Loading...
PC 1984/10/01 RBGUL~R HEETING OP THE ~NANBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN REGULAR MEETiNG The regulAr meeting of the ~naheim CiL•y Planning Cammisaion wae called to order by Chairmun Herbst at 10;00 e,m., October 1, 1904, in the Council Chember, a quorum being pcesent and the Commisaion reviewed plans of the items on to~ay's agenda. RBC~SS: 11:30 a.m. RECONVENFD: 1:35 p.m. PRESENT: ABSENT: ALSA P~ESBNT: ~hairman: Herbst Commis~ioners eouas, Duahore, Fcy, King, La Claire, McBurney Commissioners: NONB Annika Santalat~ti Jack White Jack Judd Shirley Land Pat Whitaker Greg Hastings Edith Harria Aasistant Director for Zoning Assistant City Atto~ney Civil ~ngineering Associate Traffic Engineering Associate Neighborhood Restoration Specialiet Assistant ~lanner Planning Commie~ion Secretary APPROVAL 0~ MINUTES: - Commission~r King offered a motion, seconded by Commiesianer Houas and MOTION CARRIED that the minutes ~f the meeting of September 17, 1984, be ~pproved as s~~bmftted: ITEM N0. 1. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND REQURST FOR REMOVA~ OF SPECIMEN T~EES PUBLI~ HEARING. OWNERS: PAP.AMJEET S. DARGAN, 5040 S. Crescent Drive, Anaheim, CA 92807. Pcoperty described as an irregulacly-sh~ped paccel of land consisting of approximately 1.2 acres, havinq a frontage of approximately 200 ~ezt on the south side of Crescent Drive, and further described as 5040 East Crescent Drive. REQUEST: Approval for removal of ten (10) specimen trees previausly cut down by petitioner on May 14, 1984, without benefit of a permit. Continued from meetings of June 11, Auguet 6 and September S, 1984. Commissioner La Clair.e declared a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim ~ity Planning Commission Re.solukion No. PC76-157 adopting A Con£lict of interest Code for the Planning Commfssion and Government Code Section 3625, et seq., in that ahe h~s a financial interest in the ptoperty, and pursuant to the provision~ af the above Codea, declared to the Chairman thak she was withdrawing from the hearing in connection with Request for Ap~roval of -592- 10/1/84 MINUTEB, AN~HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOl11 OCTOB£R 1~ 1984 8A-S93 Removal of Specimen Trees (No. 84-03) and would not kake pdrt in either the diacuasion oc the voting rher~on and had not discuaaed this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereu~on Commisaioner Le Claire left the Council Chambec. Greg Hastings, Assistant Planner, expla~ned the Applicant will not be present, however, he did suUmit the information contained in the stdEf report a3 to the number oE tcees thak are regrowing and the number of trees replanted. There was no one indicating their presence in oppoaition to subject reyueat and although Che staff r~p~rt wae not read, it is referred to and made a part. of khe minutes. Chairman Herbat asked if ataff hnd in~pected the property and added he thouyht the propErty st~ould be inspected t~efore the Commission takes an actian. Commissioner eushore atated the petition~r waa instructed to replant all the trees fram the specimen tree liat and he did not think the £our tree~ that are regrowing could be consid~red the same because they would regcow in a different coniiguration and he did not think action should be taken unle~s the aE~plicant is present and agrees to tAke care of the other trees. He added he tt~ought thi.s is just another elap in the face to the Commission for the applicant not to be here and t~~ send this information in and he thought the applicant should attend the hearing. ACTION: Commiasioner Bushore ofEered a motion, ~econded by Commissionnr McBUtne}~ and MOTIUN CARRIED (~ommissioner La Clafre absent) that consideration of. the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of Octaber 15, 1984, in order f~r the petitiener tn be present and t~ allow time for staff t~ inspect the praperty. CQMMISSIONER LA CLAIRE RETURNED TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBER. ITEM NO. 2. E1R NF.GATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICRTION N0. 84-85-4 (READV.), WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREM~NT AND CUNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2605 (kEADV.) PU~LiC HEARING. UWNERS; CHESTER PETERSON & BEVERI~Y ANN COMP1'ON, 327 N. Shattuck Plxce, Orange, CA 92666. Pzoperty described as an irregu].arly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.4 acres located north and west of the northwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial Highwaye Reclassification fCom RS-A-43,000(SC) to CL(SC). To permit a multi~scceen inaoor theatre and a 47-foot high semi-enclosed restaurant with on-sale b~er and wine and with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces. Continued from the meetings of August 6 and 20, and September 17, 1984. It was noted the petitioner has requested a two-week continuance. 10/1/84 MINUTES. ANAFIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, UCTOBBR 1. ~9d4 84-594 ACTION: Commisaionec Fry offered e motion, seconded by Commiasianer Ln Claire and MOTION CAkRIED thec conaideration ot th~ aforementioned mattec be continued to the regulnrly-acheduled meeting of October 15, 1984, in ordec foc the ApplicanC to submit reviaed plans. ITEM N0. 3. EIR CATEGORICAG BXEMPTION-CLAS5 5 AND VARIANCE N0. 3418 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNE~S; JAMES D. EAGAN & NANCY N. EAGAN, 1857 W. Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92004. Propecl-y de~ctibed as a rectangularly-shnped parcel of land consieting af approxirnately 5,033 square Eeet, having a frontage of ~pproximate~y 50 feet on the s~uth side of Alexis Avenue, and Curther described as 1534 West Alexis Avenue. To retain ~ sundeck and fence addition with waivecs ot minimum aideyacd setback and maximutn fence height. Continued From the meetingA of August 20 und 5eptember 17, 19&4. lt. was noted the petitioner has requested a ta•~-week continuance. ACTION: Commissioner Fry oftered a motion, seconded by Co~missioner La Claire and MOTION CARRIED that consideration oE the af~rementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scl~eduled meetiny of October 15, 1984, in order for the applicant to meet. with the adjacent property awner ae requested by the Plan~ina Commis~ion. ITEM N0. 4. EIk NEGATIVE DECLARATION, RECLASSIFICATION N0. 64-85-3 AND VARIANCE N0. 3417 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNF,RS: ARMAND A. ANA VIRGINiA A. STEPFIANIAN, 2546 W. I.incoln Ayenue, An~heim, CA 92805. AGENT; HUGO ~'A2QUEZ, 619 S. Live O~k Drive, Anaheim, CA 92805. Pcape~ty described as t~n irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.18 acres, having a frontage of appr~ximately 142 feet on the south side of i:ncoln Avenue, and further described as 25q6 F~est Lincoln Avenue. Reclassification from CL to RM-1200. To construct a 40-uni.t affnrdable apartment complex with waivers of minimum building sfte area per dwelling unit and maximum building heignt. Contir.ued from meeting oP September 5, 1984. There was one person indicating his presence in opposition to subject request and although the staff report was not r.ead, it is referred to and mad~ a paz~t of the minutes. Hugo Vazquez, agent, explained changes wete made to the plans elimihating two second-story units from the southeast corner of the complex providing a distance of approximately 56 feet from the single-family lot; and also the pool and jacuzzi were el~iminated . He stated he met with the homeowners' association oE tt~e Pine condominium complex located ~n Magnoliat and that a 20/1/84 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY_PLANNING_COMMI$SION, OCTOBER 1, 1984 84-595 10-foot high block wAll has be~n propos~d for the entice south property line aeparatiny this complex from tho RM-1200 zone on Magnolia. He pointed out there ie 9 to 10-Foot high wa11 existing on the property AlC@ddxi and that the front elevation and staicways have been redesigned ta meet the Eront aetb~ck requiremenl•, khereby deleting khe cequeated w~iver. He ntated it is their intent to conetruct a quelity affocdable Aparlment complex. Oscac Grebnec explained he has been aeleated as the apokesman foc the Pi~es condominfum at 134 ~. Magnolie Street. He »taCed he made a survey oE the neighborhu~d, uaing the pc~posed apartment camplex ae the center of a one block area, ond within that area, there are 15 multi-family stcuc~urPO whic}~ are mainly Qpartment complexes, wirh one ~ownhouee project, ~ne motel nnd one condominium prAject, for a total ~t 1,119 residential units, and multiplying that number by an ariticipat~d occupancy ~f two people, there would be about 2,236 people currently cesiding in that one block radius uE thia propoyed project. He st~ted they feel that ia too many people and realize nothing can be done about it retro~ctively, but they do oppoae any :increase in l•he density, or in the ni~mber ~E people that are going t~ be living in that area. He stakeci they do not want to ~ee the area develop int~ a tenement area, and stated he has seen tl~e results of spme of the overcrowded apartment complexes witb the attendant crime and othec factots involved. He stated their chief argument ie that this proj~ct would further tmpact an already heavily over-populated area and they would like the Commisaion to aeriou~ly consider r.heir opposition. Mr. Vazquez re~ponded that in meeting with the homeowners' association, he did ask them to keep in mind the total gross square footage of the property; that it does not exceed the 36 units per acre. He stated also there are over 3,000 people 62 yea:s of age and older on a 3-year waiting list and over 2,000 people under the age of 62 on a 2-year waiting liat awaiting qual.ity affccdable units. THE PUBLIC HBARING WAS CLOSED. Re~ponding ~s. Co~missioner Bushor~, Mr. Vazquez explained a 10-foot high £ence is pruQosed, wich Commiseioner Bushore noting tt~e staff report indicates that waivet has been deleCed. Greg Hastings, Assistant Planner, stated he belie~ed there is an existing fence on the property ~hich would be 10 feet from the existing residential site and that fence was installed in conjunction with an automotive stocage yard whxch was ori.ginslly on the progerty. Responding ta Chairman Herbs~, r~. Va2quez stated the 20-foot area where the pool and jacuzzi wece eliminated will be ~ecreational area with a lawn, ir, a park-like setting with maybe some barbeques. Chairman Herbst stated there is aup~osed to be a 20-fuot wide fu11y landscaped area ad~acent to the single-family homes, but nothing is shown on the plans for that area. Mr. Vazquez added he thought it is shown on the new plans submitted and stated that xs called a cammon area. 10/1/84 1 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CI~`Y PLANNZNG COMMI85ION,~ OCT08ER 1.- 1~84 84-596 Sob Williams, Architect, stated the ~rea will be fully landace+ped wirh treea and whACev~c the l~lanning Department cequires and a landseape plan will be auhmitted prioc to issuenc~ oE building permite. G~eg Hasrings explained the plana c~o indicate tho potential landacaped rareat however, it ia being indicated as pcivate cecreation area. Chairman Herbot stated he ia talking about the arers behind the aingle-family residenkial area which should be a f.ully landacaped 20-EOOt ~uEP@C. Mr. HAating+~ [esponded landecaping is ahown that wr~y on the ~lan for the ~ingl.e-family r.esidenti~l areb to ttie Qa~t, and pointed out there is multi-family resic~ential to the south. Commissioner Bushore asked if there will be any windows on khe soul•h wall that. faces the reoidences where the two-atory begina. Mr. Will.iam~ responded there are no windows planned for that wa11 at all. Responding to Commissionet Buahore, Mr. Williama stated a laundry room is curcently ~nder consideration and they might provide facilities for each unit or a common laundry raom Arsr~ which would be in the cecreration area th~t ic shown ae a commo~ area in the southeast curner. C~mmi.ssioner Buahore ~uggested a conditinn r~hould be added that the laiandry room is to remAin as an oPerable laundry room and is not to be converted into a Iiving unit. Mr. Wil.2tams responded they would not object to such a cc~ndition. Chaicman H~rbst clarified that the petitioner has a written agreement with the Housing Authocfty pertaining to the affordable units. l~at Whitaker, Neighborhord Restocation Specialist, responded that the petitioner has contacted their office and has agreed to affordable rent and that would provide the units to tenant~ with 658 uf the median income or less which is in compliance with the Housing Autho:ity's current policy for affordable units. 5he reRponded to Commissioner Bushore that the rents for the one-bedroom uni.ts would be $411 per mon+_h, and ~493 for the two-bedroom units. Commissioner Bu$hore statec~ those rents ar~ about $50 or $60 under rnarket. She resgonded tn Chairmsn Herbst that prior xffordable agreements have been for 5 years, and chang:ng this to a longer period of time was discussed at the previous meetiRg, but ahe did not knaw if ahything was ultimately decided. Chairman Nerbst stated that is one nf the problems he has with this type of agreementt that the contractor is allowed to have a 258 dpnsity brm us or 8 additional unite and all he has to do is maintain them as affordable units for five years and then he can ren~ f:iem for whetever he can gek out af them and the complex will -~e there forever and he thought the low cost huusing should be available for at• least 20 or 30 years. Commissioner La Claire stated she is bothered by the rents at $411 to $493 per month. Pat Whitaker stated those rents are consideeed affordable to tenants that are 65B of the median income for Ocange County which is very low; that their pri~or cental rates were based on 808 nf the median which is Section 8 housing criteria. .1 MINUTBS~ ANAHEIM CImY PLANNINC COMMISSION1 OCTOBER 1, 1984 84-597 Commiesi~ner Lr Claice asked how much lower thia rent woul4 be tF~an other mArket rents in the areA. Pat Whit~ker stated their office haa nor done a comparieon of the one-bedcoom unitat and that the fair m~rk~t cent.dl rAtea for Sect~on 8 housing are higher than thie rate. Commissioner La C1Aire stated in her oec.~ch ahe found one-bedraom unita were renting at about $50G per montti, »ome leau et ~490, and some u~ to 5515, and esked how the tenant or landlords are reimbur~ed. Pat Whitakor responded in the density bonus program, the devalo~er is requiced to rent the units at thoae ratea wittiout aubsidy ao they would be made available to tenants at 65~ of madi~n income level ~t th~t rate without• pny other subaidy. Ms. Whitsker ceKpondod to Commisaianer Buahore that they consider ~~ one-bedroom unit would be for a family of one or Gwo people, so they avera~e that rent to ~411, and the annual ir•ome Eor A family of one at 658 of the median income iA $15,350 per year, an~.' Eor a family ~f two, it is currrntly $17,550 pec year, and further expi.ined khe current lOUe Eoc the median income Eor the fnmily of one is ~23,6U0, and the current 1U0~ of inedian income for a family oE tWO is S'17,060, She explained thE 658 is further restricted by the ttUD area maximum income level, ~o in fact, thia figure is not exactly 65~ ~f the 1008, but is f~rther reduced because of NUD's Sectlon 8 requirernenta. She stated the maximum income for that unit Eoc a femily of one wo~ld $15,350 an~ 317,550 for a family af two which is 65~ of. ~he median income for qrange County. Ct~airman Herbst asked if tt~e City can require that the low inc~me units be available for a period lonaer than 5 years. Ms. Whitaker responded it is her ~nderstandiny that that is Gouncil policy and she thought it could be changed. Chairman Herbst staced khis is already a highly impacted area and this would be incrPasing ~he density from 32 units which is allowed by Code t~ 40 unita which is going to put that many more people into the acea and the develoPer, because of the California laws, if they provide the affor~able uniGs, can have a 258 density bonus and he did not believe that that would be adequate for A five-~ear peciod and it is a gift to the ~evelopec and he is ~oncerned because there is no control uver it after the five yearo. Commi~sioner La claice stated the afEordable units are not really a~ig deal to a family when they can go out and rent a or~~-bedroom unit for $100 moce which is what hec survey indicates. She stated she knows of ak least 20 different complexea riyht now where the cents are about $500 and she felt if these were really affocdable units and =he project really did benefi*. someone with rents considArably leas, at least onp-half, then Chere would not be any doubt in her mind. Commissioner Bushore stated he knows ~f conplexe~ where the units rent for $450 and $475 with the average being around $455, closer to $550 for two bedrooms. He atated he thinks the Commis~ion is saying that they don't feel the bonus that is given is compensatory or satisEactory to the benefit derived. Commissioner La Claire stated this city really does need affordable units, but she wae not sure juat how much this is going to benPfit the people who need the benefit, and this is only for five years and she sees the developer in this case qetking just about market value on the cents. 10/1/8d MINU'tES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING C~MMIS$IO_N__,_ OCT_QBER 1, 19A4 84-598 Commiesinnec Buahore stated Che bdnk'8 criteria for qualifiaationa indicates hou~ehold money ehaul d be anywhero fcom 1/4 to 1/3 of nne'e normal. income And 1/ 3 of the nacmallncomo of $15,350 would be ~425 per month. Commissioner Pry anked if the rents can be increased on an annual basie 1E theae are rented Ae afEordnble units. Ma. Whitaker cesponded that ttiey can be incr~sasedt tht+t HUp publishe$ an annual ad justment factor after taking into ccnsideration ~herQnt escnlation in the area, based upon renta of the Urange c:ounl•y area whicl~would include Pullerton, Garden Grove, Anaheim, SantA Ana, etc.,and that annual adjustment is afforded to the developer. Commisai.~ner La Claire nsked what kinds of pcovisions are made for those people who earn lees th~An the 65~ of the medinn income. Ms. Whitaker stated ~he Housing Authority does wack with people who eArn leas and where they ace family-ociented and not senior citizen houaing, Section 8 rental asHiatance is dvailAble and coultl be used on these unil-s or uther unlts and those people would only contribute 308 of their income and the Nousing Authority would make up the dif.ference to the tair market ~•~ntal rates as estoblished by HUD; and for aenior hou~ing, 5 08 oE the median income is used cather than 658, acknowledging that th e seniors who Are on a waiting list fo~ affordable housing h~ve eubstnntially less ir~came available to them. Commissioner La Clulre st.ated she do~s not remember t~ project where the developer has agread ko keep the rents at a much lowcr level to actually bPnefit those people who do not make 658 of the median income. Ms. Whitaker sta~ed in the past the ciry has negotiated at ~308 oE khe median, but ace now ~sing 65~. Cc~mmissianer La ClAire atated she has a problem witti this project and she knows a lot of people who make less than the 658 and they seem to be renting units and she t.hauyht Chese cents ~ire too high to benefit anybody; that the developer ia ~ctually getting almost fair macket renks, end in five years he has a windfall. She stated she knows this is great for a developer, but rot for the citiz~ns who live around the acea with all khe oveecrpwding, Bob Williams sugyested increasing the agreement to 10 years, and Chairman Herbst suggested 25 yeacs. Commissioner Fry stated he thought 2K yeara ia unrealisticr but he would consider 10 years because it is more cealistic economically. Jack white, Assielan t City Attorney, stated proposed Condition No. 16, requires that an bgreement be entered into pursuant to Section 65915 and it does not st.ate what the term nf the affordabilitx is to be but the Commission can add that ta the condikion. He atated based an past hiBt~ry, typically the Housing Authority ha s been entering into five-year agreements, howevec, the City Council would b e the one to approve any such a3rePments and they could at any time set whatever term they wished. 10/1/84 ~ 1 ~ MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION1, OCTOB~R 11 1984_ 84-599 ChAirmr~n Herbet atatod the develoPer ia gotting c 25~ denaity banua and khp loans are going tn cun for 20 to 25 yeaca e~nd the develop~r has the abilitiy to incceASe the cents and will not be loaing an.yChiny, but will certeinly be getting a benefit by providing afEocdable housing and he Lelt the project should have aome longevity in ordec to make any aenae. Commiseianer Quahore asked 1E the rents aan only be Adjuated on An onnual basi~ And not wtien therP is a vacancy. Ms. Whitaker responded if thece wece added expense~, s~~cP~ ae an increase in watec cates, and there was an extreme hardship, the developec could request to renegotiate the agreement ond higher rents aould he charged if il was determined there was an cxtre~e hacdahip, but it wou.ld not be granted Automatically. She explAinPd they only get the adjuekment rates from tIUU once a yeac. She responded to Commissinner Buahore that there are n~ rent~+l agreements requiced. Commissionec Bushore added he thougt~C that meana t.hat with 30-dAy notice, they could roll ouer all 258 aftordable units into the market ra~e every year. Ms. Whitaker stated they coua.d not Adjust the ~r~ctor but once a year and if they changed tenant~~ they would be required to ren~ the unit Ar th~ sAme rate for a one-yeur peciod. commissioner Buahore stated there is no pr~tection, other Chan a 30-day notice, foc the tenants, and the rates will be automaLically incceased once a year, noting fhe rents could be up to $A50 within A year, and asked if the cone~ruction P~~iod is cuunted toward~ the Eir~t year. Ms. Whitaker repliPd that it dues and if- in fact, at the end of tt~e Eirst year they ask for an adjuetment, and it it is published, they would be eligible for th~t adjustment factor. Responding to Commissioner Eiouas, Mr. Vazquez stated the average rate for these units will be abouk $100 less than the fair market rents. He stated this agreement is fram the Housiny Authority and they say what the re.~s are going to be, etc. He explained that rate would t~e Por the 8 units ~nd th~ others would be about $100 more per month per unit. C~mmissioner McBurney ~tated he thought the Commission was discussing somethinq they have no control over and added t~e thought a 10•~year agreement would be adeyuate and would p~obahly be the .~est ocotection the Commission cauld provide. Commissiones Bushore added he thought it should be ten years from the date the occupr,ncy pecmit is issued and not from the date the contract is ~igned. Hugo Vazquez cesponded that wot,ld be agreeable. Commissioner La Claire stated the Commission has gone on the assumption before that they do r-ot have any contrel over the re~its because HUD does ft, but in this case HUD doesn't havc; anything to do with it, and she thought no mattPr what is done on this pacticular pcoject, the Commission should review this because thece are a lot of these kinds of projects being presented. She stated she realizes the sl•ate mandates that the city does have the prerogative of decidinq whether or not they wanl• tn increase the density due to the surrounding area and they can deny whatever they desice. She stated she felt a real benefit to the centers should be offered, one that really makes a diffecence and one that doesn't give a windfall profit to the developec and thak the people in the area shoul.d not be penali.zed by increased density which also increases trafEic problems, etc. 10/1/84 MINU~'ES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 1. 1984 84-600 Comm~saionec Bushorg stated he remembera the Ball Rord project Eor senior citi.zen houeing, and the Commiaeion ie in fauor of senior citizen houaing and affordAb~e houaing and Al1 voted unanimoualy for thet project an~ diter tt wes over, wece reAlly sorry they did it bul• didn't see any reASOn to stop thp develaper from going eh~ad. tie stated ho thoughk that w~a a mistake and Also proceedinq wfth this pro)ect, with the misgivinge he seea on the Commisa;on, will be a mistake. Chairmdn Herbst etated he is not agreeable to this project without some longevity because the project will be there for~ver And will impact the area [orevec And affordable units should atAy affocdable Eoc as long As the projeet ie there and not juat for a short pQCiod nf time. He state~ he thought a 2U-year agreement would be acceh~table, but he is noC in favor o£ 5 or 10 yeare b~cauae this daes impact the area from now on. He atated this would help only a few people get rent a littlo che~per. Commissioner BushorE atated he also thought it would be a mistake to bargain wil•h the developer and the Commission should have ~ c1eAr feeling of the way they want to proceed. He statQd the isaue is not r~ally the numbec of yeaca but the aEfordability, and the Commission has already established that it may be beaow market cent, but that it is not. really helpinq vecy many people, and maybe the criteria s:~~uld be a little lower than 658 of the median income. Pat Whitaker atated that figure is the average between very low income which is 508 and low income which fs 80e as defined by HUD. Commissioner Bushore stated it iE an arbitrary decision. Commiesioner La Claire stated she felt the Commission ahould study this issue because thPre are going to be more and moce af these requests and the Commission needs to know more and ~hould not try to guess and figure out the answer~ while the project is being presented. She thaught the Commission shouid meet wil•h the Housing Uepactment ani look at this issue in a broader way. Hugo Vazquez suggested since the issue has been pinpoinked down to the Commiss~on being unsettled as to what is affordable and what isn't, that if the Commission feels the project is a viable one and that the only issue is the amount of cent and the number of years, he would sugge~t approva~ be granted based on a condition of entering into an agreement, agreed to by both parties, and approval today~ could be tied to a contract that has ta be agreed upan by the Commission and the devel~per. Responding to Commissioner King, Jack White explained the fLve year affordable Agreement hae basically been an outgrowth of the City C~uncil's past action~ and the agreements have generally been five-year agreements. He stated the Planning Commission can add a co~idition foc any time perioa they desire. He stated further he would aay that the Commission is ov~rextending itself.; that lhe state l.aw, Section 65915, rather cl~arly defines what the perimekers are in theae types of ca~es; that a density bonus is required to be granted where a~ least 258 of the total numbec of uniks of the development are to be provided for persons oc families of low or moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Heal*.h and Safety Code or different sections of the code 10/1/84 M2NUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTUBER l. 1944 84-601 and thaee sdctions refec to other lawe that make it csther cl~dr what the limitut;.ana ace and how the rentA ure aet and he Lplt the Commiasion is getting on ahaky ground trying to aet their own definition ot what an aFfordable rent is. MC. White continued that two of the variances that are being requested here aeem to be cleacly deneity type v~riances as opposed to nome other type, and mAybe the Commission hae two i~suee: 1) a reclaseification that ia going with this property and the utanaard for approving oc denying a reclasaiEication is whother oc not the public welface requirea the change aE zone ~nd that is one issue the Commission can look att and 2) not the affordable rents, but the length of time that any such afford~ble perio~ ahould be. He ~dded other than th~t, the Commission's hands are somewh~t tie~ by the intermingling of A.ll the state regulationn trying to encourage developers to construct bffocdable housing. Cammissioner LaClaire Etated iE the Commisaion fQels that this project will be detrimental to the sucrounding area, they do not have to approve it. Jack White responded the Commission does not have t~ approve the ceclassification and the zane change is needed to conetruct the units. He stated 1E the Commission gets to the point of the vatiance, all l•hey need to l~ok at is the term of the affordability And estAblishing it if they so desire. Commissioner Bushore stated he thought the inter,t of the state law was ko create the affardability for as long a period of time as possib.le because the building is built for a long period of time, but the amount of time is left to the Commission's discretion, and the Commission oc City Council ma grant such density bonusese "^ ~tated if the developer couJ.d build 40 units without variances, that is ~ne way i.t should be done unless the Commission felt there are other reasonable variances to allow him to build the 258 affordable units and ever. though the variances may celate to khe dengity, the discretfon is stil]. there for the Commission. Jack White skated if the developer could build 32 units withauk any variances, and agrees to provide 258 of the total number oE units as meeting the criteria in Section 65915, then he is entitled to either a density bonus for 8 additional units, or bonus of equivalent financial value, and the City does not want to be in a position of determining ffnancial value and subsidizing this type complex. Chairman Herbst noted there ace differences among the Commissionera a~ t~ the length of time the units hould remain affordable. Eie staled he wants more thsn 10 years because the projecL• is going to be built to last 50 yeare or more and the aff ordability should be longer. Commissioner Fry stated from a practical standpoint and by doing some very simple arithmetic, the issue is reallf 8 unita and if, in fact, they will rent for approximately $100 a month less, it mpans $800 a month less and dividing thAt by the remaining 32 units, i' is only adding $25 a month to each unit to pick up the slacl:. 1(l/1/84 MINUTES ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMYSSION OCTOBER 1 1984 84-6Q2 Chairman Herbst etated thAt is the reaeon he thinks thie is a windfall to the aeveloper and he is uaing r,his affordable housing mandate from the atato for the 25~ denaity bonua and he felt it ahould be for a much longer period oE time. Hugo Vazquez stated aince Che guidelines from l•he etale are guidelines thAt the Planning Commission does not agree with wholeheartedly, he felt 15 y~ars may be acceptable. He added Section 8 Housing and the other two agreements that have been entered into have been for five years, and bond issues are 10 ye~rs and that is the longest period of time to get a fixed rate loAn at 10 or 110. Chairmun Herbst suggesled approving the project, and denying waivers c and d and the complex could then be built wil•hout All this. He au~ed he would be favor oE granting the bonus if the term ie for 20 years. Mr. Vazguez replied that would be fi.ne. Commiesionec La Claire stated ahe real:y did not think it matte:s too much as long the project does not impact the eurrounding area and there is a tirne l±mit Eor the people it will benefit. She stated she would sugyest having another meeting to resolve this iasue before another project comes in. Commissioner ~ouas stated she felt if this is gcanred with a time restriction of 2U years, then the Commission has established the time period that all affordable ayreements ahould be. ACTION: CommLssioner K~ng offered a moti.on, seconded by Commissfoner firy and MOTION CRRRIED that the Anahei.m City Planning Commission has review~d the pcoposal to cecla~sify subject propecty Lram the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone to the RM-1200 (Reaidential, Multiple-Family) zone to construct a 40-unit afEocdable apartment complex with waivers of minimum building aite area per dwelling unit and maximum building height on an irregularly-shaE~ed parcel of land consisting of approxi~ately 1.18 acre:~, having a frontage of approximately 142 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue, and furthec desccibed as 2546 West Lincoln Avenue; ar~~ does heKeby epprove L•he Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any cotnments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial 5tudy and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will h3ve a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner King offered Resolution No. PC84-193 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning ~ommission does hereby grant Reclassification No. 8a-85-3 Eubject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the Fotegoiny resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING~ LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY NUES: NUNE ABSENT: NONE 10/1/84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ OCTOB~R 1, 1984 84-603 _ Commisaioner King offered Reaolution No. PCa4-194 and maved for its pasAage and a~optian that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion does h~reby grAnt Variance No. 3417, in ~art, denying waivers (a) and (b) on the basis thar revised plana were submitted doleting said waivers, and gcanting waivera lc) and (d) on the basis that purauant to Government Cudo Section 65915, the applicank has ~greed to enter into an agreemant with the City of Anaheim to prov~de no less than 25~ of tiie units ~a housing for peraone or fAmilies uf low or moderate income for a peciod uE 20 yeacs, And subject to Inkerdep~rkmental Committee Recommendations, including n modificatian to Condition No. 16 pertaining to said ayreement Eor a peri~d of 20 ye~rs, Eollowing the date oE occupancy ~ermita. Commisaioner Bushore added khat a condition shuuld bE added requiring t~e 2U-foot fully landscaped setback adjacent to the single-family residential zone and also that if any laundry room is constructed, a coven~nt would be recorded that the laundry room would not be converted ta p living unit, and al~o that there shall be no window~ on the wall that would look down onto the ad~acent reaidential acea. Commissioner Kiny added those condit.tons to the resolution. On roll call, the foregoing resolutian was passed by the Eollowing vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY NOES: FRY ABSENT: NONE Jack White, Asaistant City Atturney, pcesented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decisian within 22 days t~ the City Council. ITEM N0. 5. EiR NEGATIVE DECLARA'fION AND VARIANCE N0. 3419 (REALVERTISTBD) PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: VERNON W. EDMONDS, P. 0. Box 190, Anaheim, CA 92805. AGENT: HUGO A. VAZQUE2, 619 S. Live Oek Drive, Anaheim, CA 92a05. Property described as a cectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.43 acre~, havi~~g a frontage of approximately 150 feet on the east side of Western Avenue, and furthet desccibed as 920 South We~tern Avenue. To cons:ruct a 15-unit apartment complex with waivers of maximum stru~tural height, maximum site coverage and maximum fence height. Continued from the meetin9 of S~ptember 17, 1984. There were approximately 5 persona 3ndicatiny their pcesence in opposition to subject request and although the staff ceport was not reAd, it is referred to and made a part aF the minutes. Hugo Vazquez explained revised plane were submitted increasing the setback on the north to 33 feet and also added the r.equest for a waiver to increase the height ~f the fence from 6 to 10 feet. He stated they have allowed a greeabelt along the wall and also trees and land~caping to further buffer the area to the north. He staked he talked with the property owners to the nnctheast and south, and that he has written appcoval from the neighbors to 10/1/84 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CIT~' PLANNING COMMISSTON, OCT06ER l. 1984 84-60A the eask and preaented a l~ttor frort~ them indicAting they have reviewed the plana cnd npprove oE the ~roject. He atated he also met with the gas atatian owner and t~is wife is present to speak on behalf of the project. Commissioner Buehore pointed out exhibits are boing displayed and then removed from the Council Chamber and noted if they are ~ubmitted as part ot the publ~c record, t.hey should atAy in the files. Mr. V~zquez stated he has a color rendering which is a candensed size which fita in the tiles. Juck White explained copies are available for the record. Wen~a Phillips, 3175 W. Ball Road, Phill~ps Automotive, Anaheim, st~ted they ate in complete approval of the pcoject; that also they believe the att.ractive design ~f the complex will e~hance the surrounding acea greatlyi and that aub~ect property rfght now is vety deteriorated and put~ a bad look on the whole surrounding area. She presented a letter from the neighboc on the southeast portio;: of the property, Ar~ and eeverly Lane, 3163 W. Ball Roa~, statiny they approve of this project. Mel McGaughy, 91U S. Western, Anaheim, atated he has reaidec9 at this addresa for 28 yearst that he has a petltion signed by all the neighbors who are not zoned R-3, and they are the peop.le who have reRidences in the area and they are agains~ this praject. He added these are the only residential pEOple leEt in the ~zrea. He st~ted he eees very little change in thece revised plana; that he wanted the developer to revise the two stories because he is opposed to that unless it is back Eurkher from his propecty, and the applicant has stated to him khat economically that would not work, and he Eelt if the praperty cannot be developed in conformance with Code, it sh~~ld not be developed at all. Tom Donovan, 9U5 S. Western, Anaheim, stated he has be~n d resident of that area for 35 yeacs; that there is a signific~nt difference betweer, those r~sidiny ~n ~all Road and their consideration for the ultimate disposition of theic property and the tr.avel and ~ransportation conditions that Fxist on Ball Road, as compared to those who reside on Western Avenue. He stated this area an Western is R~l and they have been the single property that was a primary buffer when apartments were constrUCted on Weatern Avenue; tha~ through the Commission's consideratiun, they had acrived at a amicable decision with single-atory apartments contiguous to their pcoperty line and they have had ~bsolutely no problems with t~at arrangement; that a signiffcant part of that arrangempnt was the stipulation that those apartments abutting their property be single-stoty and gll they are asking for hece is not to eliminate the use of the property, but that the single~story concept oE the apartments be maintained that are contiguous to the McGauyhy property ~cross the street. He stated in discussfons with the developer, after laat week's meeting, they offeced freely ta meet with them outside the Council Chambers to discuss any facets of this which could be amicably handled so that the Commission would not burdened with all the details that are pectinent to those who have to live with the residue of what is approved. He skated they are concerned in three aceas: 1) density, 2) privacy, and noted a 10-faot high wall will not give ~rivacy with a 2-i/2 story high structure, explaining the 1/2 stary is created by a subterranean gatage which only goes 4 feet bEloM~ the gcade; and 3) the transportation situation. He stated the developer continually refers to the 10/1/84 MINUTL~, AN~HEIM CITY PL~NNING ~OMMI5SION, OCTOBBR 1. 1984 04-605 meetings with the Tcaffic Depertment and when they can see pcoof positive that appropciate left-turn signals have been approved and f:unded by the City, thoi~ they will start thinking more favordbly abou~ this kind of density eituation, but mt the present time, they have not seen anything indic~tiny there is going to be dny change to alleviate their already overcrowded Area, pacticulArly the inl•~rsectlon at Dall and Western. Mc. Vazquez stated he h~ met with nll the property owners, and the one diacrepancy he t~ae ta with the propecty ownec who owns the vacant parcel to the north. He submitted a photogxaph of 3U to 40-foot l~igh trees along the property line end stated that he will be putting up a 10-foot high wall and additinnal trees to add to that natucal buffer, and al~o the netback wili be 33 fser. Concerning tr~ffic, Mr. Vazquez stated he has met wikh ttie Tratfic Engineering ~epartment and the project was design~d to be in keeping with the are~. Concecning density, he skated the projece does conform to the standarde of the 1tM-1200 codes, and not~d directly across the atreet thece is a celatively new 8-plex wtiich was just built, and thece is a kwo-atory apertment complex 5 feet away from an RS-A-d3,000 lot, and he Eolt h~ is just asking for the same rights thaC the person aaross the street was given. He stated he thought the surrounding area should be taken into cansideration since t.his does abut a secvice station on one side ~tnd a vacant lot on the other side and he h~-s a letter Erom the pruperty ownec to tt~e rear indi.cating support of the project. THE l~UBLIC FIEARING WAS CLOSED. Commi.ssioner Bushore read the £indings cequired for granting of the variances and stated he cannot find any hardship foc granting the waiver of maximum site coverage. He added he thought the daveloper was goirg to revise the p1Ans ta cielete that waiver. Bob williams, Acchitect, stated they can reduce the lok coverage, but that would only hurt the tenants; that they can possibly reduce the size of the units and shift it with a la[ger Cront setback, but that would reduce the size of the bedcooms and it would also decrease the size of the recreation coom. Chairman Herbst stated the n~mber of units could be reduced rather tha~i reducing the size of the units. Mr. Williams responded they would have to [educe it by fouc unita in order ko accomplish that. Chairman Herbst stated he cannot find a hardship; that he could go along with some of khe two story and the 10-foot fence, but not the maximum lot coverage becauae this is a nice rectangular piece of property and there is no hardship. Mr. Williams atated they can reduce ~he size of the units and reduce the recceation room if that is desired by the Ccammission, but cannot reduce the number of units. Commissioner King asked if the Reports ~nd Recommendations - Item D of today's agenda should be discussed at this time since they ace tied together. Jack White responded that the Commission could consider both at the same time, but 10/1/84 MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOHBR 1. 1984 84-606 khey ere nok cequired to. Commiesionec La C1Aire felt eince the Cammisaion hae a lot of questione abou~ the pra~ect itself, they ahould diecuas the ceclaeaiflcation later. J~ck White explained Condition No. 21 of the Variance makes it contingent upon completian of Reclaaeification No. 77-78-16 and, thereEore, that reclassification needs to be in eFfect in urder Eor the vaciance to have viabiliky so khe Commi~aian has to A~dCP.BA that is~ue at some point. Responding to Commissionec La Claire, Mr. Williams stated the tatbl square footage oE the pro~ect. is appGOximately 11,000 sq. ft. Commiasianer La Claire noted they are 48 over on the maximum site coverage. Greg tl~atings noted the grosa floor area io measured at the ground level, and CodH permit~ 1U,313 sq. Et. ar~d the pco~ect is propoaing 11~002 sq. ft. Raspondiny to Commissioner La Clalre, Mr. Williama atated the recreation room would be 1120 sq. ft. Commissioner BuAhoce stated if this approved, a c~venant will be required pertaining ko tt~e recreation room so that it will not be canverled at aome future date to living space. Greg Hastings nated the recreation room was r~ot included in the lot coverage because thece is an exemption in the Codet however, there is a livable unit eithec above it oc below it. Commissioner Bushore stated he is looking at what the Commisaion will have to face in the future when those three groperties on Ball R~ad and the two lots on Western Avenue will be developed and those are even close[ to the single-family residential properties. He stated there would be pcoblem saying one o~ner has a hardship and another one doesn't when they are right next to each other, na matter how small the waiver. Commiasioner Bouas noted they are willing to reduce the lot coverage. Mr. williams stated the parking garage itself ie the major lot coverage and cutting back the units will nok reduce the parking qarage; that they do have a part over the parking garage where the units sit, and if they reduce that and get it in line with the parking garage, it only reduces the size of the units. Commissioner Bushore stated the slope and driveway to the par.king garaQes meets the minimum requirements of the City, but he wondered i£ maybe the Commission should~'t be considering a d~ce~eratinn lane fot thet pro~ect in order to make that turn and go underground. Chairman Herbst stated if the number of units was reduced, the parking requiretnents would be reduced. He atated the developer did meet some of the condikidns af the Planniny Commission with the setbar.k, but the patios are a1Z still looking down onto that property. He asked if thAt could be reversed. Mr. Williams cesponded there would Chen be a balcony overlooking the property. 10/~/84 MINUT~S. ANAH~IM_CITY PLANNING_COMMISSION, OCZ'OB6R 1. 1984 84-~607 Cheirman Herbst stated mayb~ those units should be aingla s~ory. He asked if the recceation coom i~ n the E~ret 1PVe1 only, wilh Mr. Williame reaponding that it is. Cheirmas~~..:rbst auggeated eliminating thet recreation room, with A unit in that Area and the c~mplex being reduced ta aingle story. He added he thought khat wauld wolve the impac~ problem for the neighbora. Commissioner La Claite stated this is an inatance wher~ the neighbors c~nnot be ful.ly pleased and certainly the developer cannot be pleased fully. Chairman F'.^rb~t atated he did not think there has been ~ny com~romise hece from the developer to the people adjoining the properky. Reapondiny to Commissionec ~a Claire, Mr. VAZqiaez stated the house on Western to the north ia loceted approximately lIU Eeet away, with 33 feet to thc ptopecty line, and 75 fFet acrosR the vacant lot and five feet to his structurej and Chat khere is no residential structure to the east, but khat property is on the market and he understanda it is in ~acrow £or purposes of designing an apartment structure. He stated thal• ~~ner is in the produce bu~iness and there are structures on the property ko warehouse the foods and he was unable to attend, how~ver, a lett~r was ~ubmitted indicating his approval. Chairman Nerbst poinked out that property has a r~solution of intent to FtM-1200 now, but the vacant lot is still Qingle-fartiily. Commissioner L~ Ciaire stated a vacant 1ot can be chang~d at anytime Lo RM-1200, even though she realized the properky owner indicated he would probably build a home there. She ~tated ~he would like ko see the plans revised, eliminating waiver (b); that she did not ttiink twa-story apartments are going ta hurt anyone because two-stor,y homes are permitted in a single-family tract and pointed out khere are two-story homes right next door to her and they look right int~ hec back yard and there are two-story homes in front of her property whi.ch look into her front bedroam and living room windows. She stated she did request landscaping in front on the other side of the driveway and there is none propased. (Mr. Va^quez cesponded landscaping is propoaed in the revised plans.) Commissi~~ner La Claire asked if he would be willing to plant ~omething that would totally ~creen the property from the ~eighbors such as Italian Cypress trees ~n 2-foot centers. Mr. Vazquez stated he would willing to comply with that request. Chaicman Hecbst and Commicsioner Bushore re~panded that would not satisfy their concerns. Commissioner Bushore stated he would not approve something for this develofi~~r that he would not approve from someone else in this city. Commissionec La ~laire clarified she is talking abnut denying waiver (b). Commissioner Bushore stated the orly wa,y to accomplish that would be to eliminate the two-s~ory units, with Chairman Herbst noting they would be still within 150 feet of the single family zone, but the units would not be l~oking down onto the adjoining lot. Commissioner La Clafre stated a variance would still be requiced. ChairmAn Herbst stated the Commiseion has never allowed a pcoject lo~king down onto a single-family zoned property this c~ose before . Commissioner La Claire noted 10/1/84 MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY pGANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 1, 1984_ 84-608 there is nothiny thote and probably there will nevec be a aingle-femily development on that property. Commieaioner. Bushore atated 8uggeations for revisiona were made two weeks Ago And Che developer brought back tho eame ~lan with thP building rnoved further to the eaath. He stated he would want to ae~ the Plans revised bringinq them into conformance w~th maximum site coverage and Pliminating some of. the cwo-story unite. Mc. Williams steted the Commission wanted more .landscAping and a wider buffer to the R-1, and they feel they have provided that. Ctiairm~~n Herbat stated they have only given a 5-foot aetP~ack. Mr. Williams noted commiseioner La Claite had indicated at the la8t me~ting that she felt that it would hurt Che tenantt and that they ar~ only asking for 40. Commiasionec eushace stated that was only one Commiasioner. Mr. Williama atated they can ceduce the waiver, but Eelr khey wanted to provide something for the tenantt and thAt the tenante like t~ have large bedrooms but he did not Eeel there is anything to argue about regacding the two-stary unit~. Chairman Herbst asked iE the petitioner would like to have a vote on this proJect today. He added he would not approve the plans the way they Are and stated he would like to see the reductions the deve.loper can make. Hugo Vazquez at~ted he felt ap~roval could be yr.ant~d based on denying waiver (b) and he would like a vate on the Project as aubmikted with the landscaping, etc. Commisaioner Fry stated he agreed with Commissioner La Claire and would have no problem with the Cao-story a~ proposed, or witt~ waiver (c). AC'PION: Commissionec La Claire oEfered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Fry and MUT'tON CARRIED that the Anahe~m City P.lanning Commisaion ha3 reviewed the proposal to construct a 15-unit apartment complex with waiver~ of maximum atructural height, maximum site coverage and maximum fence height on a rectangulacly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.43 acre, having a frontage of ap~roximately 150 feet on the east afde af Western Avenue, and turth~c described as 920 South Westecn Avenue; and does hereby approve the Negative t~eclaration upon finding thac ft has considered the Negative DecJ.ar~tion together with any comments received during the public review process and further finding on the basis of the Initial Study and any c~mnents received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have ~ significant effect on th~ environment. Commissianer La Cla~re offered Reeolution No. PC84-195 and moved for ita paesage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No. 3419, in part, denying waiver (b) on the baeis that the petitioner stipulated at. the public hearicig to eliminate the recreation rUOm and granting waivecs (a) and (c) on the basis that there are apecial circumstances applicabie to the property such as si2e, shape, topogr~phy, location and eurroundings which do not apply to other identically zoned lo/z/aa MINUTE_S. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMTSSION, OCTOB6R 1. 1984 84-G09 properky in ~he aame vicinikys and that atri~t epplication of the Zoning Code deprivea the property ~f privilegee enjoyed by othec AropectiPa in khe identical zone and classification in the vicinity end subject to Interdepartmental Committ~e r.ecommendationa. Cntnmissioner La Claice pointed out the Planning Commieaion and City Council have reviewed the 150-foat setback requirement and detetmined that due to the changing economic market and other complexities ef the market, the 150-foot aetback is not r~aaonable I~ecauae two-atocy homas could be buflt adjacent tn one-story homes and there iF no nKOblem, and the ordinance was not changed only because it was felt that in individual circumstances when tt~ere is a real impact on a home or aeveral homes that are riqht ad~acent to the propecty, t~en in that case maybe the .150-foot setback would be necessary, but it was left to the Commi~sion's discreti~n und in thi.s partieular case, she did not think it would affect the adjacent property owners. Commissioner Bushore aaked if a condition will be added requiring that a covenant be recorded that Che recrea~i.on r~om will not be converted to livinq space. Commissioner La Claire stated that ehould be added if i~deed they do include a recreation r~om after the denial of waiver (b). Chairmon Herbst stated he agrees with Commissionec La Claire's comments, but this Co;nmission has nevec allowed a pr~ject this close to a single-family zoned pr~perty and ~his would be setting a dnngecous precedent. He stated apar~ment complexes are different when they back up to a single-family residential lot than a home because a home lot is usually 50 to 75 feet wide and this lot is 125 feet wide with four units overlooking the adjacent property and that is why a buffer zone is necessary. He stated lie wQUld oppose the reaolution. On roll call, the foregoing resolution waa passed by the following vote: AYES: QOUAS~ FRY~ LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: BUSHURE~ HER9ST~ KING ABSENT: NONE Jack White, Assi~tant City Attorney, presented the written right to a~peal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to the City Council. KECESS: 3:10 p.m. RECONVFNE: 3:20 p.m. ITEM N0. 6. EIR NEGATIV~ DELLARATION, WAIVFA ~c' CUDE R$QUIREMENT AND CONDITIONAL US~ PERMIT N0. 2622. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: CONTINENTAL PACIFIC ENTERPRISES, INC., 2301 Campus Drive, P. 0. Box C19529, Ixviae, CA 92713, ATTN.: ~ETE RODRIQUEZ. P~operty described as an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approxim~tely 7.1 acres located at the southwest corner of Nohl Ranch Road and Anaheim Hi11~ Road, and further described as 505 Sautk~ Anaheim Hilla Road. To constcuct a 45-foot hlgh, 205-coom senior citizen's retirement facility with waiver of minimum number and type of packing spaces. 10/1/84 MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, UCTOBGR lr 19d4 84-610 Continued fcom meeting of September 17, 1984. 'Phere was one peraon indicating his preaencP in oppoaition to subject requeat and although the etaf~ report was not read, it is referred to and made d part oE tt~e minutes. Floyd L. Farano, At~~rney, lU0 S. Anaheim Blvd., Anaheim, explained sinr,e the last public hearing, he discussed the pcnject with Mr. H~rlan Fick of the Carriage 1,ane Propecty Uwners' Association and showed him the plans and aa a result, Mr. Fick indicaked his concern w~s the view from erighton Lane. He pointed out erighton Lane on the plans diaplayed and noted there ia a 15-foot shaulder which dropa aff steeplys that their line-of-sight is such that the buildings are 3 to 5 feet nbove gra~le level of Brighton Lane and whzn Mr. Fick saw that, he expces~sed celief and his only suggestion was that shcubbery be planted alony erighton Lane so that the rooftopa cannot be ~een. He added they did not consider that suggestion k~ecause from a safety point o: view, shcubbery that would conceal a substantiAl and deep drop-oEf beyond Che shrubbery line would be a dungerous aituation. Mr. Farano stated he discussed the matter very briefly by telephone with Mr. Tally from the JRoyal Circle Fiorneowners' Ac~sociation but was not ~,ble to meet with them, but did spFak at length with Mr~. Mary King who is als~ a member of that association and yave hec a set of plan3 and has not heard from her since; that they did meet -+iCh Century American who was conce~ned about their development immediatel}~ to the wesl- of the proposed project and has heard nothing from ttiem, sa would as~ume khat their concerns have been satisfiPd. Mr. Farano referred to Condition No. 22 pertair.ing to parking anci stated they wt~uld like to rPquest that instead of the conr~ition sugge3ted by staff, the Cornmission ad~pt a c:ondition which provides that the propecty owner enter into a c~venant, running with the land, that if the uae of the land is changed, ~hey will provide additinnal parking for the ctianged use. He explai ed if the use was changed to a higher densiky or a diffarent type of use that did not involve senior citizens and, thereby, rea.lly did not qualify Eor the waiver of the parking requirements, the cundition they ~re propcsing would require that ff they did change the use, they would provide and have the land available to provi~3e whatevec patkinq would be require8. He stated the ceason for thal• fs tha~ Yt~ey discovered a study that was undertaken by the rity of Los Angeles as to s~nior citizen pcojects in 1971 and tt~e cesult was that a.4 parking requicement would be all that they would really need. Chairman Herbst stated he thoughk the Traffic Engineer has been very explicit in what is goiny to be cequired here and comparing Section 8 Housing projects to what this is going to be is not r~ppropriate. Mr. Farano explained he is not saying that the City of Los Angelefi is right, but he is trying to show the Commission that there is a track re. ~rd for the ptoposition they have offered and the Cfty of Los Angeles has updated that study and has now said that there is an automatic 608 waiver foc all senior citizens housing, regardless of what kind, and wi~l even go to 758 if somebody asks for it, w:th the provision that the land owner has to be willing to offer additional parking spaces if the land use changes Erom the senior citizen use. 10/1/84 MTNUTE5. ANAHEIM__C_ITY__PLANNING COMMI~SION, OCTOBER 1,_1984 _ 84-611 tlArlan Pick, 57U Golden Sky :~ne, Anaheim, st~ted he did diacuss thia isaue with Mr. FacAno and they atill think thak tha~ atrip along ~rightan Lene Ahould have some kind of screening and hP did not wAnt the impr~esion conve,yed that he had con~eded not to have it. Chaicman Herbat. askr,d iE the possibility of blocking oFE thc~ view of r.he mountuins had been considertd if ecr.eening i~ provided, M:. ^ick ccoponded the houses nc~ose the atreet, including his, are high enouyh ~o that the view oi the mountaine would not. be affected, provided the landHCaping waa not extremely I~igh. He ex,~lained they were Anly wanting aomething to take care oE that 5-foot roofline that would 8how from Bcighton Lflne. Chairman Nerbst augyeated a block woll, and Mr. ~ick responded he did nat know zf that would really lend it,eelf to a block wall. Mr. ~acono responded ~hey will provide acreening as reyuested by Mr. Fick if ~he C~mmission wanta it, although he wosn't sure it wae really appropciate. THE PUBLIC HEAAiNG WAS CLOSEU. Chairman Herb~t •~oted the Traffic Enginee[ lias includecJ in his report that if and when additional parking is required, iC wil: be provided and he thought that a~ag adequate. He added he is .~ little cancerned that the applicant ia thin, ~y about rev±sin~ the use of a senior citizen's project, realizing that is so~r~eth.ng that could happen in the future. Mr. Farano stnted thPy have agreed that they will ~ut in additional parking, if nece~sary. He ~tated they undecatand Mr.. Singer's condition, buk don't think it i.A a neces~ary burden 5eeause the track recard for the p•king cequirem~nts of senior citizens projecCs i~ established. Chairman Herbst ~~ked, forgetting ali the okher senior citizen projecks in the United StateE, what wou.ld they do if thQy Found additional parking is required. Mr. Farano replied additional parking would have to be provided because there iF no other i~~~~e 1•o park, exceNt on the property. He stated they would like to have a onn-year ~ime e:ement put on this conditiun and they will accept ft, even thouyh thei aon't quite agree because they think a parking problem will present itselt quickly. He added there are a lo~ af conditions skanding over their heads waiting like a shoe to drop. r.ommissioner Fry stated he is 1008 in favor of this proj~ct and thinks it is prodab].y one of tne best things he has seen, especially in this area with the design, the intent, etc., and he ia favoc of it because oE this parking condition and if it is gning to be modifie9 with a time limit or a change of use, etc., thsn he would not support the request. Commissioner Kfng stated he likes the project with 'he condition as proposed acid is ready to move. Commissioner La C?.aire stated she does~i't have anything againat landscaping, but felt maybe the other pzople in the area would not want it becaux~e it could 10/1/84 MINUTB5, ~N~HE_IM C_ITY PJ.ANN_ING COMMISSION, OCTOBER l, 1984 84-612 block their view, and ahe was concecned that thia ia only one pcoperty owner'a desire and not the wishes of thP athec owners in the ~cea. Mr. harano stated eny .landecaping they would plant on drightan Lane would be low and would not screen Anyone's views bec~use the homea on the opposite sid~ o~ arighton ~re elPVated. Commiasioner L~ Claire indicated concern for one or twn propecties Acro~s Brighton Lane and Mr. Farano stated the scceening wauld anly be alonq a amall portion of Rrigl~ton Lane. He stat~d he did not think the acreening iR a good fdea and it would be ~etter to see the 5 feet of roofline, en6 aCtua::~~ if a developer wanted ta go through the 9rading and development expe~~se it would take to develop that side of Brightun Lan~, they could prob•~bly build hou4e~ there. Mr. F'arano sta~ed he d~es not want to convey tn tt~e Commission the impre:~r,ion that there is any thought of doing something different than senior citize~ housing. He stated they had thought it would be better than having thc~ coridition as ~coposed And if there .ts a parki.ng reyuirement, they wil.l put in additional spaces but think in fairneos, there ai~uuld be criteria and boundaries eatablished so thbt whPn the study is ~~ndertaket~, tt~ey will be througt~ with it. Chairman Herb~t noted the new ordinance does cut the parking :equirem~nt in h~lf and he f~l.t this condition is very rcasonable, and pointed out it is possible the City Council could require more because the aAme consu;tant that made the study for this proposal, made the City's atudy. Ron Wells, VTN, stated he underatands the Commission'c~ concern cegard:ng the pazking and all he was tr.ying to do possibly is ~ay that afler one year of occupancy or maybe two y,;acs after occupancy, he would like to hav^ the optior~ of coming back to the City 'lraf~ic Engineer and performing the traffic study. Chairtnan Herbst stated he may agree with that if it was one year after full occuQancy and Mr. Wells replied that would be accevtable. He stated further if there is a problem, he recognizes that they will ~rovide additionP.l parking rather than just leaving it up to the discretion of the City TraEfic Engineec when he finds out thece is a problem, a~d he would like to have the option of c~ming back later on and presenCinq a traffic study for. this oarticular project to show tha~ they do not have a problem. Commissianer La Claire asked if the developer would have the prerogati.ve of having that condition deleted in the futurc. Jack Whil•e, Assi.stant City Attorney, stated this would be like any other condition of a conditional use permit: and tliat it could bP deleted or modified at any time in the Future following a public hearin9 and approval by the body that gran~ed ap~,:oval in the fir:;t place. Cummissioner Bushore stated he would like to lAave the condirion in exactly as it is and the developer has the option o£ bcinging it ba~k in the futuce. He stated any time there i~ talk about modifyiny a condition with a time limit, etc. he wants to know why and gets very skeptical. about th~se types af things. 10/1/84 ~ MINUTE5, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, UCTODER l, 1984 Q4-413 Commiesionar La Clatre strted sincR the developer can bring tt baak for deletic-n, mudificetion, ~tc. at any time in the futuc~, therc ia no harm in leaving the condition in Eor the developer oc the Cit y. ACTION: Commisaioner Kin9 ofEered a motion, aeconded by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARkIF.U that the Anaheim City Plannii~g Commission hae ~eviewed the proposal to canstruct a 45-foot high, 205-r~om ~spnior citizen rAtirement facility with waiver uf minimum number and type of pe rking apaces on an irregularly-ahaped parcel of land con~ibting af appro ximately 7.1 acres located at the sauthwee~ corner af Nohl Ranch Road an d Anah eim Hills Road, and fur~t~er described es 505 Sautt~ Anaheim tiills Roads and does f~reby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has consi.de red the Negative peclarati~n toge~her with any commente received durin g the public review process and further ftnding nn the basis of the Init i al Study ~nd any commenta received l•hat there is no ~ubstantial evidence that t he project will tiave a aignificdnt effect on the environment. Commissioner King offered a motion, aeconded by Comm i saion er Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Cammiseion da e s here by grant waiver of code requirement on the basi~ thot the parking waive r will no~ cause an increase in traffic congestion in tt~e immcdiate vi.cinity nar adversely afEect any adjoining land uses and granting of the parking w aiver undec the conditions imposed, if anyr will not be detrimenkal t o the psace, healtt~, safety and general welface of the citizens of the Cit y of Anaheim. C~mmisxior~er King offered Resolution No. PC84-196 an d m~ved for ii:a paesage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commissio n doe s hereby grant t;onditional U~e Permit No. 2622 pursuant t•o Anaheim M ~nicipal Code Section 18.03.030.U3 chraugh 18.03.030.U35, and subject to Iriterdepactmental CommitCee itecommendations, and s~ibject to the petitioner's stip ulation to provide landscape screening alony 9righton Lane in accordanc e with ap~rnval of the City Planni~~g pepartment. On roll cali, the f~cegoing resolution was passed by the f ollowing vc,te: AYES: BOUAS, 8U5HORE, FRY~ HERB~T, KING, LA CLAIR E, MC BtJRNEY NOES: NUNE ABSENT: NONE .Tack White, Assistant City Attorney, presented the w ritten right to appeal the Planning Cammission's decisi~n within 22 dayy to the City C~uncil. ITEM NO• 7. EIR NEGArPIVE DECLANATION, WAIVER UF COD E REQU IREMENT AND CONDITIONAL USB PERF{'T N0. 2621 ~READVERTISED). PUBLIC HEARING. WOOD BRIDGE VILLAGE, LTD., 50 S. An a heim Blvd.~. P. 0. 9ox ~48, Anaheim, CA y2805. Property de~cribed as an i rregul ar].y-shaped parcel of land consi.sting of ap~roximately 1.3 acres, locat ed at the southeast corner of t~incoln Avenue and Anaheim Boulevacd, and further desccibed as SO South Anaheir~ Bculevard (Wood Bridge Village). 10/1/84 „ 1 ' ;~+ MINUT ES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOHER 1, 198A ___ 84-614 To pe r mit on-eale alcoholic b~verAgee in a pcoposed aemi-enclosed cesteurent witi~ wsivvr of m~nimum number of perking spaces. CAnti n ued from the meeting of ~eptembec 17, 1964. There was no one indicating their presence in opp~sition to subjQCk request and alti~ough the ataEf ceport was not read, it is referred to and made a part of ttie minute$. Tom Bode, Managing General F~artner, Wood Brid,ye Vi1J.~ge, referred to the parkin g waiver and stated 189 spaces are re~uired and they currently provide 18U apaces, and are willing to provide 184, howeve:, feel that the five apaces ceque s ted in connection wfth the outdoor patio dining ohould be watved because they f eel the patio dining wi11 not impact the parking loa~ because the cesr.aurant h~urs are between 11:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m. and the patio dining wi~l mostly be durinq lunchtime and will b~ moatly pedeal•r.ian oriented and/or ducing the ev~ning h~urs when the other buainesaes will not be open and all the on-aite parki~~g will t~e nvailable. He added -:he patio di.ning cdn only be used w hen the webkher is f avoreble for outdaor dining. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CI.OSED. Commfs sioner Fr,y atated the Commission has not yet scarted to dissolve any parkin g xequiremQnte for the downtown area and he did not gee any reason ~o start with this ane and he would be opposed to the requeat. Commis sioner King pointed out the City Traffic Engineer rec~mmends denial af the pa rking waiver or that a~acking agreement be negotiated. Chairman Herbat stated the park~ng structure was built to help thc downtown tusin e sses with their packing needs. Mr. Bode responded to Commissioner eouas that they would be leasing 12(~ parkin g spaces in the skructure. Chairman Herbat a~Ked why they would object to lea sing 9 additional ~paces, and asked what the hardahip is. Mr. Bode stated they do not feel that the patio dining ie going to impact the parki ng load, therefore, do not feel it is appropriate to have those additional five spac~.j. Chairman Herbst stated the patio area allows them to handle addikional cuatomers. Mr. B~de stated it ia their feeling that the additional people wi11 b e pedestriana and/or after the hours of the other businesses in the area and, t herefore, the on-site parking would be available. Commis sioner La Claice stated thar_ is a very good argument and the a~plicant is probably right; hawever, i:~ all the negotiation~ wikh th~ Redevelopment Agency, one of the major problEms they felt would be packing in this area and if thi s is granted foc this petitionere it will have to be done for other people . 10/1/84 MYNUTES. ANANE2M_GITY__PLANNING COMMISSION, ~CTOBER 1. .984 84-615 ChAirman HecbsC a tated the kedevelopmant Commisaion has also recommended denial. ACTION: Chairman NerbRt offered a mokion, aeconded by CommisAionar King and MOTIUN CARRIEU (Commiasioner Bushore abeent) khat the An~heim City Planning Commisaion hae reviewed the proposal to permit on-sale alr,oh~lic beverages in a proposed ~emi-encloaed reataurAnt with waiver of minimum number oE packing apuces on an irregularly-shaped ~arcel of land consisting of appcoximately 1.3 acres, lucuted at the aoutheeak cocnec oE Lincoln Avenue ~nd Anaheim Boulevacd, and further deacribed as 50 South Anaheim Boulevard (Waad Bridge Village)j and doea hereby appcove the Negative Declaration upon Einding L•hat it has considered the Negative De~laration together with any comments ceceived during the public review ~rocesa ~.id fucthec tindir.~ on the basis of the Initial Study tind any commente received that there is no cubsrantial evidence th~t the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Chairmon Herbat offQCed a tnotion, seconde~ by Cortunissioner King and MOTION ~ARRIED (Commiasioner Buahore absent) that the AnAheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny requeat Eor waiver of code requirement on tt,e basis that thece is parking avail~ble cight next door and also on the basis khat the pArking waiv~r ~.~ill cause an increase in traffic congeation in the immediate vicinity ar ~dverAely affect any adjoining land uoeu and granting oE the parki.ng w aiver will be detcimenta 1 to the peace, health, safety and general welfare of the citizena of the City of Anaheim. Chairman Herbst oEfered Resolution No. PC84-197 and mov~d for its passage ~nd adopt~on that the Anaheim City Planning Commiasion does hereby grant Conditional Uae Permit No. 2621, in pact, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.03C.030 through 18.03.030.035, and subj~~t to Irterdepartmental Committee Recommendatdions. On roll call, the foregoiny resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: 6~DUI~S, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BUkNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: HUSHORE Jack White ~. .ifie~ that an additional condition will be added requiring the applicant to enter into an aareement for the additional parking spaces with the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency for the use of nine (9) addikional parking Epaces in th~ newly conat:ucted parking structuce on Old Lincoln Avenue. Jack White, Assistant C'ky Attorney, pcesented the written right to appeal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to th~ City Council. CUMMISSIONFR BUSHORE RETURNED TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBER. 10/1/84 MINUTES. ~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSInN, OCZ`OB~~~_1L1984 84-616 ITEM t. 8. BIR i~F.GATIVE DECLARATION~ WAIVER OF CnbE REQUIREMENT ~ND CC~NDI`i'IONAL USE PBRMIT N0. 2624. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNE~tS: ANAHEIM HILt,S DEVEI.OPMENT CORPORATION, 380 Anaheim Hills koad, Anaheim, CA 92807. AGENT: PACIFIC BEI.L, 7337 Trade St[eet, Room 4120, SAn Diego, CA 92121. ATTENTION: P. L. HAMILTON. Property described as an irregularly-eh~aped p4rcel oE land consisting of a;oproximalely 1 acse having a frontage of approximately 550 teet un the south aide of C~nyon Rim Road, a~proximatel; 780 feet northwest of the centerline oi Serrano Avenue. To permit e ren~ote r.elephone awitching facility with waiver of minimum structural setback. Thece was no onc: indicating their presence in opposition ko subject rec~uest and although khe staff report was not read, it ie refecred to and made a part aE the minutes. Commissioner Mc aurney declared a conElict oE interest as defined hy An~heim ~'.'.ty P12~~~i11g CommisRion Ftesolution No. [~C76-157 adopting a Conflict of Interest Code for the Planning Commiasion a~d Gevernment Code SecL•ion 3625~ et seq., in that he owns propercy in the neighborhood that would be impacted and purauant to the pravicions of the above Codes, dPclaced to the Chairman that he was withdrawing from the hearir~g in connection with Conditional Use Pprmit No. 2f,24, and would not take part in either the diecussion or the vating thereon and had not discussecf this matter with any member of the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commissioner Mc Burney left the Council Chamber. Commissiunec HECbst declaced a conflict of interest as defined by Anaheim City Nlanninn ~•ommission Resolution No. PC7G-157 adoptfng a ConElict of Interest Code for the Planning Commission and Government C~de Section 3625, et seq., in that he own,s property in the neighborhood that would be impacted and purauant to the provisions of the abo~e Codes, declared to the Chairman that he was ~ithdrawinc from the hearing in connection with t;onditional UAe Per~nit No. 2624, and wou:id not take part in ~ither the discussion or the ~oting thereon and h~d not dii;cusRed this matter with any member oE the Planning Commission. Thereupon Commi~;sior:er Herbst left the Council Chamber. CHAIRW~MAN PRO TEMPORF LA CLAIRE ASSUMED THE CHAIR. Torn Nusbickel, 215c~ Musial Place, Placentia, CA, architect, was present to answer any question~~. THE PUBLIC HEARiNG WAS CLOSED. Reaponding to Commis~ioner eouas, Greg Hastings, Assistant Planner, explained staff had ahecked with the Parks and Rec.eation Uivisian and found that originally khere was a plan for a park in the area, but due to the terrain of the property and due to the fact that it is adjacent to the lake, they felt that a park would best be located some place else and at this time, they don't have plans to use this propet*_~ as a park site. 10/1/84 MINUTES. ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING ~OM:4ISSION, OCTUQER ~, 1984 84-617 Commissioner Bushoce atated they do not have plans for another pa~•k either, and asEed if thie area is still ehawn on the Genetal Plan as a park. Greg :lastinys cesponded that the General Plan is general and doean't ~~ecifx~•ily idenkify thie propecty for a park site, but it does show some genece2 open space in this vicinity. Commissionec La Clatre etated it is her underatanding thet they have abandon~d thie site for n park becauae of ~he tercai.n and becauee of the inacceasibility foc the people getting in and out and becau~e iC aurrvunda the resecvoir, they have decided to keep it as open space, ~nd it re~lly shoul~ be designated on the City General Plan as open space. Commisaioner Pry statr~~ when he was on the Park and Recreation Commission, this was one of thoae ~.ittle doks, unfortunately, thak could be moved around vecy easily and often was. He Asked ~hat he would be able to see if standiny above this site. Mr. Nusbickel atated all that could be aeen from the street is the reauired safety guard rail across the top oE the atructure; and that there will be a sliqht mnund Acroas t~e root of tt~~~ ~witch station. Commiesioner Fry clarified that he wauld like to ~now what wo~ld be se~n if he lived ~bove there accoas on the orher side, and asked if the roof will be landscaped. Mc. Nusbickel atated fcom ab~ve the str~et, the only thing thpt will be seen is the guardrail and A p~rtion of the drive. Commi~sioner Fry asked what will be seen Erom the condominiuma thut ace there now on the 1eft. Mr. Nuebickel st2L•ed that the natucal slo, ~ coming down will be seen from that location with a notch into it where thc face of thE sandblasted c~nccete buildiny will bej and that the concrete atructure is nECessary due to the retaining natuc•e of the bui~di~ig, as well as tt~e stepped guardrail going down the t~~rrain. fie pointed out thece will be landscaging in the small parking area ~lso. He stated the plans ~hows an alcove to t!~e left of the uiAin structure and th~tt will be where all khe electr~cal panels and the sir conditin-~ing equipment will be ]ocated behind a gate. Answering Comminsioner Bouas, Mr. Nusbickel stated there will be very little or no sounc L•rom this facility, and if anything, there will only be a slight air conditioning noise and the only reason for the air conditioning is to keep the switching gear cooler, He noted this will be a fairly small ~tructure and the air conditioning noise will be Bli9ht, and if there is a power problem, there i~ an emergency generator that might go on, 5ut it would be muffled. Commissianer eushore asked why this site was chosen. Mr. Nusbickle cesponded they have worked with thia site because of ~he topography difficulties ~nd he thought othe: uses would be just as ~ifficult. Patricia Hami~ton, 7337 xrade street, San Diego, stated this site was chosen in the A•iaheim Eiills area basically because of the unc~erground cable which providea service for that cammunity and other surraunding communit:es and it was designed to grow in *~~a* direction because kh~~t is where the growth is. 10/1/84 MINUTES~ ANAHEiM ~1TY pLANNINC COMMISSION, OCTOBER 1~ 1_9_84 __84~618 Commissioner Suehoro asked why thia request is suddanly cominq before the Cammi~sion 1E their ~lanners knew this was truly a master planned community. ~~e a~ked wh~re else they would put it, i.f it wa~n't at tt~ia locakion. Ms. Hamiltan atated she did not think thece is much else up there and thouqht they were very lucky to find L•his ~arcal. She skated they are in e~crow for the property now and it was offeced ro th~ei- by Anaheim Ni.lls, Inc. Commiesi~ner Bouaa atated ehe thought other sites had been selected. Commisaioner Bushare added he thought t.here was another site which waA originally to accommodate the cables that are there now and he did not think it was this site at all ~nd hP did not think that it is fa~orable to the area, no matkec how it ia diaguise~, because the property ownere bought into 4 planned community and he ttiought it should cemain as plAnned and it should have been shown on the plans. He stated juat 200 or 300 feet up the road there is all kin~s of vacant land which is all owned by Anahefm Hill~, Ine. and the topogra~~hy is completely diEf~rent and the facility would not burden the own~re lookiny down on it. He noted thece was probably only Ane praperty ownec notified of this heariny who lived within 300 feek and thaught maybe that is why the people do not know and ace not here to object. F!e atated he thought this was a poor l~cation, and if the facility waa planned ociginally he did not think it wa~ planned on that site and he thouyht it is an e::cess paccel which Anaheim Hills, Inc. is off.ering an~ he thought tt~ere ace o~her ~ites available. Ms. Hamilton stated theic original choice was at the carner nexk ~~ a single-family residence which is also owned by Anaheini Hi'l1s- Inc.; that there is a achool site also and they did ctieck into all those posai.bili'_ies, but this is the only site Anaheim Hiils, Inc. was ~illing to consider. Commis~foner Bushore stated that answered his ~•'~estion and he thought that is typical of the curtent management oE Anahexm Hil'.s, Inc. He stated he thought there are othec sites and he could not aupp~rt ti~is site; and he thought this site is a convenience mattec for Anaheim Hills, :nc., but not ~or the neigt~bors that are already up there who would hav~ to look down on this and suddenly have it shoved upon them. Greg Ha~tings stated appro~imat~~ly _1Q notices were mailed to thoFe property owners within 300 feet, as well as the homeownecs' u:~oci~tion for the condominium pc~j~ct to the ea~t. Commissioner. La Claire n~ted this will impact the condominium owners because th~ir properties look out cver the site. She sta.ted ~he would like to know where th~ originai site wa.s progosed, and she thought it was at ~he corner oF Serranu ~nd Canyon Rim. She s~ated she would also like to know if it was desiynated through~ut the plans approved over the past few years, notin~~ ahe thought tracts have been approved on the north side of Canyon Rim Road and the west side of the exL•ension uf Sercano. Mr. Hastings responded there have been no zoning actions in that area other than a tentakive tract to the west, No. 10784. 10/1/84 MINUTES. AN~HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN. OC_TG~BER 1. 1984 84-619 Commissianet La Claire akated the iasue today is whether or nok the Commission feels that thie is an appropriate site far thie use. Commisaionec Fry asked what olae the propertv could be used for. Greg Hastinga reaponded under the current zoning, it could be usod f.or one single-family residence since it is zone~ RS-A-43,OU0 (SC) oc An,y other use that is ellowed through the approval of ~ conditional use permits and thak he lot size is one acre . Commiseionec Bouas etated she thou~~~t this wou:d hsve less impACt than anything el~e going in there. C~:unissioner Bush~rp stated he thought if the property could have been used E~c somett~ing else, the Commission would hav~ seen it come in wfth Tract 109 1, and it is a remnant piece and it was probably also thought it wou~: remain a remr,ant, and now sumeone has seen a possible use. ~'ommissi~ner Houas asked w~iere the cables run and asked if the telephone company has to bring samethi~;y into these cables. Ms. Hamilton stated she knows thEy do run up the atreet underground, but• ahe wasn't sure where they end ~nd further noted the company is happy with this site as well, and ahe thought the other site wa~ right on ~he southeast corner of Canyon Rim and Secrano, right adjacent to a single-fAmily home. Cammissioner Bushore noted thie switching station will service homes to be built in the future. Commissioner Fry stated he thought this would be a better sitp because there are no single family homes nearby. Commiesioner Bushore stated he wou1~9 agree ~f tt~e hillside sloped the other way and it was built into the sloped side, and the roof was coveced and it was adequately lAndscaped. Mt. Nusbick~l stated their company has done a number of undergrnund structuces, including three schools in Santa Ana that were award winners, and if the concerns are of an architectural aesthetic nature and of things that can be done with the part that is exposed, he thought those concerns could be met. He stated they wece trying to place the buildfng in such a way that they had a faicly even soil distri.bution between cut and fi11. He pointed out the bermed areas, slopes, etc. on the plan~ at the podium. Commissio~~er King ECate9 he did not know what othec type of building could be put on this property and asked about the noise. Nuabickel explained any noise fron this taci~ity will be equivalen~~ to the noise from a medium-siaed air conditioning unit or a 1-horse electtical motor drivi~~g a fan and there is nn noise from the equipment itself. Commissioner Fry stated he did nnt see Lhat much harm with this structure on this site. Commissionec Bushore atated he still cannot go along wfth this request because of. the original intent as a planned co~munity and ~h~re thia facility waa originally supposed to bQ located. He sfiated there may not be any opposition right now, but after it is built, there wi1J be some complaints and he th~ught when a pecson buys property above, they should ha~e some reasona~le assurance that something like this is not ~oing to go in. He stated he felt if this request is denitd, it will go back up the street where it was originally intended to go a~ hen when peopln purchase homes, they will see i+, `here and if they buy P next to it, they wiii know it is there. 10/1/84 i i MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PL.ANNI~:G COMMISSION~ OCTOBER 1L 1984 84 FiZO Commissioner La Cleire staCed it was originelly propoaed ~ext to a houae that is alteady built. Conuni~aioner 9uahore responded h~ did not know thet foc sure and Chere is a school eite up thece with all kinda of gcading and al~ kinds of thinga can be donP with earthmovers, berms, etc. ACTTON: Commiseioner King offered o motion, seconded l~y Commiasionet Pcy and MOTION CARRIED (Commissionera Nerbat and McBurney Absent) that the Anaheim City Plnnning Commiasion hae teview~d the proposal to permit a remote telephone switching facility with wAiver of minimum ~tructural setback on an irreg~larly-ehaped parcel at lnnd consistiny of a~proximat~~ly 1 acre hbving a frontaye of approximately 550 feet on the sauth side of Canyon Rim Roed, ap~rox~mately 780 Eeet northwest of the centerline of Serrano Avenue; nnd does h~reby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has considered the Negat~ve Declaration togethec with eny comments received duri~~g khe public review process and further finding on the basis oE khe Initial Study and any commenta received that there is no aubatantial evidence that the praject will have a significant eEEect on the enviconment. Commi~sioner King offered a motion, aeconded by Commissioner ?ry ~nd MOT70N CARRIED (Commissionecs Herbst and McBurney absent and Commissioner Bushore voting no) thal• khe Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant waiver oE code requirement on the basi~ that there are special circumstbnaes applicable to the pr~perty such as siae, shape, topogr~phy, locAtion and surroundings which do not apply to othec identically zoned pcoperty in the same vicinityJ and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprives the p~uE~Nrty of privileges enjoyed by ott~er pcoperties in the identica~ zone and classiitcation fn the vfcinity. Commisaioi:er King uffered Resolution No. PC84-198 and moved for its passage and Adoptian that the Anaheim Cir.y P.lanning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Pecmit No. 2624 pursuant to Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.30.O;J.030 through 18.30.030.035 and subjec~ to intecdepartmental Committee Recommendations. On roll call, the focegoing resolution was passed by the followinc~ vote: AYES: BOUAS, FRY, KING NOES: BUSHORE, LA CLAIRE AASENT: HERBST, MC B~RNEY Ja~:~k White, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right to aE-peal ~he Planning Commissior~"s decision wi~hin 22 days to the City Council. Commissioners Herbst and Mc eurney returned to the Council Chamber a~. 4:15 p.m. Chairman Herbst assumed the chair. ITEM N0. 9. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMTT N0. 2625. PUBY.IC HEARING. OWNEkS: LOUIS H. AND ADA PERLUF, 1191 St. John Place, SP~~ta Ana, CA 927U5 and EPHfiAIM ANll FOBERTA ELLEN BEAi., 2961 I~a Jolla, Anaheim, CA 92806. AGEN'P: RODERT hILKINSON, 9010 Corbin, Northridge, CA 9a'24 and GLBNN 10/1/84 MINUT~S, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 1~ 1984 84-621 MC ELROY, 10181 Deech soulevard, Stanton, CA 90680. Property desccibed as a recta:,~ularly-~haped parcel of land coneisting of a~proxlmAt.ely 4.7 acres, having a frontaye of approximately 330 feet on the west oide of Beach Houlevard, and Eucther deacrib4d as 1'1.35 Sauth Beach BoulE~var.d. (Yick Your Part). To per.mit expansion of an automobile dismantling and storage yard. TherA was one person indicating his presence in oppo~ition to subject ceq~est and alti~ough the stafF re~ort was not r.ead, it is refer~ed tu and made a part of the minutea. Robert M. Wflkinson, agent, explained ~hey agree with all items in the staff report, except Condition No. 11, page 9e, requiring thAt trees be planted on the north property li~~e, explaining thaL was t:he oriyinal intent, but khat the owner of the mobilehomP park objected to the tcees and i-.dicated they would appeal the decision to the City Council iE it is app~~ved with the trees being required. He explained they c,b~ect to the trees be.:ause of maintenance problem~ with leaves blowing onta rheir property. Mr. Wilkinson explained half of the property is lucated in the City of Stanton and half is in Anat:eim. Sid Melnick, 3024 WeAt Ball, Anaheim, explaii~ed hi~ propPrty is a shopping centec just north of subject pcoperty on 8each Boulevard and he doeo not like the idea of the dismantling yard com.ing into that area; and that the diamantling yard that is there now is juat a blight on th~ area. He stated there are motels just coming into the area and the hospital just to the north and Hol~by City across khe atreet, and he did not believe with these uses, ~hat the City of Ar,aheim shauld allow a di3nantling yard on that property. He stated there is noise and ~.llution from the dismantling yard thpy hac~e now; thal•. they are concern~d abo~t the '~ypQ ~~f businpss and the people who would ~e coming into the yard and the area in general; and that a conaominium complex ~+as pcoposed there one year ago and he thouc~h~ that would h3ve been a decent project for the area, but he hoped the CitX of Anaheim woul~ not c:~nsider a dismantling yard for t`-~at street. Mr. Wilkinson ~tated this prope~ty has been ltased for a 5-y;:ar period a~~d in Stanton there is a Redevelopment Agency and they only h~a~~e 4-1/? years to go; that the use ot the portion of the property in the City of Anaheim wa~ previ.ously a used aar ,lot. and po~nted out khe F~rkirg acea in the fror on Beach Boulevard, and aJd?.tional ~torage for u~••d cars Eo the north, and the rear portion was used as a dismantling yard; ~~at the operation there now is called "Pick Your Part.'; that in the previo dismantling yard, the automobiles were all piled on top of e~ch o~her and now they are going to ~ut up off the ground and the dismankling area has been cleaned up. He stated they do not know wh~t ,rill happen aite: the lease expires, and khey are requesting to be able ta t~~ke the vehiclPS from the north and weat 1/3 of the prop~rty and be able to bring in the vehicles and store them because ~hey have to be cleared through the Department of Ffotor Vehi.cles becau~e some may be stolen, etc. He stated it is a com~letely different situation than even six :~ontt-,r, ago because it has been cleaned up. 10/1/64 MINUTES. AyAH~IM CI~'Y PI.ANNING COMMIS520N, OCTOBER 1, 1984 8A-622 THE PUBLIC NEAkING WAS CLOSEA. Chairman Herbst r,larified th~k they are op~rating seven days e week. Commis3loner eouas clarified that the acea ia all acreened and Mr. Wilkinson explained the fence i~ in good renair in the front and that fencing will be installed in the back, and thQ fence on the north and west ~ide will be 10-foot hiah with slats and it was noted that nothing can be atored any highec t'rian the fence. Mr. Wilkinson responded that a recommendation should be incl~~' _he approval that nothing will Fae otored eny hLgher than the fer~ indicated they would be willing to c~mply with that restrickion. Mr. Wilkf~son exPlained when people are dism~ntling cars, they do make some noi~e. He stated ths~ disman~ling area wi.ll bP about 40 to 50 feet Erom the mobilehome park and tt~e ~riveway area is right next to th~ fence adjacent. to the mobilehome p~rk. <'ommissione~ McBurney clarified that the original dismantling yard has been ther2 since 1971, and Mr. Wilkinson reaponded he thou~ht they had been there lAnge~. Responding to Commissioner McBucney, Greg Has'tings, Assistant Planner, explained there wrre cortiplaints from the neighborhood regarding noise and dust. Commi~sioner La Claire stated the Rales occur in i:he City of Stanton. She ask~d about tt~e vacious uses on the property. Mr. Wi1ki.~son stated this is approximately a 10-acre parcel and 1/2 ie in S,.anton and 1/2 fs in Anaheim. He pointed out on the plans the aceas located i" the Ciky of Stanton and ti~e areas in Anaheim and the area which was rezoned for an astomobile dealership, the parking and storage areas for that a~gency, etc. and stated befare that time, the whole ~ropecty was a dismantling yard. He gointed out the arPa t:,at will continue to be used as a dismantli.ng yard in the City of Stant~~n. He poinked out cuetomers will pay a$.50 fee to go in and look at the cars and if they find a pact they need, they remove it themselves and pay for it. Mr. Wflkinson responded to Commisaioner La Claire th3t they normally have about 800 cars ~n the wholQ property. He pointed out the area to be used as a parking lot and the dismantling area. He explained their request is to be ~ble to bring in vehicles and store them until t! ,+ are cleared through the ~ procedure which c~uld be as long as 2 months, and there would be a minoc a~uouht of dismantling in that area and there would be no sal.es fcom that area. [~e referred to the north property line where the trees were being discussed adjacEnt to the mobilehome park. Chairman Herbst stated there is on~ of th~se type operations off the freeMay in the inuustrial area which was just recently approved ~nd a person driving on the freeway can see through the slats and see aJ,l the cars stored in the yard. He stated even though the use has been at the location in the past, he felt if tt is approved, it should be for a very short time, and he would not want to eliminate anX of the landscaping, and felt 15-gallon Cypre~s tree~ should be plantEd because there would not be any leaves and it would provide a screening. I~e stated ~ny dismentling should be done at least 100 feet away 10/1/84 M~NUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONL OCTOBER 1, 1984 84••623 fram the reaidential atea, and the cara to be stored should be cemoved to a specific diemantling area. Ha atated he recognizes there ace other [acilities in Anaheim whore vehicles ~re reskored for inaurance purpoees, etc., but ~.e thought a specific ares ghould be designated Por dismantling purpasea on1y, but he did not t,hink vehicles uhould be diamantled ad~acent to the mobilehome park, and that there should be no dismantling on Sunday. Commissioner Bouas noted the cuetumera wuuld be doing their own disinantLing and Sunday would be one of the bu~ieat days. Commissione~ La Claire stated t~~ere ia an area desiynated f~r storage of wrecked vehiclea where no diamantling ia done snd then an~ther area for disman~ling, and ahe would suggea~ thak tne area where no dismantling is done be relocated nexC t~ the ~esidential units and khen a 100-font setback be provided, with Ct~e vehiclee stored next to that and dismantling to be done in the front next to Beach noul~vard. Commissioner La Cla:re stated ~he did think landscaping ~hould be provir.led ta provide a screen for the mobilehome occupanta, and that will require irrigation and she would like it the whele length nf the properfy next ko the mobilehome p~~k. Nr. Wilkinson stated the Stanton City Council eliminated the treps because of the objection of the mobilehorne park owners. Commissioner .a Clatre stated shp is talking about Italian Cypress trees which pravide a screen with no leaves. Mr. Wilkinson stated he has a awimming pool and his neighbors have some Italian CypceRS and they do make a me~s and are harder to get up than regular leaves. ChAirman Nerbst stated the Italian Cypress trees he had acour~~ his swimming pool did not give him any probleme and they were witt~in 5 feet of the pool. Commissioner La Claire continued khat she is trying to ptotect the mobilehome owners ar.d felt they should be affocded some protection and she did not think view.ng a dismantling yard xe exactly the nicest thing in tt,~ world to look at, and that mayb~ they didn't have any protection in th~ past, but she ~ould like to sc~ some now, either landscaping or a solid binck wall. Mr. Wilkinson thor: theY would be glad ta put up an add~itional. walled area or fenced area, additional chainlink fence with slats, or b~me other type of fQnce would be fine. Commissionec La C~aire asked abuut a solid block wall. Commisaioner King stated there is 25-feet uf landscapi.ng propooed on the weat property line. Cammissioner La Claire asked if they would be willinq to put in a 6-foo~ high solid block wall inatead of the l0 Eoot hiyh chainlink fence along the mobilehome park property line. Mr. Wilkinson respe~ded there is an 8-•faot high bl~ck wa11 exfsting. He added if that is what the Commission or Council approves, that is what the,y will do. 10/1/84 MJNUTBS, ANAH~IM CYTY_PLANtyING_ ('OMMlSSION,_ OCTOBER 1,__1984 84-624 Commissioner Bushore aaked abo~~, the .lenqth of the conditional ~se permit on the property located in Stanton. Mr. Wilkinson etatnd the property chanqed handa laat March and it is under a lease pucchase acrangement. Commissioner Buahore pointed out aince th~ property is und~r leaae purchase, the leasee hes t.he option oE purchasing the property at the end of the five yearc~. He add,~d it wou'.. be his intent to tie it to a five-yeAr peciod which means they would have to reapply, but wanf:ed to know if '.his condi~ional use permit is gra~ted for ~ fivN-yeac period, would it Le only for the expansion of the dismantliny t~ec.ause that use i.s elready there. Ja~k White, Assiatant City Aktorney, explained thet would be tying thie particulAr conditional uae permit ~r, the five-year period, but the pre-exieting uae would not be affecCed, except u~on the exerciae of this permit. He explaiiied that means that if thi.s permit i~ accepted ar~d the ex~~ahsion is built or. allowed or used, ttie City can require the ap~licant, as a cor,dilion, to sti~ulate that the entlre use will be aubject ta the five-ye~r J.`.mitation. Commissioner Buchore stated that is what he would like ta do; tt~at on August 12, 1968, ~ontinued operation of the auto s~lvage ya~d was approved by the Plannin~ Commission, so h~ wo~:d want to terminate that variance and go with the new conditional use pfirmit for a five~yeac peciod and the applicant will have to understand that iE tt is granted for a five-year period, there is no yur~rantee that it would exis~ beyond the five years, except to come back and ask foc it, and there cauld :~e a whole new Commission ~r the attitude could have changed by then. ACTION: Commissioner La Clafre offered a mation, seconded by Cammissioner Kin9 and MOTION CARRIED thac the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal ta perrt~it ex~ancion of an automobile diamantling and atorage yard on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.7 acres, having a f.rontage of appr.oximately 330 feet on the west side of Beach E3oulevard, and being lacated approximately 330 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road and furkher described as 1235 South Beach Boulevard (Picic Yaur Pact); anc9 dues hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon ffnding that it has considered the Negative Declaration together with any commer.ts received durin9 t;~e public review process and further finding on the basis of the Inikial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that tt~e project will have a significant effect on the environment. CommzBSioner La Claire offered Resolution No. PC84-199 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gcant Conditional Use Permit No. 2625 pursuant to Ariahei.m Municipal Code Section 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035, and subject to Che petitioner's stipulation at the public hearing that no dismantlinc~ w~ck shall be conduct~d within 100 feet of the west property line adjacent to the mobilehome park, and that the permit shall be limited to a period of five years, and subject to Intecdepartmental Commit~ee Recommendatioits. Commissioner Busho-.e added he would like a ronc3itio~: that conditional use permits and variances existing on the property shall l~e terminated. 10/1/84 ~ MINUTES, J1NAH~IM_ CITY_ PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER_1, 1984 84-625 CommisAioner Bouas etnted a condition ahould be included thet acreening will be ptovidad ad~acent to the mubilehome pArk and th~L nothing shell be ~tored above the height of the tence. Mr. Wilkinson asked about the atocage area. ~~ommiesioner La Claire exnlained that she is including a restriction eha~ there shall be no dismantling within l0U feRt o[ the proE~er~y line adjecent to thn mobilehome pack which means that vahiclea can be etored 1n that area and dismantled next to Beach Boulevard which will provide aome proter,tion tor tf~e nci~tibor~ f.rom the noise. She ~ointed out th~y have ~;20 feet ond she undecstnnds it might be a hardship, but thought it w~uld lielp protect Che neighbors fror~i nuise they liave suffered through all these yeary. Mr. Wilkinson a~ked if th~ owners of ihe mobilehome park do noC wish to have the trees, would th~y have to ~ppeul khat condition. Jack Whi.te responded it is a condition and will have tu be aomplied with or mndikied. Commissianer La Claire stated if the p~titionec can gtiow tfiat the residents of the mobilehome park do not want any scceening, then the condition could be eliminated, and further explained ehe ls not i.nterested in the wishea of the owner of the Park, but of. the penple who live there. ,1ack White stated he would like clariEicAtion pertaining Co the point of sale of the parts, whether. it is in the City of Anaheim or the City of. Stankan because it has a signiflcant impact ~elating to salea tax. Mr. Wilkinsun responded ttie off lce is in Stanton. Commis~ion~r La Claire scat;ed it became apparenl to her the way it was designated that khe City oE Stanton would ~e entitled to thF sales tax and she thought Stant~n pcobably likes il that way. Jack White ~tated if the sales office is in the Ciky ot 5tanton and cootinues to be there, then it is pretty cJear that S tanton will receive credit for the nales t^~, and the anly alternative would be to have the officP in the City of Anaheim. Sid Melnick returned to the podium and aGked what protecl-ion will be prnvided for the property ownera west of the mobileh~m~ park which are commercisl businesses with loL•i?;ies adjacent to the subject property. He explained ne owns the shopping center just to the north af sub jPct pruperty, just ~~st of the mobilehome pack, and explained th~re is a gas station An the corner and two addi ~ional shopping centers. Annika Santalahti, Assistant Directoc of 2oning, explained Mr. Melnick had shown her the middle lot which indicates a ahoppii~g center on the m~p, or the third lot f rom Che left. Res~onding to Commias ioner Boues, Mr. Melnick explained they have a veterfnary facility on one side and the mobile home park adjoining subject property and on the east side there is another shopping center and a gas station and nothin9 separates the properti~s, except there is a L•~nce on a small Qoction. Mr. Wilkinb~n explained he had agceed to put a block wall adjacent to the mobilehome park. IIE exp].ained about 708 of the property line to the north is commercial buildinyn on Che lot line, ~nd l•here is one or two vacant lots and 10/1/84 MINUTE8, AN~HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION1 OCTOBER 1, 1984 dd-626 a ce~idenr.e which he aaeumes will b~ r differF~t use in the future, auch as multiple family reaidentlal or commaccial, anc. the CammiBai~n haa cecommendod th~t the "L"-shaped t~roperty which became commercial in ~une oF 1971, not be used for diamantling purpoaea al1 the wAy over to within 100 feet of the mobilehome perk, and actually a11 that property hae been uaed for the last 3Q yeaca as a di~mentling y~rd, up to the 1971 zoning when the car lot was establishod on thet propecty. He stdted they werP doing repeir work on thdC portion ~f the property ~nd the propoccw use woulu not be mAking aa much noise as that did. ffe steted they nre going to bring in a~uet-proaf maheriel and clean up the propPrty. Cammiseionec Herbat asked iE Mr. Melnick's buildiny comes right up to the propecty li~ie. Mr. Melnick atated the buildings are to the property line, but ~here is also some additinnal property that has a makeshifC fence. He added the subject, property is a blight. Commisaioner Nerbst claciffed he is interested in the rear of the buildings, and it was clarified there are no openings on the rear ot hia building. Commisaionec Herbst stated maybe there should be ~ chainlink fence with slats inatalled theze, but with a solid wall of a buildin~, it would not do any good. Commissioner Bouas pointed out .here should be slatted fence where there isn't any Eence, so ttiat the property ia completely enclosed. It was pointed out the plans call Eor a new ct~ainlink fence. Commisnioner La Claire stated if that is adioining commeccial property and there ia a nee~ for a fenr.~, ~he thougtit a solid fence should t~e installed so that the commercial eatablishments will not be bothered by the diamantling yard because that portion h~s nnt been used for that purpose, however, she did not see any prob.lem with dismantli~g close to the commercial area because it would not disturb anybody's sleep and not too many people would pay any attentinn ta it~ Mr. Melnick stated i.t do~s not make sEnse to approve a dismuntling business when the Commissfon is approving new motels and trying to bring a different kind of business into the acea. Commissianer Bushore pointed out the dismant.lir~g yard is already there and the petiticner has agreed to a 5-year time limit and at the end of 5 years, if the City doesn't want it there, it won't be the~:e. Mr. ~telnick stated he did n~t have a dismantlinq yatd behind him before. He clarified f~r Commiss~oner La Clair~ that there are motels both to the north and south of subject property. Mr. Melnick sCated he has a retail Rhopping business. He responded to Commissioner Bushore tha~ the pcoperty was just used for stocage and sales. He staked the problem fs with the dismantling operation and Commissioner 9ushore noted kha dismantli~g will not be adjacent to his propecky. Commissio~ier La Claite sugqested that dismantlirg be prohibited within 100 Feet of tl~e ~eriphery. Commissioner eushore and Bouas did not agree with that suggestion. 10/1/84 MINUTES, ~N~HEtM__CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 1, 1984 84-62i Commiasioner Uerbet ~sked r~htt would be ellowed behind the comm~rcial bulldir~ge and stated he thought the stocage could be close to the properl•y line, but dismsntling prohibited in thmt area, because there is a~nple room and alao he w~nted the salea tax question answered. Jack White sug~eaked that a condition be Tdded cequiring that geparate aAles tax reports be made to the etete And that all pacta removed fr.om vehicles that are wiLtitn the City of Ar~aheim under the jur~ediction oE this ~or.ditional use permit be reported t~ the atat~ as sales occurcing wtthin the City of Anaheim. Commisaioner Kry asked how somett~ing like that. could be monitored. Mr. Wilkinson stated if the City Attorney would give tt~em A proper Cormula, they would be ylad to try and do that becauae this propecty has heen uaed in the past aa one diemantling area and it is undec one ownerah~p and ia now le~sed to another individubl. He cxplained they are asking ~hat the dismantling area be allowed to continue as ttiey have in the pa~t. He atated he did not see any need for a lU-foot Eence whece thece is a solid building, but they w~ant ~ fence where there is an opening for security pucposes. Ne stated they want to be good neighbora and he thoughk the operatora could live with the suggestion of moving the storage area to the rear and di~mantling in thc frunt, and they will try to work that out before an appeal is made. Concerning the sales lax, Mr. Wilkinson state~ if the City Attorney can tell them how to do it legally and economically, they will try to do it. Jack W.hite reaponded the only way t•o take care of ~hat problem, is to determine the point of sale. Commissioner La Claire stated she would add a condition that the City Attorney wark out a condition pertu~ning to the s~les tax. Prior ko voting on the resolution, Commisaioner La Claire clariEied that t;~e resol~~tion is to include a restriction ~hat the permit is for a five-ye~r peci~d, with the termination oF e~isting conditional use pe:mits and varianceL, and that only storage of vehicles will take place within 1Q0 feQt of the pcopetty line adjacent to the mobilehome p~rk, and no dismantling will take place within that 100~foot area; and that the City Attorney will develop a condition requiring the reporting of sales tax by the opecator occurring within the City of Anaheim, and there will be landscaping according to the plan and also the stipulations of the app.licant and other conditions of the staff report. Greg Hastings, Assista~t Planner, stated a condition should be added that no storage of vehicles or veiiicle parts shall extpnd above the fence level. Commissioner La Claire agreed with that addition. On roll call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote; AYES: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, NERBST~ KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 10/1/84 i ~ MINUTES. ANAHEIM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTOBER 1. IA84 E14-628 Chaicman Herbst stated conditional uae permite are eu~~ect to condit ions ldid down by the Commisoion and iC thEy are not adhered to, pacticularly with noiae and duat, the Commfsaion does have the authocity to termina~e them. Jack White, AASiete~nt City Attorney, pres~nted the written ri~iit to appeal the Pla~~ning Commission'p decision wit hin 22 day6 to the City Council. I'1'EM NU. 10. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, IJAIVER OF CODE REQUIItEMENT ANU GONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A'0. 2617. PUBLIC HEARING. OWhEFt5: JOI~N HOWAkU TUTTGE AND W. RUNALD DYE, 316S-D Airway Avenue, Coeta Mesa, CA 92626. AG ENT: AGVIN NELLERUD ANU HARRY DON ALD MU5SCHE, 386 Olinda Drive, Brea, CA 92621. Property desc~ibed as a trianqularly-shaped paccel of land consiati~g of appcoxim~tely O.b5 ucre, having approximate Front~ages of 250 Eeet on ttie weot side of Blue Gu-n Street, and fucther described as 1131 and 1135 Nocth Blue Gum Street. To retain and permit two automotiv e repair Eacilities with waiver o f minimum number of packing spaces. There was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subject requ est and al.though the staff report wag not read, it is referred to end made a part of the minutes. Don Musache, Agent, was present t o answer any yuestiona. THE PUBLIC tIEARING WAS CLOSED. Ftesponding to Commissianer F3ushore, Mr.. Musact-e stated hP believed the other busfness was instcucted to apFly f or a conditional use permit and t hey came in together. He explained the tecm of hin lease is two years. ACTIUN: Commiasioner King of.fered a motion, sECOnded by Commission e r F~y and MOTION CARRI£D that the Anaheim C ity Planning Comm~ssion ha& reviewed t he proposal to retain artd permit tw o automotive repair facflities witt~ waiver oE minimum number of parking spaces o n a trian~!ular.ly-shaped parcel o€]a:~d consisting of approximately O.GS a cre, having approximate Erortage s of 250 feet on the west side of 31ue Gum Street~ J.50 feet on the north sf de of White Star Avenue and 270 feet on thn e~at side of Blue Gum Way, and fur~her described as 1131 ~nd 1135 North Blue Gum Street; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration upon finding that it has conaidered the Negat 3ve Declar~tion together with any r.omments received during the public review process and further Einding on th e basis of khe Initial Study and any c omments received that ther.e is no substantial evf 3ence that th~ pro~ect wi31 h~+ve a significant effect on the environment. Commissioner King offered a moti o n, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City P1 a nning Comrnfssion does hereby gran t waiver of Code cequirement on the basis that the parkir.g waiver will not cause an increase in traffic congestion i n the ittimediate vicinity nor adve r sely affect anx adjoining land uses and gran t ing of the parking waiver undex t he conditionR imposed, if any, wil]. not be detrimental to the peacer healt h, safety and genetal welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim . 10/1/84 ~ ~~ MINUT ES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSYON~ OCTOBFR 1,_1984__ 84-629 , Cammi seioner Kiny offered Reaolution No. PC 84-200 and moved far its passage and a dapticn r.hat the Ana heim City Planning Commi~aion does hereby grant Cond ~tional Use Permit No. 2617 pursuant to An~heim Municipa.l Code Secti~n 18.0 3.030.U30 thraugh 18.03.030.035 for a period of two ygars and subject to inte rdepartmentel Committ ee Recommendations. On roll call, the foreg~ ing reaolution waa passed by the following vote: AYES: ~OUAS, BUSHORE~ FRY~ HBRBST, KSNG, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURNEY NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Jack White~ Assistant City Att~rney, pre~ented the written right to appeal the Plan ning Commisaion's de cision within 22 day~ to the City Counr.il. RCCE:SS: 5:10 p.m. RECUNVENE: 5:15 p.m. I~'EM NO. 11. EIR NEGATI V6 DECLARATION AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 84-85-10. PUBLIC HEARING. UWN~RS: COMET, INC., P. 0. BOX 636G, Burbunk, A 9151U, A'PTN. GORDON HOWARD. AGEN'1': SOMMERVILLE/MOtiLER, 874 N. Batavia Street, Ora nge, CA 92668, ATTN. BILL UHL. Property deflcribed as an icregularly-ahAped parc el of land consiatin g of approximately 2.75 acces having a frontage of appr oximately 1~5 feet o n~he north side of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 1235 Ea~t Lincoln Avenue. Rec lassifica~ian fr~m c:L to the RM-].200 or a lesa intense zone to construct a 66-unit apactment compl~x. The re were fouc pecaons indicati.ng their pcesence in opposition ko subje~t, request and alt.ho~uoh th~ staft rEport Ma~ not read, ic is referced to and mad~ a part of the minutes. eill Uhl, arcl~itect, was present to answec any questions. eer t Janzow, 18491 Rio ~e Flata, Yorba Linda, California, staCed he is rep resentiny the Zion L utt~eran Church as a member of the Board of Dicectors and theic property ie ~djacent to the north of subject prc~pertyt that the t3oa sd of DirecLOrs has nat been able to meet on this matter since it was pub lished on September 21~st ar~d most of them have no knowledge of the proposed rec lassification and he would request a continuation of this hearing until the Boa rd of Directors h~s an oppactunity to consider the im~act of this requeat. He explained their next regular meeting is scheduled for October 14, 1984. Chairman tierbst pointed out that wauld mean a one-month continuance and Commissionec Bushore nated they were notified 9 or 10 days ago. ee t ty EislEy, Executive Administrator of Psynetice Foundation which is directly across the stz eet al: 1212 E. Lincoln Avenue; stated theirs is an ed ucational center and they have school for the handicapped and claeses for ad ulcs in the evening a nd during the day and that they also received the 10/1/84 MINUTES, ANAHF.IM CI.Y PL~NNING COMMISSION1 OCTQREH 1. 1984 84-630 notice poetmarked the 21st of September and have n~t had a Board of Directors meeting yett however, she did talk to various members nf the Board and they asked hec to reprea9nt theni tn protest thi~ zone change becaus~ khey feel it would c.ongest the acea moce than it is ~nd khore ie alteady a lot of traffic in the acea, eapecially at I,incoln and Gast Street. 5he stated because of the population denaity, they f.eel changing thia zone now will glve an oppoctunity to chanqe the reat of the zoning in the ac~a, such as the ~ropecky whore the CNpC Eacility is located from commercial to residential, eapecially for multi-tam~ly unita and that is whnt they ate protesting. Slie stated thia woula be a big increase in the popul~tion. Chairman lierbst pointed out part oE the property is alceady on the Gen~ral Plan as RM-12U0 and the old buildings will be removed and part of it has b~en var.ant Eoc years. Ms. Eisley stated the car wash is inoperable and tl~ere is a vacant l~t behind the restaurunt and they f.eel changing the 2one would mean changing the zoning whece Che CHOC fa~ility is located. She stated they oppose the G6-unit apactment because it would increaae lhe population. John Weberg stated he owns Che propecty at 1287 East Lincu:n and the sho~ping center where CHOC is loaated and that he is not ~roud of the chings that ace happening across the street, but to the east they have had a complet~ devastation from the ~eople in those apar~ments; thot hc t~ue posted the property and tried everytt~iny, but is getting ca~ches lett in the cear, etc., ar~d I~e felt if Anaheim is working on making Lincoln a tax-ba$e acea, they would Ue denying themselves a tax base by putting an u,partmcnr. complex thece. He stated the subject property is owned by a~ersor, wh~a lives in Burbank and he has talked with hzm sFVeral tim~s and he has taiked tA representatives from the City concerning the weeds, etc. He stated he thought this could be a prime area tu add to and enhance the sales tax base of Anaheim. He stated he is willing to let hxs pr~perty go for a better and hiaher use, but to consolidate it into an apartment complex on ~ne side and apartments o~ the other side facinq Lincoln jusk makes it into a bax. Mr. Weberg pointed out there is a area west to East Street close to the re~taur~nt and gab station where they have problems with gangs, grafEiti, etc. and he h~s been fiyhting it wit~ lighting, anti-graffiti pain~, etc. and construction of this compler. will be blocking off t;~at area. He noted the map does not show East Stceet. Chairman Herbst pointed out the old building where the motorcycle shop is located will be demolished. He pointed out this development does not r•equire any variances. Mr. Weberg stated he is all Eor impcoving the atreet, but improving the property wxth an apartment building will not increase the sales tax base, He ref~rred to the map 9iven to him by staff. Mr. Uhl referred to the comments reg~rding the gas station ani, restaurant sites and exp].ained the gas station is furkher to the west. Fte stated a commen~ was made about khe owner of the property living in Burbank; however, IO/1/84 MINUTES, AN~HEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION ACTUf3~R 1 1984 84-631 his c~~ents a~e th~ developers and they awn approximately 2000 apartment units in Orengo County which are well maintai~crd. Ne cef~rred to the commenta concerning traffic and gtated part of the problem with the bus~nes~es that are thece now is that the tcaffia i~ now lesa than it used ~o be and the older. bueiness~s ere wither.~ingr and that h~ has noted that there is large redevelopment going into ttie r_orner ~f Lincoln and 5trte College And wondered just how many comrnercial projects the atea can really support. He stated they worked claBely with the planning ~tafE in trying to expedite thia project becau~e the ~ACrow will cloae tomorrow, if khey g~t a favorablr vote on the reclassification today, 9o ttiey did not have much leeway and really wo~ld not like a continuence. Chairman Herbat noted thece would still bp a 2~-day ap~eal period, Mr. Uhl stated as far as the church's concern abouc an apartment complex as opposed to ~ cortuneccial project, he thaught a church would rathec f~av~ residential developtnent next to them becauae most churches are put in reaidenti~l ar~as and it just aeems a natur~l. Mr. Uhl ceferred L•o the refuae mentioned and a~ded he knowa the site right now is a dump and a pecson live~ on the property and this will help clean up some oE those problems. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLUSED. Chairman Herbst statca he moved in that area in 1948 and owned a home in khat area for many years and sl~opped et the Alph~ Beta store, however. thi~ site hbc been deteriorating for y~ac~ as Ear as commercial ua~s go and there is not much of a tax base there becsuse thece hasn't been enough since it does take people to support a commeccial area. Ne Etated portions of tt~at property have been vacant far quite some time. He stated, in hia own apinion as a Commissionero tt~is land use on this property will not only enhance the acea, it will support the area and it wi21 actually improve the commercfal envircnment that is already there. Commissioner King stated the Lutheran Board of Directora has 22 days in wl~ich to appeal the decision to the City Council. Chaicman Herbst asked if tlie petitioner ia going to resurEace the alley. Mc. Uhl responded they will be resurfacfng the alley. but he wasn't au-e if it would be all the w~y out to the ~treet. Commisaionec La Claire pointed out they do not have access to the allcy from the rear of their property to East Street. Mr. lthl ata~ed he under$tands that all the pcoperties that abut the alley between the churct, and Lincoln have a non-exclu~ive 30-foot access ~asement, and they plan to pave it in back of their project. 10/1/84 ~ MINUTE3`11NJ~HEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI58ION OCTO~ER 1 1984 „ 84-632 AC,,,_T10N: Commiesion~c King offered A motion, seconded by Cammisaioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim City Planning Commiaeio~ has reviewed the propos~l to reclt~s~ify subject property from th~ CL (Commerclal, Limited) 2ane to tha RM-1200 (Residential, Multiple-Fdmily) to constcuct a 66-unit epartment complex on an irregularly-shaped perc~l of land conaistiny ol: appraximately 2.75 acres having a Froncage of approximately 185 feet on th~ north ai.de of Lineoln Aveni~e, and furl•hor describ~ad ae 1235 East Lincoln P,ve~uer and daes heroby r,k~prove the Negative Declar.ation upon fi~ding khat ii. has conaidored the Negtttive Deciarc+klon togethEr with any comments receive~d during the public review process and further Einding on the baeis of the Initial Study and any commenCs received that there is no aubstantial evirlence that the project will i~ave r~ signiFicant effect an the environment. Commissioner King offeced Rer~olution No. PC84-201 and moved for ita passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commisai~n c3oea hereF ~ grant Iteclassification Na. 84-5°~-10 subject to Interdepactmental Committee Recommendationa. GCP.cJ Hastinge, Assiatant Planner, stated condition No. 19 should read; •Variance Na. 2535" instead of Variance No. 2735. He stated staff would Also recommend adding a cond~tion that prior to the introduction of an ordinance rezoniiig subject property, a11 ~ommercial buildings and uses sha11 be removed from aubject property. Annika SantAlahti, Assistant Director for Zoning, stated the Asaistant Traffic En9irieer before she left, indicared that generally speaking, an apar~ment project on an equivalent squaxe footage basis, yenerates about one-ha1P the trafEic of a commercial project, or a5out 13 trips per day for one apartment as ~oampared with about 35 tci~s for an equal amaunt of commercial property, so we w~;-uld generally expect to see less traffic than if tt~is was developed total.ly commercially. On r~~ll call, the foregoing resolution was pa~sed by the Following vote: AYES' BUUAS, BUSHURE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LR C~~AxRE, MC BURNEY NOE5. NONE ABSEIIT: NONE Jack White, Asaistant City Attorney~ presented the written right to a~peal the Planning Commission's decision within 22 days to ~he City Council. ITEM N0. 12. EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATIONt RECLASSIFICATION NO 84-85-9 and VAFtIANCE N0. 3426. ' PUALIC HBARING. OWNERS; ~ANK OF CALIFORNIA, N.A., 84S S. Figueroa, Los Angeles, CA 90017. AGENT: FLOYD L. FARRNG, 100 5. AnahEim Bc,ulevard, $304, Anaheim, CA 92805. Pro~erty described as an 9.rregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5.3 acres located north and east of the naztheast corner of Wilken Way and Harbor B~ulEVard, and further described as 2170 5outb Harbor Boulevard {westwinds Trailer Lodge). IO/1/84 MINUTE5. ANAHBZM_CITY PLANNING COMMISSIUN~ OCTOBER 1, 1984 64-b33 Reclaeaification fcart~ RS-A-43,000 to ~M~1200 or a less inken~e zone to cunstcuct a 134-unit apartment complex witt~ weivecs of maximum structucol heiyht, maximum number of bacliel~r uni~s, minimum landacaped aetUack an~ minimum number and type of parking apeces. ~here was one peCSOn indicating t~er presence in oppooition to subject requeat and althouyh lhe skaff report was nnt read, it ia retecred t~ nnd made n Pact of the minutea. Floyd L. Farana, Attorney, explained ~u~t prior to the meeting today, he discovered that there is a legal technicality that must be dealt with nnd that a continuance will be necessar.y, but it would not affect tt~e land use aspect~s of the project ao they would like to at .least go through the ~~ublic t~earing so they would have that completed. kie atated the biggest concern is the par.king rec~uiremsnts. He reEerred also to the other waivars and stated the setbACk from aingle-family residencFS .is a waiver that har~ been previously g~anted far a previou~ly ap~sroved project And noted thi.s is a 1- and 2-story development inskead uf a 3- ~nd A-sCory pro~ect. He stated the c~evelopment will be opeca~ed hy WF-~`ern Nati.onal Pro~erties and they awn and op~.~rate 22 development~ in ~~-~ city of Anaheim comprising 2300 apartment units. He stated when the parking situation preEented itsel! • ~~:~~ir~g the quality and effect that. a ficst-hand r~ource of inEorm~tion ~.<~ ~~a4•~~, ~e asked them to survey all of their Anaheim propecties t•.o show wh~~~- ~:?-~ ~±~: requiremenks have been necessary to aatisfy Chetr needs and th.a- ~:r ~~*efoce the Commiasion. He stated there i~ a~erie3 uE c~ocum•-~~.• •~umi4•red 1 th[ough 22 and each page represents an individual deve]opmer:~ ~~~~ ~lty oP AnahQim and shows the parking that was available twice dur.in~a :~~; ^r~ `our different days (at 6:30 a.m. and 7:30 p.m.) and also the numbNr %~: m~rsnnobiles that were parked on the street. He statc~d the study showu ~*~~-*~ ;s a surplus of pACking spaces in the lats and also the number of cars on :~-~ st:rNet; that they tried to piak times af the day that didn't load the sir.t,~a;~7f-~ one way a[ another, but times when there would be high instances ~f ~~rk_ry on site. Mr. Farano pcesented slides o~ the following apar~r~nt projects showing vacant parking spaces: 1) Del Amo; 2) ''~rt Trinidad; 3) be.l'!~nte; 4) Westmont; 5) Rancho Vista; 6) Normand;; 7) Granada; S) Singie~g T~~e; 9) eelinda; 10) Ocleans; 11) Yalm Lane; 12) Se~i11e; 13) Batce~ana; ::4) Cz;yon Village; 15) Five Coves; 16) Five Coves East; 17) East Wood; 1~+1 ~hath.:n Wo~ds; 19) Corsicans 20? Hampshire Square; 21) Mtonte Verd~; Z::) Cre:•cent. Mr. Parano explained the purpose of these slic3es is to depict to the Commission the absolutely mt~ssave number of ~acking spaces that ace available; that a member of his offire staff has lived in three of these developments and vQrified that there is pl~~ty of parking available in the parking lots of the three he lived i.~ at alm~st any time of thc~ day. Chair[~an Herbst stated h~e could take Mr. Fat~no to apartment complexes in Anaheim that are just• the reverse; that the Commission does not know what the vacancy factor of these complexes was ar anything else about it. He stated 10/1/84 MINUTES. ANANEIM C~TY PI~ANNING COMMISSION. OCTOBER_ 1. 1984_ ____ __ 84-634 the City hAS gc,ne khrou~h a lo~ of studiea which reflect the need for tiho pceeent code r.nd ha ~een no hacdahip to deviate from that code. Ne stated t~ere huve be.en numeCOUA atudies reqarding Che need far parking in apartment c~mplexee, and he d~d nc~t feel with the ~salation this ane would have, in his own opinion, th~ce sh~uxd be any deviation from the parktng code. Commissianex Hushor~ skated if thia hearing is going ko be continued for kwo weeks, i~ sh3ulv be ~9one right now. H~ atAted h~ thought the Commission gives Mr. Earano a 1oG of couctesiea because hp uae~ to be on the Cammisaion, etc., and th~a Com.i~~toners are long~winded, but if the matter has ~o be con~inued Eor avme r..echnical rAUaun, it ahould be dune now. Mr. Para~o stakp~i he is not asking for anything, but he thinks this ie worthy oE some discussion and perhapa aome thinking betw~er~ now and the next meeting in two ~eeks; a~id that he knows there hAVe been etudiea and he has p~rticipa~ed in tl»m ~nd seen them, but this kind of vacancy and parking availabiltty to him says khat maybe the parking codes are not correct and maybe theKe is some ~~lEment that has been overlooked. He stated they hnve the vacancy f~ctars; that thece are 2300 units And there were 22 v~cancies in thoae dEVelopmhnts on the ~9r~ys of the examinations; that he is trying to say that ~ven if studies have been done in the past, perhaps they have not taken in che correct or enough criteria~ thar he doeA not think the City of Anaheim wants a develaper to inacease the cost of his develo~ment by excess parking spaces and r.e is not ~retending to say that the City should toss everything up in the air ~Pr~U3@ ~f 22 units, bur h~ is sayiny that because of the design oF these units, thPre is some cri.teria other than what is on the books right now. Commissioner Bushore stated he did not wart thia discusai~r~ to go on any longer. Commissioner L~ Claire stated she thought the Curnmission loRes sight ~f their job, and she is getting tired of this Commission talking to the applicar-ts l~ke they have na right to be here and like they are all trying to put something over on the Commisaion; that the Commission's job is to ].isten v~ry carefully and try to make a decisiun. Chairman Herbst stated he wanted the petitioner to know before they come back what he thought abouc the parking. He asked the appositi~n to com~ forward. rEC~ Cal~- 12221 Anzio, Garden Grove, stated ehe has owne6 a house a~ 333 West Wilken Way foc about 19 years and knows the conditions in the arpa. She stated tt~e petitioner speaks about no parking and added she also has units in that area and could show the Commission and take pictures of as many as four garages vacant and that would be from 4:30 to 5:00 a.m. until 10 nr 11 p.m., but they all use their garagea and want mocet that on Wilken Way there are single driveways and single garages and the:e are as mAny as three or four cars and peogle park on their lawn because they are afraid tu park on the s~ceet; that there have been a lot of cars totaled out on that street and also across the streek tcom her house there has been two cars totaled out fn a circular driveway in the last two years. She stated there isn't a lut of parking on the street arid this will make it too congested and she alato wondered ~bout the ta~o-stories. 10/1/84 MINUTES ~ ANAHEIM CITY PL~NNING COMMISSION~ OCTOBER 1, 1984 84••635 Chairman Herbat pointed aut there is no dCGe88 to khis project on Wilken Way. Greg liastinga, Assiatant Planner, stated r.he only tniny visible fr.om Wilken Way will be tt~e back of the carporto and there will. be no pedeatri~n or vehicular acceas to Wilken Wey. Me. Call stated the two-story units will overlook the homes in the ~rea. ChaiCman Hecb~t responded there is a satbock provlded to give pcotection. He explained the matter wi].1 be continued frr two weeks. Me. Cal~ atated she did thi~k Che City should uphold theic parking requiremente because when ehe adv~ertises that. she has a one-lat garage, she get~ a lot. oF calls fcom people who want to lo~k their car up. Comm~ssionec La Cleire suggested that durin~ thia two-week period, Ms. Call should get in touch with the applicant and review the ~lans arid also the p].ans are ~ivailable in the Planning bepdrkment. ACTION: Commissioner La Claire offered a moti~n, ~F:conded by Commiasionec 8ushor.e and MUT10N CARRI~D that consideration of the aforementioned matter be contir,ued to the regularly-~chedulQd meet.ing of Oc}.nber 15, 1984. ITEM NU. 13. ~IR NEGATIVE DECLARATIOti, RECLASSIFICA2`ION N0. 84-85-8 AND CONDITIUt!AL USE PERMIT N0. 2E,s3. PUBLIC HIEARING. OWNERS: t~/B ASSOCIATE:S, c/o BURNHAM AMERICAiV PROPERTIES, P. O. Box 291U, San Diego, CA 92112. AGENT: BILI~ DUNLAP, 2390 E. Orangewood Avenue, Y~&0, Anaheim, CA 91806. Progerky desc:ribed as a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting nf r~pproximately 3.9 acrea, having a frontage of approximately 27~ feet on l•t~e north side of Or+3ngewood Avenue, anc~ further describ~d as 22U1 East Orangewood Avenue. Reclassi~ication from ML to CR. There was no one indicating their presence in a~pposition to subject r.equest and although the staff report was not read, it is referred ko and made a part of the minutes. Bill Dunlap, agent, was present to anawer Any question. THC PUBLIC HEARItiG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner McBurney asked if the existing building will be demolished. Mr. Dunl~p rpsponded that it would be demolished at some point before they co-~ld build this building, bu~ that it is currently leased and they have not entered into negotiations with the lessee. ACTION: +:ommissioner King offered a motion, seconded by CommissiAner Fry and MOTION CARRIED thaC the Anaheim City Planning Commission has reviewed the ptoposal to reclassify subje~t propecty from the ML (Industrzal, Limited) Zone to the CR (Commercial, Recceation) or a lesR intense zone to r~r~*:~: a 3-etory businPSS and professional office buil~ling on ~a rectan~~ularly-~haped parcel of 10/1/84 MI^ NUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION~ OCTU~ER 1, 19~4 84-636 l~nd coneisting o£ approximetely 3.9 ncres, having a frontage of ap~~roximately 2~2 feet on the north side af Orangewood Avenue, and further described as 2201 Eask ~:dngewood Avenuej And does hereby approve the Negative Der.leration upon Eindiny thAt it has cansidered the Negative Declaration togeth~r with any comments received during the pub.lic review process and further finding on the baois of the initial Study and Any comments received that thece is no aubstantial evidence ~hat the project will have a significnnt effeck on tt~e environment. AC7~ION; Commissioner Kin~ offered Res~lution No. PC84-2~2 and moved fnr its passage and adoption that the Maheim City Planning Commiaeion doea hereby grant Reclassificahiori No. 84-85-8, subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommendations. Greg Hastings, As~istant Planner, stated staEf would recommend that Condition No. 16 be modified to read that Condition Nos. 2, 8, and 9 be added to those requiced before buildi.ng permits; and that Conditiun No. 17 eliminate Condition No. 16 and a~d No. 15. He explained to the applicAnt that these two particular conditior.s pertain ko the timing of the conditions and they were inadvertently left out. fie stated the impact would be Chat Conditi~~ns 2, 8 and 9 would have to accomplished prior to issuance of a building permit. tie stated staff would also reco~nmend an additional condition, 'th~t prioc to introduction of an ordinance rezoning aubject property, all ind~stcial buildings and uaes ahall be removed from subject property.• Commissioner ~ry asked how that could be done. Mr. Ha~tings responded if the property was rezoned, it would be a non-conforming in~ustcial building in the CR aone which. is not permitted by code. Ann.ka Santa.latiti, A~sistant Direetor far Zoning, explained it is very typical when someone wdn~s to build, th~C they 9on't actually finalize the zoning and in this instance there are no fees to he paid on the property, but there is a dedication requireme~t and he has onp year to accomplish it or he could get a continuance if he did not st.rt buil~ing within une year, and it is not a public hearing. Mr. Dunlap stated they have an exisCing tenant and they will have ko try and relocate him and he did not know how long that will take. He added as long ~s tney can get a continuance, it would be acceptable, but he would like to know what assurances he wo~ld have and asked if he could get a development agreement with the city that says once he gets a reclassification, he can be p~omised that, just like he has to bond for street improvements, etc. Annika Santalahti cesponded that 508 of ell ~pplicants easily do not commence activity within a year, so it is very common fot an applicant to come back in a year and request an extension. She stated the City Attorney is saying that the law can change at any time, but there is no development agreement and the only thing that right now could cause a problem with a time extension is if there is a significant change in zonfng regulatious oc the General Plan, whereby the proposal would totally not comply with the new standard~ and she thaught that is unlikely. She stated this is very common and a development agreemenk ie a much more extensive thing and she did not think for ~ simple buildiny like this that he would want to get into that. She explained he can get extensions for one year at a time and can have more if necessary. 10/1/84 ~ MI_ NUTES~ ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON OCTOBER 1 19$4 84-637 Jeck White atated nobody cen guarantee that the petitioner is going to get a~ extenelon at the end of a year. Mr. Dunlap stated they would like to proceed, obviously undac thoae guidelinea, but wae concerned abaut the moving of all khe conditions which hQ did not have a chanre to anal,yze. Greg Haetinga explained the changea just basically tied down the timing as to when those ca~ditiona should be met. On roll call, the Eoregoi~g reaolution was pasaed by the following vote: AYES: BOUAS, BUSk10RE~ FRY, HERB5T~ KING~ LA C.LATRE, MC ~URN~Y NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE Commissioner King oFfered Rec~olution No, PC84-203 and moved for its passage and adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditianal Use Permit No. 2623 pu~auant t~ Anaheim Municipal Code Sections 18.03.030.030 through 18.03.030.035 and subject to Interdepartmental Committee Recommenda~iona. On ro11 call, the foregoing resolution was pas~ed by the follawing vote: AY~,S; BOUAS, BUSIiORF, PRY, HERBST, KING ~ J~A CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES; NONE ABSENT: NONE Jack White, Assiatant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the Planning Commisaion's decisi.on w.ithin 22 days to tne City Council. ITEM N0. 14. EIR ~ATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 3 and VA1tIANCE N0. 3425 PUBLIC HEARING. ZOE L. AND DIANE G. GRILLAS, 6104 Camino Manzano, Anaheim, CA 92807. Propecty described as an irreyularly-shaped ?ar.cel of land consisking of approximately 6,539 square feet locr~ted at the southwest corner of Camino Manzan~ and Camino Arcoyo, and further described a3 6104 Cami~o Manzano. To aonstruct a 6-foot high block wall with waiver af p~rmitted wall heiqht. There was no ane indicating their presence in oPposition to subject request and although the staff repo[t was nol• read, it is refetced to and made a part of the minutes. Zoe Gcillas, owner, was peesent to answer any questions. It was noted the Pxanning Director or his authorized repressntative has determined that the progosed proje~t falla within the definition of Categorical Ex~mgtio~s, C)ass 3, as defined in the State Environmental impact Report Guidelines and is, :.herefore~ categorically exempt from the requirempnt to prepare an EIR. 10/1/84 ~ MINUTES, ANI~HEIM CIT_'L PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 1. 1984 84-638, ACTION: ~:ammisaioner KinQ offered Resolution No. PC84-204 and moved for ita pas~age ~~nd adoptian that the Anaheim City Planning Commiaeion daes hereby gcant Variance No. 3425 on the bdaie r.hat there +~re apecial ciccumstances applicable to the pcoperty such as eize, ahape, topogra~hy, local:ion And surroundin9s which do not apply to ather identically zoned praperty in the~ same vicinityr and that strict Application ot Che Zoning Co~e dEprives th~ propecty of ptivileges enjoyed by other pcopertiea in the identical zane gnd clasaification in the vicii~ity and aubject ~o znterdepar.tmenCal Commi.L•h.ee cecommendations~ On roll call~ Che for~gc~ing reaolution was passed by the Eollowing vote; AYES: BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY, NERBS'i', KINC, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY NOES: NUN~: ABS~NT: NONE ~ack Whxte, Assistant Ci~y Attorney, ~resented r.he written right to appeal the Plannir~g ~ommiaeion's decision with.in 22 daXs to the Ciky Council. ITEM N0. 15. EIR CAT~GORICAL EXEMI~TION - CLAS5 11 AND VARIANCE N0. 3428. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS; RAXMOND G. SPEHAR, ET AL, 6y37 Avenida de Santtago, Anaheim~ ~A 928U7. AGENT: GUS AND JUpITH MhRIE CNRISTOPOULOS, 5750 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92807. Proper.ty is an irregul~rly-shaped paccel of land consisting ot approximately 1.8 acres, having a fronk~ge of aFproximately 273 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue, and fucthet described as 5750 East Ga Palma Avenue (Keno's Restaurant). Waivers oE permitted number of wall signa an~ prohfbited sign lightin~ to erect four (4) wall signs. There was no one indicating *.heir presence in opposition to subject cec~uest t~nd although the staff report was not read, it is referred to and made a part of the miRUtes. Fr~nk Lowry, Attorney, 100 5. Anaheim Bou.leva-d, A~aheim, teferred to th~ staff report which indfcates that when ~ractical difficulties or hardships result from atrict enforcement of the Zoning Code, a modification may be granted for the purpose of assuring thnk no property, t~ecause of special circumstances, shall be deprived of privileges en~oyed by ite neighbora. He stated Keno's is in an area surrounded by induetrial uses with very )arge signs; that the existing montiment sign is covered by a 3-fovc be:m r~nd it cannot be seen ur.cil the car is at the entrance driveway. He atated khe sign cannot be seen from Imperial and not until about 10(~ yarda from the restaurant au La Palma; that there ie no r~ign ~acing La Palma, and no sign on the roof or anythin~ el~e that can be seen fzom ~he street; that from across the street, you cannot even te'l1 it is a restaurant. He stated Meccury Savings and Loan ori the corner has signs on both sides, faciny both Imp~rial and La k~almt~; Texaco has signs of all kinda; Cs~rl's .lr. has two signs; Suthecland has a monumer s~gn 36 feEt high made out of telephone poleas and yet Keno's is only asking foc two signs, one on the facia facing west and one on the facia facing north. He stated on April 20r 1y83, the Ci~y approved all the existing signs 10/1/84 MINUTCS. ANAHEIM_ CITY_ PLANNING COMMIS810N, OCTpB~R 1_ .~1_984 ~„ 0~ 39 that are thece today, two di~pction~l o~gna on the f ront of the building in front of tha door, one saya "Roat~uranC" ~nd the other aays 'Cocktails' and the purposo of thet wAS to make sure thet the [amiliea enterad the rnetaurant aide. Ne pres~nted the approved nlans Cor thE exist ing eign t:ecin9 Che freeway and the two little dicectional aigne and explalned tho petitloner is requesting two facia slgns, one that says 'K~no's' facing La I~a~1mA and ono that ~ays 'Restaurant• that will ultimAtely face Imperial. THE PUB[~IC NFARING WAS CLOSED. Commiasioner E'ry atated lhe etaif report indlcates the r.equeat ie for f ive wall eigns. Mr. Lowry cesponded that ie not correct becaurte ~taff did not have availuble thr previ.ounly approved planr~t and thal• also tt depands upon ~n interpcPtation whetl~ec y~u considec those two little digna (RestAUrant and Cocktails) as wall signs oc dlCpr'Gional signas and when the plans ware appcoved, Dean Sherer c~nsiderec] them to be dicectional signe. Ne stated they are not asking fAr a sign on the eASt oide uf this building, only on the west and noKth. tie st~ted there is one on the south which ~aces tl~e freeway, but after coming oEf Lhe Er~eway, you carinot find the eite. Chairman Hecbat atated the nuraery was reatricted ta one eign and for Carl's and Mercury Savings 6 Loan a technical concluaion waa made that aince the sign wrapped around the cocner, it was consideced as one aign. Ne stated hp would have no objecCions to something like that hece, as long as iL cAn be accomplished. He added the only probJ.etn then would ~e the sign on the south side. He pointed out Merc:ury only has the one aign on the cocner ot the building and now this petitionec is asking foc three Eacia aigns. He stated he would be willing to grant a privilege granted ta athera, as long as it is under the aame co~ditions. He referred to the wall sign on Ch r istian' s Market which they were curced to remove. Mr. Lowry stated in exchanye, Christiar,'s was allowed to keep the aign facing La Palma. He stated Keno's is the oniy 24-hour restaura~t in the whole canyon and they n~~ed ta get the tourists off the freeway to the restautanr~ Chairman Ne•rbst stated thece is a code foc the Scenic Corridor and other requests nave been denied. He stated the existing sign would needto De wrapped aro:~nd and tied together. Commissioner La Clai:e stated Mercury 3avings was asked to take the squace footage they would be allowed for a wall sign and use that same aquare foot-age in one continuous sign and instead of having it just acrosa the front , they had ik on bo~h sides at the corner. Mr. Lowry stated they could tie this sign together as 'Keno's Reataur ant'. Chairman Herbst sta~ed that wcruld mean one more sign than others have been allowed. Respondiny Lo Commissioner La Claire, Annika Santalnt~ti reeponded they would be allowed to have a sign amounting to 108 of the ~ace of the bui~lding which is quite large. 10!1/84 MINUTES, ANAl~EIM CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION, OC~POBER i. 1984 , 84 640 Commiseioner tiuahore queationod whether or not the sign is reAlly needed Eecing the ehopping center and explained by tying iC together with the freew~y ~ide, it would also be faciny Imperiul. t4r. Gowry stated they wece hoping to have L~ Palma EronCage with the name "Keno'a". Commiesioner euehoce atated if a perc~on geta to that ahopping center, they will aee t:ze reat~urant on the west aide and he did not think the eign on the ehopping center aide would be that important. !~e edded he thought the main concern would be the people coming off the free~way, and tyiny it together and elii~ina~:ing the on~ on the north would prohabl.y be acceptable. Commiasionec LA Cla~re suggeated having Keno's Re~taurant on the top orz the west side, and the pcoblem with this request is that it says five signs and the directional eigne (Restaurant and Cocktail~) are at a lowec elevation and the "ReatauKant' one :,ould be elimineted and included in the top on the Imperial side. Annika Santalahti explained two wall signs have been allowed for some of the stores in the Ninker ahopping centerj however, they have been on opposike walle so that the two are nevec aeen togethec, and somc oE the restaurants have been allowed to put. a sign in saying •Cocktails" so that when you get in the parking lot, the eiyn is tryiny to lead you to a given entrance and Lhe signs are basically at the height ot a pecson standing and not oriented by size to the street_ 5he stated a]so in this particular instance, there is an entrance sign and Code does not permit an advectisement, and the decision wae made that i t wa~ warrAnted t~ show at the driveway that this wt-o the Keno' a Restaurant driveway, so they were permitted to have that yround-mounted entrance sign. Mr~ Low:y asked Eor a two-week continuance in order to work with hia client to ~see i: he can bring back a~roposal that is acceptable to the Commission. ACTION: Commiaslnnec McBurney offered a motion, aecondec9 by Commissioner La Claire and MOTION CARRIED thal- consideration of the aforementioned matter be continued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of October 15, 1984, at the request of the petitioner. ITEl~! NO. 16 - REPORTS ANp RECOMMENDATIONS A. CONDI9~IONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2104 - Request from Thomas A. Beveridge, Property owner, for a cetroactive extension of time for property locatedat 919 S~uth Knott Street (The French Quaiter). Jack Whtte, Assistant City Attor7ey, explafned the City Council has now adopted an otdinance that will take effect in ubout three weeke and auggested that these items be continued until after that tine And that the applicants be advised to make application under the new ordinance which will require a new pub2lc hearing for the extension. 10/~./84 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIqN~ OCTOBER l. 1984 84-6~1 ~CTION: ChairmAn tlerbat offeGed e motion, seGOnde~ by Cosnmieaioner Bo- uaa and MOTION CARRIED that co~eidaration of the aforementioned mattec be continue~ to }:he meeti~g of Acrober 29, 1.984, e nd that the applicant be advised to make applical•ion undPr. the new o r dinance foc A new publlc hearing. Jack White axplained the ~pplicants will hnve to pay the 550~00 filing Eee. B. COND,_ ITIONAL,USE PERMIT NOS. 11G6 and 1.'S - Re~ueat fcom Michael L. Valen, President of Town Tour Fun ~ua Compuny, foc one-y~er retc~activQ exter.sions of time for Conditlonal Use Permi t Nas. 116G and 1645 for operty ic~~~^d at 30A Kat~lla Way and 182 3 Mountain View Avenue. Jack White, Aasistant City Attorney, explained the City ;ouncil t~as now adopted an ordinance that will take e~fect in about three weeks and suggested that khe~e itema be continued until after that time and that the applicants be adviged to make applfcation under the new ordinance which will xequire a new public hearing L-or t h e extension. ACTION: Chairman Herbst offered a motion, seconded by C ommissioner Bouas and M07'ION CARRIED that considEration of the afore mentioned matter be ~ontinued to the meeting of October 29, 1984, ~nd that the applicant be adviaed to make applicati.on undec khe new ordinance for a new public heAring. C. RECLASSIFICATiON N0. 8].-82-4 AND CONDITIONAL USE PEP.MIT N0. 2249. kequest from A. W. Garrison, Di.rector of Finance, 5ynod uf Southern California and Hawaii, Presbyterian Church, foc a 1-yea r(including 2 years retroactive) extension ~f time for property locat ~d at the southeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmont Houlevard. Commissioner Bushore skated he I~ad previously declared ~ conflict of interest on this project and would not take part in th e discussion or voting. Jack White, Assistant City AttornPy explained this ext e naion relates to failure to meet conditions within the one-year perio d in the Code and not to expiration of a time litnit, so this does not require a public hearing. ACTiON: Cotnmissionec Fry offered a motion, seconded by Commissianer Bouas and MQTION CARRIED lCommissioner Bushore abstain ing) that the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion does hereby approve a 1-year (including 2 years retroactive) extension of kime for Recla~sification No. 81-82-4 and Conditional Use Permi t No. 2249, to expire August 24, 1985. 1 a/1/84 MINUT ES. ANIIHEIM CITX PLANNING CpMMISSION. OCTOBER 1, 1984 84-642 D. ~ECLA55~FICATION NO. 77-78-16 - Rqquest fcom Hugo A. VAZyueZ, ege~t, for a one-yoac (b yeez retroactiv A) extenaion oE timp foc property loceted at 920 Soutl~ Weatern Avenue. Co mmissioner Buahoce atatad he h ae ceal difEiculty appcoving anything over one year and thought tha ac tiona o~ the Planning Commiasion ahould be consistent. Chr~irmnn H erbat pointed out the project has a:rAedy been approved. Annika Santalahtl, Asaiatant Di,r~ector of Zoning, atated when ataff doea not cecommend denial oL a t ime exCension oE thie type when they haven't met conditions or begun construction, it ie becauae thetQ hos not been e change in zoning regu latS.one or land use policy, end if. there was a nWw public heACing t oday, Che ~tandards are basically the same. ACTION: Commiesioner Fry affere d a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mceurney and M~TION CARRIED (CommiRSionec Hushore and ChAicmAn Herbst voting no) t.hat the Anaheim City P.lanning Commission does hereby grank a retroact~ve 1-year (6 ye ar ret~oactive) time extension to expice September 12, 19~5, 3. VA2ZIANCE NO. 3244 ~ Request from Joseph Ghadir., General Partner, Euclid Development Partners, for termination of Variance No. 3244 on propecty located at 1300 Soukh E uclid Street in compliance with conditione of approval of Varian ce No. 3420. ACTION: Commfasionec Kinq ofEer ed Reaolut~on No. PC84-205 and maved for its passage ai~d adoptian that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby terminate Vsriancc~ Na. 3244. On roll call, the faregoing cea~ lution was pasaed by the followi.ng vote: AYES: BQUAS, BUSHORF, FRY~ H ERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BUkNEY NOES: NONE ABSE;NT: NONF F. 1tECLASST~ICATION N0. 81-fl2-16 AN D CUNDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2311 Request from John W. Klug, Pace s etker Homes for a one-year (r~ne year retroactive) exrension of timE~ f or Reclassification No. 81-82-16 and Conditional Use Permit No. 2311, on propertx known as the former Fremont Junior High School playfield. ACTION: Commisbioner King offe red a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MOTION CARRIED that t he Anaheim City Planning Commi.ssion does hereby grant a one-year (one yeac retroactive) extension of time f or Reclassification No. 81-a2- 16 and Conditional Uae Permit No. 2311, to expice March 22, 1985. 10/2/84 ~~ -,,, MINUT ES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. UCTOQER l. 1984 ___ 84-643 G.. PRO„~ ~ ORAINIINCE AMENQING TITLE 18 'ZONIHG'. P~RT~iNING TQ THE pEVELOPM~Nm OF SENIOR CITIZEN'S AFARTM~NT PROJECTS Annika Sentalahti, Asai.atant Dicector for zoning, explained the propoaad ordinance is for aenioc ciCi~en housing, and etaff hes ~ust recaiv~,d in~ormation today thet ttie atete haa been vpry active i.n this erea and hAa come up with four pr f.ivc ikoma that apecificaily con~lict with the cecommendetions end Rtaff would like 1:o continue thie Lor at least two weeka. Chairman Nerbat atated Commiesionet La Clnire has indicated an int~rest in attending some of the meetings of the senior citlzen grcaps in order ta ceport back to the Planning Commfsaion. Annika 5antalahti stated the Senior Citizens Commission has already consideced khis iterti, out with the modificationa, staff will probably take it bACk to them. comrnir~sionec La Claire atated aince this ie such a problem and since ~hete are a lot of que~tions, she thought r~ member of the Planning Commtesion sh~uld attend some of these meet9.ngs to find out what theic wishes are. ACTION: Commissionec Fry ofiered a motion, aeconded by Commiaeioner Bo^ uas aud Motion Carcied that consideration of the aEocementioned matter ~e conkinued to Lhe regularly ectlNduled m~Gking of Octaber 15, ~964, ~t the request of stafF. UTiIER~L~I~CUSSION: Comm+saionei ~. .~ '~~.ated he wanted expl+ain his earli~. cornr~~~nts to Mr Narano bera, •:ae some of it was m.ieurtderstood; and apo)u~,~zed to Mr. Farano a~d the other C~T~~~i~ss~.~ncrs for ~ny ~^..aunderstanding during the discus~ion on Item No. 12 ,: koaay's agenda, explaining he was concerned about the additional i.nf ormation which was pre~ented juat prioc to the mepting, indicating he rea].ized aftec seeing it that it was information they had already seen; an~ that he was also concerned whether or the tenant~ ha~ been taken cate of at the mobilehome park. He further explal~ed 'ne had fel.t the hearing should not be held until the report was submitted. There was a brief discusoion between Commisaionec Bushore, Commissioner La Claire, Chairman Herbat and Mr. Farano regarding the Commiasion's attit~de and treatment of petitioners, with Commissioner La Claice indicating she felt it was something the Commiesioners should be tt~inking abnut during the two-week continuence. 10/1/'~x i MINUTEa~~-NI-HBIM CITY PL1-NNING COMMIS~ZON. OCT08BR 1. 1984 84-644 __ 11DJOURtiMSNT : Thuce be:ng no furthec buoinega, Cn~airmr~n Herbst ofEered A mation, eec:onded by Commiasioner La Cleire and MOTION CARRiED that the me~iking be ad~ourned. Tha meeting waa adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Reopectfully aubmitted, ~ ~ . Edith ~. HArris, Seccetary tU068m 1Q/1/84