Loading...
Minutes-PC 1967/03/27City Hall Anaheim, California March 27, 1967 A REGULAR MEETliiG OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PIAN~ING COMMISSiON i REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the P.naheim City Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P,M., a quurum being present~ PRESENT - CHP.IRMAN: Camp. ,~ - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farar~o, Gauer (entered at 2:03 P,M.), Nerbst, Mungall, Rowland. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw _ Associate Planner: Jack Christofferson Planning Commission Secretary: knn Krebs Ii~VOCATI0IJ - Reverend Jack Johnson, Pastor of the First Southern Baptist Church, gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Herbst led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF ' - Tne ~ulinutes of the meeting of March i3, 1967, were approved with the I !-~ MINUTES following correction, on motion by Commissioner Herbst, seconded by Commissioner Allred, and MOTION CARRIED: Page 3373, paragraph 4, line 5, should read: "Allred...:motion". VARIANCE N0. 1859 - CONTIIJUED PUBLIC f-~ARIIJG. JERRY MARKS, 2144 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Uwner; R. L. C001JS, 111 Niest Elm Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting a variance to PER1dIT A 20,000-SQUAP.E FOOT WARENOUSE WITH ROOF PHRKING TO BE LUCATED AT THE SOUTH BOUIJDARY Of T!-~ EXISTING HARDN'ARE FACILITY, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUN BUILDING SETBACK AIJD (2) MINIMUivl PARKING S?ACE SIZE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land (approximately 150 feet by 332 feet), the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 136 feet north of th~ centerline of Hiawatha Avenue and the northerly boundary being approximately 510 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 2144 West Lir.coln Avenue. Property presently classified P-1, AUTOMOBILE PFRKING, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of A9arch 13, 1967, to a11ow tirne :or the petitioner to submit revised plans. Associate Planner Jac;c Christofferson reviewed subject petition and the reason for its continuance, noting that no revised plans had been received; however, the agent for tf~e petitioner had indicated that the roof parking would be eliminated, which would create a shortage of 50 parking spaces; and that the main concern of the Commission would be the relatioaship of the proposed 20-foot high structure to the R-1 homes immediately adjacer.t to the southo Mr. R. L. Coons, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and statad that he and representatives of Lin-Brook Hardware had reviewed the various plans and proposal previously submitted to the i:ommission with the R-1 prooerty owners; how4ver, at that meeting some new factors had been presented, and as a result, he was requesting that subject petition be continued four weeks in order to allow time for the petitioners to review suggestions made at the meeting with the opposition. ~' Mr, Robert Lemos, 2147 West Hiawatha, appeared before the ~:on.~nission in opposition and y,~ stated he was in attendance at the previous hearing. .4t that time the Chairman thought ;; a two-week continuance would be sufficient to submit an alternate proposal - however, ~: after 12 days, the petitioner finally contacted the residents of the area; that he had :~ attended the meeting primarily because he was interested in determining what new proposal ~`~ would be submitted - however, he was disappointed to find that no new proposal was Leing '~ , planned, and at the meetir.g the agent had more or less explained the same situation and a plan, with the exception that the roof parking was proposed to be eliminated; that from :9 * what he coulc: dete*mine, it was ttie petitioner°s plan to develop under the original pro- ~,~ „sx posal; that at the meeting interested persons came up with an alternate plan of expansion ' I I : 3375 F MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 27, 1967 3376 ,~::~~ i I, !t ~ ~ VARIANCE N0. 1859 - of one of the blueprints presented - however, the petitioner had (Continued) indicated that it was not feasible in thei* estimation and had been their second choice; that the first hour of the meeting with the resi- dents had been spent trying to reason with the property owners why the original plans submitted would beautify their property, and the last half hour was spent listening to the residents' proposal; and that the change recommended by t~e residents would give suffici.ent room behi.nd the Fuller paint store for the proposed warehouse, and said property was presently zoned C-1. However, the petitioner had indicated he did not wish to use all of the property presently zoned C-1 and was more desirous of using the P-1 property; that they had indicated they would take the recommendations of the residents under consideration; and that in his estimation, there were sufficient plans available if th? alternative plan was submitted, rather than continue subject petition to anotner meet- ing since he felt he was being imposed upon because he already had lost eight hours of work appearing before the Commission, and he did not feel the property owners should be subjected to a further continuance. Furthermore, the Commission s'r,ould consider the present proposal and decide whether or not a 20-foot high builoing woulo be acceptable across seven hom?s, or whether or not an alterr.ate plan should be used - however, it was his opinion that Lin-Brook was not planning to submit any other proposals, bu~ wanted to "drag" this out to try to talk some of the residents into accepting the original plans. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue Petition for Variance No. 1859 io the meeting of April 24, 1967, in order to allow the petitioner time to review altErnate plans for submission to the Commission. Commissioner hiungall seconded the motion, ~70TI0,4 CARRIED. VARIANC~ N0. 1861 - PUBLIC I-lEARI;JG. :tR A'Jll A1RS. FfOYJFRD LUUroiJ, 1412 Janeen Way, and MR. A~D MRS. ALVIi4 BAKER, 128 West Sycamore Street, Anaheim, Califcrnia, Owners; CfiJRCHPM N'S FOU;~DATIO,J, 3126 Los Feliz Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, and R. CUMMII~GS s ASSOCIATES, 99 South Chester, Pasadena, California, Agents; reouesting a variance to ESTABLISH A 1?-STORY HIGii-RISE APARThiEJ1T BUILD- ING, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MIWIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SPACES, (2) MI;JIMUM LAidD ARcA PER 17NtLLING UNIT, (3) MINIMUM D4NELLING UNIT FLOOR AREA, (4) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, AND (5) MININiUM RECREATIUldAL-LEISURE ARrA on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located soutn and east of a parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Sycamore and Lemon Streets, subject property having a;rontage of approximately 70 feet on Sycamore Street and approximately 200 feet. on Lemon Street. Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RrSIDENTIAL, ZOIJc. Commissioner Camp left the Council Cnamber at 2:12 P.M. Chairman pro tem Herbst assumed the cftairmanship of the meeting. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the proposed development, the location of subject property, and t;;a uses established in close proximity. Mr. Robert Cumminqs, agent for the petitioner and consultant to Churchman's Foundation, app=ared before the Comm~ssion and noted that the proposed development would provide for residential accommodat.ions for senior citizens, a~d financing would be in accordance witn Section 202 of the :Jational Housing Act of 1959 available to non-profii orga~izations; that the loan would be amortized for 50 years at an i~terest rate of 3~ on the unpaid balance, and in order to qualify for tiiis 1oan, the facilities would be made available to the low and low-medium income rentals; that incon;e per single person could not exceed $4,U00 per year, and income for a h~sband and wife could not exceed $4,800 per year: that all residents woulu i~ave to be able to care for inemselves, physically and financially, .:nd demonstrate tney could meet these requirements; tha~ in the eve^t they became iniirm, they and their nex.t of kin would agree that accommodat.ions would be provided elsewfiere; that the pnilosophy bei~ind the program, wi;ich was an act of Congress, was to provide housing for intelligent, mature p,=rsons so that the elderly may kept in the well stream of :ife and to afford them the opportunity of residing in the commur,ity in which they had lived for a number of years, together with keeping them active in community affairs. iu1r. Cummings noted that a similar development was now in operation in San Diegu, which was the first of its ki~d in the countryg that this operation had opened up twu years ago and now had a waiting list of 130 to 150 persons; that rents for this type of facility would be from $67.50 for efficiency apartments up to ~111.00 per munth for units from the second to the seventh floor, and $80~00 and up for others which were one-bedroom units; that a tower council would be established with a representative from each :loor to resolve any problems which might occur; that there would be no regim~~~;ation of the program, u~d the intent and policy within the structure would be partici~~ation in whatever activities the residents desired, and they could participate in any o. none of the activities; tnat another 14-story high-rise facility will open in Pasoder.a approximately the first of July, 1967 - t.hat tt,is facility had 150 units, and ~t~e} already had 1,200 reservations for this 15G-unit facility; anci that all who had made application for these facilities stated that the proposed type of facility met the de<.ires of the elderly people. c E _ : ~4INUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 27, 1967 3377 VARIANCE N0~ 1861 - Mro Cumminys then reviewed the parking requirements and needs of the (Continued) San Diego facility, noting that only 16 persons of the 200 residents owned an automobile; that national surveys and Department of Housing surve~~s, which he was submitting to the ~:ommission, indicated that 33 similar projects in which parking was proposed indicated the percentage of cars per dwe11- ing unit never exceeded 14%,with only 24~ of these facilities iised; that the proposed peti- tion indicated waiver of the parking requirements in which the national average indicated a minimum of 20 parking spaces and a maximum of 44 parking spaces - however, the proposed plan indicated 50 parking spaces; and that the figures on the national average would also be submitted to the Commission~ ~ ~ Two years of experience in San Diego, Mr, ~ummings continued, in which there were 202 apart- :~~1~-~ ments, 234 residents were in the facility, and historically the female species outlived the ; ' male; that the figures on the San Diego facility indicated 189 female residents and 45 male, ~~~~ witn onl 27 married cou ~es• that the densit ~', y p_ , y per souare foot for all units wouid be 1 considerably less because fewer people would 'ce living in each unit; ~i1at the average age ' of the residents was 72 years, and the philosophy was to provide housing ;or the agile, t~ mobile, and able elderly people, an~ wnere housing was provided for this type of peoole, '.; their 1i;e was considerably exter.ded where there mental and physical health was m~intained. -' Commissioner Gauer inquired wnetner or not tne residents of the facility would be asked to i leave in the eve~t o; tneir inability to be able to take care of themselves, or because of illness. Mr. Cummings replied in tne affirmative, statin9 that they must agree to fin6 other accom- modations if they were ill or unable to care for themselves. Furthermore, the fact that there was concern for th=se people was indicated by each apartment unit having two panic buttons wired to the manager ano custodian's apartmer.ts to assist them if there was need for assistance, and tfiEY would receive fast response in the event o; broken bones, etc., and thzt management would take care of notifying their r.ext of kin. It was also noted that the Churchma~'s Foundation would be responsible for tne facility, and the :ederal government would periodically, rot less tiian once a year, audit the opera- tion and its books, and any facility of this ty~~e was subject to checks by the U. S. Government rnany times during ihe year. fJ~r. Cummings also noted that witn him at tne public nearing were Gene YJindry, arep:esent.ative of the architect, and Raymond Wellington of the Churcnman's Foundation, Deciples of Gi~_ist, and a representative of Chapman C~11ege, together with Jack Falke:,~oer3 who were avaiiable to answer questions regarding the plans submitted to the Commission~ A showing of nands indicated 40 persons present in the Co~~ncil Chamoer in opposition to subject petition. Mr.:JorbertFaessel, 500 ;dorth ~lementine Street, appeared before the Commission in opposi- tion, noting ne was opposed to the many requests ;or woivers of the Code requirements; that for the 19o dwelling units proposed, only 50 parking soaces were indicoted - wnicn tle felt would ado immeasurably to an already untenable parhing problem in close prcximity to Pearson Park; tiiat more parking would be .^.ecessary because there was no grocery store witnin four blocks of the facilit~~~, a~d it woulo be ouite di;ficult ior tiiese elderly people to have to carry tneir groceries so far; ti~at no provi ns were indicated for physicians,and tne City did not nai+e a geriatrician; that ti~~oposed apartments would be less than 20 by 20 feet, and tiiat in his estimation, t'~:ese would be gloriiieo flop- houses witn a beautiful view of the park; that no provisio~. was made for recreation focili- ties oiher than access to Pearson ?ark, limiting these elderly people to their small apart- ments unless the developer ielt th? residents should utilize ti~e puolic park - whicii was a facility ior all residents of tne City and snould not be considered as the reauired recreation iacilities for these eloerly people; tnat ti~e elderly peoole woula have to cross a busy street to gain access to the park wi~ici~ would present a very hazsrdous condition; and that the residents of the area were opposed to a 182-foot high structure in the same manner Disneylano opposed any high-rise structure since tnis would be an infringement uf the privacy of tne residents in tne area. Furtnermore, ti~e developer snould purchase sufficient property to provide for parking and recreation facilities; however, he was of tne opinion the proposed development was ur,desirable for ti~e neignoorhood in wi~ich it was proposed. Mr. Richard Borden, 400 West Alberta Street, appeared before tne .;ommission, stating that he also represented his neigiibors opposing a 17-story, high-rise building in close proximity to a very nice residential area; tnat said structure would Ue visible from a considerable distance, as well as presentin~ ar, undesirabl~ appearance to the visitors to t'.~e park;3no that he urged the Commission to retain tne residential integrity of tne area by dFnying subject petition, _,..__,ti MiiJUTES, CITY PLANPJING CONJ~ISSIUN, March 27, 196-i 3378 r, -,-~ ~.;f ~ , ~i' VARIANCE N0. 1861 - Mr. Glenn Fry, 1115 ;Jorth Boden Drive, appeared in opposition, stating (Continued) that in addition to the opposition previously presented, he had a few more items of opposition to present; namely, 1) that the proposed high- rise structure was i~consistent with the projections as indicated on the Anaheim General Plan; 2) what effect would the proposed development have on the proper- ties contiguous to it, especially if all the waivers were granted7 3) if waivers were 9ranted, would this, in effect, start a complete breakdown of the City's Code requirements o~ other multiple•-family development; 4) was this a federally sponsored project, and if so, how could the details of the project be made~:vai.lableto the citizens of the City in order tnat a proper evaluation could be made? 5) could a different manner of land assembly be made which would be more consistent with good City planning? o) should not this p?tition be considered by the City Council as well as the Commission because of Lf1E many implications it hao on the General Plan and urbsn re-development of the downtown area, of which subject prooerty is a port? - and, £urther~aore, he was presenting a petition signeo by 140 persons, all in opposition, as w211 as expressi~g their concern about the aforementioned inauiries since future development of surrounding properties would 'oe governed by what was approved for suoject property; and that the agent should explain why iaxes were paio under protest py the operators of ~he San Diego facility, and wnetner this woulo be applied to SUDjECt property, tnus taking tne property off tiie tax rolls, eve^ *.hough public ;scilities WC'?'E being used for wnicn tne citizens of tne City were being taxed. Fdrs. ?earson, 085 [Jorth Heleno Street, appeared in oppositioa and stateo it was noped sne would DE able to ao.:ress .;nGirman Camp, c•~t since tnis was ~ot possible, sne would atte^~pt to convey ner opposition to tne ?lanning ~ommission and noted sne was a prejudiced witr.ess; tnat her family and she had paio ~axes in tne ~ity for over 50 years; that problems hac always been resolved by meetino wit~ tne r.eignbors - however, this nad not been possible since no one was available to answer tneir questions; that tneir was ;o cnurcn in the City- of the Ueciples of Christ-to determine a comparison and its ef,ect o^ t:~e City; tnat sne was greatly concerned tna~ the strong ~o^ing Code built over the years in tne City woulo be in danger oi bei~g oroken if tne proposed waivers were granted; tr.at tne lures o: a i7-story ouilding, while it was geared to eld=ry people, might nave sorce serious ei;ec;.s on the requirements for oti~er R-3 develooments, present and potential, inr tne City; tnat tnis was the first time in 50 years sne had a negative attitude as i^ the proposed de~/elop- ment - however, her concern was a concern for the City from a woman's vi~wpoi~t. idr. Cummings, in rebuttal, stated tnat the waiver reouest for tne number of parking spacFs was predicated on ti~e prior experience in tne San Diego complex, toyether witn surveys ma~e by the Federal Government and tne otner 33 developments througnout tre country; that oniy four parkir.g spaces would be necessary fo: employees since there would be only a manager, assistant manager, custodian, and assistant custodian - however, all four woulu not be tnere around-the-clock; that tnis woulo be an excellent opportunity to develop subject property to its optimum since tnese elderly people would be mobile, vital people wno would iiave access to the downtown area; that the park facilifi?s across the street mac:e this zn ideal location; that oetails as to development of this project and its ;i~ancing were based or, Section 202 of tne :Jational Housing Act and administered by tne Department of Housing and Urban Development; tnat their reouest to clarify tne iax question was governed 'oy laws of the State of California for facili;ies suci~ as was being proposec; that the C;:urcnman's Fou~oation was a ta:; exempt organizatio~ - however, ti~e 196o tax paymFnt urotest w~s now in the State courts to determine whether this type of facility qualifieu for exemptio~; that th~ facili:ies were to UQ :iEVElO(JE:1 for tne able persoa and ti~ose wno coulu not ~f;orci hi~~:er-cust, lu;cury apartmer;ts, ~ut who have contributed to ti~e ~ity, sucn as ti;ose occup~•- ing tne facilities in Sa:~ Diego; and ti~at ii ;~igher rents were imposed, togeti~er witi~ lesser density, the project would not be successful. Furthermore, t'r.e ~i~urcnmh~'s Fou~idatio~ was recognizeu in the County of ura-:ge througi, their o!filiatiun witii tiie Deciples of Cnrist and il~e affiliation witi~ tite Ci:apman College in the City of Orange~ a~d Reverenu VJellington o: the Ueciples of Ci~rist was present to speah for the ~hurchman's Foundation if ti~e ComTission so desired. ;Jir. Cummings ^oted that ttle Jevelopment would operate within the strict criterio of tne requirements for cor~struction for otiier national facilities; tnat the basic cost o; eacii apartment for the proposeJ facility would be ~12,000, anti no more ti~an q1,00J coul~i be invested in tf-~e cost of the land per unit; iiowever, because of tne high cost oi lanu in California, it might be possible to up this figure per unit to ~14,000 maximum; and that he would suggest that persons interesteJ in the proposed tievelopment visit eiti,er the San Diego or Pasadena facility to note the quality of construction. Commissioner Farano inouired of the agent wiiat was ti~e source for applications as indicated for these projects? h1r. Cummings replied that ti~e applications were from the community it was in and was not lirnited to the Cnurci~mar.'s Foundation membership or the churci~ facility, nn~ that a limiteu amount of press exposure i~ad stimulated many inyuiries in Anaheim. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COh~ISSION, March 27, 1967 3379 VARIANCE N0. 1861 - Commissioner Farano inquired whettier or not the proposed developed (Continued) was advertised through regular advertising media, and whether or not financing had been approved. Mr. _ nings replied that no official advertising nad been submitted to the newspaoers, and t:,at the Federal Government would not process any financing request until zoning nad been approved for the development. Commissioner Farano noted that on the basis of the figures and facts submitted by the petitioner, development was based on supposition only, whereupon Mr. Cummings replied , that all site inspection and approval on a preliminary basis had been made; however, no ~~,,~ iormal application had been made, and in the event financing was not approved, or tne ~'~ ~etitioners could not qualiiy, the land would immediately revert to the owners. , ~ ''~~ Commissioner Herbst inquired wnetner or not the applicants of the community would be given ~ first preference, even thougn there were 1,500 applications. E~ : ~I Mr. Cummings replied tnat applications woulo be accepted on a first-come, first-serve basis, not necessarily giving preference to tne community applic~tions. ; ~.~ ' Commission~~r Gauer inquired as to tne metnod by which tney r;~uld determine if an applicant F~ met the rec,uirements, whereupon Mr. Cummings s~ated tnat e~_.. applicant was required to ;.I submit tnree letters: one irom the clergyman, one from the persoral physician, and o^e ~~ from a friend wno had known the applicant for ten or more years - however, tne financiol ;~ statement, even tnough submitted, would not oe investigated. Mr. Cummings, ir. response to further Commission questioning, stated tnat membersnip would not be limited to one denomi;~ation, since if federal financing was obtaine~, the develoo- ment would be subject to federal laws,anci then ;rlr. ;,ummings reviewed the various church affiliations of the membership of ~he San Diego facility. Mr. Cummings continued that tney recognized, in good community planning, tne Commissio~ must take co9nizance that in years to come tnis development might be turned into some other use; that in the event of conversion be~ause of a hardship which might be created, thev would agree to enter into a recorded covenant with tiie City which would run with the use of the land that 1 to 1 parking would be provided to safeguard the community and to provide proper parking. :he Commission furtkler inquired wnether subject property was considered more favorably because of its proximity to the park on the west side of the street, whareupon Mr. Cummings rPplied that the location provided for the necessities for a successiul :acility, and the park had a great deal to do with the site selection, ard that the San Diego facility was six blocks from a park and two blocks from the „ity Hall, five blocks from shopping :acili- ties and behind the civic auditorium. Fdr. Cumminqs, in respu~se to further Commission questio~ing, stated that many exhibits woul~ nave to be presented to the Eederal Gevernmant when a pe±itio^ was ;iled - whicn depicte~ the location of parks, snopping facilities, nospitals, churclles, etc.; Ll,at their experie~~ce indicated that when a facility such as tnat proposed was gran~ed aod sarveo tiie coimwnity to provide for, and take care of, tiie elderly, active persons so ti~at tney would 'oe ir. the main stream of life, these elderly persons felt they were contriUuting to tile community standing; and that !;e had served on some projects whicii t:ad trounles oue to tne fact tnat their proximit~ was too far removed from the center city of activities,and people los~ interest where lhey were not near downtown ;acilities. ' ~~ir. C. R. Hoskins, 320 West Alberta, appeared 'oefore the Commission in opposition, stati~g ; that the proposed development might be acceptable to some - however, its effect on tne future ~ development of otner multiple-family properties, if the zoning restrictions were not adi:ered ~ to, would deteriorate; tnat nis property woulo suffer greatly since he was in close proximity ~ and had to develop in accordance witn Code, which made coyt of land more tiian subject property ~ sirce these properties wer= purchased with the sure knowledge tf~at all other developmert would be required to meet Code requirements; that people lived where public facilities were readily ' available; that many people who had read the newspaper regarding the proposed development were under the impression these would be garden-type apartments; and that the people with wnom he had spoken all felt they had not had adequate time to investigate the proposed development in order to present any opposition - however, a11 the adjoining property owners felt that ti~e ~ City should afford them some protection by requiring that the proposed developmenL complied witn standards which had been established for the area. Furthermore, iie was not upposed to ` variances if they were minimal in nsture; iiowever, subject petition was reouesting too many waivers from Cooe - whicn would be detrimental to the adjoining properties, and even ihouan I-;e • was aware the i.ity needed more apartmen.ts, he was opposed to the prooosed ~level.ooment. ~ .__~n ~ NINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 27, 1967 3380 VARIANCE N0. 1861 - Mr. Harry Horn, 720 North Helena Street, appeared before the Commission (Continued) in opposition and stated he was speaking on behalf of the Urban Renewal Development Committee and noted that although the City had not accepted the Victor Gruen plan as yet, and had not spoken with the representatives of the proposed development, the Victor Gruen plan designated the northeast quadrant for garden-type and high-rise apartments with one-way traffic and a park area to serve this area, said boundaries being extended from Sycamore southerly with Ulive Street as the westerly boundary and the Santa Fe railroad tracks as the easterly boundary; that before the Commis- sion gave any consideration to subject petition requesting the many variances, it was in the interest of the City to delay this considerat?on until the Uictor Gruen report was acted upon. Mr. Joe Farber, 184 West Lincoln Avenue, appeared before the Commission and stated he was one of the downtown merchants, noting that if subject petition were approved, this would set a precedent for similar requests of the lots near the downtown area in obtaining waivers of the Zoning Code; that in his opinion, approval also would be setting a precedf~t ior allowing federal control of projects in tne City, whereas the City Council hao g~:,~a o:: record as being opposed to '.hat type of financing; that tne approval would take more tax mo~.~.es from the City; that if these waivers were granted, he would expect to be given the samF: p~ivilege on any property ne wished to develop; and he suggested that the Commission conti~~ue subject petition until all evidence and documents were clearly understood by the citizens of tne City. ~J~r. Cummings, in reply to tne foregoing opposition, stated that the involvement of the Department of Housing was as a mortgagor in the same manner as the F.H,A. handled lozns for homes in the City; that the relationship between the Churchman's Foundation and the Federal Government was only as mortgagor and mortgagee; and that the Churchman's Foundation was responsible for the entire development~ hir. Cummings, in response to a number of Commission questio~s, stated t'~at the Churchman's Foundation would make up any deficit; that a covenant was a part of the federal taw require- ment; tha± if the Foundation did not meet this deficiency and payments were not submitt=d, there were tnree possiole courses: 1) the Federal Government would come in and appoint a manager to determine whether there was poor management or otherwise, and if the case was poor management, theywould qrant a moratorium of one year on ihe loan and direct that a change in management be made; 2) if there were social or economic problems within the community, regardless of the rental rates and time and place, they ~vould declare a mor~torium to attempt to resolve the problem; and 3) assume ownership in the name of the Secretary of Housing and direct another organization to go i~ and ourchase the pioperty ur.der contract with the government to operate this. - Commissioner Farano then noted that regardless of the aforementioned steps, in one degree or another the development would be under the jurisdiction and discretion of the Federal Goverr,- ment. Mr. Cummir.qs noted this was like any federal oank or savings and loan operatio~. Commissioner hlu~gall noted tnat anyone having an i~come of $4,000 a year woula want better facilities. .i~ Mr. Cummings replied that ma~y of tne prese~t renters in the San Uiego iacility lived on tneir retirement ir,come, not large investments; that many were living on $is5 oer month income; and that in the main, tnis development would be taking c-r= of people who have been living in poor environments ~nto better housing witn more money to spend in tne community. Commissioner Farano inquired wnat role wos tne church and the Foundation playing i;•, an endeavor to obtain tax relief, whereupon t~1r. Cummings replied that he had no knowledge, but that tne mortgage corporation had engaged an attorney to represent them. Commissioner Farano then commented that one way or the other this would be onotner nttempt to take property off the tax rolls by requesting relief from taxes. Mr. Nozvel. Ulvestad, 815 West Broadway, appeared before the Commission and stated i~e was 9reatly concerned about the proposed development; that he did not doubt the sincerity of the people asking to provide benefits to the people they were supporting, but he felt support should be more directly to the community; that consideration should be given to the comments made by ~dr. Harry Horn since a number of persons present in ti~e Council Chamber had sat for the past year with i•eoresentatives of the Victor Gruen Associates and the Plannino Staff and have watched the development of the Center City plan materialize after considerable hard work by the City Cour.cil. He also noted the Commission had a difficult proolem facing them because of the proposed reauest witn . number of variances, and he wondered wi~ether or notth2 City had reached a pointin time where sornething should be done about t.he redevelopment plan and planning for the City in the future. However, it was his opinion that the propose;l ~ MINUIES, CITY PLkNNING COMMISSION, March 27, 1967 VARIAVC ~ -~ ~ •..~~~ 4 ~ :~ ~ ~ 1' . ,~~, ~, j ;~ , ~ ;c ~ i, ~ r.~ - :~ ' ~I ~ ,~ ~ ~ r ~;~ ~ ~ 1'` '~j • ~ ` ~ --- ~ ,* ,; i ~ NLl/~;~7 Tu CUiJDITIOiJS Y'tRTAI;JIIJG ;~0 STREEI~ ACCESS PUINTS A;JD SIG;JS, REQUEST'tU CUNDIilp;JAL USc: ;~cR,'~IT A WALK- ~ i E NU. 1861 -~F~elopment was somewhat (Continued) 3381 consider the Premature, and he ur Council, but pr~POSed development in close cooperatio~Withst~e ~,°ty he did not feel the project should b° continued unti; of its merits, but because time as a premature, and that Gruen redevelo mentsuch definite decisionahad been reached bregardined because p plan. perhaps it shoul Mr, Faessel again a 9 thE Victor Mungall had mentionedethEd before the Commission and noted that althou h nothing was said about a$4'000 income, this was the maximum ;~ Peyment• tenant havin 9 Commissioner , that the statement made that9oblt one dollar and havi~ yone could haVe- ~h~` did not seem logical with a 7_ Y four 9 to be evicted after no~_ statement also was 1 story structure apdrs96sawould be servicin a series of ~ made that a panic button was wired toPthemma~~. 9 this business alls be answered, and would ~ that even though a more, he would like figures from h7r, Cu `hese residents be from ger~s office out of stat the communit~ hcW Would e Who became tenants o{ the c~1~95 rE9arding the actu~l Y• Further- an Diego facility~ ~~mber o; Mr, Cummings ex Perso~s irom residence q Plained the methud of the bY means o{ ahours a day; howevEr, if he shouldbleave~tneta~9 t~he manager was in relay switch to the assistant m;~,~a P~I ~t, calls were transfe:ed Commissioner Rowland ielt that a 9er or custodia tne Commi.ssion• comp1EtE cross-sECtion of the evidence `t~~ °r0P°sa1 n~~ LeF~ h~crp by as well ;S ' tt~at the Commission hao ~umerous docume~ts wnicn were submittep to cons ' tne proposed development~'Seim~ted at the n if and when it wzs plicatio~s to the General p loer, earing; that concern shuuld 'oe expresseo rE9,;r~i~g standards adopted; tnat the densit laO °~a the , and this should be related to t Y l~volved was Victor Gruen pro.~os.;l, as well as determinin ne requirements fora`~r than tne Cit hospital in which no consideration~wasth_ Y'S ~-J s could be consideredpsimil;a to~a~`tio^ ~9entsfor the facilities, Proposal, it wouidtoen~r had made an excellent~ recreation facilities• convaiescent and q,uestiors the ~e1 P to tnem to contact tnePnei~nt°tion ' th°t ~lthougn thE be continued until all data to tne Commission regarding the 9hbors might have; an;i that a,~9hbors and explair. in detail an preser.ted was tnorou hlY co~sideration b Y concern 9 y reviewed ~, Y tr~e Commissio~ should "fr~ Cummings then advised the Commission that Y the Commission. to the number of out of state hE ~ia not ha•~e the information available attempt to obtain it and persons i~ the San Diego facilit in detail. meet with the people of t~e commu~it Y~ h~WeV~r os y to explain theiouid make ~~ ivirs, Pearson noted that ~ Propos~l Payment in 1906 and the ,,an Diego facilit reouested that tnis informatgo.,~p~E,s~heir t~xes i G Commissioner Rowland ~ 19~~, but pro2ested offered a PPlieo by the aeveloper, the meeting of April m~tion to conti~ue cor,sideratio~ of detail all data 24' 19°~~ in order to allow time ior the Commission to r for the developersbtotted to them, as well as V°_l~nce .~o. 1861 ~o develo meet witn interesteo ~he ~V1pEnCe Presenteo at the hEariW i~ pment and answer their questions, Persons in the communit CARRIED. Commissioner Farzno Y`o explai~ tne~~ an~ seconded the moiion. ~P~-~P~sEa RECLASSIFICkTiUiJ iJQS, _ p~gLIC HEqj~j;~G. 60-61-95 and "ol- ;~,'X ~. Gi2NVES A:~~ ~----=2-30 ~nio Street, ~ PAULI;d'c ;~~ hnaheim, Cali:orni~ ~~AVrS, 4~6 CGiJDITIOilAL USE ~~eC`°"~ul°rly shape~ parcel of~ vW~ers; S~~tn PERhII'I''~~ corner of la~d PropErty UescribFd ns: --~=92b Underhill Avenue and Sta~e Colleaeeo at ------_ frontages of a ti~e southeast matel PProximately, ~~, fEE; on Underhilllevard and ha~~i.~;g Y 98 ieet on State College Boulevard 'a~~e~'~e 2004 and 20pg UrJerhi ~ and furtner ~~~ 'pproxi- ~-1, UiJE-Fkb7IL'; 11 Ave'~Z~;Ji~ropertY Presently classicil~ed as ~QUES"fED CLHSSIFICAfIOiJ: Ah~ RESIDL;J'prqt Mr. Pdike Gehrar, ~'' RtSTNURq,'J7' 4yI7y WAIVcr~ uF that + ~ttorney {or the `~~F ~I'~~JS. the proposed walk- Petiiioners owners were de Up restaurant. financi ~ appearEd belore the Co restrictions sirous of havin n9 had been rescinded - ~lssion a~d ~o~ed originall g tt~° erivileye of develo i;~ f~OWever sion reqardin Y prOPosed; that the last of pr~Pert '`~1e Property 9 the access p 9 ti~e the requirement to Underhill AvE~Ue `thE Problems were y Wlthout the many to advise the Cofor signs in accordar.ce wi~ "'d tate Colle3e Boulevardbeiore tn= Commis- mmission that the h t~e present Si n ~ togetner with ~'arl i.onditional Use P next developnient 9 Urdinance; tnat since atraffic ermit N~, 928~ W}~ich Plan would b he ~'~s unable pattern was was now e similar as that proposed ind:cated on these ~ ~eing considered for P_ans, it W3S t~1e termination, but desire of the petitioners to r- F MINUTES, CITY PLAIVNING COMMISSION, March 27, 1967 3382 RECLASSIFICATION NOS. - retain the conditional use permit in order that any future develop- 60-61-96 and 61-62-30 ment might know what woulo be permitted for access to and from the property and to be able to use the property to its highest and best CONDITIONAL USE use; and that although subject property had an alley to the south, PERMIT N0. 928 this did not provide adequate circulation for the commercial use of (Continued) subject property. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE i-~ARING WAS CLOSED. Chairman Camp returned to the Council Cnamber at 3:35 P.h1. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that since suoject property could not be cieveloped under the plans submitted for the conditional use permit because they were wi~hdrawn, the pri~ne cuestion before the Commission was whether or not access to and from the property, together with C-1 site signing of the property,should be considered justified without any additio~al plans since subject property would be difficult to develop and yet maintain the residential integrity of tne homes to tne east, reducing tne commercial traffic flow using Underhill Avenue anci coping with the problems of lighting, signs, noise, dust, etc., which the residential properties to the east would have to cope wit~, under the original plans of development and should be kept in mind in the event future plans were submitted, nowever, the plans could not be so developed since they represented a develooment which would not take place. Considerable discussion was held by the Commission, Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts, the Staff, and the representative of the oetitioners regarding the method of exercising the conditional use permit in the event the reouest for amendment to conditio~s of approval of the reclassifications was recommended to tne City Council, and after no decision was reached, the agent requested a iew moments with his client before the Commission made any decision. Commissioner Rowland was of the opinion that subject property could not support development under the C-1 Site Development Standards, whereupon Mr. Thompson stated that any problems which subject property would encounter were discussed witn tne restaurant developer regard- ing access, lights, noise, dus~, hours of operation, together witi~. the approp:iateness of land use, and at the City Council neeting of February 28, 1907, the Staff, including tne cngineering Uepartment, had recommended tnat access to Underhill hvenue be permitted :or the easterly 40 feet of the second lot, ond that approval of any development under the conditional use permit could be controlled through this vehicle. iJ~r. Gehran then advised the Commission that after discussior. with his client it w;s reouested that the ;ommission consider approval of the conditio 31 use permit although development could not be made in accordance witn the plans sub:nitted; however, the escrow was not car~celed and it was hoped circulation and access oroblems, together with signs, would be cleared up ii the conditional use permit were exercised. Cnairman pro tem Herbst advised the petitionersthat there were more problems facing any de~elopment of subject property to warrant continuance u~~til such time as firmly committed oevelopment plans coulu oe suumitte~ for ine Commission's consideration, and tne ~ommission was desirous of giving ti:e petitionen every possible chance of developing tneir property wit~:•- out jeopardizing tiie esthetics of the neignborhood, and that G 1 uses :or tne property were or.1y permitted if the existing residences were remo•~ed. Commissioner AL1red offered a motion to reope~~ the heariny and continue i~etitions fo* keclassification ;Jos. 50-01-96 and 61-52-30 and Conditional Use Permit :do. 928 to the meeting of April 24, 1967, in order to allow time for the petitionersto resolve development problems for subject property. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion~ iJiUlI0;1 CF,RRItU. Chairman Camp assumed the chair. TENTATIVc MAP UF - llEVELGPER: iHc RAYMO;JD CUMI~A`JY, 1181 clm Street, Suite "4", Eullerton, TRACT ;JO. 6383_ California. E:dGIfdEER: Anacal Engineering Company, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract located on the west side of East (Raymond) Street approximately 1,30G feet south of the centerline of Orangethorpe Avenue, containing approximately o~l acres, is proposed for subdivision into 13 ~~1-1, LIGHT INDUS'iRIAL, ~~NED lots. Hssociate Ylanner Jack ~hristofferson presented Tentative ~dap of I'ract iJo. 0383 to tne Planning Commission, noting the location, estoblisned development aojacent to suojec*_ property, and the proposed subdivisior. into 13 :d-1 lots. fne Commission inquired of the developer the reason for proposing smaller lots than have been presented previously to the Commission. , , t MINUTES, CITY PLAI•:NING CUt~1MISSION, March 27, 1967 ' 3383 TLNTATIVE MAP OF - Mrs. Helen Sweet, a partner of the developer, advised the Commission TRACT N0. 0383 that the 70-foot lot width for industrial lots was found to be quite (Continued) successful and in demand in Fullerton, and it was their hope to develop subject property in a similar manner, and that it was possible to combine the 70-foot lots if requests were made for larger lots. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to approve Tentative M~ap of Tract IJo. 6383, subject +o the following conditions: 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one subdivision, each , subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. .,.~~ ; 2~ That limited vehicular access rights may be provided to East Street, subject ~~ ~ to the approval of the Ci.ty Engineer. ~ ~f 3~ That a temporary waiver of sidewalks be granted along Street "A" subject to no permanent plantings within the sidewalk area~ 4. fhat a predetermined price for Lots "A" and "3" shall be calculated and an agreement for dedication entered into between the lleveloper and the City of ' Ananeim prior to approval of the final tract map. ihe cost of Lots "f," ~~d "B" shall include land and a proportionate share of the underground utilities and street improvementso 5. That any air-conditioning facilities proposed shall be properly shielded from view, prior te final building and zoning inspections. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. NOTIG!J CARRicD. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HcARI,4G. RICHARD OSTROUT, 506 cast clizabeth Drive, Ura~ge, IJO, 06-07-54 California, Owner; requesting that property described ss: F, rectangularly shaped parcel of land 'naving a frontaoe of approximately 28 feet on the east side of Nutwood Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 640 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 253 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, be reciassified from the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the G'-1, GEi4ERAL COh1MERCIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the request and location of subject property, noting that at the time Conditional Use Permit :Jo. 346 was approved for a multiple-family planned residential develapment, the southerly 28 by 640-foot ~-3 parcel was not i~corporated in tne legal description, and that altnough development plans were not submi~ted for thz property, they would conform with the zone of the adjoining p.roperty to the south which was also under the same ownership. Tne petitioner inoicated his presence to answer questions. tJo one appeared in opposition to subject petition. TI-IE i-icARI,'JG WAS CLuScD. Commissioner Herbst o;fered Resolution ido. PC67-o0 and moved for its passage and odoptior., seconded by Commi<_sioner ~vlungall, to recommend to the City Council tnat Petition ior Reclas- sificatioa ^!o. 50-5?-54 be approved, unconditi.onally. (See Resolution Book! On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COtuV~SISSIUiJERS: Fllred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, hiungall, Rowland, ,;amp. iJOES: C~MMISSIOiJERS: None. ABSEfJ"C: CUMh1ISSI0IJERS: IJone. A ~ i r, ~ ~ S MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSiOV, ivlarch 27, 1967 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC t-IEARING. JOHN NUNENIANN, c~o Struck Realty, 506 East3Chapman : NC. 66-67-56 Avenue, Orange, California, Owner• CUMPANY, 841 North Harbor Boulevard,CqnaheimN Ca~i ornia01R9e~~I0(J VARIANCE N0. 1864 property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a TENTATI~IE MAp pF frontage of approximately 330 feet on the north side of Orangewood Avenue and having a maximum depth of approximately 640 feet, the ~ TRACT N0. 6373 easterly boundary of subject property bein a west of the centerline of Spinnaker Street9 ppo~eTtately 494 feet classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZOtJE, P Y Presently REQUESTLD CLASSIFICATIOiV: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF 1 ~) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN 150 FEcT OF ~.I'~ ~-A ZOidED PROPERTY~ (2) REQUIRED FROIVT YARD StTBACK, (3) ~~'' REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK, AiJD 4 ~ AllJACEiJT TO R-A PARCELS. ~~ REQUIRED MASUURy WqL~S ; :< SJBJECT TRACT: DEVELOPER: CGVI[JGTUIJ BROT'rIERS CO[JSTRUCI~IOiJ CUMPAiJY, 841 North Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California. EiJGINEER: Lar.der tngineering, 17g2 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Subject tract, located on ; the north side of Orangewood Avenue, approximatel 1 ~ the ce^terline of Haster Street, containin a y+320 feet east oi proposed for subdivision into 16 R-3, ;viULT9FLEpFqMILYtRcSIDtidIIAL~ is ZOiJED 1ots, Mr. James Schuler, representin9 the owner, appeared before the Commission and stated he Was i'~ 9eneral agreement with statements made in the Report to the Commission; that the reason for not proposing a masonry :vall on the east property line was because a:ter dis- cussion with the property owner, he had indicated the property was the fact that the north side of Orangewood Avenue had been developed for R-3 purposes, including the tract to the east of the adjoinin Potential R-3 due to waiver of the setback areas was due to the fact~thatPittwastproposedetoshaveear64afoot t~ dedicated street; that they proposed ap~roximately 5/8ths of the units in one-story apart- ments because it was felt these were more attractive and more salable than two-story; .3r,d that as a result of this oesign, a waiver in the setbacks was necessary. ;Jo one appeared in oppositiun to subject petitions. _~I THE HEARI:~1G WqS CLOScD. Commissioner Rowland noted that the west, and this was one of the many problemsddiscussedein resolvingptheaCi~c lat~ion Elemen~ of the General Plan at a recent work session; that a i,i ~~ tion easterly might have some undesirable consequences; that there was no rea Commission to consider favorably the setback variancesrforlthe this elimination of circula- f' was ade uate to son for the r 9 provide for the proper setbacks since in a recent~evaluationSOftthepRr3e1 ~~ Ordinance it was determined that the seioack requirements were necessary, and, theref ~I it was desirable and necessary that the petitioner develo the the standard R-3 requirements. ore, ,;~ P property in accordance with I Commissioner i3owlano offered Resolution ;Jo. PCo7-b1 and moved for its ~ I . - , ~ fication No. 66_67_ Passaqe Gna aooption, seconded by Commissioner Nerbst, to recommerd to the City Council that Petition for Reclas5i- F. 56 be approved,.subject to conditions, E On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed 4 (S~e ~E50lution 3ookl i ~ ` Y tne following vote: [ i :+YES: CUfuVdISSIUNEi~S: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, ~amp, f ~ ~ iJOES: COMMISS?UiJERS: ;Jone. j ABSEfJT: C0,1M4ISSIONERS: iJone, i i Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution iJo. PC67-o2 and moved for its , seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance 'do, 18oa, in art I waiver of tiie maximum building heignt within 150 {< P°ssage and adoption, , ma~o nry wall adjacent to R-A et of R-f, zoned p ~ 9Tdnting property; however, the request for waiverpofttnenfront andUSide yard sethacks was denied; and subject to conditions. (See Resolution fiook) , On ro11 call the {oregeing resolution was passed by the followiny vote: ~ ` AYES: '~ CU~W`r1ISSIUiJkRS: A11red, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, ivlungall, Rowlan~l ~JOES: CUNJv1ISSi0iJERS: None. I . hBSEtdT: . ~amp. COA7~v1ISSI0NEi2S: IJone. "a R ~~ ~ 1 ~ i. ° ~i .~ .ti~ y ' -'' i .~.~.~.' ;~ - --- , . ^ ;~..- - r, , . 4 ~ a . ,. MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 27, 1967 3385 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to approve Tentative Map of Tract N0. 66-67-56 IJo. 0373, subject to the following conditions: VAP,IANCE N0. 1864 TENTATIVE MAP OF 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than one TRAC7' N(i~ 6373 subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in (Continued) tentative form for approval. F '. G','~' ~ ~:~ ~ ~; ~;5 w (~ ~x. 2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No, 6373 is granted subject to the approval of Reclassification i4o. 66-67-56 and Variance No. 1864e 3. That the vehicular access rights to Orangewood Avenue sha11 be dedicated to the City of Anaheimo 4. That a modified cul-de-sac be provided at the terminus of ?earson Fvenue subject to the appraval of the City cngineer: 5. That tne elleys sholl be re~urned to "A" Street between Lot fJos. 1-2 ano 15-1o and not extend to Urangewood Avenue. Commissioner Allred seconded the moticn. MOTIUN CARRIED. CONDITIO;JAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. FRANK MULLER, RCA Building, Suite 700, 0363 Sunset PEi;MIT U0. 929 Boulevard, Hollywood, California, Owner; UAVID HGOK, 1786 West Lincoln Avenue, Suite C, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission for O;J-SALt LIQl10R IN A PRUPUSrD RESTAURAlJT, WITH WAIVER OF MIiJIMUM REQUIRED PARKING SFhCES on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel o: land located at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Crescent Way a~d having frontages of approximately 400 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 255 feet on Crescent Way, and further described as 1813 West Lincoln F,venue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL CG~WuIERCIAL, ZO;JE. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the proposed request for on-saie liquor and waiver of the off-street parking, noting that the property was already developed with a commercial structure; however, some of the vacant shops were to be converted into a restaurant with on-sale ]iquor in the easterly portion, and with the increase in use of the commercial structure, an additional 20 parking spaces would be needed. No one appeared to represent the petitioner. ;Jo one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOScD. the rommission reviewed the proposed request, noting a deficiency of parking, and approv~l of subject petition should be made with o stipulation that parking be provided in accordance with the precise p1a;; of development. "Loning Supervisor Ronald Ihompson advised the Commission, upon being questiuned, that the building was in existence, and the conditional use permit wos to permit on-sale liquor; however, the entire parcel was under consideration since other types of uses could be proposed for the portion of the structure under consideration for the restaurant with on- sale liquor, and it was necessary that adequate parking be provided regardless of the use. Furthermore, the age.^.t for tne petitioner had submitted a letter noting that the requested waiver was justified by the fact ti:at calw lations were based on ~~arying uses rather ihan the actual C-1 zoning applied for; namely, assuming 4 per thousand for general offices, 5 per thousand for retail uses,l per thousand for warehouse use, 8 per thousanJ for the pro- posed restaurant, and 5 per thousand for the vacant s_ore, making the requireo parkiny in conformance with what was available. The Commission tnen reviewed tne request of the agent for the petitioner to consider the distinctions of types of uses within a structure, and it was determined that if the City began such a program, it would be necessary to have a computer system to resolve the requirements for parking purposes, and ti~at warehousirg within any type of commercial facility was figured in as part of storaqe of necessary supplies: therefore, the suggestio~; made by the aqent had no validity. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to cortinue Petition for Conditional Use Permit :Jo. 929 to the meeting of F;pril 10, 1967, in order that the petitioner or his agent might be present to answer questions. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. ~dUT1UN CARRI~U. . __ _,y r, ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 27, 1967 3386 RECESS - Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recess the meeting for ten minutes. Commissioner Farano seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4:15 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Camp re~onvened the meeting at 4:?3 P.M., all Commissioners being present. VARIANCE NU. 1862 - PUBLIC HEARING. HUMBLE OIL COMPANY, P. 0. Box 1254, Orange, California, Owner~ BILL WINTEF.3ERG, 923 Arlee Place, Anaheim, „alifornia, Agent; - requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM NUtdBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, ~ (2) MAXIMUM SIGi4 HEIGHT, (3) MAXIMUM SIGN AREA, ~ND (4) F~Ec-STANDING SIGN LOCATION on , property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Ball Road and Harbor Boulevard and having frontages of approximately 150 feet ~n Ball Road and approximately 130 feet on Harbor IIoulevard, and further described as 519 West Ball Road. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL CAMMERCIAL, ZONE. Associate Plan~er Jack Christoiferson reviewed the location of subject property, the pro- posed development of an 80-foot high modular sign, in additio~ to another sign on subject _ property. Tne definition of a free-standing sign was also reviewed, noting that if subject petition were aporoved, consideration should be given to the relocation of tne sign wnich would be in tite ultimate future rignt-~~f-way of Ba11 Road and Harbor Boulevard at the expense of the petitioner. i:r. William Winterbero, agent for tne petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the height of the sign was in accordance with the Collier-Seaburg lasw on signs along federal highways sucn as the Santa Ana Freeway Federal Highway ;~o. 3 and extends from the free•Nay to 600 feet on either side of the freeway; that all signs relating to motorist trafiic should be adequately displayed and fully visible - not to constitute a traffic hazard; that the City of Anaheim's limitation of 70 feet would place the pr~~posed sig;~ behind trees and could cause a distraction to the motorist; that although the Report to the Commission indicat=d an 80-foot hign sign, this was not the case - it was proposed to have an SO-foot sign above grade or a tocal of 89.7 feet, and this height was needed in order to be able to read the sign from the ireeway; that the wmmission was familiar with the law as he just quoted which affected the Santa Ana Freeway. The Commission was of the opinion tnat waivers uf the sign heigiit were coming to the point where new projections would be up to 100 feet in height; that a11 signs should be no more than 25 feet in heigtit; that N~hen the ~ign Ordinance was written, the oil companies nad been contacted, and at public hearings they had stated they could live with the ordir:ance - however, the oil companies had been the major violators in breaking the Sign ~Jrdinance. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the agent for the peiitioner that the Sheli Oil sign was granted through variance by the City Council, and tnat the Ameriran Gil sign had been constructed prior to the establisnment of the Sign Ordinance. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the construction o! siyns nigher an~ nigher as eac11 service station was requesting waivei•, ano that the start of tne greater height of service station signs began with tne Viobile sign on East Street. Mr. Winterberg stated that tne sign on ~nst Street was adjacent to residential uses - therefore considerable opposition was expressed, and tne sign on Harbor Boulevard war, not near a~y nomes. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Tf-~ HEARIPIG WAS CLuSEU. ~ I? Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution iJo. PC67-o3 and moved for its passaye an~ ~tioption, ~ ~~ seconded 'oy Commissioner Gauer, tc deny Petition for Variance No. 1862, on the basis that +~ tne Sign Urdinance adequately provioed for proper signing of service stationsc that the petitioner had stated it was proposed to have a sign 80 feet to the bottom, which would be • higher than that projected on the plan; that no hardship fiad been proven that it was neces- ~ sary to have a 25% increase in }~right of sign over the adjacent service station who had signs approved for 69 feet; and that the requested variance was not necessary for the ~ preservation or enjoyment of the righis of the property under consideration whicl~ were "i~ possessed by other properties in the same vicinity. (See Resolutio^ Book) ~~ ~ On ro11 ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the fol!owiny vote: ' AYES: COMMISSIO;JERS: Allred, I-arano, Gauer, iierbst, ~J~ungall, i~owland, Camp. ~ I ;JOES: CUMMISSIOiJERS: None. ,,,~. ABStNT: CUN1~lISSiUiJtRS: fJ~ne. c 2 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 27, 1967 3387 VARIANCE N0. 1863 - PUBLIC HEARING. AARON WARKENTINE, 3234 West Stonybrook Drive, Anaheim, ~.alifornia, Owner; requesting WkIVER OF MINIMUM REQUIR[D REAR YARD BUILDING SETBACK on prope~ty described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land locatea at the northwest corner of Courson Drive and Stonybrook Drive and having frontages of approximately 100 feet on Courson Drive and approximately 77 feet on Stonybrook Drive, and further described as 3234 West Stonybrook Drive. Property presently classified R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZUNE. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the proposed request, noting that although the petitioner was requesting waiver of the Building Code.in addition to their rear yard waiver, this was r.ot within the jurisdiction of the Commissiono ~ Mrs. Esther Warkentine appeared before the Commission to represent her husband, notiny that ~ the petition should have been a two part one - for the rear yard setback and for the other she had been trying to resolve between the Building and Planninq Divisions and the City Attorney regarding waiver of the Building Code since it was their desire to retain the structure as i~ was built; that the addition to the home was completed about three years ago, usin9 their own funds and building it themselves; that they had attempted to build in accordance with the Uniform Building Code given them by friends; that in her opinion there was an insignificant difference in the fire hazard to require removal of the over- -~ hang and replace with parapet walls since this would destroy the esthetics of the home; and that other cities are now permitting a 5-foot setback of the new homes being constructed. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that the only consideration they could give the p=titioner was the waiver of the setback area,and waiver of the Building Code would have to be by separate request to the City Council. Mrso Warkentine, in response to Commission questioning, stated that in addition to constru~t- ing the addition themselves, tnis was done without knowledye tnat a building perr.it was necessary~ The Commission advised Mrs~ Warkentine this was one of the reasons for requiring a building permit - in order that not only the property owner, but adjoir.ing property owners could be protected by requirements of the Building Code. The Commission also advised the petitioner that they could act only on the waiver of Title 18, and that the Building Department must iiave advised her of other courses of action. ' Mrs. WarkPntine stated the City Attorney advised her to request waiver of the Building Code by letter; however, she had addressed this to the Commission on the assumption this 3ody could act on her request. Idr. Roberts advised the Commission that pernaps he had erroneously advised Mrs. Warkentine to whom she shoulu' ~Jdress the letter; however, Mrs. Warkentine could address a similar letter to tne City Council, submitting it to the City Clerk who would advise her when this item would be placed on tne City Council agenda, and then Mr. Roberts read sections of tne building Code which would have to be waived by the City Council. Mrs. Warkentine stated that the requirement of parapet walls was somewhat unreasonable since it would destroy the appearance of the structure, whereas t;leir addition was in harmony with the existing architecture. ~}~ * ~ No one appeared in opposition Lo subject petition. TI-~ HEARING WAS CLUSEU. Mr. Vic Newton of the Building llivision advised the ~ommission he was opposed to any waiver of the Building Code because it represented a fire hazard since the distance was too sma11 to prevent the spreading of a fire; that tne reason for recommendi~g parapet wa ll s between the buildings was to act as a ~ire deterrent since this would have a one-hour fire wall - however, he did not know what legal proolems would be involved to an7 new property owner or future occupant of the home, thus the reason fur his opposing waiver of the ~uildi;ig Code,so that the City would not be in a position to be sued. Commissioner Rowland inquired of Mr. Newton whether or not there was some underlyiny material which could be added to qualify for the one-hour fire protection. Mr. Newton replied that 5/8-inch drywall could be used; however, this would not he i~elpiul in the roof structure of the existing addition. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISbiQN, March 27, 1967 3388 VARIANCE N0. 1863 - Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC67-64 and moved for its (Continued) passoge and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petitio~: ior Variance Noo 1863, subject to a condition to be modified by reading: "That any addition or conversion of the existing structure shall conform to the Uniform Building Code as adopted by the City of Anaheim, uniess speci- fically waived by the City Council". (See Resolutior. Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COP~MISSIONERS: A11red, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: WI~NISSIUNERS: None. VARIANCE IvO. 1865 - PUBLIG i-~ARING. SAMUEL MAGID, 636 Ultimo Avenue, Long Beach, California, Owner; i-fr.ATH S COMPAN", 3225 Lacy Street, ' Angeles, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM NUMBER UF :.u._•STANDINv SIGNS AND (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BENJEEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS on property descrioed as: H rtctangularl~ shapeo parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and Euclid Street and having frontages of approximately 440 feet on Ball Road and approximately 740 feet on Euclid Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL ~ONiM~RCiAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the proposed request, noting the location of subject property, the number of free-standing signs presently located on subject property, and the fact that the ~ity Council had denied a request to erect the signs perding action on the variance. A representative of the Heath ;;ompany, the agent, appeareo before the Commission and noted that the petitioner-owner and the other interested persons were present to give evidence if the Commission required it; that it was their feeling there were ext~aordinary circum- stances warranting granting subject petitio~i; namely, 1) proximity to a local street to the north in the event a wall sign as proposed by the Staff was cor,stru:.ted; 2) proposed sign would not lend itself to a wall sign since the building was not designed for it, such as the Family Tree Restaurant because it would be constructed with glass windowed wa11s; and 3? that there were numerous similar signs in close proximity; furthermore, the proposed restaurant represented an investment of $250,000 after having removed the original restau- rant and non-conforming sign, which should warrant having proper identification, and that approval of the proposed sign would not be detrimental to the adjoining properties. Pdr, Samuel Magid, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, noting that he had been a long-time owner of subject property and could well remember what subject looked like prior to its bein9 developed; that the Development Service: Department plan checker had spent considerable time with the plans for the restaurant ana had been quite helpiul in resolving many of their problems; that the plans had been in the Building Departmen~ for two months before all requireme~ts of the 9uilding and Zoning Codes were complied with - however, they were not aware the sign would be in violation of the ordinance, but wnat was proposed was an improveme~t of an old, substandard restaurant and sign erected at the sidewalk witn an attractive restaurar,t which would compliment the area; and that tl~e Wooden Shoe Restaurant had a 20-year lease with an option to lease an additional i0 years - therefore, this could be consi~iered a rather permanent development. ,lo one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono T!-IE i-~ARI;~ WAS CLOSED. Uiscussion was held by the Commission and ileputy City Attorney Furman Roberts as to the interpretation of the leasehold on property in order that they might be consid~red as separate property when applied to the Sign Ordinance, and at its cu~clusion it was deter- mined that a 25-year lease was necessary binding on the land as well as the building, even though common access and parking were on integral part of the shopping center. Mr. Christofferson advised the Commission that the petitioner was proposing free-standing signs, ano the intent of the ordinance was to phase out non-conforming siyns such as that existing, and the thought of the Staff was to require an integrated sign to take care of the myriad of signs in a shopping center. , Mr. Roberts, in response to Commission questioning, stated t}~ere was no amortization date for siyns only - only on billboards or where there were major structurai changes. Further- more, a parcelmap for the portion of the ground on which ttie building was erected woul~i be - necessary so that this would become a separate piece of land use, and tiiat subject property ~ could not qualify because of the cominon ingress and egress, together with common parking. ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, March 27, 1967 3389 VARIANCE N0. 1865 - Tne Commission felt that the proposed structure would be an asset to (Continued) the area; liowever, it would be penalized if not given adequate identi- fication - therefore, this might qualify under a variance request. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC67-65 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1865, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by tt~e following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMI~4ISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer. ABSENT: C~MA9ISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Farano, in voting "no", stated that the property owner and lessees should have made an attempt to develop the signs, including the one for the Wooden Shoe Restaurant, as an integrated sign for the entire parcel; furthermore, the underlying owner had rot evidenced any desire to modify an ~ndesirable situation regarding signs as existed presently. VARIANCE NU. 1856 - PUBLIC HcARIivG. MR. FIJD ~'~RS. CARL J. HLI;JL, 525 Pine Way, Anaheim, Califorr.ia, Owners; requesting WAIVER OF REQUIREU REAR YARD on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land 'naving a frontuge of approximately 91 feet on the west side of Pine Way and having a maximum depth of approxi- mately 103 feet, the southerly boundary of subject property being approximately 281 feet nortn of the centerline of Sycamore Street, and furtner described as 525 Pine Way. 2=operty presently classified R-0, ONE-FA~JILY SUBUR3AiJ, ~U;JE. Mr, Carl Heinz, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the dimensions of subject property, t^~e existing square-foot size of the house, and the size including the proposed addition, and althou9h an encroachment of 7:eet, 2 inches into the reyuired 25-foot setback of the rear yard was proposed, there still wou:d be 3,232 square feet of yard are~, whereas only 2,275 square feet was required. iJo one appeared in opposition to subject petition. TI-r HEARI,IG WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution ido. PC67-66 and moved ior its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1866, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resclution was passed by the following vote: AYE5: COMMISSIONERS: P.llred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, PJ:ungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONcRS: None. A3SENT: COMN~ISSIONfiRS: None. RE?ORTS AiVD - ITEM IJO. 1 RECONu'.:~NDATIONS ORANGE COUiJTY USE VARIAiJCE N0. 5807 - Requ=szing the contirued use of property located on the west side of Batavia StreEt, approximately 1,500 feet south of Lincoln Avenue, for heavy construction equipment stor~~e and maintenance in the M1 Light Industrial ilistrict. Associate Planner Jack Ciuistofferson reviewed the request of the Orange ~:ounty Planning Commission regarding Orange County Use Variance No. 5807, noting that the use was estab- lished in 1900 and had received subseouent e,ctensions of time for the existing use; that the present annexation policy betweer the City of .4naheim ano the CiLy of Orange indicated subject property would be ann=xeci eventually into the City of Oranye. Commissione: HerUst offered a mo;,ion to receive an~ file Orange County Use Variance No. 5867. Cornmissioner Allred seconded t}ie motion. MO"CIOiJ CARRIED. ;~ _ ~9 R ~~~ ~ :_:..:. .._.._ _-,..~... ,~ ~ y , - _------ -- • ~ „ , ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COh'~MISSION, March 27, 1967 3390 REPORTS AND - ITEM NOo 2 RECOIv1MENDATIONS ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 5869 - Establish a wig sales (Continued) and styling business in the R-P, Residential-Professional District at 8831 North Brookhurst Street~ Associate Planner Jack Cnristofferson presented Orange County Use Variance Noo 5869 to the Planning Comm~ssion and noted the requested use was for the establishment of a ivig sales and styling business in conjunction with the residential use of the property which was located on the west side of Brookhurst Street, approximately 770 feet north of Lincoln Avenue; that the property was zoned R-P, Residential-Professional District in the County; that seven parking spaces were being provided to the rear of the property; that access to the rear parking was being provided by a common easement along the south side of the property; and that three parking spaces proposed for the front of the structure would be eliminated when Brookhurst Street is widened to its ultimate width. Office cngineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that the Interdepartmental Committee recommended that if subject petition was approved by the Orange County Planning Commission, dedication be required for Brookhurst Street to its ultimate width of 60-foot half-width. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to recommerd to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to require dedication for street widening purposes of Brookhurst Street to its ultimate width of o0 feet, if Orange County Use Uariance fJo. 5869 is approved. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTICN CARRIED. ITEM N0. 3 CONDITIGNAL USE PERMIT N0~ 925 - Consideration of revised plans - 2 R-1 lots at the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Hampshire Street - C-0 pending. Associate Planner Jack Cnristofferson presented revised plans ;or Conditional Use Permit No. 925, which are to be considered at public hearing by tne .;ity Council April 4, 1907, to the Commission, noting that the Commission had denied the petition on February 27, 1907 on the basis that the plans presented would establish an undesirable precedent by permitting parking in the front area, removal of all landscaping, provision of less than half of the required parking, and utilization of the two lots which were too small for the conversion to commercial office uses. Mr. Christofferson noted that the revised plans indicated that parking was being provioed to the rear of the structures, since t'r,e peiitioner proposed to remove one of the garages; that the reauired 6-foot rt:asonry walls adjacent to residential zones would also be provided if so requir=d by the City Council; and that the front landscaping and residential appear- ance of the structure would remain. Upon completion of discussion held by the Commission, it was determined that the Commission's previous action was based on the fact that the two lots were too small :or proper conversion to commercial office use, as well as not providing adeauate parking; that the revised plans still indicate a shortage of the required parking; and that any reuse of the property should be accomplished by the removal oi the existing structures and replacement with a regular commercial developme~t, since the square footage would still be less than the required 20,000 square feet, and the GU Zone requires the removal of tne existing residential struc- tures if development occurred with that zone by 1969. Commissioner Herbst o:fered a motion to sdvise the City ;:ouncil that revised plans for Conditional Use Permit tdo. 925 still d~ not provide for adequate parking, that the CommissiDn's action in denial was also based on the f:;ct that the existing structures should be removed, since the C-0 Zone requires a 20,000-square foot area, or a conditional use permit,and would require removal of the existing structures by 1969. Commissioner Farar.o seconded the motion. MOTIOW CARRIEU. ITE~M IJO. 4 COP7DI?IONAL USE PER~dIl lJO. 883 - Consideration of revised plans, amendme~~t to legal description of the property, and conditions of approval under Resolution iJo. PC66-73 - Establishment of a walk-up restaurant at the northeast corner of State College Boulevard and Ball Road. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson presented revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 883 for the establishment of a walk-up restaurant and reviewec~ the findings and recom- mendations in the Report to the Planning Wmmissiono ~ ,.,, _ _ ..._ _:. _.,__ _. _ _ _ . . . . .: _...._ -- ---- --.-....~.. " "'" y ' ; .. ___ , ~ .~ ~ . " MINU?ES, CITY PLANNING CO~WJISSIUN, N~arch 27, 1967 3391 REPORTS AND RECOMMENUATIONS - ITEM N0. 4 (Continued) Mr. Christofferson also advised that the Staff had worked with the developer for landscapiry plans, and that the representative of the Tastee Development Company, Jim Linley, was in the Council Chamber to answer any questa.ons tne Commission might have. After discussion and review by the Commission with the Staff and Deputy City Attornay Furmar. Roberts relative to the amendment to conditions and the requirement of development in accord- ance with the revised plans marked Revision No. 1, Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-67 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Cc~nmissione~ Herbst to amend Resolution No. PC66-73, approving Conditional Use Permit No. 883, by an amend- ment to the legal description, reducing the size from the original 125 feet to 100 feet, deletion of Condition No. 5, and amendment to Condition No. 4, to provide that all parking sha11 be integrated in the parking requirements of the shopping center as indicated in Revision No. 1, Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMNiISSIOiJERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, hlunyall, Rowland, Camp. - NOES: CUMh7ISSI0iJERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. I?EM N0. 5 Resoluti.on to er.courage the American Socieiy o; Planninca Officials to nold their national convention in Ar,aheim in 1973. Assistant Development Services Director Robert 1~7ickelson advised the Commission that the Development Services Director, Alon Ursborn, had received information that the kmerican Society of Planning Of:icials plan to hold their 1973 convention on the West Coast, and recoR.mended that the Commission offer a resolution encouraging ASPU to consider holding their meeting in Anaheim in 1~73. Commissioner 4erbst offered a resolution recommending that the Fmerican Society of Planning Officials consider holding their annual meeting of 1973 in the City of f~naheim. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion, requesting that all Commissioners sign the official resolution, as follows: A RESGLUTION OF THE CITY PLANIJIiJG COt~lv1ISSIUN OF TI-!E CITY UF Ai~AHEIM ~tJCUURAGIIJG THE A1~4ERICAN SOCIETY UF PLANNING OFFICIALS TO HOLD TNrIR 1973 CONFERENCE IN ANkI-rIM, AVD f~SSURIidG THE A~dERICAiJ SUCIETY OF PLANIJI;4G OFFICIALS QF THEIR SUPPURT AND COOPERATION WFrREAS, it has come to our attention that the Rmerican Society of Pianning Officials contemplate holding their Hnnual Conference on the VJest Coast in the year 1973; and W;-~.REAS, all Cities in Orange County are extremely cognizant of the vital role professional planners play in the orderly development of a community. NOW, Tf-IEREFORE, Bc IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Hnaheim that the American Society of Planning Officials be cordially encouraqed to hold their 1973 Conference in tne new Convention Facility in the City of Anaheim, uranqe County, California; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commis=:o~ of the City of Anaheim assures their full support and cooperation to the American Sociecy of Planning Officials. 1'f~ FOREGOING RESULUTIOiJ is signed and approved by tne Commissioners t~is 27th day of March, 1967. 1j~; ANAHEIM CITY YLAIJiJING CuNuti1ISSIUN (Siqned) a~ Lewis Herost, Chairman Pro Tem ~ ~ ~ (Siqned) ,~ floyd Farano, Member (Siqnedl ~ Robert W. Mungall, Member Siqned i',orace E. Camp, i:hairman (Siqned) Lenzi Allred, Member (Siqned) ~1lelbourne A. Gauer, Member ~Si~aned ) Dan Rowland, Member ~ MINUTES, CI?Y PLANNING COMMISSION, March 27, 1967 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 5 ~Continued) STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAI-IEIM ) I, Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meetin9 of the City Planning Commission of ttie City of Anaheim, held on March 27, 1967, at 2:00 o'clock p.m. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of March, 1957. Si ned) SrCRETARY ANA'r~IM CiTY PLANNING COAIMISSIC~! I TEId ;JO . 6 Consideration of a General P1an Amendment for Anaheim Boulevard. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts requested the Commission to direct the Staff to prepare a study for consideration of a General Plan Amendment for Anaheim Boulevard, between Wilhelmina Street on the north and South Street on the south, to decide whether the City in requiiing dedication will require setback of the existing structures from the street in order to permit the street widening program as an amendment to the General Plan. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to direct the Staff to prepare a study to determine whether a General °lan Amendment was necessary regarding the dedication and street widen- ing program for Anaheim Boulevard, between Wilhelmina Street and South Street. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Herbst _ offered a motion to adjo~~rr the meeting. Commissioner Allred seconded the motior.. Ni0TI0M CARRIED. Tne meeting adjourned at ~:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~~~-~~ ~ ~.~~ ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission ~~~ ~.~ ~~ _ -_.__~____~_ _ .. ~ . . ~__ . _ _ _ ._ ' _ "`~. . / ~ -.. . . .. ~