The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1964/08/03f • ,. r ~~~ ~ ~ .. ~7 (._) '~ ~ . s; , City Hall Anaheim, California ' August 3, 1964 i ~ A R~'aULAR MEETI[S'a OF THE ANAHEIM CI7Y PLANNIACa OOMMISSI~N ~ , R~ULAA MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to ord2r by Chairman Mungall at 2t00 o'clock p.m., a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMANs Mungall. - CDb1MISSIONFRSi Allred, Chavos~ Gauer, Perry, Rowlando ABSENf - OOMMISSIONERSs Camp. ~ pg~,,~' Zoning Coordinatorc Martin Kreidt ' Deputy City Attorneys Furman Roberts Off ice- Engineere Arthur Daw ; Associate Planneri Robert Mickelson Planning Commission Secretarys Ann Krebs ~ INVOCATION - Reverer~d William Hoover, pastor of the Bethel Baptist Church gave the invocationo PLIDGE OF - Commissioner ?erry led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ALL~IANCE APPAOVAL OF - The minutes of the meeting of July 8, 1964. were approved, except for the ~ THE MINUTES following c~rrections: Page 2194, last paragraph -"Mr..Gared Smith..." pMF~MgNT Tp OpNTINUED PUBLIC HFJ-EtINGo INITIATID BY THErolosinLAanlamendmentStoNChapter CHAPTFR 18 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim California; p p 9 ANAHEIM 18040; C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone and the add3tion of Chapter 18>61, MUNICIPAL OODE NRC, Natural Resources and Conservation, Zoneo ' i C-1 General Commercial,~,Zone Plan:~ing Coordinator Allan Shoff reviewed the revised draft of the C-1, General Commercial, ZonE, noting that all the recommended changes presented to the Commission at the July 20 , 1964 ; meeting had been.incorporated into the latest revision. l In reviewing the.request that a study be made for the possible utilization of single fami:.y ~ residences for a combined residential-commercial use, Mr~ Shoff stated that the staff was con- f ducting a comprehensive study of the front-on residences on arterial streets and l.ighways to ~ determine the feasibility of this use, and until the study was made and a possible R-P~ Zane ~ prepared, it was suggested that those requirements of Codes Section 18038.030 be incnrporated , into Chapter 18.400050 together with permitting the use of these structures by the filing of ; a Conditional Use Permit. ? Mr. Shoff then reviewed some of the suggestions made at the Council-Commission work session, i notably the section governing Development Review, and stated that the suggested revision was ~ not yet completed, but would be available at the evening session. i In response to Commission questioning relative to Fij~e Zone Two~ Mra ~:~^Ff stated that this ' was administered by the Building Depar~ment upon being notified by the Fire Chief that a struc4uLt must conform to Fire. Zone Two. i Mr. Shoff then reviewed a study made of the setbacks and landscaping on petitions received and ~ acted upon during the past year, noting that this question had been raised by the ::oning Com- ~ mittees of the Board of Relators and Chamber of Commerce~ and that the report had been pres•ented= to the Commission at the July 20th meeting. ~ Discussion was then held by the Coranission relative.to recommending the amendment to the C-1, ~ Zone.as presented in the revised draft dated August 3, 1964, with an additional correction to the Development Review section; the Commission t5en decided to delay final consideration of the C-1, Zone until the evening session for the complete wording of this section~ ~ 2230 1 / ,____---_ r ___ ._..._ _-------.___....-- _._.. _~_.---- -.__ __ . ---_ ~___ , . _.:' ._.: .. . ~~ , ~ . . i • 1 _ _ __.----- _ , ' ~ ~ .'i ~, 1 ; MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ODMMISSION~ August 3, 1964, 2231 , C-1' General Commercial Zone (Continued) Mr. Ralph Keene, owner of Capri Cleaners appeared before the Commission and asked whether or not a.cleaning establ.ishmant was permitted in the C-1,Zone. Mr. Shoff stated that this was permitted, and that the only thing pertaining to that type of use not permitted and excluded was a commercial wholesale plant where work would be performed for commercial concerns. Mr. Donald Wells asked what portion would permit off ices in the C-1,Zone and was informed that Section 18.40.020 specifically stated office uses. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of the amendment to the C-1, Zone until the.evenin sessiun in order that the staff might complete the recommended change for Section 180400060~8)o C,mmissioner Chavos seconded the motion. NqTION CARRIBDo NRC Natural_Resources ConEe,rTvatio~ ne• Mr. Shoff stated that the revised/draft with alternated suggestions to the original draft would not be available until the evening.session, and that there was one interested person present in the Chamher, who might wish to speak on the proposed zone. Mr. Don Michael, representing Sully-Miller Contracting Company, appeared before the Commission and stated that if most of the changes recommended were incorporated into the final draft of the proposed NRC9 Zone he would be in favor of it. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of the proposed new NRC, Zone to the evening session at which time the recommended change in the original draft would be available for Commission cansideration. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTTON CARRIED~ -~ S ..__._.... .. ........... ._~__...._...._'_".__.._._.....'_""' "'.~_.'_.~_.. ~ ...._...___.. _. .~. _ ... . . ~ c ~ ~~ 11 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 3, 1964 2232 VARIANCE NOo 1651 - PUBLIC HEARINGo MRo AND MRSa FRANK DORETTI, 327 South Olive Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to waive the required covered parking on property described ass A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 50 feet on the west side of Olive Street, and a depth cf 165 feet, the northern boundary of said property being 327 feet south of the center- line of Broadway, and further described as 327 South Olive Streeto Property presently classified R=3, Muitiple-Family Residential, Zoneo Mr. Frank Doretti, one of the owners, appeared before the Commission and stated~he proposed to construct an additional apartment over an exieting garage, and was ask~ng waiver of the required one and one-quarter spaces per dwelling units that he had spoken with the neighbors regarding the proposed petition, and upon explanation, had recsived favorable reaction by the neighbors indicating there would be no oppositione In response to ~ommission questioning, Mr. Doretti stated it was proposed to tear out the existing laundry and re-establish it at the easterly end of the double garage, and that there would be a walk-way between these garageso Mr, Bill Pebley, builder of the proposed addition, appeared before the Commission and statEd.it was proposed to move the laundry facilities to the opposite side of the garage; that there would be a 4e6 foot bx~eezeway between the two garagesy that the laundry itself would:.be placed at the end of the new garage; and that the breezeway would serve as a walkway, as well as a trash area for the development. Mr, Pebley, in response to Commission questioning, stated that in order to provide five garages, it would be necessary to tear down the existing structure and reconstruct, since the existing structure was only 18 inches from the property line, and that the size of the apartment was proposed to be 1,050 square feeto Mre Pebley then stated he could not understand why the Report to the Commission stated the xequirement of 1,225 square feet for the new addition, since it was his understanding this was a requirement for single- family dwellings and not for apartmentso Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that in the opinion of the Planning Department, the proposed addition was to be corsidered a single-family dwelling unit and not.an apartment; that there would be no objection if thfs were an addition to an existing apartment development, but they could find nothing in the Code to permit waiver of the required 1,225 square feet, as well as the requested waiver of parkingo The Commission requested a legal interpretation of whether or not waiver of the required 1,225 square~.foot per dwelling unit could be made without readvertising subject petition. lleputK City Attorney Furman Roberts stated that in Code Section 18.68v060 structural waiver could be made if it was specifically set forth in the resolution granting such a variance,. and quoted the entire section of the Code Section 180680060, Conditions and Regulatians. Mr. Roberts further stated that since the proposed development was in an existing R-3 Zone, there was no need to apply the required 1,225 square feet. Mro Kreidt..then stated he was basing the requirement of Section 18aS0v080 of the Anaheim Municipal Code which required 1,225 square feet, and if this were an actual apartment development proposing 800 to 900 square feet, this would be acceptable, but since, in his opinien, this was an individual dwelling unit, and from his previous experience with Gity Attorney Joe Geisler, who had indicated that uniess an item was specifically advertised, such as Conditional Use dermit Noo 577 which had been continued to advertise a height waiver, everything being asked for should be advertised and not granted, if not advertised. Mr. Roberts st ~d, in his opinion, since Section 18.6%~060 was specifically set forth in the Code,•li~ would be able to defend this particular section in the court, and if anything was,.so drastically wrong ~~ith it~ it should be removed from the Code booke Mro Kreidt then stated that since the clarification of permitting the waiver of the 1,225 square feet could be set forth in Code Section 18o68.Q60, it was felt the Commis- sion could grant the proposed waiver, if so stipulated in the resolutione Mr. Doretti advised the Commission that since t:iey had reviewed subject property, they must ttave•noted a considerable improvement had been made cn the property, and it was their•intent to continue this improvement since they would be residing on subject propertyo No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiona ~ THE IiEARING WAS CLOSEDo ~ I ~ i ~ .. . r~ ----~--~- . °-- ---......_~_. ~ __ _ . _ .. __... . _ .... ---~~~ '.~ ~ ~ MINIDTES~ CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION, August 3~ 1964 2233 VAFcIANCE N0. 1651 - Commissioner Rowland expressed the opinion that the petitioner could ~ (Continued) not adhere to requirement of providing adequate trash storage areas, ~ and perhaps this should be amended to read "trash storage containers"e Mre Kxei,dt stated the trash storage area requirement had rece~tly been amended~ and all ' would be subject to approval by the Public Works Directoro Mr, Pebley advised the Commission he had discussed subject petition with the Public Works Director and had received approval from him on this proposed developmente Co~nissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1283, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1651~ subject to conditions, and based on the legal interpretation of the Anaheim Municipal Code relative to waiver of the required minimum dwelling sizee (See Resolution Bookei On ro:l call the foregoing resolution was passed by the fol:owing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSEM: COMMISSIONERS: Campa AREA DEVELOPMEM - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY TFIE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, PLAN NOo 10 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, for property located on the west side of Lemon Street between Anaheim Boulzvard on the south and Romneya Drive on the northa Subject Area Development Plan was continued from the meeting of July 8, 1964, in order that it might be considered in conjunction with Reclassification No. 64-65-14 and Variance Noo 1654e Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the Area Development Plan as presented to the Commission on July 8, 19E4, and as further presented in the Report to the Commission. It was further noted for the Commission that the westerly section of the east-west alley faom the north-south alley to Parry Avenue was necessary as an integral part of a secondary circulation system serving both the Lemon Street-Anaheim Boulevard frontage properties and the proposed court's parking lot-•recreation areao Further, given the proximity of the property in question to the proposed municipal parking facility, the Commission may wish to consider.recommendation to the City Council that a Municipal Parking District be estab- lished providing for an "in lieu payment" for use of public parking facility~ This would make possi.ble maximum building coverage of their properties and encourage a maximum utilization of the municipal parking areao Mra Soden, owner of a plumbing shop at 1835 North Lemon Street, appeared before the Commission and requested clarification of whether or not he could operate his existing plumbing shopo Doputy City Attorney Furmac Roberts replied that since the variance permitted the move-in of the operation,the non•conrorming use would be permissible in the City for.an indefinite period of•time. Mr. Kreidt advised the Commission that when Mre Soden had applied for a business license, the Depa.rtment had made a thorough check, and it was determined at that time •the plumbing shop had been in operation at the same address since 1951~ which gave him the right to operate at that addresso Tf~ HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the non-conforming uses existing•in the area covered by the Area Development Plan~ that the plumbing shop, being a non-conforming use in a non-conforming building, was a heavy commercial use, whereas the building ln which it was located was oroposed for office use in the variance, and inquired of ~eputy City Attorney Furman Robe;~ts whether this could be permissiblea Nlro Roberts stated that since the plumbing shop had been in existance since 1951, and since the building was not adapted for office use~ the non-conforming use could continue until amortization of the building might be realizedo The Commission then stated that as reclassification proceedings were approved, that the zoning..was not ef#ective unti.l all conditions attached to the reclassif3cation were met, and this, then, would permit the reading of an ordinance reclassifying the propertye ( The Commission further stated that the proposed C-0 for the pro~erty as indicated on the ; ; Area Development Plan would be upgrading the prgperty, making i~ more desirable for t ~ ~ ,' ~. , -.. ______..._......~........_...._._.....,~ ___._.___ .., . - -~ ~, ~ , ~ _ ,- i • :- ~~ , _ ~_ --- __ _-- ----- - ___.._.......__ ~ ) ~ ~ , MINUfES~.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 3, 1964 2234 AREA DE~IELOPN~Nf - future commercial office uses adjacent to the municipal court area, PLAN N0. 10 ~ and that with a non-conforming use there, economics would play a (Continued) great part in eventually changing the non-conforming use to a higher and better use> Commissioner Rcwland asked whether or not outdoor construction and storage could be per- mitted in the approval of a variance or a conditional use permito Mr, Roberts stated the variance did not grant approval to conduct business outside of a building; that all business must be performed indoors, and other similar commercial buildings were required to store within a building in accordance with Code requirements, and advised the Commission he would review the variance and visit the plumbing shop ownero The Co~nission then advised the plumbin9 shop owner, Mro Soden, that the non-conforming use under which he was operating could be continued indefinitely, but he must comply with all the requirements of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to construction and storage in the outdoor area since this was illegalo Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noa 1284, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Area Development Plan Noo 10 be adoptedo (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COtdMISSIONERS: Nonea ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Campo RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo INYTIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 64-65-14 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property described M as: A rectangular parcel of land at the southwest corner of Lemon Street and Romneya Drive with frontages of 124 feet on Romneya I?rive and 705 feet on Lemon Street, except the 40-foot by 130-foot parcel located at 1129 North Lemon Street, and further described as 202 to 208 West Romneya Drive, 1119 to 1125 and 1131 to 1165 North Lemon Street, be reclassified from the R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, and P-1, Automobile Parking, Zones to the C-0, Commercial Office, Zoneo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission this proposed reclassification was initiated so that an orderly development of the west side of Lemon Street between Anahei.m Boulevard and Ror.meya Drive could take place; that the proposed reclassification would upgrade the area and complement the municipal court areao No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono ?E~ F~ARING WAS CLOSED> .,~ < Tt 3 i ~ 1 ; :, ; ~ The Commission advised all interested property owners in the proposed reclassification that if the City Council approved a resolution of intent endorsing the Commission action, conditions attached to the reclassification would have te be complied with prior to-obtain- ing reclassification of the property by ordinanceo Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noe 1285, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adopt3on, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noo 64-65-14 be approved, subject to conditionsa (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COIu~AISSI0IVERSs None. ABSEKI: COMMISSIONERSs Campe VARIANCE N0. 1654 -°UBLIC [-IEARING. INITIATED BY TFIE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing to permit a barber shop and a beauty shop as primary uses in the C-0, Commercial Office, Zone on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 40 feet un the west side of Lemon Street and a depth of 130 feet, the southern bounda:y of said property being 455 feet north cf the intersectin9 centerlines of Anaheim Boulevard and Lemon Street, and further described as 1129 North Lemon Street. Property presently classified R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Zonee Zoning Coordinator Marti~ Kreidt advise~3 the Comm~ssion that ~t~e yaria~ce was ~.nitiated . - - - - - ._ ._.._ _.__ ... ... ___., ____ _.. _ _._~____.., _ -~: _..~.___. --_-. ~ , ^ - ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ . MINUTES,-CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 8, 1964 2235 VARIANCE NOo.l 54 ti at their request to legalize an existing barber shop and beauty shop ' Continued in the C-0 Zone, recently approved. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono THE F~ARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1286, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage 2.nd adop~ion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1654, subject to condi+:ionso (See Resolution Aooke) On roll call the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the f~llowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Niun9a11, Perry, Rowlando NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Nonea ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Campa VARIANCE NOo 1652 - PUBLIC HEARINGa DAVID A. REED, JRo, 914 Fairview Street, Anaheim, California9 Owner; requesting permission to WAIVH TFIE MAXIMUM C0I/ERAGE OF AN ADDITION IN THE REQUIRED REAR YARD OF AN EXISTING RESIDcNCE on , property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 63 feet on the east side of Fairview Street and a depth of 103 feet, the southern boundary of said property being 193 feet north of the centerline of Catalpa Avenue, and further described as 914 Fairview Streete Property presently classified R-1, One-Family Residential, Zonea Mro David Reed, the petitioner, appeared before the Cortenission and reviewed the proposed development and the basic reason for requesting the variance, notin9 that an equal area - was being provided since they were utilizing their driveway as a play area; that he was desirous of obtaining a legal opinion on Section 18.240030 (3-a) relative to the minimum -, required rear yard being 25 feet, where an equal area was provided else~vhere on the lot, since it was his opinion that the side yards and the front driveway should be considered a portion of the equal area, and presented two examples of how the Code could be inter- pretedo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the Reaort to the Co~ission, noting that in : Finding 2, Paragraph 2, approval of the proposed rear yard encroachment would be a contra- i diction of the Commission and City Council's recent approval of the amendment to this section of ~.he Code, although a final reading of the Ordinance had not been read on fto In response to Commission questioning, Mro Reed stated he had not more than ~10% coverage of the lot as required by Section 180240040; that he was 1004 feet away from the rear property l.ine; and th~t if subject petition were not granted, he would be forced to move elsewhere in order to provide adequate living facilities for his familyo The Commission inquired of Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts the interpretation of the Codea. Mro Roberts replied that in the computation of equal area elsewhere, the driveway could not be used; that the recently amended section of the Cocie 9overning rear yards had been written to prohibit the use of the driveway, since this was to serve vehicleso Discuasion held by the Commission relative to use of the existing driveway reve~.ied that the Commission was of the opinian the existing driveway rcust be utilized for vehicle purposes, and could not be included as a portion of the equal area elsewhere; that there was a possibility the petitioner would not be setting a precedent for the area since the _ amount proposed to be expen~ed for the proposed expansion of the home was more than the .. <..average man in that area would be spending, but that as planners, they must decide the .'~:;-'"~xtent to which a variance could be granted for encroachment into the rear yarda Mr. Kreidt advised the Commission that the recently pass~d reso2~~tion regardin9 t~ie required rear, yards would have first reading on Augusic 4, and, therefore, the variance was required since th~ Code provision was not an actual Ordinancea No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione THE I-IEARII~G WAS CLOSED. ~Further discussion held b~ the Commission indicated the required rear yard was 1,205 fest, I with the possibility of using the 9-foot by 37-foot strip between the driveway and the home as equal living area for the requ:red amount of tootage, and ihat in the past it !~ ap~+arently hed be~n interpreted that the use of the side yards could be used in computing ; the requ±red'•rear yard coverageo __. ---- ---- ,. _.... ___- - - _ _ -- -- - ------- :~£:. i'~ c ; ~ .~ '~ NINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 3~ 1964 2236 VARIANCE N0~ It was further noted by Mra Reed that in his computation he had not (Continued included the uncovered patio in indicating the square footage of the required rear yardo Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1287, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption,~seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1652. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungallo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Perry, Rowlando ABSEN'Is CR;+~IMISSIONERSs Campo Commissioners Perry and Rowland qualified their "NO" by stating that by granting the proposed variance, the Commission was not following the intent of the use of the drive- way as equal area elsewhere, and by permitting the variance would be setting a precedent which may force the Commission to follow all subsequent requests for encroachment into the rear yard and would lower the property values of adjacent propertieso CONDITIONAL USE ~ PUBLIC HEARINGo Y~ILLIAM Go Iu~MANUS, 101 Ocean Avenue, Apartment K-4, ' PERMIT NOe 605 Santa Monica, California, Owner; BILL FINDLEY, 9421 Thistle Road~ ~ Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT WITH WAIVER OF REQUIRED PARKING on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of %0 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and a depth of 275 feet, the southern boundary of said a•ropPrty ~ being 320 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenuea Property presently classified C-1, Neighborhood CommercialY Zoneo Zoning•Coo.rdinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the propert~~ on Brookhurst Street had been dedicated, but had not been improvedq that an Exhibit had been prepared by the Planning Staff which showed the ownerships and setbacks of existing structures on the east side of Brookhurst Street between Broadway and Orangeo No one appeared to represent the petitionero Hira Ra1ph Keene, 508 South Brookhurst Street~ appeared before the Commission in opposi- tion to subject petition, stating he owned the cleaning establishment immediately tc.the nurth of subject propertyg that at the time they constructed their structure, the properl:y had been obtained from Mr~ McManus; that they had proposed construction similar to the servfce.station adjacent and had been requested by the Building Departmen~t to use a dif- ferent-type of constructions that the setback from the street was required to confoz•m with the buildings on the opposite side of Brookhurst Street; that he was presentiy set back 55 feet from the sidewalk; that if the proposed 15-foot setback were permitted, this wauld jeopardize their business; that at the time he constructed his building, they had contacted the City to determine what was the most acceptable manner of building and had constructed the existing setback in conformance with the suggestion made; and that the proposed development did not provide adequate parking facllities, although there was still a great deal of property left to the rear to provide the needed parking; and that he was unable to utilize the City sanitation facilities because of the existing coffee ..:iop being located at the property lineo In response to Commission questioning, Mro Keene stated the building was actually set back 55 feet, but the distance from the canopy fronting on the building to the property line was approximately 15 feet, and because three drives were existing on their-property, t•h~ canopy was extended across these drives to provide coverageo THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Mr. Kreidt advised the Commission that the conditional use permit was nece~sary to establish a walk-up restaurant in the C-1 Zonea The Cowaission expressed the desire to have sub3ect petition continued in order to have the property ownex answer questions relative to the proposed developmento Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to r.eopen the hearing and continue Petitlon for Conditional ;r~~ permit Noo 605 to the meeting of Augu~t 31, 1964~ in order to allow the pe~itioner the opportunity to answer o!~astions the Commission might haveo Commissi.oner Al~.sed saconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. ~ I f i ~ , / ~_ • ----..._- -__ .. ............ . . __ ' _..Y;;; __ . _ , . ._ _..__ ._.._ _ _____.._..----- ~ . .,. _. ~ h ~ ' .~ ,........._..~._.._...._...~. ----... _ ...__._._. r_: ~ . _ . ' . 1\ / ~ ~ ~ ~.~~i MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 3, 1964 223~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGe DONALD D~ AND E~°"SN!i W. /?~'.LLS, P, Oa Box 128, N0. 64-65-.13 Corona Del Mar, Californiz, Owr;c;..;: nxoperty described as: An ~ irragular parcoi of la~d 9d3acenL ~.~ i::~ servicp station property VARIANCE N0~ 1653 ~t the southeast cor~~er of P.o;,k}:urs`r, otreet and Orange Avenue, ~vi±h ;sontages of 480 feet on '2roukhurst Street and 30 feet on GENERAL PLAN `~*?ny~ Avenue9 and f~irthFr ~9er;,::::bed as 610 South Brookhizrst Streeto AMF.NDMEN7 N0~ 30 Property presently ~iassifie•_+ .'•~•-N, Residential Agricultural, Zon~o ' REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-•1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ?G~E, REQUESTEi~ VARIANCE: ALLOW FI:NCE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN PUBLIC Ri:HT-!Jl~-4JAY AND WAIVE REQUIRED PARKINGo biro Donald Wells, one of the petit,3oners appe.:red before the Commfssion and presented a sepia-rendering of a similar develooment known as the "Town and i:auntry" in Palo Alto, and stated that tue owner o# the Palo Alto development had a simi.lar one in San Jose; that the existing Town and Country Shoppin,c, C~nter in Oranae wa:: a cake-off of the original concept of ~lasign by Bill Baconr that the proposed devE~lopment ~;oould be more rustic irr appearance th«;, the one in C;ra.nges that the unusual ap}•~arancr; would be an incenti~e to obtain mor~~ te~ants who c+auld b~a successful in the ehoNp~.ng areaf ihat the variance was requested on a ts:^p~rary ba::is to construct the fence in the park~ray and would be remov~~d at the time Brookhurst S•t:•eet was widened and improved; that a number of planted trees viould give the propostd ~ievelopment character; that from su:veys the buyer is interested in going to smali tyr~e stores rather than a la.rge, discoun~i storet that there was a definite place for the proposed type of shopping ~:enter; that the petitioners were willing to dedicate ;n additional ~en feet to the City, but were desirous of utilizing the existi.ng parkway for iaiir~~•:aping ar,d th~a proposed fencey and that secordary circuiation wouJ.d be provided ~,y a 20-foot alieye The Cornmission ncted that some o? the par4:ing viould take up part ^.f ;•k~e ailey and •reduc.e the width to ? ~; fe=t.. Mre Wells th~en stated it was t!.~ei•r 4esi*e to have delivery made to *.he rear of the st~re~s; that he~ was •~~king exception to the '.'indir.c P;oo 6 in the Report to tne Commission in which it was s~ate~ i'. r~?s tue City's pcli~;y not tc ~ermit the construction ct ience~ within the street righ:••~i-wayq tnat he ~Nas wi3ling to provide insurance and prav:de "no parY.in9" signs on t:~e iirookhurs•f Street fror.cage; and that since Brookhu±~st Street var.ied as to its width,-it would not b~ desirous io have cars pa:.ked on that frontage~ Office Engineer Arthu: Daw ad~~ised the Commissi.on that Finding Noo 6 was inser~eti afr,er discussion at the Interdepartmental Gommittee, and it was stressed that ttie City woul.d not acsume any liability or responsibility fnr the possibility of obs~ri:cting view within the straet right-of-wayo Deputy City Attorney Fu.rman Roberts quoted from Code '~ection 12~1bo05~ or' the Anaheim ; A~unicipal Cnde and n~~.`.ed the petitioner would have to obtai:, spec9.a1 permission from the `- City Council for any sireet, alley or sideNaik encroachment since this wa~ the irtent o: tlie public right-ci-way~ rAro ~Jells ~~hen sl:ated i.t was their desire i:a have some improvement in th: parkway whic'~ wouZ_! be attractive and benef.icial to prospective tenants; that it was :,ece~sary to have as much parkis~g as requirea since ~:hese would be only small individual shoppinq areas nct moie than 4,Q00 square feeto Further discussion was held by the Commission relative to the r.equest and the proposer plan of clpvelopment, and it v~as noted for the petiLioner ~:~at a f~nce would be required at •th rear proEerty line *.: separatc the commaz~'.al from the singlr~•-family residential develc,.:ientj that some of the requests made by the petitioner vould be in violation of the Ci;:=~ Ordinance; tha; ded'lcati~~~ was always required where the ultimate right-of-way was determi.ned by tiie Gity, tha~ the City never permitted any encroachment into th~~ public. right-af-wa.y as the petitiorer proposed; that a fence would be permissible if constructed within the ~*op~•riy lir,e~ rath~r than in the public right-of-way; that landscaping would make this an atti•active shopping cen±er; that when the ultimate width of Brook•hurst Street was reflectRd on the ~roposed plan, th~re was a possibility the proposed plan of develop- !~ent would bo consid.arably deficient in rarking; and that a number of the parking spaces wsre not in confoxmancr and would provida inadequate a•;cess for ra~cher awkward vehiclese Mra Alex Much, 625 South Prcher Stireet, aF•peared before the Commission and stated he was only in.conditinnal oppos tion to the proposed development since his opposition would be if tho petitioner proposed a bar cr 'iofbrau for the commercial center; that parking would be diroctly behind his property, and he would not like to face the problemsother small shopping centers had where Hofbr~us and bars were permitted, with the noises emarat- ing from them late at night by departinc, vehicles and bpisterous patronso ~ ~ ~ ~ . _ _.__.._._~.,- ..._.... _ _ .......... .......... .... .._ _.. ,.,.,h _ --.. _.. -~ . ~. . . . _ ... ...~ ...: - ~ T,: . .~,• . '~ .. `. .'~ ~ ' .. ' i`.•~ -0~ '"" .. _ _ ~ i',,, C . a . 1 I~ r }''i• ~ B ' :t r, ..~ :'.•. . .- _ " . _ . ~ w. ` . r ~J~ , ' .. , . ~ ~ ~ i ~. ~ € ( i a x i ~ MINUTES, CITY PL.i~;:N3NG COMMISSION, August 3~ 1964 2238 RECLASSIFICATION - The Commission informed Mro Much that any alcoholic beverage N0. 64-55-13 application must be applied for through con@itional use permit and was not permitted by right in the C-1 Zone~ therefore, if the YARIANCE NOo 1653 sale of alcoholi.c beverages was riroposed, he would be notified about ite GENERAL FLAN A1dENLY4~NT NO< 30 Mro Wells then stated that perhaps when the new C-1 Zone was (Continued approved, the raquired parking would be considerably reduced, and, therefore, he might qualify on the existing plano Nfr, Much agai^ stated he objected to two-story str:~ctures overlooking his rear yard in which he had a pool~ and this might infring2 on his privacye Mro Wells advised Mro Much that it was their intent to construct one-story adjacent to the single-family homese THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo The Cort~ission advised Mra Wells,the petitioner, he shouid considerably improve his plans an3 should consuit with the Planning Staff sa that revised plans could incorporate aIl the Code requirements; that dedication should be required prior to final inspection of the proposed development; that adequate ~arking should be provided; i:hat secondary circvlation should be considered; and that ,:ans should indicate no encroachment into the uliimate right-of-way of Brookhurst Streeto Ca~issioner Gauer offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue petitions for Reclassifi-ation Noo 64-65~-13 and Variance Noo 1653, together with General Plan Amend- ment Noo 3C tc ~he meeting of August 31, 1964, in order to allow the pei:itioner sufficient time to prepare revised pians of develo~mento Commissioner Chavos seconded the motfon~ MO'IION C~+RRIFne CoNDITIOHAL. USF - PUBLIC 1-I~ARINGa FLORIENE SANDERSFELD, c~o Talt, MacMahon and Nelson, PERMIT N0. 604 1695 West Crescent Avenue, Anahein, California, Owner; ROBERT W. MACMAHON, 1695 West Crescent Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; x•equesting permissi.on to ESTABLISH A HOFBRAU TAVERN on property described as: A r~ctangular parce:l of land at the southeast corner of Orange and Knott Avenues with f~~on~ages of 213 feet on Orange Avenue and 293 feet on Knott Avenueo PrnpErty presently alassitied C•-1, Keighborherd Commercial, Zonee Mre Wayrr~ -~elson, representinn, the agent for the patitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he would be a~:ai;able to :.nswer ary questions that might be presented; that the property had been ~osted by the Alcoholic Bevex ~e Control on May 27, and as of this date, no protest had beien ~s<:eiveds that the plans indica~~. +.h'~s would be locaced on the intericr of the shopping a~nter and wou.id not craate a bli,;,ht in ihe area; that the s~rrounding area wos occupied by l~3rge apartTenF dwellings, and t;1is, the~, would make up the neighborhood and would support the proposed useo The Commission noted nc k~;c!~.2n facilities were being proposedy ~nd the proposed development was a bar, not a Hofi~rau ta•.~ern; that a high s~:.~ol was ).ocated within 600 feet of subject property, and the Alcohol~c Bc~o~:a;e• C;ntrol Board would •,iot ;ssue a license for the sale of alcoholic beverages withi.~ t.~:t distancea Reverend Ray Jor.es, Pastor of the Knott Avenue Christian Church~ appeared before the Commissio:~ in opposition to subject petition, stating he r~spresented a number of the other churches in the ax~a; that a junior high school existed within 600 feet ~f the proposed develop~nents that further west an elementary school existedg and within a 1,000 feet to thg ~ast a high school exi~ted; that within the area of one mile of subject property a nurrber.of churr,hes existed, and he opposed the proposed Hofbrau tavern due to its clo~e proximity to the schuols aiid churches in the area. Bishop Hugh Sorenson, 300~Wost Orange Avenue, repre:,enting the Church of the Latter Day Saints, appeare: bef~re the Co:amission in opposition to the proposed development, noting that thera were approximatel.y six churches within one-half mile of the proposed establish- ment; that i°'s ~his were jus~ an off-sale, there would be no opposition, but since it was on-sale beer, children were having a diffi.cult time these days ad~usting to the worid, and a bar-tyPe tavern draws many children below the legal age; and that his church was located appi~ximately 90J feet west oi the proposed establishmenta In rebuttal, Mr. Nelson sta'.ed, in hi~ opinion, if the moxals of the children were being j4cpardized, this was a prul~:err~ `or the ch.:tch to resolve, with proper moral guidanco, and that the praf~os:c: develo~~mt:.nt woul~ te a compatible useo _ __~____- _ ._. . .. ... ... .. . _ .. , _~ _ ~--_..__......... ~ l ~ ~ ~ MII~UTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 3, 1964 2239 i:ONDITIONAL USE - THE F~ARING WP3 CLOSED. PERMIT N0. 604 (Continued) It was noted for the Commission that three churches existed to the east of subject property, one to the north, and one to the west. The Commission noted a recently approved drive-in was being constructed in close proximity to the pr.opo~ed development, and many teenagers would be fraquenting this drive-in many times during the ay since it was so near the schools, and the proposed Hofbrau would be a detrimental use and incompatible to the schools in close proximity to subject propertye Cortunissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 1288, Series 1964-65, and mcved fox its passage and adoption~ seconded by Commissiener Gauer, to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 604, based on the fact that the proposed Hofbrau would be serving alcoholic beverages only, and not food in conjunction with it; that a junior high school existed within 600 feet of the proposed development; that a Yiigh school was located within a half mile; and that five churches were located wi•ihin a half mile of the proposed develcpment, making it an incompatible use to the areaa (See Resolutian Booka) On ro11 ca11 tMe foregoing resolstion was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Chavos~ Gauer~ Mungall, Perry, R~~wlando NOESs COMMISSIONERSs Nonea ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Campa [ ~ ~ ~ , i ~ / : ', ,. _ _ -~ ------r- -.__~__..__. ~ ~ ; ~~'',~ • ~`~, ~ ; MINUTES, CIT~' PLAN~TTNG COMA~I.SSION, August 3, 1964 2240 ~ ~ CONDITSONAI, rJ'SE - PU3LLC ~ARTNG. HAZEL M. POVV~I,, 16351 Fe11oWS Drive, Orange, OaliPornia, PE~tMZT N0. 606 Ooener; AA'~`TD S. COLT~INS and RONALD A. KAROS, 107i YYest Bal.l Road, Anaheim, ~ ~sl.ifornie, Agents; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A TOY~''uR RESTAJRANT '.: WTTH OBSERVAT'TON DECIi AND COCKTAIL L[IUNC~E 9PITH 6 ll(I~RIM'JM HEIGHT OF 760 FEET • on property desoribed as: A r.eatangular paroel of land 660 feet by 330 fset, the 330-Yoot Western boundary being 660 feet esst cY the oenterline of West Street, and the 660-foot ' southern boundarq being 1,000 fest north of Orange~ood Avenue. Property presentlq alassified R-A, RE3I11~1~'i`I'AL ALiR;LCLTL'!'URAL9 ZONE. Mr. Pau1 YPa1:laoh, APa:l.laoh i"empeny Pub13o Relations, appear.ed on beha7Y oY the petitioner and the agents who are tha ao-pertners and developars of the proposed develapment kno~n as the Angel Spire, and ststed that •the pro~ect would oontribute to the Anaheim area°s image as the reoreetion capitol o:f the world9 that the propased struature would prorride visuel enhanaement to the area, thst the spire woul.d rise in a setting of refleotor pools and Pountains With lush landsoaping; the~t the ground 1.eee1. oonoourse would have approaimately 30,000 enalosed square feet of sehioh a portion would be devoted to an eshibit oo~emorating the groWth and ~ beauty of Orange County and of Anaheim in partinular; that night .lighting poul.d ~rer~te the illusion oq a restaurant on a four-story top str.uoture rasting atop a golden pill.ar of ~.ight; that developers intended ths.t the spir.e Would eaoeed in height and beauty any ezisting simi- lar toWer struoture any~vhsre; that it Wonld pro~ride a vertioal landme.rk against the ad~aoent ooavention oenter; that the 750-foot struoture would be visible for many mi:Les from many parts oP Orange Connty; that the Commission might be interested in the faat the,t the top Y1oor, direotly under the dome ~as proposed to house the neaessary bui.l.ding equipment and msahinery, i or• a total. area of 1.~,000 squara~ thai; the rAStaurant was pror,osed for the third level oovering 12,000 sq~.are fset and ~voul.d s:iowl.y re~rol~re at the rate of or,e degree eaoh minute ~ thus afPord- ! ing the diners a totsi viev~ par.orsma~further that tha develop:3rs were in aonsultation with some of the grestes~ rc~staurant oparatio.ns of the nation; that pith the anfsine, servioe and deoor, the spira ~vou.l.d ba •,inequslled bq any penthouse or sky.oparation; thet the seoond 1eve1 housed tbs aockte,il lou.nge, poas3U?y serving liQr.t menu. item.sp and the,t the flrst level vas~ pro- posed to be the ob~a~Nration p:Latform aompletel.y enolose for saYety and would. provide speoial ereas for telssoo~,e viawing and photogre,phy. ; Mr. Wal.laoh then stated thst the ~rieW .f.rom e~ heliaaper at the heights oP the various levels would be among tha m.ost speotaoular s:ights in the Ror].d; thst visitors aoul.d ba able to see as .far as Catalina, the Pa~sifio beaahes, :s'urrounding oiiaes, orange groves, &r~: the mountains, ' whiah Yor some Lnknown reason appearad to be al~ost eye leval st the height of the spire; the,t ihe r•~vening view erau.ld be e•aen m.ore memorabl.e. ~~ The three hlgh speed e1.e+rator.s, Nr. YPa1l.aoh further stated Wou1.d aoeomodate up to 20,000 visitor~ daily, that the ride Prom ground 2eva1. io the obssrvetion platform WOL'~d t81S:9 about 60 seaonds; i snd {;hat four aares of parking pss 'bei.ng proposed. ~ T:, reviewing the eoonom.tos of the proposed development ~[r. -Pall.eah sta•ted that the development j ~ould pay an estlmated $350,000 in taaes, would employ in exaess o.f 100 peopl.e, and wou7d aost approaimai;sly $5,OOO,Q00; that it svas antioipated that 2,000,000 visitors avas a aonservativa estimate for the sp£re aonsidering that the Seattle 9Por1d°s Fair spire dominated the publ.iaity ; whioh the Fair generated, thst reoent figures indiostsd that the Seatt2e splre oontinued to attraat nearly a mi:llion visitor.s eeah year, whioh was remarkable r~hen one oonaidered that ~ Sesttle had s permenent marking population base of only :15,~ and onlq about one-third of the j tourisi trade that the :l gheim rsrea en~oyed; that Harrison Priae, o.f Eoonomio Researah'Assooi- a ates statad reaently •.'~t the tourism dollar had a speoial vel.ooit-! in the looal eoonomy ttust was almost unique, and that the em~l.oyees and teaes paid by this p~•o~aat would ooni:ribute a ~ signifioant meaure to the dynemio eaonomio grorath to Whioh he referred: that the proposed ~ looat3or. afforded a balanaed development and reoreational use that would substantiallg enhanoe ad3aaent property valixes and provide opportunities for oomplimentary and benefioial development ~ of that area; that the proposed development Was not an impulsive move; that the propo~3ed site ? ovas seleoted with great ae,re; and that the Peelings of other property ovPners was oonsidered. i ; Mr. YYallaoh stated that a meeting Asa held with representatives of Disneqland, on July 15, at ~ whiah time all available data ras submitted to them; thet the representatives edvised him that ~ they were oonduoting their own atudy on the pro~eot and that results of their study wonld ~::e I availe,ble prior to the heesing, that he had learned in the morning the position Disneyland ; would take and requested that he be afforded time Por rebuttal to their oo~anents; the~t he ~ hoped 3or an eerly deotsion from the Co¢m-i.saion that the developers liad expe,zded a oansiderable ; emount oP money on the pro~eot, and would be disappointed if they ooul.d not bring this "major i league" atyreation with its revenua to Anshoim, and that I~r. ~ol:lins woyl.d present an area ~ map indioating the exact looetion and be avail.able to answer any edditiona7. aLasticns. In response to Comm.ission questioning Mr. Wa7.lech stated that the ettendenoe at the Sesttle I spaoe needle Was based on fi~:res tiinoe the Fair olosed and 60~ we,s l.ooe..l and 40$ was tourism~ ~ atid that it was hoped tha•t visitors to Disneyland would p1.an to visit the spire. I ;- _ ,,~t _ . ' __. _._. '- ~' ~[., _. - -•- ~ ~: ~ S I ~ ~ ~ .,.~._ .... ... ,. . _, .. ~ . . . ------ -- . , .__ , .. _. _~ , ---.-. _._ ___. ~ • , . ~ ~ . ~ ' ~ ~ .l .. ~ . 7 f ----. __~.-.......~ ---- ---- - --.. _. . . . .._.__...-_.._ _. . ... . .___._ .__ ..._._.' _~. . ~ ~ IQNr~fiES, CI'f1 P`.[,AN(~CI1~3 COM~!'LvBSON, August 3, 1964: ~ ~1 4 2241 CONDITIONAI, L'SEI - Mr. David Col:Lins, o.ne of the agents and dsval.~pers appaered bafore the PEF1M.'T IQO. 606 Com~:lss.ton in responea to Oommission questions reletive to the fsot ~hat ~ the propossd dEVe:i.opment wes dependent upon oiroilation to the Convention C,enter•, and statsd that they ~ere quite oonaerned that the City ~eas enter- taining thoughis +.0 7.ooating the Center e:l.sevrhere, +hat e,lthough ha did have oertain infox~me,- tion, he vas not at liberty to ryv:,~sl it, but wou.ld hope that the Co~isaion oonsider sub~eat pet~i:ion as theugh the iaatar sit,a would be northerl.~ of sub~oot pr.ope.rty; thst iP it were not to be loaated ther.e, and sinoe sLbjeat property is 7andlooked, perhaps the City would aanstruat str•aats, and 3f thi~ n~ere not possibl.e, tbat the px^oposed spi.re would he,ve to be reloaate~, at whioh tim.a e~othar petitian would hara ta bq P3.led, and that the Commission should oQr.sidar :i.~;nd us3 first, an3 make oiroulation a oondition. o.f appr•ov'sl.. uiu.e~ Coa~issioue.r ~~Bt29° sts~ad that 3t~j~~st as ~uoh the oonoern of the ~Joa~isaion es the Citq Counoil to requ:ir~ adeq•aate oiroulation, si.noe i:f the paroel vvas .l.and:l.oaked the land use ~ould be ni:. 1Cr. Col'.in:a ~he.n :tat~d that Fhen he ~nd hic pe,rtner had fir~t 1.eerned through the newspaper about the prob:lam-_ invo:l.vsd i.n obtsinin.g the Convsnt.ton Genter site thay oontaated by telephone the paopl.s '~ho aeex•e oo;?oyr_~ed i:n the area snd had b9e.n in oonstant aon~arer.ae with them, but tlfd'L until. soms eatue:i. s~otzon was msds by •the City to relooate the Center, t~hey would like to aonsider the patition on sub~eat property. Commissioner c;ha~.ca statsd that~ th~ Cods requ.ires that ad.equate a.L.r.au:lation ba prorrided in an appl.iaation o.f. a oond:~tlonal. us~ parm:I.t, and tha Commissi.on ouuld not go on the asyumption that the petitioe. ~~u ~i haWS a3?quaia ~rafPio f:[.ov~, and that i:n h.is opi^.ion he uoi~ld not render a daaision oa ~~~j~~t petition urctil. some of tha reqv.i.auent,: o.£ the C'ody ware met. Coffiis:~ione.r A1i.red stated. he was in agrsesani with the stetmant~ mada hy Oo¢aatesioner Chsvos, and that in add3.tion to :l.e,nd ~.ee oon.4id~ratian i,he airo~u.iation m~.xst a1.sa be oonsidered. ![r. Collins sta~sd that he wa: avsera that thay wo:~:ld. need adeq~iats aoaess to move tveo million people ii~ snd o~it uf an area, a^d if this oi.roa'?sii.on mas not prov.l.ded;the pcoposed develop- ment o~u:~d not s~:ra~4a. ldr. Benneth 6onsau~, :1903 ,^.outh West Street appee:re3 be.fore the Ooumii,ssion in opposition to sub~eat ~Stition, and. sY,ated that he lirrsd d_ireot.ly in tha shadoa of this "dwarf from the i vallsy of tha giant5";that he wes not a ma~a.r prope:r~tp ov~ner. ~inoe his in~restment o:P ~32,500.00 f was nothing .in aomparision to the proposed dev~lopmant; that withou~t tha proteotion whioh the ~ Plannir_.g ioaeai_s:Lo.n cor~;l.d g9.rre to sing:le fa~i:~y hama ow~ae.rs in tlxe erea~t,he:Lr privaoy Would be i imaded; that the statment me,3e 'by AKr. Wal.lsoh ma;= that the proposed deve:t.opm.ent Would inoreaso~ proport,y values did not speak wi.th a.crg authority, beaause he had been sn expert in the housing ; business for i,he past tar~ qeary and ~vas reoo~ized +~s an eaper•t in ~and use bq many organiza- ~ tions and pahli~ations, an3 tha proposed development Wou.ld drastioally deorease their land 1 values; that he v-as not dey:lrou~ o.f :l.iving wai.i,hin t'ha shadoW or the saope o:f a monstroaity ; 750 Pest hi~h; that he was di.s+apoointed thet more of the hom~ owners dId not appear, etnoe he ~ had spokyn with more theri 2; prop::.e who vrere a7.so epposed io the tower~ that althovgh he felt j the stcuoture xas a Wond5rf~1~. addit.ion for the City, the proposed site and u3e ~ould be y i=ao~apatible with thA si.ng.ts .f.emi:ly re5idenoes whi.oh it woul.d overshadow; that he was aware ~ of the type of zoning in the gene.ral. arse of hi~ propertv, but that he had no idea that t}~e S City ~ou1d s71ov~ or evan entertain the thought of. spproval oY the proposed struoture so n~ar ~ a residentiel araa. j 14rs. 9~altar Jaokson, ?~3 3o+ith Eugene Place, appAe,red before t;he Commi.s::ion and stated that she lived in the traot southAr:i.y of. the sub~eat pr~perty9 that she was a1.so spaeking for a number o.f her naighbors who wera oonaer~ned that traEf.ia fr•om the proposed development would have ingress and egr~4s through thelr tra~t, rlnd that a sohool at the oorner oP Satella and West Street was attendad bp oh3ldren Prom the traot, and any heavy trsfPio whiah the proposed development Would engender would ~eopardi2e the ohildren. 1[r. I~"red Milem, reprssenting Los Angeles Airways, appeared before the Commission and stated thep ~ere autharized by the FAA to opei•ata the heliport and heliaopter to and fz~om the ~ity, that he was r.ot apgsaring to oppose at this time, but sinoe the:,r were oompell.ed to aomply eith a.ll the regulations concerning spproach-•daparture ge.tterna e.nd the ase of air egeoe, an aeronautioal study would be neoeasary under the procisions o4 ths FAA, Avistion Regulationa, Part 77, before it aould be determined horv the p.roposed 760•-foot struoture would affeot their flight patterns; thst the heliport oper.e~tion vas the mosi; svooessfnl in tha world, hsving in ezaess of 100,000 pessengera .Yrom Ansheim :ast yea~r., and they vere antioipating an inoraase oP 20$ this year; and that the ~tudy mtght have an e:f.Psot upon their proposed a11•-•weather operstion propoasd for A.nahaim. i . ' •.~_"___'__'_.'_'. ..-..-,_.._., - •-- ---------.____----.....______._---~--- ~l . . . . ' .._ . , ~',_'__._ .......... ...__._......._. _ ._._._ ___ ._ .____... _.. _. _ ._- ------ • ~' ~.> ~ ; E ~",J~P;gy Q7~!!y' pT,Al~lI1ING C09~'L5SIOkI, August 3, 1964: 2242 Qp~~~ ~'yE _ In reply to Couanission cluestioning, Mr. Milem stated that the study wou~d Z~MIT N0, 606 be made by an independent agenoy of the Div3sion of Federsl Aviation; that thei.r preaent flight pattsrn took them south to Batella Avenue and then vesterly, but that thsp nad eight Plights a day to Newport Beach and pass in very alose prozimi~y of sub~eot property, and that theq were authorized to operate at an enroute altitude of 300 feet, end under oertain aonditions st lsss than 300 Yeet. E~r. Lld Elttinger, representing Disney7.aud appeared before the Oa~i.ssion and sta~ted that they had met rrlth Mr. Wa1l.aoh and Mr. doilins three oz~ Pour weeks ago, at whioh time a sohematia of tha vtsnalizatioa of the tovar adeta mineethe ePfeatWthisratruoture wovld have on theused by their engineering department to illusion oreated trlihin Disne,ylsnd, whioh they Pel.t str.ongly about c~s being the main reason ~ Po.r the suooe~s of their opsration; that stndiea had been mede on the basis of the infox~me~t3oa , and at this time he wo~xld like to ezpress their opposition to the proposed development= and ~ asked tY-e~t the enginesr l~fr. Wise present to the Co~i.ssion superimposad photographs of the , spire as it would sffeat the Park. ' Mr, VPise, Ohief Engineer for Disneyland, appeared before the Co~nission. and reviewed the '.~ method of prepar.ing the atndy made of the impliaation the proposed spire would have; that ; a previous study hsd been presented to the City aounoil and Platu-i.n6 Commission shoving ~ visual angles throughout the area, that when a speaifia ~ooation taas available it beoame ~ easier to pinpoint the visuel angles of a given struoture;kaorring the height and the looation; a that from Pigura~ they de•tarm~ned that the apire v9uld be loaated appr~ozimatel.y 4600 Yeet Yrom :i the hub area~ end indioated on a ahart the vie~v from 3700, 3800, 3900, eto. feet ~h1oh the j visitors to Disneyland wou:l.d hgve. Photo~phe were thea presented 4or the Coamiisaion°s vieving~ as they appear~d in va:ioas pas'ts oY Disneyland suoh ae J~ain Street, Town Square, Tom Sa~yer 1 Islaud, Frontler Land, '.I'omorrowl.and and Fantasyland. A photo~raph oY Tomorroxland was not .{ preaented beoa~isa they felt th~t the progosad struature would not oonstitute a distraotion, ~ xhereas in the 1890 area the proposed struotura guite obviously would eYPeotivel.y destroy the } illuaion areated in the park. 3 ~ Mt~. Milem a$ain appeared before the Co¢~i.ssion eud stated thst if the aeronautiaal study ~ indioated that sohedulad sarvias to Anaheim Mou1d be affeoted, he r~oul.d the~ be foroed to ~ voioe his ob~eotion, si.noe the proposed struatnre'might be detrimental to their operation. ~ Mr. Wellaah, in rebuttel, stated that he would like to m$ke some oomments on visuel intxvsion, that he Yelt that what raight ba viRUe1. intx^.xsion to one man miBht be Yrse enterprise to another;j thst they z~aognized that the PlanainB Commission was faaed With a ver.y aomplea problem, and he i vvauted to give eva.ryone treo •th.ougl~ts for oensideratim~Pirst, What easatly ~s viaugl intrueion? i If ~ndy rere to aooept the preiatse oP the lliauey~and offioials, then the outstanding offender } must be Disneyland itself einoe they had telcen a nvmber oY photographs in the park from the ~ Monorail ride, the S.'l~x~ide, the traino the boat and others e1.1 oould be viewad Yrom verious ~ areas in the perk other than thst in whiah they funationed~that these photographs, aside from ; the spire or other a~peots~ viaual intrusion Ras present p thin the park suoh as buildings, j eleatrio pow5r polea, Dis'neylead Hotel,airorsft and helioo ter ell aould be seen within view , 03 the park; the,t the people oP Disney1emd underestime.te their oRn msgni4ioent' ability to oreate illualon, and that the visual intrusion of the.spire ~as unimpor'tant• Seoondly, Rhat i if the spire p+er9 ooastruai;ed wi.thin Dieneyland itsel4? Would there be any ob~eotionY ~, The fiower oY the Winds in the New'~ork World's Fair Aas proposed to be reloaa~ed in Disneyland,' Mr. Wallaoh stated wouldn°t thie have srt affeat on the visuel intru~ion; tha.t if Mr. Dianey~~i~el build a to*er phy did it not seem possible that others oould do a similar da~:•ing and imngi , ta3ng outaide of the Fark7 Did DisneTla~d have the right to eztend its influenoe nearly a mile ; Prom their gate7 That Whst ~ras being proposed xas not ~tn oYPioe building or a hotel, but would ~ add.to the ~ante,sy ePYeot and the"out oP this world"feeling; that the proposed struature would 1 ]~ave an ePPeot on the many~property ovnsrs, motel operators who have s vitsl stake in the ~ reoreational develo~ent of the area~ and thet a limitation must be set as to phat aea- deter , development in the area, and that "Angel Spire" ahoul@ be ~udged on it~ merits as it a4Pents i the Oity o~ Ansheim and the area ~s a ohole rather than its vague effeat upon a single ma~or i industry. f The Co~-ission adviaed Mr• Wallaah thst Disneyland had never attempted to ezert trieir influenoa j in regard to what ahould or should not be in the City, that the 2,000,000 people who would ~ patronize might real.ly ooma to visit Disneyland and ultimately would visit the "Spire", and ~ as a rasult the two aould grow together; that the City had plaoed height limitations on a number oP struatures in the City, and to deviate fromt that poliay vould be granting a privilege v~hioh had been denied t~ others, bnt that the dommisaion was attempting to nonsider all parties afPeoted by the proposed development and ~hat would be best for Anaheim and held no animosity ~ toward the petitioners~ in vithhcldin~ s deoision until Yurther evidenoe xsa reaeived. ----- -- ----.__._ .___. ...._._ _ _ __ _ --- ~---- - - ----- - . - - ~g = - =1~ . ~ 1~ . -: , _ . . ._ _ . ._ ..~ . . . _ 1. f:,, y" : `.: . , _ " . ' ~ i ... , _S`' . .y, ~ -', . . . . _ . ~ ~ M~iD~E3 o OI'l.+q' pI,ANNTN(# Q01UlCCLSTOld, August 3, 1964 • `.! 2243 .~ ~ E OpNDIfiIONgI, ITSBI - 1~6r. Collins, in rebuttal, stated that he hsd oontaated the ~AA and had fi].ed •, P~R1Q`S N0. 606 a notios of oonstruotion, as required by their regulations; that if the City were to vait for a Pu11 study this might take siz months, since the vheels j of tha Federal (~overnment moved eaoeedi.ngly slow; thst the Disneyland Hotel did aot seem to aYPeot the Plight psttern of the helioopters, and although the proposed "apire" ~ ~ou1d be looated within the oone as desaribed in the F9A rsgulatlo~-s, the proposed atruoture , was within the height lienit oP buildings, and that although New York Oity hsd struotures muoh taller theu was being ~roposed, the flight psttern iaas around these struaturea, and the flight patterns for the hel.ioopters to and from 9naheim oould also be altared. D[rs. Aobert Overmeyer, 7?~4 Iamark Drive, appesred bePore the Qom~isaion and etated that twelve other residents in her area wsre also present ia the Ohamber; that they not spoken previously beaause they were not aure hoW they would be afPeoted. Mr. tlo111na atated that ome of ~he qne~tions the nelghbors hed ~ae the posaibillty of utilizing ~ the eziating stx°~!et; in the trewt,• southerly of eub~eot property for incrress and egrese, snd he ' wiahed to assttre the property oRners oP that tr~ot, that it ~as not their intent to oonstruot an; street thst rauld ku~rre eooees iato thair~ traot. ! lLre. Hlmil. Sohoeninge 71.0 I,aaoe~r]c Drive, appeared bePore the Oom~i.seion and atated tha.t in b piotura ehe sew in the Los Angeiea Tianee naaepaper, the drawing indioeted that ffiugene Plnoe ~, would oontiaus thr,ongh to Aisneyland, and thia rse oae oi the Yaotors oonoernixig the property ~ o~ners. Mr. Co1:l~ns stated t:hat the photagz~aph of e r~ndaring fia~de b~ th91r artist ir_dia~.ted this, ' but the artist hsd tak:=n I.ioensa, and Whan tha rendering had been aompl.ated it indioated the streat continuiag eoutharly, 'b~yt t his apas not a pert of thair plans that it was their hope that sooess xo~.;.7d ba throu.gh the st"99'tB serv'ing the proposed oonvention aenter with a street ; ruAning east a.-~d weat he~;.:P way 'between :llata:l.le and Orangewood Avenv.e~ betrreen A'srtor Blvd. ! on the sast riad West ~tr.a~t on the wHSt• ~ ~4rs. 6ohoening then. atatad that s3.naa the aree rras eo aongested, aonstantly presentiag a ~ problem to gain aooas~ P.ro~ and to the straets of the traot~ ~re,a the QitV p:Lann3ng to vriden i the str.eets in tha gangra:.~r3.oinity of this area, and did the rasfdents l.iv3.ng in nearby i C}arden C3ror-e and those ].iving on the opposita sids of West Street have a r3ght to protsst. . t' 7.'hs Coffini.~sion. ad~rised the iata•rested paople that anyone ~ho felt that the proposed deve~op- ~ ment ~ou1.d arlver.5aly affeat them a~hether. or not the~ lived within the oitp 13mits, thay Would ; have an equa~ right to protest. + 5 ~r. Ool.lins stated that the ~.treet Ridening queytion Rould have be e.nsvearsd by the Engineering ? Department sinoe ~they had the mastar glans fo:r devel.opment of the streats and hlgh~ays in the ~ i City. ? In response to Oom~iasion quastioning, N1r• Collins statad that the conaept of the torer rest- { aurant oalled P.o.r something that was really dramatiu in height--eaceptionai height, and there ~ rrould not bs any ree:.l reason to bu~ld a restau:cent on top of a pede~t~1 11 ~cu.ria~ hign wtten other buildiags in the area oo+lld elso aonatru4t a aimilar one on the rcof of thei:r buildi.nga, ~, that the proposed "spire" would be adding fsr more ~+y going up in the aic•, ~uoh e,s an identifi- ;~ ae.tion to the area or a landmsrk, that an elav~n-story toWar restsursnt aould not tae Yinauoeable~ and that he did not think he roul.d be able to get any money to build an 11-story struoture. ~ ~r. Ettinger im reply to remes•ks made bY 21~'• Prallaah, stated that the tower oalled the Tower of ~ the Four Winds, nox at the Nev- York World°s F'air,had an overall height of 115 Peet; that Disney-; land was aonsidering using it in their parlsing lot area as a marquee; that ai that level, it ' vould not be anyvhere in the raage of visual intrusion of the pe.rk; that he and othar Aisneylaadi reprasentatives mat st the petttioner-agents request and imitstio~- in good faith and would aontinue to do soo that ~+e eapresaed regret that Disneyl.and had unduly frightened and used inYluenae in an area around here; that the reaords would.shoR that this veas not oorreat;tha~ iY they aere ooncerned from ths point of view of business or aompetition, they woc'!d have taken sotion on other matters Whioh had oome up, inaluding a neW type of theater, and tha~ they hsd ezpress9d me.n4Y times in the past their Peeling that the park was substantisll.y built to areate a visual. 111usion. Commi.ssioner CYiavos then stated that a report on the Coumeroial Reoreation Area Height Stes-dard was to be considered by the Qo~mission in two weeks, that this atudy had been msde at •the request of the Oounoil to deaide the various levels o£ height intrus3.on re~arding the Reare~e~- tional Area; that the Comp~i.esion°s reoommendation had besn withhe.ld pending thei.r oonaideration of the reportp that it was only fe.ir that sub~eat petition ba oontinued until the height standard oould be deoidedo thet this studp wi11 then be able to inYorm interestad developers , -._._.~___, _ ..,. - --r---------._..--------__.-__.-_... -_-__------- _._.._ ~y ` --_ _. ~ -- , _ ' i ~ • 1 ~... ( j ~ ~ ~ D~.TNiI!'ES, CITY' PLAi~N:~ COJ~LSSION, gugust 3, 196~}: 2244 tfONDlfi.iONAI~LT~H - property oxners, and Disne~lsnd will kntrx wha#, proteotion their inv~stroent PP~LI,fi N0. 606 would Yiave, whether the haneoRnera woul~i have their priv8ay proteoted, eta.; and that speeking Yor h3mselP, he aould not make a deoision on sub~eat petitio until the report fie~d beqn presented, peraomel inspeotions had been made by the: tlommission at sites throughout tho Oity to reaoh a Yair and oonstruotive solution Por the City9s Co~eroial Heore~~ion area. Qo~issioner Rowland stated he did not think nearly enough peopla from Ansheim had viaited ,Seattle, tl~at he had viewed tke 3eattle Needle for three reasons - a vaoation, visiting relatives aad as au arohiteat; that he wondered at ttiat time how the residents o~ Seattle felt aittoe he notioed the "Needle"r-ss visible from many plaoea; that it had been e tremendous asaet Yor th9 Fair, in Paot it was thQ theme of the F'air, and had a tremendous effeot s~ a aarnival , approaoh to thinga$ that it aould be seen et night from the beat reaidantial area Por at lesst ' 50.m~.les, and tha v'ieib°L11ty problem Wes not there as it was ia Anaheitn; that the spire in 9naheim would have a greater impaot on the geaeral publla of 9aaheim than anyone aitting in the phamber oould pos~l.bly realiae rrr.til too late; that the Qo~iseion ha,d aome thoughta thst '~ ~ert, oonpiderably c-o~e signiPioant then r.he Ooameroiel Reorestion .Area polioy; thet many thinge; were irnolved and r-ould te,ke some deep thought and atudy phether or not Aaeheim beoam~ the oarnival of the world and if so~ the aitizens would hbve to live dooordingly, but iP the 01ty •ou.ld etill, attem~t to m~intain normbl busiaeee and sooiel. aotlvity~ this imol.ved aomething else. Ca¢~mi.ssioner Perry statad that he thought the most important faat presentad at the heariag ae,s the int.rusiou into the privaoy of the residents of Anaheim; that no one ~ithin a fiva mile area Wou.ld be eble •to sup~athe in ~~~' baok~ardst and that ~inoe the first level was proposed to harre ti.:.oa:~~ars for viea-ing tine surrounding area e~raryone°s baakyard aould be open to puiblia vievr3.ng. Co~i.ssioner Chavos ofYared a motion to aontinue the hesri.ng to the raeeting of Septamber 1~4, 1964 on Conditional ti'.~e Pex~mi.t No. 606, in order to allo~ the Coffiission time to reviev- a atudy of the height stand.ards for tha Co~e.roisl Reareation Area, to malce personal insp~otion o~ the areas imrolved 3n the opposition°s aomplaint, and the eYYeat the proposed development xov.ld have on the City as a whol.e. Coffinis~ioner Perry seoonded the motion. MOTION ~ARR'T~ID. Mr. Col_lins stated that tims ~v8a oY the utmost importanoe to he and his olients, and that it vras hoped the ~ommis5ion ~rould onl.y oonsider a t~vo-aeeek aontinuanae for. additionsl infoi°mation. ?he Co~-i~sion inPor.med Mr. Coll.ins that any appliaation wi•th the amount o~ investment thia i pro~9ot hsd sho~:ld not be oonsidered hQStily; that the Oo~.i.ssion Was ~ust as aonoerned in ; his i~rastmaat as they ~ver.e, sinoe othe.r property oWnera might ba affeated; that the Oom~.ission~ vas a•Y,tempting to solwa all tha kr~own problems Whiah faoe the petitioner in the future; thst j e~z weeks oont:lmxanae we.s s very short time; that Disneyl.and was not the only party being e,ffeoti ed by the study and the proposed development, but it Wonld aYf.eot the Oity and the Oounty; j eud that a minimum of sis meek:s was needed to reoeive further. evidsnae, make peraonal insueo- i tions, and eval-~;a,te all the evidenoe submi.tted bafore any deoi.sion oould be made on height ~ vve,ivers in the Oo~eraiel Reorsation Area. f . ..__ ~__"f'~"'__-'__"__.._~.~_'__'__•"__.__.__.__.._.._^-._,--'_'__.""__.~.~___'...-„ . .. S . ., . ~ . . ~ ~. . , ~ ~ ~ ,.~..,"___~_.,'~"'__"___'_"'..~_: i ~ ~ . ; , :;~ c> ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 3~ 1964 2245 CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC k~ARING~ CURTIS Wo REEDY, c~o James Eo Walker, , PERMIT NOo 577 206 West 4th Street, Santa Ana, California, CRENSHAW CARPET CENTER, INCORPORATED AND MARVIN Bo KAPELUS, 8447 Wilshire Boulev3rd, Beverly Hills, California, Owners; JACK KI`IGHTON OR DALE JANNINGS9 2199 Temple Avenue, Signal Hill, California, Agents; requesting permission.to ESTABLISH A RESTAURANT WHICH CONSISTS OF 21 COMMON EATING CONCESSIONS WITH A COMMON DINING AREA AND A COCKTAIL IAUNGE AND W.4IVER OF 35-FOOT HEIGHf :+.IMITATION on property described ass An "L" shaped parcel of land with a frontageof 336 feet on the north side of Katelia Avenue and a depth of 615 feet, the easternmost boundary of said property being approximately 1,322 feet west of the centerline of Haster Streeta Property presently classified R-{t, Residential Agriculturai, Zoneo Suhject petition was continued from the meetingsof June 8 and July 8, 1964, in ozder to ~ allow the petitioner time to submit revised devel~pment plans to confoxm with the petition submitted, and for the Planning Department to readvertise subject petition to include ; waiver of the height limitation, and further, for the petitioner to present colored slides at the hearing to illustrate the proposed developmente Mro Robert Duden, representing the agent for the petitioner9 appeared before the Commission and presentad colored slides of a similar operation in San Mateo, known as the "Hillsdale Shopping Center"a -It was further noted that these colored slides indicated a common kitch~n, ; whereas the proposed development would have separate kitchens for each concession, but would ', have a common ea3ing areag further, that the designer of the proposed development would be the same who designed the San Mateo one, and in response to Commission questioning, stated the name of the designer was °tIntagrated Designs~ Associated" of Beverly Hillss that a number of the concessionaires in the San Mateo shopping center expressed interest in the ; Anaheim eating establishment, and there was a considerable possibility that many would be i operating concessions if subject petition were approvedo Mro Duden corLtinued that arrangements had been made recently with the operators of Melody- ; land Theate~ for reciprocal parking and validation of parking tickets~ In response to Coaunission questioning, Mra Duden stated that the entire operation would be ~ enclosed~ that the towers would house the air conditioning and would have topping for i advertisingg. that it was proposed to use Gunite on the towers, and that the dummy elevator ~ indicated on the slides would be above the normai elevation of the operation~ ~ Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a letter from the City of San t~ateo relative to the ; Hillsdale Shopping Center~ Mr~ Kreidts in re~~iewing the report of the Traffic Enginee: relative to adequate circ~iation, ~ noted that the Traffic Engineer stated the street would be desirable for circuiation to i Melodyland, hut was not a necessity for subject propertyo Mra Duden stated that he fe2t traffic circulation for both Melodyland and their operation ~ had been resolved by the :eciprocai agreement with Melodyland, which would alleviate park- ~ ing problems as well as circulation problems, and further, in respons~, to Commission question- ing, stated that since a joint interest was held by one of the partir~s involved in both I Melodyland and the proposed development9 the reciprocal agreement.wcald be as effective : and bindingo ; Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that the City would not be i directly involved in a private agreement and would be involved only if the agreement broke i down and a barrier buiito Mra Duden then stated that Melodyland had h.:en leased from Mro Leo Freedman for a period ~ of thirty yearsg that in his opinion, the Report to the Commission favored them as far as ~i not requiring a street through sub3ect property for circulation to Melodyland, and that a t written agreement would be obtained relative to reciprocal validation of parking and utiliz- { ing subject property for ingress and egress to Ms~odylando i The Commission noted that Mro Leo Freedman, who requested the Commission consider a 60-foot i street through sub}ect property to Melodyland, was not present in the Council Chamber, and i advised the agent for ths petitioner that consideration of Conditional Use Permit Noo 577 would be held over-urttil later in the hearinge ' In response to Commission questioning9 Mro Duden stated that the portion which MraFreedman had stated was a p*oposed street through ~ubject property was only a private easement for the benefit of the properties at the time subdivision of a iarge parcel was made; that no d~edication of a street, nor indication of a street had been made at that time, only a private easement which would terminateo (The above hearing was considered at the beginning of the public hearing and was continued to its regular scheduled place on the agenda and was heard at 6i00 o'clock pamo) ____._ _-;._._._----....---_._.-.----_____.._---.._._____._._. - - - ----------- ~~ ~ • MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 3~ 1964 2246 CONDITIONAL USE .- Mra Marvin Kapelus, property owner to the west of subject property, PERMIT N0~ 77 appeared before the Cemmission and stated that Mro Leo Freedman had (Continued been in the audience, but had left, and that if he were interested in the proceedings he would have stayed, and that it was not under the Commission`s jurisdiction to commit themselves on any private agree- ment relative•to easementso Mra Duden again aopeared and stated that if Mr~ Freedman were interested in a roadway through Melody2and, this should have been taken under consideration when the thirty-year lease was granted for idelodyland; that he was in favor of the Traffic Engineer'•s report, which completely substantiated their position that a street would not completely solve a traffic problem, and the proposed development would not affect traffic northerlyo Mro Kapelus then.appeared again, and stated that at the time Mro Freedman had been granted a conditional use per~it to develo~ his p^operty for a hotel and office complexy the traffic problem had been considered and thcu9ht adequate at that times and that if the proposed deveiopment were not built, access would not be alLowed to these properties anyway, and in his.observation of the public h63Ti.^.~s, he wished to compliment the Com- mission for attempting to protect the rights of ail the citizer.s of the Cityo THE I-IEARING WAS CLOSED~, Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the report by the Traffic Engineer relative to providing additional circulatian from Katella Street no:therlyo For clarification purposes, the Commis~ion inquired of the agent for the petitioner the name of the individual. who had a dual in•~erest in aubject petition and Melodylando Mro Duden stated the person was Mr~ Maurice Freedmany and that through him the reciprocal p~:king agreement had been made and had not been formalized into a written document because the decision had not been reached until Sa±urdayo It was noted 6y the Commission that with the reciFrocal agreement, the proposed development might draw a number of people £rom Melodyiand for aft~•r~theater refreshments, and that traffic would be utilizing a private road which would be maintained by the owners of sub- ject propertyo Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo i289, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption9 seconded by Commi~sioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noa 577, subject to conditions.. (See Resolution Booke) On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs GOMMISSIONERSa Allzed, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOESs COMMISSIONERSs Nonea ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Campo RECESS - Commissioner Allred offered a motion to recess the meeti~:g for dinnero Commissioner Perry seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDa The meeting recessed at 6s20 o'c1ocY. pomo RECONVENE -.Chairman Mungall reconvened the meeting at Es20 o°clock pomo, ' ali Commissioners being present with ;he exception of Commissioner Campo RECLASSIFICAT.ION -. CONTIDIUED PUBLIC HEARINGo STEHLY PROPERTIES, ET ALs 1336 South N0, 63-64-122 Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; A< Jo LITTMAN, 1811 West Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting GENERAL PLAN that pro~Erty described ass An irregularly shaped parcel of land AMENDMENT N0..23 with a frontage of approximately 1,281 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and a depth of approximately'1,300 feet, the southern boundary of said property being approximately 427 feet north of the center.line of Cerritos Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone to the R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Zoneo Subject petition and General Plan Amendment were continued from the meetingsof Jur~e 8 July 8, 1964, at the request of the petitioner, in order to allow the petitioner suffi- cient time to submit development planso ___ _ ____ ___ _ __.. _ _ ..! ---------- _ _.. ~ , ~ _ _ ~ 1 ~., ~ ~ MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 3, 1964 ~ 2247 ~ RECLASSIFICAIION - Zoning Coordinator Martin ICrsidt advised the Coumission that a letter ~ N0~ 63-64-122 #~ad been received from the developers requesting that an additional four-week continuance be grantedo GENERAL PLAN' AMENDMENT N_Oe_~3 Mre Warren Ste~han, 1401 Dallas Drive, appeared befo:e the Co~ission (Continued~ and stated he represented the single-family property owners adjacent ~ to subject property; that the numerous postponements have created a hardship on the property owners by havin9 to appear to present their opposition, whereas the ~~etitioner did not show; that he represented 99R~ of the property !t owners of the R-1, and recommended the Cr,~.~unission deny subject petition since the prooosed ~ development,would not conform with the basic plans for the City of Anaheim. The Commission advised the opposition that it was not within their power to deny a petition when the petitioner had rec,uested a continuance; that at the last meeting it had been ques- tioned whether four weeks was sufficient for the petitioner to present revised ~?ans; that the oppositton had appeared at three different meetings without being given the opportunity to review development plans or hear any review of the proposed development~ Mra Kreidt advised the Commission the Staff had met with other developers and had reviewed detailed sketches of the proposed development, but a number of problems relative to circu- lation of the proposed development had arisen, and insufficient time promote~3 t6e request for a consideratiorn of an extensiono The Commission advised the opposition that their representative would be notified by letter when development plans were received, and the exact scheduling of the item on the agendao Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue Petition for Reclassification No~ 63-64-122 and General Plan Amendment Noo 23 to the meeting of September 14, i964, in order to allow the petitioner sufficient t3me to present development planso Co~issioner Chavos seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED~ GENERAL PLAN - CONTINUED PUBLIC EiEARING. INITIA?ED BY THE CITY PLAN13iNG COIu~AISSION, AMENDMENT NOo ~1 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing an amendment to the Circulation Element by the establishment of Clementine Street and Freedman Way as collector streetso Subject General Plan Amendment was continued from the meetings of June 8 and 72, and July 8, 1964, to a,~low the City Council adequate time to consider the request for abandon- ment of Alro Avenueo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the proposed amendment to the Circulation Element and indicated two alter~atives were displayed a]~:igside the area on the Ge-~era1 Plan mapo Mra Kreidt further stated that earlier the Commission had reviewed the suggest~on by the Traffic Engineer that collector streets would aid in the proper circulation of traffic adjacent to Melodyland and the proposed hotel-office complexa No one appeared in opposition~ THE F~ARING WAS.CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution Noo 1290, Series 1964-65;, and mov~C for its pa~sage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment Noa 21y proposing that Clementine Street northerly of Y.a#ella Avenue to Freedman Way extended be designated as a 60-foot collector street, and northerly of Freedcian Way as a 40-foot collector Street with a 34-foot wide roadbed, and that Fzeedman Way be designated as a 60~foot collector street from Harbor Boulevard to Manchester Avenue. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando I~OESt COMMISSIONERS: Nonea ABSEt1f: COMMISSIONERS: Campo i ~ ~ t I I _ . .__~ ~------- ----•-_..~: _ _ _ _._ _ ~ - _ . __~._.~----- _ ,.. _ _. _ _ - ,: __ _. - _. __ --__ l~_ ~ • , 2248 1 MINUTES~ CITY.PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 3~ 1964 AMENDMENT TO THE - CONTINUED PUHLIC HEARINGo INITIATED BY T}~ ANA[iEIM CITY PLANNING ' ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL COMMISSION9 204 Eas~ Lincoln Avenue, Anah~im, California, proposing ~, CODE SECTION 18~62 to estabiish a Sign Ordinance to the Anaheim Municipal Codeo Subject Code amendment was continued from the meeti~gs of April 27, i May 25, and July 20, 1964, for further study and suggested :evisionso ; A request from Planning Director Richard Reese was read to the Commission in which it was Ij requested any action relating to the billboard provisions of the Sign Ordinance be continued for 180 days to permit the Commission and Staff to thoroughiy explore the question of bill- ! boards as a permitted use in the Zoning Ordinance and to formulate site development standards ' related to this unusual type of commercial activity, and for all other sections of the pro- posed Ordinance to be continued for thirty days in order to allow the Planning Staffro osedo opp~rtunity to explore the community-wide implications of all the provisions being p p , Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts then reviewed the actions which had transpired during the past year which predicated the drafting of the proposed Sign Ordinanceo Mr, Roberts further~continued, stating that billboards were permitted in the M-2 Zone only by ii right, and in all other zones by filing a conditional use permit; that specific standards : were set up if a biilboard was allowad in a commerci2l zone; that he had worked with members I of the sign and billboard industry in order to draft the proposed Ordinance; and requested that the Commission indicate to him what they would desire as far as billboa*ds were concernedo; In reviewing the request of the planning Department for a continuance in order to re-evaluate 1 the proposed Sign Ordinance, Mro Roberts stated that due to other internal problems, the ~ Planning Department had insufficient time to review ail the points involved, but that the : Commission should set a specific date as to when i± should be continued.in order that the ~ City Gouncii might be informed as to the progress of tne proposed Sign Ordinance~ ~ Mro Roberts then advised the Commission that the copy of the proposed Ordinance had been ~ sent to them.with red max•ked sections which had been :evised after suggestions by the ~ Commission and various members of the sign industryo Commissioner Gauer stated he had listened to the proposals by Mro R.oberts~ that he had not ~ made any coimnent previously because he felt the evidence submitted was being presented 7 from the people involved in the sign industryp that a number of basic ideas in the Sign ; Ordinance were questionable in his mind9 ~nC 291andhCa3nZones;nthab heehad made aipersonal ~ to permit a biliboard by right in the C-1, inspection of two signs, one at Chapman and Harbor and the oti,4r at Lincoln and Dale, and ~? if this was:the type of biilboard that would be permitted by right in the C Zones, he ~ personally wou2d not care to see these in any city, much lESS the City of Anaheim; and that ~ he could not vote for the Sign Ordinance as it was presently written because of these fali- ` ciesa The secand item under consideration which had been discussed were signs on buildings; ~ that he felt aome representative type ~essofnsihnslmibhtpbes~resentedCaswsketcheslbytthehe . size and its appear:jnceg that these typ 9 9 P Drafting Department9 a~d he was concerned that once the Sign Ordiearcwhich woulddbeWa blight ! carefu'1 considerstion by the Planning Commission, signs might app ~ to the City, and controi of the type of signs would be out of the Commission's handsa Mr, Roberts stated he understood Mro Gauer's position~ but he did not have any par.ticular pol~cy on billboards himself, and his only desire was to draft a Sign Orainance as the ;, Commission desired, and to that point he was hopirg the Planning Department study would indicate if the.conditional use permit device were used9 it should be set forth in a resolution for a petitioner to understand, some of the specific requirements the petitioner would be expected to do in order tc be assured the conditional use permit would be granted, and sighted asan exampler. would there be a difference in permitting a billboard on Katella I. or Ball Road as opp~sed to Anaheim Boulevard~ and if soy some specific idea should be 3 indicatedo The Commission then stated the City did have a height limitation of 35 £eet~ whereas the C Sign Ordinance..was proposing 47~ ieeta i ` Mr, Roberts stated that heights co~ld be placed in slots regarding billboards since most ~ of the signs, placed in the C Zones were 35 feet, and any device that could be understandable ~ would give the billboard people an idea of how they could get visibility of.the signs they propose~ that if necessary to usethe maximum height proposed, but with bcth ~c~w and tnat ~ buildings, there was a possibility the sign could be placed on the higher euilding; the Sign Ordinance.as presented, in his estimation, had standards which.would not be pleas- -~ ing to everyoneg whatever the faults af the standards, the standards had the virtue of certain application, ability to be administered by the administrator; that this did not ~ mean the conditional use permit could not be used, but combined with specific standards, with types of streets which might be considered the proper area to construct these billboards, r~ ~.? ~' MINUTES, CITY °LANNING COMMISSION, August 3, 1964 ~ 2249 AMENDMENf TO TNE and if these specifics and standards were set forth in resolution, AN.AHEIM MUNICIPAL this would indicate to the proposed petitioner oF a sign where a CODE, SECTION 18~62 billboard could be located, and if it were not permitted at a given (Continued) area, he would be required to look elsewhereo Commissioner Gauer stated that the Commission at one time considered all sign requests wY,ich indicated a picture of the sign, its exact location, and the Commis- i.. sion had control of denial or epproval of the sign, but for some time this had been out of j their jurisdiction, and it was possible the Commission should not be involved in every sign ~ being considered by the City, but the Commission should be aware of the type of signs being proposed with reference to many of the signs going in the City; and if the Commission did ' not view these sign applications, the City might have a different appearanceo i Mre Chavos stated that in addition to the remarks made by Commissioner Gauer~ no provision was m~de in the proposed Ordinance to remedy some of the defects or problems which presently exist because of the existing signs, so that these can be regulated~ combining them to make better use of them; that it would be unfair to require or restrict later applicants from one that had been granted a privilege pr.eviously; and that if the Commission did pass an ' Ordinance, these should be some provision made to remedy these existing sign problems in ` the City~ , Mro Roberts stated he did not feel a conditional use permit was not a desirable vehicie for reviewing individaal petitions; that he felt the resolution accompanying the conditional use permit should stipulate some of the restrictions being imposed with regard to the size of billboards, their height, etco, being specifically spelled out, since the conditional use permit only stated that it could be granted provided it did not harm the general pubiic or interfere with the geneza'_ welfare of the citizens of the Cityq that this section was ambiguous, and it.was hoped that in work sessions that perhaps the Planning Department would have an opportunity to work out the specific standaxds, and these standards should be devel- oped to the best specifications possible so that certain types of signs could be encouraged, whereas othexs couid be discouraged; that he did not have any policy ideas on this, and was interested only in the proper administration of billboards as an overall requiremento Commissioner Rowland stated the Ordinance should be written so that it would be able to stand under court judication, that it shouid be specific and rather broad in nature~ Commissioner Gauer again reiterated his concern that billboards were permitted by right 3n the commercial zonesy and if no controls were applied, a great deal of repercussion would occur, but if a conditional use permit were requi.red, adjacent property owners would be on record to obiect, and the Commission could view the property for any possible effect~ Msa Rowland stated he was not opposed to the request of the Planning Department for an extension of t3me-for a study of the Ordinance; that he had be~n aware that extenuating circumstan~as had prevented the Planning Department from reviewing the subsequent drafts prepared after the pubiic hearings, incorporating the Commission's suggestions and the suggestions by the billboard'people and the zoning committees of the Chamber of Commerce and Realty Boardo Mro Gauer stated the present draft of the Sign Ordinance was so written it would be to the satisfaction of the sign people, whereas the Planning Department has the prerogative to review and make suggested revisions to the proposed Sign Ordinance~ Mro Roberts stated the interested outside people fe:t billboards should be permitted in other than the M•-2 Zone; that standards should be set up for the commercial zone, but be- cause of the work load o£ the Planning Departmeni:, they were unable to draft appropriate standardso The Commission and Mro Roberts continued discussion relative to requirements of the bill- board portion of the Sign Ordinanceo Mra Roberts stated the original draft which had been reviewed in detail with the Building and Planning Departments was considerably changed with amendments in comparison with the ciraft the Commission had just received, and it was the feeling of the Planning Department auditional review and si:udy of the revised drafi; should be made by their Staff before the Commission makes any further decisiono . It was notad by Commissioner Rowland that the sign industry was a commercial enterprise, to which Commissioner Chavos agreed, and stated commercial uses were not permitted in the industrial zones, and :urther complimented Mro Roberts on the excellent job he tiad performed in supplying ideas and formulating the existing draft of the Sign Ordinanceo __. . _.,....... ~ r.:,_ . --_ .._ - .--- - - -~ ` . ~ . . . z ~ ' I ' __..~ ~) ~ ~ MlNUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMl1ISSION, August 3~ 1964 2250 AMENDMENT TO THE. Mro John Dawson from the City Attorney's office appeared before the ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL Commission and reviewed the work done by the City Attorney`s office CODE SECTION 8o relative to rather an onerous job which had been presented by the Continued) City Council after a petition had been continued indefin3tely due to the fact that no Sign Ordinance had been drafted~ that the City Council had given specific ideas that some type of a draft be sub- mitted which could be administered by the Building Department since the City Council was uninterested in the administration of signs at public hearingso Mr, Dawson further stated he had a particular aversion to conditional use permits; that as intelligent individuals, if a little more time and thought were given to signs, this proposed Sign Ordinance, being just a start~ could be developed into a workable tool for administration~ that the Sign Ordinance presently existincj identified signs as a separate industry, but if these billboards were excluded from the City by virtue of not permitting them in a zone, the City would be t•readin9 on light legal ground from a constitutional standpoint~ that State laws now govern the freeway and highway signs~ that some provision be made in the Code so that if an individual desired to have a sign in a commercial area, the Coaunission•and Planning Department can grant this on the basis of existing standards as indicated in the•proposed Ordinance; that the proposed Ordinance had separated bill- boards from the balance of the Sign Ordinance because.it was an 3ndustry,whether commercial or indus:rial, it was a livelihood of many people; and if the City excluded these billboards from the City, or by excluding them through zoning action which would not permit them, this cauld betheba.sis of a s~it on a legal and constitutional standpoint;thatthe Planning Department and Planning Commission should set up basic standards on which a prospective person coming to Anaheim would know what would be pex•missible by Code, regardless of the zone he proposed to enter, and further urged the Commission to formalize a Sign Ordinance since it had been under consideration for almost two years, by putting the Sign Ordinance on a standards basis to indicate to everyone concerned what can and cannot be done in the Citye Mro Dawson further stated in answer ta a statement made by Commissioner Chavos that there was a section in the Ordinance which required that non-conforming uses be eliminated under certain circumstances and at certain times. depending upon the value of the sign and how long it was in existenceo Commissioner Rowland asked whether N[ro Dawson didn't feel the aign business was one of the businesses that needed the closest scrutiny of all, which could be done under a conditional use permit, but since Mro Dawson was so oppoaed to conditional use permits, this was the only means many cities had for permltting a use never permitted in the zoneo Mro Dawaon stated that wt~en he was referring to opposition to conditional uae permita~ he was primarily concerned with billbaards and signsf that these could be aet up in a"pigeon hole", and he did not feel they should come under a conditional use permit~ that there were other types of buainaeses} auch as churches, private schools, etco~ whiah could be parmitted only through a conditi~onal use permit~ end that many of the sign peopl• were feeling a senee of defeat efter presenting their petition~ to tha Planning Dapartmant, the planning Commia- sion and tha City Council' that undvr ~ondltional u~e permits~ ~he Commi~oion could impoee conditions, but under 1+=;,d uoe con~idtra~tions~ it waa feir.ly obvioue that c~a~ein land u~se wera not compatible with other~~ and that it miqht poo~ibly reeolve in ~ha Commi~~ion utting up a sp~ciflc zono for b111boarda, rathar than incorporatlnq thsm in the Sign Ordinance9 since thi• could be another approach to ita Mr. Robertd again raiteratad thet he wa• ~ot oppoeed to conditional ue• perml~s ae euch, but wanted sta~derda at~ached to them ao that the ~lactrlcal Sign Aesocia~ion and other sign companies might know their limitations~ that the Electrical Sign Association might present a request for additional time in order to study a request he made that they present evidence that the one-half square foot per lineal foot of street frontage was too restrictive and in response to Commission questioning, stated roof signs were permitted in commercial zones. Mr. Ed Cronan, representing the California Hlectric Sign Association, appea.•.•ed before the Coramission and stated he wished to go on record as appreciating the efforts o' the City Attorney's office and Mr< Roberts and Mr. Dawson's attempt to draft a Sign Ordinance; that a Sign Ordinance was a necessary thing in this City, but that if it were too restrictive, it would be impossibie to be a going organfzation in this City; that many of the signs existing in the City were not erected by the California Sign ASSOCiation, but were from other states; that he was not proud of causing problems that had previously occurred, but that they were trying to rectify many of these errors; that certain signs, in his estimation, should be outlawed by ordinanceq that if neon signs were taken off the revolving signa, this would have a telling blow on the sign industry; that they were attempting to present neon ' lights which were not glaring and which would be an asset to the Cityf that he took exception to three basic areas in the discussion of the Sign Ordinance since many merchants in the City would suffer, and the Sign Ordinance could not survive under the restrictive Ordinance being proposed; that one of the electrical sign manufactiirers in the area had run rough engineering ., ~ . ~ ., - - . - ------- __ . . _ ` ----------~---- -.-- , _.~ _~ ,-- •--- -----•-------~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CI'fY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 3~ 1964 ~ 2251 AMENDMENT TO THE drafts which he would like to present to indicate how restrictive ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL the one-half square foot per lineal foot frontage would affect exist- CODE SECTION 18. ing signs in the City; and he was glad an exception was made in (Continued eliminatiny the restriction on acreage for limitation of signs; that he could assure the City Planning Commission that the sign people had architectural ~:a.,ple they worked with; that the signs were becoming , components of structures, and the limitation of one-half square foot would drastically reduce or limit the design purposes being made by the architect in proposing integration of signs with buildings; that a shopping center's limitation of four-foot copy would be reduced to thirty-inch space and would be illegible from any distancee Coi~vnissioner Chavos stated that since Mro Cronan had mentioned neon signs and quoted some of the areas in which xevolving neon signs were 600 feet away, and no other light would be needed for reading because of the brightness of this one particular sign; that the sign rotated all night long and prohibited the property owners and residents more than 600 feet away from being able to sleep at nighte Mr, Cronan stated he felt that 500 feet was sufficient; that a good sign man would know if the proposed sign would be incompatible and would design accordingly; that they were attempt- ing to work with the Planning Department to clean up the incompatible signs in the City; that he wo~ld:also take exception to those signs, but he felt the sign business should be allowed to use neon lights, and in response to Commission questioning, stated if signs became detrimental and a nuisance to the health and welfare of the oeople in the area, they could be declaxed a nuisance and could be required to be removed by the City Attorney's office~ that he was of the feeling that the section governing neon signs should be modified , to permit the neon sign if properly iliuminated and properly placed outside of the 500-foot limitationo Discussion was then heid relative to what might be considered adequate for facia signs ' adjacent to commercial establishmentsy and the Commission expressed concern that Mro Cronan ! felt a four square foot iimitation was inadequate since this would present a broad facia sign across the front of a commercial estabiishment which was 2ocated in the imrcediate ; vicinity of residentfai areas, and that these signs would become a nuisance and obnoxious ~ to the residents because the commercial establishments never closed at regular hourse Mro Cronan stated he felt the one-half square foot was too restrictives that the signs could be required to be turned of£ at 9:00 or 10:00 o'clock in the evening; and that the height limitation of back lighting signs on buildings that were architecturally designed would be difficult to establish~ Commissioner Rowland stated there should not be any confusion of signs with contemporary architecture since it was disheartening to see a building designed with illumination with architectui•aI design, and this was the reason the Iight facia came into being, to give the architect adequate control; that the architects tried to assist their clients in presenting sions which would be more compatibleo Mra Walter Brooks, sepresenting the Electrical Sign Industry, appeared before the Commis- sion and presented engineering pictures indicating how the proposed one-half square foot per lineal foot would restrict existing signs approved by the City, and advised the Commission if .they considered continuance of the Sign Ordinance, he would present color::d renderings of the signs based on the City of Anaheim proposal, instead of the rough engin2er- ing drawings he.had presented, and stated then that the size of signs would be controlled by economicso i ~ ! i 3 S , ~ ~ ~ Mr, Cronan again appea:ad and stated there were two points of interest he wished to clarify for the Commission,. which he had neglected to do previously, stating-that Mra Roberts had suggested obtaining a copy of the San Diego City Ordinance; that he had been able to get this only a few hours before and was unable to assimilate its contents, and further, pre- sented the Commission with brochures regarding signs i.n the City of Indianapolis, Indiana. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue the biliboard portion of the Sign Ordinance to the meeting of February 1, 1965, in order to allow the Planning Department sufficient time to make a comprehensive study on the implications of the proposed Billboard Ordinance, and further recommended that the balance of the Sign Ordinance be continued to the meeting of September 21, 1964, for an evening session at 7:00 o°clock pemo, in order to allow the Planning Dopartment time to review the amendments to the balance of the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CAc~RIED. r . ,,,_._,. _. _....__.._.. ___ _ __.. __------ _...._._.. _~Q ~ , -_ _ ~ .._ __., . _-- _ _.___a MINUfES9 CITY FLANNING WMMISSIONq August 39 1964 2252 pMET~IDMENT TO G1 AI~ID NRC. ZONES - EvtNING SESSIONo CHAPTER 18 ANAHEIM MllNICIPAL Mro Shoff reviewed the suggested wording of Section 160400060(8) Development , ~pE Review noting that the Development Review Committee was only an administrative', funcion and any reference made to approval or appeal of the board were eliminai ed with the following suggested ho.rdinga 18040,060(8) Development Reviews In order to promote continued quality development and to safeguard and enhance both potential and established community values thxough the encouragement of compatible developmentsy a?1 building and site plans shall be subject to rev3ew by •the Development Review Committee of tha Building and Planning Departmentso Where a question arises as to the administration of specific sections of the Anaheim Municipal Code9 the Planning Commission shall hear the matter at its next regular meetingo Appeals from the decision of the City Planning Cortunission sha~l be to the City Council in written form, stating the reasons for said appeala Commiseioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1291, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption9 seconded by Commissioner Chavos that Section 18o40y of the Anaheim Municipal Code be amended in accordance with Exhibit "A" which incoxporated the recommended revision to Section 18e40,060(6) Development Review, and that it be recommended to the City Council the adoption by Ordinance of said revisiona (See Resolution Book) On roll ca11 the fo•regoing resolution was nasaed by the following vote~ pYESs OOMMISSIONERSa Al:sed9 Chav~osy GauerY Munga119 Pexry, Rowlando NOF,Sa COMMISSION~tSe None., ABSENTe ODMMISSIONERSa Campe Mr~ Shoff then reviewed the NRC,r Zone revisions to the t~ay 11th dxafty noting that it had been previous'ly recommended that Section 18o6i~040(1) be de'leted noting that the County Health De- partment nor the City had sanitation standards which would adequately control the sanitary aspects of peimitting equestrian establishments in this zoneo Section 18.,61~050(2) Setbacks was then discussed noting that for clarification of excavation activities should read as followsa Section 18~51~060(2-a-3) E,ccavation activities sha'1'i also be subject to the provisions of Section 18061~050(5-d)~ Section 180510050(3) Landscaping was then reviewed noting that there were six phases for land- scaping the setbacks with "d" proposing the waiving of the iandscaping of property adjacent to properties already zoned but which had not been developed until such time as these properties were developedo The Commission discussed this section and were of the opinion that landscaping should be re= quired because of the iength of time it took for g~uwth to such a height to adequately shield the excavating activities fr.om view9 and that subsection "d" be deleted, since if any hardship problem wauld ex3st ~his could be handled through a variance petitiono ylx, Shoff then reviewed the recommended change to Section 18o61a050(3) Maximum Building Height, since in his discuss~ons with sand and gravel operators9 there seemed to be some confueion to the term "building" as it applied to the processing equipment used in their operation, and that the fol'lowing was recommended fo.r considerationo Secti~n 18e6Io050(3-b) The maximum heiaht of anv other structure~ inc.ludinq those used in conjunction with uses permii:ted in Section 18.61,020 PERMITTID BUILDINGS STRUCTURES A1~ID USES, st~ali be equivalent to one-half the disi:ance af said structure from the nearest boundary of any residential„ cor.unercial, or industrial zone. x .,"r a~: r , . ~ --- ----- ----•. _ ...._- ~ > ~ !~ MINUTES' CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION9 August 3y 1964a 2253 C-1 and NRC9 7ANES (Continued) Section 180610050(3-c) A11.heights shall be measured from a natural grade levelo In reviewing Section 18~61,.050(5-d) Mr. Shoff stated that the Interdepartmental Committee felt that the section on slopes and excavations because of the varyinq soil conditions should be reworded as followsa Section I8o51a050(5-•d) ~uts or Slopes and Excavat3onso 1< Cuts or slopeso Production from any open pit shall be permitted to the extent that the finished cut or slope is stable for the specified soil condition in the area of the excavation. In the interest of public safety and welfare, the City Engineer may require a thorough soils engineering investigation and complete report of the findings by an approved soils engineer retained by and at the expense of the operator of the activities on subje~t propertyo The soils report shali include9 but not necessarily be lim3ted to„ specifying composition and characteristics of native soils, certification as to stability and acceptability of existing or proposed cuts or slopes.. Where cuts or slopes are determined to be unstable9 the City Engineer may cause the production from any open pit to "STOP" with immediate.remedial action to be taken by the operator of the activities to stablize cuts or slopeso 20 8xcavationa ~a) Prior to any excavation, a plan of the proposed location and ultimate area open pit shall be submitted to the City Engineer fdr his approvalo (b) The minimum distance of any excavation activities from any property line or right-of-way line of a flood control channel9 retarding basin, either existing or proposed and wtnse precise location has been adopted shail bea ('1) One-hundred (100) feet at cuts or slopes permitted in Section 18,61~050(5)(d)1 above~ (2) Fifty (5Q) feet at three (3) foot horizontal to one (1) foot vertical slopes or at such slope as may be deemed stable as a result of the soils engineering inve~tigation~ (c) No excavatlon activities shall be carried on within fifty(50) feet ofs ('1) Any common property liney unless the adjacent property is in use for non-•fue'1 minexal operationso (2) The right-of-way line of any existing street or highway~ (3; The proposed right-of-wav line for any street or highway shown on the General Plan -Circulation Element "Arteria'1 Streets and Highwaye", as adopted and amended from time to time~ Section 18o61a050 was then reviewed by Mre Shoff. It was noted that because of the nature of the sand and gravel operations, and because of the anticipated reactions of adjacent property owners, that it was in the public interest that signing be required, and that an additional sub-section would be added as followsa . -i'_-______._'__'_.___'_'___'__,_'_"'~-..'.____"__-_,_'_"_,._~.. .. ...~_~~ . . ~ . . ~ . . . . . ~ . . . .. .. _.. __..: . . _.._. . . _.__._ . . . ._.__. ..._. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...___. __ ~ {_.~ ~ o ~~~9 ~ MINUTES9 CITY PLANNING (AMMISSION~ August 3y 1964 C-1 and NRCM ~M:~S ,~Continued) 2254 Section 18e61o050(6-f) Posting of Signso W3thin 90 days after an area has been reclassified to the NRC, Zone, ar.d continuously thereafter, the outer boundaries of said district shall be continuously posted with signs not less than five hundred (500) feet apart, and at each change of direction of satd boundary line in such a manner as will resonably give notice to passersby of matters contained in such notice9 stating in letters not less than four (4) inches in heights "NRC ZONE" and stating in letters not less than one (1) inch in heighta "THIS PIipPERTY MAY BE USID AT ANY TIME FOR THE"~EXCAVATION9 PROCESSING~ SSORAGEy WHOLFSALING AND DISTRIAUIION OF S4ND, GRAVII.~ AND OTHER NON-FUII. MINERALS EXCAYATID ON THE PRFMISES ONLYa OR OTHER USES ALIAWID IN THE NRC 7ANEo ALL SUCH USES SHALL BE IN ~NFORMANCH WITH THE STANDARD6 INOORPORATID IN SAID ~NE." Said signs shall be of inetal and shall be maintained in legible condition at a11 timeso Mro Michael stated that the sand and gravel industry had a public relations problem, and ~ there would be no ob3ections to the requirement of signing; further that since temporary ~ waiver might be obtained on the landscaping of certain areas he felt sure none of the producers ~ would voice any objectiun on this portion of the proposed Code amendmento ; Mr. Shoff then stated that Saction 18„61oU5U(5-h and 5-i) had minor changes in the hours of operation and permissable truck routes and would reaa as followss Section 18~610050 (6)(h) ?ruck Routeso Distribution by truck of products from the pre- mises shali be only on arterial streets and hiqhwavs: where the property does not abut. arterial streets o.r l~ighways., or wliere an access •road to an arterial street or highway has not been approved under subsect~on 18„61ou5U(f) above9 local streets devoted pr9- marily to industr£al or commercial uses may be so used. Sect'.on 18,6'1~U5u(6)(i) Hours of Operationo Uses permitted 3n Section 18o61.U20 of the Municipal Code of the City of Anaheim when located within six hundred (600) feet of residential zones sha'11 be limited to the hours of 7t00 A~Me to 9:Oi1 PoMo~ Mondays through Saturday fincluding trucking operations); and when located more than six hundred (600) feet from residential zone sha11 be limited to the hours of 6a00 A.Mo to tUtUO PaMo, Mondays through Saturday (excluding trucking operations), except in the following situationsa lo Where required by public authorities, 2. Where work requires a continuous pour of concreteo 3. Where necessary due io publfc emergenciesy 's ~ 4~ Where any necessary and reasonable repairs to equipment are requirede ' ; s It was noted by Mr~ Shoff that as the Cortunission questioned the City's legal right to require i insurance for ope•rators9 Section 18.6io05U(6-3) had been deleted, and that Section 18o61a050(7) ; Development Review would read as foilowss ~ Development Reviewo In order to maintain the open, non-urban charar,ter of the lands classified under this zone9 to preserve desirable natural features, to assure adequate circulation, and to protect •the comQnunity from hazards resulting from improper development and use of these lands, all development plans shall be subject to review by the Development Review Cormnittee of the Building and Planning Departmentsa Where a question arises as to the admin3stration of specific sections of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the Pla~ining Commission shall hear the matter at its next regular meeting. Appeals from the decision of the City Pianning Commission shall be to the City Council in written form, stating the reasons for said appealo _ _. ._. --_ -- .__r _ _-_-_---------~--- .. . _ _~ , . ~ i, j ~ e MINUTESy CITY PLANN;NG QOMMISSION9 August :-, 1~~=`• 2255 G1 and NRC, ~pNES The final item for ss~r.e.:~. )~:~ _:::;.,,~c stated, was Section 18a61o05U(8) ~Continued) wherean a teaporary :~.-'.ve~ ~:i-::~<r ;r. ';he section has been inserted for the Commission's cor.•>i:~.~~~:'~.~~: ia c:r~nection with Street Dedication and improvementso This inclusion would enabl~ +:h+~ ~'•':.-., '_;;uncil to temporarily waive certain im- provements and dedications depending upon ti.a ::~~a(.a ~f development of the general area, and the following represented changes made at the suggestio~i of the Interdepartmental Committee in connection with the multiple family zones. Section 18o61a050(8)~ Street Dedication and Improvementsa The foilowing requirements are intended to ensure adequate provision for public utilities and services and vehicular and pedestrian circulation, Where surrounding properties are largely undeveloped for urban uses, or are in agricultural zoning the City Counr,il may temporarily waive the following requirements~ (a) All required arterial streets and highways, local streets, and alleys, which abut the subject property, shall be dedicated to the full width designate@ by by City.Standards, and details as approved by the City Engineer and adopted by the City Council, and by the C3rculation Element of the General Plan "Highway rights-of-way" as adopted and amended from time to timee (b) All required street and pedestrian wey improvements shall be installed and in good repair or improvement plans shall be required t~~ be prepared to City of Anaheim standards and said improvements constructed. H faithful performance bond in a form approved by the City Attorney and ir, an amount to be determined by the City Engineer may be posted to assure the necessary construction, which may include but not necessar3ly be limited to excavation, cuab~, gutters9 side- walks9 pavementy drainage facilities or other engineering req~irements. (c) Street light facilities shall be installed in accordance with the officiaZ street lighting plan app•roved by th~ Director of Public Utilities, or street lighting fees in the amount specified by the City Council for any abutting street or highway, ahall be paid to the City of Anaheim for the installation of said street lightfngo (d) Pub11c utility easemente neceseary to serve the sub~ect property and~or area in which the subfect property is situated shall be dedicated to the City of Anahe3m in accordance with tha requirements of the Director of Public Utillties. (e) Street tree fee8 in tho amount ep~aiPiad by the City Council for any ab~atting streets or highway shall be paid to the City of Anaheim for the furnishing and planting of said trees. Where fully concreted parkways are developed, tree we'l1s shall be installed as required by official parkway deveiopment standards. (f) The Building Inspector shall not grant final release or issue a final certificate of occupancy to any structure or building constructed upon atty property covered by this Ordinance untii the City Engineer has certified to the compliance with conditions set forth in (a) and (b) above, the Director of Public Utilities has certified to the compliance with conditions set forth in (:) and (d) above, and tY~e Director of Public Works has certified to the compliance with conditions set forth in (e) abovea The Commission discussed the suggested changes to the origiral draft, and then requested that any opposition to the proposed ch,-,nges be heard. Mra Michael stated that he had ;io opposition~ No one else appeared before the Commission. THE HEARING WAS• Q.OSEDo Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1292y Series 1964-65 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos to recommend to the ~ity Council that a new chapter to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be adopted by Ordinance and that t be titled Chapter 18<61, NRC, Natural Resources and Conservation, Zone as per Exhibit "A" ~Se~ Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote~ AYESs OOMMISSIONERSs A13red, Chavos, Gauer, Flungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: ODMMISSIONERSs Nonea ABSENTi ~MMISSIONERSa Camp~ ~ ~ . . U ~ • MINUI'ES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ August 3~ 1964 2256 REPORTS AND - ITEM NOo 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Revisions to Amendments to the Anaheim Municipal Code R-A, Residential Agricultural, and R-2, Multip2e- Family.Residential, Zonesa Planning Coordinator Allan Shoff reviewed for the Commission the Council and Commission discussion at the ~oint work session of aiternative wordings for the R-A9 Residential Agricultural and R-29 Multiple-Family Residential, 2oneso Cortunissioner Perry offered a motion to recommend to the City Council the following changes at their public hearing of the amendments io the Anaheim Municipal Code: R-A RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL ZONE Section 180160030 4 Incidential sale of agricultural producea including seasonal sale of produce not grown on the premiseso Section 18e16o030(8) HOUSING AND STORAGE for animals and for crop products produced on the premisesq providing9 however, that buildings or structures for such purposes shall not be located within forty (40) feet of any other residential zone or any window or door of any building used for human habitation or assembly or within twenty (20) feet of side lot lines or forty (40) feet of a front lot lineo Section 18.16.050(2-a) Minimum lot area. Each lot or parcel shall have a minimum area of one (1) acre~ exclusive of atreets and alleys. Section 18.1b.050(9) DEVELOPMENT REVTEWe In order to promote continued quality development in Anaheim and to safeguard and enhance both potential and established community values through the encouragement of compatible developments, all building and site plans shall be subject to review by the Develop- ment Review Committee of the Building and Planning Depart- mentsa Where a question arises as to the administration of specific sections of the Anaheim Municipal Code, the Planning Commission shall hear the matter at its next regular meetingo Appeals from the decision of the City Planning Commission shall be to the City Council in written form, stating the reasons for said appeal< R- MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE Section 18o28e050(1 (c) referring to parcels with less area or dimensions as required by the proposed ordinance was discussedo It was noted by Council that this was another case of setting up a statutory Board other than the Planning Commission, and should not be donea They felt that Council policy Noe 516 should govern these cases, and that the code section as proposed should be rewritten. It should be noted in passing that perhaps the Council Policy should be amended to refer to "Development Review Committee" instead of "Architectural Control Board"o Suggested rewording of this section would bes "Section 180260050(1)(c). The minimum building site area and dimensions shall apply; provided that a building permit may be approved for development on any lot which was of record on March 27, 1951, or annexed after said date, and which has either area or dimensions less than required in this zonee Such developments shall be sub~ect to all other provisions of Tit1e 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code which the size of the lot makes it possible to comply.witho" .ssioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTIOtv CARRIEDe _ .,... ___ _... . . _._.._ _ _ . _. _ --_ _ _ ...._- ,.., _ • , _ _ ~: _ -~1~ •. • ~ , _ _ ~~.: ) ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 3, 1964 2257 REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 2 RECOMMENDATIONS Orange County Case No. 821 - Reclassification from the 80-AR- (Continued) 10,000 Agricultural Residential District to the R-1, 8~000 Single-Family Residential District on property located approximately one mile east of Imperial Highway on the south side of Santa Ana Canyon Road - scheduled for hearing at 10:30 aem. on August 5, 19640 Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed Orange County Case Noo 821, noting a comparison between the developed portions of the Noel ranch wherein the minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet was required by the City of Anaheim and the relatively flat topography of sub3ect propertye . The Planning Commission's action pertaining to Orange County Tentative Map of Tract No. 5058 was also reviewedo This tract was located approximately 2,000 feet east of Imperial Highway, southerly of Santa Ana Canyon Road. The Commission's recommendation in bonjunction with said tract was that the property be reclassified to the R-1, 8,~00 Single-Family Residential District, due to the gentle rolling and near-flat topography of the property covered by said tracte Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recomr,iend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be encouraged to favorably consider the proposed reclassifi- cation, on the basis that t}ie level topography makes the land suitable for subdivision into 8,000 square foot lots., Commission~r Rowland seconded the motione• MOTION CARRIED. I?EM N0. 3 Variance No~ 1639 - Catherine A. White, 102 West La Palma Avenue, Request for revision to Condition Noa 6, in accordance with the drawing submittede • Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that a request was made to reduce the requirement of Resolution Noe 1180~ dated June 8, 1964, Condition No. 6, in which it was required a 50-foot radius corner return be dedicated to the City of Anaheim for the corner of Zeyn and La Palma Avenue, and upon discussion with the Engineering Department, it was determined this could be amended to read "a 11-foot, 6=inch radius return". Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1294, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to amend Condition No. 6 of Resolution No. 1180, Series 1963-64, approving Variance No. 1639 on Ju~e 8, 1964, to read "that the owner of sub~ect property shall deed to the City of Anaheim an 11-foot, 6-inch radius corner return for street purposes on Zeyn Street and La Palma Avenue". (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following.vote~ AYES~ COMMISSIONERS~ Allred, Chavos~ Gauer~ Mungall, Perry~ Rowland. NOES~ COMMISSIONERSi None. ABSENi~ COMMISSIONERS~ Camp. ITEM N0. 4 Area Development Plan No. 9 BACKGROUND~ The City of Anaheim is faced with the problem of r~aidsntial homea fronting on arterial highways in certain areae of the City. As development~ both phyaical end economic~ ha~ taken place~ homea.which were once located on lightly travaled thoroughfaree have found themaelves located on highly travelad arterial highways. In some caess the location has presented no problem,at all, in terms of an unattractive living snvironment. In other cases, the proximity af the rasidencea to mejor artsrials has become a problem bacause of the heavy traffic load. Reeidente feel that the increased traffic has destroyed the amsni- ties which att.xacted them to ~Gheir present location. In still other ca~ee, the property owners have been facod with the economic preesure resulting from pereons wenting to develop reaidantial parc~la fronting on arterial highwaye for commercial pwrpoees. The combination of traffic and economic preoaure represent the eituation which exiats along the saet eida of Harbor BouL~vard betwesn South Street and Vermont Avenua. An Area Dovslopment Plen hat been prepared for this collection of propertiea end tha resulte are e• follow~~ FINDINGS~ (1) Th~ ~uh,~~at prop~rti~~ ar• pr~o~ntly d~v~lop~d a~ low d~n~ity ~ingl~ femily r~`id~ntial. Th~~~ prop~rti~• w~r• d~v~lop~d e~ ~ traot epproximtt~ly fourt~~n (14~ y~er~ aao~ ond th~ dwollSnga hava ~xposi~noad ove~' h~~f of their aconpmic life af approxima~ely 26 years. f i ~ '~_ i • 4 ,. ~) ~ ~ ; MINUTES, CITY PI.ANNING COMMISSION~ August 3, 1964 225$ ~ i REPORTS AND - ITEM NO_4 (Continued) ! RECOANJlENDsATIONS prea Development Plan No. 9 ~ ; (2) ?he lots, with the exception of a large parcel at the Southeast corner of ~ Harbor Boulevard and South Street, are approximately 61 feet wide and below ' the minimum standard of 72 feet for the Cityo The residential lots at this ~ location are part of a continuous strip of residential properties fsonting i on the Harbor boulevard from Broadway southerly to Vermont Street. A number j of the lots northerly of subject properties have already undergone a transition ~ from residential use to various cortmercial office uses. ~ i (3) Properties.directiy east of subject properties are developing for a 1 ~ultiplicity of uses, namely: (a) Masonic Temple (b) Insurance Office (c) Multiple-Family Development (d) Motels ' (4) I'he General Plan indicates that the properties fronting on Harbor Boulevard at this location are considered to have commercial-professional office potential. (5) Subject properties do not have any secondary access (alleys). All vehicular access is from Harbor Boulevardo (See Exhibit A). (6) At present, Harbor Boulevard is carrying over 25,000 vehicles per day, and is projected to carry traffic in excess of 37~000 vehicles per day, in ten yearso Traffic volume of this natur.e, coupled with the number of access poin~e which ezist will create many possible vehicular conflict pointso (7) S~:,ject properties have been developed with: (a) Street trees (b) Curbs (c) Gutters (d) Sidewalks (8) 'Ihe locations of utility poles and fire hydrants are noted on the land use displayo (See Exhibit A) (9) The ultimate development of Harbor Boulevard as a primary highway would require additional dedication of 10.25 feet from all properties fronting on Harbor. This would essentiaily reduce the front yard areas of subject properties to approximately twenty feet in depth and cause the dwellings to be even closer to Harbor Boulevard than they are at present. (10) Development of subject properties for commercial use would require, by Code,-the provision of vehicular access at the rear of the lotsa Locating such access ways at the rear of subject properties would utilize a major portion of the existing rear yardse Consequently, it would be impossible to provide vehicular parking at the rear of the properties with the dwell- ings in their present locationsa (11) Alternative.-development schemes have been analyzed and are a documented part of the Area Development Plan fileo (See file) RECOAMIIENLlATIONS : (1) That the subject properties be reclassified as :,hown on Exhibit B and Development Altexnative II to the C-0 Zone< (2) That all access from subject properties to Harbor Boulevard be dedicated to the City of Anaheim and that the existing curb cuts be removed to lessen the possibility of vehicular conflict and to facilitate•smoath unintexrupted traffic flow. (3) That the vehicular access be provided through the use of an alley at the rear of the properties or at such location as shown on Exhibit B. (4) That the structures be removed and subjErct properties be developed collectively to provide adequate parking and site area for commercial office purposes. _. . .. _ _.__...... .__...--- -~-----------_~..----~~._.._---------~- . -- -- ~ -~-- - -- - - - , . i r • ;' , _,.... ... . . ~ ~j ~ ~ MINUI'ES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, August 3~ 1964 REPORTS AND - ITEM NOa 4(Continued) RECOMMENDATIONS Area Develo~•-~Pnt Plan No. 9 2259 The Commission discussed the basis for the Area Development Plan, the possibility that these proper.ties could be combined into larger developments to eliminate access points, such as combining two lots and eliminating one access to Harbor Boulevardi that the C-0, Commercial Office development should not encroach into the adjoining residential street, notably Helena Street, and that the major problem confronting single lot develop- ment was the fact that there was no secondary access, and the possibility that the Traffic Engineer might eliminate parking on the street to facilitate an easier flow of traffic. Commissioner Chavos affered a motion to receive and file Area Development Plan No. 90 Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 5 Conditional Use Permit Noa 544 Proposed 82-unit, two-stury motel in con3unction with a family restaurant on the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Manchester Avenue, approved March 16;: 1964, Resolution No. 1095, Series 1963-64. Assistant City Attorney John Dawson appeared before the Commission and advised that the lessees of sub3ect pr.operty were in conference with them relative to an amendment to Condition No. 1, which required that the property owner dedicate a•strip of land for street widening puxposes~ that the lessees had a lease of 46 years on sub~ect property, and the subject conditional use permit was not contingent upon conditions being filled by the owner of the property, but by the Iesss~~• ':hat considerable discussion had been held in the City Attorney's office, and it was :~.cermined that Condition No. 1 could be legally amended to require the lessees of sub3ect property deed to the City of Anaheim a strip of land 45 feet in width from the centerline of the street along Manchester Avenue for street widening purposes~ and that an additional conditlon be attached which would read that this conditional use permit shall expire after a term of 45 years, un- less at such time-the aforementioned dedication in Condition No. 1 was continued or a deed of easement•had been received from the property ownero Commiasioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe 1293~ Series 1964-65, and moved for its paesage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowla~d, to amend Resolution No. 1095, Condition No. 1 to require the lessee dedicate a strip of land 45 feet in width from the centerline of the street along Manchester Avenue for street widening purposes, and tha addition of Condition No. 11 which would read, "that this conditionai use permit shail~expire after the term of 45 years, unless at such time the aforementioned dedication of Condition No. 1 is continued or the property owner at that time had presented a deed of easement for said dedicatione (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes~ COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlanda COMMISSIONHRS: Noneo COMMISSIONERS: Camp, ~i' - There being no furthex business to discuss, Commissioner Gauer ~ offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Allred seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDe The meeting adjourned at 11:55 o'clock p.m. Respectfully submitted, ANN KREBS, Secret ry Anaheim Planning Commission _.. ,,~-ti-.- _~-- _------- -- ..__ ~_---- -- --- -. ~ ~ ~ AYES: NOES~ ABSENT: