Loading...
Minutes-PC 1961/04/17~ F~.~..... _ REGULAR MEETiNG PRES~NT ABSENT PRESENT 1 NVOCAT~I ON ALLEGIANCE MINUTES RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60-61-78 1 ( . f ~ ~ ,t ' ~ I .. , P[.~ ' ~ F f ~ ,~ ~,~i;..r:r- r..,:.r, .. ~ X~ : !",' HALL .~i~%i.!lF.IM~ CALIFORNIA :Ak;L 1"1~ 1961 RE6ULAR MEETING OF THE CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION ~ A REGULAR MEETIN6 OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WAS CALLEO TO ORD~R AT 2;00 O~CLQCK P.M. BY CHAIRhiAN GAUER~ A QUORUM BEING PRESENT. - CHAiRMAN GAUERc COMMISSIONERS: ALI.RED~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGAIL~ SUMMERS. - COMM1SS10NERS: HAPGOOD. - ACTING PLANNING DIRECTOR - RrCHARD REESE SENIOR P~ANNER - MARTIN KREIDT ' ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY - JOE GEISLER COMMISSION SECRETARY - JEAN PAGE - REVEREND GSNE.M. GEHRES~ PASTOR OF THE WESLEY METHODIST CHURCH~ f3AVE THE INVOCATION. - CHAIRMAN GAUER LED THE P~EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. - THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF APRIL 39 1961 WERE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. - CONTINUED HEARiNG. PETITION SUBGIITTED ev MICHAEL L. O~DONNELL. Uc..v~~r~ CALIFORNIA~ QWNER~ MILFORD M. BROMN~ 901 SOUTH ROANNE~ ANAHEIM~ :.•„_:FOR- NIA~ AGENT~ REQUESTING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: A PARCEL 100 FEET BY 295 FEET NITH A~~FRONTAGE OF 100 FEET ON HARBOR BOULEVARD AND LOCATED ON THE SiEST SfDE OF HARBOR BOULEVARD BETWEEN ORANGEWOOD AND CHAPMAN AVENUES~ ITS NQRTHEA51' CORNER BElNG APPROXIMATELY 420 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HARBOR BOULEVARD AND ORANGEWOOD AVENUE BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R-A RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE To THE C-2~ ~ENERAL COMMERCIAL,ZONE. SUBJECT PETITION WAS CONTINUED FROM THE MEETtNGS OF MARCH 20~ 1961 AND APRIL 3~ 1961 BECAUSE MOT10N5 TO APpROVE 1ND DENY HAD FAILED TO ACHIEV€ A MAJORITY VOTE. A LETTER~ DATED APRIL 17~ 1961 AND FILED BY MIIFORD BROWN~ REQUESTIN~ CON~ TINUANCE OF THE SUBJECT PETITION~ MAS SUBM~TTED TO THE COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION D75CUSSED THE CODE REQUIREMENT THAT ACTIOH MUST BE TAKEN BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOT MORE THAN FORTY DAYS FOLLONINfi THE CLOSE OF THE REQUIRED HEARING NHICH NAS HELD ON SUDJECT PETITION ON MARCH 20~ 1961. I7 WAS NOTED THAT A CONTlNUANCE OF THB SUBJECT PETITION WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED BY THE CODE AND THAT THE MATTER MUST BE REFERRED TO THE C~TY COUNCIL IF A MOTION DID NOT ACHIEVE A MAJOR.ITY VOTE. COMMISSIONER MARCOUX NOTED THAT SUFFICIENT TIME HAD BEEN ALLOWED FOR THE FULFILLMENT OF THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON ADJACENT PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH PET~TiON FOR VARIANCE N0. 1283 WHICH REQUESIED USE OF TME PROPERTY IDENTICAL TO THE USE REQUESTED I.N THE SUBJECT PETITION. AS A CONSEQUENCE~ HE STATED THAT HE CONSIDERED IT APpROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE SUBJECT PETITIONER AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP HIS PROPERTY. THE PET~TIONER WAS NOT PRESENT. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DE7ERMINED THE FOLLOWINf3 FACTS REOARDIN6 THE SUBJECT PETITIONS 1. THAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ABOVE D_SCRIBED PROPERiV FROM THE R-A~ RESII;ENTIAL AGRiCULTURAL~ ZONE TO THE C-2~ GEN- ERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. • • 2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELUPMENT OF THE COMMUNITY. 3. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES PROPER4Y RELATE TO THE ZOkES AND THEIR PERMiTTED USES LOCALLY,ESTABLISHED 1N CLOSE'PROXIMITY T6 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE 20NE5 AND'THEIR PERMITTED USES fiENERALLY ESTABLISNED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. ' 4. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOE5 REQUIRE DEDICATION FOR AND STANDARD IMPROVEMEPiT OF ABUTTINp STREETS BECAUSE SAID PROPERTY DOES RELATE TO AND ABUT UPON STREETS AND HIfiHWAYS WHICH A(tE~'PROPOSED T0. CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANTITY OF TRAFFIC~ WH1CH MILL•BE , DENERATED 8Y THE PERMITTED 1lSE5~ IN ACCORDANCE MITH THE C/RCU~ATION~ ELEMENT OF TKE GENERAL PLAN.. 5. THAT NO ONE.APPEARED IN -0PPOSITION TO SUBJECT PET)TION. HOWEVER~ A REQUEST THAT THE SUBJECT'PETIT70N BE NELD 1N ABEYANCE UNT.IL.THE'PEflw TIONERS'CONCERNED:MITH.PETITlON.FOR VARIANCE N0. 1283 HAD DECIDED ` WHE7HER OR,'.NOT, TO DEVELOP!THEER PROP,ERTY FOR'.A USE IDENTICAL TO THE PROPOSED USE CONTAINED'IN SUBJECT...PETITION 'WAS RECORDED AT THE MEE'T-- INOS HELD ON MARCH 20~ 1961`AND;APRIL 3~.1~61'., COMMISSIONER MORRIS'GFFERED RESOLUT.IOK N0. 230~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND MOVED FOR IT$,PASSAdt'AND ADOPTION.~ SECONOED BY COMMISStONER.MARCOUX~ RECOkM ND~ INa TO THE CI7Y COUt1CIL THA7 PETITJON FOR RECLA55)FICATION N0. 60s61~7~ BE' -. 128 - . _ ,. .. .,. ,,. i .. . ,r--_"'~- ~ . a ~ ,:~. ~ .. ~::;~ . ..~~.~.~~~+'i ." _.: ,.. ., ,.. ..._ - ..~.... . . ~.:,.... ,. . ~::~ i.......~.y -~ ,~. ~ _ ~ ' *' ~ ~ / ~ ~ ~ ~. . . I 129 ~ _ .I . ~'. I ~.: ( } MINUTES, C1TY PIANNING COMMISSION~ APRtL 17, 1961~ CONTINUED: 1 RECLASSIFICATION ~ GRANTED RECLASSIFYING SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE R-A~ RESiDENT1AL AGRI- N0. 60-61-78 CULTURAt, ZONE ro THE C~-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ 20NE, sue~ecT To THE FOLLOW- ~ CONTINUED INQ CONDiT10N5: 1. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL IM- I PROVEMENTS :N ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE _ OFFICE OF THE CITY E6191NEER. - 2. PAYMENT OF 52.00 PER FRONT F00T FOR STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES. 3. T~ME LiMITATION OF 90 DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITEMS 1 AND 2. 4~ MAINTENANCE OF A 60 F007 BUEI.DINa SETBACK ON HARBOR BOULEVARD. • 5. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITN PLANS PRESENTED WITH THE LOCATION OF THE RESTAURANT IN THE FRONT PORTION OF THE BUILDIN~ SEPARATED FROM THE COCKTAIL LOUNGEn AND WITH THE LOCATION OF THE COCK- TAI.L lOUNGE IN THE REAR PORTION OF THE BUILDING. 6. PROVISION OF TWENTY (20~ FEET OF LANDSCAPED AREA ABUTTING FRONT PRO- PERTY LiNE ON HARBOR BOULEVARD PLANS FOR SAJD LANDSCAPINa TO EE SUB- MITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE ~UPERINTENDEN7 OF PARKWAY MAINTENANCE. THE FORE601NG CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETINCa AND WERE FOUND.TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQU151TE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE C1T)ZENS OF ANAHEIM. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION MAS PASSED.BY THE FOLLOWING.VOTE: ~ ~;~1YES: COMMiSSIONERSt ALLRED9 GAUERo RARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUN~ALL~ SUMMERS. `~ NOES: Ct~MM1SSlONERS7 NONE. ~'ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD. ~ CONDiT NAL USE ~N -:Ct~NTINUED HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED er IDA M. RANNOW 1525 SourH EUCLiD LY ~ 4S E N O. 106 ?ERMIT ORTH MI 0 dveNUe, ANAHEIMo CALIFORNIAo OWNER~ TEMPLE BETH EMET, •~ TREET ANAHEIMe CALIFORNlA9 A6ENTo REQUESTINfi PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT AND ; ' RERAT~ A JEWISH TEMPLE AND SCHOOL ON PROPER7Y DESCRIBED AS: A PARCEL 339 ~ ~ EET BY 642 FE'ET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 339 FEET ON CERRITOS AVENUE AND LOCATED ~ `~ ON THE SOUTH S1DE OF CERRITOS AVENUE BETWEEN GUCLID AVENUE AND OLD FASHION NAY~ ITS NORTHEAST CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY 960 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTH- ,,.i.~ WEST CORNER OF EUCLID AND CERRITOS AVENUES. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED ~~ • R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, "LONE. SUBJEGT PETfT10N WAS CONTINUED FROM THE MEETIN~ OF MARCH 20~ 1961 IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE PETITi0NER5 AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT DETAILED PLO7 AND ELE- VATION PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND TO PROVIDE AN ENGINEERING STUDY IN RESPECT TO THE DRAINAGE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AN ENGINEERING STUDY OF THE DRAINA6E OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ INDICATING CONCURRENCE WiTH THE PLANS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS~ WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION. ~ ~ MR. LEROY ROSE~ REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PETITIONERS~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND DISPLAYED A RENDERING OF THE ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE - SUBJECT PROPERTY. HE INDICATED THAT THE PLOT PLAN HAD BEEN REVISED RELO~ CATING THE BUILDINGS AS SU~DESTED AT :HE MEETING ON MARCH 20~ 1961~ THAT THE CLASSROOMS NOULD BE LOCATED AWAY FROM THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP- HE STATED MENT~ AND THAT PARKING FACILITIES WO~LO BE PROVIDED FOR 160 CARS. THAT THE SCHOOL HOURS NOULD BE FROM 4:00 P.M. TO 6:30 P.M.~ THAT SERVICES AND SUNDAY SCHOOL WOULD BE HELD tN THE NORNINa HOURS~ AND THAT SOCIAL FUNC- TIONS WOULD BE CONDUCTED AT VARIOUS T1ME5. A PETITION OF PROTEST FROM RESIDENTS I.N THE AREA~ CONTAINING 34 SIGNATURES~ WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION. ROBERTA EoaQeas; 18?5 MlEST CERRlTOS AVENUE. APPEARED BEFORE THE COM-~ MRS ~,~ i .. MISSION~ FILED A PETITION OF PROTEST SIGNED BY ~9 RESIDENTS IN THE AREA~ 1961 EET~NG ON MARCH 20 E . ~ M AND REVIEWED OBJECT.IONS STATED PREV~OUS!Y AT TH THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY.Of CONTINUIN~ THE MATTER IN ORDER I TO PROVIDE THE PETITIONERS AN ADDITIOIdAL OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT A MORE DETAILED ENOINEERING STUDY OF THE ORAINAGE FACILITIES AND THE LOCATION OF D HaRL~ ~ A SUGGESTED CUL~DE-SAC OR MOOIFIED TURN-AROUND ON BARNARDY PLACE AN ; AVENUE~ AND FOR FURTHER STUDY.BY~THE PLANNINa DEPARTMENT. 1 RABBI WEILL APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMI~SION AND REQUESTED THAT ACTION BE ~ TAKEN IMMEDIATELY IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A BASIS FOR A DECISION IN RESPECT Tq THE CLOSINa OF ESCROW PROGEEDINQS ~FOR~THE.:'SUBJECT..PROPERTY. ,;: ' THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWINa FACTS REQARDIN(i THE SUB- JECT PETITIONi , ' ' 1. THAT THE PROPOSED US[ IS PROPERI.Y ONE FOR WHICH A COND~TIONAL USE PER- ~ i' 'i) _ MIT !5 AUTHORIZED BY THE CODE~ TO WIT: A.JEWISH TEMPI.E AND SCHOOL. ~ 2. THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL ADVERSEI,Y AFFECT THE ADJOININfi LAND USES AND THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA IN WH1CH IT IS PROPOSED TO.. , 8E LOCATED. . ' ( " ~ .w. . ~ '-t" .. ~~ - ~--- _ .. .e..: . ^'-.- :.-"-"T ...... ~.:. ~ ,~ . .,_e ~ . ~,. „ ~- :.:- ~ ... ,.:. ... ... '~.:~~, . .. i ,:-: .. ~ ,. . _ .... . ,_..__.~ . _ . . ... ., . . . . . . . _ _. _ ti .. ,_'~:Y. ...~. _..... . ~ ~:. ; ] ..:~...: ~... '-_ '~ '~,7 , 130 ~ r ii . MiNUTES~ CITY PIANNING COMMISSION~ APRII 17, 1961, CONTINUED: COND1T10NAL USE ~ 3. THAT THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE SITE PROPOSED FOR THE USE IS NOT ADE~ PERM17' NO. 106 QUATE TO ALLOW THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED USE IN A MANNER CONTINUED NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE PARTICULAR AREA NOR TO THE PEACE~ HEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND C?ENERAL WE~FARE OF THE CIT12EN5 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. . 4. THAT~THE TRAF~FIC GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED USE WILL IMPOSE AN UNDUE BURDEN UPOti 7'i1E STREETS AND HiGHWAYS DESIGNED AND tMPROVEO TO CARRY THE TRAFF{C IN THE AREA. 5. THAT THE GRANTING OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED~ IF ANY~ WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PEACE~ HEALTH~ SAFETY~ ' AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 6. THAT THE HOURS OF OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED SCHOOL AND THE ESTAB- LISHMENT OF A SOCIAL HALI IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA NOULD NOT BE COMPATIBLE WlTH THE EXISTING RES~DENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. 7. THAT THE NiGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE LAND WOULD BE FOR RESIDENTIAL ~ DEVEI.OPMENT AND THE EXTENSION OF HARLE AVENUE AND BARNARDY PLACE. 8. THAT VERBAL OPPOSlTION TO THE SUBJECT PETITION WAS RECORDED AT THE MEETlNGS ON MARCH 20~ 1961 AND APRIL 170 1961~ AND TWO PETITIONS OF OPPOSITION~ CONTAlNIN6 A TOTAI. OF 53 SIGNATURES~ WERE FILED WITH THE COMMISSION. COMMISStONEft MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 231~ SERIES 1960-61, AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADC~PTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED~ THAT CON- DITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 106 BE DENfED ON THE BASIS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDINGS. • ON ROLL CA~L THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED.BY THE FOLLOVlING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMiSS10NERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMiSS10NERS: HAPGOOD. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLiC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev GEORGE W. SCHNEIDER, GORDON J. KOS- PERMiT N0. 111 TER AND DANIEI P. COLLINS, Suire 207, 13012 Euc~io AveruuE, GAROEN GROVE, CALIFORNIA~ OWNERS~ REQUEST~NG PERMISSION TO OPERATE A GO-KART ARENA~ ON PROPER7Y DESCRIBED AS: A TRIANGULAR SHAPED PARCEL WITH A FRONTAGE OF 681 FEET ON LA PALMA AVENUE AND EXTEND7NG NORTH TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY RIGHT-OF~ WAY OF THE SOUTHERN PACI~tC RAILROAD~ LOCATED ON THE NORTH SiDE OF LA PAIMA AVENUE BETWEEN GILBERT STREET AND THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY~ ITS SOUTH- WEST CORFfER BEIHG-APPROXIMA7ELY 600 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST~CORNER OF GILBERT STREET AND LA PALMA AVENUE~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 2339 WEST LA , PAIMA AVENUE. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED M~1~ LI~HT MANUFACTURING AND P-L, PARKING-LANDSCAPIWG, ZONES. MR. GEORGE SCHNEIDER~ OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPE RTY~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, HE INDICATED THAT THE OWNERS WOULD NOT BE THE OPERATORS OF THE GO-KART ARENA~ THAT THEY CON51~ OERED IT A NECESSARY RECREATIONAL FACIIITY THAT WOU~D~BE OF BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITV~ AND THAT SUITABIE LANDSCAPING WOULD BE PROVIDED. MR. RAV MERCADO~ ENGINEER FOR THE DEVELOPhtENT~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMM.IS- SION AND PRESENTED A REVISED PLOT PLAN WHICH INDICATED CONFLICT WITH THE EXISTING P-L ZONE ON LA PALMA AVENUE. MR.~MERCADO STATED THAT THE REVISED I PLOT PLAN LOCATED THE PROPOSED TRACK AUJACENT TO THE FREEWAY~THEREBY PRO- VIDING A BUFFER FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED SOUTHERLY OF THE FREEWAY. HE DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION OF THE TRACK~ THE LOCA~ TION OF PARKING AND LANDSCAPIN~ AREAS~ AND THE DIFFICULTIES INVOLVED tN DEVeLOPING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BECAUSE OF ~TS LOCATION ADJACENT TO THE FREEWAY OVERPASS. HE A1.50 STATED THAT HE CONSlDERED THE USE TO BE CO?1PAT- IBLE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT ~N THE AREA~ AND THAT IT WOULD 3E OF BENEFIT TO THE CHILDREN It6 THE COMMUNITY. MR. RINEHART~ OPERATOR OF THE PROPOSED ARENA~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMIS- S{ON AND STATED THAT OPERATINa HOURS 120ULD BE FROM 10 A.M. TO 10 P.M. WEEK DAyS AND FROM 10 A.M. TO 11 P.M. SATURDAVS AND SUNDAYS. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE KARTS WOULD BE EQUIPPED WITH SPECIAL MUFFLERS~ THAT NO NOISE WOULD EMANATE FROM THE TRACK~ THAT L•XPERIENCE HAD PROVEN THAT TH~S TYPE OF IN~ STALLATION WOULD HE AN ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY~ AND THAT HE CID NOT OPERATE ANY O7HER ARENAS 1N THE ORANGE COUNTY AREA. MR. LAWRENCE MATT APPEARED BEFORE THF_~COMMISSION AND READ A~PETITION OF OPPOSITION SIGNED BY RESIDENTS IN THE AREA. HE STATED THAT THEY OBJECTED TO THE PRbPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON TIiE BA515 THAT IT WOULD CREATE TRAFFIC PRO- ' BLEMS~ THAT IT WOULD DEPRECIATE PROPERTY VALUES~ THAT IT WAS T00 CLOSE TO A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOQD~ THAT IT NOULD REQUIRE CONTR0~5 IN RESPECT TO NUISANCE FACTORS~ THAT IT NOUL9 BE AN AMUSEMENT FOR A MINORITY GROUP~ THAT AN EXISTING ARENA ~S LOCATED W~THIN TMREE MIlES OF SUBJECT PROPERTV~ AND THAT IT WOULD CREATE A SAFETV PHOtlLEM. HE DISCUSSED AT SOME LENGTH THE PRESENT TRAFFIC PROBLEMS 1N TNE AREA AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD INCREASE 7HESE PROBLEMS. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE RESI- ; DENTS IN THE V!CINITY WERE THF MOST CONCERNED ABQUT THE POSSIBLE TRAFFIC HAZARD THAT WOULD BE GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED USE. A LETTER OF OPPOSITION~ _ ~ - ~ ~ ,, `~ a i,, ~ ~'. ~ ~ _ ~ ~ MINUTES; GITY ptANNlNG GOMM]SSIONo APR!L i?, 1461~ Ce~r~!~uE~; 131 ~ ~ CONDIT101QAL USE - Ass~srarsr CITV ATTORNEY.JOE GEISLER AOVISED THE COMMISSION THAT THE P-L. PERMIT N0. 111. ZONE ESTABLISHEA FQR LA PALMA AVENUE WAS STILL IN EFFECT~ALTHOUGH A POR- CONTINUED TION OF LA PA~MA AVENUEoSlTUA7ED ON THE SOUTHER~Y BOUNDARY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ HAD BEEN ABANDONED, HE STATED THAT A RECLASSIFICATION OF THIS P-L ZONE WOULD 8E NECESSARY BEFORE iT COULD BE UTILiZED FOR OTHER PURPOSES. MR. MERCADO~ IN REBUTTAL TO THE OBJECTIONS~ IMDICATED THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS WERE AWARE OF THE EXISTING ~-L ZONE~ THAT THEY WOULD COMPLY WITH . CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE USE OF "'E PROPERTY~ THAT THE PROPERTY WAS DIF`.'ICULT TO DEVELOPoAND THAT DF. ~Al OF THE SUBJECT PETITION WOULD BE CREATIN6 Ai: :iNNECE55ARY HARDSHIP FOR THE OWNERS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. HE STATED THAT~~IX-KARTS WOULD BE ON THE TRACK AT A TIME WITH A TOTAL OF TWELVE KARTS IN OPERATION~ AND THAT THE OWNERS WOULD SUB~IT AN APPLICATION 1'0 ESTABLISH A 41AREHOUSE ON THE PROPERS'Y IF THE SUBJECT PETITION WERE oeNieo.. THE HEARiNG liaS CLOSED. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED 7HE FOLLONINO FACTS REGARD~NG THE SUB- JECT PETITiONt 1. THAT THE pROPOSED USE IS PROPERLY ONE FOR WHICH A CONDITIONAL ~.~,SE PER- MIT IS AUTHORIZED BY THIS CODEo 70 WIT; A GO'~KART ARENA. 2~. THAT THE PROPOSED USE WiLL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE AD,lOIN~NG LAND USES AND THE GRONTH AND DEVEIOPMENT OF THE AREA IN WHICH IT IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED. 3. THAT THE S~ZE AND SHAPE OF THE SITE PROPOSED FOR THE USE IS NOT,ADE- QUATE 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 WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 4: THAT THE TRAFFIC QENERATED BY THE PROPOSED USE WILL IMPOSE AN UNOUE BURDEN UPC" .'E STREETS AND HIGHWAYS DESI~NED AND IMPROVED TO CARRY THE TRAFF i :.~ THE AREA. ~ 5. THAT THE GRANTING OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED; IF ANYp WI~L BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PEACE~ HEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND GEM'.,RAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OR ANANEIM. 6. THAT WRITTEN AND VERBAL OPPOSITION MERE RECORDED AGA~NST SUBJECT PETITION. COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 232~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND M0~'ED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTfON~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUMMERS~ THAT CON- DITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 111 BE DENIED ON THE BA515 OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FIND~NGS. ON ROLL CAIL THE FORE601NG RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ ~AUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUN(iALL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSfONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIO~ERS: HAPGOOD. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PeTiTioH SUBMITTED ev EARL J. AND CORRL E. TRASK. 2258 NO. 60-61-81 COLECHESTER~ APT. MA^~ ANAHEIM~ CALiFORN~A~ OWNERS~ KIRK-UTTERBACK REALTY, INC.a 421 SOUTH BROOKHUR57' STREET~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNtA~ AGENTS~ REQUESTING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5: A PARCEL 99 FEET BV 645 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 99 FEET ON WESTERN AVENUE~AND LOCAI'ED ON THE WEST SIDE OF WESTERN AVE- NUE BETWEEN LINCOLN AVEFiUE AND ORANGE AVENUE~ ITS NORTHEAS'i CORNER BEING , APPROXIMA?ELV 790 FEET SOU7H OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LINCOLN AND WES- TERN AVENUES~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 205 SOUTH WESTERN~RVENUE~ BE RECLASS~ IFfED FROM TriE ft-A, ftESiDENT1AL AGR{Cl7LTURAI, ZOWE To Twe R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. SUBJECT f'ETITION WAS CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF APRIL 3~ 1961, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE PETITIONERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTACT THE DEPARTMENT OF PU9LIC H4RlCS AMD THE FlRE Q£PAP.TMEHT RE4ARDlNfi CQDE REQUlR£MENTS~ TO ALLOH FOR REVISION OF PLOT AND ELEVATION PLANS PRJVIDING ADEQUA~E ACCESS FOR TRASi? STORAGE FACILiTIES~ AND SO THAT THE REVISED PLANS COULD BE PRESENTED TO TIiE COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION. MR. JIM UTTERBACK~ REpRESENTATIVE FOR THE PETITIONERS~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMM~SSION~ SUBMITTED REVISED PLOT AND ELEVATION FLANS~ AND REVJEWED THE DISCUSSION HELD AT THE MEETING ON APRIL 3~ 1961. MR. UTTERBACK iNDICATED THAT DRIVEWAY WIDTHS HAVE BEEN INCREASED TO FIFTEEN FEET MHICH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT CONStDERED ADEQUhTE~ THAT DOORS WOULD B~ PROVIDED FROM THE KITCl;ENS SO THAT TRASH STORADE FACILITIES COULD BE MAIN- TAINED IN THE GARAGE ARlAS~ THAT TRASH PICK UP WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY , PLACING TRASH BJNS AT THE ~RONT CURB~ THAT A THIRTY F00T TURNING RADIUS WIL~ BE PROVIDED AT THE REA~` OF THE PROPERTY~ THAT ALL iMPROVEMENTS WILL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE REQUIREMENTS~ AND THAT ABUTTING PRO~ PERTY TO THE NORTH MIGH7 EVEIITUALLY BE INCLUDED IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVE~OPMENT IF THE PROPERTY IS ACQUIRED. THE HEARING W~tS CL05ED. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWtNd FACTS REGARDINO THE SUB- ~ JECT PETITION: ~~,- .=~i~ e _ "'.. . . ,.. .... . 1, ' '~:' , . . . . .. 'l.~'.. F . . .. *.-.-.,..~ .. ..,~-~+~!~'`~wIM i ! ~ ;-,', , . , ~ . .' . . . ~ . . . . .. . : . . . . . _ . .. ~.. u . . . . . . ~ . ' t.. ~'y . . , . . ._ . . . , ~ . . . _ .. . i, % . . . . ... . . . . - - ~. ~ -~ ` . . .r. . ~} ~ .. ~~ ~ - ~ .I - . . • . .I . . . ' . . ~~L~', . . n.~. :: ~ . ti :.: ~ ---- ""' ~ ~z . - ~'oa C~ ~ '~ ~~' ~ - ~ 132 ~' ~ ~ i ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNlNG COMMISSION, APRIL 17~ 1961, CONTINUED; ~ RECLASSIFICATION ~ 1. THAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICR.TION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED ~ N0. 60-61-ei PROPERTY FROM THE R-A RESiDENT1AL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE To THE R-3, ~ CoHriNUEn MULTiPLE FAMiLY RESiD~N~IAL, ZONE. ~ 2. THAT 7HE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NECESSARY OR i DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT tlF THE COMMUNITY. I 3. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES PROPERLY RELATE TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PERMITTED USES LOCALLY.ESTABL~SHEO IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PER- , MITTED USES GENERALLY ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. , 4: THAT THE PROPOSED RECl.A591FICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES REQUIRE j DEDICATION FOR AND STANDARD IMFROVEMENT OF ABUTTINa STREETS BECAUSE SAID PROPERTY DOES RELATE TO ANp ABUT UPON STREETS AND HIGHNAYS WHICH ' ARE PROPOSED TO CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANTITY OF TRAFFIC~ WHICH WILL BE GENERATED BY THE PERMIT'~Eti USES~ ~N ACCORD~\NCE WITH THE CIRCULATION = . . ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. ~ ~ 5. THAT NO ONE APPEARED 1N OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION. j COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 233~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND MOVEQ 1 FOR ITS PASSAGf ANO ADOPTION' SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED~ RECOMMEND- i INQ TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60-61-61~ BE GRANTED~ ~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWINa CONDITIONS; ( 1. DEDICATION OF 45 FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF wESTERN AVENUE •i (20 FEET EXISTING). ; 2. PREPARA7IQN OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INS?~LLATION OF ALL IM- ~ , PROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANC~ WITH APPROVED STANDAR~` ~' '.NS ON FILE IN THE i OFFICE OF THE GITY ENGINEER. ' ~ 7 3. PAYMENT OF ~2.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES. ~ I. 4. PAYMENT OF ~i25.00 PER DWELLINO UNIT PARK AND RECREATION FEE TO BE COLLECTED AS PART OF BUILDINQ PERMIT. 5. TIME LIMITATION OF 90 DAYS FOR THE ACCQMPLISHMENT OF ITEMS N0. 1~ 2~ 3 AND 4. 6. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIA~LY iN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS SUBMITTED AND DATED ~1PRIL 17' 1961. ' ~. THE FOQEGOING CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO BE A NECES_ARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAFE"Y AND WELFARE OF THE CIT~ZENS OF ANAHEIM. ON ROLL CALi. ~uE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONER~7 ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSlONERSI HAPGOOD. ' YARIANCE N0. 1351 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev ERNEST A. AND DELORES M. DIAZ, 415} SOUTH KROEGER STREET ANAHEIM CALIFORNtA OWNERS' REQUESTING PERMISSION ro WRIVE MINIMUM FLOSR ARER R~4UIREMENT 0~' 2,000 S~QUARE FEET TO ALLOW A FLOOR AREA OF 1p850 SQUARE FEEI ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS; A PARCEL 84 FEET ON LIVE OAK DR~VE AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ~lVE OAK DRIVE BETWEEN GROVE AVENUE AND LIVE OAK DRIVE~ !TS NORTHNESTERLV CORNER BEING APPROXIMATE- LY 83 FEET EAST OF' THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LIVE OAK DRIVE AND OROVE AVENUF~ AN6 FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1270 LIVE OAK DRIVE. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASS~FIED R-0, RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN, 20NE. MR. ERNEST DIAZ~ THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ AND DES- CRiBEp THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTiON OF AN 1~850 SQUARE FOOT RESIDENCE NITH A FIVE F00T SIDE YARD. HE STATED THAT HE CONSIDERED THE PROPOSED FOOTAGE TO BE ADEQUATE AND THAT 7HE CODE REQUIREMENT OF 2~000 SQUARE FEET IN AN R~O ZONE WAS NOT NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE 512E OF HIS FAMILY. HE STATED THAT THE DIMENSIaNS OF OTHER RESIDENCES IN THE AREA WERE CONSIDERABLY LESS. i THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWINQ FACTS REGARDIN~ THE SUB- JECT PETITIONS - 1. THAT THE PETITIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE: SECTION 18.20.030 (2-A) AND (4-8) TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENCE CONTAINING 1~850 SQUARE FEET AND HITH A FIVE (5) F00T SIDE YARD. ''~ 2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EX7RAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS - ~"%Y} APPI.ICAHLE T0 THE PROPERTY INVO W ED OR TO THE INTENDED USE OF THE PRO- '~ PERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO 7HE PROPERTY OR CLASS OF USE IN ~'' THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE. 1~~'''k ` 3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOY- MEN7 OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE SAME VtC1NITY AND ZONE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. _ i ~_ . ~ ~ . . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i . ., .~.. .~ ._ .. ,.. ,.. .._ . ,cw.~ .~~.... . . ..:.~, ,-. .: ., .. .. .. ..,,~: ... . _. .: . ... . ,.~.. .,.... . ... ~~' .;':i_ -~.' ,:..'_'('... ~.' , ... !<-. . _ ... ...n' ._._..~~_..~ .. ---~~ .< q , _ ... ~~~~~i '~ 133 •~~::': F`,: :;.a;;.~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 17, 1961, CONTINUED; VARIANCE N0. 1351 - 4: THAT THE REQUESTED yARIANCE WIIL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO CONTIPIUFD THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR ~MPROVEMENTS IN SUCH VIC~NITY AND 20NC IN WH1CH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPREHEN- SIVE GENERAL PLAN. ~ 6. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITlON TO SUBJECT PETITION. . COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 234e SERIES 1960~61~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTI.ONo SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCUUX~ THAT VARIANCE NO. 1351 BE GRAN7ED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. DEVELOPMEN7 SUB57ANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED.~ THE FOREGOING CONDITION WAS RECfTED AT THE MEETING AND WAS FOUND TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM. QN ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED.BY THE Fu~LONING.VO7E; AYES: COMMTSSlONERS: ALLREDo GAUER9 MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSiONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGQQD. VARiANCE N0. 1353 - PUBLiC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev STEEN AND ZELLA MORRIS, 11oi BooEN DRIVE~ ANAHE~M CALIFORN~A OWNERS; REQUESTING PERMISSION TO WP~IVE MINIMUM REAR YARD SETBdCK REpU(REM~NT OF 25 FEET TO ALLOW aN ENCROACHMENT OF 6 FEET TO WITHIN 19 F~ET OF REAR PROPERTY LINE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDING A ROOM TO EXISTING RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: AN IRREGULAR SHAPfiD PARCEL LOCATED AT THE INTERSECTION OF BODEN DRIVE AND FOREST LANE AND DES~ C.RIBED AS LOT 40 OF TRACT N0. 1603, AND FURTHER DESCRIBED RS 1101 BODEN Daive. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R-1, SINGLE FQMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. THE COMMt5510N DISCUSSED THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REQUIRED REAR YARD TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAI BEDROOM TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESiDENCE, PLOT AND ELEVATION . ' PlANS SUBMITTED WITH THE PETITION WERE REVIEWED, ~THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING F'ACTS REGARDING THE SUB- JECT PETITION: 1. THAT THE PETITIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE~ SECTION 18.24.030 (3~-A~ TO PERFi~T AN ENCROACHMENT OF 6.5 FEET INTO THE REQIlIRED REAR YARD~ IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A ROOM ATTACHED TO AN EXISTINO R6SIDENCE. 2. Tt+aT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR ~ONDtT10NS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY INVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED USE OF THE PRO- PERTY THAT DO NGT APPLY GENERALtY TO THE PROPERTY OR CLASS OF USE IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE. 3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOY- MENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 4. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR INJURt0U5 TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN SUCH VIClNITY AND ZONE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 5. THAT THE REQUESTED VpRIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPREHEN- SIVE GENERAL PLAN. ' 6. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION~~'O SUBJECT PETITION. COMMISSIONER MAP.COUX OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 235o SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION' SECONDED BY COHMISS~ONER MUNGALL~ THAT VARI- ANCE N0. 1353 DE GRANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWIN6 CONDITION: 1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY lN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED. THE FOREGOING CONDITION WAS RECITED AT THE MEETINa AND WAS FOUND TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USk. OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PP.=SERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF TNE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM. ON ROLL CALt THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLIOWiNG VOTE: AYES: COMMISSI~6NERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ $UMMERS. NOES: COMti1SStONERS: No~~c. ABSENT: COMMISSlONERS: HAPGOOD. VARIANCE NO.. 1355 - PUBLIC HEARIN6. PETITION SUBMITTED ev CARMEN SCALZO, 1912 KnrHV LANE. ' ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA. OWNER. REQUESTING PERMISSION TO CONSTRUCT AND OPERATE ' A PANCAKE H0~!SE ON PROPERTY DESCRIEED ASC A PARCEL 85 FEET BY 610 FEET ~ ~ ~ 1~; , .._. 134 MINUTES, CITY PLQNNIPIG COMMiSSION~ APRIL 17, 1961~ CONTINUED; VARIQNCE N0. 1355 ~ WITH A FRONTAGE OF 85 FEET ON HARBOR BOULEVARD AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE CONTINUED OF HARBOR BOULEVARD BETMEEN KATELLA AVENUE AND MIDWAY DRIVE~ ITS SOUTHWEST CORNER BEING APPROXIMATEI.Y 2030 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HARBOR BOULEVARD AND KATEILA AVENUE AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1560 $OUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICUL- TURAL, ZONE. THE PETITIONER APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED HE HAD NOTHING TO AUD TO THE INFORMATION CONTAINED tN THE PETITION. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE PLOT AIiD tLEVAT~ON PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED CON- STRUCTION AND DISCUSSED THE CODE REQUIREMENTS IN RESPECT TO PARKING AREAS. THE PETITIONER STATED THAT HE WOULD PROVIDE PARKING FACILITIES IN ACCOR- DANCE WITH THE CODE REQUIREMENTS. ~ ~ - THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED TNE FOLLOMING FACTS REGARDINfi THE SUB- JECT PETITION: '"'~ . ~! i ~ t ~ 1 I ! 1. THAT THE PETITIONER REQUE5T5 A VARIANCE FROl~ THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE~ ~ SECTION 18.16.010 TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PAlJCAKE HOUSE. 2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY INVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED USE OF THE PRO- . PERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERAL~Y TO THE PROPERTY OR CLASS OF USE IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE. 3. 7HAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE ?RESERVATION AND ENJOY- MENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE SAME VIClNITY AND ZONEo AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN~QUESTION. 4. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE iJ~LL NO7 BE MATERIAl,LY DETRIMENZAL TO THE PUB- LIC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN SUCN VICIN- ITY AND 20NE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATE~, 5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WtLL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPREHENSIVE CaENERAL PLAN. 6. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION. , COMMISSIONER MUNOALL OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 236~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTiON~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED~ THAT VARI- ANCE N0. 1355 BE GRANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE MlTH PIANS PRESENTED WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE PARKING AREA LAYOUT BE AMENDED TO CONFORM TO CODE ~ REQU!REMENTS~ 2. MAINTENANCE OF A FIFTY (50) FOOT BUILDING SETBACK FROM THE NEST PRO- PERTY LINE ABUTTI.NG HARBOR BOULEVARD. 3. PROVISION OF FORTY (40) FEET OF LANDSCAPED AREA ABUTTINO WEST PROPERTY LINE ON HARBOR BOULEVARD. PLANS FOR SAID LANDSCAPINQ 70 BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKMAY MAINTENANCE. THE FOREOOING CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO BE A NECESSARV PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZ£NS OF ANAHEIM. ON ROLL CALL THE FORE601Nfi RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE F01_LOWIN(i VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNQALL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPQOOD. yQRIANCE N0. i356 - PUBLIC HEARIN6. PETITION SUBMITTED ev HERBERT AND lOUISE LAMSON, 1318 ATECA PLACE ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNERS' REQUESTING PERMISSION TO WAIVE MINIMUM FRO~ITAGE RE4UIREMENT AND LOT ARE/I REQUIREMENTS ON TWO IOTS AND TO WAIVE SINGLE STOKY HEIGHT LIMITATION TO PERMIT CON~TRUCTION OF ~'WO STORY APARTMENTS ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS; A PARCEL 152 FEET BY 276 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 152 FEET LOCATED 150 FEET NORTHERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF NORTH STREET AND LOCATED BETWEEN WES7 AND LOARA STREET. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIF~ED R-3, MUITIPLE FAMIIY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. MR. HERBERT LAWSON~ THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ SUB- ~ MITTED REVISED PLOT AND ELEVATION PLANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STORY APARTMENT BUILDINGS~ AND STATED THAT 7HE PROPERTY WOULD BE DEVELOPEO IN ACCORDANCE W~TH ALL REQUIREMENTS. . - THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE PLANS AND A STAFF REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE PARK DEPARTMENT RELATIVE TO THE ACQU.ISITION OF EASEMENTS AND STREET R16HT~ OF-WAY FOR ACCE55 TO THE CITY PARK LOCATED NORTHER~Y OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. ~ MRS. TURNER~ NHO STATED SHE REPRESEN7ED NER ~ISTER MRS. EARLA BENNETT~ OWNER OF ADJACENT PROPERTY ON THE EAST~ INQUIRED ABOUT THE ACCESS 70 THE REAR OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE EFFECT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. ~ ..r - ~: ~ ~ 'h ',:. •~ ~ 135 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ .:. ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, APRIL i'7~ 1961~ CONTINUED: ~ VARIANCE N0. 1356 ~ MR. CURT~S~ OWNER OF PROPERTY IN THE AREA~ lNQU1RED ABOUT THE STREET DED1- 1 CONT~NUED CATION AND THE RECOMMENDED WIDTH NtCF.SSARY TO PROVlDE ADEQUATE ACCE55 TO THE j PROPERTY. TH~ HEAR1iJG WAS CLOSED. . . ~ , 7 THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED A GRANT DEED~ DATED MAY 27~ 1960~ fNDICATING THE { DEDICATION OF THIRTY FEET ABUT7ING THE WEST PROPERTY LINE OF SUBJECT PRO- ~ PERTY~ DEEDING TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM SAtD PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND PUBLIC UTILITIES PURPOSES. I ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT THE DEDI- ~ CATION MOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED BY THE CITY UNTIL SUCH TIME AS AL~ IMPROVEMENTS WERE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE NITH CITY STANDARDS. ~ %i RECOMMENDATION THAT THE CITY ASSUME THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PAVE THE NESTER- ~ LY AND NORTHERLY 12 FEET OF THE 24 FEET OF PAVING~ WHICH WILL PROVIDE ACCE55 TO THE C~TY PARK PROPERTY~ WA5 SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION WITH THE FURTHER STIPULATION THAT THE DEVELOPER PROVIDE THE CURB~ GUTTERo SIDEMALK AND PAVING WITHIN THE REMAINING 18 FEET OF DEDICATION ALONG THE WESTERLY AND NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINES. ASSISTANT CITY A7TORNEY ~OE GE!SLER ADVISED THE COMMf5510N THAT THE RECOM- MENDATION WAS MADE BECAUSE ACC~SS TO THE CITY PARK PROPERTY WOULD BE MADE POSSIBLE BY THE DEDICAT~ON OF STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY OFFERED BY THE PETITIONER. ~ THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS RE~ARDING THE SUB- I JECT PETITION: ' 1. THAT THE PETITIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNnCIPAL COOE~ SECTION 18.32.050 (1 AND 'L) TO pERM1T THE WAIVER OF MINIMUM•FRONTAGE ~ REQUIREMENTS ~ND LOT P.REA REQUIREMENTS ON TWO LOTS~ AND TO WAIVE SINGLE . STORY HEIGHT LIMITATIONS TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF TWO STORY APARTMENT BUILDINGS. . 2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTlONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY INVO~VED OR TO THE INTENDED USE OF THE PRO- . PERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERA~LY TO THE PROPERTY OR CLASS OF USE IN THE SAME VIC7NITY AND ZONE. ~ , 3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATIUN AND ENJOY~ MENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PP.OF£RTY IN THE SAME VII:INfT~ AND ZONE~ AND DENlED TO THE PROPERTY ~N QUESTION. 4. THA7 THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR INJURf0U5 TG THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN SUCH VICiNITY AND ZONE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN. • 6. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION. ~' COMMISSIONER MORRtS OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 237~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND MJVEO ~. FOR ITS PASSA6E AND ADOPTlON~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALI.RED~ THAT VARI- ANCE N0. 1356 eE GRANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. DEDICATiON OF THIRTY (30) FEET ALONG THE WESTERLY pROPERTY LINE (FROM NOR7H STREET TO THE NORTHERLY PROPERTY LINE) AND THE DEDICATION OF THIRTY (30) FEET ALONa 7HE NORTHERLV PROPERTY LINE. 2. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF IMPROVE- MENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON F)~E IN THE OFFICE~ OF THE CITY ENGINEER~ AND FURTHER~ IN ACCORDANCE WITH AGREEMENT APPROVED . BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR JOINT PART)CIPATION IN SAID IMPROVEMENT. 3. PROVISION OF CURB~ GUTTER~ SIDEWALK AND PAVING WITHIN THE EASTERLY AND SOU7HERLY 18 FEET pF DF.DICATION ALONG TNE WESTERLY AND NORTHER~Y PROPERTY LINES REFERRED TO IN CONDITtON N0. 1 ABOVE. 4. PAYMENT OF 32.00 PER FRONT F00T FOR STREET LIaHTING PURPOSES FOR THE WESTEi1LY FRONTAGE ONLY. 5. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY 1N ACCORDANCE MITH PLANS PRESENTED. ~ 6. RECORDATION OF A RECORD OF SURVEY MAP CONTAINING REVISED LOT LAYOUTS Aai+ 9ED!GATIQH. THE FOREGOINfi CONDITIONS WERE RECITcD AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO BE A ' NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE ' SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE C1T12EN5 OF ANAHrIM. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTIQN WAS PASSED BY T4E FOLLOWINCa VOTES AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRCD~ GAtJER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNOALL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPQOOD. I THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED FURTHER TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THE CITY OF , ANAHEIM ASSU?AE THE RESPONSlBILITY TO PAVE THE HESTERLY AND NORTHERLY TWELVE ~ v' a ~; ,z ~ ~ ~ ~ 136 ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANN . ING COMMfSSION~ APRIL 17, 1961, CONTINUED; ~ ~ VARIANCE N0. 1356 -(12~ FEET OF l'HE TWENTY~FOUR (24) FEET OF PAVING TO PROVIDE ACCE55 TO THE ~ CONTINUED cITY'S PARK PROPERTY. ~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARIN6. PETITtON SUBMlTTED ev LOS ANGELES BOARD OF TRADE 1501 ~3 PERMIT NO. 112 V1EST BTH. STREET~ ~OS ANGELES 17~ CALIFORNIA~ ONNER~ ALFRED D. PA~NO~ 10362 BALLARD DRIVE~ GARDEN GROVE~ CALIFORNIAe AGENT~ REQUESTING.PERMIS- ~ sioN To OPERATE BASEBALL BATTING CAGES WITH AUTOMATIC BASEBALL PITCHING MACHfNES ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED ASS A PARCEL 113 FEET BY 300 FEET NITH A ~ FRONTAGE OF 113 FEET ON BEACH SOULEVARD AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ~ BEACH BOULEVARD BETWEEN ORANGE AVtNUE AND BALL Ronn, ITS NORTHEAST CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY 880 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BEACH BOULE- ~ VARD AND ORANQE AVENUE~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 711 SOUTH BEACH BOULEVARD. ! PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFlED R~Ay RESIOENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. , MR. ALFRED PAINO~ AGENT FOR THE PETITIONERS~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMIS- SION AND DESCR~BED THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. HE INDICATED THAT THE AMUSEMENT FACILITY MOULD BE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY PRESENTLY UTILIZED BY THE FANTASY POOL COMPANY AND STATED THAT THE POOL COMPANY.HAD FILED VOLUNTARY BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS AND HAD AGREED TO VACATE THE PRE- MISES. MR. PA1N0 STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE CLEARED OF ~EBRIS~ TNAT UPON VACATION BY THE POOL COMPANV~A USE COMPATIBLE NITH TNE PROPOSED 1 DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE INSTALLED ON THE FRONT PORTION OF THE PROPER:Y~ AND THAT LANDSCAPING WOULD BE PROVtDED. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. . ~ THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE USE OF A SIDEWALK~ THREE FEET tN WIDTH~ TO j PROVIDE ACCE55 TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THE PETITIONER INDICATED d THAT THE WALK WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY UPON ABANDONMENT OF THE PROPERTY ; PRESENTLY OCCUPIED BY THE POOL COMPANY. INE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE P~OT PLAN LAVOUT AND A DISCUSSION ENSUED RELA- TIVE TO THE LOCATlON OF CAGES AND HEIGHT OF FENCES AS PROPOSED ON THE PLANS. i ASSISTANT i.ITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT THE CODE i REGULATES THE HEIGHT OF FENCES ON PROPERTY LINES BUT DOES NOT CLARIFY THE i`~ HEIGHT OF ~TENCES SITUATED W1TH~N THE PROPERTY. HE STATED THAT THE APPRO- . VAL OF THE SUBJECT PETITFON COULD BE CONSiDERED AS APPROVAL OF THE PLANS AS PROPOSED~ INCLUDING THE PROPOSED FENCES S~NCE THEY ARE A PART OF THE s I UNUSUAL USE FOR WFIICH NO STANDARDS HAVE BEEN SET. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE SUB- JECT PETIT~ON: , 1. THAT THE PROPOSED USE ES PROPERLY ONE FOR WHICH A CONDITIONAL USE PER- MIT IS AUTHORIZED BY THIS CODE~ TO WIT: BnSEBALL BATTING CAGES WITH ~ AUTOMATfC BASEBALL PITCHING MACHINES. 2. THAT THE PkOPOSED USE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJOINING LAND USES AND THE GROWTH AND DEVE(.OPMENT OF THE AREA IN WHICH IT IS PROPOSED TO ~ BE LOCATED. 3. THAT THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE SITE PROPOSED FOR THE USE IS ADEQUATE ~ ' TO ALLOW THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED U~E !N A MANNER NOT DE- I TRIMENTAL TO THE PARTtCULAR AREA NOR TO THE PEACE~ HEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND I GENERAL WELFARE OF TNE C1T12EN5 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. ` 4. THAT THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT IMPOSE AN UNDUE i BURDEN UPON THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS DESiGNED AND IMPROVED TO CARRY THE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA. ~ i i ~ 5. THAT THE GRANTING OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER THE CONDITIONS i IMPOSED~ IF ANY~ NILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PEACEo HEA~TH~ SAFETY~ ~ AND GENERAL WELFAP.E OF THE C17~2EN5 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. i 6. THAT NO ONE APPEARED tN OPPOSITION TO THE SUBJECT PETITION. COMMISSIONER MUNGA~L OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 238~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED FOR (TS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX~ THAT CONDI- TIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 112 BE GRANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ,`~ 1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY iN ACCORDANCE W17H PLANS PRESENTED. ~- 2. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL IMPROVE- i MENT 1N ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED STANDARU PLANS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENG{NEER. 1 I . 3. PAYMENT OF ~2.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STREET LIGHTING PURpOSES. j 4. PROVISION OF TWENTY (20~ FEET OF LANDSCAPED AREA ABUTTING EAST PROPER- ~ • TY LINE ON SOUTH BEACH OULEVARD. PLANS FOR SAID LANDSCAPING TO BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE SUPERINTENC+ENT OF PARKWAY MAINTENAt:CE. THE FOREOOING CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO BE ; A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE C1T12EN5 OF ANAHEIM. ON ROL~ CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS: NOES• COMMISSIONERS: NoNe. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD. ~ ~ ' , ~~~, ~' r i 137 ; ~ MINUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMMI~SION~ APRIL i?, 1961a CONTfNUED; CONDITIONAL~USE - PUBLIC HEARING. PETlT10N SUBMITTED av LELA HATTON, 2170 Haasoa BOULEVARD~ PFRMIT NQ, 113 ANAHEfM~ CALlFORNIA OWNERo REQUESTINO PERMISSION TO 1NCREASE NUMBER OF OVERNIGHT TRAILER S~'ACES ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5: A PARCEL l00 FEET BV ~ 200 FEET~ ~OCATED 200 FEET EAST OF THE CENTERLlF1E OF HARBOR B011LEVARD AND IOCATED BETWEEN WILKEN ~.~AY AND ORANGEWOOD AVENUE~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 2170 HARBOR BOUL.EVARD. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R"A~ RESIDENTIAL ' AGRICULTURAL, ZOWE. THEAREQUESI'~TOHPERMlTSANNINCREASEAFROMBT!{ERSITHOVERNMGHT'TRAILER PARKINGD SPACES PRESENTLY ESTABLISHED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO A TOTAL OF ELEVEN SPACES BY THE ADD9TION OF FiVE NEW OVERNIGHT, PARKLNCa SPACES. SHE STATED THAT THE AREA WOULD BE 6LACKTOPPED' THAT IT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT OVER THE EXISTlNG CON~ITION OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT TN~ PROPERTY WOULD BE I SU~TABLY LANDSCAPED. THE HEARIN6 WAS ~LOSED. {~. ~ THE COMMISSION iOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOILOWING FACTS REGARDING THE SUB- p JECT PETITION; ~ 1. THAT THE PROPOSED USE i5 PROPERLY ONE FOR WH~CH A CONDITIONAL USE PER~ i MtT IS AUTWORIZF.D BY TH95 CODE~ TO WlT: INCREASC NUMBER OF OVERNIGHT TRA~LER PARKING SPACES. _ I 2. THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL N07 ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJOiNING LAND USES AND THE GROWTH AND ~EVELOPMENT OF THE AREA IN WHICH ~T IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED. ~p'~ 3. THAT THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE SlTE PROPOSED FOR THE USE IS.ADEQUATE y, TO ALLOIi THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED USE IN A MANNER NOT , ~ DETRiMENTAL TO THE PART:CULAR AREA NOR TO THE PEACE HEALTH~ SAFETY~ o AND GENERAL WEIFARE OF THE CITtZ.ENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. ~ 4. THAT THE TRAFFIC GENERATEL BY THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT IMPOSE AN •I UNDUE BURDEN UPON THE STRCETS AND HlGHWA'f5 DESIGNED AND IMPROVED TO q CARRY THE TRAFFiC IN THE AREA. ~. 5. THAT THE GRAN7ING ~F THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED~• IF ANY~ WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PEACE~ HEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITlZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEtM. E ~ 6. THAT NO ONE APPEARED !N OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION. ~ COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTlON N0. 239~ S~RIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED i. i FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNGALL~ THAT CONDI~ { TIONAL USE PERMIT N~• 113 BE GRANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED~ aND THAT _ THE PROPERTV BE PAVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE REQUtREMENTS. 2. DEVELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE WiTH THE STANDARDS ESTABLISHEO IN THE PRO~ POSED TRAILER PARiC ORDINANCE. i . AHNECESSARYNPREREQUIS~ITE TOR~HFFUSEEOFATHEHPROPERTYGINNORDERETO~PRESERVEE ~ THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF 7!1E CITlZENS OP ANAHEIM. ... ON ROLL CALL THE fORcCa01NG RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLIOWING VOTE; ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAI;EIi~ MARCOUX~ MORR~S~ MUNGAIL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONER~: NoN~. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HnP~oon. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEAR!NG. PETI'II~N susMiri'FO ev 6EOR6E M. ELTINGE2 GEORGE L. GRA2tA- PFRMIT NQ. 114 DIO JR.o AND G. C. WILMOT9 11Z2 W!'.ST LA BREAo INGLEWOOD .i CALIFORN~A)ESSEE - REQUESTiN6MPERMISS!ON TO~bPERATE AciNINIATI'1REHGOLFNCOURS~ ONLPROPERTY DES- ~ CRIBED AS: A FARCEL 210 FEE1' BY 220 FEET M'ITH A FRONTAGE OF 220 FEET ON LINCOLN AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE BETYEEN BEACH BOULEVARD AND GRAND AVENUE~ !TS SOUTHEAST CORNE~ BEING APPROXIMATELY 225 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHWEST CCRNER OF BEACH ROULE`/ARD AND LINCOLN AVE- c~a'ssiF~EOURrAERRESIDENTIALAAGRICULTURALL~ZONEN AYENUE. PROPER7Y PRESENTLY THE COMM18510N REVIEWED PLQT PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT~AND DISCUS- SED THE PROPOSED LAYOUT CONTAIN:NG PARKING FOR FORTY CARS ABUTTING LINCOLN OFETHE SUBJECT PROPERTY.OFTHEEPETNTIONER NNSFNOTUPRESENTENDTHE HEARINGRWAS CLOSED. THE COMMfSSSON DlSCUSSED THE PEND-NG RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~20NE~ A~~D THE PROPER USE OF THE SUB- .7ECT PROPERTY. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWFNG F.4CT5 REGARDING THE SUB- ~ JECT PETITION: l. THAT THE PROPOSED USE !S PROPERLY ONE FOR WiItCH A COYDiT10NAL USE PER- MIT IS AUTHORIZED BY THIS CODE~ TO WIT: A t~fN6ATURE GOLF COURSE. . --- ,., ,. >„. , . .,,.-'~ ,,.. ; .;,,. , ,,. ~ . - .`_ . _. . ...__..J~ . ~4~ •~ . _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i3s . MINUTES, CITY P~.pNNING COMMISSION~ APRIL 17~ 1961, CONTINUED; CONDITIONAL US~E - 2. THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJOINING LAND USES PERMIT N0. 114 AND THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA ~N WHICH IT IS PROPOSED TO CQtITINUED BE LOCATED. 3. THAT THE S~ZE AND SHAPE OF THE SITE PROPOSED FOR THE USE IS NOT ADE- QUATE 1C0 ALLON TNE FULL DEVEL OPMENT OF THE PROPOSED USE IN A~MANNER NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE PARTICULAR AREA NOR TO THE PEACE~ HEA~TH~ SAFETY~ AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 4. THAT THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT lhipOSE AN UNDUE ' BURDEN UPON THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS DESIGNED AND IMPROVED TO CARRY THE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA. 5. THAT THE C,RANTING CF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED~ IF ANV~ WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PEACE~ HEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIh1. 6. THAT THE PROPOSED USE WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 7. THAT ?HE PLOT PLANS SUBMITTED WITH THE SUBJECT PETITION DO NOT CLEAR- LY DEFINE THE PROJECTED DEVELOFMENT OF THE PROPERTY. 8. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION. COMMISSIONER MUNGALL OFFERED RESOI.UTION N0. 240~ SERtES 1960-61~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS~ THAT CONDI~ TIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 114 BE DENIED ON THE•BA515 Of THE AFOREMENTIONED FIND~NGS. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY 7lIE FOILOWING.VOTE~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS; ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRtS~ MUNGALI~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD, RECLASSIF(CATION - RUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED sv EARL AND FLOY DENNEY, 3438 Ensr Ln J~,Q. 60-61-•$4 PALMA AVENUE ANAHEIMt CALIFORNIA~ OWNERS~ REQUESTING THAT PROPERTY DES- CRIBED AS• A PA C R EL G03 FEET BY 760 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 203 FEET ON LA PAIMA AVENUE BETWEEN GROVE STREET AND DOWL~NG AVENUE~ iT5 NORTHEASTER- LY CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY 370 FEET MEST OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF GROV6 STREET AMD ~A PALMA AVENUE~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 3438 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTUR~.~~ ZONE To THE M-i, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, ZONE. MR. EAR~ DENNEY~ THE PETITIONER~ AppEARED BEFORE THE COMMISStON AND STATED THAT HE WAS REQUESTING THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT hROPERTY TO THE M-1 ZONE FOR 7HE PURPOSE OF SELLING THE PROPERTY. MR. AL MCDONALD APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ STATEO THAT HE WAS THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY~ AND PRESENTED DETAILED PLOT AND ELEVATION PLANS TO THE COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE PLANS AND MR. MCDONALD INDICATED 7HAT THE PRO- POSED CONSTRUCTION NAS TO ESTABLISH AN ENQ~NEERING AND CONSTRUCTION COM- PANY BUS~NESS. HE STATED THAT ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS RELATIVE TO BUI~DING SETBACKS; PARKONG AREAS WALL REQUIREMENTS~ AND LANDSCAPING WOULD BE COM- ~ PLIED wirH. THE HEARIN NAS CLOSED. ~THE COMMISSIUN FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE SUB~- JECT PETiTiON: 1. THAT THE PETITOONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTV FROM rHe R-A. RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE ro THE M-i, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, ZONE. 2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFI,CATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMUNITY. 3. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES PROPERLY RELATE TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PERMITTED USES LOCALLV ES7ABLISHED IN ' C~OSE PROXI.M7TY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND Tp THE LONES AHD THElP. PEP.HlTTED USES GENERALLY ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. ~ 4. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJEC" PROPERTY DOES REQUIRE ~ DEDICATION FUR AND STANDARD IMPROVEMENT OF ABUTTING STREETS BECAUSE SAID PROPERTY DOES RELATE TO AND ABUT UPON STREETS AND HIGHWAYS WHICH ARE PROPOS~D TO CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANTITY OF TRAFFIC~ WHICH WILL BE 6ENERATED BY THE PERMITTED USES~ IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. 5. NO ONE AppEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUBJECT PETITION. COMMISSIONERS MUNGALL OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 241~ SER:ES 1960-61~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION' SECONDED BY CPMMISSIONER MARCOUX~ RECOMMEND- ING TO THE C1TY COUNCIL THAT RECLASSIFICATIGN N0. 60-61-84 BE GRANTED~ ~ ~ "~,~+' 139 4 i ' ~ € i ~~ ~ w t',.. : ~, +:»•'. MINUTE~, CiTY PLANNING COMM1SS10N~ APRIL 17~ 1961~ CONTINUED: RECLASSiFICATION - REC~assiFViN~ SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE M°1~ LIGHT MANUFACTURING, ZONE AND N0. 60-61-84 THE P-L. PARKING-IANDSCAPlNG, ZONE as Fo~~ows: CONTINUED ' " A STRIP OF LA'!D 50 FEET !N DEPTH~ AFTER DEDICATION~ ABUTTING AND PARALLEL TO THE PI.ANNED HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ON LA PALMA AVENUE SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN THE P-L~ PARKING-LANDSCAPiNG~ ZONE~ AND THE BALANCE OF SAID PROPF.RTY SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN THE M~1~ LIGHT MANUFACTURING, ZONE. UPON THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: ~ 1. DEDICATION 6F 53 FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE {:° LA PALMA AVENUC• (20 FEET E%ISTING). 2. PAYMENT OF a2.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STREET LIGHTING PURAO't•ES AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. 3. PROVISION OF UTILITY EASEMENTS ALONG EXTERIOR BOUNDARiES AS DETER- MINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES. 4. TIME LIMITATION OF 90 DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITEMS N0. 1 AND 3. TNE FOREGOING CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO BE ' A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE ClTIZENS OF ANAHEIM. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING.VOTEi AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERSS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD. VARIANCE N0. 1352 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBfA1TTED sv ALEXANDER AND HULDA STARK 550 SourH CITRON ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA~ OWNERS' REQUESTING PERMISSION TO WA~VE MINIMUN, FLOOR AREA REQUjREMENT OF 1225 SQUAf~E FEET TO ALLOW A FLOOR AREA OF 935 FRONTAGEEOF 50 FEETEONYOLIVERSTREETSAND LOCATED ON THE7EASTiSoDEEOF OLIVEA STREET BETWEEN BROADWAY AND SANTA ANA STREET~ 175 NORTHWESTERLY CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY 385 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF OLIVE SJREET AND BRpADWAY~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 400 SOUTH OLIVE STREET. PRO- PERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. MR. MERRILL KENNEDY~ AGENT FOR THE PETIT19h1ER5~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMIS- SION AND DESCRJBED THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A SIN~LE FAMILY RESIDENCE TO BE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY ABUTTING THE ALLEY. HE STATED THAT THE EXISTING SiNGLE FAMILY RESIDENCS.LOCATED ON THE FRONT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY WOULD BE REMOVED WITHIN S1XTY DAYS AFTER COMPLETION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTI.ON AND THAT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE~ IDENTICAL IN HRCHITECTURAL DESIGN.TO THE CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED BY SUBJEC7 PETITION~ WOULD UI:TIMATELY BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE FRONT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVI5ED THE COMMISSION THAT ANOTHER RESIDENTI.4L UNIT COULD NOT BE CONSTRUCTED ON SU3JECT PROPERTY WITHOUT OBTAI[:INO A VARIANCE FOR 1T5 CONSTRUCTION. THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT ISSUE PERMITS FOR AN ADDITIONAL UNIT WITHOUT COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED, THE COMMISS~ON DISCUSSED GARAGE PROVISIONS AND THE AGENT INDICAT'ED THAT THE EX)ST1NG GARAGE WOULD REMAIN UNT{L SUCH T{ME AS THE NEXT UNIT IS CONSTRUC- TED, HE INDICATED THAT THE OLDER EXISTING REStDENCE WOULb BE REMOVED IN • ACCORDANCE WITH THE LETTER 516NED BY THE PETITIONERS AND FILED WITH THE PETITION. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING PACTS REGARDING THE SUB- ~ .IECT PETITION: ~ 1. THAT THE PETITIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE~ SECTION 18.80.080 TO PERMIT WAIVEF. OF MINIMUM FLOOR AREA REQUIREMENT OF 1~225 ~;!lARE ~EET ?4 AL6QW A FLOOR AREA OF 935 SQUARE FEET. ~ 2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITION$ APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY INVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED USE OF THE PRO~ PERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR CLA55 OF USE IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE. 3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR TH~ PRESERVATION AND EN- JOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PROP(ERTY IN THE SAME VICINITY AND 20NE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 4. TNAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY D'cTRIMENTAL TO THE . PUB~IC wELFARE OR I.NJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR iMPROVEMENTS IN SUCH V~CINITY AND ZONE IN WHICH THE PROPERTV IS LOCATED, 5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN. ~ '~_`:, . ~ . .; ....- ..-.:_. .~ ::~ . ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ I I 140 1 MINUTES, CITY PLANNiNG COIflMiSS10N, APRIL 17~ 1961, CONTINUED; VARIANCE N0. 1352 - 6. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION. . CoNrtNUeo COI~MISSIONER ALLREG OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 242~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTI.ON; SECO+IDED BY COMMISSIONER SUMMERS~ THAT VARIANCE N0. 1352 8E GRANTED~ SUP..iL'CT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED. 2. REMOVAL OF THE EXISTlNG RESIDENCE WITHIN SI.XTY.(60~ DAYS AFTER COM- PLETION OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LETTER DATED MARCH 8~ 1961~ SlGNED BY THE PETITIONERS~ AND ON FIIE IN THE OFFICE OF THE PLANNING DEPAR7MENT. THE FOREGOING CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEeTING AND WERF FOUND TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQU151TE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTV IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM. . AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABS~Ni: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARiNG. PETIT:oN SUBMITTED ev GLADYS KRAEMER ALLEC LUCY KRAEFIER N0. 60-61-85 CON1GL10 AND LOUISE KRAEMER HEFNER, OwNERS; GEORGIA C. MANES~TAR, c/o ROBERTS ~EAL ESTATE AND INVF.STMENT~ 9752 KATELLA AVENU~~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFOR- NIA~ AGENT~ REQUESTING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5; ARC 1; A PAP.CEL NITH A FRONTAGE OF 350 FEET ON DOWLING STREET AND 65O FEET ON ORANGETHORPE AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ORANGE- YHORPE AVENUE AND DOWLING STREETo EXCEPTING A PARCEL 183 FEET BY 190 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 190 FEET ON DOWLING STREET AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DOWLING STREET AND ORAGGETHORPE AVENUE BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R-A RESlDENTIAL AGRICULTURAl, ZONE ro THE C-i, ~IEIGHBORHQO~ COMMERCTAL, ZON~. RCE • A PARCEL 183 FEET BY 190 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 190 FEET Oh~ OWLfNG TREET AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DOWLING STREET AND ORANCiETHORPE AVENUE BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R~A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE ro THE C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, 20NE. PARCEL 3; AN IRRE~ULAR SHAPED pARCEL WITH A FRONTA6E OF 203 FEET ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ORANGETHORPE AVENUE AND AN AVERAGE DEPTH OF 470 FEET~ AND LOCATED BETWEEN DOWLINQ STREET AND MELROSE AVENUE~ ITS SOUTHEASTERLY COR- NER BEING APPROX'IMATELY 650 FEET HEST OF THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF DOWLINa STREET AND !~RANGETHORPE AVENUE ANO ITS EASTERLY BOUNDARY ADJOt.NINa THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF FARCEL 1 BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE ro THE C-i~ NEfGH80RH00D COMMERCIAL, ZONE. PARCEL 4: AN IRREGULAR SHAPED PARCEL WITH A FRONTAGE OF 203 FEET ON THE NORTH 51I`E OF ORANG~SHORPE AVENUE AtdD AN AVERAGE DEPTH OF 503 FEET AND LO- CATED BcTWEEN DOWLING STREET AND MELROSE AV£NUE~ t.75 SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY 8~3 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHHESTERLY CORNER OF DOWLINa STREcT AND ORANGETHORPE AVENUE AND ITS EASTERLY BOUWDARY ADJOINIl1G THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF PARCEI. 3~ BE REClA551F1ED FROM THE R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL,ZONE To THE C-i, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE. GE0RGIA MANESTAR~ AQENT FOR THE PETITIONERS~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ DESCRIBED THE PRpPOSED DEVEIOPM~NT QF AN INTEflRATED SHOPPING CENTER CONTAIN- ING A SERVICE STATION~ A MARKETt A DR1,VE-1N BANK~ AND VARIOUS SHOPS~ AND SHE IND,ICATED THAT ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMEN7 IS PROJECTED FOR THE AREA CONTINGENT UPON THE APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT RECLASSIFICATION. SHE PRESENTED A RENDER- ING OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND STATED THAT A SHOPPINQ CENTER COMPLEX WOULD BE SUITABLE APJD DESIRABLE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DUE TO THE FREE- WAY LOCATED . IN CL.OSE PROXIMITY TO THE•SUBJEGT PROPERTY AND DUE TO THE ESTIMATED POPULATf6N 60R THE SURROUNDfNG AkEA. THE HEARING NAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSION FOUi~D AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOtlIN~ FACTS REGARDING THE SUB- JECT PETITIONl 1. THAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFiCAT10N OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY FROM THE R-A RESIDENTiAL AGRICULTURAL~ 20NE ro THE C-i : NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE AND THE C-3~ HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ ZON~. 2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICAT~ON OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DF.VELOPMENT OF THE COMMUNITY. 3. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATI,ON OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES PROPERLY RELATE TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PERi~tTTED USES LOCALLY ESTABLISHED IN CLOSE PRQXIMITY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO l'HE ZONES AND THEIR PERMIT- TED USES GENERALLY ESTABLISHED THROUaHOUT THE COMMUNITY. 4. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES REQUIRE DEDICA710N FOR AND 57ANDARD IMPROVEMENT OF ABUTTING STFiEETS BECAUSE SAID pROPERTV DOES RELATE TO AND ABUT UPON STREETS AND NIONWAYS NHICH ; ARE PROPOSED TO CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANTITV OF TRAFFIC~ WHIGH WILL BE OENERATED BY THE PERMITTED USES~ IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. 5. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION. __- --- _ _ . ` ~ ~ ~ ` ~ iai i MINUTES, CITY PLANNI i NG COMMiSS10N, APRiL 17~ 1961, CONTINUED; ~ RECLASSIFICATION ~ COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 243~ SERIES 1960~-61~ AND MOVED ~ NO. 60~61-85 FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~~RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL~ THAT RE- 2 CONTINUED CLASSIFICATION N0. 60~61~-85 BE aRANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDI- ~ TIONSt 1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED, j 2. DEDICATION OF 53 FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF ORAN6ETHORPE ' •AVENUE AND DOWLING STREET (20 FEE7 EXIST.ING ON BOTH STREETS~. ~ 3. PREPARATtON OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR ORANGETHORPE AVENUE AND DOWLING STREET AND INSTALLATION OF ALL IMPROVEMENTS lN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. 4. PAYMENT OF f2.00 PER FRONT F00T FOR ORANGETHORPE AVENUE AND DOWLINO STREET FOR STREET LIGHi1NG PURPOSES AT TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. . 5. PROVISION OF UTILITY EASEMENTS ALONG EXTERtOR BOUNDARIES AS DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF UTILITI~S. 6. TIME LIMITATION OF 90 DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITEMS 2 AND 5. ~ 7. PROVISION OF A S1X (6~ FOOT LANDSCAPED STRIP ABUTTING THE EASTERLY AND ~ SOUTHERLY PLANNED HIGHWAY RIGHT~OF--WAY LINES OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES~ .; EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PROPERTY CONTAINED IN PARCEL N0. 2~~'AND THE ~ PROVISION OF FIVE (5) F00T BY FIVE (5) F00T TREE WELLS AT FORTY (40) FOOT INTERVALS ADJACENT TO THE PLANNED HI~HWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE~ AND ~ THE INSTALLATION OF STREET TREES.THEREIN. ALL PORTIONS OF SAID PARK~IAY WOT FIL~EP IN WITH CqNCRETE SHALL BE PRO- ~ PERLY LANDSCAPED lN THE MANNER PROVIDED FOR HEREIN. ~ PLANS FOet SA10 LANDSCAPING AND WATER SUPPLY~ INCLUDING THE SPACIN~ OF ~ STREET TREES AND SHRUBS~ SHALL BE SU6JECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SUPER- j 1 INTENDENT OF PARKWAY MAINTENANCE, i , THE FOREGOING CONDITIOi~S WER E RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO BE t . A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF TNE PROPERTY tN ORDER TO PRESERVE S . THE SAFETY.AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM. ~ i i ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTlON WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMFiISSIONERS: A~LRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUXo MORRIS~ MUNaALL~ SUMMERS. i NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ~' i ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSI HAPGOOD. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED av L. P. arn EMMA H. NICHOLS~ H. K. ~ ! N0. 60-61-86 WILSON, HARRY Z. AND MARIE J. WILSON AND LeROY J. AND MARGERY W. KEMP, I OWNERS• SALEM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - S. D. CAPLAN~ 12351 WESTMINSTER AveNUe, . ~ SANTA ANA~ CALIFORNIA~ AGENT~ REQUESTING THAT PROPERT`! DESCRIBED AS: AN IRREGULAR SHAPED PARCEL LOCATED 100 FEET SOUTH OF CATALPA AVENUE; BOUNDED ON 7HE EAST BY CHIPPEWA STREET~ THE SOUTH BY THE ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CON- ~ TROL CHANNEL AND THE SOUTHEAST BY THE ShNTA ANA FREEWAY ANO FURTHEti DES- CRIBED AS TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 4107~ BE HECLASSIFIED FROM THE R-A~ RESlDEN- TIAL AGRICLRLTURAL, 20NE ro THE R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. MR. RAY MERCADO~ REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PETlTIONERS~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENI' OF A MUITIPLE FAMILY RE51- DENTIAL TRACT~ AND INDICATED THAT THE SUBJECT PRCPERTY WAS CONTAINED IN TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4107 WHICH WAS APpROYED BY THE PLANNING COMMIS- ~ SION ON MARCH 20~ 1961. MR. RAYMOND ~USTEN~ 1970 CATALPA~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND PRE- SENTED A PETITION OF OPPOSITION CONTAININQ 453 SIGNATURES OF RBSIDENTS IN THE V~CINI,TV OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. HE SUBMITTED INQUIRIES ON THE FOL~ LOWINO: WOULO FERN AND NUTWOOD STREETS.BE TERMINATED AT THE BOUNDARY LINES OF SUBJECT PROPERTYo WOULD ADJACENT 5TREETS BE U7ILIZED BY CGNSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AtdD VEHICLES~ WOULD Ti{E NUMBER OF 6ARA6E5 PROPOSEC FOR THE DEVEL- OPMENT BE CONSIDERED ADEQUATE~ WOULD 1'F~c CENTER BUILDIN~S BE SCHEDULED FOR• , INITIAL CON57RUCTION~ WOULD THE DEVfiLOPERS PLEAD A HARDSHIP CASE AT A LATER DATE IN ORDER TO OPEN UP THE STREETS FOR 4CCE55 TO THE CONSTRUCT'ION SITE~ AND ; WOULD TWO STORY UNITS BE PERMITTED 0.DJaCE~lT TO THE StNGLE FAMtLY RESIDEN~ TIAL ZONE4 MR. ~~USTEN EXPRESSED CONCSRN iN RESPECT TO THE PRESENT TRAFFIC PROBLEM AND TNE USE OF THE RESIDENT9AL STREE7~ BY FAST TRAFFIC. ME IN- • DICATED THAT IF THE SUBJECT PEFITION WERE APPI?OVED IT WOULD CREATE AN AUD1710NAL BURDEN UPON THE STREETS~ THA7 ACCE55 TO THE SUBJECT'PROPERTY MAS NOT ADEQUATE~ AND THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DID NOT COMFORM WITH THE . ABUTTING SINOLE FAMILY RESlDENTIAL DEVELOPiAENT. MR. ROBERT SMITH~ 1850 ChTALPA~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ INDICATED HIS OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSEA DEVELOPMEN7~ ANO STATED THAT THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OEVELOPMENT LOCATED EASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY OF THE SUB- JECT PROPERTY INCREASED THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS IN THE AREA. OBJECTLONS WERE INDICATED BY 7HE AUDIENCE IN RESPECT TO THE INCREASED BURDEN THAT NOULD BE ~ PI.ACED UPON THE SCk00L5 IN 7HE AREA IF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WERE DEVELOPED i FOR HIaH DENSITY RESIUENTFAL USE. , . ~s f • I i SECONDED 8Y COMMISSIONER MUNGALL~ . ~ ia2 MiNUTES, CiTY PIANNING COMMISSION, APRIL 17~ 1961~ CONTINUED: RECLASSIFICATION ~ O. J. RO55~ 1964 CATALPA AVENUE~ APpEARED BEFORE THE COMMIISSION AND OB- NO. 60-61-86 JECTED TO THE HIGH RESIDENTIAI. DENSITY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD CONTINUED ACCOMODATE. A LETTER OF OPPOSITION~ SIGNED BY LEWIS FURER~ WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION. MR. RAY MERCADO STATED (N REBUTTAL THAT THE STUB STREETS IN THE PROPOSED ! DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT EXTEND 56UfHERLY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ THAT THE CURBS WOULD BE RETURNED IN A CIRCULAR FASHION IN ACCORDANCE WITH REQUIRE- MENTS OF THE CITY~ THAT BLOCK WALLS.WOULD BE INSTALLED ON THE EAS7 AND WEST BOUNDARY LINES~ AND THAT ALL DRAIi~n4:~ WOULD ENTER THE FLOOD CONTROI CHANNEL ON THE SOUTH. HE STATED THAT T:, REQUESTED 20NING WAS COMPATIBLE WITH THE ESTABLISHED ZONING ON THE EAST AbID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRE- LIMINARY GENERAL PLAh1. THE GROUND LEVEL OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ 1N COMPARISON WITH ADJACENT PRO- PERTY~ WAS D~SCUSSED W~TH THE COMMISSION AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT A RETAI.NING WALI MIGHT BE NECESSARV FOR THE PROTECTION OF ADJACENT PROPER- TIES. CODE PROCEDURES FOR THE FILING OF PETITIONS FOR REC~ASSIFICATION OF PROPERTIES L6CATED WITHINIHE~CITY I:INIT$~AND THE FILING OF TENTATIVE MAPS OF TRACTSo WERE EXPLAINED TO THH AUDIENCE. THE HEARING 1iAS CLOSED. THE COMMlSSION DISCUSSED THE PROVISION OF ACCE55 TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ' AS OUtLiNED IN THE PLOT PLANS. THE POSSIBILITY OF COMMITTMENT OF THE ~ UNDEVELOPED PARCEL OF LAhDoLOCATED ACROSS THE FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL l SOUTHERLY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ TO WHATEVER ZONING IS ESTABLISHED FOR S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~WAS AL50 DISCUSSED. j ~ THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDIN~ THE SUB- ~ JECT PETITIONt , 1. THAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PROPERTY FROM THE R-A RESIDENTIAL - AGRICULTURAL, 20NE To YHE R~-3, MULT1PlE FAMILY RESID~NTIAL~ ZONE. 2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLA557~ICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDFRLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMUNITY. 3. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT PROPER- LY RELATE TO THE 20NE5 AND THEIR PERMITTED USES LOCALLY ESTABLISHED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PERMIT- TED USES GENERALLY ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. 4. THAT THE !`i,OPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT RE~ QUIRE DEDICATION FOR AND STANDARD IMPROVEMENT OF ABUTTING STREETS BE- CAUSE SAID PROPERTY DOES NOT RELATE TO AND ABUT UPON STREETS AND'.HIGHWAYS WHICH ARE IMPROVED TO CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANTtTY OF TRAFFIC~ WHICH WILL BE GENERATED BY THE pERMITTED USES~ IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CIR- CULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. 5. THAT THE pROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT COMPA- TIBLE WITH THE EXISTING SIN~LE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND AN AMPLE AMOUNT OF MULTIPLE FAMILY RE51- DENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED TO THE EAST OF SUBJE~T PROPERTY. 6. THAT A PETITION OF OPPOSITION~ CONTAINING 453 SIGNATURES~ IN ADDITION TO VERBAL OPPOSITION WAS RECORDED AGAINST SUBJECT PETITION. COMMISSIONER SUMMERS OFFERED RESOLO~ION N0. 244~ SF.RIES 1960~61~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX~ RECOMMEND- ING TO THE CITY COUNCII. THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSiFICATION N0. 60-61-86 BE DENIED ON TNE BA5~5 OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDINGS. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREDOING R~SOLUTION WAS PASSED B'f THE FOLLOWING YOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MUNGALL~ SUMb1ER5. ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS' MORRIS. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPOOOD. - PUBLIC HEARING. PercrioN SUBMITTED ev L. P. AND EMMA H. NICHOLS, H. K. WILSON, HARRY Z. ANi MARIE J. MILSON AND LEROY J. AND MARGERY W. KEMP. OWNERS; SALeM DEV~LOPMENT COMPANY - S..D. CAPLAN~ 12351 WESTMINSTER AVE- NUE~ SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA. A~ENT REOUESTING PERM~SSION T9 WAlYE M1N!~ ~fi1M HEIGMT REQOIREMEIJT TO PERMIT ~ONSTRUCTION OF TWO STORY APARTMENTS ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS:AN iRREGULAR SHAPED PARCEL LOCATED 100 FEET SOUTH OF CATALPA AVENUE~ BOUNDED ON THE EAST BY CHIPPEWA STREET~ THE SOUTH SY THC ~jRAWGE COUNYV FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL AND THE SOUTNEAST BY THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 4107. CATIONTNOET60!61-86 REQUESTEFORNRECLASSIFICATI NHOFESUBJECTFPROPERTYSTOFTHE R~3~ MULTIPLE FAMOLY RESIDENTIAL~ ZOPE . ' THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT THE REQUESTFO VARIANCE WAS TO PERMIT THE CON- STRUCTION OF TWO STORY MUI_TIPLE F;.MILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON LOTS 37 TO 50 OF TRACT N0. 4107 TO WITHIN 150 FEET OF LAND CLASSIFIED IN THE R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE AND LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ORANGE COUNTY FLOOD CONTRO~ CHANNEL. " ~ ~ _ / ~ 143 MINUTES, CiTY PIANNiNG C9MMiSS10N, APR~L i7~ 1961.' CONT~NUED; VARIANCE N0. 1354 ~ MR. RAY MERCADO~ REPRESENI'ATIVE ~OR THE PETIT(ONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE CONTINUED COMMISSION AND REQUF_STED TNATy !N VIEW OF THE PREVIOUS ACTION BY THE COM- , MI55lON !N REGARD TO Th_IR RECOMMENDA'110N TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT PETI- TlON FOR RECLASS~FICATIUN I~O. 60-61~-86 BE DENIEO~ THE SUBJECT PETITION FOR VARIANCE BE CONTINUF.D UNT1~ ~iHE MEETING ~F JUNE 12~ 1961. COMMt55lONER MORRIS OFFERED A MOTION}~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNGALL AND CARR~ED~ THAT PF.TiT10N FOR VARIANCE~N0..1354 BE CONTINUED UNT1~ JUNE 12~ • 1961 IN ORDER TO PERMIT SUFFIC~EN7 TIME FOR THE REVIEW BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PETITION FOR RECLASSIF'ICA1'ION N0. 60-6]-96. TENTATIVE MAP OF - SUBDiVIDER: LIGHTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 1719 Wesr Ln TRACT N0. 4156 PALMA AVENUE,q ANAHElMo CALIF'ORNIA. THE TRACT IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF WESTMONI' URIVE OPPOSCTE DWYER DRIVE AND CONTAINS 30 R-O, RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN~ LOTS: A TENTATtYE MAP Of' iRACT N0. 4L56~COVERiNG 10.39 ACRES AND PROPOSED FOR 30 R~O~ RESiDENTIAL SUBURBAN~ LOTS~ WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION. :T WAS NOTED TF;A7 FHE. LQTS WERE iN COMPLIANCE WlTH FHE CODE REQUlREMENTS. JOHN ~ACQB5F.N~ REPRESEPi:'ATIYE F~~R THE PEl'~TIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COM- MlSSION AND STA~'ED 7HAT THE IOTS CONi'AINED 1Oy000 SQUARE FEET AND PROVIDED STREET FRONTAGES OF BO FEET iN WODTH~ EXCEPT FOR THE CUL-DE-SAC LOTS. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITiON TO THE.SUBJECT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP. COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED A MQTION SECONDED BY COIAMISSIONER ALLRED AND CARRIED TO APPROVE TENTATIVE MAP OF ~RACT N0. 4156. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOW~ ING CONDIT70N: 1. SUBMISSION OF BUiLDING 2LAiV5 'f0 THt COTY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW. , ~':aVi'~:i.:~F: r' 7 ~ PUBLIC HEARING - PUBLIC H£AR1NG REI.A'i tvr•. ro r~!e. ,4MEN~MENF T~J TITLE 1A~ oF THE ANAHEIM MUNI- ~ ciPa~ co~e INlTIAF[P B'! TrIF_ ?LANNING C~MMISSfON FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE ' RECLASSIFiCATION OF PROPER~{ES OESCRIBED AS; THOSG PROPERTIES BOUkDFD BN CENTER SFREET ON THE NQRTH~ WEST STREET ~ ON THE EASTp AL.LEY ON THF.. SOU7H~ AND THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY ON THE ~ WEST ~ PkESEhT Cl.e,SSfFtC,4iVON oP PROPFRT'Y G2~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE. ~ PROPGSED ~'s.ASS~FIC4'f10N GF PROPER7Y C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMM~`RCIAL, ZONE AND,~OR R-3, MULTIPLE FAMiLY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. ~ A PLANPlING DEPAR7MEk7 STUUY' APID LAND USF. SURVEY WERE PRESENTED TO THE COM- MISSION. THE STUDY INDICATF.D THAT REC~ASSIFiCAT(ON OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ~ TO THE R'-3~ MUL.7:pE.E FAMIL'Y RESIDENTOAL~ ZONE WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT OF' :'HE AREA. MR. F. R. WA{7Fo OWNER OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1104 WEST CENTER STREET~ A?PEARED BEFOR6 TiiE CQiAMI55pON AND tND~CATED THAT HE WOULD DE OPPOSED TO ~ THE ESTABI_1511MENT OF ANY' '.~~E: i'OR O~HEP THAN RESIDENT:AL PURPOSES AND THAT ~ H£ WAS IN F.4VUR OF THE PF.UP05ED R°3a MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIALj ZONE. ~{ MR. E.4Rt. WOODMARD~ 1204 WFST CENTER STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMIS- ;t SION~ SUBMIT7ED PE1'lTi0N5 CONTAi'NING 41 SIGNATURES REQUESTING RECLASSIFI- i ' CATIQ~J OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES TO THE R~3 20NE~ AND STATED THAT THE AREA ; WAS PRIMARILY RF:SIDEN7IAL. ON DEVEl.OPMENT. HE STATED THAT THE PROPERTIES ~ WERE NOT SUOTABLE F(1P. COMMERCIAL DF.VELOPMENT~ THAT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD CREATE TRAFFIC AND PARKI~iCa ,^ROBLEMS~ THAT THE: COMMERCfAL USE OF ANY OF THE PROPERTiES WOULD DEVALUATE THE RESIDENTiAL PROPERTIES~ AND THAT COM- ' MER:IAL DEVELOPMENT WOULO CREA7E HARDS}~iPS FOR THE OW'.~CS AND TENANTS ~ UTiL121NG 7'NE EX:S'ING MULTlPL£ FAMILY RESlDENCES. MR. L. P. HALDEF.MAN~ 1210 AND 1218 WEST CENTER STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE TME COMMISSION~ DESi;RiBED THE EXlSTPNG RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA~ ~. AND (ND(CATED 'fHAT THE PRUPE.RTIES WOU~D BE ADA?TABLE FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY ~ RESIDENTIAL PUP.POSES. HE STATED THAT THE BEST ItiTERE5T5 OF THE MAJORITY OF ~~ THE PROPFRTY OilNERS 6N THE AREA WOULD BE PROTECTED IF THE PROPERTY WERE RECOMMENDED FOR RECLASSIFICATION TO THE R-3 20NE. MR. ANTONIO VESCE~ OWNER OF FROPERTY A7 1224 WEST CENTER STREET~ APPEARED BEFC?E. 7HE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT HE HAD AN EXISTING RESTAURANT BUSI- NESS ON HiS~PROPE.RTY AT 7HE PREFENT TIME. HE STATED FURTHER THAT HE HAD PURCHASFn THF PROPS'P.TY H£CAUSE !T. Y.A.°i ZONED FOR COMMERClAL USE AND THAT HE IN7'ENDEO TC~ IMPROVE THE PRUP[RTY FOR COMMERCiAL USE. ~ MRS. V. C. RAIL~ 12P. CHERRY STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSIO.N AND INDI- CATED THAT SHE WAS IN PAVOR OF THE PROPCSEQ R-3 20NJNG. MR. LEO MASSIC~'~OWNF.R OF PRUPERTY NF:XT DOOR TO 1224 WEST CENTER ~~TREET~ . APPEAP.ED BEFORF.. l'HE COMMI55lON~ STATED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS 20NED C-2 AT THE ?IME OF FURCHASE FOUR YFARS NREVIOUSLV~ AND THAT IN HIS OPINION TME RECLASSIFICAYIUN Gt' THE PROFERTY TO THE R-3 ZONE WOULD DEVALUATE HIS PROPERTY. HE INDICATED THAi HE INTENDED TO CONSTRU~CT A RESTAURANT ON THE ~ PROPERTV IN THE NEAR FUTI)RE. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSIGN DISCUSSF_D THE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF A TAVERN IN THE AREA~ ~ ~o ~ ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ .• i ` ~ , + ~,~ , ., :,c ., . ~ MINUTES~ C1TY PLANNING COMMlSSfON~ APRIL 17~ 1961v CONTINUED; PUBLIC HEARiNG - PROPOSED RECLASS1FlCATION - CeNrE;< ~iTREE7~ CONTINUED; CONT~NUED ' THE: r~RESENT CUND~TION OF THE PROPERLIES~ THE PARKING PR09LEM5 THAS COULD BE ENCOUNTERED IF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WERE EXPAND6D~ AND THE FACT THAT THE PRIMARY DEVELOPMENT OF THE pROPERTY WAS FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDEN- T 1 AL. USE. A55lSTANT CITV ATTORNEY•JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT SHOULD THE F+ROFcR7Y BE RECLh551FlED~ A BUSINE55 IN EXlSTENCE AT THE•TIME OF RECLA551~ F~CATION FROM THE COMM~RCIAI. 20NE TO THE•RESIDENTtAL 20NE WOULD BE CONSI- DERF.D A NON-CONFORMING USE. HE STATED THAT A NON-CONFORMING USE COULD BE CONDUCTED IN SAID 20NE UNTIL IT IS ELIMINATED. HOWEVERo THE BUSINE55 COUID NOT BE EXPANDED AND STRUCTURAL ALTERATIONS YO THE BUILDING COUI.D NOT BE MAPE. HE lND~CATED FURTHER THAT A NON-CONFORMONG USE IS ATTACHED TO THE PROPER7Y~ NOT 70 THE OWNERSHIP OR TO THE 0'r1NER OF THE BUSINE55~ AND THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS CODE PROVlSIONS THAT PERTAIN TO NON-CONFORM-NG USES FOR THE DETERMINATtON OF THE EXACT~REQUIREMENTS FOR CONFORMANCE. T4E COMMISSION FOUND AND DF.TERMIN4D THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION; 1. TH,4T 7HE PI.ANNING COMMISSION pROPO5E5 A R6CLASSIFICATION OF THE ABOVE DESGRIBED PROPERTY FP.OM THE C~2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE TO THE R-3~ MULTIPIE FAMiCY RESiDENTIAI, ZO~IE. 2. THA7 THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PRQPERTY IS NECESSARY OR DESIRABL,E FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMUNITY. 3. THAT THE PROpOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJEC7 PROPERTY DOES PROPERLY PE:!,A'PE TO 'ihE ZONES AND THEIR pERMITTED USES LOCALLY ESTABl.ISHED IN Cl.OSE ?ROXIMITY TO SUB.SEC1 pROFERZY AND TO THF. ZONES AND 1'HF.IR PERMIT- TFD t~SES GENERAL.LY E51'A6415HEC THROUaHOUT TH@ COMMUNITY. 4. TNA'1"CHE PP.OPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT pROPERTY DOES NOT REQUIRE DED~CATION FOR AND S7ANDARD IMPROVEMENT OF ABUTTING STREi:TS BECAUSE SAI~ PROPER'fY DOES RELATE TO.AND ABUT UP~N STNEETS AND HlGHWAYS WHICH ARF IMPROVED TO CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANTITY OF TRAFFIC~ WHICH WILL BE . GENERATED BY THE PERMITTED USES~ IN ACCORDANCE W~TH THE CIRCt1LAT10N E:l.EMF.NT OF 7HE GENERAt PLAh. :i. THA1' THE SUB~ECT PROFERTY HAS BEEN DEVELOPED PRIMARILY FOR R-3~ MULTI- Pi.E FAMILY RCSIDENTIAL~ USE AND THAT 1'HE C°2~ GENERAI. COMMERCIAL~ ZONE AND QEVELUPMEN'I' IS NO7 IN HARMONY WOTH THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVEL- OPMGN'i. 6. THAT A pETITION~ CONTAINING 41 516NATURES AND REQUES7ING RECLASSIFICA- TION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES TO iHE R-3 20NE~ WAS PILED WITH TH~ COMMISS~ON. VERBA6 OPPOSITION TO THF pROPOSEC RECtASSIFICAT~ON OF THE SUBJECY PP.OPERTIES TO THE R~-3 ZONE WAS RECORDED BY TWO pROPERTY OWNERS. CUMMISSIONFR SUMMERS OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 245~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSA~E AND ADOPTlON~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX~ RECOMMEND- ING l'0 1'HE C17Y COUNCIL THAT RECLASSiFtCATION N0. 60-61-97 BE GRANTED ON 'it-~ BqS75 OF 7HE AFOREMENTIONED FINDINGS. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTiON W.45 PASSED BY 7HE FOLLOWING VOTE; AYES: COMMlSSIONERS: A~LRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. . ABSENT; COMMlSSIONERS: HAPGOOD, ' PUBLIC HEARING - PUSl.!C HEAR{NG 1'0 CONSIDER AMENDMENTS Ta TITLE 18 - HZONING" OF' THE ANA- HEIM MUNIC1PAl. CODE~ ro ESTABL,ISH P-L~ PARKING-LANDSCAPING, 20NE ALONG CERSAIN !'RONTAGES. SUBJECT AMENDMENT WAS CONTtNUED FROM THE MEETING OF AFRIL 3, 1961. . SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS• THOSE PROPERTIES BOUNDED BY SOUTH LOS ANGE- 1.E5 S7REET ON THF. EAST~ ~'.LL ROAD ON THF. SOUTN~ LEMON STREET ON THE WEST~ AN4 UERMONT STREET ON THE NORTH~ ,SXCEPTING THERE'rROM THOSE PROPERTIES CON'iAINED IN TRACT N0. 3222 LOCATED ON LEMON STREET. THE COMMISSION REVIEWFD THE DISCUSS~ON HF,L~ P.T THE NEETENG OF A~Rlt 3~ 1961 AND TN~ PLANNINC ugosgF,y,cyT gr~ny eo~~~yr~~ h~ ~~~~ ~~~~~ ~n'v~'v~cu LP.NDSCAYING STANDARDS AND TIiE TYPES OF 4ANDSCAPiNQ WERE AL50 REVIEWFD. MR. PGTER WqRNOFF~ 1311 SOUTH LOS ANGELES STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COM- ~'~:~ ^~~ 4~~'• iND,ICATEO' HIS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSEO RECLASSIFICATION OF THE PP.C~EkTY'AND THE PROPOSED PARKING-LANDSCAPING SSANDARDS. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. IHE COMMISSION plSCUSSED THE POSSIBLE,INSTAl.LATION -0F WATER MAINS ALONCa S'7U'H LOS ANGELES STREET AND JNDICATED TO MR. WARNOFF THAT HE SHOULD CON- 7ACT THE DF:?AR7MENT OF FOWER AND WATER pREVI0U5 T0 INSTALLING tANDSCAPING I ON NIS PROPER7Y. , COMMISSIONER MUNGALL REVIEWED.THE PLANNfNG DEPARTMENT STUDY AND INOICATED THAY THE COMMISSIpN SH0U6D ADOPT THF_ STUDY lN A GRAPHIC FORM AS A PRECISE Pl.AN POR THE AREA. ~, ~.' ..,.. ~ ,. _ ,_ . .,. , ~ ~', .,. .r. ', ~,r:ti ,. ....,i ~' ~~ ,t ia~a 1 .: ~ ll '~•~' -7.~ . l~r 1 ' ..~\ .:'., ° . ~'.. r ~~.s .,Nw`-~ rr ~, c . , :? »~;~:,di,~ ~ . . tix k R . ? I 1 ~ `' l ~t ~ ~ ~ . . ~j ~~} ,,`• . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,, ~' ' ~ ~:~a . . . . ~ . - t ~ ,- . • . ~ . . . . ' . r ~,' J ~ . V :~ . ' _' ---~.,.~ . t r~rti f . . . ~ . . ' 4y.::t c; ' . '~ ~ ~ 5~ •`1 3 ~ ~ 145 .~ ~ I " ~ MiNUTES. C1TY PLAPINING COMM1SS10N~ APRIL 17~ 1961. CONTINUED; ;~"•~~ ; PUBLIC HEARIN6 - AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 18 -"20NING" oF TH~ ANAHEIM MUNiC1PAL CODE, CoNrlNUeoi ~ CONTINUED THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE.FOILOWING FACTS REGARDING THE • PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIE51 • , '1 1. THAT THE ~XI.STING P~L~ PARKING-LANDSCAPiN6~ ZONE WAS RECLAS$;~~a~D BY . ' CITY COUNC~L ORDINANCE N0. 894, SAID RECLASSIFICATION INITJf1T~fl,8Y THE ° ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION UNDER PETITION FOR RECLASSIFI~C/ATION N0.• . F-53-54-10~ AND A~PROVED BY SnID BODY BY RESOWTI.ON N0. 36~ SER16b" 1953-54~ WITH A FiNDING THAT THE PROPOSED REZONING WIL{. 8E PROTECTIVE ~ TU THE AREA UNTIL THE TREND OF BUSINESS TO THE SOUTH 9F ANAHEIN BECOMES . APPARENT. ~ I ' ~ . ~ ~ . . 2. THAT THE d°EA HAS DEVELOPED TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT THE ESTABLISHED 60 . . F00T P-L, PARKING-LANDSCAPiN4~ ZONE WITH ITS CONOITIONS 15 NO LONGER ; ` DESIRABLE FOR THE CONTINUED DEVEIOPMENT OF THE AREA~ AND THA7 THE PRO~ i i, 4: POSED RECl.ASS~FICA710N IS NECESSARY AND DESiRABIE FOR THE ORDERCY AND ~ PROPER.DEVELOYMENT OF.THE AREA. •• " j 3. 7HAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION DOES PROPERLY RELATE 70 THE ZONES i ~ AND THEIR PERMITTED USES LOCALLY ESTABlLSHED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SUB- JECT PROPERTY AND TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PERMITTED USES GENERALLY ~ E57ABLISHED THROUGHOUT iHE COMMUNItY. I 4. THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STUDY~ DATED APRII 17~ 1961 AND MARKED ~IXHiB1T A~~ DE ADOPTED AS A PRECISE P~AN OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE SUBJECT AREA. • C9NMLSSIONER ALLRED OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 246~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED, FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORRiS~ RECOMMEND- ING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60~61-98 BE GRANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWINO CONDITIONS. ' i, THAT THE EXLSTING P-L. PARKING-LANDSCAPING. ZONE ALONfi Los ANQELES STREET BETWEEN YERMONT AVENUE'AND BALL ROAD BE MAINTAINED~ WITH 7?iE EXCEPTIOMS THAT THE REQUIRED`LANDSCAPIN6 SHALL BE REDUCED TO A SIX (6) FOOT WIDE STRIP ABUTTIMa THE PLANNED H-GHWAY RIGHT~OF-WAY LINE OF SUBJECT,PROPERTIES~ AND.THAT STREET TREES SHALL BE PROVIDED EVERY ~: FORTY (40~ FEET ADJACENT TO THE PLANNED HIdHMAY R16HT-OF~WAY LINE. y ~ THE TREE REQUIREMENT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE COMPLIED WITH IF TREES ARE ' PLANTED IN FIVE (5) FOOT BY FIVE;(5) FOOT-TREE WELLS LOCATED IN.TME PARKWAY PORTION OF SAtD RIaHT~OF-WAY. .ALL POR710N5 OF THE PRRKWAY . ~ NOT FILLED I.N WITH CONCRETE SI+ALL BE PROPERLY LANDSCAPED IN A MANNER PROVIDED FOR HEREIN. . 2. THAT THE EXISTING P-L~-PARKING-LANDSCAPING~ ZONE ALON~ BALL Roao ~~ BETWEEN LOS ANGELES STREET AND LEMON STREET BE MAINTAINED~ WITH TME ~ EXCEPTIONS THAT THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPIN~ SHALL BE REDUCED TO A SIX •; j ~ , j ~ (6~) FOOT NIDE STRIP ABUTTING THE PLANNEP HI~HWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SUI)JECT PROPERTIES~ AND THAT STREET TREES SHALL BE PROVIDED EVERY ~ FORTY (40) FEET ADJACENT TO THE PLANNED H16HWAY R16HT-OF~WAY LINE. Tti4 TREE REQUIREMENT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE COMPLIED WITH IF TREES ARE PLANTED IN FIVE (5) FOOT BY FIVE (5) FOOT TREE WELlS LOCATED IN THE . PARKWAY PORTION OF SAID RI4HT~OF~WAY. ALL PORTIONS OF THE PARKNAY NOT FILLED IN WITH CONCRETE SHALL BE PROPERLY LANDSCAPED IN A MANNER PROVIDED FOR HEREIN. 3. THAT THE EXISTINCa P-L~ PARKING-LANDSCAPING. 20NE n~oNa LEMON STREET . ~ BETWEEN VERMONT AVENUE AND BALL ROAD~EXCEPTING:THEREFROM THOSE PROPER~ TIES iNCLUDED IN TRACT H0. 3222~.,;SHALL BE REDUCED TO FIFTEEN (15~ ~ ~ FEET IN WIDTH ABUTTLN~ THE FRONT,PROPERTY LINE. THE REMAINING FORTY- ; FIVE (45~ FEET SHALL BE RECLASSIFIED INTO THE C~1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COM~ MERCIAL ZGNE. SAID FIFTEEN (15) FEET CLASSIFiED IN THE P-L, PARKING~ LANDSCA~ING, ZONE SHALL BE LANDSCAPED EXCEPT FOR ACCESS DRIVES AND SCAPIN~ SHALL INCLUDE STREET TREES WHICH SHALL BE WALKS. SAID LAND , SPACED APPROXIMATELY EVERY FORTY (40~ FEET. THE TREE REQUIREMENT SHALL BE DEEMED TO BH COMPI.IED MITH IF TREES ARE,PLANTED IN FIYE (5~ FOOT BY FIYE (5) F00T TREE NELLS I:OCATED•JN THE P,ARKWAY PORTION OF SAID RI~HT~OF~WAY. `ALL PORilONS OF THE PARKWAY NOT FILLED IN_WITH': CONCRETE SHALL BE PROPERLY LANDSCAPED IN A MANNER pROV.IDED,FOR.HEREIN'. ' 4. THnT rHe EXISTiNa P-L. PARKING-IANDSCAPING, ZONE n~oNa YERMONT AVENUE ~ BcTWEEN C05 ANGELES S7R£ET AND LEqOP~ STREET SHALI. H~ REDIICED TQ`.E:IFT~EN ~. 5) FEET IN MIDTH ABUTTINO THE FRONT PROPCRTY LINE THE REMAININa (' ~ . FOi.TY-FiVE (45~ FEET'SHFL~ SE RECLASSi IEC -:~T~ THE C~,~:N~~CH9~~l~l~ ~ ~ ~ r ~nniu .~n~r .r.. .Ie ~`~°~:e:~n ~u.t.ue p 1..-~ RA ~ivnncnt~~na. 'tvnc. ~n~D ii~TScri ~a'3) c.... .,- ~~" ED EXC6P7 FOR ACCESS DRIVE5yAND`- L ONE A ~ SHALL BE ANDSCAP PING~ Z ING LANDSC n' WACKS. SAID LANDSCAPIN4'SHALL 1NC WDE STREET TREES WHICH SHALL B4 EMEtl 7 UI E T ' ? ~ R HE SREE:R Q APPROXIMATELY;EVERY FORTY (40) FEET. SPACED : , SHALL BE'DEEMED TO 8E COMPLIED.WITH IF TREES ARE PLANTED;;~N F'1~y E^(5) ORTI~JN OF' ED IN THE ARKWAY P ~ . P , FOOT BY FIVE (5) FOOT .TREE WELLS LOCAT SAID RI~HT-OF-WAY.- ALL PORTIONS OF THE PARKWAY NOT F1LLB~S'INIWITH a r" CONCRETE SHALL BE PROPFR LY LAN~SCAPED IN A MANNEP.'PROVIDED FOR HEREIN. ; n ' r; ,•~ 5. THAT PLANS FOR ALL CANDSCAPING AND ;9ATER,SUPPLY~ lNCLUDING1iT~lE SPACINQ' ' `~ ~ ~" . . . OF SAID TREES.SHALL BE SUAJECT TO THE APPROVAL,OF:THE SUPER'INTENDENT . .3 ` Nc,v. 't ~ +~~,~ Y~'~~~ ! ~ ~ ~ . . . . . . . OF PARKWAY MAINTENANCE.' r~ HAT THE PROPERTV PROPOSED FOR'RECLASSIFICATION FROM THE P-L; PARKlNG~ 6.- T ~ ' , CANDSGAPING, ZONE.TO'TNe C-i~;NEIGHBORH00D COMMERCIAL, ZONE SHA4~;HAVE, ~ ;a,'.a ~; ~. S w.'~~ . ,;~~ ~ . , . ~Ir . ,... -~t -;a;~ ... ~^.~ . . y~~~~i:L:' . ~:, i<,7_.___. :~+:~.. : .."~, -_:i:.ill ~i . ~ _ . .,.~..., ! ', ,. '~.~:.n~,k~.~.~i?~"d.P~ti,'fi~~'?i.t 7~--•~;- . .._ . . .. ~ - -- . , '.I ./~.:_..._ . . ~. .. , i ~". ~ ~ ~: i. ~ ~ . C ~ . i, ' .a,. ;: ~ ~ MINUTES, C1TY PLANNiNG COMMiSSiON~ APRIL 17~ 1961~ CONTINUED: ; . ", ~ iL ~ ~ 4i`~ cr. A.i~~ ul.. . . ,'~ ~,4~ 146 ~ ~ ~ PUBLIC HEARiNG ~ ALL CONOITIONS ASSIGNED YO THE PROPERTY PRESENTLY.CLASSIFIED IN THF SA10 NEWLY PROPOSED C~1 CONTINUED ~ C~1 NEIGHBORHOQD COMMERCIAL, ZONE ABUTTING NEI~HBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ PROPERTY. SAID CONDITIONS ARE ESTA8L15HEp BY ORDINANCE N0. 894~ ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON MAY 25~ 1954. THE FOREGOIWG CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETINQ•AND WERE FOUND TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISiTE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY (N ORDER TO pRESERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM. ON ROLL CALL TH~ FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLL011~INQ YOTE: AYES: COMM1SS10NEftS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL. NOES: COMMiSStONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMiSSIONERS: HAPCi00D~ SUMMERS. , CORRESPONDENCE ~ 1TEM No. i. ORANGE COUNTY TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4165: TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4165 WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE StiBJECT TRACT~ COVERtNG 9.9 ACRES CONTAINS 49 PROPOSED STA V R I IO R-1 LOTS. SAID TRACT IS LOCATED AT THE 801tTHEAST CORNER OF STREET AND SOUTH STREET. AN INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION WAS SUBNITTED TO THE COM~ MISSION WHtCH INDICATED THAT SEVEN LOTS HAVE LESS THAN 70 FOOT FRONT~ • AGE BUT THAT THE OVER ALL AVERAOE FRONTAGE (S GREATER THAN 70 FEET~ WITH ALL LOTS HAVING A MlNIMUM AREA OF 7~200 SQUARE FEET. , ~ COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALIRED LAN- E TRACTTNO OF TMA ~ N A HE A C N . P TENTATIVE ION THAT ECOMMENDAT THE COMMISSION NG N 4165 BE APPROVED AS SUBl.".ITTED. I ITEM No. 2. ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 4744: ~ i NOTICE OF ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 4744 WAS PRESENTED TO THE COM~ MISSION. SUBJECT PETITION REQUESTED PERMISSION TO MODERNIZE AN EXIST- ING SAND AC~17 GRAVEL EXCAVATING BUSINE55 AND TO IMPORT SAND~ GRAVEL AND THE Al GENERAL AGRI- OTHER MATt'RIAL FOR PROCESSING ON THE PREMISES IN CULTURAL D{STRICT. S.1lD MODERNl2ATION WOULD CONSIST OF THE INSTALIA- TION OF A MOVABLE SAND PROCESSING PLANT~ ELEVATORS~ TUNNELS AND CON~- VEYORS~ TRUCK SCALES AND SCALE HOUSE ALL SUBSTANTIALLY OF THE 512E AND THE COMMIS~ IN THE LOCATIONS AS INDiCATED ON THE PLOT PLAN SUBMiTTED TO SION. THE PETITlON IWDICATED THAT THE PLANT AND STOCK PILE LOCATtONS MAY 8E MOVED WITHIN THE PREMISES AS THE OLD SAND PIT AREA IS FILLED. THERE WILL BE NO ROCK CRUSHING ON THE PREMISES. ACCESS WILL BE BY WAY:: OF BALL ROAD OR BY WAY OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER BED IN THE CASE OP h:ATERIALS EXCAVATEO THEREFROM. THERE IS AN EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE AROUND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THERE WILL BE ONE DOUBLE FACED SIGN TH A MINIMUM CONTAINING A MAX{MUM i,REA OF 30 SQUARE FEET ON EACH FACE WI WEST SIDE OF THE MOST WESTERLY D ON THE 8 FOOT GROUND CLEARANCE LOCATE E OF BALL ROAD . DRIVE AND 50 FEET FROM THE CENTERLIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BALL ROAD AND ADJOINS THE WEST SIDE OF THE SAtiTA ANA RIVER. SUBJECT PROPERTV IS PRESENTLY BE1NG USED FOR SANU AND 6RAVEL EXCAVATION AND SOLID FILL DISPOSAL. THE COMMt5510N DISCUSSED THE NECESSITY FOR CAREFUL REVIEW AND RECOM- ND THE ORAN6E COUNTY ' ' .YS A viSION OF HIGHW MENDATlONS BY THE STATE Ci ENOINEER IN RESPECT TO THE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY AND ITS CLOSE PROX1- MITY TO THE FREEWAY. IT WAS NOTED THAT TO PROHIBIT THE EXTRAC710N OF ~ NATURAL RESOURCES WOULD HE D~FF{CULT. HOWEYER~ CAU710N SHOULD BE EXERCISED BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT ROCK AND OTHER MATERiALS COULD ACTUALLY BECOME A WHOLE- WOULD BE IMPORTED AND THAT THE OPlRATION SALE DISTRIBUTI~N BUStNF.55. COMMISSIONER ALLRED OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MOkR-S OUNTY O ~ / R E L H PROCEED 5510N THE COMM THAT RECOhIMENDATION THE PLANNIN~'COMMISSI N WITH CAUTION IN RESPECT TO,THE SUBJECT PETITION~AND THAT RECOMMENDA- HIGHWAYS AND THE ORANGE ~ TIONS BE OBTAINED FROM THE STATE DIVISIOk OF - COVNTY EN6~NEER IN RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED TRAFFIG MOVEMENT IN CONNEC-. TION WITH THE PROPOSED FREEWAY LAYOUT. IreM No.'3. BUENA PARK CHANGE OF ZONE N0. Z-192: NOTICE RECEIVED FROM THE CITY OF BUENA PARK RELATIVE TO CHAN~E OF ZONE N0. Z-192 NAS SI:BMITTED TO THE COMMISSION. SUBJECT PETITION RE- R-2 . QUESTED A CIIANGE,FROM THE R~1 (SIN~LE FAMiLY) DISTRICT TO THE (MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELU N~) DfSTRICT FOR PROPERTY lOC4TED ON THE WEST SIDE OF KNOTT AVENUE SOUTHERLY OF MUNGALL DRIVE. A PLANNIN6 DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT WAS SUBM~TTED TO THE COMMISSION ~ TiPLE FAMILY RE51~ (MUI ABUTS THE R~3 ERT . ~ Y WHICH INDICATED THAT THE,PROP DENTIAL~ ZONE ON THE NORT:H AND L1E5 WITHIH THE AREA PROJECTED ON.THE PRELIMINARY GENERAL PLAN FOR HIOHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. ~ . ~ ..s- -•. ~,r _ ~ ~.~.. ~ ,~, .. ~Y . . ... . . .... . . ~ _.: t ~ _.. . ~ /~ .'~:~ . , ,. ., .`.r~-:..~._:%,.+~~ ~ . . .,. . . .. 'j ~ J a i i; ,y ,; . f,:~' ~ ~ ~~~~ ' ' ~ '' , .-. ... ~.~;. ~^<<y~'tr... ; t ....i ,. ~ . . ~ I ~'. `~ ~~ i t~~ . ~~ ' u, , ~~~ . . . . ~ . 4 .~ ' ~.~rr~5. .. . .' . . ~.'..~ . . ~ - . ~ ~ . '+~ . . . ~ ' . . ~ 147 .; ~ ' I €" ~ MiNUTES~ C1TY PLANHING COMHISSION, APR~i 17, 196i~ CONTINUED: ( ~, CORRESPONDENCE - IrEM No. 3. BUENA PARK CHANGE QF ZONE N0. 2-192, CONTINUED: , I CONTINUED THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE PLOT PLAN AND,Dl5CUS5ED TNE POSSIBILITY ~ ~' ' OF CREATINO A LAND LOCKED PARCEL. ~ COMMISSIONER.MORRIS OFFERE6 A MO'FION~ SECONDED 6Y COS1tAtS510kER HUNGAL! . AND CARRIED~ THAT THE F~ANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMIT NOtICE TO THE BUENA PARK PLANNlNG COMMISSION RECOMMENDINCa APPROYAL OF THE PROPOSED RECLA55~ ~ f. IFICATION AND RECOMD7ENDINC THAT CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO THE DEVELOP~ . MENT OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO AVOID CREATING A LAND LOGKED PARCEL. ~. , ~ITEM No. 4. GAROEN GROVE TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4052 (Revlseb): • NOTICE RECEIVED'FROM THE CaARDEN GROVE PLANNIN(i COMMISSION REGARDING ' CONSIDERATION OF THE MAP OF TENTATIVE TRACT N0. 4052 (REVISED)~ WHICH ' PROPOSED TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ' • EUC U O AVENUE AND THE PROPOSED EXTENSION OF ORANGEWOOD AVENUE EAST FROM EUCLID AVENUE FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE~ WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION. A MAP OF THE TENTATI7E TRACCWAS NOT INCLUDED WITH THE - NOTICE~ THEREFORE~ SAID MAP WAS NOT AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION. • A STAFf REPORT PREPARED BY THE PLANNING DEPARYMENT~ INOICATING.T.HAT THE ~ PROPOSED TRACT WAS NOT OUT OF HARMONY WITH THE LAND USE IN THE AREA f AND THAT IT WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN PROPOSAL~ MAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION. ( COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS ~` AND CARRIED~ THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMIT NOTICE TO THE • ~ GARDEN GROVE PLANNING COMMISSION INDICATING THAT THE ANAHEIM PLANNINd ~ ~. COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF SAID TENTATiVE MAP OF TRACT NU. 4052 (REVISED). 1 REPORTS AND RECOM- - REP~'T REGARDiNG: ORANGE COUNTY AMENDMENTS ro S'~CTIONAL DISTRICT MaP 7-4-9, HENDATIONS ExHlel*s H AND I~ AND RECOMMENDATlONS FORWARDED ON APRIL 12~ 1961: ~ ACTING PLANNING :11RECTOR RICHARD REESE INFORISED THE COMMISSION THAT THE ORAN6E COUNTY PLANiJ1NG COAfMISSION HAD RECE:VED THE LETTER OF TRANSMI7TAL ' CONTAININO THE STUDY AND RECOMMENDA'ilONS OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNINQ COMMIS- SION AND THE ANAHEfM CITY COUNCIL. H'JWEVER~ THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMfS-~ SION HAD NOT CONTSNUED THEIR INVESTIGATION TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSALS AND NO EXHIBIT INCORPORATING THE RECON.'tENDAT10N5 OF SHE ANAHEIM COMMISSION AND CITY COUKCIL HA~ BEEN 'rREPARED OR HCARINGS HELD BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION ~ RELATIVE TO SAIU PRO.••O5AL5. f 1 MR. REESE STATE9 TiiAT THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HAD TAKEN ACTION TO DENY THE REQUESTED C~1 ZONING FOR THE NORTHEAST CORNE.R OF ~INCOLN AVENUE ~ .~ (ANAHEIM-OLIVE ROAD) AND P.10 VISTA STREET~ BUT THAT THEY HAD RECO~AMENDED RECLASSIFICATION TO THE «II1(O)° ZONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES IN THE EXiSTING I Oll. FIELD SOUTH OF THE RIVERSIDE FREEWAY. THAT THESPLANN~NGRDEPARTMENTHSHOULDTTRANSMIT~TO THEIORANOEACOUNTYABOARDEOFEL , SUPERV150R5 THE COMMISSION~S OEEP CONCERN WITH,RESPECT TO THE RECOMMENDED RECLASSIFICAT~ON TO THE ~M1(O)~ ZONE AND TO RESTATL THEIR RECOM~fENQATtON FOR ~ "M-R-(0)~ ZONING AS BEINO THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE 20NINfi WHICH.COULD BE COq- PATIB~E'WITH THE PRESENT AND FROPOSED RESIDENTIAI USE OF ADJACENT AREAS. THE COMMISSION FELT T!iAT THE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERV150R5 SHOULD REFER THE DERATOIONMOFOE(1)A„M RO(O)E ZONING FORNTHEGPROPERTIESNI~CLUDEDCIN'THEON51- DESIGNA7ED OIL FIElD.SOUTH OF THE RIVERSIDE FREEWAY~ AND~ (2) CONSIDERATION AF AN AMENDMEN7'TO THE COUNTY MASTER PLAk OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND H16HWAY5 ' ESTABLISHIN6 TW0 SECONDARY HJGHWAYS IN ACCORDANCE WETH TNE STUDY FORWARDED TO THE ORAN(iE COUNTY PLAKNING COMMISSION. (T WAS AL50 FELT THAT NO €. ~ FURTHER RECOMMENDATION SHOULD BE MADE'REGARDIN(i THE C~1 20NE APPLICATION. ~ COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED A MOTIONt SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUN~ALL ~ ANO CARRIED~ DIRECTING THE PLANNiNG UEPARTMENT.TO TRANSMIT NOTICE OF THE f ORAN6E COUNTY PLANNIN6 COMMISSION~S ACTION TO THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL~ ~' AND,REQUESTiNG THAT THE ANAHEIM.CITY COUNCIL~ IN TURN~ REQUEST THE ( ~ COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO REVIEW 7HE.RECOMMENDATIONS~FORWARDED ON APRIL 12~. 1961 T0 THE ORAN6E COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION BY THE ANAHEIM , ~~ CITY.COUNCit AND PI:ANNlNa COMMISSION~ AND REQUESTINO THAT THE'COUNT.Y i BOARD OF SUPERVISORS REFER.THE MATTER BACK TO THE COUNTY PLANNINO.COMMIS^ SION FOR SPECIFIC REVIEW nN6 A R8P8RT RE6ARDiP1G: (1) NM-R-(m)M 20Nlkfl !!4. Fi ~ ' Pi.nCc v~ ~:iE ru~`n~r ~~u~~;n~ pNr~ (2~_'CpN51DERAT10N AF-AN AMENDMENT~TO TME ~ ~ ARTERiAL'PLAN OF STREETS AND HtGHWAYS~ 70 ADD SECONDARY HIGHWAYS i+ECE55ARY TO THE DEVELOPNENT OF THE SUBJECT AREA.- p ~ ~''; ADJOURNMENT - THe MEETINO ADJOURNED AT ti;45 O~CLOCK P.M. ~+ RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED~ .~{~ xl 4~ . ~ . . .. . . . . . . . . , . . . . )+~ 4l~ ~ ~ . ~ . . . . r iF{.~~.f{ . . . . ~ ' . . . ~ . ` .. , . . ~ f . ~~~ 1>~is ~ - . . ~ . . . . ~~. .. h' l~s' k'" r3 ~ 6CRETARY r ~ ~ ~~. ~~ ~rL` ~ , ~ .. . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ' F{~ . ' .. . . -. k , ~ ~ ~ . ~ ( (:~. k E . , ~ , ~ ~~~','.. 'w~,:dn.:s~.......,, :.. ~ _ . _..~',_~~`iss~.i'i.`v~."-~et.', r ~ . ...~;:~i.r~? .,~,_,ti~ . _ .:';:'~ . ... .1} ..~~... n _ ..:i::8 ..-2G,i~t 7,.. ~ r _+rr~.i-: ~: ..... ,. x ,~ . . , L , ..~,t ~ }}~.'