Minutes-PC 1963/05/27T ~ . S
~
!r; ~~ '
i
,
O ~ ~
City Hall
Anaheim, California
May 27, 1963
RHGULAR I~ffiSTING OF THH ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISSION
R8G[JLAA M88TING - A Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was
called to order by Chairman A3unga1l at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., a
quoru~e being present.
p,RBSBNT - CHAIRMAN: Mungall
- COhAlISSIONBRS: Camp, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
AB3SNT - COhA~tISSION~tS: Alired, Chavos, Gauer, Pebley.
H,~BNT - ZONING COORDINATOR: Martin Kreidt.
DSPUTY CITY ATTORNBY: Purman Rober.ts,
pIAHIVING COMMISSION SBCRSTARY: Ann Rrebs.
INVOCATION - Reverend Stanley Herber, Pastor of the Anaheim Pree Methodist
Church, gave the Invocation.
PLSDGB OP - Commissioner Perry led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Plag.
ALLHGIANCH
APPROVAL OF - The Minutes of the meeting of May 13, 1963, were approved as
THE MINUTBS submitted.
INTRODUCTION OP - Chazrman Mungall introduced the new Commissione~ Dan Rowland,
THB stating that as an architect, Commissioner Rowland would add
NHW COhAlI3SIONBR his experience to the Cormnission in determining the adequ:~cq
of plans being submitted for the Commission's consideration.
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC F~ARIhG. ISABBL P0.STBR GAMBLB, 3067 Orange Avenue, Anaheim,
PHRMIT N0. 401 California, Owner; JAMSS J. WOODS, 13421 Olive Street, Westminster,
Cal.ifornia, Agent; requesting permission to BSTABLISH A RHST HOMB
on property described as: An irregular parcel of land having a
frontage of 171 feet on the north s...: of Orange Avenue and an aversge depth of 345
feet, 4he easterly boundary of said propertg~ being approximately 1170 feet west of the
centerline of Beach Boulevard, and further d~~scribed as 3067 West Orange Avenue.
ProQerty presently classified as R A, RBSIDENT7AL AGRICULTURAT., ZONB. • -
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of April 15, 1963, to permit the
petitioner an oppoitunity to submit revised plans.
Mr. James Woods, agent for the petitioner~appeared before the Commission and stated
that he was available to answer any questions.
2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt advised the Commission that revised plans had bean
submitted and were a considerable improvement, whereupon the Commission reviewed the
plans. ~
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Ttffi HBARING Wr13 CL0.SBD.
- 1584 -
_.__ .______.___.__....__ __._..__.._. _____~.______ ________.___.___
____--~-
-.--~ , ~~--._~.~ -.
i'
l
s
~
~
~
,~
MINUTB3~ CITY PLANNING CONAfISSION, May 27, 1963, Continued; 1585
CONDITIONAL USH - Commissioner Allred entered the Council Chamber at 2:10 P.M.
PBRMIT N0. 401
(Continued) Commissioner perry offered Resolution No, 771, Series 1962-63, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp,
to grant Betition for Conditional Use permit No. 401, subject to
con3itions, (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AY83: COAAiISSIONBRS: Camp, Mungall, perry,Rowland, Sides.
NOB3: COhAfISSIONBRS: None,
ABSBNT: COhAlISSIONBRS: Chavos, Gauer, Pebley,
ABSTAIN: COhAlISSIONBRS: Allre3.
RBCIA3SIPICATION - CONTINUBD pUBLIC HBARING. BMPIRB PINANCIAL CORPORATION,
N0. 62-63~64 6750 Van Nuys Boulevard, Van Nuys, California, Owners; property
described as; 1Wo rectangular portions of land, Portion "A"
CONDITIONAL USB having a frontage of 333 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue,
PffitMIT N0. 357 and a depth of 255 feet; Portion "B" having a width of 333 feet
and a depth of 1,019 feet, the northerly boundary of Portion "B"
TBNTATNB MAP OP being adjacent to the southerly boundary of Portion "A'~; and the
TRACT N0. 4230 easterly bouadary of Portions "A" and "B" being approximately
660 feet west of the centerline of Beach Boulevard. Property
presently classified R-A, RHSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTfktAL, Z'ONB.
Subject petitions and Tenative Map of Tract No. 4230 were continued from the meetings
of Pebr~ary 4, 18, and March 18, April 15, and 29, 1963, at tlie request of the
petitioner.
ABQUHSTBD CLp3SIPICATION: C-1, NHIGHBORHOOD CQhP1BRCIAL, ZONH for Portion "A", and
R-3, MULTIPLH PAMILY RHSIDHNTIAL, 20NH for portion "B".
RHQUBSTBD CONDITIONAL USE: TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY PLAIYNBD MULTIPLH FAMILY
RBSIDBNTIAL DBVBLOPMBNT AND WAIVBR OF THB SINGLB STORY
HHIGHT LIMITATION FOR PQltTION "B".
3UBJBCT TRACT CONTAINS: Thirty-three (33) proposed R-3, MULTTPE.E AAMILY
RBSIDffiITIhL, and one (1) proposed C-1, NBIGHBQRHOOD
COMMffitCIAL, ZONH lots.
Mr. Jack Hintz, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, and
stated that revised plans had been submitted, as we11 as, having met with the City
Attorney's office to resoive the matter of financing the maintenance af the common
area.
Deputy City Attorney Purman Roberts advised the Commission that the proposed develcpment
was a hybrid type of a condominium; that each lot with 4 units would be under the
ownership of one person who would maintain the area around said 4 units; that the co~amon
area would be the portion in the center; that although the petitioaers had met with the
City Attorney~s office nothing had been resolved; that th~ proposed development was a
new c~ncept of developing property in the City; that subject petition would set the
precedent for any future condominium type of planned residentiai deveiopments; that it
was the City~s desire to approach the solution of the CC&R's carefully in order not to
misinterpret the City's requirements for future condominium developments; and that the
petitioners stated in their discussion wxth the City Attorney~s office that some type
of fund would be set up with some money beittg placed into it to carry over the
maintenance costs until after completion of the development at which time the assess-
ments against each uni± would be added to the fund for continued maintenance of the
common area.
Zoning Coordinator Martin &reidt stated that the only guarantee for the care of the
common area would be subject to the approval of the City qttorney and the City Council,
and that the Commission could approve subject petitions subject to their approval,
-•~
V ~ ~
. , r , ~
;;,
~ ~ . ?~
" MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CC1M~lISSION, May 27, 1963, Continued; 1586
RSCLA3SIFIG:TION - The Commission reviewed the evidence presented and noted that the
N0. 62-63-64 subdivised lots would not be substandard if the common area were
included; that waiver of the single story construction was asked
CONDITIONAY. USB because of construction be proposed adjacent to residential
PBRMIT N0. 357 agricultural zoned property to the west and east; that the property
to the east was technically zoned R A, but had been approved
~ THNTATIVB MAP OF ra::ent~y for multiple family development, and was only awaiting the
; 1RACT N0. 4230 reading of an ordinance.
(Continued)
~ Mr. Rreidt, in answer to one of the Commissionerrs statements,
~ advised the ~,ommission that compution of the lot size was made
~ through the attempt of taking th~e alley^ as part of the green area, and that entrance
~ to the garages was through the '~c3:;ster entrance'~,
Mrs. A. Pfeil, 3064 West Lincoia Avenue, one of the owners of the property immediately
adjacent to the west of subject property, appeared before the Commission and stated
that if the petitioners were in agreement with the City as to the maintenance of the
common area and the proposed ownership of each building and iot, she would not be
opposed to it, but that she was being forced to develop her property for multiple
family use, and did not wish to be jeopardized by any non-maintenance of the adjacent
property at the time she planned on developing her property.
The Commission continued their discussion with Mr. Roberts reiative to the CC&R's ~nd
the maintenance of the common a=ea, noting that various ideas and concepts had.been
explored and discuased, but that no specific plan had been proposed.
Mr. Howa:d Fry, an officer for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
reviewed with the Commission his d.iscussion with the City Attorney~s office noting
that ha had understood that if any further problems arose relative to adequate CC&R's
that these would be resol~ed by the petitioner and the City Attorney's office prior
to the petition being considered by the City Council.
No one else appeared in opposition.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
Mr. Kreidt reviewed the findings by the Planning Department noting that the calculated
density for sr~bject property was 20.3 units per net residential acre, or a 40% coverage,
that ih e~,:cp~~23 density was compatible evith that being projected on the proposed
General Plan, and that it would also be compatible to the standard R-3, Multiple
Pamily Residenlial, Zoned development recently approved by the Commission.
The Commission compared the tentativ2 tract map with the p2ot plan noting the
discrepency between the two, and expressed the opinion that the plot plan be super-
imposed on the tract map to indicate the correlation of the two plans; that there were
many differencAs in opinion as to the adequately funded maintenance of the common
area; that it should be the prerogative of the Commission to resolve all these
differen~es before referring the petitions to the City Council; that subject property
was pzeperly Seing develroped for multiple family use,~but thaf the proposed concept was
too new not to exhaust all ramifications for future condominiums proposed for the City;
that the plot plan indicated t&a4 tlie lot lines would be separated in the center of
the property extending to the rear lot line to within one foot of the proposed structures;
t ~ a± t h e - e q u irCd i;t sizes were less than the 72U0 square feet and 8000 square feet
for corner lots; that some of the front yard setbacks were 15 feet, and some less; and
that although many of the problems the Commission faced relative to s~bject pet~.tions,
it still was a planned unit development with the addition of the CC&R sestrictions for
the maintenance of the common area,
_ ____ __...' ___........
. . . _ . _... ~..._-..-._-,......_
,.,., .~ 1 ..._...f,_._.~_._......._._..--,------ ~ .• -.._ _.. _ .._
~:
~
~
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING COb9dISSION, May 27, 1963, Continued:
~
1587
RBCLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 772, Series 1962~63, and
N0. 62-63-64 moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Sides,
to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassific.^.tion
CONDITIONAL US8 No. 62~63-64 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution
YBRMIT N0. 357 Book.)
TBNTATIVB MAP OF On roll cail the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
TRACT N0. 4230 vote;
(Continued)
AYB3: CQ~9KI3SIONffitS: Alired, Camp, Mungali, Perry, Rowland, 3ides.
NOH3: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
ABSBNT: COhAlI3SIONBRS: Chavos. Gauer, Pebley.
Discussion was continued by the Commission on the possibility of approving
Revised Tentative Map of Traet No. 4230 and Conditional U~e ~ermit No. 357, relative
to requiring that ail lots conform to R-3 Code requirements.
Mr. Rreidt stated that when subject petitions were filed earlier in the year~ the
developers had proposed an entirely different type of development than had been
considered previously; that subject de~~elopment did not meet many of the R-3 require-
ments at that time, but was now cunsidered a hybrid type o£ R-3 development; that the
Plannin¢ Denartment had been strivina since then to formulate standards for the carious
types of multiple family developments; that the proposed 3evelopment offered streets
instead of alleys for garage access; that the development also was trying to establish
more green area by intermittent access to garages; that this was a part of the
development prob2em in addition to their CC&R's problems; that since this development
might set the pattern for future condominiums, to permit the waiver of the minimum lot
width might open the door for continuous requests for substandard lot widths for all
multiple family developmeats; that the Coamission might consider increasiag the 1~+t
widths. but not the depthe; that a variable front yard setback might present a mor2 •
compatible living environment; that by revising the tract map the law of trespass vras
minimized; and that it might be a more compatible living environment if inat~ad of one
street down the center of the development a fully improved street down the west side of the
deve Eopma:ir: with a half etreet on the east side~ and then the easterly multiple
family de~*~lopment could complete the other half of the street, thus eliminating all
the traffic flowing from one street onto Lincoln Avenue.
Mrs. A. Pieii stated that traffic on Lincoln AvPnue flowiag east from Beach Boulevard
would be greatly increased with 3ust one street emptying onto Lincoln Avenue, thus
creating more hazards than before.
Commiasioner Gauer entered the Council Chamber at 2:45 P.M.
The Commission diacussed the method of accesa to the garages that the petitioners
proposed with minimum 25-foot turniag radius, that aome parking other than in garages
would be aeceasary for guests; that the plans indicated varying lot width waiver
requtrementa; that complete development ehouid coneiat of lot widthe which comply
with Code requirementa, althougti it was aot neceasary to increase the depth of the
lots; that a reduction in the number of unita being proposed would be necessaxy, but
the cocamon area would remain; aad that a specific plaa for financing and maintei:ance
of the common area should be presented to the City Attorney~s office before being
considered by :he Commisaion.
Tf~ HHARING WAS CL04HD.
Commissioner Chavos entered the Council Chamber at 2:55 P.M.
Considerable discussion was then held between the petitioner's repreaentative, the
Co~ission aad Mr. Roberts relative to the beat means possible for presentation of
plans for the mainteuance and the CC&R's needed, at whieh time the petitionez etated
that the proposed lot sizes would be reviaed to indicate Code requirements; that
plans would be auperimpoaed on the tract mnp to iadicste the relaL3aaship of the plana
with the tract map, and that a legai document would be preaent~d to the City Attorney
indicatiag the proposed maiatenance of the common area, which would insure perpetuity
in the care of said a*ea.
~
I
__. ..._ . _.. ._ ._ . ._ --- - -
----- ----. . . _ _ ._ ._. _, - --~- __ _
~ ~~'- --..._ ~__. __ r~. r~ . . _. . ___. ,
1
_ ' . , ~.
~i ~~ ~ '
MINYTTHS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 27, 1963, Continued: 1588
RHC?11SSIPICIITION - Commissioner Perry offered a motion to continue Petition for
NG. 62-63-64 Conditional Use Permit No. 357 and Tentative Map of Tract Ivo. 4230
to the meeting of June 24, 1963, in order that the petitionec
CONDITIONAL USB might have sufficient time to submit a revised map indicating lots
PffitMIT N0. 357 which meet Code requirements as to width; that said map shal.l have
superimposed upon it the plans of development, and that CC&R's be
TENTATIVB MAP OF submitted to the City Attorney for approval which wouid guarantee
2RACT N0. 4230 the maintenance of the common area by perpetuity. Commissioner
(Continued) Sides seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
The petitioner stipulated that he wou13 like to have Tentative
Map of Tract No. 4~30 continaed until the meeting of June 24, 1963, in order that it
might be con3idered in conjunction with Conditional Use Permit No. 357.
CONDITIONAL USH - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HHARING. CHARLIB N, and MAB P. BROCK, 3133 Orange
PBRMIT N0. 381 Avenue, and MINOHtU and MATSUH SHIOTA, 3139 Orange Avenue, Anaheim,
California, Owners; CARL HHLVHDBRB, BBMA INVHSTMBNT COI~ANY, INC.,
2101 West ~dinger, Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting
permission to CONSIRUCT A SINGLB ST(YtY PIANNBD MULTIPLS FAMILY
RBSIDBNTIAL DHVBLOPMHNT WITH CARP~tTS AND OPBN PARKING - WAIVB FRONT YARD AND PARKING
RHQUIRBMHNTS on property described as: Two irregular parcels of land located on the
northes-st corner of Orange and Western Avenues. PARCffi. N0. 1 having a frontage of
240 feet on the east side o£ Western Avenue, and 320 feet on the north side of the
~.$ab'v a v:C'.~a. Piv :C~. .~.C~.^.SC~ ~.ti1•°.SlT!°1. 9~RC~ NQ. 7 haar_noe a F_nn~apo_ :F Sfll~ Fnu± n~ 4hn„
northjside of the Carbon Creek Plood Control Channel, and an approximate depth of 300
feet, the westerly bour.dary of Parcel No. 2 being adjacent to the easterly boundary of
Parcel No. 1, and further described as 3133 and 3139 Orange Avenue. Property presently
ciassified as R-A, RHSIDHNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB.
Subject petition was continued from the meetings of April 1, 15, and 29, 1963, at the
request of the petitioner, in order that complete plot plans might be submitted.
Zon.ing Coordinator Maztin Kreidt, rev.iewed for the Commission the meeting held
between the developer and his engineer, the City Attorney's office representatives and
a representative of the Planning Department relative to recommended requirements for
subject pet.ition, and that at conclusion of the meeting, the developer requested an
additional extension of four weeks to comply with the r~ecommended changes.
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use
permit No. 381 to the meeting of June 24, 1963, in order to permit the petitioner
sufficient time to submit plans in conformance with suggested changes made by the
City`s representatives. Commissioner Camp seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
COI~IDITIONAL USB - CONTINUHD PUBLIC HHARING. R0.SBLLA M. TILTON, 517 Bast Sycamore
PffitMIT NO. 411 Street, and BDWARD W. and VIOLA F. STBINBRINEC, 802 South Gilbuck,
Anaheim, California, Owners; GHRALD L. CASB, 14142 Clarissa Lane,
Santa Ana, California, Agent; requesting permission to CONSIRUCT
A ZWO (2) STOAY PLANI3HD RSSIDSNTIAL DHYBLOPMHNT WITH CARPORTS on property descsibed
as: An L-shaped parcel of land having a frontage of 65 feet on the nortn side of
Sycamore Street and an average depth of 487 feet, the easteriy boundary of said
property being approximately 220 feet west of th~ centerline of Pauline Street, and
further described as 517 Bast Sycamore Street. Property presently classified R-3,
Multiple Pamily Residentiai, Zoae.
Subject petition was continued fr~m the meeting of April 29, 1963, in urder that
the petitioners might have sufficient time to submit revised plans.
No one appeared to represent the petitioners.
Zoning Coordinator Martin ,~reidt advised the Commission that the petitioners had ~
submitted a revised plan, but that i1. had not been received in sufficent time to be
reviewed by the Interdepartmental Ccmmittee or the Planning Department.
I
Commiss3n ner Alired offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 411 to the meeting of June 10, 1963,_and to advise the petitioners or their '
agent to be present at the meeting. Commissioner Sides seconded the motion.
'j MOTION CARRIHD.
1
I
I
~ ~
~~, _.!___._-__ .__ . ._ ... .----. _,---.- -,------__._
, , ,____ __ ----------- ~
.~a . , ____ ___
~ :. :_ ,._ __
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CObAfISSION, May 27; 1963, Continued: 1589 I
i
RBCLASSIPICATION - CONTINUBD pUBLIC P~ARING. ROBERT G. WATlCINS, 8542 Garden Grove (
N0. 62-63-107 Boulevard, Garden Grove, California, Owner; property described
as: An irregular portion of land consisting of two (2) parcels,
RHVISBD TENTATIVB and havinb a frontage of 660 feet on the aorth side of Anaheim
MAP OF Road and a depth of 650 feet, the eas'terly boundary of said '
TRACT N0. 4081 property being approximately 1,370 feet west of the centerline
of Blue Gum Street. Property presently classified R-A,
RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAL, ZONB.
RHQUBSTHD CIASSIFICATION: R~3, MULTIPLfi FAMILY RESIDBNTIAL, ZONB.
SUBJECT TRACT: PROPOSBD POR SUBDIVISION INTO 1WBNTY-SIX (26) R-3, Mi1LTIPLB FAMILY
RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONHD LOTS; DBVELOPBR: ROBf:RT L. PARROW, 8550 Garden
Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, California; ENGIN3HR: H. RAAB gURVHYING
COMPANY, 10568 Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, California.
Subject revised tract map was considered in conjunction with the public hearing of
Reclassification No. 62-63-107.
Subject petition and Tentative Tract Map were continued from the meeting of
April 29, 1963, in order to allow the petitioner sufficient time to submit revised plans.
ZQ!!3._^_0° ~COS~1.^.3~.^.i j.~ay~iii prC1aL~ reviewea for the ~.'OIIIIII.1SS10A the tW0 conferences held
with the petitioners, and stated that the revised tentative tract map and plans were
being submitted for the Commission's consideration.
Mr. Robert L. Far:ow, developer for the petitioner, appeared before the Coamission
and stated he would be glad to answer any questions the Commission might have.
The Commission reviewed the revised plans noting that the plan of development was a
considerable improvement.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSHD,
The Commission noted that the proposed development was in conformance with the
proposed General plan.
Commissioner Camp offered Resolution No. 773, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage an~l adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos to recommend to the City Council
that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-107 be approved, subject to conditions.
(3ee Resolutioci Book.) •
On roll cal?, the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COMMI3SIONER3: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
NOE4: ~ CObAtISSI0NE1tS: None. ~ ~
ABSBNT; COMh1ISSI0NBRS: Pebley.
The Commission reviewed the Interdepartmental Committee recommendations on subject
tract map.
Commissior,er Sides offered a motion to approve Revised Tentative Map of Tract No. 4081,
subject to the following conditions:
1. That revised Tentative Tract No. 4081 is approved subject to the ~ranting of
Reclassification No. 62-63-107.
2. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, 2ach
subdivision thereof stfall bP submitted in tentative form for approval,
.._.__ .__. _ , ____._.____.~_._,
,~ ,...._..-~,._~ ._....~-.~---
;. ,, __._ _~
--- . ,
r -_ ~ . ~ _ -t~ _.
i
I
~
l.) ~,,,1 ~
~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 27, 1963, Continued: 1590
RECLASSIPICATION - 3. T'hat the alignment of Anaheim Road be approved by the State
N0. 62-63~107 Division of Highways.
RBVISBD TSNATIVB 4. That a predetermined price for Lot B and C shall be
MAP OP calculated and an agreement for dedication entered into
T1tACT N0. 4081 between the Developer and the City of Anaheim prior to approvai
(Continued) of the Piaal Tract Map, The cost of Lot B and C shall
~ include land and a proportionate share of the undergroui~d
utilities and street improvements.
5. That ail knuckles shall conform to the requirements of the City of Anaheim.
6. That street improvement plans shall Ue prepared and all engineering requirements of
the City of Anaheim along Anaheim Road, such as curbs and gutters, sidewalks,
street grading and paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be
completed as required by the City Bngineer and in accordance with standard plans
and specifications on file in the Office of the City Bngir.eer, unless the
improvements are constructed by the State Division of HigI~ways. •
Commissioner Gauer seccnded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD.
VARIANCS N0. 1574 - PUBbIC HBARING. EDWARD L. WINGHTT, 907 North Sabina Street,
~r pnaheim, ~a7S.fornia, lhmer; requesting permission to WAIV~ TH~
1,225 SQUARB FOOT RBQUIRPI~lBNT on property described as:
A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 50 feet on the west side of Sabina
Street and a depth of 115 feet, the sontherly boundary of said property being
approximately 440 feet north of the ~=enterline of North Street, and further described
as 905 North Sabina Street. Property presently classified as R-2, 1W0 PAMILY RBSIDHN-
T7AL, ZONH.
The petitioner ±ndicated his presence in the Council Chamber.
Zoning Coordinator Martin ICreidt reviewed for the Commission the proposed development ;
noting that said construction conformed with all the provisions of the R-2 Code ~
requirements. I,.
(
No one opposed subject petition, ~
THH HSARING WAS CIASHD. ~
Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No, 774, Sezies 1962-63, and moved for its ~
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for ~
Variance No. 1574, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) ~
~
On roll call the foregoing resolntion was passed by the following vote: ~
i
AYSS: COMASI33IONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland, Si3es. ~
i
~
NOHS: COMMISSIONF1tS: None. ' ~
ABSBNT: COMMI3SIONBRS: Pebley.
VARIANCH N0. 1576 -. PUBLIC HHARING. PRANR B. K0.SS, 322 West South Street, Anaheim,
California, Owner; requesting permission TO CONSTRUCT CARPORTS
IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN APARTMHNT BUILDING on pr~.,perty described
as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 60 feet on the west side of
Olive Street and a depth of 157 feet, the northerly boundary o£ said property
being approximately 189 feet so!-th of the centerline of Wilhelmina Street, and further
described as 615 North Olive Stteet. Property presently classified as R~3, MULTIPLH
PAMILY R&SIDHNTIAL, ZONi.
The petitioner indicated his presence to answer any questions.
- ~
I
~
i
C
1
;:
~ ,.. _.,_ ~
~ ---__ - ---~-- -------.._-~- --~_.~_.._.._---• - --- _ _.---~ _
_ __ . _...
..
~
-_-----~ , ~:, ,_ .... _
VARIANCH N0. 1576 - The Commission reviewed the plot plan together with their field
(Continued? observation of the property, noting that in the requirement of
the finishing of the interior of carports, drywall could not be
considered adequate material for the interior of carports, an~:
that a sewerage opening existed which presented a hazard and should be enclosed within
a wall of some type.
THS HHARING WAS CLOSBD.
Commissioner Pebley e~tered the Council Chamber at 3:35 P.M.
In reviewing the recommended conditions, Zoning Coordiaator Martin greidt, advised the
Commisaion that the reuqirement of finishing the interior of the carports with stucco,
cabinets and bumper guards aad been inadvertently omitted, and that if the Commission
desired. a condition requiring the enclosure of the sewerage outlet could be stipuiatefl.
Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 775~ Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for
Variaace No. 1576, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYB3: COhAlISSIOI~tS: Ailred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland~ 3ides.
NOBS: C069~lIS3IONBR3: None.
AB3BN~: CODAfI93I0N8R9: None.
ABSTAIN: COhA~lIS3I0NTBRS: Pebley.
CONDITIONAT. USB - PUBLIC I~IDARING. J~~~$ P~ MBT~'IODIST CHURCH, 902 North Citran
PFfftMiT N0. 424 Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; JOSBPH COLOMBO~ A.I.A.,
1104 Hast 17th Street, Suite "P"~ SSAtd AI18~ C81ifo=nis~ AQent;
requestiag permiasion to B9TABLISH A CHURCH AND RBLATED CIASBROOMS
on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land 217 feet by 351 feet and haviag ~
a frontage of 191 feet on the west side of Mayflower Street, the northeriy boundary of
said property being approximatelq 369 feet aouth of the centerline of ~.a Palma P.venne,
and further described ae 1001 North Mayflower. Property preaently classified R A,
RBSIDENYIAL AGRICULT[JRAL~ 20~IB,
Mr. Joaeph Colombo~ ageat for the petitioner, appeared before the Commiasion and
presented a coiored rendering of the proposed church facility~ at which time the
Co~amieaion directed the ageit to aubmit a biack aad white reduction of the rendering
for permaneat filing with aub3ect petition.
No one appeared in oppoaitioa to aub3ect petition.
TFffi F~ARING WAS CIA6BD.
~he Commisaion in reviewing the piot plaa noted that the petitiotter proposed 9 gravel
parkiag spaces to the reer of the propoaed atruct~xre, aad the plan also did not
indicate +lhe lazge parkiag erea to the west of the atructurea as being blacktopped;
skat no masonry wall was being proposed for the southerly property line ad3aceat to
singie family development, and that a bond ahouid be poated to insure construetion of
a masoary wall on the aortherly property line upon completioa of future development.
Mr, David K. Shigekawa, representiag the Church members, atated that a masonry wall was
being nroposed for the north and west property iiaes at the second atage of development,
and ~tipuiated that the 9 graveled parkiag spaces would be utilized only until the
secnnd stage of development,
f
~
~.
.
i
~ ' . _ _-- .~...~-...~------- - __ __.~._..._ __
F.._ ~ __ ~. , ~~ ~- . _ . . .._ .~_
~ ~ _ : ...
~"
~ ~
~ --
~
~ MINUTH3, CTTY PLANNit.G COMMIS3ION, May 27, 1963, Continued: 1592
~ .,ONDITIONAL U3B - Co~nmir;>aiUher Ga~s~.-• offered Aesolu+.3.on ~fo. 776, 8eriea 1962-63 and
~, PffitMIT N0. 424 moved :o~' 349 passage and ad.optirjn, ~~ronded by Commissioner Perrp,
~ (Continued) to gra~,t P~tition for Cond3.,~ona1 Ua~e :~:ermit No, 424, subject t~
conditions. (See Resoluti.on Book.)
~ On roll cal.l the Fore oin reso3ution was 4
x g g pas~~ed by the fo].Iuwing vote:
e'. ' i
~ , A1BS: ~CWD.IIS3IONHR3: Allred, Caaip, Chavos, Gauer~ '-lungall, Peble~, Perry. Rowland,
& ~ Sides.
~iil~H3: COMMI33IOA1BRS: Noue.
A1tSBl~'T: COD4dISSI0NHR3: None.
Commissioner Camp left the Coun~:il ^hamber a•; ?;R7 P.M,
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC F~ffiARING. DUAYNB D. ~H:IISTHNSBN, 7907 Westminster Avenue,
4ffitMiT N0. 427 Westminster, California, G.:m~er; requesting permiasion to ESTABLISH
A DRIVH-TI~tOUGH RESTAURANT - WAIVB PARKINC; RgQUIRBh~NT on property
described as: A rectanguiar pa,rcel of lend haviag a frnntage of
180 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, and a dept:: o` M30 feet, the westerly
~rtr,uar-y o~' ani~ properiy being approximai;~ely 770 ieet e-.,tit of the center].ine of Bast
St::eet, property presen.:ly ciassified as C-1, NBIGHBO~A~.H)D Ctl~AlERCIAL, ~r:v.~,
Ms. Dave Delano, zeE~r?aen~~ng ~the petitiioner, c.ppeared. before the Commissi~4, aad
reviewed what was being nroposed for de.velopme.i~ ~aoti:~g that the proposed restaurant
would be aimila;c to the one no-; beiag ~_essisuctzd a: bale Street and Ball k.;ed.
The Comm~.ssion dtterr inp~~ 'Rirough ~ueutioninl; the mg~en; thaf parking facilit:ea co•u1d
be handled by the e:.i,c:.ln~w shonptng a;rea, ar.~d that the second story of the strusture
houaed the restroo;as [or empio}~ees, qtorage oF suppiie$,and the mechanical equipwent~
Nc one appeared in op~osit~.on to subje~ct petition.
THB HBARING WA3 CLOSBD.
The Commisaion F:iscuaseci the compatibilit~~ of Lhe multi-colored atructesre wi#h the
exiating commercial development, fur~her notiaR that it would be incomn$tibl2 wa±h the
recently approved multipie f~:~ily developmeni: to the east of sub,~ect prope-ty; that
although the ~~etitioncr stateC that parkiag fa~:ilitiea were no! neec:ed, the pro~osed
use of exiating parkiag faciYi:iea in the shopping center might be aer?ously hampereC;
and that aichoagh aub,~ect ~.;eveio~~ent we~s a eomm~rciai uae, it did r.ot preaent the
beat posaiblc land asa for the asea, snd would aot tie an asaet to the area.
Comm:tesioner 3idea of£ered Reauiution No. 777~ 3eriea 1962-63, and moved for i:e
passage ana adoption, secoaded by ~c~ami$sioner Rowland, to deny Petition ;or Conditionel
Trn~ permit No. •~27, based or- findinga. (See Resolution Book.)
Or, ro11 cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote±
A'~l83: ~G~[I•SIOZ~t3: Allred, C~.~e:oa, Gaue:, Muagali, s:bley, Perry, Rowiand, Sidea.
NOHS: GOYNISSIOIZ@t8: Non~°.
AB3HNT: COi~(ISSIONBRBs Camp.
;
~:
~
f:
p ~
...~
~
` ~
' t
~. i
._ .._.
..__. .
~ ~.. _ -- . _... _ ; _ - - ---... _ __ _. .
'. ~"'C .a •~I
~
~_ . . .. ,...~ . ,.e~~ , ~";~ ~ ~. _ . . _.
MINUTFS, CITY PIANIIVING COMMISSION, May 27, 1963, Continued: 1593
RHCIAS3IFICATION - YUBLIC HHARING. MATTHBW E. and JOSBT~B ASTA, 915 South Loara
N0. 62-63-115 Street, Apt. 2, and.,TOSBPH and NSDA H. SKBLLY, 915 South Loara
Street, Apt. 2, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting that
prdperty described as: An irregular parcel of land having a
fror.tage of 70 feet on ttie west side of Loara Street and a depth of 150 feet, tLe
southerly boundary of said property being approximately 238 feet north of the center-
li~1e of Juno Avenue, and further described as 911 Soutli Loara Street be reclassified
irom the R-1, ONB PAMILY RfiSIDHNTIAL, ZONB to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMIL~ RSSIDBNTiAL,
Z~NB, in order to construct a triplex.
Mr. Joseph Skeliy, one of the owners, appeared before the Commission and stated that
the proposed development would house, at the most, 9 persons; that the two petitioners
would occupy two of the three units, and that the third unit wculd be occupied by
another memb~.*. of the family.
Mr. Richard Maguff, 907 South Loara, appeared in opposition to subject petition and
reviewed the pr^,vious action for reclassification of subject property noting that at
the time the single family subdivision was constructed to the north of subject property
the City Councii in 1958 designated that subject proFerty and two adjacent lots to the
west were to remain R-1, Qne Pamily Residential, 2~~e, aithough adjacent structures
surrounding the cul-de-sac to the west were zoned for multiple family development; that
the City Council again sustained their previous ruling in 1461 to maintain subject
property for single family residential development; that tiraffic generated from the
muitiple family development would be hazardous; and that the present uwners of subject
prope-ty had purcf.asr.1 the property as R-1, One Family Residential, Zone which zone he
hoped th.e Commission would recomm.znd it remaia.
THH HBiiRING WAS CIJSHD.
The Commission revzewed the plot plans noting that the proposed structure would be
single story with three dwelling units; that the plans were architecturally compatible
to the existing multiple family development adjacent to subject property; and that
property had remained undeveloped since 1958.
Mr. Skelly, in rebuttal sts+.ed that the persnn opposir.g the proposed triplex had
approached the p~evious owners relative :•~ the purchase of subject property for
multiple family de~v2lopment; that the or~ly reason he did not consumate the transaction
was because he c'.:ci nat offer enough moaey; and that the ePposition proposed to
constru~t 5 un°_:s, whex•eas tS~e peiiiioners ,~LOposed to construct only 3 units.
Mr. Maguff in trying ta :.larif.y his opposit3.on admitte.. to offe*.ing :o purchase subject
property for muitiple :araily developilent, but that he ~id so bPcause he felt he couid
more effectively controi the mui±iplP family use, since his home iNOUld be immediately
adjacent to it as weli a:~ offset any r~onetary loss in the va:luc of his property.
Commissioner Camp returnen to the i:ouncil Chamber at 4:00 P.M.
Commissioner 3ides offered Re.soluti.un IVe. '7%8. Series Y962-63, a;~d m~ved for its
passage and adoption, seco-~ded by C~mu:ss~onEr P~rry, to recommend Xo the City Council
that Petition foz &:classificat3nn .Qo. 82-63 15 4e approved, subject to conditions.
(See Resolution Book.) •
On roll call ;~he Yoregoing reso.tution was passed by the following vote:
pYH3: COhAtI3S?ONBRS: Allred, Chavos, Gauer, Mungail, Pebley, Perry, Rowiand, Sides.
NOE3: COMMISSIONHRS: Nnne.
ABSBNT: CONM4ISSIONHRS: None.
ABSTAIN: COhA13SSI0N&R9: Camp.
P
s
F \
~ r,
~ _.. _.
'~.__~`n-~-.. . _ _. . ; ~. . 1 ...,__
1~,~ ~ •
MI1~ITBS, CITY PLANNING CQ~IlNISSION, May 27, 1963, Continued; ?.~94
RHCIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC H&A1tING. JULIUS aad BDITH NATHAN, 801 North Loara Stzeet,
N0. 62-63 -116 Nq 23b,Anaheim, Calif~rnia, Owners; reqaestiag that property
described as: A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of
66 feet on the east sid~e of Bast Street and a depth of 211 feet,
the southerly boundary of said property beaag approximately 345 feet north of the
centerline of Santa flna Street, and furtk.er described as 400 South Sast St~ceet be
reclassified from the R-2, 1W0 FAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, ZONB, to the R-3, MULTIPLB PAMILT
RBSIDFIdTIAL, ZONB, to construct a 6 uait single story apartment development.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, read a letter from the petitioners requesting that
subjeet petition be continued to the meeting of June 10, 19E3, i:i order *.hat revise-'
plans might be submitted which would incorporate suggested ~hanges.
The Commission revieweu the location of subject property together with their
observation of the property on the fixid trip~ and suggested that perhaps the Piaaning
Department might be able to contact a~ijacent property owners in order to suggest
possibie development in conjunction with subject petition, and the possibility of
requiring an alley to the east of the properties.
Commissioner Camp offered a a~~tion to continue Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-116,
to the meeting of Juae 10, 1963, as was requested by the petitioners, and asted that
the Planaing Department contact adjacent property owners to determine the feasibility
of developing adjacent property for multiple family developmer.t. Commissioner Allred
sec~nded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD..
RBCLA33IPICATIUN - PUBLIC F~ARING. J03HPH i, GUZAK, et al, 823 North Harbor Boule-
N0. 62-63-117 vard, Pullerton, California, Owners; property described as: An
irregular shaped~parcel of land haviag a frontage of 87 feet ori
VARIANCB N0. 1575 the east side of Buclid ytreet and a depth of 150 feet, the
southerly boundary of said property being approximately 200 feet
nerth of the centerline of La Palma Aveaue, and further de,cribed
as-1112 North Buclid Street. PropPrty presentiy classified
R A, RBSIDBNTIAL A(3tICULTURAL, ZONS.
~2BQUH3TBD CLASSIPICATION: C-1, NBIGHBORHQOD COt~9dBRCIAL, ZONH.
RBQUASTED VARIANCH: WAIVH PARKING RBQUIRBhIDNT.
Mr. Jaseph Guzak, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Coromiasion and atated
he was available to answer aay queations the Coa~nission might have.
1he Cormniasioa reviewed the piana preaented for aubject petition noting that a txo-8tory
office building was beiag propoaed; that if the propoaed developmeAt were approved~ aay
sir-coaditioning equipmeat should be contained aad ahielded from view of the etreet;
that the proposed developmeat•would enhance the area in which i! ia proposed to be
located, repiaciag an exiating aiagle atorq real eatate office; and thet sub,~ect
property was ad,~aceat to a ditch for irrigation parpoaea, and iaquired of the
p?titioner whether the ditch was ia use and if aa easemeat exiated. The petitioner
repiied that an esaement had been granted to the Anaheim Uaioa Water Company, but that
the ditch was not in uae.
T'he Commiasion then asked that the Bngineering Department repreaentative, Art Daw,
should make some co~ameat in the eveat the subject petitioa were approved, to which
Mr. Daw replied that the irrigation ditch was still in uae, and that provisions can be
made to place the irrigation facilitiea undergrouad to the satiafactioa of the City
Bngineer.
No one appeared in opposition to sub,~ect petition.
TFffi I~ffiARiNG WAS CL06BD.
.~ ___ . i
~
i •
f
..- ----
~ -...__,..._~._~..,:I~
- ----,- - , ..
~
~ ~ ~
I
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 27, 1963, Continued: 1595
RHCIASSIFICATION - ~oning ~oordinator Martin Kreidt, advised the Commission that
N0. 62-63-117 Variance No. 603, permitting the use of subject property, was
still in use and should be considered by the Commission to be
VARIANCB N0. 1575 terminated, if subject ;+Atition were approved,
(Continued)
Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 779, Series 1y62-63,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-117
be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the fo:egoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYB3: COhA1ISSI0NHRS: Alired, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland,
Sides.
NOBS: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
ABSENT: COMMYSSIONBRS: None.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 780, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Camp, to grant Petition for Variance
No. 1575, subject ±o conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYHS: CQNMISSIONHRS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland~
Sides.
NOHS: COMMISSIONBRS: None.
ABSBNT: CONMIISSIONBRS: None. •
VARIANCB N0. 603 - HBLHN and IAURA M. PORTHR, 600 Cliff Drive, Newport Beach,
California; permission to establish a real estate office -
nortrieast corner of Huclid and La Palma Avenue - Resolution
No. 3426 - granted by the City Council, August 14, 1956 -
extension of time granted two years to July 11, 1963.
Subject variance v..:s discussed in considering Reclassification No, 62-63-117 and
Variance No. 1575, requesting permission to establ:sl~ professional office buildings on
sub,~ect property.
The Commission's discussion relative to termination of subject petition was reviewed
with the petitioner, who advised the Commission that if Reclassifica:ion No. 62-63-]17
and Variance No. 1575 were approved by the Commission and Council, construction would
not be started until after January 1, 1964, that it would create a financial hardship
if the proposed tera;ination of Variance No. 603 were approved, and that he would
appreciate it if subject variance were approved for an additional ext~.r.s~on of time of
six months.
Commissioner Perry offered a motion to~recommend"to the'City Council that
Variance No. 603 be granted an additional six months extension of time for the
operation of an existing real estate office on subject property, said extension to
expire January 11, 1964. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
RHCIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HHARING. D. H, and BUNICB M. ABLBS, 34865 Acacia, Yucaipa,
N0. 62-63-118 California, Owners; DAVB DHIANO, c/o FOOD MAKBR CO., 3452 Bast
P~••ence Avenue, Huntington Park, California, Agent; property
CONDITIONAL USB described as: A rectangular parcei of land having a frontage of
PHRMIT N0. 425 157 feet on the south side of Cprritos Avenue, and a frontage of
~l1 feet on the east side of Buclid ~treet, aad furthar described
~ 1500 South Buclid Street. Yroperty presently classified as
k-1, ONB PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, ZONH.
i
~
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COI~ULI3SION, Maq 27, 1963, Cotttinued: 1596
RHCLA8SIPICATION - RHQUBSTBD QAS3IPICATION: C-1, NSIGHBORHOOD CONA~IBRCIAL, ZONB.
N0. 62-63-118
RBQUBSTED CONDITIONAL USB: BSTABLTSH A DRIVB-THROUGH RBSTAURANT -
CONDITIONAL USB WAIVB PARgING RBQUIRBMBNT.
PHNlIT N0. 425
(~ontiaued) Mr. Dave Delano, agent for the ~asi:'_oner, appeared before tbe
Commission, and presented a ar:~ple structure of the proposed
drive-through restaurant, and stated that the proposed coace~t
was designed after opposition had been expressed by the City relative to the 48 foot
high "doughbo~'si3n; that the proposed structure would be archit.xturallp compatible to
the City; that the agent had previous experience in operating t;~e proposed :ype of
restauraat; that 2/3 of the customers would oaiy drive inio the area and pick up the
food they had ordered and return home to coasume it; aad that the architects had
taken into consideration the single family homea adjacent to subject property bq
providiag a six (6) foot masonry wall together with ample laadacaping to buffer these
homes.
ltie Commission disc~~ssed the proposed concept aotiag that it was unique to California
that the proposed development was incompatible to the surrounding area, aad that in
the long rua, it would be-queatioaabie as to its vaiue to the community.
Mr, BarlGrier~ 1681 Mella Lane, appeared in oppositioa to aub,~ect petition and ateted
that his property ad,joined sub3ect property to the sou*.heast; that he represented
s_ t~a ~~ e..lrian+ n~nnn~+v ~uhn gl_$O n~~0~~!d ~t:
oiaer properiy Ol~iiilC=~ +u Ci'voc `yi'vn+:~.~•~ ~~+ e~-- r--r--'i
that there was a question as to the compatibility of the propoaed structure to aingle
famiiq developmeat to the aouth and east of aub3ect property; that the request fos
commercial zoning would be detrimentai 4o the ad,~oiniag properties; that to graat the
requested use would predetermine the zon~~g for the souther.iy portion of Suclid 8treet
to the Gity limits, aa we11 ea, have s~ det~3Rentel tffect on the r eaidential
eavironmenL of the aurroundiag area;and that t~ wo~~ld be a purilic nuisaace with lighta
from the eatabiiahment, se well aa, the automobilea avaiiing themaelvea of the
restaurant facilities.
The Commissioa compared subject property with a parcel of laad at Dale Avenue and
Sall Road, where a similar deveiopment was approved, und noted the similarity,in that
vacant land existed in elose proximii;^, as well as residential developmeat; and that
subject property shouid remain at its preaent zoning, since this development would
constitute "spot zoning".
T}Ig I~ARING WAS CLQ3BD.
It was determined by the Cotnmission that loud speakers used to transmit orders to the
kitchen area couid be heard 20 feet away.
1
~
~
I
Commissioner Chavos offered Resolution No. 781, Series 1962-63, and moved for ita ,
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissione: Pebley, to recommend to the Gity Council i
that Petition for Reclassification No. 62-63-118 be denied, based on the fact Lhat the ~ ,
propoaed development would be detrimental to the reaidential environment of the ~ -
single family development ad,jacent to subject property, and that the proposed use, 3f
gran4ed~ wouid predetermine the zoning for homes ad,jacent to subject p:operty. I
(See Resolution Book.) • I
On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vo~e: ~ ;
pygg; CaMMIggIONffit9: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungail, Pebley, Perry, Rowiand, ~i
gides. (
NOBS: CW~fI3SI0NffiRS: None.
AH3ENT: COMMI33IONSR3: None.
Commissioner ~~havos offered Reaolution No. 782, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adaption, seconded by Comiaissioner Alired, so deny Petition for
Conditional Use Permit 425, based on findings. (See Resolution Book.) I
On roli cali the foregoi::g resolution was pasaed by the foilowiag vote: I
f
I
AYE9: CObAlI38I0N8R8: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungail, Pebley, Perry, Rowland,
9idea.
NOH3: COMMI3SIONBR3: None. !
'~ pB9SNT: COMMI33TONBEi3: Noae.
~
I .
I
I
, !
~ _--~,~ ~
~ it4~~~~',__ _- _ _' . ~ _- ---_ .. ___ --- _ ~ . . ..:, _ .
~ ~ ~. ,
:., , : . .
°~
~ :~, .
~ ~ ,:~
~~ ~ ~ ~
~ MINUTS3, CITY PLANNING COhAlI3SION, May 27, 1963, Continued: 1597
RBCLASSIPICATION - PUBLIG FffiARING. JOSSPH T3EU, 3326 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim,
N0. 62-63-119 California, Owner; AUGUST L. PSLLINO, 545~ Valencia Drive,
Pullertoa, California, Ageat; requesting that property described
as; A rectangular parcel of land having a frontage of 122 feet
on the north side of Li•i~:oln Avenue and a depth of 300 feet, the
easterly boundary of said property txing approximately 1,150 feet west of the center-
line of Western Avenue,and further described as 3319 West Linco]n Avenue, be reclassi-
fied from the R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTURAl., ZO..B, to the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COL4dMffit-
C7AL, ZONH.
Mr, August Pellino, agent for the petitioner, indicated to the Commission that he
was available to answer any questions.
The Commission reviewed the plot plans noting that some type of kitchen facilities
were being proposed in the commerciai development, and asked :hat the petitioner
clarify this item,
Doctor Joseph Tseu, the petitioner, advised the Commission that the proposed kitchen
facilities would be used for a coffee room whenever he was unable to leave the office
for lunch, and for the serving of coffee to office assistants.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
TH8 HAARING WA3 CLQSHD,
The Commission noted that the proposed medical center would compiement the existiag
commerciai structures in close proximity to subject property.
Commissio~er Camp offered Resolution No, 783, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley, to recommend to the City
Council that Petition for Peclassification No. 62-63-119 be approved, subject to
conditions. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll call the f~iregoing resolution was passed by the following vote;
AY33: CODAtI33I0I~R3: Allred, Camp, Chavos~ Gauer, Mungail, Pebley~ Perry, Rowland,
Sides.
NOSS: COMMISSIONBR3: None.
ABSBNT: COhAfISSIONBRS: None.
RHCLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HBARING. MARY B. DOESKBN, 2748 West Ball Road, and
N0, 62-63-120 JACK H, and MARJORIB J. W00.*~, 2738 West Ball Road, Anaheim,
California, Owners; LBONAitD V. BOUAS, 315 North Manchester
CONDITIONAL USB Avenue, Anaheim, Cal:foraia, Agent; property described as:
YBRMIT N0. 426 A r~.ctangula_: ~,c:tion of land having a fm ntage of 264 feet on
the sout:ii side of Ball Road, and a depth of 630 feet, the
westerly ~u~idary of said land being approximately 683 feet
east of the centerline of Dal~ ~treet, and further described as 2748 and 2738 West.
Ball Road. Property presently ~iassified as R-A, RBSIDHNT7AL AQtICULTURAL, ZONS.
RBQUH3T8D CLA83IFICATION: R-3, b1~JLTIPLB FAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB.
RBQU83THD CONDITIONAL USB: TiS1Y-BLISH A ONE (1) ANID 1Y~D (2) ST~ORY MULTIPLB PAMILY
PU~`~NBTI RHSIDHNTIAL DHVBIAPMBNT WITH CARPURTS - WnIVB
OIYB (1) STORY HBIAiT LIMITATION.
Mr. Bd Markel, 811 North Broadway, Santa Ana, representing the agent for the ~
petitioners, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed development ~
noting that the agent was proposing construction of the multiple family development ~
as his own investment; that the Qroposed 3evelopment was in conformance with the
proposed General Plan; that the architect for the development was also present to j
answer any questions the Commission might have; that subject property consisted of
two deep lots fronting on an arteriai highway, making the proposed development a
compatibie use; that a nursery presently existed to the east of subject property; and
that interspersed cormnercial deveiopment existed in close proximity to subject .
property.
I
. ~
. ~
.
:
~- ~__~_.~~..,. , -~----.-----,- ~ _ ----------~
:.w~ -~- .
_..- _---.~ . _ ~,___ . .. .. . ._._ _ ..._..
. ±
~
~
~ .;.~ '
.
, ,. - - --
.
-- -_ . _ . , .. .. . _ _~ --
_. . _ - - --
- -- _ _ _ _ --
-..
~
' ~ ~ ~ ,1
MINUTHS, CITY PLANNING OOMMIS3ICN, May 27, 1963, Continued: 1598
RBCLASBIPICATION - The Commission reviewed the plot plans noting that the proposed
N0. 62-63-120 recreatioaal area was approximately 2,000 feet short of the
recommended minimum desired; that a substandard width street
dONDITIONAL USH was being proposed for the east boundary of subject property;
PBRI~Q T N0. 426 that the proposed development indicated 17,3 dwelling units per
(Coatinued) net residential acre, compared with the 18 dwelling units per
acre projected for the Ball Road frontage and 7 dwelling units
per acre on the proposed General Ylan.
The Commissioa further noted that the area in which subject property was located was
an ideal site for multiple family development; that the praposed elevations and plans
were compatible except, that one of the 4-unit structures should be eiiminated to
increase the recreation area; that it was the Commission*s desire to suggest the best
type of development compatible to the area for the present and 4he f uture of the City,
and that the proposed development was comparable with the new planned residential
developments with an approximate 4096 coverage.
Cormuissioaer Gauer left the Council Chamber at 4:55 P.M.
Mrs. Libby 8dens, 10141 McDuff, Stanton, appeared before the Commission and stated
tha~~ she would oppose any two story construction wiUun150 ieet of the single family
res~.dential development to the south of subject property; that she and several other
pr~nes#y o~vne*: :a the 2:oW~s ta t:e ~oui,~ oi ~ubjecs property had vierred the plans
and found them acceptable, but that she desired to have the expression of the
Ca~?ssion relative to single story construction within 150 feet of the singie family
homes, and that many times the six (6) foot masonry wa11 being proposed for the south
property line was~constructed prior to actual excavating and grading for the develop-
ment. ~
Mr. Cliff Vogel, 2760 West Ball Road, appeared before the Commission in opposition
to subject petition and stated that he also represented some of the neighbors on the
north side of Ball ltoad, across from subject property; that a previous petition for
muitiple family development had been disapproved by the Commission and the Council;
and that he ?~d his neighbors felt any encroachment of residential uses would
jeopare9ize the commercial development now taking place on the north side of Ball Road,
The Commission advised Mr. Vogel that in order for the comv.ercial development to take
place, it would be aecessary to have customera and the apartments supply the need
for commercial development.
Commissioner Gauer returned to the Oouncil Chamber at 5:00 P.M. ~
Commissioner Chavos left the Council Chamber at S;OO P,M.
Mrs. Mary B. Doeaken, one of the petitioners, atated that she wished to clarify one
of the reasone for deniai of a previous rezoaiag requeat; tha# the Commassion and
Council had denied the petitioa because the narrow deep lot she owned, in their
opir,ion, could aot be deveioped to its highesi aad best uae for a compatibie
residential iiving enviroament; and that she Ytad then contact Mr. Wood in order to
comh±ne two parcels for multiple family dnvelopment.
Mr. Jack Wood, 2738 Weat Ba1F Road~ advised the Commission thet not everyone on the
north side of Ball Road in cLose proximity to subject property opposed subject
petition.
Mr, Leonard Bouas, agent for the petitioaers, stated that he realized that the
recreation area was less than the desired space, but that there were maay other
features in the proposed development which wouid more than compensate the future
renters of the apartments, and then reviewed the various features for the Commission.
Mr. Bouas further stated that he would keep subject development in his name, that no
units would be sold individualJy, and that the proposed development would be a vast
improvement over the existing multiple family developments surrounding subjert
property, since many of his nnits would contain 2,000 square feet.
Commissioner Chavos returned to the Council Chamber at 5;10 P,M,
THS HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
~ ~~ ---• - --, - --- . • 4 .~...---- -------- f __. _._._
~ ~ ~~...
I .
,;
- ~
~
~
~
MINUTB3, CITY PI,pNNING CQhalISSION, May 27, 1963, Continued:
1599
RBCL-9SIFICATION - Zoniag Coordinator Martin Kreidt, advised the Commission that
N0. 62-63-120 since the City did not have any adopted planned residential
development standards, and ia order to approve aay multiple
CONDITIONAL USB family development, it might be suggested that the City~s standard
PBRMIT N0. 426 R-3 Code requirements together with a subdivisioa map might be
(Continued) the only means of controliing any multiple family developments
be3ng proposed; that a number of confereaces had been held with
the developer and 9096 of all requirements had been met, but the
remainiag 1096 could be made to present a development which would coaform with a11
present and proposed requirements; that this might be attained by requiriag that the
elimination of the one unit to the west of the recreation area and increasing from
three to four units the proposed three unit structures to the north and south of the
recreation area, this would then reduce the land coverage to approximately 4296 or 2~
over the propoaed pi.aned residential standards.
In reply to a question by the Commission relative to the prposed 44 foot street,
Mr. Daw~ representative of the City 8ngineer, advisedthe ~ommissaon that the
proposed street could not be considered an acceptable dedicated public st~eet, and
muat be considered a private drive,
Commissioner 3ides left the Council Chamber at 5:25 P,M.
Ptlltl]Er d~$C~~alsinn p!g9 M~~~ ~~~~"w ~+, ;c ~vuuuio$~d$ 8i1a jyT, xreidi reiative t0
requiring a 54 foot dedicated street; that the property easterly to subject property
might not be developed for some time; that past experience by the City indicated
that it would be unfeasible to accept Sess thaa a 54-foot dedicated street, because
cars might be parked on both sides, thus making it impoasible for two cars to have
iagress and egress at the same time~ whereupon Mr, $reidt suggested that perhaps a
44-foot street with a parkway on the west side oaly aad a one inch asphalt berm on
the easteriy edge of the street might be acceptable uader the ussumption that a
previousiy agreed amount for the easterly 14 feet of subject property might be
entered into aad be purchaeed by the owner of !he easterly property as a requirement
of approvai for any development of the easterly propertq ad3acent to aubject property,
In reviewiag for the agent of the petitioner, the changes which might be aecessary, it
was aoted that the propoaed easterly parkway wouid be elimiaated t~gether with the
street light requirement for oniy the westeriq aide of the street; that atreet cleaning
and other public servicea would thua be achieved; aad that the four unit atructure to
the weat of the recreation area would be eliminated aad the two three-unit structures
increased to four unita, thus oaly decreasing Lhe proposed units by two,
Commiasioner Sides returned to the Council Chamber at 5;32 p,M.
Commiasioner pebley offered Reaolution No. 784~ Seriea 1962-63~ and moved for ita
passage and adoptioa, aeconded by Commisaioner Sidea~ to recomm~nd to the City Council
that Petition for Reclaaeification No. 62-63-120 be approved aub,~ect to conditiona.
(See Reaolution Book.)
On roii c~il the forege?:.~ reaolution was passed by the following vote:
AY89: Cd~AlI9SI~iBR3: Alired~ Camp, Chavos, Gayer, Mungall, Pebleq, Perry, Rowland~
Sidea.
NOH9: COI~NlT39IONBEt3: None,
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONHR9: None.
Commisaioner Camp offered Reaolution No. 785, Seriea 1962-63, and moved for its
passage aad adoption, seconded by Commisaioner Gauer~ to graat Petitioa for Conditional
Uae Permit No. 426, sub,ject to conditiona. (See Reaoiution Boot,)
On roil cali the foregoiag reaolution was passed bq the followiag vote:
AY83: COA9~lIS3IOI~ffiRS: A11red, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Muagall, Pebiey, Perry, Rowland,
33dea.
NOB3: C01~lISSIONBR3: None.
ABSBNT: COhAlI3SIONBltB: None.
~
~
~
~
,
~..,--_-__.._. .
_.._..._.__._:_' .
; • , ~- : . . ' .
. i ;
i~;`'.
~ '
~ .
..;
,_
_-.. ., , ,
=
~
~ ---
~ -----_ __. .._.__~-.--_ .._
r__ ----
,~
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, May 27, 1963, Continued:
1600
AMHNDMffiVT 1~U TITLB - PUBLIC FIDARING. INITIATHD BY 1HB CITY PIANNING COMMISSION,
I8, R-S, RHSIDSNTIAL 204 &ast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Amendment to
BSTATB, ZONH. Title 18, by the addition of Chapter 18.18, proposing a new
R-B, RESIDBNTIAL BSTATB, ZONB.
3ubject petition,was continued from the meeting of April 1 and 29, 1963, to permit the
planning Department sufficient time to revise the proposed Ordinance.
Planning Director Richard Reese, reviewed the recommended changes to the May 1, 1963
draft which had been reviewed at a Work 3ession by the Commission, and stated that the
approval of the amendment to Titie 18, incorporating the new Residential Bstate Zone
would replace the present emergency ordinance passed by the City Council March 19, 1963.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Sides offered Resolution No. 786, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the City Council
that amendment to Title 18, by the addition of Chapter 18.18, R-H, Resideatial Bstate,
Zone referred to as Bxtiibit "A", be approved. (See Resolution Book.)
On roll cali the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the following vote:
:.YSS: C~IBSZai:cdS: Ailted, Camp, ~h~vo3, Gauer, 'niungall, Pebley, Perry, ttowiand,
Sides.
NOB3: COMMI3SIONBRS: None.
AB3SNT: COMMISSIONffitS: None.
RHPORTS AND - ITBM N0. 1
CONDITIONAL USH PBRMIT N0. 229 - OWEN COMPANY, establish a retaii
automobile dealership on property at the southeast corner of
Ball Road and Los angeles Street - granted by the Planning
Commission ande; Resolution No. 307, Series 1961-62 on May 15, 1962.
Mr, John Leary, 615 South Flower ~~*eet, Los Angeles, representing the Chrysler Corpo-
ration, builders of the proposed structure, appeared before the Commission and reviewed
the revised plot plans and noted for the Commission that the proposed roof would have a
beam-type structure with the finish being of chips and rocks.
The Commission reviewed the plans and indicated that the pitch of the roof would not
be compatible to the area; that the peak type roof might set a pattern of developmen~t,
which would not enhance the entrance to the southeast industrial area; that the
proposed roof material would zoli off, thus creating an unsightly roof line, and that
the proposed landscaping was quite commendable.
Considerable discussion was held between the agent for the Chrysler Corporation and
the CommiRSion relative to suggested changes to the roof line and materials; that the
balance of the structure was acceptable to the Commission, but the Commission felt that
the roof line should be changed to almost a flat roof with acceptable finishing
materials; and that any architectural chaages could be approved by the Developmeat
Review function in the Planning Department, since the Cormaission had expressed their
wishes as to the proposed roof.
Cormnissioner Chavos offered a motion to approve plot plans, except that the architect
should contact the Planning Department to resolvethe proper slope and materials for the
roof; and that if any structurai changes in addition to the roof line were needed,
the Development review function of the Planaiag Department was authorized by the
Commissioa to spprove the changes. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIBD.
~ ,
fl
1
-----------
~._ _ - -
,
---:._ . .__
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, May 27, 1963, Continued: 1601
RHPORT3 AND - IT&M N0. 2
RBCOMMHNDATIONS
(Continued) CONDITIONAL USB PHRMIT N0. 328 - Geriatr~cs and Rehabilitation
IIospital - west side of Knott Avenue approximately 500 feet south
of Lincoln Avenue.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt, read a letter addressed to the Commission from the
architects for subject development requesting consideration of Condition No. 8 of
Resolution No. 659, Series 1962-63, approved by the Commission Pebruary 18, 1963,
together with a request for an extension of 90 days in which to comply with all
conditions limited by time.
Specific reasons for consideration of the required masonry wall were reviewed by the
Commission, and it was noted that the petitioners had been requesting consideration of
requirements whi~h had been stated at a pubiic hearing, and that any opposition had not
been present to voice an opinion relative to consideration of the masonry wall.
Mr. Herbert Jones, rep:esenting the developer, appeared before the Commission and
reviewed all the problems the engineers and architects were experienceing in
considering sewerage and drainage facilities in applying for a building permit; that
the requirec:ent of a six (6) foot masonry wall from the finished grade level would mean
an actual ten (10) foot wall which the property owner to the south would have to face;
that this would give the apQeara~ce of a prison wall, and to alieviate this unsightly
appearance, it was suggested iitai in iieu of cne ad~iiivnal 6iS C5) :eet :~r a ra~sonzy
wall, the Commission might consider a redwood fence; and that the fill required
varied from e.ightcen i18) inches on the westerly boundary to four (4) feet on the
Rnott Avenue frontage.
The Commission then asked that the developer submit engineeriag drawings showing how
4he different depths of fill would be accomplished together with the location of the
sewer location, in order that the Commission might con:;ider the block wa11 requirement.
Commissioner Sides offered a motion to approve the 9Q days extension of time for the
accomplishmenL of conditions ia approving subject petition, and continued the matter
of the masonry wall until the meeting of Jun 10, 1963, with the stipulation that the
engineer for the petitioner submit drawings and evidence to substantiate the various
depths of fill required to permit the connecting of sewerage pipes with the City's
street sewer on Knott Aveaue. Commission Ailred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRISD.
ITHM N0. 3
CONDTTIONAL USB PFs~tMIT N0. 195 - SAM NARAMURA, 2793 West Ball Road,
Anaheimf California, Owner; W. D, NBWMAN, 2316 Pairhill Drive,
Costa Mesa, Ca:~ifornia, Agent; establish a drive-through restaurant
(Jack-in-the~S~x) at Ball Aoad and Dale Street.
The Commission reviewed their field trip to subject property ir. conjum~:tion with
similar installat~ons being considered at the public hearing of the meei±ng of
May 27, 1963. It waa noted that subject petition had been granted by the City Council,
and the required six (6; foot masonr~ wall for the proper~y line to the north and east
would be considezably undezmined if the aLjacent proQerty owner placed fill dirt in the
existiag hole adjacent to the wall; that the required six (6) foot masonry wall should be
measured from the finished level of the adjacent property line, and that the City
Council should be advised of the Commission's findings.
Commissioner Sides offered a motion to advised the City Council at their meeting of
May 28, 1963, that the Coarmission had viewed subject property in Coaditional Use i
Pesmit No. 195, and that the Commis;sion does recommend that the six (6) foot masonry i
wall should be required to be measured from the finished level of the adjacent
property line, to create a more compatible separation between the existing commercial i
use of subject p,roperty and the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zoned property to the ~~
north and east of subject property. Commissioner Chavos seconded tb.c motion.
MOTION CARRIBD.
--,---~-- ------•._..~_._.,~.~------------•„
. - ------------°'
r ~.;:.,~ • -._ .._
~ ~ ~ ~
. ~ ~
s.:..
' i .~
~ ~ ~ ~
MINUTB3, CITY PLANNING COMHIISSION, May 27, 1963, Coatitiued: 1602 ';
RHP~tTS AND - ITBM N0. 4 ~
i
RECOMdHNDATIONS ~
(Continued) ORANGE COUNTY CASB N0. 652 (Section3l District Maps 4-4-9 and
9-4-9, Bxhibits F and B) proposirg a change from the A-1, General i
Agricultural.District to R-2-1000-PD-3000 Group Dwellings-Planned i
Development District - located west of the interchange area j
between the Riverside Freeway and the Newport Preeway in the ~
Santa Ana Canyon area. ,
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt presented subject petition for reclassification of
subject property to the Planning Commission. It was noted that the requested zone, if ~
approved, would permit a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 1,000 square feet of
land area, unless a planned development were estabiished, in which case the maximuu
density would be one dwelling unit per 3,000 square feet of land area.
The Commission reviewed previous R-3, Mult~ple Pamily Residential, Zone reclassifications ~
and tract ma~ to the southwest, together with two other reclassifications westerly of ~
subject property. The Commission discussed the existing single family subdivision
abutting to the northwest of subject property and its relationship to the proposed i
multiple family development, i
Commissioner Chavos offered a motion to recommend to the Orange County Planning I
Commission that Orange County Case No. 652 (Section District Maps 4-4-9 and 9-4-9, 1
Hxhibits P and B) 3e aoproved, orovided that all development within 150 feet of the !
existing single family subdivision te the northwest be limited to one story in height, ±
and that a six (6) foot masonry wall be installed where subject property abuts said a
single family subdivision. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOT:O~I CARRIBD. 3
;
ITEM N0. 5 ~
PROPOSED JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SITB - Site No. 14-19/64224 -
located on Loara Street, approximately 600 feet south of BroadWay, i
Zoning Coordinatoz Martin Rreidt, reviewed the area in which the proposed junior high ~
school was to be located, noting that it was proposed for a partior. of a large vacant
parcel of land onthe south side of Broadway, which had been projected on the proposed ~
General Plan for low residential development.
Commissioner Camp offered a motion to recomme;~d to the Anaheim Union High School ~
District, the Commission's approval of the proposed junior high school site east of
Lorsra Street and south of Broadway. Commissioner All.red seconded the motion. . I
MOTION CARRIBD.
ITBM N0. 6
PROP05HD C-0, COMMHRCIAL OFFICB, ZON&, amendment to the
Anaheim Munciipal Code, Title Eib`.~een.
Planning Director Richard Reese, reviewed the proposed C-0, Commercial Office, Zone
noting that ttie'zone was ~.itended tu provide for and encourage the orderly development
of business and professional office centers, and suggested that if the Commission
considered this ar. appropriate amendment, that the Planning Department be advised
to advertise for public hearing for the June 10, 1963 meeting to consider the proposed
addition to Title Highteen.
Commissioner Sides offered a motion to direct the Commission Secr.et:ry to set for
public hearing at the meeting of June 10, 1963, at t:ie hour of 2:00 0'Clock P.M.,
the consideration of evidence for and against a proposed C-0, Commercial Office, Zone,
amendment to Title Eighteen of the Anaheim Munciips~l Code. Commissioner Chavos seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIBD.
t
ii
i
(
;
._ - -----_.._._ _.._._..--
-- -~'
..
----•-- , `=---~
. ,
~ ~ ~.
Ml'~UTB3, CITY PLANNING CON4dISSION, May 2T. 1963, Continued: 1603
RBPatT3 AND. - IT$M NO. 7
RBCOM~!ffi~iDATIONS
(Coatinued) W~HF 3BSSIQ!1,
Planning Directo=:Richard.~ReeBe, ~ ~„ # the Commission v~oqld considez a Wort
Session being set.,for 9 30.'P ~(~„~~~, ~~,~i~;;~'~4-;.-aview the propaaed ~ommerc3.a1 Office,
Zone~ the pendiag ~?Yaaned Re83~de staadards, and auCh~ athei »tema that
the Commiasion sl~ourd COA8~dG~ r ~ stated, thaL a,~of~tt: wo=k detaion
was being scheduled: with ltte Ci~~h ' b`~ t~he report and stnQ~z made bq the
Urban Aenewal Committee, s,aid a~eet~`~~'~'~'~d -Jyae 17~ 1963.
ITBh! N0, 8
CIVIC DIS3RICT
planning Director Richard Reeae, inforqted the Cotamiasion that certain parcels within
the proposed Civic District would be reviewed at the June 24, 1963 meetiag and possibiy
set for public hearing, and that thia diacussion would be held following the regular
meeting at an evening work sessioa, aad that at that time a specific date could be
set for public hearing of the proposed Civic District.
ITBM N0. 9
STRBBT NAMB CHANGH - Sigs Piace to lwdor Place.
Zoning Coordinator.Martin Kreidt, presented to the Commission a petition signed by
the residents and property owners residing on Sigs Place requesting that the name be
changed to Tudor Place.
The Commission discussed the possible names which might be used to rename Sigs Place.
Commissioner Perry offered a Resolution No. 787, Series 1962-63, and moved for its
passage and adoptioa, seconded by Comm'_ssioner Sidea, to recommend to the City Council
that the atreet calied Siga Place be chaaged to Tudor Place, aiace all the residenta
and property owners living on the street had requested it.
On roll call the foregoing resoiution was pessed by the following Note;
AY83: COhAlISSIONBRS: ASlred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall~ Perry, Aowland, 3ides.
NOB9: COh~lISSIONHRS: None.
AB3BNT: COb9dI98I0NBA8: None.
AB9TAIN: CO~AlISSIOI~t3: Pebley.
ADJOURNMBNT - There beiag no further buainese to diacuas, Comnissioner Pebiey offered
a motion ~o adjourn the meetieg. Commisaioner A11red seconded the
motioa. MOTION CARAIBD.
The meetiag ad,~~uraed 4t 6t30 P.M.
Reapectfully aubmitted~
ANN RRBBS, SHCRSTARY
Anmheim Planning Commission
>s
"~
.
._.._.~..------ -.
-----•-
~.. _ .
,,,;~
~
~
:
~
~
~