Minutes-PC 1961/05/29%
,r
~
I
I
V
ClTY HALt
ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA
MnY 29, 1961
F THE REGIlLAB_MEETiN6 OF THE CITY
REGULAR MEETiNG - A RE~u~nR MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION WAS CAI.LED TO ORDER AT
2;00 O°CLOCK P,M. BY VICE CHAIRMAN MORRIS~ A QUORUM BEING PRESENT.
I~
;i PRESENT - V1CE CHAIRMAN: MORRIS~ COMM1SSlONERS: SUMMERS, M~NGALL~ PERRY~
_`
QBSENT - COMMISSIONERS: CHAlRMAN GAUER~ ALLREO~ HAPGOOD.
PRESENT ~ PLANtdING DIRECTOR - RICHARD REESE
SENIOR PLANNER - MARTIN KREfOT
~ ASSISTANT CITV ATTORNEY - JOE GEISLER
COMMISSION SECRETARY. - JEAN PAGE •
INVOCATION - REYEREND.WAL.TER VERNON ~ASTOR OF THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH OF ANAHEIM~
. GAVE YHE INVOCATION.
PLEOGE OF - VicE~CHAIRMAN MORRIS LED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.
IILtEG1ANCE
1M NUTES ~ ~ THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF I`~AY 15~ 1961 WERE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED
W7TH THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS:
PAGE ].; LINE 2~ °AT 2:00 O~CLOCK P.M. 8Y VICE-CHAIRMAN MORRIS~ A 4UORUM
BEING PRESENT.°
. PAGE~167: COND7TION 2 OF TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4152:
• °2. SUBJECT TO THE CONDITlON OUTLINED 1N PETITION FOR VARIANCE
N0. 1363."
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING.~ PEr:T10N SUBMITTED ev DEON STEELEt 114 PeN-
UE
~. 60-61-91 ~
FIELD~ POMONA~ ~ALIFORNIA~ ~WNER~ W. P. MASON, 2966 L,INCOLN AVEN
ANAHEIMf CALIFORNIAp AGENT~ REQUFSTI.NG THAT PROPE RTY DESCRiBED AS:
PARCEL 1; A PARCEL 226 FEET BY 335 FEEY WITH A FRONFAGE OF 335 FEET ON
LINCOLN AVENUE AND LOCATF.D ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE
BETWEEN BEACH BOULEVARD AND HARDING AVENUE; ITS NORTHEAST CORNER
BEING APPROXIMA7ELY 590 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LIN^
COLN AVENUE AND BEACH BOULEVARD~
PARCEL 2: A PARCEI. 335 FEEi BY 1~050 FEET~~iTS~NOR7H BOUNDARY OF 335
FEET ABU7"i'~NG PARCE~ 1 ON THE SOUTH~ AND FURTHER DF.SCRIBED AS
3042 LINCOLN AVENUE~
se RECLASSIFIED FROM 'rH~ R-A RESIDENTIAI AGRiCULTURAL ZONE To THE C-i~
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL{ ZON~ (PARCEL i) nNO R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILV RES1-
DENTIAL~ ZONE (PARCEL:7_).
StIBJECT PETlT10N WAS CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF MAY 1~ 1961 IN ORDER
TO PROVIDE TNE PE:ITIONER AN OPPOR:UNITY TO PREPARE AND SUBMIT A TENYA-
TIVE TRACT F1AP OF THE SUBJECT PROPER'CY AND TO SUBh16T COMPLEI'E PLOT AND
ELEVP.TION PLANS OF THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL AND MULTI~PLE FAMILY RESIDEN-
'i'14L DEVEIOPMENT. THE TENTATIVE MAP OF TRAC7 N0. 4230 WAS FILED BY THE
PETITIONER AND REVIEWED B`; THE INTERDEPA~TMENTAL COMMITTEE. A PRECISE
PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTlAL DEVELOPMENT WAS PRE-
SENTED BY THE PETITlONER TO THE COMMISSION.
MR. W. P. MASON~ THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE
THE COMMISSION AND INDICATED THAY HE HAD NOTHING TO ADD TO THE INFORMA-
TION CONTAINED IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS.
MRS. PFE1L~ 3064 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMM15510N AND
REVIEWED PREVIOUS OBJECTIONS TO THE SUBJECT PETITION STATED AT THE MEET-
ING ON MAY 1~ 1961~. SH~ STATED THAT SHE OWNED THE PROPERTY ABUTTING
SUBJECT PROPERTY ON 7HE WtSi A!dJ SHOWN ON THE TRACT pLOT PLAN AS °FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT°~ AND THAT SHE HAD NO INTENTION OF DEVELOPING OR SE~LING HER
PROPERTY FOR THE DEVE~OPMENT AS INDICATED IN THE SUBJECT PETITION. MRS.
PFEIL STATED FURTHER THAT TWO-STORY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESiDENTIAL DEVELOP-
MENT ON SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD FORCE SIMILAR DEVEL.OPMENT OF HER PROPERTY~
WH~CH WOULD BE OBJECTIONABLE TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DE1/ELOPMENT
ABUTTING HER PROPERTY ON THE WEST. SHE EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE
DRAINAGE OF THE AREA~ THE PROPOSED STREET I,AYOUTS~ AND THE NARROW STRIP
QF CQMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FRONTING ON LINCOLN AVENUE. SHE ALSO STATED
THAT SHE BE~iEVEO A SUiTABLE DEVEL09DSEl7T COULD BE ESTABLlSHED !N TH~ ,
AREA IN CONJUNCTION WITH HER PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY OWNED BY MR.
OLIVER BAKERo WHICH ABUTTS HER PROPERTY ON THE WEST AND EXTENDS WESTERLY
TO THE ALLEY.
MR. $TEVE BRADFORD~ ENGINEER FOR THE PETITiONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COM~
MISSION AND STATED THAT THE DRAINAGE PROBLEM WOULD BE HANDLED If~ ACCOR-
DANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT.S.OF TME ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ANG THAT THE
DETAILS WOULD BE WORKED OUT l'O THE SATISFACTIOM OF THE CISY EN~INEER~S
OFFICE.
MR. W. P. MASON~ AGENT FOR TH6 PETITIONER~ STATED THAT THE PROPERTY~WHICH
WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR THE ORAINAGE EASEMENTS~ WOULD NOT BE PURCHASED
UNTIL 7HE USE OF THE PROPERTY NAD BEEN DETERMINED. HE STATED FURTHER
- 17i -
~ ~..
l.~
~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMiSS10N. Mnv 29, 1961~ CONTINUED;
RECLASSIFICATION
N0. 60-61-91
CONTINUED
;~ •
Y::
.~
178
- THAT HE UNDERSTOOD TNAT MR. BAKER~ OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST~
WAS NOT CONSIOERING DEVELOPMEN7 OF HIS PROPERTY AT THE PRESENT TIME~
THAT THERE MAS EXISTIMG COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT•ABUTTING SUBJECT PROPER-
TY ON THE EAST AND EXTENDING TO BEACH BOULEVARD~ THAT THE PROPOSED
DEVE~OPMENT WAS PROPER FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ ANO THAT THE SUBJECT
AREA HAD BEEN DEVELOPED TO SUCH AN EXTENT THAT A LARGE INTEGRATED DEVEL-
OPMENT OF THE SUBJECT AND ABUTTING PRpPERTIES WOULD NOT,BE POSSIBLE.
MR. ROY STUHIEY~ 1128 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD~ FULLERTON~ APPEARED BEFORE
THE COMMISSION AND INDLCATED THAT THE.PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT .
PROPERTY WAS PROPER AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOP-
MEN7 IN THE AREA. HE STATED FURTHER THAT MR. BAKER~ OWNER OF PROPER'fY
TO 7HE WEST OF~SUB~ECT PROPERTY~ WAS NOY INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING HIS PRO-
PERTY AND HAD PLAC D HIS PROPERTY IN TRUST FOR HIS CHILDREN~ THAT DRAINAGE
AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS WOULD SE ~NSTALLED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY
ENGINEER~ AND TKAT THE FUTURE DEYEtOPMEN7 OF THE AREA HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED
BY THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENY TO THE EAST GF SUB.IECT PROPERTY.
MRS. PFEiL~ IN REBUTTAL~ STATED THAT ALTHOUGH MR. BAKER HAD HIS PROPERTY
IW YRUST~ HE WAS DESIROUS OF DEVE40PING HIS PROPERTY SOMETIME (N THE
FUTURE~; THAT HE HAD BEEN IN CO~iPACT WITH THE OWNERS OF ADJACENT PRO-
PERTIES~.AND THAT HE WOULD COOPERATE lN A DEVELOPMENT WHICH HE CON51-
DERED SUI.TABI.E. SHF STATED FURTHER THAT SHE WAS READY TO SUBMIT HER
PROPERTY FOR CONSIDERATION BY PERSONS SPECIAL1ZINa IN LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROBLEM5~ THAT THE USE OF 7'HE PROPERTY FOR MULTIPLE FAMIIY RESIDENTIAL
PURPOSES MOULD INCREASE THE BURDEN UPON 7HE SCHOOLS IN THE AREA~ AND
SHAT THE PROPERTY COUL.D BE DEVELOPED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO PROVIDE
MOFE REVENUE FOR THF. CITY. . .
A LETTER OF PRO7EST~ SOGNED BY Oi.IVER G. BAKERo BEA7RICE V. BREWER~ AND
ALBERT G. BAKER~ WAS SUBM7TTED TO THE COMMLSSION INDICATING OBJECTIONS
TO THE SUBJECT PETtTION ON 7HE BASlS THAT NO PROVISi0N5 HAD BEEN MADE
FOR DRAINAGE OF THE SUB~ECT AREA.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. .
COMMlSS~ONER MARCOUX OFFERED A MOTpON 1'0 APPROYE 7HE SUBJECT PETITION~
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. (NSTALLA7'ION OF A S!X (6) FOOT MASONRY V~ALL ON THE EAST~ WESTo AND
SOUTH PROPERTY LONES WHERE SUBJEC'f PROPERTY ABU75 THE R-A~ RE51~
DENTIAI, AGRICULTURAto ZONE.
2. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIAI.LY ~N ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS °RESENTED.
3. RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP OF TRACT N0. 4230. .
4. INSTALLATOON OF DRAINAGE FACILITIES IN ACCORDANCE MITH THE STUDY AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CiTY ENGINEER.
5. PAYMENT OF :25.00 PER DWELL.INO UNIT PARK AND RECREATION FEE TO BE
COLLECTED AS PART OF FHE BUILDING PERM~T.
MOTION FAOLED FQR IACK OF A SEGOND. COMMISSIONER MUN~i.ALL OFFERED A MOTION~
SECONDED BY CfIMMT55lONER PERRY~ RECOMMENDING TO THE CI'!'Y COUNCIL THAT
SU9:lE.T PET12'70Nc FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60-61-91 BE DENIED ON THE
BA515 OF THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:
1. THAT THE PETITIONE:R PROPOSES A RECG.ASSiFICATION OF THE ABOVE DESCRI.BED
PROPERTY FROM THE R~A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE TO THE C-1~
~IEI6HBORHOOD COMMERCOAL~ ZONE (PARCEL 1) AND THE R-3~ MUL'°IPLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE (PARCE~ 2).
2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT PRO-
PERLY RELA7E TO THE ~ONF.S AND THEIR PERMITTED USES LOCALLY ESTABLISHED
IN CLOSE PROXIMlTY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE ZOt~ES AND THEIR
PERMITTED USF.S GENERALLY ESTABLISHED 'iNR0UGH0U7 THE COMMUNITY.
3. THAT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY ON THE EAST~ WEST~ AND SOUTH IS CLA551-
FI;ED IN THE R^A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE AND THE PROPOSED TWO-
STORY RESIDENTIAI. DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUiREMENTS
Of THE ANAHEtM MUNtCIPAL CUDE YIHICH REQUtRES T11AT FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES CONSTRUCTION MUST BE LIMITED TO ONE STORY
N7THIN 150 FEET OF THE~ABUTT)Np R-Aa R~SlDEN71AL AGRlGULTURALy ZONES.
4: THAT A STUDY AND PRECISE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT 8Y THE PLANNING STAFF IS
N=CESSARY~AND SHALL BE FORWARDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR REVIEW O,F THAT
AREA BOUNDED BY BEACH BOULEVARD.ON THE EAST~ T•RACT N0. 2611 AND TRACT
N0. 403 ON THE MEST~ LINCOLN AVENUE ON THE NORTH~ AND THE ORA=iGE COUNTY
FLOOD~CONTROL DISTRICT CHANNEL ON THE SOU7H. ~
5. THAT YERBAL OPPOS1710N~ tN ADDi:ION TO A LETTER OF PROTEST~ NAS RECORQ-
ED AGAINST Sl78JECT PETITION. ~
ON ROLL CALL THE MOTOON FAiIED BY 7HE FOLLOWIN~ VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MORRIS~ MUN~ALI~ PERRY~ SUMMERS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MaRCOUx.
i
~
~
~
~
i
L , :~ ____ _ _...._
i L'"
~
-~'ea~',.~_~ , . _ . '~..'_ . _ .. . . .. . ,._
_ ~:
. ~ ;~;_~ '
1 ._ . ,.~ .
p
~ ~ ~
1'T 9
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION' MAY 29, 1961, CUN'CINtiED:
RECLASSIFICATION - ABSENT: COMM1SSi0NERS: ALLRED~ ~AUER~ HAPGOOD.
N0. 60-61-91
CONTINUED VICE-CHAIRMAN MORRIS INFORMED ?HE COMMISSION i'HAT PETITlON FOR RECLA55~
IFICATION N0. 60-61-91 WOULD BE COMiINIED IiNTIL THE MEETlNG OF ,JUNE 12~
1961 BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE 2'0 ACHOEVE A MAJORITY VOTE, HE DIRF.CTED
THE P4AN17~NG STAFF 7'0 PREPARE AND SUBMIT FOR COMMi5510N C'ONSIDERATION
AND REVIEW A PREClSE PL.AN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THAT AREA BOUNDED BY BEACH
BOULEVARD ON 7HE EAS7o TRACT N0, 2611 AND TRACT N0. 403 ON THE WEST~
LINCOLN AVENUE ON THE NORTk~ AND THE ORANGE COUN7Y FLOOD CONTROL DIS-
TRICT CHANNEL CN THE SOUTH.
TENTATIVE MAP OF - SUB~iV1DER: DEON STEElE, :114 P[.NFIEt.Do POMONA Cn:.IFORNIA.
TRACT~ NO. 4230 TRACT IS LOCATED ON 7HE SOUTH~SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE BETWEEN BEACH
BOULEVARD AND HARDING AVENUEo AND CONTAINS TWENTY-FIVE (25~ R^3~
MUi.TIPLE FAMILY RESiDENTiAL9 !.O~TS AND 7W0 (2~ C-l~ NE~GHBORk00D COM-
MERCIALo LOTS.
SUBJEC7 T.EN'PAT:VE 'CRACl' MAP WAS f':LED IN GONJUNCTION WITH PETlTION fOR
RECL.ASSSFiCA710N~N0. 60~~61~-91 REQUES'F~NG RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT
PROPERTY FROM THE R-R'~ RESiDEN'.'IAt. AGROCULTURAL' ZONE TO THE C'-1~
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERC1Al.o ZONF. (PARCEL 1~ AND THE R-3~ MUL7IPLF.. FAM~LY
REStDEN':IALy ZONE (PARCEL. 2). .
COMMlSS~ONER MUNGALL~OFFERED A M0710N~ SECONDED BY COMM:SSIONER PERRY
ANO CARRIED~ '!'HA7' CONSiDF_RA710N OF TENTAi'IVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4230 BE
CONTINUE~ UNTlL 7HE MEE:ING OF ~~UNF 12~ ].961 iN ORDER TO CONSIDER SAID
MAP IN CON,)UNC710N W(TH PF.': ~:'10N FOR R[CL.ASSIFICATiON N0. 60~fi1•~91.
RECLASSIFICATION - C:ONF;NUED PUBLlC HEARING. Pe:-t~:ON SUBM17~~n ev JOHN .nN~ BEATRICE
1~10. 60~-61-94 CRADDOCK, 11752 WESi KA'CE.C.C.A AVEN:JE9 QNAHEtM' rALiFOR.Pt1A~ ~WNERS~
kEQUES'i iNG THA.T PROPE:W.'i'b DESCR.IR~D A5: A?ARCE! 200 FEET BY 240 FEE7'
W.:YH A FRON1'AGF OF 200 FEG'T ON KA':ELLA AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THF. SOUTH
SIDE OF" KATELL.A AVCNUE BE':'WEF.N NIN:'H ANO C.45A VLS:A S~'REE'I'S~ i'i'S NOR7H-
EAST CORNF:R BEING APPRUY~MATE'..Y 190 PE:F.~P WESY OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF' KA'fELLA AVENiIE AND CASA VtS~['A S'i RFEt ~ AND FURTHER OESCP.IBED AS 11752
WEST KA;ElL.4 AVENUE: BE RECL.ASSIi'tGD FROM 1'HF R"/I RES9DENTIAL AGRICUL-
TURAL, ZONE ro rH~ Z~-i, NE3GHBORHOOD !:OMMERCIAL, ~LONE.
SUBJ[CT pF~PITlON WAS (:ONTiNilED FROM 'iliE MFEt 7NG OF MAY 1S~ 1961 1'0 PRO~
V~D[ fHE PF~f;7iUNEP Ak GPPOR'i'UN~'t'Y' :~> PREPARE AND SUBMIT RF.VtSFD PLOT
AND E!.E1'A:pUN Pl.ANS MAKI.NG PROYOSiGN FOR A:WENTY (20~ F00T L.ANDSCAP~
ING ='•TRiP AB[ITT':NG :'!{E MOHTH PRUP~R';Y t.INE AL~NG 9'HE pl.ANNF.D HIGHWAY
RlGH1'^OF~-WAY LlNE~ (NDICP.:'lHfa ?ARK.ING AR.EA IN AGCORDANGE WI~Ck CODE RE~
QUIREMENTS~ ANO pROY~DING F'pR A~EUUA'iF INGRESS P.ND EGRE55 'CO 'CkE SUBJECT
PROPER:Y,
THE COMMISSION REYIEWED ?I.ANS F~GR ~HE SLIB,lE:CT DEVELOPMFN'i. THE PE~1'iT10NER
WAS PRESENT AND INDICAI'FD 'THA'C Ai`iFiOX~MATHLY SIX RETAIL 57'ORFS WOUI.D BE
LOCA'SED IN 'CkE PROPGSED UiJt'i N0. : OP '1'HE COMMERCI.4~ DF.VEI.pPMENT AND THAT
APFROX.tMASEI.'f THRE.E ST6R.ES OR OFF'ICES WOUI_D BF. LOCATED IN UNIT N0. 2.
THE COMMISSiOk DI°CUSSF.~ DRiJEWe,y WID'fHS AND THE ?ET11'IONER INDLCATED
THA'! A TW:LVE F007 DRIYEWAY h'UUI.D BE PROViDED FOR lNGRE55 AND A TNELVE
FOOT DRIVEWAY WOULD BE PROWIDED FOR EGRE55.
THE HEARING WAS CLUSED.
THE COMMlSSION DISCJSSED T.HE 'i'IME L7MITAYION OF NINETY DP.YS RECOMMENDED
BY THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMCTTEE FQR ?HE ACCOMPLO.SHMEN7 OF CERTAIN
SUG6E57ED COND7TION5 QF APPROVAI. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEiSLER
ADVISF.D THE COMMISSION '~HAT THE pO5T6NG OF A BOND WITHIN THE SPF.ClFIED
1'iME L~M1T TO 1NSURE 'fHE ACCOM°l.lSHMEN'f OF THE REQUIRED ITEMS WOIiLD
SUFFICE.
THE: COMMISSION FOUND AND DE'I'ERMItQED 'THE FOI.LOWING FACTS REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PE'fIT10N;
1. THAS THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ABOVE DES~-
CRIBED PROPER7Y FROM THE R-A, RESIDEN'fIA~ AGRIGULTURAL~ ZONE TO
THE C~1~ NEiGH80RH00D COMMERC;AI.~ ZONE.
2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFfCAT~ON OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NECESSARY
8R DESiRA6LE POR 'YHE ORDERLY 4ND PROPER~DEVELOPMENT OF THF CQMMUNITY.
3. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFlCA'PION OF SUBJECT PROPERTV DOES PROpERLY
RELATE TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PERMITTEP USES LOCAI.LY ESTABLISHED IN
CLOSF. PROXIMITY TO SUBJECT PROPERI'Y AND TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PER-
MITTED USES 6ENERALLY ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.
4. THAT TkE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICAI'ION UF' SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES REQUIRE
UEDICATION FOR AND STANDARD IMFROVEMENT QF ABU'TT7NG STREETS BECAUSE
SAID PROPERTY DOES RHLA'fE TO AND ABUT UPpN STREETS AND HIGkWAYS
WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO CARRY THE TYPE AND qUANTITY OF TRAFFIC~ WHICH
WILL BE CENERATED BY THE PERMI'1"1'FD USES~ IN ACCORDANCE WITH 7'HE
CIRCULATION EI.EMENT OF 7HE GENERAL PLAN.
5. THAT RFVJSED P40T PLANS SUBMIT'i'ED BY THE PET17'IONER INCORPORATE
BLOCK WALLS AS REQUIRED BY 'I'HE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND MAKES
. _ i
~ ~ _ _. --~- T _
1
~ ~
A _ ... ..~1 .
._.~~"_.
..__~..~-.._..J. ~.... _.. __..... ... ._.. . . .
~ ""....
. .. ........_...,__..__...'_'..._~.._~.__".."__.__'_.._....
. . . . . . .
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~
~
I le~
C
# MINUTES, CITY PLANNiNG
COMMISSION, MaY 29, 1961, CoNrSNUED:
f
~ RECLASSiF1CAT10N - PROV~seoN FOR A"iWENT`! (2Q~ FOQ7 LANDSCAPlNG 51'RIP ALONG 7HE PLANNED
; NO. 60-61-94 HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY LlNE ABU1'TiNG :'HE NORLHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF
i CONTINUED SUBJECT PROPERI'Y.
~! ... THA'C NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSI'i:ON 70 SUBJEC? PETI.TION.
COMMtS510NF.F MARCOUX OFF'ERED RESOLUT'ION N0. 26?~ SERIES 1960-61, AND
~ MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPT{ON~ SECONDED BY COMMISSI,ONER MUNGALL~
~ RECOMMENDING TO THE C7T'I COUNCI± :'HAT PETiT10N FOR RECLASSIF~CATI~~k
. N0. 60-61•-94 BE GRANTED~ SUB.lEC'f 'CO THE FOLLOWING CONDITi0N5:
~ 1. DE.YELOPMENT S1165:'ANTIALLY 7N ACCORIDANCE WITH PL4N5 PRESF.NTEQ.
~ 2, DEDICA?ION UF S:XTY (60~ F'F_LT FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTEP.L7NE OF'
KAYELLA AVENUE (FORTY F'EET EXiS'1'~NG~.
3. CONSTRUCTION OF CONCRE~!'E CURBING AT' THE END OF THE SERVICE ROAD
A9lfTl'6NG SUBJEC7' PRO?ERTY FRUM THE WEST POR PROPER CLEANING AND
:URN AROUND WI'CH 'fHE ENG6NEF_RING FROV~DED 9Y THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
4. PRE?ARAT70N OF 57'REE'.' ~MPROVEMENTS Pi.4N5 AND iNSTALt.A.TfON OF ALL
IMPROVEMEN'i5 EN ACCORDANCE W(TH 7HE APPROVED Sl'ANDARD PLANS ON FOLE
IN '1'HE OFFtCE OF 'CHE CLT'./ ENG{NEER.
5. PAYMENT OF $2.00 PER FRONT F00'!' FOR S:REET LlGH71NG PURPOSES.
6. PROVISlON OF Ul'lL:TY E.45EMEN75 ALONG EXTER~.OR BOUNDARIES AS DETER~
MINED RY THE DORECTOR OF UT.li.:~C~ES.
?. PROVfSiON OF' LANDSCAP7NG Pl.ANS FOR THE 'CWENTY (20~ FOOT LANDSCAPED
SYRL' AND 'iHE PARKWAY PCRi'~ON OF 7HE FUiURE RfGH"i'-OF-WAY TO BE SUB'~
M~'fTED 7'0 AND APPR~VED BY ~HF.. SUPERlN:F_NDENT OF PARKWAY MAtNTENANCE.
8. POSTING OF A BOND W:'i'H7N A PER;OD OF NONE:Y (90~ DAYS TO ~NSURE
'fHE ACCOMPL:SHME.NT OF I'TEM NOS. ?_9 3~ 40 5 AND 6.
THF. i'OREGf.•pNC CGND(?'~ONS WERF. RcC;l'ED .47 'fHE: MEE'!'ING A4D W'c:~E ~QUND TO
BE A NECESSAP.V °P.EP.EC~Ut51':~_ ~PO TNE IISE OF 7'HE P4QPER~!'Y {N qRDER 70 PRF.-
SER4'f_ TkE SAfF.T'r AND WCt.FOP.F'. Cr THE CITIZENS 0:' TkE (:11"f OF AN.4HF.IM.
ON P~~I.L CALL. THE FOREG0ING RE50i.lj;'~ON t~A$ PASSFD BY THE fOLLC~WING VOTE;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MARC:OUrp MOH.RiSP MUNGALL~ PERRY~ SUMMERS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS~ A:.LRE9o GAUERa HAr~ooo.
RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. PE-;'itoN SUBM7TTED ev WILLIAM C. ANP ADA I.
N0. 6o-6i-95 _ HIGDON~ 20640 SAN7'A ANA CANYfN RQAD~ ANAHEtM~ CALOFQRNIA~ OWNFRS~ RE~-
~lUESTlNG T1=AT PROPERTY DESCP.IBfD A5: A PARCEL W~iH A FRON'1'AGF. OF' 6?3
FEET ON BEACH BOULEVARD9 AND A~ AVtR.4GE UEPTH OF 557 FEE:':' AND LOCATED
ON THE WEST SIDF OF BEACH BOULEVARD BETWFEN LINCOLN AVENUE AND ~HE
BUENA PARK CtTY LIMiTS~ iT5 SOUTHEAST CORNF.R BEtNG APPROXIMATELY 625
FEET NORTH OF 7HE NORTHWES'T CORNER OF LINCOLN AVENUE AND BEACH BOULE~
VARD~ AND FURTHER "vcSCROBED AS 315'~327 NORTH BEACH BOUI.EVARD/ BE
RECt.A5SIFIFD FROM THE R-A RESlDENT1AL AGRlCULTURAL, ZONE ro THE C-i~
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERGIAL, ~LONE.
SUBJEC? PETlTION WAS CQNTlNUED FROM THE MEETING OF MAY 15~ 1961 TO
PROVIDE 7'HE PETEl'lONER AN OPPORTUNI~:'f 70 SUBMIT DETALLED PLANS FOR THE
PROPOSED COMMERCCAL DENELOPMEN': OF' THE SUBJECT PRDPERTY ANC TO OB7A1N
IIiFORMATION IN REGARD TO A COUN}'y VARtANCE PERMETTiNG 1'HE PRESENT USE
OF THE PROPERTY.
MRS. HIGDON~ 1HE PF.'fIT10NERo WAS PRESEN'f AND INDICA'iED THAT MR. W. C.
NYCOFF' WOULD PP.ESENT 7HF. PROPOSAL ON RESPECT TO THE DEVELO~MENT OF THE
SUB.fECT PROPERTY.
MR. WYCOFF~ THE REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AETITIONER~ APPEARED BE}ORE THE
COMMISSION AND STATED THAT UPON INVES'1'IGATION HE HAD BEEN ADVISED
THAT THE COUNTY d'ARIANCE ISSVED FOR TNF. USE OF THE SUB~IF.CT PROPf'RTY MAS
AH MOPEN ENDn VARI,ANCE AHD DID NO?' C~NTP.IN A TJME LIMITATION~ AND THAT
HE NAS INFORMED THAT THE VARIANCE WAS STILL EFFECTIVE. HE (NDICATED
'PHAT PLANS HAD BEEN PREPARED AND SUBMI7TED FOR THE FUTURE COkSTRUCTION
OF A MOTEL AND RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT~ AND 'SHAT THE PETITIONER WISHED
TO LEGALLY CONTINUE THE USE OF THE PROPERI'Y FOR CHURCH FACIL170E5 AND
A REAL ESTATE OFFICE UN7:L SUCH TIME AS THEY WERE PREPARED TO PROCEFD
WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITIQN TO SUBJECT PETITiON. THE NEARING WAS
CLOSED.
THE COMM~I5510N REVIEWED T,HE SUBMiTTED PLAN~ NOTED THA: OT WAS DATED
JUL'9 260 1957~ AND DISCUSSF.D THE FACT 7'HA7 THE PLAN CONTAiNED A C-3~
HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ USE WHICH WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED IN A C-1Z NEIGHBOR~
HOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE UNLE55 BY A CUNDITIONAL USE PERMIT. IHE
, f
i
~
.._.... _.__.___
.__ f _.... __ __ _ _.._. _ _ _._. _.._ _. . .... _ . . ____...._.._ ,. ___-. .
- .._ -.:
' ~
'
~. _.__""_'„
.
__"_ _ . f:
. .. ..
i •
.1 ,
/ „__ ._
~j t~ ~
' iei
MiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMM]SS10N~ MAY 29, 1961, C'Jl~TINUED;
RECLASSIFICATION - CoMM~sstoN NOTED THAT PlANS FOR THE REQUESTED C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMER-
NO. 60-61-95 CIAL~ USE HAD~NOT.BEEN PRESENTED~ TNq7 NO ELEVAT~ON PLANS WERE SUBMITTED~
CONTINUED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS IN CLOSE PROXiMITY TO DESIRABLE DEVELOPMENT~ AND
7HAT THE PROPERTY NAS VALUABLE AND COULD BE SUI?ABLY DEVELOPED. .
GOMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED A MOl'iOtJ~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNGALL~
. TO CONTINUE PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60-61-95 UNTIL THE MEETING ,
OF~JUNE 26~ 1961 TO ALLOW THE PET1:'IONER AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT RE-
VISED DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR USES PERMIT7ED IN THE C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCpAL~ ZONE. ;
MR. WYCOFF ADDRESSED THE COMM~SSION AND REQUESTED THAT THE SUBJECT PETI- ~
TION BE pLTERED..TO PERMIT REGLASS:FICATiC~N OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO ~
THE C-~~ HEAVY COMMERCIAG~ ZONE. ASSOSTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER
ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT THE SUBJECT PETITION COULD NOT.BE ALTEREU~
FHAT TNE REQUEST FOR C-3~ HEAVY COMMERC7AL9 ZONE WOUl.O REQUPRE ADVER- .
TiSiNG Ad1D PROCESSING IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE REQIIlREMENTSy AND THAT
7HE PROPGSED DEVELOPMENT FOR MOTEL FAClLITIES WOULD REQUIRE A CONDITION-
AL USE PERMOT IF THE PROPERTY WERE RECLASSIFIED TO ~'HE C-1~ NEiGHBORH00D .
COMMERCIAL~ ZONE.
THE COMMiSSION NOTED ~P1HAT REV:SED PLANS PROVIDING FOR A C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERClAL~ DEVELOPMENT WUULD HAVE TO BE SUBMlTTED BEFORE RECLASSIFICA~
TION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE C-1 ZONE COULD BE PROPERLY CONStDERED.
I1' WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE PET1TlONER DESIRED TO OBTAIN A CITY LICENSE fN
ORDER TO CONTINUE THE PRESENT USE OF THE PROPERTY UNTiL SUCH TFME AS }'HEV
WOUL.D BE IN A POSITION TO DEVELCP THE PROPERTY.
A DISCUSSION ENSUED RELATIVE i'0 TiIE F'ROPER APPL.iCATiON F'OR THE PROPOSED
USE AND RELATIVE TO THE FACT THA'f iF A COUNTY VARlANCE WERF EFFEC'f:VE'
THE PE71TtONER COULO OBTA:N A C7":Y LiCENSE FOR THE PRESENI' USE OF THE
pROPERTY UPON CLARIF1CATfuN OF THE VARlANCE WOTF THE COUNTY. THE SUB-
JECT PET~TiON COULD9 THERE~ORE~ BE WITHDRAWN AND THE USE CON':INUED UNTIL
SUCH T~ME AS THE PETITIONERS FlAD DE?ERMSNED TNE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THEY
DES:RED AND pROPER APPLiCA'.iON POR 7HE USE WERE MADE. THE PET7Ti0NER5
WERE ADVISED TH.4T THE RE~-FItING WOULD REQUIRE A FEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
CODE REQU:REMENTS. ~
COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED THE WI7HDRAWAL OF THE MOTION TO CONTINUE
THE SUBJECT PETIT~ON AND COMMISSIONF.R MUNGALL OFFERED W~THDp.4WAL OF 1'HE
SECOND.
MR. WYCOFF ADDRESSED THE COMM:SSION AND REQUESTED THAT THE SUB,IECT PE'C!~
iION FOR RECLASSIFICAT~ON N0. 60-61-95 BE WITHDRAWN.
COMMI55fONER MUNGALL OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX ~.
AND CARRIED~ THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICAT~ON N0. 60-61-95 BE WITH- :
DRAWN IN ACCORDANCE Wi7'H THE REQUEST 6Y THE PET~TIONER~S P.EPRESF_NTATIVE.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLlC HEARING. FETIT:oN SUBMtI'TED sv WILLAIM A. BEHNKE 2156 SouTH
eEFMIT N0. 121 HARBOP. BOULEVARD ANAHEIM~ CALIFOftN1A~ OWNER~ RICHARD GUfHERY, 97?6
KATELLA AVENUE~ ~UITE ^D~ ANAHElM CAI.IFORNIA~ LESSEE~ RF.QUF.ST:NG
PERMISSION FOR OVERNIGHT fRAILER PdRKING ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5: A
PARCEL 14O FEET BY 2OO FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 2OO FEET ON HARBOR BOULE-
VARD AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HARBOR BOULEVARD BETWEEN ORANGEWOOD
~ AVENUE AND NILKEN NAY~ tT5 SOUTHWEST CORNER BEING APPROXIMA7'ELY 250 FEET
NORTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HARBOR BOULEVARD AND NILKEN WAY AND
FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 2156 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD. PROPERTY PRESENTLY
CLASSIFIED R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
SUBJECT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 7S SUBMITTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH P~.T!-
T~ON FOR VARIANC£ N0. 1366.
~R, CARL ARTHOFER APPEARtD BEFORE THE: COMMISSION AND STATED THA1'~HE
MOULD REPRESENT THE PETITIONER (N THE ABSENCE OP RICHARD GUTHERYo THE
PETITIONER~S AGENT. HE INDICATED THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLANS FOR THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT~ THAT HE WAS REQUESTING PERMISSION FOR THE OVF.R-
NIGHT PARKING OF TRAILERS ON THE REAR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A SALES OFFICE IN A NEW BUELDING~ AND THAT THE OLD
BUILDING PRESENTLY ON THE PROPERTY WOULD BE REMOVED.
THE COMMISSION N07ED THAT THE PIOT PLAN SUBMITTED WITH THE SUBJECT PETI-
TION WAS IDENTICAL TO THE P~OT PLAN SUBMITTED FOR PETITION FOR CONDp-
TIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 101 WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE PLANNING COMM75510N ON
FEBRUARY 6, 1961.
MR, ARTHOFER INDICATED THAT AODITIONAL PLANS WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE
FOR COMMISStON CONSIDERATION AND REQUESTED THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT N0. 121 AND PETfTION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1366 BE HELD IN ABEY-
ANCE UNTiI LATER IN THE MEETING IN ORDER FOR HIM TO OBTAIN RENDERINGS
AND OTHER MATERIALS tN RES?ECT TO THE SUBJECT PETITION.
VARIANCE N0. 1365 - pUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMlTTED ev JOHN J. RITZKE~ 2203 HUNTINGTON
AVENUE ANAHEIM CAL~FORNIA OWNER•
BUILDIIVG SET-BA~K LINE REQUIREMENTS~ REqUESTlNG PERMi5510N TO
FOR REVERSE CORNER LOTS WAlVE
oN PROPERTY
DESCRIBED AS: A PARCEL 74 FEET BY 127 FEET WITH A FRONTA6E OF 127 FEET y
.
. .
~ i
3
~
-----------i _- _~__ ---__.. _._.__. .. _ _ . ---
_--'---- --- --- ----- _ _~_
• ~
~
+n~ ;~
~
lez
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMiSS10N~ MAY 29~ 1~J61~ CONTINUED:
VARIANC~ N0. 1365 - oN NORTH BROOKHURST STREET AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF BROOK-
CONTINUED HURST STREET AND HUNTINGTON AVENUE AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 2203 HUNTING-
TON AVENUE. PROPERT•Y PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R~1~ ONE FAMiLY RESiDENTIAI~
ZONE.
HR. JOHN RITZKE~ THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND
STATF_D THAT HE WAS REQUESTING THE VARIANCE lN ORDER TO REPLACE AN EXIST-
ING SIX FOOT REDWOOD FENCE MITH A FIVE FOOT BLOCK WALL TO WITHIN ONE
F001' OF THE SIDEHALK IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE AREA FOR A SWIMMING
POOL INSTALLATION~ THAT THE FENCE WAS PRESENTLY LOCATED NINE FEET PROM
iHE SETBACK LIPIE~ 7HAT TNE LAkbSCAPING IN THE AREA FROM THE FENCE TO THE
SIDEMALK WAS DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN~ AND THAT THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF
THE BLOCK WALL NOULD N07 BE A HAZARD BUT WOULD REDUCE NOISE EMANATING
FROM BROOKNURST STREET. THE HEARING MAS CLOSED.
THE COMMI5510N DiSCUSSED THE PRESENT LANDSCAPING ON THE SUBJECT AND ADJA-
CENT PROPERTI,ES AND THE NECESSITY FOR PROVIDING A THREE (3) F00T SETBACK
FROM TS1E SIDEWALK WHICH WOULD PROVIDE ADEQUATE AREA FOR SUITABLE LAND-
SCAPIYG. THE PETITIONER tNDICATED THAT TO PROViDE A THREE FOOT SETBACK
WOULD NOT FURNI.SH THE RELIEF OF HIS PROBLEM. THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT
THE RECOMMENDED THREE FOOT SETBACK WOULD BE NECESSARY BECAUSE OF CODE
REQUIREMENTS AND.INDICATED THAT THE REQUEST COULO BE REVIEWED BY THE
CITY COUNC~L IF 7HE PETITIONER SO DE57RED.
TNC COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOILOWING FACTS REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITION:
1. IHAT THE PETITIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE~ SECTION 18.04.090 ;2-H) TO PERMIT THE ENCROACHMENT OF A FIVE
F00T B~OCK NALL INTO TNE REAR YARD AND SIDE YARD OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
HEYOND THE NORMAL BU7.LDING SE'TBACK LINE OF THE KEY LOT CREATED BY
THE REVERSE CORNER LOT.
2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTlONA~ OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDI-
TIpNS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY INVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED USE
OF THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE PROPERY OR CLASS
OF USE IN THE SAME VIClNtTY AND ZONE.
3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIAN~E IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND
ENJOYM~ENT OF A SUBSTANTIAI. PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPER-
TY IN THE SAME VICINITY AND 20NE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUES-
TOON.
4. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE NILL NOT 9E MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO~THE
PUBLIC YIELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN SUCM
VICINITY AND 20NE IN WH1CH THE PROPERTY IS IOCATED.
5. THAT 7H~ REQUESTED VARIANCE NILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFEC'! THE COMPREHEN-
SIVE GENERAL PLAN.
6. ?HAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSOTION TO SUBJECT PETITION.
COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTiON N0. 268~ SERIES 1960^61~ AND
MOVED FOR ITS PASSAfiE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNGALL~ TO
aRANT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1365~ SUBJECT TO 7HE FOLI.OWING CONDITIONS:
1. DEVE~OPMEN7 SUBSTAN7IALLY IN ACCORDANCE MITH PLANS PRESENTED MITH.
THE PROVISION TNAT THE FIVE (5) F00T BLOCK WALL BE INSTAI.LED THREE
(3~ FEET FROM AND ppRAL4EL TO 7HE EAST PROPERTY LINE OF SUBJECT PRO-
PERTY FOR THE D15TANCE SHOWN ON T.HE PIOT PLAN AND SHALL BE CONNECTED
W~TH THE EXISTING BLOCK WALL ALONG TF.E NORTH PROPERTY LINE.
2. PROV1S10N AND MAINTENANCG OF' L.ANDSCaf~lNO WiTHIN SAlD 7'HREE (3) F00T
SETBACK AREA TO CONFORM WITH 7'H~ Lk~dOSCAPiNIi ?P.OVIDED SOUTNERLY OF
HUNTINGTON AVENUE BY THE HAWAIIAN VI~LAGE RECREATIONAL CLUB IN A
THREE ~3~ FOOT M1DE LANDSCAPED SETBACK STRIP WHICH PARALLELS AND
ABUTS ROOKHURST STREET. PLANS FOR SAID LANDSCAPlNG SHALL BE SUB~-
MITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE SUPERIMTENDENT OF PARKWAY MAINTENANCE,
THE FOREGOING CONDITIONS WERE RECITED A7 THE MEETINa AND WERE FOUND TO BE
A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE Of THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
THE SAFE7Y AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOINO RESOLUTION NAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PERRY~ SUMMERS.
NOES: COMMISSlONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMHISSIOMERSO ALLRED~ GAUER~ HAPQOOD.
VARIANC N0. 1367 - PUBLIC NEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED av COLONY 1NVESTMENTS~ 1925 ANAHEIM-
OLIVE ROAD ANAHEIM CALI.FORNIA~ OWHER REQUE571Na.PERMI5510N TO ESTABLISH
A SIGN P~`IIVTING SHO~ IN AN R-2, TVdO FA~11LY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE, oN PROP~RTY
DESCRIBED AS, A PARCEL 50 FEET BY 135 FEET.WITH A FRONTAGE OF 50 FEET ON
BROADWAY AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SiOE OF BROADNAY BETWEEN VINE 0.ND BUSH
STREETS~ JTS NORiHEAST CORN~R BEINQ APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET WEST OF THE
~
183
MINUTES, C1TY PLANNlN6 CQMMISSlO^!, Na~ 24, 1961, COti7iiJUE~t
VARIANCE N0. 1367 - SGUTHWEST CORNER C~F BROADWAY AND BUSH STREET~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBEU AS
CONTINUED 97.2 EAST BROADWAY. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIEC R-2~ TWO FAMILY RESI-
DENTIAL, ZONE.
MR. KENNETH LAE~ 914 WEST CENTER STREET~ ANAHEIM~ AppEARED BEFORE THE
COMMISSION~ STATED THAT HE REPRESENTED THE PETITIONER AND THE PROSPECTIVE
BUYER.OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTV~ AND THAT THE PROPOSED USE WOULD NOT BE
DETRtMENTAL TO THE SURROUNDING AREA. HE STATED FURTHER THAT A PAINTING
CONTRACTOR~S BUSINESS HAD BEEN IN OPERATION IN A REAR BUILDING ON SUBJECT
PROP,ERTY~ THAT THE PROPOSED USE WOULD NOT BE AS OBJECTIONABLE AS THE
PREVIOUS CONTRACTING BUSINESS BECAUSE PAINTS WOULD NOT BE STORED~ THAT
THERE WOULD NOT BE MANY CHANGES IN THE BUILDING~ THAT ONLY SIGN PAINT-
ING WOULD BE CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES~ THAT THE SURROUYDING PROPERTY i
OWNERS HAD BEEN CONTACTED AND D~D NOT OBJECT TO THE SUBJECT PETITION~ ;
AND THAT THE PROPOSED USE NOULD NOT 8E HAZARDOUS BECAUSE LESS PAINT j
WOULD BE ON THE PREMISES THAN IN THE PAST. ~
MR. JOHN O'CONNELL~ 2466 CHAIN AVENUE~ ANAHEtM~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COM-
MISSION~ STATED THAT THE PROPOSED USE WOULD NOT BE A FIRE HAZARD BECAUSE ~
IT WOULD NOT REQUIRE USE OF QUANTITIES OF PAINT~ THAT AT THE PRESENT
TIME THERE ARE DRUMS AND STORAGE OF PAINT ON THE PROPERTV~ THAT THERE '
WOUL~ BE SOMEONE ON THE PREMISES AT ALL TIMES~ AND THAT FIRE EXTINQU~SHERS ~
WOULD BE PROVIDED IN CASE OF EMERGENCY. ~.
THE HEARING•WAS CLOSED.
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE NECESSITY FOR INSPECTION OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER
ADVtSED THE COMMISSION THAT CONOITIONS COULD 9E IMPOSED REQUIRING IN-
SPECTION AND APPROVAL BY THE FIRE AND/OR BUILDING DEPARTMENTS IN ORDER
TO ASCERTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH BUILDING AND FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS.
THE COMMISSION FOUND ANO DETERMINED THE FOLLOWIN6 FACTS REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PE7ITION:
1, THAT THE pETITlONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE~ SECTION 18.28.010 TO PERMIT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SIGN
PAlNTING SHOP IN AN EXISTING STRUCTURE ON A PARCEL OF PROPERTY
CLASSIFIED IN THE R-2~ TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE.
2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCJMSTANCES OR COND~-
TIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERY I.NVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED USE OF
THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLV GENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR CLA55
OF USE IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE.
3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND
ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PRO-
PERTY IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY !S LOCATED.
4. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE
PUBLIC WELFARE OR.INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN SUCH
VICINITY AND 20NE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPREHEN-
SIVE GENERAL PLAN.
G. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION.
COMMISSIONER MARCOUY. OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 269, SERIES 1960~61~ AND
MOVED FOR ITB PASSAOE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PERRY~ TO
QRANT PEYITIO~~ FOR VARIANCE N0. 1367~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLIOWINO COND~TIONS;
1. SUBJECT TO THE (NSPECTION AND APPROVAL BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND/OR
THE BUILDINa DEPARTMENT.
2. REPLACEMENT OF DAMA~ED AND/OR HAZARDOUS ^IDEWALKS.
THE FORE~OIN~ CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETINa AND WERE FOUND TO BE
A NECESBARV PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRELERVE
THE SAFETY AND WE6FARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
ON RC..L CALL TNE FOREQOINQ RESO~UTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWINa VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUN~ALL~ PERRY~ SUMMERS.
NOES; COMMIS510NERS7 NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; ALLRED~ ~AUER~ HAP~OOD.
VARIANCE N0. 1368 - PUBLIC HEARING. PerITION SUBMITTED ev WILLIAM WALKER 2664 BRUCE AveNUe,
ANAHEiM~ OWNER~ REQUESTINO PERMISSION TO WAIVE REAR YdRD SETBACK REQUIRE~
MENT ON PROPER7Y DESCRIBED AS: A PARCEL 61 FEET BY 100 FEET W.ITH A FRONT-
ACaE OF 61 FEET ON BRUCE AVENUt' AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BRUCE
AVENUE BETWEEN LA REINA STREET AND THE DEAD~ENDj ~TS NORTHWEST CORNER
BEIN~ APPROXIMATELY 130 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LA REINA
STREET AND BRUCE AVENUE~ AND FURTHER DcSCRIBED AS 2664 BRUCE AVENUE.
PROPERTY PRESENTLY CI,ASSIFIED R~1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
.. , . . . . ~\,
~ ,~ .
~
~ ' .
_
/ ..__ ...... -
/ ~
t
1 ,r
~
1..~
MINUTES, C17Y PLIINNING COMMI5SION, MAY 29~ 1961~ CONTINUED;
VARIANCE N0. 1368 - PETITIONER RHQUESTS A VARIANCE TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF SEVEN FEET
CONTINUED INTO THE REQUlRED REAR YARD 1N ORDER TO ENCLOSE A PORCH ATTACHED TO AN
EXISTING RESIDENCE.
THE PETITIONER MAS PRESENT AND STA7ED HE HAD N07HINCi TO ADD TO THE
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE SUBJECT PETITION.
THE HEARING•WAS CLOSED.
THE COMMISSJtl~~ POUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDIN~ THE
SUBJECT PETITION; .
1. THAT THE PE'[ITIONER REQUESTS A VARd:ANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE~ SECTION 18.24.030 (3) TO PERMIT THE ENCROACHMENT OF SEVEN
(7) FEET•INTO 7HE REQUIRED REAR YARD.
2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDI-
TIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPeRTY INVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED USE OF
THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE PRQPERTY OR CLASS
OF USE IN 7HE SAME VICINITY AND 20NE.
3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE 1,5 NECESSARY FOR•THE PRESERVATI.ON AND
ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY R16HT POSSESSED BY OTHER PRO-
PERTY IN THE SAME VICI.NITY AND ZONE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN
QUESTION. ~
4. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE W1LL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO
THE PUBLI,C WEI.FARE OR ItSJUR10US TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN
SUCH VI.CINITY AND ZONE 7N WH1CH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
5. THAT THE REQUESiED VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPREHEN-
SIVE GENERAL PLAN.
6. THAT THE PROPOSED••CONSTRUCTION WILL OCCUP'' '-~''ROXIMATELY .9 PERCENT
OF 7HE REQUIRED REAR YARD AND~ THEREFORE~ '%.~L ALLOW AN ADEQUATE
AMOUNT OF REAR YARD TO REMAIN. ~
7. THAT THE PP.OPOSED CONSTRUCTI.ON WILL N07 BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE
SURROUNDING AREA.
8. THAT NO ONE APPEARED I.N OPPOSITION TO THE SUBJECT PETITI,ON.
COMMISSI.ONER MUNGAL~ OFFERED RESOLU'LION N0. 270~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND
MOVEA FOR 1T5 PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX~
TO GRANT ?ETITION FOR VARI,ANCE N0. 1368~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING COND1-
TION2
' l. pEVEL~PMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED.
TNE FORE601'N4 CONDI.TI,ON WAS RECI,TED AT 7HE MEETING AND WAS FOUND TO BE
A NECESSARY PREREQU151TE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER i0 PRESERVE
THE SAFETY AkD WELFARE OF THE C17'lZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREQOINa RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COMMlSSIONERS: MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PERRV~ SUMMERS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS7 NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ HAPGOOD.
VARIANCE N0. 1369 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETIrloN suaMtrre~ ev ETTA M. TUMA 714 NottrH CLAUDINA
STREET~ ANAHEIMo CALIFORNI,A~ OwNER; ROBERT J. COLEMdN~ 12021 WESTMINSTER
AVENUE SANTA ANA CALiFORNI.A~ A4EN7~ REQUESTINCi PERMi5510N TO WAIVE
BUILDi~IG AREA RE~UIREMEYT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5; A PARCEL 52 FEET BY
155 FEET WITM A FRONTA4E OF S2 FEEx ON CLAUDINA STRIeEi AND LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF CLAUDINA STREET BETWEEN NORTH AND WILHELMINA STREETS~ ITS
SOU7HWEST CORNER BE1N(i APPROXIMATELY 155 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF WI~.HELMINA AND CLAUDIIVn SiREETS AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 714
' NORTH CLAUDINA S7REET. PROPERTY PRESEN7LY CLASSLFIED R-2~ TWO FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
MR. ROBERT J. COLEMAN~ 12021 WESxMINSTER AVENUE~ SANTA ANA~ APPEARED
SEFORE THC CORiR1tS510N AND 57A2ED THAT ME REPRESENTED THE PETlTIONER: HE
INDICATED 7HAT THE PETITlONER WAS AN ELDERLV CITIZEN WHO LIVED ALONE
MI.TH HER S15TERo THAT THE EXISTINO SINaLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON 7HE FRONT
PORTION OF THE PROPER'[Y FRONT,ING CLAUDINA STREET WAS T00 LARGE FOR THEIR
NEEDS~ AND THAT TNEY MISHED TO CONSTRUCT A SMALLER SIN6LE FAMILY RE51~
DENCE ON THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY FOR THEIR USE. HE STATED THAT THE
CONSTRUC7I.ON WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDlN6 AREA~ AND THAT
ACCE55 MOULD BE PROVIDED FROM 7HE ALLEY ABUTTINCi iHE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON
THE SOUTH.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSE~.
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DEYERMINED THE FOLLOWINfi FACTS REGAROING THE:
SUBJEC7 PETITIONI
~ ~
~: " i
,
_ ' ` ,~~
;Y ,
.
;'
' ~
r.
1 ~~~
' ~ ~
S "~
.
'.- .
' ~
~
~t~'' -_~-___ _.....
, 1 . ........ . . ,. .. ...~,. ..._
/_' ' . . . .. . . _..
~
. . ~ • ~ ~ . . ~ •
~ !I
~
185 jf
1t
e
~ i
1
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Mnv 29, 1961, CONTINUEO: j
I
VARIANCE ND. 1369 - 1. THAT THE PETITtONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHE;M MUNICIPAL i
CONTINUED CODE~ SECTION 18.80.080 WHICH REQUIRES THAT ANY HUILDING TO BE I
~ CONSTRUCTEO IN THE R~2~ TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE MUST CONTAIN
A LIVEABLE F~OOR SPACE OF NOT LESS THAN 1~225 SQUARE FEET~ TO PER-
§§ MIT 'CHE CONSTRUCTION OF A OWELLING CONTAINING A LIVEARLE FLOOR
~ SPACE OF AppROXIMATELY 918 SQUARE FEET. I
I
~ '
2. THAT THERE•ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDI^ i
~ TIONS AppL~CABLE t0 THE PROPERTY INVO WED OR TO THE INTENDED U5E OF i
7HE PP.OPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR CLASS I
OF USE IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE. I
t'
I 3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE :S NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND
.
~, ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSi.ANT1AL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PRO-
PERTY IN THE SAME VICINITY AND 2pNE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN
k ,. QUESTION.
t 4. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WII.L N0T BE MATERIALLV DETRIMENTAL TO
THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR I,MPROVEMENTS IN '
SiICH VtCIN1TY AND ZONE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
~ 5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARI.ANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPRE-
~
' HENSIVE GENERAL PLAN.
~ 6. THAT NO ONc APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUBJECT PETITION.
t~ ~ COMMISSIONER SUMMERS OFFERED RESOLUTI,ON N0. 271~ SERIES 1960-61, AND
; MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTiON~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNGAIL~
i TO GRANT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1369~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
~+
CONDI?IONS:
~ 1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED.
~ 2. PAYMENT OF a2.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES.
~ THE FOREGOtNCa CONDIT.fONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TU BE
~ A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY (N ORDER TO PRESERVE
THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITV OF ANAHEIM.
t
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
~ AYES: COMM1SS10NERS: MARCOUX~ MORRiS~ MUNGALL~ PERRY~ SUNMERS.
~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NoN~e
; ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSS ALLRED~ GAUER~ HAPa00D. .
~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBl1C HEARING. PETlTION SUBM~T•TED ev LOMA VISTA INVESTMENTS, INC.
~RM1T N0. 122 10668 CRANKS Ron~, CULVER CITY~ CALIFORNIA~ OwNERS; MARTHA M. MONTGGMERY~
~ 1807 VERDE PLACE ANAHEIM CALIFORNI.A~ LESSEE~ REQUESTING PERMISSION TO
ESTABLISH A DA
S~HQOL
ER
G
r
~. ON PROPER7Y DESCRIBED A5: A PARCEL 63
Y I
URS
Y
FEET BY 100 FEET WIJH A FRONTAGE OF 63 FEE7 ON PLACENTIA AV6NUE AND
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PLACENTt.A F~VENUE BETWEEN SOUTH STREET AND
~ VIRGINIA AVENUE~ ITS SOUTHWEST CORNER 6EING APPROXIMATELY 127 FEET NORTH
j OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PLACENTIA AVENUE AND SOUTH STREET AND FURTHER
DESCRIBED AS 628 SOUTH PLACENTIA AVENUE. PROPER7Y PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED
R-i, OWE FAMILY RESIDENTIAI, ZONE.
MRS. MARTHA MONTGOMERY~ THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION
AND DESCR~BED 7HE PROPOSED USE OF A SINQLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FOR A DAY
E . NURSERY SCHOOL. .
F. .
MR. E. C. TUNE~ 632 SOUTH PLACENTIA AVENUE AND MRS. MARQARET LVMBEROPOU-
LOS~ 622 SOSUTH PLACENTIA AVENUE/1,NDJCA7ED THEIR OPPOSITlON TO THE SUB-
JECT PETITION.
V1CE-CHAIRMAN MORRJS READ A PETiTION OF OPPOSITION~ SI.GNED BY TEN PRO-
PER7Y ONNLRS IN THE SUBJECT AREA AND A LETTER OF OPPOSITION FROM THE
CHELSEA HOLD~NG COMPANY. THE BASIS OF THE OPPOSITION WAS THAT THE COM-
MERCIAL USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WOULD REDUCE THE CURRENT AND
FUTURE MARKET VALUES OF OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA.
MRS. MONTGOMERY~ IN REBUTiAL, SrATED THAT THE OBJECTIONS WERE PRIMARILY
~, ~ THAT THE °ROAOSED USE WOULD DEPRECIATE TNE PROPER7Y VALUES OF,ADJACENT
PROPERTIES. SHE STATED THAT SHE NAS PURCHAS(NG THE PROPERTY AND PAYING
A PREMIUM PRICE FOR iT~ THAT YHE PROPERTIES IN CLOSE PROXIMITY WOULD BE
ZONED FOR COMMERCI.AL DEVELOPMENT I.N THE NEAR FUT!lRE~ THAT SHE DID MOT IN~
TEND TO COMMERCIALIZE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND WAS N07 ASKING FOR RECLA55-
IFICATION FOR COMMERCIAL USE~ THAT OTHER OWNERS OF PROPERTY ON PLACENTIA
AVENUE HAD PURCHASED THEIR PROPERTY WITH THE INTENTION OF CONVERTING TO
COMMERCIAL USE~ THAT SHE HAD THREE OTHER NURSERV SCHOOLS WHICH SHE CON51~
DERED FIRST CLA55 SCHOOLS~ THAT ONLY A LiMITED kUMBEF. OF CHILDREN WOULD
BE CARED FOR ON THE PREMISES~ THAT HER LICENSE WOULD RESTRICT THE NUMBER
OF CHILDREN PERMITTED 7'O OCCUPY THE PREMISES~ THAT THE STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION CONTROLLED THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN PERMITTED~ THAT THE BUILDIN~
AND MAINTENANCE CONDiTI0N5 WERE SUBJECT TO THE INSPECTION AND CONTROL BY
THE STATE~ AND THAT SHE WISHED TO MAINTAIN A K~NDERGARTEN TYPE OF DAY
NURSERY WITH CLASS ROOMS. .
4 I
- ' _ ' ; . . ~
.
_ _.~
., .. ~_.~ .~~ .__ _ --- --- -- --- -
- - -- -
,.; .;
,
. y
~.
;:.' , _.., ...:. . . .
__~ , : ..,
. ~ ~
.,
ti , , _ . ;. ! ';
~
.
, . .:: : _.. . . .. . . ... . : .... . . .
.::. . . . . _
,;{
;
,
i -
;
;
~:x`, •
~.
~
~ ~I
186
MINUTES, CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION~ MAY 29~ 1961, CONTLNUED:
CONDITIONAL USE - T-+E COMMI,SSION CISCUSSED THE AMOUNT OF AREA AVAILABLE AND THE IN7ENDED
THE PROPOSED USE. MRS.
PERMIT N0. 122 CONVERSION OF THE 1NTERIOR OF THE STRUCTURE FOR
TWELVE TO FIFTEEN CHILDREN WOULD PROBABLY
CONTINUED i~ONTGOMERY INDiCATED THAT FROM
D FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THAT HER OTHER SCHOOLS WERE
BE PERMiTTE
LOCATEC IN BE~LFLOWER~ LONG BEACH~ AND LAKEWOOD. SHE STATED FURTHER
UTILIZE THE
THAT NO SIGNS WOULD BE NECESSARY AND THAT THE CHILDREN WOULD
BACK VARD FOR PLAYGROUND FACILITIES.
PRESlDEN7 OF THE LOMA VISTA INVESTMENI' COMPANY~ APPEARED
LEWIS CRANK
MR
G 7HE
~
.
BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT HE WAS ENGAGED IN DEVELOPIN
ESTABLISHMENT OF DAY NURSER-
SUBJECT PROPERTY AND WAS FAMILIAR WITH THE
HE STATED THAT THE PROPOSAN
A
O
U
S.
lE5 IN SIMILAR ARE
FIFTEEN CHIL~
THAT
D
5 A NECESSITY FOR THE COMMUNITY~
T TO AND 1
,
BENEFI
DREN WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL~TO~THE AREA.
ASSISTANT CITY ATIORNEY ~~E GEIS~ER ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT A TITLE
D THAT iT WOULD 8E
REPORT WAS NOT FURNISHED MITH THE SUBJECT PETI.TION AN
ASCERTAINING WHE7HER OR NOT
NECESSARY FOR REVIEW OF SUCH EVIDENCE FOR
LIMITING THE USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO
PRIVATE DEED RESTRICTIONS~
HAD BEEN FILED ON SUBJECT PROPERTY.
E ONLY
U
~
S
SIN~LE FAMI~Y RESIDENTIAL
ED
F
R
THATAMRA TUNE HADNG
ES
OP
'
C
~
AND
USES
COMMERCIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD
CONVERTED TO
E SUBJECT PROPERTY BECAUSE HE
NEGIOTIATEp WtTH HIM FOR PURCHASE OF TH
THAT IT WOULD BE CONVERTED FOR COM1•fERC!AL
BELiEVED IT WAS INEVITABLE
CRANK STATED Tl1AT HE BELIEVEU THE SUBJECT REQUES'i WAS FOR
MR
E
.
S.
PURPOS
GINYTHENAREAG
B
N
T
N
N
A
A
S
~
ACT
VITY
FOR SUCH AN
NEED
GREAT
THE
OF
BECAUSE
PROPERTY
THE
MR. TUNE APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT HE WAS OPPOSED
A BECAUSE IT WAS
TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DAY NURSERY IN THE SUBJECT ARE
THAT HE BELIEVED THE
NEIGHBORHOOD
~
5TRICTLV A SI.NGLE FAMILY• RESIDENTIAL
ONE FP.MILY RESIDENT[AL~ 20NE UNTIL SUCH TIME
HOULD REMAIN R~1
~
AREA S
E
MT
G
H
T
S
E
A
T
E
E
H
PURCHASE OF
CON5IDERED
HAD
HE
THAT
FURTHER
STATED
HE
ZONE.R
CiALH
9ECAUSE OF THE SECOND
SUBJEC7 PROPERTY BUT DID NOT COMPLETE THE SALE
ERIENCED A
O
'
A
D
ATTENT~ONP
POL/CE
REQUIRED
HAD
CHILDACARENOPERATIONTWHICH
MRS. MARGARET LYMBEROPOULOS APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED
THAT SHE
THAT SHE HAD IMPROVED HER PROPERTY ~OR RESI.DENTIAL PURPOSES~
E
T
FOR COMMF.RCMAL
RE20NED
AASETHE ENTIREEAREA WAS
C
E
N
SUCH Tl.ME
UiTiL
USE
CiAL
PURPOSES~ AND THAT SHE HAD EXPERIENCED THE PROBLEM OF T00 MANY CHILDREN
RECEIVING IMPROPER ATTENTION.
MRS. MONTGOMERY~ IN REBUTTAL~ STATED THAT DAY NURSERIES ARE STRICTLY
D TO CONFORM TO RULES
SUPERVISEO BY VARIOUS STATE AGENCfES~ THAT THEY HA
THAT SHE WAS LICENSED TO CON-
AND REGULATIONS IMPOSED BY THESE AGENCIES~
DER
P
N
A
INSTITUTE
THE
AND
E DEPARTMENTROFRSOCIAL WELFARE
U
E
~
OF
TH
SUPERVISION
THE
R THE BLINO AND THE DEAF~ THAT SHE TAUGHT HANDICAPPED CHILDRENo AND
FO
THAT SHE PEkFORMED A PUBLIC SERYICE.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
TME COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINEO THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITION:
1~ PERMITHISPAUTHOR/ZEDEBYSTHISPCODE~~TO•W~IT:WHACDAY NURSERY~SCHOOLE
Z~ ANDTTHEEGROWTHSAND DEVELOPMENTEOFETHEAAREATINHWHICHOIT'IS PROPOSEDSTO
BE LOCATED.
3. THAT THE ENTIRE SURROUNDING AREA IS DEVELOPED fOR SINGLE FAMILY RESI-
DENTIAL USE AND IS CLASS~FIED IN THE 1~~'1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAI~
USEEOF SUBJECTRPROPERTYUIN THE REIDEONEAFAMILY RESlOENTIALHEZONEUATTED
THE PRESENT TIME.
4. THAT, ALTHOUGH THE CHILDREN WOULD BE SUPERVISED~ THE OCCUPANCY OF
FACTOR~ANDEWOULDANOTOBEMCOMPATIBL~EWITHHTHEREX1571NG RESIDENTIALlSE
DEVELOPMENT.
5. THAT VERBAL OPPOSITION~IN ADDITION TO ?iRI.TTEN OPPOSITION~ WERE RECORD-
ED AGAINST SUBJECT PETlTfO:J.
COMMISSIONER MUNGALL OFFER~D RESOLUTION N0. 272~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND
MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX~
TO DENY PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 122 ON THE'BA515 OF TNE
AFOREMENTIONED FINDiNGS.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOINQ RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ .~iUNGALL~ PERRY~ SUMMERS.
• ,; f
i
. (
,1j ;
~
--^-•`-------- .,
' ~'
. ~, ' ~ ~
187
MINUTES, CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION, MAY 29~ 1961~ CONTINUED:
CONDITIONAL USE - NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
PERMIT N0. 122
CONTINUED ABSENT: COMM1SS10NERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ HAPGOOD.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARIN6. PETITION SUBMITTED ev JOHN D. CLAUSSEN OWNER~ c/o
PERMIT N0. 123 EDWARD C. CRONIN~ lEONARD SMITH REAL ESTATE~ 125 SOUTH ~LAUDINA $TREET~
aNAHE1M CALIFORNIA LESSEE REQUESTING PERMtSS10N TO ESfABL1SH A SER-
VICE STdTION IN AN 1~-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE ON PROPERTY
DESCRIBED A5; A PARCEL 173 FEE7 BY 173 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 173
, FEET ON.BALL ROAD AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BALL ROAD AND
~ PLACENiIA AVENUE.AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1198 SOUTH PLACENTIA AVENUE.
PROPERTY PRESENTLY :LASSIFIED R-Ae RESIDENTIAI AGRICUtTURAL, ZONE.
MR. LEONARD SMITH~, 125 SOUTH CLAUDINA STREET~ ANAHEIM~ REPRESENTATIVE
FOR THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND DESCRIBED THE
. PROPOSED DEVELOPldENT OF A SERVICE STATION IM THE R-A, RESIDENTIAL
AGR~ICULTURAL~ ZONE. HE INDICATED THAT THE PROPOSED USE WOULD BE
ESTABLISHED~ON A PORTION OF A TWENTY ACRE PARCE~ AND THAT DEVELOPMENT
PLANS NOUI.D BE PREPARED FOR THE BALANCE OF THE PROPERTY~ SOME OF WHICH
WOULD BE REQUESTED FOR DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
THE COMMISSION DISr,U55ED CODE WALL REQUIREMENTS FOR PROPERTIES AeUTT1NG
THE R-K~ RESIDENTIAL KGRICULTURAL~ ZONE. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY .JOE
GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT THE POSTIN6 OF A BOND FOR A SPECI-
FIED PERIOD OF TIME WOULD SUFFICE TO INSURE THE INSTALLATION OF THE
WALL ~F THE PROPERTY WERE DEVELOPED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES~ AND THAT
IN THE EVENT THAT THE PROPERTY WERE RECLA557FIED FOR OTHER FURPOSES
W~THiN SAID PERtOD OF TIME~ THE BOND COULD BE RELEASED.
MR. SMITH INDICATED THAT HE WOULD REVISE THE TENTATIVE LAYOUT FOR DEVEL~
OPMENT OF THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH AND EAST OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND
WOULD SUBM17 THE PLANS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO (NCORPORATE WITH
THE SUBJECT PETITION.
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERM~INED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITION:
1. THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS PROPERLY ONE FOR WHICH A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT IS AUTHORIZED BY THOS CODEe TO WIT: A SERVICE STATiON.
2. THAT THE PROPOSED USE W~LL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT TkE ADJOlN7NG LANU
USES AND THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA IN WHICH IT IS
PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED.
3. THAT THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE SITE PROPOSED FOR THE USE IS ADEQUATE
TO ALLOW THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED USE IN A MANNER NOT
DETRIMENTAL TO TFiE PARTICULAR AREA NOR TO THE PEACE HEALTH~ SAFETY~
AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITlZENS OF THE CITY Of dNAHEiM.
4. THAT THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT IMPOSE AN
UNDUE BURDEN UPON THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS DESIGNED AND PROPOSED TO
CARRY THE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA.
5. THAT THE GRANTING OF THE CONDITfONAL USE PERMIT UNDER THE CONDITIONS
IMPOSED~ IF ANY~ WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PEACE~ HEALTH~
SAFETY~ AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CI.T12EN5 OF THE CiTY OF ANAHEIM.
6. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION.
COMM~SSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 273~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND
MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTiON~ SECONDED BY COMMiS510NER PERRY~ TO
GRANT PETITI,ON FOR CONDITLONAL USE PERMIT N0. 123~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOW-
ING CONDITIONS:
1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANT:ALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED.
2. DEDICATION OF 53 FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF PLACENTIA
AVENUE AND BALL ROAD (30 FEET EXiST1VG~.
3. PREPARATION OF STREET ItdPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF AlL IM-
PROVEMENTS ON PI.ACENTIA AVENUE AND BALL ROAD IN ACCORDANCE WITH
APPROVEp STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER.
4. PAYMENT OF $2.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES ON
PLACENTIA AVENUE AND BALL ROAD,
5. INSTALLATION OF P. SIX (6~ FOOT MASONRY WALL ON THE NORTH AND THE EAST
PROPERTY LINES OF SUBJECT PROPERTY WHERE IT ABUTS THE R-A, RESIDEN-
TIAL AGRICULTURAL ZONET,OR THE POSTINa OF A BOND FOR A TWO (2) YEAR
PERIOD OF TIME. ~AlD 90ND SHALL BE ftELEASED J.F THE WALL IS CONSTRUCTED~
IF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY IS REC~ASSIFIEO TO THE R~3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE OR TO ANY LESS RE57'RICTIVE ZONE~ AND/OR IF THE ADJA-
CENT PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED FOR MULTINLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL OR ANY NON~
RESIDENTIAL USE PRIOR TO THE TERMINATION OF THE SAID TWO (2) YEAR
PEP.IOD.
~ ~
~
ias
MINUTES, C1T4' PtANNING COMMISSION, Mnv 29, 1961, CONTINUED;
CONDITIONAL USE - rHE FOREGOING CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO BE
PERMiT N0. 123 A NECESSARY PREREQUlS1TE TO THE USE UF THE PROPE RTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
CONTINUED THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL GALL THE FOREGOI.NG RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING "~TE;
AYES: COMM1SSlONERS: MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PERRY~ $UMMERS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMM1SSlONERS: AILRED~ GAUER~ HAPGOOD.
CONDITIONAL USE - RUBLIC HEARING. PE1'ITION SUBMITTED ev; PARCEL i: RALPH C. AND MINA
PERMIT N0. 124 BOLTE 1475 SOUTH MANCHESTER AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNER; PARCEL
2: HAt~VEY HIERS, ET AL 701 EAST BUFFALO AVENUE SANTA ANA~ CALIFORNI.0.~
OWNER~ KIMBERLY INVEST~tENTS COMPANY INCORPORATEb, 954 RoeeRrs STREET
ANAHEIM~ CALIFORN(A I~6ENT REQUESTING PERMISSION TO ESTABLISH A MOTE~
AND HIGH RISE COMMEI~CIAL DEVELOPMENT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED as:
PARCEL 1: QN IRREGULAR SHAPED PARCEL WITH A FRONTAGE OF 920 FEET ON
THE WESTERLY SIDE OF MANCHESTER AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SI.DE OF
MIDMAY DRIVE~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1475 SOUTH MANCHESTER AVENUE.
PARCEL 2: A PARCEL 250 FEET BY 590 FEET WI.TH A FRONTAGE OF 250 fEET ON
HARBOR BOULEVARD AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HARBOR BOULEVARD
AND MIDWAY DRIVE~ EXCEPT A PARCEL 120 FEET 9Y 150 FEET NITH A FRONTAGE
OF 120 FEET ON HARBOR BOULEVARD AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
HARBOR BOULEVARD AND MIDMAY ~RIVE AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1400 SOUTH
HARBOR BOULEVARD.PROPERTV c~:,S51F1ED R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
MR. HARVEY HIERS~ THE PET1T{ONER~ APpEARED BEFORE '!HE COMMISSl.ON AN~
INDICATED THAT THE ARCHITECT FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT NOULD pRESENT
PLANS AND INFORMATION ON 7HE SUBJECT PETETION. THE ARCH:TECT PRESENTED
A MOCK~UP AND PHOTOGRAPH OF THE FRONT ELEVATIONS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOP-
MENT. HE DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A HIGH RISE FOURTEEN
STORY HOTEL CONTAINING 176 UNITS~ DINING ROOM~ BANQUET ROOMS~ AND A
COCKTAII LOUNGE AND RESTAURANT ON THE TOP FLOOR. HE INDICATED THAT SUB-
TERRANEAN PARKING WOULD BE PROVIDED FOR A PORTION OF THE REQUIRED PARKING
FACILITIES FOR THE HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AND THAT ADDITIONAL PARKING~ VARIOUS
~ SHOPS~ A DRIVE-IN BANK~ AND A MOTEI. DEVELOPMENT CONTAINING 150 UN~TS
WOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO TNE INl'EGRATED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
THE COMMISSlON DISCUSSED THE LOCATtON OF THE PARKING AREAS~ THE MOTEL
AREA~ THE NUMBER OF UNITS PROPOSE:D~ AND THE NECESSARY PARKING FACILITI.ES.
MR. E. D. ETTINGER~ REPRESEN7'A7'iVE FOR DISNEYLAND~ INC.~ APPEARED BEFORE
THE COMh115510N AND REQUESTED INFORMATION IN RESPECT TO THE PROPQSED
COCKTAIL AND RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED FOR THE HOTEL. THE PETI-
TIONER INDICATED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT BE UTILIZED FOR A NIGHT-
CLUB OPERATION.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
THE COMMISSION DtSCUSSED THE POSSIBLE NECESSITY FOR STREET LIGHTING PRO-
V1510N5 ON HARBOR BOULEVARD AND I.T WAS NOTED THAT IF THE STREET LIGHTING
REQUIREMENT D1D NOT APPLY FOR HARBOR BOULEVARD IT COULD BE ELIMONATED AS
A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF SUBJECT PETITtON:
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERM~NED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITION:
1. THA7 THE PROPOSED USE 15 PROPERI.Y ONE FOR WH1CH A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT IS AUTHORIZED BY THIS CODE~ TO WIT:,A MOTEL AND HIOH RISE
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
2. THAT THE PROPOSED USE NILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJOINING LAND
USES AND THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA IN WHICH IT IS PRO-
POSED TO BE LOCATED.
3. THAT THE 5(2E AND SHAPE OF THE SITE PROPOSED FOR THE USE 0:5 ADEQUATE
TO ALLOW THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PRQPOSED USE IN A MANNER NOT
DETRIMENTAL TO THE PARTICUI.AR AREA NOR SO THE PEAC£t HEALTH~ SAFETY~
AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
4. THAT THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT IMPOSE AN
UNDUE BURDEN U~ON THE STREETS ANO HIGHWAYS DESIGNED AND PROPOSED TO
CARRY THE TRAFtIC IN 7HE AREA.
5. THAT THE aRANTIN6 OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER THE CONDITIONS
IMPOSED~ I.F ANY~ WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PEACE~ HEALTH~
SAFETY~ AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
6. THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT tS IN ACCORDANCE WITH TFIE PROJEGTED
DEVELOPMENT OF 7HE Dl.SNEYLAND AREA AS DELIMITED ON THE GENERAL PLAN.
7. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION.
COMM15510NER MARCOUX OFFERSD RESOLUTION N0. 274~ SERI.ES 1960-61~ AND
MOVED FOR ITS PASSA(iE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUN~ALL~ TO
.~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ f
. . _ ... . ... ... ,.
~
_~
~ ~
j .
' €,';
1':,'
1
~ ,- _.._'_"~__..... . . .... ...~...__.'_.r~~ . ~_- ., .
~' ~ ,~ ~ `~,
~ {
~ 189 ;
!
~ I
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MnY 29, 1961~ CoNTINUED; ~
~ CONDITIONAL USE ~ 6RANi PETI,TION FOR CONDJTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 124~ SUBJECT TO THE
PERMIT N0. 124 FOLLONING CONDITIONS:
CONTINUED
1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTAN7IALLY IN ACCORDANCE W17H P4AN5 PRESENTED.
2. PREPARATtON OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR MIDNAY DRIVE TO JOIN
EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ON MANCHESTER AVENUE AND INS'[ALLATION OF ALl
IMPROVEMEN75 IN ACCORDANCE N,LTH APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN
THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER.
3. PAYMENT OF =2.00 PER FRON7 F00T FOR 57REET LIGHTING PURPOSES ON
HIDWAY DRIVE'AND MANCHESTER AVENUE,
4. PAYIdENT OF 52.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES ON
HaRBOR BOULEVARD.
5. PROVISION OF PARKING FACf.LITSES IN ACCORDANCE WI.TH CODE REQUIRE-
MENTS.
THE FOREGOING CONDIT10N5 NERE.RECITED A'I THE MEETlNG AND WERE FOUND TO
BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISI.TE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO
PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND HELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF TNE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FORE~OING RESOLUTION :iAS PASSED BY THE FOLL~WING VOTE;
F AYES: COMM1SS10NERS: MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PERRY~ SUMMERS.
~ NOES: COMM1SSlONERS: NONE.
f'
f ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:. ALLRED~ GAUER~ HAPGOOD.
i
~ CONDITIONAL USE
- PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMtTTED sv DiSNEYLAND, INCORPORATED AND
PERMIT N0. 125 HENRY D. AND MATIIDA BIEtEFELD 1313 HnReoh BOULEVARD~ RNAHEIM~
5901 WESr IM-
RPORATED
~
,
AIRWAYS, 1NCO
CALIFORNIA~ OwNeRS; LOS ANGELE
~ PERIAL HIGHNAY LOS ANGELES 45 CALIFORNIA LESSEE REQUESTING PERM15~
ITH APPURTENdNT FACI~ITIES oN rHe PROPERTY
I
SH P. HELIPORT W
siaN To ESTABL
~ ~ DESCRIBED AS' A PARCEL 225 FEE: BY 400 FEET NITH A FRONTAGE OF 225 FEET
~ ON CERRITOS AVENUEo AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE DF CERR1,T05 AVENUE
,
i, BE7MEEN NEST AND WALNUT STREETS~ ~T5 SOUTHWE57 CORNER BEiNG APPROXI-
~ MATELY 280 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CERRITOS AVCNUE AND
RESIDENTIAL AGRICUL-
A
,
WAL~IUT STREET. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R-
'r. TtlRAL, ZONE.
~.
MR. NILS SORENSEN~ 458 SOUrH SPRIN6 S7REET~ LOS AN(iELES~ APPEARED BEFORE
THE COMMlSSION~.AND STATED THAT THE PETlTIONER FOR THE PROPOSED USE WAS
LOS ANQELES QIRWAYS~ INC. HE DlSPLAYED AN AERIAL PH0T06RAPH AND DIA~
fiRAM OF THE SUBJECT AND SURROUNDI.Nfi PROPERTIES. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE
PRESENT LOCATLON OF THE HELIPORT WAS IN THE EMPLOYEE~S PARK]N~ AREA FOR
s THE DISNEYLAND DEVELOPMENT AND THAT BECAUSE OF THE INSTALLATION OF 7HE
~ MONORA(L AND EXPANSION OF DISNEY~AND FACILITIESy RELOCATION OF THE
. HELIPORT WOULD BE REQUIRED. THE PROPOSED LOCATION WAS DESCRIBED AS
i MI:ETIN3 THE BAS1C REQUIREMENTS OF THE CIYIL AERONAUTICS BOARD~ AND THAT
1'[ WOULD SERVE AS A CONTINUATION OF THE HELIPORT SERVICES FOR THE
I. PUIILIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESBITY WHICH PROVIDES PASSENQER AND POSTAL
~ • DEI,IVERY BERVECES FOR THlB PORT,ION OF THE ORANQE COUN7Y AREA.
'~ THE FL13HT PATTERN WAS DEBCRIBED AND IT WAS INDl,CATED THAT IT WOULD NOT
' BE BUB57AN7lALLY ALTERED FROM THE PATTERN 1N EFFECT AT TNE PRESENT TIME~
~ AND THA7 Ii WOULD BE FROM 500 TO 600 FEET FROM.THE CLOSEBT RESIDENCES
AND AT AN ALTITUDE OF APPROXIMA7EI.Y 600 FEET ABOVE THESE RE4IDENCES.
~ THE PETITIONER~S ADENT BTATED THAT A NEW TYPE TURBINE ENGINE HELICOPTER
NOULD BE PLAC6D LN BERVICE WHLCN'WOULD IMPROVE 7HE NOISE FACTOR SUBSTAN-
~ TIALLY. THE N018E DECIBLE FACTOR WAS EXPLAINED TO THE COMtd1.SS101i AND (.T
WAS NOTED THA7 THE N6W MULTI~ENa1,NE HELICOPTERS WOUL.D AL50 1NCORPORATE
~ ADDED BAFETY FEATURES. THE PET1Ta'ONERS INDICA7ED THA7 TWELVE HELICOP~
~ TERS WOULD BE INCOMI.NQ AND OUTa01N0 PER DAY MAKINO A TOTAL OF TWENTY~
FOUR FLIGHTB PER DAY-TRANSPORT1Nfi MAIL AND APPROXIMATELY 190 TO'230
PERSONS PER DAY~ AND THAT AN ADDlTIONAL TRAFFI.C BURDEN MOULD NOT BE
PLACED UPON 7HE STREETS IN THE AREA AS A RESULT. THEY STATED THAT THE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE CONTAINED WtTHIN AN EXISTINa ORAN~E GROVE~
THAT INCOMLN~ FLlGHTS W1LL BE OVER UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY WITH OUT~OIN~
FLlOH7S SUBSTANTIALI.Y OVER THE DISNEYLAND QOLF COURSE~ AND THAT THE LAST
~~, FL.I~NT AT NIaHT WAS SCHEDULED AT 8;15 P.M. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE SUC-
CESSFUR DPERATION OF 7HE HELI,PORT FOR A PERIOD OF YEARS 1NDICA7E0 7HAT
HAD BEEN OF BENEFtT TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE PEOPLE CONCERNED AND
1T
.
~ THAT Wr\5 7HE PRIMARY REASON FOR REQUESTINQ THE PROPOSED LOCA710N. THE
POSSIBILITY OF LOCATIN~ CtOSER TO THE DI.SNEYLAND GOIF COURSE WAS AL80
MENTIONE. AND 1T MAS STATED THAT THE LOCATI.ON OF THE SITE NAS DEPENDENT
UPON THE A?PROYAL BY THE FEDERAL AV1ATlON ADENCY.
THE COMM1881.ON DI~CUSSED PUR7HER THE POSS181C17Y OF LOCATINQ THE SITE
lW CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THd O(SNEYLAND DRIVI,N~ RA{10E AND MR. E. J.
ETTIN~ER~ REPRESENTATI,NE FOk D18NEYLAND~ INC.~ INDf,CATED TNAT TO DO SO
' WOULD BE SUBJEC7 TO TFIE APPROVAL HY 7HE FEDERAL AVIA710N Aa6NCY.
-.? ;:<
MR. WAYNE SHULL~ 1353 SOUTl1 WALNUT STREET~ APPEAREC BEFORE THE COMMIS-
S-ON AND S7ATED THAT TNE PE71Tl.ONERS HAD NOT d1.VEN CONSlDERATION TO THE
..-;i... ~~`~.,_ ~. ~.~N ~,. , . . .. 1-'_ . . .. ~ . .: -- .. . ._' . . . .. . , . ... . °~ . ~ . ~ . .
~.
.-.
~
MINUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMM1SStON~ MAY 29~ 1961~ CoNTINUEO;
190
COND1TlONAt USE ~ ADJACENT PROPER7Y OMNERS~ AND THA? THE FLLGHT PATTERN WOULD GO OVER
125
PERMIT N0 DEVELOPED AREAS. HE REQUESTED FUR7FIER INFORMATION RELATiVE T.0 THE
.
CONTINUED TYPE OF HELICOP7ER THAT WOULD BE USEp~ AND EXPRESSED COMCERN ABOUT THE
• NUMBER OF FLIQHTS PER DAY AND TNE DANGER AND NOISE FACTORS 1NVOLVED.
MRS. RONCONHI~ 1241 SOUTH WALNUT STREET~ APPEARED BEpORE THE COMMISSION
AND STATED SHE HAD SUBMI.TTED A PE7lTI0N OF PROtEST AGAINST THE SUBJECT
PETITION CONTAIN.lNG SEVENTEEN SIGNA7URE5 OF OWNERS OF PROPERTY ON
YALNUT STREET. •
THE COMMISSION REViEWED PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMEMT AND DISCUSSED
THE RATE OF CLIMB WH(CH NAS 1.NDJCATED BY MR. FRED NI.LAND AS BEING
ND 400 FEET
'
PMENT A
APPROX6MA'[ELY 1~000 FEET PER MINUTE FOR 7HE NEW EQUj
E COMPANY
T
.
H
PER MINUTE FOR THE EQUIPMEYT PRESENTLY BEING Ui1LIZED BY
MR. NILAND STATED THAT THE.NEN EQULPMENT WOUI.D OFFER CONStDERABLY BETTER
PERFORMANC& THAN THAT PRESENTLY IN USE AND THAT THE RATE OF ~dCLINE~
AND 7HE SAFEtY FACTOR AS TO THE 105S OF POMER FOR CONTI.NUED FLI,GHT~
WOULD BE CONSIDERABLY IMPROVED. '
L MR. ET71NCaER~ 7HE DISNEYLAND ~NC. REPRESENTATIVEo STATED THAT TH£ PRO-
PERTY 70 THE MEST OF THE 5UBJEC7 PROPERTY WOULD BE MAINTALNED IN ORANGE
GROVES AND TNAT NO SPECIFIC PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT MERE CONiEMPLATED FOR
THA7 AREA. HE STATED FURTHER THnT A TRAM MOULD SERVE THE HELIP.ORT TO
E DISNEYLAND HOTEL
.
CONNECT MI.TH THE~TRAM SERVICE NOW ESTABLI,SHED AT TH
• MR. BOB FOSTER~ ATTORNEY FOR DISNEYLAND~ INC.~ STATED THAT THE TERMS OF
'
LOD~
.THE LEASE TO THE.I.OS ANGELES QIRWAYS~ INC. WAS FOR A FIVE YEAR PER
AND THA7 THE ENTIRE PARCEL OF THE SUBJEC7 PROPERTY WAS UNDER THE CWNER-
SHIP OF DISNEYIAND~ INC.
THE HEARlNG WAS CLOSED.
7HE POSSIBtLITY OF MOVtNG THE HELl.PORT APPROXIMA7ELY 100 FFcT CLOSER TO
THE.DISNEYLAND GOLF COURSE•AND DRIVtNG RANGE WAS D15CUSSED AT SOME
LEN6TH AND li NAS AGREED THAT THE BARRIER SUPPLIED BY THE ORANGE GROVES
WOULD SERVE AS A BUFFER FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST.
_.,\
1
$
~
i
ASSI.STANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GELSLER ADVISE.D THE COMMISSION THAT THE
SUGGESTED REVISION FOR THE LOCATION OF THE HELIPORT 100 FEET NEARER THE
GOLF.COURSE MOULD NOT REQUIRE RF~ADVERTISEMENT OF THE SUBJECT PETITION
ONING TO THE FACT THAT THE.ONLY AFFECTED LAND OWNER WAS DtSNEYLAND~.
~NC.~ AND THAT THE ATl'ORNEY REPRESENTING DISNEYIAND~ INC. WAS PRESENT
AT THE.HEARIN~. 7HEREUPON~ MR..BOB FOSTER~ ATTORNEY FOR DISNEYLAND~ INC.~
AGR~ED TNAT ADDITIONAL NOTICE NOULD NOT BE NECESSARY SHOOLD SUCH A RECOM~-
MENDA710N BE APPROVED.
THE COMMI,SSION FOUND AN9 DETERMLNED THE FOLLOMING FACTS REDARDINQ THE
SUBJECT PET~TION:
l. THAT THE PR9POSED USE 15 PROPERLY ONE FOR NH1CH A CONDITI.ONAL USE
PERM17 1,5 AU7HOR1.2ED BY THIS CODE~ TO NIT: A HELIPORT WITH APPU.:
TENANl' FACILITlES.
` 2. THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL N07 :~DVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJOINIWQ LANC
USES AWD THE OROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF 7HE AREA I,N WHICH IT IS
PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED.
3. THAT TH~ 512E AND SHAPE OF THE S1TE PROPOSEO FOR THE USE 15 ADEQUATE
70 ALLOW THE FULL DEVELOPMENT. OF THE PROPOSED USE IN A MANNER NOT
DETRIMEN7AL TO THE PARTICULAR AREA NOR 7Q THE PEACE HEALTH~ SAFETY~
AND QENERAL NELFARE OP THE CITIZENS OF ZHE CITY OF ANAHEI,M.
4. THAT THE ~:PF'1C QENERATED BY THE PRqPOSED OSE M1LL NOT IMPOSE AN
UNDUE EJRDEN UPON THE STREETS AND HItiNMAYS DE51aNED AND PROPOSED TO
CARRS THE TRAFFIC i,~ THE AREA.
5. THA~ THE ~RANT1Na OF rHE CONDITIONAL USE'PERMI.T UNDER THE CONDITIONS
IMPOL'ED~ I,f ANY'~ HlLL N07 BE DE'[RIMENTAL TO THE PEACE~ HEALTH~
SAFET:', ?Hn QENERAL UELFAR~; OF THE CITI2EN9 OF THE ClTY OF ANAHEIM.
6. THA'~ TNE'(.OS ANaELES AIRMAY59 INC. ARE REQUIRED TO RELOCATE THE7.R
PRESEN7 FACLLI,TJ'ES AND THE LOCATION ON SUBJECT PROPER7Y 1.5 DEEMED
SUITABLE FOR THE PROPOSED USE.
7: THAT THE PLANNINQ COMMl.SS1,ON RECOMMENDS REV1510M OF THE S1TE L9CA~
T10N ESSABLISHINQ IT APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET `eASTERIY OF THE PROPOSED
LOCATION~AND THAT THE PUBLI.C NOTLCE REQUIREMEN7 RE~ATIYE.70 THIS
RELOCATION~ MHICH MAS DEEMED UNNECESSARY BY.ASSLSTANT CITY AT70RNE.Y
DOSNEYIcANDR INC.uPBE WA1VEDfBECAUSE50FETHE SIN(3LETONNERSHLPROFETiEN~
SUBJECT PROPER7Y'.AND ADJACENT AFFEC7Eb PROFERTlES BY DISNEYI.AND~ INC.
8. .VERBAL OPPOSITION~ I.N ADDITION TO A:PE71TlON OF PROTEST CONTAlNl.NG
SEVEN7EEN,,SI,GNATURES OF PROPERTY ONNERS_ON MALNUT STREET~ WERE RECORDED
~ AtiA1N5T SU9JECT PETITLON.' ~
COMMI.SSIONER MUNOALL OFFERED:RESOLUTION:.N0..27,5~ SERlES 1960-61~ AND
FIOVED..FOR JTS PASSADE ~AND ADOPT.ION~ SCCONDED ~Y COMMISSIONER PERRY~ TO
-aRANT PETITION FOR CONDI'TI;ONAL USE PERMJJ N0,..125~:SUBJEC7 T0 THE.FOLLOW~
ING CONDIIlON57
1 /~
a~' . ~~~ ...-:,r~,~'~[i "f _.." „'_".. . r<~t .. ....... ... .... . ~.~~..~~..> , ~. ,..._, .».-.~,.,_ t~_~ .... ... .~...~. . _..
, . Ai
~r , ,,
E
~ ,
~
MINUTES, C1TY PlANN1NG COMMISSION~ MAY 29, 1961, CONTINUE~;
191
CONDITIONAL USE ~ 1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED SUB-
TE APPRO%IMATELY
PERMIT N0. 125 JECT TO.RELOCATION OF THE PROPOSED HELIPOAT SI
ON PRESENTED IN SUBJECT PETITION~
A
;
t CONTINUED ~ TI
lOO~FEET EASTERLY OF THE LOC
rN OS OB7AINED FROM THE CIVIL AERONAUTICS
~ PROVIDED PERMISSIO
BOARO AND/OR~THE FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY. HOWEVER~ IF THE SUG-
:GESTED SITE IS NOT APPROVED BY THE FEDERA~ AGENCIES AND THE SITE
SAID SITE
PRESENTED WITH °•UBJECT PE.T!TION DOES RECEIVE APPROVAL~
LY IN
SHALL BE DEVELOPED ON ?HE SUB.IECT PROPERTY SUBSTANTIAL
ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED.
2. DEDICATION OF 45 F'EET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF CERRIi05
. AVENUE (20 FEET EX~STING).
F
N
L
A
N
O
S
O
3
FILE
ON
~LANS
STANDARD
APPROVED
WiTH
ACCOR~~ANCE
IN
• PMPROVEMENTS
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGlNEER. .
4. PAYMENT OF 52.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STREET IIGHTING PURPOSES.
THE FUREGOING CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETtNG AND WERE FOUND TO
BE A NECES:.ARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROFE RTY IN ORDER TO
E CiTY OF ANAHEIM.
F T
H
PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITI2ENS O
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MARCOUX~ MCIRRIS~ MUNGALL~ PERRY~ SUMMERS.
NOES: COMM1SS10NERS: NONE. .
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ HAPGOOD.
.~ :i:~~~::~
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTF.D ev R. L. COONS, OWNER~ c/0 LEONARD
NO. 60-61-99 SMiTH~125 SOUTH CLAUDINA STREET~ ANAHEIM~ CALtFORNIA~ AGENT~ REQUESTING
THAT PROPERTY DESCRi.BED A5: A PARCEI. 100 FEET BY 132 FEET WITH A •
FRONTAGE OF 100 FEET ON EAST LINCOLN AVENUE AND LOCATED Otd THE NORTH-
WESTERLY CORNER OF VINE STREET AND EAST.L~NCOLN AVENUE AND FURTHER DES-
CRIBED AS 913 EAST LlNCOLN AVENUE BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R-3~ MUtTi-
eoE CAM,~NEIGHBORHODD~~OMMERCIAL,HZONE3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL AND UNRESTRICT-
MHE COMMISSION'AND DESCRIBEDATHEEPROpOSED ESTABLISHMENTPOFAAESERVICEE
' STATION IN AN AREA COkTAI'NING MIXED COMMERCIAL AND RESIDEN'ilAl. USES.
ON ~'HETCOMPREHENSIVEUGENERALRP~AN,ANDATHATDTHEREDARER THERESERVICESE
ST;~TIONS IN THE AREA. HE STATED FURTHER THAT THE STATION WOULD OCCUPY
TWO LOTS AND THAT THE TWO RF.SiDENCES ON THE PROPERTY AT THE PRESENT TIME
WOULD BE REMOVED~ AND THAT A SIX F00T BLOCK WALL WOULD BE INSTALLED ON
THE WEST PROPERTY L1NE ADJACEN7 TO THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
DR. L. E. DICKINSON~ OWNER OF PROPERTY AT 919 EAST CENTER STREET~ APPEAe2-
StGNATURESTAND STATED~THATSHEMREPRESENTEDtTHENOPPO5ITI.ONT CDR.ADICKIN84
FOR ATSERVICEASTATIONWBECAUSEOTHERE~WERE TOOPMANY SERVICETSTATlONSRAT
THE PRESENT TIME IN THE AREA~ THAT ANOTHER STATION WOULD CAUSE A BLIGH7
DEN7ALUBUIL INGNTOUBEGMORESSUITABLENFORHTHEHSUBJECTDPROPERTyEDtCAL OR
STATEDHTHATSTHEZ5IGNERS OFNTHETPETITIONPWEREDOPPOSED TOETHEMSUBJECT~
PETITION BECAUSE lT WOULD DEPRECIAYE PROPERTY VALUES~ INCREASE TRAFFIC~
AND CREATE NOISE. SHE STATED THAT THERE ARE NINE STATlONS IN THE THREE
BLOCK AREA AND THAT SHE Yi~ULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO ANY DEVELOPMENT OTHER
THAN A SERVICE STATION.
MR. JAMES RINKER~ 225 NORTH VINE STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMI55lON
AND REQUESTED INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION. ASSISTANT
CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER EXPLAINED 7HAT 7'HE PETITiONER WAS REQUESTING
THE RECLASSIFiCAT{ON OF THE PROPERTY TO THE C~1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~
ZONE~ WHICH WOUL.D PERMIT ANY C~1 ZONE USE AND THE C~3~ HEAVY COMMERCIAI.~
ZONE RESTRICTED TO A SERVICE STATION ONLY. HE STATSD THAT SUCH RECLASS-
IFlCAT10N TO THE C~3~ HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ ZONE WITH THE RESTRICTION IMPOSED
LIMITING THE C-3~ HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ USE TO'A SERVICE STATION ONLY WOULD
NOT PERMIT ANV OTHER C~3 ZONE USE AND iHAT IN THE EVENT THAT TME SERVICE
PROPERTYUW0ULD5THENCBETUTILiZEDHFOR C 1~NNEIGHBORHOODLCOMMERC/ALNDUSES
ONLY: ~
MR. A. CARR.ILLO~ 119 NORTH VINE STREE7~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION
AND STATED THAT THE PROPOSED USE WOUID CREATE A TRAFFIC HA2ARD FOR THE
SCHQOL CHILDREN IN THE AREA. HE STATEO THAT.THE VACANT PROPERTY BEHIND
AN EXISTING SPORTING GOODS STORE WOULD BE COMM'ITTED TO OTHER SHAN RESI-
DENTIAL USE IF THE SUBJ.ECT PETITION WERE GRANTED.
MR. EDWARD,BAIN~ 903°EAST CENTER,~STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION
AND STATED THAT THE PROPOSED,USE WOULD BE A TRAFFIC HA2ARD AND INDICATED
, THAT A MORE WORTHWHILE USE OF THE PROPER7Y WAS POSSIBLE.
. ~. , f~
`
~
. a
J
i~ 4 }
Y!
. ~ .. I:,~ . .
192
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMM1SS10N~ MAV 29~ 1961~ COPITINUED;
,~:CLASSIFICATION -
N0. 60-61-99
rONTINUED__ _
DR. DICKlNSQk REQUESTED (NFORMATION ON WH~THER THE PETITIONER~ WHO IS
A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL~ WUULD BE PERMITTED TO VOTE ON THE SUB-
JECT PE7.ITION WHEN IT IS R~VIEWED BY THE COt3NCIL~ AND ASSISTANT CITY
ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER INFORMEO• Hil~i THAT ANY COUNClI.tAAN THAT HAS A PER-
SONAL I.NTEREST IN A SPEClFIC 17EM NOULD AUTOMATIGALLY ~ISQUALI~Y
HIMSELF FROM THE Dl5CU5510N AND THE.VOTING.
MR. SMITH~ 1N REBUT7AL TO TNE OPPOSITION~ STATED THAT THE PROPERTY NAS
SUITABLE FQR A NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE STATION USE•. HE STATED FURTHER
THAT A REQUEST FOR A SERVICE STATION NAS RECENTLY APPROVED k!Y THE CITY
COUNCIL IN CLOSE PROXLMITY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THAT THE SUBJECT
PROiE RTV SHOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED FROM THE SAME TYPE OF USE WHICH HAD
BEEN DETERMINED SUITABLE FOR OTHER PROPERTY I.N THE SAME VICINITV. MR.
PERTY ONDTHETWESTHWOULDEBEE150LATEDLFROMPTHErCOMMERCJALGUSEBBYCA PRO
BLOCK WALL.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.~
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE PRESENT DEFINI.TION OF A SERYICE STATION AS
DEFINED IN THE ANANEIM MUNICIPAL CODE AND ASSISTANT CITY AT70RNEV ~OE
GHESSUBJECT1PROPERTY INATHEEEVENT /TFWASTDEEMED~NECESSARYSFORCTHE USE
OF THE PROPERTY FOR SERVICE STATION PURPOSES. THE ST.ATUS.OF T.HE•
SPORTIN6 600D5 STORE WAS ALSO D15CUSSED BECAUSE OF I.T.S LOCA710N IN
THE R~3~ MULTI.PLE~FAM.ILY RE5IDENTIAL~ ZONE ANa iT MAS SUBSEQUENTLY DETER-
ANDEOCCUPANCY'PERMITSRONCE ISSUEDSBVPTHETPLANNINGRDEPARTMENTE O~D USE
THAT'THE SUBJECTRPETOTIONEBEADENIEDNONSTHENBA515YOFOTHESFOtLOW~NdMMERS~
FINDINGSC
1: TMAT THE PETITIONER•PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICA7t.OM OF THE ABOVE DES-
CRtBED PROPERTY FROM THE R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMlLY RESlDENTIAL~ ZONE TO
THE C-3~ HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ ZONE RESTRICTEb TO SERVICE STATION USE
ONLY AND TO kNY USE PERtd~TTED IN THE G-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~
ZONE.
2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT NECES-
SARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE
COMMUNITY.
3. THAT 7HE ~ROPO5ED RECLASSIFtCATiOt~ OF SUBJECT PROPERTV UOES NOT
~ PROPERLY RELA'PE TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PERMITTED USES LOCALLY ESTAB-
L15HED (N CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE 20NE5 AND
THEIR PERMITTED USES GENERALLY ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.
4. THA7 7HE PROPERTY ABUTTING SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE NEST i5 ZONED
AND DEVELOPED FOR R~3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESiDENTIAL~ PURPOSES~ AND
THE PROPERTY ADJACENT ?0 SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE NORTH IS ZONED FOR
AND DEVE~OPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPNENT.
5~ TAININQR84LSIGNATURESN~WEREARECORDED AGAINST'SUBJECT PETITIONCON~
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREQO1Na MOTION FAILED TO RECEI.VE A MAJORITY VOTE BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE,
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MORRIS~ SUMMERS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MARCOUX~ MUNGALL~ PERRY. '
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ HnPOOOO.
VICE-CHAIRMAN MORRIS INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR R£CLA551-
FICATIOH N0. 6Q~61-99 WOU1.D BE CONTINUED UNTIL THE MEETIN(i OF JUNE 12~
1961 BECAUSE OF ITS FALLURE TO A~HI.EVE A MAJORI'Y- VOTE.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARl1~G: PETITION SU8M1S7EU 9V HALTER C. AND RUTH S. RALSTON?~ ~
NO_ 60-61^100 i701 SOUTH EUuI.ID AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNERS; ROBERT 0. BI.AIYU~
13729 EAST RO.~,ECRANS AVENUE~ SANTA FE SPRIN~S~ CALIFORNIA~ AGENT~ RE~
QUESTlN4 TMAT pROPERTV DESCRiBED ASS A PARCEL 143 FEET BY 250 FEE7
NITN A FRONTA~E OF 143..FEET ON SOUTH EUCLlD AVENUE AND LOC•4TED ON THE
SOUTHWE57 CORNER OF.`SALLIE LANE'AND EUCLID AVENUE ANO FURTHER DESCRLBED
AS 1ZO1 SOUTH EUCLID AVENUE~ BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R~A RESIDENTJAL_
KGRICULTURA4, 20NE To rHe C-i, NEIGH80RHOOD COM!{~RCIQL, ZbNE.
DR: NALTER RALSON~ THE PETLTIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND
DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED.EXPANSI.ON'OF AN'EXISTIN~ FIEDI.CAL CENTER WHICH
WAS ESTABLI,SHED BY A COUNTY-.VARIANCE. ~
THE COMMi55lON ~EVIEMED PLOT AND ELEVAT70N PLANS FOR TME PROF'OSED DEVEL~
OPMENT . r ~ .
' MR. ROBERT ROBB~ OWNER OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1707 SOUTH EUCl1D AVENUE~
APPEARED BEFORE:THE COMMISSIONti_iNDICATED THAT, HE.APPROVED OF THE PROPOSED r
~
~ ,.. '. ' . . ~:. :~ ~ . k ~~:
^`~i4-•-~~'-~ .. . ,4' .•, r ~ ..rY. ~tir . '1~r., / _~, ., r t ~,?y:-c' ~fr~. ..:A~?, .. . ... . . . . ~ ~ . .4;'
, .... . - ~ . ~_. . . . ~ ... _ .. .. . _ . _
~` i
;
~, . ~
~ :.
~ ~4
k: I
I
~ i
t. ~
`i
~ ~
~
j .?.`. ''`.1
"n ~
. V L~ .
193
MINUTES± C1TY P~.ANNING COMMiSSiON~ MAY 29~ 1961, CONTINUED:
RECLASSIFICATION - DEVELOPMENT~ AND STATED THAT THE PETITIONER HAD MADE A CONSIDERABLE
NO. 60-61~100 ~• AMOUNT OF IMPROVEMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY S1,NCE THE MEDLCAL CEN'CER
CONTINUED HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED. •
DR. RALSTON INDICATED THAT HE WOULD.CONTI.NUE TO UT'~LIZE THE EXiS".'ING
BUILDING FOR MED.ICAL OFFl,CES FOR 3 T0 5 YEARS~ THAT HE.WI.SNED TO BEGIN
CONSTRUCTION•OF.THE NEW MEDICC.~•BULLDlNG AND' LABORATORY IMMEDIATELY~
AND,THAT HE INTENDED TO CONSTRUCT A MEDICAL FACILITY AT THE SITE OF THE
EXISTING BUILDING WHEN IT 1.S REMOVED,
THE HEARING•liAS CLOSED.
THE COMMISSION F.OUND AND DE'fERMI.NED THE FOLLOWINO FAC75 REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITIONt
1. THAT THE PETITLONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ABOVE DES-
CRIBEO PROPERTY FROM 7HE R~l~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE TO
~ THE C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE.
2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSI,FICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NECESSARY
OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMUN,ITY.
3. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFlCATI;ON OF SUBJECT PROPER7Y DOES PROPERLY
RELATE TO THE 20NES.AND THEIR PERMITTED USES LOCAL~Y ESTABLISHED iN
• Cl.OSE PROXIMI,TY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE ZONES AND THEIR
PERMITTED USES (iENERALLY ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.
4. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSlFICATION OF SU8JEC7 PROPERTY DOES REQUIRE
DEDICATION FOR AND STANDARD IMPROVEMEN7 OF ABUTTING STREETS 9ECAUSE
SAID PROPERTY DOES RELATE TO AND ABUT UPON STREE75 AND HLGHWAYS
WHICH ARE PROPOSED.TO CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANTITY OF TRAFFIC9 WHlCH
WILL BE GENERATED BY THE PERMI.TTED USES~ I,N ACCORDANCE W17H THE
CIRCULA'(ION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
5. THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATES THE USE ~RANTED oY COUNTY
VARIANCE FOR THE USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
6. THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT BE OETRI,MENTAL TO THE PRO-
PERTI.ES I.N THE SURROUNDING AREA.
7. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSlTION TO SUBJECT PET1710N.
COMMISSIONER MUNGALL OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 276~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND
MOVED FOR I.TS PASSAGE ANp ADO?TiON~ SECONDED 8Y CO~SRS;SS;ONER HARCQUX~
TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL TNAT PETITtON FOR RECI.ASSIFICATION
N0. 60~61-100 BE (iRANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLONINti CONDITIONS:
1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIAI.LY~lN ACCORDANCE WLTH PLANS PRESENTED.
2. SUBJEC7' TO THE RECORDA'~ION OF DEED ~ESTRICT,IONS L.IMI.TING USE OF
THE SUB~iECT PROPERTY TO P'r'OFESS'ION,AL OFFI.CES ONLY.
3. DEOICATION OF 53 FEET FROM THE CENTERLLNE OF EUCL.ID AVENUE (50
FEET EXISTIN~).
4. PAYMENT OF =2.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STREET LI~HTINO PURPOSES FOR
EUCLSD AVENUE AND SALLIE LANE. ,
5. TLME LIMITATiON OF NINETY (90)DAYS FOIt THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITEMS~
3 AND 4.
THE FOREQOIN~ CONDITIONS NERE RECITED AT THE MEETINQ AND WERE FOUND TO
BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO
FRESERVE TNE SAFETY AND MELFAR= OF 7HE CITJ,ZENS OF 7HE CiTY OF ANAHEI.M.
ON ROLL CA~L THE FOREQOINQ RESOLU7I,ON MAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOMINQ VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUN~ALL~ PERRY~ SUMMERS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NoNe.
ABSENT: COMMISSlONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ HAPQOOD.
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT N0. 121
- PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED sv NILLIAM A. BEHNKE, 215e SouTH
HARBOR BOULEVARD ANAHEIM~ CALI.FORNIA~ OWNER~ REQUESTI.N~ PERMI5510N FOR
OVERNIGHT TRA1LEIf PARKING ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS' A PARCEL 140 FEET
BY 200 PEET.WITH A FRONTA~E OF 200 FEET ON HARBOR BOULEVARD AND'LOCATED
ON THE EAST SLDE OF HARBOR BOULEVARD BETWEEN ORANQEWOOD AVENUE AND
MILKEN WAY~ ITS SOUTHWE57 CORNER BEINa APPROXIMATELY 250 FEET NORTH OF.
THE NORTH-EAST CORNER OF HARBOR BOULEVARD AND NILKEN MAY AND FURTHER
DESCRIBED AS 2156 SOUTH HARBOR BOIILEVARD. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLAS51-
FIED R~II~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
SUBJECT PE7ITION CONTINUED FROM EARLIER IN 7HE MEETLNa IN ORDER TO
ALLOFI ADDI,TLONA6 TlME FOR THE'PETITIONER T0 OBTAIN THE REQUIRED p~OT AND
LAYOUT PLANS FOR iHE PROPOSED pEVELOPMENT.
i '
Y/
.. .. ~ _ ..,. . 4/• . . r ... ... .......'~~. _ . . .
_ . ir
~.. :::. , . _ _ _. .'.: :; .
~.... .
. i
V
_. h.~. :,
<
~
~
~
~~,
yv:'.
. ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~~ ;~ •~~.,
194
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 29, 1961~ CONTINUED;
~ I CONDITIONAL USE - MR. CARL ARTHOFER~ TNE PETITIONER~S AGENT~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMIS-
AND A
I PERMIT N0. 121 SION AND INDICATED THAT HE MAS NOW PREPARED TO SUBM17 PLOT PLANS
~, i CONTINUED RENDERING OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
E THE COMMISSION REVIEWED•THE PLOT PLANS AND THE AGENT INDICATED THAT THE
US CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
~i
~ ~ ' PROPOSED TRAILER SALES CONTAINED I.N THE PREVI,O
AND THAT SHE SALES (.NDICATED FOR
BEEN ELIMINATED
0N HAD
i
II ~
.
APPLICA71
SUBJECT PE7I.TION CON5157ED OF THE SALE OF NOVELTIES ONLY AND WOULD BE
.~i CONDUCTED WI7HIN THE PROPOSED BUILDING. THE AGENT STATED THAT THE
OVAL OF THE OLD RESIDENCE
, ~ ELIMINATION OF THE TRAI.LER SALES AND 7ME•REM
E OF BENEFIT TO THE DEVELOPMENT ALONG
D
~ B
PRESENTLY ON THE PROPERTY WOUL
HARBOR BOULEVARD AND .MOULD BE AN {MPROVEMENT WHICH WOULD ENHANCE THE
~ . AREA. .
THE COMMISSION DiSCU55ED THE LOCATION AND NUMBER OF RESTROOMS THAT
i'` MOULD BE NECESSARY FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
THE HEARING•WAS CLOSED. ~
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE RECENT APPROVAL FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE
f WEST WINDS TRAILE:< LODGE PERMITTiNG ADDITIONAL OVERNIGHT PARKING OF
P~AN-
TY
.
TRAIl.ERS ON 7HE PROPERTY LOCATED EASTERLY OF SUBJECT PROPER
S OF APPRO-
i NING DIRECTOR RICHARD RFESE NOTED THAT ONE OF THE CONDITION
VAL FOR THAT PETiT1ON MADE REFERENCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS AS OUT UAED
MED
~ D TRA4LER'PARKAORD/NANCE
N
D
R
~~ PROPOSE
THE
BY THE COUNCI.L BECAUSE
SUITABLE
D BY TMEM AT THE PRESENT TIME. THEREFORE~ THE
HAS•NOT BEEN ADOPTE
COUNCIL REMOVED THE CONDITION FROM THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF THE
~ PETITION. AS A CONSEQUENCE~ PLANNI.NG DIRECTOR REESE SUGGESTED THAT
i SINCE THE COMMl551.ON HAD AGREED UPON THE COMPOSITION OF THE PROPOSED
TRA6LER PARK ORDINANCE AND CONSI;DERED THF. REQUIREMENTS CONTAINED THERIN
~ TO BE INDICATIVE OF THE COMMISSION~S POl1CY~ 17 WOULD BE JUDICIOUS TO
FIC SECT[ONS OF THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AS CONDITIONS OF
]NCLUDE SPECI
~ ,
APPROVAL OR DENIAL RATHER THAN,TO REFER TO THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT.
~ THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWI.NG FACTS REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITIONt
L USE
N
u
l
O
E
P
S
1
H
P
E TRAI.LER
OVERNI.GHT
T:
TO M
CODE~
BY
THIS
AUTHORIZED
~ PERMIT
LS
t PARKJ,NG.
~` THAT THE 512E AND SHAPE OF THE SI.TE PROPOSED FOR THE USE IS NOT
2
r .
ADEQUATE TO ALLObI 7HE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED USE 1N A
TO THE PEACE
~ ~ ~
MANNER NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE PARTICULAR AREA NOR
OF THE CITY
HEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITI.2EN5
~ OF ANAHEIM. .
I
THAT THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS NOT COMPATI.6LE
3
.
M17H NOR WOULD IT BE OF BENEFl7 TO THE OTHER TYPES OF DEVELOP-
MENT BEINQ ESTABLISHED ALONa THE HARBOR BOULEVARD FRONTAGE.
4. THAT PLANS SUBMITT~b WITH THE SUBJECT PETITION LNDICATING 7HE
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MERE NOT,CONSIDERED ADEQUATE.
5. THAT NO ONE APPEAREp IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PET1.710N.
COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTJON N0. 277~ SERlES 1960-61~ AND
L
G
E
S
M
O
OF
~
BASIS
THE
ON
N0Y 121
VDENY PETIiIONSFORECONDIT/ONALOUSESPERM1T
TO
THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDINGS.
f ON ROLL CALL THE FOREQOIN~ RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THe FOLLOWING,VOTE:
F AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MARCOUX~ MORR15~ MUNaALL~ PERRY~ SUMMERS.
'
~ NQES: COMMISSIONERS7 NONE.
t .
' ABSEN7: COMMISSIONERSS ALLRED~ GAUER~ HAPGOOD,
1366
RIANCE N0 -?UBLIC HEARING. PETITlON SUBMITTED ev WILLIAM A. BEHNKE~ 2156 SOUTH
' .
yj~ HARBOR BOULEVARD ANAHEI'M CALIFORNIA OMNER REQUE571N6 PERM155IUN
oN PROPERTY DESCRIBED
DING
AL SALE~ IN A PROPO~ED BUI~
~
r, ~
.
I
Fos LlGHT COMMERG
AS. A PARCEL 140 FEET BY 200 F~~T WITH A FRONTA~E OF 200 FEET ON
HARBOR BOULEVARD AND LOCA7ED ON THE EAST S1,DE OF HARBOR BOULEVARD 8E-
TNEEN ORANOEMOOD AVENUE AND WILKEN WAYj LTS SOUTHMES7 CORNER BEING
EVARD
A
BOULEBARD
NA5r2156TS01JTHEHARB R
T
F
E
2
R
DESCRI.BED
FURTHER
AND
WAY
WILKEN
ANO
ZONE.
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL
R-A
,
,
PROPER7Y PRESENTLY CLASSI.FI,ED
SUBJECT PETI710N 15 FILED IN.CONJUNCTION W(TH PETI7IUN FOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMI.T N0. 121.
~ MR. CARL ARTHOFER~ AfiEN7 FOR Tl~c PETITI.ONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMIS-
D'•IN CONJUNC-
SION AND STATED TNAT BECAUSE THE S.UBdECT PET,I.TION MAS FILE
WH~CH WAS DEN,IED
121
PERMIT N0
E
U
Q`F;ii;,; ;r ~
.
.
S
TION WISH PETITlON FOR CONDI.TIONAL
SERIES 1960-61~ HE HAD NO FURTHER
ON RESOLUTION N0. 277
SSI
BY COMMI
. ~
.
,
c. , , . ~._.,.,.. a , . ... . ....
~ .. .. , _ . . . . . . . ., . . . , .. , r . ... .. . . ..... .
~.
Yi , . .. . . ~.
F.~., r • .
~ _
~
195
~, 1
~ . .:?
MiNUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION~ MAY 29~ 1961, CQNTINUED; •
VARIANCE N0. 1366 - INFORMATION TO SilBM1T 07HER THAN THAT DlSCUSSED IN CONJUNCTION W:TH
CONTINUED ~\ID CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APpLlCAT10N. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT NO 9U'ILDING OR FLOOR PLANS WERE SUBMITTED FOR
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE COMMISSI.ON DISCUSSED THE RENDERING
PRESENTED BY THG 'E7ITIONER~S AGENT AND IT WAS INDICATED THA7 BLOCK
WALLS WOULD SERVE.AS A SCREEN FROM HARBOR BOULEVARD FOR THE OVERNI.GH7
TRAILER PARKING. THE AGEN7 STATED THAT THE BU.I~DING WOUI.D BE ALL NEW
CONSTRUCTION~ THAT RESTROOMS WOULD BE LOCATED AT THE REAR OF THE BUIID-
lNG WH1CH WOULD CONTAIN A SALES OFFICE AND THE TRAILER OFFICE~ THAT
TRAILERS WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE PORTiON OF THE PROPERTY FRON7ING ON
HARBOR BOULEVARD~ AND 7HAT THE USE WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE
AREA.
~ THE COMMISSI.ON DISCUSSED.THE POSSIBIL~TY OF CONTINUJN~ THE SUBJECT PET1.-
710N UNT1~ PLANS COULD BE SUBMITTED THAT CORRESPOND W17H THE RENDERING.
THE PETI.TtONER~S AGENT INDICATED THAT HE COULD HAVE PLANS PREPARED WITHIN
TWO NEEKS. , .
COMMiS510NER MUNGA4L OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER $UMMERS~
AND CARRIED~ THAT PETIitON FOR 'vnRIANCE N0. 1366.BE.CONTINUED UNTI.L THE
MEETI.NG OF ,JUNE•12~ 1461~ AND T4A7 THE PETtT10NER PROVIDE CQMPLETE PLOT
AND BUILDING PLANS CORRESPONDING WITH THE RENDERING~ INDLCATING THE
LOCATION OF RESTROOM FACLU TIES AND THE I,NTERIOR OF THE PROPOSED BUILDIN4.
THE PETITIONER~S AGENT REQUHSTED THAT THE SUBJECT PETITION BE CONSIDERED
IN CONJUNCTION.NITH THE PETITION FOR CONDlTIONAL USE PERM17 PREVIOUSLY
~ DENIED BY THE COMMISSION AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THE HEARING HAD BEEN
CLOSED.AND ACTOON TAKF!: tiPON SAI-0 PETLTION. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT
THE SUBJECT PETI.T1.0:~ FOR VARIANCE WAS SUBMLTTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
PET1710N FOR COND!'itONAL USE PERMJT~ CONSEQUENTLY~ IT MIGHT POSSIBLY
CREATE DIFFACULTIES UPON REFERRAL TO THE COUNCIL SNOULD SAID PETiT10N5 BE
CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
THE PETJTIONER~S AGENT REQUESTED THAT THE COMMISSION Dl.NY THE SUBJECT
. PE7iT10N FOR VARIANCEyRATHER THAN TO CONTINUE I.T~IN ORDER THA;' BOTH
PETiTIONS COULD BE REFERRED TO THE Ci.TY COUNCIL FOR SIMULTANEOUS CON-
SIDERATION. ..
COMMISSLONER MARCOUX OFFERED A MOTION~ SECUNDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNGALL
AND CARRI,ED~ RESCINDING THE MOTION TO CONT~NUE SUBJECT PETITION FOR TWO
WEEKS.
THE COMMISSION FOUND ANO DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITION:
l. THAT THE PETITIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE~ SECTION 18.16.010 TO PERMIT LIGHT COMMERCIAL SALES (N A
BUILDING PROPOSED FOR CONSTRUCTION ON SUBJECT PROPERTY.
2. THAT THERE ARE NO EXCEPTLONAL OR EXTRAORDI,NARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR
CONDIT~ONS APPLICABLE TO 7HE PROPERTY 1NVOLVED OR TO THE lNTENDED
USE OF TNE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR
CLA55 OF USE IN THE SAME VICINI,TY AND 20NE.
3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS N07 NECESSARY FOR 1'HE PRESERVATION
AND ENJOY!+~ENT OF A SUB57'ANTIAL PROPER7Y RIQH7 POSSESSED BY OTHER
PROPERTY lN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY,
IN QUESTION.
4. THAT 7HE REQUE57'ED VARIANCE WILL BE MATERIALLY DETRIMEN7AL Tl: THE .
PUBLI.C NELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR )MPROVEMEP:'S IN SUCH
VLCI.NI,7Y AND ZONE IN NHICH THE PROPERTY IS I.OCATED.
5. THA7 THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY 15 INTENDED IN CONJUNCTION WITH
COND~TLONAL USE PERMI.T N0. 121. THEREFORE~ THE SUBJECT VARIANCE (S
COMMITTED TO THE ACTI.ONS 7AKEN UPON SAID CONDITIONAI. USE PERM.I.T
1 APPLICATION.
6. THAT NO ONE APPEARED iN OPPOSI,T.ION TO SUBJECT PETITION.
COMMISSIONER MORR1,5 OFFCtRED RESOLUTION N0. ?78~ SERi,ES 1960~61~ AND
MOVED FOR I,TS PASSAOE AND ADOPTION SECONDED 6Y i.O~AMIS510NER MARCOUX~
TO DENY PETITJ.ON FOR VARI,ANCE N0. ;366 ON THE'BASLS OF THE AFOREMENTI.ONED
FI.NDINQS. .
• ON ROLL CALL THE FCREOO~.N~ ltE50LU710N WAS PASSED BY 7HE FOLLOWINa VOTE;
' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MARCOUX~ ~10RR1S~ MUNfiALL~ PERRY~ SUMMERS.
' NOES:. , COMMISSIONERSC NONE. •
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSS ALLRED! GAUERt HAPGOOD.
CORRESPONDENCE - ~TEM No. i: ORANGE COUNTY SECTIONAL DISTR.ICT MAp 19-4-10, ExHlelr K.
+1 NOTICE RECEIVED FROM 7HE ORAN~E COUNTY PLANNINd COMMISSION RELATIYE TO
1 SECTIONAL Dx57Rl,CT MAP 19~-4-10~ ~.H1BLT K WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION.
1
i
.~ -1 ._ ,_. . . i,.,.. , ., .- .f . ~. .
i
I
I
~~` , .,.
~
196
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION,• Mnv 29~ 1961, CONTINUED;
CORRESPONDENCE - I'reM No. i; ORANGE COUNTY SECTIONAt DISTRICT MAP 19-4-10~ EXHIBIT K.
CONTII~LUED _ (CONTINUED~
SUBJECT PETITION REQLLESTS A CHANGE FROM THE R~1~ SINGLE FAMILY RE51~
DENTIAL~ DISTRiCT TO THE RP~7200~ RESIDENTIAL~PROFESSIONAL~ DISTRICT
FOR A PARCEL OF PROPERTY FRONTING ON THE WEST SIDE OF BROOKHUR57
STREET NORTH OF CERRITOS AVENUE, SUBJECT PROPERTY ABUTS AN EXISTING
SINGI.E FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENY ACROSS BROOKHURST STREET ON THE
EAST WITHIN THE.CITY OF ANAHEIM.
I'~RS. GEORGIA MANESTAR~ 9752 KATELLA AVENUE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMIS~
SION~ INDICATED SHE REPRESENTED THE OWNERS OF SU~BJECT PROPERTIES~ AND
DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SEVEN PARCELS FRONTING ON
BROOKHURST STREET. SHE DISTRIBUTED BROCHURES TO THE COMMISSION WHICH
CONTAINED INFORMATION REGARDING PERMITTED USES IN THE COUNTY R~P ZONE~
MAPS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERT{ES~ AND DATA IN RESPECT TO THE AMOUNT OF
TRAFFIC AND PRESENT CONDITIONS ALONG BROOKHURST STREET. MRS. MANESTAR
' STATED T}1AT TW~NTV FEET WIL~ BE REQUIRED FOR DEDICATION FOR STREET
PURPOSES AL,ONG BROOKHURST STREET WHICH WILL REDUCE 7'HE FRONT YARDS OF
SUBJECT PROPERTIES TO 7.10 FEET WHILE 1'HE REAR YARbS WILL CONYAIN 66
FEET IN DEPTH. SHE INFORMED 7HE COMMISSION THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS
INVOLVED INTEND TO PROVIDE PARKING FACILITIES FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF
THE PROPERTIES IN THE BACK YARDS AND THAT•ACCESS NOULD BE PROVlDED BY
USE OF•THE ALIEY ABUTTING~~SUBJECT PROPERTIES~ON THE.WEST. SHE ALSO
DESCRIBED THE CONVERSION OF ~/ARIOUS PROPERTIES TO HOME OCCUPATION USES
( AND STATED THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES WERE DIFFICULT TO SELL UNLE55
USES WERE PERMITTED. MRS. MANESTAR STATED FURTHER THAT THE OWNERS
WOULD COMPLY WtTH ANY REQUIREMENTS lMPOSED~ THAT THE USE OF THE PROPER-
TY FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES 75 A HA2ARD BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC CONGES^~
1'ION~ AND THAT THE HOMES WOULD NOT BE ALTERED IN APPEARANCF..
THE COMMISSION NOTED l'HAT THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE SUBJECT pREA
WAS SIMILAR TO THE CONDITION OF VARIOUS'PROPERTI~ES LOCATEQ ON MAGNOLIA
AVENUE AND BALL ROAD AND THAT A PI.ANNING DEPARTMENT STUDY OF THAT AREA
HAD RECOMMENDED THAT IN THE CASE OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCIAL
PURPOSES A PRECISE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTiES SHOULD BE
ADOPTED~ AND THAT THE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE COMPLIANCE
WlTH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS WHICH INCLUDED THE FILING OF DEED RESTRICTIONS
LIMITING USE OF THE PROPERTY TO CERTAIN C-1y NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~
USES ANG INCI.UDED THE PROVISION OF PARKING FACILITIES BY THE CL.EARING
AND IMPROVEMENT OF SOME OF THE LOFS F'OR PARKiNG PURPOSES.
ViCE-CHAIRMAN MORRSS STATED THA7 IT MIGHT BE POSSlBLE TO JTILIZE THE
5~'BJECT PROPERTIES~BUT THAT tT WOULD REQUIRE A JOINT \~ENTURE BY THE
OwNERS OF THE PROPERTY~AND THAT SUCH A JOINT VENTURE MIGHT BE OF
BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLF..
VICE-CHAIRMAN MORRIS OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNGALL
AND CARRIED~ THAT THE PLANNtNG DEPARTMENT TRPNSMIT NOTICE TO THE ORANGE
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT THF. ANAHEIM PLANNIN6 COMMISSION RECOM-
MENDS APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT PETI'~ION W1TH THE SUGGESTION THAT A
PRECISE PLAN OF PEVELOPMENT FOR THE SUBJECT AREA BE ADOP7ED~ INCORPOR-
ATING RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED iN THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION~S
AND THE ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL~S ACTIONS IN RESPECT TO THE RECLASSIFICA-
TION OF PROPERTIES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MAIiNOLIA AVENUE BETWEEN
BALL ROAD AND ROME AVENUE AS OUTI.iNED IN PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION
N0. 60-61-44. VICE-CHAIRMAN MORRIS REQUESTED THAT INFORMATION PERTAIN-
INO TO SAID ACTIONS BE FORWARDED TO THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMIS~
SION.
ITEM No. 2: ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 4766:
NOTICE RECEIVED FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ REGARDING
USE VARIANCE N0. 4766~ WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION. SUBJECT PETI-.
TION REQUESTED PERMISSION TO ESTABLISH AN EARTH MOVING AND EXCAVATION
CONTRACTOR~S OFfICE AND STORAGE YARD IN THE A-1~ GENERAL AGRICULTURAL~
DISTRICT. SAID STORAGE YARD WILL OCCUPY THE REAR 175 FEET OF THE PRE-
MISES 1.0.ATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CORONADO STREET APPROXIMATELY 300
FEET EAST OF BLLE GUM STR£ET IN THE SECSION NORTHEAST OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM. STORAGE WILL INCLUDE EXCAVATION AND LIGHT EARTHMOVING EQUIP-
MENT AND ACCESSORY MATERIALS. THE OFFICE NILL BE LOC'ATED IN AN EXIST-
!NG DWELLING. THERE MILL BE NO FULL TIME EMPLOYEES OTHER THAN THE
RESIDENTS ON THE PROPERTY. A SIX F00T SOLIC FENCE WILL ENCLOSE THE
STORAGE AREAS AS SHOWN IN A PLOT PLAN SUBM17'TED BY THE PETITIONER.
NO StGNS WILL BE ERECTED ON SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE COMMISS~ON DISCUSSED THE PRESENT DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT AREA
AND IND~CATED THAT TH~ PROPOSED USE MIGHT BECOME A DETRIMENT TO THE
pROPERTY AT A LATER DATE~ ALTHOUGH THE USE M16HT NOT BE OBJECTIONABLE
AT THE PRESENT TIME.
VICE+CHAIRMAN MORRIS OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNGALL
AND CARRIED~ THA1' THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMIT NOTlCE TO THE ORANaE
COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT THE ANAHEIM PLANNINQ COMMISSION RECOM-
MENDED APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT PETITION SUBJECT TO A FIVE (5) YEAR TIME
LIMITATION FOR USE OF THE PROPERTY AS OUTLINE IN USE VARIANCE N0. 4766.
lJ~ • ~ ~ _
. . ~ ~ . . ' . 4
' w..ft . ...
y(
i ~
i
. ~ . ~ . k?'', ~ .
--_._____ . . . . .._
~ ~
_
~
197
r
MiNU7ES, CiTY PLANNING COMMIS510N, Mnv 29, 1961, CoN:INUE.~:
CORRESPONDENCE ~' ITEM No. 3: ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 4767:
CONT_I NUED ~:GARD 1 NG
NOTICE RECEIVED FROM THE O~ANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION~
SUBJECT PETI-
N
.
USE VARIANCE N0. 4767~ WAS SUBMITTED TO TNE COMMISSIO
E LINE CONTRACTOR~S OFFlCE
TION REQUESTED PERMISSION TO ESTABLISH A PIP
GENERAL AGRICUI.TURAL DISTRICT. SUBJECT
IN THE A-1
~
AND STORAGE YARD
TY IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF TAYLOR STREET APPROXIMATELY
E
R
PROP
EDSANTABANATRIVERERTY
T
F
T
S
R
T
L
~
O
, TH
IN
RNAHEiM
OF
CITY
THE
OF
NORTHEAST
LOCATED
IS
CANYON. ,
~AN Of°ICE APPROXlMATELY TWENTY FEET BY EIGHTEEN FEET WILL BE IOCATED
UTH PROPERTY LINE AND APPROXIMATELY
A MII:IMUM OF FI.VE FEET FROM THE SO
OM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. THERE WILL BE A SHED APPROXI-
~ 165 FEET FR
MATELY 30 FEET BY 70 FEET FOR THE STORAGE OF PARTS AND MAINTENANCE
RTH SIDE AND REAR
~~, EQUIPMENT LOCATED A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET FR0~1 THE NO
BE APPROXIMATELY 218 FEET BY
.
` PROPERTY LINES. THE STORAGE AREA WILL
D SY A SiX FOOT GHAIN LINK FENCE AND WILL BE USED
38i FEST AiiD ECtCLOSE
FOR THE STORAGE AND LIGHT SERVICING OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT USED FOR !~IPE
L
IOFFESTREETBPARKINGfWILL BE,PROVIDED
TY
N
'
.
PROPER
ON THE
TIME EMPLOYEES
FOR A MINIMUM OF THREE CARS. 7HERE WILL BE NO SIGNS. REAR YARD
VARIANCE FOR SHED IS TO PERMIT A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET WITH A MAXIMUM
D TWENTY-FIVE F00T SETBACK.
TWO FOOT EAVE RATHER THAN THE REQUIRE
AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SUBJECT AREA WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMIS-
CONTAIN A VERY LIMITED
SION AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THE AREA APPEARED TO
THE PRESENT TIME. THE COMMISSION INDICATED
AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT AT
THAT THE PROPOSED USE MIGHT NOT BE OBJECTIONABLE UNDER PRESENT CONDI-
E
TIONS. {~OWEVER A TIME ~IMI'1' FOR THE PROPOSED USE WOULD BE DESIRABL
IN CASE OF FU1'URE DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA.
COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED .4 MOTION~ SECONDED BY VICE-CHAIRMAN
E
M
N
R
H
COMMIS-
MORRIS AND CARRIED~LANNING
PLANNING
AHAHEIM
THE
C MMISSION THAT
THE ORANGE COUNTY
VE (5~
OUTLINED /NAUSE
'
E
S
H
V
M
/
AS
PROPERTY
THE
OF
FOR USE
TATION
LIM
YEAR TiME
VARIANCE N0. 4767.
- ITEM No. 4: GARDEN GROVE SITE PLAN N0. 105-61;
NOTICE RECEIVED FROM THE CITY OF GARDF.N GROVE REGARDING SITE PLAN
SUBJECT PETITION REQUESTED
E COMMISSiON
'
.
PTED TO TH
N0. 105-61 WAS SU8M1
F A SITE PLAN FOR THE ERECTtON OF A MOTEL ON PROPERTY LOCATED
i APPROVAL O
A7 THE B7RTHWEST COR7IER OF YUCCA STREET AND HARBOR BOULEVARD. A SITE
E PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
~ PLAN AMD PLOT PLAN OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TH
i WERE PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION.
I THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED LANDSCAPING AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR
AND
E CITY OF ANAHEIM
~ t
PROPERTOES FRONTING ON HARBOR BOUL.EVARD IN TH
WAS LOCATED ACRO55 HARBOR tlOULE-
I NOTEO THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
STORE WHICH IS SITUATED iN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
F
RONT
VARD FROM THE NHITE
~
~ COMMISSIONER MUNGALL OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX
TRANSMIT NOTICE TO
AN9 CARRIED~ DtRECTING THE PLANNINO DEPARiMENT TO
TY OF GARDEN GROVE THAT THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION RECOM~
C
~ THE
I
MENOED APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT PET~~ION~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING
~ RECOMMENDATIONS:
I
~.TINCi TNE
S
S
A
OW
OL
T
1
~ PROPERTY
SL'BJECT
OF
INE
AY
RIGHT^OF
~ pLANNED H16HWAY
SUBJECT TO A FIFTY (50) FOOT BUIL.UING SETBACK FRQM THE PLANNED
2
.
HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY !INE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY.
~
REPORTS AND RECOM~
EOF`MAGNOLIA~AVENUERST STREE.T TO
~' ITEM N0. 1'
T
D
~
O
L
MFNDGTIONS_ ILE WEST
ER
M
ART
QU
ONE
A MAP AND LAND USE STUDY WAS PNESEIITED TO THE COMMISSION AND~IT WAS
R
B
E
THE ANAHEIM
HELD BY
WAS
ONANO~N60Q61N77 WHICH
D
D
A
O
CATI
RECLASSIF
ON
FOR
T
CITY COUNGIL ON APRIL 25~ 1961. SAID PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONTINUED
HE
UNTlL THE MEETING OF JUNE 13~ 1961 AND THE CITY COUNCIL REFERRED T
AND RECOMMENDATION AS
MATTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A STUDY
UBJECT
'
A
A
E
~
PROPERTY
SUBJECT
OF
EASTERLY
AREA
pROPERTYEANDUTHEAUNDEVELOPED
RESPRESENTEDETOATHEA
N
H
A
O
S
DEVELOPMENT WE
EXISTiN6
INDICATING
MAP
USE
LAND
A PLANNING DEPARTMENT STUDY CONTAINING A~TER-
COMMiSSION~TOGETHER NITH
OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES. THE COMMISSION UISCUSSED THE
NATIVE USES
PLANS OUTLINED IN THE STUDY~ THE POSSIBILITY OF A RESTRICTED C~~~
ULTI-
O
HIGH SCHOOM
THOTHETEXISTING
T
~
/
~
G
I
WI
DEVELOPMENT
DENTIAL~
RES
LY
FAM
PLE
~ _ DEVELOPMENT.
~
-
~
,
. .'r. ..:.;.. ~-,..~.~,-
'
. . . . ~ ~ ~ ~. . . ~~ ~
~
•---•
,
T . .. . . ... ~~ ' ~ .
~
, ...~ .. ~:~.~ ... ~' .-~ ~,:.
' 1~... ~ ~ _ .. - . ,.... .. .- . _.-,~...~.. •. .._,.,_
~
~;: ~
~
~
e .
6
~% .
~ .
`~, .~ HINUTES~ CI?'Y PLANNING COMM15510N~ MAY 29~ 1961~ CONTINUED;
.~
l9e
REPORTS AND RECOM- - 1TEM N0. 1: BALL ROAD STUDY, CONTINUED:
MENDATIONS (CoN-
TINUEDI MR. GENE SQUIRES~ REPRESENTATIVE OF STAPLES ENGINEERING COMPANY~ APPEAR-
ED BEFORE•TFIE COMMISSION AND INDICATED THAT HE REPRESENTED THE•SUBDIVIDER
AND THAT THE PROPOSED•R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ DEVELOPMENT
NOULD BRING APPROXIMATELY 300 PEOPLE INTO THE AREA. HE INDICATED THAT
THE SUBDIVIDER DID NOT CONSIDER THE R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~
ZONE OESIRABI.E BECAUSE OF THE PRICE OF THE LAND. THE COMMISSION DISCUS-~
SED THE TYPE OF RENTERS THAT NOULD BE HOUSED IN THE MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIA~ DEVELOPMENT AND IT.WAS NOTED THAT THE'VALUE OF THE LAND
WOULD REGULATE TO SOME EXTEN7 THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. IT NAS AL50
NOTED THAT HIGH DENSITY IN POPULATION IN CLOSE PROXIMI,TY TO THE COMMER~
CIAL DEVELOPMENT ON BROOKHURST STREET WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS.
PLANNING DIRECTOR REESE NOTED ~'HAT THE PROPOSAL FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELQP~
MENT AS OUT~INED IN THE STUDY WOULD.AL50 BE SUITABLE fOR THE AREA~AND
SUGGESTED THAT IF THE COMMERCIAL TYPE OPERATION WERE RECOMMEkDED~ THAT
lT BE LIMITED TO BUiINE55~PROFES510NAL OFFICES 50 THAT IT WOULD BE
COMPRTIBLE WITH THF. BASICALLY•RESIDENTIAL AREA.
COMMt551aNER5 MARCOUX AND MORRIS INDICATED THAT THEY CONSIDERED THE PRO~
POSED R~3~ MULTIPl.E FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE COMP'ATIBLE
WITH THE EXISTING DEVEIOPMENT AND.W~TH THE HIGH SCHOOL FACILITY LOCATED
ON BALL ROAD AND GILBERT STREET.. THE ASPECTS OF A PIANNED UNIT R-3~
Ml1LTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ DEVELOPMENT WERE AL50 DISCUSSED.
COMMISSI.ONER MUNGALL OFFEPED A MOTION~ SECONaED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX
AND CARRIED~ THAT PRECISE PLANS N0. 1 AND 2~ SNCORPORATINQ R~3~ MULTIPLE
FAMILY RESI.DENTIAL~ ZONI.NG BE REFERRED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WtTN THE
RECOMMENDATION THAT SAID STUDIES BE ADOPTED ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOW-
ING FINDINGS:
1. THAT PRECISE PLANS N0. 1 AND 2~ INCORPORA7E AND pROVIDE FOR 7HE
HIGHEST AND BEST DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES.
2. THAT PRECISE PLANS NO..1 AND 2 ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTINa
. RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA.
3. THAT PRECISE PLANS N0. 1 AND 2 WILL PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR THE
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMEN7 AND WILL SUPPORT THE EXISTING
•• COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA.
4~ RATHERHTHANVCOMMERCIALFUSEBWILL MOREEPROPERLYRRELATEPTO THE'EXIST~NG
HIGH SCHOOL SITE BY MINIMIZING THE CONFLICT OF VEHICULAR AND PEDES-
TRIAN TRAFF(C~. BY AROV6DONG AMAtE SITES FOR MULTlPLE FAMILY RESIDEN-
TIAL DEVELOPMENT IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE HIGH SCHOOL AND EXISTING
COMMERC~AL DEVELOPMENT~ AND WILL REMOVE POTENTIAL DEV6LOPMENT OF
MpRGINAL COMMERCIAL USES CATERING TO THE PEDESTRiAN AND VEHICULAR
MARKET CREATED BY THE EXISTENCE OF THE HLGH SCHOOL.
REPORTS AND RECOM- - IrEM No. 2: REQUEST FOR INITIATION OF PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION
MENDATIONS (CoN- N0. 60-61-104:
~ Nl1ED~
A REQUEST FOR A PLANNING COMMISSIQN INlT1ATIVE RELATIVE TO THE RECLA55-
MANUFACTURINGMnrTinEr-RiEA~-LESPARKING`LANDSCAPINGAL~LONESEwns PRESENTEDLTpHT
THE COMMISSlON REGARDING PROPERTY DESCR(BED ASS A PARCEL 120 FEET BY
NUE BETNEENTGROVERANDADOWLINa2STREETS~NITSENOR7HEA5TERLYFCORNERLBEINGE
ApPROXIMATELY 1~670 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LA PALMA
AVENUE AND GROVE STREET.
IT k1A5 NOTED TIiAT Tl1E REQUESTEO RECLASStFlCAT10N HAD BEEN INITIATED BY ~
AN INDI~~DUAL IN COOPERATION WITH THE CS.TY MANAGER~S OFFICE FOR THE
EVENTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BY AUTONETICS~ AND THAT
THE PROPERTY NOULD BE DEVELOPED CONCURRENTLY WITH A LARGER AHUTTINO
PARCEL.
VICE~CHAIRMAN MORRIS OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNGALL
AND CARRIED~ THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATJON NO... 60~61~104 BE
IN1TlATED 9Y THE ANAHEIM PLANNINq COMMISSION~ THAT THE PETITION FJR
RECLASSIFICATION BE LEfiALLY ADVERTISED~ AND THAT IT BE SET FOR PUBLIlC
HEARIN6 ON; JUNE I"b* 1961.
IreM No. 3~ NQQ~6oT61~106NITIATION OF PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION
{- REQUEST FOR A PLANNIN6 COMMISSION INITIATIVE RELATIVE TO THE RECLASS-
IFICATION FROM THE C-ir. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZOWE 70 THE R-i~ t7NE
FAMtLY RESIDENTIAL~ ZOIYE WAS PRESEN7ED TO•THE COMMISSION CONCERNIN~
PROPERT Y D ES C R I B E D A SS A P A R C E L 2 5 5 F E E T B Y 3 5 9 F E E T W I T H A F R ONTAGE
p OF 255 FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER LINE OF LA PALMA AVENUE AND ITS WESTERLY
6 BOUNDARY BElNQ APPROXIMAT.ELY 410 FEET EAST OF THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF
BROOKH~RST $TREET AND EXTENDING qORTHERLY T0 THE~bEAO END OF LOTUS
STREET. '^
~'~~ `~ , .
, 4 3:
~~ ~.. . . .. " ~ .~..~r!~"^ . . . ' ~~ . ~ ~ .,
~ . . . . . ,, . . . .
. . . . . . '..~ ~ ' I~i , . . ~ ' . . ; . , ... ~.
.'~ ~ ~~' ~ '~ ~ ' ~ ' ~~
. ~ '~~ .•~. .~: : ~';~. ~ '.
t ~', T
. ...l~.i.....{.J.~ .. . .: . ~ .. ~~1 ~.J ....~.. . . ...:~~,.I . .:.... . ` ~~~.~~. ._._.~;. . F' . . . ... . .~.. ...~r~+) ., ~_-::'. . _ ~. .~ u ~ . ...~..w..~
. . . . ' ': ~ ~1
1
~ ~.~
199
~ -~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOfV, Mnv 29~ 1961~ CONTINUED;
REPORTS AND RECOM- - ITEM No. 3~ CONTINUED; INITIATlON OF PETiTION FOR RECLASSIFICATION
MENDATIONS (CoN- N0. 60-61-106: '
TINUEDi
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PROPOSED FOR A SINGLE FAMILY RESlDENTIAL TRACT.
IT WAS NOTED~ THEREFORE~ THAT IT HOULD BE FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE
CITY TO RECLASSI,FY.THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES TO THE R-~~ ONE FAMI.LY RESI-
DEN7IAL~ ZONE IN OROER TO INSURE THAT THE TRACT BE DE'/EL.OPED IN ACCORD-
ANCE WITH THE R-1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE REQUIREMENTS.
ASSISTANT CiTY RTTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISFC THE COMMISSION THAT IT
NOULD BE TO THE ADVANTAGE OF.THE CITY TO IN1?IATE.THE RECLASSIFICATION
OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE PROPER AND ORDERLY .
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY RESiDENT7AL TRACT. HE STATED THAT
A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT COULD BE ESTABLI.SHED IN THE C-l~ NEIGHBOR-
HOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. HOWEVER~ IT WOULD PRESENT THE PROBLEM OF
COMPLlANCE W[TH CODE REQU~REMEN75 AND WOULD CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF COtAMERCIAL USES IN A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,
COMMISSIONER MUNGALL OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX
AND CARRIED~ THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIF.ICATION N0. 60-61~106 BE
INITIA7ED BY THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION~ THAT SAID PETITION FOR
RECLASSIFICATIQN BE LEGALLY ADVERTISED~ AND THAT IT BE SET FOR PUBLIC
HEARING ON ~UNE 26~ 1961.
~ ~ I1'EM No. 4: POLICY REGARDING FIIING OF COUNTY SUBDIVISION MAPS:
A RECOMMENDATION SUBMLTTED BY THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL I:OMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC
$AFETY AND GENERA~, WELFARE~IN RESPECT TO A PROPOSED POLICY REGARDING THE
FILING OF COUNTY ;iUBDIVIStON MAPS~WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION.
THE RECOMMENDATION WAS SUBMITTED BECAUSE OF A PENDING ANNEXATION IN AN
AREA.OF EXT~NSIVE SUBDIVi510N ACl'IVITV~ AND THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COM-
MITTEE RECOMMENDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THE REFERRAL TO AND
' CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTION AS POLICY:BY THE CITY COUNCIL~A PROCEDURE
FOR THE FILING OF SUBDIVISION MAPS !N ALL COUNTY AREAS UNDERGOING
ANNEXATION TO THE CITV OF QNAHEIM.
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE PR4POSED POLICY AND THE METHOD FOR PROCESS~
• ING OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS.
VICE-CHAIRMAN MORRIS OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOi1X
AND CARRIED~ THAT THE P~ANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THE ADOPTION AS
POLICY BY THE CITY COUNCIL THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURE:
ALL SUBD~VIDERS SHALL HAVE THE PREROGATiVE OF PROCESSING SUBDIVISION
MAPS INCORPORATING AREAS WITHIN THE COUNTY UNDER f,NNEXATION TO THE
CITY OF ANAHtIM THROUGH THE DEPAkSMENTS OF THE CITY AS PER STANDARD
PROCESSING PROCEDURESo WHETHER OR N~~T THE TRACT IS AL50 FILED CON-
CURRENTLY WlTH THE COUNTY. ANY CITY APPROVAL OF THESE TRACTS SHALL
BE SUBJECT TO THE COMPLETED ANNEXAiION OF THE AREA INCORPORA7'ED
NITHIN THE TRACT TO THE C1TY OF ANAHEIM. IN NO WAY SHALL SUCH
• CONDITICNAL APPROVAL BE BINDING ON THE COUNTY.
THE PURPOSE OF THlS POLlCY SHALL BE TO AFFORD THE DEVELOPER ADEQUATE
PROTECTION IN THE EVENT 7HE ANNEXATION OF THE PROPER~Y INCORPORATED
WITHI,N THE TRACT IS COMPLETED PRtOR 70 THE RECORDATION OF THE FINAL
MAP. IN 5l1CH CASES THE CITY OF ANAHEIM WILL HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNtTY
TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE THF TENTATIVE MAP AND~ THEREFORE~ WI~L BE
IN A POSITION TO APPROVE 'iHE FINAL MAP FOR RECORDATION AFTER THE
ANNEXATLON IS COMPLETED. THIS IS NECESSARY BECAUSE~ IN THE EVENT A
SENTATIVE MAP iS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY PRIOR TO ANKEXASION OF THE
PROPERTV INCORPORATED WITHI.N THE TENTATI,VE MAP TO THE CITY OF ANP.HEIM~
IT SHALL BE NECESSARY TO HAVE OFFICIAL APPROVAL OF THE TEN7ATIVE MAP
BY TFIE ClTY OF ANAHEIM [~EFORE ANY ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY THE CITY ON
THE FINAL MAP. THIS POIICY WtLL SAVE THE DEVELOPER AND THE CI7Y OF.
ANAHEIM ADDITIONAL PROCESSING TIME AND CO5T5 BY MAKINO UNNECESSARY
THE RESUBMISSION OF THE MAP IN TENTATIVE FORM TO THE C~TY OF ANAHElM.
COMMISSIONER SUMMERS LEFT THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 6530 O~CLOCK P.M.
~
i '
~~
~fys . ! r ~C_~ .`•, `' . ~.
ITEM No. 5: AMENDMENT TO THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE~ CHAPTER 18.52 -
"~1-1 LIGHT MANUFACTURING ZONE":
PLANNINO DIRECTOR RICHARD REESE INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT IN FEBRU-
ARY~ 1960t THE CITY ~OUNCIL HAD REFERRED THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO
CHA,PTER 1ti.52~ „M~1~ LIGHT MANUFAC7URIN0~ ZONE° FOR REVtEW BY THE
PLANN7NG COMMISSION. SAID AMENDMEN75 WERE SUBMIT7ED ON A INTERIM BA515
AND.kERE DE51(iNED AS AN UR~ENCY qEASURE NECESSARY FOR THE IMMEDIRTE
PRESERVATION OF SHE PUBLIC PEACE~ HEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND 6ENERAL WELFARE
BECAUSE OF THE UNCONTROLLED CONSTRUCTION,AND USE Of AREAS DESIaNATEO !N
THE M~l~ LIGHT MANUFACTURINa~'ZONE. MR. REESE,IND~CATED THAT A STUDY
WAS REQUESTED AT THAT TIME BECAUSE BRYAN ENTERPRISES WGRE CONCERNED
ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE AMENDMENT WOULD PLACE THEIR OPERATION
IW THE NON-CONF~RMINO USE CATE60RY.
~ . ~..._ ~._._~~.. . ~
~ ~~ ~la;cr:,~ h i`..~i,~~. .._ .. , , .... ;l~..:~..,. . .~..... ..,, ,i.. .,1.:..t,.?~;. ::i„a4~,.,.Y,,,~'tF«:d~'.fi"...;.~ . .. . .
~
zoo
~
~
~
MlNUTES, C1TV PLANNING COMMISSION, Mnv 29, 1961, CoNrINUEU:
~ REPORTS AND RECOM- - 1rEM No. 5~ CONTINUED: QHENOHENT TO CHAPTER 18.52 - ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
MENDATIONS (CoN- CCDE~ CONTINUED:
TINUED)
~' ASSISTANT CITY•ATTORNEY ~OE GEISLER AOVISED THE COPIMISSION THAT ACTION
;. I~ COULD NOT BE TAKEN UPON THE MATTER BY THE COMMISSION BECAUSE A QUORUM
; WAS NOT PRESENT.
i
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE PREVIOUS ACTlONS ON THE SUBJECT AMENDMENT
' AND REQUESTED THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT COND17C7 AN•INVESTIGATION
TO DETERMINE THE STATUS CF THc ORDINANCf AND THE APPROPRIATE ACTION
FOR PROCESSING RND COMPLETING THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.
QDJOURNMENT - THe MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:50 O~C~OCK P.M.
RESP:^_TFULLY SUBMITTEDy
. ~ ~
~ ECRETARY
.. '~
~
~
s