Chairperson Boydstun: Asked whether the applicant could put the Anaheim Hockey Club and icon~ with the Mission Robber Hockey Test Facility right next to them. Mike Zee: It may quaii(y but he felt it is not going to look good and felt they are separate entities and should not be crowded together on one sign. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 6 Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manac~er, Regarding the Mission Hockey Test Facility sign, Code is ciear on the type of signage that can go on buiidings. They have to identify or advertise a product or service on the property. He was not certain that this would qualify, if Mission is simply a sponsor, then it would be a biliboard type of sign which code does not ailow adjacent to freeways. Although, if Mission Hockey is supplying a seNice or a product on site then a link can be made that it could be part of a wall sign. Chairperson Boydstun: Asked whether it wouid then be combined or dropped? Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: If it is combined Mission Hockey should advertise a product or service on the property. However, if it is simply a sponsorship, it is not allowed to face the freeway, according to code. Mike Zee: Asked if they could obtain approval of the Anaheim Hockey Club sign today? Chairperson Boydstun: If he installs the icons with the sign so that it appears as one sign, then that would be acceptable. Mike Zee: Asked if they put the Mission logo with the name, would that be acceptable7 Chairperson Boydstun: Responded no, he can have Anaheim Hackey and the icons. Commissioner Vanderbilt: His understanding was that it could only be allowed if there couid be a link made between Mission and a product or service that Mission provides inside the building. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Confirmed that was true, if they are providing a product or service that is available to the public. Chairperson Boydstun: Asked Mr. Zee if Mission fs a sponsor or are they providing a product? Mike Z.ee: Responded they are providing equipment sales to the pub-ic. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: That would then be allowed by code. It was staff s intent when they recommended one sign facing the freeway to reduce sign clutter as much as possible. There is a new specific plan in this area that limits signage. Staff would like to see signage kept at a minimum for identification and not necessarily for advertising. Commissioner Bostwick: He suggested that the applicant could move the Anaheim Hockey Club fa~ther to the right, closer to the icons and bring it closer together. Mike Zee: He felt that would create clutter. The way it is spread out opens up the amount of space between the signs. Chairperson Boydstun: She reminded Mr. Zee thet it needs to be only one sign. Mike Zee: The Mission logo is more important to them than the icons and he has instructions to get it approved. Commissioner Bristol: He suggested the appiicant redesign the signage. Mike Zee: Asked if it is possible to get the Anaheim Hockey Club sign approved today, then deal with the rest at a later date7 City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 7 Chairperson Boydstun: Asked staff to confirm ~hether it could be approved today, and would they need to have any specifications of how much space it is go'~g to takeT Cheryl Florss, Senior Planner: If the letters are the same size as shown on the plans, then it would be acceptable as long as it is specifled exactly what will 6e pe; mitted on the sign. Chairpers~n Boydstun: Stated then the rest could retum as an R&R at a later date. City of An~heim Planning Commission Summa.ry Action Agenda OB-02-99 Page 8 .~+~{~.-""?`_ C. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED~ Continued to b) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4069 - REQUEST FOR REi/IEW 8-16-99 AND APPROVAL OF FINAL ARCHITECTURAL PLANS: Khoda B. Ostowari, 6263 East Twin Peak Circle, Anaheim, CA 92807, requests review and approval of final architectural plans for a previously-approved service station and convenience market with retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption and a drive-through self service car wash. Property is located at 801 South Harbor Boulevard and 510 West South Street. SR1110JD.DOC Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Explained this is a requast for a continuance in order to receive revised plans. Staff had a probiem with the architecture of the roof and felt that it needed to blend in better. ?he applicant has submitted revised plans that staff has not had time to revie~r for this meeting but would be able to do so by August 16,1999. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.1292 - REQUEST FOR Terminated TERMINATION: Hank Lee, Secretary, Jung Hye Sa Korean Buddhist Temple, 9462 South Gilbert Street, Anaheim, CA 92804, requests (Vote: 6-0, termination of Conditional Use Permit No.1292 (to permit on-sale beer in Commissioner a proposed dining room in conjunction with an existing delicatessen with ~sping absent) waiver of 3-foot landscaped setback). Property is located at 2780 West Lincoln Avenue. TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. PC99-138 SR7491 EH.DOC There was no discussion related to this item. E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 774 - REQUEST FOR Terminated TERMINATION: Khoda B. Ostowari, 6263 East 7win Peak Circle, Anaheim, CA 92807, requests termination of Conditional Use Permit No. (Vote: 6-0, 774 (to permit a service station within 75 feet of a residential zone and Commissioner not located at the intersection of two arterials). Property is located at Esping absent) 504 VVest South Street. TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. PC99•139 SR7492EH.DOC There was no discussion related to this item. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 9 F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3678 - REQUEST FOR Terminated TERMINATION: Ellwin Ashwill, Ashwill Investments, 726 Town & Country Road, Suite 140, Orange CA 92868, requests termination of (Vote: 6-0, Conditional Use Permit No. 3678 (to retain a boat repair and Commissfoner manufacturing facility with retaii sales of parts and accessories, with Esping absent) waiver of mfnimum number of requfred parking spaces). Properry 1s located at 1010 North Grove Street. TERMINATIOt~ RESOLUTION N0. PC99-140 I SR7490EH.DOC There was no discussion re!ated to this ftem. G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMI7 N0.1629 - REQUEST FOR INITIATION Continued to OF REVOCATION OR MODIF~^ATfON PROCEEDINGS: City-initiated 8-1~-99 (Planning Department), 200 South Maheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, request to initiate revocation or modification proceedings for Conditional Use Permit No.1629 (for a restaurant with sales of beer and wine for an-premises consumption). Property is located at 1300 and 1416 North Central Park Avenue - Coffee Break. SR119JD.DOC Cheryl ~lores, Senior Plann~sr: Staff attempted to notify the owner of the property but was unable to do so. She suggested this matter be continued for 2 weeks to allow staff time to properly notify the owner. City of Maheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda OS-02-99 Page 10 H. a) CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY•APPROVED) I Continued to b) CONDlTIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4097 - REQUEST FOR REVIEW 8-30-99 A~;~ APPROVAL 0~ FINAL LANDSCAPE PLANS: Charles Perez, , 420 South State College Boulevard, Anahefm, CA 92806, request ~Qview and approval of finai landscape plans (for a previously-approved automotive repair facility). Property is located at 420 South State College Boulevard - C&M Automotiv2. SR7503KB.DOC Chairperson Boydstun: Informed the applicant that there was a rzquest from staff to continue this item until August 30,1999, and asked the applicant if that was agreeable with nim? Charles Perez: He questioned why this was being continued. This has been going on for months and he can not do anything until Commission approves it. Cheryl Fiores, Senior Planner: Explained he needs to work with staff to provide the trash enclosure on the pians and showing that the walls will be screened with vines to prevent graffiti. The trash enciosure was not shown on the plans. In addition, staff would like to work with Mr. Perez on the type of plant material to screen the propane tank so it will not be so visible from State Coliege Boulevard. Mr. Perez: Asked iF he would need to submit any further pians? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Yes, he would need to add to the landscape plans he submitted and staff could work with him on this. Commissioner Napoles offered a motion for a continuance to Augus~ 30, 1999, seconded by Commissione~ Bristoi and motion carried. I. a) CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - SECTION 15061(b);3) Continued to b) REQUEST TO AMEND CHAPTER 17.20: City-initiated (Planning 8-16-99 Department), 200 South Anaheirn Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805, request consideration to amend Chapter 17.20 "Excavation and Recovery of Nonfuel Minerals and Reclamation of Mined Lands" (amending Chapter 17.20 in its entirety). SR1138AS.QOC Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Explained there are some issues that have arisen regarding some of the text of the ordinance that needs 4o be revised before Commission takes action. Therefore, she requested a continuance for 2 weeks. Commissioner Bristoi: Offered a motion for a continuance for August 16,1999, seconded by Commissioner Bostwick and motion carr~ed. City of Anaheim Plannfng Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 11 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 2a. CEQA NEGATNE DECLARATIQN Continued to 2b. WAIVER OF COD~ REQUIREMENT $-16-99 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4100 2d. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 99-05 OWNER: R. Mark 5hidler, Sheryl A. Shidler, Robin Shidler and Sally Shidler, 20880 Liflle Canyon Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 AGENT: K. W. Lawler and Associates, 2832 Walnut Avenue #A, Tustin, CA 92780 LOCATION: 905-985 North Weir Canyon Road. Prnperty is 3.34 acres located at the southwest corner ~f Old Canal Road and Weir Canyon Road. Condttional Use Permit No. 4100 - to cons'.;~uct a~ervice station and auto care complex consisting of four buildings including au;~ rental, lube facility, aulomated car wash, service station/fast food restauranUconvenience market with retail sales of beer and wine for off- premises cAnsumption, and roof-mounted equiGment ~;;;;; ~~;aivers of (a) permitted commercial identification sfgns, (b) permitted number of wall signs, (c) maximum structural height abutting a residential zone, (d) minimum la~dscape setback abutting a residential zone, (e) required site screening abutting a residential zone and (~ minimum structural and landscape setback abutting a freeway. Determination of Public Convenience or N~cessity No. 99-05 - to Determine Public Convenience or Necessity ta allow the retail sales of beer and wine for off-premises consumption within a proposed convenience market. Continued from the Commission meeting of Jui~~ 7, 1999. CONDITIdNAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. DETERMINATION OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY RESOLUTIORI NO. SR7487V.DOC Chairperson Boydstun: Announced that the applicant requested a continuance until August 16,1999. Commissioner Bristol: Offered a motion for a continuance to August 16,1999, seconded by Commissioner Bostwiclc and motion carried. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 12 City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 13 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Ap~roved 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2090 (READVERTISED) Approved reinstatement OWNER: Harvey Owen,11061 Huntington Drive, Santa Ana, CA f~r ~ months 92705 (To expire 2-2-2000) AGENT: AOUN Inc., Attn: Harvey Owen, President, P.O. Box 308, Buena Park, CA 90621 LOCATION: 1160 North Kraem~r Boulevard - The Shack. Property is 0.9 acre located an the east side of Kraemer Boulevard, 242 feet south of the centerline of Coronado Street. To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (approved on August 3,1998 until August 27,1999) to retain an existinfl restaurant with pubiic dance hall and saies of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption and live entertainment. i:ontinued from the Commission meeting of July 7, 1999. COPIDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-141 SR1055KP.DOC ApplicanPs Statement: Harvey Owen (owner),1160 North Kraemer, Anaheim, CA: Stated the restaurant and dance hall has been there for over 25 years. They did not have any problems at the locations until 1996, ~vhich involved a tenant. Since that time they have corrected all the prohlems and ha~e been doing well for the past 3 years. He now has two new tenants that promise to comply with all the conditions. He requested that Condition Nos. 10 and 11 be deleted. He also requested that the permit be permitted for 3 years. Robert Gibson, owner of the Shaclc,1160 North Kraemer, Anaheim, CA: He purchased the Shack and escrow closed in April. Along with the property, he inherited problems with the business and has been trying to remedy the problems. He was surprised to read about violations mentioned in the staff report. He thought they had complied with all of the items mentioned. They would like to continue operating in the City of Anaheim a_nd requested that their conditional use permit, dance hail and entertainment permit be approved for 3;+ears. Public Testimony: John Maresca, Bryan Industrial Properties, fnc., 1246 East Orangetharpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA: Bryan Industrial Properties under various ownership entities has over 50,000 square feet of buildings along Kraemer Boulevard. Their addresses include 1119 Kraemer Boulevard through and including 1151 Kraemer Boulevard. On behalf of the ownership entities, he has been authorized to register their support of staffs recommendation concerning this CUP. Chairperson Boydstun: Asked Mr. Maresca to explain what they are objecting to. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Act9on Agenda 08-42-99 Page 14 John Maresca: They are in support of staff s recommendation with regards to the continued time limit relative to the CUP on an annual basis as has been done in the past and assuring that the use is in compliance. THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEM WAS CLOSED Don Yourstone, Senior Code Enforcement Officer: Explained what he observed in his fnspections of the property on Ju(y 14,17 and 20'". There were various yiolations, which were brought to John Terbay's attention, which is one of the owners. Violations included excessive noise due to the music coming from the front door being open; the security service uniforms were too dark and not easily recognized by the Police Department; and advised Mr. Terbay that this ~!se needed to be a restaurant with accessory of dancing or music. He checked the Zoning records and found that no approval was given for an outside patio area. He observed patrons being charged a$2 admission fee, which is allowable with the dance hali permit. He later found that the admission fee was to offset the cost of the entertainment and spaghetti dinner. Don Yourstone: Responded to Commissioner Bostwick by verifying that the applicant, according to their ABC license, is required to serva food when they are not open since this is a full dinner restaurant. Sgt. Russ Sutter, Anaheim Police Department, Vice Detail: Stated they observed certain violations prior to their meeting involving the security officers, raffles on Tuesday night, amusement devices, and the front door being open. 5ince the meeting, the security officers are still not wearing identifiable shirts, all outdoor activity has been cancelled, reduced their amusement devices to 3 and occasionally the door gets left open during entertainment. The outside patio area is used primarily for a smoking area. They have seen people carry food and/or alcohoi outside but have not seen alcohol or food being served outside. Since their meeting the applicant has complied with the issues identified. Regarding the applicanYs ABC license, it is a primarily a restaurant. Commissioner Bristol: Asked if the outside patio area was permitted? Don Yourstone: It appeared the patio area used to be a part of their parking lot. The exhibits indicate striped parking for cars and it appears the patio area had been added, Commissioner Bostwick: If they used some of the parking spaces for the patio, do they stiil meet the parking requirements? Cheryl Flores, Senior Plar,ner: They meet the parking requirement even without the 4 parking spaces that the patio now covers. ~ Commissioner Bristoi: Asked Sgt. Sutter whether there was any criminai activity at this site? Sgt. Sutter: Since the new managers/owners have taken over, there have been two calls for service and those ~vere both in the same night. They have also had two alarm calls dver the past 3 or 4 months. ApplicanPs Rebuttal: Robert Gibson: They do business with the neighbors in the surrounding area. The only other neighbor that they have is the Fire Department, which they have br,en in good relations with. He felt that Code Enforcement has probably seen improvements since he has acquired the site. Regarding the patio, they found out after the fact that the patio did not have a permit, and have been working very hard to come into compliance and be good neighbors. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda OS-02-99 Page 15 Chairperson Boydstun: Asked Mr. Gibson if the owner provided then with a copy of the Conditional Use Permit No. 2090? Robert Gibson: Yes, the violations were items that he brought up to the broker at the time of escrow and indicated he was not clear on. Unfortunately, the broker's response was more of a sales pitch than an explanation of the conditions. Commissioner Koos: Asked what the current nature of the business was. Is it primarily a restaurant with public dancing or a bar? Robert Gibson: They consider it a restaurant but he thought they only have to satisfy the kitchen operating 5 days a week for the ABC license. Commissioner Koos: In 1980 when the permit was originally approved it was approved as a restaurant with public dancing. Asked if that meant that at any given day it should be operating as a restaurantl Cheryl Flores: Verified that at all times, it must be operated as a bonafide restaurant Commissioner Koos; One of the central questions is the nature of this business and whether or not it is even approved beca~se he felt it does not appear to be a full-time restaurant. Asked Mr. Gibson if he considered it a full-time restaurant7 Robert Gibson: It was supposed to be when they purchased it, but it fell in disrepair and they are trying to bring it into compliance because they ultimately want a full-time restaurant. Unfortunately, at this time it is not open 7 days a week and they are in the process of revising a menu. Cammissioner Bostwick: They are currently in violation by not having the kitchen operating 7 days a week. Robert Gibson: He acknowledged that they are currently in violation but they are trying to comply Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: The Planning Commission is in a difficult situation because in order to approve it, the applicant must be in compiiance. If the applicant can show they are in compliance and will continue to be in compliance, then Commission could approve this with a short period of time or approve it with conditions. If Commission decides on a continuance, it could be for a 2-week continuance in order to make its decision within the required period of time, Commissioner Bristol: He was in favor of a shorter period than 3 yQars. His major concern was whether the business could remain as a restaurant. Commissioner Koos: He was concerr.ed with intent of the business Mr. Owen: He indicated that the kitchen is open when the restaurant is open. City staff informed him of the hours and days he needed to be in operation in order to comply with the ABC requirements. Chairperson Boydstun: Advised the CUP is tied to being a restaurant so anytime it is open, it must be a restaurant. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney: Advised that the Police Department does not approve uniforms. They just wanted securiry to be readily fdentifiable. City of Maheim Planning Commissfon Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 16 r,k,~, ,~~• • ~ II \ ~ ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke with concems ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 2090, to expire February 2, 2000. Modified Resolution No. PC96-101, as amended by Resolution No. PC98-118, as follows: Amended Condition Nos. 9 and 10 to read as foliows: 9. That the property owner shali pay the cost of Code Enforcement inspections once each month, during the six (6) month time period. 10. That the public dance hall use shall expire on February 2, 2000. Any request for extension of time must be received and approved, prior to Feb~uary 2, 2000, fn order to retain any legai non-conforming status of its Iocation, or the public dance hall. Added the following conditions of approval: That within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, the owner shall obtain building permits for the existing patio area on the west building facade facing Kraemer Boulevard. That foo~i service shall be available at all times that the business is open. That the security guards shall wear a ~~;iform or appropriate attire that identifies them as securibj guards. VOTE: 4-2 (Commissioners Koos and Vanderbilt voted no and Commissioner Esping was absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 38 minutes (2:19-2:~7) City of Anaheim Pianning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 17 4b. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 98-99•14 ~ ~r~~~~~ Granted, 4c. WAIVER flF CODE REQUIRE~NEN7 unconditionally 4d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4128 (READVERTISED) Approved, in part OWNER: Yassini Living Trust, Attn: Morteza Yassina or Dan Van Granted, in part Rosen, P.O. Box 2110, Ventura, ~CA 93002 Anaheim Housing Authority, Attn: Elisa Stipkovich, 201 South Anaheim Bivd., #1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: Yassini Management, P.O. Box 2110, Ventura, CA 93002 Anaheim Redevelopment Agency, Attn: Elisa Stipkovich, 201 S. An2heim Bivd. #1003, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 600-626 North Brookhurst Street. Property is 4.8 acres Iocated at the southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Gramercy Avenue, Reclassification No. 98-99-14 - To reclassify subject Froperty from the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family and the ML (Limited Industrial) Zones to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 4128 - To permit a 10-unit commercial retail center including a detached clock tower, service station with car wash and convenience market, and a separate drive-through fast food restaurant with waivers of (a) required dedication of right-of-way, (b) required improvement of right-of-way, (c) permitted location of monument signs, (d) minimum drive-through lane requirements, (e) minimum nuniber of parking spaces, and (~ minimum landscape setback. ' Continued from the Commission meetings of June 21, and July 19,1999 RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC99-142 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N6. PC99-143 SR7493VK.DOC ~ (Commfssioner Koos: Stated, for the record, he was not at the July 9y, 1999 meeting but did review the minutes.J City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Act(an Agenda 08-02-99 Page 18 Applicant's Statement: Mr. Kott, (agent to the applicant): He noted what he thought might have been an error. The development agreement recognized a minimum of 14.5 feet clearance for the canopy and now it states it has to be a maximum of 14.5 feet clearance for the canopy, and asked for some alarification in that now the canopy clearance is 17 feet. Cheryl Flores, SAnior Planner: Asked if he was indicating it was a maximum of 17 feet before7 Mr. Kott: It was a minimum of 14.5 feet but now it has been capped as a maximum of 14.5 feet. Greg Hastings, Zoning Division Manager: Explained it is a standard condition of approval that is used so that the canopies are not used as advertising devices. There have been some service stations approved where the actual canopy height far exceeded the necessary height that is needed to get a truck throu~h. Staff would like to have 14.5 maximum. It appears that they have a 14.5 minimum requirement that they were unaware as well. If ths underside were 14.5 feet exaatly, then that would be the best way to condition it. Mr. Kott: Asked if advertising is an issue, could they stipulate that no advertising be placed on the canopy? Greg Hastings: Some service stations use canopies for advertising and in the past there has been ab~se with the height of the canopies. Chairman Boydstun: Asked if the problem would be resolved if they conditioned this to 14.5 feet underside and no advertising~l Greg Hastings: Staff is not concerned with advertising on the canopies, it is the bulk of the canopy being so high. James Vanderbilt: Asked Mr. Kott why they wantPd the canopy over 14.5 feet? Mr. Kott: Tha canopy has a maximum clearance of 17 feet from the underside. The only advertising will be the logo of the station. It is 17 feet due to the size of the trucks that have to go underneath it. Commissioner Koos: Asked Mr. Yalda the minimum clearance for an underpass? Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: Caltrans requirement is 16.5 feet. Greg Hastings: Staff s intent is to not have it too high but will observe the minimum required by sta4e law. Alfred Yalda: Any vehicle above 14.5 feet needs a transportation permit because it does not clear the traffic signais. James Vanderbilt: Further explained that any vehicle over 14.5 feet high is required to obtain a permit from the City. it is in rare instances that a canopy would have to be taller than this to deal with these vehicles. Asked if the applicant anticipates service trucks that require this permit? Mr. Kott: Responded it was possible. City of Anaheim Fianning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 19 Chairman Boydstun: They would have to pay to have signals removed at Crescent and Brookhurst to get to the station. Alfred Yalda: Generally, 98% of vehicles are below 14.5 feet. Greg Hastings: Advised that this has been a standard condition for afl service stations within the last 2 years. Commissioner Bristol: Asked the height of the station at Brookhurst and Ball Greg Hastings: This is a standard condition of approval and Planning Commission can make any changes to this condition but staff would like to be consistent and choose 14.5 feet from state law. Some stations in the f:iry have undersides that are much higher than 14.5 feet. Commissioner Bristol: Asked if staff would accept 16.5 feet? Greg Hastings: If that is what Planning Commission desires, however, staff would like to have uniformity and keep it at a certain level. Commissioner Koos: Asked Mr. Hastings to what the height is at stations on Magnolia/La Palma and Brookhurst/Bali, which are currently under construction? Mr. Kott: Asked why they are being required to pay for a traffic signal when Anaheim Plaza which is many times larger was not required to pay for the expense of lights. The City was going to put in a signal anyway and they are requesting that the developer not be responsible for any of the expense. They are also opposed to Condition No. 29 that indicates 4hat a double double yellow stripped line be placed along Brookhurst Street, which they are interpreting to mean that the developer has to pay for it. They would request that it be deleted from the condition. Also, they would like clarification on Condition No. 33 on the height of fhe masonry wall on the south property line. He felt the wording needed to be changed to establish the height of the wall. Other than those items, they agreed with other items including the 16.5 maximum clearance on the canopy. Commissioner Bostwick: Asked staff to explain Condition No. 57 to the applicant, Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer: Condition No. 57 relates to the waiver of required dedication of right-of-way. In order tu construct a 4-foot wide sidewalk, staff needs the developer to dedicate an additional 6 inches of right-of-way. It should read that the legal property owner shall irrevocably offer to dedicate to the City of Anaheim an easement 23 feet 6 inches in width from the construction centeriine of the street along Gramercy Avenue for public right-of-way improvements. Gommissioner Bristol: Asked staff to explain Condition No. 33, regarding a 4-foot high masonry block wail. Cheryl Flores: Staff is requesting a minimum 4-foot high masonry block wall. There is standard wording for this condition that indicates that the Traffic Engineer will check the line of sight to make sure that they are not blocking visibility of traffic going in and out of fhe project. Greg Hastings: Restated the condition to indicate a 4-foot high biock wall which can be reduced fn height if tlie City Traffic Engineer feels there is a line of sight problem. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 20 Greg Hastings: Expiained that the overall intent of planted vines would be to the areas that are visible from the public street, wh(ch is a small portion in the back of the building. Cheryl Flores: Pointed out that parac~raph 10 of the staff report shows the total height of the canopy is 22%: feet. Chairperson Boydstun: Asked Mr. Kott to comment on the car wash. Mr. Kott: Felt there is a great distance between r,ar wash and apartment complex. Regarding the canopy, they would like to request a maximum of 22.5 height an~ a minimum clearance of 16 feet. He also added they do not have a problem with the vines but asked to go over the new conditions that the staff recommended. Cheryi Flores: Explained that the last sentence in Condition No. 29 can be removed referencing address numbers on the roof. For Condition No. 32, the City Traffic and Transportation Manager will need to approve the gate in the rear with the knox-box to make sure the Fire Department and emergency equipment can go through it and make safe turns. Alfred Yalda: Some applicants place the gate in a location that is hazardous but Traffic Engineering always works with the applicant to ensure it is safe for the citizens. Cheryl Flores: Explained that the Condition No. 33 will have added text that states that the requlred 4-foot high masonry wall can be reduced if recommended by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. Condition No. 34 staff recommended a 3-foot high hedge to the top of the 3-foot high berm for the entire length of Brookhurst Street with the exception of ingress and egress areas. Commissioner Vanderbilt: Asked if there was a way to make an easier pedestrian access? Cheryl Flores: Advised the petitioner could create pedestrian access from the public right-of-way sidewalk to the stores. Commissioner Vanderbilt: Ne did not want to raise the cost for the applicant but just wanted to see if it was acceptable. Mr. Kott: Advised the developer is agreeable to provide pedestrian access. Cheryl Flores: In response to Mr. KotYs request to clarify the char~ges, Condition No. 40 requires dense landscaping to screen the car wash tunnel and staff wants to screen the drive-through tunnel, which will already probably be adequately screened by the hedge on the berm. Staff wants to ensure the drive- through is completely screened. Condition No. 41 clarifies that the roof mounted equipment be shown on the plans. Condition No. 59 just asks that no.15 (a plan sheet for solid waste and collection be submitted to the Sanitation Department) be added prior to the issuance of a building permit. No. 23 can be taken out of Condition No. 59, having to do with the installation of street lights, which can be done prior to final building and zoning inspections instead of prior to issuance of a building, permit. They added the conditions for the vines adjacent to the west building wall of restaurant Mr. Kott: Asked about canopy height. It currently says height of the underside of the canopy shall not exceed 14.5' but they would like 16' to accommodate larger vehicles that have permits or need diesel fuel, City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 22 Greg Hastings: Pointed out that Condition No. 3 requires flnal plans to retum for the service station elevations, and at that time Commission can review that. ~ • ` • • • • OPPOSITION: One person spoke with concems. ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Reclassification No. 98-99-14, unconditionally. Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement as follows: Approved waivers (a), (b), (c), (d) and (~. Denied waiver (e) pertaining to minimum number of parkfng spaces on the basis that it was deleted fallowing public notification. Granted, in part, Conditional Use Permit No. 4128 with the following changes to the conditions of approval: Deleted Condition No. 21. Modified Condition Nos. 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 40, 41, 57, 59 and 60 to read as follows: 28. That the hours of operation shall be limited to the following: Service Station Convenience Market Car Wash Fast Food Restaurant Drive-Throunh Retail Establishmenis 24 hours daily 24 hours daily 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., daily 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday 6 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday 24 hours daily 6 a.m, to 11 p.m. daily 29. That 3-foot high address numbers shall be displayed on the flat area of the roof in a contrasting color to the roof material, provided the numbers shall not be visible from the view of the street or adjacent properties. 32. That the area in back of the retail buiidings shall be gated with a Knox-Box or card entry in order to limit access to the rear of ~the b~ildings to authorized personnei only. The Knox-Box or card entry shall be subject to the review and approval of the Traffic and Transportation Manager. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. 33. That a maximum 4-foot high masonry biock wall shall be required adjacent to the south property line extending from the west exit of the car wash tunnel to the monument sign. The exact height of said wall shall be subJect to line-of-sight approval by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. Said information shall be specifically shown on pl3ns submitted for building permits. City of Maheim Plann(ng Commissian Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 23 ; ;, ~ ;. 34. That a min(mum 3-foot high landscape earthen berm with minimum 3-foot hi~h hedge on top of the berm shali be incorporated into the entira length of the setback , adjacent to Brookhurst Street and around the fast-food drive-through with the exception of ingress/egress areas. Further that a pedestrian access shall be provided from Brookhurst as ciose to Crescent Avenue as possible. Said information,shall be specificaily shown on plans submitted for building permits. 40. That dense landscaping shali be provided adjacent to Brookhurst Street to adequately screen the car wash tunnel and the drive-through lane. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitte~ for building permits. 41. That ali roof-mounted equipment shall be screened from view of the public rights-of-way and surrounding properties in compliance with Section 18.44.030.120 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. . 57. That the legal property owner shall frrevocably offer to the dedicate to the City of Anaheim an easement twenty-three foot six inches (23'6") in width from the centeriine of the street along Gramercy Avenue for public right-of-way improvements. 59. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 9,10,11,15,16,18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 45, 52, 54, 55, 56, and 57 shall be complied with. 60. That prior to finai building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 7, 17,19, 23, 29, 35, 58 and 59, above-mentioned, shall be compiied with. • Added the following cundition: That minimum 1-gallon size clinging vines planted on maximum 3-foot centers shall be planted snd maintained on the west wall of the restaurant prior final building and zoning inspections. Said information shall be specifically shown on plans submitted for building permits. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant Cit~ Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hoi~r (3:19-4:19) City of Anaheim Planning Comm(sslon Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 • Page 24 """`^"^ """ Continued to 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4139 8-16-99 OWNER: American NationaP Propertiss, Inc., P.O. Box 10077, Santa Ana, CA 92711-0077 AGENT: Phillip R. Schwartz, 31682 EI Camino Reai, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 LOGATION: 151G West Embassy Street. Property is 5.8 acres located at the terminus of Embassy Street. To establish an Orange County Transportation Authority operated paratransit transportation and maintenance depot to service approximately 175 medium size busses and to construct an office and maintenance building for ligh~ vehicle maintenance with enclosed washing bays and two above-ground 500 gallon fue(ing tanks. Continued from the Commission meeting of July 19,1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NQ. 5R7489VK.DOC Chairperson Boydstun: Stated, for the record, a letter from David Jackson stating his support of this project and felt it will work very weli with Fairmont School. Phillip Schwartz, representative for the applicant, invited Commission to step outside to view their bus. Chairperson Boydstun than announced a 5•minute break. (Meeting was recunvened.J ApplicanYs Statement: Phillip Schwartz: The purpose ~f viewing the bus is so there would be no misconception about the vehicle and the intended use. The basic concept is that they would like to put the property to a good and productive use. (He referred to a scaJe model located on a table in front of Commission.] The purpose is to functionally use this property and work with neighbors to protect them. TherP was initial concern that tiieir use wrould ~ot be compatible with their industrial zone neighbor fo the south, which is the schooi. By the time the school children get the school, the buses should all have left. The map in Commission's packets addresses the two above ground 500-gallon fueling tanks. The main fueling tanks would be below the ground and the only fueling tank above ground would be a propane tank. He felt the staff report adequately addresses ail the other issues. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 25 He had a couple of questions regarding conditions in the staff report. On page 3, item (11), which deals with the landscaping plans, he was not clear on the wording but wanted to be sure that Commission is aware that it is their intent to have some landscaping "fingers" in the parking lot. The buses come in on Mable Street and the ingress and egress from the site is by Embassy. The perimeter abuts the railroad track, a freight line. They are buffered i; om any view of this area by multiple ways such as a self-~torage facility location, along with a variety of ot~tier buildings. The schoot has an approximate 0 setback ftom them with tall buildings that currently exist. They intent to provide landscaping along the railroad side and there is to be an 8-foot chain link fence with vines and not a block wall. The proposed block walis to be constructed will connect along ihe school where they are across the street from some industrial areas. Item 23, page 6, addresses where the chain link fence and the block wall would ba. Staff recommended couple of additional conditions. Cheryl 1=lores, Senior Plan~~er: She read the two conditions into the record. The first condition stipulates the fueling, washing and preventive and light maintenance of buses will occur only in the evening hours when the adjacent school is not in operation. Heavy repairs shall not be conducted at this location. The second recommended condition is that buses utilizing the facility shall be limite~ ;o a maximum of 175 paratransit buses, not to exceed 25 feet in length. Phillip Schwartz: He pointed out that the primary activity in the evening would be fueling, washing, preventive light maintenance but somP uf this will occur during the day and that most buses are gone during the day. The majority of this activity would be in evening hours. The other recommended condition is regarding the 25 feet length of the buses. They have some buses, which have an extra seating section almost 30 feet in length, and wanted Commission to be aware of this. On page 8, Condition No.10, he thought it was a typographical error, suggested that all the ingress for the buses would be on Embassy Street where is gated. Condition No.10 indicates drivers and maintenance personnel would come in on Embassy and it is actually intended they come on Mable Street. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: The staff report indicated the drivers would be parking in some locations where the buses would be when they are out which would mean that it would be best fo~ them to come in through Embassy. Phillip Schwartz: He felt if it was done as stated in Condition No.10, no one would be able to park in the main parking I!~t which is the reason it is designed the way it is. John Maresca, Bryan Industrial Properties, 146 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA: He read a letter drafted on benalf of some of the neighboring owners on the Embassy site. "Bryan Industrial Properties and Mr. R.S. Hoyt, Jr. and Brian Collins are the owners of seven industrial buildings (tofaling 81, 000 square feet) a/ong Embassy Street and Loara Str•~et. For the record and on their behalf 1 have been authorized fo register their support for Laidlaw and fheir planned use for the Em6assy/Mab/e site. 7'he owners support (or this use, however, is based on the condition thaf the City will not place any restrictions on the throughway (east and westbound) tra~c use of either Embassy Street, or Mable Street. This would also include any limitations or restrictions that the City may intend to place on Laidlaw concerning the use of buses on one streef or the other. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 26 Certalnly any self-lmposed tra~c use restrictions that Laidlaw may plan for or adhere to would be accepted. The owners request only that Laldlaw on any self Imposed basls, would balance thelr fra~c use as evenly as posslble between Embassy and Mable Streefs. We believe this indusMal type use will bene/'d area and we look forward fo the Planning Commission accepting and supporting this use as stated above. Sincerely, John Maresca° (He then forwarded copies of the le8er to Commission.J In reading the staff report, he was confused that a cul-de•sac proposal is being discussed and/or reviewed in conjunction with this CUP without input from prope~ty owners on Maple and those who access Maple. In specific, Bryan Collins property which has access onto Mable. They support this use but only with understanding that there not be any blockage or restriction to traffic on Mabie or Embassy. Candition No. 10 places a restriction and appears to limit bus traffic to one street, they beiieve this to be inappropriate. Condition No. 27 refers to a dedication of a cul-de-sac. This presupposes that the neighboring property owners will support the closure and/or cu-de-sac of Mable. They believe that this request is irappropriate. Other than that, they are in full support of Laidlaw and welcome them to the neighborhood. Commissioner Bostwick: Condition No.11 states that there shall be no outdoor storage in the required parking area and no outdoor storage shall exceed the height of the fence including bus storage. The fences havs to be much higher than 6 or 8 feet to hidc~ the buses and asked if that has been taken into consideration? Cheryi Flores, Senior Planner: The staff report states that they are required to be 9%: feet high to adequately screen bus storage and that is also the same for the railroad rights-of-way. Phillip Schwartz: Verified it was on their plans. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: This was just a discussion item and there is no plan to close Maple Street. If it happens it would have to go through the process involving the City Engineer and the City Councii. The property owners would need to be notified and it is ultimately decided by the City Council. The condition states it is possible which means it may never ever happen. Phillip Schwartz: He pointed out tnat what will be screened will only be there at night. Most of the time during daylight hours, this facility will have very minimal activity, if at all. Commissioner Bristol: Offered a motion for a continuance to advertise a waiver for August 16, 1999, seconded by Commissioner Koos and motion carried. • • ~ • • • • IN SUPPORT: One person spoke in support of the project and a letter was received in favor. OPPOSITION: None City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 27 ; ., _, ..~.. ACTION: Continued subject request to the August 16,1999 Planning Commissfon meeting in order for staff to adve~tise a waiver of minimum required site screening adjacent to the railroad right-of-way in conjunction with this proposal. - VOTE: 6-0 (Commissloner Esping absont) DISCUSSION TIME: 29 minutes (4:20-4:49) A SHORT BREAK V4'AS TAKEN TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE BUS: 4:a1-4:26 City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 28 6a. CEQA NF.GATIYE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4023 (READVERTISED) Approved reinstatement 6c. REQUEST FOR E:XTENSION OF TIME TO Approved COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 6d. REQUE5T FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF Approved FINAL SIGN PLANS (To expire 5-27-20Q0) OWNER: Kee Whan Ha, P.O. Box 7fi1039, Los Angeles, CA 90076 AGENT: Santiago Cervantes, 837 East Orangethorpe Ave., Anaheim, CA 92801 LOCATION: 837 East Orangethorpe Avenue - S. Cervantes Tires. Property is 0,8 acre lacated at the no~thwest corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Orangethorpe Park (a private street). To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a timo limitation (approved on May 2?,1998 until May 27,1999) to retain a tire sales, repair and installation faciliry and to amend conditions of approval pertaining to hours of operation, number of employees, and timing pertaining to submittal of landscape and irrigation plans. To request an extension of time to comply with conditions of approvai and review and approval of final sign plans. Continued from the Commission meetings.of May 24, and Jur.e 21,1999. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-144 SR1137KP.DOC (Maggie Solorio assisted the applicant in Spanish translation.J ApplicanYs Statement: Santiago Cervantes, 837 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA: He requested that the liours of operation be granted from 730 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. and a total of three employees. He was in agreement with the recommendations of the staff report. Santiago Cervantes: He inquired about the signs. Maggie Solorio: Explained to the applicant that the staff report allows only two signs (listed as A& E in the staff report). Santiago Cervantes: He asked about the lighting. Maggie Solorio: Explained to the applicant that the lighting cf the signs will be permitted, however, Mr. Cervantes would need to work with staff. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary A.ction Agenda 08-02-99 Page 29 John Maresca, Bryan Industrial Propetties,146 East Orangethorpe, Maheim, CA: Bryan IndusMal ProperUes under various ownership entities, has over 200,000 square feet of industrial buildings and about 40,000 to 50,000 square feet of commerciai space which is approximately 3 blocks to the west of subject property. Bryan Industrial Properties has always raised concems about uses in the area that may pose future parking problems by the nature of not staying within a stated use. They requested approval of the tlme limit and the use stipulations that they have recommended. He offered their support to the recommendations as a whole. Commissioner Vanderbilt: He noticed at or near the property that there are two stone posts with decorative lamps and both were broken and asked if they have been repaired? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Code Enforcement can check to see if there are any light standards broken and follow-up to see that they are repaired. Maggie Solorio: Following the voting, she expiained Commission's action to the applicant FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OFTHE PLANNWG,C.OMMISSION ACTION: . ' IN SUPPORT: One person spoke in favor. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration fs adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatement of Conditional Use Permit No. 4023 (to expire 5-27-2000). Modified i~asolution No. PC98-89 as follows: Amended Condition Nos. 5 and 10 to read as follows: "5. That the business shall operate as follows, unless specifically modified by the Planning Commission: Type of business: tire sales, repair and installation Business hours: 7:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. daily Number of employees: maximum three (3) employees at any one time 10. That this conditionat use permit is hereby granted to expire un it4ay 27, 2000." ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Com~:;ssioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a retroactive extensfon of time, to expire May 27, 2000, to comply with Condition Nos.1, 2 and 8 of Resolution No. PC98-89 based on the following: (a) That the extension of time will not extend the approval beyond 2 extensions of time, with each extension not to exceed one year, or any greater or lesser time increment specified in the original resolution of the condilional use permit. (b) That the approval remains consistent with the General Plan and the zone district designation for the property. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 30 ;. ~~ ' : - . ~ „ ~Fa:., N ~r _a,. ,, , .. . . .. ,. c . . (c) That either no Code amendments haye occu~red that would cause the approval to be inconsistent with the Zoning Code, or the petitioner has {i) submitted revised pians demonstratfng that the approved project can be modifled to bring it irdo conformance with such Code amendments and (ii) agreed to modify the project to conform to such Code amer.dments. (d) That the subject property has been meintained in a safe, clean, and aestheticaily pteasing condition with no unremediated code violations on the property, as confirmed by an inspection of the subject property by the Code Enforcement Dfvision. Cost of inspection is estabiished pursuant to Section 1.01.389.030 of the Maheim Municipal Code, and shall be paid by the applicant prior to consideration of the time extension by the determining body. (e) That no additional information or changed circumstances are present which contradict the fac!s necessary to support one or more of the required findings for approval of the project or enterprise. ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Maheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve, in part, final sign plans, allowing or!y the following signs: Sign ~ Location ' Texf/Logo Sfze - Dimensions (Sq; ft.) ~. A Top Pcrtion of the S. CERVANTES 32 feet x 2 feet (64 sq. ft.) South Elevation TIRES E Top Portion of the East LLAN7ERA'S 34 feet x 2 feet (68 sq. ft.) Elevation CERVANTES Ali other existing signs shall be removed within sixty (60) days from the date of this approval. Approvai of a white neon light bar on top of Signs A and E shall be subject to final review by Planning Staff. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attomey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 9 minutes (4:50-4:59) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Aranda C&-a2-99 Page 31 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approve 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 4141 Granted QWNER: CH Anaheim, LTD. 20101 SW Birch Street #260, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: Crown Realty & Development, 20101 SW Birch St. #260 Newport Beach, CA 9~660 LOCATION: 2005 East Katelia Avenue - Stadium Crossinqs Pad E. Property is 1.10 acres located at the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue. To construct a full service reslaurant with sales cf alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption inc!uding an outdoor dining area within a mixed use commercial center. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-145 SR1135TW.DOC Please note: There were difficulties with the recording equipment, side 5 of the tapes, which inciuded the end of item No. 7 and all of Item No. 8 was inaudibte. Therefore, the discussion was composed from staff's notes. ApplicanYs Statement: Robert Flaxman, President of Crown Realty and Development Inc., 20101 Birch Street, Newport Beach, CA: Stated he is representing the applicant, CH Anaheim Ltd., the owner of the Stadium Crossings project at the northeast corner of State College and Katella. Commission in September 1997 approved stadium Crossings. The owner has now completed substantial portions of the project including over $1 million in offsite improvements much to the direct benefit of the Stadium Area and pursuant to guidelines now approved in the Stadium Area Master Land Use Plan. The applicant is now completing the construction of the 4-story office building, and referenced their rendering on the exhibit wall, a 140-room Marriott Townplace Suites Hotel and a Spectrum Health Club. The porlions of the project that are open have been an outstanding and remarkable success, well received by businesses and consumers in the area. Pad E, the corner location, State College and Katella, lhe original exhibit and approval included a full- service, sit-down restaurant, with on-sale of alcohol beverages and outdoor seating area and the approval listed 47 restaurants which were pre-approved and the approval stated the restaurants not on the list but which were comparable to those on the list were to be approved by Commission as an R&R item. Staff has taken the position that a new CUP is required because the proposed Denny's Classic Diner is not comparable to the ones on the approved list. While they disagree with staff, they have cooperated with staff in coming forward with this CUP application, as opposed to insisting upon the R&R procedures that were set forth in the original CUP. Ciry of Anaheim Planning Cornmission 5ummary Action Agenda OS-02-99 Page 32 The applicant is proud to bring f~rward this ciassic American dining experience, Denny's Classic Diner, which is similar to a Ruby's Diner, which was approved in the original CUP. Denny's Classic Diner presents an enduring diner theme in a bright cheery environment complete with the materials, colors, and look which have made the diner the American classic. Staff contends that the Denny's Classic Diner is not consistent with their prior representations and is inconsistent with the intent of the previously- approved high quality full service restaurant. They disagree. This proposed restaurant is a unique high quality full service dining experience offering three good old-fashioned meals a day, ail at affordable prices to families who visit the Stadium area, as well as people who work in the Stadium area. They believe that the typical family who comes to the Stadium Area wouid much prefer a 50's theme diner experience with affordable pricing and good clean fun and food rather than more expensive alternatives. Denny's has been in business 46 years and are in the midst of converting to a new diner thzme. Denny's is willing to alter the prototype to accommodate design alternatives. Time is now of the essence, with the office building and hotel nearing completion, they need this restaurant for the full-service dining experience for the theater and the Stadium area. He urged Commission to approve the CUP and adopt conditions proposed by staff report, Condition Nos. 1-21 with the following exceptions and clarifications; • Condition No. 2- approve the architecture, floor plans, elevations and material board, which they are submitting into the record as part of their presentation. Request the condition be modified to require them to revise proposed signage to be approved as part of CUP 3957, but would like to designate the corner pad as a pad tenant rather than a shop tenant. There was a mistake in the prior record designating the corner pad as a shop tenant as opposed to a pad tenant so its signage would be in conformance with the Community Bank and with the adjacent Carl's Jr. • Requirement to submit specific specifications for floor plans and outdoor patio furniture umbrellas as part of the outdoor seating area, however that these subsequent submittals not be a condition to the building permit but only to the final occupancy permits. • That the applicant be required to screen the rooftop equipment consistent with the previously- approved program for Starbucks, • Condition No. 3- prohibit freestanding not apply to sign panel to be installed on the previously- approved and constructed monument signs. • Outdoor seating area - hours of operation to be permitted from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. • Condition No. 1(k) limits the sale of alcohol beyond what was approved for the restaurant on corner pad, and suggested, that although it is not a requirement, that the original approval which required all alcohol sales to stop at 1:00 a.m. be what is applicable to the restaurant on this corner. Some statements were made in the staff report that the applicant made certain representation about the corner pad. They were overtaken by those statements. They reviewed prior minutes and he never made any promises about what this comer restaurant would be other than a high quality restaurant. They have felt all along that a moderately priced restaurant offaring three meals a day would be what is right for this project. THE Pl1BLIC HEARING ITEM WAS CLOSED. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 33 Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: Stated staff had two main concems about this proposal 1. Operations characteristics of this specific restaurant and, 2. The architectural design in the context of the suROUnding and nearby development. Regarding the first, when Conditional Use Permit No. 3957 (Stadium ~rossings, a mixed use commerc(al center with a shared parking and sign program and totaling more than 300,000 square feet was first filed, staff sought to have the tenants and their specific operations identified. This would be typical for a conditional use permit where the operation includes features such as on-sale alcoholic beverages and outside dining areas and where the quality of architecture is of concern. This comer, to be developed with a freestanding restaurant and located at one of the most prominent intersections in the Stadium Area and within sight of the Edison International Field and Sportstown (which represent existing and planned invastments exceeding 270 million dollars), was, and continues to be, of particular interest and concern to the city. However, since the applicant did not yet have tenants but wanted an approved CUP before marketing the tenant spaces, the petition was accepted and processed. It was Planning's understanding, through both meetings with staff and testimony given during the public hearing that this site at the corner of Katella and State College (identified as Pad E of Stadium Crassings) was de~igned for a full service, sit down restaurant, with the applicanYs verbal examples of such a restaur,~nt being Outback Steak House and Black Angus. Regarding the second concern, the design of this proposal. The Stadium Crossings CUP was intended to be an integrated mixed use project in terms of circulation, parking, signs and architectural compatibility. While some architecturai variation for this specific tenant was anticipated, it was not intended to take on the quality or character of a"fast service" type restaurant. With the objective of obtaining a suitable tenant and building design for this corner, Condition No. 57 of the resolution approving CUP 3957 specifies that Pad E be developed with a"full service, sit down restaurant of not less ~han 5,000 square feeY', and that prior to issuance of a building permit, the specific floor plan and exterior building elevations be submi!ted for Planning Commission review and approval. Staff objected to the Denny's Classic Diner proposal because it is not the full service restaurant that was expected. It consists of a mix of counter, booths and freestanding tables in the dining area. And the exterior of the buiiding is a"box car design" veneered with steel, a reflective material thak is significantly different from the primary exterior materials and color in the surrounding development. It is staff's view that the proposed architecture is not consistent with that of high quality restaurants, and that this proposal is not compatible with, and would not be visually integrated with, ;he surrounding buildings; nor would it enhance the quality of the Katella and State College street frontages on which it wouid be located. For those reasons, including the discussion in the staff report, staff recommended that Commission deny Conditional Use Permit No. 4141. Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner: Submitted, for the record, the Planning Commission minutes (Summary Action Agenda) dated August 18,1997 which indicated the intent of the applicant proposing Black Angus or an Oufback Steak House type restaurant. Commissioner Koos: Asked Mr. Flaxman to explain the operations within the restaurant regarding the retro theme. Mr. Flaxman: Explained that it will carry the theme all the way through everything from the ciassic jukebox, uniforms, singing classic 50's rypes of songs at birthday parties, etc. Fie referenced the interior City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 34 photos as attachments to the staff report. It would be something similar to a Ruby's Diner or the Fog City Diner in San Francisco and other similar retro 50's diners theme. Commissioner Koos: Initiaily he was leaning towards staff's point of view but after reviewing the information and testimony given he became supportive of the project. He feit that the list (of restaurants) did not have Denny's on it because this is not the standard type of Denny's nor does the list include Spires, which is not what they want to have in the Stadium Area. He felt this is a unique Denny's use that will fit in well in the Stadium Area and is not contrary to the goals of the Master Land Use Plan. He was supportive of the project. Chairperson Boydstun: She felt the Stadium Area has many nEce and expensive restaurants. The Denny's Classic Diner would also be the type restaurant geared towards families since it would be the type of place children would enjoy, affordable, and what is popuiar. She felt the Staciium Area needs more variety of restaurants. She also is supporlive of the project. Commissioner Bostwick: He wouid like to see a Macaroni Grill but since that is not the case, he felt it adds to the mixed use of this area. There is a suites hotel, and there needs to be a reasonably priced full service restaurant. There is an office building that will be served by this as well as the people from the bank. The McDonald's acrass the street is one of the top grossing McDonald's in southern California because it is reasonable and this Denny's would add to that. The next closest coffee shop from this area is Carrows which is beyond Lincoln Avenue and he felt there will be many people from the east Anaheim area who are going to use this restaurant. There is also Katella Grill that he refers people to but that is in the city of Orange instead of Anaheim. The proposal adds uniqueness to the Stadium Area. Commissioner Vanderbilt: He does agreed with the design of the architecture but they are considering a proposal for a Denny's moving in this direction in the future as their company's visian. In terms of what would draw people to the Sportstawn Area, currently the image that people have of Denny's is the more common restaurant that currently exist which is different than some of the other restaurants that are on the list. The other restaurants on the list are anchor type restaurants. Staff feels that the investment in the Sportstown Area requires careful selection of the type of business that would b~ .,i that area and many of the restaurants have reputations such as the Macaroni Grill. He pointed out that perhaps they are looking at a proposal that is on the drawing board as opposed to one that is tested out. Who knows how long it will take Denny's to be able to convert all of their other restaurant to this format so it becomes part of the consciousness about the type of experience that someone is going to get. He is in agreement with the affordability, which is an excellent point. Robert Flaxman: When tl iey came forward with the Carl's Jr. there was a reaction that this was not appropriate for the Stadium Area or the Stadium Crossings project. They suggested that they could build something very unique. Since it has been built he has received many favorab~e comments regarding the Cari's Jr. He was contacted by Buena Park for a property that developers were proposing a fast food and the City staff suggested to the broker to contact them because they felt it was a unique Carl's Jr. in Anaheim. Since they own and manage the project they are going to insist on a quality level that would be commensurate to what he would take his family to. When they first brought this project forward, Sportstown, at the time, was very much talked about and they did not want to be something that would be competitive to Sportstown or another entertainment center, they wanted to be a project, which services that community. They wanted a hotel that would service the businessman in the community and not necessarily a hotel that was going to be serving the resort area. They wanted an office building, health club, restaurants and seroices that were in such demand. Currently the Frescas, Starbucks or the Panda have lines of customers everyday because those services are in such short supply in that community, One of the reasons their office building is leasing very fast is City of Anaheim Pianning Commissfon Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 35 because of all the amenities that they offer. He felt that there needs to be a reasonably priced restaurant where people can go for breakfast or lunch and have a business meeting. He felt when it is built, It will be the type of icon that they are looking for. Commissioner Bristol: He did not know how they could have thought that anything but this type of use could have gone in there. Since Jolly Roger, located on Lincoln, closed there are now very few restaurants like that in the area. He felt the second elevation is better than this one. He also agreed that this proposal is unique and fits in this area well. Commissioner Napoles: He liked the architectural concept of this proposal. There is a need for this type of restaurant in that Stadium Area. He felt it is going to be a good thing for the city of Anaheim. During the voting: Robert Flaxman: The applicant is asking for the approval of the classic diner theme with the floor plans, eievations and the material broad as submitted. Secondl~+, that the signage be revised to comply with the approved sign program as a pad tenant as opposed to a shop tenant. Thirdly, that they submit to the Zoning Division the specific materials for the outdoor patio area for them to evaluate and resubmit to Commission as an R&R item but not as a condition to getting a building permit, only as a condition to obtaining the final occupancy permit. Annika Santalahti, Znning Administrator: ~~n the last two issues, the items that become appropriate under final occupancy of a building should not be some!hing like this that could hold up the project. Staff felt very concerned about the issue of how the outside looks because they have seen that in many locations in Anaheim and felt it is appropriate that it return so it can be checked. One of the elevation areas of concern is when they use plexiglas or glass as part of the enclosure fencing. It wouid be appropriate that Commission retain that portion of the condition that information return to Commission for approval and that it return prior to issuance of building permits. The siqns that were submitted are not in conformance because of a projection above the roofline and it is appropriate that Commission see the final signs for this proposal, if the choice was made that instead of the 150 square feet maximum wall signs was exchanged for 250 square feet maximum, which she thought is the pad design in the sign program, it is something that they can approve at that time as a specific change of tenant status. The signage package was approved as part of the original package so that particular component would need an advertisement to modify it, to switch over to the pad tenant. Grec~ McCafferty, Senior Planner: As a clarification regarding the corner wall signs, staff recommended that they amend the exhibit sign program and keep it at 150 square feet. Per eievation take the logos and lower them below the mansard because they are considered roof signs the way they are currently portrayed on the elevations and that the applicant understan~s that the north elevation of the restaurant can not have a wall sign, facing the parking areas facing another building which is the Community Bank buiiding. Robert Flaxman: When they originally came forward with their application they envisi~ned that this corner building could be potentially a mt,lti-tenant pad building with a number of different tenants and so the signage criteria was originally designated for a shop building as opposed to a pad building. He suggested that the approval require that the signage for the Denny's restaurant comply with the approved sign program as a pad fenant. A roof sign is prohibited and if it is shown on the elevation that way it is an error. They would propose that whatever the criteria is for the pad tenant in the existing approval and the existing sign program is what this complies with. City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Paga 36 Commissioner Bostwick: He recailed conversation, ~rom the past hearing, that it would be sither a restaurant or a shop where Aye two would be split, two tenants, if necessary, if they could not come up with one particular use for the entire site. !ie does not have a problem with changing it to a permitted pad signage rather than a tenant signage. The bbard on the wall is the praposed eievations that they are dealing with. Robert Flaxman: It also has a dascription of materials on it as well Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner: In looking at page 3, paragraph 11, he felt there was an issue because under proposed signs you see the area column tF~at t~as 9 to 49 square feet so he did not think it was the intent of the applicant to install a sign that wa~ 250 square feet. Robert Flaxman: Verified he was correct. Greg McCafferty, Senior ~'lanner: If ihe applicant holds to the exhibits and lowers the sign below the mansard then they should be okay with the Pxception of the north elevation where they would need to take off the signage. Commissioner Bostwick: On the tower over the front doors, if the sign comes down above door to where the top of :he sfgn does not exceed the top of the roof ther, it wouid be considered app~ oved, Greg Mc(:afferry, Senior Planner: As long as it does not project above the roof line. Commissioner Bostwick: The roof line in this case is the top of the rounded roof. Robert Flaxman: Called the top of the parapet. The canopy element of that is conceivably not projecting above that. They are picking a particular point on the building and saying this is the roof as opposed to saying some other element of the building is not the roof line. Architecturally speaking they have shown the sign in portion of where it should fit on the e'•~ ment that they have drawn. He does not look at it as a roof sign, he loaks as a roof sign that is something standing on a pedestal held up above a roof and he does not feei that is what they are proposing here. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: Ask long as it is below the parapet roof or below the roof of the tower. Robert Flaxman: Where it is shown now is fine Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner: It is fine where it is on the tower but if you look at other elevations it shows it above the mansard. Commissioner Bostwick: The Denny's Ciassic Diner is in the diamond pattern and if it stays in the diamond pattern then it is fine. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administrator: Confirmed that was corroct Greg McCafferty, 3enior Planner: There is a portion of ttie logo that praJects. Robert Flaxman: He cunsiders the roofline to be the tep of the mansard or the top of the parapet Commissioner Bostwick: Suggested either widen the band or keep it within the band strip. City of Anahefm Planning Cammfssion Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 37 Greg McCafferty, Senior Pl2nner: If thay want to widen the band to compiy with code then they can do that as long as it does not project into the mansard. Rnoert Flaxman: He disagreea that it is above Oie roof line but they will accommodate. Staff is suggesting that the sign that is being ~hown on 4he north side of the bufld'ng, facing Communit~ Bank, would be disailowed because it is facing another building as opposed to a parking lat. He did not understand the reason why the sfgn should not be there. Greg McCafferty: The intent of the sign program was to make sure that any of the uses on this slte were visual from the street of the parking area. He has one on Katella, on State Coilege and one facing east in the parking area. On the north elevation there is adjacent Communit~ Bank and a driveway, it is not raally parking area. Regarding the visibility along State CNlege, he also indicated that they would be placing it on the freestanding monument signs. Robert Flaxman: They just wanted to reserve the right to do that. Greg McCafferty, Senior Planner: He has advertisement on State College and Katella, if he wishes on the monument sign. Robert Flaxman: He felt this is splitting hairs. The restaurant will not faii becaus zy do not have sign. At the same token, he felt, it aompletes the architecturP and takes it all the way • nd the building. Commissioner Bostwick: Suggested leaving off the sign on the north elevation. Asked if they can have the final review to return thing back if Commission for final review. Annika Santalahti, Zoning Administra;or: Asked for verification that Condition No.1(c) should read, "food service with a full meal shall be available from opening time until closing time, on each day of operatior„ and Condition No. 1(k) permit consumption of alcoholic beverages until 1:00 a.m. Following the voting: Selma Mann persor,a~,~ informed the applicant ot the 22-day appeal period before the applicant left • • • • • • OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 4141 with tho following changes to the conditions of approvai•. Modified Condition Nos.1-C, 1-K, and 17 to read ss follows: 1-c. That food service wiin a f~ '^~eal shall be available from apening time until closing time on each day uf operation. 1-k. That sales, service ard consumption of al~oholic beverages shall bs permitted from 9 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. daily, City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 38 lF VOTE: _. . ,. ~ . . ... `.•' ' _ ._'Y ~ ~ ~ . .l ''~~' 17. That the outdoor seating area shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight daily. Amend Condition No. 2 to include: That final plans showing material boards for building exteriors, patfo equipment, flooring, and umbrellas, including colors, shall be rubmitted to the Zoning Division of the Plann(ng Department for review and approval by the Planning Commission as a Reports and Recommendations ftem; that no signs shall be permitted on the north elevation; and that plans for any roof-mounted equipment shall also be submitted to Commiss!on for appraval. That no signs shall be permitted on the north elevation. 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assiskant City Atterney, presented the 22-day appeai rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 46 minutes (5:00-5:46) Cify of Anaheim Planning Commission Sucr.mary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 39 ~_ 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 8b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3935 (R~,DVERTISED) Approved reinstatement 8c. REQUEST FOR RETROACTIVE TIME EXTENSION Approved OWNER: M/M Invesco irc., 6732 Westminster Boulevard, (To expire 7-21-2000) Westminster, CA 92683 AGENT: Victor Patel, 24351 Rue De Gauguin, Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 LOCATION: 1125 North Magnelia Avenue - Magnolia Piaza Office Building• Property is 1.5 acres located on the west side of Magnolia Avenue, 280 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. To consider reinstatement of this permit which currently contains a time limitation (approved on August 31,1998, to expire on July 21,1999} in order to begin operation of a previously-approved 2,876 square foot restaurant and 5,760 square foot banquet faciiity with on-premises sales and consumption of alcoholic beverages. Request for a retroactive time extension to comply with conditions of approval. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC99-146 SR1136TVV.DOC Please note: There were difficultfes with the recording equipment, sfde 5 of the tapes; which included the end of item No. 7, and all of Item No. 8 was inaudible. Therefore, the dfscussion was ' composed from staff's notes. Applicant's Stater,ient: Victor Patel: Requested Commission's approving for reinstatement of this permit in order to begin operation of a previously-approved restaurant and banquet facility with on-premises sale and consumption of alcoh~lic beverages. Public Testimony: John Maresca, Joh~ Maresca, Bryan Industrial Properties, Inc.,1246 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, CA: On behalf of Byan Industrial Properties, he has been authorized to register their support cf staff's recommendation listed in the staff report regarding this request. City of Anaheim Plannfng Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 40 ~... ~ • ~ •• • ~ ~ , ~ IN FAVOR: 1 person spoke in favor OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously-approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved reinstatemert of Conditional Use Permit No. 3935. Modified Resolution No. PC98-137 as follows: Amended Condition No. 23 to read as follows: "23. That this conditional use permit shall expire on July 21, 2000. ACTION: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve a retroactive time extension to compty with conditions of approval, to expire on July 21, 2000, based on the foilowing: (i) That this is the second and last possible request for an extension of time for Conditional Use Permit No. 3935. (ii) That the proposed restauranU banquet facility is consistent with the General Commercial General Plan Land Use Designation for this site. (iii) Thst there have been no Code amendm~nts since the granting of Conditional Use Permit No. 3935 which affect this I~roperty, nor has ihe request been modified to include other Code waivers. (iv) That there are no outstanding complaints or Code violations at this property. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (5:47-5:51) City of Anaheim Planning Commission Summary Action Ayenda 08-02-99 Page 41 , . . ... . . . . .. . , :: ... W ~ .._ }j . . . -..... ~ .' .'. . .1 . ' ~ .. . ., • ,-~' ' ' }~ '. . , . . ' . {. . ~ 9b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMiT N0. 4138 OWNER: Sepulveda Partners, L.P., 4545 Willis Avenue #10, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 AGENT: Larry A. Dase, 29212 Starboard Court, Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 LOCATION: 710 South Brookhurst - Sherwood Professional Center. Property is 1.34 acres located at the southeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Niobe Avenue. To permit an acupressure faciliry withir~ a commercial/office compiex. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FiESOLUTION N0. SR7506KP.DOC ~ There was no discussion related to this item. • ~ ~ • • . • QPPOSiTION: None ACTION: Commissioner Bristol offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Vanderbilt and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Esping absent), that the Anaheim City Plannfng Commission does hereby accept the petitioner's re:~uest for withdrawal of this item. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Esping absant) DISCUSSION TIME: 1 minutQ City of Anahe(m Planning ~ommission Summarv laction Agenda 08-02-99 Page 42 ADJOURNED AT 5:52 P.M. TO MONDAY, AUGUST 16,1999 AT 1Q:00 A.M. FOR AN O.C.7.A. CENTERLINE WORKSHOP AND FOR TNE PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Submitted by: ~ ..a~,.~a~ Ossie Edmundson, Senior Secretary ~,~„~ 7"~-xt...-r Simonne Fannin, Senfor O~ce Specialist ~~ ~ ~~~ Edith Harris Planning Commission Support Supervisor Recelved and approved by the Pianning Commissiun on S' 3~" `J `3 City of Anahe(m Planning Commission Summary Action Agenda 08-02-99 Page 43