Loading...
Minutes-PC 1998/01/05SU AY ACTION AGENA ANAFIEIM CITY PLAN I G COMMISSION EETING MONDAY, JANUARY 5, 1998 11:00 A.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION OF VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, NAPOLES, PERAZA COMMISSIONER ABSENT: MAYER _ STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg Hastings Cheryl Flores Linda Johnson Bruce Freeman Alfred Yalda Melanie Adams Margarita Solorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Senior Planner Code Enforcement Supervisor Principal Transportation Planner Associate Civil Engineer Senior Secretary Senior Secretary P:\DOCS\CLEPoCAL\MINUTESWCOt 0598.DOC ITEMS OF PUBLFC INTEREST: NONE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 311 (Prev.-Certified) Approved b. THE DISNEYLAND RESORT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 92-1 -FINAL Approved SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 98-01 FOR THE THEME PARK/HOTEL DISTRICT SETBACK AREAS ADJACENT TO WEST STREET/DISNEYLAND DRIVE (SEGMENT 11: The Walt Disney Company requests review and approval of the Final Site Plan setting forth the width and design of landscaping for the Theme Park and Hotel District setback areas adjacent to West Street/Disneyland Drive. The setback areas are .located between Katelia Avenue and the Southwest Parking Lot intersection on the west side of the street and between Katella Avenue and the Grand California Hotel service entry on the east side of the street. ACTION: Commissioner Boydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Mayer absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously-certified EIR No. 311 is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Commissioner l3oydstun offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Napoles and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Mayer absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the Final Site Plan (identified as Exhibit Nos. 1 through 5 on file in the Planning Department) on the basis that the Final Site Plan is in conformance with The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No. 92-1. SR7011 DH.DOC Linda Johnson, Senior Planner: Stated this is a final site plan review for the first segment of the landscaping along the West Street Disneyland Drive setback areas. Staff has review the plans and recommends that the Planning Commission find that the plans are in conformance with the Disneyland Resort Specific Plan. She introduced John Graves with the Walt Disney Company who will provide a description of the proposed setback area landscaping. John Graves, Development Manager, Disney Imaginarium: Stated he is please to be able to present the final site plan for the West Street Segment 1 setback area. The landscape plans for the setback provide a layered landscaped treatment and create a distinct identity for the Disneyland Resort Hotel District. He then introduced the landscape consultant for the project, David Berkson, who will describe the plans in detail. David Berkson, SWA Group (landscape architects): Stated they are proposing a landscape plan and are delighted to be moving forward on this portion of West Street, from Katelia to the first hotel intersection. 01-05-98 Page 2 The trees, shrubs and ground covers are in conformance with the Specific Plan. They are fortunate to have quite a substantial setback area in which to plant this garden design. The trees specified on the plans are Crape Myrtles which will provide ayear-round interest to the entry of the street and palm trees and bird of paradise will provide a landscape back drop landscape and evergreen quality year round. Therefore, the combination of the flowering trees and evergreen trees will be a nice entry statement to this new signature boulevard. Chairman Bostwick: He felt the plans were well done. It is nice to have a setback away from the street to be able to do some nice plantings, to open up the whole intersection and make it look very attractive. 01-OS-gB Page 3 a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREY.-APPROVED) Approved b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3920 -REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE AND Determined to FINAL PLAN REVIEW: OTR Ohio General Partnership, c/o be in substantial Donahue Schriber, 3501 Jamboree Road, #300 Newport Beach, CA conformance with 92660, requests determination of substantial conformance and final previously plan review for apreviously-approved health club facility. Property is approved plans located at the southwest comer of Roosevelt Road and Santa Ana Canyon Road. (The Anaheim Hills Festival). Approved final plans with ACTION: Chairman Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by provisions Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Mayer absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentaticn for subject request. Chairman Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Mayer absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby determine that the 50,294 square foot health club is in substantial conformance with the previously-approved 35,000 square foot health club, provided that the 20,000 square foot general retail use area is deleted as requested by the petitioner; and, further, does hereby approve the following for the health club facility: (i) The exterior elevation drawings, provided that the plans submitted for building permits show the type of fence/wall enclosing the outdoor pool/deck area. (ti) The wall signs, provided that the sign plans submitted for building permits show a maximum logo size of 6 feet by 6 feet for the primary wall signs, and a maximum logo size of 3 feet by 3 feet for the secondary wall sign. (iii) The landscape plan, provided that the landscape plans submitted for building permits show additional landscape material in accordance with SP 90-01, The Anaheim Hills Festival Specific Plan, planted adjacent to the health club facility and the fence/wall enclosing the outdoor pool/deck area. And, finally, requested that the petitioner prepare and submit revised roof _ __ and cross-sectional plans pertaining to screening roof-mounted equipment for Commission review and approval as a Reports and Recommendations item. SR6867KB.WP Applicant's Statement: Michelle 19olling from Donahue Schriber: Stated they are the asset management company for the ownership of Anaheim Hills Festival and they are requesting to get approval on their revised site plan which was originally approved fora 35,000 square foot health club facility and a 20,000 square foot retail addition. They now intend to expand a :health club facility from 35,000 square foot to 50,294 square feet and eliminate the 20,000 square foot retail building. 01-05-98 Page 4 Chairman Bostwick: Asked Ms. Holling if she read the staff reportl Michelle Holling responded she had not and went to pick one up. When she returned Chairman Bostwick asked her about page 5, item no. 19 of the staff report which staff recommends that they return with a revised roof and cross-sectional plans showing the screening of the roof-mounted equipment. Michelle Holling: Responded yes, she had a conversation with staff regarding this matter and is aware of this requirement. Commissioner Boydstun: Recommended that the landscape plan be reviewed by staff for final approval. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated staff will be checking the landscape plan for conformance with the Festival Specific Plan and subject to those development standards. According to the plans, the health club will be 58,446 square feet. Michelle Holling: Stated it is actually 50,294 square feet. She was uncertain where the 58,446 figure comes from. The total building size is 50,294 square feet. Cheryl Flores: Asked if that eliminates the 20,000 square foot retail area? Michelle Holling: Responded that was correct. Commissioner Boydstun: Recommended that the roof-mounted equipment return to Commission as a Reports and Recommendation Item? Michelle Holling: Responded that is her understanding. 01-05-98 Page 5 PUBLIC HEARIPIG ITEMS 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3983 Granted OWNER: J.D. Gantes Airport Properties, P.O. Box 80340, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688 AGENT: Jack Abi, 170 N. Maple Street, Suite 103, Corona, CA 91720 LOCATION: 8295 East Santa Ana Canyon Road -Burger Kina. Properly is 2.33 acres located at the northwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road. To construct a second story 1,309 square foot indoor playground for an existing drive-through restaurant (3,724 square feet total) within a commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the Commission meetings of November 24 and December 8, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-1 ~; FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY-OF THE.PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION.; Applicant's Statement: John Gantes, Burger King franchisee for the location at Santa Ana Canyon and Weir Canyon Road in Anaheim Hills: Stated they are proposing an approximate 1,300 square foot indoor playground at this location. Over the last two years they have had their business severely effected by new fast-food restaurants in the trade area that have indoor playgrounds. Their sales at this location are down 18% of what they were approximately 24 months ago, They are proposing to put the playground on the second level in order to minimize any loss of parking. Chairman Bostwick: Asked for clarification that there was no seating at that area only the playground area. John Gantes: Responded correct. Actually there is going to be slight loss of the seating on the first floor to accommodate the staircase to the second floor. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if the play area brings more business then would that impact the parking area rather than utilizing the drive-through? Is the height of the signage going to block the view of the other tenants? John Gantes: Responded he spent time at the site and spoke with all the tenants at the adjacent shopping center which he offered to provide a list of those tenants (flower store, cleaners, animal hospital, etc.) and they were very supportive of their plan to go toward with the playground. They felt very strongly that there is a lot of commonality between their businesses. A couple of the tenants are directly behind their business which currently are already blocked. He referenced photographs showing the buildings 01-05-98 Page 6 behind them. Their business was running 18% higher two years ago and did not have any prpblems at that time accommodating that level of business. He anticipated that a playground will not fully take them back to that level and projected an increase of transactions from 12 to 15%. Commissioner Bristol: Asked if he had any idea how tall the palm trees located on his property are (directly south of their new addition on Santa Ana Canyon Road)? Chairman Bostwick: Stated those are Eucalyptus trees. John Gantes consulted with his architect and responded the trees are 8 to 12 feet above their current parapet. For total height it would be 23 to 27 feet. Commissioner Henninger: Stated his concern is how the addition would look on the building. These types of buildings that are up on posts do not look very well. Asked if perhaps his architect could address this concern. He thought they might put a wall underneath the first story between the posts where it faces Santa Ana Canyon Road. John Gantes: Responded he did not see this as being a problem to do that. He has another unit that he built within the past year with an indoor playground which is in a master plan area such as this property and they took extra steps to make it fit into the community. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated for the record, she wanted to verify that Commission did review the file photographs that were submitted at the morning session which are the same photographs that the applicant is referring to. These photographs will remain as part of the evidence on this project. Chairman Bostwick: Had a question whether there was a parking waiver on the shopping center before this and did it meet Code? Cheryl Flores: Responded yes, there was a parking waiver that was for the entire shopping center which includes the property with the Carl's Jr. Restaurant on it as well. There were 1,157 spaces required for the total uses with 662 proposed. There are 104 of those spaces on this property with the adjacent shopping center and the Burger King Restaurant. Commissioner Henninger: Stated this overall shopping center does have some parking problems but when he has been out there he has never notices any parking problems in this section of the shopping center. The Carl's Jr. and EI Pollo Loco parking lot is very often full but the rest of the businesses have adequate parking. Commissioner Peraza: Stated he visited the site the other day and found there to be plenty of parking spaces. Cheryl Flores: Stated staffs concern is not so much the number of parking spaces but the_ _. maneuverability when you are on the property itself. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if the parking lot layout had been approved by Traffic Engineering? Alfred Yalda, Principal Transportation Planner: Stated they have some concerns with the parking layout. It appears that the size of parking spaces shown on the plan may not be exactly what is out there. Therefore they request that they remove some of the compact parking space to meet City standards which are incorporated in the conditions of approval. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if the parking was approved originally by the Traffic Engineering? Alfred Yalda: Responded yes, the parking study was approved by Traffic Engineering. 01-OS-98 Page 7 Commissioner Henninger: Recommended a condition to the Waiver of Code Requirement to indicate that the Code Waiver is attached to this conditional use permit. Commissioner Henninger: Recommended adding a condition that the area underneath the second floor between the posts facing Santa Ana Canyon Road will be enclosed with a building wall. Cheryl Flores: Recommended adding a condition to terminate Variance No. 3109 (page 2 of the staff report). It is an old variance for the shopping center which was not constructed according to the plans under Variance No. 3109. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Approved Negative Declaration Approved Waiver of Code Requirement Granted Conditional Use Permit No. 3983 with the following added conditions: That the owner of subject property shall submit a letter requesting termination of Variance No. 3109 (waiver of minimum structural setback from a scenic highway to construct a shopping center) to the Zoning Divisipn. That the area underneath the second floor between the posts shall be enclosed with a building wall. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attpmey, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 15 minutes (1:45-2:00) 01-05-98 Page 8 3a. 3b. 3c. OWNER: Lewis R. Schmid, Attn: Jason T. Schmid, 1725 South Douglass Road, #C, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 2600-2620 East Katella Avenue - J.T. Schmid's Brewhouse and Eatery. Properly is 3.1 acres located at the southeast comer of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road. To permit a 25-foot high, 210 square foot freestanding sign including 30 square foot of marquee signage with waiver of prohibited signs. Continued from the Commission meeting of December 22, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to 1-21-98 SR6864KB.WP ~~ ';,.,,-,;,FOLLOWINGIS,ASpMMARYsOP.THEPLANNINGCOMMISSION,ACTI,ON. ~ ~= "`~- OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 21, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to continue discussions with staff regarding options for a monument sign for this commercial shopping center. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 01-05-98 Page 9 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION {PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Continu 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3703(READVERTISED) 1-21-98 OWNER: Lewis R. Schmid, Attn: Jason T. Schmid, 1725 South Douglass Road #C, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 2600-2620 East Katella Avenue - J.T. Schmid's Brewhouse and Eatery. Property is 3.1 acres located at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road. To modify or delete a condition of approval pertaining to freestanding signs. Continued from the Commission meeting of December 22, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ~;~ FOLLOWING IS /a~SUMM/aRY,OF THE P,LANNINGCOMMISSION~ACTION.' ; ~;~ ~~ OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 21, 1998 Planning Commission .meeting in order for the applicant to continue discussions with staff regarding a possible monument sign for this commercial shopping center. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. 01-05-98 Page 10 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 Denied 5b. VARIANCE N0.4319 Denied OWNER: Leif and Mitzi Christensen, 2845 East South Street, Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 2845 East South Street. Property is 0.17 acre located on the north side of South Street, 560 feet west of the centerline of Rio Vista Street. Waivers of minimum front yard setback and minimum side yard setback to retain an existing 144 square foot wood trellis attached to the garage, and a 126 square foot patio cover in the side yard. Continued from the Commission meeting of December 8, 1997 VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. PC98-2 SR1007JK.DOC ~~'~ FOULOWING iIS A SUMMARY OF THE P~LANNINGCOMMISSION ACTION: '; ~-, ,;, „"' Applicant's Statement: Leif Christensen, 2845 E. South Street, Anaheim, CA: Was present to answer any questions. Chairman Bostwick: Asked Mr. Christensen if he read the staff report? Leif Christensen: Responded he read the staff report and had concerns. Item No. 2 of the staff report states minimum front yard setback proposed is 18.5 foot which is incorrect and should state 15.5 foot. Chairman Bostwick: Stated basically Mr. Christensen is asking Commission to approve a front setback less than the 25 foot. Leif Christensen; Stated page 3, of the staff report, indicates a different setback for his neighbors. He realizes that is how they were built but he thought if this could be taken into consideration, especially because of the beauty and fresh air created by all the vegetation. He feels the more greenery there is the more fresh air is created which is very important for the environment. Public Testimony: Gary Sheets, 2830 South Street, Anaheim, CA: Stated he lives directly across from the applicant. He had the following concems: In the staff report under Recommendation, (c), (i), which is the information contained in paragraph no. 14 regarding the other setbacks -his understanding is that the setbacks measured were taken from the property line to the front of each of the garages, from Rio Vista to Westgate. He walked that yesterday and all those locations listed in paragraph no. 14 are garages, built when the homes were built. That was long before the Code requirement of a 20 to 25 foot setback was incorporated .into the Anaheim Municipal Code. All of those are legal non-conforming uses. There have been no additions made to extend them to encroach the way the applicant has encroached into his front yard setback. He feels any :reliance on paragraph no. 14 is clearly erroneous. 01-05-98 Page 11 2. The applicant stated in his request for a variance that this is all self created which he feels this needs to be looked at. There is no need for this, it is something the applicant created it and brought it upon himself. 3. In O and (ii) of 19-C under the Recommendation - he feels there are no facts to support those findings. 4, In (iii) of 19-C under the Recommendation -the finding is that it is more of a landscape encroachment instead of a structural encroachment but that is not true because in the conditions being recommended all have to do with the Building Code. It has to be either one or the other. Either a structure that would fall purvey to the Building Code or it is a landscape encroachment. (i) and (ii) address building issues but (iii) addresses landscape. [He submitted photographs for the record..] 5. Staff is recommending that the front yard be cut back which is what the notices of violation address but at the same time they are allowing more landscape to the front of the applicant's residence. He feels this does not make any sense. The applicant has been cited repeatedly for the overgrowth and so what happens? A variance is granted that runs with the land and allow him a structure that supports more growth. There is a history with the applicant of being cited for overgrowth and yet he is being given a variance for more growth. Again, he does not understand the logic. He feels if the variance is granted then it sets up the applicant for failure and does not address the underlining concerns. Mike Freeman, 2844 E. Standish Avenue, Anaheim, CA: Stated his property is directly behind subject property. He feels Mr. Christensen's residence is an eye sore and is extremely overgrown with vegetation. It lowers the property values of the homes in the area. Standing from his home you can see the overgrown vegetation in the applicants backyard. A particular concern is the nuisance -there is a constant stream of rodents in the area, particularly on the common cinder block wall that they share. On many occasions he has seen rats, possums, raccoons running across the wall, and at times going into his property. Along the common wall there is fast growing vegetation which frequently spills over and invades over to their property.. He has been told by people that this type of vegetation is poisonous and being that he is a father of small children this is a particular safety Concern for him. During previous conversations with Mr. Christensen he has raised a privacy issue that Mr. Christensen wants the current 12 to 13 foot tall wooden structure to be overgrown with vines and other vegetation so it would provide his privacy. However, the only time Mr. Christensen has to worry about Mr. Freeman being up so he can see into his yard is when he is cutting back the vegetation from his side of the property, other than that Mr. Christensen has no concerns of lack of privacy, from the north of his property. On the other hand, Mr. Christensen is frequently on the top of the wall for hours. On more than one occasion he has seen him staring into their windows which he finds particularly offensive. This structure along their common wall is an environmental nightmare. It blocks out sunlight in the late fall, winter and early spring because of its height and denseness. Furthermore, in the summertime it blocks out the afternoon breeze. This structure is also unsafe, on two previous occasions it has fallen over, taking part of the block wall with it. He and .his wife have made numerous objections known to Mr. Christensen over the years but he ignores what they say. As recently as a month ago he spoke with Mr. Christensen about their concerns. He has frequently heard the structure on the common wall described as a trellis but Mr. Freeman does not feel this structure is a trellis. This "trellis" is constructed with 2 by 4's and can not understand how it can be a trellis. It is against the wall, contrary to what the staff report states. In conclusion, Mr, Freeman feels the structure and vegetation are an environmental nightmare and unsafe. The structure should be lowered to the top of the block wall and that the property in general be cleaned up. 01-05-98 Page 12 Maryann Xanthos, 2839 E. South Street, Anaheim, CA: Stated she lives directly next to Mr. Christensen's property. Mr. Freeman mentioned many of her concerns, lack of air and lack of sun but she wanted to address the parkway in his front home. He has allowed a tree to grow where there is already a City tree. It blocks the light at the night and she feels it is dangerous. She is also concerned because a pedestrian can not walk on the City sidewalk. You either get wet or poked with the overgrown bushes. The plants are in cans, many times they are not in the ground. She has grandchildren and they have walked by there and seen snakes come out of that area. There are rodents. Mr. Christensen claims he will prune but does not follow through on his promises. She said there were people who came out to take pictures from her yard and she feels that alone should be the reason for denying this request. She does not understand how someone can ask for a permit and then deliberately not meet the specifications. Robert Bennette, 2829 E. South Street, Anaheim, CA: Stated he has been living there for 23 years and is three houses removed from the subject property. Five years ago he tried to sell his home. He had three people in 66 days look at it and the response was that they loved his house but did not like the neighborhood. He agrees with other neighbors testimony that this property is an eye sore. Mr. Bennette spends a lot of time in his backyard. In the summer months he has seen a stream of rats going down the power cords and they go in the direction of Mr. Christensen's property. Cynthia Bradley, 2820 E. South Street, Anaheim, CA: She has lived there with her family for 10 years. She did not come to the meeting expecting to speak but feels that she needs to be heard. She has nothing against Mr, Christensen personally, but she feels his house is an eye sore. It is a blight on their neighborhood. Neighbors have a responsibility to their neighbors to keep up their property. Her children are afraid to walk by Mr. Christensen's home, they cross the street instead. If the variance is granted to allow this vegetation to grow then the house will not be able to be seen at all. Many surrounding neighbors spend timeand money maintaining their property, it is a neighborhood that they take pride in. Joanna Menton, 2850 Standish Avenue, Anaheim., CA: Stated she lives next door to Officer Freeman. Her major complaint is the high fence and in the back shuts off the light and inhibits vegetation in her yard. She did not think very many of the neighbors know him personally but the way his yard has been maintained has made him infamous in their neighborhood. The neighbors would hope that he has as much energy in making his home safe for the neighbors and letting them enjoy their privacy as they have let him enjoy his. John Santos: Stated he previously lived next to Mr. Christensen for 25 years. His father for years tried to resolve the issues through neighborly actions by trimming the shrubbery that would grow into his backyard. It was a lot of work and at time his father would call him to help. His mother lives there alone now and will not be able to continue that. It is a lot of work which is going to involve hiring a professional to come and trim the vegetation. At times Mr. Christensen has trimmed branches from a peach tree and then left them scattered over the roof. It is an eye sore. There is an abandoned solar system on his roof. He feels the property values are definitely effected. Barbara Holden, 704 S. Cinda, Anaheim, CA: Stated her home is located across the street, op the corner of South Street and Cinda. She gave testimony at the last meeting'but she wanted to emphasize everything her neighbors have testified to is true, not only regarding the shrubbery but most of the time he has a ladder in front of the house going up to the roof that stays there permanently. She also tried to sell her house two years ago and had a couple of offers but they all fell through mainly because of Mr. Christensen's house. Applicant's Rebuttal: Leif Christensen: Stated he planted the front the yard with roses because he thinks it looks beautiful. Every time he would go out of his garage the first thing he would see on his right hand side is a big "ugly" fifth wheeler trailer that is standing out in front of the house but now he sees his flowers and vines. It takes him 12 hours a day to maintain his yard.. He receives many compliments on his yard. It is true his home can not be seen. In his front yard he has orange trees, avocado trees, roses and wine vines so the house is not seen at all but that is the way he prefers it. It resembles the homes in Europe. He told Mr. 01-05-98 Page 13 Freeman two weeks ago that he would take down the vegetation in the back, facing h(s property. On December 23 he began taking it down but on the way back down from the ladder he fell .and hurt his back very bad. According to his doctor, it will be one to two months before he can climb again. On the other side he has large wine vines growing about 15 or 18 feet high tall which he takes care of them but if it was up to him he would go and cut it off on his neighbors side but there is a privacy issue involved. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Supervisor: Stated this matter is before Commission as a result of notices issued by Code Enforcement staff regarding the overgrown vegetation, unpermitted structures at the front, side and rear of the property. They have been speaking with Mr. Christensen for over a year regarding some of these same issues. An inspection that he conducted of the property today found that none of the structures are built to Code. The structure material used is not to Code, nothing itself meets even the minimum standards. In order to correct the violations, the structures at the rear site and the front will need to be dismantled and reconstructed, if a permit is to be issued. The house is very noticeable, it is different than the rest of the properties in the neighborhood, overgrown substantially. One of the concerns Code Enforcement is a safety issue with the fences, hedges and wall in the front setback area which should not exceed 36 inches in height. It has a very steep sloped driveway with a retaining wall adjacent to the front of the wall. You .really can not see to back out of the driveway safely until you are over the sidewalk. Chairman Bostwick: Regarding paragraph no. 14, page 3 of the staff report, asked if those were all to the garages? Cheryl Flores: Stated on paragraph no. 14 all of those are setbacks shown are from the back of the sidewalk to the garage door. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if staff believed that at the time these garages were built that those were the appropriate setback but since that time there has been a change so these are existing non- conforming? Cheryl Flores: Responded it is possible that they are existing non-conforming. She is not certain what the Code was at the time that they were built. Chairman Bostwick: Stated it states 18.5 foot proposed and Mr. Christensen is saying it should be 15.5 foot proposed and asked if this is correct? Cheryl Flores: Responded the plans that were submitted by Mr. Christensen indicate that the existing trellis in front of the garage is 15.5 feet from his garage door. He has also told staff that he will be cutting that back so it will be 9 feet deep from the garage door and that will leave 18.5 feet to the back of the sidewalk.. His property itself would :meet Code it is just the trellis in the front would be encroaching into the required setback. _ _. Chairman Bostwick: Stated there are Codes to regulate the height of hedges and walls but nothing on the growth. Asked when someone is cited for overgrowth what regulates that? Bruce Freeman: Responded there is a public nuisance ordinance that addresses overgrown vegetation, if it is a detriment to adjacent properties, to small children or likely to harbor vermin or other rodents then it would be considered overgrown vegetation. They have used that section as a violation in the past. In his opinion, the property is severely overgrown and it would also meet the definition of the public nuisance ordinance under overgrown vegetation. Commissioner Bristol: Asked Mr. Freeman whether all of the trellis or structures are not to Code. Bruce Freeman: Responded that was correct. The front trellis, the side trellis, patio cover and also the rear patio cover -none of those structures are built to Code. 01-05-98 Page 14 Commissioner Bristol: Asked if Mr. Christensen cuts back the front portion back to 9 feet from his house., if he does nothing to remove the structure then it is still an illegal structure. If Mr. Christensen removed the structures in the back and he wants to reconfigure some type of a structure, according to what was discussed, that would be a limitation of about a least 5 feet setback from the side. Bruce Freeman: Responded it is 5 foot from the side of each side of the property. It is 10 foot from the rear and in this case it is whatever the required setback is to the front of the property. Commissioner Bristol: Stated what he saw on Saturday morning between the hours of 10:30 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. at the Freeman residence when he went back there and he was "dumbfounded". To him, those structures that Mr. Christensen has in the backyard were almost as imposing as a building would be. He could not imagine living behind something that imposing. The fact that he had to climb so high, he had to do whatever he could to see over the fence but he still could not do it and those were much higher structures. In other words, if we remove those, as he (Bruce Freeman) talked about, then that would no longer be a problem, especially if they are set back 10 feet because that fence on the Freeman side is 7 feet. It is 6 feet an Mr. Christensen's side. Commissioner Boydstun: Stated she was out there on Sunday afternoon. The sidewalk is not open like it should be. She has never seen a sidewalk so overgrown with the plants protruding from it and the plants growing on the fence. It needs to be cleaned up and the sidewalk open so people can walk through. In her opinion, he is blocking apublic-right-of-way. One of Mr. Christensen's neighbors mentioned chemicals stored in his garage and asked what type of chemicals he has stored? Leif Christensen: Responded he has chemicals for the pool but not in the garage. He never keeps chemicals in the garage. He keeps them outside on the side of the house, never in the garage. Chairman Bostwick: Asked Mr. Christensen if he uses the garage at all for parking his car? Leif Christensen: Responded no, he has all his equipment in there such as a large power saw and work table. Chairman Bostwick: Stated he has to agree with the neighbors. He thought Mr. Christensen could do the growth in a tasteful manner and still have the beauty of the flowers and the leaves and look nice. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he feels this is a Code Enforcement problem and should allow Code Enforcement take its normal course. During the voting, Selma Mann (Assistant City Attorney) clarified that Commission's vote regarding the CEQA is that ordinarily this would be a categorical exemption but there has been evidence that has been introduced, into the record, and she suggests the proposed project does not fall within the definition. Commissioner Henninger: Stated this problem has been going on for sometime and Code_Enforcement needs to give this more attention than it has been getting. Chairman Bostwick: Suggested Code Enforcement offer some help from, for example, the Conservation Corp. to help Mr. Christensen remove his non-conforming structures and his plant material since he currently has an injury. He also urged Mr. Christensen to work with Code Enforcement to get it cut down and the yard cleaned up. OPPOSITION: 8 people spoke in opposition 01-05-98 Page 15 (Revised: 3-17-98) ACTION: Did not concur with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines. Denied Variance No. 4319 VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIRAE: 50 minutes (2:00-2:50) 01-05-98 Page 15A (Revised: 2-27-98) 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 615 (READVERTISED) 13-2-98 OWNER: Larry Hauperf, 18341 Cerro, Villa Park, CA 92807 INITIATED: City Initiated (Code Enforcement), 200 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 OPERATOR: Francisco Gutierrez, 1266 E. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1266 East Lincoln Avenue -Gutierrez Tires. Property is 0.28 acre located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, 810 feet east of the centerline of'East Street To retain an existing tire sales and service facility. Continued from the Commission meeting of December 8, 1997. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. I SR1019JK.DOC ` ~ FOLLOWING,IS~A SUMMARY;OF THE P~LANNING,COMMISSION`ACTION. ~ „ Applicant's Statement: Francisco Gutierrez, 1266 E. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA: Brought someone (did not identify herself) to interpret for him in Spanish and submitted photographs of his property for the record. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he understands there has been progress made but there is still work to be completed. Therefore staff is recommending that this item be continued for 60 days. Commissioner Peraza interpreted to Mr. Gutierrez that he has made progress but there still remains some work to be completed and therefore staff recommends this item be continued for 60 days. He indicated to Mc Gutierrez that since the last meeting it was found that the :property behind his business also belongs to him. - - Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Stated Code requires that the fence be setback 15 feet from Fahrion Place. Commissioner Peraza then interpreted to Mr. Gutierrez explaining that the fence should be setback 15 feet from the sidewalk on Fahrion Place, landscaped and maintained. Cheryl Flores: Requested the applicant read all of the items listed under the Recommendation of the staff report which are the areas of particular concern to staff. Staff would also like to see broad-.headed trees and clinging vines planted adjacent to the fence facing Lincoln so that it will screen the fence from Lincoln Avenue. She asked for confirmation from the applicant that the parking lot area will be reslurred as well within 60 days. 01-05-98 Page 16 Cheryl Flores: Stated there was some confusion as to the height of the sign. Staff is recommending that the height of the sign be 8 feet. Now that the sign is in front of the chain link fence, there is no need for it to be 12 foot high and it should conform with Code at a maximum height of 8 feet. Commissioner Peraza explained to Mr. Gutierrez, in Spanish, staffs recommendations as stated by Cheryl Flores. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the March 2, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the petitioner to continue to address the outstanding Code violations. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 6 minutes (2:50-2:56) 01-05-98 .Page 17 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved 7b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3873 (READVERTISED) Approved amendment to OWNER: CCS FERS Stadium Business (3), Inc., Attn: Bruce CUP 3873 McDonald, 1939 S. State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92806 (To expire 1-5-99) AGENT: Trammel Crow Company, Attn: Bruce McDonald, 1939 S. State College Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 1939 South State College Boulevard -Hop Ci Blues and Brew Restaurant. Property is 16.97 acres located at the southwest corner of Gene Autry Way and State College Boulevard. To permit public entertainment in conjunction with apreviously- approved restaurant (which originally included an accessory micro- brewery) with sales of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-3 Applicant's Statement: Bruce McDonald, owner and operator of the Hop City Restaurant: They were granted a conditional use permit to for a restaurant with a brewery within a banquet facility by the Commission on September 16, 1996. The brewery was never constructed, although they do have dancing and they have converted the area to a live entertainment which occurs three to four times a week. The present request.before Commission is for the elimination of the brewery concept and an expansion of their restaurant and live entertainment. They would like to expand their concept to a steak house with the same amount of dining tables, same amount of seating area. Dinner is from 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m., followed by the Live entertainment, predominately blues and jazz. Currently there are no blues clubs currently in Orange County and they would like to market themselves as a blues club. Per-staffs request, they are modifying their current approval by deleting the concept of a brewery and defining the type of dance restaurant they have. In order to maintain dinner at $9 to $13 they are requesting to be allowed to collect a cover charge at the door. He emphasizes it will always be a food restaurant, the only difference isthe ability to collect a cover charge with restrictions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Bruce McDonald: Stated he had questions regarding the modifications to the amended conditions of approval listed on paragraph no. 16, page 6, which are acceptable except he had a question on no, 10 and 13. Amended Condition No. 10 -that the collection of the cover charge shall be limited to Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings after 8:00 p.m. However, he suggested an "either or condition" that there be entertainment no more than three nights per week, be allowed to collect a cover charge, and limited to no more than three nights per week. He asked that they be given flexibility to book on a Tuesday or Wednesday and allowed to use that as one of the nights of the week. Amended Condition No. 13 - he asked for a clarification. 01-OS-98 Page 18 Commissioner Henninger: Explained that the accessory public entertainment portion of the restaurant will expire on January 5, 1999 and therefore he will need to return to Commission and ask for permission again. This is a protection against some uses that get out of hand. Commissioner Bristol: Asked the applicant what his thoughts were on paragraph no. 16, 1-d of the staff report? Bruce McDonald: Responded they plans to have 70/30 (70 food, 30 alcoholic beverages). The way he interprets gross sales of other commodities is that it excludes the cover charge. He concurs with this amended condition. Cheryl Flores: Stated for clarification, staff requests a condition be added that states that the appropriate permit shall be obtained from the Business License Division prior to the provision of the entertainment in conjunction with this restaurant use. Bruce McDonald: Stated he has a dance permit and asked if this is a different permit? Cheryl Flores: Responded it is a different permit. She thought it was called an entertainment permit that will allow them to charge for admission. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved Conditional Use Permit No. 3873, as readvertised. Amended Resolution No. PC96-93 as follows: Modified the following conditions of approval to read as follows: "1 a. Food service, including meals, shall be available until closing time on every day of operation. 1 d. The quarterly gross sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 40% of the gross sales of food and/or other commodities (excluding cover charge or admission fees) during the same period. 2. That this property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos.. 1, 3 and 4, and Revision No. 1 of Exhibit No. 2." Add the following conditions of approval: "10. That the collection of a cover charge shall be limited to no more than three (3) nights a week, 11. That the micro-brewery component of the previous approval is hereby deleted as indicated by the petitioner. 13. That the accessory public entertainment portion of this restaurant facility shall expire on January 5, 1999. 01-05-98 Page 19 14. That prior to the provision of entertainment in conjunction with this restaurant use, the applicant shall obtain the appropriate permit from the City of Anaheim, Business License Division of the Finance Department " VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 12 minutes (2:56-3:08) 01-05-98 Page 20 8b. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) Approved CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3878 (READVERTISED) Approved amendment to OWNER: Thrifty Oii #191, A California General Partnership, conditions of 10000 Lakewood Blvd., powney, CA 90240 approval AGENT: Tait & Associates, Attn: Jose Gandara, Project Manager, 1100 Town & Country Rd., Suite 1200, Orange, CA 92868 LOCATION: 2101 South Harbor Boulevard. Property is 0.52 acre located on the southwest corner of Orangewood Avenue and Harbor Boulevard. To amend or delete a condition or approval pertaining to landscaping requirements and review and approval of final landscape and sign plans. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-4 Approved final landscape and sign plans, in part ® s e s • Applicant's Statement: Jose Gandara, Tait and Associates, 1100 Town & Country Road, Orange, CA: Stated he is requesting approval of the plan as submitted. In question is the landscape and signage plans for the ARCO Service located on the southwest corner of Orangewood and Harbor. The original conditions indicated the final approval of plans as a Reports and Recommendation Item. The plan is a result of discussions and input from City staff. Due to consideration not given to the number and size of Magnolia trees at maturity, they had to go back and revise the landscape plan to accommodate at least the number of trees, if not the type of tree on their landscape plans. Regarding the signage, he is requesting the addition of the trademark ARCO logo, that is tastefully done, to be added to the canopy. The original conditional use permit approval was granted to Thrifty and since then ARCO come up and leased the property. Some modifications to the plans were done but all those were done under substantial conformance. He is not asking for something that has not been approved at other ARCO sites, such as the one at State College and Katella, but approval of the plans as they have been submitted. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Boydstun: Instead of 15, do they have 24-inch Queen Palms (page 5, Item No. 21)? Jose Gandara: Stated they had combined the number of trees, 11 Queen Palms and 4 Canary Island Pine trees. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if the Queen Palms will be 24-inch boxed? Jose Gandara: Responded 15-gallon is what was requested. Cheryl Flores: Stated she did not think Mr. Gandara was advised by their staff yet, but in order to be more consistent with the Anaheim Resort Area Specific Plan it is being recommended that the 11 Queen Palm 01-05-98 Page 21 trees that he is proposing be 24-.inch boxed with a minimum height of 12 feet and that the Canary Island Pines would be a minimum 36-inch box to provide for a more mature tree at the time of planting. Jose Gandara: Responded that was fine. Again, the intent was to meet the number of trees required. Chairman Bostwick: Stated there was a question about the signage. The monument sign should be redesigned to meet the Code. The recommendation is to go 6 feet high but not as wide, so they could stack the price for each type of fuel on top of each other on one end rather than having it lengthwise, side by side. Jose Gandara: Stated he thought Chairman Bostwick was referring that the Code which allows a 10 foot long x 8 foot high sign versus their 13 foot long sign proposed. The site does accommodate a 13 foot sign. It is a minor issue. The reason it was put in was because that is the standard ARCO sign instead of going out and making a custom sign. He pointed out that they are under the square footage requirement for the signage on the monument. He requested a waiver on the length. Cheryl Flores: Responded the Planning Department would have to advertise that for a separate hearing for a waiver of the maximum width of the sign in order to accomplish that. Commissioner Boydstun: Was concerned that the lot is so small that going wider for the sign would look out of proportion. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he felt comfortable with staffs recommendations. He felt the canopy was fine but he recommended that the sign on the comer conform with the 8 x 10 foot requirement. He recommended that Commission continue the request for review and approval of the final landscape plans until they can be brought into conformance with the conditions. Jose Gandara: Asked for a clarification of what exactly is being requested io be resubmitted. Cheryl Flores: Responded staff has requested the items shown on paragraph no. 21-C on page 6 of the staff report, the 36-inch high hedge, the landscape planters adjacent to the building and vines adjacent to the trash enclosure and building walls. In addition staff would request that he show 24-inch boxed palms and the 36-inch pines on the plans as well. Jose Gandara: Stated he agreed they do have to show that they are 3-foot on centers since the plans do not currently show that. Regarding the landscape planters adjacent to the northeast and south of the building -what was agreed to when discussed with staff is that they would go with potted plants versus a planter and that is what the plans show. He thought they did include the thorny shrubs on their plans. Cheryl Flores: Stated the thorny shrubs are shown, however, there are not enough of them to deter traffic through the area. They are actually in the back of the planter area and it is preferred they be throughout to deter pedestrian traffic. She was unaware of any agreement with staff for potted plants._ The preference would be for the landscape areas which were shown on the original exhibit adjacent to the building walls. Jose Gandara: Stated he would request that they reconsider the planter along the adjacent walls. It is always a problem when landscape is put along the edge of the building. After a while it would deteriorate the footing. He pointed out that the vine pockets have been added to the back of the building, the west and the south. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if the applicant was only asking for pots on the north wall (3 15-gallon with potted petunia rather than a planter)1 Jose Gandara: Responded that was correct 01-05-98 Page 22 Chairman Bostwick: Stated on the west and the south walls it is noted as "Correa" and asked if that was a vine? Jose Gandara: Responded is a Bougainvillea. The recommendation is that it should be 3-foot centers. Cheryl Flores: Stated these plans show the 3 pots of petunias along the north elevation but the approved exhibits did show actual landscape beds on the north, east and south elevations. Chairman Bostwick: Asked if the original plans have the pots out at the island or do those need to be included on their change? Cheryl Flores: Responded the pots are new. She did not believe there were any pots shown on the original exhibits. Staff has no problems with added pots being placed but feels that the minimum landscaping that was shown on the original plan should be provided. Commissioner Henninger: Asked if the landscaping is a requirement of the gas station ordinance? Cheryl Flores: Responded there are landscape requirements in the gas station ordinance as well as the general site development standards. Selma Mann: Suggested that if it is helpful to the Commission they might wish to breakup item no. 8-b into two separate actions. One an offer of a resolution in regard to the amendment of condition of approval pertaining to the landscaping requirements regarding to the Magnolia trees. Then have a separate action that is by motion with regard to the Report and Recommendation aspect of this item which is review and approval of final landscape and site.plans. That way a portion could be continued if Commission wishes to do so and a portion of it approved at this time. Commissioner Henninger: Recommended substituting the revised landscape and site plans and request that more thorny bushes be added, vines be placed on 3-foot centers, and accept the plants in pots as the revised plans show with the addition of four more at the gas pumps, Cheryl Flores: Stated basically that is in conformance with paragraph no. 21-C which identifies everything except that there will be pots as mentioned. OPPOSITION; None ACTION: Determined that the previously approved negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved amendment to conditions of approval. Amended a portion of Condjlion No. 9 (relative to landscaping adjacent to the street frontage) of Resolution No. 96R-201 to read as follows: "9 (a) (i) Minimum eleven (11) (24-inch box) Queen Palms (minimum 12 feet high) and four (4) (36-inch box trees) Canary Island Pine trees; and" Approved final landscape plans as follows: Approved the potted .plants shown on submitted plans with the addition of 4 pots around the gas pumps. ` Required that a minimum 36-inch high hedge be planted in the setback area adjacent to Harbor Boulevard and Orangewood Avenue, with additional thorny shrubs to deter pedestrian traffic through the planter area. 01-05-98 Page 23 Required that minimum 1-gallon size vines, planted on maximum 3-foot centers, be indicated on plans adjacent to the trash enclosure and the building walls. Approved final sign plans as follows: Approved the two wall signs, as proposed; Approved logos on canopies as shown on submitted plans; and, Required that the monument sign be redesigned to meet current Code requirements. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 26 minutes (3:07-3:33) 01-05-g8 Page 24 __ 9a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREY.-APPROVE pprove 9b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approve, in part 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3954(READVERTISED) Approved, in part, the amendment tp OWNER: Brunswick Corporation, Attn: Richard O'Brien, previously approved 1 North Field Court, Lake Forest, Illinois 60045 plans AGENT: James Choi, 19200 S. Pioneer Blvd., Cerritos, CA 90703 LOCATION: 1111 North Brookhurst Street -formerly Circle Seal. Property is 13.52 acres located on the west side of Brookhurst Street . To amend previously-approved plans for a church facility to permit an additional 19,250* square feet of building area, for a total of 100,990" square feet with waivers of (a) minimum landscaped setback adjacent to a freeway right-of-way, (b) minimum setback of institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone boundary and (c) maximum structural height. Advertised as 14,250 square feet. " Advertised as 99,750 square feet. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC98-5 FOLLOWING IS A.SUMMAR.Y OF'THE PLANNING,;GOMMISSION'ACTION., , , Applicant's Statement: Yung Chung, architect for the church, 9480 Thirdstar Avenue, Suite 208, EI Monte, CA: Stated they have revised the overall design of the building from what was previously approved. Changes were made to the height of the building, to the addition on the east, and to the landscape setback on the south of the property. The main reason for the landscape setback change was due to Caltrans dedication on the propertywhich totals 30% of the total area. They dropped one landscaping setback waiver on the north property line which is along the residential area, 15 feet was required. Originally 10 feet was proposed but now they are proposing 15 feet by revising the parking.layout. Regarding the waiver on height requirement - 42 feet is required and they are proposing 49 feet. As stated in stafFs recommendation, the upper 7 feet is for aesthetic effect. They accept all the conditions of approval, which are to provide 642 parking spaces, provide an 8 foot block wall along the residential property lines, and provide no windows along the north side of the building except for emergency exits which is required by the Building Code. They are willing to provide additional trees which are 20 foot centers along the residential area with 15- gallon size broad-headed trees. They are also willing to cooperate with the residential neighbors if there are any concerns that they may have. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Bostwick: Asked the applicant what the structure was listed as Area 7 of the plans. Yung Chung: Responded Area 7 is the small kitchen facility that currently exists and not part of the Caltrans dedication. The church therefore wants to save it and use it as a dining facility for outdoor activities. 01-05-98 Page 25 Chairman Bostwick: Asked if they intended to, at some point in time, have a school where the large gymnasium is located. Yung Chung: Responded he did :not believe so nor has he heard anything to that affect. The gymnasium will be used solely for Sunday afternoon church activities for the children. Commissioner Henninger: Stated he knows they are not thinking of having a school there in the future but before they cast all of the parking in concrete, they might want to consider what Commission's attitude would be if they had a school there. His thought is that this would not be a good site plan if they were ever going to have a school there. He thought that the landscape area behind the building would end up being a play yard and he would not want a play yard there. He prefers it be moved around so it was blocked and the neighbors were shielded by their building. So if they are considering a play yard he would like to see it between their building and the freeway, if that were possible. Yung Chung: Responded on the site plan their main addition is just on the east side where the church wants to have some symbolic architectural shape (a praying hand) and the main lobby area. They revised the original plan to make it more aesthetically pleasing from the freeway. Other than that they are going to use the existing building as much as possible. Currently they have the main sanctuary and the educational hall in the existing church. Their desire is to have Sunday afternoon activities - a gymnasium for Awana program on week days, etc. He has not heard of any plans to use it for a future school. Commissioner Bristol: Stated for the record, there were two letters received from a neighbor on West Falmouth Avenue, Mr. Dale Magaro, who stated the following concerns in his letter: 1) One was regarding the reflective sunlight that might appear off of the glass that is being proposed and suggested having anon-reflective glass. 2) Trash bin being too close to his residence. 3) Block wall be built before any construction on any building. Commissioner Bristol (continued): Asked if he or any representatives from the church had met with any neighbors? Yung Chung: Responded they spoke with a Mr. Magaro regarding the height of the block fence wall along the north property line. The church elder made a promise to Mr. Magaro that the church is going to provide whatever is desirable tc the neighbor and that the City is making a recommendation that they provide an 8 foot high fence wall to replace the 6 foot existing wall. The church has no problem to provide the block wall before any major construction begins on the exterior. Their building is about 9 feet away from the property line (where the grass starts) and the existing :building is approximately 26 feet high. The third floor of the new structure is 26 feet, 11 inches high and from there on it is not straight up. The top portion curves, so the actual visual line impacted to the neighbor (Mr. Magaro) is much less than what the vertical 49 feet would be. They are going to provide 15-gallon size broad-headed trees planted on 20-foot centers along the property line which will .probably provide some protection from the reflection on Mr. Magaro's house. The relocation of the trash enclosure is not a problem; they can do that. He spoke with Dave See (Planner) regarding the relocation of the trash enclosure to the south of the property where the freeway on-ramp is and they are going to reflect that on their final design package. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked Alfred Yalda whether the reflection of the morning sun on the glass building could effect the traffic coming down La Palma at Brookhurst. Alfred Yaida, Traffic Engineering Division: Responded unfortunately he would not be able to answer this specifically but generally in areas where they have a reflection problem they change the type of signal heads to eliminate the problem. Commissioner Boydstun: Asked if the applicant could use any specific type of glass that is non- reflective. 01-05-98 Page 26 Mr. Chung: Stated they are using a reflective glass for privacy so that the windows blend in with the exterior architecture. [Commission paused to review the plans as Mr. Chung further explained that the actual glass portion in relation to the building is not very large; much of the area is covered by stucco.) Commissioner Henninger: Recommended approving Waivers A and C. Commissioner Henninger: Recommended amending proposed Amended Condition No. 13 to include the concept that the wall will be constructed prior to the start of major construction on the building and the site. He also recommended adding a condition that the applicant will move the trash enclosure away from the residential areas. OPPOSITION: None/Correspondence was received ACTION: Determined that the previously approved mitigated negative declaration is adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for subject request. Approved, in part, Waiver of Code Requirement as follows: Approved waiver (a), denied waiver (b) on the basis that it was deleted following putilic notification, and approved waiver (c). Approved, in part, amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 3954. Amended Condition Nos. 12, 13 and 17 of Resolution No. 97R-178 to read as follows: 12. That a minimum of 642 parking spaces shall be maintained at all times. 13. That prior to commencement of major construction, a concrete block wall at a minimum height of eight (8) feet, as measured from the highest grade, shall be provided along the north and west property lines. Approval for an Administrative Adjustment shall be obtained from the Zoning Administrator prior to construction of said block wall. 17. That no windows shall be installed on the north or west building elevations and that any door(s) located on the north elevation shall be used for emergency exiting purposes only. Said information shall be specifically indicated on plans submitted for building permits. Added the following conditions to Resolution No. 97R-178: 34. That minimum 15-gallon size broad-headed trees, planted on maximum 20-foot centers with appropriate irrigation facilities, shall be installed and maintained adjacent to the north property Tine. Said information shall be specifically indicated on plans submitted for building permits. 35. That the trash enclosures shall be relocated away from the residential areas. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 17 minutes (3:33-3:50) 01-05-98 Page 27 10a, CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 'Continued to 10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 1-21-98 10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3995 OWNER: Gilbert U. Kraemer, c/o North Street Partnership, P.O. Box 275, Placentia, CA 92871 AGENT: Taormina Industries, Inc., Attn: Jeri Muth, P.O. Box 309, Anaheim, CA 92815-0309 LOCATION: 1071 North Blue Gum Street. Property is 1.42 acres located at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Blue Gum Street. To permit an outdoor household hazardous materials recycling/resources recovery transfer facility with waivers of minimum structural and landscape setback adjacent to the Riverside Freeway and permitted encroachments in setback areas. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. ;,^~~ ~;"~`''~ ~~~'-~~' `, iFOCLOWINGIIS'A'SUMMARY OF~THEIP,LANNING°COMMISSION ACTION :-"'-=" ~~'~,; '~~!;;~;~, Public Testimony: David Hickey, attorney with Newland and Nordberg: Stated he is :representing the Suburbia Homeowners Association which is a densely populated homeowners association located just across the 91 freeway, across from the proposed hazardous waste material site. The association would like the Planning Commission to :provide further notice to those affected homeowners by the proposed action prior to the January 21st meeting to consider and discuss this issue. Secondly, the association would like Planning Commission to consider the effect that the location of the hazardous waste material site, the setback provisions and it's proximity directly across the 91 freeway from the densely populated area which is just on the other side of the 91 freeway. But importantly, they want to get across this afternoon is that a lot of the homeowners in that area did not receive notice of this Planning Commission meeting.. I would like the Planning Commission to perhaps redouble their efforts to provide notice to those homeowners. There are a large segment of homeowners in that densely populated area that would be interested in what is going on directly across the freeway. As Commission is aware, there are other waste material sites at that location which appear to be expanding at a rate that the associations and the homeowners-are not pleased with, especially more towards their area. He requested the Planning Commission to confirm that their notice will be to all the affected homeowners. Chairman Bostwick: Is that within the 300 foot radius for notification? Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner: Responded she would have to verify that. if Commission requests, staff can determine whether or not it is or they can send out the notices to this housing project. Chairman Bostwick: Directed staff to send :notices to those apartment and housing structures on the south side of the 91 freeway from the subject property. Cheryl Flores: Responded yes, staff can do that. 01-OS-98 Page 28 Commissicner Boydstun: Moved to continued this item to January 21, 1998, seconded by Commissioner Bristol and motion was carried. OPPOSITION: 1 person spoke In opposition. He requested that a notice be sent to all affected homeowners and to the densely populated area located across the 91 Freeway. ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 21, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to provide additional information pertaining to the Household Hazardous Materials Collection Center for staffs review. Directed staff to re-notify all affected property owners and the residents on the south side of the freeway. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 3 minutes (1:32-1:35) 01-05-98 Page 29 11 a. 11b. OWNER: Chiboeze J. Dallah, Sharon K. Dallah, Ernest R. Peralta, 17380 Briardale Lane, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 AGENT: Chiboeze J. Dallah, P:O. Box 773, Yorba Linda, CA 92886 LOCATION: 1429. 1433 and 1437 East Lincoln Avenue. Properly is 0.77 acre located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, 160 feet east of the centerline of La Plaza. To reclassify subject property from the RS-7200 and the RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Single Family) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. 1-21-98 SR7020TW.DOC ,FOLLOWING IS~A SUMMARY,-i7F THE ~P~LANNING COMMISSION ACTION: Applicant's Testimony John Dallah, 17380 Briardale Lane, Yorba Linda, CA: Stated he is requesting approval of the added changes to the revised plans. [He distributed the revised plans to Commission.] John Dallah (continued): Stated he would like to move the property line and combine Parcel No. 1 and 2 as shown on his plans and also request a zone change at the end of the existing CL Zone. The new CL Zone would be for 1433 and the 1437 East Lincoln Avenue. Chairman Bostwick: Suggested that this item be continued for two weeks (to January 21, 1998) to allow staff to review the revised plans so they can more adequately address his concerns and the plans presented today. John Dallah: Responded he had already submitted a letter to staff requesting a continuance OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the January 21, 1998 Planning Commission meeting in order for staff to review the revised plans submitted at the meeting. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Mayer absent) DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (3:50-3;54) 01-05-98 Page 30 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:55 P.M. TO WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 21, 1998 AT 11:00 A.M. i FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Submitted by: Ossie Edmundson Senior Secretary 01-05-98 Page 31