Minutes-PC 1961/04/03I ~~ :
~___,_ _____.__"'".~_.._'_ _ _ . -"__-"
~~ .
r ~ ~ \
~ ,.,~r •;,~r ~
~
S
CITY HALL
i~ d1PRILi3~ 1961FORNIA ~
~
RE6ULAR MEETING ~ A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY P~ANNINa COMMISSION WAS CALIED TO ORDER AT ~
2:00 O~CLOCK P.M. BY CHAIRMAN GAUER~ A QUORUM BEINQ PRESENT.
PRESENT - CtiA1RMAN GAUER: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ MnRCOUx~ MortRis, MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. ,
ABSENT - COMMiSSiONERSC HAPGOOD.
PRESENT - AcriN~ PLANNING DIRECTOR - RICHARD REESE
SENIOR PI.ANNER ~ MARTlN KREIDT
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ~ JOE GEISLER
COMMISSION SECRETARY ~ JEAN PAGE
INVOCATION - REVEREND H. A. MCPHEETERS~ COUNCILIN6 SERV~CE OF THE ANGELUS Y~EDDING ~
CHAPEL ~ GAVE THE INVOCATION. ~
PLEDGE OF ~ CHAIRMAN GAUER LED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANGE TO•THE FLAG. ~
ALLEGIANCE ~
~]INUTES - THE M!kUTES OF THE MEETING OF MARCH 20~ 1961 WERE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. j
RECLASSiF1CAT10N - CONTINUED HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev MICHAEL L. O~DONNELL, OOWNEY~
NO. 60-61-78 CALIFORNIA~ OWNER~ MiLFORD M. BROWN, 901 SOUTH ROANNE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~
AGENT~ REQUESTINQ THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED.ASS A PARCEL 100 FEET 8Y 295
FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 100 FEET ON HARBOR BOULEVARD AND LOCATED ON THE
WEST SIDE OF HARBOR BOULEVARD BETWEEN ORANGEWOOD AND CHAPMAN AVENUES~ ITS
NORTHEAST CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY 420 FEET'SOUTH OF THE SOUTHWEST COR-
tiER OF HARBOR BOULEVARD AND ORANGEWOOD AVENUE~ BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE
R-A, RESIDENTlAL AGR1CUlTURAL, ZONE To THE C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
SUBJECT PETITION KAS CONTINUED FROM Tf1E MEETING OF MARCH 20~ 1961 BECAUSE
A MOTION TO AP?ROVE~AWD A MOTION TO pENY~ HAD FAILED TO A~HIEVE A MAJOR-
ITY VOTE AT THE CLOSE OF THE FUBLiC HEARING.
MILFORD BROWN~ REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PE7iT10NER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COM-
MISSION AND SUBMITTED REVISED FLOr.R PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
OF A COCKTAIL LOUNGE AND RESTAURANT. HE DESCRIBED THE LOCATION OF A
SCiRGGI~ t'IMt.L OLIV~LLI~ IfIL ONR MI'ia 1(7L 1711'1~1'~l] MIZEf1 P~1~V I~E ~nuVi5i0H VI'
LANDSCAPING TO CONFORM WIYH THAT OF THE MODERNAIRE MOTEL ON ADJACENT PRO-
PERTY.
THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE REVISFD PLOT PLAN AND INDICATE~ THAT TNE LAY-
OUT WOULD NOT MEET THE STANDARDS REQUIRED BY THE CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE
ENTRANCE TO THE RESTAURANT WPS PROVIDEO THROUQH THE BAR. THE PET~TIONER
STATED THAT HE WOULD REVISE 7FIE LAYOUT AND IOCATE THE DININO AREA IN THE
FRONT PORTION OF THE BUILDING AND LOCATE THE BAR AT THE REAR.
NAOMI MISNER~ AGENT REPRESENTING THE OWNER OF °ROPERTY IOCATED NORTHERLY
OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE PETITIpNER GONCERNED WITH PETIT!ON FOR VARI-
ANCE N0. 1283~ APPEARED BEFORE THE'COMM~SSION AND REVIEWED OBJECTIONS
TO THE SUBJECT PETITION WHICH WERE DISCUSSED AT THE 6tEETING OF MARCH 20~
1961. SHE,STATED THAT HER CLIENT~S VARIANCE TO ESTABLISH A COCKTA)L
LOUNaE WAS EFFECTIVE UNTIL APRIL 31~ 1961~ AND SHE REQUESTED THAT THE
COMMISSION DELAY RCTION ON THE SUBJECT PETITION UNTIL AFTER THAT DATE TO
ALLOW TIME FOR FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF 4R~RIANCE N0.
1283. SHE ALSO STATED THAT TWO BARS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY NOULD NOT BE
SUITABLE OR ECONOMICA~LY FEASIBLE. MR. BROWN REQUESTED THAT THE SUBJECT
PETtTION BE GRANTED WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE RECLASSIFICATION BE ES-
TABLISHED qF7ER APRIL 31~ 1961 IF COMPLIANC~ W1TH THE CONDITfONS OF APPRO-
VAL FOR VARIANCE N0. 1263 HAVE NOT BEEN EFFECTEO. HE INDICATED THAT HE
AL50 WOULD NOT CONSIDER IT FEASIBLE TO LOCATE TWO BARS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY.
COMMISSIONER MORRIS IND~CATED THA1' IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SUBJECT
AREA HAD BEEN DETERMINED SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED USe BY PREVIOUS COM-
MISSION ACTION~ THE SUBJECT PET1710N.WOULD AL50 BE CONSIDERE^ A PROPER
IAND USE OF THE PROPERTY~ AND THAT THE PROBLEM REGARDING THE LAYOUT OF
THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDINO COULD BE RESOLVED. HE "?ATED FURTHER THAT
SINCE THE PETITIONERS CUNCERNED W1TH VARIANCE N0. i26' RAVE BEEN ALLOWED
APPROXIMATELY SIX MONTHS IN WH1CH TO PROCEED WITH THEIh` PRONOSED OEVEL-
OPMENT AND HAVE NOT DONE S0~ IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE Tp 4LLOW THE SUBJECT
PETITIONERS AN OPP~RTUNITY TO DEVELOP THEIF PROPERT~.
COMMISSIONER Mi0RR15 OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY C061MISS10NER MUNGALL~
TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITV COUNCiL THAT PETITiON FOR REC~A;:.IFICATION N0.
60-61-78 BE GRANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLONiNG CONDITIONS:
1. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION Oi ALL IM-
PROVEMENTS IN ACCURDANCE WITH APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FIL2 IN
THE OFFICC• OF THE CITY ENOfNEER. •
1. PAYMENT OF =~.00 PER FRONT F06Y FOR STREET LIGHTIN~ PURPOSES.
3. TiM= LIMITATION OF 90 DAYS fOR YHE ACCOMPLISM-:6NT OF ITEMS 1 AND [.
4. MAIk'i'ENANCE UF A 60 F007 BUILDINti SET9ACK ON HAR90R BOULEVARD.
- 108 -
~^
E` I _
LV~
MINUTES, CiTY PLANNiNI•'~ COMMISSIONt APR1L 3, 1961, CONTINUED;
RECLASSIFICATION ~ 5. DEVELO:•MENT ~U85TANTIALLY IN ACCORDAN.E: WtTH PL..".W5 PRESENTED WITH
NO. 60-61~78 LOCAiION OF THE R55TAURANT iN THE FRO~i' POk:iON OF THE BUILDIN6
CONTtNUED SEPARATED FRis:A TNE COCKTAIL. LOUNO: NHfCH SHALL BE LOCATED IN THE
REAR PORTl~N OF THE BUILDi~O.
6. PROVISION OF 20 FEET OF lANLSCAPED AREA ABUTTIN6 FRON7 PROPERTY L.INE
ON HARBOR BOULEVARD~ PI.ANo FU~.t SAID LANDSCAPINfa TO BE SUBMITTED FOR
APPROV~IL BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKWAY 11f~fiSTENANCE.
ON ROLL Cf.l~ THE FJRE60(Nu WtOTJON FAILED BY T+~~S FOLI.GW~Nti VOTE:
AYE~: COM~MiSSlONERS.: ALLRED; MORRIS~ MUNaALL~ ~.I~S~.Et24:
iVOES: COMMISSI.JNERS: Gn~i~~, P1aRCOUx.
AES~lT: COMM~S:?IONEaS: iln"100D.
THE COC!l~Y55)ON NA1•Zi. THAT SINCE THE MOTI6A FA]LED ?? 1~~:Hi'~VE A MAJORITY ~
`.~OTE THf SUBJEC~' PETI';ION W1LL BE CO~VTINUED JNT1L THG ~EL•'TINQ OF APR1L
17~ Y961 AT WHICH TtME IT SHALL AGAIN BE SUBJECT TO A MOTION FOR EITHER
DENIAL OR APPROVAL. qqq
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLiC HEARiNG. PETITIOM 'NIT[ATED BY THE ClTY COUNCIL OF THC CITY 0~ ~
~~60-61-79 {1NAFIEIId BY RESOLUTION NO 6fia3 ADOPTED ON F'=Bf2UARY 21~ 1961 REFC^RING
SAIh? PROPOSAL TO THE CIT:'::~fikINQ COMid!SSION FOR A REPORT AND PUBLIC
HEAFI~NG FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS• A PARCEL 330 ~
FEET BY 1~300 FEET WITH in iRONTAGE OF 330 ~'ET ON LA PALMA AVENUE AND ~
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LA PALMA AVENUE BETWEEN DOWLING AND GROVE
STREETS~ ITS SOUTHWEST CORNER BEING APFROXIMATELY 2~630 FEET EAST OF -
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DOWLING STREET AND LP Pp_r^,AVENUE fROM THE ~
R-A, RESI~ENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE TO THE M-1y -1GHT !'AidU~'ACTURING At~o s
THE "-L PARKING-LANDSCAPING, ZONESt Fort PROPERTY owNEC ev NORTH AM~R-
ICAN AVIATlON~ INC.~ INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT~ LOS ANG:LES 45~ CALIFORNIA.
MR. E. L. COMPTON, ATTORNEY REPRESEN7ING NOR7H AMERIC.1iJ AVlATION~ INC.~
APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED USE OF THE SUB~°
JECT PROPERTY FOR THE CONSTRUCT~ON OF INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH FACtLIT1E5.FOR
7HEIR AUTONETICS DIVISION~TO BE UTILIZED 1N CONJUNCTION MITH EXISTING ~i
FACILITIcS. ~
MR. H. G. ~~ENRY~ REPRESENTATiY~ OF THE YBRTH AtnER?Ci.ia f"~.~:AT73~: C061PA'dY~
DISPLAYED RENDERINGS AND OUTLINED THE PROPOSEO DEVELOPMENT ON THE TEN
ACRE SITE.FOR THE ~XPANSION OF THE EXISTING AUTONETtCS FACILITIES~ TO
INCLUDE SERVICE BUILDINGS AND ADDITlOYAL PARKING ~REA FOR THE RESEARCN
~~ENTER,.
iHE COMMISSION FOUND ANO DETERt/INED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITION:
1. THAT THE ?ETITIONER PROPOSE.i 4 R~CLA5SIFICA'd10N OF THE ABO~E DES-
CRIBEO PROPERTY FROM THE R•~A, RE~;C:NI'IAL•-/iURICULTURALi ZONE T6 THE
M-l~ ~,IGNT ~'!ANUFACTURING~ AND T4E P~L~ innRiriQ~LANDSCAP.ING~ ZOkcS.
2. THAT THE P~G~OSCU RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJ~CT PROPERTY I~ NEr,E55ARY
OR AES.IRABLE :'0~ ~HE ORDERI_Y nAt^ P30P£R DEVELUPMENT OF THE CO~IMUN-
17Y.
3 THAT THE PROPOScD RtCLA551FiCAT10N OF SU~7ECT PROPERTY D065 PROPERLY
~ RELATE TO THE ZONES ANG THElR PERMITTED U:.'S LOCALLY ESTABLISHED IN
CLOSE PROXIMITY T~ SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE ZONE~ AND 7HElR PER••
MITTED USES GENERALLY ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT THE COMYUNITY.
4. THAT THE pROPOSED RECLASSIFICATIO~V OF SUBJECT PROPFRTY DOt~ REQUIRE
DEDICATION FOR AND STANDARD IMPROVEMEN7 AF ABUTTING STREETS BECAUSE
SAID PROPERTY DOES RELA'iE TO ANb A8tlT ~:PON S7RElia AND H~3HWAY5 WHICH
ARE PROPOSED TO CARRY THE TYPE AND t:iANTlT1' OF TRAFFi~.9 HHICH WILL BE
GENERATED BY THE PERMITTED USES~ IN ACCORGANCE WISH TIIE CIRCULATI~N
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL ~LAN.~
5. THAT THE ANAHEIM CITY COUSiCIL A90F`T~U RESOLUTION N0. 6683 ON FEBR1-
ARY 21~ 1961 THEREBY 1 N Il 1 AT Y Nr AF;D PttOPGS9 N6 TFiE ADOPT ION OF AN
AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18~ CF 7~~F, ANANEIM MUNICIPAI. CODE B~ RECLASSIFI-
CATION OF SUBJECT PROPERiY F4JM T'HF. R-A~ RESID!ENTIAL-A~RICULTURAF.~
ZONE TO THE M-1~ L1GHT MANUFAG7UR1N0~ AND THE N-L~ PARKIN~-LANDSCAP~
ING~ ZONES AND REFERRING SAID PR:I.OSAL TO THE ANAHEIM PLANNINO COM-
MISSION FOR A REPORT AND PUBLIC Hd :21N~,
6. NO ONE APPEARED 1N OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT f~YlTION.
COMMISSIOH:R MUNGALL OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 217~ SE°IES 1960-61~ RND ~
MOVED FOR 1T5 PASSADE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONE~t AL~RED~
RECOMMENDIN6 TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0.
60-61-79 BE 6RANTED CHANGING THE BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN ESTABLISHF_D ZONES
SO AS.TO EXCLUDE ABOVE DESCRIBED PitOPERTY FROM THE R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRI-
CULTURAL ZONE AND SO AS TO INCORPORATE SAID PROPERTY IN THE P~L~ PaRKiNG- ; •
LANDSCAPING~ nNO THE M-1, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, ZONES ns Fo~~ows: 9 ~:
A STRIP OF LAND 50 FEET IN WIDTH ALON~ LA PALMA AYENUE SHAII. BE
INCORPORATED 1N THE P-L~ PARKING-LANDSCAPiNG ZONE~ AND
~ ~~~ _~_.
, , , .. ~--
~ . ' 1 ~ ~ ~ ~: -.._- .
~... __..
af
~
!
~
~
MINUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION, AP~!~. 3, 1961, I;ONTINUED:
RECLASS1FiCAT10N - TIiE BALANCE OF THE SAID FROPERTY S~1ALL BE INCqRPORATED IN THE
N0. 60-61-74 M-i~ LIGHT MANUFACTURING ZONE,
CONTfNUED
UPON THE FOLL9WING CQN^!?i0N5:
1. THE OWNERS OF :AID PROPERT'! DEED TO THE C' ' OF ANAHEtM~ FOR STREET
WIDENIN~ PURPOSES~ A STRIP OF LAND 53 FEE V WIDTH~ EXTENDJN~
MORTyL^LY FROM AND ALONG 7HE CENTFR LI[:E ~. LA PALMA AVENUE.
2. Ai.L F:?GENEERI'ilt ~E^_~!REMENTi OF THE CITY OF ANnHE)Me AL~N(i LA PALMA
AVtiJ~UE~ R:C4TING 'i^ C4~85~ GUTTERS AYD ROUuH ~RADING~ BE COMPLIED
wtT4 AS R~Qlf1RED HY 'f;tE I;iTY ENGINEER ANP IN ACCURDANCE NITH STAN-
DAFa: °LANS AND SPECIFtCA?!ONS ON FILE iN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY
~qGIN~GR~ ANb THAT SAID E~3[!~~EERI:VG REQIIIREMENTS OR IMPROVEMENTS BE
lNSTAL:.EO AT THE TIME THE PR~PEI~'TY ~5 OE:GLS.'E«.
~
$
.~
~
~
~
~
j
~
1y
I
~
3. THE OWNERS OF 3AID PROPERTY SHAI.L CON~^~!eRENTLY Y(ITH THE INSTALLATION
OF THE tMPROVEMENTS UNDER PARAOitAP;1 's:,1ERE0F EITHER:
(A) PAY TO THE CIT OF /1NAHEIM AV TiiE TIME SA1:' PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED '
THE SUM OF ;G.JO PER fRONT F!~OT ON LA PALMA AV£NUE FOR ;iTREET i
LIGHTING PUFi°OSES~ OR !
(8) INSTALI. STREET ~.I~HTS IN ACCORDANCE W17H PlAkS AND SPECIFICA- ~~
TIONS APPROVCD BY THE OFFICE OF THE CfTY ENGINEER.
4: THE OWNERS OF SAID PROPERTY PLACE QG RECORD M~1 DEED RESTRICTIONS
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.
5. liONDiT1;ON Fi05. 1 AND 4 ncRE1:F BE SATISFIED WITNIN 90 DAYS AFTE^ THIS
PROPOSAL IS A~OPTFD GY RESOLI`TION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR WITHiti SUCH
FURTHfR TIME AS THE ClTY COUNCIL MAY ~RANT.
7HS FnR.EnC~ING CONDIT 1N5 WERE CONSIDERED AT THE MEETIN~ AhD WERE FOUND TO
9t A ~ECcSSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE 115E OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRE-
SERV~~ TF+n SAFETY AND WELFARE UF ThE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM.
Qn RC~~_ CALL THE FOREGO[NG RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWINO VOTE;
AYES: COMMlSSIQNERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCQUX~ MORRIS~ MUNQALL~ SUMMERS.
i:~~.ci: ~~~~:~~~.~.l:~p~t ~`:~~~•
ABSEN7: COMMISSIONERS: Hi.P000D. ,
RECLASS1FiC;4T10N - PUBLIC HEARlNG. PETITION SUBMITTED ar JAMES L..PRITCHARD, 1134i SKYLINE ~3
N0.~0-61-~:~2 ~Riv~ :iANTA ANA~ CALIFORN7.4~ QWFIER; McDAN1El =NGINEERING COMPANY, 272
EAST ~ENTER STREET~ ANAHEIM~ CALIPORNIA~ AGENT~ REQUESTING THAT PROPtRTY i
DESCRIBED AS: A PARCt~ 160 FEET BY 250 FEET WItH A FRONTAQE OF 16G ~C:T Q
ON BALL ROAD AND LOCATED ON l'NE NORTH S1DE OF BA:.L ROAD BETWEEN Dar.< <~VE~ j
NUE AND GAYMONT STREET~ ITS SOUTHEAST CORNER BE1NG APPROXIMA'PELY 63~i :"FET ~
NEST OF THE NORTHWEST CCRNER 0~ BALL RQAD AND DALE AVENUE~ AND FU?:HER ~
DESCRIBED AS 2845 BALL Ronn, ~~ RECLASSIFIED FROM 7HE R-A RESIDENTIAL !
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE To THE R-3, MULTIP~' 'RMILY RESIDENTIA~, ZONE. !
SUBJECT PETtT1UN FOR REf,Lp5SIFICA710N IS.FI.LED CQFlCURRENTLY WITH PETITION !
FOR VARIANCE N0. 1348. .
MR. JOHN ~ACOBSEN~ REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MCOANIEL Er161MEERING COMPANV~ i
Ap°E,AIt~D BEFORE THE COM~IISSION AND S'fATED THAT HE REPRESENTEb THE DEVEL-
OPER G~F SUBJECT PROPERTY. HE STATED THA'I 7HE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ADJA- ~
C::NT TO PROPOSE~ R~3~ MUL'fIPLE FAMtLY' RESIDENTS4L~ ZONE ON TNr: EASTj THAT
TH! VOMPAISOION H~4D ESTA81_ISHED BY A PRECISE PLAN THE ?ROJECYED DEV~LOO;ntNT !
OF THE AREA FOR THE R-3~MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDF.kT1AL~ ZONE~ AND T!ii,T °tiE R-3I
ZONINQ WOllLD 8E ~~MPhT1BlE WITN THE USES IN THE AREA. IT WAS NOTED THAT ANi
EARt{Eh REQUEST POR R~3 ZONYNG FOR TNE S:~BJECT P~OPER'tY HAD BEEN WITHOh::YfN.
MR. RIO MADRiO~ 285V YI':ST ~~'.~LMLAWN DRiVE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE vOMDi~SS10M .
AND STA"lED THAT NE D~D NCT OBJ'cCT TO THE RECLASSIFICATION OF TH~ CNTIRE
AREA TO THE R-3~ hiU(.TIPI..F. FAMILY RESiDENT1AL~ ZONE BUT THAT HE DIU OBJEC7
TO HAVING JNE PARCEL AT A TIME R6CLASSIFIED TO THE R-3 20NE. HE EXPRESSED
CONCERN WITH THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD BE ESTABLISHED AND INGI-
CATED THAT HE OBJECTEO TO ANY TWO STORY RESIDENTI&L DEVELOPMENT WITHIN
150 FEES Uf 7HE R~1 Z~JNE~WHICH HE CONSIDERED AN iNVA510N OF PRIVACY.
MR. JACOHSFN STATED 7HAT THE PE7IT)ONERS W~RE REQUESTINa A YARIANr,E (VARI-
ANCE N0. 1'348) FROM THE CODE REQUIREME~T TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF TWO
STORY APARTMENTS WITHIN 115.5 FEF.T OF THE ABUTTING R-1 20NED PROPFCTIES.
HE SUBFIITTED A LINE OF $IGH7 PROFILE WHICH INDICATEO 7HAT 4BUTTINa PRO-
PERTIES ~IOULD I)E BLOCKED FROh1 VIE~J BY THE LOCATION UF THE ~AftA0E5 AND THE
ALLEY AT THE Rl'AR OF THE PROPER'iY. ?HE 11EARIN6 M!-S C~OSED.
THE COMMISSION NOTED TNAT A PRECISE PI.AN FOR TNE PROPERTIES ABUTT1Na Ba~_~
ROAD HAU BEEN ESTABLISNED FOR THE l1lTIMATE DEVEI.OVMENT TO THE R~3~ MULTI-
PLE FA'd:LV RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE: THAT THE AREA INCLUDED MANY PROPER?Y OWNGRS~
THAT ~\PPROVAL OF' PETITIONS FOR RE~LASSiF1CAT10N5 WERE BASED ON SPECIFIC
DEVF_LOPMENT PLANS~ AND TIIA7 TNE PitOPERTY ONNERS MOULD HE REQUIRED TO PRO-
YIDE AN ALLEY ABUTTtNCi THE NORTHERiLY PRUPERTY LINES ,F 7HE PROPERTIES
FRONTINa QN BALL ROI.D.
,_,.~.__ _,.~ ,~,,, • "_ _ ' __ ..,. •'~ I
... _~.. ._. ~,:._:
,. , ;
.. . ~:~
,', ..,. _, .'., . ._.._...._._~_....i .:::
~ ~_ ~ . . ,
~ ~ ilo
l
~
~ ~ . .
Mii3UTE5, CITY ?i.Ai:N7~i~ C~yM1SS:ON, APRlL 3, 19ei~ CiOPlTlNIIED; ~
RECLASSIFICATION ~ THE COMMISSION FOUND AND ~ETEF.MINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE SUB- °
NO. 60-~61~82 JECT PET IT 10`rl: •
CONTINUED
1. THAT T4E PETiTIONER PROPO5E5 A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBCD `
PROPERTY FROM THE R~A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRlCULTURAL~ ZONE TO THE R-3~
~IULT~PLE FAMELY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. •
2. THAT 7HE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NECESSARY
OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLV AND PROPER DEVGLOPMENt OF THE COMMUNITY.
3. THAT THE PROPOSED ~ECLASSIFICAT40N i1F SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES PROPERLY
RE~ATE TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PERMITTED USES LOCALI.Y ESTABLISHED IN
CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SUBJECT PRCPERTY ANO TO THE ZONES AYD THEIR PER- }
MITTED USES GENERALLY ESTABLISHED THROU~HOUT THE GOMMUNITY. ;
4. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES REQUIRE ~
DEDICATION FOR ANU STANDARD INiPR04EMENT OF ABUTTIN4 57REET5 BECAUSE
SAtD PROPERTY DOES RELATE TO AND ABUT UPON STREETS AND H16HNAY5 WHICH ~
ARE PROPOSED TO CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANT~7Y OF TRAFFIC~ WHIC}1 WILL BE !
GENERATED BY THE PERMITTED USES~ IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CIRCULATION i
ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. '
' S. VERBAL OPPOSITION BY ONE OWNEi{ OF PROPERTY lN THE VICINITY MAS RE-
~ CORDED AGAINST THE SUBJECT PETITION. ~
COMMISSIONER ALLRED OFFERED RES~DLUTI'ON N0. 218~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED ,
FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ 3ECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS FECOMMEND- i
~ ING TO THE CITY COUNGIL THAT' RECLASSIFICATIQN N0. 60~b1-82 BE GRANTED~ ,
. SUBJECT TO THE FO~LOWING CONDITIONSS '
1. DEVELOQMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED SUBJECT
TO APPROVAL OF PETITtON FOR VARIANCE N0. 1348.
2. DEDICATION OF 53 FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF BALL ROAD i
(30 FEET EXISTING). '
3. DEDICATION CF 20 FEET ALONa REAR LOT LINE FOR ALLEY. ~
4. PREPARATfON OF STREET 1MPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL IM~ ~
OFFICEEOFSTHE CITYRENl31NEER~HONPBALLEROADAANDr,7HELAtt£YN FILE IN THE
5. PAYMENT OF $2.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STREET LIGHTING P.URPOSES.
6. TIME LIMITAT~ON OF 90 OAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF (TEMS N0. 2~ 3~
4~ AND 5. ~
7. ELiMiNAT10N OF VEHICULAR ACCESS TO BALL ROAG UPON THE COMPLETION OF S
DEDICAt10N AND IMPROV£MENT OF THE ALLEY ABUTTIN~ THE NORTHERLY PRO~ :`;
PERTY LINE AND EXTEND)NG FROM DALE AVENUE TO BALL ROAD. j
AHNECESSARYNPREREQUISITE TORTHEEUSEEC7ATHEHPROPERTYGINNORDERETOOPRESERVEE ,
THE SAFETY AND MELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLI CALL THE FOREGOING RESGLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOMING VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNQALL~ SUMMERS. .
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
AB5~NT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD.
y,BRlANCE N0. 1348 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION sueM-rrEn sv JAMES L. PRITCHARD, 11341 SKYLINE
' Dtt~ve, SANTA ANA~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNER~ McDAN1EL ENGINEERING COMPANY, 222
EAST CENTER STREET ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA AGENT FOR PERMISSION TO YIAIVE
SINGLE STORY HEIGHf LiMITAT~ONS TO PEithilT ENCR~ACHMENT TO W7THIN 115.5
FEET OF R-1 ZONED PROPERTY, ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: A PARCEL 160 FEET
BY 250 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 160 FEET ON BALL ROAD AND LOCATED ON THE
NOR7H S1DE OF BALL ROAD iiETMEEN DALE AVENUE AND GP.YMON7 STREET ~ iT5 SOiSTif-
EAST CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY 630 FEET WEST OF 7HE NORTHWEST CORIJER OF
BALL ROAD AND DALE AVENUE~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 2845 BALL ROAD. PRO-
PERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL ZONE. SUBJECT
PETITION FlLEU IN CONJUNCTION WITH RECLAS~IFICATION N0. ~0-61-82 RE-
AGRICULTURAL,~ZONEFTOArrteNR-3~SMULTIPL.ERFAMILY RESIDENTIALA~ZONE,UENTIAL
' TNE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE REQUES7ED NAIVER QF THE CODE REQUIREMENT
LIMITtNG THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF BUILDIN~S TO ONE STOR'I FOR PR6PERTIES
ABUTTING THE R~1 ZONE TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STORY APARTWENT
BUILDINGS TO WITHIN 115.5 FEET OF TNE ABUT71Nfi R~1 ZONED PROPERTIES.
THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE LINE OF S~aHT PROFILE SUBMITTED BY MR. JACOB~
- SEN~ REPRESENTATiVE OF THE PETITIONEk~ WHICN INDICATED 175 FEET TO THE
INTERSECTION OF °LINE OF SIGHTM FROM THE APARTMENT WINDOW TO THE GROUND
LEVE~.
AND RNDICATEDDHIS808JEC7(ONSMTOW7NERSUBJECTPPETETIONFONETHEEBASMS'THATN
f ~`' ~ ~~ 111
~
~
MINUTES, C17Y P UINNING COMMISSION, APRIL 3~ 1961, CONTINUED;
VARIHNCE N0. i348 -
CONTtNUED
VARIANCE N0. 1349 -
T~E REQUESTED VARIANCE NOUID PERMIT AN INVAS~ON OF pRIVACY. THE HEARING
was c~osE~.
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FAC75 REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITION:
1. THAT THE PETITIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNIC~PAL
CODE: SECTION 18.32.060~ TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO~STQRY
APARTMENTS SJITH(N 150 FEET OF THE R-1~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ i
ZONE BOUNDARY.
2. THAT THERE~ARE NO EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAOP.DINARY CIRCUMSTANCES 7R CON- i
DITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY tNVULVED OR TO 7HE 1NTENDED USE OF
THE PROPERTY THAT 00 NOT APpLY GENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR CLA55 OF
USE CN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE.
3. THAT THE REOUESTED VARIANCE 1S NOT NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND
ENJOYMENT OF A SUB5TANTIAL PROPERTY R~GHT POSSESSED 9Y OTHER PROPERTY
IN THE SAME V1CiN1TY AND ZOHE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUEST~ON. '
4. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILI BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTA~ TO THE PUB- '
LIC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS 70 THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN SUCH V1~
CIN!TY AND ZONE IN MHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE W1LL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPREHENSIVE
GENERAL PLAN.
6. THAT THE MUNICIPAL CCDE HAS ES7ABLISHED THE REQUIREMENT OF A lA~NID.1t;M
OF 150 FEET IN D~STANCE FROM THE PROPERTY L1NE OF THE AHUTTING R-1~ ~
SINGLE FAM(LY RESiDENTIAL~ ZONE FOR THE MU~TtPLE STORY DEVELOPMENT.
7. VERBA~ OPPOS1T10N BY ONE OWNER OF PROPERTY IN THE VICINITV WAS RE-
CORDED AGAINST SUBJECT PETITION.
COMMI55lONER MORRIS OFFERE~` RESOLUTION N0. 219~ SERIES 1960-61~ ANi MOVED
FOR 1T5 PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX~ TO DENY
PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1348~REQUES~ FOR WAIVER OF THE SINdLE STORY
HEtGHT LIMiTAT10N'ON THE ~ASIS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDINOS. ~
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOlNG RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE.PpLLOMING VOTE: 7
AYES: COMMISSIOiVERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRISi MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. ~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: CUMMISSIONERSS HAPOOOD.
PUBLIC IiEARiNG. PETITION SUBMITTED ev JOHN N. AND MARINETE J. UOVALIS~ ~
535 FLINT AVENUE~ LONG BEACH~ CALIFORNIA~ OMNERS~ SNELDON CHIP CHASIN~
P. O. BOX 842 BALBOA CALIFORNIA LESSEE• REQUESTING PERMISSION TO
WAIVE SINGLE ~TORY HEIGHT L(MITATIONS TO I~ERMIT ENCROACHMENT TO MITHIN I
110 FEET OF R-i ZONED PROPERTY, ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: A PARCEL 108 I
FEET BY 250 FEET WITH A FRONTA~E OF 108 FEET ON BA~L ROAD AND LOCATED ON ~
THE NORTH SIDE OF BALL ROAD BET!'EEN DALE AVENUE AND GAYMONT STREET~ ITS
SOUTHEAST CORNER BEING APPROXIFI/TELY 520 FEET MEST OF THE NORTHWEST COR~ i
NER OF BALL ROAD AND DALE AVEIdUE.~ A~b FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 2831 WEST ~
BAIL ROAD. PROPERTY PRESENTLY GLASSIFIED R~A RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ i
ZONE. PETITICN FOR RECLASSIFJCATION N0. 60-6~.-76 PENDIN6 FOR RECLA551-
FICATION oF suedecT PROAERTY TO THE R~3~ MULTIPLE FAMI~Y RESIDENTIAL,
ZUNE. ~
MR. JACK FINNEQAN~ REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE I
COMMISSION AND DESCRfBED THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE TNO STORY APART-
MENT BUILDINGS. HE EXP~AINED THAT THE REQUESTED ENCROACHMENT TO WITHIN
110 FEET OF THE ABUTTING R-1~ SINGLE FAMiLY RESIDENTIAL~ 20NE MOULD NOT
CONSTITUTE AN iNVA510N OF PRiVACY BECAU5E ALL WINDOWi HAVE BEEh ELIMIN-
ATED AT THE REAR OF THE BU~LDINGS AND THERE ARE NO BALCOMIES OR OTHER
APPURTENANCES PROPOSED FOR CONSTRUCTIqN THAT WOULD PERMIT THE VISIBILITY
OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
MR. RIO MADRID~ 2856 WE57 ELMLAI'r'i~RJVE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION
AND STATED HIS OBJECTION TO Tt1E SUBJECT PETITION ON THE BP515 THAT THE
REQUESTED VAR~ANCE WOULD PERMIT AN INVASION OF PRIVACY. ~HE HEARING WAS
CLOSED.
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLIOWINE FACTS REGARDIN6 THE
SUBJECT PETITION:
T. THAT TI1E PETITIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE; SECTION 1H.32.060~ TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF TNO-STORY
APARTMENTS WITHIN 150 FEET FROM A R-1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE
BOUNDARY.
2. THAT THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CON-
DiTtONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY INVOLVED OR TO THE 1NTENDED USE
OF THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR CLA55
OF USE IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE.
~.~_.
- ~, . ~_._._.~ ' , . . _ . .. . . ;. ~:
,
~
7.53
NINUTES; C17Y PIANNING COMMISSION, APrti~ 3, 1961, CONTINUED: • • ~
VARiANCE N0. 1344 ~ 3. THAT.THE REQUESTEO•VARIANCE IS N07 NECESSARY,FOR Tkf PRZ's.".+:~'ATIflM 3
CONT~NUED AND "eNJCYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY R10H7 POSSESt'aED SY G7HER ~
PRODERTY IN THE SAME 41CINITY AND 20NE~ AND DENfED TO THE P!~OPERTY
)N' QUESTION. ~
4: THA7 THE REQUEh'7F.~' VAPIANCE WILL BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO TNE
PUBLIC MELFARE fttZ INJ~RJOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS 1N SUCH ~
~ VJCINITY AND ZbF~E 1N NHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. •
5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE NlIL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPREHENSIVE •
GENERAL PLAN. • j
I
' 6. THA7 THE MUNICIPAL CODE HAS ESTABLISHED TKE REQUIREMENT OF A NINLMUM
OF 150 FEET Ik DISTANOE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE ABUTTfNa R~1~
SINQLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE FOR THE MULTIPLE STORY DEVELOPMENT.
• 7. VERBA~ OPPOSITION BY ONE OWNER OF PROPERTY IN THE V1CJNlTY WAS RE-
CORpED A~AIN57 SUBJECT PETIlION. . .
COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOWTION N0. 220~ SERIES 1960~61~~AND MOVED~;
FOR 7TS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMCSSIONER ALLRED~ THAT PE- !
T,tTION FOR YARIANCE N0. 1349~ REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF THE SINQLE STORY j
HEIaHT LIMlTAT10N~ BE DENIED ON THE BA515 OF TME AFOREMENTIONED FlNDIN~S. ~
OH ROLL CALL THE FOREQOINa RESOLUTION IdAS PASSEp BY THE,FOLLOWINp VOTES i
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNaALL~ SUKMERS,. ',
NOES: COHM1SS10NEltS7 NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAP~OOD.
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ENTERED THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT
3;10 0'C~ocK P.M. • ,
CONDiTIONAI USE - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION St1~M17TED er RICHARD aNU MARGUERITE E. MiTCHELL,
PERMIT N0. 107 1824 WEST•OCEAN FRONT NEWPORT BEACH~ CALIFORNIA~ OMNERS~ BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF 210N LU~H~RAN CHURCH, 118 NORTH EMILY ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA
AaeNrs; REQUESTINa ~ERMtss~oN ro.CONSTRUCT AND OP~RATE A CHURCH CONPLEf(.
ON PROPERTY DESCRIBEU AS• A PARCEL 337 FEEi BY 1~084 FEET W(TH A FRONT~
AOE OF 337 FEET ON EAST STREET AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
EAS'i' AND CYPRE55 STREETS. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CL/~SSIFIED R~A~ RESIDEN~
TIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
REVEREND E. W. MATTHIAS~ PABTOR OF THE ZION LUTHERAN CHURCM~ APPEARED
BEFORE THI. COMMISSION AND LNDICATED TfiAT THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCT(ON
NOULD SERYE AS A 9UFFER BETMEEN THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO 7HE NORT11
AND THE CCMMERC-AL DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH.
MR. ~ACK POLLEY~ 1262 EAST ADELE STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMiA15510N
AND SUBMITTED A PETITION~ CON7AINLN4 14 SIGNATURES OF PROPERTY OWNERS IN
THE VJA~NlTY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ MH1CFl OUTLINED YARIOUS iTEMS FOR
CONSIDERATION IF THE SUBJECT PETJTION MERE APPROVED. yR. POLLEY INDI~
GATEp THAT HE REPRESENTED TH~SE PROPERTY OMNERS AND THAT TNEY WOULD HAVE
NO OBJECTIONS TO THE SUBJECT PETITION PROVIDED THE ITEMS OUTLiNED.M6RE
CONS(DERED. THE PETITION REQUESTED THAT ACCE8S TO TME PROPER7Y FROM
CYPRE55 STREET BE RESTRICTED~ THAT A BLOCK NALL BE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO
CYPRE55 STREET ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINEl~ THAT A IANDSCAPED BUFFER STRfP
BE PROVIDED ON CYPRESS STREET AND THAT •IYO PARKING• S1QNS BE PLACED
r,~ THE SOUTH SIDE OF CYPRESS ~TREET. MR. POLLEY STATED THAT THE MA)Id
CQNCERN OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ,IN THE AREA WAB -N RESPECT TO TRAFFIC
CON~ESTION.
REVEREND MATTHIAS INDICATEO THAT THE PET1T10NERS WER%' WfLLlNO TO COOPER~ ,
ATE WITH THE NEIIiHBORS IN THE AREA~THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE INTERESTED
lN PRESERV)Na THE CHARACTER OF THE NEI.GHBORHOOD~ THAT THE PROPOSED DEVEL-
OPMENT WOULD HE MORE DESIRABLE THAN MLLTIFLE FAid)LY REBIDENTIAL DEVELOP-
MENT~ AND THAT THE PRESENT CHURCH SCHOOL FACILlTIES WOULD EVENTUALLY BE
MOVED TO THE PFOPOSED DEVELOPMENT. '
riK.,}iARRY ~ALLEti~ 1229 EAST CYPRESS $TREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE ~OMMIS~
SION~ EXPRESSED CQNCERN ABOU7 THE POSSIBLE TRAFFIC CON~EBTION CREATED BY
THE TRANSPORTATION OF CHILDREN TO THE PROPOSED.SCHOOL FACILITY~ AND RE~
QUESTED THAT ~NO PARKINQ~ SfONS BE INSTALLED ON THE SOLYH SIDE OF CYPRE55
STREET.
MR. GORDOt1 HQWARD~ 3115 VALHALLA DR{VE~.BURBANK~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COM~
MISSION AND 5TATED HE WAS THE OWNER OF PROPIER7h i.OCATED SOUTHERLY OF.THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ABUTTTNa THE EAST PROPERTY L7NE OF THE ALPHA BETA •
MARKET. HE INDICATED TIIAT HE CONSIDERED THE PROPOSED DEVELOPME-:f A PRO- '
PER AND DESIRABt.E USE ANi.' OID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO 1T5 E9TABLIBH- '
MENT. HOWEVER~ HE MAS CONG~RNED ABOUT THE EFFECT THAT 7HE PROPOSED USE
WOULD HAVE ON FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF H15 PROPERTY 1N RESPECT TO CERTAIN
TYPES OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
yR. RICHARD E..MITCHELL~'THE PET1T10N6n~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMM15310N
AND INDICATED HIS SURPRISE AT THE REQUEST FOR A•NO PARKING• RESTRICTION
FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF CYPRESB STREET. HE STATED THAT HE CONSlOERED THE
RESTRICTION,OF PARKINa PRIVJLfQES MOULO DENY HIS PROPERTY A RIGHT THAT
MAS POSBES3ED BY OTHER PROPERTIES 1N THE AREA. HE ALSO STATED TMAT HE
~ .~r?;+.-
~r .~ . . . . , . r , . ._. ---:.. _ _ _-~~
i
~
'~ ~' ~ ~.~
:;
. j
`~.~
~
~
t
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMiSSION~ APRIL 3~ 1961, CONTINUED:
CONDITI('NAL USE - wAS AWARE OF A 2 FOOT RESERVED STRIP ABUTTING CYPRESS STREET AND THAT
P£RMIT N0. 107 PURCHASE OF THIS STRIP OF PROPERTY WAS PRESENTLY IN ESCROW.
FRANK WISBERG~ 147 LA PLA2A~ INQUIRED ABOUT THE USE OF TNE PRIVATE ALLEY
ON THE SOUTHEFLY PROPERTY LINE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE HEARiNG WAS
CLOSED, ,
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE LOCATION OF ACCE55 AREAS TO THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY. IT WAS NOTED THAT A STUDY BY THE TRAFFIC ENGINEEF WOULD BE
DESIRABLE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR PROPER INGRESS AND EGRESS AND FOR
TRAFFIC SAFETY PRECAUTIONS.
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE ~EaSLER ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT THE
CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER SHOULD PREPARE A TRAFFIC ~AYOUT AND MAKE RECOM-
MENDATIONS IN RESPECT TO THE TRAFFIC PROBLEM. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT
'I'HE NECESSITY FOR MNO PARKING„ SIGNS WOULD BE DETERMINED BY AND WAS
UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED WALL CODE REQUIREMENTS AND THE AcSTHETIC APPEAR-
ANCE THAT LANDSCAPING ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE~ RATHER THAN A WALL~
WOULD PROVIDE FOR CYPRESS STREET. ~T WAS AGREEO~ HOWEVER~ THAT A WA~L
SHOULD BE lNSTALLED ALONG THE PLAYGROUND AREA.ANB THAT A SIDENALK WOULD
NOT BE NECESSARY.
REVEREND MATTHIAS INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT TFiE CHURCH HAD PURCHASED
THE PROPERTY CONTINGENT UPON THE APPROVAL QF THE SUBJECT PETITION AND
THAT ARCHITECTURAL PLANS WOULD BE DEVELOPED AND PREPARED IF APPROVAL
WERE GRANTED.
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETEI;MINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE
SUBJECT pETITIOY;
1. THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS PROPERLY ONE FOR WHICH A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT IS AUTHORIZED BY THIS COQE~ TO WIT: A CHURCH COMPLEX.
2. THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJO~NING LAND
USES AND THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPhOENT OF THE AREA IN WHICH IT IS PRO-
POSED TO BE LOCATED.
3. THAT THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE SITE PROPOSED FOR THE USE IS ADEQUATE
TO ALLOW THE FULL IDEVE~OPMENT OF THE PROPOSED USE IN A MANNER NOT
DETF1fnEWT:.t TO 7HE PARTICULAR AREA NOR TO THE PEACEt HEALTH~ SAFETY~
AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEtM.
4. THAT THE TRAFFIC fiENERATED 8Y THE PROPOSED USE WiLL NOT IMPOSE AN
UNDUE BURDBN UPON THE STREETS AND H~4HWAYS DESIGNED AND ~MPROVED TO
CARRY THE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA.
5. THAT THE GRANTING OF THE CONDITtONAL USE PERMIT UNDER THE CONDITIONS
1MPOSED~ IF ANY~ WtLL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PEACe~ HEALTH~
SAFETY~ AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
6. NO ONE AppEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUBJECT PETIT.~ON.
COMMISSIONER MUNGALL OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 221~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED
FOR ITS PASSAQE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX~ TO aRANT
CONDITIONA~ USE PERMIT N0. 107~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED.
~~ ~~: 2. PROVISION OF A 51X (6) FOOT MASONRY WALL ON THE NORTH PROPERTY L~NE
OF SUBJECT PROPERTY ABUTTING CYPRESS STREET INCLOSING ONLY THE PLAY-
OROUND AREA AS INDICATED ON THE PLOT PLAN.
3. PROVISION AND MAINTENANCE OF LANDSCAPING ABUTTIN6 THE NORTH PROPERTY
LINE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY EXTENDINQ ALON~ CYPRESS STREET YtESTERLY FROM
TNE PLAYGROUND AREA TO cAST STREET.
4. PROVISION OF A SIX (6) F00T MASONRY WALL ABUTTING THE SOUTH PROPERTY
LINE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY.
5. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL IM~
PROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE )N THE
OFFIC~ OF THE CITY ENaINEER.
6. PAYMENT OF 52.00 PER FRONT F00T FOR STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES ON EAST
STREET AND CYPRE55 STREET.
7. ACQUISITION OF THE TWO (2) FOOT STRIP aLOT A• LYING CONTIGUOUS TO
CYPRE55 STREET.
8. APPROVAL BY THE CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER OF THOSE AREAS RESERVED FOR
INGRE55 AND EQRESS TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE FOREGOING CONDJT10N5 WERE RECITED AT THE MEETIN6 AND WERE FOUND TO BE
A'NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CIT12EN5 OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING YOTE;
~
~' ' .
~
~
~ l
-~M
V° ~ _ .:~ 114
~
{
t.
E
~
e ..._.._
~ '`-
E. ,....,...r.
hiidU7ES, CSSY P~~iPSiHG CaKi~iSSfOt~, Aa~~~ 3, 1951~ Cousi:~use:
CONDITIONAL USE -
PERMIT N0. 107
CONTIt:UED
VARIANCE N0. 1350 -
.15
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGR;LL~ SUMMERS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMiSS(ONERS: HAFGOOD,
PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev MORAGA-FULTON BUILDING COMPANY,
C/0 FERMAN BUILDERS~ 6505 WILSH~RE BOULEVARD LOS ANGE~ES 48 CALIFORNIA~
OWNER REQUESTING PERMISSION ro WA1VE MINIMU~1 LOT AREA AND LbT WiDTH ON
CERTAIN LOTS 1N TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 2962, ort PROPERTV DESCRIBED as• AN
IRREGULARLY SHAPED PARCEL WITH A FRONTAGE OF 324 FEET ON CRESCENT AVENUE ~
AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CRESCENT AVENUE BETWEEN BROOKHURST AC~D ~
MORAGA STREETS~ ITS SOUTHWEST CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY S6 FEET EAST OF
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MORAGA STREET AND CRESCENT AVENUE. PROPERTY PRE~ ,
SEIVTLY CLASSIFIED R-A, RESIDENTIAL A6RICULTURAL, ZONE, i
SUBJECT PETITION FOR VARIANCE IS SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH REVISED i
TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 2962~ REVISED ~ARCM 4; 1961.
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ~OE GEISLER SUBMITTED A WRITTEN LEGAL OPINION~
PREPARED AND SIGNED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY~S OFFICE~ ADVISING THE COMMIS-
SION THAT THH VARIANCE SHOULD BE ORANTED AS A MAtTER OF LAW. THE REPORT
INDICATED THAT THE SUBJECT PETITION FOR VARIANCE WAS NEGESSARY BECAUSE
THE ORIGINAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP HAD BEEN FILED OVER TWO YEARS AQO UNDER
THE R-3 ZONE COOE REQUIREMENTS IN EXISTENCE AT THAT T1ME~ AND THAT THE
TIME LIMITATION FOR EILING THE FINA~ MAP HAD EXPIRED DUE TO THE COOPERA-
TION BY THE DEVELOPER W~TH THE CITY IN THE CITY~S ACQU~SITION OF ADJA-
CENT PROPERTY FOR A PARK SITE. ~
THE PROPOSED LOT DIMENSIONS~INDICATING A TRACT LAYOUT WITH MIN~MUN LOT
AREAS OF 7~370 SQUARE FEET AND M~NiMUM LOT NIDTkS OF 70 FEET~ WERE SUB- ~
MITED TO THE COMMISStON FOR REVIEW. IT WAS NOTED THAT A VARIANCE FROM
THE R-3 SECTION OF THE CODE IS REQUESTED ALTHOUQH THE PRQPERTY IS PRE~
SENTLY IN THE R~A?, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ 20NE ANL• TNAT PETIT~ON FOR ~
RECLASSIF~CATION IVO. F-59-60~15 IS STiLI PENDlNG TO ~tEClA551FY SUBJECT
PROPERTY TO THE R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ 20NE. THE COMMISSION ;.~
AL50 NOTED THAT THE ORIGINAL TENTATIVE MAP OF T~ACT N0. 1962 DID CON- 3
FORM IN ALL RESPECTS TO THE R-3 REGULATIONS IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIM= ~
THE ORtGINAL TENTATIVE MAP WAS FILED. ~
THE PETITIONER NAS NOT PRESENT. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~
THE COMMISSEON FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARD~NG THE ~
SU9JECT PF.T iT ION: ~
1. THAT THE P:TITtONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE; SECTtGN 18.32.050 (1 AND 2)~ TO PERMIT A TRACT LOT LAYOUT WITH
MINIMUM AREAS QF 7~370 SQUARE FEET AND MINIMUM WIDTHS OF 70 FEET. ~
2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY C~RCUMSTANCES OR CONDI- ~
TIONS APPIICABLE TO THE PROPERTY ~NVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED USE OF
THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR CLA55 OF
USE !N THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE.
3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ~
ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY 07HER PROPERTY
IN THE SAME VICINITY AND 20NE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPE~RTY iN QUEST~OPI.I
4. THAT THE RECUESTED VARtANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE
PUBLIC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS 70 THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN SUCH
VIClNITY AND ZONE !N NHICH THE .PROPERTY i5 LOCATED.
5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILI NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPREHENSIVE
GENERAL PLAN.
6. T°1.1T 7HE SUBJECT PETITION FOR VARIAN(:E IS SUBMITTED IN CONJUilCTION
. WITH REVISED TENTATiVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 2962, REVISED MARCH 9~ 1961.
SAID TENTAT~VE MAP WAS OR~GINALLY SUBM~TTED UNDER PREVIOUS R-3~ MUL-
TIPI.E FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE REQUiREMENTS IN EFFECT AT THAT TlME.
COOPERATION BY THE DEVELOPER WITH THE CITY OF ANAHEIM IN THE CITY~S
NEGOTIATlONS F'OR THE ACQUISfT~ON OF,~PARK FACILITIES RESULTED IN TF1E
EXPtRAT~ON OF THE TWO YFAR T~ME LIMITATION BY.STATE LAW FOR THE FIL-
ING OF THE FINAL MAP. THE Rl3~ MULTIPLE FAM~IY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE
CODE REQU~REMENTS HAVE BEEN REVISED SINCE THE APPROVAL OF THE ORlGIN-
AL TENTATIVE TRACT~ THEREfORE~ IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE 9EVELOPMEN'f OF
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE N~TH THE ORIGINAL TENTATIVE MAP
AND DUE TO THE COOPERATION BY THE DEVELOPER~ THE SUBJECT PETITIt~N FOR
VAR~ANCE IS CONSIDERED NEGESSARY.
7. THAT THE CITY AT70RNEY~S OFFiCE.D~O PREPARE A~VD FILE WITH THE SUBJECT
PETITION FOR VARIANCE A LEQAL OPINION~ DATED MRRCH 31~ 1961~ THAT
SAID PETlTlON FOR VAR:ANCE N0. 1350 SHOULD BE GRANTED AND TEN'fATIVE
-MAP OF TRACT N0. 2962 BE APpROVED. ~ ~
8. NO ONE APPEARED iN OPPOSITI,ON TO SUBJECT PETITION.
COMMISSIONER MUNGALL OFFERED RESOLlITION N0. 222~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND
b10VED EOR !TS PASSAeE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMM75510NER SUMMERS~
~.
~ ~
~,
. ~
~
~
~
E:, T
\i
116 i
~
~
~
MtHUTES, C!TY pLANM1NG COMMISSlUN. APRlL 3~ 1961, CONTINUED:
vaRtaNCE No. 1350
CONTINUED
- .w
TENTATIVE MAP
OF TRACT N0. 2962
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT N0. ~,~
- THAT VARlANCG N0. 1350 BE GRANTED~ ON THE BA515 OF THE C~TV ATTORNEY~S
LEGAL OPINiON~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLONING CONDITION:
1. SUBJECT TO THE RECORDAT~ON OF THE•FiNAL MAP OF TRACT N0. 2962.
THE FOREGOING CONDlTION WAS RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WAS FOUND TO BE
A NECESSARY PREREQIlISI7E TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE ~
THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CIT12EN5 OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWI•NCa VOTE; (
AYES: COMMISSIONERS~ ALLRED~,GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUM~ALL~ SUMMERS.i.
NOES: COMMiSSIONERS: NONE. ~
ABSENT: COMMiSS10NERSI HAPGOOD. I
- SUBDiV1DER-OWNER: MORAGA-FULTON BUILDING COMPANY, c/o FERMAN BUILDERS~ ~
6505 WILSHlRE BOULEVARD~ LOS ANGELES 46~ CALtFORN1A. THE TRACT IS LO- i
CATED ON THE NORTH SfDE OF CRESCENT AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 1~345 FEET NEST i
OF THE CENTERLtNE OF BROOKHUR3T STREET~ AND CONTAINS 18 PROPOSED R-3~
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ LOTS. i
SUBJECT MAP~ REVISED MARCH 9~ 1961~ SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH PETI- i
TION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1350~ CONTAINS 6.3 ACRES AND IS PROPOSED FOR 18 ~
R~3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ LOTS. ~
TI1C COtAt1t55£0!: DlSCUSSED THE FACT THA7 RECLASSIFIGATION pF THE SUBJECT 1
PROPERTY TO THE R-3 ZONE IS STILL PENDING. THE IMPROVEMENT BV THE CITY I
OF MORAGA $TREET WAS ALSO DISCUSSED AiVD NOTE NAS MADE OF THE PROPOSED i
ALLEY ABUTTING THE EASTERLY EXTENSION OF THE TRACT. THE HEARING•WAS
CLOSED.
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FO~IOWING FACTS REGARDING THE ~
SUBJECT TRACT: ~
1. THAT THE TENTATfVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 2962~ REVISEi> MP.RCH 9~ 1961~ IS I
SUBMITTED 7N C6NJUNCTION WITH VARIANCE N0. 1350. SA1D TE~iiATIVE ~
MAP HAS ORlGlNAL~Y SUBMITTED UNDER PREVIOUS R-3~ MULTIPLE ~AMILY RE-
5l9ENT!AL, Z4NE REQU!P.EMENTS !N EFFECT AT THAT TtME. CDOPERATION BY
THE DEVELOPER WITH THE CITY OF ANAHEIM IN THE CITY~S NEGOTIATIONS ~
FOR THE ACQUt51TI0N OF ADJACENT PROPERTY FOR PARK FACiIITIES RE-
SULTED !N THE EXPIRATION OF THE TWO YEAR TIME LIiAITATION BY STATE
LAW FOR THE FILING OF THE FINAL MAP. THE R~3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESI~
DENTIAL~ ZONE CODE REQU~REMENTS HAVE BEEN REVISED S1NCE THE APPROVAL
OF THE ORI6INAL TENTATIVE TRACT~ THEREFORE~ IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ORIaINAI.
TENTATIVE MAP AND DUE TO THE COOPERATION BY THE DEVELOPER~ THE PETI- ~
TION FOR VARIANCE IS NECESSARY TO PERM~T A TRACT LOT LAYOUT WITH
M~NtMUM AREAS OF 7~370 SQUARE FEET AND M~NIMUM WIDTHS OF 70 FEET. 1
2. THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY~S OFFICE DID PREPARE AND FILE W~TH THE SUB- ~
JECT PETITION FOR VARIANCE A LEGAL OP~NION~ DATED MARCH 31~ 1961~ I
' THAT SA1D PETiT10N FOR VARIANCE N0. 1350 SHOULD BE GRANTED AND i
TENTATIVE. MAP OF TRACT N0. 2962 BE APPROVED.
3. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT TRACT tAAP.
COMMISSIONER ALIRED OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS
AND CARRlED~ THAT TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 2962 BE APPR6VED~ ON THt
BA515 OF THE AFOREMFNTIONED F1ND~NGS~ SUBJECT TO THE FULLOWING CONDITIONS:~
1. $UBJECT TO THE RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP OF TRACT N0. 2962. 1
2. SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL 'oY THE CITY COUNCIL 'JF THE PLOT AND ELEVATION
PI.ANS FOR THE DEVELOPMFNT OF SUBJECT PROPERTV.
- PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED e•~ BERS AND TAMARA BERNARD AND LEO
AND JEAN CHAKOV 32Q2 DOS PALOS DRIVE~ LOS ANOElES 28~ CALIFORNIAt AND
EUGENE T. AND LAVERNE C. MET2, 335 NORTH BROOKHURST STREET~ A~IAHEIM~
CALIFORNIA~ OwNERS: ALBERT C. JOHNSON, 2638 SKYWOOD PLACE. ANAHEIM~
• CALIFORNIA~ LESSEE~ REQUE5TING PERMISSION 70 CONSTRUCT TWENTY-~OUR UiViT
MOTEL, ON PRQPERTY DESCRIBED A5: PARCEL A: A PARCEL 67 FEET BY 300
FEET NITH A FRONTA6E OF 67 FEET ON BROOKHURST STREET AND LOCATED ON THE
NEST SIDE OF BR~OKHURST STREET BETWEEN CRESCENT AND WOODLEY AVENUES; ITS
SOUTHEAST CfiRNEft BEtNG APPROXIMATELY 108 FEET NORTH OF THE-NORTNWEST
CORNER OF BROOKHURST STREET AND WOODLEY AVENUE. PARCEL B: A PARCEL 67
FEET BY.81 FEET ADJOININO PARCEL °LI. ON THE WESTERLY 81 pEET AND FURTHER
DESCRIBED AS 409 NORTH BROOKHURST STREET. ~ROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED
R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
MR. ALBERT C. JOHNSTON~ THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~
DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED CONSTRUC710N OF A 24 UNIT MOTEL~ AND INDJ.CATED
THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT,BE OBJECTIONABLE TO THE R-1~ SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ DEVELOPIdENT ABUTTING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE
MEST BECAUSE NlNDOWS WILL NOT BE PROV,IDED IN THE SECOND STORY OF THE
~ ~PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. ~ . . ~ . . ..
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED CODE REQUIREMENTS.RELAtIVE TO MALL INSTALLA-
TIONS FOR PROPERTIES ABU7TING THE R~1 ZONE AND RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED
SALE OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE HEARING
~
. ~
. .._ ~_-- '
-----
~ ~
":l;ryj.
_ '- - - ~' ~~
,
a
'~ ~~
~,j :;, .
~
NlNUTES, C1TY PLANNlN6 CQMMUSS~ON, APRII 3, 1961, CONTINUED:
:117
COND1T10NAL USE - MAS CLOSED.
PERMIT N0. 108
CONT~NUED
THE COMMISS-ON FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOMING FACTS REOARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITION;
1. THAT THE PROPOSED USE 15 PROPERLY ONE FOR WHICH A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 15 AUTHORIZED BY TH1~ CODE~ TO WITI A TWENTY-FOUR UNIT
MOTEL.
THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJOINING LAND
2
.
USES AND THE QROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF TNE AREA IN WHICH 1T IS PRO~
POSED TO BE LOCATED.
3. THA7' TNE S1ZE AND SHAPE OF THE SITE PROPOSED FOR THE USE IS ADEQUATE
~
TO ALLOW THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED USE•IN A MANNER NOT
DETRIMENTAL TO THE PARTICULAR AREA NOR TO THE PEACE HEALTH~ SAFETY~ ;
AND GENERAL WEI.FARE OF THE CIT12EN5 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. ~
I
THAT TH~ TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED USE MILL NOT IMPOSE AN ~
4
.
UNDUE BURDEN UPON THE STREETS AND HIaHNAYS DE:IaNED AND IMPRGVED TO
CARRY THE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA.
5. THA7 THE GRANTING OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERlAIT UNDER THE CONDITIONS
IMPOSED~ IF ANY~ WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PEACE~ HEALTH~
Y OF ANAHEIM
C
.
IT
SAFETY~ AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF TNE
6. NO ONE APPEE~RED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION.
COMMISSIONER ALLRED OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 223~ SERIES ].960-b1' AND MOVED
FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUMMcRS~ THA7
CONDITIONAL USE PERMiT N0. 108 BE GRANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOW~tt~ CO!•1-
DITIONS:
1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED.
2. THAT NO WINDONS SHALL BE PROViDED iN THE SECOND STORY OF THE BUILDING
CENT TO THE R~1
D
~
JA
ON TFiE SOUTri AND HcST S1DE5 OF SAID STRUCTURE A
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ .LONES. ~
P°~YlS:^!d QF 45 F~ET OF LANDS~:.'F:6 AREA ABUTTiNG EAST PROPERTY LINE
3
.
U BROOKHURST STRF_ET PLANS FOR SAID LAND°CAPING TO BE SUBMITTED TO
AND APPROVED BY THE ~UPERINTENDENT OF PARKWAY MAINTENANCE.
4. PROVISION OF A SIX (6) FOOT MASONRY WALL ON THE SOUTH A!!D WEST PRO-
PE.RTY LlNES OF SUBJECT PROPERTY.
5, DEDICATfON OF SIXTY (60) FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE Of
BROOKHURST STREET (30 .°EET EXISTING).
5. PREPARATION OF 5'CREET IMPROVEMENT PlANS AND INS74LLATION OF ALl IM-
PROVEMENTS !N ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED STANDARD t~ANS ON FILE IN
THE OPFfCE OF THE CITY ENGINEER.
7. PAYMENT OF $2.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES. ~
~
.
8
~
H
L
A
S
U
N
~
C
ABUTTING (
ON
CAT HOSPITAL LOCATED
AND
. MADNED
DOG
ANAHEGM
EAST
BY
7HE
PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. ~
THE FOREGO(NG CONDITIQNS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND MERE FOUND TO BE ~
A NECESSARY !PREREQUIStTE TO 7HE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
THE SAFETY A:YD WELFPRE OF 'iHE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOiNG RESOLUTfON NAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOW~NG VOTE;
AYES: CONiMISSIONERS: ALLRFD~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORR15~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS.
NOES: COM~tiSSiONERS3 NONE. j
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD. ~
CONDlTIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED av uui3l+LD Fi. AHD ALcEtr' ~. ~l~~' 513
1~721 ~
THORPE
JOHN B
OWNERS
C
PFRM17 N0. 109 ,
.
~
AU FORNIA!
SOUTH EUC U D AVENUE~ ANAHEIM
BLSIEJAY ~ANE GARDEN GROVE ~ALIFORNIA~ LESSEE~ REQUEST~N~ PERMISSION TO
CONSTRUCT ANb OPeRATE A DRIVE-IN RESTAURANT, oN PROPERTY DESCRIBED ns:
A PARCEL 112 FEET BY 366 FEET N17H A FRONTAGE OF 112 FEET 9N BROOKHURST
ORANGE
STREET AND LOCATED ON THE vIEST SIDE OF BROOKHURST STREET BETNEEN
AVENUE aND STONYBROOK DRJVE~ ITS NORTHEAST CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY
30O FEET SOUTH ^F THE SOUTHHEST CORNER OF ORANGE AVENUE AND BROOKHURST
ET. PROPERTY PRE~
BCUITUR
T
SA
E
S
R
AI, ZONE
GR
RESIDEN
AL
R AE
i'r~v'c~nssiFREU
sEr
.-JOHN~THORPE~~ THE PETITIONER~ APPEAREJ BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND EX- ~
MR.
.
PLAINED THAT THE SUBJECT PETITION FOR CONDITJONAL USE PERMIT WAS IDENTI-
E COMMIS~
CAL TO THE PETiTION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60-61-56 WHICH TH
SION HAD APPROVED BUT WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE THE
COUNCIL CONSIDERED A CONDITlONAL USE PERM~T~THE PROPER VEH~CLE BY WHICH
THE PROPOSED USE SHOULD BE 6RANTED. THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT AT THE
1H8_ '
~ k-.
~.-
~q ~
F` ~
~
MiNUTES, CiTY PLANNiNG COHMISSiON~ APRtL 3, 1951, CONt'INUED:
COhDITtONAI USE
PcRMIT N0. 109
CONTFNUED
REClASSIFICATION
N0. 60-61-83
~ .
- TIME THAT THE RECLASSIFICATION PETITJON WAS F1LED~ THE CONDITIONAL USE ~
PERMIT 5ECTION 01' THE CODE WAS NOT 1N EFFECT. AS A CONSEQUENCE~ TkE
COUNCII HAD DENfEA THE PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION,~ WITHOUT PREJU-
DICE~ AND RECOMME~~DED THAT THE PETITIONER MAKE APPIICATION FOR A PETI-
TION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
THE PETITIONER 1NFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT THE COUNCIL HAD NOT REVIEWED
THE PLOT PLANS SUBMITTED WITH THE PETITION FOR RECLASStFiCAT10N~ AND ~
THAT THE PLOT PLAN FOR THE SUBJECT PETITION FOR CONDITlONAL USE PERMIT
INCORPORATED M1NOR REV~SlONS TO THE PARKING AREA LAYOUT AND THE BUILD-
ING SETBACK. WALL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WERE DISCUSSED
WITH THE COMMISSION~ AND THE PETITIONER 1NDICATED HE HAD D~SCUSSED THE I
REQUIREMENTS WITH THE ADJACENT.PROPERTY OWNER. i
THE COMMt.i510N FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWINQ FACTS REGARDIN~ THE
SUBJECT PETITION:
1. THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS PROPERLY ONE FOR MHICH A CONDITIONAt_ USE
PERMIT IS AUTHORI2ED BY THIS CODE~ TO WITC A DR{VE-IN RESTAURANT. '
2. THAT THE PROPOSED USE NILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJ0IN~NQ LAND ~
. USES AND THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA IN WNICH IT IS PRO- i
PUSED TO BE LOCATED.
3. THAT THE S1ZE AND SHAPE OF THE SITE PROPOSED FOR TKE USE IS ADEQUATE ~
TO ALLO+I THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED USE IN A MANNER NOT I
DETRIMEi1TAL TO THE PARTICULAR AREA NOR TO THE PEACE HEALTH~ SAFETY~ ~
A~~D GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE I;ITY OF ANAHEIM. ;
4. THAT THE TRAFF~C GENERATED BY 7HE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT IMPOSE AN ~
UNDUE BURDEN UPON THE STREETS AND HlGHWAYS DESIGNED AND IMPROVED
TO CARRY THE TRAFFIC ~N THE AREA. •
5. THAT THE aRANTINO OF THE COND)TIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER THE CONDITIONS
SMPOSED~ IF ANYo WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTA~ TO THE PEACE~ HEALTH~ SAFE-
TY~ AND ~ENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITI2ENS OF THE C~TY OF ANAHEIM.
6. THA7 PETITlON :OR CONDITIONAL USE PERNI'l.NO. 109 IS IDENTICAL TO PE~
TtT10N POR FfECLA551FqCAT10N N0. 60~61~56y WHICH WAS APPROVED BY ~
PLANNIN~ COMM15510N RESOLUTION N0. 174~ JERIES 1960-61~ ADOPTED ON
FEBRUARY 6; 1951. AND WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOU7 PREJUD-CE BY COUNCIL
RESOLUTlON N0. 6'~24~ ADOPTED MARCH 7~ 1961.
7. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUBJECT PETITION.
COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 224~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND MOVED '
FOR ITS PASSAOE AND ADOPTION~ ~ECONDED BY CONMISSIONER MARCOUX~ THAT
PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 10~~ BE 6RANTED~ SUB.FECT TO THE
FOLLOWIN~ CO~DTIONS:
1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED.
2. DEDICATION OF 60 FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF BROOKHURST
STREET (30 FEET EXISTIN~).
3. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF AlL IM~
PROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPRONED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER. ~
4. PAYMENT OF 52.00 PER FRONT F00T FOR STREET LIaHTINa PURPOSES. ~
5. TIME LIMITATION OF NINETY (90) DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITEM!i ~
NJ. 2~ 3~ AND 4.
6. C~NSTRUCTION OF A SIX (6) F00T MASONRY NALL ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE ~
OF SUBJECT PROPERTY~ AND TI{E pOSTIN~ JF A BOND FOR A PERIOD OF TWO (2~~
YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF SUBJECT RESOLUTlON FOR THE CONSTRUC~-
TION OF A SIX (6) F00T MASONRY WALL ON THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE~ SAID ~
WALL NOT TO 8E CONSTRUCTED IF PRQPERTY ABUTTING TO THE SOUTH IS RE-
ZONED TO ANY COMMERCIAL ZCiNE WITHIN TItE NEXT TWO (2) Y::AR PERIOD.
T!1E FOREGOING CONDITlONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO
I.E A NECESSAI~Y PkElZEVliI51TE TG TiiE 1i5c 8F YHE PRO?cRTV iii 0^nDE^n TO A^'c-
SERVE THE SAFETY AND NELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF ANAHcIM. ~
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGA~L~ SUMMrRS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NaNE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD.
- PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev B.I.C. - BALL AND MAGNOLIA~ A
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, SuirE 704, 900 NUR7H Qr~OADWAY~ $ANTA ANA~ CALiFOR^
NIA~ ONNERS~ REQUESTINO THAT PROPERTY'DESCRiBED ASC A PARCEL $22 FEET
BY 735 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 522 FEET CN BALL ROAD AND LOCATED ON Ti4E
SOUTNEAS7 CORNER OF BALL ROAD AND MA6NOLIA AYENUE~ EY.CEPT A PARCEL 150
, . , . , .~ :'i;`~~ ._ _~
~
~
~. .
~, ~
~
~
MiNUTES, C1iY PUtNNiNG CBMMiSSIOt~l~ APRIL 3, 1961, COKTINUED;
RECLASSiFICATION -
N0. 60-61-83
CONTINUEL
BY 150 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 150 FEET ON BALL ROAD ANO LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BALL ROAD AND MAQNOLIA AVENUE~ AND FJk7HER 6ESCR18ED
AS 1226-1254 SOUTH MA(iNGLIA AVENUE BE RECLASS~FIED FROt? TH~ R-A RESI-
DENTIAL A6R1CUlTURAL, 20NE ro iNE ~-1. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERC1Al~ fONE.
MR. EDWARD ~INDSKOG~ ENGINEER REPRESENTING THE PETITIONERS~ APPEARED BE-
FORE THE COMMISSION~ AND SUBMITTED IHFORNATION REl.AT1VE TO TNE i115TORY
OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. HE INDICATED THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAD
BEEN ZONED BY TNE ORAN~E COUNTY PLANNIFIO COMMISS!ON TO THE COUNTY C-1
ZONE PRIOR TO ANNEXATION BY THE Ct•TY OF ANP,HEIM. UPON ANNEXATION~ 7HE ~
PROPERTY HAD BEEN CLASSIFIED TO THE R~A~ RESIDENTIAL AORICUL7URAL~ ZONE.
TME NORTHERLY•PORTION OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN DEVELOPED WITH THE ALPHA ~
BETA SHOPPINa CENTER AND THE SUBJECT PET~Ta6k FOR REC~ASSIF~CATfON WOULD ~
PERMIT THE ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENTIRE PARCEL TO 1NCLUDE VARIOUS
SHOPS~ A DRUG STORE~ AND A COCKTAIL LOUNGE AND RESTAURANT.
THE COMMlSSION NOTED THAT THE COCKTAIL LOUNGE WAS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED ,
SIITHIN 300 FEET OF SCHOOL PROPERTY AND INDICATED THAT THE STATE POIICY
GOVERNINO ISSUANCE OF LIQUOR LICENSES PROHIBITED SALE OF ALCOHOl.IC BEYER~ ~
ACacS IM CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SCHOOI FACILITIES. ,
MR. KEN WINE~ REPRESENTATfVE OF THE ANAHEIM HIGH SCHOOL uiSTRICT,~ APPEAREO~
BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND INFORMED THEM THAT THE BUSINE55 AND PROFCSSION~ ~
AL CODE~ DIVIS~ON 9o CHAPTER 5~ SECTION 23789 OF THE AlCOH01.IC BEVERAGE
CONTROL BOARD PROHIBITS ~SSUANCE OF A LICENS~ FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE:• WITHIN 600 FEET OF 5CHOOL BUILDINGS OR PLAYGROUNDS.
MR. CIARENCE HALL?~ REPRESENTATlVE FOR EMIL VAN CASTEREN~ PETITIONER FOR
RECLA55lF1CAT10N IYO. 60-61~77~ APPEARED BEFORE 7HE COMMISSION~ AND JN-
DICATED THAT HE APPROVED OF THE PROPOSED C-1 ZONING FCR THE SUBJ~CT AREA.
HE STATED~ HONEVER~ THAT THEY OBJECTE~ TO THE PR6pO5ED ZECLASSIFICATION
OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BECAUSE PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60~-61~
77 HAD BEEN DENIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON MARCH 2O~196]SAID PETITIO~'
HAD REQUE57'ED THE RECLASSIFlCATION TO THE C~1 ZONE FOR A 5 ACRE PARCEL
IOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BALL ROAD AND 1~lEBSTER S7REET.
THE COMM~SSION NOTED THAT THE SUBJECT PETITION WAS FILED IN ORDtR TO
COMPLETE THE SECOND PHASE OF DEVE~OPMENT OF THE INTEGRATED SHOPPING
CENTER WHICH HAD IIEEN PLANNED pR10R TO ANNEXATtON BY THE CtTV~ THAT
SPECfFIC PLANS HAD BEEN PREPARED AND PRESHNTED FOR THE DEVEI.OPMENT~
AltD THAT THE C^1 ZONSTSG WAS H£CESSARY FOR TI~iE EXiSTIt~G COR7t~ERCIAL DEVEL~
OPMENT PRESE~iTLY ZONED !N THE R~-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURALo ZONE AND
CONSIDERED A NON-CONFORMINa USE.
THE PETITIONER INDICATED THAT THE PLANS INCLUDED DEVELOPMENT OF A W.T.
GRANTS STORE~ THA7 A LEASE FOR THE REXALL ORUG STORE WILL BE SIaNED AND
FINALiZED WITHiN 10 DAYSi AND THAT THE PLANS 5UBMITTED WITH SUBJECT PE- ~
TITION WERC 5lMILAR TO THE ORIGINAL PlANS FOR ~EVEI.OPMENT FIIED W~TH 7HE E•
CouNrv. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~
THE COMM~SSIOM D~SCUSSED RECOMMENDATIONS THAT TWO RESOLUTIONS BE ADOPTED~
THEREBY E5TAB1.i5HING THE C~-1 20NING FOR THE EXISTING COHMERCIAL DEVELOP~ ~
MENT CONTAINED IN THE NORTHERLY 240 FEET OF 5UBJECT PROPERTY~ AND RECLA55=.
IFYIN~ THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE C~1 ZONE IN ORDER TO PERMIT '
THE ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT.
THE COMMISSION FOUYD AND DETERMIMED THE FOLLOWiNG FACTS REGARD~NG PHASE
N0. 1 OF SUBJECT PET~TION:
1. THAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ABOVE DES-
CRIBED pROPERTY FROM THE R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAI~ ZONE TO THE
C~1~ NEIaHBORH!S~D COM~tERC1AL~ ZONE.
2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF ::JBJECT PROPERTY IS NECESSARY
OR DESIHABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEYELOPMENT OF THE COMMUNITY.
3. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLA551f:CAT10N OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES PROPERI.Y
RELATE TO THE 20ME5 AND THEiR PERMITTED USES LOCALL:' ESTAB~~SHED 15~
CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SUBJECT PRO?ERTY AND TO THE 20NE5 AND THEIR PER-
MITTED USES GENERALLY ESTABLISHED THFi0UGH0UT THE COMMUNITV.
4. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT RE-
QUIRE~DEDICATION Ft:R AND~STANDARD IMPROVEMENT OF ABUTTING STREETS
BECAUSE SAID YROPERTY DOES RELATE TO nti~ ABUT UPON STREETS AND HI~H-
MAYS WHIC:'. ARE ~MPROVED TO CARRY TNE TYPE AN~ QUANTITY OF TRAFFIC~
WHIC,H WILL BE QENERATED BY THE PERMITT6~ USES~ IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
5. THAT PHASE N0. 1~ INCORPORAT/NG THAT PORTION EXTENDINCa NORTHERLY
240 FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING BALL ROAD ON THE NOR'fH AND
EXTENDING EASTERLY 522 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING MAaNOL~A
AYENUE ON THE EAST~ EXCEPTIN~ THEkEFRf1M THAT PORTION LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST~CORNER OF BALL ROAD AND MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND MEASURED 150
FEET [iY 150 FEET~ HAS BEEN DEVELOPED FOR THE C-1~ NEI3HBORNOOD COM-
MERCIAL~ZONE AND THE RECLASSIFICATION OF SAiD PROPERTY FROM THE R-A~
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURHL~ 20NE T0 THE C-1~ NEI6HBORHOOD COMMERCJAL~ ~
ZONE W.ILL ESTABLISH~THE PROPER zONE FOR SAID DEVELOPMENT. ~
6. VERBAL OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION~ ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSED C-1 ~
ZONING FOR THE SUBJECT AREA 4A5 FAVOP.ED~ WAS RECORDED BY ONE INTER-
ESTED PARTY. ~
+.>-~ .. ~
MINUTES, CITY PLAlVNiNG ~OMMISSION~ APRIL 3, 1961~ CONTINUED;
RECLASS1FiCQ710N
N0. 60-61-83
CONTINUED
~
i
i
~
. ~
- COMMlSS~ONER MUNGALL OFFERED RESOLUT~UN N0. 225~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND ~
MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY CaMMISSIONER A~LRED~
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUP~CII. THAT RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60-61-83
3E GRANTED RECLASSIFYIN6 TO YHE C~x~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONE
PHASE N0. 1~ DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: i
3
PHASE N0. 1~ INCORPORATING TH~4T POI:TION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTV y
EXTEi~DING PlORTHERLY 240 FEET 1'0 THE PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING BFLL I
RQAD ON THE NORTH AND EXiEN~1N4 EASTERLY 522 FEE7 ~ROM THE PRO- ~
PERTY LINE ABUTTINO MAGNO:.iA AVENUE ON THE EAST~ EXCF.PTING THERE- I
FROM THAT PORTION LOCATED ON TF1E SOUTF:EAST C~RNER OF BALL ROAD
AND MAGNOLIA AVENUE.AND MEASURED 150 FEE? BY 15G FEE?, I
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING-RE50 WT:aN.NAS PASSED BY Tii° F4LL.7!~11.NC VOTE:
AYES: COMMiSS10NERS1 AILRED~ GAUER~ ~IAkC:;UX~_MORRIS~ MUN~ALL~ SUMMERS. i
NOES: COMMISSEONERSS NONE. ~
~
ABSENT: COMMiSS10NEpSt HAPGOOD. ~
THE ~QMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMI!!ED THE FOLLOMING FACTS RE6ARDING PHASE ~
N0. 2 OF SU9JECT PETITION:
7,. THAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A REC~.ASSIFICATION OF THE ABOVE DES-
CRIBED PROPERTY FROM THE R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE TO THE
C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. -
2. FHAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSSF:CATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NECESSARY
OR DESlRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVCLOPMENT OF THE COMMUNITY. ~
3. THAT 7HE PROPOSED RECLASSIFiCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES PROPERLY
RELATE TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PERMITTED USES LOCALLY ESTABLISHED IN Z
CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PER- :~
MIT7ED USES GENERALLY ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUN:TY.
4. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES REQUIRE :~
DEDICATION FOR AND STANDARD 1MPROVEMENT OF ABUTTING STREETS BECAUSE ~
SA1D PROPERTV DOES RELATE TO AND ABUT UPON STREETS AND HIGHWAYS WHICH q
ARE PROPOSED TO CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANTJTY OF TRAFFIC~ WHICH WILL BE 3
GENERATED BY_THE PERMITTED USES~ IN ACCORDANCE NITH 7ME CIRCULATION 9
ELEMENT OF THE GENF.RAL PLAN.
5. THAT PHASE N0. 2~ INCORPORATING THE SOUTHERLY 345 FEET OF SUBJECT PRO-
PERTY ANQ EXTENDING 522 FEET FROM THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING
MAGNOLIA AVENUE ON THE EA57~ HAS BEEN PROJECTED FOR THE UI.TIMATE DE-
VELOPMENT TO THE C~1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE AND IS COMPATIBLE
MtTH THE Exi5TiN6 COMMERCIA~ DEYELOPMENT lNCORPORATED IN PHASE N0. 1~
OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. t
i
6. VERBAL OPPOS~TION TO SUBJECT PETITION~ ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSE~ C-1 ZON- ''
ING FOR THE SUBJECT AREA WAS FAVORED~ WAS RECORDED BY ONE c:4~ERE5TED
PARTY.
COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED RESOLUTION NO.. 226~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED I
FOR IT~ PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECOkDED BY COMM15510NER ALLRED~ RECOMMEND- i
ING TO THE CiTY COUNCIL THAT RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60-61-83~ BE GRANTED I
RECLASSIFYING TO THE C~1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE PHASE N0. 2~
DESCRIBED AS F6;.LOWS;
PHASE N0. 2~ INCORPORATING THE SOUTHERLY 345 FEET OF SUBJECT PROPERTY '
AND EXTENDlNG 522 FEET FROM THE EASTERLY PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING MAG-
NOLIA AVENUE ON THE EAST~
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONSI
1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED ELIMIN-
ATINQ THEREFROM THE PROPOSED pEVELOPMENT OF A COCKTAIL LOUNCaE.
2. DEDICATION OF 53 FEET FROM THE MONUMEN?ED CENTERLINE OF~MAGWOLIA AVE-
NUE (50 FEET EXISTING).
3. INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS.
4. PA%MENT OF S2.G0 PE~t FRONT F~o'f FOR STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES.
5. UTILITY EASEMENTS TO HE PROYIDED ALONQ EXTERtOR BOUNDARIES AS DETER-
MINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES.
6. 71ME LIMITATION OF 90 DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITEMS N0. 2~ 3~
A ~ ~AND` 5':; . : • •
THE FGREGOINO CONDITIONS WERE RECISED AT Til£ MCETING AND NERE FOUND TO BE
A NEGCSSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROAERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE C1T12EN5 OF AN>.HEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOtNG RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOW;NO V07E:
~ ~.__
~~
HiNUTcS, CtTY PLANNIN6 CONFiiSSiON, APaI~ 3, 1961; CbNTiNUEO: '
RECLASSIFICATION - AYES: COMMiSS10NERS. AILRED~ GauER, MnRCOUx, MoRRis, MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. ~
N0. 60-61-83
CONTINUED NOES: COMM1SS10NERS:~ NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONEP.51 HAP(300D. •
COND1T10NAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. PETlTION SUBMYTTED.BV B.I.C. - BALt AND MAf;NOIIA, A ~
, PERMiT N0. lio L1MiTED PARTNERSHIP, SuiTe 704, 900 NoRrH BROADWAY SANTA ANA~ CALIFOR-
~ NIA OWNERS REQUESTING PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT ANa~OPERQI'E A COCKTAIL
LOU~JGE !
b
N C
NJUNCTION WiTH RESTAURIiNT~ oN PROPERlY DESCRIBED ns: A ~:
PARCEL 345 FEET BY 522 FEET WITH A FRONTAOE OF 345 FEET ON MAGNOLIA AVE- ~
f NUE AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MAONOLIA AVENUE BETWEEN BAII ROAD i
AND HARRIET LANE~ ITS NORTHWEST CORNER BEIN(i APPROXIF7ATELY 390 FEET i
SOUTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BALL ROAD AND MAGNOLIA AVENUE~ AND FUR- ~
THER DESCRIBED AS 1254 SOUTH MAGNOLIA AVENUE. PROPERTY PRESENTLV
CLASSIFIED R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRiCULTURAI, ZONE.
SUBJECT PETITION SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WtTH PEi1TI0N FOR RECLASStFi-
CAT~ON N0. 60-61-83 REQUE551NG RECLASSIF)CATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TO
THE C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERC/A~~ 20NE IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE DEVELOP-
MENT OF AN tNTEGRATED SHOPPING CENTER. ,
A PET~TION CONTAIN•4NG 61 SIGNATURES OF PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE VICINITY
PROTESTING APPR~VAL OF THE SUBJECT PETITION AND A LETTER OF PROTE57~
SIGNED BY ~EAN FRANCIS LAMORTE~ 8891 CHANTICLEER ROAD~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFOR-
NIA~ WERE FILED WITH THE COMMISS1pN.
MR. EDWARD LtNDSKOG~ REPRESENTATlVE FOR THE.PETITIONERS~ APPEARED BEFORE
THE COMMISSION AND REQUESTED THAT THE SUBJECT PETITION BE WITHDRAWN Iti
VIEW OP.THE TESTIMONY SUBMITTED IN CODIJUM~TION WITH RECLASSIFICATION N0.
60-61-83 WHiCH iNDICATED THAT THE SA~E OF ALCOHOL~C BEVERAGES WOULD NilT
BE PERMITTED IN CLOSE PROX:MITY TO.SCHOOL FAC~LITiES. THE HEARING WAS
CL.OSED.
, COMMISSIONER MARCUUX QFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNGALL
AND CARRIED~ THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 110 BE WITH-
DRAWN IN ACCORDANCE W~TH THE REQUEST BY MR. EDWARD LINDSKOG~ REPRESENTA- '
TIVE OF THE PETITIONERS.
RECLASSiF1CAT10N - PUBLIC HEARING. PETfT10N SUBMITTED ev ENA G. M6UTARD, 1314 SourH BrtooK- ~
~ ' NO. 60-61-80 HURST STREET ANAHEIMo CAL.FORNIA~ OWNER~ SM1TH AND LUSIN~ 1180 NORTH
1 LOS ANGELES ~TREETo ANAHEfM~ CAI~FORNIA~ AGENT~ REQUESTINQ THAT PROPERTY ~
l , DESCRIBED AS: A PARGEL 80 FEET BY 254 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 80 FEET
ON LINCOLN AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE BE-
~ TWEEN EMP~RE AND BROADYIEW STREETS AND EXTENDING SOUTHERLY TO EMBASSV
STREET~ ITS NORTHWEST CORHER BElNG APPROXIMATEIY 263 !'EET EAST OF T4E ~
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF EMPIRE STREET AND LINCOLN AVENUE AND FURTHER DES~ I
CRIBED AS 2030 U NCOLN AVENUE~ BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R-A RESiDEWTlAL ~
~ A6RICULTURAL, ZONE ro rHS C-i, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, 20N~`.
MR. WALTER SM(TH~ ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE PETITIONER~ AFPEARED BEFORE ,
! THE CUMMtSS10N AND DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED D~'rELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPER- ~~ .
TY FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. HE INDICATEJ THAT THE OFFICES WOULD BE
• LOCATED FRONTING ON ~INCOLN AVENUE~ THAT THE REAR PORTION OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY WOULD BE UTlL.t2ED FOR PARKING PURPOSES~ ANA iHAT INaRE55 AND
EaRESS WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO LiNCOLN AVENUE THEREBY PROHIBITING ANY
ACCESS TO EMBASSY STREET. MR. SMITH STA7~D THA7 HE HAD DISCUSSED THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITH OWNERS OF ABUTTING PROPERTY AND THAT THERE
WERE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOP-
MENT. HOWEVER~ THERE WERE INDICATIONS THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
WOULD OBJECT TO ANY t15E OF EMBASSY STREET FOR ACCESS PURPOSES AND THERE
~,
s_ WERE OBJECTfONS TO THE PROPOSED LOCATlON OF THE PARKING AREA.
~p A LETTER SIGNED 8Y Ricwaau E. TEVLIN~ PRESIDENT OF THE LINCOLN QARK C1ViC
~
t, ASSOCIATION~ WAS SUBMI7TED TO THE COMMISSION AND WAS READ BY CHAIRMAN
@ GAUER. THE LETTER 1NDiCATED THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD EXTEND
COMMERCIAL 20NING 1NT0 A REShDENT1AL AREA~ THAT IT WOULD BE ADJACENT TO -
~ SIF~LE FAMILV RESIDENTIAL GEVELOPMENT ON 7HREE SIDES~ THAT 1T WOULD
~ CREATE SPOT ZONINO~ AND THAT.IT WOULD REDUCE THE VALUE OF THE R-~1~
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ PROPERTY IN THE IMMEDIA7E nREA. THE LE7TER
AL50 REVIEWED PAST ACTION BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN THE RECLASSIFICATION OF
PROPERiY•ABUTT~NO SifBJECT PROPERTY TO THE EAST THEREBY ESTABLISHING THE
C~'. ZONE ON THE NORTHERLY PORTiON FRONTINO ON LINCOLN AVENUE AND RE-
C~:.SSIFYING THC SOUTHERLY F~ORTION OF SAID PROPERTY TA A DEPTH OF 1G4
FEET TO THE R-1 ZONE. SA~D RECLASSIFICATION AL,SO INCI.UDED THE STIPUI.A~
TION THAT A SIX FOOT WALL BE INSTALLED DIVIDJNG THE TWO ZONES. ,,
k ~. ~ MRS. FLORENCE CIENI~ 203 PRIMROSE STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE TNE COMMIS~
k SION AND STATED THAT THE NEIaHBORS WOULD NOT OBJECT TO THE C-1 ZONINa
~ ON LINCOLN AVENUE BUT THAT THEY WOULD OBJECT TO THE C~1 ZONING ~JR THAT
C PORTION EXTENDING TO EMBASSY STREE7.
~
MRS. DOROTHY POLTER APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMlSS~ON AND STATED THAT MR.
MOUTARD~ THE PETITIONER~ HAD ~NFORMED HER THAT HE INTENDED TO CONSTRUCT
HIS HOME ON THE REAR PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO CONFORM WITH THE
EX~ST~NG RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SHE STATE~ THAT IT NAS ON THE'BASIS 0~°
~
t
~
THIS INFORMATION THAT SHE A67AINED A CAL VET LOAN FOR THE COIISTRUCTION ~
,r:r;, rn OF HER RESIDENCE. SHE JNDICATED THAT SHE CONSIDEREO RESIDENTIAL DEVEL-
t :
t, .'~
9 OPMENT THE MOST.SUITABLE FOR THE,REAR PORTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY.
,
. . .. ~ . ~ _ ~
' ~
~ ._~_..=3
.w.i-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ... . . ..: . ~ , . . .. , . . . . . . . .. ...... ... ,.... ~(.-~.i_~:~ ~ - . . , c
. .
~' .
~ ' ~~ ~ r :'
, . 122 ~ ;
.j
~
MiNUTES~ Cl7Y PLANN • . . ~
IN~ COMMISSION~ APFitL 3; 1961;,CONTINUED; j
RECLASSIFICATION ~ rHE AQENT fOR 7HE PETIT:ONER INDICATED THAT IF THE PROPOSED C-1 CLA55- ~ ~
NO. 60-61-80 IFICATION FOR THE REAR PORTION OF.THE SUBJECT PROPERTY MAS OBJECTIONABLE~
CONTINUED THE PETIT:ONER WOULD i3E WILLINa T0 REQUEST RECLASSIFICATION OF SAID.POR- ~
TION•TO THE P"1~ AUTOMOBILE PARKIN~~ ZONE 1N ORDER TO UTILI2E THIS POR~
T10N FOR PARKING PURPOSES. HE Altn INPORMED THE COMMt5S10N THAT THE , .
ACQUIS~TION OF A 1 FOOT RESERVEG STRJ? ABUTTING SUOJECT PROPERTY ON EM-
BASSY STREET WAS IN THE PROCE55 OF BEIN~ ACQUIRED AND 7HAT IT WOULD BE '~
• ~
CLEARED~BY THE PREL~M~NARY TITLE. THE HEARIN6 WAS~CLOSED.
• • THE COMFi15510N DISCUSSED THE DESIRABILITY 0~ ZONING THE SUBJECT~PROPERTY ~
AT THIS TIME FOR THE ZONES THAT WOULO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTINQ I
AND ESTABLISHED USES. ~T WAS NOTED 7HAT APPROPR4ATE PLANS WOULD NOT BE I ,
AVAILABLE AT THE PRESENT TIME IF THE PROPERTY WERE RECLASSIFtED TO'CON-
FORM TO THE ESTABLISHED PATTERN. ~ . ~ i. ,
i
MR. SMITH D15CUSSED LIMITATION OF THE USE OF ~~lBJECT PROPERTY TO BUSI-
NESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ONLY~ AND HE iNDI^•ATED THAT THE PETITIONERSI
MOULD BE ABLE TO REAL~ZE MORE VALUE FROM THE PROPERTY 1F 1T WERE RECI.A55-~
~
IFtED TO THE C'~1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZOMc IN ITS ENTI,RETY.
THE COMMtS510N FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOILOWIHG FACTS RE~ARD~Nfi THE i
SUBJECT PETITION:
i
1. THAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ABOVE DES- ' '
CRIBED PROPERTY FROM THE R-A, RESIDENTIAL A(iRICULTURAL~ ZONE TO THE ~ '
C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE.
!
2. THAT THE RgCLAS5IFICATION OP BUBJECT PRQPERTY IS NECESSARY OR DBS1R~ !
ABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMUNITY. ~
~ 3. THAT THE RECLASSIFICATEON OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES PROPERLY RELATE
TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PERMITTED USES LOCALLY ESTABLISHED IN CLOSE
PROXIMlTY TO SUBJECT PROPERTV AND TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PERMITTED ~ +
USES GENERALLY ESTABLlSHED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. ~
t
4. THAT T'HE RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES REQUIRE DEDICA-
~
TION FOR AtvD STANDARD 1MPROVEMENT OF ABUTTIN~ STREETS BECAUSE SAID
PROPERTY DOES RELATE TO AND ABUT UPON STREEYS AND HIGHWAYS WHtCH
ARE PROPOSED TO CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANTITY OF TRAFFIC~ WHICH WILL
BE OENERATED BY THE PERMITTED USES~ IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CIRCULA-
TION ELEMENT -0F THE GENERAL PLAN.
5. THAT VERBAL AND WRITTEN OBJECTIONS WERE RECORDED ACaAINST THE PROPOSED ~• ~
RECLASSiF1CATfON OF THE SOUTHERLV PORT~ON (104 FEET ABUTTINQ EMBASSY ~
STREET) OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE C~1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ±
ZONE. NO OBJECTIONS WERE RECORDED AGAINST RECLASSIFICATION OF THE
NORTHERLY PORTION (216.24 FEET ABUTTIN6 LINCOLN AVENUE) TO THE C~1~ •
• NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE.
GOMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 227~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND ~ ~,
MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDEO BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED~ ~
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0.
~ 60-61-80 BE GRANTED RECLASSIFYING SAID PROPERTY TO THE C-1~ NEI4HBORHOOD ~
COMMERC~AL~ AND THE R-l~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONES AS FOLLOWS: ;
THE NORTHERLY 216.24 FEET OF SUBJECT PROPERTY ABUTTING LIPICOLN ~
AVENUE ON THE NORTH BE INCORPORATED IN THE C~1~ NEIaHBORH00D COM- I
MERC)AL~ ZONE L~MITED TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ON~Y;AND
THE SOUTHERLY 103.77 FEET OF SUBJECT PROPERTY ABUTTING EMBASSY STREET
O~~ THE SOUTH BE INCORPORATED .IN THE R-1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ j
ZONE~ , ~
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDtT10N5S
.
7
1. DEDICATION OF 28 FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF EMBASSY AVE~ ~
NUE (26 FEET EXISTING).
2. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL IM-
PROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE. OF THE CITY EN4)NEER~ ON LINCOLN AVENUE ONLY. "{
3. PAVMENT OF 52.00 PER FRONT F00T FOR STREET LIGHT~N6 PURPOSES ON
LINCOLN AVENUE ONLY.
4. INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS ON EMBASSY STREET.
5. TIME LIMtTATION OF 90 DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITEMS N0. 1~ 2~
3~ AND 4. .
6. ACQUISITION OF ONE (1) F00T ~LOT B° ALONG EMBASSY STREET WITHIN ~
LIi+t1T5 OF SUBJECT RECLASS~FICATION. ~
. 7. FILING OF DEED RESTRJCTIONS LIMITING THE C-1~ NEIGH90RHOOD COMMER-
CIAL ZONE TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ONLY ON THE NORTHER- ~
LY 2~6.24 FEET OF SUBJECT PROPERTY.
8. CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX (6) FOOT MASONRY NALL SEPARATINO THE R-1~ ONE ~
FAMILY RESIDENTlAL~ ZONE AND THE C~1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE :.: ~
. ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
. . . . i
q
_. .- i
. ' ~
-
~ ~<~~3
. . .
. , .. „ . '
~
,_ _._...__.. ...
_~_-.~._~ ' ~ . .
. .
.
~1_,. _ ., ., . . . ~
,
. . .. . .
. . ..
~.' ~ •. , . ; .". . . . - '.': /~.:: . i ' '. ~ ; ;' i .. ~.~. . . ~~ ~ . - . _ ~ ~ .. .
~;'
r
~` ,:;.
MINUTES. C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 3, 1961, CONTINUED;
RECLASSIFICATION - Tt+e FOREGOING CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO
NO. 60-61-80 BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRE-
~ONTINUED SERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF.THE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTlON NAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWINa VOTE: ~
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS.'
NOES: COMMISSIONERSS NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD.
RECLASSIFICATION -
N0. 60-61-81 '
t?UBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev EARL J. AND CORQL E. TRASK, 2258 ~,
COLECHESTER~ APT. MAM~ ANAHEIM~ CAL~FORNIA~ OWNERS~ KIRK-UTTERBACK REP+LTYi
INC.~ 421 SOUTH BROOKHURST STREET~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORN~A~ AGENT~ REQUESTIN6.
THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5: A PARCEL 99 FEET BY 645 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE;
OF 99 FEET ON WESTERN AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF wESTERN
AVENUE BETWEEN LINCOLN AND ORANaE AVENUES~ ITS NORTHEA57• CORNER,BEING ~i
bPPROXIMATELY 790 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LINCOLN AND WES- ~
TERN AVENUES. AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 205 SOUTH WESTERN AVENUE BE RE-
CLASSIFIED FROM THE R-A RESlDENT1AL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE ro THE 1~-3,
MULTiPLE FRMiLY RESIDEN~'IAL, ZONE. ~
JAMES UTTERBACK~ REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PETITIONERS~ APPEARED BEFORE THE ~
COMMISSION AND DESCRIBED THE.PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING FIVE TWO-
BEDROOM APARTMENT UNITS WITH GARAGES AND RECREATIONAL FACiLITIES. HE ~
STATED THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS A LONG NARROW STRIP THAT PRESENTED
DIFFICULTIES FOR PROPER ~EVELOPMENT AND THAT THEY CONSfDERED THE R~3~ ~
MULTIPLE FAMI•LY RESIDENTIAL~ USE THE MOST SUITABLE FOR THE SUBJECT PRO~
PERTY BECAUSE OF THE PROPOSED SOCIAL CLUB TO BE LOCATED•NORTHERLY OF
SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE EXISTINQ HIGH SCHOOL AND PROPOSED CHURCH L0~ ~
CATED SOUTHERLY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. MR. UT7ERBACK 1NDICATED THAT
ACQUISITION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY MIGHT BE POSSIBLE IN THE NEAR FUTURE ~
AND DISPLAYED EXHIBITS OF THE ULTIMATE DEVEL.OPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. "-
HE STATED THAT THE SOCIAL CLUB NAS NOT IN OPERATION AT THE PRESENT TIME. ~
NO ONE APPEAREP IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION. THE HEARING WAS ~
CLOSED.
THE COMMt5510N DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY PROVIDING ACCE55 TO THE
GARAGES MEASURtNG 12 FEET IN WIDTH AND PERMITTING ONE-WAY TRAFFIC ONLY.
PROBLEMS OF TRASH STORAGE AHD P1CK-UP AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT A MORE
EFFICIENT PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT~WHICH MIGHT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY~ WERE ALSO DiSCUSSED. ~T WAS NOTED THAT THE PRESENT PLAN WOULD j
PERMIT ONE-WAY TRAFF.IC ONLY~ THAT PROVISIONS WERE NOT MADE FOR TRASH i
STORAOE AND PICK~-UP~ ANO THAT THE PROPERTY M16HT BE INACCESSIBLE IN
CASE OF EMEROENCY. ~
THE PETITIONER INDICATED THAT HE HAD NOT CHECKED FIRE UEPARTMENT CODE ;
RE~ULATIONS BUT THAT BUILDIN~ AND FIRE DEPARTMENT REDULATIONS WOULD BE ',
COMPLIED W1TH. .
THECOMMISSION DISCUSSED THE ADVISABILITY OF CONTINUIN(i THE HEARING UNTIL '
SUCH TIME AS MORE DESIRABLE PLANS COULD BE PREPARED AND PRESENTED.
COMMISSIONER ALLRED OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISS~ NER MUN6ALL
AND CARRIED~ THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60-61•. . BE CONTIN~
' UED UNTIL THE MEETIN6 OF APRIL 17~ 1961~ THAT THE PETITIONER CONTACT THE
"~ DEPARTi~ENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REQARDINa CODE RE~
QUIREMENTSo THAT PLOT AND ELEVAT.ION PLANS BE REVISED TO PROV!DE ADEQUpTE
ACCESS FOR TRASH STORA6E FACILITIESt AND THAT THE PETITIONSR PRESENT
PLANS AT THE MEETtN6 TO BE HELD ON APRIL 17~ 1961.
T ENTATIVE MAP OF ~ A TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4149 WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMtAi5510N.
TRACT NC. 4149 DEVELOPER: SOUTHERN CONSTRi1CTI0N COMPANY, 11507 BROOKHURST STREET1 GnR-
DEN GROVE~ CALIFORNIA. THE TRnCT IS LOCATED 107.65 FEET NORTH OF LOLA
AVENUE~ 800.26 FEET EAST OF DALE STREET AND PROPOSES 12 R~1~ SfNGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ LOTS COVERING APPROXIMATELY 2.5 ACRES.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS RELATIVE TO SUBJECT TRACT
MAP WERE DISCUSSED. A PLANNING DEPARTMENT STUDY~ INDICAT(NG A CUL-DE-
SAC AT THE NORTHERLY EXTENSION OF MACDUFF STREET AND A STUB STREET
ACROSS LOT 11 TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED NESTERLY OF
SUBJECT TRACT~ NAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION.
NO ONE APPEARED IN OPf•OSIT~ON TO SUBJECT TRACT AND THE PETITIONER WAS
Nor PRESENT. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX
AND CARRIED~ THAT TENTATIVE MAP OF TRA~'T N0. 4149 BE APPROVED~ SUBJECT
TO 7HE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
].. PROVISION OF A STUB STREET TO THE WEST~ ACROSS LOT 11~ FOR ACCE55
TO THE PROPERTY LOCATED HESTERLY OF iUBJECT TRACT.
2. PROVISION OF A CUL-DE-SAC AT THE NORTHERLY END OF MACDUFF STREET
j~ WiTHIN TNE 60 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY~ TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY
r±: ,i ENG I NEER.
~
~
`--- i
~ ~
~
~ ,
~':=9::
€
f %.:
~
~
MINUTES, C1TY PLANNING`COMM1SS10N, APRIL 3~ 1961~ CONTINUED:
~~. . .-_ .. . '.
. ~ ,
i2a ~
PUBLlC HEARING - AMENDHENT TO T1TlE 15~ *ZONING~ OF THE ANAHE1Fi MUNiCIPAI CODE.
INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNINfi COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THE AMENDMENT
TO THE ESTABLISHED P-I.~ PARKIN6~LANDSCAPING~ ZONE ALON~ TME FRONTAGE
OF THE FO~I.OMIN6 DESCRIBED PROPERTIES: .
TH05E PROPERTIES BOUNDED BY SOUTH LOS ANfiELES STREET ON THE EAST~ BALL
ROAD ON THE SOUTH~ LEMON STREET ON THE MEST~ AND VERMONT STREET ON SHE
NORTH~ EXCEPTINfi THEREFROM THOSE pROPERTIES CONTAINED IN TRACT N0. 3222
LOCATED ON (.EMON'STREET.
A PLANNING DEPARTNENT STUDY MAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION INDICATING 8U1l.0-
ING SE78ACK5 AND THE RECOMMENDED MINIMUM AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPING FOR THE
SUBJEGT PROPERTIES.
MR. PETER WARNOFF~ 1311 SOUTH LOS AN6ELE5 STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE 7HE COM~
MISSION AND REVIEMED THE PROPOSED STUDY WITH THE COMMISSION. IT MAS NOTED
THAT A PROPOSED THREE F00T LANDSCAPIN(i AREA MOULD BE THE BARE MINIMUM RE-
QUIRED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF AREA FOR THE INSTALLATION
OF A HEDOE~ THAT THE LANDSCAPIN~ PLANS SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED
BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKMAY MAINTENANCE~ AND THAT THE STUDY AS PRE~
SENTED CONSTITUTED MERELY A RECOFiFiENDATION UPON MHICH TO BASE CONSIDERATION
oF THE MATTER. THE HEARING WAS Ci.OSEO.
COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMNISSIONER MORRIS AND
CARRIED~ THAT CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT 8E CONTINUED UNTIL
THE MEETIN6 OF APRIL 17,.1961~ AT MHICH T1ME THE COMMISSION SHALL PRESENT
THE1R FINDINaS AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS IN RESPECT TO ESTABLISHIN6 THE
P~L~ PARKIN(3-LANDSCAPIN6~ ZONE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES.
PUBLiC HEARIN6 - AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18~ CHAPTER 18.28 NR-2", MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ZONE OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE. INITIATEC 8Y THE CITY PLANNIN6 COM-
MISSION.
THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT HAD BEEN REVIEMED AND
STUDIED BY THE COMMISSION. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUBJECT
ANENDNENT. •THE HEARiNG WAS CLOSED,
COMMISSIONER MUN(iALL OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 228~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND NOVED
FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SU?1MER5~ RECONMENDING
TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18~CHAPTER 18.28~~R~2~ RUITIPIE
FAMILY RESI0ENTIAL ZCN'e OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL COD,c AS SUBMITTED.
ON ROLL CALL THE FGREGOINO RESOLUTION MAS PASSEO BY TME FOLLOMIN~.VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUN~ALL~ SUNMERS.
NOES: COMMiSS10N~RSt NONE.
ABSENT: COMM1SS10NERS: HAPGOOD.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO TiTLE 18 CHAPTER 18.32~ •R-3w MULTiPIE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICI~AL CODE. INITIATED BY CITY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION.
THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT HAD BEEN REVIEMED AND
BTUDIED BY $HE COMM14810N.
MR. HORACE KAMP~ REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ANAHEIM REALTY SOARD~ MAS PRESENT AND
I'NDICATED THAT ALTHOUdM HE HAD NOT HAD AN AMPLE AMOUNT OF TINE OR AN OPPOR-
TUNITY TO THOROU(iHLY REVIEW THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18~ CNAPTER
18.28 AND CHAPTER 19.32~ RELATIVE TO THE R~2 AND R~3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RE51~
DENTIAL ZONBSA 1T MOULD APPEAR THAT TNE AMENDMENTS MOULD BE SUITABLE REVI~
SIONS OF THE I:ODE AND THAT IT HAS BEBN EVIDENT FOR SOME TIME THAT REVISIONS
TO THE CODE WERE NECESBARY. HE STATED FURTHER TMAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
MOULD BE THOROUGHLY REVIEWED BEFORE TME PUBLIC HEARINO TO BE CONDUCTED DY
rHE CiTV CouNCi~. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
COMMISSIONER SUMMERS OFFERED RESOLU710N N0. 229~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND..MOVED
FOR IT8 PABSADE AND ADOPTItlN~ BfiCOND~D SY COMMISSIONfiR MARCOUX RECOMMENbIN3
'
~
TO THS CI1
Y COUNCSL THE AMEN4MENT TO j1SLE 18~ CHAPTER 18.32~
R~3M NULTIPLE
'
F
AMILY R~SlOENTIAL tONE Of THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AS SUBMITTED.
~N ROLL CALL THE ~4REL~4lH~ RE94LU?!0!! ~A9 PRB4ED 9Y THE F06i0!!!NQ b4TE;
A ES: COMM~IISS .R5~ ALLRED~ GAUEh~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS.
gN
E
A SENT: C~MM~SS~ N
~
ONERS: ~APGOOD.
CORRESPONDENCE ITCw No. i. ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 473~:
NOTIC~ OF ORANGE COUN7Y U86 VARIANC~C N0. 4733 WAS pRESENtED t0 tHE COMMIS~
SION. TH6 SU9JEC7 pEt1710N REQUE97Qp pERM13910N 70 CONSTItUCt A PROFE5510NA1.
OFKICE BUILDING IN THE R~3 APARTMEN7 DIStRICT. $UBJ~CT PROPERtY IS IOCATEb
ON 7NE 90U7N 91b6 OF BALL ~bAb AphROX:MA'Y6LY 480 FE[Y 6A5T 0~ GILBERT STREET
ANb 7HC RtQUE97CD VAqIANC6 ~NCLUbCD p6RM~5610N t0 C87A6LISH A 3 FbOt R6AR
VARD AND TO pLAC6 A 910N A60N0 fNS pLANN~b HIGHMAV RIGHTMbF~MAY.
OICVELOPMEN7 pLANS AND A DCPAR7MtNT S4UDY 1iERE l4UBMItT~D 70 7NE COMMIS°
SION. IT WAB NOTCD TNAT THCRC'WOULb 0[ 20 OKPIGE bPAC68 AND 20 OFF~
I~TRtCT pANItINO 9PAC[8. ASl107ANT C17Y ~TTOpNCY ~10E GEISLER ADVlsib
THE,COMMISSION TNAt 7HC C17Y C00[ RCQUtRlM[NT4 STIPULA7E 3 OFF~sTRt6T
{ ~
-9
--{
~
~ri
. . . . . . ~5,: ~ ::..
!.' ~ '
MiNUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMM1SS10iJ, APRIL 3~ 1961, CONTINUED;
CORRESPONDENCE ~ ITEM No, i: ORRNGE CpUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 4733~ CONT~NUED;
(CONTINUED~
125
PARKING SPACEf, PER OPFICE UNIT. )T WAS ALSO NOTED tHAT THE PROPOSED
DEVEI,OPMENT NAS THE FIRST COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED FOR THE
SOUTH SIDE OF BALL ROAD AND THAT THE AREA CONTAtNED SINGLE FAMILY RE-
SIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. NOWEVER~ A MEDICAL CENTER AND HOSPITAL ARE
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BALL ROAD AT GILBERT STREET.
COMMISS~ONER ALLRED OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMM15570hLR SUMMERS
AND CARRIED~ THAT THE PLANNIN~ DEPARTMENT TRANSMIT TO THE ORANaE COUNTY
PLANNINQ COMMISSION THE RECOMMEND!{TION 9Y THE ANAHEIM PLANNIN(i COMMIS-
SION THAT THE SUBJECT PETITION @F~ 4ENIEQ ON 7HE BASIS OF THE AFORE-
MENTIONED FINDINOS.
~. .
ITEM No. 2;_ ORANGE COUNTY TENTA7IVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4151:
NOTICE RE6ARDING ORANGE COUNTY TE4TATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4151 WAS
SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION. SUBJECT TENTATIVE TRACT COVERS 4.5
ACRES AND PROPOSES SIXTEEN R-1 LOTS AND IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE
OF SUNKIST STREET NORTH OF WAGNER AVENUE.
A PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT AND A DEPARTMENT STUDY WERE SUB-
MITTED TO THE COMMISSION~ INDICATINfi THAT A STUB S7REET TO THE SOUTH
OF SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD BE NECESSARY TO DEVE~OP SURROUNDINO PROPER-
TIES WITHOUT REQUIRING OTHER INGRESS FROM SUNKIST STREET.
MR: JOHN JACOBSEN~ REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MCDANIEL ENGINEERING COMPANY~
APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND INDICATED THAT A STUB STREET M~GHT
CREATE EN(ilNEER[NG PROBLEMS.
COMMISSIONER MUN~ALL OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS
AND CARRIED~ THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STUDY AND THE TENTATIVE MAP
OF TRACT N0. 4151 BE REFERRED TO THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FOR REVIEW
AND RECOMMENDATION~ AND THAT RECOMMENDATION BE MADE TO THE COUNTY
PLANNING CO~IMISSION ON THE BASIS OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT~S RECOM-
MENDATIONS.
~TEM No. 3; OkANGE COUNTY AMENDMENTS ro SECTIONAL DISTRICT MnP 7-4-9~ 3
OF ORDINANCE N0. 351 AS AMENDED~ EXHIBITS H AND I:
;
TWO NOTICES RECEIVED FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNINQ COMMISSION~ CON- ~
TAINING PROP05ED AMENDMENTS TO SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 7-4-9~ EXHIBITS ~
H AND I WERE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION.
EXHI8IT H PROPOSES CHANOE FROM THE A1 GENERAL AORICULTURAL AND A1(Q)
GENERAL AGRICULTURAL (OIL PRODUCTION) DtSTRICT5.T0 THE R-1 SINGLE ~
FAMILY RESIDENCE~ 150M1(O)~30~000 LI(3HT INDUSTRiAL (OIL PFODUCTION)
WITH WIDTH~ AREA AND SETBACK RESTRICTIONS AND B1 BUFFER DISTRICTS~ OF j
CERTAlN PROPERTIES LUCATED SOUTH OF THE RIVERSIDE FREEWAY~ WEST OF THE j
SANTA ANA RIVER AND EAST OF R10 VISTA STREET~ IN THE EAST ANAHEIM i
AREA. ,
EXHI8IT I PROPOSES CHANGE FROM THE A1 GENERAL AQRICULTURAL AND A1(O) I
GENERAL AQRICULTURA~ (QIL PRODUCTION) DISTRICTS TO THE AR AGRICULTORAL ~
RESIDENTIAL R1 S~NGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE~ 150-M1(O)-30~000 LIOHT INDUS~
7RIAL (OIL ~RODUCTION)~ 100-C1-10o000 LOCAL BUSINE55 WITH WIDTH~ AREA
AND SPECIAL.SETBACK RESTRICT~ONS AND B1 BUFFER DISTRICTS OF CERTAiN
, PROPERTIES LOCATED SOUTH OF THE RIVERSIDE FREEWAY~ WEST OF THE SANTA
l~NA RIVER AND EAST OF R10 VISTA STREET~ IN THE EAST ANAHEIM AREA.
ACTINO PLANNING DIRECTOR RICHARD REESE REVIEWED FOR THE COMMISSION THAT
AT THE COMM~SSION MEETING ON MARCH 20~ 1961 LENOTHV DISCUSSION WAS HELD
ON A REQUEST FOR RE20NING OF THE SUBJECT AREA~ AqD THAT THE COMMISS~ON
HAD FORWARDED RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REV~EW AND 7RAN5-
MISSION TO THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. SUBSEQUENTLY THE COUNC~L
DISCUSSED THE MATTER ANd FORWARDED REV~SED RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE
CQUNTY.
MR. REESE EXPLAINED THAT THE PRESENT REQUESTS WERE TO RECLASSIFY CER~
TAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED SOUTHERLY OF THE RIVERSIDE FREEWAY TO THE M1(O)
ZONE AND HE READ FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY ZONINO ORDINANCE THE PERMITTED
USES IN 7HE M1(O) OISTRICT~ WHICH CORRESPOND SOMEWHAT TO THE PERMITTED
USES IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM M~2 (HEAVY MANUFACTURING) ZONE. THE COM-
MISSION NpTED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL PROBABLY WAS NOT AWARE THAT SOME OF
THE PERMITTED USES IN THE COUNTY M1(O) ZO?IE WOULD 8E CONSIDERED HEAVY
MANUFACTURING USES IN THE CiTY Of ANAHEIM.
AN ANAHEIM PLANNING DEPARTMENT STUDY OF THE SUBJECT AREA~ MHICH INDI-
CATED M-R(0) AND P-L (PARKING-LANDSCAPIN~~ ZONES FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
SOUTH OF THE ~IVERS~DE FREEWAY AND WHICH IS PROPOSED FOR THE M1~O) ZONE
IN THE SUBJECT PET~TIOk.} WAS PRESENTEO TO THE COMMISSION. MR. EESE
EXPLAINED THAT THE COUNTY MR(O) ZONE PERMITS MANUFACTURIN~ RESEARCH
DEVELOPMENT PW 5 OIL PRODUCTION~ THAT IT PERMITS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMEHT
SiMILAR TO THOSE CURRENTLV BEING ESTABLISHED IN THE CITV OF ANAHEIM~
AND THAT tT WOUI.D BE THE MOST.RESTRICTI\'E INDUSTRIAL ZONINQ THEREBY ThiE
.~.. ~. . , . .. . . _ .. ; -. .. / r ` ._ _ F'~' ! . ,.. - ' ' - - . ~`` _
1
1: i
~ i
i
;
n
:,~
,i:.i
~
~
. " . . .
~ R ' t
. . ..i
I
~ ~' ~
MINUTES, CITY PUINNiNG COMMISSION~ APRIL 3~ 1961, CONTINUED;
CORRESPONDENCE
(CONTINUED)
r:~ ~ .
r' j
f ~~
~ J 126
~ ITEM No. g: ORANGE COUNTY AMENDMENTS ro SECTIONAL DISTRICT MnP 7-4-e.. ~
OF ORDINANCE No. 351 AS AMENDED~ EXHIBITS H AND ~~
CONTINUED;
MOST COMPATIBLE ZONING W17H THE EXISTIN6 RESIDENI'IAL DEVELOPMENT OF
THE AREA. T-+e PERMITTED USES IN THE COUNTY MR(O) ZONE WERE READ TO
THE COMMISSION AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THE USES WOULD BE MORE DESIRABLE
THAN THE PROPDSED M-1 ZON~NG AND WOULD BE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE
ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL USES. ~
~
THE DEPARTMENT STUDY ALSO RECOMMENDED AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORANGE ~
COUNTY ARTER:AL HIGHWAYS PLAN TO 1NDICATE TWO PROPOSED SECONDARY HIGH- .
WAYS~ ONE ON THE SOUTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY EXTENDING EASTERLY FROM
RIO VISTA STREETo SEPARATING THE SUGGESTED MR(O) ZONE FROM THE RESI- ~~
DENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED SOUTHERLY TO LINCOLN AVENUE (ANAHEIM-OLIVE ~
ROAD~~ TO INTERSECT WITH THE OTHER PROPOSED SECONDARY HIGHWAY LOCATED `
ADJACENT TO THE SANTA ANA RIVER AND EXTENDING FROM LINCOLN AVENUE t
(ANAHEIM-OLIVE ROAD~ NORTHERLY TO AN INTERSECT~ON WITH THE PROPOSE~ ~
DOWLING AVENUE RIVERSIDE FREEWAY INTERCHANGE. MR. REESF. ~ND~CATED
THAT THE pROPOSED SECONDARY 111GHWAYS WOULD BE THE NORMAL SPACING FOR ~
SUCH HIGHWAYS AND SFiOUID.HAVE BEEN A PART OF THE ORIGINAL HIGHWAYS
PLAN. HE SUGGESTED THAT THE COMMISSION CONSiDER A RECOMMENDATION TO
THE COUNTY THAT THE MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS BE
AMENDED TO ESTABLISH THESE STREETS AS OUTLINED. ~T WAS NOTED THAT THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A 50 FOOT P-~ (PARKING-LANDSCAPING) ZONE ON THE
WESTERLY AND SOUTHERLY BOUNDARIES OF THE SUGGESTED MR(O) ZONE~ IN CON-
JUNCTION WITH THE PROVIS~ON OF THE SECONDARY HIGHNAYS~ WOULD SERVE AS
A MORE EFFECTIVE BUFFER BETWEEN iNDUSTRIA~ DEVELOPMENT AND RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT THAN THE SUGGESTED B1 BUFFER DISTRICT. THE COMMISSION
FELT THAT THEIR PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATION FOR AR(O) ZONING WOULD BE MORE (
SUlTABLE FOR THE PROPERTY BUT THAT THE DEPARTMENT STUDY PROPOSING ~
MR(0) ZONING FOR THE AREA WOULD BE THE MOST DESIRABLE ALTERNATE FOR ~
CONSIDERATION AS A COMPROMISE. THE COMMISSION WAS OPPOSED TO THE M1(O) ~
20NING REQUESTED !N l'HE SUBJECT PETI7'IONS.
THE COM~1i5510N D~SCUSSED THE PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATION FORWARDED TO THE
COUNTY P~ANN~NG COMMISSION RELAT~VE TO THE PROPOSED C~1 ZONING FOR THE I
18 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LINCOLN AVENUE (ANA- i
HEIM^~OLIVE ROAD) AND RIO VISTA STREET. ACTING PLANNING DIREC70R !
RICHARD REESE REViEWED THE NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS THAT SHOULD BE OBSER- (
VED FOR REZONiNG A PARCEL OF THE PROPOSED 512E. HE NOTED THAT UNDER
THE COUNTY 100-C1-10'000 DISTRICTS THE PROPERTY COULD BE SUBDIVIDED
INTO 100 F00T COMMERCIAL LOTS~ CREATING AN EIGHTEEN ACRE STRIP COMMER-
C~AL AREA. HE RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMMISS~ON RECOMMEND TO THE ORANGE
COUNTY PLANNINCa COMMi5510N THAT IF THEY APPROVED THE C~1 :ONING THE
ZONING BE STIPU~ATED AS 600~C1-10 ACRE AND~FURTHER~ THAT THE COUNTY
ADOPT AS A~PRECISF PLAN~ THE PLOT PLAN PRESENTED AS A PART OF THE PE-
7ITION BY ORDINANCE (SECTION 69600 -$TATE PLANNING LAW).
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT TNE PROPOSED M1(O) AREA CON-
TAINED APPROXIMATELY 100 ACRES SOUTH OF THE FREEWAY ANO THAT THERE ARE
ONLY EIGHT (8) OIL WELLS IN OPERATION AT THE PRESENT TIME. ASSISTANT
CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT MR(0) COULD BE
RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AS THE MAXIMUM HIGHEST
USE Of THE SUBJECT AREA. THE COMMISSlON DEPLORED THE LACK OF AN
OFFICIAL ~PRECISE PLAN„ FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL
PROPERTY AND CONCLUDED THAT AN 18 ACRE PARCEL SEEMED MORE THAN AMPLE
FOR THE DEVEIOPMENT OF AN INTEGRATED NEI4HBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER.
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLONING FACTS REGARDING THE j
SUBJECT PETITIONS:
1. THAT THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES Tc•AR AND AR(O)~ ~
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE 18 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF LINCOLN AVENUE (ANAHEIM-OLIVE ROAD~ AND RIO VISTA STREET
AND WITH THE EXCEPTtON OF THE R-1 SINGLE FAM~~Y RESIDENTIAL TRACT
N0. 3959 LOCA7EA SOUTH OF LINCOLN AVENUE (ANAHEfM-OL{VE ROAD)~ WOUID ~'
CONSTITUTE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. HOWEVER'
AS AN ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION~ THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION CON-
SIDERS THE COUNTY MR(O) ZONE TO BE THE HEAVIEST ZONING THAT WOULD BE ',
COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL oEVELOPMENT. FUR- '
THERMORE~ THAT ANY „M° USES SHOULD BE BUFFERED FROM SURROUNDINa AREAS
BY A MINIMUM F~FTY F00T BUILDING SETBACK AND ~ANDSCAPING ZONE.
2. THAT THE HIaHEST AND BEST USE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED 18 ACRE PARCEL
WOU~D BE RECLASSIFiCATION TO THE COUNTY C-1 LOCAL BUSINESS DI5TRICT
PROVIDED THAT ANY SIN~LE DEV~ELOPMENT BE LIMITED TO A 10 ACRES M~NI-
MUM 512E PARCEL~AND PROViDED FURTHER THAT THE PROPERTY BE RESTRICTED
BY ORDINANCE TO OEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN OFFICIAILY ADOPTED
•PRECISE PLAN„ FOR AN INTEGRATED SHOPPING CENTER INDICATING THE ULTI-
MATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT, AND THAT ALL IMMEDIA7E AND FUTURE
DEVELOPP4ENT BE iN COMPL~ANCE WtTH THE OFFICIAL PI.AN.
3. THAT THE COUNTY MASTER PLAN OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HIGHWAYS BE
AMEND'cU TO ESTABLISH TWO PROPOSED SECONDARY HIOHWAYS IN ACCORDANCE
WITH TNE STSIDY PREPARED BY THE PLANNIN4 DEPARTMENT AND THAT SAID
STUDY BE FORWARDEDlO THE ORANGE COUNTV PLANNIN6 COMMISSION.
, . , '; 1 ? .- . I . .. .. . '.~.s-~`,
~
-.-~r
r_,_ .,_._
~- -
._ _._ _._._ _.~-----
~
~
~
~,~
. _' s-:~..7
''i
•~
t ~.
_ x.,,
~ ~ ',' ~:; 't
~
I , 127
j
` ~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMM1SS10N~ APRiL 3, 1961, CONTINUED;
CQRRESPONDENCE - ireM No. 3: ORAN6E COUNTY AMENDMENTS TO SecTioNn~ DISTRICT MnP ~~a-9,
(CONTINUED) OF ORDINANCE N0. 351 AS AMENDED~ EXHIBITS H AND I~ CONTIkUED:
COMMISSIONER ALLRED OFFERED A MOTION AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND
• ~ ADOPTIONt•SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX AND CARRIED~ THAT THE ,
( PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMIT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION ~
THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION AS OUTLINED IN 1
THE AFOREMENTIONE'D FINDINGS~ SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL THERE~ ~
OF BY THE ANAHEIN CITV COUN:iL. !
• REPORTS AND - CENTER STREET STUDY: C-2~ ~:ENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. ~
RECOMMENDATIONS
A DEPARTMENT STUDY AND LAK~ USE SURVEY WERE PRESENTED TO THE COMMIS-
S~ON RELAT~VE TO THOSE PROPERTIES BOUNDED BY CENTER STREET ON THE NORTH~ ,~
MEST $TREET ON THE EAST~ ALLEY ON THE SOUTH~ AND THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY
ON TNE WE57. THE STUDY INDICATED THAT RECLASStFICATION OF THE SUBJECT j
AREA 7D THE C-1~ NEIGlIBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ AND THE R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMIIY 1
RESIDEN~IAL~ ZONES WOUID BE COMPATIBI.E WITH THE EXISTINO DEVELOPMENT. ~
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE NECESSITY FOR REVIEkING THE EXISTING ZON-
~
ING AND LAND USE OF TH~ SUBJECT.AREA~ AND INDICATED THAT A PUBLIC HEAR-
~ ING WOULD BE DESIRABLE IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE
OF THE LAND AND TO OBTAIN INFORMATION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE ~
AREA.
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMISSION AND PLAN-.
NING DEPARTMENT THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION SHOULD BE ADVERTiSED
' FOR A PUBLIC HEARING~ AND THAT~IN THE MEA~iTIME~ REQUESTS RELATIVE TO
. ESTABLISHIN~ USES PERMiTTEP IN THE EXISTING C~2 20NE BE REFERRED TO
THE P~ANNING D~EPARTMENT TO FI~E FOR A PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT.
COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS
AND CARRIED~ DIRECTING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO ADVERTISE FOR A PUB-
LIC HEARING~TO BE HELD APRIL 17~ 1961~ RELATIVE TO CONSIDERATION OF
AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 18 OF THE IINAHEIM MUN~CIPAL CODE PROPOSING THE
RECLASS~FICATION FROM THE C~2~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE TO THE C~1~
NEIGH80RHOOD COMMERCIAL~ AND/OR THE R~3~ MULTIP~E FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~
ZONES FOR THE FOLLOWING DESC1218ED PROPERTIES:
THOSE PROPERTIES BOUNDEO BV CENTER STREET ON THE NORTH~
MEST STREET ON THE EAST~ ALLEY ON 'THE SOUTH~ AND THE
• SANTA ANA FREEWAY ON THE WEST. +
DISCIJSSION - COMMISSIONER SUMMERS EXTENDED T0 THE COMMISSION AND TO THE CITY ATTORNEY ~
AND THE PLANNING STAFF AN'INVITATION TO ATTEND THE CELEBRATION IN HONOR
OF THE FIiT7ETH ANNlVERSARY OF THE.MARRIAGE OF MR. AND MRS. SUMMERS~TO I
BE HELD S4JNDAY~ APRIL 23 1961 FROM 2:00 TO 5:00 O~CLOCK P.M. AT THE
~
I.O.O.F. HALL~ 325 WEST
ENTER STREET~ ANAHEIM.
i
ADJOURNMENT - THE MEETINO ADJOURNED AT b:20 O~CLOCK P.M. i
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED~
~ a~
~ ECRETA Y