The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1964/07/20, . . ~ . .. ~ ~ ~ _.._ ~ - ~ ~ City Ha~ Anaheim, California July 20, 1964 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular maeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2:00 o'clock pom., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMANs Mungallo COMMISSIONERSs Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Perry, Rowlando (Commissioner Camp entered the Council Chamber at 2:50 o`clock p.mo) ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred. p~~T - Zoning Coordinators Martin Kreidt Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineers Arthur Daw Planning Cortunission Secretsry: Ann Krebs pLEDGE OF AT.T.FGIANCE - Commissioner Chavos led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flago APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES - The Minutes of the meeting of June 22, 1964, were approved with the following correction: Page 2179, Paragraph 3- Commissioner Camp voted "Aye", and Commissioner Chavos was absento RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. LIONEL H. AND LUCILLE BROWN, 6749-Mitchell NOa 63-64-107 Avenue, Riverside, California, Owners; GLENN BURCHETTE, 627 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that property described as an irregularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard and a maximum depth of approximately 325 feet, the southern boundary of said property being approximately 310 feet north of the centerline of Center Street, and further described as 125 North State College Boulevard, be reclassifzed from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Zoning Coordinator nlartin Kreidt read a letter from the petitioners in which a request for an eight-week coni.inuance was made, to allow time for completion of revised plans~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petition fox• Reclassification No. 63-64-107 to the meeting of September 14, 1964, as requested by the petitioner to allow time for the submission of revised planse Commissioner Gauer seconded the moi:iono MOTION-CARRIED. REGLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIA'fED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ N0. b4-65-6 and 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californiae GllLF OIL CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, Attn~ Fred E. Layman, P. Oo Box 17222, Los Angeles CONDITIONAL USE 17, California, Owner; proposing the reclassification of property PERMIT N0. 601__ described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avanue and Dale Avenue, with frontages of 160 feet on Dale Avenue and 155 feet on Lincoln Avenuee Property classified as C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE deed restricted to C-3 and C-1 usese PEDPOSED CLNSSIFICATION: C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONEo PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT THE OPERATION OF AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION WITHIN 75 FEHT OF R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONED PROPERTY. - 2206 ^ ~1 i i ., „ _. _ , _~t __~__ ___- _ ._. _ -- -...... _ __. .. -__ . - _--.-,., - ~ -----..... _ ~ , , 1 _ . . ~ ; ~, ,.~ MINI~TES~~~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 20, 1964 2207 RECI.ASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIAN~ N0. 64-65-7 and 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. A. V. KAUFMAN, 325 West Eighth Street, Los Angeles 14, California, Owner; proposing the reclas- CONDITIONAL USE sification of property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of PERMIT N0. 602 land at the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Magnolia Street, with - frontages of 148 feet on Lincoln Avenue and 104 feet on Magnolia Streete Property pres~ntly classified as R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. PROPOSED CLASSIFICATIONs C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD Cuiu1MERCIAL, ZGNEo PE3APOSED CONDITIONAL USE: PERMIT OPERATION OF AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION WITNI~lV• 75 FEET OF R-A, RESISEM'IAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONED RESIDEIdCEo RECLAS5FFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOe_64-65-8 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californiao BERNARD Eo BLUME, P. 0. Box 158, La Mirada, California, Owner; proposing the reclassi- . fication of property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land approximately 143 feet by 75 feet in size, the northern boundary of said property bei.n9 approximately 190 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and the western boundary being approximately 343 feet east of the centerline of Magnolia Street, and further described as 2566 West Lincoln Avenue from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZANE to the C-1, NEIGFIDORF100D COMMERCIAL, ZONE. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ N0. 6d-65-9 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californiao Ro D. DEAR, 25507~ West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; proposing the reclassifi- . cation of property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 92 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a depth of 124 feet, the western boundary of said property being approximately 419 feet east of t~ie centerline of Magnolia Street, and further described as 2560 West Lincoln Avenue, from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL,:ZONE-to establish an existing real estate office as a conforming useo RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING~ INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, NOo 64-65-10 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californiaa NUMBLE OIL 8, REFINING COMPANY, c~o R. G. Durst, Pe 0. Box 2180, Houston, Texas,•Owner;: proposing the reclassification of property described as: A rectangu- laxly shaped parcel of land at the northeast corner of Magnolia Street and Broadway, having frontages of approximately 135 feet on Magnolia Street and approximately 135 feet on Broadway, from the C-3, HEAVY COIdMERCIAL, ZONE deed restricted to service station use only, to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE to establish an exist~ing service station in the C-1 Zone. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON~ N0. 64-65-11 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californiao HUBER G~ WILSON, 12321 Rebecca, Santa Ana, California, Owner; proposing the reclassi- fication of property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land at the southeast corner of Magnolia Street and Broadway, having frontages of 160 feet on Magnolia Street and 150 feet on Broadway, be reclassified from the C-3, HEAVY COMMERGIAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE to establfsh an existing sexvice station in its most appropriate zoneo RECI.ASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY 7HE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, N0. 6.4-65-12 and 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. TIDEWATER REALTY COo, . 4201 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles 5, California, Ownero Pxoperty CONDITIONAL USE described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land at the southwest PERMIT N0. 603 corner of Magnolia Street and Broadway, having frontages of 145 feet on Magnolia Street and 147 feet on Broadwayo Property presently classified C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE deed restricted to service station use onlya FROPOSED CLASSIFICATIONs C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE. PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USEs PERldIT THE OPERATION OF AN EXISTING SERVICE STATION WITHIN 75 FEET OF R-1~ ONE-FAMILY, ZONED PROPERTYo Zaning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Cc ~~~ission that with the exception of Reclas- sification Nos. 64-65-8 and 64-65-9, the foregoing Reclassification and Cond~tional.Use Permi.t Petitions were part of the continuing program of rezoning the existing s~rvice stations into the C-Z Zone; that Reclassification Noso 64-65-8 and 64-65-9 covered proper- ties presently being used for a real estate office established under Variance Noo 949, and an R-A parcel adjacent to existing C-1 Zoned property being used by the tenants of the C-1 property. i ' :l _ .. .~ ~ ~ :~ ;~~ . ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 20, 1964 22~a RHCLASSIFICATION NO 64-65-6 throuah 4-65-12 (Continued) No one appeared to represent the owners of subject properties. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitionsa THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission and Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts relative to the termination of the existing C-3 Zoning on property, deed restricted to service station use only, and it was determined that any subsequent approved reclassification of property would.super.sede a former action, but that any variance on the properties in question wh3ch were no longer effective because of the change of use would have to be terminated by resolution. Mr. Kreidt further reviewed for the Commission their field trip of property under considera- tion in.Reclassification No. 64-65-5, noting that the use of the property was Heavy Industrial, that at the time the property was reclassified to the C-1 Zone on the property to the north, sub3ect property had also been considered, but thac the City Council in their rezoning the property did not include the property in question, and that Variance Noo 853 still existing on subject property was for an accordian studio no longer in existence, and Variance No. 1062-was to permit the use of a residence for general office use, both of which shot.~ld be terminated if the reclassification of the property was recommended for approval. The Commission directed the Planning Department to advise the contractor using the property being considered under Reclassification Noe 64-65-8 that the property was being used in violation of the zone in which it was classiFied and to terminate the use of-the property for the.storage of trucks and materialso The Commission further stated that the property known as 2566 West Lincoln Avenue presently being used as a general office for the contractor and the R-A parcel immediately•adjacent to the south were under one ownership~ that if the southerly portion were not sold with the northerly portion, this would create a landlocked parcel, and that by rezoning of the property under Reclassification Noo 64-65-8, this would alleviate a possible future•hard- ship. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1258, Series 1964-65, and, moved for its passage and adoptiort, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Cwncil that Petition for ~ Reclassification No. 64-65-6 be unconditionally approved. (See Resolution Book.) . On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Chavos,Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1259, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland to unconditionally 9rant E~tition for Conditional Use Permit Noo601.(See Resolution Book.) On rall ca11 the foregoinq resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Chavos, GaUer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERSs None. ABSENf: COMMISSIONERS: Ailred, Campa Commissioner Perry offe;.ed Resolution No. 1260, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 64-65-7 be unconditionaliy approved. (See Resolution hook.) ! On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlande NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ABSEId~T: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1261, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland to unconditionally grant Petition for Condi- ; tional Use Permit No. 602. (See Resolution Book.) i On rotl call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ; AYf'S: COMMISSIONERSs Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowiando I NOESs COMMISSIONERSs None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp. _~--------__.... _ -- _ _ . . _ ___._ _ _ _... _._....._. ._ _ .. . _. .__ .._.._ ~a%` ~ ~ i • ~ ._._ _ .~:f ~ ~._ MIMJTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 20~ 1964 2209 RECLASSIFICI+TION N0. 64- 5-6 throuah 64-~~~ ~Continued) Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1262, Series 1964-65~ and moved for its passage and adaRt.toR; seconded by Commissioner Gauer to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 64-65-8 be unconditionally approvedo (See Resolution Book.) On ra~l call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOESs COMMISSIONERSa None. ABSEM : COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1263, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos to recommend to the City Counci] that Peti- tion for Reclassification No. 64-65-9 be unconditionally approved. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlande NOESs. GOMMISSIONERS: None. ABSEM's COMMISSIONERSa Allred~ Camp. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noe 1264, Series 1964-65~ and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend tothe City Council thatFptition for Reclassification Noe 64-65-10 be unconditionally approvedo (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vot~s AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOESs CAMMISSIONHRS: Noneo ABSENf: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Campo Cormnissionar Perry offered Resolution Noe 1265, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that ~ tition for Reclassification Noo 64-65-11 beunconditionally approvedo (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AXES: COMNIISSIOPIERS: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOESs•- COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSEIJL: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Campo Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1266, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 64-65-12 be unconditionally approved. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: A1tES: COMMISSIONERS: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES:.. COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENfa. COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1267, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to unconditionally grant 1'etition for Conditional Use Permit No. 6030 (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESt COMMISSIONERS: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOESs . COMMISSIObIERSs Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1279, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and ~daption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer to terminate Variance Nos. 853 and 1062, based on the fact that the pccordian studio no longer exists and that the general office use would be a permitted use in the recommended C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone being pro- posed. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESs CGMMISSIONERS: Chavos~ Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rovdland. NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp. ---...---°. _._._..~__...._ ._....___.____._ _..._~ -.._-.~ - ~ . ' y,'.` . - ~ / , ~ . _ . ~~~ ~ ~ - ` ~ ~ . . __ _. . , ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 20~ 1964 • 2210 Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No~ 1280, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to terminate Variance No. 949, based on the fact that the use established by that variance would be a perrnitted use in the recommended C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone being proposedo (See Resolution Book.) On roll call-the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chavos, Gauer, M~ngall, Perry, Rowlande NOESs GOMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Campo VARIANCE NO< 1649 - PUBLIC HEARING. MILLARD AND IRMA JOUL, 3065 West Ball Road, SHUTCHI . AND HATSUKO KUSAKA, 3047 West Ball Road, and To SATO AND AKIRA SATO, 3047 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Owners; BEACH HOMES, 15939 Los Flores, Fountain Valley, California, Agent; requesting permission to WAIVE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONT AND REAR YARDS on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land ~ith a frontage of 818 feet on the north side of Ball Road and a maximum depth of approximately 1,290 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being approxi- mately 338 feet west of the centerline of Beach Boulevard, and the total area of said oroperty being approximately 28 acres, and further described as Tentative Map of Tract No. 3823 or 3047 West Ball Roada 4 \ Mr. Paul Bonser, agent for the petitioner, appear~d before the Commission and siated he was a~railable to answer any questions the Commission might haveo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, in reviewing the requested variance, stated the R-~ subdivision lots to the west of subject property had been developed in the County and had a 20-foct front yard setback; that all lots being proposed, with the exception of cul-de-sac lots, had a 20-foot front yard setback; anc~ that the cul-de-sac lots had 15 feeta The Commission noted the interior lots of the tract could provide a 20-foot front yard setback, but any other lots with a Ball Road frontage would require considerably more~ Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission a final tract map had been filed on Tentative Tract Noo 3823 with the City Engineer, and this map indicated all lots backed , up to Ball Road rather than fronting on Ball Roada . No one appeared in opposition to subject petition~ , THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDa Upon re~iewing the planssubmitted, the Commission indicated to the agent for the petitioner it was their desire to have elevations before any decision could be c~ace, a~~d inquired whether elevations could be obtained for consideration by the Commission later on in the hearingo ' Mr, Bonser stated he would have these within an hour and requested that the Commission defer their final action until these plans were submittedo After an i~terim time of approximatelv one hour, the agent for the petitioner submitted elevations for the Commission's consideratioR. As the Commission reviewed the elevations, Mr. Kreidt advised them additional information had been received from the Planning Department indicating the rear yard waiver was not necessary because of the recent amendment of Section 18.240030(3) which permitted a rear yard of less than 25 feet if an equal area other than the front yard was provided on the lot. ' Upon being advised by the Commission that the waiver of the required rear yard was un- necessary, the petitioner avithdrew his request for waiver of the minimum rear yardo Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1268, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1649, based on the fact that the subdivisions to the west had been developed in the County with 20-foo.t front yard setbacks, and the request for the waiver of the front yard setback was in order; further, that as a findingr the granting of the waiver of the required front yard setback should not be considered as setting a precedent for future requests for waiver of front yard setbackso (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERSs None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Allredo ; ; _ ~ _.___..----___. _ _ _ _ __ _ _.....~ ____._. . ,_ . _~ , ~ . -. i • . ~ ~ _ . . :..,~ . 1 , ~' ~ MINllTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 20, 1964 2211 Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noa 1281, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, secon~ed by Commiss:oner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council tha~t Petition for Reclassification Noo 63-64-94 on which Resolution of Intent No> 64R-320 and Variance Noa 1b28 be terminated, based on the fact that the City Council on July 7, 1964, approved Revision Noo 3 of Tentative Tract No. 3823, for which 118 R-1, One-Family Residential, Zoned lots was approved and the pending R-3, Muitiple-Family Residential, Zone reclassification would be null and voido (See Resolution Booko) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERSc Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allredo CONDITIONAL ~1SE - PUBLIC HEARINGo HERMAN Eo AND LEILANI MILBRAT, 9155 Pacific Avenue~ PERMIT N0. 593 Anaheim, California, Owners; LELAND Wa BARKBR, 2580 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A DOG KENNEL, maintaining up to ten collie show dogs for hob!?y purposes, on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 100 feet on the west side of Dale Avenue and a depth of 244 feet, the northern boundary of said property being approximately 476 feet south of the centerline of Crescent Aver•we, and fur- ther described as 519 North Dale Avenuea Property pi~esently classified R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULiURAL, ZONEe Mr, Leland W. Barker, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed use of subject property, noting that Dro Herman Rannells, the new Director of the County Hospital, had been a dog fancier and had shown collie dogs at dog shows; that he proposed to maintain up to ten collie dogs, whereas the existing zone permitted only three,_dogs on the premises; that the balance of the dogs were presently be boarded at a dog kennel; and that no commercial purposes were intended by the proposed useo- Mre Samuel W. Coffman, 511 North Dale Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition to svb~ect petition, and read his letter of opposition at the meeting, which was made a ` par~ of the record of the petitiona i ; Mr. Adolph Zamora, 523 North Dale Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition ; to subject petition, stating the proposed dog kennel would be immediately ad~acent to two ~ of their bedxooms at the rear of their home, approximately 50 feet; that with both dogs i and puppies, the kennel would create an unusual amount of noisej that sub~ect and abutting properties although classified in the R-A Zone, were all considerably less than the minimum ! one acre sizej that the proposed use would be detr3mental to the peace, health, and safety of the families in the neighborhood; and that no possible benefit could be derived from permitting the proposed use in a residential area with single-family homes abutting sab~ect property on the west and single-family homes across the street from subject propertye Letters of opposition were read to the Commission from the Anaheim Christian Reform Church and the City of Buena Park, opposing the proposed establishment of a dog kenne}. in a•resi- dential areao Dr. Herman Rannells, the proposed owner of the sub~ect property,appeared before the Commis- sion and xeviewed his position in the County, further stating he had had this hobby since 1947 and had never had any opposition before; that although the coliie dogs were large, they Were ~ery gentle; that the dogs barked only when they were alarmed; that if he were aware his dogs were creating a nuisance to his neighbors, he would take steps to remedy the situation~ that there was a dog to the rear of Mre Coffman's property which barked constantly, and if he had that type of dog, he would feel obligated to remedy the situation; that Mro Zamora had been open and frank in his discussion with himself and had visited the kennel.;.that he felt sure his proposed dog kennel would not depreciate the land value around his propertys and in response to Commission questioning, stated he had two to f~ive li~tters a year from breeding the dogs which were sold as puppies, except a few might be kept beyond the faur.,month age if these were presented as worthwhile dogs, and he charged a stud service for breeding with his male dog~o Mro Hexbert Junta, 425 North Dal.e Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subjeCt petition, stating he was not against people having dogs as such, but since subject property.was less than an acre,proposing to maintain up to ten dogs was a commercial use in the R-A Zone; that this typQ of zoning might affect ad3acent properties if they desired to request reclassification in the future; that he had sold his property at Stoneybrook and Magnolia because of its close proximity to commercial zoningj and that a commercial enter- prise on subject property would be detrimental to the adjacent property ownerso _ __. ^._ __ - --__._ --.__.._ - ~- -~---_ _. ., ._ _ .. _~... --- ._____.._ .~___ ;. , -~ .. __... _ _..__ ~~; . . CONDITIONAL USE - Mr. M, Bennett, 509 North Dale Avenue, appeared before the Commission PERMIT NOe 3 and stated he was in opposition to the proposed dog kennel because the (Continued properties and homes in the area were of high quality, and this would be an incompatible use to the residential nature of the area> A showing of hands indicated ten persons were present in the Council Chamber opposing sub3ect petitiono THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Discussion•was heid by the Commission relative to requesting a variance or conditional us~ permit, and it was noted no hardship was indicated to propose a variance since~the proposed owner of sub~ect property was purchasing in a residential area; that the proposed use would be establishing a commercial use by the sale of dogs and offering stud services that the proposed use would be incompatible to the residential environment in whic:~ it was locatedq that althoug~ the Code stated a dog kennei was permfssible in the R-A Zone; thM.size of subject and abutting properties was substand~rd, and, therefore, could not quailify as a use in the R-A Zone; that the existing R-A lots came into the City frum th;.~ County, and if dedication were required for ultimate street widening, additional footage would be rEmoved, thus.ieducing the size of the R-A lotso Commissioner.Perry offered Resolution Noo 1269, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to deny Petition for Conditional Use~Pcvmit Noe 593, based on the fact thaL t;e proposed use on substandard R-A lots would be detrimental and not in the best interest of the public health and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheims that the residential characteristics of the adjacent properties would make a commercial use incompatibleo (See Resolution Booko) On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote~ AYESs. COMMISSIONERS: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOESs COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ABSENTfs COMMISSIONERSs Allredo ABSTAIN: COMMISSIOb'ERSs Campa CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGa ADELINE FECHTER, ET AL, 16411 Heim Avenue,:Route 2, PERMIT NOo 598 Orange, California, Owners; GHORGE Co LANE, 3003 Glendale Bou•levard~ .. Los Angeles 39, California, Agenis requesting permission to ESTABLISH GENERAL PLAN.. A MINIATURE GOLF COURSE, TRAMPOLINE CENfER~ DRIVE-IN RESTAURAM ~ ARCADE AMENDNiENi NOe 29 AND ASSOCIATED ACTIVITIES on property described ass An "L° shaped< parcel of land adjacent to the service station site on the southwest corner of Magnolia Street and La Palma Avenue, and having frontages of 166 feet on Magnolia Street and 466 feet on La Palma Avenueo Property presently classi- fied C-1, NEIGE~BORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONEo Subject General Plan Amendment may be necessary in order to reflect the land use policy of the Planning Commission and City Council in conjunction with the action taken on Conditional Use Permit Noe 5980 Mr. Robert Huff, 1801 North Bush Street, Santa Ana, California, representing the agent for petiticner, appeared before the Commission and stated he would be available to•answer questionso The Commission revlewed the plans submitted, together with the colored photographs sub- mitted by the petitioner, and inquired of the agent for the petitioner what he proposed to do with the southerly portion of subject property; the history of trampolines and their safety factor; and whether the colored renderings submitted would be the method of develop- ment of subject propertya Mr. Huff replied it was hoped to expand the miniature golf course to add an additional 18 holes.on the southerly portion~ that he had had 9 to 18 trampolines adjacent to existing miniat+~re.golf courses which have always been operateds that he had investigated others which.had_nat seemad to materialize, or had folded, and it was noted no supervision ~uas ever„maintained on those which were not successfulf that the only people presently operat- ing trampolines in Orange County were themselves; that if close supervision were given the use of the-trampolines, no accidents would occur; that they had always maintained close supervision of their trampolines ~nd have had very few accidents since 1960, and the only expenditure paid,in,1962Pfor accidents was $305v00; that the landscaping as indicated on the colored renderings would be the way the proposed subject property would be developed; that similar operations of theirs were first constructed in La Habra in 1957 and in Garden Grove,in 1959; that the pads used for the trampolir.es wers 2!~ inches thick and were not similar to,.t~ose uaed by public schools which were made of fe1tS that it was his intention ~ . , i • ~ ~ . N.INUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 20~ 1964 2213 CONDIIIQNAI.ktSE - to develop the front portion of subject property, and in the future PERMILN~D. 5 8 develop the rear portiona GENERAL.PLAN Dr. R> H, Hook, representing the C*race Baptist Church, appeared before AN~NDMENT NO• 29 the Commission and stated he was not in opposition, but wished to (Continued) clarify certain facts for his congregation; that he was concerned with the possibility of alcoholic beverages being served on the property; that he was glad to see some development wouid occur on the property adjacent to theirs so that curbs, gutters, and sidewalks would be installed; that he was desirous of learning what steps would be taken to reduce any noise factor whic~ might occur during the time church services were held; that lighting facilities, if brightly lighted, should also be considered; and whether a masonry wall was going 'co be proposed to separate the two propertieso Mr. Huff replied that by law alcoholic beverages could not be served within 300 feet of church property; that the noise factor on the golf course would be minor because the majority of the people using it would be there during the evening hours; that children were never permitted unless accompanied by adults; that it had been a policy of their company that no "rough-housing" was permitted, because there would be complete super- vision, and u~disciplined people would be requested to leave; that the type of lights they use was 500 mercury, vapor-type lights which could be reflected away from anyp~opertyf and that the light factor would be six to eiaht lumens and would be unobjectionableo Commissioner Camp noted the church structure existed at the rear portion of the property fronting on La Palma Avenue, and' a masonry wall would not benefit the church by placing it on the froqt portion of their property, but perhaps a physical separation of a ra.il or chainlink fence might be more appropriate with adequate vineso Dr. Hoo§ advised the Commis~ion the church was not in opposition; th at they hooed to utilize the facilities for a youth recreation prog:am, but he felt a definite stigulation ~•hould be made to prohibit trespassiag on the church prcperty by requiring some form of a fence. THB HSARING {VAS Q.0.SHD. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to requiring a physical barrier i~etween the church and the p_oposed miniature golf course :~nd inquired whether the petitioner wouid stipulate to a chainlink fence on the eastealy boundary of subject property. The agent for the petitioner stated that since the church was located to the south and R-3, Multiple-Family Residentiai, Zoniag was pending on the property to the south of sub- ject prop?rty, perhaps a chainlink fence would n.~t be adequate; that he was not desirous of having any barrier which might prohibit passers-by from seeing the proposed golf course. The agent for the petitioner asked that the Commission consider delaying the street improve- ments, but the Commission was of the opinion street improvements should be installed presently, Office Bngineer Arthur Daw advised the petitioner a bond,to insure the street improvements and sidewalks were installed,would cost approximately 1~% the cost of said improvements, which in his case would be approximately $15,00. Mr. Huff stated it was a policy of his company, if street improvements were necessary, to install them, ,-ather than bond for them. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1270, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded ty Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition f~r Conditional Use Permit No. 598, subject to the submissioa of any development plans for the southerly portion of subject prciperty to the Planaing Commission for approval prior to issuance of a building permit, ar,d conditions. CSee Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing =esolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COMMISSION~tS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowla;~d. NO&S: COhalT3SIONffitS: None. ABSHNT: C~9~lISSIONHRS: Allred. Commissaoner Camp offered Resoluti.on No. 1271, Series 1964-65, and moved fos its passage and adoption~ seconded by Commissionei Perry, to reconm end to the City Council that General plan Amendment No. 29, Bxhibit '''A" be approved. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: pXES: COMMISSIONffitS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NQfiS: COhUlISSIONffitS: None. ABSBNT: C0~lMI3SIONEItS: Allred. _~----_ ~ _ _ _ , "~ ~ . ' S 1 ~ ~{ \.. ~ ~ ~ ' ~ 2214 MINUTES.~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 20~ 2964 CONDI7'IONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ROBERT L. CLARK, 958 Rodeo Road, Fullerton, California, PERMIT N0. 595 Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A HOFBRAU WITH ON-SALE BEER, on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 83 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street, and a depth of 277 feet, the southerri boundary of said property being 200 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue, and'further described as 1112 North Brookhurst Streete Property presently classi- fied C-li NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONEa Mr. D. E. Jackson, leasing agent for the property, appeared before the Commission and stated he was available to answer questions, Mr. Li.la Atherton, 2721 North I~Iartman, Orange, owner of the beauty salon immediately ad~acec-t to subject property, appeared before the Commission and presented pictures indicating the parking deficiency on the commercial frontage of La Palma and Brookhurst Street~.that.with her proposed expansion, there would be a possible 20 to 25 custo;ners in the beauty shop at one time; that at the present t3me she had parking facilities for 17 automabiles; that there was rear entry or windows to the existing building which created a problem of.unloading merchandise for the barber snop and liquor store; that the existing area designated for parking was at one time quite large, but had gradually become smaller; that the parking area she had formerly ussd was now converted into the Tastee Freez; that moto::ists, in order to avoid the traffic at Brookhurst and La Palma, had been uaing the parking area to by-pass the traffic lights; that subject property was near three schools, and the children use the parking area as a shortcut to their homes, as well as stopping by the Tastee Freez for congregating in the purchase of refreshments; that the proposed use wauld.be detrimental to the existing businesses in the area since ft would bring undesirable transients into the area; that a liquor store existed there now which had off-sale..liqyor only; and it would always be possible that if the sale of food was not successful, this would convert into an ordinary bare ' Mro George Comroe, 2303 West Rhodes Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition and submitted a petition signed by 30 property owners immediately adjacent to the shopping area, also opposing the Hofbrau, and further corroborated Mrso Atherton's statement a serious traffic probiem existed at that intersection; that the proposed Hofbrau would further compound a serious traffic problem; that the Hofbrau and the Tastee Freez were two incompatible uses because of the possible undesirable influence on children assembling at this Tastee Freez; tha~ in his estimation, a Hofbrau was a con- sideFably less desirable use in a commercial area than it would be detrimental to the existing stores~ that many of the stores which had been in that location had fa3led, and that the property owner must have felt a Hofbrau tivas a sure thing, rather than.•a higher type use. . Commissioner.Gauer expressed the opinion that the owner of the commerciai property had compounded his own problem by selling or leasing to a Tastee Freez; that he was trying to develop too many varities of uses for his commercial developments that this may be one of the reasons why insufficient parking was available; and that other so-called Hofbraus which the Commission had approved, had degenerated into just tavernso Associate Planner Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that according to his calculations, subject property required 26 parking spaces, whereas the plans indicated 27, and that at the time.the Tastee Freez was approved, it was felt adequate parking w.as being providede Further discussion by the Commission was centered around the problem of parking;•the fact that this intersection was extremely busy with many traffic hazards, and that children of all ages £rom the three schools cut across the commercial parking area as a shortcut to and from school, as well as stopping at the Tastee Freezo . letter of opposition from Mrso B, W. Bay, 2148 West Grayson, was reado THE I-~kRING iNAS CLOSED. Commissioner Chavos expressed concern that the area had a critical traffic probl'em, to- ' gether with the hazardous conditions presented to the children, and with additional traffic 1 at this intersection, the children might become jeopardized, and this should be taken into consideration. ; Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1272, Series 1964-65, and moved for ite-passage ~ and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit ~ Noe 595,.based on the fact that a physical inspection made on the premises indicated in- i adequate.parking; that the traffic problem at that intersection was acute, and the proposed ; uae might compound it; that the proposed Hofbrau was an incompatible use with the existing '~ Tastee.F,reez'which was patronized by children of all ages; and that testimony presented i indicated.. an acute parking problema (See Resolution Book.) i On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. ! NOES: COMMISSIONHRS: NonE~ ! ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS~ Allreda i J~ / ~,_ ,._.. ___ - - - ... _ _ _ ___~ .._.--- ~-- - .... - -- --.: - _. . ~&9 ~i - ~.> ~ , •-~ , MINUT$S,.~CITY PLANNING COMMTSSION, July 209 1964 2215 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARINGo Eo'Bo AND MARY Eo DAVIS~ H~ Lo AND MARGARET-Ro HICKS, PERMIT NOo 594 and GEORGE Lo HARTMAN, c~o Towne Real Estate, 12262 Harbor Bwlevard, Anaheim, California, Oruners; LE ROY ROSE, 600 North Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN 80-UNIT..MOTEL on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 200 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and a depth of 275 feet, the southern.boundary of said property being approximately 752 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenuee Property presently classified C-1, NEIGFIDORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONEe Mr. Kennath Cline, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before ti~e Commis- sion and rsviewed the proposed development, noting it was the plan of the developers to construct•the southerly half first; that the Report to the Commission indicated construction should_be single-story within 150 feet of the single-family homes to the east, and the property owners agreed to removal of the rear, two-story units in order to comply with this requirement; and in response to Commission questioning, stated the southerly 50-foot wide~undeveloped strip did not belong the petitioners, therefore, he could not answer-the Commission's questions relative to development of that propertyo The Commission expressed concern that the proposed parking areas were at a considerable distance to the rear of most of the motel unitsf that this was not typical of motels, and would.require the occupants of the motel to ca.rry their baggage approximately 1S0 to 200 feeta... Mre flnthony Casteneta, 9255 Sunset Boulevard, representing the petitioners, stated he would.try-to answe~ any Commission questions9 and stated if any typical motel would be proposed too.close to R-1 and require single-story construction, this would be considerably more expensive than they could afford; that presently they were operating a motel at 4335 Rosemead.3n Pico Rivera and they had one in Las Vegas where the parking was approximately 150 feet from the unitso The Commission expressed concern this might develop in~o a substandard multiple-family devel~opment rather than a motel; that parking ~hould conform to other motels in the area; and that if, in facty this was a motel, it sho~id be developed as a motele Mr. Casteneta stated the architect had drawn the best possible plan.which the petitioners had requested since the cost of land had to be taken into consideration, and if single- story.were proposed toward the rear, the property c ould not be developed to its highest potential~ and tljen referred to The Executive Suites located on West Lincoln Avenue which were two.-story constructi~n within 150 feet of the R-1 i:o the southo The Commission stated the cost of the land could not be used as a basis for approving a deviation from Code requirementse T}!E HEARING WAS CLOSEDo The Commission further stated that since the representative of the petitioners had brought in Tha Executive Suites, it might be to his interest to note the Commission had denied the original..petition and revised plans~ but they were subsequently approved by the City Council. Further.discussion held by the Commiasion indicated it was their desire to see revised plans which.would incorporate parking facilities in ciose proximity to ~~ach motel unit rather than the distance.they presently existed, and that single-story construction be maintained within 150 feet of the R-1 homes to the easto Commissioner.Gauer offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition f-or Condi- tional.U.se..Permit No. 594 to the meeting of August 17, 1964, in order to allow the petitioners sufficient time to submit revised plans indicating single-story construction within 150 feet of the R-1 to the east, and parking provisions for the ~notel units in close proximi~y~to the unitso Commissioner Camp seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED, RECLASSIFICATIGN - PUBLIC HEARING. E~ F. HEACOCK, 1701 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, N0. 64-65-4 California~ Owner; JOHN Fe SWINT, 707 West North Street, Anakeim~~ .. California, Agent; property described ass An irregularly shaped parcel VARIADICE.NOe.1650 of land bounded on the west by Manchester Avenue and on the east by Thalia Street, with frontages of 273 feet on the east side of Manchester Avenue and approximately 205 feet on the west side of Thalia Street, the northern boundary of said property being approximately 187 feet, measured at right angles, south of the centeriine of Center Streete Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE, REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs M-1~ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL~ ZONEo REQUESTED VARIANCEt REDUCTION OF MINIMUM REQUIRED LAND6CAPING AND BU?LDING SETBACK. I , i I ~ _____ _.- .__..__.. ------ ......_.._.._..Y --_-. -- _~~ _ ~, ~ . _ I I ' I ., .,i ., i % 'lr ~ '.,~ . MINUTES,.GITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 20, 1964 2216 RECLASSIFZCATION - Mro John Swint, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commi:ssion NOe 64-65-4 and siated r:e would be available to answer questionso VARIAPICE.NO~ 1 50 Upon reviewing the plans, the Commission inquired as to the possibi•lity (Continued of removal of the existing home, the setback revised so that landscaping could be put in, possibly cut off the corner of the structure,-whether or not any objection would be made by the petitioner to landscaping be- ing provided on the north between the two approaches, to which Mre Swint replied that the existing dwelling would be removed; that he had not considered any revision to the building since the structure to the south was directly on the property line, and the area was cor~tantly in use.and would be for some time, and he would have to inquire of the property owner whether or not additional landscaping could be placed between the two epproaches at the northe . After consvlting with the petitioner, the agent for the petitioner stated it was proposed to use the property for C-2 occupancy; that it was his desire to utilize the area between the structuxe and the street for access to the southerly portion; that it was not nacessary to have the requested reclassification except for possible future lease, and if M-1 was not approVed.~.leasing opportunities might be restricted; and that he could constxuct these buildings...wi,#hout landscaping under the existing zoneo The Comnission advised the petitioner these structures could be built, but it was hardly likely leasing would be effective without adequate landscapingo The Comrtiission, upon reviewing the plans, noted adequate pa*:<ing was being provided in accor.dance with Code requirements, but that the setbacks ar~d landscapings were inadequate, although...the-lot size was unusuale Mrso June McIntyre appeared before the Commission and stated she repxesented her mother, Mrse Josie Malmstrom, 206 Thalia Street, across the street from subject property, who was interested only in a proper development for subject property and wanted to be assured he.r mothex•would.be protected in her investment; that the public weigh scales were constantly being in use, and to her knowledge, no petition had ever been considered by the Commission to permit the use of that property for the public weigh scales; that they were conducting a business on the City streets because large trucks had L•o nark on the street, awaiting their-tuxn.-at the scales; that the trucks were using subject property for parking purposes when there was no other place to park; that if the petitioner were allowed to have an entrance from Thalia Street, this might jeopardize the future development of her mother's property .fox commercial purposes; that a modified cul-de-sac existed at the northerly end of Thalia Street which would make turning a radius very tight if the two entranceways were permitted to subject property; that if the petitioner were proposing a blank wa11 for a,warehouse structure, she would like to see the existing sidewalk remain with land- scaping in the parkway between the sidewalk and.the curb; that she would object to any form of noisy operation if this were industrial; that from plans she had seen~ a pa=king problem might exist since the property to the south which housed the pubiic scales would no longer have access to vacant land for parking purposes; that she would request that all traffic be oriented to Manchester Aeenue rather than to the dead-end street on the east boundary of sub~ect property; and the Commission should consider all aspects of the area, not onlK.sub~ect property, so that any future development of the property easterly of Thalia.Street might not be jeopardized by the proposed reclassification. The Coamission advised Mrs. McIntyre that although Code requirements were specific relative to providing adequate park~ng, it was not within the Commission's jurisdiction to enforce parking ir. that area; that since her mother's property was not landlocked, the Commission could see no reason for providing a secondary access to her property, bu•t there might be a possibility of enlarging the existing cul-de-sac so that adequate turn-around radius could be provided for industr.ial traffico Discussion was then held between the Commission, the agent for tt~e petitioner, and the agent, re.lative to the possibility of submission of revised plans to include more land- scaping and additionai setback requirements; that the recommended Interdepartmental Com- mittee.recommendation regarding street lighting and street planting fees was a standard requirement in the M-1 Zone, or for any requested zone changeo Mr. Heacock, the petitioner, then stated he felt it would hinder the entire pro3eat if~the required.landscaping were placed directly west of the 60-foot building; that a direct passageway was necessary through the northerly and southerly poriions of the property;~that he was,.attempting to revitaiize a blighted area by improving it; that the home presently existing on Thalia Street was out of place, taking into consideration the surrounding devel- opment, and that in his estimation~ the plan presented was the most acceptable to to him for possible developmento . THE tIEARING WAS CLOSED, _.___~_~_-~-r--_ . _ __._...____...._ ___ --~__..._- - ---__--- _--__..._.. ..__._..__.. ~ , ~ ~~ ~` kINUiES~-CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 20, 1964 2217 RECLASSIFICATION - Discussion was then held by the Commission, noting the proposed N0. 6•s-65-a - deve2opment would be an improvement to the area; that if the rturt~erLy . structure were moved easterly, a6ditional landscaping could be provided VARIAh:E ND. 1650 ior the Manchester Avenue p^-::on; that landscaping would be necessary in order to improve the property since it was located in the heart~nf. the downtown Anaheim area. Zoning Coosdinator Ilartin Kreidt advised the Commission the previous formula for~•landscaping ' rras 10% al~ong the frontage, plus 2% except for access drives, and that since the southerly portion of subject property was an odd shape, exception might be made to the landscaping requiaements. Co~issioner C~mp offered a motion to approve Reclassification Noa 64-65-4 and Variance No. L550,-subject to conditions, which lost for want of a secondo Co~issioner Rorland offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 64-65-4 and Variance No~ 1650 to the meeting of August 17, 1964, in order to allorr the Fetitioner sufficient time to submit revised plans indicating the relocation of the northerly structure easterly, and the provision of landscaping on the 6lanchestQS-Arenue frontage> Commissior~er Chavos seconded the motione MOTION CARRTEDo RECIASSIFICATION - Pl1BLFC F~ARING. PETE AN~ FLLA HILTSCIiER, 918 West Romneya Drive, N0, y4r65-5 Anaheim, California, Owners; LYNN E. THOMSEN, 420 South Euclid Street, Suite !A, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described ass A rectangu- - larly shaped parcel of land 175 feet by 365 feet in size, the southern bound~sy o: said property being approximately 297 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue and-the rrestern boundary being approximately 362 feet east of the centerline of Nest Street, be reclassified from the R-A~ REStDENTIAL AGRZCUI.TURAL, ZOIVE to the R-3~ lBJLTIPIF-FA3EELY RESIDENTIAL; ZOI~. Nr. Lynn Thoesen, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, stating he rras available to answer questionse The Comaissian aoted that subject property was to be contiguous to a proposed 60-foot. street and multiple-family residential zoning to the north, east and westo No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono TE~ F~AgII~1G ~AS CLOSED. Co~issioner PErry offered Resolution Noa 1273, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Co~missioner Chaves, to recommend to the City Council that Petitiora for•Reclassifi.cetion No. 64-65-5 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: A1~S: COA~IISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. N()FSs ~ SSIONERS: Nonee pBSENLa GaIOtISSIONERS: Allrede CONDITIOAIAL ilSE - PUBLIC E~ARINGe J. Eo AND CALLIE A~ PRUE17, 117 East Lincoln Avenue, PERMIT ti0. 600 Anaheim, California, Owners; JERRY M~ AND MILDRED BLANSETT, 921 South Hilda Street, Anaheim, Galifornia, Agents; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A PRIVAI'E ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN AN EXISTING RESIDENCH orr praperty_described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue anci Evergreen Street, with frontages of 106 feet on Lincoln Avenue and 65 feet on Evergreen Street, and further descr=bed as 103 North Evergreen Streete Property presently-classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEa llrs. Jerry Blansett, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated she and her husband planned to operate the private school; that the grades would be from kindergarten through the sixth grade, and it was intended to have twenty students~and that all State-Board of Education, City, and County requirements had been met ty the proposed school; that she and her husband had been teaching for the past seven years, and the private school xas one of the goals they had set for themselves~ and it was hoped to develop children with hi.gh IQ's, and it was intended to have the President's physical education program as a pazt o€ the health program for the private school. In response to Co~ission questioning, Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts replied that the buildina code for a school was similar to that of requirements for R-1 structureso No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono • ` ~ -- -------- - _.__ _- - -- _ _.. __ ....__ _ _ _ _ ~--~-~--,_; _~-------- ; - - - T.- - ~ ' . ~ i • ~ 2 .. _ _ __ ~~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CZT.Y PLANNING COMMISSIaN, July 20, 1964 2218 ~ CONDITIONAL USE - THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo PERMIT MO° 600 (Continued) Commissioner Gauer offered Resolutton Noo 1274, Series 1964-65, ar.d moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noa 600, subject to conditions, with an alteration to the condit3on regarding trash storage areas to inc:i!'..'a these as trash storage containerse (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allredo CONDITIONAI. USE - PUBLIC HEARINGo PACIFIC hSIDWEST DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 994 North PERMIT NOe 599 Sepulveda Boulevard, E1 Segundo, California, Owner; WALTER Oo BERRY, 430 East Sunny Hills Drive, Fullerton, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A HOFBRAU WITH ON-SALE BHER on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Claudina Place, with frontages of approximately 88 feet on Ball Road and approximately 172 feet on Claudina Place, and further described as 201 East Ball Road. Property present- ly classi.fied M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Mr. Walter Berry, agent for the pe~itioner, appeared before the Cortmission and stated he would-be operating only the Hofbrau being proposed, and that it was intended to sell meals in addition to the sale of beere Mr. Alt~ert S. Hecht, Jr., i25 East Ball Road, appeared before the Commission and stated he represented Nfr. Gossins' building across the street from subject property; that they had reviewed the plans and felt this would be an asset to the area, but would request that the Commission consider the trash storage areas which were proposed to be in the open be.covered, such as tilting of the roof ~o that they would not be visible from the structure. Mr. Berry stated it was their intent to tilt the roof so that the trash storage area would be covered and shielded from the view of adjacent propertiese THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 1275, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 599, subject to conditions, and the stipulation of the agent for the petitioner that the roof would be so constructed as to cover the tra~.:i storage area. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Cx~uer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Allred. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HHARING. MARION SCHLUND LINDSAY, 515 Allview Terxace, Laguna PERMIT N0. 597 Beach, California, Owner; CLYDE Bo SCFII.UND, 16221 Pera2ta Hills Drive, Anaheim, California, Agent; reguesting permission to ESTABLISH A PICTURE PROJECTION THEATER WITH RELATED SHOPS~ DISPLAYS, AND INCIDENTIAL FOOD SERVICES SERVING CUSTOIu~RS AND GUESTS$ ALSO REQUESTING WAIVER OF 35-FOOT I~IGFIf LIMITATION on property described ass A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 33J feet on the east side of West Street and a depth of 620 feet, the northern boundary of said property being approximately 330 feet south of the centerline of Ball Roado Property presently classified R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTl,~7AL, ZONEo Mre David Collins, realtor, appeared before the Commission and submitted a picture of the proposed development, noting the architect for the development was available to answer any technical questions, and that Mre MacAlpin and Mr. Thomas Reynolds were also available to answar. questions regarding the proposed theatero Mr. Thomas Reynolds then appeared before the Commission and stated the proposed theater was an entirely new concept of pro3ection; that it was a special technique developed by Mro Mac- Alpin, and they proposed to pro~ect from the finest recreational areas in the United States, ~ and it was hoped to present the finest pictures ever projected; that a special design screen ~ would be used, and the entire audience would be in a black area, and 'the pro3ection would be ~ .._.. _.. ~ / __.._ ._. -...~.._._.«._,--r__. _. _. _~ ~ , ~ - ; i ' • a , _ _,...._....._ _. _ .._.._------------- _ -~- ~' --. . _. . i ~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION9 July 20~ 1964 2219 CONDITIONAL USE - similar to Circarama which was available to the public in Disneyland PERMIT N0, 5 7 itselfo Continued In response to Commission questioning, Mro Reynolds stated the proposed theater would be in a for:n of a travelogue, but it would not be their intent to sell one part of the country over the other; that the pictures would be similar to those shown i.n National Geographic, only on a greater scale; that wouTd be original music tracks and original programming of this; that in excess of $30,000 had been expended for the develop- ment, and it was hoped to photograph a number of areas over the country before winter set ina In response to Commission questioning, Marko Botich, architect for the development, stated the highest the structure would be as presently proposed, would be 47 feet, and including the sign, would be 70 feet maximumo No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono ~~~mmissioner Gauer s:ated he heard favorable comment on this at the Disneyland areao Tf~ HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution Noa 1278, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 597, subject to conditions, and the stipulation the height limitation would be 47 feet, and including the sign would be 70 feet maximum< (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYE.~~ COMMISSIONERSa Camp, Chavos~ Gauer, Mungall, Perry9 Rowlando NOESs COMN~ISSIGNERSa Nonea r1BSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Allredo Commissioner Rowland stated that in voting "AYE" he was predicating his vote on the assumption that in the near future the Commission would adopt some framework on which action relative to height limitations in the Commerc:al-Recreation Area could be referred to, other than the existing 35 feeto RECESS - Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recess the meeting at 5:50 o'clock poma9 for dinner and to reconvene at 7s30 o'clock, pom~ Mra Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED, RECONVENE - Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at 7:55 o'clock poma, ail Commissioners being present with the exception of Commissioner Allredo CONDITIONAL.USE - SOUTHEAST MORTGAGE COMPANY, 1801 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, PERMIT N0, 596 California, Owner; raquesting permission to CONVERT AN EXISTING 216 APARTMENf UNIT PRQTECT INTO A 432 UNIT RESIDENfIAL MOTEL~HOTEL GENEf?AL PLAN on property described ass All that certain land situated on the AMENCAhENT NOo 28 south side of Orangewood Avenue and bounded on the west by Acama Street, on the south by Cliffwood Avenue~ and on the east by Dana Street, said land being divided into three separate and equal parceis, each.having a frontage of 275 feet on the south side of Orangewood Avenue and each extend- ing southerly to a depth of approximately 560 feet, the western boundary of the westernmost parcel being approximately 320 feet east of the centerline of Harbor Boulevardo Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Mr. Harry Knisely, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the basis for requestin5 a change in the existing development, noting that the tourist of today, like the one of yesterday, now located at a central point and visited places of interest from this central point; that the proposed development was a family-type develop- ment;.that.no basic outside structural changes would be made; that it was proposed to con- struct a permanent wall between the apartments and provide recreationaY facilities for the visitors to the area; that the entire purpose o£ tho proposed use would be a full-time motel operations that the petitioner would stipulate to daily maid service~ the operation of the motel/hotel by a Tripie A operator within a year; that if neededy the kitchen facili- ties, ovens and sinks would be removed~ if required by the Commission) and further, in response to Commission questioning~ stated entrance to the second story rooms would be through sliding glass doors, and solid walls would be constructed between each unito ._ ,_-_..-- ~ ^---- .... --_ _... _......__ _ _. ._- --_. ._._._.--- ---~.._..._._.. _. . _ . _... . r- ~ .. _~ ~ ~: ~ i ~ ; • _._ . _ . l ~ '~ ~ , MINUfES,.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 20, 1964 2220 CONIIITIONAL USE - The Commission further inquired as to whether or not shower or bath PERMIT NOo 596 facilitiss would be provided for the lower apartments, since on field inspection, the Commission did not see these facilities in one of the GENERAL PLAN unitso AMENDMENT NOa 28 (Continued) Mro Richard Guthrie, repre:~nting the developer, appeared before the Commission and stated these facilities would be installed, but that the plans did not indicate thiso • The Commission reviewed the plans and continued discussion on the method of separating some of. the units and further providing for adaquate sanitary facilitiesg that the prc;- posed development would offer a fine atmosphere for vacationers, but it was not the desire of the Commission to have these facilities used for an extensive length of time, since these facilities would not be adequate to permit permanent living quarters, and would not be in the best interest of the City of Anaheim; that if pragressive management were utilized, this might present a very exemplary environment for future convention attendance facilities, and as planners, no control would be permitted if the use was allowed to deterioratea Mr, Knisely stated the definition of a hotel in the Report to the Commission was some- what ambiguous since it seemed people coul.d not use the rooms for more than seven days, and wouid have to leave and asked that clarification be made of thiso Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated this could read "a seven day reni:al contract period", and no stipulation as to the number of times the contract period could be reneweda The Commission stated that upon viewing the present development as it was being constructed, it did not present the best living environment for permanent use, and perhaps the proposed use would be considerably better; that since the area had changed, with tne proposed con- vention cente-, the City might need additfonal facilities to handle a large convention- type impacto Mr. Knisely then stated he had appeared many times before the Commission and had heard the Commission indicate thtir feelings regarding construction of apartments in the Commer~ cial-Recreation Area; that the proposed use would be a good method of eliminating apart- ments just southerly of the Commercial-Recreation Area, and further, in response to Commission questioning, stated the hotel~motel operation would be on a lease basiso Mro Joe Levesque, President of Southeast Mortgage Company, appeared before the Commission and stated he was attempting to give what was best for the City; that he had made the statement he would meet all City requirements, plus more, because this would be to his benefit, as well as the City'so Mro Knisely then stated that if the Commission desired, he would stipulate that if the hotel~motel was not operated by a Triple A operator within a year, and did not m2et the Commission's req~irements, it would revert back to its original requesto The Commission felt this was not the approach they would care to use~ since it seemed more desirahle that subject property be incorporated in the Commercial-Recreation Area, and, therefvre, the proposed use would be more apropos than the existing usea Mr. Knisely stated he would stipulate this in order to prove to the Commission what was being proposed was being done in ail sincerety, and it was the intent of the petitioner to more than cunform with the City's xequirements for hotels and motelso Commissioner Camp expressed the view that the existing facilities in the Commercial- Recreation Area were inadequate for large convention-type g~therings since the real estate gro.up he was a member of had attempted a year ago to obtain convention facilities for 1,500 people and had been turned down, and it was hoped the convention center wauld not be.open for just five months out of the year, if there were not adequate provisions for hotel and motel facilities. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt then reviewed the three exhibits proposing the amendment to the General Plan~ noting that Exhibit "A" incorporated all of sub~ect property by the extension of the Commercial-Recreation Area~ whereas the other two incorporated a portion of subject.property and the frontage of Harbor Boulevard being proposed for partial profes- sional use. Mrs. Mossi, representing the Hacienda Motel at 2176 South Harbor Soulevard, appeared before ; the Commission in opposition to subject petition, and inquired what would prevent other apartments from converi:ing into motels in the immediate vicinity, similar to the Latin j Quarters located easterly on Orangewood Avenue, since this was also at the southerly tip i of the Commercial-Recreation Areae ~ i ~ ~ / __ ._..__._.. __ _ . ... - - -- - - _ _. _ .. _..---- --r ~p ~ _ _ . ..=+~i ~ iF . ... . _ - - --- I I \ ~ ~ MINUTES~~CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 20~ 1964 2221 CONDITIONAL USE - PERMIT N0. 596 The Commission informed Mrs. Mossi that any request for conversi.on of GENERAL PLAN existing apartments into a mo~tel facility would have to occur on a AMENDMENT N0. 8 major street, and since Orangewood Avenue was considered a residential (Continued street, this was hardly likeiy; that frontage would have to be either on Harbor Boulevard or Katella Avenue to qualify for a major street. Mr. Gregory Beck~ 2145 South Harbor Boulevard, appeared before the Commission and stated he was in agreement with Mrs. Mossi's statement;that he would not oppose the hotel~motel, but was concerned with the possibility of permitting kitchen facilities in the proposed development which would indicate substandard apartments~ and would be rented as apartments during the off-season~ that it has been his experience that many of the motels were elimi- nating the kitchen facilities because the summer visitors were not interested in this type of facility. • Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that originally in the Report to the Commission it had been recommended that subject petition should have been accompanied by a reclassification to C-1 Zoning; that if the Commission considered the General Plan Amendment favorably, the existing C-1 and R-3 Zones should be rezoned to R-A to conform with.all the properties in the Commercial-Recreation Area which had to have their uses established by the filing of a conditional use permite The Commission asked clerification from Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts relative to proposing a reclassification of subject property back to the R-A, Residential Agricultural, 2one~ since the proposed use was a lesser use. Mr. Roberts stated it could be assumed that if a request for a higher zoning classification was made, the Commission could reduce this for a lesser use,to possibly C-0, but sincethe R-A Zone was not a development zone except in the Commercial-Recreation Area, and since.subject petition was advertised only for the conditional use, it would have to be advertised for a different zone change, and he did not suggest a recommendation of zone change to the City Council without a public hearingo The Commission then expressed the feeling that it might be wise to require initiation of reclassification proceedings to the R-A Zone prior to final building inspection of subject property. THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDa ~j 1 Considerable discussion was then held by the•Commission as to the proposed use, whether ; upon conversion of the existing apartment units to motel and hotel units, this would meet i sanitation and building requirements; the number of parking spaces needed under the pro•- ~ posed change; that some form of a statement should be made if subject petition were approved, ~ whether or not this might set a precedent; that the Commission should consider each individual~ petition on its own merits, and approve oniy those which would propose a conversion on a ; major or commercial street, in conjunction with the Commercial-Recreation Area of the City; ; the possibility of lengthy stays in the motels, utilizing them as permanent living quarters; ~ that if the Commission was not desirous of facing innumerable requests on a periodic basis for conversion to motels and then back to apartments again, that the definitions as stated ! in the Report to the Commission should be set for public hear3ng, and after the City Attor- ; ney°s nffice and the Planning Department met to arrive at a definition for an amendment to ~ the Ordinance regarding the definition of a multiple dwelling~ a hotel, and a tourist court, ~ this de`:inition would eliminate any requests for relief from the room tax which had occurred ~ , ir. a previous request. ~ In response to Commission questioning, NI~. Knisely stated he would stipulate to initiating reclassification proceedings for subject property to rezone subject property into the R-A, a Residential Agricultural, Zonee ~ - 3 Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 1276, Series 1964-65, and moved•for its passage ~ and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Pesmit ~ No. 596, subject to the fact that granting the proposed use was based on the close proximity ~ of subject property to the proposed convention site~ that it was deemed a compatible use~ ~ that.it..should not be construed as setting a precedent for conversion of existing multiple- family developments as motels; that each subsequent request for the conversion of multiple- j family developments as motels must be judged on its individual merits in relationship to ~ commercial~ arterial streets within the Commercial Recreation Area~ further~ that the peti- ~ tioner stipulated to providing daily maid service, to a maximum rental contract period of ; seven days, to initiate reclassification proceedings to the R-A, Residontial Agricultural~ } Zone for consistency of zoning in the Commercial-Recreation Area, and further to the waiver , of minimum required parking spaces to permit the development of subject property with 12 ' parking spaces below the required, and conditions. (See Resolution Book.) ( ---------...---- ___..__ ------_. ---_ ------...--...__....,._ _-- _ -- --- ....--- -..._ ~. .~ ~~ , ~ _ 4 t a f ~ : ~ -- - _ _. _. --- ( j ~ ~ ,~: ~ ~ MINCITES~ CITY PLANNING C~MMISSION, July 20~ 1964 2222 CONDITIONAL USE - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: PERMIT ~NO. 596 pyES; COA~IIiSSIaNERS: Camp, Cha~os, Gauer, Mungall~ Perry, GENEgAL ?LAN Rowland. AMEDiI]MENT N0~ NOES: C~lISSIONERS: None. Continued) .ABSENT: COI~IIiSSI01~RS: Allred. Co~mnissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1277, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 28, Exhibit "A'~ be approved, based on the fact that the use proposed in Conditional Use Per~it No. 596 deemed it advisable to extend the existing boundaries of the Co~aercial-Recreation Area to incorporate the properties 560 feet south of Orangewood Avenue> (See Resoiution Book.) On r~ll call the foregoing resolution vras pass~c3 by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CamQ, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred. REQUEST TO THE PLANNING DEPARTA~NT TO SET FOR PUSLIC HEARING CHAPTER 18.08~ ANAE~IM MUNICIPAL CODEo Commissioner Camp offered a motion to direct the Commission Secretary to set for public hearing after the City Attorney`s office and the Planning Department had formulated the correct definitions for a multiple-family darelling in Section 180080300, for a hotel in Section 18.08.400~ and for a tourist court in Section 18008.730. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED, SECTION 18.62, - CONTI~IUED PUBLIC F~ARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAFIEIM CITY ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE PIANNING COIWISSION, 204 East Lincoin Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing a Sign Qrdinance to the Anaheim Municipal Code. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts presented to the Commission ali the revised changes upon meetir.g with the various interest+ed organizations; such as the Realty Board, the Chamber.of Commerce, the California Electric Sign Association, etc., noting changes had ~ been made to Section 18062o020(c) covering guide signs; Section 18062o030(f) covering ~ projecting signs, and (m) covering billboards; Section 18o62v070(a and b) covering number and size of off-site signs and location of off-site signs; Section 18a62.075, which was ~ an addition~ namely, the temporary on-site "for sale" or "for lease" signs placed on ; parcels of land of one acre or more; Section 18.62a080(b-3 and 5) covering guide signs ~ and'~or.sale" signs; Section 18~62.090(1) nusber of free-standing signs permitted~(4-f) ; guide signs, (~t-9) "for sale" or "for lease" signs; Section 18.62.120, billboards estab- i, lished by conditional use pe~it; Section 18o62a154 covering signs not designed to be ~ viewed from the street; Section 18,62.160 covering flashing signs; and Section 180620230 covering violations, penalties, and abatement as nuisance. ; Mr. Roberts informed the Co~nission that in oddition to the changes made to the original draft, he was going to distribute to the Commi.ssioners a copy of Outdoor Advertising Signs, Billboards permitted in the Co~ercial Zoner ~axcept C-0. In discussing the revolving signs, !lr= Roberis stated he had advised the Electric Sign ; Association representatives of the changes made to the original draft, noting the number ; of objections, and sighting the Anaheim Bortl as an example of the basis for the objection~ y and in response to Co~ission questioning relative to the Anaheim Boxl, stated the only rotating signs allotired are those Mith no artificial light at all on the rotating portion, only those signs which have florescent Iights with a lower candlepower where the light would ~ shine on the billboard~ but not reflecting, and gave as an example the Fuller Paint Company i and the Jolly Roger signs r+hich rere florescent lights placed internaily; that in his in- terpretation of the rotating sign, the distance was indicated as a spherical distance, and i requested that the Co~issioa give same indication of what they desired for this section of the Codee The Commission then complie~ented Rre Roberts for a fine presentation and efforts at draft- ~ ing the propoBed Sign Ordinance. ~ Nir. Walter Brooks, 2002 West 15th Street, Santa Ana, representing the California Electric i Sign Association, appeared before the Co~issiort and also complimented the efforts on ; Mra Roberts' part for comg>iling a compatible Sign Ordinance; that he had several suggested ~ changes, namely, to Section 18a62,08J in rhich it was felt the one-half of a square foot ~ i . ~ T~ ~ ~ ~ 0 '~~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 20~ 1964 2223 SECTION 18062~ ~ ANAFiSIM MUNICIPAL CODE - (Continued) for each lineal foot was too restrictive and recommended a two square foot per lineal foot sign with a maximum of 250 square feet, whichever was less; Section 18a62o090(a-2) Height of free-standfng signs, noting it was workable except that in open urban areas the height limit limited by street width to centerline would cause some signs to obliterate others and cause a situation of being unreasonable at reasonable distances due to height size and copy.sizes that an 8-foot ground clearance was acceptable except ornamental pole covers and decor items should be allowed below eight feet, and suggested the height not be limited in commercial areas unless said commercial area directly abutted a xesidential zone~ in which.case the maximum height of 25 feet apply if within a 75-foot radius from abutting residential property line, and in the event there existed a residential structure within the boundary of an existing commercial zone, then the commercial zoning provision should prevail; Section 18062o090(a-3) Area of free-standing signs, was also felt to be too restrictive and discriminatory9 primarily for small owners of commercial property which Nere strategically located; valuable commercial property of their size would be somewhat limited, and in accordance with the recomme»de•d one-half square foot per lineal foot and the formula should be based on property front foot, which would be a more equitable manner, and that the acreage formula was also too restrictive, cumbersome.and inequitableo The reference to,wall signs in Section 18.620090, regarding four feet in height would be ap- propriate in the new shopping centers since the setbacks in the street would limit the copy contained therein too small to be readable, and suggested a four-foot height if within the 50-foot set~ack from th~~ psoperty line, and increased by one foot for each ten foot setback beyond the 50-foot property lineo Section 18062o090(c) was then noted; that if the shopping center tenants could cooperate by erecting one sign9 no objection would be made to that, but suggested this rule would prohibit signs on the roofs of buildings two stories or more because of the 25~foot maxi- mum height limitation9 and this should be further studied to permit relationship of height above roof to building heighto Section 18062o160(a and b) were then discussed, relative to flashing signs, suggesting that if the residential structure were in an area zoned for residential purposes, the flashing sign prohibition would be correct; it was further suggested that for sub-paragraph (b), that flashing signs be permitted provided suc~~ flashing signs do not create a hazard or interfere with traffic control devicese Section 180620170, Rotating and Revolving Signs - Mro Brooks stated this medium of advertising was the only manner in which some business locations, because of obscurity, could properly be seen and identified, and to prohibit same, as this section did in com- mercial zones, would discourage the business climate in Anaheim, and further suggested this should be limited only to safety of location, and not limited if properly locatedo Section 18a62o180 was recommended for amendment by the provision of "grovided such residential stxuctures are located in residential zones"o Section 18o62a200, Non-conforming Signs - relative to the one-year removal clause as punative and unconstitutional, and this time should be either eliminated or extended; it would,cause,hardships and lawsuits and otherwise run many commercial businesses out of business, and there were many segments of the sign industry who in good faith obtained permits to erect and hold leases extending froin five to ten years, and the net effect would.be a financiai hardship and business chaoso Mro Brooks further suggested this be extended five to ten years rather than the one year clausee Section 180620080, Mre Brooks continued~ the intent of this section was ideal~ but actual cases of low silhouette buildings without parapets or ridges would prohibit facia signs, and it was suggested that this be deleted or rewritten to clarify these cases as roof signso Sectioa 18062o080(b-2) again was suggested to be corrected to read "two feet per lineal foot" rather than one-half of one footo Section 18.620090 regarding wall signs - this section submitted more inequitable restric- tions than any other section of the proposed ordinance, due to the fact that it actually restricts future architectural design of buiidingso Many architects were designing com- pletely lighted facias for buildings, many of which were higher than four feeta Research was now in process for the development of entirely lighted fronts for buildings j ~ as we:l as lighted architectural decor itemso ~. I Store front modernization constitutes a large volume of business for many sign companies, ~ ~ and was becoming more important to more sign companies all the timeo ; i ; ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ __ . . _ ---, ---. _~_ ... ___ __ _ . , --- ___..._.._.----- . . -- -.~ , ____ ----~ T r ' ' 1 ~ ~ ~ ..~ ~ , ~. _.._.__. ...._..... ..._.....~~._~....-.+-....u.~+~^nuw~.v.a.vw~.w+~...A..~.~_'_'._.._.._. .. . _ _.... ""'_'.. . ~? ~ ~ MINUfES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 209 1964 2224 SECTION 18062~ ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE - (Continued) Urban Renewal problems could aiso be improved by this portion of the sign business~ and it was suggested that no restrictions on the store front wall signs, other than minimum height requirements and no projection ato~:a the parapet wall~ be entertainede Mra Don Davis, representing Foster Kleiser, 1550 West Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles, appeared before the Commission and stated that~ in his estimation~ the proposed draft Mre Roberts had presented this evening was complete; that he had nothing further to add to what was covered on the establishment of billboards, but that his only concern was the requirement of the limitation of signs when within 200 feet of residential property; that the front of the property might be solid commercial, whereas the rear property line would be abutting residential purposes, and this would not allow the building of a sign, regardless of whether the "C" zone was appropriate or not, and asked that the Commission consider this in their final draft of the Billboard Ordinanceo Commissioner Gauer inquired whether the matter of sign ordinances was something each city had~ to which Mro Davis replied in the affirmative. Mra Gauer then stated if this were so, he noted on his trip through Beverly Hills that they had less signs than most citieso Mr, Brooksstated that Monterey had the most restrictive sign ordinance, and Laguna Beach was also somewhat restrictiveo Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the various types of signs in the City of Anaheim, namely on Harbor Boulevard, and those in the Disneyland Areat that possibly if the Sign Ordinance was adopted, a11 signs within that area could be considered at the time the conditional use permit was being considered before the Commissiono Mr, Roberts stated that the sign similar to the one in the plans approved by the Commission : relative to the theater earlier in the day v~ould be an integral part of the conditional use = permit if the Commercial-Recreation Zone were not established; that he did not advocate this as a solution since it would be more appropriate to have it tied in with the zoning actiono i The Commission continued discussion relative to the height of signs throughout the City, and inquired of Mro Davis the reason for the extension of signs to such heightso Mr, Davis replied that many of the outdoor signs had heavy steel posts which cost consider- ably more than the average wooden signs, and in order to utilize these expensive signs, and not block a neighboring sign, these signs were extended to overlook the neighboring sign~ and that signs were never erected any higher than absolutely necessaryo The Commission inquired of Mro Rober+.s what effect the propased Ordinance would have on shopping centers who advertise their week-end sales on small billboards within the parking areao Mra Roberts stated the Ordinance did not provide for this type of sign, whether on a building or ~ot~ but did provide for window coverage of not more than 20%, and that Mro King of the Building Department would agree that the stores would be in violatian if coverage of the window was in excesso Mro Brooks then stated that some sections of the proposed Ordinance were too restrictive~ and he had gone on record that signs should be considei•ed on the basis of public safetyj that economics should be taken into consideration~ relative to small businesses; that the sign business was a going business within the State, and with too many restrictions, it was possible they would be considerably restricted in their future operationso The Commission advised Mra Roberts to redraft the proposed Sign Ordinance with all the recommended conditions reviewed at the hearingsq that consideration should be given relative to commercial properties and signs which backed on residential propertyj to take into con- sideration the limitation of signs within 200 feet of residential property; that in the drafting, these signs should not be visible from the residential properties, and should be angled i.n such a manner to have a negative effect on the rotating portion of the sign to these.residential propertiesf further consideration should be given to the height limita- tion; that the suggestion of two square feet per lineal foot was too gre~~ an amount, and the formu7a proposed originally, of one-half square foot per lineal foat, was adequate; that some provision should be made, not only for the maximum size of a sign, but also a minimum size of the size, pernaps based cn a percentage of the frontage of the building; and further inquired of Mr. Roberts what type of rotati~g signs would be proposed for hotels, with lightingo _-----~~___~ ___....---------------------.._._____...._._..,._._- ---.. ----- __ ___ .--.._....~ ~' . . - , . ~,:} ~ • MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ July 20, 1964 2225 SECTION 18062, ' ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE - (Continued) , Mro Roberts stated no artificial lighting would be permitted on a rotating sign unless it was lower than the structure on which it was proposed to be located, and further, if it was within a certain footage of a residential area, this might be further amended so that the artificial light would not project into the residential windowso It was suggested then that the sign could possibly oscillate rather than revolve, and too many restrictions could not be placed on the revolving sign without causing some detrimental effecta Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue the hearing of the Sign Ordinance to the meeting of August 3, 1964, and directed Mro Roberts to incorporate all of the suggestions made at the hearing into a final draft for presentation to the Comm3ssiona Commissioner Perry seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING~ INITIATED BY THE ANAE#EIM CITY PLANNING ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californiao Propo=.- ing changes and additions to Chapter 180409 C-ly Neighborhood Commercial, Zoneg and Chapter 18061, NRCy Natural Resources and Conservation Zoneo Subject proposed amendments to the Anaheim Municipal Code were continued from the meetings of May 11 and June 22, 1964, in order to allow the Staff time to consider the problem of combining Commerciai-Residential use in the same structure, and to check. with the County relative to their Sand and Gravel Ordinanceo Planning Coordinator Allan Shof# advised the Commission that due to illness9 he was unable to complete his study relative to the NRC Zone, and requested the Commission to continue this an additional two v~eeks to be considered at the August 3 meetinga Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue the public hearing of the addition to the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18061 NRC, Natural Resources and Conservation, Zone to allow the Staff time to complete its study on the proposed zone~ Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo Mro Shoff then advised the Commission that the City Council had requested the C-1 Zone be available for review at the same time the R-Ay R-2~ R-39 and PRD Zones were to be consicered at a joint work session on July 280 Mro Shoff then continued, noting that the Staff had made a survey of surrounding cities relative co the proposed R-P Zone, combining residential and professional of:ice uses of a residenceo This survey indicated that Fullerton, at one time, had an R-P Zone permitting the combinat3on9 but had been replaced with an 0-P Zone, which was exclusively for offices; Buena Park had an A-P, Administrative Professional, Zone which permitted the mixture of residential and commercial uses; Santa Ana's Professional District permitted professional offices in all residential uses; and Garden Grove had replaced their R-P Zone with an O~P Zone, which provided for office uses exclusivelyo Mro Shoff continued that although the City's C-0, Commercial Office, Zone provided for use of a residence for commercial uses, said zone was primarily designed for application to office centers, whereas the R-P 2ones noted in surveys were characteristically designed for application to strip•-type development~ Mr. Shoff stated the Zoning Division was preparing a comprehensive study of the front~on residences along arterial highways with suggested typical solutions; that it might be desir- able in.connection with this study to explore in detail the utility of an R-P type of zone for use in thuse areas where the City policy encouraged and permitted office and professional uses along arterial highways, and at that time a revision to the C-0 Zone to clarify its intent relative to applying of the zone to center type developments exclusively should be madee It was further recommended that in the interim, it might be best to require a conditional use permi.t ia conjunction with the C-1 Zone to permit the residential-commercial use of a structure until such time as the R-P or similar zone was developedo It was then recommsnded that Section 18.400020(1), Permitted Uses, should refer to Sectlon 18040.050 instead of 18038.040, since this would place combined residential-commercial uses in the commarcial use of the residential structure under the C-1 Zone, instead of the C-0 Zone. He noted that the provision for the use of a residential structure in the C~0 Zone by conditional use permit whe~ less than 20~000 square feet would be incorporated under the C-1 Zone in Section 18040o050(i-h) as follows: i .~ ~ - --._ __ __.. _ ..__ ._- -- _ _ _- - -_---.___. _ _ _ '~ ---------- - ~._._._ . _ _~, , . .. ~. , _ _----.--..-_._ ._~_____.__ ~_ ) ~ ~ '~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 20, 1964 2226 AMENDMENT 'IO•TITLE 18 ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE - (Continued) (h) The commercial use of a structure designed or intended for residential use, and/or the combined residential and commercial use of a structure, subject to the following: lo Such use shall expire on January 1, 1969, at which time the use will be reviewed for termination or extension of timeo 2, Uses shall be limited to those included in Section 18.4G.'20(a)o 3o All exterior alterations shall be subject to review and aF~roval by the Development Review Committee of the Building and planning Departments as provided in Section 18a40o060(8)0 4. All structures shall conform to all provisions of Fire Zone Noo 2, except as modified, in whole or in part, by the Fire Chief of the City of Anaheimo 5o The required front setback of the residential structure shall be maintained and landscaped in accordance with the provisions of Section 180400060(2)(a)6o All parking shall be provided to the rear of the residential structL~•::a 6, That all vehicular access rights to abutting arterial streets and hi9hways shall be dedicated to the Ci+.y of Anaheimo In those areas where there are no existing alleys, temporary access rights may be permitted in conjunction with a conditional use permit, until such time as vehicular access is provided in accord- ance with the provisions of an adopted Area Development Plana 7o No free standing or wail sign in excess of eight square feet shall be erected un the property without prior permit of the City Councilo 8o All site development standards of this Chapter shall be complied witho In addition, the City Planning Commission and~or City Council may impose such additional conditicns as may be necessary to comply with the purposes of this Titleo Mre Shoff further stated that since the Commission might wish to consider these amendments as interim measures until a proper R-P SPCtion could be provided, this would provide for two types of development in the zoneo Commissioner Chavos was of the opinion that these should be separated for proper develop- ment standards~ It was further recommended by Mro Shoff that the Commission may wish to consider an amend- ment to the C-0 Zone to permit inserting into Section 180380040(3) the words, the combined residen.tial and commercial use of a structur~, and~or", if the Commission wanted to permit this combined useo In discussing the setbacks and landscaping in the C~1 Zone, Mro Shoff stated that at a joint meeting of the Planning and Zoning Committees of the Chamber of Commerce and the Board of Realtors, this problem was raised~ It was mentioned these sections were included within.the zone, Section 180400060(2) as part of the objective of codifying conditions which had been applied to individual zoning actions by the Commission and Councila Staff had re- viewed all petitions for reclassification to commerclal zonirtg between June of 1963 and June of 1964. Of the total of 47 petitions, 38 were approved, S were denied, and 1 was withdrawn; of the.38 approved petitions, 6 we:e in accordance with the C-0 standards, 4 were approved without conditions, 3 approved sub,iect to review of plans, 3 were service stations, and 1 was accompanied by variance for setbacko This left 21 petitions with setbacks of from 5 to 125 feet, and a range of 3 feet to 10 feet for landscapingf the average setback was 4604 feet, and that the average landscaping required was 7 feeto Mr. Shoff then reviewed Section 18.40a060(4-a~ ::hich covered the off-street parking spaces required; Section 18.40a060(8) Development Revie~+; Section 18a40a060(9) Street Dedication and Improvements; and Section tEo40.060(9-f) whict~ had been submitted to them in the June 22, 1964 reporto Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that a recently recommended approval of reclassification for the property on Brookhurst Street between Orange Avenue and Broadway was considered by the City Council, and consideration was held in abeyance until the C-1 Zone amendment was recommended to the City Council. This was the basis for recommending the Commission consider the present draft for Council consideration at the joint work sessio~, on July 28. Mr. Shoff then stated that a new draft could be made incorporating all the thoughts presented at previous meetings, to the Commissiona ~-------__r_..__ _ .._.._. _ _. __._- --_ _ .._. ..._.. .., _.._. _ _ . _.._ _..._-- _ _, ,.•.: . . . -. -- . ~%~ ~ ~. .. ( l ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 20, 1964 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 ANAI~IM MUNICIPAL CODE - (Continued) 2227 Commissioner Camp offered a motion to continue the hearing of the C-1, Commercial Zone, to the meeting of August 3, 1964, to be the first item on the afternoon agenda, and directed the Planning Department prepare a new draft of the C-1 Zone for presentation at the joint work session of the Commission and City Council on July 28, 1964o Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion, MOTION CARRIED, REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMEMIIATIONS Northeast Noa 3 Annexationo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that as of July 17, 1964, the Northeast Noo 3 Annexation was part of the Ci•ty, and suggested that in accordance with the Ordinance,it would be necessary that the Staff be directed to initiate reclassifica- tion proceedings for the property covered in the Northeast Noo 3 Annexation to reclassify the properties in the most appropriate zones, s:nce the City Council had passed an interim zoning ordinance effective for one year on said propertieso Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to direct the Planning Staff to initiate reclassifica- tion proceedings for all properties covered in the Northeast Noo 3 Annexation to reclassify the properties into their most appropriate zoneso Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, ITEM N0~ 2 Conditional Use Permit Noo 460, Jessie L, Goodman, 716 Webster Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting extension of one year for temporary use of subject property for church purposeso Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed subject petition, noting that Engineering requirements had been taken care of, and the street lighting fee had been paid, under Conditional Use Permit No~ 1503 that the City Council had granted a temporary waiver of street improvements, and that subject property was part of the Webster Street property under resolution of intent to reclassify to the R-3 Zone, undei• Reclassification Noo 63-64-620 Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to grant a one year extension of time for the use ' of property for temporary church purposes under Conditional Use Permit Noa 460, to expire August 2, 1965o Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiona MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NOo 3 Conditional Use Permit Noo 366, St. Michaei's Parish, 311 West South Street; requesting approval of the Commission to p~;rmit Mro and Mrso Perry J„ Formolo, 632 South Clementine Street to construct a redwood gate in an opening in the required six~foot masonry wall on the north side of subject propertyo Zoning.Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed a report by the Planning Staff regarding subject request, noting the private agreement had been made between Sto Michael's Episcopal Church and Mro and Mrsa Perry Formolo, relative to construction of a gate within the required six- foot masonry wallo Commissioner Perry offered a motion to qrant permission to Sto Michael's Episcopal Church to enter into agreement to construct a redwood gate in the required six-foo~ masonry wall a~ per agreement between Sto Michael's Episcopal Church and Mro and hirs. Perry Formolo. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDo ITEM NOa 4 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 5694, Revision Noo lo DEVEIAPERs J. 8 Bo DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, P. 0. Box 3366, Anaheim, Californiae ENGINEERs H. W, Phillips 8 Associates, 316 South Main Street, Corona, Caiifornia< Subject tract, located on the north side of Orangewood approximately 2320 feet east of Haster Street and covering approximately fiva acres, is proposed for subdivision into two R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Zoned .lotse Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission action taken by the Commission and City Council in the reclassification of subject property, and noted that one of the conditions of approval was the filing of a tract mapn It was further noted that the peti- tioner :equested earlier consideration of the tract ~ap by the Commission, and since no public hearing was necessary it was presented to the ~ommission for actiono -- .:. ,. _ .~-__----_--~- .~--- --_-_ ,.. _ ......:..:.::._. . _. , ,. .. . ~ - i • ; _ _ . . . .~ ' ~' ~ i MINUfES,.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION9 July 20, 1964 2228 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0~ 4(Continued) RECOMMENDATIONS Tentative Map of Tract Noa 5694 , Commissioner Camp offered a motion to approve Revision Noo 1 of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5644,. subject to the following conditions: le That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision~ each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in ±entative form for approvalo 2o That i:he approv~l of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5694 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification Noo 63-64-105 and Conditional Use Permit No. 560. 3o That the vehicular access rights, except at street and~or a21ey ope..'ngs to Orangewood Avenue~ shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheimo 4n That the alley cut-offs shall conform to the Cfty of Anaheim Standard Plan Noo 1300 Commissioner Perry seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo ITEM N0~ 5 Orange County Case Noo 811 (Sectional District Map :-4-9, Exhibit K} Proposed to change from the 80-AR-10,000 Agricultural Residential District to the 100-C2-IO,OOJ General Business District, certain property located on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road and northerly of the SaA,V~I. Canal in the Santa Ana Canyon areaa Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented to the Commission Orange County Case Noo 811, and reviewed the area in which subject property was Iocatedo Further, that because of the possible effect the commercial zoning request might have on the Hill and Canyon General Plan, presently being drafted by the Planning Department, a detailed study was prepared as follows: On July 1, 1964, the Orange County Planning Commission reviewed Zoning Case Noo 811 and continue9 the item to their meeting of July 29, 19640 Mro James Black, the agent for subject petition, was directed by the County Planning Commission to contact the Anaheim Planning Commission and staff requesting a review of his requesta Mro Black contacted the Planning Department and was informed that it was the Commission°s policy not i:o review petitions for reclassification without plans of developmento Mro Black then prepared and submitted a plot pl.~n for reviewe Plot Plan 3eview: (a) The plot plan proposes a neighborhood shopping center consisting of a service station, major supermarket, restaurant and other small stores which would all be considered G-1 uses in the City of Anaheima (b) The service statior, is a permitted use, however, the station will probably be substantially re-designed to conform with major oil company layouts and the Anaheim adopted Service Station Standardso (c) The uses proposed~ ioeo, a supermarket, restaurant, and service station would require 239 standard parking spaceso The petitioner proposes 136 spaces (no typical space shown so it is not known if they meet City standards) which indicates a shortage of 103 parking spaceso (d) No bui~ding elevations were submitted for reviewe (e) The existirq garage would be a C-3 use, not G2, and has sufficient ~~a to ~ provide required parkingo (f) The existing ~~elling is no~ a permitted use in a C-2one and, ther~: ahould be removed from the :itee ; ~ (g) Vehicular access to the proposed shopping center is indicated as coming from an e;:tended service roado A camplete analysis of the implications of subject i ~eliicular access cannut be achieved without reference to a precise circulation ~ plan for this property and adjacent propertieso Such a plan has not been Nreparedo i General Plan Iroolications: Since the jo:.nt Orange County-Cit~ of Hnaheim P).anning Commissiqn meeting on 3.~~e 29, 1964~ the Anaheim Planni~g Department is involved in the final preparatory stages of : ~ ~ .. ~ ~, _.._..____- -- -._.. . ._..._.._ ._..__._....----....._._ . ,_ _.._ _...._ ___~..---- ~ , . - _~ ,. ~ _...____.,..s,~ ~ , f 1 ~ ~j J _ ~ REPORTS AND - ITEM NQ. 5(Continued) RECOMN4ENDATIONS Orange County Case Noa 811 a General Plan for the Hill and Canyon Area east of the City of Anaheimo Th:: ~lan, upon completion, will provide a framework in which to evaluate shopping center pro- posals such as Mro Black'so The commercial element of the Hill and Canyon General Plan is being developed utiliz- ing the concept of planned unified shopping centersa Although Mro Black's proposal conforms to the planned shopping center concapt, it is one of many commercial develop- ment proposals which have been considered ieasible by property owners who feel that tb.eir parcels of property in the Santa Ana Canyon area ali have commercial development potentialo However, the residential development (in essence, the economic suppoxt for shopping cente=s) which is taking place in the Canyon is concentrated west of Imperial Highwayo. The area east of Imperial has not experienced a degree of res:dential devel- opment :~hich would provide economic support, at the present time, for any shopping center> This evident scarcity of economic support indicates that the proposed shopping center may be premature and the success of the proposal would not be affected by a slight delay in developmento A neighborhood shopping center represents services to a certain segment of the economic marketo A neighborhood shopping center should be related to the remaining segments of the commercial shopping service network such as community centers, regional centers, etco Any shopping center proposal should have the benefit of evaluation in relation to all the elaments of an adopted General Plano Due to the nearness of completion of the Hill 3nd Canyon General Plan it is hoped that the County Planning Commission would favorably consider basing their review of shopping center proposals in the Santa Ana Canyon Area upon the evaluation of the proposal's relationship to the commerciai element and, moreover, the combined elements of the completed Hill and Canyon General Plana Following the presentation of the above Study, discussion was held by the Commission relative to the date of completion of the Hill and Canyon General Plan and the past spirit of cooperation between the County Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, and the City of Anaheimo Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be encouraged to hold under submission Orange County Case Noo 811~ for the purpose of evaluating the relationship of the petitioner°s proposal to the commercial and other elements of the Hill and Canyon General Plano Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDe ITEM_NOo_b Appointment to the Urban Renewal Advisory Committeea A request by the City Council that two representat•ives uf the Planning Commission be appointed.to the Urban RF~ewal Advisory Commission was read to the Commissiono Commissioner Perry offered a motion to appoint Chairman Mungall and Commissioner Camp to the Urban Renewal Advisory Commission as representatives of the Planning Commissiono Commissianer Rowland seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo TEMPORARY ADJOURNMEM' - There being nc further business to discuss, Commissioner Camp offered a motion to ad~ourn the meeting to 10:00 o'clock a.m.~ July 28, 1964, for a joint work session with the City Co~~ncila Commissioner Rowland seconded the motiona MOTION CARFiEDo The meeting adjourned at 11s30 o'clock pomo Respectfully submitted, / ANN KREBS, Secre ary Anaheim Planning Commission ~ ~~I r d 6 ~` C f ~ ~, ~~ E _ _ F _. _. ...___.~~ ~~ ....~.., ~ . _ _ _ ~