The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1980/12/01~° Civlc Ce~ter An~h~im~ C~lifornl~ D~cernber 1 ~ 1980 REGULAR NEETING Of THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR • The re9ul~r nbetin9 of tha Mehsim Ctty Pl~nning Commi~sion wae callad MEETING t~ order by Chalrman Toi~r •t 1:35 p•m.~ Dec~mber 1. 19fl0 tn the Counct) Cht~nb~r~ a quorum being present. PRESENT - ChAirmen Tol~r Commis=lonerss Ba~nas~ Bou~s~ Bushore~ Fry~ King ABSENT: - Comnissioner: Hcrbst ALSO PRESENT • Rona 1 d Thc~mpson A~nika Sant*1~ht( Jack White Jay Ti tus Llsa Stipkovith Desn Sherer Edith t~arris Planninq Oire~to~ Jlssistant Director for tonin9 Assistant CitY Attorney Ottlce Enqlneer Nouaing M~nager Assistant Planner Plenntng Commission Sacreta ry PLEDGE OF - The Pladge of Allegisnce to th~ Fl~g was ted by Conrni~sloner F~y. ALLEGtANCE APPROVAL OF • Commisslonar King otferod o rt~otton~ saconded by ConMnissloner Bnws TNE MINUTES a~d MOTION CARRtEO (Commlssionar Herbst being absent) , th~t the minutes of Lhe meeting of Novanlier 3~ 198~f be ~pproved as suba+ttted. CONTINUED ITEMS: IR NEGATIVE DECL,~:tATtON. RECLA~SIFICAt1GN N0. SA-81•13. WAIVEfI PUBLIC NEA~ING. OWNERS: MARY S. NELSON. ADMINISTRAT4R FOR IDA M. RANNOW ESTATE, c/o WEINFEI,D & MlXON~ ATTORNEYS AT LIW~ 6A1 lbrth Parkcenter Drlva~ SuTte 203~ Santa Ana, CA 92701. ACEPlT: LINOBORG-DIWL INVESTORS~ 1720 Pacific Coast Ntgtw~ray, Hunttngton 8each~ CA 92648. Property descr(bed as an i~regularly-shaped p~rcei of lend cons~sttng of approxtmetely 12.3 acres located at the southwest corner of Cerritos Avenue end Euclid Street. Property p~esencly ci~sstfied RS•A•G3~000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAI) 20NE. RECLASSIFICATIOta REQUEST: RM-3000 CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: TO PERMtT A 22A•UN17 CONOOMIHIUM G GMPLEX (25Y sffo~dsble) 411TN MAIVERS OFs (~) MINIMUN LOT AREA PER O~IdELLING UNIT, (~) MAXIMUh STRUCTURAI. H~IGNT~ (c) MAXIMUH FLOOR AREA~ (d) K~NiMUM aECREAT10NAl- LEI~UAE AREA ANO (e) MIl11MUM NUMBEa AND TYPE OF PARKING SPACES. 80-696 /2/ 1 /80 ~ ~~' MINUTES~ ANAHEtM CIT1f PLANNINC COMMISSION~ OECEMBER 1~ 1980 80•697 TENTATIVE MAP REQUESTt TO ESTABLISH A S•LOT~ 220•UNIT CONDOMINIUM SU9DIVIStON (25 E •~tordabl.). 1~ wes noted the petitioner has requested • conttnuanca for Mo weeka tn o~der fo r ~av;t~ed plons to be s ubmitted and addttional code walvers adve~tised. ACTIUNs Commissione~ King offered a motlon~ seconded by Commisatoner Bouas end ~Mu~~R CARRtED (Commissioner Nsrbst balnc~ sbsont). that the An~hetm City Pienntng Commi~sion does hereby continue consider~tton of the ~torementtoned item to the regul~rly•scheduled meeting of Dacambar 15~ 19~~ at the request of the petttlo~er. : EIR NEGATIVE DECLA~RATIONJ WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT ANQ CONDIT' . N0. . PUBLIC HEARIN G. OWNER: ATLANTtt RICHFIELD COMPANY~ 1786 West llncoln Avenue, Anaheim~ G.A ~2 801~ AGENT: P. D. IIPPERT~ 1786 Wast Lincotn Avenue~ Anaheim~ CA 92801. Prope rty dascrtbed es an trreguia~rly-shaped parce) of land conaisting of approximately 0.5 acre~ locete~d at the southeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperie) Highway~ and further describad as 57aA East La Palma Avenue. Property pre~a~tly cle s sifled CL(SC) (COMMERCiAI~ IIMITED SCENIC CORRIDOP, OVERLAY) ZONE. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: TO PERMI' A CONVENIENCE MARKET WITII GASOLINE SALES IW TF~E CL(SC) ZONE WITH WAIVER QF (a) MAXtMUM S12E OF PRiCE SIGNS~ (b) PROH191TE0 FREE-STANOING SIGNS AND (c) MAXIMUM NUMBER QF WALL SIGNS. Mr. Goodma~~ agant~ asked for a two-week continu~nce because they had Just received tha st~ff report and did nnt have edeqwte cime ta analyze It. ACTION: Commisstoner King offered e motion. seconded by Commtastoner Bouas and MO ON CARFiIEO (Commissioner Herbst being absent) that the Mehelm City Pianning Commission does hereby continue oonsidera~tton of the aforementioned mstter io the regularly•scheduled rt+eeting of Decertber 15~ 19a0 at the request of the petitto~e~. 1: EIR NEGATIVE OECLARAT1011 RECLASSIFICATION N0. $0-81-1~ WAIVER OF ~ODE ~ i . . : PUBIIC HEARIt~G. OWNERS; BANK OF CALIFOkNIA~ N. A., TRUSTEE~ 845 South Figueroa, Las At~gelas~ CA 9 0054. AGENT: F~OYD L. FARANO, ESQ.~ 2555 East Chapman Avenue, Sutte 415~ Fulierton~ CA 92631. Property d~scribed as dn irregu~arly•shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5•2 acres~ lacated north and east of the northeast co rner of Wilken War and Narbor Boulevard~ and further described as 217Q South Ha~bor Soulevard. P roperty presently classifled RS-A-~3~000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE. RECLASS I FI CAT I OH REQUESTt Rhh3000 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: TO PERMIT A 99-UNIT CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX WITH KAIVERS OF: (a) MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DtiIELLING UNIT, (bj MAXIMUM 57RUCTURAL HEIGHT~ (c) MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE~ (d) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA~ (a) MINIMUM RECREATIONAL•LEISURE AREA, (f) MiNIMUM NUMBER AND TYPE OF PARKiNG SPACES ANO (g) MAXtMUM FENCE HEIGHT. TENTATlVE MAP REQUEST: TO ESTABLISH A 2-LO't~ 99-UNIT CONDOMINIUM SUBDtVISION. 12/1 /80 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CIT11 PLANNINC COMMISSION~ DECEMBER 1~ 1980 80•b98 SubJ~ct p~tttion w~s co~tinuad from the rne~ting ot Nov~mb~r 3. 1980 at the request of the patitlon~r~ a~d from the moettng ot Nov~mber 17. 1950 (n a ~de~ th~t revleed plans submttted ~t ms~ting could be ravlewed by stel'f. There w~re approximately 74 peraons indicatln9 thet~ presa~ce t ~ opposttion to sut~Ject requsst~ and a) though the staft report w~s not read, i~ is referred to and n-~de a p~rt of tha minutos. Ch~irman Tolar axplalned the Commiss~an has ~I~aady he~rd ~ tramendous ~m~unt af tasttnany and he felt tha residents a~d property ov+ne~~ are en~ItlAd ta ~ deciston tod~y. Ne explelned the pubtic hearing wtti not be re-ope~ad betause the Commtssion h~s hosrd al) the opposttion's conce~ns and felt their questlor+s cen be answe~ed. Floyd L. Fara~o. ettorney~ 2555 E~st Chapman, Fulle~ton, was p ~esent to enewer any que~ttony. Chalrmen toler asked M~. Fara~o why the petltloner feels he is entitled to the denslty bonuses In the form ol' severel waivers~ expislning tht Commission cannot grant the wai vers unless the petl t io~er enters I ntv en agreame~t wl th tha Communl ty Housing Dapartment to provide a mtnimum of 25Z of the pro,ject tor law o~ moderate income housing a~d esked ~f th~t p~oblem has been ~esolved. Mr. Far~na stated thay h~d stipulated at the first mee~inq and are sttll willtng to stlpulate that no lass than 25$ of the untts witl quelity as affordable housing~ pur~ua~t to stAte law. Jack Whlte~ Asst, City Attorney~ explafned there would be a eond(tion imposed on both the conditionai use permit ~nd the te~tative t~ac! mat+ s~provel requlring the dnveloper to enter into sn r~greeme~t with the CitY of Anah~~m pursuant to ~overnment Code Section 65915 ~nd sald agreemertt shatl be recorded with er prior to approval of the fi~al map spproval and shall provtde thst no less than 2 5 Z~or whatever number the Planning Commlssion may decide) of the unlts shall be soid as law or moderaCe income housing as deflned by Government Cade Section 65915 as.ci with appropriate res~le co~trols es established by the City of Anahelm. Mr. Farana stated they are willing to comply with thet condicion. Commissioner Bushore explained the Commissinn's biggest con c~ rn was that they deal with land use but in this case e~e talki ~g about people's l ives being uprooted~ but wi th the pett tione~ coming before the Commissfon prior to th~ tenants 6eing vacated~ the Comnisston cen r~aqulre him to stipulate to certain things to give the tenants some relief. He suggested in addition to Alternates "A" and "6"~ as outlined in the staff repvrt~ that sn additional alternate be included as Alternate "C" and that wauld be ~ flat fee of S3.~00 fo ~~ elocatlon of~~the 45 permanent residenta~ offering them a choice between Alternate A~ 8, or C. Chairman Talar explained to the per+nenent reaidents p~esent that the arner of that prope~ty could evtct everyane from the park and then apply for this partlculs~Hzeoning and certainiy bui id the ~nits wi thout any agreement to do anything for them. atated the Commisslo~ !s try(ng to get as much for them fron~ the awner as possible to help relocste thet~ coaches. Ne stated he agrees with Altarnate "C" and asked hvw the petitioner felt about that ~uggestlon. 12/1/80 .,... ..: . . .... _ .., _ , . >,. _.~._.,.~ ~ MI NUTfS ~ ANAHE 1 M C i TY PLaNNING CONMI SS I ON, DECEM9ER 1~ 1~80 8A-699 Mr. Fa~ano stated the~e ara ~t leaet 20 peopte who would recelve only 51~000 for relocatian payment undor the formul~ f~r Alte ~n~tas "A" or "B" and they faal that is probabiy ~ot ecceptobla and p~obebly Is not e~ough~ even In vlew of the fact that they can keep thei ~ coaches~ Ha t~t~ted they a~e wil ling to affer a thlyd alternetlvo to pay e fl~t fee inste~d of Altornates "A" o~ "B"~ but felt the S3~000 tigur~ Is a l ittte hlgh and th~ be~t they wuld offar w~uf rt be 52~000. Mr. Farana stated during the pest two weeks they hsve talked ta a lot more people end at least 10 residents have Iisted thetr mobi lehome . for saln and two hava located apaces for their coaches In other parks. sa chey are atill warktng in the dtrection of helping as ms~y tenants aa poasible. Reaponding to Commi'sloner Bushoro~ Mr. Farano axptalned ?.5 tenants would recelve more than $2~000 under thnir proposed formule so did not know lf they would beneFit more from A1 ternete "C" for a flat fue of $2.000. a~d Alternates "A" or "B" wouid be mora beneficlal to them. Commissioner BushorQ steted probebly 20 households would be affected and rether than the 51~000, they weuld bo entitled to 53~000. which would mean an addittonal S40~000 for this proJect. Ne polnted out the 400-squarc foot unlts ara no longe~ baing p~oposed and revised plans ahaw al) units as stralght condominfum u~tts and he was sure the develope~ would ~ather have condominium unita, so he is benafiting from that chenge and the bon us dens i ty requested 1 s h6$ . al though techn 1 ca i i y they ere on ly requi red to provide 2y$ affordable units. Mr. Fareno rep 1 i ed the developer I s th 1 nki ng i n terms of u 1c1~'~ af ford~b i e pro)ec¢, rsther than Just 25$~ so under th~se circumstances felt the S3.~~0 peymant wauld be a problem and from the stendpoint of affordable housing it wouid be awre af a benefit o~ a pub 1 t c bas i s and i ns tead of un i ts t n the ma rket ranqe af S9~ ~~c)0 [o S 12~,~~4, which othenwtse would be tha prlce~ they are cons(dering uni ts that would b* 1~~J$ af fordab 1 e. Commtssione~ Bushore did noL think the pro~eet would be f~asib~c with the ~:ast •~rt const~uction if the petitior~er stfpulates to a 1~0$ affordable proJect, usiny the crlteria requi ~ed by tha HouRing Oepa~tment. Hc stated he would like to reach some egreement to se' !i~~: develaper proceed wtth the proJect and still cane up wttt~ something to ~~alp these reslde~~ts a~.d if the petitioner cannot live with the sttpulations imposed by the Commisg~~n. the~ thase peopie wt 1) not get anythtng. Ne asked if tha peti tioner real iy feit ~he 53.~0~ figure ls that unreasnnable fc+r those 20 tenants wh~ch would ba S40~000 m~re. Mr. Fareno stated their concern is thet it is pc~ssible all the tenants would want that same choice. Commissioner Bushore stated in the past the eondttion imposed on developers fo~ relacatio~ was a~r+inimum payment of $1~560 and felt tha developer would have to admit that moving from an apartment Is a lot different than relocating a mo6ilehome~ becauae there is much more involved and these people deserve addit~onal consideration. Mr. Farano stated originally they had quotattons for moving a si~gle-wide coach of $1,000 - S2,000 a~d a double-wide for $2~000 -$4~000~ but have since gotten a 12/1/80 ~' NINUTES~ AHANEIM C11'Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEM6ER i, 1980 80-700 quatation for movinq a doubl~-wide for 51~500 to S1~800 which lncluded the antira take-dovvn and sat-up within 50 mlles, so felt the 52~000 ttgure would t~ke care of the t~n~nt's moving expendes. It was cl~rtflad the~e sre 33 ~~~9~e"~+~de cosches tn the psrk and 1Z doubie-wide co~ches~ Commi~sioner Busha ~e revised his suggestion for Altarnate "C" to provide S1~700 for a •1~91e-wlde co~ch and S2~300 for • douhle-wtde co~ch. Mr. Farano stated he hes been Informed by hls client that the S1.700 fia~t cesh figu~e fa~ the stngle-wide coach and 52~300 flet cash ftgure for the double-wide coachas ts ~cceptabia ~nd he is wi111ng to stipulate to adding that as l1lte~nate "C". Cheirman Toler stated thare should be •n s~reement be Meen the petittoner end the te~a~tt but he did not wsnt the ctty involved !n drswing up such en agreeme~t. Commiasionar Bushore stated tha epplicant has sgreed to thts condition, but the city can~ot mak~ anyone accept or refuse the alternates and explaln~d the Commtssion is trytn9 to aqueeze the l~st Ilttle bit out of the developer to help thc residents. Mr. FArano stated they are In the process at this time of ~repsrtng an agreement between the re~ida nta of the park and mansgement which sets Porth the bests upon whlch the residents have accepted ~elocatlon payments ar any beneftts. He stated Lhay will ba happy to allow ~ha clty to reviaw thesa eqreements. Ne explsined these sgrecments wtll show comparisons of Lhe three alternetes tn each sltuatio~ so the tenants can chose the best elternate. lie also stated they will continue co coopersta a:~d try to help as much +~s possibla, realiztn9 that the residents wlli not be 100~ satisfiad no matter what ia done. Commissloner Bsrnes read Alternates "A" and "B" as shuwn in the staff ~eport and explained the residents wiil bo abie tochoose the best o~e for them tn thetr own particuler situatton end that nobody is going to be forced out tnto the street and not have a place to llve. Jack Ifilte~ Assistant City Attorney~ expiained a condttion shoutd be included that prior to approval of the final mep the developer shall enter (nto an agraement wtth ea~ch of the 45 pe nria~ent mobitehome households or submit evldence oP the willtngness to enter (nto such an agreart~anc or furnish p~oof the~eof to the city agreeing.to provtde ~eloeation sssistance to the said households tn accordance with Lhe appliceble Alternate "A"~ "B" or "C" as stipulated to by the der~laper. Ron Thompson. Planning Oirector~ explalned for the record Chmt the Cortmission brought up the fact that the General Plan tndicat~d the property for n+ediwre densfty residential lsnd uses and that the applicant couid go ahead and use the prope~ty for apertments~ but wanted to mak~ it clear that the property ts presently zoned RS-A- 43,000 (Residential/Ag~icultural). He stated there is no resolution of intent on the property and baslcally the vwner can only uae it for agricultural uses~ single-family residenttal or th e mobi~tehome park. Chairman Tolar exptained the property owner can request a zone change fran the present zana of RS-A-43~000 ta the apartment zone. 12/1/80 ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM c1*r PLANNING COMMIS5101~. oECEMBER t~ 1980 80-701 tbn Thompson replied thet the owne~ cauld ~equest a zone ch~ngo~ but until ha doas~ tha use remalns ~g~IculLural. ACTION: Commisslonsr Barn~s oftered a motlon~ seconded by Commisstoner King end i~~l CARRIEO (Commisslan~r Flerba! being absent)~ that the Anahelm City Plenning Commisslon has reviewad the p roposal to reclasstfy subJ@ct property from the RS-A- 43~000 (R~sidanttal/Agricultural) Zone to the RM-3000 (Residenttal~ Multiple-Family) Zone to permii e 2-lot~ 99-unit condaminlum subdivision wtth watvers of minimum lot ar~a per dweiling untt~ meximum structurel height. minimum recreation•leisure area and minimum numbar and type of parkt~g spaces on an Irregularly•shaped parce) of land locstad north end east of the northoast corner of Wttken Vay and Narbor Bouleverd~ having approxlmat~ frontages of 440 feet on tha north stde af Wtlken Way and 39 feet on the esst sido of Harbor Bauleva~d, (217A South Marbor Boulevard); and does hereby approva the Nagative ~eclsration frAm the roqulrement to prepare an envtrorxnental Impact report on the b~sis that there wouid bc no s(gnificant indlvidual or cumuletive adversr environmental impact due to the approvel af thts Nec~atlve Declsratian since the M ehetm Ganera) Plan deslgnates the subJect property for medlum density land uses commensurate w(th the propoaal; that no sensltive envtro~menta) Impacts •re tnvolved in the proposal; that the Initl~l Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no aignificant ind{vidual or cumut~tive adverse environmentat (mpact~; and that the Negetive Deciaration substantiating the faregoing findings la on file in the City of M aheim Plenning Department. Conxnissioner Barnes offered Resolution No. PC80-208 and moved fo~ its passage and edoption that the Anaheim City Planntng Coirmission does hereby grant Petition for Reclassiftcetion No. 84-81-14, subJett to Interdepartmenta) Commtttee recommendatlens. On rol) call~ the fo~egotng ~esolution was passed by the following vate: AYF.S: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS. BUSHORE~ FRY, KtNG~ TOLAR Nf1~'~: COMMISSIONERS: NONE AI ~ wT: COFW ISS I ONERS : HERaST Commissioner Barnes offered a motion~ secanded by Commissioner Bouas a~d M0710~1 CARRIEU (Commissloner Ne rbst be(ng absent)~ that the A~aheim City Planning Commission does hersby grant the request for walve~s of Code requiroment on the basis that the developer has agreed to provide 25Z of the unics for low and moderete Income housing pursuant to Government Code Section G5915~ with app~opriate resale controls as ~caroved bv the Citv of M ahetm. ~,~.;~rnissioner Barnes offered Resolution No. PC80•209 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anahetm City Planning Cortxnission does hereby grant Petttton for Condittonal Use Permit No. 2121~ subJect to the petitlo~~er's stipulation to enter into an agreeme~t wieh ~sh of thc 45 permanenc .mc~bilehome rasidents to provide retocation assistance ~{+ the forms of Alternata "A"~ "a" or "C" as follaws~ snd to enter tnto an agreement with the City af Anr.heim to provide no less than 25$ of the project as affordable housing pursuant to G~~~« rnme~t Code Section 65915 wlth appropriate resale controls as approved by ~'~~ Ctty of Anaheim and subJect to Interdepartmental Committee reconn~ndations. 12/1/80 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEM6Eft 1~ 1980 80-702 Alt~r~ate "A" for nwbilahoa~• l ~ss thsn 5 Ye~rs old: Devaloper p~ys 100i knock-dawn. Cransportatlo~ and set-up cha~fles to snother mobilehome park located within y0 mlles of the Wastwinds Traller Lodge for tenants on fixed tncomes; or tha develope~ pays y0~ af thos• charges if te~antis not on fixed incomss. Relocation assistance will be provided without charge by the devetoper. Alter~ate "0" for mobilehomea mcre than S Ysars old : q11~~~~~ ~~~~Y The tenant ~etains the unit and the developer peys cash •ccording to a fo~mule besad on how long the tenant has ownad th~ mobilehoma in Weatwinda Treller Prrk. The tenant then pays atl moving costs. Ths formula cansista of (1) aubtracting the appraisad off-sit~ mobilahortw value from the appraised on-site valua and (2) applyl~g an equity residue f~ctor of ~02 to the d(fferenc~ thereof (tha equtty residue factor ~aduced by 10~ for e+~ch yesr the tenant hes ltved in We~twinds Trailer Lodge. The ~esult will be the cash amount which the developer will pay to the tenant~ provided that the mtntmum payment wlll be $1~000. Alternate "C" for eli mob(lehomes re9ardle_ss o~: ......_~._ -~- -~_.~_. The tenant reteins the units and the developer ~ays cash amauntinq to S1~1A~ fo~ each single-wtde mnbilehome coech end $2.300 '..r double-wide rtabllehome coeches, Said amounts, accordl~g to the developar~ are ~he ectusl costs es of December 1~ 1q80 for relocating such coaches within a 50 mile ~adtus of Westwtnds Tr~iler lodge. On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by thc following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY, KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMiSSI0NER5: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST Commissfoner Barnes offered a nbtio~, aeconded by Comnisstoner Boues snd MOTI~t CARRIED (Cammissioner Herbst being absent)~ that the Anahetm City Planntreg Commission does hereby find that the proposed subdiviston~ together with Its destgn and (mprovement. is consistent with the City of M aheim General Plan. pursuant to Governrtw~:nt Code Sectio~ 66473.5; and does~ therefore~ spprave Tentativa Map of Tract No. 11305 (Revision No. 1) fo~ a 2-lot~ 99-unlt condomtnium subdivision, subJect to the followiny conditlon~. i. That the app~oval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 11305 is grantad sub]ect to the approval of Reclassification No. 80•81-14 and Condtitonai Use Permit No. 2121. 2. Th at should this subdivlsion bo developed as more than one subdivision~ each subdtvision thereof shall be submitted in tentative farm for approvai. 3. That all lots wlthin chis tract shall be served by underground utilittes. 4. That the o~iginal documents of the covenants~ conditions, and restrictions~ and a letter addressed to develop~er's title company authorizing recordation thereof, shel) be s~mltted to the City Attorney's office and epp~'oved by tha City Atto~ney's Office, Public Utiltties Dept.~ 8uilding Dtviston. and the Engineertng Diviston p~lar to ftnal t~act mep approval. Seid documents~ 12/1/80 ~..; MINUTES~ ANIWEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEM9ER 1~ 198A 80-~03 as app~oved~ shall be filed snd recorded In the Oftica of the O~anaA County Raco~de~. 5. That street names shall bs app~ovad by the City Plannlnq D~partment prior to •pprov~l af a fin~l tract map• 6. That drainaya of sub,ject prope~ty shall be disposed of in s nwnner satisfactory to the City Engineer. 7. That the owner of subject property sha11 pay to the City of Anaheim the approprlate park and recr'eatlon tn•1(au fees es detnrmined to be approprtate by the City Council~ s+~id fees to be patd at t~d time the building permit Is (ssued. 8. Thst All prtvate streets shell be developed in accordence with the Clty of Anefieim's Sta~Jard Detall No. 122 for privete streets, Including instellatian of Streec Name si~ns~ Plans for the private street itghttng~ ~s required by the standard detail~ shaii be submitted to the Building Qtvision for approvai and tncluslon with the building plans prtor to the issuance of butlding permlts~ (Private streats are those whtch provide p~lmary occess and/or clrculation within the proJQCt. ~. If permanent street name signs have not been installed~ temporary street nema signa aheli be Instailed prior to eny occupsncy, 10. Th~t the awner(s) of subJect property shali pay the tre~`fic signal assessment fee (O~dtnance No. 3896) in a~ amount as determinad by the City Council. for each new dweiling unit prlo~ to the issusnce af a bullding permi t. 11. That fire hydrsnts shall be installed end charged as ~equired and determined to be ~ecessary by the Chief of the Ftre Department R'~~or to commencement of structural framing. 12. 'That appropriate wate~ assesament fees as determined by the Offtce of Utilities General Manager sh~ll be patd to the Ctty of Anahetm prior to the issuance of a building permit. 13. T'hat the devetope~ sha1) acqutre access rights across the one (1) foot strtp at tha north property line of subJect property before constructtng an access to Cliffwcwd Avenue, 14. That an o~dinance reroning Che subJect property shelt in no event become effectlv+e txcept upon or folla+ing the recordation of Final T~act Map No. 11305 wTthln the ttme specifieci in Gavernment Code Section 6E463.5 0~ such furthar tin~ as the advisory agenry or Ct ty Caunci 1 me~- grant. 1S. That prior to approval of the final map of Tract Na. 11305, the developer shali enttr lrtto an agreement with the Cit~ of Anshetm pursuant to 6overnment Code Section 65915 agreeing to maximum sales p~ice~ as appro~ed by the City of An~heim for a mintmum of 25$ of the units, to be law and moderate cost housing as deftned by satd Government Code Section~ together 12/1/60 ..<~ ( ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN~ COMMIISSION~ DECEMBEIt 1~ 1980 SO-704 with such addittonal covenments and conditiont Including reaale controis as may b• requl~ed by the City of Anaheim. 16. Thst p~ior to approvai of the ftnal map of Tract No. 11305~ th~ develope~ shell nnter into an agreement with eech of the 45 permanent mobllehome housaholds o~ sh+all submit evidence setisf~ctory to the city~ oS` willingness to enter into an agreament or ~ha11 furnlsh proot thereof to the ctty ag~aeing to provlde relocetton ~sststance to said hauseholds In accordance with the applicabie •iternatives "A"~ "8" or "C" as heretofore sttpulated to by the developer as foliaws: Altern~te "A" for mobtlehomes leaa than ~ ears old: Developer pays noc • own~ t~ansportat an an set-up c argea to another mobtlehome park located within 50 miles of the Westwinda Treiler Lodye for tenants o~ fixed income; or che developer pays 50~ of those charges for tenants not o~ fixed Incomes. Relocatlon asststAnce will be provlded without charge by the developer. Alternete "B" for mobtlehomes more than ~ ears old: The tenant rata ns t e un t an t e eve oper pays cas accor ing to e formula based on hav long tha tenant has oMrned the mobilehome tn Westwinds Tratlc~ lodge. The tend~t then pays ail moving costs. The formula consists of (1) subt~acting the app~alsed off-stte velue fr~r~ the appraisad on-slte velue and (2) applying an egulty residue factor of 70$ to the dlfference thereaf ~thc equity residue factor is ~educed by 10~ for each year the te~ant !~~s lived ln Westwlnds Trailer Lodgej. The result wtli be the ~.ash ar-bunt whtcli the developer wi l l pay to th~ tenant, provlded that the minimum payment will be 51,000. Alternate "C" for mobilrhomc homes re ardless of a et 'fhe tenent reta ns t e un t en th~ eve oper pays cas amount ng to $1.700 for single-wide mobilehome coaches and $2~300 fo~ double-wide coaches. Said amounts~ according to the devetoper, are the actual costs ~s of Dec~mber 1. 198ofo~ relocating such coaches wlthin a 50-mil~ radius of WeaM inds Trailer Lodge. 12/1/80 ~ ~., , MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIISSION~ OECEMSER 1~ 1~80 ITE PUDLIC HEARING. Valley Parkway~ Violet lantarn~ parcel of land East le Pslme p FAMILY) tONE. it 1 OF 8A- 705 OWNERS: LEWIS L. WRiGNT~ ET AL~ c/o ROBERT M~RRIS~ 30100 Crawn Sutto 22. Le~guna Niguel~ CA 92677• AGENT: RICNAaD L. FORD~ 34192 Dana Polnt~ CA 92629• Property described as an irrec~ularly-shape~d cansi:ting of approximstely 6.6 ec~e~, and further dascribed as 2633 ve~ue. Property presentlY clasatfied RM-1200 (RESIOENTIAL~ MULTIPLE- CONOITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PEaMIT A 156•UNIT AFFORDABLE CONOOMINIUM CONVERSION WITH WAIVERS OF (a) MINIMUM LOT AREA PER DWELLING UNIT~ (b) MAXIMUM STRUC?URAL NEIGHT, (c) MAXIMUM SITE COVERAGE~ (d) MINIMUM FLOOR AREA~ (e) MINIMUM RECREATIONAL-LEISURE AREA AND (f) MINIMUM NUMBER AND TYPE OF PARKING SPACES IN THE RM-120~ ZONE. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: TO ESTA~I,IS~1 A 1-LQT~ 15G•UNIT AFFORDABLE CONOQMINIUM CONVERSION SUBDIVISION. SubJect petltion was continued from the meatings of Octobar 20~ 1~A0 and Novemb~er 3, 1930 at the reyuest of the petttloner. The~e was one person indicating har presence tn oppositlon to subJect request, and although the steff rnport was not read~ it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Chairman Tolar explained ~Ince the Gommissio~ has prevlously heard a tremendous amount of testimony on this mattcr~ he would not reopen the public heartng for fu~ther comment. Rtchard ForO, petitioner~ stated parktng problems~ physical upgrades and warranties to be provided~ and concern regarding what the tensnts thi~k of the pro,j~ct were dtscussed at the Nove~ber 3rd meeting. He atated they lc~oked i~to the posstbillty of constructing a parking structure far addttlonal parking. but that would cost betwee~ 55.~~ and 57~00 per space and that cost wouid be added to the housing program. He stated thoy also did several studias on the 40-foat wide private street an~ presented sevarat alternatives to staff during the lnterdepartmental Committee mcettng and one plan added 19 spaces. meeting concern5 of the Planntng staff~ but confiicted wlth concerns of the city for anergency vehicles and trssh collectton; and that parking in the front would destroy the aesth~tic appea~ance of the proJact. Ne stated he did not think Chere is a~ answer to the parktng concerns~ but pointed out the proJect does meet code requireme~ts for apartment units. He stated they tried to provide more parF:ing in any way th~y could, but the proJect wasn't intended to house more vahicles without maJor changes and expens~. Mr. Ford stated ~ottces ware mailed to the cena~ts on tiovember 8 fo~ a meeting on November 17 to be h~ld et the Sunktst School. He stated 26 ten~nts attended that meeting and the housing program was prefer~ble to apartments; and that a exactly who would be ln favor of th lnterested in if it is app~oved. N a~e not tn favo~ of the -~roJect and program; that thcy got 9 resPo~ses presented to show why condominiuMS would questtonnaire was distributed to detern+ine e proJect and also whet program they would be be e stated the mecttng was cordial~ but the tenants only one person indtcated inte~est in the to the question~aire and 7 of those did not want 12/1/80 { ~ NINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSS10N~ OECEMBER 1, 1980 80-~06 th~s units converted and if it ts wnverted everyone Nanted to be relocated and constdered for Secttan 8 rental •ssi:tance and the one person in favor af the proJect Is on a fixed incama and 1~ fevor bncauae of the Sectlon 8 p~ogram and felt tt would be prefarable to increasing rents~ Fle ststed e ~ep~esentative from Fbustng was p~esent at that n+eeting to explain the qualificattons for Sectfon ~ Houaing Assistance, Mr. Ford refQrred to the queation re~arding the upgredes and stated he did taik to thc Buildinq Manager and tenants about aame of the problems they are hevtng on a day- to~day basis. He stated tf thc pro)ect is approved, experes wili be hired to determine what rcaily r~eeds to be corrected; that there is also ~ history of plumbing problems and those problems wil) be resolved; that there wtii be separate electrica) meters because there has bee~ a history of hiqh electrtcal usage in the bulidinq because utilities are paid. Hn explained ell physlcal aspects of th~ buliding wtll be brought up to the current Untform Butlding Codes end thet a one-year standard warranty on all physical components wtll be provided by an tnsurance aqency. He explained they have reviewed the relocatlon problems such es not flnding avallable housing and havc talkad with two investment propcrty s~rvice companics who menage apartment p~oJects and within a y-mile redtus thcre are about 90~0 units and the turn-over is abaut i; to 20~ per year, which breaks dawn to sbout 1Q~ units per month that wauld be available in thesz price ranges of dpproxlmately S330•00 per month for onr bedroom untts with utllftics paid~ and S3G5.A0 to S385.0~ per month for two- bedroom unlts~ so thay are conftdent tl~ere will be no problem reloceting these tenants. He stated a S1~500.00 retocation asstst~nce payment will be paid to those tena~ts who do not quslify for any of thc programs. Mr. Ford stated the Nousing Authority staff has arealyzcd the pr~gram and estimate that 74$ of the tenants would qualify for o~c of the programs~ but he was not sure that the tenants wtllchoase to utilite o~e of the programs based on the responses he got from the questtonn~ire. Chairman ?olar asked M~s. Malametz if she hsd e petition to prPSent i~ opposition and Mrs. Melart~etz stated the young lady who hed circulated the petltlon had a death in the femily and could not finish it. but rast of the tenants signed that they do not want the co~version. She stated Mr. Ford did not rrontion th~t only 1S of the apartmants will be government subsidtzed; that many people could not attend these meetings; that these buildings are two-story naw and the noisc from upstelrs is loud and wonderad how they can be sound proofed Afte~ they are already butlt; that she had spnken to someone in the construction business and was told sound proofing between floo~s has to be accompltshed during c nstruction and the only way ta Improve the situation would be with thicker ca~peting and plest(c. Chafrman Tolar explatned when apartrr~nts are converted to condominiums~ the~e are sound ettenuation memsure~ which are required and would have to be met end he felt these units tonverted to condomini~ms would be a much better living environmentthen currently exists. M~s. Nalametz stated Mr. Fo~d hed informed thdn at the nieeting that the cost for a 55~~000.00 two~bedroom unit at 12$ inte~Qat ~ates would be over S60Q.00 per month, plus the sssociation fees, utilities~ etc. and she was concerned because interest rates a~e no lo~ger 12~ a~d could be 17~. She atated she has never awned a home and 12/1/80 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNiNG COMMISSION~ DECEMBER 1, 1980 &1-707 does ~ot under~tand a lot of the thinga dlscussed~ especially e 30•year mo~tgag~ since she is now 72 years old. She eskad the Cummisslon to please leave the proJeet as (t Is and not allow these peopie to make a big profit •t somebody else's Rxpense. Cheirman Tola~ stated he understood M~f. hiaiametz's concerns and fears especlet{y because she has never owned ~ home a~d Is 72 years old; but homeownership hes provided people wlth some typa of aquity In property; that there are pcuple who want to re~t~ but he felt qualified as a realtvr to sey that there are a lat of people who would love to be abin to buy s~mething In thts prtce ~ange and unloss these conversions are allowed. a lat of people wiil be d~nied the right to awn preparty and will be forced to continue to pay rent~ paying for somebody else's beneftts of home- ownership. He atated there are a lot of offs~tti~g factors such as tax benafits wtth awning property. Ne felt the Commission is trying to tek~ progresslve steps to provide iome type of low to modereta incane housinq whlch ts not evdileble today and is revtawing these requests on a cese by case basts; that even though only one person ~eadtly edmitted to bs interested in the proJect, he felt there are a lat of people wha would excrcisc the optfon to buy one of these units. Ne felt the Commission has to look at b~th stdes of the picture e~d realize that they cannot satisfy everybody and must provide tha besc for most of the people In the cortmuntty. Mrs. Malamet2 stated she agrees with Chairman Tolar sonKwhat~ but there are people who do not heve a down payrn~nt. Chalrm+sn 7alar explained the program proposed by the developer provides for those pcople by allowi~iq a crr_dtt towerds the down payment in lieu uf certain upgrades and Nr. Ford indicated thet is correct. Nrs. Malametz atated only 15 units are to be subsidtzed by the government and she has neve~ taken artything from the government and doesr't want to start naw. She clarifled that tenants wi11 recetve 51500•~~ for relocatlon. Commissioner Bushore asked the petttione~ to cxplatn hvw the 7~~$ figure for tenants who could remeln was derived. Mr. Ford explalned the information ~ras taken from the re~tal applir.ations a~d is obviously outdated an~ that they received 50 reaoonsrs out of 150 of the survey and the 'J4Z figure was proJectcd from that data. He stated 104 of the tenants would qualify for Sectlon 8 housing from that proJection. He explained the Mousing Oepartrnent daes noi belleve thet 7~+$ figure ts accurate because of other pro)ects which have been approvad and the results of the face-to-face i nterv) aNS ~ i th *.hose eenants . Conmtssloner Bushore stated in a previously approved proJect~ Housin~ had surveyed Qach tenant. He stated of thc 55 unlts in th(s p~oJect that will remain as rental units, 28 people would be eligible according to these statistics. but he felt the figure would actually be 2 or 3. tie stated he h~d been concerned about the wa~ranty and felt if the appliances src already 4 0~ 5 years old. e one-year warranty is not ve ry good. He askad if these units had gas air conditioners. Mr. Fo~d replied that thore are no air conditione~s at alt tn these untts, other than those provlded by individual tenants. Commissione~ Bushore ref~rred to a conwe~sion p~oject in Fullerton similar to this thdt has hsd a lot of problems because there were no stipulattons and now there a~e problems wtth garbage disposals, disM~+ashers, etc., and the homeowners a~sociatlr,n cannot take care of tha burde~s and has had to delete certaln items from thelr 12/1/80 -: : ~.~ ~, MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLARNING COMMISSION~ OECEMBER 1~ 1980 80~708 r~sponsibtlittes ~~d naw even at S55,000 co 565~000 tor ona to two bedroan untts~ they are dtffl~ult to se11 beuuse of the problMns. Commis~to~er Bushore referrad to the concerns regarding pa~kinq and felt the requlrament Is a good ratio and did not want to creeta housing that lAter wtil become a problom prape~ty becsuse of p~rkt~g~ maintonanca e~d other types of things that are Invoived. He polnted out this pro)ect is 7A spaces ~hort of ineeting the parking requirem~+nts and if units are etlminatad, that would add to khe cost of the other units. He pointed out the va u nt eaurtya~d could posaibiy be u~ed to add to the parktng wtthout aliminating any units. M~. Ford atated he agreed th~re is a p~oblem wlth the parkin4~~ but they dfd look at ways to remedy (t. but tt would be more expensive tha~ reasonable because hou~l~g is needed mere than parking speccs for vchlcles. Comnfssioncr Bushore staced if there (s e parkin9 ~roblem~ tt becanes managoment's problam to take ca~e af it; ttiat the Comn+isslon has to meke a decision whether or not to provtde tonverslons snd create housing~ but he was concerneci sbout problems in the future with 100 i~dividuel awnera. tle stated he had ' zd converstons could be elimineted tn this city by prov(ding density bonusea f~ new housing ~nd not affecting che rental ma~ket. Coirimissioner Barnes stated she is concerned ebout the pe~~king~ but thought the ma~in issue~ other than tha tenants heving hardshtps~ Is that the spplicant has taken care of provtdtny housing for ~ot only the peopie who are rentl~g there but also th~e people who are qualiflad for Sectlon 6 hausinc~ so they won't heve to move and the young couples who wsnt ta Invest in property. She stated 11$ of the ly6 current tenants csn ~emein in thci~ untts elther through home awnerah(p or rentels,in addition to the S1,504 relocec~~n payrt~ant for th~se who are forced to move which takes care of the students~ etc. She did ~ot know what alse the developer can do to take cere of the tenants and benefit that certain segme~t of the populatlo~ paying rent which is going up all tha time. She felt compertng the dQtrtn+ental aspects of the project wlth the posittve aspect shows the praJect shoul~ be approvad. Mrs. lialemetz statecl Mr. Ford [old them that Mrhoever buys a co~domir~ium could have a reductian of S2,5Q0 from ~he $51~~0~ if the owner will convert everthing In the apartment themseives auch as the dishwesher, stove~ carpets~ etc. Mr. Fo~d replltd that is bastcally correct; that there will be a tradero~f in real dollars; that the buyers efthe~ get upgraded dtshwaaher~, disposals, new paint~ carpets and drapes~ or they could take the S2,500 reductton. He ~xplained thts does not include thc~se things releting to the buiiding code such es electrica) meters~ sound ette~uation, ctc; that the lenders will not meke loans unless thelr investments a~e sacufe and they suggested the rebate ~n lieu of upg~ades. He stated thts wil) solve the probtem of ~he davn payment for some ol` the tenants. Commissioner Bushore asked hvw thc selling price wili be determined for the 28 un(ts whtch will remsin as apartments for $ years. Mr. Ford oxplained a one•yesr lease wtll be ~acecuied on Chose 26 unlts for those paople who are deterMlned to qu~lify and thst recorded lease will folla+ the property; that the agr~em~nt on Section 8 houstng will be a S~Year commitment thst wiil be exacuted and will also stey witn that p roperty and the invastar who buys that preperty wil) also buy that cammitment. tle ~zl~/8o ~ ~ ~ ~ s~ ~E MINU7ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEMBER 1~ 1980 ~'709 •teted he thou9ht the pricet would be S48,OG0 to 553~000• 11• explalned the ~riterls use~ for determining thAt x8 units would be for Section 8 hou:inp~ a~d statad thay did not want the whole building to be for Sectio~ 8 hou~ln9 beceuac of the Impacts. Ne explained 1/5 of the people had been in the preJect for mora then 4 yeers. Cammissio~ar Bu~hora was concerned thet someon~ from the Community Ilousing Oepartment was not present ta expl~in how the estimates were made. He stated he wondernd if there is a shortage of subaldtzed housing avsilabie tn the city~ or ff peopte are ~ust not respandtng to it~ or if we ~rn ~u~t e~bitrarlly cra~ttng tt whethe~ It ls needed or not. Annika Santslahtl~ As~Ist~nt Olrecto~ for Xoning~ expletned there Is qulte ~ wafting list of people who ara laoking for Sectton 8 units~ and tha program Is quite succe~sful. Commissloner Buahore asked if there t~ a reason why QevelApars are not providing thasa units~ ond if maybe the units are not reatty wanted; that maybe thore Is a walting list beGauso meney Is gaing ta be passcd out and this could add to the situatian of paople not wsnting to carn a ltving. He wondered tf it would do mere herm by making the devAloper atipulate when we should not be esking far more~ especially if the prfvate sector can't tt+ke cs~e of the needs. Chsirman Tolar suggested the Lommission should be dts~uss(ng the lend use. He agreed the questtons •re valid. but the only questian far tha Commission is ,~hether or not this {s • good condominium converainn. Comnlasioner Bushore felt the concarna a~e vQ~y valid because this Is canverting rental units into co~domi~lums and having apertments and ~ubsidixad co~domtniums in the ssmo proJect. and he was concerned as to why the untts have ta be goverment subsidi zed. Commls3loner Bsrnes phtnted out that in five years these apsrtnrnts will becomn condaninlums. Cheirman Tolar stated he felt th~t the tradelof'rs are rarr~ted becriua~ thCre are so 1`~r peopie wha ca~ afford to buy at tnday's prtces and one of the greatest i~stituttona we can provtde is to ba able to ewn son~ething at the ssme coat as rent. He stated che parking problan nxists and wi l l be the~e v+heths,r this i: condominiums or apsrtment~. He stated there are enough incentives for hiM to support the proJect. Coaimissioner Bushore saked why it ia e~ec~ssary ta make 28 units fur Saction 8 hc+using since thts Is gotng to create affor~able u~its. Chairman Yolar felt tt the~e is a ~attln~ ilst, then obviously the units are needad. Gonimissione~ Ber~es feit su~e the Comitwnity Nousing staff has laoked st soma of the lncomes snd has decidmd the units sre need~ed on some statia~ti~cal basis. Mr. Ford stated they arrivec! at thei~ conclusians neC only o~ the besia of the su~v~y, but slso the rental ApplclaGiont snd with the combinatton~ telt it was accurate I~formatlan. 12/1/80 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEMBER 1, 1980 ~~ 710 it was noted the Plannl~g Dir~ctor or his authorised rep~asentativa has det~rmined that the propa~od proJect fa11s withih the dafinttlon ot Cat~9o~ic~1 Exemptions~ Cl~ss 1~ s~ defined I~ pars9raph 2 of th~ City of A~ahelm Envlronms~tsl Imp~c! Repart Guldelines and ~~~ theratore~ categorlcally ucempt f~om th~ requirertrnt to p~ap~re an EIR. ACTION: Commtssloner Barnes offered a motlon~ ~econdmd by Commtasioner Busho re a~d MOTION CARRIED (Commisslone~ Nerbst baing absent)~ that the An~helm City Plan ~ing Commisslon does hereby g~ant roquasts for wsivers of Code requlremont on the b asis thet the petitfoner has stipulated to provide no less than 66~ of the untts a s law or mo~lerate Income housing pursuant to Government Code Section 65915• Co mmisstnner B~rnes affered Resolution No. PC&1-210 and moved for its passsge and aduptton that the An~hetm City P1~nni~g Commtasion does hereby grant petition fo~ Conditiona) Use Pennlt No. 2122 subJect to the petitioner entering into a~ ag~eemsnt wl tlr the Ct ty of Ilnaheim pursuant to Governme~t Cada Sectlon by~115 agreeing to prov i cie G6~ of the u~ t ts as af fordab 1 e twus i ng end to 1 nc i ude spprop~ i ate resa 1 e c~ntro) as approved by the City of Anahetm~ snd subJect to Interdepartrt~ent~l Commlttea recomr~~endations. On roll c~li~ the foregoing •esolutton was passed by the tollvwing vote: AYES : COMhII SS i ONF.RS: BARNES ~ BUSHORE ~ FRY. !CI NG ~ TOLAR N0~5: COI~MISSIONEAS: BOUAS A65CNT: COMMISSIONERSr HERBST Commissioner Barnes off~~ed s motion~ seconded by Commissfoner King end M4TION CARRIED (Commfssioner Bo uas voting no and Com~+tssloner Herbsc being absent) tfi~t the Anahetm Lity Plsnning Commiasic does hereby find that the proposed subd{visio~. togcther with ita design and improvemenc~ Is conslstent wlth the City of Anahelm Ga~eral Plan~ pursuant to Governmant Coda Sectlon 66b73.5~ a~d does. therefa re~ approve Tantative Map of Tract No~ 1128G for a 1•iot~ 156•unit~ 66Z affordab le condomi~tum conversion, subJect to the folla+ing condltlons: 1. Thst [he app rovai of Tentative Map of Ttact No. 112~6 is g~anted s ubJect to the approval of Conditianal Use Permit Mo. 2122. 2. That should [his subdiviston be developed as nwre thsn ona subdivision. each subdivision thereof shsll be submitted In tentatfve form for approval. 3. That the original docun~nts of the covensnts~ condittons~ and rest ~ittions, and a lettor add~essad to developer'~ title con+pany ~uthorizing reeo~datton thereof~ shall be submittad to the C{ty Attorney's office ond appraved by the (~) City Attorney's Offtce and Engine~rtng Divlslan (b) City A t tarney's Office~ Public Uttitties Dept.~ Bulldtng ot~~:ro~, and the Enginee ~ing Divisian prior to finsl tracc map epproval. Said docusn~~ts, as app roved~ shali be filed snd recorded i~ the Office di the O~cnge County Reco~de r. 4. That all private at~eets shall be developed in acco~dance with the Ctty of M aheim's Standard Oetali No. 122 for private streets~ includtng instsllation of Street Nan,e signs. Plans for the private st~eet tighting, as requl~ed by Lha ste~ds~d detail, shall be sub~itted to the 8uilding 12/1 /80 ` MINUTES~ IWAHQiM C11Y PLANNINR COMMISSION~ DECEM9ER 1~ 1980 8p•~~~ tlivision for ~pproval and Incluslon with the buiidinp ptans p~lo~ !o the tstwnca of bulldin9 permita~ (Privat~ ttreeta a~~ those which provide p~inyrY acc~s~ and/o~ ctrculatlon withtn th~ p~o~ect~ S. t f pMr~n~nent •treat n~nw signs h~va not b~en fn:telled, tempo~ery str~+et nam~ siyn~e shc~il be irntalled prlor to ~ny oec~~pancy. 6. P~lo~ to tho •~la of any unl t, the appllcent shsl I present ~vidence satistactory to tha Chtef Building Inspector that the u~it it tn conforn~ance with th~ Noise Insul~tlon Standa~ds specifled in Chepter 1 of the Cal ifornia Administrattve Code~ TI tle 25. 7. The seller ~hall p~ovtde th~ purchaaer of e~ch condomintum untt with w~ittan i nfo~matio~ concerning An~hetm Municip~l Code 14.32~5~ pe~taintng to "parking ~est~tcted to faciltt~te stree! ~weeptng". Such wrttten t~formatlon will clearly indicate when on•ttreet perktng is prohibited and the penalty for vloletic-n. 8. That the devaloper shall enter in~o an agre~ment with the Ctty of Anaheim p ursuent to Govn~nment Code 63915 wh t ch ~graeme~t sh~ 1 1 be recordad c.ancurrentiy Nlth o~ prior to tha approv~al af the Fin~l Map and which shall p rov t de that 66~ of the un t ts sha 11 be sold as 1 ow or nwde rate 1 ncome housing •~ defined In ;overrnpent Code 65g15 end with appropriate rasste co~t~als as ~pproved by the Ctty of Anaheim. Jack Ilh 1 te . Ass t atant C! ty At torney, pre4ented the wr i tten right to eppoa) the P 1 snn ; ng Gommi ss 1 o~'s dec i s i or~ w 1 th 1 n 22 d~ys to the C i ty Cou~e 1 1. 12/1I80 l , ~ ~ M I NUTES ~ ANAHE I M C 1 TY PLANN 1 NC COMM 1 SS ION, DECEMBEIt 1, 19~0 80• 712 ITEM N0. 3: EIR Nf~AT{VE DECIARATION AND CONDITIONA~ USE PERNIT N0. Z056: __._, .r__....__......._...~...-...~.__. PUBLIC NEARING. PETITIONER: CITY OF ANAMEIMs 041i~Ft: H1ICHAEL J. CRUGIL, 2910 East la Jo) la Strset~ Anaheim~ CA 9280~. Prop~rty de~tcribad ss a ractangulariy-shaped parc~l of 1~nd consistin9 of epproximately 1.1 acres. a~d fv~ther desc~ibed es 2920 Ea~t La Jnlls Street. P~operty p~asently clssilfied ML ~INDUSTRIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE. REQUESTED BY TME CITY OF ANAHEIM: UNOER AUTHORITY OF COOE SECTIQN 18.03.091~ THE CITY OF ANANEIM PROPOSES TO REVOKE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2056~ FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAI~ ~ub,ject petitlon was co~tinuod frore~ the meeting of Octob~r 20~ 1980 st the request of tha petitioner. James Read~ agent~ explalned this n+attor wes continued fram the mee+ttng af Octobar 2tt~ 1980 in order for the petitloner to wmply wlth the condittons of the o~iginal conditto~a) use permit; that a curb end gutter plan was ~aken In~mediately on that date to the Lngtneering Dep~rtment ~nd has bee~ accepted. Gut they have not recetved a prrmtt as yet. Jay T~tus, OPficc ~nginee~~ was net surc why the permit hed not been Issued. Mr. Read exp) a i ned as soon as the perml t I s recei ved snd thC curbs end gu tters are constructEd ~ the property w( I I be i andacapad, etc. ~ but ~hey cannot proceed unti l the permit ts recetved- He explalned the property has been grevelQd. but not alled because they want to bC su~e thny heve the proper drainage, Ch~irman To':~r a~ctared a receas in orde~ fAr staff to det~rmine why the permit has not been issu~:. REGESS There was a fifteeMminut~e reeeas at 3:~5 P•~. _......_ RECO~NV~ ENE The meet i ng was reconvened et 3: 30 p.m. Chairmsn Tolar explained he understands from the Engl~e~~ing Department that th• bond can be Qostod and 30 aays would be edequ+~te ttn~e to get thts inatter compitted. Jack White, Asslstant ~lty Attnrney, suggested ~ six-week COr~tinuance. Ch~lrrnan Talar continued th~t there was dts~usslon et ti~e previous heartng Lhat the petttioner Kas not able to accom~pl i~h amrthing because of the pla~s and Engineering raports the plans hsve bean approved and wl l) be fin~l ~zed tanorrow; that the landacape pians c:an be accepted by the Planning staff ~rsd the othe~ conditions can be met by che applicant withSn this six-week p~riod. AGTION: Commisstoner King affei^ed a motton, seconded b~r tomaitssioner Fry and MOTICN ~D (Commtsaionar Herbst heing ebsent). th~t the Anaheirn City Planning Commission does hereby grant a co~ttnua~~ce of the aforementioncd matter ko the regularly- acheduled meeting of January 12. 1~81~ 12/1/80 ~ MINIdTES. ANAHEIN CITII PUNNINC COM111SSIOH~ DECEMBER i~ Ig90 8~'7~3 Commissla~er Dushore left the Covncil Chant+~r. NEGATIVE DEC UIRATION. WAIVER OF CODF. REQUIaEMENT AND~ DITIONAI PUBLIC NEARING. OWNERt A88EY SERVICES CORPORATION~ P. 0~ ~ox 2~yA, Nawport B~sch~ CA 92660. AGENTs GE ORGE W. SEITZ, AIA~ ARCNiTECT~ INC.~ 18ox3~A Sky aerk Cl~c1e~ I~vine~ CA g2714• Pro~erty describ~d as an tr~egulariy-sheped psrcel of land conslsting of approximstely 17•~ acres located be Meen M~ncheeter Avenue and Lewis Street~ and furthe~ ~sc~ibed as 23~3 so~,tn Kanchestor Avenue (Mcirose Abbey). P~operty pretently ciassified RS•A-k3~OtIt1 (RESIOEHTiAI/AGRIGULTURAL) ZONE. CONOITIONAL USE PE RMIT REQUESTt t0 PERMIT A MORTUARY WITN WAIVER Of NIHIMUM lANDSCAPED FaONT S ETBACK. SubJect petltion wr~s contlnued from thr n+eeting of Novembar 17~ 1980 at the request of the petitioner. ITEM N0. ~: EIR NEGATIVE QECLARATION~ VARIANCE N0. ~17]: ------r - PUBLIC NEARINf. OWNER: A86EY SERVICES COaPORATION~ P. 0. Box 29$0~ Newport 8each~ CA g2660. AGENT: GEORGE W. SEITZ. AIA~ ARCNITECT~ INC.. 18023-A Sky Park Ctrcle~ Irvlne~ CA 92714. Pro~erty described as an irregulerly-~heped parcel of land consisting of aFproximately 17•~ acres located betwaen Msnchester Avenue and Lewis Street, and further described as 2303 South Nanchester Avr.nue (Nel rose Abbey) . Property Rresantly clessif{ed FlS-i: 43~000 (RESIDENTIAI/AGaICULTURAL) 20NE. VARIANCE aE4,UEST: WAIVERS OF: (a) MlNINUM LOT AREA AND (b) MINiMUM REAa YARO SCTBACK TO ESTABL1511 A T1I0-LOT SUBDIVI~ION. SubJect petitto~ was conttnued from the meeting of Nove~mber 17~ 1980 a t the request of the pttit(~er. There Nss no une i nd I cat i ng the 1 r p resence I n oppos 1 t ton to sub)e~ct requegt ~ and slthough the staff report was not raad~ it is referred to a~d mede a part of the mi nutes . George Seitz~ agent~ stated tl~is is a request for e condltionel usc pe rmit and varlance af setbacks and the matter was tontlnued fran the previous hearl~g because of a~ lacl. of quo~um; that a slmf lar prQject wss presented one year aga and app~ova) wes granted~ but afttr further study of the proJect~ It was felt the martu~~y shouid be reciesignad to sccomnodate a chaFel •nd Mo Interior atrlums; th~t this p~oJect ts very aimi{er except fo~ a change in the floor plan and it is about 1,OOA square feet largar~ but the location and orientatlon are the same and the parktng is the sart~e snd is tn excess of what ts required. Nr. Seitz stated that • va~iance af the setbeck is ~ecessery beceuse ot a p~oposed lot split whtch has been r~svia+ed by the Englneering ~epartment and they have been giwen a preliminary spproval and have a~plied for the lot spllt for finAncing purposes. He referred to che recommended condittans snd stated the e~+nars are In s8ree~nent with ail excapt a portion of Condition No. 1 ~e9ardtng the street Inp~ovement on Lewis Street; that the avne n feel that portton of the co~ditlon 12~1/SO ,~E 1 ~1 MINUtES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEM6ER 1~ 1980 80-714 ~hould be walved becaus~ of the siza of the parcel ~nd the lou tlo~ of the project on th~ parcel o~~d it' proxt~nlty to l~wis Slreet which is very ren+ote~ pointtng out lewis Streat cannot av~n be sean trom th• mortuary and the traffic 4enerated by the ma-~tuary will have no impact on l~wis Streat since all trettic w111 enter and exi! on Ma~cheste~ Avenue. Mr. Solts stated thay feel estenttelly thts proJect ts substanti~tly in scco~dence with thc prevlouslyapp~oved pl~n. THE PUdIIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. ae'pondtng to Chalrn-en Tolar. Jay Titus~ Office Engl~eer, explained no dedicatlon is rmqulred on Lewis or Manchester because the city has th~e ultimate dedicstlon; that the only recomnendetian by the Eng{neering Dapartment is for st~eet improvernents on both streets; that the pa~cal does fro~t o~ Lewls Streot and there ta en access o~ Lawls Street a~d trefftc daes axlt on Lewt~ St~edt and that It is pa~t of the overall pro,iect; and that if It Is not improved on this project, he did not know of any futu~~ proJect when it might be Improved. He stated ali tha Improveme~ts csn be done In thc existing ~Ight-of•way. Commi~staner Fry ag~eed that this la being vtewed as o~e parcel under one owner at the present time ancl stated he would n~t be in fevo~ If lewis Street Improvements are not mede. Chalrman Tolar stated he shared the ssme conce~ns, especially slrtce thls i~ a lot s pllt and thn p~oporty could be sold and he feit now Is the time to get the stree*- imp~ovements. He aaked why a waiver of land~caping Is requlred with a prope~ty of this atxe. Mr. Seitz replled that they are not Askinq tor a lendscaping walver and the proJect will be futly le~dscaped end, in facc~ the ~ntire Manchester lrontage along the aiorCuery will be relandacaped; that they are asking for a reduction of the 25-foot setb~ck to 10 feet~ pointing out the wa{ver r+as granted for the Demolay buildlnQ next door and thet the 10 feet will be fully landscaped and slso that khis same request was granted onn year ago. Answering Commtssioner Fry~ tlean She~er~ Asslst~nt Pian~er, expiained the code does not give en actual requirement for mertuary parking and staff ha~ bascd th~e ~equtrement on tho chapel sesting and the proposed p~rking ts abova thst r~quirement. He stated the parking sharn on this pian is exactly th4 same as what wss approved prevtously. Mr. Seltz answered Comnissioner Barnas that the lot spltt was done for tinanctng purposes to build the mo~tuary and the parcel v~-ould not be sold. Chairman 7olar ~sked why the Mel~ose cemste~y Is In such bad condition a~d Mr. Seitz stated it is nat the tntentlon of tho present awners to leave the cen~etery in its prasent state and this proJect Is Just s part of a master plan to completely upgrade th~ cemetery. Commissioner Barnea ask~d how the access would he hdndled if the parcel ls sold, explafntng there is nothtng to prevEnt the av~e~ lrom selling the property if thts is i2/1/80 ~ 'ti ~~~~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNINO COMMISSION~ DECEMBER 1, 1980 80•715 fl~anted. M~. Seitz ttatsd the lot they are propo~in9 wlll bisect the main acc~ss drivaway and the~e wlll be an ea~ement situation; and that there t• anothe~ •nt~anc~ and exit further dawn the fro~tage road on Manchester so that both operattons couid wo~k indepAndentiy ~nd have their awn acc~ss th~augh the ee~ement situstion. Cheirmsn Tolar ststed that ch e patittonar la saying that the lot sp11t Is needad to butld the mortu~ry and •sked if It could not be built wtthout a lot spltt under thQ exi:ttng zoning. Dean Sherer expl~tnod the varlance p~rtains to the si:e of the lot that wouid be crested end the satbacks would be for tha building adJ~cent to the rear lot Itne. Ne stated a~y propose) for e new mortua ry on eny parcel tn thts zone would require a new condittonal use permit. Jay Titus explained from ~~ angineering standpoint, the lot split Is only required if they went to finence that parce) seperately from the rest of thely development beceuse state lew does ~equire a parcel map for sAle~ lease or ftnanctng. Comnlsstoner Barnea eaked where the ather access is located on Manchester and Mr. Seitz polnted out the access point~ on the plans. Commtsalonor Fry esked Mr. Seitz to stipulate to a recfprocal parking sgreement between the mortuary and meusoleum in the event the ~arcel Is sold and he indtcated hc would agree. Ed Shack~ owner of Melrose Abbey, expiained the condition of the cemete ry has been getting p~ogresslvely worae over the last 20 yeers; that hc purchased the prope~ty August 31, 1979 with the intent of building a mortuery because his information fs that it makes economic sense wlth a combination mortuary/cemetery end it wi11 support the mat~tenance and upkaep af the cemetery the way It should be kept. He sCsted the four prtrr~a ryr cemetertes in Orange ~ounty have co~Junctive mortu~ries. Mr. Shack sfated the reason they ar~ asking for a waive~ of the Street Is that the mo~tua ry wil) be 200 yerds from the street a~ involvad than Just a simple imp~ovement proJect bacause t~ maJor to be relocated~ retaining walis bulit and sidewalks, cu~ba and and that the cost of those improvements could be es much as 1/3 the proJnct. conditions on Lawis nd the~e Is mc~re pawer itne would have gutters constructed of the Qntire cost nf Ne atated they tnwested over S200~000 in this property lnitially and it is losing money and without thc mortua ry~ thc property will be for sate. He stated again they ce~not afford to meke these street improvements on streQts which have no relationship to thel~ prope~ty. Chairman Tolar stated tFiese street tmprovements do effect the value of the entire property. Mr. Shack steted they have to be able to support the matntenance and servtce the debt and h~ thinks buiiding the mortuary~ Improvtng Mancheste~ and upgrading the front of Melrose Abb~ey will generata sufficlent income~ but increastng the cost by $10Q,000 to 5150~000 to improve Lewls Street would mean operating at a loss for at ieast another 12/ 1 /80 ANAMEIM CITY Pi.J1NNING COMMISSION~ DECEMBER 1, 1980 80•~16 y~~r whlch th~y unnot aftord. He ststed th~y propose to spend substsntl~l sums of mo~ay ta Improve the property and felt that should be e tradeaff. J~y Titus st~ted thera Is a power 11ne on the eest side of Lewis Stre~t that would hsva to be ~elocatad; that the city hss 35 feet of right•of-way •o thare would be no room for a sldewalk~ therefore~ wes sure s sidewalk walver would be grsnted; and th~t h• s~w no reeson for retaining w~11s n~re than 1 ar 2 feet htgh. He tteted tha basic improvements would be relacsttng a power line~ cu~b snd yutter and p~venbnt. Ne stated tho Conn-Isslon could wolve the strcet light condition and he was not su~e there would be room for street tig~ts anyway. He explsined the patttloner could requast a sldewalk wstve~~ but the Commtssion has to make the dectslon on the oth~r improvementt. Mr. Shack stated the property Is 75~ fact wtde and the improven~nts will be v~ry castly. Chalrman Tolrr stated resltsticaily thfs is one property and he understands the petitlone~'s ca~cern~ and he agreed that the sideri+alk requiroment cen be wstved. Mr. Shack stated sametimea e bond ls ~equi~ed and indtceted he dtd not see the need for the curbs~ gutters and pavements for s street thst 9oes navhere. Dean Sherer stated the strcet Iighting f~es heve never been paid on thls property. Mr. Shack ateted there is a sertes of 60•foot high poles for the power line on Lewis Street and they would have to be moved wtth Jsy Tttus clarifying they would be (n the wey of the curb and he stated he was not sure what the cost of relocattng tl~e power lines would be. Mr. Shack stated the cemetery has bea~ there ~tnce 1929 and thare are crypts loc~ted on Lewis Street which limits the widenin~ of the street. He fett these improvements will rander this pro,ject infeesible. Jay Titus steted tl~e crypts appear to ba 3 to 4 feet back of the right-of-way. He stated he belinved Lewis Street should bm wld~ned ~av; that it go~s from Qrangewood to Chapman Avenue and has qutte a bit of traffic; ehat the city has dedication to 35 feet from centerllne a~nd the crypts ere ;8 to 39 feet from centerlina and the curb and gutte~ would be at 32 feet ~~d the entire travelway can be put tn the existing ~tght-of-way without eny tnterference with ~he crypt. but ths power llne would have to be moved. Ne stated there are no piens for widening Lewis Street at this time. Respo~dtng to Commissioner 6arnes' observation that these improvements we~e a condition of the previous approvei~ Mr. Shack stated they had hed no obJectio~ at that time becsuse they had no Idee of the tmpaCt; that they revtevred the situation and saw the pawer lines~ etc. and at the seme tlma dectded to redesign the proJect end upgrade the mcrtuary; that the requlred street tree fees have bee~ psid and they intend to do everything required o~ Manchester= and that they have a financtal conanttme~t for the mortuary~ but it does not Includo improvements on Lewis St~eat. M~. Shack stated there is nothi~g elae that ca~ be done with this property because it has been dedtcsted for camete ry pu~poses and all the choice property has been parcelnd out and sold at substantta) prafits and none of those buyers impraved L~swfs 12/ 1 /80 ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. DECEM6ER 1, 1980 80~717 Stre~t. he ststed tf thelr pians are succe~sful as they hope~ they will expand th~ p~operty by buliding aara crypts •nd would b• willing to provido Lewts Str.at I~rtprovaments tn the futu~e. Commtssioner Barnes felt the condltl4n should ba requi~ed snd the improvemenls made when r~qu i rad by the c i ty . Mr. Shack sug~e~ted • te+mporary watvsr of the conditlon for o~e or two ye~rs. He stated posting a bond requtrea collate~a) and would be very exp~~sive. Jack White, Assistant City Atto~ney~ steted tt is possibla legally by conditlan to delsy the construction of the Improvements to 8 later time cert~in~ hoaever~ he would not recommend th~t wlthout a bond to guarantee tnstAllation at a l~ter date. Chatrman Toler and Comnissioner Bar~es wantad to allav the martuary end delay the requlrament c-f lewis St~eet imp~ovc~nts so the cemetery can be Improved~ but we~a not in favor of the city paying for tha improvements. Jack 4lhite stated a letter of credit would be sAttsfactory aa a guarantee or a bond bACause wtth Juat a stipulatto~ he could not enforce the canditlon. Mr. Shack stated a letter ~f credit or bond is coliatertzed and casts money and would involve s six figure item and is difficult bec.ause of chelr financial attuatlon. Ne stated they cannot build the mortuary if they have to do the Lewis Street (mprovemcnts. Ne fclt the Commission wouid be giving the citlzens a break by leavtng ~ewls St~aet as it is; that 1G~~000 csra drive by thetr property on Manchester and felt their improvements wlll be a trade-off~ but 160.000 cars do not drive down Lewls ~treet. ~~a statad they will make the Improvert~nts when they come b~ck And request permits far additionsi crypts. Chairma~ Tolar stated the Commission is noc opposed to the mortusry~ but cannot approve the request without a commitment for the improvemants of Lewts Street in the future. Mr. Shack stated they would be happy to enter tnto an agradnent to do the improvements in the future. Commissione~ Barnes asked if a dev+elopn~nt agreeme~t would bc accoptable. Jack I~fhite steted an agreement would be a binding legal abllgaC(on~ but was concerned that it could not be enforced when the Improvements are necessary unless some security is provtded naw. He explatned the Commissio~ can v~atve the requirement far that security but he would ~dvtse dgainst it. Chairm~n Tolar suggested a s~cond deed of trust for the amount of the improvements. Commisatoner Barnes pointed out a conditional use permlt can be revokad if thQ stipulatio~s are not met. Jack White noted it would be difficult to revoka the permit after the mortuary is built, painttng out there Are state laws also involved. He dtd not think the Commission would fe~l va~y comfortable in thet position aPter the petitioner has rt+ede a substantial investment. 12/1/80 t ! ., y ~i ~.~ , MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEM9ER 1, 1g80 80'7~8 Commis~tioner Fry •lated he woutd •tand firm on hit staten~ent that he would not •upport the roquest without th• Levrl• Street impravements end Commis~lo~er Barnes •fl~eed. Chairnwn Tolar tu99~sted a two-weak contlnuance ~nd M~. Sheck steted hts f~nancial commitmsnt must be madc by ~ecert~be~ 10. Me askad thst the request be grented aub)ect to sll condition:. A~TION: Commissioner Kln9 offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner ~ouas snd M N CARRIED (Commisalcmer Herbst being absent~~ th~t the Anaheim Clty Plenning Commisslan has revteaed the p~opasai to p~rmit e m~~tuary in the RS-A-4;~Q00 (tb sidentfel/Agrlcultural) Zone with waiver of minimum landscsped !'~ont setback to e'tablish a Mo-lot s~divtston wlth welvers of mintmum lat sres and minimum rear yerd setback on sn Irregularly•sh~ped parcel of land conslsting ot approxirtu~tely 17 ac~es~ located approximately 300 feet south of Orangewood Avenue betwnen M~nchsster Avenue and Lewis Street~ havtng approxlmate f~ontages ot 50!1 feet on the southweat stde of Manchester Avenue and 69A feet on the east side of Lewts Street~ (230; South Manchest~r Ave~ue); a~d do~nvironmentalrimpact~reportton the1basls~thetathere would requlremant to prepare an be no s~gnificant indtvtdual or cumulatlve adversa a~vt~onmantet tmpact due to the approval of this Negative Declaratton sinc~ the Anaheim ~e~eral Plan designstes the subJect property for medium-density residential tend uses cammesnsurate wltl~ the proposal; that no sensittve environmental impects are Involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by thn petitioner indicates no signlficant individual o~ cumulative adverse enviro~mental impacts; an~ that the Negattve Oeclaration substa~t{ating the forngoing ftndings is on file 1~ the City of Anaheim Planntng Uepsrtment. Commissioner King offerad e mation~ second~d by Commtssioner Bouas snd MOTION CARalEO (Commission~r Nerbst and Bushore being absent)~ th~t the Maheim City Planning Commission does hcreby g~ant the requost for watver of code requtrement on the basts that denial would dapriva subJect property of p~ivilege~ enJoyed by othe~ properties in the same zone and vicinity. Commissioner King offered a Resolution No. PC80-211 and moved fo~ its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2141~ subject to IRterdepartmental Committee recommendatlons. On roll cail. the foregoing ~esolutton was passed by the follov+ing vota: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARHES, BOUAS~ FRY~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: C~MMISSIONERS: NON~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs BUSHORE~ HER657 Cheirmen Tc+lar indicated since there is no furthe~ discussion for Item No. 5 that the pu~itc hearing shall be closed. Comnis:~toner King offered Resolution No. PC80-212 a~d maved for its passage and ad4ption thet the Maheim City Planning Commission does he~eby grant Petition for Variance No. 3177 on the basis that der~tal would deprlve sub)ect prope~ty of a privilege en}vyed by other properties in the same =one and vicinity, and s~+bJect to Interdepartmental Carmitkee Rscommendations. 12/i/80 M.... __ ._ : -~ ----"--e^r".....~»:,~=•r yt..~.._. -.zS ...~:~..~._ ~,`.u..:~:iiSs -'~~~,.:....._.~~... _, ~ ~ i MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COM1111SSIQN~ OECEMBEIt 1~ 1980 80•~19 On roll call~ the Pare9oinq resolutlon was pessed by the following vote: A1~ES: COMMISStONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS, FRY~ KING~ TOLAR N4ES: COMMISSIONERSt NANE ABSENT: CQMMISSIONERS: BUSHOaE~ HERBST Pdd~d r~ uiring anraciprocel parkingieg~eementsb~tweenrtheatwo propertlesdlf~onebof a eq 9 the parcets is sold. Jack Whtte stated a conditlon could be wordnd th~t tha owner shall record a coven~nt that upon sole of etth~r of tha parcc)s that reciprocal pa~king sgreement shal) be ante~ed into. Jack White, Assistent Clty Attorney. presented the v+ritten rlg~t to appeal the Plann(ng Commisslon's dacision wlchin 22 deys Lo tho Clty Council. Comnissionor B~shore returned to the meeting at 4:17 p.m. M N0. ~: EIR CATEGORI 7 RT EA VERTISEQ : S 1 AND CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT NO PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: NICHOtAS ANO MARY URSINI~ t338 Padonla~ Whlttier. CA 90603• AG~NT: JOIIN H. DAWSON~ 4b50 Von Karman~ Newport Beach~ CA 92660. P~operty dnscrlbed as a rectan ulariy-shaped parca) of land cansiattng of app~oximately 1.03 acres~ located at ~01 West Katella Avrnue~ OC. Property presently classifled RS-A-~+3,000 ( itE51 DENT 1 AL/AGFI I CULTURAL) ZONE, CONOITIONAL USE PERM17 R~QUEST: TO RETAIN AN ADULT ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS IN CQNNECTIO?i WITN BACKGAMMON AND CHESS IN THE CR 20NE. SubJect petttinn was contin~ad from the meetings of October 6, 1980 snd November 3, 1980 at the request of the pctttionar. Yhere were th~ee perso~s indicating thelr presence in opposition to subJect request. snd although the sCaff report was n~t rQad, it Is referred *.o and made a p~rt of the minuta~. Barry Na~the~ petittoner, statad the staff report mistakenly Indtcates they have made s petition to retsin an edult entertainrnent buslness~ but their petttion was to have a chess and backgammcn studio. 12/t/SO :~ t MINUTES~ IWAHEtM CITY PLlWNING COMMISSION~ OECEM9ER 1~ 19$0 ~"720 TME PUOLIC NEARING WAS CLOSEO. It w~s ~larifted the name of this establishme~t ts S1~/Naur Studio. Jack White~ A~sistent City Attorney~ stated the requeat la for an tnstructlonai fecility for beckgammon and chess snd that does not meke it an adult entertatnment businoss, but it does requtre a conditfonsl uso permit; thst this Is not the seme type problem the Lommisslon hes faced 1~ the past whereln they were precluded from ~~~nting e permlt baceuse of the diatance requlreme~ts. ke stated a conditlpnal usa parmit Is requlred becsuse this is not a permitted use In the caimerclal•recreatlon zone. Ne stated it does not appea~ from whrt the potitloner f~as Indicated th~t this ts an adult e~tnrtainment buslness~ Commisstoner Bushoro asked if the esteblishment has an ege 11mit and Mr. Manthe replicd thet it does not hdve an age ltmit and Is Just for chess and backgammon instructio~. lie explained they h~ve one t~ble far playing chass ~nd beckgammon and the faciltty is 476-squara feet~ with three 168-square foot I~structlon rooms~ and thr~t the hours of operntlon are i0s00 a.m. to ?.:00 a~m. To clarify whether or not th(s businass is an adult entGrtetnmant business~ Jack 4lhite asked the petitioner tf he had read Chepter 18.29 of the Ansheim Municipal Code and if any of the activities described in that ordinance are a part of this business~ such as the limitation of the sge Af the pot~~ns or en~loyees~ any type of dance studio or photography or modeling studtos~ etc. Commissianer Ktng asked if he could bring hts grandchildren to this establishment and Mr. Manthe replted he coulcl if he wanted to. Ghairman Tolar stated there has been a lot of prabl~ms in the past at thts location and the Cnmmtssio~ is having a difficult time unde:rstanding how this establishmene can support itseif playing backgartwnAn an~ chess. He explalned if e permit is grantad and anything other than chess end backqemmon is canducted et thts locatton~ the penni t would be revoked. Mr. Mt~nthe axplatned this operatlon has had some arrasts for prostftution but he did not lcnaw how those ceses cr~me out. Comnissioner Barnes stated she dtd not think this use is actually chess and backgammon and she could not support this type of busi~ess and althaugh the petition~r is applyir~g for a permit for backgammon dnd chess~ she dld not think thst this ta whShe really goes on there and dtd not think this is the ktnd of use she wanted here. st~-ted the Commissio~ is responsibie for the public's health~ sefety and genr.rsl welfare. Colonel Rtchard Haadrick~ hblodylsnd, st~ted they heva a request late~ in the meeting today to develop Melodyi~nd property bordering sub,ject property. Ne stated Melodyland Hlgh School is becoming a strong athletfc contender and has the htghest possible scholasttc standings and they ob~ect to this ktnd of envlronment Just over their fonce and did not think their students need tutortng in baskg~ammon and chess; that the school wili be teachi~g basketbell~ footbail~ liberel erts~ atc. and the stude~ts shouid not be exposed to thase klnds of actTvlties. 12/~/80 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CONMISSION~ DECEMBER 1~ 1980 88• 721 L~ura Raya~ n~~a~er of Westvrard Na Motel to tha aast~ steted thare is a queatlon In her mind as to the kind of establishmant being operated et sub,Jact property bocause of 6ome of the paople who come to her motel ~nd somo of th~ glrls from ther~ come to usa the motel to ch~nge and se~k custamers. Sha ststed there Is not adequste parking end there •ro ccx~stant problems eapecially o~ F~Idey and S:!urday ntghts snd she has hirod security gusrds because she hes fslt ha~ life in danger and has had tu put up with drunks and everything etse th~t goe: on thcrc. She stated she Is really opposed to thta requeat. Frenk Noward~ manager of Rip Vsn Wtnkle liotel~ stated he h~s never been on sub)ect properky but there has been a lot of disturbances coming from thet locatton; that he F+a= beon there 12 yesrs and is opposed to thl~ use because he has a famlly and his g~endchiidron erc around his motal and he did not tlke thts type of activity and ts opposed to approvel of thts request. Nr. Manthe stetod he thought the oppostttons comp'aints relete to the Missiasippt Fbonshine establishrr~~t because there is no alcoholic beveragos served at s~J~ct locatlon. Chalrmen Tolar stated he is oppoxed to thl~ use and oven if this establishment ts ~ot tha ceuse of ail the disturba~ce~ tt certt~tnly is e part of It; thet thts center was o~igtnatly intended for smaller commercial uses end it has gotten camptetely out of hand and this Conmi~sion is aware of thc problems. Ne stated he la not suggesting that this establishment la not a legitimatr one for backgammon and cheas as represented~ but thought this is the w~ong locatlan for this use. It was noted the Pl~anniny Director or his euthortzed represantative has determired thet the proposed pro)cct falls within the deflnttlon of C~tecp~ical Exemptions, Claas 1~ es defined In paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Environmental Impect Report Guidel'nes a~d is. therefore~ categoric811y exempt f~om the requlrement to prepare an EIR. ACTION: Commissioncr Bouas offered Resolution No. PC80-213 and moved fo~ ita passage an~aaoption th~t the Anaheim Ctty Planntng Commission does hereby deny Petitian fo~ Conditional Use Permit No. 2117 on the basis that the proposed use would be detrimentai to the peace~ health~ s~fety and general wetfare of the cttizens of the C i ty of .~nahe i m. Commissioner Bushore st~ted based on the testtmony praaanted today that aven if this is a legitimete chess and backgammon establishment~ the ~se has h~d a detrirt~entat effect on the commercial-recreatlon area; thst this city is trying to create a famtly environment In the Disneyland area; that maybe in the future the pettttoner ca~ prove this establishment's legitimacy and request another conditio~al use permit, but based on today'a evidence~ the use has not boe~ conductea in the proper manne~ and has caused problems (n the surrounding area. Chairrt-en Tolar stated he would like all the establishments in thrt a~ea checked. On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the follawing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; BARNES~ BOUAS, BUSHORE~ FRY~ KING~ TQLAR NOES : COW11 SS I ONEFtS : NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NERBST Jack 1~fhite, Asststa~nt City Attorney, presented khe written right to appea) the Planning Commisston's decision within 22 days to the City Council. 12/ 1 /60 ~. ' MINUTES, Ai~lAHE1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OECEM9ER 1~ l980 T f 81-1 80•72~ PUBLIC HEARINC. OWNERSs NEO HUTCHINSON~ ET, AL~ ~80 Harbor Ridge Drive, Newport Basch~ CA 92G60. AGENT: THOMAS I. GILLMAN~ 1419~ De1 ~1mo, Tuatln~ CA 92680. Property dascribed as a rnctangularly-shspod parce) of land consisting of approximately 1.7 acre~ having a frontago of approximately 27a fQeC a+ che south side of Ball Road, having a maximum depth of approximetely 280 feet. and being iocated approximately 26Q fedt wast of the centerline of Magnolla Avenue. Property presently classified RS-A-43~000 (RESIDENTIAL/ACRICULTUM L) ZONE. RECLASS I F I CAT I Ot~ REQUEST : R14~ 3000 VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVERS OF: (a) MINIHUM LOT AREA PEIt 01aELLING UNIT~ (b) MAXIMUN STRUCTURAL NEIGNT~ (c) MINIMUM LANOSCAPED SETBACK AHD (d) MINIMUM RECREATfONAI- LEISURE AREA TQ PERMIT A 22-UNIT CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX. TENTATIVE MN' REQUEST: TO ESTABLISN A 1-LOT~ 2:-Ut~IT C~I~DOMINIUM SU901VISION. There was no one tndicating thelr pr~:sence In opposttlon to subJect request~ and although the staff report was not redd, tt ls referred to and made a part of the mt~utes. Tom Gtllman~ sgent~ was present to answer any questlons. T~~E PUBLI C HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commissianer King offer~d a motton~ sccondcd by Commissioner Fry and MOTIAN ~U (Commfsaianer Nerbst being absent)~ that the Anahelm City Planning Commissio~ has reviowad the proposal ta reciassify suQJect property frcxn the RS-A•1~3.000 (Resldential/Agricultur~l) Zone to the -tM-suuu (KESioe~tiel, huitiNln-F~~~~ilyj ~urw to establish ~ 1-lot~ 22-unit co~dominium subdivision with waivers of ~+Inimum lot ared per dw~llin3 unit, m~x(mum structurdl heigtt~ minimum lendscaped sotback and minimu~n ~ecreational•letsure erea on a rectangularly-shsped percel of land consistf~~g of approximately 1.7 acres~ having a f~ontage of approxlmacely 27~ feet c+n the south sida of 9a11 Road~ and a nraximum depth of approximately 28Q feet and betng locatdd apRroximetely 269 feet west of che centerlinn of Magnc~lta Avenue; and doas hereby spprova the Negativa Declaratio~ fram the requlren~nt to prepare an environmenta) impect report on the basis that the~e wouid be no stgnificant individuai or cumulstfve adverse environmenta) (mpact due to the approvsl of thls Nagative Declaration since the Anahelm General Plan designatas the subJect property for medium denaity residenttal and general comne~ciei land uses canriensurate alth the proposal; thst no sensitive anvirann~ent~) impacta are tnvolved in th~ proposal; that the I~itiai Study submltted by the petitioner tndicetes no signlficant Individual or cumuletive adverse envtro~menta) impacts; snd th~t the Negative Declaration sub~tantlating the foregoing finding~ is on fite In thn C,Ity of Anaheim Planning Ik partment. Commlssioner Ktng offered Resolutinn !b. P~30•214 •nd mcved for ita passage and adoptio~ thst tha Anaheim City Planning Commisslon does hereby grant Petition far R6classiftcation No. 80•81-19 sub~ect to Inte~departmental Coarnittee ~ecommendetions. 12/1/80 ; ~ ~.,r; ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OECEMBER 1, 1980 8Q'7Z3 On roi l cal l~ th~: Fc ~eyolny rasolutlon wes paseed by the fol laving vote; AYES: COMMISSIONERSs BAlWES, BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ KING, TOLAFI NOESt COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; HERBST Commlasioner King offered Resolutlon No. PC8A-215 end moved for Its pessAga snd •doptlon that the Anahelm City Planning Commisston does hereby grant Petttton fo~ Variance Mo. 3178 on the basis that dental would deny subJect property of prtvlleges enJoyed by other properties In the same zo~e snd vtcinity snd subJect to Intordepertmental Coim+ittee reconniendatlons. On rol) call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by th~ tollowing vote: AYES ; COMM I SS I ONE aS : BARNES ~ BOUAS ~ BUSNORE ~ FRY ~ KI NC ~ TOLAR NOES; COMMISSIONEaS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST Commtssl~ner Ktng offered a mation~ seconded by Commisstoner Beuas and MATION CARRIEO (Commtssloner Narbst being absentj~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commiss~on does hereby find that the proposed subdivis{on together with its design snd tmprovement ts consistenc with the City of An~helm General Plan purauanL to Government Code Secttan 66473~5 snd does thcrefore approve Tentattve Map of Trect No. 11320 to estabiish a 1- lot~ 22-untt condomtnium subdivfsion subJect to the following condttlons. 1. That thn approval of Tentattve Map of T~act No. ti~32o (s grented subject to the approvel of Reclassification No. $4-81-1q. 2. Thet ehould thts subdivislon be developed as more than ~ne subdlvialon~ each subciivtsion thereof shall be submltted in tentat~ve form fnr approval. 3. Th at the origtnai ducurt~nts of the coven~enta, cunditions~ and restrictions, ~nJ a letter a~dressed to develope~'s tttle company ~uthorizing ~ecordation thereof, shal) be submitted to the Ctty Attornry's offict and approved by the City AtLorney's Office~ Pub11c Utilittes Deot.~ Building Dtvlsion~ and the Engin~ering Qtv(slon prlar to final t~act m~p approval. Sald documents~ ss approv~d, shall be ftled and recorded tn the Offtc~ of the Orange County Recorder. 4. That street names ati~i) be approved by the City Plenning Departmer~t prtor to approval of a final tract map. 5. That drai~age af sub)ect property shall be dtsposed of in a manner satisfactary to the City Engineer. 6. That the vwner of subJect proparty sha1) pay to the Ctty of Anahetm the appr~priste park and r~creatlon in-11eu fees as determined to be approprtate by the City Gou~cil~ said faes to be psid st the time the buil~ing permit Is issued. j. That all p~ivate streets ahal) be developed in accordancc with the Ci~y of Anaheim's Standard Detei) No. 122 fo~ prtvatc streets, tncluding 12/1/84 f` ~. ,, .y ~ MINUIc~, 11NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMWISSION~ OECEM6ER 1, 1980 80•724 In~tall~tlon of Str~et N~ine siqnt. Pians for tha private •tr~et llghttng~ as required bY the st~~d~rd delatl, ~h~li be submitted tu the Butldin9 Divislon Por ~pp~ovel and incluston ~.~ith th~ bulldln~ plan~ p~i~r to th~ Issuance of bulldinq p~rn~its. {Private streett are thw e whtch provide primary accsss and/or circulatio~ withtn the p~oJ~ct. 8. If permsna~t str~et nama si9ns have not been Installad, temporary str~et ~ama sig~s sh~ll be tnstalied prtor to uny occup~ncy. 9. Th~t the aMrner(s) ot subJect praperty shtll pay thn t~affic stgnal stsosament fae (Ordinsnc~ No. ;89G) In s~ •n~unt e~s datermined by the CI ty Counctl~ for Qach new dwelll~y unit prlor to the lssua~ce of s butiding pern~it. 10. Prlar to the sal~ or final building a~d zontng Inspectlo~ ot •ny residentta) condomtnlum unit~ tha a+ner(s) of subj~ct trsct shall present evldence sattsfectary to the Chief Buildt~g Inapector th~t th• unit is (n contornwnca wtth the Notse Insulatton Sta~d~rds spaclfled In the California Adr~inistrative Code~ Tttle 25~ Chapte~ 1, Subchaptar 1~ Article 4. it. 7hs aelle~ sh~il provide the purch~ser of each condomi~tum untt wlth wrttten tnform~tio~ concerntng Anahelm Nunicipai Code 14.32.y0Q pertslntng to "pa~king restricted to fvctlitate strcet sweeping". Such written Informetlon wili clearly indicec~ when on-st~eet p~rklnq la prot~lbtted and chc penslty for vlolatton. 12. "No parking for street sweepi~g" si~ns shali be lnsta~lled prlor to fi~at streat inspection as requtred by che Public Works Executive Director In accordance-~ith apectficattans on flle w(th the SLrRet Malntenance Divisto~~. 13. That ellsanitary srrers on-site shaii be prlvate. 14. That tha petitioner shall present avidnnce that the prooosea condaainium complex contorms to Wuncil Policy No. 542 -"Sound Atte~uation in Residential ProJacts" p~ior in Issuance of building permlts. 12/1/80 i Q; MINUTES~ ANAMEIM CITY P UINNING COMMISSION~ DECEM@ER 1~ 1980 80'7~5 la NEGATIV OITIONA PUBLIC NEARING. 041NER: GALIFORNIA CASTLES, INC., OOI. South Besch Boul~vard~ Anaheln~, CA 92804. AGENT: KEYSTONE DESICN ASSOCIATED, 70~ W~st North Stre•t~ A~~heim~ CA 9Z805• P~operty described ~s an Irregularly-shaped psrcel of lend cansl~ting of app~oxim+~tely 1.06 ~cres~ located et BOh South 8aech Boulevard. Property pr~sencly classified CL (COMMERGIAI~ LIMITED) ZOHE. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: TO CONSTRUCT A 73-UNIT MOTEL WITH WAIVEaS OF: (a) MAXIMUM STRUCTURAL 11EIGHT AND (b) MIHIMUM LANQSCAPEO S~TBACK. There was o~e persan indicattng hts ,aresence tn oppositlon to subJect request~ and although the stsff report was not read~ It ts ~efrrred to snd msde s part of the mtnutes. Beve~ly Jackson~ representating Californla Casties, Inc.~ was p~esent to e~swe~ any questlons. Rick Covey~ 2966 Stonnaybrook~ atated he owns the rastdanttal prnperty that abuts the north of thls propcrty and thst his big concern is that he felt e 32-foot htgh~ 73~ u~it motel would affect the velue of hia residQntlai property. with a building right aldng the fui) length of hts proparty Iine. He explalntd the property he avns is a four•bedraom~ two-beth house~ with a swtmming poel In the back yard and he felt the proposed buitdtng will cuc davn the sunllght end be a de.triment to his property and make it mare difficult to obtain ftnancing tor anyone In the future because lande~s do not want ~o loan money on residentlal propcrty that abuta conwnercl~l uses. Ma. Jackso~ stated that she hed reviewed the maps at the Clty Planning Depa~tment and felt thst Mr. Covey's property should probably be comnercisl since tt is the only houa~ end (s surrounded by commercial uaes. She steted she thought she had communicatcd with Mr. Covey and arrengcd a mact(ng to dtscuss buytng hts property. She stated tha motel would heva ~o windows on the back ovariooktng his backyard. She pol~ted out that hts property is e rental property and he does not live there and the property has been qulte run•dcwn. She steted 1t has been a renta) for at teast 6 years that she hes owned he~ property. THt F UBLIC HEARING NAS CLOSEQ. Chairman Tolar stated that th{s is an unusual situactc+n wtth both Mr. Covey and Ms. Jsckson betng in real estate, but that the Conmissian hss ~ever approved a canmercial development abutting reside~tiel property without saan type of buffer xone; especially wtth a two-story unit r(ght on the property line looking dawn Into existing rastde~tla) homes. He stated tt does not make an~r differenee that (t (s a ~tntal and It is stiil considered residential property end this proposal ts on the praperty llne and a buPfer has always been required. He suggested a continuance of this n+atter in order for the petttto~er and Mr. Covey to get together and discuss the purchase of his property. He stated he has ~o problem alth the uae of the property as a motel snd that moteis have been allowed on the prnperty llne vrhe~ abutting commerciAl p~operty. Ne steted this is : uniq~e situation with one isolated house and he is not saytng that thls property avner has the ~ight to put a high price on his property becau~e Tt is going to stop this development~ but that he felt it could 12/i/80 ~ ~ o .~ '. OECEMBER 1 ~ 198~ ~~~~6 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ b• ~ssalv~d and msybe bath propartles could be developed ccMCUrrontlY /o~ # much batt~r proJect. 11a atated he would havs a p~oblem vot~ng for app~ovsl of thts project today with a;2-tvot buiidin9 ~dJacsnt to a retidantlal structure~ Ms. Jackson exple~^ed h~sttohst~y~ 15~ fa~n+~"~Y fr°"^, thatnarea,RandY 1 ftshef hssrto property and that she provide a 20-foot landscaP~thatfae'O~tootalandsc+~petbuffer wouldabehr~qu~~d~ the motel. It was po~ntnd out Commissioner King suggested a 10•foot landaca~e aa9 1n the north prop~riy llne Covey's property beceuaa he dld not think thst prope~ ty ls suitable adJacnnt to Kr. for ~ residenttal 1-ome becauso of the traffic in the area. Dean Sherer~ Asslstant Plenner~ explainod that that would meet the c~fe requlrement legally; that a 10-fooia~°~oneaand thatathere IsQAnrextstingv~'•n9~~~~em~~y residence singie famlly raslde t on the prape~ty to the north. Commissionc~r Bushora clarifled that M~. Covey is ~ realtor and that this ts a renta{ prorerty dnd asked aga) n what Mr. Covny's obJections were to the proposal . Mr. Covey expiained that it would make his proporty more difPtcult te sel) with a motel on the proporty linc and it Nould be more dif~~~ndtis~sbbout~3 feetnfrom~tha~ pointed out that thts home does have a swimming poo na~th property line. Ha atated again that lenders do not ltke to 1~ nd on ressidentidl properties whan they abut comn+erclal uses. Commissionnr Bushore Po~"eskeduM~thCoveyEifrtherproperty^would- Rn ~'act~t ave'more Fami ly, itesidential) a~d potential v~lue as RM-1200 u.:ts. M~. Covey pointed out th~t the lot Is not large enou9h with only 6,OA0 to 7,0~0 square feet end he could on~hatuhedhasdspent overh53p000eupgradHnge it,andchetdoasth~s is a four-bedroom home end t rent it for Sb75•00 per month. Commissioner Bushore pointed out that it aould not be posstble to butld a scructure on the property line when the adJacent property vwner hss not gtven permissio~ to go onto hls property. Jack White, Assistant City Attorney~ explained that it wouid be impossfble to go o~ ~ nelghbo~'s Properc' wi~i~~tif hendoes`notnhaveethat eASement,the d~veloper cannot build on the prop ty Ms. Jackson s~~~ted when she had first begun the proJect. she had n~et wlth Mrunderstand and he had agreed to sell his property for $80,000. She statcd ~h e did not his reference to not ~anforacanme,rcialtusestandntnatshisdpop~rty ~stedJacenteto subJect proparty t~ =o e it. 12/t/80 ~. ~ ~ ~ MINt1TES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNINR COMMISSION, DECEM9ER 1, 19E30 80-~2~ Chalrmsn Tolar stat~d ha would agree th~t a ft~~nclal lender looktng into the backya~d a~d seein9 a 32-foot building an th~ p~operty ltne might not want to land money on the property. John Swi~t~ architect~ •~Id th~t he could turn the untta sideways and put the bdthrooms e~st and west tn=tead of north and south. Dean Sherer potnted uut that rovtsed plans would heve to be submitted by Friday In order to be ~eviowed in two wdeks by the Planning Commlasion. Commisstoner Bushore pointed out to Mr. Swint that he would like tor him to enswer concerns regsrding smoke detectors whan he submits the revlsed plans. Commisstoner Barnes indiceted thet svaryone Is ~rare of the fire problems slnce the MGN Hotel flre tn Las Vag~s and Fe',tAnahtim's hotels should bR revlewed end the stru~tures going up especially three-sto~y untta with kitchen fatiltties should hdve sp~inkle~s. John Swint pointed out that ali u~its would havo fire alarm systems. He asked if there are naw fire code~. Conmisslaner Barnes pointed out she is not aiware of any new codes a~d Dean Sh~rer potnted out that the ~lans before the Commisston did meet al) the standard building code~t including the fire regulatlons. Mr. Swlnt pointed nut that the mot~l would have s smeke detector In each ~oom and that he would loo{~ Into the sttuetion. Mr. Swlnt stated that he did ~ot see what the 10-foc~t landscaped Jog would accomplish bncause anyone in the backy~~d cauld stiii aee the 32-foot buttding. ACTION: Commissioner Ktng offarad a motion~ seconded by Commisstoner Fry and MOTIQM CAt~i ED (Gommissioner Herbst being absent). that conalderation of the aforementioned it;em be continued to the regularly-scheduled meettng of Oecertber 15~ ig80 at the request of the petitlo~er. Commissioner Bushore potnted out based on the concerns of tho Las Vdgas fire that he thought (t would be roesoneble to have sprinklers in the kitchen a~ea of the units and Mr. Swint agreed. 12/1/80 ~ '% ~ ` • PUBLIC I~EARING. OWNER: IYY K. ONG, ET Al,~ 2120 Main Street~ p2G0~ ~luntington CA 92648. AGENT: Gr~~~Y R. BYSTEDT~ 15~2 w~st Orangewood, Anahelm~ CA ~Z802. d oarcel of land consisttng of n~ach, Property descrtbed as a rectan4ularly-shaPe approximately 1.3G acrea~ locatad at 121d South State Callege Boulevard. Property prasently classiflad CL (COMMERCIAL, I.IMITEU) 20NE. CONDITIONAL USE PERVEa OF~MINIMUMTNUNBER'OFOPARKINGgSPACESp ~INE IN A PaOPOSEQ RESTl1UKANT W I TN WAI There was na one indica't^washnot read~nlt Is referr~d~totendurt-edeta'partsof the although thc staff epo m i nu tes . Gary Bystedt~ agent~ was present to answer any questlons. THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSEU. ACTION: Comissioner garnes offered a motion~ seconde~d by Commiss~P~enni q Commission ~Q (Conmtssioner tierbst being absent) ~ that the Anaheim City has revle~wed the proposal to per'm~t on-salc beer and Kine in a proposed restaurant wtth walver of minimum n~.xnaer of peri:ing spaces on a rectengularly-shaped parce) of lsnd consisting of apnroximately 1.36 acres~ having a frontage of approxima tely 322 fect on the east side of State College Boulevard~ having d maximum depth of approxlmately 185 feet and being loceted apprnximately 20A feet south of the centerlinn of 6eli Raad; and does heroby ~pprove the Negative Declsretlo~ f ~om the requirement to prepere an envi~onmental impact report o~ the basis that the~e would be no significant individual o~ cumulative adversc environn~ntal impact due to the approval of this Negative Declsration since the Maheim Gane~al Plan designates the subJect property for generai, corm~ercial lsnd uses cortimensurate with the proposal; that r-o sensitive enviro~mentai impacts are involved !n the p~oposai; that the ~nltfal Study submftted by the petitianer Indlcates no signlPicant individ ua) or curnu{atlve adverhe forerotngnfl~d~n9'.~~ts~onnfllealn`theµtgtyiof MahelmtPlanning substantiating t 9 Department. Commissiuner Barncs offered a motion~ saconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTIqN CARRIEO (Commissic~ner Nerbst~stnfarbwatver ofaminlmumnnumbt~~ofypnrkingnspacesis~ithedbasis hereby grant the ~4 that the request Is minimel, less than 10$~ and dcnlai wauld deprtve subject praperty of privlleges~ now being enjoyed by othe~ praperty vwners in the same zon~ and vicinity. Commissloner Barnes offered Resolution No. PC80-216 andr~ iePe~iiont~o'as~9~`t;~naidoption thAt the An~heim Ctty Planning Commisslon doet hereby g Use Parmlt No. 2145 subject to Interdepartmen*e) Committee recommendations. On ~oil call~ the foregoing ~esolutlon was passed by the foliowfng vote: NER5 1 AYES: : 0 COMMIS5 NpES; BARNES~ BOllAS. BUSHORE~ FRY~ KING~ TOLAR COMiISS10NERS: NONE A95ENTs COI~WISS{ONERS: HERBST 12/1/80 8p• 728 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CItY PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEMBER 1~ 19~ ~l .~< i 's MINUTES~ ANANEIM C11Y PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ DECEMBER 1~ 1980 80'729 ITEM N0. ils EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERNIT N0. 2146s PU6LIC HEARING. OWNERs HUMBLE OIL ANC REFINING CO.~ P. 0. Box 1254~ Orange~ CA 92668. AGENT: HELEN 0. SWEET cJo TAIT 6 ASSOCIATES, INC.~ P. 0. Box 4~25~ Aneheim~ CA 92803. P~operty described as an irregularly-shaped p~rcel of It+nd consiating of approximately 0.4 ~cre lccat~d at ths southeast corner of Orangewood Avenue and Stete College Boulevard, and furthar dascribed as 21~0 South State College Bouleva~d. Praperty presentiy classifted Ml (INDUSTRIAL, LiMITED) 20NE. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: TO RETAIN A TRAVEI. AND TICKET SALES AGENCY 1N THE ML ZONE. Thore wat no one indicating thelr presence in oppositlon to subJect request. and although the staff report was not read. tt is referred to end made a pert of the minutes. Helen S~+eet~ reprnaenting Tait S Assoclates~ was present to answer eny questions. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chatrman To~er asked about the six•month request and Ns. Sweet explalned they have e temporery permit for the trailer to operete for six ~ronths and that durtng thet ttme they hope to complete negotlatio~s with Ex~wn for the property. Commissioner Bushorn pointed out that the petittaner ts requesttng a conditlonal use permit for Monday through Saturday from 8:00 a.m. ko 5:00 p.m. which means that they will not be open on 5unday when the Rams are pleying at the Stadtum. Ms. Sweet responded that during the time that they have been in operat(on that they have not operated on Sundays~ but it Is possible they could in the future. Gommissioner Bushore stated that he personally has a prablem with the proposed use on this p~operty and did not think this klnd of use around the Stadium is desired. He atated he was concerned that it could turn into a ticket scslping operation. ~ts. Swcet pointed out tl~at this firm has not hsd that reputation in Lhe past and that they are granted blocks of ttckets by the Angela and Rams. Commiasto~e~ Bushore atated that he can sec them buying blocks of tick~ts and taking seats eway from the regu1ar fans and he felt that eve ryone should have sn equat opportunlty to purchase a seat. Ha stated he would vote against the request because he can see this becaning a prebiem. Commissione~ Fry poi~ted out that any ticket operatto~ can buy biocks of tickets and se1) tham to the public. Comn~issioner Bushore st~ted he would not wsnt to see the same thtng happen in Ansheim that has happened around the Coltseum in Los Angetes. Chairma~ Tolar potnted out that the C~nn+issio~ would hsve six aanths tn see if lt is ~ problem and if it is, the~ not g~ant tha permanent pe nnlt at the end o~ the six awr~ ths . 12/1/80 ~ w ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSICN, DECEMBER 1~ 1980 gp•)30 Ms. Sweet respondad to Commlssione~ F~y'a qudstion th ~t tha petitioner has o temporary arrangement wlth the oil compsny to use ths facility then conver! the faclliey~ aftar ne9otlatlons have been finalizad. She explalned the tretler h~s baRn on thn alte alnce SeptembA~ 29th and thay ara ln constant contact with the oil compeny. Dean Sherer~ Assi~tent Pl~nner~ clarifled that this Is a candttlonal use permtt request to ~etain a temporary traller for a perlod of stx montha and than at tha and of thet period~ the petitioner wouid not have to coma back to the Pla~ning Canmtaston and couid proceed with th~c work of co~verting the existfng servlce statlon buliding tnto a ticket seles oFfice. Answering Commissloner Bu:hore~ Ms. Sweet explained that the restroams sre tn the existing service st~tion buiiding but unfortunately a demolition crew came out to demolish some other statton (n the area and by mistake started demoltshtnq this servtte stetlon building and d(d a lat of damage buc they are in the process of repatrtng the damage. Commisstoner Bushore wanted to know If there was something to pr~vent the ewner trom buytng the bloc.~ of tlckets in the casc of a seli-out. He stated hr felt he has a valfd concorn :,d that it has not becn properly eddressed end he was afrald that thts use wnuld allav somethtng to ~iappen in the Stadlum area that he would not want to see fn Anahcim. Ms. Sweet indicated that she belteves this use wi11 bo a vast Improvement For that ~.orner and lt wlll b~ cleaned up; and that this wlil be an attrective buildtng and wi11 meet all the requircme~ts with the lsndsceptng~ etc. She stated she had talked to Mr. Ltegler end N~sa) Beeson and they werc not opposed end knew that this request was coming up today and d(d not (~dicate ar~r oppasition. Commissionar Busharc pointesci out that thts actton Is a result of actlon by the Zoning Enforcement Offlcer. Ms. Sweat ex~lalned that they had put the trailer on the property wtthout a permi~ and were not svare thaC one was reryui~ed; and that they do have a business license. ACTIONi Commissioncr Ki~g offered a motion~ seconded by Conunissioner Baws and M~IaN CARRIED (Commissiorier Herbst being absont) ~ that the Maheim Ctty Planning Commisston haa revtavtd the proposoi to retain a traval end ticket sa~les aqency In the ML (induscrial, l.lmited) Zone on s~ irregularly-shaped parcel ot lend consisting of approximately 0.~4 acre lacaced on the sautheast corne~ of Orangewood Avenue and State Coliege Boulevard~ hevtng a frontage of approxt~nacnly 120 feet qn the south side af Orangewood Avanue~ and a frontag~ of 180 feet on the east stde of State ~ilegc Boulevard; and cioes hereby approve the Negattve Deciaration ftom the requirement to prepare an environn-ental tmpact rsport on the basla that Lhere rvould be no slgnlficant~ individual or cumulative adverse tnvironment~+l Impdct due to the .~pprovai af this NegAtlve Declaratlon stnce the Ar.aheim Ceneral Pl~n de~iqnates the subJect prnp~rty tor generel industrial land uses cannensurete wfth the proposal; that na :ensitiv~ e~vironmental impacts ere invoived ln the proposal; that the Initl~l Study submitted by the petitioner tndicates no signitice~t indivldual or cumula+iive Adverse envi~onmental impacts; and that the Naga~tivc Oeclsration ..:~:~:~. .., ,. . . ~z/~~eo ~ ~~~ l r i MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEM6ER i~ 1980 8~•731 tubst~ntlating t~o toregoing fin~ii~~s Is on file in the Clty af Anahelm Plannl~g De pa r tmen t. Commlasioner King offe~ed Rasolutlon No. PCB~-21G and moved fa~ Its pessdge and ad9ption that the Anahalm City Planr~ing Commission does hereby qrent the Petltion for Condittonel Use Permtt No. 21A6 to expire on June 3~, 1981~ subJect to Interdopa~tmental Committea rsconn~endatlons. Dean Sheror wa~ted it clarified that the requesL wes actually 1n two parts. che first bein~ permission to retetn e~n existing trailer on the lot for s period of stx months and then at the e~d of the six months, without coming bsck to tha Pla~ning Commisslon for another publlc hee~ing~ to co~vert tha existing service stetion into ~ p~rmenent fecility. Chalrme~ Tolar scated he would support the request for six months but that It was his feeling thet st that tin~, prlor to permanent fectllttes betnq eatabli~hed, hQ would Iike to look at the use agetn to determine whether or not ~t has had any adverse affact on tha area and that he would not support the use of the temporary trailer for eny longor than six months. Commisatoner Busho~e asked for s sttpuiation that during the six•month perlod that the prc~perty would conform to all signing codes. Ms. Sweet pointed out that al) the signs have been caken dew~ ~nd there a~e no permanent stgns an the fecllity. She steted thet the p~rrnanent slgns would conform to tfi e xone. She ststed th~t they would Ilke to fee) thet when the s!x months ~re up~ they coul:l go ah~ad with required tmprovements. Lhairman tolar stated he would not went any pe n~n~nent constructlon sterted unti) tha use is revlawed in six months and Jeck NhTte stated that the six months would explre June 30~ 1981 end that no permanent butlding fac111xles sh~ll be buiit tor this tlcket and travet sales ~gancy u~til a new conditlonal use permit has been app~oved. Commisstoner Buahore esked when the restrooms would be ready fo~ use and Ms. Sweet repl ted thac they are reedy for use na~+. Conmissioner Bu~hore polnted out that In the past the stgns have advertlsed that this is a ticket sales agency and nothing was n~ nttoned regsrdtng a travel agency. fb. Sweet oxpiained that they have not baen able to have the travel agency people at this locatlon to date and that the travel sgency people are ln the Los Angeles. Comnissione~ Bushore cla~ifled that the t~~vel •gency and tick~t sales o~fic~e t~ located neer the Col(seum in Los M geles. 0~ roll call, khe foregoiny resolutian ~+as psssed by the to~lowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONEItS: BARNES~ BOUAS. FaY. HERBST~ KING. TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMI SS ION6R5 s BUS~HORE ~z~~eso ~~ ~~ MINU~ES~ AN1111EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOM~ DECElISER 1~ 1980 80-732 1TEN N0. 13: EIR NECATIVE ~EC UIMTION ANO CONpiTIONAI USE PERMIT N0. 2149s .........,~._._..~.~.. -._...._~~... . PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: MELODYLlW 0 CHRISTIAN CENTER, ET AL, 10 Freedman W~y~ Maheim~ CA 9280Z. Proporty descrtbed ~s an Irregulerly-shaped parcel of lend consl~ttng of ~pproximstely 5•45 •creY~ havin9 s fruntage of •pp~oxiinately 336 feet cm the no~th side of Kateila Avenue~ +~nd further described as Malodyl~~d Christlen C~nte~. Property pre~ently classifled RS-A-43,000 (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAI) ZONE. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: TO PEaMIT A RECREATIONAL fACILITIES IN CONJUNCTION WITN AN EXiSTING EDUCATtONAI INSTITUTION. Thare wss no one indicatin9 thelr presence tn oppositlon to aubJect request~ and although the staff report was rwt road~ (t is refe~red to and made a pa~t of tha mi nutes , Dan Renshaw, Assistant Engineer~ was present ta a~aNer que~ttons. Ne stated this pra)ect 1~ necded for Mslodyland Nigl~ Schooi in order to carry on with a full ethletic program as well as int~amural educatlon. Frank Headricks atatad this will be a very attractive additton as far e~ tho community ts concerned~ with grass tnstead of dust; and that it wt11 be relatlvely fnexpensive~ extr~mely safe~ wind-proof~ fire resistant, earthquake proof~ etc. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Responding to Commissioner Fry, Mr. Neadricks explaincd Melodytand and Melodyland Nigh School have the same Board of Otractors nnd the buildtng currently under construction ts nol finished and he has ~o connectton with that portion of the p~oJect. Commissioner Fry asked why Melodyland is qoing aheacl with plans for a new facility when the 3•story classroom butiding hasn't bemr~ finishGd~ (ndicating he felt tt is an eyesorc and e hazard. Mr. Renshaw stated the first flonr of that buitdtng will be completed sometime in January 1g81~ and is being worked on right now; and that the first floor was intended for high school use and the other floors are intended for the Schor~l of Theology. Mr.Headricks stated the contrthutors are concerned that that butlding hasn't been finlshed and want it finished soon and have asked why there are plans to ralse S250,000 for the high schc~al athlettc facility before tha othe~ butlding Is completed. Ne stated he thtnks when tha high school fac111ty is unified, they can help raise funds to camplete the upper floors of the other three-sto ry building; that it has been dlfficult to raise funds for that bullding so thetr decision has been thst the high schoal and School of Theology will take aver the ~esponstbllity of ratsing funds es tenants rather than Mklodyland Christtan Center; and thet their 5250~000 budyet for thC athletle, fecility is very low. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a motion. seconded by Commissioner Fry ~nd MOTION ~D (Commissionnr He rbst betng absent) thst tfie Anahelm City Planning Commtssion has reviewed the proposal to permtt the const~ucticm of recreationat facititles tn conJunction with an existing educational institution on ~n irregularly-shaped parcel 12/1/80 .~ ~ ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIH :ITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEMBBR 1~ 19$0 ~ 80-733 of lsnd conslatin9 of aprpoximetely 5•8S Acr~t~ he~ving a fro~tage of approxim~tely 336 feet on the north side of Katalta Avenue~ having a maximum depth of approxinyt.ly 615 feet and b~ing lac~ted epproximately 830 feet east of tha centerline of Na~bor Boul~vard; and doea hereby approva tha Negatlve Oecleretton from the requtremant to p~epare an environmanta) impact rEport o~ the basts that the~e would be no signlficsnt tndlvid wl or cumulative edverse environmentai impect dua to the approval of this Negative Declaretlon since the Anaheim Generel Plan dasignstes the sub,Ject property fo~ commerclal-recrestlonal land usas corrmensurate with the propasal; that no sansitive nnvironmentdl impacts are involved in the proposai; that the Initlat Study submitted by the petitloner indicate~ ~o signlficant Indtvtduai a~ cumulattve adverse er+vtronmental lmpacts; and that the Ne~~tive Decla~atton substantiating the foregoing findings Is or~ file in the City of Anaheim Plannin~ Oepertment. Commtssioner King offered Resolutton No. PC80-218 and maved fn~ tta psssage ~nd adaptlan thet the Anahelm Clty Pianning Commission does hareby grant Petttio~ for Conditlon~l Use Permit No. 2149 subJ~ct to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll cell, the foregoing reaolution wss passed by the followinq vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS. BUSHORE~ FRY. KING~ 1'OLAR NOES: COMMISSIQNERS: N~NE ABSENT: COMMI SS I ONERS : IIEitBST ~TEM N0. 14; EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2150: ~ ~~ ~ PUBI.IC HEARING. OWNER: PNYLLIS J. AND JAMES P. CRAWFORD~ 1441 East La Paima Avenun, Anahetm~ CA 92805. AGENT: WRATHER YACATIdNLAND, INC.~ 270 North Canon Drive. Beverly Hills~ CA 90210. Praperty described as A ~ecta~gularlyshaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2~ acres~ located at 1336 South Wainut Street (Vacation L~nd). Property presently claysified CR (COMMERCIAL•RECREATION) ZONE. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: TO fXPAND AN EXiSTING TRAILER PARK AND tENT FACILI?Y. There was no ona indicating their prasence tn opposttton to subject request, a~d although the staff ~eport was not read~ it is ~efe~red to and made a part af the minutes. Robert Treese~ Vice P~esident. Wrsther Vecattoniand~ Inc.. was present to answer any questlons. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEO. 12/1/8Q ~ ~ MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ DECEM6ER i. 1980 80-734 Chalrman Tolar statsd h~ was on the tite a~d h~s some reservati~ns abaut extending the use when~ In fact, tha v~cant property between the cur~ent tent are• and the ~xisting tenis courts (sn~t bning ve ry well maintained at the p~asant time. Mr. Treese stated tha psrk is Nell malntained and they plan to axtend the park tnto that vacant portto~. Chalrtnan Tolar askad if the~e have baen any complatnta regarding permanent tent dwellera and Oean Sherer, Assistant Ple~ner~ stated in June of this year s gentleman complelned about the facility and the tent camping a~ea because there have been problems with overbookt~g. Chefrman Tolar stated any violations of heelth and safety af the ~urfounding erea could cause revocatton of this condltionai use permit; that there were some concerns expresacc! by ne(ghbors right across the street on Walnut regarding people staying overnight on a cont(nuous bASis and also concern regarding noise and qener~l loud miscanduct when the original conditional u~e pe~mit was granted. Ne felt the sncurity gua~d helps thn sltuett~n. Comnissioner Busho~e stated there Is a Code whlch specifles that a person cannot stay (n camping facitities for more than 30 days. Mr. Treese stated there is a conflicting requlrement by the Stete that they must allow people to stay longer than 30 days. ACTIONI: Cammissloner Ba~nes offered a motlon~ seconded by Commisstoncr Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Conmiasloner Nerbst being absent) that the M aheim Ctty Planntng Commissl~n has rcviewed the proposal to expand an existing tratler park a~d tent facflity on a rectangularly•shaped parcel of land conststtng of app~oximatcly 2.2 acres haviny a F~ontage of 2G4 feet on thc east side of Walnut Street~ hav(ng a maximum depth nf approximately 367 feet and being locaced appreximatety 660 feet aouth of the centerline of Bali Road (1336 South ualnuC Street); and does hereby epp~ove the Negstive Declaratton from the requlrame~t to prepare an env(ronme~tai trt~act ~eport on thc basis that there would be na aignificant individual or cumulative adve~se environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaration slnce the Anaheim Genaral Plan deslgnates the subJect property Por comir~ rcial-recreational land uses commensurate wtth the propc+sal; that no seRSitive environmental impacts are involved i~ the proposal; that the Initial Study su~xnitted by the petitioner indicates no signlficant individual or cumulative adverse environmentel impacts; and that the Negattve Declaration substanttating the foregoing ftndings Is on file in the City of M ahatm Planning Department. Commtssioner Bar~nesoffcred Resolutio~ No. PC80-219 and rtpved for Its passage snd adoption that the Anaheim City Pianning Commtsslon does hereby grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2150~ subJect to Interdepartmental Conmittee Racommcndati~ns. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ 90UA5~ BUSHORE, FRY~ KING. TOLAR NOES: COhWI5SI0NERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST 12/1/80 \, " , MINUTES, ANIWEIM CiTY P4ANNING COMMISSION~ OECEMBER 1, 1980 ~'73S I TEM N0. 1: E 1 tt NEGAT I VE , DECLAiIAT I ON ANO VAa I ANCE N0. 3175 = PU9LIC HEAa1NG. OWN~Rt Blll Z. ANQ BE?TY F. WEHUNT, 213~ West 11th Street~ Santa Ana~ CA 9Z7p3• P~aparty descrtbed •s e rectangularly-shaped ~++rcel af lsnd conslsttng of approxtmately 72$S squa~e feet loc~ted at the northeast cornsr of Valencia P'~~e~ts^ar~aentlyaclas~tflednRM-12QQ~(REStOENTtAL~s MULTIPLEtFAMILY)IZONE. Avanue. p Y P VARIANCE~RiapENf,S (C)VREQU~REDaSITENSCREENI~NCSANO~(d)EiiEQUIREQbVEHICULAa ACCESSCTO BETWEEN U , CONSTaUCT A y-UNIT APAaTMENT COMPLEX. There were 3 st~ff reiortcwasnnoth~eadpritels~refa~rod catandtmadebanpart ol'~thQ and although the P minutes. It was noted the applica~t ts not present and Jack Whlte~ Assiatant City Attorney~ explainnd the Commission cen go ehead a~d review the Item cekinq the appltcatton as the +~ppilcent's testirtpnY. Dom Freno~ 83~-~/z 5. Claudina~ stated he is spe~+king for athers tn opposltion who had to ieave and that thsy ara not against the pro)nct~ but are oppoaed to the wai vers requested. Dean Sherer~ Assistent Planner~ briefiy revlewed th4 plan~ with the oppositlon and explalned the requestRd waivers. M~. Freno stated they want to knaw whst the setbacks are dnJ why the entrence is from the street instead of an alley. He stated the~y want the Co+nntsstan to considar that a lot of people the~e have pridc of ownership and most of the a~ea Is developed as single-family homes. Peul Brau, 2651 Jackso~~ representing his fathe~•in-law. avner of prope~ty at 842 S. Claudina~ stated he is in th~s procesa of buytng that property and it has Ma housns on it and he is concerne~d abo~t the densi ty; and that his father-in-ler+ vnrballY requested approval of a trip'.ex in 1974 which aas dented. He eteted he is not opposed to some development on the property~ but thought 5 untts is Just tao much• Ne pointed out there is a parking ~roble~r 1~ this •rea na+ anC su~gested a t~tptex i nsteac! of S un i ts • Commlssione=cK~andslftMaheim issto pr gresseendEgra+~ traffic +rlll~l~crea eles~ retirees~ Co~n~ission(c c`y 1ex~wltl~enholderthouse andnthe access^toathedtwa,garagesiist~re Is a th ree- un on~p directiy off Vslencia Street. Chairman Tala~ stated he ls concerned about the unit ebove the garage. Mr. B~au sta~t~ed ha unde~stands there are no ainda+s tn the unit above the garage. Con~issione~ 8srnes stated she would like to hcar frc~n+ the spplicant. 12/1/80 , _ . , -,~ . . ... . ..,~ .:.... ..._ .. ~,. _.~...... . ._ .~. _~. _ . . ~_~~ ..+.~_~~. ~.__~._,._....__,.~~........ ~.~ - ._..........,.. E MINUTES~ ANIWEIM CITY PUNNING GOMMISSION. DECEMIlER 1~ 1980 80-736 Ron Ishti~ a~chitect, statsd th~y h~d ~rork~d with tha Pl~n~ing D~p~rtma~t and It was th~ir sugqestlon to put the parking and accest as propased bau~use the adjacent p~opertlat on Valencta hod done somathi~g ~imil~r. He ~tAted they intand to keep the proJect compattble with what hes x curred in the area. Commfs~tnner King asked why there ara no garage doors. D~an Sherer axplatned gi~ags doo~s are not ~eq~~i~ed for apartmehts. Commi~sloner Buahore Indicata~ concern fo~ the malntenance of the t-foot strtp between the property lines. Dsan Sherer stated th~ petttloner could build the lower portton cerport to tha property 11ne providing a one-hour flrewsl) or perheps avold the firewsll by staying one foot away from the proporty 11ne. Chatrn~an Tolar atated he voted against a p~oJect similar to this on Euclid and would not support this request. Canxntsaloner Bushore stated ho wsnt~t to see housing and tagtcal density but iF tho avner nnxt doo~ Is going to be impacted by a solid 2-story wal) and has to matntain that 1-foot st~ip, then he would have to question the Justif)cation. Commissioner Barnes did rwt k~aw what could be done about tho 1-foot strip. Mr. B~ace atatod there is a Mo-atory apertment structurc to tho north of his property~ ~o (f thts is canstructed~ the ho~se on the rear of hls property w111 be between Mo soltd walls. Chairmen Tolar suggesCed a 6~week conttnua~ce becauaQ he was reluctent to act wtthout the applicant's pres~nce. ACTION: Cornmiss~oner 8ushore offered a motion seconded by Commisato~er King and MO ION CARRIED (Comnissioner Ne~bst being absent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby continue Variance No. 3175 to the regularly-schedulad meeting of January 12~ tg81, in order for thc applicant to be present. 12/1/80 ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION~ DECEMBER 1, 1980 80-737 ItEM NU. 1Gt EIR NEGATIVC UECLARATION ANp VAaIANCE N0. 3179: .~........_......_...~ .~_ ~....~_~_~...._.,.~.. PU6LIC NEARINC. OWNER: MQNGKOLKIT CORPORATION~ 1820 South West Streot. A~ehelm~ CA 92802. AGENT: VAN OORPE 6 ASSOCIATES~ 1820 Orangewood Avenue~ N107. Orange~ CA 926Gii. Property desc~tbed es o rectangulariy•sheped pa~cel of land consfattng of approximataly Q.51 acra, located at 1820 South Wast Street (K,ona Y.si I~otal). Property presontly classified RS-A-h3~000 (RESIOENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL) ZONE. VARIANC~ ftCQUEST: WAIVERS OF (a) MINIMUM NUMdER OF PARKiNG Sf'ACES AND (b~ MINIMUM IANDSCAPEU SETBACY. TO EXPAND AN EXISTING MOTEL. There was no anc Indlcating thelr preaence in opposition to subJect request~ end althouc,~h thc staff report was not read~ it is referred tA and mode a part of the minutes. Dan Van Dorpc~ egent. stoced this proposel is ta expend an ex(sting motel by addtng t~ u~rtts; that ttie parking walver request for 25$ reductton Is beceuse 25 to 30~ of tha guests arrive by means of transportatlon other than private automobiles and other watvers betwcen 30 and 40$ have been granted; that the ~xisting swtmming poo) Is within Lhe exlsting right-of-way~ but the City Engineer has lndicated that the ultimete width of roaciway hes bean dcveloped. THE PUDLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commlastoncr King offered A motlon~ scconded by Commisstoner Fry and Mb710N CARRIED (Comnisstoner flnrb3t being absent), that the Anahetm Clty Planning Commtsslon hes reviewed thc proposal to expand an existtng rtatel wlth waivers of mintmum number of perking spaces and minimum landscaped setback on a rectangularly-shaped parce) of land consi~ting of approximately 0.51 ecre~ having a fronteqe of approximetely 1~0 faet on the east slde of West Street~ having a maxtmum depth of approximataly 150 faet and betng located approxlmately 210 feet south of the centtrtlne of Katetla Avenue (1y20 South West Street); and docs hereby approve the Negative Declaretlon f rom the requtre ment to prepare an environrt~ntel impact ~eport on the basts that there Nould be no signiflcr~~t individual or cumulattve adverse e~vironmenta) impact due to the approvel af this Negative Declaratlon sinGe the Anaheim Gencra) pian deslgnates the subJect prap~rty for commercial recreetion land uses cc~m~ensurate with the pr4posal; that nc sensltlve environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initia) Study submltted by the petltioner Yndicates no ~igntficant lndlviduel or cumulative adverse envi~onmenta) impacts; and that the Negative Dectaration substanttating the foregoing findings Is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Uepartment. Commissioner King offered Resolutlon No. PC80•222 and m~ved fo~ its prssage and adoptlon that the Anahetm Ctty Planning Commission does i~ereby grant Petltion for Variance No. 3179 on the basis that denial would deprtve subJect property of prlvi~egns e~Jayed by otl~er properties in the same zane a~d viclnity, and An the basis that a certatn percentage of the guests arrive by tra~sportatio~ medes other than private automobiles, and subject to Interdepartmenta) Committee recanmendatlons. On roll cell~ the faregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMNISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS, BU5HORE~ FRY~ KING~ TOI.AR NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMf~115S I ONERS : NERBST 1211/80 \ .' . I Mi+'UTfS~ ANAHEIN CITY PlAN111NG COMMISSION~ DECEI~ER 1. 1980 ~•738 I TEM N0. 17 s E 1 R CATEGORI CAL EXEMPT I OIMCLASS 3 ANO VARI ANCE H0~80 s ~~~~~ w PU9LIC NEARING. OWNER: RAND+~~II MILIiAM ANO CANGAC~ L. 6LANCNARO. 16371 Ba~ch 8oul~vard~ Huntington B~sch~ CA 9Z~~+7• AGENTt DEFRANKSIGN~ INC./DESIGN 2~ 3413 West fordham~ S~nt• Ma. CA 93704. Property desc~ibed as e rectsngularly-shaped p~rcel of tend consisting o~' approxim~telr 1.4 acres, lac~ted at 503~531 West Ch~;man Avenue. Prope~ty p~esently classlflad CG (COMMERCIAL~ GENERI~~.) ZONE. VARIANCE RFQuEST: WAIVERS OF PERMITTED LOCATI~N Or FREE-STANDING ~IGU TO aETAIN A FREE•STANDI NG S i GN. Th~re wa~ no one (ndicatin9 thei~ prese~ce in oppoattion to subJect request~ and •lthough the st~ff ~aport wes not reed, it is refe~red ta end mada a psrt of th~ mi nutas. David Kapia~~ 2620 West Arura~ Santa M a~ was proaent co answe~ any q~•~sttons. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. It was not~d the Planning Dire~tar or hls euthorized representative has determined that the proposed proJect fails wlthin the deftnttion of Categorical Exen~ttons~ Class ;, as defined i n parAgraph 2 of tha Ct ty of Anahelm Envl ronme~tal le~pect Report Guioelines end is, therefore~ categortcally exempt from the~ equlrement to prepere an EIR. ACTION: Commlssioner K1 ng offered Resolutlon No. PC80-221 a~~d naved for its passage ani~a~option that the Anahelm City Planning C~xrrnission does hereby grant Pet'L~on for Variance No. 3~~0 on the basif. that de~lal woul.i depriv~a subject praperty of a privtlege enJoyed by other properCy in the same .eona and vicinity~ sub,ject to Inte~dep~rtmentai Com 'ttee reconuner~dat(ans. On roll call~ thc torego~r~g resolutlon was passed by the follawing vote: AYES: COhWISSI0NER5: BARNES, 80UA5, BUSH~RE, FRY~ KING, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSI0HER5: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NERBST tz/1i8o ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLAHNING COMMISSION. DECEMbER 1~ 1980 80•739 ITEM N0. 18s EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIQN ANO YARIANCE N0. 3181s ---------- .~.._, PU6LIC H~ARING. OWNER: KAa OING DAVIO HSU~ ET AL. ;400 W~st 8~11 Road~ Anehalm~ CA 92~Ok. AGENT: WCNDELI. W. VEITN~ 4777 ~agle Way~ Palm Springs~ CA g2264. Property d~scribed es • roccs~qularty•sh~ped parcei of land canststing of approximat~ly 0.84 ~cre lncetad •t the southw~st corne~ of Dall ao+~d and M~ste~t Lana, snd further descrtbed as 34ao We~t 8~11 Ro~d. Prapdrty presently clessifled CL (COMMERCIAL, IIMITED) tONE. VARIANCE REQUEST; 1dA1VER OF MAXIMt1M NUMf3Ea OF PARKINC SPACES TO EXPAND AN EXISTING MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING. Thare was no on~ inJlceting tliel~ presance In opposttlon to ~ubJect r~equest~ end elthough the st~ff report was nAt reed~ lt Is r~ferred to •nd made a part of the minutes. Wendell Veith~ agent~ was preaent to answer any questions. TNE PU~LIC NEARING WAS C~OSE:. Cheirman Tolar ssked about the reciprocol parking agreement and M~. Veith repliad they have a preliminary letter of ayre~ment between Mahetm General I~ospital end the petl~~~na~ and are workinq on the fina) egreement. Ne polntQd out the agreement is necessa ry and ts covered in Gondltian No. 4. Commissioner Bernes statod both uses need the perking du~tng th~ day and she was concerned thrre could be a~~rking problem. Mr. Veith stated there has not been a parktng problem wh~n he nas been there. Ne explainec! thts bullding will accommodate 10 to 15 doctors who wil) basically be from the hospital. Dean She~er~ Aaslstenc P1Anner~ skated there has been no report ot any specific parkfng problem in the area. Commissioner King ciarified that there wlll be no problem camplying with the Traffic Engineer's reconmen~ation that the extsting drtveways closest to th~ tntersection of Bsl) Road and li~sters Lane be clos~d. Mr. Veith stated he understa~ds the hospital plans to expand utiltztng th~e va~ant property to the south and will provide 2d0 additionrl parking spaces. (.ommissinner Bushore stated the futu~~ expansion of the hospltal +~vas one of his concerns and also how the people will find their way from the exl:ting medical butldinq to the hosplta) parking lot. I~e asked how ~:he patients will know there is perking avatlable in the hospltel parking lot end was concerned thet in the future the residents will be penattzed by naving no parking allowed on their street. Mr. Veith suggested stg~ing on-site ~ndicating tf~ere is parktng across the ~treet. Commlssioher Fry felt thts will have a t~tmendous impact on the Masters Lane residents. 12/1/80 ~ MINUTES, ANIWEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OECEMBEa 1, 1980 80•740 Ch~t~man Tolar stated the ~ubJect propa~ty Is su~rounded on both sides with connr rcta) uses and he did not know wh~t else the property could be used for. Ha polntad out tha residents wnre notified. Commisaionar Bushore stated thcre are problems with other hospitals chet are g~awing. Mr. Veith stated the medic~l focititles were developed befor~ tho regtdences~ Ne stat~d they would b~: happy to ccxnply wlth sny condtttans requt rinq siqns. Chairman Toler felt Mesters Lane from Ball Road to the south property line should be posted for "No Parking" o~ both sides. Mr. Vetth felt sure th~ T~affi- Engfneer would be a9reeable to that suggestian and stated he wouid be happy to fallor+ up a~ it. ACTION: Chairmen Tolsr offe~ed a motion, scconded by Commissioner King and MOTION ~U (Commissioner Herbst being absent) ~ thet tF~a Anaheim Ctty Pirnning Cc~mmission hes reviewed the proposa) to permit tha expansion of an existing medica) building with waiver of mintmum numbar of perkin9 speces on .. rectangularly-shapdd parcel of land cansisting of approxtmately 0.84 ecres located st the southwast corner of Bsll aoed snd Mssters Lane having a frontage of approximately 1~0 feet on thc south slde of Ball Road and a frontage of approx~metely 194 feet Qn the w,,st side of Maaters Lane (3~+00 Wast Ball Road); anJ does hereby apprave the Negative Decleration f~om the requirement to prepare an envtronn~ental impact report on the basis thet there would be no stynifica~t tndividual or cumulattve adverse envtronn~ntal Impact due to the approval af this Negative Declaratlon since the Anehelm Genera) Plan designates the aubJect prop~rty for gene~el cornr~erci~l lan~i usea commensurate with the propoaai; that no sensiiive c~nvirnnmental tmpacts are Involved in the proposal; that the Inltt~l Study submitted by the petitioner indicetes na signiPicant tndlvtdua', or cumulative adverse environmcr,tal impacts; and that the Negative Oeclaration substentiating the foregaing flndings Is on fite in the City of Anahelm Planntng Qepa~tment. Chairrnan Tolar offered Resolutio~ No. PC80-222 and moved for its pASSage and adoption that the A~aheim City Pianning Commisslon ~oes hereby grant Petttion for Variance i~b. 31$1 s~ j oct to both s i des of Mesters be i ng aosted for "t~o Parki ng" for the 194 feet from Bsl1 Road to thc south property linc of subject p~oprrty snd aubjact to the Interdepartmental Comnittee recomne~datlons. There waa a brief discussion ~egarding the parking on Masters Lane and future haspltal expanston. Commiastoner Buahore asked the petitoner t~ post a sign on the property indtcatt~g psrking is avaltabl~ ac tt~e hospi-a) parking lot across the street and that no medic~l parking is allowed on Masters Lane. Mr. Vleth replled he would be happy to comply with thet suggeat(on. Dean Sherer~ Assistant Plan~e~, scated this varlance will not be vaitd unless the reclp~ocet parkiny sgreert-ent ts obtetned. He explained there is a g~eat difference in parking requiremnnts batween en out-patient clinlc or medical office building snd a h~spital. He stated staf{` wlll be revtewing the parking requtrements fnr hospitals and bringing a rep rt to the Commission for revlew i~ the near future. Ne stated l2/1/80 ~ ' MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OECEMBER t~ 1980 80-741 thera is more than amplc pe~ktn~ on the hospltal parkina Int at the present timn and If tho hosptt~l w~nts to expend in the futu ro. staff wili louk very cerefully at the typa of expansio~ p~oposed. On roll ca10, the foregoing ~esolution waa passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMI SS IONERS : BARNES~ NQES : COtiMI SS I ONE RS : NQNE ABSENT: COMMI SS IONERS : HERBST ITEM N0. 19: E i a N~GATIYE DECI.A 60UAS ~ 8USt10RE ~ FRY , K I NG ~ TOLAit ION AkD RE F REMOVAL OF PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: ~URNETT-EHL' ~E COMPANY, 1900 East ~+th Street, Santa Ana. CA 92705• AGENT: JACK P. NORR15~ NOR~iIS ENGINEERING~ INC., 959 Acapulco Street~ Laguna Beach~ ~A g2b51. Property descrlb~eQ as an lrregularly-shaped parcel af land consisting of ap~roxi~atel~ 11,9 ecres~ having a frontage of approximately 59~ feet on the eest stde of Henning Way~ heving a maximum depth of Approximately 1170 feet and betng located approximately 350 feet south of the centerl ine of Arboretum Road. P~aperty presently classified RS-HS-22~~00(SC) (RESIDENTIAL~ S1NGLE-FAMILY HII,LSiDE) ZONE. PETITIONER REQUESTS aPPROVAL FOR THE REMOVAL OF 47 SPECIMEN TREES. There wes no cx~e indicating their presence In opposftton to aubJect request, and aithough the staff report was not read~ It is fefc ~d to snd msde a part of the minutes. Joel t~orrts~ engineer~ explalned this requcst Is necesssry btcause of a couple of mistakes made on the prevlously-approv~d plans. TNE PUDLIC HEARING NAS CLOSED. ACTION: Commisstoner Bushore offercd a r~~otio~~ seconded by Commisstonar King and ~01~ CARRIEU (Cenmissioner Herbst being absent), thst the Anahelm C~ty Planning Commlasior~ hes ~evtewed the p~oposal to remove 47 spectmen trees w(thtn Tract No. 959k (Revision No~ 1) on en (~regula~ly-shaped parcel of l~nd consisting of approxtmately ll.g acres. having a frontage of approxiRately 590 fcet o~ the east side of Henning Way. having a m~xlmum dcpth of approxin~ately 1170 feaet and be{ng located app~oxi~nately 350 feet south of the centerl ine ef Arboretum Road; and does hereby app~ove the Negativr Declaratlon from the requlrement to prcparo an environmental impact report on che basis thst there aould be no stgniftcant individusl o~ cumularive adverse envlronmentsl impact due to the approvel of thts Negative Oeclaration since the Aneheim Ge~eral Plsn desiQnates the subject property far single-family residential land uses cortimensurste with the p~opasai; that no aensitive envlronmental impacts a~e involved in the proposai; that the I~itla) Study ~ubmitted by th e petttioner Indicates no significant (ndividual or cumutattve adverse environmental ia~paces; and that tha N~sgative Declaratlon substanttating th~- foregainq findings is on file in the Clty of Maheim Planning Departrment. Co•^~~issloner ~ushore offered a raotlon~ seconded by Commissioner King and NOTION CArcRiED (Commtssioner Herbst being absent) ~that the A~aheim Ctty "tanning Commtsslon does hereby g~a nt the request fo~ removal of fo~ty-seven (47) specimen t~ees within T~act No. 9594 on the basls tfiet a reasonable and practical development of the p~operty on which the trees are located requires removal of the trees. 12/~/80 t MINUTES~ MIANEIM C11Y PI,ANNING COMMISSION, DECEMBER 1~ 1980 80-~42 iTEH N0. 20: ~ R ~ N RECOMMENDATIONS Tho following Rep~rta snd Reco~~mendations staff r~~rts were p~esented but not read: A. CONUITII-~AL USE PERMIT N0. 176G - Request f~- termtnation from Jesste B~ker~ e vet g ts~ nc.. or property located at 1y1y-H South Sunkist Street. AG~ TIONt Commissioner Ktng offered aesolutlnn No. Pf80•223 end moved for Its Nassag~a and edoption thet the Anehoim ~tty Plennin~ Commtssion does hereby termtnaCc oll procePdings in connectlo~ with Cond(tional Us~ Permit No. 11GG. On rull call~ the foregotng resolutlon was peased by the f~ll~.,ln~ vote: AYES: COMMI SS I Ot~EP,S ; BAP,NES ~ OOUAS, IiUSIIORE ~ FRY. KING, 1. I.AR NOE5: COMMISSIONCRS; NONE AEfSE~~T: COMNI SS I ONE:RS ; HERf35T B. VAaIANCE N0. 1fi~3 - Request for t~rminatlon from Larry R. 5mtth~ for property~ocat~Tat 191g Sauth Knott Strect. ACTION: Commissioner Y.ing offered Res~lutton No. PC80-22~~ and moved for its passege anJ ad~ptlon that the Anaheim Clty Planning Commission does hereby termtnnte ~~II proc~edtngs ln connettlon with Variance No. 1a93. On roil call~ thc foreyoing res~lutton w~s passed by thc following vote: AYES: COMNISSION~RS: 8ARt1E5~ BOUAS~ tiu5iipRE~ FRY~ KING~ TOLAR N~~ :: COMMISS IONCRS: NONE AGSENT; ~4MM15510NERS ; HERE~ST G. COf~UITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1~01 - Request fo~ terr~ination from Bernard tlagby or property ocatc at .. ast Linco~n Avenuc. ACTION: Cortmissi~ner King offe~ad Resolutlon No. P~C8A-225 and moved fo~ its passaga and adoptio~ that thr Anaheim City Planning Commission does he~eby termi~ate all proceedtngs in connectton wtth Cond(tionai Use Pe~mit No. 1;01. On roll eall~ the foregoing ~esolutlon was pasged by thc following vote: AYES: COPWISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOU'S~ BUSN~R~~ FRY, KING~ TOIAR NOES: COMMISSIONEaS; NpNE AESSENi: CONMISSION~KS; NERBST D. CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT NQ. i06 - Requcst for an extenston of time from R. . c es e ow oy or prop~rty loceted at 1721 South Manchester Ave~~e. ACTIO~~: Commissioner King oPfered a motton~ seconded by Commissioner Fry arr ION CARRiE~ (Commissioner Herbst b~ing absent)~ thet the tinaheim City Planning Commisslon does hereby grant a one:-year retraactOve extenstan of time for Co~ditional Use Perrnit No. 1063~ to expire October 7, 1981. 12/ 1 /80 t11NUTES~ AN~.HEIM CITY ~IANNING COhWISS10H~ DECEN~ER 1. 198~0 gp•743 E. ~QNUITIQt1Al, U5E PERMIT N0. 16 1• Request for an extenslon of t{~x from W am . t a. or property lacated at t;27 Eest La Paln+a Avenue. ACTIUN; Gommissloner King offereci a motton~ saconcied by Conmissio~~e~ F-y an~OT10N CAaRiED (Ccmmissioner Herbst being sbsent)~ thet th~ Anahelm City P 1 ann ~ i~~_a Commi s3 i on cioes hareby gre~t a twcryear ex tens t on of t I me for Condttional Use Permit No. 1G71~ to exolrc on Dece~ber G~ 19a2. F. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRIICT_ NO. 10%+7~~ - Request f~r An axtrnslon af time from naca ng nc~r ng ompany or propcrty locatc ~n thc wcst sidc of Villereal Uriva, abaut 3~~8 faet south of the centerline of Nohl Ranch Raed. ACTION; Commissioner K(ng offered a motfon~ seconded by Commissioner Fry an~OTIOi~ C~RRIED (Gorm~isslnncr Herbst belny ebsent), that thr Anahetm Ctty Pianni~y Cumnission doea hrrehy nr~nt a onc-year extension of timc for Ter-tative Map of Tract No. ~0471~~ to cxplre an January 31~1~Z2. G. VARI/WCE N0. 2G43 - IZequest for ~~troactive ~xtenston of time from Tlmothy Wal ace~ or prop~rty at the nurthc:ast corner of f,enter Strect an~i Mancliester Aveiiue~. ACTION; Commissioncr Y.in~ offered a motion~ seconded by Commtssioner Fry and MOTION C~RFtIEU (Coarniss(oner Ilcrbst being absent), that the Anaheim City Planniny Commission Jocs ~iereby grant a one•ycar retroactive extension of tin~e for Vdriance No. :G4; to expire on Octaber 3~~ 19~1, ti. AI3NIUONMENT Np. tS0-2A - Request fro-n Yan Uoren Rubbcr Company to abandon an ex st ng twenty- oot wide oubllc allcy and extending east approx(m~tely 12u.5 feet to tlie west linc of the Atchinson~ Topcka~ b Santa Fe Ratlway~ soutli of the cencerl ine ~f I3roaclwny. ACTION; Corml;siuner fry offered a mc~tlon~ seconded by Commissloner 6arnes and M TIOf~ CARRIEU (Commtssloner Herbst being abscnt and Co~mtssloner King abstaining)~ that tt~e Anaheim City Planning Commission dors hereby recommend to the City C~uncil that Abandonment No. 20-2A be approved. !. RECLAS;IFICA'i1011 ~~Q. 73-7~•~, Vt,Rlti'~CE N0. 3nJC - Request for retroactlve extens~'~on o t-~~ rom av te eac~or property at 21~:12 Santa Ana Cany~n Road. ACYIOt1: Cortmissioner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Fry and MQTION CARRIED (Commissfoner Ilerbst beinq absentl~ that the Anaheim City Planniny Commisston do~s hereby grant a one-yeer retroact~ve exCensfon of ttme for Raclassification No. 7~~19-32 and Variance No. 2070~ to expire on February 2G. 1~81. ADJOURt1MENT There being no furCher business, Commissioner Fry offered a motian, seconded by Commtssioner Bouas and NOTIUt1 CARRIED thet the meeting be adJourned. The meeting was adJourned at h:20 p.m. ELN:Im Respectful ly sul~ml ttecl~ ~~ ~ ~~~~..~ EdiCh l. Narris~ :.~~ctary A~aF~im City Ple~ning Gomn+issic.n 12/1/80