The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1981/04/20 Civlc C~nter Anihelm~ Cellfornta Apr11 20 ~ 1g81 REGULAR MEETING (1F THE ANAN~IM CITY PLANNIHG COM'~~SSiON .. REGULAR • The regular meoting of the Anahelm Ctty Plenning Conmiasto~ wes MEETIttG calted to order bv~ ChainnAn Tolsr et 1:3~ p.m.~ April 20~ 1981 in the Counctl Chamber~ a q uorum being prescnt. PRESENT • Cheirman Toler Commistloners: Barnes~ 9ouas~ ~ushore. Fry~ Herbsc~ K~ng ABSENT • Commtsst~ners t10Nt ALSO PRESCNT - A~nike S~ntnla`~tl Joel Fick Jeck Whtr~ J~v TI tus Shirley Land Jay Tashlro Oean Shere~ Cdlth Nerr(s Asststant Olrrctor f~r Zontn9 Aasistant Directo~ for Planning Ass(st~+nt Clty Attorney OFftcc Enc~l~Rer Trafflc Engl~eertng A~sistant Assuclate Plenner Asslstant Pla~ner Plann(nq Commisston Secretsry PLEDGE OF AILEGIANCE TO THE FLAG LEO BY - Commlsslaner Bows. APPROVAL OF TriE MINUTES: - Commlsslaner King offcrcd a nx~tfon~ seu~nded by Comm as o~er Bouas and MOTIOt~ CARRiED. that the m(nutos of the Aprtl 6, 1981 maettng be ~pproved as s~bmittod. Chmtrn-sn Talar noted that t~~is is National Secreta~l~ss ueek dnd recognlzed the Plsnning Comrnission Secrot~ry and thsnked her for a,Job well cione. ITEM N0. 1: EIR NEGATIVE_ DECtA RATiON RECLASSIFICATION N0. 64-81-24 WAIVER Of OWt~ERS: MAURICE PlNiO~ P. 0. Box 3421~ Anaheim, CA 9?^ ~. ACCNT: JERRY ~RUKIN~ 1280 E4st Flaver Street, A~aheim, CA g2805. Propert~ described as a rectsngularly- shaped parcel of land ca~sisting of approximaCely O.~f acre, 406 West Va~mont Aven~a. Prppe~Cy Prase~tly Classlf{eo R~S-~2nf~ (RESIDENTIAI~ SIN~IE-FAMIIY~ ZONE. RECLASSIfICAT10N REQUEST: CL CONDITIONAI USE REQUEST: TQ PERMIT COMMERCIAL USE OF A RE~I~ENTIAL STRUCTUR~ WITH WAtV~"'S OF: (a) PERMITTEQ LOLATIUN OF REDUIRED PARKINC~ (b) MAXIMUM STtIUCTURAI HEIG~ ,(c) MINIMUM LANDSCAPEO SETBA~:K~ ANO (d) MiNIMUM wAll MEIGHT. SubJect petition was conttnued f~om the meetings of February qth and March 23~ 1981 at the request of the petltio~er. Ther~ were four parsons indicat~ng their pr~sanc~ in opposition to subJect request. a~d slth,.~qh th-e staff raport was not rrad. it is referred to ~~d made • psr~ nf the minutes. Je~ry D~ukin. agent~ explainad tt is th~i~ dcsire to oart~ine throe properCies near the cern~~ of Vern+~nt and H~rbor~ polnting o:~t two of the prppertiea~ are owned by the St-2o3 4/24/81 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLIINNING COMMiSS10N~ APRIL 2~~ 1981 81•~fl4 seme awner~ which are connectdd ~i~xwalotaly behind tha property at 91N Suuth Fla~bor Boulevard. Ha ststed the property at ~~10 11est Veimont ha~ a resoluttnn of Intent for commarcla) zoni~g and presently the lot at ~iA6 West Vermont Is zoned RS-72~0 a~d their request Is for uniform =oning fo~ +~11 three lots whtch wlll be over an acre when they ~rc cun~ined. f1o sCsted tha submttted revised plsn wes developed efter severa) meetings with the naighbor~; that one af the neighbor's concerns was wlth the p roposed Iist of uses p~@viously submitted because they felt It was too broad. He ~eferred ta the revtsed ilst of proposed ~~ses in tl~e steff report which he felt would b~a roasonable and compatible wtth the surrounding netyhborhoad. Ne explained the uses proposed would bastcally be officc type uses and tho numbcr proposed has been reduced. He esxplotned the parking has been meved to the rcar of the property end non~ of the pa~king ls adJacent to Vermc,nt Avenue a~d the parking lot plan does not facilttate a di~ect traffic ftow to Ve~mont Avenue. Ne stated there Is a driveway at the present time at 41A uest Vermont; and that parking is provided for all the requestcd uses on the revised Iist. flc sta~~d the Vermont access wes relocated to the easterly sic;a of the proporty end there Is a curved driveway so that it wtll not provide a dircct i~ and out situatlon. He statcd they feel the plan v.~ill only sllghtly i~crease the traffic currently gcner.3t~~ on Vermont Avenue. Mr. Drukln stated the ~ieighbors •ye~~e co~cerned thdt a landscaped buffer area be provided end painted ~ut that a,.lanted lewn area h~s becn propas~~ which will compliment tl~eir surrounding property and that the total lands~aped area fnr the plt~n is 13~000 square feet whtch is 28$ of tl~,~ lot ar^a which far ~xceeds the minlmum requirement for londscaDing in a conmercial zone and exceeds IanCscaping recently put i n by other deve lopers. Mr. Orukin st~ted the existtng bulldtng vtofates iE~r~ setback rcqulrements for the CL tone which ~equires one~half ti~e dtstance to the ~ ~erty ltne for bullding height~ hawever~ the bul'diny Is Pxist!ng approxlmately ~~~et from the property line and thare is no adequate wsv :~ reduce it by 22 feet. He stated the~e wll) be no wi~cfars facing the resldentlai area a~d that the Increase in landsca~+ing wl11 provide an adequ~te buffer. lie stated they d o not believe this proJect will Impact the neighborhood that much because there is alreacty e pGrmitted chlld day-care center whlch is not in operatior. at che pres~nt tin~ at 4~6 West Verrtr~nt~ but they do have a ~er'mlt to operate that busirv~ss ~s a commercia! establishment. t1e stated they ftel the waiver is a technicel walvcr and pointed out they have tried to accommodatr. che surro~~nding nelghorhood and not Impect the residcantial ares. He stated they belie~re thelr proposal is a logica) end ressonable plan end wlll allow thc ow~er to use the properc,• with uses that a~e conslstent with the surroundtna area; and that this proJect wili maka the ~eighbonc~ad rtqre attractive a~d there wtll not be a sig~tfi~ont tr~erease in the traffic over and above what Is alr+srdy occurring a~d that thay beiieve thts will be an asset to the cttY. Mr. Orukin read a letttr from Jer ~r Adal~ for tfie Sandman Motel wh~ h is across the street~ stati~g they fael the con+merclal use at k06 West Vermont will facllitate and enhanc~ the prog~ssive development of this area since it is an obvious part of the propcrty faci ng H~e~bor Boulevard. a~zo/a~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 2~~ 1981 81•2A5 Doris Smaltzer~ k13 W~st Ve rnbnt~ stated she has talked with her nalghbors atnce the previous meeting and dtscovered thelr concerns ware not Just th~ ~raposed plans but ths fact that commerctal zoning is baing prot~osed. She st~ted thia is ~ residentla) srea whnre they ara tryl~g to ralae famtlies ~nd do not want mare cammerctsi usea. She presentod a petitton containing appr~ximatQty 23 sig~stures and read the statement on the petitton as follaws. "We the understgned petitton the M Ahatm Ctty Planning Commission to deny the request for commercial rontng at k06 West Vermont Avenue. We , so to protect the resldentfal natu~ ~f our nelghborhood and because ~+n feel Verment Avenue cannot withstand the increased trafflc and safety hazards such zening woula affect." She explatned these stgnatures are from resldents on Vermont snd NamF+shtre. Sho stated they feel Mr. Dr~~.in has tried very h~ard to work out the p roblenr~ and did meet with h~r and her husband three different times~ i~~ever~ they heve lat htm knew they are concerned wtth the commerciai zoning. She stated the ro vised plans still have fiaw-through trafflc and the~e I s a dri veway on Harbor whi ch i s qul te sma i i. She stated there I s a lot of trafftc on Narbor BoulevArd and she believed the customrrs going inta th~se businasses wtll exit o~to Yermont once they soc~ the traffic flow on Narbur. She added they a~e also concerned about ti~e excess tr~ffic and the safety of thefr chiidren. Ms. Smeltzer stated the petitioner mentioned the propcrty adjacent to 4~6 west Vermont {s zoned conMnerc.ialty but that it is rlght naw being used restdentially with very fr:• -.:a~s. She steted Varrtw~t becon+es very bu~y from 3:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and it is difficult for her to get in and out of her drivewsy and oven thouqh Mr. O~ukln cl~ims these uses will ~ot increase the traffic ~u~stantialiy~ she felt they wfil. She statcd she stii) sces thts property as three separate ~arcels but it (s ~ot knaarn how one of them wt11 be deveioped and that the other two are two separate uses. She steted aga(n their basis cc~nc:ern is wlth the canmercial zone and that Chey would like to keep their n~eighbarhoad a sefe a~~d pleasant residential area to raisr their families. Mr. Orukin stated he understan<h the neighbor's concerns and he has met with s ar~e of the same peopte NF~o signed the petltton. Ne polnted out that Ms. Smeitzer had stated at the previn~s meoting that they did not want to interfere with Mr. Pinto's rigfit to develop hls Rroperty as long as the uses were compatible with th~ restdentis) area. Hc stated he felt theY have made a sincere effart to provide a compatibie development that will not greatly lmpact her property, and they feel these uses v+tll be co~siste~t with the residenttal area and hC stated he felt Ms. Smelt2cr is not w i 1) i ng to 1 1 ve up to what she~ stated preV i~ous i y and he d i d not knaw ahst had changed her mind. He stated after meeting Nith the p~operty avnera he feit there v+es a consensus of opinion of the plan bet~g presented 4/20/81 MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY °LANNING COMMISSIQI~~ APRII 20~ t981 81-206 ~aw is something thst would be suiteble and Is somothing thcy could itve with. He stated he was unable ta obtatn any writtcr~ support of the plan~ but he d'd get verbe) support. TNE PUDLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. Commtsstoner Herbst exp~esa~ed his concern for the combined p~~ktng areas for all th~^ee properties with 47 stsll~ whtch could possibly exit ont4 Ve rn~ont. Ne steted this i~es been one af !he problems with other developments along Mr. Ptnto's proparty in th~ past. Ne stated he aqr~rs wtth combining a11 three properCles but it does present the possibiltty of many more vehlcles onto Vermont and that would be e problem for those residents. He ciarlfled that varlances qrented on tho pr~perty would stsy wi th the property 1 f the property (s sold end t~~a olr! fiause ckmo) tshed. Jack White~ Asslstant City Attornay. ~xpl~ined oariances dr. yo with the property~ but that epproval of th~ canditional use nermit coufd ba conditioned upon the existing structures end if the ~ttructures are demolished~ the var(ance could be termineted. Chatrman Tolar stated the oppos(tlor~s concarns are lustifted. na~+ever~ the Comnlssio~'s responsibillty ts to look at tf~e entire ~ropcrty; and that the Commisslon suprorts the concept of land assembly and tf these three lots ~re cortt~ined for develc~ ment. they could not be subdivided without ~ecording easements across each one betause of the layout and if thls plan is approved~ access would bc grantcd fo~ ingress and cgress on Ve~mont. Ne stat~d Narbor Boulevard is yoing to have cortxnerclel uses and if th(s nroperty w~as approved ~or .~- multl~le-fami ly reslder-lal use. the trip count would probat~ly bc ,just as higti a~ these uses . al i thrce lots wuuid have access c~nto Vermont whtch wouid create more probl~ms. He agreed a medical factlity would not be cort~ atit~le because they heve created scxne real p roblcros fn the past. rle stated the Commission does constdcr the right of the property awner to devclop ttie propcrty and tries to sae that it is developed to its highest and best use and that che Cortmisslon does try to p~atect existing co~dittons around the a~ea end not violute the surrounding ncighbors property rights. He stated he felt thls wouid be a much better proposal for thn property than a Multiplr-famlly use and woutd have less Impact on traffic. Nc clarified that the property awners heve all revi~red the ~evised plans ~+nd statea he felt this plan provfdes a much better use th~n anything which hes been presented before for this property. Commissioner Herbst stated I~is concern that the prape~ty ls b~eing requested for reci assl f(cation to co+rrrierci al uses wi th the access onto Vermont. He fett this would ba a further encroachment (nto a residentie) area. Ne peinted out that the exlsting home hes been a buffer in the pest. He fele if this ts approved it would not be long before thc 8d}bGCnC ~roperty ewne~s wauld be requesting similar reclassificattons and lt has to stop s omew he rt . 4/20/81 w ~ 1 i ; i r ~ MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON~ APRIL 20~ 1981 81-207 Chalrman 1'olai stated he did not think anyone would want to develop single- family honiea on any of th~ae lots end did not think that anyone could be proud of the p~oparty thc way It looka right now. Kath~rine Mclntyre~ 324 West H~mpshlre~ stated Mr. Pinto own~ the pinball eatabllshmo~t and ia the owner of subJect property and stated thay have no fsult with tha doctor's office on Harbor~ hciwever, further down the street there ts a pisGe with ~ed 1(ghts on th~ outstdc: end th~y do not even try to hide what thev are doing and sha does not want anymorp of those type of usns in the erca, She stated they have nlca hon+~s and have Itvcd here for a long ttme and ~:annoc afford to move. 5he stated she does not understand why Narbor cannot be developed trto a nice laoking village shopping area end further stated ther realize Herbor ts going to hrv~e commerclal uses, but that they would like to see it done with good taste simllar to Laquna or Lerchrtq~t Vitiage tn los Angeles. She stated Mr. Pinto allaws estaibllshmdnts like the pinball opcration and she did noc feei It belongs on this slde of Flarbor. She stated Mr. Druktn did not mecc wlth she and her husband rega~ding this plan. Chairman Tolar stated he wa~~1d 11ke to see somcthtng on that corner besides that pinball nstablishn~ent but thst ts not a part af thfs appiicatto~. Ms. Smeltzc~ b riefly reviewed the revised pl»ns at the pod(um end Indtcated this is the same plan she had prevlously scen. Commtssloner Barnes steted the Commission Is very tnterestsd in impr~ving 1larbor• Boulrvard; and that i f the property ownrrs wl l 1 get ~ogether to lrtprove their properties~ a batter developr~ent cnn be accc~mpltshed. She asked Ma. Mclntyre (f s he Is opposed to the project becaus~ of the trafftc on Vermont and Ms. Mclntyre rRSponded fmm the eudiance t1~et shn l ives ~n Has te r. Commissioner Bushore stated he gene~ally Ilkes the concept of the plan proposed and tt Ts a lot bettar Lhan some that has been seen i~ the past or that could be prupased in the future~ havevcr~ he wo~id rather see this camminy before the Cortm(ssio~ for a speclFic use undar a condttfo~al use permtt. Hc felt thls would ba extending the con~rnerciat itmlted zone and the only benPfic would be to actually improve the e~tlrc parcci wtth a+~~~~ structure. He steted his cnncern is with conMr~rcial, limited zoning and these are very broad uses and that the developer is requesting thEs broad ltst of uses in ord~r to fll{ the buildtng with tenants. He stated the p~operty Is toceted off ~ Harbor Boulevard and does havc limited ~xposure and that he dtd not feei there would be any cype of buslnesses going Into this location whlch he would ldke to see in the n~tghbo~hood; and tha: he would ilka to see the list be a little mare spe~ific. Jack white stated the list of uses could be anrended to be rrore specific. Ht explalned the petitioner is requesttng a reclassificstton~ a waiwr of code requirement and a conditional ~se pormtt and the condittonal use ~+/ZO/8t t ~ MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLAkNiNG COMMISSION, APRIL 20. 1981 81-208 pe nnlt could ba conditioned upon the uses, but thst the limited uses couid not be placed an ths rec{ssstftc~tion. Commisslo~er Bushore stated he w~s concerned because this Is e rnsidentlal itructure and ro=oning th• property to CL wuuld permit certaln uses wfthouc coming bofo~e tl~e Commlsslon for a conditionel use pormit. Jeck Mlhite pot~ted out a conditional use pennit ta necessary for uses of a residentlal structure and thst the 113t as Indicated in paragraph 19 cc~uld be e condition Impo~ed o~ that conditional use permit and if edditlonai usea are comtempleted~ the appl icant would heve to come before the Commission for an ~mendment to that 11st. Ne explained with the property rezoned to CL; the property ~w ne~s would be entitled to ev~erything permltted (n tho CL zone and the cx~ly ~e~son for the condttiona) use permlt In thts instance would be because of the rrsldei;tlal structurn existing on the property . Dean Sherer. Assistant Plenner~ ex,~lained if the structu~e was rerrovod and the prope~ty avner wanted to dovelop a restaurant on the property~ It could be done with approvsl of a candttlonal use ~e~mtt~ but beceuse of the size of the prot+arty a varl~nce for parking would be involved and there is a 9f1Z chanc.~ the Commisslon would see whatever Is proposed in the future. Comm(ssto~cr Busho~e felt If the Planning Comntsslo~ ts gol~g to proceed w i th th t s request so the property vwner ca~ deve 1 op the property ~ th~n a more spectflc Ifst should be fncor~orated and also e time Ilmlt should be ; imposed o~ the conditlonal usc permit unless a itst can be establlshed which would b~ satisfactory to the restd~nts and clty. . Jack White explalned uses not o~ the Itst would have to come back for an smenctment to the conditiona) use permit and a public hear(ng would be held ` and the residents would be nottfled. f Commissloner Sushore staied he: would have na prabldn with the anttque , shops. architects~ ~rt gallery~ etc., but t-e w~uld not want to see any medi cal offt ces on th ts prope~ty. Commission~~ Nerbst stated Nith the cambtnad parkin~ for the three properttes with ingress and agress onto Vermont. all three properttes would hav~c that right e~d he w-ould like to knew the hours of ope~etion for che proposed uses. Fle asked the hours of ope~ation for the pin~all machtne operatton at the pret ~nt tlme. Mr. D~uktn stated this wtll be devalopnd a~ one lot, nat th~es, and would have 47 parking spaces. He atated based on hls experience as a professtonai builder, destgner and srchitecc planna~~ he felt this is a good pten. He stated the a~wde is ce~iled a video palace end ts not }ust s pinbail machine operatlon~ but Is a fa~nily type opA~atton that provtdes a piace for tne young people. He steted h~ ballevad che hours of operation dally •ro from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. end on wnekends from 10:OQ a.m. to 4/10/81 l MINUTES~ ANANEIM fITY PLANNINR COI~MISSION. APllll. 20~ 1981 81•Z09 mtdnight but wasn't suro af the clo~iny ti~ an waeke~ds. Ne •tate4 the r stau~a~t 1~ not completed y~t but he assuned it wauld oper~te ~rom 11;00 e.m. ta 9s00 p.~n. Commlision~r Hsrbtt st~ted he ra~lttes the ;~roperty Is not ~il devalop~i~ but this (s s corne~ perl:inq lot and the tr~ffic wtll dump ovt onto Vsrront . , ,_;., Mr. Qrukln st~ted he did not bellove ~11 the trafftc v+ould dun~ o~~ onto Verna~t snd explained they h~ve trted to accommadate th~t situ~tlon by locating thr drivaway :o that It doean't provide s st~aight shat rtght tnto the resldentiol prcX,ertles. 11o st~ted it is a curving driveway end not readily vlsible. Ne stat4d again they Mave m~de e slncare effo~t ta oliminote trafffc flow to Varn~ont. Chairmen Tolar pointed out the Commi~slon Is not dlscussing the corner proporty w here the pinbal) mechine operati~n Is locsted and Commisaloner Hnrbst stated this wlll be a cambination af the parking lots dumping out on to Ve rnwn t. Ms. Smeltzer stated the hou n of oporation f~r th~ erceck are from 11:00 a.m. to mtdnight during the week and 10:'Jq a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on aeekends and she felt the parktng provided by Mr. Drukfn on thesc plans will be uaed by thn customers at the ercade. Sho ~tated tha avellable perkinq for the arcade is bohind the gas statio~ and on weekends there ~re qulte ~ few young pcople parking there and sha wss sure they would be using this parking. 5he steted qulte a few young people ere perking at the culturet extension at the present time. Chai~men Tolar asked if there ts a parking problem on Vernant at the preso~t time caused by custorr~rs ta the arcade snd Ms. Smeltzer reR) ied the~y are not parking in front of her house but there are a lot of people who welk by he~ house to the arcade. Chatrrt~n To~ar stated he felt any developmcnt wtth an-site parking aould rnake the situatton batter than it Is rtght na+. Commissioner Barnes falt a iot of tha uses as originally prcpasad wouid not be suitable for t~is proparty~ ane being an anlmal hospitel. Cammtsstone~ Busho~e was wor~led about the broad list of uses end stated he wa~ts it limited to speclfic uses. He pointad out the adjoining property to the west has no accass shawn onto Vermont~ hcwrever~ if that property is devel o~-ed separate ly u~der the tl Zone ~ access woul d ba permi t ted to Ve rnwnt~ sa this plan would be moving that further eway fran Harbor Boulevard~ maktng it nare safe. He statad 1t has baen suggested th~c the drive~way be to~structed at such an angle to p~rmit right turns anly o~to Ve~nant. Na asked about the retail supply sarvice~ uses o~ the list. 4/20/81 NINUTES~ ANAHEIM C17Y PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRiI 20~ i?81 $1-Z10 Dean She~er explained s ~atat 1 suppty ~ervice aould l+~sicwlly be an~r kind of retall store thet offe rod mmrchandiso to purchase. Commis~lonor Bushore aaked whot a buxin~s~ Mp~ncy would b~e with Dee~ Shere~ roplying th~t a butiness egcncy could mea~ a travel aqency~ etc. Mr. Orukin stste d that an ~nim+~l hosplt~t was one of the uses which Ms. Smeltzer felt would be compatible~ but It wss not lncluded In the llst. tle stated he wss sure Mr. Pt~to would be ag~eeeble t~ elimtnatinc~ medical s~d dental affices. He stated he wes concerned ebout the right tu~n only praposal. Ha steted the petitionsr wtll s~end qulte a btL of ineney rer~rdeling the bulldings to meke them look attrective ~nd they will be something tl~e ct ty csn be proud of. Mr. Druk-n explatned he had telked ta Nr. Johnson who ssi d ha wes e good f~tond of thc Mclntyras and h• had indlcatcd hA would ralay the Informatio~ to them. Ne stated he I~as tried to be coopc~ativ~e Nith the surrounding property awnars. Commtasioner Bushore polntad out th~t the property to th e west u-uid be developed to the CL stendards wlthout a puDlic hea~ing an d the Planning Commissio~ would nat heve a say es to what Is developed or the property. Ile stated if the Commi:sion Is going to procced In some orderly fashlon~ they heve to roach somc type of development plon compn~mi se . Ne stated h~ would try ta make the list more speciflc alsa meke the li st a oondttlon of the appraval so thst anythl~g thst does not meet the lts t wauld have to coma before the Planning Comrtisslon for another hearing. He steted the list would include ant(que shops~ art gaileries~ barber or beauty ~hops~ baok stores~ buslness service ftrms. agencles or offtces. canservatorles or scudies~provided no other cup (s required~ real estste. t reval~ professionel offices. interior cbcorating offices~ lapidery shop~ hobby shops, locksmish~ reproducclon services ~+nd s~cretariel sn~wering servtces. Chsirman Tolsr esked M~. D~ukin lf he would stt~utate to Ilve within thst llst and M~. Drukln ~eplled that he woUld. Commissioner Bushore refe~red to the bookstores ltstad or+ the proposed us e Iist s~d Indicated his conce~n regardtng an adult books tc~re and esked how far an aduit bookstore wauid have to b~ from a residential aree and Jeck White replied 5~0 fcet. Commissloner Bushore clari f led that his mat lon wi l l intl udc the requi rement that a~y usas that would ~equirc a co~ditlo~ai use permi L in addltion would have to core bacic before the Planning Commtsslon for reviQw and indic~ted his motton would speciflcsliy exclude adult bookstores. Jack White explainad thst an adult baaksto~e would be specificali,~ p~ohibited and the pettttoner could not even apply for a mndittonal use permi t. 4/20/81 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY P~ANNING COMMISSION, 11PRIL 20~ 1~81 81-211 ACTION: Cornml~sianer Kl~fl off~r~d a motLon~ seconded by Commls:icx~er Fry an ION CARRIED~ that ths Anahaim City I'lan~i~g Commtsslo~ has r~view~d Lhe propos~T to recl~ssl fy sub)sct pr~;,arty trom the RS-~24A (Single-F~mt ly R~eidentl~l) 2ona to the CL (Commerci~l~ lin~ited~ tone to pennit a eommerclai use of a nsidenttai structure wtth wafvers of permttted lacetton of requlred pa~king~ mexlmum structurel hel~ht~ eninimum Isnd~caped setback ~nd minfmum wal l height on a rectangularly-eh~ped pa~cel of land eontlsting ot ~pproximately 0.4 scre~ havtng e f~ont~ge of spproximetely ~; feet An the south side of Vsrmo~t Avenue (40ti 41est Verrn~nt Avenue); and doas hereby approvc the Negatlve Decl~retton from the requtrement to Pnepero an envtranmantal impact report an the bssis that the~a wouid bo no s tgniflcant tndividual o~ cumul~tive edvcrae ~~nvironmental Impect due to tho ap~rov~+l of this Negativ~e Decla~stion sinc:e tha Anaheim Cenerel Plan designatcs the subJect p~operty fnr low mediuR de~sity residentla) land uses cortrn~nsurste wtth the proposel; thet no s+*nsltlve envl~onmentol i n~acts ere involved (n the proposal; that the tnitlel Study submitted by Lhe petitton~r tndicet~s no signtficant Individ'ua1 or cunwlstive edversa e~vironment~l impscts; and th~t the Negative Declar~tlon subst++~tiating th~ fa~ogoing ftndings is on flle in the City of An,~hcim Planning Depdrtment. Commissioner Kln~ offered Resolutton No. PC81-7E' ond mc~ved for its pessage a~d adoptlon that th~ Anahelm Ct ty Plannlnc~ Commission does hereby grant Recloasification No. 8~-81-24 subJ~ct to Interde.°~artmentai Committee recommendatt ons. 4n ro11 ce) l, tho foregoing resolutton was passea' by the fo) lowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIbNERS: 9ARNES~ BOUAS. ~USNORE~ ~RY~ KING~ T~LAR NOESs COMMISSIONERS; HERBST ABSErIT; COMM! SS 10~1Ei~ : NONE Commissloner King offered n motion~ s~conded by Comm(ssl~er Fry and MOTION CARRIED (Cc-mmisaloner Herbst voting no) ~ that request for walvers (b) and (c) be granted on the besis that the bullding Is eK(sting and that denlal r+ould deprtv~e s~bJact property of a privllcge enJoyed by other propertles ; ~ the san+e zone and vicinity. Commisaloner King offered Resoi~~tlon No. PC81-7g ar~d rtaved for its possage ar~d edoption that the Anshetm Ci:y Planning Comm~ssion doea hereby grant Condltlo~al Uae Permit No. 2171~ In part~ subJoct to the petittoner's sttpuletion to oniy pQ~rnit the follavtng list of users: antique shop~ a~t gallery~ barber or beauty shep, bonkstore~ bualness service firms~ agencles and/or offices~ consarvatart~s or studies~ ro~l est~ete offtce~ trovei agency~ hobby shop~ inte~lor decorating, Jewelry store or lapidary shop, locksmith~ ~eproductton services and secratarial or ens~vering se~vtces and in cemp) iance with Sections 18.03;030; .031; .032: .033; .034 and .035, Title 18 of the An~heim Munictpsl Code and subJect to Interdepartn~ntal Canmittse racannend~t ions. a~n Shersr asked that • cor~dition be added to ths reciassificatton resolucion ~equiring that prior to the introduction of an ordin~nce ~1/20/81 MINUI'ES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRII. 20~ 1981 81•212 r~toning the praperty~ a mutual reclproca) parktng egredment b~: aAproved by the City Attorney's offtce and recarded. hr. Druktn Indicated he would be willing to live wtth that conditlAn and Commtsstoner King asked that condltio~ be edded to the resolutlon for ~eclaasificstto~. On rol l cel) ~ the faregoing resolutlo~ was passed by the follewing v~ote: AYES: COMMISSIOfIERS; BARNES~ BOUAS~ BUSNORE~ FRY~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: HERSST AgSENT: COMMISSIONERS; NONE Jack White~ Asslstent City Attorney~ presented the wrttten right to appea) the Planning Commtssion's ckcTslo~ wlthin 22 days co the Ctty Councii. Commiaslonar Bernes pointed c-ut to those present (n the eudlence that she hed voted in favar of thls requeat on the basts that she felt (t would be a bene f t t to tha area I f deve laped as s hawn on the p I ans and ths t thc lsndscaptng would ba beautiful and trofflc on Vermont would be minimal. She polnted out the uses have been limited co try and protect the residences from excess trafftc and she did not thlnk the pra)ect would hurt tha property values. 2: E I R NEGATI VE DECIAMTI ON. WAI VER OF COQE REQU I R£NENT AND PUBLIC NEARING. OI~INER: M, J. BROCK b SQNS~ INC.~ 1698 Greenbr{ar Lane~ Brea. C/1 92621. Prope~ty desc~lbed as an Irreguiarly-shaped ~arcel of land consisting of approxtmatQly 2.9 acres~ having a frontage of approximately 3S0 feet on the south side of Rom~eya Drtve~ having a maximum ckpth of approximately 460 feet and being located appr~xtmately 165G feet west of the centerltne of Eucltd Street. P~ope~ty pr~sentiy classifed RM-24000 (RESIDENTIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) 20NE. CON~iTIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A IiOSPITAL PARKINr, ~OT wl~'H aAIVER OF MAX 1 MWi FENCE tl E I ~IiT. i t was noted the pot i ti oner has ~equested e co~c 1 ~uance to the May b, 1981 Planning Commisslon meeting. ACTION: Gommissioner King affereed a rrotion~ seco~ded by Cortrnisatoner e~si and MOT14N CARRIEO~ th~t the aforementionad matter be contlnued to the regularly-scheduled meeting of May b~ 1981 at the raquest of ihe peti t toner. M N0._}: E_IR NEGATIVE DECL1IRATION. RECLASSIFICATION N0. 80-81- . 11462 AND WAIVER Of COUNCIL 4/20/81 ;"~' MINUTES~ ANAHEIM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL Z0~ 1981 81•213 S` OWHERSs ~AURENCE R. LEGGETT, 1532 We~t Or~ngewond Avenua~ Anahelm, CA y2302 and GILBERT l, ANO KATHLEEN J. NASH~ 1524 West Orangowood Avenue~ Anahelm~ CA 92802. AGENT: TNOMAS E. SHELTOt~ OR JAMES E. DULEBONN~ 11fi22 Sear.rest Orlve. Garden Grove~ Clt 926~. Property described as a roctangulerly-shaped percel of Isnd consisting of app roximately 1.52 acres~ 152~+-153Z West Orangewood Avenua. Property ~resently cla~stffed RS-A-A3~000 (RESIDENTIAL/,1GRICULTURAL) ZONE. RECIASSIFICATION REQUEST: RS-y200 VARIANCE REQUESTt WAIVERS OF: (e~) Rf.QUIRED L4T FRONTAGE~ (b) MINIMUM LOT AREA, (c) MINIMUM LOT WID1?~I AND FRONTAGE~ (d) MAXIMUM LOT COVERACE~ (e) MINIMUM FRONT YARQ SETKACK~ (f) MINIMUM REAR YARD SET9ACK AND (g) f~ERMITTED ORIENTAT101~ OF BUILDiNGS. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST:TO ESTA~IISr~ A 9-LOT SUBDIVISION. Th are was one person (ndtcating his ~resence (n oppositlon ta s~Ject request. and althouyh xhe ataff r-.port +vas not read~ It Is referred to end made a pert of the minutes. Tom Shelton~ agent~ presentcd e petition contatning approxtmately t; slgnaturea of prope rty avners ln favor of the proJcct. He axpl~ined they are the deveiopers af the property immedlately adjacent to the west (Trnct 1q627) wtth slx~ 1-end 2-story,240~- to 2450-square fa! homes. Ne stated subje~ct praperty does not lend Itself very wel) to the conventlonal single-family de~relopment. but by combinin~ the lots It will alla+ them to butld somethtng consl;:t~nt wlth wF~at ig prevalling throughout the tract and thet they wil) butld a quality praduct. N~ stated thay wish to continue buildlnq on this property e xactly what Is betng consCructe~! on the p~operty next door. Alf~ed R. Roades~ 151G West O~angewood, st~ted he slmpty wants to dotermine tl~e Impact this project wlll heve an hts property which ta adJac~nt to subJect property. ~le stated this property was inciudGd in tho inittal negottations but the~r have not been able to con~ to a satisfactory conciusfo~ concerntng the value of hls proparty. He stAted he basicaliy supports th~ project but Nisha~ to k~ow the (mpact of the 7200- square foot lots aaJacent to his 320•foat fragile fQnce. He stated he would ltka to req uest a block wall the length of hts property as done on the property (mmediately to the west. Ne asked i f he wouid be excluded from development of hts property or i f his devalopment would be rest~icted wtth this pro)ect. Chairtnan Tolar assured Mr. Roades that the Commission tries to revlew all plans as prasented, and as long as they ~io conform to the ex(sting neighborhood and have no det~i~siental effect on the naighbors~ then there should be rra reason why he could not develop hts property and pointed out that the property ow~~er has the right to request artything he wants for his property. Mr. Shelton stated h.: would be giad to sha~e tn the cos; of a new fence. Chatrman Toiar stated the Commission ts nat intcrestec' ln the negotiatlons nnG must deal spectfically with this pien as presented. +4/20/81 MINUTES. A~IAHEIM CITY PLAHNING COMNtSSION~ A~RiI 20, 1981 81-214 Mr. Shelton st~ted they ha~re bullt block wel1~ tatally su~roundtng the other properttes~ except whare th~re 1• an existing fence end thet is what they Intend to da with thla proJoct. Chai~men Toter cl~~ified that the petitic~ncr h~d stated he would be wilting to construct • fence surrounding the proJocti being devel~ped which mesna the~e would be a biock wall fence on Mr. Roadea' property Iine end Mr. Sheiton replied that is correcr,. Mr. Roades ttat~d he is satisfied and doea not wish to Impsde the pro,js ct. THE PUIILIC HEARIMG WAS C105~0. Chatrman Tolar aaked if the proJect oMrner wlil conttnu~ to reside on the property, polnting out there is a~ existing residential structura. M~. Shelton replied that Mr. Nash will not ~es~~a on the property and thac that rRSidanttAl structure wtlt be used aa an office durtng th~ constructl~n ~e~lod. Chsirr-~n Tolar stated he Is concerned because the rostdentisl structure will be us~d aa a restdenco eft~r the projocc is ccxnpl~eted and staced ha does not want en (~gross and egr~ss anto Ora~gewood from xhat residencc and asked the petltloner to stipuleCo that ingress or egress would be completely off the proposed cul-de-sac (Waverly Cou~t). Mr. Shelto~ replied thet If a garage lends itself to a new door on that side~ the g~rage door will De relocatad and ha would stlpulate that there w~uld be no tnyress or egress onto Orangewood. Comn-issioner Nerbst polntcd out Lhat the wall ts ~eeded for a sound bsrrler and that the proJect would have to meot the City Council Policy pertatning to sou~d attenuation because it ts so close to Orangewood. Mr. Sheiton explained that the design aould only have one-story structures along Orangewood. ACTION: Commtssio~er Efarnes offered a motion~ seconckd by Commissioner Fry and }~TT~T CARRIED. that the Anah~(m City Planning Commisslon has revtewed the propossl to reclassify subJect property from the RS-A-43~000 (Residential/Agricultur~l) Zone to the RS-7200 (Residential~ Single-Femily) Zone to establish a 9-lot. RS-7200 sibdivlsto~ wltli walvers oF requlred lot frontage~ mtnimum lot aree~ minimum lot width and f rn~tege, maximun lot coverege~ minimum front yard setback~ mintmum rear yard setback and permitted oriantation of buildings on a rectangularly-shaped parce) af land consisttng of .~pproxtr.iately 1.5 acres~ h+~ving a frontage of approximately 264 feet on the sauth side of Orangewood Avenue~ (1524•1532 West Ora;~geavood Avenue); and does hereby approve the Negative DEClaration from the requt~ement to prepa~e an environmental !np act repnrt on the basis th~t there would b~ no slgnifica~t indtviduai or cumulativ~e adverse environmental impact due to the approval af this Negative aeciaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subJect p roperty for low density residentiel l~nd uses cammensurete wlth the prop4Yai; Lhat no sensitive environmental Impacts a~e tnvolved i~ the proposal; that the Initial Study subrnttted by the petitioner indicetes no sfgntficant indivtdual or cumutattve adverse 4/20/81 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COM~lISSION~ APRIL 20, 1981 81-215 environmantal impactY; snd thet the Negatlve Declaratlan subitantiattng the fo~egoln4 findings ts an ftle (n the City of Anahelm Planning Departrrent. Commi ss I oner 9a rn0s of fe rod Reso 1 ut f on No. PC81-80 and moved for t ts paasag~ sc~d adoption th~t the Anahelm City Pl~nning Commisslon does h~r~by grant Reclassification No. 80•81-31~ subJr..ct to I~terdepertmental Cortmittee recommendatl~ns. Qn rall call~ the foregoing resolution was passed Dy th~ follaving vote: AYES: COMMISSIUI~ERS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ 11ER9ST. KiNG~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSI~~NERS; NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commtss Icmer Barnes of fared F1eso) ut~on No. PC81-81 ard moved far i ts pssssge and edaption that the Anahcim City Planning Cammis!~ion dr~es he~eby grant Varlance t~o. 3208 on the bASis that denlal would deprive subJect property o( privlleges enJAyed by other property in the same zonc and vlcintcy and subJect to the petitlane~'s stipulatlon that there sFuil) be no acccss onto Oranqewood snd that e G-Poot htgh masonnry black wsli shall be constructed on th~ east~ west and south property llnes and s~bject to Interdepartmenta) Commtttee recomir~ ndationa. On roll call~ the forngoing resolut(on Nas p~essed by the foilav+iny vote; AYFS: COMMISSIONERS: BAPWES, 80UAS~ BUSHQRE, FRY~ NERDST~ KING. TOL11R NOES: CONMISSIONERS: NON~ AaSENT: COHMISSIONERS: NONE C~mm(ssioner Barnes offered a moticn~ secondecY by Commlssioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED~ that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commtsslon does hereby flnd that the proposed s~b dlvislon together wtth ita deslgn and Impr~vement (s conststent wtth the Ctty af Anaheim General Plan pursuant to Government ~.ode Section 66473.; and docs therefore approve Tentative Map of T~act No. 11482 fo~~ a 4-tot~ RS-7200 subdivisian. subJcct to the follwing conditions. TENTATIYE MAP OF TRACT N0. 11462: 1. That the approval of Tentative Mr~p of TrACt No. 114A~ is grmnted sub,ject to the approval of Re~lasslflcatio+- No. 80-$1-31. 2. That t~he approval of Tent+~tive Map of Tract No. 11482 is granted subJect to the a~+~roval of Variance No. 3208. 3. That should this subdlvislon be de~loped es more than one subdivision, ~ach subdivisSon thereof shsll be submitted in tentatlve form for approval~ 4. Th at all lots wlthtn thFs tract sha~l be~ se~ved by undorground utilities. 5. that, the ori~tnal documenes of the covensnts~ condittons. and restrtctions~ and c letter eddressed to developer's tltle company autharixing recardaCion thereof, s hall be submitted to the City Attorney's affic~ and approved by aizoia, ,~ ;~ ~ MINUTES~ A-iAHEIM tITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRII, 20~ 1~81 BI-216 tha City Attorney's Offic~~ Public Utillties Departnie~t. suliding Dtviston~ end the Engineering Oivisien prior ta finsl trict map approval. Satd documents. as approved~ ahall be ftled and ~ecorde~ tn the Ofttce of !he Jrange County Recorder. 6. Thet street names shall be approved by the C1ty Planning Department prio~ to approvai of a final tract map. 7. That fl~a hydrants shel) be install~:d a+id ch~rge~ as required end determinnd to bs necessary by the Chlef of the Fl~e Departmant priar to comrtiencement o~' structural f~aminy. 8. That dratnage of s~)ect property shell be dis~osed of in a manner satlsfactory to the City Engineer. 9. That the owner of subJect property shaii pay to the City of Anaheim the appropria~te pa~E: and recrcatlon in-Ilcu fces as determine~i to be approprlate by tMe City Council, said fe~s tu br pald •t the timn the buliding permtt ts i s s ue d. 10. Tha.t ~~ 1 private st~eets shal l be developed in ~ccordante with the City of A~ m~s 5~andard Detatl No. 122 for p~6vste str~ts~ tncludtng i~-~~t~e~ic,n of street name signs. Plans fr~r the prtvate streiet lighting. ~.~ -~~rirwd by th,: standard detatl ~ shall be submttted to the gutlding ~t'~<~~~i~ ~r approval and Inclusion with the building plans prlor to the ~~~ ~ b ulid(ng permits. (Privata streets Are those which provide ~~r~i~r• aecess and/or circulaeton withtn the p~oJect. t t. : j~~r~~rnent streei neme sig~s ha~ve not been installed~ ceMporary stroet ~~wwe ~ign~ shail be instailed prto~ to any occupancy. 12, "f'~ac the aw ~er(s) of subJect property shall pay the traffic signal a~sment fee (O~dinsnze No. 3896) in an amount as deiermined by the City ~rt4ct 1~ for each new ciwell ing unit prio~ ta the Tssuance of a bui lding ~rt+n+i t . 13. 1~-at eppropriete weter assessmenc fees as detenn(ned by the Office of Utillties General Mar~ager shal) be paid to the City of Anaheim prtor Ln ths ~i~suancc of a bullding permtt. 1~-•. That ~he appl icant shal 1 prosent satisfactory evidence thst the proposed subd'vision canforms to Council Policy No. 542 pertaintng to sound attcnuation for restdential praJects adJaccnt to building permit. 1~. That the applicant shall provide~ to the extc~t feastble~ for asslve or nat~ral heating and ~ooltng apportunlties In the propc~scd subdivision. 16. That s 6-foot high masonry block watl ~shait be eo~structed on tf~e east. west and south prapa~ty 1 t nes. 4/20/81 MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ APRIL 20~ 19a1 81-217 ;' There was a brief dlacusston es to whether or ~ot existing f~ences wouid have to be `' repl~ced and it wes ciarifted th~t the condiClon r~c~utres the enttre property to ba sur~ounded with a 6-foot high masonry block wall. Commissioner Barnes offered a motlon~ secpndad by Commissioner Fry and MOTION CARRIED~ thst tha An~haim City Planning Commission does he roby racommend to the Clty Counci) that Cauncil Policy No. 538 pertatning to the requi~ed bullding setback on lots adJecent to ~rterl~l highways be wsived. Conmissianer Barnes lcft the meettng et 2:55 p.m. anci did not return. ITE~M NO`. 4; EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANO CONOfTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2201: PUaLIC HEARI~IC. OWNER: CLYpE M. IKUTA~ 6800 West Lincaln Avenue~ Buena Psrk~ CA 90620. AGENT: TAVORN NGAMSUNTIKUL~ 208~8 Wildr.r Avenus. Lakewood~ CA 94715. P~operty descrtbed as a rectangul~rly-aheped p~rcel of land conslsting of approximstely 2.g acres, 2~11 "N" ~lcst Le Palme Avenue. Pr~perty presently cla~satfie d ML (INOUSTRIAL. LiMITED) Zone. CONQITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT A VAN CONVERSI4N FACILITY IN THE ML ZONE. There was one person Indicatinq his presence In oppositio~ ta subJect ~equest~ and elthough the staff report was not remd~ It fs referred to and made a pert of the minutes. Tavorn Ngamsuntikul, ~gent. nresented a brochure sl~owtng the typc of van oonve~ston for the handica~ped which hc will be dotng on subJoct property. Stcve Allen~ a tcnant in the complex. stated he was rx~t ~ure If ha Is opposed but does heve q uesttans ena indicated his concern regarding the traffic. He st~ted thare is a problem in this industriai wmplex ncw and he wanted to verify Just what it is that is gofng to take place. Chairman Tolar clartfied that the application ts for a van conversion factlity in a 1200-squa ro foot unit In an exist(ng 46~58~-square foot tndustrlal complex with approximately 326 square foot devoted to an officn and 87k squure foat devoted to van conversians. He stated he did not thlnk there wtll be a lot of trafftc generated by this u~e. Conmissioner Kirrg pointcd out ther~e wlll bQ only one employee on the premises. Mr. AI1en stated there arc other tena~ts (n the same complex wtth the san~ size factlity r~hlch is s p~c~blem because the areas ere too smatl an~i they sre sto~ing meterlai o~ the parkin~~ lot. Chairmen Tolar statcd if this request is granted~ tt would be understood by the petitiener that ali work haa to be done inside tha facility and there will be no outdoor storage. He ~teted if Mr. A11en has a prablem wtth other tenants who are storing materials outstde, he shouid inform the ZonEng Enforcement Officer so that It c~n be chacked out because outdoo~ storage in this complex is nat allowed. 4/20/81 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 2A~ 1981 81•218 Mr. A11en statad this clarlfle~ his queatlon as to whether o~ not the city h~s Jurisdictio~ over what goes an on prlvate p roparty. He asked why thts applicstlo~ requi ros a pub 11 c heari ng. Commissioner He~bst explelned sny van conversto~ estebil~hment requlraa a conditione) use permit and Dean Sherar~ Asststant Planner, further explainad tn thls particula~ zone 11¢+t mar+ufecturing or werehouaing wouid ba allawsd without a conditionel use permit b ut van conve rslo~ or autonnxiv~~ uses in the Indust~iri zone do req uire e conditional use permit. Chairman Tolar statod there ta a itst af industrlel uses whtch are allowed in the industrial zone and if there are any i~~ this ccxnplex whlch Mr. Ailen questtons~ they can be revtewed to determina whsther or not they are allawed. He stated unfortunately some Industrial and corm~rcial property owners lease property to tenanta which ar~ not allewad In thst parttcular zone and th~t sert~ of them may have condTtional use permits. Mr. Ngamsuntiku) statad he did not k~ow a condition~l use permit was necessary until hE applied for e business I{censa and stated he does not want to c~eate any problenrs with his ne(ghbors. THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. Chalnnan Tolar stated alt wo~k must be done inslde the f~cillty and there wfll be no autdoc~r storage end no va~, will be sold on the premtses and Mr. Ngamsuntlkul inJicated he understood. ACTION: Commissione~ King offered a motion. seconded by CommissionQr Fry and MOTION CA RIED (Commtssfoner Barnes betng absent). that the Anaheim City Planntng Commisslo~ has revtew ed th e p roposal to permit a van conversion facility in the Ml (IndustPial, Limited~ Zone on a recCangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 2.9 acres. having a frontage of approximately 275 feet on the north side of La Palme Avonue, approximately 1~0 feet east of the centerl inie of hlagnol la Avenue (2511-N '.~est La Palme Avenue), and does hereby app~~o~~c the Negative Declaration from the requirement to prepare an enviranmental impact reporC on thc basls that thera would be no significant tndividual or cumulative adverse environn+ental (mpact due to the app~oval of this Negative Declaratio~ since the Anehelm G~neral Plan designates the sub~ect property for industrlal land uses commensurate with the proposal: that no sensitivt envirorimental impacts are involved tn the proposal; that the initial Study s~b mltted by the petitioner (ndicates no signiflcant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaration substanttattnq the fore:going flndtngs is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department. Conmissioner King offe red Ftesolution No. PC81-82 and moved for its psssage and adoption that the A~aheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant Conditional Use Pe rmlt No. 2201 sub~ect to the stipulation that all work shall be conducted inside the facility a~d there shall be no outdoor storage ond no van shall be sold an the premiscs in complisnce with Sectians 18.~3.030; •031: •~3~: •Q33i •~34 and .035. Titla 18 of the Analietm Munlctpaf Code and sub)ec.t to interdepartmental Cammittee recwmiendatto~s. k/2o/s, MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 2A~ 1981 $1•z19 On rall call~ the for~~ing resolutlon wAS passed by the following votes AYESt COMMISSIONERS: BUUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ NER85T~ KIt~C~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISS IONEitS: NONE A9SENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES Commissionor Bushore esked abaut Cammisstoner King's comment thst there wouid only be one employee on the premis~s. Mr. Ngamsuntiku) stated the business la Just starti~g ~nd he will be the only employee~ but there cnuld ba mo~e tn the future. ITEM~NO. : EIR NEGATIVE OECIARATION 4AIVER OF CODE RE UIREM~NT AND CONDITIONAL USE RMI 0. 219 : PUBLIC NEARING. OWNER: BETH ADAMS LTD.~ ET AL~ 1545 W~lahire Boulevard~ Los ll~gales. CA 90017. AGEt~T: QAVID tRAUB~ 131 Nest Kntelia~ Anehelm, CA 92802. Property descrtbed aa a rectangularly-sheped parcel of land consisting of app roximstely 0 87 acre, 131 West Katelia ( Painttngs of tl~c World). t'~operty presQntly classtfied ~1 (INDUSTRIAL, LIMtTED) Zone. CONDITIONAL USE RCQUEST: TO PERMIT ANTIQUE SALES IN TIIE ML ZOME WITN WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. Oavid T~aub~ agent, was present to answer any questions. TNE PU4LIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commlastoner Herhst ciarlficd that the petiti~ner has requested a waiver of sidewalk requi ~ertent o~ teyn Street and that would probably b~ granted. Commissloner K.ing pointed out the Trefftc En9ineer w~nts the e~sterly drtveway closed and Mr. Traub replted thcy have no problem with that conditto~. Commtssioner Bushore cierified that there wili be no auctlons on the p roperty and Mr. Traub indicated that is correct. ACTIOW: Cammissioner Bushore offered a mo~ion~ seranded by Commtsslone~ F ry and 0 N CARRIED (Commissioner Barnes being absent), that the M aheim City Planning Commission has re viewed the proposal to permtt antique sales i~ the ML (industrlal, I,imited) Zone with walver of minimum number of parking spaces on a rectangularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.8 atre located at the northeast corner of Katella Avenue and Zeyn Street (131 West Katella Avenue); and does hereby ~pprove the ~~egati ve Decl arati on f rom the requi rement to preparc an anvi ronmental impact report on the basis that there wouid be nc~ significant indivfdual o~ cumulattve edv~erse environmental impact due to the ~pproval of this Negattve Declaration sinco the Anaheim Generai Plan designates the subJect property for commercial recreattonal isnd usas conmensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental Impacts are involved in the proposat; that the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indlcates no significant individual or cun~ulative sdverse environmental impacts; and that the Negative Declara~tian sudstantiating the furegoing findings is on file in the City of M ahsim Planning Department. 4/20/S1 ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 20~ 1981 g~'Zx~ Commissloner 8uxho~e ofte~ed a aatlnn~ •econd4d by Commisslo~er Fry a~d MOTION CARRIEQ (Commisstan~r Barnes balnq ~b~ent)~ that tha Anahelm City Planning Commisslo~ does heroby gr~nt tha request for waiv~er af coda requlrenK+nt o~ the bssis that a similsr uie (s existing and th~re hsve Deen no p~rking problems and c.1~ta' wouid dnprive subJect property of a privllege enJoyed by othur p~c~perty in the 'ama zone •nd vlcinity. Cortmisslor~e~ Bushore offered Resolutton No. PC81-83 ~~d moved for its passege and edoption that the Anahetm City Planntng Commisston does hereby gra~t Conditfonal Us~ Permit No. 2138 pursu~nt to Snctions 18.0;.030; .031i •~32t •~13~ .031+ and .035~ Title 18 of the Anaheim Muntctpal Code end subJect to Interdepertmentel Comnittee recommendatiuns. On roll call, the fo~egaing resolutlon was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS~ BUSNORE~ fRY~ HEREIST. KING, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE AaSENT; COMMI SS IONf RS : BARNES RECESS Thore was a ten-minute reccss at 3:10 P•m• RECONVENE The rn~seti ng was reconvenad at 3:20 P„m• ..._......_... ITEM N0. 6: EIR NEGATIVE DECI.ARATI01~ RECLASSIFICATION N0. 80- 81-26 WAIVER OF CO oenu~C~-lT eun ~nNnt ANAL u ERM T HA. 2 0: OWNERS; HERBERT E. AND ELIZAQETH C. CFIRISTENSEN~ 730 Southern Avenuc, Orange~ CA g2~65• Property described as a rectangulariy-shsp~d p~rcel of land conslsttng of epproximately 0.3 acre~ 1200 West Cerrltos Avenue. Property presently clasaif(ad RM- 1200 (RESIDEP~TIAL, MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONC. RECLASSIFICATION REQUEST: CL CONDITIONRL USE REQUEST: TO PERMIT AUTOM061LE aELATEO USES WITH WAiVERS OF: (a) MININUM LANDSCAPED SET9ACK AND (b) REQUIRED SITE SCR~ENING. Thera werz two persons indicating thei~ presence in opposttlon to subJect request, and alth ough thc staff report was not rcad, it is referred to and made a pa~t of the minutes. Ha rbe~t Christensen~ 51~8 Crescent Drive~ A~sheim~ ~equested that the dedication of 45 feet for street widening be mada conditionslly becsuse it will not be done 1~ the near future. Ne ~eferred to Gonditio~ No. 6 requiring that the extsting most easterly driMeway on Cerritos be closed and axpl~ined currently the~e are two driveways on Walnut and two on Cerritos and previous petitioners for conditional use permit agreed to close the northerly entrance on Walnut but this request is to close the eesterly drtvewa~y ~lso. He axplalned this has been dtscussed ar~d they do not feel backup of traffic wil) be cr@ated and they feel they nead that access. 4/20/81 ..~.~ ( MINUTES~ ANANEIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AP~IL 20~ 1981 81• 2~1 Oery) Rabbins stated ho ltves tn Peqperwood Village and ta cancerned about the clostng af thc Csrritos St~eet e~trence. He axplalned the parking situation on Ce rrftoa ePfected by the apartmsnt c~mpl~x~s could cause e problem in the trefftc lan~ on Cerritos if there is a traffic back~p. Esthar Thomaa~ Pepperwood Village~ A3~dd the hours of operati~n and atated she was etso concerned ebout th~ traPfic with only nne entrance to the proJect because ~t vsrious times of the doy th~Y vehicles Into the proJect w~uld beck up and thare wauld be e lot of acctdents. She st~ted she would like two entrances on Cerritos. Mr. Christensen ataced he would be willing to stipulate to the hours of operatfon as p~evlously done from 7:00 a.m. to 11:0~ p.~. which wnuld probably be the wo~st case and that an automobile ~epalr faclltty would probabiy bc opon from 8;00 a.m to 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. He stated the Traffi~ Englneer's c4ncern was primerily In cese there is another gasallne shortage causing the gasolinc lines. TNE PU~LIC NEARING WAS CLOSED. QesRondi~g to Commissfo~~r Ktng~ Mr. Chrlstensen explained he would llke the two u,~lveways on Cerrltos to remain ano ho necds the one in the alley on ~lalnut. He dtscussed the temporary pipes whlch are the~e becnuse the statlon is closed and stated they wlll be rertaved. Commissione~ Herbst stated the petition~r is askinc~ for a reclassificatton for commerclat uses and alsn a cor,ditionat ~se Fermit for automobile related uses and esked what the petitianer ls trying to accanplish. Fle steted he feela reclassiflcatlon an thts corner would open the corner up to all kinds of caMnercia) llmited uses and that thts CUP opens it up to all typ~s of autom~bile related uses. Mr. ChriStensen's Ietter was refe~red to~ noting he specifically requests a varlanca to allow the fallawing: auto rentel~ au:o carwash end wex~ auto repelr and auto service stati~n. Conimisstoner lierhsc stated he is questloning the additional request for reclassffication and ff the eutomobile uses do not go i~~ the property woutd be soned for cortrnercial limEted and the fuli range af uses would ba aliawed. hr. Lhristense~ stated he has dtscussed thls with Mayor Seymour; that he thought he could lease the property to a merket and gasolinc faciltty operatlo~; however~ the request for bee~ end w(ne w as denled a~d that pro,ieci .+as dropped and h~ is trying ta fincl another use for this corner and it, is very dlfficult. He stated Meyor Seymour suggf~ted thls enoroach tn order to get this before Council. Comm(ssioner Herbst sta~ed he haa no problem with the uses but wtth the reclASSiftcatton because a v+lde range of uses weuld be pe~mitted whtch might not be; wmpatible with the area. Mr. Chrtstensen stated h~s had some inquirlAS for uses fo~ the p~operty for automotive rrpai~ or automr~tive renta) ager~cy, but those wouid be ~ ms~ginal operatio~ economitally; thAt there hove been a lot of Inquirtes fo~ uses that fsll into th~e a/zo/s~ ~, ' MINUTFS. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMNISSION, APItIL 20~ 1g81 81•Z~ commercial IimiLed :on~ but when h~ tell• tha Inte~~stad p~rty th~t he doas not know whether or not the us~ would be allav~d, th~y do not want to w~tt. Ch~l~m~n Tolar stated he ha• the s~me problem ~s Con~nl~ston~r Fi~rbst bec~us• this Is not a requast for a specific use snd some of the uses that ~ould be •llaved und~r tht CL 2ona wauld have in (li ~ffect on surrounding propsrty. Mr. Chrlscensen suggested th~t e•p~cific use If~t bc developed •nd Ch~irnu~n Tol~r feit tt would make more sense to reewve the reque:t for recl~ssific~tlon fran ihe •pplicetl~n and then a condition~l usr permit requested tor s~+ecific us~s. Commissioner He ~bst at~ted he would h~ve na c~b)~ctlons to e Iist under a conditlon~) usa pe~rmit but he would not b• Int~rested In grentin9 ~ reclassific~tlon. Chalrman Tolar suggested the Commisslan cen give the petttloner a tv~o or four we~k tontinua~ce to sllow him to work with st~ff to come up with a speclfic Ifst but that he could nat supp~~t a reclassiffcatian. Comrnissioner tlerbst felt approving this would be cansider~d ~pot toning. Mr. Chriscensen asked that the Commisslon ga ahe~d snd deny the request because tt wes hts Intent to get this befo~e the Ctty Councl) anywey. AC_ ON: Commisslonar King offored a n+otlo~~ seconded by Comnissloner Fry and MQTIOH CARRIED. that thc Anahetm City Plsnning Commisslon has revlewed the propassl to rectassify s~ject property from the RM-12f1~ (Residentlal. Multiple-Famliy) Zone to the CL (Comr~ercial. Limtted) 2ana to pe~mlt automobf te ~elated uses wtth waive~s of mintmum landscaped setb+ck and required site screentng on a rectangulsrlyshaped parce) of land consisting of approximately 0.3 ecre located at the southwest cor~er of Cerritos Avenue and Welnut St~eet (1200 Hest Cerritos Avenue); and does hereby approva thc Negative Decl~ration from t~e requirement to prepare sn environrt~ntal tmpact report o~ the b~sis th~t there would be ra si~niftco~t indivldual or cumulotive adverse envtronmanta) Impact due to the appraval of thts Negative declaraLfon since the Anaheim Genarai Plan destgnates the subject property for medlum denslty residential land uses cam~en~urate with tr~e propossl; that no sensittve environmenial impacts ar~ involved in th~ proposel; that the Initlal Study submltted by the petitioner Indicates no stgnificant Indlvi0u~1 or cumulattve adverse e~vironmental impacts; end that ~the Negattve Decla~ation substantlating the foregol~g flndings is on fil~ tn the City of Anaheim Plann(nq Departn~nt. Co mmissloner Ktng ~ffe~ed A r~solution and m~ved for its pasaage and adoptlon that the Anaheim City Plsnning Commis~ton does hereby grant Reclassiticatlo~ No. 80-81•26 subject to Interdepsrtr.iental Coaimlttee reconxnendatto~t. On roll call, the faregolnq rceolution FAILFD TO CARRY by the folla .ng vote: AYES: COMMISSIONFRS: KIMG NOfS: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS~ BUS110RE. FRY~ FiERBST~ TOLAR ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES 4/20/81 ~,~ MINUTES~ ANAt1EIM CITr PLANNINO COMMISSION~ Arlll~ Z~~ 1A81 81~R~ Commistla~~r H~rbst offered R~~olutto~ No. PC81•ab ~nd nwv.d for its passa~• ~nd adoptian that tha An~h~lm CItY P~~~~~~9 C~Issta- dnes hereby d~ny Itscl~~sificatlon No. 8~81•26 on th~ b~tl~ 1 t would be considarad spot roning •na that this p~~tlcul~r corn~r n~~d• to b~ co~troll~d bY conditlo~~l use ~rmit~ becsuse ce~tsin types of ~utln~ts~s could b• d~trlm~nt~) to thA a~ee~ On roll call, the fo~~going re~olution w~t psssed by the following vets: AYES: COMMISSIONERS; BOUAS~ 9USHOaE~ FRr~ t1ERBST~ TOLAR NOESt COMMISSIONERSt KINC ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; ~ARNES Conn+lssioner Nerbst offered • motlon~ soccu~decl by Chitrm~n Toler end MATION CARaIED (~.ommtssione~ Bar~es being abs~nt)~ thet the Anah~im City Pia~ning Commtsslon do~t h~reby gtant w~iwr of coda requl ren~nt on the be~is that th~ but IAing Is exitting •nd dsnln) would deprive s~bJect propo~ty of ~ privilege enJoYed by othe~ propertY ~~ the ~+~ne tone •nd v 1 e 1 nl ty . tommisslcmor He~bst stated he wlli offr,r a r~solution o~ apnrov~l for the conditio~~l use pormlt to •Ilav •utomoblle related usea on thet corner suc!~ as e service station. sutonatl ve! repel r, etc. Commltsionar 8ushore steted he reelit~s what Mr. Christensen is trylnc~ to eccompllsh but ha sttt) looks on these uses as beinq too broad tor that sensitive eree and he could not support s ~esolutlon without speclfic pians. He stated he aauld Ilke to see somethtng done w 1 th tha propertY but did nat tee) 1 t 1 s up ta the Commlsslon to Just alta+ the p~operty owner to go on u fishin~ expedition just because they have problens leising the property. He stated the sen~ problem exfsted o~ West Str~et and Lincoln Avenue and unforttmatcly a csrwesh was ckvelop~d che~e~ but on thl' partlcula~ locetlo~ altl~ all th• aDartn~nts and c~ndwninlums In thc ares~ he felt this would be an ideal locatlon for e ca~ w~sh. Commissloner Herh~t refer~ed to Condition No. F whtch relat~s to the driva+ay on Cerritoi rather t~an Welnut and noted th~t It was previously approved th~t the drlveway be closed. hSr. Christens~en stated the alley is considered th~ d~lver+ay and there ere fnur driveways existiny writh Mo on Wilnut and he thc~u9ht the Tra~fic Engineer was canfuted assumtng th~t drivaway w~s closed beceuse a petttloner h~d previously ag~eed to close it. He statad if this Is approv~ed. that drlvow~y would be reopenad •nd agreed that the drivewey on Halnut shouid be ciozed. Conn~lssloner HQrbst statod he would revise Conoltion t1o~ fi to re~d that the drivwv~y on aalnut Street be closed ~~d Hr. Chri~tensen noted that the property Is nav used fo~ a 9asoline st~tionend • carr+~sh but there Is not enough t~affic to support that type of use. Jsy Tttus. Offfce ~~qlneer, polnted out Condition No. 6 Is p~rt ot the conditions for the r~cl~=siftcation ~nd that tha reclassi~ic~tton has b~en denled sa it should be 4/24/81 ±~' ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN~i COMMISSION~ APRIL 2A. 1981 81•ZZ4 ~dd~d to th• condition~l ut~ p~ nnit ~nd Connitsslone~ Ha~bst st~t~d th~t condltlot~ •hould b• pl~ced on the condittonal w~ p~rmit ~s part of hl~ r~tolutto~. J~y Titu~- •t~t~d th~t al~o Conditlen I~o. 1 requlra~ ~hat (t ba q~~nted subJect to th• •pp~AV~I of the r~cls~stflc~cion ~nd that there ~~e e numbe~ of conditlon• o~ tha r~cl~sific~tlor- N hlch should be tr~niferred to the ~ondttl~nal usa permlt. J~~k Whita~ Atsit~tant City Attorn~y~ ref~rred ta p~ge numb~r 6-cs of the staf~ r~po~t •nA polnt~d out nast of those condltlnn• should b~c.o~ne p~rt of t~e condtllonal use parmit. He st~ted Conditlon Ho. t through 11 on thR recl~ssific ation should be plac~d on the condtt lon~) use panr~lt Md Conditlon No. 1~ should be revised. Chslrnwm Tolar ststed th~ p~titluner hes alreecty ~etd the pr~p~r~y h+~s been approvrd for a g~s ststlon •nd c~r w~~' s~ thts conditlonel use permit is not nscets~ry. Comnistloner Bou~s polnted out the provious ca~cfitic~nal use pern+it would not parmit autonwtive ropalr. Mr. Christens~n steted he thouc~ht thQ fQ@s for the sign~) ilqhcs . etc~ epplied to the retoning rether then the condition~) use permit~ pointtng out t hev were not Included In tha p~evlously approvecl conditicx~~) us~ ~+ermit. Jsy Titus, 0~'tice Engineer~ st~ted they cio apply to the conditlonel uae p~rmit if thc• r~ciesslflcAtion Is not ~pproved. Shirley L~nd~ Asalst~nt Trsffic Engineer~ referred to Condttton No. F, ~nd stated the pl,n~ submitted shew only one drivew~r on W~Inut and the one nea ~est the corner cioaed +~~d the revl~v+ was done with thet plan and the camK!nt then wea to close .~~a d~iww~y o~ Carr{tos near the co~ner which is st~ndsrd prsctice ~rhlch means there wouid be one drtveway on Cerritos and ona o~ Valnut and thet bo t h d~lvr.ways ~d)~c~nt to the corner on both Walnut and Cerritos should be closed. Conimissloner Bushore state+d he thought the locetion Is gaod for a car wash with sapu rate s pnces wher~e peop le wash the ( r own veh i c ies but he 1 s oenf usad because I t ( s ~pprovad tor a g~s slatlon with s car w~sh snd Mr. Christensen s tateQ the prevtous use parmtt whlch exists for a servlco statton and car wssh. Commissioner Busho~e clarifted that under the existin~~ CUP~ th~ atet(on could be reope~ed end the car wash could be oparsted wtth automottve repw ir ~nd until he sees s specific use ha wi1) not chrnge hts vote. hi~. Christensen stated he is asking for nion~ latitude for aucon~tive uses bec~use wit1~ tha gas station~ thay couid not do any repal~ work end that a special pern~it wauid be requlred for •utanoElle repair. Jsck 1fi (te ~tated Condttlons Fb. 1 throu~h 11 on paqe C,-d should be (n~luded and Catdi tlon No~t. 1~ 6 and 20 should be ~rnended. Comnlssioner Herbst stated he questloned cl~inq the Cerritos dr~ve~vey and that in the past tfie Comnias(on hss allaved the~ to ranaln ope~ bec~use if the use beca~es a service stetton than the drtv~~vay would h~ needed. so he vrouid Oele+Re that portion fraa hit motion. M/20/81 ~ MINUTES~ ANJIMEIM CITY PLANNING COI~M~ISSION, A~IIIL ~A. Ig81 81•Z~5 M~. Chrtst~ns~~ r~f~~red to Condition No. y p~~t~lninp to the gasaline •to~~g~ t~nk• a~d noted d-~~• an ne~ q~~o11M sto~ag• tanks ~nd Jay Tltu~ ~~pll~d that the Fin Mpe~t~nt ask~d tor th~t condltion •nd if th~re •re no tanks~ th~re 1~ no probl~m. Mr. Robbtn• v+ws canfwed ~bout eh• drivw+ay and ask~d why the W~1nut Drlvtw~y wauid be closed instc~d of Grrito~ ~~d Ch~l~n+~+n Tol~~ aqread thAt ciosinq one d~lvew~y o~ M~l~ut did not make •~nse but th~t he wa• not ~o1nA to ~upport the resolutlon ~nyaeY. Commi~sloner Merbtt off~r~d Itasolutlon No. PC81-85 ~nd maved for itf pas~~y• •nd ~doption th~t th• Anahelm City Planning Cornmis~lon does ha~ehy gr~~t Conditionsl Use Permit No. Z2OZ to allow ~utomotiva related uses pursu~nt to Sectlo~s 1A.A3•~3~: .031; .0;2; .n33: •~34 end .n35~ Title 18 of tha Anehelm Municipal Cale and =ubJect to interde;partnwnte) Committee rocornmendatlons as ~mcnded. On rol l cal l, the forogoing resolut(on was passed by the to) lowing vote: AYES: C~MMI SS IOt~ERS: 90UAS~ FR1f~ HERUST~ KING NOESs COMMI SS IONElIS; BUSNORE, TOLAR A85ENT: COMMISSIONfRS; BARNES Jeck Wh(te~ Assist~+nt City Attorney~ preiented tho arltten ~tght to sp~aal the Plannir~g Commission's ckcislonwithtn 22 deys to the CitY Council. ITEM N0. 7: EIR NECATIVE DECLARATIOt~ ANO CONDItIONAI USE PERMIT N0. 2197: __....~_.`. _....... PUBIIC HEARING. OVNER; WINSTON INQUSTaIAL PROPEaTiES~ 2?'11 East Wt~ston Road~ Sutte A~ Anahatm. CA 92646. AGFNT: OAV10 C. WOOL5EY AND ROSERT E. CAMPBELL~ 2221 East Winsto~ Rosd. Suite I, An~hafm~ CA 923~6. Property described as s rectangulerly- shaped parcel of Iand consistfng of approximately ~+.7 acras~ 220) East ulnston Road. Property presently classlfled ML (INDUSTP.IAL~ LIMITED) ZOlIE. CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST: TO PERM There wes no one Indlceting thair ai though the s taf f report wss not mtnutos. David Woolsey . agent. was p~esenc TNE PUBLIC HEtiRING WAS CL05E0. IT A METAL FOUMDR~ IN TNE ML 20NE. presence tn onpusitlon to sub)ect request, and read~ It is r•'~rrcJ tv and maOe a psrt of the to cro swe r any ques t( ons . Commissioner ~:ing askad if there v+ould be only two emplayees and It ai) work Nouid be done inside smd Mr. Woolsey lndlc~tad that at least to start out~ there would be only Mo ercpiayees but 1 t Is poss ibla a third might be added in the~ futurQ and there would be absol ute ly no work done outa i de . ACTION: Coaa~tssiener Nerbst offered a motion. seconded by Commtsstener Ki~g and M~TO i-ON CARRiEO (ConMnissione~ Barnes being abtent). that the Anahelm City Planning Coaimisslon has reviwved the proposal to permit a metal foundry fn the Ml (Industrtal~ limlted) Zo~a on a roctangularly-shaped parcet of land consisting of approxtmately 4/20/81 MINUTES, ANAHEIM ClTY 'LANNINC COMMISSIt1N~ ArRiL Z0~ 1991 81- Z~6 4.7 ~cres~ h~vtng • fra+ta9e af appraxlmately 330 teet on tha na~th std~ o~ Winston Road~ appraxln~ tely 9 80 tt~t •~st o~ the cont~~lin~ of Stat~ Co11~4e Boulevard (ZZO1 E~s t Minston Ro~d)i and doe~ h~~~bY ePPro~ the Neg~ttv D~cia~stlan fran th~ r~quihmsnt to p~epar~ •n •nvironnent~l I~np~ct report o~ the besls that the~~ would b~ ~o •Iqnlftca~t Individu~l or cwnulatiw ~dvers• envl~cnmsr+tel impact du~ to th• ~pp~ova) of this f~~ttve Decl~ration since the A~~h~im G~~.~e~l Plan design~t~~ th~ f~iJ~ct prcpertY for gen~rsl Indu~trlsl I~nd u~o• canmens~~rsce wlth tha p~opesal; that ~o s~nsitiv~ e~vlronnKnt~1 In~acts are involved In tF~a p~opos~t; that the Init~~l Study submltted by th~ p~Rttloner Indic++tes no sig~lficsnt tndivtdusl or cw~wl~tlw •dvRrs~ •nvironmsnt+~1 In+pects; ~nd thet tha NeA+~tlvo Declar~tion sub~t~ntl~ting the fo~e9oln9 findings Is an fil~ In the City of M~heim Pl~nntng D~partment. Caa~mtsslaner -~erbst offer~d Re~olutlon No. PC81-86 snd moved for !ts passa9e ~nd adoptlo~ that the An~helm City Pia~ning Con~nission does heraby ~rant Conditlone) Us~ Pe~mit No. 2197 purswnt to Sectlons 18~0;.(130; .031i .A32; .n33: •~;~+ and .03;. Ti tle 18 of tho Anaheim Municipel Cad~ •nd sub.iect to Interdepertmental Comm~ttee ~e conme n dat i on s. On roll catl, the fo~egoing ~esolutlon wss ~assed by the foilowing vote: A1/ES: COMM) SS IONERS : 90UAS, BUSHOItE ~ FRY ~ t1ERBST, KI NC, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIOHERS: BARNES 1 TEM N0. 8: E 1 R NEGAT 1 V:- OECLARAT t ON VARI AI~CC N0. 20 ANO TENTATi VE MAP OF TRACT N ~ ~- .~~~ ~ : ~. ' pup~,~~ ,,~ , ~wNER: JOSEPNINE M. AND CONRAD J. LETTER. 3102 ValleJo Drlv~e~ A~aheim~ ~~ . AGENT: WALTER K. BO4IMAN~ 793~~ Cerritos Avenue, St~nto~. CA . v68p. ~roperty described es an i~r~guls~ly-sheped p~~ce1 of Iand consi~tlnq of apPraximatrly ~.47 ac~e~ 12E~0 Esst La Paln-a Ave~ue. P~operty Areaentty clsssified R1~1200 (RESIOENTIAI~ MULTIPLE-PAMILY) ZONE. V AR 1 ANCE REQUEST : WAI VER OF MAX I MUM STRUCTUi~AL NE I GN? ~ MAX I MUM S I TE COVERAGE AND MINIMUM RECREATIONAL-1E15URE AREA. TENTATIVE MAP REQUE5T: TO ESTADLISN A 1-LOT~ b-UNIT CONDOMINIUM SUBDIVISION. The~e was no ane i ndi c~ti ng thei r prose~ce i n op~os) tion to sub Ject request, end although the staff repart v+~s not read. it Is refer~ed Lo and made a part of the a~inutes. ~lalter Bav,msn~ sgant~ explalnad ravised plans v+ere submitted today whtch eliminated He referr~ed to ~ralver (c) pertatning to the minimum recrcational-leisure area. Cancfition~ • sixeu~itsiare~inwlvedea~drthat theycwouldnhavehautomatic garage door tiride and Y openen . THE PUBLIC NEARING WAS CLOSEO. 4/20/81 _ - -- ~;;~ ~ MINUTES, AHAl1~tM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 20~ 1981 81•~27 J~y Titus, Offlca En~inN~, •xpletROd the condltieM pertalning to prlvate streets nas been roqui~ad by ths Comiats~lon In the past f+~~t~tning to ~.ondanin~um proJects with i ndl v) du~t own~n MI p a~ canpered to ap~rtnKnt comp I~xes wt th ona avner. Commissioner Bushore ~~k~d if this p~oJect ts •pproved~ wouid the prsvlous approvsl far ~ 7•unit projact be daleted. Desn Sh~r~r~ Assistant Pl~nn~r~ expialned the property would hav~ epprovt~) for two proJects. He axpletned he hsd revlewad the revtsad plans and It dc~os dppear to meet the rocraatinnel-latsure e~ea requl rements. Chalrman Tai~r asked if the petittoner would ba wllling to wlthdraw the pravlously epproved ]-unit cnrt~lex and Mr. Bowmen replled h~ would ~ot heve the euthority to make thet commttment. Annika Sa~talnhti, Assistant Director fo~ 2oning, expi~tn~d th~t re~lly Ia not s problem bncause when the tract far th~ condomintum I~ filed~ th~ apartments would not be sn {ssue. ACTIAN: (.ommtssioner He~bst affered a motton~ seconded by Commissloner Ktng and M N CARRIED. thAt the A~ahelm City Planning Commisslon has revlewr.d the propossl to establish o 1-lot~ 6-unit candaninium subdlvision with walvers of maxlmum structurai heiqht~ r~axlmum site cnverage and minimum recreatt~nal-laisure area on s irregularly•shaped pArccl of land consisttng of d~n~oxin+ac~~Y ~.47 acre. heving ~ fron4a~e of opproximetaly 80 fert on chs sauth sid~ of t,a Pelme Avenue (126~ East La~ Palme Avenue); and does hc:reby approve the Negative ~eclaration from the requlren~ent to prepare an envl~~nmentat im~act report on th~ basis that th~re would be no aignlficant Indivtdual or cumulattve adverse envtronn-ental tn~ act due to the approva) of this Negative D~ciaratlon since the A~ahetm General Pian designates the subject property for medlum denstty residentlal land uses a~m+ensurate with the proposai; that n~ sensitive envt~ :~-+nental impacts are involved tn the proposal; that the Initial Study submttter .:w the petitioner indicates no ~iqnificAnt tndivtduel or curnulattve advene envlronmentai Ir~pacts; and that the Neqattve Oeclaration substanttating tha foregoing findings ls on ft~e in the City of AnsheTm Plenning Department. Commissioner Hcrbat offered Resoiution No. PC81-87 end moved for its pessage And adoptlon tt~at the Anahei~n Ctty P•3nning Com~nission dc~es hereby grant Vartance No. 320g~ in pert. gre~~' ~ waivers (a) and (b) on the basls thet danisl would deprive subject property ~- st leges enjoyed by other property In the sart~e zone and victnity and on t-.- '~~ is that the petitioner has stipulated to provide automotic garage daor apeners and de mring waiver (c) r~n the basls thet revised pians deieted the need for sai~! waiver and subJect to Intrr~lepartmental Commlttee r~ca~s+~~endations. On ~oll cal l~ the fo~egoing reaalution was i~.~ssed by the fol iowtnr vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS~ FRY, ~IERBST„ Y.ING, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BUSHORE ADSEt~T: COMMI 5S IONERS : BARBES 4/2o/SI MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 20~ 19@) 81-Z28 Commi~stoner Herbst ~sksd if th~ aprroval of the tent+~ttve map shauld be for aavislon No. 2 and Dsan Sheror~ Asslstent Plsnnar~ a~lalnad it should ba Rsvislon No. 1~ si~ce the revislon pertalned to the V~rlanr,e. He stated the petitioner has ~eque=ted that Conditic~ No. 5 b• ~n~ nded to permit a 2;-fcc~t wida p~ivate street~ ~sther then 28 faet and Chairman Ta1ar point~d out the petttloner ha~ stipulated to p rovida automettc gsrage door openers. Commitsloner Herbst clarifed thst the pro_)ect would have CCbR's and Mr. dowmsn respc~nded that I t wi i l. Commlssloner Herbst offered d matton~ seconded by Conmisstoner Bouss end MOTIbN CARRIED (Commissioner Bushore votinc~ no)~ thrt the A~shaim Ctty Planning Commtssion does heraby find tliet the proposed subdiviston together with Its design and improvement~ is ccx-ststent wlth the Ctt~~ af Anehaim General Plan~ pursuant to Gova rnmenc Code Sectton 664S7.y; •nd d~es~ thnrefore~ epprove Tent~tive Map of Tract No. 11362 (Revision No. 1) for e 1-lot~ 6-unit oondominlum subdivtson subJect ta the following conditions. TE_ NTATiVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 11362 (Revls(c~n NA~: 1. That the approval of Tentetive tlap of Tract No. 11362 (Resvtsto~ N~. i) Is yranted s~bJect. to the opf~rovel of Variance I~b. 320~. 2. That ahould this subdivision be developed as mnre than one subdivtsion~ each subdtvision thereof shsll be submitted In tentatlve form fa~ app~ovel. 3. That tlk ortgln~l dc~curr~nts of the covenants~ cond(tlons~ and restrictlons, and a letter addressod to developer's title compeny authori2ing recordatto~ thereof~ sh~l) be submitted Go the City Attorney's offtce ~nd approved by tha Ci~ty Atto~ney's Offiec~ Public Utilities Department. Butlding Div(ston, and the Enginae~ing Olvision pri~r to ftnal t~act mep ~pproval. Satd documentL~ as approved~ shall be ftled and recorded In tl-e Offtce of the O~ange County Recorder. 4. That screet names shal) be epproved by the CitY Planning D~partment p~lor to approval of a final trect map. ~. That a11 prlvate streets shal! be d~veloped in accordance aith ehe City of Anaheim's Standard Detatl Na. 122 for prtvate sereets including installstion of street name signs~ expect that 25-foot wide streets shall be permitted on the basis thAt the petittoner stipulated at the public h~aring to provide automatic garage door o~eners on ail untts. Plans for the private street lighttng~ as ~equired by the atandard datali, shali be submitted to the But~ding Oiv~sion for approYal and inclusion with the bulldtng plans prtor to the tssua~~ce of building permits. (Private streets are those which provide prtmary access and/o~ circulettan within the proJect. 6. If pe nnanent strcet ~an+e signs fi ave not been tnstelled~ temporary street n~me signs shail be installed prior to any occupancy. 4/20/81 MINUTES~ ANAHEfM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 20~ 1g81 81- 229 7• Th~t the awn~r(s) of ~ubJact p n~porty •hell pay the traffic stgnat esaefsmsnL Pee (Ordtnance No. 38gG) In an smaunt ss dets nnined by the Ctty Cauncll~ for each naw dvelling unit prlor to the issuence of s bullding PenAl t. 8. That the e xisttng d~iveway sh~l) be removed and replaced wlth s~ttand~rd curb~ gutt~r si~,. s Idew~lk. 9• Th~t trash storage areas shsl) be provided in •c~rdance with approved plans on file with the Offlce of the Executive plrector of Public Works. ~~ 10. That ftre hyd~ants shAil be ~nut++lle,d end charged as rrquired and determtned Co ba necessary by tl~a Chief of the Flre Dep~rtmint pria~ to commencement of at~uctural freming. il. That subJect property shall be sorved by underg~und utilitles. 12. That dr~inege of subJect prape~ty shal) be disposed of (n a m~enner satisfacto ry to the City Englnaer, 13. That the ewner af sub}~ct property shall pay ta tha C~ty of M ahelm the appropriate perk and recreation tn•Iteu fees us dete~mtncd to be appropriate by the City Council~ said feQS to be pald at the ttme the building pe~m{t Is t ssued. 14. That the applicsnt shal) present sattsfacto ry evidence that the proposed subdivisi~n conform6 to Counctl poltcy No. 5-~2 pertaining to nolse attenuetion for ~es(de~ttal projects adJacent to arterta) hYghweys prio~ to issuanc~e af building permtts. 15. That the petiricx~er shell prov6de~ to the extent feesible~ for passtve or netural Fwating and coaling epportur-ities in tt~e proposed subdivision. Com~dssione~ 9usho~e stated his no vote reflects hts feeling that revised plans were subn~itteA todsy and it has be~n the Planning Commtssion's policy not to proceed without a r~vtew flf the pians. Mr. Bowman responded that the membe~ of the Plann(ng Depa~tment staff responsible ~ fQr reviewing the pl~ns was not present today. Jack White, Assistant Ctty Atterney~ ciartfted tl~at Con~ition No. 5 whuld requlre that the rest of the st~eet condttions be met and that the width cen b~ reduced by 3 feet, s~jeZt to the petttioner's stipulatTon to pravide automatic garage door opene rs . , 4/20/81 i ~~ . MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLA~iNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 20~ 1981 A1• 23~ N0. : Ela NECATIJE DECLARIITIA.~Ny ~RE,CIASSIFICATION N0. 84-81•32. WAIVER QF u e~~ M1T N0~ i QWF~ERSs DAVID ALANI, 823 South 6a~ch Bouisvard. Aneheim, CA q~804. ACENTs ~OUG ALANI, 823 South Beach Boulevard~ Anahetm, CA 9Z8d4. P roperty described as a rect~~gulerly-shapsd parcel of land consl~ting of approximately 1.; scres~ 823 South Besch Boulevard (Raz~mataz= Motel). Pr~pe~ty presently clas=Ifled RS-A-43~000 (RESIDENTIAL, AGRICULTURAL) 20NE~ RECLASSiFICATION REQUEST: CL CONDITIONAL USE aEQUEST: TO PERMIT A COCt~TAtl lOUNGE IN A~~ EXISTING MOTEL u1TF1 WAIVER OF MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. Thare was na one indlcattng thetr presence in opposttlon to subJect request, and althougl~ the stsff roport w~s not read~ it Is referred to end made a part of ths m) nutes . Doug Alanl~ agent~ statcd this establlshmenL wiil ectually be a tavern wlth emphasis an food. Ile rcferrQd to the nurrbor of parking spaces and explained e lot of thetr ~l lcntele wi l l ba guests of the hotel. THE PUBLIC HEARING ~IAS CLOSED. ACTION: Cosnmi;sionar Kinfl affered a motlon~ seconded by Commissioner Bouas and MO'~~QH CARRIED (Commiss~onar Ba~nes being absen~). that the Aneheim Clty Plannin~: Commission has revicwed the proposal to r~classify subJect property from RS-A-43,00~ (Residential/Agricultural~ Zone to CL (Commerctal. Limited) Ione to permtt a cocktail lounge (n an existing mote) with waive~ hf minimum rtumber of parking spaces an a r~ctanguiarlyshsped parcel of lend conststing of appraximately 1.3 ~cre~ having a frontaga of ~ppraximately 190 feet r~n the west side of Beech Boule~ard (823 South Beach 9oulevard); and does hereby spp~ove the Negstlve Declaratton from the ~equlrement to prepere an cnvironmental impact repa~t on the bas~s that there would be nc~ signifiGant individual or cumulative adverse envtronn+ental ~np~act dua co the approval of this Negative Declaration sincc the A~aheim General Plan designates the subJect property for general conn~ercial land uses camiensurate with the propo~al; that no sensitive environmental lmpacts arc involved In thc proposal; that the Inttlai Study s~b mitted by thc pctitlaner indicAtes no slqnificant indivtdual or cumulatlve adverse environmental impacts; ~+nd that the Negative Oeclaratio~- substantiating the foregoing findings ts on file tn the City of An~hetm Planning Department. Commlssioner King offered aesolution No. PC81-88 and r+aved for its passage and adoptlon that tk~e Anaheim City Pianning Commission does hereby g~snt Reclassificetion No. 80-81-32 s~bJect to Interdepartmnntal Committee recortrnendetio~s. On ~oll call. the forec~oi~g resolution was passed by the following vote: AYE5: COMMISSI4NERS: BOUAS, BUSHORf~ FRY~ HERBST~ KING, TOLAR NQES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: CONMISSIONERS: BARNES ~/20/81 . ,~..~.~~ MINUTES. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 2A~ 1~81 e~-zj~ Commi~stoner Ktn9 c+ffered a mutton~ seco~ded by Commtsslone~ 8ows a~d MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner 9a~na• betng absent)~ that the An~helm City Plenning Commisslon does hereby grant waiw r of code requt~ement on the basls that the proposed cocktail lounge is betng developod In conJuctlon with an extsting motel and a certsin p~~cantage ot the guasts errivu by transportstton m~de~ other than privat~e automobiles and a cert~tn parcentege of che clisntlele nf the cocktall lounge wlil be questi of the motel. Commisslone~ King offered Resolutlon No. PcA1-8A ~nd moved for tts passege and adaption that thc Anahoim City Planning Commission daes hereby grant Conditianal Use Permlt Na. 31~9 P~~~~t to Sectlons 18.03.030; .031; .032; .A33; .~;~ and .035~ Titln 18 of the A~ahalm Munic(p~l Code and subJect tc~ Inte~department~l Committee ~ecammendations. On roll cell~ the foregoing resolutton was passed by the folla+ing vote: AYES: COMNISSIONERS: BOUAS, FRY. ~~ERBST~ KING, TOLAR NOES; COMMISSIONERS; BUSHORE ABSENT: COMMISSIONEaS: BARNES ITEM N0. 10: EIR NEGATIVE DEGLARATION. REGLASSIFiCATION N0. 80-81-3A: OWNERS: ROBERT MARVIN IAW~ 91G 41est Lincoln Avenue~ Aneheim, CA g28b5. AGENT: ERIC F. MOSSMAN~ 21a $th Street~ tluntington Daach, CA g2G4$. Property descr(bed as en l~regularly-shaped parcel of land consisttng of app~oximetely 2.72 acres, ~OS South 8each 8oulevard. Praperty presently clasaifled RS-A-h3~Q04 ( RES I DENTI AL/AGRI CUL7URl1l) ZONE. REG!ASSIFICATION aEQUEST: CO There were two persons indicating thetr p~esence in oppositlon to sub}ect request and one person i ndl ceti ng h 1 s 1 nterest, and a) though the s Caff report was not read, i t i s refe~red to and rt~de a part of the minutes. Glen R. lockerby, 218 5th Street, Huntington Beach~ California was present to answer a~y questlons. M~. Yeh~ owner of Arenal Motel south of the subJect p~operty, was concarned about the concrete block wall ~d asked if that would be in additian to the existing wooden fonce on Che south and Mr. Loekerby replied they would stlpulate to provide a concrete b lock wai l. Mr. Yeh asked tf this p~oject would affect his expansion pla~s whfch heve already bsen ~pproved and alsa asked tf being a nelghbo~ of a medical professional tenter wouid require him to do anything spetific i~ order to be a good neighbor and it was noted Chere would be no special ~equirements Just because tt would be a medlcat professional center. Sara Talley, 401 South Laxnre St~eet. stated her house wlll be to the rnar of this two-story building a~d asked if ther~ wiil be windows facing their back yard, indicating they do not want their privacy invaded. 4/20/81 MINUTES, ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMiSS10N~ APRIL 10, 1981 81-232 Dsan Sharar~ Assistant Planner~ revlewed the plans with Ms. Talley polntl~~ out the buffer ares~ walis~ atc. M'. Talley askod about parking lot ltghts a~d tt was noted that down-liqhting would be requtred and D~en She~er added thet stande~d conditlan wli) ba sdded. Conce~ntng the 17-foot parking speces~ Dean Sh~rer expiatned 17-fo~t parking apaces are elie~wed aith a 2-foot overhang inta s pt~nttng a~ea. Ms. Talley •sked the hours of oper~tion and Mr. Lockerby re~lled they will probably 8;00 ++.m to 5:00 p.m. TNE PUt3LiC ~IEARiNG WAS CIOSED. Commissloner King ssked sbout the requirement for s rnadifled cul-de-ssc and Jay Titus~ OPfice Enginear~ ex~slatned this would requtre placlnq the rediu~ in thc existing rtght~of-way to facilltate street swee~ing. atc. and Mr, lockerby replied that would nat be a problem. Conxnisslone~ Harbst w~s conccrn~d abaut the property betng develaped In accordance with thsse plens and M~. Lockerby stipulated to development tn accordence with the plans. ACTION: Commtsstoner King offered a motion~ seconded by Commissioner Bouas and M0~ T 0 C/1RRIED (Commisstoner ~arnes being absent). thst the Anshetm Gity Planning Commisston has revla~red the proposal to ~eclassify subJect ~roperty from the RS- 43,000 (Residential/Aqrtcultural) Zone to the CO (Commerctal, Office end Professtonal) Zone to construct an office and medical office butlding on an irregularly-~thaped parcel of land consisting of appraxtmately 2.7 acr~s~ having e frontaga of approximately 330 feet on the east side of Beach Boulevard (403 South tieach Bouleva~d); and does hereby app~o~e the Ne:gative Declaratian from the requlrement to prepare an environn~ ntai impact report o~. the basis that there would be no significant indivtclual or cumulative adverse environmentrl impact due to the approva) of this t~k gstive Declaration since the Anat~etm General Pla~ designates the sub)ect property for general cortmercial land uses commensuratr with the proposat; that no sensitive envi~onmental impacts are involved i~ the proposal; that the Initlal Study submitted by the petttioner indicates no slgnificant indlvidual or cumulative adverse environmentai impacts; and thet the Negative Declaration s~b stantiating the foregoing findings is on file tn the City of Anahetm Planning Qepartment. Commissioner King offered Resolutlon No. PC81-90 and moved for its passage and adoptlon that the Anahelm City Plenning Commission does hereby grant Reclafsif~=atio~ No. 80-81- 3b s~,ject to the pettttoners stipulation to d~velop subJect property in accordance with sub mitted plans and to construct a 5-foot high masonry wall along the south, dast and west propertw lines mnd that any psrking area lighting shall be down- li~ ting of a maximum height of 12 feet. which lighting shall be directed away fram the p roperty lines to protect the residential integrtty of the area and subJect to Interdepartme~tal Committea recommendattons. On roll tall~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the follc~ing vote: AYES: COMMISSIOt~ERS: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY~ HERBST~ KING, TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONE RS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSi0NER5: BARNES 4/20/81 MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CI'I'Y PLANNINQ COMMISSION~ APRI~ s0~ 1981 N T 81-x~3 OWNERSs ORANGE COUNTY PUBLIC RELATIONS~ IHC.~ &1 Harbo~ Ridge Drtve, Newport Besch~ CA 92G60. AGENTs WILLIAM J~ McGEE~ 2082 S. E. Bristol St~eet~ A221~ Santa Ana~ CA 92707. Property described ss a rectangularly-shaped parcel o! iand ca~ststing of approximately 1.7 acres, having s frant~ga of ~pproximately 2~A feet an the south stcie of Ba11 Road~ hsvtng a maximum dapth of ~pproxtmately 280 feet and belnq locatod approxlmately 260 feat Nest of the centa.•~Ine of Magnolia Avenue. Property prese~tly claaslfied RM-30nQ (RESIDENTIAL~ NULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZONE. VARIANCE REQUEST: WAIVER OF REQUIaEO LOT FRONTAGE. TENTATIVE MAP REQUEST; TO ESTAOLISH A 23-LOT. 22-UNIT CANDOMINIUM SU~DIVIStON. Thore was no one indicating their presence in opposition to subJect request~ and eithough the steff report was not read~ it Is referred to and made a part of the minutea. Willtam J. McGee~ agent~ was present to answer amr questlans and explained the plen is to convert the previously appr4ved conclnmtnlums into a tawnhnuse development. It was noted the plans are exactly the same as previously ~pproved anA that no motlon Is req ulred on the EIR Neyattve Declaretion. THE PUBLtC HEARING WAS CLOSED. ACTION; Commisstoner Ktng offered Resoluttc~n No. PC81-91 end moved for its passage an ecoptton that the Anaheim City Planni~g Commisslon cloes hereby grant Vartance No. 3210 on the ba~.is that denial wou~d deprive sub)ect property from e privllege enJoyed by othar property in tt~e same zone and vicinity and sub)ect to Interdepartmental Committee recommendations. On roll call~ the foregoing resolution .~as passeci by the follawing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS~ BUSNORE~ FRY~ t1ERDST~ KING~ TOLAR NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSEt~T: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES Commissl~ner King offered a motion. seconded by Commissioner Nerbst and MOTION CARRIED (Commissioner Barnes being absent)~ that the Anahei~n City Planning Commlssion does hereby flnd that the proposed subdivision together with its destgn and tmprovement is conststent with the Anaheim General Plan. pursuant to G~vernment Code Section 6473.5 and does the~efore approve Tentative M~p of Tract No. 11320 (Revislon No. 1) for a 23-lot~ 22-unit condominium subdivislon subJect to the ~ollvwing condi tions. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 11320 (Revtston No. 1): _.._ ~_.__. 1. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 11~20 (Revision Ho~ 1) is granted subJect to the approvai of Variance No. 3210. 2. That s hould this subdivision be devetoped as more than one s ubdivision, each subdivision tfieraof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. ~~~n/a~ ~ ' J MINUTES~ ANANEIM CIlY P~ANNINO COMMISSION, APRIl. 20~ 1981 81-23~+ 3• Thet th• arigtnsl documents of any proposed covensnts~ conditions, and restrictlons~ a~d a lettor addressed ta develape~'s title company authorizi~g recordatlon thmreof~ shall be submitted to the City Atto~ney's Offtco a~d approved by the City Attorney's offtce and Engineartng Oiviston prior to tha final t~act map approval. Setd documnents~ aa epprovad, shell be f(led end recorded in the Offtce of tha Orange County Racorder. 4. That street names sha11 be ap~roved by the Ctty Planning Department prior to ~pproval of a ftnal tract ,nap. 5. That drainage of s ubJoct property shati bG dispased of in a n~anner setisfactory to thcs C12y Engineer. 6. That the owner of subJect property shall poy ta the City of Anehelm the appropriatn park and recrcaclan tn-iteu fees as determtned ta be appropriate by the City Council, aaid fees to be paid at the time the butiding permtt is i ssued. 7. ThAt all prtvate streets shall be developed in accordanc~e wtth the City of Anaheim's Standard Detall No. 122 for prlvAte strects. Including installatlon of street name signs. Plans for the private street light(ng, as requl red by the standard detal 1~ shal l be submltted to the 6u) lding Divtsion for approval and inclusion wtth tfie bullding plens prior to the tssuance of building permits. (P~ivate streets are those whtch p~ovide prima ry access and/or circul~tion withtn the project. $. If pe~mane~t street narne signs have not been lnstalled~ temporary strect na~ signs shal) be installed prlor Co any occupancy. 9. That the owner(s) of subject p~operty shall pay the trafftc signal assessment fee (Ordinance Nu. 3g96) in an amount as determined by the City Council, for each new dwelling unlt pridr to the issuance of a butlding pQrmit. 10. Prior to approval of the final tract map~ the applicant shali present evide~ce satisfactory to the Chief Building Inspeccor that the unit is in conformance wlth the Noise Insulation Standards specified in the Califo~nla Admintstr~tive Code~ Title 2S. 11. The seller shall provide the purchas~r of each condominium unit with written info nnatlon concerning llnahelm Municipa) Code 14.32.5~~ P~rtaintng to "parking restricted to facllitate street swpeping". Such written information wtll clearly indicate when on-street parking is prohibited and the penalty for vtolation. 12. "~b parking for street swceptng" signs shall be installed prior to final street inspection as requlred by the Public Works Executive Dtrector in accordance with specificatlons on file with the Street Maintenance Otvision. 13. That all sanitary sewers on•site shall be private. 14. That the petition~r shali present evidence that the p~oposed condominium complex conforms to Counctl Policy No. 5~~2 -"Sound Attenuatton in Rasidential ProJects" prior to issuance of building permit. A/20/$1 MIMUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNINO COMMISSION~ APRIL 20~ 1981 81-235 N0. 12s EIR NEGATIVE OECLARATION, REVI_S__ION OF EXHIBIT N0. 7 OF THE SANTA ANA To consider a revision to Exhtbit No. 7 of the Senta Ana C~nyon Raad Access Paints StuJy in ordor to provide access to a G.G acre canmercia) site located on tha southwest ~orner of Santa Ana Ce~yon Road and Fai~mont Boulevard. There were approximately six persons indicatina thelr prasance In oppositio~ to subject reyuest, end althaugh the steff ~eport was not reed~ tt Is referred to and mado e part af the r:lnutcs. Norman Rasmussen~ C. Robert lengslet L Son. Inc.~ Long D~ach~ stat~d the purpose of this hearing la to obtaln ~cceas to the prop~~ed corm~e~ctel devetopment and that approval would be subJoct to tti~ir working out the mech~ntcal deteils wlth the nurse ry awner~ immedtstely to the west; that they have dlscussed the matter wtth Mr. Kobsysshi~ nurse ry awner. ond he is present and they do plan to co~rdtnate the program with him; that there are a fcw prape~ty Ilne matters thAt havt to be worked out b ut they believe they will be resolved and thet the a~p~~val can be subJect to the complotlon of those arrangements. 1ie steted this property ls a 1lttle aver 6 acras and thelr traffic enyineering consuita~t is present; that they agre~ with the Traffic Engtneer's recommendation for the left-turn access. which thoy would like to addrrss . Mariy arinkerhoff~ Lifesc~Pe Inc.~ presented an audla visuai presentation of tl~~ proposed dev~eiopment arca pointin~ out the propased reh~bilitatlon of Peralta Adobc site and the left~turn access~ et~• Westo~ Pringle. Traffic Enc~ineer and Consultant~ 2~5~ East Chap~~~ Fullerton~ stated they ayree Wlth the steff report and he also understanJs the Ctty Traffic Englnecr's conc:ern; chat they have a~elatively minimal vol~ne proposed to use the left-turn lane off Santa Ana Canyon Road~ howaver~ wlthuut that left-turn the only real access Is off Fairmont and ~this is not a!~ood sltuatlon for a oommerclal center because of congestion that could bc created on the sfte with atl the trafftc trying to conNerge Into ane driveway; +thAt they believed thts type left~turn acce~s can operate ssfely and it has been proven over the yaars noting chis type ~ccess was first deveioped in the carly GO's by the Los Angeles Caunty Road Department to service the Lakavood Center and it has been used in many other cities; that the one shcwrn in the :-ides o~ MacArt~ur has a very heavy volume and is ecceptable by CALTRANS because it ia a state hlghv+ay. Ne stated thls type situafion works beceuse vehicles are conce~~ed with only one opposing trafflc movement. He pointed out they are rat requesting left- turns out of the center. Ne stated the proJected volume at this location Is approximately 17,600 per day and that thn northeast corner of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Imperial acc~ss was provtded on a temporary basls until the ATD reached 25,OOQ and the votuma at thts t~c~tnt is considerbly lower and they feel on that basis the left~tur~ can be provided wtthout creatir-g any undue problenLS or hazards to the traffic operations along Santa Ana Crnyo~ Road. Prior to heartny the opposttion, Chairman Tolar pointed out that the hesring today is merely to discuss th~ access to tfie property fo~ the corm~er~la) oenter, but the project itself is not to be discussed. Dean Hesketh, 1126 South Timkin~, stated the deceleretion lane will be shared by bike traffic and pedestrian traffic with vehicles dacelerating f~om about b0 mph sharing the traffic lane w{th the ~'kers and ptdestrians and thAt the decelaration lane wtll only ba i feet from tha r~;.;+~1e~ces and they feel the noise from that will be an inconvenience to the homeewners. He stated alsa the setback Is not oompsttble with che scenic oorridor. He stated they feel the left•turn pocket will forr.e traffic to 4/20/81 MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY P LANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL Z0. 1981 81-Z36 decelarate and cause • i ot of has~rd• end thet the proxtmity of th~ I~ft•turn pock~t to the l~te~section and tha l~nqth of tha pocket 1~ d~ngQrous. H~ axpl~inad he Is refer~tn~ to ~ccsss point No. 3•b. Ile ftAt~d eqross trom the p~eperty cx~to S~nt~ Ana Canyan Roed hes no acce ! erat' ~n ersa end the +~cceleratlon t~om the property wi I 1 b• sharad by the bikers ~nd pedc,trlens by left turntng trsfflc onta fsl~nwnt. Na stated tF ~~e is an existing problem ~t the corner of In~+~ria1 •nd S~nta An• C~nyo~ Rosd with traffic merging and ho felt thls w111 ba mACt~lfled with tl~is proJect especlally Nith ldr9e numbar of students caning out of the Junior hlqh schaol w~lking in the •cceleratlon lan~i. Mr. Nesketh staLed h~ Q uastloned the figures given on the trafftc tountt~ and •sked -f thn 1 J~000 is th~ present tou~t~ the count in the ne~r future or th~ distant futu~e esctmate. He asked who wauld be retpon~ibic for ltablitty (f this traffic flow pattern does not wark. Tom Toraake ~ 1E•45~- La Dc~nna C) rc le ~ liunt) ngton Beach ~ ~ep~esentat i ng Tc~m Kobrysbh 1~ ownor of Koby's Nursery ~ stated thoy Just recelved tl~e actuel propos~) of what the petittoner wants to do and hove not had a chence to fully ,tudy it; nnd th~~t Mr. Kobati~ashi hes indtcateci they are vr.ry hnppy wtth the way thtn~s are riqht nvw and are rAt1-er reluctant to cha.~ge snd that the occess being proposed •t this time wll) parhaps heve a dctrir-~ntat affer_t an the nursery's econo~+y. He strted ric~ht nvw the left•turn off Senta Ana Canyon Roact goes rough a portlon of the nurs~ry. Ile stated they are aiso concerned about the deceleracion IanQ and p~int~d out there is a mtsunderstand(ng as far As the boundarics n~~ ~nd that th~y also feel from looklnq at the dr~wings there wll l be a rcductlon In tlia nurt~ber of parktny space~ av~d thet they wi 11 lose same operating space becausc a portion ~f tt~e decele~ation lane qoes through the garden cent~r area whe~e thcy hAVe dry goods stored. He stt~ted basleeliy they n~ed additionat ti rn,2 to study the proposal and are not seytny et the Dresent ttmcs whether or not they a~e for or a!~alnst th~ protx~~al. Sandra Young~ iFi1 Donna Court~ stated sh~ attendcd a n~ettng of thr ,Junior hiqh parent boa~d last week and the p~incipal of the school advised her and gave F-er permi s s i on to speak for h t m because I~a i s ve ry much opposed to th i s proJect bacause he feels tt wil) cause a dang~er to the ch(Idren walking to snd from the )unlor higfi school wtth the blke lan~ and the equestrian trail being a part of the deceleratlon lane and the entrance t o the proposed shopp(ng centcr. She stated obviously ha has other reasons for being ~gatnst th(s shopping ccnter ~nd one ts the attraction to the chiidran of the market area. She stated thn_ psrents on the board also felt that this wouid be a hezard and i t was her impression that they wer~ qoing to write letters to the Planning Commtssio~ and the Ctty Council expressinn their oppositTon. She stated es a homec~wner (n the area she is agalnst the right-tur~ lane out af Falrm~nt becaust of the possiblltty of people making u-turns at Rlo Grendt because they only have two opti ons for leaving the ir comnun ity; one on Qul ntana and one on Rlo Grande a~d i t t s prescntly b problem beeause of the specd of the traffic on Fairmont. She felt aith m~re traffi~ from the s hopping center it will be more dange~ous for the residents. Di one Neskrth ~ Prest derst of the Santh Ana Canyon Property Owners Association, stated a stmtlar proposal was denied by the Ctty Counct) in tA7E snd she reAtly could nct see where the situation had ch~n4ed stnce then and she did not thlnk thls ahcwld be approved. She statcd she is also representtng thg Equestrian and Tralls Can~nittee beceuse no o~e etse could attend mnd p~lnted out on the southwest portto~ of the property there ts a propose~i trail which ts shown as a road on thetr plan going in from Rio Grande and the t~ail Is on the General Plan end the Traf I Element as a proposed tratl to hook up to the~ SAVI Trail and Sycamore Canyo~ Trall. She ststed this is a very tmportas~t trai 1(n the trat 1 system snd she wanted to be sure that ts it sha-+n on the pian ifi this !s approved. She stated tf the plan is approved~ the equestrien tretl should be realigned from Santa Ma Ca~yon Road onto Rio Gra~de 4/24/81 MINUTES~ ANAMEIM CITY ~LAMNIMG tOMM11SSi0N, APRIL Z0~ 1981 81•2~~ b~c~us• It 1• too ~q~row ~nd th~ nortc~ coula not tole~~te tA~t ~nuch trafftc in th~t •fa~t dlstance, •spa~ci~tlY the child~n on their ponie~. Sh• st~t~d It it t• not to b~ r~~l ipned •~d th~ pl~n i~ epproved~ th~n th~ t~all •haulA be ~~nc~d •nd othar ~~fety p~ec~utl o~• hqut ~d. Nank Rivar~~ L28; Ewst Rlc~ ~r~nd~~ stet~d nis re~idence 1~ th~ one shown on a1) the piM• ~d}~cent to this developa~nt. He st~ted he thouAht it is unf~i~ to not b~ ~bie to •ddras~ the oth~r ~spatts of the deve lopn»nt s I nu t~~~e deve laper wss ql van that optio~ enci dicf shvw hcsr good he tho~~ght the ~roJect wouid be. N~ ~tatod, ha+ever~ th~ m~in co~side~~tlon I~ the Inft•turn for westbound on S~nta An~ tanyon Road. i~~ ttatsd he h~s been ~ reglstured ssfety engineer for the IA5! tn yeers •nd clurln9 the present~-ion tr~ffic ficsv of s slTller situatie~ In Liguna Hillt a~d on M~cArthur ~~~e shawn to De effeCttve. IM ~ceted he h~s revl~-v~d those sltuAtlons end they e~e mueh further th~n M~G feet from the major cross st~eet~ but in thls case the tltuation would be cornpounded wlth th~ left•turn lane Int~ a slx~~ping center which (s slmott contiquous to ~ ms)or cross street. t1r ~eferred t~ tha t~~t' t~affic a~d eansu~ re-~ort whteh gt v~os ths ~~olun+e on this street •s 17~6~0 ;r~ipi which ts ilmi -ar to Katelle~ Bell or Narbor Boulaverd end steted he dr~es n~t think ~ le~ft-turn lene would be permitted that clos• to a ma)ar intersectlnn •ny other plsce In the city. Mr. Rivore stated he i s~Ifo c~ncarneC abo~it the ~ecest pelnt +~dJecen~ to hie honN on Ric- Grande~ ; or 6 fe~t f~om his w~ll; t~~t iooklnq dtrectly south from that proposed drlvew~y there If enother G.9 •cre dev~lopmenti dl~ectly •cross the atreet so there will be twa n-~)or dri ie-+ays ~irectiy ac~oss fram each other end h~ felt th~t Is the one the truck tratfic woutd use for eccess. He asked the Plenning Commission to tske the sama s tand thQy di d I n 1~7a ~nd cons t d~r the IMp) 1 c~t lona ot future dav~ lopment in the Csnyon. Ile tei t when 11eir Cdnyon onens up that lelt•turn w111 ~eccx++e even nbro sign(ftcant. -le stated he~ Also does not Ilke loc~king at trash dumpster~. Rlchard Rat~po+~le~ Or~nqe Crest Develo~ment Cnrpor~tlon~ 1;6~ South Anaheim 8oulevard, stet4d they avn the p~operty Immedtateiy south of the proposed cam~ercl~) structu~es and they •~e concerned abou; the equostrtan trai 1 which they have been r,squested to continue (n th~lr project. He ststed th~y do n~t see ~~y cAntinuity because t~hey do not knvw wl+ere the trei 1 wlil start once It commences southerly Into the hilis. He stated he (s unable to ascertsin from the nrasent~tlon where the entrance end exit ~outef Mi 1 I ba for los~iing vchicles and where the proposed tresh locattnns and ecctss to the trash iocations aill be. tk stated ~hey understand the prat~os~d dRVelop~nt~ but do oppose ~ny access or entr~nce for loeding vehicle~ on Rio Crende. Chairman To1ar ~intad out to the petitt~er that sane of the Plsnning Cwiwilssloners ks~aw the oppositio~, but that ts because they hav~ v+orked together on prevtous proJ~cts and have worked to!qether on A I4t of con~nittees snd he dtd not w~nt the developar to think the deck is stecked agai~st hin~ before he comes before the Cornnlsslon. Mr. Rasmussen st~ted they had a meeting with the nelghbors a~d nreaenteJ then~ wtth the same sllde presentation and had found the+n to be stncere end the only difterence of optnton is regardTng the tr~ffic. He stated th~y rely very heavily In f~vor ot thei~ pra}ect on the Traffic Engfnser's report and teel thst adeqwtely addresses the concerns a~d the Tr~f f i c Eng ineer rsca~n~ended tfie Wami s~ lon's approval ~ except for the le~~-turn lane off Senta Ana Canyon Road. He st~ted th~y feel they n~d that left-turn lane because it Is c~ttical for th• success for the comnerctal developnient. He polnted out • te~npo~ary acooss w~s qiven down the st~eet unti) the trafEtc count reache~ 25,DOc1. Michasl E~gle~ C. Robe ~t lanyslet and Son Co~npany• stated al) the engineers s~e pr~sent to answer specific qu~stto~s. f ~ MIN~~TES~ ANAl1E1M CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSIQN, APltll 20~ 1951 81-2~8 TNE ~UDLlC NEARING wI1S CLOSEO. Comni~~lonRr H~rb~R ~teted ha falt th~ sefety of the bike •nd ep~restrlen trell crofstng shouid b~ d tticu~~ed~ pointing out tt ap~aar~ It +vil) be ve~y dang~rous. Ho st~tad he d~ivo• Fai ~mnnt Boulev~rd evaryd~y a~d i~ tf~o morninq there e~e ~ 1ot af ~tudents goinc~ to tha Junlor high schooi. He st~ted the pro~~rty cywners have a rtght to dav~lop tnelr property ~nd they hsvo ths right ta hsve eccess to It s~n+~ p1~ee In A ra~sa~abla m,~nn~r so th~t the develonment can survive~ but th~re will h~ve to be a ilttle give•end-t~ke in both dir~cticx~s~ end It has to be don~ in ~ safe rnanner~ Neston Prl~gle steted this type fecllity would qe+nerete very little tr~ffic during thc~~a periads nyntto~ed In the mc~rning~ since th~ sto~as wouid not be open snd thet ths chlldren weuld b~ ham by the tinre thc center cKts busy in the efternoon. Commissl~ner Herbst stated the ttudents who e~~ involved in ~ports pro~r~ms wll) be In the ~~ee et th~t time. Mr. P~Ingle ctarl•.`iad they •re not proposing th~t th~ bikers snd pedeatrtans use the sam~ ~p~ce as tha d~celeretlo~ lene. tommissioncr He~bst clerlfled thet he wes conc,+~rned ebout the locatlon of ~he crosting •nd Mr. Prinyle pointed out thero would bo sto~ s{gns •nd tt~+c this Is not a hl~h speeA entrAnce end it has been deslgned wlth the daceleratio~ to ~llav tt~o vehicley suffic.lent dist~~ce to slc~+ dam before th~y m~ke the tur~. Ile stated thoy recogniz~ the pntantla) conf 1 i ct and thera wl l l alwayt ba e confltct. He stated they ar~ tryinq to provide access tn the slte In the bost way possible and stl I1 malnta{n as much safety ss pnsslble end n~~ted the t~alls havc to c~oss somAwhere, Chairman Tolar eskcd Mr, P~ ~~ ~~• (f he is femiller with th~ ingress dnd egress plan approved In 197$ snd Mr, Pr!ng,;: rcplled that f~e has heard about th~ plan but has not saen (t. Chelrm~n Toler cont(ni~ed that he rgrecd Nith Comn+isslo~er Ilerbst that thls plsn~ es presentod. Is qul te a b I t di fferent then the on~ at~proved In 1978; that he llves In the are• ~nd travels thnse roads ~nd dc~es not thtn~. the traffic is the s~ame es i t wais l n 1978 and ( t I s much worse +~cid wl i l cnnt i nu~l l y get aorse, He agreed th~t a tr~ffic signal Ilctht et Fairnont end Santa An~ Csnyon Road would allevtate some of tho problens I,ut evcrything {s cengestcd rlGht in that area and he feit psople mat:ing e u-turn ~t Rio G•ande ~ith traffic on Fairmont wtll be dangerous. Mr. Pringle stat*d o~e of thc rea~ons he supported rlgfit turns aut onte Sants Ana Cartyan Rosd wss to l:Ilminste that u-turn. Chairmsn tolar atated he does nat have a problen wlth the riat~t~turn only out of the cent~r but cbes heve a problen+ v+ith the decelerat(on ln the left pocket coming In. Ne stated the propost~i appreved In t978 did not have a icft-turn lane (nta the pro~erty and thet this propc~sal is for another left-turn lsne got~g west on Sant• Ana Canyan Road. Ne potnted out his concerns on tha plan to Mr. Pringle. Chalrman Talar stated it wes alsa nsive to believe the kids wouid stay in the 1 ane merked for bike~ snd that he was not p~epared to actept that I I ab t 1 I ty and v+out d not support the reques ~ hecause i t i s too conoested. He s tated he balleved thls woa~ld be • nlce Cevelop~nent and w~s inpressed wttn the s11de presentatton; but ~he acce~s has to be destgn~d in a safer wav. Ne suggested the access be f~~rther a•ray from Fairm~nt Boulevard rathe~ then strsight across. He felt with the u-turn the 8CC04S would be total ly unsafe. Ne ststed there would be less t ref f 1 c on fa i rmon t than on Santa Ana Canyon Road. Mr. P~i~gle stated waving the access wovld mesn t~affic makinq left-turns out of the center aould have ~o crois both north and southbound traffic and the vehicles in the left-turn lane wait in9 to turn in; •nd that the sccess as proposed Hould mean traffic would a+ly have to look one way in order to get across. 6/~n: A~ ~ MINUTES, ANNIEIM CIT~I PLJWNINfi COMMISSION~ APhil 24~ 1981 $1•239 Chwl rn-M Tol~r st~ted the ~lorlty of children would be co~ing down Sant• Ana Canyon Ik+ad to th• )untor h tgh ~choo) ~nd not da+n fs I ~mrmt ~nd he fat t there hes tc+ b• • b~ttor accas~ polnt. N~ st~ted h• w~nted to make It cl~~~ th~t th• Planning ~oamisslon ha h~lpsd cra~to tht ~ss th~t exists et Santa An• C~nya+ Road ~nd Impa~l~l High-~~y. Fb polnted out peopl~ maktng rtght turns would hava to go down •nd m~ke • u-turn and crosy th~eo lan~s of traftic end a bike lane. Mr. Pringle ~t~ted as trafflc Incro~~es on Santa Ana Csnyon Road~ • sign~) light would halp the situotlon. Ne ciarifled h~ is not suqgestine~ s siqna) ~a~w but at somatime In the f~~ture wh~n tr~fflc ti++s increased sub~tentially. Commissioner Ne~bst ~aked Mr~ Pringie 1 f he had exemined the ~Iding and hiktnq tral is reconn~end~tlo~ that tha t~+~il b• real igned •long Rla Grend~ D~Iv~ I f this plen is epproved. Na stated re~~~dl~ss of whether or not t~m shoppinc~ center Is there, the horse tr~ll alcng Sent~a Ana Canyon Road Is not gc~ocl. Ne rcfe~red to item 12 on page 12-f whero the Ridl~g ~nd tliking Trail Comnittee hes recon~+o~ded the relocetton of the trail to the north sl~fe of Rlo G~ande, polntina out it would cross Felrm~nt at Ri~ Grande rather than et Sonta Ane Canyon Roed. Dtona Nesketh stetnd that recorrnnendatl~n ~~+plleg cx~ly If thts plen ts t+pprov~d bac~use that :olutlon Is nat very deairablQ elth~r; that crossing st Rio Grande would be very di fficult because of speed ot traffic da+n the grade and that the tral ls commt t tee would rath~er cross at Santa Ans Canyon Ro~d whar~e the s I gnel is locetad. She statod she ls nat sure i f the Trefftc Enginaer wouid want to put a traffic signal or crossing signal at alo ~rande. Commissioner Herbst suggested having the tratl on the north side of Rio Grande to Fal rniont and then on the wost slde of Fairmont to Sant+~ Ana CanYon Ro~d. Ms. Nesketh agreed that woulJ be a better solutlon If the proJect is approved. Commtssioner Herbst stated lodcfng at the left-turn pocket on the horse tratl crossing that someone crossino Santa Ana Cenyon Ro~d with two or three cars wsiting for trafflc would not be desirabie. Cha i rman Tol ~r fe 1 t t here 1 s p I cnty of room on top of the kno11 on the north s i de of Rlo GrAncle a~ive. It was clar(fled that the trail stendard is 10 feet wide. Sh ~ rley land explatnc~ the horse t~ai l on thc west slde of Fai rmont Boulevard waul d De rt ¢~t ac~oss f rom enather mal n entrance off Fat rnant. Ms. Mesketh pointed out the pedestriana a~d school children Mrould sti11 have ta cross. Coa~misstone~ tkrbst polnted out the bitycle trall com~s dor+n Santa Ca~yon Road now. Chainn~+n Tolar stat~d the problem for access into the center is that one location and he felt the~e has to bs one m~jor sccnss potnt. Ne stated he cannot support the proposed left-turn lane becaus~e thts type situatton has caused meJor problems in the pa~t. Commissto~ar Herbst agreed the left•turn pocket on Quintas~e aouid be the ultlmate saurce of Acc~ss for peop le ga t ng da+n Santa Ana Canyo~ Roed. Chaira+sn Tolar stated he hoped it veould fo~ca people to turn left at fairnant and tham m~ke ~ right-turn into ths shopptng center. 4/20/81 MINUTES. ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 20~ 1981 81-'L40 Commissioner Herbst felt p~opla would probably uss Qulntana for awhile until thAy learn th ers is another way into tha shopping center. He ~tsted he recognlres the :happing center needs access~ but th~t p+~rticular aceess point cannot be sllowed o~ there Mrtil be too msny d~nger polnts Inwived wtth chtldren, horses~ atc. He stated this is R~rt of the hili ~nd carryon hertt~ge~ pointtng out the horse trails •re exi~tin g and must b~ canstdared by whoeve~ develops. He felt the constderation he~e is th~t it is too detriment~l for the left-turn pocket and agrees It must be el iminated. Gheinnan Tolar stated the ro Is enother conu rn which has not been warked out and thet ts with the nursery people who havQ an existinc~ breek in the rtedien rlght now; and tho deceleratton lana ts being discussad which looks Iike tt would be an part of the property they s~e using. He felt befare the Commtsslo~ c~n e~ct on ~ny of this~ theae concerns h~ve to be answered. Mr. Pringle clerifled lt was his understandtng the existin~ n~dlan opentng provtdtng left•turns for ehe nursery Is on a temporary basis and would b~ clased and ts not relate d to this pro)ect. Chairmen Tolar stated the nursery acc~ss has to be dealt with et this ttn+e; that he dtd not knorr whether ~r not the Commisslon has the nower to clase thet access which is their only existing access point and if the C~mmisslon dtd hAVe the pawer~ he would not ta-:e that actlon because this ts ~proving e left-turn pocket into the shopping Genter snd leavinc~ the other access hangtng. Mr. Pringte pointed out it is his unde~stending this access w~s e tempora ryr sttuation and wo uid be closed and explaine~l they havc pro~osed a~ alternate solution to that problem by provldtng a left turn pr~cket which rn~ans thst they wili sttll have a means for getttng tn and out of the nursery through tt~is proJ~ct and would have a left-turn in but not a lcft-turn out. Chalrm~n Tnlar stated at thls potnt the nurse ry hes access rlqhts and he thought tt is very important that thet be ~esolved with the nurse ry pcople. Ne stated tt would eppear that the daveloper has heard the Commisston's concerns and th~ nursery ow~er's conarns and asked i f the deve loper woul d 1 i ke ~ Mo-week oontt ~uance I n ordar to reso 1 ve these p rob 1 ema . Mr. Rasmusscn stated one af the pu~oscs of this hearing was ta obtaln so~++~ guidellnes so they could work out the arrangemrnts v-Ith ihe nursery owners. He steted anything approved would obvlously be s~Ject to workinq out ttie arrangements with them. Ne stated chey h~v~e met with the nursery pc.ople and have tried to expiatn what th ey are dotng a~d they have not takcn s position onpostng this actton~ but stlll w ant more time to study. He stated they have been ve ry cendid with the Planning Commission In pc~inting out that they have not completed these arrangements~ but (f they can get epprovel today of this access plan~ even if it excludes left- tur~s off Santa Ana Canyo~ Road, it would put thcm in a positton to go forwa~d wlth the nu rsery owner and to go forward with thts project. Chairmsn Tolar stetad he understends the cost of money end understands the d~veloper doesn't want the pro,ject delayed~ but approv~l without the left•turn pocket rneans the Commtssio~ does not h~ve specific plans to act on because the petitloner has no agreerte ~t Nfth ~he nurse ry avne~. Ht stuted in reality since the nursery has thelr eccess polnt~ if they da not s uppo~t chis co~cept~ there ts na project. Ne stated he dld net think thts ts a"chicicen end egg" aituation and eg~eea~ent rnust be obtained from the ~unary arner first. Ne stated at least two Commissta~era have sald they don't s uppart a(eft•turn pockat going west on Santa Ana Canyon Road a~d hava suggc~red the horse~ trail be on Che north stde of Rio Grande~ then down the west atde MINUTES~ ANAHEIM tlflf PLANNING COMMISSION~ APall 20~ 1981 81-241 af F~1 rn~ont ~oulevard~ end r~the~ th~n sn accaleratto~ lane and anotn~,r right-turn lana into ths centa~~ that there be one ingress and one ogress right curn o~1y. Mr. Rusnn~ sen s teted they have no obJsctlon to the horse trail on Rlo G~ande and that could b~ e canditlon~ but the principal thin4 in terms of access are the antrance~ which involve two left•turn lanss a~d riqht-turn l~nes off Sants Ana Canyon and F~i rnont a~d the small +~ccess road off Rlo Grande. He stated if that type acceas t: epproved~ thoy wouid be In e positlon to ga forw~rd and make arrangements with the nunery awner. Conxnissionar Bushor~ st~ted he fel t the pet) tione~ ts trytng ta forco the nursery owner to go alang wlth what the Commission epproves. Chatrmen Tolar stated the plans approved in 197a after a tremendous anwunt of time~ spelis out what the Commission wants. Jay Toshtro~ Assoc(ete Plannor, stated the exhibit the Commission Is revtewtng w+~s not the exhtbtt finally approved~ but the only eccess approved then was allgned with ~nna Court. He steted as psrt of the sub]ect ~roposal~ if Approved, and if the conditions require that spectfic plans be approvesd by the Planning Cortmisslon. Joel Ftck~ Assistant Director for Planntng~ stated the present reclasstficatlon and zoning was approvr:d In 1972 or 1973 and finellzad tn February, 1~176 and there is no condttio~ on that reclassiffcetlon for speciftc plan approval; but that the site plan being proposed~ however, has several items which wauld be constdered such ss the finenctal Institution as shawn on the sltdes whtch would require a setback variance from Santa Ana Canyon ibsd. Chairman Tolar stated a financfal instttutton is som~thing the Cortmtssfon has granted and it is not uncormnn~ but the maln interest is thc access polnts to the ce~ter. Commissioner Herbst asked if tt~e existing nursery access is tdnporary as tndicated today. Jey Teshiro stnted in 1966 ahen this access ~wint w~s adopted by the City Gouncil, ane of the stateme~ts tn the resolutlon was that the exlsting acceas nfforded the existi~g uses at that time Nould retatn thetr access until the property w as rodevr.loped for sortiething other than what was existing and the nursery has been ther~ since 196G. Commissiane~ Nerbst cla~ified that the nursery's "grandfather rights" will allow them to keep their access unti) such ttn-c they decld~d to eliminate thQ nursery a~d develop another type usc. Jay Tashfro stated the only way that could be changed would be a change to the o~iglnal resolution by the Ctty Council. Commissioncr Herbst asked if all thm rlght of way questions hed be~n clea~ed, pointing out there were son~e problen~ because nf the old Santa Ana Canyan Road access polnts. Joel Fick steted he understands the nursery owner has actualty acquired that extra piece of property. Commissionsr He rbst stated he felx there is nothing the Commission can do until the developer works out sn agrQement with the nurse ry and gives the trails proper consideratlan. lin was alsa conce~ned about the acce~s adjacent to Mr. Rlvera's property. H~e ssked how the acceRs on Rio G~ande could be considered as a limtted access . 4/20l81 MlNUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 20, 19ai 81-242 M~. R~smussa~ ~tated It is not a heevily travaled stroet and the entrance will be smoll basi~ally to serve the restdents In that srea. Commisstoner Herbst stated ~ left-tur~ onto Rto Grend~a~ off Fairmont could be m~de~ then to Qutntana s~d out to Santa An~ Genyon Road. He tett poople wtl) take the saslest route end stey off Srnta Ana C~nyon Road as much as possible. Ne did not think the Rto Grande access Nil) be limlted. Chalrmen Toler stated the shopping canter tenants wtll feei the major po~tion of thetr busineas would be attracted from people south of the ares. Mr. Ratmussan statod they assuned tt ts a rear type entrance. Ne stated apparently the ro ere a few things to be resolved snd asked for a four-week continuance. ACTION: Cor;xnlsstoner Nerbst offered a motion~ seconded by Cammissloner 8ouas and MOrTION CARRIED (Commissioners Bernas and Fry being absent)~ that conslderation of the aforementtoned Item be conttnued to the regularly•scheduled meeting of May 18~ 1931 and noted no further noCices will be sent. ITEM N0. 1 ~ i RECOMMENUATIONS The follawing Reparts and Recommendations staff reparts were presented but not read: A. CONDITIONAL USE pERMIT N0. 26~6 • Request for extension of time from aaymond M. owe. or property ocate at 517 through 519 East Kstella Avenue. ACTIOt~: Commissloner King offered ~ motlon, seco~ded by Cortmtssioner Bouas an~ MOTION CARRIEO (Commtssloncrs Barnes and Herbst betng ebsent), that the Anaf~etm C1 ty P) anni ng Commi ss ican does hereby grant a three-year extension of time for Conditiona! Use Permit N~. 2~gG to expire on Ap~l) 28, 1984. B. RECl~,S51FICATIOt~ N0. 80-81-~ - Request for approxal ot revised plans from ~ Ware ~or pruperty~~ ocated at ~+00-650 North Euclid Street. ACTION: Commtsslone~ Ktng offered a rrotlon, secondCd by Commissloner 0ushorc and MOTION CARRIED (Cortmissioners '8ar~es and Herbst being absent), thet the Anahcim City Planning Cammisslon does hereby ftnd that submitted r~vised plans are in substantiai Gonformsnce with previausly-approved plan~. A~JOURIIM~NT There being no further business. Cortmissioner Herbst offered a motton, secanded by Commfssloner Bouas and MOTlON CARRIED (Commissione~ Ba~nes and Fry being obsent). that the meeting be adjourned. The mreting wss adJourned at 5:35 p.m. Respectfu) !y s~ml xted. Edith t. Na~rrls~ Secretary Anahaim City Planning Commisston ELH:Im 4/2~/81