The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1986/04/14REGULAR MEETING OF TH£ ANAHEIt9 CITY PLANNiNG COMDIISSION REGULAR MEETING The tegular meetiag oE the Anaheim City Planning Cunmiission was called *_o oraet by Cnairwoman ia Cleire at 1U:00 a.m., Apcil 14, 1986, in the Council Chamber, a quorum beiny presenr, and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. P.ECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENED: 1:3U p.m. PRES~NT: Chairwoman: La Claire Commissioners: Bouas, Fry~ Herbst, Lawicki, Messe, McBurney A~SENT: Commissioner: None ALSO YRESENT: Annika San*_alat~ti Assistant Director fo~ Zoning Malcc:lm Slaugnter Deputy City Attorney II Jay 'L~itus Uffice Engineer Paul Singer Traffic Engineer Greg Hastinys Associate Planner Leonard McGhee Associate Plannec Eaitn Harris Planning Commission Secrekary ITEM NO. 1 EIR NEGATTVE llE~LARATION, DENSITY TRF.NSFER AND VARIANCE N0. 3539 PUBLII; HEARING. UWNERS: THE EAST HILLS UEVELOPMENT CO., :1731 NW, Highway, 82U1 E. Farmington !iills, MI, 48U18. AGENT: DOUGLAS McCORKLE, 26300 La Alameaa, a33U, Mission Viejo, CA 92ti91. Property aesccibed as an iccegularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 31 acres generally locatea suuth and east of the intersection o£ Santa Ana Canyon Road ano the soutnerly extension of Weir Canyon Road, isauer Ranch °Area 6'). Reyuest Yor aensity tcansfer uf 5tl units from Aeea 7 to Area 6 within Bauer Rancn. Waivers of required type of parking spaces, maximum stzuctural height ana reyuired site screening to construct a 292-unit apartment complex. Continuea from khe meetings of March 3 and 17, 1986. Tnere wece three persons indicating their presence in favor of this request ana toucteen persons inaicating th~ir peesence in opposition to subject eequest ar~u altuouyn the staff report was not read, it is referced to and made a part of the minutes. Commissionet Bouas statea she haa previously declared a conflict of interesk on this matter and left che Council Chamber. Leonard McGhee, Associate Planner, explained staff has received 64 lettecs supporting subject ceauest fcom owners of units within East Hills; however, none oi ~nose letters were trom oeople in the aojacent tracts. 86-239 4/14/86 MZNUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 14, 1986 86-240 Dougtas McCorkle, agent, explained originally they submitted plans identified as Scneme A for 292 units and after the firs*_ putlic hearing and after heariny comments frorti the community, they revised the plan, ana the revision was iden*_ifiea as Scneme B, witn Dteaaowridge Road deleted and tha~ project was for 2y"l units also. He statea they would like *_o have either plan approved and even tnougn aeveloping Plan H woula be more expensive, they are willing to do tnat as a compcomise measure to respond to some of the communi*_y's concerns. Mr. McCorkle stateu tney met with the homeowner's association Board of Directors on Marc7 27tn ana April 7tn and explained their development program. He stated in aadition to those meetings, they have made direct contar_t with citizens in the Bauer Ranch community and are continuing *_o make tnose cuntac`s to inform Y.ne entire community of their inten•`_ion and of t}~e type of development they propose anu to answer their questions and solicit tneic support. Ne presenteo additional le'ters supporting the density transier. He s~atea these letters, and those previousty submitted, consti*.u*e contacts with ovec lU0 househoLds wnich support the density transfer issue for shifting 58 units from Area 7 to Area 6. He s`_ated the letters cover their contacts tnrouyhout tne community, and •`_ha`_ he believes the majority of the people feel this proposal cepresents ~he bes~ development opportunity with the hignest quality pro7ect. Mr. McCOrKle teviewea the sigrit Line exhi~i*s showing `ne lines-of-sigh*_ for the elevation pads of tne proposea structures ana the existing hones and the valleys ana hills. He specitically pointea out the area of r.wo homes at the ena oi Meaaowridge ana the lines-oY-sight ana indicated there would no* be a significant cnange in tne sight lines. Mr. McCorkLe stateo they woula reques*_ approval of both site plans, (A or B) or aenial ot troth plans so tney can have a proper review before `_he City Councit, ano if the action is for denial, tney would Like the reasons for aenial inaicatea. Mr. McCOrkle refecrea to Condi*_ion No, b ana sta*_ed tna*_ refers to the original proposal and asks for a aedication of right-of-way for Meadowridge Road anu *_na*_ would not be necessary if Plan B is approved. He sta*_ed there are other conoitions reyuiring fees and they would like an additional statement in those conditions *_ha` these fees are contingent on any obligations of the aeveloper which are already coveted in the Public FacilitiFS Development Plan. Mr. McCorkle statea in a previous Letter to the City from Kaufman 6 Broad, oriyinally requesting the density transfer, they cequested that *_he transfer de coti`_ingen`. upon concurrent app::oval of this site plan for 292 units. Tom Wi~~tiela, attocney, representing Kaufman & Broad, stated this proposal is oue of tne last aspects of a 7oin*_ effort which is unique in Sou~hern Calitornia ana it was accomplished thcough the efforts of the City of Anaheim ana Kaufman & Broad to develop a comprehensively planned, physicatly responsidle aevelopment proposal fot this property. He stated the plan envisioned a total density on the ranch of 945 units and they are not proposiny to change that number, but are proposing to work with the City to refine the pro~ect ano the quality of the r.onununity. 4/14/86 MINUTES, A1~AHEIM CITY PLA[~NING COMMISSION~ APRIL 14~ 1986 86-241 He statea Area 7 was plannea originally for multi-family developmen*_ a~id as tne area developed, it appeared that multi-family residential would not be in tne Dest iriterest of the ccmmunity and in order tc maximize the quality of the East Hills community, they feel if that area is developed, single-family homes woula be more consistent with the uverall development of the community and tna*_ is tne reason tor the reyues*_ for the density transfer of 58 units from Area 7 to Acea b. He stated tne question is what the impact of the transfer woula ue en Area 6. He statea t•hey are attempting to bring a pro~ect to the City with *_he best quality development, consistent with the East Hills plans and consistent wi~h *_oaay's economy. He statea they have entered into an agreemen` with `_his aeveloper to ~uila a nigh quality, first-class multi-family development in Area 6 ana are asKing for tne benefit of the 58 units *_ransEerred from Acea 7. He statea if tne revisea proposal is approved, K& B feels the money will be well spent because it will eliminate any traffic concerns the neighbors migh`_ have in Areas 4 ana S, and tney feel this is a project they can be proud of and i*_ will increase the ovecall quatity of tne area and i* will be a fully securea community. He adaea the o`_ner developers in tnis area support *_his request. Malcolm Slaughter statea the Comrnission expressed concern `hat if this project ano the aensity transfer is approved, it would still leave Area 7 technically zoned tor RM-12UU. He noteo the Commission is concernea whether oc no*.. that property shoulo be rezonea ana suggested ~he developer should stipulate to rezoning *_nat area as a conaition of approval of this project. Mr. Wintielu statea tney woula ee willing *o make `hat stipulation, but felt the Commission's concerns coula be easily resolved and did not believe the 2oning is fixea in Area 7. He stated he would be willing to stipulate to only constructing 15 units on tnat property. Craig Watkins statea the opposition felt when they left the last meeting, tha~ there was some direction and inference was made that the developer should reduce the aensity. He statea they had two meetings with *_he developer and reviewea Scneme A. ano was surprisea because Kevin Kurt from Kaufman & Broad, hatl not seen Scneme B. He statea he left those meetings with `he feeling that the plans wece not changea and there were no new proposals and `hey were very unpcoauctive meetings. Mr. Watkins stateo the issues aid not change and there were no new proposals at that meeting ano it did not serve the purpose *_he neighbors wece looking for. He statea the lU0 signatures received were in favor of density transfer ana noted they nave pcesentea petitions with approximately 480 signatutes opposing the pro7ect, and even with any duplications of signatures of the same nousenolas removed, their petitions would still be for 250 in opposition. He statea that should give the Commission some idea as to how the community feels. He stated Mc. McCorkle stated he feels the majority of the community is tor the pruposal, ana he was shocked to hear that statemen*_ because there is no one from the community present in favor of this request. He stated at tnose two meetin9s, tnere were people present who were not in favor or opposed to tne pro~ect, but no one has been ptesent in favor of this project, He 4/14/86 86-242 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 14, 1986 sta~Pa the people who signed those lettecs were pcobably not well-info[med. He stated the signatures are from residen*_s in *_he area adjacent to the areas wnere tne units will be transfecred from; and that he would discount the comment tnat tne majority of tne cesidents are foc this proposal. Iqc, Watkins ceferred to the line-of-sight dtawings and noted the moshadrwascal location was not really coverea. He stated the second mee•`_ing they good informative meeting ana the majority uf the people pcesent were againsr. tiie pcoposal; and that he has talked to ot~ier property owners in the atea and m~st oi tnem ace concer~iea. He stated there are two multiole-family zoned aceas aua tne sales neople tula them those would be devel~ped with condort~iniums, and that the buyers thought that was what was pcoposed on those properties. He stated tnis pcoposal is a big change with a 258 increase of density in one of the highest density areas of the development. He stated he aia not tnink tne Commission nad addcessed the density issue; that Scheme B is a comptomise, but is better `nan the original proposal. He stated he did not unoerstano now two ditferent plans could be appcoved on one project and he would like to see one site plan appcoved when he leaves *_his meetinaker•caredof not think K b B has snown the anility to con`_rol their fu*_ure and their developments. Regarding the zoning for Area 7, t~e agreed t.he zoning of tha` acea should be incluoeo as part of tnis appcoval and notea •`_he 15 units could be developed in any fashion ii the zoning is not changed. ye stated the letters submitted s~ppocting ~he density transfer have caused a lot of problems between the rieighoochoods and tha*_ Kaufman & Broad and Beztak havE created ill feelings oetween the neighbo~noods. He statea they feel approval of this will open `he door tor more similar requests. He sta*_ec it has been determined t.ha*_ Yorba ~inaa has one of the lowest crime rates of any place in Orange County and *_hat is because of *_he aensity which has been kep` Low; and *..hat they were told 234 units woula ee built in these aceas when they purchased *hein c~^°s and they would be willing to live witn that numbec. Jim Reynolds state~ he lives in the Bellaire tract wnich is adjacent to tne proposeo pto7ect and askea how many of the 100 signatures were fcom the property ownecs ad)acent to the pcoposed site. He stated they had a meeting with Kaufman & Broaa in Macch and that Kevin Kurt sta*_ed in their opinion the multiple-family units woula be best all in one area, and asked iE Kaufman & Broad snould be the ones to aecioe what is best foc the community or if it is uo to the p~ople livin9 in the community. Rolf Rolnicki, Lot 65, Tract 10984, stated his property directly oveclooks this prupecty and his concetn is the density transfer wi`h a 258 increase in tlensity in tnat area and £elt it is totally unacceptable. He stated when they purchased their p~operty, they we~e promisea condominiums and were advised thece would ue no more than 34U units on that property and there is no conti~iuity or consistency in what they were told when they pu[chased their pcopecty. He stated tney feel a 258 inc~ease in density would be bad foc the area. Steve Williams stated he is a cesident of the Bellai~e tra~t and he has come to tne last tnree meetings, but teels today that the density transfer is being glossea-ovet. tie statea at tne last meeting the Comnission asked for a plan 4/14{86 66-293 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSZON, APRIL 14, 1986 with the maximum allowed under the mastet plan, without va~iances and without the extra 25~• He stated he feels that decision has already been made and he woula like it aiscussea today. Tom Wintield stated tnese proceedings do not involve an elec*ion and the auaience ^oes not get to vote on these matters; and neither do KauEman & Broad nor tne developer, but the determination as *_o what is bes~ for the community is maae by the Planning Commission ana occasionally the City Council. He sta*ed tne comments from the neignbors are helpful; and tha` 5 of the 100 letters submitted were fcom the ad7acent area. He asked how many signa*ures on the oppositions petitions were fcom the property owners from Area 7. He statea he Leels the issue is whethec the transfer of density is at all aetrimental to Areas 4 ana 5; and that it is clearly beneficial to Area 7. He stated tne eviaence shows that there will be no visual impact from ~he increase ot aensity and people looking from Areas 4 and 5 ou*_ over the freeway will not be aele to tell tne aifference. Mr. Winfielo stated ti~e ques*_ion of trafEic was a valid concern, but that has been answered with Meaaowridge not going through and that change in plans Nas oone at tne neighboc's suggestion. He stated they are supporting the aopcoval ot Plan B, witn that street not going through, and there is no traffic impact on Acea 4 ana 5 by tne increased density. He s*..a*_ed there is presen`ly pei~ainy uefore tne City Council a cevised tentative tract map for Area 7 for 15 single-family units ana they would not ob~ect to a condicion of approval on tneir oeveLopment, with the City Council's approval of that revised tentative trac*_. Doug McCorkle stated he feels tt~e people in the community who have heard theic pcesentations ana witn whom they have met individually, believe this aevelopmen*_ orters the community an excellen`_ opportunity for a quality development on that site. He statea they would be pleased to build either Plan A oc Plan B. THE PUSLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissionec Fry sta*_ea it seems thece are two issues involved with *_his request - apartments versus condominiums and the density trans~:er. He stated it is true the neighbors and developers do not plan a community, and ~hat Planning Commission does plan it, but he wanted to point out that Plan B is tne result oi the neighbor's concerns, so he would not agCee that the commuriity tloes not have tne right to plan what they think is in `_heir best intecest. He addea he was very pleasea tnat the neighbors did no*_ discuss devaluation of property values with apactments going in. He stated the neighbors are 7ustifiea in tneir concerns and he has not heard a lot *_hat would change his mind and ne felt PLan B was j~st a bone thrown in, in order to get, the cest oi the pro)ect approved. Commissioner Herbst askeo aeout the developet's stipulation to change the coofing materials. Mr. McCorkle stated he presented a stat.ement at the last meeting outlining the compcomises associated with Plan B which included tile roots on all tne sloped roofs. 4/14/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION, APRIL 14, 1586 86-244 Commissioner Herbst statea the people present in opposition should consider what coula be built on that property, and *_hat he did not Like the density transier at first, but has since studied this project and felt as long as tnere is not going to be an increase of density for the overalL ranch, he coula approve Plan B, and felt it aoes provide more for *_h~ people who live tuece because it ooes isolate the units from the other neighbochoods, and putting rtioce units in Area 7 will have a gceater impact on the traffic pattern. He statea tt~e Code woulo pecmit 655 units on this 18.2-acre parcel; that the net area is 2,715 square feet pec unit and Code requires 1,200 square teet ana tnat is a aensity of lb units per acre, and Code permits 36 units per acre; that the yross floor acea is 184,816 square feet and they would be aLlowed 74"L,by~ syuace feet and that the building covecage is only 13.78 veesus tne atlowa~le 558; that the recreational area is 17,017 square fee*_ vetsus 2,2UU square ieet re~3uiced, whicn will make the project very spread out. Fie statea the proposal is a very light use foc an apartment complex and the tratYic will all be aivettea on~o Santa Ana Canyon Road. He sta~ed he felt Plan B would ha'~e less impact than what could be built there and he would recomtnentl approval of Plan B. Commissioner MessP ag[eea ana aadea he though*_ thece should be a condition reyuiring rezoniny ot Area 7 to permit only 15 units, Commissionec Herbst aaaea he woulo like tha*_ area zonea RS-SUUO. Commissioner McBurney statea he thought the density ttansfer would not impact tt~e area as much as he firs*_ *_hougnt ana by limiting Acea 7 to 15 units, he woula be willing to vote for approval of Plan B. Commissioner Lawicki agreed basea on tne numeer of units *_ransEerted trom Acea 7, and though~ the quality ot tnis pro7ect, compaced with mhat could be built `here. Chairwoman La Claire sta*_eo sne Area 7 does no*_ lend itself to any multiple-tamily developments because it is completely surrounded by single-tamily units. She aaaeo sne cealizes these petitions probably came irom residents ao7acent to Acea 7 and agceed Plan B is probably the best aevelopment; tnat tnat area is below the other neighbors and it does abut the treeway, ano it maKes good planning sense ~o build apartments there. She puintea out the other homes are above the freeway so the noise does not affect tnerti as much. She stateci also people who live in apac*_ments can move if there is a problem with noise, Dut people who own theiz units have to sell before tney move. She stateG, however, there have been no concessions made by the aeveloper, except the tile coofs; ana that she is ais*..urbed. She stated she is disturbea by the fact that thece is a rumot that Plan B is not really t.he plan tney want arid tney will appeal that ap~[oval to the City Council. She stated she wouLa like the aeveloper aRa Kaufman & Br~ad to state for the recora tha*_ tney are not going to change this development. and that they have no intention of duilding anything other *_han what is shown on these plans and tna*_ 1S siugle-family units will be built in Area 7. Sne asked if they indeed plan tu appeal this action to tne City Council and try to get Plan A approved rathet than Plan B. 4/14/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 14, 1986 86-245 Leona~d McGhee statea the letter dated March 26, 1986, from the Beztak Company dues not set forth anything a~out the tile rooEs. Commissioner Herbst sta*ed ii this is approved, tile roofs woula be a condition. Chairwoman La Claire askea which ot tt~e line-~t-sight exhibits pertain r.o the houses at the end of [deadowridge. Mc. McCorkle pointed out those areas on the dtawings and stated tciey woulu only lose tne view of the freeway and there is no ceal view obstruction. Mr. Winiielo statea he would not be comfortable committing to any particular zone Yor Area 7, but would be willing to commit to a tentative map for a maximum aevelopment of L5 single-famiLy units. He added it is their in*_ention to build the same type product that was built in Acea 1 and they have no ob7ection to a conaition to that regacd. tie sta*ed a suggestion was made *.ha` the pcoperty be rezoned ana he did not think tha*_ would be necessary and intlicatea staLt wouln be able to insure that only 15 single-family units are constructea. He statea ne thought I2M-3UUU Zoning woul.d work. Cnaicwoman La Claire statea she uid no~ think the Commission would go along witn the RM-3UUU Zoniny. She stated if the density ttansfer is allowed, *_he Commission does no*_ want muLtiple-family units in Area 7, and *..he units would nave tu be detached RS-5UDU single-family units. Mr. WintieLa statea without study, he would not wan*. to make a commitment and then have *o c~eate a less aesica5le product. He stated if Plan B is appcoved, tney oo not plan to appeal that decision to the City Council. Chaicwoman La Claire stated she would like foc the developer `o eome up with a way to k.eep tnis tcom happening in the fu~ure; that for years `he Planning Commi~sion hds been trying to keep people from getting disappointed abou*. what is happening in their neiyi~dorhoods. She stated the General Plan shows what is supposed to be aevelopea; howevec, it is general, and the Commission has trieu to keep tne real estate people from telling the buyers what is going *o be uuilt there. She statea the "specific plan' procedure currently being considerea uy the Clty might go a long way in dealing with that problem. Mr. Winfield stated he would apologi~e to any neighbors who feel they were misl~aa and stated if they were mislead, they we~e not injured and every buyer closed escrow with a document which said they were not celying on any verbal tepcesentaY.ion. He s*_atea if he was buying a house, he would discuss the undeveloped areas with the City staff. Cnairwoman La Claire statea tne buyers would have learned from City staff that there was a tcact approvea for condominiums. Mr. WinfieLa stated tne area was zoned and planned for multiple-family residential development, and there has been a condominium project approved and t~~at is cont~siny. He stated if *_he buyers had checked, the City staff would nave told the area was planned for multiple-family units and that is exactly what the sales people had told the buyers. Annika Santalahti responded to Chairwoman La Claire that the revised tentative map nas to come beto~e the planning Commission. 9/14/26 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 14, 1986 86-246 Mr. Rolnicki presentea a letter signed by James Crosby, Engineer, indicating tnat conaoa~iniums were approved for Tcact 10985 and that lettec indicated the ttact will be constructed as a two-•lot subdivision; however, tne ultimate aevelopment will oe ior "134 condominium units zoned RM-1200 and they would be contormance witn the app[opriate zoning requirements at that time. He stated tnat lettet was oatea May 2J, 1983, from James Crosby Engineecing to the City oi Ananeim ana asked wnat coula the prospective buyecs can rely on if they coula not reLy on *_ne ducuments in the Ci*_y's files. Doug hlcCOrkle statea at the end of the hearing on Match 17*_h, he pcovided staic with an outline regaraing the revised plans, which are now being retercea to as Scheme B, and thece was an item "C" on that outline making the commitment to tile coofs, He responaea to Leonard McGhee tha` he would sign that fact sheet whicn is curcently in *_he Planning Department Eiles. Ciiaicwoman La Claire statea looking at this from a Planning standpoint foC the whole area, she dio not *_hink this development would t,urt the property ownecs in that acea ana witu tne closing of the st[eet, it would be beneficial; and tnat feacs normally associated with apartment complexes would not be realized in this aevelopment. Sne statea she has checked into ~he background of this company ana they oo retain ownecship ot `heic a~art~ent pcoject.s. It was noteu ti~e negative ~eclaration was approved at *.ne March 17, 1986, meetiny. AC'PION: Commissioue[ Hecust offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec McBUrney ana MOTION CARRIEU (Commissioner IIouas absent) that the Anaheim City planniny Cotnmission does heceby y[ant approval or the ceques*ed density tcansfer oY 58 units from Area 7 to Area 6, as identified on the Rauec Ranch ~enecal Plan of Development, on Li~e basis tha*.. the multipte-family units will oe isolnteo into one area cceating Less traffic problems, and also modification oi tne exhiuits foc the Land Use and Popula~ion Element of said plan trom 234 units to 2y'l units in Acea b ana from 73 units to 15 units in ptea 7. Commissioner Herus* oftered Resolution No. PC86-79 ana moved for its passage a~ia aaoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gcanY. Vaciance i~o. 353y, gran*_ing waivecs (b ana c) on the basis that there a[e special citcumstances applicable to tne property such as size, shape, topography, location ano surrounaings which do not apply to other identically zonecl property i^ the same vicinity; ann *_hat strict application of *_he Zoning Cuae deprives the property ot p~ivileges en~oyed by o*_her properties in the ioentical zone and classification in the vicinity; and gcanting waiver (a) on tt~e uasis tnat the parking waiver will no*_ cause an increase in `raffic congestion in the immediate vi~inity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses ana yranting oc tne pacKing waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not ne detrimental to tt~e peace, health, safety and general welface of ti~e citizens of the City of Anaheim and sub7ect to Interdepartmental Committee recommenaations, including an additional condition that Scheme B is approved with Meaaowcidge Roaa being deleted; and fucther, that the density in Area 7 shall be limitetl to 15 single-family detached RS-5000 residences; and with the recommenaee conaitions of approval being amended to reflect revised plans 4/14/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APkIL 14, 1986 86-247 (Scheme B) and an additional condition that concrete tile roofs shall be provided on sloped roof a~eas. On roll ca11, tne foregoing resolu`_ion was passed by the following vote: AYES: FRY, HERBST, LP. CLAIRE, LAWICKI, Mr. aURNEY, MESSE IvOES: NUNE ABSENT: BOUAS Commissioner Herbst thanked the opposition for their a*tendance and sta*_ed he feels a compcomise has been reached which will be beneficial to the property owner ano aeveloper. Malcolm Slaughtec, Deputy City A*_torney, pre~en*_ed the written right to appeal the Plannir.g Commission's decision wi*_hin 22 days to khe City Council. Cnairwoman La Claire s*_a•`_ea today's decision was not reached easily and thankea tne opposition for coming to the meetings. She instructed Kaufman s Broaa to present a concrete plan for Area 7 so this problem will not come up again. RE~CES5ED: 3:U0 p.m• RECONVENED: 3:15 p.m. Commissioner Eouas returnea to the meeting. ITEM N0. 2 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CUNDITIONAL USE PERt4IT NU. 2776 PUBLIC HFARING. OWNERS: D& D DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CORPOI2ATION, 711 East Imperial Highway, Bcea, CA 92621. AGEN'PS: ROGEP. MANFRED, PRESIDENT, THE MANFRED COt4PANY, A PARTNER CO. IN SEAPORT MANFRED CO., 629 Kettnet Bivd., San Diego, CA 9'LLU1 and HOPE CONSULTING GROUP-HEBER J. HURD, 401 West A Stree*, Suite SUO, San Uiego, CA y21U1. Propecty described as an ircegularly-shaped parcel of land consistiny of approximately 4.3 acres with a frontage of approximately 251 feet on tne east side of Hzzbor Boulevard, 1460 S. Harbor Boulevara (HarDOr Inn). l~o permit an 8 ana y-stocy, 7U.5 to 91-foot high, 470-[oom hotet with accessory uses including on-sale of alcoholic heverages with waivec of minimum number ot parking spaces. Continuea trom the meeting of March 31, 1986. Ctiairwoman La Claire explained the Planning Commission will not be voting on tnis matter, upon advice fcom the Cit.y AL•torney's Office, because of a con:lict of interest aue to a gift received fcom Disneyland. She instructed the Planning Commission Secretary to forward this matter to the City Council foc action. 4/14/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 14, 1986 86-248 ITEM NO. 3 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 AND VARIANCE N0. 3544 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 20p S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA y28US. AGENT~ J. R. H. ZNC., 510.1 E. Inaepandence Blvd., Cha[lotte, NC 2tl212. Property describea as an irregulacly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approximately 9.3 acres located at the noctheasterly cocner of La Palma Avenue and Weir Canyon xoao. Waivers of maximum numuer and type of si~rw, ma~imwn sign area and display surfaces ano limitations on sign lighting to construct 3 frees*_anding signs ana 3 ~all signs. Continued from the meetings ~t. March 17 and 31, 1986. ACTION: Cominissionet Bouas offered a motion, seconned by Co~issionet Lawicki ana MOTION CARRIED that consiae[ation of the aforementioned ma`ter be conti~iued to the tegu.larly-scheduled meeting of Apcil 28, 1986, in order for tne petitioner to submit revised plans. ITE[9 NO. 9 EIIt NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONLI'PZUNAL USE PERI9IT NO. 2777 (READVERTISED) PUBLIC HEARING• UWIJERS: BURNETT•-EHLZNE PROPERTIES, 2050 S. Santa Ccuz, #100, Anaheim, CA y28U5, ATTN: C. L. BURNETT, AND BENTALL PROPERTZES, 2050 S. Santa Cruz, g1UU, Ananeim, CA 92805, ATTN: DAVID C. BENTALL. AGENTS: HARTY & HARTY, 19 Mountain View, Itvine, CA yZ715• Pcoperty described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximateLy 0.45 acre located at the southeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and State College Boulevbra, 21UU South State College Boulevacd. To permi*_ an industrially- celatea office building with waivers of required lanascapea setback, dedication of right-of-~day, minimum dimensions of vehicle accessways, minimum dimensions of packing spaces, minimum number of parking spaces and maxirtium compact parking spaces. Continuea trom the meeting of March 31, 1°86. ~lne[e was no one inaicating theic pcesence in opposition to subject request ana altnouyn tne staff ceport was not cead, i.t is referred to and made a part of tne minutes. Jack Harty, 14 Mountain View, Irvine, stated they are pcesenting two plans for consiaeration; that Plar, A is cequesting a waiver of the 10-foot setback; that they nave been informea by the City that they are considering the critical inrersection aesignation ancl in order to expediate their ptocessing, are proposi.^.~ Plan B wnich contemplates the adoption of the ccitical intersection aesignation whicn changes the building location. He explained for P.Lan B, tney are requesting waivers of the driveway width and an increase in the numt>er of compact car parking spaces uy seven. He explained under both plans, tne builaing will ue for a single-user or 7ust a few-user small office builUiny with a low intensity and a low demand on traffic and patking. 4/14/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMD]ISSION, APRIL 14, 1966 86-249 Jim Dietz, Architects of Ueange, 144 North Orange, Orange, 92666, stated the euilding has oeen positioneo on the cornec of the property since it is a small site to give it a geeater urban presence and create a compound atmosphere and to screen the unsightly parking nocmally seen in a building with *_he parking in front. He statea they do not feel this will create a"canyon effect" on the street ~ecause the building is very small and is only 2-1/2 stories hi9h since i~ is over subterranean parking. Mr. Harty stateu in November 1y81, he requested approval of the plan for the Dunn Properties building on the nocthwest corner of this intersection and many oi tne issues they dealt with concecniny that building are alleviated here aecause of the size of this building and they feel this use is going to be much less intense. Regaraing the critical intersection designation, he s*a`ed they woula lose some frontage, but the building is still viable and the only sacrifice is inccaasing tne numbet of compact spaces by seven and decreasing tne over-a1L parking requirements by *_wo spaces. THE PU$LIC HEAkING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner McBUrney stated he teels this project would be overbuilding *_he property because of its small size ana thought tather than reducing the size ot tne parkiny spaces, tne size of the building should be reviewed. Mr. Harty stated under the existing circumstances, the building conforms to Coae anu tne only prublem arises under the critical intersection designation ano then they woula have to change to Plan B. He stated under Plan A the euilaing ratio is in conformance with requicemen*_s. He sta*_ed this is a small parcel boraereo by *_wo stceets whicn woula be designated as critical intersections and two sides o~ the parcel would be taken. He stated because ot the proposed use ot the building, they do not feel there would be a negative parking impact. Commissionec McBUCney stated he thought this site should be investiga*..ed to iind out how much useful acea will be left to work with after the dedications are made. Responding to Corrunissioner Bouas, Mr. Natty stated this is an office building and will either be a single-user building, or one or t~o tenants will possibly use the entire builaing. He stated they have one ot two prospective tenants and either one could be a full-building user. Co~nissioner Herbst stated he would be concerned abou*_ the number of compact spaces because it is not be possible to tell how nany compact cars there will pe in the future. Mr. Harty stated bas~tl on tne car-buying public in California, he did not tninK there would be a problem and explained they are talkin9 about 16 compact spaces and tne 448 ratio is consistent with the ca~-buyer market in California. Commissioner He~bst stated he would agree that that is the present cac buying ratio, eut it woulu take some time for the over-all picture *.o chanae. 4/14/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 14, 1986 86-250 Mr. Harty stated the building and desig_~ will not accommodate a user such as an insurance compaiiy with a heavy clerical staff because tha•`_ would burden the parking ana th2 internal core has given up a lot of space to an open stairway to the second iLoor. Chairwoman La Claire stated sne realizes some of the unusual circumstances since this property will be giving up a lot of property for dedications on botn siaes. Paul Singec, 'l~raffic Engineer, statea waiver (c) actually only waives two feet from the driving aisle which is currently 25 feet for full-sized cars; however, it is pussible to reouce it to 23 feet without undue hardship to the ariver turning into oc out of a parking space. He stated *_his is a compcamise he can wock with for tne adaikional right-of-way for the critical in`_ersection aesiynation; and that this is an exception rathec *han a rule. Chaicwoman La Claire stated only 39 spaces are reguired and 37 are beiny proviaed, but that is being accomplished with the compact spaces. She stated she is concerned about the parking heing so close to the s*_reet and she would not like to see waivec (a) approved and witn *_he dedication made, waiver (b) shoula ue denied ana felt she could probably vote in favor of (c). Commissioner Messe asketl whicn waivers would not be cequiced if Plan B was appruvetl. Annika Santalahti responaed that the structural setback waiver would still be necessary because this is the industtial zone and added if they naa appliea toc CO tonirig, there would have oeen a 10-foot setback; and .*.hat portions oi State College north of this property and Otangewood to *_h> west nad a speciaL setbacn establishea for 35-feet fully landscaped oc the 50-foot standara inaustrial setback. She stated s*..aff looked at adding that requirement to the Code uecause it will not be consis*_en*_ to have it. just on the west side oP the intersection. Leonata tdcGhee statea Plan A would delete waivers (d, e and f) pettaining to the parking spaces anu compact spaces, but waivecs (a, b, c and d) would still ue necessaty. AnniKa Santalahti stated when the aeveloper first presented the proposal, the critical intersection was still consideced as a possibility and the conditions of appcoval ao require dedication to the curren*_ right-of-way aiong both stceets and staff is ceeommending an additional condition be added ceguiring an additional 12 feet of aedication. She stated the developer does not wanY. to oeaicate to the critical intetsection designation, and technically the waivec could not be approvea, so the developer has to comply with the current Code. Mr. Harty stated he does not uelieve khis would be a case of bad planning with tne adoption of a rule ana then starting to ignore it since this p[ope[ty is exceptional ~ecause it is so small and the critical intersection designa*ion affects two siaes. He stated he would not have these pcoblems withou* those dedications ana the only thing they would be cequesting would be the setback cunsistent witn tne office zone at lU feet, and right now *_hat corner is zoned [4L. He stated ii they adherea to the large setUack in the fcont, the building woula nave to be on the reat of the property and under Plan B, it would be 4/14/86 86-251 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, A°RIL 14, 1986 96UU square feet ana by moving it *_o the tear, it would be approximately 7000 square feet. He stcted the wiae setbacks were imposed on the property across the street and one of the primary considerations at that time was to have adequate setbacks in case Orangewooa had to be widened. He stated if the critical intersection designation is adopted, widening is already taking place, so tne rationale for aoopting tne ordinance across the street in 1981, in his view, no longec applies because the street is being widened. He added if they applietl for the CU Zoniny, n~ waivers would be necessary because they would be entitLea to the 10-foot setback which is shown on Plan A. Mc. Harty statea on the soutn siae of Orangewood, east of subject property, there is an oftice oevelopment (Sunset) which has a 10-foot setback and that will establish the criteria foc the other properties in the area. He stated the homes across the street are now in the City of Otange; however, when they wece in the County, the set~ack requirement was lU feet. xesponding to Cornmissioner Herbst, Mr. Harty stated unfortunately land assembly is not possiDle in tnis instance. Responding *_o Chairwoman La Claire, he stateo the setback is lU feet from S*_ate College and LO fee*_ from Grangewood wnicn woula be tne traoitional CO setback requicements and that is tot both plans. Chairwoman La Claire stated Plan B should be approved so that in tt~e future, the aedications can oe maae and the s*_reet can be widened uecause tnere are great plans for that area. Annika Santalahti statea waiver (a) would be required with either plan. She stated waiver (b) was includea by mistake because *_here is no critical intersection requicement as yet and as of toaay, the requiremen` is for 53 teet and that would be a b4ilding permit requirement, so waiver (b) should be deleted. She stated it Plan e is approved anconditionmshould benadded make provisions to allow fot a lU-foo_ setback, requiring *_hat deaication. Ctiaicwoman La Claire stated she would like to allow this development with the parking waivers ana venicular access waivers ana also cequire the dedication tot the street widening. p~iniKa Santalahti stated Plan B reflects the cri*ical in*ersection requireuients; however, an additional dedication requiremen*_ should be added reyuiring the auoition. Commissioner Herbst suggested modifying waiver (a) to 'L2 feet insteaa ot LU feet ano requiciny an irrevocable offer of dedication. ACTIUN: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBUrney and MOTION CARRIF.D that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proYosal to permit an industrially-related office buildin9 with waivets ot requiced landscaped setback, dedication of right-of-way, minimum 4/14/86 MINU'PES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 14, 1986 86-252 aimensions of vehicle accessM .s, minimum dimer.sions of parking spaces, minimum number of parking sp :es and maximum compact parking spaces on an itregularly-shapea parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.45 acre located at tne southeast corner oi Orangewood Avenue and S*_ate College Boulevard, having a frontage of approximately lU8 feet on the south s.ide of prangewood Avenue and a tcontage of approxirnu`_ely 11S fee•_ on the east side of State College Boulevata ana fur*_her describea as 2100 South State Colle9e; and does heteey approve tne Negative Declaration upon finding *_hat it has considereo the Negative Declacation together wi*_h any comments received during tiie public review process ana further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that *_nere is no substantial evidence *_hat the pro7ect will nave a significan` effect on the envitonment. Jay Titus suggestea leaving Condition No. 2 as it and adding an additionat conaition ceyuicing deaication for an additional l2 feet on State College and Uranyewooa, in the event the critical intersection designation is adopted. Jim Dietz, Accnitect, sta~ea Orangewood and State College are two differen* wiaths. MalcoLm Slaugnter explaineo the developer will pe tequired to dedicate to the present 53 foot [iyht-of-way on both stCeets and there will be a1 adaitional conaition requiriny an a~uitional 12 feet of dedication of both s*_reets for tne critical intersection ana *_hat these will be botn be ircevocable offers of deaication ano tne condition will terminate if the critical intersection aesignation is not adoptea. Commissioner Hecust stateo nis resolu*_ion will be for the approval of Plan B witn a 2"L-foot setback, Leonar.a I~cGhee suggested a condition addea [equiring that consistenr with tY:e Staaium Area StratEgy Study and Municipal Ordinance No. 4655 that prior to the issuance ot builoiny permits, the appropriate intecim development fee shall be paia to the City of Anaheim in an amount as determined by the City Council. Commissionec Herbst statea he woula aad that condition to tiis resolution. ACTION: Commissioner Hecbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBUrney and MUTIUN CARRIED, tha*_ the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver (a) modifiea to require a 22-foot landscaped setback on tt~e basis tiiat tnere ace special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location ana surroundings which do not apply to other identicalty zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application oi the Zoning Code deprives the property of pcivileges enjoyed by other properties in the iaen*_ical zone and classification in the vicinity; aenying waive~ (o) on the basis that the critical intersection designation has not been aaopted and thece is no Code requirement for said waiver (b); and granting waivers (c, d, e ana f) on the basis that the parking waiver will ~~ot c~use an increase in traffic congestion in *_he immedia*_e vicinity nor aaversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of `.he parking waiver unaec the conditions imposeo, if any, will not be detrimentai `o the peace, nealth, safety ana general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 4/14/86 N~INUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRZL 14, 1986 86-253 Commissionet Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-80 and moved for its passage that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gran` Conditional Use permit No. 2777, in part, pucsuant to AnahEin Plunicipal Code Sections 1~.U3.U30.U3U tnrough 1~.U3.030.U35 and subject to In`erdepartmental Committee cecommendations, includin9 additional conditions tt~at approval is for Plan B and a 22-too*_ lanascape~ setback shall be provided, and an additional conaition requiring irrevocaple offers of dedication for i2 fee*_ along Orangewooo and 5tate College for stceet widening purposes, in *_he even*_ the critical intersection aesignation is adopted, and also including a condition requiriny tne interim development fee. On roll call, L-he foreyoing resolution was passed by *he following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ FIERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAP7ICKI, MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City A~tor~~ey, presented *_he written cigh*_ to appeal the Planning Conmission's aecision wi`hin 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. S EIR NEGA'lIVE DECLARATION~ RECLASSIFICATIOt7 N0. 85-86-27 AND VARIANCE NO. 3547 PUBLIC HEARItdG. OWNERS: STEVEN W. AND PAMELA S. HALL, ET AL, 15161 Van Buren, Miaway City, CA 92655. AGENTS: 'PHE BARTOLI COMPANY CORP., 17756 gampson Lane, Huntington Beach, CA 92b47 ar.d T. A. JONES b ASSOC., 465 E. 17th Street, ~bUb, Cost~~ Mesa, CA 92627. Pcoperty described as an irtegularly-snaped parcel of land consis*_ing of aFproximately 1.~5 acres, 2215 Loara Stteet. xS-A-43,000 to RM-12U0 or a iess intense zone. Waiver of maximum buitding neight *_o construct a 37-unit apartment complex. Tnere wece thirty-four persons indicatiny *_heir presence in opposition to subject request and altnouyh the staff cepoct was not read, it is referred to and mane a part of tne minutes. Barcy Jones, T. A. Jones and Associates, agent, s*_ated *_his propecty has some uni~3ue ptoblems because of its shape, and the property is landlocked except for a 66-foot wice parcel which approaches Loara Street *_o the east and tha*_ is wn~re they ace takin9 access. He stated the property is surrounded on the east, soutn ano west of single-family residences with multiple-family to the northeast. He stated they tcied to meet the needs of the proper*yo uwner and to Lessen the impact of this pro7ect on the surrounding neighbors; and *_he south, west and north portions of the pcoperty will be one-story units with two-stocy units in *_he center ana there will only be bedrooms on the second story. He stated there are no windows on the two-stozy purtion to the south, uut tney do have wir~dows on the second stoCy to the west and north. He stated one of tne cor.cerns of the neighbors ~~ould be the second s~ory lucking down into their yards ano poin*_ed our single-family zoning would permit 2-1/2 story single-Eamily structures closer to the property line than this project. 4/14/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOP7, APRIL 14, 1966 86-254 Gene Felling, 222U S. Loara, stated he lives across the street fcom the proposed pco~ect and the neignbors' main ob7ection is to the high density in a basically single-family neighborhood. He stated there are probably some uses for the property other than single-family, and *_hat the developer ceferred *_o the ircegular shape of the ptoperty and pointed out to the notth, thece is an iaentical property witn a 60-foot access which was developed as a cul-de-sac with beautiful homes and that could be done here. He stated condominiums could also ne developed. He statea the value of the homes in `hat area range from ~150,UOU }o ~SU0,000. Mr. Felling presented a petition signed by the people directly affected by tnis pro~ect ana also displayed a map showing the locatian of the homes of tnose who signeo the getition. Tne petition contained appcoximately 180 signatures. He statea they would like to keep the de~sity as low as possible acid ao not teel this pro7ect would fit in with the rest of the community. He also aisplayed pno*_oyraphs of all the homes on Loara Street and tt~ose affected on De11a Street ana explained *_hose pcoperties would back-up `o *_he proposed pro7ect ano be ditectly affected. He statea all those homes which back up to tne property are single-story. He stated there are some nice :;pactmen`_ complexes in the area, nut they are all single-story. idr. Felling stat.ed tcatiic is a ptoblem and though*. ttaffic with l00 vehicles exitiny from a subtercanean garage would be a hazard to the children going to scnool or playing on the siaewalks. He stated with `_he gatage undec the first flouc, it would put the first floor level pretty high and then wi*_h the ceac of the pruperty filLea for arainage, it would make it even higher. He sta*ed partial subterranean garages cteate pcoblems with ventilation, and noise. He stateu tnis type project really pushes a single-family residential acea. Mc. Felliny statea ne was before the Planning Commission about three months ago wnen anotnec project wi~ti a similar sub*_erranean garage was proposed and that project was oenied and they hoped the Commission would view ~his in the same lignt because they would like to keep tneir neighborhood as beautiful as it is now. Mc. Jones stated tney triea to design this pcoject with `he least impact on the neignborhood. He statea the project design meets the Code in most instances and notea it is difficult to make tnis parcel work and even with single-family residence~, they coula go higher with a two-story pzoject which would nave higcier impact on the neighbors to the north, south and west. He stated they acE just asking for approval to put units in an atea which already nas multiple-tamiLy units. He stated he did not think apartment projects, especially designed witn a garden-like setting such as this, with hidden patKing, woula ee a detriment to the neighborhood and would certainly be an impcovement ove[ what is there now. He stated there will not be 100 vehicles eecause these will be t-Deoroom units and he did nut think the traffic safety to the childr~n in the neigheorhood would be a real issue. He statea they ace trying to be good neighbors and are tsying to put something in that neighbornood which is positive and wUich will improve the land values, THE PUBLLC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 4/14/86 MINUTESr ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, APRIL 14, 1986 86-255 Chairwoman La Claire stateo, in her opinion, this is not the place for an apartment pco7ect; that tne City l~as tried to keep this area very low density because tnere are some beautiful single-family homes in that area, except for tue low-density, multiple-Yamily pro7ect. Sne stated she though*_ it would be very beneficial to the developer to aevelop single-family homes because •`_hey woula se11 for a hignec price and the only question she would have is whe*_her oc not tney shoulo be RS-72UU or RS-5000 because of *_ne current economic situation, Commissionet LawicKi statea he has seen some of the single-family developments which have taken place on Orangewooa ~ust west of Ninth Street and he would agree witn Ci~aicwoman La Claire tnat RS-S000 single-family homes could be developea and 'ne coula not go along wi*_h RM-120U in that nei~hborhood, and tnought it coula be aeveloped profitably without th~s high density. Mr. Jones state~ tney were hired tiy the property owner *_o develop ~his praject and the owner is not preseat tooay, so he could not ans~~er that issue. ACTION: Commissioner Fcy offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney ana MOTION CARxIED tha*_ tne Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential, A9ricultural) Zone to tne RM-120G (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone ~o consttuc*_ a 37-unit apartment complex with waiver of maximum structural height on an irregularly-shapea parcel of land consis*_ing of approximately 1.55 actes, t~aving a frontage of approximately 66 feet on the west side of Loara Street and further aescriteo as 2'l15 West Loara S*_reet; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments ceceived during `he public review process ana fur*_her finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no suos*_antial ~vidence that th~ project wiil have a significant effect on the envi[onment. Commissioner Fry oEferea Resolution No. PC86-81 and moved for its passage and aooption that the Anaheim City 2lanning Commission does hereby deny Reclassiiication Nu. ~5-86-27 on *_he basis it would have an adverse impac*_ on the neighborhood ana woulo be consideced "spot zoning". On roll call, tne foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRYr HER~Si, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NQES: NONE ABSF.tJT: NONE Commissioner r^ry offered Resolution No. PC66-82 and moved fot its passage and aaoption that tne Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 3h47 on tne basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to ~ne propetty such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which ao not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of tne Zoning Code does not deprive the pcoperty of ptivileges en7oyeo by other pcoperties in *_he identical zone and classifica*_ion in the vicinity. 4/14/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 14, 1986 86-256 On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passea by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughtec, Deputy City At~c:^ey, presented the written righ*_ to appeal tne Planniny Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. RECESSED: 4:15 p.m. RECONVENED: 4:2U p.m. ITEh1 NO. 6 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-28 AND VARIANCE NO. 3548 PUBLZC HEARING. OWIJERS: GERALD H. AND YOLANDA WISCHMEYER~ 835 Hayward Street, Anaheim, CA 92804• Property describeo as a rectangulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 11,060 square feet, 1721 E. Sycamore Street. xS-A-43,U00 to RM-12UU or a less intense zone. Waivets of minimum number a1d type of parkiny spaces, maximum stcuctural height and minimum structural setDack to conswruct a 2-story, 4-unit apartment building. Tnere wece seve~i persons indicatin~: theic presence in opposition to subject reyuest ana altnougn the staff repozt was not read, it is referred to and made a pact of the minutes. Jerry Wiscnmeyer, owner, explaine~ *_hey have pcovided ten parking spaces, tneteuy eliminatin9 the neea ior tne first waiver. Floya Williams, 171"l E. Sycamo[e, stated he lives on the south side of subject oroperty and tnat his neighbors are also pcesent and they are all opposed to tnis pro7ect because tney ace Concecned about the parking along Sycamore; that tney realize the pro~ect has enough parking, but there will be excess pa~king neeaed witn friends visiting, etc. He stateo Sycamore is a very busy street ano thete is lot of fast traffic on the stteet ar.d there have been a lot of acciaents, especially at the intersection of Evergreen and Sycamore. He statea they are also concernea about rezoning this property to allow apartments accoss tne stceet from their single-family homes and they are concerned this will Ceccease ~heir property values; and that apactments do bring in undesiraole people which woulo do~angrade their neighbo~hooa. Tim Ketner, 17U7 Sycamore, stated he lives adjacent to the Evergreen intetsectioii ana has livea tnere Eor two years and has seen eleven accidents and was involved in one of those accidents and these apartments would only increase the tcaffic on Sycamoce. He asked if it would be possible to have stop signs installed. Mr. Wischmeyer stated trafEic is very fast on Sycamore and he thought stop signs are needed. He stated he did not think apartments would create additional pzoeiems; ana that thece are apartments already on that street. He presentea a petition signea by 17 neighbo~s in favor oE this request. 4/14/86 66-257 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, APRIL 14, 1986 THE PUBLZC HEARING WAS CLOSEA. xesponaing to Commissioner Bouas, M[. Wischmeyer stated he would be building three adaitional units and they would be 26 feet high. He explained the school yara is ~ight tienind the project. Commissioner Bouas stated anotnec apartment complex in that atea fconts on Anna Stceet, M~. Wischmeyer stated there is a four-unit complex four parcels troiri sut;~ect p[operty. ~ommissioner Messe asked if Mr. Ketner had signed the petition in favor and is also present in opposition. Mc. Ketnei: stated the letter was presented to him in a manner tnat inaicated he was mece',ly beii:g made awace of what was going on on the property and that this meetiny M~as to b2 taking place and the opposition's opiciion wouLd ue heara at this time. He stated he believed it was pcoposea as two units, not fouc, ana not as two stories, and after he realized it would be two stories, he thoagnt it would look directly into his backya[a. Cnairwoman La Claire statea the petition was signed by people a1l acound the property. Commissioner Messe asked if there were o~hets present who signed tne petition wi~o nave changed their minds and 'are in opposition of the [equest, ana one pecson respon~ea. Cnairwoman La Claire askeo if the petitionec would like a continuance in order to aiscuss this with the neighbors and fino out who is in favor and who is opposea to tnis reyuest. She explained the petition indicates that the undersiynea are fuLly aware of the pcoposal ana have no objections and she was concecnea ttiat maytie anothec pro7ect was also being proposed. Commissioner Bouas staY.ed sne thought this would be impacting the area quite a lot. Commis:;ionec Fry s*_atea there are apartments on t:he noeth side of Sycamore and that other lots have four units alceady. He stated he has considered the two-story situation ano recognizes that Sycamoce is a heavily-r.ravelled stceet, but founa it difficult to believe that adding three units would impact the ac•ea because tnere is adequate patking proviaed. Commissioner McBucney stated ne has a problem with the "spot zoning" and tnougnt if a zoning action is consiaerea, it should be for the en*_ire block. Leonata McGhee statetl the General Plan designates subject property foc medium ae~isity wnicq woula pecmit hN-12U0. Chairwoman La c:laire st~ted after Item No. 7 is considered, there is only one single-family residence between this pcoperty and the school property to the east. She stateo tnis conforns to the General Plan foc medium density and that is wny there ace mote apzs*_ments going in on that street and this will not be a ni9h aensity development and she did not think it would add any significant traffic and it does meet packing cudes. 4/14/86 86-258 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN~ APRZL 14, 1986 Leonard McGhee stated cevised plans have not been submit~ed, but the Traffic Engineec has approvea the new space. Mr. Wischmeyec stated there are ten parking spaces and seven are covered. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki ana MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has teviewed the ptoposal to reclassify subject pcoperty from the RS-A-43,OU0 (Res*oeconstruct pgricultural) to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-r^amily) Zone a two-story, 4-unit apattment cor.~plex with waivers of minimum number and type o= pacKing spaces, maximum structucal height and minimum stcuctural setback on a rectangularly-shapea pa:cel of lana consisting of approximately 11,060 squace feet, naving a trontage of approximately 70 feet on the nocth side of Sycamore Street and furtt~ec aescrioed as 1721 E. Sycamore Street; and does hereby approve the Negaeive Declaration upon finding that it has consideted tne Neyative Declaration togetner with any commen*_s received during the public review process and turtnec finaing on the basis oE the Initial Study and any comments receivea that thece is no substan~~ial eviaence that ~he pcoject will nave a signiticant effect on the environment. Commissioner Fry otferea Resolution N~. PC86-83 and moved for its passage and aaoptio~i tnat tne Anaheim City Planning Commission does heceby gcant Rec.lassification No. 85-d6-z8 su~7ect to Interdepartmen*_al Committee recommendations. On coll call, tne foreguing resolution was passed by the fullowing vo*_e: AYES: BUUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIAE, LAWICKI, MESSE NUES: MC BURNEY A9SENT: NONE Commissionec Fry offerea Reaolution No. PCBfi-64 and movea for its passage and aaoption that khe Anaheim City Planning Conmission does hereby grant Variance No. 354t1, in part, aenying waiver (b) on the basis that the petitione~ stipulated to provide parking spaces in conformance with Code and to submit a cevised plan to be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and subject to Intecdepartmental Committee cecommendations. On roll ca11, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BUUAS, FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC 6URNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE Ak~SENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Ylanniny Commission's aecision within 22 days to the City Council. I'PEP1 N0. 7 EIk NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE NO. 3549 PUBLIC HEAkING. ODJNERS: RICHARD M. BRAND, 1725 E. Sycamore St[eet, Anaheim, CA y2805• Pcoperty is described as a rectangulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting oi appzoximately 11,060 square feet, 1725 E. Sycamore St[eet. Waivers of minimum numbec and type of oacking spaces, maximum sttuctutal 4/14/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 14, 1986 86-259 heignt and minimum structural setback to construct a 2-story~4-unit apartment building. Triere were seven pecsons indicating their presence in oppositionPto*ouandcmade request and although the staff report was not read, it is referz_d a part of tne minutes. Mo~gan Light stated tie signea the petition, but wasn't awa[e of the second proposal next door. Commissioner Messe statea Mc. Light had apparently signed both petitions, one in favor ana one in opposition. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissionez Bouas asked wny there is no reclassification requesteu on `his proposal. Leouaca McGnee explaineu a ceclassification was previously approved, bu*_ not finalizea on this property. Ricnara Brana, owner, exptained to Co~nissioner Fry tha* this plan is identical to the one pcesented in item No. b. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Brana explainea ne will be living on the property himself. ACTION: Commissioner Fry otfecea a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MO'1'ION CARRIEU tha~ the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a 2-stoty, 4-unit apartment building with waivers of minimum number ana type of patking spaces, maximum structural height and minimum stcuctural setback on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 11,ubU syuare feet, naving a feontage of approximately 70 feet on the north side of Sycamore Stceet and further described as 1725 E. Sycartiore Street; ana does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding tnat it has considerea the Negative Declacation together with any comments received autiny the pubLic ceview process and further finding on the basis of tne Initial St~dy ano any comments received that there is no substantial evioence that the pco;ect will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Fry offered Res~.~ on No. PC86-85 and moved for its passage and aooption that the Anaheim City _lanning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 354y, in pa~t, on the basis that there ate special circumstances applicaule to tne ptoperty sucn as size, shape, topography, location and sutroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the 2oning Code deprives the pcoperty oY peivileges enjoyed by othec pcoperties in the identical zone and classification i~i the vicinity ana denying waiver (a) on the basis that the petitioner clarified at the public hea[ing that the revised plans indicated 10 patKing spaces in conformance with Code be submitted to the Traffic Engineer ana sub7ect to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by tne following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE, LAWZCKI, MC BURNEY~ MESSE NUES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 86-260 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING COMMISSTON~ APRIL 14, 1986 Malcolm Slaughtec, Deputy City Attorney, ptesented the w~itten right to appeal tne Planning Commission's aecision within 'l2 days to the City Council. paul Singer, Tcaffic Engineer, stated his office would conduct a study to determine whe*_her or not a stop sign is warranted at this loca~ion. ~ommissioner Fry left the meeting and did not return. ITEM N0. 8 EIR NEGATIVE DECLA2tATI0N AND VARIAivCE N0. 3553 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: WILLIAM Q. AND RUTH G. NICHOLSON, 315 Black Oak, Anaheim, CA 92807• Property described as an icregulacly-shaped parcel of land consistiiig of appcoximately 2.25 acces located at the northeast. terminus of Tuckaway Circle, 1115 5outh T~ckaway Citcle. Waivec ot maximum structural height to constr~ct a 2-story, single-family resiaence. Tnere was no one inaicating their presence in opposition to subject request antl althougn tne staff report was not read, it is referced to and made a part of tne minutes. Tom Nicnolson, son of the owner, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEAkING WAS CLOSED. ACTIAN: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner N~esse and MO'PION c:ARRIEll (Commissioner Fry absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewea tl~e pcoposa.l to construct a 2-story, single-family cesiaence with waiver of maximum stcuctural height on an irregulacly-shaped parcel of lana consisting of approximately 2.25 acresroximatelat30hfeettonethe terminus oi Tuckaway Circle, having a frontage of app Y nortn side of TucKaway Circle antl further described as 1115 South Tuckaway Circle; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it nas considecea tne Negative Declacation together with any comments received oucing the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Stuay and any comments received that there is no subs*antial evidence that the project will have a si9nificant effect on the environment. Commissioner Hecbst offecea Resolution No. PC86-86 and moved for its passage ana aaoption that the Anaheirn City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3553 on the basis that there ace special circumstances applicable to the p~operty such as size, shape, topography, location and sutroundings whicii ao not apply to other identically zonetl propecty in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the 2oning Code depcives the groperty of privileges en7oyea by other properties in the identical zune and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartme~tal Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing cesolution was passed by the fallowing vote: AYES: BOUAS~ 4iERBST~ LA CLAIREr LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NJNE ABSENT: FRY 4/14/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 14, 1986 66-261 Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy Cits Attorney, pcesented the wcitten cight to apoeal trie Planning Commission's decision within '22 aays to the City Council. ITEM NO. y EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND COIJllITIOtdAL U5E PERMIT N0. 2779 PUBLIC: HEAI2ItJG. OWNERS: LEAVERTON ROWLANll ASSOC., P. 0. Boi 4604, Anaheim, CA 92~03. e+GENT: ANTHONY J. NATALI, P. 0. Box 4604, Anaheim, CA 92803. Propecty aescribed as a tectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2 acres located at the noethwest side of the terminus of Bryson Street, 12yU Nortn HancocK St[eet. Tu permit aii inaustrially-relatea office building with waivers of minimum dimensioiis of parking spaces ana minimum numbec of parking spaces. Tnere was no one inaica*_ing their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not cead, it is referred to and made a part ot tne minutes. Tony Natali, ayen*_, referced to `_he conditions and stated ~he projec*_ is already under construction and is nearly 808 complete and the conditional use permit is being requested in ordec *_o expand the leasability of the project; that the building nas been develope~ as an R 6 D building; and ~hat he did not believe the Transportation Corridor Fee would be requiretl because they star*ed construction and obtained permits prior to the ordinance being adopted requiring tne Transportation Corridor Fee. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Cummissionec Herest asked wny they are building a building withou*_ the appcoval ot a conditional use pecmit and what their plans would be if this request was deniecr. Mr. Natali replieo tne conaitional use permit is not needed for the building and explainea this is R& D type building and the permit will only expand their leasability with uses that are compatible in the area. Malcoln~ Slaughter stated if a builaing permit was issued, the building can be constcuctea and wnatever is aLlowed by Code can go into that building and, in fact, offices are oermitted. He stated even if the Commission denies tne conditional use permit, tue applican*_ can lease the buildir~g for anything that is permittea in that zone. Responuing to Chairwoman La Claire, Mr. Natal`, stated the compact car spaces are really not too shot*_ and they chose to increase the Landscaping and allowea the cars to overhang instead of having a concrete bumper in the space. He stated both he and the architect feel the 172 spaces provided meet tne 4 to 1 ratio. ~ommissioner Messe asked about Conditions B and 10. Mr. Natali responded those conaitions were incluaec~ in the staff report, but wete not in effect wheci he got nis building permits. Annika Santalahti stated Conditions 8 and 10 could be deletea since the building does e~cist and the fee collection is o~ily done at the time of issuance of building permits. 4/14/86 86-262 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 14, 1986 ACTION: Commissione~ McBUrney offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Hetbst ano MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Fty absent) that the Anaheim Cit~ Plannin9 Commission has ceviewea the proposal to pecmit an inaustrially-related office building in the ML(SC) (Industrial, Limitarkin Scenic Cortidor Uveclay) Zone with waivers of minimum dimensions of p 9 spaces and minimum numi~er of patking spaces on a rectangulacly-shaped paccel of lana consisting of apptoximately 2 acres located at the northwest side of the terminus of Bryson Street, having a f[onta9e of appcoximately 238 feet on the east side of Hancock Street, ana tuative Declarattlonsuponofindingi~thatcit gLreet; ana does heceby appcove the Neg has considecea the Negative Declaration togeth~c with any comments ceceived auring tne public revieH pcocess and further finding on *_he basis of the Initial Study ana any comments received that there is no subs*_antial evidence that the pro7ect will have a signiticant effect on the environment. Comr~~issioner ~1cBucney offerea a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Fry absebt)onhthe4basisathat theyparkin~nwaive[ Commission aoes hereby grant waivet () will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediarkinlcwaivernoc adveesely affect any adjoinino land uses and gcanting of the p 9 unaer the contlitions imNosed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and 9eneral ~elfa~e of the citi2ens of the City of Anaheim and denying waiver (a) on tne basis that the petitioner clarified at the public nearing tnat the parking spaces were designed to ovechang which would conform to Code. Commissionet McHutney offer~a Resolution No. PC86-87 and moved for its passage and adoption that tne Anaheim City Planning Com~ission does hereby g[ant Conditional Use Petmit No. 2779, in pact, in confvrmance with Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.U3.030.030roveduin connec0l.onOwithnothebject to the list of oftice uses as pteviously apP industrially-te.Latea offices in the ML Zone and subject to Interdepartmental Commi`.tee cecommendations, deleting Condi*_ion Nos. 8 and 9. On roll call, tne foceyoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY, MESSE NOE5: HERBST ABSENT: FRY pnnika Santalanti stated the list of uses previously apptoved will be inserted into the conditions as the permitted ~lses under this conditional use petmi*_. Malcolm Slaughtec, Deputy City Attorney, presented the wcitten right to appeal the Planning Commission's aecision within 2'L days to the City Council. IL'EM NO• 1~ EIR NEGATZVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OE CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT L~O. z780 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: FRANCHISE REALTY CORP., McDOtdALD'S PLAZA, OAKBROQK~ IL 6U521. AGENT: JAMES H. FRISBIE, 106U A Ortega Way, Placentia, CA 92670. appPoximately~Ub79 acre,r2411nWestrBallhRoad (MaceDOnaldasdRCStaurantg.of 4/14/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANN.T.NG CUMMISSION~ APRIL 14, 1966 86-263 To expand an existing drive-tnrough restaurant wi.tn waiver uf minimum number of parking spaces. There was no one indicating ~heir presence in opposition to subject request and althougn the staff report was not reaa, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Jim Fcis~ie, ayent, was present to answec any yuestions. THE YUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. pCTiUN: Cnaicwoman La Gtaice offec?d a motion, seconded by Commissionec Bouas ana MUTION CA4RIED (COmmissioner Fry absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Comir~ission has reviewea the proposal to expand an existirg drive-through cestaurant. with waivec of minimum number of parking spaces on a rectangu:latly-snapea parcel of land consis*_ing of approximately 0.74 acre naving a ttontage oi approximately 'L10 feet on the north side of Ball Roa~, ap•t.•ximately 175 feet west of tne centerline of Gilbert S*-reet and further ~~,~ea as 241.t West Ball Road (Mac Donald's Restaurantl, :..9 does hereby . the Negative Declaration ~pon finding *_hat it has ldered *_he t, ;.. .'e Dectac~.tion together with any commer.ts received n~_..:~q the puolic revie~ process ac:a fucther tiading on the basis of the initial S`_~hy and any comments receiveU tnat there is no su~stantial evidence that the pcoj2~:t will have a siynificant effect on the environmer.*_. Chair•doman La C.laire oYfered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARkIED (Con~issioner Fty absent) that the Anaheim City Planning does nereLy gcant waiver ot Code req~irement on thE basis that tne pack:;;g waiver will not cause an increase in `raffic ~ongestion in the immedia`e vicinity nor aavecsely affect any ad~oining .land uses aaa gcanting of the parking waiver under `_he conoit.ions imposed, if any, will nut be detrimental to the peace, heaLth, safe`y and yeneral welfare of the citizens of `_he City of Anaheim. Chairwoman La Claire oiferea Resolucion No. PC86-68 and moved foc its passage ana adoption that the A:~aheim City Planniny Commission does Y,ereby grant Conaitior..al Use Permit No. 2780, p~tsuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.U3.U30.U3U througn 1b.U3.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee cecommendations. Un Loll call, the foreyoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote: AYES: UOUAS, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICXI, MC BURNEY', MESSE NOES: NUNE A95:N1': FRY Malcolm Slauyhter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the wcitten righ*_ to appeal the Planniny Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NU. 1J. EIR NEGATIVE DECLt+RATIOU WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT N0. 276]• PUBLTC HEARING. OWNF.RS: EUCLID CRESCENT C.ENTER ASSOC., 3151 D-1 Aicway Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA °2ti"L6. AGENT: WILLIAM R. BOATMAN, 3?O1 W. Segerstrom 4/14/86 86-264 MINUTES, ANAHEI61 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 14, 1986 Avenue, Santa Ana, CA 927~4• Pcoperty desccibed as an irregulacly-shaped patcel os land consisting of app~oximately L1 acres located at the northwest corner of Crescent Avenue ana E'uclid Avenue, 677 Notth Crescent Avenue ~B-17. Tu permit an enclosed restaurant with on-sale Ueer and wine with waiver of minimum numbet of parkin9 ~paces. ACTION: Commiasioner Bouas otfered a motion, seconded by CommissioneC Lawicki anu MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continueo to the regularly-scneaulea meeting of April 28, 1986, at the petitioner's cequest in order to submit an updated parking study. ITEM NU. 12 EIR NEGA'PIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMI~ N0. 2783 PUBLIC H£ARLNG. UWNERS: JEFF FREIDEN, 619 N. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, CA y28U5. Property desccibea as an irregulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting ot appcoxin~ately 0.3y acre located at the nortneast corner of Lincoln Avenue ana Mancnester Avenue, lU0 North Manchestet (Big Joe Tires). To permit an auto sales agency and lot. There was no one indicatiny t!~eir presence in opposition to subject request anu altnouyn tne stair cepoct was not reaa, rt is =etecred to and made a pact ot tnP minutes. grea Erlandson, agent, u2UU E. Canyon Rim ~oa~, Ananeim, s*..a*.ed they are p[oposiny to convert the existing site to an automobile sates facility and u~yraae tne property by removing the existing ou`door au*_omotive repair. THE PUBLIC HEAkING WAS CLO5ED. Commissioner P1cBurney ~eterred to a condition requiring removal of the two criveMays. Mr. Erlandson stated ti~at was brought to their attention and their onl~ concern is that one of the conditions refecs to a 150-foot setback requirement and wanted to be sure the driveway is fac enough away from the property line to allow a row of parking across the north. Paul Singer, Tcaffic Engineer, stated the driveway closest to the inteesection is actually withi[i the intersection and that is why he cequested that only one ariveway be left; and that the applicant did not seem to have a problem with that ana tnere wuuld pcobably be display cars in that location anyway. Jay Titus statea Condition No. 10 requires vehicular access zights to be aedicatea to 15U feet r:_irtn ot tne centerline of Lincoln Avenue and *_hat does pe unit the one driveway to cemain. ACTIGN: Commissioiiet McBurney ofYered a motion, seconded by Commissi.~ ar Herbst ar~a MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Fry absent) that the Anahe'~ City Planniny Com^~ission has teviewed tne proposal to permit an automobilE sales facility ana lot on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of 4/14/86 86-265 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 14, 1986 appcoximately 0.39 acre located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Manchestec A~enue, having a frontage of approximately 53 feet on the north side ot Lincoln Avenue and a frontage of 188 feet on the northeast side of Manchester Avenue, and fu[ther oescribed as 200 Nocth Manchestec (Big Joe Tices); and does nereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consideeea the Negative Declaration together with any comments ceceived dutin9 the public ceview process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study ana any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the pcoject will have a significant effect on the environment. Conuniss:oner McBurney otfered Resolution No. PC86-89 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conaitianal Use Permit No. 2783 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 1tl.U3.030.030 through 18.U3.030.035 and subject to interdepartmental Committee [ecommendations. On roll call, trie fotegoiny resolution was passed by the foltowing vote: AYES: BOUAS, HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICRI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NUES: NUNE ABSENT: FRY Malcolm Slaugnter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Councii. ITEM NO. 13 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDI`PIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2784 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ALA I. HIGDON, WELLS FARGO BANK rA TRUSTEE~ 9600 Santa Monica Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 90210. AGENTS: ANGELO'S, DENNIS WILLIAMS, PR~SIUENT, 2'll N. Beach Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92801. Property aescribed as a rectangulacly-shapPd parcel of land consistin9 of• appcoximately U.S7 acres, 2"L1 North Beach Boulevard (Angelo's). To permit a drive-in and drive-through restautant with on-sale beer and wine and an outdoor eating area witn waiver of minimum distance of a drive-through lane. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas ofPered a motion, seconded by Commissionec Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the afocementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of April 23, 1986, at the petitioner's request. I'1'EM N0. 14 EIR NEGATIVE D~CLARATZON, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONllITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 27F36 PlT:1LIC HEARING. OWNERS: TFRRA FIRMA PRUPERTTES, INC.~ ATTN: JAMES E. MARTIN, 1240 S. State College Blvd., #196, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property aescribea as an irce9ulacly-shapea parcel of Land consisting of approximately p.y acre having a frontage of approximately 182 feet on the south side of ~Iilken Way, having a maximum deptn of apptoximately 207 feet and being located appcoximately 430 feet 2ast of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard. 4/14/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 14, 1986 86-266 To permit a 2-story self-storage facility in the CG Zone with waivecs of mi~iimum numtiez oi parking spaces and minimum required public parking area. Thece was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although tne staff report was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part ot the minutes. ~im Maetin, owner, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissionec Herbst asked about plans for signs. Mr. Martin cesponded they will be requesting pecmission for a sign on Harbor. AC'lIOtJ: Commissioner Herbst offerad a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney ana MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioner Fcy absent) that the Anaheim City planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a two-story, selt-storage facility in the CG (Commercial, General) Zone with waivers of minimum numbet oi parking spaces and minimum required public parking area on an ircegularly-shaped parcel of lanu consisting of approximately 182 feet on tlie suuth side of Wilken Way, approximately 430 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard; and does hereby appcove the Negative Declaration upon tinding that it has considered the Nega•`_ive Declaration together with any comments ceceivea during the public review process and fucther finding on the basis of the 3:~itial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Herbst. offerea a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MO'PIUN CARRIED (COmmissioner Fry absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waivecs of Code requitement on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any aojoining land uses and gran*_ing of tne parkin9 waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and 9eneral welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissionec Herbs*_ ofieted Resolution No. PC66-90 and moved for its passage and aaoption that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission does hereby grant Conditiona.L Use Permit No. 2786, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Secl-ions 18.U3.030.03U through 1Fi.03.030.035, and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommenda*_ions. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed ny the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LaF~':CKI, MC BURNEX, MESSE NOES: NUNE ABSENT: FRY hlalcolm Slaughtet, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written ri~h+ to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Councii. 4/14/86 MINUTF.S, ANAHEIM CITY PL4NNING COMMISuION, APRIL 14, 1q86 86-267 ITEM NO. 15 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3, WAIVE~ JF COAE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMI'P NO. 2778 PUBLZC HEARING. OWNERS: ?EDRO & ADELINA DRENO, 911 N. Dickel, Anaheim, CA 92805. Droperty desci~bed as a rectangula[ly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5,450 square feet, 911 North Dickel Street. To permit a gtanny unit with waivers of rtiaximum lot coverage and minimum structural setback and yard requirements. There were three persons indicating theit ptesence in oppositi~n to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part oE the minutes. Pedro Ureno, owner, was present to answer any questions. R~lssell Gardner, 915 N. Dickel, stated he lives next door and has lived there two years and is one of the youngest people living in that neighborhood; and that all the houses are about 30 or 40 years old and this is a~aery quiet neighboehood ano they feel if one granny unit is allowed, there wil: be teyuests for moce. He stated they already have a big ptoble.:~ with parking eecause of La Falma Park and with more density, there would be a bigger parkir.g problem. He stated on weekends he has counted ~0 or 50 vehicles turning around in nis ariveway and has also had pcoblems in the past with peopl? ariving across his property to go to subject property; and that he put in a chainlink fence to prevent that situation. He stated there were 12 ~eople living in the house on subject proF~erty at one time and thought it was oraginz.lly built as a gacage ana it has be,en a cental for the County. He staten. one per~on hao 11 children and he t:hought it would be too much to have tr:~t many people congregrated on this small lot. He stated they feel this wiZl be a rental unit and the owner will move away. Mr. Ureno statea there is a parking problem in that neighborhood and he has nad a problem findiny a parking space himself and once he parked his vehicle in his yard because he was out of town for two weeks and there is a ptoblem when the street sweeper comes by. He stated he ~ill live in the house himself. and not rent it to anyone else. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Chairwoman La Claire, Mr. Ureno sta*_ed his uncle and his wife will be living in ':he granny unit and his uncle is 62 yeats old. He explained tnere will be six parkiny spaces on the property. Annika Santalahti explained the sta~e law permits granny units in any zone, subject to the underlying standards and oniy two occupants are pecmitted and both have to be 60 ~s of aye and the unit cannot be any largec than 625 square feet. She = ~~d they will be adding one additional parkin9 space for the granny ur.i~.:; anu ~at they would have to recotd a covenant on tt~e property to restrict :~~~pancy of the unit to two people 60 years o1d or older. Commissionec Bouas clatified that actuaily the new residential unit is what is being addea ana the 9canny unit will be the existing str~ctute. 4/14/~6 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 14, 1986 86-268 Chaicwoman La Claire statea the City of Anaheim really does not have any control over gcanny units. ~nnika Santalahti stated the state has said if the City does not allow the gcanny unit, thete has to be unusual circumstances such as the infrastructure, whic}~ consists of sewers, water, etc. not being aaequate; however, the petitioner is requesting waivers wi,ich could be denied. Commissionet Bo~las stated the second waive: is necessary because `he structure is existir.g. Commissioner Messe clacified thete is a public alley to *.he rear of the propert,y. Commissioner Mceutney stated he did not think this would really impact the neighborhood with any severe traffic problems and that this is a self-contained unit and would accommodate moce cars to pack off the street. Commissioner Bouas stated if this ownec rents the front house, the reac house would still be cestricte~ to senior citizens and *_hat would be controlled by the covenant and if they rentea it anyone else, the neighbors could report it. It was noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative has detecmined tnat the proposed project falls within the definition of Categocical Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in the State Environmental Impac* Report GuideLines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the eequirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissoner McBurney offered a mo*_ion, seconded by Commissioner Hernst and MUTION CARRIED (Commissioner Fcy absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waivers of Code cequiremen` on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other iaentically zoned ptoperty in the same vicinity; ana thar strict application oE tne Zoning Code depcives the property of pcivileges enjoyed by o*_her properties in the iaentical zone and classification in the vicinity. Commissioner McBucney oifered Resolution No. PC86-91 and moved fo[ its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Flanning Commission does hereby grant Conditinnal Use Permit No. 2778 pucsuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.Os.U30.030 through 18.03.030.035, and subject to Intecdepartmental Committee fiecommendations. On toll call, the focegoing resolution was passer t~y the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FRY Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attotney, presented the written zight to appeal tne Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. I'1'EM N0. 16 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEhIPTION-CLASS 5 I::dD VARIANCE N0. 3550 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JAMES J. AND JANICE M. EVERETT, 605 S. Courson Dcive, Anaheim, CA 92804. Pcoaetty desecibed as an irtegularly-shaped parcel ot land consisting or approximately 7,695 squace f.eet, located a` the northwest side of the terminus of Courson Dcive, 805 South Courson Drive. S/la'q6 86-269 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 14, 1986 Waiver of minimum structural setback and permittea encroachments into requited yaras to retain a patio cover. Tnere was one person indicating her pre~ence in opposition to subject request and alth~ugh the staff rEport was not read, it is referted to a~id made a part of ~ne minutes. ~im Everett, owner, was present to answer any questions, Dorothy Geverink, 3238 w. Fairctest Dcive, Anaheim, stated she has lived in this house since 1957 and that the Everetts are good neighbors, but their new patio structure ovethangs to about the middle of her wall and the beam doesn't seem to be 3 feet away fcom the property line. She stated she wondered why they wantea to buila the structure so close when she first saw this construction going in and felt it is an e~.~roachement. She explained the structute comes to a point ovet hec fence antl the stcuctuce has been there since July. Mc. Everett statea theirs is the only pie-shaped lot in the area and that he aid not believe the structure is over the wall. TH~ PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner McBurney, Malcolm Slaughter stated one of the conditions proposed, if this is appcovec, is that the applicant file for an encroachment permit into the easement or request the City abandon *he easement. He stated there coula be underground utilities, from the telephone company, gas company. Mr. Everett stated wnen he put in a 4-foot deep lamp pos*_, t~e~C~heteowouldhbe utility lines to the west side of the propecty and infotmed no chacge tiecause it had been hooked up wrong for 14 years. Commissioner Souas asked if the patio stcuctuce could be moved so there would be no encroacnment. Mr. Evetett stated it is 3 feet fcom the property line wall and he dia not think there is an overhang antl the stcucture is about 4 ieet above the wall. He stated there is about a 6-inch wide beam supporting that cornec. Annika Santalahti stated this is an ircegularly-shaped lot and no[mally, with a cectangula[ly-snaped lot, the rEar yacd setback would be 25 feet, but it is calculatea aifferently on this ir~egularly-shaped lot, but is permitted as long as it aoesn't covec more than 378 of the lot. Commissioner He':-•~t stated if permits had been obtained originally, this would not have hap~~r,ed; and that ouc Cotles are to pcotect the neighbocs and he would not have ~o~:~ved ttiis vatiance, if it had been .~equestea in the beginning. Ms. Geverink stated it is not so much the obstruction she objects to, but felt if she wanted tu sell her pcoperty, the buyers might find this structure offensive and that would affect her property values. It was noted the Planning Director or his authorized representative k~as aetermined that the pcoposea p~uject falls within the definition of 4/14/86 86-270 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY FLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 14, 1986 Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as definea in the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requicement to pcepare an EIR. ACTZON: Con~issioner Herbst offered a Resolution No. PC86-92 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heceby aeny Variance No. 3550 on the basis there is no special circlocationsand applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, surroundings wtiich do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict apglication of the Zoning Code doe not deprives the propetty of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BUUAS, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FRY Malcolm Slauyhter, Deputy City Atto~ney, presented the written right to appeal tne Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 17 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AND VARIANCE NO. 3552 PUBLIC HEARING. O'ANERS: GARY MARTIN AND CAROLE S. YENCER, 1550 Flippen Circle, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: GOLKA CONSTRUCTION, 1436 Hundley, Anaheim, CA 928U6, ATTN: E. MURTON. Pcopetty described as an irregularly-shaped patcel of .land consisting of appcoximately 9,150 square feet located at the southerly tecminus of Flippen Drive, 1550 Flippen Circle. Waivet of minimum sideyara setback to ~onstcuct an enclosed patio cover. There was no one indicating theic pcesence in opposition to subject request and although the starf report was not read, it is teferred to and made a part of the minutes. Evonne Morton, agent, was present to answer any questions. Gaty YenceC, ownec, statea the next door nei9hbor has signed a letter indicating approval of this proposal. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. It was noted the Planning Directoc ot his authorized representative has neterminea that the proposed pcoject falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the State Environmental Impact. Repoct Guitlelines and is, thecef~re, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissionet Hetbst offered Resolution No. PC86-93 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gzant Vatiance No. 3552 on the basis that thete are special ~ircumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and 4/14/86 86-271 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COPIMISSION~ APP.IL 14~ 1986 surroundings which do not apply to othec identically zoned property in the same vicinity; ana that sttict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of ptivileges en7oyed by oY.her properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Intecdepartmental Committee recommendations, includiny an additional condition tequiring a letrer be submitted pcior to issuance of building permits from the adjacent property owner indicating suppoct of this reguest. It was clacified tt~at the lettee of support can be subnitted at the time the building permits ate requested. pn coll call, the foregoing eesolu*_ion was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICXI, NC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NUNE ABSENT: FRY Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented *..he written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. .;M N0. 18 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SPECIMEN TREE REMOVAL NO. 86-03 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: KEITH A. AND AF'DREA R. KOHLER, 241 Old Bridge Road, Anaheim, cA 92808. Property described as an ireegulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of apptoximately 22,000 square feet, 241 Old Bcidge Road. Request for the removal of six Eucalyp~.us tcees to facilitate construction of a swimming oool. Thece was no one inaicating their presence in opposition *..o subject request ano althougn the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Keith Kohler, owner, was present to answec any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Chaicwoman La Claire offetea a motion, seconded by Commissioner HeLbst and t90TI0N CARRIED (COmmissioner FcY absent) that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission has reviewed the ptoposal to pecmit the Cemoval of six Eucalyptus trees to facilitate the construction of a swimming pool on an irteguZarly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 22,000 square feet, having a frontage of appcoximately 107 feet on the west side of Old Bridge Road and furthec described as 241 Old Bcidge Road; and does heceby approve tne Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public [evisw p[ocess anG furthec finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received ti~at there is no substantial evidence ttiat the project will have a significant eff.ect on the envitonment. Chairwoman La Cl.aire offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioner Pcy absent) that the Anaheim City Planniny does hereby appcove tne removal of six Eucalyp*_us trees to facilitate construction 4/14/86 ~ 86-272 MSNUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COI9MISSION~ APRIL 14, 1986 pf a swimming pool on the basis that reasonable and pcactical development of the ptopecty on which t-e trees are located requices removal of the trees whose [emoval is soughaccel ofaanaequalenumberOOfattees1fcomctheaSPec fie,dthe planting on the same p list in the Scenic Corcidor Oveclay Zone. Conunissionec Het~st left the Council Chambec. ITEM NO. ly EIR NEGATIVE DECLARA'PION (PREV. APPROVED) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1618 (READV.) PUBLIC HEARING FOR AN EXTENSION OF 'PIME. OWNERS: MARY M. DOVE, 733 S. Sta e described as an irregularly-shaped parcel College Boulevard, 92805. Praperty of Land consisting of appcoximately 0.2 acce located at the no~thwES*_ corner of Soutn Street ana State College Boulevacd, 733 South State College Boulevard. Request for a 3-yeac extension of time careenucseryofoco241child[en inoan Resolution l~o. PC76-91 to permit a day existing tesidence. Thete was no one indicating theiL presence in opposition to subject request and altt,ough the staff ceport was not cead, it is referred to and made a pa[t of the minutes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Annika Santalahti explained stafE is cecommending deletion of Condition No. 7• ACTION: Commissionet MeBucney offeced Resolution No. PC66-94 and movEd for itleteSConaitionaNoPt7oofyResolutionaNO.mPC76Y911requicing~tlmelextensions~onY de ecmit teasonable operation opecation ~he nasis that deletion is necessaLY =anted because there have been no under the conditional use pe[mit as g detrimental effects on the surcounding neighborhood. On roll call, the foregoing cesolutiun was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEYr MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FRY~ HERBST Annika Santalahti exglained if this business is opecatedhe~Commissiontcan ls aetrimental to the public's health, safety or welfare, always considet cevocation at :~ public hearing. Malcolm Slaugnter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written cight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO. 20 EZR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIO~-CLASS 1 AND CONDI'tIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1b71,(READV•~ PUBLIC HEARING FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME. OWNERS: B•B•Q• SPICE & JUICY INC., SAKCHAI THANAWIWAT, 1527 E. La Palma A~e•~ Anaheim, CA 92805. Peope~ty 4/14/86 80-273 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 14, 1986 aes~cibea as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1 acce located at the northeast cornet ofice &aJuicy"ince,and Acacia Street, 1527 East La Yalma Avenue (Thai B.B.~~• ~P gequest Yor Deletion of Cunditien No. 2 pertaining to bi-annual revi=w or for an extension of ti~e. ~Phere was no one inaica*_ing their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is refecred to and made a part of tlie minutes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offeced Resolution No. PC86-95 and moved for its passage and aooption ~hat the Anaheim City Pianning Commission does hereby oeiete Conaition No. 2 of Resolution No. PC76-260 on the ~asis that the use has not haa a det[imental impact on the su~roundina neighbortiood and the~e have been no complaints o~ violations investigated; and further that the deletion of s~cn time Limi~ati~n is necessary to permit reasonable operation undec 'cne conaitional use ~,ermir as granted. On roll call, the fo[egoing tesclution was passed by the following vote: AYF.S: BOUAS~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNE~Yr 'MESSE ~UES: NUNE ABSENT: YRY~ HERBST ;9alcolm Slaughter, Deputy Cit:~ At.tocney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decisioi, within 22 days to the Ci`y Council. I'1'EM NO. 21 REPORTS AND RECOM!~ENL_ATIONS: A. RECLASSIFICATION NO. B1-82-16 CONDITIO!lAL USE ?F.RMT: N0. 2311 AND TE[JTATIVE TRACT b1AP N0. 11425 -'Reguest from Neal L. Si.nger to tecminate Reclassification No. 81-82-16, Conditionag Use ~ecmiP No•accel ofaland Tentative TLact Map No. 11425 on a cectan ularl sha ecl p consisting oP a~pcoximately 9.6 acres located on the east side of Citron Street between Bcoadway and Santa Ana Streat (the fotm_c Fremont Junior High School playfield). ACTION: Commissionec Hecbst offered Resolution Nos. PC86-96 and PC86-97 ano movea for their passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heteby terminate Reclassification No. 81-62-16 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2311 as conditions of approval for xeclassification No. 84-85-11. On roll call, both tesolutions passed by the fotlowing votes: AYES: BOUAS, LA CLAIREe LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE N0~5: NONE ABSENT: FRY~ HERB:"' Commissioner McB~cney offeted a motion, seconded by Commissionec Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionecs Fry and Herbst absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate Tentative Tract Map No. 11425 as a cond;.tion of approval of Reclassification No. 84-85-11. 86-273 ~ MINUT~ AHnjM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOh, AP!CIL 14, 19d6 aescribea as a re~*yegnortheastacornerLOf1La~Palma Aven~ue`and Hcacpargx~o~tely 1 acce located at p, ire ~ Jui.cy Inc.). 1527 East La Palma Avenue (Thai B.~.~_. SF Request tor Deletion oi Con~ition No. 2 pertaining to bi-ann•al [eview ~~r *_~: an extension ot time. There was no one inaicati.ng th~ir. preee;,ce int i~UC°fercedo':ouandcmade~a~i~a[t and althougn the staff ceport ~::os not r..ad,. of the minutes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSE~D. ACTj~assaCemandSacioption~thatfthe~AnaheRmSCity1Plan~~ingCComnission does hereby its p 9 aelete Conctition No. 2 of Resolution No. PC76-260 on tne uasis th.. Y. e use has not haa a detrimental im~act on the sucrounding neighborhood and thece have been no complaints o[ violations investigatedermit ceasorcablea~perat.ion deletion of sucn time Limitation is necessary to p under tne conaitional use permir. 3R granted. On ~oll call, the foreyoirg resolution was passed by the following vote: BOUAS, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY, t4ESSE AYES: NUES: NON~ ABSENT: FRY, HBRBS'P l4a'_colm Slauyh*_•;:~, lleputy City Attorney, presented che written right to appeal the Planning Commissinn's d=.:~•rinr: :rithin 22 da;s to the City Council. I'lEM N0. Z1 REPORTS ANI~ REC:OM[4ENDP._tIONS: p, RECLASSIFIC~CT1'~MAP.NO1 11425~ COeD3u~st ~L mSNealRMlTSingec3to t2~Cminate TENTATIVE T ____.__-- ReclassiEication No. 8i-82-16, Cor,'===ona1 Use Pe~mit No. 23L1 ard 'Penta*ive Tract M~P~ximately~5.bnacresclocatedron thePeastdside of Citron consisting uf apP Street between Broadway and Sant:a Ana Str.eet (the f.orme~ Fzemont Junior High School playfield). ACTION: CommissionerassabetandYad ption that tht~oAnaheSm CitYnPlannin~7 and movea for their p 9 Commission does hereby teeminate Reclassification Noroval6for6 and Conuitional Use Permit No. 2311 as conditions of app xeclassification No. 84-85-11. pn [oll call, both tesolutions passed by thE fol?.owing votF:s: BOUAS~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNI~Y~ M6SSE AYES: NOES: NONE ABSENT: FRY~ HERBST Commissionec McBurney offered a motionandeHerbst absent)1thetnthe~Anaheim and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionecs FrY ~i.ty Planning Co~ission does heceby terminate Tenta*ive Tract Plap f7o. 11425 as a condition of approval of Reclassification No. 84-85-11. _. ___.._.._ .. _. . _... . _ . i ~o-~i4 MINU.ES, h":;.aEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiiSION, APRIL 14, 1986 ., g, RECI.ASSIFICHTION NO. 79-8U-42, CONi7TIONAL USErrF.A~I_ ;~0. 133?~ VARIANCE j~n 3:56 AND TF;NTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 11079 -..~:yu~~~ F~~m Ba~~ =~v' r%o;~etty owner, to t2;.:..~: ate Rec~.assificaticr, iv:'. ~9-80-•4c, cnndi'~ion.l use. Pecmit No. 1337, ~'ariance No. 3156 a~3 Z'e~~`a*i:~ Tract Map No. iL0'i'.~ on ptooerty locatea aL• 3633 West Ba U Road. p~~TI~N; Commissiorsc McBurney effered Resolc~ton No. Pc.9b-98 and PC86-99 a,nd PC86-lUU ana movea foc thei[ passage and -r~~~>ption thaL the Anaheim City Planning Cortani:~s~.on ~aoes hereby termina*_e Reclassifica`.ion N 79-8U-4'l and Condit:l~naL Use Pec~ai.t tdo. 1337 and Vaziance No. 315:, as a conuition of approv<il for Reclas~.ificat »n No. 64-85-25 and Variance No. 3463. On roll call, the focegoing resoiutions passed by the following vote: Fyg:?. BUJAS, LA (.'LAIkE, LAWICKI, t7C BURNEY~ MESSE NOE.~,''• NUIdE ABST 'i: FRY~ HERd'u'1 Commissionet McBurn~~? o.°.fer.ed a motion, seco~ide~' o; GommissicnEr Bouas and MOTIUN CARRIBD (i:~~mmissionets Fry and Hecbs° ab::ent) that the Anaheim City Planning C^::~ission does her.eby `~:rmina`e '^en~a`ive Map of T=act No. 11U7y as a conditior. _~F ~rproval of. Reclassifice~~_:.on No. 84-85-25 and Vatiance No. ~463. C. ~ONDITIONAL USE PF'.RMIT NU. lh.~~ ~ l~~~IJPSt fiom Phi~ de Carion for t~acmination of conditi~;aL use pecmit on pro~e~ty located at 1079 P~ot*.h riistin Avenue. AC`PION: Commissioner M~Fiucney of.fered Resolution No. PC8o-101 and moved for its passage and aa.,ption thak `_he Anaheim City Planning Commission cioes heceby term~.nate CondiY.ionai Jse Permit No. 1484 as a condition of a condition ot aparoval of Co•:Uit~.ora? Use Permit No. 2685. pn roll ca11, the focegoing cesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ LA CLAIRF., LP.WICB:1~ MC 8U}.~N°Z~ M~S:;E NOES: NUIJE ABSE:~'C: FRY, HERBS'P D, VAF?n;7vE N0, 3257 - Reyuest ftom Dor~ovan J. Floriani fo[ t.ermination of ~,ariance No. 3257 on property located at 1239 Nocth Harbor B~~levard. AC":IUN: Comm:ss.ioner Mcsurney oEfere~: Resoluti.on No. FC:86-LU2 and moved Loc it~: passage ar.d adoption tha*_ the Anaheim City Planning Commission does nereby te'minate Variance No. 3257 as a cundition of apj::oval for Conditional Us: Permit No. 7.719• On roll call, the foregoing rasolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY, MESSE NUE~: NONF ABSEN'1': FRY ~ HERBST 4/14/86 RIL 14, 1926 86-275 MINUTES, ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONr ~ E• MichaelERNOG[eenwaldDfoONDe~mOnationEofERa[ianOe andlpermituon`pf'operty locatea at 31UU East Frontera Street. ACTION: Commissioner McBUrney offeLedandSadoptoonNthatCBhelAnaheim City PCSb-LU4 and moved fo[ their passag Planning Commission does he~ebl tecminate Vaciance covallof Conditional Conaitional Use Permit No. 2211 as condition of app pse Petmit N~. 2599. pn roll call, the foregoiny cesolution was passed by the following vote: BOUAS, LA CLAI~~~ LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY, MESSE AYES: NUES: NONE ABSENT: FRY~ HERBST C~~issioner He~bst tetuened to the Council ChambeL. F, VAkIANCE N0. 3479 - Request ftom Rogec L. Williamson fot extension of time fo~ Vaciance No. 3479 on pcoperty located u~ 3450 Eas*_ La Palma A~enue. A~TION: Commissioner McBucney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas ana MOTIO[~ "ARRIED (Commissionec Fry absent) that the Anaheim City planning Commission does t~ereby gcant a one-yeat extension o£ `ine to expire on April 27, 1987 for Vsriance No. 3479. ~, CUNDIZIONAL US~ ?ERt4Ii N0. 2b23 - Req~est fcom Jeffery C. Smith foc extersion of time foc Conditional Use Permit No. 2623 on pcoper'.:y located at 2'LU1 East O~angewood Avenue. ACTION' Comnussioner McBUrney offered a metion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas an. MOTZON CI~RkIE~ (Co~~iss~anerex`znsionnof time toeexpireloneity P1a.nning Cortunissior, does ~~arc'~Y 9 Oc*_abeL 1, 1987 foc Cond_'ional Use Permit 2623. ADJUURNMENt: Con~missioner McB~irnex offeced a motion, seconded by ~ommissionesc Lawicki and N~~TION :.ARRIED (Commissone[ Fty absent) that tne meeting ~e adjourned. ~,~a n.r;e~iny was r~7journad a; 5:35 p.n~• gespectfully submitted, L~~ ~° ~~~'~~~ ~ Editn L. Harcis, Seccetary pnaheim City Planning Commission EL'rl: lm U184m 4/14/86