Loading...
Minutes-PC 1961/03/20 , ' j • ~ ~, `: ' ~ ~ :` ~ .. ~ ~ ~ CITY HALL ANAHE7M CALIFORNIA ~ i~ 1961 MARCH 2 RE6ULAR lIEETiNG ~ A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNINO COMM15510N WAS CALLED 70 ORDER AT 2:00 O~CLOCK P.M. BY CHAIRMAN GAUER~ A QUORUM BEINO PRESENT. . PRESENT - CHAIRMAN GAUER: COMMIBSIONERS: ALLRED~ MnRCOUx, MoRRis, MUN~ALL~ SLMMERS. °' ABSENT - COMMISSI~NERS: HAPOOOD. PRESENT " ACTIN~ PLANNING DIRECTOR - RICHARD REESE SENIOR PLANkER ~ MARTIN KREIDT i ASSISTANT CITY ATTbRNEY ~ JOE GEISLER . ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ~ JOHN H. DAWSON COMMISSION SECRETARY ~ JEAN PAdE P~ COLLINS~ PASTOR OF F~RST BAPTIST CHURCH OF I~NAHEIM~ GAVE 1NYOCATION _ R AT E ION, HE INVOC PLEDGE OF ~ CHIYlRMAN GAUER ~ED THE PLEDOE OF ALLE~IANCE TO THE FLA6. ALLE6IANCE ~ • ~ ~''THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINO OF MARCH 6, 1961 WERE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. VARtANCE NO.i34i - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTEO ev RICHARD H. ANC JO ANN E. WELTY, 620 PANDORA PLACE~ ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA OWNERS RGQUESTIN(i PERMISSION 70 WAIVE 7 FEET ~ ~ A 5 RMIT ENCROACHMENT OF 7. NT TO P CK REQUIREN MiNIMUM REAR YARD SETB TO WITHIN i7.25 FEET OF REAR PROPERTY LINE, oN PROPERTY DESCRIBED ns: A PARCEL 60 FEET BY 100 FEET WITH A FRON7A(iE OF 60 FEET ON PA'NDORA PLACE AND ' IOCATE~ ON THE EAST SIDE OF PANUOkA PLACE BETWEEN APOLLO AVEFiUE AMD SANTA ANA STREET~ ITS SOUTHNEST CORNER BEINO APPROXIMAT:LY 180 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTNEAST CORNER OF PANDORA PLAC6 AND APOLLO AVENUE~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED . AB 620 PFNDORA PLACE. PROPERTY PRESENTLV C~ASSIFIED R~1~ ONE FAMILY RESI- ~ENTIAL. MR. RICHARD WELTY~ THE PETITIONER~APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ AND STA- TED THAT CONVERSION OF AN EXISTIN3 PATIO INTO A ROOM ADDITION FOR'AN EXIST~ INO R'ESfDENCE HAD COMMENCED. HE STATED FURTHER THAT HE WAB MADE AWARE OF THE REAR YARD CODE REQUIREMENTS UPON APPLICATION FOR A BUILDINO ?ERMIT~ ifiAT TH8 EniE^niGR 8F iHc ^nJO~'.'~ ADDii i0ii FiAO SEE~: C44'lPL~T~7~A!!~ THAT THE IM~ TERIOR COULD NOT BE FINISHED UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS OBTAINED. HE IN- DICATED THAT THE ROOM ADDITION WOUID BE OF BENEFIT TO HIS PAMILY. THE HEARING WAS C!OSED. THE COMMISBION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWINO FACTS REOARDINd THE 8U8~ JECT PETITION; 1. THAT TME PETITIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE fROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE; SECTION 18.24.030(3~ WHICH REQUIRES FOR SUBJECT PROPERTV A 25 F00T REAR YARD TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF 7.75 FEE7 INTO REQUIRED REAR YAR~ TO PER- MIT THE CONSTRUCT)ON OF A ROOM AD01710N TO AN EXISTIN~ SINOLE FAbtILY RESiDENCE. 2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDJNARY CIRCUMSTANCEB OR CONDITIONS APPLICABLE' TO THE PROPERTY 'TNYOWED OR TO THE 'INT'ENOEO USE OF THE PRO- PERTY TMAT DO NOT APPLY OENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY Ot2 CLA55 Of USE IN TH~ BAME'VICINIT'% AND 20NE. '3. THAT TNE REQUE9TED VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOY~ MENT OF A BUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIOHT POSSESBED BY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE 'SAME YICINITY AND 20NE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUEBTION. 4. THAT TH[.,REQUESTED VAR MNCE WIIL NOT BE MATERIALLY OETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR'INJURIOU9 TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN BUCH VtCINITY AND ZONE '1N WHICH THE PROPERTiI f8 LOCATED. '3. TMAT THE REQUESTEQ VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AfFECT THE COMPREMENSIVE G6NERAC PLAN. 6. THAT'TNE STRUCTURE IB l'"!DER CON9TRUCTtON AT THE PRE8ENT TIME AND THE . REQUBSTED'VAR~ANQE WIL~ PERMIT ITB COMPLETION. 7. 7MAT AN.,ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF REAR YARD AREA WILL REMAIN AFTER COPISTRUCTION ~8 COMP.I.ETED. B. ""NO:ONE'APPEARED IN OPPOBITION TO SUBJECT PETITION. OFFER6D RESOLUTION N0. 203~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND MOVED COMMi'SSfONER'MORRIB . FOR ITS PA89k0E AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISBIONER MARCOUX~ THAT PET1~ TION FOR YRRR'#FH6E'M0.'1341 BE ORANTED~' SUBJRCT TO THE' FOLLOMINfi CONDITIONt 1. DfVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED. ~ ~ THE FORB~OI;NQ,-CONDlTION WAS RECITED AT THE MEETINO AND 41A4 FOUND TO BE A NBCEBSARY PRlREQUISITE.TO ThE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE .. SAFET/ AND MELFARE~OF T'HE CITIZENS OF ANANEIM. - 89 - ~.,` ~ , : •"~~ , _`~---~~,1 '^ ' , _ ~~~ ~ . . . _ -. _ _---'--4 . ~ ~ . - ~..~.._ ... . . -~ ~ ~~.. .,. . ....-..: ;r ... .. ~ I .. . ., . . ~ . . • i ~; ~ • V ~ .~. :...~~ ~ ~ 90 MINUTES~ C1TY PLANNING C~MMiSSION, MARCH 20~ 1961~ CONTINUED: VARiQNCE N0.1341 ~ ON ROLL CALL THE FORE601Na RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY TNE FOLLOWiNG VOTE: roNriNUeo AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONE~QS: NONE. AB~ENT: COMM1SS10NERS: HaPaoo~. yAR1ANCE N0.1342 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED BY CHARLES H. KINGSLAND~ P.O. BOX 2005~ 1631 WEST LINCOLN AVENUEy ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNERT MERLE VErtBURG, 1631 ~~ WcST LINCOLN AVENUE~ ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA~ AGENT~ REQUEST TO WAiVE P~L~ PARKING-LANDSCAPI~JG, ZONE RE{UIREMENTS oN PROPERTY DESCRIB~D ns: AN IRRE- C~ULARIY SHAPED PARCEL WITH A fRONTACaE OF 243 FEET ON LINCOLN AVENUE AND L0~ CATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LINCOIN AYENUE BETWEEN EUCLID AVENUE AND LOARA ~ STREET~ ITS SOUTHWEST CORNER BEtNG APPROXtMATELY 540 FEET EAST OF THE NORTH- EAST CORNER OF EUCLID AND LINCOLN AVENUES~ AND FURTHER DCSCRIBED AS 1631 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED M~1~ LIGHT MANUFACTURING, ZONE. MR. CHARLES KINOSLAND~ THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED tiEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT HE DESIRED PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT A NALL AT THE REAR OF THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT LANDSCAPING STRIP. IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE COMM15510N THAT THE PETIT)ON REQUESTED THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3 FOOT 10 INCH WALL ALONfi THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND THE WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT LAND- PLAN'TO CONFORM TOE7HIStVERBAL AMENDMENT TO SUBJECT'PETITION N THE HEARINGT WAS CLOSED. COMMISSIONER MUNGALL MUVED TO ~RANT PERMISSION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 3 F00T 10 INCH WAIL AT THE REAR OF THE 20 F00T LANDSCAPING STRIP ABUTTING THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE~ SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. BEFORE ACTION WAS TAKEN~ THE PETlT10NER A(iAJN CLARIFtED HIS REQUEST TO CONFORM TO THE PETITION AS SUBMITYED~ NAMELY THE REQUEST TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3 F00T 10 INCH WALL ALONQ THE FRONT PROPER7Y LINE AND THE WAIVER OF THE 20 FOOT LAND- SCAPINd STRIP. UPON TMSS CLARIFICATION A MGTION WAS OFFERED TO DENY SAID REQUEST AND THE FOLLOWIN(i FINDIN~S WERF MADE: 1~ SECTlOdC~8E64T410{o~R~~UGNTREC~UlRESAF4R SUBJECTEPROPERTY AuMINIMUM SODE: F00T BUILDINO SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WITH A MINIMUM OF 20 FEET USED FOR LANDSCAPtNO TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 3 F00T 10 INCH MASONRY WALL ALONO THE FRONT PFtOPERTY LINE EXCEPT FOR TWO ACCESS AREAS ANO TO UTILI2E THE REQUIRED 20 FOOT STRIP OF LANDSCAPINO FOR THE PARK- IN~ OF TRAILERS. 2. THAT THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDI- TIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY ~NVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY (iEk:RALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR CLASS OF USE IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE. 3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NOT NECe55ARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAI PROPERTY RIQHT POSSESSEG BY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 4. THAT THE REQUESTED Vf+R1ANCE WILL BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUB- LlC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN SUCH VICIN~ ITY AND ZONE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. ' 3. 7HAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN. 6. THAT THE WAIVER :iF THE LANDSCAPINO REQUIREMENT OH THE P~L~ PARKINQ° I,ANDBCAPING~ 20NE ON 9UBJtCT PROPERTY~ T03ETHER WITH PERMISSION TO CON~ BTAUCT A'~IALL ALON3 SHE FRON7 OF THlB P~L ZONE WOULD VIOLATE THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE P~L~ PAIiKINO~I.ANDSCAPING~ 20NE ON BUBJECT AND ONE ABUTTIN3 PROPERTY TO THE EABT AND THE THREE ABUTTINa PROPERT'IE8 TO THE WEBT. ~ BECAUBE OF THE FAILURE OF THE OWNERS OF ALL OF THE FIVE PROP6RTIES TO Ml~':E PROVISION TO FULFILL THE REQUIR6MENT8 Of 7H15 20NE~ AND THE RE" SULTING M+OOR ESTHETIC IMPROVEMBNT Of THE86 PROPERTIES. THE aRANTING OF OFBANAHEIMTFOR COMPI.IANCEBWITHTTkELREQUgREMENTB OF~TMIgMFNL~BPARKENC~~TY LANDSCAPtNO~ 20NE. THE CCMMt9810N lNDICATED THAT THE ENTIRE AREA BHOULD BE STUDIfD AND , APPROPRIAT6 ACTION TAKEN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY~S OFFICE AND THE PLAN~~ NINO DEPARTFIENT TO REQUIRE TME FULFILLMENT OF TNE REQUIREMENTB OF THE P-L~ PARKING-LANDBCAPING~ ZONE BY THE OWNERS OF SU~JECT A!!0 FOUR OTHF~R AllUTTING PItOPERTIES. 7. PIO ONE APP6ARED IN OPPOBlTION TO SUBJECT PETITION FOR VARIANCE. ~ COMMI'SS'1ONR.R MUNOALL OFFERED RESOLUTION Ntl. 204~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND MOVED FOR tT5 PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMIBBIONER ALLRED~ TO DENY VARIANCE N0. 1342 FOR THE WAIVER OF P~L~ PARKINO~LANDaCAPIN3~ ZONE REQUIRE- M6NT8 ON THE BASIS OF THE AFOREMENTIONEO FINDINGS. , r~~ -~.-,..- . ~~.~.__ _. _. ' 91 MINUTES, CiTY PL~,NNING CO~MISSION~ MARCH 20~ 1961~.CONTiNUED: VARTANCE N0.1342 - ON ROLL ,l.Ll THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLI.OWIN6 VOTE; CONTI~UED ,.. AYES: COMMISSI~NERSS ALLRED~ GAUERo MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUN~ALL~ SUMMERS. " ' ~ NOES: COMMISS.IONERS: NONE. ~ ABSENT: COMMIS:iIONEF~S: HAPOOOD. ~IlR1ANCE..N0.i343 - PUBU C HEARING. PeTiT~oN SUBMITTED DY LERA MAE DNYER, 501 NoRrH Nesr NEST STREET~ AkAHE1M CALIFORNIA GWNER• REQUESTIN6 PERMISSION TO W,PIIVE -"' MiN7MUM L4I.SIZE OF ~0 000 SQUAR~ FEET ~0 PERMIT A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 9~375 S4UARE FEET.. ALS~.0..T0 NB~1VE MlN1MUM LOT MIDTH OF 90 FEET TO PERMIT A MINiMUM'LOT WIDTH OF 75 FEET~oN PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: A PARCEL WITH A FROlJTAGE OF 524 FEET ON WEST $TREET AND LOCATED FROM 75 FEET TO 699 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF WESTMONT DRtVE AND WEST STREET AND EXTENDING WEST TO DWYER DRIVEj AND FURTHEt2 DESCRIBED AS REVISED TENTATIVE • TRACT N0. 4069. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASS~FIED R~O, RESiDENT1A~ SUBURBAN, ZUNE. MR. RICHARD BLAIR~ THE ENa1NEER REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BE- FORE THE COMPAISSION AND ~NDICATED THAT THE SUBJECT~YARIANCE WAS A REVI- SION OF PE7ITION FOR YARIANCE N0. 1329 WHICH HAD BEEN DENIED BY THE COM- MISSION ON JANUARY 16~ 1961 AND WHICH HAD BEEN CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4069. HE STATED THAT ONE LOT HAD BEEN ELIMINATED ON THE REVISED TRACT MAP AND THAT THE SUBJECT PETITI.ON FOR VARI- ANCE PROV.IDED FOR A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 87.5 FEET FOR THE LOTS FRONTING ON DWYER DRlVE~AND MINIMUM WIDTHS AND MINIMUM LOT AREAS OF 9~375 SQUARE FEET FOR THE LOTS FRONTING ON WEST STREET. HE READ A LETTER~ UATED JANUARY 23~ 1961~ CONTAINING 16 SICiNATURES AND WITHDRAW~NO OBJECTIONS TO THE APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4069~AND INDICATING THAT THE REVISED LAYOUT WOULD MEET WITH THEIR APPROVAL. MR. BARNARD RYE~ 1200~CONNECTICU7 AVENUE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT HE REPRESENTED THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE DWYER TRACT~ AND THAT HIS NAME WAS ON TNE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE COMMISSION. HE INDICATED THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AREA HAD NANTED THE :075 ON DWYER DRIVE TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM LOT WlDTHS OF 89 FEET AND THAT THEY HAD NO OBJ£CT!ONS TQ TY.E 75 ~44T ~!!N:`.+lUM L4T ~!~?:'.fi rflo rug LCTS 9:?0.4'?- ING ON WEST STREET. HOWEVERo StNCE THE PETITIONER~S REVISED PLANS WERE CLOSE TO THOSE PROPOSED BY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS~ THERE WOULD BE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE APPROVAL OF THE AMENDED TRACT LAYOUT. MR. RYE STATED FURTHER THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AREA WISHED TO GO ON RECORD AS RE- QUESTING THAT AN ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE SUPERVI- SION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE REQUESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ARCHITECTURAL COMM~TTEE. ASS~STANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVJSED THE COMMISS~ON TNA7 AN AP.CHITECTURAL COMMITTEE WAS NOT SET UP FOR THE R-1~ SIN~LE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ AND THE R-O1 RESIDENTI'AL SUBUR9AN~ ZONES EXCEPT FOR PRIVATE C'ONTROLS. HOWEJER~ THE I:OMMi5510N C~ULD ESTABLISH ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL BY DEED RESTRICTION ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COMMISS~ON D15CUSSED A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY MR. RYE THAT BUILDING CON- STRUCTION BE LIMITED TO ONE STORY STRUC7URE5. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT AT THE PRESENT TIME TWO STORY STRUC- TURES MAY BE ERECTED IN THE R~O~ RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN~ ZONE AND THAT THE ' HEIGHT LIMITATIOW COULD NOT BE IMPOSED EXCEPT BY RECLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. HE~INDICATED THAT THE MATTER COULD BE GOVERNED BY THE ~ ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWIN6 FACTS REGARDING THE SUB- JECT PETITION: 1. THAT THE PET1710NER REQUESTS A VAR~ANCE FROM 'fHE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE; SECTION 18.20.030 (4-A) WHICH REQUIRES FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY MINiMUM LOT WIDTHS OF 90 FEET AND MINIMUM LOT AREAS OF 10~000 SQUARE FEET~ IN ORDER TO SUBDIVIDE SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO LOTS FRONTING ON DNYER DRIVE HAVING A MIN~MUM WIDTH OF 87.5 FEET~ AND FOR THE LOTS FRONTING ON WEST STREET ~ HAVING MINIMUM WlDTHS OF 75 FEET AND MINIMUM LOT AREAS OF 9~375 SQUARE FEET. 2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY INVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED USE OF THE PRO- PERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR CLA55 OF USE IN THE SAME VICINITY AND 20NE. 3. THAT THE REQUESTED VAR~ANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOY- MENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 4. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR 1NJURIOUS 70.T?1E PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN SUCH VI- CINITY AND 20NE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT A04ERSELY AFFECT THE COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN. ~ ,,... ~ ~~._ ~ y'v~^^ . "_'1_ i . .' .. ~ . . r!~-«...+ ..:._ .,._.~.`~ . t ~ ._ .~ ~. - ... . . : . . -. ~ ~,' . ~'r.'d"^'~' . . ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ . ~~~~ ~ ! 1'~ ~ ~ MiNU'f'E5, C1TY PLANNING COMMISS.I.UN; MnRCH 20~ 1961, CONTlNUED: ( VARIANCE N0.1343 ~ 6. THAT THE REQUESTED StZE AND LOT N1DTN5 ARE COMPARABLE TO THE SIZE AND ~ CONTINUED • LOT WIDTHS OF THE PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. ~ 7. NO ONE APPFARED IN OPPOSITION ?0 THE PETITION FOR VARIANCE AND A PETI~ !, TION SUPPORTING SUBJECT PETITION AND TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4069~ I • REVISED FEBRUARY 2~ 1961~WERE RECORDED. ~ E COMMISSIONER ALLRED OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 205~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND MOVED ~ FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUN(iALL~ THAT VARI- i ANCE N0. 1343 BE GRANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: i 1. RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP OF TRAC7 N0. 4069 CONTAINING THE LAYOUT i AS SUBMITTED ON TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4069 r1MENDED FEBRUARY 2~ ! 1961. ' 2. FILING OF DEED RESTR~CTIONS BY THE SUBD~VIDER MAKING PROVISION FOR AN ARCHITECTURAL COMM~TTEE COMPRlSED OF A'RLPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITV OF ANAHEIM~ A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEVELOPERo AND ONE NEUTRAL PARTY. 1 THE FOREGOING COND~TIONS WERE RECITEb AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUN~ TO BE ~ A NECESSARV PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM. i ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: ~ 1 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. ~ NOES: COMMISSiONERS: NoNE. . ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD. REVTSED TENTATIVE- DEVELOPER: LOWELL J. STRATFORD, 1180 Ho~~v, ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA. REVISED MAP OF TRACT N0. TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4069~ DATED FEBRUARY 2~ 1961~ IS LOCATED BETWEEN 40 9 DWYEF uRIVE AND WEST STREET APPROXIMATELY 108 FEET SOUTH OF WESTMONT DRIVE AND PROPOSES 13 R-O~ RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN~ LOTS. SUBJECT MAP WAS CONTINUED FROM THE MEETINaS OF JANUARY 16~ 1961 AND FEBRU- ARY 20~ 1961~ pND IS SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH PETITION FOR VAR~ANCE No. 1343. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWINQ F'ACTS REGARDING THE SUB- ~ JECT 7RACTS 1. SUBJECT TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4069 WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMIS- ~ SION IN CONJUNCTION WITH VARIANCE N0. 1343 AND WAS REV.ISED ON FEBRUARY 2~ 2961 TO CONTAIN 13 RATHER THAN THE ORItiINAL 14 R-O~ RESIDENTIAL } , SUBURBAN~ ZONED LOTS. ~ 2. THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVIS~ON OF THE SUBJEC7 PROPERTY INTO LOTS HAVING ' A MINIMUM WIDTH OF B7.5 FEET FOR THE LOTS FRONTINfi ON DWYER DRIVE~AND ! MINIMUM NIDTHS OF 75 FEET AND MINIMUM LOT AREAS OF 9~375 SQUARE FEET FOR THE LOTS ~RONTINO ON MiEST STREET~ ARE COMPARABLE TO THE 5~2E AND LOT WIDTHS OF THE PROPERTI.ES LOCATED IN THE SURROUkDIN~ AREA. 3. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUBJECT TRPCT MAP. ~ C~MM19410NER ALLRED OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS AND ~ CARRIED~ THAT TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4~69~ REVISED FEBRUARY 2~ 1961~ i BE A~PROVED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLI.OWING CONDITIONS: ~ COHCRETE CURB TO 8E REPL.ACED BY STANDARD C1lRB AND QU7TER ON 1. EXISTiN9 . EABT SIDE OF DWYER DRIVE W1TH1N PRESENT PIOHT~OF~WAY. TRACT N0. 2838 REPLACED THE EXIBTINa CONCRETE CURB. 2. SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1343. 3. SUBJECT TO THE EASEMENTS REQUIRED. ',t 4. REQUI~tEMENT THAT SHOULD THIS SUBD(VISION BE DEVELOPED AS MORE THAN O~IE BU9DIyIS10N~ EACH SU9DIVISION THEREOF BHALL BE SUBMITTED ON TENTATIYE FORM FOR APPR~VAI.. ~ 5. FlLikf# OF DEED REBTRICTIONS BY THE SUBDIVIOER MAKINQ PROVISION FOR AN ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE COMPRISED OF A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY OF~ wNAHEIM~ A REPRESENTATI~'E OF THE DEVELOPER~ AND OF ONE NEUTRAL PARSY. ~IANCE'N0.1344 = PUBLIC HEARIN6. PETITION SUBMITTED 8Y EVE D. DIGGlNS~ 1307 COLUMBINE PLA4E~ ~ ANAHEIM CALIF~RNIA OWNER• REgUESTINO PERMISSION TO USE ONE ROOM OF AN . E SHOP U ~' I ~' , oN PROP RTY TY OR THE OPERATION OF A BEA DENCE FAMILY RES R-i~ ON DE4CRIBED AS: A PARCEL 63 FEET BY 100 FEET W17H A FRONTAOE OF 65 FEET ON COLUMBINE PLACE AND LOCATED ON THE NEST SIDE OF COLUMBINE PLACE BETWEEN C~OVER AVENUE AND CORONET AVENUE~ ITS SOUTHEAST CORNER BEIN~ APPROXIMATELY 65 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CLOVER AVENUE AND COLUMBINE PLACE~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1307 COLUM9INE'PLACE. PROPERTY PRESENTf.Y CLA851~ FIED R-i~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE. ~ NRS.EVE D1001N8~ THE PE7ITIONERo APPEARED OEFORE THE COMMISSION AND IND1~ ~ CATED THAT THE SUBJECT VARIANCE WAS REQJESTED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADDI~ TIONAL INCOME FOR HER FAMILY. -- 1~r --^-----^'^-'..~_._. .". ~ ~ 93 ~ ~ E~..,:.:_i,,:::~.::-.~:. ~`~_.._.:.~~.. __. MINUTES, CITY PIANNING CQMM1SS10N, MAttcH 20, 1961~ CONTINUED: VARIANCE N0.1344 - MRS. WILLIAM MACKERRON~ 1318 COLUMBINE PLACE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMIS- ~ CONTINUED SION~ SUBMITTED A pETITION OF OPPOSITION CONTAINING 53 SIGNATURES~ AND IN-~ ~ .,_,,,,,,.,_ DICATED THAT SHE REPRESENTED THE NEtGHBORS IN THE VICiNITY OF THE SUBJECT ~ PROPERiY. SHE STATED THAT THEY CON:iJDERED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A BEAUTY SHOP IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA TO BE DESRIMENTAL TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES BECAUSE COMMERCIAL USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY NOULD ESTABLISH AN UNDES~RABLE PRECE-~ DENT FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT~ WHICH WOULD DEPRECIATE THE VALUE OF THE ~ HOMES IN THE AREA, SHE STATED FURTHER TH'.T THERE ARE BEAUTY SHOPS WITH~N ~ WALKING DISTANCE AND THAT THE PARKING FACILITIES AVAILABLE WOULD NOT BE ~ ADEQUATE ALTHOUGH A ~IMITED AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC MOULD BE GENERATED BY THE . PROPOSED USE.OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. . MRS. DIGGtNS~ THE PETITIONER~ STATED IN REBUTTAL THAT THE REQUESTED USE WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE AREA~ AND THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE RE20NED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. SHE INDICATED THAT THE BEAUTY SHOP WOULD BE OPERATED ON AN APPOINTMENT BA515 FIVE HOURS A DAY~ THAT A MAXIMUM OF TWO WOMEN WOULD BE~SERVED AT ONE TIME~ THAT NO PROFESSIONAL EQUIPMENT WOUID BE I NECESSARYe AND THAT SHE D~D N07 CONSIDER HA1R DRYERS AS PROFESSIONAL EQUIP- ~ MENT BECAUSE THEY WERE A COMMON APPLlANCE IN OTHER HOMES. SHE STATED FUR- THER THAT BECAUSE OF THE LlMITED OPERATION~ PARKING WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM. ~ WAS CLOSEDS OF OPPOSITION WERE SUBMITTED.TO THE COMMISSION. THE HEARING ~ THE COMMlS510N NOTED THAT THE APPLICATION INDICATED AL50 THAT THERE WOULD ~ BH NO CHANQE IN THE APPEARANCE OF THE RESIDENCE~ THAT NO SIGNS WOULD BE DISPLAYED~ THAT THE BEAUiY SHOP WOULD BE ACCESSIBLE BY A PRIVATE ENTRANCE~ AND THAT IT WOULO NOT BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FAr.TS RE6ARDING THE SUBJECT PETpTION; 1. THAT THE PET7TIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE /INAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE: SECTION 18.24.010 WHICH STIPULATES PERMITTED US~S OF PROPERTY CLASSI- FIED IN THE R-1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE TO PERMIT THE USE OF ONE ~ ROOM OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FOR THE OPERATION OF A BEAUTY SHOP. 2. THAT THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDI- TIONS APPLI.^ABLE TO THE PROPERTY INVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR CLASS OF USE 1N THE SAME VIC1NlTY AND ZONE. ~ 3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE 15 NOT NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND j ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPER7Y , IN THE SAME VIClN1TY AND ZONE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. ~ 4. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUB- ! LIC WEI.FARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR 1MPROVEMENTS IN SUCH VICIN- ' ITY AND ZONE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, j 5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WI~L ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPREH£NSIVE GENERAL PLAN. 6. THAT THE REQUESYED VARIANCE WOUI.D NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTINQ I DEVELOPM~NT OF THE AREA. ~ ~ 7. VERBAL OPPOSITION~ IN ADDITION TO TWO LETTERS OF PROTEST AND A PETITION l OF OPPOSITION CONTAININO S3 SIGNATURES~ WERE RECORDED AdAlNST SUBJECT I PETiTfON FOR VARIANCE. COMMISSiONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 206~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED FOA iT5 PASSAGE AND ADOPT10k~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED~ TO DENY VARIA4CE N0. 1j44 ON THC BA515 OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDINGS. ON ROLL CALL THG.FOREGOING RESOLUTION 47p5 P~SSEO BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~GP.UER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ SUMMERS. NDES: COMMISSIONERS: MUNGALL. . , ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD. vAR1ANCE 1~0. ia4s-pUBLIC H~ARING. PETITION SU8M1TT60 ev JAMES E. ANC HELEN C. STARR~ 1462 KENWOOD AVENUE ANAHEIM CAl,IFORNIA OWNERS' REpUESTIKQ PERMIBSION TO WAIVE MINIMUM ~'RONT YARb SETBACK RE UIREMEN'~~~ TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL AND A 6 F00T MASONRY ~ALL TO Bt i:ONSTRUCTED TO WITHIN 2 FEET OF FRQM PROPERTY LINE IN ilRDER TO ENCLOSE PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL, oN FRO- PERT'i DESCRIBED AS:AN IRRB~ULARLY BHAPED pARCEL WITH A FRONTAQE OF 166 FEET ON KENWOOD AVENUE AIfD LOCATED ON THE EASTERLY 81DE OF KENWOOD AVENUE BE~ TWEEN ROMNEYA DRIVE AND PINENQOD AYENUE~ AND pURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1462 KENWOOD AVENUE. PROPERTY PREBENTLY CLASSIFIED R~1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZO~~. MR. JAMES STARR~ THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ AND INDI~ CATED THAT HE COULD NOT INSTALL A SWJMMING POQL UNLE55'HE WAS aRANTED PER- MISSfON TO UTILIZE TME FRONT YARD AREA BECAUSE OF THE IRRE~ULAR SHAPE.OF THE LOT. HE REQUE9TED THAT i1E BE ALLOWED TO INSTALL A 8!% F40T P.EDNOQD FENCE~ WHICH WOULD CONFORM TO THE ARCI'iJTECTURE OF THE F?tON7 OF THE RE41- ~ DENCE~ 1NSTEAD'OF THc REQUIRED BIX FOOT MA80NRY WALL. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ ~ ~ a 1~ ~ ~ ~ 94 FfTNUT'E5, C1TY PUINNING COMMISSION, MARCH 20~ i961~ CONTINUED: VARIANCE N0. 1345 ~ THE COMMISSION DlSCU55ED SAFETY FACTORS INVOLVED OUE TO THE pROPOSED.LOCA- CQNTINUED ,, TION OF THE POOL~ AND SUGaESTED THAT A BARRIER BE INSTAL~ED AT THE TOP OF THE FENCE TO ELIMlNATE THE DANGER OF CHILDREN CLIMB~N6 OYER THE FENCE. ..... _ _.._. . ~ •, THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWINa FACTS REGAftDING THE SUB- I JECT PET1T16N; ' 1, THAT THE PETiT10NER REQUE5T5 A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHf1M MUNCIPAL CODE: ~ SECTION 18.84.010 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMIN(B POOL AND A S1X FOOT FENCE IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD OF SUBJECJ PROPERTY. ; 2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS I APPLICABLE TO 7HE PROPERTY.INVOLVED OR TO THE IN7ENDED USE OF THE PRO- PERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR CLA55 OF USE iN TH5 SAME VIC1NlTY AND ZONE. ' 3. THAT THE REQUESiED VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND EN- ~ JOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PRCPERTY RlGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE' AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 4. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN SUCH V~CINITY AND ZONE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIAMCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN. • ' 6. THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS AN IRREdULARLY SHAPED PARCEL. THEREFORE~ IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A SNIMMING POOL IT IS NECESSARY TO UTILIZE THE FRONT YARD AREA. 7. NO ONE APPEARED iN OPPOSITlON TO SUBJECT PETITION FOR VARIANCE. ~ ~ COMMISSIONER MUNGALL OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 207~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED ~i FCR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED~ TO GRANT i VARIANCE N0. 1345~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ~ l. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED. . Z 2. PROVlSiON OF A SIX (6) FOOT REDWOOD FENCE TO WITHIN TWO (2) FEET OF THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. 3. PROVISION AND MAINTENANCE OF A TWO (2) F00T LANDSCAPED STRIP ABUTTINa ~ FRONT PROPERTY L~NE. THE FOREQOINa CONDIT10N5 WERE RECITED AT THE MEETINa AND WERE FOUND TO BE ~ A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE I THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREQOINfi RESOLUTION WAS PASSED 8Y THE FOLLOWINa VO7E; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLREO~ GAUER~ MARCCJX~ MORRIS~ MUN6ALL~ SUM~IERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSS HAPCi00D. ~ ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER LEFT THE COUNCIL CHAMBER AT 3210 P.M. ~ . O~CLOCK AND WAS REPLACED BY ASSISTANS CITY ATTORNEY ~OHN H. DAWSON. ~ VARIANCE N0. i346 - PUBLIC NEARING. PETiTION SUBMITTED ev SUN~IST HOMES, 2283 WesT LINCOLN AVENUE ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNER• RE4UESTING PERMIBSIOk TO WA1VE FRONTy ~ ~ REAR, ~IND SiDE YARC SETBACK REQUIR~MENTS ON PROPOSED SUBDIVISION LOTS, oN PROPE RTY DESCRIBED A8; AN IRREGULARLY BHAPED PARCEL WiTH A FRON7A6E Of 52S FEET ON RIO VISTA STREET AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF RIO VISTA : 'STREET BETWCEN LA PALMA AVENUE AND ANAHEIM~OLIVE ROAD~ EXTENDING WESTERLY TO THE PROPOSED FREEWAY RIdHT-OF~WAY~ AND BOUNDED ON THE NORTH EAST AND SOUTH BY THE CITY LIMITB. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R~A~ ~ESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE. ' MR. JACK COCHRAN~ THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND DE4~ CRIBED THE REQUESTED VARIANCES FROM THE CODE REQUIREMENTS~ CONSISTINa OF ONE OR MORE VARIANCE8 FOR EACH OF THE 120 LOTS OF THE SUB'~IVi510N. HE IN- ~ DICATED THAT THE AROPOSED BUBDIVIBION WAS ADJACENT TO AND IDENTICAL WITH ~ TRACT N0. 2767 WHICH HAO BEEN ACCEPTED WITN ENTHUSIASM BY HOME BUYERS. i MR. RAYMOND CRO58~ 8059 TOARMINO DRIVE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION ; AND INDICATED THAT HE DID NOT CONBIDER VARIANCES NECE88ARY FOR~THE OE~ VELOPMEN7 OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ THAT THE PROPERTY COULD BE SUBDIVIDED. WITHOUT REQUIRINQ NAIVER OF THE MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMENTS~ THAT 37 FEET TOTAL FOR ?RONT AND BACK YARD AREA WAS :7:ADEQUATE~ AND THAT IT WAB POSSIBLE TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE REQUIREMENTS BY C~°:DUCIN3 THE NUMBER OF PROP04ED I LOT 5. i MR. COCHRAN STATED THAT THE POSITION OF SHE A7;ACHED GARAOES IN FRONT OF ~ ~ ~ THE RESIDENCES ADDED DEPTH TO THE LOT AND PROVIDED AN APPROXIMATE 45 FOOT I SETBACK FOR THE RESIDENCE FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. HE STATED FURTHER THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO OBTAIN VARIANCES IN ORDER TO DEVELOP THE THREE I . I ;, 95 MINUTES, CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSlON~ MARCH 20~ 1961, CONTINUED: VARIANCE N0. 1346 - PROPOSED BASIC F~OOR PLANS~ THAT THE PROPERTIES NOU~D PROVIDE 7200 SQUARE CONTINUED FEET TOTAL LOT AREA IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE REQUIREMENTS~ AND THAT THE LIVING AREA RANGED FROM 1400 TO 1600 SQUARE FEET IN THE VARIOUS MOOELS. THE HEARING wAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE REQUIREMENTS FOR MAINTAINING 25 F00T FRONT YARD SETBACKS~ PARTICULARLY Ok MAJOR STREETS~ AND INDICATED THAT THE PRO- POSE~ LOTS FRONTING ON R10 VISTA STREET WERE INADEQUATE FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED ON A PROPOSED SECONDARY HIGHWAY. THE PROBLEM OF INADEQUATE FRONT AND 51•DE YARD SETBACKS ESTABLISHED IN THE ADJACENT TRACT AND IN OTHER AREAS WAS ALSO DISCUSSED~IN ADDITION TO THE PROBLEM OF ESTABLISHING THE PROPER AMOUNT OF LIVING AREA NECESSARY FOR P. RESIDENCE CONTAINING THREE GARAGES. MR. COCHRAN INDICATED THAT THE REAR YARDS OF 9O OF THE ~OTS CONFORMED TO THE CODE REQUIREMENT AND THAT 30 OF THE H0~1E5 UTILIZED A PORTION OF THE YARD REQUIREMENT FOR tNtERIOR PATIOS. HE STATED THAT THE FLOOR PLAN CONTAINING THE CENTRAL PAT10 HAD PROVEN TO BE VERY POPULAR AND NAS IN DEMAND BY THE PUBLlC. THE COMMt55i0N FOUND AND ~)ETERMlNED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE SUB- JECT PETITtON: 1. THAT THE PETITIONER REQUE5T5 A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM ~UkICIPAL CODE: SECTION 17.08.100 (C) WHICH REQUIRES THAT REVERSED CORNER LOTS HAVE A ~ MtNJMUM WIDTH OF 78.5 FEET TO PERMlT THE LAYOUT OF REVERSE CORNER LOT NOS. 38 AND 43 OF TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 3390 HAVING MINIMUM MIDTHS OF 76.64 FEET~ AND SECTION 18.24.030 (1-A~ 2 AND 3) WHICH STIPULATES THE REQUIRED FRONT~ REAR~ AND SIDE YARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS TO PER- MIT THE DEVELOPMENF OF THE 120 LOTS HAVING FRONT~ REAR~ AND SIDE YARDS AS SHOWN ON THE PLOT PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE FETITIONER, 2. THAT THERE ARE NO EXCEPTlONAL OR EXTRAORD~NARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDI- TIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY INVOLVEO OR TO THE INTENDED USE OF THE PkOPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY ~ENERAiLY TO THE PROPERTY OR CLASS OF USE IN THE SAME VICINITV AND ZONE. 3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARlANCE IS NOT NECESSARV FOR THE PRESERVAT~ON AND ENJOYMEN7 OF A SUBSTANTiAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. A. T4AT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL BE MATERIALLY DEYRIMENTAL TO THE PUB- LIC MELFARE OR :NJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN SUCH VICINITY AND 20NE IN WHlCH.THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPREHENSIVE ; GENERAL PLAN. 6. THAT THE REAR YARD SETBACKS DO NOT PROVIDE SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF REAR YARD AREA. 7. THAT THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS ON THE CORNER LOTS ARE INADE~UATE. 8. THAT THE PROPOSED PLAN N0. 6026 DOES NOT PROVIOE SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF LI.VIN~ AREA TO WARRANT THREE CAR QARA~ES. 9. THAT THE PROPOSED FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR LOTS FRONTIN~ ON RIO VISTA • STREET DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR A 25 F00T FRONT YARD SETBACK. 10. VERBAL OPPOSITION WA5 RECORDED AdA1NST THE PETITION FOR VARIANCE. COMMIS510NER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 208~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND MOVEO FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONOED BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS~ 7HAT VARI- ANCE N0. 1346 BE DENIED ON TME BA515 OF THE AFOREMENTIONEO FINDINGS. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED 8Y THE FOLLOWIN~ VOTE: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUXo MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. NpES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPOOOD. VARIANCE N0. 1347 - pUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED sv MELVIN L. AND DONNA D. SCHARNWEBER, BOX 340~ PERRISy CALIFORNIA~ OWNERS~ ROBERT S. UNGER, 354 ORANGEWOOD AVE~ NUE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ A~ENT~ REQUE571NG PERMISSION TO WAIVE THE ANP- HEIN MUNCIC~PAL CODE REQUIREMENTS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 18.16.010 (1) - AUTHORI2ING THE USE OF THE PROPcRTY HEREIN DESCRIBED FOR GROUP DWELLING DEVELOPMENT AND PROJECTS IN SAID R~A ZONE. •SECTION 16.16.030 (1) ~ WAIVIN6 THE'25 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK. SECTION 1$.16.030 (4^C) - YA1VtNG THE DENSITY REQUIREMENT OF ONE LIV- )NG UNIT PER 6000 SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA AND AUTHORIZING A DENSITY OF ONE LfV1Na UNIT PER 2268 SQUARE FEET OF LOT AREA. SECTION 18.04.090 ('L~G) - WAIVINO THE HEI4HT LIM1T OF 3~ FEET OF OPEN- WORK FENCE IN THE REQUIRE~D FRONT YARD AND AUTHORIZiNG A 6 F00T H16H . . , ~ - .. ~ . . . . . . . .' .~."i '----- ~~ ,. s ,. . i_~"~+it~...~n ~_ . , . . ~ ( . ., . . .. . . . . . . t..._. . .4r: ;w-r'" , . .. .. . ' ' . . , ~ ~ _. __ ___~.~.__-._.- . ....., .. - ....;:~. . ~ ~~ ,.~ ~ 96 MINUTES, CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION, MnRCi~ 20, 1961, CONT~NUED; YARIANCE N0. 1347 - MASONRY AND STEEL FENCE ALONG THE FRONT PROPER7Y I.INE AS INDICATED ON CONTiNUED THE PLANS SUBMITTED~. ~ ' ~~ MENT!!N AN•R?3oZONE2AND ALLOWNNGTAE57FOOTOSIDEDYARDRSETBACKUONRTHE1Re_ SUBJECT PROPERTY. SECTION 18.32.030 " WAlVING THE 25 F00T SPP.CE REQUlREMENT BETWEEN BUILDINGS ARRANGED FRONT TO FRONT IN AN R-3 ZONE AND ALIOWING A 23 FOOT SPACE BETWEEN BUILDIN65 ARRANGED FRONT TO FRONT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SNGTINNTHE~R?31ZONE1T0 BEAINiAGGARAGERANDSAUTHORIZINGFAND~PERMNTTINGK CARPORTS IN PLACE OF SAID GARAGES. ACCOt~!ODAT80N60F1NOTZMOREwTHANN4 CARSPTOVALLOWSANHACCOMODATION'OF 120 CARS. SECTION 18.16.030 (4-A) ~ WAIVlNG THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT OF 55 FEET AND THE MINiMUM LOT AREA OF 6000 SQUARE FEET AND AUTHOR- IZINfi A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 2268 SQUARE FEET PER DWELLING UNIT. SECTION 18.16.030 (4-8~ - WAIViNG THE MINIMUM AREA OF ONE ACRE PARCELS OTHER THAN DESIaNATED LOTS 1N A SUBDIVISION IN AN R-A ZONE AND AUTHOR- 121NG A MINIMUM L07 AREA OF 2268 SQUARE FEET PER GWELLING UNIT OR PER FAMt~Y. ~ PROPERTY DESCRtBED AS: A PARCEL 330 FEET BY 630 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF ~ 330 FEET ON HAS7ER STREET AND LOCATED ON THE WEST S1DE OF HASTER STREET BETWEEN KATELLA AND ORANGEWOOD AVENUES~ tT5 NORTHEAST CORNER BEING APPROXI- STRELT.SPROPERTYSPRESENTLYHCLA551FIEOTRCO~RNRESIDENTIALLAGRICULTURQL,HZONER ~ MR. BOB UNGER~ AGENT FOR THE PETIT)ONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION ~ AND REV1EWED PREV:OUS ACTION ON SUBJECT PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WiTH CON- DITIONAL USE PERMtT N0. 98• HE STATED THAT THE COMMISSION HAD ADOPTED ~ RESOLUT I ON N0. 158, SERI Es i9oC~-ol ~ 8ii ~i:.CiL'A°Y 15 ~ 1?51. GRANT I Nc, THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITo SUBJECT TO RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TO ~ THE R~3~ MULTIPLE. FAMlLY RESiDENT1AL9 ZONE. HE STATED FURTHER THAT THE LIST OF VARIANCES lNCLUDED 3N SUBJECT PETITION WERE DRAWN UP AY THE C.ITY i ATTORNEY~S OFFICE BY THE DIRECTIVE OF THE CITY COUNCIL~ AND THAT HE CONSI~ ; DERED SOME OF THEM NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRO- j PERTY. MR. UNGER lNFORM~D THF. COMMISSION THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPFIENT MAS IDENTICAL TO THAT CONSIDERED IN T_HE PREVl0U5 PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND THAT THE PETITfONER INTENDE~ TO ESTABLISH A PLANNED 11N1T DEVELOPMENT FOR WHICH THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE CODE. MR. BILL BRISTOL~ 300 WEST KATELLA AVENUE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ REPRESENT~NG THE RIVIERA MOB:LE TRAILER PARK~ STATED HE OID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO R-3 ZONING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ AND REQUESTED PERMIS- SION TO VIEW THE PROPOSED PLANS. MR. BRISTOL INDICATED HE DID OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED REDUCTION FROM THE CODE REQUIREMENT OF 7} FEET SIDE YARD SET- BACK TO 5 FEET SIDE YARD SETBACK~ AND THAT HE WOULD OBJECT TO HAVING A ROADWAV INSTALLED ADJACENT TO HIS PROPERTY. THE PETITtONER INDICATED THAT HE DID NOT INTEND TO LOCATE A ROADWAV IN THAT AREA. THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT THE SUBJECT PETITION HAD BEEN REFERRED TO THEM FOR ACTION BECAUSE THE CITY COUNCIL HAD DETERt•11NED THAT THE PROPERTY IS TECHNICALLY INCLUDED IN THE D~SNEYLAND AREA AND AS SUCH COULD BE CONSI- DERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VARIANCE POLICY FOR THE DISNEYLAND AREA AS DELIM~TED ON THE GENERAL PLAN. IT WAS AL50 NOTED THAT THE PET~TIONER HAD NOT REVISED THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS WHICH WERE CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTtON WITH THE PETITION FOR COND1T10NAL USE PERMfT. MR. MELVIN SCHARNWE:BER APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISS~ON AND REV~EWED DE- SITYPFORTCOMPLYINaRWITH THEMCODEOREQUTREMENTS'SN'REGARDCTOSPROVIDINGCES~ GARAGES FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE COMMISBION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWINd FACTS REOARDIN~ THE SUB~ JECT PETiTI.ON: • 1. THaT THE PETITIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE; ^ $ECTION 18.16.010 (1)~ $ECTION 18.16.030 41 SECTION 18.16.030 (4-C)~ $ECTION 18.04.090 (2-a) $ECTION 18.32.OBO ~~L) SECTION 18.32.030, SeCTION 18.32.120 (1)~ ~ECTION 18.16.010 (2)~ S~~CTION 18.16.030 (4-A)~ PERTYEFOR GRQUP1DWELLING DEVELOPMBNT'ANDHPROJECTgPMNNTHEFRSABJRESIDEN~ TIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE. 2. THAT THERE ARE E%CEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDI~ TIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY IWVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED USE CF, THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOi APPLY ~ENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR CLA58 OF USE ~N THE SAME VICINITY aND ZONE. 3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NECE88~.°.Y FOR THE PRESERVATION AND EN- THEM9AME~VICINITYTAND'ZONER~ANOTDENIEDTTOOTHESPROPERTYTINRQUESTEONY,IN ~_.._~^_~ .~ _ _.._ r.~ ; ,~ .,. ~ . 1 , . _ _..,-..::.; . . --.__.. ~ C~ } ~ 5~ MINUTES, CtTY PU4NNiNG COMMISSION, MARCH 20, 1961~ CONTINUED: VARIANCE N0. 1347 ~ 4. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WI~L NOT DE MATER~ALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE CONTINUED pUBLiC WELFARE OR INJUR10U5 TO THE PROPERTY OR lk°ROVEMENTS iN SUCH COMD1T10NAL USE P~RM IT N0. ~ 05 &.. YIC1NlTY ANO ZONE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. • 5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARlANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPR6HENSIVE GENERAL PIAN. . . 6. VERBAL OPPOSITION TO THE SUBJECT PETITION FOR VARIANCE WAS RECORDED.. COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED RESOlUTION N0. 209~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND MOVED FOR 1T5 PASSADE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX~ TO aRANT VARIANCE N0. 1347~ SU83ECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDIT10N5: 1, DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED. 2. PROVISION OF QARAGES 9} FEET BY 20 FEET 1N SIZE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE REQUIREMENTS. 3. DEDICATION OF 45 FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF HASTER STREET (30 FEET EXISTINfi). . 4. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND lNSTALLATION OF ALL IM- PROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER. 5. PAYMENT OF 52.00 PER FRONT F00T FOR STREET LI~HTINO PURPOSES. 6. PAYMENT OF ~25.00 PER DWELLINa UN)T PARK & RECREATION FEE TO 8E COL- LECTED AS PART OF BUILDlN~ PERMIT. 7. PROVISIONS FOR ADEQUATE TRASH STORA6E AND PICKUP. COLLECTION ON PRI~ VATE PROPER7Y SHALL BE ARRANOED WITH CONTRACTOR. THE FORE40ING CQNDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETINQ AND WERE FOUND TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE 70 THE USE OF THE PROPE RTY !N ORAER TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY ANID WELFARE OF THE C1T12EN5 OF ANAHEIM. ON ROLL CA~L THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE; AYES; COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRISp MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. A6SENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD. • - RUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED sv ROBERT L. CLIFFORD, c/o LEONARD SMITH REAL ESTATE 125 SOUTH CLAUDINA STREET~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNER; RlCHFIELD GIL CORf~ORl~TIO~!, 300 NORTH WiLSHIRE AVENUE ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA~ ADENT~ REQUESTlNG PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERAT~ A SERVI~E STA710N, ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5: A PARCEL 100 FEET BY 125 FEET WITH A FRONTAQE OF 100 FEET ON CENTER STREET AND LOCATED ON THE 50UTHWEST CORNER OF CENTER AND ROSE STREETS~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1U20 EAST~CENTER STREET. PRO- PERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED C-i~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE. MR. LEONARD SMITN~ REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PETITIONER~ APpEARED .BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ DESCRlBED Tl1E PROPOSED SERVICE STATION UNIT TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE RICHFIELD OIL CORPORATION~ AND REQUESTED THAT THE C-1 DEED RESTRIC- TIONS IMPOSED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM BE REMOVED. MRS. NELLIE APPLEY~ 115 ROSE STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ SUB- MfTTED A PETITION OF OPPOSITION CONTAININ6 22 SIGNATURES~ AND STATED THAT THERE ARE FOUR SERVlC£ STATlOHS AT TME PRESENT TItAE WITHlN ONE BLOCK OF THH SUBJECT PROPERTY. SHE INDICATED THAT THE ADDITION OF ANOTHER SERVICE STATION IN THE AREA WOULD JNCREASE THE EXISTINd TRAFFIC PROBLEM. A LETTER OF PROTEST~ S~GNED BY FRANK GIBBS~ 929 EAST CENTER STREET~ WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION. MR. SM1THo 1N REBUTTAL; STATED THAT THE PAR- TIES INVOIVED IN THE SUBJECT PETITION WERE QUALIFIED TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT NAS FEASI9LE TO LOCATE ANOTHER SERVICE STATION IN THE AREA. HE INDI- CATED THAT THE 01~ COMPANY REQUESTED REMOVAL OF THE ARCHITECTURAL RESTRIC- TIONS ESTABLISHED ON SUBJECT PROPERTY~SO THAT TH6 FLOW OF TRAFFIC COULD; BE DiRECTED ON THE PROPERTY~AND BECAUSE ARCHITECTURAL CONSTRUCTION OF SER- VICE STATIONS HAS BECOME STANDARIZED. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FAC75 REGARDING THE SUB- JEQT PETITION: 1. THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS NOT PRQPERLY ONE FOR WH1CH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1S AUTHOR~ZED BY THTS CODE~ TO WIT: A SERVICE STATION. 2. THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL ADVERSELY AFFEC7 THE ADJOINiNG LAND USES AND THE pROWTM AND DEVELOPMENT OF TME AREA tN WHICH IT IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATEC. 3. THAT THE St2E AND SHAPE OF THE SIT~ PROPOSED FOR TNE USE IS NOT ADE~ OUATE TO ALLOW THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED USE IN A MAN4ER NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE PAR7ICULAR AREA NOR TO THE PEACE~ HEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND QENERAL WEIFARE OF THE C1T12EN5 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. i ~. ___ ,.._.... _ _ _.~____.___.~._~_._..,....- _ „„~ . . -----~--. . .. . , . . . ,. . . . _ _ -'~- , .. -..~ ..~- ~ ... .. ~.~. :~. ~ .. ~-:. :...~i,.~ ...~,..:. .. . '~~ '~ . ~ ~ ~. . ~~~ . ~ . . . ~ ...~. , ,.~..:• ~E..+ ...~. . _ .- --_._.. CONDiT10NAL USE PERMIT Nb. 105 CON01TlONAL USE P_ERMIT N0. 106 98 ~ 4. THAT~THE TRAFFLC ~ENE,RATED BY TFIE PROPOSED USE W1LL IMPOSE AN UNDJE ~ BURDEN UPON THE S7REETS !ND H1.6HWAY5 DESIaNED AND IMPROVED TO CARRY THE TRAFFJC 1N TNE AREA. 5. THAT THE aRANT1NQ OF THE COND1710NAL USE PERM17 UNDER THE CONDITIQNS ~ IMI'OSED~ IF ANYo WILL BE DETRIMENTAI TO THE PEACE~ HEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND G=NERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANO.HEIM. ~ 6. Ti+AT THE PRECEDENT FOR C~1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ DEVELOPMENT IS j ESTABLlSHED ON THE PROPERTY ABUTTJN4 SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE WE9T~ ! CA~~TNEIGIiDORHOODRCOMMERCIALuLZONINQEESTABLISHEDAFORR5AN0EPR PERTYE 7. VER%~L ORPOSiT10N~ 1N ADDITION TO A LETTER OF PR~TEST AND A PETITION ' OF OPPOSITION CONTAINING 22 S1CiNATURES~ NAS RECORDED AfiA1N5T PETITI.ON • FOR C4tNDITIONAL USE PGRMIT. COMM155IONER MARCC~UX OFFERED RESOLUTLON N0. 210~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED ~ FOR ITS PASSA6E AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALIRED~ TO DENY ; CONOITIONAL USE PERMlT N0. 105 ON THE BA515 OF THE AFOREMEHTIONED FINDlN45. ! ON ROLL CALL THE FORE(i01NG RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOI.LOWIN~ VOTE: ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERSS ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ Ml1N~ALL~ SUMIdERS. ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSEMT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPa00D. ~ - PUBLIC~HEARtNG. PETITION SUBMITTED eY IDA M. RANNOM, 1525 SoutH fiUCLID ~ AVENUE~ ANAHEIM' CALIFORNIA~ OWNER~ 7EMPLE BETH EMET, 400 NOR7H EMILY STREET ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIAo AOENT~ REQUESTIN6 PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERAT~ A JEWISH TEMPLE AND SCHOOL~ oN PROPERTY DESCRIBED ns: A PARCEL 339 FEET BY 642 FEET M1TH A FRONTADE OF 339 FEET ON•CERRITOS AVENUE AND i..,.:;ATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CERRITOS AVENUE 8E7WEEN EUCLID AVENUE••AND , 1'ILD FASHION YIAY~ 1T5 NORTHEAST CORNER BElN3 APPROXIMATELY 960 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTHMEST CORNER OF EUCLID AND CERRITOB AVENUE. PROPERTY PRESENTLY GLRSS!FlEP R-A; RESlDENT1AL AGRICULTURAL. ZONE. ~ MRS. ROBERT RENWICK~ 1816 HARLE AVENUE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMM15510N~ STATED 7HAT SHE WAS P.EPRESENTINO RESIDEMTS IN THE AREA~ AND THAT THEY OBJECTED TO THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF A TEMPLE AND SCHOOL FACILiT1.E5 ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SHE 1NDICATED TkAT THE OBJECTIONS WERE BASED UPON THE POSSIBILITY THAT DRAINAQE PROBLEMS IN TNE AREA MOULD BE INCREASED~ THAT PARKINO FACILlTIES NOULD NOT BE ADEQUATE~ THAT A SCHOOL LOCATED ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MAS UNDESIRABLE~ AND BECAUSE PLANB FOR T'HE DE~ VELOPMEH7 HAD NOT BEEN AVAJLABLE UPON REQUEST BY THE ADJACENT PROPERTY i OMNERS. i i COMMISSNONCAND'SHESREQUESTEDxTNATNTHEkPRESENTPSITUATIONF EHENVESTItiATEDTHE ~ SHE INDICATED THAT SHE'CONSIDERED USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO BE'MORE j , SUITABLE FOR RESIDEN't1AL PURPOSES. ~ MR. LEONARD GARBER~ REPRESENTAT.IVE OF THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE ~I COMMISSION AND STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FOR THE PROPOSED USE BECAUSE IT WAS THE ONLY AVAILABLE LOCATION AND THAT THE PURCHASE WAS CON~ TIN6ENT UPON APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT P~TITION. MR. LEROY ROSE~ REPRESENTA71'E OF THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COM~ Idi5510N AND STATED THAT HE WAS FANILIAR WITH 7HE DRAINAQE PROBI.EM AND , THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS. HE DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED DEVELCPMEN7 AND INDICATED THAT THE DRAINA6E PROBLEMS COULD 8E R£SOLVED. THE COFiMIS510N DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF RELOCATINQ THE PROPOSED BUILD~ INOS AND THE PETIT1OiiER~S REPRESEN7ATlVES INDICATED TNAT CONSTRUCTION PLANS HAD BEEN BASED UPON THE AMOUNT OF LAND AVAILABLE~ THAT DEVELOPMENT WOULD CRTYRWAS FORFAPPROXIMATELY 300~PERSONSAMtTHHPARKIN6PFACILITtESAFOR6360PA AUTOMOBILES. MR. RICHARD ELLIS~ 1803 B~IRNARDY PLACE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMM1551ON AND INDICATED THAT HE OBJECTED TO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THE RESIDENTIAL AREA IN ADDITION TO THE OBJECTION~ PREVIOUSLY CUTLINED. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ' THE COMMISSION D)SCUSSED 7HE DRAINA3E PROBLEMS IN THE SUBJECT AREA'~ THE NEEI? FOR AN ENQINEERINa STUDY TO DETERNlNE THE AFFECT OF THE PROPOSED DE~ VEI.OPM&HT 1H RESPECT TO THE DRA1NACiE OF THE.PROPERTY~ AND 7HE NECESSITY• . FOR MORE DETAlLED PLANS (NDICA71N0 THE ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. COqi~i 1 S.S i Oi~ER M!lMfiQiL 4FFERED d MOT 1 QN ~ 5ECONDED 8Y COMM I SS I ONER AI.LRED AND CARRI.ED~ THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMLT N0. 106 BE CONTINUED • UNTIL THE MEETINO OF APRIL 17ti 1961 lN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE PETI.TIONER AN OPPORTUHITY TO SUBMIT DETAILED PLOT AND ELEVATION PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED DENELOPMENS AND TO PROVIDE AN EH4LNEERiN~ STUAY AND PLAN (N RESPECT TO THE DRAINAQE OF 7WE SUBJECT PROPERTY. ~ ~' ^ ~ ,( ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ---• , ~. ._-.-,~.-. • _ ,._.;:.__... _.~_.=j ~ 99 ~ a ~ ~ I ~ ~ s~ r. MINUTES, CITY PLANNiNG COMMISS10~1, MaRC-+ 20, 1961, CONTINUED: ~ RECLASSIFICATION NO - PUBLIC HEARiNG. PETITION SUBMlTTED er DES l~ik PROPERTIES iNC. 371-B . 60-61-75 , , REDONDO AVENUE~ LONG BEACH 14~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNER~ REQUESTINQ THAT PROPER7Y DESCRIBED AS; A PARCEL 88 FEET BY 138 FEET HITH A FRONTAGE OF 88 FEET ON KtiT ELLA AVENUE AND LOCAT . ED ON THE NORTH S~DE OF KATELLA AVENUE BETWEEN BAYLESS AND NINTH STREETS~ ITS SOUTHEAST CORNER BEIN~ APPROXIMATELY 152 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHNEST CQRNER OF NINTH STREET AND KATELLA AYENUE AND J FURTHER DESCR~BED AS 1515 WEST KATELLA AVENUE~ 9E RECLA551FIED FROM THE R-1 ONE FAMfLY RESIDEP~TIAL, ZONE To THE C-i, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ~ ~ ZON (RE9TRICTED TO PROFESSIONAL USES). ~ , ; ~ MR.~CLAIR PIERCE~ SE9RETARY OF THE DES AIR PROPERTIES~ INC, AppEARED BE- I I ~ FORE THE COMMISSION AND READ A LETTERD DATED FEBRUARY 8~ 1961~ TO THE COMMISSION DESCRIBING THE PROPOSED j . ~ USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE. ~' ~ MR. $TANLEY STOBAUGH~ 1524 HOLGATE PLACE~ APPEARED BEFOR~ THE COMMISSION~ STATED THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAD BEEN USED FOR A FROFESSIONAL OFFICE FOR TH ~ REE YEARS~ AND INDICATED THAT HE WAS OPPOSED TO REZONING OF PRO- PERTIES ABUTTING KATELLA AVENUE. HE INQUIRED ABUUT PARKING FACILITIES FOR THE PROPOSED USE AND THE TYPES OF PROFESSIONA~ OFFICES BEING CONSI^ ~ ERED FOR THE PROPERTY. . . MR. PIERCE STATED THAT THE COMPANY~S BUSINESS WAS CONSIDERED BASICAL~Y A REA ~ L ESTATE BYSLE~E55. HOWEVER; DEFINITE PLANS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY NERE NOT AVAILABLE BECAUSE THE USE OF THE BUILDING DEPENDED UPON THE LEASING OF THE PROPERTY. HE STATED THAT THE SUBJECT PkOpERTY WAS NO LONG- ER SUIT.ABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES DUE TO THE TRAFFIC ON KATELLP. AVENUE ~ AND THAT THERE WERE COMMERCIAL USF.S IN THE VICINITY. HE INDtCATED rHAT ADEQUATE PAR A . KING AREA W S AVAILABLE AT THE REAR OF THE P:._°ERTY. THE HFARING WAS CLOSED. ~ THE COMMISSION DlSCUSSED PREVIOUS ACTION~ IN NOV~MBER~ 1959i REGARDING SUBJECT ANO ABUTTING PROPERTIES TO THE WEST~ AT WhIICH TIME A REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION TO C-1~'NE~GHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ 115E WAS DENIED BY THE COMMISSI C ON AND THE ITY COUNCIL. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE 5UB- ~ JECT PETITION; ~ 1, THAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY FROM THE R-1~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIpt., ZONE TO 7HE C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE T ~ O PERMIT USE OF i.~v EXISTING RESIDENCE FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ON~Y. ~ 2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT N_CES- ' SARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE COM- i MUNITY. 3. THAT THE PROPOSED REClA551FICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT PRO- PERLY RELATE TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PERMITTED USES LOCALLY ESTA6LISHED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PER- MITTED USES QENERALLY ESTA6_~SHED THROUGHOUT THE CpMMUNITY. ~ 4. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICAT~ON OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES REQUIRE ' STANDARO IMPROVEMENT OF ABUTTIN6 STREETS BECAUSF SAID PROPERTY DOES RELATE TO AND ABUT UPON STREETS AND H~GHWAYS WHICH ARE IMPROVED TO ~ CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANTITY OF TRAFFIC~ WHICH WILL BE GENERATED BY ~ THE PERMITrcD USES, Ik ACCORDANCE W~TH THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL P~A.,,. 5. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION TO TNE C-1~ NEI~HBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ~ 20NE OF TME SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD ESTABLISH AN UNDEStRABLE PRECEDENT FOR COMMERCIAI DEVEIOPMENT OF THE PROP£RSI£5 A8UTTING ON.TNE WEST. 6. VERBAL OPPnSIT10M TO THE PETITION FOR RECLASSIPICATION WAS RECORDED AGAINST SCBJECT P:TITION. COMMISSIONER MUNGALL OFFERED RESOLUTtON N0. 211~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS~ RECOMMEND- ING TO THE C~TY COUNCtL THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATtON N0. 60-61-75 BE ~ DENIED OtJ THE 8A515 OF THE AFOREMENT10~7ED FINDINGS. ON ROLL CALL THE FORE(i01NG RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SIIMMERS. NOES: COMNISSIONERS: NONE. ~ • ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSO HAPGOOD. REC UISSIFICAl'ION NO 60 6 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SU9MITTED ev JOHN N. OND MARINETE J. DOVALIS . - 1-7(~ ~ , 635 FLINT AVENUE~ LONG SfiAC;:, GALiFORNIA~ OIdNERS~ SNELDON CHfP CHASiN ~ , P.O. BOX 842t BALBOA~ CALIFORNIA~ AGENTj.REQUE5TIN6 TNAT PROPERTY DES- CRIBED A5: A PARCEL 108 FEET BY 250 FEET WITH A FRONTAOE OF 108 FEET ON BALL ROAD N A D LOCATED pk THE NORTH SIDE OF BALL R4AD BETWEEN DALE AVENUE AND GAYMONT STREET 17S SOUTHEA ~ ST CORNER BE1NG APPROXIMATELY 520 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BA~L ROAD AND DALE'AVENUE~ AND FURTHER DESCRI9ED AS 2831 WEST BALL ROAD BE REC~ASS~FIED FROM THE R-A~ RESIDFNTIAL AGRICUL~ TURAL ZONE R- MU ~ TO THE 3, LTiPLE FAMiIY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. ~ ~ - - - - ~; _.. ._ _._ . -- -- ~ - . --- N~ . ; ,.~ - ~ , ; , t - ,. ; . _ _ .,.. _...--- -- _.~ ~ t~ ~ ioo MINUTES, C1TY PLANNiNG COMMISSION, MnRCH 20, 1961, CONTINUED: ~ RECLASSIt'!i•AT10N ~ THE PETITIONER APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION, PRESENTED REVISED PLANS AND INDICATED THAT ARTMENT BU~ILDINa ~ NO. 60~61--iii ~ FOR THE DEYELOPMENT OF AN 18 UNIT AP TO PROVIDE FOR AN ALLEY AT THE NORTHERLY PRO- CQNTINUF:D THE PLAN HAD BEEN AMENDED Y LINE OF SUBJECT PROPF,rZTY WITH ACCE55 TO 7HE ALLEY BY A DRIVEWAY PERT FROM BALL ROAD. 7HE HEAPiNG NAS CLOSED. ~ THE C01~9MISSION Di5CU55ED THE PROPOSED USE '.F THE SUBJECT AND ABUTTIN(i 55 BALL ROAD ON THE SOUTH. IT 1 PROPERTlES AND THE PROPERTIES LOCATED ACR~ ED RECLASSIFICATION WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH TkE ~ WAS NOTED THAT THE PROPOS PRECISE PLA,N RECENTLY RECOMMENDED FOR THE UL':MATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE E ASPHALT DRIVE^ ~ SUBJECT AREA. THE COMMlSS10N AL.50 DISCUSSED THE USE OF 7H S R N Y P T T Y BILITY POSS THE AND PROPEFTYO OF THE REAR YTHE~PROPOSED~GARAGESHATATHE TO THAT THE DRIVEWAY COULD BE ABANDOt1ED UPON COMPLEI'ION OF THE 0._LEY FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WESTERLY TO DALE AVENSIE. TEOOFF STR~cTPPARKINGULD H M E E o 1 OF ADEQUA PROVISION THE WITH APARTMENTS 18 CONTAIN VARtANCE NOULD BE REQUESTED IN ORDER TO CONSTR!JCT AND THAT A PETIT)ON FOR SIN~LE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ 150 FEET OF THE R~1 ~ TWO STORY STRUCTURES WITHIN ZONE. ' THE CCMMISSION FOUND AND DETER611NED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REQARDING THE SUB- ` JEC'f PETiTlON: j ~ 1. THAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ~ MULTIPLE ~ THE R-3 ~ FROM THE R~A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL. ZONE TO VELOPMENT OF AN 18 UNIT APART- E ^Q ~ . FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE TO PERMIT TH MENT BUILDIN6. _ ~ 2. THAT THE PROPOSED REClA551FICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NECESSARY j ENT OF THE COMMUNITY. p'" .'ESlRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPM 3, 1~. iHE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES PROPERLY ESTABLISHED IN R....~.fE TO THE ZONES AND THEIR Pk.RMITTED USES LOCALLY RTY AND TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PER- M1 CLG5E PROXIMITY TO S~'B.~EC7 PROPE MITTED USES uENERALLY E~TAHLISHEa THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITV. ~ 4. TNAT TME PP.f" QSED REC4ASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES REQUIRE ~ STREETS BECi.USS DEDICATION i'l'iR AND STANDARD IMPROVEMENT OF ABUTTING ' Y H E S B N ~ BE ~7~LL vIHICH TRAFFNC~ OF QUANTITY AND AREDPROP05EDYTOOCARRYLTHE TYPE GENERATED BY THE PERMI7TED U;'S~ IN ACCOr2DANCE WITH THE CLRCULATION ~ ELEMtNT Oi THE GENERAL PLAN. .. i 5. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN ACCOR- ~ CT AR£A . DANCE WITH THE PRECISE PLAN RECOMMENDED FOR THE SUBJE 6. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO :'~E SUBJECT PETITION. ; COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 212~ SERIES 1?60-61~ ANO MOVED Y COMMISSIONER MUNGALL AND CARRIED~ ', FOR ITS PASSAQE AND ADOPTI~N~ SECONDED B HE CITY COUNCIL THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. ~ RECOMMENDING TO ~ ! 60-61-76 BE GRANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOILOWING CONDITIONS: 1. DEDICATION OF 53 !'EET FROM THE MONUMENTED CEI~TERLINE OF BALL ROAD I (30 FEET EXISTING~. 2. DEDICATION OF 20 FEET FOR AN AILEY ALONG THE N(+RTHERLY PROPERTY LINE. 3. PREPARATION OF STREET AND ALLEY IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF APPROVED S7ANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN ALL IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE W~TH THE OFFICE OF THE CITY EN6INEER. . 4: PAYMENT OF a2.00 PER FRONT F00T FOR STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES. 5. TIME LlMITATION OF 90 DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITEM NOS. 1~ 2~ 3~ AND 4. ~ 6. SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF A PETITION FOR VARIANCE FROM THE CODE RE- FEETEOFNTHE1Ri1~NSIN~EEHFAMILY~RE5IDENTIALS ZONENE STORY WIT}11N 150 7. FILING OF STANDARD R~3~ MULTIPLE ~AMILY RESIDENTIAL~ DEED RESTRICTIONS. 8. DEVEl.OPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY•IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED AND DATEO MARCN 20. 1961. THE FORE~OINa CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT TkE MEETIN~ AND WERE FJUND TO~BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY ~N ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFAFlE OF THE CITtZENS OF ANAHEIM. ON ROLL CALL TkE FOREDOINa RESOLUTION WAS PA55ED BY THE FOLLON~NCi V07E: AYESS COMMISSIONERS: ALLREDe ~AUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNOALL~ SUMFIERS. N6ES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. AB~ENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPQOOD. _.. .---._-._-v-------------~-----------.~..-..-_____. __ , -- .. , ~ .- _ =^ _,--~ -~~ - . . . . ___ _ _ _ ,..,---, .. _ . ~ . . - _.. ,..... _ . _, .., \ •;~ n 101 ~ ~ ?1(NUTES~ C1TY PLANNING COMM15S10N, MARCH 20, 1961y CONTINUED: s RECLASSiF~CAT;ION _'PUBLiC HEARING. PETITION $~JgMITTED eY EMIL VAN CASTEREN, 25oe Wesr BALL I~IO. 6Q-61-77 ROAD~ ANAHEiM~ CALIFORNIA~ GMNER~ CLARENCE L. HALL~ 9273 BROOKHURST STREET~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ ACaEN:~ REQUESTINQ THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: A PAR- CEL WITH A FRONTAOE OF 585 FEET ON BALL ROAD AND A DEPTM OF 314 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF BALL ROAD AND LOCATEO ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BALL ROAD AND WEBSTER STREET~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 2508 WEST BAIL ROAD~ BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R-A RESIDENTIA! A6RICUlTURAL, Z4NE vo THE C-i, ~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, fONE: • • - CLARENCE HALL~ AGENT FOR THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION ANO ' DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A 5 ACR~ PARCEL IIdTO A SMALL NE16N~ BORHOOD SHO?P1NG CEMTER. HE STATBD THAT THE D~VELOPMENT WOULD ABUT EXIST- ' ING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND THAT A SURVEY OF tHE AREA HAD INDICATED THAT ~ ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT COi1LD BE SUPPORTED. MR. HALL ~ISCUSSED ~ THE LOCATION OF AN EXISTING HIGH SCHOOL ACRO55•WE135TER STREET ON THE EASTp ~ ITS RELATION TO WEBSTER STREET~ AND THE POSSIBLE ABi.ilDONMENT OF WEBSTER f STREET .FOR STREET PURPOSES. THE PLOT PLAN SUBMITTED BY THE PETIT•IONER IN- ~ DICATED AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AND GARAGE ON THE PROPERTY~ AND MR. HALL INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT THE PETITIONERS DIU NOT ~NtEND TO REMOVE TNE ~ DWELLING BECAUSE THEY PLANNED TO UTILIZE THE 5'tRUCTURES FOR RESJDENTIAL ~ PURPOSES. THE HEARING~WAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING fA~TS RE6ARDING THE SU8- JECT PETITION; . 1. THAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICATIOf~ fl:' TfiL A80Vc D$SGRIBED PROPERTY FROM THE R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ 20NE TO THE C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ 20NE TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SMALL SHOPPING CENTER. 2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJEGT PRUPERTY 1~ NOT NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND~PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMUNITY. 3. THAT THE PROPOSED REC~ASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT PROPER- LY RELATE TU THE ZONES AND THEIR PERM~TTED USES LOCA,LLY ESTABLISHED ~N CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PERMIT- TED USES GENERALLY ESTABLISHED THROU6HOUT THE COMMUNITY. d, Tupr rue ooQpCSEP P.E.LASS!F!CA?!4!! 4P SUBJECT ?P.OPER?Y D4E5 P.EQUlRE~ DEDICATION FOR AND STANDARD IMPROVEMENT OF ABUTTING STREE75 BECAUSE: SAID PROPERTY DOES RELATE TO AND ABUT UPON STREETS AND.HIGHWAYS WHICH ARE•PROPOSEO TO CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANTITY OF TRAFFIC~ WHICH W1LL BE GENERATED BY THE PERMITTED USES~ IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CIRCULATION: E:~EMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. 5. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF A 5 ACRE PARCEL ADJACENT TO THE ESTAHLISHED C~1. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST APPEAR TO 9E A SPECULATIVE VENTURE~ AND THEREFORE DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE JURIS D~CTION OF THE COMMISSION. 6. THAT A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF C~1~ NEIGH90RHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONING HA5 BEEN PROJECTED FOR THE SUBJECT ARF.A~ SOME OF WHICH IS UNDEVE~OPED AT THE PRESENT TIME. 7. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUBJECT PETITION. COMMISSIONER ALLRED OFFERED RESOLUTION N0..213~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSADE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS~ RECOM:dEND~ INQ TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. b0~61-77 BE DENIED ON THE BA515 OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDINfiS: ON ROLL CALL THE FOREf301N~ RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWlNa VOT:: AYES: COMMISSIONERSS ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNQALL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIQNERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPOOOD. ~ i {i r , ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER RETURNED TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 4:50 P.M. O~C~ocK. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev MICNAEL L. O~DONNEII~ DOWNEY~ CAl1FOR- NO. 60-61-78 NIA~ OWNERj MILFORD M. BROWN~ 901 SOUTH ROANNE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ AOENT~ REqUESTINa THAi PROPERTY DESCRIBE9 ASS A PARCEL 100 fEET BY 295 FEET WITH A FRONTAOE OF 100 FEET ON HARBOR BOUt.EVARD hND LOCATED ON TNE WEST SIDE OF HARBOR BOULEVARD BETMEEN ORAN~EWOOD AND CHAPMAN AVENUES~ ITS NORTHEAST CORNER BEINO APPROXIMATELY 420 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HARBOR BOULEVARD ANQ ORANQEWOOD ANENUE~BE RECLABSlFIED FROM THE R^A~ RESIDENTIAI AGRiCULTURAL. ZONE To THE C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~ MILFfSR~ SROWN~ REPRESENTATIYE FOR THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COM~ HISSION~ DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMEtIT OF A COCKTAIL LOUNQE AND RES~ TAURANT~ AND iNDICATED THA7 HE NAS THE BUIL~ER OF THE DEYELOPMENT WHICH, WOULD BE COMPaRABLE TO OTHER INSTALLATIONS OF' THIS TVPE. . NAOMI MISNER~ AGENT REPRE5ENTINCi MR. J. A. ARBENAULTr' APPEARED BEFORE 7}IE COMM15510N AND INDICATED THAT PETITlON FOR VARtANCE iVO. 12H3 IS PENDIN3, FOR TNE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COCKTAIL I.OUNdE AND RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY TWO LOl NORTH UF SUBJECT PROPERTY. SHE INDICATED THE PIRTIES CONCERNED WITH ~^"`- .. _.~ ~.--------- .. ..._.,~,,,,.~,,,.., ., ,._, ~ , , , _ "~'- ~. ~ ;, , , , . , . . _--- _._-._ . K .., ~ , • . , . ~,_ ~ 102 t41tiUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMM1SS30N, MnRCH 20, 1961, CONTINUED: RECLASSiFiCAT10N - VARintice N0. 1283 WERE APPLYING FOR THEtR LIQUOR LICENSE BEFORE THE STATE NOCONT~INUEDB DEC~IS/ONCREGARDING SUBJECT PETRTIONNFORHRECLASSIFECATHON~BEEHELDMINSABEVS ANCE UNTIL SU:H TIME AS HER CLIENTS HAVE~~INDICATE~ WHETHER OR NOT THEY WILL PROCEED WITH THEIR PLANS. SHE STATED FURTHER THAT TWO SIMILAR OPERA- TIQNS~IN CLOSE PROXIMITV WOULD NOT BE DESIRABLE FOR THE AREA. . MR. JIM QUINN APPEARE~ BEFORE THE COMMISStON AND STATED TNAT H[ REPRESENTED THE OWNER OF PROPERT~.' AT 1229 HARBOR BOULEVARD~ RECENTLY APPROVED FOR C-i~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCLAL~ DEVELOPMENT. HE STATED THAT THE PLANS FOR THE COM- MERCIAI. DEVELOPMENT IqERE IN THE PROCE55 OF COMP~.ETION~ AND TNAT HE DID NOT CONSIDER IT REASONABLE FOR THE CO~SMISSION TO GtLAY IN RENDERINCa A DECISION ~ ~ ON THE SUBJECT PETITION.FOR RECLASSIFICATION ~tERELY OECl~USE THE PREVIOUS FETITION FOR VARIANCE WAS STILL PENDING. THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE LAYOUT AND SEATING CAPACITY OF THE PROPOSEC DEVELOPMENT. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSION DISCUSEED THE 30 DAY PERIOD OF TIME REMAINING FOR THE FUL- FILLMENT Of THE COND.TIONS OF PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1293~ THE NECES- SITY FOR UNIFORM BUILDING SETBACKS FOR THE SUBJECT AND ABUTTING PROPER- TIES~ AND THE PROVISION OF LANDSCAPING ABUTT~ING HARBOR BOULEVARD. COMMISSIONER MORRIS STATED THAT THE APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSION OF THE PETITION FOR VARIANCE~FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A USE ON ADJACENT PROPERTY SIMILAR IN NATURE TO THE PROPOSED DEVt~OPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PETITION~ INDICATES THAT THE LAND USE IS SUITABLE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHICH 'S ALSO IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE DISNEYLAMD AREA. RECOMMENDNTO MHERCSTYfCOUNCIL THATOPETST~IONDFORBRECLASStFICATRONLNOED~ TO 60-61-78 BE GRANTED~•SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING MOTION FAIIEU BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSION~RS: ALLRED~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMM1SS10NERS: GAUER~ MnRCOUx. ABSENT: COMMiSS10NERS: HA?GOOD. ASSISTANT~CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER :.DVISED THE COMMISSION THAT A MOTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE SUBJECT PETITION WAS IN ORDER~ AND THAT A RESOLU-~~ }•ION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF A PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION REQUIRED FIVE VOTE5 TO ACHIEVE A MAJORITY. , COMMISSIONER MARCOUX INDICATED THAT~ SINCE PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1283 WAS STILL PENDINO~ IT WOULD BE MORE SUITABIE TO DELAY ACTION ON FURTHER DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPOSED TYPE OF OPERATION UNTIL 9UCH TIME AS THE ~ PETI710NER5 CONCERNEO WITH VARIANCE N0. 1283 HAVE CLARIFIED THEIR A051- TION IN RECaARDS TO DEVELOPING THEIR PROPERTY FOR A COCKTAIL LOUNGE AND RESTAURANT~ AND THAT 30 DAYS REMAIN I,N WHICH TO FULFILL THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED WITH PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1283. COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFEREO A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUMMERS~ TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT PETITION FOR RECLASS~FICATION N0. 60-61-78 BE DENIED. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING MOTION WAS TIED BY THE FOLIONING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER~ MAQCOUx, SUMMERS. ldOES: COMM1S510NERS: ALLRED, MoRrtis, MUNGALL. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD. ASSISTANT C~TY ATTORNEY ~OE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT THE SUB- JECT PETITION FOR RECLASSIF:CATION WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE CONTINUED UNTIL ~ THE MEETING OF APRIL 3~ 1961~ AT WHICH TIME THE COMMISSION SHOULD A6AIN PUT TH~ SUBJECT PETITION FOR RECLASSIfICATION TO A VOTE. TENTATIVE MAP OF - A TeNrnrive MAP OF TRACT N0. 3635 WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION. TRACT N0. 3635 DEVELOPER: J. A. PHILLlPS~ 1584 KATELLA AVENUE~ C.NAHEIM CALIFORNIA. THE TRACT IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROMNEYA ~RIVE AND WEST . STREET AND COtiTAINS 17 PROPOSED R-3~ MULTIPLE.~FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ LOTS. A REVISED TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 3635 WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE DEVEI.OPER HAD INDICATED HIS INTENTION 70 REDRAW SAID TRACT MAP AND TO CREATE APPROXIMnTELY 15 L0T5~ A~L OF WHICH WOULD CONFORM TO THE R~3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL1 20NE CODE REQUIREMENTS2 BY COM- BININO LOT NOS. 16 AND 17 ANG LOT N05. 13 AND 14. THE REVISED IENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 363~~ DATED MARCH 16~ 1961~ AL50 INDICATED THAT LOT l LOCATED AT THE SOUTHNEST CORNER OF THE TRACT WOULD BE INACCESSIBLE FROM THE REAR OF SAID LOT. MR. RICt1ARD GC~THERY~ REPRESENTATiVE OF 7HE DEVELOPER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND !;fATED THAT LOT 4 WOULD BE RESERVED FOR RECREATIONAL PUR- POSES AND `,:~:'~D CONTAIN A SWIMMINO POOL AND OTHER PLAYGROUPlD EqU1PMENT. - ., i~C _..._ 1 ~. ~'' _ ~r.r""'~'-`"~,.~.~ .. _ .~_. ~y - . --~~"1---- . ~ -- .,. . ~ , ~ . .. ._-...- .' ` .._. ~~..,.~, ~ 103 MINUTES, C1TY PLANNiNG COMMISSlON, MaRCH 20, i961, CONTINUED; ~~~ITAT~~fE MAP OF ~ THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLONING FACTS REGARDING THE SUB- KACT 3635 JECT TRACT: CONT(NUED ' 1. THAT THE TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 3635~ REVISED MARCN 16~ 1961~ CON~ TA1N5 15 R~3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESfDENT1Al.~ LOTS TO BE DEVELOPED WITH SINOLE STORY FOtlR~PLEX UNITS. 2. THAT THE PROPOSED TRACT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE LAND USE ANO 20NING OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. 3. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO.SUBJECT TRACT MAP. COMMISSIONER A~LRED OFFERED A MOTION?~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUMMERS AND CARRIED~THAT TENTATtV~ MAP OF TRACT IVO* 3635 BE APPROVED~ S:18JECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. MODIFICATION OF TNE EXISTIN6 CURB AND GUTTER t.OMBARD DRIVE (SOUTH- ERLV OF THE ANAHEIM UNION WATER COMPANY RIGHT- -WAY) FOR STREET CLEANING PURPOSES~ WITH THE ENCi.1.NEERING BY THE CITY. 2. FIL~NG OF DEED RESTRICTION LIMITING USE OF ~OT N0. 4 FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. 3. PROVISION OF A SIX (6•} FOOT MASONRY WALL ON THE WESTERLY PROPERTY LINE WHERE PROPERTY ABUTS THE R~1~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ 20NE IN ACCOR- DANCE WITH COD! REQUIREMENTS. . TENTATIVE MAP OF ~ A TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4107 NAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION. TRACT N0. 4107 DEVELOPER: SALEM DEVECOPMEM COMPANY, 12351 WESTMINSTER AveNUE, ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA. THE TRACT IS LOCATED ON THE EASTERLY SIDE OF THE SANTA ANA' FREEWAY BETWEEN CATALPA AVENUE AND THE ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL~ AND EXTENDING EASTERLY TO CHIPPEWA STREET~ AND CONTAINS 84 PROPOSED R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ LOTS COVERING APPROXIMATELY 27 ACRES. MR. RAY MACHADO~ REPRESENT.ING THE ENGINEER AND THE SUBDIVIDER~ APPEAP.ED BE- FORE THE COMMISSION~ DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION~ AND INQUIRED ABOUT REPLACING EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCING. A LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE ORAVGE COUNTY F100D CONTROL DISTRICT~ REQUESTING THAT THE USE OF THE FLOOD CONT^nOL CHANNEL BE APPROVED BY THE DISTRICT~ WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION. THE COMMIS;iION D15CUSSED THE CODE REQUIREMENTS RE~ARDiNG INSTALLAT~ON OF SIX F00T MASONRY WAI.LS WHERE R-3~ MULTlPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ DEVEI.OPMENT ABUTS THE R-1~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTJAL~ 20N£. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~O~nMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMI•SSIONER ALLRED AND CARRIED~ THAT TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4.107 BE APPROVED~ SUBJECT T~~ THE FuLLOHING CONDITIONS: 1. PROVISION OF A S!X (6) F00T MASONRY WALL ALON6 THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE WHERE SUBJECT PROPERTY ABUTS THE R-1~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAI~ ZONF. PROVISION OF A SIX (6) FOOT MASONRY WA~.L ALON~ THE WESTERLY PROPERTY LINE WHERE SUBJECT PROPERTY ABUTS THE $ANTA ANA FREEWAY. PROVIS10Ni0F A S1X (6) F00T MASONRY WALL ALON6 THE 501lTHERLY PROPERTY LINE WHERE SUBJECT PROPERTY ABUTS THE FLOOD CONTROL CNANNEI.~ OR THE POSTIN~ OF A BONO FOR A TWO (2) YEAR PERIOD OF TIME FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP OF TRACT N0. 4107 TO INSURE TME CONSTRyC- TION 0~ SAID WALL IF THE PROPERTY~ABUTTING THE FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL SOUTHERLY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY~ IS NOT DEVELOPED FOR R-3~ MULT~PLE FAM- ILY RESIDENTIAL~ PURPOSES. 2. APPROVAL BY THE ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL D15TR1CT'~AND THE AtdAHEIM CITY ENOINEER OF ANY ENTRIES OF RUNOFF WATERS FROM THE TRACT INTO THE CHANNEL. 3. MODIFICATION OF EXISTING CURB AND QUTTER IN FERN STREET AND NUTNOOD STREET FOR STREET CLEANIN~ PURP65E5 WITH THE E1"61NEERING BY THE CITY. 4. FILIN~ OF DEED P~STRICTION LIMITINO USE OF LOT 31 FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. 5. REQUIREMF.N: THh, HOULD THIS SUBDIVISION BE DEVELOPEU AS MORE THAN ONE SUP.D'.Vi~,ION~ ..ACH SUBDIVISION THEREOF SHALL BE SUBMITTED ON TEN- TATIVE F'vRNi FOR APPROVAL. CORRESPONOENCE - ITEM No. i: ORANGE COUNTY AMEf~DMENTS TO SECTiON ~;ISTRICT MAP 7-4-9~ EXHIBITS C, D, E~ AND F: A NOTICE RECEIVED FROM THE ORANdE COUNTY PLANNINO COMMISSION~ CONTAINING~ FOUR PROPOSED CHAN6E5 OF ZONE IN THE EAST RNAHEIM AREA~ WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION. THE PRECIfiE PLAN IS DESI6NATED AS SECTION DISTRICT MAP 7-4-9~ EXHIBlTS C) D E AND F AND pROPO5E5 TO CHANaE PROM THF. A~l GENtRAL AGRICULTURAL AND A1(~) ~ENERAL AGR~CULTURA~ (OIL PRODUCTION) DISTRICTS T,0 THE R~1 SINOLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND M-1 LIGHT INDU5TRIAL OR C~'2 GENERA~~ , BUSINESS OR AR A~RICULTURAL P.ESIDENTIAL AND AR(O) AORICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL (OIL PRODUCTION) DiSTR1CT5~ CER*AIN PROPERTIES LOCATED SOUTH OF 7HE RIVER- SIDE FREEWAY~ EAST OF RIO VISTA STREET~ AND WEST OF THL' SqNTA ANA RlVER.'. i------..~.^~_ --__..__.~. _~..-- ------ ---.. ,i , , , , ~ ,.--. ._ ___. r~ . . ~ _ : :, i 104 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION~ MnrtcH 20, 1961, CONTINUED: CORRESPOlJDENCE -iTEM No. i: ORANGE COUNTY AMENDMENTS TO SECTION DISTRICT MAP 7-4-9, CONTINUED EXHIBITS C, D..E~ AND F~(CONTINUED): MR. DAVID COLL(N5~ REALTOR~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND INDICATED THAT HE WAS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF PARTIES INTERESTED IN OB'TAINING THE C~2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL 20NE AS INDICATED ON EXHIBIT E. HE STATED THAT HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT AN 18 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ANA- HEIM OLIVE ROAD AND Rl0 VlSTA S'CREET, THAT THE REQUESTED ZONING WAS NOT FOR SPECULATIVE PURPOSES BECAUSE THE PETITIONERS INTENDED TO DEVEIOP A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPP~NG CENTER~ AND THAT A STUDY HAD BEEN CONDUCTED TO DETER- MINE THE ESTIMATED,FUTURE POPULATION AND RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR THE SUB- JECT AREA. THE STUAY HAD INDI'CATED THFT THE AREA~ BOUNDED ON THE MEST BY THE ORANGE FREEWAY~ ON THE NORTH BY THE RIVERSIDE FREEWAY~ ON THE EAST BY THE SANTA ANA RIVER~ AND ON THE SOUTH BY BALL ROAD~ WOULD CONTAIN APPROXI- MATELY 10~000 PERSONS~ ~F IT WERE DEVELOPED FOR RESIUENTIAL PURPOSES~ WHICH HE CONSIDERED ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. HE STATED THAT THE EAST ANAHEIM SHOPPING CENTER~ ALTHOUGkI LOCATED APPROXIMATELY ONE MILE FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ NOULD NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL AFFECT UPON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT~ AND TiIAT THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD COMMENCE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IF APPROVAL WERE GRANTED. ~ MR. W. E. FRICKER AP°EARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT THE PETI- f TION WAS SUBMITTED FOR THE C-2 ZONING BEFORE THE APPLICANT HAD DETERMINED i THE SPECIFIC USE OF THE PROPERTY. HE aNDICATED THAT A SHOPPING CENTER~ ~ CONTAtNING A SUPER-MARKET AND VARIOUS SHOPS~ WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED AND THAT A SERVICE STATION WOI~LD BE ~OCATED ON THE CORNER. HE STATED THIS WOULD NOT CONFORM WITH THE ZONING STIPULATED BY THE RNAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE~ WHICH ~ REQUIRES THE C-3~ HEAVY COMMtRCIAL~ 20NE FOR THE ESTABL~SHMENT OF A SERVICE STATION~ BUT THAT THE DEVELOPERS CONSIOERED THE PR~POSED DEVELOPMENT~TO BE Sl'ITABLE FOR THE AREA AND THAT IT WAS A STANDARD PROCEDURE TO LOCATE A SER~ ~ VICE STATION WITHlN THE SHOPPINa CENTER PERIMETER. HE INDICATED THAT THE LOCATION WOULD BE IDEAL BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO THE FREEWAYS,; THAT IT WOULD SERVE THE CANYON AREAS IN ADDITION TO THE SURROUNOING NEIGHEORHCOD~ ~ AND THAT~ IF THE RECLASSIFICATION WERE APPROVED~ A BOWLING ALLEY WOULD BE PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE IN7ERSECTION OF ~ RIO VISTA STREET AND LINCOLN AVENUE (ANAHElM~OLIVE ROAD~. MR. DINKLER APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT HE WAS ONE OF ~ THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY IN\:OLVED IN THE PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF THE AREA TO THE M-1 ZONEt, AND THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE MORE SUITABLE AND BE MORE VALUABLE IF THE I'1~1 CLASSIFICATION WERE ESTABLfSHeD. I-ic STATcD THAT AT THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING GOMMISSION HEARING AR(O) ZONING WAS CONSIDERED TO BE MORE SUITABLE FOR 'fHE SUBJECT PROPERTY BECAUSE IT COULD ~ BE UTILIZED FOR OlL WELL OPERAT~ONS AND BE REZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL PUR- POSES AFTER THE OIL Hw5 BEEN EXHAUSTED. HE READ A LETTER FROM THE TEXAS COMPANY~ WHICH STATED 1':iAT T11EY DID NOT INTEND TO ABANDON THEIR LEASE IN THE NEAR FUTURE. HE ALSO INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT THE WELLS ARE N07 PRODUCING TO A GREAT EXTENT AT THE PRESENT TIME. ACTING PLANNING DIRECTOR RICHARD REESE INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT n.P?ROXI- , MATELY 14 SQUARE MILES ARE PROPOSED FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE PRE- LIMINARY GENERAL PLAN WITHIN THE CITIES OF FULLERTON~ ANAHEIM~ AND ORANGE. HE DESCRIBED THE PRELIMINARY PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT AREA INDICATIN6 THE AREAS RESERVED FOR 1NDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT~ AND THE AREA ONCE'CONSIDERED FOR A REGIONAL PARK. MR. REESE 1NDICATED THAT TNE RIVERSIDF. FREEWAY~ THE PROJECTED ORANGE FREE- WAY~ TODETHER WITH THE SANTA ANA RIVER~ PROVIDE NATURAL BUFFERS BETWEEN INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT~ AND HE NOTED THAT THERE ARE~AT THE PRESENT TIME~ EIGHT O~L 41CLL5 PRODUCING IN THE Oll. F1EL0 SOUTH OF THE RIVER- SIDE FREENAY. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE INTEREST OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN THE SUBJECT AREA BECAUSE OF ITS PRO~IMITY TO THE ANAHEIM CITY'I.IMITS. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GE15lER INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT THE APPROPRIATE ACTION FOR THE COMM15510N TO TAKE NOULD BE TO PORWARD RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDIN(i THE SUBJECT PE7ITIONS TO THE ORANGE C~UNTY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION~ SUBJECT' TO THE REVIEW OF THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL. THE COMMISSION AL50 DISCUSSED THE PROCEDURE FOR ESTABI.ISHING SERVICE STAT10N5 W COUNTY C~1 OR C~2 COM- MERCtAL 20NE5. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND ~ETERMINED THE FO~LOWING FACTS REGARDING THE SU9- JECT PETITIONS: 1. THE PROPOSED RECLA~SIFICATIONS TO AR AND AR(O)~ AS CONTAIMED IN EXHI~ BIT F~ WOULD COR'~~:TUTE Tt9E H1aHE,~',1' AND BEST USE OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES~ CORNERHOFELINCOLNNAVENUEE(ANAHEIMCOLIVERROAD)oANDERI0NVI5TANSTREETST 2. THE MI~HEST AND BEST USE OF SAID 18.45 ACRE PARCEL WOULD BE REALIZED BY ITS RECLASSIFICATION TO THE COUNTY C~1 LOCAL BUSINESS D154R1CT 20NE. COMMISSIONER MORR15 OFFERED A MOTION AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAOC AND ADOP- Tl(:+., SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNl3ALL• THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANS~ M.1~ 'f0 THE ORANGE COUNTV PLANNIN6 COMM: ~N 7HE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANt!(NO CGMMISSION AS OUTLIN~ :~' THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDINfiS~ SUBJECT TO `:i'.F REVI~W AND f.FPROVAt. THE~.:.~. lY THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL.. DUR~NG THE DISCU:,S10N ACTIN~ PLANqIN~ L~ JR RICHARD REESE NOTED THAT; THE PROPOSED LANU USES NERE OF MAJOR 1~1: .NCE TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM ; AND THAT ANY RECOMMENDATION ON THE PART ti.r 7HE CITY SH01iLD BE BASED ON ~ . . _-...__--1 . . . . .. ..__ _..~ ._. .. ~ . . . ~ _''~~,`.~• . ' . ~ ~ I ~ . ' . . . . ". . . _~ . . . . . ._ ..._. . ~.~ ~.- _ 1 i _ - ~ -~: , , I t~' , . ~ . . . . . Y~~ . .. . . . . . . ~..~ ..... . ~.: . ~ . . . . .. . . .~_ .__. ...._.. . . .. . . ~ " _.._~~... _ _"'_... .. ' ~.... ~ ....._ _~_~_ ~~_'_ ' . . ... . / ._..___._.._ -.:r.YV .... J . ~` . f. ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~5 ~ ~ . • ~~ . . . ' 1 MINUTES, CiTY PLANNiNG COMM1SSi0N, MaRCH 20, 1961, CONTiNUED: ' CORRESPON~EKCE ~ ITEM No. i, CONTINUED; ORANGE COUNTY AMENDMENTS TO SECTION DISTRICT MAP CONTINUED 7-4-9~ EXHiBiTS C~ D~ E~ AND F: :ONSIDERABLY MORE INFORMATION THAN HAD BEEN PRESENTED.50 FAR. HE.•NOTED THAT IF THE PROPOSAL FOR THE SHOPPING CENTER WERE BEINa HEARD BFFORE THE ANAHEIM COMMISSION AND COUNCIL THAT THE MINIMUM INFORMATION REQU~RED WOULD BE A DETA~IED PLOT PLAN~ ELEVATIONS AND SPECIFIC INFORMA7ION ON THE TYPES OF USES AND THAT THESE WOULD PROBABLY BE MADE A CONDITtON TO ANY APPROVAL~ IN ACCORDANCE W~TH PRESENT POLICY. HE NOTED THAT THE APPLICANT HAD STATED THA7 THE PROPOSAL WAS FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER AND YET THE REQUEST INCLUDED NEARLY 18 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL ZONING~ NEARLY TWICE THE AMOUNT RE~ TIONEOFFHOWSTHE ENTIRELACREAGE WAS TOLBETUTILI2EDEPRIORLTOBREZONINGND'HE NOTED FURTHEk THAT A NEiGHBORH00D SHOPPI~IG CENTER MIaHT ULTIMATELY BE ' NEEDED 70 SERVE THE FUTURE RESIDENTS IN THE EAST ANAHEIM AREA BUT THAT HE FELT THAT NO INFORMATION HAD BEEN PRESENTED SO FAR~ OTHER THAN A SKETCHY POSALPWOULDNSATISFYTTHATONEEDEIN7TERMSwOFCTHENTYPETAND QUANTITYPOFSUSESPOR THE QUAL~TY OF DEVELOPMENT. MR. REESE CONCLUDED THAT THE COUNTY P~ANNING COMMISSION 4lAS PRESENTLY CONDUCTING EXTENSlVE HEARINGS ON THE PROPOSALS AND TO TAKE AC7lON ON THE REOUEST WITH LE55 INFORMATION THAN WOULD NORMALLY BE AVAILABLE MIGHT RESULT IN A RECOMMENDATION WHICH WOUID PLACE THEM IN AN EMBARASSING POSITfON. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING MOTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: CUMMISSIONERS: MARCOUX/ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMM1SS10NERS: ALLRED~ GAUER. ' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD. ITEM No. 2: ORANGE COUNTY TENTAT!VE MAP OF TRACT NO'. 4095: NOTICE REGARDING ORANaE COUNTY TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4095 AND AN ANAHEIM PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT~ INPICATING NO RECOMMENDATIONS R~GARDING SUBJECT TRACT~ WERE PRESEn?ED TO THE COMMISSION. SUBJECT TEN- Ter~vg TR.4CT i5 LOCATED IN THE VICINITY OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF R10 DENTIALTLOTS COVER~INGHAS2R4EACREDPARCEL!NS'8 WASPNOTEDSTHATETHEmSUBJECTi TRACT WAS A CONTINUANCE OF A TRACT RECENTLY RECOMMENDE~ FOR APPROVAL BY THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANN~NG COMM15510N. COMMISSIONER ALLRED OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED 8Y COMMISSIONER SUMMERS AND CARRIED~ THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMIT NOTICS TO THE ORANGE THENANAHEIMNPLANN/N~'COMMNSSNONCTO'THETPROPOSrDETRACT,NO OBJECTIONS BY ' ~ ITEM No. 3: ORiINGE COUNTY AMENDMENT TO CP-909: • E~ NOTICE REGARDING SUBJECT PETITION WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION. IT ~ WAS NOTED THAT THE REQUEST WAS TO PERMIT THE CON57RUC710N OF A SWIMMING POOL IN CONNECTION WITH A PRIVATE SCHOOL IN THE R1 SINGLE FAMILY RESI- DENCE DISTRICT. SAID POOL WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 15 BY 35 FEET IN SIZE ~'. AND WILL BE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET FROM THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE ~ AND 4PPROXIMATELY 45 FEFT TO THE REAR OF AN EXISTING DWELLING. THE POOL AREA WILL BE ENCLOSED BY A 6 FOdT FENCE AND CiATES IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNTY ORD~NANCE N0. 984. THE ORt~INAL PERMIT WAS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT ~ ~ OF A PRIVATE SCHOOL IN THE R1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. COMMISS{ONER MORRIS OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED ~ AND CARRIED~ T W T THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMIT:TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMI~SIf.N A.RECOMMENDATION TNAT AMENDMENT TO CP-909 9E APPROVED~ SUBJECT TO THE ~NDISION 7HAT ALL NECESSARY SAFETY FACTORS BE PROVIDED FOR ~~ THE PROTECTION Of 7FiE CHILDREN IN THE AREA. ITEM N0. 4: GARi1EY ~ROVE VARIANCE N0. V-109-61: Vo109E61ECREQUESTRFORT.AEYARIANCE GORPERMGTOAESIGNRWITHCA ROTATRNGNLIGHT• ON PROPERTV LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CHAPMAN AVENUE AND HARBOR ~ BOULFVARD~ WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION. ~ ORDINANCESSSECTNONEB 3H8~ CONDlTEONSIOFRAPPROVALAS7ATERASHFOLLOWSIM SIGN ~ nTHE SIGN WILL NOT EN~~ANGER THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE OPERATORS OF M070R VEHICLES THROUGH THE USE OF MOTION~ SOUND~ MEGHANICAL DEVICES~ FLASHING OR UNUSUAL LIGHTING OR ANY OTHER MEANS WHIC11 MIGHT CAUSE A DISTRACTION.M ~~~~1 COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUMMERS AND CARRIED~ THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMIT TO THE C17Y OF GARDEN GROVE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE STANDARDS RE~ULATING SIGNS pROPO5E0 BY ~'; THE CITY OF ANAHEIM BE CONStDERED~ AND THAT A COPY OF THE SIGN STUDY BE~ '~~i~`5:~<~:': ~ FORNARDED TO THE CITY OF GARDEN GR~VE. , . . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ . , . . !~ .~ -._ . `~~-"'/~' ' M?NUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMMISSIO~, MARCH ?C~ USES,"EOFSTHE ANAHEIM~MUNICI~ALHCODER 18.64, ZONE CODE "COND1TIOtiAL THE COMMISSION DISCUSSEO THE PROPOSED AMENDMEN75 TO TITLE 18~ CHAPTER 18.64~ZON~N~ CODE~„CONDITIONAL USES„ AS SUBMITTED BY THE PLANNlNG DEPART~ MENT AT 1'HE MEETING OF MARCH 6~ 1961. •~ THE COMMISSION DiSCUSSED IN PARTICULAR THE PROPOSED SECTtON 18.64.020(3-V~ °COCK7AlL LOUNGES.° ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER RECOMMENDED THAT °COCKTA~L LOUNGESM NOT BE INCLUDED IN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SECTION qP THE CODE. A LENGTHY DISCUSSIDN WAS HELD ON THE BEST METHOD FOR PRO^ NEYSJOE GEQSLERSADVISEDATHESCOMMISSION TOUREQUESTNTHATSTHEAPLANNINGADE R~ ISTRATNVEAOFFI~CE TOMDESCUSSWTHE MATTERTANDTTORRESOLVEFTHEEPROBLEME ADMIN- CHAIRMAN GAUER INSTRUCTED THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO ARRANG~ A MEETIN6 FOR REPRESF_NTATIVES~OF THE CITY ATTORNEY~S OfFICE~ ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE~ PRO.ESSINGAAPPLGCATIONSMTOTESTABLISH COCKTAIlRLOUNGESE BEST METHOD FOR COMMi55lONER MORRiS OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 214~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMt5510NER SUMMERS TO RECOM- DITD NAIrUSE5~~Y0FOTHEIANAHEIMTMUNECIPALCCODEEBElAMENDEDNASGFOLLOWS~CON^ SEGTION 18.64.020 (1^E) ~•PLANNED RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT~ ON A TEGRATE.DFWtTH`OPEN ANDERECREATIONSAREAS'SERVINGRASTAECENTRALUUNIFYRNG`N ELEMENT~ WHERE PERIPHERAL PARKING AND CIRCULATiON OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC IS PROVIDED~ AND WHERE THE LIVING ENYIRONMENT IS DETERMINED TO BE MORE DESIR^ RESI ENTNALHSITERDEVELOPMENTSSTANDARDS ~ DEVELOPMENT.a SUBJECT TO °PLANNED SECTION 18.64.020 (4-0) ~ nP~ANNED INDUSTRIAL SITE DEVELO MENT ~STANDARDS.°o ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOIN~ RESO~UTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWIN~ VOTES AVFS~ COMM1SSlONERSS AL~REDo GAUER~ MARCOU%~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ JUMMERS• - AMENOMENT TO TITL~ .'"•.HTEEN, CHAPTER 18.20, ZON1~G CODE, -"R-0" ONE^ FAMILY SU9UR7AN ZOkE dY ADDING SECT'ION 19.20.030 (D-5~ NGARAGES~~ TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE: ~ COMMlSSVONER ALLRED OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 215~ SERIES 1960-61, AND MOVED MENDITO THESCG7YACOUNCOLTTHAT TETLEDEIGHTEENMMCHAPTERR18u20ERZONINGRCODE~ OF THE ANAHEfM MUNICIPAL CODE BE AMENDED AS FO~LOWS: PARKING REQUOREMENTDSHALL BERTWOSSPACES PER DWELLING UNITMINIAUGARAGESTREF.'1 ON ROLL (:ALt. THE FOREGOiNG Rc50LUTI0N WAS PASSED BY 7HE FOLLOWING VOTE: •AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLiED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ M%RRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMEF:S. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMlSSIONERS: HAPGOOD. - AMENDMENT TO TiTLE EIGHTEEN, CHAPTER 18.24, ZONtNG CODF, -"R-1" SINGL.E ANAHElIARMUN/CNPALLCODEE BY AD~ING SECTION 18.24.030 (5) ^GARAGES~^ TO T4E FOR^'ITS'PASSAGEMANDSADOPTRON~RSECONDEDNBY~COF~655SONERSALLRED261TOARECOOVE6 MEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAt TIT~E EIGH7EEN~ CHAPTER 18.24~ LONINa CODE~ OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICI?AL CODE BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS: PARKING REQU~REMENTSSHALGABEGTWO SPACESLPER DWELLIN6HUNMTNINUA 6ARAGEREET ON ROLL CALI.'fHE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOT~: BVFSe COMMISSIONERSC ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. .; , . ~ ---------~__---'------------,._..-_ _~..~~, i ~r ~ - ^-" .~..... . _~ ~ ~ .; ~ ~ . I .. . ' _... ~ . _ . . __ ._ _ , . _ __ . . .. _.._ -_. - .._- - ---- -- -~-~ :,: ~ _ i - ~~ ~~ ~ . ~ ~~ ~o~ . , ~ , , MINUTES, CiTY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ MARCH 20, 1961, CONTiNUED; ~ REPORTS AND - AcrtNG PLANNING DIRECTOR RICHARD REESE INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT THE RECOMMENDATiONS CITY ATTORNEY~S OFFICE WOULD SIGN AN AUTHORiZATION DIRECTING THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO MAKE PAYMENT TO COMMISSIONERS MUN~ALL AND ALLRED~ WHOSE ~~ TERMS HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS YET~ FOR THEIR SER- VICES ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION DURING THIS INTERIM PERIOD. ~. WORK SESSION _.AcriN~ PLANNING DIRECTOR RICHARD REESE INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT THE I STANDARDS FOR THE ^PLANNED RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT° WOULD BE AVA1l.- ABLE FOR DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSION AT THEIR NEXT WORK SESSION. CHAIRMAN GAUER SCHEDULED THE NEXT WORK SESSION FOR THE PIANNING COMMIS~ SION TO BE HELD ON THURSDAY~ MARCH 30~ 1961 AT 9:30 P.M. ~ QDJOURNMENT - THE MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:30 P.M. O~CLOCK. i ; RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, I ; ~ ' Cvy/ + ~ ! i ~ ~ , _. _ . ~ ~. - `~ ' - - ----- _.._.~ ~