Loading...
Minutes-PC 1986/09/29. ,~, ,~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CIT{ PLANNING COMMISSION RE~ULAR t4EETING The regular. meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman McBurney at 10:00 a.m., September 29, 1986, in the Council Chamber, a quocum being present, and the Commission reviewed plans of the items on tuday's agenda. RECESS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENEDC 1.32 P•m• PRESENT: Chairman: McBurney Commissioners: Bouas, Fry, Hecbst, Lawicki, Messe ABSENT- Commissioner: La Claire ALSO PRESENT: Joel Fick Assistant Director for Planning Joseph Fletcher Deputy City Attorney II Jay Titus City Office Engineer Paul Singer Traf.fic Engineer Leonard t9cGhee Associate Planner Edith Harcis Planning Commission Secretary APPROVAL OF MTd~UTES: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner La,aricki and MOTION CARRZED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the minutes of the meeting of September 15, 1986, be approved as submitl-ed. ITEM NO_1 EIR [iEUAiIVE DECLARATION (READV.), WAIVER OF CODE REQUIRF.MENT (READV.? AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT [JO. 2797 (READV.) PUBLIC HEARING. OWtde:RS: LUCO D. AND MADELINE D. CALIANO, 16055 Gallatin, Fountain Valley, CA 92708. AGENTS: ELIZABETH HALAHAN OR MARK CALIANO, 1379 N. Jasmine, Anaheim, CA 928C1. Property described as an icregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5515 square feet located at the southwest corner of Coronet Avenue and Jasmine Place, 1329 Jasmine Place. To expand a b~3id and care facility for a maximum of 10 developmentally disabled persons with waiver of mar.imum fence height. Continued from the meetings of May 12 and August 4, 1986. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a mction, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and t~OTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of October 27, 1986, at the request of the petitioner. 86-644 9/29/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 29, 1986 86-646 ZTEM NO. 2 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READV.)r RECLASSIFICATION NO. 86-87-6 (READV.). WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2839 (READV.) PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CARL N. AND MARGARET M. KARCHER TRUST~ 1200 N. Harbor Boulevacd, Anaheim, CA 92805, ATTN: HORST SCHOR. Propecty described as an irregularly-shaped oarcel of land consisting of appr.oximately 1.2 acres located at the northeast corner of Romneya Dr.ive and Harbor Boulevard, having approximate frontages of 230 feet on the north side of Romneya Drive and 210 feet an the east side of Harbor Boulevard, and further described as 1200 North Harbor Aoulevard (Carl's ~Jt.). CG 6 ML to CL or a less intense zone ~:o construct a restaurant with drive-through lane and waivers oE maximum height of freestanding si9ns and minimum length of drive-thro~gh lane. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject cequest and althuugh the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Chairman McBUrney declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Cude for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., i~ that he is an employee of the owner and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with subject petition, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Chairman t4cBUrney left the Council Chamber. Commissioner Bouas declared a conflict of interes~ as defined by Anaheim City Planning Commission Resolution No. PC76-157 ad~pting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that she owns stock in this company and pursuant to the provisions of the above Codes, declared to the Chairman that she was withdrawing from the heacing in connection with subject request, and would not take part in either the discussion or the voting thereon and had not discussed this matter with any memb?r of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner Bouas le£t the Council Chamber. Chairman Pro Tempore l9esse assumed the Chair. Horst Schor, representing Carl Karcher, presented an exhibit showing the proposed new restaurant and explained the existing Sunshine Sroiler Restauranc and Carl's Jr. will be removed. He explained this new facility will reflect the latest trends in restaurant design and will be a 'flagship" foc their future r.estaurants. He stated there will be excensive landscaping and this restaurant should be an improvement to the area. 9/29/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 29, 1986 86-647 Mr. Schor. explained they plan :c open the new facility in April 1987, and that in order. to serve their. well-established customers in the interim, they will be pr.oviding a mobile-kitchen with drive-throu9h window. Mr. Schor stated they agr.ee with all the conditions, except Nos. 1 and 2 pertaining to the :aidening of Hacbor Boulevard and tY,ey would hope the intent of that condition was that they w~uld ha~~e plans prepared Eor the improvements and post bonds for the constructicr, at this time and not make the physical improvements, but that would be c',oae when Harbor. Boulevard is ultimately widened in that area. He stated wider~ing Harbor in certain locations and narrowing it back down could cause traffic congestion. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Jay Titus, Office Engineer, explained Condition No. 2 of the reclassification should really be broken into two separate conditions, one requiring the ultimate dedicnl-ion and the other requiring the relocation of the existing improvements on Harbor Boulevard from Romneyz northerly 207 feet. He stated Condition No. 4 would apply to the Harbor z~rontage adjacent to the freeway and would delay relocation of those improvements, with the developer payirig the costs of relocating, and the City assuming the responsibility for relocating when that portion of Harbor is widened. Kr. Schor clarified the City is requesting they make the physical inipr.uvements on Harbor at this time. Mr. Titus stated that is cor:ect for the area Whsce the new .restaurant will be located adjacent to Romneja. Mr. Schor stated the problem is not tne financing, and they are willing to post the bonds tc pay for the improvements when Harbor is ultima~ely improved; and that t~e major entrance of the hotel will be to the north of the restaurant, just north of where the transition would be frem three lanes to two lanes and they helieve that would create mor.e congestion for the restaurant and the entrance to the motel. Paul. Singer stated actually there are cwo north bound lanes on Har.bor Boulevard and if this portion is widened, :hat lane would be used primarily as an access to their restaurant an~ the motel, much like a deceleration lane, and he thought that widening would enhance theirto the accecs. Mr. Schor explained the driveway to the moc=1 is actually north of the tran~ition from three lanes and their entrance would be in the two-lane area. Mr. Titus stated the City has seen a proposal for development of khe property just south of Romneya and if that development occurs and harbor is widened in thac location, this would provide quite a lengthy secticn of Harbor that would be widened to its ultimate and he thought that would be an advantage. Mr. Schor stated traffic would be forced back into the two lanes again just befor.e the freeway and in his view, thac would cause congestion and conEusion in front of the molel entrance. Mr. Singer responded that the Gity does not cucrently have the widening of Harbor scheduled. 9/29/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 29, 1986 86-648 Mr. Schor stated they still would like for the Commission to consider allowing them not to widen Harbor at this time; and that they would post the bond and would like to see the widening accomplished at the same t?.me. Mr. Titus explained the condition w.r,ul-3 be that the developer pay for the cost of r.elocation at this time and noc to post a bond. t4r. Schor responded to Chairman Pro Tempore Messe that he understands that condition. ACTION: Commissioner. Fry offer.ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bouas, La Claire and t4cBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to recl.assify subject property from the CG (Commercial, General) and ML (Industrial, Limite8) Zone to the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to permit the construction of a testaurant with drive-through lane with aaive:s of maxi.mum height of freescanding sign and minimum length of drive-thcough lane on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of ap~roximately 7 acces located at the northeast corner of Romneya Drive and Harbor Soulevard and further described as 1200 North Harbor; and does hereby approve l:he idegative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the NegaLive Declaration together with any comments received dur.ing the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initi~l Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence thac the project will have a significant effect on the envi:onment. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-244 and mov~d for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gcant Eeclassification No. 86-87-6 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations as modified, with Condition No. 3 requiring a cash payment to the City rather than providing actual installation of rhe improvements on Harbor Boulevard. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: FRY, HERBST, LAWICKI, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BOUAS~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY Commissioner r:y offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (Cor.unissioners Bouas, La Claire and McBUrney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commi~sion does hereby deny waiver. (a) on the basis that it was deleted and granting walver (b) on the basis that there ace special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape, topography, location and sarroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the prope~ty of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC66-245 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gcant Conditional Use Permit No. 2039, in part, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code ~ection 18.03.030.03fl thr.ough 18,03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. 9/29/86 MIt7UTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMAER 29, 1986 86-649 On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: FRY, HERBST~ LAWICKI~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BOUAS, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEX Co:nmissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioetitioners~noafoodlshalldbecpassed through thet as stipulated to by the p fir.st of the two service windows. Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the wri:.ten right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. I~g=Np_3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUZREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2041 PUBLIC HEARZNG. Qt'7NERS: A S P..."~GEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CO.~ ET AL~ 6920 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite i:0, Los Angelesl CA 90'128• AGENTS: FARANO AND RIEVIET, 100 S. Anaheim, Suite 340, Anaheim, CA 9as~e1 ofrland ~'RANK LOWRY. Property descrioed as a rectangularly-shaped p cons~sting of approximately 0.85 acres located at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevacd, having a frontage of approximately 257 feet on t.he south side of Katella Avenue and a f.rontage descrOb2deaso1810eSouth StateoCollege and12020BEastVRatelladAvenueer To permit a drive-through fast-food restaurant with waivers of minimum dimensions of vehicle accessways (deleted), maximum number of small car spaces, minimum number of parking spaces and minimum structural setback and yard requirements (deleted). Continued from the meeting of September 15, 1986. There was no one indicating their presence in oppesition to subject request and although the staff report was not r.ead, it is r.eferred to and made a part of the minutes. Frank Lowry, attorney, 100 S. Anaheim Bculevard, Suite 340, explained the Traffic Engineer has agreed that aar.king will be ample Eor this facility. He stated they do have problems Wlicant~hasi22 feet ofalandscapgngaong the landscaping and explained the app State College and 17 feet on Katella; howconsideredhbyCthe1City is inter.section designation presently being adopted, the City will require dedication cf 12 feet on ioth streeks, and then they would only have 10 feet on State College and 5 ieet on Katella. He stated the applicant has no desire to have an outdoor playground at this locatior. because there is net enough room. TEIE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 9/29/86 ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS~ION SEPTEI9BER 29, 1986 86-650 Commissionec Fry stated even if the critical intersection is implemented, there wuuld still be 10 feet and 5 feet of landscaping in the front of the par.'•:ing and indicated he would not have a problem with this ocoject. Commissioner Messe asked if there would be a parking problem on days when there ace games at the Stadium. Mr. Lo~rry stated the pcoperty coula be posted and if a person left their car there during a aame, the owne.~ could have it towed away; and that thzy would not allow parking on the premises during the games, because their parking is needed for their paying custo:ners. Leonard t4cGhee, Associate Planner, stated the requested 15-foot landscaped setback is the st.andard being considered by the City for the Stadium area because of the commercial, office nature of the developmeni:s that are occurring in that area; and if the 15-foot landscaped sethack is waived for ttiis project, it would not be consistent aith other projects zn the area and could set an undesirable pr.ecedent; and other developers would want the same waivers; and tt:at there are also other projects in the area which have established that 15-foot setback with or without the critical intersection dedication. Commissioner Herbst asked abour the critical intersection designation. Paul Singer. stated ther.e is no schedule and the intecsections will be developed on an •as needed" basis and the improvements in today's dollars would cost between ~750r00q and $850,000 per intersectian. He stated he envisions the west-leg of this intersection being widened by the Hanouver Development, and Stadium Plaza development will most likely be developing another leg of that intersection, and Koll will also be responsible for improvements at that intetsection. He stated there are 26 intersections involved and khis will be a long process. Commissionec Herbst stated tha owner.s are dedicating 12 fe~t on each street for this project, but they will still landscape the area until it is d?dicated. Paul Singer stated many property owners will probably lose parking due to the critical intersection widening. Commissioner Fry statea the building is set way back on the pr.oper.ty and he did not see a problem. Paul Singer agreed there is no problem on this particular property. Commissioner Messe stated there is a har.d median on State ~ollege, but not Katella, and asked if cars turning right would cause a problem. Paul Singec stated he expects there will be a hard median on Katella in this location. He stated he did not think this particular dci.veway being located this far from the cor.ner would cause a problem at this time. ACTION• Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (Comniissioner. La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commissiort has reviewed the proposal to permit a dr.ive-through, fast-food restaurant (McDOnald's) in the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone with waivers of m~nimum dimensions of vehicular accessways, maximum numbet of small car. spar.es, minimum number of small cac spaces, minimum number of parking space!> and minimum structural setback and yard requirements on a sectangula~ly-shaped parcel of land consis9~29~86 ,. '1 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 29, 1586 86-651 approximately 0.85 acces located at the sou::heast corner. of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevard and further described as 1810 South State College Boulevacd and 2020 East Katella Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upoa finding thac it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments r.eceived during the public review proaass and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments r.eceived that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant e£fect on the environment. Commissionec Herbst offer.ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gr.ant waiver.s (b and c) on the basis that t;he parking waiver 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 co^ditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim; and denying waivers (a and d) on the basis that they were deleted by revised p].ans. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC86-246 e~nd moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning ~~ommission does hereby grant Conditional Ose Permit No. 2841, in part, purs.uant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 16.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: T,YES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Plannir.g Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 4 EIR NEGATZVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-87-9 AND VARIANCE N0. 3600 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: MICHAEL F. VALENTI, 751 N. Zeyn Street, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENTS: HADI TABATABAEE c/o TASB INC., 15935 Sare Miguel, La Mirada, CA 90638. Property described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appr.oximately 7415 square £eet located at the southeast cor~er of Adele Street and Claudina Street, haviny a frontage of appr.oximately 68.5 feet on the south side of Adele Str.eet and a ftontage of 108.3 feet on the east side of Claudina Street and further described a: 2Q2 East Adele Street. CG and PD-C to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. Waivers of (a) maximum number of small car spaces, (b) maximum building height, (c) minimum structural setback an.~3 yard requirements to construct a 6-unit, 3-story ar~arr.ment building. 9/29/86 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 29, 1986 86-652 There were two pecsons indicating their pr.esence in opposition to subject r.equest and although the staff report was not read, it is refer;ed to and made a part of the minutes. Michael Valenti, awner, stated he has owned this property since 1973, and it has been a rental pr.oper.ty since 1979, and the neiyhborhood has generally been declining seriousl~ an9 they feel this project will be an enhancement to the neighborhood. He stated he has concerns with Conditions 1 and 2 regarding the ded!cation on Claudina and ~dele and would r.equest those conditions not be imposed at this time. Thomas ldacintosh staced he is currently renting the property at 318 N. Claudina whi~h is adjacent to the south and he has discussed this with the owner and w?th several. neighbors and they all oppo5e the project primarily because of the parking waiver. He stated he has been in the neighborhood for 7 years and there have been a lot of changes and some of them have been detrimental to the neighborhood, including ~he Set Free Church and the Kocean Church, and every Sunday and sometimes on mtiursday nights, chere ace par.king problems on Claudina and Adele. Gary Pike, 201 E. Adele, stated he has lived in this neighborhood for 8 year.s and it is a r.easonably stable neighborhood; and that there is an apartment complex next door to his property, nut ectawould cause a decline decline in the neighborhood, but thinks this proj because of Lhe parking and with the number of people coming and going, it would te difficult fot tY,e neighbors who have been living there for quite awhile. Hadi Tabatabaee, agent, stated they are providing the number of parking spaces eequired by Code, except for 1 compact space, and he did not think there would be a problem. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman McBUrney referred to the 3-1/2 foot dedication required on Claudina and Adele. Jay Titus stated the plans do provide for those dedications. Commiasioner Herbst stated he thinks this is just another small lot being overbuilt; and that he thought the r.ecreational ar.ea shown should be ceviewed because they should be areas which can be used by the tenant; and that this could never be proposed without the compact car spaces and tandem parking; and that this is a 3-story building and there is nothing else like it in the area and it will impact the area. Mc. Tabatabaee stated they are providing Code required open space and there is a 30-foot ar.ea on Adele which they cannot count because it is in the setback, but it could be used by the tenants. He stated even though the project is 3-stories high, it is 6 inches below the allowable 2-story height limit_. Commissioner Herbst stated it would be hard for people to maneuver their car.s out of the compact cat spaces. Mr. Tabatabaee stated t9~29/865 are MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLA:~NING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 29, 1986 86-653 open so there are no walls next to the spaces. Mr. Singer indicated that is correct and the 10-foot wide parking spaces are required next to a wall. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and t90TI0N CARRIED (COmmissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the CG (Commercial, General) Zone and the PD-C (Par.king District, Commercial) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Family) Zone to construct a 6-unit, 3-story apartment building with waivers of ma::imum number of small car spaces, maxi~u~~ building height, minimum structural setback and yard requirements on a ~415 rectangular.ly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoximately square feet located at the southeas: corner of Adele Street aad Claudina Str.eet and further described as 202 East Adele Stceet; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon ~inding that it has consid~hea ublic Ne9ative Declar.zition together. with any comments received ducing P review process arid further finding on ~he 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 environment. Comr~issioner Fry offered Resolutaon Nc. PC86-247 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim C;ty Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 86-87-9 subject. to Interdepartmental Committee r.ecommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: HERBST~ LAWICKI ABSENT: LA CLAIRE Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-248 and moved for its passage and adoption that the AnaheiWaiver (a)nonngheobasislthatothe parkirnqrant Var~iance No. 3600, granting waiver will not cause an inacease in traffic congestion in trie 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 ~f the City of Anaheim; and granting waiver.s (b and c) 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 identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the pr~perty of pcivile9es enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in khe vicinity and subject to Inter.departmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, F~Y. MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: HER~ST~ LAWICKI ABSENT: LA CLAIRE 9/29/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLAWNING COMMISSZON, SEPTEMBER 29, 1486 86-654 Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Flanning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NO. 5£IR NEGATIVE DECLARATION GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 221, RECLASSIFICATIOf7 N0. 86-87-10 AND REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 5c PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER3: FAIRMONT LIMITED, 13532 Hazel Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92G44 and ELBERT F. & MARZE CHRISTENSEN, 200 S. Fairmont, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: DEFT DESIGN, INC., 1650 E. 17th, #113, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Pr.operty described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 6.2 acres on the east side of Fairmont Boulevard, approximately 1080 feet south of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road. GPA - To consider an amendment to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, cedesignating from hillside estate residential designation to either a hillside medium density residential, hillside low-medium density residential or hillside low-density residential designation. RS-HS-22,000(SC) to RM-3000(SC) or a less intense zone There were twenty two persons indicating their presence in opposition to subject request with six people indicating their desire to speak and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Iraj Eftekhari, 1098 S. Rainbow, nnaheim, stated two parcels have been combined foc this development and they feel this would be an appropriate project fur this area because there is a demand £or this type of condominium and they feel it would be compatible in the area because the propecty is isolated from the rest of the neighborhood. Lorren Bell, 2520 S. Fair.view, Santa Ana, stated he represents one of the sellers of the southerly portion af this propecty (2.99 acres); and that he has built over 3,000 residential units in Southern California, 225 of them in Anaheim Hills, including Window Hills, Feather fiill and Haven Hill, He stated he feels this is a good project for this site and even though the propetty is currently zonad for hillside, estate density, it doesn't fit that description because it is isolated from the r~he junioc area and has a substation on the east corner of the property, high school is very close, and at the corner of Old Santa Ana Canyo:i Road and Fairmont, there are two shoppin9 centers. He stated since the property is lower, it will not be restricting anyone's view. He stated they aill be planting more trees and landscaping and the project will hsve a nice par.k-like atmospher.e and the ar.ea will be maintained by a homeowner's association. He stated the project will be a benefit to the existing community because it will buffer the sound to the east from traffic on Fairmont, even though they will be adding some additional traftic. Rick Marsicola, 235b Blackfoot Street, Placentia, stated he is a real estate broker r.epresenting one of the sellecs and the buyer 9/29/86is his MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CO~MIuSION, SEPTEMBER 29~ 1.986 86-655 opinion that this is probably one of thP besi. us?s for this property sincP a hillsid? rPsidential. devel.opment would be very costly and the ].and was very expPnsive and there would be too much noise to bcing the value up to where it should be and added, with the l.andscaping, this would probably be more aesthetically pleasing than anything P~SP that would be devel.opPd there and also it would buff?r the noise. Dr. Sharon Mass-Achs, prPsidPnt of the Old Del. GPorgio Homeowners Association, representing 46 homeowners in thP ar?a, stated thPy think this project is inappropriatP for the area. She stated recently they were in frot of thP Commission obj?cting to a projpct to be developed s?veral hundred EPPt away an~ therF was overwhPlming opposition pres?nted. She add?d nothing has chang?d since that timP and the traffic congestion is stil.l quite hPavy and thef are very concern?d b?causP this wi]1 b? a sirugl.?-].anP road and it would havp an impact on nois? and traffic, if it SS aPVPI.Op?a• Patricia Elias, reprPsPnting 42 property own?cs of PeppPrtree Homes F+hich arP directly across from subjPct proper~y, stat?d thPy were very surprisPd that this proj?ct woul.d Pven bP proposed, going from 22,000 square foot esta~P~S].ZPa lots to 3,000 squarP foot condominium l.ots. She add?d they are also conc?rnPd b?cause an Anaheim City Inspector owns this propPrty and th?y do not undPrstand how it could have gc~ttPn this far in thP procPPdings. Chairman McBUrnPy stated any propPrty ownPr can requPsr. anything they wish for their pcoper.ty. Shirley SaundPrs, 6675 Canyon Hills Road, stated shP lives just 1/4 mil? away from subject property and that shP is a licensPd real Pstate broker and sha bought her propPrty becausP it was a 1/2-acre estate l.ot and she fQPS.S it shoul.d rPmain that way; and they EPPS this project would hurt their property values and incrPase traffic on Fairmont, which is al.ready a very dangerous slteot. She stated the shopping c?nters cr?at? a l.ot of traffzc and putting a condominium in thP area zoned for 1/2 acre PSCdtP ].ots would be a mistak?. She statPd she is vice-president of che homPOwners association and she did not find out about this until. Satucday and r.hey are definitel~ opposPd to thP project. Carol Geronsin, 3201 Old BridgP Road, stated she is a homeownPr in thP Ol.d DP1 Giocgio HomP tract and is a real. estate agent in the area; and that property has oePn on thP markPt for 4 years and it was uriginally designPd for 3 or 4 gated custom homes; however, it could not b? sol.d for thak purposP an~ the alternative was condominiums and noted khere are no condominiums in that particular area, due to the :soning. She statPd Anah?im Hills has amplP townhom?s available and the pPOple who purchased there did so pr.imaril.y because of thP ruralness o.E the arPa and do not think that shoul.d bP changed. She statPd she tra~~els Eairmont several timPS a day and the gcade of that road is tremendous and with this condominium project, thPre wou].d be a minimum of 144 vehicles coming out each morning and she thought it would really be dangerous. She added there is a church going into the new shoppir,., center at the cor.ner. of Faicmont and Santa Ana Canyon Road which wi.l.l create further traffic problems. 9/29/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLAIiNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 29 ]986 86-656 FamP1a Fraser, 485 Country Hills Road, stated shP tepresents the Santa Ana Canyon Prop?rty Owners Association and thPy would likP to go on record opposing the ceclassification of this property and would l.ike to remind the Commission of their commitment to kPPP the area south of M;annedand east of Fairmont as low-dPnsity; and that Anaheim Hil.ls is a p community and thPy fPe7 rezoning that sPaP%istinPthomaowners• dShe~statPd would be inappropriat? and unfair to th- 9 shP is on th? Trails CommittPP also and thPrP is a trail. systPm which Pxtends on the west side of t4ohler DrivP, south sidP of Santa Ana Canyon Road and the w?st side of Fair~r,ont and if this condominium complP~ is aPVpJ.npPa~ thP rid?rs would havP to cross two drivNways where therP would be hPavy traffic. ShP statPd this projPCt is not appropri.atP for this arPa. Robert Jones, 6650 Canyon Hil.ls Road, Canyon HiJ1sPEstand~theatwashPto presidPnt of their association rPprPSpncing 40 hom.s, ~ register thPir opposition to this projPCt. HP statPd this is not an appropriate developmPnt for this ar?a and th o~rFairmontoBou]?varabably wil.l be doubl.Pd and ask?d about thP wid-nof9Fairmont is includPd in thP Chairman McBUrney Pxp7.ainPd thP widPning conditions. Tom Poel. statPd he is a hom?own~r in th?Pn~Pana~hP°arPaFandmdid an levard on a daily basis and is a r?al estate a9- unofficial survey representing thP CanyosPH~hPsconstructionaofhanyao oppose tnis cequest 1008, and ~ou]d opp multiple-family units on that sice. He StdCPdC~~O~~PfStatPa~theYPP1S not was ablP to contact wPrP opposPd to this proj. a housing n?Pd for this typ? of unit in that arPa and th?rP arP more condominiums for resale in that area than homPs. H? stat?d thP trafEic would be a tota] disaster. Ron A7dPrson, 1.93 South Donna Court, just wPst of Fairmont, statPd hP has l.ived in that arPa for 8 yPars and is v?hemPntly oppos?d to this dPvPlopmPnt. HP statPd with th? d?vel.opmP~t of East Hills, traffic was supposPd to bP getting off further up the frePway, but a].ot of people ace getting off at ImpPrial. and using Santa Ana Canyon Road for accpss and it is cPally getting h?avy and this projPCt woul.d make that situation wors?. Sam Achs, 395 Ol.d BridgP Road, statPd hP woul.d lik? to address th~ environmPntal. aspects of this proposal; that at the pcesent time this property is undevPl.oped, but to ~ay that 72 condominiums would PnhancP thP aesthetic quality of thP arPa instead of 5 or 6 homPS, which is what th? property was intend?d for, is not undPrstandable. H? stated thP developPr has indicated the condominiums would act as a buffPr against the traffic noise, tut hP did not und?rstand how 72 condominium units WzthP~c~PCOUlds per unit minimum and seveca] hundced tPl~vision sets, tadios, providP a noise buffer. He statPd this 6 acr?s oF l.and could accommodatP at thP most, 10 to 12 units, but 72 units is way out of line and that he is vehPmPntly oppased to this developmPnt. Mr. Bell, representing the applicant, stated the City Inspector referr.ed ko is not onP of thP ownPrs, but has invPstPd in thP dPVPloa9~29/86 thP MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COHMISSION SEPTEMBER 29, 1986 So-657 property. He stated the City Traffic Engineer has recommended that the east side of Fairmont will need to be widened from Canyon Hsidewalks and Rio Grande to its ultimate width including curbs, gutters, horse trails, and that is included as condition of approval. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst stated he feels this density is just too high for this area; that he recognizes this parcel is probably at a disadvantage for RS-22,000 development, and realizes it has been on the market for sevezal years and thought there could probably be a compromise and that i: could be rezoned to RM-3000 which would allow 6 units to the acre, or RS-5,000 oermitting 5 units per acre. He stated the RS-10,000 would permit 27 units per acre with 364 craffic trips per day; and RM-3000 designation would permit 294 to 388 trips per day, and that the property is located below grade level and it does abut a shopping center, the school, and a substation, and will probably not be sold unless it is down-zoned. He stated the RM-3000 hillside zone would permit a maximum of 6 units per acre and he thought that would be the proper 2one, and noted m~re than 6 units per acre have not been allowed anywhere in Anaheim Hills; and some people do like condominium style livin9 with homeowner's associations taking care of cheir yards. He stated this pruperty is really isolated, but whoever develcps that property, will have to widen Fairmont and make all the improvements. He stated thac property will not be maintained as RS-22,000 because it is lower and has a church and substation abutting it. Responding to Commissioner Bouas, Mr. Bell stated they have not met with adjacent homeownecs in the area and they didn't think there would be this much opposition. He indicated he Would be willing to meet with them. Commissioner Herbst asked if chey would like a continuance in order to reduce the density. Mr. Eftekhari stated they would have to neyotiate with the property owner. He stated there was a lot of opposiL-ion to the traffic and he did not khink there would be that much of an impact, but they would be willing to work wit.h the property ownet and the neighbors. Commissioner Herbst stated he thought there is coom for compromise for less than RS-22,000, but 72 units is just too much, especially at 950 vehicle trips per day. Mr. Eftekhaci stated the property is more than 7 acres and there was a mistake in their original calculations and with the RM-3000 Zone, they should be ab~.e t.o constcuct 100 units. Commissioner Herbst suggested the homeowner's associations be contacted. He stated he lives in that area and travels Fairmont Boulevard everyday, and feels this property will not sell as RS-22000, but something should be proposed that is realistic and that everyone could live with. Mr.. Eftekhari requested a 4-weed continuance. 4/29/86 IM 29, 19 AC~I~N: Commissionec Lawicki offer.ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner Aerbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionec La Claire absent) that consideration of the aforemeoflOctobect27, 1986,natnthe request of the regular.ly-scheduled meeting petitioner. RECESSED: 3:00 p•T• RECONVENED: 3:15 p•m• ~-12 AN ITEM NO. 6 EIR dtbnl+v~ ~---- VARI O• 3602 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: 2000 DEVELOPERS, IN~•. 1850 17r.h Street, ~115, Santa Ana, CA 92701. AGENTS: IRAJ EFTEKHARI, 1850 17th Street, Y113, Santa Ana, CA 92701. Property described as an icregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.66 acres located at t415 and 419 southwesterly corner of Elm Street and Helena Stteet, 402, South Helena Street. CO to RM-1200 or a less intense zone. Waiver. of minimum building site area per dwelling unit to construct a 24-unit apartment complex. There Was one person indicating hec presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred tc, and made a part of the minutes. David Mattson, 6555 Camino Vista, #3, Anaheim Hills, explained this is a proposal for a 24-uni~ neartFSroadwayPand Harborhe Henstat?d theccur.rent Wells Fargo euildings, office building and the developer zoning is CO which would a11ow a 5-storY put has decided he would rather has plans for a 5-stocy office building, have a ver.y nice apartment complex. Gina McIntir.e, 917 S. Sycamore, stated they own the property at 515 S. Harbor, which is very close to subject property. She stated they like the development in Anaheim and the improvements being made and do not want to see something like this to downyrade the area. She stated they thought rezoning to residential would lower the property values, since CO is the highest and best use fo[ the property; and that a residential project uould bring too many people to the area which is alreadychildr.enpgoangd. She stated they are alteady subjected eota land doingndamage and that back and forth, trespassing their prop Y~ would only get worse with this development since this project is ptobably for middle income people or even low income people. She stated she just found out about this 2 or. 3 days ago and tWe7elno bnotified4thShe stated e something has gone into the area and they have made this could cr.eate mote ~hefPast to theaCity Tcaffic Engineer about the many complaints dur.ing ur.chased che pr.operty, danger.ous tr.affic situation. She states ~e~ulations, and they feel these they had to conform to all of lied toYthis project. same r.egulations should be apP 9/29/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 2~, 1986 86-659 Mr. Mattson stated the developer did take all of those concerns into consider.ation; that the General PJ.an of the City of Anaheim shows that area for medium density residential; and that thEy did work very closely with staff to provide the best pr.oject; that the 24 units will not be considered affordable units, and they will upgrade the area and provide housing for. the people working in the business center just half a block away. He stated the parking will be provided on-site. He stated the plan for. the 5-stor.y office building would not have to come before the Planning Commission because it would meet the standards, but it would have added mor.e tr.affic to the area than this apartment complex. THE PUBLI~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman McBurney stated he is really having a problem regarding downgrading the zoning to residential from C0, and knowing that area, he thought it could be developed as a much better commercial use. Commissioner Herbst stated he could not appcove the parking plan with tandem and parallel parking spaces together, with the tandem spaces backing directly into the par~llel parking spaces. He stated the property would be totally overbuilt with this project, and the parking is not a good plan and the number of units would have to be reduced in order to provide a better parking plan. Commissioner Lawicki agreed and stated he thought the number of units is excessive and could be reduced, but he would like to see the pcoperty remain zoned for commercial, office. Commissioner Fry agreed and stated "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and he did not think. very much imayination was used in this particular design, and that he would not be in favor of downzoning the property. Commissionec Bouas asked if the developer would like a continuance in ocder to change the plan. Mr. Eftekhari responded he has been working on th:s pcoject for 8 months and had a hard time deciding whether or not to pcopose the 5-story office building or. apartments. He explained they found from their data that it is hard to lease office spaces at the present time, since a lot of office buildings are being constructed, and that one of the Commissioners had said the design for. the apar.tment compler. was vecy poor, but there were a lot of restrictions they had to abide by. He stated if the Commission does not like the design, they would like a continuance to revise the plan for the apartment complex. He stated the first question would be whether or. not the Commission would be willing to permit the RM-2400 Zone on this property and Commissioners Fry, Herbst and McBur.ney indicated they would not like to see the pruper.ty rezoned. Leonard McGhee stated Par.agr.aph 15 of the staff report indicates the pr.operty is currently designated foc medium density r.esidential land uses on the Gener.al Plan, per.mitting up to 36 units per acre, but the General Plan is gener.al in nature and the frontage on Harbor is designated for commer.cial, professional uses and the zoning on subject property and on Harbor is for commercial office. He stated the Commission may wish to 9/29/86 86-6 t2sidential designation should consider whethet or. not the~ro ertyaorsWhether it should be commer.cial, be considered on the whole ~~ P office. ro ErtY Was Commissioner Herbst asyad what would be permit.ted if the p P 2400, r.athe~ than RM-1200. Leonard McGhee rro osed~ the rezoned to RN,- number of units would be about one-half of what is being p Commissioner Herbst stated with thP parking as proposed, he could not vote ro ect proposed at RM-2400, if for. this project and would r.ather see the P~ ro erty it in the CO Zone. He stsincehe the developer dneS objectionsotoehousing units on this p P would not have any but it must be a high people wor.king downtown do need places to live, guality project in that area. Would have to Mr. Eftekhari stated one of the restrictions was that they go 5 feet down to meet Code requirements for 2 stocies. He state an h and an apartment would only be o:fice design would be 5 or 6-stor.iiained Zoning cequirements were amended 2 stor.ies. CommoS~o~permHtrtandemPparking, and before that ameMdment, several year.s ag erty. this number of units would not be permitted on this pr to double the number of units, but are not try1~9 high. He stated he would like to Eftekhari stated they ro etty is very He stated that ~he price of the p P the units. r.equest a 4-week continualoeosal before~the CitynCOUncil right now, the only concern is the p P units adjacent to residential regarding the 150-foot setback tor 1-story proper.ties. Commissioner. Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner that ACTION: Herbst and MOiIONcheRafoDementmoned matter beacontanuedtto uest of the consideration of of October 27, 1986, at the req cegular.ly-scheduled meet:.ng lans. petitionet in ordec to revise the p ITE~ ~ EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 AND VARIANCE NO. 3599 ET AL; 866 South Aspen Stceet, TORLIC HEARING. uwN£RS: DAVID W. LANG r desctibed as an ir.regularly-shaped patcel of r„~ai:=':mo LA ~~802• pCOper~y 7,503 square feet, 866 South Aspen. ~.?~.; ~~nsisting of appr.oximately Waive[ of minimum r.equited structural setback to construct an addition to a single-family r.esidence. osition to subject There was no one indicating their presence in opp r.equest and althou9minutestaff r.epor.t was not cead, it is r.eferr.ed to and made a part of the David Lange, owner., was present to answer any questions• THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Chaitman t4cBUrney, Mr. Lange stated he had talked to neighbors and thexe was no oQQosition. 9/29/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 29, 1986 86-661 it was noted the Planning Dicector or his authorized r.epresentative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definitiun of Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the r.equirement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-249 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gr.ant Variance No. 3599 on the basis that there are special cir.cumstances applicable to the pzoperty suchtosother,identically zonedy, location and surroundings which do not apply property in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the property of privileges erijoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ HERBST, LAWICKI, MC BURNEY, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE ~oseph Cletcher, Deputy City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commissian's decision within 22 days to the C~ty Council. ITEM N0. 8 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIRF.MENT AND CONDI'PIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2843 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: DEMETRIOS AND EFFIE GEORGkNTOP0ULU5, 3307~ 18012 Seabright, Dana Pointe, CA 92629. AGENTS: PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK, Sky Par.k Circle, Irvine, CA 92714, ATTN: PHILLIP SCHWART2E. Pr.operty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of apptoximately 0.47 acre located at the southeast corner of Howell Avenue and State College Boulevard. To permit a drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimum number of required parkin9 spaces. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject r.equest and although the staff repor.t was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Phillip Schwartze, agent, was present to answer any questions. THE PUHLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEll. Responding to Chairman McBUr.ney, Mr. Schwartze stated this will be a family owned drive-thcough restaur.ant and is not a lar.ge chain. Concer.ning the wide dciveway, Mr. Schwartze explained there is an existing block wall on the east and a tile store with the entr.ance at that location, and, fortunately, it does not have that much traffic. He stated one of the conditions is the constr.uction of the median in State College. 9/2q/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 29, 1986 86-662 Chairman McBUrney stated this seems to have the driveways as far. away fr.om the iatersection as possible and it seems to be well arranged and he did not think the[e would be a pr.oblem. ACTION: Commissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and tdOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Cla~oeOSaleto'permittae Anaheim City Planning Commission has r.eviewed the p P dr.ive-through r.estaur.ant with waivet of minimum number. of r.equir.ed patking spaces on a r.ectangular.ly-shaped par.cel of land consisting of appr.oximately 0.47 acr.es located at the southeast cor.ner of Howell Avenue and State College Boulevar.d; and does her.eby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consider.ed the Negative Declar.ation together with any comments r.eceived dur.ing the public review pr.ocess 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 envir.onment. Commissioner. Her.bst offer.ed a notion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner. Ga Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commissic^ does hereby grant waivec of Code r.equieement on the basis that the par.king waiv~r will not cause an increase in tr.affic congestion in the immediace vicinity °waivereunder theeconditions~imposed, land uses and granting u£ the parking if any, will not be dec.r.imental to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner. Her.b.t offered RESOlution No• Plannino Commission doessheceby passage and adop'~ion that the Anaheim ~ur.suant to Anaheim Municipal Code grant Conditional Use Per.mit No. 2843 p Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Inter.departm~intal Committee r.ecommendations. On r.oll call, the foregoing r.esolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ LAWICKI, MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENi: LA CLAIRE Joseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attor.ney, Qresented the wr.itten tight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM NOS. 9, 10, 11 and 12 were consider.ed together.. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: OWNERS: CARYL S. FOSTER~ KAZSER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 2121 Palomar. Air.port Road, Suite 201, P.O. Box 306, Carlsbad, CA 92008. Property descr.ibed as an irregular.ly-shaped par.cel of land consisting of approximately 19.7 acr.es located at the nor.thwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road. 9/29/86 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 29, 1986 86-663 Waiver.s of (a) minimum str.uctural setback, (b) minimum number of par.king spaces, (c) maximum wall height, (d) site screening to construct a commercial complex. ITEM~N~• 1~ EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION~ REVISION TO SANTA ANA CANYON ACCESS POINT STUDY-EXHIBIT N0. 7, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONllITIONAL USE PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CARYL S. FOSTER, KAISER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY~ 2121 Palomat Airport Road, Suite 201, P.O. Box 308, Car.lsbad, CA 92008. Pr.operty descr.ibed as a pact (1.62 acr.e Par.cel 4 of TPM 86-333) of an icregular.ly-shaped par.cel of land consisting of approximately 19.7 acres located at the nor.thwest corner of Sanra Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road. To permit a gas station with a mini mart and car wash with waiver. of minimum structural setback. ITEM NO. 11 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIO[~, REVISION TO SANTA ANA CANYO[i ROAD ACCESS POINT STUDY-EXHIBIT N0. 7, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL U5E PERIdIT NO. 2845 PUBLIC HEI,RING. OWNERS: CARYL S. FOSTER~ KAISER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 2121 Palomar. Air.port Road, Suite 201, P.O. Box 308, Carlsbad, CA 92008. Pr.operty described as a par.t (2.33 acre Parcels 6, 9 and S of TPM 86-333) of an irr.egularly-shaped parcel of land approximately 19.7 acr.es located at the northwest corner. of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir. Canyon Road. To permit three drive-thr.ough restaurants with waiver of minimum structucal setback. ZTEM N0. 12 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION REVISIQN TO SANTA ANA CANYON AC~ESS POZNT STUDX-EXHIBIT N0. 7, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2846 AND REQUEST CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF 9c lOd lld 12b and 12d PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CARYL S. FOSTER~ KAISER DEVELOPIdENT COMPANY~ 2121 Palomar. Air.port Road, Suite 201, P. O. Box 308, Carlsbad, CA 92008. Property descr.ibed as a par.t (4.0 acr.e Par.cel 3 of TPM 86-333) of an locatedaatYtheanorthwest1corner.nofCSantatAna CanyonrRoadaandYWeir.7Canyon Road. To permit a hotel with waiver of. maximum str.uctur.al height. Ther.e was no one indicating their. pr.esence in opposition to subject request and although the staff r.epor.t was not r.ead, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Commissioner Bouas ascertained that Kaufman & Broad is not involved in the development of this property. 9/29/86 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY YLANNZNG COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 29~ 1986 86-664 Car.yl Eoster., Kaiser. Development Company, stated during the last 4 years, Kaiser Developme~t Company has made a substantial investment in this ar.ea and own 90 acres in addition to this site. He stated this site is znned CL and they ar.e requesting appcoval of 3 ccnditional use permits to allow development of a hotel/motel, gas station/~ar w~~sh facility and a maximum of 4 dinner. house and ~r.ive-thr.ough r.es:.aurants and ar.e r.equesting a var.iance to r.educe the 150-foot landscaped set'~ack and an overall parking variance for the site and a site screening variance. He stated due to the physical constraints of the site, strict adhecence to the 150-foot setback requirement would prohibit reasonable use of the property and to a large extent, the lay out of the plan has been dictated by the unusual irreyulac shape of the pr.oper.ty whi~h was established by the a~ignments of the Santa Ana Canyon Road, Weir. Canyo~ Road and the 91 Freeway and also, there are 2 easements thr.ough the property and no structures can be built over those easements. He stated thece is a grade difference of about 6 feet and the site was extremely diEficult to wock with. He stated prior variances have been granted on the property directly east across Weir. Canyon Road which is similar to subject property. Mr. Foster stated concerning parkin9, a maximum of 684 spaces would be r.equired for. the di°ferent uses and that reflects the total number for the different uses if coasider.ed separately, and ~hey ar.e providing 611 spaces, representing a 10$ reduction and they believe thete is sufficient justification for approval of the reduction. He stated parking for hotels is historically under utilized during the day and that site would provide parking spaces foc ~he dr.ive-thcough r.estaurants and other. r.etail uses; and that the financial and retail uses would be closed during the early ev~ning hcui~s, leaving the spaces available for. the dinner. house and restaurants and hotel. He stated there is reciptocal availability of ~hese parking spaces and it will be assured by the recordation of a reciprocal ingr.ess/egress and parking agreement. He stated they have worked with the Traffic Engineer from the beginning and have mitigated all of his concer.ns. tdr.. Fostec stated they are r.equesting a conditional use per.mit to allow a gas station/car wash facility, and a mini-mar.t facility at the noctheast corner. of the site and that these are very much needed facilities in that area. He stated they ar.e also requesting a permit for. a maximum of 3 dr.ive-thr.ough r.estaurants allowing 2 semi-enclosed dinrier house r.estaurants which would be permitted to ser.ve alcoholic beverages. He stated due to the growing number of residents and businesses in this area, there is a strong demand for. such establishments. He stated they are also requesting a conditior.al use permit for development of a 15Q-r.oom ho~el/motel with a maximum height of 57-1/2 feet; and that they ace requQSting to increase the height to 57 feet due to the site's unusual confzguration and the two existing easements, and they feel a waiver is war.canted and the waiver. is only for that one use a.^.~ that a similat variance has been approved for the adjacent pcoper.ty to the east ~Conditional Use Permit No. 2692). Mz. Eoster stated due to a significant difference in grade between the sites, the hotel they ar.e pr.oposing would actually be 26 feet below the 63 feet approved fo~ the southwest cor.ner and would be 10 to 159~29~86e1ow 86-665 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 29~ 1986 the 3-story office building planned for. the corner. near. Roosevelt and Santa Ana Canyon Road. He stated Kaiser. Developmenk has made a commitment to retain the high quality image of the ar.ea and this will be achieved by enforcing str.ict adher.ence to the CC~RS and architectur.al design and khey ate pr.oposing a 3 to 5-foot wall along the nor.th and east boundar.ies and this architectuKall,y-tr.eated wall will serve as a screen to the loading and service entrances requir.ed for. the buildings closest to the fr.eeway. He thanked staff for. their. suggestions and help in development of this plan. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Hecbst asked about the pteviously approved hotel site. Mr. Foster stated they plan to shift the site fr.om one side of the Anaheim Business Center to the other corner. at Santa Ana Canyon Road and 47eic Canyon because all hotel developers the~hinkethereewilltoe a.Vdemandeford2 inter.est in this site. He stated they hotel sites as the ar.ea grows. Commliovin9raHc ncepttwithout specificthe concept is good, but did not like app. plans for. drive-thr.ough r.estaur.ants. Mr. Foster stated they have made every effor.t to incor.porate as many of the actual site lay out plans as they can and they are negotiating with seveeal fast-food chains such as conceptualein nature and thealaysout•doescceflectlthoseechains~ar.e conventional plans. Commissioner Her.bst stated he would want to see specific plans and give appr.oval for. specific restaurants as they come i~ovalrozFspecificaplans there is a condition included which r.equires app and they ar.e just asking for the land use approval and are not requesting building per.mits at this time. He stated each individ~al use would have to come back for. appr.ovai as par.t of the building per.mit process. Leonard McGhee stated all of the drive-thtough facilities, either for r.estaucants or financial 1°ovalu`howeverouthe hotelohasenottbeencincluded plans for. each use for app in that condition. Chairman McBur.ney stated since the agent has just mentioned they have negotiated with Car.l's Jr., he would have to declar.e a conflict of in~er.est sir.r.e he is an employee of Carl Karcher. Enter.prises. Chaitman :1c~ur.ney left the meeting and Commissioner Pro Tempor.e Messe assamed the Chair. Leonard McGhee staced even though this is so~anyechangeslwouldhhaveato be show general locations for the buildings, brought back foc Commission app[oval. CpiS11t11SS10REC Fxy stated he has a pr.oblem with the hotel SWOUld haveltwo as already been approved and if this site is approved, they hotel sites approved. Mr. Foster stated that is cotcect; ho9/29~86the MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 29 1986 86-666 other. hotel sita is on a separate site. He stated fcom a market point of view, there is a demand at this time foc one facility, but once the area gr.ows, in the next 2 to 5 year.s, ther.e would pr.obabl~ be suf£icient demand for anothet hotel. He stated the app[ovals they obtained for. the Kaiser Anaheim Business Czntet addr.essed the traffic to be generated from the hotel as pr.oposed at that time and that both conditional use permits for. hotels would r.emain effective. Mr. Foster stated they see the other. site as a secondar.y hotel and ar.e trying to r.etain the option by shifting that use. He stated they shift2d the portion that had been r.eserved for. a hotel to an office development and the hotel is shown as an alternative; however., the office building is actually desir.ed. Commissioner Messe asked about the Access Point Study. Paul Singer. stated the access points have been reviQwed by the staff many times, and •3s a c~ndition of developmen~imeserand itaseemsetr.afficlwouldnbe welltser.vedVin amended the plans many this ar.ea. Commissionet Herbst c~ferred to the tr.affic that would be gener.ate~~ if the r.egional shopping center is developed. Paul Singer stated the traffic impact for. the whole ar.ea has alreaay been discussed in tcenter.lsiteewill Impact Report and whatevec is developed on that shopping have to confor.iv or the Enviconmental Impact Repor.t would have to be amended. He stated this particular. proper.ty is well within the criter'3 established by the ociginal Envir.onmental Impact Repor.t. Commissioner. Her.bst stated this propecty is in the Scenic Cocridor and signs for restaurants and service stations would have to conform to those regulations. Mr. Foster stated they made it a point ~hac even if the Ciky allowed the latger oWi111bercomgng~beforertheVPlannin9 Commissionaat~a them; and that they later date to tiiscuss the signage issue and ar.e considering the possibility of using some portions of their scceenin9 wall for limited signing. He stated he understands the City of Yor.ba Linda and the City of Anaheim ar.e jointly meeting to discuss signs for the entire area. Commissioner Messe asked if they ar.e r.eally comfortable with the location of the service station. Mr. Foster stated they are comfortable with that site and it was shown in that location originally; and it was their. intent to minimize ~he visibility of the service station. Commissioner Herbst stated ~her.e is more nee3 for a service station in that area than for. fast-food restaur.ants and thought it might be better. to locate it near Santa Ana Canyon Road. He stated r.egarding signs, he is concer.ned because after they build a service station, the operator w~ll want to come in and reqnest a latgec and higher si9n because they cannot be seen fr.om the freeway and he wants it on the r.ecord that the petitioner has been told that they do not have a har.dship for signs, but would be building in their. own hatdship. Mr. Foster. stated he recognizes t.hat point of concer.n and has expcessed it to all of the people they have talked to and have indicated thete will be no pole signs. He stated the service station site will be i9~29/86a MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 29 1986 a6-66~ monopoly location, that signs M' '. not be necessar.y. He stated that signs, landscaping and ar.chitec ur.e will be included in their CC6RS and will be ver.y controlled. Jay Titus responded to Commissioner Fcy that the number of patking spaces included in the staff report includes the entir.e site if the uses were created separately. Mc. Foster ~tated ther.e will be recipr.ocal patking agreements and that is a condition of approval of the final map; and that the maintenance will be the cesponsibility of the owner.'s association and tht~re will be an easement covering that also. He stated the stotm drr.ins are existing and they will not be building any stcuctuces over those easements. Jay Titus stated the storm drains are completely installed and are underground. ACTION ON ITEM NO. 9 ACTION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner. Bouas and MOTION CARRTED (Commissioners La Clair.e and McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a commercial complex with w~ivers of minimum stcuctural setback, minimum number of parking spaces, maximum wall height, required site screening on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 19.7 acres located at the nocthwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consldeted the Ne9ative Declaration together with any comments r.eceived during the public 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 significanc eEfect on the environment. Commissioner Fry offer.ed Resolution No. PC86-251 and moved for its passage and adoption that khe Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3603 on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the pcoperty such as size, si~ape, topography, location and su.*.roundings which do not apply to other identically zoned pr.operty in the same vicinity; and that strict a~plication of the Zoning Cude deprives the ptopecty of privileges enjoyed by other. propecties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and on the basis that the plans are conceptual in nature and specific plans shall be appr.oved foc each individual use and subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resclution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY, HERBST~ LAWICKI~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LP. CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY 9/29/86 86-668 MINUTESr ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ SEPTEMBER 29, 1986 ACTION ON ITEM NO. 10 ACTION: Commissionec Fry offer.ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (COmmissioners La Claire and McBur.ney absenter.mittatgas Anaheim City Planning Commission has r.eviewed the pr.oposal to p station :alth a 1,000-squar.e foot mini mar.t and car wash with waiver of minimum struct.ur.al setback on a part (1.62 acr.e Parcel No~ ximately8193~3) of an ir.r.egular.ly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app acr.es located at the northwest cooverthe NegativeaDecla~atROndupon finding Canyon Road; and does her.eby aPP that it has consider.ed the Ne9ative Declaration together with onythembasis r.eceived during the public review pr.ocess and fur.thec finding of the Initial Study and any comments received that ther.e is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the envir.onment. Commissioner. Fry offer.ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boua~ and MOTION CARRIED (CommisCo~ission doesrhecebyMgBantewaiver.nof Code the Anaheim City Plannin9 licable r.equirement on the basis that thece are special ciocationnand surroundings to the proper.ty such as size, shape, topography, which do not apply to other identically zoned pr.operty in the same vicinity; and that str.ict application of the Zoning Code depr.ives the pr.oper.ty of pr.ivileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone. Commissionec Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-252 and moved for its paant9e and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does her.eby g Conditional Use Permit No. 2844 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, subject to Inter.departmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by che following vote: AYES: HOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ LAWICKI~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY ACTION ON ITEM N0. 11 ACTION: Cocnmissioner. Fry offer.ed a motion, ~2conded by Commissioner Her.bs~ and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners La Claire and Mceur.coyosaleto) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the p p permit tt~r.ee drive-thtough r.estaurants with waiver of minimum str.uctural setback on a par.t (2.33 acre/par.cels 6, 7 and 8 of ~oximately'19f7aacres ir.regular.ly-shaped parcel of land consisting of app. located at the nor.thwest corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir. Ca~hat Road; and does her.eby appr.cve the Negative Declaration upon finding it has considered the Ne9ative Declaration togethet with any comments ceceived durinq the public review process ar~d L•ur.ther finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments r.eceived that the~e is no substantial evidence that thP pr.oject will have a significant effect on the environment. 9/29/86 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 29 1986 86-669 Commissioner Fr.y offeted a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner.s La Claire and McBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver of Code cequir.ement on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the proper.ty such as size, shape, topogr.aphy, location and surroundings which do not apply to other. identically zoned proper.ty in the same vicinity; and that str.ict application of the Zoning Code deprives the proper.ty of privileges enjoyed by other proper.ties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity. Commissioner Fry ofEered Resolution No. PC86-253 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2845 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepactmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST~ LAWICKI~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY ACTION ON ITEM N0. 12 ACTION: Commissioner Fry offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Herbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners La Claire and t4cBurney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has r.eviewed the proQosal to construct 3 access points on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road as part o°_ the cir.culation plan for a proposed commercial complex; and does her.eby apptove the t~e9ative Declaration upon finding that it has consideted the Negative Declaration together. with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Znitial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the pr.oject will have a significant effect on the envir.onment. Commissioner Fry offered Resolution No. PC86-254 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission does hereby recommend to the City Gouncil that Exhibit No. 7 of the Santa Ana Canyon Access Point Study should be revised to permit Access Points 13, 14 and 15 as shown on Exhibit A. On roll call, the for.egoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBST, LAWICKI, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY Commisaionec Fr.y offer.ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners La Clair.e and McBUCney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has ceviewed the proposal to pecmit a 57.5 foot, 150-r.oom hotel/motel with waiver. of maximum str.uctur.al height on a par.t (4.0 acr.e Par.cel 3 of 7'PM 86-333) of an irregular.l9/29~86d ~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNItiG COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 29 1986 86-670 par.cel of land consisting of approximateZy 19.7 acres located at the northwest corner. of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Weir Canyon Road; and does her.eby appr.ove the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consider.ed the Negative Declacation togethec with any comments received during the public ceview process and furthec finding on the basis of the In.itial Study and any ~omments received that there is no substantial evi•9ence that the proj?ct will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner Fr.y offer.ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner. Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners La Claire and McBan~eWaiver.nof Code the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heceby g requir.ement on the basis that there are special circumstances applicable to the prooerty such as size, shape, topogr.aphy, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned propecty in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the proper.ty of pr.ivileges enjoyed by other properties in tne identical zone and classification in the vicinity. Commissioner Fry offer.eo Resolution No. PC66-255 and move8 for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Per.mit No. 2846, pursuan~ to Anaheim Municip3l Code Sections 18.03.030.030 thr.ough 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Cnmmittee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS~ FRY~ HERBS'P~ LAWICKI, MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY Fry offered a motion, ~econded by Commissioner. Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioners La Claire and McBUrney absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does her.eby recommend that the City Council review Variance No. 3603, Conditional Use Pecmit No. 2844, Conditional Use Permit No. 2845 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2846 in conjunction with the Revision to Santa Ana Canyon Road Access Point Study-Exhibit 7. .ioseph Fletcher, Deputy City Attotney, presented the written r.ight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. Chair.man McBurney returned to the meeting and assumed the Chair.. ti0~ 13 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREV. APPROVED)~ TENTATIVE MAP OF _____ _..,....,,..r.,.~ r.m vnaTnNCF. NO. 3598 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: BRYANT FINANCIAL CORPORATION, 3960 East Shousand Oaks Boulevard, Thousand Oaks, CA 91362. AGENTS: BOULEVARD DEVELOPMENT, 777 S. Main Street, Suite 106, Orange, CA 92668, WILLDAN ASSOCIATES, 290 S. Anaheim Boulevar.d, Suite 100, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property descr.ibed as an ir.regular.ly-shaped par.cel of land consisting of approximately 40.4 acr.es on the east side of Stage Coach Road and Camino Gcande, and both sides of Hackamore Lane (southwest of the inter.section of Nohl Ranch Road and Ser.r.ano Avenue. 9/29/86 ~~~ MINUTES, ANAflEIM CITY PLANNING COMMLSSION SEPTEMBER 29 1986 86-671 Request for Revision No. 2 of Tentative Tr3ct t~ap Nos. 10969 & 10970~ amending conditions of approval. Request for ~pecific plan approval. Waiver.s of a) minimum gar.aye setbacR and b) minimum distances between buildings to construct twn 62-lot, condominium subdivi~ions. There was no one indicatin9 their presence in opposition to subject r.equest and although the staff report was not r.ead, it is referr.ed to and made a par.t of the minutes. Lynn Mutch, 290 S. Anaheim Boulevard, agent, stated these tracts wer.e previously appr.oved in 1980, and the pr.oper.ty has been rough-graded with several pads gr.aded. He stated the staff report has two err.ors on Page 13-b, Paragr.aph 11, Plan D has 4 bedtooms and the unit size of Plan AA is 1244 square feet instead of 1400 syuare feek as indicated. He stated the pr.oposed units will be consistent with the previously appr.o~ed Tr.acts (Nos. 10975, 109b7) which are adjacent to the proposed tr.act. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. toaacquirecmor.eefrontagelbecause cacsecannot beupulledmoffatherstreeback Mr. Mutch stated there ace probably 60 or 70 lots which have that condition and stated some of the stree~s also have 12B gr.ades. Leonatd McGhee, Associate Planner, G*ated the Commission nay want tne applicant to respond to Paragraph 20 regarding the number of lots with setback problems because staff has seen a number of plans, and is not positive whether or not the staff report reflects the latest plan which shows 15 lots with setback waivers in Tract 10969 and 14 lots in Tract 10970. Mr. Mutch stated the sta€f teport indicates the correct number of lots with setback problems. Chairman McBUrney stated the latest plan the Commission is ceviewing takes all the par.king off the public streets and i.*. is located on the private str.eet.s and the setLacks seem to be as lacge as they can possibly be and it appears to be a qood plan. He stated he wanted to be sur.e the plans the Planning Commission is presently ceviewing is the one that is actually agproved. Jay Titus, Office Engineer., stated he wants to be sure there are no waivers requested for patking on the public stceets. Mr. Mutch r.esponded there is no par.king indicated on the public str.eet. It was noted the Negative Declaration was appcoved with Tract Nos. 10969 and 10970, on Februar.y 11, 1980. The following action was consider.ed in conjunction with Var.iance No. 3598. ACTION: Commissioner. Fcy offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissione~ La Clair.e absenty that the 9%Z9/86 City MINUTESr ANAAEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEP`LEMBER 29~ 1986 86-672 Plannin9 Commission does hereby delete Condition No. 25 of Tentative Tract No. 10969 (Rev. No. 2) and 10970 (Rev. No. 2) which r.equires that all lots having a width of less than 50 feet as measured at the public street fr.ontage, and taking vehicular access ftom said street, shall share a cir.cular. d:iveway with adjacent affected lots, 10 to 23, 24 to 33, 48 to 62 in Tcact 10969 (Rev. No. 2), and 57 :0 62 in Tract 10970 (Rev. No. 2). Commissioner Fr.y offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Messe and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner H°rbst abstaining and Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has r.eviewed the proposal to appr.ove specific plans to construct two, 62-lot attached condominium subdivisions with waivers of minimum garage setback and minimum distances between buildings on an irr.egular.ly-shaped parcel of land consisting of appcoxima~ely 40 acres located on the east side of Stage Coach Road and Camino Gr.ande and both sides of Hackamore Lane southwest of the intersection of Nohl Ranch Road and Serrano Avenue; and does her.eby approve r.he Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments r.eceived during the public r.eview process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments r.eceived that thece is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner. Fr.y offered Resolution No. PC86-256 and moved fot its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Var.iance No. 3598 on the basis that there are special citcumstances applicable to the pr.operty such as size, shape, topography, location and surr.oundings which do not apply to other identically zoned propecty in the same vicinity; and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the proper.ty of pcivileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to Inter.departmental Committee recommendations. On r.oll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY~ LAWICKZ~ MC BURNEY~ MESSE NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE ABSTAIN: HERBST Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner. Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Herbst abstaining and Commissioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the specific plans ar.e in s~~stantial confor.mance with the originally appr.oved Tentative Tract Nos. 10969 and 10970 (Revision No. 2). Joseph Flectcher, Deputy City Attorney, presenced the written r.ight to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 10 days for. the tract and 22 days for. the var.iance to the City Council. 9/29/86 MItdUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 29 1986 86-673 PERMITON0.42029R(READV11£EIRCNEGATIOE DECLARA~ONA ND,CONDITIONALAUSESE PERMIT N0. 2849 PUBLIC HEARING FOR APIENDMENT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. OWNERS: ALLEN LUBEL-CANEX INVESTMENTS, 220 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: JEFFREY FRIEDEN-SUNWEST MOTORS, 619 - 631 N. Anaheim Boulea=~e1 of Anaheim, CA 92805. Pr.oper.ty described as a rectangularly-shaped p land consisting of approxia~ately 0.6 acr.es located at the southwest car.nec of Wilhelmina Street and Anaheim Boulevacd, 619-631 N. Anaheim Boulevard. Request for. an amendment to the conditions of approval foe Conditiona.l Use Permit No. 2029, in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 2849 ~o per.mit automobile r.epair. in conjunction with an existing automobile sales agency. THE FOLLOWING ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THE BEGIN'?ING OF THE MEETING. ACTION: Commissioner Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (Commis~ioner La Claire absent) that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regular.ly-scheduled meeting of October 27, 1986, and, fur.ther, that subject petition shall be readvertised in order to notify the pr.operty owners of the hear.ing date. ITEM N0. 15 REPORTS AND RECON,MENDATIONS: A. VARIANCE NU. 3294 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 11856 - Request from C. J. Queyrel (of Anacal Engineering Co. repr.esentingWith thepconditions, Clyde Schlund) fot an extension of time to comply which must be met prior to appr.oval and recor.dation of the final tract map, property located at 616 Per.alta Hills Deive. ACTION: Commissionec Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionec La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does her.eby gr.ant extensions of time in order to comply with conditions which must be met prior to approval and r.ecordation of final tr.act map for TentativP Tr.act No. 11856 and Var.iance No. 3294. g. CONDITIONAL USE PERMlr N0. 2622 - Request f[om David W. Hayden (Pcoject Manager for CPE Development Company) for an exWi~hltheof time for Conditional Use Per.mit No. 2622 in or.der to comply conditions of appr.oval of subject petition, proper.ty located at 505 South Anaheim Hills Road. ACTION: Commissionec Bouas offer.ed a motion, seconded by Commissionec I.3wicki and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Clair.e absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby approve the extension of time for. Conditional Use Permit No. 2622 to expire on October. 1, 1987. 9/29/66 :.,~ ~, MINUTES~ ANAHF.'LM CITY PLANNING COt4MISSION SEPTEMBER 29 1986 86-674 C. VARIANCE NO. 3590 - RequesL• from Remo Gizzi and Antonietta Gizzi for the Pianning Commission t~ review revised plans (Revision No. 2) for Vari%ince No. 3590 to constr.uct a 6,728 squar.e-foot commer.cial shopping cent:er. located at 1895 West Katella Avenue. AG~ION: Commissioner Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner I,awicki and t40TION CP.RRIED (COmmiseioner La Claire absent) that the Anaheim City Planning Commi.ssion has r.eviewed r.evised plans (Revision No. 2) for Var.iance No. 3590 and does hereby recommend approval to the City Council. AJJOURNMENT: Commis:aioner. Messe offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lawicki and IdOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Clair.e absent) that the meeting be adjourned. The meeting was adjour.ned at 4:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ , p~~/Q~~'r't~ ~J~ Edith L. Haeris, Secr.etary Anaheim City Planning Commission ELH:lm 0222m 9/29/86