The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1979/05/07~ '~` ~~. Ci ty Hal l Anaheim~ California Nay 7 ~ 19 79 REGULAR MEETINC OF THE ANAIIEIM CITY PLANMING COMMISSION REGULAR - The regular meattng of the A~aheim City Plsnnin~ Cammisston wes called MEETING to order by Chstrman He ~st at 1:3Q p.m., Msy 7~ 1q79~ (n the Council Ch~mber~ a quorum being present. PRESENT - Chat rmon: fferbst Commlsstoners: Barnes~ Bushore~ David~ Johnson~ Ktng~ Tolar ABSENT • Commissioners: None ALSO PRESENT - Jsck White Jay Titus Annika Santalahti Robc.rt Nenning~r Ed(th Narris Dcputy CI ty Attorney QfPlce Enqinee~ Assistant. Otrector for Zoninq Assfstant Planner Pla~ning Commisslon Secretary PLEOGE OF - The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag wes led by Cc~mmisstane~ Barnes. ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF - Cortmissioner Johnson effered a motlon, seconded by Corimissloner Ktng THE MINUTES anJ MOTIO~~ CARRIED (Commissioner Barncs abstaininq)~ that th~e minutes of the meeting of April 23~ 197q be approved as submttt~d. IT~M N0. 2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: RONALD 0. ANO ~~~TVE DECLARATION AUDREY E. VASEY, 3630 Savanne Street~ Maheim~ itECLASSI C ION 0. - 9-41 GA 92801. AGENT: KEN KIILLMArl, 1741 Wast ltncoln N N. 0 Avenue~ M aheim~ CA ~2d01. Property described as an irregularly-shaped pbrcel of land conststing of approximattly 1.0 acre havir~g a frantAge of apptoxin-stely 136 feet on the south slde ef SAVanna Stireet, havlny e Maxtmum depth of approximately 371 fe~t~ being located approximately 1000 feet west of the cente~line of Knott Street. and further described as 3630 West Savanna Street. Property presentty classificd RS-A-43~OOrf (RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL} ZOt1E. REQUESTED GLASSIFICATION: RN-2~00 (RE5IDENTIAI~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY) ZO~~E. REQUESTED VARIANG~: LIAIVER OF (A) MININUM k~UtLDING SITE AaEA PEfI DWELIING UNIT ANO (B) KAXIMUM STRUCTURAL NEiGt~T TO CONSTRUCT AN 1a-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. SubJect pctltions were continued from the n~etiny af April 9~ i97~1~ at the ~equcst of the petltioner. It wes noted the petttto~er had requested that Petitions fo~ Reclasstficetton Na. 7~•79-w1 and Varinnce Nc~. 30~13 be Hi thdrawn. AC~TIQN: Caamissioner Ktng offered a motio~~ secoe~ded by Commtssioner Bushvre and MOTI~N CAtiR1E0, that the Anaheim City Plamning Comaissio~ does hereby grant the request that the ~forementtoned petit~ons be wlthdrewn. 79- 33~ 5/7/79 ~ ~ ~ MIKUTES. ANAHEIM ClTY PIANNING COMM1S510N~ tUIY 7~ 1979 79-33~ ITEM N0. PUBLIC HEARING. OWNERS: AlFREO D. AND JOSEPNINE E R NEGA IVE OECLARATION PAINO. 711 South Beach Doulevard, Anahelm, CA 928A4. . -7~-4_~ AGENT: G. ~. GARDNER, G. D. Ga~dner b Associates~ N t l E E1tM w 9y2 2404-8 G1 asse 11 St rect . Sui te 9, 0 rsnye ~ CA 92665. R AN N0. y~2 Prope~ty describud as Portio~ A- a rectangula~ly- shaped parcel af land consisting of approxim~tely Q.~ acre having e frcMtacre of approximatety 140 feet on the east side of NAyw~rd Street. having e meximum depth o` ~pproxlmately 100 feet. and being located epproximately 1190 feet south of the centerline of Orange Aver-ue; and Po~tlon 9- a rectangularly-sf~aped parcel of land consistl~g of aparaximet~ly 1.0 acre heving a f~ontsge of approxtmetely 140 feet ~n the west side of W!ach soulevard, having a meximum depth of approximately 3~J2 feet. Qeing located epproxtmately 119~ feet south of the centerllne of Orange Avenue~ snd further described as 711 Sauth Beach Boulevard. Property presently classtfled CL (COMMERCIAL~ I.IMITCD) T_ONE. REQUESTED CLASSIfICATION: (PORTION A) RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL, SING~E-FAMIIY) Z0~1E. REQUESTED COwDITIONAL USE: (QOR?ION B) TO PER~iIT A BATTINf CAGE ANO pt_CREATIONAl. CQMPLEX. REQUESTED VARI ANCE : (PORTI Ot~ A j WAI VER OF (A) MAXt t~UM WAII HE I GNT AND (8) MI NI MUM LOT AREA TO ESTA9LIS11 T1r0 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. I t was noted t~~e ~et I t ioner had requested ~- two-arerk con ti nuance 1 n orde r to submi t additional plans. ACTION: Commissioner Bs~nes offered a rflotion~ seconded by Conm(ssione~ King and MOTION CA~ED~ that the Anaheim City Planntng Carw-~isslo~ daes hereby grant a two-weck co~ttr~ ance~ to the nK eting of Nay 21~ 19 79~ at the requcst af the petitioner. ITEii Nb. 1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARII~G. O~NER: ANAl1ElM EIR~~NE~~GATIVE DECLARATI~N REDEVELOPM~NT I~GENCY~ 106 North Claudina Street. ION -79-37 Suitc 40d~ Anaheim, CA 928~5. AGENTS; MC CL~LLAN~ CRUZ AND GAYLORD~ 119~ East Walnut St~eet. ~asadena, CA 91106 and W b D GOMMERCISL PitOPERTIES~ INC.~ 1633 26th Street~ Santa Monica~ CA 9p406. Petitioner requests that p rope~ty described as an irregulerly-shaped pmrcel of land consisti~g of approximately 14.8 acre:s located at the soutt~west cc- ~er of the proposed realiynment of Lt~coln Avenue and M ahelm Boulevard, having app~-1X~flIaLe frontages of 10y0 feet on the south side of Lincaln Avenue. 540 feat on the aest side of Anahelm Boulevard, 33k f~et or- the e,ast side of Clementlne Straet, and 375 feet on thc north slde of Oak Street, be reclasslfled from Lhe CG (COMMERG~AL, GENERAL) AND P D-C (PARKIIIG UISTRiCT-CaMMERCIAL) ZONES to the CL (GOMMERCIAL~ LIMITED) ZONE. SubJect petitlon was continued from the meeting of Aprl i?.3, 1979~ for furthet- informatlan. 'fhere was no one indiceting thmir presence in opposition to subject request~ and althouqh the staff rcport to the Pianning Gommisslon dated May 7~ ~979 was not read at the public hearing. It is referr~ed to and made a pa~t of the minutes. Commlssioner Bushore declared a conFlict of interest as deflned by Anaheim City Planntng Commisslon Resolution No. PC2fr157. adopting a Conflict of Inte~est Code for the P1an~ing Co~anission, and Gove rnment Lode 5ection 3625 et seq.~ in that he had e cont~actual S/7/19 ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNI-~G COMMISSION~ MAY 7~ 1979 79•332 EIR NE6ATIVE DECLARAt10N AND RECLASSIFICATION N0. 78-79~~7 ~contlnued) ag~eament with the Redevelopment Agency as their Acqulsition Agent and~ pursua~t to the pfovistons of the above codes. declarcd xo the Chatrman he was withdrawtng from the hearing in connectl~n with Reclassiflcation No. 78-79-;7 and woulef not take part i~ either the discusslon or the voting thereon and had not discus~ed thls matter with any member af the Plannln~ Cortmission. TNEREUP01~. COMMISSlQt~ER BUSNORE LEFT THE COUNCIL CFIAMBER. Narman Prlest~ Executive Director af Community Development, explatned revised plans were submttted and have beGn revleewed~ allev~ecing spcclfic co~cerns of th~ Commfsslon regarding traffic flaw, truck loadi~g~ roof-mounted equlpment~ ecc. TNE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOS~D. Robert H~nninc~er~ Asststant Planner~ expl,iined t~ t Conditlon ~lo. 1 of the (nterdepartmnntal Committee recommendatiuns shouid ba dcleted. Jeck Whttc, Deputy Clty Att~rney. explained that the t~affic si~nal fee will bc w~+ived as part of the ncw trAfflc slgnal assessment ordinance because th~ prop,r.rty ls avned by the Rcdevelopment Agency. Chairr~en 1lerbst explain~d two conditional use pcrmits will bc necPSSery~ one for the drlve-through ~estaurant and one for the oucdoar• yarden sales area, and Mr. Priest indica~Ced he understood. ACTION; Commissioner Toler offei•ed a motion~ sec~ndcd by Commissloner Johnson r~nd MOTION GARRIED~ that thc Anahetm Ctty planninc~ Comnisslon hes revicwaeci che praposal to reclassify sub,lect proper~y fran the CG (Comr~~ercial ~ General) a~~d PO-C (Parking Dlstrict-Lann+erclal) Zones to the Cl, (Commerciai~ Llmit~d) Zone cx~ an irregularly-shaped parcel of l~nd consisting of approximately 1J.8 acrr.s lc~catcd et the south~eest corr.er of the prooosed reallgnment of Llncaln Avenue and Anaheim Boulevard~ having approximatc frontages of 1050 feet on the south side of Llncoln Avcnue~ 540 fcet an the west side of An~heim Boulevard~ 334 feet on thc east sick of Clementine Street~ and 375 feet r.~r, the no~th side of Oak St~eet; and does hercby approvc thc Negacive Declaratlon from th~ requlrement to prepe~e an envi~onmental ir~act report on the bas~s thax t-~ere wauld bc no styntftcant individual ar cumulativt adverse environmencal impact due to the approval of this Negatlve Declaration since thc Anaheim General Plan designatrs th~ subJect property for general conmerclal lan~i use5 conmensurate witti the propos~l; Chat no se~sltlve environmental impacts are involved {n the propos~l; that the Inittal Study suba~ictcd by thP petltioner (ndicates no sl9nificant individual ~r cumulat+ve adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negativc Oeclaration substantiating the foregotng findinqs is on fiie In the C~';i of Anaheim Planning DepArtmtnt. Commissi~ner Tolar offered Resplutlon No. PC79-d~ and r~oved for its passage and adoptlon~ ihet the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant ~'et(tlon for Rec:lassification No. 78-79'37. subject to Interdepartmental Corxnlttee recommendations, delettng Condition No. 1 requiri~g the payment of a traffic stgnal assessment fee. On roll call~ the foregoing resolution was passed by the following yote: AYES: COMMISSIOI~ERS: BARNES~ OAVID~ HERBST~ JONNS0IJ, KING~ TOLAR t~0E5: COMHt S51 ~t1ER5 : NONE AIISENT: COMMISSI0NER5: BUSHORE Chainnan Nerbst thankea Nr. Priest for his ~oope~ation in working wlth the Commission. Cf~AiRMAN BUSHORE RETURNED TO THE COUNCIL CHAHBER. 5/7/79 ~ ~ ~ MIFiU7ES. ANANEIM CITY PIANNING COMWISSION~ MAY 7~ 1~79 79• 333 ITEM NU. CONTINUED PU~LIC HEARING. OWNER: BRYAN INOUSTRIAL ~~~~~RIC11L EXEMPTION-CL.ASS 1 PROPERTIES, INC., 1ti6 Eest Orangethorpe Avanue, A R 0 E EN Ansheim~ CA 928t11. AGENT; IN7RAVISION~ INC., ND17 ON l USE~R,M N_,_; 1946 145 Eest Orangothorpe Avenue~ Anaheirn~ CA 92801. Petltloner requests permtssion to RETAIN A[i1NG0 PARLOR UITN WAIVER OF MINI~IUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES o~ property desc~ibed es e rectangulerly-~tiaped parcel of land consisting oF approximately 1.9 acres havfng a frontage of approxinuitely 2~S faet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue. having e maximum d~pth of approxtmatcly 277 feet~ beinq located approxfmately 1195 feet east of th~ ce~terline of lemon Street~ and further descrlbed es 1~~5 East Ora~gcthorpe Avenue. Property p~ese~tly class(fied Nl (INDUSTRIA~~ LIMITED) ZO~IE. SubJect petltion was continued from tha meet(ng of Aprll 23- 1979~ becruse of a tte vote,. The~e was no one tndicatinq thetr pres@~c~ tn oppo~ition !~ sub,ject r~quest~ and aithough the st~ff ~eport to the Planniny Commisslo~ dated Mey 7, 1979 was ~ot rea~d at the public hearing~ it is rnterred to anJ made a part of thc minutes. Floyd ~. Ferano~ attorney representing the petlt.toner. ~equssted a four-week continu~~ce becaus~ hls offtce had Just gotten involved in this lasue~ and s~ated there is a posaibtlity of p ro~idlny more parking spaces and deleting the wafver. Chalnnan H*rbst cxplalned the p~bl`c hearing had been closed and a vc~te taken at the previous hearing end tl~e reason for the continuence w~rs a tie vote. Jeck NhiLe~ Ueputy City Atto rney. explained since no opposition had been present at the prCVious hearing~ the Pianninq Commtssion could decide whtther or not they wished to contlnue the matter and reopen the public hearing. Commissloner Johnson asked if the operaticx~ is currently qc,ing on and it wes noted that it was. Commis~~oner Bushare aske~ the sctual nunber of parklnq spaces proposed~ and Robert Henninger, Assistant Plann~r~ explained the pianS show 123 spaces and that one of the staff m~nbers had gone to the slte and physically counted the spaces end there are 123 spaces~ same are not strfped, but that there Is room for 123 spaces. CommissioRer Bushore stated he dtd not s~e how they cauld pravide enough parklnq speces~ and Cammissio~er Tolar stated tf~ere is a possib(lity of a recip rocal park,tng ag~eanent. Hr. F~rano stated the propert~ owner owns adJacent properties and prnperty across the street, and the code cfoes permit aff-site parking with(n 200 feet subJect to an agreert-ent~ and he: felt there is a passlFillty that ~his could be arranged. He stated there aeems to bc a questlc+n also whethcr or not the requirement is for 'I$5 spaccs o~ 155 sp~ces~ end his ~ough calcutatlons Indlcat~ 1;5 spaces wo~~~d be nGCessary using the ratto of one space tor every 35 square fzet. Commisstoner Johnscx! steted tiat the hearing has been held on this matter and a tie vote wes the reason for the continuance~ and asked the advantages of delaying this matter fo~ another four weeks, pointing out the operation is already in existenc~. Commissioner David indicated he felt a continuance would give the petittoner the benefit of the doubt and allow him tlme to prepare additional tnformatio~, and Commissioner Bushore agre~d and stated he felt It wo~eld allow a Iittle mo~e fai~ hearing with additional information provided. 5/i/79 ~ MINUTC~~ r.NANCIM CITY PL/1NNING GOMMISSION~ MAY 7~ 191`~ ~ 79~ 33~+ EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1• CANDITIONAI USE PERMIT N0._1946 (contt~ued) ~~~ i Commissloner Johns~n felt tha Pla~ning Commission should bend over backwsrds to allow s falr heariny~ but also felt th~ request for a con~tnuance could almost be co~sid~red ~ stall i~r ttme. M~. Farono stated he had raquested a four~waek conttnusnce for hls own convenlenc.e~ explalning the~e ara s~verA1 other Issues involved such as the ~ue~tlon relsed concerning the functlon of the ~orporatinn and the making of ftlm• end also the nue~tlon of bingo ope~ations currently being dtscussed In the City of Anat~eim~ and wsnted to n-ek~ sure the epplicatlon has the integrity li dc~serves. hCT10N: Conn+lssfonar Bushore offered a motlon~ sacondcd by Comr~issioner 08vid and MOTION ~~D (Commissloner Johnson voting nn)~ thst conside~~tlon aF Condltional Us~ Permit No. 1946 be canttnued to the reyularly-sche'uled mceting of the Planning Commissl~n an June ~-, 1979~ at the ;~equest of the petttianQr. ITLM N0. 4 CONTIIJUEO PUF~LIC NEARI!~G. OWNERS: WIIIIAM S. AND EIR~ C~GORICAL EXL~~TIOht- SAt~DRA l. GAI.A, 18~3 korth Coronet Pl~ca~ Anaheim~ CLASSES 1 AND 5 CA 928Q1. Pa:itioncr r~quests WAIVER OF MiNIMUM NU118ER AIID TYPE OF PARi:I ti~ SPACE5 TO fiETAI N A ~ ROOM ADDITIG'a IN At~ EXI~~ I~1~ GARAGE on rmperty desc 'bed as a rectangularly•shaped pa~cel af land consistiny of approxirr~ately 6110 squar~ fest havin~a a frontaye o~ appraxlmately (i5 feet on the north side of Valdin~ Avenue~ !~aving a maxlmum denth of .~pproxinwtely 9W feet, being loc.ated aps~roximately n87 fec.t west of the centeri ine of f.i ~::crt Street~ and further described as 2461 West Valdtna AvPnue. Proper[y pr~ser-tly classified KS-720~ (aES1UEN71Al, SINGLE~FAM{~") 7.nNC. SubJect petition was co~~tini~:~' f'rom the meetings of Marcl~ 2E• and Apri 1 23~ 197~!~ at the request of the petttio~er. There was no ane indicating their prPSence In appositlon to suhJect request~ a~d although the staff report to the Planniny Commiss(an dated -~ y 7~ ~`379 was not read at the public hearing~ it is referred to an~i made a part of the minutes. The petitioner was not present ~nd Robert Nennlnyer, Assistant Planner~ explal~ed that a nwrtber of the sta'F had talked with him and he had indicated he would not be coming ta the mceting and would 1(ke the Gommissio~ to acc on the request. 11c explaln~c' the petittone~ plans to have one enclosed and two open parking spac~s an-slte fu~ ~a tota) of three spaces on th~ pro~e~ty. THE PUaLI C HEqRI ~~G WAS CLOSEO. It was noted the Planning Director or his authori~ed representative has determt~eed !hat ti~e proposed pr~~)ect falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions~ Classes 1 and 5~ as deftnpd in pa:agraph 2 of the City of Anaheim En~i~onmental Irt~ ect Report Guidelines and is ~ therefore, categori cal ly exempt from the reguE r~^+ent to pr~epare an E 1 R. ACTION: ~ammissioner ToSar offer~d Resoiution No. PG79~87 and mov~d for its aass~a3e and adapt~or~, that the M aheim Clty Planning Comm(ssion does hereby grant Petiticn for Varlance ~i~. ;4a5 an the bssis that denial woulri be depriving s~bject property of a privilege enJoyed by other properties ln the se~ne zone and vtcinity. and subJect to Interderartme~tal Corxni ttee recommendations. Sl7/19 ~ ~ ~ MINUTCS~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI SSION~ MAY 7- 1979 79-335 EIR CATEGORICAL EXElf TiON-CLASSES 1 AND 5- VARIANCE N4. 3085 (contlnued) On roll call~ the foregolnq resolution was passed by the followl~g vote: AYES: COMNI SS I ONERS t BARNES. DUSiIORE ~ DAVI D, I:ERE~ST ~ JOHNSON ~ KING ~ TOLAR NOCS ; LOMMI SS I OItCRS : NONC ADSEt~T: COMNISSIOPICRS; NONE iTCM t~0. 5 Requost fo~ approval of removel of 10 spectmen E R~~VE DECIARIlT10~~ trees In o~der to construct a tennls court on L approximately ~.0 acre at 523 Peralte :~ills Qrive. REMO~'AL OF SPECIMCIi TREES SubJect request w~s continue~~ from tha r~etin~ of Februa~~ 26~ 197'~~ (n ord~r for the pet~tioner ta submlt dn EIR Negatf~~- Declarati~n and lendscaping and greding plans. It was noted the ~pplicant h.:d no~. submittod specific pldns and staff reconniended a two- v~-c~k eontinuanc.e. Robcrt Hennin~,~cr~ Assistant Plenner~ p~inted out the pcttttaner ho~ ber,n working w(tfi tf~e En~lner.r(r~~~ Departm•~n[ on thc ~radi~g plan and epparenLly therc hrs been sane delay. Commissioner Johns~n offered Z rn~tion that the matter be cont(nued for four weeks~ to the meeting of June 4~ 1979. Commissioner Darnes Indicatad she e xpected there ~ould be somc persons appPartng in opposition around 2:;0 ~.m. She st a~pd she would vote far a cnncinuance~ but wanted to exp~ess her disappolntment that the , ans have nc~t been submitted as prort~lsed. She stated she was also disap~+olnted that thP trecs in qucstton ~re now about S feet tall, after betny sssured by the applicant that they would nar be iopped any further. ComrRissioncr TolAr indicated hc did not f~e) the Commi~si~~ stx~uld grant a contin~ia~ce until the p~rs~ms wh~ a~re drtvin<~ to the mceting hAd an opp~rtunity to at least he~r tlie motion for continuance. Cortmtssinne~ Johnson indi.:ated he woulJ wlthdraw hls motlo~, and it was the genera) consensus of the Commission that COr1SO~SCrB~In-1 of this ite~n be delaycd untll later in the r-~eting. (TEM F~O. ~ PUBLIC HEARINf,. DEVELOPER: HOI IDA~~ HARBOR, tOn82 ~~~P.IGAL FXEMPTION•CLF~SS ~ Garfieid Avenuc, Nuntington I3eacr~F ~~ 32646. ~ENTA I E MAH OF RACT ENGIUE£R: TRI-STATC ENGINrERING ~0., 615 SOUth NO~. 107U3~ 10704 AND 10705 ~taymond Avcnue~ Fullerton~ CA ~263u. SubJect -~ nroperty~ consi~ttng of approximatr.ly 10.5 acres boundcd by Or ~g• ~oc~d Avenue on the northy Cilffwood Avenue on the south, Dan a St~~eet on the east~ anc! Acama 3Creet Qn the west, is proposed fCr a thrce-lot~ 60-buiid'e ng~ RM-1200 (Residcntial~ Mult(ple-Famtly) subdivtsion. TherP was no one indicating their p rese~ce in op~usition ta subJect req~sst~ and although the sta~f report to th~e Planning Co~nmtssion dat~d May 7, 1979 was not reed at the public hearing~ iL ts refer~ed to and mad~ a•~ • of the min~ates. Phil 1acNamee~ 100a2 Garfseld~ Hunti ngton Baach~ and 1+altcr Hoose~ englnaer, were Rresent to ~nswer any questlons. 5/7179 ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 7~ 1979 79- 33G EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 5- TENTATIVE MAP OF TPACT NOS. 10703~ 10704 AND 107(~5 (cont.) T~IE PUf3L1 C NEARING WAS CLOSED. Chalnnan Herbst pointed out tlie condittons In the statf rep~rt concerniry the covenants~ co~ditions and restriGtlons~ and Mr, McNamee indlcet~d I~e unJ~~stood th,se conditlons. Robe~t Nennl~ger~ Asslatant Plsnn~r~ indic~ted .~ corroc.tlon should be m.~dc t~ CandltP~n No. 3 nn all three trdcts to reed~ "..,that the approved covenonts, conelltions and restrictlons shall be recorded prior t~ approval of the flnal tract m~p." It was noted the Plar~ing Dlrector or h(s autti~rized representative has dete nnined th~t ti~e propoaed proJect fe'ls withir chc def~nttion of Categorical Exemp~lons~ Clas; ;~ as defin~d ln paragraph 2 of thc Clty of Anehetm F.nvironmental Impact Report f,utdelines and Is~ therefore~ cat~yoricslly exc~rr~c from the requirement to prepa~re an EIR. Comm(ssloner King offered a motion~ s~condcd by 4ommissloner pav(d and MOTI0~1 CARR'ED~ that tf~~s Anahcim City Planning Commission dor.s hereby ftnd that the proposed subdiv(slon, togetlier with tts design and improven+ent~ ls conslst~n~ wlth thc Clty of Anehetm General Plan~ pursuflnt to Government Code Sectlon G(>413.5 ond does, therefore~ approve Tentatlve Mr~p of Troct No. 107~3 to egtablish a onc-lot, 20-builciing~ RM-1?0f1 (Resldentlt+l~ Multip~e-Family) subdlvlsion~ subject t~ the fallavtng c~ndtticx». 1. That should this subcfivlslon be d~yeloped ps mc~re than o~t subciivtsion~ each subdl~+i~ian thereof shall be s~bmfttcd in tentativr fQrr~ for appr~vAl. 2. That prlor to the tntroducti~n af ari ordin~nc~, a final tr.ict map of sub_ject property shall be sut,mitted to nnd approved by the Clty Council and t~ien be recorded in the off(ce of the Orange County Re corder, 3. That the covenants~ conditians and restrictions sh~ll be submitt~c! to and approved by *.he ~Ity Attorney's Office pr(nr ta Clty Council approval c~f che ftnal tract map and~ further~ that the apprc~ved covenants, conditions a~d r~strictions shall be recarded prfor to ~p~~roval of the final tract map. Sa(~f covenents~ conciitians and restrictio:is sh.~il (nclude~ but not be limited t~~ ..~ c~nditton describing a r,~eans of epportfoning the cost of any utilittes. 4. Indivldua) units wtth(n this subdivision shall not be sold. 'rhis tract allows thc sale of cor~~plete buildings onl 5. That the awner(s) oF s~ct prot~erty shall submtt a tetter re~uest(nq the lermination of Conditional Use Perm(c Nos. ~')6 as~d 716 to the Planning Commtssion. Conwnlssioner Kinq offered a motlon~ seconded by Commissl~ner David and MOTION CARRIEQ~ that the Anaheim Clty ~'lanning Corm~isslon docs hereby find thac the proposed subdiviston~ togrther with its deslgn and lmprovement~ ls tonsistent with the City of Anaheim General Plmn, pursuanC t~ Govp rnment Code Sect(on GE>b73.5 end does~ t~;erefore~ approve Tentat~ve Map af Tract No. 10704 to establish a one•Int, ::n-b uilding~ RM-12~0 (Residential~ Multiple-Family) subdtvision~ suhJect to thc follc~wtnq conditions: i. Thac sh~ulJ this subdivlsion be devel~;~ed as mc,~e than one subdlvislon~ each subdivlsion thereof shall be submttte.l in tentatlve fQrm f~r approval, 2. Th~t prl~r to the introduc[ion of an ordinance~ a f~,,al tract map of subJect property shall be submitted to and approved by the City Council and r.hen be recorded tn the afftce of the Orange Coursty Recorder. 3. Th at th~ covenants~ ronditions and restrictions shall be submltted to and a~proved by the Ctty Attorney's Office prio~ to City Council approval of the final tract map and~ further~ tha• the approved covenants~ conditions and restricttons shall bs recorded prlor to epproval of the final tract ma~. Said covenants, condittons ~nd restricttons shali t~clude, !:~t not be limited to~ a candition describing a means of apportlonir~~ the cost of any uti 1 itle:. 4. Individual units wtthin this subdlvision sh~tll not be sold. This tr~c~; allows the sale of compiete bu(ldings on1Y. 5/7/79 ~ MI f~UT~S. MIIWEIM CITY PLANNI'iG COMMI SS ION, MAY 7~ 1~79 ~~ 19-337 EI R CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS y- TENTATIV_ E MAP OF TRACT NOS. 10703~ iQ704~ AND 1~705 >. Th+~t the avnr_r(a) of sub)ect property shall submlt a tet.ter ~equesttng the terminatlan of Con~Sition~l Us~e Permit IJos. 5~6 ~nd 71G to the Planni~g Co~nritsslon. (cont. ) Commisstoner Kinq offered a motion, scconded by Commtsyloner Cavld and MATION CARRIEO~ th~t lhe Anahelm Ctty Plannin~ Commtsslon does hereby ftnd that the proposed subdivislon~ tdgether wlth Its design ~n~ improve~ment~ (s consiste~t wlth the City of Aneheim Genere~l Plan~ pursuant to Government Code Section (~6473.5 end does~ th~erefnrc~ approve Tentative Map of Tract No. ~07f15 to establish e one-lut. J~-bui~dtny~ RM-12~0 (Resirlentiel~ Multiple-Family) subdivlston~ subJect to thc following Gondltions: 1. ThAt should this subdlvision bc davelaped as more thar one subdivfston~ each sut,+divlslon thcreof shall be ~ubmltted in tentative furm for appraval. 2. 7hat prlor ic, thr I~troductt~n nf an ~rdinanc:e. o flnal tract mat+ of sub,ject ~roperty shall be sut~mltted to and appr ve~f by the Clty Counci) an~1 then be recorde6 In tlie office of tl~e Orange County Recorder. 3. That the covennnts~ conditlons and restrictlons shnl) he submitted to and approved by thc Ctty Attorney': Officc~ prior to City Counctl a~proval of thP fir~al tract map and~ furtlier, that the approved cove~ants~ c:o;,dttions and restrictions shall be ~ecarded prior to ap~roval of tl~c finnl tract mc+p. Said cnv~nants~ conditinns and rastr(cttons shal I i ncludr, but not ne l lml ted to, a condt ttc•m describin~ a n~~ns of appor't I on 1 iig the cos L uf t~ny ut i 1 I t i ~•s . 4. Indlvldual units withln t~~~ Subdtvisiun sh~ll nol bc solcl. 7h's t~act allows thc sale of complete bulldin~~s onl ~ y. Tt,~t the owner(s) of su~xect property sh~l 1 suhml t a Ietter r~nucsting the tcrminatfon of Conc',i tional Usa Permit Nos. 5^~ and 71f, to thr_ Pl~n~inc~ Cummissi~n. ITEM N0. 8 PUDII C F~EARING. 01dtICR: GENEML AMERICAN LIFE €~VE DECLARATIOt~ It~SURAIILF COMPANY, 1F~3~-B South Sunktst Street~ CONO IONAL U E ERhlI N0. 1~)6G l-naheim~ CA 928~6. AGENT: M, U. SGNROTBERGER, $1?. Nest '~Ilshire, Fullerton, CA 92632. Petitioner requesks ~~rmisslon to CSTABLI51+ A SAfJOWICN SHOP IN THE ML ZQt~E on property ~iescrihed as an irrryularly-shaped parcel of land cons(sting of approximat~:ly 1.0 acre located at the southeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Sunkist Street~ having approximate frontages of 16G feet on thc snuth s(de of Cerritos Ave~ue and 68$ feet on the east side of Sunklst Stre4t. and further ciescribed as 1500 South Sunkist St~eet. Property p~esently classifieJ ML ( INUUSTRiAL~ l.IY,ITED) ZONE. There was no nne indicating their presence in c~sposltion t~ subJcct request. and at~hough the staff repnrt to the Planning Commtssion dated May 7, 1~7~ was not read at the public hearing~ it Is refcrred to and ma~~e a part of the minutes. M. D. Sehrotberger. ayent, indlGated he ts req~esting a cor-ditional use permit to serve ab~~t 15 dlfferent tvpes of sanci~iches, salads, and soft drinks in th~ industrlal area. TNE PUBLIC NCARINr, WAS CLOSED. Chalrman Herbst asked the hours of operatbas~ anticipateJ~ and Mr. Schrotberger replie~ 7:OQ a.m. to 4:00 p.m.~ Monday through Friday unless there are a lot of busiresse~ In the arca ~i~at at'e wor~: i ng on Saturday and need the shop open . Chalr'man Herbst cla~ifisd that primarily the trade would be fror~ the industrial complex~ and Mr. Schrotbcrger repiied that was correct. 5l7/79 ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 7, 1979 19•338 EIR NEGATlVC DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO_ 1966 (~ntinued) Commtsslane~ Johnson aske d if al) the food will be takon out~ and Mr. Sch~otberger rep+ ucl they wi l l heve a f~aw te~les~ but primari ly tt~c food would b~: takcn out. ACTI~N: Commissianer Kiny offered • motlen~ snconded by C~xmilssloner Davld and MOTION C~RRIED, that thr Mehelm City Plennlnc,~ Cominisslon has ~evleweci thr prAN~sa) to permit b sandwtch shop in the ML (Industrlai~ l~~nited) Zone on an irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of spproximately 1.~ acre located at the soutFreast corner of Cerrltos Avenun and Sunkist Street~ having approxtmate f~ontayes of 160 feet on the south side of Cerritos Avenue and ~~By feet on the cast slde of Sunktst Street; end cfocs hcrer~y approve thE Nenetlve Declaratlon fr~m thc requlreme~t to prepare an enviranmencal Impact report on the basis that there would be no signlficant Indivldual or cumulAtivr. rdverse envfronmental I mpaet d~~• to the app rova 1 ~f th t s Ne!ga t 1 ve Dec• 13 ra t t on s( nce the Mshe 1 m Gene ra 1 P!~n designates the subJecc property fo~ yene~al industrial lend uses commensurate r,lth~ the propasal; that no se~sitivie environmentel impects are involved In the pr ~osal; that the Initlal Study s~bmltted by the petltloner indicates no signlfic:nt tndl iuel o~ r,umulattve ~dve~se environ mental in~acts; and that the -iegattve Declaration substantlating the foregoing flndings Is on ftle in the City of Anahelm Plannin~ Departrr~nt. Cortmissioncr King offcred Resolutlan No. PC7~-89 and moved f4r its pass~gc a~nd aduatlon~ tnat the Anaheim Ctty Planning Comm(ssion d~es hcrcby grant Fe[ittc~n f-~r Conditional ilse Permit No. 19GG~ subJect to Interdepartrnental Commi~tce reccxmiencfatl~ns: On rol 1 cA 1 1, the fore~l n~ rr,s ol ut lon was pessec! liy the fol l4wi ng vute: AYtS: CONMIS QI~ERS: BARNk~~ EiUSHQRE~ DAVIU, NERaST, JONNSQN~ KING~ TOLAR NOES : COMMISS I ONFRS: I~nN~ ABSENT: COMMISS~~NERS: NON't Commisstaner ~oi~nsor pointe~i out that tt~r City of Mal~ctm has urdinances regard(ng restaurants ac~d poincec o ut lt Nould be ve ry~asy to convr_rt a san~wlch shop wlth tables to a restaurant. and wanted Mr. Sc.hrotberyer to bc aware of the rulcs and regulatio~s, Mr. Schrotberger IndlcatP d that he did not int~nd to open a restaurant; that any expans~an plans would be to open en other sanciwich shop. ITEH N0. PUDLIC HEARIhG. OWNEk: GUtJN PR4P£RT1E5, INC.~ ~IVE DECLARATI0~1 23 8rookhollow prEvc~ Santa Ana, CA 92705. AGENT: CONUITIONAL USE Pf.RNIT N0. 1968 G. SCOTT NENDRY, 2517 North Nathaway~ Santa Ana~ CA ~270I. petition~~r r~questx perm(sslon to ESTABLISH AN AUTG-10~ ! LE REPA1 R FAC I L 1 TY I N THE NL ZO-'': on property descrlbed as a recta~~gularly-shaped parcr.! of lar,d co~sisting ef approxlmately 4.7 acres haviny a frontage of approxlm~tcly 33~ feet un thr north side of Pacifico Aven ue~ having a maximurn depth of app roximateiy G15 feet. an•1 t~r.ing located appruxlmately bG0 fret east of the cencerline o€ Lr.wis Strr:et. Property t~r~•sently classifted Mt ( ItIDUSTF AL. L IMITED) 20NE. The~e w~s no one Indlcatinq thetr presencr. in opposttt~x- tn subJect request~ and ~lthi~~gh tt-e staff report to the Planning Conmtsslan deted May 7. 1y79 w~s -iot read at the publ'c hearing~ (t ls referred ta and mede a part of the mtnutes. Commlssloner King deciare d a conflict of interest as defined b~ Anaheim City Planning Cenmi~sion Resolution Mo. PC76-1'~7~ adopting a Conflict of Interest Code Por the Plenning Commissio~, and Government Code Sectinn 362!i et seq.~ in that he a+ns Pacif'e Lighting :/7179 k ~ MINUTES~ ANAHf~M CIT1 PLAtINING COMMISSI~N. MAY 7~ i`?79 EIR NEGATI':l QECLARATION ANO CONDITIONAL USE PEiW1T N0. 1 68 (conti~ucd) ,~ ~, 79- 3 39 common stock. end Psclftc Lly!.ting oNns Dunn Pro~arttes and~ pursuant to thc provislons ~f ihe ab~ve codQS~Wat heresby dcclar~ng to the Chai~men thet he was withdrswfng from the heariny In conncctl~n with Condltional Use Permit No. 1~G~ end would not tak4 part tn ~(thar the discusalon or tne vatiny the~eon, and has not dlscussed this matter wlth any n~mber of tho Pl.:nning Commissfon. THEREUF'01~~ COMMtS510NER KING IEFT THE COUt~CII CHAMb~'R. G. S~~Ct Ilendry~ petltloner~ stated (t hls dcsire ~a hav~ a repetr fscility at thls locetion and oxplalned t1~at hls business is currently located in Orenge and he has outgrown the facf I I ty And plans to purchase sub,lect pro~ •rty. TNE PUDLIC HE.ARING W11S CLOSEU. Commlssior,er dushorc askc~i If any vehicles will be stored outst~e~ e~d Mr, 1lendry repli~d that there wi 1 I be nu outdc~or stor.igr ~,f veh(cies; chnt approximntely zUZ tu 2y~ ~f the fscllity is designatcJ for the storage of vehicles batng r~~Rired. Ile stated occastonally a customer's vehlclP coulcl be left ~~uts(d~ overn(ght if it o~rlved late tn the afternoon~ but dofin(cely no vehlcles belny repa(red will be storccf outslde and all work wtil be donc inside the faciltty. He axnlatn~d the hours of operatlon •NI11 he 8:~~ a.m, co F,;00 p.m.~ Mcmday thr~ugh Friday. t1e fur[t~er ~~xplalned he would 1 ikc to t~c at,lc l~ fence th~ parkirtg area becausc the nature of the cars have ~ high app~al to thieves. Chairman Nerb~t stated he would want. a aondition adde~l that therc will be no ~utAoAr storage af any kind. Commissioner ~a rnes expl.~ined thPrc hnve 5ecn problems in the past wl[h thls tvpc of usG which have ended up b~.iny sales offices with uut~l~>or stura~~c, ctc.~ end asked [he Retltioncr to stlpulat~• that there will be no yales of parts or vehicles at :hts ~ocat(on. Mr. licndry cxplainccf thls oper~ti~7n is not a recall parts ~pcration; that occasionally , custr~mer wi 11 want to purct~ase wiper blacies~ but usually they are i~stal ied at this far.illty. Ile stateJ at this time he is not cans(c!eriny any {.incl of parts buslness a~nd he does not intend to sel) used cars and thc cx~ly ret,iti sale of parts wnulc: br those uicd In thc repaf~ af vohiclr.s. ACTION: Conr+issloner Lavid offerc.d a nx~t(on~ seco.zded by Commissioner Johnson an~ MOTION aif.D~ that the Anat~c~m City Planning Conmissian has revteaed ~he p~opos~l to permit an autanubile repa(r faclllty (n tlie ML (Industrial~ Llmited) Ione on a rectangul~rly-shaped parce) of land c~nslstiny of approximately 4.7 acres having a fror~ta9e of app~oxtmately ;30 feec alon~; ;he north sldr of PacificQ Avenue~ having a maxinum deRth of appraximately (~; feet, beiny locatc~i appr~xtmately UG4 feet east of thc ccnterline of Lewis Street; and does hereby approve the Neyative Declaration frorn thc reguircment to prepare en envt mnmental fmpact report o~ the basis that there would ~e no s~gnificant indivldua1 or cumulative advcrse cnvironmental impact due to the approval of this Ncqatlve Declt~ration since the Anaheim General Plen de~lynates the sub,ject proper~y for ganera) Industrial land uses cc~mmensurate with the proposa!; thai no sensfttve environmental impecCs are involv^c1 in the proposal; that thc init(al S!udy subrnitted by the petitfoner Indicates no signlficant indiviclual or cumulative adverse ervlronmental In~ acts; and that the Neg~tive Oeclaration substantiating th~ forego1ng findtngs Is r,n ftle in the Ctty of A^a~~eim Plsnning Dcpsrtment. Gommlssioner David offe~ed Resolutton No. PC79-99 and rmved for it_~ passagQ and adoptlan~ that tl~e M aheim Ctty Planniny Commissio~ does hereDy grant Fetitton for Conditional Use Pcrmit No. 19Ga~ subJect to the petitloner's stloulation that thcre will be no outdoor storage 4f sny kind and that there will be r~o sales of parts or veh;cles at this facility. and subJect to interdapa~tmentai Conmittee rccorme ndations. 5/ 7/ 79 '~ ~ ~ MINUTES, At~ANE~M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 7~ 1979 19-3~+0 EIR NEGA1'IVE DECLARATION AI.J CONDITIONAL USE PERMI'~ N0. 1968 (contt~ued) On rol) cnll~ the foreyoir~ resolutiun was passe~l by the f~llowtng v~tc: AYES: CoMMISSIO~ERS; BARNES~ BUSHOa~~ UAVIU~ MER85T, J011rISUN~ TOLAR NUE5: CpMNISS IONERS ; tlt)NE AdSENT: COMNISSIONERS; KI~!G COh1~iISSIONER KING RETURNEO TO TIIE ~OUI~CIL CNIWt~~R. ITEM N0. 10 PUHLIC HEARINf;. ONNERS: SIi1NIC111 ITO AND CHIY~K~ ~, DECLA~~ATIO~I ITO. 1201 East Kate) la Ave~ue~ Anoh~tm~ CA 92f~05. UN C M N0. 1;171 AGEN7: ABCO COhSTRUCTION COMPA!~Y, 2535 Marlcopa -"" ~" Street~ Torranc~~ CA 90503. Petiti~ne~ requests permisslon to E.STABL15fl A MOTEI ANG RESTAURANT COMf'LCX IN TIIE'. ML ZO~~E on property ~lescribad as e r• tangularly-shAped parce~ of land consisting of at~proximately 4.$ acres having e fr4~ ~~~ of approx(mAtelv ~;H feet on the north slde of Katella Avenue, having A max(mum dept~~ of approximatcly 5.~:i feet~ being located ~p~roxin~italy 131; feet wa:t of the centerline of State Colicge 6oulev~rd~ and fu~the~ descri:.~eJ as 1201 East Kat~ila Avenue. Pra~erty preson~ly classffied Ml. (I~IDUSTRIAL~ LIMiTkO) ZONf:.. There was no one indlcating thcir Dre,ence i+~ opposltion to s:~Ject re~uest~ nnd although the staff report to the Planning Comml,sion dated May 7. 1~79 wes ~ot read at thc public hearing, (t is referred to and made a rart of tl~c minuc~s. Michael 1Jideman~ archltect. e~y~la(ned the proposal is for a?40- unit m~te1 with a separate toffee sliop/rest~~urant. Nc prescnteJ a rende~inq to i 1 lustrat~ thr. proposal . TNE PU~LIC NEAitING uA5 CLOSEU. M~. Wideman expla(ned tt~c staff report tndicetes n 23~"unlt proJar.t and thelr submlttal is for 2A0 untts, onP befng the manbycr's unit. Me steted the owncr wou{d like ta have comparebie yigniny to other similar uses rece~cly co~struct~d. Chairmen Herbst stated he d(d not recall anv varla~ces being gra~ted for motel sigRs resently ~+nd stated thc propc~sed sf~niny for this mutel shoula be wltht~ the code. Goim~issi~ner Qarnes explalned that ~ther signs in the area could have been co~structed prior lo the slgn ordlnance adoption, and Nanted the pecitiune-- to k~ow the Pla~ni~g Cornnlsslan is reluctant to grant varianccs on signs. ACTI4N: Cornmissione~ King offcred a motion~ seco~ded by Commissloner Davld and MOTlON ~p, that the Anaheim City Pla~ning Commisslon has reviewed thc proposal to permit a mutel and restaur~~t in the ML ;Industrlal~ Limit~d) Zone an a rectanyularly-shaped parcel of land consistin9 or anproximately 4.A acres having a frontage of approximately 354 feet on the north si~'.e af Kotclla Avenue~ havi~g A maximum depth of approxlmately ;;95 feet~ and being lucated approximatsly 1s1a feet west of the centerllne of ~tate Colleqe t~oulevard; and does hercby approve tt~c He9ative Declaration from the requirameni to pr~pare a~ e~vlro~me~tal tmpact report an the basts that there would be no significant indivldual or cvmulative adverse e~vironmental impact due to the approvel of this NegaCive Dectarbtion since the P.nahelm Ceneral Plan designates the subJect property fo~ general industrial lond uses commensurate wich the prc~posal; that no sensitlve anvlronmental impacts ara involved in the propvsal; that the Initial Study sub~ittcd by the petitioner Indicates no slr,niticant individual or cumulatlve adverse environmsntal impacts; and that the NegatlvE Declarstion sub~x~ntl~ting ihe foregoing findtngs is an ftle in the City of Anah~lm Pls~ning Dapartment. 507/79 ~ ~' ~ MINUSES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MHY 7, 1!179 79-3~+~ EIR NEGATiVE DECIARA'ION AND CONUITIONAL USE_FERNIT N0. 1971 (continued) Commissioner Kiny ofiered Resol~~ti~„~ I.o. PC7`f-9~ and r~~v~d for its passage and adoptinn~ that tt~c llnaheim City Planning Commisslon do~s hereby .,rrnc Petitlon for Gonditlonal Use Permi t No. 1971 ~ subJect ta I ntorJepArtme+~ta) fomni ttee recor-wnenc~at i~ns, On rall GdII~ the forec~niny r~solutinn wAS passe~ by the f~llc~w;ng vote: AYES: GOMMISSIONE:kS: BARNES. tSU,~~ORE, UAVID~ 11ERfiST. JONtI50N. KING~ TOL,1P, NOES : GOr~MI S51 ONkRS : NONf. AI35Ei~T; G01~111SSIONCRS: NOUE ITEM N0. 11 PUBLIC NEARING. QW~~Er,S; J~MLS R. ANU JACY.LYN EIR NEf,ATIVE pECLl1RATIQ~1 MARTI~~, 1'l Sei Cuve Dr(v~~ Palas Verdr.s~ CA ~~274. U N U L 0. 1;-74 A~ENT: fl,OYD L. FARANQ~ 2~,:5 East Chapmen Avenue. Fullertc*n, CA '~2f~31. Petitioner requests permisston to ESTAbLISt1 AN AUTUMUBILE AHD TRUCK SALES AIaU LEASIHG FACILITY IN Tr~E: ML ZUI~C on praprrty descrit~r.d as an ir ~~ularly-sh~red parcel of land consis[ing of approximatcly 0.7 acrc hovin~~ n frnntaq~~ of nnprox(m~~tely 5~ feet ~t the easterl~ cul•~le-~ac t~~rminus of C,rove Strce~~, having a maximum depth af approximately 26y feet~ be:iny locate~f epproxim3tely 2;0 feet south of the c~nterline of Mlralor-a Avenue, and furthcr desc~it,ed ns iL~iQ Nortl~ Grovr. Street. Property presenily classifled ML (111UI,S7RIAL~ LIN;TLU) ZUf~E. 7he~e was no one In~icatiny tl~eir presence in o~,p~~sition to s~b}ect reQuest. and although the st~+ff report to the '~anninn Commis~ir~n ~fated Hay /~ i`17~ was not read at the ~~blic hearin9~ it is ref~~rrc~: to anJ macic ~~art of thC ;ninutes. Charles L. Farano~ at[~rncy c~f Floyd Farana's affice, 2~~~ Eest Ch~pman Avcnue~ Fullerto~~ .~atr.~ this app~ication is t--~e result ~~f an ection taken by thr I.oning Enf~~cemi:nt Officer be.a~se thc occup~nt w.~s carryii~yo un a retail sair_s ~ctivity in the Nl. Zone; thAt the name of the cc~mpany i s Too i ~.~~ anc! the or i y i ~~a 1 use of the proper ty had been the essemb !y and Install~tion of tcrw truc~s ontc~ c~~e chassis whlch Here purchaSCd from different manufac. urers and at that time e11 it;r. uses conformed to the Zaninq Code. Hc s[at~ed ToolGO is now leasir-y snd seliing dlcsel•powered Cadillacs and Oldsmobiles ond other oxotic a~.~tcxnobi ~cs =fiol ls Roycc~~ Ferrrri ~ etcj; that the maJor pa~t uf tf~eir revenue is tl~e tow 'ruck business; that t-~ey purchase tt~e truc~. chassis fr~xn dlfferAnt man~afactu~ers and inst~ 11 the truc~. bo~.iy~ in~;.ludinr, the WIflCF1 a~~f other equlpmr.nt; th~t the bodies Are delivered ~~omp!ct+~ly disass~rmbleJ a~d are a55cmb1C~1 ~n the premi~~s an<1 sent out to be painted an~1 t~~,~~ f~quipped with thc tmtrgency llgltits. radios~ etc.; that Toc~lco drxs stare pa~ts o~ thc prem(~es necr.ssary to aste~~t~le t~-cse [r~w truck.s; thac thcy do not recall any of th~ parts and they Ja not perform any rx~ch~~tcsl labor far thc ~~uNiic or o[her distrlbutors; that cF~cy se:ll ~nd I~asc tow trucks ar ~y~Ss buil~tny is the headquerters for all seles activitles of the seven we5te*rn states, but no sa ~s actlvlties are co~Jucted an thc premises and ls all ~one on the roaA by different sales personnel; that they se~) tht larqer aucomobllc: and t~uck c~rriers anJ toa trucks whtch ~re d~signed fo~ towin,y Iar,yN trucks ~nd buses or tt~e type of automoGlle ca~-rtcr wh(ch crr~ries automoblles on its bcd. fie ~:xplained tl~c small anQ (arg~ tow trucks are storeJ on th~ prer~ises ei[her Insicir Che bu( I~iin,y or on thc ;,arking lot~ and stated thr.y real ize there i~ a problem with stariny these v~~~icles on th~ ~ar,cing lot and Lhey have ~een looking far o lot sc~meplace eise So the v{hi~les will nc~t have to be ~~arl.ed outslde. ~le stal~ed they arc willing to siipulate that no truckY wlll be perm~nen ;y stored on the parking lot. Mr. Farano statecf the oil~er facet af Toolco`x ~perat(on~ wh(ch a~cauncs for 50~ of their ravanue, {s the ~aI05 and lcesing of diasel-pa~rrred and cxotic automobitas; thet they heva d~yeloped sort~ ~xclusive ~ources f7r the~-e Yelrlcles; thet th~ autorrobltes are dellvered ta 5/1~ . .M t* ~~IN MINUTES~ Ar1ANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 7. 1973 ~ l9-342 EIK NEGATIVE DECLARATION At~D CONDtTIQNl1L USE PERMIT Nd. 1974 (continued) the bullding and +~re stored in tho building and ~re avr~lleble (f ~eople want to laok at them, but th~~y ere not d(srlayed. He stdted the ana unt of retall ~ct(vltY ~onducted wlth(n tlic bui ldlny is very smA) l and very few people come in just to look at theautomob) les and ~ver 74~ of ell the people who walk into the bulldinq t+ctuAlly purchese a~ eutcxnahlle. He stated spectftc vehicles are advertised th~ouc~t~ the Los 1ingeles Ttmes and customers call ~nd make an appolnt~r~cnt to come 1~~ and look at the r.ars; and thar, there ere nat a l~t of sales people necessary because [he customcr knows that ha wants to buy A cJ~~"SCI-rowcrs~l automabile or exotic car before I~e cr~mr.s to the facility; that they have apProxlmately 8 to iQ customers on a week day and frum 1", to :~ on a weekend and he did not t~~ink Chc troff!c wouid be slynificantly yreater than an industrlal user. HP stated they propose a list of cunditlons whicti will be nd~~ered to by Toolco as follows: 1. There shall 6e no vchicles Jlaplayed in chc parkinc~ lot or outslde the building. (Ne steted thcy do not Jo that now ~nJ ~fo not inte~nd to d~~ It In the f~ture and are agr~ecable to this con~lition.) 2. No retail or s~~les activitles of any kind shall b~ c.r~ndu~!ed outside. the building. (He ~~nted et the present tim~ they ~re not conduct'rg any retail sales activitles outsi~e thc bulldiny.) 3. No vehtcles of any ty~~e sliall Gc perm.~ncntly str~red on thc parki~q lot. (Ile ex{~lained they nre lookin~~ for a place to parl: ttiese vehicles off the p~emises.) 4. N11 installation~ assembly and othAr r~cch.inically-~clated actlvities sh~~l) take p1aCe inside the bulldinr~. (He stateJ this ~s the way the operatlcan is curren[ly belnq con~lucteJ.) 5. 7he appllcane shall offcr the sal~. ur le.~+se uf only spec(a1tY-ty~~ automnbiles such as dirsel-powcred automo~iles and exotic sports cars. 6. The applicant shall ~c~t make any varietions in the w rrent signs ~n the I,ulldinc~ except es may be requireJ Gy the Planninq Gormission or sc~ff, He stated he is acutcl~ av+arc of tt~e sensttiv(cy involvc~ ~rith tl,r_ industrial area an~ th~ people at Toolco are eware of [his; thit [he Toolco business has yrown very cauickly over the past tv+o years and they k~~c~w the bui ldlnc~ ( c n~~t g~ing to be su) table and has not been sultable fur quite some tirk, but ricaht naw ChPy fr..cl th(s business couid fii into the ln~lustrlal area wlthout breAi.liing tlie Che~~ry behind having rn exclus(vcly industrial zonc bc~,ausc a great pA~t of the activitics are actu,.l industrlal uses ~nd the retni) activi ties wrrently takiny place are very l~rw I:cY; that they arc not I~JnOf Ine~ the fact that they do ~iave: retal) t~c[ivities and they are not ~•~noring the fact that thielr business Is yroainy; that Toolc~ is t~'l~inc3 ta purchase ~ bui 1,fing out of this a-~a and chat bullding wil{ not be f(nisheci for anut~-er• y~ar; anu thof ihey are requestin~ ~~ c~nditional use permit for a pcri~J of appro~eimately one year. Mr. Faranu referred to Gonditi~n tio. 1 of tl~e staff report ~equlring the property owner to pay thc treFftc siynal ass~ssment fee and stated they reaily do not fCel tl~at is quite f~Er bccaus~ most of the ust of the property f, involved Hith industrtal use~ and asked tl~at the Corrmisslon not hold the owners of the property to that conditlon. THE PUQLIC NEARING WAS CL~SCD. Can~nissioner f~ushorc rr.vie~+ed the list of st(pu!ations ~rosented~ end hr. Fa+'eToolcosentad a letter wrt!ten by ~hc La Mirada ReOcve<<~pr+~ent Agency reyarding the property Industries is purct~asing. Cd,wnissio~+~r Hust,ore referred to the stlp~~lation reaArding the disn~~y of automobilr.s o~ ve icles outside the b~ildiny and to Mr. a~ano's staten~e~t that Toolco is not r~ow doing that and pointed out he hacl buen tu the ~roperty at 11:3n a.m. today and he dld ;~ot beli~ve they could live witli that stlpufation and conduc: thelr business. S/7!79 ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PI.AtINING COMMtSSION~ MAY 7, 1`~79 79-3W3 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATiOf~ 'IU CONUITI)NAl USE ;E~ NO.~ (continued) Mr. Farano stat~d they arc in the proceas of trying to lcase ~~ot so ttticy can store the vet~icles off the prcrniscs and they recognixe there is s problem. Commissloner lfushoru stat~d he w~~uld nc,t suppo~t this request; that oric~lnally he would heve supportcd 1 t for on~~ year ~ but i~e h~d ta I ked wt th ~omc of tlie nd I yhba~s a~~d hnd seen the probir.ms beiny creat~~l; that he hAd observcd at 11:30 a.m. t~day 43 cars in,tda, one was a Poraci~e ahich hr., woulJ conslder an ex~ttc a~~~~mnntle~ fou~ truclcs insideti six extra spacPs for smell trucks and :~rs~ and on thP out~~de 27 c~~rs~ flve in thr. :,tr~ht and ectually double-~arked; 15 trucks on thc lot, s~~e tandem parke~! one on c~p of the other because they are cnr carrters; :hat he could noc finci a placc to park on the l~t end had to p+~rk on the next door neinhbor's lat; that `~<• talW.ed with the next dcx~~' n~ighbor and the nelgt~bor had relaCecf sanc of the prohlems; ti~at h~s had seen 2~ uther trucks on a vecent l~t behlnd the bulldinq and assumeu therc was no park!ng agreement there; and that he h~d seen twa trucks p~ar',cPd dawn the strcet : no there was no extre parkln_y. Ile as~:cd h~7w they coul~ pork al) thesc vehicles (nsiJe. Mr. Farano :tat~d lhey are ~~oiny r-~ ~ark ,~~ rrwny vehicles tnsl•.!P ~~+s they can and thr ather vehicles wlll bc sturPd ~n a sepa~..ce~ off-site I~t. Commissioncr Qushore st+~tecf he 'ac1 obscrveC one car bc(ng repaired on the autside and one truck un the tnside~ end he afd no[ thinl: ~ truck could he backed Into [he small area provided InsiJe tlic bu(Idiny; that ~ic snw n~~ ~~arts far thc assem.,ly of vehicles; that there were ten pr.ople in the bulldin~~ faur he ASSUfT11)t; wcre salesnr~n~ and two men working On the vehicles with probebly slx cusComers, fle s[atecl he would not support the removal of the [rafflc SI~~nAI fees bec.nuse tie looke~l at chls as a c.a^~rcial opr.ration. 11e asked if appolntments arc r~ecessRry to coma in ~nci see th~ c~rs~ anci Mr, Farano i~dicated that was the information ie had been ylv~n by Toolco, C~mmiss(oncr ~ushcre statc~l hr has been ~~oin~~ to this facility for a lan~ t.ir~e an weekonds and on weekdays ond h~+s ~alked in end lar~k~d at the vc•'~iclcs and no eppnintments have bcen nacessary. He felt therc is •remunduus prohlCm ~~t this loc~tion and that there is a lot more actfvity going on hc~rc than i5 belny represented. and he dicf not feel for a one-yeer ~xte~sion that thcre should havc been such a~rese~tetion; that he really did not have any pr~-'~lem wi t~~ the onc•yc~r extension~ but i~ glad to knaw they havc another bul ldinq because they are caus(ng problems and he did not sPC how it could he a~ .ed with this vaiurnc af businr_ss. He stated tlic attorney could m~~:c all tt~e scipul ~uns h~ wants~ bui wanied to knw+ w~y Chc netitioner was n~~t present to answer the quest ,ns, and Mr, ~arano statrd thf pe~iciore~r hr~t ~ivc~ hlm this info~mation and he has becn deeling wf[h [he staff and hes bcen doin~ a ln[ af re~eAfch on th{s pr~Jett. Commissioncr aushqre st+~ted he did not think an oper~itlon wfth this v~iume shauld be in an indust~lal area anJ potnted ouk h~e !~ab to drive ifi~ougt~ an Industria) aree to qet [a Lhis facility~ and thnt ch are takfny u;> parkiny SpACrS o~ t1~e streets~ etc.. Nick Keras~ 1~~ lnvcrness Place~ Newport Beach~ strtesd chey t,ave ~ne salesrtwn at Toolco and t1i~r.e salasmrn on [he road; that t`.~s.y hsvc purchased pr~perty in La Ni~~da and the plans should be compl~ted thls week for their relocatSon; that subJect praperty was sold less ihsr. two w~:ck4 sgo and is now In escro+r end tt~ey heve to abandon the facillty no later then ~lnrll 19b0~ ar they may ylve ~ b0-day not(ce ta vaca~e scK,ne~; that thclr lease ls up and thcy are asking for a ~nr-year ex[enston; that they wlll be rr.mbviny the trucks from chc prcperiy and are presei~tly neyotiating to I~ese spacc ff~+m th~ ~alifornia Au;o Auct(an acro~s the t, t r~et. I~e exp I a i ned they do not usua 1 ly t-~ve as muct, act I v i ty as w~~s seen [oda~r; tha~ tt~~y cso hAVe apnroximately S~F ~~~00 to SxR~~~°! w~rth of parts 7iorc~l n~ the prenisas to Ir~stail wrerker bodies at thn presant timr. He sgked thst the pctition be 5/7/74 `~ ~ ~ MINUTCS. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 7~ 19)9 79-344 EIR NCCAtIVE DECLA W1T101~ AND CONDITIONAL USE PERHIT N0. 197W (conttn~ed) granted untll Ap~l~ 19CA and cxplolned It is possible they wtl) be out before the end ot this y~e~r. Commissloner Bushore asked Ix~w the petitioner c~uld guarantee that thesc problems will not be ~reatnd if the cxtension for onc year Is grantcd. Mr. Karu~ stated [licy would Immediatcly resmovc the crucks from thls feclltCy to the Auto Auctlon Far.tllty acrotis the street rnd explained th~y are currently nec~otfeting w(th that operatlon for space~ end elso with anott~~r nerson wh~ hAS a f~ncGd, vecant lot epproxtmately one anJ one-half blocks ew~y~ and [het they ha~vr. auproximatcly 15 trucks whlch have ta be h~use~l away fran thls facility. Comnissfo~er busliore ask^d how rnany autorr~t~f lc selesmen the•/ hnve~ and Mr. Karas St+lted they hava one automobi le salesman and twa truck sa!es~~~en; t'~al thcy dQ no wr~rk on the cars other than some det~iling a~d that the i~~a.jority of the detailiny is done <~way fram Chis feci i I ty. Ne stated he f~l t tl~cy can be out of ttie facl 1 1 ty bcf~~r~ the ~nd ~f the year and the pl..ns are alnx~st completeJ for tl~c re ~aca~ic~n. Ne st~tad most of thei ~ husiness is lea~~ng and r.h~y have been i~~ this fecllity for twa Years and were not aware thcy were vtolucing the co~e until [hey received the citat(on. He st+~ted thr!r ~rr~loyees perk on the prcmises and polncecl out thi s~s ~i ~;~ict ~ul-de-sac. f.h,irman Nerb~t asked hc~w much tl~~e (~, eii~eded to ~I~ar the areo of thc vehlcles s:: th.~t Ch prob lems arc nut be i ny created for thc: ne i gPil,ors ~ anJ Mr. Y.arns rep 1 i e~1 hc .+oul d need tr:~ days . Comr~issloner Johnsun askr.d huw much ti~c tl~e net~ti~ner would .~avr. to vacbtc thr prr.mf~es if th~ usc were cfenied~ and Jac~. Whitc~ DcE;uty Clty ~ttorney, ~xplnlnr.d thc Commission c~~uld ylvc Che petitlon<~r a~~ much tirnc as t-~~y desirc. Cortrnlssioncr E3ushore fe~ t i' a t~~~tir i i~*1 t is ,~~aced on the appro~ .~nd the p~ ti tloner dld not bring in any rnare auta-x~bllc~ or vch'c,'~s~ !ie c~~+ld livc within the sti~ulatinns ln the nc~ar future, but Ii he cc,n,inues t~ brin~~ in vehicles and continues his ~resent vol~m~e of business~ hc ruu1~~ never livr_ wltk~ln t~c st~pulations. Mr. Farano s.ated Toalc.~~ is ~ware of cnc nruhl~;rn and i, +~i l l In<~ to da whatever !s necess~ry to live. Nictiln the stinulations and that [t5ey ~rc~ la~kin~ for an off-site loc.ation to s:cr~ ;he v~hicles. Gorn,iis~ioncr ~usf~ar~ stax4d I~e is both~:red by che proUl~r~s that are being cr~~ated~ but that he i alsu botl~ered by the faci Ctiet thr. aitornry hos not been to the proF+crty for two wcel:s and says the petitioner is doin~~ certaln tnings a'. the present time which hc Es i~ t r.ctually d~In~~. Ch~lrma~ 14erbst askcd about ;he autdoor storage of automoblles~ polnting out the pekit6oner has been ~IS~-~59Irit1 the remc~val of the trucks, and Mr. Fer~no stated th~± all ca~s will b~ pdrked inside t~~e building or they w1~1 be parkrJ off the lat. Ghairinyn Nert~st asked if ihr_ pe:~cior~er ls Nfllinc~ tu stSpulatc to havc no outdoor stor~ge of any ki~,d a~~ tht~t a i 1 wc~rk wt I 1 b~ ~.Sone lns ide the faci I i ty ~ and Nr. Farano ststed they would be ~n:lling to ~~iake ti~~t stipulotio~. Chni~cnan iierbst askecf if che trucks will be rcmoved wit~~in ten days as indiwted by the nwner~ and Hr. Karas indicated from t-ie audience that they would be renaved Nithin ten days . 5/7/19 ~: ~ ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO~t~ MAY 7~ 1A'j~ 79-345 EIR NEGATIVC DECLARATIdN AND CONOITIONAI. U5E PERHIT 0. 1974 (continued) Mr. Farano sugyested that the conditt~nal use permit not becortr_ eff~ctive until the trucks are removed~ and Chalrmen Ilerbst potnted out the p~tltioner is already operating illeyally. Chal~man Nerbst stated he was ~ot in favor of any retail sales in the Industria~ zone; however. since the petittoner is In the process of rrlacating~ hP w~uld be wl'iling to live with the use if the cars and trucks are removr.d and nll wo~k is done Inslae th~ fecillty. He felt on t+ dally basts, tl~e usc is effcctiny the netghhors and felt the t~n-day restrictlon for removal is rcasonable. Conmissioner .' r~dicated he wo~~ld agree that tl~is establisl~ment is out of its proper a~ea ane~ fClt ~ matter of get[in_y c~ut of the us~~ grncefully without puttiny an undue hardship on the p~ ~~ tlc;ner who has had hI5 business in Anahc:im. ile fe1 t the ten-day restrictlon woulci be ln order; however~ f~e would want to sGa the use granted for a shorter perlod of ctme than one year~ and suygcsted r+ six-rr~nth per~od. Chairman fierbst felt sincc the petitloner is going Into a rcdevela~mr:nt area~ it could take longcr thar an[icipateJ end palnted out the ~ecici~n~r had indicoted one year would be the longest period of t,ime~ and it could bc SpOf-n_f. Commtssioner Uavfd osked what pro~ted th~ Zoning Enforcement Off{cer's act(on~ and Robert Nenntnycr, Asststant Planner, r~pl(ed compl~~ints had be~n filed. Commlssioner Ilavid felt thc ten-d~y restriction is within rcason hecause of thc disturbance Co the neighbors and indica[ed he woulei want [o review the use in six months. Commissic,.~er aarnes felt the major pr~~blem at t1~e present time ls the trucks~ and if those c••ucks are renioved wlthin the next ten to tw~nty d.~ys~ she would nac be oppose~ to grant~ny t~~e usc for a p~riocf of o nc yea~. Ueputy Clty Attorney~ Jeck Whlte siated that if chc conAitlonal usc permit ls ~ranted ~ subJect to [h~ petlcfoner's scipul ation to remove the trucks v+ithin ten days and the t rucks are not removed w 1 th i n cl~e t~~n-day pe r i od, anotl~e r pub 1 i c hear i r-g wou I ci be re~u 1 r~d (n order to revoke~ the pcrmit. Hc su99esied that this matter be cor.[inued unttl the next regularly-scheduled mer.tiny whtch~ woulei alla-.r thc ten days for th~ pctttianer to remove the t~ucks. Floyd Ferano stateJ the petittoncr t~ad talked w4th him at,out this and ht is probably ~es~~onsible for the p~iltic~n~r no[ having done it be~~y~~se if the us~ is ~ot c~t~nted~ then he .~ould have a t~igger prablem ana if this is conclnuecf~ it wauld be putting the Commisston in tf~e pusition of alrast sayin~ that they ~~111 grant t~~e use withouc voting on It, end st~+ted that was tl,e reason he had suggesteC that ct~e permlt be granted~ bUt not becorne effective untll the vchlcles we~e rcmaved. 1~~ stated tt~c petlt(oner had agrecd t~ ~em~ve the vehicles before and that he (Mr. Faranoj had advised him not to because the Ca~mtss ~n may not grant tl~e permit anyway ar 1 he would heve to loc~k for a lot mc~re property. Gomm~ssioner earnes stated the Lommission f~ Interested in the petitloner removing the problem, and sl~u felt the petitioner HI11 just have to take a chance and come back before the Gammission to scc whether or noe tt~t use wiii be yrarited. ACTIOW; Gnmm~sslo~cr l3arnes off~red a motion~ secondc~! by :ommtsstoncr Johnson and MOTION LARitlEt}. that conslderation of ~ondittonal Use i'ennit No. 1974 be cont~~ued to thc regutarly-scheduled meectng of the Planni~g Cc~nmissiu~ o~ May 21, 19~9, in order for the petltloner ta have an o;aportunity to removC the vehtcles currently st~red on tha propertY. 5!~/79 e, ~ ~ MINUTES~ ANAFIEIM C~TY PLANNING COMMISSION~ M~Y 7~ 1979 ~9-346 ITEH N0. 12 PUULIC HEARING. ONNCR: IMPERIAL ASSOCIATES~ N121 EIR CATEGORIGAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 Westerly Place~ Sutte 1~5~ Newport Seach~ CA 9266~. . AGENT: MICHACL CHRISTIA'rl~ 564~ East la Palma Avenue~ ~naheim~ CA 92&17. P~titfon~r requests WAIVfR QF (A) PaOHIBiTED SIG45 AND (a) MAXIMUM NUMB~R OF WALL SIGNS TO aETAI~~ EXISTII~G ILLEGAL SIGNS on pr~perty clescribed as +~n irreyularly- sho~+ed parce) of IAnd co~sist(ng of appraxir.~ately 3.2 atres having a front~ge of app~oxl- mate ly fi5 feet on the soutii a l de of Le Pa Imo Avenue ~ I~av t ng a,r~~x I mum depth of anproxl ~ mately 660 feet, betng located approximo~.:ly 370 feet west of the centcrlinc of Imperlal Highway~ and further aescribed as ~fi4~ Eest I,a Palme Avenue. Pr~pprty presently classified CL(SC) (~OMMEI~GIAL. ~IMITED-S~ENIC CORRIpOR OVERll1Y) 20NE. There was na one: Indlcating their presence tn o~position to sub)ect reque,t, and althouqh ihe staff report to the Pla~niny Commisslon dat~d May J~ In79 was n~t rea~ at thc publlc hearing~ It is referred to and made a part of the mtnu~es. Michoel Christldn, the petitioner~ refr,rreri to the lifr-slzr. stePr loca:cd outsiae his building end polnted aut tf~e publl~ in Anat~cim fltlls feels it ~~tiould stay an~l explalned that (t ~annot be seen from any strect. Ilr. stat~d there Is another qucstfon regarding thc signs and stnted they feel they need thc exlstfny signs; that tnere Is a 27~~~~ squere foc~t~ two-story~ extremely F-igh bullding being conscructed in fr~iit cf thrlr market which w) I) block thr_ vtew, and the~e arc algo othr.r problems beceuse th,~y have an~y orte entrn~ce Into the shopptng cent~r because there a~e no entrances or e.clts allrnved on Im7erial Highwey. Fie stated the wooden siyning is ve ry Ic~w ~~roftle and is ~n keeptng wtth Lhe dec:or af the bui Iding, TNC PUBL) C HtARI ~IG 1JAS CL4SEU. Ghairman H~rt~st strted ;t~is area is (n tt~e Scanic Corrsdo~; thAt tf~erc is a siyn ordinance which applles to t1i,~t area and other signs havc been d~nir.d f~r thc same re~s~n and the businesscs ser.m co be doing vcry well and t~~ey alf t~ave low-profil~ tgn(ng. Ne stated the Scenlc Corri~for deSlcJn~tlOn was eppr-~ved by tl~c 5tate with certa~~~ conditlons~ one being the siyning orcJlnancc:~ and he did not see any reason this petitioncr should be granted a prf vi lege der.led othr..rs. M~. Chr6stian stated this ws~ an tndustriaily zon~d parccl orlyln~lly and the zoning was chenged an~! ~f it wer... still industrial pro~erty, they could hddt ~ole signs or any other typa of slgns, Cheirman Nerb;t stated ~f che praperty were still zoned industrially~ this usc would nut be allowrd. Mr. Christian statF6 th~~y sr~ surrounded by Industri~l ~~rnperty and that a lurtiber company was consLructr.~ acrus~ the street and has a ve ry I~rge~ frte-standing stgn. fie r,xplained the riverbc4 and the f~eeway are betwce~ this pro,ject a,nd the har,e~s ~n the hf l l whcre he lives and It is va ry hard to read any slgning fron the top of the hills~ end he dtd not see how the signs cc~uld bother anyone. Fle s~ated he he~S talked wtth meny of his custome~s and thcy have Indlcated [he signs do not bothcr them. He stat~d the tlexicsn food rest~iurent adJ<~cent to him did obta(n a sign aermit for the sl~tn on the back of the building. Chairinan hl~rt,st explrlned t.he Hexican foo~d resteurant signing Is illegal. Commissloner Barnes stated shc persanally does -wt have anything ayalnst the signing qn this building an<a i7ad baer~ ~~ fev~r of tha ste~er at the ~revlous hearing; chat the signing 5/ 7/ 79 I ~ ~~ MII~UTES~ A~~Al1EIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS"oION~ MAY 7~ 1979 79~3~+7 EIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 - VARIANCE N0. 30g0 (continued) Is in good toste and is low proftle a~d there will be a problem bein~ saen t~•~m Imperial Nic~hwey later. She ~xplained she frequents the market and Ilkes it vcry much and felt most people tn the canyon de Itke the merket; however. she did not chtnk there would be a problem with people finding it. She stated she ts rrqre dlsturbed with tne trucks whtch are porked thcre ta advertise the market wl~(ch~ in reality. allows two addltlonel si~7ns. Mr. Ct~risttan stated the 4U-f~x~t seml in the back will be remc~veci as of tomorrow; that it was bcing used for storAgc because they dc~ ~o xhrouyh a lar~c amounk of products; that tliey are leasing an tndustrlal building to store excess procJucts and eventually they wlll have to cor,~c in with sortx: way to enlar~c the stora~~e arca of thc buildiny be~.ausc they are dolnq two times thh proJ~~cted volume. Gomm(ssinner Tolar stated he al~o frec~urnts the s.orr and ccxnplim~ntecl Mr, f.hrtstlan for handlin~ a yood procluct and kee~ing the store cle~7n, He stated tl~e petitioner has ~iven him thc reason for de~l~l of this variance n~e;rely by [he stac~~ment th~t thc market Is doing a larye volu~~~e of buslncss. Ne felt cveryone in tnc canyon knnws ric~ht where the store is loc~tcd and dld not knrn~v who the petitioner would want to attract -~ecause peopla f i nd out by word of rn~utt~ ~ wh ( ch i s thr_ ~.~rcates t forr~ c~i advc rt i s I n~~, He ~1i J not fee 1 the market needs siynlny at all because the petitic~ner fias built a g~od repu[atlon. He stated h~; is nat opposed to the steerr; hoa+~ver~ hc did not see thc ~~ced fo~ any mare signiny. He stated h~ fli~ds che trucic un ImperiAl Nighwdy in vcry pcc~r tastc and hc felt It is used for adve~tisin~.~. Mr. Christian stace~l hc did not ferl he should be p~nalized for d~~(ng a larye volume; that hc does a larqe volume because he ta~,es c~~re of his c~~stomers. Ne exa!atned [he yellow truck +s used for ~el ivery and ts rmb i le about 1~ hours a clay anc! cht~t this (s the p~rtion of the p~rkin~~ l~~t wh~re che employees are supposed to park, at thls sl~op,~ing center. Ne stated he d1Q not like the semi parked at the rcar an4 it would bc remoy~:d~ and they are ~easiny anuthcr 5ui l~lln~ f~r staragc~. Cortr*issioner eushorc ~t~~ted it is not the Plbnning Gur,misst~n's intent to penalize the petttioner for doinq a yood buslness~ but it is the(r intent to enforce the ord(nances and th(s same Lhing wouid be done t~~ .,n an~ in the Scentc Corridor re~Tardinq thelr siyns. He stated !f the ~rclinar~ce Is not proper~ it shauld be changeJ or it should be campiied with~ and the Planntng Cornmissiun ~3ocs not make the laws~ bui is here to elther enforce them or grant walvers~ if .)ustificd. He asked hck• m~ny of thr sinnatures En favor of keeping the statue v+ere Anatieim residents. Mr. Christian replied tf,at hc tiad n~t dividcd the si9natures~ but felt approxlmately Q5$ pf the residents in the Anat~etm tii I Is area would be in favor ~f I:e~ptnq ~t. Commtssione~ Johnsan was ~oncerned about [he tr~ack ~~arked at the rear and it ~as clarified that truck will be removeci~ and he ~1so asked about the truck ;~arked nn the parktng l~t adJacent to ~~erial HIgl~way. ond Mr, Christlan clarified that that truck is used daily and delivers produce to [I~e +narkec and an wrekends is used to picic up at strawt,erry fields~ ctc. C~rnmissio~er 9us~~orc pointed out tl~e petitioner has three walls ~igns and a stat~n~ plus Lhe smal) directo ry siyn. and asked why he shauld he ~Ilowed to have all these signs when hl~ neiyhbors hav~: to coi~iply r+tth tl~e ~iqn ordinance, He f~~it slnce the petitionfr has indlcated hls busir:ess 1s cioinq quit~ ae: i~ additionai slgning is no•. necessary and hG dtd r.~t fee) grant{ng a special ~rivtlege could be j~~stif{ed, Mir. Ghristtan stated he felt he needed the sl,ynlny because che ~x~t~ulatio~ turnover In Oronge County is very high s~d there are nc~v penple cominy inta t7~e area al) Lhe tirt+~. S/7/79 ~ MINUTES~ ANANEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSfON~ MAY 7~ 1979 ~ 79-348 CIR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 - VARIANCE N0. ~09~ (continued) M~ rlstlan oxpleined the .:ign on the baGk of the building can be read by peopla 9oin9 towards Los Mgcles on thE freeway and Indl eated hc would 1 tkc tn -.eep the one facing the riverbe~ which car~ be seen from Imper{al. ~Ir_ exptalned thc mAln r~a~on for thls request wms that he had felt lt was unJust [o make him ~emov~ thc stbtue. He stated there is r solid string of (ndustrial bulldlnys adJaeent to hlm whlch ~11 havc slgns o~ the baek~ and the Mexican foad restaurant aiid the Texaco s tation have slgns~ rlso. Commissloner Bushor4 statc~l if apE~roval Is yranted for this requr.st~ there wllt be many mo~c requcs ts f rom other bus 1 nesses ( n the a rea. Commiss(oner tsarnes proposed qranti~~q waive r(a) to p~rmit the statue and since r.he sign on the front af tl~e bu{ldiny facing Le Palrna cannot be seen frcxn the street~ discount lt ss a sign and pcrmit elther the siJc wall siyn or tl~e l~eck wall si9n~ wlilch would mcan rein~v i n~~ onN . Commiss ioner Johnson statcd he waul d ac~rce r+) th tl~ut pro~asal whl cl~ wauld pu~ the s I~ni ng in eompliance w(th [he Scentc Corr(dor slgn orcilnance with th~ exceptlo~ of the stAtue. and explained he fclt the ordinance covcrs statues because there drr. some types of statues whieh would be very offe~~sive~ but he did not feel tl~is statue offends ~nyone. Cammissloner Kinq nointed out a simllar statue on the west sl~c of EuciiJ, south nf la Palma. wt~tch Is p1r7CLd an top of t~~t buildi~~~. Mr. Christian statr.d the stecr had been uscd fc~r adverttsinq on tap of a vrn~ but he did not thtnk thcy ncecled that type of a~ivertl5 in~ in the Anaf.etm Nills area~ so he had put the steur on the grc>und For the ch 1 1 dren to pl ~y on, and i f he hed wante~l to use I t for advertlsinq~ he wou1J place it back on top of the van. Rob~rt Nenningrr~ Assistant Pianner. explainecS when tl~e Planning Commission had discussed this (ss ue at the previous hearing. they h a d taken lhr.. 1(no of re~soning that th~ sign facing La Palma c~uld not be seen from the street and should not be co~s(~iered as a slgn and hacl allawed lt. It was noted the Plannin~ Uirector o~ hls authorizcd representative has detGrmined that the propose~l pro)ect falls wlthfn the definition of Categoricel Exen~cions~ Clsss 11~ as defineJ in parayraph 2 of the City ~f Aneh eim Ervlrc~nm ~tal Impatt R~port Guidelines and is, therefore~ categorically cxcmnt from the requirement to prepa~e an EIR. ACTION: Com.~issloner t~arnes ~ffered Resolutian No. PC7'1'~~ and moved for its pass~ge and a-"~p~cn that the Anaheim Clty ~1ac~~,ing Ganm(ssiun does hereby c,~ant Petftton for Va~iante N~~, 309~~ l~ part~ yrantiny waiver (a) to perr~it the bovine ststue on the basis that it Is conside~ed an amusement devicc anc! cannot be ~een frar~ the stree[ and there are other special cl rcumstances appl icahle to the aroperty which d~~ not apply to other properties (n the sar.~ zone and vicinlty; granting w~ive~ (b) in pArt, pernltting the ex(sttng wall sign feti ng '.a Pa Ima Avenue ~~ the bAS i s that i t =anrx~t be resd f rom e i ther La PalmP+ Avenue or Imperial tlighway and should be considered in the category of on-site edvertlsing; a~d da~yinc~ ihe existing wall sic~n facirg sau!t~ an the basis that no hardsht~ exists due to tf~e size and shape of subJect pro{~~c•ty anci 1t does rwt dfffcr from ott;er nearby p~opertles simflarly zuri~~d and dNVCl~ped and that the propcrty t5 not befng dcnled prlvile~es beinc~ eitiJoyed by other properties (n the same zone and vlcinlty; that the camNerciel buildings on subjcct prop~rty benafic from s ubstantial vislbllity eo nearby arterfa! highways and the f~eewsy; end ~hat an undeslrable prece dent aould be escablished in the Scenir Cvrridor Overlay Zone If chis walver was granted; and subJect to Int~erdc;.arcmental Committee recommendation•. 5/ ~, )~ ~ ~ ~ MIIIUI'Ea~ ANAl1EIM CITY PLANNING GOMMISSIOIa~ MAY ~~ 1!~79 7~-349 EIR CATLG4RICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 11 - VARIANCE N0. ~0~0 (ca~tinued) On rol 1 cal l~ the furegoing r~salurion wes passed by the fo{ lc.wing vote: l1YES; COMI115S1011ER5; BARNf:S~ BUSMORE~ ~J~VIO~ HERpST, JOfiNSON~ KING~ T~IAR Nt~ES: C"MMISSIOIJERS; NOI~E A(3SENT: C~MMISSIO-:ERS: NONE Cor•m( .~loner Barnes polnted aut this resolutio~ wl I1 pcrmlt thc slqntny facing la Palma, thc statue and th~ sic~n facing Imperlal Higl~way~ nnd tF~e sl~n o~ the hack of the bulldiny must be removed. Chafrman Ilerbst potntcd o•it the Texacu sic;ning and sorie of the Industrl:~l hulldings wrre there before thc~ Scertic Corridor ordlnAnce ~~es adopted. Mr. Christl~n asked what signiny he aould be pcrmitted if the pr~perty were stti) tnned industrlal~ and it was pointed out ?f the pro~erty werc z~aned Industrial~ this use would npt bc permitte~f. Ann(ke Santalrhti~ ll~sistant plrector for I.oning~ ~taCed [here are no slgniny restrlr.[ions for tho entire induStrial areA in tlic Sc~nic Gorrldor sA t.f~ey are allc~wed norn~+l induscrla) si~tnir~.~ which would be Icss for industrial than rc~ular cortr,x-rc{al~ but mo~e than allowcd in the Scenic Gorr(dnr cannPrclal. Mr. Chr(stlan polnteci out ~~e was surpri~ed whe~ the S~uGhland Lumber Company had beon eonstructed acr~ss ehe s[rcet end was permi ttr.d to havc a f rce-standi ng pole s ign~ ,and i t was noted that prnpercy (s not in chc Scenic Corrldor. Jack 4lhice, Ueputy City Attorney~ pr~sented the writ[en right tr appea) the Pienning C~rtmisslon's decision wtth(n 2?. ~ieys to thc Glty Councll, RECESS There was a ten-minute recess at J:17 p,m, ....__ RCCONVENE The rneet~ng was reconvened at 3:27 p.m. _.._.~._._ ITEM ~~0. ~ aequest f~,r approval of r~n+oual of 1~ specimen ~t N~~VE DECLARATI01! trees ih order to construct a tennls cnurt on L approxlrnatrly 1.0 acre at, 523 Peral te H! l ls Dri v~, Fi~MOVAI OF SPECIIIEN TREES (Continued from earl ter tn tt~~ me•ting.) SubJect request was continued from the mr:ettng o' Februnry 26~ 1~7^. in orr;er for the petttioner to submit an tIR Neg~tOve Declaration and landsc9p:nq and grading plans, There were e~pproximstely flv~ persons indicating their presencr in opposttian to sub1eet reyucst. Howard Ga~b~r~ 523 Per~lta Hllis p~ive. stated hc had deacribed his fpelings to Cholrman Herbst afte~ the previous hearing~ which had been r~ very un~amfo~table situstion and hi s wife had left the meeiing in t~ars. Ne statGd ht dtd not intend to sub.Ject him~elf to the kind of abuse he had received~ particuiarly f~om onc Commtssloner who had made a5usive and defamitary remerks and was nbviausiy ~reJudiced. He stated iY he has to c~pear before this Commisslon vn any matter tn the fuiu~e~ he v+il1 ask e~-st thet pertitular Commlssic~nar rule himsalf out of voting. He stated he belleved ct~e I~sue before the Caronisslnn today 5/7/19 w r ~. MINUTES, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING GONMISSIOW, MAY 7~ 1g79 79-35~1 EIR NEGATIVE DECI~ARATION A~~D REQUEST FOR APPROVAI OF REMOVAI OF SPECIMEN TREL•S (continued) of the rern~val of trees i s t ns i gn i f 1 cant compared ta the t ssue of t r i mmi ~g government ~ and his past rertw~ks es far as pol i tics is conco~ned a~G to enc~urage crlmming gover~rt-ent. IIa explalned at the time af the prevtous hearing. the trees were trimned to 10 feet snd subsequantly wer~ cut aftrr cantact with Lhe Clt.y Attorney's Office and after remarks of the De~uty C;ty Attorney. the City Council and thc Zon(ng Enforcement Officer. tie stated a n4wv spec'men trae ordinence has been passed hut tf~e former ardinance wes rmblyuous and lacked er~forcemcnt~ and he felt he was singled nut as en example, perliaps to stimulete the possaye of thc new or~llnsnce and fPlt if he had serv~d that pu~pose~ that (s fin~. Ne felt the new orJlno~ice 1 s not ~mbi yuous; hawever, he fcl t the rul i~<~ at che tlmc or the considoration c~ivr.n hls case is not really Importanc because tl~e former ordlnance was not bcing enforccd. Or. Garbcr stateJ he had told the Commission ~t the prcvious hearinq that he w~uld place a band to Insure that he woulc re:~~lAnt tt~c trecs and that hc sti I1 Intends to replant thc trees. Ne stoted the trees .~ave her.n cut down for all practical purpo~es and are ab~ut 4 fect high. Ile Prcpl~ined thc grading plan fs stl i 1 before the Ene~ineerinq Departmen[; that An~ca) Engineerli~q has ~c~vised them anci he is sti 11 waitinq far the gr~ding pl.~n; and that this is just one of the severa) issues rclated to the dev~lopment of his property. Ile s tated the pos i t(on he f s tak i n~~ ! s that thc t rees havr been rcmovpd and new t rees wt 1 I hc planted; th~t he had a harcishin case regarding the d~velopment af the tennis c.ou~t which the Ilill and Canyan Munietpal Advfsory Cammittee (NACIV~C) end the Plnnning Cor+mission both ignored; that ha wants to continue plans for development of h!• property and assure~! the Comnission Lhere wi II be anoth~~r 1 in~.~ of trr_es planted; that t~e Planning Ca*mission c.rn see the plans e5 suon as t1~ey hevc been approvPd and Anaca~ Engineerinq has contacted him, Lynn Bell, „5 Pcralte Hi lls Drive~ Anatieim~ dlrectly behind Ur, Garber~ stated she befleved tt~c trees were at 20 feet .it the eimc of the previous heariny and the petltion~r nad cut then, s(nce tt,~t t ir~~e to 5 f~~t~ so t~ie trees are gone. She presPnted a letter tn the Ueputy C 1 ty At torney f rnm t~~e V I g 1 ion~s and s tatcd they hsc; askea her to represent them since they c.c~uld not be present. She stated [he Commission had wanted the petitlon~r to "menu fencrs" w(th his nei<~ht~ors~ but that he had not contected them nor~ as far as she kn~~w~ thc Viyl foncs. SF,e statect thcrr, is sc i{ 1 a b( g st.snd of crres in the area and asked 1 f those Crees can he cut , Choircnan Htrbst state~l [hat acc<~rding to the new ord(nancc [hey c~ul~ be trlMrned to 25 fe~t ~ and Mrs . Be 1 I statCd thcy have bcen tr i mrrrd t~ 25 feet ~ nnd Cornmi ss o ~ner Jahnson stated that the Cormission can~c actu~lly stop snyonc from physically cuttlny the trees and pvlnted out there was an ordinance oefore. Commissloncr (iarnes stated +~o~ only d~d rvc have an ~rdi~•ancc at that t;r~c. but Dr, Garber had sta[ed he was not yoiny tu cut the trees and agreed to top thtm to the hcight ~acomnended by thc Planninq Gommissi~n and now the trees arc gone. She stated she did not understand this action. Shc stated the Con~nissio~ h~s ncat denied Q~. Garber's requcst to tut the tr~es and che ordlnanc~ is to protect the citi7ens of Anaheim~ but it seemed to her that Ur. Garber obviously has ~tt~r conte~t for the or~iin~ncr.s and laws of che Lit;~ of Anaiieim, and she f~elt this would be just a Jake tn say that he cannot take the trees out nc~r that tliey fia~c already br.~n rennvr.d. She fclt it (s time to start enforcing the ordl~iance. 5he stated shc undcrscc~o~ wh~r he wantec! to removc the trces in order to bui ld the tennls court and she {~rc~taably wouid ~iavc voted for anprava! of remaval of thosr trees if the plans had betin presented, etc., ~nd wanteJ liim to know there was n4 prejudice on her part and she f~lt thcre was absulutciy no pre.iudice on ~he part of any of the other Ccarnmissio~~rs r~yarding the te~n~s court since they hsve loo~ed oL othcr tennis courts (n ~ihe ar~n and have grar+tr_d somc varlances ~ but ~he fcl c that his atti tude seemed to bP that the I~ws cfo not a~p~y t~ him. i: K 5/7/79 ~ ~ ~ MINUTCS~ A~~IWEIM CITY PLAN~~ING CONh11S510f1~ MAY 7~ 1~79 7~-j5) EIR NEGATIVE UECLARA Tt01~ AND REQUCST FOR APPROV~L OF RCMOVAL OF SPCCIMEN TR~~S (continued) - ~_ Comrnissioner Johnson slatc~l his remark had bcen to answer the qucstt~n as to whethcr or not further t~ccs could bc cut and that his answer is stlil yes~ thPy can be cut~ and Commis5l~rier Uavid felt the questlon Is really whether ar nnt the tre~s can be cut wtth impunity s(nce it ts obvtous Dr. Gerbor ca~ physicnlly cut the trccs. Mrs. lle) l state~ she undcrstood that Dr. Garl~e~'s trers ln the area where he wants to plece a tennl5 :.uurt were cut down I~efore Clir. new ordlnance and (nd(catc~d s~ie wos not slnylln~~ uut any onc pcr~.an because oci~cr crces -~ave becn cut In tlir area since then. She osF:ed if~ under the new ord(nt+nce. cittzens wil) have any redre~ss or some way of keaping the erea benutifu) ar~d keepln~a tl~e trecs. She askr.~f (f there wlll be a stiff penalty or jall sentence for an~~onc else cuttiny trecs. Jack Whftc~ Dc~uty City Attorncy~ explalned the ne~•r ordtnancc has hecn adopt~d hy the City Caunci) and teke5 r~ffect j~ days after (t is edopted~ but he was not sure of the~ exact date. He exnl~~inc•1 Lhe penalty for ~uttiny trces w(11 be slx months in ,jall and/or ~~ maxlmum fine of $50~ fur cach vfolAtlon~ explaining tli~t ts the maxlmum penalty; th~t the ne~e ardinancc ~ocs hAVe a deftnitlon of toppln•a o trce and prnv(dcs that wlthout e trce permit~ a protected tree cann~t be w t to less than 2; f~et~ and thnt was th= biggest elemr.nt lackiny iri thc Aflt~Itld) ~rdinance~ a deflnitfor~ of hc~w fAr you can cut a tree bef~re It amounted to r~r~v~~) of a t~ce, and since Lhere was n~ definit(on~ it was their offlce's onint~n t'iat anyone: coul~! cut a tree to .iny heigl:t as lonc~ ns it dId nc~t kill thc trec and that would be .i problcm co provc (n ~ourt so [hat the new orJlnance adapted says yau cen~ot cut a trre to Icss than 2; fc~:t ahpve groun~l Icvrl , Dr. Garbcr s~atec~ he hes every int~~r~tion of replan[in~ the t~eps a~d that hr. did not do what h( s n~i ~~hbor ~ Todd Brcrivn ~ had Aone wh ~ ch was tn c( rcur~ve~ t the ord( nance ;[h ~t ha had paiJ h1s ~25 and ap Peared beforc NACMAC and thc Planniny Commisslon, and thPt he had rtot cut his trecs from :; fect to 1~ fec[ unt{I he hacl m~~~fe every effort enci hod tniked w(th Nr. Gundy and Che Ci ty Atto~nr_y's Officc An~ his attorney and rnadc sure hc w~s with(n his rights and wi [hi~ ih~ law;~ and that the prevfous ordinancc was not clefl~ly understood and the fact chat thc C i ty Cc~un~i 1 has adoptcd tl~~ nr..w orJinance proves his case. He stated Todd Nr~wn had cut 1:, tt~ 2~ trces aftcr the Planniny Department had hecn notified and asked what wc~u i d b~: done about i t~ stat i ng Mr. Na :~ was not I f 1 ecl a~d Mr. Brown has made no ettenpt to replant thc trers~ nor ta a~rrect the water draina~c prohlerr tfiat has fiaoded hls yard. I~e stated Mr. Browre is not bcin~ forced to replace his crees, and esked why he (Ur. Gar~erj was bei~~~ sinyled o~~t. Chairman Ilert~st stat~~J tl~is ~equrst is for tt~e approval of removal of specimen trees on Or. Garber's property and that the Plann(nq Co~+nisai~n r.~nnot discuss the remc~val of Mr. Brawn's irees or anyonr cise`s trees. Or. Garb~r stated he would nnt rcpl~nt h!s trees u~less his nciqt~hor ls made to replace hls trees. Chatrman flerbst ext~l~inecl .~yain t~~at the Planninq Comm(ssian cannot discuss the removal of the neinhbor's trees and tl~at C~~~y le<jally must discuss the subJect property. ~r. Garbe~ stetcd '_ ap~~ectated tl~e cc~nsider~tion given him by che ChatrorWn previously and apologlz~J for losinq his tempcr~ and stated if the law is to t.. cn~orccable~ it has to be ~pplled equitably and must apply v~tthput discrimtnatic..~ and without selettivity. ~haf nnan Herbst explained that the Planning Cortimission cannot discuss the neighbor's tree r~moval u~til that case is legally brouq~t beforc tham. ~/7/79 ~ ~ MI NtJTES ~ ANANE I M C 17Y PIANN I NG COMM 15S I ON ~ NAV 7~ 1'~ 79 79- 357 EIR I~EGATIYE DECLARATION ANU REQUEST FQII APPROVAI OF iIEMOVAL OF SPEC__ IMEN.TREES (contlnued) pr. Gsrber stated hts tre~s sre gono; that he Intends to replant them and he will replant them e~s soon as his g~ading plan (s donG~ ar~d he wl I1 replant ttiem ev~n lhough M~. B~own do~s nat. ~le state~l he wauld bring a ~cqu~st bef~~e thc Coranisslun at d later datc to do somethiny about Mr. Brown's t~ecs~ stating he d14 not see hvw one IndlvlJual could be macle to do somethlny sbout hls trces when othcrs are not made to do the same; that hc will brtng the pler~ before t1~e Planning Commission as sooR a~ hc has It; that he would replant oacfi and eve n- tree~ i~cludtng the four deod trues and posslbly more~ as sron es he hos hts grading plan epproved; and that he h~s no intention of rem~viny the otlier tracs and he did not w ant thcm remc.~ved and would prosecucc ar.yone who docs removc the trces. Ne scated he wants a tennis court; chat he is wa(ting for che plan to be approvad and stated he thin{.s this Is a rldiculuus, pralongPd, scupid affalr as far ~s he was concerned. Chalrman lierbst pointc~ out that at the p~evtous I~e~riny Dr. Gerber had promised to brlnc~ the Commtssic,n e pla~ nnd that ts why the matter was cantlrueJ; that the Connisston had not prolonged the matter, and that tl~ay ck~ went thP devclc,prnr,nt done p~operly. pr. Garbsr sEat~d I~c wants (t donc p~uperly~ also~ ond A5 suon as the yradinq plan is appr~ved, the ~radinq wil) bc ck~ne and [he rrcr_s will be rcplanted, ar,d he hoped everyone wuuld bc hap~y. Go~ryntssi~ner Uavid aske~d how rnuch t(me is needed for t-~e continuance~ and Jay ~(tus, Offlce f.ngineer~ expiaincd tt~e c3rading plan wAS submitted t~ thc Subdtvlslon Section for cheeking on Aprtl 3~th and ic has not es yec been chetked~ but it wlll be checked -+ichin thc next three or four d~ys. He stAted the chec~.~~d print with cc~+n+ents would qo batk to the petitloner's enylnecr and it will bc up ia his e~!~inecr whcn ic wlll b~ returned to the Enylneerin~~ Uepartmr.nt. 11e ~tateJ plans had I~cen submitted sevcra) month5 ~~go~ but werC n«L ade~uatc riar completc and v+er~ returned to !)r. Garber's englnecr. 11e stAted the En~l~PCriny Department has had a lo[ of Jiscussions with Dr, Garbrr and his r.ngineer and hc dicl nat knaw the rclationsi~lp bot~een Or, GarGcr an~i his en~inr.er~ but that [he timing i s up to tl~em. Chairman ~lerbst statr•d D~. Garber cuut~l not replanc the trecs u~til thc grading ptan has been ccxnpleted wlth [he proper grad(ny beceuse he woulcJ went the trees put in the ~loh[ place. Ne stated he recoynizcs the problem and felt it c~n be solvcd and state~3 the Rlann(r:g Corrxnission ls trying to do the job t1~cy were appointed to do and protect both the petitioner 3nd the ncighbors~. I~e sta[ed Dr. Garber's attitude dfsturbed htm. Dr. Gar'ber stetc~ he felt if tt~e Planning Corrnisslon understood his problcros~ they would understanA hls alCtltude; that i~e hag a garag~~ whlch (s half finlshed and hc had to stop work durinq constructlan I~ecause hls neiyht~ors appar~nt~y ob)ected to the setback which is perfectly IegAl~ and in the middle of constructlon he had to stop work and could not nven covcr the plywood to protect It fram ~he rain. He stated he is Involved in ten different thlnys and this is just onc of his problems~ and he felt there is a vendetta agal~it h(m. Chai rman Nerbst pointed out sometimes atti tude causes prob Icrns wl ~h neignbors and wi th the Commission, and D~. Garber stated the Pla~niny Cortxnission is appointad to serve the publ(c a~d that he is not hert to ~erve th~ Planni~e~ Commission~ snr! Chairman Ne~bst stated the Planniny Canmission Is tryin~ tn serve hi:~ and t1~e neighhors. Or. Garber stated he ls not suppased to cortx; ~efore the Planning Commission wi[h the attitudc of doing whateve~ is dSctateci~ but if it is within reason and withln the law. he would be in favor of it; a~d that vt ry often he dpes not like the Pla~ning Lomv+isslon's attitude. 517/79 ~ ,~ MIIIUTES~ ANAIICiM CITY Pll1NNING CONMISSION~ MAY 7~ 1979 19-353 EIR NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND RE~UEST FOR APPROVAL OF REMOVAL OF SPECIMEN TRE~S (aanttnuesd) ~_., ~.~. _..~..__ Chalrman Ner~st ststed the Planntng Cammtssion is t ry tng to c~rrect a problem tha! hes bne~ croet~d And if t~e plans are submitccd shawing where thc trccs wil) be ~eplac~:, tt~(s matter can be settled. Ur. Garbar sceted when a Commissto~er makes remerks thst are defam~to ry~ abusive~ etc.~ that it (s thc resp~nsibility of the C~mmisslon to censu~c him in some way~ and thot no attempl was made whatsoever to censure thp CpmmissiQn~r who satd he woulcf n~t wsnt to be his noighbor when hr dld not ew~n knaw i~irn. Commitsione~ David asked hc~w lony ~~ ca~tinuance Dr. Garber needed~ and Chalrman Herbst pointed out the Plenning ~ommissfon rnust c~nctnur. tfie matter to a date certain~ and it was dets~minr.A a b~1-day continu~snce wauld be suffic.lent. Commissloncr Barnes stated to t?r. Garber tl~at che Plannin!~ Ccx~misslon would Ilk~ to speed the metter up. but point~cl out he had submltte~d hts plnns to the staff an April 3~th~ whid~ wus only seven days ayo~ and Or, G~rl,er stated Anacal Engtneerin~ had submttted the plans arid they ore only ~~ yards da+n th~e hal l~ and he ~ild not uncicrstand wl~y there could not be that F.ind of carrKnunicatiorr to ge:t tht~ mattr.r completed. Commissloner Bernes palntcd out tl~(s ~natter '~ad baen continued from thP meeclnc~ of February 2f~th and slie did not und~~rstand why it v+ould cAke f~~ days (n orcSer to finish the mettcr; thAt Er-ginecrinq w~ulcJ submi[ thr_ ~lans within thc next fe~ days and felt Dr, Garbcr wuld have hls landscaper stivw whcre tt~e trecs are g~ing t~ he replanted, which is all the f'lanning Commissian is Intcres~ted in at this point. Or. GaK~~r stated as soon ~s f~~ h8s thr. gradiny plan~ he could show exactly wl~erc the trces wi 11 be replanted. Curm~issioncr E3arnes ~skcd hlr~ to stipulatt. as ta the l,lnd of trces which wlll bc rc~lanted and to coordinace thbt wi th the prope~r City department. Dr. Garbcr stated he would be very happY kn do tt~~at and if t-~e tiells would Iikc another typ~ of tre~~ maybe tl~ey could aqree on some ot~icr type. He stated a 3!~'day continuance would be adequate. ACTIO~~: Gammissioncr Dav1d offered a m.~tic~n~ seconded by CammtsSione~ Johnson and PqOT1QN ARR EU, that considcration af th~ request for approval of i•emoval of t~~e ten specimen trees be continued t~ the regularly-scheduled meeting ~f thc Planning ~:ommissi~n on Juna 4~ 197~~ in order for the petitloner to submit landscape plans. Mr. Vigl(one indicated from the 8udlenCC he was naw pre~ent and woulc! 11ke to hade t~(5 tetter ~ead int~ the recard. Jack 41hi[e read the letter d~ted May 7, 1979~ frort~ Cecil Ylglione. as follows: "TO WHOM IT MAY CONCEFN As of this slote the~e has been rw sel:~~+ne~t of thc dispute between Sam S. Vlgllo~e L Cecl) J. ViglioR~s vs Hc~werd Garber 6 Jean Garbe~ over the water aasement d~scded to the Viglione's. Said easement ts on prop~rty ownod hy Garber`s. The water lines run parailet with the t~ees that Garbar's went removed. 5/ 1/79 '~ ~ ~ MI NUTE 5~ At111NE I M C I TY PLIINN I NG COMN 1 SS I ON ~ MAY J~ 1979 79~ 3SW EIR NEGATIVE DLCLARATION ANO REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF FtENOYAL OF SPECIMEN TREES (cr~ntlnued) ~..._.._..~ ........_.._~ ~~ ._... Lest yeer~ when grading thr,ir p~~perty (without permits) G2 f~ct of our watcr Ilne was tarn out +~nd replACer1 at our awn expcnae, Gsrber's have yet to retmburse aur cnsts or tnca~venlence. 41c presently have a tr.mpora ry ln~unctlan flled agalnst the Gerber's to stop thGm from tampuring wf th our raserr~nt or water l ines. 41a wI 11 return tu Superlor Court. S~ants Ana on the 25th of Nay~ 19i`f to s~~~k a p~rrnanent lnjuncti~n ~gAlnst tha: Garber's." M~. Vlglione ask~d what cype of replacement trces would be ~lant~d~ ~m d M~Ika Sentalahtl. Assistant Ufrect~r for I.onln~~~ ex~lafned there is a ~eplaceme~nt Ilst for speclrr~n trer.s thet are acceptab Ics and tt,ere 1 s e s i zc requi rernent ~ I~ut thcy are yuunq trees rnd wt 1 1 be small and there arc ~Iso alternat~ ChplCe'S. Commission~s~ Toler a,kc~! why tht Planning Corrwnlssion is herrinn thly mactrr rc~rtn slnr,e th~: trres have alrcady been remavcd, anJ 1lnnika Sentelahti ~xplalnPd there ere ten trees tnvolved and the trces thHt arc 4 feet tdll whlch have been to~pcd ~~Id not include al) ten t ree s . Commissloncr Tolar 5tated he woulJ I ikc tu ~~ave so~~~conc rnbl.e a moti~n for Ap~+raval of thc rurroval nf thc spcclmen trecs slncr, Chcy f~~ve alrca~ly bcen removed. Commissioner Joh~nson stdted if thc. Planniny Cammission Jeni~:d the rs~uest far rertioval af the specirr~n trees~ it would then be ~~p to the legal Uepartment ta try a~~d plac~ ~ fine c~n th~ petltic~~er far destr~yinq thc t,•ec~s. ITE:N NU. 13 ~Ot~, tl RLCUHMEfIUAT~01~5 A. COII~ITIOIIAL USE P[.Rt~iT N0. 1~;iu - Reques[ for an extenslon of tlme. The st~ff report to the PlAnniny Commisslon Jaced May 7, 1~!7^ wa~s presenC~J~ noting subJect propcrty is an irrcqularly-sti~~~sd p~rcel of lanu consiattnc; af approximately 0.'L acre locoted at the r-c~rcl~west wrn~~ of 5outt~ Street anc! Statc Col iege Etoulevard, f~aving ap{~roxlmate frontagcs nf 92 feet on tl~c north side of South Street anc} r,0 f~et o~ the west sidc nf Statc Gollege f3oulev~rd; that th~ applicont (-~sry Davc) r~quests a khree-year extenslon of time for Condi ti~nal Usr. Permi t l~o. 161~ which ~,~~s c~ranced c~n riay 1~, Z~76, for a pcr(od of thrce ycars i~ permit a d~y nurse ry pr~aviding care for 2~+ children (n an exlsting residence~ s~bJ~ct to rcview anci further extenslon of tin~; that it has t~een the pollcy of the City that an extenslon of time be r~rant~d only for a peri~d whi~h does not exceed the le~yth of tin~e for which che u~nditionai use t~erri(t was originally granted; and that the Zoning Enforcernent Office~ repo~ts n~ probl~n~s reintlve to thr use of subJect p rc+pe r ty . ACTION: Car~xniss(~xirr Uavid nffered a rnc~tian~ s~condeA by Comm?ssioner K(ne~ and MOT{ON Rt ED~ that the Anah~lrn City Planniny Commission doe~ he~e:by grant a thrce-year ~extension of ticae far Coneltlonai Use Permit Mo. 1~~18, to expi~e an May 10~ 19~%. 5/7/79 ;~ ~~ ~~ MINUTES~ At!l11~EIM GITY PLAIINING COMMISStON~ MI1Y ~~ 1~7~ 79-355 REPQRTS ANO RECOMMENDATIOttS (cantinued) B. (:Ot1uITi0NAl USE PkftMIT N0, 1i~25 •~ Raquest for an extenslan of tlrt-c. Th~ staff ~epart tc~ the Plenntn~~ Commiaslan dnted May ], iq7y was ~1'!!SCnted, notln~.~ suhject pr~perty Is an Irregularly-sh~~ed percr) of IAnd consisting of a~pr~ximAtely 3.~ ecres havinq enproximatr, frontagrs of 3f~3 f~et an thc south sicie of Ura~yearood Avc.nuc~ 437 feet on [lie cast s(de of La+is Strcet~ end 23G f~Pt on tlie southwest slde of Manchestr~ Avenue; that the ep~,licant (Sam Patane'~ ftobert Schullcr Minlstries) requPSts a ~ne-ye~r extension of kirne ta camplexe c;ondi t lons r~f approval ~f Cond( tlon.~l Use Perml t No. 1~i2; ahich was grant•J by thc Planninq Canmisslon on Ap~l! 28~ 1~7~~ to pcrmlt ~ ceo~ete:ry wtth w~elver of max(mum Eencs height~ maximurn structural heie~ht, r~fnimum front yerd s~tback~ s~nd minlmum s(de yard setback; that thP pr.ti[iuner suhsequcntly eppcaleJ Condltlon Na. ; of Cand(tipn~9) Use Permlt No. iH2~,, r~questin~a thet cf,P City Cauncil deletc ~- Planning Camnisslun requirem~nt that an ~ASe~nent over suh)ecc pr~psrCy be reservr_d for the furure Orany~voa~J uvcrcrossing off t-ie Santa Ana FrcewAy~ and ~n Junc f,~ 197tS~ the City ~oun~i 1 approved Conditic,nal Usc Perr~~it N~. 1:~25~ deletinr~ said c~~nJitl~~n; that sub)~ct co~edi[(cmal use permit was appraved suhJect to condi[ic,ns b~in~ cornpleted wicnin a period c-f onc y4u~~ or such furthcr tirn~ as thc Planning Ccx,nnisslun nay ~~rant; and thnt th~- petitloner in~icates clelays in planninq nnd develo~ment of thN ~roperty h:-vr necessitated the exten~slon of time. A representative~ frar~ thr f,arden Grov~~ Commw~lty Church was {~resent [o -•~~ er any qu~stions. CUmmissioner bushore w~s c~ncernecf whcther or n~t thc op~rAticm woul [he operatlon to th~ suuth~ ana tlic re~resenta[ive frorn thr churr_h ~~ pnSSibility had b~~n discusse~l~ but thPre was no inditatlon thev ~~c~, Coge[her. AGTIU~I; (;qrnm~ss~oner tsr~rnes ottere~ a mc~Cion~ seconaea py ~camm~ •~- •n~ ~~ (Commissloncr Etushar~~ votin~l no), that the Annhcim Clty ~'+_+~ '~ ~ hereby grAr+t a one-yca~ exten5f~n of tirne to allow thc pttition~•r ~~- conditlons of approvol of C~nditicx~al Usc Permit ~io. 18'1.~~ to ~•xr - ~ :r.^,,... teci Wi Lh ~~~., -at `~ , „.~„ ,,~q '~, ,. ,' , .. ,~:*~~fd and MOTI(1N +. :.ca~mS ss ion daes ' ~ -t, ~omp i c te the ~ ~~ r~~ • J une 'v ~ .3~4~39'. ' ~? ~ ' ~ : v +` = ~ . C. AGAr~UONr~EN~ N0. 7~'28A - Request ic abanda~ a portion of t~~.:oin Avenue~ Lemon ~C eet~ , crnent ne ~treet and al l of those certain ;~ubl i: :,; ~~ys lying between Anaheim [3ouievard and tlic prcpo~;ed realigrement of C1»n~~sc~nw St~eet and between Oak Street and the new atignmen~t of Linc~ln Avenue, Gommissloner Kine~ declared a confl ict of interHst as defined bt• rinar*~eim [ ty Planni~g Commisslon Resalution No. FC76-1,57. adopting a Conflic~ of I~teres: Code for the Planning Conrnission~ and Government Code Sectio~ 362j et seq.~ i~ th~t he c~wns Pacific Telephor.e Company stock and Pe~ific Lig~~tir~y Cor~.oration stock wh~ch c~s `~authern California Gas Gompany and, pursuant to the provisi~~na of the ebove cc>cfes~ ~xclared to the Chalrman that he was wlthdrawing frcxn the hearing in conmection with Aba~cionrt~nt ~~o. 78-28A and would not take part tn either the discus~ion or th~• voting thereon~ and had not dlscussed this matter with any member of the Plonninc~ Gcwort~lssion. The staff report to th~ Pl~nntng Cortrniss~on cJate~ May 7~ 1979 wes presented~ noting subJect req~~st for abendonmer~t by Narman Prfest. Executive Uirector of Anaheim Redevelopment Agency~ has bean recommendEd by the Public Works Department~ Engtneering Oivision~ sut,Ject to reserving unto tt~r City of Anaheim public utiltty Easfinents in~luding~ but ~ot limtCed to, sanitar~~ se~we~ and storm drain purposes together w(th all reasonable rights of ingress and egress; reserving unto the Paci'fic Telephone Company Pi 5/ 7/ 79 ~ ~ ~ MINUT~S. ANNIEIM CITY PLANNIIJf, CAMMISSION~ MAY 7~ 197~ 79'35fi REPORTS AI~U RECQMMENOATIONS - ITEM G(continued) publtc utllfty eosement to constr~~ct plACC. operate~ inspect~ malntaln. repalr~ replaco and ~ernovo such aertal and under~~r~und talFphane~ iclegraph and cor~,munlcatian structures as the :~mpanv mey from t(me to time requirr.. ~onststtng ~f poles~ anchors~ wires, cables, conduits, rnanh~~les, markers anc' ncces~ary fixtures and erpurtenancPS; that the r~se~vetlon to saiJ P~ciftc Telephone Com`a~y is subJecc to thc; prior rlqhts of tha. ~esement rescrved unto tiie Ctty af Anahelm; reservina theref~am a public uttlity ~esrment unto the Souther~ Callforn(a Gas Company; and that thc reservatfc~n tc~ said gas company Is subJect to the prlor rlyhts nf the easement reserveci unto tl~c Ci ty o1` Anelieim. I t was noted the requcs~ has bcen rcvtewed by all d~~part~:~ents of the Glty and affectcJ outsldc ahencies and approva) (s recanmended s~~bject tc~ titie abovc-nentlonect reservati~ns ~nd c~nJitlons; chat ttie Aneheim Redc~velopmr.nt Agency is pre~ently in the ~rocess of assemblin~ severel parcels of land in this arca wlth thc intent of develnpin~ sar.x~ for thc proposcd tawn center~ thcrefore~ portl~ns of the exlsCiny streets And alleys must. he vacatcd; and thfit th~ subJect street~ and oileys were ~ledicate~J far nubl(c use at thr. t(me ~f rrcord~tion of vari~us tract i'~ApS 1~cateJ with(n thc suuject ~re.~. ACTIO~~: Commfssianer Uavid offered a rnotion, secondeci by Gcxm~~tsst~ner Tolar sncl MOTlON ~p (Gormissione~s (iushore ar~d Kinq abs[aininy), that the P.naheim City Planning Comnisslon does hereby recrxnmend to tl~e Ct [y Counci 1 approval of Abandonment No. 78-2~A. D. CQNU1710Nl1L USE PERMIT N0. 16G6 - Reyuest for terminatian. The stafP report t~ the Planning Gornn~sslon dated May 7, 1~1~3 was pr~~ented~ notinc~ subJect proper[y is a reccangularly-shape~i c~arcc:l of land consistin~ of approxtrl.ately 0.3 acre loc~ted at ti~e northeast corncr of Ball Road c~nd Dale Avenue~ hav(ng apprr,ximate frontages of 39 feet on the north side of Uall Road and 137 feat on the tast side of Uale Avenue; th~~t ttie ~;,pl Icant (Wi 11 iam R. GI lsa~~ Foodmaker~ inc.) requests terminatton of Conditional Use Pe nnit No. 1Gb6 whtch was r~ranted by the City Council on Septemher 28~ 197G to expand an existing drive•ti~rouyl~ restaurant with waiver of minimun~ number of parkl.~y spar,~s ancl ~naximum driv~w~~ width; that on March 2(i~ 1979~ ihc Planning Commisslon approved Conditi~nal Use Perm+t No. ly;) to perriit expansl~on of an cxisting drive-through restaurant with waiver of minimurn number of pa~king ~paces and minimum drlve-throuc~h lane lengt~~ on subject pronerty, and on~e of the conditions of approval of said conditianal use permit inclucSed the requlrernenC ~hat tl~e property owner submit a letter requesting termination of Gon~iltlonnl Use Perrnit No. 16~~6; and that the letter requesting said termination had been submitte~f. ACTION: Commissionc~ tiarnes offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Davld and MOTIGN CA RIED~ that the Anahefm City Ptanring Comm(ss1Un does hereby recommend to the City Councll that Co~ditional Use Pe nnit No. 1G46 bc terminated. E. CONUITlONAL USE PERNIT t~0. 1~30 - Request for an extension of time. __._._._. - Tfie staff report to the Planning Cormilssion dated M~y 7~ l979 was presented, noting subJeCt prnperty ts an ir~egularly-shaped parc~i of land amsisting of approxima[ely 1.6 acres having a frontage of approximately 199 fCt'L on the south side of Miraloma Way. having ~ maximum depth of approximately 3n3 feet~ and being loeated approximately 360 teet west of the centert ine of Sunshine: Way; ihat the appl lcant (Rcabert For•dycc) requests a 3U- day~ ~et~oactive extension of time to cornply with the Planning Commissto~'s rec~uirement ttiat outdoor storage of truzk chassie a~ subJect property cease within 9fi days; that CundittUnal Use Permit t~o. 1930. to pe~mit autdoar starage af new vehicle chassls with 5/7/~9 ~ ~ ~ ~1 MINUTES~ ANAH~IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 7~ 1979 79-~57 REPORTS AND RECOMMEf10AT10NS - ITE!i E(wnttnued) walve~ of requlred pa~ktng~ lendscapRd setback and enclosu~e ot outdoo~ uses~ was denled by the PlAnnii-g Commlssion on January 15• 1979 and tha appllcen2 was grAnted e 90~-c+ay perlod fram that date to term(nt~te autdaor storege on subJect property; that the Zo~ing Enforcament Offtcer wes subsequ~ntly directed by the Planning Commtsslon to lnspect sub)ect site •t the end of th~: perloci (April 15~ 1~79)~ and tnspectian of subJect slte on Ap~i1 1q~ 1979 ~evoa~~~ cantinu.nd autd~or storaye; and that the applicent indicetes tha extension of time ts necessary ~n order to complete ~elacation of the chASSi~ to another sito. ACTION: Commissloner David off~red a matlon~ secanded by Commtssloncr tiarnes end MQTION .~Ep~ that the Anehelm City Pltinnln~ Comm{sslon does hereby grant a 3Q-dey~ retroact(ve extension of time to ellow the applica~t tir-~ t~ complete the retocation, said extension to exp i ~e on May 15 ~ i`) i'~ . ApJOURfIMENT Thcre betng no furthcr bus(n~ess~ Commisslonar Johnson offered , n~otto~~ second~ci by Conmiss~aner Oavid end MdTiQN CARRIEQ~ that the meetin~ be aclJourned. The meeting was adjourned at 4:A5 p.m. Respectfully submitted~ -~~ -~ ~~ Edith L. Hs~ris~ Secretary A~eheim City Pla~nning CommissiAn ELN:hm 5/7/79 4 1