Loading...
PC 1984/09/05R~GULAR MEETING OF THE ANANEIM CITY PL~NNING GOMMIS&ION KEGULAR MBETING ThR regular meeting of th e Ana~eim City~ Planning ~ommi~s~on was called to ~arder by Chairman HFrbat at 1Q:00 A.m., ~vptember 5, 1984, i n tha Council ChAmber, a quorum being pres~nt and the Comrniasion reviewod p;ans of the itQme cn today'3 agonda. RECF.SS: 11:30 a.m. RECONV~NED: I:33 p.m. PRESENT ChairmAn: Hecbat Commisaionecs: [3ouas, Hu shore, Fry, King, La Cleire, McBurney Commiesioner LA Claire ar rived at 2:15 and Commiseioner Bush~re arri ved at 1:35 p.m. A9SENT; Commisaionera: None ALSO FFtESENT F~nnika Santalahti Jack White Jay '11Gus Paul Singec Greg Hastings Fdith Herria Asaistant Direct.or for Zo~~,«g Assietant CiGy Attorney Ot`.ice Engineer Traffic Bngtneer AeralatanG Planner Planning commiasion Spcretary APPltUVAL OF MINUTF.S: Commissioner King oEfe r ed a motion, seconded by Commieaioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED 'COmmis sioners Bushore and La Claire abaent) that th~ minutes ~f tho meeting of August 20, 1984, be a~proved as submitted. ITEM N0. 1. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND FEQUES'1' FOR APPROVAL OF REMOVAL OE SPECIMEN TREES (NU. 84-03). PUBLIC HGARING. UWNERS: PARAMJEET S. DARGAN, 5040 S. Crescent Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807~ Property desccibed as an irr~gul~rly-shaped parce~l of land consisting of approximately 1.2 acrea, 5040 East Crescent Drive. RequESt approval foc the removal of twelve ( 12) specimen trees. Continued from the meetings of June 11 and Auguat 6, 1984. ACTION: Commisaioner King offered r motion, second~d by Commiesloner Bouas anci MOTION CARRIEU (Commissioners 8ushore a nd La Claire absent) that consid~ration of the aforementioned matter b.e continued to the ~egulacly-scheduleu me~ting of October l, 1 9 84, in order for the applicant to complete reglacement of the treea that wece illegally cut dawn. Commissionec Bushore arrived at 1:35 p.m 84-544 9/5/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBE~ E1 1984 84-545 ITEM N0. 2. EIR NEGATIVF DECI~ARATION, WAIVER OF CODE REUUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT N0. 25d5 PUaLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RIDER INV~STORS~ LTD., 18552 MacArthuc Baulevard, Irvine, CA 92715, ATTN; DAVID MADRIGAL. AGENT: R. V. MORSE, 1?87 'A" North Jeffereon, Anaheim, CA 92807. PGOperty deacribed as an i.rregulacly-shaped parc~l of lan~ consieting of approximately 0.87 acce located at the southeast carner of Miralom~ Avenue ar~d Jetferson Street, 1287 'A" and ~B~ Nocth Jefferaon Street (Mor.ae Drothers R.V. ~nr~ Dave's Auko Wrpcking). To retain a recreational vehicle upholstery uhop and automobile dismantling and parts repair shop in the ML Zone uith waiv~r of mintmum number of parking spaaes. Continued Eram the meetiny of July 9, and August 20, 19a4. R. V. Morse, agent repreoenting Morse BroChers R. V., was present ~o answec any questions. David Lampert, representing ~~ve's aut~~ wrecking, explained Chere is no diamantling of aut~mobilea on subject property and they d~ have a dismantling facility in Plac ia and further explained ~hey repair and assemble automobile parts at this location for delivery to automobile body shops or dealerahips and also that he does occasionally rest.ore ~lde~r vehicles. TEIE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commise~ionec McBurney stated his concecn was with the dismantling and Commiseioner eouas noted there were sone letters ~ubmitk~d regardfng some old cars trom some of the sucround:ng property owners. Mc. Lampect explainPd those vehicles were in conjunction wir.h an automobile detailing ~uainess which has been relocated as of the first af 5eptember. Commissioner Bushore pointed o~t this conditional use permit. also pertains to the rec~reational vehicle ugholstery shop which means these neighbors will have to wat~ ut f~r each other tu make sure the conditions are complied with. ACTION; Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner E'ry and MOTION c:ARRIED (CommissioneK La Claice absent), that the l~naheim City Planning Comm:lssion has re~~iewed the proposal to retain a recreational vehicle upholst~ry and a~tomobile diamantling and parts repair shop in the ML (industrial, Limit~d) Zone w~ith waiver of minimum number of parking ~paces on an irregularly-shaped parcQl of land consisting af appr~ximatel.y 0.67 acre located at the southwest corner of Niraloma Avenue an~l Jefferson Street and furthec described as 1287 'A' and 'B" North Jeffersort Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Deciaration upon findi~; that it has con3idered the Neelative Declarat.ion together with any commer...s received during the p~ablic review process and furt-her finding on the basis of the InitiAl Study and a~ny comments received that there fs no substantial evidence that the project wi12 have a signifiaant effect on :he c~nvironment. 9/5/84 MiNU2'ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION, SEPTEtIBER 5, 190" 84-546 Con ~ssioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commiesioner B~uas And MOTION CARRIED iCommieAioner La Cleire ~bsen~), that the wei~~er of: Code requiremQnt is hereby gcant~~d on the basis khat the pArking waiver. will not cause nn incr~~,~ae in tcaftic congestion in the immPdiate vicinity nor adversely A~tect any adjaining lana usrs and yranting oE the parking wniver. under the conditians impoaed, if any, will not be detrimentAl to the peace, healtt~, sAfety and goneral welfare of the cikizen~ of the City of An~heim. .Iack White, Aasi.,cant City Attorney, auggested the Planning Commission should make a finding ~hat pursuant to Section 18.U2.OA1 of the Anaheim Municipal Code thet automobile pArte repair, including repair o[ p~rtions af disaesembled automobiles, ii r,ppraprial•ely clasaified as automotive repair within the meaning oE 5ection 18.61.p50.6U1 of the Anaheim Municipal Code and also a condition should be add~~d that there ehould be no automotive disman~ling, wrecking or aalvay:ng on ~ubject property. Commiasio~er Y.ing offered Rssoluti~n No. PC84-177 and moved Eor itr~ p~r~sage and adoption that the Anat~clm City °lanning Cortuniseion does tierFby grant Condilional Use Pr.Cmlt No. 2585 purs~ant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.U3.030.0's5 or~ the basis that pursuant to Sectinn 18.02.041 of the Anaheim Municipal Code the Commission does herehy Eind that automoti~v~ parts repair, including repai;s of portions of disassembled automobiles, is appropriately classified e:s auComotive repair within the meaning of Section 18.G1.050.601 of Anaheim Municfpal Code and Aubject t~ Interdepartmental Committee recommendation~, including an additional condition that no automobile diamankling, wrecking ~r salvaging shall be permitted on the pcoperty. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the ~ollowing vate: AYE~: BOUAS, BUSHOR~, F'RY, HERBST, KING, MC BURN~Y NOES: NONE ABSFNT: La Claire Ja~k White, Assistant City Attorney, presented khe writt~~n right to appeal the Planning Cortunission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. IT~M NO. 3. GIR N~GATIVE DECLARATI~N, RECLASSIFICATION NA. 84-85-4, WAIVER OF CODG REQUIREMfiNT AND CONDITIUNAI. USE PERMIT N0. 26Q5 PUBLIC HEARINC~. OWNERS: CHESTER PETERSON AND BEVERLY ANN COMP'aON, 327 N. Shattuck Place, Orange, CA 92666. Property described as an irregularJ.y-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.4 acres located north and west of t.he northwest corner of La Palma Aver~ue and Imperial Highway. RS-A-43,000(SC) to the CL(SC) Zone. To permit a multi-scr.een indoor theatre and a 4?-foot high semi-enclosed restaurant with waive~ of minimurt~ number of parking apaces. Continued from the meeting of August 6, and 20, 1984. 9/5/64 MINUTES~ ANAHEIk CITY ~LANNI~G ~'OMMI~SIONL SGPTEMBER 5, 1984 84-547 ACT:UN: Commiss.toner King offered a motion, secvnded by CommiH~ioner Bouas and MOTION CARRI~D (Commiaeioner La Claire abaent), th~~t conaidera`ton oE the aEo:ementioned mattec be c~ntinued to the regulacly-scheduled meeting ~:f. Sepcember 17, 1984, at the reyueat oE tiie petitioner in order that revised plans may be eubmitted. ITEM N0. 4. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANU CONAITIONAI. USE PCRMIT N0. 2G11lREADVERTISED PUl3LIC NEARING. OWNERS: WILLIAM c:. ANU MARC~AR~Z' N. SANCSTEIt, 2133 W. ChApman, Orange, CA 92668. AGENT; NAUGLF~', INC., ATTN: ROGER BARBOSA, 2932 E. Nutwoud, hullert~~n, CA 92~3A. Proper~r deacribed as an irregularly-ahaped parcel of land con:,isting of approximatel.y 0.78 acre, 2112 5outh Stake College ooulevard. To perrnit a semi-encloaed, drive-tt~rough reat~urant l.n the ML Zone. Continued fcom August 20, 19H4. Tt~ere was no one indicating theic presence in op~osition to subject request and ~lthougti the staff report was not reud, it fs referced t~ and made a part of the minutes. Margaret Watkins, cPpreaenting Naugles, Inc., explained she had just met with the City 7'raffic Engineer in tiis office, modifying the site plan and presented an overlay of the modified plan. She sl:ated she would like to have appcoval based on this modified plan subject to them presenting a f.inalized site plan. PaL: Singer, Traffic Engineer, explained in order Eor the site to meet the conditions ~f the l0U feet ceyuiced from tt:e window to the order board ~nd 60 fu:.c from the order board to the ur~interrupted driveway, ti-e overlay shows this is the way it should be laid ~ut with 90 d~gree parki.ng. tie explai~ed the parking does exceed Code requirements; Chat a new plan woul.d have to be presented. He explained there ace entcances from State College and from Uranyewood, with P1s. Watkins clacifying there wauld be two arder stations. THE PUBLIt' HEARING WAS CLOSED. Ms. Watkins responded to Commissioner Bouas that they could submit rc~vised plans within one week. Chairman Hecbst sugges~ed appraval sub~ect to the approval of the City Traffic Engineer and Commissioner Bushore stated the request foc the waiver should be drnied. Gceg Hastin.~s furth~r explained that if the minimum lengkh of the drive-thrnugh lane t~as been increased to meet Code requirements, no other varia:~ces are cequiced. ACT:ON: Commissioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner McBurney and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner La Claire absenk), that the Anaheim City Planning Commissian has reviewed the pcoposal tc permit a zemi--enclo,sed driveway restaurant in tt~e ML (Induatrial, Limited) Zone with waiver of minimutn ].er.gth of drive-tt~cough lane on an irregularly-shap~d parcel of land consisting nf approximately 0.78 acres, having a frontage of approximately 100 9/5/84 MINUTES, AN •.EIM CITY PLANNING rOMMISSIUN, SEhTEMBER 51 1984 6A-548 feQt on the eask stde of Stnte College Boulevard and f.urther deACribed aa 2112 5. State College 8oulevard~ and does hereby approvP the NegativP Dec:aration upon finding that it has c~neidered the Negative Declaration together wikh eny comments ceceived during the public review pcoce~o and further Finding ~n the basi~ of the Initial Study ~nd an~• commenta received thut there is no aubstantial evide~ce that thp project will have a significant eFfect on ~he envieonrnent. Commiasioner King offered Reso].ution No. pC84-178 and moved for its passage and adoption ttiak the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion does hereby grant Conditional Use Permik No. 2611, in part, pursuant to An~heim Municipal Code Section 1.8.03.030.030 throuqh 18.03.03U.035 ba8ed c~n the subm:ttal of a revi~ed plan which meets the City Traffic Engineer's approval with the requested waiver of Code requirement being denied on the baei~ chat the revised plans will eliminate the waiver since the length of. the dcive-through lr~r~~ will meet Code requirements and subject to Tntexdepartmental Committee recummenr3ati.ons . On roll call, the foregoing resolurion was passed by khe following vote: AYES; BCIUAS, DUSHORE:, FkY, HERBST~ KING, MC BURNEY NUES: NUNE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE Jac;k White, Assistant CiCy Attorney, presented the written riqht to appeal the Planning Commissi.an's decision withi^ 22 days to the City Council. ITFM NU. 5. _EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, w._TVFR OF CODE RE~UIREMFNT ANA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NQ. 2bU:i PU$LIC EiEARING. OW.NERS: RETIREMENT FUND TNI'ST OF TEiE pL,UM6ING, HEHTING AND PIPING INDUSTRY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, c/o S~uthern California Pipe Trades Trust Funds, 501 Shatko Place, 5th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90020. AGENT: BROWN DEVELOPMENT CQRPORATiON, AT'rN: RICHARD . BRO-~N, 3595 Presley Avenue, Riverside, CA 92507. Property descsibed as a rectangularly-ahaped parcel of land consisting of app:oximately 10 acre~, hav'ng a Erontage of approximately 440 feet on the south side of Wilken Way, appcox~,:4tely 770 feet east af the centerline of Harboc Boulevard. To permit a sN1E-storage facility in the CG 2one with waivecs of minimum number of parking spaces a~d minimum required public parking area. Continued fcom August 20, 1984. There was no one indicakinq their presence fn opposition to subject request and although the stuff r~port was not cead, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. Richard Brown, agent, explained he thought they had met the major concerns af the neighbors pertaining to the impact on khe schools and secucity of the project since there will be 24-hour secutity with t~levision monitors in ebch aisle nd 3n attendant on duty and also the pcoject will be completely surroU~ided with walls. He presented a rendering showing the wall on W'ilken 9/5/84 MINUTES. ANAHEIM_CITY PLANNING COMI4ISSJ.ON, SEPTEMBER 5. 1984 . AA-549 Way, explaining it will be 8 feet high. Gre~ Hastinga explnined the w~ll doea not re~uire a variance since ik .te behind the setback area. ; 1 ~ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEU. ~ i Chairman Necb~t stated there is a p•~~~lem with this requeak because the '; o[dinance has not yet become effe,,.ive and noted it will become effectfve ~ Seprember 20th and asked if the ~etitioner wo~~ld object co continuing the matter until the ordinance is ~~f4ctive. M[. Brown [esponded the mair cancern is the expense involved and stated he would request that the dec ~ion be made and the action held in Abeyance until the ordinance becomes eff~~tive. Commisaioner Bushore stated two weeks Ago he objected to even heacLng this request because the ordinance was not adapted ~~~ he f.elt if ~his p~tfti.oner i~ allowed to have a public hearing befor.e an urdinance i.e effective, then everyone else would have the same privilege. Mr. Brown atated he felt in view of action the City c'~uncil has taken and since Chey are asking thAt the Planning Commis~ion approve it conditionally, he did not think tt~ere would be a problem. He stated he realized anythiny c^uld happen before the ordinance becomes effective, b»t thought thAt was rather unlikely, and noted approvinq this conditionally would save them having to be on the klanning Commisafon ayenda again and wou.ld s~ve them Rame other prob:ems. Commissi~ner Bushore stated he under~tands the problems and cememb~rs what was originally approved on the property, but he does not want to see two diE£eren*. standards within the City. tie ~ointed out he has never voted for anything such as tt~is, subjec.t to an ordinance being passed. He stated the commission cannot legally approve this. Mr. Brown stated he thought approving this conditionally would be legal and explained the neighbors have all reviewed the project and decided not to oppose it. Chairman Herbst stated he felt as lony as this project has come this far with n~ opposition and the City Council has approved an ~rdinance to become eff~^tive September 20, the Commission should do everything they can to help this developer get this projec~ ~~nderway. He added he would feel different if there was opposition *_o khe pr~ject. ACTION: Commissfnner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissio~er Fry an~ MOTZON CARRIED (Conmiasioner La Claire absent and Commissioner Bushoce abstaining) that the Anaheim City Planning Commission has revfewed t.he pcoposal to pecmit a self-storage facility in the CG (General, Cummerctal) zone with waiveLs of minimum number of parking spac~s and rninimum number of required public parking area on a rectangularly-shaped pa.rcel of land consxsting of approximately 10 acres, having a frontage of approximately 440 feet on the south side nf wilkPn Way and being located approximately 770 feet ea~t of thE centerline ~ ~rbor Boulevar..; and does hereby agprove the ~ative Deczaration ~ inding that it has considered the Negative 9/5/8a ,, ? ~ MINUTES, A~NhEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMHER 5, 1984 84-5:0 Declaratlon together with any conmonts received during the p~~blic revlew process and further finding o~. the basis of. the Initial Study and any comm~~nts crceived that th~re is no subakantibl evidence thal the proj~ct wi11 hAVP, a eigniEicant effect on the environment. Coi~miasioner King offer~d a motinn, seconded by Commissioner ~ry And MOTION CARRIEp (Comniicsioner Ga Claire Absent and Comminsioner Bu~hore abst~~.ning) that the Anaheim City Planning Commissic~n dues hereby grant waivex of Code requirement on the baais that the parking waivEC will not cause an increase in tcaffic conqestion fn the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adj~ir.ing land wsea and granting of tt~e packing waiver undec the eonditions imposed, if any, will not be dQtrimental to thP peace, health, safety and general welfure of the citizena of the City of Anaheim. Commisaioner King oEfered kesolution No. PCBA-17y and moved for ita passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commi~a.:on does hereby gront Conditional Use Permit No. 2G03 pursuank t.o M aheim Municip~l Code Sec.tion 18.03.03U.030 thrauyh .18.03.030.035 ana au~~ecr. to the pending ocdinance permitting this ~ase becominy eEfecti~.•c SeE~tember 20, 1984, and subject t~ Interdepartmental Committee recommendatians. 0~~ roll call, the foreg~ing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUA5, FRY, HERBST, KING, MC BURNCY NpES: BUSHORE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right to app~al the Planning Commisbion's deci~ion within 22 days to the Gity Council. IT^M N0. 6. ETR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PGRMIT N0. 2591 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: LEMO~J ASSOCIATES, 146 E. Ur.angethorpe Ave., Anaheim, CA 928U1. AGENT: BIXHY KNOLLS OFFICE SUPPLIES, 77 E. Grangethorpe A~~enue, An:heim, CA 92801. Property described as a rectangularly-shape~ parcel of l~nd consisting o~ approxinately 0.9 acce located at l•he ~ortheast corner of Oran~ethorpe Avenue and Lemon Street, 77 East Orangethc.pe ~venue (Bi.xby Knolls Office Suppli.es). Tr, retain retail sales of ofEice supplies in the ML Zone. There was no one indicating their presence in upposition to su~ ~ct request and althaugh the staff report was not read, it is referred to u made a part of the minutes~ Michael Moreland, agent, er.plained t!iis uae will service commercial and industzial businesses in the drea with office supplies and equipment and explained theX have their own trucks for deliv~ries and do have some walk-in traffic from local b~sinesses in the area and therP is a smal~ deg~~e of business from the general public. HN state~j they have had no real impact on the area and he fe.lt they are actually an asset to tha area. THE P~BLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. 9/s~ea MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBRR 5~, 1984 84-551 A~TION: CommiESionec King offered a motion~ seconded by Cammissionec~ Fry and MOTIOti CARRIED (Commiasioner Ga Cl~i~~e absent), that the Anaheim City Pldnning Commieaion hAS reviewed the proposal to retain cetail sales of oEtice supplie$ in Che ML (Industrial, I,imited) Zone on a re.~!angularly-shaped parcel ~f 1a~d consiating of approximately 0.9 acres located at the northeast corner of ~rangethorpe Avenue ana Lemon Street and further clescrlbed ~n 77 E. Orar.gethoc~e AvenuQj ond does hereby app~'ove the Negative Declacation u~on finding that it has conaidered the Negative DeclUretion t~gether with any comments cecei.ved duting the public review procesc and `urther finding an the bASis of the Initial Study and any cumments ceceived that there io no aubstantial evidence that L•he proje:t will have a significant etfect on the environment. Commissioner Kin~~ offered RePOlution No. PC34-180 and moved for ita passage an~3 adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion does hereby yrant Conditional Use Permit No. ?521 pursusnt to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and aubject :.o Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call, the for~going resolukion was pa~sed by the following vote: AYE:5: BOUAS, BUSHORE~ Fhl~ HERBS'P, KING, iC E3URNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: LA CLAIRE Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Plar.ning Commission's decision within 22 days to rhe City Council. ITEM NU. 7. EIR NEGATIVE DC(.LARA;ION ANU CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. ~616 PUBLIC HEARItJG. OWNERS: EUI~ARD E, MATTHEWS, c/o Far Went Savings ~ ~oan Association, 4001 MacArthur Boulevard, Newport Beach, CA 9266C. AGENT, FAR WEST SAVINGS b LOAN ASS~CIATES, ATTN: D. Kent Dahlke, 4001 MacArthu[ Doulevard, Newport Beach, CA 92660. Property des~ribed as an irregularly-shaped p3ccel of land consisting of approximatel}- 0.67 acre, 4511 eisenhower Circle. 2'o permit a gymnast:c training center ~.ith 39 packing spaces. There was no one indicating thei~ presence in eF~position to sub~~:ct request and although the :,t.aff repork w4~ not read, it is referred to anc. madN a part of the minutes. Dennis MaillS~, owner of Kip`s Gymnasti~ Center, explainec3 they currently have a facility in Fullerton, but wish to move to a larger facility; ;:hat i•hey have students from thF age o€ 2 up ±o jdults, but the majority of the students are between the ayes of 2 and 15. He explained the hours of operation are listed in the staff renort and the largest number of student~ is on Satucdays. THF. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOS~;D. Paul Singer, Traffic Engineer, responded to Cammissioner King's comments ~egarding his reaommendation for denial oE the request until the parking 9/5/84 MINUTE~ ANAHEIM C1.TY PLANNING COMMISSION. SEPTEMBER 5t 1984 84-552 situation has been cocrected, that he h~d discueaed thia matter with a Zoning Enforcement Officer en~ there is a serioua packing ~roblem a~ong Eisenhower rircle at the present time and only cne half or two-thirds ot the huildinga are presently occupted and he thougi~t adding a commercial-type use with Bubat~~ntial traEfic woul~ heavily impact the area as fAr as parking end traffic ib cor~cPrned. He noted some of Che busine~s~a have converted their parkir~g apaces into outdoor storage. Commissioner Mceurney suggested red cucbing at leASk cn~~ ~ the street. Charles Eolcke, explained he is the father of one af th~: ents who currently tc~~ins ar Kfps and refer:ed to the trAff.ic survey which indicates that during the entire period when the sutvey waa conducted only 5 vel~icles parked tor any substantial length ~f ~ime, and only 3 vehicles were ~arked in excess ot l. houc. He explained that is because the E~arents ~rops the children off and pick them up again in 4 hours. tie stated any ocher businNas in a building oE lhis size would mean a lut more traffic pnd he thought this use would :~ave leas impact on the parking and traffic than any ~ther use. Con~~nissioner Bushore stated ~t~ere are other problems in addition to the traffic and pointed out khis type use would be diluCing the indust:cial integrity of the area wil•h childr.en coming inko the area, even though he knows the u~e would creake less t~afEic. He stated there is also a baseball batting cage and other gymnastic ceriters appru~ed in that same area and khe real issue is whetFier or not this is an approprial•e use for the area. Mr. Folcke stated there ace other gymnastic training cenCers in the Canyon Industrial Area and that Cathy Rigby's facility will not be a:~ected by t.l~is use and if this use is granted, Canyon ~ymnastics will be merg~ng with this fa~ility. He stated the owners wece not aware they wece opPrating without a conditional use permit. Co~~i~sioner Bushore explained Cathy Riyby's gym went in before the Canyon Industrial Zone was changed ta exclude gymnastic centers and the Commission denied that request, but it was approved by the City Co~ncil. He stated irt 1980, there was an existing athletic and body-building fa~ility at 1340 N. Blue Gum Str.eet approved because it was to secvP l•he people working in t'ne area and there was a health spa with a parking waiver at 5417 E. La Palma granted for a two-year period; however, it never went tnto effect, based on a problem with their lease; and that the cequ~ t For a gymnastic academy at the southeast corner of La Palma an~ Tustin Ave~,ue was denied in 1979, and another gymnastic center at 138.1 N. Kraemer was denied b.y the Planning Cemmission and City Council. He stated he was under the impression that tt~e Canyon Gymnastic C~nter was giving classes; however, the der_ision today is whether or not this is an appropriate use in an appropriate area. Mr. '.~lcke stated a gymnastic team cou~d nok exist in a-iy other type of facility because they need the huge open space witt, high ceilings. He stated Kip'c is more than a gymnastic team and is nationally cecognized and hosts probably the most promi~ent gymnastic invitational in the country and explained that meet would not be held at this facility, but would be at one of the local colleges. He explained they have been in business for almost 20 years and ace leaving Fullerton bec~use the facility is no longer adequate and an industrial building is the o;~ly thing that could accommodate them. 9/5/84 ; MINUTES ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. s~r"x•~no~n ~~•-~~ CommiRSioner Buahor~ e`asenUteevenlsurerif this wouldabetanaapproPaiateWUSe~ be icle~lr however, he wa ander the wordiny in the Cade, but it would be permitted in other ind~~.t~ia z~nes in the City~ but not in the Canyor. InduatriAl Area becaaae that has diffecent guideline~. M.r. E'olcke asked what typs use would 5e put into thic~mnissianerhBUShoreld generate leas congestion or pt-rking thAn this nse• $tat;ed a warehouse f.acility would have less paKking o[ c~ngeation. Commisaioner Bouas ~t.ated she did ~lemtinntliiararearithisapetitioner~shouldnd even though the[e i~ a parking p with not be penAlized because of that nnd that problem ahould be cleared up the other uners. Paul Si.nger stateddCheeWas£suremittwouldcbe8cleanedeup.made aware of the ~acking problem an Mr. ~'olcke stated they feel this use would contcibute to the cleaning up of the parking problern. Mr. Mailly responded ta Commissioner Bushore their leasP is for three yeAr~, with 2 three-Year opti~~ns. Chairman ~.erbst stated when ~~vided~tocmeetsthe~demandY but$thattadl~thofethe wet'e enough packing spaces p businenses are staru'Yybeo~leanedeupabecausepth~erefaceostillrquiteaaefewd t a is a pcoblem that m s buildings that are not being used. Mr. Mailly stated it would be about one month before they will get into their facility and that should g~ve the othec businessses a chance to cesolve the parki.ng problem. Chairman Herbst stated the gymnastic use in the Canyon lndustri.al Area is actually the main concern. Mr• Mailly stated there ace batting cages in that area anu ~'ammissioner Bushore stated they should probably not have been allowed because they do not serve the industrial area. Mr. Mailly stated he did not understand how a gymnastics team is diluting the character of the area. Commissioner Bushstart~toetakeetheiretoilebECa~sesit there, as previously mentioned, and they o into tl~at type area and leaves less space for industrial user~ who can only 9 thor~e industcial uses woelaobs,netc~randecertainoindustrialthypegusers wantsto tax base and produce mor j be in a pure industrial zone and don't w~rit a niix. ACTIUN• Commissioner King offered a motion, secon~ed by Commissioner pouas and MOTION CAItRI~D (CO$ 1eviewed theCproposalStotpermittatgYmnastics training p~anning Commission ha center with 29 p~rking spaces on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land 0.67 acre~s havin9 a frontage of approxim~tely 192 consisting of approximately feet on the north side o£ Eisenhota~r Citcle and fur~her described as 4511 3/5/84 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNTNG ~'_ OMMISSION~ $E~TEMBER 5, 198,~~ 4~~,,. 84-554 Eisenhower Circlot And doe8 heceby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has coi~aidered th~ Negative Declaretion together with any cammente rec~ivPd du~ing the public review procese And fucther finding on the bAaLa of th~ Initial S.".udy and uny commenke received that there is no substantial Avidence tt~at the project will have a significant efEect on the environmenr.. Commfasioner La Cl~irp entere~ L•he mPeting at 2:1~ p.m. Cort~issioner Kir.g o~~ered Reaolution No. PC84-181 and moved for its passa~e snd adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion does hereby qrant Conditfonal Uae PerR~it No. 261b for a period of three year~ pursuant to Anaheim Munic:pal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.U35 subjert ko Interdepartment~l Committee recommendations. Greg Hastings responded to Commiasioner Bu~hore that this is a permittpd use in the Canyon In~ustrial Area. Jack White further explained that Lhe Code pcovides t~~at physical fitness cent.ers and health spas which are industclal in nature are permitted in the Canyon Industrial Acea, and Section 18.02.041 of the Co~e also Frovides that where ambiguities mAy exist cancerning certain classifications For any u~~: within a given zone, khe Planning Commisaion and/or City Council ha:s the right tA detecmine what the appropriate classification is for tho~~ u~e, so the first question the Planninq C~mmissian must answer is whether o: not a gymnastic training center is appropriately classiiied as a health s:~a oc physical fitness center serving the industrial community or is industr~al in nature. He referced to Page 7-b, Pacagraph 14 which cefecs to 29 existing parking spaces as being adequate to secve the use and etated it should also be noted for the record that the Planning Airector through his authorized representative in the Planniny Department has detecmined that 29 spaces are adequate for thP proposed use. He stated he would ceco~mend that a condition be added providing the 29 parking spac~~s shal.l be pr.ovided for this use at all times since there are no parking requirements for this use and thece is no other way to enforce the parkinq spr.:ce requirement other than throuyh the cunditional use pecmit. Commissioner King stated that should be made a part of his resolution. On roll ca11, the foregoin9 resolution waa passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, KING, MC BURNEY NO~S: NONE ABSEN~': NONE ABSTAIN: BUSHdRE, LA CLAIRE Conn~issioner. La Claire exp~ained she had abstained because she was not present for the entire hea~ing. Commissioner Bushore explained he had abstained because he did not see how this use would serve the industrial commanity. Mc. Mailly clarified that a new appli:ation would have tn be made after the 3-year period. Jack ~lhite, Assistant City Attorney, pcesented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to tihe C~ty Council. 9/5/84 a- ITEM N0. 8. EIK NEGATiVE U~CG~RATION WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREM~NT ANA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2615 ~ PUFiLIC HEARING. OWNBltS: 'i'RINITY 1~lITHERAN CHURCN OE ANAIIEIM, 4101 B. Nohl Ranch Road, Anaheim, CA 92bu;. AGENT: KENNETN C. Dl1HLBEttT, 20042 Glenhaven Oceanview Stre~t, Drive, Yorba ~inda, CA 9'1686 and RICHARD E, IGRAM, 4046 N. Orange, CA y2665. Praperty deRCCibed as an irregularly-flhoped parcel of. land consistirig of eNohlYCantonYRoadcr4101oE+ast~Nohl~RanchCRtaad~(Trinity LuthECan Ranch Road and Y Church). To permit a 2-stoxY~~ent~of~215ustudentsa(jwithnwaiver ofiminimumt,numbcreof'i~Y tor a maximum enr~l parking spaces and maximum structural height. There wece three ueh8the stafE~ reporthwao noteread,i ik isoceEe~rrFdOtouandcmade request and alth 9 a part of the minuten. Richard Iqram, 4U46 N. Oceanview Stceet, Orange, egent, explained they propase ~o canatruct a 2-stury ~ducational wing adjacent ta ttie exiating library facility at themaximunfhei~ghtCandralsonmininumenumbernofaparking spacese requirement of Dallas Piecce, 4299 Ranch GAte Road, Anaheim, sL•ated he represents the Rocky Point 11 Homeowners Association and they are opposed ta the project because of r_he additional noise- pollution and traffic congsstion and also somp potential view imp~rrment due t~ the height af tt~e structuce; and they are also concerned aboHe ex lained~heehasilivedhtherel£ocdabout 8~years5-foot hiyh block wall. P Jeif Wynn, 4247 Ranch Gate, Anaheim, explained his lot is contiguous with the proposed development and they are o~posed because of the safety hazard due to the number e.nd volume of vehfcles on Nohl Ranch Road and he thougt~t doubling the numbec of students will have a traffic impact. He noted thece is an existing elemectdoessb1ack1up1becausetofftheCSignalratpNog~~Canyon1Roadildren and the traffi Mr. Wynn 3tated they purchased their home a~out 4 years ago and were familiar with the church facilities ar.d activities and had no problem with it at the timQ, but felt addiny a 7,000-square f.oot addition foc classroorns seems to be an overkill and he did not see the use as being an inci~~ental part of running a religious facility and it seems ta be moce in a business nature and a would business would have a negative impact on the [esidenti.al values and they cespectfully Ceqeeelevationhofthisepropertynisaconsiderablyaabove themchsrche~ McBurney th~t th property. Mr. igram explained the tr~Ef•ic report indicates there wou2d be no significant incr.ease in the amount ~f rraffic curr•:ntly in the area and pointed out there is an elemsntary school dicectly across the street. He presented an elevation Zrawing showing that the building will r.~t obstruct any of the this location surrounding area. He stated thgre is a school in operati~n a. now and thete will be no aignificant increase in noise. He 9i~/84ded to TES. ANANEIM CIT ~ommiseioner Bouae that Lhe s~:haol wi l have otudents trotn kindergarten through eiyhtt~ gcade. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. liesponding to CommtH~ioner BushorQ, Mr. Iycam ~tated ho hnd not shawn tho neighbors Che elevation drawinga and hed nnt t~1kQd ka his neighbora about the project. Chair~Akhink~theACtructurenwill~block~anyoofetheic vi~WStion and nated he did no Responding to ChairmAn Hecbat, Mr. Igram st:~ed they expect a maximum e~~rollrnent of 215 studenta in abou~ 2 ko 3 years. ~;hairman Nerbel• asked what they will do ak~out parking when they decide to add to the church sbnctuary. Mr. Igram atated tt~ey woulu have HQ ~tatedttheY~h~r conditionul use ~ermit and refigure kheir pbrkinq spaces. believe they have adeq~ate spACe available a~d they do have a ~f~eyzxplaineden opace right now which can be convPrted to ~dditional parking. there would be about 150 to 2U0 people attending a nocmal Sunday aervice and that ia split ~~tWCUrrentlyhandhhaveVhad$asnmanYeash105 withhandaverage~of~a~ in the day-school to 85 students over the past 3 to 4 years. ACTiON: Commiasioner King oEEered a motion, seconded by Commissi~ner Fry And MOTION ~ARRIEA~ thar. the Anaheitn City PlAnning Commission has reviewed the proposal to permit a 2-Ptory classroom addition to an existing church facility for a maximum errollmenr. ~E 215 ~tudents ~.~ith waivec of minimum number of parkin9 spaces and mgximum structural height on a irregularly-ehaped ~arcel of lan~ consistiny of approximately 4 acces located at the northeast cornNohl~ Nohl Ranch Road and Nohl Canyon Road and turther desccibed as 4101 E. ~ Ranch Roadj an~ ~oes hereby appcave the Negativ~ Declaratian upon finding that it ha~ considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the p~blic review pcocess and further Einding on the basia of the Initial Study and any ~~mments received that there ia no Fubstantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner King offe~ed a motion, seconded by Commissioner BoucantnwaioerON CARRiED, that the Anaheim Cfty PlawaiverCwillBnotncause anrincrease in traffic (a) on the basis that the garking congestion in the immed~ate vicinity nor adversely affect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking waiver under the conditiona imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the pe3ce, health, safety and general welfare of thc citizens of the City of Anaheim and licable toa the~P~oPertytsuchaasss~zet t.hat there are special circumstances app shape, topoyraphy~ location and surrnunding$ whic~na°that stricttapplication identically zone~ pro~erty in the same vicinity~ o€ the Zoning Code deprives the property of pcivileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone a~:d classification in tt~e vicinity. Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC84-182 an~ moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim Ci.ty Planning Commission does hereby grant Canditional Uae Peumhti18p03?030.0358andtsubjecthto~ninterdepartmental~Commitke~ 18.03.030.030 thco g recommenaations. 9/5/84 MINUTESI ~N~HElM CITY ~LANNING COMMISSION. SEPTF.MBER 5„~, 1984 84-557 Gceg Hastings atated etaff would c~queat tnet ConditLon No. 3 t~e deleted on the baeis that the driveway haa alrQady been removed. Chairmari He[bst added thar the wAiver wil~ b? grant.ed on the bdsis that the building height would not obekr~.~ct any views ~ue t~ the elevation differences. On [oll call, the Eoregoing re~olutl~n waA pasaed by the Collowing vote: AYES: HOUAS, BU5NORE~ FR`L~ HER.BST~ KING~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY NOES: NONE AQSENT: NONB Jack Whi~p, Asaistant City Attorney, pcesented the written right to appeal the Planning Commi~Kion's decision within 22 days to the City C~uncil. ITEM NU. 9. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANC~ N0. 3421 OWNERS: CNAHLES W. AND PATKICIA H. FORD, 17012 Edgewater ~Ane, Huntinyton aeach, CA 52G49. Property described as an icregularl.y-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.16 acres, 3340 West Orange Avenue. Waivers of minimum number and type of parking space~ and minimum recreation~l-lpisure area to convert a laundry room to a~welling unit. There wa~ no one indicating their pr.eaence in opposition to subje~t zequest and although the s~aff report was not read, it is referced to and made a pact of the minutes. Charles Ford, owner, stated he owns thA 28-unit apartment comple~c at 3340 W. Orange Avenue and is requesting a waiver of parking spaces in ocder k~ con~~er t the laundcy room to a dwelling un.it= that currently they hav~. 35 carports and a total of 56 parking spaces and there ace five existing carpo~ts at the present time and they currently have 52 tenents with 35 cacs and he would not expect the ratio to change in the future. Mr. Ford stated Paye 9-c o~ the staff report indicates that the proposed number of parking spaces is not adequate foc the proposed converaion and that neither he noc Mr. Singer, City Trafffe Engineec, believe that is true and if necessary, he could convert some of the regular size open spaces ko smaller compact car pa~king spaces. He stated Variance No. 2369 was passed in 1972, permitting a 32-unit apartment complex with 48 parking spaces and there are only 32 units with 56 parking spaces now and he fElt perhaps there is already a variance approved that will cover this request. He stated he is an experienced apartment operator and would not request a variance for parking i f he thought it would create a proDlem. THE PUHL2C HEARING WA5 CLpSED. Commissioner King stated ataf~ has asked that the f ol2owing condition be added: 'That all converted or otherwise unusable carports shal.l be restored t o their focmer usable condition'. Mr. Ford stated he would agree with the condition. 9/5/84 MINUTES, ANAHBZ M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 5R 1l84 84-558 Cnmmissioner Bo uas stated dome af the carpacts ure not cucrenCly being uaed Eor parking. M r. Ford reaponded two of the carporta w~re enclosed prior to him buying tt~e prope~rty dnd tliey were used foc ol•her pu•posea and that he haR been uaing hhem for building aupplie~ in the interim, but f ully intended to take the enclo s urea down. He explained he plana to convert the Eormer laundry room into An e Eficiency unit and explained it ia ad~~cent ta the pool. kesponding to Commianioner Bouas, Mr. E'ord stated there is no recreationAl room by thr sw i mming pool. Commisei.oner Bushore stated the p1Ana show the area was to be divided between a laundry coom and A clubho~~se and there is a ceatrnom curce n tly in th~t clubhou$e. Mr. ~ord stated there hAS never been a clubhouee and t he cestroam is not being uaed because it just becornes a place for the children to play. Commissionrr B u shore stated the oriqinal planr cleacly shuw the laundry room was divided in t o a clubhouae or pool room which could be used for a m~altitude oE purposes, i n cluding use of the ceatrooms when a pecaon is using the pool. He noted the pool is at the one end of the camplex and he khuught the restroom could be uaed by the tenants that have to come Erom the other end oE the complex lo use the pool. tie stated, however, he i~ more concerned about khe precedent that would be aet with approval of this request and evecyone would want lo conver t their pool roomr~ or laundry rooma intu a living unit. Paul Singer, Tr affic Engineer, stated it is his feeling regardinq any parking waivers in res i dential areas, espe~ially ~partment complexes, that appcoval would cause a precedent, but in thi.e p~articular case, this conversion would not impact thi 3 particular area; however, he did not wish to go on recurd as rpcommending t haL thia wAiver be ap~roved. He stated all he is saying is that possibly it may not be a problem in this on~~ case, but generally he want~ to be consistent i n r~c~mmending against any waivers in residential apartment complexes. Chairman Herbs t stated the complex met the Code reyuirements at the time it was constructe d, but because of the new parking requirements, the parkin9 is inadequate and if it was a new project being propoRed, the Comtni~sion would not grant a v a riance with this much deviation. Commissioner Mc Burney stated the proje:.t was approved Eor 32 units; however, tt~ere are onl y 28 units and the applicant stated there has never been a parking problem. Corturissionec Kinq ~as concerned because he had understood that thE Traff ic Engineer had indicated appr~val of this waiver. Mr. Singec stated he wou 1 d like to stay consistent with his recommendations regarding parking waiver s for apartment complexes, especially due to the problems generally exp~ rienced in apa tment complex ar.eas because of the congested Farkin~, but i n this specific czese, he did not believe this a~di.tional unit wo~~lu~ make a g tieat deal of diff erence; however, as a principle and not to mistake this i n anXway as a precedent, he would not want to recommend approval oE this request. ACTION: Comm i seioner King offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIF.D, that th~ Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the pcoposal to co nvert a laundry room into a dwelling unit in an existing 28--unit apactment complex with wr~ivera of minimum number of parking spaces and minimum recreational-1 eieure area on a irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of 9/5/84 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, CEPTEMBEfi 5. 198A 84-559 approximAtely 1.16 acces having a Pr~ntage of appcoximately 108 feet on the south aide of Orange Avenue and further described as 3340 W. Orange Avenuej and doon heceby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it haa con8idsred the Negakive Decla~ation together with an.y comments ceceived during the public review pcoceas ~nd fucthec findiny on the baais of the Initial Study and any comm~nta received that thece is no substantial evidence that the project will have a signi:icAnt ef.Pect on the environment. Cortuniseioner Kin~ offered Resolution No. PC~4-183 and moved for its passage and adoption that the l~naheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3421 grantin~ waiver (a) on the b&sis thal the parking waiver will not cause an increase in traEEic congeation in the immediate vicinity nor adversely affect any adj~ining land uses and gra~ting of the parking waiver under the canditions impused, it any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welfAre ~f the citizens of th~ City af Anaheim And granting waLver (b) on the basiD that there are opecial circumstance3 applicable to the pcoperty such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not ApFly ko other identically zoned property in the same vicinity; and that atrict application of the Zoning Code deprives the properky oE privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the vicinity and subject to InkecdepArtmental Commiktee recom~nendations including an additional conditian requiring the existing carporte to be restored t~~ usable condition. On roll call, the foregoing resolution waE passed by the following vnte: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, HERBS7', KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: 6USHORE AdSENT: NONE I'PEM N0. 10. ~'IR NEGATIV~ llECI,ARATION, RECLASSIFICATI~N N0. 84-85-6 A~2D VARIANCE N0. 3420 PU9LIC HBI;RING. OWNERS: EUCLIU UEVELOPMENT PARTNERS, f3601 Wilshire Ao~levard, #601, Beverly Hills, CA 90211, ATTN: JOSEPH GHADIR. AG~;NT: LINCO CONSTRUCTORS, INC., 1681 Kekteriny St., Irvine, CA 92714, ATTN: GEORGE NOONAN. Property is described as a rectangulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.86 acre located at the southeast carner of Palm Lane and Euclid Street, 1300 South Euclid Stceet. CO to CL. Waivers of minimum number of parking spaces, minimum structural setback and minimum width of planter strip to construct a commercial retail complex. There was no one indicating their pres~nce in oQposition to subject request and although the staff report wrzs not read, it is referred to and made a part of the minutes. George Noonan, agent, and Joseph Ghadir, partner, were present to answer any ~uestions. Mr. Noonan stated they would like a waiver to construct the building on the property line on the south And east sides and to reclassify the property. 9/5/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CIZ`Y PLANNING COMMISSION, &F.PTEMBER 5, 1984 84-560 THE PUBLIC klEARING WA3 CLOSED. c;hairman Herbst stated he would not agree w.ith the plan~ because there is no landscapiny proposed along Palm LA~e. He stated this propasel is using tt~e maximum property becauae development is riyht to the property lines. Mc. Noonan stated there are eo~e exisling 3U-foat Palm traes on Palm Lane And there is a 7-foot wide median etrip and they propose to landscape and irr.igate that area and th~y a~e proposing the uae of Palm trees exclueively in the landscaping. Chalrman Herbet was concerned about the st•ackness oE the building ~long Palm Lane. Mr. Noonan stated they wi11 put Palm tceea in the center is'land of the parking area and heavily landscape ttie 10-foot sekback atrip on Euclid nrive. Mr. Noonan responded to ~hairman Herbst that the uaec will be basicnlly retail ouch as beauty ahops, small oEfices, and amall ceteil us~s. Chairman Herbst stated he did not think a reat4uranh, wuuld fik. Mr. Noonan stated they have not had any inquiries for a ceat~ur~nt, bul maybe a sma~l restaurant or donuk shop would Ei.t in. Chairman Herbst etated a restaurbnt would alfe<~t the packing requirementc•. He atated the propecty is cectangularly-shaped and is 140 feet by 250 feet and variances are being requested fur the pt-rking an~ a~tback. Commiseioner Bushore stated a re~taurant operutor would come in and ask xor a conditional use permit and for beer and winF: and an additional parking waiver. He stated his biggest concern is that the sucrounding properties ar.e zoned ~or commercia.l office uses and the intecsection of Dall and Euclid is very busy and the cammerci~l limited znne would probably conaiderably impact. the area. He sL•ated when the property direct.ly to the north wa~ proposed for development, a higher density was approved and the devel~per also wanted commercial along Fuclid, but w~s strongly advised that it would pr~bably not be approved because o~ the traffic pcoblems in the area. HF stated with the surrounding area and the traffic problems in the area, he could not support a comm~rcial, limited reclass~fication for this area. Chairman Herbst stated that would certainly be 'spot zoning' and Commissioner Kin9 etated he could not find any hardshipc tn justify the variances. Mr. Noonan stated he thuught this would be considered a"down zone' and Commissioner McB~~cney stated it is a mcre intense parking zone because of the usea. Mr. Ghadir stated when he had wanted to purchase this property he came with Mr. Noonan to the Planning Department and asked if it was possible t~ change the zone and was assured there would be no problem and this was the main reaeon he had purchased thp propecty. Commissioner Bushore stated nothing is for sure and he was sure Planning Department staff had advised the applicant of the proces~es thQy would have to go through and khat the ultimate decision would still be the Planning 9/5/84 MINUT~S. ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION SCP1`CMBER 5 19A4 84-561 Comminsion's and City Council and i~ he had clased eaccow beaed on oomething he wanted and was not sure of, ~h~n lhat wou].d not be the Planning Commiasion's ccncacn. Mr. Ghadir stated the dNCision wac baaea nn the Pldnning Department'e interpretationt that he ia a developer and wAS given on three diEferent occasiona an indication that L•his would be conaidered 'down zoning" with nu problem. Commi~sioner Bushore atated moybe if e pcoject was presented which made more oense, the Commiasfon could lie t~~ted menbegkhe developerewoulduwanteto8e pcapoaed is very intense and eugg Y aubmit a reviaed plan which maybe tl~e Planning Commisnion could appcuve, subject to the plans submitted. Chairman Herbat stated the applicant has not shown a hardship Ear approval of the varianees requested; that he d~esn't have A problein with a zone change, but does have a problein yranting a variance ~rom that xone, because the lot ia nat unusual in size or ahape. Commissxoner T.a C1Aire further explained that the har.dship has to deal wit.h th~ pro~erty itaelE. Mr. Noonan explaii~ed ~the configuration of the projeck is because of the required parking and the ent:rances and exitE. He 3tated if the building was placed in a difEeeent locati.on, they could not accomplish what the Traffic Enyineer nnd designerE have worked out. Commissionex Fcy state~ perhaps they are trying to put too much building on the lot. Mr. Noanan stated the configuration of the building is dictated because this is a cocnec lot and bec~~ise oE th~ entrances and exit~. Commissioner La Claire ~tated there are conskc~ints on corner pco~~erties, but the Commission is sensitive about changing thia Pn°Fmor~ forctheepropertydthan lot of people get themselves into trouble by p Y' 9 it is really worth. She stated the Commission can not grant these variancea because Ehe property is not unusually shaped and does not have an unusual topogcaphy. Chairman Herbst asked if tne applicant would like to have a continuance in order to review the project. Mr. Ghadir stated hF is requesting a vaciance to place yarages on the oouth property line and Chairman Herbst stated he has no problem with that request, but was concecned where the project abuts the street and with the parking waiver. Mr. Ghadir stated he would reyuest a two-week continuance. ACTION: Commissionec La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commissinner Bouas ar.d MOTION CARRIED, that consideration of the aforemenCioned matter be continued t~ the regulaxly-scheduled meetinq of September 17, 1984, at the request of the Fetitioner. RECESS: 3:00 p.m. RECONVENE: 3:10 p.m. 9/5/84 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSLON, SEPTEMBE'~ 51_1984 84-562 IT~M N0. 11. EIR NGGATIVE DECUA~ATION, RECLASSIFI~';ATION N0. d4-85-5 AND VARIANCE NOa 3424 PUBLIC HEA~ING. OWNERS; PA'PRICK M~ AND DORQTNY H. HURLEY, 8Q Harbo[ Ridge DC., Newpo[t B~dch, CA 92560. AGENT: ROB~RT D. MICKELSON, P.O. Box 2303, Orange, CA 92669. Propecty described as a rectangularly-shaped ~arcel of land consiating of approximF.cely 1.'I4 acres, 2620 WesC Aull Road. RS-A-43,000 Go RM-12U0. Waivers of ~naximum atructural heiqht and minimum floor area to construct a 44-unit a~artment cum}~lex. ~ 1yn~ Thece 4iab no~'one indical•ing their E~ceaence in o~~position to Kubjec~ requeak and alkhough the staEE report was nat read, it is reEerced to and made ~ part of the minutes. Patrick Hucley, ownec, stated he and his wife have purchased the pro~~erty from the other part owner~ and are ctiirrently p:oposing 44, 1 And 2-bedroom Apartment units with two Gclatively minor waivers. He stated khey are request~ng two-story units within 15Q feet of Mr. Dloom's aingle-tamily structure and that would be Mr. B.loom's property and they have met with Mc. Bloom and have a letter of eupport Erom him. He read a copy of the letter and pcesented a copy to the Plann~ng Commission. He statP~3 they also met with Mr. Suyarman who previously op~osed the m~~re intense project and Mr. Roger 6'riermuth oC the Homeowners Association for the candominium project and their. only concern was that 6 of the carporta might come up Above the wAll line and they have decided wt~en they get the gtading plan and see it doeyRCOme up higher, they wfll move it t~ the east ar west. He ctat.ed Mr. ~3d0~ is considering constructiny a 2-story praject in tr.e future and is not opposi~~g this request. He stated they have ayreed to landscape an the northeast s:~9e where the substation is located to enhanc~ the t~nank's view and to give ~~:r. Bloom as much privacy a~ p~ssible. He ceferred to the size of the units and pointed out it only applies to 4 units and all of the other units excee~, the minimum. Roger Fxiermuth, 2671 Meadowview, .Anaheim, stated he is speaking f.~r himself and the Meadowview Park Homeowner's Asso~iakion, and they are the nei~~t~bocs to the south of the project. He skated khP waivers requested do not dic+,ctly affect them, but kheir biggest concecn was the structures adjacEnt to the property line; r_hat they have small privace backyaxda which hack up ~~o the property line and ttiey resent somewhat having stru~tures built directly on the pr~perty line. He atated when he requesled permission to put up a~atio cover, he was told it had to be 5 feek from the ~roperty line and that this developer is proposing to be within 1 Eoot of khe property line. Ne state~9 there will be landscaped setbacks on trre other neighbors' sides, but they we:e not offered a land~caped setbac:k, and, unfortunately neither af these items are pertinent to the waivers r~quested. He stated he did diacus~ this with Mr. Hurley and he indicated he would make some arrangements to relocate the g.~rages if there is a visual intrusion. He stated he wants to go on record that he is not fully appreciative of this pro~ect. 'PHE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSEV. Commissioner Fry stated the only request before the Planning Commission is the 2-story wfthir~ 150 feet and the reduction of the unit size and he Lhought this would be an outstanding development. 9/5/84 M~NUTES, ANAHEIM CZTY PLANNING CUMMISSIUN, SBP7'EMBER 5, 1984 84-563 Greg Hastinga responded to Chairman HerGat th~t the distance was meaaur.ed across BalY Road end the 2-story unit is 126 feet from t.he nearest single-fAmily property lfne to the nocth and the property to the weat ia un~~r cesolution of intent to RM-1200 sa that sethack would not be required. ACTION: Commissioner King offered a m~~tion, aeconded by C.ommissioner Fry ~nd MOTION CA.12RiEU, that the Anaheim City Planning Commission hAC reviewed thc: proposal to reclasaify aubject propeKty from the RS-A-43,000 (ReaidPntial, Agricu.ltural) Zone to Lhe RM-12Q0 (f2esidenrial, Multiple-Famlly) 'L~ne to constcuct a 44-unit apactment complex with waivers of m~ximum str.uctural hei~ht ~nd minimum floor area on ~3 rectangularly-ahbped pArcel of land consietiny of appcoximately 1.74 acres having a frontage af ~pproximate?y 271 feet on the south side of Ball RQAd and f~rther described aa 2620 W. Ba;.l Roadt and does hereby approve the Neyative Decl.aration upon finding that it ha~ considered the Negative DeclarAtion together with any commentc recr+ived during th~ public review process nnd f.urther finding nn the basis af tti~e Initial Study and any comments received that ~here in no subEtantial evidence that the projoct will have a siynlfican~ efw~ct on the environment.. Cammi~sioner King offeced Resolution No. .~~4-1~4 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Plan~: ~~_; c.omm~ssion does hereb}~ yrant ReclaESi~ication No. 84-8a-5 ~ubject t ••~-rdepartmen~~~1 Committee recommendations. On coll call, the foregoing resolutic~ ~-.:~ n~=;:-~-d by the following vote: AYES; BOUAS~ BUSHURE, FRY, HERB` ._ '++c;,, i,A CLAIRB, MC }3URNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissiuner Kin9 offered xesal,~~.i:-7~ ~::_~ PC84-185 and moved Eor its pas~age and adoption that the Anaheim City "':~~nn-~r~g Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3424 on the basis tha~ M~~-~~ are special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shap~~„ _~~o~ography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identica-.1_~ aoned property in the same vicinit~r; and that strict application o;: the 7,ncrir~~g Code depriv~s the property of privi~eges enjoynd t~y other propertzes in the ic3entic.al zoning and classiEication in the vicinity art~a s~~:r~ect to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. Greg Hastinys stated Cond,ition [~o. ~.S sho ld read: "That a 6-foot high masunry wall ~hculd be constru~cted and maintained along the east and wesl- property liner." He explained the rest of that condition should be deleted. On coll ca].1, the forpgoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: E~iJAS, BUSHORE, PR~.', HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: N~47NE ABSENT: ~ONE Jack White, Assistant City Attorney, presenteci the written ri.ght to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Cauncil. 9/5/84 MINU~`BS, AN~NEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTEMBER 5. 1989 b4-56~ IT~M NO, 12. EI1~ NEGATIV~ DECLARATION, RECLASSIrICATION N0. 84-85-3 ANA VAktANC~ N0. 3417 ~ HUHL~C HEAKING. UWNEHS: ARMANA A. AND VIRGINIA A 5TF^'~ANIAN, 254G W. ~~.ncoln Avpnu~, A,naheim, CA 92805. AGENT: HUGA VAZ~UE'L, 619 S. Live Oak Orive, A~aheim, ~A 92805. PG~operty deacribed as an irregular.ly-shoped parcel aE land cqnsi.eCing of approximately 1.18 acrea, 25A6 Weat Gincoln AvF~~ue. C~ to RM-120U. Waivers of permitted encroachment into front yard, maximum tenca h.ight., mii~imum building site AC~A per dw~lling unit and maximum building height to conatruct a 40~-unit nffordable apacl•ment complex. There were nine peraons in~9lcating thPir pcesence in oppoaitiun t~ subject request and although the stafF report was not reac3, it is referred lo And made u pact A£ the min~tes. Hugo Vazyu~z, authorized ayerit, stated it is their intent to develop a 40-unit aEfocdable apartment complex with 258 of the unita being as~igned to Section 8 Housing and ~hose units would conaist of 6, 2-bedroom, 1-bath, 854-square f.oot unite rentin~s far ~48U pec monCh and, Z, 1-bedroom, 1-bath 710-square foot units renting for $411 per month for a period of 5 year~. Ne referred tv a color rendecing of the project. He stated the request for waivec of minimum buil~iny site Area per dwEl.liny unit is necesrary because th~y are providing 'l58 0~ ttie units for afEo~dable hausing. Uscar Gcebnec, 134 S. M~gnoliA, stated he repreaents the 6q property owners in the condominium project at 134 S. Magnolia and presented ~~etition eigned by 83 reaidenta who oppos~ this ~roposal. He rtaked the ~irst question is why increase the density of the populatiun in an area where there are already 11 large apartment and condominium complexcs within 1 block of this pr~posed ~tructure with an additi~nal 30-unit con'omi~~ium prcject propoaed to go in rfght next door on the weat side and stated the neighborhood is already overbuilt. He stated thei: second cancern is khat this project w~uld add an appreciable amount of traffic to Magnolia and Lincoln which are already highly congested main arteries. He stated their third concer.n ia that this project would require additional on-~tceet parking spACes and the ~rea is presently over-parked on both sides of Lincoln and Magr.olia. He stated the f~urth concern is the proposed waivec for a 10-foot enrroachmer.t inta the 35-foot front setback area whiGh would possibly set a pceceden~: celaxing similac protective ordinances in the City and Chere would prob+;ibly be childcen in each of the two-bedroom units for a posaible 27 additional :hildren and that is a reduction in the minimum square footage of the units and he did not think there rrould be ~deguate space for children and the proposed recreational areas would include t•o a lacge ext~~nt, ~he enclosed patios and floor decks and the spa would only gerve adulks a~d the swimming pool would only be usable whEn adu.its are present. Mr. Vazquez st~sted they had not expected opposit.ion fram ownecs. He scated the need for inereased density is d~:e providiny •sffocdable houaing and also 12,000 square feet deducGed from the paccel which would only provide for 32 agreed to provide 8 units as affordable. H~ stated they occasions with the ataff regarding the traffic and t:~e T the condominium to the fact they are of the land is befng units, ~o they have have met on several raftic Engineer helped 9/5/84 MINUTE5, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPT~MBER 5. 1~64 84-565 them come up with a deaign for parking and tca~Eic to make the project flow. Concerr~+ng ki~e encroact~ment fnl~ the set!>ack are~-, he ~xplained th~t is due to a stairway down the front. Mr. Vazquez stated his mair~ concern was the intcuaion into a~~meane'a privacy and chey did go to great l.engths wikh staff ka design the project so it would nak affect the ~djoining neighbor's ~rivacy. Ne c~tated tt~ia will be a v~ry high quality affordable apartment project. TNE PUBLIC NEP.RING WAS CLOSEU. Chairm~n Elerbr~t stated he doe~ not like khe encroachment into Lincoln Avenue because it would really set a preceiient Eor. other ap~rtmpnt pcojecta and he was also bothered because the unik~ wou:ld only be a~fordable foc 5 yeaca and approval of these vartances givez~ the owners of this pcoject a lok more cevenue than he feels they are e~ntitled ta for just 8 units Eor a 5-year period. Mc. Vazquez claicifed th~e square footage of the 2-bedroom units is 85~1 square feet and explained at the present timP they have already submitted a letter of ayreement for a t~ond issue to have a bond ~laced on the pcoperty and they have entered into a 10-,ye~r agcaement; and that at the present time their agreetnent with the Community Dr_velopment Departmer~t ls for 5 years, but th~~y are tal;ing their beat shot ~c get bond financing. t1e explained bond financing would be a permanent loan a-~d that it would be through tt~e County of Ocange and the bond issue har~ not yet. been approved. Commissionet 8ust~ore read a portion of Council Policy No. 543 in that the City may allow ~5~ nore units over the overwise allowable residential density and/ r sucli ~thec site development waivecs as the City may wish to grant. He stated he would like to see affordbble pro~ects in the future constructed with the number and size required by Code, and then review the project to see wh~t waivers are neces~ary to meet that density, because he does not like to have the square footage oE the ~nits reduced and waivers of the setback and height structures. He ataked the Commisaion has not e~~en talked about the Planning Commission policy tor a 20-foot setback adj~ining residential propertie~~ He stated he is not just going to give the store away anymore fn the ~~ame of aftordability; that he sees rhe market that is being created and it is the Commission's re~pansibility to see that the market does not get ~ut of hand. He atated t~e sees the projects being sold long before they are built, based on the number of units. He atated he cannot support this beca~se there is no hardship on the pcoperty and th~ apartment project next door came in w~th no waivers. He stated he wou~d like to see th~ project redesigned, based on 1200 square feek per unit average and then see what waivers would be necessary to accomplish that. Mr. Va:.quez stated the property is eoughly 51,277 square feet and RM-1200 Zoning would allow 42 to 43 units and the project wan designed for that number, but 12,000 square feet were deleted because the driueways were over 12U feet in length. He stated there were two other projects juat recently appcoved which had driveways exceedf~g 120 feet i.n length and the sguare footage was not deducted. 9/5/84 MINUTEB, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO_N_~__5EPTEM~ER 5, 1984 84-566 Commiesioner Bushore asked about the d~duction of the 12~~00 equare feet. Greg Hastings sCated any driv~way that is ~ver 120 feet in length is deducted from the groea squar~ footage. Reapondir.g to Commiasioner Bushore, Mc. Vazquez etated th~ driveways were n~t deducted on Sterling Carlson'a pro3ect ~n Ocange, just west af western and the one located on the ~outh aide of eall Road just east of Heach Houlevard which wes approved on Auqust 6. He stated thE only way to keep from t~aving thut area deducted would be to ~ut the gar~ge underground another Eive feek. He stated those two projects mentioned were not down five feet and are proposed to be the same depth as thia proposal. He atated that is somethin~i the planning DeFartment is reviewing and conaidering the possibility oE not deducting the driveways ~n the future. Greg Hasting~ clarified ther~ are some deffcienciea in the Code and that is one that the Planning Depurtment is currently reviewing. Commiasioner Bushore st<ited he feels rhe Commission has tu review these aFfordable projects on the has~s that the developec will sell the project when the five-year periad is over. He stated the developer can cevi~e the plar~.s and show Commission what waivers arp necessary to put the 40 unita on the property with 120U-aquare ~oot units. Mr. Vaz~uez atated waivec lc) is necessary only because of the 12000 square foot deduction. Cha~rman tfe[bst stated there is a 2-story structure within 20 feek of a single-family res:6ential area and he would not vot~~ foc that because the Commission has not approved anything that close. Mr. Vazquez stated therP are no windows facinq thQ single-family residence. Ghaicman Herbst a~ked if the petitionec would like a continuance or. a vote. Cortu~~i~sioner La Cla+~e stated she is concerned about the density and creating a density that is on-goiny. She stated the Planning Commission met with City Council regarding senior citizen housing and wece advised that th~y should be very careful about gtanting these kinds of projects and it became the policy of the City to be very careful with increased density. She stated the project lool~s overcrowded and is just too denae for th~s pcoperty. She stated ~he knows there is a need for affordable apartments. Mc. Va2qu~z responded to Commiss~oner pouas that the other 2-bedroom, 1-bath units would rent for ~60U pec month and the 1-bedcoom units would cent Erom $~95 to $525 per month. He asked what the Cortuniasian wanta to see in affordability. Chairman Herbst stated he does not want to see affordability at the expense of the neighbors and the single-family homeowners deaerve the protection of the Commission. Mr. Vazquez stated this project is 40 feet from the single-family homes and asked for some guidelinea from the Commission for redesign of the project. Chairman Her~st sta~ed he does not like the encroachment on Lincoln or the encro~.chment to the single-family residential areas and that the swimming pool is adjacent to someone's backyard and a 20-foot setback is important and the patios ace even encroaching i~to that aetback. He staked the Commission has 9/5/84 MINUTEb', ANAHEIM CImY PLANNING COMMISSIQN,_SEPI'EMBEK 5, 1984 84-567 grented deviations of up to maybe 75 feet, de~ending upon what is adjacent to the project, but not this close. Mr. Yazquez atated he would like a one-month continuonce. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire ~fEered a motion, s~conded by Commissionec McBucney and MUTION CARRI~D, that considertion of the aLorementioned matter be continued ta L•he regularly-schedulpd meet~ng of OctUber 1, 198A, at the request of the petitioner in nrder to aubmit revised plans. ITEM N0. 13. REPORTS ANU RECOMMENDATION.S A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2104 - Request Erom Thomas A. Beveridge foC a retroactive extension oE time foc Conditiunal Use Permit No. 2104. Property located at 919 South Knott utreet. B. CONDITIUNAL USE PERMIT NOS. 1166 AND 1645 - Request fcom Michael L. Valen for cetroactive Pxtensions of time Cor Conditional Use Permit Nos. 1166 and 1645. Property :ocated at 3Q4 Katella Way and 1825 Mountain View Avenue. C. RECLASSIFICATION NC. 81-82-4 ANU CONDITIONAL US°. PERMIT N0. 2249 - Request from A. W. Garrison for retroact.ive extensions of time for Reclassification No. 81-a2-4 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2249. Property !s approximately 5.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Faicmont Boulevacd. Jack White, Assiatant City Attocney, explained at the next City Council meeting their off.ice is proposing ~ new ordinance which will require that any extensions of time on existing conditional ~~se permits or variances will be done throu9h a nuticed public hearing. He akated this is baaed on their reading of exi.~ting caee laws ~egarding the requirement for due process tu suzrounding property owners. He stated he would suggest that the Planning Commission either deny the~p cequests requiring the petitioners to file for a new permit or vaciar-ce in ~rder to allow the adaacent property owners to receive noticQ and to have the right to tell the Cammission their feelings. Commiasioner Fry indicated concern that this new ordinance will require khose petitioners to pay a whole new fee to process a new application and they have historically been told tha- if there was no complaints, that in all likelihood their permits would b~ renQwed automat.icatlx and thiE ordinance w~uld be changing the rules and he did nct think it would be f.aiK to thuae previous applicants. Jack White stat~d the new fee would be ~~0 rather. than the entire fee and stated the balance has to be weighed whether or not it is fair t~ the surrounding property awnpts not to be notified when an extension is being considered. Continuances for the three K~ports and Recotnmendations on today's agenda were discussed with Jack ~hite pointing out two of the Reports, (a) and (b), are both for retroactive extension~ of time and he did nok see any 9/5/64 MINUTES, ~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION `,SEPTEM~ER 5. 198a _ 84-•568 harm in continuing t.hoaR. Report (c) was d~BCUABNa and tt wa8 noted that is a diffecent aituation becauae the property is not developed ao there would be no impact on the surcounding area by granting an extenslon. Ik was the gener.al concenaus of thQ Planning Commiasion t~iat the eame rulea ahould apply to all ~pplicants. Commisaioner La Claire indlcated concern because in this aituation, Annheim t~llle, inc. ha~ sold t:he praperty and she has heacd thece will be reque~ta coming ~ePore th:e P1~nning Commission for incre~se~ densities in that nr.eA and she thought it would be a yood idea ta review those request~ at a public hearing anyway. Jack WhiCe suggested a 4-week <~ontinuance in order that the ordinance can be acte~ on by the City C~uncil. AGTION; CommiASioner La Claire offered a motion, seconded by Commiseioner Bouas and MOTION CARRI~D, that considerti~n oE the Repocta and Recommendati~ns; Items A, B, and C be continupd to tt~e regularly-scheduled meeting of Octobec 1, 1984. UTNER DIS~USSION: (1) Chaicman Hecbat referred to a letter submitted to the Planning Commission by Patricia Scanlan regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 26J.2. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, explained the petitioner had two concerns pertaining to the ~esolution of. appcoval. Une was the tetm 'elderly' whir.h wa~ used instead of 'senior citi2en". She $tated "senior citizen' has a certain definition in the State guidelines and will be in the City's guidelines as a peraon 62 years of age ~r older and that she would suggeat the term "elderly" be changed to `older adult'. She explained the ~the~ ~oncern was with the conditian limil•iny the use to this particular petitioner and the petitioner wasn't sure all the Comm:psioners Eully undesstood the impact. Commissioner Fry stated the condition appeared in the resolution exactly as it was intended. Commissioner Buahore stated he had talked with Ms. 5canlan and explained to her that the condition was as h~ intended; however, he did not know when he made the motion that tt~e proper way to to it was wilh a covenant, and he had suc~gested ohe appeal the rnakter to the Cuunail. He stated it was not his intent to prohibit the sale or use of ~tie property in any way. He stated he was concprned about the broad approval for that specific propert.y in that specific area. Commissioner La Cla;re stated in this case, the permit was granted for the specific use and also it was to expire when she se11s the property. Jack White~ Assistant City Attocney~, explained if the majarity of the Comn~ission int2nded that this condition be included in the resolution when they voted, there is nothing the Gommissi~n can do wikhout holding another public heacins; however, if that wasn't their intent, it eould be deleted through a nunc pco tunc iesolutian. 9/5/84 84 _,569 Commiasioner euahoBU ~~~t~d toCherithaththe~awifteotwwayct~~res lve the intent and hQ had 9gea1 to City Council. metter would be an ~pp ,]ack Whito sthted the ~ammu~~icnhearingmonett-1enmAttecdand~recommandCthat Council that they h~ld P they modify or delete that• cAndition. It was the general co~`~n~~ath~YtdidCnotirealizeh~.he~conaeguencest,~g con~iticn was th~ir cegardiny her Ability to obtain financing or sell the pcoperty. commissioner La Clairf~ annind Chr,nisaionlfor an bmendmentetitioner. bring the issue befote the [1 9 Commisrionec Fry state~ deedlloanibe1cauaettt~eylallehavetaa'duedupon~gale" not make ~ second trua clause. Cha~rman Herb~t slated he talked to the petitiortier And r~he ha indicated that nobody would make her nn assumeble loan with this restricti~n. Commissioner Bushore 8eaae`~~A~~d toedodgetthee9uegtionsoandthe had reallY on August 2U, 1984, ~h PP to put 3omething over on tlie felt at the time that she was tryi.ng Commission, howevec, after he got to know he~- h~ differentathan~Anyone khat. tie stated he wouldn't have t:reated hec any else and that is what he would have done for anybody else. Jack White stated the ~1ic1heacing~And considerddeletioneoflthat~uncil set thie itEm fur a pub condition, or the petitioner could [equest anatt~er hearing foc an amendment through the Planning Commissian. ACTION: Chairman Herbsr offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner King and MOTIOP3 CARRIED, that the Anahaim City Planning Commission does hereby cecommend to the City Council that Conditional Use Permit No. 2G12 be set foc a pub).ic hearing and that tney consider madification or deletion of Conditiun No• 8 of Anaheim c:ity Planning Commisaion Resolution No. PC84-17U at the cequest of the petitioner. (2) Affordable Housin9 Agceements Commiasionec Busho~evelopmenta even~thoughtithwas~not finalized,twas Community Housing pcesented by the petitionec to~ghofficer'isgspendingitimendrawingaup these concecn that the City Attorney agreements before they ace approved. Annika Santalahti gsot manyhverbalihousingragreementsehave been reached becaus2 app~rent y and the project approved Uefore the agreement was finalized. 9/5/84 MINUTES. 11NAHEIM CLTY PLANNING_COMMISSIGN. SBPTNMDLR 5. 1984 _ 84-570 Jack White pointed out thet agceement was not propered by the City'e Att~rney'e Offic~ And cdm~ f ram the Community Development DRpartment and was draEtud by thet depertment bASed on a aEendard which tt~e~y t~uve fnr these type oE cese~. He aka ted whQn he received his copy this morning, hv wea concecned whethAC or not it relatedto r+n itom on the Planning Commiesion agenda ancl aEter he called t~ find out, it wea dotermined thet appar~ntly it wurs glvan to tt~e Planning Commisei.on through some misunderetanding and was giv en to the Planning Commission by Mr. Vazquez. Commisaioner La C.laire poi.nted out thece hAd been probl.eme in the past when the Planning Commiesion hes wanted tho per.itioner to diacuse the projeck with Community Houa i ng bef ore coming to the Planning Commiseion and has actual.ly aeked l•hem to cont~ct Houain~ Department bef~re the pcoject is approved. Commissioner l3uehore stated he did not think the Planning Commiasion should s ee thea~ agreomenta befoco a projeat is app:oved. ADJOURNMENT; Thece being ncs furthec bueinesa, Comrriesionar Fcy offered t~ motion, seco~~ded by Commise.ioner t~ouas and MOTIQN CARRTED, that the meetiny b~e ad journed. The meeting was ad journed at 4:25 p.m. Rer~pec~fully a~bmitt~d, . vC . ,~-~ ~ Ed~ h L. Harcis, S~ecretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ELH:1m 0064m 9/5/84