The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1994/08/08 ACTION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY, AUGUST 8, 1994 i'~~ 11:00 A.M. - PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW (NO PUBLIC TESTIMONY ACCEPT°_D) 1:30 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARINGS BEGIN (PUBLIC TESTIMONY) COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOYDSTUN, CALDWELL, HENNINGER, MAYER, PERA7A, TAIT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: MESSE PROCEDURE TO EXPEDITE PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. The proponents in applications which are not contested w(II have five minutes to present iheir ovidence. Additional time will be granted u;~on request if, in the opinion of the Commission, such additional time will produce evidence important to the Commission's consideration. 2. In contested app~ications, the proponents and opponent will each be given ten minutes to present their case unless additional time is requested and the complexity of the matter warrants. The Commi~aion's considerations are not determined by the length of time a participant speaks, but rather by what is said. 3. Staff Reports are part of the evidence deemed received by the Commission in each ~~earing. Copies are available to the public prior to the meeting. 4. The Commission will w(thhold questions until the public hearing is closed. 5. The Commission reserves the right to deviate from the foregoing if, in Its opinion, the ends of fairness to all concerned will be served. 6. Ail documents presented to the Pl~.nning Commission for review in connection with any hearing, including photographs or other acceptable visual representations or non-documentary evidence, shall be retained by the Commission for the ~ubiic recorc! and shall 6e available for public inspections. 7. At the end of the scheduled hearings, members of the public will be allowed ;o speak on Items of interest which are within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission, and/or agenda items. Each speaker wiil be allotted a maximum of five (5) minutes to speak. ~tF, AC080994.WP ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND CHAIRMAN PRO-TEMPORE Commissioner Henninger nominated Commissioner Boydstun for the position of Chairwomen and seconded by Commissioner Taft (Commissioner Messe absent). Commissioner Henninger moved that the nominations be closed. Commissioner Boydstun was ~~nanimously selected as Chairvvoman. Commissioner Mayer nominated Commissioner Tait for Chairman Pro Tempore and seconded by Commissioner Caldwell (Commissioner Messe absent). Commissioner Henninger moved that the nominations be closed. Commissloner Taft was unanimously selected as Chairman Pro Tempore. Elected Phyllis Boydstun as Chairwoman and Tom Tait as vitairman Pro-Tempore 1a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 1b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT August 22, 1994 1c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3669 OWNER: MANUEL GARCIA and RUDY A. BALDERRAMA, 1200 S. Highland Ave., #106, Fullerton, CA 92632 LOCATION: 606 East Orangewood Avenue. Property is approximately 0.34 acre located on the south side of Orangewood Avenue and approximately 156 `,eet west of the centedine of Spinnaker Street and further described as 606 E. Orangewood Avenue. To permit a church with waiver of minimum setback for Institutional uses adjacent to residential zone boundaries and maximum structural height adjacent to residential zones. Continued from the April 4, May 2, June 27, and August 8, 1994, Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITIODI: None ACTION: Commissioner Henni^ger orfered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell and MOTION CARRIED (Commissloner Messe absent) that consideration of the aforementioned i matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of August 22, 1994 in order to submit rev(sed plans and that the Petit(oner be advised that no further continuance will be considered. ~ 8-8-94 Page 2 7 !4 S~ ~ti; ,--~ 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 2b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT September 7, 1994 2c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3685 OWNER: EUCLID SHOPPING CENTER, 2293 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, CA 92804 AGENT: FANCHER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, 1342 Bell Avenue, Ste 3-k, Tustin, CA 92680 LOCATION: 1600 West Katella Avenue. Property is approximately 18.6 acres located at the southeast comer of Katella Avenue and Euclid Street. To permit a 1,989 square foot drive through restaurant within an existing commercial retail center with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces and minimum landscape setback adjacent to a residential zone boundary. Continued from the June 1, June 27, and August 8, 1994, Planning Commission meetings. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. ,~~, l FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Henningar offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of September 7, 1994 (Wednesday) in order for the applicant to have additional time to submit exhibits. ` ~`.,. `:,d 8-8-94 Page 3 ; 3a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Continued to 3b. RECLASSIFICATION N0.93-9411 September 7, 1994 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3687 (Wednesday) OWNER: WILLIAM TAORMINA, P.O. BOX 309, Anaheim, CA 92815 AGENT: DAVID STOLL, 327 N. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 423 North Anaheim Boulevarcl. Property is approximately 1.08 acres located on the southwest comer of Anaheim Boulevard and Sycamore Street. Reclassification from the CG and PD-C Zones to the CL Zone. To permit a bicycle racing track wfth accessory uses, including a recall area, concession stand, and picnic area. Continued from June 13, and July 11, 1994 Planning Commission meetings. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. IN FAVOR: 1 person spoke in favor and submitted a petition with 56 signatures in favor of subject proposal OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposftion/correspor,Jence was received Commissioner Boydstun declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC7fi-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that Commissioner Boydstun has property on the market in the area that could be affected and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that she was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with ReclassKicatlon No. 93-94-11 and Condftional Use Permft No. 3667, and would not take pert in efther the d-scusslon or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission, Thereupon Commissioner Boydstun left the Council Chamber. PETITIONER: Dave Stoll, 327 N. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805. He submitted a copy of his speech to the Planning Commission. He was here to clarify the questions that were brought up by both the staff and the audience at tha last two meetings. He stated on July 11th they heard II from Esther Vi'!3k as she presented her views on the proposed bike racing facility in Anaheim. i e j i n 8-8.94 '~ Page 4 K IL !I. He explained Ms. Viljak's family owns the three residential rental properties near their site. She has expressed a series of legitimate concerns that if not handled properly could affect the value of her property and the piece and quiet of her tenants. He asked the Planning-Commission to please not approve his proposal if they thought there was any chance whatsoever, however remote, however slight, that his BMX facility will be a negative impact on their neighborhood. He explained he has decided to be an asset to the neighborhood and to solve the numerous problems that exist today. He added, again if they had any doubt that this will be the case, please do not vote in favor of his proposal. He stated the VllJak's agree that the BMX is a great concept, however, they would like it to be in an industrial park. He explained the youth he wants to reach do not live in Industrial parks, but they live hero within the Ciry. He further stated he did not believe that children should play in an industrial park and that is why the Ciry has Commercial Zoning. He explained he cannot help it if Ms. Vlljak's home is adjacent to their commercial property. He stated he has no control over this. He stated in Chandler, AZ and Orange, CA, hundreds of homeowners have chosen to 11ve adjacent to BMX facilities. The Vlljak's own their property adjacent to their proposed location. He added, again he has no control over the zoning in Anaheim. He stated his property is commercial and their property is residential. He stated he will be sensitive to their rights and he only asks that they are sensitive to his needs as a commercial businessman in Anaheim. He stated Ms. Viljak states that she opposes their facility for the following reasons: operating hours; noise, BMX competkion; capacity; parking and proximity to residential homes. Operating hours. He explained their facility is a commercial business. It will operate per the allowable operating hours of commercially zoned property. He further explained there are many commercial uses that they could Install at this site-many of which would operate 24 hours per day. He stated their bicycle racing facility will operate only 1P hours a day. Noise. He stated as per the results of their independent noise study that they submitted last week, they have proven without a doubt that kids on bikes, on dirt do not make noise. He stated they will not exceed the noise standards applicable to the commercial zoning in Anaheim. He stated if they exceed any noise standards, or if they exceed any noise complaints, they will simply shut the track down until the problem is solved. In addition, they will not have overhead speakers; public address horns; they will not play loud music and there will be no more noise coming from their facility then what comes from Pearson Park or a Little League game. He stated ;~::_ in summary, if the sound of children's laughter is annoying to the neighborhood, then things must be different then when he was a kid. I i i 8.8-94 } Page 5 Sy `,±; 3. Capacity. He explained they will not exceed tho permitted capacity. He stated ~ there are limits to everything and they will follow the limits that will be placed upon them by the City of Anaheim whatever that might bs. 4. -Parking. 'He stated they will not exceed the parking Iirnitations with their adjacent parking lot plus the parking at other properties in the area that they have permission to use. He explained there will be more than enough parking available. He stated if they recall, they conducted a full parking study by Mr. Paul Singer to verHy this. He emphasized parking will not be a problem, but if it turns (nto one they will shut down the facility until a solution can be found. 5. Proximity to residential homes. He stated he has already addressed the fact that their commercially zoned property has just happens to adjoin residential property. He stated what is most important to him Is a letter he received from Mr. Tucker which is also included in the packet. He explained Mr. Tucker, who actually lives adjacent to their sits, support their concept and are willing to work with them as a team to Improve the neighborhood. 6. BMX competition guidelines. He stated the Viljak's claim that they are tied to the ABA's guidelines, this simply is not true. As their letter from the President of the American Bicycle Association, President Clayton John will state, Anaheim BMX is the track of the future for the entire sport and will set a new standard for the American Bicycle Association members across the United States. He stated as to Ms. Viljak's statement that this could be a gang hideout, this could be no more further from the truth. He stated frankly, this offends him personally because as a business owner, his entire business plan is focused on gang prevention. He added allowing the use of their area gives them something productive to do with their time-no gang members will set foot on his property. He stated Ms. VilJak claims that the amount of money they will be charging their riders is contrary to the rules and guidelines established by the BMX or ABA. He added again this is not true. As he stated at the last meeting, their track will follow the exact pricing guidelines of the American Bicycle Association. He explained, however, for those children who cannot afford to purchase their own bicycle, they will provide bikes far rent for .25 cents per hour. He stated this is their right and privilege as business owners. He added if that is how he wants to spend his money, he will do so. He stated please remember all they are trying to do is provide the youth wfth a place to play. He asked is there something wrong with that? He hoped not. In closing, he restated his goals and purpose for develo~iing this facility. He wants to provide a place for children to have fun just like Lirile League, soccer, Disneyland Goais, Ice rink or the Boys and Gids Club. He explained his focus is on youth and if the neighborhood is dissatisfied with his business once it is in operation, he will basically shut it down. He stated he wants to be an asset to the City and this neighborhood. He asked, please allow him the chance to try. B•5-94 Page 6 Y ~„~ 4 sa 4 ii IN FAVOR: ~ Sandra Perez, 412 N. Claudine, Apartment 5, Anaheim CA. He stated she took it upon herself to take a petftion and go around her neighborhood and taik to the neighbors who were in favor of having the BMX track. He stated he obtained 56 signatures. She submitted the signatures to the Commission. She stated she asked them about the children having a place to go. She explained the situation and she told them she was coming to a meeting today and she wanted to get whoever was in favor in the neighborhood. She added everyone seems to be in favor of it and there seems to be no problem. OPPOSITION: Esther VilJak, 1296 Lighthouse Lane, Anaheim, CA 92801. She stated they own the properties at 122 W. Sycamore which Mr. Stoll eluded to as well as some properties on Zeyn Street and Lemon Street. She stated she did not want to rehash everything that has happened in the last 2 months because she thought that was very well documented. She stated the applicant submitted a noise study to the City and she believed it was Incomplete. She stated last month the applicant completed a video with no criteria or decibel ratings. She stated this month it is a study that has been completed by an audio visual specialist and not an acoustical engineer as requested by staff. She stated they are left with the conclusion that the applicant knows that the noise study is not within the guidelines, therefore, the applicant is choosing to ignore the request to complete a formalized study. She stated the applicant's commitment to following directions is questionable. They talk of concerns for the community, however, she thought their actions speak differently. She stated it appears that the applicant wishes to continue taking shortcuts thereby wasting all of their time. She stated Mr. Chang, one of the owners of apartments on Lemon Street, contracted the services of Gordon Bracken & Associates who are acoustical and energy engineers. They completed a noise Impact study utilizing 122 W. Sycamore, the area adjacent to his apartments on Lemon Street to measure existing noise. She stated they also visited the BMX facility (n Orange and basic findings are that the BMX would far exceed the acceptable level of the noise, i.e., 65 dba's called out by the Municipal Code. She stated in the study they did not measure parking lot noise or people nolse, but they did measure the level of the starting gate; the starting loud speaker and the paging loud speaker. She stated allowing for design differences the Orange BMX versus the Anaheim BMX the level of noise, when all factored, will exceed Coda. She explained for example, the starting loud speaker noise level was 80 to 86 dba's at 40 feet; the paging loud speaker was 69 to 72 dba at 100 feet; the starting plate drop which drops every 30 seconds was 71 to 73 dba's at 40 feet. She emphasized that these measurements were taken at 40 to 100 feet. She stated the closest residential area to the BMX in Anaheim is 10 feet, so she would have to assume that the decibel reading would I increase appropriately. f I a 8-8.94 ~ Page 7 ;''~ t :f. 7i. 'S. She stated the applicant also wishes to place a P.A. system 57 feet' from the west .1 residential property line. She explained the Anaheim Municipal Code prohibits the operation of amplified equipment for commercial use within 200 feet of a residerttai zt,ne. She stated with the above levels of noise, the P.A. system should not be allowed unless it is over the 200 feet from the residential area. She stated other concerns they continue to have are the placement of the 20-foot tower so close to the property Ilne; hours of operation, i.e., 12 hours a day seven days a week. She added 84 hours of operation with these noise levels are totally inconceivable. She referenced attendance restrictions and stated she thought attendance levels should be defined and the applicant needs to be held to it. She questioned the height of the walls between the property line and where the applicant wishes to build. She stated the level of noise is the overriding concern to recommend that this proposal not be accepted. She explained the exterior noise will exceed 65 dba's and it can be, therefore, assumed that the interior noise will also exceed 45 dba's. She stated the effect of this facility on interior noise needs to be measured as ft does have an affect on the quality of Iffe of the tenants. She stated when you factor existing noise, BMX noise and the noise from parking, all of those levels will probably far exceed the 60 or 65 dba that is required and based on that she asks they turn this down. She stated she would like to address a couple of the Issues that Mr. Stoll brought up. She clarified that ner concern has not been that it is going to be a gang hideout. She questioned ~•~hat the hours of operation were, and the type of Individual that would visit this type of a focally when it is open 12 hours a day, seven days a week. She stated Mr. Stoll indicated that the residents close to this site were for the proposal. She stated that is all fine and well. She did not think that anyone has shared with them the noise Ievei of Impact so she would like to think ff that was reviewed with the residents, which she planned on doing, they might have a dHferent opinion of this project. She had a summary of what she just stated and in addition her father wrote a letter summarizing his views opposing the project and ff the Commission did not have a copy of the Gordon Bracken study, she had an extra copy. Casey Chen, 1265 Minr,esaro Street, Anaheim, CA. He stated he represents the ownership of 410 N. Lemon apartments. He stated since he learned from staff that the applicant did not complete the noise study, he just went ahead and hired an independent acoustical engineer, Gordon Bracken & Associates, to address the issue of the noise and he came up with the report which he submitted last week. He stated he would not repeat what Ms. VilJak Just mentioned. He stated the result of this report is that the noise level that BMX will generate will exceed the Ctty standards and h Is black and white on the report unless Traffic can come up with ~ something otherwise. In addftion, he understands that the applicant has discussed the traffic or parking situation with staff and he has not had a chance to review the complete traffic study. 8-8.94 Page 8 J s. y 1 1 He expressed his concerns that traffic would Interfere with the existing traffic volume and circulation pattern in the residential neighborhood. He added he thought the noise and traffic were the most crucial points. REBUTTAL: Mr. Stoll stated they were given a list of qualified engineers to do a noise study. He stated Gordon Bricl:en & Associates were tops on the list. He explained they called them the first day they received the Ilst and he Informed him that Mr. Chen was going to be having his noise study done. They offered, in good faith, an unbiased report and tho, they would be more than happy co split the cost with them. He stated it took them over a week to get back to him and stated that for whatever reason they were not Interested in doing that. He stated they were then short on time and the other two people he contacted were unable to do that. He stated John Schippers who is a qualified sound specialist spoke with Greg McCafferty on the phone; he went to the City himself and picked up all of the requirements that were needed for a noise study and that is what was used. He stated he met with Mr. Yalda and his superior last week and they discussed the parking situation and have come to an agreement that best suits everyone so that once again parking is not a concern. He stated in regards to the sound travelling to their house, the Ciry only requests a 6-foot wall. They have gone one step further and have already told the people that they will be putting up an 8-foot wall which will pretty much all but deaden the noise going back to their properties. He stated in regards to her statement that the other people were not aware of the noise- they have been made aware of the noise and are fully aware of everything and they have their support. He added they are Just trying to do something nice for the City John Schippers, 1150 W. Brlardale, Orange, CA. He stated he is the owner of Premiere Sound and Video, Incorporated. He stated he went to the Orange track and took all of the db readings. He stated that was based on the ambience sound, i.e., the freeway and the sound of children riding the bikes. He stated there Is no sound. He explained you can stand right next to them and the db meter does not even register. He referenced the gates slapping down. He stated he will not d(spute the other engineer. He stated the gate slapping down is Irrelevant because that is gate is not being used. He stated they are using a very old gate. He explained the new gate that Mr. Stoll will be using has a pad that the gate lands on; the hinge portion will have rubber on it which will quiet the hinge when it slaps down. He referenced the paging system. He stated the typical paging system uses horns; they have a long throw and these are all mid ranges and that is what really carries the sound. He explained that is not what Mr. Stoll is planning on using. He shoved a model and i stated the bleachers are counter sunk into the ground. He stated the ground Itself will deaden sound Immensely. He explained sound does travel somewhat line-of-sight, i.e., it does not go up and throw curves unless the wind carries it. 3 8.8-94 .~ ~ Page 9 {. r7 He stated the paging system they are going to be using uses small, low wattage speakers ~ along the tops of the bleachers pointing back down; the sound will be going Into the track and deadening in the track. He added the sound will not travel far at all, so it is not like you are at a swapmeet with big horns throwing sound everywhere. He referenced the model and stated the sound will have to travel up 10 feet plus there are tress that will deaden sound plus an 8-foot block wal;. He stated an a-foot block wall will usually stop sound all of the time and referenced how they are used on freeways and that it works. He stated the wall will be 8 feet high and the residence house is a one story building and the top of tie window is not over 8 fesi high. He added the sound will have a hard time panetrating the house. He stated as far as the apartment complex and on the study he submitted, he took a ten second sample and gave tham the low, high and average. He stated the average number does not mean that you do your standard mathematic addition and division to get the average. He elaborated and stated the average reading of the traffic is 59, 64, and 56 driving by the street. He gave some further statisti•~s and stated every area is different. He reiterated that the sound of the racing itself does not even register. He eluded to a child riding by on a bicycle and all you hear is the chain on the gear. His professional opinion is that he does not see how this will be unsatisfactory as far as the Anaheim Code goes. Commissioner Hanninger asked if it was his company that is going to provide the sound system at the track? Mr. Schippper Indicated that was correct. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: ` Commissioner Mayer stated she had a question about what type of sound is going to be on the 2U-foot announcer's tower. Mr. Schlpper stated that is Just basically where the announcer will be standing. He explained he is in a tall tower so he can see the track. He will have a microphone in order to speak to the people at the starting gate and talk to the people observing. He stated the people observing will have small speakers right by them and h will be like having i~eadphones on, I.e., you can hear it but the person next to you cannot. He stated the Urange track is using a horn. He stated they are going to be using an outdoor speaker and it is going to produce more low levels and the low levels will die quickly. He explained. It was clarified that there are no speakers on the tower and that it is there for visual reasons. Commissioner Mayer asked what the highest level above the ground level that a speaker will be located? Mr. Schlpper stated it will all be at ground level except for at the hut. He explained they have not laid out exactly where everything is going to be, but the concapt will be that ~ everything will be at ground level facing down. He further stated at the booths and huts where they have cafeterias, etc., :hey will be up in the ceiling facing straight down. He I stated with that type of set up the sound travels down and if it bounces it will bounce up. i I 8-8-94 3 ~ Page 10 s ,~ it `r. `i: `~,. Chairman Peraza asked how they were going to mute the sound of the starting gate? ~. Mr. Schipper explained most of the sound of the starting gate is coming from the metal slapping on metal and wherever there is a metal contact there is going to be a rubber pad put as well as the new gate. He added he has not personally seen the new gate, but he has been assured that ft is a totally new gate and he will have ft totally quieted down and as Mr. Stoll mentioned earlier, if that is not the case then he will shut ft down until it is fixed. Chairman Peraza stated when he vie'ted the facility in Chandler, AZ, the gate was noisy. He explained the speaker system was on a pole located in the middle. Mr. Schipper stated the track will be state-of-the-ar<, therefore, the design of the system will be a key factor. Chairman Pera~a stated in Chandler, AZ they were in the process of building the homes across the street and no one lived in them; on the west side he vlsfted a family and they said inside they could not hear the noise, however, they could hear noise on the outside. He stated they did not seem to mind because the children were Involved. Mr. Schipper stated he visited the site on a Friday night and sat in front of the apartment buildings to see how loud the concerts were and the concerts on Friday evenings v,ill roughly be at the same decibel level. He added the Disneyland fireworks will be at a lot higher decibel level than this track will ever be. Commissioner Caldwell asked ff he has heard of Gordon Bracken & Associates? Mr. Schipper indicated he has heard of them, however, ho has never dealt with them. O~ ~ ~ Commissioner Caldwell asked ff he read the report Mr. Schipper indicated he did not. Commissioner Caldwell asked ff he read page 4 of our staff report regarding their analysis of his report? Mr. Schipper stated ha has not. Commissioner Caldwell addres:aed Ms. Viljak. He asked ff they were able to mitigate the sound, would she have any other problem with the track? Mr. VilJak stated the hours of operation relative to the noise/sound. Commissioner Caldwell asked if they could do away with the sound problem, did she have any other problems with the track? He explained they need to figure out ff this will have a detrimental effect on the properties that currently neighbor this one. It appeared to him that they could nail this down to a noise problem. He stated he could not vote for ft ff there was going to be a noise problem. He wanted to know ff there were any other areas '. of concern? 8.8-P4 Page i 1 Y ;F S, ~L 4 Mr. Viljak stated if the noise level would not exceed what it is right now, then she thought they could entertain the possibility of having a BMX next door. She stated based on the study Brirken did, if that noise were to be there 12 hours a day 7 days a week, then she could not live with that type of noise. She stated he summarized the environmental noise as it is right now and if it stays at that then I guess she could entertain it. Commissioner Mayer addressed the Parks and Recreation Department and asked about the Pearson Park Theater and whether they had a chance to look at this Information and how that might or might not affect the theater programming. Terry Lowe, Recreation Services Manager, reponsible person for Pearson Park Amphitheater's programming. He stated thus far he has not specifically seen the noise study although he has had contact with Planning staff and have given them some Input as far as showtimes and what concerns they have. Their shows vary a great deal. He explained th^_y are generally acoustic in nature due to the fact that they do not want to disturb their neighbors. He further explained up until about 4 or 5 years ago the types of shows they were doing was a concern of the neighbors. He stated for the most part they have limited the shows to acoustic or slightly modified sound to not be a burden to their neighbors. Additionally, they have had thair sound system totally redesigned as part of their master planning process to reduce the noise as much as possible. He added it is his understanding that they have not had a complaint from the neighbors for several years. Chairman Peraza suggested placing some conditions on the conditional use permit. Mr. Lowe stated the two major concerns they have are the parking and any noise that might Interfere with the productions they are doing. He explained thus far the arrangements they have with Pacific Bell to utilize the'• parking lot under contract during `~; their performances has reduced the impact of their shows on the neighborhood. He stated in addition to sound they have not had a parking complaint in some time as well because of the contractual arrangement with Pacific Bell. Commissioner Caldwell stated he is very much in favor of a BMX track, but not at the expense of the neighbors and right now based on legitimate information he has, this BMX track is going to exceed the Ciry's Municipal Code in regards to sound at the property line. He further stated this is a land use Issue and not an emotional issue, and unless some additional information can be provided, he would be forced to vote no. He stated some additional information may be helpful to the neighbors that are opposed as well as the Commission. Commissioner Henninger stated they have spent a lot of time on this and have had a number of hearings. He stated there have been requests for a noise study by a qualified professional and the applicant has not chosen to do that. He stated they could continue this and provide that Information or they could deny this. Commissioner Mayer stated she was feeling a little more comfortable with the understanding that there are not going to be speakers on the 20-foot announcer's tower j and that they are going to be at ground level and further going into the ground. However, she would really like to see infrrmation on this proposed new state-of-the-art starting gate and she wondered H fire manufacturer would have some information on how much sound i his product would make when it is functioning. S-S-94 ~ Page 12 i She stated she did not have enough Information at this time to go forward with this. She added h appears that the quality of life will be at risk in the neighborhood. Commissioner Henninger stated in summing up the testimony from the applicant, they have had testimonial, and not factual style testimony, and he found that not to be very persuasive. He stated there was some testimony if there were some noise complaints that they were going to shut their doors and not operate. He added he has yet to see a businessman who would do something like that. A4r. Stoll stated his partner is Bill Taromina and he is the one that stated that. He added they are doing this more for the City. Commissioner Henninger asked ff they continued this for 2 weeks, could he get a qualified noise professional to come and talk to the Commission about this system? Mr. Stoll indicated he could. Commissioner Henninger stated that is what they have asked for ail alor.;~ and that is what the staff's recommendation is right now. He stated he gets the feeling from the testimony that the sound system is not exactly designed yet. He explained he would Tike to see a specific design of the sound system that goes with their plans that would show the exact location and the specifications on the equipment and gate so that a noise professional could look at that and tell them one way or another ff they will meet the requirements or not. He stated that is what they have all been looking for and they have not gotten that yet. He stated he agrees that the Orange track may not be exactly Ilke this because of r . equipment variations and if that is true maybe there is a way to do this. l - Mr. Borrego stated they mentioned in the hearing that they were now Interested in raising the height of the wall up to 8 feet and the current Code Iimftatlon is 6 feet, therefore, ff they did want to come in wfth an 8-foot wall they would need to readvertise this application to Include that as a waiver from the Code. Commissioner Henninger suggested that they continue this hem for 4 weeks and readvertise for an 8-foot wall for sound attenuation and then they will not be delayed again. Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner, suggested that the applicant meet with staff first before they do the study in order to make sure that the Planning Commission at the next hearing gets what they need to get past the CEQA finding. Mr. Stoll stated when he got with Mr. Schippers they called Greg McCafferty on the phone and requested a meeting. Mr. McCafferty stated they should go down, get the Codes and that is all they needed and that was exactly what they did. He explained they tried to do everything that they asked them to do. Mr. McCafferty explained in his letter attached to the staff report, he requested a meeting w Sth the property owner, applicant and the consultant to discuss the parameters of the ;:cudy before the study was done and that was not done. Commissioner Henninger stated it is clear that they need to meet with staff. ~ 8-8-94 ~ ~ Page 13 { i. 3 'i. i ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell /~, and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent and Commissioner Boydstun & ~' declared a conflict of interest) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of September 7, 1994 (Wednesday), in order for the applicant to submit a noise study and to advertise a wall height waiver. ~, l_~ .~.; . 8.8-94 Page 14 ~F; 4a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Continued to 4b. VARIANCE N0.4256 September 7, 1994 (Wednesday) OWNER: R.H. SIEGLE, 919 E. South Street, Anaheim, CA 92805 AGENT: PHILLIP R. SCHWARTZE, 31682 EI Camino Real, San Juan Capistrano, CA 92678 LOCATION: 919 E. South Street. Property Is approximately 3.6 acres located at the northwest corner of South Street and Rose Street. Waiver of dedication and Improvements for Tentative Parcel Maa No. 91-164. Continued from the July 25, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. VARIANCE RESOLUTION NO. FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell and l MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of September 7, 1994 (Wednesday). ''+w 8.6-94 Page 15 f II 5c. CONDITIONALOUSERPEQ MITENON3662 PreviouslR advertised I GPan~ed OWNER: WEST STREET DEVELOPMENT INC., Attn: Doug Browne, P.O. BOX 18021, Anaheim, CA 92817 LOCATION: 6270 E. Santa Ana Canyon Road. Property is approximately 0.94 acre located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road approximately 515 feet west of the centerline of Fairmont Boulevard. Revised plan for a private educational facility and a church with waivers of minimum setback of institutional uses adjacent to residential zone boundary, maximum fence height and minimum structural setback abutting a scenic expressway. Continued from the July 25, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC94103 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. IN FAVOR: 1 person spoke in favor of subject petition ~. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Doug Browne, 151 S. Quintana, Anaheim, CA. He explained this item was trailed to this meeting because one of the variance requests was omitted from advertisement. He explained that after this matter was approved early in the summer or late spring, he met with the neighbors to discuss the concerns that they had with their project and one of the concerns was that parking near the property line on the west side of the property would facilitate ingress and egress by other than conventional manners over the fence, therefore, they requested ff the fence were made taller, then it would be much more disconcerting as far as being able to jump over it in etcher direction. He stated originally it was approved that the cypress trees which are permitted across the westedy site of the property were going to be planted at 36" on center. He stated one of the neighbors has the same type of cypress trees in his back yard and after measuring it, It was determined they were 28", therefore, he has agreed to modify the plans to reflect that. He stated in raising the wall and by moving the playground closer to the wall so the wall becomes the sound barrier and the sound bounces off the wall, it does not have any length of travel and he believed that tha sound report that was produced, i.e., the modification to the original noise study, reflects even a lower amount of decibels at the property line based on the combination of the playground's proximity to the wall and the Increase in the height 'I of the wall. S-S-94 i; l~r Page 16 ~ i f T .~ He stated the third request, after speaking to Sanitation, is that the orlglnal location of the trash enclosure was tough. He explained there are some retaining walls and other (~1 structures which are already appearing in the front 100-foot setback which do not require a variance because it fs not considered to be a structure. He stated although freestanding by ftself, it was Interpreted by staff to be a structure. He explained what they are doing is hiding the trash enclosure in the walls and effectively it disappears behind landscaping and blends right in and makes it much easier for Sanitation to pick up and handle the trash. He added those are the modiflcations that he is requesting to the original plan. IN FAVOP,: Ray Pontius, 6276 Calie Jaime, Anaheim, CA. He stated they have had conversations wfth Mr. Browne and they are totally in favor with what is being done at this time. He asked that the Commission vote yes on this. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Henninger stated he wondered ff there was some way they could readjust the trash enclosure so that the doors did not front on Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mr. Browne stated the requirement of the Santation Department is that a double enclosure be provided. He explained the occupants are not going io be high producers of refuse and that one of the enclosures will be used for recycling. He asked ff ft would be possible to use two old style Cfty single enclosures, one for recycling and one for normal trash and ft was decided that would not be possible. He stated ff ft is stipulated that he can use two City designed enclosures, then he can adjust it so that the doors will not face Santa Ana Canyon Road wfth the existing site plan and iii l;e a minor modfficatlon which probably could be handled at the staff level. Commissioner Henninger suggested that they put the trash enclosure in the location that is currently occupied by the most easterly parking stall. Mr. Browne stated he will lose one parking space if he puts ft there. He is currentlly overparked. Commissioner Henninger stated with the st(pulation that he will arrange for the trash enclosure so the doors of ft do not front on Santa Ana Canyon Road, this is a good proposal. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) to approve the previously approved Negative Declaration (findings in Paragraph 15 of the staff report). Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza (Commissioner Messe absent) to approve the waiver of Code Requirement (findings in Paragraphs 22). i i 6.6-94 ~ Page 17 r Commissioner Henninger offered Resoution No. PC94-103 to grant Conditional Use Permft No. 3662 (findings in Paragraph 23) subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommended conditions, and with the following changes: That the trash enclosure shall be relocated so that the doors do not front Santa Ana Canyon Road. Sa(d enclosure shall be planted with clinging vines to upgrade its appearance. That the proposed Italian Cypress trees shall be permanently maintained by the property owner. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Messe absent) l ,~ ~4 8.8-94 Page 18 ~,. 6a. CEOA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved 6b. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 9495-01 Granted 6c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved 6d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.3702 Granted 6e. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 14697. REV. 1 ~ Approved OWNER: JEROME MARKS, SHERRIE R. MARKS et al, 29 Invernes Lane, Newport Beach, CA 92660 AGENT: HUENNEKENS, QUINN and TALCOTT, 17895 Von Karman Ave., #340, Irvine, CA 92714 LOCATION: 2144 W. Lincoln Avenue. Property Is approximately 6.47 acres located on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and approximately 102 feet west of the centerline of Empirs Street. To reclassify the subject property from CL(Commercial, Limited) and PD- C(Parking District-Commercial) Zones to the RM-3000 (Residential, Multiple-Fam(ly) or a less Intense zone. To permit a 60-unit, RM-3000, detached condominium development with waiver of required lot frontage, maximum structural height and minimum interior setback requirements. ~'" ~._ . To establish a 60-lot (including 4 lettered lots) RM-3000 subdivision. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION NO. PC94104 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC941o5 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. IN FAVOR: 2 people spoke in favor of subject proposal OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Don Huennekens, 2418 Ridgepark Lane, Orange, CA. 92714. He stated this site has previously been approved by the Planning Commission of 108-units of condominiums under the RM-2400. He explained they are asking to build 60 detached single-family homes under the RM-3000. He stated they have assembled a team of consultants and advisors. They have worked together with this team to produce a nice single-family home development at affordable prices. He stated their price range, as they perceive h, will be in the range of $19D,000 to ~ $225,000. He explained the prices in this neighborhood range from around $160,000 to ~ $180,000 on the adjoining single-family development. 8.8.94 Page 19 3 rf ~Y l He stated their plans provide for a private open space for each home. He explained the staff report states a minimum of 1,600 square feet and indicated he would like to have ~ some discussion on that. He stated they thought it is close to 1,000 square feet on the i r , minimum and gees up to about 3,400 square feet. He stated they have had a meeting with the adjoining homeowners and the previous plan of 108-units had a greenbelt on their south property Tine where there are some large existing trees. He stated homeowners were concerned that the greenbelt be maintained. He stated they were able to point out to them that the greenbelt wouid not have public access. He stated this project will pay its typical fees which includes $264,000 in park fees. He stated they thought this was a very good use of the property. He asked that they approve the project. i IN FAVOR: Usa Marks Webber, 2166 Pacific Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA. She stated in addition, her sister Jill Marks and her mother Sheri Marks are the present owners of the property. She ~ , gave some background. Elizabeth Gerlach, 2117 Hiawatha, Anaheim, CA. She stated the neighbors are satisfied with the project. CONCERNED PARTY: Ross Davis, representing Mullican Medical Center, 5000 Airport Plaza, Long Beach, CA, who neighbors the property. He stated they were very happy that the lot is being tended to and that finally some good use could come of it. He explained it has been derelict for some years and has been somewhat of an eyesore. He expressed his concerns if a Zone ~^- , variance Is being sought he did not want ft to affect the neighboring business or Interrupt or ~ interfere with their ongoing business. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Henninger stated there is no common recreational facility in this proposal and he thought the rear yards were not big enough to have swimming pools. He wondered if the applicant had thought about putting in a recreation lot. Mr. Hunnekens stated they did spend some time on that thought. He explained some of the back yards would have room for pools and some would also have room for a Jacuzzi. He stated their concem is the cost factor. This will not be heav(ly populated with children and they estimate this project will generate 25 students. He explained they do have a concern for the future affordability of homeowners. He explained further that their marketing Input is that h would not be a real asset to them and could be a liability to the homeowners. I j 8.6.94 3 Page 20 i~ He stated they did pay a lot of attention to try and put a plan together that gave private ' yards quite similar to any residential development. The size of these lots are smaller than h what the 5,000 or 7,200 are, but with the working couple ft still gives them some private area to have some outdoor entertainment, but not be lacked !nto a large maintenance area. i Commissioner Caldwell stated he did not see where the children were going to play and he did not see where 600 square feet in the back yard was going to be a place where chiidren can play. He added there was no park close by. Mr. Hunnekens stated there were several parks close by. He stated there were some parks off of Anaheim Bivd. He stated not far from where the community centar is located there is a large park area that would be within walking distance. He stated there is some question whether 600 square feet is the right measurement. He stated they have gone over it since they listened to them this morning. He stated at most there are 6 homes that would have the 600 square feet. He added he thinks ft is closer to 1,000 square feet. He clarified that 6 out of 60 homes would have 600 square-foot yards and the rest of them would all be larger. Commissioner Caldwell stated this (s a great thing to have and he is glad to see something approaching single-family to go in. He stated the weakness in an area like that is no recreational space and there is no way he seos pools going in on many of those lots looking at the site plan. Mr. Hunnekens stated he agrees, however, if you look at an aerial photo of the surrounding residential, the 5,000 and 7,200 square-foot lots in that area do not have pools in their back yards etcher. .°~ Commissioner Caldwell stated he is In favor of the project, but it would enhance it incredibly if he would devote a lot or 2 to a pool and some kind of recreaticnal space-not necessarily a structure that would have to be maintained on the backs of the owners, but tp offer them that option. Mr. Hunnekens explained that a pool costs money and the homeowners would have to have liability insurance. Commissioner Taft stated ft has always been his understanding that pools carry a very high association liability insurance which can be quite costly. He stated the trade-off in his mind is ff this was a condominium project they would want a play area, but the trade-off is they get a private back yard. He stated if he were a new buyer he would go for the private 1,000 square-foot back yard and give up the community pool. Commissioner Henninger stated he is fairly satisfied with the project the way ft is proposed. Mr. Borrego stated he would like to mention one condition that was inadvertently left out of the file which they do attach to all multiple family projects and that is in regards to the covenant that needs to be recorded informing prospective buyers of possible overcrowded condftions in the local schools. He stated that is a standard condtion :hat they attach to all multiple family projects and it should be made a condition of the reclassification as was in the previous reclassification that was previously approved on the property. 8-6-94 Page 21 , ~t Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner, slated one additional thing in regards to schools, the School District claims there is going to be approximately 25 students generated from the project. He stated Just to note, for the record, there has been no evidence submitted ~!A through the Initial Study process that that in fact is going to occur. He referenced paragraph 5 under Background, and stated the original reclassification, the legislative action, actually called for 108-units so this is a less intense project. Chairman Boydstun asked for clarification that he heard about the covenant that the buyers will need to be notified that they will probably have to be bused. Mr. Hunnekens indicated he understood. Commissioner Tait asked what the school fees were on this project? Mr. Hunnekens stated $1.72 asquare-foot for the homes. He stated ft runs approximately $3,600 a home. Commissioner Henninger offered a mot!on, seconded by Commissioner Tait and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration (findings in Paragraph 18, page 6 of the staff report). Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC94-104 (Commissioner Messe absent) to grant Reclassification No. 94-95-01 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendsd conditions, listed on page 10 of the staff report wfth the following added condition: 1. That an unsubordinated covenant shall be recorded wfth the Office of the Orange County Recorder agreeing to provide the buyer of each dwelling unit wfth written information obtained from the school district(s) pertaining to possible overcrowded conditions and busing status of the school(s) serving the dwelling unft. A copy of the covenant shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney prior to recordation. A copy of the recorded covenant shall be submitted to the Zoning Division. Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Taft and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) to approve the waiver of Code Requirement (findings in Paragraph 28 of the staff report). Commissioner Henninger offered Resolution No. PC94.105 to grant Condftional Use Permit No. 3702 (Commissioner Messe absent) (findings in paragraph 29 of the staff report) and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommended conditions. Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tait and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 14697, Rev. 1, (findings In Paragraph 30 of the staff report) and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommended condtions. VOTE: 6.0 (Commissioner Messe absent) MOTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a Motion, seconded by Commisslo~~cr Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) that the Planning Commission does hereby direct staff to agendize a Code Amendment to develop standards appropriate to single family detached condominiums. 8.8 94 g Page 22 ~. t . 7a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMiT N0. 3703 OWNER: SIDNEY E, I.EWIS FAMILY TRUST, ATTN: John 0. Franklin, 6375 E. Tanque Verde Rd., Tucson, AZ 85751 AGENT: LEWIS R. SCHMID, 1725 S. Douglass Rd., Ste. "C", Anaheim, CA 92806 LOCATION: 2610.20 E. Ketella Avenue. Property Is approximately 1.32 acres located south End east of the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and Douglass Road. To permit a 22,000•square foot planned unit commercial shopping center including a 14,000-square foot semi-enclosed restaurant with on-premise sale and consumption of beer and wine with waiver of minimum landscape requirements and required parking lot landscaping. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. Continued to September 7, 1994 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMIS51ON ACTION. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Jeff Bergsma, architect for the applicant. (No address given). He stated the proposed project l~ a planned unit shopping center. He explained they are taking 3 buildings and doing a facade renovation to tie them in and that the project is located across the street from the Arena. He further explained the anchor tenant for this project is a browery that is a combination of a small brewery that produces beer and restaurant. He stated they do agree to the proposed conditions by the Police Department. He stated regarding the landscape design and layout of the project, their initial Intent was to make the landscaping compatible with the Arena. He elaborated. He explained they also had the Idea of removing the pole signs out on the street and have all of the signage on the building. He stated that is why they spread out the trees. He stated they are 20-foot on centers along Katella and also even more dense along Douglass, but they would like not to have the tree islands along the 30 spaces in the front. He explained that is where they are taking down the pole signs and asking for wall signage and why they are asking for the waiver for the landscape requirements. 8-8.94 Page 23 _. -~ He stated the parking exists on the site in the front, side and back and there are additional spaces they are leasing from the County and City in agreement for additional parking mainly for the brewary for event times. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Henninger asked how he was providing parking for this project? Mr. Bergsma explained they have an agreement with the County and the Ciry on the adjacent lot. He stated there is a tentative agreement that is in the process and they are very close on terms as of last week. He stated the Ciry and County are agreeing on parking and they would use them on non-event nights. He explained their patrons are mostly event patrons, therefore, event patrons would be their patrons in that they would be sharing the lot during event times. He stated on non-event days they would get a certain amount of spaces and it would be open for lunch and dinner during non-event times. Commissioner Henninger asked iF this was the agreement they have seen that would allow parking during week days up until 5:30p.m.? Mr. Bergsma indicated that was correct. Commissioner Henninger clarified then there is no parking after 5:30p.m. or on weekends? Mr. Bergsma indicated that was not correct. ~- ~ Lewis R. Schmid, 1725 S. Douglass Road, Anaheim, CA 92806, owner of corner property. He explained they have a lease option on the balance of the subject property. He further explained the agreement they have been working on with the County is to supplement or wipe out the present license agreement the Ciry has with the County at this time for parking adjacent to their site. He stated they have a 5 year agreement which can be cancelled in 90 days and the Ciry is desirous of a longer term lease and they are desirous of the same. He explained they went to the County and proposed various methods of achieving a longer term lease and they think they are close to that at this time. He stated as of this morning they would have 150 parking spaces available to them from 10:OOa.m. (or 11:OOa.m. m the morning) to S:OOp.m. or 5:30p.m. After that time they have unlimited parking of the 300 spaces which are available providing the Arena does not have an event whereby they are using those spaces for patrons at a charge. He stated ft does mention that the lease has to be recorded and that is fine with him, except the agreement as it stands today, is between the County of Orange or the Cfty of Anaheim. He explained that is the initial agreement. He will be ratifying it and attesting to it, but that aspect of it does not give him any control. He stated once it is established, the Ciry of Anaheim is going to draw up another lease with himself and Ogden and could be recorded also. He added he just wanted to point out that it could be that maybe the County does not want to lease record h. ` 8-8.94 4 Page 24 I 'k,' :F l He asked that they possibly make available, In this situation, a vehicle that would substitute having to record a lease if the legal department or the County will not allow the lease to be recorded. ' Commissioner Henninger asked how long they anticipate the agreement is going to last regarding these parking spaces? Mr. Schmid stated 10 years. He explained ff it is not 10 years they cannot go ahead with the development and in addition the County does not want to go beyond 10 years either. Chairwoman Boydstun asked ff they had just 2 restaurants on the premises? Mr. Schmid stated right now they Just have plans for one and they may have one more in the future. Chairwoman Boydstun asked ff he would have a problem if they place a condition that limits the number of restaurants you can have? Mr. Schmid stated he did not. He added they would not want anymore than two. Chairwoman Boydstun asked how may feet did he think they would be allotting to the second restaurant? Mr. Schmid stated approximately 3,000 square feet would be fine. Commissioner Henninger asked for clarification if the parking analysis was based on just ' • the one restaurant? Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated the numbers that were generated in the staff report are based on the one square footage of the restaurant that is shown on the plans. He stated ff they were to propose another rest¢~urant in the future then there would be some additional parking that would need to bo provided in order to meet Code. He explained that also goes along with some o- the uses that were shown in the letter that is attacY ed to the report outlining certain uses. He further explained that some of those uses, for example, the medical uses havo a higher parking requirement than the standard retail. He stated the result of those uses would only be permitted ff they had an excess of the amount of parking that they were currently proposing at this lima. Commissioner Henninger stated for clarification the parking that is proposed covers a 14,000 square foot restaurant plus 4 retail stores used for general retail use. Mr. Borrego stated that Is 5.5 per 1,000. Mr. Schmid clarified that the 14,000 square feet under roof is actually 10,000 square feet, and then there is a patio area that staff has added to that. Chairwoman Boydstun stated they have to allow parking for it. 8.8-94 Page 25 ;~ :~ •e ?T. ~} a Commissloner Caldwell stated the applicant or the applicant's architect made reference z to a pole sign. He stated they wanted them to waive their parking lot landscape F requirements because they want to put signage on the building. He asked ff pole signs were allowed in that area? Mr. Borrego stated ff they were legally permitted to begin with, they would be grandfathered in ff they met Code. He stated pole signs are permitted and there are no restrictions on having a pole oign. Dialogue not audible. Chairwoman Boydstun asked ff they could place the trees a little closer and get a couple of more trees in there? Dialogue not audible. Mr. Schmid stated they are 20 feet apart now which is what Code requires. He stated they do want good visibility and ff they get rid of signs people need to be able to read the signs on the buildings. He stated on the southwest corner there is an existing tenant called National Skate Locker and that pole sign runs with his lease. He stated the tenant has Indicated to him that once they do their restoration he is willing to get rid of the pole sign. However, he cannot go to him until this has been approved. He stated the pole sign and the landscaped area exists in the corner and when you exit from the Arena attar an event, they crowd up and spill over onto the Curb. He explained the City asked them to create a plaza?? to serve as a collection point. He stated that _ took out another pole sign, therefore, those design elements were atrade-off. ~ Con-,missione- Henninger asked for clarification if the trees along the frontage in the rendering were on 20-foot centers? Mr. Schmid indicated that was correct. Commissioner Henninger stated then that is the Code requirement and he asked ff the reason there was not that many in there Is because there are driveways? He asked ff that frontage met Code? Mr. Borrego stated they may meet Code along Katella Avenue as far as the trees are being shown on 20-foot canters because that is all that is required, however, the deficiency may actually come in on Douglass. Commissloner Henninger stated there is no great need to have visibility along Douglass. Therefore, they could put trees in on 20-foot centers along Douglass. Mr. Schmid stated they have trees at less than 20-foot centers on Douglass--it is Just hard to see in the picture. He explained there are pine trees and more trees than the minimum required along Douglass. ~' Commissioner Henninger asked about the landscaping within the parking areas? 8-8-94 3 ~ Page 26 R 2 :n ib t x Commissioner Caidwell stated they should be able to find a way to meet the Code and ~ ® have exposure. He asked about using palm trees. He was not certain as to much the c l!"~ palms would block the view of the building. He thought the Arena was not a good g comparison. f Mr. Schmid stated he spoke with Mr. Bates prior to the meeting about a way of meeting this requirement and they could group the trees in places which has been done before. He added they are more than willing to do that on the back and on the side and among their parking. He stated he wanted to make it clear that they wanted to try to keep the trees on Katella to 20 feet ff they can. He stated he thought ft was consistent wfth what the Arena has done also. Commissioner Caldwell stated they were not building an Arena and that he did not think ft was fair for them to try to compare this with the Arena. He stated the Arena is a whole different use and whole different concept. He stated the parking requirements are also different. Mr. Schmid clarified he was Just trying to make it compatible. Commissioner Caldwell stated he would personally like to see the trees go in according to Cade and would like them, if ho could find a way, to group them and still enhance his business which is important as well. Chairwoman Boydstun asked if he could put some planters in the front of the building that would not be so high as to intedere Kith the signs on the bu(Iding to soften it? Mr. Schmid stated they do not have the room with the setbacks. ~ Further discussion took place regarding the Idea of the planters. Commissioner Henninger asked about taking every tenth parking space and putting in a planter. Mr. Schmid stated that is the one they are in contention wfth. He stated he did not think the point was how many trees they have, they can do that. They can have the amount of trees they need to have and they can do the minimum. They are just saying they do not wsnt those Islands and what they are giving them for islands is pole signs. Commissioner Henninger asked why they do not want the Islands? Mr. Schmid explained they lose parking spaces and every single parking space is Important to them they could have planters. They would not want to put in solid trees to block the signage of the center itself. Commissioner Henninger stated you just contradicted yourself, i.e., you stated you did not want planters and now you say you can have planters. Which is ft? Mr. Schmid stated it is at the Commission's discretion. Commissioner Peraza asked if he was talking about planters on the parking spaces? 8-5-94 Page 27 i FV F i Mr Schmid stated between the parking spaces. He stated they could have the required amount of trees and they can have those spaces between M that what they are telling them they have to do. He added they are trying to create some kind of compromise. i CommissionerCaldwell stated the only problem was the Ilne•of-sight to the signs. He i stated there is certainly landscaping that will not obscure their signage. He stated they can still put in the landscaping and still have the visibility of the street which is Important , to the business. Chairwoman Boydstun stated they are looking for more planters and not necessarily more trees but something to break it up a little bft. Mr. Schmid stated they would be losing parking spaces H they did that. He stated he understands they want landscaping in the parking area. Commissioner Henninger stated that is what their Code requires and that improves the look of the parking lot. Commissioner Henninger asked if they could do that? Mr. Schmid stated it was possible to do that. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated it appears from the testimony that has been given that the parking that Is off-site would not be available at all times and that a parking waiver would be required for this application. She stated the Anaheim Municipal Code has very specific requirements with regard to the use of off-site parking spaces. She explained that the rule Is that the spaces be located on the same lot as the main building for which the parking is required or on the property immediately contiguous to said lot provided said parking is located thereon within reasonable walking distance from such building. She stated they are talking about a situation where k is adjacent to or in close proximity to the site, and it is not owned by the applicant. She read the Code into the record. She explained since these spaces are not being provided at all times, that the use is going to be in operation, a waiver would be required that would allow for the types of flexibility that they are talking about. In addition, the waiver procedure should provide a parking study that indicates that the type of joint use that is being proposed is going to Indeed satisfy the parking requirements for the center. Commissioner Henninger asked if they should continue this to advertise the waiveR Ms. Mann stated that would be the only meaningful way to do it. She stated alternatively it could be approved with a condition that states the number of required parking spaces indicating that a parking agreement has to be recorded which provides for off street parking at all times that the use is in operation which would be meaningless to them at this point. Commissioner Mayer stated that they had parking, but after a certain amount of time it would become an Arena patron paying to park that could also go to their restaurant. Commissioner Henninger stated apparently the parkiny is not for them, it is for Arena i events. Therefore, it is really not available to them, but an Arena customer would j probably also be their customer. He added this is a matter of dual use and it requires a waiver. Ii 8-8-94 j ~ Page 28 i r X r. Commissloner Henninger stated ff they advertise for a waiver, k would give them time to ~ come back with a plan that would show the Commission how they were going to landscape also. Commissioner Taft stated he would be more concemed wfth the landscaping along Katella. He was not so sure ft was necessary in the rest of the lot. They would lose a large number of parking spaces. Chairwoman Boydstun stated they need all of the parking they can get. Commissioner Caldwell stated they are less concerned with Douglass. Commissioner Henninger stated the testimony is they have all of the parking they need over and above the 150 spaces after hours. He stated presumably the parking Is not critical. Chairwoman Boydstun stated then they should place a restriction that there is just the one restaurant wfthout coming back in again to change the CUP so they know that they have enough parking and that ft would have to be businesses that meet the parking Code the way this was figured, I.e., 5.5. She added anything that required more than 5.5 parking they would have to come in for an adjustment on the CUP. ACTION: Commissloner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mayer and MOTION CP,Qi~IED (Commissioner Messe absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of September 7, 1994 (Wednesday) in order for the applicant to readvertise a parking waiver. Commissioner Henninger requested that staff speak with the applicant so that the appiicant clearly understands that they had agreed to provide parking and eliminate these waNers, therefore, they should update their plans to reflect that when they come back. L./ 8-8-94 Page 29 ~.E ~e 8a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION Approved eb. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 8c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3704 Granted, in part OWNER: EVERETT H. and ELMA M. MILLER, TRUSTEES, 270 Roycroft Avenue, Long Beach, CA 92803 AGENT: TAIT & ASSOCIATES, INC., Attn: Timothy Virus, 1100 Town & Country Road, #1200, Orange, CA 92668 LOCATION: 956 S. Brookhurst Street. Property is approximately 0.47 acre located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Brookhurst Street. To permit a remodeled automobile service station and to construct a car wash facility with waivers of (a) minimum distance between service stations, (b) maximum self-service sign area and (c) minimum landscaping at street frontages. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. PC94106 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. ,' ; OPPOSITION: Nane Commissioner Taft declared a conflict of Interest as defined by Anaheim Ciry Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that his firm represents Shell Oil on this project and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection wfth Conditional Use Permit No. 3704 and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner Taft left the Council Chamber. PETITIONER: Timothy Virus, 1100 Town and Country Road, Suite 1200, Orange, CA. He stated this project is a station where the owner, several years ago, converted to a gasoline operation only. He has now found that his market is changed to the point that the Shell Corporation would like to add a car wash operation to this facility in order to Improve the service to Its constituents. He explained as part of that modernization and improvement of that facility, he proposed a visual update to the new corporate standard imaging. He stated they will be relocating the existing kiosk structure which does not meet handicap, Titla 24 or ADA requirements to an addition onto the new car wash building in order to provide the adequate clearances for the i handicap. I 8.8-94 ~ Page 30 I M1 ~t 4; He stated in working with staff they have made some modfficadons; they have agreed to .-~ the closure of the driveway and have raworked the large planter area which was a previous attempt at greening by astro turf to a nice planter closing off the driveway. He did have some concerns. He explained one concem is the waiver and staff's interpretation of that waiver. He expressed his concerns regarding signage. He stated staff's Interpretation (s essentially saying that the Anaheim logo on the back exceeds the sign requirement because the wall panel is too large. He gave some further statistics relative to the signage. He stated their total signage is well within the City requirements and they are asking for one deviation from the elevational package. He explained on the canopy they Indicated that there would be Shell text and a pectin on the front and the back, but that was a drafting error as there would be no reason to have signage facing the adjacent apartment complex. He asked that they could remove that signage and place it on the ends of the canopy which face onto Ball Road and onto the adjacent Commercial property. He stated their other concern regarding the staff report is a request for a condition to limit their corner signage to an 8-foot monument. He understands that most cities are going to monument signs and in some ways, because or .~~ual blight, ft is a good move. However, in this condition they would be limiting his client any "+eir may:~etability in that the monument sign would be the only monument sign in that area for 4 or 5 blocks in either direction. He stated he drove Brookhurst this morning anc~ Ball Road and every sign in that area is 12 to 20 feet tall. He eluded to the Brookhurst t'-iall signage and others. He asked that they not place that condition on this package and allow them their 25•foot signage as is currently allowed by Code. ~"' ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: Chairwoman Boydstun stated the station at the corner of Ball and Harbor is a nice looking station and it has a monument sign. Mr. Virus indicated that was true. He stated Ball and Harbor is a very nice station but that entire area has been redeveloped with the new hotel and bridge. Chairwoman Boydstun stated they want to Improve the area where this project is going to be also. Commissioner Henninger stated they have to start somewhere. Mr. Virus stated he recommends that they start with a revision of the City Code. Commissioner Caldwell stated he has a tendency to agree with Mr. Virus on the second waiver (maximum self-service sign area) and he agrees with the Chairperson regarding the monument sign. Chairwoman Boydstun stated she has no problem with the 6 square feet. She thought it ,i fits their pillars. iI f 8-8.94 ~ Page 31 e r ;s ACTION: Commissioner Caldwell offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent and Commissioner Tait declared a conflict of Interest) to approve the CEOA Negative Declaration (findings In Paragraph 21 of the staff report). Greg McCafferty, Associate Planner, stated he would like to add one condition to the staff report. 'That the building plans indicate a dryer unit with the same noise specifications as a thrust throw dryer mentioned in Paragraph 28, or one that is equally acceptable in terms of noise specifications." Mr. Virus stated they have no problem with that. He stated the acoustical engineer has met with City staff and was out at the site last week. He explained he is in the process of finalizing his report and they will have that report to the Planning Department with their building submittal. Commissioner Caldwell offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent and Commissioner Tait declared a conflict of Interest) to deny waivers of Code requirement (a) and (c) which were deleted following public notiflcatlon and to approve waiver (b) (findings in Paragraph 30 of the staff report). (Note: The above motion was later withdrawn. Rater to 'Action Continued" on page 26). ~'" ~ Commissioner Caldwell offered Resolution No. PC94-106 to grant Conditional Use Permit ' No. 3704 in part (Commissioner Masse absent and Commissioner Taft declared a conflict of Interest) (findings in Paragraph 31, page 6 of the staff report) subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommended conditions, and with the following added conditions: 1. That the proposed sign shall be limited a monument sign wkh similar dimensions as the monument sign located at the Shell service station on the northwest corner of Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard. 2. That the building plans shall indicate that the dryer unit has the same noise specifications as the Thrust Pro dryer unit mentioned in Paragraph 28 of the August 8, 1994 Planning Commission staff report or one that is equally acceptable in terms of noise specifications. Mr. Virus asked since the ordinance for the monument signs are not prepared yet, is there any Iimft as far as the square footage of that signage? He stated ff they go up to the 350 square feet allowed by Code or that is going to be a very long 8•foot sign. Chairwoman Boydstun stated they did that on Euclid and let us not do that again. Mr. Borrego stated the only thing he would offer is to perhaps limit it to a dimension of 6 feet in height and 10 feet in width. I ,I 8-8-94 I Page 32 ~: a: Chairwoman Boydstun asked if they could have it come back to the Commission for ~.-~ approval as a Report and Recommendation Item before ft is built? Mr. Borrego indicated they could do that. He suggested they use the sign at Ball Road and Harbor Blvd: as a reference point and that would be acceptable to staff. It does clearly Identify the prices on the sign and it roughly has the dimensions he Just gave. ACTION CONTINUED: Commissioner Caldwell stated he would modffy his resolution to use the sign at the Sheli station at Harbor Blvd. and Ball Road as a criteria and that they will get a sign package back as a part of their Reports and Recommendations. Selma Mann, Deputy City Attorney, stated she wouid like some clarification on the waiver that was approved on the maximum self-service sign area. She asked ff they meet the intent of that Code requirement or that no waiver was required? Commissioner Henninger suggested that they deny that waiver and Just make a finding that they believe that those signs meet the intent of the Code because they are not as large as staff thought they were. Commissioner Caldwell offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Peraza and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent and and Commissioner Taft declared a conflict of interest) that the previous motion pertaining to waiver of Code requirements be wffhdrawn. Commissioner Caldwell offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent and Commissioner Taft declared a ~'°; conflict of interest) to deny waivers of Cade requirement (a) and (c) which were deleted following public notffication and to deny waiver (b) on the basis that the proposed sign meets the intent of the Code (findings in Paragraph 30 of the staff report). VOTE: 5-0 (Commissioner Tait declared a conflict of interest and Commissioner Messe was absent) l„/ 8-8-94 Page 33 `fit 9a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Continued to 9b. WAIVER OF CODE RFOUIREMENT August 22, 1994 9c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 3706 OWNER: SHELL OIL CO., 511 N. Brookhurst, Anaheim, CA 92803 AGENT: SERVICE STATION SERVICES, 3 Hutton Center Drive, Ste 711, Santa Ana, CA 92707 LOCATION: 3125E Orenaethoroe Avenue Property is approximately 0.53 acre located at the northeast corner of Orangethorpe Avenue and Kraemer Boulevard. To permit a 372-square foot convenience market within an existing service station. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None Commissioner Taft declared a conflict of Interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning ~'~ ; Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that his firm represents Shell Oil on this project and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairwoman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Condftionai Use Permft No. 3706, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not d(scussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner Tait left the Council Chamber. PETITIONER: Suzanne Hazell, Agent for Shell Oil Company, Service Station Services, 3 Hutton Center Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92707. She requested a continuance. She stated Shell is taking this project under further consideration and possibly may be withdrawing the application. ACTION: Commissioner Henninger offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Mosse absent and Commissioner Taft declared a conflict of Interest) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regulady-scheduled meeting of August 22, 1993, in order for the applicant to further consider this project and possibly to withdraw the application. RECESS: 3:25P.M. RECONVENE: 3:35P.M. 8-8-94 ~ Page 34 i 10a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved 10b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Denied 10c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3707 Granted, in part OWNER: SHELL OIL CO., 511 N. Brookhurst, Anaheim, CA 92803 AGENT: SERVICE STATION SERVICES, 3 Hutton Center Drive, Ste. 711, Santa Ana, CA 92707 LOCATION: 2100 South Harbor Boulevaiti. Property is approximately 0.52 acre Ierzted at the southeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and Harbor Boulevard and further described as 2100 South Harbor Boulevard. To permit an existing service station with a 1,215-square foot convenience market with waiver of (a) max(mum number of permitted freestanding signs and (b) minimum distance between freestanding signs. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NC;. PC94107 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. "' ~ IN FAVOR: 1 person spoke in favor of subject proposal OPPOSITION: None Commissioner Tait declared a conflict of Interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that his firm represents Shell Oil and pursuant to the provisions of the abcve Codos, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection wfth Conditional Use Perm(t No. 3707, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner Taft left the Council Chamber. PETITIONER: Lawrence A. Ross, 26066 Ravina, Mission Viejo, CA. He stated he is the sales manager for Shell 011. He stated this is Shell's ongoing commitment to upgrade their service stations, i.e., to take stations that were built as many as 30 years ago and upgrade them in the 90's. He explained they have an ongoing commitment to each and every City that they market in to be the best retail marketer in that City. He stated not only signage, but landscaping and exterior design. He stated he was pleased to hear about Harbor Blvd. anc; Ball Road because that fs a location that he Is also responsible tor. 8$-94 ~,,,~ Page 35 He stated they have an existing service station on the site right now with the bays boarded ~ up. He explained they have also an existing silverado toMUre over the bays and they are basically used for nothing. They have proposed to tyke the existing site where tum h Into a lood•mart where the customer can have the opportunity to purchase snack items. He stated they would not do much modiFlcation to the dxisting she. He stated the plans show they would be opening it up and that means taking out the boarded up walls and enhancing the overall appearance of the project. He stated they have some concerns in the Recommendations. He stated in listening to the eadidr conversation, he understands they are very pleased wfth the sign located at Harbor Blvd. and Ball Road. He stated they can INe wfth that and they will shrink down what they asked for to the exact same sign at Harbor Bivd. and Ball Road. He stated they do have one concern and that is visibility. He approached the exhibR board and stated they have asked for an additional sign on the Orangewood skfe. He explained Orangewood will eventually be a well traveled street and that Is because they are going to have some improvements down around the 5 Freeway and that people coming out of Disneyland quite possibly would use that street to get back onto the freeway and hopefully they will have a little more traffic on that street. However, K does Ilmit the visibility. He elaborated. He explained the customer would be all the way up to the str light before they would have any good visibility to the price sign. He explained further that at that particular point, his options would be limited, I.e., they could not pull Into their station, they would be beyond that entrance. He stated the small monument sign would gNe them visibility when they travel up and down Orangewood. ,'" Chairwoman Boydstun asked ff he wanted 2 monument signs? Mr. Ross stated they would have one monument sign and one small price sign. Discussion took place regarding the Harbor Bivd. and Ball Road sign. He stated they would be more than willing to shrink down their request for a taller sign to an 6-foot monument sign as long as they could have some additional signage so the customer could see as they come up Orangewood what their product pricing is. He stated their main goal Is to make It as easy for the customer to choose Shell 011 as they can and they need to have the price sign available so they can make a purchasing decision before they get beyond their station. Chairwoman Boydstun stated they can tell your station is Shell Oil without the sign and there is no other station on any of the other comers. P' Ross explained that is correct, but the price is the major consideration for anyone pu. ;hasing motor oil fuels. He gave some further background. He stated it is important that the customer knows what they are paying fo; in gasoline before the customer gets to the station and has an opportunity to make a purchasing decision. 8.6-94 ~~ Page 36 He stated regarding planting, the Commission has Shell's full support (n making sure they f-, will adhere to ail of their conditions as far as image of planting matedal. He thought they set the standard in most communities they were in and they would be more t~ian happy to provide them with a plan that would hide the vacuums. He stated they generally go one step further by using planters and planting the red and yellow flowers that you see at the Shell stations. He added they will plant the required number of trees and do whatever is necessary. He referenced Condition No. 1. He stated this is an ongoing business and he would be concerned about them not having the opportunity to come back and ask for a beer and wine permR. The Commissioners explained fl they wanted that they would have to readvertise this application and that they could always reflle and come back before the Commission. IN FAVOR: Marilyn Ellison, 440 Orangewooa (comer of Orangewood and Acama). She originally came to the hearing to be against having food in the Shell station but after listening to Mr. Ross she changed her mind. She explained the Circle K next to the Shell station is a home for the homeless. She elaborated. She was against the beer and wine, but beer and wine Is not a consideration here today. She added she came here with a negative and is leaving here with a positive, therefore, maybe that is good. Chairwoman Boydstun suggest that Ms. Ellison contact Code Enforcement about her concerns wfth the Circle K THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. .-,. DISCUSSION: Jonathan Borcego, Senior Planner, stated there was one person who voiced his concerns earlier and who was not able to stay. Hls name is Tony Zannini, 2134 Acama Street and he wanted to state for the record that he was concemed about the trash and debris at the Circle K. Chairwoman Boydstun asked staff to contact Code Enforcement to see what could be done about the Circle K. Mr. Borrego indicated they could do that. ACTION: Commissioner Caldwell offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent and Commissioner TaR declared a conflict of Interest) to approve the CEOA NegatNe Declaration (findings in Paragraph No. 13 of the staff report). Commissioner Caldwell offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIEC (Commissioner Messe absent and Commissioner Tait declared a conflict of interest) to deny Waiver of Code Requirement on the ba:,~s that waiver (a) was deleted following public ~~ notification and waiver (b) was denir,.rl (findings in Paragraph 20 of staff report). s a 8$-94 d Page 37 a i 'h 'i. Commissioner Henninger offered Resdution No. PC94-107 to grant Condklonal Use Pernik No. ~ 3707, In part, (Commissioner Messe absent and Commissioner Tak declared a conflict of Interest) (flndings in Paragraph No. 21 of the staff report) subject to Interdepartmental Cammktee recommended condklons, and wkh the tdiowing added condkians: l 1. That the proposed sign shall be Iimked a monument sign wkh similar dimensions as the monument sign located at the Shell service station on the northwest comer of Ball Roed and Harbor Boulevard. 2. That the code required trees shall be planted along the interior property Ilne. 3. That the planter area located northwest of the carwash tunnel shall be enhanced and the planter adjacent to Orangewood Avenue shall be planted wkh a hedge to screen the car wash vacuum equipment ftom public view. VOTE: 5.0 (Commissioner Messe absent and Commissioner Tak declared a conflict of Interest ) ,'be 8.8-94 Page 38 11a. CEOA NEGATIVE DECLARATION I Approved 11b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Approved i tc. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3705 Granted OWNER: DIONISIE GOIA AND DANIELA GOIA, 8932 Tracy Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92641 AGENT: RAYMOND MARTINEZ, 11152 W. Norwood Avenue, Riverside, CA 92505-2663 LOCATION: 1771 W. Katella Avenue. Property is approximately 2.04 acres located at the northwest comer of Katella Avenue and Humor Drive and further described as 1771 West Katella Avenue. To permit a church with waiver of minimum setback of institutional uses adjacent to a residential zone boundary. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94-108 FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. IN FAVOR: Approximately 35 people present in favor of subject petition. ~"" , OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Raymond Martinez, representing the applicant, 11 t52 Norwood Avenue, Riverside, CA. He stated he has read through the staff report and there are a couple of ftems he would like to bring up at this time. He referenced page no. 3, item no. 10 regarding times of operation. He stated he was not sure where the misunderstanding occurred. He stated under Sunday services, there was ona additional afternoon service that was not printed on this form. He added the hours would be on Sunday afternoon between 6:OOp.m. and S:OOp.m. He referenced page 6, Item no. 22 (a) regarding activity within the parking area shall cease by 9:30p.m. He explained it is quite common for people to see each other in the parking lot on the way in and out of the service. He stated they would like to extend that time from 9:30p.m. to t0:00p.m. Commissioner Caldwell explained they are trying to make this request compatible with the surrounding neighbors and people who may be sleeping at 9:30p.m. He stated cars starting up at 10:OOp.m. and leaving the parking lot could be disruptive. He further explained they are trying to get everyone out of the parking lot so they can be a good neighbor. He added not all of the people located behind them will be attending services. 8.8-94 I Page 39 He stated the only time that would impact them is the evening they have choir practice which lets out at 9:OOp.m. /~ Chairwoman Boydstun suggested they make Saturday evening to 10:OOp.m. Mr. Martinez agreed. Chairwoman Boydstun clarified that the rest of the week would be 9:30p.m. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. DISCUSSION: No further discussion took place. ACTION: Commissioner Peraza offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) to approve the CEOA NegatNs Declaration (findings in Paragraph 14 of the staff report). Commissioner Peraza offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) to approve Waiver of Code Requirement (findings in Pamgraph 19 of the staff report). Commissioner Peraza offered Resolution No. PC94-108 to grant Conditional Use Permft No. 3705 (findings in Paragraph 20 of the staff report) subject to Intercepartmental Committee recommended conditions, and wfth the fdlowing added condtlons: ~~^; 1. That the actNfty in the parking lot shall cease at 9:30 p.m., Sunday through Frkiay, and at 10:00 p.m. on Saturdays. 2. That subject use shall be Iimrted to the following hours of operation: Sunday: 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon and 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Saturday: 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Tuesday and Thursday: 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 3. That eight (6) addftional 15-gallon trees shall be planted along the north property line. SakJ trees shall be of the same variety which currently exfts at said location. It is noted by the Planning Commission Secretary that Condftlon no. 2 will remain as ft Is. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated this has been discussed with the petftioner during the Interdepartmental Committee Meeting and that the petftioner was to work wfth the Traffic Engineer to work out some of the drNe aisle concerns that they had. Chairwoman Boydstun asked for clariflcaflon ff they removed the 4 end parking spaces? Mr. Borrego nxplained that was one of their options and he felt confklent that they could work around that based on their excess parking and the existing wkJth of the parking stalls. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Messe absent) 8-8-94 Page 40 12a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION 12b. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 9495.02 12c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 12c. rONDITIONAI. USE PERMIT N0.3708 OWNER: JOHN H. ROCHE JR. AND MILDRED G. ROCHE, P.O. Box 2760, La Habra, CA 90632 AGENT: PAUL KOTT AND BOB KIRK, 1225 W. Lincoln Ave., Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 874 S. Anaheim Blvd. Property is approximately 0.16 acre located on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard and located approximately 265 feet south of the centerline of Valencia Avenue and furher described as 874 South Anaheim Boulevard. To reclassify subject property from the RM-1200 (Residential, Multfple- Family) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limfted) Zone. To permit a construction company ofOce headquarters within an existing 1,134-square foot residential structure and detached garage with waiver of required site screening. RECLASSIFICATION RESOLUTION N0. PC94109 t\ ~~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION N0. PC94110 Approved Granted Approved Granted Note: Reclass was granted unconditionally FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None PETITIONER: Paul Kott, 1225 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA. He is requasting to reclassify the property at 874 S. Anaheim Blvd., which is currently an older single-family dwelling and has been sold contingent upon the ability to place a small 4 employee construction company on the she. They are asking for a reciassrtlcation from the RM-1200 to CL which would be consistent with the 3eneral Plan. They are also asking for a waiver for the 6-foot high wall between the project and the property next door. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 8.8-94 Page 41 DISCUSSION: Chalrvvoman Boydstun stated they had a letter from the property owner to the south ~ wondering ff they could put in strips to screen the existing fence and from the alley skle so ft is screened from the apartments. Mr. Kott indicated that would be fine. They thought putting up a block wall would Impose a hardship on the property because it is inconsistent with what has been proposed in the area. Chairwoman Boydstun explained they were planning on putting in a parking lot, so ft will be landscaped. Further discussion took place regarding this Issue. Commissioner Henninger stated he would like to add some language to Condftion No. 1 regarding outdoor storage. He suggested they add the word 'materials.' ACTION: Commissioner Peraza offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) to approve the CEQA Negative Declaration (f(ndings in Paragraph 13 of the staff report). Commissioner Peraza offered Resolution No. PC94-109 (Commissioner Messe absent) to grant Reclassification No. 94.95-02 uncondftiana!ly. Commissioner Peraza offered a motion, secondec'i by Commissioner Henninger and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Messe absent) to approve the WaNer of Code Requirement (findings in Paragraph 17, (a) and (b)). Commissioner Peraza offered Resolution No. PC94-110 (Commissioner Messe absent) to ('~~~; grant Condftional Use Permft No. 3708 (findings in Paragraph 18 of the staff report) subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommended conditions, and with the folowing modification: 1. That the outdoor storage of construction equipment, materials or vehicles shall be prohibfted. Added the following condftlon of approval: 2. That the chainlink fence shall be slatted wfth PVC slats along the entire south sloe of the property. VOTE: 6-0 (Commissioner Messe absent) 8.8.94 Page 42 13. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2686 FOR SUBSTAMTlAL Found plans to be in CONFORMANCE DETERMINATION: Burger King Restaurant, substantial conformance 1201 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92805 requests with originally approved substantial conformance determination for revised exhibfts for plans Condftional Use Permit No. 2686 (to permit two (2) drive- through restaurants and an outdoor children's play area). Asked staff to make sure Property (s located at 1201 i. Anaheim Bivd. all appropriate building permits were issued. DISCUSSION: Aman Sattar, 26082 Kiacresta, (street name phonetically spelled), Mission Viejo, CA. He stated he is the franchisee for the Burger King restaurant at 1201 S. Anaheim Blvd. He explained recently they upgraded the playground by removing the old equipment. He stated it :=:as in the view of Burger King Corporation that some of the metal playground equipment gets very hot in the summer time and small children can get burned. In addition the children could be Injured on the moving carousel. He further explained he had been planning to renovate his playground for the past 3 years, but due to the recession he was unable to do so. He stated at the beginning of this year they finalized plans to go ahead with the renovation of the playground. He stated he has Invested approximately $40,000 to install state-of-the-art playground equipment which is made of soft plastics and takes care of all of the previously mentioned hazards involved. He stated this playground not only gives a facelHt to his business, but also the surrounding businesses would benefit from a good appearance on that side of the road. In addition, it also provides for the children in the community a place to come and enjoy the evenings or weekends. Commissioner Henninger stated it was a nice improvement. Mr. Sattar commented on the Code Enforcement investigation. He stated he went to the Planning counter in February to Inquire ff any permits were required to remove the existing equipment and put in new equipment. He explained he was informed that no such permit would be required. He stated, in addition, in the month of May he spoke with the equlpment supplier to verffy ff he had heard correctly and the equipment supplier was told the same thing. He stated in June he was given a citation that he nseded a permit and that is why he is here. Chairwoman Boydstun asked for clarification if he enlarged the area? Mr. Sattar explained he did not, only the equipment was replaced. Chairwoman Boydstun stated she did not understand why he was here. 8-8.94 ~ Page 43 Commissioner Mayer stated she passed on a request from a cftizen to Code Enforcement ^ to check into ft because ft is a 2-story Improvement and ft does not have a fall zone. She stated the concern was that there was a wrought iron fence. She stated ft was single story equipment before and now ft is 2-story equipment and a child could fall onto the wrought Iron fence. She further explained ft was brought to her attention that there should be a fall zone. She added simply passed on the request for Code Enforcement to look Into ft. Commissioner Henninger stated he did not want the Cfty in the middle of this Ilabilfty Issue. He asked ff the City checks to see ff there is a fall zone, etc. Jonathan Borrego, Senior Planner, stated he had a discussion with a Code Enforcement Officer in regards to this ftem and she was under the impression that some of the portions of the equipment dki actually need building permfts. He explained in that process he is assuming that they look at the safety aspect of it. However, to his knowledge there had been no contact wfth the Building DNislon and ft was his understanding that the Building Division would need to review this. In addftion ft would also need to be reviewed for handicapped accessibility. Commissioner Henninger stated then the recommendation could include a requirement that they review what they have done wfth the Building Department to make sure ft meets all applicable Codes. Mr. Borrego indicated that was correct. Commissioner Mayer stated she thought ft was a beautfful structure--they Just may need to move the fence out or put a capping on the fence so ft is not sharp points. l Mr. Satter state< si:~':ar playgrounds have been installed in other Burger Kings around the area. He eluded '.:, one in La Habra wfth similar equipment. He was not certain ff the area was the same. Commissioner Mayer stated ft was not the equipment but the fall zone in case a child falls out of the equipment. Commissioner Henninger asked ff the manufacturer has delivered a letter to him saying thAy approve of the Installation? Typically the manufacturers of that type of equipment carry a IIabIIKy insurance and in order to protect himself he probably should get from them a letter that says they approve of the installation and that ft meets their requirements and therefore qualffies for their liability Insurance. Mr. Satter stated he was not sure that they would gNe him any such letter. He stated he did receive a letter of completion from them requesting the payment. Commissioner Henninger asked ff the manufacturer Installed the equipment? Mr. Satter explained they were contracted to supply and install. Commissioner Henninger stated then ft probably does meet their requirements. He suggested he look Into that and that ft meets the Ciry's Code n3quirements. 8-fi•94 ~,, Page 44 Mr. Satter stated this area is totally enclosed. He stated k may be high, but k is so ~ designed that there are no exks except when the child comes out from the bell pod or the slkfe. There is no reason why any child should trip or fall out ftom anywhere else. He explained at the exk they have a rubber padding. Commissioner Caldwell stated they are not making a determination for the safety. This Is a land use request. Mr. Borrego agreed and stated the request Is only that the equipment kself is consistent wkh the equipment that was previously approved under the dd CUP. Commissioner Henninger asked staff to asK the Building Department to make sure that all of the appropriate pennks have been obtained. Mr. Satter stated they do carry Ilabilky Insurance. He added they will do all k takes to conform to the Cfty requirements. 14. OTHER DISCUSSION: Commissioner Henninger inquired about the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Borrego explained they have had meetings and have looked at some preliminary requirements. He stated he had a conversation wkh his Supervisor and he will be pulling himself out of the Planning Commiss(on loop for a couple of meetings to get the Sign Ordinance expedked. He further stated they are progressing and have surveyed other ~,~ , ckies. He stated based on what happened today they see the need to get moving on this F _.: issue and they will do so. He estimated they would have some preliminary standards for the Commission to review by the last meeting in September. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:25 P.M. 8-8.94 ~ Page 45