Minutes-PC 1960/12/19~
~ ___,_ :.~.. _ :
4
~
, ~.
- ~ - 4"
` ~
~ ~ .
'"a
• .. .
~ , . ~~ ~
City Hall
Anaheim, California
December 19, 1960
1
~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~JN
.
REGULAR MEETING - A Regular Meeting of the City P2anning Commission was called to order at
uorum being presont.
G
auer, a q
2=05 P.M., December 19, 1960, by Chairman
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN GAiIER: COMMISSIONERSs Allred, Marcoux, Mungall~ and Summers.
M
3=00 P
..
.
Commissioner Hap9ood entered the meeting at
' ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Morris.
PRESENT - Acting Planning Director - Richa~rd Reese
Senior Planner - Martin Kreidt
Assistant City Attorney - Joe Geisler
Commission Secretary - .7ean Page •
MINIJTES - The Minutes of the INeeting of December 5, 1960 were approved as submitted.
NEXT N~ETING - Due to the New Year's Day holiday, the next meeting date is scheduled for
DATE January 3, 1961 at 2s00 P.M. '
VARIANCE N0. 1314 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION submitted by DONALD E. REA, et al~ 305 East 17th.
ermission to ESTABLISH
for
O
p
wner,
Street, Santa Ana, California, Recorded
VARIOUS USES PERMITTED IN THE C-19 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL9 C-2~ GENERAL
' COMMERCIAL, and C=3, 1-IEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONES, on property described ass A
parcel 486 feet by 635 feet with a frontage of 486 feet on Katella Avenue
and located on the north side of Katella Avenue between Harbor Boulevard
and Haster Street; its southwest corner being approxinately 775 feet east
of the northeast corner of Harbor Boulevard and Katella Avenue and rur-
ther described as 317-409 West Katella Avenue. The property is presently
classified R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL:
Subject petition was continued fram the meeting of December 5~ 1960 to
provide the petitioner an opportunity to study the uses permitted in the
C-9 Section of the Code of the proposed 1959 Zoning Ordinance and s~lect
those uses he might consider desirable for sub~ect property.
Mr. John Kent, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commis-
sion and reviewed the letter, dated December 15, 196+~, which was filed
with the Commission on behalf of Donald Rea,the app.'icant, requesting mo-.
di•fication e. the application in accordance with tht December 5~ I960
request of the Commission. THE HEARING WAS CIASED.~
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding sub~ect
Petition for Variance:
R 1. Petitioner originally reGuested a variance from Code, Section 18.16.010,~
which stipulates permissable uses of R-A, Residential A9ricultural,
zones to perroit use of sub~ect property for any C-1, Neighborhood Com-
mercial, use for bars, cafes, and restaurants with dancing and enter-
tainment, for studios, except motion picture and television broadcast- ~
ing studios, and for motels and auto courts.
2. The Commission held a public hearing on said Petition for Variance on
December 5, 1960, but continued the case to provide the petitioner an
opportunity to select uses he might consider necessary and desirable,
in cooperation wfth the Planning Department and the City Attorney's
. office, for the proper utilization of the sub3ect property.
3. Sub3ect Petition for Variance was modified at the petitioners request
to seek approval of the following use~ business and professional
offices, drug stores, pharmacies, restaurants with cocktail lounges,
beauty shops, barber shops, flower shops, retail dry cleaning - laundry
, . agencies, tailor shops, coffee shops, telephone answering service, book
i and stationery stores, specialty gift shops, tobacco shops, photo
i -1-
E '
~
~
Y: •
~ ~r~~..-~~++~t: ^'S
..~ .~...~...~_~....._~~..,~~.~...~.~..~.~-n-~o-a~t~wn~^~.-~cmalb:~'•E+~~
. . . ...._......~.....~. _._.~....
. .~I.\ ..,.: ~C:~'i:'.^'i~ . _• ' . . ' w,~rw_+r~°. ~
,
~
i
i
I
i
MINUiES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, December 199 1960, Continueds
VARIANCE N0. 1314 - shops, shoe repair shops, clothing shopsy toy shops, hobby shops,
S,Continued) interior decorator's studios, medical and dental centers, banks,
diagnostic laboratories, bakeries, and television and radio studios.
" 4. Subject Petition for Variance has been considered in keeping with
the variance policy of the Disneyland area as implemented on the Gen-
eral Plan.
5. Variance No. 12b9 was granted by the Commission to use sub3ect pro-
perty for a high rise regional office building complex containing
offices and shops. No action was taken by the City Council follow-
ing the resubmfssion and approval oi the revised plot plan dated
September 27, 1960. As of this date conditions attached to the Com-
mission resolution have not been fulfilled.
6. Petitioner requests t+.at sub3ect Petition for Variance be granted to
yhe westerly 150 fee~ of the southe~ly 291 feet of sub3ect property
as shown on revised plot plan approved by the City Council on Septem-
ber 27, 1960.
7. No one appeared in opposition to the petition.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 132, Series 1960-61, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to
grant Variance No. 1314, subJect to the following conditions:
?hat the permitted uses of entire sub~ect pro erty be as follaws:
business and professional (except real estate~ offices, drug etores,
pharmacies, restaurants and cocktail lounges (developed in accordance
with floor plans submitted to and approved by the City Council),
flower shops, beauty shops, barber shops, retail dry cleaning - laun-
dry agencies, tailor shops, telephone answering services, book and
stationery stores, specialty gift shops, tobacco shops, photo shops,
shoe repair shops, clothing shops, toy shops, hobb~y shops, inter!or
decorator's studios, medical and dental centers, banks, diagnostic la-
boratories, bakeries, television studios and radio studios, and
studios selated to permitted uses.
ihat all permitted uses be developed in accordance with the revised
plat plan approved by the City Council on September 27, 1960 and con-
ducted entireTy within the structures shown thereon.
Dedication of sixty (60) feet from the centerline of Katella Avenue.
Preparation of street improvement plans and instaZlation of all im-
provements in accordance with the approved standard plans on file in
the office of the City Eng3neer.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to
be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to pre-
serve the sa:ety and welfare of the citizens of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votej
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARIWG. PETIiION si;bmitted by WEST ANAHEIM Iu~THODIST CHURCH,
PERMIT N0. 94 2045 West Ball Road, Ana::2im, California, Recorded Owner, for permis-
sion to C~TDUCf GROUP MEETINGS IN A MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUC-
TURE, on property described as= A parcel 70 feet by 111 feet with a
fro~~La,e of 70 feet on Juno Place and located on the north side of Juno
~ Place bet:veen Empire and Agate Streets; its southwest corner being
approximately 311 feet east of the northeast corner of Empire Street
and Juno Place, and further described as 2027 West Juno Place. The prb-
perty presently classified R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
i - 2 -
~ • .
i
:`
~_ ------•.,--- . -
v
~ .~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 199 i~i609 Continueds
CONDITIONAL USE -~Sub3ect petition was continued from the meeting of December 5, 1960 to
PERMIT N0. 94 prov3de the petitioners an additional opportunity to verbally present
(Continued) °their request to the Commission due to the lack of representation et
said hearing.
Reverend Deshler, Past.or of West Anaheim Methodist Church, appeared be-
fore the Commission, ~eviewed the devElopment of the church and its pro-
perty, indicated their desire to undertake physical expansion of the
church facilities as spon as possible, their interim need for additional
meeting facilities and the manner in which the s!~b~ect property could
readily fulfill this need, and a later reconversion to the existing mul-
tiple family residential use following construction of proposed church
facilities. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Assistant City Attorrtey Joe Geisler discussed existing deed restriction
limiting subject property to residential use ~nly, and outlined a proce-
dure the Commission might take to recommend to City'Council disposition
of said deed restriction if sub~ect Conditional Use Permit is approved.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding subject
Petition for Conditional Use Permit=
1. Petitioner requests a Conditional Use Permit for which provision is
made in Code, Section 18.64.020 (1-f) to permit use of muitiple fam-
ily structure for group meetings. '
2. SubJect petition was considered by the Commission, and public hear-
ings were held thereon at the meetings of December 5, 1960 and Decem-
ber 199 1960.
3. Cunditian No. 2 nf City Council Ordinance No. 1067, granting reclass-
ification from R-1, Single Family Residential, to R-3, Multiple Fam-
ily Residential9 of Tract No. 3022 of which sub3ect property is a
part requires that all lots in the tract shall be known and described
as residentiai lots and shall be used for no other purpose. Peti-
tioner has req+aested consideration by the City Council of waiver of
said deed restriction.
4. Petitioner requested at the meeting of December 19, 1960 that sub-
3ect Petition for Conditional Use Permit be granted for a two year
time period.
5. Petitioner indicates that the outward appearance of ths apartment
building on sub~ect property xill not be altered in any way during
the effective period of ±he Conditional Use Permit. It will remain
essentially a four unit aparta:sr.t building with minor indoor changes
in conformance with City standards to provide for the safety and
welfare of the users.
6. No one appeared in opposition to the petition.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 133, Series 1960-61, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to
grant Conditional Use Permit No. 94, sub3ect to the following conditionsi
1. That sub3ect Petition for Conditional Use Permit be granted for a
period of one (1) year from effective date. At the termination of
said period of time sub3ect petition shall be sub3ect to review by
the Planning Commission upon proper application by the petitioner for
an extension of time.
2. That said approval by the Commission be sub~ect to waiver by the City
Council of Condition No. 2 of Council Ordinance No. 1067, which re-
quires that subject property be utilized for residential purposes only.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found
to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to
preserve the safety and ~velfare of the citizens of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vo~e=
- 3 -
,.
~. _ ------~-
' ~' ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CONAIISSION, December 199 19609 Continueds
_.~
C~NDI?IONAL USE -
PERMIT N0. 94
,~Continued)
VARIANCE N0. 1316 -
VARIANCE N0. 1317 -
AYES: COMMISSIQNERS: Allr~ed, Gauer9 Marcaux, Mungall, Summers. ~
NOESs COMAFISSIONERS: None. ,
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Hapgood9 Morris. i
Coramissioner Mungall offered a motion9seconded by Commissioner Allred ~
and carried, that the City Council consider the waiver of Condition No. ~
2 of Council Ordinance No. 10679 granting reclassification from R-1,
Single Family Residential,zone to R-3, Multiple Family Residential, zone
of Tract No. 3022, of which sub3ect property is a part; and the considera- '
tion of Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 94 in connection therewith.
PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION submitted by FOREST W. ALFJCA~~DER, 244 Cliff- ~
rose Street, Anaheim, California, Recorded Owner, for permission to ;
WAIVE MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF ;
4.5 FEET INTO REQUIRED REAR YARD TO WITHIN 20 FEET 6 INCHES OF REAR PRO- ~
PERTY LINE, on property described as: A parcel 60 feet by 100 feet with ~
a frontage of 60 feet on Cliffrose Street between Anaheim-Olive Road and '.
Broadway; its southwest corner being approximately 70 feet north of the j
northeast corner of Cliffrose and Broadway Streets, and further described ~
as 244 Cliffrose Street. The property presently classified R-1, SINGLE ~
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
No one appeared to represent the petitioner. No one appeared in opnosi- ~
tion to the Petition for Variance. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ;
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
sub3ect Petition for Variance: .
1. Petitioner requests a variance from Code9 Section 18.24.030 (3),
which xequires for sub~ect property a 25 foot rear yard9 but which
presently has a 30.5 foot rear yard, to permit encroachment of 4.5
feet into required rear yard in order to construct an addition to
existing residence.
2. The proposed addition would constitute an extension of the existing
residence to within 20.5 feet of the rear property line and would
occupy approximately 6.6 percent of the required rear yard, and,
therefore,~would not result in an inadequate rear yard.
3. Sub~ect property is surrounded by R-19 Single Family Residential,
development.
4. No one appeared in opposition to the petition.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 1349 Series 1960-61, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux,
to grant Variance No. 1316, sub~ect to the following conditions
1. Development substantially in accordance with plans submitted.
The foregoing condition was recited at the meeting and was found to be
a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve
the safety and welfare of the citizens of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution Nas passed by the following votes
AYES: COMMISSIONERSc Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS= None.
ABSENTs COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Morris.
PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION submitted by RICHARD AND LUCY ANTHONY, 1200 ~
West Ball Road, Anahe'_m, Californla, Recorded Owners, for permission to ~
ERECI AND OPERATE A COFFEE SHOP, RESTAURANT, AND COCKTAIL LOUNGE,on pro- ~
perty described as= A parcel 130 aeet by 1b0 feet with a frontage of 130 ~
feet on Ball R~ad and located on the south side of Ba11.Road between West
Street and the Santa Ana Freeway; its northwest corner being approximate- i
ly 150 feet east of the southeast corner of Ball Road and West Street~ and `
further described as 1050 West Ball Road. The property is presently class- ~
ified R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICIJLTURAL. ~ ~
- 4 - ~
-- ; ------- ---~_-- `. k.~„~R..._.._,.._~_:1
~ ~ •
~
MINUfES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 19, 19609 Continued=
VARIANCE N0. 1317 - lulr• Robert McMann, attorney for the petitioner9 appeared before the Com-
~Continued) mission, reviswed previous Commission and City Council action relative
to sub3ect property, sulimitted a qew elevation plan, and discussed the
proposed plot, floor9 and.~levation plans of the development.
Mr. David Collins appeared before the Commission and expressed his inter-
est in the proposed development. THE HEARING WAS CLOSHD.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the sub-
ject F~tition for Variances
~' i. Petitioner requests a v.ariance from Code, Section 18.16.010, which
stipulates permissable uses in R-A, Residential. Agricultural, zones
to permii use of sub3ect property for a coffee shop, reataurant, and
cocktail lounge.
2. Sub3ect Petition for Variance has been received in keeping with the
variance policy of the Disneyland Area as delimited on the General
Plan.
3. Petitioner submitted a revised elevation sketch.
4. Number of propoced parking spaces is in excess of the Code require-
ment. HaNever, the proposed space and access area is substandard.
Realignment of all spaces from 60 degree to 45 degree ~ngles would
satisfy parking requirements.
5. Sub3ect property abuts the Jack and Jill Motel on the east, the Fla-
mingo Motel on the south9 a service station on the west, and the
Stardust Motel across Ball Road on the north.
6. Petitioner filed Petition for Variance No. 1040 to operate a cocktail
lounge, restaurant, and liquor store on sub3ect property. The Plan-
ning Commission by Resolution No. 76, Series 1958-59, granted said
variance to operate a cocktail lounge and restaurant only,on October
20, 1958. The City Council reviewed and, by Resolution No. 48689
denied said variance on November 25, 1958. The petitioner was denied
an appeal but the s3x months time limit for repetitioning was waived.
Petitioner filed Petition for Variance No. 1078 to operate a family
restaurant and cocktail lounge on sub3ect property. The Planning Com-
mission by P.esolution No. 148, Series 1958-59, granted said variance
on January 19, 1959. The City Council reviewed and, by Resolution
No. 4051, denied said variance on February 17, 1959.
7. No one appeared in opposition to the petition.
Commissioner :~arcoux offered Resolution No. 135, Series 1960-61, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to
grant Variance No. 1317, sub~ect to the followin9 conditionr,z
1. Development substantially in conformance with the plot plan, floor
plan and December 19, 1960 revised elevation plan.
2. Provision of a minimum 20 foot b~~?:d~~~g setback and the provision of
a minimum 20 foot landscaped strip abutting front propeYty line ex-
cept f~~r those areas reserved for accees drives and walks.
3. Parking spaces shall not be located in the 20 foot area reserved for
landscapin9 that abuts the front property line.
4. Realignment of all parking spaces from a 60 degree angle to a 45 de-
gree angle.
-~ e 5. Dsdication of 53 feet from the centerline of Ball Road.
6. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all im-
provements in accordance with the approved standard plans on file in
the office of the City Engineer.
7. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes.
The ioregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to be
- 5 -
~
....----- -~----------- --•-----
--- z~.
~ ~ ~
• 4 .
I .
•
_.... .,-~rxmxy,.+~ r,:<i
_ . ......__....
. '~s
~~
t
F
~
~
~ ~
~
.
j
4
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 19y 1960y Continued:
~
i
~ ~ VARIANCE N0. 1317 - ,
a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve ~
~ (Continued) the safety and welfare of the citizens of Anaheim. ~
. :
~
,
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~
'
, ;~ AYESs CQMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Summers.
~ NOES: COIW~ISSIONERSs None.
~ ~I ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Hapgood, Morris.
_~ ~
`~ VARIANCE N0. 1318 -
PUBLIC HEARING: PETITION submitted by FIARENCE BONIN09 8892 Katella Ave-
nue, Anaheim, California, Recorded Owner9 for permission to CONSTRUCT AND
OPERAI'E A 30 llNIT MC~TEL WITH SWIMMING POOL, on property described ass A
parcel 130 feet by 205•feet with a frontage of 130 feet on Katella Avenue
between Harbor Boulevard and Haster Street; its northwest corner being
aparoximately 550.feet east of the southeast corner of Harbor Boulevard
and Katella Avenue, and further described as 424 West Katella Avanue.
The property is presently classified R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTllRAL.
Mrs. Florence Bonino, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
verified the information coqtained in the Petition for Variance. THE
HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~ The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
' sub3ect Petition for Variance=
r
requests variance from Code, Section 18.16.010, which sti-
1. Petitioner
pulates permissable uses on R-A, Residential Agricultural, zones to
permit construction of a motel.
~ 2. Sub3ect Petition for Variance has been received in keeping with the
' variance policy for development of the Disneyland Area as delimited
in the General Plan.
3. Subfect property abuts the Pyramid Hotel on the east, the Riviera
Mobile Home Trailer Park on the south, Sandy°s Motel on the west,
and the Samoa Motel across Katella Avenue on the north.
4. Proposed parking provision is adequate.
5. No one appeared in opposition to the petition.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 136, Series 1960-61, ancl moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Summers9 to gran~
Variance No. 1318, sub~ect to the following conditionss .
1. Development substantially in accordance with plans presented.
2. Provision of a twenty (2Q) foot landscaped strip abutting front pro-
perty line9 excegt for those areas reserved for access drives and
waiks.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to be
a necAssary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to preserve
the safety and welfare of the citizens of Anaheim.
~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMTSSIONL•RSs Allredy Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Summers.
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENTi COMMISSIONER5: Morris.
VARIANCE N0. 1319 - PUBLIC E~ARING. FETITION submitted by TITI.E INSURANCE 8 TRUST COMPANY,
S00 North Main Street9 Santa Ana, California, Recorded Owner; PAUL L.
WILLIAlu~S and R. H. DESSERT, 320 North Placentia Avenue, Orange, Califor-
nia, Authorized Agents9 for permission to WAIVE SINGLE STORY HEIGHT LI-
MITATIONS TO PERMIT CONSTRUGTION OF TWO-STORY APARTN~NTS, on property
~ -6-
._ __._ _ ~.__ ~ __-_-- ------- ~__._._.. _.
- ~ , . . ---~ ~ ---
`~
~
i
MINUtES, CITY PLANNIN~3 COMMISSION, DecembeT 19, 1960, Continueds
VARIANCE N0. 1319 - described ass A parcel located at the southerly end of West Fay Lane;
SContinued) its westerly boundary abuts the easterly boundary of the Santa Ana
Freeway, and fuxther described as Lot 23 of Tract 1607. The property
is presently classified R-3S MULTIPIL- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
I'he secretary read a letter from the petitioner, Paul L. Williams, re-
questing a two weeks continuance of subject variance to permit peti-
tioner to amend application.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mungall
and carried, to continue the hearing on Petition for Variance No. 1319
until the meeting on January 3, 1961.
VARIANCE N0. 1320 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION submitted by MR. AND MRS. ARNfOLD BASSOFF, 230
Brentwood Place, Anaheim, California9 Recorded Owners, for permi~sion to
EXTEND SIX (6) FOOT WALL INTO i'HE REQUIRED SIDEYARD OF A REVERSE CORNER
LOT i0 WITHIN FIVE (5) FEET OF A.SIDE PROPERTY LINF on property des-
cribed ass A parcel 85 feet by 133 feet with a frontage of 85 feet on
South Brentwood Plece and a froniage of 133 feet on east Brentwood Place
and located on the southeast corner of South Brentwood Place and East
Brentwood Place9 and further described as 230 Brentwood Place. The pro-
' perty is presently classified R-19 SINGT.£ FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
Mr. Arnold Bassoff, the petitioner9 appeared before the Commission, des- ~
cribed the proposed wall construction as shown on the proposed plot plan,
stated that h~ was not aware at the time of purchase of the sub~ect fa.•o- ~
perty that the proposed construction was at variance with the Munici;;~al
Code, indicated that the abutting property owners had signed and support- ~
ed the sub~ect petition, and assured the Commission that the five foot
strip between the proposed wall and the sidewalk would be landscaped and
properly maintained. TF1E HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~
The Commission found and determi~ed the following facts regarding the !
sub~ect Petition for Variances
1. Petitioner requests a variance from Code9 Section 18.04.090 (2-h-1),
which requires for sub~ect property that a six foot fence, wall, or
hedge may not extend along the rear yard beyond the normal building.
setback 13ne of the icey lot created by the revexse corner lot, in
order to construct a six (6) foot masonry wall along the rear line
of sub~ect property to within five (5) feet of the north side yard
property line or 20 feet beyond the building setback line of the key
lot, thence westerly approximately 60 feet9 five feet from and par-
allel to ~he north property line, and thence southerly eight feet to
the northeast corner of the existing garage.
2. Petitioner requests permission to constxuct wall for the purpose of
enclosing back yard to facilitate the ultimate construction of a
swimming pool and a family room addition to existing residence.
3. Petitioner indicated that the five foot strip between the proposed
masonry wall and the sidewalk would be landscaped and maintained.
4. Petitioner stated that abutting property owners had signed the peti-
tion and were in favor of the proposed wall construction.
5. No one appeared in opposition to the potition.
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 1379 Series 1960-61, and moved
for itE passage and adoption9 seconded by Commissioner Summers, to grant
Variance No. 1320, sub~ect to the followina conditinn=
1. Development substantially in accordance with plans presented.
The foregoing condition was recited at the meeting and was #uund to be a
necessary prerequisite to the use of the property 3n order to preserve
the safety and welfare of the citizens of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votei
- ~ -
~ ~ e
~
4
,
l
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COk~MISSION, December 19, 19609 Continueds
`~
i
VARIA.vCE NC. 1320 - AYESs COMMISSIONERSs Allred; Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
(Continued) Surtmiers.
NOESs CONWIISSIONERSs None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Morris.
VARIAIJCE N0. 1321 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION submitted by GORDON C. SAVAGE9 920 South Flore
ermission to WAIVE REAR
for
O
p
wner,
Street, Maheim9 California9 Recorded
YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT ?0 PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF TWENTY (20) FEE7 INTO
REQUIRED REAR YARD TO WITHIPI FIVE (5) FEET OF REAR PROPERTY LINE9 on pro-
perty d%:acribed as= M irregular shaped parcel with a frontage of 60
feet on Flore Street and a frontage of 125 feet on Vermont Avenue and lo-
cated on the southeast corner of Vermont Avenue and Flore Street, and
further described as 920 South Flore Street. The property is presently
classified R-1, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
' Mr. Gordon Savage9 the petitioner9 appeared before the Commission, des-
cribed the proposed room addition connecting the existing residence and
garage, stated that the proposed construction would not significantly
alter the existing rear yard area9 and that he had obtained the signa-
tures of nearny residents in support of ihe subject petition. TNE HEAR-
ING WA~ CIASED.
The Commission found and determined the following fects regarding the
sub3ect Petition for Variances
T. Petitioner requests a variance from Code, Section 18.24.030(3),
which requires for sub~ect property a 25 foot rear yard, to permit
encroachment of 20 feet into required rear yard in order to construct
an addition connecting existing residence with existing garage.
2. Sub3ect property abuts R-A, Residential A9ricu.ltura,l, on the east,
R-ly Single Family Residential9 on the south9 on the west across
Flore Street and on the north across Vermont Avenue.
3. The proposed construction would not significantly affect the re-
quired rear yard area.
4. The Petition for Variance contained the signatures of 19 residents
in the area in support of the petition.
5. No one apEzared in opposition to the petition.
Commissioner Niungall offered Resolution No. 1389 Series 1960-61, and
moved for its passage and adoption9 seconded by Commissioner Allred,
to grant Variance No. 1321, sub3ect to the following conditions
1. Development substantially in accordance with plans presented.
The foregoing condition was recited at the meeting and was found to be
a nscessary prerequisite to the vse of the property in order to preserve
the safety and welfare of the citizens of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was pnssed by the following votes
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Hzpgood, Marcoux, Mungall,
Summers.
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None. '
ABSENT: OOMMISSIONHRS: Morris.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUSLIC HEARING. PETITION submitted by ERNEST N. and RENEE J. KAYE,
N0. 60-61-46 13322 Sussex Flace, Santa Ana9 California9 Recorded Owners; IAUIS F..
AISINGER9 1815 West La Palma Avenue9 Anaheim, Californiay Authorized
Agent, requestin5 th4t the property described ass A parcel 125 feet by
133 feet with a frontage of 125 feet on La Palma Av~nue and located on
the north side of La Palma Avenue between Euclid Avenue and Brookhurst
Street; its southeast corner being approximately 610 feet west of the
northwest corner of Euclid Avenue and La Palma Avenue and further des-
cribed as 1751, 1755 and 1759 West La Palma Avenue9 be reclassified
- 8 -
~ ---
~ ~ ~.
~
,
i
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMTSSION, December 19, 1960, Continueds ~
RECLASSIFICATION - from R-A9 RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, to G1, NEIGFIDORHOOD COMMEI2C~"...~ !
N0. 60-61-46
iContinued) Mr. Louis Disinger, authorized agent for the recorded owner9 appeared be- ~
fore the Commission, stated that the subject property was located in a
strip of properties a number of which are authorized for commercial pur-
poses, that commercial property exists southeast of sub~ect pzoperty
across La Palma Avenue, that the proposed development observes a sixty
foot building setback restriction at this point on La Palma Avenue, that
adequate landscaping will be provided9 and that the proposed development
will be an asset to the community. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Cortunission found and determined the following facts regarding the
sub3ect Petition for Reciassifications
1. Petitioner requests a reclassification of sub3ect property from
R-A, Residential Agricultural9 to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial9 in
orda.r. to construct an office auilding.
2. The strip of properties on the north side of La Palma Avenue west of
Euclid Avenue have been considered by the Commission and the City
Council at various times for transition to commercial use.
3. Praposed parking layout is adequate.
4. A sixty (50) foot building setback restriction is effective at this
point on La Palma Avenue.
5. No one appeared in opposition to the petition.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 1399 Series 1960-61, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux,
recommending to the City Council that Reclassification No. 60-61-46 for
C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, be approved subject to the following con-
ditionss
1. Development substantially in accordance with plans presented.
2. Provision uf a minimum sixty (60) foot building setback from the
south property line.
3. Installation of sidewalks.
4. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes.
5. Dedication of 53 feet from centerline of La Palma Avenue (50 feet
existing).
~ 6. Ninety (90) day time limitation on Items 3, 4, and 5.
The foregoir.g conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to
be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order to pre-
serve the safety and welfare of the citizens of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote=
AYES: COMN,ISSIONERS: Allred, Ga~uer, Hapgood, Ntarcoux, Mungall,
Summers.
NOESs COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Morris.
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED $TREET NNME CHANGES.
The Commission discussed the proposed street name change of Orange
Avem~e to Onandaga Street9 located north of La Palma Avenue between
Euclid Avenue and Brookhurst Street, and the name change of Madrid
S'creet to Tiara Street9 located north of Katella Avanue between Euclid
Avenue and Cambrose Strest. It was noted that the changes were neces-
sary to eliminate a conflict in street names.
(Continued)
_g_
~
I .
~\ .__. .____.~.~___... __~_.______,---___..._._.
. .~ .. -- --_ ~ ------ _ . . ~,
~ ~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 19, 1960, Continued:
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED STREET NAME CHANGES, Continued:
(Continued)
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 140, Series 1960-61, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred,
that the proposed street name changes as outlined be recommended to
the City Council for adoption.
i CORRESPONDENCH - Item No. 1. ORANGE COUNTY TENTATIVE MAP OF TRAGT N0. 3614, drawn Novem-
i : ber, 1960:
I ~
~-'~ i A letter from the Orar:ge County Planning Commission was submitted to the
Commission regarding ?entative Map of Tract No. 3614, re-d*awn November,
~ 1960. It was poi;.ted out that the sub3ect property is located at the
~ southeast quadrant of La Palma Avenue and Rio Vista Street and contains
52 single family residential lots. Sub3ect tract is a revision of a
March, 1960 drawing of Tract No. 3614, which makes provision for the
pro3ected La Palma Avenue Rivp.r.side Freeway overpass.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion9 seconded by Commissioner Hapgood
and carried, that the Planning Department transmit to the Orange C~unty
Planning Commission a recommendation that Tentative h'a,p of Tract No.
3614, re-drawn November, 1960, be approved on the basis of the afore-
` mentioned findings.
Item No. 2. ORANGE COUNTY TENTATIVE MAP OF TRAC'T N0. 3796:
A letter from the Orange County Planning Commission was submitted to the
Commission re,garc~ing Tentative Map of Tract No. 3796, re-drawn December,
1960. It was pointed out that suh~ect property was located at the north
west corner of Wagner Avenue and Rio Vista Street and contains 66 pro-
posed single family residential lots. Sub3ect tract is a revision of an
Apri2, 1960 drawing of Tract No. 3796 and includes an additional pax~el
of land. Interdepartmental Committee Minutes were referred to. It was
recommended thereon that the County give consideration to the ~lisposi-
tion of the well site abutting Lots Nos. 55 and 66.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mungall
and carried, that the Planning DepartmEnt transmit to the Orange County
Planning Commission a recommendation that Tentative Map of Tract No.
3796, re-drawn December, 1960, be approved on the basis of the afore-
mentioned findings.
Item No. 3. ORANGE COUNTY TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 3824s~
A letter from the Orange County Planning Commission was submitted to the
Commission regarding Tentative Map of Tract No. 3824, re-drawn December,
1960. It was pointed out that the sub3ect tract fs located at the north-
west corner of Rio Vista Street and South Str?et and contains 63 proposed
single family residential lots. ihe Commission noted that the sub3ect
tract merely contained a:~ additior:al parcel not shown on the original
Tentative Map of Tract No. 3824. The original map had been approved pre-
viously, and the proposed lots located in the additional parcel are
adequate.
Commissioner Nungall offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux
and carried, that the Planning Department transmit to the Orange County
Planning Commission a rec~mmendation that Tentative Map of Tract No.
3824, re-drawn December, 1960, be approved on the basis of the afore-
mentioned findings.
;i
~,
Item No. 4. GARDEN GROVE RECLASSIFICATION A205-60: ~
A legal notice from the Garden Grove Planning Commission was sub~mitted
to the Commission regarding Reclassification A205-60. Sub3ect pioperty
is located on the south side of Katella Avenue east of Palra~vood Drive,
- 10 -
.,._ ------r--
~ ~ , L,.J
i~
. ' . ~:~'/ ~ . .
• , ~ ~; .
5,:~ .
i
_~ -_ _...._.Y.. . '.~.
~ ~ ~ 1
I
MINUiES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,December 19, 1960, Continued= ~
I
CORRESb'ONDENCE - Item No. 4. GARDEN GROVE RECLASSIFICATION A205-60, Continued= i
Conti;wed ~
and is proposed for reclassification from C-1 and C-2 to R-3, Multiple ;
Family Residential, or a more restrictive zone. ~
Commissioner Allred offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Summers ~
and carried, that the Planning Department transmit to the Garden Grove
Planning Commission that the reclassification request be approved be- ~
cause of the more restrictive zoning. .
ACTING PLANNING - AMENDMENT TO CODE, CHAPTER 18.329 Revised R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDEN-
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS TIAL, Zone.
AND RECOMMHNDATIONS '.
Acting Planning Director Richard R~ese presented copies of the tenta-
tive Code Revision of Chapter 18.32, the R-39 Mtaltiple Family Residen-
tial, Zone. He indicated that Chapter 18.32., presently in effect, i
was only an emexgency ordinance, adopted in September, 1959, and
that the proposed revisions were intended as the permanent Code. ;
Commissioner Hapgood offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Allred
and carried, that further discussion and a public hearing be set for
January 16, 1960 on the proposed amendment.
DISCUSSION - Commission~r Hapgood requested that the Commission transmit a letter t
thanking the Board of Realtors for their hospitality and the dinner, i
which the Commission attended as guests of the Board of Realtors, on ~
December 8, 1960 at the Ch~:ter House.
AA70URI11u~NT - The Meeting was ad3ourned at 4=30 P.I~. ~
_ s
i,
Respectfully submitted, i
~
j
~ ~
J PAGE, Secretary ;
;~
, 1
' i
~
. ~
~
~ 11 -