Loading...
Minutes-PC 1983/02/23R1K~OL~1R MS~,TING O~' THS ANIIHBIM CITY PI+ANNINO COMl:Ib3tON REGULAR ME1CTIt~c3 The reqular mee~inq o! th~ Anaheim City Plnnninq Comani~sion wns called to ordor b~+ Gheirmsn Fry et 10 ~ 00 e.m. , February 23, 1983, in the Council Chamber, s quorum bsing prmsent and the Commiesion reviewed plane o! the iteme ~n todey's aqende. R~CESS: 11:30 a.m. RCrONVENE: 1:30 p.m. pREgg'NT Chnirmans Fry Commieaionere: Bouas, Sushore, Herbet, Kinq, I.a Cldire, McBurney Agg~~ Gonaniaeionere s None ALS(1 PRESGiVT Annika Santalahti Joel Fick Jack White Jay Titus Paul Sinqer Greq Hestinge Edith Flarrie Aaeietant Dlroctar for Zoning Aesi~tant Director for Planning Aaeietent City Attnrney Otfia~ Engineez Traffic Engineer Aasociate Planner Planninq Commiaeion Secretary ITF.M NO. 1. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, GENERAI+ PLAN Ai+~NDMENT l70. 181., RECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-15 AND RE4UEST FOR SPEGIMEN TREE REMOVAL PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: THE PRESITY'PERY OF LOS ANGELE5, 1501 Wi'shire Boulevard, Los Anqeles, CA 90017. AGENT: 4AI~ GOTTU30, ~~8 "G" Eest Edna Plece, Covina, CA 91722. Property deacribed ae an irraqularly-ahaped parce 1 o~ lnnd coneisting of approximately 4.32 acres, havinq a trontaqe of approximctely 240 _^eet on the weat side of Villa Real Drive end beinq located approximetely 375 feot south of the centerlina of Nohl Ranch Road. GPA REQUE3T: To conQiAor an amendment to the _nnd use element frota the current hillside, low~-deneity rRaidential and general open space deaignAtione to hillside low-medium denaity reeidential. RECLASSIFICATIOI3 REQU~ST: RS-A--43,000(SC) t~ RM-3000(SC) Continued froci the meeting of February 7, 1983. There was no one indiceting thei.r presence fn oppoaition to subject requ~st and althouqh t_he atnff report was not read, it is reterred to and d-ade a part of ~he minutee. Cal Queyrel, Anacal Enqineerinq, explained a foaus EIR has been submitte~' on this project because o! tha Commission's concerne at the last meeting regardinq cumulative env!ronmentnl imp+~cts nnd quickly reviewed the impacts on 83-103 .~. ~ MZNUTICB, AN1WaIM CITY PIJINNINCi COMMI89ION, FBBRUARY Z3, 1983 83-104 eswer~, water, traflic a~nd lanQ uae as discuo~sd in the r~port. N~ axp~.~ined th~ aurxant zon~ allawe livs uni~a p~z sar• and they ere a~king !or low m~dium density which nllowe aix unite per ecr• snd thay leal they are 1n contormhnce with the sonea adjacant on the east end south which are in the City of Oranqe and zoned R-1 6000. Mr. Queyr~l etated this is a uniqua piece o! property end io iaola~tmdt that the property to the north ie vace~~t and ia zoned !or commercial uee~ end ie currantly being plenned for devalopment. Ne atated they do not Pael thia preject will have en impact on the aree and dePinitely would not intluence sny other property. Da~e Collins, representinq the uwner end th~s Cenyon Hills United P~~egbyterian Church, atnted they bouqht this eite !or a church thinking it woul.d ba centrel to the population of the area, but it was Pouricl that the center o! the parish is about tour miles eaet of the intersection of Nohl Ranch RQnd and Imperinl Hiyhway, ao they l~ave found anothar ~i.te at the corner of Fairmont end Senta Ana Canyon Roed end the sele of thie site ie continqent with the purchnse of the other sito. tIe etnted moving the eite Por the church will reduce the tra~ffic qenerated by the church. He axplai~~ed the paetor and other repr~+sentatives of the church are present to anewer any questiona. THE PUBLI(: HEARING WA3 CL03ED. Commissioner Herbst etated nt the last meeting the overall impact of what hes been approved in this aree wae diecusaed and pointed out the traffic study done in 1977 found that if the area was developed under the preeent codes, with4ut any increases, Nohl Rnnch }toad would have approximntely 21,000 vehicles wit1~ 31,000 on imperial at 80~ capacity and thlnqe have chanqed eince that report wae dane. Ne stated increasinq the deneity affects many thinqe, including the streets which cannot be ~idened or enlarged. He stated the Commiselon ie qettinq a lot of requests for increaeed density and ~ven thouqh thia ia a amall request, he felt no increasea ahould be granted until a iaaximum cumulative environmental itopact report ia aubmitted for the entire canyon area. Chairman Fry stated he does not feel the eame way and thought this could be an exception because it ia the last parcel to Ue developed in that area end the utilities and other facilitiea, except stzeets, are acceptable. Commiseioner Herbst atated traffic ts the biqqest impact hurtinq the canyon area now and indicated he was concerned about other developars reeearchinq thE P1Anning Commieaion nations and if thia is approved there will be n-nny requeste in the future. He stated the developer can build 21 unite without approval of this requeet but he wanta to qo one atep further. He stated he is not in favor of chanqinq the denaity of this property. Commissioner McBurney atnted he thought the ghysic~l location o! this particular property, because of the access through Oranqe which will teke some o! the traffic froa~ Nahl Ranch Road, gives it the justification nesded for app:oval. Commissioner Herbst pc~inted out the City of Oranqe indicated in their letter that the deneity factor ~or the project may cauae en unecceptable traffic impact upon Villa Real Drive aouth of the groject eite. ~ ~ MINIJ'PBB, 71NAHSIM CITX PL71[1[~IINa COMMI88ION, FbBRU~RY 23, 1983 83-1~5 Chairman Fry steted h• did not beli.evo thst thie davelopmant wil 1 propose a •eriouo threet on tra!!ic or any oth~r lecilitiaa and Commisaion~ z Houa~ eqreed. Commiesionar t,n Cleire stated ahe did not think thi• particular project will have a sarioue impact on the traPtic or existinq !a~'.litiest howe ver, the daveloper could almost heve tho number of unite desired without t hi• approval and steted aho did nor see any reason to chanqe tha General Plan. Sh• sCnted ehe reAlizea tt~ero is e housing ehortage and uhe underetande the economics, but was not sure it wauld be a qood idea to reclnssity the prope rty, perticularly if there ia e problem with tratfic. Jdy Teahiro, Aeaaciate Planner, explained under tho current low denaity residential desiqndtion, th~y could build 21 unitd but are reques tinq 25 which would be the low-medium den~ity deeiqnetion which permita up to 2 6 unite and eince they could havc~ 21 unita under tho ~urrent code, the Commi seion would onl.y have to npprave the RM-3000 Zoninq zether than the General Pldn Amendment. Chairman Fry eteted he thouqht 25 unita is e reasonable request and Commissioner Kinq egruud. Commisaioner La Claire stated she reelizea this ie not very many units nnd thia ia a unique propezty and ie sepnrdte from most of Aneheim H ills, bat the Commiasion yuet keeps approvinq theAe requesta. ACTION: Commiseioner McBurney offered a motion, seconded by Conas~issioner Bnuas and MuTZON CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commis s ion hae reviewed the propc~sel to chenge the General Plan dosiqnntion from hillside low deneity residential and qeneral open apace to h tlaide l~w tuedi us~ de~~sity on a rectengularly-Rhaped parcel of land consieting of approximat~ely 4.3 acr~ea Pronting on Ville Reel Drive located south of Nohl Rdnch Roed and immediately north of Olive Hills Reservoir and the Anaheim/Oranqe City limi t s nn8 recl.assification of subject property from the RS-A--43,000(SC) ( Residential, Agricultural Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to the RM-3000(SC) (ReaidPntial, Multipld-Family Scenic Corridor Overlay) Zone to construct a 25 - unit condominium complex and the removal of three speclmen treest and doeR hereby epprove the Negetive Declaration from the requirement to prepar e an r.nvironmental impact report on the baeis thet there would be no significant individual or cwn~ilati~~e adverse gnvironmenY.al impact due to the approval of thia Neqative Declaration aince the Anahaitn General Plan deaigna tc±e the subject property for hillside low density land us9s commensurate rcith the proposalt that no seneitive environmental impacts ere involved i n the proposalt that the Initial Study e~ubmitted by the petitioner indicates no siqnificant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impactss and that the Negative Declaration subatantiating the foregoing findings i a on file in the City of Anaheim Planninq Department. Commissioner McBurney offered Reaolution No. PC83-37 and moved far its pasHage end adoQti~n th~t the Anaheim City Plnnninq Commission does her eny reccmmend to the City Council thnt General Plan Amendment No. 181, bchi~it A be approved. On roll call, the foreg~oing reaolution was passed by the followi nq VOtL-: AYES: BOU~S, HUSHORE, FRY, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC HURNEY NOESs HgRBST ABSENT: NONE ' MINUT~B, 7W11H3IM C ITY PLANNINO COMMI86ION, FEBRUARY 23, 1983 83-106 Commiaaioner McAurney olter~d R~~olution No. PC83-38 and movoC for it~ paoaaqe and adoption khet the ~naheim City Planninq Canuni~~ion doe• her~by grent Reclnssilication l~o~ 82-83•1S ~ubject to Intardepartmantal Con~mitt~• recom~nandat lons . On roll call, the toregoing rasolution wan pasrad by the lollowing vote: AYE9: HOU718, BUSHOR~, FRY, KING, LA CLAIRS, MC HURN~Y NOBB: HERB3T 1-SgBNT: NONB Commiesioner Mceur ney oflered a motion, seconded by Commiaeioner eouas nnd MpTION CARRIED, tt~at the Anaheim City Planning Commi~sion doee hereby qrant epproval gor the requeet for removal of thxee (3) s~ecimen treee on tha be-aie that a ransonable and practical development ot property on which the trees ere locnted r.equiree the removal of the treee nnd thst the character o! the immediete naiqhborhood in respect oP forestation will not be mnteridlly nffected by the proposed rem~val and that specimen treee removed shell be replaced with the planting on the e~me percel of en equal number ot trees from a specified liat. Commiseioner McBurney offered e motion, aeconded by Commissioner La Claire and MOTION CARRIED, that t.he Anaheim CiCy Planning Connnieel~~n does hereby recommend to the City Councll thnt they review the dctione of the Planniny Commisaion with r eqard to Reclaaeiticatiun No. 82-83-15 in conjuncti.on with their hearing an the Gener~l Plen Amendment Na. 191. ITEM NO. 2. E7 R NEGATIVE DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 11620 PUHLIC HFARING. OWNERS: THE BARIBTC COMPANY, 18002 Sky Park Circle, Irvine, CA 92714. AGENT: GILBERT ENGINSERING, 4552 Lincoln .Aven~ie, Cypress, CA 90630. Propert.y described ae e rectangularly-sheped percel of land conai.e~tinq of approximately 1.7 acres located at the northerly terminus of Hayward Street, 721 S sth Bench eoulevard. To eatablieh a 1-lat• 30-unit RM-3000 Zone eubdivision. There were four persona indiaeting their presence in opposition to aubject request and alttzough the staff resport was nat read, it ie referred to end made a part of the minutes. Jim Bnrieic, owner, explained thia project was reviewed by the Commieeion several monthe ago and that they oriqinally propoaed to build 35 affordable condominiumst hawever, the City Councll reduced the number to 30 with 251~ being held as nlfordable units un~-er the authority of the Anaheim Housinq Authority. He stated these units will sell from ~77,900 to ~88,900. He explnined it ha s been their experience tha*_. these type uni.ts are normally sold to families wit~- two mea~bera end they do not anticipate a hiqh density population on the site. Stevo Wozney, representing the Heywnrd 3treet Association, 818 8. Hayward, A*++~heim~ etated they are viol~ntl.y oppoaed to thie petftiont that the petitioner plans to build 30 unite on a dead-end street which would mean 60 additi~nal cars muet go dovm Hayanrd Street which is atrictly a reBidential .~~ ~.. . . , _ _~._ ~-. - _„..._.~,.. , . MINUTES, ANIWBIM CITY PL~NNIN(3 COMMI8820N, 1-1~SRUARY 23, 1983 83-1Q~ etreet and th~ noise lrom that tre!!ic will be qr~aely inar.ees~d. Hs stat~d th~ p~titionar can propos• to qo ~hrouqh H~yward on Oranqs llv~nu~, but tihe-t would maan going pest a park nnd when thete is an activity, cerw cannot •ven pa~s on thet str~st. He ~keted 30 addi~ional unita on that small lot will incree~a th~ traflic and noiee and siso the sacurity o! the rssidents will be qreekly impe-ired. Mr. 9erieic etnted there are two main atreet^ people could usa, ons i.s Rome which is almoet immediatsly sdjecent to this developn~ent which vrould be directly wost to Weatern Avenue and Haywnrd Street would taka a person to Bnll Roed, eo thers are two lull interior collector etraeta snd he did not see what i.mpact 30 ddditional xesidenta would make. He ateted thesa paople will heve incomea o! ~40,OOQ a yasr nnd this will t~ a nice cfevel~pment. Chnirman Fry clarified that all treftic would heve to come out Haywerd Street and then turn onto Iiome Street. Respondlnq to Chairman Fry regerdinq rxn eaeement to Boech Boulevnrd, Mr. Bariaic explained thet wa~ a temporery ea~ement~ for c4natruction purpose~ only ~nd that would only be good for a period of six months and ie only 16 !`eet wide. THE PUBLIC HEAkING WAS CL03ED. Conuniasioner Bushore statecl he had votad nqainst this project proviously becauRe of the 25! affordable guidelineas however, he doRS not aee any problem with tl~e pro ject. It was noted an EIR Neqative Declaretion was prevlously approved in conjunction with Conditional Uae Permit No. 2354 and Reclassifica~tion No. 82-83-1. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Comm.iseioner Mce3urney and MOTION CARRIED, tht~t the Anaheim City Planning Commi.esion does hereby find that the propoeed aubdivieion, toqether w3th its design end improvement, ia coneistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan, pursuant to Government Code 3ection 66473.Sj ana ane$, therefore, epprove Tentative Map of Tract No. 11820 for a 1-lot, 30-unit Rbt-3000 (Reaidential, Multiple-Fatnily) Zone eubdiviaion aubject to the fullowit-g c~nditions: 1. Thnt prior to iasuance of a building permit, appropriate perk and rdcredtion in-lieu fees shall be pa~id to the City of Anaheim in an amount ae determined by the City Gouncil. 2. That prior to issuance of a buildinq pern-it, the appropriate trattic siqndl asaeasment fee shall be paid to the City of Anahet~n in nn an~ount as deteruaned by the City Cow~cil ~or each new '.+~elling unit . 3. That a moditied cul-de-sac ehell be provided at the terminus of Ha werd Street as required by the City 8ngineer. {k MINUTEB, 71N1-NEIM CI'1"l PLJ-NN2t~lfi COMMISaION, !'E9RUJIRY 23 • 1983 83-x08 4. The~ wll privat~ ~tr~at~ •hall be d~veloped in dccordenco with th~ City o! 1lnehsim'a 8tendard Dstail No. 1Z2 !or privat~ •tr~ate, includinq in~tall.ation o! strmet name siqns. Plans !or the privat• street liqhtinq, so rsquired by the standard ~ietail, ~hall ba submitted to the Buildi.ng Diviaion !ar approval and included with the buildinq Flan~ prioz to the i~suAnce o! building permit~. (Privata streete er. thoea whlch ptiovide primary eccese and/or circuletion within tha pr~ject. 5. That prior to linal trect map epproval, etreat nam~~ shall be approved by the City Planninq Depsrtment. 6. That temj~orery atreAt name signe shall be installed prior to any occupenc~ if permenant etr~ot name aiqn~ have not been instelled. 7. That drninaqe ot eubject property ahall be diepoeed o! in ~ manner eatietectory to the City Enqineer. 8. That ahould this aubdivieion be developed aa mora then one aubdivieion, each eubdi~-iaion thereof shall be eubatitted in kentative form foz approval. 9. That auY~ject property ehell i~e served by underground utilitiea. 10. That prior to commencement of atruckural frdming, fixe hydrante ehall be inst~lled end charqed gs required and determined to be necsseary by the Chief of the Fire Department. 11. That prior to final tract map approvel, the original documente of the covenanta, conditione, and reAtrictiona, nnd a letter eddresaed to developer's title compar~y authorizing record~+tion thareof, shall be eubmitted tn the City Attorney's Office e+nd eppx'oved by the City Attornoy's Otfice, Public tTtilitias Departaent and Er~gineering Division. Said documente, ae approved, will thRn be filed and recorded in the Office of the Oranga County Rc~corder. 12. That prior t~ final tract map apgroval, the developer ahall enter into an aqreement with the City of Anahai.m pursunnt to Government Code Secti.on 65915 to provide that twenty-five percent (25B) of the residential units shall be sold ae low or moderate incaae housing as de~ined i.n Government Code Section 65915 and with appropriate resale controls as approved by tho City of Anaheim. 13. Thet gates sh~ll not be instAlled acroas any driveway or private street in a a-anner which v-ay adveraely affect vehicular traffic in the adjacent public streeta. Installation of any qates within a distance of forty (40) feet from said public street riqhte-oP-way shall be aubject to the review and e-ppr~val of the City Tralfic Enqineer. 14. That prior to issunnce of building pexmite, the applicant ahall present evidence satisfactory to the Chief Buildinq Inspector that the reaidential un~ta will be in conlormance with Noise Ineulation Standarde specified in the California Adminietrative Code, Title 25. MINt7TRS, J1I~111H~IM CITY PI.ANNINQ COMMI88ION, F~BRU~RY 23, 1983 83-109 15. That prior to i~~uance o! buildinq psrmita, the appliaent shall pra~ant svidena• •atislactory Lo th• Chia! 8uilainq InspecCor that the propo~tsd pro~~c~ i• in conlormance with Council Policy Numbar 542 "8ound l~ttenudtion in R~nid~ntiel Proje•ts". Gommisaionsr Herb,tt explained to the oppo~ition present thet the City Cnuncil hea already approvea the r~alansitication end conditional use permit to psrmit 30 unita on this propertY and this i~ eimply approvel o! n tract map. Jack Whi~e, Assistnnt City Attorney, preeented the written ri~aht to eppeal the Planninq ~ommission's decision within l0 deys to the City Cour~cil. ITSM NO. 3. EIR NP;GATIVE DBCLARATION AND C~NDITIONAL USE PBRMIT N0. 2418 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER9s KYU HO Y(1N AND YOUNG f300K YUN~ 13043 Meqnolin Avenue, Garden Grove, CA 92644. AGB:NT: MAY LE, 2144 W. Le Palme Avenun, Aneheim, CA 92801. Property described e~e a rectanqularly-ehaped parcel of land consisting of approximataly l.o acre, 507 South Hrookhuret Straet. To permit a beer tavern in the CL Zon~. ~h~sre was no ~ne indicatinq their prasence in opposition to subject requeat and nlthough the ataff report was not read, ft ia reterred to and made a part of the minutes. Mey Le, aqent, was preaent to anawer any questione. THE PUBLIC HEARING WA3 CLOSED. Commissioner Kinq pointed out he has no prc~blems with this project eince there will only be one en-ployee. Greg Hastinga, Aeaistant Planner, requeat~d that Condition Nos. 2 and 4 be deleted ~rom the ataff repori since those are active conditional use permits. ACTIONs Commieaioner Kinq offered a motion, seconded by Coauaissioner Kerbat and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planninq Coa~miseion has reviewed the proposal to permi.t a beer tnvern in the CL (Come~ercial, Litaited) Zone on n rectanqularly-ehaped parcel of land conaistinq of approximately 1 acre hevinq e frontaqe of approximately 120 feet on the west side of Hrookhusst Street approximately 395 feet narth o~ tha center].ine of Oranqe Avenue and further described as 507 Brookhuret 3treett and does hereby approve the Neqative Declaratioa from the requirement to prepare an envlronmental impact report on the ku~ais that there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse anvironmental impact due ta the epproval of this Neqative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for qener~l commercial land ueea commensurnte with the proposalt thnt no eenaitive environtaental impacta are involved in the proposali that the Initial Study sub~aitted by the petitioner indlaatea no eignific~nt individual or cwnulative adverse environmental impactst and that tt-e Neg+stive Declaration substantiatinq the foregoinq findi.ngs is on fl.le in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Commieaioner Herbet etated h4 wou18 like to see a time limit placed on this conditianal use pez~mit becauae it could become a larqe beer bar. ~ 83-110 MIt~TI1T~8, 11N11~1~IM CITY PL71NtdINCi COMMlI88ION, F~BRUARY 23, 1983 Coaaniasioner Su~hor~ a~skad i! ther• will be any e~ ~-• tsintnenr dnd Ms. Ls r~plied th~y will have music• E1he also explained they do have a bsok door, but that it ia pre~ty !ar away lrom the hoa~~s. Cotnmiseioner 9ushora stated he did not und~r~tand how they aould have a bend e-ng bear ber with only one employoe. Me. Le replied thay will have anterteinment 3 or 4 niqhe~ per week en3 she di.d not kn~w haw many pmoplo thare would ointedhoututhe propertypcloesdnot abutOeny•ainqlellamily~homes. Chairman Fry p Conanissioner Kinq aaked the lenqth of the leeee, with Ms. Le respandinq the lease is for three yeare. Commiesioionerato~etipulateetoakeepingathe rearedoor closadthwithiMs.aLe asked the petit respondinq t.hat would be acceptnble. Ms. Le expleined the mueic ie Vietnamese and le soft and that ehe can only nell beer to any~ne over 18 yeare o~ age dnd there will be no d+ancing. ACTIONc Commieeioner King olfer,ed reaolution No. PC83-39 and moved for its paASaqe and ndoption that the Anaheim City Ptanninq Commi.ssion does hereb~e on qrant Conditfonal Uae Permit No. 2818 !or a pexiod of three yenrs to exp February 23, 1986 and subject to the petitionor's stipulation that the rear door shall remain closed et all cimee and subjact to Interdepartmental Cocamittee recommendations, deletinq Condition Nos. 2 and 4. On r~il call, the foregoing resolution wda passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS. FRYr NEABST, KING, LA CLAIRE~ MC SURNEY NOES: BUSHORE p-ggENT: NONE N0. 4. EIR NEGATIVE WAIVER OF CODE UIREMENT AND COND2~'IONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2419 PUSLIC H~ARING. OWNERSs NATIONAL EMPIRE COMPA~~ INC., 10433 NationalDale Boulevard, Los An9eles, CA 90034. AGENT: YOSHITAKA I3HZKAWA, 1230 3• Avenue, N104, Anaheim, CA 92804. Property descrlbed as e rectanqularly-shaped parcel of land conaisting of approxitaately 1.13 acree located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and Oale Avenue, 2801 W. Aall. Road, N5. To permit on-snle beer and wine in a proposed restaurant with waiv~r of minimum nwnber of parking epaces. There was nc one~ indicatingr~hw~e notsread,iit isregerred touandema eaepart and althouqh the staff reepo of the minutes. Michael Fihmea~Jagnnese rest urantrin8eushoppinq~cen erethat isapredtominately to establ P oriential. THB PUBLjC HEARING WAS CL08EA. MINLIT~B• ANA~iEIM CITY pZ+ANNINO COMMI88ION, F88RU~~Y 23, 1983 83-111 Respondiny~ to Commis~ioner Le Clsire, Mr. F~hmel stated the hours o! operetion wiil bs 11:30 e.m. to 2i00 p.m. and agdin lrom 5:30 p.m. to 11t30 p.m. He expleinad this ie e shopping csnter and will ssrve thet clientela durinq the lunch hour end tha shopping centar will ba closed in the aveninq~. He ~~tplained thi~ ia a epecial interest ehopping center and they felt the parking would be a~lequate. ACTIONs Connni~asioner King o!lered a motion, seconded by Canmiesioner Bouaa ~an ION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Plenning Coaunisaion has reviewed the propoeel to permit on-sAle beer and wine in a propoeed resteurant with waiver o! minimum nun~ber o! parking epecea on e rectanqulnrly-ehnped parcel o! lnnd coneiatinq of 1.13 acree loceted et the northweat corner oP Sell Road nnd Dala Avenue ~nd further deecribe~d ae 2801 W. 8a11 Road, ~uite Nu. 5r and does hereby approve the Neqntivo Declaration lrom the requirement to ~repnre an environment~l impact repart on the bsaia that there would be no e~gnilicant individuel or cumulative adverae envirAnmental impact due to the approval ot thia NeqaCive Declaretion since the Anaheim General Plan deaiqnntea the subject pr.operty for qeneral commerciel lend uses commensurate with the propoanlt that no 9ensitive environmental impacte nre involved in the pr.opoealf that tho Initial Study submitted by the petiti.oner indicates no significant individual or cumulative ndverse environmentel impecte~ and th~t the Negative beclaretion substantiating Lhe foreqoinq Findings ia on £ile in the City of Anaheim Planning Depe~rtment. Comm~iseioner King offered ~ inoti.on, eeconded by Commiseioner Bouae and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim City Planning Commiseion doea hereby grnnt waiver of code requirement on tho basis that parkinq demnnd etudy submitt.ed by the petitioner indicated that adequate parkinq would be provided and that the waiver will not cnuse an increase in traffic congestion in the immediate vicinity or adversely affect any adjoining land usea and the varience will not be detrimental tio the peace, healt~. safnty ur qeneral weltaxe of the citizens of Anaheim. Commissioner Kinq nffered Resolutlon No. PC83-40 and moved for its passaqe and adoption that the Anaheim City planning Commission doea h~reby grant Conditional Use Pern-it No. 2419 subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resoluti~n was paesed by the following vote: AYEB: HOUA3, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIIt£, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ITL~M NO• 5. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND 1tECLASSIFICATION NO. 82-83-22 PUHLIC HEARING. REQUE3TED BY: CI~'Y OF ANAHEIM, 20U S. Anaheim Boulsvard, Anaheim, CA 92805. Propertiea conaist of eleven mobilehome parks on a combiried totnl of appraximately 168 acress (A) Midway Trailer City, 200 W. Midway Drive (B) Anaheiw Shor~e Mabile Batates, 1919 Coronet Avenue (C) Friendly Villeqe, 5815 E. Le Palma Avenue (D) Anaheim Royal Mobile Hosae Park, 1250 N. State College Boulevard (B) Del-Este Mobile Eettatee, 1241 N. $ast SYxeet MINUTIlB, ANIWEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 23, 1983 83-llZ (F) Palm Lodqe Mobila Nome~, 2627 $. La Palma Avenue (G) Palm Lodq~ Trailsr Park, 5Z0 W. Fio~neyd Drive~ (H) Rancho La Pas, 501 B. Orangethorpa Avanue (I) Rancho Le Pelme Treiler Court, 825 W. Le Pelmn Avenue (J) Romnaye Mobile Nomes, 600-700 w. Romnaya Drive (K) Oranqa Grave Mobile Villega, 1000 S. Herbor Boulevnrd To plece the Mobilehome Park Overlay (MHP) zone on eleven mobilehome garke. There were approximeitely one hundred interosted persone indicetinq their presence et the public hearinq ~nd alti~ouqh the ateff report wae not rend, it ie reterred to and mnde a pert of the minutes. It was noted that aince Commiseioner Buehore wauld ne~d to declare a conflict of interest on the Orange Grova Mobile Village, tho public heering would be open for Parcel~ A through J only, dt thie time. There wae n response from the audie~ice that they did not underetand thie request and did not know whether or not they were in ~ppoeition. Cheirman rry and Commissioner La Claire explained the Mobilehome Park Overlay Ordinance and noted this ordinance wae adopted to qive the residente more protection than they previously he~d, but does not exclude the park ownor from requesting a chanqo in tho future. Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, reviewed the ordinance poi.ntinq out if any park owner requests rezoninq, he would be required before he could make any other uae of the property to have a public hearing where the ten~nte would have an apportunity to express t.he~r views or opposition. Greq Hastinqs, Aaeociate planner, explained copi.ea of the ordinance are avai.lable at the Planninq Department counter for anyone intereated in obtaining a copy. Dale Smith, 501 E. Orangethorpe, Anaheim (Rancho La Paz), thanked the stnff and Planninq Cammission fur their cooperation in thia matter and atated he has worked with groupe in the five western atatee and has never dealt with eo many nice people which has proven to him and to the warld with this approval that Anaheim is a forward-looking city wi.th a heart. Chairmnn Fry stated this has been a collective effort between the City Planning Department ataff, the Planning Commiesion and all the people on the Task Force. Ne atated the Commiesion will do everythinq in its power tca give mobilehome coach owners all the protection they can. ACTION: Commfesioner Herbet oPfered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kinq and MOTION GARRIED, that tt~e Anaheim City Planning Commiesion has reviewed the proposel to plnce the Mobilehome Park c7verlay (MHP) Zone on elAVen mobilehome parks described ae (A) Midway Trailer City, an irregularly-shaped percel of lnnd consietinq of approxinwtely 15.5 ar•res located on the aouth side of Midway Drive approxfauitely 350 fEet west of the centerline af Anaheim Houlevard; (H) Anaheim Shorea Eetatea, an irreqularly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of approximately 35 acres lxr~ted between tlia Riverside Freeway nnd the nc+rth eide af Medical Center Drive; (G) Fri~ndly Villaqe, an irreqularly-shaped parcel of land consisting ot approximatel;• 43 ncrrs located k~etween the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad riqht-ol-way and the north MINU'PEB, ANIIHBIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMZ$SION, FEHRUIIRY 23, 19H3 83-113 side o! La Psla~ Avenue; (D) Anahei~ R~yal Mobil~home Pnrk, an irregulerly-shaped parcel ot land aoneieting of approximetely 9.7 acres south ~f the Riverside Freeway with a tronteqe o! spproximetely 295 ~eet on the ea~t eide of Stete Colleqa Bouleverd; (E) Del Eeta Mobile Eetatee, en irregular].y-shaped parcel o! land conaisting o! approximetely l.6 Acree loceted eouth of the Riverside Freeway, ee~et o! the Atchison Topeke end Sante t~e Railroed right-ot-way and west ot the Ornnqe County Flood Control Chnnnel; (F) Palm Lodqe Mobilehome Park, an irregularly-ehaped parcel of land consiating of e-pproximately 13.5 acrea located at the nort.heaat corner of La Pal.mn Avenue end Miraloma Avenuo~ (G) Palm Lodqe Treiler Pdrk, a rectengulerly-ahaped parcel of lend coneieting of approximately .26 acre located on tha aouth aide of Romneya Drive approximately 288 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Bc~ulevard; (H) Rancho Le Paz Park, an irragularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of approximatQly 25 ecree loceted on the north eide af Oranqathorpe Avenus nnd bounded on tt~e eaet by the Union Pacific Railway riqht-of-way and on the north by the City of Fullerton; (I) Rancho La Palma Trailer Court, a rectanqularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of appr~ximately 1.4 ar.ree located on the northwest corner af Ln Palma Avenue end Citr~n Street; (J) Rmm~eya Mobilehome Perk, a rectangulerly-ehapR±d parcel of land consieting of. approximately 3.4 acrea on the south side of i~mneya Orive approxima-tely 470 feet went of the centerline of Narbor Aoulevard; (K) Or~nge Grove Mobile Villaqe, an irregularly-ahaped parcQl of land conaisting of approximately 4.8 acres located on the weat side of Harbor Boulevard epproximately 625 fe~t north of thd centerline ~f Ball RAadt and doQe hereby approve the Neqative Oeclaration f.rom the requirement to prepare an environrnental impact report on thP baeis that there would be no aiqnificant indfvidual ur cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Daclaration aince the Anaheim General Plan desiqnates Parcels A, C, E, F, G, and J for medium deneity residential land useas Parcel 8 for low-medium denaityr Parcel D, commercial profeseionalr Parcel H, qeneral industridls Parcel I, qenezal commercialr and Parcel K, commercial recreational land uses commensurate with the proposalt that no sensitive environn-entel im,pacts are involved in the propoeal= that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no siqnificant individual or cumulative ad~erae environmental impactat +ind that the Negc+tive Declaration eubatantiating the foregoinq findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Repartment. Commissioner Nerbat offered Resolution No. PC83-41 ar-d movdd for ita passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion doea hereby grant Reclassification No. 82-83-22, Parcels A through J. On roll. cal.l, the forsgoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYLS: BOUAS, FRY, HRRHST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOE3: NONE ABSENTs NONE ABSTAIN: BUSHORE THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS REOPENED for Parcel K, the Oranqe Grove Mobile Village. Commissioner Bushore declared a conflic't af interest as defined by Anaheim City Planning Connnission Reaolution No. PC76-1S7 adoptinq a Conf lict of Interest Cade for the Planninq Conmtission and Governiaent Code Section 3625, et seq., in thnt he is the reax eata-te agent foz the owner and purauant to the provieions of the above Codee, declared to the Chairman that he was MINtJTEB, AN~HSIM CITY PL~NNINa COMMI88ION, F~ARUARY 23, 1983 83-114 withdrawing lrom the heerinq in connection Perc~l K o! Realeositicetian No. 82-83-22, and would nat taka pert in aithar the disaus~ion or the vating theraon and had no~ diecuesed thie mettar with any mamber o! the Planninq Commieeion. 1~ynn Thompson, 1307 S. Euc11d, Building A, Anaheim, stnted he would like to object to the Orange Grove Mobilehome Villaqe beinq included i.n thia MHP Zoner that the etaff raport retera to it ea a 115-~paca mobilehome perk, but it is e+ treiler perk according to the conditional uee permit~ that it was nnnexed to the City prior to 1965 under a conditional uee permit !or a treiler parkt that Conditionel Usa Permit No. 271 granted Jul.y 19, 1962, wae to add additional trailer apace to the pdrks that Conditional Uso Perd-it No. 1203 qrented in Ma,y 1971, was to clariPy that mobilehome lots within the park were ectually trevel trailer lots and not mobilehomo lote. Reaponding to Chairman Fry, Mr. Thrmpeon explained there are eleven coaches in the park at the present timo which are in axaeas o! 32 ~eet in lenqth end they ero there on non-contorming lots and explained he wae not aure how long they had been th~re t~ecauRe they had only owned the park for four yeers. He atated no coaches have been allowed in the park eince they acquired it and that there wer.e ~+pproximately 21 coeches when thoy first purchased the property, but through nttrition, there are o~ly 11 left. He stated they are there on a month-to-month basis and that some recreetional vehicles have been allowed in the rear on a day-to^day basis. He etated there are some people living in recreational vehicles who have been there since they acquired tl~e propQrty four years ago. Commiasioner Herbst stated thie park har~ accepted permanent residents and esked how lang some of the permane~t reaidenta have been there. Mr. Thompson responded he was nat sure, but it would apgeesr from t:~e looks of their coachea that they have been there for a long time. Commiesioner Herbst stated it would be hard for him to discriminate since theee people have been allowed to live thera as permanent residents. Mr. Thompson stated they gave the State of California mandate of a one-year notice ov~r one year aqo and he thouqht the eleven ovmers would probably be qiven the same notice the State mandate requires and everyone in the pnrk has siqned an acknowledgement t!.t the park use is to be chanqed. Commissioner Herbst asked if the developer has coneidered givinq the tenants help with moving. Mr. Thompaon reaponded no one has requested any help, but he would sesume the developer would have the responsibility of moving them, under the State law. Commissioner McBurney stated he thought all mobilehome tenants should have the same protection, whether ~there are ten or three hundred people involved. Jack White explained in responae to Chairman Fry, that the ordinance is actually divided inco two parts with the firat beinq the overlaey zoninq a~nd the second the relocntian report and benefita that are payable= that the Code provides that prior to changinq the use ot any nwbilehome park, the conversion imp~ct report has to be submi~tted and approved by the Plnnning Comaaiseion a~nd the City Council and the benefits paid to the owners of each mobilehome which _ ., __ ~,.,,~ MINIITBB, ANAHBIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, FBSRU~RY 23, 1983 83-115 in this case would be llt that the definition o! e mabilehome park contsined in the Zoning Code i• "eny area or trxct ot land where one or more mobilehoma lots ere rented, laneed or sold". He stnted the socond part ir whether or not the ~verley ~one ia epplied to this property end the first eection of th~ nverley zane eaya in part, "this chepter and requiremenCe contained herein are not intended to epply to a recrentiondl vehicle park. If d mobilahome park containa recreatlonel vehiclea, then thie chapter end the requirements conteined herein ahall npply only to the mobilehamee loceted within euch mobileh~me park". He ndded the difficulty comes with the fact thet if the overley zoning ie impoaed on the property, it meana the only use thnt ce~~ be made of the property ie a mobii~home park or mobilehome park subdivision end it would eeem that if the antire property cen only be used as a mobilehome park, the exieting treiler specea would all be rendered non-conforminq. He added the ordinence snye if a mobilehome park conteine recrea' nal vehicleg, this chapter and the req~iremer~ts contained ehNll apply anly to the mobilehomea located within euch mc+bilehomo pazk and he would decm thet to menn thet the portion thet could be used only for mobilehome park purpoges was the part being ueed for mobilehomes• He etated in tl~ia caae, the Commission is looking at a situation where a majority of the occupants ere in trnvel trailers as opposed to mobilehomes and he thouqht it is open-ended as to whether the Co~niasion wants to apply the overlay zone to a eltuation like this and the real difference would k~e that those eleven own~ra would get the protection of the relocaCion benefits, but would not receive a notice and have a publ.ic hearing a~ to whether or not the perk ia converted. He stated any mobilehome in the City that is currently in a mobilehome park or a trailer park has the protection of the relocation benefits, whether they are in the Mobilehome Park Overlay 'L~ne or not. MX. Thompson explainsd last December tliey qave notice to the people in this park that they intended to convert the park to a different use and they are in the procesa of either selling or developing the park and he thought, under the law, the occupants would have to move within aixty days after building permits are issued. Commissioner Bouas pointed out if this psrk is not included in the Overlay Zone, theae tenanta could potentially be required ta move Ln sixty days, but if the Overlay Zone is imposed, they would have the benefit of a public hearing. Jack White atated the state law keeps chanqinq, but there ia a proviaion that says a tenant cannot be terminated until a minimum of si.x ~or~he after the owner has obtained all neceasary permits from the City and if this is included in the averlay zone, the rezoning would be deemed a permit which would ~ean there woul~ be a minimum of six months after that zoning took p1aCe before they had to move. Mr. Thompson stated tenants have had over a year notice and if any new tenants moved in, they did siqn a notice acknowledqinq the chanqe of park use. Jack White zeferred to 3ection 798.56 of the C±vil Code of the 3tate of California which providea that e tenancy shall be terminated by manaqement fox• one of eeveral reasonst one of which is the chanqe of use for any park or portion thereof providing that tha management gives the tenants at least fifteen (15) days written notice that the man~qe~ent will be appearinq before a loca~ government, board, comml.ssion or body to request permission fox tihe MINUTEB, 11N1WffiIM CITY PL~NNING COMMI33ION, F$BRUARY 23, 1983 83-116 change of use !or ths mobilehome paxk and efter the permitn requssting the chenqe o! use hdve been approv4d, m~naqement shall qive tha tenente e eix-montha or more notice of termination. He eteted thla ratara to the diecretionery permite euch es rezoning or conditional uee permits, etc. Commieeioner La Claire ~tated tha property is zoned commerciel recreational currently and if the davnloper wente to rezone to build on the property for anythinq other thnn commerc~nl recreationel uees, they would hnve to hevo a rezoning anywey and that would tnke a eix month noCico. Jeck White explained thoee provieions are enforceable by the tenante and the City would not ba involved. Commiasioner Horbst clarified that Mr. Thompson is aware of tha relocetion benefita that would be required. Cammieaioner Horhat ataCed his main conc~rn ie for thoae eleven tenante wha have bRen there for a lony time and whether oz not they would have the eame protection as everyone else. He steted aince it appeare the property would have to be rexon~d f.rom commercial recreation anyway, the overlay zone would not be a hindrance, but would give the tenanta the pr~tection they deserve. Jack White fur.ther explained if the perk is included in the CNerley Zone,the mob~lehome coach owners are required to receive notice of any rezoning hearinq and also that spECifi~: findinqs must be made before any rezaning is approved. He stnted one fin~iir.g is thet the rezoning is in the public interest, conveniencQ and gEr.eral welfarer and the othera are that there ie a health l~azard in the park and that no othez~ use can be made of the park, but the question is wheth~,r or not owners af these eleven mobilehome parks are qoing to specifically receive notice of the reclassification and hdve the riqht to object ar-d whether or not the epecific findings need to be made. Mr. T}~ompson stated he believed the highest and beat use of tlie park iR comn-ercial and recreation and there coul~. be developere who would want to acquire the property and build under thar_ parti.cular zone and would not be required to have a public hearinq and that is what he is trying to protect. Jack White explained state law does not require any relocation benefite, but our ordinance d4ee require exactly the same payment whether or not the property is in the Ov~rlay Zone. Commissioner Bouas stated the tenants would not receive the benefits unlesa they are aware of the ordinance. Jack White explained the ordinance requires that prior to changing the usQ, the owner has to submit a conversion impact report and all the owners of coaches in the awbilehome park would be notified that there is a report and he given an opportunity to receive a copy of the report and a public hearing would be held. He explained the only requirement of the ordinance is to mitigate the ~ffect upon the displaced mobilehome owners by making payments for the cos. of di8assembly and reassembly of the home, the coot of transportation to another average coaq~arnble park and any additional estimated coats requir~d to bring the exiatinq mobilehome up to the standarde uf the new park. Be stated in ad3ltion, if there is a subdiviBion, there is a new atate law which provides that the Planning Commiaeion has to make additional findinqe that either there ar~ aufficient replacement houaing spacea available or that there are mitigatton iaeasurea being adopted which will allevlate the difficulty in findinq relocation spaces in nnother park. ~ MINUTEB, ANl1HEIM CITY YLIINNINCi COMMI88ION, F~9RU11RY 23, 1983 8~-117 Chairmen Fry •teted he lelt eatisli~d that the •levtn ~wnars would be adequatsly protscted. Cc~aimi~veioner Le Claira askad how the Comm~ssion would know how many ownere t.her era end •teted one o! tha rss~on~ !or tha arAinenc~ was to provide that kind of informatiun nnd if they are all covorad enywef, seked why we evan need tho Ovex•lay Zone. Chn±rman Fry stetecf the ordinance is to make eur.e in e major pRrk that there wns no chence Lhnt the mobilehome park ownc~r or ~laveloper could put thro~iqh a rezoninq requeat end not heve tenc+ntR o! the park be olficinlly notified. Jack Whtte explnined the overlay zone le to pzovi.de the reloceCion benelitc and el~o to afford the reeidente the riqht to eppenr bef~te the Planning Commiselon ancl aey they do not wnnt this chanc~cs Co happen prior to it happening end it elluwe them to heve the apportunity to receive a noticQ of the fect that it ia heppeninq and the opportunity to bes heerd. He etetnd he believed the Commiaeion now hae to decido whether or not there ie a poi~it whAn they can say a trailer pnrk that hns e certain number of mobilehomes ie not yoing to be subjected xo the reclesaiticat.ion prac~c~c or whether any travel trailer pnrk, no mntter how many treilera ere there, will be subjected to tha snme proce~as. Commissioner Herbst etated e good portion of the c:lder parks started out. es trailer parks and there ar~ a lot of coaches thek could be coneidered ae~ trailers, even thouqh they are beinq uaed as permnnent residencee and he cou.~d not discriminate be:.ween tne two. Mr. Th~ompson atated there are several trav~l trailer parks in the City which have permanent re.sidents who l.ive in recrea'tonel vehiclea. He etated the eleven mobilehomes in thei.r park nre nor.-conf~~rming and if the City ahoae to, t}~ey could say the conditional use pdrmit iA being ~•iolated and ask the awner to remove thoae people. Commissioner Bouaa asked if there is any way ~o put a time 11mit oii not including this in the overlaX zone. Jack White~ responded if the property ia n~~• includod in the overlay zonQ, t~1P, Cammiseion could reconsider it sny time in thg future. Commissioner Hzrbat stated the Commission knows some of the park owners have haraeaed the terants conaidarably in the pest year end made it undesirable for them to continue to ].ive there an~ he thought that is one of the reasons the ordinence wes passed. Mr. 'Phompson etated if the Commissian drove through the property, they could see it ie quite dllapidated and that they heve had atudiea made pertaining to replacemt~nt of sewers, electrical aervicee, etc. and that the cost would be prohibitive. Commiasioner Herbst stated he e~ants the maximum prokectian for the oeople who live there and the Coamiseion is not sayinq thet the owner could not kake the park cut of. the overlay sone and when they are ready tA rezone the property. thqre will be no problem, if the people have been taken care of. MINUTEB, 1W11KaIM CITY PL11NNxNCi COMMI8820N, P'BA1tUARY 23, 1983 83-11Q Comtnisiioner La Claire steted one o! the provieions o! the ordinanca is to ailow ahenqe ot Lhe park becsu~a it neads impzovementa. ACTION~ Commieaioner Hexbst ot ~ered e motion, •econdod by Canmiesioner Bauas and MOTION C1IRRIED, that Parcel K be included in ap~rovel o! Reclsec~ifiaation Na. 82-83-22 in the raealution previously o!lered. On roll call, the foregoing reeolution wae paeeed by the following vote: AYffiSt BOUAB, FRY, HER$S'~~ KING, LA CLAIRE, MC ~URNEY NO3~8 t NONE AB8ENTt BU$HORE RECESS: Thexe wns a five minute receae at 3i10 p.m. RECONVENE : The meeting wae reconvena:~ et 3 s 15 p. m. ITEM N0. 6.. EIR NF.GATIVE DEG1.~1R1-TION (PR~'VIRl.9*~Y APPROVED), TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. ].0674 ( REVISION NO. 1) ANQ REQIJEST F'0*~ A.PPROVAL OF RRMlOVAL OF PtJBLIC HEARING. OWNERS. VERDE PROPERTZES, 6125 E. Lafeyette, Scottedale, Arizona, t35251 and FREb STENE"NS , 31E0 Frontera, Anal~eim, CA 92806. Property described ea an irregulerly-sh a ped parce ~! land c~nsisting of approximately 6.25 acres located et the weeterly termiriua oP Euce+lyptus Drive, approximately 980 feet eoutheasterly of the c anterline uf 3anea Ana Cenyon Road and north of Martella Lane. To establieh an 11-lot, RS-HS- - 22,OU0(SC) Zone subdivision and raquest !or approval of remo~al of specimen trees. ACTION: Commiasioner Bouas of fered a mucion, seconded by Commiseioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED, t'-iat consideretian of the eforementioned it~sm be continued to the reqularly-ache duled meetinq of Merch 7, 1983, aC the applicant's requeat. ITF.M NO. 7. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RECLASSIF2CATION NO. 82-83-1E. PlJB:~IC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described as Parcel ls A trianqularly-shaped p~ical of land consistinq of agproxi~nately e acres having a frontage of approximately 1365 ~eet on the west s~de of Douglass 1maA, approximntely 700 feet north of the centerline of Katella Avenue and Parcel 2: A rectangularly-ehaped parcel of land consistinq of apQroximetely 8.76 acrea havinq a frantage oc approximately 3~0 feet on the south aide of Winston Road, approximately 600 feet weet of the center]ine of 3unkist 3treet. County of OrnnS~e A1 to the trII, Zone. :'here was no ~ne indicatinq thgir presence in opposition to subject request and although the stnff repvrt ~ras not read, it is referred to and arada a part of the minutes. i MINUT38- AN~-H1CIM CITY PLIINNIN(i COt4lISSION, FE8RUI~RY 23, 1983 93~118 Commi~aioner Ls Clair~ etstad ono o! th~ provioion~ o! the ordinence is to allow chanqa of the park beaau~s it nesds improveenents. AC'PIONs Cammi~ai~ner HNrLat olPaxed e+ motion, seconded by Coannieei~~. ~~r Bouae au4 M ION CAttRI~D, thet Parcel K be included in spprovel o! Reclasoiticntian No~ 82-83-?2 in the resolution previoumly otfez~ed. anroll call, the loraqoing resolu*1on wae pesaed by the following votes AY~Bt HOU119, FRY, NERBS'~, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURN~Y NOES s NONE A98~NT s HU3HORE 1t~CE~8s There wes a five minute recesa at 3i10 p.m. RECONVENEs The moeting wee reconvened at 3s15 p.m. ITEM T10. 6.. !~:IR NEGATIVE DfiCLARATION (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED), TENTA_ TIVF [Np-P OF TRACT N0. 10674 (R$VISIQN N0. 1) AND RE~UEST FOR APPROVAL OF REMO'VAI. OF SPFC7MEN TREES PUNLIC HEARING. OWNERSs VERDE PROPEYtTIES, 6125 E. Lateyette, 3cottedale, Arizona, 85251 nnd FREU S'I~VEN3, 3180 Frontera, Anaheim, CA 92806. Prope rty descrlbed as an irregularly-ahaped percel of land coneisti.ng of agproxitaately 6~25 r~cree located at the weeterly terminua of r,ucalyptus Drive, approximtitely 980 feet southaaeterl;. o! the centerline of Sxnta Ana Canyon Roed and north of Martella Lane. To estublish an 11-lot, RS-HS--22,000(3C) Zone eubdivision and request for approvel of removal of epecimen treea. ACTION: Commiasioner Bouas offered a motion, seaonded by Comniiasioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED, thnt considerntlon of the aforementioned item be continued to the reqularly-scheduled meeting of March 7, 1983, at the applicant' e requeat. ITEM Nn. 7. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATYON AND RFCLASSIFICATiON N0. 82-83-16 PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805. Property described ae :arcel ls A trianqularly-aha~.+ed parcel of land conaiatinq of appreximately 8 acrea having a frontaqe of epproximately 1365 feet on the weat side of Douglass ~ioad, approximately 700 feet north of the centerline of Katella AvenL+e and Pa~cel 2: A rectanqularly-shaped parcel of land conaisting o~ approximatel~+ 8.76 a crea havinq a frontaqe of approximF-tely 300 feet on the aot•th aide of Winston Road, approximately 600 feet west of the centerline of Sunkiat Street. County of Oranye A1 to the Ir¢~ Zor.e . There wns no one indicatinq their presence in oppoaitian to aubject requeet an(i e].thouqh the staff report was not read, it is refer.red to and ma-de a part of the minutee. MiNUT88, ~-NAHSiM CITY Pi.11NPtitrlG COMMi88i0N, F~RUARY 23, 1y83 83-119 1lnnika 3antalahti explained thi~ recla~silicstion raqueer wsa initiated hy the City in con~unction with Lh• annexetion ~oninq. ACTZON: Coen~niaeioner King o lferad a motion, eeconded by Commiseion~r McHurney and MOTION C1-RAS6D, the~ the ~lneheim City Planning Commi~sion he• reviawed tho propossl to reclae~ify subject Qroperty from ~ounty n! Ornnge Al (Genernl, AQricul*.ural ) to the NQ. ( tndustrial, Limited ) Zone un Perc~l 1, a triangularly-ohaped parcel of lend coneisting of approx.f.ma*ely 8 acres havinq a trontage of ap~roximately 1 365 feeC on the we::: eide of Douqlaa Roed eppr.oximately 700 feet on tl~e north eide of Katella Avenu~ and Paruel 2, a rectangularly-ohaped pnrcol o~ land coneieting of. approximately 8.76 acres hnvinq e frontage cf 4pproxieeu~Cely 300 feet un the aouth eide ot Winaton Road approximately 600 feet weet o f the centerline ot Sunkis~ Streets end does hereby approve the Negetivs Declaretion trom the requir~r~ant to prepare an environmmntal impact report c~n thP baais thet there would be no aiqnilicant individual or cumulative adv e rae environmental impact due t~ the approval ~! thie Negative Declaretion si nce the Aneheim General Plan desiqnetes the aubject pz~perty for qeneral induatrial lnnd useb commensurate wi.th the proposelt thar. no sensitSve e nvironmental impacta are involvAd in the praposalt that the Initlal St udy submitted by the pQtitioner indicates no aignificent individual or cumulative a~iverae enviro~-~~ntal impactsr end that the Neqative Declaxation subs tantiating thQ toregoiny findinge ls on fil.e in the City of Aneheim Planning Department. Commissioner King offered ~'e s olution No. PC83-42 and moved for ita paR^•ge and adoption that the Anaheim Ci ty Planninq Commiasion does hereby grent Reclessification No. 82-83-16 subjcct to Inter~epartmental Committee recommendationa. On roll aall, the _ureqoinq resalution was passed by the following vot~: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, ~RY, NrRBST, KING, S.A CLAIRE, MC HURNEY NOES: NONE AB5ENT: NONE ITEM NO. 8. EIR N0. 230 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIEA), GENERAI. PLAN AMENDNIENT NO. 182, RECLASSIFICATIQN NO. 82 -83-21 AND nEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 83-02 PUHLIC HEARING. OWNERS: SAVI RANCH ASSOCIATES, 45U New~ort Center, Sutte 304, Newport Beach, CA 9266 Q. Property described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land conaiating of approximately 57.8 acres generally located north of the Riverside Freeway havfng a frontaqe of approximately 810 feet on the west side of Weir Canyon Road. Portion A: County of Orange A1 to CI,(SC) Zone. Portion B: County of Orange A1 to the NII,(SC) 2one. Also to be conaidered for r ecommendation to the City Conncil is Developmenti Aqresment No. 83-02 pPrtain ing to coaunei~ial and induatrial development of subject property. There was no one indicating their presence in .-pposi*ion to subject request and although the staff repor t was not rea~, it ia reinr~.~~i ~o nnd made t+ part of the minutes. MINUTSB, AN7WSIM CITY PLl1MiINCi COMMI88IONr FEBRUI-RY 23, 1983 83-120 Josl Fick, 1-esi~tant Dirsctor far Planning, explained th~ra are epvaral itema to ba considardd in conjunction with thf.~ Genarel Plan Hmandmant which would change the current ganerwl indu~trial and q~nerel open spece designationa to qsnwral commezcial and qenerel industriel. He explained thare ie a Devolopment AqreemRnt ta lurther provide clnr iticatlon and implecnant the development plan. Conunie~ioner Ls Cieire aekec~ whet is goinq ~ o happen on the ndjecent property loceted in Yorha Lin~s. Mr. Fick ~xpleined the development plnn ia !ar nn area in Anaheim of approximAte~y 58 ecrea and the entlre SAVI Ranch ie approximntel.y 275 acree, ao the lerger portion would be loc+~tc~d in Yorba L1nde. He etated there ie an interchange that w~uld ~ccur on both aides of Weir Ceny~n Road and the pr~posed development le tor commercidl ugea with perhepe aommei~cial offica ~ype developmont within thnt interchan~j~ ar~e and the balance on both sides would be for indus trial type uaes• Don Swaxtz, Nillmrn Company, partnere of SAVI Ranch, atated they nre in the proceas of planning the development o! the property and thie Genesal Plen Amenclnent will divide the property into two parta which will be divided by roeds which are part of the project being coordi.nated with the CiL•y of XorbA Linda and the Cuuncy of Ornnge and the ultim~te development will be commercial and induatriel. ltesponding to Cacnmissioner La Cla.ire as to how much commerciRl is plnnne3 for the property in Yorba Linda, Mr. Swe:tz etated the lote nre just nb~ut equal in aize in Anaheim and Yorbe Lin : and their plan is for four equel lote (two in Aneheim and two in Yorbe Linda) and they are rouqhly th~~ same size except for the topography and the developmant is for four buildinqs which will have similar type erchitecture ri.qht at the freeway interchange. Commissioner La Claire queatiored the circu lation and ateted if the property was develnped atrictly for commercf.al uses, ahe di~i not think circulation would be suitablet however, it would bct sui table for commercial offiae uaea. Reaponding to Commissioner La Claire, Mr. S`wartt stated they wo~ild be doinq the inErastructure fJ.rat and that ia goinq through an assessment district and they would hape to have the final erigineering re~ort by April lat and the bonds iss~od by May 2nd and the contracts let by Mr-y Sth, and, hopefully, the infrastructure completed by mid-Auqust and their marketing plan is to move from the enda towaxd the intezchange and wi 11 be probably be developed when the reqional center qoea throcqh acroas the freeway and he would think they would be building buildinqs there in three cr four years. R~spotidin~ to Coaimissioner La Cleire, Mr. Swartz etatec? they wanted commRrcial inateac3 of caamercia? office ta reall.y designate the difference cf the induatrial area and to qet them into +i different market se~a-ent. He stated one lot is approxlmately 40 acres and it wc~uld be further subdivided in the future and the real purp ae today is ta des ignatP different zones so they can beqin detail plans and ctu..mlt a plan to geparate the two. Cammieaioner Herbst stated he understands all ingrese goinq north will havo to be from t..e eastern side with a bridqe over Weir Canyon. Mr. Swartz stated there are two bridg~s under Weir Canyon wh ich ere under construction now and underpasses will be created at Weir Canyon as opposed to left turns. . : ~,~: :~ 83-121 MINUT88, ANIIHSIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEHRUARY 23, 1983 Commi4sioner Nerbat stdtad the bridqe will increaea the tratfic impeoti into Yorba Linds end commercinl facinq the interchango with litnited acaeoa would be a disaster. Mr. Swart~t atated they have reviewed the tratfic thoroughly and thia pro~...rty ie unique becauoe it ie between ~he river r,nd the freeway nnd thero ~~ n° He thzouqh tralfic end any traffio generntmd will bo lram their devolopmen~. stated their TraPtic Ei~ineer hae eaid thap have qood accees becauae ~! the lreewny rampe which will aerve thir~ property. Commiesioner Ln Clnire stated tho only prablem ehe hee ie with the general commercial designntion and she would li~nne8 end thntoehenunderatande th~,cial otfice beceuee that ia what is bainq p marketing aspect. Joel Fick stated having general commorcial designationrv~eraed in~theCial oflice dsaignation ia becauee gome ot the usea being p po Development Aqreement are encloeed rastaurents and retail type uaea which would not be permitted in a commercial officP zone and this giv~e flexibillty. Commisa!oner La Claire stated they could requeat a c~nditional use permit in the CO Zone. Joel Fick stated in some of the cases they would need a zone change, but that eny retail uae is permi.tted in the limited coaanercial zone. Commiesioner Herbst etated general commercial ~soa cL3ate a lat more traffic. Comml.asioner La Claire stated the roads do not app~ar to be deaignQd to handle cortmnercial traffi~•. She stated ehe believea the developer when they ea}• the wil~ be developing commercial office uaes and ahe thought that ia what shou~d be shown on the Generel Plan. Joel Fick suqqested the Commisaion co~lld reserve the right to review the development plans under Reports and R~:commendations as part of the reclassiEication. Mr. Swar.tz stated they are tryinq to ma.ke the General Plan conform to the development plan which they anticipate on this property and the development beinq constzucted by the County. He added they will be sulxaitting parcel maps and development plans in thQ future an~i t}~ey plan offices there and are fo'llowing the staff's recommendati.on on what is ~811edrfor~whatrtheytthouqht~ to movs it tnrougr~ the City of Anaheim and they app was best. Respondinq to C~nunissioner Herbst, Mr. Swartz stated he was not sure whether they would be comfortable with the CO desiqnation becauae he was not familiar with that zone. He at$ted they would look into the matter if the Commis~ion would like for them to tdke a delay far review. Commiaaioner Horbst stated the Commiesion has nad thie problem before and referred ta a commercial property recently approved for the developaent af a hoapital because the Traffi~ Engineer felt it would areate less traffic than a commercial developtnent. He atated cocamercial is the hi.ghest use on 'the property and qenerates more traffic and thia property doea have limited accesa• Hs etated he would agree commercial office is the best use for the property, but he does have a problem with desiqnatinq it as qeneral comm~ercial becauae they could eell the property. W MINUTSB, A1~iAHEIM CITY PI,ANNING COMMIASION, FEHRUARY 23, 1983 83-122 Mr. 3warCz etated the conc~rn seams to b~~ traftic end cizculetiont however, these lots will be ebout 4 acxea with atreete on lour eideo with eccssa on two and there will not be any accesa ~o Weir Can;~n R~ad. Commiaeioner Herbst atated eincc a portion of the pro~crty will be ~nduwtriel, it could be developed ee a mnnutncr.~iring plant with a lot ot employeee and he wae concerned about induatriel trn!!ic having to go throuqh a commercial area end thore would be conflicting trnftic petterns. Mr. 3wertz referred to tha constre~nta on thie property of the rivei, freewey and two off-rampe and steted they aze duing the be~t they can with those constrainte dnd star~~' he really believea the traffic is not es eiqnificnnt A problem as the Cotnmi~sion bolieves becauae there ia no throuyh trefEic. Commiesioner Herbet stated th~~ Rivereide Freeway ir, at capacity now~ Joel Fick etated the Traffic Engineer has reviewed these plana and had no proble~ with the uega or the atr~jet aystems. Commisaioner La Claire stated she sees no problem if the property ie develope~ ae cammercial offices with some induatrial area, but ehe stitl questiona why it ahould be deaiqnated as qeneral commercial inetead of cnmmerciel office. Joel Fick stated some of the proposed us~s in tho Development Agreement are commercial type usas such as an enclosed restaurant and for marketing pur, ~aes, the developer is looking for the flexibility because those uaee are ^ot permitted as a mntter of rigtit 1n a commercial office zone. He stated the developer is lookinq at the ~ossibility of submittiny en over-all maeter plan and requeating a conditional uae permit for the development. Commisaioner t,a Claire asked if the uaes proposed ar.e prin~r±ly retail or primarily office. Mr. Swartz stated rhey would plan two major buiZdings in the commercial zone, ane 6-atory office buildinq and one 12-story offiae bui19'nq, and se a matter of aervice to their tenants in thnse buildinqs, they migh~ incl»6te 3 place to eat, bank or have a barber shop, but they are not planninq a shopping center. Commissioner La Claire atated she would not ~bject to any of thoae uaes because they aze services that are used in an industrial area and by the office usere and it would not be like a atrip commercial r_o_nter. Paul Sinqer, Traffic Enqineer, stated he has looked at the circulation plan and the primary concern has always been Wei.r Canyon Road which will have to take the brunt o£ all the traffic in the area and they are r•~comwendinq that weir C~,~,nyon Road be built up to six lanes. He atated access to this property fro~Canyon Road will be with rampe with a capacity of 1,500 car~ per hour and they~are more than adequate to deal with any traffic that will take place thare. He stated SAVI plana ehow there will be traffic siqnals at two major intereections within their developm~nt end ~t this time he really did not tnink th~se aignals will be neceasary. He stated he feels the roadway network they have proposed is goicig to be more than adequate for any traffic generated from the office users and Por total uses in the area. He atated, however, the Weir Canyon interaection and freeway ramps will have limited capacity. MINUTS9, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI88ION, FEHRUARY 23, 1983 83~123 Retponding to Commiseioner Herbet, Mr. Sinqer etated he ~ennot di~tingvieh the tra!!ic count betwaen sonea, but trelPlc impacte are calculeted on the building ueoe. Commiseion9rs McBurney and flushore left the meeting at 3:45 p.m. end did not return. Commioaioner La Cleiro naked if approvinq this !or commercial oflice will dtfect the Development Aqreement. Joel Fick reaponded the Development Aqreement identifies certein lnnd u~es the~t would be permitted in the development ereas and Areaa A, H r~nd G are propoaed for general commerciel uses which co~ild be convenience pecknyed qoode, retail -toree, commercial ehopping centers, encl.osed resteurants, co~fee ahope end offices includinq pro~essional, dental, utilities, medlaal anii qenerel office uses. t~e stated oriqinally a lfet of uaea was submitted by the developer nnd the appropriate zones to accommodate those uses were diecusaed and 1t turned out the CL Zone wae identified. Commieeioner I,a Claire statec~ if the developer fe planning ec~me commercial with offica uc~ea, ahe seea no reason to approve thia for general commercial and the developer can have ~xactly what he want.s with commercial office. Cammissioner Herbst nsked if the property was considered for induetrial zoning since theY~ ia a list of uses permitted in the industrial zane such as restaurants, real eatate, bnnke, etc. Joel Fick atated that possibility ~+as not coneidered, primarily because of the intenaity oE the office uses and the size probably warranted thr~t it not be coneider.ad for industrial land use. Commiesioner Herb~,. referred to industrial propertiea around the Stadium where high-rise offico bui~n:rigs hsve been aYlowed. Joel Ficlr pointed out thF: Stadium property is unique becauae it is desiqnated for public recreational u~es and that a General Plan Amendment wae proceased on property on Orangewoad for commerciel office usest and that ataff has tried tc, identify ~hoae areas ti at are Lec~i~ianately commercial or conanezcial office. Cou~miesioner Ls Claire ata:ed ahe is in favor of this project as deacribed, but sti11 has a problem wit~ the q~neral c~mmercial desiqnation. Sfie atated this should be labeled cocmnerc~.~ office and th~n all kinds of uses cctn be qranted and she felt everything the developer wanta will be approved. Joel Fick stated the Commisslon could request review of the plans or redesignate the portion covered under the reclassification for commercial office and under that zone some retail uses, when incorporated within the office uses, are permitted as a matter of riqht, and any couQnercial and retail u~es could be addressed in the Mast~r CUP. Commiasioner Herbst stated the ~:ommiasion wants to 31ve SAVI everythinq they want within reason and he felt the zone should be *:om:nercia~ office and aqreed he did not want to desiqnate it as qeneral commercial on the General Plan. Mr. Swartz stated the CO des~.qnation would be fine• MINU7'BS, 11N11HFIM CITY PI,IINNING COMMISSION, Fffi8Ri1~-RY 23, 1983 83-124 Mr. Fiak eteted commercf.al limited was edvartised end ie d more intenae type land us~ snd the Commission could approvs the cammarcial o!lic~ d~~iqnetion now dnd racommand that the Developmant Agreemant be amended ta address oommercial o!lice end incidentel reteil uaee in accordence with tha ottice uees. He explnined th parcels are identified ea A, H end C end ehown na r~d on Exhibit A en' 3uqqeated the Commiesion leave the designation ee genernl com~aerciel ~~ the General Plan and that the reclesaification be for commerciel o!lice rat' ~:r than CL. Commisa ~ner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC83-43 end moved for its pessege and a~' ptiAn that the Anaheim City Planning Commieaion doee hereby recommend to th~ City Councll that Exhibit A be approved ae modilied to show Parcels A, 8 an<1 C ae CO (~ommercial, Office) rather than CG (Cammerciel, General) as propoaed. On roll call, tho fnregoinq reaolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERA5T, KING, LA CLAIRE NOES: NONE ABSENTt HUSHORE, McBU'RNEY Commissioner Eierbst offered Reaolution No. PC83-44 and movad for its passage end adogtion that the Anaheim City Planninq Comm:.ssion doee hereby qrant Reclassificetion No. 82-83~21, in pr~rt, granting Portion A for CO(SC) (Commercial, Office Scenic Corr~dor Overlay) Zcsne rather than CL(SC) as propoaed and Portion D for ML, as requested, ar~d aubiect to Interdepartmental Cotnmittee recommendations. Greq Hastinge asked that a condition be added requirlnq that atreet namea shall be approved by the City Planning Department prior to isauance of building permite or within a~eriod oF 180 days, whichever occurs firet. On roll call, the foreqoinq reaolution Wae passe.'~ by the ~ollowing vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE NOESs NONE ABSENT: BUSHORE, McSUl2NEY Commissloner Herbsr offer.ed a motion, secnnded by Cocnmissioner Bou~s and MOTION CARRJED (Commissioners Bushore and McBurney abaent) that the Anahe~.m City P1an.linq Conanission does hereby recommend to the City Council that Development Aqreen-ent No. 83-02 be adopted with modificat ons for the uses as Freviously set forth in the reclassification and further based upon a f indinq thet the propoaed aqreement ie: 1) consistent with the Ge~i9ral Plan of the City of Anahetm and any applicable plans and 2) tbat it ie compatible with tt,e uses authorixed in the requlations preacrlbed for the ML(3C) and CO(3C) 7onea and 3) that it is compatible wi*.h the order2y development of the property and the surround.inq area and 4) it is not otherwise detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of AnaReim. Coinr toner Herbst o fered a cwtion, seconded by Cou~miasior:r Bouas and MO' ..A12RIBD (Commissionera Bushore and McBurney nbsent) that the Anaheim Ci Elanning Coaimiseion does hereby request that the City Council review tne Cammisaion's aationm on Realaesificatian No. 87-83-21 in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 182 and Development Aqreeaent No. 83-02. MINUT88, ANJWBIM CITY PLANNINQ CUMMI88ION, FEBRUARY 23, 1983 83-125 IT$M N0. 9. ~IR N0. 258 (PREVIOUSLY C~RTIFIED), GRNERAL pLAN AMENpMENT N0. ,~a ..... _~.------------ - -- PUBLiC ttc^AftZNG. REQUEgTBD BY THE CiTY OF ANAHESM, 200 3. Aneheim Houlevard, Anahaim, CA 92805. Property la an irraqulnrly-shaped p~rcel of lAnd conaistinq o! a-pproximetAly 50 acrea, qonerally located eeaterly of the terminua ot La Pelme Avenue, bounded on the north by ~he Atchison, Toh~ka ~nd Santn Fe Rsilwny (ATSFRR) Un the weat ~y Trect 9169 and on the eouth by the Santa Ana Itiver. County of Oranqe 1-1 to CL(SC) Zohe. There wea one intereated pereon indicatinq his presence in op~ueiti~n to aubject request ~nd althouqh the etaff report was not rend, it is referred t~ nnd mnde a paz•t of the minutes. Joel Fick, Asaistant Director for Zoning, exple~ined this Genc~•.:1 Plan Amendment and zone chanqe is f~,r the Shorb W~lls prop~ ty which was part of the Santa Ana (:anyon No. 11 Annexation which wae probably just concluded today with the Local Agency~'~ort~"saion and upon b*ir~qing • his property into the ~ity, it ie appropriate to pr.ovide xuning. He stated it wae previ~usly desiqnated as open apace on the City's General Plan and based upon uses and potential for ~he property, staff has prepared an exhibit for qeneral commercial. Concerninq the potential for the mobilehome park, Mr. Fi.;k stated the G~eller Development Company has bee~ designated hy the City Council to act as representatives for this praperty and are proceasing a re~Le3t for a pot~enti.al mobilehome shelter park. He ateted it ie that company's intention to submit a canditional uae permit request for a mobilehome park and the deaignation foz commercial land uses would not prevent or permit 1•he mobilehome park since mobilehome parka nre permitted in the co~nercial zone, subject to approval of a conditional uAe permit. He atated ti~e mobilehome park iseue would bP the sub ject of a future }~ ~a~ '.ng. Paul Boatwich, 8105 Woodsboro, Anaheim, stated he simply queationed the procesa and sugqested the Commiasion look et the property before goinq any further and maybe there coulci be an ~greement with the County for ,:he lit.tle trianqular piece of land. Roland Deckert, Lincoln Beach Mobile Home Manor, stated they are in favor of zoninq this into a zonr that could bring them ~ space to place their mobileh<;mes because riqht now there are 119 homea that need a place to yo and to their knowledge there isn't any propert ~oned to allow a temporary park. Chairman Fry asked if a time li.mit could be placed on t~:ie action. Joel FicY, stated when the request for a conditional uae pera~it is su~nitted~a time limit could be placed on that permit. Jack White, Aesiatant City Attorney, stated thie is ;uat a Ganeral Pl~tn AmendmRnt and reclas~aif.'.cation and thoae can not be made subject to a time lic~it and if an application is r~ade for :, mobilehome park, that wi11 bg the appropriate plaae to consider a time limit. He etated the City owns property and could put in whatever conditions are zeesonable. MINUT~B, ANAHSIM CI'=Y pLANNINa GOMM=89ION, FBHRUARY Z3, 1983 83-126 Coa~niesioner La Claire stated it is their understanding Chat evan i! th~~ ~ir,y Council does approve an interim park, the underlying ~oninq doesn't raally mattezt but that now iC iies to bN taken out o! tha agricultural aona and she lelt zoning it cuc~nerciel nt thie time v+ould be npproprieta. 8ha •Ceted ehe ~h~nke the pxoperty is not suitablA for sin~le-femily homee an~ ahe lalt commercial would be the b~st use for this property unle~e aomeone is coming forth to put an interim rark ar~ this property. AC_ TION: Commieeioner La Claire ottered Resolution No. PC83-45 and moved for ite paaeaqe and ndoption that the Anafieim City Plenning Commission ~oes herahy rec~nnnen8 to the City Council thnt ~cneral Plan Amendn-ent No. 178 be ap,proved for commercial uses, Exhibit A. On roll call, ~he foregoing r.eeolution wae paased by the Pollowinq vote: AYESs SOUA3~ FR7t, NL~RBST~ KING, LA CLAIRE NOE5s NONE ABSENT: BUSHORE, McBURNEX Commiasioner L+s Claire ~ffered Resolution No. PC83-46 and moved for its p~ssage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning ~=om-~+iasien d~~e hereby gran~. Reclaasification No. ~2-83-23 unconditionally. On roll call, the foregc~ng resolution was pdasea .~y tr~s~ followinq vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HER9ST~ KING~ I.A CLAIRE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BUSNORE, McBURNEY Commisaioner Lr~ Cleice atated ehe feals very favorably Abo~..t an intQrim mobilehome paik on that property if the City Gouncil i~ intezes•.:eci ar.d if a pi.,posal is su.tiaaitted. Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, eeconded vy C.oaanissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Comm.tssionera Bushore and McBurney ~bee~it), tha~ the Anaheim City Planning Comm3ssion does hereby recom~-end to the City Council that i~lanning Cummission's ac*ion on Recl.aesir.r.ation No• 82-83-23 be coneidered in conjunction with Ger.eral glan Amenc'm$nt No. 178. . _.w,,..~ MINUT88, ANAH~IM CITY P1.ANNING COMMZ88ION, FBBRUARY 23~ 1983 83-127 ITEM NO. 10 REPORT~ AND RECOMMENDI~TIONB A. CONDITIONAL USE 1~8RMIT N0. :557 - RequQet lrom Mymond G. Spehar tor termination on property located on the south side of La Palma Avenue, rpproximately 435 feet eaet of the centerline o! Imperial Hiqhway. ACTION: Commiesioner King offered Reeolution NA. PC83-47 and moved tor it sage and adoption that the Aneheim City Plenninq ComtnLeaion does hereby terminnte Conditionel Use Permit No. 1557. On zoll call, the fore?oing r~ on was paeaed by the following vote: AY~S: BOUAS, FRY, HERB3T, KING, LA CLAIRE NOES: NONE ABSENT: BUSHO::E, McBURNEY B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 2085 and '221g - Requegt from Angelo Cesella for termi.natiun lor property located at 3093 Miraloma Avenue. Commiesioner ICing offered Reaolution No. PC83-48 and moved for its passaqe and adoption thest Cor~ditional Uae Permit Nos. 2085 and 2218 be terminateda On ro11 call, the foreqoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HE~.BST, KING, LA CLAIRE NOES: NONE AB3ENTs BUSHORE, Mc9URNF1 C. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO. 11158 - RgquPet from C. J. Queyrel, Anacal 4nqineez•ing Company, f~r extension of time for property located on the south side of. Martelle Lane, approximately 720 feet southeast of the centerline of Santa Ar.e Canyon Road. Commisaioner Kinq offered a motion, secor~ded by Co~missioner Nerbst and MOTZON CARRIED (Commiesioners Bushor.e and McBurney absent), that the Anahei.m City Planning Coameission doea hereby qrant e one yeer. extenaion of time for Tentative Map o£ Trect No. 11158 to expire on March 8, 1984. D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1229 - Request from Susan A. De Namur, Emkay Development Company, for termination on property located at 2280 Eaet Katella Avenue. ACTION: Commissioner "ing of£ered Resolution No. 83-49 and :novQd for ite passaqe and acioption that the Anaheim City Planninq C~mmisaion does heroby terminate C~nditional Use Permit No. 1229. On ~oll cnll, the foregoinq resolution ~as passed by the followinq vote: AYES: BOUA3, FRY, BERBST, KING, LA CLAII2E NOES : NO1dE ABSENT: BUSHORE, McBURPtEY 1 . ` J t ~ MINUT88, a1NAHEIM CITY ~L11N[~itNa COMMISBION, F~BRU~RY 23, 19d3 83-1Z8 S: RECLAl38IFZCATION N0. 77-78-45 - Rsque~t lrom Calvin Meakho! !or extsn~ion o! tim~ or~ proporty locetsd on the wa~t sida o! Wa~t~rn AvAnu., ~~proximeitely 163 l~et north o! tha esntorlino o! eall Road. ~CT10N: ~ommi~sioner King o!lered a motion, seconded by Com~is~ioner He bst and MOTION CARRIED (Commieaionera Buehore and McHurney ebaent), rhs~ the Anaheica ~i.ty Planning Commission doea hereby grdnt e ~ne ysar extenmion of time to expire on March t4, 1984. ADJOURNMEN'r= There being no further businass, Coma~iesioner Herbst otterad a motion, aecondgd by Commiseioner Kinq and MOTION CARRIED (Conn~isaionera Buehore ang McHurney absent), ~hat the cneeting be adjaurned. ThA meeting was edjourned at 4:00 p.m. Reapectfully aubmitted, ~ ~ i~k~~~ r.'dith L. Harris, 3ncretary Anaheim City Planning Commiaslon ELH e im