Minutes-PC 1981/01/26t ~~ ~
Civic Ce~ter
An~he(m, California
Janu~ry 26~ 19$1
REGULAR MEETING OF TNE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR - The ~egular mseting of the Maheim Ctty Plannin9 Commisaton was
MEETING called to ordar by Chstrmen Tolar at 1:30 p.m.~ Janua ryr 26~ 1981
in the Council Chsmber~ a quorum betng present.
PRESENT - Chalrman Ta1s~
Commiasioncrs: Birnes~ @ouas~ Bushore~ Fry, Nerbst, King
(Commtssione~ Nerbst a~rived at 3:05 p.m.)
ABSEN7: - Commtsttone~: NONE
ALSO PRESENT - Annik• Santolahtl
Jack White
Jay Tttus
Paul Singar
Da~n Sherer
Greg Hastings
Edith H~rris
Asaistant Director for Zoning
Assistant City Att~rney
Offtce Enginoer
T~afffc Engtneer
Assistant Planner
Assistent Planner
Pla~ning Commission Sscretary
PLEDGE OF - The Pledge of Allegi~nce to the Flag wss led by Cammissloner Bouas.
ALLEGIANC~
APPROVAL OF - Commissloner King offe~ed a motion~ secondtd by Commtssloner Fry and
TNE NINUTES MOTtON CARaIED (Commlssioner 1lerbst being absant and Commtssioner
Barnes abstaining)~ that the mtnutes of the meeting of January 12~ 1981
be approvad as submitted.
ITEM N0. 1: EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIOti-CLASS 8 ANO CONDiTIQMAL USE PERMIT N0. 2Q56:
~~~ - - ^.~ ~~~~ r ^
PUBL~C HEARING. OWNER: NICHAEL J. CRUCIL~ 2920 Eist la Jolla Streee, Mahetm~ CA
g2806. Property described ss ~ rectangularly-shaped percel of land consiating of
approximately 1.1 sc~os, 2920 Esst L~ Jolla Street. Prope~ty presently classified !IL
(IN DUSTRIAL~ LIMiTED) ZONE.
REQUESTED BY THE CITY OF ANA~IEIM: UNDER Al1THOR17Y OF CODE SECTION 18.03.a9~. rHE
ClTY OF ANAHEIM PROPOSES TQ REVOKE CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. ~056, FOR FAII,URE TO
CWIPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.
SubJect petitto~ was cantlnu~d from the msetl~gs of Ottober 2b~ 1990, December 1,
1980 end January 12, 1981 at the request of the petltio~er.
~lsiter Shook~ owRer~ expiained he has canplied with ali conditions of approval.
THE PUBLIC HEAAING HAS CLOSEU.
ACTION: Comalsstoner King offered a awtion~ seconded by Cam~issioner Fry snd MOTtON
C~ED (Commisstoner Harbst being absant) ~ that ths Anah~im Cl+ty Plan~ing Coamisston
does hereby t~ nainate all proceedings to revoke Conditlonal Usa P~rmit No. 2056 for
failure tn coapiy aith wndittons of approval on the basls that tnsp~ection of
Butlding and Plannin9 Ompartn+ent files and ~e fteld investtgation bY stoff indicstes
a11 condittanz of approval h~ve bes~r satisfied.
~ ~ ~
~. ~ ' ~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 26~ 1981
81-54
ITEM N0. 2: EIR CATEOORICAL EXEMPTION•CLASS 3. IW D CQNDITIONAI. USE PERNIT N0. Z154s
--..r.---- - ---~^---~
PUBLiC HEARING. OWNERt ROSERT EUGENE AND SNARON L1fNN BENTI,EY~ A33 West Lincoin
Avenus~ Anaheim~ CA 92805• AGENT: GARY SCHROEOER, ~10 North lemon~ d~enge, CA
92667. Property deacrtbed as an Irregularly-shaped parcel ot lend consisttng of
approximeitsly 2.1 ecrea~ located at the northe~st cornsr of Lincoln Avenue and Ha~bor
Boulevard~ snd further described as 100 North Harbor 8oulevard (E) Camtno Bustness
Center). Proparty preaentlY classifled CO (COMMERCIAL~ OFFICE ANO PROFESSIONAL)
ZONE.
CON~ITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST: T4 PERMIT T1~10 FREE-STANDINf; SIRNS IN THE CO ZONE.
SubJect petition was contl~ued from the meeting of Qecemb~er 15~ 198o in order fo~ tha
petitio~er to be present.
Gary Sch roeder~ ACS Stgn Company~ egent~ explai~ed the proposal Is for two loMw
p roflle~ monument-type signs and that the plens have been approved by the
Redevalopment Conmissian.
THE PUDLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
AC`TI.ON: Cnmmissloner King offered Resolution No. PC81-23 and maved for tts paasage
end sdopt(on that the Anahaim Clty Planntng Commisslon doe~ hereby grant Conditianel
Use Permit No. 2154. SubJect to Interdepartment~l Committee recornnendattans.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the follawing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES. BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ KING, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HER~S7
Chairmsn Tolsr explainod these mon wr~ent-type signs are Nhat the City has been seeking
even though they do not conform to the Sign Ordinence.
I TEM N0. 3: EfIV I
.
MPACT REPORT N0. 113 (PREVIOUSLY APPROVEa)~ WAIVER Of
1 u MI . i'~ EN ~~1 1~~~`~1L~ Nl'~~
READVERT15E0 PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: N. J. BROCK AND SONS, INC.~ 6767 Forest Law~
Drive~ Los Angeles~ CA 90068. AGENT: M. J. BROCK AND SONS~ INC.~ 1698 GreeRbriar.
Suite 224~ Brea~ CA g2621. Property described as an irregulerlY-shap~d parcel of
land consl !ing of approxia-atety 1~1.3 acres~ havt~g approximstc frontages of 300 faet
on the narth side of F~lrtwuth Avenue a~d 900 feet on the sauth stde of Coronet
Avenue. having a mexlmum depth of approxtmatoly 1500 feet and betng located
approximat~ely 650 feet west of the canterline of Romneya Orive. Property presentlY
classified RS-A-43,000 (RESIDENTlAL/AGa1CUltURAL) ZONE.
CONOITtONAL USE PERKIT REQUEST: TO PERiiIT A 125'UNIT DETACHED CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX
WITN WAIVER OF MAXIMUM STRUCTURAI -1EIGHT.
TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: TO CONSTRUCT A 125wUNIT 153-LOT SUBDIVi5~4N.
1/26/81
~:~
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI~SION~ JANUAftY 26, 1981 81•55
SubJect petttion was continued t~~m the meeting of November 1~~ 1g80 at the requsst
of tha petittonar~ from the meeting af December 1~ 1g8A for re~dvertisement a~d from
the meeting of Ja~u~ry 12~ 1981 ot the request ot the petittoner.
Ther~ were two persone indicsttng their presence in oppositlon to subJect ~equest,
snd although the stsff report was not resd. it ls refe~red to and msde a p~rt of the
mfnutes.
Mike Conlon, M. J. B~ock 6 Sons~ Inc. ag~nt~ exnlalned revised plsns were reviewed
wtth tho netghbors to the west opoosing the previaus plens e+nd a p1An acceptable to
everyone (nwlved has been developed.
Eleanor Bay~ 2148 West Grayson~ explai~ed after meettng with the developer and
working out the differenoes, the people at thetr end of the tract are na longer
opposad to tha proJect.
Max Engle~ 1181 No~th Catelpa~ steted he is a lo~q-ttrt~ reside~t of this
n~ighborh~od. Ile referred to the staff report reference to surrounding land uses end
dld not think the descriptton makes it clear thet the maJor portton af surrounding
lend use to the west Is single•family residentlal and they NI11 be affected by this
praJect.
Mr. Engle was also concernmd about the two-story structures even though hls property
(s not i~miedlatcly adJ~cant and felt they would be an Invasion of privecy fo~ anyone
1 I vi ng adJ acent to thcm.
Chairman Tolar explatned rGVtsed plans have rccttfled that sttuatlo~ and there are
only four two-story structures within 130 feet of the property line.
Mr. Engle stated he still was not sure of the impacts of the (nvasian af prtvacy
becAUSe the staff report does not give preclse descriptlons. Ne stAted~ fra~kly~ he
sew no reason why the people who live there should in a~yv+ey be affected by th~se
capricious economicatly-based tdeas of the developer. He felt tf the developer
convlnces tht Commisslon and adjacent prope~ty awners that thia w111 work~ it wtii be
to the advantage of the developer and the dlsadvantage of not only the single-family~
long-term residents who Are trytng to matntsfn an orderly, non•transient type
nelghborhood, but to the elementary school immedtete{y opposite. He statad the
treffic probl~m has already been (ncreased by devetopment to the east a~nd thts
project will contribute adversely Co the enttre character of the neighborhoed and
epprova) would be e favnr to the developer e~d a terrible disfavor to the people who
iive there.
M~. Conlon steted he belteved they have mitlgated all tha ad~erse ocndttions along
the western edge and th~ only w~iver required would be on the setback for the
structure heighC; and that only four two-story units are wtthin the 150-foot setback.
He stated hc wouid be happy io reviaw the pla~s with Mr. Engte and explalned the
density wili be less than prevtously approved.
Gil Marttnez~ ~'lortan Escobar Ma~tinez~ Planntng and Landscape Archtttcture~
explained the origtnal plan called for 18 unTts per acre and this plan is desfgned at
8 untts per acre and stated they fael It will minimfze the tmpact to the ar~a.
1/26/81
'~5
~ i
MINUTES~ ANAN~IM CIn PLANHING COMMISSION, JANUAaY 26~ ig61
a~-56
Mr. Conlon ststed the nelghbor~ have requested that thmre be no 'ti+eep holes" In the
six-font n-isenrY w+~t~v°~ tfromeelghtHf ~tsto alghteen teet1~~dscape setbacks el~ng
Falmauth snd Corone ary
pean Sherer~ As~istant P~~~~o~~totthadvaried setb ~~jectlon to the stipulatton for
no "weep holes" In the we)
TIIE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner King indicetcd he is happy the develeper work~d out the ~roblema with
the nelghbors and stated he soes no p~'oblem wlth the p~oJect.
Chalrman Tolar expleined tn Mr. Engle thet he felt the devaloper has workQ~vingt1tha
best Intnrest of •~e notghbo~s wh~ose property backs up to thla proJact by
two-sto ry structures and provlding the landscepe buffer; that the density is 1ower
than previously approved and that the weter runoff concnrns will be taken care of
with engineerins'~^Hedfeltnthls pl~n~does1answera concerns~ofithehcltyrandtwill be an
currently exist
asset to the commun 1 ty.
It was noted Environmentali^mCQntuncPiQn with1th~w apProval~af,thecArahelm Shores Clty
Co uncll on March 16~ 1974 1
P) annnd Commun i ty .
ACT~, ON; Conmissio~e~ King offered a nr~tlon~ secondod by Commisstoner Fry and NOTION
CARRIED (Commissloner 1lcrbst being absent), that the Anaheim Ctty Planntng Commission
doas hereby grant waiver of code requireme~t on the basis af th~ shape of subJect
property andro~ se~ w~th~~t~00 fertr fuad}acenttsinglc fsmtly1z ~ed P oPerty.
structures p Po
Commtssioner King offered aesolution No. PC81•24 snd m~ved for its passage and
adoptlon that the Anahetm City Plsnning Commission does he~eby gr~nt~ in part~
Conditional Use~Permit Na. 2143~ subJact to the petitioner's stipulati4n Lhat there
shali be ~~~cePto~~nterdepartment 1~Car+mltteeereteo~me~dattonsng the west prope~ty
1 ine and subJe t
On ra11 call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the followtng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIpNERS: BARNES, BOUAS. BUSHORE~ FRY~ KING~ TOLAR
~~OES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSEN7: COMNISSIONERS: NERBST
Comnissio~e~ King offered a motlo~, seconded by Commissloner Fry and MOTION CARRIED
(Commissloner Herbst being ebsent)~ that the Anaheim City Planning CommTssian does
hereby find that the proposed subdivtsion~ together with its design and Improvement,
is consistent with the City of Anaheim General Plan. pursuant to Gove~nme11347dfor a
Section 66;73_~Q~°deteched condomtnlumesubdivisionatsubJecc ta thecf N~OMf~^9
125-unit, 53
conditions:
i. That a~l enginec~ing requirements of the City of Anaheim alo~g CoronGt
Avenue end Falmouth Avenue including preparation of improvement plans and
installation of all improvements such ss curbs and gutters, atdewalks•
street gradin9 and paving~ dratnage facilities or oCher appurcenant work,
1/26/81
_ ~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 26~ 1981 A1-5~
shsit be coa~piled aith +~s requircd by tha Clty En9lneer ~nd tn •ccordence
wlth spactficatlons on ftle In the Offlce ot tha City [ngt~~er; thst strent
llyhting F~cllittes •lonc~ Coro~et Avenue ~n~ F~lmouth Avenue ~hell be
(nstallad as requirad by the Offfce of Ut111ttes Genorai Manager~ a~d In
eccord~nce wlth speciflcatlons on file In the Offlce of Utllitles Cene~el
Msn~ger; snd/or that a bond~ certificate of deposit, lette~ of credit, or
cash~ In an emou~t and form satlsfectory to the City of Anaheim sheil be
posted with the City to guarantee the tnstellation of the above-mentioned
requlrements prtor to occupancy.
2. That t~ash storage erees sheil be providad in accordance wlth approved plens
on ftte with the Office of the Executive Dlrector of Pubiic Works.
3. Th~t fire hydr~~ts shsll be Instelled end charged es required and dete~mined
to bs necnssery by the Chief of the Fire Departr-~nt prior t~ ~:ornrnencement of
structurai fr~mtng.
4. That subJect ~roperty shall be served by underground utilities.
5. That drainsge of subJect property sf~all be disposed of In a menner
satisfactory to tha City Engineer. Private storm dratns shell be
constructed to toilect the on-slte drainage and canduct It to exlsting
drAins9e f~cilities. Temporary desilttng faciltties shnil be constructed as
requf ~ed by the Ct ty Englnezr to prevent si i t from entering extsting
dralnage facilitles during constructton of the propo~-•1 developme~t.
6. That th~ aw ner of si~bJect property shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
epproprtate park and retreation t m lleu fees as d~termined to be rppropriate
by the Ctty Council, aa~d fees to be paid s; the time the butlding pe r~it is
i ssued.
7. That the originat documents oF the covanants~ conditions. and ~est~tcilons,
and a letter eddressed to devetoper's titie compeny suthori~ing ~ecordatlon
thereof~ shail be subrnitted to the City Attorney'a offlce and approved by
the ~Crty Attarney's Offlce, Public Utilities Dept., Bulldinn Oivision~ and
the Enginerring Oivistan prlor t~ final tract map spproval. 5aid documents~
as app roved~ shall bn filed and reco~ded in th~ Off!ce ~f the OTange County
4tecorder.
$. That all prtvate streets shell be developed tn accardance with the Ctty of
Anahcirn's Standa~d Detail No. 122 for private st~eets~ lncluding
inscalDation af Street Name s-~~s. ~lans for the private street lighttng,
as requtred by thc stand~rd detail~ shalt bP submitted to tha Bullding
Otvi~lon for approvaS and inclusion with the butlding ptans pri~r t~ the
tssuance of b ullding permits. (Prtvate streets are those which provlde
primary ac~esa snd/or ct~culatton withtn the proJect.
9. If permanent street nan~ signs hAVe not been installed, temporery ~t~eet
name signs shall be instailed prior to any occupancy.
10. That the arner(s) of subject property shall pay the traffi~ stgnal
esscssme~t fee (Ordinance Na. 3896) in a~ amount as determinad by the C1ty
Council, for ea~h nsv dvelling unlt p~ior to the tssuance of a building
permtt.
. '26/81
~S
~
MI NU~'ES ~ ANAHE 1 M C 1 TY PUINN 1 NG COMM) SS I ON ~ JANUARY Z6 ~ 1981 81 • 58
11. The selle-r shall provide the purch~~er of each co~do~ninlum unit with aritten
tnfo rmatlon conce~ntng Anahelm Mu~tcfpal Code 14.~2.;0~ pertalning to
"perktng ~estricted to fecilitatc street swaapin~". Such w~ttten
information will clearly indicate when on•street pa~kin9 ~s prohibited ~nd
the panalty for violatlan.
12. Thst the ssnits ry sewa~s within ths prtvate stre!ets shall be p~ivate and
owned and nwintafned by the haneewners ossoctatlon.
13. That ell ralsed I~ndscapad arees ln the propoaed cul-da-sac she11 be
modtfied per the requlraments of the St~e~ts end Sanitetion Depertmsnt.
Jsck White~ Assistant City Atto~ney~ prescnted the written rtght to appeai the
Plenntng Commtssion's declston withtn 22 deys to the City Councfl on the condttto~al
uso pennit and 15 days an the trsct.
Commlsslone~ King end Chalrnwn Tolar compllmentrd .he developer for working ~~11th the
noiyhbors to rosolve the problems.
I7EM N0. 4: EIR NEGATIVE UECLARATION AND RECLASSiF1CATI0~J N0. SQ-81-22:
PUBLIC tICARING. 041NER: EILEEN A. ORUIFF~ 316 North Sieste, Anahelm~ CA q2801.
Property described aa a rectangularly-sh.~~ed parcel of land consisting of
epp roximately 0.15 acre. 123 South Gran~ Avenue. Property presently classtfled RS-
7200 RESIDENTIAL. SINGLE-FAMILV) ZONE.
RECLASSIFICATION ttEQUEST: RM-2400
Thero wen: ftve peraons indicatln~ tl,eir presence in oppositton to subject rec~uest~
and although the staff re~c+rt was nat rcad~ it is referred to and made a c+art of the
mir~~tes.
Elleen Drulff~ awner~ stated she wAUld like to const~uct a duplex consisting of two
97o-squa~•e foot units on thi~ vacent propa~ty, with attached two-ca~ garages and two
open pa~k(ng spaces and a 10•foot w6de drlvesvay the depth of the o~operty. She
stated the design of this structure wlll ~rchitectu~aily match the new homes in the
erea and from the front will appear as a sfngle-famlly residence. ~`e stated no
variances are requi red and the p~o,ject C~f1fOf'14S to the Genera) Plan designatton for
medlum den~ity; that there is an apartment four-plex ecross the street and there arn
existing duplexes in the neighborhood; that o~e of thess units will be awner•occupied
by either she or her son and will ba~.~e)1 maint~in~d. She felt this wili be an asset
to the neighborhood; that it wlil be m~re fitting than a twa•story single-family
structure; snd that there is a houstng shortage in A~ahetm.
Ms. Druiff stated she has been a teacher in Orange Cou~ty for 25 years and as
retire ment approschas~ feels she should be ~ilowed t.a devetop her property in this
manner. Sha stated she has sig~atures of p~ople who stronglw support her appitcatio~
and a letter from a~n origina) resident v+ho has been there y6 years~ Ynrnon a Evelyn
Bobst, 136 Hardtng~ and Larry- Evt~r3d~e 1s present to support he~ request a~d thac she
also has photographs of the property and neighboring homas.
1/26/8t
; ?
MINUTES~ ANIIHEIN C1~1f PLANNING COMMiSSION~ JANUARY 26~ 1~81 81•59
Kathy welnh~id~ 131 South Crand~ steted she has a petition of opposttion and
photographs to p~ese~t; that thay are obJectl~g bec~uae the existing structure s are
ell owner•occupled stn9le-family; that they bought into the netghborhood becsuse It
is singie-family~ awner-occupled homas; that the existtng homes are all similer and
sll have garages 20 feet from the sidewatk and this proJect right In the middle wlll
have walls t~ the aidawslks and she felt tthat would be ~ h~sard for the ch{ld ren
playing; thet thts is the only lot fQesibie for multi•famtiy untts; and that the
spertment complex Is well dasigned with high walls and landscaping and that there ere
occastonal parking problems on weekends because of visitors. She stated the aree to
the west has single and multlpla-faml ly residentie) developments~ but thetr black is
all single-famlly a~d they want to keep It that way.
Ms. Welnhold stated they are Narding water users and their by-lr~ws proh(bit concrete
with(n ftve feet of the mbtn waterl ine which is et the west end of thls prope~ty a~nd
a part of thc drivea~+ay fo~ this proposed proJcct would be wtthin five feet. She
er.plain~+~~ the watcr facllitles are malntAtned by the usc~s and there are no funds,
~qutpment or personnci to make repalrs.
Ms. Weinhold stated she did not think two vehic.las could park tn the 12-foot area
prOposad. She stated the hcxnes on this s;reet are new a~d they bought tnto thls
nelghborhood because it was s urrounded with singie-famtly homes. She explained sh~
does not obJect to the rental untts~ but ta a duplex on a 5~-f~t widc lot. She
presented the peltition contalning approximately 1S s~gnetures.
Ms. Oruiff atated this st~ucture wtll look Identicai to the structure imnedia tely to
the ~oi : and the block wall wtll be identical to other block wAlls on the s t reet.
Chal rman Tolar state~l the block wal l daes not crome out to the street and wf 1 1 be Just
1 Ike the ~est of the wal ls In the netghborhood and wi 11 conform to cade.
M;. Urui`f stated she has a letter from the operetor af the water nucn~. Vernan Bobst~
who has lived there 5G years and '~e sees no problem and stated shP has been a water
user nine years~ paytng the rate on this vacant l~nd. She stated the propa rty is an
eye sore at :he present time.
She stated !hn opposition was cc~rcer~ed about the chi ld~en's safety, but thei r
properties are fecir,g apartments; and that she or e rteember of her f~m) ly wi 1!
matntain the p roperty and make sure it ~s kept in good condtci~n. She stste d this
proJect ts very practicai and conforrr~ to code and she did not feel the obieetions
v+ere legt tlmete.
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Darnes stated the parkEng appears to be ample and that she fei.. the
pro,ject will be~efit the area. She ask~d tf the opposttion has seen the plan.
Thcre was a response frum th~, audience that ~e person has reviewed the plan , but
their obJecti~n is not to .:ie plan.
Commissione ~ Bushore poi~ted out in reviewing this property not lo~g sg~~ it was
noted the multi-fdmily units were there before th~~ property was annexed to Anaheini.
Me revta+ed the stgnatures of th= people suppo'ting Lh~ request and the opposittons'
petition. Ne stated he is concern~d about breaktng dow~ the tntegrity of tine
neighborhoo:' '~ noted most of signatures of people supportl~g the re~quest are on
Nardtng~ which ia the next street aver.
1 /26/ 81
~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CIT'.' PIANNING CGMMISSION~ JANUARY 26~ 1981
81-60
Le~ry 121 South Nsrding~ ststed there are three du~texes bulit within the
last th roe years on th• st~eet behind Hsrding.
Mr. Reese, 1;1 Hardln9r st.. d the duplexes referred to are on Topanga and there have
been no dupl~xes bullt i~ this area since the property was annexed to the city; And
th~t tho s(gnstures oppostng the requeat are from peopte on Harding and they want to
keep the area single-family. He clarlfied that his residence Is 45 years old.
Commissioner Bushore feit even though there is a large mulil-family developrtwnt
across the street and the city does need housing~ bec~use the exlsttng duplaxes wern
ther~ before the proparty was sn~exed and the hor,es in the area ~re fairly new~ he
felt thts proJect vould be bad for the neighborhood end would bresk down the
integri ty of the netc~hborhood.
Chatnnan Tola~ stated he did not thtnk this dupiex will be dctrirt-ental to the
existing rnstdentia) homes; that this is a nice netghborhood~ but th:s development
wil) conform to the destg~ation of inedt~m density snd he w~~uld support the r~quest.
ACTION: Comnissioner King ~ffered a mntlon~ seconde~d by Commissloner 8o4~as and
MOTION CARRIEQ (Commlsslaner fl~~bst betng absent)~ that the Anehelm City Planning
Commissian has ~evte~ved the proposal to i±classify subJect property from the RS-7200
(Resldent~al, Singie-Family) tone to the RM-12~~ (Residenttal. Multtpl~-Famlly) zo~a
to construct a dup{ex on a rectangulorly-sl~aped parcel of land consisttng of
approximately .15 acre. havtng a frontage of approximately 5~ feet on the west stde
of Gran~ Avenue~ approx(mately 365 feet south of th~ centerline of Ltncoln Avenue
(123 South Grand Avenue); and docs hereby appr~ve the Negativa Declaracion from the
requtremnnt to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that there would
be no significant individual or cumulative adverse envi~onmental imp~ct due to the
appraval of thts Negative Declaration since the Anal~etm Generai Plan designates the
subJect prope~ty for medium density ~esidential l~nd uses cc~mmensurate with the
proposal; that no se~sttive r_nviro~n~ental lmpacts are involved ln the proposal; that
the Inltial Stu~iy submitted by the petitioner i~dicates no stgnificant Indivtdual or
cumulattve adverse environmental tmpacCs; rnd that the Negattve Declaratlon
substanttating the foregotng findings is o~ file In the C1ty of Anaheim Planning
D~epa rtmen t .
Commtssioaie~ King offered Resolution No. PC81-25 and moved for its passsge and
=doption that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission does hereby grant Reclassificatlon
No. 80-Q1-22, subJect to Inte~departmentel Committee recorm-endations.
On roll call. the foregoing resoluttan was passed by the follc~wtng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ 80UAS~ FRY~ KING, TOI.AR
NOES: COM!"~SSIOMEfiS. BUSHORE
ABSENT: COMMISStONERS: HERBST
Jack White~ Assistant Cicy Attorney~ presented the writte~ rtght to appeal the
Planning Commtsslon's deciston within 22 days to the City Council.
1/26/8'
~
~~ ~.
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 26~ 1981 81'61
ITEM N0. t~IR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONOITIONAL USE PERNIT N0~ 2162:
PUgLIC HEARING. OWNER: BANK OF AMERICA~ NT b SA, c/e McMORGAN t COMPANY. 50
Catifornia Street~ M3150. San Fr~ntisco~ CA q4111. AGENT: WILLIAM K. DAV1S~ 140A
Bristol Street North. Suite 2~+5, Newport Aeach~ CA 9266t1. Property describcd as a
~ectangulariy-sh~ped parcel of land consistlnq of approximetely 2.G acres~ having a
frontage of opproximstely 315 feet on the north side ef La Jolia Street. havtng a
mexinium depth of approximately 268 feet, end belnq located ap~roxlmately 23~ feet
eaat of the cent~rline of Red Gum Street. Pronerty presentl~r classlfled ML
(INUUSTP~AL~ LiMITEU) ZONE.
CONOITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A TRUCK TERMINl1l IN TIIE Ml 20NE.
There was ane p~-son i radi cai 1 ng h I s p~esr,nce i n oppos I t 1 on to subJect request . and
althounh the st. `f report waa not read~ ik Is referr~d to and made fl part of the
minutes.
Charles auchanan, agent ~epresenting Davis Ikveloprr~nt~ explained thls proaosal Is
for a smal) truck terminAl to eccommodale 1~ to 12 loca) trucks, and 3 trucks to
transfer metcr(al to Los Angeles.
George McCa~ 351 Hospita) Rnad. Newt~ort Beach~ owner of property at 2990 La Jolla~
~tated thc~r building is part of en industrldl a~rk a~~d this truck terminal is a new
concept for the entlre industrial zone and he dio not fael It would conform wlth
anythtng In the e~ea; that I~e w~s af~rid, desri t~ the fect th~ petitloner ha
tndicated there would only be 1~ to 12 local trucks using the terminal. that the use
would resuit In excessive on-s.reet parking and traffic In the area. Me stated he
thought this northesst induscriol area has developed into ~ model indus triAl ~rea end
he wanted it to stay th~t way ai d was conccrned how the type and number of trucks
ustny the termfnal cauld be controlled; that with 3F dock-high doors there is a
potentlal for heavy truck trafflc in and~aut of this property; that he wes concerned
there will be o~-str~et perking; thsi he did not Chink a truck t~rminal should be ane
mtle fram the freewsY on e s~condary scraet with no traffic stgnal; that he felt the
traffic would be a haza~d to the pre-schaol and residentlal uses (n the area; and
th~t enother local b~sln~ssman wroce his cc~nce~ned about notse In the area~. N~
polnt^d out he did write a letter to the Planning Commission deted Jsnuary 21~ 19a1
and a copy of [hat lett~r is in the Planning DepArtment file.
Mr. 6uchanan stated they have not IndlcaCed there wil) be on-street pa~king; that
they have adr~uate parktng spaces on tha property for aTl automobilCS And trucks~
that any industriel use wl 11 have trucks in a~d out; that a normel tndustrial use
would probably add 80 automobiles to the pcek hour trafftc in the ~s and that this
use would be lower; and tht+t the salvage yard immedlately behind th,~s property has
i~eavy truck traffic. He stated tha proJect wilt have slatted fencing so that it will
not be seen from the street and the landscaping in the front wil) be very attracttve.
TNE PUBLIC NEARING W AS CLOSED.
R~spo~ding to Commtssioner Barnes' questlon relating °o thc nwnber nf trucks, M~.
Buchanan statad there wi 11 be 10 to 12 trucks picking up merchandise in the local
srea and transferring tho products to approximately 3 l~rger trucks which would then
take the products to Los Mgeles daiiy. He cauld not answer why 36 c3ocks are needed
except that the local trucks would bc unloadin g a lot of different rtw terlals.
1/26/81
~ •` ' ~ ~
MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMM15S10N~ JANUARY Z6~ 1981 81•62
Cammi~sioner Bushore ~sked if they would be subteasing to ocher trucking Ptrms and
Mr. B uchanan snswa~ed thers is ~oChing in the lesse to prevent ,bleeatng,
Commtssioner Busho~e stated It ts nocad In thn st~ff reporc thst there will be 25
smployea: snd there ~~e oniy 22 parkin9 spaces proposed~ ~ie esked the petitione~ to
•tlp ulate that none of the trucks o~ employees would pa~k an th~ street at sny tfine
snd indicated that would be one of the conditlons of approval.
Mr. guchan~n ststed he woutd be willing to make that atipulatlon and +~nswered
Commisstoner Bushore that the leese Is for 25 years.
Chair man Tolar referred to the TraPfic Engineer's conce~n regarding the g~crs being
located 60 feet from the skreet snd rematninq open durinq regular working haurs.
Peul Stnger, Traffic ~nylner.r~ explalned anytime e gate is Inst~lled for security
purposes the d~veloper Is requested to move the rtn beck 60 feet from the street to
acconwnodote trucks And prevent them fron~ stoppt In th. st~eet. He stated the
appltc~nt has complied wtth thst request.
Mr. 8 uchanan responded to Cheirmen Tolar that the grtes could be left open during
workiny hours.
Commisstoner King asked the ho urs of operatlon and Mr. Buchanan responded the loca)
trucks will be makinq delive~ies until 5:00 p.m. and the three larger trucks will be
opera ttng until g:;Q p.m.
Chair man Tolar steted there is na place tn this city for truck termtnals and that
they are needed and will cut down on the amount of tra~'f1c In the industrlel erea
beca use each Indivldusl oparation wtll not have to have their awn delivery trucks.
fie felt this would be a good use for this property.
Comrnissionar King potnted out the Radevelopment Agency hes recom~nended approva) of
this appllcatipn.
Commissioner Barnes stated she is concerned ahout the Increase in the amount of
trucks in the area and about parktng on th~ street~ but wouid h~ve ~o obJection ta
the use if there is some way to control the number of trucks. etc. She suggested a
time limiG for revl~w even though the Commisston can revoke a pe~mit anytime the us~
becom~s a prnb 1 dn.
Chairnwn Tolar stated he does noe sgree because no induatrial user~ to his knowledge~
has e ver been required to ~develop property with d time 11mlt spend(ng this kind of
money. He ~elt also th~t the hours of oper~tion are not a problem beeausc Industrlal
zo~es have been treated so businesses can work eraund the ~lock if necessary.
Jack -~hite~ Assistant City Attorney, ststed tF.e Pi~nning Commisslon could place a
limtt on the numt~er of trucks that could be us~rd at thta faciltty.
Commissioner F~y did not think Ilmitinq thc number of trucks could be enforced and
felt it would be a waste of time.
Commissloner Bushore indicated he had concerns if this terminal could be leased to
other trucking companies because the property could become overburdened.
t/26/8~
} ~
' ~
HINUTES~ ANANEIM CiTY PLANNINd C~MMISSION~ JANUARY 26~ tq81 81-63
Chairman Tolar falt tf the parking is controlled there wouid be na problem end
pointed out agaln th~t a trucking terminel Is nceded tn tl~ls area.
Commtsstonnr bushore indicated he would egree but does not want to see this property
ove rtexad .
Commlasioner Bushore stated he has no problem with the ~2 parking s~aces and the 36
bays with 15 trucks and does not wiah t~~ deny the pr~Ject~ but wants the petttior~er
to realize the Commisslon is c~~ncerned about the fecility becoming a burdon on the
area. He stated he would not agree wlth a time limit end polnted out aqain the
Planning Commisston can revoke a u~~~dittonal use perm(t if the petitioner does n~t
!iv~ up to the terms imposed. He pointed out the neighba~s wtll be wat~hing the use.
ACTION: Commisslone~ King offere~ s motlo~~ seconded by Cnmmissioner Boues and
~N CARRIED (Comntssioner I~erbst betng absent) ~ that the Anaheim City Plan~ing
Commission has revtc,wed a proposal to permlt a truck terminel In the ML (Industri~~l,
Limlted) Zone on a rectangularly-shdped parcel of lend consisting of approximately
2.G acrns~ hr~ring ~ front~ge of ep~-roxl~ately 315 feet an the north side of Le Joila
Street~ havi~~g a meximum denth ~f approxtmatcly 2f,8 feet. and betng located
approxtmately 23~ feet cast of the ccnterllne of Red Gum Strect; and does hereby
approve the NegAtlve Declaration from the requlrement ta pre~are an environmental
tmpact report ~n thc~ b~~is that ther~ would be no stgniftcant indivldual or
cumuletivc adverse environmenta) impact due to the approval of thts Negative
Uaclaration since the Anahefm General Pl~n designates the sub)ect property for
gene~al industrtel land uses corta~nsurate with the proposal; th~t no sensltiva
enviromm~ntal ~~acts arP involved in the proposal; thnt the Initial Study submttted
by the petitioner indicates no signiftcant ind(vidual or cumulAtive adverse
environmental impacts; and that the Negative Ueciaration subetanti~+ting the ioregoing
findings is on file In the City of Anahetm Rlannl~g Oe~artm-nt.
Commissianer King offered Flesolutlon t~o. PC~1-2h and moved far Its passage and
adoptton that the Anaheim City Plan~tng Commission does hereby qrant Londitional Use
P~~rmit No. 21~2~ subJect to the petittoner's stipulatlon to instruct all employees to
park an•site and that no trucks will be psrked on the street a~d that the ga~es will
-sm~in open during normal working hours and subJect to Interdepartmenta) ~ommittee
recommendations.
On roll call~ the foregoing resolutlon was passed by the followl~g vote:
AYES: CONMIS510NERS: BARNES~ 60UAS. BUSHORE~ FRY, KIttG, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIOMERS: t~ONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: t1EilBST
Jack 4lhite, Assistant City Attorney, presented the written right to appeal the
Planning Commission's deciston within 22 days to the City Councii.
~ i26~a~
l
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 26~ 1981 81•64
I(EMPTION-CLASS ~. WAIVER OF CODE R
PUBLIC NEARING. OWNER: J. KENT BEWLEY~ ET AL~ 621? Hiit Avenus~ Whittie~, CA 906A1.
AG~N'~ RALPtI F. I.EPRE~ 117 South Western Avenue, Anahe ~, CA 92904. Property
describd~+ as a rectangulArly-shaped pArce) of land consisting Af approximately ~.9
acre~ 117 Sauth Western Avanua (Don Clsco Rest~ursnt). Property pr~sently classifled
CL (COMMERCtAL~ LIMITED) ZONE.
CONQITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT ON-SAIE BEER AND WINE IN AN EXISTING DRIVE-
TIIROUGN RESTAURANT WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM DISTIWCE OF DRIVE-THROUf+N IA~~E.
There wea one par~on indicating his p~esence In apnasitlon to subJect request~ and
although the staff report wes ~ct read~ it Is rn!erred to and made a pert of the
minutes.
Ralph Lepre, agent~ was p~es c to answ~r any qu~stions.
Bernice l.en~aster~ 3212 CAbot Drive~ stated she has lived there 7 years: that her
property Is an owner-occupled four-piex; that there is a llquor stare directly across
the street from the restaurant; that Cebot Crlve is only ane blotk long and in the
last 3 years~ two cars have bee~ hit whlle parked; that there are many small chtldren
on Cabot Orive who are constantly cross,ng the street which would be a hazard; that
this ts close to 4lestern Nigh Schooi and there ts a lot of debrts In the area and
this would add to that problem. She stated she did not feel the beer end wlne would
enhance thts area.
Mr. Lepre stated he cleans his p roperty ~ve ry mornin~ of the debrts and that there is
a lot of debris from other areas durt~ed onto his property. He stated the customers
are the ones who actually cc~nvtnced htm to apply for the beer and wine llcense
because they wented tt with the Mexican fnod he served; that he cannot sell the beer
and wine uniess he salis food; that he daes have a drtve-through window but cannot
sell beer and wine through the wi~dow; that he has a patlo (n front but canr~ut serve
beer and wi~e on that patio. Ne explatned these conditions a~e regulated by the
Alcoholic Beverage Controi 9oard. Ne stated he has s dining room and serves eight
diff~;rent corabtnation plates And he (s thc only indapendent restaurant operator in
the sr~a with five 'iffercnt fast food chaln operattons located there and feels he
need!; the beer and yrine to serve with his authenic Mexican foods.
TNE F'UBLIC HEARINC WAS CLOSED.
Chair•mon Tolar stated thls is a very unique operatlon because of the Inctdential
drive-through windaw which he felt complicates the request; that the Commission has
granted many requests for beer and wtne with Mexican foad and he has no problem with
that; but he was concerned ~~ut control of the nperatton wtth relattonship to
seiling beer and wine th~ough the drive-through window.
Mr. Lepre stated his employees are all over 1a years old and he is there deily.
Chairman Tolar explained a conditional use permtt stays aith the property and the
business could be sold ta someo~e else who would not watch *.he operation as close.
He stated this ts the first such request in Lhc City of Anaheim and he is concerned
that there wili be other requests if this is approved.
1/26/81
C~ ° t ~ ,~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC COMMIS510N~ JANUARY 2b~ 198t 81-65
Mr. Lapre ttsted he dtd not thi~k the fast food oper~tlons such es McDonelda a~d
Wendya wuuld want to sal i bea~ and wine.
Chal~men Toler steted th~ere •~e lot of young people who go through the drive-
th~ough windnws and he felt silowing be~~ snd wtne tn the fast foods restaurantt
woul~i be c~ndoning Lh~ k~ds gettinq Into mnre p~oblMna thsn they alrescJy have.
Mr. Lapre expl~tned his restaurant is not e fest food reatAUrant and he doas not wsnt
to be Identtfled as ons. He stated the ABC is wllling to go along with this request
(f this candttiona) use requ~st ts approved~ but that the other fast food resteurants
would not neceas~rlly get approvel because of the diffQrent ragulations. Ila stated
ha felt he deserves a chance to prove that thia wlll work. Ne stated the average age
of h(s cuatomers is 3~ years old because of the prices.
Cha(rman Tolar asked why the drtve-throu9h window is necessary.
Mr. Lopre stAted it was hts Idea to ylve people a goad quaiity Mextca~ food with a
drEve-through because he was ttred of food from a cha~in ~peratlon and also that the
facility was a twin-bey car wash when he nurch+~sed it.
Commissloner Bushore steted he does not havc thc ~aam~ concerns because he knows the
AaC wtll regulate the operation and reailses thts is the first requ~sL~but did not
think bee~ goes with McDonald's french fries and does go with Mexican food for those
who like It and thought McDonalds would not want to ruln thetr (mage by selliny beer
and wine. He stated he Is not cnncerned bcceuse e conditlonal use permtt can be
revaked and that thts restsurant has been there far fou~ ye~rs and he has not seen a
problem with the drlve-through. He stated he has questioned why th~ drtve-through
window is there and it does give the impression of being a fast food ooeratlon.
Ch ~i~man Tolar stated he would support thc request with a time Ilmit b~~ause there
would be no additiona) cost to adding thts use end if the CUP ts violated, tt can be
reooked. He stated if the request had been to enidrge ~he restaurant and eltmtnate
the drive-through window~ he would have no problem supporttng it.
Mr. Lepre stated he does intend to remadel the dining room to provide more booths~
etc.
AGTION: Commisstoner 9ushort offered a mc~tion~ seconded by Commissioner King and
MOTION CARaIED (Commisstoner Nerbst being abse~t), that the Aneheim ~ity Planning
Commisston has reviewed the proposal to permit on-sale beer and wtne tn an existing
drive-through restaurant in the CL (Gommerciaa~ Limited) 2one with walver of ininimum
dtstance of drtve-through lene on a rectangularly-shaped parce) of land consisting of
approximately 0.9 acre. having a frontege of appr~ximately 130 feet on the west side
of Western Avenue~ having a maxfTum depth of apuroximately 295 feet. and being
located approximately 200 feet south of th~ centsrltne of Lincoln Avenue (117 South
Western Avonue); and does hereby epprove the Negative Declara~tlon from the
requirement to prepare an environmentel lmpact report on the basis that there would
be no signiflcant indtvidual or cumulative adverse enviranmental impact due to the
approva) of this Negative Oeclaration since the Anahelm General Plan designates thn
subJect prop~rty for general commercial and medium d~nsity residentlai land uses
commensurate wtth the pra~osal; that no sensitive environmental imp~cts are involved
in the proposal; that tho Initial Study submitted by the petitio~er indicates no
stgnificant tndivtdual or cumulative adverse environmental impa~ts; and that the
t/26/81
~
~ 1 ~
MINUTES~ ANAI~EIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 26~ 1981 81-66
Negative Decla~atlon s~bstantlating tha foreqoing f~ndtngs is an fil~ tn the City of
Anahetm Pienntng Department.
Commis:loner Bushore offered a mot(on, secondsd by Commissioner Fry t~nd MOTION
CARRIEn (Commtssione~ Narbat being ~bsant)~ that tha Anaheim Clty P1anning Commisslo~
does heraby grant the request for weiver of code raqutreme~t on the basis that the
existinq drive-through lane was developad prio~ to the adoptfon ot the ordinance
~equirtng a 1A0-feet longth and that the d~ive-throuqh has not ceused any prablems tn
the srea.
Commlsatuner Bushore offered Resolutlon No. PC81-27 and moved fur tta passage a+nd
edoption that the Anahelm City Plsn~tng Cortmisslon doos hereby ~rant Condtttonal Use
Permit No. 2168 for a p~riod of five years~ subJect to review for posstbla extensions
nf time, snd subJect to Interdepa~tmental Committee recommendetions.
On roll call~ th~ forsgoing resolution wes passed by the following vot~:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ dOUnS~ BUSFIORE~ FRY~ KING, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONEaS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FIERBST
Commissioner Bushore statad he did not think this use w~ll be a problem because It
will be regulatr.d and stated tf the opp~sftion has any probler,;s they should repo~t
them to tha ctty.
Jack White~ Asslstent Clty Attorney, presented the written rtght to appeal the
Planntng Commtssion's decision withtn 22 dnys ta the City Council.
RECE.~S There was a five-minut~ recess at 2:55 P•m•
RECO~NVEN~E The meetiiiq was r~convened at 3:~0 p.m.
COMMISSIONER HERBST A~t~1~E~.
ITE+ M N0. 7: EIR CATEGORICAL EXEM 1 N-CLASS ~ AND VARIANCE N0. 3193~
PUBLIC HEARING. 011NER: WEN 7SUP~ WU. ET AL~ 1538 East Lintoln Avenue~ Anaheim. CA
92805• Proparty descrlbed as a recrongularly-shaped parcel of land consisttnq of
approximate=v 0.4 acre. 153a East lincoln Ave~ue (Anchor Motel). Property p~esently
classiffed CL (COMMERCIAI, LIMITEO) 20NE.
VARIANCE REQUEST: wAIVERS QF (a) MAXIMUM NUMBER~ (~) PERMIlTTED LQCATION~ (c) MINIMUM
D157M~CE B~TWEEN SIGNS AND (d) MlNlMUM GROUND CL~ARANCE TO RETAIN TWO FR~E-STANDING
SIGNS.
There was +~o one indicating their prosenc~ tn opposition to subject requast~ and
although G~t staff rrport was not ~eaa~ tt is ~eferred to and made a part of the
minutes.
Me ry- Wong stated she is a f~tend of the vwner who does not s~eak Engllsh and ts
preseRt to explain fiis request. She explained M~. wu pu~chased the rtwtal a few
aanths ago and it has an "AAA" membe~ship and the AAA representattve suggasted a new
sfgn. She explained the Iight from the sig~ will he1F tha whole area because it is
very dark in that particular ares and at least one person has failen; that khey have
never recaived any comp'aints from their ~etghbors; and that the owne~ ha~s Fsinted
the motal stnce he purcnased it and has improved the area.
t/26/~'
{ 1. f 1
~` '
MINUTES~ ANAFIEIM CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION~ JANUARY 26~ 1981
TNE PUBL I C HEARI NG WAS C~OSEO.
81-67
Chalrman Tolsr stated he has naver sewn so rtu~ny signs on a m~tel ~n this city and
that the Ctty of nnaheim (s tr~-tng to ellminaLe signs. Ne ateted one of the
Commlasloners indic.at:~d he counted nine slgns on that one property; that thc
Commisslon wants to help the bustness community but he dId not t~ink stgns would
necessarily hclp the business and t~~nre are areas in Csitfornla where no stgns other
than nbnumentpl type slg~s are permittRd and those businesses do well, He stated he
haa a ~eal prob tem w) th t1~e number nnd s ize of st gns and he f~l t k~~ere is al ready a
p~obiem with too many ~tgna In thet area and if this ts allowod, every ather business
In thet area will be raquesting the same thing.
Mrs. Wong clarifted thG he~yht of the ~x;sting stgns. She stated there a~~ problems
w-th younqste~s congregating in tf~is area and the awners feel the 1(ghx from the sign
wili help that problem.
Chairman Toler dtd not thi , the erea should be lic~hrPd with siqn~; that ther~ ere
too meny signs the~ now and he felt they detrect f~am the business. Ne referred to
the high sig~s which can be seer~ far a long distance.
Mrs. Wong stated there are three motels In th~ nafghborhood and the area has hardly
any 1lghttng and she felt thc sign wi11 help the ~etitioner end will not hurt anyo~e
else and pointed aut the old sign was faded and the awner simply put up e new sign.
Gommtssione~ Bushorc potnted out that stmilar requests have been denled to other
businesses in ~he are;,. He stated hc canrx~t suppo~t the request because it Is an
overb~irden for the .area and felt the petitioner should live withln the ordtnance; and
rhat a reliable sign c~r~trACtor would have only sold him what is all~-ed by code and
that mayba he has a recoursd with the signing compeny. He stated he did nat dgree
that the stgn should be allowed to provida the lighting bescause there is street
lighting ln th~~ clty which Is ~o~stantly upgraded to provtde adequate lighting.
Cortgaissloner Barnes agreed snd felt the slgn ordinance sho~ld be complled with.
Mr;. Uong stated Mr. Wu ;s a privatc businessman trying ~ ~mprove himself and the
netghborhood and she felt thts will definitely be an tr~ r-ovement.
~.,mmissione~ Bushore stated the petitioner Is only trytng to improve his own
sltuatlon ar~d that is nat w~ong but no one else in the area has heen all~.~ed to do
the same thing and the ~ommisaio~ has to be fa'r to everyone. He felt this (s an
eyesore in the neighborhood. He statcd staff wil) wo~k with the petltioner regerriny
whtch signs can remaln. He stated someone did make a campleint and it was protr,Dly a
compettcive business down the street.
It was nuted the Planntng Director or his authortzed representative has determined
that the proposed p~~.ject falls wlthTn the definitidn of Cstegorical Exemptions~
Class 3~ as defined in paragraph 2 nf the Ctty of Anaheim Environmentai Impact Report
Guidelines and is, theref~re, cetegorically exernpt from the requirement to pre~a.e an
EIR.
1/26/8t
~'`
MINUTES~ ANIWEIM CITY P1.ANNING COMMISSION~ ~~w w-ar ~6~ 19~1 81-68 1
ACTION: Commisslo~o~ Busho~e otfe~~:d Resolutlon No~ PC81•2A and movad for its
pa sa~~ge and adoptlon tha~ tha Anahulm Clty Pla~ninQ Coamisston daes hereby deny
Variance No. 3193 on the basis th~t no untque circum'tences a~e a~plicsbl~ to subJoct
props~ty as to tts sixe, shape~ loutlo~~ topography or surroundings.
On roll call, the foregoing resolutton was p+~ssed by the follawinq vote;
AYES: COMMIS514NERSs BAitNES, BOUAS~ BUSHORf~ FRY~ NERBS't~ KINC~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS; NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Jeck White, Asslstant Ctty Atto~nay~ presented the wrtttr~n rtght to appes) the
Planning Commtsslon'~ deciston witl~ln 22 days to the Clty Council.
iTEM N0. 8: EIR CAT~GORlCAL EXEMPTION-Gl.ASS 5 AND VARIANCE N0. 3194:
---
PUBLIC HEARING. OWNER: ANA~IEIM INSURANCE LEASECO~ 601 West ftfth Street~ Sutte 120~'1~
Los Angeles~ CA 90017. ~GEHT: E. E. RQ~~NDS. LEaOY 0. Q4lEN COMPANY~ 5~0 South Maln
Strent~ Sulte 5~OCT~ O~ange~ CA 92G68. Property described as ~n tr~egulerly-shaped
pa~rcel of lend c~nsisting of approxtmately 0.7 ac~e~ 2165 So~th Manchester Avenue.
P~operty presently clr~sstf led Cl '"G:iMERC~,4~~ LIMITEO) ZONE.
VARIANCE REQUtST: WAIVER OF MINIMUM LANDSCAPED SfT9ACK TO ~R~CT A CANOPY.
There was no one Indicating their presence ln opposit!o~ to ~ubJect request, and
although the staff report was nnt re;~d, it is referred to and made a part of the
minutes.
Gene Rounds ~ agent, wa6 present to answer any qucst ~ :.
It was notod the Planniny Oyrector or hts authorized representatlve has determined
that the proposed proJect fells within the definttion of Categorical Exemptions.
Class 5, as def+ned ~~ paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim Environmental impact Renort
Guidelines a~d is~ therefore~ categorically exempt from the requtrement to prepare an
EIR.
tiCTl~N: Comnissioner King offered Resolution N~. PC81-29 a~d moved for TCs passage
and Ado~~tion thnt the M eheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Variance No.
3194 on thc basis of the shape of the property and on the basis that thts c..nopy is
tempora ry and can be removed and subject to Interdapartmental Commtttee
recommen'ations.
Qn rotl call, the foregoing resolution was passed by the follawing vate:
AYES: COMMI~SIONERS: BARNES, BOUAS. BUSHORE~ FRY~ HER85T~ KING~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMI5SIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
1/26/St
~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PIANNING COMMiSS10N, JANUARY 26, 1981
at-69
ITEM N0. : EIR N~GATIVE OECLARATI~~1 VARIANC~ N0. 1 6 AND TENTATIVE MAp OF TRf~~T
Aa.~~'~ RE . t
PUBLIC HEAa1NG. OWN~R: CHERYI, J. MATLOCK~ 1821 Derby Orive, 5anta Ana, CA 92705.
AGEN7: SUNOAIr b COMPANY/TOM MATlO(.K~ ~8a~ Derby Orive~ Senta Ana, CA ~2705.
P~operty descrtbed aa en irregulariy-ahaped percel of lend ccrosisting of
approxirt~tely 2.Ei7 acres~ G49 South 8each 9ouleverd.
VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVER OF REQUIRED LOT FRONTAGE.
TENTATIV~ MAP REQIIEST: TO ESTAdL1S~~ A A9-l.~T~ 44-UMIT CONpOMINIU-" SUDDIVISION.
was no one tndlcetl~sg their pr~s~nce in opcwsitlan to subject request~ a~nd
o. ~ough the staff report was not read. tt Is ref~rred to and made a part of the
minuc~s.
Tom Matlock~ Pres(dent of SundPy Company~ stated previously this proJect was before
the Commission for a 60-untt proJect but beceuse of the f(nencing market~ he has
reouced it to ~i4 units and thc variancc will allow the units to bc sold Indtvldually.
I~e steted fedar~l financing is availablc only fo~ units to be sald as a planned untt
development~ a~d that t~~e numbe~ of affordeblr units is reduced~ but will still be
25$.
TNE PIlB~IC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
AC,,,_ TION: Commisstoner Ying offered a motton, s~conded by Cvmmfssioner Boues~ and
MOTION CARRIED, tt~at the Anaheim Clty Planntng Commisslon has revicwed the praposal
to establish a 4~-lot~44-unit subdiviston with walver of ~equired lot `rontagc on en
irregulariy-shaped parcel o~ land conslsting of approximately 2.8'1 ac~es~ Ic~cated at
64q South Beach Boutevard; and does hereby approve the Negative Declaratlon from the
requirement to prepare an environmental tmpact ~eporc on the basis that there would
be no signtficant tndividual or cumulative adverse environmental tmpact due to the
approval of this Negative Oeclaration slnce the Anahetm General Plan designates the
s ubJect property for general commercial and/or medtum density fand uses c,~mn~ nsurate
with the p~oposal; that no settsitlve environmental impacts are involved In the
proposal; that the Initial Study submitted by the petlti~ner indicates no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental in~acts; and that the Negative
Decla~ation substentieting t{ie foregoing findings is on file in the City t~f Anaheim
Planning Department.
Cortmtsstoner King offered Resolutio~ No. PC81-30 and movtd for its passage and
adoption that the Anaheim City Planning Cortmission does he~eby grant Variance No.
3196 on the basis that the develope~ has ayreed to ente~ into an agreement with the
Ctty af Anaheim pursuant to Gove~nme^t Code Sectio~ 65915 to provide 2$$ of the units
as lew or moderate incame housing with appropriate resale controls as approved by the
City of Anaheim and sub,ject t~- interdepa~trxntal Comnittee recomnendations.
On ~otl call, the foregoing resulution was pasaed by the following vate:
AYES: COMMISSIANERS: BARNES~ ~OUAS~ FRY~ NERBSY~ KING, TOLAR
NOES: CQMfMISSIONEP,S: BUSNORE
ABSEN7: COMNISSIONERS: NONE
1/26/81
~
~ J
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNC COMMISSION~ JANUARY 26~ 1981
81-70
Commi ssioo~ar KI ng of fer,~d a mot ton ~ aaconded by Commi ss f o~ar Herbs t end MQTI ON
CARRIEO (Commtssloner Bu~hore voting no)~ that the Anahelm City Planning Commisaion
does hareby find that the p ropos~d subdivislon~ t.ogethe~ with Its desiqn and
Improvemant~ is consl~tent wtth tha Clty of Anahetm's Cen~rsl P1an~ pursua~nt to
Government Code Sectlon 66473.5; end doea~ thernfore~ app~ove Tentative Mep of Trac~
No. 1121• (kaviston No. 1) for a 49•1ot~ 4b-unit condomtniun+ ~ubdt~'titon~ subject ta
the following conditions.
1. That the aoproval of Te~ta~tive Map of Traet Na. 11211 (Revtston No. 1) ts
g;ented subJsct to the approva) af Va~lanca No. 319G.
2. That should thls suhdivision be developocl as nWre thsn ane subdivtslon, e~ch
subdivtsion thereof shall be subMitte~ ln tentat!ve form far taaroval.
3. That all lots with(n this tract shall be ~erved by u~derground utilities.
4. That tho artgina) documcnts of the covenants~ cot-ditions, And restrictions~
and e letter addressed co developer's title company authoriz!ng recordation
thnreaf, shall be submitted to tho City AttorneY's office and approved by
the Ctty Atto~ney's Office~ Pub11c Utllitie~ Dept,, Rutlding Divisio~~ and
the E~gineerinu Dlvision p~lor Co fina~ *.ract map ~pproval. Said documents~
as approved. shall be ftled and ~ecordtd in thr OFftce of the Ora~ge County
Recorder.
5. That street nanrs shall be approvcd by the Ct!y Planning Departn~nt prlo~ to
approval of e final t~act map.
G. Th at trash storage are~s shall be pr~vided in accordance with approved pians
on flle wtth the Office of the Executive Director of Public Works
7. That fire hydrants ~hall he tnstelled and c~~rged as required and determined
to bC necessar~r hy the Chief af the Fire DE rtment p~tor to ccxnmencement of
struccural framing.
~. That dratnage of suaJect property shall be disposed of in a manner
satisfactory to the Clty Engineer.
9. That the c~wner of subject prop~rty shall pay to the City of Anaheim the
approprlate park and recreation in-lteu fees as dete~mined to be aFpropriate
by the City Councii, said f~es to be peid at the tirt~e the builuing permit is
issued.
10. Thet all private streets shail be developed in accordance with the City of
Anaheim's Star~lard Detail No. 122 fdr prtvate streets, Including
installatton c~" Street Name signs. Pians for th~ p~ivate stre~t lighttng,
as requtred by the standard detall~ shall be submittad to the Butlding
Dtvision for approval end inclustan with the bulidtng plans prior to tha
issuance of building pe nnits. (Private streeis ar~ those which provide
primary access and/or circulation within the proJect.
11. If permanent street name signs have not been i~s=alled~ tesnporary ~treet
name signs shall ba instailed prior ta any occupancy.
t/26/81
~.
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINR COMMiSS'ON~ JANUARY 26~ 1981
81-71
12. That the owna~(s) of subJect p~opa~ty thsl) pay th• traffic signal
as:~ssment fee (Ordtnance No. 3g36) In an amount aa determined by the City
Council~ for each naw dwalling u~it prior to the issuance of s buitding
permtt.
13. The seller shall p~ovide the purcha~er of cach a~ndominlum u~it wtth written
information concarning Anaheim Municipal Code 14.;2.500 pertal~ing to
"p~rking rest~tcted to faciiltbte street swesping". Such written
l~formatlon wfll ciearly indicste when on-st~eet parkfng is prohibited and
the penalty for vtoldtion.
14. That appraprtate water essessment fees as determined by the Offtce ~f
Utiltties General Ma~age~ shell be patd to the City of Ansheim prior to the
issuence of a buiiding permit.
15. That the developnr sha1) enter I~to an eqreement with the City of Anaheim
pursuant to Governmont Code 65915 which agreement sha~l be recorded
concurrently with or prior to the approval of the Final Map and whtch sl~all
provide thAt 25~ of tha unics s~~all bc sold es low or moderate income
housing as daflned (n Govsrnmant Code 65915 and with appropriate reaale
contrals as approved by the CttY of Anaheim.
1G. Prior to (ssua~ce of building permlts~ the applicent shall present e~idence
that the sound attenuation conditlons specifled tn City Council Policy No.
542 have been s~tisfled.
Comntssloner Bushore ~xplained hls negative vote refiects his feeling that i~creasing
the unit sizos ~nd prtces~ even though tf~e monthly paymonts are less~ does not create
affordabin housing; that he liked the proJect but felt government is stepping in end
ha did not believ~e there is no flnancing availab~e fo~ constructton ~f condominluma.
Fle falt the payments being tower far a certefn ~unbe~ of yesrs adds to the problen-a.
pointing out the previous range of S57-300 is r~ised to S72~000 and the market priced
units range from $~2.000 ta S105~000.
1/26/81
~, ;
MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUAAY 26~ 1g81 81-~2
ITEM NG. 10
RECOMMENDATION~
The fotla-ring R~pores end ~tscanne~~!~tions staff reports wera presented but not read:
A. VARiANCE N0. 28fi4 - ibquaat for termin~tlon from Abel end Carol Mendex~ for
prope~ty at~lorth Anahelm 6ouleva~d,
AC~ TIO:t Cartmisstoner King affe ~ed kesolution No. PC81•31 and moved for its
passegn and adoption that the Anahetm City Planning Comnission does hereby
terminet~e all procaedings in connectto~ with Vartanc~ No. 28fi1~.
On roll call~ the foregoing ~e s alut(on was passod by thn fallawlnc~ vote:
AYES: COMMISSfONERS; BARNE 5. DOUAS~ QUSIIORE~ FRY~ HERHST~ K{Nf,ti TOLAR
NOES: COMMI SS I OtiERS ; NONE
AffSENT: C4MM1S5IONERS; NONE
B. VARIANCE N0. 9~_- Requast for term(natlon from Lincoln Group far property
st 1 3 west Tcol~ Avenue.
ACTION: Commtsaionor King affered Resolutlon No. fC81-;2 and me~ved for its
pa ss a~ge and edoptton that the A~ ahcim Clty Planning Cormisslon does hrreby
terminete all proceedings in c o~ nection wlth Yeriance No. 979.
On ~oll csll~ the foregning resolutlon was pnssed by th~ follawing vate:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS; BARNES. ROUAS, BUSHORE~ FRY~ HERBST~ KING~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS; ftONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
C. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N05. 10 ~_09_and_10410 - Request for extenslona of time
Zr~aTie m s.~nc.~or p~opertr o1 ceted qn the south side of Wlllowick
Oriw:. ~pproximately 865 feet s outh of the cencerline of Nohl Ranch ibad.
ACTION: Conenisslo~e~ King offered a motion~ seoonded by Conmissioner Boua~
an~bTION CARRiEO, that th~ Anaheln Ctty Planning Car~miaslon does hereby
grant ono-yoar extenslo~a of tin~e for Tentative Map of Trect Nos. OA409 a~d
10410 to expi r~ on Febrwry 28, 1~182.
0. RECLASS t F) CATIOk N0. 80_2~ AND VARIANCE N0. 3136 - Request for extensiona
o~t~me ~rom na e m s~ nc~or property ocated s~uthwesterly of Nohl
Ranch Road between the inters ectian of Nohl Rench Road with Canyon Rim Road
and Sorrano Avenue.
IICTION: Cona~lastoner KIn9 offered a motion~ saoonded by Co~nisstoner Bou~s
an M ION CARRIEO, that the Ae~ahei~n City Pls~ning Con~misslon daes hereby
grant one•ysa~ extensions of ti~ne for Reclasslfitatlan No. 7q-84-25 sr.d
Variance I~te. 3136 to exp(re on F'abruary 11 ~ 1982.
1/26/8t
,
,
;
MINUTES, ANAFIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 26~ 1961 81-7,'i
E. TENTATIVE MAP OF TkACT N0. ~n78k • Raquast for an extensl~n of time f~an
~na e m s~ nc. o~ praperty lorst~d on the nn~th st de of Carryon R1 m
Rosd, •pproxlmetely 600 feet wast of tha cente~l tne of Serrano Avenue.
ACTIONt Cammisslo~er King o}fered e~notlan, seconded by Camilssfoner Bouas
ana~TION CARRIED, that the An~hetm City Plannin9 Commisalon does hereby
grsnt a one•year extens ion uf time fo~ Tentative Map of Tract No. i0784 to
oxpt ro o~ March 1~ ~ 1982.
F. TIME RESTRAINTS FOR CONOOMINIUM CONVERSIONS - Follawinq e brief discus~lon~
ther~ w~s a genera co~senus o~ t~e ann ng Cam+l ss lon ta di scuss th I s
matter further with the C1ty Council at a scheduledwork session.
Commtsstoner 6arnes stated recentlY the Commisslon h~s rnce+ived requests for
condominium converslon for unlts less than one-year old and slnce other
c( t t es have t 1 me res t r i ct ! ons and th i s c t ty's pr 1 mary concern i s to upprade
~xtsting structures~ she felt e time restriction should be adapted.
Cl~alnnan Tolar agroed and ~oted recently the~o was a request for conversion
for units ~ot yet constructed and felt the staff should be instructed to add
restrlctinn to our ondcs for condomi~iw++ converston.
Commissloner Nerbst fete possibly the Cortn-isslon should diecuss thia with
Councii t~ a work sess ton and staff should provide figures on what other
cities are doi~g snd vace~~y factars. etc. Ne did nat feel conve~sions
Increase housing and the ow~ership 1 s the anly thing changed.
Cornnissloner Barnes stated she wouid l ike to know whrsn scructures start
deterlorating.
Chairmnn Tolar stated this matter wi 11 be discussed with the Clty Councll at
the work Yesston to b~ held on February i7th or 18th.
G. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 8-7 •2~ AND CONDITIONAL USE PCRMIT N0. 1 35: Request
or one-year extens oRS o ~ me rom na e m li s~ nc. or propct'ty
loceted on the east sidc of Imperial Highway~ spproxirt~tely 165p feet south
of the centerl ine of t~lohi Ranch Ro~+d.
ACTtO~J: Conmisslc,ne~ King offered a natton, sec.a~ded Gy Commissioner Bouss
and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anahe{m Ctty P1Anniny Commtssion does hereby
grant on~-Year extens ions of time ~oi~ Reclasstftcation No. 78-79-25 and
Condittonal Use Per'mi t No. 1935 to expfre on JsnuAry 29~ 19~2•
H. VARIANCE N0. 311~ "~2quest for review of revised plen~ for property locsted
at ~ast VaTeneia Avenue.
Dill Wehunt stated he Nouid Ilke the ~mmissian to revlea revised plans for
a four-plex.
Cheirmon Tolsr e~cp~ained this proJett will have ta be advertiso~ and a
public hearing held before the Commission can aieke a dectaion.
ACTION: Corm~issloner King offer~d a motian~ secnnded by Carmissioner Bauas
an~8~'ION CARRIED, thdt the A~aheim City Pianning Cammissiorr does hereby
d t rect s taf f to advertl se Var 1 ance Na. 3175 for the febcuary 9~ 1981 ~
meeti~g.
1/26/81
-.
. . . ,....._.a ... ..... .. ............ 4
~
MINUTES~ AHAH~IH CITY PIANNINC COMMISSION~ JANUARY ~6, 1981 g1w7W
I~ TE~~iHtIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 8N18 - Requast fo~ approvei af specific pl+~ns~
A~nika Santalahtl , As~iatant DI recto~ for Zor-ing~ explained ~ffected
resldents In the Pe~sita Hilts area ware nottfled of this ~equest.
Jerry 5hulman steted he recently acquired subJect property fran Presley and
thsre h~s been a minor misundarst~+nding In the deed re~trtctlons; that since
they ente~ecl escrow ta ~urchase the property. they have been in touch witi~
ths Planning Uepartment steff and it was ~nly last weak thet thcy v+ere told
about this deed restrtction; thet he assumes the Perelta Hills peopie are
her~ to o~pnse the two•story structures besed on the 1975 deed restrictlon
end he would likc the opportunlty to work something out wtth them a~ the
city. 11e stated he understands there is a single-story rest~ictlon and his
two storles w) l l be under 25 feet. He dld not think it ~hould mske any
difference es long as they stay withln the heiqht perlmete~s as approved by
tho Associatior- of Peralta Ntlls. He steted when that single-story
restriction was mede In 1975. the~e wera no houseg above~ but they are therc.
now and from th~eir visu~l Inspectlon af tt~e property~ the houses canrwt be
seen end he dtd not belleve even the ~oofs wi 11 be secn. Ne stated, in his
op i n lu~ ~ the houses ~bove are the eyesor~. He added he fee 1 s tho re 1 s one
structur~ they wi i l be encroachfng upon and he i~ r+l l l ing to ~~gotlste
dlrectly with that pr~perty nwnar,
Chalrman Tolar stated this a~recment was made in 1975 Nith M~. Lusk anc!
propert; in Peralta 1lills and he was on the Commtsslon at that time. He
stated I~e woulcl not consid~r this request with~out satisfactory agreement
bacause there was a trasxnci~us amount af time spent on thls matter. Ne
steted he would hear what the oppo~itio~ has to say, but his in(cial
rcactlon ts that this matter would have ta be set for pubilc h~Artng.
Mr. Shulman statGd che stnylrstory restrictlon did not appear on the flnal
tract map.
Jack White~ Assistant City AttorneY, steted normally deed restrictions ere
not rer.arc3ed on the praperty, but ~+r~ an the map and he dl d not know why
this one dtd not spPea~.
Chairman Tolar stated Presley should have spelled out the restriction whnn
thc property was purch~esed.
Commissione~ Barnes read the fol ic~wtng letter from Wi l l ian+ l,. Lusk to !he
Planning Otrector, dated Jenuary 23. 1981; "Thls lette~ is being submitted
to clarify our egreemant~ not only with the City of Anaheim, but wtth Mr.
and Mrs. Krugcr~ ss it relstes to the developmont of hanes along the lower
t(er of T~ect p8418.
John 0. Lusk b Son agreed to restrict the lawer tier to cne-story homes so
as not io invade ths visuel pr(vscy of M~. a~d Mr§. Kruger. Hvwever, to
meet certel~ market demands for two-story homes and sti l i not i~vade tfie
Kruger's pr~vecy~ vae designed e 1-i/2 scory home, by putting the wliidavs for
the seccmd story ta the s i des. ~nd or~ the f ront I n the forn+ of dormers.
1/26/81
e
3
~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 26~ Ig81 81•75
We worked thi: progr~m out with the City snd Mr. b Mrs. Kruger and 1 would
suggeat that ths devsiope~ epplicant in hla ~eque~t seek the same
cooparetion for his solutlon."
P,olend K~uge~ statsd he Ifves Just belav thts proposed developme~t and in
1975 M1+any months were apent working out this agreen+ent; that origlnally they
wanted 18rger lott there tnat we~~e rrora tn amform~nce wt th persl ta Ni i ls,
but over a period of tlme wArked out a comp romise wlth Mr. Lusk to provide a
reeson~bla return on hia (nvestment and provide them some privacy. He had a
letter frQm the har~ownc~r's essociatton af the trect to tha west supporting
their pos(tlon and. i~ effect, It stet~s they support the ortginal plan fo~
ane•sto ry houses along the area bordering Perelte Nills and feel It will
Impact thet~ property a~s wall.
I~e felt after spending so many mc~nths working out a conpromise agreement
with the doveloper he did not want to be asked to go back anci start over
ageln. Fle stated whnn the property was first transferred to P~esley~ he
contacted Mr. lusk and was (nformed that Presley hed been made awere of this
restrictlon a~d felt it was Prealey's respcroslbillty to pass the Information
on to the new owner.
Mr. Kruger stated Mr. Josef asked him to finci out lf a cantllGVer swlmming
pool wlll be constructed overhanging the slope as rumored and stated they
feel that would be dangerous.
11e stated again they dn not thtnk they should be expected to start
ne~tiating aqaln. He add~d there are s(x propertics to the west who will
be asking for this same thing if this ts app~oved.
Glen Johnson~ G44 Peralta Ilills Oriv~~ stated he Is famili~-r with this
ar~reament made in 1915 and it was a resldue of a tot of negotlations end
bscktng dow n on the part of the peapie in Peraita Hlll~ and there were a lot
of things Mr. Krugcr compromised on and the ngreement has already been
negottated and t~e felt it shauld stsnd as approved.
Mr. 5hulman steted they would not build a cantllever swtmning pool and do
not plan eny swimming pool; and that thQSe would be custom hrnnes s~d the
slopes are not thel r propert;~.
lie stated he has just been (nfo~med of a few mir-or changes which Presley
shoutd have made him a~+bre of; that he finds tt (nteresting that the Board
voted an Janua ry 6 nat tn relax the singl~-sto~y, ~y-foot htight restriction
even If the City af M aheim cndes were ch~nged. Me stated he dtd not
understand the obJection to Mo stories; that he does respect the prtvacy of
tha peaplc innnedtstely behind anc! wi 11 do everythlnq possibie to mitigate
thst situatlon.
Chairman Tolar explained many hou~s were spent with the Lusk people and
Peralta Htlls homeowners to esteblish santthing good for the community~ not
only betause of the visual tntrusi~n~ but the water drainage, etc.; snd thls
opposttion is not against Mr. Shulman personally and thc agreen~nt was
created After a lot af thought end t~e feit Mr. Shulma~ ls e vi~tlm of
something not revcaled; that he would not have a problem ~rith o~e story. but
1/26/81
, ?
MINUTCS~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANMIN4 COMMISSION~ JANUARY 26~ 1g81 81-76
ha~ as one Commistion~r~ cannot tuppo~t the change wtthout s public hearing
snd would find it hard ta be totolty obJ~cttve to change sometht~g thet has
been dectded,
Co mmistinner Be~nes st~ted most of the give had been on the part of the
Peralta Nills people because before they had a qe~tle slope and compromised
far a highe~ slopa and a lot of other tliings and she dld not think tt shoutd
be ch~nged.
Commissioner Nerbst stated the o~dinances on alopes h~s chenged and the
Commission was adament that the slopes be brought up to present code and if
the prasent ordi~anc~ had been ~dopted these lots would probably not be
usable. Ile agreed single stories must be adherod to~ and stated he felt the
ma rket 1~as changed ta s I ng 1 e s to ry.
Mr. Shulman a~Ked if this restriction applias te a11 the property abutting
Paralta f~t i is ~ why two-story honies were al lowed in the Lusk Tract ~xactly
100 feet from his p~o~erty llne!
Chairmsn 7ols~ st~ted he cannot enswer that questlon; that the Commfssla~
carefuily revlews eve ry t~sct ~nd it is p~sslbie the two-story structures
werc allowed beceuse of slof1e dtfferentials.
Chairman Tolar stated Mr. Shulmnn has heard what has hsppPned o~ this
~roperty and knaws what recc~urse he has with Mr. Presley. Ne stated he
cannot support any va~iation from the original agreement.
Mr, Shulman asked tf 1-1/2 story structures would be ,occeptable.
Commlsstone~ 8ushorc aaked for a clear defini~tan of a stngle-story
structure snd Annika S~ntalahtt~ As~tstant Directo~ for Zoning~ repited 25
faet is a Scentc Corrldor requlation whlch overrides underlying zontng.
Mr. Kruger stated there wss s gene~al agredne~t for 1-1/2 storles aiong the
northern terrain and there were ; or 4 speciftc altoz which were aliowed to
heve i-1/2 ~tories.
Responding to Commisstoner Barnes~ Dean Sherer~ Asslstant Planner, explained
plans w~re apparently su~mttted to the 8uilding Division for r~pproval and ln
checktng the tract file condltions agalnst the plans, th~~ stipulatton for
one-story structures wes dtscovered.
Jtm Uennison, 255 Peralta Wav. stated he has been t~ the process of building
a new home for 2-1/2 years; thac he purchdsed Che property k years ago snd
did not Lhink tt~e financial implicatlon of thts to the petitianer should bn
a confideration and the prop~rty avner's finanr,tal implicatlons sre more
important.
He stated most af the comment4 h~ve been made by a~e-1975 peralta Hills
property arners end he is a post-1975 property owner and when he purchased
the property, he gave ccrosideratlo~ to haw the hillside behtnd him would be
develop~d snd noted stngle-stnry structures werc to be built there and it
had e beari~g on buying the property.
sl26l81
l
~, i
MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINO COMMISSIQN~ JANUAR1f 26~ 1981 g~.~~
Gr~ce Korsbedlan~ 26S Peralt• Way~ ststed M~. Shulmen hed stated he did not
think two•story •t~uctu~es on th• perimeter wauld be encrnacfiing upnn
enyone's p~ivacy~ but that ~he h~d obs~rved a person (n thA straet teking e
vitu~l scope of what he thou9ht would be an invasion of prtvacy end he dtd
not con~ tnto her yard or house to see If he~ vislon rvould be interfared
with. Shs stat~d she dia not think making s vtsu~i Judgmant f~om thr stree!
i: ad~quete and notsd the~e are throa or four lots which actually abut
:ubJect pfoperty which Nouid be AfPected. She statad there is a houae
acra~s th• street now which 1= tnvadtng tha privacy of her yard snd she
hated to think there wt11 be more.
Chairman Tol~r stated he felt thls ts ail the information the Camilasion can
91ve the petitione~ at this timo.
Deen Sherer~ As:lsta~t Planne~r~ expiatned the Conmtsslo~ can elther deny
thia requaat for ap~roval of apacific plans or requesc a public hearing to
consider ~mending tha conditlon of the t~ac:
ACTIONs Commisslo~er King otfered a motlon, saconded by Commissioner Boues
an InN CARRIEO~ thet the Anehelm City Planntng Car+imissinn does hereby
de~y app roval of specific plans for Tentative Map of Tract No. 8418 and doea
hereby ~econrnend that only singie-story dwallings be permitted on tha
northern perimeter of Tract 8418 as orlginatiy stipulated to by the
developer as e conditton of ap~praval of satd tract.
ADJOURNM~ENT. Thmre being no furth~r business~ Commissfoner Fry offere~l a motto~~
seconded by Cominissioner Barnes and MOTION CARRIEO~ thet the meating be
adJourned.
The meettng was adJourned at 4:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted~
,~~ .~° ~~,~:.
Edlth L. Harris~ Secretary
Anaheim City Plenniny Commisslon
ELH:Im
1/26/81
~....• r~ ~ i-c r^RCt°°'S fl^r; ~ F,~ '~P` v+s. ~r ~::a'~ °ryi7r4'~ ~, ~,., T.:,^~,~ r.t^s , i •; ~-T'^r, ~'~~
f ~H a . y {" s ~ ,
,,
~ , ~, ~, ,'