The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1983/02/07R!~(i~JLAR M8~'PINa OF 'Pl~IB 71NJ-H3IM CITY PLIINNINO COMMI8620N RSCiULAR MSSTINCi The reguler meeting of the AnAheim City Plefining Connnisaion wea called to order by Cheirman :*ry et 1Oc00 a.m., February 7, 1983, in th~e Counail ChnatLar, a quorum being pzoeent nnd the Commiesion reviewed plana a! the iteme on todey'e aqenda. RECE88: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENEi 1s30 p.m. PRESENT ABSENT AL80 PRESENT Chaizman: Fry Commisaioner~: eouas, Buehore, Herbst, King, La Cleire, McBurney Commiseionera: None Annika Santelahtl Frank Lc,wry Jey Titue Paul Sinqer Jey Tashiro Dean Sherer Edith Harria Aaeistent Director fnr Zoning Sr. Aseistant City Attoz•ney Office Engir:eer T`raffic Engineer Aseocimte Planner Aaeoc:ate Planner Planning Commission Secretery APPROVAL OF MTNUTES: Commiseioner Kinq offered a motion, aeconded by Cocnnissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED, that tha minutes of the meetinq ~t January 26, 1983, be approved as submitted with corrected paqe 43. ITEM N(.• 1. EIR NEGATTVE DECLARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT ANU CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2380 PUBLIC HBARING. OWNTR: LEO FREEDMAN, 468 3. Roxbury, Beverly Hills, CA 90212. AGLNT: CARL KARCHER ENTERPRI38S, P.O. Box 4349, Anaheitn, CA 92803. Property described as an irrec~ularly-Shaped parcel of lnnd consisting of approximately 0.37 acre located at tha southenst corner of Freedman Way and Harbor Boulevard, with approximate frontages of 135 feet on the south eide of Freedman Way and 100 feec on the eaat side ot Herbor Boulevard. To permit a semi-enc].osed fast-food reataurant with wa~ivers of minfmum numher and type of parkinq spaces and minimum landscaped setback. Continued from Nove~ber 29, Deceaaber iz, 1982 and January 24, 1983. It wae nated the petitioner had requeated a four-week continuance. ACTION: Caamissioner Herbat otfered a anotion, seconded by Cammissioner McBurney and NiOTION CARRIED, that conaideration of the aforementioned matter k~e continued to the ragularly-acheduled meetinq o:E Marah 7, 1983, at the requeet of the p~titicner~ 83-62 2/7/83 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PI,I~NNI NQ COMMI88ION, F~BRpARY 7, 1983 83-63 Item No. 2 wee heard l~llowi n g Item No. 3 F,eceuae the petitioner wae not preeent. ITEM N0. 2. EIR NEGATIVE DBCLARATION, RTCLAR3Il~ICATION N0. 71-72-44 (READV.), AND V1-RIANCE NO. 3317 ` PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: T~XACO ANAHEIM HILLB, INC., 380 Anaheim Hillo Roed, Aneheim, CA 9280^. AGENTs THE GUNSTON HA1.Y, COMPANY, 380 Anaheim Hille Road, Anaheim, Cl4 92807. Property descrlbed es (Portion A) en ixregularly-aheped percel of lnnd conaieting of epproximately 675 acrPs in the 3anta Ane Canyon suuth ot Santn Ana Cenyan Roa d between Anaheim Flills Roed end Weir Canyon Roed, extendinq eoutherly to epproximetely the Sente Me Mountdine aepereting the citiee of Anaheim and Orsanqe end lurther r~escribttd as the Annheim Nille Plenr~ed Community and (Porti on B) deacr.ibed as an irreqularly-aheped percel of land conaisti.nq ~f approxima taly 7.9 acres having e fronteye of epproximntely 420 feet on the eoutheast aide of Serrano Avenue and approximntely 125 feet northeast of the csnterline vf Fiiddan Canyon Road. ~CLA38IFICATION REQUEST: Request for an amendment to City C~«ncil Resolution Na. 72R-209 to amend the Zon i nq Element ~f the Pldnned Cammunity f.ar Anaheim Hills and to increese the ac r eage of the Annhoim Hills Planned Community. VARIANCE REQUE8T: Waivera o f: (e) minimum ].andscaped aetback, (b) type of parki.nq speces, (c) required locati~n of parking opeces, and (d) required site ~creening to c~~nstruct a 34-unit c~ndominium c:ompl~x. Continued from January 10, 1 993. T~~ere were approximately thi rty-one peraon~ indicating thoir presence in opposition to subject reques t and elthough the etaft repprt was not read, it is referred to and made a pa r t of the minutes. Georqe Mnaon, Guneton Hall Company, steted they oriqi~ially propoaed to construct 36 condominium uni ts on this proQerty which ia currently desiqnated !or coaunerciel uaes on th.: qe neral p:an e9opted in May 1972, as part of the Anaheim HiI~4 Planned Commun i ty. He stnted the iirst Planned Communl.ty Zone was adopted in 1972, for the Anaheira Nille P1annQd Community projQCt and it covered approximately 674 acr ea along Nohl Ranch Road end Serrano Road and contemplnted the conatructio n of 3,667 units at a c~en~ity of 5.44 units per acre and the streets, sewer, water, electrical, recreational facilitfes and open apaces were sll planned for that denaity. He atated less tt~an 2,000 ectual units have been condtri~cted and the denaity ie under 3 rather than 5.44 and that reduction in the de nsity hes been the result of the real eetate market. H~ stated this proj eat ie deaiqned for the firat-time buyer and is expected to attract the 25 ta 30 year old profeesional family which is currently effectively exclu~ed from Anaheim Hills Planned Community b9cause of the high price of housinqs that 45 projects have boen built or are under canetruction and 32 of those projects were f~r sinql.e-family detar,hed housing end 13 were for multiple-fatn ily housinq unitst that 2,808 single-~femily detached units have beert constructed and 1,045 multiple-~amily attached units have besn constructea, so that 72.9! of the houeing unite developed were sinqle-femily detached units and 27.1+b represent the multiple-family houaing unitas that currently approved tentative tract maps still ~r~med by 7 1983 93-64 I+LINUT69. ANAHBIM CITY PW1NN=NG C~MI88ION, FRBRUARY ~ Ta~xeco-Annhoim H111~= In~' pxatachadounitsQdthat~353 townhouseilotenerel of vfiich 441 ara single lataily d ~~;Ad to soll !or ircluded in thi~ 793 and ot thoae• 327 ere toanhouse4 axp°riced unit in ~185,000 Co ~Z00,000 per unit~ that currently tha lowest p Anehaim Nills Planned Community is ~1130,000 and an income ot more than ~50,000 ia required to quelily for purchasinq the unit. Mr~ Mnsan r.eviewed the qoale and policies of thu Canyon erea qeneral plan ..rhiah etatee in thu intrc+duction thnt tt~e plan ia deei.9~g8 stylma~torae+ll contemporary li.ving environment thet retlects verying pereons of Aneheims that the Anaheim Hills pi°~n~~Almostu25'Yof.rthectotel~land 3,250 of ~he 14,440 ecres includedale o~athe plan ie to provide en opportunit.~ ~de). He explained ane of the qo retion to obtain decent housing in e suitable environment and that coope =ovide between public and privete sectors should continue to be loetetied to p quality housing at the loweat posaible co~at end that a variety of dwelling types ~nd densities shall be provT~~Qnf p~ Sociotynt family aizee and aqe groups thet do not exclude any po Mr~ Mae~n stated one of the reasone these qoesla have not been achieved is the it wae rovide suflicient variety of housinq atyles; tltat initially lnilure to p of houwing types would be provided at verying proposed that a wlde variety price levelK but because of the houeinqd~achedihouseaUbecauseeemphaeis6wea deneities were lcaered faz sing~andAtolachieve these new goa18, previously Ne stats placed on hl.gher priced housing approved +~nd recArded maps were resubdividad toroximatelyd2881/'2B~were for of the 2,2g0 lots recorded prior to 1/1/77. re~dro ed to lese than 18~. multiple-family and xfter that date t.i-e f~9u pp Mr. Mason added this is an attempt by the developer to achiev~ a broadening of the epectrwa For families whh ~°~ oalsbofithe~CanyunwAreanGenerelrPlannandheY believe it is conaistent ait g d~ity housinq at the lowest price the private sector is proposing to provide qu poesible and to provlde houses to familles and aqe qroups now excluded and ia eeekinq the cooperation of the public aec~or in order to achieve these goals. Mr. Mason steted the plan has been reviaed reducing the nwaber ~to 34 units and aeveral waivere were eliminated and also re~intedpout$thelelevationstand noted anclased qarage spaces for each unit. He pa roximately the differential of the bui.ldinq pad and Serrano Drive which ia apP 30 feet• He referred to the flag on the rear uf the site and explained that ent and the building pad an that lot is is the hillside behind the develnpm approxia~atelY 60 feet nbove the elevationQ~fthat bu81i.1nu.~eHey xPlained there ~ 9 app~oximately 200 feet from thBia uWaarS'aR elevation differential oi is a hillside on the ecsterly roximetely 100 feet. appxoximately 60 feet and a diatance of app Ellis MaYQrave, 6952 E. Country Club Lane, Anaheim. presiden*.of the Anaheim Hills Planned Cor~.~~ity A~socs~ated/theatboard caeanbers are reaide tseof Annheim meetinq on Jai~uary 28th. He Hille and are r;ot all knowleonA~he givelca~ember boararetw°dp~°ple votc3 in ect as it woald effect them and favor af the pro3~'ct r~nd one was against th0 pacoject and two persons a.bstained. He .,N~.] _._.~.L.,~. - - - , 83-65 MINlJTBB• ANIIHEIM CITY pLANNIt~3 ~OM~IBBION, !'SSRUARY 7, 1983 stated he thinke ~.hose knowledqt-ble in Lhe plenning process =e~~oV~ ahthet Hi~,l~ should be devaloped as tha Master Plen we~ oriqinelly app this eite t~es the City'e water tank on it and it heo d horrrndou~ looking buildinq end he thouqht this project could ~o nothing but improv. the environment and that the den~ity proposed ie considarably lower than initinlly plannod end ~itilitiae ere nvailable. Ha etated he nlso balievae a div~reity o! housing is needed in Anaheim H illst that he lives in Huntera Point and tnere are e lot o! paople there with children who are 23 to 25 year~ old who cannot efford to rent an epertment or buy n housa and are still livinq et home and movt o! the rasidente would like to haveggae~h~Qhwouldnbe coneidereduen houees in AnahRim Hilln. Ne atated he aupp~ nttordabla project fH~lls~couldH become affordabletbc+caueeu o! thebCityVteee~and enything in Annheir~ pumping servic9s required fox wdter, etc. He etated a mix o! houeing ie needed ancl thia sesms t~ be a qood site for eTeonmon the board opposedetoethe little traffic im~act. He stated the only p pioject would be the one who lives in Anaheim Ridqe Eetntes which overlooks thia project. Mike Duckworth, 'l023 Columbua, Anaheim, steted they were upset nt the tast meeting due to the lack of notice and nlter aofi~ areknowe thatutheyhhave Commission will aee just how concerned the pe p Mr. Duckworth preaented more received some information about what is planned. petitions +~n~9 indicated they should hnve over 200 siqnaturea on the petitions, He added he feele this includinq the anes preaented at the previoua meeting. project is not compatible with the neighborhood architecturally or the density and the inclusion of the slope flag ie nothing more than eomething to cXeate~ that there is a lot the illusion that the dena:ty i~s lower than it really is; develnped below that slope which wes to be eold for custom homes and he Hes concerned about the effect• on thet lot end alao about the maintenance. stated he is concerned ~meHill$Siargoinq to tak~cal of the direction that the new developers of Anahe Larry Bender, President of 3unset Ridqe Homeownera Association, 1089 Arcnstrong Circle, Anaheim, statecl their project is immedistely east and stnted the same developer wh~ wae concerned about providing these low coat houeinq units is the same developer Parp°aellingefor anhalflmillionldollaracandihe~felttthis8ls Ridqe Estates whi.ch buildin on the reservoir juet a little inconsistent. HP ref~rred to the City 9 eite and stated it is a 20 foot by 20 foot buildinq snd one half of it is recessed into a hillside. He atated their proj~willsbeoable~tolseeritn He elevation than this project and he thouyht they stated he dici not zeceive any notitication of the t~naheim Hf.lls Planned Community Association Hoard meetinq and Asked towillPbe able toraffordna home list. He stated he has children and hopes ~eY :,ark in the area becauae when they are old enouqh, but he would lika to see a they loet a park due to condominiums wt-ich was locyced next to the proposed echool site. He st.eted he would oppose a commercial development on that property. F[e stated he wculd aqree there is a Maeter Plan and it should be followed and ~~ a d~~ouldebeidenied 30taddit onalnhomesion a~ceommercialuld hope this developer w property. MINUTB9, 11N11H6IM CITY PLI-NNING COM1AI88ION, F'iL8RU11RY 7, 1983 83-66 Chuck Bertocchini, 920 Boone Circle, Anahoim, raad e lettex in opposition lrom Kelly Sims, 960 Boone Cir~l~, 1-nahaim, Enat Ridqe Eetntes, who is e proPes~ionel real estate appr~isar, ind.tceting oppoeition on th~a beais thet the propoaal ~or deteched gareqes is non-conlorming ta the erea end thet no other project he9 thsm in the Anaheim Hills eraa and the letter r.o~tained reaeon. !or this oppositiont end eleo the mielendinq deneity o! tha proposed project as atacked clustez unitet and Alnc thet they wil]. be danw ginq to the surrounding property values due to the aubritandard quelity o! tha propoe~,d pr.oject and the propotad low pricc~e compared to tho higher priced surrounding units. Chairmen Fry pointed out tho Plnr-ning CanmiAeion cennot conaider economic vnluea and ehould only r~viow lend planninq. Willia~m Adama, Presldent, Lake Summit, 965 Park Rim Circle, Anahoim, ateted everyona he has talked to is opposed to this project tor varioue reasnnat thet there is a Aquel number of homeowners associatione which are not in the Mnater Aasociation and none of thom ever received a notice ~f this meeting to be held with the Master Asaociationt that he bouqht n home in thie area becauae thie wes a planned community end thie project with e non-contiguoua parcel stuak on crentea an erea which 1s quostioneble as to who would maintain it end that none of the ather developmente within the immedinte aren are multiple-family units end he sees this ae the begir~ning of hodqe podqe development. He etatod utility costs in Anaheim Nills erea escalating and a high denei*_y devolopment auch as this would make it worse. HQ added he felt thie will provide rental units rather than low-cost housing for first-time younq ft~milie~. Charles Cundiff, 6951 Vla Estribo, Anahc+im, stated he is a member of the Master Asaociatton and xt the last meetinq, th~re was no one in fevor of the project who lived in the area and he dld not l~c~l this ie a good quality project for thie area and did not belie~e thc+ developer has the communit}~'s interest at heart and he felt thls would not be the best uae for this property and that it ahould be developed as a pazk or fire station site. Barbara Martin, 0949 De Santiaqo, Anaheim, stated she is speaking for her hueband who is President o~ ~-naheim Ridge ~states and nn offioer o! the Master Asao~iation, and 'ne ig absolutely oppoaed to this request. 8he stated the easterly parcel of land is certainly an illusion. Marjorie Fisk, 7061 Scenic Circle, Anaheim, atated there ia a lack o! any type recreational lncilities in this project and they already have vandaliam in their pool and tennis court arees and she felt younq people wha do not have eccess to recreati.onal facilities will naturally look to other areae where they can uae their facilities. Chuek Cucunato, ~~80 S. Rutqera Circle, Maheim, stated his property is directly across the etreet and his whoie backyard overloaks this property and referred to a rec~ent court case in San Diega County where the courts ruled in favor of the homeowners that their property vnlues were di.miniehed and were aftorded larqe aums of money. He stnted he contactad thres different licensed appraienl cocipanies end they agreed that p~operty values will be reduced by this project and there will be a tremendoua increase in traffic. He atated there haa been two accidenta an that corner in the laet six nanths. MINUTES, 11NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI88ION, !'a8RU~1RY 7, 1983 6a-67 Bill Nye, 6991 Via Sstr.ibo, Aneheim, etntad Anehoim Hills h~d e MnsCer P~en and he was told when he bouqht his lot and built hi~ houee t.ha-t thi~ erea b~hind him wae sonad !or one-half scre lotu end thu aree where the wAter tank i~ loaated was eonad cotamercially snd would pz~obably naver b~ daveloped e~ e hiqh denaity projoct. He steted if there is e plan, ha telt it sh~ul.d be totlov-ed snd every~na he kno~rs hea oppoeed thia rAqusat. He ad~led he we~ nt the Maeter Aeaociation meetinq end there were only two ~Seople in tavor of thie requast and everyone elae wae oppoeed. He eteted he would Likm ta Aee s quAlity pr~jact on thie+ site And prelerably e park, but obviouely cennot meke such e request enc~ augqeeted even a fire atation aite would be mura ecceptable end stated they do not need apertmante in thia area. Mr. Maaon stated he wanta a plenned community and wanta to go back to the oriqinal planr that the concept of Aneheim Hills Plenned Community was chnngecl in 1976 end densities were lowere~d subatsnt.ieslly end priccs were increased end he wants to qo back to th~ origi.nal concept bQCa~ise now anly about 'l.~ ot the population cnn atford to live in thie erea and that ie not good planning. Ho stated these are not tenements ar slums, but ere unita wl~ich would aell for approximately ~100,000 to young lawyers, engineera, erchitects, and other professionals who would have to trim down their Uudgets in order to live here. Mr. Mneon atated originally i~ was anticipt~ted there would be a restaur.nnt on this site and he woul.d aqree that would l~e Uad planning, but he did not think this transitional houaing wo~ld be bad planning. He etated this plan has been put together by one ~f the most reputable architects in thi$ area and it desorves n Pull and fair hearing and disegreed tliis kind of project will impact any of the houae~ around it. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commiesioner McBurney thankec3 the opposi~ion for their input end etated that i.s the kind of input the Commie~aion needa to make their decisions. He stated he felt this project is a little bit of butchery with the added parc~l to brinq down the density and he did not think that ia proper and he could not stand behind this particular petition. Commieaioner Herbst stated he was a Commissioner when development was sterted in Anaheim Hills and densities weze reduced from the oriqinal plan, but there was an exchanqe of densities from one area to nnother. He atated Anaheim Hi11A was started on a piecd of paper nnd the Commission and the developer did i~ut have the experience of developinq hill a~nd canyon nreas and after seeing hnw the developer hed flattened out the hille in the firet ~velopnrent, a contour grading ordinance was adopGed quickly and there was no way to develap the densities proposed on the oriqinal plan. He etated rigt-t now every developer is requesting hiqher density and the Planning Commissian needs to review the cumulative etfect becnuse the traffic impacts are alread~~ noticeab2e and traffic eignals are overlaaded end before the Commission qrants any incr~eases, Anaheim Hills, Inc. ehould come up with a cumulative effect report on the etreets, traffic siqnals, sewers, etc.r that there is a lot of ground left to be developed by Anaheim Hills, Inc. end at eome time in the ~uture there will be some land left that cannot be developecl becauae of the cumulative impact. He stated he would like to see the Connaieaion stick to a solid plan= that the oriqfnal plan never turned out to be correct MINLTTEB, 11N11HBIM CI'PY PJ,AAINING C01+IMI8$ION, 1-'EBRUIIRY 7, 1983 83-68 and llnaheim Nille, Inc. end Texaco knew tliat end etated thie pnrticular projecC doea not tiL end loaks like a"hetchet" and is a qoad exampls of whet the CAnunis~ion hea to watch beceuae th• jaeopla who parche~ed proporty there dseerv• Ch• protaction of the City of 1-n~yheim end Annheim Hills, Inc. and thet he will try to give tham thet protaction. Comrt-Sesioner La Cleirs nqreed ae to why the denaities were reduced ~nd eteted ahe did not want t~ approve eny more proiecte without e cumulative impect atudy on the reeourcea o! the nrea end that to her those unita look like epertmonte. 8he a*.eted effordable horsinq hee been provided in Annhel~a H1116 over the yeare end ehe felt becauee of the coet o! dev~lopment in Aneheim Hills, that ie no .lonqer a pc~eaibi.lity. 3he ntetec+ eho w~a on the orlginel Taek Force when the Genernl Plan wn4 adopted end s:~e thouqht the objectiveri have been met. She felt Texeco Inc. ahauld obsdrve the contrect agreement.a with the City j~tet as th~ City hae with Texnco Inc. in providing qaod que4lty hau~ing. 3ho suqqe9ted tho dRVelopor request a continuAnce. Comtniesioner Bushore at~ted he wauld like to act on this pr~jact es propoae~, boaeuae if an upde~te ie providad, an EIR wou:d take some tim<! and it ahould be determined who wi11 do Lhe updetet that accordinq to Mr. Mason's fiqurea, Texaco-Anaheim Hille owns 25~ of the lend, but moet of it ie developed and they ehould particip~te along with City atnff and nny other developerF~. He etated he ~elt the Commiaeion ahould calt a halt t~ any tuture rezoning of approved tentetive mepa until. the updato ia provicY~dt that some ccarr~,ctione have been made on this pr~~ject hy eliminating the waiver and that qar.aqe doors have boen provided, even though he had aaked for ettached qaragea, und that the deneit,y ahould bc~ beaed on axistinq Toninq. He atated he doos not like this kind of land subdivieior~ and he etil.l hea not aeen anything t~~ quarnntee that it would }.,+e all right to drlve on tF,e reaervoirj and that he doea not like thc idea of ~arking or driving on the reearvoir. ACTION: Commiesioner t~a Claire offered a mc~tiion, seconded by Gorru~~l&aioner Herbst and MOTION CAItRIED, thet tl~e Anaheim City Planning Commira;aion has reviewed the proposal to amend the Zoninq Element of the Flanne~'. Connaunity of Anahoim Hilla and to increase the acreaqe of the Anaheim Kills Plenned Community to construct a 34-unit c~ondominium complex with waiv+ara of required site ecreening on an irreqularly-ehaped parcel of land consis+.lnq of approximately 675 acres qenerally located in the Santn Ana Ca:~yon, aouth of Santa Ana Canyon Road, between Anaheim Hills l~ad and Weir Canyon Road and an irreqularly-shaped parcel of Land conaistinq of approximate:~~+ ~.9 acres, having a frontaqe of appruximately 420 feet on the eoutheast aide of Serrano Avenue, approximately 125 feet northeast of the centerline ~~f Hidden Canyon Road- and does hereby dieapprove the NAqative Declaration from the requirement to prepare an envfronmental im~ct report on the baaie that there would be significant individual ur cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Neqative Declaration since the Anaheim G~neral Plan deeignaLea the subject property for hilleide low-density residential land u$es commeneurate with the proposalr that eensitive enviranmental impacts are involved in the prnpnsals thst the Initial 3tudy submieted by the petitioner indicatea siqnificant individual or cwnulsti.ve adverse environeaental impacts. There was a brier c1i~cuaefon regaz~Ltng whether or not the petitions ~or reclassification and variance ehould be denied or continued until the EIR lIINUTES• ANIIHEIM CZTY PI.~1NNIt'ifi COMMI851I021, PEBROARY 7, 1983 83-b9 updats i~ prspared. Dean Sh~r~r ~xplained it it io the Coauni~tsion'~ thinkinq that ~ven with the SIR they would not approvo this typs projact on thi~ pYOp~rty anywey, it would ba appropriat~ to deny the~ racla~~iticatinn end varienca. He ~nplained thr reclassiticetion petition is to emond the previously approv~~1 reclaaeilication ahich approved th~ (ianerel Pl~n ot DevelopPaent tor the 1lnaheim H111s Planned Coaanunity which d~eiqnate~ the property laz~ coanmercial use. and the patitioner is requ~etinq that bs chanqed to reaidentisl ~nd to inarease ths ecreeqe o! the 1-nnhAim Hills planned Community. Coeamieaioner La Cle-ire offered Reealution No. PC83-24 end moved ~or its paseeqe snd adoption that the l~naheim City Pl~nning Commission doee hereby deny the requeat tu ~mend Raclaseiticetion No. 71-72-44 on the l~aeis that the negative decl.aration i~a+~ been diseppr~v~d And en environmentel irapact repoxt will be required nsdreasinq the cumuleti.ve imp~cte of thia recl.aesil~icetion on the erttire azea• Un ro].1 call, the~ foreqoinq resoluticm wae paseed by the follawing vote: AYEB: BOUA3, BU3HORE, FRY, NTRA~. IUNG. I.A CI.AIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: ~ NONE AB$ENT: NONE Commissioner La C141re offere~ •"'~~~lcion No. ,~C83-25 and moved for its paesaqe nnd ndoption that th~ %~~e~a y.y Planninq Commis$ion dc~ea hareby deny Varience No. 3317 on th~~ '=4=.is +~-1t~ the requeat for recleesification and neqative declerati~n were dr-~:- ~+~, ''t'~~'+tby deleting the need for eai3 vnrience. On roll call, the foregoi~,~: =~~J>-~~'~~~n was passed by the following votQ: AYESi BOUI-S, BUSHORE, 1~1~~ -~"". 1CZNG, I.11 CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOESs NONE A98ENT: NONE Frank Lowry, Sr. Assistant ^i~ Attorney,,presented the written right to appeal ~he Plant-ing Camntssi~n.'~ decision wi~hin 22 days to the City Council. RECESB: 2:55 p.m. RECONVENEs 3:10 p.m• ITEM NO• 3. CsSNERJ-L PQ.itl1 ~i~iDMEt~ ~ N0. 181, RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-15 AND REQit1E8T FUR SI~CIMHN Tl~S i~M10VAI pU~,IC EtEP-R,1.+4~G. pFrN~'R: THE PRESITYTE1tY OF LOS ANGELES, 1501 Wil shire 'eQalRwrd, ~e ~qele~s, CA 90017. AGBN;: 3AL GOT'PU80, 7t8 "G" East Edna Place, Covina, CI- 91722. Property described as an irregularly-ahaped parcel af land conei,atinq of approxiemtely 4.32 acres, having s frontaqe n! ~roxiaia~e~-Y' 240 !°eet on the west aifla of Villa Rea1 Drive and being lxated appro~ei'a~a~s~lY 375 ~eet south of the centerline of Nohl Ranch Road. 6p~- F~Qt~SST s To consider an amenclnaent to the land use element from the carreat ttiilleide, low-denaity residential and general open space deaignation to hilleide low-medium denaity reeidential. KINUTES~ M111HEIM CITY PLANriZN(3 COMMI88ION, FBBRUARY 7, 1983 83-70 RICCLASSr PICIITION REQUSST s R8-11-43, Q00 ( SC ) to RM-3000 ( fiC ) ttequeat !or removal o! (3) apeaimen treoA. There wa~e no one inclicating their pre~ence in oppoeition to eubject requeet enA elthough tha staf! repart wae not read, it la ret~i~red ~.o end mede a part uf the ~inutes. Commiasioner Buehore declered e conflict o! intereat an defir~~:d by Anaheim City Planning Cc+mmiseion Reeolution No. PC76-157 edopting a Con~lict of InterAet Cade tor the Planning Comtnission end Governm~nt Code l3ection 3625, et eeq., on the basis thet he ie the reel eetate egent !or tF~d property owner and pursuank to the provieione of the nbove CodeA, declered to the Cheirman thet he wee withdrawinq from the hearing in connection with Reclaseification No. 82-83-15, and would not take part in either the diacuesion or the voting thereon and hed nat diacusaed thie metter with eny member of the Planninq Commisaion. Thereup~n Commiasioner Bushore lett the Cuuncil Chambor. Jay Tashiro, Aeaociete Plenner, prosanted the eteff report to the Plnnninq Commission noting this is a property owner initin~ed Genexel Plan AmQndment to change, the current hillside low-density residential and qeneral open space deaiqnetiona to hillside low-medium residential and that the property owner propoaea to develop a townhouse project consisting of 25 unitsa He noted ~he etudy area consist.e of approximately 4.3 acres fronting on Villa Real Orive, located aouth of Nohl Ranch Road and imc~ediately north of the ~live Hills Reaervoir and the Maheim/Orange City l.imits. t,can 8herer. Aesociate Plnnner, preae?~ted the etc+ff report pert~ining to the req;+est fo° reclassification from RS-A-43.000(SC) to RM-3000(3C) tReaidential, Mult.~ple-Femily Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone. Cal Qc~eyrel, Anacal Enqineering, stated this was previously approved for single-family reeidential development and they are proposinq a planneu unit development (PUD). He stated thia was a unique property and elmoat all of the lots will bP view lats= that there will be a center median strip seldom seen in a development of thie nature with a lot of landscapinq around the property• He stated they sent invitations to 25 homeownere associations invitinq them to a meetinc~ und that lest Wednesday, two interested persons attended a meetinq and both expresaed favor for the project. He explained these units will ranqe in size from 2400 to 2800 equare feet nnd will sell for approximately ~300,000. He stated they feel t:his project will upgrede the erea. THE PUBLIC HEARTNG WAS CL03LD. Coduniesioner Herbat atated it appears that ev~ary property owner or developer in the Canyon area wants to increase the dens:lty and he do0s not want to increaee any more denaities until there is an envirorunental impact report prepared ahowing the cumulative impacts. Ne ~otiated he thouqht this property could be developed under the old ordinances wi.th 21 unite. He stated every dev~loper researchee the Planninq Department records 8r.d once an increase ot density is approved, there will be requests all thr~ugh the Cnnyon area. He stated he realizes this is a amall project, but it will be a atart. ~ MINUTES, 1-N71H6IM CITY PLANNING COMIMISSION, E'SBRUJ-RY 7, 1983 83-71 Mr. Queyral ~tated he would dioagres and thouqht every piece o! proparty should ba oonsiderad on its ovm marit and thia property is ~!i!lerent beceuse it is on e knoll adjeaent tc~ comm~ercisl proparty and a park and raearvoir. H~e atated th~y nead the d~nsity ln ordsr to meka the proj~ct l~+ssible. Commissioner H.rb,~t eteted he is c~na~rned ebout the cwnuletive eftact on tratfic, electrical servicee, sewer~• etc. and Chare haa noL been an envi.ronmental impect rrlp~rt >>rapa-red Por thet erea in 10 yeare and he would not want an increeae until one hae been prepared. Mr. Queyrel atatad this proj~ct wauld h~v~ very ~ittle impaat and the property ie unique and should bQ considered by iteel! ber,auae that !.e whet plnnning is all about~ He atnte~9 he did not think there are any problems in thie area and no other proparty hes t.heoe anme unique leetures. Commisaioner La Claire stated ahe aqreed with Commi~eioner Herbst that the Commiseion h,s been tryinq hard to plan Annheim Hilla Por a long tima and all the utilitie~ were planned to eervice a cArtAi.n number of unite and now the CommiBaion ia qetting a lot of requeete !or increaeed deneity nnd a18o that a hospitnl was ~ust epproved which will have en impect and the Comtnieaion ie at a point where in the interest of the citizens, they ahould look into the cumulative effect. ~Chnirman Fry atated he feels the emme way and •realizee that foui ndditionel unita prabably wo~ild not cred~:e any problem, but it has to stop somawhere and that thera are three similar r.equeste on today's dgandn. Mr. Queyrel ateted they did teeearch utilitiea end there is no problem and he did not know how the other projects would eftect this particulnr er.ea. He stntcd he did not think there .ta very muah undeveloped property in this area and he would agree if thie was a larqe groject. Chairman Fry asked if Mr. Queyrel v+ould 11ke to request e continuance in order to provide an update to the EIR addreeeinq itsalf to the cumulative effect on the utilities in the future. Mr, Queyrel eeked if the Commiae~ion is requesting that h~e provide en EIR on thi8 area only. Chairraan Fry aGated it ehould covez how thi~ project would affect the whole area. Mr. Queyrel askel if Anaheim Hille has desiqnated qeoqrnphic boundnriea. Annika 8antalahti, Aesiatant Dizector for Zoninq, ~tated ahe did not think there were any official boundaries, but ehe would conaider the nrea eaeterly of the Newport FreewaY and southerly of the Riverside Freeway as the Ana~heim tlilla area. Mr. Queyrel pointed out this pro~ect is adj+~cent to the City of Oranqe and he wAUId question whether or not it ahould be considered as part of Anaheim Hills and he did not think they should be involved in preparation of en EIR for the entire Anaheim Hills aree. Comoaissioner La Clalre atated probably ataff could make thA determination whether or not this property should be inclu3ed in this EIR etudy, depending MINt1T~8, 1U111H~IM CITY PLJINNIN4 COMMTa8I0N, ~SARUARY 7, 1983 83~7Z on where Ehe property ~ts its ssrviaas and euqqeated tha pstitioner ~eka e two-week continuanae in ord~r to vrork with stat! on that .t~su~. Jay Ta~hiro explained th~ WAtez Division has indicated they hav~ capubi.litiss !or hanllling the service~, bseed on tha den~i~y epproved la the 1977 c3~neral Plnn which includ~,d tha entire Canyon a-rme east op the Riverside Freewny. Cntronisaioner flerbst pointed out thi~ property wea approvecl !or eleven, 10,000-squnze toot lots whieh could t~a devaloped into 21 units, but the developer wante juet e- little bit a-ore and he telt it ahould b0 lelt ne epproved and thnt he will not vote !or chenginq khe zone. Mr. Queyrel stated it mey not be economically teasibla t~ develop this property at the npproved density nnd he felt considc~ration should be qiven to the uniqueneee of this property. Commiasioner Herbat steted thie i~3 probebly a tine praject, but he i~ et111 concerned reg~rding the cumu.lntive effect of the incr9aeed donsity an the entire ar^e en3 if everybody keepe increasing dansi.ties, somedny somehody will not be nble to develop their property at the spproved deneity k~ecauac~ the Pecilities will be overlosdecl. C~~mmissioner 1Cinq euqgested that each department head write a leti.er qiving thu present and tuture picture. Chai.rntian Fry reeponded to Commisaioner 1Cing that he would not want ta put the department heecie in the poeition of a~aking a couani.tment of the facilities without further study. Commissinner La Claire noted t:iat when the hoepital was npproved juet one month ago, it was not known by the Commiselon that Imperiel Hiqhway was already passed it's projeated capacity and ahe felt there may be a lot of other thinqs thnt are not known at this time becauae the LIR hae not been updated in 10 yer-rs. Mr. Queyrel requeated a two-w~ek continuance in order to deterntine if this pzoperty is to be considered as part of the Anaheim Nilla Area. ACTION: Comn-ieaioner La Claire o~fered a nwtion, seconded by Comc~'_.asioner Mc~urney and I~iOTION CARRIED~ that r,onsideration of the aforementioned mntter be continued te the regularly-scheduled meetinq of Febru~ry 23, 1983, at the request of the petitioner. ITBM N0. 4. EIR NEGATI~IE DSCLA1tATION (PREV. APPRVA.) AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2373 (READV•) PUBLIC H$ARING. OWNERs YBBRHAM I.AI ATA, 26371 Avery Parkwry, Mission Viejo, CA 92675. AGENTs TALAT RADWAN. 26371 Avery Parkway, Mliesion Viejo, CA 92675. Property described ae a rectanqularly-shaped parcel of lanr] conaistinq ot appxoximately 0.42 acre at 1725 Scuth Brookhuret Strect. To permit the addition of n convenience market to an existinq qaeoiine serviae station• t MINUTSS, ~NAHEIM CITY PI.~NNZNC~ CbMMI8820N, FEBRU~RY 7, 1983 83-73 There was no one indicetinq thair pr~aenae in opposltion to •ubject request anA although the stef! report was not rsnd, it is reterred ta end made a part ot the minutes. A1 Serreto, 2901 9. Renea Drive, •tated ~n October. 4, 1982, when he eppenred bstore the Planning ~oamniseion, their concern we~ thet eliminntinq tha center driveway anA blocking it otf with a 3-foot wida landecaped planter wou.ld crtete mejor trAtfic conqestion on the proparty and tF~ey hed saked for an opportunity to work ou~ these problema with the Traflic Enqineer~ however, the petition wea denied. lie stnted they have devel~p~d en alternetive whlch is saCiefectory with the Tra!!ic ~ngineer and that it ia to provide the middle drivaway with tire bueters en~ en "exit only" sign re4her than ~ landscaping plant~r dnd thet the r.iqht end left entrance drivewaya wlll be marked o~ "entrances only" and that the concrQte work on the entrance drivewaye will be ~oditied es curb returne and thdt the applicant haa agreed to maint+~in the tire buatere. He further etated tl~e hours o! oparation will be to c:lose et 10:00 p.m. Stdn Solon, 6550 Paseo Alcazaa, stated his oppoaition, as a ropreeentative of Mothete Aqainet Drunk Drivers, io the combination of the sale of nlcoholic beveraqes and qa~oline~ that ae.rvice stations are ge~erally run by te+enagere who fr~quently ae11 nlcoholic beveraqee to their peorst and that the beveraqes aze refrig~rate3 and ere cold, read~-to-drink and alcohol and gasolinN don't mix, except in the tank. Jeri Suckman, 6504 E. Camino Vista, Anaheim, A~iministrative Aasigtant of the school located adjacent to eubject property- stated they are very conc~arned becauee the majority of their etudenta are young lameles between the ages of 17 and 22i that they have claesea all day and inta the eveninq and moat of the parkinc is in the rear and they do not like the elemQnt this type operation with t1~e sdle of alcohol will bring into the area. She stated tliey are also concerned about the increase in traffic and, in addition to the students who would be out front on their breaks, etc., they da have vieit~rs at the echool with small children. Marvin Barrett, 2216 Via Alameda~, Palo Verdee Estutes, etated he owns the property where the school is located and is concerned about the traffic and interference of the students and there was a r-ajor accident riqht in front of the building juet this morninq and the increase in traffic would incrQase the accident rate. Ha referred to the nortiherly entry which has been designated ns an entry only and stated that would reduce the exita f or the ~chool to only one on Hrookhurat nnd that_ they do hnve an easement for that northerly property for inqrass and egresa and hA did not underatand how this could be limited to entry only now. Heidi Idum, 1115 8• Hilda Street, representing Nbthers Against Drunk Driverg, stated they oppose the se111nq ot alcohol at this Iocatian and they oppose the aelling of liquor et a qaeoline station becaus~: it is just too convenientt thet a person may come there just to buy qasoline, but aee the availability of the alcohol and may apontaneously purchase it and would be able to consume it while drivinq and that it has been proven by the Nntionel Safety Council that over 50e of fatal accidenta involve the consua~tion of alcoholic baveragest ar~8 that drinkinq and drivinq do not mix and in thia location, they would botti MINUTEB, ANIWSIM CITY PLANNINO CONMI88ION, F1~8RU~RY 7, 1983 83-74 be coming lrom the same noz:let and with alcohol.ic beveraga~ t,e~ng Ao accessibl~, it vrould increase the con~utnption end increasa accidantej and •elling al~~hol et this location could brinq undesirabls psople and a potantial for incraaasd crime. 8he ~tated, in qanaral., thix w~uld be datrimental to the ~zea, rether than an aseet and not~3 there ware alreedy two exiatinq li:rvor stores n~arby. T.,eeter E1bArt, et~ted he livea on Montecito l.oed in Lon Alnmitos, but owns property in Annheim ynd is aqainst sellinq elcoholic beverages at the gesolins atation~ that e11 these petitionera nre interested ln ia the privilage nf ~ellinq liquor nnd would not be interasted in opaning n convenience market without the right to sell alcoholic bevernyes. He atated this would be aqainet the eafety and weltnre ot the people in the areat that there az~e a number o! aacidents with drunk drivera driving into liquor atoree and i! thie is ~pproved, end they were to dri~e into thia qas atation, it would blow up the entire aree. He steted also thie type fecility attracts rohbera and innocent bystan~ers could be hurt and it dosa affect the welfere of the people in the area. Mr. Elbert referred to surrounding cities w~~ici~ have experienced problema with this type fecility and hr~ve paseed ordinan~ea or moratoriuma on future approvals until they can atudy :ie situatlon. Mr. Elbext added he ~s d~~finitgly against aelling alcohol and geaoline on the same premises. Rismon Chakko, 1701 Brookhurst, statec~ he ia th~ owner of the qrocery store on the corner from the qas etation and asked if this ie approved, would he he able to sell gasoline from his store. Chairm:,n Fry reaponded that he Could request a conditionel uae pezmit. Mr. Serrnto stated when they came before the Planninq Conunissicn previously, they had si~qnatures of over 1,000 people from the erea who supported the concept of the convenience market. Concerning teenaqeres selling to other teenaqers, he stated that is a poasibillty but this owner does not have any ~eenagers workinq f.or him. He stated he thouqht the increese in traffic has been adequately addressed. Regarding the MWDD representative stetementa as to the percentage of ,people involved in nccidente who have been drinkinq, he stated he would aqree with that fiqurer howeve~, would not think buyinq in a convenience market and service Rtstion would contribute to that figure and that less than 1/2 of 1 percent ~~f alcoholic beveraq~s sold would come from this type facility, ~ut would b~ aold {: a liquor atore or large cnarket. He atated the State legislature ha~s enected etiff requirementa on people who are cauqht drinkinq and drivinq and ho supports those requirementa, but did not believe the eetablighment of alcnholi.^, beverages at this site would contribute siqnificantly. He atated he is a City Councilman for the City of 3anta Ana and they have approved several beer and wine applications at mini-marketa in that ~rea and he would question the eCatietics presented by the peraon concerninq other cities. THE PUSLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. MINIIT=S, 11N111~EIM CITY PLANNIN(i COMMI88tON. l~'lBRU11RY 7, 1983 83-75 Comfni~sionAr Bu~hor• et~tsd h• oppo~~~ tho du~l uo• o! thi• propsrty, not nscet~erily b~oauss o! th• liquor •+~1~~. H~ eeathd h• is aqainst drunk driver~. Hm •teted the only similar u~~a approvad ar~ in th~ Disneylend area where th.y would be a convenisnc• !or p~opla walkiny irom th• awtels etc., but ha would oppo~a thi~ request bscaua~ o! the dusl use. Commio~ion~r Hsrb~t statec! h• think• the tire bu~t~rs au-k• the ~ituaeion worss. He etated this etation is not conducive tor a back-up aituat ion, unlese the gao pumps ara moved. H~ Rtated ha ha• been oppa~ed to any convenience nutrket as a dual u~~ bacause they ara qning into cotnpetition with markets previouely apprcved aiid operatinq under differsnt. standerds . Contmiesioner Kinq etat4d he voted for this in tha previnus heKring, bu~ has ninae learned lrom the Planninq ate!! Ghat they recammend the area be at leset 150 laet by 15~ lent. and this eren does not meet that requirement arad he would vote againet thia propoeel at this time. Commissioner McHurney atnted the northezly drivewAy had eccess to tho ~chool next daor and theX could come out that way end it would not be juat an inqrsse, but en eqraes end inqrass. Paul Sinqer, Tratfic Enq~neer, steted the recon<nandation of his off iae did not come out the same way it io recommendedt thet the original recommendetion wee to turn the puraps so that the driveways on the ende could be acces s~d, but the npplicant indicated he would be unsbla to chenge the pwape and, *he =eloro, his oflice selected e second elternative that eould poseibly be uaed, t>vt it wes not a reconnaendetion e-nd that tire busters were a necessity due to the unwillingneee ~f the applicant to turn the pumpa. It was noted that a Neqative Decleration wae previouely approvAd by the Planninq Commission, October 4, 1982, and by the City Council on Novea~er .c, 1982, in conjunction with this previously denied raque~t. ACTION: Commiesioner Herbet oftered R~eolutior. No. PC83-26 end moved fnr its pasanqe and adoption thaC the Anaheim City Planninq Cummigaion doe s hereby deny Conditiunal Use Pera~it No. 2373, on th, baeia thet the size and shape of the site are not adequate to accomu-odate the a~31 uee ae propoaed and that traffic would qenerate an undue burden on the gurL~unding area and the uae would Ue detrimental to the peace, health nnd satety 3nd general v+°elfare of the citizens of the City of 1-naheim. On roll call, the foreqoinq resolution was pasaed by the foll:+winq vate: AY~B: BOUAS, BU3HOitE, FRY, HBR83T~ KING, LA CLAZRE, MC HURNEY NOE8t NONE ABgENT: NONE Frank Lowry, Sr. Assistant City Attorney, preaented the written r ight to appeal the Planninq Commisaion'a deciaion within 22 8ays to the City Council. MINt]TaB, 11NAHEIM CITY PL~NNIN(i CONMI88ION, ~ESRU~RY 7, 1983 83-76 xTEM NO. 5. EIR N1C(i7-TIVffi DECLIIMTION 11tiA CONDITIQN)IL USE PIERMIT NO. 2405 PUSLIC HEIIRING. OWNER~ C1NTR11LI1- BCH001, DISTRICT, 66Z5 Lei Paltns Av~nue, Bu~na P~rk, C11 9Q620. l1(iliNT~ DR. DOTIALD HECHT, 1Z756 1!. 11Ych~st~r 8tre~t, Csrrites, C1- 90701. Property i~ an irreyularly-shaped parc~l o! lsnd con~istinq o! Npproxia~ataly 12.8 acre. 3301 W. Linaoln 1-venu. (Centrelie Element~ry 8chc~ol~. To permit a private vocationnl nnd businegs college in en exieting public school tacility. Thera wes one person indicatiny his pre0ence in opposition to subject raqueet and elthauqh the stat ! report was nok reacl, ~t ie reterred to end mede a pert o! the minutes. ~harles Woodbin, Ass i atent Superintendent, Centrelia School L~ietrict, reterred Lo Conditlone 1 and 3 requir:ng street lighta, curba and qutters and the trnflic signel asees sment !ee nnd requoeted thoe~ requlremente be waived aince the proparty will be maintained !or public uea by the citizene tor recreational rurposes. He ateted the leA~e would be for 5 yeare to expire in June 1988, arid the cost to do theee improvewants would be subetnntial. He eteted he :anderstands thia operetion iu a non-profit oper~ntion. He eteted he waa not previously aware of roquirementa to pay water assessment leee or the wheel stop requireme nts on the parking lot nnd noted ell their other achools do not have wheel atope aut on the perking lot, but do have them nlonq the curb nnd eide of the buildinqs, ea they would request th~ae requiremente be waived. Don Hecht, Presidc~nt of the colleqe that is leasinq the property, steted he eupporte the positions etated by the School Boerd. He referred to the condition requirinq that all modifications be completed prior to commencemant to activities end explainod they planned to phase into the echool and to add epace and parking a s they go alonq. He requested they be permitted t.o commence activitiea and start amortJ.zing the cost and continue to meke improvements over the next 5 yeara, as enrolln-ent qrowa. Xen Griffith, 3enior Planner, City of Buena Park, etated t.hey have reviewed the application nnd inspected the eite and found that the homes in the Preaider~t Tract, juat to the north, which is lucnted adjacent to the parkinq lo't, actually sides onto the property rether than reaza onta the property ae assumed and the car s would be approximately 5 feat nway from those houses and the evening clAases would end at 1Os00 p.m. Mr. Griffith stated he ur.deretande a block wall wae p:oposed adjacent to the reaidential proparty only alonq a portion af the parking lot end he would suqqeet the parkinq be meved back to where the pavement already exists and a buffer be provided along with a 6-foot wall alonq the entire north boundary nnd that tho wall should be conetructed before tAe parkinq goes in. He added they feel some land~ cepinq would aleo be appropriate. He steted another alternative would be to wova tha parkinq lot e- qreater dietance from the northorn pc~rtion westerly, thereby leeving the green area between the parkinq end reeidential area. 93-77 S NINUTaB r ANAHICIM CITY PL1-1dN2N0 COMMI88ION ~ F'BBftUARY 7~ 1983 Mr. Hechti stetied h. hee no ob~oction ta the yrwsnbelt betw~en the pazkir-q nrsa end ths rs~idantial aren and certainly 40, f,0 or even 80 laet wau].Q be aGCepteble an8 EhaL would mean the parking l~t B would be go inta e!lect rather than crnnpletinq sll o! parkinq Lot 1-. He stated they hav room !or approximately S80 cero which is more thsn ne~a~~d. THE PUBLIC HSARING WA8 CL48E~• Reeponding to ~ommiseioncr Hushare, Mr. Hecht explained they preaently rent the K~ys School and in that pareait, th~ City dealt with the School Board anH~ he did not know whether or not the leea were peid !or thoee improv~ments. axplainad they will be le~ving thet facility and nlso Crism Colleqo on Rast KetAlla ecauee it hae becoa-e adminietrati.vely difficult to hnn~]le two achools and they want everyone on the eeme campue. tie explnined their leASa wae !or 5 yeare with option to move on a fi-month notice on *he Keye School and thAy have qiven the Anaheim 3chool Board thet nAtice anu are raeking plane to move. bean 9herer, Associnta ~'lanner, expleined theae eeme conditione were e part of the Keye achool prapoesl and thet the City juet deposited a bond tci quarantee installat ion of the street improvements. Ho atnted he did not kno~w if the School Diatrict plene to continue khe conditional uee permit• Commigsioner Bushore etated he does not want to make the tnxpayers of one school dietrict pey wh.ile thie school qoes into another ect~nol di~trict to take advantaqe oP it by askinq that the fees be waived, aspecielly if they are ~pernting under the auspices of a non-proFit Pacility. Mr. Necht etatec~ their lease at tNe Keys 3chool was short torm and the rate was conei~ arably more than it would he et thia echoal, but the underetanding was that if eomething better came al,ong, they would move. He atated thay wantod taore space and the Keys School only has 20, 000 equare feet and the Centralia Schaol has 45,000 square feet. He $teted the property on Fnst Katella, CriAS College, is actually a bueinese park nnd they have rented warehouse space. DQan 3herer stated elnce the bond has been posted with the City to quarantee street improvementa, if they with8raw the conditional use permit and do not sai•isfy the conditions, the conditional une permit would no lonqer be vAl:d. Jay Titus, Office Engineer, atated i! they w~~~8~heh°would eit?aernputCth~d be refunded, but ae long ae they keep the pe Y iarprovemente in, ~r the City would use the money that has been poeted. Commissioner Buehore sta-ted he is not prepered to act on ttiis request without more information, even thouqh he was not aure that would be considered +ss land plenning. Dean Sherer stated he had a telephone conversation with a xepr~ssentative of the School Dietrict reqardinq the Keys Elementary School and they queetioned whether or not ths CUP was valid on their property and he ha ] advie~hetCit it wns valid ae lonq ee they zaeet all the conditions and,aubse~uently, Y received the check nnd he felt that ie an indication the School District intenda to keep ~he permit valid regardlesa o! who was uainq the property as a privete sahool. NIINII'P1E$, 11N11418IM CITY PLI1NNIt~i CdNMI88ION, FE8RU71RY 7, 1983 93-78 Coaimis~ion~r Sushors stated thi~ would be e dusl u~a anQ h• would not want to ree r.ha land beh ind th~ sohool not b~inq ueed as racrsational laailitie~ and it wae ascertained tihat eree- ia etiil evailable Por racraeti~nal purpoae~. H• clarilisd thet the petitionar he~ reliaved th~ School Di~trict o! any liability on ths Cantralia School. Mr. Hecht oxple-ined they er~ currently mAintsining the playqround area end tha liability he~ been susumed by tham in their leass. Frank I,owry, Sr. Aeoiatant Attorney, eteted the applicant hae requeeted thet certein lees bs waived nnd edvised the Conunie0lon thnt Condition No. 3 pertnining to the treffic eiqnnl essessawnt !e~ cnnnot be waived end eleo Item No. 7 pertaining to the Unilorm Suilding Code cannot be waived even by the City C~unci 1. Mr. Woodbin rea~aonded to Commiesioner Kinq that thes achool will have a 5-year leaae with four 1-yeer options to renew end thooe fnur 1-yenr optiona are nt the+ epproval of both parties and there is na cnncellRtion cleuse unleea the leesee violates th~ terms o! the agreement. Commieeioner Herbst etated th.ie ahould be txemted de a private busineae and the atreet hae never been approved properly and the School Dietrict ehauld improve it nowj and th~t: the other conditione should be included. Ha stated he hes no oppoeition to the use and felt there ahould be n 50-foat dietanca betwoen the parking lot and the residential erea nr a 20-foot landacapecl bufPer, the same ae would be required of any other property owner. Cammiesioner La Clnire agread and stated ahe would also went a 6-loot well on the northern boundary and the landscaped buffer. 8he stntec~ ehe viaws this as a commercial venture. ACTIONs Commis aioner La Claire offared a~^~~_on, 9econded by Cammissior_er Bouas ana M(1TION CARRIED, thAt the AnahAim City Planninq Commisaion has reviewed the pro~osal to parmit a private vocational and business colleqe in an existinq public achool facility on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistiaq of apQroximntely 12.8 acres, havinq approximate frontaqes af 425 leet on the north side af Lincoln Avenue and 150 feet on the west sf.ie r,f Western Avenue and further deacribed as 3301 West Linc~ln Avpau~ !Centr~lia Elementary Schaol) r and doe~s hareby approve the Neqative Draclara~cion fr~~n thc requirement to prepare an environmental impact report on the baais that there would be no ai gr~ificant individual or cumulative adverse environmentel impact due to the approval of this Neqative Declaration eince the Anaheim General Plan deaiqndtea the eu~~ject property for elementary achool aite land uaes commenaurate with the propoaalt that no sensitive environmentel impacta are involved in the propoeal~ thnt the Initial Study aubcaitted by the petitioner indicatea no signiticant individual or cwnulative adverae environmental impactsf and that the Neqative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in ~he City of Anaheim Planninq Aepartment. Coa~issioner La Claire oPfered Resolution No. PC83-27 and moved for its paseaqe and adoption thet the Annheim City Planninq Gommiseion does hereby qrant Conditional Uae Per~ntt No. 2405 includinq the~ condition that a 6-foot high block wal 1 ehould be conetructed on the northern property line and that a MYt~UTaB~ AN1-HEIN CITY PLANNINO COMMII~SZON• !'EH1tUARY 7, 1983 83-79 20-loot l~nd~oapod bu!!er ~hall b~ provid~d ad~saent to th~ r~~iQsntial er~n and ~ubj~ot to Int~ra~partm~ntel Commitks~ r~aamn~ndations. On roll call, the loreqoing resolution was pa~s~d by tha tollowing vote: AY88 s BOU118, FRY, H6RHST, KIN(i, I.A CLJ-I1t6. MC BURN~`Y NOB8 s NONa ABSRN'Pt NONE 1~g8T11IN s SUSHORE hlr. Hacht aaked i~ they cen occupy the premiee4 end begin operetions ima-ediatwly. He etated they would like to mova ee ~oon ee po~~ible and they onl.y have 150 etiudents t~ move and eo the existing parking P4cilitiee would ba +~dsqunta and when they expend and need more parking facilitie~, would gledly put up th~ wall. Annike Santelahti, Ansietant Director !or Zoning, ststed the Activlties on the premiaee cannot coauaence until they have complied with the appropriate conditione and also there 1e a 22-day appoel peziod. Commiasion~r Herbat stated if a~ bond is posted, they could conaider thet ea compliance with the conditions and Annika 8nntalehti atated there will be the neceuenry inepectiana. CommisQionc~r Bushore stated t~A thinks this is poor plnnninq on khe part of the nchool end that the petitioner knov+s the .ulas becnuae he hae been thzouqh th~m bet~re and to qrk to ~ •~nce actlvi.ties is a qrose injuatice. 7'1'BM NO. 6. EIp _NEGATi+~. .~ ^°~"~'ION AND CONDITIONAL USE PBRMIT N0. 2414 pURLIC NF,r-RING. iWNERSs'.~ORTH AMERICAN INVEBTMENTS, 1940 N. Tuatin, 3uite inC, Oranye, C1~. 90701. AGENT: QUX VIET TONG, 2418 W. Hood Stzeet, Sante Ana, ;n 92704. Pxoperty 1a deecribed ae e rectanqularly-shnped parcel of land coneistinq of approximately 3.1 acres located at 2424 S& T Waet eall Rnad. T~ F>ermit a beer and wine tavern in the CL Zone. There was no one indicatinq their presance in oppoaition to subject request and althouqh the staff report wne not read, it ie r,eferred to nnd mbde a part of t.he minutes. Quy Tonq. 2418 W. FiPth Street, agent,, explained he would like a conditional use pormit !ox n restaurnnt with beer and wine and live muaic on Friday~ 8aturdey and ;~und~y nighte from 8:30 to 12s00 p.m. THE PUBLIC HHARIt~IG W~S CL08ED. Coa~uniesioner King stated ha juet could not see any reason for qrantinq this zequeat becnuae more thnn half o! the shops in that center are vacant and he did not thi.nk this would enhance the property. Reepondinq to Commieaioner Herbat, Desn Sherer explaine~9 ".here are three praviovsly approved conditional uea permite !ar beer an'~ 41ne at thie loaation. MINUTI~B, 1W11HEZM CITY PLANTNING COMMI88ION, F3HRtlARY 7, 1983 83•80 Coaimis~ioner Mceurnay pointed out that thi~ io in clooa proximity to Meqnolia tliqh 8ohool. ACTZpN~ Caamis~ioner H~rbst o!lared a motion, secondad by Conuai~sionmr Kinq and MOTION CARRIBD, that tho l~nahsim City Plsnninq Commis4lon ha~ r.vi~wed the proposal to permit a beer and wine tavern in the CL (Comtnercial, Limited) Zone on a rectengularly-rheped parusl of land consietinq o! approximately 3.1 ecree located et tha eouthwest corner of Ball ltosd and Gilbert Street, hevinq epproximat~ trontagee o! 600 leat on the aouth side o! Ball Rc~ed end lurther described eg 2424 W. Ball Raad, 9uitee 8 and T t and does hsraby approve the Nagativa Declarntion lrom the requirement to prep~re en anvironmentnl impact report on the besis thut there would be no siqnificant individual or cumulative advarnb environmentel impect dtte to the approvel of this Neqative Declazation since the Anaheim General Plan deeiqnatee the subject property !or qenerel cnaunarcial lnnd usoe commeneurata with the propoeelt that no eaneitive environmentel impacks are involved in the propoeelr that the Initiel 9tudy submitted by the pAtitioner indicatee no eiqnilicant individunl or cutnulati.ve adverse environmentel impacter eng thet the NeyAtive Decleration eubstentteting the foregc~ing ~'indinge ie on tile in the City o! Anahoim Plnnning Department. Commisaioner Herbst oft`ergd Resolution No. PC83-28 and moved tor ite paseage and adoption thnt the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby c9eny Conditional Use Permit No. 2414 on the basie that there are three previously approved establiehments with alcoholic bevezagee in that ahopping center and it ie wiChin cloae proximity to a local high sr,hool and that e beer and wine tnvern with live muaic would not be conducive to thet area. On roll call, the toregoing reeolut.ion was paseed by the following vote: AYES: HOUAS~ BUSHOREr FRY, HERBST, KINC. .d- CLAIRR, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Frank Lowry, Aasistant City Attorney, presented the wri~ten right to nppeal the Planninq Commission'a deciaion within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0. 7• EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CANDITIONAJe USE F~ERMZT NO. 2415 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERSs ANAHSIM VII.'•,.r CII OWNER'3 ASSOCIATION, INC., 1955 Greenleaf Avenue, "^." . 1-naheim, CA 9i ~'. ~• Property deacribed as an irreqularly shaped parcel of land conei~ting of approximately 1.7 acre located at 2050 W. G-eenleaf Avenue. To permit a pre-school and day care center wi.th a maximum of 4~- c:~ildren in the RM-1200 Zone. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and nu~de a part o! the minutes. Elaine Orr, 1955 Greenleaf, 1lE, Anahel~a, stated her husband is preaident of MINUTEB, ANIIHEIM CITY PL~1NI~1INfi COMMI88I(yN, FlC8RU71RY 7, 1983 83-81 the Homeowner's 1-ssociation snd there is a vacent pra-school or dey-cere c~nter at th~ end o~ Oreenlse! and Gre~nosl~s and they would l.ike to ba able to lea~e it for a day-cere c~ntsr. THS PUBLIC NBIIRINCi WA8 CLOagD. Cnnunissioner Herbst p~inted out the previoua approval was for the p~ople who live in thn condomini.um only nnd Ma. Orr etated they bought their condominium in February 196G, and et thaL time th~ dey-care center wAS ba.i.ng run ae d commerclal ventu.re, as it hns been al~ throuqh the years, ancY they did not know abc~ut thie restriction until the ~~rn-ite were requeeted for the new lesaee. Commiseioner Boua~ clarified the m~xir~um number of children will be limited to 44. Ms. Orr explainsd the Department of 9ucial Services requlntes the number of children. ACTIONs Commiseioner Herbst offered a motion, eeconded by Commiasionrr Mceurney and MOTION CARRIED- that the Aneheim City I'lnnning Commiseion hae reviewed the propos~*1 tc~ permit e pre-echool and day-care center with a maximum nun~r of 4Q~ children in the RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple, Family) Zone on en irreqularly-ahaped parcel of land consiating of approximstely 1.7 acre, hevinq a front,aqe of apprc~ximately 98 feet on the west aide r~f Greenleaf Avenue and further d~tscribed 2050 West Greenleaf Avenuet and does hareby approve the Neqative Declaretion from the requirement to prepare an environmental itnpact report on the basie that there would be no aiqnif icant individunl or cumulat.tve adverae environmental impnct due to tho npproval o~ this Negative Declarat:ion since the Anahei.m Generel P]an designates the subject property for rnedium clensity land ue~as conmiensurate with the proposal~ thar no senaitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposalt that tht~ Initial Study aubmitte~j by the petitioner indi.cetea no siqnifir,aRt indi.vidual or cumulative adveree ~snvironmental impactet nnd that tlie Negative Declaraticn subatantiating the gcrE:going lindings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Commissioner Herbst offered Reeolution No. PC83-29 and moved for ita pnsae~ge and adoption ~hat the Anaheim City Planninq Commission daee hereby grant Conditional Uae Permit No. 2415 to permit the pre-echool and day-care center for a maximum of 44 children and eubject to Interdopartment~l Committee reaommendatione. On roll call, the foreqoing re~solution wae passed by the followinq vote: AYESs SOUAS, BUS+IORE, FRY, HERBST, KI*iG, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE AB$ENT: NONE ITEM NO. 8. EIR NEGATTV$ AND CONDITZONAL USE PERMZT N0. 2416 PUBLIC HEARING. REQUESTED BY: CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Aru-heia-, CA 92805. AGSNT: STORER CRBLE TV.~ INC., 914 E. Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as an irregularly-shaped narcel of land coneistinq of approxi.nately 0.83 acre located at 4555 8. Riverdale Avenue (Fire Statian No. e). t MINUT88~ ANAt1SIM CITY PI.~-NNINa COMM288ION, FEBRUARY 7, 1983 83-82 To permit a micxowave r~c~iving etation. Thare wns no ona indicating theLr prosence in oppositian to eub~oct request ~nd sithouqh th~ statf repart wae not r~ad, it is reterr~d to and mede e part of th~ minutes. Ron Miller, ACB, Construction Manager for 8torar Cable TV, reterred to Condition No. 1 requirinq e traftic eiqnel eseessment !ee explaininq this use woulA not qenerate a large emount of trdffic and the property ownar is the City. Dean 8herer, Associate Plenner, rosponded thet thet condition ~hould be deleted. Mr. Miller re~erred ko the oondition roquiring that the tawer bo scraened and expleined the ~ire Depertment ie propoaing the addition ~F a etor~qe buildinq and a block wa11 and they would bo providing a tem~orar.y fence until that well la conetructed. Dean Sherer explaino~ that condition i~ a reeult of a zequeat from the Parks DeQartment and read a memo trom Dick MaXer, P~rk Planner, dated January 31, 1981, Xequestinq tour ~onditiona ~o be implemanted in approval of thie permit. Mr. Miller explnined ~rom e meintenence point of viow, they would prefer not ta paint Che tower and referred to Conditi4n No. 4 pertnining to the square footage ~~ thg development area and steted thet ahould be corrected. Dean Sherer reaponded thnt Condition No. 4 ehould be correctdd to show the d~avelapv~ent area aa ?00 square teet nnd that Condition No. 2 allowe the develop+er to work with the Uiractor of the Parka, Recreation dnd Community uarvices Aepertment as to the screeninq and enclosing of the tower. Mr. Miller refezred to the cor,dition requiring clenrance liqhts end explained t~ese lighta are not requized Ly the ~AA and pointed out the hoepital to the east is expnndinq with a 30•foat high expansion. Mr. Miller added these liqhta are for helicopter Activity in the area and he wae aure they wou18 not be flpinq that low.. He ~gr~ed to work w~th the Police Dapar.tment on this requirement. TH~ PUHLIC HEARZNG WAS CIASED. Commisaioner La Claire pointed out Eucalyptus treee in the area axe about 70 or SO feet high and in addition, ttiere ere hills acrosa Santd Ana Canyon Road and ehe thought it would be ditficult for helicoptere to fly that low. 3he added ehe ie also concprned about tha liqhte beca~ise of the people who live above and ahe woulcl leave that decision up to the Police Department. Frank Lowry, Sr. Assistant City Attorney, atated he had contacted the Perka I~epartment to detsrmine ahy theee requirementa were beinq requested in thie pet~t'.an and it is because the property is located in the Scenic Corridor. ACTION: Cammisefoner Le Claize olfered a dwtion, seconded by Caamisaioner Bouaa -nd MOTIOt~I CARRIED, that tha Anaheim ~ity Planning Comtaiasion hae reviewed the proposal to permit a microwave receiving station on a irregularly-shaped parcel ot land consiating of a~pproxi.mately 0.83 acre, MINUTEB, ?1NJWEIM CITY PL11NNxN0 GOMMI88ION, FffiHRUARY 7, 1983 83-93 havinq a lrontage o! epprox:.mately 150 l~et on the n~rth eide oi Riv~rdela 1-vnua end lurthar d~~cri.t~a8 as 4555 Eaek Riverdals J-vsnus (Fire Statian No. 8)t snd does heraby approve the Naqati.ve Daalar~tion lrom the roq+lirament to prepars dil environmentel impnct report on th~ basis that there would b• no aigniPicent individual or cumulativa edvarae envizonmentnl impact due to tha a~pproval o! this Nsqative Declazetion since the Anaheim aensral Plan desiqnetes the 0ubjsar proparty !or lire ~tation aita lend u~e~ commenuurate with the proposal~ that no ssnsitiva environmer.`••: impacte are involved in tha propoeeli thet the Initial Stucly eubmitted by the petitionar indiaatea no siqnilicent individual or cumulntiva adverse envi.runmental impe~atat and that the Neqative Declaration substnntiating the foraqoinq findinqe ie on lile in the City ot Aneheim Plenning Depnrtment. Coma-iesioner La Claire oflered Reaalution No. PC83-30 end moved for ite pesaaga and adoption thnt thQ Anaheim City Plenning C:ommission does hereby qrant Conditionnl Use Pern~it No. 2416 subject to Interdepnrtment~l Committee recammendationa, deleting Condition No. 1. On roll call, the fnregoinq reaolution wae peeaed by the fpllowing votes AYESs BOUASr BU$HORE, FRY~ HER$ST~ KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Cotamisaioner Buehore was concernec. whether or not the leaae includes the raquirement to remove the structures after the lease expires with Frank Lowry pointing out tliat thelr Franchise requires them to remove ell equipment. ITEM NO. 9• EIR NLGA'x'IVE_DRCLARATION AND VARIANC~ NO. 3316 PUBLIC HEAR~NG. OWNERS: CHIEN 9HAN WANG 6 HVEI YU CHAI WANG, 105 Main Street, Halboa, CA 92661. AGENTs KENT LIAO, 631 W. Katella Avanue, Anaheim, CA 92802. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of apprnximately 1.07 acres located at 631 W. Katella (Waikiki Motor Inn). Wr-ivers of minimum landscaped setback, permitted location ~f roof siqn, minimum dietc~nce between sigris and minimum number of parking apaces to construct a restaurent eddition to an existinq motel and to permit a roof siqn. There was no one indicating their presence in oppoeition to subject requeat and althouqh the statf report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. K. C. Chien, 1526 Chateau, Anaheim, stated there ia a tremendous demand for e Chinese reetauranE in the Dieneyland area nnd that thie aituation ie very unique becaube of the walk-in traffic. Ne atated their traffic etudy did not really stresa that point and that most busineeses i.n that area say that 75~ o! their customera are from other mot~ls, recrea-tional facilities, or the Convention Center. Cancerninq tiie setback, he stated another motel in the area waa qranted a setback waiver. THg pUSI.IC FIBARTNG WA8 CIABED• MINUTEB, 1-NAEiEIM CITY PLANNING Cl)MMIBSION, FEBRUARY 7, 1983 83-84 Comn~ie~ionar Hsrbst etated this request io in excaes o! 50~ o! the parkinq requirement and h• could not juetify it end thought a succeeslul resteurnnt would not heve room to perk the cars. He stated he thoughL thie would be teking psrking nway lrom the motel end that could be detrimental to that operntion ~+nd th~ra are resteurante within welkinq distance and theze ie ~o need !or one at fihie J.ocation. He atnted the perkinq etudy doea not even come up with a auiteble anew~r. Mr. Chien repliad i~e realizad the parking study was mdrqinal, but the situntion is difterent dnd pointed out the liet of veriences which have been epproved in the etat! report. Commiesi~aner Nerbat sCated they are just overbuilding khe property. Cr~mrnisaioner Bushore atnted he thouqht thia motel wea up for aale recently end e~~ery motQl ~wnor in the area looked at i.t and would not buy it becauae there was nb zoom for expansion~ Atr. Chien stated they came up with an altert~ative to provide 49 spaces which l~s nnly 4 epaces short of the 52 spaces reconunended by khe Trnffic Enqineer. Hc st.nted hA was also told there was a possibility of entering into an agreement for a future perkinq dietrict. Mr. 3lnqer atated if the canopy is removad, 2 parking epacea can bp added. Cheirman Fry pointed out there are no imnediste plans for the parking dietrict. ACTION: Comm~ssioner Bushore offered a mc.tion, seconded by Comu-issioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED, that the Aneheim City Planninq Commission has reviewed the proposal to construct a reataurant addition tp an existinq motel and to permit a raof aiqn with waivers of minimum landecepQd setbeck, permitted location of roof siqn and minimum dietance between aigne and minimum number of parkinq spaces un an irreqularly-shaped parcel of land conaiating of approximately 1.0? acres, havinq a frontage of approximetely 215 feet on the north side of Katella Avenue and further described as 631 W. Katella (Waikiki Motor Inn)t and does hereby approve the Neqative Declaration from the requiremQnt to prepere an environmentt-1 impact report on the baais that there would be no signiticent individual or cumulative adverse envirorunental impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan desiqnates the eubject property for co~nmercial recreation lend usea conunensurate with the proposals that no seneitive environmental imgacts are involved in the propoealt that the initial Study submi.tted by the petitioner indicatee no eignificant individual or cumulative adverse envtronmental impactst and that the Neqative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings is on Eile in the ~ity of Anaheim Planning Depertment. Commisaloner Bushare offered Resolution No. PC83-31 end moved for its passaqe end adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Variance No. 3316 on the basis that no hardshipe were demonstrated pertaining to the eize, shape, topography or eurroundinge of subject propertyt and that ~ ~ 1 , MINUT88, ANAHSIM CxTY PL/-NNINti COMMI88ION~ F88RqARY 7, 1983 83-85 the parking etudy ~ubmitted by L•he patitioner did not show thet the parkinq nmeds c:en adequately be met. On roll oell, the fosr!minq resolution wa~ paased by the lollowi.nq vots: AYESt SOUA3, BUSNORE, FRX, HER88T, KING, LA CL1-IRE, MC BURNSY NOE8t NONR AB8ENT: NONE Frank Lawry, Aesiatant City Attorney, presented the written riqht to nppeal the Planninq Commi4sian's deaiaion within 22 days to the City Council• IT~M NO. 10. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCL NO. 3320 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERB: BUkTON E. ANAKIN, P.O. Box 747, Palm Deeert~ CA 92261. Property deecribed ae a rectenqularly-ahaped percel of land coneieting of appraximately .22 ecre located at 1603 Weat Ball Rnad. Waivers of minimum buildinq aite area per dwelling, minimum lloox aren per dwelling unit, minimum recrAational~leieure area per unit and minimum number a~nd type of pnrkinq apaass to convert en existing apnrtment rental offiae to a dwellinq unit. There was no ~ne indicating their presence in oppoeition to aubject request and althouqh the stntf repnrt wae not r.edd, it is referred to and made a part of the minutea. Burton Anakin, 78180 Ccrtez Lene, Indian Wells, Celifornia, stnted these unita were deatroyed by fire and thet the oriqinal plana celled !or six, one-bedroom unite, one, two-bedroom unit upetaire end one, two-bedroom unit downatairs, with an office attached, and that he had had di!l~iculty ranting the downgtaira unit and i~ was eventually rented out ns a eleepinq room and has not created any prublems• THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEU. Conuaiaeloner Bushore asked why this office area was not incorporated into the adjacent unit as an extra bedroom. Ms. Anakin repl3ed he had understood the units muat be replaced exactly as they were belore the fire. Frank Lowry, 3r. Aasietant City Attorney, stated aFter tha fire a proviaion was made, at the requeat of the City Council, ta ahort-circuit the noraaal buildinq permit procedure, etc. Coaamiesioner Bushore stated it was this qentlemen'a decision tc• continue to do eo~ethinq illegal and this area could hav~e been incarporeted into the adjacent unit as a third bedroom which wauld chanqe the parking requirements by 1/2 of a epace, end would dalete the other waivers. Mr. Annkin stated a lazger unit would be difficult to rent and the rent would have to be too high for this area. NINUTRSr ANIINEIM CITY pT+11NNIN0 COMMI88ION, FBBRUARY 7, 1983 83-86 Commie~lon~r Sushore stat~,d he aould only vote !or thi• projact i! that epace i~ incorporated aa a third badroom into the adjscent unit. Coma-iaeianer tterbst stated hs lelt thia i• en inetance where tho Plsnninq r.ommis~ion couid hava a little conipassion bacause ot the lire and etated this has baen qoing on !or a long time end hne not craeted eny hardshlp end he fe+lt the hardship ie thet it ie existinq. Conuniesioner Le~ Cleire cleritied thet thi.e eree wae constructed as an of~ica 24 years ago. She stated grenting thie requeet would be qrenting righta ovar and nbove what wae allowed in 1958 ancl aver what tha Zoning Code ellows now. Sha eteted ehe is concerned nbout ~he lack of perking becauee that area doae heve e parking problem• Commiseioner Huahore ateted the petitioner has had the bAnelit of ueinq thie ns dn extra rnom for 24 yenre and that he did have an opportunity to correct the situation after the fire, nncl chose not to and now he ia aeking tlie Plnnninq Conuniesion to npFcove it nnd thet by approving it as an additionel unit, ~nother parking epace w~uld be required. He auggested there may be ather complexes in the eren which have O~L~CBA and that they will be aoming in and requesting the seme thing and he would eugqeat the only a].ternative would be to make it a part of the edjacent unit• Mr. Anakin stated he had rebuilt the unit exactly as they were because that is whet he underetood had to be done. Commiasioner Sushore stat•ed ~he oriqi.nal plans show that area as an offlce and not as a sleeping room. Cammissianer Bouas clarifiec3 that the area doea not have kitchen fncilities and respondinq to Commissioner King about expandinq the adjacent apartment, Mr. Anakin stated a larger unit would be difficult to rent in that area. ACTION: Commiasioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded 'by Comntiasioner Kinq an~t MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Cit,y Planning Commisaion has reviewed the proposal to convert an existinq apartment rental office to a dw~lling unit with waivera of minimum buildinq site area per dwe],linq unit, minimum floor area per dwellinq unit, minimum recreational-leisure area per unit and minimum number and type of parking spaces on a rectanqularly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of approxi.mately .22 acre located at the northweet corner of Besll Road and Loara Street and further described as 1603 W. Ball Roadt nnd does hereby approve the Neqative Declaration from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report on the baeis that there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverae environmental impact due to the npproval of thia Neqative Declaration aince the Anaheim Gen~ral Plan desiqnates the subject property for medium densitp residential land uses coanneneurate with the proposali that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the pxoposalr that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicatea no aiqnificant individual or cumulative advarae environmenta.l ic~pactet and that the Negative Declaration subetantiating the foreqoing findinge is on file in the City of Anaheim Planninq Department. Cocamisaioner Herbst olfered Reaolution No. PC83-32 and moved for ita passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planninq Commiasion does hereby qrant Variance No. 3320 aubject to the petitioner's atipulati.en that there will be MINUTB8, 11NP-NEIM CITY PLANNINa C()MMI88ION, F$BRUARY 7, 1983 83-87 no kitchan lacilities in thia unit and nn tho baaie thst the unit ha4 been existinq !or 17 year~ wir,h~ut any adverre impact on the arae ~nd subject tn Interdep~rtmental CoaimiC~ea recoaun~ndations. On roll csll, tha lorsqoinq re~olut~on was passed by the lollowing vote: AYBS: SOUA3, FRY, HERBST, KING, Mt: BURNSY NOBBs BUSHORE, LA CLAIit~ ABSENT: NONE ITEM N0. 11. EIR N~GATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIIINCE N0. 3322 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: JlSRGE AND IDANIA CARAVZA, 3636 Lonqridqe Drive, Orange, CA 92665. AGENTe ADE COLLIE, 111 S. Oranqe Street, Oranqe, CA 92666. Property described ae an irreqularly-ehaped parcel of land consistinq of approximately 1 acre, located at 773 Peralta Hill~ Road. Wr,iver of maximum atructura~l height tc+ conetruct a two-etory, s.inqle-family reeidence. There was no one indicatinq their preaence in appoaition to sub~ect request and although the etaff r~+port was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Abe Collie, agent, etnted he was ~he deaiqner of the prvject and they are mehing thie requost to allow the 2-etary structurc~ becauae of subatantial terrain which alopea approximately 37 feet from th9 rear to thcs front of the property and the 2-atory structure would mi.nimize the aa~unt ot site cr~verage and reduce the amount of qrading required. He etated tk:ey believe this approach taaintains the naturel feature of the proQerty and is in keeping with the purposes o~ the Scenic Corridor Overlay 2oner that there are other 2-story properties in the nrea and the ad~ecent houses are 2-stary artd moat of them are built on flat padsJ that thece are eome houses in Lhe arNa over the 30-foot height liinit. He presented letters from adjacent property owners indicating they appr~ve of the desiqn. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CL03ED. ACTION: Commiesioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Gommiseioner Kinq and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planni~ig Conaaisaion hae reviewed the proposal ta construct e 2-story, single-family residence with waiver of a-aximun- structural height on an irregularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1 acre havinq a frontage of approximaCely 210 feet on the southwest eide of a private road located approxiiaately 300 feet south af the intersection of Crescent Drive and Peralta Hills Drive and further d$ecribed as 773 Per~lta Hills Drivet and does hereby approve the Neqative Declaratior- frem the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis thnt the.re would be no siqnificant individual or cumulakive adver~e environmental impact due to the approval o! thie Negative Declaretion eince the An+sheim General Plan deeignates the subject property for hillside estate residential land usea commenaurr~te with the propoealt tJlat no aeneitive environmentnl impacts are involved in the proposblt that the Initial Study submitted by the getitioner indicntea no siqnificant individuel or cumulative .::5 MINUTltB, ANAH82M CITY PLANNINO COMMI88ION, FESRUIIRY 7, 1983 63-88 ndv~rea envirorunental impecta~ and thet th~ Neqativa Dealeration subatantiatinq the lareqoing lindinq~ is on lile in the City o! Anah•im Planninq Dapa-rtmsnt• Commisaioner Herbst oftered Reaol.ution No. PC83-33 end moved !or it~ ps~esqe and adoption that the 1-naheim City Pldnning Conanl~ssion dome hereby qrant Variance No. 3322 on the basis tha~t danial wauld daprive eubject propert,y of privileqes enjoyed by other properti~e in the .nme zona and vicinity nnd sub~ect to Interdapnrtmental Comrtittea r.ecommendatione. On roll call, the foragoing reeolution wae passed by the followinq vote: AYESs BOUA3, BU8HO1tE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOL3t NONL AHSENTs NONE ITEM N0. 12. ENVIRONMENTAL IMIPACT REPORT N0. 218 (PREVIQU3LY CERTIFIE_D)~ R~GLASSIFICATION N0. 82-83-20 AND VAR2ANCE NO. 3321 PtJBLIC HEARING. OWNERSs R08IN HILL DEVF.LOPMENT COMPANY, 40S 3. Hev~rly Orive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212. Property deec.ribed ae an irreqularly-ahaped parcel of land conaieting of approximately 14.4 acrc~s, having epproximate frontaqse af 370 nnd 200 feet on the nortln side of Biq Sky Lane, approximately 620 feet southwest of Che centerltne of In~Qerial Highway. Reclassification .request: It3-H3-10,000(SC) to RM-3000(SC) Variance request; Waivere of maxia~um structural height, minimum numk~er of parking spaces and rRquired eite ecreening to conetruct e 72-unit coRdominium complex. There were approximetely eiqht peraone indicating their preaence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report wae not read, it is relerred to end made a part of the minutea. Martha Schneiders, Robin Hill Developmant Company, stated thoy are owners of two tracts and that one wns recently completed and because of the economic condition today, they ~rish to change the product in the second tract and the change is in full conformance with the Genernl Plan, but needs rezoning. She etated when her c~pany became involved with development in Anaheim Hills in 1978, they were addreasing the ~40,000 to ~50,000 a year income person or about 15~ ~f the population and interest rates were 9~ and tho,ae people could purchase a home valued nt ~218,000, but that purchaa~ power drops to a home value of ~7.15,000 with interest rntes at 186 or ~1b4,000 et nn intereat rate at 12.5~. 8he ateted at these aky rocketing interest ratea, the home they could havA sold three years ago at $200,000 haB incxeased upwards by 25 td 50~ which means the entire original market population for which they had entered the mnrket hag been left behind and the only populace which can buy th~ homes oriqlna~ly plenned has to earn over $70,000 a year. Sh~. stated in order to address the n-erket oriqiaally intended, they need to develop homes thet cost lase than ~200,00~ and thnt this can only be done by spreadinq the coet of the land amonq more buyere, ar increasing the density. 3he stated they developed Traat No. 10407 immed.iately to the east .:~:~c ~hey still own 20 of those homea MINUTEB, 7~NIWEIN CITY pLl1NNIt~G CaMMIBBIQN, l~~AR~ARY 7, 1983 83-89 end went this proj~ct to b~ an exc~ll~nt, w~ll-aesiqn~d projsct nnd want it to !iti into th~ al~eedy d~veloped n~iqhborhood •nc! the hon-se will look lik• the nwerby sinqle-lamily homee. Ma. Schn~idero atetsd thara is a pr~c~aence t'or this kind o! d~n~ity in ths neighborhoodt th~t im-~-~llatsly to th~ north is a oondominium d~vslopmant and ecross Impsrial Hiqhway io the Foothills nnd Windsor T~rracs and their own Robin Hill D~vslopment which becem~ tha model !or th• ~tyla a! thi.a project at ths requeet o! the praesnt haaeownar~. 8he atated th~y are rsqueati.ng to have the lance delat~d and thaL the eetback !or the 2-story units ba reducsd to within 50 fa.t ot surroundinq eingle-lamily neighborhoode and they leel thia i• appropriete beceuis o! the tremendaus vertical soperation betaeen the auzrounding neighborhood and tha propoaed tract. lMs. Schneiders had e slide preaentation, however, due to technical ~1ltficultiee the sli~e~ could not be aeen. Chairman Fry left the meetinq at 4s55 p.m. end Cheirman Pro Tempora eouae assumed the Chaii. Ma. Schneidere passdd out copien of the p.lana to the Conunieaion which illuetrated the vertical seperetion. 8he etated she h• been hearinq ell day the Commiseion's concern regarding the cumulntive eftec.t of the increnaed dovelopment in the Anaheim Hilla area and ehe would like for the Commisaion to coneider this project on its own meritt that ehe had checked with Jey Taehiro and Ron Tham~son in the P'lAnninq Department and receivad the intormetion that thie tract is rather unique= thet it ie located in Planning Area 3 which has bean aubetantinlly develo~d with only 210 undeveloped ~ites in Area 3 nnd it la preoantly eerved by adequete tecilitieet Lhat Mr. Thompson seid he had no concern about tho area west of imperial Hi.ghway, even wit.h .ncreased den3lty and this project le in conformance with the Maeter Plan and there is no significant impact nn the area by thie increased development. and this development will e~rve the gene~rnl populace !or which Anaheita Hille wae oriqinalZy developed. J. T. Warrinq, 5673 Stetaon Court, Anaheim, con~uended the Planning Conm-iesi.on tor their concern abuut the quality of life in ]~naheim Hille and indicated he ia concerned about the fact that the environmental impnct report has not been re-evaluated in 10 years and felt, qiven the qrnwth of L•he erea, it could be there should be a maratorium ~ut on new development until it has been investigated. He stated they are concerned about the preservation of the consistency of the oriqinal plan for development of ths area and everyone who hns bouqht in thia trar.t was aware of what was planned and approved by the Planning Commiesion which included sinqle-family homes aurroundinq them on thres sidea and they are concerned thnt allowinq Aebin Hill Development Compaiiy to develop thi~ area for multiple-family rather than ainqle-~amily would cause a siqnilicant increaee. He added they are concerned about the increase in traffic beceuse of the conliquration of Imperial Highway nnd Hiq Sky Lane to which they nre all connected and noted theze are a lot of accidents there now because o! blind corners and qrade di!lerencea~ that the hilla are extremely eteep tr~+n Imperial Eiighway and Nohl Rnnch Imad to where they are located and also increas!nq the trat~ic will increase air pollution. ~ ~ 8~-90 M=~gg, 11Nl1NEIM CITY PI.~-NNIN~3 COMMlI88I01~1, F1~8RUARY 7, 1983 Mr. Werring stated Robin Hill ha• b~en t~a mo~r ~ucoe~~lul d~v~lopnent r~c~ntiy built in 1-neh~ia~ Nl.11~ ana eh~ra are ~everal lot~ stiil und~velopad, which qiv~o the coenpany the~ opportuniky to mak• mor~ pxolit and 4ti11 stay wi~h thuir oriqinsl cominir.n~~nt. He statsd th~y ar• concernad that this will cr~ata rentel units in this nroe. He addwd thsy l~el thie w~ould b~ askinq !or environmantal dilticultiao enG placa a heavy toad on th~ utiilit~as. He •tated the vsry lunAamental aesumption un~er which they purche~ed thair home~ in the laet two years wi.11 be chenq~ d iP tha exieting Master Plen !or He einqle-Lam.tly ho~nee i~ ellowed to b~ eltared to a hiqher dsnsity pra j~ect. etated he would not have bouqht hir horn~ i! he hsd known that there ~+ould be a eacond condominium steckad ebove hi~ hend. He etet~d if there waa evar e cdse where the Commise.ion should be aoncernad about cumuletiva etfect on the envizanment, this ie .it. A. J. Wilborn, 5478 E. Big Sky Lene, Mah~im, steted th• Commiseion said they would not liaten to econo~tics, but that f s whet tha developers are t~lkinq abouto that they have an oxcell.ent product nnd the re~idents like i.t l~ut they have d marketing problcm. He steted they tael their propArtiea will be aeverly economically impacted i! theae condominiume are developed. He~ et~ted Imperiel Niqhway ia already overcrowded eand this would add 1d0 addi~iont~l people ae oppoaed to 85 in the oriqinal pzoposnl end he lelt this ie also a breech of promiee becauae they were told there would bo G5 eingle-family homee d~veloped on this pzoperty. Rona Knorrie, 5500 E. Hig Sky L•anp, Anaheim, stated she is very concerned about their communitys that a ma~ was qi ven to them when they movad 1n which repreaented wl~at type of homes would tw pl+~ced on eech lott that they moved hare because Anaheim Hills is a plnnned community and they believed balance would be achieved between the condoe~iniume and single-family dwellinqa en~d they teel theea candomir~iwas will severl y prejudice them nnd disrupt the balance which has been achl.eved. She stated ahe relied on the reputetion ot this aompany and they would aek thet no variencea be npproveds that the density problem is thefr qreatest concer n and had they known nbout this change, they would never have moved here. 3he atated 100s of the homeownera area preaent today who reaide in thest ar ea- Bill McFadin, 5570 Biq Sky Lane, Anaheim, atated h8eaa~oethis requestion te know t:hat 100~ of the reaident hort-eownez'e are oppo Frazik 1Canesky, 5482 Big Sky Lane, Anahe im, stated they were told by the sales representative that low-density, r~inql.e-family haaea would be built in all phasea and the model was diacusaed in deta-il and is etill. on display in their r3ales office and a map wa-s qiven to them. He atated they feel they have been deceptively misleed becauae of this act ion and if they he+d known that th~.s was proposed, they would never have moved ti~ere and asked the Coamiisaion to protect their inveetment and the oriqinal commitment to sinqle-family homes. Bavid Koeater, 5560 E. Biq 8ky Lane, 1-n~heim, atated he agrees with his neighbora dnd he has two an~all children and is worried about increased traf.fic in front of his dri• „~vay. ~ ~. MINUTEB~ AN1-HEIM CITY PL7~NNING COMMI88ION, FBBRUARY 7, 1983 83•90. Mr. Warting ~tdted ltobin Hi.ll has b~4n the most suocoesful development r~oently built in Anah~im Hills end there ere a~varal lots ~till undevelopsd, which givas the compsny the apportunity to maka mor• prolit and rti11 stay with Cheir oriqinal oomcltmsnt. Ne stated thsy nr• oonc~rneA thet th~•r will crsate rent~al units in t:hi~ arao. He added thsy lsel thi^ w~uld be esking for anvironmental di!liculties and place a heavy loed on the utilitiea. He eteted the vary lundamantal dsaumption under which th~ey purcheaed their homee in the lsst two yeara wiil bo ohanqed tf the exlsLing Maatnr Plnn !or eingle-lamily homee ia ellowad to be altared to n hiqher density project. He etated he would not hnve bought hi.• home if he hnd known that there would ba n second condominium gtacked a}~ove his h'ad. He atAtdd i! there wn~ ever e ceee wher~ the Cocamission ehould be concerned ebout cumuletive efter.t on r_he environment, thia is it. A. J. Wilborn, 5478 E. eig 3ky Lane, Anaheim, ~teted the Commiselon said they would not lieten to economice, but that ie what the developers are tnikin,y abautt the~t they have an excellent product and the reaides~ts like it but they have d marketing problem. He eteted they teel thair propertiee will ba aeverly economically impacted if thesn condominiume ere developed. He ateted Imperial Highway ie already overcrowded and thia would edd 180 ~~ddf.tione~l people ae appoaed to 85 in the oriqinal proposel and he felt this is also n breach oP promiae becauae they wexe told there would be 65 eingle-family homes developed on thia property. Rona Knorrie, 5500 E. Biq Sky Lane, Anr'~~im, atnted she is vary concerned ebout their communityt that a map was g~ ~~~ ~~ them when they moved in wh~ch repreeented what type of homes would be ple: ~~~, on each lot r that they moved here beaauae Anaheim Hills ie a plnnned camiaunity and they belie~ed belance would be achieved between the condominiume and single-femily dwellinqa and they feel these condominiuma will eeverly prejudice them and dierupt the balance which hae been achieved. 3he stated she relied on the reputation of this company and they would ask that nn variances be Uppruvedt that the denaity problem is their greateat c~ncern and had they known about this change, they would never have n~oved here. She atated 100~ of the honteowners area present today who reside in that area. Bill McFadin, Sa70 9ig Sky Lane, Anaheim, stated he wants the Commiasion to knuw that 100~ of the resident homeowners are oppoaed to this request. Frank Kanesky, 5482 aiq 3ky Lnne, Anaheim, ateted thay were told by the sslea represontative that low-deneity, single-family hoa-es would be built in all phasee and the awdel wae diacuased in detail and is still on display in their eales office and a rt-~p was qiven to them. He stated they feel they have been deceptively mislead because of this action and iF they h a known that this was proposed, they would never have moved therQ and asked the Commission to protect their inveetment and the original cocaaitn-ent to eingle-family homeg. David Koester, 5560 8. Big Sky I.isne, Anaheia-, etated he agreea with hig neighbors and he has two smnll children and is w~rried about increased tratfic in front of hie driveway. NINUT38, !INlW~IM CIT1f pLANNINO COMMI88ION, l~'EHRU7IRY 7, 1983 83-91 Harry Norris, 5500 E. Biq 8ky Lana, Anahaim, rtated they mede e osr~lul seezch o! th~ area belor~ purahasinq th~ir homet that th~ Ce-nyon ?oint• aondominiums v-~r• eco.ptabl~~ becau~~ they a~re ssteblish~d and he could livo with th~t d~n~ity n~arby and movsd into hio hotns Chinkinq thsre vrould ba 38 additional l~umas on this ~~raparty and attar h~ had mov~d in• tha dav~lopor came to them with the proposed chenge ot plans nnd from the beginninq they sxpre~aed their dioapproval enA heve ~eked ths daveloper to retein the sinqle-iamily hane dov~lopmant. He etated the yraphic demons trstion a~ shown •hould be di~ragerded einca the Coauni~sion cannot coneider ecdnaa~ics nnd tha~ he could sh4w riml.lar liqure~ ahowinq th• impects the other w~y. He eketar] th~y would n~t heve a-oved here i! they had known what wa~ happoning. He etetad ths hoc~es thet remain uneold are noL• •old beaauee of ths compeny's enerketinq conditionst that the homes ere in di~erray with aeade growing to th• eaves nnd windows not acr+~ped and tresh lrom the work crewe lett inelde Che homee. N• stated e new owne.r moving in actuelly siqned a Le+ttar s tatinq he would nat oppoBe condominiuma below him, but he was not shovm the davelopment until alter he had eiqnad the letter, and atter he reelized the location anA praximity, he telt very beCreyed. He etated thet new owner could not aCtend thia meeting and has asked him to point out hie opposit ion. M3. Schneider~ stnted this d~ea not involve e chanqe to the General Plen and that area is well serviced Uy the Fecilitiea dnd thie new incraaeed density would brinq the project intc~ densitiea ellowed undnr the General Plan. Cancerning trefPic, sewers, gradinq and viewe, sha atated they were aleo c~ncerned and did hire a coneultant to do en update and ahe ~ad that here tor Commis~ion's considexation. She ateted t he upclate pointa out that hiqhAr doneity homee heve lesa trefific, rather than more and inetead of thirteen round trips to the door ea ln a single-family residence, there would be nine and the total increased tralffic wauld be 154 round tripe or 77 eingle tripe. 8he stated their company is !n the bueine ae of buildinq and aelling hanes, nat renting unita and t.he only time there wau ld be rent~l units would be whAn the homee were not solri end alen their lan~ler would not allow loane to a non-occupant owner. She eteted they sold 27 homee abaut 1 and 1/2 timee becauae buyere could not quali.fy and theiz incomee rnnged in the ~50,000 a yeer area. Ms. 3chnefdera stated their intaqrity was queationed as to developinq the project as promised. 3he explained they pri.nted a brochure 2 years aqo and revealed their thouqhta that they wvuld develop two completely separate tracta in one style and did develop one-half of ~.he tirst tract and had ~ive sdles in six months end dec~ded to go ahead and build the bnlance beceuae they felt they owed it to tt~e honaeownere and thet it would look very etrange not to complete it and they wanted Rpbin Hill to be an entity unto itself. She atated all of the tifteen homes remeiin einpty and uneold and that eiqht people have entered into eacrows knowing there will be some type new product devgloped on Tract 10410 and that they entered into thnt escrow becauee they had faith in the company and liked the houeea. She stated their cowpany has oftered to buy back the oriqinal homea for the price they p+~id includinq 50t o! their cloeing costa, other thnn prepa id costs. Srie atated the market has chanqed and there are not enough people arouna to buy thirty-eiqht additional homes of the aame atyle. Ir1INUTEB, lWl1HSIM CITY PLJWNING COMMI8820N, FSBRUARY 7, 1983 63-92 THE PIJBI~IC H~7IRING WAS CLOSSD. Cameniasionar Bushoze etetaci three yanre ago h~ yot into a aimilar eituation when tha markst wes qreet and purchased Another 15 ecrs~ down the strest snd the merket changed end now they lind themselves tekinq e 1500-sque~re toot unit nnd down-sizing it to 950 ac;uers leet ~nd •el.ling it as al.fordable thr~ugh County 3onds and e~re atill having trouble, e~~ he could eytnpathize with the Qeveloper. Ne stated they wer• able to rezone the Wscond piece of property beaause the origlnal 50 unite were up the rc+ed ~nc! had ncthing to 3o with the proporty that was beinq r~zoned encl they he-c! not ~nade eny promiaes to the buyera end hed mede no ia~nlied warranties. Ho eta ted probnbly every ona of tha people in tha original Robin Hilla Tract wne ahown thet beautiful mAp showinq the hou~ee that would be built anA ta have the Commiseion now allow the incredeed deneity because of their buei.nees de ciuion wo~ld be e grose injuatice to every one bc~ceuets people bougl~t thoir homee relyinq on the ap~cilic plane epproved and not juet ~n the Genere 1 Plan. He stated the petitioner'e company made a promiee to those paople who purcl~aaed thaee hames and even thouqh they sra two different tri-cts, the ir compeny awns both trects and tho~e promieea w~rn made. Ne etntod thie tract is completely difterent than the otherb the Commiseion has heard C~day because thoee promiees were made and he would do e~verything in l~ia pc~wer to makR eure those people get whet wee promisecl. He added the eeven C~~mmieeionere' cotnb.ined experience would probably be AO yeara and he is proud of wtia t thuy heve dana. Me. Schneiders stnted they woul~ lo~~e t~a bui.ld the pro~ect they oriqinally envisioned, but the world has not kept it's pro-ni.ses to themt that when they purcheeed the property, Anaheim Hills, Inc. promised them there wee an abeorption rate of 800 hou~es a yeart thnt peo~,le have tried to buy their homes and three yeare eqo they would heve been able to purch~se them beforo the in~.erest retes went aky hiqh. She stated they have tried to mAke the best of what ia not a good situation by freeing their buyers ot cancern of economic losae by offering to purchase their homea back and they have worked to develop a beautiful devalopment and she wiah~ad tliet the s lides could have been shown to ehow that the project would have fit in with the exiatinq developaent. 8he atated ttie promiae was to provide houeinq for people who earn ~40,OA0 to ~50,000 a year and they find it difficult to comm.ft economic ~uicide by buildinq more unseleable unite and endanqerinq the values of the homebuyers already there. Commisaioner 8uehore etated he han been in the eame aituation before end the deve?apers do taY.e a risk and the world does not owe developers or anyone elae anythinq. He stated he could not; go along with this requeat and hoped thinqs will chanqe because he does not like to put people out of bueinesa, but this is a touqh decieion to make and when the property was rezoned, the promiee was made and now it has to be livad withr thet even though it may not be the beat thinq for the area, the infrastructures were planned and this increase may not have a siqnificance on those infraetzuctures, but all of these thinqs muat be considered. Ma. Schnetdera aeked if Conani~eioner Buehore is saying that homebuyers did not take a risk nnd Conaniasioner Bushore stated he wae sisaply saying her company took a riek. Commissioner i,a Claire atated ahe felt there is a differencet thet a homebuyer does taka a riek, but qenerally hia hoa~e is his life's MINUTES, AN~11i8IM CITY PIJ-NNINCi COMMISSION, FBBRUARY 7, 1983 83-93 inve~tn-ant, wheree., the d~v~lopar~ hava a home oth~r thAn their acxi~pany inve~tm~nt. 9he •te-tsd ahu aqraed thi• would b~ s qood product, but aqreod that comtnitenents wara mnde to the property ovm~r• ~nd nl~o the aumuletive e!leat o! tha inareaoad dsnsiry in tha w~ola area has to be considered. Commissioner 1lerbat stdted mo4t condoa-inium d~v~lopments ara on private straets and he does not aqree with the aoncept of developing them on public etreets wher• they r+ould be becking out onto the atreet, and :~ormally a candominium development would not hav throuqh tra!lic, but that thia v~rould be a throuqh e~treet nnd would be genoreting twice ar much tre!!ic ~han would normally be approved. He etated aleo condominiwn d~velapments in Maheim Hills have t~een private conununitina with homeowner's aeeociationn end their own swimming poale~ ~etc. but thet khis project does nc~t have any of those thinqs. MA. Schneidere pointed out the recreationel aree shown ae Lot No. 1. 3he explained the roed is a lc~p road end ie quite remuved lrom tha other etreet end will bo aerving thie community only. 3he added there would be more caza backinq out oz~to the atraet w~th the original plan for single-lnmily homes. Commiesioner Herbet stetod he would di.aegree that the treffic is reduced with a condominiwn, project becauee they will have children who live there and will cirive and thE! traffic will be doubled on Icnperial Highway~ HQ atnted if thie request waa approved, nther developere would reee~rch the records nnd there are quite a Pew propertie8 undevelopQd in Annheim Hills and due to the cumulativu efEect on the whole area, eventually aomeone would not be abla to develop their property. He stated the City oP Anaheim and the developera made e commitment tn the people who bought homea in that Plnnned Community. Ne stated the City hae made soa~e trade-~ffs with Anaheim Hills for hiqher denaity in one er.ea for lower denaity in another area, but this 18 juet doubling the denaity on this one piece of property without any trade-offs. Ms. Schneldere eteted the traffic fiqurea are qenernlly eccepted EIR fiqure9 uend ever since the original EIR was done. Coca~aiasioner Herbst stnted the Cammiesion hae hnd a lot of ainqle BIRs on that particular piece of property but he has not aeen the cumulative effect air.ce 1972, and fesls it ie time to have auch a report, and he would h$ve to vota aqainst anything that is hiqher denei~y until he seea that repart. He stated it appears that eome of the roads are impacted elready. Ma. Schneiders stated ae long as that tract is undeveloped, it will continug to erode because it was graded several yeers aqa. Reynrdinq the ~IR, ahe stated Mr. Thompson of the Plnnning Department said today that he sees very little im~rct by doublinq the deneity nn this trnct. Commiasinner Bushore etated the Commiseion has to make the decigions based on what they think ig bee~ for the community. Schneidere stated she felt the Ccmnaiseion would not be addrassinq the ~rest of the community at large if they are willinq to overlook a whole •~~•~nent of the buyinq population of homebuyers. MINUTES~ 11N~HEIM CITY PL~NNINa COMMISSION, F88RUA~Y 7, 1983 83-94 Commi~~ianer Herbet ateted that all the buildRr~, including t.hi~ canpany, Aneheim Hille, Inc. and all th• ~tl~er owner~ who wsnt to build ~hould qet toqethar end provide tt~e Coan-i~eion with e cumulativn imp++ct report, br.inqinq the 1972 report up to dAts $nd mayM Ma. 8chnetders iR riqht, but he would want to see r.het roport lirst. Cocnmissioner 8ushore aeked how many more of theee pzo~ects er• caninq in !or RM-3000 projects. Dean Sherer ata2ad h~ is eware that Gunaton Hall Company ie About to prapare an emendment to the Generel Plan far increnead deneity .in Aree 19 and th~st thia is the first re-eubdivision the ataff has aeen Rince Aneheim Hflle, Inc. chnnged hande. He stated he ogreed ihere has to somA type cumuletive eveluetion of the existing imp~+cts, plus ahat is to be proposed. He added the only di!liculty wotild be that theee companiea do noC know themeelves what ia planned, but it has been the City's policy for quite eometime that if e daveloper propases to increese density on his parcel, the burden o! provinq whether there will he a oumulative impact is on the developer and the Planninq Commiesion may w~nt t~ chose at what point that would occur ber:auae otherwise, the staff will just keep gettinq mor9 and more of ~hese r.equeste and nobody will want to ase~ime the reaponaibility for preparntian af thie d~cument. Commissioner Herbat sugqested a coinbined effort between all the developers. He ddded he thought every developer has tU be involved because they will all be cominq in for hiqher densitiea. Dean Sherar said it would have been the moet oppc~rtun~ time to request a new environmental impact report which covers the @ntize Planned Coannunity earlier toda} in the Guneton Hall's requeet for reclasaification. Commiasianer Le Claire pointed out Gunaton Hall will have variou$ trects coming in bQfore the Commission for approval for extenei~ne af time nnd it may be appropriat~e to rAquest a report in those instancea. Dean 3herer replied he was not sure whether or not a full impact report could be requested in those cases. Commissioner Hushore stated he felt the Commiesion had eluded to tha! fact and he thought the developer had understood. Commissioner Buahore stated until recently the codes required 0.5 parking epacest however, it hae been reduced ~0 2.5 with the assumption that the tiocaeowners association could cantrol the situation but this is a gublic street and that does create problems. Ms. 3chneiders stated there are approximately 90 on-atreet parkinq apaces and pointed out code does require 2.5 apaces per unit. Annika Santalahti, Assietant Director for Zoning, pointod out thoae 2.5 spaces are required to be ot~f-atreet epacee and explained the Code Amendment was generated by the City Council end discussions pertained to the equare footaqe of the unita rather then whether they were sinqle-family or condomi.nium units. E~"~ MIt1tJTE8, 11N11NEIM CITY Ft.ANNING COMMI88IQN. FEBRUARY 7, 1993 83-95 Ms. 8chneiders statad they heve dane their pert in the SIR and h~va addres~e4 th~ que+~tion• brouqfit up today. 8he ~tated th~ir trecti is an eYee vrhioh is almoat fully clevmlopsd snd prea~nteQ n picture a! the aurrounding er~a which is about ~he entirety ot Planninq Area ~ and ther~ ere about 210 homasitee atill ren-eining. Canmieeioner Herbet atated the Commiaeion ie telkinq 4bout the c~amuletive impact, pointing out there heve been two othez r~queete today and the Co~amiasion feels tha cumulative etfect wi].l go nll throuqh the Cnnyon bacauee all the other tracts wil; went incrensed denaity. Ma. Schneider.s stdted the City m~de a promfee thnt they could have 5 unite per ecre. Commieeioner Huehore eteted the City tells the property owner whet the xoning ia end until a apncific plan ie epprovad, no promisos ere made. It wae noted Environmental Impdct Report No. 218 we,a certified by the Planninq Commisaion on Auqust 28, 1978, in conjunction with Tentetive Tract Noe. 10407, 10408, 10409 end 10410. ACTION: Commissioner Huahore offered Reaolution No. PC83-34 and moved for ita paseaqe and adaption that the Annheim City Planning Comntiesion does hereby deny request for Reclasaificetion No. 82-83-20 on the b~eis that it le not qood planning and thet the oriqinal tentetive tracts were approved with infraetructuree planned for a certain denaity which would not accommodate the increesed deneity. On ro].1 call, the foregoin~J reaolution was p~ssed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, HERSST, KING, I,A CI.pIRg, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: FRY Co~aisaioner Buehore offered Resnlution No. PC83-35 and moved for its passaqe end adoption thet the Anaheim City Planninq Commisaion does hereby deny Variance No. 3321 on the be~sis that the reclassification permitting propoaed development was denied, thereby, deleting the need !or said variance. On roll call, the foreqoinq resolution was paesed by the followinq vote: AYES: HOUAS. BUSHORE, HER83T, ICYNG, LA C~AIRE, MC BURNSY NOES: NONE A$SENT : li' RY Frank Lowry, Aseistant City Att~rney, presented the written riqht to appeal the Planninq Commiaeion'8 decision within 22 daya to the City Council. Commissioner Herbst offered a nation, seaonded by Commissionex La Claire and MOTION C]~RIU ED (Chairman Fry beinq ebse~nt), that tho Anaheim City Planninq Commiseion does hereby recommend to the City Council that if any requeste for increaeed denaity in the Anaheim H~.lle Plnnned Coamaunity ara considered, that the Council will require a environmentnl impact report on all tne cumulative environa~ental eflects the preesat development and future development ere having oa the canyon area (clarified as the Mahaim Hills Planned Community nnd the report will address all the cumulative environmental impe~cta ~or both p..esent end on-goinq develapmente). MIINUT88, 71N11HBIM GZTY Pf.71NNINCi COMMIIABION, ~'38RUJ1RY 7, 1983 83-96 ITSM NO. 13. REPORT3 1WD RBCOMM~NDIITIONB The lollowinq Reports And Reconm~andatione etaF! reporte were preeantsd but not read: A. TENT11TxVS TRACT NOS. 9602 and 9864 - Aequeat trom Georqe Mseon !or an extsnaion of tieue, proparty ia approximately 4~.8 acres, havlnq a frontaqe of approximetely 1700 leet on the eouth side of Nohl M nch Rioad, approximately 400 laet west of the centerline o! Andover Dri.ve. ACTIAN: Commieeioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commiseioner McBurncy +~nd MOTION CARRIED (Cheirmen Fry absent), that the Anaheim C.tty Plenninq Cammiselon doee hereby qre~t a one-year extenaion of kime for Tentetiva Tract Nos. 9602 end 9864 to expirQ an Februery 9, 1984. B. TRACP NO. 841a - Requeat from J'rry M. 3hulman for approval of specific plans to construct a two-st~ry dwelling on Lot No. 78, Tract No. 8418. ~erry Shulman, petitioner, expleined thie request ia for clarification of a deFinitiont thnt he wi.shoe to build a cuetom houee on Lok No. 78 of Tract No. 8418, and the lot haB a level eresn of approximetely 8,000 feet end the street in lront n!` khe property dips down et one end where they wa-~t to put the qarage and the only meene of getting a car into the parking erea is t~ cut the pad dnd put the parking underqroundt dnd that the plans have becn approvod by the Rocky Pointe Homeowners Aseociation. He explained the houee is a sinqle-level and is under the 25' heiqht limitntion. He etated he has n letter from Bill Luek stnting he wae allowed to conetruct five 1-1/2 atory homes immedintely adjacent to thie tract. He added there ie no livinq space above other livinq epace so he would not coneider this even 1-1/2 atoriea. HB axplained he ia requeating clarification of the 1-1/2 story definltion. Roland Krueqer, 561 Peralta Hilla Drive, Anaheim, explained he had appeared }~efore the Commiselon some yeera agd when the Luek Company put theae two tracts together. He stated Mre. Soseph who had to leeve early and t+~s. Kraemer who ie still present asked him to atate their opposition. He explained they had to make a lot of conceesions when Lusk originnlly put these together and one wae that the lots bordering Peralta Hille would have single-story homea and this has been honored by the City, except for a few 1-1/2 story unita which were oriqinally agreed to. He stated they are continually having to defend thamselves aqainat tw~-story etructures. Mr. Kru~ger atated he fes~ls Mr. 3hulman and hia architect have made dvery attempt to eliminnte their objections and have cnet with them and tried to protect thair privacy. He stated the real concern i6 whether a prece~ent would be set because there are atill a lot of MINUTES, ANAHBIM CITY PLIINNINfi COMMI88ION, !'aBRUARY 7, 1983 83-97 lots behind them to be devalopedt thet thia dev~lo~xnent would hevs little impact on his r~sidenc~, but ha he~ 5 acrs• and iti co~,ld impact the lok to the aaett that the floor o! the proposed dwellinq will be about three lset ubove the grede and lrom th• Pdrelta Hills aide, it laoke like e one-story dwelling. Ha stnted he we• co~carned about moving the earth and tilling in tha bank t~hind ths develapment. He eteted he wnuld like !or the Commiasion to determine whether thi^ ie one or two etarias. Mr. Krueger eteted he would like a condition impoend that the roo! line would not cxceed Lhe atande~rd for a eingle-atory~ Mr. J. Nitter, Nitter 6 A~.ociate~a, architect, ateted thia is the most ditlLCUlt lot of the tzect t~ develop because the pad ie ebnve the atreet and thi$ floor plen ie elevated 3-1/2 to 4 fe~t of~ the axieting pad, so they put the 3ereqa underneeth and the earth would bo moved to the rear meking it appear ae a one-atory houee. Ke added they don't anticipate thie prablem with the other five lots. Commissioner Herbat asked if the architect fe st.ipuletinq L-hat all r.he rest ot the houaea will bc ei.ngle-etory, with Mr. Nitter r.eplyinq he ie making that stipulation. Com~aiseioner Herbst asked if a s.ingle-etory home cauld be built on thie lot. Mr. Nitter replied h~ would coneider thig a single-$tory houee. Ne steted a sinqle-etory houae could be built on that lot but thd requirement is for a garege on the property end accegaibility to ~che gnrage would be difficult. He $tate8 he fe~le they have a hardahip on thia one lot. He ~tated the pad hae been there 7 or e yeara nnd the home will be 2750 square leet and the qaraqe will be 600 aquare feet e~nd they will cut the earth for the gareqe t~nd there will be a 7 leet high retaining well at the rear of the qdraqe. Cc~mmissioner Bushore atated he felt they a-re overbuildinq the property. Commisaioner Herbet etated Mr. Krueger is not opposed to tr.ia etructure, but is concerned about the ones in the future and asked 1f it would be acceptable eince the petitioner hea stipulated that all future etructurea will be ainqle etory. Commiesloner La Claire statad ahe w~uld want to coneider thie ns single-etory. Commisaioner Hexbst eeated he doesn't ~-ant to say thie is a sinqle-faraily structure because it would set en undesirable precedent. He atated he hae no objection to this plan on this lot, but would want the petitioner to stipulate that all future dwellings will be ainqle-atory. MINUTgg, )1NAHBIM C2TY ~LANNINf3 COMMI38ION~ FEBRUARY 7, 1983 83-98 Mr. Bhuln-~n raplied he cannot mt~ke thet rtipulation beceuee ha plans to eell the other lote and doee not hav plens !or those lote. Commisoionez Herbet stated there wee en aqreem~+nt for all singl.a-story dwellinqe on P~aralta Hilla when thi~ trect was oriqinally epproved, and he thought thia ie marqinal. Commiasioner eu4hore ateted he did not think the plan cen aven be conaider~d marqinel and that the de+veloper is aimply overbuildinq the pe~d end it ie a very inqenious way to aet a pattern for future etructures. Mx. Shulman pointed out there ie a condition requirinq that any deviation from the oriqinal apprnval be approved by the City Council. He stated this was the moat difficult lot to develap becauee there was no feaeible nccess to the garnge lrom the atreet. He added the purpoae of thia requeat ia to determine whether this etructur~s i~s to be conei.dered es one-atory or a two-story. Dean Sherer, Asaociate Planner, etated when those plans werR reviewad by etaff, there was a difference of opinion among eteff whether it wa8 one or two etories. He steted if Commission finds that thie plan is suitable on this lot- they can approve this plan and staff will not approve anything other than sinqle-story on the rest af the lots. Mr. ahulman ett-ted the quegtion ie, "What ia aingle-atory7"t that in this case the parking i~ underqround and neet:e all requirements of the Uniform Buildinq Code. He stated the UBC stntee if the roof ia not any higl~er than 12 feet, it is not c~neidered a story. Responding to Commissioner Bushore, Dean Sherer explalned the heiqht of normal sinqle-atory residences vary, end the etructural height limit in t.he Scenic Corridor ia 25 feet• Responding to Commisaioner Bushore, Mr. Shulman atated the retnining wall is not to increaee the aize o! the pad and is nt the back ot the garaqe to pruvide accesa fraa the street. He explained the major portion of the constructian will be on the existing pad and the height of the structure will be 23 feet. Commissioner Sushore atated most ot the lot is pure slope, and is unusual compared to the others. He added even if theee lote are sald, the buyez can siqn ae letter indicating that all structurea ahall be eingle-story. Commiesioner Herbst stated he would be in favar of grantinq a variance on thie perticula-r lot, but would not wdnt to caeke a finding that this is e sinqle-story houae. MINUT88, 11NIWEIM CITY PL~NNINQ CAMMI88ION, lESR~~RY 7, 1983 83~ DeAn Shar~r steted a verianca would xequire raedvertising. Mr. Kru~qer ~rated thi~ plan doae rai~e tha leval o! the house by about 3 leet. lie •tnt~d the idaal solution is to put a houee on the two lote. Rasponding to Canmiasloner Huehora, Dean 8herer read the letGer froa- the petitioner requesting approval of specilic plana !or Lot No. 78, Tract No. 6418. He etated etdlt's ess9ntial question was whether this could be coneidered a ona-etary dwelling in tarma ot the visual impact !or the xesidenta in Parelta Nille. He atnted i! the Planninq Caaa-iraion feels that thie design d~~a not have a vieual impect, they may approve thaee preclee plana for that one 1ot and any other lote in the tract will hav~ to be eingle-gtory. Mr. Shulaaan stnted it ie hia intontion to bui~d e custmn home in an attempt to sall the ather lots. Commigsioner Buehore ~~tqyested mnybe the petitioner ahould develop a 8ltferent lot that ia not so unueual~eettinq the precedent~and snve thiA lot for laat. Mr. 3hulsaan responded to Commiesioner LA Claire that he purchased these lats two yeara aqo and the conditions rRpreaented to him were that the lots were limited to stnqle-story or 1-1/2 atory structurge nnd the problem is there ia no definition ot 1-1/2 atoriea and noted the copy of Mr. Lusk's lettez ie av~ilable in the file. Cocuniseioner Bush~re stated he would view thie ae 1-1/2 story which meeta the heiqht requirement, bu~ asked what wi21 prevent someone else from doing the same thinq. Commtssioner Bushore stated tl~is is an unusuel lot and when people purchnse property, they wauld not know what has gone on in the past. Mr. Shulman etAted nny variation would have to be approved. He stated they chose this lot becsuse of its difficulty and it would not be poasible to do this on any othe.r lot. Commisgioner Suahore stated a smaller house could be built and Mr• 3hulaaan stated they atill cauld not qet to the pad. Commigeioner Kerbst atated he ia in favor o~ approvinq this lot only and not atating whether it is one or two story. /G MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PIJ-NNINd COMMI88ION, FEBRUARY 7, 19d3 ~3- Annikn eantnlahti expleined thm City Council will ~ee anythinq on Commiaaion's agenda. She stated when en apAr~mant unit ia buiit above e~areqe, the procedure uses the detin~tion of a baaement which is c~naider.ad n etory partially underqround havinq 1/2 or mora o! ita height below the avernqo level ot adjoininq ground and whon occupied es a dwelling witho»C kitchen lacilities ehell be conridered e~tory~ so on that basis, stef! hes eaid that enything that ie 50~ or more balow qrede ana not used tor livinq purpoaee hns not been conaidered ea n etory and that ie where thie iesue typically drimea. Carol Kraemer, 6Q1 Perelta Hilla Drive, stated her property ie directly below tho other lota and ehe is concerned that the residents will continue to have to coma in for each lot. Annike Santalahti atated all other homes have to bN sinqle story end cannot ba aplit level or eny questionable desiqn. Ms, Kraemer stated ahe would want to be assured there won't be any other h~rdship lnta. Cummisaianer Herbst steted the property owner hae the riqht to ask for anythinq they want. Commissioner Le Claire stated there was an aqreement for one story between Luak and the homeownera in Peralta H111s and iP there was any opposition to this partlculaz house, she would nat vote for it, and that she will try to see that all the other structuree are one story, and believed ChiR could be interpreted ~a one otory since more thnn 50~ of the garaye is underqXOUnd. 3he etated aha does not want to see any of the other homea come in with similar roquests. She added Mr. Shulman can put a reetriction un the other lote when they are so2d. Mr. Shulman steted he would s~ipulate that any proepective buyer would aiqn a notice that there is a one-story reatriction and he would have somethinq drafted by their legal department. Commissioners Bushore and Herbet clnrified that split-level muet also be prohibited. Annika Santalahti claxified ~omctiesion would be approving thie plan for this lot and aIl other lote must be developed with one atory structures only, and with no split lavel. There was a brief discueeion reqardinq this stipulation and it was the qeneral consensus that deed restrictions be recarded. ACTION: Conunissioner Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CI~RRIED (Ghnirman Fry abeent), that the Anaheim City ~lanning Conmiission does hereby approve specific plana for Lot No. 78, Tract No. 8414 on the basis that the heiqht ~nd MINUT$S~ ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANN=Na COMM288i0N. ~88R[1~RY 7, 1983 8~~~ dsaign o! the .tructurs m~et~ th~ requirement o! proteatinq tha h~lloide views o! raeident• in th~ paralta Hill~ area and subjeat ta the p~titioner'a ~tipulstion to record deed reetrictions prohibiting any con~tzuction o~her than sinqla-story homes on Che xemalnder ot the lots in Trect No. 8418. C. vAAi]~NGE No. 2983 - Requaet lrom Randy C. Bucholts !or tarminatinn, proparty loaated at 230 South Magnolia Street. ACTiON: Commis~aion~ar King oftored Reeolution No. PC83-36 and mc+ved to~r it~e paasage and sdoption that the Anaheim City Plenning Commi~sion doas hereby terminete Vnriance No. 2983. On roll call, the loreqoing resolution was paesed by the following vote: AYE3: 80UA8, HU8HORE, HSRBST, KINt;, I.A CLAIRE, MC BU1tNffiY NOES: NONE AB3ENTt FRY ADJOURNMLN'P: There beinq no Purther buaineee, Commisaioner King oftered a motion, eeconded by Commiseioner Hwrbat and MOTION CARRIED, thnt thg m~eting be ad~ourned. The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ Edith L. H~rrie, Secretary Anaheim City Planninq Conm-is~ion $I.H : lm