Loading...
Minutes-PC 1967/07/17~ -_ ~ ~ .. ~ City Hall Anaheim, California July 17, 19G7 ,. A'REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNZNG_COMMISSION REGULAR Iu~ETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called , to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P,M., a quorum being present. PRESENT -'CHAIRMAN: Camp. . - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ~ PRESENT - Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer: ~ , ~ Arthur Daw Associate Planner: ~ Jack Christofferson Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs ' PLEDGE OF , ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Herbst led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - The Mim~tes of the meeting of July 6, 1967 were approved as submitted TI-~ MINUTES • on motion by Commissioner Mungall, seconded by Commissioner-Rllred, ~ and MOTION CARRIED. ELECTION OF - Chairman Camp appointed Commissioner Allred as temporary chairman in CHAIRMAN AND the election of 1967-68 Chairman, Chairman pro tem and the appointment CHAIRMADI PRO of Commission Secretary. • TEM 19b7-68 Commissioner Rowland nominated Comm3ssioner Camp as Chairman; Commissioner Gauer seconded the nomination. Commissioner Herbst moved the nominations be closeda Commissioner Camp was re-elected . Chairman for the,1967-68 meetings unanimously and assumed the chair- manship again. Commissioner Mungall nominated Commissioner Allred as Chairman pro tem; Commissioner Herbst seconded the nomination. Commissioner Rowland moved the nominations be closed. Commissioner Allred was unanimously elected Chairman pro tem for the 1967-68 meei;ings. j Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to appoint Ann Krebs as Commission Secretary for ' the 1967-68 meetingse Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED unanimouslye ~ RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC IiEARING. HENRY WAGIJER AND SOUTF~ASTERN ASSOCIATION N0. 66-67-68 OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS, 975 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owners; C. MICHAEL, INCORPORATED, 8501 Bolsa Avenue, VARIANCE N0. 1897 Midway City, and ANN MADISON, 866 South Harbor Boulevard,.~Anaheim, California, Agents. Property described as: An irregularly shaped TENTATIVE MAP. OF parcel of land (containing approximately 47 acres) located north and TRACT N0. 6409, west of a parcel located at the northwest corner of Ball Road and REVISION N0. 1 State College Boulevard and consisting of: PORTION N0: 1- the south 330 feet of subject property having frontages of approximately h80 feet on the north side of Ball Road and approximately 150 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard; ~ORTION N0. 2- having a frontage of approrimately 310 feet on State College Boulevard and a maximum depth of approximately 830 feet, the southerly boundary of Portion No. 2 being approximately 350 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road; and PORTION N0. 3- an irregularly shaped parcel of land havin9 a frontage of approximately 1,665 feet on the west side of State College Boulevard and a maximum depth of approximately 1,200 feet, the southerly boundary of Portion No. 3 being approxi- mately 660 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: PORTION N0, 1- M-1~ LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. . PORTION N0. 2- R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMiLY RESIDENTIAL, ZnNE. PORTION N0. 3- R-1~ ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: TO PERMIT A 173-LOT SUBDIVISION, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AND (2) MINIMUM LOT AREA - PORTION N0. 3 ONLYe . 3522 'S~-~.~~ ' ~ r ~" ~j+ fr~tF . .. ° ~n~~i'~ f rs"N ~~ ~}'..i~.,~ . ~ ,~ : n ~,;. ~A ~ . YS . ~, r i~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ' ~ , }I ~J MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CAN~MISSION~ July 17, 1967 3523 RECLASSIFICATION - DEVEIAPER: C. MICHAEL, INCORPORATED, 8501 Bolsa Avenue, Midway City, N0. 66-67-68 California. EN3INEER: Raab and Boyer Engineering Company, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite "I", Westminster, California. Subject tract VARIANCE N0. 1897 loc~ted north and west of the intersection of Ball Road and State College Boulevard, containing approximately 47 acres, is proposed IENTATIVE MAP OF for subdivision into 6 M-1, 19 R-3, and 173 R-1 zoned lots. TRACT N0: 6409, REVISION N0. 1 Subject reclassification petition and tract were continued from the (Continued) meetings of June 5 and 19, 1967, to allow time for the petitioners to revise plans which would provide for the separation of the indus- trial and residential uses. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petitions,the location of sub~ect property, the uses esi:ablished in close proximity, and the background of the previous public.hearings, further noting that existing subdivisions abutting subject property to the narth and west were developed with 6,000 square foot, 60-foot Nide lotse Mrs. Ann Madison, agent for the petitioners~ appeared before the Commission and noted thai:'the proposed subdivision of subject property was more in conformance with the General Plan uses for the area; that 19 R-3 lots were proposed to act as a buffer between the M-1 and the R-l; that the developer proposed to extend Turin Street through the R-1 tract; that because _the tr.act. was. backing up to M-1 property, these homes would be sold in the vicinity of $27,000 in order to supply a demand; and that with the cost of land use in the present day, a variance was necessary to permit 6,000 square foot lots. Mrs. Madison further noted that the engineer and developer would be available to answer technical questionse Mrv Lloyd Ash, 2035 East Turin Street, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting I that he was representing an association consisting of 34 families directly to the east of j subject property whose lots were more than the 7,200 square feet; that these property owners,l at the.time they purchased their properties, noted the master plan for that area proposed 7,200 square foot lots, and it was felt this would be carried throughout the entire area; ; that"he was associated with loan companies foi R-l lots and could speak with~some authority relative to the effect the reduction in square footage would have on the existing deveZopment The Commission inquired whether or not his experience with home loan associations took into j consideration the fact that sub~ect property was on the west side of a 106-foot street with j lots backing up to the street and a masonry wall, and how this could possibly affect the land value of the homes on the opposite side of the street, whereupon Mr. Ash noted that I the loan companies took into consideration the surrounding property when a loan was grantedo `. Chairman Camp noted that in his 20 years of experience regarding real estate, he had never ' experienced any depreciation of property values where lots of greater size were located across a 106-foot street, and that the prospective buyers of these lots wouid be more affected because they would be abutting existir.g 6,000 sq!:are foot lotse Commissioner Gautr further noted that the lots on the east side of State Cnllege Boulevard were not contiguous to industrial land or 6,000 square foot lots; therefore, it was more likely that 7,200 square foot lots would be required, and that the petitioners had amended their request from the original 5,000 square foot lots to 6,000 square foot lots. Mr. Robert Smitson, 2040 East Norman Place, appeared in opposition, stating that he was concerned a precedent might be set for the vacant land at the southeast corner of Wagner Avenue and State College Boulevard if subjeot petition were granted for 6,000 square foot lots:and which they could claim a hardship; that he was concerned the value of their property which was in a newly developed tract, would be affected if subject 6,000 square foot lots were approved; furthermore, the master plan indicated 7,200 squere foot lots, and from experience of smaller homes in the Los Angeles area - where these small homes had been projected - the neighborhood became deteriorated. Mrs. Ralph Biester, 2240 Olmstead Way, appeared before the Commission in opposition and inquired what ratio of increase would be experienced if 6,OOQ square foot lots were proposed instead of 7,200 square foot lots, and whether or not this would affect the density as pro- jected on the General Plan. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that the 6,000 square foot lots would qualify under the low density designation of the General Plan; and that app'roximately one-.half single~famil~ lot per acre would be the ratio of increase: " ,~:. "~~ ^r ~ ~ r -'~"~'w ~ "'' ~.yt~,::. e»„y . "!.r,~~'fi . .. .. . . . . I~ ., . . ~. !fY r . ..V~~4 L "~',•l~ ~ ,~,7 1 z y;: . . ~.. . .. ~i . . ~ ~ . .. ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 17, 1967 3524 RECLASSIFICATION - Mrs. Biester then inquired whether or not these were comparabl.e to N0. 66-67-68' the homes.. in the City of La Palma, whereupon Mre Thompson advised ~ the opposition that the homes in La Palma in a specific tract were VARIANCE N0. 1897 4,800 to 5,000 square foot lots, and the proposed lots were considerably larger; furthermore, single-family lots adjacent to Boysen Park between TEN7ATIVE MAP OF East Street and State College Boulevard were all developed •.a's.6,000 TRACT N0. 6409, square foot lots. REVISION N0. 1 (Continued) Mrs. Biester inquired whether Gr not this would set a precedent for the area since several tracts of homes worth in excess of $40,000 - were already developed, and if these single-family homes were allowed with so much vacant land in the area, this might affect the development of these vacant ~ properties, with the owners claiming hardship due to the fact that the properties on the west side of State College Boulevard had been permitted to develop with 6,000 square foot lots. _ ~ Chairman Camp advised the oppos~ .on that in the past it had been the opinion of the :' Commission and City Council to ~,:quire 7,200 square foot lots east of State College Boulevard, t ~ 'r furthermore, the two sides of the street were entirely different neighborhoodse ,~ "' ^<'~ Mr. Fred Kalgarry, 1049 Reseda Place, appeared in opposition, noting that statements made ~,- indicated that 6,000 square foot lots were acceptable; however, it was his opinion that an ' ~ attempt should be made to improve the area, and that the suggestion thet a street should ~r.:,..,s~ act as a dividing line in measuring square footage of these lots did not resolve the problems ~ ~ ~;~ of schools and parks, and requested that the Commission require 7,200 square foot lots in ~ 3:; order to protect the properties which had been developed with more expensive~homes in the ; i~,:. ...., , arra. Mrs.,Madison, in rebuttal, noted that there were 6,000 square foot lots developed on the east side of State College Boulevard northerly of Wagner Avenue, said homes having sold for $19,000 to $21,000, and the proposed homes would not be und'esirable since they.would be sold for around $27,000, and some of the houses_on 6,000 square foot lots had sold for $30,000; that a number of these lots would be backing on to State College Boulevard, a heavily traveled thoroughfare and would be enclosed with a six-foot masonry wall; that the proposed homes would be almost immediately adjacent to homes ranging in the $21,000 class - therefore they would be more vitally affected than homes on the east side of State College Boulevard; furthermore, the variance was requested to allow the same privileges enjoyed by adjoining propertiesa THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. In response to Commission questioning, Mr, Thompson noted that the M-1 portion would have five acres and the R-3 portion would have three and one-half acres, and the R-1 portion would have approximately 37 acres, and on the ba'sis of one-half lot more per acre would mean an additional 18 homeso The Commission inquired as to what was proposed for buffering the R-3 from the M-1 and the R-1 from the M-1 to the west. Mr. Hal Raab, engineer of the development, appeared before the Commission and noted that the six-foot masonry wall was proposed between subject property and the properties to the west, and also a six-foot masonry wall on the north side of the alley between the R-1 and R-3 and the R-3 and the M-1, with trees along the easterly walle Commissioner Herbst noted that foliage was a good buffer,if dense in character, to reduce the noises from any residential uses, and the block wall was not suffi~ient. Considerable discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the possibility of the M-1 adjoining the R-1 to the west bein9 developed, and the fact that the property to the west had been zoned for a number of years for industrial purposes and should be afforded the sa~~ie protection as r~sidentiel uses; tha;, trees and dense foliage should be required along the masonry wall - however, Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts noted that if dense f:~l,iage would be required, these trees would have to be developed prior to reading the c inance for the R-l and the R-3e The Commission then discussed with the City Engineer the possibility of providing a street or alley on the west property line to crea•te distance and possibly reduce noises, noting that a ma;cimum of one or two lots would be lost if this were donee Mrs. Madison noted for the Commission that the property to the west had been on the market ~ for a number of years with M-1 zoning; however, the asking price was too high for development, as M-1 uses, and there was always the possibility this would be developed for single-family ~ :'~ residential uses since no industrial development had occurred on the east side of East Street,~ ~ .;; ~ r : - - ,. ',1 t ~ -~ n,., lr~a. ~ ~~~ ~ t ~- =a . ~ ~ "M ' A ~ ~~ ~ ~. ,, .~ ~ . ,_ . , , . . . ~_ , f :., ~ .. .. . ,; - _ . ~~. ....._ .~;...r :., ,.a.. ~ ~.i - - . ~ ~ . . ~~ . ~ . . ~. ~ ~ . . - ~ . ~ ~ . .. MINUIES; CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 7ul,y 17, 1967 3~•25 RECLASSIFICATION: - Commissioner A11red offered Resolution No. PC67-153 and moved for N0. 66-67-68 its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification VARIANCE N0. 1897 No. 66-67-68 be approved, sub3ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book ): . TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT NO..6409, On roll call the foregoing resolution,was passed by the following vote: REVISION N0. 1 (Continued) AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer~ Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: OOMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution Noa PC67-158 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1897, subject to condi- tions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: . COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that if consideration was being given to continuance of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6409, the developer and engineer must concur in this continu- ance of time. Mr. Raab then indicated his approval of continuance of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6409, Revision No. 1, to the meeting of July 31, for the submission of a revised tract map. The Commission noted that a street would be better than an alley; however, an alley would pro•~ide access to the garages rather than from the street proper - however, a masonry wall should be provided along the west property line, regardless of whether a street or an alley was prnvided. F~arthermore, in response to questions By tHe agent, Mrs. Madison, the Comnission noted that an eight-foot masonry wall would not adequately screen lights and noises; that, 10 feet for an alley, with the alley being widened to 20 feet at the time +,he M-l property was,developed, was inadvisable since if dedication were required of the M-1 property, they would be permitted to use the alley, and this would be detrimental because of the trucks and sesidential vehicles using the same alley. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to continue consideration of Tentative Map of Tract No. 6409, Revision Noa 1, to the meeting of July 31, 1967, in order to allow the developer and engineer time to submit a revised tract incorporating a street along the west property line and having lots side on rather than front on this separate street, as stipulated to by the petitionero Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. Mr: Thompson advised the Commission that since the developer had submitted a letter request- ing consideration of the tentative tract to be considered in conjunction with the reclassi- ; fication and variance petitions, the two-week delay would not create any problem since the Council would then consider all petitions and tract at one time. ~~? , .. _ ;~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. CLIFFORD Y~OLFSWZNKEL, P.O. Box 2715, Anaheim, California, PERMIT N0. 818 Owner; HARRY KNISELY, 1741 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, California,Agent' requesting permission for ON-SALE LIQWR IN A PROPOSED RESTAURANT on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land located at the southeast corner of Ball Road and Brookhurst Street and having frontages of approximately 284 feet on Ball Road and appxoximately 440 feet on Brookhurst Street, and further described as 1228 South ~rookhurst Streete Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE~ Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, the location of sub~ect I property and uses established in close proximity, noting that a Mexican restaurant had I previously occupied the proposed location, and the "Beefeaters" restaurant would now occupy + this facility.; however, in the previous restaurant only beer and wine were sold, whereas it ( was pioposed to have a~~rarate cocktail lounge in addition to the serving of food, and that ~ the dining area was completely separated from the cocktail lounge. Mr. Harry Knisely, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the present owner had purchased the property approximately a year ago and had rt. 'e extensive changes in upgrading the shopping center, and the proposed restaurant would be similar to the hi.~t; quality restaurants located in Ner -rt Beach and Tustin; that the hours of operation would z:t ~'rom 5:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M., wit' .~ entertainment proposed; and tnat the dining area seated 120 {~~rsons and the cocktaia 1~,.~~.., 11 persons; furthermore, the proposed , 1 ~' ^ty'•'wi ~ .. . , .. ''. ' ~'a ` . ,. . ~ , ~ ~~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING OOMMISSION, July 17, 1967 ri , _ % -~ ''\ ~,l 3526 CONDITIONAL USE - restaurant would be operated by young people and catere`d by young PERMZT N0. SY8 people, and many people would patronize the place because of their (Continued) interest in food rather than liquor. . No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiona THE HEARING WAS CLOSHD. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noe PC67-159 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 818, subject to cnnditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the fo~•egoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIOPIERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. SKEQCH DEVELOPMENT CORPO!?ATZON, 524 West Commonwealth PERMIT N0. 955 Hvenue, Fullerton, California, Owner; FREDRICKS DEVELOPMENT OORPORATION, 524 West Ccmmonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN APARTMENT-HOTEL DEVELOPMENT WITH RELAI'ED COMMERCIAL USES, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY WALL AND (2) MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the north- east corner of Gilbert Street and Li.ncoln Avenue and having frontzges of approximately 267 feet on Gilbert Street and approximately 295 feet on Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified ^-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, the location of subject property and uses established in close proximity, notin~ that the corner parcel where the coffee shop was proposed was formerly approved for a service station,whi:h had been termi- nated, and a walk-up restaurant, said walk-up restaurant being under Conditional Use Permit No. 882; that the petitionez was proposing 83 450-square foot dwelling units in a three- story apartment hotel with a separate 2,000-square foot building which would house a beauty salon, barber shop, and coffee shop; and that parking proposed was adequate for the proposed usee Houuever, the Anaheim Municipal Code had no standards developed for an apartment hotel. Mr. Henry F:edricks, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted it was their desire to construct a building which was a departure from anything his company had done and was a new concept to the City of Anaheim; however, they had built this type of dwelling unit before in Los Angeles County, Huntington Beach, Oceanside, and Carlsbad, and wherever they had built'this type of unit as a bachelor unit it was very popular; that the living quarters would be furnished and the dining-living area was larger than the present bedrooms in the apartment developments they had constructed - however, a divan would serve as a bed, and the proposed unit would be far superior to motel units in the city; that it was their intent to cater to people who would stay longer than three days - people who were looking for a home - industri~l people who were in the city on a special assignmeni:; that elevators were proposed in the three-story structure, and elderly people could also live here; that the costs had been calculated at a rate of $5.00 per day, includ- ing maid service, or $50.00 per week, or $160.00 per month; that the barber and beauty shop were in the main building, and the coffee shop on the eorner adjacent to the pool area; that this concept would be a compliment to the city, with the outside rooms having private patios and the upper floors having private balconies for each unit; and that it would provide a facility which the city did not have at the present timee ~;;'-~ ~:; ~ _ "~f5 ,~i: ~,:J Discussion was then held by the Commiss:,~~n ;vith the agent relative to whether the proposed development would be an apartment or a nr~tel, since apartments required only a$25.00 park and recreation fee, whereas the motels ~~er~ required to psy a 4~ bed tax. The Commission further noted that the uses mentioned by the agent were noxmal uses of most motels, and a precise definition for the proposed development would be necessary since the ~ CiLy s ordinance had minimum site develooment standards for R-3 uses, and that the proposed ~ use would be classified as a motel as it was written in the ordinance. ; Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised Mr. Fredricks that apartments and motels could ~ be rented on a maximum of one-week intervals; therefore, the monthly rate was not applicable. No one appeared in oppositior. to subject petitione Tk~ HEARING WAS CIASED. ;;'r." ~ ci/ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 17~ 1967 4 ~. t $ ~ ~ X , . "__ . .. _.. _.. ~:~ ~ i ?5 ~ 3527 ~. CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Rowl.and offered Resolution No. PC67-1fi0 and moved for its PERMIT N0. 955 assa e and ado tion seconded b Commissioner Herbst to '' P 9 P ~ Y , grant Petition ~ (Continued) for Conditional Use Permit No. 955, designating the use as a motel and 's,';i'~s auxiliary uses since it fit the City's land use policy for the area, ~ subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ? On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES:, COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rovland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSEN'Ir COMMISSIONERS: Farano. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC67-161 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by~Commissioner Herbst, to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 882 on the basis that the new use approved under Resolution No. PC67-160 superseded the origtnal use for a walk-up restaurant, and that Cbnditional Use Permit No. 882 had never been exercised. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst~ Mungall~ Rowland~ Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. VARIANCE N0. 1898 - PllBLIC [-IEARZNG, JOIiN BALAAM, 204 West South Street, pnaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to ADD A CARPORT AND 6-FOOT FENCE, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) FENCE LOCATION AND (2) REAR YARD COVERAGE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the southwest corner of South Street and Lemon Street and having frontages of approximately 99 feet on South Street and approximately 120 feet on Lemon Street, and further described as 204 West South Street. Property presently classified R-2, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed sub3ect petition, the location of subject property and uses established in close proximity, noting that development plans submitted by the pei:itioner indicated construction of a fence to create an outdoor living area within two feet of the east property line along Lemon Street and the construction of a carport providing tandem parking in the'front of the existing garage; however, the rear yard coverage was technically non-conforming because of the existing location oF the home, but there would be no conflict with the cars entering Lemon Street since the R-2 portion to the south pro- vided ingress and eyress at the center oi their parcel. `~; Mr. John Balaam, the petitioner~ appeared before the Commission and noted it was their desire to utilize a portion of the existing side and front yard setbacks for an outdoor ~~'~ livi.,g area; however, the required setback would still be within Code requirements, and '"`s the proposed development plans would be complimentary to ~the neighborhood. Furthermore, ~ the proposed redwood fence would also have landscaping along the front and side, and all ~: : t the neighbors and parishioners of the churches to the north and east of subject property ' k had indicated no objection to the proposal. i - ~,~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. r ;~ , ~a THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC67-162 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1898, subject to condi- tions, on the basis that due to the unusual orientation of the home on the lot, approximately 44~ of the required rear yard would be coveied by the existing structure and the proposed carport, and that the front setback was a 53-foot setback from the street. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: OOMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. , ~-~-. . ,. , : , - , . ; . . _, , „. ' "..., _ _. .,, . . . ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY.PLANNIIS COMMISSION, July 17, 1967 4 r ~ f~;~.v C r---rm r - '~~.;~;! \'.' . ~ `) 3528 ~ RECLASSIFICAT30N - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. JOSEPH TRUXAW, 888 South Lemon Streei:, N0. b7-68-2 Anaheim, California, Owner; property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the northeast corner of Lemon Street VARIANCE N0:•T892 and Vermont Avenue and having frontayes of approximately 229 feet on ~ Lemon Street and approximately 120 feet on Vermont Avenue and consist- I ing of portions described as follows: PORTION N0. 1- the north 92 feet of the above described parcel; PORTION N0. 2- having a frontage of approximately 28 feet on Lemon Street and being south of and ad~acent to Portion No. 1; and PORTION N0. 3- having.a frontage of approximately 40 feet on Lemon Street and being south of and adjacent ~c Portion No. 2. Property presently classified: PORTION N0. 1, R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE; PORTION'N0. 2, R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE;' and PORTION N0. 3, R-3, MULTIPLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ° +~ REQUESIED CLASSIFICATION: PORTION N0. 2 ONLY - R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTiAL~ ZONE. REQUESI'ED VARIANCE: PORTION N0. 1- WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM FRONT SEI'BACK AND (2) MAXIMUM EAVE PROJECTION. PORTION NOS. 2 AND 3- WAIVER OF MINIMUM LOT WIDTH. Subject petitions were continued from the meeting of July 6, 1967, for readvertisement. Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petitions, the location of subject property and uses established in close proximity, noting that the Report to the Commission indicated that plans of development would be for the expansion of the existing R-1 struc- ture; however, no plans for development of the R-3 portion had been submitted, and that the size and shape of the R.-3 property was adequate for development in accordance with the requirements of the R-3 Zone. Mr. Joseph Truxaw, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted that the main issue relative to the variance was because of the necessity of increasing the size of the home and maintaining the roof line with the existing overhang, and that the reclassification was to increase the R-3 portion, although the required 70-foot lot width could not be met on the one•1ot. Mr. Truxaw then reviewed the recommended conditions, noting that he realized the require- ments were standard; however, the lighting on the R-l portion was adequate and no requests had been received from the neighbors that lighting should be increased~ and this condition should be complied with at the time the R-3 parcels to the south were developed, and the requirement should be tied into it at that time and not with development of the R-1 parcel. Furthermore, he had discussed this with the Utilities Department, and they had indicated this was a request, not a demand, on the part of the Utilities Department; that the require- ment of repair of the curbsand gutters along Vermont Avenue and Lemon Street was an imposi- tion since damage to this was done by the telephone company at the time a new conduit was installed, and they should be required to repair the damage. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. TI-IE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission with the Staff relative to whether or not the condi- tions of approval of (1), (2), and (3) of the variance should be required as part of the final building inspection, and whether or not the parcel map should be required also as part of final building and zoning inspections. After considerable discussion it was deter- mined that since the petitioner was requesting a heavier density for a portion of subject property, these should be tied into 180 days or prior to the time that the building permit was issued. . Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-163 a^d moved for its passage.and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi-, fication No. 67-68-2 be approved for Portion No. 2, deleting the condition of requiring it to be contingent upon the granting of Variance No. 1892. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: ~ COhiMISSIONERS: Allrad, Gauer, Herbst, Mun9a11, Rowland, Camp. NOES: CONLUISSIONERS: None. ABSENf: OOMMISSIONERS: Farani~. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC67-164 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance Noe 1892, subject to condi- tions,amending Condition Nos. 9 and 10 of the Repbrt.to the Commission, deleting Condition No. 4 from No. 9 and adding it to Condition Noe 1D. (See Resolution Book) . ?~~«'~ :~ l '__'~ .. . . ~ . . . . ~ . . . . .. . . ~Y ~ . MINUTES~-CI1Y PLANNING COMMISSION, July 17~ 1967 3529 RECLASSIFICATION - On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following N0. 67-68-2 - vote: VARIANCE NO:. 1892 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. (Continued NOES: ~ COMMISSIONHRS: None. ABSENT: COMMIS$IONERS: Faranoe RECLASSIFIGATION - PUBLIC HEARING. SAGA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ZNCORPORATED, 1426 North N0. 67-68-5 Fullerton Road, La Habra, California, Owner; TED HALES, 1426 North Fullerton Road, La Habra, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land (containing seven residential Tots) having a total frontage of approximately 575 feet on the south side of North-Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 120 feet, the westerly boundary of sub~ect property being approximately 580 feet east of th~ centerline of Loara Streetf. be reclassified from the R-0, ONE-FAMILY SUBURBAN, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 2~NE. Zoning•Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a letter had been received from the petitioner requesting that subject petition be withdrawn without prejudice. Mr. Ralph I. Callen, 1443 Park Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and presented a petition signed by 64 property owners in opposition, noting that they wished to go on record as being opposed to the proposed reclassification although it was being withdrawn. Commissioner Allred offered a motion to accept withdrawal of Petition for Reclassification No. 67-68-5 as requested by the petitionere Commissioner Mungall seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC I~ARING. JEROLD 0.. BROWN, 1106 West South Street,..Anaheim, N0. 67-68-9 _ California, Owner; TARIQ M.. SHAMMA, 914 East Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property describ~d as: An irregularly shaped parcel VARIANCE N0. 1899 of land located at the sovthwest corner of South and West Streets and having frontages of approximately 51 feet on South Street and approx3- mately 116 feet on West Street~ a~d further described as 1106 West South Street. Property presently classified R-1, OI~E-FAMZLY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) PARKING LOCATION AND REQUIRED FRONT LANDSCAPING; (2) MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, (3) BUILDING [-IEIGHT AND SETBACK, AND (4) REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY WALLe Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petitions,the location of sub3ect property and uses established in close proximity, and the Report to the Commission. Mr. Tariq M. Shamma, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted it was his opinion that subject property was more suited for commerbial uses; that the improve- ments proposed on the plans would enhance and upgrade the existing structure, which would be used for professional office and engineering purposes. Mr. Shamma further noted that commercial uses were established on the north side of South Street,and that although they had originally provided eight parking spaces, the Traffic Department had recommended that a turning rad:us be provided - therefore one parking space had been omitted. Mr. Eldon Derigo, 828 Aspen Street, appeared before the Commission and noted it was his opinion that properties within 300 feet be notified of any zoning change;•however, this had not occurred, and upon checking the names of persons advised of subject petition, Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that if any additional names were necessary, these would be added to the list so that the public hearing before the City Council would have all properties notified. Mr. Derigo then continued by stating that the proposed reclassification•and~the use of subject property would not enhance the area but would be detrimental; that most of the people living in that tract had been living there for at least ten years and all the propertiies except sub~ect property had been well maintained; and that the nePd for an engineering space could be accomplished by utilizing vacant offices in the building on the north side of South Street, rather than setting a precedent by a breakdown of a residential tract. ~.",~: ~:: ~ ty' y "r .. t„1 y:~i'^a R +~~,'~'.,.~. S~,q S'7esh~ A'i~„ '++~r. p y~J ~~h n~U ' et C 7 r' y ti F~ 1 '~-' '' - r C `~ -.•v~~ ~ r^ ~ --- _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~3 ~ > MINUfES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, July 17~ 1967 ~~,,,, . 3530 `` ~ RECLASSIFICATION - TI-If (-lEqRING WAS CIASED. ~}`_,. ;:-.;~ ~w,:.t:.-:__- : NO. 67-68-9 x Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC67-165 and moved for its VARIANCE ~10. 1899 passage and adoption, secorided by Commissioner Allred, to recommend ~~' (Continued) to the'City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 67- 8- ~i~+~ , be disapproved on the basis that no land use chan9e had~-teken place ~~' to warrant consideration of encroaching commercial uses into a single- ~it~ ~'. family residential tract; that subject and adjoining properties are still well suited for ~"`fif residential:uses, and the construction of a masonry wall would reduce noises from the free- way and on and off-ramp traffic; : that the proposed reclassification would es+.ablish an '~T=::•:=' undesirable living environment for the residences and set a precedent for requests from 7~+~ ;;rr :: - other nearby property owners, thereby destroying the residential integrity of the neighbor- ~;.~;: hood; and that the front-on study made by the Commission relative to homes fronting on "~ ~ arterial streets and highways did not include sub'ect ~:;~';=;,~a i'"`'~'~ as a possible area for conversion to commercial uses. property or surrounding propertizs -:' > (See Resolution Book) ; On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ :.d AYESs OOMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. h ' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. :•r, , , '~" ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Faranoe ~t~::~ :.1', z: ~ `r. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC67-166 and moved for its passage and adoption, Y ;~ ai seeonded b Commissioner Allred to den Petition for Variance No. 1899. ar ~. Book) . ' Y (See Resolution ~ ~ ~` ' On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: • ~ ~ ~l i,,~ AYES. WMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ~ ~'~,~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ~ ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS: Farano. RECT.ASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNIN3 CpMMISSION, 204 Ea:.t N0. 67-68-8_ Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California as: An irre ularl sha ed ~ Proposing that property described corner of Placentia Avenue andcState CollegecBoulevardhand~havingt faontages of approximately 153 feet on Placentia Avenue and approximately 140 feet on State Colle9e Boulevard, be reclassified from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL CpMMERCIAL, ZONE to establish an existing service station in the most appropriate zonee ;~) Associate Planner Jack Christofferson reviewed subject petition, noting that the Mobil 031 ,~ Comqany was proposing to remodel their existing service station, and since the property was still in the R-A Zone, the Staff felt that reclassification to the most apprcpriate ~ zone foz~ the existing service station was necessarye .- ~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. .~ __ I'HE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ x' ,~ Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC67-167 and moved for its passage and adoption, r,~ seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- ~ fication No. 67-68-8 be approved, unconditionally. (See Resolution Book) a ',~ r~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: , ~ ~~ AYESs CAMMISSIONERSe Allred, Gauer, !ierbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ~ A~s NO=S: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~, ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. i:s','-"'7':`i REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 "~ ~ 4ECOMMENDATIGNS Placentia School District proposal for a continuation ~ ~~_.:~ high school on the easterly 3-4 acres of a 47-acre c # Esperanza High School site located on the east side of -~ Orchard Drive between Yorba Linda Freeway and Orange- `' thor e Avenue. ~,~ ~;t P ' y' Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reviewed the Report to the Commission regarding the a; proposed Placentia School District proposal for a continuation high school, specifically ~ ~ noting that the only access to the proposed school would be from the stub end ot Concerto Drive, a local street within a single-family residential area to the south; that no bus servicing was proposed, which would mean a maximum of 114 cars traversing the residential ~ _ ..y.l ~ ~ ~, - ~ . , - J `_' ~...i .~~.~ „ .1..., . .. . . . . .. . . . 7fi-r t, ~ yr:p f tw^ y ;:~+ ~1~~, `r..'~` r'~`~ ~ ~ ~q) \ `~t+ . . . i:J `I.~ 1i MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING l'AMMISSION~ July l~~ 1967 3531 I ~ f ":`''. REPORTS AND ~ RECOMMENDAIIONS - ITEM N0. 1 (Continued) ~ " • ! ~ area several times a day,; that the development plans indicated that thP a:dn~i:~~.;i~;on school f ~ wa~ld be physically separated from tl:e fu±ure regular fa~ur-year high st,~o~;:; that approxi- ~ mately 43 acres would remain for the regular high sch~n:~; that i~ th~ ~~rtznvo:.'on school ;r; wr~s proposed +.ro remain at the site shbwt~ on the pla.ns, the :,taf± u..~~rt eonsy:neration of esta~blishin~ a private drive.alony thF; ncrther.ly boundary of the Fi-1 au}x~ivision to provide '~' adequate circulation to the school; ha~!?ver, in view of the fact tllai: •the school had approxi- `a f '%;,_:~`:~ mately 2,20~ feet of frontage on Orchard Drive~ and the disrupt3ve an~i ~eleterious effect "~'~ the school traffic would have on the cont3guou~ single-family :~eighbor:t.ood, the follov~ing ~ suggestions should be considered: (1) reorientation of the school s,ite to the northwesterly `::f~.Y port3pn of the school proper,y ~~ith direct access to Orchard Drive, if a physical separation ~~'^' betw~r~f;ti ~?.he two schoo]s aras desirable or necessary since t:his cou1~3 still be accomplished, ,~~" or °,: ) Sf t~he continuatiun school site were left in th~a cSeiginal'.•, ~rroposed loc,:tion, iha School D+l.s:tri~ct`could establish a private drive along th~ northerly boundary of the e~s:tsting single-frrmi.ly residential eubdivision to serve the sc~oo.l adequately, Nlr. CliF:nrd 'utiddlebarger, 5uperintenrient of Schools for the Placentia School Pistr'ct, ~ appeared ^.Lfo: e the Commission and noted that the propos£d o~-~e~rati.on ovould no•t be a.large ~. ~chool but a ~wximum of 150 students at on~ t~;.me, since t!?;s~a students would be attendxng ~ or.e-half day :;essions and wprking the~ other ~~•~:ne; that ~t~~~ types of students varied, coriie ' of them coming from homes where the living ~~nviranment .vas into~erable, that some could not ad,just tc~ the regular school schedule - however, none should be considered juvenile delin- qu^nts since many made *he adJustm~ent and returned to a re~ul~lr high school; that some~ of the students had finished school and were now in the armed fr~rces; and that these students would be the citizens of tomorrow and should be given every opportunity to become good ci~~~zens of the area. Mre Fra:~k r~ogess, representirg the architect for the proposed school, noted for the ~.;ort~missioni that if the prnposed site were not approved, the schocl would incur ;.:,~itional cosLS i••. ord~* I to comply ~~.th recommendations macie by the Staff; th~,t if additional .land or relocatiu~ w=re ~ necessary, th~s would mean ~he mair. high school sitF~ would be less desirable; that the ~~ddi- i tional road on ;ampuswould bring both schools' traffic toge',her which was not desirable from the school's standpoint since it~was ~their desire to mainta~n 2he two schools as two sE;.arate ~ entities; that at the time i.ngress was proposed frurn Co~nr,•erto ).)xive, no thought had been ' given to its ~ossible effect on t`~e *-;idei.tiaJ, area stnoe seF.ara:ton of the two scheol5 was ~ their prime interest, and the ma'...~ •~.,,~,~ctive was t,o give thes~: students the best edur,ation j possible; therefore, the recomm.,:ncl~i,ions wauld pui: an ad;iitional burden on the school districtl Mro Riddlebarger, in response to Commission questioning, noted that most of the students would! be a•rriving at i:he school by private vehicles and ~~ery few by school buse , Com~nissioner Gauer expressed concern that Concerto D~ive would become a drag strip for car~ since there would be shops 3,~ ~he school where students would repair or rebuild their old automc~biles, then using the street for testing purposes,. Mr. iaurel.Simpson noted that the report f.~om Albert C. Martin and Associates, the architeci:, depicted the operatian of the proposed sc.hc~~l, and in response to Commisaion questioning, noted that the report indicated 300 stu9eni:::; how~ver, there would never be more than 150 students at onE time sinee one-half day sessic>ns only were requised, especially where students worked full time .;obs: that the :;t_ire to ha~~e a se~parate school rathes than utilizing tem- porary facilities was to 3.ndicate to these s,tudents that the schoo: would 'nave an interesi. in them even though Lhay had been drop-outs, anu that the school desired that they become useful citizens. The Comnission nota~d that the program was ccromendable and worthy of considerable pr•;ise; hnwever, the Commxs.sion ir. tha past had no~ ap~,roved schools where ingress a~u egress were ~roposed fcr a local residenti~' stre=t, and sit;e~ ~oncert:, Drive had k.,:e;~ a deader.9 street for some time, the ch~ldren in thp araa were usEad to using the street without fear ~;f traffic in the street, and ti~at although onl.y 15G~ students wpuid be there at one time, this could mean 600 trips per day for students ;:nd ripproximst=ly 100 more with teachers going back and forth d~ring lunch hours. Mr. Jack LEOnard noted for the Commissian that the school ~xa: now located at McFadden School, I wtiich is at the northerly end of the communi.ty, and it was the Board's desire to relocate , t;iis school i.n facilitie:, o: its own and t~ offer stuLants a bntter environment and program than was previously offered; that it was the school's aim to have all these students graduate ; fr.~~,i high school, something very few had dor,•~ in the past; that ~his school would have more - strict controls than the present hir~h 5chools, id many of the problems would not occur *~' because of this strict con~.rol-since iheir atte•dance at school was not compulsory, and if ~• behavior problem students occurred, they would be required to l,eave the school - therefore, drag stripping would not occur ever. though auto shops wrre proposed, and that the program ; _... ~ ---- ~.--~~~ ,~~ ~~-w - '~' ~~ .~_~:~ „" , ~~ ~ , , _ ._. ... _,~ - ~ ~ ~~ ~ ;MINI~TES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,-July 37~ 1967 3532 !~EPORTS AND Rr.COIdMHNDATIONS - ITEM N0. 1 (Continued) ' - : up c~ t.he,present time seemed to be successful with students responding to:the interest ' shi~wn i:n them, since they were aware they weie given:tnore attention'and:yet were not made to fee}; they,wer'e inferior to tHe'regulas school students:- however,'.it was desirable that ~ these students have their,~wn type of;school; that previously there were`few students,and. thoe looati:,n was such that driving their own automobiTes was unnecessary; that'the maximum 'enrollcment~.would not be reached for some time;`and that'the ultimeie goal for'enrollment, was ~00 studen•ts.. . The Gommission again .ed.that even though theae students have responded to the.interest ~ shown in the:n; t€1e Commissioa never approved a school site where ingress.and egress were ~ as pour as th~t proposed, and inquired whether or not the students from outside of the s:hool`district would be permitied to attend this school. Mr. Rid@leb~rger noted thct by policy of the School Board, student~ wou3.d not be accepted from oucsids; fiu~tnermore, present students were asked to participate in the layout of the proposed schocl, :~nich gave them a sense of responsibility, and that many of these students were far «bo~~e •,};e average in intelligence since theis problems resulted from inability t~ cope with tl~eir homes, schools, or counselors in regular schools. P.11 Commissiuners then expressed concern ~bout the circulation pattern proposed, beirig of the opini~n that with a plot of land 47.er.res in size, alternate circulation siould be pro- vided so that cars would not be utilizing a residential street. Dis~ussion was iield between the Commission and the Staff and the representatives of the : Placentia School District as~to whether or not the school would accept the P1ar.ning Commission', recomm,~dation, or whether or not they wc~yld table this project and•in 30 days initiate this pro3ect as they had originally 3.nt~ended~ wh~reupon Mr. Riddlebarger stated that the Stete required that circulation be pre~~ided on the bas.s of the reaommendation of the Planning ~ Commxssion of the citya , CommissioneT Rowland offered a motion to'recommend'to th~a City Council. that the Placentia ' School'District be required to dedicate ~heiz access rights to Concerto Drive'in order to eliminate school traffic utilizing a local street for through traffic. Commissioner Herbst seconded'the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ' (A later request was received from the project architect requesting •~hat the recommendation ` of the Planning Commission be held in abeyance pendi~g the submission of new plans before the Planning Commission which would resolve the access prob.lems aboirt which the Cammission expresse:] concern.) ITEM N0. 2 Condi#=ona1 Use Pe~mit N;o. 911 - 9n-sale liquoz in a C-1 neighborhood shopping center at 1272-12~4 South d~iagnolia Avenue - Request for approval n:` revised plans and relocation. Associate Planner Jack Christoffer~on reviswed for.the Conunission the location of subject property, noting that the proposed restaurant was being re.located ~ne door south of the existing loc:3tion approved under subject petition, and ~h.at the revised plan5 submitted were substantially in accordance with the original plans sub:nitte~; uu~er the conditional use permit; furthermore, ~fie dining area was completely separatad from the bar area. Mr. Henry Fredricks, representing Fredricks Deve.lopmer.i :.~rporation, indicated his.presence to answer questipns. Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to apprqve revised plans for Conditional Use Permit No. 911, indicatin9 the relocation of the proposed sestaurant with on-sale liquor from 1272 South Magnolia Avenue to 1274 South Magnolia Avewe. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. M0I'ION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 3 Proposed Work Sessions for 1967-68. Planning Supervisor Ronald Grudzinski present~d to the Commissian the work session calendar for the 1967-68 year, noting there would be eleven work sessions scheduled, and the first one would k~e July 24, 1967 at 7:00 o'clnck•P,M., proposed ror th= Stadium Conference Room, ::, s ~;~r~ , `i i ~ ~' ~~~~ ~~~J ANN KREBS, Secretary Anaiieim City Planning Commission r .:.', ~ wA't^°'..`~;a ~ .__~. • - ~ - ,.-. . . . ~• w:.. ~ ... - ~ ~. r.. . . .. . ......... .... . , _ . . . .. . . ~ ~ -. .. ~ ~ f~ .. ~ . ~