The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1973/09/170 R C 0 MICROFII MIN~ SERYI~E, ItiC. . . ~ , , ,. ,.,.~ ~,, , ~ ~ Cit,y He~l Anahai.m, Celi~osni• September 17, 1973 A RF.GULI~R MEET~N(; OF THB ANAHFIM CITY ! ~.._..~._. ----- PLANNING COMMI38ION ,~ -~- ~ REGVLI~R - ing Co~~ A ragular. mesting o! th• 1-nahoim City P.lsnn mnb~lnq MEET~NG ~ uoru called to ardor bp Chairmen Gauer At 2s00 m., a- q pz•aoent. PR~SENT - CHAIF.MAN ~ Gauer. - COMMISSTOIVERSi Allred, E'ureno, Narbst, Kinq, Ftowland (who enterod the Cou ncil Chembor ttt 3r15 g.m.)~ Se/no~,~r. , > ~B88NT - COMMI5SIONERS~ None. ~ PRE3ENT - Aaeistant Deve].ooment ~ervices Directori Roneld Thompeon Deputy City P.ttorney: Frank Lawry ~ ~hieF Duilding Inapeatoro Dan Van Doxpe ' ~ffice Enqine~ors Jay Titua ! Don Mcpanisl F Plenning Supezviear: Charle• Roberte ~j zoning 3uperviaor: philJ.ip 3chwartxe ~ Aesietant Planner: R~lph Compton Aasistarit Flanner: Hnnika Santalahti Aasistant Flanner: Ann Krebe Commission Sacretary: PLEDGE OF - Commisr+ioner Allred led in the Pl~dge of Alleqiance to the AI~LEGIANCE Flag. APPROVA.L OF - Minutea of the meetinqs of Auquat 20 snd September 5, 1973, wera deferred to October 1, 19"/3. C~NDITIONAL USE -(Miltar~ John~san owner of tha pr~perry) - Property lacete8 S PERMIT NO. 1052 wa.lnut 5troat, onbthedwestX andtMancheater~Avent~eh~antheh~ eant - Clarffic -tion of permirtad uac~s. , C Zoninq 8upervisor Charlea Rohert~ noted ~hat a representati.~re of the ~wner af the pzopez`cy for Conditional Use Permi.t No. 1052 was present to anawer any ques~ions the Commi~sion might have. Chairman Ga~er s•equested that the repxesentative prc~sent any aryuments rggar~- inq t;ee u8e previously eatablished under Conditional Use Permit No. 105~ anc~. rhe present use being made of the property. Mr. Ervin Jolxneon, 1215 West Ka~ella Av~eciue, appeared beFore the Commise~on and atated he re~reaented the owner~ o; the~ pr.operty, not the W. W. Towinq Companyr that he was in partnarshi.p with hie father. as owners of the propertyr t;hat they had n~G hear.d any oppor~ition to the us~ estaY,lished on the ~roperty until his father raceived a letter from the DeveldPment Services Departmer~t the nLher cia.y, and then read said letter (cn~y on £11e). Chairman Gauer no+:od that eubjec~. progexty, as approved und~r C~nditional G'ee Permit No. 1052, had been rs"abliahed f~r n trucking ya.r8 and inquirAd why this use had change3 without b~nefit af the Commission's con~ideratio~i o! tho oriqinal uee ~ppr~ved. Mr. Johnson replied that the uae as a towin3 aperation had been eatsblished a long ti~.-e ~go on the pr.opertyt that the trucking company terminated their operation, az-c~ ~~'_vr to neqotidting a l•ease wi~t~ Wa Wf ~hpin~g`Company, hR hfor re ~rding eet~blieume.... ~r~ j~iOlJbILY conaultnd wich his attorn~y 9 the urse, ho~ever, hia nttorney hsd advise~ hiin to c:vni.~ct the City of J-naheim's City Attorn^~~'s office, end he had contacted Mr. Dawa~n for an interpr~tmtion, who, ~fter .-'~ing hoard h~s se~uepk, etiated h• cou3d see no probleen in that thie would r.ot k~e a canfliat and tnquired wk~ether Lhe T?lanninq Commiaeton had ~ny other i.r-formatlon to tha contrdry. 73-555 ~1) ~~ MINUTE8, CITY PI~ANNIN~ COMMISSION, September 1.7, 1973 ~3~~~h CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1052 (Contintx~~1) DAputy City ,~ttArney Fre-ik LAwry udvieed the CcmmiRaic~n an~ Mr. JUhnson ~hAt the Report to tha Comm±e,aion, paraqraph 13, indicated thr~t the City Attaznsy'+ oftiae e~alf had recently diaou~bed th~u pronoaed expnnaiori rritt~ tha peti- tioner but ware not mr~d~ Pully awaro cf the ex~.ent ur nacare o! trin prop~seA expaneion and thus auggeste~ to tkie pe~i~ioner t}~et t;h~ propaeod exFa~neiun wou~d b~a i~ aacorfl with tha intent ot the condi ttana]. uae Fermi~ ae apprava 9. Huwever, whar~ the povelopmant 3ervic~e Depaxtm~nt. xc~vealed to the Ci~y Attorr~ey more dett~ils reqarding the develap.i~.g expanainn, the, Ci.ty Attorne~y tho~~ f~,lr that euch a use would ~atually not be in eccordence w~ith tho uer oziginally approv~d. Hawever, ha would like to cldrify th~ tact. ehat he t~md nat been presant at eny of theae meetinga, ar~d that oince the City Attorn~,y rulod at thin pcllnt in timo the use c~uld not bA permitted, thie wme the raaeor~ for t.he~ Planning Commiaeion directing ataff's requeatinq Mz. Jut~neon tu be proa~ent to cla.xify hie reasor~s nnd ata~tements mede to Mr. Dxweor~ rogarding the chnnge in use, Chal.xman Gauer noted that it app~ared t~ be tho opinion of eeveral. of the Commiueionezs that Mr. Johnson wKa in viola-tian of thr, arigtnal r~ppllc:ation becaue~ not only was n towinq servioe being aporaCed, but. a wrecking yard operation waA alsa boinq made for. the antire pr.operty ,~rher.~~~s t•he~ trucking tarminal had beer~ approved for the southorly portion. FIZ. Johnaon stated thet they ai.a not havf~ a wrecking y~~rd b;it an impoiind yard conkrolled by the Poli.ce Departmorst, and th~-t they had ex4c.:t:e~l .te B~roo~c wall adJacent ta the single-femily homea at a cuat of $4,OOf1, ~~;; res~{uize~ by the c~nditivnal use permit. Cnmmieaioner Herbet stated that the Commissaon hc+d dr.~.van by t.ha prorart,y A1~tar lunch, and th~ entiro operation appear~r~ to be a wz'ackr.ng ~~~rr~, ;:•.i~ th~ moat undeeirable appearance could be viewed from tti~ fltre~te which were porr_ of flae entry into ~he Commercial-RecrFatiori Area. Mr. Johnaon atated that the cara were impaundec3 and i!°~arar,kc~d, w~re brouyh~ t.o the yard as wrec}:ed and lmpuunded, and that Wa.lt Trsy l oz I~umber C.'ompan}• ~was in close proximity und d±d not have a cQry r~tt.ractive appeazance eicher. c~ommisa~.aner Horbst noted thut having traveled CIrJW2• Manchester Ave;~ue, the appoarance of thia facility fr~m the s~re~t waq mo3t unr3e~irable. In ~drlieion~ althouqh Mr. ~ohnson ha~ stated they had pravi~!~~cl p*'otection fo:: thE singlE:- Eamily homes ~o the south with the wall, h~p w~,~ more conc;erned witti tha apnesr- ance of thP property from the street. Mr. Johnson etated that they had complied wl~th a711 0~ Gha conditi.one af api~xovnl except for the street lis~hts, evon to ecrerninq. Mr. Roberts noted that the eite develapment etandaY:~~~; of the M-1 Z~ne, in wh.iclz t~ubject property wae located, required a t~-foot ~a~11 around ~-~ny staraSo facil- ity, and no waiver was requested aY. tt~~: time~ t.he cor~di.tional use permit w,~w considered and granted, accordinq to the z-H3c~luti.an, 2:~ut: goirg l~ack f.ar.t`~e~:, the basic queation befose the Commis~ion wae whe~ttzer +~he use now belny macle a~' ~he southerly portion of the property Wa:c in aaGr~r:i~i-nce with that ~.~sP yrented under the original conditior~al use pe.rmit: acti.ori, ;ohich was to e:~•tE+bZl~sh a txucking fa.rd anr] ~Armina~ and re].ated tr~uck and auta repal.r f~nci.3.iti.e:~ ar~d sut~motive activitj.es on tha n~r~l~e:r.ly por.tion, k~•~•t thF teuckinrx textnin~+: wt~t~ not saxeened from view from MancheF;t~er AvHnu~, uhil.e the n:~rl•.h~r.ly L~or.rf.on had the ~owir~g activitiies j and that Mc~xuan T:ruc-~cing Coiop~ny Y~r~.x repg~:l:i.ed for the con~3ltional use permit for the got~therl~~ ;,~~rt.f.ora. Continued discur~sion wras held by 4he Commiea:.~n with the petiti.~nc:r a~s to whather the us~ presently on thc~ ~:ropert~_~ war~ the: same ~~ Uriginawly ttppr~vea by the Planning Commission and Che, fact r,hat the td••1 Zone xe<;uxr.e~ ar.z•~c~niny of any storage operation in s~icl zone, anc: t,~at no wa~veY wa,~ ti:equ~st~ed ~~ this acreening at the time the co~ditianal uae ;~ErmiY. ~:~is c:aneide:r~d. Commissioner Farano waa of the op}.nion tha*_ insufEicier,c e~vi~9en~:E: h~~l ~r•.En aubmitted in order to allow the Cc~mmi~~~ion ~ c'hance to ~ix~lore tho chnnqes~ and he wae not ready to offer any .rerommend~tiun ta t.be~ C:ity Counc:il ~~~ to whether the use was consistent ar nut, slnce there wa~ ~~o muc~h ingazma~t~i^ pree@nted by ataff and the own~rs of ttie pro~erty that muat k~e uns~ve3.od - this, of course, tiook timN ard 4ou.1~9 not be 4ccomp~.i~hed pri.Ux• tu ~ r9qularly- acheduled public hearing. ~ ~ MINUT~S, CITX PLANWING l"OMMi£~S10N, 5~~ptember .17, 1973 ~~'g~~ CONDITIONAL L~B~ PERMIT N~..~'.0,~,~2 (Con ~ j nuod) Mr. Robez~s nr~tod Lha-t th~~ r.hsnc~n the ~+r~pezty ownsz checked with ~1-e C:t~- Attorn~y'~ oP.tiae wae bec~nuca t.ie ?oninc~ Entorcemonk Officer r.sised n queetian AY to wheth0z ox~ no~ the aauthsrly portion af ths property could be used for eomothing other i:han a trucl~ing termina~, e~n~ after having diaou~med thie with Mr. We],p ~-nd Aseiatant City Attozndy John U+-waon, Mr. aawean z•enderell the apinion the-t it would be cnnaleL•ent with tha Appx'uvod trucking tarminal ua~t howsver, upon turthe,r ovidonca being proeented by the Davelopment 9erviaee D~partment to the City Attorney' ~ offi~ce, they rul~ed con~:raxy to the oriqinal opinion renderec~ by Mr. nawson. t"urthormore, the Commiesion later diacunsyd this oplnion rendered L•y tha City Httnrney'a oftica, dn8 it wae tY~e Commiosi~n'A opir~ion that tt~e matter should have bee1~ dQtermined by the Plenning Gommimsi.on, how~ver, this wae ~~sveral monthe dgo and i.n the meenkim~, the P].anning Commi~- sion had requeeted that tho City Counail Girect them to re~view the petition, which was done at tho laet Plannin~ Commiesion nee~ing, with the Commieaion dirdctinq eta~f to aontec~ tha property ownere to be praeent thie date to h~~a~r evidence. DiecuAgiort waa held betwaen th~ Commiseion and Mr. Lawry reyaxding whetk~er or not the Commiasion could aet ~or public hearing consideration oP the poseib].e chAn7as in usa~ whether the Commisslun ehould reoommend to the City Council that it be set f~r public he~ring for order to ehow cauee sinc,e tharo wa~e no provision in the Rnaheim Municipal Coda that w~uld allnw th~~ Commisalon to hea,r an order to show cause~ ~nd upor ita conclusion, l~r. Low~.~y determined tY~at the Planninq Cammission could so`: for public hearin~ eubject. petition to r.eceive e~~idencc relative to the ueos ~ermitted bY the original conditional use permi.t and as t.hA use» of the proporty preRently exieted in arder to make an appropriato r.ecommendation to tha Gi.ty Councll. Cnmmissionar Seyma~ir inquired ae to the lengkh of i:ime between the opinion rendzred by Mr. Dawson and the tima the letter was sen~ to Mr. 7ohnaunt whoreu~o:a Mr. Robarts atated that this first was consiclexed by the Planning Gor~mi.:~ion on June 2S, 1973, although the City Attornay's o£fice had rendered the opiuirn earlier, and since Mr. Lowry had recommended that tho Planning Commission request permiasion fiom the Cl~y Council to make the investigation, the in4ervenislg time had elapsed. Mr. Johnson noted that although Mr. Rqberts had stated a staf.f repr~sentr~tive had aont.acted them regarding this, it was nut correct. Commiasioner Herbet offered a niot,ion, seconded by Commiseioner Farano and MOTION CARRIEA, to set for public hParing on October 1, ].973, Conditional Use Pezm~t: No. 1052 to inve$tiqate and rec::ive evi3ence relative to the uses orsr.mitted by the oriyinal conditional use permit and as ii exists c~n ~the Frsmises this date for an appropriaY.e recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Farano requested that sY.aff pzepare a chronological chain of ev~dence and applicable minutes, together wi.th a memorandum £rom the Cit,y At~.orney's offlce concerning the meetiings h~ld with Mr. Johnaon and tne represEntati.one made to the appiicant as part of the Report ta the Commission. RECLASSIFIf:AT10DI - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ALFRED J. Atid MA°.30RI~ A. SHAW, N0. 7~-74-17 1655 South F.iiclid Stroet, Anahaim, Ca. 92804, Ownerst ' ~~ MR. AND MRS. WILLIAM B. YARPER, 16(19 Mariposa Drive, VARIANCE N0. 2547 Cnrona, Ca. 91720, Aa~ntst propezty described Ao: F -'~` rectangularly-shap~ parcel of land consisting of Approxi- mately .S1 acre havi~g a frontage of approximatel~oximatel Seet on the weet side of ~uclid StreQt, having a max~.mum depth of aPp y 1'7 feot, and being located approximately 155 feet nortli of the centerline af Sallie La~ie. Pxaperty presantl.y classified R-A, AGRICUL'PURAL, ZONE. REQU~;ST~D CLASSIFICATION: C:-1, GENERAL COMMERCZAL, ZONE. REQ:IESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (A) MINIMUM BUILDING SET6ACK FROM R RESIDENTIAL ZONE, (B) MAXIMLN2 BUILDING HEIGHT WTTHIN 150 FEE;T OF A R~SIf1ENTIAL 20NE, (C) MINIMUM REQUI~tED r'.tTMBER OF PARKINC+ SPACES, (D) WALL ADJACENT TO A R~SYDEN~'IA~, ZONE, AND (E) REQUYRED STANVARD R~I'USE STORAGE AREA, TO ESTAB'LISH A GIF~ SHOP tN CflNJUNC;ION WITH AN EXTSTING SINGLE-FAMILY F:ESSDENCE. ~ ~ e MINUTkB~ Cx'P~ PLnNNINCr COMNxSt3xafVr Se~GamAex ~.~~ ~973 73-559 RECI~ASSIFICIITYON NO. 73-74~17 AND VARIANCE N0. 1g47 (Continued) 3ub3ect petition0 we~e oontinued ~rom tho meetinc~ of Septernbex 5, 1973, et the requeet o,t the agent !or tho petiL•lonor. No one appeared in op~poalti~n. Although thA tteport to thc~ CommieRion wes not xodd mt the public heari.nq, it is xegozred Co and mede a pnrt o~ the mi.nutes. Mr. A]Pred Shaw, the potl.Cioner., appeared before ~he Commi~ei.on and dtatr~d he wbs propoAing to de11 hia pr.oporty to the e~g~ent far the petitionor, +~nd that the agent ehould be the one to anawer az~y quostione b;~ t•he C~ntt~miaeion. Mr. Wi.lliam B. Harper, ayent Por tha pet•itioner, nppenred beforo the Commissian and etated that when he had Yirat visited the ~oninq Division a-nd in~;uired al~out the property which waa being uaed ae g gun $hop by ~he Shawe, who alec~ livec] on khe promiee~, ii: appAared that the prapoaud uee woulCl re fnvorably receivod because provioue usea Qrnpoaed toz ~!~e property were c~nr~idered in- c.ompstible~ that they propoaed ~o opera~ta an impoz•t~entique stare~ that tho property had been used since 1943 fcx manufacturinq and s le af gune~ and that they had ~aic3 the reclaseiPication Eoe oE $475 to the City of Anaheim, but upon .:eceiving a four-page reporti, it• becamc+ such an aconamic barrier that it would not be feaeible to uee this property, ov9n though he had assumed Erom ataff comments whan i.nquizing ebout tne property that it• would be n desirable uee for. the propertyr eince commercial uses had been made of the rso~erty since 1943. Mr. Ftarper also note3 that the condition r.equiring re-wiring, ra-plumbir~gr and changing tbe walls at-d ceilinc~s from lath and plaster becauae the buildiny did not meet the 1973 Building Code, would complete].y deatroy ~he historic aspect of tlie housei that they had been involved ir. this project for the pasc two and ane-t~al£ monthsr and i:hat they could not economirally cotnply with those conditions placed on the l~uildinq by thd Build~ng Division. THE HEARTNG WA5 CLUSED. Commissioner Seymour observed that it would appear from Mr. H+srper's comments t.hat the key factor would be tearing ov~: tha olc7 wood laths and plaster becaune thia buildinq did not meet the 197:3 Buildf.nq Code requirements. Zoning Supervisor Char.les Roberts noted that the Ghief IIuilding Inspector was preaent to anawer any qLeations zegardinq the Buflding Division's requ~.rements. c;hiQf Building Inapector Dan Van Dor~e agpeared b~~fore the Commission and stated L-hKt h~hen anyone proposed a changc~ of a building fram one occupancy to uriother, the State law required that ~Y-e building be bxou~~ht up ta today's aodo sta~ndards; that the existing structure was rather old and no4 weJ.l- maintaine3r tha~ the building preaently was claesified as a resic?ence nnt a commer.cial structure, since the atru~:ture had nev~r been converted to commer- czal ~asea, but at this time the p9titionor was now propoai.:ig to have retail ealas, -nakinq this a change in occupancy which necesaitated meeting t.oday's ~uilc~inq Co3e requirementa~ that he did not know what had ro be done, but tlie building was not dea~.qnod fc:r rptail o~.ezation ~ t-nd that he had no ob~ection to grantinq the variance so long ae the reeldential etructure was not uaPd for commercial purposes. Cammiasioner Farano inquire.d whether the Building D~vision's concern was be- cause both f).oora were being propo~ed to be utilized for commercial purposESt whereupon ::r. Van Dorpe state~d that was partially the reason ~ even thoagh some homea ia the past had been converted for real eatal:e offices, thsse ganerally werA one-story conatzuctiant that they tried to bsnd as much as poasible, but most r.esidential buildinga Kere not constructnd to accommodata the woigh': from display casee, cabinets, flling ceaes, etc., particularly for the secori~i floor, +~nd then in zosponse to Commi~asian queutioninq regarding alternativ.3s, atated ~hat the bui.lding c~uld be retained for reaidential pur- poaea or meet the requirementa oP ths 8uilding Code. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNiNG COMM23SI(~t3, 3ept~amber 17, i973 73-559 RICCLA35IFICATION NO. 73-74-17 AND VARIAl1CE NA. 7547 (Copti~uerl) Cummieaiuner Fa+~rano ste-ted tliet the petitioner r-ae8ad not only xoning aaCion on the property, anc! he wee certain lrom comm~nte made by thc rommierion at the laat and thfe p:~blic hoarinq that thero woul8 be no obJeotion to tha uae. that. the patitloner x9elly ndeded reli.~t Prom the Isul.lt~ing c:o8e which tha plar~ning Commiasi.on wde not ampowarad to qrant. Deputy City Attorney Frenk Lowry edviaod the Commiseion that the City Council s~so could not; grant waivet tram the Bu1161ny Cade unlsoe the entixe Huilding Cod~ were a~nanded, and although L•he~ City mi~;>>>t nmend the Code for loca-1 conai- tions, the Stete of Calitoznia required ~11 citiec~ to adopt a basia Building Code, end in order ta meke mny uhangea~ the City mu~t juetiYy makinq auch a chenge am ae+t ~orth by the sta~te's regulatian~ when the~ Stata of Cslifornin Building Code wa~ adcapted~ end that even if t;he City Council ha~ tho p~war to nmond the Cade, they wauY~ ~till be limitad by State le-w, Commisai.oner Fr,ranu expressc~d ~ho Commi~aion's sympathy but Atated ~here wa~ noth.li~g the Commi9si~n could do r~yerdi~~g the Building Code. Mr. tiarpar thon stated thet khere wexe many homes bainy used for commerci.al purposoe thet would be in violation, and the Cads would be denyinq people the r~.ght f.or proper uae oP. their property and m~qht evar. prevent eomoone frnm solling his hom~. Commiesioner S~tymour noted that this ruling did n~t preclude th0 petitiorier's aell~ng his home as a reeidenc~ and gnn ehop eince this woulcl atill l~e the same uee for the pr.operty, but when the use changed, then the B~iildinq Code would have to b~s complied with. Ms. Harper statad that he ahould have beFn made aware of this Buildi.ng Code probl.en~ - why ~lid the City accept his filinq fee and why wasn't he P.orewarnedt wher.oupon Mr. Roberts stated i:liat the Chi.Bf i3uilding Inspector did not always enter into zoning act.ions, but in r.his inatance 'there would be many vi~lations, and he felt it important that; the City and ~h4 patitioner be informed. Mr. T,~wry stated that although it might not be economically feasihle for the petitioner to comply with Code iE the uae were gr.anted, thia did not mean the Commission coul~ not grant th~ variancei however, there was no way the Commis- rtion could bypass the econo:nic problem a.ince their concern was only zaning and lanci us3A. Mr. Van Dorpe advised the Commission that this structure was nok considered a hiel:orical monument. Commissioner Fazmno concurred that 11e did not f.eel thia Was a historical monu- ment which might not be cons.t?ered !.n the same manner as other buildinge being convettad and which were considared :.istorical monumF:nte~, but was there some way this coulcl be accomplished by using drywall over plaster or sprinklerat wher~:- upon Mr. Van Dorpe etated that the Building Diwision trie~i to Pdmi.nister the Buildin,q Code with discretion whenever possiple, but the numbar of problems which had to be r~ctified in thi.s building were such that it woutd make it economi~ally unfeasible, ~.harefore, if the vari.ancA wer.e granted, sta£f would recommend that the existing reeideatial structure not be used fox cammercial purposes~, b~it uae of thQ other buildinga ~~thich weze no~ as old and which could be worked around as far as the Building Code was concerned. Commiasioner I'arano again asked whethes drywalls or eprinklers would solve the problem ins~edd of teaxir..g out all of Lhe w~ll~s~ whereupon Mr. Van DorpA stated that drywalla :or the AidQ walls would be accoptable, buY, ttiere were ceilinga on wk-ich this could no~t be applisd; that the second floor would have to be ao construc~ed that it would withstand '15 paunda per squaz•e foot, while resi~ian- tial homes were built to withstand only 40 pounds. In adElition, the mud ehield wae not in contact. wtth Lhe earth, and there was a pnsaibility of finding ter- mit~s ar-d ~zy rot~ And that the electricHl system would haye to be changed be- causo it was inadequate f.ur c~~.~mercial uae, ~.nd the~ property was presently meter~r3 for reeidential use. ~ ~ MINUTEB, CITY PLANNING COMMISSYON, Rbptember 17, 197a 73-b60 RLCLA89xR'I~ATiON_NO. 73-74-17 AND VARIANCtC N_O. 2547 (Guntinued) Commisaioner Y'arano thon lnquired whothor Mr. Herpex would oonsid~r th• alt~r- na*~.ve pr.osen~ed by tho Chie! Huild~~iq Inmpectoz t~ ue• ths othex buildinq~ !oz bueineee operation~ wheraupon Mr. Has~psr stated rhat ~ha houee had th~ only value to him, and he diQ not want t.~ ue• tha other bui~9lnqs I~lCAUIB~ thay d.id nok suit hie purpoead. Commiesioner Fnrano ~Pfezed a mo'tion, escondes t>y Cammiseionar 1111red end MOTION CAkRTED, that r,he Planning Commiee.ian, in c:onnec:tion with an ~x~mpti.on deola~retion etatue r~quoet~ finde end detezmine~ thet the proputnl Nould h+~ve no nignificdnt environm~ntal imp~ct end, tliaz•etore, recommande to ~hs CitX ~ounci.l that no ~nvironmental 3mpaet Stetement i$ necea~a.ry. Commissioner i~dran~ affured Rmeolution No. PC73-207 and movad !or it• passngo a:~3 ~doption to recommend to the~ City CO1117C~~ ~apprvve~]. of Petttion !or Reolttaei- Picntion No. 73-74-17, sub~ect to conditione. (See Resol.ut~.an Book) On rcill r:all th~e fozAqoing x'esolution wAS paesed by +r.he fol.luwinq vote ~ AYES: COMMYSSIONERS; F-l.lred, Farano, Gauor, Herbst, K~ng, Seym~our. T1GH;.~i; COMMTSSTONE~TIS; NonE, ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ttowla~nd. Commissioner Farano offared a motion to deny Peti~ion. for Varianca No. 2547 vr~ tho baRts L•hat the etructures could nut be used for commorcial purpoaea without extensive repair as requized by the Anahaim Suilding Code and 5tate of Calafornia Building Cade. Pri.or to rol]. call, c~naiderabla diacuss~en wae held between the Com~isyion, ataff, and the petitioner re~arding the ma~iner in which the vt~riance ehould be canaiderod; whether Y.he petition should b~: xp°3vertised in the event major chanqea occurr~dr and whether thia aho~•' ~ be tat no expense to tho propert:y owner or whether tho pe~itionez wou~ci pref~r to withdraw the vaziance since the agent stated he could not use the pacoperty because of th~: atri.nqent require- ments of tl~e Building Code~ an3 upon i~s ~onclusion, Mr. Shaw rec~uested with- dre-wal of Var.ix.nce No, 2547. Commissioiier Farano then withdrew hia motian of denial. Commissioner Farano offered a ~notion- aeconded by Cammi.asi.oner Haxbat mnd MOTION C?~RRIED, to grant withdrawal of Fe~ition f~r Variance No. 25A7 as stipulated by the petit3oner. Mr. Rnberts the~ inqui red whother the potitione•rs/propez'ty owners full.y under- etood the Commiasion's action in that even i~ the Ci:y Council took action to approve the realas~~ification, this would oiily e~tab:lieh a res~lution of intent to C-1 on the prorexty, and until the propErty ownere d°cided to develop the pro~ezty for comm~rcial use and meet '~he condit.tons of the rssalution of ~,n~ent, they woulci be permitted to occupy oX raside in the home or se1l. the home for ieA~.dential purpose~. Furthermore, by establishinq a resolution of intent on the property, the petitioiiera would be saving the expense of ~iling a nerp petition - fiiing fees .for rez+-nir_g as we11 aN a public haax•ing -+~incs the General P1?n of ~he Clty of A'~~~~zeim designate~l tihia proPerty as being appropr.~.- ate for hi.ghway-related comme:c~al usas and the requested ~oninq would be appropriate, t'~erefore, the us~ presently existing on the pxoperty of a resi- dence and a gun shop would s~i11 be pPxm±tted. , ~ ~ MYNUTE~, CITY' PLANNZNG COMMZSaxON~ 9~ptember 17, 1973 , ~3^561 CONDITIONAL USE •~ REAAVRR'fiISED CONTINUED PUBLxC REARING. L'EDGER T. AND PERMiT N0. 1424 GL11DY8 K. GMIxH~ 151 M.iramonte Drive, Full~rton, Ca. 9Z632, ~ Qwn~t~st xagueotinq pArmiesinn to F:ST~-aLISH A NEK AND UB~D AUTOMOBILE BAL~R PLALERSHIP, WAIVING (A) SETBACK ~'ROM ]1 M11JOR AND bECONDARY NTGHwJ1Y, (8) M2NIMUM LANbBCAPF. SF.THACK, (C) REQvxk~D ~~NCL08URL OF UUTDOOR U38 WxTH 80LID MA80NRY BLOCK WALL FENCE, ~G~ MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING S~ACES, (E) M,AXIMUM NUMgCR UF 1^RRE-3TANDIN(i SI4N8 l1ND P1~R- MITTLU AISTANCE BETW~@N STGNB, (F) MAXIMUM PL~RMITTL"II SIGN AREA, J1ND (G) LOCA- ~CION OT.' FREE-STANDINC SIGNS on property doacrlbed a~~ An izregularl,y-shsped par.cel of land oongieting ot epPrt~xim~t~ily 5.4l1 acrea, having approximake frc>>~~nqes of 417 teet o~rt tha northW~et eide ot Krstella Avenue and 27:~ lo~t on the o~uthwast aide of liowsll Street, ana having u meximum depth a! appro:cimately 425 leet. QropertX preeenkly alasailie~ M-l, LIGMiT TNUUSTRIA~.~ ZONE. 3ub~ec4; petition was oontinued irom the meeLing of Saptemb~r 5, 157~, to ellow •t~alf time ko advertise thc+ eiqn aair~ers and Por the petitioner to aubmit revi~eed plane. No one a~ppeared in o~padition. 7-lthough the Rep~rt to the Commis~ei.ur. wae iiot L^Qad at the public hearinq, it is refexred to +~nd made a part of the minutes. Mr. Hsrry Knisety, attorney Por the petitionor~ and agent, appeared be~ore the Commieelon and etate8 ~hat the prorapactive purchaser of the property wae pro- poaLng to rel~oate hie exietinq automoblle clealerahip from South Mnah~im Houlevard presently in the M-1 ~Und to aubject ~~roperty. alc+~ in the M-1 Zone, utillzing over Eive of tho nin~ acres Yor ~he dealerstiip, and tha remainder of the properCy would be devel.aped for i.nduetxial usea~ and that r~vised plane had boen submitted for Commi~sion cone~deration, in addition to he~vinq be~n pres~nted to people in the azea, and he felt all co>>::erne of the Commiesion 1,ud been cleared up. THF HEARING WA5 CLOSED. Cammiasioner Seymour inquired whether Waivezs "a" and "b" were no longer needed with the revised plans~ whereupon 2oniny 3upervisor Charle:~ Roberte adviaed the Cammiaeion t.hat Waiv$r "a~" was no Io„gQr noeded ~ince the plana indicated 10 feeti of lxn3acapinq alonq Katella Avenue, k~ut by ecnling tho distAnce on the plans, it would +~ppedr to ba 3 faet rather than 10 foet. Mr, Kniaely stated tt~at Che landBCaping was only 3 fest alonq K~tella Avenue, while HAwell street had a l0-foot landscaped area in the 50-fout building aetback. C;ommisai~ner Seymour then inquired whether the sign waiveze would bs neces~ary slnce the ii~te wae permit~er] in tho C-3 7.one~ whareupon Mr. R~berte atated that even if subject property were zonad C-3, Wdivers "e" anc~ "f" would be r~squire3, tiowever, subject property was zoned M-1 which permitted different signinq, or only 100 square feet along either HowAll Street or Katella Avanue, while ~he C-3 Zone would allow up to 350 squa~re feet, how~ver, Waiver "g" w~uld not be needed. N:r. Roberts, in re~ponse to further Commiasion questioning, atated that the parking required waa now adequate. Comm3.ssioner AZlred offered a motion, aecon3ed by Commi.ssioner 5eym~ur and MOTI~N CARRIED, that the Planning Commission, in cannection with an exemption decl~ration statu~ requeAt, find~s and determinES that tlia proposAl r~ould ha~e no aignificar.t environmental impaot and, therofox~, recommends to the City Counci.l triat no Env~ronmental Impact Statam~nt is necessary. Commiesioner Seymour offered R9aolution No. 1PC73-208 and moved for ita paseage and adoption to grant Petit~.on for Conditional Use Permit No. 1424, ir~ part, aince Waivers "1-a" ancl "1~-d" had been withdrawn by the petitianerr that WAiver "1-b" was granted for Katalla P,weaue anly on the basis that the elope aQjacent to said stre~et prov~ided fur adequnte setback, furthermore, ~he etreet was ostabliahed below ground le~~sl ni tha propertyt that Waiver "1-e" aae qranted on the basis that thc~ confiyurAtion of ~ttte property was suah ~hat there wa~s adequate justification presantad tA qran'~ favorab'.e cAnnideration~ that Waiver of the required 6-foot we-11 was qranted on the basis that the petitionera owne3 the balance of the propertyt and eu~ject~ to conditians. (See Rea-olution Baok) Oa rall call the foreqoing reaolutton waa pagsed by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Al1reS, Farano, Gauer, Her7~5t, Kinq~ Seymour. NO~Ss ~OMMISSIONERSx Nona. AgSENT: COMMISSIONERSs R~wldnd. 0 ~ ~ IaINUTffi8, CiTY PLANNiNG COMMI98IONr s~Ptembor 17, 1973 73-56Z COND;fTIONAL USE - PUHLZC H~ARxNG. BERT BLEOSOE, 1300 Mirrmer, Fullerton, Ca. PERMIT NQ. 1425 9Z631, Owh~~'t r~quest~nq p~r-nie+elon to L~STl~HLI9H A ~'ONTPtACT~R'8 STORFI(iE Y11RA (AN M-: USR) IN TtiS M-1 ZQNE, WAIV'INC3 (!1) RSQUIRBD SAlT6ACK I,ANDSC7+PINd 11ND ~Bl ~RUZ~~O STANDARD RETUSE~ SxORAGE AR~A on Z>rop~rty de~csibed ae~ A reatangulnrly-ehapa~' parcel aE land coneiati.n9 Q! a~pp'r~ximat~ly •92 maro, hevi.ng ~ lrontaga oP a~.~:roximatAly 132 feet on the norCh eids o! Le Creets Avenuo, havinq a maximum depth o~ npproximately 290 lost, and bein9 lc~cat~d e~pprox,imately 790 leet ssst of tho centerline ot Blue Cum St:~~et. Property preeen~ly eldeoitied R~1-, AGRICULmURAI,, 70NE. Thxee pereona :.ndicated thAir preeencd in oppoai.tion~ Aee~e~tant Planner Philllp ~chwartxe raviewe~i the lacetion of suUject proper.ty, ue~ee establ.iehed in c~o~e proximity, and the requerat ~o eatdblieh e contractor'~ ttorage pard, waiving the froiit landscdpe raquirement temporerily, as well as the raquired atendard krash etornye aree, eince the petitionsr had vezballp sta~ed to ataff that he would ar.rsnge for hi~ own diepasal o! traeh, however, tt~e Sar.itat..~on Diviaion wae concerned regaz~ing this arranqemenk~ th~t• the pet:ltionoz proposed ~.o storo lumber, forms, and various eqwipment end vehicles in the Xardr that the propoeE~d atorage yard w~uld be 13,200 square feet witY- a 2400-equare Foot etorage shed located along Che wea*erZy praperty line~ kh+~~ vehicular ~ccea~ to tl-e eit.e wou].~9 be provided by a ainqla 27-foot wido drive entering the site, off. La Cresta Street an3 said dri.ve would be initially un- improved, extending to a 20-fcot wide gate at thA entrance to the a~or+~ge yaLdi that no spocif~c p~rking su~ces were designated, and tho in~c~rior of the stor-~ nge yard and dri~~e would be initiall;- unimproved or surfacod wiL-h gravel mnd lah.er would be surfac~d with ae~halt/concrete~ that the storage yard wauld bd screAned by a concrete wall 6 feet high and alao an ~.8-fout hiqh wall where the wall formed the si3es of the ohedj ana that the shed wae open toward the i.i~terior of ~he storage yard, and the 6-foot hiqh wall would be finished witti a colored F`iberglas caating ~:e~emblit~g atuac~. Mr. SchwarL•z~, ir, reviewing the evaluatiun, noted that the pet.itioner was dd~irous of waiviny r.he front len,dscaping requirement for the present time and wauld install the required landecaping at auch r_ime as the front of the pra~erty was deveioped, indicating ~hst developmen~ of the front of ~he property would begin within 90 ciays; th~t ataff had received a le~ter from a firm which oWnec: several i.adustriul pzopertiea in the araa, which stated they had no objaction to the proposed use, howPVer, the firm h~d strong objectiona to any waivez of the required landecapinq provioio~ns~ and that the pstition:~r had indicated that initially the yard and driv6 would not be paved or aurfaced, b~st shartly, whEn the front af the aite wa~ cieveloped, the dr~ve and yaxd woul.d be sux';aced, therefore, the Commisaion would wi~th to determir~a whethar the out- door atorage of materiuls would exroed the height of the ancloaure wall. Mr. Bext Bledsue, the petitioner, appeared Uefore tt~e Cammisaion and indicated his presence to ansc~er questi~ns, noting that his onl•y prablem when he origi- nally filed the petition +~as that hc ciid not intend to cunstruct tlie structurQ ~n the front, howev~r, he w~s n~w able to progose constzuction of it immadiately upon completion of the storage yard, which would be within 60 to 90 ~days, a.nd he want~d the storage ,yard completed Eor safekeepiiiq of his cquipment and materials~ and that he would stipulate to meeting Code for landacaping o£ ±he frant setbaak at the time the, builaing was r.onatructed. Mr. JACk Burtis, 15231 Cdronac]o Street, appeared Uefore the Cammisoior. in opposition, st:atiny he was ogposed to waiver of the required lendscap~d eetback and submitted as proof pictures af s.imilar developments tn this yenerul ar.ea a~proximately two to three blocke away wh~rein no landscaping was provi.dAd, although the adjoiniaq p=ope.rties had been developed aith the requixed acreen- inq and landsaaping of the M-1 Zonet and then in response tio questioning by Chairman Gauer, stat•ed that he wae oppaaed to both the landscapinq waiver and posaibly ecreening with~ut a 6-loot maeonry wal1. Chairman Gauer no+ted thmt th.e ~lans b~foze the Commiasion indicate~ a proposal to coaetruot said wall 4or encloaure of the ~torage area, hawever, the traeh storeqe bins were nat bei.nq proposedt and that according to stat~m~nte mAde by the petitioner, ~ipon completion of the storage yard, he had etipulated to provilting ~he landacaping. ~ ~ MINUT$S, CITY -~L~NNZNG CUMMIbSION, 8~ptembez 7.7r 1973 73-56:! CONDITIpNAI~ U3E PFRMIT_NO. '1A25 (Con~inuad) Mr. Grrild F~.kuda, 1.5131 Ls Cresta, ~pp~sred Dofara the Commiseion and noted that Mr. Bruno c-! th~e Ornnqe CaunCy Road Dapsrtment hed advisod him th~t ~h~y plannsd ~o i:npro~e Gn Cresta Avenue po.~ibly in anoth o r month nnd prope~ed to lowar the gradn of th. et.reet, thexefore, it the petit ioner propo~od to oon- struct e- wall, thiA ~hould be taker~ into oonsiQ~rdtfon ~ thAt ho wae oppoe~d t~ any lAn3sc.eping not boing ptruvidoQ~ a,nd thon nated that the pstition~r'e pree~nt operntion waa a ~unk y~-rcl a~nd inquired whethor the rtCreet w4u~d tse conaCructed i~~ eccordanca with the propo~al ot the Road Depar~tment. Mr. BS.odsoa, in rebuthnl, indica~ted that he had purahae-~d ths Kraamar propsrty and hAd been infoxmed the proQerty had baen xoned M-1 and hnd basn aasured by ~h• Zoning Uiviaion repreoentstiv• tha~t this wae M-1, b~it upon ~ontiacting the Public works Pe~artment, thoy hed in~ozmed him thnt only d reealutior~ o! intent to M~1 wae~ estabLiehe(i on the propert;~, end that he had been in tha process oF Crying to have hia mondy returned !or the purchase o! tha Kraemor propszty through a civil sult. Tn adttitian, he would like ta build a aeelreble P'•orage ~nrd, ~nci he woull! agree to any r~aeoneb].e conSitiona the Commiasion miahL• attsch. " THE ~I~ARING WA5 CLOSED. Commiesioner Soymeur obaerved thnt if waivor !or Y.he landac~ping wero appxovAd, ie would havo ~o be for a speci£ic period of time air.ee it wae poseible that tfie petitf.oner miyht subaequently not build the bailding, and then the land- ecal~ing would bo prnvidad, howover, ha r,ould und~rstian6 why t.he potitloner d.id not. want to plant landscapiny while he w~e in the pro ceae of constructing ~he atarage y~+rd and had plans to conotruct a build~ng withl.n 90 ~ays, therefore, would the p~titionor be willing to stipulate to waive r of thn landsceping fox A pe.riod of 90 daysJ wherQUp~n Mi. Bledaoe so ntipulriked. ~ommfaei.oner Rowland entexed the Council Cltamber at 3:15 p.m. Mr. Bled~oe notdd he would l:lke to cumplet4 th3 storage yard, Yenciiig ik ir, cnmplete~y immediately, and plann.ed to presant p].ana to the Building Division upc+n completion of flaid storage yard~ tharefore, he would ~tipulats to the wai.ver of the ~ar~dacaping for 90 Jayg, however, on tha tra,sh storage area, he propoaed t~ havR tk-air own storage fac-lities and wou7.d haul the traeh to tha dump himself since the City had never pic::ed up his trash for the~ paet 20 years and ht~ had alwayo hauled it to tha dump. Deputy Cit:y Attorney c^rank Lowzy noted that he woulr3 like to brinq to the Commiesi.on's attention t1~Q p~~3sible conflict. of interesY. that Comm3_asiongr Herb~t had 3n ~hia pr.•oject and had not taken part ir~ any of t.ia discussion, nor ti:nu18 he take part in the vatiiiq, th~srefore, ha would auggcst that Commis- stonex Iierbst leave the Gouncil Chamber while this p~tition wbe being con~idered. Com~nisaioner tIerbat left tho Counai.l Chaa,ber at 3:1? p.m. Commiasioner Seymour inquirE3 whether Mr. Bi.edsoe was aware of the fact <~hat st,ora~e of equipmPnt and materials cculd be no hiqher }han the hoight of khe wall~ whereupon Mr. Blodsoe stated this was the reas ~n why he was proposinq to conatr.uct a storaqe shed. Commisaianer Seymour furth~sr inqu~red whe~her the petitione•r would stipulate ta paving of the drive and storac~e area within 90 days j whereupon Mz. Bledsoe so s`cipulated. Zoning Supervisor Charles Robests advic~ed the Cammission that a lettex •wae on f~le from Oranco indust•rial Builde~a, indicating th ey were not opposed to the use but were opposed to any waivers qrantea from th e ir.dustrial zone ~f the Anaheim Municipal Code. Diacu~ston wns hold by the Commission rolative to ~ he manner in which subject petition could be agproved: wY.ether or nat the waive.s ahauldl be qranted for a specific period of time~ and wheth~r or n~t ~hey shoulsi be required at the end of said ~ime whettier or not the build~ng wae conatructad. ~ ~ MINU'rE3 , CITY PLANNINa CUMMI~SiON, Rapt~mb~r 17, 1973 73-~64 ~,UNDITYON L L16~ PERMI't' N0. 14?5 (^,ontinued) Mr. Rob~rtA advi~ed Cha Gammiosion ths+~ normelly oondition~ o! npproval w~ro attaallsd to a~ time limitntion o! s ix »nanths, and that ~ina• ths buil.dor Noul~l have to abtwin a building pe~rmit tc cunstrua~ tho stor~g• nhsd~ th~ ~ommis~ion might v+ioh kv amend tha condition r~qarciinq developm~nt in accosdanoa with plans by zequiri.ng thnt tha landsc ap~ng bs installed snd mxinteined r-ithin •ix month• o! Che granting of tha pe~i tion. Mr. Lowry aQv'ieed the Curcmisesion Lhat walv~x of the trs~h ntocags ared shoul2l not be oonsidared yince Titlo 6, Chapter 6.2a af the Anahaim Me~nicipol Coda qovarning health end oafety ~tated that ~n.ly duly authc.riaed eqentc, dexvant~, or employeas o! the City or contraotor~a hed oxo'luoive riqht to tho removal ot gar.beqs and rubbieh or waate materidl from othnr thsn resiQantial leoilitioe to th:. di~poaal site, therofore, he wou2d recommend ~hat thie wdiver not ba grAnte3 eince it was qoverned by othsr r.h~n tha Zoniny Code. Aftar furthe~r diecueeion by the C~mmieaion, it was detexmined that einoe thp p9ti~:ionor had etipuleted to providinq the landscapin~ within approximatQly 9U days end aino~ the Commiseion could not wa~.vu the tresh etoraqn area, the waivers requeated ehould b~ deni~d. Corami.ssioner 9oymouz ofPered a motian, eeconded by Commiesior~or Allr.ed end MOmaON CARRYED, tht-t tho Flenning Commies~on, in connoction with en ex~mption daclaration ntiatus requec~t, 41nds and dotermineg thAt the pzaposal would havo no significant anvir.onmental impsct e~nrl, tharefoze, recommende to the City Counci~ 1 that nu EnvironmQntal Imp act 5tatement is nec9eat~ry. Comm~a ~ioner Allred offered Re~•~ ~ ution No. PC73-209 and movad for its peseaga and AdopCian to qrdr-t Pe~ition fo r. Conditional Uae Pexmit No. 1425, ~n part, denying waiver of tha rec?uired landecaping and the traHh storage enclosurca on the bas~.a tYiat the patitionQr indicatec~ th~ ofEice atructure proposad ae a future bui131ng alonq the La Cres ta Avenue frontnqe would be constructed in three months anQ landscaping woul d be provide~] u~,on c~mpletion ~"" the atructure, however, if the structuro was not- completRd withi.n six months, thei~ the land- ecapinq should be providQd at th~ ond of said time since ].andscr.pe~! s~etback~s in the induatrial area had alw~ys been required~ that waivr.r of the standard refuse etorage area was denied - althauqh the~ petitionPZ had statad he would remove his own trash, Secti~*: 6.21.0:.0 of the 3lnaheim Municipal Codc, wri.ch wus not ~~lithin the jurisdict~.ar. of the P] anninq Comniisaion, pzohibited other t.han authorized contract:~rs to diapo3e of cefuse~ ttia~ with the present high turnovo' zate uf t.he variou~ bus inesaes .in the cr,mmunit,y, it was likely that sub je c: aita cauld be occupied by~ other ir-dustry which would nQed normal. re~use aervice ar.a adequate refuse ~tor~g~ d•`'.E88 wouS.d then be availublet anci aubject to condiciona, amending the conditior~ requir.ing development substant?.ally in accordance witli plans to require the required landecaping be i.nstalled and matntained within six montr~a o£ the grantinq o~ the ~etition. (See Resolution Book) ~n ro 11 call the foregoing resol vtion ..as pasaed by the following vot~ : AYES s CdMMiSSIQNERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, King, Seymour. N~ES s COMMIS:'ION~RS: ^IanE. AAaE1~ITt COMMTSSIONERS: HCTbSt. ABSTAIN: CJAIMISSIONGRS: RowJ.and . O ~ ~ M~Nt)T~B, CITY PLANntNG CGMM'i9Si0N, 3~gtwmb~r 1'1, 1973 73~SS~ Vl-RIANCa N0. 2548 - PUBT~IC HEARING. J~F1*ERSON TNVF.STMEN~3 AFFZI.IATF.9, 101 1~~~~ Dypr Ro~d, Suits 9, 9dnta 71na, Ca. 92707~ Owneri R0881tT GORDON, SOUTHGQ118T ciRAPHZCS, 1001 Eaat Elm 3trest, Fullerton, ~a. 9~631, 1-q~nt~ requeeting WAIVER OF (1~) TYP1~ OF BYONQ P~RMiTTEp. (g) MZNIN.~JM HEIOHT O~' A FREE-8Tl1NDING SIGN , AND (C) MAXYMUM SIQN AR~11 9`0 CONSTRUC'" TWO FRE~-8T11NU:[N(3 MONUMI~NT SIGN& on propart,y deeorib*d ~^ ~ 11n irr~yularly-she-ped paroAl ot ;l~nB oonei~Cing o! epproxim~tMly 9.4 acr~s, having frontaqe^ o! approximataly 670 le~t on the wast eids o! Lek~vi~w Avsnae and ep~~aximatuly 640 lo~~t or~ th~ north aide oP Riverda~le 1-venue, havinq s maximum dopth o! ~pproximate~ly 798 leeG, and baing loc++tod at Cl~e northvra~~t eorner of Lskeview and Riverda.lo 11v~enues. Propsrty pre4ently soned R-A, AdRICUI~'L'UR1~Lt C-C~, COMMERCIIII~ 0~" tCE) AND C-l~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL, 20NES. Nc+ one spF~3~re~1 in op~oai~ion. Alth~uqh the~ R~port to the Commi:: ~ion wnn not read at the public hearinq, it ie reP.erre~1 to mnd made a pert o ~he minutes. C~~mmieatoner Herbet roturned to the Cattnci~ Chnmber at 3:20 p. m. Mr,. Robezt Gordon, agent !or the pet•.itionor, appearad bef~re the Cammiasion and noted r_;~dt t~~ey wero roquesting to be permftted to er.ect two manumc~nt oi.gne 4or t.oapital identiticaY.~on purpo$~e on1y. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Mr. Gordon, in roaponae to Commigoion queetioning, not~d that nothing was pro- posed in the farm of liqt~tiny for ~he eiqnA at tha preeent time. Cammiseioner Herbst oUserved that aubjoct property wa~ in the Scenic Corridur Overlay znr.e and whatever was done in ~ha~ zone muat be done in ~he• bost of tAate~ vrhereupon Mr. Gnrdon .loted thAt they wero requestinq an identification aign of the entrance to the hospital. Coanmiasioner. Seymour notod L-hat the sign propocsed and the monument-type pro- posed was very utt::aotive and he felt would be cnm~limentaryt that he would c~naur with wdivers for tYpe of sign~ permitted xnc~ minimum heiqht of ~, free- standinq sign, but hzd doubte about the waiver as to the ma~ximum area of a sign since~ ~ode would pexmit or-ly a 20-aqu~re foor sign, and inquired what justificati~n did Mr. Gordon have to iazcreaee ~h^ eize of the siqn by Y6 aquare feeti whFs~upon Mr. Gordon at~k~sd ~hat upon laYinq out the si~n copy, th~ mini- mum size copy which would be rea~luble was as wae prop~sed, particularly ~ir.ce thie sign wou].d be located la fe~t behin@ a planting st:rip or ?.4 feet setback Erom the street, and iC would be vzry difficult tn read this ~iqn, therefore, he consid~red this the justificat•ion. Co~nmis:~ioner Herbst offered a motion, secor,d~d by Cammissionex Farano and MOmICN CARR:ED, that the Planning C~~mmi.:~sian, in c~~lndction with an exemption declaratiun $tatua re~uest, finds and determines that the proposal ~~ould have no aignificant environmental impact and, therc~fore, reaommends to the City Caut,cil that no Eavi.rer~mental Impact Statsmenk ia necessary. Commisr~ion~r Herbst of.ferQd Reso.Lution No. PC73-210 snd moved for its passago and aaoption to grant Petition for VariAnce Na. 2548 on the basis that a ]nospital a~ thla size Ileeded somp identtficstion and the proposed slgninq wov.ld not be detri.menta7. to the ccncepts of ~he SC, Scenic Corriclor Gveriay, Zone, however, qranting oE the propose~: ~ree-sCanding sign should not be construed as establiahiny a precedent fo: similar requdets in tne SC Zone si.nce each p:oposal ahou!d be c~nsidered on its ~wn merit~ and eubject to canditions. (See Resolution Book) oii ro].1 cal'1 the faregoing resolution was pasaed by the following vote: AY^cS: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Fara~o, GauQr, Herbst, Kinq. NOES: COMNI:=5IONL~RE: Rowland, Seymour. AB5ENT: COMMISSIONERS: N~ne. ! ~ MINUTES, CI'fY PLANNINQ COMMI53ION, Septembsx 17, 1g73 73-566 VARIAI~CE N0. Z552 - PUHLIC HLARxNG. JOE L. AND BARHI-Yt11 E. LANE~ Bar-Du Compe~r-y, ~ 17~0 N~et La Palms Avenum, 8uita I, An~haim, Ce. 92801., Uwn~r~o W. A. PROUT, 807 Emet Ozangethorpa Av~nue, Anahoim, Ca. 9 2801., Ag.nti rsque~tinq permi~eion to TSTABLL3H A PUBLIC DANCF HALL ZN ~N M-1 ^~NE on propsrty deec ribed ae~ A rectenqularly-ahaped pa-ro~l of l+~nd aon- •ietinq of. approximRtely 1.1 Acres, having a lront~-qe a! approximetaly 21A leet on th a north nido of Oranqethoxpe Avenuo, havinq a~aximum depth o! dpprox~.mately 222 Peet, and Ueing lacat~+d approximately 180 leet waet ot ths centmrline o! Or.engethorpe Perk. nropazty presentlx cla~sitied M-1, I~IGHT I~iDI78TRZAL, ZONE. Foux pereona indiaatad their pr.eeencc in oppaeition. Tha Commixeion 9acretary notod ~haC there were eoveral lettcra also received in oppasition. Aseiatant Planner Phil.lip Schwartze reviewad the locati.on of rvbject property, ueea ~e~ablieho~l in cloee prox!mity, provioue eaniny actxon c,n the property, end the propoe~l to charyc an admiasion fee for pub~ic dnncingt thdt Che City Coun c il on April 13, 1971, appr.oved a dinne r-dence lic~nse which would a18o permit public dancing without en a~im.iseion tee, hawovesr, about one yeax aqo the City Council dc+ni.ed the petit~onor'e requesC to con~vert ~rom a no edmiasion fee t o charqiny +sn admisaion fee unleae he girst obtained a vuriance~ that the p:esant 3ancinq area was apprnximt~-tnly 3Q0 ~quarc~ feet in eize, havinq a band- s~tansl and located in tho southor.ly portian of the buil8ing adjacent to the piz z a-kitchen area~ end that the petitioner had indicntad the dnncing would be conducta3 on Thureday, Friday and 5aturday ev~nings only. Mr. Schwart~e, in reviewiny the evsluation, noted th~st tho propoaed type uae was a commercial activity wt~ich had already been establiahed in conj~nction with a dinner-dar,ce lcAnse to p9rmi~ public dancinq withc~at e co~a~r charge~ tha t it was not anticipated by the pe~.~~ioner that a change to a 8ance hall with c~ver charye would create any greater activity in the oporation of tho facility) and that the Snnitation Department rad i.ndi.catpd tlia existing traeh Enc 1 aoura area was adequate to meet the prasent standards. Mr. Bill Prout, agenti for the petitionez', appeAred before the Commission and stated he was the manag~r af the exieting facility~ that ~l~ey pr6sently had a food and dancinq oparatln« anci needed the vnriance in order that they cauld cY:a r ge an admiesion fee in order to diacourage the type of people who were "f re e~oad~r.e"t tha~ they could not be removed at the pxesent time just because they had not purchae2d any food or besr= that ~hia typu of person was contralled at tYie billiard tables since they di.d not have the mnney to pl~ay at a table, and it was hope~l by charginq $1.00 to $1.50 this undeeirable element coulcl be remo vedJ that Knot.t's had to charqe a fee for the same reason, and they indi- cate d they were able to contro~ tha leas desirable elemer-t or visitors; and th a t they also had behavior problems with thasN "free loaders" w ho h ad create3 problems £or tlie adjaining industrial proper'ties. A le tter from Comet, Inc., signed by Gord~n R. iioward, oppoaing the r.~quested variance, was read to the ~lai-ning Cemmission in whic`~ it was no~~d they were th e awners af indubtrial shopa and buiZdings at the narthwest corn~-:r of Orange~ thorpe Avenu~ and Orange~horpe Place in add~.tlon to othez• buildinqs located ,£azthar to thp north which were l~ased for induetria]. purposes and which. were i.n conforman~e with the M-1 ZonE p that dux~.ng recent years thAy 1ad experienced an ever-increasing ~smount uf unnecessary annoyance, agg~avtstion, treapansing and littas, a-11 of which had resultPd fiom the usa of a r-e~.ghboih~od rastaurant an d bar fac~llties, particularly duxing othPr than trie industrial bur~inesa ho u rs; thst in order to kaep their desirable, long-term tenanta, it ~aas neces- sary to encloae the private rear ator.age and parking areas wlth a chainllnk Fe n ces that previously they had exporienced no probZem with the billiard hall/ pizza parlor operation, but with i.ncreasing uee af bar facil3~ties in the neiqh- box'hood, par~icularty after hour.s, they had found ovidgnce of vandali~m snd certain motoz vehiele damage to thPi.r building, etor~.qe facili.tiea and entire p re misest that they had to employ additional help to maintai.n their parkinq lo t gremises in ozder to pick up beer cana, sogt drfnk bottlea ~nd othsr debria of many types left cerelessly hy trespassers and those who ueed their parkinq facili.tiea and weze ttnauthorized to do sa~ that ~ince thie wae a aompZataly co:~trolled indu~tzia2. development, they felt that ar-y recreatio~al usea ahould not be permittad if they were not compatiY,le since it would appeaz tnr~t these ~ ~ MiNUT~9; CITY PLANNING CO:~MI887.QN, 9~pt+~mber 17, 1973 73-567 VARIANCE N0. 2551 (C~ntinued) reorastionxl u~~s Nsre attraoting larqe numb~r• a! p~ople for pariodt of tima vrhmn tha industzial aroa vra~ not in aae, oraatinc unneo~ssery expo~ur~ ~nd abu~• to thA industrial laoilitie~~ and tlnat ~riey l~lt ik wae uarea~onabla tor. ths~n to b~ torced ta lurthex• bui.ld enalo~urer provid:.ng lock~d qatoa and othar ax- peneiv~e aec~lr~ty measuree haretotore unnecaseery in ordar to ecaoma-adate a bueiness enterpx~ae in a zon~ which wae not permitted by ziqht~ and that thoy t~id not believe that •nXt:~inq attracting crowde ~P poo~Ye with raoreation timA to sQenrl, some of whom might ba quit~ lrivolouo under tha in~lusnas o! Alaohol or poasi bly n~rcotia~, bhlunged ln an influetzia~l sane when the premi~eA wer~ unoaoupi ad and had minimum security (copy on file). Mr. Merr ill Skillinq, reprsse»ting Nortroniae and the Exeautive Committee o! the Anah eim Che-mber aP Commorae, appeared befora the Cammieai,on in ~ppoeitien and atat ed that the exieting and prqpoeed uea waq an inappropriata enaroaohment inta th e industrial zane, and the reeaone qivcn in the lettez frc,m the Comet Co~npnny woro very v~lid~ a-nd that ho ~i-d not know how Cha billiazd operation wae approv~d for aub~ect property, let alone a dinner-dence~ opora~i~n which he galt aAS e very poar land uae in the induatrial nrea. Mr. R. C. Mendelaon app~ared before the Commie~eion in o~poeitic,n dnd etated thaC the letter from hi» oompany a~a to their oppoaition had already been read, a~nd if the Cammiasion had ai~y additional queetione to ask rAgazding their probleme in thig inc~ue rrial complex, yie would be glatt to anewez them. A petition of opposition signed by four tenants or lndustrial property ownere adjacent to aubiect property wae then read ta t.hd Commiaeion. Mr. Prout, in rebuttal, etated that they w9re only askin~ tc ch~arge n fee ~.n order t o clean up tha place aince the City Council. had granted the dinnar-danc~ pormit some time ago, ancl although the letter af oppo3ition complatned about beer carie, ~aa., thd~ did not sell bee,r in cans, thereforQ, those who attended thei.r f aci~ity muat purchase this matFrial elsewhera. In addition, they had a vory go od ~.unch crowd that sarved the induetrial areas that the dAnce hall oper.ati on started about 9s00 p.n,. and ondod at 2:00 a.m.~ that kho fact tha.t someone ba~ked into the bu~ldiag need n~~t be charged to people attendi.ng the dance s tnce this could happan ~+.4:h yuASts at hia establishment who oame to }~lay billiar da or to e at pizza; that several years aqa they had to r.emove thc 17- year-ol ds becauae oE their debtructive naL•ura, and by establishing the dance operati on, thay had slimiadte3 the yout~g people because ~hey were not permitt~d to ente r a~n area becauae of the oale of beer~ and that his only re~son, as he stated before, for requesting Quch a petition waa to eliminate the le~sa•-da~~irable persons attendinq the danco sinca thQy were only "free ldaders". Fuxther.u~ore, it wou~ d~ppear from comtr.ents made by .representatives of industry, theS~ were not awa re og the fact tttat there was a dance ~peration ~vhich had been approved by the City Counci]. aeveral. yeu:.s ago. Mr. Pro ut. in fur~tier diacus~ing the oppoaition'e statement, noted that they had 80 par}cing spacea while the occu~ancy of the dance area was 175 to 200. THF, HF.?iR'LNG WAS C.T.~OSED. Commiss ~.otler Herbat offexed a rnotion, aecondod by Commisaioner Allted and F1oTI0N CARRIE D, that the Planninq Commission, in connection with an exemption ~ealara- tion atat~;a zequeet, finds and determin0s thrt the propos~+l would have no aignif icant environmental impact and, th~refor~, recommen3s ~o the City Council that n o E nvironmental Imp~ct Statement ie necassary, Commis sioner ~Ierbst offered a motion to ap~rove Pstitfon for Variance No. 2551 ~or a periud of aix mon~hs to d~termine whether chdrqinq an admission ~oe wovid sulve the problems whicti this operation had c•reated in this induetrial aomplex, thereb y gi~-ing the Commission aome kind of control sinca the induetrial area should not be oxpoaed to damaqe to their buii~inga and landscapinq, nar b~ r.e- quirod tc~ hiie aciSitional personnel. to c]eaz up tt-ei~ parking lots of debris which gueata at this eatabl~.shment placed on the adjoining pri~ate propertieas. ~ ~ • MINUTE3, CITY 81,ANNIt7G COMMiS320N, ~eptomber 17, 1973 73-568 VARIIINCE NO. 2551 (CottC:l~'ued) ....~..,.._.r~ Prior. to roll oall, e~ lenqthy diACU~sion wA. hs1Q by th• Commi~~ion rug~rdinq the motian, summarized ae follov+oc 1) 9om~ rsmndX shou].d be lound to all~viaks ~he prob].~+ms laainq the inclusCrisl CQIIIp1mX~ but th• eariest way would b• for the City Counoit to rovoke their acti~n o! approval ot the antire op~rationi 2) that ta approve thio reyuest ev~n tor a~ peripd o! ^ix mantha wau~d b~ t~anta- moun~ t~ perman~nt e~ppxoval~ 3) that the City Counoil ahould bA urqad to rescinc! tha dinner-danos permit beoeuee o~ the undesirabls •lPaot it was havinq on ~ho ad3oining rropprtieet 4) that the entire opsration wa~w i.nappropriute !or the ~rea eince Y.hdi.r pr~me operation wna at night when thA 1ndu~trial aomplox we~s not in operation, ~:hereby lea~vl.ng these pro~ertieu unnttenfledt 5) that morn~ e could not be impzoved juat by approvai of ~- vari.enos lagali~cing s uea that Na• incompa~ible to tha area~ G) tht~t thc v~ry problemo prmeented by the petitioner had been discussad in d~tail when the uee wa~a aontidared originnlly ertd approved, however, the pekitioner g~ve evary aeeurance thAt thare ~rould be no problem beaauee they had a method of policinq thia As it pertsl.n~d to young p~opl~t 7) thet 14 subject pestikian war.e denied by tha l~lanr.ing Commisa~~n and npproved by the City Cauncil, the use could bn approvad wlthout a time limitation and the problome in the are~t could be compounded. Commiseioner Farano noted that if the danoe hall weze permitted, thie woulA xpprave a~uajor uge on top of a major uae, nn~ the petitione~r could, at any time, decide to Yprmina~e the billiArd hall/pi.zza operation anS just have a dance operation. which cuuld ba done witl~out having to obtain further approvnl lrnm the Citiy, and then *he dance hall op~+ration would be creatinq more problems Por the industrial operatione, and then inquired of Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry whethAr hia interpretation was correct. Mr. Lowry stated that ~hia wae correct, and the inr,idenCal use indicated by the petitioner, namely, a fee beinq charg~ed for th~ danae liall operation, could, in fact, become a major uae. Commiasioner Farann note~ tha~ the fee pxoposad to be charged would be inaigni.- f3.cant becauso lt still would be a vezy cheap evening and would not diecourage ~he usual troublemakers becauae they wou~. have moneyt thx~ it wae the r~sponsi- bility ~~ the aperators of this astablishmant to control the s~.tuation oL• iche parking lot trash, and if a petfticner clid not know what stega to take to contzol peopla attending these func~.ions, he coul~ consult an ~ttornsy, but it Ahould not be controlled throu3h a land use waiver since ttiis wo~ald perpetuate a problem rather than curing thcs s3tuation. CammissioneZ Seymour stated that he would concur with previous etatements macle by the Commisoi.on in the fact that the Commiasion had always tried to discouraqe incompatible uses in the industrial area and attemgted to have uses that would be serving businesa and in~iustry, therefore, the Cemmission had forced lndustry to be faced with an un~riendly neighbor, and by approvinq subject petition would perpetuate the problem, although the Commission might have had fc+resJ.qht but they did r~ot hava the fortitude to deny ttio request originally. Commissioner Farano inquired whather th~re was any~thinq the Commiasi~n could do to racommend to the City Cuuncil some act~.on reqarding the dance permit and whether it ~hou].d be tezrnineted sinr.e the origi.nal petition requestod w~a fox a pool hall, and p~.zza paslor~ and this had extended beyond that uae, and becauae of tY-e evidence preeented •thi.s should be evidence foz khe City Counci]. to c:on- eider as to whethek or not tk-~.s dance permit ahould bc revoked. Nir. Lowry ac7~:ised that a fi.nding could be made in the reaolution as w~ll as a special minv.ce motion could be sent to the Gity Council as to the Commiss~on's conc~rn anc'. recommendation. Commiseioner Herbst then withdrew his motion of app.rovAl. Commiesianer Seymour offqred Re~solution No. PC73-211 and moved for ita passage and adopti4n to deny Petition far Variance No. 2551 on the baeie that wher, the original variance Was re~quested :for a billiard hall ~and pizza parlor facility, the Cammission express~ed concern over tt,~ posaible problema tna~ could arise which cou.ld render tine approved faaility a nuisance to the induatrial neighbors, ~ ~ MxNUTRB, CITY PLANNING COM~II86ZON, 9e,pt~mbsr 17, 1973 ~~-569 VAAIANCS N0. 2551 (Continued) and I,a~ed on tertimuny subtaitt~d at the publlo ~-~arinQ, th• oxi~tinq billiard hal]. •~d Qizza parlor had beaom~ en inoompatibl• n~iqhbor M~ osciqin+slly antiai- pat~dt that sppxovsl oP th~e propo~ed us• ~ dan~• haJ.]. o~arpinq la~e - Nuuld compound ~he nuitanoe laa~ar a~lre~sdy exiptinqt that ths ~xi~tiag u~• qre-nt~d undwr Varienoa No. 1896 nouid be taarmiaak~d i! ~ubject p~titian v-sr• appraved kith~uL further action by ~he Ci~:y, thar~Dy i~eavinq oniX ths danae ha11, which was a hiqhl,y undoeirable uae in t.lie industrixl area~ that •vida~noa wso ~ub- mitted by tha ad~ointng i.ndu~trial property own~rw an~ 1~~~~es that the ~smeant uee w~~ incompa~tible due to tha m~+jor poztian oP tih~ burin~a~ i.i~ tt~is lacility bei.ng conauntsd after work~,ng hours of tk~a induotr~al c4n~pl~xeo Mhen ouxrouiidinq propertias ~+ould ~~ unattended, reaulting in Qam+~q• to buildinya and property, ~~ r~ell a~ illaqai uae of tha adjaoont inQuetri.al parkinq nr~a~o~ that na avi- dence had been present~d l+y k'hm petitinner that a hard~hip aou].c~ ax~et if eub~so~ petition were not granted exoept Por those orastod by the~ petitianer in astab- lishing ;he exiating uoe ~.nc~.uitinq d~noinq und~r a dinrsr~danae pleoe parmit granted b.y the City Counoili the-t t:he City Council ahoul$ reconsider thair approval of the dinner-danca placR permit A~ thie lecility beaauFa ~t tlbe nuisance tha exioting uae wae croating, and it should e,ithmr not be renewed or it ehould be revokea. (s~~~ Rosolution Book) on roll call the farAgoing resalution wds paeeed by the following voteo AYES: COM.lISSYONER~ s Alire~9, F•azano, C3auer, Herbet, King, Rowl~nd, Seymour. N~ES: COMMISSIONERSs None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None• Commibaionor Seymour. offerod a motion, secanded by Cammidsiuner Herbat and MOTiON CARRIED, to recommenR to the City Council ths~ th~ di.nner-dance permit granted to the opera~or ~f "nig Jol,n's" billia-rd and pi~cza eetabliehment be reviewed and consideration be qiven t:o denying a renewal of tY~e gerrn9.t or revocation of th~ perniit baFed on evidence oi~bmitted by adloininq industrial pzoperty awners and lssaeas when V~riance No. 2551 was considesed at publ~lc. hoarinq before the PJ.anrinq Commission. RECESS - Chairman Gauer declared a ten-mi.nute rec:eas at 3:58 p.m. RECONVENE ^ Ctta3.rman Gauer zeconvened the meeting at dsOF3 p.m., ~11 Gommiasioners being prosent. RECLASSZFiC~,TiON - PUBLIC HEARiNG. ROBERTSHAW FULTON CONTROLS, 1701 Byrd NO. 73-74-19 Avenue, Richu-ond, Va. 23261, Owneri rec~uebting that property d~sscribed as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of la:~d consid~t- ing of approximately 4.92 acree, havinq frontaqes of approxi- mately 530 feet on the wetst aide of Mancheater Avenue, approxim~~ely 44~ feet a~ the east side of Cletaentine Street, and approximately 300 feet on the Eouth side of Alz~ WAy be reclaRSified fr.on~ the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZO[~E to the M-1, LIGH~ ItiDUSTR?A~, 20NE . iVo one appeared ir. ogposition. Although the Report to the Commisei.on raac not read at the puhlic hemri.ng, it is referrod to and made a part oF the minutes. Mr. A. W• Bdck, Vice Yreaident xnd M9mber of tlie Boarcl of Robertehaw ~ontxole~ 16072 Gothe Straet, Fiuntington Beach, appe~red before the Comm`.ssion and noxed that the Cou~miseion wa~ familiar with their facilitiiesj thr.t they owned a 21- a:.re l~nduatrial plant at F;ucli~i Street asnd the SAnt~ Ana Freeway, ar well as the ane at 1601 5outh Mancheater A~renue which was thAir western aales office~ and origir_ally built as their we~tern rmseaxch centeri thaL• they vr~re pzopoaing to relocate their facil3ties that Chey had in Huntinqton Beach into a new buildinq 150 x 300 squnra Peet on subject propsrty~ that since khe Gity or State deeiqned the ovaxcro~sinq nf Anaheim Boulevard which would c].ose Mancheeter Avenue in the fros~t d~ tiheir prapQZt,y and the City anticipated that r.hey would agree to dedica^~ tion of a parti.on of the pzoperty, they would ltke to face this structuxe nnto Clement±nm Skreet, particularly since tho off-remo froA~ the Santa Ana Freewa,y ~ ~ MINU~R3, CITY PI,ANNxNG COMMIBSION, Septambor 17, 1973 73-570 RECLASbIFICATION N0. 73-74-19 (Cantir~ued) would qo around tho r.arn~r ot thsir property and Menahertar 1-vnnue would tarmi- '° At t`~• ~ntcAnoe o! thAir pzap~rtyt that ell psrking aa~ pr~s~ntly exitinq and antaring on )-lro gtreet on the aide o! their pr~~~nt la~ilit~-~ that he waa awsre ths City would~ requeot dediaation o! a- portion o! tho prap~rty for tha widening oP Clem~ntine wtr~et becauee o~ the clo~inq o! Manohe~ter Avenu•~ that tihor~ wara both co~nmexoial snd i.nduetrial uae+o anro,bli~ho~ in this aren, ther~- lore, they wer~ requesting a zone change lrom the R~A to th• M-1 2ana mnd pro- possd to r~locate Lheir product packAging which would •ell to 600 whalesa~lers throuyhout th~ Itnited Statee st this looation, hawever, thmze would be no manu- faoturinq at thie loaatiun, thue thera wo~uld be no pollution, with only machines a~nt lift tr~.tcka ae wcli as threa peckaging machinee. THE HEA.RING WA3 CLOSED. Commieaion~r Herbst inquired whether thexe woul.d be any roat-mot~.nted equipmenti whereupAn Mr. t3eck replied ne7Atively. Comcaisaionex Harbet theii raqueeted that ~Pfice Engin~ar Jay Tf tua ~xpda-te the Cammieeion es to when and how Mnnchestur Avenue would be conetructedt whereupon Mr. Titus atated tha~t he had not seen the lateAt plano !or th~s Ereeway of.f- zamp develapment, however, if the Commieaion wanted to, he could obtain pldna from the TraPfic Engineer r.o to the late~et d9slqn. Mr. Beck suqqeeted to the Gommisaioa thet if they would viaw the plot plan submitted, the latest proposale foz Mnncheater Avenue weze rr~flected on the plot plan, indl.catinq where rhe off-ramp would be located~ ~nc! then reviewed with the Commiaeion ssid are~a, indic~ting where the State was propoeing the off-ramp and locaLion of power lines~ ancl th~i~ in rospanae to Commi~»ion ques- tioning, stated ~hat it was their intent to fence off the pa.ttion adjacent to the freeway o£f-ramp. Commissioner Cierbst offered a motion, secondr.d by Commieaioner Allred and MOTION CARRIED, tt~at the Planning Commiesion, in connection with an exemption declara- tion sL•atus xequeat, fincls and determinea that the propusal would have no aigni- ficant en~~ironmental impsct and, therefora, rPCOmmends to tl~e City Counci]. that no Envirorsmental Impact Statement is neceseary. Commiesfoner Harbgt offered Resolutian Plo. PC7~-•212 und moved for its pasgage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that petit3on for Racl~asifica~*ion No. 73-74-14 be approvod on the basis that it woula appear that Clementine strget would bpcome the buffer streeC between commercial-recreation and industrial useat thai: the ~ise would be a logical extension of the M-1 uses a~,onq the freew~+y, w•l.th the off-ramp serving industrial usea= and that Mancheeter Avenue would b~ blocked nff, thoreby t-ecessitating the use ~f Clementine Street as the major etreet. Prior to roll call, Commissioner Farano noted that he wae not too enthusia.ati.c about permi'tting industri.al zones in the Commercial-Recreation Area since the Commission in the psst had not favnrably considered comn-ercial-recr~ati.on usea in the 3ndustrial zone~ whereupon Commissioner Herk,st noted that th~ property owner had owned this property for 20 yeaxs, even prioz to the time the Commer- cial-Recreation Zone wari eatablished and had been locatied i.n that area for s coneiderable length of t~me. On roll call L•he ~ordqoing reso~ution waa pasoed by the fol'lowinq vote~ A~ES: COMMI~SIONERS: Allrea, F'arano, Gauer, Herbat, Kinq, Ttowland, Seymour. HOES: COrlMISSIONERS: None. AHSENT: COMMISSIONEIdS: NonQ. ~ ~ M];NUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3eptambex 17, 197z 73-571 ENVIRONMENTAL IMP}1~T ^ 1'UBLIC HEARZNG. JOAN BERRY, 8T ~L, 102Q2 Nealey Ci«cle, REPOR?' N0. 99 H~antington Hoach, Ce. 92646, Own~tr~~ WILLIAM H. MILLER, "' 973Z Habe-zd Avenue, SAAtA Ana, Ca. 92703, Agent~ RLCI,ASSIFICl1TION rsquo~ting that proper~y deqcribed a~~ A reatangularly- N0. 73-74-20 shaped pa~rael ot' land conei~tinq o! epproximately 4.3 acree~ at the~ southweet carner o~' Creecant and Mdqn411A Avenuse, iieving Prontagers uf appruxi.matdly 620 loet on the sauth ~ide o! Crd~c~+nt Avenue and appraximAtaly 306 Pe~e on tho wASt sida of Maqnolia Avenue bs rPClaeait~.ed Prom the R-A. 1~GRTCUL'~UML, ZONE to the C~l, OL~NERAL COMMLRCIAL, ZONE. E1Aht pereona inQicar.ed their preeence i~n oppasition. Aaeiatant Pl.annt~r Phillip Schwartza revic~wed thc~ YOCAt~0i1 of aub jeot pro~sorty, ~ usea eatabliehed ii~ clo~e proximity, and Lhe requoet to recYaseity the property to the C-Y Zone, propoeinq to develop a commercial shoppinq cenrer having a food m~rk~t, liquor store, drug atore, laundromet, walk-up reataurAnt and various ehops and setting aeide an arda fox futuro development, aur.h ae a rastaur.ant~ that the center wc~uld featura an L-ehaped layout heving two eepaxate etructural elemonte: one el~ment woul~ Pace Maqnolia Avonue end w~uld ba comprised of a 3450~equ~re Eoot liquar st~r~, a 23,800-equare foot m~rket, r~n~ a 3100-aquare foot shop~leundromat ared, while the other element would be facing Creecent A.venue rand wauld be compriead of a 4200-aquarr~ foot 3rug a+tore and an 11,250- aquare foot aroa fox shops, as wall se an ].184-aquare Eoot walk-up restaurant~ that hexghta oP the buildings would be from 2Q to 26-foot m~sximumt that the buildinqe would be set back 40 feet~ or twice tho 20-foot bufldinr, height., from the adjacent single-femily zona and wr~uld be se~ back 50 feet frum the multiple- fami'ly residences tv the southt that vehicular accesa to the Aite would be pxo- vided by two 30-faot and one 36-foot w~de drivee off Crescent Avenue and by three ~0-faot wide dri.v~s off Magnolia Avenue~ that all drivee w~:e inCer- r;onnecte~, and ther.e wouXd be a 20-foot minimum width perimeter drive, pri.marily far access to loadi.ng areas behind the unite~ that parkin5 would be primar.ily iocated in the main parking area to the front, with ~~ome additional parkinq to the rear, anc' a total ~f 253 spac~s wa3 required and would ba providedt ttiat screening would be provided bX a 6-Foot hiqh masonry wall and by treea on ?.0- foot c:Qnters along the ooutherly and weater.ly property lin~a~ that a 3 to 10- foot widH pl~ntinq atrip would be provided along the strc~et frontages and inter.i~+r plantera wuuld be provided at ~he ends of certxin parklnq rows, that the facades of the exterinr fronts would have a ahoulder-hi.gh hartzontal band oi face brick, pre-cast taper~,d concrete columna and would aupport a mansard roof of conr.rete roof tile capped ~vith a similarl.y-pitched par.apet finished with exterior plaetert that trash :+torage areas wer.e located at various points to the rear of the unites that- signing would incl.ude a 96-square foot, €ree- standinq sign 25 feet hign on the M.agnolia Avenue fiontaye but not within thP requirpd center 20i of the frontage, with a walk-up restavrant and a 25-foot high, fre~-standing eign of an unspecified square footage on Yhe Crescent Avenue frontaqei and that no detafl3 of exterior s~acu.xi~.y lighti~ng wEre avail- able. Mr. Schwartze, in rc~viewing the Pvaluatior., ~~oted khat affected adjacent prop- erty owners had ~expressed t.o staff several c~~ncerns regardinq thie propo4a~ which included the pr~ximity of the market loading area to the adjacenC single- family ~rea and its .resultant nUiae, hours of operution, lighting and possibi~ity of danger to children r,limbing upon and falling nver th~ 6-foot high wall and down tha m~-rket side fnto the r~mp 10 feet belowi that ataff had a?r.eady dis- cussen witYi the petitioner the area ahown on th3 submitted plans as not being a part of the px'eaent proposal but being thought of for later develupment as a restaurant, and tha petitioner wns adviRed regarding the number of parKing spaces whicb could be provided in ~hat area and ~he resultant maximum square footage of the rea~auran*., or 2500- sguare feett and that bhe petitioner stated this factor waa acknowledged and acceptable. Mr. William H. Miller, e~qent for the petitf.oner, appearsd before the Commiesion and indicate3 there was little he could add to what staff had alraady set forthr that they ltad worked very diliqently with staff inembexa~ and tha*_ right-o~-way was given to aacomPlish thia and to proceed with the reclaseific~L•ion, and, therefore, h~ wae avAilable to answer queations. ~ ~ ~ M:[NUTE3, CITY 1~LANN'ING COMMIS3I SeptombeT: 17, 1973 73-572 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPOR7'_N0. 99 AND I~~CLASSI~ FICATION N0. 73-74-~0 (~~ntlauad) ChAirmen Gsuer noted that he h~-d rece+iv~d nine letters t-ncY m numbex of tslephone celle from ~-arioue concerned rasident~, pe-rticul++•'].Y Or. Teitolbaum, whum ha had edvi~ed to eu~mit a latter to tt~• Planninq Commie~ian in whiah all aona~r~~r ex- prosied by telephone w~re ast lorth !or eva~luation by th• Commi~eion and to be mnde a paxt oF thA petition filer th~-t the Commission had also rsasivvd a~piea of the ].Atter whic:- Dr. Tei.telbdam ha~i aubeequontly cubmitt~d, ae well se a letter from htie Magnolie School District~ end that the ~.e+tter from ths Magnolia School Diatr.ict and Dr. Tet~elbaum'e lattmr contdined the maaor argumdntR~ lurthermore, lettera racei,ved ~rom verioue propezty ownere in alo~e praximity a11 set forth similex concezns. Ccmmiaeionox Herbet notell that i.n the beat interASt of those pererne preeent, he would like to huve Mr. Millaz relAte in hie rebuC~al as to wF-y thie eiCe was commerr.ial rather thari rasidential. Commissioner r,auer then requ~ated that Dr. Teitelbaum road his letter of opposi- tfo.i, which wae then done (aopy of letter on file). Dr. 'Peitelbaum, i.n respon~~e to Commiseion quouti~ninq reyardi.nq wilat could be done with the property; :. .a~tla that the oppoai.tion had s re~' ~dr ~.rogrnm and eech person would cover varioue ft~cets i.n their prea~ntatlon Commiasiouer Kiny noted thzt unde~^ the Env~.ronme~~tal Impsct Report aubmitted regarding th~ adw~,ree ~nvir~n~nental impact, Lani1 UsagA, under Recr~aL•ian and Aesthetice (F'aragrt-pha E anc F) in which a statement. ~ras made that an aL-~empt had been ma3e to determin~ the £eelinga of those 1_.ing in tho surruunding aroa and lialf ~f thoas reeidents contacted indicate3 the shoppinq center wao necoasary and a b~nelit to the, community, whi.le a--other 159~ i.ndicated f~_~11 oppoai~ion, and the remaining were either undecidEci ~r didn't care, and ia~quired er.a.ctly how many people had boon contactad. Ir- addition, under the Environ- mental Tmpact - Whola Cor~cept - under Puragraph D, Adverse Environmental xmpac4s Which Cannot 8e Avoided, those ui~der "8" and "9" evid.ently did not be- long in this cateqory slnce they raferr.ed to increased ta:c rev~nues and de- creased nulAances and vandallsm and undoubte3'ly should have been in a different title l~~~ading. Mr. BoycS Ames, representi.ng Envista, Inc., 125 South Claudiaa Street, apppared before the Commiasiar~ to answer questions ~resented by Commieaioner King and c~tated that he had tAlked with 12 to 15 r.esidents in ~he R-1 c~rea, as well as abour, 20 to 25 ~.e~ple to the southr that he had a.lsa made an attempt to contact re~~resentatives of tho achool across tl~e st•roeC on Creacent Avex~ue, however, since the school was out oii vacation, he had not received any response even though he had left a message with whomever had ar,owered the telephoner 3nd then in responae to Chairman Gauer's ques•rion aa to whet,her or not he had covered 55~ of the area, roplied affirmatively. Co.imissloner Seymour nn~ed that there was another item that needed clarification regardinq thoye two statementa under Adverao Environmental z:npacts Whi.ch Cannot Be Avoided and inquired wherp items "8" ~nd "9" ahould have be~an located; wh~reupon Mr. Amea etate3 that these two items stiould have been undar the Mitigating MeaAUres and w~ould stipulat:e that that was their correct place in the r~eport. Mr. John Peek, 2625 Weot Baylrr C.trcle, Apar~ment 245, appeared before the Cor-miasiun and notAd chat As Dz. Teitelbaum had explained, ther~ were a number of peraons who had gonA to ~onsidera~le, time, trou~le and expenee ta obtain tche f.acte ir. thia matter, and it was h~pad the Commission would coasidar these peraons as well~ that they had aeveral alternate uaea sugqested far tho properta~, however, he wanted the othere to present ttieir comments since the altezndtive usee was the laet item of discusaion by their qroupt end then in seeponse to the repeated questi.on by th.e Commiseion rege~x~ding alternati•~e uses, etated they proposed to make tYieir pzesentation as brief and concise as posaible to let the Commiasl.on knaw their lec~linge ana thase of tl~e ndjoining property owners ~n tha propoaed land uae. LJ ~ ~ M7NUTES, CITX 1?LANNl'NG GOMMiS91~N, 9eptmmber 17, ].973 ~3'g~a FNVIRONI4ENTAL IMPACT RTPORT N0. 99 AND R~GLA~~ S1~'ICATION N0. 73-7~4~„2~, (Continued) A leCt~r vrae then read by Mr. pee+k which stated tho amounL• o! time i,t took a~nd tha ~+erasntage o! pcople who wero op~osell to the devo].opmentr th~t hi~ purpo~t• in beinq betora tfie Cammia~ion ws~o twa-~old, and ho would likd to tRk~ this opportuni.ty to remind the Commiralon thnt ~a allow e- commsrci.al shoppinq aetat~r across the etroet £rom an elementery achool. wnuld be the i'irst time in xt-e city and would establieh a pzecedent wliich would have an adver~e etfoct an the schoal ahildren. Chairman Gauer a~gain ateted t.hnt botl~ latters fr.om Dr. Teitelbaum end the~ Mt,qnolin Schoal District. 1~ ~d been resd, ancl he felt a11 the pertinent brgumn~~te were co:-tained in said lot.i.era~ unl~eae flomething r~Aw could be preeented by the oppoeition. Mz. Peek then etatad that he hed circulated the petition and in ~nly five daye hdd obcaia~d 250 cignat~ar.as of oppoflition~ that Mr, Amas he~9 atate~ Jlll~l 12 pereons: wdxe interviewed 3n tha EIR, hnwewer, he had cuntacCed 69 r~sident~a in the R-3 developmc~nt to ~he aouth nnd out or tha 69, ano peraon waa for tl~e devalopmAnt and one poraon ~id not care, maki:~g 67 in oppoaition - one perAOn had been contactod previoualy by the EIR represontativd. Then Mr. Pe~k read I the contenta of the cpposition si.gned by 2S0 persona, continuing by stating fiUO chi.ldren attended the elaR,enta~ry school on the north si~le of Crescent AvAnue; tha~ he did not have a ohnnce to apeak with members oY the PTA to obtr-in their feelings becausa of the aummez vacatic+nt and that he eould not underatanc9 why the petitioner's represantative was unable to contact any af theae people when, in such s short time, he wae able to obtain 250 signntures in oppositi.on. Mr. Richai:. Royston, 2668 Weat Baylor Avenue, stated he would like to addreas his commenta to the EIR regardittg tt~o noise levelJ that in the EIR rep~rt it ~t~tec] the noiae prosYuced ae set forth in Item 4 of the Acouatics Repo~:t ~that the noiae levels would increase due to mo~or vehicle use, r.onatruc:tion noise and normal acoustical incr~ases attuched t~ a commerc.ial enterprise of thio sizo and typa; that it should bo furt.her noto3 tliat the ~dj-.+cent community ha~d a hiqher noi~+e factor than an ardi.nary re~aidential areaJ tnat the report indi~ated the noiae level at t~e aoutheast cort~er of Maqnolia ~~id Creecent Aver~ues at 63 3BA's nnd the northwest corner at 64 d$A's but nathing was mentioned about the aide of the street where thie project would bs locatadt that the rApor*_ further indi,ca~ed that at full ~evelopmont of the project the noiae Fr~m the trucke deliverinq vaxious goods to the atores ar commercial activity would be a potenf.ial sourca of annoyance~ and the noisQ level at residantir.l locations c~ue t~ these factors might approach 75 L•o 79 dBA's, however, whon on~ reviewecl the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 6, Section 6.70.O1u, it stated, "ThaL• na paraon sha11, w.ithin the city, czeate any seund, radiated for ext6nded periods from any premises which pradur.ed a saund pressure level at any point on the property line in oxceas of 60 dBA'e", but the noise ?evel in that area wae already higk-er than the City allowed, and if tl:is project were allowed ~o go forward, it would raise the aound level far be~~ond thn City standarda t-:td would even vfolate, th~ Fe~eral atandard of 65 dBA's aajacent ±~.o res3dences. Mrs. Joyce Schweppe, 26~3 Stockton, appear.ed L~ ~-~ Commission and atr,ted that her etraet would be backing up to this propose~ pping cantert tha-t the repregentaL•iva of the comp~ny preparing the EZR had ced he had contACted 1.2 pergona in the single-family development but h.P han c~~tacted only six homos, the first three homes on either side af the at~eet immeQiatelx adjacent to this project; tha~ her concern was the traf~ic confic~uration frem this proposed devel- opment and ~raffic as it would affect the children who bucame very confuesd with the riqht and left turna at this interaection, let al~ne the traffic from eix different poin~e of accegs i'rom the r.ommercia~ devblopment~ that her childzen were teenaqers, but she ha~d aeen a number of children injured becausa th~ir minde were unable tio cope wlth the tzaffic hazard~, acid ahe feZt there would be toa much trAffic for these children to comprehend~ tliat there wae no parking per- mi~ted in front of the Pster Haraha~.Z School, nor was Cher, any pertaitted pn the opposite side, thbref~re, there would be ~ra~fic backinq up into thia shopping center, which wuuld cause mase confusion ~o tha children ae we7.1 ae creaCe traffic probleme to vahiclss nnd other pedestriane. Mr. Ray Bennett~ 2656 hea~. CreBCent Avenua, appeared bofore the Commiesion and etatr,.u hia home wsa thxee hame+r3 west o~ the proposed projectt that one faOChoola a~peAro~ to be overiookeQ in thet r~at ocily was there one echool but Eour e ~ ~ MINUTE3, CITY PL~INNING COMMIS5ION, Sept~mber 17, 1973 73-574 ENVIRONMEHTAL I_MPACT RF.PORT N0. '~9 AND R~CLA83xFICATtON_ NO. 73-74-20 (Contl.nued) wiChin 3000 leet of ~hia intarsection, ~hree within the City aP Anahaim and on• in Hutna Park, anA about saven ^ohool~ within ebout e m~le ot thie in~~rs~ction~ that thd traFfic pattorns devolopad ~lurinq the day would be in dir.eat ~ontllaC to pudeetrian trafric in thie axesr and ti~at he .felt the mothod o! notification o! the publia hearing wae inaufticir~nt. Furtharmore, he had takc~n tf.me o!! fram work a~nd polled somo of tho neighbor~ from two doore weet to tho end oE thyir block, a~1d all were izi oppoaltion to this propodal. Trie Cotnmission inPormed Mr. Bennett that the City nat:i£lnd people within 300 feet of the pro~ect by mail, whila tha 8ta~td ldw required notification in 'tha „dwa~,apar or pasting ~!' tho property. pr.. ~'eitelbeum ntr~ted mention wa~e mxde~ ~n the FIR rogarding trash baing ~Sumped on the propar.ty, howover, ho could recall only one incident wher, an old caz wae dumped the.re, and not until twn waeke a~o when tzucka dumpe8 traeh there, noth- ing had be~n dumpQd on the property. Furtho,rmore, Mr. Peek would now ^pedk on the alternatives. Mr. Peek noted ~hat thQ opposition had preeented a number of thinge which he folt were atrong poir-ts that thia wauld not be a good development at thi.s locatinn, and he woul.d now preonr~t dlternetives, namely: 1? devote thi~ arer~ as n recre~-tiional centar for tha weet end of Anaheim aince there wae none in the general azea, and the area with the number o£ chi'ldren w~+8~~el~omee 2~eA of auch ~ faciZity, even a swimminq Fool for puk+~ic use would be use that would be more campatible with the surroundinq neighbors, auckt ne a on~-etory apartment developmenr which would reduce tho amount of traffic flow to this area and would al.so reduce the poaeibility of vandaliam which a large commerclal cente.r could encaurage and would nat incr~~ae the tax dc.llara which were needed to suppor.t the achoole in the area~ 3i mu'ltiple-fam~.ly development with some twn-level apartments, n~t more than 125 unit~. In additian, tho opposition felt that any of thPSe poesibilitiea wuuld have ~.esa efEect on the aajaining propertxes and wauld bo more c~mprstible with the area while still giving the property owners s chance to raalize a return fox thei~ vestment which they d:ld not war.t tham to be denied of. Mr. Mi.ller, in rebuttal, stated there appeared to be aome disagre~~ment bgtween atatQmpnts made in the FIR ~nd comments made by Dr. Teitelbaum, therefore, he felt he wot.l~ have to agree with khe Ellt since he did not make A survey of the area; that L•he location was ideal for the pr.opased commercial operationj ~hat he felt this wou.ld be compatible w+~th the school even thouqh atatements were mady as to posaible dangex to the childz~nJ that r.hey had looked into this develop- ment and had a very thorough EIR prepared whi.le working with the City on this, and *_he EIR indicated the amount of ~raffic anticipated, while Dr. Teitelbaum etated th°ae w~re differEnt th~n figures he liad obtainecl fXOm the 'Praffic EnginearJ ~hat he ha.d viai.ted the principal of the scho~l and diecussed :he propoeal, and he had informed 'aim theis qreatest problem was chiidrgn who were jaywalking and children ~iid this at any age~ that he had worked with the R.ight- of-Way Division o£ the City to install off-site impr.ovementa, and aince this had happened, he noticed khis had resolved some of the problems becau~e tha atreet was to be widened with riyht nnd left-i:urn pockets being created by tl~e additional right-of-way, and a lett-turn pocket was also proposed into Lhe shoppinq centerr that there was discugaion r.egarding trash being hauxed onto the ~roperty, but since he did not know the ~ge af tl~e trash, he could noY, atate when it w~a placed there, but the ~ropezty wae fast becoming a~umpinq nrea, haweves', Chay did not deliberately haul trasl~ tu th~ area - tho sre~ had axperi- enced a trash problem for many yadza accordinq ta the property ownersr L•hmt chil3zen and others uaing this vacnnt property could ba injuro~! ~vhen ridiizg their motArb.~kes bacduee of thd txagh wi~ich was becoming a liability tio the property ov+ner, and if this center re~e dev~lopod, it would remove an eyesa~e and noisee cret~ted by the motorbzkes, wiiich was aet forth by Dr. Teitelbmum. Mr. Miller furthez noted that the psopoeed aupermarket waa an excicalLn~woul.dl primariiy because nf the attitude held by he market and they typ Y not a~low qame rooms, masa+~ge parlor.s, beer taverns, ~r cockta" lcungea :n the ehop?in~g conter in which they were lacsted, therofore, thia would eliminatn ona nufennce factor, snd the peoQle who would leasa in this centez would hava to live up to theee atandards epelled out by Alpha Beta. U ~ ~ MINUTLS, CITY PLA:~NZNG COMIMT33ION, Septembor 17, 1973 73-575 ~NVlYtONM~NTAI. IMPA(;T REPORT N0. 99 AND ~iECLABSIF'ICATION N0. i3~7~L'20 (Continu~d) Mr. Millaz' then utatsd thet whart they hed Pirat r~~et with tihe Meqnolie suhool Ai~trict, pr. Tsitolb+~um wae the onl.y ons proernt in opposition, and Dr. T~it~l- baum lelt the ehoppi.nq conter would sttra,~t the "riffreff" ot the nei~hbnrhu~d, but aince thie waa ~ neighbqrhood ehopptng c~nter, it would not be th~ eamc a~ a largs oommercial fac~.l~ty an~ it would not draw peoplN Prom qreat diAtencns r~nco thuir ma~rket aurve.y indicated ths majorixy oR the customere were trom a two-mil~a a~ius, and that if "ri!lraff" wa• preeent in the neiqhb~rhood, even tha,~ cou.~~! not do anything ~-bout it. Commis4loner Herbet then stateci hia c>~:iginal req~i~at that tha nqent addreae hiA ooa~mer~ts ae t~ wliy thi.s site was condi.dore8 cnmmaraic+l. rather `_han reaidontial had not beon anewered, and ho wAa suxe that a marketing aurvey had been madw to detezmino that thie was en i8oA1 lace-ti.on becxus~a a~ the surrounding rasi- ~dentiinl usee ~ whereupon Mr. btillor. etat~d Chnt ext~~ ~~~ ive atudiea ha~i bean mede which ihdicated eubject property wax a good gite, and the nearest eimilar mArket wt-s about two miles eway going weat on CrQ~cent Avenue to Knott Avenue, while ~nothor yoang s~uth was locatad ot Magnalta Avenue dnci Hall Rond. Commi~gionez ~'ara.no lnquired whmther there we.ro ~th~r t:onnnts alraady i.nterested in the remaininc~ 11,000 aqunre feet ~~f dhc,pe~ whereupon Mr. Miller replied that obtnini~g tenants or ko pre-leaee a ak~oppi.ng cPnter enl:irc~ly wa~ not encouragod bece~uee of tho r,hange in plans tp aatiqfy the Ci~y oz the ma~or tenant, but now khat ~inalizc~d plans had neen m~-~ie, 1:hey pr~aposad to solicit new tenanta fnr le8eea of int~nt, however, they had not aigned laases beaauso this was not uaually the way a}lopping csntere were built, therefore, all shopa were not leaecd priar r.o construction. Commis~ianer King inquir.ed where it .vas proposed ~~ have ~.he atr c~nditioning facili~iea for rhe AIp~lA BeY.a storet wher0upon Mr. M111e.r stated thet this would he roof-mouiite~l but it cauld be loceted i~ear. t.~e Maqnalia Avenue frontaga, and if the Commissian eo deaired, the archiCe~t wa3 present to anewer m~chanical or development questions. Commisaior~er Allred inquired why no coneidexation w~s given to the residante to the west ain~e loading docks were propo~ed ad~ncent tu the westerly end of the building, and if ~ubjNCt petition w~ra aPprovec~, t111s would mean trucks cominq in day and night, cre~ting nois~s, dust and odors - why di~iti't the develc~pers aven c;.. •idez a lai~dscape buffer zone o~ 20 ta 30 feet sucti as had been .required by the Commission wheze R-~ was ndjncent to R-li whereupon Mr. Miller atated that ~his wr~e a difficult parcel to dcsvelop. Commiasianer Allred co~nmented thut if the parcel was difficult t~ deveiop foz ccmmercia.l purposes, L•hen perhspa thie was not the place f.oi a shoppirq cen~er. Commieeioner Farano commented thAt he hud had experience with ~hopping cenCers elmilar to ~he proposal wherPin the loadinq dncks were adjacent t.o single-Faml.ly hamee, ~nd ho would not apprnve anytteing where the noise from trucks loadina nnd loadi.nq and where air conditionin4 RyEtema were prop~aed Secause these single- femily hor.-es, having been there for snme tim~, wot~ld ba subjecte~'. to eo muah r.oise their outdo~r 11vi~nq ~nvironment would be~ deatrcyedt that the General Plnn did not designate thie dX'0d as being appropriete for commercfal usg, r~ad many oP the UIIA9 permi.tted by right. in L•he C-1 Zone woul.d be inconrputible wit;h thie shoppinc; center, this r.eighborhood, anc~ would be very undeeir~ble act. ja,:ent. to zegidential uaes, auch as the reeidential uaes bounded on the aouth and west af aubject proparty~ and that the~ p~titionar had nut submitted show!.nc~a which rrere incumbent when a zone chanq~ was considexed t'~at the ~eoninq would rie deair- able ar~d would not aff3ct adjoining properties if reclassified. 'Pherefore, he wau~d raqueat that the agent for the petitionar present any reasona whfr,h he ta:.~ were suffic4ent evidenae to ~uetify 1;r~ie reclnasification of Lhe prope+rty since ha, me a Commissioner, had tt~ judge k~hat was prea~:nted a~ to whsther or not it wae acceptiable. Mz. Mil~er no:@d that a£tor mauy meet~nga with staf.£ and the fact that Alphe Bets h+~d conducted trieir preliminary aurvey which was proo~ thnt thie propert} w~ua~: be ~ good locatlon for their propoa~d facility, together with the faat tha~t there wae commercial development on trie ee-at side of Magnolia Ave~:ue, th.is, thay felt, would be adequa.te prooY. ~ ~ MINU:i:st, C1~PY PLANNtNG GUMMISST~N, &eptombw: 17, 1973 73~K~~ 1~NVZFtONMtN~'Ar, IMPACT REFORT N0. 99 APID RF.CLA59It"ICATION N0. "73-'fa-20 (Continuod) Commi~~ioner ~*azai-o obmerve3 thnt tha cnmmeroiel aoe e~'.dbll~hed t~ the •sst w:o ori~ntad Low~erd Mnqnolia Avenue~ whereupon Mr. Milier eteted t.hxt ths 7-lphe- beta Markdt wau13 a~ea bc ariented toward Magnolia Avenue and other storss would be primazll~ Pronh.ing ~ntu Cre~osnt Avar.ue, alChough ho wa~ ewnzo at ~he Pact tha~ the londinq docks wore adjsoent to R~1 ~r~porties. Commissionar tiezbst obHervaL ~hat tha Gener.el Plnr pro~ACted this nxea !or mwdium dansity rooidontial us~, and tne patition brEor~ the Commi.aeion wa~ e r~cl~seiricetion, ~esamir~q this was ;he higheet e~nd `~est uee of tho proparty !~r comm~rcia'1 purpoesn ~ tt-at althnugh aommeccial pr~~perty wne l~~ceted an th~ odsk ~ide o! Magnolid Avenue, thie still did not convince h~m that commerciel u~~ of eub~ect property wes the higheat and beet uoe, pa-rticularly ei-nce tha Ceneral ~'lan hxd buen apprnved by L•he Planning Comm.iseion dPtc~z lengthy w~rk oeenione and ~ubl.ic hearings which r.eYlc+cted ror~ir ntidl ued of the property wae more appropridt.e. Commi~eaionor Seymour ob3er.vod tha~ che agent for tl~e~ potitionor did i1at dnman- etrate there was a need £or commercSal uRda in thle yenerttl area ar~d at ~hia perticulax location~ that ~~o would dgi'at. thxt thq property was difficult t:o develop f~z commercial. uae, wh11e tt-e Generel Plan f>ro joctod med.lum de~~~ ~.ty, nnd before 1~e could considor altaring the Goneral Plan, the petitioner woul•1 have to damunatrate that chaiiges hnd occ~irrt~a i:~ thi~ area tp justify con- aideXation o~ commerciAl designation of thie praper.ty, and ho would never vota on t,~e proposal even if provon that commerrial uaes were justified without requiriny a 20- fc~at laiidscaped greenbel.t bet•ween the commorcial and ttte reai- dential uaea which had been required in the pd~t adjacent to the pr~perty line af L•hc residential uses and an alley Y~ofora any loading doc.k structurey were p~rmittud, ~inc.e this was needod to provide somQ form of protection for the exie~ting rN»idential us~s, And ad w+~e brought out by the opposition as well, wea khe poeaiblo health and traffic ha..ards that :-. qht aff~ct children in thi.s area s~r.ce an elementary achool was locate8 immed1ately to the north. Commiss.ionor 5eymour off.ered a motion, aeconded by Commiseioner Kinc~ and MOTIJN CARhIEU, that the Pl~nning Commission, ,in conneckion with the }'ilii~g of Environ- mental Imp~ct keport No. 99, finda and determines L•hat the ~IR Revictiv L'~mk~itlae determined that the report ~ras adequate as xn inf~rmative documer~t and foll.~ws the Ci.ty's ostablidhed quidelinps exrept that under Sac1:i~1n 5, EnviroiimenLal lmpsct ^ Whole ConcPpl-, Paragraph B, Subparagrapha 8 and 9, should be madc part of Paragraph r, Mitigating t;easurea Proposed L•o Minimize impact, as stipulatea by the agent for the p~titloner~ and t)iat there would be no siqnificant advArse environmental impacta~ th~re.fore, the Plasining Commiseion recommenda to the City Counc~l that said report be adopted as the Gouncil's Environmental Impact Statement except aa amended by the stipula~tions ~sforementioned. Commissio~~er Seymour offered ktesolution Na. PC73~213 and moved for i.ts pas~aqe and adoption t~ recommen3 t~ t}ie City Council that Petftion for Recla~sf£ication P1o. 73-74-20 be disapprcved on the basis that the proposed reclassification was not in confoi•manca with the land iise 3eaign~tion of the General Plan; th~r. the peCitioner did no~ demonstrate tllat the highest anci best use of the ~.roperty wns for commerGial dev~lopment at thaA location~ that the petitioz~er, by his ~wn adm'_A~•ion, etated that this would be a di£ficult parcel to develop fox c~mmercial purpc+seat that the potitior~er di.d not ~ubmit evidence that a lnnd uae changa had occurred ko waxrant favorable conaideratian of commercial use for a,ed~um denaity residen~ial land use ab depirte3 on the Genexal Plant that L•he ~ommisaian in ttie past had req~iir.e~i a 20-foot. lrsndscaped sc:een immediately a~ljacar~t to aingle-family reai.dential usea, as well aa an alley between commer- cial. and residential ur~es, where~s the petition~sr wae propoaing loading mnd unloadiny docks in cloae pruxim~ty to single-~family residential land uses~ thereby deatroyiiiq the usa of the rea.r yarde for ~utdoor activitiea for these ainqi.+-~!!mil~+ homeso that t'-e reclas$ification af subject property and the pro- posed use would create a health and safety hazard to the entire aroa, particu- lnrly to children who would have to pass this facilitY tn and from schocl~ r~nd that the Treffic Engineer estimated an increase o£ fzom 4000 to 5000 vehi~cles ~ pez day nt thig intersection if the proposed commercial use w~+r.e eetabli.ahed. (See R~solut:ion Book) pri roll cell the f:eregoing resolutior. was pass~d by the £ollowing vote: AYES~ CUMMISSZQNERS: ,~lly d, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Ki~ig, Rcwland, Seymour. N)ES~ COMMISSIONERS: None. AB3P.hT: COMMISSIANEP,S: N~~ne. .... ~~ ~ ~ MiNUTSS, CITY PT~ANN~Na COMMiSSiON, s~ptombor 17, 1973 73-:577 RFCLASBZFIC:ATION - PUDLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THL~ ANAHEIM I:ITX PLANNINCI N0. 73-74-21 COMMISSION, 204 Ea~C Liaooln J-v~nua, J1nah~im, Ca. 9Z905~ to oonsid~r racls~mit,ying propo.ety dsscribed ew- An irr~qularly-aheped paxcel a! 1~-n9 consi.c.~tiriq o! e~,proxi- mat~by 9.3 ~or~• loa~ted oautheas~orly ~f th• int~r~~otion o! S~nta ~-na Cenyon Ro~d und Mol~lsr Da~ive, khe v-e~terly boundar~- a! Cho prpp~rL•y b~-inq dpproxtmat~ly 870 laot o~~t oQ the oanterlinm a! Mohl~r Driva from thp aRANGE COON~PY l0~-E4- Z0,004~ BM11LI. BST1-T1C, DISTRTf'T to th~ CZTY OF ANIIHEIM R-A, 1-C.RICULTURIIL, ZONB, to ~~tebll.~h City a! Ana'naim as~nlnq on the prop~zty at ~uch time aa tho prop~zky would Rnnyx to L•ha~ City c.! Annhsim. RECLI-88IrICAT:ON - PU9LIC HEARING. FNITIATED BY THE ,HNAtIL~2M CI'~X PLANN~:NG N0. 73-74-Z: ~`O~iMISSION, Z04 East Linooln 1-venve, 1-neheim, Ca, 926Qa~ proposinq that property describod as s 7-n irrequlerly- ohapad parael of lend conaiskinq o! approximntsly 9.5 acree located southe~etarly ~! th• tntnreec*.ion of Sant+s And Canyon Road enll Mchlox Dr~.ve, tha westarly boundery af the pr.opdrty beinq a~pproximately 870 Peet east at the centerlins of Mohler Drive be raclaesifietl from the R-A, AGRICULT(1RAL, ZONE to thA R-H-22,000, R~SIDENTIAL tiILLSIDE~ ZONE. No nne appeazed in opposition. Although the Report to the Commi.seion wae n~t read ak the public h~arinq, it ia xef~rred to and made a pdr.t uP the minittes. THE IiEF+RING WAS CLOSED. Aesiatant P.lanner Phillip Sr.hwerta.e nated foz thQ Commission thnt eubject petitione were initittted to estubligh C:ity of Anaheim zoning c~n the propertiy and to eatablish a r~anlution of i.ntent gt euch time ae the property ownex~ proposed to deve~op the property und were the usuel procedures for any proporty being propose6 l.oz annaxa~ion into the Cit~- of Anahe~.m. Commiagioner Kin,q ofP~re~ a motion, second~d by Con:misai.oner Faran~ and MOTION CARRIED, that the~ Pl;anning ~ummiasion, in connection h ith an exompt•ion declara•• t;ion atakue r~qu9~k.. Eirids and determines that the proposa~l would h~ve no signifi.cant enviroi~mental iMpact and, th9L~foze, recommende to the City Council that na Environments]. Impact statement is necessary. Commiseioner Kin~ oPfored ?teaolution No. PC73~214 and moved for ite passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council approvel of Fetition for Reclassifi- cation No. 73-74-21 aetablishing City of Anaheim zoninq on the pr.operty at euch time ae the pz'opesty was annsxed in:o the City ~f Anaheim. (Seca Aaaolution Book? On roll call the ioregoing resolut3on wae passed by the following vote: AYES~ COMMISSIONER5: Allred, Farano, Gr~uer, Herbst, King, Rowland, Seymouz. NOES s COMMZSSIONERS: None . ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commis3loner ~Cing offered a motion, aeconded by C^mmisaiones Farano and M02'ION CARRiED, that the Planning Comm'_ssion, in conr.ect,.on with asn exemption dQClara- tion s'tatua requ9st, finds and de~erminps that the proposal wo~ild have no siqnificant environmental impact. and, therefore, recommenda t.o tl,e City Council that no Enviro:~mental Iu~pect Statemen*_ is neceseary. Commieaiancar Kinq oFfared Resolution No. PC73-215 and mc~vsd for ite pasRaqe and r.dnpti: n to r~ecommend ko the City ~ouncil that Petition for Rocl.aseificaCion No. 73-74-22 ~e approved, eub ject to c~nditiona • (See Resolution Book) On roLl call the foregoins r~:sol ~tion waa pasaed by the 'following vote : AYES: CGMMISSIONERS- Allred, F~zrano, Gauer, Herbst, King, Rowlar_d, Seymour. NOE3: COMMI5SIOIJRRB: None. AHSENT: COMMlISSIONERBs None. ~ ~ MINUTICB~ CT~'rY A'ANNTNCi COMMI88I~N, Soptamb~r ].7, 1973 73-a~g ~ENER~,L PLAN - PUHLIC NEARING, INITIII'I'FD HY '1`HE ANAHEIM CxTY p~,ANNING AMENDMISNT COMIMi83I0N, 206 F.~aL• Lincoln Avenuo, Ana~hei~m~ to con~i6ar NO. 129 nmandmants to ths Circulation Elament o! th~ G~neral Plan `~ ahenging thA alaeeifiaation• aY Romnays Driv~, North, eyoamore, Senta Ana, Oli.vo, and West straat~ trom loaal to coilector str~ete~ Cerritoe Avenue - we.t oE Knott sCraet~ and Orsngewood Avanus - b~ tao~n th• ssnta Ana River snd 8tate Call~eqo Dou2avArd lrom ssoondery to pximary str~aeti~i and elue Gum Strost from Miraloms Avenue to Orang~-thorpe Avenue lram a prim~ty to e eecondnry etreet. No ane mppo ared 1n oppoa itian . Aewietant P lenner R+~lph Comp~ton :•aview~ed the proposed am~endmenta to the c.lrcu- lation El~ensnt, noting the str.eete tha~t would be a!lected by theee ohangee which wezo neoeaoury to bring the Ciraulation Element o! ths Cieneral Plan into canformity ~rith th~ County ~ircula".ic~n Element, also notinq that twr~ of the atreeta lia-d been sdc9eA to the 'Excaption Lirt ~'or right-oP-way hA.lf-widtha, a~nd that ~ha Traffia EngineAr waFl preeent to anewar Any queAt~.one. Commiasione r Rowland notFd that he hnd e~v'eral queetiona or comments regarding the pro~osal, indlceting that etaf£ had inhexite+d A plan and were tryin~ to bring thia amendment to g~ive the County a dooument that correeponded. ko what they were do~ng, bu~ when h4 viewed ther~ etreets t~ be af.fected plbysicall,y, they wers~ fullv developed an~9 to upgrade the 9trFe~e to collector atr~+ets, it did not appear to be the anawer, but ~somethi.nq would have to be dono xeqarding the aonfiquretion of Sycamore Straet between Eaet Street• and Harbor BouJ.evard aince ther~ was no way thie atreet could be widened Prom a practical vi.ewpoir-t and might not, in his lifetime, be developod w~.th ~snything elee than was on these prope r~ioai that the eame wa5 true for Nurth Street, which was proposed to bP upqr~dad tu ~+ aollector street, and thece, toa, it was impoeeible ta chanqP the cot~figuration, therefore, he founli it difficult t~ eee whaze changing a stT ~,t deaignation froic, its present deai~natian to a c:olleetox etreet - wher. ma jor deve topmenta wpre not everi requir9d t~ ht-ve curb and gutters - while a portion nez~r Loera S t~~et was not even develooed~ that the physical attri.bute~ as u coll^ ~tnr etraet would nnt happen bocause it war~ not b~ing entorced as a locul str.e Pt, much le3s as a colle~tor strset, and he $~d not feel the Commis- sion Rhould teko action on eompthing wher.e thero was notl~ir~g ~to qair- •• this w~e only playiny a yame of words with etreets by callinq them "coilector", but di.d not have the physic;a: atr_ributes unlesa it wt-s praposed to rem~ve on-Atreet parkinq from theae a*r~ets. Traffic Enginder Ed Grat~zow adv3,sed the ~mmie3lan that on-atreet parking had been removed from a portion oP Sycamorc~ street, and if trafftc continiied to increase, it would he removed from Loth aides of the etr~Qt~ that both Sycamore and West S tr~ets served as collector ~treets, regardle~s of the width c~f ti~e atraet anct thia was the reason for changing th~ designation, but i.f there Were any phys~~al changee accurring on these st.r~~ets in order to pzov:Lde the necessary atreet widthe, since ~~:py would then be c: assified as c~llector atreets, dedica- ti~n for s tr~et widening could be required~ that Norlh Stree't had many paoper- t~es whicY~ had no curb and gutters but new development would be requir~d ta have curb and gutt~rs, since in thQ past not all peopl.e were required ta provide them. Commissio n er Ruwland i.nquired whethbr a pubiic hearinq Houlc be requirad to remove ~arkinq fram the atreet; whereu~on Deputy City Attorney Fzenk ~,owry stated tY~era wa3 na public hearin~, but iC had a standard eix-week ordinance requirement foz the periocl of protest from affected property nwnors. Mr. Granzow, .~n zesponse ta Commassion questioning, noted that at tha tim•a the parking vras removed trom Sycamore Street, they had quite a difficult time; that eald stre et was very difficult to widen, partir_ularly east o.f East Street, b~t whQn apar~m~nta werQ cor~etructfld east o£ OYive Street, eome street wideninq wae effectedl ar~d th~t not too mueh prnperty would be requi.red eince the curb could be set back which would provide some of the required width. Commi~aianex Rowlan~~ n4t~d that ~he loaation o~ many of the homea would nrsve~t acquiring mi~ch dedica~tion. ~ ~ MiNU~EBr CITY ILANNING COMMIS~StON, S~ptembsx 17, 197~ 73"'g79 aSNffiRAL P1:AN AMENDMBN~ NO. lZ9 (Continu~Q) Mr. Cort~pton turther notea that thA amendm~n~ v~ould alro r~move bui~dinq ~otbac:kr lrom Title 18 ot t~~• .4nahoim Munlcipal Codo~ wha~~upon Commi~~i~n~t Rowland cotiaurrod with tha~ recommend~tion . THE HEARIt~G WAS CLQSED. Cammi~sionbr 3eymaur ua~:ed thet during tha work nostion held an the ~3~rn~ral Plan amendment, it was puinCed ouk Ct~ls wo uld b~a an updatinq o! the a~n~ral Pl~a end cnlling the ~~:•s~t~ what they Wsra dC~Udla.)- beiny ured ~or ea t~ tra!l1o, and bhen in~uired o! Commissio~ner Rowtand whak wero tha nlterne~tivee. Commieeioner Rowland etstad he did not know of any alternati~ves, but ha could ~ee r-o reesan tor changieg the desfgaakion of n str~et aince t~me would mAko little di!lsrsnce in rho land ude on the etr.e-et. Commige~one r King oPfered Resulution Na. PC73-216 and movoA !or lte paeaaga end ~tdoption to adopt and recommand to thA Ci.ty Cauncil adoption ~f Goneral rldil Amenar~ent No. ~29, Exh~`~it~ "A", "D", and "C", eetablisYiinq ohangee to ..~ie riqht-oY-v-ay widths of corte-in atraeta on khe Arterial StrAeCe ana Hiyhwayn •a~, updating the Circul.ation El.eme~~t Lo b:ing it into conformanae with the Mar~ter Pldn of Arterial I~ic~hways oP Orunqe County esnd emonding the Table ~P Exceptiona . (See Retolution eaQk) On r~ll caii the foreqoing resoluti.on was pag~ed by the fal:owing vate: AYES: COMMIS3IONERSs Alired, Farano, Gauer, Herbet, King, Rowlen8, Seymour. NOES: GOMMISSIONERS: I3orte• 1s-BSEN'1's COhiMISSIONER~s None. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RLCOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PEkMI'P N0. 1052 (W. W. Towing) - ClArificetion of permitted uses. Mr. Milton Johnaon, the pr~perty orrnor. ind'_cAted k~is son htid appeared earlier, and it was his und~rstanding that this ikem ~,ould aqain be con~iclered after the reqular publi~ hearinq. The Comm3ssion nuted thnt they had oriqinally 8ecided to hear it bef.ore but aub- sequent to the oriqinal btAtemen t, it had been eot for public heaxing at the time Mr. Johnson's son wa~ pxesent. Mr. Johnson noted that he had le ased the sou~Cherlp portion of the prepezty to Morgan Truaking Company f~r five yeara and bv.ilt it in accordancc~ with the Cominission's x'ecommendationa with a 7 or H-foat wall on tihe south aide at a ~~st af S4,OOilf thdt they had adhered all of the balance of the demands and ~cme were waivedr that the lease wiL•h the Lrucking company expired May 1, 1973, and he had to fi.nd another leesee, therefor~, the operator of the towing company, Mr. Behnke, inquired two yeazs ago if tY-e leatse ran out on thb trucking c~mpany, could he place his bid to 1?aee ~he entire property, th us I:~ decided to coneiilt his attorney, and when they were almoat ready to sign the lease, he had gane to the Buil3ing and Planning Divisions, as aell as tha C1ty Attorney's affice, and the City Attorney's offi.ce had made tho ruling khat the canditional uee permit which haa been ~roved for the truckifiq cnmpany wauld apply to trie pzo- posed use by Che towing salvlcer and upon havinq been qiven assurance by Aasiat- an.: Cfty A!-torney John Dawaon thax he could see nothing wrong, ha had Rign~d tho lease with the towinq aompany, leasing the ~antire proFerty= ~hat ha had never recc~ived any notice from the City regardinq any scraening or buildiag of a lenae until they had received a lette r from th~ Devzlopment Services Department thzee months xfter the leass wae eiqned, indicatinq that the towinq comFany was a~n illeqal aperationj that he felt that sis~ce the City Attorney's office had ruled this wae a legal uee, if there were any requixemen~s of sareeninq, then the staf! should heve advised t,im accordinqly immediato7.yf that he preaent:y pal.d 54,50Q in taxes on the property, therefore, he could not efford to leave thQ pro~ rty vmcantt rnd that i~ he Ruat ecreen the pror,erty, he would d~ so. ~ ~ MINt)T$8, CITX PLANNINd COMMI88IOt~, Supt~mb~r 17, 197~ 73-~80 ITEM NO. 1 (C~ntinuad) Di~ou~sion wss held by tho Commi~sion relati~ve ta tha posoibiliCy o~ reeainding th~ acti~~n ot estting !aY publio b~arinq aon0ld~xation o,' Con8ltionel U~e P~rm1~ No. 1052 bassd on the atipulation by Lha pstltionas that h~ wou14 provid~ tha neaesoary ecreaninq due to th~ lect that the Citiy Attosney's o!lice h~d o0 adviped him that the u~e n~ow b~ing mdde a! the pro~erty vrae a lagal and compst- ibl• usa ~ Coa-misoioner t~arano noted th~t th~ iosua butor.e the Comm~eeion was whether or not ~he aanditiunal uoe p~rmiL• Appr~vod Por 1:ho uee of the southerly partiar~ oi the property Yor a truoking company and now convest.ad to the towing e~rvice or. a wzeaking y~rd should havs b.~an determined by the City Atkornay'e o!lico or prasented to tho glanni~nq Camtni~Aian !or interpzetnt,ion, ~~.nae the condi~- tional uoe permit !or e epac~tia uso ha-A bean qranted by tihe F~la-nni.ng Commi~siant thAt he ~~an ad ta see the r~+al tac~e wich eithsx a memo ar p~re~nal evidence s>>bmitted by ~hb Cit,y Attorney's off.ice regar.dinQ Mr. Dawa~n'~a decluion Rince h~ twlt *.his was a aubs~ential devlstion lrom tt~e origina~l co~lditional uae permit - ~.t wa~ a wrecking yar.d - tha C~mmiasion had aeen vehialse in the ydrd Chat were, partially diamant'led and ~l~e businass waa a-dv~rtiefng itoelf ae a uaed part o~mpe~ny ss well ae a wrACking company and towing Aerviae and imponnd yardt end that sincw it was hi~ opinion th~t thig was en en~irely new uae Eox the ~outh- erly portion, it shoul.d be coneidered at a new pub'lic hearing. Alter continued dfecueaion, it wae determinc~d thet the moti~n to ae,t it Eor public hoarinq ahould stand. ITEM NO. 2 CONDITxONAL US~ PERMIT NO. 979 (Hdro13 T. Murray) - Froperty locsted an rhe southweet carner of Sequoia Avgnue and i~roukhurat Street - Request for termination Aasiatant Planner Phi~lip Schwartze reviewed ~he location of ~ub3act property and the requeet in the proposal approved under subjeat conditional uae permit, a~nd the requeet of the petttioner to terminata the petitto:~ on the basia that it would not be developed. Commiasioner Farano offered Reaolution No. PC73-217 and moved far it~ paeeaye snd ado~tion to terminate All proc~edings of Conditiondl Use Permit No. 979 on the basis that the pet3.tioner slid not desire to exercise the right granted under the conditional uae pezmit. (Sae Resolution Book) On rol.l call the foregoinq resolution wad passbd by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONE RS: A11red, Farano, Gauer, Herbat, King, Fowland, Seymour. NOES: COMMISSIONERSs None. ABS'ENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nonc. ITEEI N0. 3 PROPOSED AMENDMEtv'^ ~:' SECTION 18. 52.060 ( 3) FENCES AND W1~-LLS IN THE IDIDUSTRIAL ZONES. Zoning Supervisor pon MoUanial presented the propose~ ame:ament to Tit1e 18 of the Anaheim Municipa~. Code in the M-l, Light Induetr.ial. zonp, noting it was the resu].t of the Commiseion/Council's acti~n o1` w~iv?tig the required aoli.d mAS~nry wall t enclose certain etorage areas, and r.equeat that if the text of the ~roposal was in aonf~xmance with the Cnmm3aeion's 3eairea, that it be adt for public hearinq. Commissloner R~wldnd offRred a motio~ to set ~ar public hearin~g conaidermtion af amendment ta Tit],e Z8 af tihe Anaheim Municipal Co~te, Chaptex 18.5~, Section 18.52.060(3), Fencea and~ Walla, 'ta be echpduled for October 15, 1973. Com~~.lseionex Herbst eeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. .... ~ ~^~P ~ MINUTE8, CLTY PLANNING COMMIS~iON, 9e~+tomber 1T, 1973 73-5A1 I'." E M 1V 0. 4 FNVIRONMENTAL IMPACT RE~ORT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NOHL RANCH R01-D. l1~oi~tent Planner Ralph Comp~on rev~iAwad ths Environmental Impsct Report a• pr~e~nted to tha Commir~ion, noting thP propoec+d roAd would be locat~d within th~ 1-nah~im Hillc development, proviAing an eaet-Naot aonnecting link to tho Anah~im Nixls O~lt Cour~~ sna to rhe extenoive rseic9a~itial area~ now under d~velapmenti that the ~rimary environn~ental impaot wouid reeuit f.ram th• auto- mobl.lo traftia whiah would traverse the area, brinqing naiee and air pollutii~n~ th~-t Nohl Ranoh Rond had bsan dee~l.qnatod an an arkarinl highway .i.n the Ciraule- ti.on E?.omant ot t2ie Ana~haim Gec~ert~l Plen~ and that it wao recommonc~,~d thnt tha Planning Commieaion racommend to tha C~.ty Counail thnt the EIR be adopted ae tha Counai].'s Environmantal Impact Stntement. Gommisaionar Farano olfered a mation, eeaQndad by Commieaioner King dnd MOTiON CARR7EUr that the Planning Cornmi9F.ion, in ~onner,tion with the fillnq ot +sn ~nvironmantal Impact Repurt for the construction of Nohl Ranch Road, ~in8e and determ:.mes that• the roport, ia adoquat~ es an informativs doaument and f.ollowo the City'e establiahod guidelinue and that there wo«ld ba no aigniffcant adveree environmental impact, tharelore, the Ylanning Commiaeion reoommends to the City Counail that said reporL• be adap~ed aa the Council's Environmental ~mpaat StatQment. ITEM NQ. 5 ORANGE COUNTY FLQOD CONTROL DISTRIC9' PROPOSED STORM GRAIN. Z~ning Supervisor Charles Robezta raview~d the proposal from L•he Orange County Flood Control Dintrict t~ construct an underqround, x•einforced concrete pipe- line alonq Esperanza Raad from ImpQrial Hiqhway to Fa~irmont Boulevard, with the wester].y end of thie pipeline located aouthe~iat o.f the interaection o~ Imperial Highway and Esperanza Road within the City of Anaheim, and the OCFCD had requeated a determination whether the proposed project canformed to the r,Aneral Plan of the City of Anaheim~ that the ~ngine~ring Divisi_on had reviewed this request and determined that the proposed pipeline would be in conformity with the City of Anaheim'a stor~ drain plan, therefore, it was recommended that ts resolution be torwarded ko the OCFCD advfsing them that the proposed nipeline Was in c~nformance with the General P].an of the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Rowland offared Resolution No. PC73-218 ~nd moved for its pasr~age and adoption to recommend to the Granqs Covnty Flood Control District that the propased storm drain located alonq Eeperanza RoaB from Imperial Highway to Fnirmont Boulevard was in confor.mancp with the City of Anahein~'s General Pla~a. (See RQeolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolu~ion was passed by the following vote: ~-YES: COMMISSIONERS: Allr.Pd, Farano, Ga~er, Her.bst, King, Rowland, ^eyrnour. NOES: COMMISSIONGRS: None. ABSENTs CGMMISSIONE RS: f(one. ITEM N0. 6 CONDITIONAL USE PERFIIT N0. 1992 (Maynard Bill? - Property located on the weet side of Haster Street, appxoximatoly 190 feet nor~h uf the centerline of Kate.lla Avenue - Request for amendment ~f condition. 0 Aasiatant Pl~+nner Phillip 5chwartze reviewed the location oY subjoct property, uses astablishQd in alose praximity, previous zoniny ~ction hy the S~lanning Commiesion, and the fact thnt Ganditfon No. 5 of Resolution No. ~C73-85 re~ quired the petitioner to obtain a pdrpetual easement agz~ec+ment with the owner of the service sY.ation property ~c the aouth to provide circulation for trash trucka since there was inadeq »~~e cixculation on ~he property, which woula 2 t ks to ark in the tra~P3c lane an Has~er Street to require the traai ruc p ~ ~ M~NUTES, CiTX PLANNING CUMMi83i~JN, 3eptamber :l'I, 1973 ~-~'~b2 ITEM N0. 6 (Continued) cnllect thN r~tuae~ that the p~ti.tionsr hnQ statsd they w~r~ unabl~ to obtain the r~quirwd •areme~nt lrom ~he prop~rty awner to tha raut'h and, theretoxe, z~qus~ted e moditicdtion o~ th• origi.aal ao~dition whioh would allow traah v~hials• vehicular ci.zculation without e r~scorded er~~ment, ~nd th~t che pstition~r propoaed ~o dslay reaordation o! the ma~emanb u~nril thy property to t;ha sou~h ~vae pxopo~ea !or furth~r Qav~lopment. Mr. Maynar~ 8111, the petitioner/aWner or sub~eaC prop~rty, ~ppeared belore the Commi4aion and etAted that i.n April tha Ylanning Commieoion h~d approvc+c~ a oon8itional usa pwrmit al.low~ng expan~ion to th~ we~tarly proper~y eub~ect to requiring a Fexpetual, rceaorded ~deement ~or traeh truok pick-up ovar t1~e servics ~tation property~ whioh he lound woe very difYioult ~a abta~int that Exxon rapzeeentatives hed a~dvisod him they could only giv• a tentaC~.ve e~prc~vul !or essamet~t so long as it did net inti~+r~ara with thAir preeent tenant, and i.he-t h• c,~uld hsve the lattnr aqreement provide-d it met Nith the Plnnn ng Commise~ion's requirornet~t. Furtharmore, he ha~d behn locatod there for eome time, and even if his pzoperty wero purcha4ed by eameane el~a, there still woulg be the eame tx~eh pi.ck-up problemt that they were etill ueing Che ~~+ma dumpater in canjunctioi~ wi.th the exiaking use with the eervice etat~on, ar~d t:reah truckn entered on hie property and exitod onto the eervica ai:etion pra~erty aEter e~mptying the dumpeter, end if a block wall were ere4~ted, he would then have to tske the traeh to the curb~ thAt Commiaeioner Nerbak at ~h~ public hearing had me,ntioned that H~ater straet wae too buey to allow txa~ah truck pick- u~ from the curb; and that one of the Plane he hdd Qresented hed the traah col.~- lecti.on near the curb. Coma~ier~ioner Farar.o inquirud aR to the distmnce between ti~e buildiny on aubjec~ propert,y snd ~3~e south property linej wha.eupon Mr.. Bill xeplied thie was about 30 feet. Commiseianer Farana r-oted that the Coma~fsaion tsad field insp~cterl tho property edrlier. in the c3ay and had noted ~v~rhead doore and a c~ncrete apron which wes used far tha zepatr of vehiclea, huA there wouid be no spdcet whereupon Mr. Bil]. replied that they planned to uae the bui~.dii~y to the rear for autamobile repair, and then indiarsted on tYie plans fos th~e C~mmiseion where thie location was. Cnmmisaioner Farano observed t.hat because oE the overhead doors an automobile would only have room to move in and outj whereupon Mr. Bill etate8 that this was one reaeon why the driveway had to remain open, and that he would be repai~'- ing automobiles in the reat only, not recreational vehicles. Commissioner Farano notec~ that with a11 the work pzoposed to ba done, it was more thai~ likely thAt the repAfr kork would be done on t ie apron az•ea and then there would be too man_~ cars on the premiaest whereupon Mr. 83.11 stated tha•t the~o vehi.cles would remain only a short time since they pxopoaed only motoz repaix and a carburetor adjuetment, which, many ti-nes, was the only trouble and took only ten minutea - that his ~,resent problem now was too muc:~ backlog, and he did not have any time, thus creatin9 ointmentlandbwhon~additi~nalepz'ob- of the sutomob9..- they were all donQ bX agp lemb wexe foun~ beycnd wha~ they hnd originally anticipated and astimated, then they would rLn beiii-~d Cimo, cieat~.:~g this bdcklog. Commissioner al.,r.cd inquired whethc~r any repazr work was done on recreati~nal vehiclee ae to ~anitary or electrical facilitiest whereup~n Mr. Bill stated they only did mechanica? repair work and they did not intend to have a dump st~tion, and that there would be no internal ar body repair on the recreationnl vehicl.ea. Furtheimore, wi.th the number of recreational vehicle~ on thc~ raad these days, it would appe-~r ~hat ~ln anoth~r gear a great mej~zS.ty of these vehicles would be having problems, particularly when they roac'hed the 40,000 to 50,000 mi.lee, and he was fully aware of the problema theaQ people would en- oount~~r sincp he, too, owned a recreRtional vehicle. T_n ~dditipn, he ha3 owned ths proporty for one an.l one-}ialf yee.ra el~though he had been locat-dd at t'his plac,a fr,r ten years. ~ • MINUTE3~ CITY PLANNING ~OMM188ZON, Septamber 17, 1973 73•583 iTEM NO. 6 (Continnod) CommiesionAr F~qrbst olae~rved that the traah locAtiun and probl~m ~+~emed ta be ths major iasuo AnQ inquired whether Mr. BS,11 had sny sltern~tivee. Commi~aio:-~r Kinq inquired why ~he trush ooulc! not b~ carried aMay, and l•hie wauld eliminat• City truck tra-ph Fick~up. Commissionear Herbot stated that the City did not ~il~w pi.elc-up o! trseh in an induetria~] aren - he knsw thic toz s lact because ha had to contr~ct fur aon~e- one ta piak up hi~ kraeh tor t}ie past ~wenty yesxe. Zoninq 8up~rvinor Chaxle~ Roberte noted that Chin ~nme qusation csma up before. Deputy City Attornay FrHnk Lowry t1~nn rosd the Code, Chapter 6, S~et~on 6.21. 020 reg+arding tha suth rity ~~P who could end rould not oollRCt traeh or aarbsge. Mr. Roberte, in reNronea to queationir~g by Commi~seioner Rowlnnd, etat~c! that the 9anitatiun D~vision he.d looked at thie pro~ect and etated th~t t~e manner in wliioh the tranc ~ollect~.on was being proposed wae nat adequetA, and thsy euqqeeted e location where it coul.d be plnced eubject tc nqreament !or mutual accesa ta th~ property. Commiasianer R~wland obe~rved that there were a qreat number o! ~roperties i.n the city whieh :ould no~ accammodate adequate traeh pick-up on the property, and thia property was in the sa~me catea~ ry. Commiasioner Herbet oE~ered a motion co amend the requlrement, deleting requir- ing a secorded Aeesment ae set forth ir~ Conditi~n Na. 5 of Rosolution No. pC73-85 end auggeeted that staff. make every attempt to lind other eltexnativos for thia particular problem on other propertiee. Commiseioner Ki.nq eocana,od the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (Commiesi.oners Rowland and Farano va~ted "no") ITEM N0. 7 1983 - LAND USE EL~~dEN'1' (INTERIM) OP' THE ORANGE COUN`3'Y GEI3ERAL PLF~N. Assistar-t Planner Annika Santalahti, presented the 1983 - Land [~se Elamen~ (InL•erim) of the Oxange Coun~y General Plan and ataPi'e ana].yeis ta the Planning Commission. (copy attached) anci reviewed the objectives, noting tha~. the C~unty Planning rommiesic.~ti and Boar.d of Supervieors tver~+ proceedir.g with a series of public nanxir.gts on said Lxnd Use Element to secuxs the opportunity foz additl~on~sl input from cities, prapecty owners, and citizena generally; to review and act on antioipated rafinements to the Plan~ to accompliah technical improvements to khe map and textJ and t~ asaoss the potential zone changes necessary (or plgn revisiona) to meet ti~e consistency z~equiremant eatablished by AB 1301. Miss Santalahti then ze~iewed these progosals as it aompared with the Anaheim General Plan. The Commiar~ion revi.ewed the propoaal and the staff's analysis as it compared wikh the Anaheim General Plan anc] determi.ned the foll.owing: 1. ThaC while the qenezal Flans of surrounding cities had been considezed, it was obvious chat, in Anaheim's caee, this ob~ective was not acc~mplished as svidence~ by ~ha following inconsistencies: a. Residential densi+ties wY-fch are too high are shown in two aounty :tslande: aouth of tho F.ivorsida Freeway between MAgnolia Avenue and Gilher~ Stree~ and exst ot Euclid Street (Brigham Young pro~erty). b. An excese ~f open apace and agricuxturr~l lanc] ia ahown in the Santa Ana Canyon (Anaheim Hill~ and We,ir Canyon) wher.e development acti~ity has been rap3d during the p~sst few years and ehor~a everX indicatio~i of continuinq to be ea in the Zort~aeeable luture, si.nce in 1970 there were a total of 916 dwellinq units in the Santa Ar.a Car-y~n - the area south of the Sdnta Ana Rivor and east af the Newport I~reaway - and to data, dwellinq units were conetructed or were being conetruc~ed and tentative tract maps and fina7 tract mapa ~rhiah had been approved totaling 6535 dNelling unite - or an increase of 613~p~rcent since 14 70 . ~. ~ ~ ~ MTNUT~5, CiTY PLANNING COMMI3870N, 8aptwmber 17, 1973 73-584 i~FM N0. 7 fContinuQQ) c. Propertieo n~rtih o! th~ Santn 1-na River Rnl~ weot o£ ~anp~riai H~ghwey whic:h ar• a~~~.qnat~d in th• Anah~im Genare~l plan ~~ indurtrial , ar-d nr~, dev~lopsd with induetriAl us~~, ere ~hown on th• County'o :nt~rim L~nd tlee 6~om~nt eq racrestional and other opan opaco land uses. d. Prop~r~i~~ eou~3~ o! ~ho Rivsroide P'raewsy ~nd ea~r c! ~he Orunqa rraewsy which ar• noM ~l~veloped v-ith mult.ipl~-lsmily rr~id~nce~ sre ~iso de~i.9n+-ted a~ x~axeatianel ueoa. 2. That nnother po~icy dixeation apecilied in the 1983 - Land Uae Eloment tznt~+rim) ~ehoMe iand in a~ricul.tural pregerve aqr9ements or aont~~etn se exclusiva agrieultcuze thraughout th~: next ten. yenre, but the aont~ ~ctual agreoment tor tha Nohl Ranah Aqriaultural Preeerve wae nok renewed in 1971, end Aaahufm Hilln, Inc. wa~e currently attempting to completely aanae~l tha Nohl Ranch ~qrioultura~l Freeerve so thnt ~hA; coulfl proaead with their l~ng-ranqe plai~ninq for the remeind~r oi the rancht tharafore, thos0 laads coulci be ava~la~blo !or developmant. F'urkhezmnxe, tor lend to bA deeignat~9 ae an AgriculCural pre~arve at the presu,~t time ia not indic~ative oP ita appz•oFriateneos a• permanent open spaae. 3. That the City of 1lnaheim through ita existing Gentiral Plan had pzeparecl itself for. conkrolled urban growth lending ko e we~l-bal.anced aommunityr howover, ther• wa~ concarn that the Interim Laad Uee Elemcnt would become the primdxy planninq lnotor in tho Santa Ana Cnnyc~n and might a~vereely a£feot future annsx~ntione anc! cit~y yrowth in that ares. 4. That the Intarim Land Uee Elemen~ implied a reatri.ctiva grawth policy in the Santa Ane- Canyon which ignored both racent and current growth 9.n the areu as weJ.l as the Anm~heim Gen~ral Plan. Commiasioner Fa-rnno o!lered a moL•ion, saconded by Commi.eeione~r. King and MOTION CARRIEA, that the Andheim City Plann~.ng Commission recommdnda to the Cit~- Council that baeed upon the etatemerits of fact outlined in 1 through 4 above, that the City Council urqe the Orange County Board of supervieore to cansi8er asmending the 1953 - LAnd Ue.e Eleu-ent (Inter.im~ to delete the inconn9stenciea ou*lined above eo as to be more aonsistent with tne land use desig~~ntton and policies of the Anaheim Genoral Plsn adopted in 1969 ds it affocta ttie sphere ~f influence of the City ~P Anaheim. YTEM NQ. 8 REDWOOD SLATS Zoning Supervisor Cherles Roberta nated that this r~part w~s for informati.on for the Gommission's futuzo use when considering requesta for waiver of ~he 6-.foot masonry wall an~ that no action need be taken on it. ITEM NQ. 9 CITY OF $UENA PARK CpNDZTIONAL USE NO. ~S8 - Property ~.oceted on the south side of Crescent Avenue, approxi- mately 2i0 feet ~ast of the centerline of Dal~ Avenue ~and proposing to estab2lsh an apartmen~ cumplex two t~tax~.ea i,n he~.ght withi.n 50 feet of a g~.nqle-family reaidential zone. Zoning Supervieor Charled Roberts preaented Cityr of Buena Park Condi~ional Use No. 45S to the Planninq Commi~sion, notinq ~he locAtion of the property, u~es eatablished immediateZy to Che ~ast in ~he City of Ana~heim, ~nd the proposal t~ ~onstruct an a~pa~tment complex waivinq the maxi.mum building heiqht w•lthin 50 fe~t oP a tingla-family residential zcrne, nating tht~t~ the City af Buena Park multi~le-family zone rec~uirementa required a 50-foo~ building setb~ck ad~acent ta eingle-fami.ly zc+nea £or two-etory conetruction, whiZe the City of 11nak~of.m raquired 250 feet as a bui161ng setback for any two-atory apartd-ent con,~truation~ and that thn Gammi~sion might ai~h to determine tha eftect o! au4h an apprava]. on the R-A zoned propexty to the w ~ ~ ~ MTNUTE3, C7'rY PLANNTN~3 COMM198xON, 9eptembsr 3.7, ~.973 73--585 71~EM Np. 9 (Contilnaed) eaet of aubjeot praperty looatad in the City o~ Areaheim snd developed with ainyla-~'amily residence^ in additi~n to vacant property, since th• Gen~ral nle-n designe~ted thie genexal e-rsA ue b~i.nq appropriete Por low-doneity raeidantial deve~lopmdn~.. Commiselonc+r seymour uftered a motion, teconQed by Commiseioner Al1reA and MOTION CARRI~:D, to rccammend t~ the City Counail that ths City of Buena Pnrk in conaideration of Conditianal Uee No. 4S8 meinCain thd ane-story height limitation wit~hin 15U faot of the. City o! Anaheim boundaries, ain~~, tho Qenerel Plen deaiqn~~ed thin general, srca ae being appropri.st~ !ox low~ density reeide~tiel land uee. IT~M N0. 10 VARIANCF: N0. 2540 - Ftequest for amenclment of conditi.one - Proper.ty loct~ted an the nor+:h side ~f Lincoln Avenue, opproximntoly 750 fe~t ~enat aF. tho cent9rli~i~ oP Hrook- huret Street. Zoning Superviso~~ Charlea Robyrl•s reviewed ~or the Planning Con-miseion pre- vious xoning actiori under eub~e:t ~etition nnd the fact that the variance waa granted on the basie that the peL•itioner pro~osed to re~ain ths two specimen mAture tr~es, and location of the aign in xccordance ~vith Code in thR center 20~6 of the property frontage, which wou~lci be the aFproximate location of one of these trees, would require removal~ and that subsoquent ta Commission nction, a fie]d iiispecti.nn of the aite iszdica*od that the cen'ter trc~e had been rem~ved and replaced by t+ amaller, youngar tree~. Furthermore, the qon- erml contractor for tho petitloner hdd indiceted that the City's Parkway Maintenance Diviaion had ordered tl.e removtxl of the tree and upon contactinq said diviaion, they veri.fisd tliat they had ordered the removal of the tree due to the fact that when aidewalks were to be installed, the tree would he located in the center o£ the ~idewalk area and would present a hazard to pe~?~strians after installation of the treewell around the trBP, as we].1 as the fact that too much of the root syst~em wauld be expoaed, leadinq tc the eventual deterioration of the tree. Therefore, the Commission would wish to determine whethex to reacind the action of Resolu~iun No. PC73~188 and rdquiz~e the petitioner to place th~ free-3tanding sigri in the c~nter 208 of the lot; or because of ~he Cit~y departments' 9.nsistance that only the center treo be removed, and the p~titioner had every intention of cornplyinq with Conditian No. 8 of srid res~lutlon, that the sign l~cation be permitted ss previously approved. Mr. Norr~an Wines, representing t;he agent for the petitioner, appeared be£ure the Commiasion and reiteratec- statementa made by Mr. P.oberts regarding the fact that the l~arkway Maint~ei~ance Division xequired th~m to remove the tree, and it was their in.tent to retain the *_reei however, since ttie tree waa xe- placed with a smaller tree, it was £elt that the sign location should zomain aince the tree eventually would aleo grow to a height- that could obatruct viawing the sign. The Commiasion inquired whether anyone knew what was proposed for the vacant parc~l between subject propertv and *he paint sto « r whereupon Mr.. Winas atated that the paint s~ore used that vacant property for pArking puxpoaeg, and he did no~ feel that it woutd ba developed for anather businesa. The Commission, after diacuasinq the evidence -~rosentedo determined that throuqh no fault uf the getitioner the one tre~: was removed, even thouqh the petitioner had atipuluted to rdtention of the tree~ thst a ama7.ler tree had been planted insteads and that th~re was sufficlent ju~tification f~r still granting the request made under the variance petition. Commissionar Farano offered a moti,on, seconaed by Commisaioner Kinq and MOTION ~ARRIED, that the waiver origina].ly qranted for location of th6 siqn in ather than the Genter 2C~~a of th~ property should remain, since subaequent circumetances necesaitatinc~ the removal of the tree wcre not the reault of any'thi.ng over whick~ the getiti.oner had control, and that in all Iikeliliood the proposed sign lacation woul3 not be dotrimental tu the property to the west, presently vacant, aince it was being used for parking purpoaes for. the aajacent paint store. ^.o. ~ ~ ~ MiNCITSb, CITY PL7INN~NG COMNfxOSIVN~ 8opt~mber 17, 19~73 73-586 11DJOURNMENT - 7'har~ baing no lurtihsr buoin~dr to d.i~~cu~w, Comrai~~ioner A11red ol~~.t~rQ a motion t~o sd~aurn the ma~tinp. Gommi~sl.~naz H~rbst Raoonded the motion. MOTxON Cl1R1lx3D. 7~h~ m~~ting ad~ourn~d a~t 6~ 15 p.m~ 11K s hm RAr~~fO~Fl11~.~/ submikted, A1NN KRlCbB, S~ox~tory 1-nah~i.m City '~lenni,nq Com~air~ion I ----- - -- •~- -. - --