Loading...
Minutes-PC 1964/11/091 ~ ~ (,_ i ~ f, . City Hall ~ Anaheim, California November 9, 1964 A REGULAR A~ETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman M~1r.ga11 at 2=00 o'clock P,Me, a quorum being presente PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungalla - COMMISSIONERSe Gauer, Perry, Rowland. ASSENT - COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Camp. PRESENT - Associate Planner: Robert Mickelson Deputy City Attorney= Furman Roberts Office Engineers Arthur Daw Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs Planning Department Stenographers Corrine Galvan INVOCATION - Reverend Eo Ho Lehnhoff of the Seventh Day Adventist Church gave the Invocationo PLHDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flage APPROVAL OF ~ THE MINUTES - The Minutes of the meetings of August 24, 1964, covering the Commercial-Recreation Area Height Standards, and October 19 and 26, 1964, were approved as submittedo RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGo FRED Bo AND BLANCI~ MORI.EY, 501 North East NOa 64-65-39 Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; property described as: A rectangu- lar parcel of land at the northwest corner of Sycamore Street and East CONDITIONAL USE Street, with frontages of approximately 110 feet on Sycamore Street and PERMIT NOo 6,~_ 150 feet on East Street, and further described as 501 North East,Streeto Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONH. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NOo 42 REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1' NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: TO ESTABLISH A SERVICE STATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF A SECORDARY HIGHWAY AND A LOCAL STREET WITHIN 75 FEET OF R-1 ZONED PROPERTY. Subject petitions were carried over from the meetings of October 19 and 26, 1964, due to a tie vote on the motion presented to the Commission. The Commission reviewed their previous action on sub,3ect petitions, and discussion was then held relative to the irrevocable offer of dedication of five feet to widen the existing alley to twenty feet at the time the alley would be improved by the City, and in the mean- time, the mason*y wall would be constructed on the west property line to separate the single-family residential uses to the alley and the commerciai development on sub~ect propextyo It was noted by the Commission that the petitioner had stipulated at previous hearings that a residential-type structure was being proposed on the service station site,and requested that the petitioner submit the artist''S rendering previously shown to the:Commis- sion fcr use as an exhibit, if subject petitionswere approved. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noa 1405, Series 1964-65, a~d moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer~ to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 64-65-39 be approved, sub~ect to the stipulation that the service station structure would be a residential-type structure~ that an irrevocable offer of dedi- cation of five feet for alley widenin9 purposes be msde; that no tanks be located under the ultimate right-of-way of the alley; and that a six-foot masonry wall be constructed along the west property line to separate the commercial uses from the residential uses of•the alleye (See Resolution Booka) Commissioner Gauer, in seconding the motion, stated that although he had voted for disapproval in the past, as lonc as the service station would be of a residential-type structure and the petitioner proposed to relocate his home to the north of sub~ect property to act as a buffer, f~: - 237b ^ , _ _ ;:;~ . ; ;~; i ~- . • j ~,Y ~ O ~ .~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 9, 1964 23~~ RECLASSIFICATION - and further provided that the colored rendering be marked "Exhibit 3" as N0. 64-65-39 part of the plans being appraved, he was now in favoro CONDITI~NAL llSE On roll call the foregoing resolution was ~assed by the following uote~ ~ PERMIT N0. 632 I . AYES: COMMISSIONHRS: Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. GENERAL P.LAN NOHS: COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ~~ , ~ AA~NDMENT_IJO° 42 A3SENTs COMMISSIUNERS: Allred, Campe • ~ j (Conti-~ued ) ' ~ . Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1406, Series 1964-65, and ~ moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gausr, to ~ grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 632, sub~ect to conditions. (See Resolution ~ Book.) ~ 6. On roll•catil the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: f AYESs COMMISSIONERSe Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland< ~ NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo t ABSENTe COMMISSIONERSs Allred~ Campa ~ I ~ i i i 4I ! ._\_\ `. ~ Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the General Plan Amendment for the Commission, noting its implication to properties on the East Street fro~tage, northerly and souther.ly of sub~ect-•propertyo Commla:foner Rowland offered Resolution Noe 1407, Seri~s 1964-65, and movad for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commfssioner Gauer, to rscommend to the City Council that General P1aq.Amendment Noa 42 be disapproved, and recommend that consideration of the reclassification be referred to Annual Review of the General Plane (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the fol:owing vote~ A1'~S~' COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOESa. COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSF.1~[fs. COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. E. LEWIS AND FRANCHS A. JOHNSON, 14613 East Whittier ' NOe CZ4-65-55 Boulevard, Whittier, California, Ownerss requesting that property described asi A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 120 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and a depth of approximately 356 feet, the sou~h- east corner of subject property being approximately 370 feet north of the centerline of Ba7~ Road,.measured along the western boundar.y of Anaheim Boulevard, and further described as 1107 South Anaheim Boulevard (Los Angeles Street) be reclassified from the C-1, NEIGFBORHOOD COMN~RCTAL,.ZONE to the C-3, I'.~AVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE, to utilize subject property for auto- motive parts :.ervice, incidental parts repair, and future automotive repair service tenantse Mro Lewis Johnson, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, stating he was available to answer questions. The Commission reviewed the plans, noting there seemed to be a discrepancy in the requ3red six-£oot Parking-Landscaping Zone ad~acent to the Anaheim Boulevard frontage, and that the proposed use was consi.derably heavier than the normal C-1 2one in which sub~ect~propesty was presently designatede , Mr._Johnson stipulated to providing the required six-foc•t P-L Zone for the Anaheim Boulevard frantageo Mr. J.. Danhoff, 1123 South Lemon Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to the p_oposed development, noting at the time the ad3acent property to the north was being~developed, requirementsfor curbs and gutters, sidewalks,:~.nd masonry wall had not been met; that the pro- posed use would be detrimsntal to the residential uses ad~acent to it on Lemon Street because of heavy body work, the pounding of fenders, and other noises which would be hearZ it all hours~. and that Lemon Street was a well develupe-9 residential street from La Palma :,~enue to its southerly termiro:s, and the proposed use would be ~.etrimental to residentiai 1i~ing•.there. L~pouty City Attorney Furman Roberts advised both the petitioner and Mr. Danhoff that all body shop ~rork must be c~nduc~:ed ontirely within the building according to the Code, and this state- ment should serve notice to the p~titioner he must meed Code requirementso Tt~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1408, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded hy Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noo 64-65-55 be approved, sub3ect to the stipulation of the petitioner that a six-foot Parking-Landscaping 2one would be established a2ong the Anaheim Houlevard frontag~, and an additional condit~on that a),1 air cond:tioninq facillti,~s be shielded from view from .1~~ r ~,~"° ~ ~ ~ ,f . ~. - . ,~ ~y -Y:'~ . (,.~~ (,~ : , ~ . MINIJTES, CITY PLANNING CONN~IISSION, November 9, 1464 2378 RECLASSdFICATION - the streetso (See Resolution Booke) NOo~ 4- -~ (Conti.nued On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votee AYES: COMMISSIONERSa Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlande i NOHS: COMMISSIONERSs Nonee ABSENf: COMMISSIONERS: Alired, Camp> CONDITIONAL USE - PUBL'!C HEARINGa FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF ANAI-~IM, 325 West Broadway, PERMIT N0.-647 Anaheim, California, Owner; MARKO E. BOTICH, 1333 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to establish a permanent church facility consisting of a chapel, sanctuary, and educational•facili- ties on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 165 feet on the south side of South Street and a depth of 631 feet, the western boundary of said property being approximately 826 feet east of the centerline of State College Houlevard, and further described as 2216 East South Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Mro Paul Ruffing, representing the architect, the architect agent, and the petitioner, appeaxed before the Commission and stated he was available to answer questions. • The Commiss3on inquired whether or not the proposed development would be constructed in phases or as one unit. Mr. Ruffing stated it was proposed to develop the chapel first, the educa- tional buildir.gs second, and a sanctuary last, and they were in accord with all ttie recbmmended conditions in the Repbrt to the Co~~issione The Commission noted t:~at if air conditioning facilities were to be provided, they should be well contained, or entirely enclosed. . No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione Tf-!E f~1,RING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1409, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Cownissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 647, subject to condit3ons, and.the provision that all air conditioning facilities shall be entirely enclosed~ (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYBSi COh9~7ISSI0NERSs Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Powlando NOBSe COMMISSIONEF.St None. ABSENTs. COMMISSIONERSs Allred~ Camp. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUHLIC FIEARING. SULLY-MILLER COMRACTING COMPANY, 3000•&ast NOa 64-65-25 South Street, Long Bea;h, California, and CONSOLIDATED ROCK PRODUCTS, A Delaware Corporation, 2730 South Alameda Street, Los Angeles•54, California, Ownerss Do 0. MICNAELS, P. 0. Box 432, Orange, California, and J. LILLYWHITE, Orange, California, Agents~ requesting that property described as~ An irregular.parcel of land with frontages of 75 feet on the west s3de of Fee Ana Street, 620 feet on the east side of Richfisld Rcad, and 187 feet on the wes•t side of Richfield Road, said property having a maximum east-weet dimension of 2,250 feet, the southern boundary of said property being the Santa Ana River and the northernmost point of said property being 1,300 feet.south of the centerline of Walnut Street, said property containing approximately 40 acres of land, be reclassified from the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE to the NRC, NATURAL RESOUACES AND CONSERVATION, 20NE. Sub3ect petition was continued fsom the meeting of September 14, 1964, at the request of the petitioner. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that a request had been received~from the pe.titioner for an additional thirty-day extension in order to allow time to resQlve problems presented by the Orange County Water District. ~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue the hearing of Petition for Reclassification No> 64-65-25 to the mgeting of December 7, 1964, in order `a allow the petitioner time to resolve problems with the Orange County Water District. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ F - , - _. . __~ . - --- --- ~ ~: ' ' ' k , i :V . ~ ~ f ,~,~'~ ~ • }~i.` <_) U ~ , MINUTES,.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 9, 1964 2379 CONDITIONAL~USE - PUBLIC I~ARING. EVA S. BIELANSKI, 2760 West Crescsnt Avenue, Anaheim, _ PERMIT N0. 645 California, Owner; ORCO BUILDING AND DEVELOPP~NT, INCORPORATED, 600 North ~ • Euclid, Suite 645, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ': GENHRAL PLAN establish a one and two-story multiple-family planned residential develop- li AMENDA~NT.NOa 46 ment with carports on property described asi A rectangular parcel of land ' with a frontage of approximately 355 feet on the south side of Cxescent ' i Avenue and a depth of 410 feet, the western boundary of said prnperty be- i ing approximately 310 feet east of the centerline of Dale Avenue, and further described as ~ 2760•West Crescent Avanuee Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONH•(R-3, ~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, pending). i Mr. Van Fleet, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission and stated •he was ~ ~ available ~o answer questionso ~ The•Commission reviewed the proposed development and inquired whether or not this had been considered previously by the Commission. . Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that the previous petition had been recommended for denial to the City Council but had been approved for forty-one dwelling units by the C3ty Council, and the proposed development had inareased to forty-eight unitse The Commission then compared the ori~inai plans with the plans under consideration in Conditional Use Permit Noo 645e . Zn response to Commission questionin9, Mr. Van Fleet stated the development had been completely redrawn and a layout change was made to more closely conform to the City's requirements, and that the street frontage had been considerably improved. Mro Allen Huffman, 8951 Crescent Avenue, Buena Park, appeared before the Commission and stated..he resided directly across from sub3ect property and had a petition signed by the othax three owners immediately across from sub3ect property, opposing the proposed two-story development~ that although they had been opposing apartment units for the past year, since the Council had approved multiple-family development for subject property, they were on record as opposing any two-story construction since sub3got property was surrounded on.three sides by single-family residential development; and if a preference were had, they would pre- fer single-family residential development for sub3ect propertyo A letter of opposition from the City of Buena Park v~as read to the Commission. Mro Van Fleet, in rebuttal, stated that one-story construction was proposed within 150 feet of any A-1 Zones that two-story construction was proposed for the center of the development and consisted of studio-type development with bedrooms on the second floor. T~ .HEA@ING WAS CLOSED. In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Kreidt advised the Commission that aithough a• studg had not been made of sub~ect property to indicate its most developable method with a stub street on the easterly portion of subject property being carried through to its westerly terminus, approximately thirteen to fifteen single-family residential lots could be made of subjact.propertyo Further-discussion held by the Commission revealed that the Commission was still of the opinion that sub~ect property was developable for R-1 use; that although the Commission had denied a.previous petition for multiple-family development on subject property, the proposed development was ?ess acceptable than the previous one because the density on the sub~ect petition was considerably higher; that the previous development had a better living environ- ment, and that it provic:ed more open space and recreation area for the unitse Mr.'Kreidt'reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendment exhibit posted on the wall, noting ~ I that low-medium designation was proposed. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1410, Series 1964-65, and moved for ita pasaage ~ and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to deny Petition for Conditional Use•Permit No. 645.based on the fact that sub~ect property was developable for single-family~subdivcisionf ' that..sub3ect property was surrounded on three sides by R-1 development, and the existing church to the west of subject property was a permitted use in the R-1 Zone; and that tha. proposed development was less desirable to the surrounding R-1 area than the original pLan of development considered in Conditional Use Permit No. 503, and that the plans of Conditional i• Use Permit No. 503 provided a more compatible living environment with more open spacP ~nd recreation area. (See Resolution Dook.) ' .~..~...~...__~__.__ ~_.~._____. ._.~.~~,__._..____._..._T~ ~ ! I ;~; ' - ~ ,~ ~ MINUTES,.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 9, 1964 2380 CONDITIDNRL-•USE - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes PERMI'C•. NOa 645 AYES: COMMISSIUNERSs Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. GENERpL PLAN NOESa COMMISSIONERSs None. AMENDN~NT N0. 4 ABSENf: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp. Continued Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1411, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 46 be disapproved since it constituted a small area surrounded entirely by R-1 and should be considered at the next Annual Review of the General Plano (See l?esolution Book.) On roll.ca~l~ ~e foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes pYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Allredy Campo VARIANCE NOo.1668 - PllBLIC HHARINGe ASSOCIATES FUNllING, INCORPORATED, 914 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner~ requesting permission to waive the minimum required lot area, minimum required side yards, and minimum required lot widths on property described ass Lot Nos. 1 through 4 and Nos. 8 through 10 ef Tract I~oo 5063, all of which frcnt on Merrimac Drive and are situated northwesterly of Santa Ana Canyon Roado Propprty presently alassified R-3, MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo Attorney Harry Knisely, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the problems encountered when subject property was being sold as individual units, and that the buyers and sellers of all but Lot Nose 5, 6, and 7 were having difficulty be- cause a lot split was unobtai-~able due to lots not being in conformarice with Code require- ments relative to minimum lot area, required side yards, and required lot widthe Discussion was held by the Commission relative to setting a precedent for any future requests ! for mu).tiple-family development if the requested 55-foot lot width were approved, since Code requires that a 70-foot lot be providedo Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that since the petition w.s a ~," variance, it would stand on its own merits, but if the Commission so desired, a findi,g ; couid be made that because of thc peculiar circumstances involved, action was not to ir:dicate i it ~vould be the accepted rule on raw land since there would be no unique problem involv~~d I, in :subdividing raw lande ~ ~ The Commission asked for clarification relative to requiring that each parcel be served with ~ a separate sewer lateral, separate water service, and other utilitieso Mra Kn~sely stated he had been attempting to check with the petitioner relative to this ~ problem and was of the opinion that both water and sewer lines were separateo ~ , ~ . Office Engineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that the Eno,ineering Department had checked ( with the Water Division, and it was determined that when a building permit had been issued, ~ only ten meters were purchased, thus making one meter for each lot, and thereby not providing separate water meters> ~ ~ Mr~ Knisely advised the Commission that a special easement agreement had been drafted to take `I care of any maintenance which might occur. i i f Mr. Roberts then stated the Commission might wish to review the easement agreement so that adequate provisions are incorpora',ed to ad~udicate any diaputes which mi~ht axisee i Mre Knisely requested that the Commission consider the posting of a bond to insure the sewer ; I lateral and water service, together with othur utilities, migh•; be provided fore . ; Mr. Peter Lowe, 120 Merrimac Drive, appeared before the Commission and stated that the property I' lines would bisect the center of the garages~ that he was uncertain whether this could be done, and it was their desire to have the property lines properly defined by the proposed request; that he was not aware an easement existed relative to the water and sewerage facilities. ~. Mr. Knisely then stated that a record of survey had been filed wath the County of Orange;' and , it wes:intended ta sell both units to one person, and it had recently come to~light that two separate persons were purchasing the units, therefore causing considerable problems relative to the~lnt splitW ' ' . , I _~.___~. ._. _-~____ ,..._._--,_--.-- _ __.__. . _. , : ~ ~..~ _ ---~~ .. . _.--_T~ ._ _ _ _ .. ~J MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 9, 1964 2381 V/CRIAIV~E'NOo l§~ - Mr< Isadore Witte, 125 Merrimac Drive, appeared bEfore the Commission Continued ancl~stated he was not aware of any easement agreement sfnce he had not signed one~ that there were'no separate water meters, to his knowledge~ and that he was hoping that by the proposed petition, he would know where his property line was and what he was paying fora Mr, Lowe then stated that if the lot split were accomplished, other property owners would be interested in having the lot line set up as a condition of approval of the-variance~ that some of the lines of the properties had been surveyed prior to the ~sale of the units~ and that he was not sure whether the problem could be resolved by the Commission's action, or whether this would have to be resolved in a court of lawe Discussion was then held between the attorney for the petitioner, Mr. Lowe, Mr. Witte, and th~ Commission and Mre Roberts relative to the record of survey made on subject properties~ - that a new record of survey would have to be made to determir.e the exact lot line since the two-unit structures were being separated by the proposed lot lineo , •~ In response to Commission questioning, Mro Lowe stated that the property owners were not desirous of having the Associates Funding company act as their representative~ that any change pertaining to lot lines would have to be resolved by the Westport Development Cor- poration~ that he and the other praperty owners wanted to go on record as withdrawing their power of attorney to Associates Funding, Incorporated, because if only the•lot split were resolved by the ac~ion of the Commission, this would end the responsibility of the Associates Funding, Incorporated, and would not resolve all the problems entailed in the lot split of the property. The Commission then discussed the possibility of granting the variance sub~ect to•conditions outlined by Mr< Lowe, plus the requirement that any agreements be certified with the Gity Attorney's office and the recommendation of Mre Knisely that a bond be posted to insure the provision of proper sewerage, water, gas, and electrical utilities being provided for each unit as required by the Codea Mre Lowe then stated that he and the other property owners would be in agreement with the recommendations of the Planning Cortunission, provided that Associates Funding, Incorporated be responsible for the record of survey along the block walls and the lot split being in accordance with the lines as originally proposed, and that upon the completion of this, they will cooperate with all concerned relative to the balancee Mro Knisely then requested the Commission consider the posting of a bond to insure a proper record of survey, the sewer .^.nd water and other utilities being provided in accordance with the Code requirements, and tiYe agreements ohecked by the City Attorney's office. TI~ FI6ARING WAS CLOSEDa Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1412, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1668, subject to conditions as outlined in the Staff Report, and the condition that other utilities, including gas and electricity be incorporated in the provision for separate facilfties~ that the sewer lateral and water service be provided, or that an agreement be entered into by the property owners to guarantee the performance necessary to carry out the spirit and intent of the plumbing andbuilding codes, and that said agxeement be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's office and be recorded concursently with the record of surveyo (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote~ • AYESs COMNIISSIONERSs Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOESe COMMISSIONERSe Nonee ABSENfs COMMISSIONERS~ Allred, Campo VARIANCE N0. 1669 - PUBLIC 1-~ARING. GERTRIJDH M. EGGLESTON~ 33?~ East Miraloma Avenue, ~ Anaheim, California, Owner~ requesting permission to create two R-A lots of less than one acre in size on property described as: A rectangu- '" lar parcel of land at the northwest corner of Miraloma Avenue and Miller Street, with frontages of 145 feet on Miraloma Avenue and approximately 510 feet on Miller Sireet, artd €urther describec as 3371 East Miraloma Avenue. Property presently classified R••:.•, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ~' ~'arl Kane, appearing to sepresent the petitioner, appeared before the Commission ~a answer qLrei ~s and stated the petitioner proposed to relocate her home northerly and create a lot af 40 cyuare feet, or a deficienay of 3,300 square feet from Code requirement~ the remainder of , p.roperty ~rould be developed by Shell 011 Company for a service station~ and that due ~ ~,5:: .. ~ ' . ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 9, 1964 2382 VARIANCE N0. 1 - to the requirement of additional dedication of Miller Street, the Continued property owner would then be dedicating 8,000 square feet for street widening purposeso Mr. Kane further advised the Commission that it was proposed to construct the ranch-style service station similar to others constructed in Anaheim, on sub~ect propertye No one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petitione TFIE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Cortunissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1413, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1669, sub,~ect to conditionso (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOESs- COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSEM s COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Campa CONDITIONAL USE - PUBT.T_C IiEARING. GULF OIL CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA~ P, O. Box 64727~ PERMIT NOo 648 Los Angeles, California, Ownerf SIERRA PARK CORPORATION, 12311 Chapman Avenue, Garden Grove, California, Agent; requesting permission to establish a motel and restaurant with on-sale liquor on property described ass An irre5alar parcel of land at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Dowling Street, having frontages of approximately 320 feet on La Palma Avenue and approximately 562 feet on Dowling Streets subject property is bounded on the east by the Orange County Flood Control channel and is approximately 7.2 acres in size, excepting therefrom a 150 by 150-foot portion at the northeast corner of the intersection of La Palma Avenue and Dowling Sireet~ Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that althaugh the property at the northeast corner of La Palma Avenue and Dowling Street was not improved, bonds will have been posted to insure the improvement of the service station sitee Mre.L. Sa Highley, Jro, 12311 Chapman Avenue, Garden G.rove, appeared before the Commission ta represent the petitioner, and stated that discussion was held between the petitioner and Autonetics, but because of their policy, they could not openly approve the proposed develop- ment,..but had verbally agreed to it since the proposed motel would serve thsir needs for visiting personnel to their offices and was located strategically at the interchange ad~acent to their prope:tye Further, that it was agreed no kitchens would be proposed for any of the units since only rooms were being providedo No one appeared in opF~sition to subject petitione TE~ HEARING WAS CLOSEDo To clarify one of the findings in the Staff Report, Mr~ Kreidt stated the reclassification number should have included reference to (14) since Reclassification Noo 61-62-69 was a resolution of intent to reclassify to the P-L and M-1 Zones of the Northeast Industrial Area. The Commission was of the opinion that there were too many curb breaks in the proposed development, and these should be eliminated to provide only two for each street because of the use of two busy streets in an industrial area. Mr. Kreidt advised the Commission that one of the conditions of approval required that the two southerly drives along Dowling Avenue be combined into one drive of a maximum width of 30 feet, and that only one access point to La Palma Avenue be permitted which should be located near the westerly property line. Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noe 1414, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit t~o. 648, sub,~ect to conditioris, and one additional conditfon'~that the pro~terty be reclassi- fied to the M-1, L3ght Industrial, and P-L, Parking-Lar,dscaping, Zor,es under resolution of intent of Reclassification No. 61-62-69(14). (See Resolution Booke) Ori roll call the foregoing resolution was passr.d by the following votes AYESs COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOESz COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Campa . _ _,r..,_ _ ~-__ ~ -- ;--_..~ ____.. ' ~ -- I i . / ~! ~ ~~ ~ ~ MINITfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 9, 1964 2383 RECESS - Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recess the meeting for te~n minutesa Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED The meeting recessed at 3i40 o'clock P.M. AFTER RECESS - Chairman Mungall reco~vened the meeting at 3s54 o'clock P.M., all Commissioners being present with the exception of Commissioners Allred and Campa CONDI'FIONAL USE - PUBLIC 1-lEARINGa PERPETUAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION, 9720 Wilshire PERMIT NOo 643 Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, Ownerf S. Va HUNSAKER AND SONS, INCORPORATED, P, Oo Box 1216, Fleetwood Annex, Covina, California, Agents TENTATIVE MAP OF requesting permission to establish a one and two-story multiple-family TRACT NOe 5231, planned residential development having no frontage on a dedicated atreet REVISION NOo 5 wi•th waiver of the following provisionss (1) minimum required lot araa, (2) minimum required lot width, (3) minimum required lot area per dwell- TENTATII/H MAP OF ing imit, (4) minimum required front, side and rear yards, and (5) TRACT N0~ 5501~ waiver of single-story height limitation within 150 feet of R-A zoned REVISION NOo 1 property described as: An irregular parcel of land at the northeast corner of the Riverside Freeway and Miraloma Avenue with frontages of approximately 965 feet on the Rivsrside Freeway and approximately 915 feet on Miraloma Avenue, the total area of subject property being approximately 1902 acres. Property presently classified M-1~ LIGHI' INDUSTRIAL, ZOPIEo Tentative Tract Noo 5231, located at the northeast corner of the Riverside Freeway and Miraloma Avenue, covering approximately ten acies, is proposed for subdivision into 106 floating R~-3 zoned lotso Tentative Tract R'oo 5501, located at the northeast corner of the Riverside Freeway and ' Miraloma Avenue, covering approximately ten acres, is proposed for subdivision fnto 84. floating R-3 zoned lotse Mr. S. Vo Hunsake^, Jro, 15855 East Edna Place, Irwindale, California, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, noting that previously a condominium had been proposeds that there seemed tc be some discrepancy in the proposed use in that it was considered to be a non-statutory condominiumq that it was proposed to subdivide the walls since each unit was presently separated by air space within said walls, and that the pur- pose af this was because the Savings and Loan Association preferred this to the subdivision of grcund space< .. In response to Commission questioning, lleputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that the CCBR's submitted by the developer described the units as air space ' rather than proposing floating R-3 lots, and that these would have to be revised to conform with the original proposed re~uesto ~ Mro Hunsaker stated the CCBR's had been submitted, but upon receipt of the requirements from the City Attorney's office, changes had to be made, but these had not been incorporated as yet, but would be submitted to the City Attorney for his approvale ' Mra Roberts asked that the developer consider reading Item No. 10 of the requirements sub- ' mi.tted to them~ not±ng that it might be advisable to record an easement of five feet around the area to insure privacy would be maintainedo Mre Hunsaker further continued that they reviewed the conditions of approval of subject tentative tract maps and inquired whether or not Condition No. 6, requiring the posting of "no parking" sig~s was a carry-over from the original tract approvaie Office Engineer Arthur Daw stated this was a carry-over from the original tentative tract map on subJect property, but that at such time as the freeway was fully developed, Miraloma Street would be cul-de-saced, thereby permitting parking on those streets,and that it would be approximately three years before the freeway would be completed, and this was one of the main access points to the Autonetics plant. The Commission reviewed all plans. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition~. TE~ I~ARLNG WAS CLOSED. Commissianer Perry offered Resolution No. 1415~ Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and a.doption, secondAd by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Pecmit Noo 643, sub,~ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) ~ l ; \~ •__ __. . . __ _ .. _. _~ ...,:____d.,,. .-~,_~..,_.~,~.T~.. : , I ' ' ~ ~? ~ ~ ~ ~ L MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 9, 1964 2384 CONDITIONAL USE - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: PERMIT N0~ Ei43 AyES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando TENTATIVE MAP OF NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee TRACT N0. 5231, ABSEP7T: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp. ' REVISION N0~ 5 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOa 5501, Commissi~ner Perry offered a motion to approve Revision No. 5 of RE~'ISION N0~ 1_ Tentative Map of Tract Noo 5231, subject to the following conditionss (Continued (1) That should this s:ibdivision be dev?loped as more than one subdivision, each subdvision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form fc,r approval~ (2) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract Noe 5231 is granted subject to ' the completion of Reclassification Noo 63-64-5 and approval of Conditional Use Permit No~ 643~ (3) That fire hydrants shali be installed as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Departmento (4) That the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorr.ey's office prior to City Council approval of +_he Final Tract Map, and, further, that the approved Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Tract Mapo (5) That Walgreen Street and "B" Street shall be 64 feet wide. (6) That the curbs on Miraloma Avenue shall be constructed 24 feet from the centerline with "No Parking" signs to be installed at the developer's expenseo (7) That Tract Noo 5231 be recorded prior to Tract Noo 55010 (8) That the alignment and grade of Miraloma Avenue be approved by the State Division of Highwayso (9) That Lot 107 be designated as "Not a Buildable Lot, for Recreational Use Only" on the Final Tx•act Mapo Coannissioner Gauer seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDo Commissioner Perry offered a motion to approve Revision Noo 1 of Tentative Map of Tract Noa 5501, subject to the following conditions: (1) That shouid this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvalo (2) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5501 is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification Noo 63-64-5 and approval of Conditional Use Permit Noo 6430 (3, That fire hydrants shall be installed as required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Departmente (4) That the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's office prior to City Council approval of the Final Tract Map, and, furthery that the approved Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions sh311 be recorded concurrently with the Final Tract Map, (5) 'Chat "A" Street shall be 64 feet widee (6) That the curbs on Miraloma Avenue shall be constructed 24 feet from the centerline, with "No Parkin~" signs to be installed at the developer's expenseo (7) That Tract Noo 5501 shall be recorded after Tract No. 5231. (S) That the alignment and grade of Miraloma Avenue be approved by the State Divi~'c~ of Highways. • (9) That Lot 85 be designated as "Not a Buildable Lot, for Recreational Use Only" on the Einal Tract Map~ (10) That Streets "A" and "S" shall be recorded as "Parkview Terrace"o Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1421, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Conditional Use Permit No. 449 be terminated, based on the fact that its original concept was no longer in effect, due to the fact that the Commission had approved Conditional Use Permit No. 6430 (See Resoluiion Booke) . On ro?.1 call the foregoing re6olution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Munqali, Perry~ Rowland. NOHSs COMMISSIGNERS: Noneo ABSEIrY: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Campo _. , . .. .~"e ---.. .._ _ _.. _ ---. _..._._.~ ~. . 1 ~ . . , ,,; ~ , . t . ~, . ~) ~ 0 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 9, 1964 2384 CONDITIONAL USE - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: PERMIT N0~ 643 AYES: COMMISSIONBRS: Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando TEM'ATI1/E MAP OF NOES: COMMISSION~RS: Noneo TRACT N0. 5231, ABSEM': COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Campo REVISION N0~ 5 TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NOo 5501, Commissioner Perry offered a motion to approve Revision No. 5 of REVISION N0~ 1_ Tentative Map of Tract Noo 5231, subject to the following conditions: Continued (1) That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdvision the.reof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvalo (2) That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract Noe 5231 is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification Noe 63-64-5 and approval of Conditional Use Permit No~ 6430 (3) That fire hydrants shall be installed as required a;~d determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Departmento (4) That the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorr,ey's office prior to City Council approval of the Final Tract Map, and, further, that the approved Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Tract Mape (5) That Walgreen Street and "B" Street shall be 64 feet wide. (6) That the cu:bs on Miraloma Avenue shall be constructed 24 feet from the centerline with "No Parking" signs to be installed at the developer's expenseo (7) That Tract Noo 5231 be recorded prior to Tract Noe 55010 (8)• That the alignment and grade of Miraloma Avenue be approved by the State Division of Highwayso ~9) That Lot 107 be ciesignated as "Not a Buildable Lot, for Recreational Use Only" on the Final Tract Map, Commissioner Gauer seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDo Commissioner Perry offered a motion to approve Revision Noo 1 of Tentative Map of Tract Idoo 5501, subject to the followi~g conditions: (1) That should this sub:3ivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approvalo (2) Tl~at the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5501 is granted subject to the completion of Reciassification Noo 63-64-5 and appioval of Conditional Use Permit Noo 6430 (3) That fire hydrants shall be installed as required and determined to be necessary b;: the Chiei of the Fire Departmento (4) That the Coven:~nts, Conditions, and Restrictions shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney's office prior to City Council approval of the Final Tract Map, and, further, that the approved Covenants, Conditions, and kestrictions shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Tract Mape (5) That "A" Street shall be 64 feet wideo (6) That the curbs on Miraloma Avenue shall be constructed 24 feet from the centerline, with "No 'Parking" signs to be installed at the developer's expenseo (7) That Trac;t No~ 5501 shall be recorded after Tract No. 5231. (8) "fhat the ali~nment and gsade of Miraloma Avenue be approvad by the State Division of Highways. (9) That Lot 85 be designated as "Not a Buildable Lot, for Recreational Use Only" on the °inal Tract Map„ ~10) That Streetc "P.'' and "B" shall be recorded as "Parkview Terrace"a Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo Coramissioner Gauer offeied Re.olution Noo 1421, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded b;~ Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Conditional Use Permit No. 449 be terminated, based on the fact that iis original concept was no longer in effect~ due to the fac.t ~hat the Commission had approved Condi,,ional Use Permit No. 643a (See Resol.uiion Booko) On roll ca11 th~ furegoi~g rgr,olution was pa6sed by tbe fo:lowing vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauar, Mungall, Perry, Rowlan~. NQESs COMMISSIONERS: Non;~o AASEr,fi: COMMISSIONEAS: All:.ed, Campo t E Y i Z $ i _......._ ---...__._ _._..... _ _.. .. ,._..._.V..____--___...___,_....,; . _~i .-- i~.. ~-. ~ - _ _.. ?~ a ' _ ,- _ I', . "p . . - . ~l i ,'~ ' '~ • .. ~ ". _ , ~ ~ ~ MINUfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 9, 1964 ; 18~ CUNDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Perry offered a motion to recommend to the City ~:~r~ncil. PER:dIT NO,. 43 that plans marked Revision No. 2, ExhibiC Nc^.~ 1 th.~ugh 5 r.,f ;'am9'- tional Use Permit Noo 643 be approved as :evise~, plans und~:r ;:ecl~:si- TENTATIVE h1AP OF ;ication Noo 63-64-5; fur.her, that ar. amendment to Co~;;~cii i?r•solati~n TRACT N0. 5231; No~ 63R~713, pertaining ~c C-ar~dition Noo 5, requ:rincr ih~ ccr.struction oY REV?SiON N0. 5 a six-foot masonry wall,be d~I~tedo Commission : Gauer se~;~;~ded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo TEM'A'IIVE MAP OF iRACT N0. 550.1, REVISION N0,_.t,l, ' (Continued! RECLASSIFICP.ITrru; - uUgLI~ HEARING. ROBERT W. AND LOUISE M. :CRAl'Z, 1252 North Brookhurst P10a ~4-fi5-~2 ~_ S+.reet, Anaheim, Californla, Owners; property describe:d as: A rectans~~i~~r p-r,rcEl of land with a frontage of 61 feei: on the e~.st side of Broo'.:hursi: CONDITl.~N~AI. USE Str~at and a depth of 103 fe2t~ the southern b~unUary of said property PEHa"IT N0, 41_ i~eling approximately 336 f~et no:th of the c;~nce:line of Huntington Avenuf~, and further described as 1252 North Brookhursi Streeto Propesty presenti; GEIVERA:. PLAN classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIUHNTIAi, 2Ci~E~ ANiENDMENT .NOe 45 REQUESTED CLdSSIFICATIONs C-0, COMN~RCIAL OFt•ICc~ ZONE. REQUES':ED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTABLISH AN ACCOUD;fING OFFICE IN AN EXISTING RESIDENCE. Mr. Robert Ysat., own~~r of the subject property, appeared befcre the Commis~,•'.on and stated ~ be had purchased *.he :~ome to convert it in+.;, office use for a,n acc:ounting ~,:rvice because ~ the ormer of the pi•c~erty had statPd that all properties in the are:: favored rezoning of the ? properties fronting on Brookhurst Strt!e#; i:hat a small percentage of their business was done :~ by direct client contact on subject px•oper{:y~ and because of the .;r.~oming tax season, it was { felt the reclassification would be in o~•der becaus~ more persoral coi:t~:i with people using the facilities would o.cury although nn more than t~roe paople at c,.e tive vrould be thereo , In response to Commission questioning, De,~nty City Attorsiey Fu.!~man E.oberts stated that the existing use of subject property coul~~ not be considered under. a homeowner°s occupation be- cause it was no'. a s~condary use whic!i wris part nf the requirement of the homec~wner°s occupatior. - that the property o::~ier re~ide on the premis~~ 2nd any commercial use be a secondary part of the occ~ipation of the homeo I,ir~ Jo W, 17avis, Jr., 1246 North B:ookhurst Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition to suLJect Fet:itions, stating that he resided immediately so:ith of subject property; that the proposed :eequest wouid not qualify under the C-0 Zone because the lot on which it was dev=loped contained ~nly 7,200 square feet, whereas 20,OOC square feet wa~• required~ that there wauld be less •Lhan 7,200 square feet aftex dedication wa:s made for the widening of Brookhurst Street; that adequatE parking should be provided9 and tc rase the alley for p3rking in the xear wouJ.d be jeopardizing the small chiidren who range in age :roi~~ three years and up~ that the pr.posed reclassification was not in c~nformance ~~'.th the Ge!ieral Plan which indicated single~f~mily rc:sidential use of the hropertyy that the existino use of the property wres int~rferring with the radio and televisio~ recept:on in the area~ tt~at the petittoner had b~en operating a com- merci:l business on th~e property since the firs•~ of Juiy, and had the structure compleiely •rewired for..cammerci~l uses9 chat :~e had contacted the Planning Department and filed complaints with both tho Planning L,~partment and the City Attorney's office s?;~ct ~f:s petitioner had been ~~sing the home for commexcial purposes and not as a secondary use of tiie property; that tt,e light.~ and noise from the existi;,q o~eration continued n~:til late in the evening~ aometimes af±e•r i1:30 "r~M, it would be lit ip light ra fuotball c~'.:adium; th~t although Lhe petitioner state9 tt~at parking was not neces:..,ry, there wzs a parking problem because he was unable :o t:ark in front of t~is home due to others parkino on the street; that althouch Brookhurst Street migh•; be widened in the future, according to the P.'tanning Department, there were no immediate piaris for widsning the street since there was n. accesa across the freeway~ that if subject petiti~n were ap~rovpd, many of the pro~:~rLy owners would 'ae losing the residential integrity of their prope:•ty and a reduction in the value of their lands that he and many of the other property owners had been contacted by a real esta~e office for the possible sale of their land, and had been informec' that the fro~itage a2ong Braokhurst Stree: might eventual:y be commercial,, and a fair amount could be received for their prope°ty, but that presently the homes were worth more than for ~ale for commerciai puroosesp that he r2quested of the City that the operation at 1252 Nort;~ Brookhurst Street be completely clased until the Commission and City Council ren9ered a decision on subjoct peti•,.ons; that he and h3s neighbors did not oppose a legitimate home-type busi.ness whero the Family lived +_n the home and the business was a secondary use, but the petitioner do~s not reside at the adJress, therefore, his home occupation permit should not be alloweds and that he was infringin~; or. the property rights of the neighbors in the area, and the proposed use could b~ establi:•he:,i in many o£ the down- town Anaheim businass structuresa s~-• ~ ----._......_. ._..~ _ _ ._ __ __. __ ~.-._._.._._..~. -.........._._ ~ _ . _ .._. . _ . . .. .. . .. i . S I ; 1 ' , ...~ ~ ~ __~ A~!ItJUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 9, 1964 RE~~LASSIFICATION - Mrso Vivian Ihollenwebsr, 2219 Clover Avenue, appeared before the Commission NC• 64_8~-52 . in apposition to subject petitions and stated a traffi.c hazard already existed for the children in the area, and to perm3.t the breakdown of the CONDITIONAL LISE residential area by approving subject petition would create a further !~ERMIT NOa f~~~ hazard on Brookhurst Streetj that eleven property owners were present in the Council Chamber opposing subject petitions; and that she had a u"ENERAL PLAN petition signed by 49 property owners in the general vicinity of sub~ect _4MHND'u~A'T NG. 45 proper~y who also opposed subject petitions. (~:ontinued ) In rebu~tal, hir. ~<ratz requested that Mro Davis confi*m or deny the fact that he would like to see the Erookhurst Street frontagA developed for cammerclal usase Mr. Datiis ~teted that in all truthfulness~ he knew Brookhurst Street would eventually become a cor„mer.ci.•ai development~ that he was not opposed to commercial development if it were done as a co:np?.~•ie package for the entire frontage of Brookhurst Street, rather than piecemeal, as was k+~•ing proposed by the petitioner; that it was his intention to stay in the area and reside in his home and would onlv cor.sider the sale of his home if a large firm proposed devetopment of the Brookhurst Street frontage from La Palma Avenue to the freeway, because piecemeal development would only present a similar development as presently occurred north of Linc•oln Avenue on Brooichurst Street, and it was not his desire to ha his property look that way, ar:d would only sell his property if it were developed as a large parcel so that a}.1 property owne.r.s in the area could realize a commercial return for their propertye Mr. Kratz then.stated that although th~y did not stay every night on the property, they operated the business for f*om fifteen ~o .3ghteen hours; that the property was in his name, but wnuld be transferred to hinself and Mra Shafer as ~. partnershi;~ if sub~ect petitions were a~p~oveds that it was not their inter,t to op~ratE i;he accounting office as a nuisance in the areay snd that there was no intent ~to aiter the str~~cture oth2r than it presently existedo Mr. C~. Ge Halupka, i232 Brookhurst Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that if the Brookhurst G=.reet frontage was to be rezoned, it should be done as one entire packet, not one lot at a time, and that they could not allow their childr.en to play in the front yards because of the hazardous conditions of Brookhurst Streete Mr, E, Ra Shive'y, 1303 North Catalpa A~enu~, app2ared before +:he Commission and sta•ted there wocld not have baen as much oppositior~ to the proposed use if the petitianer had contacted the neighbors and considered them~ ti~at he was o?posed to the. m?n:~er in which the accounting o:fice was starten since he did not •:ansider this a legal tir.2thc;i of operationo Nlrs. Ce Ge Halupka, 1232 Brookhurst Street, appeared before ~ne Commission ,~d stated she was in favor -f any commercial development on Brookhur,s•i Stree'c since the traffic w,••. ~uch a hazard to the chiidren that xesidential use was no longer des~rablee Mr. !Cratz then state~! that before operation of the account:~~g office took plac3, a homeowner's occt~pation permit was obtained, and that the fi.ling of tl~e reulassification was sub::equer,tl~• madee Discusston. was held by the Commission relative to t•.he nropt~~~l •.ise :n thc~ primGrily residei:tial a.rea~ thst if the use had not been objectionable to the :css:..der.ts of the area, it might have been allowable, but since ob,jection had ua2n voiced, a~~~ co!:,plaints had besr~ received by the City, the existing operation could not be ciassified as a home occupations and that the pro- posed rsc).assification would not be in conformance with ~he intent of the C-0 Zonee Mr. Robert;. then.read the requiremenis of the "home occupation" as it was defined in the Code and plsced the petitioner on record as notfng that to quali.fy under a home occupation~ it must be a secondary use to the primary use, which would be use of the home as a resider~ce, and that he wo;~ld be required to comply with that definition or cease operation in the homee The Commission ccntinued discussion on tl~e existing oper~etion and the method in which it was started, noting that the use could ea531y have been established in many of the unoccupied offi.ces within the ~:ity~ that if street widening of Srookhurst Street took place, single lots r'ronting on Brookhur.st Street could not b~: ~Jeveloped for comr,iercial purposes because they would re appr•oximately 4,800 square feets and many other proDlems wouid be inherent to con- sidered a lengthy concinuance of sab~ect pet3tion. Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion th~t ~ae *ezaning procedure was nut the proper tool, and the intent of the C-0 ~cne was for the davelopm~ant of high-rise office buildings in the Center City Area~ that if ,ub3ect petition were approvec'•, ~i:!s might se'• a precedent for establishmc:it of similar uses in all 'che 2,70Q iir.;~e~s frontie~g or siding on arterial streets ar.;l highwayr, o ~ ~ 2386 ', _._..__~_ _..... . , .__..._._. _ _..- - --- _. ..__. . . _._ _ _--- __ __ _ -- - - , _... _...._... , -- - .._ ~3'.? ~~ ~ 1 . a~ ~ , ~-+ • .~.. .. .. i i U MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 9, 1964 23g~ RFCLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council N0. 64-f~5-52 that Petition for Reclassification Noa 64-65-52 be denied, based on the fact that it was incompatible to the existing R-1 Zone; that the CONDITIONAL.USE . requested C-0 Zone was a zone primari;y established for large office PERMIT N0. b41 buildings~ ?nd that to approve subject petition would set a precedent fos• development of similar uses throughout the City in homes•frontiny GENERAL PLAN and siding on arterial stre2ts and highwayse ''he motion lost for want AMFNDIu~NT N0._15 of a second. (Continued) ' Commissioner Perry offered a motion to continue Petitions for Reclassi- ficat~on Noa 64-65-52 and Conditional Use Permit Noe 641 andthe Commission Plan Amendment Noe 45 to the meeting of January 18, 1965, for further study bY and advi.sed of the front-on and side-on problems which sub~ect property would be encountering, the petitioner that if he was desirous of continuing his business, it woulu be under a home- owner's occupation definition only. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion• MOTION CARRIED. Cortunissioner Mungall voted "no", s;ating the petition should be outright recommended for danial to the City Councile CONDITIONAL USE - PUHLIC.tiEARING. INITIATED BY Tt~ CITY PI.ANNING COM~lISSION~ 204 East PERMIT NOo 649 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californiaf CHRYSLER CORPORATION, 1111 Nort:i Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California, Ormerf proposing to permit the operation uf a training center on property described ass All that certain property lying immediatel;~ north and west of the service station site at the northwest corner of La Palma Avenus and Brookhurst Street, sub~ect property having frontages of approximately 1~165 feet on La Palma Avenue (Santa Ana Freeway on-ramp) and approximately 414 feet on Brookhurst Street, with the total area of said property being approximately 14035 acres and formerly referred to as Portion "B" in reclassification proceedings Noe 64-65-22e Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE (C-0, COMN~RCIAL OFFICE, ZO,~?E pending)> The propurty.owner did not appeaxo Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that subiovalPofisubjectspr pertyeto by the Planning Commission as a result of their recommendinq app the C-0, Commercial Office, Zone. No one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petition, THE F~ARING.WAS CLOSEDe Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 1416, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Comir~lssioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Condittonal Use Permit No. 649, sub~ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passe~l by the following vote~ pygg~ COMMISSIONERSI Gauer, Mungall~ Perry, Rowlande NOESt COMMISSIONERSs Noneo AHSENT~ CONVdISSIONERSs Allred, Camp. CONDITIONAL USE •- PUBLIC HEARING. WESTERN VILLAGE~ 9027 Alondra Boulevard, Bellflower, PERMIT NOo 646 California~ Owner~ ORCO SUILDING AND DEVELOPIu~NT, INCORPO[iATED~ 600 North Euciid Stroet, Suite 645, Anaheim, California, Agent~ raqueatiny permission to establieh a one and two-story multiple-family planned residential davelop- ment with carports and waiver of aingle-story height limitation within 150 feet of R-A zoned property and waive•r of ths minimum required floor area on property described as~..•An irregular parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 99 feet on the west side of Western Avenue and a maximum depih of approximately 617 feet, the northern boundary of said property being epproxi- Western6Avenue~ ePropertytpr sent1y1c1assifiedcR13,AMULTIPLE~FAMILYhRESIDEDiTIALa ZONE4g South Mr. LeRoy Rose, architect for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission aFld~ raviewed the proposed dc~~~elopment and request for waiver from Code requirements, noting thet the one-bedroom apartments h.ad the kitchen located in the center of the unit with a family room opening to the kitchen an~i to the living room. A letter of oppoaition from the property owner ~f the smail R-A parGel to the south was read to the Commission. . . TF~ I~AAING WAS CLOSED. ..._ .. _ - - _ _. __ ------.--_--- -- ----._.--- ,_~._____.~, . ....___ _ ____ -_-- T~ ~ ~ : •-- ~ - ---.. i I ' :~:', ' I . ~'~ . ~, ~ . MINUTES~ CITY..PLANNING COMMISSION, November 9~ 1964 2388 CONDITIONAL.U;ir - Commissioner Perry offered Resolution No. 1417, Series 1964-65, and PERMIT NOo 4" moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to (Continued ;-~~t Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 646, sub~ect to conditionse ~~se Resolution Booko) On roll catl the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Gauer~ Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES~ COMMISSIONEf2Ss None. ABSENfo COMMISSIONERSe Allred, Camp. • Zoning ~oordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that plans approved in Condi.tional Use Permit No. 646 be recommended for approval to the City Council as revised plans for Reclassification No. 62-63-19, under which subject property was reclassified, since Condi- tional Use Permit Noe 361 was no lonyer in effect. Commissioner.-Perry offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Exhibits Nos. 1 through 11, approving Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 646 be considered for approval as Revision Noo 4, Exhibit Nos. 1 through 11 of plans considered in Reclassification Nao 62-63-~19.~ Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1422, Series 1964-65, ar,d moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Conditional Use Permit No. 361 be terminated, based on the fact that Conditional Use Permit No. 64b had filed and approved on subject property. (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing ,esolution was passed by ~he following vote= AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: GOMMISSIONERS: Noneo ASSENT: CDMMISSIONERS: Allred, Campo CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC EIEART_NG. NICHOLAS Jo DOVALIS, 930 South Magnolia Street, Anaheim, PERMIT NOe 642 California, Owner~ reyuesting permission to establlsFi a furniture up- ~ hostery shop on property described ass A rectangular pa,cel of land with ~ a frontage of 273 feet on the east side of Magnolia Street, and a depth of 244 feet, thE southern boundary of said proparty being approximately 159 feet narth of the centerline o£ Ball Road, and further described as 918 South Magnolia Streete Property presently classi!'ied C-1, NEIGFIDORHOOD COMN~RCIAL, 20N~o " Mre Nicholas.Dova•lis, thz property owner, appeared before the Commission and stated he had a prospective cl.ient who was desirous of renting a portion of the property for an upholstery store; that there were s3_milar uses in the areaj and that it had always been his policy to operate a commercial development of high quality and had good tenants, and since he lived in Anaheim, it was also his desire to have an establishment of which the City could be proudo No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione THE I-~ARING..WAS CLOSEDo Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 14:°, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage i and adoptior„ seconded by Commissioner Perry, to grant Pe+.ition for Conditional Use Permit ~ No. 642, sub~ect to conditiens, and the amendment of Cond~tion Noo 7 to read "that Condition ~ Nos~ 3, 4, and 5 be complied with prior to the issuance of a business license, or within' ~ 180 days". (See Resolution Booko) ; On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Geuer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando i NOES~ COMMISSIONERS: None. ' ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Campe ~ ~ r . . .~----- -- -- ~ ~ "'~.=-~: ___~_.._•._~.,..__.~., . _ ._ . . . _ ~ .. _ .. . __ . _. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC I-IEARING. BANK OF AMERICA No T. 8 Se A~, 801 North Main NOo 64-65-53 Street~ Santa Ana, California, Ownerf CHARLES B. FRAN!:, 325 North Pine, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting that prope~•cy usscribed ast A GENERAL PLA?! rectangular parcel of land at the southwest corn~r of Lincoln Avenue and AMENDIV~t7I N0, 44 Loara Street and having frontages of approximately a04 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 630 feet on Loara Street, be reclassified from the R-A, A~RICULTURAL, ZONE, to the C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONH to permit the establishment of an aut°~mobiie sales and service agency on said propertye Subject petition and General Plan Amendment were continued from the meeting of October 26, 1964, in arder to allow the petitioner time to submit development planse Mr, Harry Knisely, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he was desirous of having the plans submitted to be sub3ect to conformance with all Code requirementso The Commission reviewed the plans, noting tha~ a 35-foot setback had been established by Council resolution on Lincoln Avenue, and that sub3ect petition should conform to this; that landscaping should be a requirement along Lincoln Avenue and Loara Street and should be similar to that required of other car dealers on Anaheim Boulevardo Zoning~Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that as a general rule, the require- ment for the automobile dealerships on Anaheim Soulevard had been for six. feet of landscaping, together with 2~ in the balance of the parking areaj that some of the development in the area on Lincoln Avenue had no landscaping. The Commission was of the opinion that if subject property were developed as plans wer~a presented, it would be to the owner's benefit to have landscaping which would further en- hance the desirability of the structureo Planning Coarc9inator Allan Shoff reviewed the proposed General Plan Amendment for the ' Commission and suggested to the Cortunission that perhaps if they considered a change in land use"for the area, further study should be made before the Commission considered sub~ect General Plan Amendmento Commis~ioner Rowland expressea the opinion that he was not desirous of having any zoning action be considered as an amendment to the General Plan, since the land use should bA reflected and act as a general guide rather than anticipation of land usese ~ Mr, Shofi stated that when the General Plan became too precise, it was no longer a General Plan symbols that the Southeast and Northeast Industrial Areas and the Commercial-Recreation Area, together with residential symbols were the obvious policy of the City, to which Mre ::owland rep]ied that all public land use should be as precise as possible, but anticipated uses should not be reflected until such time as the use had a definite effect on the areae THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1419, Series 1964-65, and moved for its.passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi#ication No. 64-65-53 be approved, subject to ccmditions and the requirement of the establishment of a 35-foot setback on Linco?.n Avenue, witti landscaping in conformance with that established on South Anaheim Boulevard, namely six feet plus 2~ in the remainder of the parking areao (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlande NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENf: COMMISSIONERSe Allred, Campo Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1420, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 44 be denied, and to refer consideration of said reclassification proceed- ings under Petition~for Reclassification Noa 64-65-53 at the Annual Review of the General Plan. (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Geuer, Mungall, Perxy, Rowland. NOESs COMMISSIONERSs' None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSe Allred, Camp. .Y._>~____T_--- < _.._..__..... __ ~:-__ .. _..._ . _. ~ _._.. ..... . _. ~l. I f 1 --_. _. __...._.. ~ • MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISS7.ON, November 9, 1964 2ayo CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC hIEARING. E. B. AND MARY Ee DAVIS, H. Lo AND ~IARGARET PERMIT N0..594- Ro HICKS, AND GEORGE L. HARTMAN, c~o Mr. Ae Castaneda, c~o Frank R. Warren Enterprises, 9255 Sunset Boulevard, Suite 713, Los Angeles 69~ California, Owner.sf LEROY ROSE, 600 North Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, I Agent, requesting permission to establish an 80-unit motel on property described ass A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of 200 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and a depth of 275 feet, the southern boundary of said property being approximately ~ 752 feet north of the centerline of Orange Avenueo Property presently classified C-L, ;j NEIGHBORHOOD COMN~RCIAL, ZONEo Subject petition was continued from the meetings of July 20, August 17, and September 14, 1964, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised planso Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a request from the agent for the petftioner asking that all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 594 be terminakedo Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to terminate all proceedings on Petition for Conditional Use Permit Nao 594o Commissioner Gauer seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC I-~ARING. FRANK AND MARGARET MULLER, 6363,Sunset Boulevard, N0. 64-65-54 Hollywood, California, Owners; GORDON BROWN, 17400 Otsego Street, Encino, California~ Agent. Property described ass A rectangular parcel CONDITIONAL USE of land with a frontage of 122 feet on the south side of LincolR Avenue PERMIT NOa 644 and a depih of 255 feet, the eastern boundary of sub3ect property bein9 approximately 533 feet west of the centerline of Broadview Street, and further described as 1916 West Lincoln Avenuea Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs C-1, NEIGFIDORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~,EQUESTED,CONDITIANAL USEs ESTABLISH A TWO-STORY MOTEL. Mre Gordon.Brown, ayent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development, noting that a 41-unit motel was proposed, with a setback of 35 feet, and parking was being proposed to the rear of sub~ect property with a six~foo~ masonry wall being installed, and no vehicular or pedestrian access would be permitted to Embassy Street. In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Brown stated that 35 of the motel units would have kitchen facilities, and six would nots that this was to encourage monthly transient rentals. It w3s noted by the Commissi,~n that two-story construction was proposed within 100 feet of the lt-1 on-the•south, and 24 feet from the R-1 on the wests tha{: the distance from the uni~s to the parking area waa~, in some instances, 20U feet, which was not the intent of the definition af the use of a mntel which required parking facilities in the immediate vicinity of the units4 that the propoised motel would be similar to havin9 substandard R-3 development; 2nd +.hat i: was desirous of the Commission to have the frontage property for a commercial typs o,!: deveiapme.^.to Mr, b, ~vn stated the reason for tha method of development a:~ submitted to the Commission was be„~3;~se they were desirous of keeping the motel adjacent to Lincoln Avenue. Mr. De~.ey Lyden, 1913 West Embassy Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition to ~ subjFrt petitions, stating that the vacant parcels fronting on Embassy Street could easily ~ be ~ievflloF>ed into single-family homesf that to put a masonry wall betwcen the proposed { cr,mmgrcial development and this property woald not reduce the noises since the parking area i wculd be adjacent to their bedroom windows, would be detrimental to their health because of ~ ths fact that automobiles would be arriving and departing at all hours~ that the property ~ fronting on Embassy Street was being located in a primarily residential area, whereas the i Lincoln Avenue frontage had commercial potential; that the southerly portion of sub3ect property could be subdivided into R-1 lots which would be in conformance with the'balance ~ of development in the neighborhood, and the Lincoln Avenue frontage could then be devc~loped ~ for commercial purposes~ and ttiat he was as anxious as everyone else to have the property ~ developed because many people used the property as a shortcut to the Anaheim Bowl, and it ' would also discourage "peeping Toms" from invading their privacy. Mr. Arch Shoemate, 110 Emerald Place, appeared before the Commissior•, in opposition to ~ sub~ect petition and stated if subject petition were approved, a driveway would be at the rear of his property, and two-story construction would be developed so close to his property that his privacy would be invaded. ' ' ; ~ ~ ~ f ___...._ .~----._ ~ ,...~_______.____ ~ . ;~...__-.~---______ - -_ __. . . ~ ~~~ ~ A ,; • ... . . ?:;:~ : ~. . ~ ~ . MINITfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 9, 1964 2391 RECLASSIFICATION - Mrs. James Vonderloh, 114 Emerald Place, appeared before the Commission N0. 64-65-54 in opposition to subject petition and stated a hardship would be invoked on all the property owners ad~acent to sub3ect property if the proposed CONDITIONAL USE motel were developed, because on inquiry with the F.H,A. representative, PERMIi N0. 44 she had been informed that in the event any of the property owners were (Continued desirous of selling their property, a loan would not be made by F.HaA. where residences are ad~acent to C-1 Zoning because of the physical and social factors making R-1 and C-1 incompatible uses, and the proposed C-1 wedge into the R-1 Zone would, in her estimation, b~ spot zoning and would start a transition of the .entire area~ and that subject property was easily developable for C-1 frontage on Lincoln Avenue and R-1 on Embassy Street. Mr. William Chirinos, 1940 West Embassy Street, appeared bsfore the Commission and steted his opposition was basically the same as that which had been previously presentede `\ ~, i ~ Mrse James Chavos, 1903 West Embassy Street, appeared before the Commission and stated she was representing the neighbors in the second cul-de-sac on Embassy Stseet~ that if subject petition were approved, the R-A parcel immediately adjacent to the east of subject praperty which had exit to Echo Place would encourage commercial uses of the primarily residential areas that she urged that the property fronting on Embassy Street be developed in a manner which would not be detrimental to the R-1 property presently existing there; that the agent for the petitioner had stated it was their proposal to have 35 kitchen u~.tts to encourage monthly rentals of the apartments, which would be an indication that iNhai was being proposed was substandard R-3 development, whereas the R-3 Zone required two-story construction was prohibited within 150 feet of any R-1 Zone, and the proposed development, if substandard R-3, would be cloaer than the 150-foot requirement~ that the two-story construction would be adjacent~to her back yard and would be invading the privacy of the living environment of the back yard; that it was the hope of all the residents there that the pattern which had been established on Embassy Street would extend to sub~ect property, since a portion of the parcel could be subdivided for two R-1 lots and still provide Lincoln Avenue with commerc:.al frontage~ that at the time discussion was held by the City Council relative-to those parcels on Lincoln Avenue, tne statement was made at the Council Meeting.that facili- ties similar to the medical center to the east would be approved; that two-story construction ha~~been approved for that area, but since the Minutes did not reflect single-story construc- tion, a~though this had been promised at the hearing, it was the desire of all the property owners co have their single-family residential zone protected from any two-story construction encroachment. Mra~Frank Muller., one of the petitioners, appeared before the Comm3ssion and stated it was his desire to develop subject property so that it would not be detrimental to the residential environment of the areas th~t he had received many compiaints from z•esidents of the area regarding the use of his property by an undesirable element, and it was felt the proposed use of the property would be a method of developing the area, as wall as cleaning it up~ and inquired of the Commission whether or not they had some concrete method of development of the property. , The Commission informed Mre Muller that subject property could be divided as one of the exhibits indicated in the file~ namely, two R-1 lots on the rear portion of sub3ect property facing Embassy Street and commercial frontage for the Lincoln Avenue portione Mr. Muller was further informed that a copy of this suggested development of his property would be submitted to him for consideration, if he desired to revise his plans,'and that commercial development on the Lincoln Avenue frontage should be of one-story construction oniy. ~ Mrs. Chavos.then reqt!ested of the Commission that denial of the petition should not be made at this time, but.revised plans should be considered by the Commission at a future meetinga - t Mr. Mulles~ then requested that the Commission continue sub~ect petitions to the meeting of February 1, 1465, in order that revised plans can be submitted. The Commission also stated they would readvertise subject property to consider R-1 for the Embarsy Avenue frontage and C-1 for the Lincoln Avenue frontageo Commissioner Rowland offered a moiion to continue the hearing.of Pet;itions for Reclassifi- i cation Noe 64-65-54 and'Conditional Use Permit Noo 644 to the meeting of February 1, 1965, I to allow the petitioner time to submit revised plans incorporating subdivision of the Embassy frontage for R-1 purposes and single-story construction for the C-1 frontage on. Lincoln Avenne. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ' i Commissioner Rawland offered a motion directing the Planning Department to readvertise~the ' sub~ect property under Petitions for Reclassification l~o. 64-65-54 and Conditional Use:Permit '~ No. 644 which would be cons3.dered at the meeting of February 1, 1965, to•project C-1, Neigh- ' borhood Coaunercial, Zone far the Lincglp Avenue frQntage and R-1, One-Family Residential. Zone for •thQ Embassy Avenye frpr~~~gq. Commiys~Qp~~+ Q~ygr ~~conded th~ mot~on• MOTION~C;;RRIED. ~, .~._.._ ~ .. ~' __ `~______....._ _.:,~.wi , r"" ~ • -_ ----~-y~,______-~...:.._._._.___ ~. ~ . ~.. k ~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, November 9, 1964 23g2 NRC~ NATURAL - RECONSIDERATION OF NEW INFORMATION REGARDING THE NRC ZONE. RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION~ Planning Coordinator Allan Shoff advised the Commission that the NRC ZONE ZONE had been referred back to them because of additional information submitted at the public hearings before the City Council. Mro Shoff further noted that the Orange County Water District had expressed concern over the effects of sand and.gravel excavations on their water spreading operations, and in an effort to counteract these-effects had submitted additional or revised wording to protect their interests. Apparently the water spreading operations tend to raise ground water levels in sand pits, Mra Shoff continued. In one case an in3unction was 9ranted to prohibit the Water District from soreading water~ although this injunction vias later set aside~ the danger remains that the water replenishment activities of the District could be severely curtailedo A second factor to consider, Mr. Shoff noted, was that the Flood Control District was concerned with the stability of the Santa Ana River Bank~ particulariy where sand pits encroached upon the banko Since the natural flow of the river is through central Anaheim, the river is contained in its present channel by the berm, and should this berm be weakened by excavations, the District felt that flood waters might severely damage the Anaheim areae Thirdly, Mr. Shoff noted, the City Attorney had indicated that he was very reluctant to recommend the adoption of these NRC standards as a Zone. He much preferred a Conditional Use Permit, because (1) the conditions necessary to insure the public safety, as indicated by the Water District and the Flood Control District, were better and more accurately ap- plied by Conditional Use Permit rather than Zoning~ and (2) in an urban area, such as Anaheim, a natural resources zone was out of placea A letter dated November 9, 1964, from Sully-Miller Contracting Company requesting a sixty- day continuance to maet with the Water District to consider the District's recommended conditions, wae read by Mro Shoffa However, the City Council had continued their public hearing until November 24, to allow time for the Commission's consideration of the new ' information,. and there might be a conflict in timing, should the Council wish to act at that timee Mre Shoff presented a revised draft of the NRC standards (dated November 9, 1964) which ' incorporated the suggested changes by the Water District, the Flood Control District, and ~ the City Attorney., for the Commission's consideration and discussione ~ Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue the Commission's consideration of this new j information on the NRC standards to January 4, 1965, to give the Commission adequate time to study the implications of that evidence, and ~o give the Sully-Miiler Company an oppor- ' tunity to consult with the Water ~istrict~ further, that the City Council be urged to• consider centinuation of their public hearing to allow time for the aforementioned consid- erations~ and that~ should the Council wish to take action on November 24, 196a~ that the ; Planning Commission accepts the November 9, 1964 draft of the ordinance in principle. ; Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOiION CARRIED. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMAgNDATIONS .Southern California Planning Congress • Meeting November 12, 1964, at City of Montebello Commissinner Gauer indicated he would be present at the November meeting of the Sou~hern California P.lanning Ccngress. ITEM N0. 2 ' Commercial-Recreation Area Setback Study Commi'ssioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of the Commercial- Recreation A•rea Setback Study to the meeting of November 23, 1964. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED, . ~ • ~.,\ , ,1 -,-. ~ ; . _ ._~______ -- - --- - ,_ ._.. ~ ~ _ ~ , ~ . . , , : ~ . ,~-_ V ~ ~~ V ~ MINUTES, CIT.Y PLANNING COMMISSION, November 9~ 1964 2393 ~ . REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 3 RECOM(u~NDATIONS Douglas-Cerritos Avenues Designation on the Circu3.ation Element ~ (Continued Highway Rights-of-Way Map as Seconciary Highways I Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue consideration of the des3gnaxion of Douglas and Cerritos Avenues as secondary highways on the Gee~eral Plan to the meeting of November 23, 1964, for further study. Commissioner Roxland seconded the motione ,j MOTION CARRIED. • ~~ ~ TEN4~ORARY - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Rowland ~ ADJOURNW~Ni . offered a motion to adjourn the meeting to November 16, 1964, at 7s00 o'clock P.M. for a work session on the Billboard Ordinance. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 6~00 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, ' ~~~~2~.1~¢J ANN KREBS~ Secretary Anaheim Planning Commission ., \ ~ 1