Loading...
Minutes-PC 1961/05/01~ h 4 ;{) ~'+~ : ,l ~ ,. S• . . . . . ' I ~~ . ~; ~ . ~ ~ Clrv Hnr.~ ANAHEIM~ CAL~FORNIA MAY 1~ 1961 ~~ ,' 4 n1hUTES OF THE REGUTAR MEETING OF THE C1TY PLANN1NCa ~ MM1S 10N REGULAR MEETING ~ 2~~p~Q~CLOCKEP!M~ BY CHAIRMAN GAUER~NA QUURUMSBEINGAPRESENTD TO ORDER AT PRESENT - CHAIRMAN GAUER: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ MnRCOUx~ MORRIS~ MUNGALLo SUMMERS. ABSENT - COMMISSiONERS: HAP600D. PRESENT ~ ASSISTANTpCt7Y ATTORfdEY ~ JOETGEISLERDT COMMISS~ON SECRETARY - JEAN PA(iE INVOCATION ~ REVEREND JOHN K. SAVILLE~ PASTOR OF ST. MICHAEL~S EPISCOPAL CHURCH~ GAVE THE INVOCATION. PLE~GE OF - CHniRMnN GAUER LED THE PLEDaE OF ALLE(iiANCE TO THE FLAG. ALLEG]ANCE ~(1NUTES - THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF APRIL 17~ 1961 WERE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED WITH THE ADOIT~ON TO LINE NO. 2 OF PAOE N0. 141 AS FOLLOWS: MSECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNGALL~"• V~~ gr(~F NQ, 135e - PUBLIC HEARING. PErtrioN SUBMITTED ev PRUDENTIAL 1NSURANCE COMPANY 5757 WI~SHtRE BOULEVARD~ LOS ANGELES~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNER~ BROADWAY-HALE SfORES, INC.~ 401 SOUTH BROADWAY LOS ANGELES~ CALIFORNIA~ LESSEE REQUESTI.NG PEItMI5510N ro WAIVE GROS~ FLOOR SPACE PARKING REQUIREMENTS~.FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5: A PARCEL 75 FEET BY 174 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 75 FEET LOCATED 78 FEET NORTH OF THE CENTERLINE OF CRESCENT AVENUE~ AND A DEPTH OF 174 FEE7 LOCATED 79 FEET EAST OF THE CENTERLONE OF EUCLID AVENUE~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 600 NORTH EUCLI.D AVENUE. PROPERTY PRESEN7LY CLASSI- FIED C-i~ NEIGHBORH00D COMMERCIAL, ZONE. MR. ROBERT SHEEHAN~ VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CALIFORNIA SAVINGS AND LOAN L.SSOCIATION~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED DE- VELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTYj AND INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD BE THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE I'RUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY. HE STATED THAT REQUIREMENTTIN RESPECT TO~GRQSSkFtD.CORVAREADWASAiNTCONFLlCTPWITHNTHEREA TOTAL NET RENTABLE FLOOR AREA~ ANU THAT TO PROVIDE THE AMOUNT OF PARK- ING AREA IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE REQUIREMENTS WOULD NOT BE ECONOM~ ICALLY FEASIBLE. ~HE dR055 FLOOR A4EA CALCULATIONS INCLUDED THOSE AREAS DEVOTED TO ELEVATOR SHAFTSy STAIRWEI.LSz AND UTILITY AREAS OCCUPIED BY MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT FOR WHICH~ UNDER I;ODE REQUIFEMENTS~ PARKING SPACES WOULD HAVE TO BE PROVIDED. HOWEVER~ THE PETITIONERS DID NOT CONSIDER THE REQUiRED AMOUNT OF PARKING NECESSARY FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF THE BUILDING. MR. SHEEHAN STATED THAT TFiE CALIFORNIA SAVIN65 AND LOAN • ASSOGIATION WOUI.D OCCUPY THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE BUILDINti~ THAT THE OFFICE WOULD BE OPEN REQULAR OFFICE HOURS ON WEEK 9AY5 ONLY. AND THAT THERE WOULD BE A MAXIMUM OF 12 EMPLOYEES. OTHER OF~:'.o~ WUULD RENT THE REMAIN- DER OF THE BUILD~NQ. HE STATED FURTHER THAT 7HE PROPOSED USE OF 7HE BUILDING AND THE AMOUNT OF PARKINQ NECESSARY FOR THIS USE WOULD NOT CON- FLICT WITH THE OTHER OCCUPANTS OF THE SHOPPING CENTER. THE COMMISSION REVIEMED ELEVATION PLANS FOR THE BUILDING. DISCUSSION ENSUED RELATIVE TO THE AMOUNT QF FLOOR AREA PROPOSED FOR THE DEVELOP- MENT~ THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKIN(i STALLS NECESSARY TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF PARKINa AREA~ AND THE ULTIMATE DEVEI.OPMENT OF VACANT PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. MR. SEXTON~ REPRESENTATIVE OF COLDWEL~~ BANKER~ AND COMPANY~ APPEARED OEFORE THE COMMISSION AND DI5CUSSED PARKINO STALI. ALLOTMENT FOR THE VARIOUS OCCUPANTS IN THE CENTER. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND,DETERMINED THE FOLLOWIN4 FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJECT PETiTIONl 1. THAT THE PETITIONER REQUESTS A VARlANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE~ SECYION 18.04.030 (1-D~ TO PERMIT 7HE PROVI510~ OF PARKING ON THE BASLS OF THE NET RE~iTABLE Ft00R AREA. 2~ TIONSTAPPLICABLExTOPTNENPROPERTYTINVOLVEDRORCTOCTHE7INTENDOD t15EDOF THE PROPERTY TMA9` Ul~ id'VT nrFLY 'vcricnni.LY i0 7NE Po~oep~ry no 11 p5g OF USE IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE. 3. TNAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOYFIENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY R1aHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPER- TY IN THE SAME VICINITV nND 20NE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 4. THAT THE REQUESTED VARl.ANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLV 0'ETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLJC WELFARE OR (NJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS iN SUCH VICINITY AND ZONE LN WHI~H THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 5. THAT THE REQUESTED.VARIANCE MILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT TIIE COMPRE- ' HHNSIVE ~ENERAL PLAN. - 146 - ~ . ~ -~ ~~~~::r• . ~ ~ . I ~ , . ~ - ~ ~ ~ , . . ~ . . ~ . .. . .. ~ ~ _ ~ . . . . . . ~ . ~ _ . ~ ~ . . . ~~ ~~~_:,~~ ?;, ::r ..~' S f .;1~ f ~ . . .._ , ~.. ... r.: .. ... .. .. _ ~• ~ ~ ~ ;- --_.. __.. _ .....-- --~ ~° V ~ 149 €' ~ ~ M!NUTES, ClTY PLANNlNG C^MM!SS14N~ ~1AY 1~ 1961~ Co~r:HUeQ: ~'-:: ~ VARIANCE N0. 1358 ~ 6. THAT THE PROPpSED 399 PARKING SPACES HILL BE ADEQUATE FOR THE PRO- CONTINUE~,,, ?OSE6 DEVELOP~dEiJT. ~ 7. THAT.THE (NTEND~D WORKING.H0UR5 OF THE OCCUPANTS OF THE BUILDING~ BEINO SCHEQULEP FOR OFFICE HOURS ON WEEK DAYS ONLY~ WITH THE OFFICES ~ BEING CLOSE~ ON SATURDAYS~ WILL NOT CONFLICT NITH THE USE OF THE PARKING AREAS PROVIDED FOR OTHER TEHANTS IN THE SHOPPING CENTER. 8. THAT NO ONE•APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUBJECT PETITION. F' ~ 'r, COMMISSiONER MUNOALL OFFERED RESOLUTy6N N0. 247~ SERIES 1960-61~.AND i MOVED FOR ITS PASS:IGE AND ADOPTION' SCC04DED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX~ ~ i 7HAT VARIANCE N0. 1358 BE GRANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS; 1. DEVELOPMES:T SUB57ANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE W17H PLANS PRESENTED. SAID ` ~ PlANS~ DpTED MARCH 13~ 1961~ SATISFY CONDITION N0. I OF RESOLUTiON ~ I' . ' No. 45~ S~RIES 1960-61. 2. PROVISI.ON OF 399 PARKI.NG SPACES FOR THE USE OF THE OCCUPANTS OF THE f.,.-. SUBJECT BS)ILD1N6. SAID PARKINO SATISFIES CONDITICN N0. 2 OF RESOLU- rfoN No. 45, SeR1ES 1960-61. 3. DEDICATION 6F 53 FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF EUCLID AVE- NUE (41 FEET [X{S71N~). THE FOREGOING CONOITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETINQ AND WERE FOUND TO ~i BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRE- SERVE.THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF.THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. % ON ROLL CALL THE fORE~OfNG RESOLUTION hA5 PASSED BY THE FOLLOWINa VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMIS510NERS2 NONE. ABSENT: COMM1SS10NERS: HAPGOOD. : VARIANCE N0. 1359 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITI,6N SUBwIITTED ev WILIIAM J. SKELLENGER, 512 Bttuce % STREET ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA QWNER~ REQUESTING PERMISSION TO WAIVE MINI- F MUM REAR YARD S~TBACK REQUI~EMEN7 ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED ASC A PARCEL ~ 60 FEET BY 117 FEET W~TH A FRONTA(iE OF 60 FEET ON BRUCE STREET AND :' LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF BRUCE STREET BETNEEN ORANGE AND THERESA AVENUES~ ITS SOUTHWEST CORNER BE:NG APPROXIMATELY 305 FEET NORTH OF THE :~ NORTHEAST CORNER OF BRUCE STREET AND ORANGE AVENUE~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 512 BRUCE STREET. PRCPERT'I PRESEN'fl.Y CI.ASSIFIED R~^l~ ONE FAMILY ; RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. MR. WILLIAM SKELLENGER~ TNE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT OF 10 FEET I.NTO THE REQUIRED REAR ~ YARD IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A UTILITY ROOM ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESI- DENCE. HE STATED THAT HE +IISHED TO RELOCATE THE EXISTING LAUNpRY FACIL- ITIES PRESENTLY LOCATED IN THE KITCHEN BECAUSE 17 WOULD BE OF BENEFIT TO THE HEAITH OF Hl5 ASTHMA7IC CHILD. ~ MR. HAROLD RATTENBURY~ 511 SOUTH GILBERT STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE ; COMMISSION~ PRESENTED A PETITION OF PROTE57 CONTAINING 22 StGNATURES~ AND ELABORATED UPON THE VARIOUS ITEMS OUTLINED IN THE PETITION OF PRO- TEST. HE SUQ~E57ED 7HAT 7HE LAUNDRY FACILITlES BE LOCATED IN THE GARAGE. MR: RATTENBURY STATED FURTHER THA7 THE PRIMARY CONCERN OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WAS THE ENCROACIIMEN7 INTO THE REAR YARD~ WHICH IN HIS OPiN10N WOULD PLACE THE DWELLIN~ T00 CLOSE TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE~ ' AND THE EFFECT THE ENCROACHMENT WOULD MAVE ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. HE INDICATED THAT 7WERE MIOHT BE SUFFICIENT REAR YARD AREA AVAILABLE TO ACCOMODATE THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 1F IT WERE REARRANGED. MRS. COCHRAN~ 2435 TERESA pVENUE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND . STATED TNAT OTHER HOMES IN THE AREA HAVE CONSTRUGTED PAT105 APPROXI- MATELY TEN FEET FROM THE PROPERTY ~lNES. SHE STATED THAT SINCE THE PROPOSED ROOM WOUI.D BE ENCLOSED IT WOULD NOT BE AS OBJECTIONA9LE AS AN ~ OPEN PATIO AND 7HAT SHE DID NOT CONSIDER THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION TO ~ BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE AREA. MRS. WILLIAM HER2BER0~ 503 SOUTH GILBERT STREE7~.APPEAR~D BEFORE THE COM- ' MISSION~ STATED THAT HER PROPERTY ABUTS THE SUBJECT PRQPERTY~ THAT THERE ~ WERE NO PATI05 ON HER STREET LOCATED WiTHIN TEN FEET OF THE REAR PROPER- TY LINE~ AND THAT THE LAUNDF,Y FACJLI.T~ES COULD BE LOCATED SO AS NOT TO BE HARMFUL TO THE PETITIONER~S CH1LD. ~ ~ ~ MR. SKfLLEiiGER~ IN REBOTTAL~.STATEL THAT iT WBULD NOT BE P855tBLE TO ~ ~nr err Tur,~~~~unny ~u ~u~~ .'.Rf.C~ ~CA 'L'S~ :° °£:ES,°. °~~.°. TO V O ~ PROV.IDE OFF-STREE7' PARK,INa FOR H1.5 AUTOMOBI,LES~ AND THAT IT WOULDvBE DIFFICULT 70 CLOSE AFF THE I.AUNDRY ROOM FROM HIS CHILD. HE INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT THE PROPOSED UTILITY ROOM DIMEN510N5 WOULD BE FIVE F00T ~ BY FLVE FOOT AND T HAT 17 WOULD BE LOCATED FIFTEEN FEET FROM THE REAR ~, PROPERTY LINE. THE HEARING MAS CLOSED. f ' ~ ~ THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOHING FACTS REGARDINCa THE i SUBJECT PETITION; ,,' 1. iH.'.~ THE PETITIONER REQUEST5 A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNIClPAL syy; ,; • CODE~$ECTION-18.24.030(3~,T0 PERMIT THE'ENCROACH-!6NT OF TEN (10~ FEET s-..-;..-F.', 1NTO:THE REQUIRED REAR YARD IN ORDER TO CONSTflUCT A UTILITY ROOM. ~ . ~ ~_ , ~~.., ~ ,,.,. , .. . .._.~. .. , ~ ,...... . _. ~~.. ... .~., ,.: .~~./ ::,~ ~a- 1 ~ ~. ."',"--- ~, --~-~ ~ ' ' 150 MINUTES, C17Y PLANNiNG COMM1SS10N~ Mnv i, 1961, CONTINUED; VARIANCE N0. 1359 - 2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDI~ CONTiNUED 710NS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY (NVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDEO USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT DO NnT APPLY QENERALLY TO THE PR9PERTY OR CLA55 OF USE IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE. 3. TNAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FCR THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPER- TY IN THE SAME VICI.NI.TY AND ZONE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY !N QUESTION. 4. THAY T:~E REQUESTED VARIANCE WIIL NOT BE MA7ERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR (MPROVEMENTS IN SUCH VICINITY AND ZOtdE IN NH1CH THE PROPERTY LS LOCATED. 5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARLANCE MII.L NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT 7HE COMPRE- HENSIVE GENERAL PLAN. 6. THAT AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF REAR YARD WILL REMAIN AFTER THE CONSTRUC- TION OF THE PROPOSED ADDITO.ON ON SUBJECT PROPERTY. 7. THAT VERBAL OPPOSITION IN ADDITION TO A PETITION OF PROTEST~ CONTAIN- • ING 22 516NATURES~ WAS RECORDED AGAINST SUBJECT PETITION. VERBAL SUPPORT BY ONE PROPERTY OWNER WAS RECORDED 1.N FAVOR OF SUBJECT PETI- TION. COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 248~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND ~ MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS THAT VARIANCE N0. 1359 BE GRANTED~ SUBJECT TO 7HE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTlALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTEP. THE FOREGOINa COIGDITION WAS REClTED AT THE MEETING AND WAS FOUND TO BE j A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE ~ THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY ~F ANAHEIM. ~ ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLU710N WAS PASSED B1' THE FOLLOMING VOT~: ~ AYES: COMMiSS10NERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUN~AL~~ SUMMERS. ! NOES: COMH1SS10NERS: NONE. , ~ ABSENT: COMM1SS10NERSC HAPGOOD. ' CONOiTIONAI USE - PUBLiC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev MYRTLE B. VnNHORN 1916 MESr BALL PERMIT N0. 115 Ronc, ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA OWNER~ GRACE MISSIONARY BAPTI~T CHURCH, 232 WEST CLIFFNOOD~ ANAHEIM~ ~ALIFORNIA~ AGENT~ REQUESTING PEPMISSION TO CONSTRUCT A CHURCH ON PROPERYY DESCRIBED AS: A PARCEL 125 FEET BY 365 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 125 FEET ON BALL ROAD AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE Of BALL RQAD BETMEEN NUTWOOD AND EMPIRE STREETS~ ITS NORTHEAST COR- NER BEING APPROXIMATELY 320 FEET NEST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BALL ROAD AND NUTWOOD STREET~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1926 MEST BALL Ronn. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL. ZONE. MR. JOHN HOLDERNESS~ REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION ANO STATED HE HAD NOTHIN4 TO ADD TO THE INFORMATION CON- TAINED IN THE SUBJECT PETITION. MR. SCOTT EISENHOWER APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED NE WAS 7H E PASTOR FOR THE GRACE MISSIONARY BAPTIST CHURCH. HE STATED FURTHER THAT THE CHURCH INTENDED TO USE AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR CHURCH FACILITIES UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE PROPOSED CHURCH BUILDINa WAS ERECTED ON THE FRONT PORTION OF TNE PROPERTY~ AND THAT THE NEW CHURCH WOULD ACCOMODAiE 250 PERSONS. A LETTER~ SIGNED BY DON H~ AND JEAN K. FULKERSON~ INDICATINa APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT PETITION WAS SUBMITTTED TO THE COMMISSION. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. • TNE COMMISSIOk REVIEWED PLOT AND ELEVATION PLANS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT~ AND DISCUSSED PARKINa AREA REQUIREMENTS~ LOCATION OF BUILDINCiS~ AND SETBACKS. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWINa FACTS REf3ARD!NQ THE SUBJECT PETITIONt ~ 1. THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS PROPERLY ONE FOP, WHICH A CONDITIONAL USE PER- MIT IS AUTHORI2ED BY THIS CODE~ TO WIT: A CHURCH. 2. THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJOININa LAND USES AND THE GRONTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA IN WHICH IT IS PRO- pOSED TO BE LOCATED. 3. THAT THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE SITE PROPOSED FOR THE USE IS ADEQUATE TO ALLOW THE FULL D~VELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED USE IN A MANNER NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE PARTICULAR AREA NOR TO THE PEACE HEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND DENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CtTY GF bNAHE1M. r, - ~ " ; ~i;,•, ,: ~ .,.. 151 M1NUT£S~ CITY PLANNiNG COP1t41SS10N~ Mnv i, 1961, CONTINUED: COND1T10NAL USE - PECONTINUED115 CONDITIONAL USE PFRMIT NOT. il6 4. THAT THc TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOl' IMPOSE AN ~ UNDUE BURDEM UPON THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS D'c51C+NED AND IMPROVED TO CARRY THE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA. ~ 5~ IMPOSEDE IFAANYNaWILLTNOTC9EDDETRIMENTAL 70RTHE PEACE~THEALTHDITIONS SAFETY~ AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CIT12EN5 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. i 6: THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PET~TION. A LETTER ~ OF SUPPORT SIGNED BY TWO RESIDENTS OF THE AREA WAS FILED WITH THE i COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 249~ SER1E5 1960~61~ AND ~ MOVED FOR ITS PASSA(iE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED ~ THAT CONDlTIONA~ USE PERMIT N0. 115 BE aRANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOL~OW~ I INC CONDITIONS: ~ ' 1. DEDICATION OF 53 FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF BALL ROAD (30 FHET EXISTING). 2. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATIOPI OF ALL IM~ THEVOFFICE OF THE~C~ITYCENGINEERPPROVE~ STANDARD PLANS ON F{LE IN 3. PAYMENT OF $2.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STREET LIGHT~NG PURPOSES. 4~ MINED BYNTHE DIRECTOREOFEUTNLiT1E5NG EXTERIOR BOUnOARIES AS DETER- 5. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED. 6. TIME LIMITATION OF TWO (2) YEARS FOR THE US£ OF THE BUILDING PRESENTLY LOCATED ON SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR CHURCH FACILITIES.AT PRESENT LOCAT'ION. 7~ QUIREMENTSOUPONECOMPLETIONIOF THE'PROPOSEDNCONST(tUCT10NWOFHTHEDNEWE CHURCH BUILDING. 8. PROVISION OF A TEN (10~ F00T WIDE LANDSCAPED STR1P ABUTTING AND PARAL~EL TO THE FFEET IN THETPUBLIC~PARKWAY.PRPLANS FORFSAIDEtANDLS EVEI'Y FORTY (40~ SUPERNNTENDENTEOFWPARKWAY MAINTENANCED TO AND APPROVED BY THE 9~ DATE,OF SUBJECTNPETQTIONETOEINSUREFTHE CONSTRUCTIONROF AHSIXF(6)TIVE FOOT MASONRY WALL ON THE SOUTH AND EAST PROPERTY LINES ABUTTINQ THE PERTY~HASDNOTIBEEN6DEVELOPEDLFOR RESIDENTIAL'PURPOSESA YTTHEGDATE OF EXPIRATION OF SAID TWO (2) YEAR PERIOD OF TIME. • 7HE FOREGOING CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETINfl AND NERE FOUND TO SERVENTHESSAFETYRANDQNELFARETOFTTHEUCIT/ZEN5E0FRTHERCITYNOFRANAHE/MPRE- ON ROLL CALL THE FOREQOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOW~NG VOTE: AYES: CO~IMISSIONERSS ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMlSSIUNERS: HAPGOOD. PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev LONG BEACH BANANA DISTRISUTOR5 1419 MAaNOL1A AVENUE~ LONO BEACHp CALIFORNIA~ OMNER~ IRWIN ENTERPRISES~~ INC.~ 5230 CLARK AVENUE SUISE 11 LAKEWOOD~ CALIFORNIA~ LESSEE~ REQUEST~ INO PERMISSION TO OPERAf E A COCKTAII LOUNGE ON PROPERTY DESCRI.B=D A5: A PARCEL 435 FEET BY 760 FEET WITH A FRONTA6E OF 435 FEET ON BALL ROAD AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BALL ROAD AND EUCL~D AVENUE AND IFIeoEC lESNEIGHBORH00D1COMMERCEAL,~ZONEENUe. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLA55- MR. JOHN IRWIN~ THE PETiT18RER~ APPEAftEQ 9EFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED SION OF THEHEXI.STIN(iCSHOPPIN6 CENTERCDEVEI.OPMENTELOCATED ONO7NEEFORTHEN- USETSEEMEDRTQFB AALLO(i1CALNADDITION TOETHE~CENSERTANDDTHATTITRWOULD NOT BE DETRIMENThL TO THE AREA. MRS. RICHARD SCALE~ 1735 MEST BALL ROAD~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND'STATED THAT SHE OWNED PROPERTY ABUTTIN6 THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SHE STATED THAT THE PROPOSED USE WOULD DISTURB NER 7ENAR'~5~ THAT THERE WERE pRESENTATIMEHMTHAT THEHPR POSEDRUSESWOULD6DEVALUATECPitOPERTYEINATHEHE AREA~ AND THAT I.T WOULD CREATE NOISE AND BE A NUISANCE TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTS. CHAIRMAN GAUER READ A PETITION OF PROTEST~ CONTAININa 70 SIOHATURES OF ~ MINUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION, Mar i, 1961~ CONTINUED; COND1710NAL USE - occuPaNrs AND pROPERTY OWNERS IN THE VICINI.TY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY~ AND PERMIT N0. 116 A LETTER OF PROTE57 SI~NED BY CARL COULTER JR. REPRESENiA71VE OF THE CONTINUED PROPERTY OWNERS Q~ LINCOLN PARK HOMES. TH~ HEA~ING WAS CIOSED. . COMMISSIONER MORRIS INDICATED THA7 THE PLANN~Na COMMISSION HAD~ IN ~ CONSIDERING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MASTER PLAN~ QIVEN A CONSIDERABLE i AMOUNT OF THOUaHT TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF COCKTAlL L~UNGES IN SHOPPING CENTERS AND THAT THE POLICY ESTABLISHED AT THAT TINE WAS THAT COCKTAIL LOUNQES WOULD NOT CONTRIBUTE 70 THE BEST DEVELOPMENT AS A WHOLE IF ALLOW- i ED IN THE RETAIL 5HOPPIN~ CENTERS. HE STATED TH1.5 WAS BASICALLY A POLICY THAT HAO BEEN FOLLOWED AND 7HAT IT WAS PROBABLY TO 7HE BEST INTEREST OF • f THE COMMUNITV AS A MNOLE TO CONTINUE WITH THE PRESENT POLICY. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWINa FACTS REGARDIKa THE SUBJECT PETITIONC 1. THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS PROPERLY ONE FOR WH1CH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS AUTHORIZED BY THIS CODE~ i0 WIT: A COCKTAJL LOUNOE. 2. THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJOI.NING LAND USES AqD THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPb1EtdT OF THE AREA IN MHICH IT IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED. 3• THAT Tiic 9RANTIN4 OF THE COND~TIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED~ iF ANY~•~WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PEACE~ HEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND CiENERAL WELFARE OF.THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 4; THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS NOT COMPAT1BlE MITH THE C~1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONIN~ AND DEVELOPMENT OF 7HE SUBJECT AREA. 5. THAT VERBAL OPPOSITION~ IN ADDITION TO A PETITION OF PROTEST CON~ TAINING 70 SIGNATURES AND A LETTER OF PROTEST~ WERE RECORDED A(iA1NST SUBJECT PETlT10N. COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFEREO RESOLUTION N0. 250~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALL~tED TO DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 116 ON TNE BA515 OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDINaS. I ON ROLI CALL THE FOREQOtN6 RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOMINa VOTEC AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNfiALL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COHMISSIONERS: HAPCi00D. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBIIC N~ARING. PETITION sueMlTreo er HELEN FOER1'MEYER~ 439 Da~e AvE- PERMIT,40• 117 NUE ANAHE~M~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNER~ REQUESTIN(i PERMISS;ON TO CONSTRUCT A CHU~CH ON PROPERTY DESC:tiBED AS: AN MLN SHAPED PAti,^.EL WITH A FRONTA~E OF 151 FEET ON DALE AVENUE AND EXTENDIN~ WEST A DISTANCE OF 376 FEET~ LOCATED ON THE WEST ~C~E OF DALE AVENUE BE7WEEN CRESCENT AND TYLER AYE~ NUES~ ITS NORTHEAST CORNER BEINQ APPROXIMATELY 990 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CRESCENT AND DALE AVENUES. PROPERTY PRESENT~Y CLA55~ IFIED R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE. MRS. GEORQIA MANESTAR~ REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PETITIONER~ APPEAREO BE- FORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT THE tRREQULARLY SHAPED PARCEL WAS DIFFICULT TO OEVELOP AND~ AS A CONSEQUENCE~ THE PETITIONER CONSIDERS TNE PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF A CHURCH TO BE THE BEST USE OF THE PRO~ PERTY. SHE STATED THAT THE DEVEL~PMENT OF THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN CON- SIDERED AT YAp{.OUS TIMES FOR R-3 MISLTIPLE FAMILY REStDENT1At~ DEYELOP- MENT~ A TRAILER PARK~ AND FOR R-~~ SINaLE FAMI.LY FZESIDEN'TiAL~ DEVELOP- !IENT. SHE I.NDICATED~ HOWEVER~ THAT 7HESE USES WOULD NOT BE AS COMPATI- BLE WITH THE EXISTINa RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT~ DUE TO THE DIFFICULTIES IN PARCELIN~ AND SELLIN~ THE PROPERTIES~ AS THE PROPOSED CHURCH PROJECT. REVEREND M1.LBUR NELSON~ 3336 OLI,VE STREET~ HUNTINaTON PARK~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT HE WAS AN ORDAtNED MINISTER PRESENTLY ENaAOED IN CONDI'^•TIN~ SPIRITUAL R,AD10 PRO~RAMS AND THAT HE WISHED TO ES7ABLISH A PARISli CHURCH 1N ANAHF.IM FOR THE GRACE EVANQEL~ ISTIC ASSOCIATION. ~ THE COMMISSION REVIEWED PLOT PLANS AND FEVEREND NEl.SON STATED THAT THE CHURCN DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE B€AUTIFUL~ AND THAT 1'T WOULD 8! CONSTRUCTED IN THE NEAR FUTURE. MR. JOHN RICKS~ 503 NORTH DALE AVENUE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND PROTE57ED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CHURCH IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO HIS RES)DENCE WOULD BE AN INVASION OF PRIVACY~ THAT IT WO"LD CREATE PARKIN~ PROBLEpiS AND A TRAFFIC HA2ARD~ TMAT THE !!SE HAS NOT COMPATtBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA~ THA7 IT WOULD CREATE NCISE ANG BE A NUISANCE~ AND THAT THE r.HURCH MAS NOT AN ESTABLI.SHED CHURCH WITH AN EX~STINO CON~RE~ATIOk. He STATED THAT THE ABUTTINO PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH WAS OMNED BY THE BROTHER OF THE PETITf.ONER AND 7HAT~IN VIEW ;~'::, OF THIS FACT~ R-1 DEVELOPMENT~ WHICH WOULD BE'COMPATIBLE MITH 7NE EXIST~ IN~ REBLDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA~ WOULD BE POSSIBLE. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ €a d ~ ~ " ' -- - -. ,. , _.. . - , ~. . i ~ T ,. ~ ~ 153 ~ + :c'~~: MINUTES, C17Y PLANNlNG COMM1SS1uN~ Mnv i~ 1961~ CONTlNUED; CONDITIONAI USE ~ MR. TOM BROMN~ 32A COOLID~E AVEMUE~ APPEARED HEFORE THE COMM•ISSION AND PERMiT N0. 117 EXPRESSED CONCERN IN RESPECT TO THE BUILDIN~ SETBACKS~ TO THE SEATINfi CONTINUED CAPACITY AND THE AMOUNT OF PARKIN~ NECESSARY FOR THE DEVtLOPMENT~•TO THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE WHICH HE CONSIDERED NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDEMTIAL DEVELOPMEN7 IN THE AREA~ AND 70 THE LACK OF INFORMA- TION lN REGARD TO THE PROPOSED CONCiRE6ATI0N. • • MRS. MANESTAR~ IN REBUTTAL~ STATED THAT THE PROPOSED SETBACKS WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE REQUIRENENTS~ AND THAT AT THE PRESENT TIME THERE ARE THREE RESIDENCES ON THE PfiOhERTY WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED AS MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SHE STATED THAT~ ALTHOUQH THE PROP.ERTY TO THE SOUTH WAS ONNED BY THE PETiT10P1ER~5 BROTHER~ ~T MAS A SEPARATE PARCELo THEREFORE~ lT MAS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DEVELOP- MENT IN•CONJUNCTION MITH THE SUBJECT.PROPERTY. MR. JOHN RUSSELL APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THA7 HE PURCHASED HIS PROPERTY BECAUSE THE AREA CONTAINED SINGLE FAMILY RESI- DENTIAL DEVELOPMENT~ AND THAT ANY TYPE OF DEVELOPNENT OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL IN THE MIDDLE OF THE•BLOCK WAS NOT LOGLCAL. REVEREND NEl.50No IN REBUTTAL~ STATED THAT Hl5 CONCiRF0AT10N WOULD BE A CONTRIBUTION TO THE COMMUNtTY NOT A LIABILITY~ THAT HE HAS BEEN A PASTOR OF THE GRACE CHURCH 1N HUNTINaTON PARK FOR FIFTEEN YEARS~AND THAT'HE HAD NEVEP. HAD ANY PROBl.EMS WITH HIS NEI~HBORS DURING TH1.5••PERIOD. HE LNDICATED THAT ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE COMPLIED WITH~ AND THAT THE 6UILDING PR06RAM TO BE CARRIED ON WOULD BE AN ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY AND ONE OF WHICH THE NEIGHBORS COULD BE PROUD. THE HEARING•WAS CLOSED. ~ THE COMMISSION D;.SCUSSED THE PARK'ING AND WALL REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBJECT PROPER7Y AND THE POSSIBILITY OF RELO~ATINfi THE PROPOSED BUILDIN65. THE COMMISSI.ON FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOMI.NO FACTS REOARDIN~ THE SUBJECT PETITION: 1. THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS PROPERLY ONE FOR WHICH A CONDITIONA~ USE PERhtIT IS AUTHORIZED BY TH1.5 CODE~ TO WIT: A CHURCH. • 2. THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT TFIE ADJOINING LAND USES AND THE (iROW7H AND DEVELOPMENT OF TFiE AREA IN WHICH 1T IS PR01'OSED TO BE LOCATED. 3. THAT THE SIZE AND SNAPE OF THE SITE PR~POSED FOR THC USE IS NOT ADE- QUATE TO ALLOW THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED USE IN A MANNER NOT DETRIMEhTAL 70 TME PAR7ICULAR AREA NOR TO THE'PEACE~ HEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND QENERAL NELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF 7NE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 4: THAT TME TRAFFiC DENERATED BY THE PROPOSED USE NILL IMPOSE AN UNOUE BURDEk UPON THE STREETS AND HI(iHWAYS DESIaNED AND 1MPROVED TO CARHY THE TRAFFIC J.N THE AREA. 5. THAT THE GRANTINQ OF 7HE COND1.71.ONAL USE PERMIT UNDER TME CONDITIONS IMPOSED~ IF ANY~ WILL BE DETRINENTAL TO THE PEACE~ NEALTH~ SAFETV~ AND DENERAL MELFARE OF THE CITL2ENS OF THE C17Y OF ANAHEIM. 6: THAT THE SUBJECT AREA IS DEVELOPED PRIMARILY FOR SI.NaLE FAMILY RES1- DENTIAL USE AND TkE PROPOSED DEYELOPMEN7 IS MOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXIST4NQ RESI.DENTIAL DEYELOPMENT. - 7. THAT VERBAL. OPPOSlTION YIAS RECORDED A4AlNST SUBJECT PETI710N. COIIMI,SSIONER ALLRED OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 251~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND KOYED FOR ITS PASSA~E AND ADOPTI,ON~ SECONOED BY COMMISSI.ONER MARCOUX~ THAT CONDI7IONAL USE PERM17 N0. 117 BE DENI.ED ON THE BASIS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDIN~S. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREQOINf~ RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWINQ VOTE: AYES. COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ SUMMERS. ' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MUN~ALL~ A9S~NT: CQHMlSSlONERS: Nn~aono. RECLA~SIFICATION ING. PE7lTtON SU9MJTTED ex RAYMOND SPEHAR, 1532 BEACON AVE- - PUBLIC HEAR N~ 60-61-87 . NUE~ ANAHELM~ CALIFORNI.A~ OWNER~ REQUESTlN6 7HAT PROPER7Y DESCRIBED A5: PARCEL 1; A PARCEL 152 FEET BY 180 FFET NITH A FRONTAQE OF 152 FEET ON EUC U.D AVENUE.AND LOCATED ON THE NEST SLDE OF EUCLID AVENUE BETMEEN LA PALMA AVENUE AND FRANCIS DRIVE~ i.TS NORTHEAST CORNER BEIN~ APPROXIMATELY 130~FEET SOUTH OF THE SOU7HMEST`CORNER OF LA PALMA AVENUE AND EUCL7.D AYENUE. PARCEL 2C A PARCEL 50 FEET BY 130 FEE7 WITN A FRON7A~E OF 50 FEET ON LA'PALMA AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE 80U7H 81DE OF LA PALMA AVENUE BETWEEN EUCLID AND MOHICAN AVENU&S~ ITB NORTHEAS? CORNER BEIN~ APPROXIMATELY 130 FEET NEST OF THE SOUTHMEST CORNER OF EUC:.ID AND LA PALMA AVENUES~ ITS DESCRIBED AS ER UTTIN~ PARCEL 1 ON THE NORTH~ AND FURTH ARY AB BO ND OU TH U S p R E 1q N i 2 3 1 AGRICULTURALRT~ON~CTO~THEE~~~; ~~,~~i~bk~~b6~~8M~~~~~CE ZONE.RESlDENTIAL . ~~ . ti';~ ~___.- ~i~`l~~ . ------.• ,.._. ... .. . .. . , ~., a. ..t.-., . ~,.~.~"... ,. . , . ~i Y~..i~.. .. ~.':,..-_~."' ._ .._i. . .~_ ~ i~ ~ _. , . . /'""......._~_~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ p . HiNUTES, CiTY PlANN1NG COMMISSION, MaY i, 1961, CONTfNUED: ~ RECLASSIF3CA710N - I N0. 60-61-87 rONT l PIUED RECLASSIFICATION - N0. 60-61-88 154 ~ ~ ~ ~ SUBJECT PROPERTY CON7AIN5 AN EXi5T0.NCa COMMERCLAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE j PETi710NER DESIRES TO EXPAND THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT PRESENTLY 1 THESPROPERTYSPRIURTTORANNEXATI NHTOCTHEECITY~ANDEUPON ANNEXATIONDT6~N i • THE CITY IT WAS AUTOMAT•ICALLY INCORPORATED lNTO THE R~A~ RESIDENTIAL ~ ~ A(iRICULTURAL'~ ZONE. AS A CONSEQUENCE~RECLASSIFICATION OF ~UB,iECT ' PROPERTY 70 THE C~1~ NEIQHBORNOOD COMMERC~AL 20NE IS REQUESTED IN y ORDER TO COMPLETE THE PROPOSED EXPANSION. TH~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ 7HE COMMI5510N FOUND AND DETERMLNED THE FOLLOWING ~ACTS REGAFDING THc ; SUBJ~CT PETITION; ~ 1. THAT'THE PETI.T-.ONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ABOVE DES- ! CR16ED PROPERTY F'ROM rH~ R-A RES!DENTIAL A~RICULTURAL, ZONE ro THE C-i~ NE1GH80RHOOD COMMER~IAL, ZONE. - ' 2. THA7 THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFI.CATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NECESSARY i OR DESIRABLE FOIt THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMUNITY. ~ 3. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES PROPER- ~ LY RELATE TO 7HE ZONES AND THEOR PERMITTED USES LOCALLY•.ESTABLISHED I IN CLOSE PROXIMl.TY TO SUBJECT.PROPERTX AND TO THE ZONES A:iD THEIR { PERMITTED USES GENERALLY ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. , 4. THAT. THE PROI`65ED RECLASSIFI.CATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES REQUIRE DEDICATION Fvi: AND STANDARD IMPROVEMENT OF ABUTTING STREETS BECAUSE SAID PROPERTY DOES RELATE TO AND ABUT UPON STREETS AND HIl3HNAY5 ; NH~CH ARE PROPOSED TO CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANTITY OF TRAFFIC~ MHICH i WILL BE 6ENERATED BY THE ?ERMITTEI~ USES~ IN ACCORDANCE WI.TH THE j CIRCULASlON ELEMEN;' OF THE ~ENERA~ PLAN. ~ 5. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITJ.ON TO SUBJECT PETI.TI.ON. j ? COMMISSIONER MUN(iALL OFFERED.RESOLUTION N0. 252~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND i RECOMMENDIN~570ATHE~CI,TYDCOUNCIL THATERECLASSIFICATIONSNONE60M6RR87~ ~ i 8E GRANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOMINQ COND1710N5. 1. DEOICATION OF 53 FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED C1EN7ERLINE OF EUCLID AVE-~ NUE (50 FEET EXISTIN6). 2. DEDLCATION OF 53 FEET FROM 7HE MONUMENTED CEN7ERLINE OF LA PAIMA ~~ AVENUE (50 FEET EX151'~NQ~. 3. PAYMENT OF s2.00 PER FRONT F00T FOR STREE7 L78HTI.N3 PURP0:~5 ON BOTH ~.. EUCLID AVENUE AND I.A PALMA AVENUE. 4: TIME LlMITATIUN OF 90 DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF (TEMS N0. 2~ 2~ ~ ~ AND 3. ~ 5. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY 1.N ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE PARKINti LAYOUT BE REALI~NED, ~ _ 6. PROVISION OF 45 PARKIN~ SPACES IN ACCORDANCE MITH CODE REQUiREMENTS. THF. FORE~OlNO CONDITlONS WERE:REC1,1'ED AT THE MEETINa AND MERE FOUND TO ~ BE A NECESSARY PREREQU151TE'TO THE'~SE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRE- ~=RVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CI7lZEN5 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. ~ UN ROLL CALL THE FOREDOINQ RESOtUT1.ON WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWIN~ VOTE: AYES: COHM1SS10NERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRtS~ MUN(iALL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERSS NONE. 1lBSEN~: COMMISSIONEitSl HAP~OUD. PUBLIC HEARING. PE71TlON 5UBMITTED ev CHARLES A. AND SARAH RAMSAY ii32 WEST LA PALMA AVENU£~ ANAHEIM CALIFORNIAt OMNERS~ RUSSELL FROST, ~L432 ~ SOU7H NEST AZURE~ SANTA ANA~ ~ALIFORNI.A~ AGENT~ REQUESTING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED ASS A PARCEL 62 FEET BY 56 FEET WI.TH A FRONTA6E OF 62 FEET ON LA PALNA AVENUE AND LOCA7ED ON THE SOU7H StDE OF LA PALMA AVENUE BETWEEN LOMITA SYiiEET RTi6 `~}'s5i STRSCT~ !~S !l4R74{NES7 C9RN~R BE1N~ APPROXI.MATELY i 125 FEET EAST 8F THE 54STNEAS7 CORMER -0F LOMITA STREET AND LA'PALMA AVE- ! NVE AND FURTHER DESCRiBED AS 1132 NEST LA PALMA AVENUE~ BE RECLASSIFIED F'ROM THE R-~., ONE FAMiLY RESIDEiJTIAL~ ZONE ro rKE C-2~ L~NERAL COMMERCIAL~ Z9NE. THE PETITIONER MA5 PRESENT AND STATED THAT SHE HAD NOTHiNG TO AbD TC THE ~ INFORWATION CONTAINED LN THE SUBJECT PETITION REfiARD1Na THF. REf,LAS~•~ FI.CATION OF SUBJEC7 PROPERTY IN ORDER TO ESTABLISN A RETAIL FLORI'~ :"'`P IN AN EXISTIN~ RESlOENCE. ' MR. OLAH DUNLAP~ 1143 CLAREDQE QRIYE~ APPEAItED BEPORE THE COMMI.- ~' •~~~ i STATED THAT HE REPRESENTED PROPERTY ONNERS IN 7HE VIC1Nl.TY. HE '..' '.•~t D TURE5EOFTRESIDENTSD1NUTHETAREAA PMR'TDUNLAP PREBEN7ED POCTURES OF •~!'`NA_ SUBJECT PROPEkTY AND STATED THAT IT WAS SITUATED IN A REGIDENTlAL SEC~ TION AND WAS PART OF A RES!DENTIAL TRACT. HE INDICATED 7HAT IF APPRO~~k;. ~ ~~~. ...~ ., . ____._........_ . ~ 155 MiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 1~ 1961, CONTINUED: RECLASSIFICA710N - N0. 60-61-88 CONTINUED RECLASSIFICATION - N0. 60-61-E5 OF 7HE SUBJECT PETITION MENE QRANTED ),T MIaHT INITIATE A TRLND TOWARD AbD1TI0NAL COMWERCIAL 20N~Na~ THAT l7 NOULD CREATE PARKLNG Ak~•TRAFFIC PROBI.~MS~ AND THA7 IT M6ULD CREATE AN AREA SIMI.LAR TO SECTIONS OF PROPER7Y ABUTTING BROOKHURST STREET. MR. DUNLAP READ AND-SUBMITTED A DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS 1.MPOSED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY NHI.CH STIPULATED DEE~ RESTRtCT1ON5 LlMlTIkG USE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY T0 5lNfiLE FAMtLY RCSipEHT1AL USE ONLY. ME STATED T11AT iF TNE SUBJECT PETtT00N WERE ORANTED~ IT MOULD FORCE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE TRACT TO FILE A SUf7 TO PROHIBI.T THE CONVERSION OF THE PROPER7Y TO COMMERCIAL USE. THE HEARING YAS CLO5ED. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMISSIAN THAT THE DEED RESTRl.CT1,ON5 SUBMITTED WERE A PRI.VATE COMMI,TTMENT THAT DID NOT LNVOLYE THE CI7Y. HOWEVER~ THE COWMI.~S~ON AND THE CITY COUNCI,L SHOULD ACCEP7 THEM AS EVIDENCE AND GIVE THER! SERIOUS CONSIDERATION. HE STATED THAT IN CASE OF A LAW SUI.T 17 YlAS POS5191E THAT THE OWNER OF TFi~ SU.9JECT PROPERTY COULD BE FACED WOTH THE DANGER OF FORFEITIN~ HER PROPERTY IF THE COVENAN7 l5 BROKEN. THE COMMlSSI,ON ALSO D15CUSSED THE TYPE OF PETt710N F1LED BY 7HE PET1- TIONER AND IT WAS DNDICATED THAT A RECLASSIFICA7I.ON FOR COMMERCIAL USE NA9 COt•1STDERED APPLICABLE~ RAYHER 7HAN A VARI,ANCEj, BECAUSE ABt1TT1Na PROPERTY 70 THE EAST 15 INCORPORATED JN THE C~1~ IVEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. 7HE COMMISSf.ON FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWIN~ FACTS REQARD!!iG 7HE SUBJECT PETITION: 1, THAT THE PET,ITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ABOVE DES- CR19ED PROPERTY FROM 7HE R~1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTlAL~ 20NE To THE C-2~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL. ZON~. 2. THAT THE pROPOSED RECLASSIFICAT)ON OF SUBJEC7 PROPERTY JS NOT NECES~ SARY OR DESLRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMUN)TY. 3. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFlCATJON OF SUBJF.CT PROPER7Y DOES NOT PROPERIY RELATE TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PERMITTED USES LOCALLY ESTAB~ LISHED 1.N CLOSE PROXlMO.TY 70 SUBJECT PROPk'.RTY AND TO 7HE 20NE5 AND . TNEIR PERMITTED USES QENERALLY ESTABLISHED 7HROUGHOU7 7HE COMMUNA7Y. 4: THAT THE PRQPOSED RECLASSIFLCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES REQUIRE DEDICATI,ON FOR AND STANDARD I,MPROVEMEN7 OF ABUTT)NQ STREETS BECAUSE SAID PROPERTY DOES RELATE TO AND ABUT UPON STREETS AND HIQHWAYS Y7HICH ARE PROPOSED TO CARRY THE 7YPE AND QUANTITV OF TRAFFIC~ WH)CH W1Ll 6E (iENERATED BY THE PERNIT7ED USES~ iN ACCORDANCE W.ITH THE CIRCULATION ELEMENS OF 7HE GENERAL PLAN. 5. THAT SUBJECT PROPERTY 15 CONTAINED IN TRACT N0. 2373~ A SIN~LE FAMILY RES1.:£NTIAL TRACT~ AND DECLARATION OF RESTR~CTIONS N0. 17364 IS I.Ni+OSED ON SAtD TRACT LIM171Na USE OF PROPERTIES CONTAINED IN TRACT N0. 2373 TO SINaLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE ONLY. 6. TNAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1126~ REQUESTIN~ USE OF A RESIDENCE FOR A BEAUTY SHOP~ LOCATED ON TNE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF lA PALMA AVE- NUE AND LOMITR STREET AND CONTAINED IN TRACT N0. 2373 WAS DENrED BY ~ITY CbUNCIL RESOLU710N N0. 5436 ON AUDUST 18~ 195~. 7. ~f!'.AT ADEQUATE PARKINa FRCILITIES COULD NOT BE PROVIDED FOR THE PR~P09ED USE OF SUBJEC7 PROPERTY. 8. Tf1AT THE PROPOSED RECLASSI.F).CATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE C~2~ GENERAL COMMCRCIAL~ ZONE COULD PERMIT AN UNDESIRABLE USE OF THE PROPER7Y. 9. THAT VERBAL OPP091TION~ 1.N ADDITION TO A PETITfON OF PROTEST CON~ TAININ4 36 SI~NATURES~ WAS RECORDED AGAINST SUBJECT PETITION. COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 253~ SERIES 1960^51~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSA~E AND ADOPTDON~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER A4LRED~ RECOMMENDINQ TO THE CITY COUNCIL THA7 RECLASSdFICATION N0. 60~6~-88 BE DENIED ON THE BASIS OF THE AFOREMENTLONED FINDINt~S. ON ROLI. Cq~l, THE FOREQOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWIND V~TE; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLREO~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUN~ALL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMlSSIONERS: NONE. ABSEI~T: COMMISSIONERSS HAF~OOD. PUBLIC HEARING. PETI710N SUBMITTED ev DALE N. AND MARY A. McDONALD 528-C WEST HAMPSHIRE AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNERS~ WALTER MAtZAHN~ 2200 SOUTH LOARA STREET ANAHEIM~ CALIF~RNIA~ AQENT~ REQUESYINIi THAT PROPERTY DE$CRIB~D A5: A PARCEL 50 FEET BV 158 FEET WITH A FRONTA~E,OF 50 FEET ON BROADMAY AND LOCATE6 ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BROADWAY BE7MEEN NEST STREET AND WALNUT S7'REET~ ITS• SOUTHEAST CORNER BEINfi APPROXIMATELY ` _ _-._ ,:;~,:_ ~ ~ 156 MINUTES, ~1TY PLANNiNG COMM1SS10N, Mnv i, 19ei~ CONTINUED: RECLASSIFICATION - N0. 60-61-89 CONTINUED YARIANCE N0. 1357 , ~ 360 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHMEST CORNER OF WEST STREET AND BROADWAY AND FURTHER DESCR:E£D AS 1132 HEST BROADNAY~ BE RECLASSIFfED FROM THE R~2~ TY10 FAMIIY RESIDENTIAL; ZONE ro rHe R-3, MULTIPLE FAMii_Y RESI0ENTIAL, ZONE: SUBJECT PETITION FILED IN CONJUNCTION WITH PETITtON FOR VARIANCE N0. 1357. . MR. MALTER MAL2AHN~ 2200 SOUTN LOARA STREET~ ANAHEIM~ REPRESENTATIYE FOR THE PETJTIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION ARD DISCUSSED THE PLOT AND ELEVATION PLANS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. A LETTER OF PROTEST SIaNED 8Y IRA E. MUNSEY AND MARTHh MUNSEY~ 1143 YIEST BROADWAY~ WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION. THE HEARiNG NAS CLOSED. THE.PETITIONFR~S ADENT INFORMED THE COMMlS510N THAT THEY CONSIDERE~ THE pROPOSED RECLASSIFICATIDN OF SUBJECT PROPERTY SUITABLE BECAUSE OF THE R~3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY•RESIDENTIAL~ ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT ACROSS BROADWAY TO THE SOUT.H. HE INDICATED TNAT'THE PETI710NER INTENDS TO CONSTRUCT TWO ARARTMENTS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE TWO ADDITIONAL RENTAL UNITS~ AND THAT THE OLD BUILDJNGS PRESENTLY ON THE PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE REMOVED AT THE PRESENT TIME. TNE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND 57ATED THAT HE INTENDED TO REMOVE THE GARAGE APARTMENT AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IN A FEW YEARS. THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE CODlDIT10N OF THE EX.ISTIN~ DUILDINGS QN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'~ THE PRESENT USE OF THE OVERCROWDED FACILITIES~ AND THE FACT 7HAT ADDITIONAL 9UILDINGS IN THE EXISTING R-2 AREA IS NOT DESIRABLE UNTIL AND UNLE55 THE PROPERTY IS PLACED {N THE PROPER CONDI- TION FOR.A SUITABLE AND DESIRA8I.E R-3 DEVELi)PMENT PROGRAM. THE COMMISSION FOUi~D AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJECT PETITIONS 1. THAT THE PETITI,ONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICATlON OF THE ABOVE DES- CRIBED PROPERTY FROM THE R-2 TWO FAMILY RES{DENTIAL, ZONE TO THE R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDEN~'IAL, ZONE. 2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT NECES~ SARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE CO,MMUNITY. 3. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIF,ICA710N OF SUDJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT P~iIPERLY RELATE TO THE 20NES AND THEIR PERMITTED USES LOCALLY ESTAB- LISHED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE ZONES AND ~'HEI.R ?ERMITTED USES GtNERALLY ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT 7HE COMMUNITY. 4. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLA551FICATION OF SUBJECT PZOPERTY DOES NOT RE- QU.IRE DEDICATION FOR AND STANDARD IMPROVEMENT OF ABUTTIN~ STREETS BECAUSE SAID PROPERTY b0E5 RELA7E TO AND ABUT UPON STREETS AND HIGH~ WAYS WHICH ARE IMPROVED TO CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANTITY OF TRAFFIC~ WHICH WILL BE SENERATED BY THE PERMITTED USES~ iN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. 5. THAT TH5 PRESENT USE OF THREE DWELLING UNITS LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT i~ROPERTY IS IN VIOLATION OF CODE REQUIREMENTS WHICH l.IM1T THE USE OF 'SUBJECT PROPERTY T~ TWO SINaLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS AND THE PROPERTY 15 PRESENTLY IN AN OV'".RCROWDED CONDITION. 6. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATI'ON WOUI.D E57ABLISH :~N UNDESIRABLE PRECEDENT FOR DEVElO?MENT OF TNE R-2~ Two FAMLLY RESS.DHNTIAL.~ PROPER- TIES IN CLOS~ PROXIMITY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY:TO TME R~3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDE`lTIAL~ ZONE. 7. THA? NRITTEN OPi'OSITION SIGNED BY TWO RESIDENTS OF THE AREA WAS RECORDED A6AINST SUBJECT PE7I,TION. COMMlSSIONER MARCOUX OFF'cRED RESOLUTI.aN N0. 254~ $ERI.ES 1960-61~ AND MOYED FqR ITS PASSA6E AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER $UMMERS~ RECOMMENDIN6 TO THE,CITY COUNCII 7HAT RECLASSIFICATLON F~O. 6~^bi-$9 BE DENIED ON THE BASlS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDIN65. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREDOINQ RESOLUTION WA~ PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTEt AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALI.RED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNaALL~ SUMMERS. ~lOES: COMMISSIONERSS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSO HAP600D. - PUBIIC NEARING+ PETITION SUBMITTED ev OA!E q. AND ?IARY A. Mc~ONALD~ 528-C MEST HAMPSHIRE AVENUE~ ANAHEIM CALIFOR{~SA~ OWNERS' REQU~STING PERMISSION ro MAIVE MINIMUM FLOOR AR~A AND MINIMUM SIDEY•ARD SETBwCK REQUIREMENTS, AND TO MAIVE MINIMUM SPACE BETWEEN BU1lD1NGS. oN PRO?ERTY OESCRIBED ASS A PARCEL 50 FEET BY 158 FEET WITH A FRONTAC~£ OF 50 FEET ,, ~ ~ ~ j •. I '' i ~ . y. ~ .---- --..__ . . __: .. V e , ~ 157 MINUTES~ CITY PLANt~1NG COMMISSION, MAY 1~ 1961, CONTINUED: VARIANCE N0. 1357 - ON BROADMAY AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH S1DE OF••BROADWAY BETWEEN WE57 AND CONTINUED WALNUT STREETS~ 1T5 SOUTHEAST CORNER BEING APPROXI.MAT.ELY 360 FEET WEST OF 7HE NORTHNEST CORNER OF WEST STREET AND BROADWAY~ AND FURTHER DES- CRIBED AS 1131 WEST BROADWAY. PROPERTY PRESEN7LY CLASSIFIED R~2~ TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. SUBJECT Pc:TITION FILED IN CONJUNCTLON W1TH RECLASSI,FICA710N NO. GO-61-89~ REQtlEST POP, RECtA55lFRGATlOk OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FR4M THE R-2~ THO ~ FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE TO THE R~3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. • MR. WALTER MALZAHN~ REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PETIT'IONER~ APPEARED BEFORE 7HE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT THE.REQUESTED YARI.ANCE WAS NECESSARY TO DEVELOP THE SUBJECT PROPERTY MITH TNO ADDl,T10NAL RENTAL UNITS~ AND NAS CQNTIN~ENT UPON APPROVAL OF RECLASSIFICA710N N0. 60-61-89. ' A LETTER OF OPP051TlON SIfiNED BY IRA AND MARTHA MUNSEY MAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMlSSION. THE HEARiNG wAS CLOSED. ' THE PE7'ITIONER~S REPRESENTATIVE SUG6ESTED THAT THE PETITIONER MIGHT CONSIDER THE REMOV.AL OF•THE REAR GARAGE APARTMENT IN ORDER TO OBTAIN RECLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY TO T.HE R~3~ MULTIPLE FAiA1lY RESLDENTIAL~ ~ ZONE. SAID REMOVAL WOULD ALSO ELIMI,NATE THE NECESSITY FOR REQUESTING ! VARIANCE FROM THE CODE REQUIRENENT PERTAINtNa TO MINIMUM SPACE BETWEEN BUILOINaS. ~ THE COMMl551ON DISCUSSED THE PRESENT OVERCROWDED CONDITION OF THE PRO- PERTY AWD Thl~ FACT THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY D,ID , NOT CONFORM TO MUL'f1PLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAI DEVELOPMEN7 STANDARDS. j THE COMMISSI,ON FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWlN6 FACTS REGARDINa THE SUBJECT PETITION: 1L THAT THE PETI.TIONER REQUESTS A VARLANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL ~ CODE~ SEC710N 1$.32.030 T0 PERMIT A SEPARATION OF SEVEN (7) FEET ~ BETWEEN BUILDINGS~ SECTION 18.32.070 TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF ~ TWO APARTMEN75 EACH HAVINCa A 500 SQUARE F00T FLOOR AREA~ AND SEC- TION 18.32.080 (2) TO PERMIT AN ENCROACHMENT OF TMO AND ONE-HALF (2}~ FEET INTO ONE OF THE REQU~RED SIDE YARDS. ~ 2. THAT THERE ARE NO EXCEP710NAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR ~ COND~TIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY 1NVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED USE OF TkE PROPERTY 7HAT DO NOT APYLY 6ENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR CLASS OF USE 1N TNE SAME VICINISY AND 20NE. 3. THAT THE REQUESTED YARIANCE IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOYMEN7 OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RI~H7 POSSESSED BY OTHER pROPERTY IN 7HE SAME VICINLTY AND ZONE~ AND DENI.ED 70 THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 4. THA7 THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WI~LL BE MA7ERlALLY DE7RIMENiAL TO THE PUBIIC WEI.FARE OR INJURIOUS 'f0 THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN SUCH V1.^.I.NITY AND ZONE IN NHICH Tl:c PP~PERSY IS LOCA7ED. 5. lHAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL ADYERSELY AFFECT THE COMPREHENSlVE GENERAI. PLAN. 6. THAT THE PRE~ENT USE OF 7HREE DWELLLNQ UNITS LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 1.5 IN VIOLATION OF COiE REQUIREMENTS WHICH LlMIT.THE USE 0~ SUBJECT PROPER7Y TO TWO SIN~LE-FAMILY DWELLINf35~AND THE PROPERTY ' ~ !S PRESENTLY IN AN OVERCROWDED CONDI7(ON. 7. THAT THE EXIST-I~a (iARA6E APARTMENT DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMEN75 dSTABLLSHED FOR THE SUBJEC'P PROPERTY. 8. THAT WRITTEN OPPOSITION SIQNED BY 7W0 RESIDENTS OF THE AREA WAS .RECORDED AQAI.NST SUBJECT PETITION. COMMI,SSIONER ALLRED OFFERED RESOLUT/ON N0. 255~ SERlES 1960-61y AND MOVED FOR LTS PASSAGE AND AGOPTIbN~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS~ THAT VARIAkCE N0. 1357 HE DEN:ED ON THE BASIS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FIND~INaS. ON ROLL CALL THE FQRGQOIN~ RESOLUTION WAS PASSE~ BY THE FOLLONJN(i VOTE: ~ AYES: COMMISSI0NER5: AL'.RED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALI.~ SUMMERS. ~ N¢ES: COMHISSIONERS: NONE. ~ ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIOPfERS: HAPGOOD. RECLASSIFICATi~N - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMIT7ED ov RAYMOND G. AND ESTELLE K. SPEHAR, + NO.60-61-90 1532 BFACCN AVENlIE~ A:~AHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNERS~ REQUESTING TNAT PROPERTY ~ DESCRIBED A5: A PARCEL 330 FEET BY 640 FEET WITH A FRONTAttE OF 330 FF.ET ON ,ANAHEIM R0~1D AND LOCA7ED ON THE SOUTti S1DE OF ANAHCIM ROAD BETNEEN DOWLINO STkEET AND MILLER STREET~ 175 NORTHWEST CORNER BEIN~ APPROXI~ MATELY 640 FEEj EAST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DOWi.INa STREET AND EtNI~ ! HEIM ROAD BE RECLASS~F'1'ED FROM THE R~A~ RESID~NTIAL AG121CULTURAL~ ~ONE I' ~ t ~ ., --_ -•-- _ ~,, _ . -~' , '_. ; : ; . ~, - , ' : '""""~`y..,~.~~ ~ A ~ ~.7 .,'L: _~~- _ ~t~ ~ . . ' . . ~ r t ~ . . . : . ~ . . . -' - ' . .:~ ~ , ~ ~ ' - ' . . D. ~ . . . . ' '_""..," .__~_.._-. ; . . . . . ..: ~ . . ' ~ a~ ~ ~ '`L~ . - ~ . i S . ~ . . . _ ~~'~. ~. ~ ~ ~ . ~ ' . V ~ • 158 ~ ~ I . ~-~~. I ~ ~ ;~ ~ MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Mnv i, 1961, CONTINUED: ~, RECLASSiFICATION ' TONE E M-i~ LIGHT MANUFACTURiNG, AND THE P-L, PARKiNG LANDSCAPING~ N0. 6J-61-90 Z ~- ro~+r i nueo _ _ THE PETITIONER WAS NOT PRESENT. THE SUBJECT PETITION INDICATED THAT ? THE PROPER7Y NAS PROPOSED FOR RECLASSIFICATION T0 THE M~1 ZONE~ NITH i THE 57I,PULATLON THAT IT MAY BE UTILIZED FOR COMMERCI.AL USE BUT RESTRI,C- E TED FRON RESIGENTIAL USE OR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAQES~ (N ORDER ~ TO CON57RUC7 SIX ONE~STORY BU1LD/NGS. . ~` THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT PLANS SHOWING THE PROPOSED DEVFLOPMENT OF THE ~ ~ SUBJECT PROPERTY HAD NOT BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE PETLTIONER AND WERE NOT . AVAILABtE FOR COMMISSlON CONSLDERATION. , e n ' ~ RECLASSIFICATtON - ND. 60-61-91 IR~EC LASS I F I CAT I ON 60-61^92 ~ _ ~, : r`:~..:~.; ,I ... . THE COMML551ON DISCUSSEG 7HE LOCATLON OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN CLOSE ; A~VISABiLITY OFECONSIDERATION'OFSPLOTOANDOELEVATIOWCPLANS'BEFOREAND THE i SUITABLE RECOMMENDATIONS COULD BE UADE ON THE SUBJECT PETITION. . COMKIS~I:ONER MORRLS'OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNaALL. TiNUEDRUNYIL JUNE 12~'1961~FAND 7HATSTHEIPETlT10NER BE NOTIF)ED TON PRESENT COMPLETE PLOT AND ELEVATION PLANS AT TNAT 71ME FOR CONSIDERA~ TION BY TNE COMMISSION. • •• ' PUBLIC HEARING.• PETItION SUBMITTED av DEON STEELE, 114 PENFIELD~ POMONA~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNER~ W. P. MASON, 2966 LINCOLN AVENUE AN...IElM~ CALIFORNIA~ AaENT~ REQUESTINQ.THAT PROPER7Y DESCRIBED A5: ~ARCEL 1: A PARCEL 226 FEET BY 335 FEET WITH A FRONTA(iE OF 335 FEE7 ON LINCOLN AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE SOU7H SIDE OF ~INCOLM AVENUE BETWEEN BEACH 590LFEETDNEST OFRTHEGSOUTHWEST1CORNERTOFALINCOLNEAVENUEGANDPBEACHATELY BOULEVARD. PARCEL 2i A PARCEL 335 FEET BY 1~050 FEET~ ITS NORTH BOUNDARY OF 335 FEET ABUTTING PARCEL 1 ON THE SOUTH~ AND FUR7HER DESCRIBED AS 3042 ZONE To iNENCEi~BNE1GHBORH00DECOMMERCIAL,RZO~JER(PnaceTi.~ij ANn~RU3~URAL~ MULTIPLE FAMIIY RESlDENTIAI~ ZONE (PARCEL 2). MR. W. P. MASON~ REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PETITI.ONER APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMI55lON AI~D DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED R~3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RES'DENTIAL~ DEYELOPAtENT AND THE LOCATION OF SUBJECt PROPERTY ABUTTINQ A TRAI.tER pARK ON THE REAR AND A M07EL ON THE EAST. AND~EXPP.ESSEDOCONCERN RE~AROLNQVDRAI.NAQEPOFR5UBJECTRPROPERTYMANDSITS EFFECT UPON ADJACENT PROPERTlES. SHE INDICATED THAT SHE DID NOT FAVOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ABU7TIN(i LINCULN AVENUE AND jHAT MUL7IPI.E FAMILY RESIDENTIA:L DEVELOPMENT MOULD N07 BE SUITA84.E 1N 7HE CENTER OF A tARaE PARCEL OF LAND. A LETTER OF PROTEST~ HASED UPON 7HE DRAINA(iE PROBLEM AND CONTAIR:N6 THREE SI~NATURES~WAS SUBM7TTED TO THE CGkMlSSION. 7HE HEARING MAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE PL~T AND ELEVATION PLANS PRESENTED FOR THE R~3 DEVELOPMENT.. IT MAS tdOTED THAT DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED C~1~ NElGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE HAD NOT BEEN SUBM1TTfiD AND THAT A TRAGT MAP HAD NOT BEEN PRESENTED. THE PETITIONER~S A(iENT REQUESTED TFIAT THE COUIMI.SSION CONTINUE CONSIDERA~ TION OF 7HE SUBJECT PETCTI.ON UNTIL SUCH TIME AS A TEN7ATIVE TRACT MAP AMD COMPIETE PLANS COULD BE PROVIDED. INTERDEPAR7MEN7AL COMMI,tTEE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE PRESENTED TO THE CO?1- MISSION WHICH STATEO THAT THE CODE REQUIRES THAT A TEN7ATIYE AND FINAL AND THAT'CONDITIONSEWlLLP8ET57/PULATEU50NSTHE~TENTATI.VE MAPr+AT55UCHTTED~ TINE AS IT l5 SUBMITTED FOR REVl.EW. COM~'SSIO:IER MARCOUX OFFERED A MOTLON~ SECOMOED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED AND RRIED~ tHAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICA'~lA~J N0: 60-61~91 BE CONTIN- UED UNTIL MAY 29~ 1961 OY NHI.CH TIME THE PETIT[ONCR SHALL HAVE SUfiMITTED A TEHTATtVE TRACT MAP FOR REVIEW BY THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE BEDPRESENTED FORTCOMMi551ONTCON5IDERATJONTHE PROPOSED bEVELOPMEH'i tffLL - PUBLIC HEARING. PE7iT10N SUBMI7TED er LAMRENCE HAUPERT~ DBA ANAHEIM AUTO PARTS~ 1256 EAST CENTER STREET~ ANAHEIM~ CA~IFORPIIA~ OWNER~ REQUEST- INa THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: A PARCEL 90 FCET BY 15£1 FEET WITH A FRONTAQE OF 90 FEET ON LINL'bLN AVENUE AND LOC,ATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE BETWEEN EAST AND CLIFFROSE STREE75~ ITS NORTHWEST CORNER AVEkUEAANDOEASTTSTREE85 ANDjFiIRTHERFDESCRI.BFDHA551256REA5TOLINCOLNLN AVENtfE se RECLASSIFIED FROM rHE C-i~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE 'ro rHe C-~3~ HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE. MR. LAWRENCF. HAUPERT~ 7HE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND DESCRIPED THE PROPOSED 'IODERN1ZnT10N OF AN EXI.STLNG BUILDIN~ FOR THE / ~ ~_.-.-....-~_~~--- - ~~~, ~t -' , _..._ ~m. _..... . ~ ~ ~ . . ., . .. . . ._•_.____._.;,_~_ ~ ~ ~' , ~ ~ 159 MINUTES, C1TY ?LANNING COMM1SS10N. Mnv 1, 1961, CoNTI-tueo: RECLASSiF1CAT10N - PuRrose OF EXPANDIN~ A BUSINESSCONSISTIiNG pRIMARII.Y UF A PARTS STORE NO HE A P R T ~ E H P E CONOINUED NIS OPERA EXPAND COULD THAT HE PREMISE THE ON PROPERTY THE PURCHASEC NO HEAVY':REPAlR T60N~ THAT HE HAD.MADE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE.PROPERTY~ THAT < WORK WOULD BE DONE ON TME PREMISES AS ALL ENGINES WERE BROUGHT INTO THE SHOP FOR REBUILOING~ AND THAT PARTS AND OTHER MATERIALS WOULD BE ; MULTI- ~ SIBLE FROM THE R-3 ~ LOCATED NITNIN A BUILDIN6 AND NOULD NOT BE VI ~ PLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ PROPERTIES ABUTTING SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE ; REAR. • I MR. S. R. LASH~ 1248 EAST CENTER STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMIS- ~ SION-•AND INQUIRED ABOUT THE NOISE AND OTHER ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD BE CONDUCTED WITHIN THE MACHINE SHOP~ AND ABOUT THE POSSIBLE USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR OTHER C-3~ HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ USES. THE HEARING NAS CLOSED., ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEIS~ER INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT THE PETITIONER HAD INTENDED TO CONSTRUCT A MORE,MODERN BUI~DING IN ORDER TO IMPROVE HIS QPERATION BUT THAT DUE TO THE C~1 ZONIN(i~ A BUILDING PERMIT COULD NOT BE ISSUED. CONSEQUENTLY~ IT WAS NECESSARY FOR TH[ PETITIONER TO OBTAIN A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN ORDER TO CI,ARIFY THE USE OF THE PROPERTY AND TO CLEAN UP THE PREMISES AND PROCEED MITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS. THE COMMISStOt~ DISCUSSED THE POSSIBLE USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR OTHER C~3~ . HEAVY COMthERC1AL~ USES AND.ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLEF ADVISED THE COMMtSSlON THAT THE PROPERTY COULD BE DEED RESTRICTED LIMITING THE USE TO THE PRESENT C~3 OPERATION ONLY AND TO ANY OTHER C~1~ ~yEt•GHBOR- HOOD COMMERCIAL~ USE. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED TNE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJECT PETITiON: 1. THAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFiCAT10N OF TFIE ABOVE DES- CRIBED PROPERTY FROM THE C~1~ NEI~HBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE TO THE C~3~ HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ ZOIdE. 2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NECES~ SARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMEYT OF THE ~ COMMUNITY. , 3. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES PROPERLY RELATE TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PERMITTED USES LOCALLY ESTABLISHED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PER- MITTED USES GENERALI.Y ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT THE COMIAUNITY. 4: THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIPICATION OF SUBJECT PROPER7Y DOES REQUIRE DEDICAT~ON FOR AND STANDARD IMPRC:~EMENT OF ABUTTINa STREESS BECAUSE SAID pROPERTY DOES RELATE TO AND ABUT UPON STREETS AND HIGHNAYS WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANTITY OF TRAFFIC~ WHICH WILL BE GENERATED BY THE PERMITTED USES~ IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. 5. THAT THE PROPOSED USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY !5 NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE SURROUNDING AREA. 6. THAT NO ONE A: EARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUBJECT PETITION. COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 256~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAOE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED~ RECOMMENDINQ TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60~61-92 BE GRANTED~ SUBJECT TO.THE FOLLONIN~ CONDITIONS: ?ED CENTERLINE OF L{NCOLN AVE- H M R E 1~ ' ST~Np~ FEET EX (SO (CENTER STREET) NUE 2. PAYMENT OF 52.00 PER FRONT F00T FOR STREET LIQHTINfi PURPOSES. 3. INSTALLATION OF CONCRETE L~DEWALKS. 4. TIME ~IMITATiON OF 90 DAYS FOR 'iHE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITEMS N0. 1~ 2~ AND 3. 5. FILING OF DEED RESTRICTIONS LiMITING USE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TO A ?AP.TS ST~R~ BUSINESS WITH A SUPPLEMENTAL MACHINE SHOP OPERATIBN~ OR TO ANY C~1~ NEIaHBORH00D COMMERCIAL~ USE. THE FOREQOING CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO TY OF ANAHEIM C . I PRESERVE THE SAFETY ANO WELFARE OF T)IE CITIZENS OF THE ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING Rc:'0 WTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTEC AYES: COMM~SSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUN6ALL~ SUMMERS. tiOES: COMMISSIONERS: NoNE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HaPaooo. _ . . . _ _._ ~ - - - - - - - _._ _ .. --• -- ---__.. . .. t, _ - - -- ~ - . ~ .._.~~.~ -------.....__...._._ ...:.i... _......:.~._.__....__....------~-.. . „ v r~ ,~ ` 160 M1NU7ES, C1TY PlANN1NG COMMI~SION~ MAY i~ 1961~ CONT~NUED: REYISED TENTATiVE MAP - DEVELOPER: RINKER DEVELOPMENT COMPANY a0600 KATELLA AveNUE, ANAHEIM~ ~TRer.T.NO. 3aa6 ENGINEER: VOORHEIS-TRINDLE AND NELS0~1, 1NC.~ 13794 BencH BOULEVARD~ ~ WESTMiNSTER~ CALIFORNIA. SUBJECT TRACT CONTAlNING A TOTAL OF 19.3 ACRES~ IS PROPOSED FOR MULTIPL~ FAMILYNRESI0ENTIALLT~ors; AND ISDLOCATED~ON~THE250Ur-3i' 660EFEET~WESTLOFAYIESTERNEAVENUEwANDE990AFEETNEASTAOFNKNOTTAAVENUENG 7HE COMMt5510N REVIEWED THE•INTEr~DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDA- TIONS AND NOTED THAT THE FUTURE EXTENSION OF STREET °B° SHOULD BE ASSURED AND THAT k0 DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED WHICH NOULD NOT PROVIDE FOR THE FUTURE LXTENSION OF THIS STREET. THE COMMISSION REVtEWED A PLANNING nEPARTMENT STUDY WHICH INDICATED FUTURE EXTENSION OF STREET MB~ EXTENDING TO KNOTTLAVENUEUE AND THE COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BEMAPPROVED SUBJECT~TOHTHETFOLLOWiNG~CONDIT10~5T N0. 3886(REVISED) 1. THAT CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS BE CONTACTED TO DETERMINE IF THEY WILL PARTICiPATE ~N THE COST OF 7HE IMPROVEMENT ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY. 2. THAT~ IF THE CONTIGUOUS PROPERTY OWNERS DO NOT PARTICIPATE~ AN AGREEMENT BE ENTERED INTO WHICH WILL DETAIL AND DETERMINE THE ' COMPLETE CO5T5 FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS ADJACENT TO THE RESERVE STRIPSo WHICH IS THE OBL~GATIUN OF THE PRESENT DEVELOPER~ AND UPON PAYMENT OF THIS DETERMINED AMOUNT BYFOOT STRIFGUNILLPBE PERTY OWNERS A DED~CATION OF 7HE ONE (1) MADE TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 3: PROVISIONS FOR DRAINAGE ~T0 KHOTT AVENUE. 4. FUTURE ALIGNMENT OF STREET pB~ TO KNOTT AVENUE BE PROTECTED. 5. SSIBJECT TO RECLASSOFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE R~A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE FottLoT 1 AND RECLASSIFICATION OF THE REMAINlNG TWENTY-TWO LOTS LOTS 2 TO 23~ TO THE R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZON~. ~,~SpONDENCE - IreM No. le ORANGE COIiNTY TRACT N0. 4182: N071CE OF ORANGE COUNTY TENTATIVE }~AP OF TRACT N0. 4182 WAS SUBMIT7ED TO rHE COMMISSION. DEVELOPER: MARL80ROUGH~HOMES~ ENGINEER: MCDANIEL ENGINEERING COMPANY. SU@JECT TRACT CONTAtNS 10.2 ACRES AND {5 PROPOSED FOR PORTY-ONE (41~ R~1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAI~ LOTS~ AND IS LOCATED WESTERLY OF R10 VISTA ~tREET AND SOUTHERLY OF ANAHEIM OLIVE ROAD. IT WAS NOTED THAT TNE SUBJECTTRACT CONFORMS WITH CiTY CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR SINQLE FAMlLY RESIDENTIAL 9EVELOPMENT. AN INTERDEPARTMENTAI COMMITTEE REPORT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION NHICH SUfifiESTED 7HAT GERAI.D CIRCLE BE RENAMED TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH JEANINE STREE7 FOR EASIER LOCATION. MR. JaKN JACOBSEN~ REPRE5ENTATIVE STASED THATNTHE DEVELOPERNWISHEDATO~RETAINRTHEHNAMEEJFHGERALD~CIRCLEAND THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE STREET ALIaNMENT AND THE POSS:BLE NOMEN~ C4ATlSRE OF THE OUL~DE-SAC STREET. COMMISSIONER ALLRED OFFERED A MOitON SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNCaALi AND C~f2R1ED DIRECTINa THE PLANNINa ~EPARTMENT TO TRANSIAIT NOTICE TO THE ORANQE ~OUNTY PLANNIND COMMIS530N OF THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMf5510N THAT ~ENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4182 BE APPROVEDy SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWIN~ CONDITION: 1. 7HAT THE KNUCKLED CUL-DE~SAC STREET BE DESIaNATED AS GERALD LANE. ITEM No. 2: ORANGE COUPITY USE VARIANCE N0. 4753: NOTiCE OF ORANOE COUNTY USE YARlANCE N0. 4753 WAS SUBMI,TTED TO THE COM~ DWELLIN~ WSTHJATTACHEDTCARPORTS~SIN 7HE A 1~TGENERAL AQRIGULTURAL~AMILY ~ISTRICT. ' SUBJECT PROPERTYAISPLOCATEDDI.NOATPR JECTEDSSIN~LE!FAMILY'RESIDENT~p~LLONS: AREA~ AND CONTAINS 7200 SQUARE FEET. IN ADDITION TO THE 814 SQUARE F00T E%ISTlNa RESIDENCE ON SUBJECT PROPERTY~ THE PETITION PROPOSES AN ADDI- SUBJECT9AREAQNERE W/THINETHEECITYNLIWITSVOFtTHEFC/TY50FtANAHEIM ANp THE CLASSIFIED IN THE R~A~ RESlDENTIA.I.~AGRICULTURAL~ OR THE R~1~ SIN~LE FAMILY RESIDENT1Al.~ ZONES~ PROPOSE~ DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED THEHREQUESTLISSTOLCONSTRUCT Au51NGLEPFAMILYYDWELLINOEADDITI0NTT0EANTHAT EXISTINQ SINOLE FPMILY DWELLINa NHICN MI4HT BE NERELY AN EXPANSION OF fiA~ ~ .~T'.~ - . ~'1~". :-- m ~~ U 161 MINUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 1, 1961, CONTINUED: CORRESPONDENCE - IrEM No. 2, CONT~NUED; ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. a7s3: CONTINUED THE EXISTlNG RESIDENCE. HOWEVER~ OT WOULD APPEAR THAT ACCORDING TO THE PLOT PLAN'SUBMIT7EDL TWO DWELLING UNITS WOUI.D BE CREATED WHICH COULD BE UTILIZED AS SUCH. t'GHT (8) F~JOT SIDE YARDS WOULD BE REQUIRED~RATHER THAN THE PROPOSED FIVE (5) FOOT SIDE YARDS~UNDER THE ANAHEIM CODE RE-~ QUIREMENTS. BOTH YHE EXIST!4!G AND PROPOSED DWELLING UNITS ARE SUB- S'iAN71ALLY BELOW THE 1225 ~r00T MINIMUM LIVEABLE FLOOR AREA PER 6WELLING UNIT REQUIRED B`f THE ANAHEIM CODE. THE ~OMMISSION REVIEWED THE Pl.OT PLAN AND DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY TlIAT THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION WOULD CREATE R-2~ TWO FAMILY RESIDEN- TIAL~ DEVELOPMENT.. COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED A MOTION1l SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUMMERS AND CARRIED' DIRECTING THE PLANNING UEPARTMENT TO TRANSMIT NOTiCE TO THE ORANGE ~OUNTY PLANNING COMMISSOON THAT THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMIS- SlON RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE SUBJECT PETITION ON THE BA515 OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDlNGS. ITEM No. 3: ORANGE COUNTY AMENDMENT TO SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 13-4-10~ EXHIB~T B: • NOTICE OF ORANGE COUNTY AMENOMEN7 TO SECTIONAL DiSTRICT MAP 13-4-100 EXHIBIT B~ WA.°, SUBMITTED TO TNE COMMI.SSION. SUBJECT AMENDMENT PROPOSES TO CHANGE FROM 4HE A1 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO THE R1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTROCT PROPERTIES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHF.AST CORNER OF WAGNER AVENUE AND SUNKIST STREET} ON THE WEST SIDE OF RIO VISTA STREET BETWEEN SOUFH STREE7 AND WAGNER AVENUEA AND ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 1~AGNER AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 680 fEE7 EAST OF SUNKIST STREET~ !N THE EAST ANA- HEiM AREA. A STAFF REPORT'WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMM1.551(.N lNDICATING THAT THE SUHJECT AREA IS PROJECTED FOR SINGLE~-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT~ AND THAT IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE PROPOSED ORANGE FREEWAY~ EXTEND- ING BETWEEN SUNKIST STREET AND RIO VISTA STREET~ WOULD AFFECT ONE OR TWO OF THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATIONS. THE COMhiIS510N DfSCUSSED THE PROJEC7ED FREEWAY CONSTRUCTION AND THE At:QU1SIT10N OF POP.TIONS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES FOR THE FREEWAY RIGHT-OF~-WAY. COkMI5510NER MORRIS OFFERED p IdOT10N SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX •ND CARRIED DIRECTING THE PLANNING bEPARTM£NT TO 7RAMSMIT NOTICE TO THE ORANGE ~OUNTY PLANNING COAfM15510N RECOMMENDING THAT THE SUBJECT PETIa'ION BE APPROVED FOR RECLASSIFICATION TO THE R-1~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTiAL~ ZONE. ITEM Nc. 4; BUENA PARK ZONE CHANGE N0. Z-193: NOTICE OF ZONE CHANOE N0. Z-193~ RECElVED FROM THE I:iTY OF BUENA PARK~ ~ WAS SUBMITTED 70 THE COMMISSION. SUBJECT PETITION PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY~ LOCATED ON THE WEST SlDE OF KNOT7 AVENUE 330 FEET WEST OF THE CENTER OF THE INT~R- SECTION OF KNOTT AVENUE AND CRESCENT AVENUE~ FROM THE R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESiDENT1AL~ ZONE TO THE C-2~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ~ONE. A STAFF REPORT WAS PRESENTED TO TFIk COMMISSION WHICH INDICATED THAT THE PROPERTY~{S LOCATED APPROX?MATEI.Y ONE-HALF MILE FROM THE ANAHEIM CITY LIMOTS. THE COMMISSION DtSCUSSED THE POSSIBILiTY THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING MIGHT CREATE PROBLEMS BECAUSE OF THE NUMEROUS USES THAT MAY BE DEVELOPED ' IPl THE C-2~ GENERAL. COMM~.RCIAL~ ZONE~ ANG THAT IN VIEW OF THE Fl.CT THAT NO DEFINlTE PLANS WERE AVAILABLE~ A SUITABLE i'.ECOMMENDATION COULD • NOT BE MADE. ~ COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED A'MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED '~ AND CARRIED~ DIRECTINti THE PLANNING ~EPARTMENT TO REVtEW THE PROP056D j ~ RECLASSiFiCATiO~~~ STUDY THE SUB„ECT AREA~ AND TO TRANSMIT RECOMMENDA~ ; • TIONS TO THE BUEPiA PARK PLAP7NING COMM155i0N. .t REPORTS AND - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE: RECaMMENDATIONS A RECJMMENDAI'~ON BY THE PLANNIN~ DCRECTOR~ RICHARD REESE~ IN RESPECT TC THE PLANNINa COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE~ WAS SUBMITTF.D TO THE , COMMISSION. ~ Al' 7HE PRESENT TIMc THE COMMISSION CONDUCTS TWENTY~FOUR REQULAR MEET'~ INGS A YEAR ON A 81-MONTHLY SCHEDULE. IT WAS SUG~ESTED 'fHAT THE Cf`FlM15510N CONSIDER CONDUCTIN(i REGULAR MEETINdS EVERY TWO WEEKS THUS ADDING TWO MORE MEF.TINOS A YEAR AND THEREBY PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY I• FOR COA1SlDERATIO~~ OF A~~ ADDITlOlSAL TWENTY~FGUR PE'fIT10NS A YEAR. ~ ,..._..~....~~ ~ ~_-~-•, .. ----.-•. ~ . . : ~ , . . , . -- -- -- -- ~J . . . . . ~.;w . ' ~ . • . I ~:~y.! ' . Y;i _ ,_ ._. __ . - , , _ _.. . ._._._._. _ . _. .. "~+ _ _.. ._._. `----- ~ .... L ~~ . ~ ..:~ ..~~ . ~ . i ' ~ ~ 162 ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, C1TY PLANNING CDMMISSION, Mnv i, 1961~ CONTINUED; REPORi'S ANO - THe COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED SCHEDULE AND INDICATED THAT IT RECOMMEhDAT10NS SHOULD BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS THE STAFF TO SCHE~'7LE CONTINUED MEETINGS AS SUGGESTED. ~ COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTiON N0. 257~ SERIES 1960-61o AND ~- MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUMMERS~ E THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE BE REVISED PROVIDING t I FOR THE CONDUCT OF REGULAR MEETINGS EVERY TWO WEEKS SN ACCOR~ANCE WITH THE MEETINCa SCHEDULE AS SUBMiTTED. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: ~ AYES: COMMiSS10NERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. ~I ~_~. NOES: COMM1SS10NERS: NomE. : i ~ ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD. ~ ~ AOJOURNMENT - THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:50 O'CLOCK n.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED~ ~ i ~ t ~ ECRETARY ~~ ~,~ .a.. . ,._..,,_~.. -__.__... _u~_._r-_-..___.._~.....,,~.~.~.___.~~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~. . . --~~.....+. - '~ . „ . .. . . . . . , . ' . ~ ~,~ . _;: . . . . ' .: + _r,.,~ . ~_ ~..r...._.._ ~:-.~ ,: .... . . ~ , . . _"