Loading...
Resolution-PC 97-149PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Continued to 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3966 11-10-97 OWNER: Walter A. Friedman, 624 Barnsdale Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Mark Scheuerman, 105 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 105 South State College Boulevard - Insta-Tune and Lube. Property is 0.35 acre located at the southwest corner of State College Boulevard and Center Street. To permit a 1,266 square foot expansion of an existing 1,008 square foot lubrication, oil change and smog check and minor auto repair facility. Continued from the Commission meeting of September 29, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC97-149 RESCISSION RESOLUTION NO. PC97-150 SR6797KP. W P FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Applicant's Statement: Walter Friedman, 624 South Barnsdale St., Anaheim, CA: Stated this petition is regarding 105 South State College Boulevard. His tenant, Mr. Scheuerman, who is present, reviewed the conditions that the various departments of the City have placed on them and have comments on the following conditions of the staff report: Page 6, Condition No. 7 -- The City's request that they eliminate the northerly driveway on State College Boulevard is not acceptable to himself nor his tenant. They feel with the expansion of the building, they are going to need a complete traffic flow both around the building and they are also going to need access to a larger site.. The intersection of State College Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue - By eliminating the northerly driveway, they are going to create an ingress and egress problem to the property because southbound traffic at State College Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue backs up and sometimes blocks the southerly driveway. They also feel that the northbound traffic would be impeded making a left turn into the property which is just east of the southerly property. In addition, they feel that both driveways on State College are necessary to have reasonable and free flowing traffic around the proposed improvement. 10-27-97 Page 7 2. Condition No. 8 -- They want to delay driveway reconstruction until such time that State College Boulevard is widened. Since the street will be widened sometime between 1998 and 2000. They feel that spending money to do expensive concrete work now is not economically feasible for such a short period of time. 3. Condition No. 9 -- Asked for more time to review Standard Plan Nos. 436 and 601/602. 4. Condition No, 11 --Atypical way of wording the prohibition of work outside of the building would be say that all work will be conducted within a building. A large portion of Mr: Scheuerman's business is performing smog checks which requires a vehicle to be running. To .require a running vehicle completely inside of a building is against OSHA requirements because an employee could be easily asphyxiated or carbon monoxide poisoning. Typically, the tail pipe of the car is outside of the building. Type of language that he has seen in the past is a requirement is placed on the tenant to have any vehicle within a building. Meaning if a tail pipe is outside it is acceptable. 5. Condition No. 15 -- The condition poses a problem for them. When State College Boulevard is widened they are only going to have 14 feet between the sidewalk on State College and the proposed improvement to the building. If they landscape that portion of the 10 foot wide planter they are going to eliminate the ability to drive around the front of the building. They feel that is an integral part of a successful business on this site, to be able to drive around to the various bays and to perform the automotive repair. They recommended installing a 4-foot planter abutting the new building and leave 10 feet for the driveway out front. 6. Condition No. 17 -- They wanted to request an expansion of hours: Monday through Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and on Sunday 6:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Page 7, Condition No. 19 -- They feel is cumbersome. If they put a masonry wall on the southerly property line and with the requested changes to the signage. They are going to block visibility of both this parcel coming north on State College and the adjacent parcel (a carpet store) coming south. His tenant proposed that the condition be replaced with putting a block wall on the westerly property line which divides the subject .parcel from an apartment building behind. They thought that improvement would be more in order. S. Condition Nos. 22 and 24 - In combination require virtual elimination of all signage on this parcel. All the wall signage and existing pole signage sometime in the future. So his tenant would have no identification on the building with the exception of an approved monument sign. A monument sign very low to the ground, not very visible to the public. There is an additional condition listed that any type of signage under Condition No. 22 would be subject to an additional approval by the Commission, which they feel is quite cumbersome. They would like to work with staff in coming up with some kind of sign plan now agreeable to everyone. His tenant did state that he would be willing to remove the pole sign but they wanted to address the fact that some kind of signage, in addition to the monument sign, be allowed to continue to be permitted. They are hoping that they can come up with a feasible plan. The plan and implementation of the plan, if approved, would be contingent and subject to its economic feasibility. It is a very expensive project for him as well as his tenants. Depending on the conditions imposed, they would only go forward with this if it was an economically feasible project. Mr. Thompson, 1660 N. Main Street, Orange, CA: Stated the reason they did not show any signage was that they did not get together with the property owner and the tenant to determine what kind of signage they wanted and where they wanted to put it. This is dependent on 10-27-97 Page 8 getting the plans of the size and shape of the buildings permitted or approved so they know how many square foot of signage they are allowed. A signage program should be separate, as a R&R. signage will be whatever the Code states and they can work that out with staff. One of the major problems is the building currently there is an old building (an old gas station). They want to increase the size of the covered area (the new smog analysis machines require to be under cover) expanding the physical size of the building. They are not expanding the usage of the property. They .need the driveway or access from north to south on the front. They have a limited amount of space. If is going to shrink the requirement for the landscaping and will eliminate any access other than foot traffic from north to south. They would rather get a modification on the landscaping, put it up against the building so that it is a mare attractive building and leave some tilack top out in front where they can drive the cars north and south. He recommended in the plans that are being prepared by Public Works for the widening of State College that some opportunity be granted to the people along the street as to the number and location of drive approaches. This is important because they are trying to run a business. He would like to meet with the :people doing the design work to come up with a plan that fits the buildings that are there. THE PUBLIC HEARINGS WAS CLOSED Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she felt their problem with Condition No. 19 could be eliminated, concerning the 6-foot high masonry wall on the south. There is a chain link fence there now and they would like it to be either removed or replaced with a brick fence, which they have agreed to do. Commissioner Henninger: Stated the testimony given is that the business is not being expanded but rather just putting things under cover that are now going on outdoors. They need to understand that the business that is going on outdoors is illegal by the Code. They may not be expanding the business but they are taking a business that is now being done illegally and making it legal. He asked staffs thoughts on the removal of the driveway near Center Street. Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: Responded the existing side has a driveway on Center Street and also two driveways on State College Boulevard. It would not make a difference tc have one or two driveways on State College Boulevard because if the process of the critical intersection does not go through due to increase traffic on State College Boulevard they have to restripe that street. If there is a car going southbound and suddenly stops to make a right hand turn into the driveway, it creates a conflict with the cars that are on Center Street making a right turn going southbound because the driveway is almost right at the beginning of the curve. By removing that driveway not only is the situation improved but also the potential for accidents would be reduced. As far as removing the driveways,-they do not have to redo the driveways for a curb radius because that project is going to go through;, the City will do it for them during the time of the construction of the critical intersection. -- Commissioner Henninger: Asked Code Enforcement their thoughts on Condition No. 11 about the tail .pipe sticking out the back of the building. Bruce Freeman: Responded they have been working with Mr. Freidman and the owners of the operation since 1996 on this. They are currently in violation of the Code. The cars at the site are not pulled inside the bay from the front of the business. They are actually driven up to the front doors. The equipment itself sits inside the building, however, the cars are outside. The most :recent inspection was conducted Saturday and they have photographs to show the bay doors were actually closed. The issued is that the work be conducted inside the building. If a small portion of the vehicle protruded they would have not problem because the actual work is 10-27-97 Page 9 being conducted inside the building. That is not the case in this instance. All work is being done outside, including in the rear parking lot. Commissioner Henninger: Stated his personal experience with smog checks is that vehicles are typically pulled into a building that has bay doors and are opened. The back of the car is only a foot or two outside so there is adequate ventilation and it seems to him that the Condition that is being proposed would accommodate that. Bruce Freeman: Stated most businesses conduct business as Commissioner Henninger explained. The vehicles are entirely inside the building with no problems. This has not been an issue in the past nor has it been as issue with other smog businesses. Chairman Bostwick: Stated this sounds like a semantics problem: whether you do outdoor work or all work is inside of a building. Bruce Freeman: Stated probably 60% of their business is being conducted outside of the building itself. Whether it be in the east portion of the property or at the west portion of the property behind the building, that is where it is taking place. It is not taking place inside of the building. They believe if this item is approved that this will correct that problem. Commissioner Bristol: Asked for a clarification whether Code Enforcement felt that most of the work in and out of the building is going to be on the west and not visible to the east, to State College Boulevard? Bruce Freeman: Responded the way the building is constructed at this time and with future expansions it appears most operations will be conducted at the rear of the building. It would actual come in off of Center Street and go to the rear portion of the property and head into the building from the back side. Chairman Bostwick: Asked the applicant if most of the customers enter from Center Street or State College Boulevard? Mark Scheuerman, owner of the business., 17512 Norwood Park, Tustin, CA: Responded they enter off of both Center Street and State College Blvd equally. When the Code Enforcement Officer was taking photographs on Saturday it was very windy causing dust and debris to fly around that is why the doors were down. He stated 60% of the work is not done outside. What they do is head the car in from the front and from the back to do both oil changes and smog checks simultaneously.. Chairman Bostwick: Asked what changes are going to be made with the expansion? Mark Scheuerman: Responded the tail pipes should be outside the building contrary prior testimony. With the new addition, it will give them the capacity to put the cars completely inside. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if he had plans for ventilation in the building? Mark Scheuerman: Responded the tail pipe will be right at the door. The State requires that the new equipment be dynameters which require a lot of space. That is the primary reason for the expansion. Commission :Henninger: Stated on the other issue, we could probably do a good job of landscape screening with a 4-foot planter in front of the building. 10-27-97 Page 10 Commissioner Boydstun: There will be some landscaping in the City's portion. Mark Scheuerman: If they did take away the other driveway it would affect the accessibility. It is very important to the customers to be able to get in and out as fast as possible. Commissioner Henninger: Recommended the following change that Condition No. 7 be left as is. He asked if the removal of the driveway could await the critical intersection improvements? Alfred Yalda: Responded yes. Commissioner Henninger: Then suggested changing the condition regarding the critical intersection.. Melanie Adams: Asked if the timing that the applicant would be responsible for going to be changed? They are discussing a cost issue and if it were done now when it becomes time to do the widening the appraisal looks at it as a closed driveway already. Asked if it is the intent of Commission to require the applicant to close the driveway. Commissioner Henninger: Stated that is what the condition states, he just wanted to change the timing. What if the driveway was blocked rather than removed? Alfred Yalda: Responded they have done this in other areas. It could be done also. Commissioner Henninger: Asked how they block the driveway? Alfred Yalda: Responded at other site there was a corner lot and they put the landscaping and blocked it. Commissioner Henninger: Asked at this site how can they block this in a temporary way because ultimately this area would not have a planter? Alfred Yalda: Stated perhaps they could extend the planting all the way through so it gives an .appearance of a closed driveway. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he recommended changing Condition No. 7 to read, "existing northerly driveway along State College Boulevard near Center Street shall be blocked in a manner as approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager". Commissioner Henninger: Suggested Condition No. t3 to read that the driveway on Center Street. Cheryl Flores: Asked on Condition No. 7, would his intent be that there would be landscaping after the driveway is blocked? Commissioner Henninger: Responded no. Cheryl Flores: Stated it may be something to consider to refurbish the existing landscape planters that are there now. That is not currently a condition. Commissioner Henninger: Recommended changing Condition No. 15 to a 4-foot wide landscaped planter immediately in front of the building. On Condition No. 17, the hours to read Monday through Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. On Condition No. 19, he suggested striking out the words "south and". Condition No. 22 and 24 10-27-97 Page 11 return as an Reports and Recommendation Item Bruce Freeman: Stated on the property there is an existing billboard that also advertises "Insta-Tune" which the business located at the property. The Code stipulates that billboards are permitted, however, it is not permitted to advertise the use that is actually occurring on the property. Commissioner Henninger: Suggested adding a condition that states that the property owner will bring their signage 'in conformance with the City Code and add another condition that states that the applicant will refurbish the landscaping on the property. [Later in the meeting, Walter Friedman requested Item No. 2 be reopened in order to rescind the approvals and request a continuance. The following is a summary of that discussion.] Walter Friedman, 624 S. Barnsdale St., Anaheim, CA: Asked to rescind the approval on the Conditional Use Permit No. 3966 and asked for a continuance so he can discuss this in an ongoing manner with the Planning staff. There were a couple of items in speaking with the engineer and his tenant that they would like to discuss with staff and continue it to a later date. He feels some of the issues can be resolved. Selma Mann: Stated there is the possibility of appeal to the City Council. If there is a problem. Was there anyone present appearing on this item? Chairman Bostwick: Stated it was just the applicant, his tenant and engineer. Commissioner Bristol: Asked what they were going to ask? Walter Friedman: Responded there was some language and certain items on the conditions his tenant will not go forward with and he feels it is a project that is in the best interest of the City and himself. He does not feel it is the type of item that needs to go to appeal but rather go back to staff for more discussion. [The approval of the CEQA Negative Declaration and the Resolution granting Conditional Use permit No. 3967 were withdrawn. Item was them continued to November 10, 1997.] ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3966 with the following changes to conditions: Modified Condition Nos. 7, S, 15 and 17 to read as follows: That gates shall not be installed across any driveway in a manner which may adversely affect vehicular traffic on the adjacent streets. That the existing northerly driveway on State College Boulevard near Center Street shall be blocked in a manner as approved by the City Traffic and Transportation Manager. 8. That the driveway on Center Street shall be reconstructed to accommodate ten (10) foot radius curb returns in conformance with Engineering Department Standard No. 137. 10-27-97 Page 12 15. That within ninety (90) days of the completion of the Critical Intersection Improvements on State College Boulevard, the property owner shall construct a 4-foot wide landscaped and irrigated planter, immediately in front of the building. Landscape materials shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Commission as a Reports .and Recommendations item. 17. That the business shall operate as follows as stated by the petitioner: Type of Business: Lubrication, oil change, smog check and minor auto repair' Business Hours: Monday through Saturday 8 a:m. to 6 p.m. Sunday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Number of Employees: 4 employees 'Automobile body work, major transmission repair, major engine overhaul, and painting shall not be permitted. 19. That a six (6)-foot .high masonry block wall shall be constructed to replace the existing chain link fencing along the west property line, excepting the front setback where the wall height shall not exceed three (3) feet. The chain link fence along the south property line shall either be removed or replaced with a six (6)-foot high masonry block wall. The block wall shall be planted and maintained with clinging vines to eliminate graffiti opportunities. Added the following new conditions: That all signage shall be in conformance with Code requirements. That the existing landscaping on the property shall be refurbished. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Mayer and Peraza absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, :presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 30 minutes (1:50-2:20) TOWARDS THE END OF THE MEETING, THE APPLICANT RETURNED TO THE PODIUM AND REQUESTED THAT COMMISSION RESCIND THE APPROVAL AND CONTINUE THIS ITEM FOR 2 WEEKS IN ORDER TO MEET WITH STAFF AND DISCUSS SOME CONDITIONS. THE MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF THE CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS WITHDRAWN. - THE RESOLUTION GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3967 WAS WITHDRAWN. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Mayer and Peraza absent) 10-27-97 Page 13 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3966 11-24-97 OWNER: Walter A. Friedman, 624 Barnsdale Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Mark Scheuerman, 105 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 105 South State College Boulevard - Insta-Tune and Lube. Property is 0.35 acre located at the southwest corner of State College Boulevard and Center Street. To permit a 1,266 square foot expansion of an existing 1,006 square foot lubrication, oil change and smog check and minor auto repair facility. Continued from the Commission meetings of September 29, and October 27, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. SR6835KP. W P FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the November 24, 1997 Planning Commission meeting as requested by the applicant in a letter dated November 3, 1997. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 11-10-97 Page 12 (Revised: 12-10-97) PUBLIC HEARIidG ITEMS 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued' 2b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3966 to 1-21-913 OWNER: Walter A. Friedman, 624 Bamsdale Street, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: Mark Scheuerman, 105 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 105 South State College Boutevard - Insta-Tune and Lube. Property is 0.35 acre located at the southwest corner of State College Boulevard and Center Street. To permit a 1,266 square foot expansion of an existing 1,008 square foot lubrication, oil change and smog check and minor auto repair facility. Continued from the Commission meetings of September 29, October 27, and November 10, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. S R6845KP. W P FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNfNG COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 21, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, as requested by the petitioner in a letter dated November 19, 1997. VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioners Henninger and Mayer absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 11-24-97 Page 11 3b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3966 Granted for 2 years. OWNER: Walter A. Friedman, 624 Barnsdale Street, Anaheim, (To expire 1/21100) CA 92804 AGENT: Mark Scheuerman, 105 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 105 South State Colleoe Boulevard - Insta-Tune and Lube. Property is 0.35 acre located at the southwest corner of State College Boulevard and Center Street. To permit a 1,266 square foot expansion of an existing 1,008 square foot lubrication, oil change and smog check and minor auto repair facility. Continued from the Commission meetings of September 29, October 27, November 10, and November 24, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-7 o • • o ® • Applicant's Statement: Walter Freidman, 624 S. Barnsdale Street, Anaheim, CA: Stated the following concerns with two of the conditions in the staff report. 1. Condition No. 15, page 8 - In the last hearing Commission had approved a drive area in front of the proposed building that would allow for the continued vehicle circulation in front of that building, provided they installed a planter at least 4 feet wide in front of the building. He submitted plans to staff on Condition No. 3 which accomplishes that. He requested that Commission re-approve such condition as they did on October 27th and appropriately amend Condition No. 15 so they can continue to have the complete vehicle circulation around the building after the ultimate widening of State College Boulevard. 2. Item No. 7, page 7 -This issue is the reason for the continuance of the hearing on October 27th. The northern driveway is an important part of his tenant's business and the proposed blockage was not acceptable to his tenant or himself. He submitted plans to Mr. Alfred Yalda (Traffic Engineering Division) and discussed the matter with him then went back to his engineer for revisions. The result was moving the northern driveway south to adequately address the concerns of the City. He requested that the northern driveway be allowed remain in the plan at this new location as shown on the map on Condition No. 3 and Condition No. 7 be appropriately amended. This driveway would be reconstructed at their expense with the appropriate radius that are on the plan and Mr. Yalda is in concurrence. They also plan to improve the radius cuts on the existing Center Street driveway which was an additional condition that they are in agreement with. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated Mr. Yalda mentioned Condition No. 7 in the morning session and therefore it will be deleted. Walter Freidman: Stated he could forward a map, if Commission desires, illustrating how the vehicle circulation from the building would remain on Condition No. 15. 01-21-98 Page 8 Public Testimony C.M. Thompson, 1660 North Main Street, Orange, CA: Stated Alitec Engineering drew up the plans on this project. He strongly recommended that they return to where they were in the approval last time, leave the 4~/e foot planter up against the building which, he believes, helps the appearance of the building, particularly on State College Boulevard. If the widening of State College does not happened then they are going to be left with a planter at the building, a driveway and another planter out before the sidewalk. He thought they had enough landscaping to meet the intent of the ordinance. They can comply with the requirements on the signage and architectural features of the building. Chairman ProTempore Bristol: Stated according to the testimony, Mr. Thompson is requesting that the planter next to the building be kept and Mr. Freidman is requesting that he prefers that it not be kept. Asked if that was correct? Walter Freidman: Responded no. The revised planter next to the building will remain and the existing planter adjacent to State College Boulevard will remain until the widening when it would be removed due to the construction. They would always be allowed to have vehicle circulation around the front of the building even after the widening. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Henninger stated to Melanie Adams (Public Works Department) that at the morning session she indicated that this part of the critical intersection widening was not in the current funding phase and asked how long would it be before this part of the critical intersection is built? Melanie Adams, Associate Civil Engineer, Public Works Department: Responded it is difficult to say at this time. She estimated that they would attempt again for that funding in another two years. So it will depend on how successful that applicant is. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he feels the appropriate solution is to "roll" the variance into the conditional use permit. Have the applicant terminate the variance and then put a time limit on this. This is a business that has had continued Code violations. It seems this would be the most effective way of dealing with continuing violations. If they were to put on a time limit (i.e. two years) and it did not seem the critical intersection was going to happen then he would be comfortable in removing that portion of the condition dealing with installation of 10 feet of landscaping. He asked staff if it would be difficult to roll the overall entitlement into this conditional use permit out of the variance and what would be involved. Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Responded it appears what would need to be done would be to terminate the old variance and this conditional use permit would cover the new exhibit with whatever new changes Commission would recommend. Staff would also want to look at all of the conditions to make sure that there are no conflicts. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if staff has all the conditions that are needed? Greg Hastings: Responded the intent was that anything under this new use permit would cover the entire facility not just the portion that is being expanded. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Recommended Mr. Freidman move the existing northern driveway south. If that is approved, that there be landscaping replaced with an equal width to the existing landscaping along State College Boulevard wherever there is not a driveway opening. Commissioner Henninger: Asked the operator of the business, Mark Scheuerman, if this is primarily a smog check business? Mark Scheuerman, 105 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA: Responded 50% is smog checking. Commissioner Henninger: Asked what the other 50% wasl 01-21-98 Page 9 Mark Scheuerman: Responded minor break jobs, tune-ups, oil changes. They do not do engine overhauls, transmission overhauls, no body or paint work. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked that Item No. 11 be clarified regarding no overnight parking. Mark Scheuerman: Responded they do not have any intentions of leaving cars out overnight. The problem is that people come in and park their cars without his knowledge or there are people who break down and use his lotto park their car. Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Supervisor: Highly recommended that the applicant post his property to have any unauthorized vehicle towed. Mark Scheuerman: Said that would be fine. Chairman ProTempore Bristol: Stated in the morning session there were several comments by Code Enforcement of work being done on vehicles outside of his building and assuming he is adding to his building to remedy this problem. Asked Mc Scheuerman if he was ever going to have that problem? Mark Scheuerman: Responded no. Commissioner Henninger: During the voting of the Conditional Use Permit No. 3966 recommended the following: 1. Deleting Condition No. 7. 2. Condition No. 8 - to add, "when the reconstruction of driveways occur, and the adjacent right-of- way shall be fully landscaped, irrigated and maintained", 3. On Condition No. 15 -leave the first sentence and delete everything beginning with the word "further' to the end of that condition. 4. Add: A condition that states the applicant will, within 60 days, request for a termination of Variance No. 2683. 5. Add: A condition that this CUP will be good for two (2) years. Cheryl Flores: Recommended the following: 1. Add no. 1 to Condition No. 28. 2. Delete no. 1 from Condition No. 29. 01-21-98 Page 10 3. Delete no. 25 from Condition No. 28. Add no. 12 to Condition No. 29. 4. Add no. 12 to Condition No. 29. After the vote, Mark Scheuerman requested a clarification on the limit of two years for the conditional use permit. Commissioner Henninger: Responded he needs to return and submit for another permit in two years. That is typically the way businesses are handled that have been a Code Enforcement problem to the City. Mark Scheuerman: Asked what that involved? Commissioner Henninger: Responded it involves going to another hearing like this. Selma Mann: Stated for clarification that the termination of an old variance is normally done prior to the issuance of a building permit. Walter Freidman: Stated he has difficulty with a two year conditional use permit. They are spending approximately $50,000 to $75,000 to enlarge this site in order to eliminate future Code violations which are predominately related to some work outside the building. By enlarging this to seven bays virtually eliminates the problem. He thought to compel him with having to return after two years with an entirely new CUP is unreasonable and unnecessary. He suggested there might be a condition that states that, if there are several Code violations, then the applicant would have to return. Commissioner Henninger: Stated basically when they have had Code Enforcement problems this is typically the way they are handled. It has generally worked very well. Walter Freidman: Asked if this means they would just need to apply for an extension and not have to go through the an entire public hearing. Commissioner Henninger: Responded no. They have to go through a public hearing. Walter Friedman: Which means paying conditional use permit fees again, etc.? Greg Hastings, Zoning Manager: Stated there is a fee to amend the condition of approval to reinstate conditional use permit which is less than the original fee, but it does involve a public hearing. Walter Freidman: Restated he feels this is totally unnecessary and very restrictive. Chairman ProTempore Bristol: Stated most of the people in here are for the same reason. They get a conditional use permit for a certain amount of time, it is a standard. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3966 for 2 years with the following changes to conditions: Deleted Condition No. 7. Modified Condition Nos. 8, 15, 18, 28, and 29 to read as follows: 01-21-98 Page 71 8. That the driveway on Center Street shall be reconstructed to accommodate ten (10) foot radius curb returns in conformance with Engineering Department Standard No. 137. Further, that when the reconstruction of driveways occurs, the area adjacent to the right-of-way shall be fully landscaped, irrigated and maintained. 15. That the property owner shall construct a 4-foot 6-inch wide landscaped and irrigated planter in front of the building (east elevation). 18. That any tree, shrub, or flower planted on-site shall be replaced in a timely manner in the event that it is removed, damaged, diseased, and/or dead. Further, that any trees or other landscape material shall not be unreasonably trimmed. 28. That prior to issuance of a building permit, or within a period of one (1) year from the date of this resolution, whichever occurs first, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24, above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Extensions for further time to complete said conditions may be granted in accordance with Section 18.03.090 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. 29. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition Nos. 3, 8, 12, 15, 25 and 27 above-mentioned, shall be complied with. Added the following conditions: That within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of this resolution, the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Variance No. 2683 (waiver of permitted uses and maximum access drive width l30 feet maximum; 40 feet approved) to establish an automotive diagnostic and service center) to the Zoning Division. That subject use permit is hereby approved for a period of two (2) years, to expire on January 21, 2000. VOTE: 4-0 (Commissioners Bostwick, Mayer and Peraza absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 22 minutes (1:52-2:14) 01-21-98 Page 12