Minutes-PC 1983/10/03REQULAR MaBTING OP 141B ANAHEIM CITY PL~NNINa COMMISBION
RBGt)L~R MBQTING Tha regular msetinq oE ~he ~naheim Cit~• Pienninq
Commi~sion waa called to order by Chairwoman Bouaa at
10s00 a.m., Occokar 3, 1983, in tha Council ChambAr, a
quorum being pceasnt and the Commission reviewed pians of
the iteme on today'e aganda.
RECEBS: 11t30 a.m.
RECONVEN~: 1:30 p.m.
PRBSBNT Chairwomen: Boues
Commiseioners: Bushoce, Fry, Hecbet, King
ABSENT Commiseionere: Le Cl~ice, McBucney
~LSO PRESBNT Annika Santaldhti Aeaietant Directoc !or 2oning
Jack White ~esiatent City Attorney
J~y Titus City Bngineec
Paul Singer TcAPfic Enqineer
Kendra Morries Aaeociete Plannec
Edith Hercia Planning Commieaion Secretary
ApPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commisaionec King ofEered a motian, seconded by
Commiseioner Fry end MOTION C~RRIEU (Commieeionera La Claire and Mc Bucney
a~sent), that the minutea of the meeting of September 19, 1983, be approved as
submitted. It was noted the minutes far the meeting of September 7, 1983,
have not been approved as the; were not received by the PlAnning Comm~eaioneca.
ITEM NO. 1. EIR NEGATIVE D?CLARATION AND VARIANCB N0. 3345
PUBLIC -:B~R'NG. OWN~R: HU00 ~. V~~QUEZ, 619 South Live Oek Dcive, ~naheim,
C~ 92805. Propecty described a8 a rectangularly-ahaped pdreel of land
consisting ~f approximately U.2 ecce having a frontaqe of approximately 68
feet on the vest aide of Melrose Street, 129 South helroae Street.
Waivera of m;ni~um lot acea per dwelling unit, maximum atcuctural height,
maximum sfte ~ovecage and minimum aideyard setback to construct an 8-unit
affordable agsctment complex.
Continued from .;•~au~t 22, and Septeciber 19, 1983.
There was one person indicatinq her presence in opposition to subject request
and alkhouqh the staff report w~s not read, it is referred to and made a pact
of the minutes.
~ommigsioner eushore nated he had previously dec2ared a conflict of interest
on this item and left the Council Ct~amber.
Kendra Morriea, ~-ssistant Planner, explained there ahould be a correction in
the a~aff report whecein waiver (d)af Peregreph 2 ahould read that 9 feet is
required inatead of 10 fe~t ae ahc,wn.
83-607 ln/3/83
( ~ ~ '~
INUT88. ANAEISIM CITY PLIINNING COMMISSION. OCT4dSR 3. 1983 __ 83-608
Viatoc Vaaqua~, 1302 W. Center, ]~na~h~im, repreasnting his bcother, preeented
oxhibits o! tha pcopos~d project.
H ugo Vazquez, owner, explained it is hia propoeai to construct eight
2-bsdroom, Z-bath units co~tai~~lnq 914 square leet each. He expl~ined sike
covarsgs is l~as et 581 than the previoualy proposa0 project at 7di end there
will be more open epace end sven though thie is co~eider~d a 3-otory unit, 1t
ia within the height limite, compaced with the previouely approved pcojeat ~t
12~ south Olive. He explained the only other waiver requestiad on thia proJect
'y the minimum sideyard eetbeck at 2' 8'.
Memie Cables, 206 S. Olive Stceet, l~neheim, steted she ie opposed to this
requoat because she feele the denaity i~• ~uet too great end aith 2-bedroom
units thece will be too many people on thet amell lot end there will not be
+~dequate packing and ahe did not think the eetDa~ck et 2' 8` ie ~nough. 8he
etated ahe felt ~f thia project ia appcoved, the othec real.dents in the erea
ahould sell their pcoperty becAUae in a few years thie will become a alum area.
Mr. Vazquez ar,r,ed he hee mek with Peul Singer, City Treffic Kngineer, end the
project does meet the new~ parking atandacds which are the higheet ever
required for enyone building in this erea end he will be pcoviding 20 spaces
for 8 unite. Regarding the oppoeition's concern about the number of people
living in the units, he explained that is the ceaeon for reducing the number
of bedrooma. He atated they are raquesting a la denaity increase and in
return foc that increase will be providing 25i efEordable houeirg. He
referred to other dffordable projects approved by the City and explained this
property was three sub-etandard lotF and they will be providing ell the
parking required, a jacuzzi, a security syatem to the front and rear and also
will provide high-quality construction.
TfiE PUBLIC HEJ-RING W~S CLOSED.
Commiasioner Fry ateted he has na objections to waivers (a), (b), ~nd (c), but
is ~gainst the waiver of minimum sideyard setbdck at 2' 8' because the
adjoining pcoperty owner could do the same thing and that would leave only 5
feet between the two properties.
Responding to Chairwoman Bouas regaccing the affocdable renta.l strueture, Mr.
Vezquez expleined he hae been essured that the agreement would be the same fcr
this pro~ect as it was on the project at 129 S. Olive with afEordable units
t~eing provided for 5 yPnrs and he would be making a 55,0~0 deposit with the
City and signing the contract for the rents to be ~t ~487 per month per unit
which wauld be adjuated to the cost of living and that includes the owner
paying all the utilitie$s and that the rent on the othe: 6 unita would be
about ~525 per montht and that. he ia not planning on having two families in
one unit.
Commissioner Herbst agceed with Commiasionec Fry regarding the minimum
siceyard aetback ~nd stated he did not think cceating aEfordaale unite a~t the
expenee of d good living environment ia appcopriate~ He stated setbacke are
required to pcovide space between buildings for eir, etc. and he felt this is
just too much on that property.
10/3/83
~
INUT68. 11N11HI~I CITX PL1~tiNINO COMMI8814N1 OCT08ER 3. 1983 __ - 83-609
Mr. Va:qu~$ stet~a th~ setback waivec t• ~~ces~a.y becsua~e o! the parkinq
requic~d. Commisaioner Hecb~k atated i! eh• numb~c o! ~nlts was r~duced, th•
parking tequicam~nt would be r~duc~d. Mc. Vasqu~z stet~d the buildinq i~ over
9 l~~t eway on the e~cona l~vel and the ~ir~ti level is only !ar th• parking.
Hs •tated the pro~ect et 129 8. Olive has a 5-foot sideyard s~tback, ~o tho
dilf~renae betaeen this pcoject and thst pro~ecl• is only 2' 4'~
ChairWOmen Boua• pointed out it aeems th• Coau~~laeioner~ feel thie ie just too
close becauae tih• neighboc ~~xt dooc c~uld meke th• same requ~at and asked if
th• petitioner would like a voke on this plan or if he aould like A
continuance in order to cevise the plan.
Mr. Vnzquez seked if the major iasue is the 2' 4' dif~arence ieaue, with
Commieeionec Herbat pointing out the Code requirement is for 9 leet, so thare
ie reAlly a lot moce then 2' ~".
Mr. Vazquez steted che enawar is really how much the Ciky wants t.o pcovide
affocdable houeing beceuse it cannot be conetructed ~~hout veria~ncee.
Commisaioner Herbat ateted theae would be a~focdeble units foc tive yeara
only, at the expena~ of Anaheim's Codea and etated four veriancea ace being
requested and hs would not give e+ conceealon on eomething that he did not
think would make a good living enviconment.
Mr. Vnzquez atated he could not undecatand how the project at 129 S. Olive was
~pproved and explained it had the eame watvexs, excepk the minimum sideyard
aetback. He stated he has been tniking with th~ propetty owner.s on both sides
and the neighbor to the north h,~s thcee-quactera of hia pcoperty vacant and
asked if the Commisaion wo~~ld be willing to conai~~er an agreement with that
p[operty owner that he would agree to build a certain diatanco ~W~y from the
property line, if he does develop the prupetty.
.Tack White, Aeaistant City Attorney, sta~ed unlesa there wae a lot line
~djustment, or purchese of a portion of the r~djdcent parcel, e vari~nce would
be necessary foc the e~~croachment to within 2' 8". He statecS the separation
of the building from the building on the adjoini.ng lot could be controlled
through auch a covenant with regard to the development of the adjoining lot,
but it would be up to the Com~aisaion to decide if that would meet their intent.
Reaponding to Commissioner Fry, Mr. vazq~sez explained a covenant could be done
through an easement or through purchaae of a portion of tbe edioining
propecty. HP stated he would etill need the veriance far Che minimum ei~~fdrd
setback, even if he purchased a portion of the adjacent property. He atated
he would try to meet the `.-foot Ai.deyard seiDack and the other. altecnative
would be to build 6 units witho~ 3ny affordable unita and without ~ny
variances.
The Commiasioners indicated they felt that would be a good idea. Chairwoman
eouaa etated 6 unite would not impect the area so m~ch and the neighbora would
be happier and it would be a better project.
10/3/83
N~TB8~ ~h1~yQIli CITY PLIINNING COllMI881~ON. OCTOBSR 3`~983 83-6
Mc. Vesqu~s ~ti+-t~d h~ would still hav• to coms to eh• Conanission tor approva7.
o! pACkinq and Commi~eioner !ry stetad hs dia not think the ;±r~~ect would be
appcoved with a 2' 8• setback. Mc. Vaaqu~s atiated the only wey to pcovide the
•idaXacd sotback would b~ to purchase pcop~rty lrom the eastarly pcoperty
ow~~r and requ~et~d a 4-waek co~tinuanae in ocdet to submit revised plana.
ACTIONt Commi:sioner King oftered d motion, aeconded by Commi~eioner Pr.y and
MO pN C1~gRIB1+ (Commiesionera Buehor~, Le Claire and Mc Bucney absent), that
consideration of the atoc~mentioned metter be continued to the
cegulerly-scheduled meeting ot Octobec 31, 1983, et the request o! the
patitionQC in ocder ko aubmit cevised plane.
Q~r~...Mn.aw.a.~r•~,,,, ~n,~,,,l...a. n.~•'-'.~~w~.t 'ti - `.~.a. ~11~-.«.:.1. (.~^ V'~+.~`4"~ .
ITEM N0. 2. BIR NEGJITIVB DBCLhRATiON RBCL1-SSIPICIITION N0. 83-84-3 WAIJBR QP
Cq08 RBQUIRSMENT ]1ND CONDITIONAL 1185 PERMIT N0. 248~
PUBLIC HBl-RINCi. OWNLR3: JAMBB D. J-ND HELBN M. PIERGE, 401 South Eucl.id
Stteet, 1-naheim, 92802. propecty deecribed ea a rectangularly-s;~aped pa~rcel
of lend coneiating of a~pproximately 6800 squere feet on the weet eide of
Suc118 8treet, aprcoximately 315 feet eouth of the cen~.erline of Bcoadwey nn~]
furthec deecribed a~a 401 South Buclid Street.
RS-7200 to CO.
To pecmit corrmerciel use of a residen~f.al structure with waiver of minimum
number of pazking epdces.
Thece aae no one indicating theic preeence in oppoe~ition to eubject cec,ueet
and although the ataff report wea not cead, it i$ referred to and made e part
of the minutea.
Helen Piecee, ownec, was pceaent to answer ~ny ~,ueationn.
THE PUBLIC H EARING WAS CLO~ED.
iCendta Morries explaine9 thet taragrrph 11 ah~uld be deleted fcom the staff
cepoct.
ACTION: Camm+.ssioner Kinq ofr.aXed a motlon, seconded by Commiesioner Fry and
MOTIpN CARRIED (Commiasfonere La Claire and Mc Burney absent?, that the
Anaheim C:.ey Planr.ing C:-nuaiesion has reviewed the proposal to eeclassify
subject property from the R~-7200 (Reaidential, Single-Pamily) ~one to the CO
(Commercial, Offiae and Profesaional) Zone to permit cnmmercial use of a~
reaidential atr~icture with waivec of minimum number of parking epacea on a
rectangul~tly-ahaped percel of lnnd coheiating of approximstely 6800 equare
feet, ha~•ng e frontage af apptoximately 68 feet on the weat side of Buclid
Stceet ~d further ~leecribed ae ~101 8outh Euclidr and doea her~by approve the
Negative Aeclaration upon finding that it hae coneidered the Negative
.zclaration toqether vith any coamenta received ducing the g ~lia review
pcocese and further finding on the basis of the Initi~l Study and any comments
received that there is no aubatantial evidence that the project will have d
eignificant ~ffect on z:he environment.
lA/3/83
~ ~ ~
MINC~TgB~ 11.~1~"6i„_IM~C..~TY~~~1G COlIMTBBIQ~1. OCTQB$R 3.~83 83-611
Commi~si~on~c Kiny otfec~d R~~olution No~ pC83-174 and mov~d !o~ ita passeqe
and adoption thst th~ 1-nah~im City Plenninq Conaaiasion doee h~r~by grant
R~cla~sit;tcation No. 83-84-3 •ubi~ct to interdepartmantal Committee
r~commsndation~.
On roli cali, the toragoing rerolution wae pa~a~d by the Pollowi~g vote:
AYBS: 800118~ BUSHORBr PRY, HBRBST~ KING
NOS$: NONB
J-BSBNTt L7~ CLl-IRE, MC BURN@Y
Commiseionec King oftered ^ ~~n, seconded by Commiseioner Pcx and MOTION
C1-RRIED (Commissionecs L ~ and Mc Burn~y absent), that the Anehaim City
Planning Commisaion doea -, ~ grant waiver ot Code requiremen~ on the baeLe
thet the parking verience will not ce-uae an increaee in tre£fic congeation in
the immedia~te vicinity noc sdversely eftect any adjoining land uaes and that
the grenting oF the packing waivec und~r the conditiona impos~d, if any, will
not be detrimental Co the peaca, health, safety oc generrl welEare o! the
citizens of the City of ~nehuim.
Commiseionec King offered Reeolution No. PC83-175 and moued foc ite pneeege
end adoption chat the l~naheim City Planning Commieelon doea hareby grant
Conditional Uae Permit Nc. 248~ purauent !o J-neheim Municipal Code section
18.03.030.030 thcough .03~ and aub;act to Interdapartmental Committee
recommendations.
On roll cail, the foregoing resolution wa~s passed by the following voke:
11YES: BOUI~S~ BUSHOR~~ FRY, H~RBST~ KING
NOES: NO4~L
AB3BNT: LJ- CL111RB~ MC BURNEY
I
IVE
PUBLIC HEI~-RI~IG. OWNERS: GFBLLER AEVELOPMBNT COMPI-NY, 228 W. llain 3trest,
Tuetin, CA 92680, 1-TTBNTIO!': Rl-LPH SP11R00. Propecty deecribed as a
rectangulerly-ahaped percel of land conaieting of appcox:mAtely 19.57 dcr~s,
2925 West Lincoln J-venue (Lincoln Beach Mobile hl~nor Park).
To eetablish n 18-lot, 639-unit RS-1000 Zone subdivision.
Continued from September 7 and 3epte~aber 19, 1983.
There was no one indicating their preaence in opposition to subject raquest
and although th~e staff report was not read, it ie refecred to and made a part
of the minutee.
Ralph Spargo, a~gent, was preaent to answer any questiona.
ZtiE PUBLIC HEIIRING WAS CLOSBD.
It was noted Environmentnl Impact Report No. 253 was previously certif.ied on
November 29, i982.
10/3/83
INUTB$. 11NAN6IM CITY pW1NNiNQ C,LQ~,I~ISSION• OC'1'GBBR 3. 1~83 83 611
CT ONs Commi~~ion~r H~rb~t oit~r~d .3 motion, secc,nded by Commi~~i~nec Fry
and NOTION CARRIED (Commissionera La Clair~ end McBurn~y ebe~nC1, thet the
Anah~im City Planning Commission dne+~ hereby lind that the propooed
aubdivision, ~oq.ther with its daeign and improvsment, ie consi~t~nt with th~
City o! Anah~im General Plan, purauant to Government Code Section b6~173.5t end
does, thecalore, ~pprovs Tentative M~.~+ u! Tcact No. 11830 (Revision No. 1) Lor
e 18-lot, 639-unit RM-1000 Zona condominium aubdivieion on the be~~ia khat the
eubdi~idec haa taken ateps to mitlgate any aiqnificane adverse impsct o~ the
converaion on the ability of di.apleced mnbilehome perk reaidents to find
Adequake specs in e mobilehome park and eubject to the tollowing conditiones
1. That tcaeh atorege sce~a ehell be provided in eccordance with
approved plens on file with Che 8treet Meintenance +~nd Sanitatio~
Dfvision.
2. Thet pcioc to commeneement of atructucal ~ceming, Lire hydrentA
ahell be inetalled And cherged ae [equtred and determined to be
necesaary b;- thR Chief of the Pire De~a~rtment.
3. That all lota within this trect ahall be eerved by ur.dergcound
utilitiea.
4. That dreinage of ~ubject property ahall bE dinponed of in a mAnner
setisfactory to the Ciky Engineer.
5. That the iaeuance of building permita tu allow the construction of
aubject project in more thAn one phase of developm~ant shall be
subject to the completion of trash removal for tne areA covered by
seid phaee of development in accordance with an ap~~raved TcASh
liemoval Plan.
6. That the ownec of aubject property ahall pay to +:he City of l~naheim
the appropriate pnck and recceation in-lieu fees as determined to be
epproprir~te by the City Coun~il, said fees to be pe~id at the time
the building permit is issued. Alternatively, the owner may
constcuct impcovementa at City parka. Such improvements ahall be
made only if approved by the Perka and Recreation Department.
7. That all private etreeta shall be dev~eloped in eccordance with the
City of An~heim's Standard Detail No. 122 for privnte atreeta,
including inatallation of atreet nam~e signs. Plans foc the privete
stceet lightiny, as required by tl~e standerd detail, sh~ll be
eubmitted to the Building Divieion for approval and included with
the building plans pcior to the issuance of building permits.
(Private streets are those v+hich provide primary accesa and/or
ciraulation wfthin the pro~ect.
S. That tempora~ty street name signs shall be installed prior to any
occupancy if per!aanant ~gtxeet name siqne have not been insta2led.
9. Thak prior to issuance of e building permit, the approprinte tcafEic
signal aaaessment fee ehall ba paid to the City of 1-naheim in an
~mnunt as determined by the City Cauncil for each new dwellinq unit.
10/3/83
' : . ° ' , : ~ ' .. . , ` ~'" ~ ~ . . . . ~
~iN~_ Tgg :,J1NAHBIM CITY PL.~NN~ ~~ISSI4N, QCT49ER ~. 983 _~, 83-613
10. ~Phat an otf-site •torn~ dcain io th~ Ce~rbon Cr~~k lleod Control
Channel, as approv~d bX th~ City Bngir.e~r, 4ha11 b~ constructed and
operetional pcior eo th~ epproval ot a grading plan tot Fhese ii2
unleos cequir~d previouely by tha City BngineAr as a result ot
matecisl lQU~d in the gcading ot Phase 1 or Pheee Y.
il. That the off-aita sanitsry aewer ehsil be conatructed ar.d lunctionel
prioc to any occupsncy of Phase 2 unlese requirmd by the City
Engineec at an earlier time.
12. That no on-site drainaqe shall be permitted to flow onto Lincoln
~-venue except ee approved by the City Sngineer.
13. Thet the deeign of on-site drainege structuree ahall be approved by
the City Engineer pcior to epprovdl of eny ~rading phase for aubje~ct
eite.
14. That b sepa~cete grdding plan ahall be pcepeced ~nd approved by the
City Engineec for eech conetructi.on phase end a~ Ae Gcaded Plen
chell be prepared, eertified, end appcoved foc eaeh phaae prior to
etert of grading on the ~ext phase ar at such other la~ter times ae
may be authocized by the City En5lneer.
15. That the aeller ahell provide the purch~-aer of e~ch residen~.iel
dwelling with written information concecning Anaheim Municipal Code
Section 14.32.500 pect~in~ng to "Parking restricted to facilitate
atreet sweeping'. Such written i~Eormation shall cleerly indicate
when on-street parking ia pcohibited and the penalty for violdtion.
16. Thak prioc to final atceet inspeetions, •No packing for street
aweeping' eigne ahall be inatalled ae required by khe Street
Maintenance and Sanitatian Diviaion and in acc~~dance with
apecf.fications on fi2e with aaid divieion.
17. That prior to issuance of a building permit, Appropriate watec
aeseeament feea shdll be pa~id to the City of 1-naheim, in an emount
ae detecmined by the Office of the Utilities Gener~l Manage[.
18. That the median island moditicAtion in Lincoln 1-venue ahall be
completed prior to eny occupancy in Phase 1.
19. That d comprehensive on-site vehicular access and parking plan
which, unless otherwise appraved by the City Treffie Engineec, ehell
show tandem parking along only ~ne side of e~ach driveway aisle ahall
be submitted by the developer/owner for review and approval by the
City Traffic Bngineer pcioc to the iseuance of building permita.
20. That d deteiled Trash Removdl Plan ahall be aubmitted by the
developec/owner for review and approval by the City and other
concecned publlc agenciea prior to approvdl of grading plans or
isauance of building pecmits, wh~chever occura first, for eny area
or phase of such development upon which said lendfill currently
exiats.
10/3/83
~, '
l~„INUTR$. AN11Ha~M CIT~ PI~ANNING C~QMMI8~8ION. OCTOBl~R 3. 1983 , 83-614
21(a) Thst th• own~tr(~) o! th• •ubj~ct pcoperty ihall pay to ~ach
mobilehom~ own~c a• id~ntili~d in th~ conv~r~ion impact c~po'!
c~locstion b~~~fit~ in th• r~sp~ctivs amounta aa ~~t tocth on
Exhibit •A• attached h~r~to snd incocporet~d h~c~in by thi~
cefarence, or auch ott~~r bon~tit~ es mutu~lly ~qre~Q upon b~Lween
the pack owner end thtl moDilshome oNner. said r~locaEion b~nefit•
ehell be paid to sach mol,iiehome owner~ and p~oo~ thereoi ~ubmitt~d
ko Citiy in a torm eatisfactory to the City Attocney, prior to th~
iasuance o! eny building p~r~vit tor any phaee oc poc~ion of the
propo0ed d4v~lopment other tnan thva• portions identifi~d a~ Phaae 1
end Phase 2 es ehown on the Phaaing Plan, Sh~et 4, Reviaion No. 1 of
plane on file in the Planning Daparkment of ths City oE Anaheim, oc
prior to ~uly l, 1985, whicr~ever occure firat.
(b) That not withetanding aub-peragceph (a) above, any rt~obilehom~ owner
who relocatea from the pack at any time aftier the date oE is~uance
of gcading psrmite for eny phase of the development shall be peiQ
said relocation benetita contem~oraneoua with the termination of
each tenency providad, how~.ver, thet such edvence ~dyments pursuant
to thie sub-peregraph (b) need not be made At any time in advanca of
the date otherwiee eet forth in sub••pdregraph (a) to moce than ten
percent of auch mobilehome own~era.
(c1 That the amount of said celocation benefir.a payable to each
mobilehome ownac purauant ta sub-~pa-Agcaph (A) oc (b) above, shall
be increased by an emount equel to any increase in the Conaumer
Pcice Index for Urban Wage Earnecs end Clerical Workers, 1-11 Items,
Loe l-ngeles-Long Beach Metr.opolitan 1-rea I196'I~100), published by
the United Statee Depertment of Labor, Bure~u of i.abor Statistics
(•index•), which is publiehed neareat ta the date of thie reealution
ae compered ta the Index moat recently publiahed prior to the date
of pa-yment of sdid relocAtion benefiks.
(d) That the owner of the ~ubject property ehall poet a performance bond
in an amount and form eetisfactor~~ to the City 1-ttorney to guarAntee
the payment af said celocation Denefita.
22. That prior to finel tract map eppraval, the applicant ehall preaent
evidence satief~ctory to the Chief euilding Inapector thet the proposed
pcoject ia in conformance with Council Policy Number 542 "Sound
~-ttenuation in Reaidential Projecta'.
23~ That prior tu 1asuAnce of huildi;-g permits, the appli.cant shall preeent
evidence satiefactory t.. the Chief Building Inepector that the
:eaidentia2 unite will be in conformance with Noise Ineulatio~
Standards specified in the C:alifornie ]-dministr.ative Code, Title 25.
24. That should thie subdiriaion be devel4ped as more than one subdiviaton,
eec:h eubdivisinn thereof shall be eubmitted in tenGative lorm for
approval.
10/3/83
I~INl~T68:,~ A.~,~~lIM C,~'~Y PLAIiNING_C~I,a20N. ~CT096R 3. 19~3 ~,.,,~ .,,8`g
1S. That prioc to Linal tiract map (bl linal p~rc~l ~aap epprovel, th~
~riqinal doaumsnta o! th~ covana~te, aonaltions, and r~~trictiore, and
e letter addr~~~~d to d~velop~c'~ ti!1~ cotepany authotisinq recordation
thtreol, •hsll be aubmLt+.ed t~o the City Attocn~y's O!lice end approved
by th~ City Attorn~y's O ific~, Public Utiliti~a O~Partment and
Rngin~ecing Divi~ion. Said docum~nts, ~a approved, will then b~ filod
end c~cord~d in ths Oit i ce o! the Oreng~ County P.~corder.
26. That prior to tinal trac t msp approvaa, etr~~t n.~mes ehell be epprov~d
by the Citiy Planniny Depactment.
27. That s bo~d, certitic~t~ oE depoeit, letter ot credit, or caeh in an
amount end focro satiafacrory to the City o! Anaheim ahall be posted
with ths City pcior to apptovel ot th• fina~l tract map to guacantee the
inetelletion ot the off -eite fecilitie~ es tequired in conditions 10
and 11 tiecein.
28. That the approvel of the Tentative Map o~ Trect No. 11830 (Revieion No.
1) .ta grented aubjeck t o th~ appcoval of Veciance No. 3346.
29. That prior ko any final tcect mup appcoval, the ownec oE the pcoperty
ahall complete pecEorma nce of C~ndition Noe. 1 thcough 21, 23 and 26
thereof, or record A covenant egainat the pcoperty in a fo~m eppcoved
by the City Attorney g u arenty~ng performance oF said conditiona within
the times otherwiae set Eorth in eaid conditiona.
PUBLIC HB]1RING. OWNERS: 11MERICI~-.tJ NATIONAL PROPERTIBS, INC.~ P.O. Box 10077~
Sant~- Ana, C~- 92811, ~TT~NTION: Terry ~'weedt. Pcoperty descriDed aa en
irregularly-~eheped pArcel of land consiating of approxim~tely 5.9 acces located
north and west of the northwest c orner of Ordngawood 1~venue and Mencheeter
Avenue, 2111 South Manchastec Av ~nue (Orengewood Acres Mobilehoa~e Perk).
RS-1~-43,000 to C-R to permit conv ereion of an existing 95-epace mobilehome park
and conatruction of a ffve-atory oEf:ce building.
There wece appcoximately thirty -seven peraone indicating their presence in
opposition to subiect request and although the staff repoct was not cead, ft ie
refecred to and made a part of t he minut~s.
Terry Tweedt, Yice Preaident J-me rican National properties, explained before
1lmerice~ National Properties pur chAaed Orangewood 1-ccea in May 1981, they met
sevecal timee with Planning Depa stme~t skaff to reaearch the history and
background of the property and 1 eecned there was no rule or ordinance ageinat
converting the propertyt thet tbay inquiced about cezoning the property to the
C-R Zone and learned they could not ask Eor a rezoning without a apecific
development plan and that is the reason they have aubmitted thie application
for A 5-atory office buildfng wt~ich, they undergtand, cen be approved with a
conditional use pecmit in the C-~tZone. He added they were tal!! by staff that
thie was as older aub-stsnderd parkt and that a new perk, under today's
stendards, would not be nllowed with the dertaity as high as this exiating park.
10/3/83
~~~
INUTRB. J~NI~WBIM CZTY PLANNING COMM288ION, OCTOBRR ~, 1a63 83-616
Mr. Ta~~dk ste~ed alt~c in~p~ction ~nd eLuQy~ it wa• Q~t~rmin~d all the
exlstinq uti liti~s ~uch aq el~clrical, wati~c, n~tucwl qas, s~w~cs, ~wimminq
pool and launEry wer• ~ot ad~quat~ end n~~ded !o b• r~paired or r~placsd end
at t:iet point kh~ir compeny ~xplor~d th~ po~eibility of buildinq s new
up-ko-Cod• ~wobilehom~ park, but in ord~r ta comply with th~ Coda r~quiram~nts
for 8-coaches per acrc, und~r today'• standard~, th~y would have to oliminete
about on~-halE o! ths ~xieGing ~p~c~e ~ince the curr~nt den~ity is about
15-coecheo par ecr~t that also, ell coechea would have to mav~d out during
conatructioea et e tcemendoue coet end temporary p~raonal dieruptian Eor the
tenentat and thet it would cost about ;13.,000 per space to build ~ naw perk
end the rents would be moce than doubled.
Mr. Twe~dt stared the pcoperty i,e located 4d jecent to the 3ente 1-na PceewAy
between twa i.ndustriel buildinqa and an RV dealecehip end that together with
the lact that thece are numeroue apacee aveilable within ~ 125 miles at
c~aeonbble rente, they decided the propecty would be better euited ~oc
commercidl. -a~ea. He stated in lete 1982, the City Council edopted en
ordinence se~ktiny guidelinea for conveceion of ~a mobilehome perk to another
uae en~9 they feel they have met ell the requicements of thet orQinence.
Mr. Tweedt stal•ed they are wi211ng ko pay Che celocatio~ costa ds outlined in
theic mobilQhome pack eonvereion report. Me etated they heve propoeed e well
deeigned offiae building which will provida employment for the citizene of
Aneheim and they feel this wil l be en excellent pro jecC which f ite in with the
City'a General Plan.
Mr. Tweedt eeEarred to Condition No. 16 perteining to kitchen facilitiee and
Jack White expleined the last portion oF that sentence should be deleted
following the e~mi-colon. Mr. Tweedt refecred to their pcoposed relocation
bgnefita chact end stated Specee 44 and 67 are now vecant end ehould be
deleted. He teFecred to Condition No. l7 cequiring certain conditiona to De
met within a period of one year end etated afEer epproval ie given, they must
give their tenanta a 6-month notice and would requeet an 18-month time limit
instaed of one yeax.
Commiesioner euehote atared th~ 6-month notice to tenants would not prevent
the property owner from proceeding with the rezoning and he did not aee any
need to grant more time.
1-nnika Santalehti, Assietant Uirector for Zoning, stated thet condition is a
standerd condition ~dentified in the Zoning Code and eny developer can seek an
extenaion of Cime to comply with the conditione and a~e would prefer thAt the
condition remein ae ie. Mc. T~veedt agreed that it could be left as proposed.
Annika Santalehti stated there are conditione proposed which are tied into the
issuance of building permita and ~pprer in a reclassification rather than ~Y:e
conditional use pecmit end ehe would reconaaend that Conditiona (1), (2), (3),
(5) and (13i be the conditions to be satiafied under Condition No. 17 and
Conditions (15) and ~ 109 do pertain to the reclaesif ication, but she would
like to see the other conditions included in approval of the ~•onditional use
permit since they would take place efter the property is rezoned. Mr. Tw-eedt
agreed to tt~at auggestion.
10/3/83
MINUTS$~~11W.BZM CZTY PL1-NNING COMMI$BION, OCTOB61t 3` 19S,~ 83-617
cilenn irving, 2111 s~ Manch~at~c, J1nah~i~n, ~tatad h• would ch~ll~ngs e
st~t~me~t made by Mr~ TM~~dt in hi• pr~a~nt~-tion end that th~ic compeny
pucchas~d Orangewood Acc~i with kh• intsntiun o! k~epinq it es ~ mobi,l~hom~
park. H• ~teted ia Merch o! 1981, prinr to th• puccha~e of the park~ the
company took sub-soil teata !oc th• conatruction o! e~uitipl~-story building
end indiaated he would lik~ !or Mc. Tweedt t~~ +-n~wer that~ Cheirwomen 8ouaa
•tated eil kestiimony would b~ t~ken b~loce Ct~~ ag~nt aill enew~r ~ny gu~stion~.
Mr. Irving steted two yfara ayo h~ addres~~d the PlanniRg Gommiasion r~garding
the future oE the reeidento ot the Orsngewood 1-crea and th~r• aas e etruqgle
b~tw~en the ownecs oE the p~opecty and the c~bidents at th~L tima and there
heva b~en a lot o! cheng~e since th~n, but ~he steadls~t conuritm~nt of the
eiderly reaidenka of rhe park to maintain and r~tein the ir homee end community
hde not changedl however, the maintenance of t!-e park ha~ deterioratad and
there heve been severa rental in:reasea, haraaument, int imiddtion end
violations o! the Civi.l Codes oE the City and the Stete by the own~ece of the
park. He atated the residenta have eurvived the co-ming ling ot recreational
vehiclea end travel treilecs in their community, which i q againet the Civil
Code~ that in one instence, an RV tenanr, wa~ al!.owed to t;eve five doga outsi,de
in the yacd while ~enagement continually hacasa an ulder ly tenent who hea one
emell dog foc e watchdog which atays inaide et all times, He stated the
public reatrooma ere filthy a-nd the pool wae cor~demned by the eoard oE Health.
Mr. Irving atated they are homeowners in thia co~nmunity a~d the property has
nev~r been zoned f oc commercial ~aes and most of the ten~nt~ ece e,lderly nn
fixe~ incomea and many have lived thece foc ye~rc~. He aeked the Commission to
deny ~his requeat for en oE~ice building on A aite thet is very difficult to
f ind. He atated thece is no doubt chat the Commiasionere have high etanderda
and will uee eound iudgement ceg~cdiny the future o~ thfe community ae they
have done in the paet.
Micha~l Smith, 837 Oakstone Way, Anaheim, attorney for the residente, steted
these are homeownere in thia mobilehome park ae d~Eined by State law. He
atated the City has a policy of promotinq the growth and development of
mobilehome parks, aa evidenceed by the nutaber of parka i~ thia City with over
8,000 reaidenta and es evidenced by the edoption of the Mobilehome Park
Overlay Zone and alao by tht letter ~com the Mayor of t!~e Cfty of Anaheim,
stating the City Council eupporte the interest and welf are of reaidents living
in mobilehome parics~
Mr. Smith referred to the findings of fact requiced by the Mobilehome Park
Ordinance before a realassification cen be grdnted and reviewed those
findings. He stated it is their poaition that none of theae facta have been
eatabliahed, so tt~ece cannot be a reclassification. H~ stated one of the
reasona could be stdted that the developer cannot make a reasone`~le return on
the investment of the mobileho~ne pack, howevec the facta in this CA88 are that
they have never attempted to rui~ thia as a mobileh~~me park and have tzied to
buet up the park in order to avoid relocation payments _ He pointed out one
year ago the:e were eighry-eight residents and now the~e are roughly aixty and
they ace elderly geople and are vecy insecure and friqbteeed becauae of this
relocatio~ and that the ones who have left have been replaced with
recceationel vehicle tenants anb not mobi~ehoma reaidents, eo there hns been a
conversion of the park without the approval of thie City and those tenante
10/3/83
~NUTE~. l1N1W6IM GZTX PLIINNING COMMIS~ION_O~C,TQ9R,R,~y 198~ ,~ 83-
hav~ b~sn d~ni~d their rlghC to •xp~naes. H• •tat~d th~ intsrr~t o! th•
p~opl~ nnd th~ic hom~a ~hould be con~idRC~d and aeked wher~ they are goinq ko
r~locat~. H• ~tetad moet of kh~ c~sident• hav• tixtd incoms• and fixed
lilestyl~• and r~e lelt Coccing th~m tio r~locat~ would not be ~aic and would bs
unju~t. H• •tet~d h~ did submit s r~port to !h• planninq Coma~i~~ion last we~k
and ba~ed on that r~poct a~d hie commants today, h~ would ucge de~ial oE ~his
sequQat.
Glenn xramer, 2111 S. Mancheater, spec~ 64, srated he hea been a resident of
thia pack for over five yeerx end pceeented copiea ot atetistics. He atated
as a pernon to be diaplaced, he hse ~ veated interest in the poesibilitiee anA
under l-neheim Code Section 18.92.060.020 thece ie e cequirement for en
analyeie ot evailsbility of. adequete replscement spac~a in comperable
mobilehome pecks within 125 milea. He etaknd he hne looked a~t the inform~tion
presented by the petitioner and evaluated it and would respond to theic
pcopoeal and reterred to Page 1 pertaining to the 14 perka that ere supposed
to have available adequate apecee end be campareble and pointed out the age
limits, the aize limite, available number of apacea end emenitiee such aa
clubhouae, laundcy fecilities and pool and stnted the residents feel thoae are
neceesary dmenitiee and noteQ parka liated ae 2, 4, 5, 9, 11 end 13 do not
heve ewimming poola, ao ahould not be conaideced ae compacAble perka. He
ceferred to khe age limite and size limits and pointed out they could relocete
to San Jacintot ;~owever, of the 400 apaces aveilable, thece are only 30
availeble spdces in compareble perka And khey feel on that beais elone, this
cequest ehould be denied. Mr. Kremar steted there la a place to go if he
decided to move right now, but if he weite, the chancea are that there will
not be any spacea available and he felt tbe report presented ie inedequate.
Mc. Kcamar atnted the majocity of the people are eenior citizens and ere on
fixed incomee of ~360 to sS00 per month and the petitionec has proposed they
rent a space for ~350 per monthi and t4~at thea~ residents have invested their
money in good faith to live in a retiremenk home end have spent theic savinga
to purchase theic home and heve planted themeelves i.n the community and have
be'n good citizene. He stated he nRede affordable housing and could move into
en apectment, but he inveate~d money believing he h~ad e future here. H e stated
they do want ta live in thia~ connaunity and serve the City as police~men, letter
carciers, telephone operators, etc. and cannot efford a condominium even under
the eff ordable guidelines. He stated in placing mobilehome pnrks in the
Mobilehome Overlay zo;~e, the City aeid, these perks are still adequate and ca~n
be cun in an edec~uate wa~y as a mobilehome park, poeaibly not paying the
inflated rete and ;~ointed out thie land was purchased with the purpoae of
building a commercial building and the developer was willing to pay the
inflet~d price for that purpose and the residenta ahould not have to be forced
to foot the bill beceuse they mede A mistake. He etated moving 125 milee +eway
is not a good alternetiive foc people who have Lo work and in looking et the
GenerAl Plan, there ie nc higher oc better use in a com,~unity than a
people-intereet item and to provide the elderly ard tlose who ere responaible
citizena who may not hnve the higher incomes with houaing. He atdted he
thought the people are worth a lot moce than a~nother offiae bwildinq,
especially when there is a lot of land yet aveileble fac khe develogment of
commercial buildings.
Mr. Tweedt aeked Mr, Irving to cepeat hie question.
10/3/83
NOTBB, ~-Nr-t~siM C TY AI~AIiNINQ ~9~~~ION~ 9~~Q@~R 3, ~9~3_,r ~ 83~
Mc. irvinq ~xpieined tha! Mr. Ta~eat h~d india~t~d in hi~ op~ning pr~sentation
rhat th~y had purcha~~d th• pcop~rty with th• int~nt o! kecpinq it a~ a
mobilehom~ park end thet h~ would chsll~nqe thet con~ment on the be~i~ thet
sub-aoil teat• w~re tak~n ptioc to th~ purchaa~ ot the property to detarmin•
the l~asibility o! d~v~loping e multi-ntory building.
Mr. Tweedt rosponded h• did not b~li~v~ he hed said the co~npany hed purchesed
the proPerty to keap it ae d mobileho~ne p~rk and thought he had aaid the
property waa purchsae~l in Msy o! 1981~ end later in his ~c~s~~tation had eaid
thet aftsr many diecuseions Nith the Planning D~pertment ntatf, their company
int'rnaliy discusa~d the ia.a o~ conaid~ri~g e new up-to-Code mobilehoma pack
on the pcoperty. H e atated they would need to take eoil eamp2es for eny ~aae
and they did take soil samplea in March.
Mr. Tweedt stated they contend thac they have not violated any ot the
ordinancee or Sta-te lnwa. Ho ceferred to the report submitted Dy Mc. Krnmet
end stAted their Converaion Impact Report very clearly $tatee it wae not
intendad to be a complete sample ot all the apACea evei.lable within a 12S-mile
radiue. He etated peopie da not have to leave the County if they cen tind
alternative housing in ehis ~rea and with the relocation ben~fits ofl`ered,
they can sell theic coachee and atay in this e[ea and mei~tain their friends
and Eamily and added he thought they had covered nll theae items in theic
repoct.
THF PWBLIC tfE1~RTNG WAS CLOSED.
Commigsionur Pry etated originally mobilehome parks were never intended to be
e permdnRnt uae a~nd were coneidered inte~im uses t4 allow use oE the pcopecty
until a~ bettec uee came along, but unfottunately times do change and he wes
not aure that this is d permanent aiCuatton eve~ now, but there are reeidenta
in thie park that ths aaner of the l~nd haa cerkain cighte to develop his land
to fte higheet and beet uee as he sees fit, but on the other hand the
cesidenta of the mobilehome perk have developed a way of life and for the ~ost
part, ece elderly citizona on fixed incomeas that the Commiaeion ie prohibited
fcom becoming involved in economics, but he finds it hard to separate the two
iseues. He sta~ted he thought the mobilehome park reaiGente are protected by
the Overlay Zone, but now it is time to make the decieion end he raelly
doesn't know whet is ta be done.
Commissioner Herbst agreed cegarding the interim use of the mobilehome pack
and indicated he did not think any of the Commisaioners Mf10 .9At on the
Commisaion n numbsc of ye~-ra mgo ever thought these would become permanent
uses, but aa Orange County grew, the situation changede p~ stated thie
pcoperty ia zoned RS-J--43,000 and ie still egricultural, but could be
developed as the General Plan stetee for commercial, cecreational uses, but
this praperty fs isolaCed and eurrounded by reaidential uees, even though it
abuta the freeway and does have poor eccesa for ~n office structure nnd he
thouyht the applicetion for recla$eification at this time is inaccurete
beceuse the property is surrounded by reeidential uses end there are reeidents
living on the property that would be diepl~+ced. 8e eteted he thought the
timing is not rigt~t for convarsion end that khe Oveclay Zone waa put on the
mobilehome parks for e reason and thet the reafdents nre conai~ered
~; io/3/sa
ii~
NUZE~. J~N1`9ltIM CITY PLIINNING COMMISBxQ~ -~"~'A°~R 3. 198~ _~ 3"'_~
permanertk. H~ atared on• park waa conv~rt~d r~a~ntly b~cau~• it waa
co~aecuce~d on a i~nd-liii •it• and tho p~opl~'s liv~s ar~ ~ndanq~c~d, but
thAt i• nor the caa• in this situstion and h~ thought th• application sbould
be d~niad.
Commis4lo~er 8uahor~ c~t~cc~d to th~ mobil~home park• which hav~ been
converted thcoughout th~ City -- th• on~ ~t fl acbor snd esll end the Rivi~ra
which ar• both locat~d ciqht in the middl~ o! the commercial, c~creational
ac~as snd noked one park waA oriyin~lly approv~d a~ a r~ccsetional v~hicle
pack dnd that the City plena to put a utr~et through th~ middle oE it,
diatupting the whole park. He atAted, howav~r, looking et ~hia property
errictly on ~ land use basie, thec~ is ~till a~=acre pArcel availabl• accoss
the atreet whieh ie baing marketed as a corataercial, o~fice site and in Orange
County there ia a thrse yea~c, thr~e-month gupply oE commercial ofEice sites
a~eileble if nu mace ece conetructed ~nd thet tigur~ goea up everyday beceuee
more ace being c~nstcucted. He atated he thought this la a poor lxation Eor
+~n office building, oepecially eince it is not known whether or not the
freeway over-ramp will be conetructed and a14o becauae this property is
isolak~d end hecd to tind.
Commiesioner Buahoce stated even though the Generel Plan deaignatea the
property for commerciel, cecreetionel uaea, it calle !or orderly developmenk
of the property and ordetly development doee not mean atacting in the middle.
He ateted even though thie pcoperty is Adiscent to the lreaway it lenda itself
to housing and looking a~t the converaion isaue, 94 dwelling epaces would be
loat and would not be replaced and the ceeidents would have to mave further
and further away.
Commissionec Busho[e refecced to the relocetion benefite proposed and compared
them with other mobilahome park convereiona end atsted he did not think there
is adequate compensetion pcopoeed for the residents and he did not think the
money eatimated to updete t.he pack r+ould creata any herdahip on the owner. He
atated this pcopecty was developed originelly ae a mobilehome peckr and that
hie position fcom two yeacs ago hae not change4 and he could not support the
conversion of this property. He stated he does support en owner'e right to do
What he pleesea with his property, but the tezoning of thia pcoperty ie not
warcanted.
Jack White aaked the Commieaion to incorporate the findings required in
Section 18.92.070 as aet forth in his memorandum included in the Commiasion's
packet for Item No. 3 in their cesolution.
It was noted Environmentel Impact Report No. 253 wae previnusly certified by
the Pla~nning Commisaion on Novembec 29, 1982.
1-CTION: Commiesio~ec Herbat offered Reeolukion No. PC83-176 and moved for its
paesage and adoption that the 1-naheiw City Planning Commission does hereby
deny Reclassifiaation No. 81-82-5 on the besie thet subject property ie
aurcounded by residential uaes and reaidenta living on the pcoperty would be
diaplaced and pursuant to Section 18.92.070 oE the ~oning Code, it cannot be
shown that the propoeed will not have an adverst affect upon the godls and
10/3/$i
CITY PI.11NNxNG COi~MI8~I0N. ~C~,'Q,BaR 3^,;~3 r„_~,,,.,..`._ , S_ 3'62~
policios tor pr~servation af housi~-q v-i~hin t~~• City aa ~et forth b?+ tibR
Houaing ~l~ment o! the l-nah~tm Qa~Rral Plan oc LhAC the r~clseaific~kicn i~
requiced •s a publia nsc~esity ~~d conv~ni~nce and Lh~ generel wel~~sre.
On roll call, r,he focegoinq resolution wee pa~cad by tho ~ollowing ~~otR:
AYBSs BOU11L~, BUSH'DRE, PRY, N~RBST~ KIN(i
NOBSt NONB
J-B$ENTs LJ- CGAIRE~ MCBURNBY
Commisaione: Harbat oPfeced R~aolu~ion Na. PC83-177 sna moved for its pe~asaqe
and adoption thak the Anaheim Citv Plenniny Commi~saion do~a h~reby den;;r
Conditional Uae permit No. 2259 on the baaie ttiat th~ propoeed ue• wou~ad
adversely affect tt~e adjoining lsnd uaes end growth a~nd d~velopment of the
acea in whieh it is pcopoead to be loa+~ted and that qrenting of the
eonditional use Fecmit undec ~he conditions impoaed would De detrimenta:. to
th~ pae~ce, heelth, safety end generel wellere uf kh~ citizens o! the City of
1-nehaim.
On roll call, the focegoing reeolution wae passed bY the following vote:
1-YES: 80UAS, BUSHORE, PRY~ HBRBST, KING
NOE&: NUNS
ABSBNT: LI- CLJ-IRE, MC BURN~Y
Jaek White, Aaeistant City l~ttocney, pces2nted the writLen right to appeal the
Pla~nning Commi•saion's decision within 22 da~ya to the City Council.
RECESS: 3:02 p.m.
RECONVENE: ~:13 p.m.
ITEM N0. 5. EIR NE_G/1TIYE DECLI-RATION AND RECLIISSIPICATION N0. 83-8~-6
~UBLIC HBARI!'G. OWNERS: ENKAY DEVE1rJPM8NT CO., INC., 1301 Dove Skceet, t300,
Newport Beach, CA 92660. Property d~.+~scribed as an ircegularly-eheped parcel
of land consisting of approximately 6.6 acres bo~nded by Stanford Court, Snnta
Cruz Stceet, Orangewood I~venue and ~naheim Boulevdcd.
ML(FP) to Ct-(FP) to construct a co~nmercial office complex.
There was no one indicating kheic presence in opposition to subfect cequeat
and although the etaff repoct waa not read, it ie referred to and made e part
of the minutee.
Richa~rd Smith, Bmkay Development Company, presented e colored rendering of the
propos~ed project and explained they pcopose to build tao commercial oftice
buildinqs c:ons~sting of appcoximately 6500 squere Peet each, and that they
will have henv~,~ l~nd~acaping, and packing will be in excese of Code require~nent
and they will be building in ~wo phaaes.
1T~IE PUBLIC HS~RING WAS CLOSED.
10/3/d3
i
INUTB~,_ A~nnw~n CITX pI~J1~1NxNG COMM~88ION. 0~'TOB!!R 3, 1983 83-622
J~ck Nhit~, A~eistant City 7-~tocn~y, ~xpleined a portion o! thia property is
locat~d ~~ the Piood Pla~in Ov~rlay Zon~~ how~v~r, h• underatood that no
p~rmensnt structurea ars propa.sd in thet E-ortio~ ot th~ property and that hs
want~d to be aure tha paiitionec undecetood that 1E any pecmanAnti etcuctura is
proposed in the Flood Plein Oveclay Zon~, it would requir~ epprovsl of e
conditional use pec~eik.
Mr. SmitD indicdt~d he undetskood thet crquicement.
1-CTION: Commiesionac Hecbat offeced e motion, eeconded by Commiaeionec Pry
e~nd~MOTiON C~-RRISU tConanission~rs LA Cl~~ice end McBurney absent), thAt the
Anaheim City Planning Commisgion h~s ceviawad tha pcopoe~l to cecieaaily
subj~cr prop~rty from the ML(PP) (indur~trial, Limited-Pload Plein Ovecley)
Zone ta th~ CO(FP) (Coaaercial, Office and Qrofeasionel-p1ooQ Plein Overlayl
Zona t~ constru.ct a commercial office complex on en icregulerly-aheped parcel
uf tand conaisting of approximetely 6,.6 acces bounded by Stanford Court, ~5anta
Cruz 3tteet. Orangewood ~lvenue and ]~naheim EtaulevACdt and ~loea hereby appreve
the Negativ~ Dacler~tion upon finding thet it has considered khe Negetive
neclaretie+~ together wlth any commente ceceived during the public revirw
pcocess a~ Eucth~sr find3.ng on the besia of the Initiel Study and eny comments
ceceiv~~ r-~at thece is no substantial Fv±dence that the project will have a
eignit~_~t eg.tYect on the environment.
ComAa~.:~~rz ~~img offered ReBOlution No. PC83-178 and moved foc its pasaage
end ~M~ti~ ~at the Anaheim City Planning Cammiasion doea heceby grAnt
Re~if~~e~avn No. 83-84-6 aubject to interdepertment~l Committee
L"~+l~RAI~'Ida~t::t~ Q1116 .
~r ~+~-::1 c~,ll, the foregoing resolution aae~ passe4 by the following vote:
~ BOU1~S, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING
1~.: 1VON E
A~`: LA CLAIREr MC BURNEX
L~. 6. EIR NEG1hTIVE DECLI+RJITION RECLASSIFZCJITION NO. 83-84-8 AND
C~'TIONAL USE PBRMIT. NG. 2496
~~C HEARING. OWNERS: RGL~.ND COVEY, 54Q5 G~rden Grove Boulevard, ~134,
~ainater, CA 92683 and HUDSON OIL CO., F.O. Box 907, Ransas City, MO
rr~~1. P operty described as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land caneisting
af appro imately .48 acre located a~t the eoutheast corner of Stonybrook Dcive
and Bea:.h 8oulevard, 736 South Beach Baulevard.
Parcel 1 from RS-A-43,000 to CL and Parcel 2 fcom RM-1200 to CL.
To conatruct a 4-story, 60-unit motei.
Thece were four persona indic:ating theic presence irt opposition to subject
request and although tho staff report wns not read, it ia referred to and made
a part of the minutea.
.Tohn Swint, 704 W. North Street, Anaheim, agent, was present to anawer any
questions.
10/3/83
I~,,,,IN„l~T~,88. A'NIWQIM CITY PI+~NNING COMMI88ION. ~CTOpBR 3. 1983 83•6Z3
eevarly Jackeon •~ated she is part ~wner o! the propacty et 800 9. B~ach,
whiah is adjacent to the eoukh end she thought n 4-,~tory motel ia uncell~d ~or
in `hati areat that the highe~t ever pecmieted h~e b~en 3 atoci~s and a 4-story
~nit ;~ould compl~tely block the vi~w of hec motolt thet ehs hes e besutiEul
n~w .ign on th~ aide u! the building end it wou].d be of no uee with a 4-sLory
sLructuca and thak she thouqht a 4-~tory otructure would look odd in this
e~reat that there ere 11 mat~als on Be~ch, with enoth~r ene dpproved, within ~he
one block batween Ball ttoad and Stonybrook which would meke 670 evsilable
rooms and thet they ece anly half-lill~d et the preaent timet and thet she
reelise,~ thie will help the City with more kaxes, but it wouYd hurt the other
motel operetora in the Are~ a~nd ehe thought the Appraval of motels ahould be
stoppecl. 8he eteked she Ee].t this 1.64-acre parcel ie just too amell for 60
unita end if they would only provide 42 unite, the height of the motel could
be reduc9dr and thet eome of the unita will heve 355 equare feet end ehe
thought thet ie rather ama~ll and ie a lot smaller then ehe wes a]lowed. She
atatad with emaller unite ~here will be a lowor cla~a clientele and she wented
to keep the erea ~s nice aa poesible becauae ehe does have a high-claes motel.
Me. Jackeon steCed there ie no traffic eign~l at Stonybcook end ehe thought
thia would creete addition~l traffic congeation. 3he added the plana celled
for imitation tile on the roof end she wee cequired to put ceal tile on hec
roof end ehe thought the atnndarda ehould be mdinteined. she etdted there ie
d house on one of these propertiee a~nd eh~e had to move her motel 10 feet eouth
to accommodate the people on that pcopetty and that cost her +~n additional
;15,000 ai~d now, lesa than two yeare latsr, they want to put a 4-atory
structure on that pcoperty end she did not think tha~t would be feir. She
at~ted ahe even had to l~ndacApe that area to provide apace between the motRl
and that pcoperty and that she ie meintaining ik and it ia reelly juet dead
space.
Henry Ortlieb, 716 S. Beech Boulevard, eta:ed he owns property north of thie
propecty and that he recently put ~ 2-atory building on hie property becauee
that wa~s the lergest he was allowed beceuae of the number of parking spaces
required and he thought a 4-story building would block a lot of his building
and he is defin~tely opposed to a 3 ot 4-atory building. He steted he had to
fvnce hia lot becauae peaple liked to park there and he did not think therc~ is
anough room for thet size building with the parking apacea required.
David .Iackaon, pert owner of ptopecty at 800 S. Beach, eteted when they
requested a cond+tion~l use permit for 72 units on their 1.1 acre- it worked
aat to 65 units per acre nnd he thouqht thia 4-etory structure in that area o~
1.64 acre would fiquce out ta ebout 100 unite per acre and he thought the
concentration is iuet too hiqh and this would give the d~veloper a windfall
pcofit. He et~tod he tihought the axea is already heevily ooncentrated with
motele an~ there is no need foc ~dditlonal motels ~d thdt the occupancy is
very seaeonel end this would be accoiam~dating a eummec run. He added he
thought it Nould be in the better interest of the City to deny thia reqtteat.
Frank Grigsby, i..anager of the Budget Inn Motel which is acrose the street,
stated he hae lived in thie neighborhood for one year and wonld like to see it
develop into a nicer place and he thaught a 4-atory motel would be an eyesore
and that th~s area is qetting too ccowded with a:2 the motels. Eie added he
thought after the Olympica are over, there will be a lot of vacant motels
along Beach eoulevard.
10/3/83
M~INUTE9. ANIWBIM CITY PI,1-NNING COMMI88ION. OCTOBBR 3. 1983 83 623
B~verly Jackeon atated •he ia pect own~r ot Ch~ prop~rty at 800 8. e~ach,
which ir adj~c~nt to the aouth end she thought a 1-~tory motel ia uncall~d for
in that acdal that the higheat ever permitted hes b~en 3 storieo end a 4-etory
unit would aomple~ely block the vi~w o! hec motol~ thet ehe hea e beAUtilul
naw oign on the eide oE the buildinq anQ it would be of no uae with a 4-story
atructurs end thet she thought e 4-atory etructure would look odd in this
ereat thet there are il motels on Beach, with enoth~r one approved, within the
o~• block between Ball Road end Stonybrook which would meke 670 availabl•
rooma And that thay s~e only half-lilled et the preeent timel end that ahe
cealizea thia will help the City with .m~re taxee, but it would hurt tha other
motel operetocs in the erea end ahe tho~;ht the approval ot makele ehould be
etioppod. She stated ~he felt thie 1.64-acre parcel is just too emall for 60
unita end if they would only provide 42 unite, the heiqht of the motel could
be reducedt and that aort~e of the unita will heve 355 squ~re feet dnd she
thought thet is rather small end is a lot smaller then ehe wae allowed. 8he
ateted with amaller unite there will be a lower cleea clientele and ahe wanted
to keep the erea de nice as poseible becauee shs doea have a high-clees motel.
Ms. Jeckeon stated thece ie no traffic aignal At Stonybcook and ehe thought
thie would creete additional traffic congeation. She added the plane celled
for imitetion tile on the roof and ehe waa reyuired to put raal tile on her
roof and she thought the atandards ahould be m~intained. She eteted there ia
a h4use on one of these prapertiea and ehe had to move hec motel 10 feat eouth
to eccommodate the peop2e on th~t pcoperty and thet cost her an additionel
515,000 and now, leae than two years l~ter, they want to put e 4-atary
etruature on that property And ahe did r.ot think that would be fair. She
stated she even had to landscepe that erea to provide space between khe motel
end thet property and that she ia maintaining it end it ie reelly juet dead
space.
Henry Ortlieb, 716 S. Heach Boulevard, stated he owna property north of tnis
property and that he recently put e Z-aCory building on hie pcoperty becauae
that was the l~rgest he was ellowed becauae of the number of perking apacea
requiced and he thought a 4-atory building would block e lot of hia building
~nd he is definitely oppogE~d to a 3 or 4-etory building. qe atated he had to
fence his lot becauee peopl.e liked to pdrk there and he did not think there ie
enough room for that size t-uilding with the parking spacea required.
David Jackaon, part owner c~f properry at 800 S. Beach, stated when they
requested a conditional usE~ permit for 72 unite on their 1.1 ecre, it worked
out to 65 unite per acre end he thought this 4-story strucEure in that erea on
1.64 acre would figure out Co nbout 100 units per acre end he thought the
concentration ie juet too high ~nd this would give khe developer a windfall
~rofit. He atated he thought the area is elready heavily aoncentrated with
motele end thr,re ia no nee~ for additional motele and that the occupancy is
very eeesonsl end this would be acc~mmodating a sunaner run. 8e ~dde8 he
thought it would be in the bettec interest of the City to deny thie requeat.
Frank Gtigeby, managar of the Budqet Inn Motel which ia accoss the atreet,
stdted he haa liv~~d in thia neighborhood for one year and would like to see it
develop into a nicer place and he thought a 4-stocy motel would be an eyesore
and thet the aree ie getting too crowd8d with all the motele. He added he
thought after the Olympica ~re aver, there will be a lot of vacant motels
elong Beach Boulevard.
10/3/83
,I~,INUTES. l1NAH~I GITY ,~LANNINO COMMI88IQ~1. Q~TQ6BR 3. 1983 __ 83-6Z4
John 8~rint stated h+~ d~~ignad B~v~rly Jeckson's mot~l and th• coom~ were
exactly 3S0 aqudre le~k which io th• •am~ •ist• as thi~ pr.opos~d proj~ct and
that she had to move h~r buildinq back 10 feot b~~.auae tihe adjac~nt property
ownera w~r• not willinq to sell th~ir pcopecty, bu~ now they are willing end
hia client ha• pucchseed it.
He etated he would queetion the comment that thie motsl could become- an
eyeeore and r~lerred to the el~vatiions which ahoved thie will b~ en attrective
building. He etated moet at the compatition's concerna seem to be economics
and competitiont howeve[, there ls a requeet on todey'a agenda for a motet
addition. Conce[ning the hei.ght, he etated the limitetion ia 75 feet in thet
erea and he ia only aeking for. one-helf o~ the height.
iteepanding to Commissioner Buahore, Kendre Mocries ateted there is no
reatrtction in the Zoning Code cegulating the minimum eize of motel rooma.
THE PUBLIC HBIIRING WAS CL03BD.
Commieeionec euahore etated thie ia the thicd hearing rhe Commiseion hae heerd
recently regacding motels or additions to motele end in every inetance other
motel opecetore or owners in the area heve been opposed because of
competition. He etated he thought the Commiaeion ia seeing the reaulta of all
the approvals end maybe the seturation level has been reached in areae outside
the commercial, recreational aced. He at.ated he cemembers the hearing for the
other motel to the south and the neighbor's concerne and how the Commiaeion
tried to accommodate his privacy and if thcs height ia granted, it would heve
to be for 3 stories becauae the one t~ the aouth was granted 3 stories. He
stated he has no problem with the 4 etories at this lacdtion and in requiring
the 10-foot setba~ck on the previous mo~el, the Commisaion used their wiedom et
thet time, but there is only going to be parking there.
Commisaioner Pry pointed out thece are no waivere cequested on thie project.
ACTION: Commiasioner King offered ~ notion, eeconded by Commiasioner Pry end
MOTION Cl-RRIED (Commiseionera La Claire and McBur~ey absent), that the l~naheim
City Planning Commiaelon has reviewed the pcoposal to reclasaify subject
property (Parcel 1) fcom RS-J--43,000 (Residential, Agricultuce~l) Zone to the
CL (Commetcial, Limited) 2one and tPa~ccel 2) from the RM-120Q (Reeidential,
Multiple••P~+mily) Zone to the CL (Commerciel, Limitsd) Zone to permit
construction of a 4-story, 60-unit motel on approximatel.y .48 ~cre located at
the southeast corner of Stonybrook Drive and Beec{~ Boulevard and further
deacribed as 736 South 6each Boulevard and .16 acce havin~ a frontage of
~pproximately 109 feet on the south side of Stonybrook Drive and furthec
deacribed as 2966 Stonybsook Drivet nnd does hereby epprove the Negative
D~claration upon finding that it has c:onsid~ered hhe Negal•ive ~eclaration
together with any commenta received during the public review pcocess and
further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any commenta received
that ther,e is no subetantial evidence that the ~+roject will have a aiqnificant
ef€ect on the environment.
10/3/83
~ ,`'
NUT68, 1N~AyEIMLCxTY PL~.NNING COl~~I88ION, 0~,"'~'OQI~i~ 3, 1983 83-625
Commia~ion~r Kin9 o!lered R~solution No. PC83-179 +~nd mov~d !or it• pa~saq•
and •dopLioo that th• 1-n~h~im City Planning Com~nis~ion dosa h~r~by grant
R~cla~qiticstion No. 83-84-8 subi~ct to xnL~rd~parta~~ntal Committ~e
cocommendetiona.
On roil csll, the tor~going r~solution was paev.~ py the following vot~s
AYBS: BOU119~ BUSHORE~ FRY, HER88T, KING
NOBSt NONB
11B8BNTs L~1 C~11IRE~ MC BURNBY
Commiaeionar King olfered Reeolution No. P^.83 -190 and moved tor its p+~asage
end adoptiion that ths J-naheim City Planning Commiaeion doee hecaby grant
Conditional Uae Permit No. 2~96 pucauant to 1-nehsim ltuniclpal Code 8ection
18.03.030.030 through .035 end subj~ct to TnteKdepartmental C~mmittae
recommenddtions.
On roll cell, the forcguinq ceeolution aaa paseed by the following vote:
AYLS: BOU1-S~ BUSNO~tE, FRY~ l:ERBST~ KING
NOES: NONE
118SBNT: LA CLJIIRE, MC BURNEY
Jack White, l~aeistdnt City ~lttocney, pceaented the written cight to appeal the
P~a~nning Commission's decieion within 22 days to the City Council.
ITEM NO. 7. EIR NEGATIVE OBCF.AR1-TION, REGLASSIPICJ-TION N0. 83-84-10 AND
V]1RIANCE N0. 3354
PU9LIC HBl1RING. OWNBI2S: AURELIA 6 K1~RL H. SIKORA, 2016 E. Lincoln Avenue,
Aneheim, CA 92606. J-GENT: JIM THI~YER, 23276 S. Pointe Drive, Laguna Hille,
CA 93653. Property deacribed aa a rectangulatl}-ehaped patcel of land
consiating of approximetely 5,797 square feet, 115 South Ohio Street.
PD-C Zone to the RM-1200
Waivet of ineximum atructucal height to conatcuct a 3-ato[y, 4-unit apactment
building•
There was no one indicating their preaence in oppoeition ta aubject requeek
~fnd although the etaff report was no*_ cead, i~ is referred to and made a pert
of the m~inutee.
Jim Thayer~ egent, wae preeent to answec any questions.
7KE PUBLIC HEl-RING W118 CLOSBD.
1-CTxON; Commisaionec K~ng offered a motion, seconded by Commiesi~ner Fry and
MOTION Cl~RRIBD (Commiaeioneca La Cldire and Nc Burney abeent), that the
Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the propoeal to reclaesify
subject property f:om the PD-C (parking Dlstrict, Commercial) Zone to the
RM-1200 {Residential, Multiple-Family~ Zone witit waiver of ineximum structursl
height to conutruct a 3-atory, 4-u:~it apartmant building on a
10/3/83
j 5
~
~,IN~TRB. 1-N~HdIM CIT~, PL~111~1~N~NG_COM,~,~QN, OCTOF~ER 3, 1983 83-616
r~ctangulac~y-~h~ped parc~l o! is~d con~istinq o! approxin~et~ly 5,797 ~quar•
fset, having A lro~tag~ o! approxin-at~ly 38 l~et on thw w~at •ide of Ohto
8tr~et, and lurth~r Qe~ocib~d ~• 115 8oueh Ohio 8tr~4Lt and do~a h~c~by
appcov• ths N~qativ• D~c'~caki~n upon lindinq tha~ it h~a coneid~r~~d the
N~qativ~ Declecaeion toq~thec with any commsnt~ rnceived during th• public
r~vi~w proc~s~ nri fuY~her linding an the bseis of eh~ Initial 9tudy and any
comm•nte rocaiv:~d t.het th~ce is no sub~tAntial ~vid~nce khet th• project will
have a aigniticant eifeck on the environment.
Commiesioner Kiny ofiared Reeolution No. PC83-181 and moved Eor iti4 passaqe
~nd adoption that rhe 1lnaheim ~~ty Planning Commieeion do~a hereby grsnt
Realeasificetion No. 83-84-1~ si~bj~ck tu Interdepactmental Committee
recomm~ndetione.
On roll call, the foregaing resolution wes pAeaed by the following vote:
AYES: BOU11S~ BUSHORE~ PRY~ HBRBST~ RING
NOES: NONE
1-BSENT ; LA CI,AIRE ~ MC BURNEY
Comn~issioner King offered Resolution No. PC83-182 and moved for its paseAge
and adaption thet the 1-naheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant
Vari,ance No. 3354 on the be~is that there are speciel circumstancee applicable
to the property euch na size, ahape, topography, location and aurroundi~gs
which Ao not apply to other identically zoned property in the eame vicinity
end thAt strict application of the Zoning Code dep~ivee the property of
privileges enjoyed by other ptopertiea in the identical zone and
classiffcation in ~he vicinity and aubject to 2ntecdeoartmentel Committee
c~acommendationa.
On roll call~ the foregoing reaolution was passed by the following vote:
1-YES: BOUAS, BUSHORE~ P'RY~ HERB3T, KING
NOBS: NONE
ABSENT: I.a- CLIIIRE~ MC BURNEY
ITEM N0. 8. BIR NEGIITIVB DBCLHRI-TION AND CONDITIONI-L USE PERMIT N0. 2494
PUBLIC HBARING. OWNERS: CH1NG-CtiU KJ-O LEE, 920 S. Beach Boulevard, J-naheim,
CA 92804. AGBNT: WILLII-M WBI LIN, 920 S. Bedch Houlevr~rd, ~-naheim, CJ-
42804. Property described as a reotengularly-shaped parcel of lend consisting
of apptoximately 0.50 ecce, 920 South Beach Bouleverd (Travel Inn Motel).
To permit a 10-unit addition to an exiating 22-unit motel.
There wae no one indicating their presence in oppoaition to subject requeat
dnd although the staff repoct was not road, it ia referced to and made a part
of the minutes.
William Lin, a~gent, wes preaent to anewer any questions.
THB POBLIC H EARING WAS CLOSBD.
10/3/83
~,tiV g~ , 1Ui ,JWEIh CITY Pl~tihtNC COMMI88ION. OCTOBRR 3. 198~ 83-62~
~1C_T20~1: Conuaiasion~r Kinq olt~r~d s w~otion, a~cond~d by Commi~~ion~c !ry a~d
MOTiON CARRx~O (Conunia~ion~r• La Cleirs end Mc Bucn~y aba~nt), that the
1-naheim City Planniny Commis~ion h~• r~vlsw~d th• pcopoasl ta p~cmit A 10-unit
eEdition to an •xt~tinq 22-unit mot~l on a c~ctdnqularly-a~ep~d p~cc~l ot land
ao~siatin9 0! approximat~ly O.SO acr• haviny a trontage o! epproximet~ly 95
te~t on tha •a~t sid~ of Besch soul~vard, having a meximum depth o!
epproximat~ly 130 l~ek •nd b~ing locat~d appcoximakely 240 l~~t nortih ot th~
c~nt~rlina of Ball Road snd Eucthec d~~ccibed a• 9Z0 Sauth Beach Boulevard
(Tc~vel Inn Mot~l)t and doe4 h~ceby appcove th• N~qstiv~ Declacation upon
tinding thet it has aonaid~red th~ N~gativa Daclsration together with eny
comments ceceived during the public r~view pcoceas end further linding on the
baais of the Initial Study end any commente receivad that th~re is no
eubstantial evidence that the project will hav~ a aignificent •tfec~ on the
~nviconment.
Commiseionec King oEEered Reso~ution No. PC83-183 nnd moved tor ita pessage
and adoption thet the 1-neheim City Pl.anning ~ommiseion doee heceby grant
Conditional Uae Permit No. 2+94 pucauent to 1-neheim Municipel Code ssctiona
18.03.030.030 thcough .035 aubiect to Interdapsrtmental Committee
recommendati.one.
On roll cell, the foregoing resolution wae peened by the following vote:
AYBS: BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ PRY~ H BRBST, KING
N0B8: NONE
ABSENT: I.A CL]~IRE~ MC BURNEY
ITEM N0. 9. BIR NL+GATIVE DECL1lRATION, Wl-IVER OP COD_L RBQUIR~MENT 11ND
CONDITIONI-L USE PBRMIT N0. 2495
PUBLIC HBJ-RING. OWNBR: RIai1-RD R. l-ND CAROLiNB C. "t026R, 1476 Tatt Avenue,
Ana~heim, C1- 92806 a~d J.S. PLUOR III and GLORi1- PLUOR, c/o Cecil wright, 60
Plaza Square, Ocange, CA 92666. 1-GENT: .T. RAY 11ND C~A3B 811NDER80N, 188 E.
17th Street, Coetd Meaa, CA 92626. Propecty described as an
itcegularly-ehaped psrcel of land consisting of appcoximately 4.8 acree,
bounded on the weat by the Orange Fteeway and being located epproxima~ely 360
feet eouth of the centecline of Taft 1-venue.
To permit a private trade school with waiver of minimum number of packing
spaces.
There wAg no one indicating their pceeence in opposition ko subject cequest
and although the ateff report wea not reed, it ia referced to and made a part
of ~he minutes.
Chaae Sandecson, agent, explained they are proposing a trede echool conaisting
ef 38,000 square feet and a traffic atudy wae conducted indicating ,.ne need
for 425 parking spacea and they are proposing 450 parking apdces and that they
wanted to create a atrong positive image as i~t ceiates to the freeway by
proviaing ~ higher atandard of landacapiny, etc. He eteted in the future they
will t,e developing a 5-ecre parcel immediately adjacent to th~a eaet. H e
stat4d they are looking foc a variance from the apecific parking spaces
cequiree.
10/3/83
!
y
MIN!lT68. ANA'ia1M CITY PLIINNING COMMtB$ION~ OSTQBI~R ~. 1983 63-618
'11iR PUBLIC HQ1-RINQ WA8 CG086D.
R~aponding to Commi~sionec Hscboti, Mr. Sendsraon explained they are planning
to d~vtlop th• edjacsnt S ecres with a hi9h Lechnical manufacturiny or
asr~mbly-typ~ u~~.
Commie~ion~c He~b~t c~t~cred to the req uitement that they ina~sil e tcaflic
~ignel st the int~rsection o! Ball Ro~d end Teft 1-venue fProntege Road) and
elso they will be requiced ko ent~r int oan agreement wirh the City to provide
edditional packing ahou]d e parking shottage be determined by the City
Bnginear at a leter date. Mr. Sandersonteplied they hAVe agreed to thoae
conditionA and •xpiained i! additional parking is necee0ary, ehey could oither
construct e p+~rking s~cucture or they heve an option with tho pcoperty owner
to tha eouth.
Commisaionec Bushor~ stat~d the anly concern he hea ia with the school'a
gcowth and the problem with a future u aelE the echool moves out without
co~stcucking edditional pscking epacea _ Mr. Senderson eteted tha achool ie
existing es a N~tional BducAtion Corpo ratlon end ie number one in the induetry.
~tack White eta~ed the conditional use p~rmit authorizes an adAitional uqe noi
otherwiee permittad by ric~htt however, the property ownera, under the
property's underlying zone, would hav e the right to put in eny uae that meete
the zoning end perking cequiremente.
,1ack White cecommended that conditions be added to the etAff repoct as pointed
out in Peragraph 16 (a) and (b), to readea followa: tal That prior to
isauance~ of building permita, the own~ra of the propecty sha~ll enter into a
racorded covenant to provide additional parking spacea ehould e parking
ehockage be determined by the City Tr affic Engineer in en amount aa determined
by the City Traffic Engineer end in a fotm approved by the ~ity Traffic
Engineer and City Attorney. He added hethought the applicant is ewdre of the
condition, but thia covenant would al ~ttanyone taking over the pcoperty of
the perking requirement.
Commisaioner Buehore ekated he wanta a hendle on thie so thak if eftec the
building is bui.lt in 5 yeers, the tradeechool decides not to pick up their
option, the City is not feced with so~eone coming into the facility without
apgrovel beca~uae of the tcemendoue pa rking variance that haR been granted.
Chairwoman Bouae stated another use c ould not go in without providtng adequate
paxking.
J~nnika Santa]ahti explained the perking require~nent ~or a 37,000-aquere foot
irQurtcial ~uilding ien't even 450 spaces, so another us~ could go in aa long
as it ia within the zone.
!!r. Sand~tcson atated that wes part of their site plan conaiderationa.
ACTION: Commisaionec Herbat offered a motion, secondad by Commisaioner Ring
and MOTION CARRIBD (Commieaioners La Cloire dnd Mc Bucney dbsent), that the
1~neheim City Planning Cemmiasion has revieweQ the prnposal to permit a private
trade achool with waiver of. minimum number of parking apaces on an
irregularly-eheped parcel of land coneisting ot ep~roximately 4.8 acr~
bounded on the weat by the Grange F taewey and being located approx 10~3/a3 360
1 , 1
\
i~~t south o! th• c~nt~rlin~ of Talt Av~nu~t ~nd do~a het~by appcov~ th•
N~yetiiv~ D~alar~tion upon lindinq that it haa con~id~r~d ths N~qativ~
o~clerdtion toq~th~r vith any ao~~nt• c~c~ivAd duriny ~h~ public r~view
proc~~• end furkhsr tindinq on th• b~~i• o! th~ tnitial 8tudy and any conan~~e•
c~c~ived that th~r~ 1~ no •ubatanriel ~viasnct ~hat eh• pcoi~ct wiil hevs a
aiqnilicant ~tiocti on r.he ~nvironm~nt.
Commi~sioner Harbat o!ler~d e moeion, s~conded by Commisaioner Kinq and M4TtON
C1IARIBD (Com~i~~ionars La Claire snd Mc Burney abssnt), that the 1-nah~im City
Planning Commieoion doea hereby grant waiver o! Cod~ cequir~ment on the baai~
th~t th~ parking veciance will not ceuee en incrweae in tratltc conq~etion in
th~ immediate vicinity nor sdvets~ly atteck any adjoininq lanrf usea end that
the granting of the perkinq v~risnce und~r the condition• impoasd, i! eny,
will not be detcimental to the peaae, health, eatety, oc generel w~lter~ o!
the citizene oF ths City of Anaheim and on the basie that ehQ ~ppiic~nt •hall
ba required to en~er into an ~r~ement with the City to provide additional
packing should a pACking ~hoctage be determinsd by the City Tra~tic Bngineec
at a later date and that the applicsnt ehall construct a tr4tf ic signel eyatem
nt sell Road end TeEt Avenue lPtontage Road) and including constcuction oE a
median island on eall Roed upon epociticationa of the City Traffic Engineer.
Commiesioner Hecbet offered Reeolution No. PCA3-184 and moved f or ite passage
and adoption that the 1-naheim City Plannin~ Commieaion doea hereby gcant
Canditionel Une Permit No. 2494, purauant tv ~-neheim Mu~icipal Code 9ection
18.03.030.030 through .035 and aubject to Intecdepar~mentel Committee
cecommendations.
On roll call, the focegoing reeolution wae pasaed by the following vote:
AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST~ KING
NOES: NONE
J18SENT: LA CL]-IRE, !IC flURN~Y
ITEM NO. 10. EIR NEGJ+TIVE DECLARJITION, W1IIVER OP CODE REQUIP_EMENT 11ND
CONDTTIONAL USB PERMIT N0. 2500
PU9LIC HBIIRING. OWNER: FR71NR R7IYMOND ADDIS AND SHA.oON J~NN B11R141, 11
Southernwood, irvlne, C~- 92715. Pcoperty described a~ a rectangularly-shaped
parcei of land coneieting of approximately 12,705 equa~re feet, 127 Weet
Cypress Street.
To permit a 20-unit senior aitizene epartment complex with waiver uf minimum
number and type of parking spa~cee.
There was no one indicating the~.r presence in oppoaition !o subject requeat
end although the staff report was not read, it ie referred to and made A part
of the minutea.
Frank 1-ddie, i7 Sonrisa, irvine, C7- 92714, steted tihey are cequesting n
conditional uae permit to build e 20-unit, aenior citizens complex with a
parking waivert that curcently the property has 6 units dnd they have found in
their experience with senior citizens that there ie a tremendous demand for
10/3/8.3
INtITB$~ ANIIHRIM CITY P1.11NNxN(i COMMI88x01~^~""~1°'~R 3. 1983 8~-63A
a~nioc hou~in9 and that th~y do int~nd tio build and d~vRlop the prop~rty
•p~cii i cally Lor aenior citis~na ~nd will ba in~telling an alevator !or their
convsn i enc• dnd an em~tgsncy cell ~ystemt that eech unit will hav~ a petio and
th~r~ r+ill be land~c~ping on thc~e •id~e and the iront entcance end it will
hav~ a gates that Cod• requir~s 16 parking spaceo and th~y ere propo~ing 11
and the City Bngineer haa r~view~d th~ r~quest and hee aqc~sd it is
appcop tietet thek thece ere thr~• •i~nil~r waivera which have been qranted
cecent 1 yt that ducing the eevsn y~aca khey have ront~d to eenior citisena,
they h sve had one vehicle and that senior citizens uaually do not drive and do
not have cars.
Mr. /-ddia referred to Condition No. 4 anci aeked that the age limit be changed
to 55 ins~ead of 6U ao they would not have to discriminate.
TFIB PUBLIC HEI-RING W/-S CL03BD.
It wa s clAriti~d by planning Commi.sioner King thet the existing 6 unita would
be remcved. Chairwomdn Bouds atated thece ece more people driving vnhiclee at
age 5 5, with Mt. Addi~ ceplying it haa been their experience that there are
many people who are pecmanently disabled and cen't dcive oc do not heve a
vehic 1 et thnt the age mix wou2d indicate thAt most of the people are 65, 70 oc
75 yea rs of aget however, they would not want to prev~nt eomeone wiCh thAt
kind o f~from being conaidered if thece was a vacency.
aX..d.i~.
Peul Singer, Tref:ic Bnqineer, etated he could not know how the Age limit
would affect perking, but they have checked the atudy and the requ~eak has
proven to be reeaoneble.
Jack white, 1-ssiatant City ~lttorney, nsked if it is the Commiesion's intenk to
limit the ege of juat one resident or for all tenanta. Chnirwoman Boues felt
it sh ould be juet limited to juet one tenant, but should not be lowered to age
55. She stdted ehe could not agree with that age limit.
Responding to Cammiesioner eushore, Co~niasioner Pry sta~ted he owns 8 unite
all occupied by persona over 55 yeare of age anc'~ there ha7°been two vehicles.
]~CTION: Coaunisaionec King offecea a m:,tion, secon9ed by Commissioner Pry and
MO IT O CARRiBp (Commissionere Le Claire and hc Burney abR~ntl~ that the
An~he im City Planning Conunission hara reviewed tihe pcopo$~~ to permit a 20-unit
seni o r citizena epertment complex in the PD-C (I~arking District, Commercinl)
Zane with waiver of minimum number and type of patking apace on t~
recta ngularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of epproximately 12,705-equsre
feet ~ heving a frontage of appcoximately 70 feet on the ~orth aide of Cypress
Stre~t, having a maximum depth of epproximdtely 181 feet and being located
eppr 4ximately 185 feet east o~ the centerline of Lemon Street and fucthet
deac ribed as 127 weat Cyprese straet~ and doee hereby approve the Negdtive
Dec 1 aretion upon finding that it has coneidered the Negative Declaration
toge ther with dny comments received during the public review procesa and
furt her finding on the basis of the Initial study and any comments received
that there is no aubstential evidence that the project wi11 have a aignificant
eff ect on the environment.
10/3/83
ITY ?LANNINO COMMISSION, OCTOB~R 3. 1983 83-b3
Coaimis~lon~c Kin9 ott~ced s moeion, •~cond~d by Camiai~~ion~r Ery snd MOTtON
CARRZQD (Commi~aion~r~ Ls Claic• end Mc Burn~y abs~n~), that ~h• Anah~im City
Planning Commiasion do~• h~r~by ycant waiv~r of Cod~ c~quic~ment on the beai~
th~r tha packinq v~rianc• will not aaua~ in incr~a~~ in tra!!ic co~g~ation in
th• imm~diat• vicinity nor adv~ra~ly a!l~ce any adioining lsnd u~~a and
gcanting of th~ parking verieno• und~r th~ condit~ana impooed, if any, will
not b• d~trimentAl ko th• peACa, he~1Gh, set~ty ~nQ qeneral welt4re o! the
aitiz~na of th~ City o! Ansheim.
Cammiseion~r King ottered Reaolution No. PC83-185 and moved !or its pas~aqe
and 4doption that the Aneheim City Ple~ning Commieeion does hsreby grant
Conditional Use Permit No. 2500 ~urauant to Anah~im Mun~cipal Code Section
18.03.030.030 through .035 end eubject to Interdepartmental Committee
cecomm~ndakione chenging the age limit on Condition No. 4 to cequice that at
least one pecnon~shall be 55 yeere o! age.
~1~ N^' A
On roll call, the foregoing rea~lution MdA paseed by the Following vote:
J1YE8: BOU1~S~ BUSHORB~ FRY~ HERB3T~ KING
NOES: NONE
11BSBNTt L11 CLIIIRE~ MC BURNEY
ITEM N0, 11. EIR NBC,~TIVB DECLI-RJ-TION )IND V1IRIANCB NO. 3350
PUBLTC HBARING. OWNER: ALFREDO SILVO CEBJ-L[~S, ET AL, /28-1/2 S. Melroee
Streek- ~-neheim, CA 9~805. Property described as e cectengulacly-sheped
parcel ~f ''~7d consieting of epproximately 6,375-aquere feet et the northeast
~rner '.anta Ana Stceet and Melrose Street, 428 and 428-1/2 South Melroae
Str ~~~
Wa~ivers u_ ~d) minimum vehicular acceasway, (b) minimum number and type of
parking spaces, (c) minimum lot erea per dwelling unit, (d) meximum lot
coverage, (e) minimum floor erea, (f) minimum landeaeped setbeck, and (g)
minimum eideyard setback to cetuin a~n illegel dwelling unit and to construct a
garege.
Thece was one peraon i~dicating his presence in oppoaition to subject requeat
and although the ataff repoct was not read, it ia referred to and made a part
of the minutes.
1-lfreda Ceballos, owner, wea present to enswer any queetions end expleined the
unit at 428-1/2 was constructed without permita and thet the property hae two
unita~
W~lter Olinyk, 1230 S. Hickory, Santa Ana, stated he owns the 4-unit property
et 420 S. Melcose and the garaqes were conetructed cloee to the alley en~ this
garage has been converted to living quarters and it cou18 be a fice hdzard and
Aeked if that is allowed. He steted he ie againet the garage converaion.
Mr. Cebelloe stated there wer~ peopla living in ~he qArege, but right now
there is no one livinq thece. He e~plained the qaraqe goes with the pcopetty
~t 428-1/Z and tbere is a ser-acture st 428 and one at 428-1/2 the new
conatruction will be added to the onE at 428-1/2 and ~he structure at 428 will
not heve a garsge.
10/3/83
1 ?
ti
.. .~ ~.~~ e..~~,~~ nAYYTCIITAW. [1PTf1AR4 3. 1983 83-632
T~rsi__A.'~~"6J~f7 M~'+a r~ann~a~v .. n ~.
K~ndra Mocci~s, A~~i~tent Plenn~r, +~t~t~d kh~r~ i• an ~xi~ti~g •inql~-t+~mily
dw~lling st eh• lcont oi th• prop~cty ~nd ths p~titiion~r i• propoei~g to
conatruct e on~-car qarag~ and th~c• is a y~r~g• at th• c~ar ot th• propocty
dir~atly adjec~nt to th~ all~y and it appeats thet ai on• tim~ that gacaq~ was
occupied, but h~ ir ~ow conv~rting it b~ck to e tiwo-car gataqe snd that is not
e pact of thi• propoaal~ that unit (b), idontitied on tht plan, ar a
aingl~-gamily unit snd (c) i• ettached ~o unit b and h• is pcoposinq to
combine the two, creating one ainqle-lemily deteched etcuctur• at tha r~ar o!
the prop~rty, in ad0ltion to the one exieting on the Ero~t for a totdl o! two
on th• pcoperty.
THE PUBLIC HE1-RING W11S CLOSBD.
Commiseionec Hecbet asked why thia construction wae beinq done withoue
building permite and eteted thie is ons of the biggeat dieAatere in the City
and violatee almoet every Code thece ie and that it does downgrsde the eree
and he would went to eee revised plena eubmitted thet will eliminate moat of
the varienc.ea. He eteted he did not aee eny way to approve thie And if this
appcoved, everyone elae on the aCreet will want to do the eeme thing. He
stated Bui:~9ing Codes are for the safety oE the people who live in the units.
Mr. Ceballoa atated right now he wanta to build everything accordi.ng to Cod~
end Commiesioner Herbet etated there ie no wey that can be done without
etarti.ng over mnd there ie no way it cen be done without approval of those
variances, but he did not think they could be granted.
Commiasioner King refecred Cn the recommended conditions of appcoval un Page
11-e and Mr. Ceballos responded he hAd read thoae conditions.
Reaponding to Cheirwoman Bouae, Mr. Olinyk replied he wae not sure, but
thought eomeone was livir, in the garage at thie time.
Mc. Ceballoe explaine~! ri~ Commissioner King cegerding the side yerd aetback
that tihe structure is elceady existing at 3-1/2 feet from the property line.
Commiesionec Herbat atated eome of the variances might be neceeaary, but he
would like to see the mettec continued so the petitioner cen meet with staff
and try to eliminate somp of the ~a-riances and noted ha would pGObably have to
remove aome of the ~17Rga1 construction which wea done witt~out buflding
permits.
Commi.esioner Huahora +~tAted that area already has a big pa~rking prablem. He
added if it is the petitioner's intent to combine Unite (b) and (c), he would
want to make sure it would not be converted °•~ a third liv3ng unit ih i.::~
future after the permite have ceen grented ~.~.~auee that doee happe~~ often.
Commiseioner Hecbst stated he thought the property wea being overo~ailt.
Mr. Ceballos responded to Commiasioner Suahore that he had dra~wn t4e plans
himse~f and to Chairwaman Boues that he is doing tha construction work himself.
10/3/63
NUTaB,_'~'u~T~ rTTV p~NxN~ COMMISSION. OCTOB6A 3~ 198,3 83-633
Commisaion~r h~cbat aak~4 how much time th~ p~tition~r would na~d ro t~A[ down
th~ ill~qai construction end build it to Code end explained r~vised plena
would hav• to b~ •ubmitt~d.
Commiaaion~r B~shoce ~xplainad hs thought there should be a tims limit ~nd
Commi~aion~r ~ry euqgestsd s 30-d~y continuence. Mr. Ceballoe ataked he
thought 30 dayo would be ed~quate and e~k~d about the eidayacd aetback.
Commiseianer Herbet recommended the petitioner taka the 30-dsy contlnuance and
then work with eieff to resolve the probleme end steted there may be room !oc
one or two vnriancee, but not Eor the number requesced.
ACTION: Commiaaioner Fry offered ~ motion, saconded by Commiesioner xing and
MOTION CARRIED (Commiasioners La Claire and Mc Burney absent), thet
conaidecetion of the eforementioned metter be continueQ to the
cegularly-scheduled meeting of Octobec 31, 1983.
Kendra Mocries reaponded to Commisaionec Buahore that the Planning Depertment
atafF inade a vi~u~l inepection end it eppears the conetruction ia aubatienderd
and the petitioner will have to Work with the Buiiding Depertment to bring the
building up to Code.
Commieeionec Buehore stated the whole point mey be moot iE khe petitionec
cannot bring the plena up to Code with Ms. Morriee ceaponding that staff will
have a Building Inepector review the aituation.
Commissionec euehoce clacified to the petitioner that Commisaion is not
grdnting approvel for anything todey and Commiseioner Pry explained that
grenting of th~ continuance doea not entitle the petitioner to continue
working on th~ building.
ITEM N0. 12. BI~ NEG7ITIVE DECLJIRATION ~ND V71EtI~1NCE N0. 3351
PUBLIC HBl\RING. OWNER: CJ~LIFORNIA/ORIINGE BNTERPRISBS~ INC.~ 2914~ 330-Sth
l~venue S.W. Calgary, 1-lbe[ta, Canada T2P OL4. 1-GSNT: McCLELLAN/CRUZ/G~-YLORD
1-ND ASSOCII-TES, 1151 Dove Street, ~260, Nswport Beach, CA 92660. Properky
described ae an icregulerly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of approximately
27.11 acrea locaked at the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and State
College Boulevard, 2008 East Lincoln ~lvenue (Eeat Anaheim Center).
Waiver of minimum number of parking spaces to expand and remodel an exiatinq
ehopping center.
Thece was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject requeat
ancl although the ataiE report was not read, it is referred to and made a pa~rt
of the minutes.
John Bakec, llcClellan/Cruz/Geylord 6 1-asociate~, egent, presented colored
elevekions and a site plan. Ha etated they have worked with the City Traffi~:
Bnqineer regarding the alignment of khe driveway with Olena 3treet. He
referred to Condition No. 4 regarding drainage and etated they will work with
the City Snqineers howaver, there ma~y be some limiting factora because of thp
topogrephy problema with the site. He also referred to Condition No. 5
10/3/83
~ ~
INUT68. l~N.S"'~?'! CITX PWINNINO COMMISSION. OCTOBBR 3~ 1983 83-634
requirinq thaC all utiliti~s b~ und~rqround and aaked that thet condition be
amonded to r~ad: 'Thet all n~w utiliti~s wili be und~cqround." Ha ~xplain~6
th• exhibita and al~o th• ~emodeling plan.
THB PUBLIC HBARING WA3 CLOSED.
Mr. Beke+r Atated th~y s-~uw 32 compect packing ~ta118 behind the exi~ting
eoston etore end he felt with the new les~ing progrem with the eoston stQre
moving fucthec to tihe eeet~ they would like to heve approvel to cemove those
32 parking apeces. He explained they t~ave alreedy diacu8aed this with the
Planning pepertment staft and cl.arified they would provide 16'l8 epeces which
ie e 15.4t deviation Ecom the parkinq code.
Paul 3inger, TrafEio Engineer, ateted he hed diecuaeed thia with the Plenninq
Department skaff and he thougbt th~ce is edequete perkiny far the entire
center based on the atudiee eubmittad.
Re,apanding to Commisaianec Pry, Mr. Beker etated they will etart work as soon
es they get ~inel City approvAl, and expect to stert construction at the firet
oP the ;~~er so that khe retaileca will not be affected during the holidays.
Jack Wl~ite, 1leaistant City 1-ttorney, ateted the notice was edequete for the
reducticm of the packing apaces. Paul Singer stated Ltncoln ~-venue will be
widened on the aouth eide along with thia pc~ject.
Respondinq ta Commiesionec Fry, Mt. Bakec stated they are trying to reaurface
and cepair the exi:ting perking lot, but it may be hacd to achieve the
ultimate aolution concerning the drainege since they do not have an
undevelo~ed piece of property.
Responding to Chairwoman Bouas, Kendra Morriea stnted the Electrical Division
has already agceed that only newly constructRd buildings will be requiced to
have undergcound ut.ilities.
Reaponding to Chairwoman Bouas, Mr. Bakec expl~ined tha mazket will be
relacated to within .1J fret of Stete College and the exiating Thriftimart will
be 8emoliahed.
ACTInN: Comtaieaioner Kinq offeced a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and
MOTION CJ-RRIED {Commiasionera La Clai.re and Mc Burney abaent}, that the
Anaheim City Pla~nning Cammiea~ion has reviewed the proposal to expAnd and
remodel the existing ahopping centec wi~h waiver of min:mum number of parking
epaces on an irregularly-ehaped purcel of land caneiating of apptoximately
2T.11 s~cres located at the aouth~ast corner of Lincoln 1-venue and Stete
College Boulevard, a~nd further desc~ibed ae 2008 East L~ncoln ~-venue tEest
Anaheim Centec); And does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding
tl~at it hAe considered the Negative Declaration togethec with any comments
received duting tha public caview pr~ceas and further finding on ~:he basis of
the Initial 3LUdy a~nd any conaaente raceived that there ie no subscantial
evidence that the project will have a aig~ificnnt effect on the environment.
10/3/83
J
~
Nt1T~8. ANAM62M CITY TtLANNING COM~8820~~1'081~R 3~~$3 83-635
Commi~~ion~r Kiny o!ler~d R~aolution No. PC83-186 and movsd toc ita paa~aq~
and adoption rh~t kh~ J-nahaim City Planning Commis~ion does h~reby qr~nt
Variano~ No. 3351 on the ba~is that th~ packinq v~cianc• will not caus• an
incr~aa• in tre!!ic congestion nor adv~r~fly slt~ct eny adioining land ua~s in
the lmm~diat~ vicinity end tha qcanting o! the packiny variance undec the
condiEions impoe~d iE any, Nill not b~ d~tri~~~ental to the p~ac~, heelrh,
salety or general welface ot th~ citisens ot tha City oE Anah.im and subject
to Intecdepact.~iental Commititee r~commendationa includinq an amendmant to
Condition No. 5 that all newly con~tructed buildings shall b~ aerved by
undfcground utilitiee.
On roll call, th~ tor~going resolution was pasaed by the following vote:
11yBS; BOUAS~ BUSFIORE~ FRY, HERBST~ K2NG
NOES: NONE
11Bl4ENT: LA CL]~IRB, MC 9URNEY
ITBM N0. 13. EIR NLG1-TIVE DECLARATION 1~ND VARIANC6 NO. 3352
PUBLIC N BARING. OWNER: ROBBRT A. 6 ROSEMARIE SMI'11i, 14950 La Mireda
Bouleverd, La Mirade, C11 90638. AGENT: CLYDe CARPENTBR i ASSOCII~TES, INC.,
2760 S. Herboc Boulevacd, Suite H, Santa Ana, C1- 92704. Property deacribed as
a cectangulecly-sheped peccel of lend consieting of appcoxi,mately 4.1 acres,
located aouth end weat of the southwest cornec of Winaton Road nnd Sunkiot
Street, 1431 Sc~~th Sunkiet Street (U-Store).
Waivec of minimum number af parking spaces to expand an exiating mini-stor~ge
facility.
Thece wae no one indicating their preaence in opposition to subject cequest
end elthough the ataff cepart was not read, it is referred to and made a pert
of the minutes.
Mark Murphy, repcesenting Clyde Carpenter and Associates, agent, axplained
they ace requesting a wdiver of parking requirementa for e mini-stora~e
facility and that a parking study hab been aubmittec.
'I41E PU'~LIC HEARING W1-S CLOSBD.
Jack White, Asaistant City 1~tCorney, atated he had diecuesed the condition
requiring recordation af a pnrcel mep and ae en alternative, their office
would have no objection to having a reciprocal nccess easement acrose both
propertiee and that Condition No. 10 ehould be amended to include that wording.
ACTION: Commissioner Kinq of~ered a motion, seconded by Commiaaioner Fry and
MOTION CARRIED (Commiaeionecs La Claire and !ic Burney ebsent), that the
1-ndheim City Planning Commiesion has reviewed the proposal to expa~nd an
exiating mini-stiornge facility with waiver of minimum number of perking spaces
on e rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land consiating of approximately 4.1
acres, located aouth and west of the southwest corner of Winston Road and
Sunkist Street, and further described as 1431 Sou~h 8unkist Stceet (U-Store)t
and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon findi~q that it has
coneidered the Negative Declaration together with any comment-i received during
10/3/83
~ r~
~INUTBB. ANAHSIM C,_ITY PLl1NNIN(i COMMI882Q,~1,~ OCTOBRR 3. 1983 83-636
th• public c~view pcoc~as and lurth~r lindin9 on the b~eis ot th• initial
8tudy and any commenta t~ceiv~d that t`-~r• is nn sub~iential evidsnce thet th~
pro~~ct will hav~ s•ig~iliaant •!l~ct on th~ environm~nt.
Commi~oion~r King offered R~eolution N~~. PC83-187 and movsd !or ita pasaege
and adoption that the Aneheim City Pl~u~nini Commi~aion doe~ hereby grent
Varienc~ No. 3352 on the beais that the pe~•king vstiance will not cause en
increese in traEfic conge~tion in the immediete vicinity noc adversely aftect
any edjoining land uees and the granting of the parking variAnce under the
conditione impoeed, if any, will not be datrimental to the peace, heslth,
safety or ganeral weitere of th~ citizene of the City of Aneheim AnA eubject
to intardepartmentel Committee recommendetione including hn emondment to
Condition No. 1 ea indicated by Mr. White.
On roll call, the foregoing reaoluti~n was pas$ed by the following vote:
AYES: BOU11S, BUSHORB, FRY, HBRBST, KING
NOE3: NONB
ABSBNT: LA CLI~IRE, NC BURNEY
ITEM N0. 14
REPORTS 1-ND RECOMMENDIITIONB
A. RIVER V1ILLEY REDEVBLOPMENT PROJECT PROP03ED_R~DEVLLOPMENT PLAN
Request from 1lnaheim Redevelopment 1-gency ~o meke a determindtion as to
the confocmity of the project wirh the City of 1-naheim General Plen.
Propecty loceted nocthwest of the interaection of the Rivereide Freeway
and Weic Canyon Road.
Commisaioner euahore declared a conflict of intereat a~s defined by
1-neheim City Plenning Commiasion Reaolution No. PC76-157 adopting a
Conflict of Interest Code for the Plonning Commiseion and Govecnment Code
Section 3625, et aeq., in thdt he ie e contracturel agent for the
Redevalopment 1lgency and pureudnt to the provi~elons of the above Codes,
declaced to the Chairman that he was withdGawing from the hearing in
connection with the Rivec Valley Redevelvpment Project Plan, and would
not take pact in either the diecussion or the voting thereon end had not
diecuased this matter with any membet of the Planning Commiesion.
Thereu~,on Commiseioner Buahore left the Council Chember.
Lorraine Prenderga$t, Staff ~-ssistant, Community Development, exp2ained
the Planning Commiseion is required to find that the pr~poaed River
Valley Redevelopment project confocme with the Genetsl plan for the City
of ~-naheim before they can procesd with the project. She expldined A
public heering will be echeduled for November 22, 1983.
.iack White, Assietant City ~-ttorney, explained Commission received end
reviewed a copy of the pl~n.
10/3/83
lIINUTRB. ~N11H6IM CITX PLJ~NNINS~~~~BxON. OCTOBL'R 3. 1983 _ 83-637
ACTI Ns Commi~~ion~r !ry oiE~r~d R~solution No. PCd3-188 end mov~d tor
iti~ p~ssay~ end adoption tha~ th~ llneheim city Plenninq Conanie~ion Aoe~
h~r~by lind that tha pcopoe~d River Valley Redev~lopm~nt Project ie in
~entormenco with the General Plan Por the City ot Aneheim.
On coll call, the focagoin9 rasolution wae peaeed by the loilowing vote:
J1YES: BOU11S, BUSHOR~~ FRY~ HBR98T~ KING
N0~8: NON~
~`.69ENT: L/- CLl1IRE~ MCBURNSY
11FISTAIN: HUSHORE
5,,,,~....,. . ~,~.,,t.,.~.~ ~ ..~ ~
B. CONDITIONI-L USB PBttMIT N0. 2211 - Requaet from Wi111Am E. Uhl toc a
retrc-a~etive extension of time, proparty located at the southeaet ao~ner
of Pcontere Street and Glsasell Stceet.
AC_ TIpN; Commiesionec Ring ~ffered a motion, eeconded by Commiseioner
Hetbat and MOTION CARRIBD (Commissionera La Claire and McBurney ebeent),
that the ~-neheim City Planninq Commisalon daae heceby grant a one-yeer
retroactive extaneion oE tima °~r Conditional Uee Permit No. 2211 to
expire on Mey 18, 1984.
C. CONDITIONAL USE PBRMIT N0. 1838 - Requeat from Mike Lin, Chao, inc. for a
one-year retroactive extension of time, property loceted at 333 and 475
West Ball Road.
1-,,,~,CTION; Commissioner King offeced e motion, seconded by Commis~,i~on,,e,r F y~
end MOTION CARRIED (Cammiesioners La Claire end McBurney aba~nt~T",-th~
the Anaheim City Planning Cammisaion does heceby grant a ane-yesr
rettoectiv~ extension of time for ConditionaA Use Pecmit No. 1838 to
expire on Mey 22, 1983.
D. CONDITIONJ~L USE PBRMIT NO. 2132 - Request from Glendon Miller for a
cetroactive extension of time, property locAted at 2830 Eaet Miraloma
~-venue.
A~ N: Commissioner King offered a motion, aeconded by CommisalonAr Pry
and MOTION C1-RRIED (Commisaionere La Claire end McBurney abeent), thet
the 1-naheim City Planning Commisaion doee horeby grant a retroactive
two-year extenaion of time for Conditional Uee Pecmit No. 2132 to expire
on November 17, 1984.
E. TENTATIVE T_RACT N0. 10983 - Request fc~am Kaufman en~i eroad, inc. for
~pproval of revised epecific ~~lana, property locate~l ~t the southeaat
cornec of Santa Ane Canyon Ruad dnd Weir Canyon Road.
Kendra llorries, 1-aeiatant Planner, presentec~ the reviaed plens and
expl~ined the major difference i.s in the size ~f the dwelling unita with
proposod units canging from 985 to 1,367 equece ~eet and the previously
approved unita ranging from 1,225 to 1,7~2 e~iuare feet.
Kevin Kirk, Kaufman & Broad, Inc. expleined the revieed plan and pointed
out the lot and pad sizes are identical to the previoue plan.
10/3/~'3
INUT~S. A!'111HBIM CITY,~ NING COMMI88ION._ OCTO~ER 3~ 1983 83-638
Commi~~ion~r H~cb~t ret~cr~d to th~ icont landecaping end steted h•
thouqht the tcont• would look like ali concr~t~. Mr. Kirk •xplein~d
ther~ will b• aprinkl~r~ and landocapin9.
Commisoionec HerbaC eteted he did not ehink thi~ type d~velopment belongs
in l-naheim Hills bscauee iti 1$ on a public str~et and it will look like
sll drivewaya. Hs ~dded he ha. alwsys ba~n oppoe~d c.o thie kind ot
development in thia eree. He saked about c~creational tacilitisa
indicating this ia not s condominium development and he did not think
thsce could be any srea !or children to play. Kendra Morriea, Aseiatant
planner, reeponded they will be providing minimum Code cequirement in
pcivete yecd aceea.
Mr. Kirk responded these will ba~sically be petio type homee deoigned with
etri~ma to give the lndoor/outdoor teeling, and etil: et~y in the
merketpiace.
pCT ON: Commiseionec Pry oFfered a mokion, seconded by Commia:~•ioner King
and MOTION CARRIED (Commiaeionece La Claire and McBurney absent)~ that
the Anaheirn City Planning Commiseion does hereby eAprove revieed apecific
pl~+ns (Revieion No. 2) foc Tentative Tract No. 10983.
F. TENTATIVB TR11CT OP M~-P N0. 11727 (Rev. No. 1- Requeat fcom Susan M.
Bemis, Stetewido Developera, Inc. for a one -yeac extension of time,
Crescent 1-venue,aand~lacatedfapproximatelyY330ofeettwesttof theth eide of
centerline of Brookhuret Street.
J-_CTION: Commiseionec King offeced a motion, eeconded by Comr~ia~ ~i,Q ~nec Fry
and MOTION CARRIBD (Commiesioners La Claire end McBurney ebeenG7; ~YiB~~~~
the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heteby grant a~ one-year
extension of time for Tentative Map of Tract No. 11727 (Re~ielon No. 1)
to expice on March 8, 1985.
G. CONDITIONJ-L USE P~RMIT N0. 2342 - Request from L.O.R.D.S. Miniatries for
furthec Planning Commiasion review. Propecty located at 806 and 808
North 1-naheim Boulevard.
1-t the beginning of the mgeti,ng befoce the public hearinge, Chairwoman
Bouas explained Commiseion hed received a petition concerning the
pcoblema with this church end digttibution center at 806 and 808 North
J~naheim Baulevards however, public toatimony cannot be heard today
becau8e this has not Deen ~et fo[ a public hearing and suggreted the
matter be $cheduled £or public hearing review.
~_ION; Commisaioner Herbat offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
Bushoce ~nd MOTION C1-RRIED (Comtaiseioners La Claire and McBurney absent)•
that review of Conditional Use Permit No. 2342 be set for publlc hearing
on October 31, 1983.
10/3/83
i
i
t~IN~T68. ANAHBIM CITY PLA~1~,iINa CO 8~~0_ N~OCTQ,~,~t, ~,~, 19~3~ 83-639
tl. ,C~NAITiL 8,~,_$~T NO~, 1469 - Rpu~~t lcom Myunq Shik Yun tor
approvel oi c~vi~od planr, pcop~rty locat~d at 711 South arookhucst
Stc~~t.
Ulyssee Bau~r, egent, ~xplsi~ed th~ property ownec d~cided Eo utilise the
•xiatinq buildin9 tBrook.iae Win~ry) ae a reakaucant end c~cktail lounge
and to raduce the numb~r o! units.
it wes clacified thet the height of the motal building will no~ be
ceduced to two atories ae indiceted in th~ etaft report.
11CTION: Commia~ioner Fry oPfered a~ motion, aeconded by Commieeioner King
and OTiON CARRIED (C~mmieaionere La Claire end McBurney abaentl, that
the 1-naheim City Plenning Commiseion boes heteby epprove reviaed plane
tor Conditional Uee Permit No. 2469 finding them in aubatnntial
conformance with previously appcoved plans.
I. CONDITIONI-I. USE PERMIT N0. 2238 - Request from Acthur T. Maiec, Sc.
Pcojeat Menager, L.l-. Beain foc tecmination of Conditional Uae Fermit No.
2238, property loceted at 1776 Weat Penhell Way.
1-CTION: Commisaioner King oEfered Reaolution No. PC83-189 and moved for
ite peseage and adoption that the /-neheim City Plenning Conanieeion doee
heteby terminate Conditionel Use Permit No. 2238.
On roll c~ll, Fhe foreqoing reeolution was paeaed by the following vote:
AYBS: BOU~-S~ BUSHORE, PRY~ HERBST~ KING
NOBS: NONE
ABSENT: Ll~ CLJ-IRB~ MCBURNBY
J. VJ-RIANCE NO. 771 - Request from Gary Mercado for termination of V+~ciance
No. 771, property lacated at 225 North 8tete College Bouleverd.
ACTION: Commisaioner Kinq offered Resolution No. PC83-190 and moved for
ita paseage and adoption that khe 1-naheim City Plenning Commisaion doea
hereby terminate Varinnce Na. 77'l.
On coll cdll, the foregoinq reeolution was passed by the followinq vote:
1~YBS: BOU11S, BUSBORE, PRYi HBRBST, RING
NOBS: NONB
11B3BNT: Ll- CI.AIRE, MCBURNLY
lt. A!lENDlIENT TO TEIE IUI3TBR PLJ-N BOR DRI-INI-GE - Request from the Engi~ee[ing
Divieion !oc amendment to the master plan for drainage by the addition of
Drainage Dietri.cts 42 ~nd 43 which serves the shorb-wells property and
the Bauer Ranch ereae.
Jny Titua, Otfice ~ngineer, explained this is ~ request for an amendment
to the City'e Master Plan for drainage end pertaine to Diatricta 42 and
43 which serves the 8horb~Aells property and the Bauer, Douglass and
Wall~ce ranches.
10/3/83
• T siot~. O~:T481~.~+ 3. 1~~ 83-640
~~C1T38. 71N1~'36Th ~=TY ?L+11t~N NG COMM~~ +~•
ACT ON: Commission~r Hscb~t otl~c~d a~aolution No. PC83-171 ~nd movsd
!or ih~r~b •r~aommenddtokth~ City Counailha~a~ndm~ntpto~the9Mas~ir~~ien
doss Y
tor Drainag~.
0~ coll aall, the for~yoing r~solutlon am~ pas~ed by ths tollowing vote:
~Ygg= gp~Ag, BU8HOR8~ FRY~ HBABST~ RING
NOBSi NONE
1-BSSNTt LA CL1-IRB~ MCBURNBY
OTEiBR DISCUSSIONs
Commiaeioner Bushoce ret~cred to the ear].ier heering regarding an ill~gal
dwalling unit on Meltoee 8kr~et and etatied in reviewing the location he hed
dciven down the alley and noticed a lot of te~redtthere~was quitebAAF~rkinq
and aome had debria blocking them end it app
problem in the area. He augg~ated Code Enforcement pecsonnel •hould
investi.gate the nree.
1~C_ TIONs Com.~nieaioner Huahore offered a motipn, aeconded by Commiasionec Fry
~IO
dnd MOTiON CJ-RRxGQ (Conuaissionere La Claice and NcBurney absent), that t e
Anaheim City Planning Commiesion daee heceby inetruct staff to 3nveatigete
illegal uae of garagea nnd parking problems in the 400 biack of So~th Melrose
between Santa Ana Street and Broadway. ^~,,.a.,..- ~,• f.r ~t~~~
1-DJOtlRNMENT: Thece being no tucthec business, Commiesioner Pry offeted e
motion, eeconded by Commisaioner King and MOTION CJ-RRZSD
(Commiasioners La Claire and McBUrney nbsent), that the meet~ng
be adjourned to ~ joint work $ession to be echedul~d with the
City Council on Octohgr 11, 1983, ati 7:00 ~.m.
The meeting was adjourned aL• 5:10 p.m.
geapectfully aubmi~ted,
~G~F~ ~ ~+'~'uai
Sdith L. ~arcie, Secretary
1-nahei~ City Planning Comiaiseion
ELH : lm
0008m
10/3/83