Minutes-PC 1981/10/05Ctvic Center
A~eheim~ Callfo~nla
octobe~ ;~ 198i
RFf;I~ 1LAR MEETING OF THE ANIWEIM CITY PLANNINI; COMMISSIfNr
REGULAR The rPquli~r meeting of the Anahalm City plar~ninq Commtaston
MEk:TING was called to order by Chelrman Huthore at lO:QQ a.m.,
October 5, 1981, in the Counci l Chant~e~~ o quprum belnq praoent ~
end the Caranission revlewed plans of the tt~ms on today's ~genda.
Recess: 11:00 e.m.
Reconvene: 1:;i0 p.m. far publtc testirrx~ny.
PRESENT Chal rman E~ushore
Commlsstoner~;: 6arnes, Eiouas~ Fry~ King~ Toler
ABSENT Commisslone~!;: Ilert~st
ALSO PRESENT Anntka Santalahtl
Jacic Nhtte
Jay Ti tus
Jay Tashiro
Pau) Stnc~~r
D~b Y.e 1 1 Qy
Dean Sherer
Edith Ner~is
AssiAtant Dlrector for 1.nnln~
Asslst~nt City Attorney
Office Engineer
Assottate P1annPr
Zraffic Engineer
Ansoctate Planner
AsSistant Plan~er
P~ar~ning Comnisslon SPCretary
PLE~G~ QF ALLEG! ANCE TO TFIE FLAf; LE D IlY - Cc,mmf ssf aner To la~.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Cormiissioner King offer~ed o mottan, sec.ondad by Cemmls3lo~er
Darnes and MOTION CARRI EQ (Conmiss ioner Ilerb~t being aAsen t) . thst the minutes of the
meeCing af September 9, 1981, be rpproved as corrected t~ ~hew Chairman Bushore
abstaining on approvAl of the August 24th m'~ut~s end as eorrccted to show
Co~ditional Use Pern,it No. 225~ on P+~ge 570 as r request to permit an-sale of b~er
and wine ir~ a proposed restaur,ent.
17EM N0. 1; EfR NEGATIVE OECLARATION~ RECLASSIFIf,ATiON N~Z. 8~-$1-3$ AND VARIAMCE N0.
32 '-"- ~_ - - _,...._,_
PUBLIC NEARING. ONNER: CORNELIA S. VpGT~ 11251 f.~:clid St reet. f.arden Grove~ CA
g2G40. AGENT: RUSSELL JAY~ bg71-A Lincoln Avenue, 8uen~s ~'ark, CA 9Qfi2~, Prop~rty
described as an i ~regula~ly-shaoed parcel of lAnd conaist i ~g af approximatsly 6. 7
ac~~s locsted at the southeast corner af Ltncoln Avenue and Pereqrine Street~ having
a frontegc of epproximatcly 320 feet o~ the south slde of I,Incoln Avenue and a
frentage of 7ii0 feet on the easc s Ide of Peregrine Screet.
RECLASSIFICATIOr~ REQUEST: RS-A-~43.000 TO RM-1200.
VARIANCE REQUEST: WA!YERS OF: (e) MAXIMt1?~1 BUILDING NEIGHT AND (b) NINIMUH NUMBER OF
PARKING SPACES TO CONSTRi,CT A 1~4-UNIT APARTMENT CONPLEX.
81-613 10/S/S t
MINUT~S, ANAHEIM ~ITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JCTOBER 5~ 1~1Q1 81-h14
SubJact ~e+titlon wss continued from the meettngs of Septembe~ g~ and September :1~
1981 ~ at ~he request of the peti ttoner.
The applicant was not ~~rasant at tl~e bcqlnning af the meetinct ~nci this Item was heard
following Item No. 2.
There we~o approxlmately forty persons tndicatinn thelr ~r~sence In oppositton to
subJect request, c~nd although the staf' report wes n~t read, it is referred ta and
madQ o part of the mtnutes.
Russell Jay~ 11~1 Uolphin TerrA~e~ Cr.rona Del Mar~ explalned the praper numb,~r of
pArkinc~ spaces are beinc~ prov'ded and a 1;-fa~t buffer is praposed on the south and
the gerAc~es arc edJacent to thn property line n~ the enst.
Georye 11e lmer, 407 South Co 1 t, s tated h Is ~roperty ( s on Che eastern bou~dary of the
proparty tn questlo~ and wlihout tfie b~nefit af a formal communtty assacietion~ the
neighbors surround(ng the property on the east and south h~ve held thrce meetings end
rach time the nunb er incraesad; and thet they had not a~proached the neighbors ln the
apartmen ts on Westt+ort Urlve or tf~e singlc-femlly rPsidcnces on the north across
l.incoln. He stated they felt apparPntly they Nerc not strong enough (n their
obJectlons two weeks a~o~ judging f~om c~m~cnts mede by rt least one Cammissioner who
said the nelgiib~rs were not anaingt apartments. -le stated they arc all against the
apartments; thAt tl~is a~ea is n much souqht after residentiai area because of schools
and the fine quall~y of th~e exlsting hp*res and those knowledgeabic in real cstate
will verify that thls is a stabl~ netghborhood and many people heve llved thtre for
1II co 20 years enc thare fs a~tood mixture of Ac~es ~nd professional people and they
feel th~ developmet~t af a rel~tivcly hi~ti ~partment complex would Irnver their
property veluas sic~ntflc<~ntly.
Mr. {ielmer stetecl they al ready have apar;ments dl r~ctly ~~cross 5unkist~ to the east,
bu) It 10 yea~s ~~a adjacent to the free+way which cc-nform ta th~ style und the qua) fty
of the neighbnrhood; wlth ~t~o one-story untts in front wtth heavy shake roofs and the
two-story bulldincas are noc vislble and that those apsrtments generate a lot of
trefflc. Ne stated th~ere are olcfe~ apartments on the west side which ere well
malntained~ but they do hr~ve tr~ffic and prrking problems. Ne referred to the
shoppinc~ ctncer which is to be remodeled and stated it wlil drew more peopte to ~he
area; and that they feel ten~nts froro this proposed apartment complex wi{1 be parking
in that shoppiny center parking iot.
Mr. Flelmer state!d the proposed developmertt would mean much rrore traffic congestion;
and that even though it is indlcated Pe regrine would be widened~ he doubttd it would
service the heavy fivw of traff~c tn and cwt~ especially ++ith the post office and
other shops in the shopping canter; e~~, ln adciitlon~ the extsting trafftc problr.ms
on 4lestport witi be magntfir.d, Ne statcd the ~roperty is presently zaned for
agricultur~l uses and it is understood that In the Genera) Plsn~ it woulu be rezoned
to sinc~le-famtly dNellings r+htch would mean 3n to 4Q additional homes with perhapa n0
cars (n the arna with South Peregrine being op~ to create an uncongested exlt to the
10/S/81
MINUTES, ANAIIEIM CItY PLANNINC COMMISSION~ QCTOpER 5, 1~81 81•615
soutn. Ib stated the proposed apartmcnt r.omplex wauld generate 35~ eddttio~~l c~rs
tn the drea snd posstbly more aince twwbad~oom apartmenta Arc deslgned so th~t twa
couples csn shere them wlth no lass of p~tvacy and four adults would meen fou~
vehicles And with that number of vehiclea~ there~ wauld be a al~niflcAnt environmental
impact in the form of noise and pcallutian and~ thnrafare~ they would request that an
env(ranmental impact report be requi re+d. ~le stoted i f these ~rc~uments a~d the) r
presence heve not convinced the Commis,slon of the negattve impact of this pro)ect on
thel~ ncic~hborhoc~d~ they respectfully rr.quest an evening hearing to accortmadeto the
many others In the netghbarhood who we~re unablc to attend 2his aftcrnaon hearin~ t~
suppo~t the potnt of vlew expressed tc-day. 11c stetcd they a~e all loo~•.ing fonvard to
the devrslopment of this vacent land ~~ut ask that it be cornpllrnQntary and tompatlble
with thelr hon-es end surraund{ngs.
Mi ldred Moore~ ~00 South Pereg~ine~ sr.ated Mr. ile~lmer had dlscussed most of their
concerns but she is also conce ~ned Hbaut tl~e trafftc; that she had gone do ~ Wastpo~t
yeaterdey and there wr.re 18 cars parked therc at 2:30 in the afternaon in a one biock
srea betwe~n Priscilla and P~regrtne. She stated sha fects two-story buildings are
not comp~tiblc wlth the surrounding aree and noted the butlder must I~ave san~ sart of
topagra~phlcal problem in order for the varl~ncQ ta be gr~nted and she felt anyc~ne
could probably ask to have the same thing c~rant~d. She expl~ined her reslder~ce ts
sttuated different than the other single-family resldencea ~d,Jotntny tl~ts propF~ty
because it acJ}otns tt~e entirc north side of h~r property and al) bedrooms are an the
north slck of her structure and the rev154d ~l~ns shc~w 1~ parking spt~ces within 20
fcet of her bedroom walls and 1~ spaces wttfiin 20 fect of the north boundary lt~e and
that thc street Ic~adi~n ta all 322 parking spaces is r~lthln ~-0 feet of these walls.
Mrs. Mbore stated while the present zoning ~resents no probl~m in the 1ncAtlo~ of her
house on her property~ the proposed zoning chanc3e ~nd b~~llding plans deny her the
privilege af sleeping as far removed fram trAffic noise a~d noise assoclated wlth
multiple-family dwellings as possible and fram alr pollutlon cAUSed by c~-rbor~
monoxide fumes. She staced the builder has undoubtedly examined this locat(on
thoroughly and two wecks ag~ the Planning Cortmission asked for ~ 2A-foot buffe~~ but
he did not p~ovide lt. She steted if th,is p~oJect is appro~~ed, she did not think she
could sell her property and she did not see haw she could co~~tinue to 11ve thcre with
all the nolse. She asked abo~rt the cul-de-sac~ noting two pr,~pe~ties are involved,
one house on tf~e corner of Puritan and Peregrine a~d hen c~xne.
Jay Titus explafned the condition refe~s to a madifled cul-de-sac whlch wtll be
placed in the e xisting righY-of-wey and does not extend beyond the existing cu~b. Ile
explalned the cul-de-sac is to permit the street-sweeper to make a turn at the end of
the str~et.
Mrs. Muore stated the only complai~t ak+out that area not
rainy season and tt~at whan she bought her hanc 7.2 years
all thls would happen. She steted she has two easements
neEghbo~s only have one and whenthis area was developed~
being cleaned up was after a
dga, she did not think
on her propert~r and a11 her
the strawberry field was
10/S/81
~~ ~~ ~
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCTOBER 5. 1Aa1 81-G16
County property and she has power I ines on the north side o~f her h~u,se and A
totephone pole on tl~e north~ whicli is ciose to her roof~ and the high tension wi~es
yo right over the hous~; thot anytlme she inqui~ed of the City, she was told that
would el) be chanc~ed when th~e ~~roperty to the north is d~veloped anci if thls Is
appreved~ she wants the pole and wirc~s off her propertY. She stated shc does not
want to be a tho~~ i~ Anyone's side and is not physicolly able to be herc tod~y~ but
wents tfie Cunmfsslon to knar her vicris and stated she knows ~he Commlsston is fair
and wtl) consldcr eve rythin~~ if the facts Arc k~own. She stt~ted she spenJs 5~~ ~f
her tirrx in bad and is concerned ~out the developn+ent and did not think it ts
mor~lly right or fa(r that she have ~arayes that near ta where she has to sleep.
Qebornh Pete~se~~ 23~3 Puritan, stated he~ p~o~erty Is locr~te~i on tha corner of
Puritan and PPregrine and abuts th~ subJect praperty and ti~et they are opposed to the
reciasslfication ~~nd waivers bacause chenging che zone to multl~te-f~mily =oning
abuttin~~ single-famlly resldenttal zo~e wlll dawnqrade their
properttes. Shc refe~red ta the 2-story welvcr requested and stoted if it Is
approved~ all these homeaw~ers in thts arnn wll) have to vlew gerage walls and 2-
story buildings from naw on. She stated code requirement is
for a 150-foot setbeck from the boundary t~ tht story butldings And th~ developer
wants 8~ teet; and codQ requl r~s a 10-fnot seth~ : and the ckv~l~~per wants a 15-foot
setback and only on one sldc; thet ~arkin9 requiremcnts are for 37.2 ipaccs and the
developer wants 91 of tl~ose spaces to be for cor~pact cars~ which is not permitted by
code. She stated flve years ~c~o a tract of homes was built to the east and they wer~
expcnstve homes and sold quickly which apprecioted their property value even more. and
that with ownership tf~ere is a pride and apartmcnts encianger that p~lde. She stated
crime will c~o ~ in that aree because of the increased populatlon and shc fcars for
her small children. She steted she and her husb~red are in favor~of thls property
being developed~ but not in the way tl~is develaper is pronosing. She stated ~+-1/2
Years ago bsfore purchas ( ng thet r hone ~ they checL:ed wi th tt~e Ci ty of Aneheim
Planning Depa~tment because their worse fear was that 2-stc-ry apartments could be
built there and were assured the~c would ncvcr be ?.-story apartments thrre because
thc lot was 10 fcet tao narrow. She stetcd they request that t1~e ~eclassification
and waiv~~s not bt grantcd as p roposcd. Mrs. Pctersen referr~d ~o the carports
pr4posed and asked for a definitlo~ ~f carports and as'ked why the Traffic F~9tneer's
recommendatlan was not included in today's staff report as it was in thE~
Septcmber 21st staff ~r.~,ort.
Dean Shercr read thc definition of c~rports frdm the code and clerift~d that in this
case the carport would be a structure enclosed on Lhree sldes. 11e stated revised
plans complied witt~ the Trafflc C~gineer's reoommhndatlan concerntnc~ the tntrance
drtveways off Westport.
Paul Sinc~r~ T~affic Engineer, statec! the driveway was redesigne;d to provicia better
visibtlity far entry and that th~e other cunditEon which was nat a part af thls
proJe~t was that there would not be any part:ing on Peregrinn St~eet and that
condttton w111 go throuqh wlth or wtthout this development.
10/5/1~1
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLIINNING COMMISSION~ OCTOBER 5~ 1981 81'61y
hlrs. Peteraan esked if the Tr~ffic ~ngineer fett ther~ is too much trafflc al~eady on
thet st~eet and M~. Sinqer replied tl~era is and thdt is why thcy need to remoye the
parking. Hle explalned there~ is a great number of turn rrbvements at the shopping
center and an extlusive lane wtll have to be provtded for left-turns.
Frenk ~ornard~ 2~+27 Curitan~ statad he revicw~ed the plans trro weeks oao ~nd again
today snd couid not see eny change, uther than r~locattng the ~arking and some units.
Ile stated he understands that compact c~rs parktng spaces ~roposed have not been
approved by the City and tl-at the d~veloper has not tnctuded a green belt or buffer
on the nast sidc of the pro~crty and has reduccd the width of t~~e buffer on the souLh
slde of the property. He stated in his opinlon the Jcvetoper is trying to put tuo
many unlts on this parcel and besides the ~roblem causcd far the people living in the
~eighborhood~ the people living in the apartmcnt units should be constdered because
they have a rl ght to have adequate ~oc~m as wel l.
Mr. Jay pointed out thera is a~i-foot hlock wall ~nd a 15-foot "ne man~S~~ land and
the enclosed gerAgrs on the sau,th side whtcf~ will stop a lot of the noise. so anya~e
ltving on the south slde wil) ~~ot be disturbed by the nolse. t1e Stated I~is archltect
tolcf him there would not be tc~o mucf~ obfecttan frUmresidents on the eASt side if
there is an enclosed ga~age right on the prapcrty line whlcti would stop a lot of the
nolae, rather than having opr.n ~arkinq. Cancerning tf~e comt~act ca~ spaces, he stated
they were told they could provide the campact car parking speces which wauld provlde
32t spaces and alsu there ar•e mo~e yreen areas p~oposed. ~~e stated the unly varlance
requestcd is far the 2-stury structure ~nd a t5-foot buffer, ra.!+er than 20 feet.
THE PUkiLIC NEARtNG WAS CL~S~D.
Ghelrman Bushnre asked i! Mr. Jay has develoned ather p~oJects in Anaheim and Mr. Jay
rcpticd he had Just recE:itly developed a matcl on Beach Boulevard. Commissioner
dushore stated he has n~~ obJection to the prope~ty owner dcvela~ing the property for
the use to whtch it is 1,e~i su(ted~ but ~ hardship must be proven for the variances
as rcquested and even c:hough one Commissloner said cc~mpact stalls are acceptable~ a
variance Is sti11 req~~ired and he was als~ puzzled why a 15-fcx~t buffcr is being
provided on the nne s~de wh~ the devc~loper was tald a 20-foot buffc~ (s required~
wlth Mr. Jay pointin~; out the 2~-foot buffcr is noc p~rt of the codc.
Chairm~n Eiushore strtted the 2r1-foot buffcr is a Planning Cortrnission policy and can be
waived by th~ Commi:~slon and maybe tod~iY an ~'~-font carport wail wauld be morc
prvtectlon than a E~-foc~t block. wsll and maybe the per~lc deservr to hAV~ that car~+ort
wall to protect th~em f~om the apa~tments. lie stated hc wants tn sce the aRartment~
buiit~ but not to the detriment of the surrounding nelghborhood. He statied he heerd
one Conmissioner say the b5~f«-t setback wouici he ftne hut thet the u+de still
requires thc ty0 feet ~nd he did nat. know haw the variance cauld be justifled.
Mr. Jay asked wh~at the seiback f~om the property line wouid be if hc~xnes were propos~d
and it was Rainted out that 2-st~ry homes could be bullt 5 rt~et from the property
~oisr~,
MINUTCS, ANIWEIM CITY PLANlIING COMMISSI0~1~ OCTQBER y~ 1~81 81-61a
11ne and Chairmen 8ushore painted out o~ty ~+0 hon+~s would be permitted~ rathor then
184 units.
Cht+irmsn Bushora staced ne haa no probl~ with whet the developer IY trying to da but
leg~lly he canr~ot Justify e ~~ercfship and if the Cr-d~ o~d Planntng ~.ommlsston pollcy
were compliod with. there woula ba less units and the anty way to g~ant such denstty
ts if thp developer is willing to enter an ~greemr.nt wlth the Ilo~~ain~ Auth~rity to
provid~ affo~dable h~ustng ti~htch he hes Indiceted he doas not wr,nt to do, Ne stated
I~e realizes the condominlum o1'dinanr.$ hss t~een chsnged, but It hes not baen changed
for apartments end the: 91 conp act stnils sound reaso~able becrusc most p~ople
(~rnbebly have at lors+: on~ CQrtI(~BC~ cc~r in thetr famlly~ but that the Code h~s not
been chancnd to etlow them ~nd untll the code Is chenged~ t+ variance is requlred and
thero l~as to be unusiu~l ci rcumstences i n ordcr ~to g~ant a vari ancc.
Mr. Jay st~tecl tt~e~ erc certain restricClans I~e h~s to Ilve with r~nd asl:ed if therQ
would be any abjecttcx~ to the 15-fnot setback r~ith a 6-foat wall and gerages on the
south sidc. Chatrman Bushore stated the Cm m~issian wtll not know that until they
voce and maybe a buffer zone wlil Lecome a"no man's lon~+" a~nd mayhe the policy will
harm the rr.stdcnts f~-~r mor4 than they rcali~c~ but uritil the pollcy changes~ lt must
he coris i de red.
Cortmisstcx~er aarnes asked staff to tcll the audience what the setbdcks wnuld be for
condomin(uirts and Dcan Share~ explained if thls t~rc~r.rty were to be devaloped with
concn~miniums~ the structurol setb~ck minim~lly would have to be 2 feet for every 1
foc,t of buildinc~ hetght~ ~Ith a;0-foot. setbacl. rninimum and that apartments still
h~ve tohave a150-fpot satb~ck.
Commissioner Elarnes stAted that (s the rcasan shr fclt the 73 fect would be
acceptable.
Annika Sant~lahtl~ Assistant Directn~ fUr T.onin~, explAlned the policy furtl~er seys
whe~ the 2-story buildln~ ls closer than 150 feet~there hss to be a~tructural buffer
of same sort ~etween the single-famtly zoning and the 7-story bultding and that could
consist of a carnort wall or a fence or grnde differential, whe:re there is not
actublly ~0 feet of land ta the 2-story building. She explalne~d t~ condominlum could
be 2(1 feet adJacent to single•family reside~tisl usea.
Cortmissloner Barnes stated 2A feet ewey f~om the property ~ine there c:ould be a 14~
foot high buildiny wtth a bl~nk wall. '~he stated the Co mntssion thinks about Ather
Ehings that could be built there other ~han these apartment unlts and the problems
they tould impose. She stated the denstty (s nat ~as great v:ith condominiums but !s
pretty close end from a pla~ntnc~ standpotnt, this land. in her opinion~ since tt is
bou~+ded by Ratph's Market cx~ one stde and the pnst offic~ and other corm~ercial uses
on the other side, with restdnntiai on the south and east, fs not real'ly conducive ~o
stngle-family ck velopment a~d she sees tt ma~e as o buffer zone b~tween the houses
and t~ie commerzlal development anc' feli it would be better ckvelc,ped as apa~tments ar
condominiums. She st~ted shc did noc thtnk a~ybodv wouid buy a singte-famlly home
t~/5/81
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PIANNING CqMMISSION~ QCTOBER 5~ 1961 ~i-G19
next ta Ralph's Market on Li~coln Avenue, so whetever is developed has to be
'omathtnc~ other than single-family homes and she feit an 85-foot setback is
reasonabl~ for thn 2•story structuro because therr. could be screeni~g and the walis
could be developed wlth na windows so there wouid be no invasian of the neic~hbors'
privacy. She stated. hawr.ver~ she is cancerned with the car~~rts on tho e~st slde.
Mr. Jay asked if the~e ts a greet obJectton fram the residents to the Q~foot ca~port
walls on the eesi side bec~ause thet cou1J be correctc~d.
Comnissianer E3uuas ascertained that Mr. Jay had not met with the nelgltibors and steted
that was recommended at the prevlous m~eting becAUSe it was felt some of their
Gonee+rns could be satisfied.
Chairmen Busliore referred to Traffic Engineer's comments that the perk(ng would be
removeci from Pcreyrlnc bQCnuse of extsting traffic problems and asked how long (t
would be befare there wil) havc ta be some kind of controllad access potnt. 11r.
Slnc~~r replied he hoped that fntersectlon wlll not have ta be signaltxed and that ta4
units could very well make the situation wo~se to the polnt where a stgnal would be
necessary and when the intersc~ctlon is sinnalized~mc,re traffic would he attrrcted to
the area and w(11 providc morc interru~tians ~or traffic on Lincoln Avenue. fle
stated this proJect is going to generete 1500 to 1G00 trlps per dey, and that is a
very substantial wlume Added to that street. Nc~ statcd the problem is that
Per•egrine ts ofFset from ti~e intersection ncross th~e street maktng turns very
dtfficult.
Cortmissionar King asked if condomintums could be .Justified and Mr. JaY ~eplied he
would probably provide fe~wer apar•tment untts; that conriomtniums woufd be very
profltable~ but he wants to put in apartments because there is a g~r.at need fo~
!` apartments and ve ry few are being built today.
Chairman Eiusho~e asked how the devrloper plans ta qet flnencing for thTs project
t sinca there wil l be a negative cash flow and Mr. Jay repl ied rtgt~t nc~w there wc~uld be
no ftnanctng~but he wants to get the praject rc~ady to go becausc ~ventually financing
a: will be avaiiable at a lower inter~st rate and the current figures were based on a
;; 12$ intcrest rate.
Chairman Bushare stated he has mlxed feelings about the 20-foot landscaped a~ea
abutting the single-family homes ~~+ith the carports, because the 24-foot area could
become a piace where kids could gather and usa drugs~ etc. ar-d it would be easy far
son+eone to jump over the fence into the backyards and asked if it would be betier to
ha~re an ~-foot carport wall. 11~ asked how many people present wauld prefer the 20-
foc~*, buffer and approximately 20 peopte responded by raising their hand~ and no one
in~licated they would pref~er the carports. Me stated there is no way to guarantee the
2~foot buffer area wlll remain la~dscaped and indicated there are elght property
owners on Colt and four on Purtta:~ and d:~te~mined that most of those property owners
are present.
10/5/81
MIHUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC CONMISSION~ OCT08ER ~~ 1981 A1•E~20
Commisaloner Tolar stated he had sugc,k sted the developer loak et cempact spaces
because the City has baen considering changing the ordtnance to allow compoct car
s~acea bet~use 30 to 4n$ of the vehicles today are compacts. He steted~ however~ he
Is con~erned about this request bmcause a hardship is required by state law before
approva) of a varlance and he did not I~nvw of any hardship on this property. ~le
stated he is alsa concerned about the 20-foat landscaped buffer bacause he has seen
areas where these buffers have been developed end tn some cases they h~ve worked
because the p roperty awner eltcted to take care of the a~~a; however, he was
co~cerned about the aps~tments backing up to these rosidenttal hous~s with that space
betw een the cerport5 which could becumr. a security prubl~m or a nulsance; however,
the prop~rty ewners t~ave satd they want that space and the Conmission d~es have a
policy r~quirTn~ that space. He sketed he cioes support multipl~-family devalopmant
on thls property and tho General Plan does call for rt~ediurtrdensity whtch Is multiple-
family devclopment. Iie stated f~e felt thr major problem here fs the number of units
proposed and ho felt thr, proJect could be redeslgned wtth Iess untts to give mare
protectlon to the neighbors wtth tl~e 20-foot buffer and that therc are ways to place
the units on the property so they would not Intrudc t~to the privac~ of these homes and
he felt mc~st of the ~etghbors would not be opposed if the plan was rede:stgned and
that the p roblem lies wlth the variances requircd wtth thts rlan as proposed.
Cnrrmtssioner Tolar asked tf the developer Is proposing this project for the noble
cause of pr+c~viding housing and Is th rowing out all the p roflt he could meke bacause
he has said there will be a$2.100 a month negative cash flow and that If that is the
case, he wauld have to qUestion not only what the developer Is sayin~ bu*. also hiS
integrity. tle statGd the raal probtem is not the devetoper or the realtor but is the
owner of the land who fesls that the land value is much higiier and they wanC to make
a lot of money from i t which requi res the developer to asl: for these vartences. He stated he
will support an apartment providing tt does not cost al) the residents in that area
thefr health and safety l~ecause he felt this ~roJecc would tnf~tnge on thcl~ rights.
Mr. Jay stated he has ta deside how many apa~tmcnts they wc~uld have to have to make
the p roJect feasible and Commissioner Tolar stated the cost of the lend may have to
be a little more realistic to make the project feasible.
Mr. Jay statcd he is paying far less than the market ~ate for the land whtch is the
reason he has decided to build apertments; tt~at the owner did not want to sell the
property and is only leasing it an a~9-ye:ar lease. He stated they went to build
apartmants from an investment standpoint because he fecls tnfiatiun is here to stay
and probably in 5 yesrs he would be getttng a goud tncome from the units. He stated
they keep the projects they develop and do not sell them.
Canmissioner 7olar stated nothtng is forever and reality might dtctate Chat the
proJeck has to be sold in the future. He stated he would rather see apartments set
back E30 fe~t, than condaminiums at 4Q feet and ho has seen a lot of prajecr~ 11ke
that and they did infringe on the nelghboring restdentiat developments. Ne stated he
could support the compact car spaces, but he would like to see xhe 20-foot landscaped
1015/81
MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. OCTODER 5~ I~A1 81-~21
buffer provlded dnd the ~:ansl:y reducnd ao that the proJoct would not (nfringe on the
nelghbors.
Mr. Jey asked if the Gomnission would epprovo the proJect If t~Q 20-foot buffer is
provided wlth the 2-story~ as praposed, with the ~roper amount of pe~king spaces
including tho compnct car sp~ces. Cortmissioner TolAr statr.d he could ~~~t answer
that questlan u~ti 1 tt~e plans are redesigned and presanted.
Ci~alrman Dushore stated tha nrojact should be destgned within the! Code and i¢ mtnor
variences are re:~ul~ed; the Commisslon Is re asa~able.
Commisstoner Tolar state~l last year thls Commission sp~nt a lot of tirr~ studying the
2-sto ry satbacks and re vtr~red other cities c~des and Anaheim was the only city that
had the 15(?-foot setback. He stated efte~ revlewing the matter~the Planning
Cortm(sslon and City Councll decided not tu change the ordinance so thet eech proJect
could t~e revtewcd individually. tte stated he bel{eved one of the persons present tn
opposition to this request was p resent durtng tf~ose hearinys lASt year and wented the
ordinances chanqed t~ecause he owns property in ~~nother location~ but now he (s here
as a horr~owner with ~~ dtffe~ent opinion. Ile stated the ~roJect has to be reallsttc
for everyone tn tt,e City. i~e stated the Commission has to ~~ear all sldes an:, study
all proJe~ts and has none out to the diffcrent cities to ser, what the proJect looks
llke, after it has been butlt wlth a(,Q-fort setback~ etc. 11e stated he can support
an 80-foot :etback wtth ~.he proper design, with a 20-foot landscaped buffer provided
and with other amenities , so that the traffic clrculatic~n ~nd other Chtngs do not
infrtn~e on the neighborha~d.
Chalrman f3ushare stated the Cc~tm~tsslan is talkirg about scxne untquc fe~ture which
makes the project blend ln ~ilth ttie surroundl~q netghborhood. ~1e stated he
wtshed people would stap sayin~~ that infiaticx~ is here ta stay because if people
would stop betting on inftationr it would qa away.
Commissicmer Talar stated the Canmission ts not supposed to cieal with economics and
as land planncrs, are supposed to look at the la~nd use, but he did not think any one
of the Commissioners can Jivorce thr_mselves from economtcs. Ne stateci the Commisslon
does 1004, at land pianning and must see what the proJect is going to do to the
nelghborhood~ to tt~e City as a whole and also to the peapie who would be itving in
the units.
Commissioncr Barnes atated she thaugf~t the issue here is that these neighbors do ~ot
want aperCments and want single-famtly residences. She agreed with C~mmtssioner
'fotar that this is probsbly a gaUd location for apartments or condominiums and thet
it is zaned for mediurrdensitv. She stated she is net opposed to the apartments.
She ~tated she hoped the dcveloper would come back with a alial~tly dlfferent plan
becausc she felt the Cortinission ts actually bothered by the plan itsetf because they
have seen some very uni~ue proJects and that this plan {acks p~ezazz and thgt it must
offe~ a lool: that woutd blend wtth the residenl•iai homes.
1A/5/81
t
/
MII~UTES~ ANANEIM CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ OCT06ER 5r 1981 E31•622
Cammtssianer Taler st~ted the whole problem is wlth the de~slty a~d thnt is cre~ting
a tremandous smount of hetdship~ for ~varyone to accept.
Mr. Jay atated f,odc would pe rtnit 211 u~lts and Chalrma~ 9ushore stated if the
~~v~+laper c~n p rovick 211 units without any varlances, he wouid get approval. I~e
aaked if the developer wauld llke a continua~Ge and advised hin~ If he does requesL a
continuance~that the steff can guide him towerds whst the Gamnisslon ls looking for.
Commi~sioner Barnes stated she is cane~rned about the impact on the ~rop~rty oMmers
on tha esst and felt the pr~perty awners Hould be satisfied wtth the 20-foot buffer.
Lhsirmen Bushore stated the :r-f«~t buffcr Is even requtred on candominiums•
Commisstoner Tola~ stated the Commisston has seen pians with the 20-foot landscaped
buffcr without the garageb and the~e could be a lot of tr~es or landscaping and other
th(ngs instead of )ust an 8-faot cerport wall. Commlsslaner Bernes stated she has
sagn some destgns with Che ~lank wall 2~i fcet htgh and that ~rr.a sloping up to 2-
~~tory units and that tha mc~f 1 ine is wlrat is secn.
C~mmissicx~cr Tolar stated t•here are n~any things t~,at could bc done and th~re a~+
projects that rcally mingle with the r.c(ghborhor~d and he did nc>t tl~ink this proJe~t
ls very croat(vc.
Chatrman Bushore stated tl~erc are apsrtments being bulit today and refcrred Ca same
on La Palma Avenue and stated th~~ reason they are not bQing bullt ts b~cause of
financing,
Mr. Jay stated he rrould 11ke a continuance to stu~y the problem.
ACTION; Commissioner King affered a rnotion~ seconded by Comnissloner t3ouas and
MO- TIOt~ CARRIED, that consideration of the aforementtoned itern be continued to the
regularly-scheduled meeting of Nc~vember 2~ 1~81. at the request of the petltloncr.
Chai rn-an Bushore suggestFd the neighbors cal i the Lt ty Nal 1 on November 2, 1981 ~ to
determine whether or not xhe ~rnJect wlll be ~eard and Commissioner Tolar sugc~ested
the developer meet with th~ homeowners to r+eview the revtsed plans~ ' -
11'EM N0. 2: EIR NEGATIVE DECLAaATIOtI RECLASSIFICATIOIi N0. ~~~"'7'~ /u~.~.%~/
~~
PUBLIC 11EARING. PETITION~R: CITY OF ANAIIEIM. P. 0. Sox No. 3z22. Anaheim, CA 92802.
Property described as an t~rcgularly-shaped parcel af iand consisting of
approximately 65 acres~ lacated southeesttrly of and includinq portions of Santa Ana
Canyon Road~ east of Mahler Dr ive.
RECI.ILSSlFICATION a~QUEST: COUNTY $O-AR-10~000 6 100-Eb-20,~00 to RS•HS-2~,000(SC).
~o/5/a~
MINUTES, ANA1iEIM CITY P~ANNING COMNISSION, OCTOBER 5- 1981
6t-623
There were two Inte~est~d perso~s Indicating their presence st the publtc he~ring,
and althou~-+ !~e st~ff repo~t waa not read~ it Is referred to end nu~de a pe~t of the
minutes.
Oeen She~er preannted the staff repc~rt to tl~a Pidnning Conmlaslon deted Octobe~ 5.
198'~ exc~laining this ta a City.tnttiated reclassificatton request and ts a pre-
annexatian zoning Actlon to ~ecl~ss(fy the GS scre~ fram County to City zoninq. He
expieincd ~.sab Kc11ey Is also pr~sent to answer any questlons.
Lco Oeterding~ 21102 Santa Ana Canyon Road~ puestionad the reference fn tho staff
r~port conce rntng tho access point and noted there Is ~ road cnlied Cnnyon Crest
Urive which is batween Eucaiyptus and Mohler Orive and asked tf that access wouid b~e
closed. Ile 4tated severAl years ago the City hed v~anted to close It but the
homeownera perrsu~ded them t~ leave It open.
D~an Sherer~ Assista~t Planner. stAted that the stetcment should be clarlfied to iro an
that there could not be anY ~+ddittonal accass ~olnts other tt~an those set forth and
epprovad by the City Councll and that thls current eccess will remetn.
Mr. Dete~ding osk~d if the nx dla~ break ot that p41nt wlll be closed~ and Deen Sharer
replled he is not eware of any plans to close that existing median break.
Mr. Detarding referrcd to the statement in the staff report that the Ge~eral Plan
designates subject proncrty f~r Hilistde Estete ~enslty permitting a maximtm of 1.5
units per gross acre, and noted Nr. Sher~r had Indicated in hfs opening remerks that
the reclassificati~n is for ?2~000 square foot lots.
Cha'Irman Bushore explained t~iet the General Plan designatton Is gcneral ancl there are
specific zontngs within that General Plan.
Jack Nhtte, Asststant City Att~~rney. explained the zoning deslgnatior and the General
Pian destgnatton both A~ply to any parcei of land and that the zontng designation
does not necessarily have t~ c~incide exaccly wlth the Gcneral f'lan as far as density
is conce rned and thet the praposed zoning in thts case is P,S-;~S-22,O~Q which mean3
that the denslty wAUld he nc rn~itted up to a maximum of 2 units per acre; whereas~ the
Gene~at P1an designation fcr the property permtts a density up to 1•1/2 units per
acre and the reason for the dlfference is that the zoning applfes to each indtvldual
parcel and the Gen~ral Plan applleS on a proJect-wide basis. 11e steted each
indtvtdua) iot will have to corn~ly with the zoning requlrement which is 1/2 acre per
percel. but the development in its enti~'r.ty will hpve to com~ly wtth the 1-1/2 units
per acre~ meaning that t~ order to uxn~+ly with the Generol Plan ft witl be necessary
for any dcvelopment to have some lo*,s thAt ere greater than 1/2 acre in size, but the
total density of the t~tal development canr.~t exctod 1-t/2units per acre but any 1ot
couid be as sr-~11 as t/2 gross acre.
10/5/81
.._..,._.-a~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY P~ANNING C4MMISSION~ OCTOBER 5~ 1981 $1-b2~
Mr. Deterding steted ha hat~ 4.44 Acres and plannod to subdtvtde It (nto 7 lots end
wonderod if thet will stt 11 be fe~stble if this ls reclaesifled.
Chalrman ~usha~e steted Mr. Deterding would have to bring speciftc plens into the
staff for review before that questian coulci be answered end Doan Sherer explsin~cl
using the 1/2 acre dasignstlon~ ~ lots could ba p rovtded~ but gtven the topograhhy
and Genara) Plsn desiynatl~n~ ths number would probably be te~s.
Mr. Deterding refer~ed to the conditlon requiring street itghts and stated he feels
atreet lights are a terrible weste of energy and he recognizes that many people like
stroet it9hts end also thet the Clty makes money selling electrictty and that they
prefer street lighta~but that I~e does not want any street llghts on hts property end
wlll not sell hts property to a devclopor who w~nt~ to put str~ct lights on It~ Ho
steted if he develops witl~ ~rivate streets~ he wautd not have to I~ave st~eet 1(ghts~
but If tt is devaloped wtth public st~eets~ street Iights would be necesaary.
Jay 1'itus~ Office Eny~neer. statcd in the hbhlAr Orive area most of the streets are
prtvate ~nd this particular conditlon ts referring to the existing public atrrets and
laoking at the area~ the only cx(sttnct public streot is Santn Ana Canyo~ Road d1Yd Cht!
condi tlon Indicates the street 1 ights wl ! 1 he nece:s~mry as rec~ul red by the 01 ~ector
af Public Utilitles and that he could not answe~ Nhet his requtren~nts woutd be.
Cort~nisslone~ Tnlar stated the Cammission h~s epproved proJects wherc the developer
has Asked for street light requtrcme+nt walvers and t-~ac Mr. Deterding can do the same
thing If he decides td ckvelop the property.
Jay Titus ateted the C~ unci) policy is to not requlre street Itghts in the Mohler
Dr i ve area.
Mr. Deterding stated there ere st-cet lights an the othe~ sidc of tl~e ro~d between
Santa Ane Canyon Road and the Riverside Freeway and Jay Titus cl~r(fted that that
sectlon is not consicfered the hbhier Drlve area.
Chalrman Bushore stated the Commisston rccognizes Lh~a unlqueness of thls area and
does not want that erea to turn into anothcr are:a ltkc across the strcet.
Mr. Deterdlny referred to the trce removal requfrements and asked if the Scentc
Corridar Overlay is stiit from hllltop to hiiltop on both sides of the Santa Ana
River and Dean Sherer explalned the corrtdor definltton is basically all that
prope.~ty that is east of the Nevtport Freaway and south of khe railroed tracks,so if
Mr. Deterdfng's property is annexed~ it would t~e in that cc~~~idor classtficatlon.
Mr. Deterdl~q asked the definition of a specimen ~re~ and M~. Shercr explained it is
a~;ree that has been designated by the City as bcir; indtgenous to the ar a~ fo~
ex~wnple, a mature grawing eucalyp~us tree would be constdered a spectmen tree.
10/5/g1
~
~
.~
~, ~
i ~
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PI.MINING CONMISSION~ OCTOBER 5~ 19B1 81•62y
Mr. Daterding st~ted for tha past 27 ye~rs he hAS ptant~d eucalyptua tree~a avery y~ar
to cut far f I rewood and +~sked t f he would be requi rad to get a perml t for ramovel of
the trees If the p ropertv is anne xed.
Chel rman ~ustwra stated that the Planning Depertnr.nt hss a 1 tst of speclmon trees end
thst there 1 s• debate oven on the Comn) ss lon aa !o whethe~ or not a eucal ptus t ~ee
shcwld even ba on that specimen troe tist. Commisstone~ Fry stated thet he felt
f 1 rewood i s the ~est usa fAr euca lyptua trees.
Dean Sherer explained thore is e provtslen tn tl~e Cc~de that wl~en A property Is
developed~ the property owner has the riqht to reque~st rert+eval of spectmen trees and
statod tf the County of Oranga has no reguletione on the p~es~rvatian ~f specimen
trees~ Mr. Deterding could probably just removc them~ but tf the p~apr ty (s Annexed
to the C i ty ~ the t roes cannot he ~omoved w i thout perr,t s sl on f rom the f 1 enninc~
Commlsston unless the trees arr_ dlseased and if approva) ts glven the trees must be
reptaced. Ile explelned the specimen troes r~movn) permit ls S25•~0 for Envtronmental
Impact Nec~etlve Occleretio~.
Mr. Daterding stated he Is tn the process af hullding a house right on Santa Ana
Canyon Road on a 1/5 acre pa~cei and that hn e~ot the permi ts in the County and has
been bullding on the house for the past 4 yerrs and expect~ to have It flnished
wl th 1 ~ the noxt 1-1 /?. yea~s . Ne ask~d i f the rmnexat ton 1 s opproved. ~~het the status
of those bui l ding permt ts woul d bo t~nd asked i f he woul d need a Cl ty bui lding pcrmi t.
Annika Sant~lahti ~ Assistant Oi rector For l.oning~ explained sha Is nnt really sura
but she theught the~e ts a way to deal witt~ the County and the Clty so that 2 permits
are not ~equtred,but that the Cou~ty nermit is probably also limited and the war~ has
to be fintshcd wtthtn ~ cert++in amount of tlrnr. Mr. Deterding explafned tt~at he can
take up tu 2b years to butid tl~e house if necessary as long as he does something
every ~0 days. Anntka Santelahti suggested lie check with the County concerning these
pe rml ts .
Ev~de~n Mi l ler~ 764i3 Cal le nurango~ stated she I~es e ~+rce) a 1 ittlc over 2 acres
large di rectiy across Canyon Crest Drt ve and that th i s pl an shows her property sp) l t
end potntcd out har property on the exhibit.
Annika Santal~hti stated the e~tbit ls t~ased on a lega) description submftted in
conJunctlon with th~e annexation so she would assume o~e ~iece hss alreAdy baen
annexed.
Mrs. Mi l ler re~l ied she tha~c~t tt hed becn anncned and explained thls ls a new
purchase and she preterrad bot1~ her parcels F.e el ther in the Caunty or ln the Ci ty.
Jack white strted thts p~oposa~ rolates to aniy o~e parcei and he dtd not know
whethar or not the other parcel is cu~rently in the City.
~a/5I8~
,
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM ClTY PLIWt~iNG COMHISSION~ OCTOBER 5~ 1961
81-626
Dean Sherer stated or+ Februery 2G~ 1979, thero w~s a rnquest to roclasslfy that
p~rtlculer p roperty f rr~m County AR-10,000 to City of Anahelm aS-HS-22,000 wlth a wolver
of mintmum lot arca to craete e 3-l~t subdivtslan and It was epprovod by the Plenning
Connntssion subJect to the tonditlon thst the zoning be finalized o~ce th~ property
wae ann~-~ed and he dtd not knc~~ +~hether the annexetlo~ has been complet~d.
J~ck Whlte stated the Planntnq Department staff c~h answer her questtons.
Clialrmsn aushore stnted tl~o intent is to bring all that property Into the City
espocially sincp it is the prop~rty awner's requrst~
Mra. M) l ler stated they prQfe~ in thet aree not to have to talerate sidewalks or
turbs because t~~ey do hav~ r- lot of horses 1~ the area and therc ar~ a lot of
chtldren who ride those horsas down Santa Ana Canyon Rn~d a~d she agreed thst street
llc~hts shoul~+ not be rcqui~ed. 5he asked whac the City's stend would be on artesian
wells becausr she has her nwn water on th~t property.
A~nika Santalahti stated she would have tn check M~ith the Water pivislon af the
Public Utiilties Depa rtn~ent. Chairman Bushare stAt~d an artesian wel) cannot be
stop~ed t~ecausP t C i s a fact of nature.
7NE Pl1aLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Comnissioner Uarnes offcred a matlon secondc~d by Cortmissloncr King and mo"faned
carrled (Commtssloner H~rbst beln~ a~sent)~ that th~e Anahetm Ctty Planning Commtsslon
has reviawed the propusal to reclassify subJect property from Cr~unty 80-AR-10~00~
(Agricultural~ Restdcntla) District) and County 100-El~-2~000 (5++~ 1 Estates District)
to Chc RS-HS-22,000(SC) (Residential~ Single-Family HI11sIdc Sc~ ,ic Corridor Overlay)
zone on an irregula~ly-shaped ~arcel of land consisting of approxlmetely b5 acres
loct+ted southeasterly of and Including pnrtion af S~nta Ana Cnnyon Road~ having a
maximum depth of app roxinwtcly 3~~~a feet end ~atng located appraximately 65 fcet
east of the cente rl i ne of Mohler Dr i vc; and d~ies liercby apprave the N~gatt ve
Declaration from the requi rr.ment to prepare an ~nvl ronmenta) impdct repo~t on Che
basls that th.ere would be no significant indivldual or cumul~tive adve~se
envirorsmental impact ~iue to tt~e eppmv~l of this t~egatlve Declaration stnce th~
Anahelm Gencral Plr~n designates the sub}ect prupcrty far hfilsidc estatc d~nsity lanci
uses commensureta wlth the proposal; that no sensitivic environmentai irtpects are
involv~d in the p~oposal; that the ~~iitial S~=~dy submitted by thc petitlo~er
ind(cates no signifleant individual ar cumula~tive adverse envlronmental Impacts; and
that the Negative Declaratlan substantiaitng the faregoing ft~dings Is on filr in the
Clty of Maheim Planning Department.
Commissiuncr Darnes offered Resolution No. PC£sl-20a and moveci for its passage and
adoptla- that the Mat~eim City Pian~ing Commission does hereby grant Reclossification
No. 81-A2-7 subject to Interdepartmental Comnittce rccammendations.
Qn rot l cal l~ the forcgofnq resolution wss passed b~- the fol lowtng vott:
AYES: COMh11SSI0NER5:
NOES: COMMfSSION£RS:
ABSENT: CONMISSIONERS:
BARNES~ BOUAS,
NOt1E
H~RDST
QUSNORE. fRY, KI NG, TOLAR
t0/S/81
~
~~ !
MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITIf PLANNING CQMMISSION~ OCTOdER 5~ ig$1
81-627
ITEM N0. 3t EIR CATECORIGAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 ANO CONDITIQNAL USE PERMIT N0. 2266t
PUBI.IC HEARING. OhINEa: NORTtI AM~a1CAN INVESTMENTS~ 1944 North Tustin Avenua~ ~1A0~
Oranga~ CA 92665. AGENT: SATSUKI NAMAYA, 2~~x4 We:st Bei l Road~ N2 ~ Anehelm~ CA
9Z804. Prope~ty described as a rect~ngutarly-shaped parcel of la~d conslsting of
approximately 3•1 ecrea, located et the southw~st corne~ of Ba) l Roed and Gi Ibert
St ~eot ~ 247.b Wast Ba 11 Mad (Hameya aost~uran t) .
C~NOITIONAL U5E REQUEST: TO PERMIT ON-SALE PEER ANQ WINE IN IW EXISTING RESTAURANT.
The~e was no one indlcsting their presence in opposttlon to subJect request~ and
atthough the staff report was not read~ It is roferred to and medn a p~rt of the
mi ~utes.
Satsuk) ~lameYe~ dqent~ was prese~t t~ answer a~y questions.
TNE PU4LIC ~IEARING WAS CLOSED.
lt was noted the Planning Oirector or his authorized repres~ntr~tive has datormtned
thAt the propoaed proJect falls within the definitlon of C~+tegorical Exemptlona~
Ctass 1~ as defined in paragraph 2 of the Ctty of An~helm Environmental Ir-~act Report
Guidel ines ond Is. theref~re~ cataqorical iy sxempt from the requt remant to ~pr~p~re an
EIR.
Car.tintssionar King offered Resolution No. PCB1-2(19 end moved for its pesseg~ rnd
sdoption that the Maheim Ctty Plannt~g Cortmisslen do~s herehy grAnt f~andttto~a1 llae
Permi t tb. 2266 i~ compl tance wl th Secttons 1 a.03•~3~; •~31 ~•c132; .n?3; .03~ end
.035~ Ti~~e ~~ af the Aneheim Municlpal Cade and SubJect to Interckf~~~tment~~
Comnltte~ ~commendations.
On roli cell~ the foregoing rosolutlon was passed by the foltawtng vote:
AYES: COMMISSIOP~ERS: BARNES~ 80UAS~ E3USNORE, FRY~ KING~ TOLAR
NOES: COMMiSSIO~~ERS: t~ONE
ASSENT: COMNI SS ! ONE RS : NEftE3ST
MINUTES~ ANAIIEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, OCTOBER 5~ 1981 81-62a
i TEM N0. 4
~~R~~NO RECOMMfNDAT10N5
The following Reports ond Recommendsttons staff reports we~e presented but not •oad:
A. COFIDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1~~'0 - Request fo~ termination from Jemes Stov.:~l
or property ocate ut outh Anaheim Boulev~rd.
ACTION: C~~mnissione~ King affered Resolution Nn. PCt~1-210 And moved for tts
pa- s age and adoption thet the Anahelm City Planning Cc~mmission c~oes hereby
terminate Condl t tonal Use Permi t No. 1470.
Q~ roll call, tho foregoing resolutian was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSiO~{ERS; UARNES~ aouns, IiUS~IORE~ FKY, KINf,~ TOLAR
NQES: CQMMISSIOIIERS: N~NE
AIiSENT: COMMISSIOfJCRS; t1ER8ST
B. RECLASSIFICATIQN N0. 78~9•i_~ AND V!-RIANCE NQ. 0 1 - Rrquest for
~etroact{ve exte!nslons o~tirne~rom pav d D. Dah l.inburg Dah) for property
lo~at~d at 12~ South Nestchester Drivc.
qCTION; Commissioner King offcrad ~ mntian~ sccandod by CUmnissioner Tolar
and MOTION CARRIEU (Comnissioner Il~rbst being at~sont)~ that the Anaheim City
Planning Cor.misslon does hcrcby grsnt e one-year recraactivic extenslon of
ttmc to exo{re on Septertbe~ 25~ l~a".
C. CONUITlONAL USE PEN41T N0. 21Q4 - Request fo~ rer~~ective extenslon of time
ram eorge an am c~a s for proocrty ~ocated at 91~1 South Knott
Streat (The fre~ ch Quarter).
ACTI011: Conr.~issionar King offered a motion~ scconded t~y Commisstoner Tolar
and MOfiIOt~ CARRIED (G~~mmissioner Ilerbst batnc; absent). that the City
Pianniny Commisslon docs t~creby grant a one-yeer ret~oactive e xtenslon of
time to Gonditional Usc Pcrmit 1ks. 21J~i to ex~ire on Septe~er 2~ 19~2.
ADJOURNMEN7 Tliere being no furtt~c~ business~ Gommissio~er Ki~g offered a motion,
seconded by Commissfflne~ Tola~ and NOTIOtI CARRiED (Comnisslo~er Herbst
batng abser~t). that the r•reting he adjourned.
The nx eting was adJourned at 3:12 p.m.
~espectfully submitted,
/1 ' ! ~~ '~'a"
~
Cdlth l. Narrts~ Sccretary
AnAhelm City Pla~ning Commiaslon
ELh:lm
t~/5l~t
._.~.~~