Minutes-PC 1961/01/03
i , i
•
, ~
~ j ~ ~
CITY HALL
ANAHEIM~ CALIF'~'!3NIA
JANUARY 3~ 1961
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMM SSI iV
REGULRR MEETING - A RECU~e,a MEETING OF THE CITY PLAaN'ING COMMIBSION WA3 CALLED TO ORDER
AT 2;25 P,M.~ JANUARY 3~ 1961~ BY CHAIRMAN GAUER~ A QUORUM BEING PRE3ENT.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN GAUER: COMMISSIONERSS ALLRED~ HAPGOOD~ Maacoux~ Moaais AND
SUMMER9.
AB~M - COMMISSIONERS: MUNGALL.
~E~~T " SENIOR PLANNER - MARTIN KREIDT
A3813TANT CITY ATTORNEY - ~IOH GEISLER
COMMISBION SECRETARY - JEAN PAGE
MINU?ES - THE MINUTES OF 7HE MEETING OF DECEMBER 'I9~ 1960 WERE APPROVED A8 9UBMITTED.,1
VARINNCE 1 19 - I
PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION BUBMITTED ev 'fITLE INSURANCE AND TRUBT COMPANY~
8OO NORTH MAIN ,riTFEET~ SANTA ANr., CALIFORNIA~ RECORDED OWNERj PAUL L.
WILLIAMS AND R. H. DESSER7~ 3ZO NORTH PLACENTIA AVENUE~ ORANGE~ CALIFOR-
NIA~ AUTHORI2ED AGENTS~ FoR PERMIR910N ro WAIVE SINGLE STORY HEIGHT LIMI-
. TATION ON A PORT'ION OF THE PROPERTY~ FRONT YARD~REQUIREMENT TO PERMIT
FIVE (5) FOOT SETBACK AT ONE CORNER OF BUILBING~ SIDE YARD REQUIREMENT ro
PERMIT FIVE (5) FOOT SIDE YARD~ ALLEY SETBACK TO PERMIT A CORNER OF BUILD-
ING WITHIN TWELVE (12) FEET Of CENTERLINE OF ALLEY~ AND REDUCTION 0~ SPAC- 'r
ING REQUIREMENT OF JPEN COURT ON A PORTION OF BUILDING~ oN PROPFRTY nes-
CRIBED A8p A PARCEL LOCATED AT THC 90UTHERLY END OF WE8T FAY LANEj 1T3
WESTERLY BOUNDARY ABUTB THE EA9TERLY BOUNDAFY OF THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY~
AND FURTHER DE8CRIBED A8 LO't' Z3 OF TRACT 'ICO~. THE PROPERTY IS PRE3ENTLY
CLAS$tFIED R-3~ MULTiPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
THE 3U9JECT PETITION FOR VARIANCE WAS 3UBMITTED TO THE PIANNING COMM18810N
ON DECEMBER 'I9~ 1960. AT SA{D MEETING THE SECRETARY READ A LETTER FROM
THE PETITIONER~ PAUL L. WIL~IAMS~ REQUE3TING A TWO WEEK CONTINUANCE TO
PERMIT PETITIONER AN OPPOR'iUN~TY TO AMEND PETITION. T'HE COMMI3SION CON-
TINUED TH~ HEARIWG ON 3AID PETITION UNTiL THE MEETING OF ~IANUARY 3~ 1961.
PETITIONER WA3 PRE3ENT. HE INDICATED TO THE COMM~S310N THAT THERE WA3
NOTHING TO BE ADDEA TO THE INFORMATION BUPPLIED IN THE AMENDED PETITION
FoR VARIANCE. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED,
THE COMMIS810N FOUND AND DETERMIyED THE FOLLOWING FACT3 REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITION FOR VARIANCE:
~. SUBJECT PETITION WAS CONTINUED FROM THE MEE7ING OF DECEMBER 'I9y 1960
TO PROVIDE THE PETITIONER AN OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND THE PETITION. THE
COMM13810N CONTI'JUED THE HEARING OF 3AID PETITION FOR VARIANCE UNTIL
THE MEET~NG OF ~IANUARY ~~ 19b1.
2. PFTITIONER REQUE5T8 A V'ARIANCE FRUM COLE~ SECTION 18.32.030~ WHICH
REQUIRF3 A ZS F00T SPACE BETWE~N A BUILDING ARRANGED AROUND AN OPEN
COURT~ SECTION 'IS.3Z.OE)O~ WHICH LIMITS TO OIJE 8TORY THE 8TRUCTURAL
HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING ON Sl;BJECT PROPERTY~ SECTION 18,~2.
O8O ~'I-9 AND 2~~ WHICH REQUIRE8 FOR 8UBJECT PROPERTY A'IS F00T BUILD-
ING SETBACK LINE FROM AND PARALLEL WITH THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND
SIDE YARDB 7.S FeET IN WIDTHj AND SECTION 'IB.3'Z.~OO~ WHICN REQUIRE9
FOR 8UBJECT PROPERTY A BETBACK OF 15 OR MORE FEET FROM THE CENTERLINE
~ ~ ~
`
,. ;
. . . ~
•
„:
~,-~,, ~ _ _ ~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CONWIISSION~ JAN~ARY 3~ 1961~ CON"1NUED:
VARIANCE N0. 1319 -
CONTINUED
3.
I'
' 4.
5.
OF THE AILEY ABUTTING REAR PROPERTY LINE~ IN ORDER TO PERMIT CON8TRUC-
TION OF A MULTIPLE FAMILY RE3IDENTIAL DWELLING HAVING AN OPEN COURT 'I1
FEET IN WIDTH~ A 7W0 STORY HEIGH7p S FOOT FRONT AND SIDE YARD 3ETBACK3~ j
AND GARAGE3 LOCATED LE33 THAN 'IS FEET FROM THE CENTERLINE OF THE ABUT-
TING ALLEY.
SUBJECT PROPERTY ABUTS R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RE4IDENTIAL~ AND R~'I~
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ON FAY LANE ON THF NORTH~ R-~ ACR03S THE
ALLEY ON THE EAST~ THE RAILROAD TRACKB AND R-'I ACROSS SANTA ANA STREET ~
ON THE SOUTH~ AND THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY ON THE WE3T. ,'
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS THE ONE REMpINING LOT OF TNE BUBDIVIDED FAY ESTATE. ~
ALL OTHER R-3~ MUII'IPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ LOTS OF THIS 3UBDIV1810N
WERE DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE R-3 20NING CODE REQUIREMENTS IN
EFFECT AT 7HAT TIME. THE PETITIONER IS E3SENTIALLY REQUE3TING PER-
MISSION TO DEVELOP SUBJECT PROPERTY UNDER THE 3AME STANDARDS BY WHICH
THE FtEMAINDER OF THE TRACT WAS DEVELOPED PREVIOUBLY.
NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION.
COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED ReSOLUTI01d N0. 'I4O~ SERIE3 1960-61~ AND
MOVED FOR ITS PASSACaE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAPGOOD~
TO GRANT VARIANCE N0. 1319~ 8UBJECT TO T'-'E FOLLOWING CONDITION;
'I. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDAMCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED.
THE FOREGOING CONDITION WAS RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WAS FOUND TO 9E A
NECESSARY PREREQU131TE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PREBERVE
THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CIT12EN3 OF ANAHEIM. '
ON ROLL CALL TME FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PA33ED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERSt ALLRED~ GAUER~ HAPGOOD~ MARCOUXy MORR18~ SUMMER8.
NOES: COMMISSIONERSS NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIO~IERS: MUNGALL.
RECLA~SIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED BY ELMER aNn DORA KAMMEL~ er AL~ 407
NO• 60-6'I-4~ ~ SOUTH ~JIAGNOLIA AVENUE~ aNAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ RECORDED OWNERSj ROBERT W.
McCARTER~ ZS69 WE3T BALL ROAD~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ AUTHORI2ED AGENT~ RE-
QUESTING THAT THE PROPERTY DE9CRIBED AS: A PARCEL IOCATED ON TH'c WEST
SIDE OF MAGNOLIA AVENUE BETYiEEN BALL Ronn AND ROME AVENUE~ AND FURTHER
DEBCRIBED AS LOTS 124 141 OF TRACT N0. 1951~ BE RECLA881FIED FROM R-'I.
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, To C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.
SUBJECT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION WA8 CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF
DECEMBER S~ 'I96O TO PROVIDE ALL INTERE3TED PARTIE3 AN OPPORTUNITY 70 DE-
LIBERATE UPON THE PROpOSED RECLASSIFICATION~ T.HE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BTUDY REQUESTED bY THE L'ITY COUNCII, ~ THE VARIOUS ABPECT8 INVOLVED IN
THE PROBLEM~ AND THE POSSIBLE SOLUTION DISCUSSED AT TNE INITIAL HEARING.
THE PETITIONERS NERE NOT PRE3ENT. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPP031TION TO THE
PETITION. THE HEARING WhS CLOSED.
COMMISSIONER MORR13 OFFERED A MQTIOM~ SECONDEL BY. COMMISSIONER ALLRED AND
CARRIED~ THAT PETITION FOR RECLA381FICATION N0. E)0-61-44 BE CONTINUED
UNTIL THE MEETING OF JAHUARY 'IC~ 1961 TO PROVIDE TIME FOR ADDITIONAL
8TUDY OF THE AFOREMENTIONED ITEMB.
bARIANCE N0. 1322 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION 3UBMITTED BY ADVESTOfZS~ INCORPORATED~ 1600 WesT
COAST HIGHINAY~ NEWPORT BEACH~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNER~ RINKER DEVELOPMENT
-2-
- w , _ ------~---
~
i •
. ,;
, :: ..~ .
.
- =;~--w~----- -- ~
_ . . i,~
_._-__ _.. _.. ------._-.~ -
~„~ .. ' ~: ,~ z
MI,NUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 3~ 1961~ CONTINUED: ~
VARIANCE N0. 1322 - CORPORATION~ P. O. BOX ZOZS~ 'IOE>OO KATELLA AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ p
CONTINUED AUTHORI2ED AGENT~ FOR PERM18810N To WAIVE MINIMUM R-3~ MULT!~.'; FIiN,ILY ~
RESIDEM IAL~ LOT WIDTH REQUIREMEMS TO PERMIT LOTS OF APPROX'MATELY 66 '
FEET IN WIDTN~ ON PROPERTY DE9CRIBED A9S A PARCEL 467 FEEi BY 635 FEET ~
WITH A FRONTAGE OF 467 FEET ON GRAND AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE EA8T SIDE ~
OF GRAND AVENUE BETWEEN JACK80N WAY AND LINCOLN AVENUEj IT8 NORTHWE9T
CORNER BEING APFROXIMATELY 'IO5 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHEA8T COFiNER Of
GRAND AVENUE AND JACK90N WAY. THE PROPERTY 18 PREBENTLY CLASSIf1ED R-A~
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL.
MR. BlLL ~IOHNSTON APPEARED BEFORE THE COMM18810N~ DE8CRIBED THE PROPOSED
LOT LAYOUT~ THE RECENT APPROVAL BY THE IiITY COUNCIL OF RECLA~3IFICATION
N0. 60-61-~9 ON SUBJECT PROPERTY~ THE WITHDRAWAL BY THE SUBDIVIDER OF
TENTATIVE MAP OP TRACT N0. 3909 FROM COUNGIL CON8IDERATION~ AND THE IN-
TENTION 9F THE 9UBDIVIDER TO OBTAIN A VARIANCE FOR LOT WIDTHS BEFORE RE- '
9UBMITTING TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 3909. '
THE COMM18310N D18CUS8ED THE RLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS :S
DURING THE PA3T MONTHB RELATIVE TO 9UBJECT PROPERTY AND THE NECE881TY OF ~
AN APPROVAL OF 9UBJECT VARIANCE CONTINGENT UPGN THE RE9lIBM18810N OF AN %
APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMI3SION AND~OR CI1'Y COUNCIL OF A REV1810N OF ~
TENTATIVE MaP oF Taacr No. 3909. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~
THE COMM19810N FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGFRDING 3UBJECT ~~
PETITION FOR VARIANCE: ~'+
~. PETITIONER REQUE3T3 A VARIAPICE FROM CODE~ SECTION 'IS.3Z.OSO ~Z~~ ~
WHICH REQUIRE8 FOR 8UBJECT PROPERTY MiNIMUM INTERIOR LOT WIDTHB OF "
~2 FEET~ IN ORDER TO DEVELOP R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RE8IDENTIAL9 IN- ~
TERIOR LOT8 HAVING A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 65.9 FEET. '~
Z. SUBJECT TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 3909 WA3 WITHDRAWN BY THE PETITION- ~
ER PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL ACTION PENDING APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COM-
M18810N AND~OR CITY CaUNCIL OF SUBJECT VARIANCE. SAID TENTATIVE
TRACT WAS ORIGINALLY FILED IN r.ONJUNCTION WITH RECLA881FICATIJN N0.
60-61-19.
' 3. PETITION FOR RECLA881FICATION N0. 60-61-19 AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT
N0. 3909~ FILED FOR BUBJECT PROPERTY~ WERE FIRST BUBMITTED TO THE
PLANNING COMMIS810N ON SEPTEMBER E)~ 1960, AND CONSIDERED AT MEETINGS
OF SEPTEMBER ~9~ 1960, AND OCTOBER ~~ 1960. SUBJECT TENTATIVE MAP OF
TRACT N0. 3909, REVISED NOVEMBER ~O~ 1960, CONBTITUTE8 THE 7ENTATIVE
. MAP THE 9UBDIVIDER INTENDB TO REFILE WITH THE PLANNING COMM19810N AND
CITY COUNCIL IF 9UBJECT VARIANCE IS APPROVED.
4. NO ONE APPEARED 1N OPPOS1T10N TO THE PETIS:7N.
COMM{8810NER ALLRED OFFERED RESOLUTIOIv N0. 141~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND M6VED
FOR ITS PA88AGE AND ADOPTION~ 3ECONDED BY COMMIBSIONER MARCOUX~ TO fiRANT
VARIANCE N0. ~32Z~ BUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION;
~. SUBJECT TO THE FORMAL SU8M18810N BY THE PETITIONER OF TENTATIVE MAP OF
TRACT N0. 3909, REVI9ED NOVEMBER 'IO~ 1960 AND 8UBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION
• WlTH VARIANCE N0. ~3ZZ~ AND APPROVAL OF SAIP TRACT MAP BY THE PLANNINO
COMMIS810N AND~OR THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE FVREGOING CONDITION WA8 RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WA8 FOUND TO BE A
NECE88ARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPER7Y IN ORDER TO PREBERVE THE
BAFETY RND WELFARE OF THE CIT12EN8 OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RE80LUTION WAS PA98ED 9Y THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
-3-
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 3, 1961, CONTINUED:
VARIANCE N0. 1322 - AYES3 COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ HAPGOOD~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ SUMMER3•
CONTINUED
NOES: COMMIS~IONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:, MUNGAIL.
I~,RIANCE N0. 1.323 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION 9UBMITTED ev GEORGE D. BUCCOLA INVESTN~NT COM-
PANY~ P. 0. BOX L937~ NEWPORT BEACH~ CALiFORNIA~ OWNER~ MARCEL MOYNIER~
'IS'I2Z HUNTIkGTON BEACH BOULEVARD~ MIDWAY CITY~ CALIFORNIA~ LE38EE~ FOR
PERM18810N ro SELL ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES TO BE CONSUMED 0~~ PREMISES~ ON PRO-
PERTY DESCRIBED A3: A PARCEL 8Z FEET BY LZO FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF SZ
FEET ON COLONY STFEET AND LOCATED ON THE EA3T 31DE OF COLONY STREET BE-
TWEEN COLCHEBTER AND VANCOUVER DRIVESj ITS NORTHWEST CORNER BEING A?PAOXI-
MATELY L44 FEET SQUTH OF THE SOUTHEABT CORNER OF COLCHESTER DRIVE.AND
COLONY STREET~ AND FURTHER DE8CRIBED AS 8Z1 SOUTH ES?OOKHURBT STREET. THE
PROPERTY 18 PREBENTLY CLAS3IFIED C-'I~ NEIGHBORHOOD ~MMERCIAL. ~~
THE APPLICAtJT WA8 NOT PRE3ENT. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPP031TION TO THE
PETITION. THE HEARING WA~ CLOSED.
COMM18810NER MARCOUX OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDE~ BY t^i0MMI3SI0NER HAPGOOD
AND CARRIED~ WITH COMMISSIONER SUMMERS VOTING ~~NO~~~ THAT VARIANCE N0. ~
• 1.323 BE CONTINUED UNTIL THE MEETING OF ~IANUARY 16, 1961 TO PROVIDE THE
PETITIONER AN ADDITIONAI. OPPGRTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE THE.COMMIBSION AND
PRESENT HIS PETITIO~J FOR VARIANCE.
VARIANCE N0. 1324 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED er NILLIAM G. ISAAC~ WALTER AND EVELYN
HAUPTMAN~ ~3O WE3T KATELLA AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OwNeas; JAMES H.
HODGES~ 73O WEST KATELIA AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ AUTHORI2ED AGENT~
FOR PERMI8SION TO CONSTRUCT A MOTEL, ON PROPERTY DE3CRIBED F8: PARCEL 'I:
A PARCEL 'ISO FEET BY ZOS FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 1SO FEET ON KATELLA AVE-
NUE AND LOCATED ON THE 30UTH 81DE OF KATELLA AVENUE BETWEEN HARBOR BOULE-
VARD AND HA3TER STREETj IT8 NORTHEA8T CORNER BEIN6 APPROXIMATELY 3SO FEET
WEST GF THE SOUTHWE3T CORNER OF KATELLA AVENUE AND HABTER STREET. PARCEL
ZC A PARCE2 ZOO FEET BY ZOS FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF ZOO FEET ON KATELLA
AVENUE AND LOCATED ON 7HE SOUTH 31DE OF KATELLA AVENUE BETWEEN HARBOR
BOULEVARD AND HASTER STREETj IT3 NORTHEABT CORNER BEING APPROXIMATEIY 'ISO
FEET WE3T OF THE 30UTHWE3T CORNER OF KATELIA AVENUE AND HA3TER STREET~
AMD AL90 ABUTTING PARCEL 'I ON THE EA3T. THE PROPERTY IS PRESENTLY C1A391-
FIED R-A~ RESIDEM'IAL AGRICULTURAL.
THE APPLICANT WA3 NOT PRESENT. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
THE COMMIS910N DISCU38ED THE FAOT TNAT TWO PREVIOU3 PETITIONS FOR VARIANCE
FOR MOTEL U8E FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY HAD BEEN GRANTED AND HAD EXPIRED.
THE COMM18310N FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACT8:
'I. PETITIONER REQUE3T3 A VARIANCE FROM CODE~ SECTION 'LS.1.E.d'IO~ WHICH
9TIPULATES PERMI8SABLE U8E8 IN R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ 20NE3•
TO PERMIT USE OF 8UBJECT PROPERTY FOR A MOTEL„
Z. SUBJECT PETITION FOR VARIANCE HA3 BEEN RECEIVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
VARIANCE POLICY OF THE DISNEYL.".4D AREA AS DELIMITED ON THE GENERAL
PLAN.
3. PARCEL N0. 'I OF 8UBJECT PROPERTY WA9 GRANTED A VARIANCE BY THE PLANi
NING COMM18810N ON ~JUNE ZO~ 1960~ FOR THE CON8TRUCTION OF A MOTEL. .
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITION3 OF COMM18310N RE80LUTION N0. 1249~
REBULTED IN IT8 EXPIRATION ON DECEMBER Z~~ 1960.
-4-
r.:
~
•:.~
~ ~ •
~ '
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ ~IANUARY 3, 1961~ CONTINUED: ~;
i
i
~
i
~
VARIANCE N0. 1324 -
CONTINUED
PARCEL N0. 2 OF SUBJEC7 PROPERTY WA3 GRANTED A VARIANCE BY THE PLAN- ~
NING COMM18810N ON JANUARY 4~ 1960 FOR THE CONBTRUCTION OF A MOTEL. ~
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITION8 OF COMM18810N RESOI.UTION N0. 1888
RE3ULTED IN IT8 EXPIRATION ON JULY S~ 1960. SUBJECT PETITION FOR t
VARIA?ICE PROPOSEB ONE MOTEL COVERING BOTH PARCELB. !
4. SUBJECT PROPERTY ABUTB A SERVICE 3TATION AND A VACANT PARCEL ON THE
EA~T~ A TRAILER PARK ON THE SOUTH~ VACANT PARCEL ON THE WEBT~ AND COM=~
MERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE NORTH ACRUSS KATELLA AVENUE.
S. THE PROP08ED LAND8CAPING AREA FRONTING KATELLA AVENUE AND THE PROPOSEL
PARKING 3PACE DIMEN810NS ARE INADEQUATE.
E>. NO ONE APPEARE.D IN OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION.
COMM13910NER MORRIB OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. ~4Z~ SERIES 1960-61, AND MOVED
FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMI8SIONER HAPGOOD~ TO GRANT ~,
VARIANCE N0. 1324, SUBJECT TO THE FOILOWING CONDITIONS; ~
~. DEVELOPMENT 8UBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRE3ENTED~ EXCEPT
WHERE ALTERED BY ADDITIONAL CONDITION3~ ~IMITED TO THE 9UBJECT PRO-
PERTY ONLY. ~
2. THE PROVISION OF ADEQUATE PARKING SPACE3 IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE
REQUIREMENT8.
3. THE PROV1310N OF A MIN~MUM ZO FOOT LAND8CAPED BTRIP ABUTTING FRONT
PROPERTY LINE EXCEPT FOR TH03E AREA3 RESERVED FOR ACCEBS DRIVES AND
WALK8.
Q. INSTALLATION OF DRIVEWAY APPROACHES IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY 3TANDARDS.
S. PAYMENT OF $Z.OO PER FRONT F00T FOR BTREET LIGHTING PURPOSEB.
THE FOREGOING CONDITIONB WERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO BE
A NECE88ARY PREREQU181TE TO THE U8E OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRE8ERVE
THE SAFETY AND 911ELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALI. THE FOREGOING RE8~LUTIQN 'NA8 PA83ED BY THE FOLIOWING VOTE:
AY~ES: COMMISoIONERSt ALLREII~ GAUER~ HAPCa00D~ MARCOUX~ MORR18~ SUMMERS.
NOES; COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABb~NT: COMMISSIONERS: MUNGALL,
VARIANCE N0. 1325 -
PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION 8UBMITTED er RICHARD MILES POLENTZ~ 220 Wesr
CYPRE83 STREET~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNERj W. WELSH MORNINGSTAR~ 1O7
EABT CENTER STRSET~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ AUTHORIZED AGENT~ FOR PERM18810N
To CONSTRUCT A MEDICAL-DENTAL OFFICE IN AN R-0 ZONE (PETITION FILED AS AN
ALTEFtNATIVE TO PETITION FOR R~CLASSIFICATION•N0. 60-61-50)~ oN PROPErlTY
DE8CRIBED ASC A PAP^.°_L 7Z FEET BY 1OS FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 7Z FEET
ON HARBOR BOULEVARD AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEA8T QUADRANT OF THE INTER-
SECTION OF HARBOR BOULEVARD AND NORTH STREET~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED A8
7EO NORTH HARBOR BOULEVARD. THE PROPERTY 18 PRE3ENTLY CLABSIFIED R~O~
RESIDEM IAL SUBURBAN.
~
MR. WEL8N MORNING8TAR~ AUTHORI2ED AGENT FOR THE RECORDED OWNER~ APPEARED
BEFORE THE COMM183ION~ REVIEWED PREVIOU8 PE7ITION FOR RECLA831FICATION
OF 8UBJECT PFOPERTY WH'ICH HAD BEEN DENIED~ INDICATED THAT PETITION FOR
RECLA881FICATION N0. 60-61-SO 13 AN IDENTICAL REQUE3T FOR SUBJECT PROPER-
TY~ 8TATED THAT SUBJECS PROPERTY WA3 NOT RE8IDENTIAL IN CHARACTER~ THA7
BECAU8E OF THE EXI3TING TRAFFIC CONDITIONB ON HARBOR BOULEVARD~ IT WA8
BEBT SUITED FOR MEDICAL OR PROFE8810NAL OFFICE8~ THAT A MEDICAL-DENTAL
OFFICE PREBENTLY EXISTB ON THE OPPOSITE CORNER OF THE INTER8ECTION OF
HARBOR BOULEVARD AND NORTH STREET~ THAT DEED~,RE9TRICTION3 PROMIBITING THE
-5-
_..---- -- . -• - --- - "'.' i~
. - ~
i
. ! , '
~ ,,,
_ .. . . .
_ _.__ _ _ _ _ -------- _____..~.._._.~~______.___ ' ~.
i, _
/ f -i -
\..! a',~ - ~.:.. _ ..
i
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUAFtY 3, 1961, (;ONTINUED:
~ VARIANCE N0. ~3ZS - PROP08ED DEVELOPMENT HAD EXPIRED IN 1952, AND THAT 22 RESIDENT3 IN THE
i CONTINUED AREA THE MAJORITY OF WHdM LIVED ON HARBOR BOULEVARD 9UPPORTED THE $UBJECT
! PETITION FOR VARIANCE.
,
I MR. CLAUDE SIMPSON~ RE81DEP1T AT 3ZS PARK WAY~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMM19-
~ 810N~ READ AND FILED WITH THE COMMI$SION A PETITION CONTAINING SZ SIGNA-
TURES OF RE9IDENTB IN THE AREA IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROP09EU DEVELOPMENT.
#
f
F MR8. CHARLES PEARSON~ RE9IDENT AT 6SS NORTN HELENA STREET~ APPEARED BE-
FORE THE COMM18910N AND 8TATED THAT IN THE LA3T FOUR YEAR3 THE TRAFFIC
• VO~UME ON HARBOR BOULEVARD HA8 DECREASED~ AND INDICATED THAT SME CONSI-
DERED THE PROPfSSED DEVELOPMENT TO BE UNDESIRABLE.
MR. BILL RAILSBACK~ RE3IDENT AT 4OO PARK WAY~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMM19-
810N AND 9TATED THAT THE PROPOS:D DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE A NEGATIVE IN-
FLUEiVCE UPON THE RE9IDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE ADJACENT R-O~ RESIDENTIAL ~
SUBURBAN~ PROPERTIE8. ~
MR. MORNINGSTAR~ IN REBUTTAL~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMM~8SION AND STATED
THAT THE 3UBJECT PROPERTY WA3 THE NORTHERLY 7Z FEET OF AN R-O LOT AND HAD
Nt~ ACCE33 TO PARK WAY~ THAT BUBJECT PROPERTY COULD ONLY BE UTILIZED FOR
COMMERCIAL PURP03ES~ THAT MANY NEARBY RE8IDENTB ON HARBOR BOULEVARD FEEL
THAT THE GRANTING OF 8UBJECT PETITION WOULD TEND TO PROTECT THE VALUEB OF
THEIR PROPERTY~ AND THAT THE OWNER OF 9UBJECT PROPERTY WA3 REQUE3TING THE
EXERCI8E OF A RIGHT ENJOYED BY THE OWNER OF PROPERTY ON THE OPP091TE 91DE
OF THE INTER9ECTION OF NORTH STREET AND HARBOR BOULEVARD.
DR. POLENT2~ THE RECORDED OWNER OF 9UBJECT PROPERTY~ APPEARED BEFORE THE
COMM19910N AND 8TATED THAT THERE WERE PEOPLE IN FAVOR OF THE PROP08ED
VARIANCE WHO WERE HE9ITA~T TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COMM18810N BECAU9E OF
80CIAL CIRCUMBTANCEB.
CHAIRMAN GAUER BTATED THAT IT WAS H18 OPINIOP' THAT APPROVAL OF 9UBJECT
AND 81MILAR PETITIONB AFFECTING PROPEFTIE8 ALONG HARBOR BOULEVpRD 9HOUI.D
BE WITHHELD UNTIL 3UCH TIME A9 THE PROPER BTUDY A8 TO THE OPTIMUM DEVELOP-
MENT OF TH13 TRAFFIC ARTERY COULD BE THOROUGHLY INVE8TIGATED.
BETTY ROBERT~ ZOZ WE9T NORTH STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMI8SION AND
STATED 9HE WAS OWNER OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT ~ZE) NORTH HARBOR 40ULEVARD~
AND THAT 3HE WA9 IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE HEARING WAS
CLOSED.
THE COMM18$IQN FOUND AND aETERMINED THE FOLI.UWING FAi~TB REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITION POR VARIANCE:
~. PETITIONER REQUE8T3 A VARIANCE FROM CODE~ SECTION 'IB.Z~.O~O~ WHICH
BTIPULATE9 PERMISSABLE U8ES IN R-O~ ONE FAMILY SUBURBAN~ 20NE TO
PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A MEDICAI-DENTAL BUILDING.
2. SUBJECT PETITION FOR VARIANCE IS 3UBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH RE-
CLA9SIFICATION N0. 60-61-50 FOR 7HE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING THE COM-
M18810N AND COUNCIL AN AITERNATE VEHICLE FOR ACTING UPON PETITIONER~B
REQUE3T.
3. SUBJECT PROPERTY 19 LOCATED ON THE 80UTHEABT QUADRAIdT OF NORTH STREET
AND HARBOR BOULEVARD AND CON3TITUTEB THE NORTHERLY ~Z FEET OF AN
EXIBTING R-O~ ONE FAMILY SUBURBAN~ PARCEL.
4. SUBJECT PROPERTY ABUT9 R'~O 20NING ON THE EABT AND ON THE 90UTH~ R-'I~
SINGLE FAM~LY RE9IDENTIAL~ AOR083 HARBOR BOULEVARD ON THE WE9T~ AND
R-Z~ TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ACR088 NORTH STREET ON THE NORTN.
-6-
, `
i
I (
'
`~.~ ~ ~ ,
MINUi'ES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ ~IANUARY 3~ 1961~ CONTINUED:
VARIANCE N0. 1325 - S. ~ETITIONER 9UBMITTEb A NEARLY IDENTlCAL PETITION FOR RECLA381FICATION
- CONTINUED ON MARCH Z7~ 1959. SAID RECLASSIFICATION N0. F-58-59-62 WA$ DENIED
8Y THE PLANNING CG"'~19810N ON APRIL 2O~ 1959. THE CITY COUNCIL~ ON
APPEAL~ REVIEWED PLANNING COMMIS910N RE90LUTION N0. ZOS~ SERIES ~9SH-
59 AND ON JUNE 9~ 1959 AL30 DENIED BAID PETITION FOR RECLA331FICATION
BY COUNCIL RE90LUTION N0. SZ~S.
G. A MEDICPI.-DENTAL BUILDING WA8 REQUESTED IN PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0.
~ 10~3 FOR THE NORTHWE3T QUADRANT OF THE INTER9ECTION OF NORTH STREET~
AND HARBOR BOULEVARD~ AND WAS GRANTED BY PLANNING COMM18910N RESOLU-
TION N0. ~46~ SERIE8 195B-59 ON JANUARY 18~ 1959. $AID PROPERTY WA3
AND 19'PaEBENTLY 20NED R-Z~ TWO FAMILY RE8IDE~TIAL.
~. PETITIONER WA8 AWARE OF THE PREVIOU8 ACTION3 IN RE9PECT TO USE OF THE
PROPERTY~ OF THE PRESENT ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE SURROUNDING
AREA~ AND OF THE ATTITUDE OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER•°. ?.OTH FOR AND
AGAIN8T 9AID PETITION. . o
8. ONE OWNER OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON HARBOR BOULEVARD APPEARED IN SUPPORT
OF TNE PETITION AND 22 3UPPORTING 31GNATURE3 WERE 3UBMITTED WITH 8U8-
" JECT PETITION. A PETITION OF OPP091TION CONTAINING SZ 31GNATUREB OF
RE3IDENT9 IN THE AREA IN ADDITION TO VERBAL OPP031TION WERE RECORDED
AGAIN9T THE 8UBJECT PETITION FOR VARIANCE.
COMM18810NER SUMMER9 OFFERED RE80LUTION N0. 143, SER,IE9 1960-61, AND
MOVED FOR 1T3 PASBAGE AND ADOPTION~ 8ECONDED BY COMM~8910NER MARCOUX~
TO DENY VARIANCE N0. 1325 REQUE8T 70 ESTABLI9H A MEDICAL-DENTAL OFFIOE
ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT ~6O NORTH HARBOR BOUIEVARD.
l,N ROLL CAIL THE FOREGOING RE30LUTION WA8 PA89ED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE7
~~
~
:~
>~
~
~
~
z
5
~
AYES: COMMISSIONERS; ALLRED~ HAPGQOD~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORR13~ SUMMERS. ;
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NoNe. '
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MUNGALL.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBM~TTED ev RICHARD MILES POLENTZ~ 220 WEST
NO. 60-61-50 CYPRE99 STREET~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNER~ W, WELSH MORNINGSTAR,'IO~
EA8T CENTER STREET~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ AUTHORI2EA AGENT~ REQUEST~NG
THAT THE PROPERTY D[3CRIBED A3: A PARCEL 7Z FEET BY 'IOB FEET WITH A
° FR.)NTAGE OF ~2 FEE7 ON HARBOR BOULEVARD AND LOCATED ON'THE 80UTHEAST QUA-
DRANY OF THE INTER3ECTION OF HARBOR BOULEVARD AND NORTH STREET~ AND FUR-
THER DESCRIBED A8 7CO NORTH HARBOR BOULEVARD~ BE RECLABSIFIED FROM R~-O~
RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN~ To C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ~i~ESTRICTED ro
MEDICAL DENTAL USE~. ~PETITION FILED A9 AP1 ALTERNATIVE TO PETITION FOR
~ARIANCE N0. 1325).
MR. WELSH MORNING3TAR~ AUTHORI2ED A6ENT FOR THE RECORDED OWNER~ pPPEARED
BEFORE THE COMM13810N AND STATED THAT 8UBJECT PETITION FOR RECLABSIFICA-
TION WA8 SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1325
FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL
AN ALTERNATE METHOD FOR CON3IDERING THE OWNER~3 REQUE3?~ AND THAT ALl
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE RECLASSIFICATION HAD BEEN MENTIONED IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE PETITION FOR VARIANCE.
A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR BUBJECT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION FROM MR.
R. E. COAT8~ RE8IDENT AT 807 NoarH HELENA STREET~ WAS READ AND 3UBMITTED
To TNE COMM19810N. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
COMM18810NER MORR.18 E%PRE88ED THE OPINION THAT A PRECEDENT HAD BEEN 3ET
BY THE COMM18810N AND THE CITY COUNCIL BY GRANTING VARIANCE N0. 1.073 FOR
_ ~ _
• . . . -~ ~ . . ~ f .
' I
~ ~
.l. '
;' '
/ ~~ ~ .~..~.~~ ~.~ . ~
~
CITY PLANNI
~ MINUTES #
JANUARY 3, 1961, CONTINUED: ~
NG COMMISSION
~ ~
t
' RECLASSIFICATION - A MEDICAL-DENTAL BUILDING ON THE NORTHWE3T QUADRANT OF THE INTER3ECTION ?
~ NO. 60-61-SO OF NORTH STREET AND HARBOR BOULEVARD; THAT THE PROBLEM OF UTILI2ATION OF ~
CONTINUED
~ SUBJECT PROPERTY HA8 ARISEN A8 A RE8ULT OF PREVIOUB ACTION ON VARIANCE '
.
~ N0. 1073, THAT THE TRAFFIC FLOW ON HARBOR BOULEVARD HA8 BEEN 9UCH OVER
~ THE LABT FEW YEARS TO WARRANT PROPER COty51LERATION OF PROPERTIE8 ABUTTING
~ HARBOR BOULEVn°^y THAT FUTURE REQUE9T3 OF 31MILAR NATURE MAY BE MADE FOR
8UBJECT PROPERTY~ AND THAT THE PROP08ED U8E A8 OUTLINED IN SUBJECT PETI-
~ TION MIGHT 9ERVE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE COMMUNITY FOR TH19 PROBLEM
~ AREA.
COMM19310NER MARCOUX 9TATED THAT THE CIRCUM9TANCES OF SUBJECT PROFeiiTY
OF VARIANCE N0. 'IO~3 ON THE NORTHWEBT CORNER OF NORTH STREET AND HARBOR
BOULEVARD WERE DIFFERENT BECAUBE OF 20NING AND l,AND USE JF ABUTTING PRO- ~
PERTIEB.
MR8. CHARLE9 PEARSON~ A RESIDENT AT E>SS NORTH HELENA STREET~ ADDRESSED
THE COMMI9SION AND EXPRE98ED CONCERN ABOUT ENCROACHMENT OF UNDE8IRABLE
USE8 INTO THE R~O~ RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN~ 20NE.
THE COMMIS910N FOUND A DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE
3UBJECT PETI'iION FOR REvLA331FICATION;
~, PETITIONER REQUEST3 A RECLA8SIFICATION OF 8UBJECT PROPERTY FROM R-O~
ONE FADdILY SUBURBAN~ ZONE TO C-~~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ 20NE TO
i pEP.MIT CON8TRUCTION OF A MEDICAL-DENTAL BUILDING.
Z. SUBJECT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION 18 8UBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION
WITH VARIANCE N0. 1325 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING THE COMM18810N
AND COUNCIL AN ALTERNATE VEHICLE FOR ACTING UPON PETITIONER~B R~-
~ QUE3T.
3. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE 90UTHEA3T QUADRANT OF NOR~H STREET
AND HARBOR BOULEVARD AND CON3TITUTEB THE NORTHERLY ~Z FEET 'JF AN
EXI3TING R-O~ ONE FAMILY SUBURBAN~ PARCEL.
Q. SUBJECT PROPERTY ABUTS R~O~ ONE FAMILY SUBURBAN~ ZO~ING 4N THE EABT
AND ON THE 30UTHj R-'I~ $INGLE FAMILY RE3IDENTIAL~ ACROF3 HARBOR
BOULEVARD ON THE WE9T~ AIID R-Z~ TWO FAMILY RE~!nEN7~~L~ ACR088 NORTH
STREET ON THE NOkTH.
S. PETITIONER 8UBMITTED A NEARLY IDENTICAL PETITION FOR RECLA881F1CATION
ON MARCH 2~~ 1959. $AID RECLA8SIFICATION N0. F-58-59-82 WA8 D:tvIED
BY THE PLANNING COMM13310tv ON APRIL ZO~ 1959. THE CITY COUNCIL~ ON
APPEAL~ REVIEWED PLANNING COMMISSION RESC-iiYION N0. ZOB~ SERIES 195B-
59 AND ON JUNE 9~ 'I9S9 ALSO DENIED SAID PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION
~ BY COUNCIL RE80LUTIOti N0. SZ~B.
I E. MEDICAL-DENTAL BUILDING WAS REQUEBTED IN PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. ~073
FOR THE NORTHWE3T QUADRANT OF THE INTERSECTION OF NORTH STREET AND HAR-
BOR BOULEVARD~ AND 'YAS GRANTED BY PLp:~NING COMM18910N RESOLUTION N0.
146, SER~ES 1958-59 ON JANUAf1Y ~8~ 1959. SAID PROPERTY WAS AND 13
PRE8ENTLY 20NED R-Z~ TWO FAMILY RESIDti:TIAL.
7. PETITIONER WAS AWARE OF THE PREVIOUS ACT~ONS IN RE3PECT TO U8E OF THE
PROPERTY~ OF THE PRESENT 20NING AND DEVEL.OPM[NT OF THE SURROUNDING
AREA~ AND OF THE ATTITUDE OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER8 BOTH FOR AND
AGAINST 9UBJECT PETITION.
R. ONE 8TATEMENT IN SL'PPORT OF 8UBJECT PETITION FROM AN OWNER OF PROPER-
TY LOCATED ON NORTH HEl.FNA STREET WA3 FILED WITH THE PLANNING COMMI$-
810N~ AND ZZ 3UPPORTING SIGNATURES WERE SUBMITTED WITH 3AID PETITION.
A PETITION OF OPA081TION CONTAINING SZ SIGNATURE8 OF RE3IDENT8 IN THE
AREA WA3 FILED AOAINBT THE BUBJECT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION.
COMMIS310NER MARCOUX OFFERED RE90LUTION N0. 144~ SERIE8 1960-61, AND
. - a -
'
I
I ' y
'
~•r
~ .. ,i ~
~
1
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 3, 1961~ CONTINUED:
RECUISSIFICATIGN
' - MOVED FOR 1T8 PA$BAGE AND ADOP710N! BECONDED BY COMM18910NER HAPGOOD~
NO• 60-6
I-SO TO DENY RECLA931FICATION N0. E)O-6'I-SO REQUE3T FOR C~'I~ NEIGH.90RHOpD
CONTINUED COMMERCIAL, POR THE PROPERTY LOOATED AT ~F)O NORTH HARBOR BQUL,eVARD.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RE80LUTION WA8 PA38ED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLREDT GAUER~ HAPGOOD~ MARCOUX~ MORR18~ SUMMERS.
NOES: COMMISSIUNERSC NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MUNGALI. '
RECLASSIFICATION - PUB~IC HEARING. PETIiI:1N 8UBMITTED 8Y AGNE~ SGOTT GRIFFiTN.S
422 WesT
NO. 60-61-47 ,
SOUTH STREET~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNER~ CHAR!.,ES B. ~RANK, 433 WesT
CENTER STREeT~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ AUTHORI2ED AGENT~ RtQUEBTING THAT
THE PROPERTY DEBCRIBED A8; PARCEL 'I: A PARCEL '~4Q FEET CiY ~QZ FEET WITH
A FRONTAGE OF ~4O FEET ON SOUTH S7REET AND LOCATED ON THE 80UTF~EA3T COR-
~ NER OF SOUTH STREET AND HARBOR BOULEVARD. PARCEL 2; A PARCEL ZOO FEET
BY 214 FEET W17H p FRCf:TAG'E OF ZGO FEET ON HARBOR BOULEVARD AND LOCATED
ON THE 80UTHEA8T CORNER ~F HARBOR BOUIEVARD AND LOCRTED ON THE 80UTHEAST
CORNER OF SOUTH STREET AND HARBGIR BOULEVAAD AND PURTHER DE3CRIBED A$
422 WEST SourH SrREer, es REClAS91F'IED FR~M R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~
'
~ YO PARCEL 1 ro C-3~ HEAVY COMINERTIaL AND AARCEL 2 ro C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL.
MR. CHARLE9 FRANK~ AUTHORIZED ti(9ENT FOR THE RECORDED OWNER~ APPEARED BE-
FORE THE COMM18910N AND DESCRIBED THE PRESENT AND PROJECTED U3E OF 8UB-
JECT PROPERTY AND PENDING DEVELOPMENTS OF OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE GENERAL
AREA~ AND 8TATED HIS CONCERN FOR THE PROPER TREATMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
SO AS TO PROTEGT NEARBY 31NGLE FAMILY RE8IDENTIAL PROPERTIE8. HE STATED
ALSO THAT HARFiOR BOULEVARD Wqg DE3IGNATED A3 A FUTURE ARTERIAL HIGHWAY~
INDICATED THAT THE TRAFFIC VOLUME WILL INCREA3E 3UB8TANTIALLY WITHIN THE
NEXT FEW YEAR8~ THAT HARBQR BOULEVARD 3HOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE URBAN RE-
DEVELOPMENT PL!!NS FOR THE CITY~ THAT SOUTH STREET EXTRACT3 TRAFFIC FROM
THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY~ AND THAT THE PROP08ED DEVELOPMENT IS THE HIGHE9T
AND BE9T U8E OF THE 8UB~;ECT PROPERTY.
MR. G. S. MA90N~ REPREBENTATIVE OF THE RICHFIELD Oll CORPORATION~ APPEARED
BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ PREBENTED RENDERING9 OF THE PROPOSED 8ERVICE 8TA-
TION DEVELOPMENT~ READ EXCERPT3 OF A REPORT PUBLISHED BY THE BUREAU OF
CEN9US~ AND BTATED THAT INVESTIGATION BY THE OIL COMPANY HAD INDICATED
THAT THE 3UBJECT PROPERTY WA9 8UITABLE FOR 3ERVICE STATION DEVELOPMENT~,
THAT IT WOULD BE A 3ERVICE FACILITY AND THERE WA8 A NEED FOR 8UCH SERVICE
FOR THf: TRAFFIC CREATED BY THE NEARBY FP.EEWAY AND BY HARBOR BOULEVARD~
A~VD 1'HAT IT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT AND A COMPLEMENT TO THE AREA. HE
8TATED FUFtH'eR THAT THE INSTALLATION WOULD BE THE M03T MODERN AND ATTRAC-
TIVE 9ERVICE STATION UNIT AVAILABLE AND THAT TF;E N018E LEVEL OF MODERN •
8ERVICE STATIONS 18 QUITE LOW.
MR3. MARJORIE LANGFORD~ RE9IDEN~ OF B39 SOUTH HELENA STREET APPEARED BE-
FORE THE COMM19810N~ READ A 9TATEMENT OF OPPOSITION TO THE E8TABL18HMENT
OF A 8ERVICE BTATION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TO THE USE OF HELENA STREET
FRONTAGE FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN 91NGLE FAMILY RE3IDENCE8~ AND 8UBMITTED
PETITIONB OF OPP091TION SIGNED BY 'IOS R'SIDENT8 IN THE AREA. THE 3TATE-
MENT INDICATED THAT THE PROP09ED SERVICE 8TATION WOULD BE UN9IGHTLY~ N019Y~
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE RE8IDENTIAL AREA~ AND WOULD 9E CREATING A HA2ARD TO
BCHOOL CHILDREN. IN REGARD TO THE U8E OF PRpPERTY FRONTING F;ELENA STREET
FOR OTHER THAN RE8IDENTIAL PURPOSE8~ THE 8TATEMENT INDICATED THAT IT
-9-
~
/` .
I
I
i
~
MINUTE~~ CITY F~LO,NNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 3~ 1961~ CONTINUED:
! RECLASSIFiCATIUN ~ WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE AREA AND THAT PARKING FACII.ITIE3 SHOULD NOT
NO. E)0-61-47 BE ALI.OWED TO ENCROACH UPON THE RE3IDENTIALLY DEYELOPED AREA.
MR. E. ~I. COOK~ RE8'.DENT AT 7Z4 SOUTH PINE STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE
COMM18810~l- STATED H;S CPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND STATED
H18 OPINION 7~•iAT IF THIS PETITION WAS GRANTED 7HERE WOULD BE ANOTHER RE-
QUEST FOR A 9ERVICS g?~1'ION DEVELOPMENT ON THE OPPOSITE CORNER ON THE
30UTHWEST QUADRANT OF YHE INTER8ECTION OF HARBOR BOULEVARD AND SG:1TH
r STREET.
...a
~
~
~
MARY t~ONEB OF SSE) SOUTH HELENA JTR~ci~ APPEAREA BEFORE TFIE COMMISStON ANA
EXPRE8SED CONCERN FOR THE SAFETY OF 3CHOOL CHILDREN IF Tt1E PETITION WAS
GRANTED.
MR. CHAR~~S FRANK~ IN REBUTTAL~ STATED THAT HE ANTICIPATED THAT RESIDENTS
LIVING ALONG HARBOR BOULEVARD WOULD BE IN GENERAL AGREEMENT WITH THE P,~O-
P08ED DEVELOPMENT AND THAT THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE
OF HARBOR BOULEVARD IN THE VICINITY HAD INDICATED THEIR APPROVAL.
~V~RB. AGNES GRIFFITH8~ THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND
EXPRE38ED HER DESIRE TO ESTABLI3H THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT~ HER PERSONAL
NEED FOR IT~ AND REVIEWED A NUMBER OF THE CIRCUtdSTANCE8 RELATING TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEARBY RESIDENTIAL TRACT AND OF THE PRESENT UTILIZA-
TION ~F NEARBY PROPERTIES.
MR. G. S. MA90N~ IN REBUTTAL TO THE OPPOSITION~ 8TATED THAT THE SERVICE
BTATION WOULD MINIMIZE THE TRAFFIC HAZARD AND QUOTED FIGURE8 RELATING
TO THE SMALL NUMBER OF ACCIDENTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO SERVICE 8TAT10NS~ AND
TF1AT THE TRAFFIC VOLUME ON HARBOR BOULEVARD WILL INCREABE AND CON3E-
QUENTLY ABUTTING RE9IDENTIAL PROPERTIEB WILL BECOME LESS DESIRABLE FOR
RE8IDENTIAL USE.
IN RE9PONSE TO COMMISSIONER MARCOUX~S INQUIRIE8 RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED
LAYOUT OF THE DEVELJPMENT~ MR. FRANK INDICATE;J THAT THERE WAS TO BE A
S~OOO SQUARE FOOT 0~''rICE BUILDING~ THAT THERE WOULD BE ZB OFF~-8TREET
PARKING BPACES FQR WHICH ACCE38 13 PROVIDED FROM SOUTH STREET AND EGRESS
IS PROVIDED FROM HELENA STREET~ AND THAT THE PARKING AREA WOULD SERVE AS
A BUFFER FROM THE COMMERCIAL U9E ON HARBOR BOULEVARD FOP. tHE RESIDENCES
ON HELENA STREET. MR. FRANK ALSO INDICATED THAT A WALL WAS TO BE CON-
8TRUCTED SEPARATING THE PARKING AREA FROM HELENA STREET ANA THE ABUTTING
R~~I~ SINGLE FAMILY RE8IDENTIALa PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH ALTHOUGH NOT
SHOWN ON THE PROP08ED PLOT PLAiJ. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
COMMI8SIONER MARCOI:X STATED THAT APPROVAL OF THE PROP08ED DEVELOPMETlT~
IN H18 OPINION~ WOULD BE PREMATURE IN VIEW OF THE NEED FOR A MASTER PLAN
OF DEVELOPMENT FOR TH18 PORTION OF HARBOR BOULEVARD.
CHAIRMAN GAUER EXPRE33ED THE OPINION THAT THERE ARE BECTION3 IN THE ME-
TROPOLITAN AREA 9UCH AS SAN MARINO WHERE RE3IDENTIAL AREAB ABUT MAIN
THOROUGHfARE9 BUT BECAUSE OF PROPER TREATMENT IN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS~
HAVE MAINTAINED A HIGH QUALITY CHARACTER~ AND HE REQUESTED OF TH03E PRE-
8ENT THAT AT SUCH TIME AS PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF HARBOk BOULEVARD
ARE UNDER PREPARATION THE PROPERTY OWNER3 AFFECTED IVILL PRESE~~T THElR
VIEWS TO THE COMMISSION.
THE COMMI9SION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITION FOR RECLA831FICATION3
-10-
~ f ~
~
i
i
~~.
~
MINUTES~ CITY PL.ANNING COMN~ISSION, JaNUaRV 3~ 1961~ CONTItdUED:
' RECLItSSIFICATION
N0. 60-61-4?
vONTINUED
i
f, •
~
RECLASSIFICATION
N0. 60-61-48
i
-'I. PETITIONER REQUESTS A RECLASSIFICATION OF 3UBJECT ~ROPERTY FfiOM R-A~
RESIDENTIA~ AGRICUL7URAL~ ZONE TO C-~~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIA~~ AND ~
C-3~ HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ 20NE8 TO PERMIT CONBTRUCTION OF A SERVICE STA-
TION~ PARKING~ AND A ONE 8TORY OFFICE BUILDING.
Z. SUBJECT PROPERTY ABUTS R ~~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ON THE 30UTH~
R-A, RE8IDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ON THE WEBT ACROS3 HARBOR BOULEVARD~
R-1~ ON THE NORTH ACROSS SOUTH STREET AND ON THE EAST ACROSS HELENp
STREET. AT PRESENT TIM~ THERE ~~RE FOUR SERVICE 8TAT10~8 ON HARBOR
BOULEVARD 90UTH OF 8UBJECT PROPERTY W17HIN A RADIUS OF APPROXIMATELY
ONE-HALF MILE.
3. THE f'LOOR AREA OF THE PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING IS APPROXIMATELY S~JOO
8QUARE FEET. THE ONLY MEANS OF EGRES9 FROM THE PROPOSED PARKING NneA
IS TO HELENA STREET WHICH H;,3 BEEN DEVELOPED FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESI- '
DENTIAL U3E. THE PROP08ED PL.OT PLAN DOES NOT INDICATE THE CON3THUC-
TION OF ANY WALLS ALTHOUGH PETITIONER~3 AGENT STATED THAT ADEQUATE
WALL3 WOULD BE PROVIDED WHERE REQUIRED.
4. A MA8TER PLAN OF DEVELOnMENT FOR THIS PORTION OF HARBOR BOULEVARD
WOULD PROVIDE A BASIC REFERENCE IN PROPERLY AETERMINING THE HIGHEBT
AND BE3T U8F_ pF BUBJECT PROPERTY AND OTHER PROPERTIES ABUTTING HARBOR
BOULEVARD.
S. A BTATEMENT 0~ OPPOSITION AND PETITIONS OF OPPOSITION CONTAINING ~OS
31GNATURE3~ IN ADDITION 70 VERBAL OPPOSITION WERE RECORDED AGAIN3T THE ~
PETITION.
COMM18810NER MORRIS OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 145, SERIES 1960-61, AND MOVED
FOR 1T3 PA88AGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COh7MISSIONER PAAI~COUX~ TO DENY
RECLA931FICATION N0. 60-61-47 REQUEST FOR C~~~ NEIGHBOPNOOD CQ`iMERC1AL~
AND C-3~ HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1~?2 WE8T SUUTH ~
STREET.
1
ON ROLL CALL 'HE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PAS3ED DY THE FOLLOWING VO'EC
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: AL~RED~ uAUER~ HAPGOOD~ MARCOUX~ MORZ13~ SUMMERS. !
i
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSt MUNGALL. :
- PUBLIC HEARING. FETITION 3UBMITT'cD ev CHARLES H. aNn RUBY E. ST. CLI;~R~ ,:4
217 SOUTH PLACENTIA AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNERSj ALMA E. KELLER~ ~
9ZS SOUTH ARDEN PLACE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFJRN:A~ AUTHORI2ED AGENT~ REQUE8T1~3 ;
THAT TFiE.PROPERTY DE9CRIBED AS: A PARCEL 63 FEET BY 'IZ4 FEET WITH A '
FRONTAGE OF 63 FEET ON PLACENTIA AVENUE AiJD LOCAitD ON THE WEST SiDE Of
PLACENTIA AVENUE BETWEEN ANAHEIId-OLIVE ROAD AND BROADWAY~ ITS SOUTHEA3T-
ERLY CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY 135 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTHLNE37 CORNEr7
OF PLACENTIA AVENUE AND BROADWAY~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS Z~7 SOUTH
PLACENTIA AVENUE~ BE RECLASSIFIED FROM R-1~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~
To C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.
ALMA E. KELLER~ AUTHOPIZED AGENT FOR THE RECORDED ~WNER~ APPEARED BEFORc
THE COMMIS810N~ BTATED THAT SHE HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FOR i;3E AS A
COMBINATION REAL ESTATE OFFICE AND RESIDENCE~ AND REFERRED ir THE PETI-
TION CONTAINIfdG Z? SIG:~ATURE8 OF RECORDED PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE VICINITY
WHO WERE IN FAVOR OF THE SUBJECT PETITICN. THE HEARiNG WAS CLOSED.
MRB. KELLER 9UBMITTED PICTURE8 OF THE 3UBJECT PROPERTY AND INDICATED THAT
THERE WA9 NO PROPOSED REMODEIING OR 3TRUCTURAL ALiERATION OF THE EXISTING
RE9IDENCE~ AND THAT SHE INTENDED TO CONVERT A FRONT BEDROOM INTO A REAL
E8TATE OFFICE FOR A LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME.
>
~.
~
~.
~
t
s
~~
-11 -
---_.__._.. _. _ .. ___ _...._____ ____ . __ _ _._---.--.. _ __..__. _.._.,__ ..,
- -...... . ..
~;; ~ . ~
~ ~~
a
;~
`
f
,. _____. __ ...
-- __....._..,.__..._....~.......,~,-.,e...n. `__
_.__.._ ..
--_ __
. . . . _ .._ _.._~ ;~ ~ ,~,~~
~
~ ~ S
. ~
~
IAINlffES~ CITY PLANNiNG COMNISSIOf~, JANUARY 3, 1961, CONTINUED: ~
:l
RECLASSIFICATION - THE CoMMissioN DISCU9SED THE PROP08ED PARI~INC AREA AND ACCE88 FROM THE
~. (O~~~Q$ ALIEY AND THE RLOT PLAN IN GENERAL. THE COMM18810N ALEJ D13CU99ED WHETHER i
CONTIkUED A RECLABSIFICATION WAS THE PROPER VEHICLE IN THIS CA9E SINCE THE PETI-
TIONER HAD BUGGE8TED 'fHE USE FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME ONLY~ THE LIKE- '
LIH90D OF THE REMAINING R~1~ SINGLE FAMILY RE8IDENTIAL~ LOTB BETWEEN THE
$UBJECT PROPERTY AND BROADWAY CONVERTING TO COMMERCIAL U8E IN THE FU7URE.
A3SISTANT CITY ATTORNEY., ~.`OE GEI9LER~ 9TATED THAT THE URBAN REDEVELOPMENT '
CURRENTLY BEING DISCU83ED FOR THE CITY OF ANAHEIM MAY~BY DEFINITION~ BE
~ pPPLICABLE TO AREA8 OF MIXED RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USE~ AND THAT IT
WOULD APPEAR THAT 3UCH RECI.A381FICATION WITHOUT PROPER DEVELOP.MENTAL
CON"ROL3 WOULD TEND TO DEPRECIATE SUBJECT AND ABU7TING RESIDENTIAL PRO-
PERTIES AND LATER CREA7E A NEHD FOR URBAN REDEVELOPMENT. '
THE CGMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACT3 REGARDING THE ;~
BUBJECT PETITION FOR RECLABSIFICATIONt b
1. PETITIONER REQUE8T8 A RECLAS8IFICATION OF 8UBJECT PROPERTY FROM R-1~ ~
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ 70 C-~~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ IN ORDER ~~
TO CONVERT EXI3TING FRONT BEDROOM OF EXI9TING RESIDENCE INTO A REAL i~
ESTATE OFFICE FOR A LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME~ AND UTILIZE THE REMAINDER ~
OF RESIDENCE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES.
2. SUBJECT PROPERTY ABUT3 R~~~ S~NGLE FAMILY RE81DEN71AL~ ON THE 80UTH ~
AND THE WEST~ AND C~~~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ON THE NORTH~ AND THE ~
EABT ANAHEIM SHOPPING CENTER ACR088 PLACENTIA AVENUE ON THE EAST.
3. IT APQEARB THAT RE3IDENTIAL PROPERTIEB TO THE SOUTH WILL PROBABLY BE 5
DEVELC?ED FOR COMMERCIAL USE8 IN THE FUTURE. ~
4. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE PET1710N. a
COMM18810NER SUMMER8 OFFERED RE80LUTION N0. 146, SERIE9 1960-61, AND MOVED ~
FOR ITS PAS8AGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED~ RECOMMENDING~
TO 7HE CITY COUNCIL~Th1AT RECLA381FICATION N0. 60-61-45 BE APPROVED 8UBJECT ~
a
TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONB:
. $
'I. DEDICATION OF ~'~ -EET FROM MONUMENTF.D CENTERLINE OF PC6.CEN71A AVENUE. i
`Z. PAYMENT OF ~Z.OO PER FRONT FOOT FOR 8'fREET LIGHTING PURPOSES.
3. 9O DAY TIME LIMITATION ON ITEMS r~~8. 2 AND 3.
THE FOREGOING CONDITIONS WEHE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO BE
A NECE88ARY PREREQUISITE TO THE IiSE OF THE QROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZEN3 OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WA9 PA33ED 8Y THE FOLI.OWING VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ HAPGOOD~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ SUMMERB.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSS MUNGALL.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED 6Y CLIFTON il. AND FRANCES J. HP,RRIS~
~,p gp~~~9 9Z8 NORTH WE3T STREET~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNER3~ REQUE3TING THA1' PRO-
PERTY DESCRIBED A8: A PARCEL QE FEET BY ~ZZ FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 46
FEET ON I-iARBOR BOULEVARD~ AND LOCATED ON 7HE 80UTHEA8T QUADRANT OF THE IN-
TER9ECTION OF HARBOR BOULEVARD AND CHARTRES STREET~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED
pg 126 NoarH HARBOR BOUI.EVARD~ BE RECLA881FIED ~ROM P-1~ PARKING~ TO C-'I~
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.
- 12 -
_ _ __ __._ .___._ _ __. .._..
- --__ --_-______---_ _.. _ _ ._ ..-- ....
~. e~ ~, ' ~ .._ - -
V~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMNIISSION, ~IANUARY 3, 1961, CONTINUED:
RECLRSSI~iCATION - AMi3. F'RANCES HARRIS~ THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMI9SION AND
I~O. EO-61-49 STATED THEIR INTEN710N 70 LEASE THE EXISTING RE8IDENCE ON SUBJECT PRO-
CONTINUED PERTY TO A RENLTOR F0~ USE AS A COMBINATION RESIDENCE AND REAL F3TATE
OFFICE FOR A PERIOD NOT 70 EXCEED ONE YEAR. SHE INDICATED THE INTENTIGN
70 RpAOVE THE EXISTING GARAGE AND SURFACE THE REAR YARD FOR PARKING PUR-
POSES.
MR. EDrIN PETERSON~ TNE INTENDED LE89EE OF 9UBJECT PROPERTY~ APPEARED BE
FORE THE C`JA~OA133lON AND STATED THE INTENTION OF H18 FAMILY TO TEMPORpRILY
USE THE EXISTING RESIDENCE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURP03E3 WHILE OPERATING A
SMALL FAYILY TYPE REAL ESTATE BU3lNE33~ AND THAT THE PROP03ED U8E WOULD
NOT BE IN CONFLI.:T wITH THE GENERAL CHARACTER AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. HE STATED FURTHER H13 INTENTION TO INBTALL A SIl( FOOT BY
S INCH $IGN DISPLAYING THE NAME OF THE SEr.VICE OWLY. THE HEANING WAS
.~~$~.
THE COAOAI3310N FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTB REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION;
}
'~
~
~
~
a
i
i
'I. PETITIONER REQUESTS A RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM P-'I~
AU70YOBiLE PARKING~ 20NE TO C-~~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE IN i
ORDER TO UTlLlZE EXISTtNG RESIDENCE A3 A COMBINATION REAL EBTATE ~
OFFICE AND RESiDENCE FOR A PER{OD NOT TO EXCEED ONE YEAR. 3
Z. SUBJ=CT PROPERTY ABUT3 P^~~~ AUTOMOBILE PARKING~ ON THE WEST~ EA8T AND ~
SOUTH~ A CHURCH ACR083 HARBOR BOULEVARD ON THE WEST~ AND R-3 ACR039 !
CHARTRES STREET ON THE NORTH.
3. THE PROPOSED PLOT PLAN lNDI.^.ATES THE REMOVAL OF AN EXIBTING GARAGE AND
THE PROYISION OF FIVE ~S~ PARKING 9°ACE3.
4. PETITIONER SUBMIT7ED NO PlAN3 FOR THE REMODELING OR CONVER910N OF THE
EXISTING RESIDENCE.
S. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPP081710N TO THE PETITION.
C01~AAI13310NER HAPGOOD OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 147, SERIES 1960-6~~ AND MOVED
fOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMI8SIONER ALLRED~ RECOMMEND-
ING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60-61-49 BE APPROVED~
SUBJECT TO THE FOLIOWING CONDITIONS:
1. SIGN LIMITATION TO ONE SIX F00T BY EIGHT INCH (6'X8"~ 31GN CONTAINING
NAbIE OF REAL ESTATE SERVICE ATTACHED PARALLEL TO THE FACE OF ?HE BUILD-
ING.
2. THE FILING OF DEED RE37RICTIONS ~IMITING U3E OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TO
BUSINE33 OR PROFESSIONAL USE ONLY~ AND THAT THE U3E OF THE PROPERTY
FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSEB SHALL BE TERMINATED WITHIN ONE ~'I~ YEAR FROM
THE EFFECYIVE DATE OF 7HIS RESOLUTION.
3. DEDICATION OF 45 FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF I"IARBOR BOULE-
VARD.
4. PAYYENT OF $Z.OO PER FRONT F00T FOR STREET LIGHTING PURP03E3 ON HAR-
BOR BOULEVARD ONLY.
S. Llt~lITAT{ON OF JO DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLIBHMENT OF ITEM8 N08. 3 AND 4.
TF±~ F~REGOING CONDITIONB WERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO BE
A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE 70 TH~ USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESE~VE
THE SAFETY AND ^ELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CAIL THE FOREGOING RE30LUTION WAS PA98ED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
-13-
.. __~.__.._.:,w:>.
:,,~ . _ - , --- ~
c ~ ~
. ~~ ~ ~
I .r .
• .
~ 1 . .
~ ' ~ ~ 1~
MINUTFS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JANUARY 3~ 1961, CONTINUED: ~
~
RECLASSIFICATION - AYES: COMN~,SSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ HAPGOOD~ MARCOUX~ MORRI£~ SUMMERS. ~
N0. 60-61-49 ~
CONTINUED NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. i
. ;
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MUNGALL.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 15.28 TO TITCE 15 OF THE ANpHE1M MUNICIPAL CODE
E8TABL18HING TRAILER PARK ORDINANCE. CONTINUED FROM DECEMBER 5,1960 MEETING
A831STANT CITY ATTORNEY tJOE GEI8LER REVIEWED WiTH THE COMMISSION THE EX-
PRE3310N OF THE REPREBENTATIVE OF THE TRAILER PARK ASSOCIATION~ WHO wA3
PRESENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON DECEMBEF: S~ 'I96O~THAT THEIR MAIN RE-
3ERVATION TO THE PROPOSE~ ORDINANCE WAS TFIE PROP08ED INSPECTION FEE.
A REPORT WA3 PRESENTED TO TNE COMMISSION SUBMITTED BY THE PLANNING DE-
PARTMENT~ WHICH INCLUDED A SUMMARY OF INSPECTIONS CONDIiCTED BY THE STATE
DIV1810N OF HOUSING OF TRAILER PARKS WITHIN THE ANAHEIM CITY LIMITS BE-
TWEEN AUGUST 'IO~ 1960 AND NOVEMEER 'I4~ 1960. THE SUMMARY OF THE3E IN-
SPECTIONS INDICATED THAT DURING THE GIVEN PERIOD OF TIME TEN TRAILER
PARKS WERE IN VIOLATION ON 'I'{8 SEPARATE COUNT3. THE NUMBER OF VIOLA-
TIONS PER TRAILER PARK RANGED FROM FIVE TO TWENTY-EIGHT WITH AN AVERAGE
OF 'I'I.S VIOLATION3 PER PARK. THE SUMMARY OF THE INSPECTION SHEETS WERE
ORIGINALLY TABULATED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO DETERMINE THE EFFEC-
TIVENESS OF THE 8TATE INSPECTIONS TO ASSIST IN THE FORMULATION OF THE
TRAILER PARiC ORDINANCE. THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE IN3PECTION SHEET3.
COMMI8SICtJER MARCOUX STATED THP.T IN HIS OPINION THE PROPOSED INSf'ECTION
FEE WA3 A TYPE OF TAX AND STATED HIS OPPOSITION TO THE COMMISSiON~$ RE-
COMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE INSPECTION FEE BE INCIUDED IN
THE TRAILER PARK ORDINANCE. HE EMPHASI2ED THAT HE WA8 NOT OBJECTING TO
THE TRAILER PARK ORDINANCE IT3ELF~ BUT ONLY TO THOSE SECTION3~ SECTION
15.2a.110 (1) AND ~~~.AND SECTION ~S.ZH.'IZO THAT PERTAIN TO INSPECTION
FEE8.
MR. 8oe Davis~ ASSISTANT CITY ADMINISTRATOR~ pPPEARED BEFORE THE COMM18-
310N AND EXPLAINED WHY THE PROPOSED INSPECTION FEES WERE NECE88ARY. IT
WA8 NOTED THAT WHEREA3 A MOTEL IS A PERMANENT STRUCTURE~ A MOBILE HOME CAN
BE MOVED IN AND OUT AT WILL AND~ CON3EQUENTLY~ A CHAN6E OF OWNeR3HIP OF
THE INDIVIDUAL TRAILER3 A3 WELL AS THE PARKS WILL LIKELY OCCUR WITH RELA-
TIVE FREQUENCY. ~R. DAVIS INDICATED THAT_THE CITY OF ANAHEIM WOULD CON-
DUCT FOUR IN8PECTIONS A YEAR~ WHICH WOULD ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR 8TATE
IN8PECTIONS~ AND THE IN8PECTION FEE WOULD COVER THE C03TS OF THE3E IN-
BPECTIONS.
THE COMMIBSION DISCUSSED THE MATTER OF THE INSPECTION FEES AND ASSI8TANT
CITY /{TTORNEY JOE GEISLER INFORMED TFIE COMMI8SION THAT THE FINAL DECISION
RELATIVE TO THE FEEB WAS ENTIRELY WITHiN THE PROVINCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL~
• AND THAT T4E PLANNING COMMISSION COULD ONLY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE
CITY COUNCIL TO INCLUDE OR EXCLUDE 3AID FEES.
~ NO ONE APPEARED IN OPP031TION T~ THE PROPOSED TRAILER PARK ORDINANCE.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
~
COMM18910NER MORRIS OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 148~ SERIEB 1960-61, AND MOVED
FOR ITS PAS9AGE AND ADOPTION~ 8ECONDED 8Y COMMISSIONER ALLRED~ RECOMMEND-
ING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE ADOPTION OF THE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 'I5.Z8 TO
- TITL'c ~S OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE ESTPSLISHING THE TRAILER PARK OR-
D I NANCE ~ MARKED EXH I B I T~~A~~ AND ~~8~~ RESPECT 1 VEIY.
(CONTINUED~
-14-
~
. ~
•
, , i
:~ •
~
/ .
~ ,: ;
. ~ ~
,~
~
~
• ~ ~ '
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JANUARY 3~ 1961, CONTINUED: ~
~
~
PUBLIC HEARING - TRai~Ea PARK OkDINANCE~ CONTINUED;
THE FORE601NG RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: ~
r
~
i'
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ HAPGOOD~ MORRIS~ SUMMERS. i
I'r
.
'
~ 1 '
I
~ .
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MAacoux.
~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSD MIUNGALL.
,
~ i
~ ~RESPONDENCE
- IrEM No. 1: GARDEN GROVE ZONE RECLASSIFICATION N0. A-206-60:
;
A NOTICE FROM THE GARDEN GROVE PLANNING COMMISSION Wp3 3UBMITTED TO THE ~
~ COMM18310N REGARDING ZONE RECLA3SIFICATION N0. A-206-60, WHICH INDICATED ~
PROCEEDING3 WERE INITIATED BY THE EUCLID BALL COMPANY PROPOSING THAT THE j
PARCEL OF LAND~ LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EUCLID AVENUE AND THE !
PROPOSED ORANGEWOOD AVENUE EXTENSION~ BE RE20NED FROM R-'I TO C-'I AND C-Z~ %
OR MORE RE8TRICTIVE ZONE. IT WAS NOTED THAT PAST ACTIONS BY THE GARDEN ~
GROVE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL~ DENYING C-'I AND R-3 U3E3 IN ~
THE AREA EA3T OF EUCLID AVENUE AND SOUTH OF ORANGEWOOD AVENUE~ HAVE IN- ~
DICATED A DESIRE TO RESTR!CT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG THIS 8ECTION OF }
EUC~ID AVENUE. SAID 20NE CHANGE REQUESTS WERE SUBMITTED BY DAN BERNHART ~
AND W. L. FARROW. BOTH REQUESTS WERE DENIED. IT WA3 NQTED FURTHER THAT f
A PRECEDENT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR IiIGH QUALITY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN ~
THIS AREA. i
e
COMMI8SIONER MORRIS OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMIS810NER ALLRED AND S
~
CARRI~D~ THAT THE PLANNING LEPARTMENT TRAN8MIT TO THE GARDEN GROVE PLAN- ~
NING COMMISSION THAT THE SUBJECT REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATIOtv•BE DENIED> ;
AND THAT A NIGH QUALITY StNGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BE ENCOURAGEIj
u
FOR THE AREA.
1
k ^ ITEM No. 2: GARDEN GROVE TEM'A71VE TRACT MAP N0. 4052: r
~
A NOTICE FROM THE GARDEN GROVE PLANNING COMMI8SION WAS SUBMITTED TO THE ~
COMMISSION REGARDING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 4052. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ~
TENTATIVE TRACT WAS FOR A PROPOSED R-~~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ SUB- j
DIVISION TO 8E DEVELOPED ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED IMMEDIATELY WEST OF PRO- ~
POSED COMMERCIAL AREA~ AND THAT THE R-'I DEVELOPMENT WOULD APPEAR TO BE ~ j
COMPATIBLE WITH EXIS7ING DEVELOPMENT IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. 4
COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED A MOTION~ 8ECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX AND
CARRIED~ THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMIT TO THE GAR~EN GROVE PLAN- .
NING COMM13310N A RECOMMENDATION THAT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 4052 BE
APPROVED~ AND TO INDICATE THAT THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION WAS DE-
SIROUS OF HAVING A HIGH QUALITY R-'I~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ DEVELOP-
MENT LOCATE ON THE EAST SIDE OF ORANGEWOOD AVENUE AT THE GARDEN GROVE CITY
LIMITS. THE COMMISSION ALSO INDICATED THEIR APPRECIATION FOR THE INTEREST
AND COOPERATION SHOWN BY THE GARDEN GROVE PLANNING COMMIS810N.
ITEM'N0. 3: SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. PLANNING CONGRESS DINNER MEETING.
CHAIRMAN GAUER INFORMED THE COMMI9SION OF THE NOTICE REGARDING THE SOUTH-
ERN CALIFORNIA PLANNING CONGRESS DINNER MEETING SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 'IZ~
1961 TO BE HELD IN HUNTINGTON PARK~ CALIFORNIA.
DISCUSSION - THE COMM188ION DISCUSSED THE Mp.TTER OF NOTICEB WHICH COME FROM ADJACENT
CITIE8 AND THE COUNTY RELATIVE TO THEIR ACTION9 AND WHICH~ IN MANY CA3E3~
•ARE 8CHEDULED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMI3SION~S NEXT
- 15 -
_.___-----------a--...__._.._..--•-------- --------
, .,,.:~:,
~ ~~ ~ .~
}.
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ ~ANUARY 3~ 1961~ CONTINUED: .
~
DISCUSSION - MEETING IS HELD AND~ AS A CONSEQUENCE~ MANY TIME9 IT IS T00 LATE FOR THE ~
CONTINUED COMM13310N TO CON3IDER THESE.ACTIONS BEFORE THE HEAR ~NG3 ARE CONDUCTED.THE ,
,
COMMI3S~ON REQUE8TED THAT IN THE FUTURE~IN THE EVENT THIS DOES OCCUR~ T'HE -.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT SHALL TRAN9MIT A NOTICE TO THE S PECIFIC ORGANI2ATION ~
~ REQUESTING THAT THE MATTER BE CONTINUED UNTIL AFTER THE COMMISSION HAS +
MET AND IS ABLE TO MAKE A SUITABLE RECOMMENDATION.
ADJOURNMENT.
- FIELD SURVEYS:
THE COMM18310N DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF THE COMMIS310NERS UNDERTAKING
A9 A GROUP A FIELD SURVEY OF PROPERTIES BCHEDULED FOR HEARING ON THE MORN-
ING PRIOR TO THE COMMISSION MEETING. A8918TANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GE~8LER
ADVI3ED THE COMMISSION THAT~ IN H13 OPINION~ SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT WOULD BE
Pc~~.:133ABLE AS LONG A8 A PRE-DETERMINATION OF THE SUBJECT CA3E3 WA3 IVOT
MADE. CHAIRMAN GAUER REQUE3TED THAT THE COMMI9SIONERS MEET ON JANUARY ~.E>> ~;
1961 AT ~O:OO O~CLOCK A.M.~ AND THAT THE PLANNING STAFF ARRANGE FOR TRANS- `
PORTATION AND PREPARE A ROUTE MAP INDICATING THE PROPERTIES TO BE INVE9T1-
GATED. •`
- THE MEETING WA8 ADJOURNED AT S:3O O~CLOCK P.M. ~ •
,. .
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED~
~ • ~ `
J PAGE, SF~RET '
i
i
ti
{ ~
t
, o.
° -16-