Loading...
Minutes-PC 1986/04/28~ J REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAlt MEETING The regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to o~der by Chairwoman La Claire at 10:00 a.m., April 28, 1986, in the Council Chamber, a quorum being present, and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on today's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENED: 1:30 p.m. PRESENT: Chairwoman: La Claire Commissionecs: 9ouas, Fty, Herbst, Lawicki, Messe, McBUrney ABSENT: Commissioner: None ALSO PRESEN'P: Annika Santalahti Assistant Dicector for Zoning Malcolm Slaughter Deputy City Attorney II Jay Titus Office Engineer Paul Singer Traffic Engineec John Poole Code Enforcement Supervisor Leonard McGhee Associate Planner Edith L. Harris Planning Commission Secretary MINUTES FOR APPROVAL - Commissionec Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the minutes oE the meeting of March 31, 1986, as submitted. THE FOLLOWING I'PEM WAS HEARD AT 'CHE BEGINNING UF THE MEETING. ITEM NO. 1 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIOtd (READV.) AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT N0. 210 (READV.) PUBLIC HEARING. ZNITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TRAFFIC ENGINEER, 20~ S. Anaheim Boulevacd, Anaheim, CA 92805. REQUEST BY THE CITY TRAFFZC ENGINEER TO CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION F.LEMENT 7`EXT AND MAP FOR DESIGNATION OF ALL OR A PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING AS CRITICAL INTERSECTIONS WHICH MAY REQUIRE THE DEDICATION OF ACDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ARTERIAL HIGHWRY FOR A DISTANCE OF UP TO 600 FEET FP.OM THE ARTERIAL INTERSECiSON: Anaheim/Ball Ball/Beach Ball/Brookhurst Ball/Euclid Ball/Harbor Ball/State College Beach/Lincoln Brookhurst/Katella Brookhurst/La Palma Convention/Harbor Convention/HastQr Eur,lid/LaPalma Euclid/Lincoln Harbor/Katella Hacbor/La Palma Haster/Katella Katella/State College Kraemer/La Palma Kraemer/Orangethorpe La Palma/Imperial La Palma/Lakeview La Palma/Magnolia La Palma/State College La Palma/TUStin Lincoln/Magnolia Lincoln/State College Orangethorpe/imperial Orangewood/State College 86-276 4/28/86 MIDIUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 28, 1986 86-2~~ ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to a future date ~ahich will be zeadvertised. THE FOLLOWZNG ITEM WAS HEARG ~: T~E BEGINNING OF THE MEETING. ITEM NG. 2 EIR CATEGURICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 AND VARIAi3CE N0. 3~44 PUBLIC HPARING. OWNERS: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENi: J. R. H. INC., 5101 E. Independence Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28212. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app~oximately 9.3 acces located at the northeaeterly corne[ of La Palma Avenue and Weir Canycn Road, having approximate irontages of 910 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue and 758 feet on the east. side of Weir Canyon Rodd. Waivers of maximum nu~ber and type of signs, reaximum sign area and display surfaces and limitations on sign lighting to construct 3 freestanding signs and 3 wall signs. Continued from the meetings oE March 17, 31 and April 28, 1986. ACTION: ommissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of May 12, 1986, in order for the petitione~ to submit revised plans. :'fEM N0. 3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL ~~E PERMIT N0. 2781 PUBLIC HEAiZING. OWNERS: EUCLID CRESCENT CENTER ASSOC., 3151 D-1 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. AGENT: WILLIAM R. BOATMAN, 3°O1 W. Segerstrom Avenue, Santa Ana, CA ~2i04. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 11 acres located at the northwest cocnec of Crescent Avenue and Euclid Avenue, 677 North Ccescent Avenue tB-17. To pecmit an enclosed restaurant with on-sale beer and wine with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the meeting of April 14, 1966 Tnere was no ~ne indicating thei~ presence in oppositicn to subject request and although the staff ceport was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Jack Godard, 3151-D-1 Airway Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst explained the existing shopping center is being remodeled. 4/28/86 86-278 MINUTES~ ANA4EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 28, 1486 ~esponding to Chaicwoman La Claice, Mc. Godard explained there will be no live music or entertainment of that nature. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offeced a motion, seconded Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit an enclosed restaurant with on-sale beer and wine and waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on an irregulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 11 acres, located at the northwest cornec of Crescent Avenue and Euclid Avenu~_ and further described as G77 North Euclid Avenue #B-17; and does hereby a.~prove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaracien togethe~ with any comments received during the ~~ublic review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the enviror.ment. Commissioner Fry offeced a motion, secon%Jed Commissioner Herbst and MOTIOf7 CARRIED that ttie Ananeim City Planning ~:ommission does hereby gcant waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the Earking waiver will not cause an increase in tcaffic congestion in the imn~ediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land ~ses and granting oE t~.° parking ~aaiver under the conditions imposed, if any, wi'_1 not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissione~ Fry offeced Resol~!tion No. PC86-105 and moved fur its passage and adoption Lhat the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heceby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2781 pursuar.t to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foreyoing cesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOLAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NOIJE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughtec, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written cight to appeal the Planning Commi.ssion's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 4 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDI'PIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2784 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: ADA I. HIGDON, 4iS'LLS FARGO BANK NA TRUSTEE, 9600 Santa Monica Blvd., Beverly Hills, CA 50210. AGEN7'S: ANGELO'S, DENNIS WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT, 221 N. Beach Bl~accelnofelandecons8stingpofpapproximately descri.bed as a recta~,~ularly-shaped p 0.57 acres, 221 North Beach Boulevard (Angelo's). To permit a drive-in s.nd drive-through restaucant with on-sale beer and wine and a^ outdoor eating area with waiver of minimum distance of a drive-through lane. 4/28/86 86-279 MINUTES~ ANRI':'IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOV, APRZL 28. 1986 Continued fcom the meeting of April 14, 19a6 There wete ren persons indicating their presence in opposition and two persons indicating their p~esence in favor of subject cequest and although the staff report was not read, it is re£erred to and made a part of the m:.nutes. Michelle Reinglass, attorney, statec after receiving the staff report and reviewing the comments subnitted by the Traffic Engineer, which comments they feel were valid, the applicant has agreed to withdraw the request for the waiver; however, they are still requestiny the conditional use permit for the sale of beer and wine and the addition of the patio. She stated the applicant has been showing good faith in trying to meet the City requirements and trying to establish a wholesome restaurant where families can enjoy a good han~burger with a glass of beer or wine and also enjoy the California sunshine outside on the patio. Ms. Reinglass stated they are aala~e of a lot of questions and contro- versies which have taken place over the yeacs. She stated they purchased this existing dcive-thcough, drive-in restaurant in its exact configucation and it contained the same enclosures and ordering board, and has been in opecation in that same manner for the past ten years; and that it was dete~iorating and becoming an eyesore and also becoming a health hazard, and that the applicant is cleaning up the premises and has made several sutstantial imp~ovements to the restaurant in his effort to present this family atmosphece. Ms. Reinglass stated they have also employed the services of a security guard to monitor the traffic, noise and customers on Friday and Saturday and Sundays and they would be willing to employ security guards at othec tirnes, if needed. She stated allowing the oeer and wine in the patio would keep the customecs on the premises to consume the beer and wine and eliminate the problem ef customers drinking in their vehicles and the problem of littec with beer bottles and cans in the parking lot and added, howevet, her clients cannot conkrol the actions of outsiders. She stated the applicants agree with the recommended conditions. Art Garcia, Real Estate Departmen- oc Federated Stores, stated they have enteced into a leasP to operate a kalph's Market at the former Zody's location and expect to commence extensive cemodeling next week. He stated on three diffecent occasions, they have observed activities on weeke~ids at this location and have concluded they would oppose this request for a conditional use permit because Angelo's existing parking lok cannot accommodate the number of people who are frequenting this location; and that thece were 200 to 300 people in the area using the future Ralph's parking lot and thece was a considerable amount of debris, even with several Guards on duty, and he thought even with secucity guards, it would still be difficult to poli~e the situation and restrict their customers from parking on the Ralph's parking lot. Mr. Garcia stated this will be a g,iant supermarket operation and they will have limited patking when they open and that is the rea4~2g~86Y MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 28, 1986 86-280 object to this conditional use permit. He stated they also want to go on record supporting a letter dated April 9th to the Planning Commission from their landlozd objecting to this conditional use permit. Maria McShea, resident of the Anaheim Vacation Park, 311 N. Beach Boulevard, stated this pack is next to Angelo's and explained they have not seen anyone catering to that ~estaurant, except young teenage men and young men in their twenty's, who are enjoying the restaurant in a very loud obtrusiv? way. She Ntated the people in this pack do not disturb anyone, and they cannot get their cest at night and have no recourse; and when they t,ave told the police about their problems, the police have cesponded that they would try to quiet them down, but she has not heard any improvement. She stated as wonderful as California is, it cannot provide sunshine in an eating place at night when these acti.vities take place. She stated the patrons of this restaurant have no consideration for their neighbors. Ray t4eador, Sterik Company, sta*_ed they own the parking lot of subject property and have submitted a letter regarding the prope~ty. He asked if the existing conditional use permit pecmits a dtive-through resta~rant and asked if this permit is granted, whethee or not it will be permit:ting the drive-through restaurant as a permitted use. Malcolm Slaughter stated tt~e applicant, thcough their attorney, has indicated to staff that they are not presently applying for a permit for the restaurant itself since they feel they already possess the right to operate the business under a previously-approved conditional use permit, but that determination has not been made. He stated staff has reviewed the existing conditional use permit and apparently feels there is no authocity to conduct the restaurant under the pcesent permit. He stated he did not believe if tne Commission yrants the petition as pcesented for on-sale beer and wine, that they would be ratifyiny the existing use. He stated he understood the applicant has withdrawn the petition for the requested waiver and that is not before the Planning Commission at this time. Chairwoman La Claire stated the staff report indicates that the request is to permit a drive-in, drive-through restau~ant. Malcolm Slaughter stated that is staff's interpcetation of the request and that the application for the conditional use permit did not include that language. He read the request Erom the applicant's original submittal; "that under the authority of Code Section 18.44.050.010 to petmit the sale of b?er and wine within a restautant and patio." He explained they have not requested the restaucant itself and that the a~plicant does fcel ti~ey are entitled to continue undec their prior conditional use permit." Annika Santalahti clarified the existing Conditional Use Permit No. 828 established a walk-up restaurant and this staff repo[t should have read that the request is to permit on-sale beer and wine and an additional patio area in connection with an existing walk-up restaurant. 4/28/86 86-281 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 28, 1986 Mr. Meador asked if it is the consensus of the Commission that the drive-through portion of the restaurant is not a permitted use and should not be in operation. Annika Santalahti stated Conditional Use Permit No. g2g was app~oved in 1966 and the resolution permits the walk-up restaurant and that is all that is allowed legally. She explained that is the reason for the wording in the staff report and there are no peCmits foc the dcive-through lane, etc. and the Zoning Code does identify dciv~-up, walk-up, drive-through, ete. as diffecent kinds of restaurants and ones that would have to be advertised specifically because there might be different parking requirements, drive-through lane cequirements, etc. Chaicwoman La Claire stated the original permit granted a walk-up restaurant and that a waiver for a 6-foot high block wall was requested. Mr. Meador stated the Stecik Corgotation has definite plans to lease the property to the Fedetated Department Stores for their Ralprt's Market and t}~ey have developed site plans that will be filed with the City's staff this week showing that their center and their othet centec in the City of Anaheim will be upgraded. He stated they have a real urohlem in the eveninys with 200 cars parked on their parking lot when the stores are closed and that the people ace from the restaurant and they have had to pick up in excess of 1000 beer cans and bottles which have been left on the premises and they have had to increase theic maintenance activities in that a[ea. He stated they do not contest the right of Angelo's to exist in that location, but they should be requiced to do it within the existing CodFS. He stated he understands there were no permits for a drive-through facility or for the sale of beer and wine; and that they have not seen beez and wine being sold on the premises, but it is oeing consu~ed in large quantities and they can pcovide af£idavits fcom their staff to that effect indicating the number of beer botcles and cans whic~ have been left behind. He stated they would encoucage the Commission to deny this request and to ask staff to strictly enforce the o:iginal conditions of the conditional use permit for the walk-up restaurant and thought that would eliminate the existing bad situation. He stated everyone else is asked to conform to the requirements and they are asking that the same confo~mity be required of Angelo's. Mary Hamilton, Anaheim Vacation Pack, stated she is against the liquor license because they cannot control the crowd that is there now, even with the secutity guard, and she could not see how they could control it after the sale of beer and wine is allowed. She stated there have been a lot of cars and people in that area, and they do make a lot of noise and cause pcoblems. Anthony Strammiello, Chairman of the Board of Angelo's, stated a lot of things mentioned ace tcue. He stated that they purchased this facility becaus~ it was large enough with ample parking and it has been a drive-through restaurant for 12 to 15 years and they thought this would alleviate some of the congestion from their first cestaucant on State College. He stated they did not count on 2ody's closing and thought it would be helpful when Ralph's oQens, if they would eliminate4/26/86 to MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANt]ING COMMISSION, APRIL 28, 1986 $6-Z82 that packing area. He stated the cars parking there are not Angelo's customers, but are loitecers and they car.not control that end of the lot. He stated they propose thac those two driveways be chained when the bu~inesses are closed which would eliminate access to Ralph's narking lot. He stated they would like to build a wall on theic side to contain all the parking. He stated the people at the RV nack do have legitimate complaints and they plan to extend the height of that wall by at least 3 feet and by building a retaining wall, they could control their 50 parking spaces. He stated they do not want the people racing cheir cars in the parking lot, etc. because it does not help their business. He stated the patio is in the front of the restaurant which would prevent their custom?rs from going outside to eat and drink their beer and wine; and that the Alcoholic Severage Contrcl Board requires that all patios be railed in wnich wuuld prohibit customers from leaving that area without going back into the restaurant. Ae stated some of the people who sit in their cars to enjoy the ca~ hops, will congregate on the patio once it is constcucted instead of in their vehicles which would bring the noise level to the front. He stated they cannot control what is happening off their oroperty. He explained again they are willing to build a wall or extend ~he wa:l for the neighbors. He suggested it miaht be helpful to close tnose five driveways and put up "no trespassing" signs and it would also help with the problem of prostitutes working in the area bringing customers behind the vacant Zody's scoce. Ms. Reinglass stated their applicaticn is to permit on-sale beer and wine and the building of a patio to an existing d~ive-in, drive-through cestaurant because that is what has been thece, whether there is an actual permit or not. She stated, with respect to Zody's or Ralph'~, they knew that drive-through restaurant was there when they went in and to now contend that this approval would change things, is not applicable to this application. Commissioner Messe stated the drive-through restaurant was not selling beer and wine prior to its purchase by Angelo's. Responding to Malcolm Slaughter, Mr. Strammiello stated they purchased the property in February and were familiax with the operation and explained they did try to negotiate for this property for over three ~•ears. He stated he was at the p~operty on weekends, but did not observe the excessive parking problems on the adjacent parking lot because tne restaurant was basically closed before they purchased it and explained the Board of Health was in the pcocess of declaring it a health hazard. He agreed he did not see any parking problems occurring on the vacant parking lot before Angelo's went in. Responding to Commissioner Messe, Mr. Strammiello stated they are not selling beer and wine at this location at the present time. Commissioner Messe pointed out they have beer and wine advertisements displayed in their window, etc. with Mr. Strammiello responding that is part of their dec~r. 4/28/86 J 86-283 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANt7ING COMMISSION,- APRIL 28, 1986 Commissioner Herbst stated he offeced the tesoluti.n of approval for the conditional use pecmit twenty years ago andandescceenin L~nuthemsouthern a bond be posted foc the wall, landscaping 9 property line and asked what happened to that bond. He clarified that the City Council resolution required conformance within 180 days. Malcolm ~taughtec stated generally speaking, a bond is required to insure the pec£ormance of an obligation and if a peCSOn fails to Comply with the conditions, the City would have three o: four years to go against the bond, but £elt aftei 20 years, the City's ability to recover would be slight. Chairwoman La Claire stated there are several issues he~e and one is whether or not there was supposed to be a drive-through restaurant ~n this site, and the second issue is that currently there are some real problems and one is with packing, and the business is currently creating a lot of problems for the neighbors, includi=antin rasbeertandnainee felt until sarne of the pcoblems are alleviated, y 9 permit would just be adding to those problems and she could not vote in favor of this request until those problems ace resolved. She suggested the applicant request a continaance and work with the neighbors and business owners in the acea to try to come up with a solution. Mr. Stcammiello asked if the patio would present a ptoblem with the sale of beec and wine. Commissioner Hetbst stated unfoctunately, with the previous permits as gcanted, this petitioner bought an illegal opecation and asked if they plan to continue to operate t.he drive-through at this location. Mr. Strammiello asked why they would want to stop operating the drive-in which has been operating thece for 15 years. He stated there have been chree previous ownecs of this p[operty. Commissioner Herbst stated it is possible the applicant has some legal recourse against the seller, but he did not think the Commission could gcant permission to have a drive-through restaurant or allow the use to continue without proper permits. Chairwoman La Claire stated all that is befoce the Planning Commission is the cequest for beer and wine and the patio. She stated she would like for the applicant to solve the problems and then come back with his [equest. Commissioner Bouas stated she could not vote in favor of an EIR Negative Declar.ation, so tY,e conditional use pecmit could not be granted. Commissioner McBurney asked Mr. Meador if they could install barriers such as chains to p~ohibit access to their parking lot until the new supermarket is opened. Mr. Meador responded they have already talked with staff and ocdered signs indicating "unauthocized vehicles will be towed away" and those signs are just about finished and they probably could add some chains to pcohibit access. He st~ted they feel they can conttol the problem foc the next 3 to 4 months until Ralph's4/~S/gbned, ~ 86-284 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 28, 1986 but if these permits are granted, and the Ralph's Matk=t is open until midnight, thece will be a conflict with parking, etc. He responded to Chairwoman La Claire that they would be willing to work with applicant to werk out a solution. Co:nmissionec Messe stated he noticed on Sunday very early that there were 20 to 30 vehicles parked along the north wall o£ that parking lot and the restaucant was closed. Mr. t9eador tesponded he thought the owners of the RV park have an agreement fot parking there. John Pocle stated he thought all issues had been discussed and that he felt something could be wocked out and the Code Enforcement staff would be happy to work with both parties. Chairwoman La Claice suggested Ms. Strammiello meet with the people present today and get a list of their names and addcesses to contact them and wock out a solution. Malcolm Slaughtec suggested since the Planning Commission has closed the public hearing and they only have forty days after the hearing is closed to make a decision, the public hearing should be re-opened tc consider furthec evidence at a continued heacing. Chairwoman La Claice re-opened the public heating. ACTION: Commissioner McBUrney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that considetatio~~ of L-he aforementioned matter be continued to the cegulacly-scheduled meeting of May 28, 1986, at the cequest of the petitioner. ITEM N0. 5 EZR NEGATIVE DECLARATZON (PP.EV. APPROVED) AND RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-17 (READVERTISED) PUHLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SSP PROPERTIES~ JOHN SCHANT, ET AL, 20100 Brookhurst, Huntington Beach, CA 92646. AGENTS: MARK KNORRINGA, THE ROBERT P. WARMINGTON CO., 3090 Pullman Street, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 AND ,7, p. KAPP, 15892 Pasadena Avenue, Tustin, CA 9268fl. Property described as an irregulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.93 acres located southeast of the intecsectioioximately1593SfeetFOn the and Imperial Highway, ha.ving a frontage of apoximately 675 feet north os" the south side of the Rivecside Freeway, aPP centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road. Request for revision of Condition No. 4 pertaining to cecocdation of a final map. Thete was no one indicating their Fresence in opposition to subject request and although the staff ceport was not read, it is refetred to and made a part of the minutes. 4/28/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, A°RIL 28, 1986 86-285 Aileen Kapp, 15892 Pasadena Avenue, Tustin, agent, explained she has submitted a letter requesting three amendments to the previo~sly appcoved resolution granting this reclassification, one being the legal description which is Item No. 16 on today's agenda, and another that the project description be amended to reflect the revised plans approved for 171 units rather than 183 and also, the request today is for the wording for Condition No. 4 regarding recordation of the parcel map, posting of bonds and dedication for street improvements within 45 days before the zoning is final. She explained because of the 30-day appeal period, they would like that condition modified because if the rezoning never takes place, they would have improved the streets for a hotel development. Mark Knocringa, representing Robert Wacmington Company, stated they are in the process of purchasing this property and have begun construction drawings foc a hotel and have some reluctance to continue to commit resources without some indication on the part of this City to take final action on the zonin9 for the ceclassification. He stated he understands the reclassification is, more or less, in abeyance until Conditions 1 through h are accomplished and they would like to see something more conctete. TH° PUBLIC HEARING ti9AS CLOSED. Chairwoman La Claire stated the Commission has never granted a request such as this because if the propertx is rezozed without the requirements, then anything permitted in that zone could be built on the property and this is considered protection to guacantee those improvements or dedications. Annika Santalahti stated that is a vecy standard condition that is included to get the dedication oc improvements and in this instance, it is going to be a cul-de-sac at the end of a small street which will cacry a lot of tcaffic and the City is quite concerned witF this area and any additional rezonings to commercial will requite a cul-de-sac at the end of Via Coctez. She added she could undecstand the applicant's concern, but there is very little chance that anything would happen and in the sixteen years she has been with thp City, she has nevec seen anything happen to cause them to lose the zoning, 4ut if they had made the dedication and if anythiii9 happened, they certainly could request an abandonment of the street dedication. Commissionet Messe staced the reclassification was granted by the Planning Commission, but no action was taken by the City Council, so the reclassification is approved, subjecc to the conditions being complied with. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-106 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commi~sion does hereby deny the request foc modification to Condition No. 4 of Planning commission Resolution No. PC86-30. 4/28/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI~nION, APRIL 28, .1986 86-286 On roll call, the focegoing tesolution was passed by the following voEe: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST~ LA CLAIRE~ LAWZCKI, MC BORIVEX, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter stated the City will be wi2ling to accept an irtevocable offec of dedication, but did not think the condition should be modified in khis instance. Pertaining to the request for clacification of description in the ~revious resoluticn, Annika Santalahti explained all that would be handled through a nunc pro tunc resolution. Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented t.he written righE to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to tne City Council. ITEM N0. 6 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION RECLASSIFICATION NO. fi5-86-29 AND VARIANCE N0. 3554 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CLARA V. HAILE, c/o BEN F. HAILE, 3053 - B Via Serena South Laguna Hills, CA 92653 and ARCO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS CO., 515 S. Flower Street, P. 0. IIox 2679 TA, L.A. CA 90051, ATTN: CARL FREDERICK. AGENTS: MUNSON PROPERTIES-ROBERT R. CROWTHEk, 16480 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 102, Fountain Valley, CA 92708. Property described as irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.3 acres and composed of two lots generally located north and west of a rectangularly-shaped parcei of land approximately 110 feet by 135 feet at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street, and having approximate fcontages of 140 feet on the north side of T.incoln Avenue and 125 feet on the west side of Gilbert Street (Lot 1-vacant, Lot 2-115 N. Gilbert). RS-A-43,000 to CL or a less intense zone. Waivers of maximum structural height and minimum structural setback to con~truct a 16,368-square foot retail center in two phases. Thece was one interested pecson present and no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a past of the minutes. Robect Crowther, agent, explained the interested person present i~ the owner of the property where the second phase will t~ constructed and would like a stipulation made that the second phase, which involves the cemoval of an existing single-family cesidence where his elderly mother lives, would not commence until the property is made available and stated there are no immediate p'_ans foc development on that parce?.. TAE PUBLIC iiEARING [JAS CLOSED. 4/28/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 28, 1986 86-287 Paul Singer, Traffic Engineec, stated he understands that the vacant parcel will not be impcoved at this time and suggested that the street improvements be made at this time. Mr. Crowther stated they ~+ould continue to take access on Gilbert and he thought improvements had alr.eady been made on Gilbert in front of that single-family residence. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commission?r Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property fcom the RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricultucal) Zone to CL (.Commercial, Limited) Zone to construct a 16,368 square foot retail center in two phases with waivers of. maximum sttuctural height and minimum structural setback on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.3 acres and composed of two lots generally located north and west of a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land approximately 110 feet by 135 feet at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Gilbert Street and further describPd as Lot No. 1 vacant and Lot No. 2, 115 North Gilbect Stceet; and does hereoy approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received Li~at there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the e~vironment. Comnissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-107 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 8~-86-29 subject to Interdepactmental Com~nittee cecommendations. AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-108 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heteby grant Variance No. 3554 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, locaL-ion and sucroundings which do not apply to other ider.tically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Co~e deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental ~ommittee recommendations including modification to Condition No. 2 indicating that the northerly driveway on Gilbert Street shall be removed and replaced when the ?xisting residence is removed and the propertf ultimately developed. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was r~.ssed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BllRNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE AHSEN;: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. MZNUTESr ANAHEZM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRZL 28, 1`.~86 86-268 ITEM N0. 7 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 85-86-30 AND VARIANCE NO. 3555 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DWIGHT RICHARDSO~ - P7~TNER CPI DEVELOPt4ENT~ 23720 Arlington, #3, Torrance, CA 90501. Property desccibed as an icregularly-shaped patcel of land consisting of approximately 1.5 acres, located south of the Anaheim City limits and the Carbon Cceek Channel, and further described as 729, 731 and 733 Knott Stceet. RS-A-43,000 to the RM-1200 ~r a less intense zone. Waiver of ~aximum stcuctural height to construct a 54-unit apartment complex: There was one intecested person present a~d no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject cequest and althoug;: the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Rex Hoover, architect, B00 E. Woodlow, Long Beach, Califocnia, stated they ate requesting a height waivec because they are adjacent to single-family cesidence which is in the same General Plan designation as subject property and will also be developez as multiple-famil~ units. Preston Burroughs stated he owns subject property and that he signed papers when he sold the property indicating he was to receive ~300,000 last yeaz and ~300,000 this year and was to have sole possession of the property for the collection of rents until the full amount was paid. Ae stated he has sir.ce leacned that he also signed a"Quitclaim Deed" or "Deed of Trust", but his papers indicated he was to be paid in full on April lst and he has not been able to contact the agent about the collection ~f rent. Chaicwoman La Claire stated the Planning Commission has nothing to 90 with that problem and advised Mr. Bu~roughs to contact an attornei. THE PUBLIC h.EARING WAS CLOSED. Mz. Hoover responded to Chairwoman La Claire that they need the waivers in ocder to consttuct the 54 units and they feel it is appcopriate because the adjacent property to the southeast is designated on the Genecal Plan for RM-1200 and will pzobably be developed as multiple-famiJ.y units; and that pcoperties to the east and south are two stories. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst o~fered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the RS-A-43,000 (Residential, Agricultural) to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) 2one in order to construct a 54-unit apartment complex with waiver of maximum sttuctural height on an irregu'lacly-shaped parcel of land consis`ir.g of a+pp*oximakely 1.5 acres, located south of the Anaheim City ` 4/28/86 MZNUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 28, 1986 86-289 limits and the Carbon Creek Channel and further described a.s 729, 731 and 733 Knott Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consideced the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the publi~ review pcocess and furthec finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that thece is no substantial evider:^e that the prcject wi).1 have a significant effect on ttie environment. Jay Titus asked that Condition Nos. 4 and 5 be deleted from the variance and included in the ceclassificatio~. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-109 and moved for its passa9e and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 85-86-30 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendr:tions. On roll call, the foregoing resolut.ion was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE~ LAWICKI, MC 3URNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner Herbst offered F;esolution No. PC86-110 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gtant Variance No. 3555 on the basis that there are special ciccumstances applicab2e to the pcoperty such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that stcict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other oroperties in the identical zone and classificati~n in the vicinity and subject to Intecdepartmental Committee recommendations. On coll call, the foregoing resolution was passed hy the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST, LP. CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNE], MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Dep~;*_y City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Cc~ncil. ITEM N0. 6 c'IR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 85-86-31 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2789 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LUDWIG I. SMcETS, 2719 Coronado Drive, Fullerton, CA 92635. AGENTS: HADI M. TABATABAEE, 15935 Avenue San Miquel, La Mirada, CA 90638. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoximately 0.21 acces, having a frontage o~ approximately 73 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue, and further described as 727 West La Palma Avenue. 4/28/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO~MISSION, APRIL 28, 1986 86-290 RM-1200 to CL or a less intense zone. To permit a 14-unit motel with one manager's unit. Thece was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff cepott was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Hadi Tatatabaee, agent, and Ludwig Smeets, owner, were present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Jay Titus stated Condition i~o. 8 should be on the reclassification rather than the conditional use permit. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Cummissioner Fry and MOTION CARRZED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to permit a 14-unit motel with a manager's unit on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consistin9 of approximately 0.21 acre, having a frontage of approximately 73 feet on the nocth side of La Palma Avenue and further described as 727 West La Palma Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial Stuuy and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner He=bst offered Resolution No. PC86-111 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gtant Reclassification No. 85-86-31 subject to Interdepartmental recommendations including additional condition requiring a bond to yuarantee the removal of tne existing street improvements ~nd reconstruction. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by ttie following vote: ~YES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NOP7E Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-112 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anah^im City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2769 pursuant to Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Co~~ittee tecommendations with che deletion of Condition No. 8 which has been included in the conditions of the reclassification. 4/28/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION AYRIL 28, 1986 86-291 On roll call, the focegoing cesolution was passed 'uy the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to app?al the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Cuuncil. ITEN, N0. 9 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIOtd WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2773 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: B. R. PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNER5HIP~ 450 Newpoct Center Dr., ~304, Newport Beach, CA 92660. AGENTS: ROWARD F. THOMPSO[d & ASSOCIATES, 16520 Aston Street, Irvine, CA 92714. Prope[ty desccibed as an ircegularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.24 acres, located at the northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road, having approximate f~ont-ages of 393 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and 220 feet on the east side of Weir Canyon Road, and fucther desc~ibed as 175 Riverview Avenue. To permit a thirty-nine foot, six-inch high building with waivers of minimum structucal setback, type of sign and maximum sign area and display surfaces. There were two persons indicating their preaence in opposition to subject request and although the staff repoct was not read, it is refecred to and made a pact of the minutes. Leonard t4almquist, architect, explained the building is located on the southeast corner of the propecty primarily because of the 130-foot easement through the entire westecn portion oE the propecty. He stated a 59-foot high facility is being constcucted to the north and another 3-story building to the east and this will be a 2-story building with a penthouse to enclose the air conditioning equipment and explained there will be no roof-mounted equipment. Richard Genzel, 5720 Avenida Barcelona, Yotba Linda, was pcesent to answer any questions. Esthec De Simone, 8417 E. Ambecwood, stated she lives on the view side of the East 6ills Sellaire Tract, and that she paid a prereium for her lot and moved in about 9 months ago and was told thece would be a one-story commercial building built on subject property an~ that hec view would not be obstructed. She stated, however, three weeks ago a 3-story building was constructed which took up half of her view and then she received this notice for a hearing for a praject that would take up the other half of her view; and that she really resents that and did not feel this should be allowed to happen to Anaheim residents wno pay taxes and are lied to by the builders, and that she felt the .least they should do is to give their money back. 4/28/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 28, 1986 86-292 Ed Yarnovi~h, 24~9 E. Amberwood, stated he feels the same as Ms. De Simone; and ;:~at he has lived in Anaheim for about 12 years, but is concecned about commercial propecty being constructed adjacent to private residences; and that he was told it would be a single-stocy shopping center when he purchased his property and he also paid a premium for a view lot and with this approval, he felt there would be some devaluatior of his ptoperty values. He pcesented photographs of the 3-story building being built to the east of subject pr.operty at the presenc time a,~d stated he is concerned about that building being built and this one because of air-conditioning equipment, noise, sun ref.lecting from the windows and that he felt the amount that would be reflected back into the houses could be a problem. Mr. Yarnovich stated the staff report refPCS to waivers previously granted, and it appeacs the approval of variances is an accepted thing. He stated the staff report talks about the housing adjacent to the ptoposed project and he felt there could be a problem with reflection from this building stiining into people's houses and thought there could be a concentcation of solac energy. He stated the staff report indicates there are no significant environmental impacts and he would question that coinment and that waivers requested means making changes to something that was established for the good of all. Mr. Yarnovich stated Code does not permit air-conditioning on the roofs, but they ar.e praposing air-conditionin9 on the roofs here and he felt noise wilJ be a big pcoblem. He stated this is suppose to be a Scenic Corridor, but it will not be scenic after these buildings are in; and that the Code requires a 100-foot setback on Santa Ana Canyon Road and they ace proposing 20 feet, and a di£fetence of 80 feet is quite large and this will result in a tunnel effect with a large hill on the other side. He st-ated he would ask that the residen~s of Anaheim be treated a, well as the developer who does not live in the area. lie stated an individual homeowner who wants to build anithing on his property has to comply with the Codes and the same rules should apply to the dev~loper. Mr. Idalmquist stated the building to the east is under construction right now and agreed it is not a very good building; howeve~, this building will be prima~ily brick with blue high-pecformance glass on the south property line and it will have extensive landscaping and when finished will have an almost park-like effect. Mr. Malmquist stated they are not wo~ried about the reflective glass causing a heat build-up foc a property that is 30Q to 400 feet away. He stated the highest point of the bui.lding is 39 feet and it is set back about 40 feet from the south end of the building and will have a br?ck exterior and the neighbors will see a beautiful building. Mr. Genzel stated the 130-foot easement granted by the previous property owner severely impacts the location of the building un the property and that is the reason for the requested waivers. He stated they do not 4/28/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSION, APRIL 28, 1986 86-293 believe it will create a tunnel effect and they would like to have it as far away from Santa Ana Canyon Road as possible and pointed out this building will be their corporate headquarters and they want it as nice as possible. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Malmquist responded to Chairwoman La Claire that they are not familiar with any problems with reflectiv~ glass and explained this wil: be high-performance, low-reflective blus glass and it is not like the mirror panels seen on other buildings. Chairwoman La Claire stated that area is zoned £or this kind of development and that the Commission has tried everything possible to protect the property owners in the area. She stated the petitioners are requesting two waivers for signs and one for the setback and that she is worcied about the requested waivers, but that that area has been planned for a long time and actually, this use as an office build:ng would have a lower impact on the neighborhood than a commercial development because of the traffic and because they are closed in the evenings. Chairwoman La Claire referred to the development to the east with a 20-foot setback and asked if that was supposed to be tiered building along Santa Ana Canyon Road to prevent a tunnel-like effect along Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mr. Malmquist stated this building is tiered also and this building will have the same relationship to the street as that building and stated this property is much lower than the property to the east. Chairwoman La Claire stated she thought that building was to be 1-sto=y adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road, with Mr. Malmquist stating that buildina to the east is compietely 3 stocies. The Commission reviewed the plans for the properY.y to the east and Chairwoman La Claire stated that property is lower than the street. Mr. Yarnov~.~h stated driving on Sar.ta Ana Canyon Road, the entire bui'lding is visible with Chairwoman La Claire stating again she thought that building was co be stepped Lack in order to alleviate the impact on Santa Ana Canyon Road. t9r. Malmquist clarified that building is angled towards Santa M a Canyon Road, but is actually a 3-story building adjacent to Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mr. Yarnovich stated there is a problem with 3ranting these variances because the Commission cannot envision the development from sketches and suggested scale models should be submitted so it can be clearly seer, what effect they ate goin9 to have whea the building is actually constructed before approving the variances, especially in the hills. It was clarified that submitted photographs were taken from the neighbor's oatio and that a 3-story building is what is seen. Chairwoman La Claire stated she feels a mistake was made when approval foc the adjacent property was granted and added, she feels these building 4/28/86 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 28~ 1986 86-294 are going to have an overpowecing impact going down Sants Ana Canyon Road. She stated she really thought xhen she voted in favor of the adjacent building, it would be stepped back from Santa Ana Caryon Road. She stated she is not saying she felt the setback should be 100 feet for this building, but it certainly should be mare than 20 feet, as proposed. Mr. Malmquist responded ~o Commissioner Messe that tne building could not be moved to the northwest and turned because of access and circulation problems. Concerning noise from air-conditioning, Mr. htalmquist stated that would not be a problem and pointed out the towec element in the front was designed as pact of the arc}iitectural design to house that equipment. Commissioner Herbst stated this is a Planned Community and this pr.operty was planned for commercial uses with homes across the street and unfortunately, teal estate developers sell view lots and charge h.igher premiums for a view that is there at the time and do not mention future developments. He stated that has occucred in the hills and canyon ail along and that the City has no control over the fact the person paid for a view lot and a property owner does have the right to build on their own propecty. He stated this developer has given a lot of pr.operty to the City for street widening foc the benefit of the people who live the:e and thece was a setback appcoved on the adjacent property. Jay Titus stated he thought befote development occ~rred in that area there was an open channel for drainage and it was very wide and the storm ~rain has been put underground in an enclosed facility which is existing; however, he was not suce of the size of that faciliiy, but that it was probably considerably less than the 130-foot easement requiced. Cortimissionec Herbst stated if the easement could be reduced, the configuration of the building could be changed. Commissioner McBucney stated he would offer a motion for a two-week continuance in ocder for the developer to check with the City staff and als~ redesign the plans to move the building away from Santa Ana Canyon Road if the easement for 130 feet is not necessary. Commissioner Messe seconded the motion foc a two-~eek continuance. Malcolm Slau9hter stated if there is a request for the abandonment of a City easement, there i.s a formal abandonment process which could take longer than the two weeks and further explained it would orobably take up to two months to process that type of abandonment. Chairwoman La Claire stated if it is determined that the easement could be reduced by abandonment, then there is a possibility that the building could be mcved slightly which would benefit both the community and the developec and it would be a much better project. 4/28/86 MINUTES ANAHEIFI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRZL 28 1986 86-295 Commissioner Hecbst suggested a two-week continuance in order for the applicant to review the situation with the City and then if additional continuances is needed, it could be cequested at that time. Chairwoman La Claire stated she thought the building should be moved as far away as possible from Santa Ana Canyon Road. ACTION: The vote was taken on the previously offered motion for a two-week continuance offered by Commissionet Messe and seconded by Commissioner McBUrney and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regulatly-scheduled meeting of May 12, 1986, at the reouest of the petitionec in order for the developer to meet with the City Engineering staff in ocder to determine the width oE the storm drain easement reyuired and possibly consider revision of the plans. Chaicwoman La Claire explained to the opposition that they would not receive any new notices of the continued matter. Commissioner Fry left the meeting at 3:15 p.m. ITEN N0. 10 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT A?7D CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2782 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: EUCLID CRESCENT CENTER ASSOC., 3151 Airway Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626. AGENT: SCOTT McKERNAtd, 202 Camino Arroyo, Anaheim, CA 92807. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10.55 acres located at the northwest corner of Crescent Avenue and Euclid Stceet, having approximate frontages of 740 feet on the north side of C[escent Avenue and 620 feet on the west side of Euclid Street, and further described as 613 Necth ~uclid Street. To pecmit on-sale beec and wine in a proposed restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff reporc was not read, it is ceferced to and made a part of the minutes. Scott McRernan, agent, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Fry absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the pcoposal to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on a cectan9ularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 10.55 acres located at the northwest corner of Crescent Avenue and Euclid Street and further described as 613 North Euclid "reet; and does hereby approve the Negative Declatation ~pon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received duting the oublic review 4/26/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COM,MISSI~N, APRIL 28, 1986 86-236 process and further finding on the basis of the Initial St~dy and any comments ceceived that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner McB4rney offered a motion, secanded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTIUN CARRIED (Commissioner Fry absent) that the Anaheim City Planning does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the packing waive* will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissiener McBUrney offered Resolution t7o. PC86-113 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2782 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On rol'1 call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, fiERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NOtdE ABSENT: FRY Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 11 EIR NEGATZVE DECLARATION, WAZVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDI'PIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2787 PUSLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOHN HOWARD mUTTLE AND W. RONALD DYE, 3185-D Avenue, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. AGENT: CHERYL DEE AND HARR'i DONALD t4USSCHE, 366 Olinda Drive, Brea, CA 92621. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.65 acres located at the northeast corner of Blue Gum Way and White Star Avenue, having approximate frontages of 157 feet on the north side of White Star Avenue, 300 feet on the east side of elue Gum 47ay, and 257 feet on the west side of Blue Gum Street and being located approximately 280 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue and further described as 1135 North Blue Gum Street. To retain an automobile repair facility with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. There was no one indicating their pcesence in opposition to subject request and altbough the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Don Mussche, a9ent, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBIIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 4/28/86 86-297 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 28, 1986 Mr. Mussche explained this is the same location he has been operating at since he ociginally started his business and the original permit was acquired at 1131 and 1135 N. Blue Gum and that the othec operator has since left and his operation is still tne same. It was noteu an EIR Negative Declaration was previously approved in cnnnection with this use, Conditional Use Permit No. 2617, and there have been no changes in the operation. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by C~?mmissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner F[y absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code requirement on the basis that the parking waiver wi11 not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining la~d uses and granting of the parking waivet undec the conditions imposed, if any, will nat be detri.mental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Herbst offeced Resolution No. PC86-114 and mov^d for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit flo. 2787 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 1&.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendatior.s. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the tollowing vote: AYES: BOUAS, HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKZ, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: I~ONE ABSENT: FRY Maleolm Slaughtec, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written cight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEF1 N0. 12 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2791 PUBLIC HEA.RING. OWNERS: DEVTECH INC., 1612 Fairford Dr., Fullerton, CA 92633. AGENT: ANTONINO F. TRIOLO, 508 Beach Blvd., Anaheim, CA 92804. Property described as a tectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.91 acres located at the northeast corner of Orange Avenue and Beach Boulevard, having apF~roximate frontages of 238 feet on the north side of Orange Street and 351 feet on the east side of Beach Eoulevard, and further described as 508 South Beach Boulevard. To permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant with waivec of minimum number of parking spaces. There was no one indicating their prese~ce in opFosition to subject request and although the staff repozt was not read, it is ceferred to and made a part of the minutes. Tony Triolo, agent was pcese~~t to answec any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 4/28/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION, APRIL 28, 1986 86-298 ACTTON: Chairwoman La Claire offered a motior., seconded by Commissioner McBUrney and MOTION CAItRIEO (Commissioner Fry absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has ceviewed the p:oposal to permit on-sale beer and wine in a proposed restaurant with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on a rectangulacly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approximately 1.19 acres, located at the northeast corn2c of Orange Avenue and Beach Boulevard and Fucther desccibed as 508 South Beach Boulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consider.ed the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any commertts received that there is no substantial evidence that the pcoject will have a significant effect on the environment. Chairwoman La Claire offered a~ot.ion, seconded by Commissioner McBucney and MOTIOh CARRIED (Commissioner Fr; 4bsent) tt;at the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waivec of Code ~equirement on the basis that the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adveraely affect any adjoining land uses and granting uf the parking waiver undec the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of th? citizens of the City of Anaheim. Chairwoman La Claire offered Resolution No. PC86-115 and moved foc its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commissiun does hereby gzant Conditiona.l Use Permit No. 2791 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Zntecdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, HERBST, LA CLAiRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: FRY Malcolm Slaughtec, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 13 EIR tdEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDZTIOtiAL USE PERMIT NO. 2792 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SAMUEL A. HARDAGE, 110 S. Main, $1000, Wichita, KS 67202. AGENTS: WILLIAh'i VICRREY, PETE KRUSE AND HAL TOLAR, 110 S. Main, ~1000, Wichita, KS 67202. Property is described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximatel.y 6.3 acres, having a frontage of approximately 402 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, further described as 5100 East La Palma Avenue (undeveloped). To construct a 3-stocy, 200-unit hotel complex with on-sale of alcoholic beverages. Theze wece three persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject ~equest and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a pact of the minutes. Hal Tolar, 1681 W. Broadway, Anaheim, and Bill Vickrey, agents, were present to answer any questions. MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON, APRIL 28, 1966 86-299 Glenn Wise, Project Director, Pacific Agri~or Corpocation, 1090 Talbert Avenue, Fountain Valley, stated they have parchased pcoperty formerly owned by Warner Lambert at 5115 E. La Palma and plan to move their headquartecs and composite material manufacturing operation to that facility and just found ovt about these plans for a hotel which would be across the street from their industrial facilities and that concerns ~hem vecy much. He stated they had planned foc quite an expansion of their operation with 400 to 500 employees working there and this would be their United States headquartprs. He stated they want to stay in an industrial a~ea. Mt. Wise stated this is a nice neighborhood; however, there is a difference between a hotel environment and an industrial environment and they will be operating 24 haurs a day, seven days a week and there will be trucks and people in and out of the area at all hours of the day and night and he did not think this would be a good location for a mixture of residential type uses and industrial uses. He stated they are in the stage of engineecing right now and plan to move their operation by March of next year and asked the Commission to reconsider allowing this type of use in the indusr.rial area. Ward Goodrum, Quintec Manufacturing, 4950 E. La Palma, stated they have been in this location for S years and have been operating 24 hours a day on three shifts and are also concerned about combining residential type uses with indnstrial uses and they have traffic problems in the area now. He stated they have noise fcom L-he heavy equipment and thought that would be disruptive to the hotel and their equipment includes heavy pcesses, treater towers, steam generators, etc. an~ the equipment is installed in hea~~y ^oncrete facilities dug into the ground which would make it very difficult for them to relocate and they can see problems with people trying to sleep at night. He stated the noise they make is acceptable in an industrial area, but felt they would be forced to relocate if this hotel is allowed because it is a residential use. Ed Kinney, Thorobred Racing Plate Co. Inc., 502~, 5014 and 5010 East La Palma, stated their propecty is immediately adjacent to subject property. He explained he received a notice of this hearing on the 21st and has not had time to really prepare his presentation and would requESt a continuance, but would agree with what the othec opposition has said regarding the impact on their operation because tney also have a manufactuting business which operates 23 hours a day with 50 employees and they have been there since 1969 and moved thece in order to be in a manufacturing area and hoped the area will continue ~o be industrial. Mr. Tolar stated this is not a typical hotel and is designed specifically for industrial areas; and that hotels do not have a zone and must have a conditional use permit; and that this is a 3-story, 200-unit building designed foc people who must 9o into high tech aceas and are not just visiting Anaheim as tourists and they stay for three or four days or even a week or longer and some work in the area. He stated this hotel would enhance the businesses of all those people who spoke in opposition and pointed out they are not asking for any signing from the freeway and are not looking for drop-in traffic. He stated breakfast will 4~26/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 28, 1986 86-300 be secved as part of the package and there will be on-sale alcoholic beverages for the people who stay in the hotel. He stated they feel this would be an asset to those companies in the area; and that the Hardage Corporation has 12 facilities thtoughout the country and have three more under construction and they want to locate in high-tech industrial areas. He stated instead of creating additional traffic problems along La Palma, this hotel would reduce traffic because people who come to the hotel to do business with the firms in the area need to have a place to stay, and would not have to commute back and focth to where the hotels are located. Concerning nuise, Mr. Tolac stated these hotels were designed specifically to be in these high-tech industrial areas where facilities are operating 24 hours a day and they want to be a good neighboc in the industrial area and this suite-type concept is not new to the industrial sites. He stated he undecstands the opposition's cor.cerns and that he personally would not be representing this company if he thought it would be a detriment to the City of Anaheim. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Chairwoman La Claire, Mc. Tolar stated he has not had a chance to talk with the neighbors and he was not awace of any opposition until right now. Responding to Commissionec Bouas regarding kitchens, Mr. Tolar explained there will be 92 kitchen units. He stated a major corporation genecally will lease this type building and only 15 to 208 of the kitchens will be used. He stated they will be willing to stipulate that no one will be in any one of these units for over 30 days and that the kitchen only makes it convenient for the people who stay there, rather than having to go out to eat all thei~ meals, especially in an ind~stcial area. Commissioner Fry returned to the meeting at 4:10 p.m. Bill Vickrey, Executive Vice President Hardage, explained the kitchen has a 4-burner stove and the units are designed foc the customer who would stay a few days and would probably stay not more than a week. He stated it has been their experience that the kitchens ace rarely used. Commissioner Bouas stated probably the next request for the industrial area will be fot a foo~ macket because it is quite a distance to any market where food can be pur<:hased to be cooked in the kitchens. She stated it looks like they are plann~ng a facility where if it does not wotk out as proposed, xt can be used for a different purpose. Mr. Tolar stated the applicant is willing to stipulate that no one •.aill be in the units for moce than 30 days. Chairwoman La Claite stated the petitionec did not know that there was any opposition and she would sug9est a continuance in ordet for the developer to meet with the neighbors. EIr. Tolac asked if it would be possible to hear from the opposition now since they have heacd the concept of this Q~oQosal. 4/28/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 28, 1986 86-301 Ch:irwoman La Claire ce-openPd the public hearing. Malcolm Slaughter pointed out the City has a transient occupancy tax which would apply to the occupar.cy of this facility. Mr. Tolar stated they are awate of all conditions oz fees. Annira Santalahti stated there is no Code cequirement pertaining to the ratio of kitchen units, but that is a Planning Commission policy. Mt. Goodrum stated he has not heard anything that would change his mind ana felt they would have restrictions put on their manufacturing operation later, especially if this doesn't work out as proposed for the hotel. He stated he would be happy to discuss this with the petitioner and if they can assure him that they are protected to run their business in the manner they planned when they purchased the property five years ago, he would not have any objections. Chairwoman La Claire stated that is exactly what she would want to see because there ace problems now with encroachments i~to the industrial area. tdr. Goodrum stated the customers from the high-t~,.~ fields they seem to want to attract are not the same type of customers they have in their operztion. He stated they are there as manufacturing comp nies and not high-tech companies and the people who work there ace no~t the type of patrons this hotel would want to attract and there are other motels in the area for the occasional visitors. Mr. Wise stated he did learn about this operation, but still has the same concerns and if they had seen this establishment in the area when they were looking for tr.is property, they probably would not have looked as closely because they would have been concerned about restrictions in the future and if they had a choice, they would not have considered this area with this tyge of establishment. He stated they ate a large company, and while this hotel may start out with 9ood intentions and the whole concept does sound good, things do change and there are places where hotels could be built, not that far away from this atea. He stated L•hey are concerned, but he has not heard anything which would significantly change his mind. He stated manufacturing operations have a lot of heavy trucks going in and out and they do make noise and there could be dust problems, etc. from the operation which people relaxing by the pool would not like. Mr. Kinney stated he would still request a continuance on this. He stated once this is approved, he is concerned there will be more requests in ~he future for similar uses in the industrial area and that area is unique and he felt it would be difficult to police their own operation if this is approved. Mr. Tolar explained the pool is in a center court to eliminate air pollution and noise. He stated he is concerned, being a resident of Anaheim himself, about the break-down of the industrial area, but did not think this would break it down and did not think there will be requests for food markets in the industrial area and thought this would be a compatible use. 4/28/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 28, 1986 86-302 Chairwoman La Claire stated the petitioner needs to talk to the people in the area and she would also want more information about this concept, how it is used in other cities, where it is located in other cities and what k'~ds of clients are attracted to those hotels in other citier. She stat?d sh•~ knows most pharmaceutical companies need places for people to stay. Commissioner Herbst stated he is an industrialist and has been i~ this area for about 40 years and that certain commercial uses have been allowed in the industtial area, such as banks, which are intended to service the industrial area and that possibly a properly designed hotel could service tlte industrialists and would be acceptable. He stated if some inYOrmation could be presented such as where the other hotels ace located, with possibly let~ers from the industrial establishments around the hotel as to how they use the facilities, would be helpful to the Commission and to the opposition. He stated there ate cerEain areas on I.a Palma whece some quasi-commercial uses have been allowed and there are some uses which the Council has granted which he did ~ot approve of, but if they service the industrial area, they would be acceptable. Chairwoman La Claite stated l•he petitioner needs to make sure the neighbors understand fully the concept and how this will benefit their businesses and how it will affect their operations. Mr. Tolar stated he did not think they could satisfy everyone's concerns, but that he would furnish additional information. Commissioner Herbst stated he has been forced to move previously because of encroachments into the industrial area and he does use big presses which make a lot of noise and knows that it is what the neighbors are concerned about. He stated there are large corpotations which rent large blor_ks of cooms and this may be an acceptable plan. Commissioner Messe stated he is a business owner on La Palma and is concerned about enctoachments on the manufacturing and industrial users, but could live with a use wl~ich services the industrial community. He stated the petitioner should work with the neighbocs because they have not had an opportunity to ceview the plans and should be given that opportunity. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBUrney and MOTION CARRIED that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of May 12, 1966, at the cequest of the petitioner. Mr. Goodrum asked for information about the other hotels so he could verify the information as submitted by the petitionec. He stated he was not sure two weeks would be adequate time for the petitioner to get the information to them and give them time to verify it. Chairwoman La Claire stated a two-week continuance would be sufficient and then if additional time is needed, they can request it. Commissioner Herbst left the Council Chambe~. 4/28/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 28~ 1986 86-303 ITEM N0. 14 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WAZVER OF CODE REQUIREMEI4T AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2793 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: PATRICK J. AND SUSAN E. SHELTON, 212 N. State College Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92806. Property is described as a tectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5,965 square feet, havin9 a f[ontage of approximately 61 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard, and further described as 212 North State College Boulevard (Patcick J. Shelton, D.P.M., Inc.). To expand an existing doctor's office in a converted residential structure with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. There was no one indicating their presence in oppositi~n to subject request and although the staff: report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Patrick Shelton, owner, stated he has been pcacticing in Anaheim for twelve years and purchased this property about five years ago and explained he has a limited number of hours in his office and generates a lot of records and need additional space foc storage. He explained he has no intention of increasing the number of doctors or staff or number of patients and the cucrent parking is adequate. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissionec Messe asked about the parking study explaining the study was conducted over an 8-hour period, 4 hours on two different days and the office was actually open for only 2 of those 4 hours. Dr. Shelton stated he has patients coming to the office for physical therapy when he is not thece. Commissioner Herbst returned to the Council Chamber. Commissioner t4cBurney stated the addition is just Eor storage and he did not think it will impact the area. ACTION: Commissionec McBUrney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki (Commissioner Hecbst abstaining) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the pcoposal to expand an existing doctor's office in a converted residential stcucture with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5,965 square feet, having a frontage of approximately 61 feet on the east side of State College Boulevard and futther descriyed as 212 North State College Soulevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the ~egative Declacation together with any comments received during the public review pcocess and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environmer.t. 4/28/66 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APR:L 28, 1986 86-304 Commissioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioner Herbst abstaining) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code cequirement on the basis that the parkinc waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the packina waiver under the conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and genecal welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner McBurney offered Resolution No. PC8G-116 snd moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2793 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 thtough 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Commi.ttee secommendations. On roll r.all, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: HERBST Malcolm Slaughter, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 15 EIR NEGATZVB DECLARATION AND VARIANCE N0. 355i PUSLIC HEARING. OWNERS: JOHN KOCYLA, 120 S. Lakeview Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807. Property described as rectangularly-shaped parcr=l of land consisting of approximat_ly 0.26 acres located at the southwest corner of Vermont Avenue and Harbor Boulevard, having a frontage of approximately 95 feet on the south side of Vermont Avenue and a frontage of 120 feet on the west side of Harbor eoulevard, and further described as 901 South Harbor Boulevard. Waivers of minimum structural setback and minimum dimensions of vehicle accessways to construct a commercial/retail complex. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not cead, it is ceferred to and made a part of the minutes. John Kocyla, owner, was present to answer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst asked about the 30-foot easement. It was clarified that is on the south side of the property and is shared with the motsl and this petitioner will be const~ucting the driveway. Jay Titu~ stated that easement is subject to the conditions of the reclassification and the dedication and impravements are included as part of the reclassification. 4/28/86 86-305 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNZNG COMMISSION, APRIL 28r 1986 ACTION: Commissionet Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBUrney and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a commeccial/retail complex with waiver of minimum structusal setback and minimum dimensions of vehicle accessways on a tectangularly-shaped paccel of land consisting of approximately 0.26 acre located at the southwest cornet of Vermont Avenue and Harbor Eoul?vard and fucther described as 901 South Harbor Boulevatd; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public revicomments process and furthet finding on the basi.s of the Initial Study and any received that thece is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner He[bst offeced Resolution No. PC86-117 and moved for its passage and adootion that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gtant Variance No. 3551 on the basis that t~oro CaehsPelocationcandtsucroundingsable to the property such as size, shape, P 9 P Y~ which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that stcict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other pzoFerties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On toll call, the fotegoing resolution was passed by the following vote: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ P1C BURNEY~ MESSE AYES: NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE MalcoJ.m Slaughtet, Deputy City Atto[ney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO. 15 REPORTS ANU RECOMMENDATIONS: p, RECLASSIFICATZON N0. 85-86-17 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2750 - Request from Planning staff for a Nunc Pro Tunc resolution amending legal description for Reclassification No. 85-86-17 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2750, property located at the southeast intecsection of the Riverside Fceeway and Imperial Highway, appcoximately 675 feet north of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road. ACTION: Commissioner Bouas offered Resolution No. PC86-118 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heceby grant nune pco tunc resolution amending the legal desctiption and project description of Resolution No. PC86-30 and PC86-31 gcanted in connection with Reclassification 85-86-17 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2750. 4/26/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 28 1986 86-306 On roll call, the foregoing cesolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST, LA CLAIRE, LAWICKI~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Hecbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m. to the meeting of April 29, 1986, at 4:00 p.m. at the Anaheim City Center Council Chamber. Respectfully submitted, ,~~.~ ,~ /~~~.~~ Edith L. Harris, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ELH:lm 0189m 4/28/86