Loading...
Minutes-PC 1972/04/03~ ~` City Hall Anaheim, California April 3, 1972 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT OF A - The Commisaion Secretary in£ormed the Planning Commission TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN that since ther~ '~as no duly elected chairman or chairman ~ro tem present, it would be in order foz the Commisnion- ers present to appoint a temporary chairman. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to appoint Commis- sioner Gauer as temporary chairman. Commissioner Kaywood aeconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. REGULAR - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commisaion was MEETING called to order by temporary Chairman Gauer at 2:00 p.m., a quorum beinq present. • PRESENT - CFIAIRMAN: Farano (evening only). - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland. ABSENT - COMMISSIONFRS: Herbst, Seymour. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: FrankdLowryPson Deputy City Attorney: Office Engineer: Jay Titus 2onin~ Supervisor: Charles Roberts Assistant Zoning Supervisor: Don McDaniel Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Kaywood led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the ALLGEIANCE Flag. APPkOVAL OF - Commissioner Kaywood offered a motx-• .:o approve the minutes of THE MINUTES the Mar.:h 6, 1972, meeting,.seconded ay Commissioner Rowland, and MOTION CARRIED, subject to the following corrections: pq, 7y_87. paxa. 3, line 1: "Adam" Gittelson, not A1. pq, 72-88, para. 6, line 2: "oppressive", not impressive. pg, 72-102, para. 2. line 1: "Rod Durham", not William Schmidt. pq, 72-102, para. 3, line 2: Mr. "Durham", not Mr. Schmidt. PROCEDURE FOR EXPEDITING PLANNING - The Commission Secretary rpad the adopted COMMZSSION PUBLIC HEARINGS procedure for expediting Plonnfile)ommis- sion public hearings (copy ~ CONDITIONAL U6E - PUBLIC HEARING. VILLA FRONTERA TOWNHOUSES, P. O. BOx 3236~ PERMIT NO, 1303 Anaheim~ California 92803, Ownert ARMOUR BUILDING COMPANY, p. O. Box 3236, Anaheim, California 92803, Agent; property TENTATIVE MAP OF described as: An irregul~3rly-shaped parcel of land con- TRACT NO. 7802 sisting of approximately 14.6 acres, having a frontage of approximately 595 feet on the south side of Frontera Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 1,200 feet, and beinq the southwest corner of Frontera and Armando Streets. Property presently classified R-A(O), AGRICULTURAL (~JIL PRODUCTION),'20NE. REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE: CONSTRUCT A 176-UNIT PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP^ MENT WITH WAIVER OF ~1) REQUIREMENT THAT A LOT MUST ABUT A PUBLIC STREET~ (2) MINIMUM BUILDING SITE AREA~ (3) MAXIMUM HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONEr ~5) MINIMUM ARTERIAL HIGH- WAY.BUILDZNIa SETBACKr ~6) 6-FOOT SOLID MASONRY WALL P.EQUIREMENT~ AND I7) MINIMUM LCCAL STREET BUILDING SETBACK. 72-149 ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 3. 1972 72-150 COtdDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1303 AND TENTATIVE MF.? OF TRACT NO. 7802 (Continued) TENTATIVE TRACT PROPOSAL: DEVELOPER: ARMOUR BUILDING COMPANY. P. O. Box 3236, Anaheim, California 92803. ENG~PIEER: Applied Plan- ning Dynamics, 17802 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, California 9266A; proposing to subdivide subject property into 176 plannea residential development zoned lots. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that the developer had submitted a letter requesting continuance of ~ubject petition and tract to the meeting of April 17, 197'l, to resolve sdme of the problems presented in the Report to the Commission. Commissioner Rowland noted that he had had bus3ness dealings in the past with tha developer, and although he no longer had any dealings, in the interest of the community and the possibility of conflict of interest, he would withdraw from any participation in the deliberation of the Commission. Commissioner Rowland then left the Council Chamber at 2:05 p.m. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that since there was no quorum present, the Commission could not consider subject petition and tract, thare£ore, it would automatically be continued to the next meeting on April 17, 1972. VARIANCE NO. 2306 ^ CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. PAUL J. KNAAK. 1751 Southeast Skyline Drive, Santa Ana, California 92705, Owner; RONALD A. MCLEOD, 9833 2innia Streei, Fountain Valley, California 92708, Agent; requesting WAZV~,R OF (1) MINSMUM REQUIRED FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAP- ING~ (2) PERMITTED USES, AND (3) PERMITTED OUTDOOR USES TO ESTABLISH A USED CAR LOT AND A NEW AND USED RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SALES CENTER on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Brookhurst Street and Lincoln Avenue, having approximate frontages of 154 feet on the east side of Brookhurst Street and 105 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 2181 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C^1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Su~ject petition was continued from the meeting of November 29, 1977., at the request of the petitioner, and from the meetings of January 24 and February 23, 1972, for the submission of revised plans. Commissioner Rowland returned to the Council Chamber at 2:07 p.m. Temporary Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. Temporary Chairman Gauer i.nquired whether the petitioner was present and received no response. Commissioner Rowland inquired of staff whether the petitioner had subinitted revised plans as had b~en stated by him at the last public hearing; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that no plans had been submitted, and that at the last public hearing, Mr. LaJoie, the new agent for the petitioner, had advised the Commission that he might incorporate property to the east and revise the plans. As a result, the petition was continued. Purthermore, the petitioner continued to violate zoning requirements and in violation of the direction by the Planning Commission to remove all used auto- mobiles from the premises within thirty days, since a field inspection in the morning of this date revealed there still were used automobiles on the premises; and that the City Attorney had filed papers in municipal court because of these violations, said case to be heard in court April 12, 1972. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry, in respo±±se to a question by the Commission, stated that the Commission was concerned only with the land use, not zoning violations. ~ .~. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 3, 1972 72-151 ~;... V11AIl1~iCE._N.O...,.2,306.,._ (Continued?_.~,::~r :~..~__ ~_ ,:-:.~-_-~___ -- - .- - ~ _.__....,.:.,N~~...,~.. Coaaiationer Kaywood nofed~that she hadJvisited tha property~~~and had~teen nine uaad cars, one boat and one camper on the Brookhurst St. side of the property; I where one entry is blocked, and the only access remains. There were at least 11 used cars and 6 campers on the Lincoln Avenue frontage. The entire access to '~ Lincoln Avenue is and has been blocked by the petitioner's used vehicles since November, 1971. Due to the lack of access and parkinq, one of the customers parked his car on the shoulder and in the public right-o£-way on Lincoln Avenue, creatiny i vory hazardous traffic situation. ~~ _~~~,.~.~..__. . _.._ _ __._;.,.,. . . _.-~.- ..:.-._. ~Cos~iesionar Kayvood then s"tated'fliati"'iri'vfew°~oY°•t'ne~°soning~vYOZ°atrone!*°an• ~'~e~-~-K ~evidence of bad faith by the petitioner, sh• rould move for danialt xb~reupo Mr. Roberts inquired whether or not the Commission felt the land use was apprcpxiate, and if so, then perhaps a finding should be made in the resolution of denial. Commissioner Rowland noted that when he offered a motion for continuance at the February 23, 1972 hearing, it was only because the petitioner indicated he had new plans that would establish this as a normal commercial use, thereEore, he felt the Commission should do everything possible to as~?~~ cne petitioner in developing the property in an orderly manner; that the plans which the peti- tioner had submitted at the hearing were for a facility in Texas, and the petitioner would attempt to apply the plans to subject property; and that since the getitioner had made no further effort to adapt those plans to subject property, he could see no reason for any further continuance. Purthermore, the size and shape of the property was inadequate for the proposed use. Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-58 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2306 on the basis that the petitioner had not demonstrated that a hardship existed to grant favorable consideration; that plans for development of the property had not been sub- mitted, evidence of bad faith, which had necessitated numerous continuances awaiting said revised plansf and that the size and shape of the parcel was in- adequate for the proposed use, which could create serious traffic conflicts if access wexe blocked to any given street. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMTSSIONERS: None. ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, Seymour. CONDTTIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. DUNN PROPERTIES CORP., 2009 East PERMIT NO. 1299 Edinger Avenue, Santa Ana, California 92702, Ownei; DON GROW, 2021 South Flower Street, Los Angeles, California 90007, Agent; requesting permis~ion to ESTABLISH REmAIL DTSTRIBUTING FTRMS AND SERVICE RUSINESSES INCLUDING BUSINESS AND PROFESSZONAL OFFICES PRIMARILY SERVING INDUSTRY WITH INCIDENTAL SALES TO THE PUBLIC on property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 5.9 acres, having a frontage of approximately 1,076 feet on Ball Road and 130 feet on East Street, and further described as 1201 East Ball R~ad, Sutte B. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of March 20, 1972, to allow ;:he petitioner time to resolve signing problems. - Temporary Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the file. Mr. David Travis, representinq the petitioner, 2009 East Edinqez Avenue, Santa An , indicated his presence to answer questions since the Commission was cogni- zant of most of the facts. However, he would like to advise the Commission ~ ' • " ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 3, 1972 72-152 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1299 (Continued) that the signs on the Cycle House had been removed, and they would be taking more precautions in the future to assure that nothing similar would take place. Commissioner Kaywood noted that the siqn was nqain in the window, indicating that the facility was open, although this aign was not thEre in the window the pre ~ious day. Mr. Travis assured the Commiasion that ho would see that this did not happen again. Furthermore, the photographic supply company representative, Mr. Grow, was unable to be present at the hearinq today. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offereci Resolution ho. PC72-59 and moved for its passaqe and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1299, establish- ing the first fourteen types of businesses se forth in the Report to the Commission as uses that could be established t under this conditional use permit; that any use proposen as quasi-comtnercial be submitted to the Development ~ervices Department staff for determination as to its compatlbility, and any question which might arise, staff then should present any questionable uses to the Commission at their next public hearing under Reports and Recom- mendations for a determination rather than setting each use for public hearing; that approval of these uses in no way relieves the petitioner or their repre- sentatives from any parking requirementsf that parking should be determined on a retail basis where it was determined that the retail use might be more than incidental; and that upon allocation of all parking spaces, the petitioner shall not request additional parking waivers in order to lease the remaining units since the Commission had already cautioned the petitioner of the possible critical parking shortage if commercial uses were established. (See Resolution Book) Prior to roll call, Mr. Travis asked how those uses not established in the list weze to be presentedj whereupon Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the petitloner would have to submit a letter to the Development Services Department setting forth what was proposed so that staFf could make a deter- mination as to whether or not it should be administratively approved or presented to the Planning Commission for determination. On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYESs COM~SISSTONERS: Allred, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSTONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, Seymour. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. JERRY D. NILSSON. M. D.~ 1720 NO. 71-72-35 West Sall Road, Anaheim, California 92804, Owner; CxARLES A. ROSS, 4868 Gondar Avenuer Lakewood, California 90713, Agent; VARIANCE NO. 2338 property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 96 feet on the west si3e of Beach Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 310 feet and being located approximately 820 feet north of the center- line of Ball Road and further described as 831 South Beach Boulevard. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED SIDE SETBACK~ (2) MZNIMUM REQUIRED PARBING~ (3) 6-FOOT HIGH MASONRY WALL REQUIRE- MENT, (4) REQUIREMENT OF SCREEN TYPE TREES, AND (5) MAXIMUM PERMZTTED HEIGHT TO CONSTRUCT A MEDICAL OFFICE SUILDING. Subject petitions were continued from the March 20, 1972, meeting to allow time for the submission of revised plans. .~ s ... ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 3, 1972 72-153 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-35 AND VARIANCE N0. 2338 (Continued) Temporary Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the file. Mr. Charles Ross, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that since the last public hearing a revised plan had been submitted which indicated the square footage had been reduced by 1000 square feet, or 11$; that 12~is was still proposed for storage purposes; that the pharmacy had been eliminated, therefore, it was felt that compared to the original scheme, they met the parking requirement; that they had removed the cars from the main entry and replaced it with an arcade area with planting; that the lot coverage was only 228, and the planting and walkways took up another 12~t~; and that althouqh staPf indicated 48 parking spaces were required, and the plans indi- cated only 43, it was felt that by the reduction of the size of the structure and the fact that 1000 square feet was used for storage, this left 7000 square feet, which wou7.d mean requiring only 42 spaces. Commissioner Rowland noted that he would like to reiterate the fact that the amount of atoraqe space required for the medical office use had already been included in the calculation of the required parking, and although the agent for the petitioner had separated this specifically, he did not necessarily feel thia was correct, aince this could be used for storaqe for the present time; and that the storage space proposed, in all likelihood, might not be usable at the present time for the number of people planned to be utilizing these facilities, but might be convert~d for office space in the future. Mr, Ross replied that they provided special equipment within each office. Commissioner Rowland noted that the revised plan made more sense than before, but by re-evaluating his thinking on the project, the agent could provide the 7 additional spacest an3 that he would be in favor of the reclassification but would not vote to waive the parking requirement. Mr. Ross noted tha*_ they knew the number of cars that would be parl:ing on the premisesJ that there would be five doctors on duty over a 24-hour periodr that the record storage was part of the 1000 square feet o£ storage; and that at no time would there be more than ten employees on the premises. Commissioner Rowland stated that one physician could see up to 70 patients per dayi and that the parking required by ordinance for these types of offices was on the conservative side. Mr. Ross ~.ndicated that another section of the Anaheim Municipal Code required only 3 spaces per doctor's offsce; whereupon Commissioner Rowland noted that the other section of the Code overrode the 3-space requirement. Mr. Ros:: then sta*::~i he was desirous of showing the realistic use of the parking area, and rather rhan having all asphalt, they preferred to have landscaping, which gave a better eEfect; and that the only way to resolve this would be to reduce the square footage of the building, however, he felt the proposal before the Commission made more sense. Commissioner Gauer informed the aqent for the petitioner that the plan had been improved considerably, but there still appeared to be a lack of adequate parking. Mr. P.oss then noted that if parkinq were permitted in the driveway, then they would meet Code, or if the building were reduced by 1700 square feet, the.n the cars wouid be parking alongside the driveway. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the specimen tree adjacent to the house was to be removed; whereupon Mr. Ross~stated it was their intent to retain this tree. Commissioner Kaywood advised tlze petitioners they could not consider any on- street parking on Beach Boulevard since this was prohibited; therefore, all parking would have to be provided on the parcel. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 3, 1972 72-154 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 71-72-35 AND VARIANCE NO. 2338 (Continued) THE HEI~,RING WAS CLOS~D. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-60 and moved for its passaqe and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-35 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by thc following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Kay~aood~ Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, Seymour. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-61 and maved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2338,• in part, denying waiver of the required parking since it was apparent the petitioner could provide parking either by redesiqning or relocating the buildingt and that no hardship had been proven or demonstrated to warrant favorable consi3exation of waiver of the required parking, and that waivers for the height limitation, 6-foot wall and screen-type trees were deemed necessary since the adjoining uses were commercial in character, even though the zoning was still R-A, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: P.llred, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISS20NERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, Seymour. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. LEDGER SMITH, 151 Miramonte Drive, PE4MIT NO. 1301 Fullerton, California 92632, Owner; YAUL WALLACH, 1011 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92805, Agent; requesting permission to E3TABI,ISH A PRIVATE RECREATIOP]AL FACxT,ITY AND TENNTS CLVB WITH WAIVER OF (?.) MTNIMUM REQUTRED LANDSCAPED SET- BACR AND (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED PARKING on property described as: An irregularly- shaped parcel of land consisting of apprc.~ximately 9 acres, having a frontage of approximately 426 feet on the north side of KateJ.la Avenue and approximately 620 feet on the south side of Howell Avenue, and being located approximately 150 feet north and approximately 150 feet west of the northwest cosner of Katella and Howell Avenues. Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUS- TRIAL, ZONE. Temporary Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone present ia opposition and received no response. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the file. Mr. Paul Wallach, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that in order to form a better understanding of the proposed project, he would like to state it should be considered in two phase~, one a private club similar to the Jonathan Club in Los Angeles, but health-oriented, and phase two of the facility would be an arena area oriented to business and industry seminzrs and sport activities or tennis, which would briag in many celebrities; that they did not intend to have jai alai since the building was not capable of handling this type of activity; that they had selected Anaheim because Anaheim was the logical place with its recreation-oriented facilities, and this site was the only one in Anaheim that would be economically feasible to construct and since it was also adjacent to Anaheim Stadium; that the prior opposition to the trailer park by industry and others was not now present because this would not have any residential characteristics; that reference mafle by staff as to establishing a precedent, this facility could be comparahle to the use established at Anaheim Stadiumt that they had letters from almost all property owners in the vicinity that this proposal was not opposed by the Chamber of Commerce or the Industrial Committee; that the proposed use would provide what many felt was an important addition to the city; that their payroll would be • C MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 3, 1972 72-155 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1301 (Continued) in excess of $600,000 a year, and property taxes would be approximately $66,000, which would increase each yearr that the proposed developers felt this would provide a needed cultural and recreational center; that they had found a second parking area; that they had talked to every type of organization in Anaheim for guidance to try their best to bring a project that would be supported in Anaheim; and that the architect was present and available to answer any technical questions the Commtssion miqht have. Mr. John Wells, 4500 Campus Drive, Newport Seach, appeared before the Commis- sion and noted that rather than presenting the proposal, he would prefer having the Commission ask questions of him. Commissioner Gauer inquired where the additional parking was proposed since the plans before the Commission did not indicate any additional parking. Mr. Wells replied that they had a 13-acre parcel across the street, which he believed would be able to handle 1,300 cars, thus makinq a total capacity of 1,560 cars, whereas staff iridicated a nee3 for only 1,309. Mr. Wells then presented colored rendering~ showing the main entrance as seen £rom Katella Avenue and a second rendering showing the proposal as seen from the overpass. Commissioner Allred ir.;uired as to possible traffic conflicts and ingress and egress when a peak traffic load was generated on Katella Avenue nuring a base- ball game. Mr. Wells replied that he had discussed traffic loads with the City Traffic Engineer and had shown him the plans, and that the Traffic Engineer had indicated there would be no problem as to inqress and egress. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not there would be events scheduled at the same time ae baseball games were scheduled; whereupon Mr. Wells stated that they would anticipate peak parking around 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Allred noted that this would mean parking would be usinq surface streets a: the same time as attendants at the ballgames would be using them. Mr. Wells replied that he did not feel they would be depending upon State College Boulevard and Katella Avenue for access when Sunkist Street was extended southerly from Ball Road, since he understood this extension would be completed an June. Commissioner Allred then inquired of Office Engineer Jay Titus whether or not there was any evaluation in the traffJ.c load; whereupon Mr. Titus repliad that there would not be a problem if there were no ballgame, but when a combimation of the ballgame and this proposed use was scheduled, the existing streets would be unable to handle all the traffic. Commissioner Gauer then inquirefi as to the amount of traffic that was generated on Howell Avenue; whereupon Mr. Titus stated that there was considerable traffic on Howell Avenue since many people used Howell Avenue to exit to State College Boulevard a£ter a baseball game. Mr. Wells then presented a parking plan as it pertained to the 13-acre parcel which he had indicated would be used for 1,300 parking spaces, and noted they had a lease agreement with the present owner; and that Sunkist Street would dead-end at this proposed project. Commissioner Allred inquired as to the exact locatian of the parking as it pertained to the area map which the Commission had with their agenda packet; whereupon Mr. Wells pointed out the location. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that Sunkist Street would parallel the property line at Sinclair Street. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMSSSTON~ ApX'i.l 3~ 1972 72-156 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1301 (COntinued) Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry inquired of the agent for the petitioner when they had found out about the additional land for parkinq, since staff was un- aware of it up until the present time. Mr. wells st ted that they had anticipated making some arrangement with the City of Anaheim for parking space, however, since this was not possible, they then had made arrangements for this other 13-acre parcel. Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that since there were only four Commis- sioners present, no action should be taken until a full Commission r.as present, since this was rather a complex development, and there were many angles which he wou18 like to have clarified, and requested that the Traffic Engineer be present to answer any questions. Commissioner Allred noted that there was a~~~ resent and the Commission could act if they so desired. Mrs. Allan Kristal, 1294 DeVon, Los Angeles, appeared before the Commission and :.oted they owned property at 1660 Scuth State College Boulevard - Graphi- color, Inc. - and inquired how this would affect their tenant, and was there any problem that could be caused by the proposed use. Mr. Wells then presented letters from 24 local businessmer. in this area, indi- cating no opposition. ~ Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not this was officially brought to the attention of the Chamber of Commerce, and did they take any stand on it. Mr. Wallach replied that i*_ had been brought to the attention of the Industrial Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, although he did not know whether this was an official meeting, and this was brought to the Industrial Committee because of their past opposition, however, at that meeting they indicated they did not oppose it, but they would not submit a letter endorsing it; and then in response to Mrs. Kristal's question regarding possible effects upon Graphicolor, Inc., stated that a letter had been submitted by Graphicolor regarding the proposed facility and f.ndicated theix endorsement of it. Commf.ssioner Gauex then inquired of Mr. Lowry whether or not the Commission could considez the additional parcel for pasking purposes, since this had not been advert~.sed. ' Mr. Lowry stated that the M-1 2one had a provision for off-street parking, which was not a part of the site so long as it was within 300 feet o£ the property, however, there would be certain conditions for site development standards in the parking area that would have to be made a co_idition if subject petition were cons~.dered favorably. THE HEARING WAS CL03ED. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1301 on the basis that this was a prime industrial area, ar.d the proposed use was commercial-recreation oriented; that this would, in effect, be spot zoning; that the use should be established in the area designed for commercial- recreation uses since it was important thst prime industrial property, particu- larly where it waa adjacent to a railroad, shoul3 be retained for industrial use and not allow a breakdown of the industrial area, since this was on the north side of Katella Avenue and could not be associated with or considered comparable to the Anaheim Stadium which was on the opposite side of the street. The foregoing motion lost by a vote oF 3 to l. Commissioner Rowland noted that there was a great deal of truth in Commissioner Allred's statements with land use, which was uppermost in his mind; that it was prime industrial area, but it was also true that the City of Anaheim had penetrated this prime industrial area with its own recreational facility and which cou13 have influenced everyone's thinking. Furthermore, he felt that a ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ ApXi1 3~ 1972 72-157 •^.ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1301 (Continued) major project of this type deserved the action of a full Planning Commission rather than just a quorumt that he wanted to hear from all of the Commissionerst that he would not vote on the project before some evidence had been submitted from the Chamber of Commerce, who evidently did not have as good a look at the .r.;posal as they would like, therefore, this was one reason why he would prefer having it continued until all of this information was before the full Commission. Commissioner Gauer stated that he felt a project of this size should be con- sidered by the full Commission~ that most of the activity would be scheduled for evening and probably Saturdays and Sundays when industry was not busy, but he still felt zhe entire Commission should voice their opinion on a proposal of this magnitude. Commissioner Rowland stated that he would vote against denial of this thing simply because he felt he needed more time to review this, not necessarily that he was in favor of the project. Commissioner Allred stated that since the area north of Katella Avenue was completely industrial and was developing as such, the propo~ed use would be commercial-recreation ia nature, and if it had been proposed on the south side of Katella Avenue, then he might consider it more favorablyt and that when rhe Commission denied the mobilehome park, the basic reason for denial, even though it was a residential use, any use proposed other than industrial would be an encroachment into the industrial area. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not staff needed additional time to analyze the proposed parking for this new facility; whereupon staff stated that in order to be on the safe side, this could be readvertised for the next public hearing. Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that since this was a major project, perhaps the City could look into this as beinq valuable to the City's income resources, however, one of the Commissioners was particularly interested in any industrial development, and since he was unable to be present at this public hearing, consideration should be given to having him express his viewpoints. Commissioner Allred noted that in view of the fact that this was a commercial use in an industrial area, although he felt this use was needed in the city, it should be placed in its proper location rather than utilizing prime industr3.a1 property, particularly with a railroad immediately adjacent to the property, and he was not desirous of breakin<; down the industrial area since there would be a time when the city would need more industrial area and there would be none available. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue con- sideration of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1301 to the meeting of April 17, 1972, to allow time for ataff to advertise the parcel proposed for additional parking and for a full Commission to be present. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - PDBLIC HEARING. GRACE LUTHERAN CHURCH, 700 West South PERMIT NO. 1298 Street, Anaheim, California 92805, Owner; CUI.VER HEATON, 779 North Lake Avenue, Pasadena, California 91104, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISA AN EXISTING CHURCH AS A CONFORMING USE AND PERMIT ITS EXPANSION WITH WAIVER O£ (1) THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMITATION AND (2) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES on property des- cribed as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel o£ land consisting of approximately 3.3 acres lvcated at the southeast ~orner of South Street and Citron Street, having frontages of approximate].y 473 feet on South Street and 306 feet on Citron Street, and further described as 700 West Sou~th Street. Pzoperty presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. No one appeared in opposition. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 3, 1972 72-158 CONDITIONAL USE_PERMIT NO. 1298 (Continued) 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that they had contacted the petitioner and determined that there alzeady existed a Christian day school. and since this had not been advertised for the meeting, he would requesc that the Commission aontinue consideration of the petition until staff had time to readvertise the existing Christian day school use. Commmissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1298 to the meetinq of April 17, 1972, to allow time for staff to readvertise the petition to include the existing CYiristian day school. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. BURTON ZOUL, P. O. Box 1042. Vista, PERMIT NO. 1302 California 92083, and ALS ROBERTS PLYMOUTH, INC., 10080 Garden Grove Boulevazd, Garden Grove, California 92644, Ownerss MOBIL OIL CORP., 11001 Valley Mall, E1 Monte, Callfornia 91731, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A CARWASH IN CON- JUNCTION WITH GASOLINE SALES WITH WAIVER OF (1) NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS AND (2) HEIGHT O~ STGNS on property describpd as: An irregularly-shaped parcel c+£ land consl.sting of approximate2y one acre, having a frontage of approximately' 320 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, and being located on the northwest corner of Ball Road and Anaheim Houlevard. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, C-3~ HEIyVY COMMERCIAL~ AND P-L, PARKING-LANDSCAPING~ ZONES. Temporary Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. Although the Report to the C~immission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the file. Mr. Don Robbias, real estate agent of the Mobil Oil Corp., 11001 Valley Mall, E1 Monte, aqent for the pe~titioner, appearPd before the Commission and stated he concurred with statements ma@e in the Report to the Commission except that in paragraphs 5 and 8 staff referred to the use as being a carwash and three gaaollne serv~.ce bays - these should be considered islands, not service bays, since first and foremost this was a carwash not a service station. Mr. Robbins then noted that in order for the Commission to visualize what was being proposed, Mr. Jacobs from Mobil Oil Corp. was setting up a model of the proposed facillty, which was a new design that Mobil Oil had formulated; that there were no typical beams as other carwash facilities nad, but would be a low~line building which could hardly be seen; and that this would be a carwash facility with incidental sales of gasolir,e, and the usual services fo•ind in sexvice stations, such as oil changes, batteries, tires, trailess, car service, etc., weze not being F-roposed. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether it was the petitioner's intent to have gasoline sales without a car wash. Mr. Robbins stated this was an integral part of the facility; that the hours of operation would be from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; that there would be only two salaried employees who would be manning the gasoline pumps; that there could be car washes without gasoline sales; that the customer would have to drive his own vehicle through the carwash; that there would be no interior vacuuminq or outside detailing after the vehicle went through the carwash, therefore, there would be ao need for considerable parking; that from similar operations they had in the East, they would be filling the most ~requent need of the averaqe automobile owner, namely, gasoline sales and carwashes; and that they had made a traffic count at the intersection, which indicated a total of 44,531 vehicles at this intersection during the time their facility would be open and in operation. Furthermore, they expected to have a volume of 13 cars per hour, which would be only 4/10+k of the traffic volume. Commissioner Gauer inquired about the number of signs being requested and asked for clarification; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated they planned to have a price siqn incorporated within one sign, but there would be additional signing at the intersection. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 3, 1972 72-159 CONDSTIONAL US5 PERMIT NO. 1302 (Continued) Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that there were three other signs proposed which would be islaad message signs of the three-sided type and would be located on the pump islands. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not these message signs were really necessary since the price of the car wash and gasoline were already on the front sign; whereupon Mr. Robbins stated that since this was an oal company opexation, there weze special messages about the products which they wanted to advertise. Commissioner Kaywocd noted that she had driven by one of the Mobil gas stations where signing had been denied by the Commission and approved by the City Council, and £ound in addition to the signs permitted, there were more signs being added, therefore, what would stop the petitioner from installing addi- tional signinq once this petit.ion was approved - it appeared that one sign led to numerous other signs. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-62 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1302 for the use requested and deny waivers for the signs, and subject to conditions. Prior to roll call, discussion was held by the Commission regardinq the ingress and egress an3 parcentage of traffic to this facility compared with total traffic count at this intersection, and then inquired whether or not cars from retail automobile dealers, etc., would be brought to be washed. Mr. Robbins replied that they would hope for the business, however, because there would be only two employees, it would be difficult for these employees to sit in the cars while going through the carwash cyclet and that it would be impossible for them to handle any volume car washes from dealers. O£fice Engineer Jay Titus, in response to a question by Commissioner Allred, regarding ingress and egress being too close to the intersection, stated that this groblem might be resolved by making it a condition that the petitioner resol:e ingress and egress problems to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, and that the additional 3 feet being requested in the recommended conditions, above and beyond that already dedica*ed for street purposes, was to provide a 25-foot radlus return. Commissioner Allred then included in his motion the additional conditions of requiring ingress and egress to Anaheim Boulevard and Ball Road be subject to approval of the City Engineer, and that the condition that a 6-foot strip of landscaping be provided along Anaheim Boulevard and Ball Road. (See Reso2ution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Ka~wood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, Scymour. VARIANCE NO. 2342 - PUBLIC HEARING. LILLIAN AND OTT HAYS, 946 North Siesta Street, Anaheim, California 92801, Owners; requesting WAIVER OF (1} PERMITTED USES, (2) PERMITTED SIGNS, AND (3) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TO ESTABLISH A REAL ESTATE OFFICE IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING SINGLE-FPMILY HOME on property described as: Rn irregularly-shaped parcel of land hav=ng a frontage of approximately 65 feet on the east side of Siesta Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 113 i feet, and being located at the southeast corner of Siesta Street and Sequoia Avenue, and further described as 946 North Siesta Street. Property presently classified R-l, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Temporary Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. Although•the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the file. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Apri7. 3, 1972 72-160 VARIANCE NO. 2342 (Continued) Mrs. Lillian Hays, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that since there were commercial uses around her property, she felt the request was approgriate. ~ Commissioner Allred noted that the petitioner proposed only four parking spacea and inquired whether or not the fifth one could be obtained through additional design. Mrs. Hays then presented revised plans that indicated a circular drive entering and exiting from Sequoia Avenue, and then in response to a question by Commis- sioner Kaywood, stated that ln the first plan they would have to remove a fence to reach the concrete slab in tha rear of the property, however, this was no longer necessary with the new circulation plan. Commissioner Rowland noted that the circular @rive appeared to be in the public right-of-way; whereupon Mrs. Hays stated that this was in their side lot line and was not in the public right-of-way. Commissioner Gauer noted that his major objection was the fact this would be spot zoning and would be breaking down the entire residential area by the proposed use; whereupon Mrs. Hays reiterated the fact that they were adjac~nt to a neighborhood shopping center known as Murray Manor. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the staff had never seen the plans presented by Mrs. Hays until they were presented to the Planning Commissian, therefore, they had not evaluated them. Commissloner Kaywood inquired of Mrs. Hays whether o~_nct she had six or seven neighbors waiting for approval of subject petition;~w7~uld also request commer- cial use of their property; whereupon Mrs. Hays stated she did not know but doubted very much that her neighbors would be requesting commercial zoning or commercial use of their properties. The Commission, in viewing a picture of the property, noted there was a sign over the door indicating that a notary service was in existence; whereupon Mrs. Hays stated that this notary sign had been there since the property was annexed from the County. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry stated that unrier the home occupation, some uses were permitted as a nonconforming use, however, if the use were to be expanded, then the sign as indicated an the property would have to be removed. Mr. Roberts advisPd the Commission that under law a notary was required to post a sign. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-63 and moved for its passage and adoption to deny Petition for Variance No. 2342 on the basis that this would be establishing spot zoning and would establish a precedent for similar requests from residents in this areat and that although subject property was adjacent to a shopping center, the use should be established in a commercial area. Furthermore, this area was not included by the Planning Commission and City Council in their adoption of the Study of Homes Fronting on Arterial Highways as being appropriate for commercial uses. Commissioner Rowland requested that an additional finding be made that in the interpretation of the law as it provides for a variance, the petitioner had not demonstrated th re were extraordinary circumstances or that the petitioner was being deprived~ right not enjoyed by other single-family homes in the area. Commissioner Allred concurred that this would be a part of his motion. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoiny resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CODIMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Raywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSSNT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, Seymour. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 3, 1972 72-161 VARIANCE NO. 2343 - PUBLIC HEARING. JOHN R. AND SANDRA L. HALAAM, 204 West South Street, Anaheim, California 92805, Owners; requesting WAIVER OF (1) MAXIMUM REAR YARD COVERAGE AND (2) MINIMUM REQUIRED REAR YARD DEPTH TO PERMIT A TWO-STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE on property described as: A rectangularly-sh'aped parcel of land being the southwest r.orner of South ard Lemon Streets, with frontages of 99 feet and 110 feet respectively, and further described as 204 West South Street. Property presently classified R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Temporary Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone presen~ in opposition and received no response. . Althouqh the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the file. Mr. John Balaam, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that since their children were growing up, it was necessary for each to have an individual bedroom, therefore, they were proposing to construct two additional bedrooms. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Xaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-64 and moved for its passage and adoption to granc Petition for Variance No. 2343, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Sook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COk1MISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, Seymour. RECESS - Cammissioner Allred offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten minutes. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meetinq recessed at 3:40 p.m. RECONVENE - Temporary Chairman Gauer reconvened the meeting at 3:50 p.m., Commissioners Allred, Gauer, Kaywood, and Rowland being present. VARIANCE NO. 2344 - PUBLIC HEARING. STEI,L= M. BRANDT, 914 West Lincoln Avenue. Anaheim, Calif:,snia 92805, Owner; M. G. KANNARD, 811 West Sycamore Street, Anaheim. California 92805, Agent; request- ing WAIVER OF PEI.MITTED OSES IN THE C-2 ZONE TO PERMIT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN AUTOMOHILE RADIATOR REPAIR AND SERVZCE SHOP on property described as: A rectangularly-shaped parcel of land havinq a frontage of approximately 52 feet on the east side of Anaheim Boulevard, having a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, and being located approximately 184 feet south of the cent~:rline of North Street, and further described as 746 North Rnaheim Boulevard. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Temporary Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the file. Mr. Gene Kannard, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that he had operated a radiator shop in the City of Anaheim for 27 years and now wanted to have his own building; that in addition to the uses set forth in the Report to the Commission, there was a general office repair business to the south and Frank Monnig general auto repair center was part uf the insurance company's property; and that he was available to answer any questions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Apr11 3, 1972 72-162 VARIANCE N0. 2344 (Continued) Commiseioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-65 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2344 on the basis that the petitioner demonstrated tl:ere were exceptional circumstances due to the fact that similar uses were establishe3 in close proximity, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, GaueT, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farsno. Herb~t, Seymour. VARIANCE NO. 2347 - PUBLIC HEARING. MR. AND MRS. A. B. HOFFART, 2417 West Broadway, Anaheimr ~~alifornia 9280A, Owness; ROYAL POOLS, 2305 South Manchester Avenue, Anaheim, California 92802, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MIIvI+SUM RSQJIRED FRONT SETBACK TO PERMIT CONSTRUC- TION OF A SWIMMING POOL IN THE FRGtiT YARD on property described as: A regularly- shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 70 feet on the north side of Broadway, having a msximum depth of approximately 100 feet, and being located approximately 244 feet west of the centerline of Gilbert Street, and further described as 2417 West Broadway. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Temporary Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the file. Mr. Andrew Hoffart, tne petitioner, appeared before the Commi~sion and noted that he was unaware of the fact that Broadway was an arterial highway, and an B-foot high wall could be built in the front setback. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that an 8-foot wall would be permitted in accordance with the adoption of the Study of Residential Homes Fronting on Arterial Highways, however, the variance was required, according to the City Attorney, because a swimming pool was proposed in the required front yard and was considered a structure. Mr. Hoffart stated that Royal Pools had advised him of the minimum distance the pool could be located fzom the front property line, however, now he was desirous of increasing this encroachment into the front yard setback. Commissioner Allred noted that the plans indicated the pool wauld be 8 feet from the front property line, and he would hope that the petitioner intended to construct the wa~l with a minimum landscaped setback of 5 feet. Mr. Hof~art replied that he had two large palm trees at each corner and planned additional landscapir.g in frunt o£ the wall, but he wanted to move the pool farther to the front. Commissioner Rowland noted that this would be a structural problem, and the Buildinq Department would require a given setback, however, he would be willing to allow the petitioner to use as much of his front yard as possible. but he would hope that the Commiss~on would not permit the wall to be constructed by right at the property ].ine and require that a given setback be provided, to- gether with additional landscaping, and since the petitioner had stipulated to providing landscaping in the setback area, this met the intent he was stating. Commissioner Allred offered Resc+lution No. PC72-66 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2347, subject to conditions and the stipulation of the petitioner to provide a 5-foot landscape setback in front of the wall, and that any location of the pool would be a requirement of the Building Code at the time the building permit was requested; and that it be subject to recommended conditions. (See Resolution Sook) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, Seymour. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 3, 1972 72-163 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. LOLA G. JONES, 4681 McCor!aack Lane, NO. 71-72-39 Placentia, California 92670, O~ner; JAMES ~. GROSE, 2535 Greenbriar Lane, Costa Mesa, California 92626, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly- shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 212 feet on the north side of Santa Ana Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 140 feet, and being located approximately 174 feet west of the centerline of Elder Street, and further descr3bed as 1601 Eas*. Santa Ana Street, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Temporary Chairman Gauer inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. Although the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the file. Mr. James Grose, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commis~ion and noted that he was requesting reclassification of the property to the R-1 Zone in order to construct three residences on the thsee lots, and that they were in accord with the recor~°ncied conditions set forth by staff. THE HEARING W:~S CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC72-67 and moved for its passage and :.doption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassifica- tion No. 71-72-39 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COhIMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, Seymour. REPORTS AND - ITEM NO. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-31 AND VARIANCE NO. 2333 (Wagner-Gittelson) - Request for clarification on maintenance of landscaping. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts presented to the Commission a request from the agent for the petitioner regarding conditions attach~d in the approval of subject petitions, and then read said conditions, noting the point which needed clarification was the intent of the Planning Commission as to the main- tenance of the landscaping required along the S-foot wall on the north side of Jamison Street, since it was staff's understanding, based on the conditions of the Interdepartmental Committee, that the 7.andscaping would be maintained by the property owner, Mr. Wagner, whose property was being scr~ened by this 8- foot wall, and that perhaps the agent for the petitioner would like to speak to the Commission regarding this. Mrs. 7~nn Madison, 600 South Harbor Boulevard, appeared before the Commission and noted that she did not want ttie petitioners to go before the City Council with any more striices against themt that they had understood from the Report to the Commission that Mr. Wagner had agreed to landscape maintenance if the wall were inset, however, now the developer was proposing a straight wall, and the parkway would be in the public right-of-way, therefore, Mr. Wagner did not want to have anything to do with this because this would be a real hardship for him to maintain it because of his age - 75 years. Commissioner Rowland noted that he wanted either Mr. Wagner or the developer to meintain the landscaping since he did not want the City to be forced to maintain this landscaped area in perpetuity any more than was required o£ any other project. tdrs. Madison noted that the reasan the street was so designed was in the event the Wagner property in the future were developed, homes could be built on a cul-de-sac, but the developer preferred backing up the homes to this street. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 3, 1972 72-164 ITEM NO. 1 (Continued) Commissioner Rowland noted that there were many hold-out parcels tiroughout the city that were becoming problem parcels for the City and their owners because they were held out without any thought being given to what miqht happen in the future - ten, twenty, or forty years from now. Mrs. Madison also noted that she had discussed the maintenance of the landscap- ing with Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance Ron Woll, who had advised her that all that was needed was a one-inch line so that staff could turn on the water for these trees during the summer, since they were not watered in the winter, and since they would be watering the parkway on Sunkist Street, it would not be difficult to turn on these few sprinklers. Commissioner Rowland noted that waiver of this requirement would be out of the jurisdiction of the Commission, ~ot~g~~ ,e Cit~~ay for the water and labor for these trees, although :i-..~~-i+3a tiwaar-------g that Commissioner Seymour stated he did not want Mr. Wagner to maintain the parkway. Commissioner Kaywood stated it was her intent that Mr. Wagner maintain the landscaping. Mrs. Madison noted she wanted this to be made clear so that they would have reason Eor requesting this to be waived when it was considered by the City Council. Mr. Rok,erts noted that if these trees were along an arterial highway, the City would assume maintenance responsibility, h~wever, in recent months the City Council had added a condition in their approval of certain tracts and reclassi- fications that they would reserve the right to maintain the lands~aoing, and that in the past the City had ne~.er maintained landscaping on local streets. Mr. Roberts, in response to a question by Commissioner Rowland, stated that certain of the Councilmen had expressed concern as to the expense in maintain- ing parkways, therefore, their thinking might be there would be alternatives. Mrs. Madison stated that they would be glad to install whatever the Superin- tendent of Parkway Maintenance suggested. Commissioner Kag~qodwstate it was her recollection that the Engineer, Mr. Queyrel, stated ~wo maintain the landscaping, and that she thought this was in exchange for permitting an 8-foot wall. Mrs. Madison noted that this maintenance would not be practical for Mr. Waqner to take care oE the landscaping since he cauld not see it, and the Wagner property had nothing to do with the subdivision of the other property. Commissione~: Gauer inquired whether or not the Commission had a right to con- sider the izquest; whereupon Mr. Roberts stated that Mrs. Madison was only askinq whether the Commission intended to have the last sentence deleted as it pertained to Mr. Wagner maintaining the landscaping adjacent to the wall. Commissioner Gauer was of the opinion that this should be the prerogative of the City Council as to who would maintain this landscaping. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to request that staff bring the Commis- sion's discussion on the maintenance of the landscaping on the north side of Jamison Street adjacent to the 8-foot wall before the C:Lty Council, requesting that the City Council make the determination as to the responsibility for said maintenance. since the cost ratio factor was not within the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kaywood seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 3, 1972 72-165 ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1294 (Miller-Smith) - 201 West Ball Road - On-sale liquor with waivers - Staff request for clarif.ication of use granted by the resolution: whether for one year or whether by riqht; whether or not the use of the residence was denied or whether the residence could be used for rental purposes for one year, with the right to request additional time. 2oninq Supervisor Charies Roberts presented the request of staff for clarifica- tion of the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 1294 as to the intent of the Planning Commission, and then reviewed the resolution as prepared, noting the reason why ••aiver of the required scae3nfootds~~pinoftlandscaping Was qranted, time limitation allowed for providing P adjacent to t:~e right-of-way and 28 in the parking area. Discussion was held by the Commission and staff regarding the use and the Commission's intent, Commissioner Rowland being of t: ~pinion that the use for on-sale liquor be consinered a permanent use; that L,ie waivers for use of the residence and landscaping requirement were, in effect, denied, but the petitioner was given one year to terminate use of the residence for residential purposes and 15 months for completion of the landscaping requirement, which would mean that the residence would have to be removed in order to meet the 28 landscaping requirement in the rear parking area.. Furthermore, Commissioner Gauer requested that the bar be screened from the dining area as had been re- quired in the past wher.e a combination of a bar and dining area were proposed. Commissioner Kaywood noted sY.e had voted against the proposei use because the petitioner was already building a bar, therefore, it would appear that the petitioner and agent were presuming the Commission would approve the request. Mr. Roberts then restated the Commission's intent by stating that the request for on-sale liquor was granted; that waiver 1-a, residential use of the exist- ing residence, was denied on the basis that it was an inap~ropriate land use. however, the Planning Commission granted the petitioner one year to discontinue the rental use of the structure; that waivers 1-b and 1-d were denied on the basis that there was adequate area to provide parking to the rear of the build~• ing, thereby utilizing a portion of the front parking area for the required landscaping, however, the Commission granted the petitioner 15 months to comply with these landscape requirements since the petitioner stipulated that the land- scaping would be iastalled within said period of time; and that waiver 1-c, requiring landscaping betwaen the commercial and residential uses, was granted on the basis that the 10-foot wa11 0£ the carports on the R-3 units adequately separated the two uses. Furthermore, that the bar shall be screened from the dining area. The Commission advised Mr. Roberts that this was their action in approving Conditional Use Permit No. 1294. ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE P~RMIT N0. 1289 (Western Avenue Baptist Church-Don Fears, Architect) - Request for clarification regarding stipulation in the minutes on relocation of the covered parking spaces and number of covered parking spaces required. 2oning Supervisor Charles Roberts presented a request from the architect for the proposed Western Avenue Baptist Church establishment for elderly residents regarding having stipulated as set forth in the minutes regarding relocation of a portion of tne covered parking spaces in order to relieve the tunnel effect and relocating them on the site - the architect said the point of confusion appeared to be removal of the covered stalls, but to permit parking, however, the minutes and the resolution set forth that 53 parking spaces would be required. Therefore, he requested the Planning Commission's clarification. ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOti, April 3, 1972 72-166 Commissioner Rowland stated it was his opinion that the architect stated he would relocate a portion of the covered parking stalls. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel stated that the architect's figures stated that 53 parking stalls were not necessary. Mr. Roberts noted that the reason this was presented to ttie Commission without a report was because the architect had submitted plans for a building permit, and upon checking the plans against what was approved by the Commission, it was determined that the plans in the Suilding Department did not provide the required 53 parking stalls, although some of the covered stalls had been relocated, the spaces where they were formerly located were taken up with open parking. Commissioner Rowland then stated that if the petitioner did not wish to meet the conditions of approval of the resolution for Conditional t)se Permit No. 1289 as had been granted at a public hearing, he would have to present this at another adve-tised public hearing. Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry advised the Commission that sinae Condittonal Use Permit No. 1289 was considered at a public hearing, any amendnents or deletions of conditions would have to be considered at a public hearing. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts advised the Commission that any future items brought under Reports and Recommendations for clarification woulc. be accompanied by a copy of the minutes and thp resolution, together with a printed report, in order that the Commission might be fully apprised of what was being requested. ITEM NO. 4 STREET LIGHT STANDARDS IN THE SANTA ANA CANYON AREA. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed for the Commission the proposal which had been presented to the Commission at the March 20, 1972 meeting regarding establishing by policy street lig{henPlanninVeCommissi neim Hills as a standard for Santa Ana Canyon, however, 4 requested pictures of the lights and allow time for the Commission to consider the proposal. Commissioner Rowland stated he was not interested in cost figures which sppeared in the report, since this fell within the jurisdictiori of the City Council. Furthermore, he could not vote for it since it was his belief that the source of light needed no glorification - it was the light itself that was of utmost importance, and if he voted for this proposal, he would be unable to face his staff because of his previous statements regarding lights. Commissioner Kaywood noted that she was personally disappointed in t.he develop- ments being offered by Anaheim Hills - Grant Corporation - with all the waivers that were requested, they aere not developing anything beautiful, therefore, there was no reason to consider lights. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted that the City Council had already approved i:hese lights for Anaheim Hills, however, staff felt that they should also be required of other developments throughout the canyon. The Commission was of the ~pinion that this should be presented to the Commission at the next meeting when a full Commission would be present, rather than with only a minimum quorum. Therefore, they would suggest that this be re-scheduled for the April 17 meeting. ADJOURNMENT FOR DINNER - Commissioner Allred offered a mction to adjeurn for dinner. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. RECONVENE - Chairman Farano reconvened the meeting at 7:33 p.m., Commissioners Herbst, Rowland, and Seymour being absent . \ ~ ~ J • r MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Apr~l 3, 1972 72-167 AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE COMMISSION to consider amendments to Title 18, Chapters 18.26, R-2-5000 Zone and site development standards of Chapters 18.13, R-H-10,000, Residential Hillsidej 18.18, R-E, Resi3ential Estate; 18.20, R-O, One-Family Sub- urban; and 18.24, R-1, One-Fami].y Residential, Zones. Chairman Farano noted that since three of the Commissioners were not present at the hearinq, it was the opinion of the remaining Commissioners that the public hearing not be he].d and evidence not presented either by staff or interested persons, par*_icularly since these amendments were of utmost importance and should have the feelings of a full Commission expressed bef~re submitting any recommendations to the City Council. However, if there were any comments from interested persons regarding the continuance of these amendments. the Commission would be glad to hear them. Mr. Larry Matzick, representing Ponderosa Homes, 2082 Businesa Center Drive, Newport Beach, appeared before the Commission and stated that regardless of whether the Commission considered these amendments at this meeting or at a future meeting. he would like to have staff present the proposed changes in order that it might enable some of the developers to bring in some presentation at the next hearing. Chairmar. Farano stated that the Commission would be interested in anything the developers had to say and any special information they could submit would be of interest to the Commission, but in fairness to all, it would be difficult to hear this in parts and pieces - this was the only reason why he did nbt want staff to make their presentation, rherefore, he could not see any reason why Mr. Matzick could not convey some of the thinking to staff so that staff could incorporate it into their presentation. Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that it was his understanding that Mr. Matzick wanted the information staff had presented at this meeting. Chairman Farano then noted that there was a quorum present, and the hearing could be opened. However, if Mr. Matzick was not cognizant of the information which staff made available to the Commission, this could be presented to him. Mr. Matzick noted that he was in the process of completing the engineering of a very large project on the north side of Santa Ana Canyon Road, and they wou?d soon be ready for the building pads and housing designs, therefore, if staff could comm.nt, this would be appreciated since his company was committed to develop in accordance with what the Planning Commission and City Council might adopt, and it would be helpful to know whzt staff's thinking was, and that he was present basically to obtain further information. Chairman Farano then stated that this was not a game, because the Planning Commission had been very concerned about the manner '_n which R-2-5000 develop- ments had been carried forward and consummated in Anaheim, and the amendment to Title 18 was the result of the Planning Commission's thinking and their concerted effort to improve the overall living environment of the residents in the R-2-5000 home=, and there was no reason why Mr. Matzick was not entitled to hear the information to be presented to the Commission in advance in order that he could present something that could be of benefit to the Commission, therefore, he would suggest that staff read ~ hat was proposed. Assistant Development Se.rvices Director Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that all developers of R-2-5000 homes in Anaheim and potential developers, as well as the B.I.A. and homeowners group~, had been sent a copy of the proposals which the Commission was given. Chairman Farano then stated that since the developers had copies of the propos- als, there would be no reason for reading them. Mr. Ron Dickerson, representing Grant of California, stated he was interested in how this amendment would affect the R-H-10,000 Zone since they were in the grading stage. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, ApXil 3, 1972 72-168 AMENDMENT TO_TITLE 18, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE (Continued) Mr. Thompson noted that the site development standards of the residential zones were being considered because the Planning Commission and City Council had expressed concern regarding the distance between the garages and the front right-of-way line, particularly where a driveway went straight in from the street, and in the event a change was made to the minimum required setback of the garages in the R-2-5000 Zone, it would also affect the other residential zones. Chairman Farano then noted that it would appear that if the developer was already grading, there might be a question of legal interpretation as to whether or not any site development standard amendments would be affecting property already in the first stages of deve~opment. Mr. Dickerson stated that they would like to conform to the City standards as much as possible. Chairman Farano advised developers that it was the opinion of the City Attorney that those developments which had not begun construction would be affected by the new ordinance, notwithstanding the fact that there may have been variances granted before, and then inquired of Deputy City Attorney Frank Lowry whether or not this would constitute zoning if a c.lient was in the grading stage. Mr. Lowry stated that it was extremely di£ficult to answer the questior_ since he did not know ~ahat the Commission or City Council might do. Chairman F•arano noted that since Mr. Dickerson had stated they were already grading, did this legally constitute commencement of construction? t4r. Lowry stated it would depend upon what the outcome was of the Planning Commission and City Council action and official ordinance of the City, however, as a general rule, one would be safe in followiny the opinion of Mr. Geisler, since work had proceeded at this point the new zoning would not agply, but this was a general rule. Mr. Dickerson noted that Chapter 18.13, R-E, Residential Hillside, Zone indicated where cars could be parked, and they had designed in accordance. However, if thev were affected by the proposed zoning, they would have to redesign all four of their tracts. Chairman Farano then apologized for placinq Mr. Dickerson's client in a predica- ment and recommended that he contact the City Attorney's office for clarification of this. Mr. Dickerson replied that they had a clear understanding since they had already discussed this with the City Attorney and the Development Services Pepartment, and what he was concerned about was the four tracts falling within the precepts of the new interpretation, and that he was opposed to any continuance and would prefer having staff present ±he new proposals. A showing of hands indicated that the majority of the persons present to conslder the proposed amendments to Title 18 would pre£er an evening agenda. Commissioner Kaywood offered a motion to continue consideration of Amendment to Tit12 18, Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapters 18.13, 18.18, 18.20r 18.24, and 18.26 to the meeting of April 17, 1972, to be scheduled at 7:30 p.m. in order to allow a full Commission to be present. Commissioner Allred seconde~?. the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ~ ~ MZNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMTSSION, April 3, 1972 72-169 CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS & JOINERS PERMIT NO. 1300 OF AMERICA - LOCAL UNION N•~. 2203, Attention C. M. Oldham, f,08 West Vermont Avenue. Anaheim, California 92805, Owner; requesting permission to ESTASLISH AN EXISTING UNION HALL AS A CONFORMING USE AND PERMIT ITS EXPANSION on property described as: A regularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 3 acres, having a frontage of approximately 195 feet on the south side of Vermont Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 40Q feet, and being located approximately 592 feet west of the centerline of Harbor Boulevard, and turther described as 608 West Vermont Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition and received no response. A).though the Report to the Commission was not read at the public hearing, it is referred to and made a part of the file. Mr. C. M. Oldham, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the recommended conditions were acceptable to them, and the proposal was to add an addition to the side of the present structure; that the appearance and uses would be the same as before and the public meeting place would not be enlarged; that it would not increase the traffic into the area; and that there would be no larger groups than had been +itilizing the facility in the past. A letter of opposition from a nearby property owner was read to the Commission. Mr. Oldham noted that when they had applied in 1956, this same person had objected to the use with the same objection; that the hall was rented out for various activities, but some of the activities were opposed by this person because ef the noise, and this had been more or less eliminated; that although many people were involved and used this facility, he did not feeZ there was any rowdyism; that they had very good relations with the Police Department and have always complied with any suggestions made by the Police and Traffic Departments; that some groups to whom they had rented previously had b::en eliminated because of suggestiuns made by the Police Department; and then in response to a question by Commissioner Gauer, stated that some of the Mexican groups had meetings on Sunday, usually all day, and completed them by 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Gauer inquired whether or not people renting this facility brought in their own liauor; whereupon Mr. Oldham stated that as far as he knew, only beer was brought because the City and ABC would be checkir.g this; and that they did not serve liquor on the premises. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-68 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1300, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Rowland, Seymour. RECLASSIFICA~fION - PUBLIC HEARING. PELTZER~ SPRAGUE, SKELTON~ ROSSETTO~ AND NO. 71-72-38 PELTZER. c/o Mrs. Urban C. Peltzer, 5138 Serrano Street, Orange, California 92627, OwnersJ NELOW DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, COt3DITIONAL USE 17411 Irvine Boulevard, Suite N, Tustin, California 92680, PERMIT NO. 2346 Agent; property described as: An irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 4.3 acres located at the southeast corner of Crescent Avenue and the Santa Ana Free- way, having a frontage of approximately 575 feet on Crescent Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ~ ~,.. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 3, 1972 72-170 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-38 AND C~NDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 2346 (Continued) REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF (1) MAXItdUM IiEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEET OF SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING~ ~2) MINIMUM REQUIRED LANDSCAPED FRONT SETBACK~ AND (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE SETWEEN COVERED PARKING SPACES AND DWELLING UNITS TO PERMIT A 98-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. Chairman Farano inquired whether there was anyone present in opposition, and a sho~ving of hands indicated two persons present. Assistant Zoning Supervisor pon McDaniel reviewed the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, and the proposal to construct a 98-unit, one and two-story multiple-family residential development on tY.e entire property; that the plans indicated a perimeter dri~e providing access to the parking areas that would enter from and exit to Crescent Avenue; that the Anaheim General Plan indicated the area in question as being appropriate for medium density residential development, and the R-3 2one was one of those zones that would implement this designation, therefore, it would appear that the zoning proposed for the property would be appropriate; that the wziver of the maximum height within 150 feet of single-family residential zone was being requested because one unit would be located 132 feet from the R-1 property to the east, and the remainder of the 97 units would be more than 150 feet from the R-1 Zone; that the density proposed was approximately 24.87 dwelling units per net acre, or 1753 square feet of net land area per dwelling unit, and the coverage was approximately 41$; that the waiver of the front setback was neaessary because the applicant was proposing to construct a carport within 150 feet of the north- erly property line along Crescent Avenue, however, the pruperty line at one point was offset approximately 10 feet, rendering th~ 15-£oot setback, in actuality, 25 feet from the major portion of the right-of-way line along Crescent Avenue; that the waiver was also necessary because the applicant was proposing to provide guest parking within 15 feet of the front property line along the easterly boundary of the property, and it would appear that based on the circumstances inv~lved in this application and the size and shape of the parcel, this request would be appropriate; that waiver of the maximum distance between the units and parking stalls was being requested for 16 of the 98 units - these would be 16 units near the Crescent Avenue frontage in the center of the project, and it would be di.fficult with the size and shape of the particular property involved to provide parking stalls any closer without dividing the site with vehicular accessways, and the obvious conflicts of vehicular and pedestrian traffic would seem to outweight the inconvenience of providing parking within 200 feet of these 16 units, therefore, the Commission might wish to consider this proposal to be an appropriate land use and the waivers to be appropriate for this parti- cular site plan. Mr. Joseph Woollett, representing the agent and architect for the petitioner, 3111 Second Avenue, Corona del Mar, appeared before the Commission and stated that it was their opinion this was a qood use for the property; that the car- ports proposed adjacent to the freeway formed a good buffer, and it would be unfartunate if single-family d_velopment occurred at that site; that the site was irregular, and it would be an unfortunate situation if they were required to divide the parcel in order to locate the 16 units closer than 200 feet; and that only one unit violated the 150-foot, single-story height regulation, and this was the corner section of the unit where no windows would be overluoking the single-family home. Mr. Loyal Pumphrey, 1830 Westmont Drive, appeared before the Commission, noting that he also was opposed to the 98-unit apartment development whicl: Lynn Thomsen had previously presented; that he was not opposed to the single unit infringing on the single-story height limitation adjacent to R-1, however, he had no oppor- tunity to view the plans since he had been on vacation, therefore, he was not sure whether he was opposed to the variances b~ing requestec:. The Commission then suggested that the agent for the petitioner review the plans with the opposition. Mr. Pumphrey, upon reviewing the plans, stated that the plans were more accept- able than those previously presented since the developer was providing a better living environment, more landscaping, an3 proper circulation, therefore, he would withdraw his opposition. ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ ApY11 3~ 1972 72-171 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 71-72-38 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2346 (ContinLed) THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether or not the developer was proposing any type of soundpxoofing because of the location of this facility adjacent to the freeway. Mr. Gus Lyon, representing the developer, appeared before the Commission and stated that they had a number of large developments which they had constructed along freeways, and in this instance they wauld provide a parapet on the car- port and would place very heavy insulation on all apartment units near the freeway; and that their most recent development in Anaheim were the Greenview units wherein they provided both landscaping and soundproofing, which appeared to be very desirable. Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolution No. PC72-69 and moved for its passage and adoption to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 71-72-38 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Rowland, Seymour. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC72-70 and moved for its passage and adoption to grant Petition for Variance No. 2346, subject to findings and conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood. NOES: COMMISSIONEk:,: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Rowland, Seymour. ADJOURNMENT - There beinq no further business to discuss, Commissioner Allred offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ei~~~ ~~~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission AK:hm 0 R C 0 MICROFiLMING SERVICE, INC. '.Olu lacy F.c. 776~32Zu nn.,nc,m. G~!~+ornia