Loading...
Minutes-PC 1983/06/27!~ ` j RliGqGAR M6BTING_0!_ TN~_ 1WAH6IM CITY PLANNxNG Cqj4MI8,~I0N RB(iUL11R M~BTING The requlsr meetlnq o! the 1~-na-hRim City Plennin9 Connnission wme celled to ocder by Chairmen Pry at. 10:00 e.m., June 27, 1983, in the Councll Chember, a quorum being preaent e~nd the c'ommioaion rev~ewed plans oP tho itema on todey'a a~genda. RECBSS: 11:30 e.m. RBCONV~NB: Y:30 p.m. rRE8ENT Chairman: Pry Commisaionere: Bouae, Busl~ore, HerbeC, King, La CleirE+, Mcdurney ABSLNT Commiesioners: None AL80 pRBSENT 1lnnika 5entela~hti l~asigtent Dicector Eor Zaning ,Jack White Aasiatant City l-ttorney Paul Sinqer Tre~fic Engineer Jay Titue Office Engineer Dean 8herer 1~aHOCiete Planner Edith HArrie Pl~nning C~mmiseion Secrete+ry ~-PPROVAL 0° MINUTES: Commiasionec King offer.ed a motion, seconded by Commiasioner Bouae and MqTiON C]~RRIED (Corrtmia~ioner Herbst abetaining) that the minutes from the meeting of June l3, 1983, be approved as submitted. ITEM N0. 1. EIR CATEGORICl~L EXEMPTION•-CI~ASS 21 1~ND CANDITIONAL USE P^RMYT N0. 2366 PUBLIC HEARING, OWNERS: ANTONIO H. RANGEL, ET 1-L, 318 N. Stardust Avenue, Placentia, C1- 92670. PropeKty deacribecl aA a rectengularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.5 acrea, having a front~ge of approximetely 150 feet on the ea~h side of Red Gum Street, and fucther described ao 1450 North Red Gum Street. To consider revocation of Conditianal Use Permit No. 2366. Continued from the meetinqs of April 4, and June 1, 1983 There was no one indicating theic preaence in opposition to subject reguest and althouqh the staff report was not reAd, it is referred to and made a part of the minutea. Tony R~ngel, co-owner, esked f.or another extensfon to accomplish what needs to be done. THE PUBLIC EiEARING W1~S CLOSED. Respon9ing to Commissioner Herbst, Mr. Ranqel stated there are no camPer ahells on i-ie pcopecty. He also stated hia brother owne the other portion and they do not speak to each oxhec; ~nd that he app.lied for the conditional e permft on the whole property and the two properties were never legally surveyed. 83-348 6/27/83 ~ ~ ~ MINUTBB. NNJ1HBxM CITY PLIINNIN(i COMMI88ION JUNB Z7 1983 83-349 Jack White, 1-asiatent City Att~~rney, lurther explsined that the otiginal conditional u8e permit wea on the entirr property end eube~quently thece hag epparently been ~n attempt to convey e pcction of the property without ben~fit of e legal parcel mep, eo the r.ity af 1-na~heim still regards it a• one property end revoaAtion of tha ~ecmit would b~ toc the whole property. Commi~aioner R~uae auggested revocation of the permit which would then a11ow Mr. Rengei tti apply f~r a new permit for hia pcoperty only, after the two propertiea are legally divided. Commiaeioner Bushore aaked if the Cade Enfoccement Officec could go after the owner of tt~a western portion of the property if thia permit ie cevoke~l. Jack White replied if khis permit ie revoked- any uae not pecmitted by the Zoning Code would be consideced illegal on the property and the Gode Enforcement Officers could enforce the Zoning Code, and if there are nuisancea exiating, they could enforce the nuisance laws or anY other laws or ordinancea ~elAking to the property. He added Commiseion's first concern ie whether or not thia use ehould be allowed. Commiesioner 8ushore was cancerned whether oc not Tony Rangel should be puniahed when he is complyinq on his portion of the pcopecty, even though the 'ity doean't recognize the property ae being divided, dnd suggested going after the owner of the other half under the nuieance laws. Jeck White stated the pcoblem is that the City regerde th~a as one property. Mr. Rangel explained thak the swine have been remaved, the inoperable vehicles have been removed and slats have been installed in his portion of the chain link fence, h~Wever, the owner of the front portion wns cited by the Code Enforcement Officec fnr not having slats in tt~e front portions of the fencc. Commiasioner La Claice asked if a parcel map ie being filed, with Mc. Rangel reaponding the conditional use permit was needed first. He aleo atAted the property he8 never been legally divided. He explained hie attorney couldn't be pceaent today, and that he dfdn't know whether or not the attorney was plenning to file a parcel map. Jack White atated there could be a way to avoid the necessity oc revocation as to a portion of the existing parr,el, but that he wauld need to review the file and code requirementa and suggested a continudnce. Commiseioner King atated the eubject of this matter is to clean up the property. Jack White stated it ie up to the Commisaion whether or not they want to try and preserve the pecmit for a portion of the pro~erty or to revoke it for tha entice property. He added he thought the Commission was trying to find an avenue in which the current applicant could be nllowed to continue the use upo~ compliance while revoking the other portion. Commissioner Herbst eteted he could go along with a one-month continuance, but this has been going on for months and ~he brother doesn't want to cooperr~te. 6/27/83 ~ i ' MINI7TE8. 1-Nl1HdIM CITY PL11NtiING CQMM288ION. JUN3 27. 1983 _ 83-35 H~ •tsted i! th~ •itustion i• not corc~ct~d and clear~~d up in 30 Qays, th• permit should be r~vok~d becaus~ this haa baen an ~y~ •ore in the inQuatrial aree !oc a long tim~. ~-CTZONc Commisaionar La Claire olf~red ~ motion, seconded by Commi~~ionec McBucney end MOTION CARRIBD, thet coneideration ot the eloc~m~ntioned matter be continued to the meeting of July 25, 1963. Commisaioner La C1Aire asked it the other portions of the property cen be cleaned up if thia permit i~ revoked. Jeck •~~ite ateted revocation would make the outdoor storage yerd illegel end the Cit; ~-ould then be in s poaition, either thcough civil or criminal ection, to obtein complience with the zoning Code which would allow whatever uses are otherwiae legel on the property. Commisaioner Ring pointed out Commisaioner Herbat had indicated the property hea to be cleaned up in four weeka. Mc. Rangel esked if there is a possibility that he cen epply foc a pecmit foc his poction of the property onJ~y, 1E thie permit ia cevoked. Jeck White ceaponded he w~uld have to reseerch the mattec befoce giving an answer. ITEM NO. 2. EIR NLGI-TIVE DECLI-RATION AND GBNERIIL PL1-N 11MIENDMBNT N0. 180 PUBLIC HEARING~ OWNER&: EVANGBL CHURCH OP SOUTH,R,RN CALIPORNII-~ INC.~ I530 W. Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, C1- 92805. 1-GENT: GE1tALb R. BUSHORE, 702 W. Lincoln Avenue, /-naheim, CA 92805. Property described ae en icregularly-ehaped percel of land coneiating of approximately 2.9 acres bounded on the north and eaet by the Riveraide t91) Freeway, south by Sainta 1-na Canyon Road, and weet by d aingle-family trect. To change the cuccent Hillside Low-Density Reaidenti~l designetion to Generel Commercial to develop commercial land uees. Continued from the meeting of June 1, ].983. it was noted the petitioner hae requeated a two-week continuance. ~-CTION: Commissioner Bouas offered a motion, seconded by Commiesioner King and MOTION CARRIBD, that consid~ratien of the aforementioned mattec be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of July 11, 1983, at the ~equest of the petitioner. ITEM 810. 3. BIR NO 235 (PREVIOUSLY CERTIPIED) J1ND TENT1-TIVE MAP OP TRACT NOS. 10967 THROUGH 10978 PUBLIC HBARING. OWNERS: AN~-HEIM HILLS, INC., 380 J-naheim Hilla Road, ~neheim, CA 92806. AGENT: i.iND AND HILLERUD, INC., 2065 8untington Drive, San Merino, CA 91108. Propecty deacribed e~s an ir~egularly-ehaped parcel of land conaieting of approximately 346 acrea locdted southwestecly of Nohl Ranch Road between the intersection of Nohl R~nch Road with Cenyo~ Rim Road end serrano ~,venue. 6/z~/a3 I~I~t't,jTdB. ~1NANRIM CITY pL11NNING Cq4MI88I0N„~ JIlN6 17. 1983 _ 83~-35_1 Ta r~-~at~blieh on~ open •p~cc tr~cti end 11 r~aidRntial tracta consiatinq o! 207 ~MI-2400t9C) units, 3Z7 RM-3000(8C) unila, 1S RS-HS-1Z,000(SC) unite. Continu~d from ~un~ 13, 1983. I! ws~ noted the p~tition~r had requeated a four-w~ek continuance. ACTION: Conanieolonet eoua~~ olf~red a motion, s~conded by Commiesioner King and M~OTZON CARRIEA~ that consideration of the afocementioned marter be con~inued ro the regulacly-scheduled meeting ot July 25, 1983, at th• request of the petitioner. ITEM N0. 4. EIR Cl-TBGORICI-L EXEMPTION-CLASS 5 J-ND VARIJINCL N0. 3340 PUBLIC HBl-RING. OWNERB: GBORGE JOSEPH 6 LOYIA ELIZ118BTH TOLY, 4355 Elkatone Avenu~, 1-naheim, CI- 928Q7. Property described a$ a rectangulerly-shaped parcel ol land consiatinq of approximately 7200 aquere feEt, having a Frontage of approximately 64 leet o~ tha north eide of Blketone ~-venue, having a maximum depkh of approximately 112 feet end furthec deacribed aa 4355 Elketone 1-venue. Waivec of ineximum lot covecege to conetruct e room addition. There was no one indicating their preaence in opposition to eubject requeat and elthough the ateff report aae not read~ it ie referred to end made a part of the minutea. George Toly, agent, was preeent to anawer any questions. THE PUBLIC HEl-RI:~~ W1-S CLOSEO. Responding to Commiaeioner King, Mr. Toly expleined he has a temporery office in hie home with a desk and phone and that he ia en engineer end doee a considerable nmount of traveling. Commiseioner Bouas aaked if the petitioner had discu8aed this project with his neighbors. Mr. Toly cesponded that he had diecuased it with his neighbore and received no opposition. It was noted the Planni~g Directoc or hie authorized representative has detecmined thet the pcoposed project falle within the ~efinition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the StAte Enviranmental Impact Repoct Guidelinee and is, therefore, categocieally exempt fcom the requicement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Coaanisaioner King offered Resolution No. PC83-117 end moved for its passege and adoption that the l~naheim City Planning Commiseion does hereby grant Varianee No. 3340 on the ba81e of the locetion of the atructure celetive to ~he property boundariee and denial would deprive the pcoperty of pcivileges enjoyed by othes properties in identicel zoning claasifications in the vicinity, and aubiect to Interdepertment~l Committee recommendations. 6/27/83 MINUT88. 11N H!~ g1M CITY PLANNINO COMMI88ION. JUNS 27. 1983 83-352 On roll call• th• foreqoinq r~~olution wes pasAed by Eh• Lollowing vote: 1~Y68s BOU118, BUSHORE, ERY, H6RB8T, KING, LA CLI-IRL, MC BURNEY NOd8: NONB ABSENTt NONE IT~M N0. 5. EIR B(iATIVL qBCL11R11TI0N J4N0 V1-RIANC6 N0. 3341 PUBLIC HEI-RING. OWNERS: CONR~-D J. AND J08EPNINE M. LBTTBR, 3102 Vallejo Drive, 1lnaheim, CA 92804. l1GENT: WA~TEF. K. BOWMIIN, 7936 Cerritos Avenue, Stanton, CA 90680. Property described ae an irregularly-ehaped parcel of la~nd consieting of approxima*.ely 0.17 ecre, heving e front~ge of approximately 80 feet on the aouth eide of La Palma J-venu~, having a maximum depth of sppcoximetely 280 feet and being located approximately 800 feet eaet of the centerline of East Stre t end furthec deacribed as 1260 East La Palma 1-venue. Waiveca of minimum loC a~ea per dwelling unit, minimum landacaped setback, minimum recreational-leisure aree and minimum number of parking spacea to conetruct en 8-unit aEEordeble condominium complex. There wece two peraone indicating their pceaence ln opposition to subject cequeet and although the etaff repoct was not cend. it ie ceferred to and made a pact of the minutes. Conced Letter, owner, explained this propecty wae pr~viously epproved for 6 condominium unita end thgee 2 edditional unita will be eold as affordable units. Roger Dittman, 1272 Bast La Palma, atated he lives right next door end all the windowa in the proposed proj~ect wi11 be looking into his property. Ne stdted he supports high density in appropriate areas where there ie room foc green aceas, ete. and that he also aupporte affocdable houeing. He stated the thing that distresses him ab~ut thia plan ia that they are 'ready-made' alumat that hia pcoperty ie 1-acre gross and he would like to etay in the erea and would like to see the property develop in a manner that ia en asaet to the community rather than just trying to maximize the profit. He added there may not even be a real fntent to develop this pcoperty and this is juet a mdttgc of getting it epproved for higher denaity eo the propecty will be moce valuable. He stated there fs no imagination in the architecture of thia pcoject and they do not take advantage of some paaeive ideas for solar energy and the units are all in a row. He steted he thought it would be a dieadvantage to have something like thie developed on this property and he is nok oppoaed to having the property developed, but would like to see eomething that would be an asset to the community. ~r. ~~~ stated thece waa no opposition to the set of plane for 6 units with windows on the seme aide. Richard pnacd, 726 Junipgr Place, atated he was very impreseed with the City's concern for the homeowr.era when there was a propoaal on that pcoperty two ytars ago and the developer was r~quired to meet with the property owners and they did work out a plan and tried to be fair to each other, but that no one 6/2i/83 -- -----_____»... _ ~-.-~-~ '1 MINUT68. 1-N1~HEIM C2TY PI~ANNINO C4MMI8SION. JONB 17~ 1983 93-353 heo contwcted the hom~own~rs to let then~ know what happened to that plant that the property n~xt dooc haa b~e~ vsndali~~d end ie rat-inf~~t~di that ther~ ia a awinuninq pool with a little bit of water standiny in it, ev~n though it had bean drained, which breeda moaquitoa snd th~re sr~ weeda in the fi~ld which ia a fire hazArd and clarified thet is the pcop~rty n~xt door to subject pcaperty. Ne etated his concern io that nobody came to the hnmeownera and th~y did not know whet wao going on end the vecant pcopecty ia a problem with pesta, junk and vendaliem and h• would like the developer to work with the hom~ownera to develop a ple+n thet ia good ~or both partiee. THB PUBLIC HEIIRING WAS CI.OSED. Mc. ~~et steted I~e thought Mr. F~nard was talking about the thcee propectiee to the weet of eubject property which have been ~pproved for 48 apertment units and has bee~ vacant nnd is cAUaing problema. Commieeioner Herbak asked why the denaity wea increeaed from 6 units to 8 unite eince variances ere neceesary ln ordec to have the 8 units. Mr. ~s~`ir reaponded thet the two additional unita will be affocdable units. Commiasioner Herbst steted thie project will create a parking problem and there ie nothing provided for guest patking and he thought the project has the reeemblance of e"barracke• and it doesn't have good architecture. Mr. L~ef~c reeponded to Commieeioner Herbst that the tcaeh en~losuce will be on the weet side in the front. Commisaioner Herbst suggested eliminating ane unit which would make it ea~eier to comply with the Code. He atatRd he did n~t aee the hacdatiip for thoae wnivpce. He atated he did not want aEfordable unita provided et the expenae of good living conditiona to other people. Commissionec La Claire stated moet of the pcojects have ended up with the developer having not made any extra money by adding the ~dditional unite a nd the Commiseion hao to consider the whole neighborhood and whethec or not it is really workhwhile to increase the density and she thought the pcoblem is thek La Palma ia a very busy street. She thou~~ht there could be some parking problems. She suggested the developer •ii.mt~~a~r ane of the unita with Mr. Lederer stating two would h~ve tc be Flimin+~ted in order to meet the Code. Commiasio~er Hecbet stete9 th~a length of the propeccy and the size and +ahApe could juatify some of the waf.vera, but he c~uld noc justify the setbacks, the recreetional-commercial area or the parking waivera and thought the petitiener is just proposing too much on the property. C~mmisaioner Herbst stated the people who buy condominium units ace entitled to a little more than thoae who rent and he thought these two additional u nits should be eliminatQd. Commiasioner La Claite stAted ahe would like to Bee the developer take th is plan beck and revise it, providing a little more cless with aome amenitiea such ae, not having the trash right ~ut in front. Mr. L~de~ stated the trash trucks need 80 feet to turn acound and there is not enough room in the cear. 6/27/83 MINUTaB. ANJIN6IM CITX PLIINNING COMHI88ION~ JUNE 27. 1983 83-354 Conunia~lAn~r i.~ Claire •teled ik would ba nice to ~~e th• p~op~rtie• in ~hoa~d erea assembled end d~vMloped in the pcop~r man~~c and eh• would not b• opp to a amall varienc• on thie ptopRrty b~caus~ of lta lonq and necrow ~hap~, but ~hought thi• is ~ust too much tor the pcoparty ~nd providing aEfocdable unit~ at the cost of everyone e18e ia ncti wocthwhile. Mr. ~ec etated h~ would like to have a continuence in ordtr t.o submit revieed plen~. CommiOeioner La Claire etated whether or not the Cwo unlte heve to be eliminated dependa on the design of ~he pcoject and she did not know if it could b~ do~e with this proQerty oc not, but if the Commiasion feels the proiect will be en aaeet to t he community~ eep~ciAlly on a long, nerrow lot like this, rhey probably wauld approve the pro~ect with one variance. 11CTIpN: Commisaionec Herbat offered a motion, aeconded by Commiaeioner King end MOTION C1-RRIED, th~t consideration of the aEorementioned matter be continued to the regulerly-~cheduled meeting of ,Iuly 25, 1983, at the requeat of the petitionpr. ITEM NO. 6. EIR NEGATIVE DECLIIRATION AND CONAITIONl-L USS PERMIx N0. 2456, PUBLIC HBIIRING. 4M1NER8: LE1~3E-r'~LL LJ1 PAI~1A, P.O. Box 4604, Anaheim, Cl- 92803. AGENT: THE LEl-VERTON CflMPANY, P.O. Box 4604, 1-naheim, C1- 92803. I~roperty deacribed aa an icr egularly-ehaped parcel of land conel~sting of ppprc+ximetely 5,83 acree, ha ving approximate fcontagea of 335 fe~t o~ the eaet '~ of Van Buren Street and 584 feet on the north side of La Palma Avenue end ~~g located appr~ximately 535 feet south of the centerline of Leaverton ~`~nd further deacribed as 1200 North Van euren Street, 4025, 4051, 4055, ,, :.,d 4065 East La Pelma 1-venue. 'Po permit commeccial uaea in the ML Zone. There wns no onP indicating their presence in oppoaition to subject requeat ~nd although the ataff cepo rt was not read, it ie refrrred to and made a part of the minutes. Tony Natalie, Leav@rton Company, steted baaically thie is the lamt phase of their Leese-l~ll La Palmy Project and they are askin5 for the same consideration as the last two phases. THE PUBLIC HEJIRING WAu Ct,OSBD. Jack white, Assistant City Attorney, stated subieck property is in the Canyon Tndustrial area and under t he Code, the pcoposed uaea must primaril.y serve or be compatible with induetrial customera and that should be included in the findings as listed on Pag~e 6-e of tre akaff repoct. Eie also suggeeted thet the list of proposed uees shown on Peges 6-d and e be included as a condition of apgrovt~l if the Commission deema it appc~pridte to grant this permit which would mean a modification to Condition No. 7, to include this specific list. .Tay Titua, Office Engineer. ~-~~cad thet a condition be added which was 6/ 27/83 INUT68~_ J~17-HEIM CxTY PLANNIN(i COMMI88ION. Jt1N~ 27~ 19~3 83-3SS inadv~rt~ntly omittod, cpuirinq the d~v~lop~r to pay th• eppropriat• drainage aa~e~tm~nt tees whiah would be CondiEion No. 8. Commia~ioner W Ciair• a~ked if thi• i~ in th~ area which th~ TaBk lorc~ end City Council lelt would be appropriate Eoc commercial development. Annika Sant+~lahti, 1-a~ipkent Dic~ctor tor Zoning, ceplied ahe thought the apecitic area was berwe~n Le Palme end the fceew~y ku the south of Le Pa~ma and this ie on the othec eide of the ekreet, but it ie very cloee. Commisaioner La Cleire eteted the Commisal~n eeema to be reluctant to grant this commecciel use in en induetrisl zone. Commieeioner Bushore eteted two phe~ea h~ve already bten appr.oved and he felt Commiesion is concerned about how much commercial use there is in this area. Mr. Natnlie stated if the Commiasion will take e look et what ie there now end how it hae bgen tredted, they will see the usea will not ceuse eny problema in che Acea. Commiseioner Buahore s~ggeated it might be helpful for the developec to ahow the Commieeion the uaes thrt ere n~w thece and why they need n~t be concerned. Mr. Natalie etated the only building of this phase on Le Palma where they are looking for cammercial usea is a twa-atory research a~d development type huilding and thdt it isn't deaigned for e real commercial aspect. Commiesioner La Claire referred to the list of propos~ed usea with Mr. Natalie statinq they are dealing with e multi-tenant perk and the list muat cover a veriety of usee. Commisaioner La Cleire atated the Commiesion is thinking about the list of usea which cou?: go in if this is approved and the problema that could be caused and th~ :;wveloper is looking at the marketinq aapect. She referced to the ven conver.t:lon use which was fncluded in a previous approval. Mr. Natalie stated automotive uges shauld have been excluded from this request. Commiasioner La Cla~ire agreed ahe wauld like to know what ie in the other build;ngs. Commisaioner Bushore ceaponded to Chairman Fry that his eoncecn is that this is the thlyd phase of a projeck which the Conuniesion did not like in the beginnin~~~ -. h~d gone along wfth it end now they are being asked to go along with it ~~ x~~re commercidl uses and cio not rBallY know what is there and he would like ;:~ know how the first and second phases have developed. Mr. Netal.ie stated the entire proj^"= was eubmitted origina:l;~, including all three phasea, two and a half yeat~• ayo. Commissioner LA Claire stated the phases were voted on individually with Mr. Heta~lie stating each time reference wes made to the paat and pre,sent. Commieaionec La C1diCe staLed sh~ wauld like to see the whole piature before voting. Commissioner Herbgt stated he ie always opposed to thi$ kind of development in a-n induetrial a~rea and he realizes this ia just a continua~:ion of what is there. 6/27/83 TEB. ~N~-~~Ih CITY PLANNINO COMM188ION. JIINE ~~. 19Q3~_ 83-356 !~„CTION: Cotafaia~ion~r L~ Clair• otlfred a aation, a~aond~d by Coaimia~io~~r Buihoc~ snd MOT20N CJ-RRIRD, khat con~id~cation of th• atorem~ntion~d item b• continued to th~ ta~etinq of July 11, 1983, at th• r~qu~st o~ th~ p~titioner in ord~r that he m~y aubmit s list o! t~nants i.n Phase• 1 and Z. It waa pointed out the list oi uae~ must b• submitted by thie lriday, July 1, 1983. 7 V PUBLIC HEARING. OWNLRB: CHONG 8UN P1-BK, P.O. Box 1051, Downey, C1- 90240. AGENT: DJIRYL RP.8VB8, P.O. Box 1542, Placentie, C11 92670. Propecty deaccibed ee ~ cectengulscly-shepod percel of land consieting of approximetely .6 acre, having a frontage of approximetely 116 Eest o~ the aouth side o! eall Road, having a maximum depth of epproximately 170 Eeet and being locAted 195 teet east of the centerline oE Dele J-venue and turther deaccibed ae 2780 W~et Bell Road. To permit a drive-through reataucent ~rith weiver of min: ~m lendecaped setback. Ther~ was no one indicating theic presence in opposition to aubject requeeC and although the atAff ceport was not re4d, it ie ceferred to and made a part of the minutee. Dacyl Reeves, agent, wae present to anewer any questiona. THE PUBLIC HLIIRING W1-S CLOSED. Mr. Reeves explained this will be a dcive-through reataucant selling hamburgara, etc. and this ia the initial one of d limited partnerehip. Thece was a brief diacuaeion reqarding the center drive-through an~] amall turning radius. Regarding the getbe~ck, Paul 5inger, Traftic Engineer, explained the zero setbeck was necessary to provide as much turning radiue es possible for the tcaeh trucks. 1~-nnika Santalahti, Aasiatant Director for Zoning, explained th~re is Rt4-1200 Zoning to the eest and aouth and Cade requices 10 feet of landacsped setbackt however, this structure wes developed in 1967, in conFormance with the Codes at that time end the widening of the driveway reduces the setback. .1ack white, 1-saiatant City 1-ttorney, explained tha setback is being rendered more non-cc.forming with the modificetions to the pdrking to provide the dxiveway. J-CTION: Commiseioner eushore offered a motion, aeconded by CammiselonEr Bo~.as and MOTIQN CARRZED, that the ~-naheim City Planning Commiseion has revieweci the proposal to permit n drive-through reata~urant with waiver of minimum landacaped setbeck on a rectangulerly-shaped percel of land consisting og approximately .6 acre, having ~ frontage of approximately 146 feet on the eouth side of Ball Raad and further 8eacribed as 2780 weet Ball Roadt and does 6/27/83 ~~li0T1t8. J1NAH~IM CITX PLANNINO COMM288SON. ~TUNa 27. 19~~. 83 3S7 - _._ ....~ h~r~by •pprove the N~qstfv~ D~cl+~c~tion lco~n th~ c~quir~~nt to pc~per~ an ~nvironmeneal impact report on ~h~ b~ai~ that ehec• wouid be no Aiqniticant individuAl or cumuletiv edv~ra~ environm~nt~i i~paat du~ to th~ approv~l ot thi~a NRqative D~clarstion sinc• th• ~-nsh~im c3one~~1 Plan d~algnate• the subject pcop~rty toc q~neral comm~rciel l+~nd use~ coau~~n~ucat• with th• propoaslt that no ,~~nsitiv~ envtronm~ntal impacts are involved ~n the prcpoeall tha the Initial 8tudy •uba~irted by th• p~kitioner tndicatea no aiqniFicant individusi or cumulative adv~raR environmentel impactei and that the N~qative D~claration eub~tentiating the for~yoing findinq~ i+~ on tile in the City of Jlnaheim Planning Department. Comn~iaeionet ~ushar~ oEfered ~ motion, aeconded by Commi~eioner Boua~ end MOTiON CARRIBD, that the 1-neheim City Planning Commireion does hereby yrant waiver of code requicement an the baeie ther~ are apecial circumstancea appliceble to the property's aizs, ahape, topography, location oc aur[oundinge which do not apply to other identlcel zoned prop~rties in the vicinity end etricC applicetion of the 2oning Code deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by ather properties undec identical zoning classification in the viciniky, Commiasioner euahore offered P.e+~olution No. PC83-118 and moved for ita pa~seege and adoption thak the l-naheim Ciry Planning Commission doea hereby grent CondiCional use Pecmit No. 2457 aubject to Inte~depa~rtmental Committee recommendatione. On roll ca11, the foreqoing resolution was passed by the foYlowing vote: AYBS: BOU11S, BU3HORE~ PRY, H$RBST, KING, LA CLl1IRE, MC BURNEY NQBB; NONB ABSENT: NONB i^EM N0._ 8. EIR_NEGATIVE DBCLARATION, WAIVER OP CODE RSQUIR~IENT AND CO~VDITIUNAL USE PBRMIT N0. 2458 PUBLIC HEARING. pii'N~R3: G. COMMUNITY HOSPITAL CORPORJITION, INC., P.O. BoX I438, Louiaville, 1fY 40201. AGBNT: C11LM71P.R DEVfiLOPfMSNT C4RPOR7ITION, P.O. Box 2128, San~e Monica, C~- 90406. Property desccibed as a reckangulerly-shaped parcel of land consieting of approximately 2.33 acces, having a frontage cf eppcoximately 280 feet on the e~st side of Gilbert Street, having a maximum depth of appraximately 360 fe~!t and being located epproximetely 210 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road and furthes deecribed ae 950 &outh Gilbert stceet. To petmit a 94-unit eenior citizena apartment complex fn the RM-1200 Zone with waivecs of minimum building site area~ per dwelling unit, ~oaximum structural height and minimum floor area per dwe211ng unit. TherP were eleven pereone indicatinq their preeence in opposition to sub~ect cequeat end although the staff report wes not read, it i.e refecred to and made e pacC of the minutes. Jack White, 1-saiatant Ciry ~-ttorney, stated the Code provides that senior 6/27/83 ~ F MINUTEB. ~1N11H~IM GITX PW1t~NING COMMI88ION. JUNE 27. 1983 - 83-358 :iti~en proj~cta may be built und~c a condiLione~l use p~rmiti end !h~ sit~ d~v~lopment atandarda could be set ea determined by the permlti that the ntaff caporti calls out thcte waivera thet would nocmally be requirsdr however, thiA particular epplication doee not r~quire the vaciance findinga to be mede and th~ Commiseion has Che di~cretion, since khi~ i• a•enior citixen complex, to approve devistione trom Code requirementa for e typical develoPtnent in this zone. He eteted eteff ia suggeatiny en additional condition requireing Chat the occup~ncy of tha ,.~iite b• limited to peraons not les~ than 55 yeers of age and that a covenent be recorded by the awner limiting the occupancy to ee~ior citizens for a t~cm of not leas then 30 years, which is the same As the atate requirementa for certain fundinga thet ere being made aveileble fuc thia project. Scott Howell, Calmerk Development Corpocation, agent, expl~ined this property is the old G~rden P~rk Gsnecal Hoapital eit~ and they are propoeing a 94-unit eenioc citizen project which would be one of twelve Heritage Pr+rkst that it will be e aenior citizen cental project with 72 one-bedcoom, 460-$quare foot unita and 22 two-bedroom, 677-aquare foot unite, with a cecr~ation/hobby room, laundry room and 76 coveced parking apaces in confocmance with Coder with a merket ca~te for 65 u~asaisted units of ~350 pec month for a 1-bedcoom unit and 5430 for a 2-bedcoom unit end there will be 29 aasiated units on which th~ rent could go as low as s77 per month. He explained ta qualify for the assiated unita, the occupant must be 62 yeers of age and they will be choaen fcom the priority list establish~~d by the City ~f Anaheim NeighGorhood Preser~ation and they will be people who are currently within the communfty. Mr. Howell steted he had a neighborhood meeting last week and had aent out 200 lettera and thet 19 people were present and the fedra were thet an apartment complex would bring down their property values. He stated because this is a aenior citizen project and will be very well-maint~ined, he did not think that will be th~ ease, but it will pc~obably help. He etated the neighbocs also feli this development wds too dense, but ttaat it is actually vecy lvw deneity in terma of the number of vehicless that tt~ey are providing 76 parking spaces and their ex~erience ia that only ebout 1/:! of the tenants have vehicles and in othec projecta they have only provided .6 apaces pe~ unit and will pruvide .8 spaces per unit in thfs development. He atated under existing zoning, 75 condominium unite could be achieved and at 2.5 spacee per unit, that would mean 187 vehiclea instead of 76 for this project. Re stated in terms of people on site, this will also be a very low density project because thPir experience is that there will be 1.2 people pec unit or a total of 113 persons and in typical ca~dominium projects at 2.5 people per unit there would be a totel of 169 people. Mr. Howell stated th~re will not be any chfldren in this pcoject to impact the school district and a busy street would not be a problem fot childr~n becauae th~re will not be any children. He added the tenanta in the Heritage Park are quite stable end the turn-over is very low and the occupency rate ia very high, ebout 97l, and there would be lesa psrties and l.oud music. He atated the aize of the units makes this lesa dense than a typic~l project. Concerning the numbcc of units overlooking the neighborhood, Mr. Howell explained 15 units will be able to look out on 10 r~eighborhood houses and 6/27/83 MINUTBS. ANAHBIM_CZTY _PLANNING ~MI83ION. JUNE 27, 1983 83-359 pointed out thi• will b• ~ two-story proj~ct cathe~ then thr~e-etoriee aa pcevioualy propoeed and th~ce will be no balconiee. He etated the neighbora wer• alao concerned about k~sping the lighting low and they ar~ willing to comply with thet requeat. He pointed out they will ellow pete in certain buildinga and will have a building where no pets ace ellowed es a buffer to the neighboca. Concerning the wel'l, Mr. Howell explained Code requir~a a 6-look wall ecound the pcoperty and i~ will be an their propecty. He etated social pcograma are pcovided for the tenante and there is a need in this City for th~s type of unit. He stated moet of the tenente ace between 60 and 79 years of age and 78~ of the tenant~ are aingle women and the tenante prefer the smellec unita and hel! of them come from within a five-mile cediue end would heve reletivee within a five-mile radius. He ddded he h~s no problem with signing en agreement ko provide the unite to senior citizene for 30 yeecs. Joan Gollett, 9832 Nerveat Lene, atated they are not ageinst epartmenta, but do not underetend the high de~aity of thie pcoject. She atated she knew of seven Calmerk Developments ( He~itage Packe) and none ere built in aingle-etory reeidential areas. She presented photogrephe of the backyarde and painted out it ie 35 feet from the back of the house to the fence. She pointed out the alley which is one way with houaes on the aide which backa up to the fences and noted the one way portion is about 115 feet long. She also presented photographs showing the alley where it ia one-way and pointed out that the aide entrance to the Garden Park Medical Center opens anto the alley and that ie the entrance used moat frequently becauee of ita cloaenese to the post office, market, etc. She stated she did not think parking Would be adequete and was concerned there was no guest parking proposed and also felt the cerporta create a problem and an eyeaore. She pointed out there are a lot of children who uae the alley going to achool and thought open cerporta would be a problem. She etated they ace nice looking units, but denaity is the pcoblem with this project. she etated she did not think 4 washers and 4 dryece would be adeyuate Eor 94 units. She stated she thought thia is the wcong place to build ~ two-atory complex and thet the developer is trying to make a profit at the expense of the nAighbors and ahe felt it sh~uld be kept to one-etory with plenty of parking provided. Katherine Smith, 9581 Ball Road, stated shp fa on~ of the ownere of the Garden Park Medical Center at Ball and Gilbert and ahe also owna a home across the atceet which ahe rents and that ahe has problems renting to ~amilies with children because of traffic that ia rxisting now; that there are between 100 and 200 cars a day at the clinic and they do use the alley for eccessJ that the corner property ia vacant and they have planted grasa there, but she felt the overflow parking would uae that vacant lot and that the neighbors now use it to work on their cara and have garage sales, etc. She stated she felt there could be a better use on aubject property. She atated ahe thought this was a good plan, but it would be better at another location. She at~ted the Commission would need to drive down the alley in order to Aee how natrow it ie and it is juat impoasible for two cars to get through. Mre. Clement 2aker, 9921 Harvest Lane, stated ahe lives close to Baill Road and to Gilbect and there i$ a lot of traffic dnd car fumee all day long. She stated this project has the vehicles parked against the block wall whtch is 4' 7' high and she thought the fumes would be juet too much. She etsted she 6/27/83 ~ r , MINUT88. 11N1-HEIM CxTY PLIINNIN(i COMMI88ION. JUNE 27~ 1983 ,.,,,_ 83'. 60 w~nt to e~~ ~h• Heritaq• Park projRCta in the City o! Comm~cce and in Btea ~nd that the u~ite are vMry smdll which i• probably fine !or one p~caon, but thec~ sre no windowa in th• kirchen and be0coom. She ateted eh~ wae concerned about the block wall which ie pcoposed end felt it should be reintorc~d eo people couid not drive Chrouqh it so easily. Sh• ~tated h~r biqqeat concerns sre the caro, Lumee and emoq end alao Gilbert and eeil is a bad cornec. June J~taon ~teted she did not think this would be the sort of unit the aenior citizena would be proud to live in because they are tc-o small end they a~re arowding too many people into one ecea. She atated ahe wocka at the TLC centac foc hec church and prACticaily all of their eenior citizens drive their own vehicles and ahe did not think pecking foc thia project would be adequete. 8he ateted the seniora all have grendchildren who visit end etated thie lot is a meas right now, but did not think thia is the anew~r Co the problem. Hecb Lggerti, 904 S. eruce 3tce~t, Anaheim, stat~d hia property ia about two blocke away from eub~ect property end he has been en advocate of the ae~ior citizens and has been for many yeara. He gtated this has been a big ugly lot which ie now fenced in and the awnere will want to develop it sooner oc later and the decision muat be made on what is wanted there because whatever ie developed will have an adverae impact on the nrea. He etated he goea through that intersection a lot and did not thl~k it is any different than any other interaection in Maheim. Mr. Eggera stated there was a lot more oppoaition to the pcoject propoaed one month a~o. He stated he apeake in favor of this because there is a dire need for senior citizen houaing end obvioualy thoae wil~ not be 100i favoreble, but elderly people are quiet and do not have motorcyclea or doga oc cata and theY ~-ould not be adcling a lot of traffic to that interaection. He stated all the projects he haa aeen and heacd of through the yeara have had their problema and this will probably have itg own problems, but this senior citizen project is badJy needed. Irving Willing, 807 S. Gilbert, 1-naheim, atated he is a member of the l-naheim Senioc Citizen Commission end is an advocate of aeniore and their problema and wante to do everything gosaible concerning their welfare. He stated he ia very much concerned about the traffic on Gflbect Stceet because it is extremely hazardoue and aeked if a aucvey could be made of the tcaffic condikiona and what this proposed building will do to the area. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, atated Condition No. 9 of the interdepartmental Committee recommendatlona requires that the owner ~eatrip~-Gilbert Street to the interaection of Ball Road, providing a southbound lePt-turn accesa lane ar.d to modify parking restcictione on Gilbect Street. He sta~ted this will provide safety and add capacity to thAt intera~action. John Shanahan stated he is a member of the Senior Citizens Commiseion and he has had many seniors a~ek why there isn't adequate senior housing in Anaheim and tha~t there is no answec. He stated he thought 1-naheim shoulr] be ashamed of the aenior citizen housing provLsion when a smaller city like Coata Mesa has provided more units. He atated Anaheim is suppoaed to be a more progreseive City and he would like to have answeca fot seniore and would like to have housing for seniora. 6/27/83 'D t ~ A MINU'~EB. 11NJ-HBIM CITY PLANNIN(3 COMMI8810N. JUhB Z7. 1983 8~'~ Mr. Howell eteted sll of th~ H~ritage Perki ar• in c~.idential ~c~aa, but mayb~ not in en ecea e~ impected ae thi• one. H~ s~eted s lot haa be~n seid about tihe tirettic conqesCion in th• elley and on (311bert and at the intersection and h• thoughti this pro~ect on this praparty wauld cr~at• n lot l~s• impect thsn most any oth~r praject thati could b~ dovelop~d. H• etared in th~ir expetience, the parking provided ie adequate and ~1RO it doea meek Code end it ia also adequat• for re~identa and any vieitors or ~ecvice~. He etat~d khe only parking spacee to be eaeigned ere the handicepped epecea. Concerning the fact tht~t the aa[porte can be viewed due to the vecant lot, he etated he thought that property will be developed in the fukure and thet it ie normAl for cecpocts to be an alleys. Mr. Howell ateted he wae surpciaed with the comments ragacding the laundcy room because he had diecuesed the leundry fecilitiee at their Commecce facility whioh are identical and there wece no compleinta a~d pointed out thece will be lese people in e aenior citizen complex and also khet they probebly have lesa leundry. Regetding the number of vehiclea and f~ea~ he pointed out he thought this praject Would creete less traffic and fumes than any other project. He steted again they would be happy to csiae the height of khe wall to 6 feet or whatever ia cequired. F1e etated he had diacuased the utility bills with the tenents in a similar project end their monthly billa were about $19 end pointed out these unite will heve aolar aesiated water heatece. He atated thia ia a spinal deeign And the unite are otacked with no windows on three stdea and that ia a legitimate concernt however, these projects have been well received end he thought the people they are designed for should decide whether oc not they like them. THE PUBLIC HE~-RING W1-S CLOSEO. Commiasioner Hecbet euggested re!versing the driveway to pcovfde more apaea between the units and the homee and $uggeated that the carports on the alley be cunverted to gareges with garage door opener.s to limit vandaliem. He atated he thought thia is e very good pcoject and thet he haa been to aevecal of these aenior citizen complexes and talked to the tenants and they do like the aize. He stated there is a resolukion of intent an this property to commercial office and in hie opinion, this ia probably the lightest uee thet eould go on thie property fc.c traffic and denaity and that the tenants are happy there and do not have as many automobiles. He stated ten of theee perking ~pecea could be deeignated for guesta end there would still be adequate pnrking. He stnt~d the need is here for this type houeing and since the developer has agreed to provide a 6-foot wall measured from the hig~est grade, he could support this project. Commisaioner Bushoce stated 22 two-bedroom units are propoaed and asked it that is a good mix. Mc. Howel]. stated they have found people pcefer the 1-bedroom unite and pointed out there are stairs to the second atory and they ere easy atsira with a landing half way up. Jay T1tus, Office Engineer, reaponded to Commiaeioner Bushore thet our maps indicete a 20-foot wide public nlley dedicated between Gilbert and Bdrvest [.ane which would provide for two-way trevel and through the fcontage of thie property, the alley ie actuall.y conatructed with curb and gutter nnd ie 40 feet wide, curb-to-cucb, and that eome of that muat be on private property and 6/27/83 MINOTQ$. ANIIEIBIM CITY PLANNINQ COMMI88ION, JUNB 27, ~983__ __ __ 83-36Z it app~sra ~com th~ plen, th~y must be planninq to conv~rt ~om~ of that to theit Qarking are~, but there ehould be A 20-foot ~lley which is nocmelly a two-way ell~y. Re~ponding to Commiesioner Buehore~ DQan 8herer, 1-ASOCiate Plenner, explsineC h~ thouyht there wao fer lesa p~rking requirad for the eenior citiaen complex acroes the atreet from the Civic Cent~r than there would be for this project. Liee Stipkovich, Housing Menager, expleined the perking was 1/3 apace pet un:t for thet aenioc citizen complex And they have perking problema and pointed out ik was approved in 1477. Me. stipkovich ateted the,~~'6ge ~imit on the complex acroe~ the etceet Etom the Civic Center is 6Z yeecs oE age. Conpnissionec La Claice agreed that thie would be a good project and that the impdct to the neighborhood would be leae then any other project, eapecially apa~rtmente, aince this propecty ia zoned for RM-1200. She etated ahe thouqht thie would meintain the pcoperty values and ceuse lesa noise a~d traffic and thak mAny people would rniher hAVe thie pro~ect next door to them than what they got. She eteted ehe would agree that an agreement would be requited guaranteei.ng that the units will be pravided for 30 years nt effordable pricea and thaC the units will be developed in eccacdance with theae plana with handicapped units to be provided on the ground level, etc. Jack White atated hia comment wae thet the covenant would requice that the occupante would be not leas than 55 yeare of ac~e if there are cectain atate or federal moniee available and that the amount would be controlled through tihe funding and that thie covenant wnuld merely relate to the age limi.t. Commissioner Buahore stated he would prefer thet the age limit be 62 and Commieaioner Le Claire stated she thauqht it ehould be left at 55. Lisa Stipkovich ateted she had suggeeted the age of 55 because of the atairs to the upeteirs unita and that the City or state-aeaieted unita will be limited to persons 62 yeara of age or older. Commissionec Bushor~ stated at the age 55 abou*_ 70i of the people are still both working and that would meAn two cara and he felt Che age limit should be kept at 62. Mr. eowell atated they would like to have the ~5 age limit because already 30 to 40$ of the unita v-ould be limited to persons of age 62. Commiesioner Bouas st~ted she felt 55 was too low beca~uae of packing limitdtions. Conuniasioner La Cla~ice esked if the age restriction would mean that a younger wife couid not move in with her hueband if he is ovec 62. Lisa Stipkovich replied curtently in all City programa the head of h~usehold muat be 62 years of age, eo the other person could be younger. Mr. Howell stated their management people try to keep people of ihe same age group togethet ~nd since the project is geared toward this age group, they can refuse to allow younger geople end would not allow a person 20 yes~rs younger to live there. Commissioner Herbst asked if the developer would have any problems with the age limit of 60 yesrs with Mr. Howell replying that ie e good compromise. 6/27/83 MIN~TSS._/-N~H6IM CITY PLANNINa COMNI8820N. J~NB 27, 1983 63-363 ACTIONs Commis~lon~r H~rbat o!l~ced a motion, a~aonded by Conoaia~iontr Kinq en OTION C1~RIt1BD, that Ehe Ansheim City Planning Commission has revi~wed the propo~al to pecmit e 94-unit, seniot citiaena apactment complex in th~ RM-1200 fReeidentiel, Muitipl~-Pemily) Zone with waiver of minimum building aite are~ per dwailing unit, maximum structurel height and minimum llooc eres pac dwelling unit on a rectangulecly-ahaped percel ot land conAi~ting of approximately 2.33 ecces, having A~tontage ot epproximately 280 feet on th• eaat aide of Gilbect Street end further deecribed a8 950 South Gilbect Stceeti end do~s hereby Approve the N~gative Declera~ion from the requirement to prepere an environmental impect report on the baeie that there would b~ no eigniffcant individuel nr cumuletive advecse environmentsl impect due to the ~ppcoval of this Negative Declaration aince the l~neheirn General Plen deaignatea the aubject property foc low medium density l~nd uaes commeneurate with the propoae~s thak no aenaitive environmental impacte ace involved in the proposalr thet the initiel Study eubmitted by the petitioner indicatee no aigniEicant individual or cumula~tive edverse e~vironment~l impactst end th~+k the Negative Declacation aubetantiating the fo~egoing findinga ie on file in the City of Ana.heim Planning Department. it was noted findings would not be required for granting the waivera. Commissioner Herbat offered Reaolution No. PC83-119 and moved for ite paosAge anc~ adoption that the 1-naheim City Planning Commi~sion doea hereby grant Conditional Use Permit No. 2~58 subject to the petitioner's stipulation that the proposed carports along the a~ley ahell be converted to enclosed garages with automatic garege dooc opene[s and thet the b-foot high masonry block wall shall be meASUred from the highest grade and that a covenant ahall be recocded that the occupancy of the unite ahall be limited to at laast oi~e pereon^~S~""'` less than 60 yeacs of age and that the complex shall be retainrd as e senior citizen complex for a minimum of 30 yedrs and subject to Intecdepartmentel Committee reconpnendatione. Paul Singer asked that a~entence be added to Condition No. 9 stating that •subject to the passage of a parking ocdinance reatricting packing alang Gilbect Street•. He explained this will gfve th~ resident~ the ~~portunity to oppose this restriction at a public heacing. He replied tQ Commiasioner Bouas that he did not know how many housea would be affected. Mr. Howell asked that the parking reatriction on Gilbert not extend north of subject property because of the difficulty of people visiting the residents. Commieaioner Herbat auggeated that at least 10 or 15 of the parking opaces be designated for guest parking. On roll call, ~he foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: J~XES: BOUAS, SU3HORS, FRY, HERB3T, KING, W~- CLl-IRE~ MC BURNEY NOES: NONE 1-BSENT : NONE Jack White, 1-ssietant City Attarney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Conunission's deciaion within 22 days to the Cfty Council. 6/2?/83 l~IN~TE_~1~AlHeI,_M CITY PW~NNINQ C MI~$IQ1~. JtJNE ~7. 1983 _,,, 83-364 R6CE88t 3t25 p.m. RBCONVBNE: 3:35 p.m. Cummi~si.oner Mceurney lett the m~~tt~q and diQ not r~turn. PUBLIC HEAR2Nl3. OWNER3: RAISER ROUNDATION HOSPiT11L8, 333 Bouth aca~d ~-venue, 13400, Loa J-ngeles, C1- 90071. Property deacribed da an irr~gularly-ahaped parcel of. lend conaieting of eppraximetely A.6 acr~s located dk the northwest corner ~! Riverdalc AvRnue end Lekeview Avenue, having a frontege ot approximetely 628 feet on the north eide ~f Riverdale 1-venu• ~nd a lrontage of epproximetely 670 Eeet on rhe west eide oE Lakoview l~venue and further described ae 4`1 North Lakevlew Avenue (Kaiser Poundation Hoepitall. To expand en exieting hoepitel facility with waivec of minimum number oE pdsking apac.ea. it waa noted the petitioner ha~l requeeted a continuance in order ko eubmit a parking demend etudy. ACTION: Commissioner Bouea offered A motion, eeconded by Commieaionec King and :40TION C1-RRIBD, that conaideration of the aEorementioned matter be continued to tl~e regulerly-echeduled meeting of July 25, 1983, at the requeat of the petitionec eo that a parking demand study cen be prepated. ITEM NO. 10. LIR NEGIITIV6 DECLAWATION, WAIVBR OF CODE RBOUIRBMBNT AND CONDITIONJ-L USS PERMIT N0. 2463 PUBLIC HEARTNG. OWNERS: LEDERBR-1-N11HEIM, LTD., 1888 Century Park East, Suite 1605, Century City, Loa J-ngelea, C/- 90067. AGBNT: MICHAEL FR1-ZiER 6 11SSOCIATES, 3160 East La Palma, Suite D, 1lnaheim, C11 93806. Prope[ty described as an ircegulerly-Bheped parcel of lend conei$ting of approximately 12 ac e, located north and east of the northeest co~ner of Cercitos Avenue and, naheim Boulevacd, having a frontage of approximate2y 725 feet on the orth side of Cerrftoa l~venue and n frontaqe of 500 f~et on tl~e east eide of ~~naheim Boulevacd and further described as 333 Best Cecritos 1-venue. To pecmit a church in the ML 2one with wdiver of minimuc~ number of parking spdces. There were two persona indicating their pceaence in opposition *o aubiect request and although the ataif report was not re+~d, ft is referred to and made a part of the minutee. Micheel Prazier, agent, stated they plan to occupy one-half of the facillty located at 1440 J~-naheim Boulevnrdt thet pcesently thfa church qroup ie occupying the qymnesium et Cenyon High 8chool on a lease basis and they have been occupying vaci~aus achool gYmnasiume over the lASt 6 yeera and plan to continue to lease for economic pucpases. He atat~d thia facility haa been reconditioned and remodeled and some offices provided and the parking lot waa 6/27/83 MINUTRB. 1-NAH6xM CI7'Y PLANNING COMMI88ION. JUNE ~7. ~,983,~! 83-365 r~-don~, lend~cap~a And liqht~ed end th~y would util is ~ porriona o! th• ~ntire ait~ lor. parkin9. He ~xplain~d th~y h~v~ diacu~s~d the perkinq Witih the Tr+~!!ic En91n~~c and ~[• conlid~nt it will work. H~ ste~ted ther• i~ a l~aae with Pacific Steceo on the fcont pockion o! the lacility end At such timR tihat th~y would no long~c b~ thec• and th~c~ wa~ a n~w l~ase~, th~y would have t~ r~-neqotia~e the pACkinq. Ne stated they intend to do buildi~q modilications, meinly sp~nding their monRy on cle~asrooms end otlice lacilities thst house the childrtn, administcstion and couneelora. He atated the eanctuery will be in 27,000 aquare feei of the exiatinq werehous• with ve ry minoc modificationo to mnet euilding Code ~equiremente. Ne oteted the houra oi operation ~re as outlined in the ataf! repoct. H~ stated they plen t o epend over ~300,000 to improv~ the lc.cility and hope theic occupancy will u pqrede and make it a better lacility. Ne etated b~cause oE the hours oE aperetion, they will not ceuee any hardehip on the surcounding communityr and tihat ell their prime tratEic will be Sundeys with very light traf~ic du~ing the week. Mc. PrAZiec referred to Conditions 1, ? end 5 requir ing ftea and atated they would lik~ conaideretion in having those feea defer r ed for a longer period of time then normal beceuee they are not a commercial opereti~n. Deen Sherer, 1-eaociete Planner, atet~d Condition No s. 1 and 2 require fees Por atceet ligh:s end etreet treea and ace tied into th is pecm3.t being eomplsted prior to commencement of act~vitiee or final building and zoning inspections. He steted the Commissi~n could probably Amend thoee conditiona requiring they be paid wi,:hin a certain period of time. Jack White, 1-eaiatant City Attorney, expleined the pe~yment of certain feea are cequired by ordinance and the Commisaion would have no contcol over that mettec and he would check the Codea end report back to the CommiBaion before the action ia taken on thie makter. Mr. Frazier referced to Condition N~. 3 requiring t he installetion of aidewalks on Aneheim Bouleverd and etated they do not feel the sidewelks would be beneficial to theic on-site uses and would like to heve that Condition waived or deferred to a later dete. Jay Titus, Office ~ngineec, explained the petition er could cequeat a temporary sidewalk waiver from the City '~gineer which he cou ld grent if he finda there is no .'~mmediate need foc them at thia time. Mlr. Frazier referced to Condition No. 6 regerding f encing on the pcuperty and explefined the cur.rent occupant (Pacific Stereo) has the need foc some of the fencing because of a loadinq zone where trucks unl oad and load merchandise and truck~s are left on the lot and would be expoeed to theft ~nd that also some of the f~ences are neceeeary for eafety because of the utilization of the lot as a cut-off to avoid the aigna~l at Cerritos and Maheim 8oulevard. He atated he under~tooc] from the Fire Macehall tha~t the requicement is for aceese for fire truck~ and suggeated that gates could be installed to pcovi~e for access through those aceas to satisfy the Fire Merahall and this condition. Dean Sherer explained thie fesue was diacuesed and both the Fire and Sanitetion Division representativea were concerned and felt if they are to adequat~aly service the property, they would have to be able to crosa the 6/27/83 ' l l ` MINI1TB81_ 11Nl1HBIM CITY PLIINNING COMMI88ION. JUNS 27. 1983 83-366 parking loti and riqhti now th~r• ar• a~v~ral lenc~a on th~ propecty which would r~6trict access lrom one p~rking ac~a ro anoth~r and the perking w~iver wes calculeted predicdt~d on th~ notion that all thos~~ opaces wil] b• available snG i! th~re ere gsti~a end E~~cea blocking ecce~e, Che waiv~r could be fer hiqh~r. pe ~tetad the condition ia included to mek~ ~ure thak not only the treeh end emeryency vehicle4 would hav• accea~, but th~t tfie psople attending the church esrvice aou.ld be able to g~t to the parking apacea an a aomtnop baaie. Mr. Ptazier stated the calculation of the parkinq apeces wae basad on the tota] oitr end wee d~rrivecl through a formule reistive to the emount of epece available in ~he floor plan which indicat~d 16,000 squere feet of apace used !or childhood education and painted out, in thet inatance, only teechera would require perking spaces ber,auoe the parenta of the children would be in the aenctuary at the seme timR. He eteted they feel Che erea aa marked out for theis parking and in egreement with the owner, by lease agreement, will be adRquete to aatiafy the needa of the adults coming to the eesrvice. Tony La Piccolo, 1459 S. 1-naheim Bo+ilevard, stated he owns a~ liquor businesa end ia concetned ebout hia bueinesaj that he has been there Eor 9 yeera and the buciness has been there for 40 yeaco, but thet chuceh groupa ace always biased against thie typer of buainess. Concecning parking, he st~+ted when Pacific Stereo has e apeciel eve~t, the overflow parking comes acroas to his parking lot and conaequently, hie cuetomers ere deprived of parking apacea and added they ha~ve hrd that problem over and over agein. Fay Bannister, 700 G~~++~~j~.iew, Fullerton, stated she owns ehe property ecross the street and pert of it is vacent and shP wae concecned ebout parking aince it ie easy for people to came across the etreet beceuee there ia a aignal. She atated they alrrady have e prablem, even though the property is posted for no parking and that it is private p[operty. Mr. Prazier stated they were certainly aware there was a llquoc stoce and an establishment that aerv~s alcoholic bevecages for consunption ecrosa the atreet dnd they have no conflict with that and he did not know if eny uf his parishionecs would frequent that establishment, but that would be up to the individual's awn judgment and thece would be no attempt to conflict with him whatsoever and they are not taking a atand agains~ alcoholic beverages. Concecning the parking eituation, Mr. Prazier stated they would have a little more control over the users of the parking spaces• beceuee they da have a xelationship with all the people who Come into khe building end can certainly administer the waya the care Are perked and plan to have ushera at the perimeiec of the pa~rking areas to c~{rect people into the proper spaces. He atated they have the same concerna and would not want to negatively impect the neighborhood and would do everything poesible tio keep people from pnrking in unauthorized spaceg aince tney do have an agreemeni w±~t ':he owner to stay out of the areas designated for the othec uaer. Commiesioner icing steted he is not concerned about the p~rking because of the parking study aubmitted by the petitionec. 6/27/83 ~ ~ , 1983 83-367 INUTR$~ AN1-H6IM CITY PLIWNINO COMMISSION. JUNB ~7. - Commi~eionot Bu~hor• r~tecc~d to a group known as tht Eagl.es N~et in sa~tia l~ne, noting the Commioaior-'• concetn is !or church~~ b~inq op~r~ti~d in the induetrial aceast howev~c, h• thought this was proba b ly one oi th~ f~w Helec~a in the City which would have edequat~ apecea to a~~vi ce their neede. stetod he w~e concecned howev~c, about th• l~ncea on the ptoperty and about tih~ fact the church will not be entitl~d to uae all t he 1300 apacee and a~ked how many apecea the chucch can leyally uae under the kerm~ of their aqreem~nt with the p~opecty owner. Mr. Frazier reeponded they have 900 epaces without ueing the tota.l number ellowed !or compect vehicles. Commieeioner Herbe~: atated he felt there could be A contlict with Pacific eteceo when they hold one of their aaloe on 3unday. Mr. Freziec explai~ed Pacific 8teceo houra on Sunday are from 12 noon until 5:00 p.m. and thoso are non-opecating houra for the chucch so he clid not aee any conflict. He reaponded to Commisaioner euahore that they have a S yeer-lease with an option of additionel 5 yedra. Commiesioner Bushore asked if they aould ob~ec.t to having thei.r permit for a periodeLfthryCommission decide~aZbut economicallyeitwwouldbhaveltonbetli;nitedt whatev to the primary term of the leas~. Comm~esioner Buehoce ateted the City c,ets a lot of reQueats for churches in the industrial areas ~nd have only ellowed two that he ie eware of and that he ia aleo aware of at least two leasea that are not g oing to be renewed by the landlord becauee of p4rking problemei however, he f elt thia i~ pcobably one of the better locationa in 1-naheim, if the fencea ace removedt that he knows people will park on the street rdthec than go a~oun d the fence and thati could be dangerous; and that the idea of parking attendan La ie a good nne becauae of the larqe influx of tcaffic et one time. He atated he Choughtbecauselhebfelt handled properly and wanted to make eure it is don e properly, the City would be deluged with similac cequests bec ause church groups, for economic reasons, want to locc-te in industrial area s aince rents are cheapec. etc. 04 090 .1ack White explained Anaheim Municipal Code Sectione 18.61.100 and 18. . require that the street lighk and tree planting fees be paid not later than the final zoning insp~ctiona or commencement of occupancy of the use and Section 14.58.030 provides that the [mi~g;°$oithe, timingeofnthesesconditions prior to the issuence of building pe ia mandated by the ordinancea and aould not be mod ified. Co-Pastoc Sem Thomp~aon, 2117 S. cella Lane, 1-naheim, ytated the church aize at thie time is dpproximately 1800 pereons attending on a Sunday morning t~t two eervices and approximaEely the same numbec on Sunday evenings including children. He stated they have no plans to use thi e site to develop any type of pre-school or elementary school program and they would plan to lease or purchase additional fassibility ofedevelopingaavschool onhthis aite~ight now they do not aee any po Coaunissioner La Cl+~ire stated they have 900 pecsona attending each aervice cight now and there are 13Q0 spacas aveilable. Pastor Thompson stated the 6/27/83 rr i~ ~ INtJTB&. _ANIIHQI~M _ CITX BWINNING COMMI88ION. UNQ Z7. 1983 83-36 aanctuecy only a~et~ 2700 people and the avereqe ~qe a! membeca ia betw~en Z8 end 34 and if the congrtgetion gels that lACge, they~ would dev~lop two a~rvic~a and theti would aut in h~l! the number oi p~ople u~ing the tac111tiee. He sta~ted they ace not inclined to increeee the eiz• of the service end c:AUa~ a bottlaneck with perking because the paople would not retucn. Gommieaioner Buehore stated h~ hee no problem with the fence on the nocthern part of the property, but the fence betw~en Lota 1- and B ahould be removed and elso the one ahown closeet to Lote C and D beceuae it would not make aenae any other way. Mr. Fr~zier el•ated they would propose to provide a gate au people could walk th~ough And fire emergency vehicles could eleo heve accees. Commiasioner Bushoce ateted the coet of a creah gate, etc. would defeat what they Are trying to accompliah, which ia to eeve money. Mr. ~razier ateted it would be ha~rd to re-negotiate the parking with the cur r ent occup~nts. Pau 1 5inger, Traffic Engineer, gtsted he did diacuss the fences thia marning with thc property owner and w~nted to be aure he underatond that the fence aco und the security aree could remain, but the other fences would have to be removed in order to pr~vide circulation on the site. Mr. Frazier ~xplei~ed Lot D wikh 364 spacea belonga to Pacific Steceo and church membere would heve to u ae Loxs A, B and C which surraund the facility. Pa u 1 Singec explained up until this morning the ataff had gone under the ass ~mption thet the entire parking lot could be used for reciprocal parking, wit h no restrictiona, and if there ie a restriction of parking, it would inv alidate the parking study aubmitted and a new study would have to be pcovided. Mr. Frazier st~ted it is their contention that the total parking requirement is moce than they will be using because the children will occupy alrrost 1700 aq uare feet which requices 300+ parking spaces Rnd they feel 90~ spaces can function for what they need. Commiasioner eushore stated people will aot want to park on Lot D and will par k on Cerritoa and other streeta in tt~e area which will create a adfety pr oblem and the Commissfon and petitioner need to be concerned. He stated he cou ld also aee a real problem trying to get people to park in certain areas and that ateff and the Commisaion know~r it ~ill not work because of their ex perience at the Stadium and Convention Center. Mr. Prezier stated those are uncontrolled aituations, even though they have et t endants trying tio force peaple into certain ereas, but in ~his case, they wou ld have more control over }he way people p~rk and they are in a confined facility where they could get to them if n~eded. 6/27/b~ MIN~T63, ~N~HBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JUNd 27. 1983 83-369 Commi.aionex Buahors ateted they may be d~l~ating their own purpoae ~nd reterced to whet i• happening et the A~aheim H111e Community Church end the Eaglea N~st wherR they are loceted in an ~rea without edequete perking apecea end that it hes areated probleme with the landlord, etc. Commiesioner Bushore eteted he realizea this property has been a problem end he underetenda why the owner would want ~o lease it to thie church. He ateted he knowa what he is taiking ebout beceuae he cucrently cepreeenta aeveral majoc denominetiona on e full-time basis and aeverel othets on an as-needed basia and aeerchea for end buyCand aells eitea for church~e. He etated he is concerned now with his responsibility as e Plenning Commiesioner end the two ide~s conflict cight now because of his experience in bokh aituetions, but he did not think the parking aituetion r.en work. ChairmAn Fry felt the control will be with the 5-year time limit, if Approved, for thls conditional use permit. Jack White stated it appears the Commisaion is uncovecing a problem and that the Traffic Engir~eec has i~dicated that up~n the dptermination thet the church is only legblly entitled to uae 900 packing epaceA, he did not review the submitted perking skudy in that light, and feels the parking etudy ia invalidated and that Section 18.06.080 of the Code requires thAt in order for the Commiseion to approve the parking waiver, a parking demand etudy has to be approved by the City Tra£fic Engineer for submissian to the Planning Commisaion. He stated the Commisaion ehould decide whethec or not to aek for a modificetion to the parking atudy or grant a continuance until the modification has been submitted and approved to the sdtisfaction of the Ttaffic Engineer. Dean Sherer explained Planning staff did thetr ceport on the assumption that all the epaces would be available and had no way af knowing that a private aqreement had been made between the petitioner and property owner wh~ch would restrict a portion o£ those spaces and since only 900 spaces would remain available, the parking waivec would dramatically increase, and the Conuniss~on should require the petitioner to amend the st~dy or the agceement with the property owner so that 1167 spaces required f~r the church would be provided. Les Lederer, partner of the Limited Pactnership which owns the property, stated there are no fences an Lots C and er thac the aite does have the perking r~presented and in theit agreement, the church has agreed not to use more than 900 apaces and that they do have enough spaces to meet the zoning requirements on thi8 site and he ie satigfied that with similar sized facilities and congregation, 750 parking apaces would be adequate. He stated he asked how they intend to meet their growth needs, pointing out they do have an option to take the othec h~lf of this building, if it becomes avai].able, and they had indicated they would hold multiple services to keep the meeting small in size, eo even with 900 parking $paces, it would be ~dequate. Commissioner Bushore ekated would not even be germitted are fortu.n~te that churahea is willing to work it out. events. Mr. Ledecer replied in ovec half the c~ties in Orange County, they to request this use in an industrial zone and they are permitted in any zone in Anaheim and this City He asked how often Pacific Steceo has major sales this is not a retail store, but is their 6/27/83 INOTBB. l1N11H~I_M CITY 8L11NNING COMMI88ION. JUNB 27.~983,~_ ,~ 83-37~ werehouee end he hmo an acterial photoqraph which showa 60 vehiclea on thtir site during one of their large ealee 1n e lot which cen perk 1300 vehiclea end thet ovectlow perkinq hae never occurred. He ateted they normally have thase lerge sales twice a yeer. Commi~aionec Le Cleire eteted there will be 2700 fixed eeate in th~ aenctuary and seked the catio ot p~rking spacea baeed on the fixed number of eeata not including the claesroom dreas. Deen sherec eteted .3 epaces ar~ required Lor eech fixed seat in the ma~in eanctuery and 15 spaces per 1000 squdre feet for areas devoted to inetruction for main asaembly whece thece are no fixed seets ~ total of 810 apaces are requiced for the fixed seate. It wea clarified theC 40 apacea would be requiced far the instructors of the cleseroome uaed by the children for a total oF 850 specea. Commieaioner La Claire eta~ted if the church will stipula~te that the cle~sscooms are being used far childcen only, that wou].d lenve only the problem of the fence. The fence was pointed out on the plot plan end Mr. E'razier (x~inted out the other fencing around the loading zone. It waa noted people Erom Lota D and C would hdve to walk around end Mr. Frazier replYed thece was an agreement to provide e sidewalk to get the people fcom Lota D and C into Lot A and the front of the sanctuacy. Mr. Fr~zier pointed out Pacific Stereo's parking lot included a 100-foot strip all the way into their building and another 50-£oat wide area designated as Lot D. Paul Singer stated he was left under the impresaion that the fencea adjacent to Cerritos were going to be removed, but there seems to be quite a diffetent input at this time and one ia the invalidated packing atudy and the other ia accesa in the parking lot which elmoet encourages on-atreet parking, filling up both sides of Anaheim Boulevard, which creates some pedestrian problems, so he does have a problem with the ciccul.ation. Mr. Frazier stated the propecty ownec has just ci~riciea that the existing fencing will be elimineted and gates pcovided between khe two occuPanciea so that the parking lots will be aveilable and pedestrian traffic flow will comply with the City requirements. Commissioner Herbst c~uggested the petitioner requpst a two-week continuance in order to resolve this isaue, pointing out thece is enough packing on the lot in order to meet all the requirementa and he thought restriping of the lot ia ell that is required. Mr. Fraziec requested g two-week continuance. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Corrtmissioner King and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent), that consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the cegularly-acheduled meeting of July 11, 1983, at the requeat of the petitioner. Dean Sherer stated it ia very important for the Commisaion to know tP~at when waivera are requested, very aften the ataff does not know the owner has entered into a ptivnte lease agreement which divides the parking ao that the spacea are not available as ahown on the pl~ne which staff had assumed were available, He added staff will be more cereful in the future and try to find 6/27/83 IN TBBr„ AN~HBIM CITY PLIINNINO COM~MIB_SION._ J~N~ Z7. 1983 83-37 out about privat~ l~aa~ eqr~tment~ end th• Commiaalon ahould try to ~ind out aa much es th~y can et the hearing lrom the applicent b~~auat i! the varianc~ had baen epproved today, a• r~quested, th~re i,e no question they would not hsv~ hed the 1300 epacea eveilable aa indiceted, but only 900 apeces, end thet the pedeatrian accesa would have been restricted. ITBM N0. 11. EIR N~GI~TIVL QBCLI-RI-TION (PR____ EVIOU9LY APPROVEA) 11ND TENTl1TIVB M1-P OF TRACT N0. 1199~ PUBLIC HEJ~RING. OWNERS: RANDY J. MORRIB AND LIDO L1-NE PROPERTIBS, 4404 East Pecific Coaet Hiqhwey, Long Besch, CA 90804. AGENT: GILBERT ENGINEERING, 4552 Lincoln Avenue, Cypcess. CA 9Q630. PKOperty described ae a reatengularly-shaped parcel of lend coneieting of epproximetely 0.75 e~cre, having e fco~tege of epproximately 118 feet on the south eide ~f Ball Road, heving a meximum depth of approximately 277 feet end being loceted ~pptoximetely 530 feet west of khe cenkecline of Beach Boulevacd end further deac[ibed es 3040 Weat eall Road. To eatabliah a 13-lot, 17.-unit RM-3000 7one subdivieion. There was no one indicating their preaence in opposition to eubject request end although the ataff report was not read, it ie referred to and made a part of the minutea. Bob Gilbert, ^ilbert ~ngineering, agent, was present to answer any queations. THE PUBLIC: HEARING WA£ CLOSED. Mx. Gilbert clacified that this will be a townhouse, emall individual lot aubdivis~on. It was noted fhe Planning Director or hia authorized cepresentative h~s determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Cdtegorical Exemptiona, Class, as defined in the State Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefoce, eategoricaily exempt from the cequirement to prepnre an EIR. 7~CTION; Commiesioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bushore and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner McBurney absent)~ that khe Anahpim City Planning Commission does hereby find that the propoaed subdivieion, together with its design and improvement, is consiatent with the Ciky of ~-naheim General Plan, pucsuant Co Government Code Section 66473.Ss and does, therefoce, approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 11994 for a 13-lot, 12 unit RM-3000 tResidential, Multiple-Family) Zone condominium aubdiviaion subject to the following conditions: l. That should thie ~ubdivision be deveAoped as more than one subdiviaion, each aubdivision thereof shsll be submitted in tenta~tive farm for approval. 2. That prior to issuance of a building permit, apprapriete water asseasment fees shnll be paid to the City of 1-nahefm, in an amount as determined by the Office of the Utilitiea General Manager. 6/27/83 ~ a MINUT68. 11N~HBIM CITY pL_, ~NNINO C(~lMI$BION. JUNB 27. 1983 83-3~2_ 3. That pcior to laauenc~ of a building pecmit, ~ppcopriate perk ~nd recreat~on in-lieu feee ahell be paid ko tihe City of 1lneheim in en amount es detecmined by the City Council. 4. That pcioc ko i~suanc~ of e building permit, the Appropriate tref~ic aign~l deseeoment fee ahAl1 be paid to the City of ~neheim in an amount aa detecmined by the CitX Council for each new dwalling unit. 5. That ~11 ptivate atreete ehall be developed in accordance with the City of Aneheim's standerd Detail No. 122 for private etreete, including inetellation of atceet neme signa. Plana for the privete street lighting, ae required by the standerd detail, ah~il be submitted to the Building Diviaion for epprov~l and included with the building plena prior to khe isauance af buildinq permita. (Private streets are those which provide primary access ~nd/or circulation within the project. 6. That prior to final ttAC~ mdp appcoval, street names ahall be eppr~ved by the City Planning Department. 7. That temporacy etreet name signs shall be inatalled prior to eny occupancy if permanent street name signs have not been instelled. 8. That gates shall not be installed accoss any driveway ar private atreet in a manner which may advecsely affect vehicular tcaffic in the edjacent public atreets. Installation of eny getes within a distance of forty (401 feet from said public street cights-of-way ahell be aubject to the review and approval of the City Traffic ~ngineer. 9. That drainage of aubject prop~rty ahall be diapoaed of in a mAnner setiafactocy to the City Engineer. 10. That all lots within tf~is tract shall be served by underground utilities. 11. That prior to commencement of structural framing, fire hydcants Rhall be installed and charged ae required and determined to be neceasary by the Chief of the Pice Department. 12. That prior to final tract map approval, the original documents of the covenants, conditione, and restrictiona, and a letter addreased to the developer's title company authorizing ~ecordation theceof, shall be $ubmftted to the City Attorney's Office and approved Dy the City Attorney's Office and Engineering Division. Safd documents, as approJed, will then be filed and recorded in the Office Qf the Orange County Recorder. 13. That prior to issuance of buildinq permits, the appllcank shall presertt evid~nce satisEactory to the Chief Building Inspector that the residential units will be in conformance with Noise in~ulation Standards specified in the California Administrative Code, Title 25. 6/27/83 MINI7TE8. 11NAHEIM CITY PLANNINO COMMISSION, ~YUNB_ ~7~ 1983 83-373 14. Thst prior to finel tcack map eppr.oval, the ~pplicant ahAll preaent evidence gatiefectory to the Chiet° Building Inspectoc thet the propoeed project is i~ con~ormance with Council Policy Number 542 "Sound 1-ttenuation in Residential Pcojects". 15. That pcior to finel trect mep approvel, the developer shell entar into an agreement with the City of 1-neheim purauent to Government Code Section 6a915 to provide that twenty-five percent (Z51) of the residential units ehall be aold ea low or moderete income houeing as defined in Government Code Section 65915 and with eppcopriate readle contcols as approved by the City of Anaheim. ITEM N0. 12. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDIITIONS A. CONDITIONAL U5E PBRMIT N0. 2207 - Request for nunc pro tunc resolution amending Resolution No. PC83-51, in conjunction with Conditional Use Pecmit No. 22'_~7. Pcoperty is described ae an irregularly-shaped parcel of lend consieting of approximately 3.6 acres, having a fcontege of approximately 120 feet on the weat side of Richfield road, having a maximum depth of Approximately 570 feet and being located approximdtely 1750 feet south of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. Amending Resolution No. PC83-51 relating to a numbering erro[. Jeck White, Asafstent City l~ttorney, explained this permit modification related to an asphalt cecycling plantt tt~at it was approved as a modification to the conditional use permit ~ermitting a pc~rtAble concrete batching plent and ther.e hae been litigstion filed as to whether or not the use is actually authorized under the pceviously approved permit or whethec a separate permit ahould have been cec~uited. He steted he understands the petitionec will be pcocesainq a new permit, but that this nunc p~o tunc resolution is necessaty to clear up one of the problema of the existing permit whecein there was a heecing to delete Condition No. 6 and, in fact, there was no Condition No. 6 in the otiginal permik due to a numberfng ecrar. ACTION: Commiasioner King offered Resolution No. FC83-120 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant a nunc pro kunc resolution relating to Conditional Use Permit No. 2207 amending Reaolution No. PC83-51. On roll call, the foregoinq resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOU~-S, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRB NOES: NONE ABB~NT; McBURNEY 6/27/83 MINUTBB. J-N HBIM CITY PLIINNING COMMISSIONj, JUN~ 27. 19A3 83-_374 OTHE1t DISCU88ION: 11. Commiseionec Herbat ceterred *_o the propecty a~t Fairmont Boulevard ancl 8anta 1-ne Canyon Roed which ia currently being graded for a ahoFping center end ateted he cecalled the Commieaion epproved the project eubjact to the stipuletian that the tcees would not All be ramoved enQ thst they have all have been cemoved. Dean Sherer, AASOCiate Planner, expleined that ia correct end also expleined there was en or~l promise by the petitioner at tht public hearing, that they would ettempt to transplunt the treee on the site and try to edve them~ but oince then a tree surgeon ha~s looked at the trees and determined they could not be tranaplanted as they would die anywey. Commisaioner Herbat atated they should be r~quiced to replant with mature Olive treea beca~uae they ca~n be auccessfully treneplanted. B. Commisaioner Hecbst referred to the play erea at MacDonalds on Stete College and atated he has no objection, except that it does appear tu be advertising with a MncDoneld's clown, etc. end the ataff should be careful approving these requests ~dminietretively becauae of khe precedent that could be set. Dean Sherec explained it was indicated on the pldna that this wae to be an outdoar children's play area and ataff did make sure the driveways were clear, etc., but that there we[e no plans for expanaion which is the reason the request was not returned to the Commiasion. C. Commiseioner Herbst thanked staff for the memo regarding the jail site and asked that the Commission be kept up to date on what the Board of Supervisocs is doing about that aite. Commiosionec La Claire alao thanked Jay Z'ashiro for prepacing the report and Dean Sherer indicated the staff would keep the Commission up to date. D. Commiasioner Bushore referred to the convenience market at Walnut and Cerritos and also the site at Lincoln and Mancheater and stated the petitioners have not complied with the conditions of apgroval on those two eitea and asked ataff to review those sites. Dean Sherer steted staff is aware of both of theae situations. He stated there has been some changea to the Code EnEorcement operations in the Planning Divfsions that we will now have seven Code Enforcemant Officera working out in the field ar.d they will oe responding most of the time to complainte received from neighborhood councils regardinc~ the nuisance ordinance violations with housing inspections, etc. and because those comQlaints have been so intenae and numerous, the officers have not been able to go after the yiolationa of permit conditions, but that lag has been because of ihe pueh by the neiqhborhood councilg. 6/27/83 ~ ~ `r w MINUT~~~, l-NA81~IM CITY PI.I~TNINO CQ~IMI88ION. JUNB ZT. 1983 83-375 Commiaaion~r 8u~hor• atated 4 y~ac• aqo thia City had on• Code Enfocc~m~nt Of!lo~c •nd now w~ will hav 7, but that the Commia~ion will hev~ to be the~r own watohdoq• to •~~ thet th~oe oonditions o! eppcoval sre complied with. l1;aT0URNM8NT: Commf~ssion~c Hecbst oltered A motion, aeconded by Commis~ion~r Xing and MOT20N CJIRRIBU lCommia~ioner RcBUrney abaent), thati the meeting be edjouc~ed. The meeting wAe edjourned at 4;40 p.m. Reapectfuliy qubmitted, ~ • Q~"'~ Edikh L. Hecris, 3ecretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ELH;im 0583H 6/27/83