Loading...
Minutes-PC 1967/05/08. . . - ~ . - , . . . . . - . . . . `\ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ .. . .. ~ .. . . . ' . ~ . . .. ~ ~ . . . . . . . .~. . .... r K~ ~ . ~ . . . . . . ~ . . .. .. . . . k;. City Hall ~~~ _ Anaheim, California ~ May 8, 1967 ~_ - kr` ~~ A REGUL_4R MEET?NG OF TI-,E A[~AYEIM CIT7 ~L4RHIRG CQMMISSION ~~ -- ---- ------------°-- ----- -------------- ' REGULAR MEETING - A regu3ar meet_ng of ihe Ar,aheim City Fianning Commission was called `' to order by Chsirrt:an pro tem Hezbst at 2:00 o`ciock P,Mo9 a quorum '~ being presente ~~: _. FRESENT •- CH.4IRMAiv: Camp (entered Council Chamber at 2:58 PoM~)~ - COMMISSIONERS: Ailreri, ~arano9 uauer, Herbst, Mungali, Rowlando ABSENT - COMA4ISSIONERS: Dlcne> ~ PRESENT - Assistant Development Sexvices Director: Robert Mickeison Zoning Supervisor: Rena:d Thompson Deputy Gity Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Associate Pianner: Jack Christo;ferson F2annina Commissior. Secretaryz Ann Kreb= 7NVOCATTON - Reverend Ai Casebee~•, F'astor o° =irst Christian Church, gave the invocation~ PLEDGE OF AL,LEG LANCE - Commissionez A_lred 1ed in the Fie~oe.of Aileaiance to the Flaga 9PFROVAI, OF TF~'E MINUTES - The Minutes ef the meeting cf Aprii 24y i96', were deferred to the meeting o_° May 22, 1967~ I V:4RIANCE NC, 186i - CORTI~tUED PI~BiIC REARI~!G, MP.. ARn MRS•. NOWARD LOUDO~, 1412 Janeen ~:`:=:~: Way, an~ MR, .4ND MRS.• 9LVI~~ BA!CER, i28 West Sycamore Street9 ~ " Anaheim, C~ii.fo:nia; Owners; CA:JF.CHNAf4'S FOUIdDATIOt~, 3J26 Los Feliz '- Boulevardy l,os Angeles, Caiifornia; ~nd R,. Cl1MM:NGS 3 9SSOCIATES9 ~ ~ 99 South Chester, Pasadena, C~iifornia, Agen±; requesting a variance to ESTABL,ISH A WITH WAI6~RS OF (1) M?NIMUM REQU7RED PARKING SP.4CE5, 1?•-STOR'_+ F?IGH•-RISE 9PARTMENT BUILDING~ ~ , (2) MZNIMUM L,AND AF.EA PER DWELLING UNIT; (3) MThIMUM DWE1.I.ING UNIT FI.OOR AREA, (4) MAXIMUM ~ BJILDZNG HEIGHT~ AND (5) MINIMUM RECRE9TIONAT.~-IEISURE AREA on property described as: An r~ irregu2ariy shaped parcei of iand located south an~ east of a parcel of land lecated at „~ ihe southeast corner af Sycan~o:e and I,en,on Streetsy sub,ject property having a frontage of I :~ approx:m.ate:y 70 feet on Sycamore Sir.eet and ~Fproximateiy 200 ;eet on Lemon S:reet. j ;:::;j Property presentlv classified P.-3, MU1.T:PLE~FAMILY RES7PENTIAIS ZONE< '~;;y ~; ` ~ Subject petition was continued from the meeting o± March 27, i9679 to ailow the Commission ,. . '' time to review data submitted to them, and Aprii 243 19E~, because of ~ tie voteo . , ~~ ~ Conmissio,er FaraRO r•~oted th~~t since the hear~ng was cio=_ed at the previous meeting, the .,-.;~ .~f ~ mot~on for denial h~;d resuited in a tie vote, a new motion wss in order~ ~nd then proceeded te _ev~ew the past action or~or to giving his motiony is foliows: that much had been said y abcut the petiticn, snd the Comm:ssion nad devoted a great deal of their time, both at ,, public hearings and reviewirtg the so-ca~ied "sister project" in S•~n Diego known as the ~ I.uthe~ Towers - however, it seert~ed the subject tc which the CoRmission must address itself ;~ was primaxiiy iand use; un*ortunately~ little had been said about land usage, with the only exception the :dea of ~isua_ intrusion, sderuacy or water and sewerage .'acilities - however, the baiance of objections and protests had been pxim3riiy against the desirability or the ~ i undes3rabi'_ity of this as a project; and rather than consideration of the building as a ` ` structure i.tseif, app~rently the object~ons had been addressed to the proposed occupants - ~ „ ~~ however, it was his judg~:ent while these were a consideration 3s far as the Pla~ning Commis- f ' sion was concerned, ~t shouid address itself Rszniy to iand use ?tself; that since this area was directly in the path of the proposed t)rban Renewal Project, these objections9 statements, ~ and protests must be deait wi~hy whether it be by this petition or another petition if the ~ City was ever'to seriously consider urban senewa~, and iE they H~ere serious about the state- r~ ments tc use the proposed area for urban renewal, and if eny credence was giveny or strength ~ n attached to the studies on which the City nad spent a grest deal of money, this could be the ~ t3me the City could deal with it; that there had been ~rsny opposed to this proposal - that ~ ~..~ it couid not be quickly brushed aside wi.th. such ideas as financing, desirabi.lity, tenants, .4 etco; that these are weli-intended bases - howevex, they were not sound under these circum- <~ stances since the Commission can deal oniy in land usaoe, but if we were serious about urban renewalY it seemed to him that this project could be the `irst concrete and material step ,~ 3428 ;~ ~ ~ MINUTES-, CI7Y PLANNING COMMISSION, May S, 1967 3429 VARIANCE N0, 1861 - the City could make on this long road to redevelopment of the down- •(Continued) town area; that the buiiding undoubtedly was of good quality since no one had argued this, and since $3 million was projected; and that insofar as 2and use, the location of this improvement for the urban renewal development of the area was proper< Commis~ionei Farano offered a motion to grant Petition for Variance Noa 1861 on the basis of the foregoing findings, and subject to co~ditionse Commissioner Allred seconded the motiono ~ ' ~4 In.discussion, Commissioner Rowland requested that the following comments made by him be ~ written verbatim: "We have spent a great deal of time on this petition, more than I would like.to recollect; however, the Commission had the following study tools available to them: T. The appiicant's brochure. 2. The General Plan adopted in 1963 by the City Council~ 3. The report to the Redevelopment Agency - 1963. 4. The Anaheim Center City Study - 1966. 5. The Report to the Commission regarding Variance Noe 1861 dated March 27, 1967. 6o The R-3, Multiple-Family Residential, Zone Ordinance adopted in 1964. 7e The staff reports, visual inspection, and public hearings. ihe five items before the Commission, namely the waiversY are as follows: le Parkina: I have no reserva'tion about the parkin9 as proposed by the applicants because our parking requirements are an appraisal of existing operations of similar natures in this and other communities. This project is unique in its occupancy, a~d at least for the amortization period, demonstrates a statistical surplus of parkin9. 2e Buildinq Site Areaa This is adequate for the occupants, based on the applicant's brochure regardin9 age of tenants, design philosophy of the guarantor (Hliil); however, the de~sitv is nine times that now proposed for the area, considerin9 all datae 3e F1oor Area: The individual units floor area is adequate when the efficiency factor of the multi-story construction is considered (see Staff Report 3~27~67). This factor recognizes ttiat multi-story buildings are unique, and carry vertical and horizontal circulation elements, which must be carried as a part of the total ground fioor area in a single-story buildingo This building has an efficiency factor of 69%;when it is applied in this case, the actual unit size becomes 733 and 558 sqvare feet in area, • which is nat a long way from our norme 4. Maximum Buildina H, e~icht: While the Anaheim Center City Study recognizes the ne~essity of taller buildings in the Center City area (note Illustrations 22, 23, and 25, Center City Study), which considershigh-rise and recommends an increase in residential density to 50 per acre in the northeast auadrant, within a park-like setting. This reflects the wording of the R-3 Zone Ordina~ce, Section 180320050, Site Development Standards, that says in part -'o .oMaintain and enhance the locally recognized values of community appearancee~e'o A~maior~roblem presented is the proximity of one of the best residential areas in the communlty and the implications of interjecting high-rise buildings into this areao The City's present multiple-family zoning ordi~ance includes setback requirements for multi-story buildings where they adjoin single-family zones, and these were determined on the basis of extensive sight line studies developed by the Staff and reviewed and adopted by the Commission and Council after work sessions and advertised public hearings. 'Locally recognized values of community appearance' ase presumed to be represented in the setback and sight line studies of both the multiple-femily zones and the hei9ht-limit policy adopted and administered in the commercial-recreation zone. If the present requirement is extended proportionately, it would require a 1300-foot setback to the nearest R-1 Zone boundaryo Or where precise plans of study areas have not been made, a reappraisal of setback requirements for all zones would seem mandatoryo 5e Minimum Recreation and Leisure Area: This may be adequate for the lender and the ~ occupants because of the design ptiilosophy of the builder and HUD which ertcourages ; minimum areas in order to encourage the residents to seek recreation and leisure benefits in the community's activitiea, which would be for their own gooda However, from the community standpoint the recreation and leisure area is inadequate, because of the inarease in density which indicates the need for greater increase of park facilities, and puts a severe demand on the entire park system and would also require I a new set of standards for minimum recreation -leisure area of the multiple=family zones." Commissioner Farano left the Council Chamber at 2:18 P.Mo . . .... .-. .::..'~.r,. -._...- - .~,' ~:' ..i~~ 4 Y ~ '~~ _ . ' ~ -~ ~ . . - .- ..~.._ ' . . ~ ~ ~ MINUI'ES, ilITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 8, 1967 3430 VARIANCE.NO. 1861 -"ConcIus~o~: Mro Rowland noted in conclusion that Commissioner Farano '~'~~st.,inued) stated land use was r,ot touched upong however, the General Plan and the Victor Gruen Report shows medium density for this area, and all graphics and studies, which are embodied in the appendix and other ;~'~y' +~` *~'~? report, iridicate low-rise structures wit:i 8»36 dwellin units '-%': r• ;~at °;. ist the communit The onl s ecific 9 per acre for Y° Y P piace this is indicated for high density ~'';~•-' '' ~'3• . s; n+.he northeast quadrant~ "•".*.' ~.~~~t~.~~ncy of a deve2opment (those who would live in this development) is not normally a Commissi~n consideration, but since the size of the unit, parking, and recreation waivers are xequested on the b~sis of age, physicai abiiity or inability, and iower-middle position in.income bracket of the tenants, it must be considered~ There is no way we can close our ~' ears or eyes to that facto There can be no doubt that the project will be fully occupied, and that it satisfies a regional need based on Federai appraisalo No ovPrbuilding seems likely unless local lenders can offer the same te:ms and amortization period as the Federal Government (HUD} guarantees~ This does not seem likely in our economy, so F cannot sub- 'scribe that will create overbuiidingy since HUD operates on a franchise-like basis - like e protected territoryo This project would be a welcome addition to the northeast quadranty where it is projected in the Center City Study for a density of 50 dwelling units per net reside~tial acreo In that area the Study projected a parking requirement of 2a25 spaces per dwelling unit, and the northeast quadrant aiso has the inclusion of two 2-3cre parks which would p*ovide local relief from the major shortcomings of this projecto . The General Plan has as a community goal 'encourage and maintain basically low-density characteristics of `c Anaheim residentiai areas' and in work ~essions it has been con- sidered but not cbs~~iged; and the Center City Study in Appendix V, Analysis of Population Trends, shows that during the study period of i960-1980 over 8d,~ of the population growth will be housed in rental unitso Both statements seem consistent in advising us to provide a variety of housing, yet not to lower the standard of liviRg environment now established by Ordi~ance~" Cammissio~er Farano returned to the Council Chamber at 2:21 PoMo Commissioner Gauer, in summing up his statements, stated that he had not changed fi3s mind from the'previous public hearing; that he had done considerable more research since the iast hearing; that he had talked with the .4partment Owners Association and had read the advertisemertts in the newspaper; that previously he had been opposed to the size oi th~ parcel - however, he disagreed with Commissioner Farano's statement that land use alone was not considered; that the ,property was presently zoned R-3, which required 700 square feet per singie apartment, and he had talked with several apartment ownexs that rentais for one-bedroom apartments were $70 per month and two-bedroom were $100 qer month unfu~rnished, and that furnished apartments were $85 for ~ne-bedroom and $100-$112 for two-bedroom; that he couid not see, as a P?anning Com~rissionei,the reason for not trying to adhere to the R-3 zoning requirements, as weil as the motel reauirements, since he did not consider the proposed development an apa_tment hut a hote':, and the City`s motel reouirements did not permit kitchen units except where indications were received that motels were catering to families visiting the City; that a dangerous precede~t would be set in the violation of the R-3. Ordinance, a~d there vras no reason why the Co~nmission could turn down any future requests for waiver of the R•-3 Ordinance if subject petition were granted; that although he had visited the Luther Towers ~n San Diego and had noted it was a glorified hotel - the people livin9 there did seem happy and satisfied - this could not apply to subject petition; that he was concerned about the tax exemption since the statement made by Mr. Cummings that the taxes had been paid under protest so that they could qualify in the event bills in Sacramento were taken care of regarding tax exempt propertiesg and that since this was a no~-profit organization, it would be assumed this would happen - however, the City had other hotels and motels which were required to pay their taxes because they were in private ' enterprise. Commissioners Mungall and Allred indicated their statements made at the previous public hearing sufficed for this hearing. Commissioner Farano noted that he had one more comment regarding Commissioner Gauer's observation.concerning the City's urc~ina~ces which were well taken, but again the Commis- sion must examine just exactly what the City is gczng to do concerning the.future program in this.or any other problem which might be less objection~ble to the-people; that these ordinances would have to be looked into individualiy and adjusted accordingly; that if the ordinances were.going to stand in the way of progress9 then the Commission would also have to'present this to the citizens of the City of Anaheim to determine whether or not the people want to progress to this type of building in this areao The reaction he had had p~ ~rr~ ~. z"c~ ~y, :r•'~ ~;r r,~a i t.. r i •~ y `t!..- T,s 'j r I Q ~ ~~ MINUI'ES•, CITY PLAI~NING COMMISSION; May 8, 1967 3431 VARIANCE NOe 1861 ~ was an uneouivocal "yes"; however, the objections3eemed to be just (Conti~ued) because of this particular prejecte I~sofar as the ordinances .were concerned, these would have to be considered at work sessions and possibly then presented for amendment at public hearings; that perhaps the Commission would have to lay the ground work for the progress of urban renewal by amending the ordina~ces, where necessary, and projecting new considerations which will have to be consi.dered and talked about; and that the other ideas of visual intrusion, water and sewers w~u•ld also be problems which the City would have to face regardless of whether subject peti.tion were approved or later petitions were submitted for consideration in a _ like mannero Commissioner Herbst stated th~i, he had studied the proposed petition and its location as much as anyone could possibly study, and he had tried to project what would be best for the C±ty of A~aheim; however, many peopie in the City were not reco9nizing the fact that the City was becoming one of the largest cities in the State, and it was presently the ninth largest city in the State, but there Nould be many problems which wouid arise and face the Commission and the City which would affect its growth and perhaps affect the lives of many of the people who were pxesent in the Council Chamber; however, the residents of the City of A~aheim could not "stick their heads in the sand" and expect this thing to pass; t}~nt everyone must look at the problem more reaiistically if the City was going to be a City of a certain size in the future; and if the proposed structure were started today, it would be at least two years before completio~, and many of the people who were now objecting would probably not be living in the City, and he urged all people concerned to analyze subject petition on the basis of wHether or not it would be good for the City and the potential growth of the City; however, in his opinion, the proposed high-rise buildin9 could be the catalyst to start the program in the area for urban renewal; that he had reviewed the entire area where the proposed structure was to be located, notin9 that a park wo~ld be on one side and the Elks Club on the east side, and very few people would be genuinely affected by the pr.oposed structure; and that more of these proposals would be presented to the City at such time as the Center City Study was adopted for the downtown area. Commissioner Mungall then decided to i~terject a few more comments, stating that much had been said about the urban re~ewal project; however, in his estimation, urban renewal was the removal of a large number of old structures in a run-down area, whereas the proposed structure was being proposed in a~ area which was well maintained, and to erect `.he build- ing usi~g gover~ment money would discourage a~y private enterprise from coming .,,to the City of A~aheim; furthermore, he was opposed to any tax exemption for church property as proposede On roll ca~l the foregoi~g resolution resulted in a tie vote, as follows: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Herbsta NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Mungall, Rowlando ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Campo Commissioner Rowiand offered Resolution No~ PC67-91 and moved for its passage and adoption, : seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to submit Variance No~ 1861, without recommendation, to the /t City Councii prior to the forty days l.imitation as provided by Code, on the basis that after ~ two meetings of voting, and no cha~ge in the tie vote9 the only way the petition would be passed would be by absenteeism through illness or business commitments by one of the Commis- ,,..;=P sioners; therefore, this would not reveal the true fee'ling of the Commissione (See , ,',;~`~;t Resolution Book) Considerable discussion was then held prior to a vote being taken on the proposed resolution, Commissioner Farano being of the opinion that the entire forty days should be used in order to explore the possibilities of changes of opinion due to additional evidencee On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~~cS: . COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Herbsto NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Ailxed, Faranoe ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Campo Commissioner Herbst, in changing his vote to "aye" for the foregoing resolution, stated he felt that it was the Commission's obligation to the community and to the petitioner to resol~e the results of subject petition without any further delay and hardship to the citizerts of the City of Anaheim, as well as the petitioner~ +~,,~ ~ ,, ~ - r ,~ - '~ :%~~~M ~ ~ ~.. - \ a y Y u . Z i~~."' : , -~. ~,. .R~-. . -. , .. . . . ~'~Y M;~,~~ 5a~71..t! ~.r .~ w-r r F~;,~'s. ~s5~}hr ~ a1;~~ ~~ y j .. ,~ ~ ...srr .7 F4 ..:x.~F..~ '" _ ,-,> r"S„_J. ~ >S i'~=. 1 ~rt: ~ .7, - 'ka ~ . .... . ~ . . ~ . ._ ~ . . ~ ~. . ~ ' ~ ' ~ ' V ~ . ~..J..s MINUTES, CITY PL4NNZNG COMMISSION, May 8, 1967 3432 CONDITIONAL.USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGo NICHOLAS AND LUCiI BARLETTR, 2152 Salt Air PERMIT N0. 931 . Drive, Santa Ana, Celifornia, Owners; requesting permiasion to ESTABLISH A REST HOME9 WITH WAIVERS OF (1) REQUIRED SETBACK,.(~2) PARKZNG WITHIN SETBACK, AND (3) PARKING REQUIREh1ENTS on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land with a frontage of approximately 90 feet on the south side of Broadway and having a maximum depth of approximately 205 feet, the easterly boundary of subject property bei~g approximately 410 feet west of the centerline of Loara Street, and further described as 1652 West Broedwayo Property presently classified R-~4; AGRICULTURAL, ZONE e Subject petition was cootinued from the meeting of April 10, 1967, at the request of the petitio~er 'to submit revised plans incorpor.ating suggestions made by the-Commissione Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, the loca•tion of subject property, and uses established in close proximity, and further noted the.fact that the reviaed plans submitted by the petitioner satisfy the requirements of the Fire Department; that paxking was increased to 14 spaces •- however, it was 3 spaces shoxt of Code require- ments; and that the setbacks were substantially the same as previously submittedo Mro Nicholas Barletta, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission and noted that most of the suggestions made by the Gommission had been resolved, and in response to Commission questioning, noted that three separate areas were provided for fire equipment to gain access to the propertyo The Commission reviewed the revised plans, noting that very little landscaping was being provided; that the required setbacks were not provided; and that the petitioner was propos- ing to overdevelop the propertye , The Staf.f noted that the structure was reduced by 1,250 square feet; howevex, the number of rooms remained the sameo Commissioner Camp entered the Council Chamber at 2:58 P.Mo No one appeared in opposition to subject petition~ Tt~ HEARING~WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission where it was noted the coverage for this intensive use was considerable when the lot size was compared; that the waivers normally granted by the Commission were for the deviation of minor items - however, the petitioner was propos- ing more than 35~ increase, which was not in co~formance•with the Code requirements; and that the property could be developed subject to conformance with Code requirements for setback and parkingo Commissi.oner Rowland offered a motion to deny subject petition, seconded by Commissioner Gauero After considerable discussion as to the merits of requiring the petitioner to comply with Code, since the use proposed was not objectionable, Commissioners Rowland and Gauer with- drew their motion and second for de~ialo Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts noted for the Commission that the use would be approved =n the R-A Zone which had few Code requirements; therefore, the Commission should be more specific in its weivers of the Code or the standards of a specific section should be indicatedo Commissio~er Rowland offered Resolution No, PC67-92 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissio~er Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 931, in part, denying request for waiver of 6ection 180040090(2-b) and Section 18004.030(b-9), subject to the petitioner providing 15-foot setbacks and complying with Code parking require- ments, and subject to conditio~se (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolutipn was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSe Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Rowland, Herbst. NOES: ' COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENI': COMMISSIONERS: Nonea ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Camp. ~,~ ~,~ ; ~r x ~ ~ a~, ati ~`:~ :~~ 1 ~ . ~ s '~r1 s .. ~ ,.4 F . ~ ..°t ~~T r .;i ~.~'r ~Y T ~~`",~. .. . . __.._._~.._ _ __.~_~ -~.i' . . . . .~ ~ . . ~ ,.. ~ ~ .~~~ 1 MINU'IES,~CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 8, 1967 3433 , 'CONDITIONAL.USE - Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that Variance PERMIT NOe 931 Noe 770, to permit a modeling studio in the existing house,w3s approved (Continued) in 1957 and was never exercised; furthermore, the existing house had been.removede ' •Commissioner Gauer offered Resoiution Noa PC67~93 and moved for its:passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to terminate ail proceedings on Variance Noa 770 on the basis that the petition was never exercised, arjd the existing home had been removede (See Resolution Book) !A~ On roll call the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campo NOES: COMMi:SSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo Chairman Camp assumed the chairmanshipa CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARI!JG~ HELEN FOERTMEYER, 405 North Dale Avenue, Anaheim, PERMIT I~O~ 941 California, Owner; GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH, 625 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; request3ng permission to ESTABLISH CHURCH . OFFICES, A LANGUAGE SCNOOLy A[~!D LIMITED CHURCH SERVICES IN AN EXISTING RESIDENIIAL.STRUCTURE~on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 165 feet on the west side of Dale Ave~ue and having a maximum depth of approximately 244 feet, the southerly property line being approximately 600 fee~ noxth of the centerline of Tyler Avenue, and further described as 405 North Dale Avenue. Property presentiy classified R-A, AGRICULTURALy ZONEo Associate Plan~er Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, location of subject property, and uses-..established in ~: a proximity, as well as the Report to the Commission. Mro Nick Do~alis, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted the proposer use of subject property; that since acquisition of this property, this meant that preliiriinary plans approved for the church and education building for the property to the'north and west of subject property would be revised so that its buildings could`be better placed architecturally and parking facilities made more accessible; however, the request for the use of the existi~g structure for the la~guage school, temporary offices, and the ladies 9uild would be for a period of three to five years, at which time it was hoped that the proposed classroom and assembly building would be built and the e.cisting home removeda Mr. Christofferson further noted that if the property to the north was developed substan- tially i~ accordance with the original pia~s, there would be no need for a pubiic hearin9; however, the peoole who would be notified would be the same persons present at this hearing; and that clarification should be made as to any relocation of the classroom and assembly buildi~g approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 7860 Mra Dovalis advised the Commission that the existing structure had eight rooms and would be used only for church and church school facilities~ Mro Thom~s Brown, 324 Coolidge Avenue, appeared before the Commission and raoted that when the church facilities were approved for the property to the north and west, they were required to constauct a 6-foot masonry wall and night lights permitted at a maximum of 6:eet, which were down-lighted, a~d inquired whether this would apply to subject property alsoa Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission and the opposition that there was ~o future parking proposed for subject property; that the Report to the Commission recommended a 6-foot masonry wall - however, downlighting could be required in the event parking was ~ planned in the futuree ; ~ Mre Bsown.also noted that drainage for the property would have to be provided for since the j R~1 homes to the south had a lower grade than subject property, and when subject property was developed, drainage might be harmful to the R-1 homes, and that-sidewalks should be installed on the front of subject property immediatelyo Office Engi~eer Arthur Daw noted that with a masonry wall there would be no way to dispose of the dra3nage if a special easeme~t was not granted through the R 1 1ots; therefore, ' drai~age wa+~ld have to be via Dale Avenueo Furthermore, sidewalks and dedication for both subject a~G abutting property to the north are required, with a bond for the improvements to be posted, and improvements installed within a specified period of time unless extensions of time were gr~-ited by the Commission c~s City Councile ~_~ ~ ~~'+1'Y^ ''", ~ _~?',~x 5 ~t . ~.. ~ '~ t:k' - : 4 r, :'C7 ~Y Y ~"-i`S 'ir; t,. C~'1. •?','~„'71a r rC ;'~.rfi.r~'~n'y, ~,Tl~ ~~ 7~~~~~~~'j ~ ~°~' s R ~~' ~ Zi''~ ' S ~ ~ . ? 5 .~ ~; i ~.: Z - . . ~~ ... . ~ . . . ~ ~ . . .. l ~ 1 \ MINUTES;.CZTY•PLANNING COMMISSION, May 8, 1967 3434 `~ CONDITIONAL USE = Mr. Brown further noted that if the proposed clessroom building"wer,e. PERMIT N0. 941 to be placed on a,portion of subject property; windows•from the second (Continued) story would create an infringement of privacy of tfie R-1 homes, whe%eupon i, . the pastor of the , church advised the Commissiar that the building.could ~ ,. ; be so located as to eliminate any windows on the south, and that the ' ' proposed use of the existing structure for school purposes would be for a two-day-a-week session.from 4:00 to 6:OO,PeMa, with the children b.eing:.brought to the=facility in~the.same : man~ei as .they were now'take~ to'the Mattie Lou Maxwell School for the-.sam~:la~guage classes ~! _ Assistan.t Development Services Director Robert Mickelson noted that the R-A Zone permitted . ~ 2~ stories, or 35 feet, unless the Commission tied the height to specific,plana'o. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution Noo PC67-94 and moved for its passage and adoption, ~i~ seconded by Commissio~er Mungali, to grant Petition for Conditional Use-Permit'No. 941 for ~' a period of three years, with.a review by the Commission at the e~d of that time, and additional time granted at the request of the petitioner; furthermore, that.if the'class- ~° room and assembly building originally proposed for the property to the north was relocated, a said buiIding.would have no windows on the south side,-as stipulated by the petitio~~er; ;~; and that any lighting proposed for subject property shall be at a maximum.height of 6 feet and down-lighted. (See Resolution Book) ' ~r ~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes k~ }~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES IS o ~~- : COMM SIONERS None. ABSENI:..COMbIISSIONERS: Noneo . ~ VA I `K ~ R A[JCE,NO. 1872 - PUBLIC I-IEARING. SOUTHLAND MACHINERY CORPORATION, 1822,South i.~wis Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting a variance to CONSTRUCT ~ A FREE-S7ANDING SIGN WITH WAIVERSOF SIGN LOCATION AND SIGN AREA orr ~ ( . act No. 5084 - A rectangularly shaped parcel of:' Y. e l r s n '' ~„; and having a fro tage of~approximately 100,feet on the eaSt side of Lewis Street, trie` ' ~ : ~"° northerly property line being approximately 250 feet south:of the'centerline of`Katella ~ Avenue,.and.fur.ther described as 1822:South Lewis'Streete' Property presently classified x M-1, LIGHT. INDUSTRIAL,. ZONE. ! _ ' Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject ~;~; Y proper.ty,.,and la~d uses in close proximity, as well as previous zoning actions on subject propertyo_ Mre A, J. Giles, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and requested ' clarification on the method which the Staff used for calculating the permitted sign area; this was.done.the~ by Mr, Christofferson. The Commission inquired of the age~t why the permitted sign area established in the M-1 Zone could no.t be•complied with, since all other industrial establishments in the industrial areas were required to comply with the maximum sign areao Mr. Giles-steted that the size was necessary in order to direct'trucks and patrons utilizing Katella Avenue, and that,they were aware that if an additional building was conetructed ~ adjoini^g the north side of subject property, the proposed sign would be hiddeno The Commission further noted that the titioner had been pe granted waiver of the required ~' maso,nry wall to enclose storage facilities, and at that time the petitioner had stated the ' waiver of..the masonry wall was in lieu of.a_sign, and inquired why ttie sign request was" " ~, before the.Commission. ' Mra Giles stated that,whe~ the petition had been filed; they were so anxiotis to obtain permission.to move into the bu~lding-that the,required sign hed been forgotteno 2oni~g Supervisoi Ronald Thomp§bn advised the Commission that Mr. Giles..had.:appeared before the Gity,:Council and asked permission-to erect the proposed sign, which was granted subject ' to_the filing of a variance, and the erection of the'sign:was at their ow~ risk•, however, ~ ~ ;: the petitioner had elected to wait until the Commission approved or c~isapproved the veriance . for the'sign. The Commission further noted that it would not be difficult for the petitioner to meet the requirements of the Sig~ Ordinance, and the designers of signs should be made aware of the requireme~ts of the Sig~ Ordina~ce and should be required to develop the signs within these limitatio~s. ~~ __ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 89 1967 3435 ~ !~ N , ' K~ VARIANCE NOe~1872 - No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono > T2iH liHARING WAS CLOSED ~ ~i '~ Th,e Commission noted that the petitioner, in essence, was proposing to have the same ~ advertising advantages as properties located~along Katella Avenue; however, a Katella ~Ayenue addiess property sold for more then a local street property such as 1.ewis Street, ~' and that the petitioner shoula be required to develop the sign area in conformance with ~ Code.- however, because of the location of the existing structure, the sign location ~ would'be.projected through the ro~f of the existing structure, and since this existing structure was a complimentery construction; the proposed location of the free-standing sign seemed in ordera ~ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution Noa PC67-95 and moved for its passage and adoption, ~ seconded'by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance Noo 1872,.in:part, permitting waiver of the sign iocation as proposed on ~evelopment plans, and denying maximum square foot ~ sign ar.ea,requirin9 the petitioner to develop within the requirement of the Anaheim Sign ~'~~' Ordinance. (See Resolution Book) On roll call.the foregoin9 resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Campa NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowlando ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo RECESS - Commissioner Rowland moved to recess the meeting for ten minutesa Commissioner Herbst seconded the motiona MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 3:55 P.M. RECONVENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 4:07 PaM., all Commissioners being present. VARIANCE N0. 1873 - PUBLIC HEARINGo FRANK SACKETT, c~o Carl Cowles, 106 West 4th Street, , Santa Ana, California, Owner; CHARLES SCHLEGEL, 433 West 8th Street, Santa.Ana, California, Agent; requesting a variance'to PERMIT A' 42-FOOT'HIGH, 450-SQUARE FOOT SIGN, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (2) MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT, AND (3) MAXIMUM PERMITTED SIGN AREA on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcei of land located at the northeast corner of Wilshire Avenue,and Lincoln Avenue and having frontages of approximately 200 feet on Lincoln Avenue and''approximately 170 feet on Wilshire Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property, and uses established in close proximity, as well as the Report to the Commissiono Mr. Charles Schlegel, agent for the petitioner,,.appeared before the Cortmission and noted that althou9h subject property already had zoning when plans for development were presented to the Building Department, they were required to pay for street light and street tree fees; that the existing uses established do not lend themseives to an integrated sign along with the signing of the proposed development; that it was difficult to obtain leases for subject property, and the proposed lessee planned to utilized the entire building; and that it was necessary for the figure salon to have signing similar to adjoining uses, which had freeway orientatione ' Mro Robert Ramsay, representing the sign company, appeared before the-Commission and noted that the proposed sign was in keeping with the Spanish architecture that the owners of the property stipulated would be required if development of the property occurred; that they were attempting to construcr the sign in compliance with Code requirements - however, since the restaurant.had a sign higher;than permitted by Code, the figure salon needed some identi- fication because of this he~ght; and that the residents to the rear of the commercial struc- ture`would not'be affected by the sign because of its proximity to the.building. Furthermore, he wished to compliment the Dev~lopment Services staff for their"cooperation and suggestions which`were made through telephonic request. The Cortuni5sion noted that the petitioner had submitted a panoramic ~~iew of the property and its proximity to the establi.shed sign and inquired whether or not it would be feasible to xelocate the sign so that it would be nearer the street and still not be overshadowed by the restaurant sign. .~l Y . ~ ~'. ,. . ~ ~ T F ;: ~~ - ,. ::1' , .y~ rJ~ ~ ,. .. ~ ~r ~/ I i' MINUIES,-CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 8, 1967 3436 VARIANCE NOe 1873 - Mra Ramsay noted that the proposed location was 6est since they were (ContiFlUed) attempting to advise motorists to turn as soon as possible after passing the Union Oil Company property and the restauranta The Commission noted that the size of the sign did not necessarily mean it would alert people to go to the proposed development and inquired whether business~was 9eared for on-the-stree.t traffic, whereupon Mro Ramsay noted that the Eileen Feather Salon did a great deal of advertising by telephone and newspaper, and that the size-of the sign was necessary.only for identification, as most normal businesses would wanto - The Commission.further noted that the Victor Gruen Report was of the opinion that this area was rather critical as to its appearance as a showplace for the entry into the City, and Lincoln and Wilshire Avenues were now building up with rather presentable structures, and it was important that the area not be cluttered with undesirable signinge Mro Ramsay also•noted that the proposed sign was different than most advertising signs in that they had attempted to capture the Spanish influence of the building, making the si9n more architecturally compatible, and then presented several exhibits of •alternate signs for the area. Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission regarding the alternate signs, as well as the height of the sign which should be permitted; the sign area permitted should be in conformance with the Code - however9 the number of signs should be permitted as requested due to the fact that a hardship did exist in the sigr.ing of the property, and that lighting of the rotating sign should be in an off-position when directed toward the residential uses to the north and easto No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono TI-IE HEARING WAS CIASED. The Commission further discussed the color of the rotating sign and its affect as a flash- ing sign to the residential uses to the north and east, whereupon Commissioner Rowland drew an area.map in which the sign should not be iighted, this to be known as Exhibit "B-1"o Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No> PC67-96 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to grant Petition for Variance Noa 1873, in part, permitting a 30-foot high sign with a maximum area of 350 square feet as depicted on Exhibit "B", and all li9hting of the rotating sign shall be in an off-position as indicated on Exhibit "B-1". (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campa NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonea ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee VARIAI3CE NOe 1875 - PUBLIC HEARING. LEE VAUGHAN, i731 "A" South Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; JAMES HODGES, 1731 "A" South Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AND (2;-;AINIMUM BUILDING SFTBACK on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land.having a frontage oF approximately 100 feet on the west side of Brookhurst Street and a maximum depth of approximately 115 feet, the northerly property line of subject property being approximately 490 feet south of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described as 1233 South Brookhurst Street, to permit the expansion of an existing restauranto Property presently classified G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL,.ZONEo Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, noting the location of the property and uses established in close proximity, as well as reviewing the Report to the Commissiono Mre James Hodges, agent for the petitioner, eppeared before the Commission.and noted that the;pe.titioner.had a surplus of area to the rear of the existing building, and with the proposed:addition, he would be able to rearrange the kitchen facilities; that it was also proposed to provide an area for dancing with this new addition, but it had not been decided definitely::whether or not to have the dance floor; that the roof line would be similar to the single-family residential development to the west so that there would be less objection to the possible encroachment for light and air; and that in order to assure the R-1 area that the noise factor would not disturb them, the building would be sound-proofed and air conditioning facilities would be located 50 feet from the R-1 property line, with all improvements to be in accordance with the C-1 Site Development Standardso ~. ~+; .~ 1~'~s ~"~' ~,... h , ~ w n 3. :~ F > ~ i ~, ~L ~'~ i'~~` r ~M ~; .y ~. L, ~ +.. : ~ . . b z, ~ ? rt "~ r < ~ ~ •. F ~y~c,~ 1 > '. F ~ ~{ ~ ! ~ 7 S„' F - _ ~ -. . . . . . ~ . . . . . . ~ e . , .. ~ -. '. ~ ~ . . ~ , ~ ~ : O. . "' ~ ~ ~ . MINU'IES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 8s 1967 3437 VARIANCE N0. 1875 - No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono (Continued) • TF~ HEARING WAS CLOSEDa The Commission discussed the sound level as stated in the Staff Report and the fact that the peti.tioner-was proposing to have an addition with a roof line wi.thin five feet of the R~l property which couid destroy the visibility, light, and air of these homese Commiesioner Farano offered Resolution Noo PC67•-97 and moved for its passage and adoption, ~~ seconded by.-Commissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Variance Noa 1875 on the basis that , the location of the structure with an eight-foot roof line within five feet o£.the R-1 3 properties to the west would be detrimental to the residential environment; and that there - were no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances presented or proof submitted that the property owner was not enjoying the same rights as adjoining commercial properties had. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT:. CAMMISSIONERS: Noneo RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo THE YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIRT.ION~OF ANAHEIM, NOe 54-55-6 121 South Citron Street, Anaheim, Caiifornia, Owner•;..WIi.COX 8 BROWN ~ ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS, 1720 West La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California, CONDITIONAL.USE Agent; property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land PERMIT NOe 940 located at the northeast corner of Loara and North Streets and having frontages of approximately 454 feet on Loara Street and approximately 251 feet on North Streeto Property presently classified R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS PERTAINING TO SIZES AND TYPES OF BUILUINGS~ REQUESTED CONDITIOIJAL USE: PERMIT T(-lE CONSTRUCTION OF A YMCA FACILITY, WITH WAIVER OF USE OF REQUIRED SETBACK FOR PARKINGe, Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the proposed amendment to deed resi:rictions and the location of subject'property, the use proposed, and the uses~ established in close proximity, as well as the Report to the Commission~ Mr. Ro 0o Overholt, representing the YMCA, appeared before the Commission and stated that the architect would answer any technicai questions; that the first unit for construction would be started in September, which was in response to the fund drive completed laet year; that the land was aiready paid for with the sale of the property on Broadway and Loara; that this site would serve more than three times the number of families the original site served; andthat additions were considered to be added in about three years after another fund drivee Mro Don Brown, architect for the proposed development, appeared to answer Commission ques- tions, noting that the multi-purpose room was a general meeting room for various functions, dinners, etc., and would seat approximately 150 persons; that the projected expansion would include a gymnasium, handball courts, etco, as a second phase; that there was adequate land available for this projected expansion; and tnat parking could be revised to handle any increaseo Mr. Brown also noted th'at the proposed facility would be 18,000 square feet, or almost three times the existing facility which consists of 7,000 square feeto Mr. Rowland noted that the traffic flow was projected for North Street which is a collector street serving the residential areas easterly; that Loara Street is a commercial street, end since the proposed faciiity was a commercial facility, access should be to Loara Street which was more commercial than North Streeto Mro Brown noted that North Street was chosen because its width was more than Loara Street, and traffic on North Street was greater than Loara Street (Commissioner Rowland noted that both streets were collector streets with the same widths, but a portion of Loara Street had not been dedicated or improved), and in the event of special events, cars could enter on both streets, or enter on one street and exit on the other street, and that special events would nof be scheduled during the same hours as the school and post office were open. ~; ~~ ~ ~ , ; ~ Ac lY4M ~ '~ r ~ ~ r ~ . ~, N a 1 L 'fi'h ,. x ,.i ° ~. as~,~ .5 '~{y~ ~` :J t ry - ~ _ .. . . .. _ ~ ~~ . . - ~ ~ . ' .. -~ ` ?~ .~ . . . . , t^.'~ MINUTES,.CIT,Y PLANNING COMMISSION, May S, 1967 3438 -.';;~ RECLASSIFICATION - I'he Commission rurther noted that the Circulation Elemer~t af the f'0~ 54-55~_ General Plan was always ~;nder consideration, and:in~:the..future there was~a possibility that Loara Street could have a more direct route CONDITIONAL USE to La Palma Avenue with the removal of one house at its northerly PERMIT N0..940 terminus, and inquired whether or not additional considexation should (Continued) be given to changing ingress and egress to Loara Street. • . Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted for the Commission that at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting the Engineering Department voiced no concern thet the proposed circulation for the project would add to the circulation problem already existing;:.however, traffic emanating firom,R=3 development, tfie zoning exis:~ing..on the ~ propeatyy would be as great,,or.greater, th~n the proposed developmente Chairman.Camp also noted that problems might occur if the remaining land in the block had `"'.` its main entrance fxom North Street, and since the proposed use was commercial, in effect, perhaps ingress and e9ress should be from Loara Street to offset the many activities which are prevalent in YMCA work in order that the potential multiple-family residential develop- ment would have a reasonable living envix•onmente „ Mr. Brown noted that the property was zoned for multiple-family residential•development; however, there had been other types of uses projected for ttiis property, such as a medical building or convalescent hospital, which would have less traffic than an R-3 development, but at this time it would be difficult to determine whether or not the vacant parcel to the east would be developed for the zoning it hada Mre Thompson also noted that in several discussions with the Traffic Engineer and the Parks and Recreation Director, they were very desirous of having L?do Street developed as a fully • dedicated street which would give the vacant parcel access to two streetso Ivlro Brown no.ted that the pooi would not be roofed at this time, and there was no definite plan fox rooffng it in the immediate future; that considerable thought had been given to desi9nin9 a building for its present use and for future addition - therefore., they felt it was desirous to have the pool and gym away from the vacant parcel in the event it would develop for residentiai uses, and if the building were reversed, this would affect future plans of expansion; and that a planting area would be placed along Loara,Street ad~acent to the existing fence to close off the day school areao Mr< Ray Hanson, Director of the YMCA, appeared in response to certain questions re9arding the day school, and noted that 100 children at a time would be at the day r,amp area during the summer months; that the ages of the children attending day camp would-be 6 to i2; and that other uses might be projected for the winter months. ' Mr. Browa again reiterated the fact that an existing chainlink fence was on the Loara Street 'I~ side; that the children in the day camp were under supervision and were not permitted to i roam at wi L; that the xMCA was equally as concerned for the children's welfare as the Commission, and any safety devices would be provided; furthermore, the Staff's recommenda- tion of a masonry wali along the east property line would be complied with - however, since no definite development plans were pro~ected, it was hopeful this masonry wall would be temporarily waived at this time in the event future development of the propeity could pro- vide mutual parkinge No one appeared in opposition to subject petitionso Two letters were received in favor of subject petitionso THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Considerable di.scussion was then held by the Commission relative to relocation of the structure so that the entrance would be along Loara Street; however,.Mno_Brown stated that.the structure did n;,t have a specific frontage9 although the main.entrance was on the south side of the property; and that two of the basic reasons for not.projecting the building for.frontage on Loara Street.were that the open pool was proposed a•lonq the commercial fzontage as well as the gymnasium, so that it would be away from the easterly property in the event it tivas developed, and there was a more efficient me,thod of parking if the entrance was near the parking areae More discussion was held by the Commission relative to the ingress and egress problem on North Street, and it was finally determined that if ~his presented a traffic hazard, the City could later request one-way traffic ihrough subject property. .. ~ ~ MINUI'ES, CIIY PLANNING COMMISSION9 May 8, 1.967 '' ~ ',:~ 3439 `.;~;; ~rt RECL4SSIFICAIION - Cormnissioner Mungall offered Resolution Noo PC67-98 and moved for its N0~ 54-55-6 . passage and adoptiony seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that they execute a written consent;to the removal of CONDITIONAL USE deed restrictions heretofore imposed on the aforementioned propertya PERMIT N0~ 940 (See Resolution Book) , On roll call the foregoing resolut=on was passed by the•following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano9 Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Campa NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonea ABSENT: .COMMISSIONERS: Nonee ABSTAIN:.COMMISSIONERSe Rowlando Commissioner Gauer offered Resclution Noo PC67•-99 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded:by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Pezmit Noo 940, subject to conditions as outlined in the Report to the Commission, and the additional condition that all air conditionin9 facilities be properly shielded from viewo (See Resolution Book) On roll call.the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Campe NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonea ABSENT: .COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Rowlando RECLASSIFICA'fION - PUBLIC HEARINGe FULLERTON MOR'I~AGE 8 ESCROW COMPANY9 513 South Euclid NOe 66-67-62 Street, Fullerton, California, Owner; ROBERT S~ BORD~F1, 513 South Euclid Street, Fullerton, Califo:nia, Agent; property described as: VARIANCE~NOe 1874 A rectangularly shaped parcei of land with a frontage of approximately 140 feet on the west side of Beach Boulevard and having a.maximum depth of approximately 622 feet~ the northerly property line of subject property being approximately 1,185 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue, and further described as 727 South Beach Boulevardo Property pr.esently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEe REQUESTED CLASSIFiC.4TI0N: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY P.ESIDENTIAL, 20NEo REQUESTED VARIANCE: PERMIT THF DEVELOPINHNT OF A 45•-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX, I WITH WAIVERS OF ~1) BUILDING HEIGHT, (2) SETBACK, (3) ~ ~ DISTANCE FROM A DEDICATED STREET, AND (4) MpSONRY WALL. ; Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed the petition, location of subject property, and land uses in close proximity, as well as the Report to the Commissiono Mr. Robert B~ agent for the petitioneri appeared before tha Commission and noted that subject property had been acquired through foreclosure; that a number of attempts had been made to sell the property or develop the property but had never been successful until the proposed purchaser of the property subrtiitted plans, which the Commission was now consider- ing and which would have to developed in order that the highest and best use of the property could be accomplished; that the waiver~of the required wali was an oversight,• and that esti- mates for the development inciuded a masonry wali - therefore, he was withdrawing that wa=ver; that because of the width of the property, the many waivers requested were necessary in..order that the property could be developed; that the recommended condition for storm drain easement would be penalizin9 him in requiring him to provide drainage for Beach Boulevard when it crosses the street to subject property; that the storm drain had neve: been closed between Beach Boulevard and Hayward Street, and the drainage during storms flows across subject property; that the developer was willing to provide the modified cul-de-sac on Hayward Street as required in the report - however, a regular, standard street could not be`:provided since subject property could not be deveioped to its fullest potential if a standard street were dedicatedo Mre B.ordon then presented pictures of subject and adjoining properties to.~.the Commission, noting that the owners of the property to the north did not want to develop~their property; ' that:there was a tier of single-family homes which backed up to two-story, C-l property - therefore, he<felt the proposed request should be afforded the same privilege; and that they could construct two-story R-1 homes as permi.tted by Code - however, two-story apartments seemed to be objectionable, Mra Bordon requested clarification on the requirement of a modified cul-de-sac, whereupon , Office Engineer Arthur Daw noted that where streets had been stubbed, anticipating extension. ~, ~ a~. ~ ~ ~, ~ i ._ _.~ a ~ :'~"~~:.~.. . ': . ~.,, . .. „ 4 't it ~4 N' ~, .. ~ ~ MIN1lTES,.CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONy May 8, 1967 RECLASSIFICATION NO< 66-6-7-62 VARIANCE N0, 1874 (Continued) 4" / 7 ~ ~ t 3440 of the street, such as Hayward Street now being proposed•not to be extended, portions of the curb and gutter were removed to provide an adequate turn-around; however, no additional•dedacation was required ''` of either the R~1 or the petitioner, and the cost would have to be borne by the petitioner, which amounted to approximately $600 to $700. •- Mro Daw then reviewed for the Commission the City.'s policy regarding provisions for drainage, noting that when drainage reaches a piece of property it was the property owner's xesponsibility to dispose of this,,and that the City sometimes partici- pates in the cost of the drainage worko Mra~.Bordon then noted that if this were a natural run-off9 it would be no_problem; however, this'drainage came down the east side of Beach Bouievard and then crossed under the street to the west side - the drainage then occurs on subject property, and.this could not be considered normal sheet flow of existing water due to rainso Mre Daw raoted that the Cherokee Trailer Park to the nox~th was required to put in catch basins, and when Tract Noo 3823 was developed a storm drain was installed at Hayward Street, at which time the City contacted the property owner of subject praper,ty requesting an,easement; however, the property owner refused to give this easement~ Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts noted that the developers of tracts were not required to construct drainage facilities outside of their subdivisions to carry away water, and the..only involvement would be the size of drain pipe which would be necessary to take care of the flow of drainageo Mr. Bordon noted that the existing drainage is a 36-inch lineo Mra-Clyde Pecksted, 742 Hayward Street, appeared in opposition, representing ].4 persons present in the Council Chamber also in opposition and noted that he had a petition signed by~62`X o'f the property owners of the tract immediately adjacent to subject property - who were in opposition to multiple-family development since it was not compatible with the R-1 development already established; that this would affect the residential integrity.by permitting two-story apartments within 75 feet of the R•-1 homes; that approval would result irs.estab.lishing a type of development which could occur on the vacant parcels to the north and•.east, namely:two-story apartments; that Hayward Street stubbed at the south of subject property, lending credence to the fact that the City anticipated extension of the street northerly for vehicular circulation, whereas the petitioner was proposing to retain this stub street rather than.extending it through subject property; and that any zoning more dense than R~-1 would reduce the chance for resale or refinancing of existing new homeso 1~ Mra Harley Hartman, speaking for the petitioner9 noted that each time development occurred edj.acent.to R-l tracts, statements were made that the use was more intent and was not a comparable use to the R-1; that the usuai statement that two-story would be an infringement on the R-1 privacy was always made - howevex•y a motei already existed adjaoent to the tract, which was two-story, and other commercial development 31so existed along Beach Boulevard which backs up to Tract Noa 38239 and in his estimation were more harmful than multiple- family developmente Mre Pecksted noted that the motels were already in existence when the tract was built so tha# people knew what already existed; however, they were now attempting to avoid any further encroachment of two-story adjacent to the tract, and then suggested that perhaps dual.zoning9 with multiple•-family development for the front~ge and R-1 for the rear might be considered - thus extending Nayward Street northerly~ and that it seemed logical to assume when stubs streets were provided ad,jacent to a tract that they should be extended thraugh vacant properties adjoining ito Mro Arthur Pae1,.711 South Beach Boulevard, operator of the baseball pitching machine development, appeared in opposition, notin9 that multiple-family use for the frontage of subject property would be an infringement of the established commercial uses along Beach ; Boulevard, a ma;jor thoroughfare; that to inject the possibility of 45 fiami.lies adjacent ta.a~heavily traveled street, where it also abuts commercial uses, would create traffic p~ohlems as well as opposition to the commercial uses which had been established for some ' time; and that motels, restaurants, and other commercial uses in close prox3mity had hours of operation to which these R-3 residents would objecto Furthermore, he was planning to enlar.ge his existing operation and did not wish to invest his money if there was any possi- bility of residential encroachment adjacent to the propertyo Mra Pael also presented a letter of opposition from the operator of the verterinary hospital northerly of his propertye THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo - ~.-` -~.,'i~ Y~ `'~ .~'~~~~ _ _r . . . . ,.. . ~ ~ ~~ MINUIES,~CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 8, 1967 3441 RECLASSIFICATION - Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission relative to N0; 66-67-62 the narrowness of the property; however, the Commission was of the opinion that more thought and consideration should be given to a VARIANCE N0. 1874 different means of development and possible land assembly so that (Continued) the adjoining property owners would be lea~t affected by any proposed development of the propertye Commissioner Farano offered Resolution Noa PC67-100 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclas- sification Noe 66-67-62 be denied on the basis that the proposed reclassificati~n would not be desirable for the orderly development of the area; that the petitioner was proposing two-story apartments within 55 feet of the single~family subdivision and would have an advexse effect on the residential integrity of the area; that subject p;operty was develop- able for single-family residential use, extending Hayward Street nartherty so that the large, agricultural parcels would have circulation at the time the~~ were developed. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote: AYES: COM~~fISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campa NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC67-101 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny Petition for Variance No. 1874 on the basis that two-story, multiple-family residential construction in close proximity to a single-family subdivision.would have an adverse effect on the residential integrity of the single-family area; that when the single-family tract immediately to the south was developed less than two years ago, the decision was made for the ultimate extension of Hayward Street northerly and Halliday Street to the west so that the existing and future single-family residential development in this area wouid have adequate access and circulation; that permanent stubbing of Hayward Street along the south property line would affect the circulation of this large, residential development, creating poor vehicular cir.culation for undeveloped parcels to the west.and north. (See Resolution Book) On r.oll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOESe COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENI: COMMISSIONERS: None. AMENDMENT TO - PUBLIC HEARING. INIi'IATED BY TI-~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East TITLE 18 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing an amendment to Chapter 18.85, Special Setbacks for properties in the Commercial- Recreation Areao Associate Planner :Marvin Krieger reviewea for the Commission City Council action of March 21, 1967, at the time the Council considered the revised development plans for the former Viking Restaurant on Harbor Baulevard, adjacent to the wax museum, noting that at that.time the Council had considered a fully landscaped, 35-foot setback, and this was incorporated in the amendment to Section 18,85.010, Setback Depths along Harbor Boulevard. No one appeared in opposition to subject ameridmento I'HE HEARING WAS CIASED. Commissioner Rowland offered Re~plution No. PC67-102 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Title 18, Zoning, Chap.ter 18085, Special Setbacks, Section 18o85v010, Setba'ck Depths, be amended as depicted ~ on Exhibit "A". (See Resolution Book) ; On s.oll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. av~;'~ ~y4 ` x F "~`p-~,r!"~" . f° ,d ~+ ,:-~~~ srn ~'i~ r ~+' F::^ ~"~ r ~ ~,~, :ysY v^[ J t:..:)> ;,:~ "1 ; ~4. r~:~ ~< . ~ .... ~. . . .. ... .., . .. ... ~ . . . . , t ~4C j~ T ~ . ~ ~ ~ . . .. . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . \ J . , ~ . . . ~ `+r MINUTES,.•CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 8, 1967 3442 AIu~NDMENT T0 - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY Tt1E CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East TIiLE.18 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing an amendment to Chapter ' 18.62, Signs, Section 180620130, Display of F1ags and Bannerso Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts reviewed the basis for considering an amendment to the section concerning the display of flags and banners, noting that they had an inquiry regarding the submission of a letter from a foreign consulate that the flags being displayed by:thi s person represented theee countries, and it was felt that some limita,tion should be made.,:segarding the display of tfiese flags even though of a bona fide nature. ~ Mra &oberts then review~d the proposed amendment to Section 18o62e130~, temporaxy display of flags and banners for advertising purposes, and window signs, presented•.on Exhibit "A". No one appeared in opposition to subject amendmen±. THE_HEARING WAS CLOSED. Coiumissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noa PC67-103 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that Title 18, Zoning, Chapter 18.62, Signs, Section 18.62.130, Flags and Banners, be amerded as depicted on Exhibit "A". (See Resolution Book) On roll call '~he foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Cortwissioner Rowland left the Council Chamber at 6:20 P.M. GENERAL PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIAT!:D BY TI~ CITY PLANNING COMA4ISSION, 204 East AN~NDMENT N0. 92 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing to delete East Street as a standard 90-foot secondary highway between La Palma Avenue and Ba11 Road and place it on the Table of Exceptions as an 80-foot wide secondeiy`highway. ' Associate Planner Marvin Krieger reviewed for the Commission the history behind previous General P].an amendments regarding East Street, that was formerly on the Table of Exceptions as a 33.75-foot ded~cated street and then was removed to make it a standard secondary high- way;.however, as a result of difficulties encountered by the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department in obtaining right-of-way dedication for their current street widening program on East 5treet, and because of the location of existing s~ructures, it was determined that an 80-foot wide street was adequate to provide for four travel lanes - however, the pazkway was reduced and would be fully concreted with tree wells and eight specific types of trees to be planted therein; and it was recommended by the Staff that the substandard half-width for East Street be placed on the list of exceptions as a 40-foot half-width. No one appeared in opposition.to subject General Plan amer.dment. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ammissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC67-104 and moved for its passage and adoption, seeonded by,Commissioner Allred, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amend- ment Noe 92, Circulation Element Highway Rights-of-Way Table of Exceptions be amended to include East Street between La Palma Avenue and Ball Road as a 40-foot half-width. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoiny resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland. _ ;~ .., .',~_ ; ~?;~.'~. ...,a~ .~. ... .. _ .°. " . . ' .. . , ~ _ `K E 3 . r ~ 'e... t 'f -r . 7 'k,~' ~ S 3_ .:*y,~ ~,~ `~,~ ,~, ~ .~ ~ ~, . . ... ~ I~~ ~ . Y'. a j ~:± ~" ~~ ' ~ : ` ~ ~ ~, iL . .. ~ . . z . ,~u Y. . ~ .. ~ .si :~J. •.. .. . . ~ .. , : ~s ' ~ . ~ ~ :~ . " . .. ~~ , v ~ . ~ . ~ ~ . . ~ ` ~ ~~' ~ h , . . . . . , . .; ~:~;^:~ 3 MINUIES,•CITY"PLANNING COMMISSION, May 8, 1967 ~ ~ 3443 ~ ,~ REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 i '~ REGOMNlEI3DATI0NS Orange County'Conditional Permit No. 1306 - Warner-Lambert ~_' Pharmaceutical Company - proposing to esta blish a plant-for the processing, bottling, warehousing and distribution of mouthwash and hand lotion in the M1 Light Industrial District ~; located on La Palma Avenue west of Orchard Drive extended in <?„ the Atwood areao _ Zoning.Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented Orange County Conditional Permrt No. 1306 to.the.Planning Commission, noting the location of subject property, the proposed use, and the fact that the Orange County Planning Commission had considered subject petition at their meeting of May 3, 1967; however, the Staff felt the Commission should be apprised of the pioposed development in the Northeast Industrial Area. Mr..Ihompson also noted that the Anaheim M-1, Li9ht Industrial, Zone site development standards had been mPt amply; that the proposed landscaping treatment of the project is particularly notewor'~4~y; .+.hat the proposed free-standing sign is to be located in the front setback-landscaped area, and meets the County's sign code requirements, but would not conform to the City`s Sign Code staridards, since there is only a 1-foot, 3-inch ground clearance, whereas 8•teet would be minimum per the City`s requirements; and that although the sign was not in conformance with the Anaheim Sign Code, the Staff felt that this type of sign, where a large frontage expanse is involved, is more appropriate and esthetically in.better taste than an elevated free-standing sign. Commissioner Herbst offered a moti~n to receive and file Orange County Condi.tional Permit No. 1306, on the basis thet action had already taken place; however, the Staff was directed to apprise the City Council of the fact that the Commission had reviewed the proposed indus- trial development plansa Commissioner Mungall seconded the motiono MOTION:CARRIED. ITEM N0. 2 Orange County Tentative Map of Tract Noe 3758 - DEVELOPER: MESA LAND COMPANY, 128 East Katella Avenue, Orange, Celiforniae ENGINEER: Shelton Engineering Company, 17612 Beach Boulevard, Huntington Beach, California. Subject tract,located on the east side of Casa Loma Avenue, and north of Yorba Linda Boulevard in the Yorba Linda area containing 4.66 acres,. is- proposed for subdivision into'18 R-1 Zoned lots. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson presented Orange County Tentative Map of Tract No. 3758 to the::Planning Commission,noting the location of subject property and the following findings:. la Properties to the north and south of su.bject property are developed as R1 Single-Family District, and a public school is located opposite on the west side of Casa Loma Avenue. 2a The proposed lot areas (7200 square feet) are comparable to the City o•f Anaheim R-1, One-Family, Zone requirements; however, several lots widths are narrower than our minimum of 70 feet, but they do conform to County _standardso Furthermore, street widths and cul-de-sac radii are slightly less than City of Anaheim engineering standards•. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County Planning Commission be urged to approve Tentative Map of Tract No. 3758 as submitted> Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 3 Variance No. 1836 - Margaret H. Haas, 1850 South Anaheim Boulevard - Establish a real estate office in the M-1 Zone - RequPS.t for an extension of timeo Zoning Supervisor Ronald ihompson advised the Commission thet a request had been received for a six-month extension of time for the completion of conditions attached to Resolution No...PC66-132 because of extenuating circumstances. making it impossible to complete the conditions. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant a six-month extension of time, said time extension to expire November.l0, 1967, for the completion of conditions attached in Resolution No. PC66-132, granting Variance Noo 1836; however, dedication of 50 feet from the centerline of Anaheim Boulevard (Condition No. 1) shall be completed within two weeks ~ in order to make the six-month time extension effectiveo Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. , ~ ' ~ ~ ,, , _ '~;,--4, . . . , ~ -'-~ ~ ~ I ~ . ~` ~ i ~ ~ MINUTE~,• C3TY PLANNING COMMISSION, May 8, 1967 3444 REPORTS AND - ITEM NOo 4. RECOMMENDATIONS Coriditional Use Permit No~ 892 - Anaheim Masonic Temple Association - (Continued) James La Morris - Establish a private lodge on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, approxiinately 342 feet south of the centerline of South Streeto • Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed for the Commission the request of Mro James Lo Morris, board member of the Masonic Temple Qssociation,for an extension of six monthe for the completion of conditions of Conditional Use Permit Noo 892, notin9 that firiancial arrangements had not been complgted; however, the six-month extension of time should sufficeo Mr. Thompson also noted that none of the conditions had been met, and the Interdepartmental Committee were of the opinion that Condition Nose 1 and 4; namely,dedication-of 45 feet along Harbor Boulevard and dedication of property along the west pTOperty line to provide for a 2~-foot alley should be completed within two weeks in order to make the six-month extension of time effective, if the Commission so desirede . Commissioner Mungali offered a motion to grant a six-month extension of time for the completion of conditions in Resolution No. PC66-130, granting Conditional Use Permit Noe 892, said time ex.tension to expire November 10, 1967, provided; however, that Condition Nos. 1 and 4 of said resolution are completed within two weeks; namely, the dedication of 45 feet along Harbor Boulevard and a 20-foot wide alley along the west property line in order to make the six-month time extension effective. Commissioner Herbst-seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. ITEM NOe 5 Conditional Use Permit Noo 598 ~ Aeauest of General Galf, operators of the miniature golf course, trampoline center, and dsive-in restaurant at the northwest corner of La Palma and~~Magnolia Avenues - Reouesting consideration to approve the installation of a fiber glass amusement slide in conjunction with the n:-~~iature golf course as being an activity which could be included under associated activities. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson adviseJ the Commission that conqep't~plans for an amuse- ment slide approxiinately 165 feet long by 35 feet wide had been submitted to the Staff for approval; however, because~of its location and size, the Staff was of the opinion that they could not administratively approve this addition without submission to the-Planning Commission. Mre Chris Jones, 4401 San Fernando Road, Glendale, operator of the miniature golf course, appeared before the Commission and stated they had been attempting to establish a family recreation center; however, smaller children between the ages of 5 and 12 had very little in the way of amusements at this center, and the proposed sky-slide would accommodate this group of childreno The Commission noted that the City Attorney`s office was of the opinion that the proposed sky-slide could be epproved under the wording and authority of Conditional Use Permit No. 598 and inquired whether the slide structure could be relocated so that the undeveloped R-3 property to the south would not be affected by this 35-foot high slideo Mr..Cameran, a representative of the manufacturer of the slide, appeared before~the Commission and noted that it could be relocated, and then after considerable,discussion with the Commission as to the proposed location, the Gommission further inquired as to whether.or not some screening could be provided to enhance the esthetic appearance of the sky-slide because of the massive webbing of the structural supports under the slide. Mr. Cartieson stated the buffering would affect the air flow; therefore making the slide ineffectiveo Commissioner Allred offered a motion to approve concept plans for an amusement slide as an associated activity as approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 598, subject, however, to its being relocated adjacent to La Palma Avenue and the Mobil gas station at the inter- section of La Palma and Magnolia Avenueso Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIEDo =.'~ ~s~r~~~"~ ~'~ ~'~r,~ ~ ^r ^~.. 4~r. j`..y.'~ Fy ~~.~i a ~~,a5` sFy r. ~ f' 1::~ t V r ^.I ,t,N° - M~ S . . . ~-* h i ~ 2 C1 ni~ ~ - ' ' x . y , ~ - { . ~7 ~~ ~ - ~ .' ~ ` v ~ .. . _ y~~ . - r . iv. a ...:~. , ~ ~ ~ , .. .? . . . ..:.~.. : i :~ . ' .. • . ~ ~ l~r- : . ~ ~~s~. ~ . . ~ .. ~ . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . ~ ~I ~ . ~ . . ': .... ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,.May 8, 2967 ~45 WORK SESSION ~ Plenning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission-that at~ titie work session schedule,d;.for May 29 it was proposed to.review ' the Urban Renewal Cente~,City Study which had been cons3dered by the Urban Development Committee,(City Council) as presen.ted by the Victor Gruen Associates, since the City Council had requested that the Commission review the proposed Center City Study and submit reports and recommendations to the Council prior~to July 5, 1967, The Commission noted that the work session scheduled for May 29 ;~ might not be we11 attended because it was prior to a holiday and suggested that it be set for May 15, 1967, Mra Grudzinski further noted that because of the many i.~ems- presented for the Commission at work sessions, a number had not been completed, and it was desirous to have more than one work session during the month in order to complete a number. ,o£ the , items the Commission had under consideration. . Fi.irther discussion was held by the Commission, and i.t was determined that rather than having an additional day, the Staff determine whether or not the agenda was fairly light and these items could be presented at a work session after dinner on a regular meeting dateo AD70URNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioraer Mungall offered a motion to adjourn the meeting to May 15, 1967, at 7:00 P.M., at the Personnel Building to consider the Center City Study Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 6:55 PoMe WORK SESSIoN ~- Chairmar. Camp convened the meeting at 7:30 P,Mo, all Eommissioners Ma ly 5,__~1g67 being presente Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski presented all da~a pertinent to the Center City Study as presented by the Victor Gruert Associates, and considerable discussion was then held by the Commission. After the discusaion the Comm'!ssion decided no decision should be made, and further consideration should be held at another work session ~ regarding any reports and recommendations the Commission might have. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M. • Respec~sub it ed,. ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission . . . ... .. , ....,- . .:: .,...; . . . ._. . ~n ..,~ .,..,, . . ..... . ,. ...,. ~. . ~ . :rr°,. . . .... . 1 F T~ Sf ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ :~ ~ .~ 1 t ~ ~ n~. ` ~ L ~;y F\. % ti : e~F J ;~ . ~ 4 , ` ~IF 7 .., ,t ~ r . t t ~ L ~ . r G:~ lT'9'p J ~Fi ~ ~ ~ ~~ ; ~ S l . f Y ~ /{' t~ x ~ ~' Y~F -Y ~ . ~ . , ~ ~ C j 4 I ~y f S~. i ~ k V Na 1 M ~, ~ ~ i t~ ~ , . 1 y 7 Ki~ ..~ y J~ f .(f '` P. J~ h l f ~ ~ .~ ' . ~(.; .~ r j~ y ~~ ;, a ~ r T~ ' : , 7 t (Iiti ~~~ ^~ r i_t f ' 1 ~~ ~ f . ~ i . ~., 4 ~ Y ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . 1 ~ ~ ~ 4 .e - rn . ~ ' - ~ 4 ~ ~ + ~ T ` }. i + ~ .,~ - ~ ~y ~r ~ 1 ' .t ' • j L ~ ! _ 1 f V ~ ~ ( { ~ 4 l { y .~ ., ' S ~ 1 , ~ . ~ ~ T ~ r ' .{ tiY ^ ' a ~ f ' q ,~ f r. r :. 5 r 1 ~~ 'i ' r ~ t . y . : i • - ~ ti r ~ : ~'~ t ' ~ r i f Y a' f : I II ~ ~ ~ . f ~ ~ F r~ .~ f ' < . t y ? ',~ ~ 1 Y ~ f - t F j ~•: l y~,,.~y ~~.. 4 I ~' ~. 3 J~: `r 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ ~ a i ,~ , ~, ~ .r F ti 1 l/ +-1 Tyl S'~ ~~ ! y; 1 I. I I I Y L Y.~1" . ..,i ' .~ 5 { - . 1= `~ : e S J ~ , .: , t" g ~ ' ~ S, ' ' r ti ~ - , , .. .. , , , ! ° , ~ t ; ~ f' ~ • : .. -,. ., _ . . .. ,. .' .- .. .:~r. , i_ ~ • . :. . -,~ .'. ? 7 ~ . ~ a' ~. * ~ , i f i; ~ t ~ .. . - ,: r : t ~ ~ ~ . , . , ' ,_fi _./ ~ -._ .~' . . . . . i. ~ . T^~,. ,. . .. . ~ .. . . . ~ .. . ~ ^w ~ . ..