Loading...
Minutes-PC 1964/10/19_, - • t i ' ~ .; . ~J V ~ City Hall Anaheim, California October 19, 1964 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2s00 o'clock P.Ma, a quorum being present. PRESEM - CHAIRMAN: Mungalle - COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Perry, Rowland. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERSs Allred. PRESENT - Zoning Coordinator: Martin Kreidt Planning Coordinator: Allan Shoff Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Associate Planner= Robert Mickelson Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs Planni.ng Department Stenographers Corrine Galvan INVOCATION - Reverend Jack Johnson, Pastor of the First Southern Baptist Church, gave the invocation. PLED(~. .OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meetings of September 21 and 28, 1964, were approved TE~ MINUTES as submittede The Minutes of the meeting of September 14, 1964, were approved with the following correctionss Page 2303, Paragraph 3, line 23, should readc "no money could be lent on letters of intent, and o" *. Page 2319, Paragraph 1, line 2, the name should be "Westgate"e '' R~4GSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC H[ARING. LIONEL H. AND LUCILLE BROWN~ 6749 Mitchell NOe 63-64-107 Avenue, Riverside, California, Ownersf MRo JOHN CARAN, 2190 Huntington Avenue, Anaheim, California, and MRo ALBERT DE MASCIO, 730 North Fonda, CONDITIONAL USE La Habra, California, Agents~ property described ass A rectangular PEBMIT N0. 628 parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 100 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard and a maximun depth of approximately 325 feet, the southern boundary of said property being approximately 310 feet north of the centerline of Center Street, and further described as 125 North State College Boulevard. Property presently ciassified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATIONs C-1~ NEIGFIDORHOOD COMN~RCIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: ESTAFsLISH A SPECIALTY TYPE RESTAURANT WITH ON-SALE BEER. Subject reclassification was continued from..the meetings of April 27, July 20, September 14 and 28~ 1964, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans and to apply for a conciitional use permit, and for the Commission to approve or deny by a voting majority. Zoning Coordinatcr Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that due to the lack of a majority t vote, subject petition was continued to the hearing~of;this date, and if the Commission wished to review evidence or hear additional evidence, the hearing might be reopened. THE.HEARING WAS REOPHNED. Mro John Caran, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that I. the proposed restaurant was a permissible use in the C-0, C-1, and C-3 Zones; that as ! suggested by the Commission, i:he plans and renderings were submitted to the physiciar~s' ~ group for their commentary, and at the end of the discussion with the physicians' grqup, j it was his assumption the proposed development had met with their approval since they . i stated'it would enhance and upgrade the areae , The.agent then submitted the colored rendering of the proposed development for the Commis- + ` sion's considerationo j - 2346 - ~i • i 1 _.. ._.. .' _.._...._----. ._.._..__ ___._.......__......__.._-•-- • ~ _~_._ ~______---._~..--------*------__..__~._.. _._._.. i \~~ ..._'~ ~ - .~-'--'..._.___~_----' . . . . . ~. . , _ ; . : :. I ' ~~~..~ __ -.. a ~ . ,: ~,~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 19, 1964 2347 RECLASSIFICATION Dro Parlow, 208 East Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission and N0. 63-64-107 stated that although they had met with the petitioner and had reviewed the plans of development, noting the pro,ject had merits in the area, it CONDITIONAL IJSE was still the feeling of the physiciams' group the west side of State , PERMIT N0. 8 College.Boulevard had set a precedent for development of offices and i (Continued medical structuses~ that they were in the process of negotiating for the property to the north of subject property for an emergency hospital, and a restaurant selling beer would be an incompatible useo - i In response to Commission questioning, Dro Parlow stated it was their intent to enter into f negotiations for the establiehment of an emergency hospital in which twenty physicians in , the immediate area would be desirous of sharing a hospital in the areas that there was no ,~ . intent of establishing a convalescent hospital, and it was hoped that because of the area r being located in a triangle of three freeways, a 99-bed hospital would be established; that j the developments existing to the north of sub3ect property consisted of a beautiful office huilding and their medical facilities, in which $250,000 had already been expended in the building alone, and the proposed hospital would cost in the vicinity of $750,000, and be- cause of these medioal facilities being established, a professional type of environment was indicated for subject property, Further, that the existence of a restaurant across the street was incorporated within a group of small stores with a street frontage setback, whereas a precedent had already been established for medical facilities and office-type structures on the west side of the streete In rebuttal, the agent for the petitioner stated that since he and his partner had pur:.has.~d the property, they wexe awaiting ~pproval by the City in order to begin the construc,.ion of their proposed restaurant; that there was no indication made by the physicians' group when• the proposed hospital would be developed; that the property owner to the south of subject property expressed his delight at seeing the restaurant being proposed for subject property~ that he and his partner would be operating the restaurant and one of them would be available at all times at the restaurant; that beer was an incidental part of the operation of the restaurant, since the sale of food was more important; and tnat the existing restaurant ' ad~acent to the Martin Luther Hospital medical facility complex was proposing to enlarge their facilities, which was an indication their operation was not a detriment to the medical facilitieso THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo It was noted by the Commission that the proposed restaurant was a compatible and permitted use in both the C-0 and C-1 Zoneso Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution Noo 1370, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded 5y Commissioner Camp,to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification Noe 63-64-107 be approved, sub,ject to conditionso (See Resolution Booke) - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry~ Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allrede Commissioner Rowland stated in his approval and vote of "aye" for the sub3ect petition, it should be indicated that the sign as indicated on the plot plan was not to be construed as~ havi'ng the approval of the Commission in the recommendation of the reclassificationa ~ Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 1371, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissione- Rowland, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit N~, 626, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Booko) On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votee AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlande NOES= ' COMMISSIONERS: Nonee • , ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allrede CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC I-IEARING. CALVIN L. PEBLEY, 609 Tudor Place, Anaheim, California, PERMIT NOa 631 Owners VIVIAN ELLIS, 820 South Sylvan, Anaheim, California, Agent~ re- questing permission to USE AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR CHURCH SERVICES on most extremity of the~cultdeasacrofeSouth RosetPlacea~andrhaving alfronta enofha northwestern- 55 feet on the aforementioned cul-de-sac, the southern boundar of said 9 PProximately mately 570 feet north of the centerline of Vermont Avenue, andyfurther described asi865aSouthi Rose Place. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONH. . . .. . _. _......__...... _... . . ~ , _.__.. ~_~_~__.__ __~._______..___ _..,- :• -r-- , . . . _,. -~ ~ ----_ ___ -•-. ._.___. _. .~...~ i • 1 _. _ . .~ ~ ~. ~ ; MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ October 19~ 1964 2~8 , , CONDITIONAL USE - Mrsa Vivian Ellis, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the .. PERMIT"N6.' 631 Commission and stated it was proposed to use the existing structure ', E Contiriued ~ as a temporary church facility until the membership list was increased ; k to afford construction of a regular church, and that the agreement made with the property owner for use of the structure was to permit use for two nights a week, during the week, and on Sundayse Further, that no more than three cars would be parked in the parking area during the day, and that she would stipulate ~hese were the conditions she .. i woulc~ agree to in approval of subject petitione ~ i' i No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE I-IEARING WAS CLOSEDo It was noted by the Commission that since the agent for the petitioner stipulated that the facilities would be used only two nights a week, the usual church activity experienced in other churches in the City would be minimal, and that the proposed use of the structure wou2d not be detrim~ntal to the industrial uses during the dayo Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution Noe 1372, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage arid adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to.grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 631, sub~ect to a time limitation of two years for the proposed use, further subject to review by the Commission at the expiration of the two years to determine whether the use was still needed, or whether any complaints had been received relative to the useo (See Resolution Booka) , On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Ferry, Rowland,. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENTs COMMISSIONERSs Allreda RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC I~ARING, FRED Bo AND BLANCHE MORLEY9 501 North East Street, N0. 64-65-39 Anaheim, California, Ownerf property described as: A rectangular parcel of land at the northwest corner of Sycamore Street and East CONDITIONAL USE Street, with frontages of approximately 110 feet on Sycamore Street PERMIT NOa 632 and 150 feet on East Street, and further described as 501 North East Streeto Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONEo GHNERAL PLAN AIuiENDMENT N0. 42 REQIJHSTHD CLASSIFICATIONs C-1~ NEIGf~IDORH00D COMN~RCIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USEs TO ESTABLISH A SERVICE STATION AT THE INTERSECTION OF A SECONDARY HIG[~NAY,AND • A LOCAL STREET WITHIN 75 FEET OF R-1 ZONED PROPERTY. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed Generai Plan Amendment Noe 42 for the Commission> Mro Fred B. Morleys one of the petitioriers, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the history of the changes occurring on East Street and the proposed developmento Further, that he was proposing to relocate his home northerly, since the residence located at the intersection of Sycamore and East Street was no longer desirable for residential purposes, and~.that by this relocation~ the z~esidence would act as a bUffer between the existing R-1 to the north of sub~eci, property and the proposed service stationo In response to Commission questioning relative to providing elevations which would be compatible with the residential environment of the area, Mra Jo S. Mason, representing Richfield Oil Company, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the service station located at Euclid and Broadway~ noting that they proposed to construct a similar one on sub~ect property~ that said struct>>re would be a metal buildings that in addition to the Service Station Standards of the G.ty, to which they would conform, additional planter area~ would be provided around the trash storaye area~ and that if the Commission required a.structure which would be more compatible with the residential development surrounding subject property, this could also be done. Commissioner Gauer expressed concern with the housekeeping of the service station, more •. than the architectural compatibility, stating that although Service Station Standards had been adopted, nothing seemed to have been done with the removal of trash, automobile tires.~ and the sale of items specifically prohibited by the Standards. ° Mr. Kreidt advised the Commission that although Service Station Standards had been adopted, the enforcement officer had not been approved at the time the budget was presented; there- fore these Standards could not be enforced. i ~ ~ 1 ~ I ~ ~ - ------~-_._.A___..~.__-__~._~_._..w-----•------------------~__. , . > ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOI•J, October .19, 1964 2349 RECLASSIFICATION'- Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the NOa 6~4'-65-39-" compatibility of service stations to v~~rious areas, their general appear- . ance, and the requirements of other ci~ies relative to service stationse COi~DITIONAL USE PERMIT NOo 632 It was pointed out b~Nh~,Kreidt that an. additional five feet may be needed . for alley-widening purposes since the existing alley was only 15 Feet GENERAL PLAN widea AN~NDA~M NOo 42 Corttinued Mro Morley stated it was his intent to cooperate with the Cityo Mro Howard Hipp, 520 North Rose Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition and stated the proposed service station would be detri- mental to the area in which it would be located and would decrease the value of their property, and that five service stations existed between subject property and the River- side Freeway, a;~d there seemed to be no need for additional service stations in the areao Mr. Howard Shipkey, owner of vacant property at the southwest corner of East Street and Sycamore Street, appeared before the Commission and stated he was in favor of the proposed zone change, and that in the near future he intended to request a zone change for his propesty tooo Mre Marcus P, South, 1216 Roanne, appeared before the Commission stating he was part owner of the two-acre parcel at the northeast corner of East and Sycamore Streets; that it was his intent to develop some type of a commercial shopping area on that property in the future; that because of the traffic on East Street, the street would become a secondary highway~ and that he was in favor of the proposed reclassificationa Mr. Art Shipkey~ owner of property at I203 Flower Street, app~ared before the Commission and stated he was in favor of the proposed reclassificatic.~ since the area was a good corner for service station development. ' Four persons in the Council Chamber indicated their presence in favor of the service station, and requested that consideration should be given to rezoning the entire streete THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the changes taking place, if any, on East Street; whether commercial development along said frontage should be discouraged~ or whether a pattern of development had already taken place~ whether the Commission should require the residential appearance for the proposed service station, if approved; whether the existing alley should be improved to the standard 20-foot a].lpy, and if ultimate development for the street frontage occurred, whzther the alley should be devoted to residential purposes or combined uses; and v~hether, if dedication were made, to permit a specific encroachment in ., the ultimate ~:~ley right-af-wayo Office Engineer Arthur Da-~ advised the Commission that if there was a need for future widen- ing of the alley, no tanks could be located below the proposed alley dedication, and the Commission may wish to consider an actual irrevocable offer for the five-foot dedication which may not be accepted at this time by the Citya Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts stated that since there was no definite plan of develop- ment northerly of subject property, it might be in the best interest of the City relative to the future widening of the alley, to require all the width from the one side of the alley, and that acceptance of an irrevocable offer for the five-foot dedication might be suggested. Commissioner Perry stated that when the Commission considered the existing service station a.t the southeast corner of Sycamore and East Streets, he had been opposed to it, that his - feelings were still the same relative to service stations being an incompatible use in the area, and by approving the service station, this would be setting an excellent precedent for any future use on arterial streets and highwayse Commissioner Chavos concurred with Commissioner Perry's statement, stating this could be a development for all secondary streets and arteriai streets in the futurea Commissioner Rowland stated this could happen only in a specific location in which a'pattern had been establishede Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 64-65-39 be approveda Commissioner Camp seconded the motiono The motion lost for want of a two-thirds majority, the vote being a tie, Commissioners Rowland, Camp, Mungall, voting "aye"; Commissioners Chavos, Gauer, and Perry voting "no"o - --c _.__ -. - ~ ~ ~ • - ----- - .»,.~.~:.. _ __ _ ~ ~ ~ MINIFfES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 19, 1964 t"•`~' RECLASSIFICATIDN - Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideratic,~ ~;~s" N0. 64-65'=39 ' Conditional Use Permit Noo 632 and General Plan Amendment No. 4~ ~.. " the meeting of October 26. 1964, in order that they might be c~.;. ?ds,'<.i CONDITIDNAL USE in conjunction with the Commission's voting on Petition for R~c;.:a:i'.s•- PERMIT NOa 632 cation Noa 64-65-39o Commissioner Camp seconded the motiono ~4.?"::'~K CARRIED, GENERAL PLAN AMENDIV~NT NOe Continued Associate Planner Robert Mickelson replaced Mre Kreidt as Planning Department representativea RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC FIEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 64-65-41 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing the reclassification of property described ase All that certain property bounded on the north by the Riverside Freeway, on the west by the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad Right-of-Way, on the south by La Palma Avenue, and on the east by East Street and the Orange County Flood Control Channel, excepting therefrom a 7-acre parcel lying immediately north of and adjacent to the Orange County Plood Control Retarding Basin, subject property being further described as Farcels 1, 2, and 3- Parcel 1: A 13.27- arse parcel of land immediately south of and adjacent to the Riverside Freeway and pxesently known as Del Este Mobile Home Hstatess Parcel 2s A 4e49-acre parcel of land lyin9 immediately south of and adjacent to the Del Este Mobile Home Estates; Parcel 3s All that property lying within the Orange County Flood Control Retarding Basin and covering approximately 27 acres, from the M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE, to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE for Parcels 1 and 2, and R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZO1VE for Parcel 3e Assaciate Planner Robert Mickelson reviewed for the Commission previous action on property immediately northerly of the F:~od Control Retarding Basin recently recommended for approval for R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Zone, and the recommendation of the Planning Commission to advertise subject properties for R-3'Zoning and R-A'Zoning for the Retarding Basirta N1ra Ear1 Williams, owner of Parcel 2, appeared befcre the Commission and stated subject property was unsuitable for apartments and should be left as it was presently zoned for industrial purposes; that a considerable drainage problem would incur when ihe retarding basin overflowed; creating }iazards for develop~fientrof the ~ro~ierty for.R-3 purposess and that he was presently r.egotiating for M-1 use on his property and was unalterably opposed to.the proposed multiple-family zoning for his propertyo The Commission advised Mro Williams a trailer park was in existence to the north, and •the Commission had recently recommended R-3 Zoning to the City Council on the parcel directly to the south of Parcel 2, and the purpose of the Commission's initiating the reclassifi- • cation proceedings was to create a continuity of existing zoning in the areae THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the o~osition expressed and the fact that the tsailer park existed in an M-1 Zone, and it was the feeling of the Commission that subject petition be continued until the Council had taken action on the parcel of land between the retarding basin and Parcel 2. Mra.Mickelson advised the Commission that a trailer park was not considered a permanent use, and the use could again revert to M-le Commissioner Camp offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Reclassi- fication No. 64-65-41 to the meeting of December 7, 1964~ in order that action might be taken on the property to the south of Parcel 2 under consideration. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIHD. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC FIEARING. RICHARD M. POLENTZ~ 423 Park Way, Anaheim, California, N0. 64-65-40 Owner; HAROLD L. WEIRICH, 420 South Euclid Avenue, Anaheim, California, _ Agent~ property described as: A rectangular parcel of land at the south= VARIANCE N0~ 1663 east corner of Harbor Boulevard and North Street, with frontages of approximately 109 feet on North Street and approximately 65 feet on , Harbor Boulevard~ and further described as 423 Park Way. Property presently classified R-0, ONE-FAMILY SUBURBAN, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-1~ ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCH: CREATE AN R-1 LOT WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT WIDTH AND MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT AREA. ~ ; ~ 1 1 i r ~ _.-.T._.__-~----~.___.--- ---._.w_..._ --------~~.._-~_., ----~' , ~ --- .. _ . . .. ~ i ' ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 19, 1964 2351 RECLASSIFICATION - Mre Harold Weirich~ agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commis- ~ N0. 64-65-40 sion and reviewed the pr.oposed division of subject propertya VARIANCE NO< 1663 The Commission noted that if subject petitions were approved, after (Continued) dedication both lots would not qualify under the zoning requirements for R-0 or R-1 square footageo ~~ The agent replied it was not until he had received the Report to the Commission that he was ,~ aware an additional ten feet of dedication would be requiredo ; Associate Planner Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that Title 17 requires that dedi- ~ cation to the ultimate width of the street must be madeo Mrs. Claude Simpson~ 325 Park Way, appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petitions, stating that the proposed subdivision of one R-0 lot would be incompatible to the area and the many large homes which have been there for many years and have been main- ; tained as such, and to approve subject petitions would set a precedent for requesting similar zone chr7nges on those lots siding on Harbor Boulevard; that at a previous hearing of a similar petition on subject property~ the entire neighborhood had opposed the request ~ of Dr. Polentz, and one method of resolving the matter would be to relocate the existing ~ fence toward the Harbor Boulevard frontage which would make it much more presentable than j the present method of a wall through the center of the propertyo Mra William Railsback, 400 Park Way, appeared before the Commission and stated his property ' was located directl across the street from sub ect ~ Y 3 property; that he also represented Mro and Mrs. W, Je 'Irautman,who were out of town~in opposing the sub~ect petitions, and stated they had purchased their homes because of the size of the lots and their locationf that ~he ~ petitioner had been attempting for the past five or six years to change the zoning to R-1, ; and~since he was moving to Huntington Beach, ttris would not affect him in any way, but would i affect those residing in the area~ and that the Commission should honor the existing zoning ! by denying subject petitionso . ' A letter from Mr. and Mrs. W~ Jo Trautman was read to the Commission opposing subject petitionso T[~ F~ARING WAS CLaSEDo Discussion was heici by the Commission xelative to the condition of a portion of the lot not being mainta3nedq that by granting subject petitions a precedent might be set establish- ing~a lesser restricted zone; that the petitioner was proposing to divide sub3ect property and create a sub~tandard R-0~ as well as a substandard R-1 lot~ that if the Commission granted said petitions, this would set a precedertt for all lots siding on Harbor Boulevard; and since the petitioner was creating his own hardship, the variance was not in order. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1373, Series 196A-65, and moved for its passage . and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council that Peti- tion for Reclassification Noo 64-65-40 be disapproved, based on the fact that it~would set a precedent for the dissemination of the R-0 zoningf that the petitioner was proposing to divide subject property into substandard R-0 and R-1 lots, after the required dedication for street widening was made; and that the esthetic appearance of the lots would be detri- mental to the existing residential suburban development in the areao (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes , AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando ' NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Nonea ' ABSEM : COMMISSIONERSs Allredo I Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe 1374~ Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to deny Petition for Variance Noe 1663, based on the fact that the hardship was beiny created by the petitionero (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes - AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowlando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENTc COMMISSIONHRS: Allred. ' ,. Y i , i I I i . ~ ,. _..__.._.. _ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 19, 1964 2352 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC ~ARINGD EDWIN Ee AND RUTH Bo HEACOCK, 1701 West Lincoln Avenue, PERMIT NO'.'635 knahe~m, California, Owners; Ro S. HOYT, JRo, 146 East Orangethorpe Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN AUTO- GENERAL P:.AN MOTIVE SERVICE CENTER AND RELATED STORE WITH WAIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIRED ANIENDII~NT N0: 43 PARI:ING SPACES on property described as: An irregular parcel of land situ.3ted in an area bounded by Center Street, Manchester Boulevard, Thalia Stree+. and the Santa Ana Freeway, said parcel having frontages of 50 feet on the south side of Center Street, approximately 273 feet on the east side of Manchester Boulevard, approximately 205 feet on the west side of Thalia Street, and approximately 34 feet on the southwest side of the Santa Ana Freeway, the southern boundery of said property being approximately 400 feet north (measured at right angles) from the centerline of Broadway Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMt~RCIAL, ZONEe Mr. Re S. Hoyt, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the nroposed developrtient, stating that the parking rec(uirements were metf that one wing of the building would have doors along either end on Thalia Streetg and that he proposed an auto- motive service cent_r for subject propertye Letters of opposition were received from Mrs, Alice Stone and Mrso June McIntyre as agent for Mrse Josie Malmstromo Mrse June McIntyre, representing Mrso Josie Malmstrom appeared before the Commission in opposition to subject petition, stating that it was her concern the small stub-end of Thalia Street would be used for parking of cars awaiting their turn to be worked on; that this would in some way deter the highest and best development of Mrs, Malmstrom's proper':y if inadequate ingress to and egress from the property on the east side of Thalia StrPe;. were deterred~ and that although Mrsa Malmstrom had originally intended to utilize her property for residential purposes only, the rising taxes forced a change in use, and a photographic studio was being proposed for the property on the east side of Thalia Street owned by Mrs. Malmstroma Mro.Maynor Stone, representing Mrso Alice Stone, appeared before the Commission and stated his main objection would be the possibility of trespassing over his mother's property by the cars which would be parked adjacent to this praperty, and it was felt a six-foot wall would be some means of separation for the propertyo The Commission advised Mro Stone that since both his mother's property and sub~ect property were zoned C-2, it was not within the Commission's jurisdiction to require the masonry wall. In rebuttal~ Mr> Hoyt stated that adequate parking was provided on the premises so that Thalia Street would not be used for parking purposes, and that the six-foot masonry wall should not be a requirement since the property to the west of subject property was zoned C-2, as was subject propertyo Associate Planner Robert Mickelson advised the Commission he had explained the Commission could not require by Code to construct a six-foot masonry wall, but Mrso Stone felt she was desixous of presentin9 her concern for her own property to the Commissiona TFIE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission was of the opinion that the proposed parking space adjacent to Mrs. Stone's property would be blacktopped and adequate bumper guards would be providedo Mr. Mickelson reviewed for the Commission the method of installation of the bumper guards on other parking lots in the Citya Mro Mickelson further explained the purpose of General Plan Amendment Noo 43 to the Commis- sion as indicated on Exhibit Noo 1. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. 1375, Series 1964-65~ and moved for its passage and adoption, secon~ed by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 635, subject to conc:ttionso (See Resolution Booke) On roll call the foregoing r~~solution was passed by the following vote: AIfES= COMMISSIONHRSs Camp, Chavos~ Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOESs COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Allred. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to submit General Plan Amendment Noe 43 to the Planning i Staff for Annual Review in order that any development in close proximity to the property under ~ consideration be reflected, if the Commission so desired. Commissioner Chavos seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDo ( _... ... _ .. ..... .. . .. ......... ..._.. .. __..._ ~ . / - _ _ _._ _...__ .......__ .__. -__ ~ r---~._~_. • ~`° ~ ---- . . . _ _ i ~ ~ . ,~ .~ , .-. ` ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 19, 1964 2353 RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINIJED PUBLIC FIEARING. INITIATED BY TF1E C,ITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ N0. 64-65=33" 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing the property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land at the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Moraga Street, with frontages of approxi- ~ mately 49 feet on La Palma Avenue and approximately 228 feet on Moraga Street, and further ' described a's 1019=1025 North Moraga Street be reclassi;ied fro~ the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDEN- TIAL, ZONE to tihe C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMA~RCIAL, ZONE. , Subject petition was continued from the meeting of September 28, 1964, in order to allow the Pianning Department time to readvertise the property ~o include the parcel to the south ~ of subject pxopertyo I Mr. Ward Riley, 1011 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission to represent the ~ owmer of subject property and stated his oniy opposition to the petition was the fact that ~ sidewalks were required~ that the nature of the development wassuch that it would be economi- E cally unfeasible for Mrsa Westgate~ the property owner, to install the sidewalk improvements. THE F~ARING WAS CLOSEDo ~ Associate Planner Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that the entire R-1 tract in which subject property is located was not required to have sidewalks at the time it was ~ developed within the Countyo ~ . ~ Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution Noa 1376, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage { and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Councii that Petition d for Reclassification Noo 64-65-33 be approvedo (See Resolution Book.) ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed ty c'•a following votes AYESa COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Allredo CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC E~ARINGo LARRY AND ROSLYN GOLDBERG AND OSCAR AND RITA GINSBERG~ PERMIT NOa 633 600 North Euclid Avenue, Suite 686, Anaheim, California, Owners; LHROY ROSE, 600 North Euclid Avenue~ Suite 686, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A CONVALESCENT HOME on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land at the northeast corner of Gilbert Street and Crescent Avenu~, with frontages of approximately 314 feet on Gilbert Street and approximately 508 feet on Crescent Avenuea Property presently c:assified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo Mro.LeRoy Rdse, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that ~ the original request for development of subject property was approved by the City Council and the first reading of the ordinance for R-3 Zoning would be held on October 20, 1964~ that due to financial problemsin obtaining loans for development of R-3 units, development could not take place for the entire parcel, and the owner:; were desirous of developing subject property and requested the apartments be converted into a convalescent-type home with the one structure to the east of the two units vnder consideration to remain for nurses' quarters~ that sirgle-story construction would remain as originally approved~ that it was . proposed te 1,ave a 200-bed convalescent home~ with 100~beds in each structure; that the first structure would be developed, and a subsequent structure would be developed for future uses and that a letter requesting the City Council to abandon the alley recently dedicated on the east side of subject property had already been submittede Commissioner Perry left the Council Chamber at 4:22 pem. ; 1 Discussion was held by the Commission relative to abandonment of the alley to the east and whether or not adequate parking was providedo Mr. Rose advised the Commission it was their intent to retain the alley on the north side~of the property, but that the former pattern of flow-through traffic on both sides of the property had been abandoned. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. T}lE HEARING WAS CLOSED. . The Commission was of the opinion that the pxoposed use would be of lesser density than tne apartments approved by the City Councila Commissioner Perry returned to the Council Chamber at 4s25 p.m. I ~ ~ ~ _ _ .... .._. _.. _ . ~ ~ / f9 ~ ~ ._. .~__.__.----.-_____._.,----_...__.~_ , . -:.-- , , ,-- --.__.__.--- . , . , , i .. . , I ~ ~ ~ ~` ' :r _ _ . :~ ~ ~ ~ MINU'PES, CITY PLANNING COAIMISSION, October 19, 1964 2354 CONDITIOIVAZ USE - Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution Noo 1377, Serie~ 7964-65, and PERMIT NO':' 33 moved for ite passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, (Continued to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 633, subject to condi- ~ tions and the finding that if the alley recently dedicated by the 1 petitioner was not abandoned as requested to the City Council, that it be developed in accordance with City Standards and the trash storage area be relocated. (See Resolution Book.) I On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: C"JMMISSIOtVERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Rowlando NOESi COMMISSIONERS: Nonea ABSENf:"" ' COMMISSIONERS: Allredo ABSTAINs COMMISSIONERS: Perry. CONIIITIONAL USE - PUBLIC F~ARINGe F.I.Ga HOLDING COMPANY, 4680 Wilshire Boulevard, • PERMIT'NOo'694 Los Angeles 549 California, Owner; DONALD M. BROWN~ 1720 West La Paliaa '~ Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agentg requesting permission to ESTABLISH A 22-UNIT MOTEL AND MANAGER'S UNIT on property describecl as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 75 feet on the south side of Katella Avenue and a depth of approximately 205 feet, the eastern boundary of said property being approximately 545 feet west of"~he centerline of Haster Street, and further described as 140 West Katella Avenueo Property presently classified R-A~ AGRICULTURAL, ZONEo Mr. Don Brown, agent for the petitioner, indicated his presence to answer questions for the Commissiono The Gommission inquired of the agent whether or not the project could be designed to pro~~~:: the-20=fbot landscape setback which the Cortunission normally requires of all development with- in••the Commercial-Recreation Area since the proposed plans indicated only a 15-foot strip of landscapingo Mr. Brown stated that it could be done~ but would create some hardship in order to develop this; further that the trash storage area as indicated would now be incorporated as part of the'building with doors to permit access to the area fox tiash pick-up purposes. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione THE I-IEARING WAS CLOS£Do Commissioner Perry offered Resolution Noo 1378, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noo 634, sub3ect to the development of sub3ect property with the minimum 20-foot landscape setback on Katella Avenue, of which the swimming pool could be considered a part~ and conditions. (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSs Camp~ Chavos~ Gauer, Mungall, Perry~ Rowland. NOESs COMMISSIONERSs Nonee ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Allreda AREA DEVELOPb~NT - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION~ PLAN NOo S 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californias proposing the reclassifi- cation of property described as: All that certain property situated on RECLASSIFICATION the south side of Ball Road, extendin9 from Iris Street westerly to 128 NOo ~4-65-20 feet west of the centerline of Palm Street~ and having a maximum depth of approximately 11F feet, excepting therefroro the 64-foot by 160-foot lot havir.g an east~rn boundary 164 feet west of the centerline of Claremont Street from the R-1, QNE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-0, COMIu~RCIAL OFFICE, ZONE. Sub~ect petition and area development plan were continued from the meeting of August 17, 1964, in order to provide the Planning Staff an opportunity to enlarge the study area of the area development plan to include the single-family lots fronting on the north side of Berry Avenue and tdargate Drive, and to proceed with the study of single-family homes front- ing and siding on arterial highways in order that said information might be taken into cc,:~sideration in determining the status of the reclassification of subject propertiese Associate Planner Ronald Grudzinski reviewed Area Development Plan Noo 8 for the Commission's consideration, noting that in addition to Exhibits "A" and "B" presented to the Commission at the August 17th meeting, an additional Exhibit "C" was prepared at the request of the Commission depicting the extensior of commercial use southerly from Ball Road to and includ- ing~the north side of gerry Aven.~ and Margate Drive. ... .. .. . _. . _._.. . . .... .. . . . . ~~ :..:.______ -_~~._____ ___..~_.~_ ,._~M,.,________._._..,_~,. ~ ,. ~ ~ d~:---.... _ __ .. -- . ~ ~ i ~ ~~ ~ 1 ~ ' ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 19, 1964 2355 AREA~•DEVELOFMEfJT - Mre Grudzinski noted that the maximum utilization of properties between PLAN NO~~ 8 Ball Road and Berry Avenue and "'~=gate Drive could only be realized if ~ the homes were removed and replaced with commercial facilities, and RECLASSIFICATION indicated that Exhibit "D" represented a typical development situation NOo 64~fi5~20 when lots on Ball Road and Rerry Avenue and Margate Drive were developed (Continuei3) with new commercial structures and fully utilized for commercial useo In reviewing the interim report on the analysis of single-fa;nily homes fronting and siding on arterial highways, Mro Grudzinski stated that six study areas located between Euclid and Brookhurst were studied, using a check list of (1) nearby land uses; (2) abutting arterial highways, (a) classification of the arterial, (b) average daily traffic and projected AaD.T., (c) curbs, sidewalks, parkway improvements and dimensions, (d) existing and proposed right= of-way; (3) primary and secondary means of circulation; (4) parcel size before and after dedication; (5) assessed valuation; and (6) sales price. Mr> Grudzinski stated that the conclusi.ons arrived at in the interim report would provide a framewoTk within which general observations could be made concerning the re-use potential of ali• the residential front-on situations in the community, and could only be the result of precise area development plans, area by areao In making a comparison of the interim report with the properties located in Area Development Plan Noo 8, the exhibits andicated various methods of development, of combining the proper- ties; landscaping, and separation of the residential from the commercial development with a masonry wall, and that two-story construction might be feasible for the Pall Road frontagesa In response to Commission questioning and discussion ative to screened planting on these arterials in the aiding o£ reducing noises from the ts, Mro Grud2inski stated this was quite obvious in the study on Brookhurst Street where a landscaped buffered area of six feet, together with a wall was very effectively used to soften the noises from a busy arterial; highwaye The'Commission then discussed the possibility of rezoning subject property for C-1 uses since the result of a discussion with the City Council in a joint work session indicated that C-0 was primarily established to encourage high-rise structures for commercial office in the downtown area and was not to be considered as a basic tool for untenable situations of homes on arterial highwayso Mr. George Rose, 222 West Eall Road, appeared before the Commission and expressed concern that the area development plan indicated hfs property would be separated by the proposed exteiision of the alley, thus eliminating the garage which was located southerly of the pro- posed alleyq that if any commercial development did take place, it was his recommendation that all the residential structures be removed and replaced with typical office-type develop- ment; that he'was required to remove the structure on South Harbor Boulevard within five years, and this should also be required for any development of commercial pro3ections for Ball Roada The Commission advised Mr. Rose that the study was a means of possible development for the area and was not a"hard and fast" rule for development; that if subject properties were approved for C-0 Zoning, his property woul.d be the only one which would fall within the caiegory of a minimum 20,000 square foot size lot, wheieas the others would have to be conbined to meet this requirement; and that the C-1 Zone would not require a minimum size lote Mr. Stuart Noble, 310 West Ball Road, appeared before the Commission and stated he was more in Favor of the C-1 than the C-0 being consideredi that since he had taken over the property, he had improved the area and the adjoining neighbors were satisfied with the way he had developed~ The Commission also read excerpts from the C~1 Zone and indicated that any use permitted in the C-0 Zone was also permitted in the C•-1 Zone~ Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue the public hearing of Area Development Plan No. S and Petition for Reciassification Noa 64-65-20 to the meeting of December 7, 1964, to allow time for additional study of subject property and to readvertise subject property~ to- gether with Lot No. 3, which was formerly excluded to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zoneo Commissioner Camp seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo • ____ . _. _ _~i -~- ---r-----_.___-___. __--__._____..__ ---. -----~°~ _ _ . ! ..._._-------_ . --------=---------_._:.--~:._---__ ~ ~ ~ MINllTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 19, 1964 2356 AI~NDh~NT T~'"TTTLE'~18~ - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY TF~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ANkI~iM'NIl7NICIPAL'CODE 204 Eaet Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, proposing an °"' ' amendment to Chapter 18.38, C-0, COMIu~RCIAL OFFICE, ZONE and Chapter 18.52, M-1~ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE, to consider the ~ establishment of height standards in said zonese P1ann3ng Cbordinator Allan Shoff reviewed the proposed height standards in the C-0 and M-1-Zones, noting that ttiis would be consistent with the establishment of height standards irt the•C-1 Zone and as presented and adopted as a policy by the Cominission and Council in the Commercial Recreation Area. Mr. Shoff then presented the recommended change to the C-0 Zone as follows: "Section 18:~38.050 •(3) BLilding and Structural Height Limitations (a) The height of any building or structure within three hundred (300) feet of any single-family residential zone boundary shall not exceed one-half the distance from said building or structure to the zone boundary. Streets or alleys may be included in calculating distanceo (b) The maximum height of all other buildings or structures shall be one hundred fifty (150) feet." Commissioner Camp offered Resolution Noo 1379, Series 1964-65, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend to the City Council that Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code be amended to read as follows: "Section 18.38.050 ` (3) Building and Structural Height Limitations ~ (a) The height of any building or structure within three hundred (300) feet of any single-family residential zone boundary shall ~ not exceed one-half the distance from said building or structure to the zone boundary. Streete or alleys may be included in calculating distance. (b) Tl~e maximum height of all other buildings or structures shall be one hundred fifty (150) feete" (See Resolution Booko) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: COMMIISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Gauer~ Mungall, Perry, Rowlanda NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENf: COMMISSION[RS: Allred. Mr. Shoff then noted for the Commission that the M-1 Zone did not provide for height limita- tion, although a lsl setback was provided ad3acent to any residential zones that the highest structure in the M-1 Zone was the Autonetics headquarters building, and this was taken in consideration when the proposed amendment to Section 18e52 regulating height limitation was considerede The Commission discussed the proposed amendment and were of the opinion that an industrial zone should be more restrictive than commercia2 zones because af the fact that many operated night shifts which could have noises emanating from them during hours when people were asleep, anC suggested a possible 3:1 or 4:1 ratioo Discussion was held between the Commission, Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, and Mr. Shoff relative to the precise recommended wording for the proposed changea Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue the hearing of Amendment to Title 18, Sect3on 1So52 to the meeting of October 26, 1964, in order to allow the Planning Department and the City Attorney's office time to draft the correct wordage of the proposed amendment. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECONU~NDATIONS Setback study of all properties along arteria! highways in the Commercial Recreation Area. Associate Planner Rbbert Mickelson reviewed the report submitted to them regarding the land- ' scape setbacks of properties along arterial highways in the Commercial-Recreation Area, and ~ inquired of the Commission whether or not this met with their approvale % ~ i The Commission requested that consideration of the setback study be continued to the meeting of October 26 in order to allow them time to completely study the report submittede -~--....------ - - ---- - - -- -• ~. ; I ' • ~ 1 ._ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 19, 1964 ~ 2357 REPORFS-AND - ITEM~NOe 2 RECONHAENDATIOI~S Variance Noe 1539, Mrso Calleye Baumberger, requesting Continued deletion of Condition Noo A of Resolution Noo 574, Series 1962-63, granting Variance Noo 1539 by the Commission on December 27, 1962, for the division of the property into two parcels, each with an area~of less than one acreo AsE~ciate Planner Robert Mickelson reviewed for the Commission the request of the McDaniel ingfneering Company ttiat the Commission delete Condition Noo 4 of Resolution Moo 574, Series 1962-63, gTanting Variance No. 1539e Findings and recoinmendations of the Planning Department were also reviewed for the Commissione Discnssion was held by the Commission relative to the requested deletion and the basic reason for not complying with the condition as required in the Commission's resolutione Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that only certain uses were per- mitted in the R-A Zone~ and if subject property were not reclassified to ~he R-1 Zone, these uses could be permiited since subject property was still R-A, Agricultural, Zone, and that if the Commission so desired, they could initiate reclassification proceedings on their own if said reclassification was delaying the issuance of a building permito Commi•ssioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of the request of Mrs. Calleye Baumborger in Variance No. 1539 to the meeting of October 26, 19649 and directed the Planning Staff to make further inquiries regarding the proposed request for deletion of Condition No,4.' Commissioner Gauer seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo , ITEM N0. 3 Variance No. 1633, Mre and Mrso Hubert Wade, requesting a 90-day extension of time for compliance with conditions of Resolution Noo 1127, Series 1963-64, granting Variance Noo 16330 A request from Mro and Mrso Hubert Wade was read to the Commission in which a 90-day extension of time was asked for completion of conditions of Resolution Noo 1127, Series 1963-64, grant- ing Variance Noa 1633a Commissioner Perry offered a motion to grant a 90-day extension of time for the completion ~ of conditions of Resolution Noa 1127, Series 1963-64, granting Variance Noo 1633, the expira- ~ tion date to be December 13, 1964a Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NOo 4 Assignment of street name to access road along Water Transmission Main Unit Noe 7 into the Walnut Canyon Areao Associate Planner Robert Mickelson reviewed for the Commission the recommendation of the City Manager's office to assign the name of "Walnut Canyon Road" to the access road along the Water Transmission Main Unit No. 7 and presented a map indicating the location of the proposed streete Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the County of Orange be uFged to assign the street name of "Walnut Canyon Road" to the access road along- side the Water Transmission Main Unit Noo 7. Commissioner Camp seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 5 , 1 Complete plant tour, Electrical Products Division of Federal Sign ~ and Signal Corporation, 1100 North Main Street, Los Angeles, California, ; on Octo6er 22, 1964a ; i Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that an invitation had been ! extended to the Planning lommission and the Planning Staff to make a complete tour of ! the Electrical Products Divisian of the Federal Sign and Signal Corporation in Los Angeles, ; and inquired whether any of the Commissioners were interested in taki~g the touro j Commissioners Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, and Rowland indicated their intention of attending i this touro , , I ' -- ..__...__._v._.____.__~._-.------,..__~.__._,_~...----,~_.~.~._.._____..- ~, ~a, r- r' - . ~, . --- .-_ ----~ I I ' ~-:..! J ~ ~ , ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October.l9, 1964 2358 REPOE~TS•°AND - ITEM' N0. 6 RECOIu9u~NDATIONS Letter of commendation to the Planning Staff. Contfnued ~ Associate Planner Robert Mickelson read a letter from Mr. Paul Bruns of Moote•, Kempa, and Galloway Company, Santa Ana, complimenting~the Planning Staff on theircooperation in~his coinpany's filing of a petition, a copy of which had been sub- mitted to the Planning Commission for their review. Chairman Mungall directed that the letter be received and filede ADJOl1RNh~NT -• There being no further business to transact, Commissioner Perry a:fered a motion to ad3ourn the meeting. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5e35 o'clock P.M. Respectfully submitted, ANN KREBS, Secr ary Anaheim Planning Commission ,, .~ ~ _~~. ~ I , , i ..~ --- .. .._ .. _._ .,._,~_.~-