Loading...
Minutes-PC 1961/05/15( t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES ~F THE REGULAR MEET_,,'1~QG Tf;;_;?,~Y PLANNING COMh11SS1~N REGU~bR MEETING ~ A REGULAR MEETING OF THE C'ITY PLANNIiIG (;OMMISSION WAS CALLED TO 0%:~~R AT N 2t00 O~CLOCK P.N. BY CHAlRMAN GAUER~ A qJORUM BEING PRESENT. ti; e;'RESENt - VICE CHAIRMANO MORRIS~ COMMISSIONE{~S: ALLRED~ HAPGOOD~ Mnrtcoux~ p . MUWGALL. SU~1R1E:rs, ~ Ady'~::i~ i PRcSEMT ~ IN~.i'Ji:di ION 'r~EDGE OF ALLE6fANCE tl1NUTES VARIANCE N0. 1360 COMM1SS10NEl2S: CHAIR9IAN GhUER. - PLANNING OIRECTOR ~ RICHAR~~ R~ESE SENIOIt PLANNER -' MARTIN KREIDT ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ~ JL'c GCISIER COMMISSION SECRETARY - JEAN,~~AG~ - REVER:NO ~iCENPi.'I'H FISCHER~ P/.STOR UF THE MAGNOLIA BAPT 75T CHURCH. QAVE THE iNVOCATION. - y~r,E-CHAIRMAN MORRIS LED THE °LEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO 1'HE FLAG. - THE MINUTES OF T.HE MEETING OF MAY 1~ 1961 WERE APPROVE.D AS SUBMITTFO. - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED BY Ti1EUUUnE B. FIS~~I~ 1234 EAST CEN- TER STREET ANAHEIM~ CAI.iFORNIF., O~!!:E'.<~ +cQUE5TIN3 PEFMI55lON TO WAIVE SINGLE STOf~Y H~iGHT LlM~TATIONS oN reo~e~tv DCSCRLBED ~~s: A PARCEL 165 ~ FEET BY 322 FEET NITH ~ FRON~AGE OF ''.ti5 FEET ON PAMPAS LANE AND LP~ATED ON SkE NORTH SIDE OF `'AMPAS LANE BE ,i:EN EUCLID AVENUE Ai~iL nEAD END; ITS SpU'fHWEST CORNER BEIPiG APPROXIMA'~ELY 445 FEET EAST 0~ TH~ NORTHEAST COP'lIER OF EUCLID AVENUE AND F.>MPAS ~ANE. AND FURTHER C;'SC7IBED AS 1651 p.".~foAS LANE. PR~:•E(JY CLASSIF~CA7ION OF PitOPERTY R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY dES1DENTIAt, 20NE. ~tiR. THEODOR~ B. FIStI~ THC PETiTIJNEFi~ APPEARED BEFORE ?+:~ CQ!!MlSSION /~-1D DISCU°GEO ~LAN,S THA'Y HAD PE£i: PREPARED FOR THE SUBJE.T pROPERT,Y iREV;•,,~r;, T~ TH'£ AbOPTiON OF T'dF. P^ESENT ZONING OROINANCt. HF ;*ATCD TH,T i:':' r'i..ANS HAG BEEIY BASEC UN TWO STORY GUNSTRUCTION. Howev~R~ 3ECAUSF. UP THE EXISTIIVG CODE REQUIItEMENT~ WH;CH LIMITS TO ONE ~TORY THc ST'!1CTURAL HEIGH7 OF /tiNY BU:LDING ERECTED ON A PARCEL OF PROPERTY CLA551FIED IN THE R^3~ MULT9pLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE WITHIN A DISTQNCE OF 150 FEET FROM PROFFRTY Cl.AS51F1iED IN THE R^A~ ~ESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURALo R~O~ONE FAMILY ~:lBURBAN~ OR R-lo SINGLE FAMILY RES,DENTIALo ZONE~; IT WOULD DE NECES~ SAFiY Ta OBTAIN A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE PROPOSED DEVELOi'MENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTI'. MR. FISH STATED THAT THE ONLY NEIdFi00R THAT WOULD BI_' AFFECTED BY THE ~'ROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WAS IN AfiREEMENT ~;ETH THE S~Fi- •}ECT PET1T10N. 'JICE-CHAlRMAN MORRIS RE,4D A LETTER OF SUFPORT FOR THE SJBJE:T ;~ETITIOdI~ SIGNED 'oY ~'IR. WALTER G007EN~ OWNER OF A FIVE ACRE PAP,i;EL LQCi~TED EASTER- LY OF AND A~y ACENT TO THE SUBJECT AROPERTY. 1'HE HEAR~N~ NAS CLOSED. PLOT r!.ANS OIT iHE PROfOSED DGVELOPMENT WERE REVIEWED. 7HE GOM`11551f~N P'iCUSSED THE POSS!£LE EXTENSION OF PAMPAS LANE TO THE El.ST AND IT dAS NuTED 7HAT 7HF. SCHOOL DISTRICT WA.°,• INTERESTED IN THE DEDICAT:~N OF AND POSSIBLE pAR7lCtPAT10N IN THE IMPROVEMENi OF AN EX'fEN51GN OP ~nM.^AS LANE A[iUTTiNG TH~ NORTH PROPERTY LIhE OF L1i,1Rd SCHOOL PROPERTY. THE C4MPIISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLL.OWING FACTS REGARDING TH:: SUBJECT PETITION: ~ 1. THAT TI.E PETITIONER REQUESTS A VARIAN:E FROM THE ANAH~_fM MUNICIPAI. CODE; SfCT10~) 18.32.060 TO PERMIT THF. CONSTRUCTJOh OP A TWO STORY APARTMENI' D2''lGLOPNENT ON A PARCEL OF PROPERTY CLASSIFIED IN THE R-3~ HULTIPLE FnMILY RESIDENTIALt ZO':E WITHIN A DISTANCE OF 150 FEET FROM PRO~ERTY CL_s.S:,IFlED IN THE K-~~ RESlDENTIAL AG,tICULTURAL~ ZONE. 2. THA(' ?HEF.E ,\RE EXCEPTIONAI. OR EXTRAGRUINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CRNDr+ TIONS APPLIC:I9LE TO THE ?ROPERTY [NVOLVEC OR 1'O THE INTENDED USE OF THE PROF`ERTY THAT ~0 NOT APPLY 0[NERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR CLASS OF :i3E (`! T!1E SAMF VICINITY AND 20NE. 3. THAT TH.E REQWESTED VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND Et2J0YN.ENT f~P A SU85TANTIAL PROPERTY RIOHT PQ.~i5ES5ED BY OTHER PROPERTY ' IN T!iE SAME VIC1r11TY AND '~NE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 4. TraY THE P.EG~JESTEn VARIANCE WpLL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETROMENTAL TO THE P!~~iLIC UEL~AR~ OR 1NJUR~LIUS TO THE PRO°ER7Y OR IMPROVElAENTS IN SUCH VIClNITY IVD 20NE ON WH!'C11'THL~' PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 5. IHAT THE .CQUES'fE~ 6'4RIANCE WILI. NOT AD4ERSELY AFFECT THE COMPREHEN~ SiVE GENF.RAL PLAN. 6. THAT THE SUBJ~CT PRO~EPTY ABUTS THE R~3~ MU4TIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ - 163 - •~ AT 21UC O~GLG~~:~ P.i'I. r~~ V1CE~CHAIRMAii rOP.R(5~ A QUORUM BElNG PRESENT. CITY HALL IiNAHE1M~ CALIFORNIA PtAY 15~ 1961 _...-. ..f~ _ -..' .........~, .,.wu - -.. , !~ ~~ .... . . .., , _ .._. ~ _ ~ ! ~ ~ ~, j , ~: ~ ~ 164 MINUTES~ C1iY PIANNING COMM1SS10N, MAY ?5, 1961, CONTINUED; ~ VARIANCE N0. 1360 - COMTiNUED ZONE ON THE EpST AND THE C~3~ HEAVY COMMERCIAL* ZONE ON THE NORTH~ AND THAT TWO~STORY R~3 MULTIPLE FANILY RESiDEPlTIAL~ DEVELOPMENT IS•ESTABLISHED ACROSS ~AMPAS I.ANE TQ THE SUUTH. 7. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION AND THAT ONE LETTER OF SUPPOR7 WAS FILED W17H THE.COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER MUNGALI OFFERED Rf'•~LUTION N0. 258~ SERIES 1960-61~ AFID MOVED FOR 175 PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECON.DED BY COMMISSIONER ALLREO~ TO GRANT PETITION FOR VARIA!!CE N0. 13G0~ SUBJECT T~ THE FOLLOWINO CONDI.TfONS: 1. DEVELOPMEMT SUBSTANTIALLY I.N ACCORDANCE WITH PI.ANS PRESENTED. 2. INSTALLAT~OW OF SIDEWALKS ON PAMPAS LANE. 3. PAYMENT OF ~2.00 PER FRONT F00'i F.R STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES. 4: P~OVISION OF UTILI7Y EASEMENTS ALONQ EXTERIOR BOUNDARlES AS DETER- MINED BY THE OiRECTOR OF UT7LITIES. THE FORE(i01NG CONDITIONS WERE '?ECITED AT THE MEETING AND NERE FOUND TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISJ7E TO 7HE.USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERbE TNE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CIT12EN5 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. QN ROLL CALL THE FORe(i01NG RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE; 4YES: 'CO'riMlsSIONERSi AILRED~ HAPf300D~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUK~AI.L~ SUMMERS. NOES: COM!41SSIONERS: NOkE. ABSENT: CQMMI~SSIONERS: GAUER. 1 RECLASSiFICATION - PUBLiC NEARIhG. PETITION SUBFi1T7ED av JOHN ASID BEATRICE CRADDOCK~ NO. 60-61-94 21752 YIEST KATELLA AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORN~A~ OWNERSo REQUESTING 7HAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: A FARCEL 200 FECT BY 240 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 200 FEET ON KATELLA AVENUE AND I.OCATED O~i THe SOUTH SIDE OF KATELLA ' AVENUE BE'fWEEN NINTH AND CASA VISTA STREETSj ITS NORTHEAST CORNER BEINO APPROXIMATELY 190 FEE.T WEST OF THE SOUTNGEST i:ORNER OF KATELLA AVENUE • AND CA5.4 VISTA STREEI'~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 11752 WEST KATELLA AVE- RS1E~ b~ RECLAS5IFIED FRa-s TNE R-A RESIDENTIAL A6RICULTURAL~ ZONE To THE C-1~ NEICHBORNO~b ~OMMERCIAL~ ~ONE. MR. DALE HANLEY~ A3'TQR1:cY REPRESENTING THE PETlTlOHERS~ APPEARED BEFORE THE ~OMMISSION AN~ RCQUESTED INFORMA!'I.ON IM RESPECT TO THE SUGGESTED PROVIS~ON OF M TW.ENTY ia~T LANDSCAPED STRIP ALONG THE PLANNED HIGHWAY i~IOHT~OF^WAY LINE. Nic. HANLEY INQUIRED ABOUT THE POSSIBLE ELIMINATION OF A PORT[ON OF 7!iE PRGPOSED PARK ", AREA IF THE LANDSCAPING STRIP WERE PROVIDED. THE CJMMiSS10N NOTED'THAT THE P,4RKING AItEA LAYOUT COULD BE REAI.IGNEb~ AND L~ISCUSSED THE INADLOUATE NIDTH OF A PROPOSED ONE-WAY DRI\'EWAY A° SHOWiV ON THE PLOT PLAN. MR. JOHN CRADD9C./.~ THE PETITIONER~ APPEARcD BEFORE THE COMMiS510N nND INDICATED ,THAT THE ?FOI'ERTY A9UTTlNG THE SUBJEf:7 PROPERTY ON TF.~ SOUTH WAS ~~WNED FIV T!{E OWNEP. OF PROPERTY ABUT~ IIdQ Oti TH~ EAST AND LOCAT:D ON THE SOUTHWE:S.T :JRNEit OF KATELLA AVENUE ANO CASA Y~L:•\ STREET. CONSE- QUENTLY~ 7H:F•t. KAS NO DANOER OF ~.'ATING A l.AHD-LCCKED PARCEL BECAUSE OF ACC-'.S:i FROM BOTK STRE~75. MR. HANLEY IN~ORMEO THE COMMISSION THAT THE PROPERTI' W~15 ' kE+,Et7T'.Y INVOLVED IN COURT L1T76ATION. THE NEP.RIRi~ wp.5 CLG5EQ. ?HE COMMISSION REVIEMED THE PLOT P~.ANS FOR THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DE- ' VEIOPHENT :~ND POSSIBLE REVIS10N5 !N ORDER 70 PROVIDE PROPER INGRESS AND E6RES5. MR. HANLEY INDICATED THAT THE PLANS SUBMITTED WERE TE?JTA]'IVE AND ?HAT RE:'ISIONS COULD BE FIpDE, THE COMMlSSION NOTED THAT THE SUB- JECT PROFERTY ABUTS QUALITY R-1~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAI~ DEVELOPMENT ON THE WE57 AND THAT LANDSCAPIN(~ AND DEVEIOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SIiOULD BE f.AREFUI.LY CONSIDERED. COMMISSIOqER ALLRED OFFERED A MOT)QN~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUtv6Ai.L AHD ^ARRlEp, 7HAT PETITION FOR RCCLASSiFICATLON N0. 60-61-94 BE CONTIN- UED UkT!_ Y!!£ MEETlNQ 4F FIAY 29~ 1961 ANP THAT THE pETIT1ONER SUBM17 REVISED PLOT ~~D ELEVATION FLANS PROV1DINfi FOR A TWENTY (20) F00T I.AND- SCAPINCi STRIP ABti'lTINQ THE N(1RTH PROPERTY ~.INE ALONfi THE PLANNED HIQHWAY RI~HT-OF-WAY L~NE~ THAT PARY.INa AREA BE PROVIDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE REQUIREMEN75~ wN0 7HAT ADEQUATE lN6RES5 AND E6RE55 BE PROVIDED. ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~II VAR~CE N~. 1361 ~- PUBL!C HEARING. PETITLON aU.M1T7ED ev ROBERT AND ALICE HA6ER~ 1006 QNP~IDAOA STREET A~IAHCIM CALIFORNIA ONNERSp REQUESTING PERMISS~ON TO W/;1:~E MlNIl1UM R~AR YARD ~ETBACK REQUIREMENT oN PROPER7Y DESCRIBED ns; Q pq~CF_~, 67 FEET d\' 105 FL'ET W17N A FRONTAOE OF 67 FEET ON ONONDA~A SYREET fiETMEEN ~1ppW00D A:~D LA PALNA AYENUES~ ITS SOUTHYfEST CORNER 9EING APPROXIMreLL`~ 67 FEET 1,"~RTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ONONDAQA ~ STRBFT AND DOGW~JCD A~ti~UE :.N: FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1006 NORTH ONONDAGA STR~ET. RPOV°_^:: PRESENTL~r c~,psslFlco R-1, QNE FAMILY RESIDEWTIAL, ZONE. ~. • ~'; ( ~ • . ~ ,','"") , --t _, ; ~.-' _ . , . . .. ~,. =~-~ _ _ _ _~1 : . , , , . , . .. .. , ,"""". !~-- ~ r r .: ' . ~ ~ f~'j_ .. ~ ~ ~ ~`: i ~, - ~ 165 ~ ~ , ~ l .~ ... ~ ~ M1NUfE5, CITY!PLANNING C~~MM1SS10N, Mnv 15~ 1961, CONTINUED: ~ - VARIANCE N0. 1361 ~. ~ CONTINUED r ~. ~ c ~ ~' ~ r t . .•_,~ia.., ~ MR. ROBERT HAGER~ THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION ANO STATED HE HAD NOTHINa TO ADD TO THE INFORMATLON CON7AINED IN SUBJECT PETITION. ~ I THe HEARING•WAS CLOSED. . ! TNE COMMISSION FOUND ANO DETERMINED THE FOLLOW,ING FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJECZ PETlTlOtd: i 1. THAT THE PETITIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FRON THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPi,L ' CODE: SECTION 18.24.030 (3) TO PERMIT THE ENCROACHMEN7 OF SIX (6j i FEET INTO 7HE REQUIRED REAR YARD IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A FAMILY ! ROOM IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTINa RESIGENCE. ~ 2. TMAT THERE•ARE EXCEP710NAL OR EXTRAORD~NARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDI- ~ TIONS APPL.ICAB~E TO THE PROPERTY lNVOLVED OR TO 7HE INTENDED USE OF ~ THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY OENERALLY TO THE pROPERTY OR CLA55 OF USE IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE. 3. THAT 7HE REQUE57ED VARIANCE /5 NECESSAkY FOR THE PRESERVA710N AND ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RI~HT POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPERTY IN 7HE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 4. TFIAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WII.L NOT BE MATERIALLY DE'!'RIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN ~ SUCH VIC'INITY AND ZONE IN WHICH 7HE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT l'HE COMPRE- ~ HENSIVE GENERAL PLAN. 6. THAT AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF REAR YARD WIL~ REMAIN AFTER THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCT(ON~OCCUPYING APPROXIMATELY 5.1 PERCENT OF THE REQUIRED REAR YARD~ IS COMPLETED. 7. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO `..UBJECT PETITION. ~ COMMISSIONER ALLRED OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 259o SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED ~ FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY CUMM)SSIONER MARCOUX~ TO GRANT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1361o SUBJECT TO THE FOLLQWINfi CONDtYION: ~ 1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALL'i IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS P?ESENTED. ! iHE FOkE~O1NG COND'ITION WAS RECITF.D AT TNE MEETING AND WAS FOUND TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF 7HE PROPERTY 1N ORDER TO PRESERVE ~i THE SAFETY AND NELFAItE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE ClTY OF ANAHEIM. I•• ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGO-.N6 RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOW1Na VOTE; ~ AYES: COMMISSJONERS: ALLRED~ HAPGOOD~ MARCOUXo MORRISp MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ,NONE. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER I VAR~ANGE N0. 1362 - PlIBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUPMITTED sv EDMARD N. AND DOLORES K. SILVER~ 624 ECHO STREET ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA OWNERS~ REQUESTING PERMISSION TO WAIVE MINIMUM R~AR YAitD ~ETBACK REQU~REMENT oN PROPERTV DESCRIBED As: A PARCEL 60 FEET BY 101 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 60 FEET ON ECHO STREET AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ECHO STREET BETWEEN RANDOM DRIVE AND CRONE AYENUE~ ITS NORTHWEST CORNER BEINQ APPROXIMA7ELY 60 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHEASI CORNER OF RkNDOM DRI.VE AND ECHO STREET. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLA554FlED R-1~ ONE FAMILY RESIOENTIAL, ZONE. MRS. DOLORES SILVER~ THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEF'ORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THA~' SHE HAD NOTHINQ TO ADD TO THE INFORMATI,ON CONTAINED IN SUB- JECT PETITION. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COMMlSSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWINQ FAC75 REGARDING THE SUBJECT PETITIONC 1. THAT THE PE7ITI.ONER REQUE5T5 A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODEL SECTIOt~ 18.24.030 (3~ 70 PERMIT ENCROACHFIENT OF 14.6 FEET lNTO T;iE REQU~RED REAR YARD IN ORDER TO CONSTRUC7 A FAMILY R091A IN CON- JUNCTION WITH AN`EXI5TIN6 RESIDENCE. 2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINAPY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDI~ T'1Ofl5 APPLICABLE T0 THE PROP.ERTY (NVOLVED OR TO THE lN7ENDED 45E OF TNE PROPERTY THAT b0 NOT APPLY QENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR C~A55 O~ USE bN 7HE SAME YICLNITY AND ZONE. 3: THAT.THE,REQUESTED YARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR 7HE PRESERVA710N AND ENJOYMENT OF A SUBS7ANTp~l,L PRpPER'[Y RlQH7 PO55E55ED BY OTHER I~RO- PERTY•IN tHE SAME VIC1N)TY,AND 20NE~ AND, DENIED '~0 THE PROPER7Y IN QUtSTLON. ~ ~~. ~. ~ ~ ~; ..- . ,----'--~ ~ ~ . _- ` -._.. . . . ~ -,.,^"~,'__'4 ,.: '... ~:-~:. ~ .._ ,,.~, . . l~~ ...r ..• ' ~-.'. ~~. , ~.;y..,.. . . . .. . . ~~. ~_;_..-..._...._^.-._.--,-' ..i , ; ~ .~., ~, 166 R~:fie <„~,~ ~fi I , + MINUTES~ C1TY PLANNIN6 COMMISSli1N~ MAY i:;; 19~1, CONTINUED; VARIANCE N0. 1362 - 4. TNAT THE REQUE57ED YARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE CONTINUED PUBLIC WELFARE OR lNJURFOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN SUCH V~CINITY AND ZONE IN.MHICH THE.PROPERTY lS LOCA7ED. 5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE 4tILL NOT ADYERSELY AFFECT THE CONPREHEN- SIVE GENERAL PLAN. 6. THAT THE PROPOS'L'D CONSTRUCTION WOULD OCCUPY APPROXItAATELY 13.6 P6R- CENT OF THE REQUIRED REAR YARD OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. 7. THAT NO ONE APPEARED 1N OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION.. COMMISSIONER MUNfiALL OFFERED RESOl.UT10N N0. 260~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTtON~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED~ TO GRANT PtT1T10N FOR VARIANCE N0. 1362p SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWINO CONDITION: 1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE W1TH PLANS FRESENTED. TH~ FOREQO:NQ CONDITION WAS RECI,TED AT THE MEETING AND WAS FOUND TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IW ORDER TA PRESERVE THE.SAFETY AND WEL.FARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAFiEIM. ON ROLL CALL THE FORE601NCa RESOLUT,IOk WAS PASSED BY 7HE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMiSS10NERS: ALLRED~ HAPGOOD~ MARCOUXp MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. • NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSEFIT: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER. VARIQNCE N0. 1363 ~' ~ - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMOTTED ev JOHN AND BARBARA SMANSON 820 ~ NORTH WEST STREET ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA AND ALICE CARVER BOOTH, ~AYMOND CARVER PERRY AND ~U6ENE C. BOOTH 1017 WEST NORTH STREET~ ANAHEIM~ i CALIFORNIAo OWNERS~ GEORGE D. BU~COLA, 3700 NEWl~OR7 BOULEVARD~ SUITE 301 NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA~ AGENT~ REQUESTI.NG PERMISSII!"7 TO WAIVE I MINIMUM LOT SIZE R~QUIREMENT FOR PROPER7Y DESCRIBED A5: AN IRREGULAR SHAPED PARCEL WITH A FkONTAGE OF 370 FEET ON WEST $TREET AND A FRONTAGE OF 185 FEET ON NORTH STREET AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNtR OF ; WEST AND NORTH STREETS. PROPERTY PR~SENTLY CLASSIFIED R~O, ONE FAMILY ; SUBURBAN~ ZONE. ~ MR. NORTHEN~ REPRESENTATtYE FOR G. D. BUCCOLA~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COM- ~ MISSION AND D~SCUSSED THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESI- DENTIAL TRACT CONSL5T7NG OF NINE LOTS CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 8~000 SQUARE FOOT ~OT AREAS tN AN R-O~ ONE FAMILY SUBURBAN~ ZONE WHICH RE- QUIRES 10~000 SQl!ARE FOOT LOTS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE MINIMUM LOT AREA CODE REQUIREMENTS. MRS. T. J. SCOTT~ 838 NORTH WEST STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND INQUIRED ABOUT THE PROPOSED LOT FRONTAGES AND THE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS TO BE CONTAINED IN THE DEVELOPMENT. IT WAS NCTED THAT LOTS FRONTONG ON ~ l~EST STREET CONTAINED 100 FOOT FRONTAGES~ THRT THE AVERAGE LIVING AREA OF THE PROPOSED DWELLINGS WAS 2o00Q SQUARE FEE7 PER DWELLING~ AND THAT THE HOMES WOULD BE SIMILAR JN CONSTRUCTION TO THOSE PRESENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION BY THE PETITIONER ACRO55 NEST STREET SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. MR. R. F. CARTWRIGHT~ 813 NORTH LENZ DRIVE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMIS- SION AND R6VIEWED THE TRACT MAP. A PLANNtNG STAfF STUDY SHOWING THE SUBJEC7 TRAC7 AND HOW THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH COULD BE DHVELOPED MAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMNISSION. ~ MR. BILL FACENTERo 740 NORTH WEST STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMIS- SION~ REVIEWED THE TRACT MAP~ AND STATED THAT IN HIS OPINION THE SIZE OF THE PROPOSED DWELLINGS WOULD BE TOb LARGE FOR 7HE PROPOSED LOT AREAS.. He STATED THAT HE WAS IN A~REEMEN7 NITH THE DEVELOPER IN RdSPECT TO THE NECE.SSITY FOP. DEVELpPING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ BUT HE MAS ~F fHE OPIN- ION THAT ElGH7 RESlDENCES WOULD BE A MORE DESI.RABLE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS RATNER THAN THE PROPOSED NINE UNITS~ IN ORDER 70 BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTI,N~ R-O DEVELOPMENT IN iHE AREA. THE~COMM1~&5lAN D~SCUSSED THE POSSIBILITV OF REDUCING THE NUMBER OF LOTS iN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE R-O 57ANDARD OF DEVELOPqENT ESTABLISHED IN THE AREA: ~1 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MCDANIEL ENGINEERlN6 COMPANY PRESENTED A TRACT MAP SHOWIN6 THE PROPOSED TRACT LAYOUT. THE PETITIONER~S A6ENT STATED 7HAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY NAS A DIFFICULT PARCEL TO DEVELOP~ THAT THE PRQPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPARED WITH 7HE ABU771N(i RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP- MENT ON THE EAST~ THAT SOME OF THE LOTS WOULD COMPLY,WITH THE CODE RE- QUIREMENT OF 1Oo000 SQUARE FEETo AND THAT HE 010 NOT CONSIDER lT ECONOM- ICALLY..FEASlBLE TO REDUCE THE.NUMBER OF LOTS. THE HEARIN6 MAS CLOSED. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ~OE GEISLER INFORMED THE,COMMISSION THAT IF' APPROV- AL OF THE SUBJECT PETLTION MERE CaRAN~ED~ THE,PE7'ITIONER MOULD BE ALLOWED 180 DAYS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ANY CONDITLONS I.MPOSED. HOWEVER~ A YEAR TIME L1NIT WAS ALLOMtD FOR THE RECORDATION OF THE'FINAL TRACT MAP. THE ~..._._. .,..~~~_., ~ ~: ' ~ 167 MINUTES~ CITY PLANN1tuG COMMISSION~ MAY 15~ 1961~ CONTINUED: VAR1bNCE N0. 1363 -~iOMMIS510N NOTED THA7 1F APPROVAL WERE GRANTED~ THE PE7[TIONER SHOULD CONTINUED COMPLY MIiH ANY TIME L1MlT CONDITlONS UNLESS CONTI'NUAUCE WERE OBTAINED FROM 7HE C17Y COUNCAL. COMMISSI~NER MUNQALL INQUIRED ABOUT A PARCE: 7.cN FEET IN MID7H ABUTTI,NG iHE REAR PROPERTY L1NE5 OF LOTS 4 AND 5. MR:a. DAVlS~ 1003 NORTH STREET~ STATED THAT SHE MAS THE OWNER OF THE TEN FOOT STRIP AND THAT SHE MAS DESIROUS OF SELLINQ 7HE PARCEL. MR. MORTliEN INDICATED THAT 7HE PETI- TiBHER MBULD 6E.i.N7ER~5TED 1N ACQUtRING THE PROPERTY. THE COMMt5510N FOUND AND DETER~IINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDIN~ THE SUBJECT PETlT10N: ~ 1. THAT THE PETITIONER REQUESTS A VARlANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNIClPAL CODE; SECt10N 18.20.030 (4) YO PERMIT THE RECORDATION AND DEVELOP- MENT OF A TRACT COHPOSED OF S~OOO SQUARE FOOT LOTS. 2. TNAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EX7RAORDINRRY C~RCUMSTANCES OR CONDi- TfONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROpERTY INVOLVED OR TO THE IN7ENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPL.Y GENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR CLASS OF USE IN 7HE SAME ViCikITY AND ZONE. .. 3. THAT THE REQUE57ED VARIANCE IS NECES:lARY FOR.THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOYM~NT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PRO- PERTY 1N TNE SAME ~ICINITV AND ZONE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 4. THAT TNE ^EQUESTED VARIANCE WtLL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETROMENTAL TO THE PUpLIC WELFARE OR iNJUR10U5 TO 7HE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN SUCH VICINITY AND ZONE IN WHlCH THE PROPERTY IS LOCAiED. 5. TNAT TNE REQUESTED VARLANCE W~LL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPREHEN- ~SIVE GENERAL PLAN. 6: THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMEN7 OF SUBJECT P!tOPERTY WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING RESIDEN7IAL DEVELOPMENT 1N THE AREA. 7. THAT VERBAL OPPOSITION BY ONE PROPERTY OWNER IN THE AREA WAS RECORDED AGAINST SUBJECT PETITION. S. TIiAT THE PET1T10NER~5 AGENT EXPRESSED THE INTENTI,ON TO ACQUIRE THE PARCEL TEN (10) FEET iq WIDTH ABUTTING THE REAR PROPERTY LINES OF LOTS 4 AND 5 TO BE MADE A PART OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. COMNISSIONER ALLRED OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 261~ SERIES 1960-61o AND MOVED FOR I.TS PASSA(iE AND ADOPTLON~ SECONDED BY COMM~SSIONER MARCOUX~ • TO GRANT PE7'IT10N FOR VARAANCE N0. 1363~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWJN6 CONDI- TION: 1. SUBJECT TO THE RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP OF TRACT N0. 4152. THE FORE(i01Na COND1TlON WAS RECITED AT THE MEETI.NG AND MAS FOUND TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND MELFARE OF THE C(TIZENS OF THE C1TY OF ANAHEIM. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWIN~ VOTE: AXES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED' HAPGOOD~ MARCOUX~ MORRI.S~ MUNaALL~ SUMMERS. NQES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER. ~: ~. TENTATIVE MAP OF - pwNeks nNO SUBDIVIDER: BUCCOLA INVESTMENT COMPANY, 3700 NEWPORT Bou~e- T ACT N0. 4152 VARD~ NEMPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA. SUBJECT TRACT LOCATED ON THE NOR7H- EAS.TERLY CORNER OF ~F_5T AND NORTH STREETS~ CONTAINS NINE PROPOSED R-O~ •ONE FAMILY SUBURBAN~ LOTS~ AND IS FI~ED IN CONJUNCTION WITH PETITION FOR ~ARI.ANCE N0. 1363. THE COHMISSION REVIEWED THE TENxATJ,VE TRACT MAP AND NOTED THAT THE ~ DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT TRACT WOULD REQUIRE APPROVAL OF PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1363. ~~'~ ~ ~ ~ THE COMML55[ON DISCUSSED THE~SU~~ESTED~ACQU15.lT~..ON OF.THE TEM F40T M1~~ STRIP OF LAND ABUTTIN6 THE EASTERL'~ PROPER7Y tINE OF THE SUBJECT TRACT. COMMI.SSIONER MUNOALL OFFERED A MOT10N~ SECONDED BY COMMI.SSIONER ALLRED AND CARRIED~ THAT THF TE~lT:4TIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4152 BE APPROYE~~ SUBJECT i0 THE FOLLOW)NG'CONDiT10N5: ~.,~ 1. AGQU1,5lTI,ON BY 7HE SUBD.l.VIDER-OF THE TEN (10 F90T N1DE 57RIP OF LAND ABUiT1N~ 7HE EASTERLY PROPERTY L1NE OF ~OTS N0. 4 AND 5 CF ~. 1 ~ E~, . ..,,..... .~.,,~ ..~..,, ,.. . .. . ~. ~ F. ~' _ _. , r~~ ~ ~ ~:.. ~. ~ , . , k ~ F1INUTES~ C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY• 15, 1961, CONTINUED; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0: 118 , 166 - PUBLlC HEARING. PETITION SUBM1TiED ev.ROY TYREMAN,: 921 NoarH SAB~NA t STREET ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA~ OMNER REQUESTIH4 PERMISSION 70 tiAtVE M1NiMU~i ONE FAMILY DWELLING SIZE R~QUIREMEN7 AND M1NIMUM DiSTANCE ~~' B~TVEEN BUILDINGS REQUIREMENT ON PROPER7Y.DESCRIBED AS: AN IRREGULAR SHAPED PARCEL•NI.TH A FRONTA~E OF 118 FE~T ON EAST LA•PALMA AVENUE~ ANO A FRON7AQE OF 55 FEEx ON NORTH SA81NA STREEi~ AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHNEST CORNER OF LA PALMA AVEPIUE AND SABINA STREET AND FURTHER ' DESCRLBED AS 922 NOR7H SABINA $7REET. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIOENTIIiI, ZONE. MR. ROY TYREMAN~ 7HE PETITION~R~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND i STATED THAT HE HAD NOTNING TO ADQ TO THE INFORMA710N CONTAINED IN ~ THE SUBJECT,PETITION. j { MR..ALRtDCiE~ 908 NORTH OLlVE STREETo APPEAR:"D BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND ~ STATED THAT THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF AN A~DITIONAL. SIN~LE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT OF THE ' PROPERTY~ THA7 ,L7 MOULD BE COMPAT)BLE MITH 7HE EXISTINQ RESIDENTIAI. DfiVELOPMENS 1N THE AREA~ AND iHAT DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO THE PROPOSED QARAQE FROM LA PALMA AVENUE WOULD NOT BE DExRIMENTAL TO THE SUBJECT PROPER7Y OR TO 7HE AREA. 7HE HEARING MAS CLOSED. THE COMMLSSION FOUND AND DE?ERMINED THE FOLLOWINO FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJECT PETITION: 1. THAT THE PETITIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM 7HE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE; SECTION 18.32.030 70 PERMIT A MINIMUM SPACE OF SIX (6) FEET BETMEEN STRUCTURES FRONT TO END~ SECTION 18.32.040 TO PERMIT AN ACCESSORY BUILD~Na SEPARATION FROM THE MAIN BUILDINa BY A NINE (9~ FOOT SEPARATI.ONj SECTION 18.32.100 TO PERM{7 ACCESS TO THE PROPOSED TWO CAR GARAGE FROM LA PALMA AVENUE RATHER THAN FROM THE ABUTTING ~ ALLEY AS REQUIRED IM THE R-3~ MULTiPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE~ ~ AND SECTION 18.BU.v^~0 TO PERMIT A LIVABLE FLOOR AREA OF 832 SQUARE FEET. ! 2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUS{STANCES OR COND1- I TIONS APPLICAB~E TO THE PROPER7Y INVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED USE OF THE PROPER7'1! THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR C~ASS OF USE IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE. I i 3. THA7 THE REQUESTED VARIANCE I.S NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ' ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTAN7IAL PROPERTY RIaHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPER- ~, TY IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE AND DENIED THE PROPERTY' IN QUESTION. 4. TNnr THE REQUESTED VARlANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WEI.FARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR )MPROVEMENTS IN SUCH VICINITY AND ZONE IN WHICN THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 5. THAT THE REQUES'fED VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPREHEN- SIVE GENERAL PLAN. 6. THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY NOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. 7. THAT NO OtdE APPEARED IN OPPOSJTI.ON TO SUBJECT PETITION AND THAT VER- BAL SUPPORT BY ONE OWNER OF PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS RECORDED.~ COMMISSIONER ALLRED OFFEHED RESO WTt0A1 N0. 262~ SERIES 1960-61~ O,ND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION. SECONDEO BY COMMISSIONER SUMMERS~ TO (iRANT PET~,TI,ON FOR YARIANCE N~. 13fl-i~ SUBJECT TQ THE FOtLOWlNG CONDITION57 l: DEVELOPMENT SU85TANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE NITH PLAN~ PRESENTED. 2. PAYMENT OF s2.00 PER FRONT FOOT ON LA PALMA AVENUE AND ON SABINA STREET FOR STREET LICaHT.t~N6 PURPOSES. THE FOREGO{N~ COND{T.I.ONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEET1Na AND NERE FOUND TO BE ~ A NECESSARY PREREQU„I.SITE TO 7HE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND MELFARE OF THE C1712EN5 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. ON ROI.L CALL THE FORE~OINQ RESOLU7~ON wA~ pAS&~o @Y THE FQ!LOWlNr. yQTe~ I AYES: COMHISSIONERS: ALLkED~ HAPGOOD~-MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ J' SUMMERS. ! NOES: COMMISS~ONERS: 'NoNe. f ABSENL:. CdMM1SSI0NERS. GA!lER.. . i - PUBLIC HEARIN6. PETITION SUBMOTTED ev<NAOMI ANO~OL•IVER VANOSSE 10582 KATELLA AVENUE ANAHEIN~`,CALIFORNIA~ OWNERS~ JQHNSTON-NELSON REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT.COM~ANY~ 10582'KATELI.A AVL'NUE~ ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA~~APPLICANT~ AND RICHARD GUTHERYy 4776 KATEILLA AVENUE SU'ITE •b~ VNAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ -- A~GHT~ REQUIEST'YN~ PERM~ss~ort To OPERATE J- TRAILER PdRK ON PROPERTY f.•:+:ti .~. .:F . _.,. . . "''~; .! .~-, . .!>.. ,,_... ~ .~~__-__;: MINUTES~'CITY PLANNING COMM1SSlON~ MAY 15~ 1961r CONTINUED; CONDITIQNAL USE ~ DESCRI.BED A5: A PARCEL 660 FEET BY 660 FEET NITH A FRONTAGE OF 660 FEET PERMIT N0. 118 ON ANAHEIM ROAD~ AND ~OCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ANAHEIM ROAD BETHEEN CONTI.NUED BLUE GUM STREET AND RIVERSIDE FREEWAY~ I.TS SOUTHEAST CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY 1~300 FEET WEST OF THE NOR7HWEST CORNER OF BLUE C-UM STRE£T AND ANAHEIM ROAD. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R~A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRI- CULTURAL, ZONE. ' MR. RICI{ARD GUTHERY~ REPRESENTATIVE FOR TNE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFBRE THE COMMISSION ANG DESCRIBED THE PROPOSEO DEVE~OPMENT OF A TRAILER PARK. . A LETTER OF PROTES.T~ SIGNED BY' A. F. BRACKMAN AND LEONARD DARGATY~ NAS SUBMIT7ED TO THE COMMISSION. THE LETTER ALSO STATED THEY FAVORED M~1~ L1aHi MANUFACTURING~ ZONING FCR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THAT ABUTTING PROPERTY ON THE WEST IS PRESENTLY 20NED M-1. MR. GUTHERY PRESENTED A TRAILER PARK LAYOUT AND DESCRIBED THE LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY BETWEEN TWO FREEWAYS AS (DEAL FOR THE PROPOSEO USE. HE AL50 DESCRIBED THE ZONING AND LAND USE OF THE SURROUNDI.NG AREA AND STATED THAT THE PROPOSED TRAILER PARK WOULD BE COMPATIB~E WITH THE PRESENT AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS SECTION OF THE CITY. MR. GUTHERY REVIEWED PAST ACTION ON TENTATI.VE MAP OF TRACT N0. 40812 WHICH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR R-1t SINGLE FAMILY KESIDENTIAL~ LOTS AND WHICH HAD BEEN DENIED IN MARCH~ 1961 BY THE COMNISSION AND THE CITY COUNC.IL. HE I,NDICATED THAT THE PROPOSED TRAILER PARK WOULD ACCOMODATE NIHETY TRAJLERS~ THAT IT WOULD PROVIDE RECREATIONAL FACILITIES FOR THE OCCUPANTS~ THAT (T WOULD COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPOSED TRAI.LER PARK ORDlNANCE~ THAT IT WOULD PROVIDE HOUSING FACILITIES FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE FUTURE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA~ AND THAT 1T WOULD NOT GENERATE THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT WOULD BE CREATED BY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. MRS. REA TODD~ 415 NORTH EMILY STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT SHE REPRESENTED THE OWNER OF PROPERTY AT 2663 EAST ANAHEIM ROAD. SHE PROTESSED THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A TRAlLER PARK IN AN AREA TNAT HAS BEEN LNDICATED FOR M-1~ LIGHT MANUFACTURING~ ZONING AND STATED THAT IF APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT PE7ITION WERE GRANTED~ SHE MOULD AL50 REQUEST RECLASSIFICATION OF HER PROPERTY I.N ORDER TO ESTAB- LISH A TRAILER PARK. MR. GUTHERY~ IN REBUTTAL~ STATED THAT THERE WAS A GREAT OEAL OF MANU- FACTURING ZONING PROPOSED ON THE PRELIMINARY GENERAL PLAN AND THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO ANY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOP~ MENT. HE DISCUSSED THE POSSIBLE REALIGNMENT OF ANAHEIM ROAD TO CONNECT W1T~ THE SUNKIST STREET EX7ENSlON OVERPASS ~ROPOSED FOR THE ORANGE FREEWAY AND STATED 7HAT DETAILS WOULD BE WORKE9 OU7 WITH THE C17Y. THE HEARI.NG MAS CLOSED. A DEPARTMENT STUDY NAS SUBMITTED 70 THE COMMISSION RELATIVE TO THE RE- ALI6NMENZ OF ANAHEIM ROAD AND SUNKIST STREET MHICH HAD BEEN PREPARED BY THE CITY ENGINEER FOR REVIEW BY THE STATE. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED 7HE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJEC7 PETITION: : 1. THAT 7HE PROPOSED USE IS PROPERLY ONE FOR WHICH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT~IS AUTHORIZED BY THIS CODE~ TO Y'IT; A TRAILER PARK. 2. THAT THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USE WI~L ADVERSELY AFFECi THE PROJECTED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMEN7 OF ADJOINING PARCELS AND THE PROJECTED GROWTH 'E AND DEVELOPMENT OF TNE AREA IN WHICN IT IS PROPOSED TO BE IOCATED. ~ 3. THAT A PRECEDENT HAS BEEN E5T~9LISHED FOR THE M~1~ LIGHT MANUFACYUR- ~, ING~ ZONE~ IN ACCORDANCE W~TH THE PRELININARY CENERAL PLAN~ BY THE ° RECLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTIES ABUTTING SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE p [ WEST iROM THE R~A~ RESIDEN7IAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE TO 7HE M-1~ LIGHT 1, E MANUFACTURING~ ZONE. 4: TNAT A PRECEDENT WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE DENIAL OF TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4081~ WHICH PROPOSED SUBD~VISION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TO R~1 $I'NGLE FAM:LY RESIDENTIAL~ LOTS~ BY THE CI.TY PLANNING COMMISSION s ON FEBRUARY 20~ 1961 AND BY iHE CITY COUNCIL ON MARCH 14~ 1961. ' S: 5. THAT VERBAL OPPOSITION BY ONE OWNER OF PROPERTY IN THf AREA AND A ' LETTER OF PROTEST WERE RECORDED AGAINST SUBJECT PETITION. ~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND COMMISSIONER MUNGALL OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 263~ ~ MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOpT10N~ SECONDED BY LOMMISSIONER MARCOUX~ TO DENY PETITION FOR CONDITI.ONAL USE PERMIT NC. 118 ON THE BA515 OF THE ~ AFOREMENT40NED FINDINGS. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOIN4 RESOLUTION NAS PASSED BY THE FO~LOWIN6 VOTE; AYESC . COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ HAPOOOD~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALt~ '. ~ SUMMERS. ~°'^~`'~'~~ NOES: COMM1SSlONERSl NONE. ~- ` ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSI GAUER. ` ~ ~,:... . . - .,.:.---- . ,~'^'-----r . . ~ -. . . --~- . . . _ . ~^~'-'~ , .. _ , . _ ! . .. _ . .. .. _.~., , ~_ ~ _ ._ . . , ___._ ~ -~..,°~: _. --___. ._. __. _ _. _ _ _.__..._ ._. ~ ~; ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ i~o ~ ; ~ ' i MINUTES, C1TY PlANN1NG ~ COMM1SS10N~ MAY 15~ 1961, CONTINUED; CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev~MYRTLE nNn R. L. HAi~DY 9771 ~ NbRTH PERMIT N0. 119 ; SOUTH CENTER DRIVE~ VILLA PARK~ ORANGEo CALIFORNIA~ OWNERS~ AHERICAN AtD~ 1700 EAST IMPERIAL HIGliWAY EL SEGUNDO CALIFORNIA~ ; EATIONAL FACILITY A . RECR AGENTo REQUESTING P~4MISSiUN ro DEVELOP ON PROPERTX DESCRIBED AS: A PARCEL 654 FEET BY 1~320 FEET WITH A ~ FRONTAGE OF 654 FEET 0~ ANAHEIM ROAD AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SI.DE OF ANAHEIM ROAD BETWEE?! MILLER AND JEFFERSON STREETS~ ITS NOR7HWE5T CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY 955 FEET EAST OF 7HE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ANAHEIM ROAD AND THE SOUTHERLY PROJEGTION OF MILLER STREET. FROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. , MR. TUTHILL~ REPRESENTATI.VE OF NORTH AMERICAN AID~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ PRESENTED A DEVELOPMEtdT LAYOUT~•AND DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED j i RECREATIONAI. FACILITIES TO BE PROViDED FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE NORTH AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON ADJACENT PROPERTY. THE 3 DEVELOPMENT 1ND~CATED A TW0-5TORY CL.UBHOUSE~ SWIMMING POOL~ PICNIC i ~ AREAS~ PARK AREASp RlFLE RANGEo PUTTING GREEN~ TENNIS COURTS~ SOFT- ~ BALL DIAMOND~ PARKING AREAS~ AND A NINE HOLE GOLF COURSE. ! ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~ THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND DISCUSSED P-L~ PARK- ' ING-LANDSCAPING9 REQUIREMEN75 AND THE CLARIFICATION OF THE INTENDED ~ RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ALONG ANAHEIM ROAD. ~ THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DEiERMiNED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE s SUBJECT PETITLONI ~ 1. THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS PROPERLY ONE FOR WHICH A CONDITIONAL USE ~ PERMIT IS AUTHORI2ED BY THiS CODE~ TO WIT: PRIVATELY OPERATED . RECREATJON FAClLITY. ~ 2. THAT THE PROPOSED USE WlLL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJOINING LAND ~ USES AND THE GRONTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA IN WHICH ~T IS i PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED. ± 3. THAT THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE SITE PROPOSED FOR THE USE IS ADE- ~ QUATE TO ALLOW THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSEO U?E IN A MANNER , ~ NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE PARTICU~AR AREA NOR TO THE PEACE~ HEAL7H~ ; TY OF ANAHEIM H C . E I SAFETY~ AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF T 4. THAT THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED USE MILL NOT IMPOSE AN UNDUE ~ BURDEN UPON THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS DESIGNED AND PROPOSED TO CARRY ~ THE TRAFFIC ~N TNE AREA. ~ 5. TNAT THE GRANTING OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDE.R THE CONDITIONS ` IMPOSED~ IF ANY~ WILL NOT BE DETRJMENTAL TO THE'PEACE~ HEALTH~ i TY OF ANAHEIM TH C . E I SAFETY~ AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF COMMI55lONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 264, SERIES 1960~61~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAPGOOD~ , TO QRANT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 119~ SUBJECT TO THE ~ FOLLOWING COND1710N5: ~ 1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED~ PRO- ~ VIDINa THAT THE LAYOUT AND LANDSCAPING BE DEVELOPED SUBSTANTIALLY AS SHOWN AFTER THE REQUIRED DEDICATION OUTLINED IN CONDITION N0. 2~ IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THE INTENT OF AN EXISTING P-L, PARKING LAND- i SCAPING~ ZONE E57ABLISHED TO THE WEST OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. ~ 2. DEDICATION OF 45 FEET FROM 7HE MONUMENTED CENTERLONE OF ANAHEIM ROAD (20 FEET EXISTING). ~ t {{ 3. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL IM- ~ i PROVEMENTS~ IN ACCORDANCE NITH APPROVED STANDARD pLANS ON FI~E IN THE OFFICE GF THE CITY ENQINEER~ AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. j 4. PAYMENT OF 52.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOi2 STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES ~AT TIME ~ OF DEVELOPMENT. 1 5. PROVISION OF U7ILITY EASEMENTS ALONG EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES AS DETER~ ~ MINED BY DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES. 6. PROVISION OF PROPER PROTECTION FOR OR REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING 36 ~ 6MPANY. E UNION dATER l F T ~ . H lNCH 1RRIGATION LINE TO THE SATISFACTION O THE FOREGOING CONDITIONS WERE REC'ITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO DE A NECESSARY PREREQU151TE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRE- SERVE THE SAFETY AND MELFARE OF THE C1T12EN5 OF 7HE CITY OF ANAHEIM. ON ROLL CkLL THE FOREGOING RESOLlJTI.ON WA~ PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLR~D~ HAPGOOD~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERSI NONE. .~:< ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER. ' F . I ~ ~' ,~, . i'''. 1 ,._ _ . ~ ~.! . °..'~ i . i~i t MINUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION, Mnv 15, 1961, CON?INUED: CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED BY ANNA KRAEMER HATHAWAY, OWNER~ PERMIT N0. 120 c/o GEORGiA MANESTAR, ROBERTS REAL ESTATE AND SAVINGS~ 9752 KATELLA AVENUE ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA AGENT~ REQUESTING PERMISSION TO OPERATE COCK7ATL LOUN6E 1N CONJUNCTION li1TH A RESTAURANT, oN PROPERTY DESCRIBED ASC AN IRREGULAR SHAPED PARCEL WITH A FRONTAGE OF 201 FEET ON ORANGE- THORPE AVENUE AND AN AVERAGE DEPTH OF 530 FEET.AND LOCA7ED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ORANGETHORPE AVENUE BETWEEN DOWLING STREET AND MELROSE AVENUE~ 1T5 SOU7HEASTERLY CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY 1~060 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF DOWLIN~ STREET AND ORANGETHORPE AVENUE. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRI.CULTURAI, ZONE. GEORGIA MANESTAR~ REPRESENTATIVE FOr~ THE PETITIONER APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND REVIEWED PREVIOUS ACTION BY THE ~OMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL IN RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY (N ORDER•TO ESTABLISH O,N INTEaRATED SHOPPING CENTER. SHE DISTRIBUTED FLOOR PLAN l.AY0UT5 TO 7HE COMMISSION ANO DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A RESTAURANT AND COCKTA1l LOUNGE WITHIN THE PROPOSED SHOPPING CENTER. SHE INDICATED THAT THE ESTABLI.SHMENT WOULD BE LOCATED ON A MAJOR HIGHWAY AND WOULD BE OF SERVICE TO TNE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT 1N THAT AREA AND TO THE COM- MUNITY. MRS. MANESTAR INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT THE RESTAURANT WOULD BE OPERATED BY RICHARD ALEXANDER~ OWNER OF TNO QUALITY EATING ESTABLISHMENTS IN ORANGE COUNTY. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE LANDSCAPING PROVISI.ONS IMPOSED ON THE RE- CLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJEC7 PROPERTY AND INDICATED THAT SAID LAND- SCAPING REQUIREMENTS SHOULD BE (NCORPORATED IN THE DEVELOPMENT Pl.ANS FOR THE SUBJECT PETITION, THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERM6NED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJECT PETITION: 1. THAT THE PROPOSED USE i5 PROPERLY ONE FOR WHICH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS AUTHORI.ZED BY THIS CODE' 70 WIT: COCKiA1L LOUNGE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT. 2. THar THc PROPOSED USE WILL N0~ ADVERSE~Y AFFECF THE ADJOINING LAND USES AND THE GROWTH AND DEVEL_~MENT OF THE AREA IN WHICH IT IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED. 3. THAT T11E SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE SOTE PROPOSED FOR THE USE IS ADEQUATE TO ALLOW TME FULL DEVELQF~EN7 OF THE PROPOSED USE ~N A MANNER NOT DETRIMENTAL TO TFiE PAIt't ~i.ULAR AREA NOR TO THE PEACE HEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND GENERAL WELFARE Q: iHE C1T12EN5 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 4. THAT THE TRAFFIC GENERA~~D BY THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT IMPOSE AN UNDUE BURDEN UPON THE Sir2EET5 AND HIGHMAYS DESIGNED AND IMPROVED TO CARRY 7HE TRAFFlC I.N THE AREA. 5. THAT THE GRANTING OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED~ IF ANY~ WJLL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PEACE~ HEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CIT12EN5 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 6. THAT NO ONE pPPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION. COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 265~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PA95AGE AND ADOPT70N~ SE~ONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNGALL~ TO GRANT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PEIiMIT N0. 120~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLONING CONDITIONS: 1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLV IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED. 2. PROVISION 6F StX (6) FOOT LANDSCAPED STRIP ABUTTINd THE SOUTHERLY PLANNED H7aHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF' SUBJECT PROPERTY~ AND THE PROVISION OF F7VE (5~ FOOT BY FIVE (5) FOOT TREE WELLS AT FORTY (40) F00T ~NTERVALS ADJACENT TO THE PLANNED HI~HWAY RIGHT-OF~WAY LINE~ AND THE 1ld5TALLATION OF STREET TREES THEREIN. ALL PORTIONS OF SAID PARKWAY NOT FILLED IN WITH CONCRETE SHALL BE PROPERLY LANDSCAPED IN THE MANNER PROVIDED FOR HEREI.MI. PLANS FOR SAI.D LANDSCAPING Ak,D WATER SUPPLY~ INCLUDIN~ THE SPACIN(i OF 57REET 7REE5 AND SHRUBS~ SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SUPERIMTENDENT OF PARKWAY MAIN- TENANCE. j. DED{CATtON CF 53 FEET FR,QL1 THE MONUMENTED CENTERi.INE OF ORANGE~ THORPE AVENUE (20 FEET EX157ING). 4. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL I.MPROVEMENTS~ IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER~ AT TNE TIME QF DEVELOPMENT. 5. PAYMENT OF 52.00 PER fRONT FOqT FOR STREET LIGNTING PURPOSES AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT. 6. PROVISION OF UTILITY EASEMENTS ALONG EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES AS DETER- MINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF UTILI.TIES. THE fOREGOING CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEtTiNG AND WERE FOUND TO _..~t ---------,-. ~ ~ ~ ---~ . , - . _ _ ~ ' ~ i • . ; '':*:= t . • . ~,: < - _ - ~ ____ _ -. . . ___.__...~. ----...-_. .~. - . _ __ ` ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~2 MINUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION, Mav 15, 1961~ CON7INUED; j t COND1TIOiJAL USE ~ BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRE- ~ PERMIT N0. 120 SERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF.THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. i CONTINUED ON ROLL CALt THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWINQ VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: AL~RED~ HAPGOOD~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSi GAUER. RECLASSIFICATION. - PUBIIC HEARING. PE'rtrloN SUBMI.TTED ev RICNARD AND BERTHA li1LL1AMS, 1829 ~ NO. 60-61-93 SOUTH MOUNTAINVIEW AVENUEo ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNERS~ REQUESTING THAT PROPERTY DESCRJBED AS: A PARCEL 62 FEET BY 360 FEET WITH A FRONTA6E OF 62 FEET ON MOUNTAINVIEW AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SiDE OF MOUNTAIN- VIEW AVENUE BETNEEN KATELLA AVENUE AND THE DEAD END~ 1T5 NORTHEAST COR- NER BEING h°PROXIMATELY 269 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF KATELLA AND MOUNTAINO'IEN AVENUES AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1829 SOUTH MOUNTAIN- v1Ew AveNUe, ae RECLASSiF1ED FROM THE R-A~ RESIDENTiAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE ro rHe M-7., L1GHT MANUFACTURING~ ZONE. MR. R. E. WILLfAMS~ THE PETI.TOONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSI.ON AND STATED THAT HE HAD 6EEN CQNDUCTING A BUSINE55 FROM HIS HOME SINCE 1937 ~ AND THAT HE WISHED TO ES~TAB'LISH M-1 ZONING ON 7HE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO MAINTAI,N PORTABLE MACHINERY WHICH IS USED AWAY FROM THE PREMISES AND TO ! ESTABI.ISH AN OFFICE IN THE EXISTING RESI.DENCE TO TAKE BUSlNE55 CALLS. i FiR. ROBERT MCMANN~ ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE TRAILER PARK ASSOCIATION~ ! APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND INQUIRED ABOUT THE ~FFECT THE PRO- ~ POSED M-1 20NJNli WOJLD HAVE ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES. HE AL50 INQULRED ~ ABOUT WHETHER A BLOCK WALL WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BUFFER 7HE 7RAILER ~ pO.Sn IOCATED AT,THE REAR OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE SUBJECT PRO~ ~ PERTY~ MHAT 512E ANY BU14'DINGS WOULD BE~ WHETHER THERE WOULD BE ANY TWC ;} STORY BUILDIN65~ AND HOW 1~IUCH REAR YARD 15 REQVlRED IN THE M~1 ZONE. 9' HE INDICATED THAT THE TRA[LER PARK RESIDENTS D~D NOT CONSIDER ~1ANUFAC- f TURINQ BUILDONGS JN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A TRAILER PARK AS DESIRABLE. ~ MR. WILLlAMS STATED THAT THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTIN6 STRUC-~ i TURE~ THAT HE WI5HED TO STORE HIS EQUIPMENT AND 7RUCK5 ON THE PREMISES ~ WHICH HE HAD BEEN DO1NQ SINCE 1937~ THAT THERE WAS A BRAKE SERVICE 8US1~ NE55 IN OPERATION ON PROPERTY ABUTT~.N6 Hf5 PROPERTY ON THE NORTH~ THAT ~ HE WISHED TO CONT(NUE USE OF THE BUILDING AS A RESIDENCE AND CONVERT ONE ROOM INTO AN OFF~CE~ AND THAT HE WISHED 70 MAKE REPA~RS ON H15 EQUIPMENT ; ON THE PREMISES. { ASSISTANT CITY QTTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT THE RE- t~ CLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE M-1~ LIGHT MANUFACTURING~ ZONE ~i WOULD NOT PERMIT THE USE OF ANY STRUCTURE FOR RESIDENTIAL. PURPOSES~ j ALTHOUGH AN OFFICE MAY BE MA{NTAINED IN AN M-1 20NE. HE ;NDICATED THAT ~ THE ADJACEN7 INDUSTRIA~ USE WOULD BE OPERATI.NG BY VARIANCE IN AS MUCH AS THE ZONlNG OF 7HE PROPERTY 1.5 PRESENTLY THE R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTIJRAL~ j ZONE. 'J ThiE HEAR~NG NAS CLOSED. COMMISSIONER MUNGALL INDICATED 7HAT IN THE PAST A STUDY HAD BEEN PREPARED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WHICH HAD PROPOSED M-1~ LIGHT MANUFACTURINa~ ZONE FOR THE SUBJECT AREA~ AND THAT RESTRICTIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSED ON THE PROPERTIES MHICN NOU~D REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF ANY RESIDENCES IF TME PROPE RTIES WERE UTILIZED FOR lNDU5TRIAL PURPOSES. MR. WILLIAGIS INFORMED THE COMMISSI9N THAT HE INTENDED TO CON7INUE THE USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR ReSIDENTI,AL PURPOSES~ THAT HE WAS RE- QUESTING THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPERTY TO PERMIT THE OUTDOOR STORAGE OF HIS EQUJPMENT~ AND THAT HE COULD NOT CONTINUE THE OPERATION OF HIS BUSINE55 WITHOUT OBTAINING A CITY LICENSE. AFT~R LENGTHY DISCUSSION~ RELATiVE TO THE EXISTING BUS1NE55 B,EING CONS1- DERED A NON~CONFORMI.N~ USE ANf~ THE TtME LIMITATION UNDER W!iICH A NON- CONFORMING USE IS PERMITTED TO OPERATE~ ASSISTAN7 C1TY ATTOR:~EY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMM1.551'lN THAT THE PETITIONER SHOULD OBTAIN A VARIANCE LN ORDER TO f:ON~UCT HlS BUSINE55 IN THE MANNER IN NHI.CH riE HAS iHDiCATcD HE MiSHED TO OPERATE, QT70RNEY GEISLER INFORMED TNE COMMIS- S70N THAT A QET~T=ON FOR VAR~4NCF C,Q~~O BE 1!3lT~A7E4~ BY THE r4MH!S514N UPON REQUE57 BY 7HE PETITI~NER AND UPON THE WITHDRAWAL BY THE PETITIONER OF PETiT10N FOR REC~ASSIFICATION N0. 60-61-93. THE PETIT(ONER DISCUSSED THE SUQGESTEO WITHDRAWAL OF THE PETITION FOR RECLASSJFI.CATI,ON AND THE I,NITIATION BY THE COMMISSI~N OF A PETITlON FOR VARIANCE~ AND HE INDICATED THAT HE WOULD REQUEST SUCH ACTION IN ORDER THA7 HE Mi4HT APPLY FOR PERMISSI~N FOR THE OUTDOOR STORAGE OF TRUCKS AND EQUI.PMEN7 ON THE SUBJEC7 PROPER7Y~ THE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF SAID EQUIPMEN7 ON THE PREMDSES~ AND THE USE OF THE BUIIDING FOR RESIDEN7IAL PURPOSES. IT WAS NOTED THAi A CITY LICENSE G'OULD NOT BE OBTAINED UNT1L SUCH 71ME AS A VARI,ANCE HAD BEEN GRANTED. ~ ~ COMMISSIQNER ALLRED OFFERED A MOTJ.ON~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNGALL ~ • A~ID GRRRIED~ THAT THE PLANNiNG COHM15510N INITIATE AND SET FOR PUBLIC : i ~ • ~ ~ t ~ i•.i ~ . ,"'_._.._.. 173 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMM1SS10N, Mnv 15, 1961, CONTINUED: RECLASSiFICATIQN ~ HEARING PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1372~ REQUESTING PE~iMI5510N FOR THE NO. 60~61~93 OUT~OOR STURA~E OF TRUCKS AND EQUIPMENT~ THE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF _CONTINUED SA1D EQUIPMENT ON THE PREMISES~ AND THE USE Of THE EXlSTIGG BUILDING FOR RESID6NTIAL PI~RPO5E5 ON THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 9~ TRACT 498 OF BERGER HALF-ACRES. . , COFSMISSIONER ALLRED OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX AND CARRIEDo TNAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60-61-93 BE NITH- DRAWN AT THE REQUEST OF THE PETITIONER. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMIT7ED sv WILLIAM C. AND ADA 1. HIGDON, ~O. 60~61-95 20640 SANTA ANA CANYON ROAD~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNERS~ REQUESTING TMAT PROPERTY DESCRI.BED A5: A PARCEL WITH A FRONTAGE OF 673 FEET ON ~ BEACH BOULEVARD~ AND AN AVERAGE DEPTH OF 557 FEET~ AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BEACH BOULEVARD BETMEEN LINCOLN AVENUE AND BUENA PARK CITY LIMITS~ ITS SOUTHEAST CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY 625 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTHMEST CORNER OF LINCOLN AVENUE AND BEACH BOULEVARD~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 315-327 NORTH BEACH BOULEVARD~ BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R-A RESiDENTIl+L AGRICUL7URAL, 20NE ro THE C-i, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ~ONE. ' THE PET(TIONER NAS PRESENT AND INDICATED THAT SHE FIAD NO FURTHER INFORMA- TION TO ADD TO THE INFOR67ATION CONTAI,NED IN THE SUBJECT PETITION. MR. W. C. WYCOFF~ REPRESENTATIVE OF OWNERS OF PROPERTY LOCATED WESTERLY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ AND STATED THAT HIS CLIENTS WERE IN THE PROCESS OF DEVELOPING PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIRTEEN ACRES LOCATED WESTERLY OF SUBJECT PROPtRTY FOR COMMERCIAL PUR~ POSES. HE INDICATED THAT TIIE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD REQUIR~ FROM TWO TO FIVE YEARS BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF THE.WORK. THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE THREE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND INDICATED THAT THESE STRUCTURES DID NOT COMPLY WITH CITY STANDARDS. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE SURROUNDING AREA CONTAINED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER~ NO PLANS WERE SUBMITTED FOR TNE DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES~ AND THE COMMISSION EXPRESSED CONCERN IN RESPECT TO THE ESTABLISHMEN7 OF G-1 ZONING FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IF THE USE OF THE PROPERI'Y REMAINED THE SAME AND SUITABLE COMh1ERC1AL DEVELOPMENT WAS NOT INTENDED 'nT'THE f~RESEN~' TIME. THE PETITIOFfER STATED THAT A VARIANCE HAD BEEN GRANTED BY THE COUNTY PRIOR TO THE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY FOR THE USE OP TF1E EXISTING STRUCTURES FOR A CHURCH FACILITY~ AN OFFICE~ AND A FURNITURE REFINISHING BUSINE55. SHE STATED FURTHER THAT SHE DID NOT INTEND TO REMOVE THE EXISTING BUILDINGS AT THE PRESENT TIME. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED TiIE POSSIBILITY THAT A VARIANCE WAS IN EXISTENCE AT THE PRESENT TIME AND ASSISTANT ClTY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT IF A VARIANCE WERE ESTABLISHED BY THE COUNTY~ IT WOULD BE RECOGNIZED UPON ANNEXATION BY THE CITY AND COULD BE CONTINUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE VAR~ANCE. HOWEVER~ IF THE TIME LIMITA- ':ION HAD EXPIRED9 IT MOULD BE NECESSARV FOR THE PETITIONER TO OBTAIN A VARIANCE FROM THE CITY IN ORPER TO UTILIZE THE PROPERTY FOR OTHER THAN R~A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ PURPOSES. THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE NEED FOR MORE INFOri~+lATION RELATIVE TO A VARIANCE FOR USE OF TFiE PROPERTY AND THE NEEG FOR MORE DETAILED PLANS IN RESPECT TO COMMERCIAL AEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY BEFORE RECLASSIFICAT!ON OF THE SUBJECT PROPERT4' COULD BE PROPERLY CONSIDERED, THE PETITIONER WAS ADVISED TO CONTACT TNE COUNTY PLANN~NG DEPARTMENT /:!JD THE PREVl0U5 PRO- PERTY OWNERS FOR INFORMATION IN RESPECT TO THE VARiANCE FOR THE PRESENT USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. MR. WYCOFF REQUESTED THAT THE SUBJECT PETITION BE CONTINUED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ADEQUATE PLANS COULD BE pREPARED FOR CONSIDERAT~ON. ANDMC0.RR/EDR MHAT~PET/TIONEFOR RECLASSIFICATiON NO.y60M61595NBE CONRED TINUED UNTIL THE MEETING OF MAY 29~ 1961~ i'HAT THE PETITIONER OBTAIN IWFORMATION RE6ARDING THE COUNTY VARIANCE FOR THE USE OF THE PROPERTY~ AND THAT COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT PLANS BE PR~PAREU AND SUBFiiTTED TO THC COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND CONSIDERATION. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev GEOR6E REISH, 1926 EAST CENTER NO. 60-61-96 STREET~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNER~ REQUESTING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: A PARCEL 65 FEET BY 99 FEET, WITH A FRONTAGE OF 99 FEF.7 ON PLACENTIA AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PLACENTIA AND UNDERHILI FROMUTHE R~iFUONEEFAMI YRRESIDENT AL4 ZONERTO~THeVC 1E~NEIGHBORHOODFiEo COMMERCIAL ZbNE. MR. GEORGE REISH~ THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND SUBMITTED A PETlTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE SUBJECY PETtT10N~ SIGNED BY BY FOURTEEN ONNERS OF PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. f- ~' - i • . ' ~ ~~_ . M1NUTtS, C1TY PLANNING COMM1SS10N, Mav is, 1961~ CONTINUED: RE~!:A,S•IF1CA710N ~ MRS. EVELYN COLLIN6~ 2204 SOUTH REDWOOD DRIVE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COM~ Na. 6f~~61~96 MlSSION AND READ A LETTER OF PROTEST FROM THE ANAHEIM CIVIC A550CIATION CONTINUED REQUESTING 7HAT THE CHARACTER OF THE R~1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENTtAL~ TRACT BE MAINTAINED. MR. REISH DESCRIBED THE 20NING AND LAND USE OF THE SURROUkDINIi AREA AND STATED THAT HE HAD ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THE PREVlUUS OWNER HAD DIFFICULTY IN KEEPINa THE DWE~LING RENTED.FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. HE STATED THAT THE PROPOSED USE WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE AR~:\~ THAT THERE WOULD BE ADEQUATE PARKING FACILITIES~ AND 7HAT LESS TRAFFIC ilOUL'u BE GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED USE AS A REAL ESTATE OFFICE AND OTHE~t ?RO- FESSIONAL OFFICES THAN IS PRESENTLY IN EXISTENCE. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. COMMISSIONER MARCOUX DISCUSSED 'i4E pRESENT COND~TION OF SECTIONS OF PLACENTIA AVENUE AND NOTED THAT BECAUSE PLACENTIA QVENUE WAS AN ARTER- IAL HIOHWAY~ COMMERCIAL Eti?AHSIOW WOULD.OCCUR iN THE FUTURE. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISEO THE COMMISSION 7HAT DEED. RESTRICTIONS WERE PLACED UPON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY RESTRICTING THE USE TO SIN(iLE FAAlILY RESIDENTIAL USE ONLY AND THAT SUCH COVENANTS AND RESTitIC- TIONS WERE A MATTER FOR SERIOi15 CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION AS~D CITY COUNCIL. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWINQ FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJECT PETIT70N: 1. TWAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ABOVE DES- CRIBED PROPERTY FROM THE R-1~ ONE FAMILY RESI~DENTIAL~ ZONE TO THE C~1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. 2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICAT.ION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT. NECES- SARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER OEVELOPMENT QF THE COMMUNITY. 3. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLq551FICATION OF SUBJECT ?ROPERTY WOULD SET A PRECEDENT FOR RECI.AS'SIFICATION OF PROPERTIES IN THE SAME VICINITY TO THE C-l~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. 4. THAT A LETTER OF OPPOSITION FRO(A THE ANAHEIM CIVIC ASSOCIATION WAS FIIED AGAINST SUBJECT PETITION~ AND A PETITION OF SUPPORT~ SIGNED BY FOURTEEN PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE VICINITY~ WAS FILED IN FAVOR OF THE SUBJECT PETITION. COMMISSIONER !1LLRED OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 266~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNGALL~ TO DENY PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60-61-96 ON THE BA515 OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDINaS. ON ROLL CALL THG FOREGOIN~ kE50LUT10N WA5 PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSlONERS: ALLREDo HAPGOOD~ MORRIS~,MUNGAIL~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MaRCOUx. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER. C~ESQONDENCE ~ ITEM No. i: ORANGE COUNTY TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4212; NOTICE RECEIVED FROM THE ORAN6E.COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ REGARGINO TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4212 WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION. SUB- JECT TRACT IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH S3DE OF WAGNER AVENUE EA5T Of THE PROPOSED ORANGE FREEWAY~ COVERS APPROXIMATELY 23.6 ACRES~ AND IS PRO- POSED FOR 101 R-ly SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ LOTS. THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP AND A PLANNING DEPART- MENT STUDY NHICH INDICATED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SUBJECT TRACT COULD BE INCORPORATED IN THE STREET DESIaN OF THE AREA. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE PROPOSED LOT WIDTHS WERE LE55 -HAN THE 70 FOOT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIRED FOR 5'IN6LE FAMILY RESIDENTIA~ DEVELOP7AENT IN THE CITY OF ANAHEtM. HOhIEVER~ THE L8T AREAS ME7 THc 7200 SQUARE F60T REQUiREFIEtii • Oi TNE C.S7i. COMMlS510NER MARCOU% OFFERED A MOTION~ SE~ONDED BY COhiMIS510NER HAPGOOD AND CPRRIED~ THAT T}~E PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMIT NOTICE TO :THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNINa CUMMISSION THAT THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION RECOM- MEND APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4212~ AND THAT IT BE NOTED ~ THAT THE PROPOSED LOT NIDTNS ARE LE55 THAN THE 70 FOOT MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT OF THE CITY OF'ANAHE9M ALTNOUGH THE LOT AREAS MEET THE 7200 SQUARE F00T REQUIREWENT ~F THE CI,TY. ITEM No. 2: ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 4759: NOTICE RECEIVED FROM THE ORAN6E COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ REGARDING USE VARIANCE N0. 4759 WAS SUQMIT7'.D TO THE COMMISSION. SUBJECT PETITION l ~ ~g ] ~ ~ { ~ ~ I i ~~ ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING CpMMISSION, Mav 15, 1961~ CON7INUED; CORRESPONOENCE CONTINUED REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ~ F ~ . i~s - ireM No. 2~ CONTINUED: ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 4759: REQUESTED PERMISSION TO INCLUDE DANCING IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAl1RANT ON THE PREMISES IN THE 100~C1-SOp000 LOCAL BUSItJE55 DIS7RICT. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ~N THE SOU7H SIDE OF LINCOLN AVE~UE APPROXI~ MATELY 550 FEET WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF BROOKHURST STREET. THE COM- MISSION NOTED IT CONTAINED THE SAFARI QJTPOST MOT ~. AND RESTAURANT. TYiE PROPOSED DANCING AREAS WERE INPICATED IN RED ON A PLOT PLAN SUB- Ni1TTED WITH THE PETITION~ THREE AREAS BEING PROPOSED WITHIN THE BUIID- !NG AND ONE IN THE PAT10. ONLY ONE OF THE THREE AREAS INDICATED WITHIN THE RESTAURANT WILL BE UTILI.2ED AT ANY ONE TIME. THE EXISTING SEATING CAPACITY OF 85 WIL~ N07 BE ENLARGED. THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE PLOT PLAN AND A MAP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SUBMITTED BY THE PLANNING STAFF. IT WAS NOTED THAT (N THE CITY OF ANA- HEIM THE TYPE OF REQUEST CONTAI4ED IN THE SUBJECT PETITION WAS CONTRO!.~EO BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. COMMISSIONER MUNGALL OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX AND CARRIED~ DIRECTING THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO TRANSMIT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COqMI5510N THE INPORMATION THAT IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM REQUESTS FOR DANCING WERE NOT ACTED UPON BY THE PLA,NNING CO~SfSI55lON. CON- SEQUENTLY~ THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT CONSIDER IT WITHIN THEIR REALM TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION iN RESPECT TO ORANaE COUI+TY USE VARIANCE N0. 4759. ITEM N0. 1: - REFERRAL FOR REVIEW OF RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60-61-75: SUBJECT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION TO THE C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMER- CIAL~ ZONE WAS DENIED BY THE PLANNING COMMt551f`N ON MARCH 20~ 1961. °UBLIC HEARING ON RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60-61-75 WAS HELD BEF.ORE THE . ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL ON APRIL 25~ 1961~ AT WHICy TIME SAID HEARtNG WAS CL.OSED AND ACTION DEFERRED TO MAY 23~ 1961 IN ORDER TO PERMIT A PLANNING COI~IMISSION RECOMMENDATION AS TO THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR TNE FOUR 1~-1~ QNE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ LOTS ON KATELLA AVENUE. THREE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STUDIES WERE PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION AND OISCUSSION WAS HELD ON THE VARIOUS ASPECTS AND pROBLEMS INVOLVED IN THE TRANSiTION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO COMMERCIAI. DEVELOPMENT. AFTER LENGTHY DISCUSStON' THE COMMISSiON NOTED THAT THE USE OF THE PRO- PERTY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES Mf(iHT BE SUITABLE AT SUCH TIME AS ADEQUATE PARKING FAGILITIES AND ACCESS WERE MADE AVAI,LABLE AND IF (T WERE INTE- GRATED INTO A PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED AND CARRIED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMEND TO THE C1TY COUNCIL THAT THE SUBJ~CY PROPERTIES REMAIN AS R-1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ PROPERTIES UNTIL SUCH TIME AS iHEY CAN BE DEVELOPED AS AN INTEGRATED SINGLE STORY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT MITH A TWENTY FOOT ALLEY AT THE REAR~ LIMITED T6 BUSINE55 AND PROFESSIONAL USE ONLY IN ACCORD~.NCE WITH THE PRECISE PIAN STUDY~ MARKED •EXHIBIT A~ AND SUBMITTED BY THE PLAN- NING STAFF. I7EM No. 2: P-L~ PARKIiiG LANDSCAPIN6, ZONE oH THE NortrH SIDE oF LINCOLN. AVENUE~ EAST OF EUCLID {-VENUE: THE COMMISSION DI°,~~~5`~E.D THE REQUEST OF THE C1TY C0~'NCIL THAT A RECLA55- IFICATION OF THE EX19,5'ING P-L~ PAP':ING LANDSCAPING~ ?ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LINCOLN AVE-;UE EAST OF EUCLID AVENUE BE INITIATED BY THE COM~' MISSION. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE RECLASStFICATION HAD BEEN REQUESTED BY THE COUNCIL AS A RESULT OF THE COUNCIL~S WAIVER OF THE F-L REQUIREMENT FOR PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1342. iHE COMMISSION REVIEWED A MAP OF THE AREA AND DISCUSSED THE PRESENT M-1~ L~GHT NANUFACTURING~ ZONING OF ABU7TING PROPERTIES AND NOTED THAT THE dAJOR PORT:ON ilF THE DEVELOPMENT QF THE AREA GOULD 9E CLASSIFlED .Ci Ti;E C-1~ l:s:~HSa~;;cca ~O~mERC,:.L~ OR ~-~~ GE~:EP.,~,L CCM:~E4C;AL~ ~4l:E5. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMNISSION THAT CON51- DERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO WHETHER THE RECLASSIFICATIOM OF THE P-L ZONE SHOULD CORRESPOND WITH THE EXISTIN6 F1~1 20NING OF THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES OR WHETNER IT SHOULD CORRESPOND WITH THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOP- MENT OF S'HE PROPERTIES~ AND THE B~FECT OF THE MIXED ZONING ON THESE PROPERTIES. THE SETBACKS ON LIfJGOLN AVENUE WERE DISCUSSED AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT A FIFTY (50) FOOT P-L~ PARKING LANDSCAPING~ ZONE IS ESTABLISHED IN THE SUBJECT AREA AND THAT M057• OF THE SETBACKS WERE AT FIFTY FEET ALTHOUGH ONE PROPERTY CONTAINED A THIRTY-FIVE F00T SETBACK. BECAUSE OF THESE FACTORS THE AREA TO 8E AFFECTED BY THE RECLASSIFICATION WOULD BE THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES AS WELL AS THOSE IN THE EXISTING P~~ ZONE. THE AREA TO UE INCLUDED IN THE RECLASSIFICATION WAS DISCUSSED BY THE COMMISStON. ~ ~~ --_.-- ~ ~ i i :,` ' _ ~ ~ 176 MINUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMM1SSlON, Mnv 15, 1961, CONTIRUED: REPORTS.AND ~ ITEM N0. 2~ CONTINUED; P~L~ PHRKING-LANDSCAP~NG~ ZONE: RECOMMENDATIONS rONTINUED _ COMMISSIONER•ALLRED OFFEREC A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER T N O N ARCOUX !C P PRO THOSE THAT RECOMMENDING 60 61~105~ HEARINGRRECLASSIFICATIONANO! PERSIES DESCRIBED Afi: THAT AREA BOUNDED ON THE NORTHEAST BY THE SaUTHERN PACIFIC R T S RAIL- ON THE AVENUE~ ~.INCOLN BY TANDyONTTHEY50UTN BY6EUCLID AVENUE ~ WEST BE RECLASSIFIED AS FOLLOWS: MZONEAORUANYGMORENRESTR ' T E O ICTIVES HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ 3~ THE C IF/ED TO ZONE~ THOSE PROPERTIES IN THE P~L~ PARKlN6 LANDSCAPING~ ZONE BE E M~1~ T RECLA55~ LIGHT ZONE MANUFACTURINGE ZONE ORRTONANYAMOREARESTRICTIVE ADJOURNMENT - T-+e MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 5:40 O~CLOCK P.M. RESPECTFUtLY SUBMITTED~ ~ ECRETARY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i . ...___ . _._ t~ --- -- ~ .rl:~~..,.._ .. . ._•---......