The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1983/04/18r , ,` 1 REGULJIR M~B~ING OP THE J-NAHFIM CITY PLJINNIN(i COMMISSI4N REGUi.AR MBETING The regulac m~etc~qled t~eordereby ChaltmannFryg++t 10:00 ` Commiasion wea ~ ~~m~, ~pril 18, 1983, in th~ Gouncil Chember, a quocum being preaent and the commieeion coviewed pl~na of the i tema on today' o a~~e+nda . RECGSS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENE: 1:32 p•m• PRESENT Chaicm~+n: Commisalonere: Fry Bouras, La Claire, Bushore, Hecbat, King, McBurney ABS BNT Commiseionere: Nonc~ Annika Santalahti ` Zoning c P ALSO PkESEN Jack White l~ttorney psaietant City Jay Titua Ofiice Gnyineer As~ociate PlAnner DeAn Sherer HastingA Aeaoc.iate Planner Greg Pldnning Cummiesion Secretary Edith Harris APPROVAL OF MINUTE^e and MOTIONeC~RRIED,~fthetdthemminut~Agof~thedmeeting of Commiasionec Mceu Y ~p ril 4, 1983, be approved. OTH~R ITEMS NOT INCI.UDED ON AGENDA Chairman F[y read A pcoposea cesolution se:lpeting ~nd ad ptinqpa prelimi~erYer Va~lley Redevelopment Project Area and formulating p 1 an for the cedevelopment of the project area as reques`.ed by the Redevelopment Agency. itC83-74 ~nd moved foc its ACTION: Commiasionet Herbst offered Resolution No. pa$at~ge end a~doption tho= the RiveriVallPY [tedevelopmentiProje~t~AceaeandY select the boundaries f f ormulate and adopt a preliminAry plan for the cedevelopment of the pro ect area. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was paesed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY. HERBST, KING, LA CLIIIRE~ MC BURNEY NOES : NONE P-BSENT: NONE 1~-BaTAZN : BUSHORE 0486H 83-202 4/18/83 . __...,,,,~,,,.,' MINUT,_, 68. A1~AN~IM CITY PL~NNING COMMI38ION, APRIL 181 1483 83-203 ITEM NO_. l. EIR N~GATIVB D~CL~-RATION ANO R~CLI-88IFIC~TION N0. 82-83-26 PUaLiC HF~RING. OWNERB: RIVIERA MOBIL~HOMB P1-RK9, 300 W. Ketella Avenuo, Anaheim, CA 920~2. AG~NT: FLOYD L. FARANO, 2555 E. Chapman ~venue, Suite 405, Pullectun, CA 92631. Property described as an irre~ularly-eheped paccel of land coneisting oE approximately 19.8 acrea, 300 W. Ketella ~venue (Riviere Mobilehome Park). RS-~-43,OOU (MHP) (with resolution of lntenk to CR) request to remove the MHP (Mobilehome Park Ovecl~y) Zone from subjecC pcoperty to permit conveceion of an exiatinq mobilehome pack. Thece were fifteen pecaons indicating their presence in oppositi~n to aub~ect requeat and although the steff report was not reed, it is referred to and made a part of the minutea. Ployd Parano, attorney, 2555 E. Chapman Avenue, Suite 405, Fullerton, 92631 :e~erred to the ataff ceport which indicates that no formal application hes been aubmitt~d for the proposed develapment of the gerk and explnined they submttted five applicationa in October and November of 1982, which included twn conditional use permits, one variance, one reclassificatian and one general plan emendment foc the development of a hotel, two commeccial office structures and two condominium atcuctures. He stated he believed those plana and d[awinga are now ceady fo~ presentation and that they have juat received the first dcaft of the enviranmental impact report whfch will be presented to staff for ceview during the next two weeks and they expect their applications to be published within the riexr month and the initial hearings to be in early June. He referred to Page lb, Paragraph 11, of the ataff report and atated those figuces were revecs~d t•nprein it ahould read 32 apaces are double-wides and 109 ace aingle-wides. Mr. ~arano stated as pact af their rplncation plan, they surveyed six comparable mobileh~me parka, as dQSCribed in kheir ceport. He stated his client has indicated that bus trips will be provided to membecs nf the park when convenient for them so they can review the parka themselves on a first-hand basis. Mr. Farano presented a video presentation showing the following mobilehome parks: (A) Rivieca Mobile ~o~e Park explaining the park is approximately 25 years old and examinatione of the infra~tructure indicate that the electrical capacity is about one-third of what code requires todayt that the aewer lines, water service, etc. are all substanddrd and are a source of continual repair and it is their position that the park would have a life-span of no moce than five years and pcobably it would only be three years bef~re they find it necessary to provide new infrastructures. The next parka shown in the video presentation wer~: (B) ~qate Village, Warner Springa, California-approximately 242 acrea of which only a amall portion is occupied. He explained the owner of this park has of~ered to deve:op an entire new section for all the resfdents ~.. . ~ MINUTBB,_~N11H6IM CITY PI.IINNING COMMI88ION. APRIL 18~ 1983 83-204 ~rom the Riviera, explaining they just reaently took An entirs Perk tcom San Diego that waa celoceted. He etated Che rente ere conaiderebly lower and staked there ie no age limit on the roschea end thst it is epproximAtely 20 milea from me)or shopping cent~sre and has pacamedic end emergency medical eervicee from ~1 Toro end Alao helicopter. aervicee provided without coat to the park reaidentg. H~e etated e lot of the park maintenance ie provided by the residents who .live there, by their own eleckion, ~nd le deducted from theic rente. (C) Rolling Hills Mobile Nome Perk, Nemet, explaining thia perk has a mejoc hospitd.l clos~ by and there ie a new ahopping mel.l ebaut the eame sixe es the Acange Mall wfthin just e few minutes af the p4ck. Ne a~ated there ie a 10-year ege limit on coachea and that thia park hda lpse than 10 vecenk epaces, but expect to heve more in about one month. (p) Americana Mobile Hame Eetatea, Hemet, expla~ning it is located about 10 mit.ea from San Bernardino= thet there ia a l0~year age limit on couche8t that Hemet has a population oE 65~000 and that this park has quik~ a few vacant apaces. {E) Leke Perris Vil~~ge, Percis, maximum coach age limit of 5 yeara ar.d there are 9 vacant apaces at this timet thet thero ia shopping in neacby Hemet and emergency servicea ace availabie as fest as Chey ace in the Cit,y of Anaheim. (P) Rialto Mobile Village, Rialto, 15 mfnutes from San eernardino and close to Kaiser in Fontana with shopping conveniantly located. He expleined the:e ia a 10-year maxim~m age limit on coaches with 40 vacant r~paces evailable. iG) GGand~~iew Eest Mobile Estates, Yucaipa, 20 minul-es from San eernardino, near the Loma Linda Hospital. During the video presentation Mr. Farano explained regacding th~ relocatian benefits, that they have presented 3 alternative benefita including the estimated amount of celocation costs to be paid to each resident and he wanted to be sure the Commiasion realizes theae are estimatea only and are set facth as a requirement af the Anaheim Mobilehome Pack Overlay (MHP) Ordinancet howev~ec, ceqardless of the figuces ahown, they will pay the d~tual easts of relocation. Mr. Farano explained parks surveyed are comparable to the Riviera and some ot these parks, in some ways, ~re superioc to the Rivieca. [ie stated the Riviera was built 25 years ago and was never constcucted or intended to pcovide a continuing or permanent living etmoapheres that preaently there ace 130 coaches nt the Riviera, of which 100 are aingle-wide coaches with 30 double-wide coaches and the average ~ge of coach is 17.25 years. He stated the rents ahown in the survey are vety competitive and are lower than what the perk tenants are paYing and are lawer than wh~t they can expect to Qay in the not ton distant future. Mr. Farano stated they believe it is possiblP to provide a relocation apace £oc everyone in that pi+rk, regardles$ o£ the age of their coaches; kha~t there d MINUTEB, 11NAHEIM CITY PI. NNTNG COMMIBSION APRIL 18 1983 83-205 ere no epecea in 1-naheim ot even in Orenge County, but they heve ~hown theae other parks where th~re are apecea, including the offec to cceate An entire area for ell theae tenants. Responding to Cheirmen Fxy concerninc3 1-lcecnative ]1 mentioned in the etaff ceport, Page 1-e, Mr. Paca~no exp2eined they contacted a repreaentative oE a mobilehome md~ufact.urer rnd they agreed to provide 12-foat by 65-foot mobilehomea to thR reaidenta of the RS.viern with new awninga, skictings, landaceping, etc. At a coet of apFroximetely 5150 per month, including financing, for 5 yeers and that the ownera would own the coachee and the c~achee would be in theic names. he atated he dues not know if that offer is atill availeble because they did not pucsue it after receiving e negACive response, but if there is interest, they could regenerate thP project and tcX to make eure that it i8 an eckive alternative. Carl Shorey, 300 W~ Ka~ella, Space 51, Anahcim~ steted !~e thinka thia hearing is a big joke becauae the Mobilehome Park Overlay 2one was juat adopted and the Task Force spent many hours and did as fine a job as could be done and now tl~ie owne[ is cequeating that tt~e zone be removcd. He referred tu the impect ceport which indicatE» the undecground utilitiea, aewece, plumbing, electrical, etc. are in bad st~ape and need complete re~lacemen-: within the next 5 yeacn and aeked how the other mobilehome park~ eucveyed can exiet aince some of them are ~lder, pointing out Grandview in Yucaip~+ is at least 30 years old. He stated the motel ~cross the stceet uaee the same facilitiee as this mobilehome park and they do not aeem ta be having any pcoblems~ Ne stAted they had a leak in a watec main about 1-1/2 weeks ago because ~ wall ahifted and ccacked it, but he talked to the plumber, who is an expert, and suggested sincP the pipe is 23 yeara old, it must be pretty ratten and khe plumber had indicated that thia pipe could lt~et l0U years because it cannot cuat, ac~le or cot. He added he thought the information obtained re~~acding the life of the park is wrong. Mc. Shorey referced to page 2 of the impact rep~rt pertaining ta security and the tenants' safety anci the lnfocmation thnt Katella Avenue ia a high level pedestrian area which causes vandalism and mdlicious mischief. He atated he found out from the Anaheim Police Department that Riviera ie one of the least troublesome spots in Anaheim; however, there ia a motel at the rear of the park which has some problems. Mr. Shorey stated he counted pedeatrian traffic on March 6th fcom 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. and 42 pecsons passed the entrance; on Harch ?th from 10:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., 17 persona passed the entrance and on March 8th from 2 to 4 p.m., 22 persons passed the entcance. He explained he counted pedestrinn traffic Lor 11-1/2 h~uca and there were 81 persons which is abouk 14 per hour and he did not think that is a high level of pedeatrian traific. He added he felt if the vacant spaces were filled in this park, there would not be a problem wfth vandaliam. He stated a tape player was atolen fco.n the club house duri~ng day light hours. Mr. Shocey referred to Page 4 of the Mobile Home Convecaion Impact Report and expl~ined the portion pertaining t~ the coaches which could be removed l~gally, no longer applies because the 17-year old law became effective. He referred to the aurvey of available spaces outafde Orange County and explainc~d MINOT68. ~NAHEIM GIxY PLANNINa COMM~SBION. APRIL 18, 1983 __ _ 83-206 on Merch 5, 1983, he pec~onelly conrected each ~~f the parks mentioned end pereonal.lt~ touced thoee perke And the arandview in Yucaipa ie between 32 snd 38 yeer~.a old end the rent ia $125 per month inc:~uding waker, sewer and trseh pick-up and ab of Mecch 5, 1983, they had no vacant epecea, bul expect~d to have 4 in 3 to 5 weeke, but thosa apeice~ woulra be vacated ~y trev~l trailera end were for omaller coechea end the epaces had no driveweya and no coach ovec 10 yeaca old would b~ allowed. He atated ev~3n though Che Gcandyiew ia betwedn 32 to 38 years old, they do not enticipate nny ptoblema with theic underground utilitiies. Mr. ~horey referred to the Rolling Homee Mobile Elome Perk in Hemet and expleined they had 1 vecant apace and no coech over 10 yeers old would be allowed and the rent was $125 per montht ~het the 1lmericana Mobile Nome Estates in Hemet haa 2 aectiana and the rent in the old sertion would be ~156 to 5165 pec month and they have 2 spaces for double-wide coachea and the! cannot be ov~r 10 years old and the new aection tent ia 5160 to $175 ~er montti and an increa~e ie expecl•ed in July and they ha~~e 30 to 35 space~ vacant for double-wides only with etrict requicem~enta and it would be hacd fot any of the coaches from the Rivier~ to quelify for that park. Mr. Shocey ceEerred to the Lake Perris Village and etated they have 6 double-wide spaces and the rent is ~165 per month and no coaches over 5 yeacs ~ld will be allowed. He stated he toured the p~rk in Rialto but no manager was availablet however, he did talk tn aeveral of the tenants and there were quite a few empty spaces, mayb~ evF1n up to 60 in the new section, but there were no slabs or patioa and that weeds were very high. He explained the tenante told him th~t those epace~a in the new section were locatFd on a knoll and there are ntrong winds which would destcoy a couch and that ie the reason there are no coeches there. He ~atated the old section is not bad, but there are no spaces available. He exz:Iained he spent 11 hours touring these patks and toured many nkher parks and he thought this entire report is a farce and he did not think the Mobile Hotsae Overlay 2one shou.ld be removed. He ~tated Anaheim is looked-up to and car~sidered a leader. Vincent Jantz, attorney, 2700 N. Main, Santa Ana, stated the Conversion impact Report really did not heve v~:ry much information and that Mr. Shorey had done an excellent job reviewing tnat report. He referred to the staff report PAge 1-e, Paragraph 14 wherein 3':aff cecommends the Planning Commisaion consi~ ~ the appropriateness of hearing this converaion request without also considecing the applicant'f~ plans for future development; and that Planning Commission may wish to consider requfring the applicant to make appropciate applicationa for all the development of the park before giving conaideration to this request and subse~uent closure of the park. He stated he would agcee with that suggestion by r~taff, because if the owners ere going to ch~nge the use ~f the property, it st~ould be knewn what they intend to do end asked if a mobile home park ian't just as good a uae for this property as any u$e. He stated before diacussing the relocation ~f these tenants, the first decision sho~ld he whether or nat the Cit~ wishes to change the use of this property to aome use. He referced to the findings that muet be ma~~ ~efore the reclasatfication can be approved, one being that the change will ~at have an adverse affect upon thP goals and policies for preservation of the houeing within the City as set forth in the Houaing Element and thet the Housinq Element does include affordabl~ housing. He stated one of the rat•lonales for MIN xLS.~ 11N,~,H62M CITY FI+1-NNIN,~._.. G COMMIBSION, 1-PRIL 18, 1983_ ______,~_, 83'Z0~ epprovinq tih~ oriqin~l condittonal uee permit for thia mobilehome pack wae to provide df~ordeble haueing and aeked if aomethinq haa chang~d that makes the nead !or atfordebl~ huueing lese ~n thie City. He etated thia mobil~home park do~s provide affordable houaing. He etated another finding is that the ptopecty would have no viable ue~ ae a mobilehome perk and etated he did not think that hea occurced end anothQr finding ie that the park hea become unsafet howev~3c, eome of the peaple have moved in quitp recently and if tha u!ilitiea were not aafe, they w~3re not inf~cmed o~ the pcoblem and he thought it ra~th~r expedient thek it can n~w b~ found that the park ie not safe. Mr. .lantz eteted the Converaion Impect Repock ehould be coneidered ee a, fitst draft and ahould be returned to the petitioner for finelization. He Ateted they would also like to see t-~e doc:umentation pectaining to the repl~cement of the undecground utilitias, etc. end would also like to aee some com~etitive Uida. Mc. .Jentz referred to state legialation which allows a 25i bonus to mobile h~me park owners who will ir~creaae denaity And steted he felt tt~at ie whdt sh4uld be cansi,dered hece. ~~~~naerning crime, Mr. Jantz steted where people live~ the ccime rate goes down aa~d fe1~t probably closure of the motel should be discussed rathec khan the cloaure of this mobilehome p+~rk. He steted Civil Code 798.73 which talks e~b~ut th~ aae of move-out coaches recognizes the fack that the age of a coach ~s not have anything to do with its life and that it would be allowed to re~s~i~ in the park unleas it becomes uneafe nr violates some othec codes. Mr. ,t~trr:~ aubmitted ~ copy of the old Civil Code and the neM code pertaining to L-~ec age of move-out coaches. ?~r. Jantz [eferred to the guestionnaire handed out to the tenants +~nd stated Nhen ik wes passed out, there wea a court ceportet present ~~nd thece was no dascuaeion. He stated that questionnaice asked queations such as, how often do you see your doctor, how many trips do you make, how often do you atter~d church, etc. and that thP tenants felt it was pcying and they objected to it. He stated a second queationnaire waa diatributed and thgce were 78 responses which was ler~s than 508 and he dld not think it could b~e c:onsidered ~ very good response, He referred to the table containing the number of move-out coaches and stated that is no longec valid since all theae coaches have a cettificate that. they have met the California Health Safety Codes. He stated this makes moet of the tables or appendices invalid. Mr. Jantz etated all ~hree alternatives pertaining to relocation benefits have been universally rejected by the tenar~ts. He atated he thought the catt was being put before khe horse in this situetion since it has not really been decided that theae people will have to be moved and he felt the first thirq to diacusa logically is the use of thie land as a mobilehome park and felt if relocation benefits are discussed, there is an assumption that the park is going to be converted. Mr. Jantz stated there are not many people present b~cause hE hAd adviegd th~m to preserve their energies since there are probably going to be many meetinge before the Planning Gommiseion and City Council and also to eliminate repetitive testimony. Myra Dunn (secretary could not verify name), Ocange County Fair Housing r,ouncil, explained this is a non-profit organization aerving this City and MINUTBS. AN~NEIM CITY PL~NNINO COMMI88ION. APRJL 18, 19~3 __83-208 other cities to uphold tha ~air Houaing ~awa end to encoucag• elimination of unlawful diacrimination in houeing. She etated th~y edvocete for meintenance end encourage conatruction of new houeing for low-income houaeholds. she re~erred to the City'a Housing Element and eteted the mobileliom~ reaidency law considere those mobilehome reeidente es homsownecat thek Section 6460 of the Houaing Element guidelinea provi.de thet cities and theic Houeing Elemente muat provide policie8 of maintenance• improvemente end developments end they mugt be coneiatent with the City'a identified neede and this City hae responded by etdting the City will main~ain the ~xisting stack of afforddble houeing end has aleo adopted an overley zone which further defines that goal. She steted khey ece concerned beceuae this reclaeaificatiun repreaente a potentiel l~ae of existing affordable houaing. She refecred to khe current vACancy rate of mobilehome perks which i~ 1.81 dnd 8tated that is low. She referred to a recent program on KOC~ televiaion wherein one of the highest pcioritiee of senior citizens wae housing and that it was No. 3 an a list of concerna below health care and sociel secucity. 5he atated the develope[~ pcoposel indicates there are no mobilehomes apaces ~vail~ble in OrAnge County end was wondecing how that meets the guals propoaed by the City in their Housing Element. She eteted she thought the proposal is vag~~e and there are a lot of assumptiona propoaed and ahe would hope the Commiseion wuuld aee the great need foc houaing. She commended the City and the Task Force for their work on adopting this Overlay Zone. F[ancia L. Rigg~r, ststed he has been in Anaheim for 70 years and aold his home for $5~,000. He had cuntacted aeveral mobileh~me park managers and they sho~ed him eround the park and all the cuaches that were for sale and aold him one that was in the right-of-way of Clementine Street. ee etated he juat wanta a place i~ Anaheim to 11ve out the rest of hia life and that if he hAs to purr.hase another home, it would coat him a lot m~re than he sold hig home for c~nd aeked if the Commis~ion would consider that he be compensated for his loss. He atated the people in this park are living in fear and aevecml have had heact attacks. Mc. Farano stated he met with Mr. Jantz in his office Decemher 28, 1982, to diacuKe some of the problems presented by the tenants and one of those pcoblems was vandaliam a~d those complaints were eubmitted to the Police Department. He read a portion of the letter he had written to Mr. Jantz concerning these vandalism complaints. He stated the video preeentation of the packe they surveyed was taken personally when they visite~ those parks and that thece may have been weeda in the parks, but thoae films were taken on February 25, 1983, and there had been a lot of rain and therp was a lot of grass. He stated Mr. Shocey's comments did confirm their ceports as to the number of spacea available and the rents. He etated reqarding affordable housing, this property h~s never been coneidered as reaidential property, but a mobilehome p~rk was allowed as an interim use only ar~d people may have moved in without notice, but there has been notice to the world that this pArk management intends to convert and e resolutinn of intent to commercial recreational land uses has been placed on this property, so it was never intended to be affordeble houaing. He stated it would appear khat affordable housing is not going to be provided very much in the future, due to constructio.n costa and land values and any redevelopment of this land would ~'ing the rente completely out of the question. MINUTB3~ ANAHSIM CITY__PL~NNING COMMISBION, APRIL 18. 1983 83-209 Mr. P~reno atated their etudiee on what it would take co updete this park indi~aL•ed it would coat Acound 2.9 million dollnta end thAt doee not include the coet of the land which would reiee re~ta about $400 pQC month, juat to redevelop the park. He atated the informAtion thdt the underground facilitiee will lest ~ot another 100 yeers ie not corr~ct ~nd thet they ere eubmitting inf ormetion by their experta who have examined the infrastructure of that perk ~nd there heve been mejor inatances over the last year end that the electrical eyate~ ia about one third of what it st~ould be. He stated his client ia not going to take the risk and continue thia as e mobileh~me park under the circumatances as they are right now. He etated they filmed the firet po~tlon of the v~deo preaentation Approximately 10 days efter the December ZBth meeting wir.h Mr. Jantz wherein thECe were complainta that the menagement was letting the park go down and ~he Commisaion ehould meke its own judgment whether or not the perk appeara to be run-down or neglected. Mr. Farano skated the Mobilehome Park Overlay Ordir,ance was adapted after recommendations ft~m the Task Fo[ce and there were discusaions dicected towarda the manner in which parka would be conver.ted, but the ord:nance was never intended to provide criterta for conditiona under which the park would be converted, but was intended to provide a systematic and aure mAnner in which the residents would be provided Eot. He added the purpoae af the ordinance was also that the ~ark ownec could not trample rough-shod over thp tenants. He atated the or6inance bets up the crileria and atates what the awner must do and there ia nothing in ttie ordinance, end no thouqht was ever given to 4he requirement that the park owner must submit a concurring application or that a decioion muet be made as to what use the pack would be converted to or what zone it w~uld be tezoned to. He ataGed the hearing r.egardfng the development will be long and probably controversial and he did not think it would be fair to the cesidents or the owner for these two issuea to be considere~ together. Ne stated they have done everything the ordinance cequires. Referring to the comment that mobilehome tenants are considered ownecs, he etated mobilehome owners are tenants in this park and are not property owners and have lived thece for a long time and had tt~e uae of their mobilehome and the use of the park, but that is going to end. He staled they will attempk to cooperate in e~ery way possible to make thia situation as pleaAant as possible. He stated they will comply with all requirements of the ord:nance and pointed out the section of the civil code teferred to did not become effective unk.il after this report was submitted. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner La Claire, Mr. Farano etated there were approximately 80 people present at the meeting discussed in lhe impact R~port and it was clarified that only John Daly apake at that meeting. Mc. Farano read a letter he wrote to Mr. Daly following the meeting dated December 14, 1981, which was call~d becauae they had gi~en an official notice to the park tenants telling them that a park conversion was beinq consi~ered. He stated the purpose of the meeting waa to tell the tenants what th~y could about the plans and th~ce was no ceaponae at that meeting and after the br~ak everyone left the meetinq and Mr. Daly said that since nothing was presented, thece were no questions to be asked. He stated his letter to Mr. Aaly expleined the need for the questionnaire being answpred by the tenante concerning their situations and needs so the information in thie report would not be distorted and non-responsive to their n~eda. MINUTBS~_ ~NAN6IM CITY PL~NNING COMMISSIUN~ APRIG 18~ 1983 ~_ 83-210 Mr. Racano stated GSMOL retecred to ia the Golden Stat• Mobilehome Ownere Leagu~ which ie an aes~cietion of mobilehome ten~nta end a$ Far e~ he knowe, John Daly ia thei~ ceprssantetive end Mr. Daly wes eleo a membec of the Taek Porce. He ~t~ted they were told by cesidenta at that meeting, thet the residenta wece told not to respond or esk queeti~na end to give their questionneirea c~ the GSMO~ repreaentative. He stAted they did receive cooperation end ~here wece no furGher obstructions aftec hi~ eomplaint to Mc. Daly end that the aecond questionnaire was aubmitted to Mr. JanCZ which he dietributed. Ne explained they received 100 reeponaee to the firet questionnaice After their complaint and 76 reeponseg ko the second queationnaire diatributed by Mr. Jantz. Ne clerified he thought 78 wae the total number of reaponaes which did not overlap. Commiseionec Nerbst. agreed the Mabilehome Park Oveclay Ordinance was never intended to pcohibit a~ark from being converted to another land use, but w~~ to give the Commisa:on a toal to protect the people in the park. He stated he made the motian to give 100i of relocation costa to the tenante. ~e atated mobilehome parks were intended to be en interim une when they were originally approved bec~u$e they were ~~range groves, strawberry fields, etc. and thia would give the lend owner a way to bring in same money. He st~ted the owner wiahes to convert this park b?cauae of the lAnd value around the Dianeyland area end a mobilehome park would never be approved on that aite today. He added the highest and best use of this pcoperty is not a mobilehome park. He stated he has been here since 1921 and has see'n pcoperty go from orange grovea to industrfal usea and that land usea do change. He atated thir property owner has rights and tl~e tenants aleo have righta and a compcomise must be reached. Commissioner Herbst atated the petitioner ia propoaing a high-rise hotel and other conmercial buildings on that property and that is probably the best use for that property because of the conventione and other hotels in the area. He stated it is very unfoctunate for the p~~ople who live there, but the time has come to change the la~d uae and he thought the people would have to sit down with the owner and compromise eo there will be the least amount of people hurt, recognizing that it will be very diff.icult aince they do hdve to move. Commissioner King agreed. Commissioner McBurney stated he would like to see the development plana befoce approving thie request to remove the Overlay Zone. ~ Mr. Farano explained ':he plans are available riqht now in the Planning Departm~nt and have been reviewed and ceviaed sevpcal ti~es, and they ere ready to be submitted and the only thing they are waitinq for is the environmen:al impact report ar,d that the first draft nf that was just recei~~ed today and will be submitted to staff fo[ review. He stated he belie~ed the initial hearing for the plans will be held before the end of June. He stat•ed this will be a big project and there hnve been a lot of queations and consideration given to the project and also some things ha~e happened since thP approval of the Hilton Hotel which have caused everyone to proceed cautiouslyt that ataff has been very cooperative and helpful. MINUTB9. AN~BEIM CITY_ PLANNING COMMISSION. APRIL 18, 1963 83-211 RaeponQinq to CommiASioner McBurnoy, Mr. Fecano etated the ceaaon ~or eeking for the removal of the Overlay Zone at thie time is becaus~ they feel the hearing cegarding the development of thie pcoperty will be very controversiel beceuae it is a now look which has neve: been done ir~ Orenge County snd that either the property ~wner oc the tenanta might ha~•e their righta walked on. He ~d~ed, also, they feel it ia ircelev4nt becduae the ordinance doesn't cequire that the plans be eubmitted et thta time. He ateted the Tnsk Force coneideced the fact that thece m~y be eome parks which would remove the OverlAy 2one up to five yeers befoce developmenk. He stated ~emoval of thie Overlay Zone is not an easy thing to get done and they felt it would be easier ko deal with the two iasues s~~exately. Commissioner N~rbat aeked if the developer ia prepared to start compeneation to thoae people who would wdnt to move and if khey are prepared to pey intereat until they can get it accompliehed, if the Overlay Zone ia removed et this ti ae. Mr. Parsno stated they rr~ prepared to start paying the relocdtion benerits at any time. He st~ted he wanted to make it clear that they will pey 100~t of the relocation costs at the time thc~ move takea placej that the tenanta will not have to wait for their money anc~ when they are ceady to move, cen aelect one of the threF altecnativea and be paid then. He stated they anticipate development will start in the thlyd quarter of 1984 and it would be 14 to 16 months before they would want to have the land cleaced for constcuction. Commiasioner souas asked how long the tenants would have before they would have to move. Mr. Faran~ stated t:hey have to give the tenants a 6-month notice efter they ceceive final aF~provel fcom rhe City Council fc• the reclaseification and zoning. Jack White stated the tecmination of tenancy undec khe Civil Code proviaian cannot occur eatlier than 6 months prior ta the r-pproval of all discretianacy permite necessaty to permit the che+nge uf the uae. He clarified the building permits do not authorize khe change af uae so the time limit would not be based on those permitR. He stated if no discretionary permits a~e required, e 12-month notice would be neceasacy. Commisaioner Bushoce asked if aFproval af this request would also be approval of the three alternatives suggested. Mr. F'arano explained Alternative B is in direct Compliance with Lhe Mobilehome Park Oveclay Zone and ~hese figures are averag~s based on their aurveys of the parka. He atated they will pay the cost of relocetion expenaes at the time it is done and if it is more or less than the figure presented, that is what will be paid. Commiasioner Bushore atated s~ttir-g the amounts bothers ;~im because it is not known when the conversion will take place or When these people will move. He was also concetned about the averages shown in the staff report and what happens after this is approved. Mr. Parano stated originally they did not aubmit the tenant's benefit tables, but that was a requirement, per instructions of th~ City l~ttorney's Office, in compliance with the Mobilehome Park Oveclay Ordinance, therefore, the estimated benefits were submitted and they realized that those figures may not be correct at the time this actually takes plece; however, they will jy the actual relocatSon coete. He stated in all faicness to the CommiRSion, he MINUT~S~ 1-NAHBIM CITY PL_~NNING COMMIB&ION. APRIL 18. 1983 ___ _ 83-212 would euggesk that the fiqu-ea not be included, beceuee when e move is dctually undecteken, the figureu could be m~re oc l~sa, but the tene~t will be paid the actual cost. Commi~aionec B~:sh~ e clarified that Mr. Parano had initiAted thia request thet the Overlay Zane be remQVed without aubmitt'.ng plana for development of the property. 9~ po~nted out Mr. ~acano is a former Pldnning Commisaioner and recognize• that the ectual developmenk plana m~y be controversial end everyone knowa that thie ic dealin9 with ten~nts' ~nd propertY owner's righta end he is not sure this would De the right thing at this time. Mr. Facano auggested c:onditioning appraval of this request on submieaion of the plans. He added L•hat woula be a devistion of what wae intended by the Ordinance, howevec. Commieaioner Bushore atated he would agree that ~h~ ~Ord.ina' 2ce was adopted to give tho tenants protection, becauae in some mo233~~'ParR~~ie propert,y awner could have changed the ~ae of the property w.ithout a reclaesificatiun and without giving notice to the tendnte= however, that ia not ti•.e caae with thie park and it was yuite apparehr this wea coming. He added the petitioner has complied with the intenC of the Ordinence in this situation by taking the firat skep to remove the Ovezlay Zone. Commissioner Herbst aeked if any variance would be [equested f~om the code for the new development of the property. Mr. Farano etated variances would be r.equeated as they concern height and they would c~mply with the City of Anaheim commetcial recreation height atandard guidelines and that no parking ~aiverE are required. Commissionet Herbst referred to Alternative A wherein the tenants could pur.chase a mobilehome at a cost of $150 per month with no down payment and asked if the petitionet will take care of the ~oving of their personal belongings such as fu[niture, etc. Mr. Farano stated t~e really could not answer that at this time becauae they did not puraue that alCernati~e since it was rejected by the tenants; however, they would be willing to puraue it and he would expect there would have to be some limits on what iti would cost. He explained the new coaches would be aet up and the tenanta could just take theic personal belongings and move in. He stated the tenants could diapoee of their own coach if they wanted or the petitionec wo~ld asai$t if de$ired. Commiasionpr Herbst stated this fs a traumatic situation because most of these people ace cetired and would be displaced and theic coaches are una~:ceptable i:~ most other parks and it ie possible some of them rould not even be move~. He stated he thought the ten~nts ehould take a good look at the new coach posaibility because it would improve their living stendard. Mr. Facano stated that alternative would make ~emair.ing in Orange Co~~nty a lot eaeier. Responding to Commiseioner eouas, Mr. Farano stated these cosches could be set up in anY park within 125 milea. MINUTEB~ ~~~NQIM CITY PLANNINa COMM288ION. APRIL 18. 1983 __ 83-~~3 Commis~ion~~ La Claire aqreeo and otated thet would bo a~ood elt~rnative tor those peopl~ who could eftord to pay ~150 p~r month, but tor thase who could not aEtord to p++y that Amount, 100t oE th~ic relocetion coAts rhould b• ~aid. 3h• ndded she did not want to tie thie down to any specitic figucee beasuse s yeat ~com now theae figures may not be valid. She stated ahe wento to eontocm to the Ocdinence which do~s pcoteet peoplo en~ ahe would have no objeetione ta including eny alternativea they might want. Commieaioner Buehnre eteted the tenents h4ve the right and power to negotiate any aettleme~t with the perk oaner and thia table aete the minimum etenderd end all theoe hearinge cegarding this OveclAy 2one have teken place with the knowledge that e lot of the parka ere pcime candidatea fot conversion ~nd to prolong this any longec for these tenanta would not be riqht. He ateted it ia posaible some of these tenant8 feel there is a chdnce to stop this reZOninq but the City of Anaheim has alwaye c~naidered the ~coperty o~~ner'e riyhta end hae elwaye tcied to be as fair as poe9lGle. Ne ateted he d~d not feel the tenan ta could fight this change long enough oc hacd enough to chenge it becauae of the A[Bd and ehis change has been discuased for a long time. He etated he cecognizea the tenante have an investment in theic coachea, but they do not own the land. CommiaeionPr King suggeated the Commiseion approve all three alCecnatives. Mr. Farano stated he agreea with approval of all three Alternativea and that they would fucther purau~ Alternative A becauae he felt it doea give the tenante flexibility and if there ia auf[icient amount of interest, they could come back and diecues the problema of thaC altecnetive. He etated he thought that alternative was still evailable, but would have to pursue it fucther and added they would need appcoximately 25t to 35• in ocder to m~ke it work. Jack White stated the MHP Ordinance cectainly allowa Che flexibility to both the park owner end tenenta to work out a relocetion errangement mutually acceptable, but the Ordinance doea epeak in tecme of cert~in paymenta that are abaolutely necessary and have to be considered and imposed by the Commiasion. He added thac is the reason th e park owner ie requiced to specifically set forth figures and lhose figures are absolute minimum8= that the owner's representative has mentioned they will be meking additional paymenta, but the Ordinance only apeaks to the take down/aet up costt transportation coats and the additianal amenities coats. He stated it would be an administrative nightmare to try to determine whether or not actual coate were being recaptured and lt is only f~ir the ownere of the coaches know what the bottom line figuce is. Jack white recommended the f ollowing condition be added: 'That the ownere of subject property ahall pay to each displaced mobilehome owner as identified in the Conversion Impact Repart or such owners' successors in intereat, relocation benefits in accordance with Section 18.92.060.040 of th~ Anaheim ~unicipal Code for the actual cost of relocation of such mobilehome which amount shall be not lese than the total minimum ~mount as set focth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and inaorpocated herein by this reference, or euch other benefite as mutually agceed u pon between the park owner and the mobilehome owner. Said re.location benef its ehall be paid to ench displaced mobilehome owner and proof thereof submitted to the City in a form satisFactoty to the j ''~ MINUT~B. ~NAH6IM CITY PWINNINQ COMMIS$IQN. ~PRIL 18, 19~3 83•214 City ~ttorney p~ior eo !h• occurc~nce oi eny of the lollowing eventa, whiohever occuce firak: (a) t~rmination of the tenency of such mobilehome Eor any reaaon ait~~ this dete by the park ownec or mobilehome owneri oc (b) adoption of an ordinance r~zoning thet portion of eubject property upon which auch mobilehome ia locdtad, oc (a) leauance of eny building permita foc dev~lopm~nt of any poction of eub)act property. In the event of payment of the minimum dmount eet forth on Exhibit A her~oi, said pa~k owner ahell eleo pay to the mobilehome owner intereak thereon at the rate of 10~ pec annum, aimpla inkece~t, lrom the date of thie reeolution to the d~te of pAym~nt." Jeck White also suggeated the followinq candition: 'That the adoption df en ordinence ceclasaifying the property fcom the Mabilehome Park Oveclay Zone ehe]1 be contin9ent upon the approvel by the Planning Commisaion of development plAn (or further diecrekion~ry permita) for development of the property." Mr. White explained the lOt interest figure !s the curtent rate being uaed by C~lifocni~ Courta in judgments. Jack White explained the ordinence talks in terme uf ectual amounts end not estimatea and that the Commi.asion muat be prepaced to set the amount. He added tl~e Ordinance takes into account that the people will be moving into different locatione bacauee it atetea the average comparable mobilehome park and it doean't matter exactly where the coAChes will be moved to. Commiseioner Herbet was concernpd that ~hese eatimated fiqucea would not be fnir and he l•hought the Ar6inance ateted khat the tenant would recover the total coet of moving. Jack White stated the Ordinance reads that they are to recover the avecage co$t en~ not the ectual caet. Commiseioner Herbst stated ho hed offered the motion and hed intended they would be paid 100i of the coet of moving. J~ck White clarified the origin~l proposed ocdinance read that they wece to recover 80i of the average comparable cost and khe change mede by Commission wae that they would receive 100! of the avecage comparable cost. He expleined there would be no way of determining the actual costs until the tenant moves. He atated in order for t5e ordinance to be administered, the amount hae to be set at a given point in time. Commisaionec Herbat pointed out the petitionec hes agreed ko pay the total cost of relocation. Jack ~hike stated the minimum had to relate to c~rtain amounta of money and City staff cuuld not be put in a position of audiking the moves of several hundted coaches. Commissioner Herbst stated he did not aee why the City has to get involved wikh the developer paying the tot~l coat of moving unleas a complaint is filed. He stated he wants to aee that the people ace compansated for the totel coet of moving. Commisaioner La Claire stated in thia case the developer has sgreed to pay 100i of the cost of moving and the figures presented are the average compareble costs at thia time. Commissioner Buahore suggested leaving tl~e minimuma in for the protectio~ of some of the people. t ' e3-~i~ MINUT $ NAHEIM C TY PLANNING COMM i88I0N APRIL 18 1983 Mr. P°teCeAteintadditionhto the•otheCCCOateiandretetednh~ediddnotlunderetendy lOt in that r~quirembnt. Chairman Fry eta~ted thet figuce builde f.n the inflation factor since it is not known sxactly when thP moves would teke plece~ Commisaionec Bushoce atated if. th ~ y were reedy to mo ve ahead with the project thete would not be e Qroblem, but if ~h~y do not ptoceed until the fall oE 84, tne figur~sa pr.esented would not be relevant without the inflation Eector. Commiseioner Buahore reEerced to t he project on Wilk en Wey where $2500 was propoaed fo[ eingle-wide coaches e-nd ~3500 for dnuble-wi~]o coact~ee and compared the proposed estimatea i n thie report to th oae Hegg~~~e~~dt~iged the increase would be about the sdme a a the l0i suqqe~t ed. possible the developer woul~ not breek graund in th e fall of 1981 end that some o~ the tenants mighk s~.ill be tl~ere. CommissioneK Hecbat stdted it ia poeeible a peceon living in a coACh may not want to move into another coach a nd would want to move into an apartment or houae and he would etill be entit led to the celocation benefita. Jack White etated anyone who vaca Led the perk after the adoption of ~hie reclassific~tion would be entitled to tho payment of tt~~ minimum amo~~nt liated He stated thece i.a nu intent, together with intereat on thnt m i nimum amount. if the actual amount of relocatio n ia pa~d~ one~ha ttamountwehownbonpExhibit A that amount, so interest would o nly be p and if the ectuel coets a~re high er, there would be no intereat paid. Ac.~TiON; Commissioner Herbek offeced a motion, seconded by Commieaioner K~ng and MOTION CARRIED~ that the 1-nah eim City Planning Commisaion has rev~ewed the proposal to remove the MHP (Mobi lehome Park Overla y) Zone frc,n subject property to permit conversion of an exieting mobil ehome park on an irregulacly-ehaped parcel of la n d consiating of approximately 19.8 accea, having approximate Erontagc:a ot 100 feet on the south side of Katelle Avenue and 385 feet on the weat side of Haster Stceet and further described es 300 West Katella Avenue (Riviera Mob ilehome Park);ra~n d re°an enviconmentalgimpact Negative Declaration from the c eyuirement to p pa report on the basis that there would be no eignifi~:ant individual or cumulative adverse environmenta 1 impect due to th e approval of. this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim G eneral Plan designa tes the subjecC property for commercial recreation land uses commensurate wfth the pcop~sel; that no sensitive environmental impacts ace involved in t he proposalt thAt the initial Study aubmitted by the petitioner indicatea no sig nificant individual or cumul~ntiatinVethe foreg ingnfir~dingBCietonnfileainttheNCityiof Anaheimtion subeta 9 Planning Depactment. Commissioner eerbst offered Re s elution No. PC83-7 5~nd moved for its passage ~nd adoptiort th~t khe Anaheim C ity Pl~nning Comiai ssion does hereby grant Reclassification No. 82-83-26 sub~ec~ to Interdepartmental Committee recommendatione including the f allowing edditiona~l conditions: (1) "That the own~rs of 8ubject property sha,l 1 paY to edch displaced mobilehome owner as 83-116 MINUTLB N HBZM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION 11P IG 1B 1983 identi~~ ad in the Convertion Impact RMpori oc auch own~rs' succesavrs in ~ 92 .060.040 of the - inter~et~ relocetion b~netits i~ eccocdance with Section 18. Aneheim Municipal Code foc th~ ectual coet of relocetiemountaashsetbforthmon ~ which a~owount shall be not lees than the totel minimum Exhibit A, aktaahed her~to, and incocpocated herein by khis r~rterence, or auch other b~eneEits as mutuelly e9reed up~n between the park oaner and the mobilehome owner. Seid relocation benefits shell be paid to e~ah diepleced mobilehcmo owner and prooE thereof ~lorito~the~occurcenceiofAanYroF the eatiafactory to the CitY Aktorney p followi~g everete, whichever occure fic~t: (e) tecminetion of the ten~ncy of such mabilehome for eny ceeson efter thia date by the perk ownec ot mobil~home awnerj or (b) adoption of an ordinance rezoning thet portion of aub~ect property upon which such mobile~ome is located, or (c ) issuance oE eny In the building permits for development oE any portion of eubject pccp~rty. event of payment of the minimum amount aet, forth on Exhibit 1~- heceof• seid pArk o~net ahall also pay to the mobilehome owner. inteceet thereon at khe rete of lOS per anr~um, simple interest, from the date of thia cesalution to the date of peyme~t," and including the condition that Alternatives A~ B and C as lieted in the etaff report will be included ae relocation benefita alternatives which the tenants cen char~e and aubject~'the condition requicing ~ lOt inte[est to be paid on moving costa. On col 1 call, the foregoing resoluti~n waes padaed hy the following vate: 1~YES: BOUASr BUStfOREr PRYr HERBST, KING~ LA CGAIRE~ MC BURNEY NOES : NON E ABSENT : NONE RECESS ; 4: 0 U p.m• RECONVENE : 4: l. U Pm ~ IT~M N0~ 2• BIR NGGATIVE UECLARATIOtI RECLASSIFICATI~N N0. 82-83~29 AND V!-RIANCE NO. 3~25 DICK~ 949 N. Ci~ron Street, PUBLIC HEARIt1G. OWNBRS: JACK H. & CHARI.OTTB 1-• Anahe~m~ CA 92805. AGEh:: P• M. RHODES 6 BRUCF GOLDMAN• 8535 Knott Avenue, property described a~ ~:~ ir-.egule-:ly-ahaped parcel of Buena Patk, CA 90620. land consist ing of approximately t, ~68 acre, 949 N~ Citro~. Stceet. RS-ld ,OOOltheiMhtOand minimum8lan~acape~:~~~tbacketopconst~uctna l0iuni,taximum struc eu a 9 condominium complex. There were thirteen persona indicatir~g their preeence in opposition tQ oubject requeet ~nd although the ataff repcrt was not read, it is referced to and made a part of the minutes. Rick Rhodes, 7952 Holly Drive, La Palma, stated they proQose !o build ten con~omihiumr~ at thia loca~tion f that this property was desigHetexplainedWthey medisam density reaidenti~l land usea on the General Plan. ece ze4uesting a very minimal variance on +che minimum lok acea peco wl~lilinet t l.l a1 ~ Eie gtated there are no windows faaing the west and the p pe Y on tt~e south side ie within 20 feet and one unit is within 10 feet and they MINUTBS. A_N~HEIM CITX PLANNING COMMI38ION. APRIL 18, 1983 __83-217 ec• ~equ~eting a 9 to 11 fook vscianco on the north~ He explsinad thece ia a 2-foot difterence on the north sid• beceuse they found building the 6-foot high bluck wall would elimindte the neighbore' ecceea co theic vehicle since their gareqe is built on ~ zero lot line~ howevec, they would be willing to qive them a 2-foot eesement for accesa to their ca~~ William ~oliaaaint, 1001 N. Citron, Anaheim, eteted he end ell the people in the eces ece opposed to thia recleeaification becauoe this is a aingla-femily reaidentiel are~ and the petitioner is pcopoeing two-story condominium type etcuctures end there ere no two-stocy structucea on that block= that moet of the homea in thet aree ere very nice, but this development will change tt~e whole prafile of the neighborhood ~nd the whole atreet. He atated he lives on the north side ot the pcoperty and the petitioner is proposing A structuce within 11 feet of the property line and code calls for 20 feet end he thought code shauld be cumplied with. Commissionec La Claire left the meeting at 4:15 p.m. and did not return. Mr. Joliaeaint continued by referring to the RM-3000 Zone criteria, noting the development of the new projeat should harmonize with the existing development in the area. Fle cead other development atandacda of the zone and stated with 10 more units there would be more p~ople and cars in the area end traffic !s almost unbelievable now. H~ referred to the requirements foc a 20-foot landscaped ~etback urea ddjacent to the entire length of any single-family cesidentially zaned pcoperty. He stated he ia not in favor of a two-story condominium within 9 feet of his house. He explained his garage is one foot from the propecty l~~e and he was not in favor of the 2-foot easement referred to by ''• ~eveloper. He stated he would Iike very much to have consideration ;roT 7lanning Commission regarding this mattet. Susan . . 901 Autumn brive, An~heim, referred to Page 2-c, Pacegraph 19 of the ~.tAtt report concerning General Plan P-mendment No. 169 which was approved with certain recommendations that the parcels on the weat aide of. Citcon Street be developed with single-atory structures with enclosed garagea and a 20-faat wide landscaped buffer adjRCent to the single-family residential to the rear of the parcels. 5he stated she strongly opposes what they are trying to do because this will come cight up to her nefghbors' property line and evecything in t~e neighborhood is single-storl, single-~amily and there is too much traffic there now. William Durall, 956 N. Wfnter, ~naheim, stated hia property abuts subject Qsoperty along the west property line and that about 18 mantha aqo thece was another proposal for the development ~f approximately five parcels south of this property on Citcon and that proposal was very bitterly debated and it was approved on the basis that the property should be upgraded to a better use. He indicated he had a petition containing signatur~a of aeveral neighbors and they aupported the idea that the property be upgraded, bu~ did not want multiple story s?.ructures. He adde~ he thought they had left the meeting with assur~nces that the aubsequent Generdl Plan Amendment would, at least for longec than 18 montha, keep the zoning for aingle-family structuces and they object to someone coming in now with waivers aftier they thought they had it nailed down s~ tightly. He state~ the ceaidents on Winter Stteet are also a little concerned about a 6-foot h~•_'• fpnce and felt it should be a little MINUT~S. ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. ~PRIL 19. 1983 83-218 higher beceuse of tha numbec of unite and thought thete might be a noioe problem. He stated they recognixe becausa of the p~ice of land on Citcon, the property can no longer aupport deeached eingle-family regidential usea, but they do not wiah to have the area chengad from aingle-atory structurea. Tom Keehn, 946 Winter, Aneheim, atetod hie property is dicectly behind subject ptoperty And when the} purchesed their houee they were concerned eomedey there ~ould be two-atory etructuces and did cell the Planning Department end were aseuced no auch atructurea could be built witM'Y50 feet and naw that has been changed to within 50 feet and they felt let down and that the:~ privacy will ~ be invaded and their homea will be leas desireble. Ne stated they d~ oppose two-atocy, mnltiple-family structuree and added if this ie approved, they would like to have an B-foot high wall cather than a 6-foot wdll. Mra. Olson ateted ahe lives dicectly acrosa from the property that was rezoned 18 montha ago for epertments and at that time all the neighb~rhood ceme out and objected to the rezoning becauee it was a aingle-family residential area and that they fouqht the chenge very bitterly but got nowhere and apartmenta wer.e allowed. She ateted setbacks are not 20 feet and she objects to the two-story atcuc~ures becauae the people on Wintet Stceet have the right to privacyt that she prefers condominiums to apartments because epartments that are there no~ ace overcrowded and ttiat five years Erom now she seea the area deteriorating= that homes on North Citron Street are not being kept up very well, in~luding subject property. She stated they knPw if apactments were allowed 18 monthe ego, the rest of the people on the street would like the same thinq. She otated she has lived there aince 1947, but that infocmation has no bearing on whatever is decided and noted they have had more problems with burglaries in the erea since the ap~rtmente were constructed. 5he atated she has found thrt apactment owners don't care who they rent to as long as they can rent the unita. Jack Dick stated ~~~wns subject property and moved there epproximately 7 or 8 years ago and fnr ..~e firat two years, each kime he mowed hia l~wn, there was a complaint filed with the Fire Department becauae of the motor running in the backyard. He stated he did have plans to imp[ove that property because he does collect antique cars and wanted a building to store them in and also to have a hobby shop. He explained he showed the plans to his neighbors, but nobody would sign the petition so he purchased another property in Placentia and has given up on crying tc lmprove this property because he could not deal with his neigh-~-, . He stated he felt all that praperty should be put to a better use as ...~;,ng place for more people. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Bushore asked why the peti; ~~.ec did not comply w~th the Commission's recommendation that afngle-atory etructur~L~hould be developed with enclosed garages and a 20-fout wide la~dscaped buffer ad:~acent Co the single-family residential to the rear of the paccels. Bob Gilbert, 4572 Lincoln, Cypresa, engineer, stated they have a~~dreased the e~tire concept of thie project in accordance wfth the City's p1r~r~ for RI~i-3000 for the entire side of the street which providea for two-story d~+ellings witbin the proper distance adjacent to single-femily homes. He added they MINUTBB~_ ANAHEIM CITY PLJINNING COMIMIBSION. APRIL 18. 1983 _83-219 4ubmitred ~ petition end every homeowner on that pide, exc~pt Mc. Joliasein~~ hed eigned the petition in fevor of RM-3000. Commissionec euehore atated Generel Plan Amendment No. 169 wae edopted with cectein rules end guidelinea or ceconanendetions ~nd in orde~ to vary from that, the Cammieaion needs juatificetion. He eteted he auppocted whet theee people wanted but not ell the wey because the street wae due for ~ change, but not thie redi.r,al. Mr. Gilbert etAted they were not awdre thia property would not be treated in accocdance with the edopted stenderds for the RM-30U0 Zone and have complied with their original go~ls end are willing to aetback 20 feet Erom the property linee on the north and they hAVe kept the two-atory u~ita 50 feet from the property line. Commiaeioner Hecbst etated the ordinance requirea that two-stocy units must be 50 feet fcom the aingle-family zone dnd they have two-atory units on three eides. Mr. Gilbect stated they do have signaturee from all the propecty owneca, with Commiesioner Herbst pointing out new zoning hes not been requeated. Mc. Gilber~ stated they were led to believe that since the property owners Are requeating the rezoning, the pcoperty could be rezoned at the same Cime. Dean Sherer explained GPA 169 was approved which designated the property on both sides for low medium density residential land uses which moat likely would be implemen~ed by the RM-2400 Eor apartments or the RM-3000 for condominiums and when that amendment wae approved, it was suggeated by the Planning Commisaion that if this property ie developed for multiple-family purpoaes, the unita be single story and have two-car garages and where..~~er. the property abuts single-fe~mily residential zone pcopecties,that there be a 20-foat wide landacaped buffer. He explained thi8 project does have two-story units located cloaer than 50 feet to the north and south property lines. He st~ted elthough the Genecal Plan has been changed to low-medium denaity residential, the property hxs not been placed under e resolution of intent, so the structucal height wafvere must be called out as well as the 20-foot buffer waivec. He etated the applicant did approach the Planning Department with two p~oposals and one was to rezone the entire ~est side of Citron Street and the petitianer hed written permisaiun from those owners. He stated after what heppened when that type plan was presented near Philadelphia Stceet, ataff reeommended the petitionec try to pcesent one pcojeet at a time. Commissionec Herbat referred to the barbecue area in the setback area with walkways and stairways encroaching into the setback r~nd stated in hia opinion, they are .~ot meeting the intent of the or@ina~nce and the Planning Commiesion made a commitment to these properky owners that they will not consider two stories in tha. area even though the code does allow them within 50 feetj that this 3s within 9 feet of one single-family home and there are ataicways that will look right into these people's yards and the bacbecue area would have people in it. He stated the buffer acea should not be used for anything else and he did not think the project even comes cloae to mPeting the intent af the ocdinance and the promises made to theae people. Mr. Gilbert stated apparently he did a poor job reading the atmoaphece and that the 20-Eoot area could •iery well be e complete landscaped buffer area. . .... _._. ._ _ . . _ .___....; MINUT_E8 _~N~HBIM CITY PL~NNINC CO!lMI88ION, ~PRIG 18~ 1983 83-2x0 Respondinq ko Commiaai~on~r King'~ comme~t thet th~ neighboci would like sinqle-family, aingle-etory unitia, Mr. Gilt~ert,eteted they are propoeing aubterranean patking wikh one-atory on top within SO leet o! th~ northecn property line end they ere only aaking Cor the two-story bufter on one aide. He atatRd the pcoperty oWner hse signed a petition and wante to do the asme thing on hia pcoperty and is waiting to s~e how this r.equeat comea out. Commise~oner Duehore a~~°geated they preeent e p~o~ect together. He euggested the petitioner raad the recommRndattone of the Commission very cacefullyt thek s~me of the ptopecty ownera have lived there A long time and will be living there for a long time to come end ir. thia instence the ownere will build the~ proiect and will not be living thece end he would wa~nk to honor that 2(1-foot landecaped bu~fer. Mr. Gil~ert etated their firet proposal wa$ A plan that provided a~ 20-Eont buffer on the north and he met with the residente ~nd the wife express~d the desire not to have a yard because they would not want children pleying in thet area and they would be much happiec with a project closec to the property line. He staCed he had agreed to qive them a two-foot essement foz acces~s and move the buildinq closer. Commiasioner 8ushure auggesked the petitioner cequest e two-week continuance in order to cevise the plnna and include the 20-foot i~ndscaped buffer on the north with s~ingle-atory unita and enclvaed garages which will reduce the density of the pro~pct. pean Shecer explained one half oE the height of the garAges would be subterrdnean whirh qualifies this as a single-story structuce ~nd that w~iver e would atill be tequired to allow two atoriea within 50 feet of single-family bounderiea to the south and west. Commiasi~ner F~ushor~ pointed out the ptomise w~s mede that thece will be no two-etory unita permitted. Ne stated he alao wondecs if allowing eubterranean par4cing wcula deatroy the integrity of this neighborhood. Mc. Gilbert stated they have complied with the Rl~-3000 code with the exception of the property to the eouth and they are cequeating a variance from thdt propecty line. Commissioner Buahore stated they have not c~mplfed or they would not need theae waivers. !!r. Giibert etated they are only 19 feet off in square tootage per dwelling which i$ not very m~ch and that is partly because of the two-feet easement they would give to the neighbara next door and the only variance is for the one two-story structure on th~ south side and that property ownec has signed the petition. Commissioner Bushore 8tated no two-story units should be permitted end Mr. Gilbert stated he haa epent a lot cf time aith staff and woa2d 'like to be heacd . MINUTB&. ANAHB2M CITY PL~NNINO COMMI88ION. APRIL 18, 1983 ___ 83-Z21 AC9~ION: Commiaaionet Buehore ofPered a motion, e~conded by Commiasioner Mc~~urn~y ~nd MOTZON CARRIBD (Commiseioner I,a Claire abaent), thet the Anaheim Ciky Pianning Commiaaion hes reviewed the proposel to ceclaaeify eubject property from the RS-10,000 (Reeidential, 31ng1Q-Family) Zone to che RM-3000 (Roaidentiel, Multiple-Femily) Zone to conetruct e 10-unit condominium complex with wdivere of minimum lot area per dwelling un1t, maximum etcucturel hetght, minimum lanQaceped aetbeck on en irrggularly-sh~p@d per~el of l~nd conaiRting of appco~imetely Q.68 ecre having a frontege of epproximately 234 feet on the west aide of Citron Street, Approximetely 425 feet aouth of the centerline of La Palma Avenue end further deaccibed Aa 949 North Citron ~treeti end doee hereby ~ppKOVe the Negative Declaretion from the requirement to prepere an environmentel impec~ report on the basis thet there would be no aignificant indivi~ual or cumulative adverae environment4l impact due to the approvel of this Neqati.ve Declaretion since the Anaheim General Plan designatea the aubject property for low medium denaity residential land usea commeneurete with the propoealj that no senaitive environmentAl impncte ere involved in the proposalj thet the initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumul~tive adverse environmental impactsl and thdt the Negative Decl~retion substantiating the Eoregoing findings i~ on file in the City of Anaheim Plenning Department. Commissioner Buehure offered Resolution Nn. PC83-76 and moved for its paseage end adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny Reclasaification No. 82-83-29. On roll ca,l, the foregoing resalution was pasaed by the following vate: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE~ FRY, HERBST~ KING, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSBt+?'I': LA CLAIRE Commisaionec Bushore offered Resolution No. PC83-77 and moved far its passage and adoption thac the AnAheim City Planning Commiasion does heceby deny Variance No. 3325 on the basis thet Genetal Plan Amendment No. 169 was approvNd subject to certein recommendations for single-etory st:uctures with enclosed gacages and with a 20-fcot landscr~ped buffer adjacent to a:l single-family properties and t~~e npplicant has refused to comply with those recommendations. On roll call, th~ foregoing resolution was ptisaed by the followinq vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING~ LA CLAIAE~ MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: I,7~ CLAIRE ITEM N0. 3. EIR N~GATIVE DBCLARATION F.ECLASSZFICATION N0. 82-83~30 AND VARIANCE NO. 3327 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: J. HAROLD 6 MARION A. SMITH, P.O. Box 68, Stanton, C~, 90680. AG&NT: ROY ALBSRONi, 3440 W. Ball Road, P-nnheim, CA 92$04. Property deacribed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consiatinq of approximately 0.4Q acre, 3311 Fi. Ball Road. RS-A-43,000 to CL. Waiver pf maximum structural height to conetruct a conunercial building. MINUT$8, ~N~H~IM CITY PL11NNiNG C_OI~M238ION __~PRIL 18. 1983 83-222 Th~c~ wes on~ pereon i~diGating thair pc~sence in oppoaition to subject requeet end although the staff report wse not reed, it ie crfecced to and mede e paci oP the minutea. Paul Mitchell, 213 N~ Hetwood~ Orange, explained they have reviawed theae plane with the neighbore and the neighbors hed four ma~jor concecnaj (1) the minimum height of the block wall et the CldC which ie proposed for 6 feet, they would like it to 5e d feet with a meximum of 10 feet on the homeownere' side, (2) they would like a gate at the entr~nce to prevent people fcom going onto the premisea efter houre, (3) they would like to make aure this ie not ~ two-atory etructure and (4) thet the lighting in the ree~c would not ahine directly in their bdckyards. Jim Cogwin, 922 S. Westchester Drive, llnaheim, explained he is present with thcee or four neighbora adjecent to the eubject property and they are not rrally in oppoeition to the requeat but want~d to be aure ttie stipulations they wnrked out with the developer wece included aa a p~rt of the approv~l. He atated they wanted the fence to be 8 feet from the Einished grade. THE PUBGIC HEIIRING WAS CLOSEU. Dean Sherec, Asaociate Planner, stated the condition regarding the lighting should read: "That the maximum height of eny lighting inatelled shell be 12 feet down-dicected from the residential pcoperty. Commisaioner Buahore clarified that the neighbore un~erstood that lU feet of landscaping would be provided rather than the 20 feet. ACTION: Commiasioner Bushore offered a motion, secanded by Commisaionec King and MOTION CARRIBD (Commisaioner La Claire being ebsent), that the 1-naheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to reclassify subject property from the RS-J~-43,000 (Reeidentinl, Agricultursl) Zone to the CL (Commeccial, Limited) Zone to construck a commerci~nl building with waiver of maximum structural height on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of l~nd consieting of approximately 0.40 acre having a frontage of appcoximately 152 feet on the north side of Ball Road, appcoximately 130 feet west of the centerline of Western Avenue end further deacribed r~s 3311 West Ball Roadt ~nd does hereby approve the Negative Declaration from the requirEmenC to prepare an environmental impact report on the baais that theee would be no ~ignificant individuAl or cumulative adverse environmenta; impact due to the appcoval of this Negative Declaration eince the Anaheim General Plan designates che subject property for low denAity land uaes commensurate with the proposalj that no aensitive environmentel impacte are involved in the proposalt that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no aiqnificant individual oc cumuldtive adverse e~vironmental impactat and that the Negative Declaration substantiatfng the foregoing findings ia on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. M2NUTB8~_~1N~-HBxM CITY PLIINNJNQ COMMI88ION, APRIL 18. 1993 83-Z23 Copuniesionec Bu~hor• oEfered R~aolukion No. PC83-78 end moveQ !oc ita pas~sy• end adoption that l.he AnAheim City Planning Commiesion does hereby grant Reclaasification No. 8Z-83-30 sub~ect to Interdepectmentel Committee recommendationa. On coll cell, the foregoing resolution wae pegatd by ~he following vote: ~YBS: BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY, HERBST, R1NG, MC BURNEY NOBS: NONB ABSE:NT: L~- CLAIRE Cammissionec Bushore offeced Resolution No. PC83-79 end moved for ite peseege end edoption thAt the 1-naheim City Plenning Commiaeion does hereby grent Vecience No. 3327 on the baeie of the ahallawness of subject property ~nd ita rela~tionahip to the adjoining aingle-f~mily reaidentiel propectie$ end aubject to Intecdepartmentdl Committee recommendationa. On roll ceil, the foregoing reaolution was pesaed b}• the folluwing vote: AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY, NERB3T, KING, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: Ll~ CLA2RE IT~M N0. 4. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION. WAIVER OF CODE REaUIREMENT AND CONDITIONIIL U5F PERMIT N0. 2417 PUBLIC HEP-RING. OWNERS: S11NTA 1-NA C7~NYON ASSOCIATES, 363 San Miguol, Newpo[t Beach, CA 92660. AGENT: JOSEPH L. 8 ETHEL FERN~-NDE2, 13091 Charloma Drive, Tuetin, C1- 92680. Pcoperty described as an irregulerly-ahaped ~arcel of land conaisting af approximately 6.5 acres, 5642 ~. La Palma ~-venue, t105. To pe~mit on -sale beer and wine in a proposed sandwich ahnp with waivec of minimum number of pdrking $paces. There were two person:~ indicating theic ptesence in uppoaition to subject cequest and although the staff regort wae not CP.$C3~ it ia referred to and madp ~ part of the minutes. Joseph Fernandez, agent, atated he is propoaiilg a sandwich shop with on-sale beer and wine. He stated the main proble~n seems to be the parlcing and he has aubmitted a letter to the Plenning Commisaion pertaining to tF~at isaue. Dan Martinez, 5636 E. La Palma, Anaheim, stated he :s opposed to thie request because of the traffic problem that iQ there nowf that there is only one driveway onto La Palma now and traffic backs up into the driveaay 100 feet ducing prime operating hours and Also eeat ~nd west on La Palma and in addition, they are also directly across from Sutherland Lumber which hae traffic making right and left turns. He stated also eubject property is owned by two different owners and there is no accees and auggested they pcovide their own driveway. He 9ueationed why this petitionec was told to go ehead and start businees without ell the approvals. MINUTES, ~N~HBIM CITY PLIINNING COMMISSION, NPRIL 18. 7.983 ____ __ _ 83-Z~4 Reapondinq to Commiaeionor Herbet, Mr. Mertinez axpleined he owna a ~estaurent but ha did not have a problem with thia reetAUrant becauae the pr~posed reateurent chain doee a lot of edvertiainc~ which will help hia buslneee, but hie mein concern ie t[4ffic, pointing out there heve been a lot of accidenta there. He etated the peti,tioner doe$ not heve ecceas For truck deliveriea. He aleo referced to the Commiaeion's field inapection tcip And stated they hbd about 60t of the neighboc+~ pcesent to voice their concernP, but did not see the Commiaeion r~nd suggeated the ection be poatponed ao he could aubmit written informetion to aupport whet he ie saying. He stated people are all egainst the reques~ until the treffi.c problem ia corrected. Connie Br~uer, store menager at 5640 E. Le Palma, etated thelr etore hae 7,000 square feet and about 1,000 cuatom~ars per dayr thet when she called their landlord about the parking, she wea told thet they would be adding six edditional apaces and she failed to understand where thie 392•apace figure came from. She edded their second concecn ie thAt the building only hr~ two ar three occupants now a~id wond~red where the parking for the othec bu~.nessea will come from when the huilding ie fully occupied. Dean Shecer, Aseaciate plann~c, explained the exiating uses at that ahopping centec were reviewed including retail Eloor space and restaurante and the parkinq required is based on formulas wfthin the code and that is where the 392-space figure was derived, including thie proposed restaurant= however, that figure has nothing to do with the number of apacea apelled out in each tenant's lease with the landlocd. Mr. Fernandez stated he spent many hours up on the vacant floor of thie building overlooking the parking are~, counting the cers and watching the traffic pattern and wae not really prepared for this opposition and should have brought picturea to ahow that the firet two rowa of parking ere alwa~ys uaed by the customers at Christian's market and alea to ahow tha~ no leas than 1/3 of the perking spaces ace empty throughout the entire day. He stated he did investigate this because he wants people to come in end park and have a sandwich and beer. THE PUBi.IC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner $ushore pQinted out thia restaucant is allawed by right and the only reason for. the requeat is to pexmit on-sale beer and wine and he did not think that would add to the traffic and the oppnsition is aaking the Commission to deny this pQtition~r the same privileges they have. He stated he thought this requeat is reasonable. Reaponding to Commiseioner Herbat, Dean Sherer explained Paul Singer, Traffic Engfneer, reviewed thie project And recommended that the parking waiver not be granted beca~se ther~ are parking and traffic problema fn that center and if thie is approved, the applicant shou2d be cequired to reatripe the existing lot, sub~ect to approval of the Traffic Engineer foc the appropriate number of speces. He stated the applicant submitted a letter agreeing thet thia will be done and that is included as a condition of approval. Commissioner McBurney clarified that imperial Highway is a state highway and that no accesa is available to that street. i MINUT~B. ~N~HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. APRIL 18. 1983 83-225 Commiaoio~er euahore atated thece ie an erea where people have mede their own drivewey which should ba cloeed et the northeaet cocner of the aervice etation pcoperty end it ia e dangeroua eituation. Commiasionet Hecbst etated thia traffic and ecce$e problem wag diecuesed in tot~l when this shopping center wae proposed and ~here were five ceskaucante pcopaeed in the originAl plana end the owner knew there would never be any ecceas to imperi~l and Ghet there would be access and trefEic probleme and he could not aee penelizing this building ~t the request of other peop~e. '~heirmen Fry et~ted it ia e moot aitu~tion beceuse if the cequest is denied, they will regtripe the patking lot bringing it up to code. ACriON: Commiseioner King ofEered a motion, seconded by Commiseioner eouas and MOTION CARRIED lCommissfoner La Cleice ebeent), thdt the Anaheim City Planning Commissi~n hae ceviewed the pcoposal to permit on-aele beer and wine in a proposed sandwich shop with waivec oE minimum parking epACee on an irrequlacly-shdped parcel of land coneieting of approximately 6.5 acres located aouth and west of the southweqt cocner of LA Palma Avenue and Impc+riel Highway and further de~cribed as 5642 E. La Pelma Avenue, 1105i and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration Erom the requirement to prepare en environmental impact report on the baeis Chet thece would be no eignificant individual or cumulative advetae environmental impact due to the appcoval of this Negative Declaration since tl~e Anaheim General Plan deaignatea the subject property foc general commercial land uses commenaurate with the propoealt tt,at no sensitive environmental impacta are involved in the proposal= that hhe Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no eignificant in~ividual or cumuletive adverae environmental impactsJ and that the Negative Ueclaration sabatantidting the foregoing findinga is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning riepertment. Commissioner K~ng offered a motion, seconded by Commiseioner McHucney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Le Claire absent), that tr~e Anaheim City Planning Commisaion does hereby deny the request for waiver of code requirement on the basis that the petitioner has submitted a lettet agceeing to r~stripe the parking lot in conformance with code requirement. Commissioner King offered Reso~ution No. PC83-80 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion does hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2417, in part, denying the waiver of code cequirement ar~d subject to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the foregoing resalution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS. BUSHORE, FRX, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNBY NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE Jack White, Asaistant City Attorney, presented the written riyht to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. MINUT88 AHSIM CITY PL~NNIN~ COMMI88ION. ~PRIL 18. 1983 __ 83-226 5 PUSLiC HBARING. OWNE~9: KYU HO i YOUNG SOOK YUN• 13043 Maqnalie, Qarden Grove, C~ 92644. AG~NT: MAY-LE, 2144 W. La Pa1mA ~venue, Anaheim, C~ 92801. pcoperty described ae e rectengularly-ahapad parcel of lend conaieting of epproximately 0.9 ecre, 507 s. Brookhur~t Street t80K-NAV Coffee Houee). To permit e public dance hall. There wes no one indicatinq their preeence in opposition to subject request end ~ithough the etaff report w~a not cead, it is referred to and mAde a part of the minutea. Mey-Le, applicAnt, wns prea~nt to Anawec any questione. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbat aeked how many employeea there will be aince the staff report indicatee thece will only be one, but he dId not think that would be possible since therE will be livP muaic and dancing. Ma. Le clarified there would be four employeea. commissioner Herbst clarified the houcs foc dancing are proposed to be Thursday and Sunday, 8:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and Friday and Sa~turday, 8:30 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. It waa noted the Planning Direetoc or his authocized represPntative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class l, as defi~~ed in the State Enviconmental impact Report Guidelinea and is, therefore, categorically exempt fcom khe cequicement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commiasioner HeQSat offered Res~lution No. PC83-81 end moved for ita paesagQ and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heceby grant Conditional Use Pecmit No. 2431 subject to the petitioner's sti~~lation that the hours of dancing will be Tharsday and Sunday, 8:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and Friday and Saturday, 8:30 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. for a period of three years subject to Interdep~rtmental Commfttee recommendationa. Prior to voting, Commisaionec Herbst pointed out the rear doors must remain closed at all times, because the noiae could interfere with the neighbors and if complainta are filed, the conditional use permit could be revoked. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pAased by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST~ KING, MC BURNEY NOES: BUSHORE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE MINUT68_L„ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING C014MI88ION. APRIL 18. 1983 _ 83-217 ITEM N0. 6 EIR NB ~TIVB D CL T2 N WAIVER OP CODE B UIREM NT Np CONDITION~~ U8~ PSRMIT N0. ~~3Z PUBLIC HEARINC. OWNERS: SDW~RD I. i~~~RIS E. V~NAGB, 1501 N. 3tat~ Coll~ye Baulevecd, ~nAheim• CA 92806. AQENT: B~RREND~ MBSA FARMS COUNTRY 3TORE, ~TT= KEN wINES, 3~: 5 Michelaon Dcive, Irvine, CA 92715. Property deacribed as en irr~gulnrly-ahaped peresl of lend con~isting of epproximately 1.3 ac~ea, 1506 N. State College Boulevard (eerrenda Mese FACmg Country 3tore). To pecmit reteil food aelea in the ML Zone with weiver of mintmum number oE parking apeces. Thece was no one indicating their pceaence in opposition to subject c•equeat and although the staff repoct wae not read, it ia reEerr~~~j to ~nd made e pact of the minutes. Nen Wines, egent, wae pcesent to anawer any yuestio~a. THE PUBLIC HFARING WAS CLOSEU. ACTION: Cammisaioner King offeced a motion, aecon% ~ by Commisaioner Bouas and MOTIUN CARRIED lCommiasioner La Claire absent), t.~et the Anaheim City Planning Commiseion hna reviewed the proposal to permit r.etail Eood salee in the ML (Induatrial, Limited) 'Lone with waivec of minimum number of pdtking spaces on a ircegularly-ahaped parcel of lend consiating of approximetely 1.3 acrea located at the northeast corner of Via Rurton Street an~ State College Boulev~rd and further described eR 1506 N. St~te College B~ulevard (Berrenda Mesa Farms Country Stares)s and does hereby apptove the Negeti~~e DNCl~cation from the requirement to prepare an environmental impac report on thp ~aais that there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impact ~ue to the approval of thia Negative Declacation aince the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for generel industrial land uses commensurate with the pcoposal= thet no aensitive environmental impects are involved S.n the prop~salJ that the initial Study submitted by the pet~tioner indicates no aignificant individual or cumulative adverse enviranmental impacts= and that the Hegative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings ia on file in the City of ~naheim planninq Department. Commisaioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commisafoner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absent), that the ~naheim City Planning Commission doea heceby grant waiver of cod~ requirement on the baAis of the unuaual ehape of aubject property. Commisaioner King offered Resolution No. PG83-82 and moved for ita passage and adoption that the ~naheim City Planning Commis~ion doea hereby grnnt Conditinnal Uae Permit No. 2432 subject co Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. Prior to voting Dean Sherer pointed out it tnight be appropriate to include the pQtitioner'a stipulation that retail sales area sh~ll be limited to 29.5~ of total floor area of fecility. MINUTIlS. ANIIHBIM CZTY PLl-NNIN6 CGMMIB$ION. APj~IL 18__ ~983 83-1Z9 Commi,~~lAn~r H~rbat indicat~d h• would mak• thet p+~rt o~ hia ceeolution. On roll cell, Cha foc~qoing reso lution wea psaa~d by the following votes AYBBs 80UAl9, BUSHORE~ lRY, i~BRB3T, KINGr MC BURNEY NOBSs NON~ AB$~NTt W1 CLAIRE ITEM NU. 7. EIR NEGATSVE OLCLIIRATION.~,WAIVER OF COD~ REQUIRpr1ENT 11ND CONDITIONIIL U3~ PERMIT N0. 2433 PUBL1~ HE1~-RING. OWNERS: EMKAY D~VBLOPM~NT COMPJ-NY, INC., 1301 Dove Street, 3uite 300~ Newpo[t Beech, C1~ 92 C60. AGBNT: BUSINE3l3 PROPERTIBS~ INC.~ RICHI~RD OGLESBY OP' J08EPH WAI,THOUR- 17631 ~itch, Yrvine, CA 92724. Property described ee an ircegulacly-eha ped parcel of land conaieting of eppcoxim~tely 2.8 acrea, 2300 E. Ketella 1-ven~e. To permit a 4-atary commeccial office buildi~g in khe ML Zone wi.th weiver uf. minimum structural setbeck. Thece wes no one indicating the ir presence in opposition to aubject request and although the atefE report wae not cead, it is refer~ed to And made e part of the minutea. Richacd Oglesby, agent, atated they bave reviewad the conditions of approval end would like to edd some ~urd ing to Condition No. 4 as followg: 'The granting of such accesa shall n ot negatively impact or advecsely affect subject pcoperty and ehnll be a L no cost to the petitioner." He explained if the adjrcent property owner eh o uld decide to develop the propecty for any uae other than the Mali:~u Raceway, they ahould not bear the coet for the construction of that mutual ingress and egrese. THE PUBLIC HEI4RING W11u CLOSED. Commissionec Bushoce asked if the only way t~ develop the property ie to have adjoininq mutua~l acceas. Mr. O esby explained they ar~ not looking to use the adjoining land for developm~t of their +~ccess and he believed it ia the inEent of the City to protect the egress end ingreas righte of the adjoinf.nq property owner and he did not feel they ehould :~ve to pay to provide them access. Jack White, Aeaistant City Att erney, suggested that the agreement b~ entered into currently with the adjoin ing owner, as ~egotiated between the two property ownera, and recorded providing that in the future when that property ie developed, dccess will be q ranted and requiring that it be recordgd prfor to isauance of buitding permit a or commencement of activity. He stated that would be on the record and pu t any future property owner on notice. Commiseioner Buahoce stated t h e City cennot include anoth~ir pcopecty owner in a requirement G~ this petition~ MINUTSB. 1-NAH6IM CITY ~LANN2N0 CO~IMI88ION. APRIL 18. 1983 __ ~ 29 Mc. Oql~oby •tAk~d they would ecaept ehat condition but would not want to b~ put in ~ po0ltion oC heering th~ bucd~n of the ~djAC~nt pcoperty at rome time in th• futuce. He mtatod if th~ City weze to permit A re~taurent on thet pcoperty, it would :n~ceAae their parking and the coat of cre~tibuttthey did conatruction of the1: dcivaw~y would b• a large ~ sum of money, not went to be ~fLected oc to b~ar the coat. Cammiesionar Herbat ateted the Traffic F.nqi.neer wents the eccese to both propertiee edjACent to the signal. Dean 8herer, Aeaociate Plannec, ateted that i~ the Ciky's overcidiny concern nnd eccese ia going to be tek~n at thet locetion only~ directly acrosa from Nowell Straet. Commisaianer Herbst egreed thia petitioner should not have to pay the expensest however, he felt it should be diecusaed with the adjacent pcoperty owner. ~ack White skated the eaAement could carry the atipulation that thece would be no coat to t.he petitionec. He stet~d when the property ia developed to another uae, the acceae would be available. Mr. Ol~lesby Rtated he was concerned and has a problem with stipulating todey that before they cen pick up a building permit, they must enter into an agreement with the adjacent pcoperty owner. He atated he ia willing to leave the condition as it is proposed. Jack White stated if there ia a pr~~l:•'~ with the property owner, it should be discussed now. Mr. Ogleeby stated the; ;+.e willing to keep the condition as is and stated thece is no pcoblem becauae the City placed the condition in the first plece. Commissioner Herbat stated the petitioner can record an easement on his own and he did not want to hang the project up on the petitionec having to work with the adiACent property ownet. He etated the Malibu may not be developed for a few years. Mr. Oglesby etated they are willing to create the easementi however the City cannot indicate where it ahould be placed today. Commisaioner Herbat asked if the petitioner is willing to record an easement hhat when the property is developed~the adjoining propecty owner mey be qranted acceas to the corner satiafactocy to the Traffic Bngineer. Jack White explained they could recard d covenant that an easement would be qranted when the adjacent property developa at a location that is mutually accepkable and satisfactory to the City Traffic Engineer. ~C_ TIGN: Commisaioner Herbst offer.ed a motion, saconded by Commiasioner Bouaa and MOT:ON C1IRRIEA (Commissioner La Claice being absent), that the Anaheim City Planning Commiesion has reviewed the proposal ~o pecmit A four-story commercial office building in the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone with waiver of minimum atructural setback on an ircegularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxim~tely 2.8 acrea having a frontage of approximately 578 feer. ail the soukheast side of Katella ~venue and further degcribed es 2300 East KAte21a ~venuet and doea hereby approve the Negative Declaration fcom the requirement to prepare an environmental impnct report on the basis that there would be no eignificant individual or cumulative adverae environmental impact due to t-~e approval of this Negative Declaration aince the Anaheim General Plan MINUTBB. ~NAH6IM CITY PL11~N~,Na COM~I~38IQN. APjIL 16. 1983 83-230 d~si9natea ths •ubj~ct propmcty for commecvi~l ~eccsation land uses commen~urat• with the pr oposal~ that no aeneitiive environmental impects aca involv~~d in th~ propoga ls ~het lhe Inirial Study ,~ubmitted by the p~tition~r indicatea no signi~icsn t individual oc cumule~tive Adverse environme~tsl impactu~ and that the N~getiv~ D~cla-rdtion substsntiating th~ ."or~going findinge ie on ~ile in thR City of 1-neheim Planning Department. Commiasioner Herbet o!t ~ced e motion, aecon~ed by Commiasioner eouas end MOTION C1~RRIBD (Commies ione[ La Claire abaent), khet the Anaheim City Plenninq Commiaeion does hereby grent waivec of code requirement on the basis of the unuauel triangulac ehnpe of the property. Commiesioner Herbst off ared Reaolution Nc,. PC83-83 And moved toc ite peaaage and adoption that the 1-naheim City Planning Commisaion does hereby grent Conditiont~l Usr Pecmit No• 2433 subject to the petitioner'a stipulation the-t e covenant ah~uld be reco zded tu gc~nt an easement to the ad•acenC pcopecty owner in the futuce sub ~ect to the Tcaffic Bngineer's appt~vel end aubject to Interdepartmental Comm i ttee cecomrt~endations. On roll cell, the foreg oing reaolutio~ we~s passed by the £ollowing vote: AY.~S: BOUAS, BUSHORE, [~RY, NERBST, KTNG, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLATRE I~~M N0. 8. EIR NEGATZVE DECLARATION, W1IIVER OP CODE REQUIFEMENT ~-ND CONDITlONAL USE PERMI'P N0. 243~ PUBL~C HEARING. OWNERS: PARAMOUNT ASSOCIATES, 2615 S. Orange 1-venuP, Santa Ana, Cl~ 92707. AGENT: W4RRY BIVENS, 1324 E. Chapman l-venue, Orange, C1~ 92667. Praperty descr i bed as an irregularly-ehaped parcel of land consiating of ~pproxirt~ately 1.84 acrea, 808-820 W. Vecmont 1~venue. To ~ermit a church fa c ility with offices and a rectncy in the CL Zone with waiver of minimum numbec of parking spaces. Thece was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject requeat and although the ataff report was not cead, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Larry Bivena, agent, s tatecl the church has facilities now on Harbor eoulevard, just north of St. Catherine's Military Academy, and they uae the academy's chapel and they have been there about 12 yeara and have upgraded the property and have over-atayed t he use of the academy chap~l and want to use eubject property for a church affice and rectory dnd in the future conatruct a chu~ch when they have the f unds. He sta~ted they have n diffecent parking demand load for the office buildi n g and the chucch ie built well within the requirements of the code. THE PnBLIC HEI~-RING WAS CLOS6D. M~N~T!!8. AN1IH~IM CITY PLIINNINO COMMI88ION~ APRIL 18i1983 ___ 83-131 l1C___~,~TIp~.N: Commiaaionar King of fRCed a motion, •~co~ded by Commia~ion~r McBurney and MOTION CARRI~D (Conpnisaioner Le Claire ebs~nt ), that the 1-naheim City Planning Commi~eion h~o reviewed the proposel to pecmit a church facility with ofticee end e rectory in the CL (Commeccial, L imiLed) Zone with weiver of minimum number oi packing apeces on an ircegul arly-ohaped percel of land conaiating ot epproximetely 1.84 acree having a Frontage of approximetely 335 feet on the south eide of Vermonk Straet, appr oximdtely 190 feet weat of khe cenkerline of Citron Street and further deacri bed Ae 808-820 Weet Vermont Streetl and does hereby appcove thP Negative Decleretion from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact report on t he besie thet there would be no signi.ficant individual or cumulative ~dveree e nvironmental impect ~tue to the approval of this Negative Declaration aince t h e Anahoim General Plan deeignates the subject property for commerciel recteation lend uaes commeneurate with the proposal= that no Rensit ive environmenkal impACte ere involved in the propoaelr khat the Initiel St u dy submitted by the petitioner indicetes no aignificant individual or cumula t ive edvecae environniental impec:tsr and thet the Negative Declaration eubstahtieting the foregoing findinga ia on file in the City of Anaheim t~lanni~g Aepartment. Commiesioner King offered a motton, aeconded by Commis~ioner Mceurney and MOTION CARRIED (CommiaRioner La Claire absent) , thet the request for waiver of code requirement is hereby granted on the bas i s of the unusual shape of the property and size and on the baeis that the pa rktng demand seldom reaches 100i because of the variety of uaes on the property . Commissioner King affered Resolution No. PC83 - 84 and maved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City planning Commis sion doea herehy grant Conditional Use Permit 2434 aubject t~ Interde partmental Committee recammendationa. On coll call, the foregoing resolution was pr s eed by the following vote: ~-YES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, M C ~URNEY NOES: NUNE ABSENT: LA ~LAIRE ITEM N0. 9.__EI_R CATEGORICAL EXEN-PTIUN-CLASS 1 AND VARIANCE N0. 3326 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: WILLI1hM J. HINSON, J R., 1Z43 N. Brookhucst Street, Anaheim, CA 92802. AGENT: D. KEITH HINSON, 2 301 W. Lori Lane, Santa Ana, CA 92706. Property described as a cectangularly - shdped parcel of land consisting of appr~ximately 5312 squace feet, 1253 N. er o~okhurst Street. Waivers of maximum lot coverage, minimum fran t yard setback, minimum rear yard setback and minimum number of parking apaces t v convert an existing recreation building to a single-family residence. There were six persona indicating their presen ce in oppoeition to subject request dnd although the staff report was not resd, it ie referred to and made a part of the minutes. MINUTBB~_ AN~HBIM C1TY PL1-NNxNa COMMI8810N. APRIL 18. 1983 83-232 K~ith Hinson, a9~nt, stat~d khia pcopecty i~ owned by hia fatihsr and continqant upon this r~quest, he wishea to d~ed it tio him in ordar foc it to be impcoved end uaed as s home for hie f~mily. He etated thia pcoperty hae remAined vecant !oc some time end ther• h~A be~n aume vandaliam. He celacred to the racommendation on the etatf report thet the plane be ~edeeigned reloc~ting the gerege ta pcevent vehiculer Acceaa to ecookhuret as auggeated by the City Trsftic Engineer. He skated to emend the plene i~ thie wAy would inflict extreme financial herdahip on him becauee the breaker box and kitchen penele are elreedy exieting on the reec well of the atructuce and to redesiqn the gacage would be ditficult. He ceferred to the cciteria required for granting a waiver end ~t~ted he etcongly teels if thia requoet ie denied, this property would be denied the privileges enjoyed by other propertiea in the same zone and vicinity becauae he did e aurvey in the ered between LA Palma end the 91 Freeway on the weat aide of Brookhurst and there is vehiculer acceae onto Braokhurak from seven housee and thcee bueinesaea end only two housea do not have acceas to erookhurat. Robert Bonstill, 1203 N. Groten Stceet, ~naheim, stated he purchased thia home in 1955~ ~hat he and hia neiqhbura are curious why underoized lots ace being conaidered aince the property ie rathet large and asked why it ahouldn't be divided into three parcels when some other adjuatme~ta could be made. He stated they recugnize the petitioner has A very unique situation with the atreet widening, but did not know why it ie necessary to ask foc a veriance. Chairman Fry etated originally the Hawaiian Village was three sepacate cgcorded lote. Mr. Bone~ill stated the lots seem to b~ undersized and will b~ moce undereized with the widening of the street. Joseph Wentel, 1252 N. Fulton Street, Anaheim, .stated his property ia back of the HawAiian VillageJ and that the pcoperty consists of threP lots, two of which have been leveled. He stated he hae petitions signed by all the neighbors on Fulton Street questioning why thia structure ia being allowed to be used as a residence because it doesn't blend in with the homes and there are no plans to rebuild it and they feel it is much too uglf and when they sell the other two Iota, the builders could put homes in that are worse and devalue their properti~s. He stated they have dnother petftion questioninq the waivec for minimum number of parking epacest that the petitioner uses the alley and the rea: to park his own pecsonal vehicles with vehiclea parked illegally, etc. and chey uae the property next dooK ds a washing m~chine repair shop and there ace pick-up trucks making deliveries, etc. and that is a problem and that they wish to go on record saying they disagree with the request. Nartin Lar.and, 1251 Fulton, atated this lot is the same size as the other normal lota and when the street ia widened, all the properties will have the same problem, He etated the 5-foot aetback was in c~nformance with code in 1956 ~nd there are et least thcee or four other atructures in that same acea within 5 feet of the atley. He stated the building does have a different architecture but did not think that is reaeon to tear it down. MINUT~8 ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMI88ION 1-PRIL 18 1983 83-233 THB PUBLIC H~AR~NG WAS CL08BD. Commiasionar Hsrbat ata~ed he ia concerned abou~ tha eccaas onto Brookh~.~ret, eapecielly eince the Ciky will be ~eking the 20-foot dedicetion and he thought eccene could be taken from the alley and e cerport conetructed to provide fouc parking ata11~. Mr. Hineon atated he underatood aince the building now coveca 40• of the lot and with the additional dedicdtion, it will cover 50t, no Additional eticucturea could be built on the property. Commiasioner Herbat pofnted out lf thia etcuctuce is used as a reaidence, when the dedicetion ia made, the entire front of the property will be moved and stated egain he thought eccesa could be tAken from the alley inetead of Bcookhurst. He added even though the neighboca do not like the looka of the building, it does have value and he thought it could be made livable and did not see any reaeon to deny the weiver juat because the.y do not like the way it looka. He otated he thought it would be better to be lived in thbn to be a vacent building subject to vandaliam. He ateted the Tcaffic Engine~r ie violently opposed to any access off Brookhurat Street. He noted moet of the waivera ara exiating and pointed aut the City is causing pact of the problem by requesting additional dedication. Commissioner King pointed out this exieting building ia no clo~er to the street than the building next door to the south. Commissioner Herbat steted all the otructures will be affected when the atreet is widened. He auygested the petitionec review the planc and try to come up with a way to eliminate the need for the packing waivec. He atated he would be moce in favor of the cnrport than the hammer-head turnaround, pointing out more parking spaces could be provided. Mr. Hinaon atated he had talked with the Traffic Enyineer and he had indicated the dedication may not be needed for 20 to 25 years. Dean Sherer reaponded to Commissioner Herbst that the matter would nct have to be readvertised in ordec to appcove it with a carport and with access off the alley rather than of£ Brookhurst. Cummissioner Herbst atated he would like the Tcaffic Engineec to review the parking. Dean Sherer explained the Traffic Engineec's concern is that when dedication is made, not only this property, but all the propertiea along Brookhurst will be afferted and some creative altetnatives for parking on the alley will be necessary. He added Mr. Sfnger recommended either re-orfentation of the garage, or accesa from the alley, oc that e carport be provided adj~cent to the existing dwelling. Responding to Commisaioner Herbst, Mr. Hinson stated ~e thought he could accomplieh thia change in plans. It was noted the Pl~nning Dicector or his authorized representative haa detecmi.ned that the propased project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptians, Class 1, as defined in the 5tate Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. MINUTE81 AN~HBIM CITY PL~NNINO COMMI$8ION. APRIL 18~ 1983 83-234 ~CTION: Commioaioner H~rbst otl~ced R~eolution No. PC83-85 ~nd moved foK ite paa~age and adoption thet the Anaheim City Planning Commiesion doee hereby gtant Variance No. 3326 on the baois that th~ ~tcuature ia exi~tinq And aleo on the bae~s that the City is ceque~ting ~ 20-foot dedication for etreet wid~ning purpoaee end on the baeie that a carport will be canetcucted with ACCa88 otf the ~lley and denial of weiver (d) on the bseis that four pecking epaces will be provided in contormance with Code requirement and subject ko interdepartment~l Committee reaonnnendationa. On roll call, the foregoing resolution wea paeaed by the fallowing vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORB, FRY~ HERB3T, KING, MC BURNEX NO~S: NANE A98ENT: LA CLAIRE Commiasioner Herbat added he would like the plane to be appcoved by the City Tcaffic Engineer. Jack White, Assistent City Attorney, preaented the written right to appeal the Planning Commisaion's decision within 22 days to the City Council. ITEM N0~ 10 REPORTS AND RECOMMLNDATIONS A. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOS. 10996_T____10997 and 10998 - Regueat from Boyle Bngineering for reviPw of grading and line-of-sight plans for property located dt th~ eouthweat corner of Avenida De Santiaga and Hidden Canyon ROad. There were approximately 15 pereo~s pcesent at the mepting regarding this matter. It was noted these three tracts were approved on October 6, 1980, by the Planning Commission and one af the conditions of approval requiced the petitioner to submit final grading plans ta the Cortrmission for ceview and comment before a grading permit is isaued by the City Engineer in order that Commission could evaluate the impacta grading in the area would have on the 'viewshed' of Weic Canyon. Jack White, Assistant City Attocney, explained appcoval of the grading plane is th@ responsibility of the City Engineer and he understood that a public hearing will be scheduled in conjunction with certificetion of the environmental impact report for the grading portion of the project. He explained the Commission will only review these conceptual grading plans and the technical aspects will be reviewed by the City Engineer. Chairman Fry explatned to those preaent that this is not a public hearing and that public input will not be given since the City ~ngineer intends to hold a public hearing. ACTION: Commiasioner Herbst offered a motion, eeconded by Commiseioner King and MOTION CARRIED tConuniesioner La Cla-ire nbsent ) thr~t the 7-r-aheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the grading nnd line-of-aight plane for Tentative Tr~ct Nos. 10996, 10997, and 10998 and does heceby find that the eubmittal of s~id plens doea cotaply with the conditions of approval. ~ MINUT!!S. N11,~„NLIM CITY PLA,~ININ~3 COMI4ISSION. 11PRxL_ 18e 1983 83-~35 Jack Wh~te RxplaineQ ~ l~tter of oppooition wao cecaivee fcom th• Siecra Club wh~ch wiil be plec~d in the file and beaome a permenent pect of ~he record. 8. V1-RZI-NCE N0. 2545 - Raqueet from Norman ~ Irme Switzec for terminetion of VeriAnce No. 2545, property located on the west eide of Kraemer Boulevecd, eppcoximetely 190 feet eouth of the centerline of Miraloms l-venue. 1~C_ TION: Commieeionec King ofFered Reeolukion No. ~C83-86 and moved foK its p~esdge end adoption that the 1-neheim City Pl~nning Commieeion does hereby terminate Variance No. 2545. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: BOU1~S, BUSNORE, ~'RY, HERBST, KING, McBURNEY NOES: NQNE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE C. VARtANCE N0. 2768 - Request fcom Jamee A. Lasby for exteneion of time for pcoperty loceted et 838 S. State College Bouleverd. Aean Sherer, Aaeociate Planner, explained originally a letter was received from the appllcsnC cequesting a twa-year exteneion of times howevec, since no extensiona of kime have been gcanted, he has subaequentlY requeated a retroactive extenaion of time to expire on January 19, 1986. Commiseionec Bushore stated he had tried to purcheae this property in 1978. end after a public hearing hi8 request was d~nied and he L•hought the people in the neighborhood would want to be notified of this request for extension of time since atrong feelings wece expressed. Dean Shecer atated Mr. Lasby wanted to continue the uae of the groperty under the eame conditions as it was previously approvedt that it was approved for a two-year period and the property w~s to be used solely by the ownec, and no signage wea permitted. Commiaeioner Herbst stated he would have no objections to grnnting tt-e extensioa to expire January 19, 1984, eince that ie only eight months away. Commiasioner Bushore did not feel a retcosctive extension o~ time should be granted for the previoua four years. ACTION: Cammiasionec Herbst offered a motion, seconded by Commissionec Mc~ B y and MOTION CP.RA ED (Commiasioner La Claire absent and Commissioner Buehore abataining?, that the Annheim City Planning Commission does heret~~,~ gcant a two-year retroactive extension of time for Va[iaince No. 2768 to expire Jdnuary 19, 1984. ~ ~ '} MIN~T68. 11NJ1~1~IM CITY PLANN~NG COt~MI88I0N. ~1P~t~L 18. 1983 ___ 83-~36 D ~QNDITIONIIL U8S„~t~RMIT N0. 1812 - R~qu~~t lrom 8lsnor Reddin !oc extenaion o! time ior pcop~rty locdt~d et 1203 W~st Lincoin J-v~~ue. ~-CTI N: Commisaion~r Kiny nfter~ed a motion, seaond~d by Commia~loner McBucney and MOTION Cl-RRI1~D (Conani~sion~c La Claic~ aba~nt and Commiasioner Bu~hore ebat~ining), that the Anah~im City Planning Commi~oion doe• hereby qrant a on~-yeAr c~tcoactive •xtfnaion o! time for Conditional Use Pecmit No. 1812 to expic• 1-pril 10, 198~. 1-DJOORNMENT: There being ~o fucther buainese, Commissionec Ring offoced a motiion, eeconded by Conaniaeioner McBurney and MOTION Cl-RRIBD, that the mee~ing be adjourned. The meeting wna adjourned at 6:20 p.m. Respectfully aubmitted, ~~ ~ ~~~ Edith L. HerriF, 8eccetary Anaheim City Planning Commi~-eion ELH:lm