Minutes-PC 1961/06/26~
i
~
~;; _ .
. -~;~.~~--..~
~
~
~
~
;
," . ( REGUtAR MEETING
F
~, ~ PRESEWT
I ,
~ . ' ABSENT
' ' PRESENT
INVOCATION
PLEDGE 0~
ALtEGIANCE
r INTRODUCTION
'r
~,j NUT ES
i
VAR1aNCE N0. 1354
~' ,
~ `;
> ?
~, i ....~ .. .
; ,~i
CITY HA4L
ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA
JUNE 26, 1961
MINITES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE~1_TY PLANNIN6 COMM],~SION
- A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY• PLANNING COMMOSSION WAS CALLED TO ORDER
AT 2:00 O~CLOCK P.M. BY VICE CHAIRMAN MORR~59.A QUORUM BElNG PRESENT..
- VICE CHAIRMAN: MORRIS~ COMMiSS10NERS: HAPGOODa MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~
, . , ~ SUMMERS.
- COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED9 GAUER~ MARCOUX.
~ PLANNING DIRECTOR ~ RICHAR~J REESE ~'
SENfOR PLANNER - MARTIN KREIDT ~
ASSISTANT CITV ATTORNEY " .IOE GElSLER
COMMISSION SECRE7'ARY .^ JEAN PAGE ~ •
- REVEREND GERALD GROTEY'y PASTOR OF THE F~RST BAPT:ST CHURCH~ GAVE THE
INVOCAT~ON. ~
VICE CHAIRMAN MORRiS LED THE PLEDGE Of ALLEGiANCE TO 7HE ~LAG.
- VICE CHAIRMAN MORROS ~NTRODUCED MR. HERBERT PERRY AND MR. CALViN
PEBLEY~ NEN MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMlSS~ON APPOPNTED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL TO SERVE ON~THE COMMlSSION. .
- THE M~NUTES OF THE MEET:NG OF JUNE 12' 1961 WERE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.
~
- CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. PETITO,ON Sl8M7TTED sv L. P. AND EMMA H. ~
NICHOLS, H. K. WiLSON, HARRY Z. nr+o.F1AR1E J. WILSON AND LeROY J. AND i
MAR~ERY W. KEMp, OwN~RS; SALEM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY - S. D. CAPLAN, ~
12351 WES:'MINS:ER AVENUE SANTA ANA CALIFORNIA AGEN7' REQUESSING `
P_RM'SSlON zo WAlVE M!Nl~tUM HEIGHT (~EQUIREMENT ~'0 PERM~T~CONSTRUC- ~
T~ON OF TWO STORY APARTME.NTS ON PROPER7'Y DESCRlBED .45: AN ORREGULARLY ~
SI~APED PARS:EL. LOCA7F.D 100 FEE'f SOiJ~H Of CATALPA AVENUEa BOUNDED 0~~ THE
EA$T e\~ CH:PPEWA S'IREE?. THE SOU'fN BY TH~ OR.4NGE COUNTV F100D,CONTROI
CHANNEL AND 1HE SO~THEAS'2' BV' `:HE SPNTA ANA FREEWAYa AND P'UR'fHER DES~ ~
CRIBED AS TENTP.:'!'dE TRAC'P N0. 410?. PROPERTY PRESEN'fl_Y CLASSIF7ED
R-A, RESlDENT~AL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
SUBJECT PETiT.~ON WAS CON'"INUF..D FROM THE MEETINGS OF APRIL 170 1961
AND .JUNE 12p 1961 [!J ORDER TO PERMtT SUFF{CIENT T~ME FOR THE REV~EW BY
THE C{'TY COUNCIt OF PE:TETION rOR RECLASSlFiCAT10N NQ. 60~61~86 AND
TEN7ATIVE MAP QF TRnc•r No. 4107.
THE COMMISSI.ON~REVIE:'ED PLOT PLANS AND NOTED THAT THE PETITI,ON FOR
RECLASSIF1CATtAN AND 'I'HE TENTATIVE TRACT M.4P HAD BEEN RECOMMEND D TO ~
THE CITY COUNCOL FOR DENIAL BY THF. PLANNlNG COMMISS:ON ON A.PRi 179 /"
1961. HOWEVER9 7HE CITY COUNC6~ kAD APPROVED PETiT10N FOR REC .
FICATION N0. 60^61-86 AND TENT.4'i1VE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4107 AT THEIR
MEETING ON JUNE 20' 1961.
THE HEARlNG WAS CLOSED.
THE COMM{SSION REV:EM'ED PLOT P~ANS SUBM9SFE0 111'CH THE SUBJECT PETSTION
AND DISCUSSED THE REQUESTED VAROANCE TO PERMI'I' THE GONSTKUCTION OF TWO ~
-STORV MULT~PLE FAM~LY RESIDENI'IAL UNiTS ON LOTS 37 TO 50 OF TRACT N0.
4107 TC NITH~N 150~FEE'C OF LAND GlAS51F1.ED IN 7'HE R-Aa RESIDENTIAL ~i
AGRICULTURAL9 ZONE AND LOCA:ED ALONG TME SOUTH S~DE OF THE ORANGE ' I
~COUNTY FLOQD CONTROL. CHANNEL. ~• . .
THE ~OMMLS500:! FOUND AND DETERM~NED THE FOLi.OWING fAGTS REGAROING THE
SUBJECT PETI.TI.ON; . , .
1. THAT THE PETITiONER REQUESTS A VAROANCE FROM '!'HE ANAHEi61 MUN1~ .~ ~
~ CI?AL~CODE~ SEC'f10N 18.62.060 TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF~TWO -
STORV MU4TIPLE FAMiLY' REStDENT1AL UNITS ON LOT NOS. 37 TO 50 OF
- TRACT N0. 4107.~
2. THAT~THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CtRCUM57ANCE5 OR
CONDITIONS~APPLICABLE"~TO THE PROPERTY INVO WED~OR TO THE. INTENDED
USE OF.THE~PROPERTY THA7 DO'~NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO~THE PROPERTY ~
OR CLASS OF USE I.N THE SAMF VICINITY AND ZONE.
_~ 3. THAT~~THE REQUESTED-VARIANGE IS-NECESSARY FOR TNE PRESERVATION
AND ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED GY OTHER~
~ PROPERTV~~IN THF SAME YICiNlTY.AND,ZONE~ AND DENiF.D 70 THE PRO- ~
AERTY iN QUESTlON. .
4. THAT THE REQUESSED VARIANCE WlLL.NO1' BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL
~ - . TO~THE PUBL~IC~WELFARE~OR'lNJURIOUS~TO THE ?ROP.ERTY~OR~IMPROVE-.
~~ ~~~MENTS~I~N~SUCH~VICINI.TY AND ZONE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCPTED.~:~.
5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE N~LL NOT A~VERSELY AFFECT THE COM-
~ ~ ~- . PREHENSIVE"~GENERAI PLAN.' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ .
_221^_
.~ . , ~i'- _ ~ .
_"~r ~~~': t o.: . d . ,.-. , .. J .,. v . ~... . . .~~.t.. bra . ,,.. .. ~ ~. . . . . . . ..~
~- ~ ' ~~>
.:
.~I
.'. . ,. ". i
l+.. . '
r, : ,
~
~
~
~n,'S
" ~
222
MINUTES, C1TY P~ANNING COMM1SS10N~ JUNE 26, 1961~ CONTI,NUED;
VARIANCE N0. 1354 ~~~~ CONSEQUEN7LY~r5AlD CHANNEl.EM1LL SERVE ASYAF8ARRIERNBE7MEENATHE`~
~ONTINUED StlBJECT PROBERxY AND '~HE R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRyCULTURAt7~ ZONE
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHERI.Y OF THE ORANQE COUNTY FLOOD I:ONTROt
CHANNEL. -
. 7: THAT MR~TTEN OPPOSITI,ON~ !H ADDITtON TO.VERBAL OPPOSOTION~ HAS
THE ME~7I.NQAflNgAPRIT'17~N1961.REHOMEVER~GNO~OPPOSITLON6MA56 AT
RECORDED AGAINST. SUBJECT PE7ITION.FOR.VARIANCE N0. 1354 AT THE
.• MEET(N~ OF JUNE 12~ 1961 OR.THE MEETI.NG OF JUHE 269 1961. .
COMMl5S1.ONER MUNaALL OFFERED RESOLUTI0N.N0. 291o SER)ES 1960~61~ AND
TOVtiRAN1'RPETI.T~ONSFOR VARLANCETNON~1354~NSUBJECTCTOMTHE~FOLL MINpY'
CONDIT)ONS: ~
1. SUBJECT 70 THE RECORCATI,ON OF A_'FINAI NAP OF SUBJECT.';P.ROPERTY.
2~ MULTLPlETFAMILYRRE5IDENTIAt~`ZONEF SUBJECT PROPERTX TO THE R~3~
THE•FOREGOINQ COHDJ.7lON5 MERE RECOSED A7 THE MEETINQ AND WERE FOUND
TO OE A•NECESSARY PREREQU[51,7E TO THE USE OF THE PROPER7Y IN ORDER
TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND MEIFARE OF 7HE ClT12EN5 OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM. • "
ON ROLL CALL THE FORE~01.N4 RESOLl17CON NAS PASSED BY THE FOLtOWING.VOTE;
AYES: COMM1SS10NERS: SUMHERS; MORR15~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY' PERRY9
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. . •
ABSENT: COMMISSIOt~ERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MnRCOUx.
VAR1A E HO. 1371 3O6TEAST~I7TH~.j:iTREE7tNSANTAEQNA~oCALIFORN~A~ ONHERNAREQI7ESTAMGEPER~-~ ~
AN5I.RRE4ULARONSSNAPED PARCELNWITHOAEFRONiAQE~OFP60PFEET ONSKATELLAASI
AVENUE AND LOCA7ED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF KATELLA AVEPlUE BETWEEN HARBOR
80ULEVARD AND CLEMENTINE S7REET~ 1TS SOU7HWES7 CORNER BEING APPROXI~
~ MATELY 1~030 FEET EA57 OF THE NORTHEA52 CORNER OF HARBOR BOUtEVARD
PROPERT~LPRESENTLY ct~.sssl.Fl.EORR ASCRESIDENTIAl5AGRICULTURALA ZONEuE.
7HEJPEt1TlpNER9WA5~NOT.NPRESENT~ANDE~NF RMAT~ON RELATI?E TO6PETITIONE
FOR IfARIANCE N0. 1314 COULD NOT BE SUBM'XTTED AT THAT TIME.
MR..DONALD REA~ TNE PE7~710NER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMI.SSION AND
TOATHE SUBJECT PROPER7Y SEHETSTA7EDCTHA7AHE`UNDER5700GTTHAT PPEYIOUSSS
PET~T)ONS FOR USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY NAD EXPIRED.
ONET?IEMSUBJECT PROPERTYDASTOUTLINEDN4NHTHEESTAFF~REPORTPREVIOUS ACTIONS ~
THE PETlTIONER REQUESTED ~.NFORMA710N RELATIYE TO THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL
COMMLTTEE RECOMMENDATION l,N RESPECT 70 THE DED~;CAT.ION OF A CUt-DE-SAC
THATTTHEPCI.TYSETiQJ.NEERiDEEMED~THE~PKOVIS~ONTOFLANCULIDEUSACPTIECE55ARYT
XN ORDER TO PROVIDE VEHICLE 'SURN~0.ROUND AREAS FOR COILECTION AND MAIH~
ARRANQE FORPASPRI`JATEECOLLEC7IONRSERYI1CE7T0 SERVEH7H~APROPERTyED TO
MR'. REA LNFORMED THE COMM1.55(~H THA7 PREVIOUS PLANS FOR AN OFFLCE
BUILDLNQ PROJECT COlITA~NED IN PE71.TlON FOR VARI.ANCE N0. 1269 HAD BEEN
ABANDONED~ 7HAT THEY,HAD ANTJ,CLPATED iHAT THE REQUESTED USES CONTAiNED
lN PET'1,71~N FOR VARIANCE N0. 1914 WOULD BE PERMITTED OH THE PROPERtY~
AND THAT THE PRESENT REQUE57 NA5 70 E57A8LlSH AN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT
H1TH A S1XTY FOOT STRl:P~ EXTENDI.NQ NORIHERLY FROM KATELLA AVENUE~ TO
BE UTXL~ZED FOR.ACCE55 PURPOSES TO TNE PROPOSED 48 UNiT APARTb1EN7
UEVELOPMENT• NE STATED THAT.THE PROPERTY IN7.ENDED FOR DEVELOPMENT BY
PET(TI.ON FOR VARLANCE N0. 13Y4 MAS NOT 1NTENDED TO BE A PART OF (HE
SUBJEC7.pETITION AlTH0U0H 7HE ENTIRE PARCEL MAS I.NC WDED 1N..PETITfON
FOR VARI,ANCE N0. 1314~ AND AL50 iHAT HE MAS THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY.
I7.11A5 POINTED OU7 70 THE COMMISSAON 7HAT a„~ rR~~~^+Y ~e De~'~Stf1N FnR
VARI.ANCE`Na. 1314 COULD BE EXCLUDEb FROM THOSE PORZIONS CONTATNED EN
7HE SUBJECT PE7ITLON~ TNEREBY EL1MI.NAFiNQ ANY -0ONFL~,C7 WI.TH 7HE PRO-
pER7X CON?AtNED j.N PETAT~,ON FOR VARI.ANCE N0. 1314. IT MAS NOTED THA~
THE PROPERTX DESCRIBED /.N PET~,TION`FOR'YAR~ANCE N0. 13T4 1NCLUDED THAT
CONTAI.NED 1N 7H~ BUBJEC7 PETlTION AND'THAT ONE.OF'7HE CONDI.TLONS OF.
~ ~ . ~ ' ~ - .~......uu.~nl~DlT~~ITIflN CoR`~VARLAHCE~NO.~-1314 MAS THAT_1T_WOUlO_BE~ n`T~. .
~
_ ~~ ~ '.j~,;
~
~
~
~
223
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JuNE 26, 1961~ ~ONT~NUED:
VARIQNCE N0. i371
CONTINUED
- 19b1 THE PETITI.ONER~S AGENT APPEARED BEFORE THE CONMlSSION AND RE-
QUESTED AN INTERPRETATIUN OF THE USES PERMXTTED BX PETITI.pN FOR
YARIANCE N0. 1314. EXCERP7S FRQM 7HE MINUTES OF THE PLANNI.Na COMMIS-
SI.ON MEETING OF MARCH 6~ 1961 NERE READ TO THE COMM(.SS~ION.
THE HEARING ~AS CLOSED.
ASS(STANT C1TY AT70RNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMISSt.ON THAT IN THE
EVENT OF APPROVAL~OF THE SUBJECT~PEx1T10N~ THE COMMISSION SHOULD INDI-
CATE A5 A FLNDIN6 7NAT PETITtON FOR t/ARIANCE N0. 1259 WAS DETERMINED
TO BE NULL AND VO~D BECAUSc THt TlME L[~:.7A71C•N FOR COMPLI.ANCE NITH
THE•.CONDJTIONS OF APPROVAL HAD EXPI.REDo AND THAT THE R ESOI.UTION GRAN7-
INa PETITION FOR VARtANCE N0. 1314•SHOUtD BE AMENDED LIM)TI.NG THE
PERMITTED USES TO THE WESTERLY i50 :£ST AND THE SOU7HERLY 291 FEET
OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OF PETITION FOR•VARIANCE N0. 1314.•
THE COMM').SSI.ON DISCUSSED THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMA~TTEE RECOMMENDA-
7lON RELA7IVE TO 7HE DED•~CATxON OF A S1X7Y F007 S7RIP FOR STREET
PURPOSES AND THE PROVI.SION OF A STANDARD CUL-DE-SAC. IT NAS NOTED
7HAT THE C7,TY WOULD ASSUME THE RdSPON5L8,LLITY OF.MAINTENANCE OF THE•
STREET lF.•1MPROVEMENT AND DED~CATION~MERE MADE AND THAT A MODIFI,ED
CUL~DE-SAC COULD HE PROVXDED ON THE NOR7HERLy PORTION OF 7HE 57REET.
TNE PETI7~ONER 1ND~CA7ED 7NAT HE UNDERSTOOD-THAT•C17Y PERSONNEL
MOULD N07 ENTER THE PROPERTY ITSELF~AND THAT•ONtY THE DEDLCATION OF
THE 300 FEET EXTENDING HORTH~RL'Y'.FROM.KATELLA AVENUE WOULD BE.NECES-
SARX. 7HE COMNISSLON DLSCUSSED 7HE AMOUN7 OF AREA NECESSARY TO
PRbVkDE A MODIFIED CUL-DE-SAC~ TNE LOCAT.ION OF THE CUL-DE-SAC/ AHD
THE NECESSITY FOR PROVIDINQ A TURNIN4 AREA FOR THE VEHIC~ES THA7
MOULD BE SERVECLNG 7HE PROPERTY. THE PETIr10NER AGREED TO 7HE
RECOMMENDAi~ON AS PROPOSED.. THE COMMtSSJON ALSO DISCUSSED NALL RE-
QU{REMENTS AND THE RECOMMENDED LANDSCAPAN6 OF 7HE SUBdECT PROPERTV.
THE PETITLONER.~NDICA7ED THAT NE INTENDED TO lNSTALL A BLOCK MALL
SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY EXCEPT•FOR 7HE SIXTY FOOT ACCE55
POLNT. THE CONM1551.ON NOTED THA7 LANDSCAP~NG ALONG KATELLA QVENUE
WOULD NOT BE•NECESSARY AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR THE SUBJECT
PETITI.ON BECAUSE NONE OF THE PROPERTY ALONG KATE~~A AVENUE WAS
INCLUDED IN THE SUBJEC7 PET~TLON EXCEP7 FOR TME SIXTY FOOT ACCESS
57RIP~ AND THAT 7HE LANDSCAPINQ OF 7HA7 AREA A~ONG THE DED~CA7ED
57REET•COUID BE PROV[DED WHEN THOSE PROPERTi,ES WERE DEYELOPED.
THE COkMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED 7HE FOLLOW~Na FACTS REGARDING
TNE SUBJECT PE7ITLON:
l: THAT 7NE PE7ITIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FRO~ 7HE ANAHEI,M MUNICI-
PAL CODE~ SECT(ON 18.16.010 TO:PERMIT 7HE DEVELOPMENT OF AN
APARTMEN7-MOTEL.
2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTjONAL OR EX7RAORD~NARY CIRCUM57ANCE5 OR
COND1TlON5 APPLICAB~E TO THE PROPERTY 1NVOtVED OR TO THE INTENDED
USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY dENERALLY TO 7HE PROPEgTY
OR TO THE CLAS@ OF USE IH TNE SAME V~CINITY AND 20NE.
3. THAT THE REQUE57ED VARIANCE 15 NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION
AND ENJOYM~NT OF A SUBSTAN7IAL PROPERTY RlaHT POSSESSED 9Y OTHER
PROPERTY IN THE SANE Y~C1NlTY AND ZONE~ AND DENI.ED TO YHE PROPERTY
LN QUESTION.
4. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE N~LL NOT BE MATERX'ALLY D,ETRLMENTAL TO
THE PUBLI.C MELFARE OR ~NJURLOUS 70 THE PROPE RTY OR IMPROVEMEN75
tN SUCH V1CINLTY AND 20NE ~N MHyCH THE PROPERTY 15 LOCATED.
5. THAT 7HE REQUESTED VAR~ANCE MLLL N07 ADVERSELY AFFEC7 7HE COMPRE-
H~HSI.VE GENERAG PIAN.
6. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE 15 F1LE0 I:N ACCORDANCE MITH THE
VARIANCE POLICY ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY COUNCI:L FOR THE DTSNEY-
~AND AREA AS DELTN~7ED ON THE GENERAL PLAN~AND j5 COMPAjIBLE WLTH
THE DEVELOPMEN7 IN THE SURROUNDI.NQ AREA.
7. ~KAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTX OF PETL710N FOR VAR(ANCE N0. 1314 l.S
IiEREBY AMENDED 1N ACCORDANCE MITH THE PE7LT~ONER~S REQUEST~ AS
STI.PULATEO lN ~IND),N~ N0. 6 OF RESOLUTION N0. 132~ SERIES 1960~
61~ WH~CH QaANTED PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1314~ TO EXCLUDE ALL
~ AREAS EXCEPT THE MESTERLY 150 F~ET OF THE SOUTHERLY 291 FEET OF
SUBJECT PROPER7Y.
By THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMEN7 OF 7HE SUBJECT PROPER7Y OF PET(TION
FOR VARIANCE N0. 1269 ~5 HEREBY DECLARED NULL AND YOID ON THE
BASLS THAT THE PE71T10NER HAS NOT FULF~LLED THE CONDLTIDNS ATTACN-
ED TO RESOLUTION N0. 22~ SER(ES 1960-61~ WH1'CH dRANTED SA4D
PcTLTION.
9. THAT NO QNE APPEARED I.N OPPOSITION TO SUBJF~T PETITION.
COpM1.55lONER PERPy OFFERE~ RE50W710N N0. 292~ SER1E5 1960~61 AND
== MOVED FOR LTS PASSAQE AND ADOPT4ON~ SECONDED BY COMMlSSIONER ~ERRY~
70 GRANZ'PE7ITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1371~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOMING
COND[TIONS:
1: .DEDI.CATION OF S1.XTY (60~ FEET FR M 7HE MONUb1ENTE0 CENTERLI.NE OF
KATEI.LA AVENUE (40 FEET EX/,571.NG~.'
M„ SECONDED BY COMtAI5S10NER PEBLEY~
,. _ , ..,.
. .::-. , ?~,.; ~..~. -.: .~,~~..,. -c:~.i.~,:~:.
~
., ._t:;.
l
~ ~
~ ~ .
.~
v
f ~ ~ ...
~~
' 1 . . . '
• . . ..
x
~;~
1
'
~
Y~ti
~i~'
~ ~
224
M!NUTES, CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION, JuNE 26, 1961~ CoNrxNUEn:
VARIANCE N0. 1371 - 2. DEDICATION 70 THE CiTY OF ANAHEIM OF 7HE.SIXTY (60) FOOT STRJP
CONTINUED EXTENDING NORTHERLY FROM•KATELLA AVENUE' AS SHOIIN ON THE PLOT
PLAN SUBMlTTED.MI7H.THE•SUBJECT PETITION~ FOR STREET PURPOSES
MITH THE PROVISOON OF A MODLFLED CUL-DE~SAC OF A DESlGN AND AT
A.LOCATIOR 5'ATI~SFACTORY TO T HE C1TY EN4INEER.
3. PREPARATION OF STREET ,lMPROYEME.:T PLANS AND ]:N:TALLATION OF ALL
J,MPROYEMENTS IN~ACCORDANCE WLTH 7HE'APPROVE~ STANDARD PLANS~ON
FI"L•E lN THE OFFICE OF THE C1,TY ENQINFER FOR KATELLA AVENUE AND
7HE DEDICATED STREE7 SHOWN ON 7HE PLOT PLAN SUBMI7TED NlTH '[HE
SUBJECT PE7lT10N. ~•
4: PAYMENT OF ~2.00 PER FRONT F00T•FOR STREET LLGHTING PURPOSES FOR
TNE'DEDICATED;:STREET'SHOWN•ON THE PLOT PLAN SUBMITTED.WITH THE SUB-
JECT PETITJON~ OR THE"dN57ALLATION OF'STREET LlGHTS ON THE DEDICATED
STREET'AT LOCATIONS~STIPULATED.BY(THE DIRECTOR OF.PUBLiC UTIL171E5.
. .. . . . ~ : t_ . ~ . .
5. PAYMENT OF ~25.00 PER DWELL7.NG UN1T PARK AND REC^EAT10N FEE TO
BE COLLECTED AS PART OF BUlLDIN~ PERMIT. -
6: PROVISION OF AREAS FOR TRASH STURAGE AND PlCK-UP.
7. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTl,ALLY l,N qCCORDANCE WI,TH PLANS PRESENTED.
8. PROVjS10N OF A SIX (6) FOOT MASONRX MALL SURROUNDlt~G SUBJECT PRO-
PERTY EXCEP7 FOR THA7 AREA RESERVED FOR INQRE55 AND EGRE55 TO THE
SUBJECT••PROPER7Y.
9. T1ME Ll1A1TnT'1ON OF ONE HUNDRED EIQHTY (180) DAYS FOR 7HE ACCOM-
PLI.SHMENT OF.,ITEM NOS. 1y 2~ 3~ 4~ AND 5.
THE FOREGOIN~ CONDITAONS NERE RECITED A7 THE MEETJNfi AND MERE FOUND •
TO BE A NECESSARX PREREQU151.7E TO THE USE OF ZHE PROPER7Y LN ORDER TO
PRESERVE iHE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF 7HE CtTLZENS OF TNE CITY OF QNAHE(M.
ON ROLI CALL THE FOREGOINl3 RESOLUTI~ON MAS.PASSED BY THE FOLtOWfNQ.VOTE;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD~ MORRI.S~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY'
SUMMERS.
NOES; .:OMM~SSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: CpMNISSIONERS: AtLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX.
CONDITIONAI USE - C!.~*INUED PUBLIC HFJ-R1NG. PE7I,TLON SUBMI,T7ED ev MAGNOLIA BAPTIST f
PERMIT NO. 130 G:'~RCH OF ANAHEIM, 720 SOUTH MAQNOLIA AVENUE ANAHEIM CALIFORNI:A~ ~
Ow~~a, aeQuesTlNa PeRwtssloN 7o EXPAND EXISTJNG CHURCH FACILITIES
OH ~'ROPERTY DESCRIBED ASC A PARCEL 270 FEET BY 313 FEE7 W1,7H A FROHT-
A(iE 0~ 313 FEET ON NAQNOLIA AYENUE AND LOCATED ON THE EAS7 SIDE OF ~
MAQNOLfA AVENUE BETWEEN ORAN~E AYENUE AND ROME AVENUE~ ~75 NOR7HMESi
, CORNER BELH4 APPROX;MATELY 1~005 FEEx 50UTH OF 7HE SOUTHEAST CORNER ~
OF ORANQE AND MAGNOLIA AVENUES. PROPERTY PRESEN7LY CLASSXFiED R-A, ~
RESIDENT)AL A6RICULTURAL~ ZONE. ~
SUBJECT PETYT~ON CONTINUED FROM THE lAEE7~Na OF JUNE 12~ 1961 1N ORDER i
TO PERMAT THE REVIEW OF SUBJEC7 PE71;71pN BY THE EN(iINEERINQ DEpARTMEHT !
FOR A 57UDY AND RECOMMENDATION IN RESPECT TO THE PRIYA7E STREE7 FOR ;
WH7.CH AN EASEFf°_NT 15 RECORDED ON SU9JECT PROPERTY.
MR: EDNIN BONNET~ 2001 HAS7ER STREET~ ANAHEIMti AQENT FOR THE CHURCH~
APPEARED BEFORE 'iHE COMMI.SSION AND REYIEMED =HE FAC75 PRESEN7ED AT ~
THE.MEETIN(i OF JUNE 12~ 1961 AT WH1CH 71ME tHE COMM15570N HAO CON-
TINUED TNE SUBJEC7 pE7~710N LH ORDER 70 QHTAIN THE STUDY AND RECOM- I
•- MENDATf,ON BY THE, }NTERDEPARTIIENTAL COMMlTTE~ I,N RESP„ECT TO THE PRI~~
YATE STREE7. MFl. ~ONNET REY~EMED FOR IHE COMMI'SS~ON THAT THE CHURCH
MAS CON9TRUCTED BEFORE ANNEXA7JDN 70 THE C1TY OF ANAHEIM WITH A COUNTY
PERMIT AND THA7 7HE CHALN 11HK AND MOODEN FENCLNQ AN57ALLE0 A7 THAT
T[ME CONPL(ED MITH COUN7Y REQUIREMEN75. HE REQUESTED THA7 7HE CITY
REQUXR~MENT FOR A'2LOCK MALLoNHERE 7HE SUBJEC7 PROPERTY ABUTS RE51'-
DENTI,AL ZONES~ BE MAyVED BECAUSE THE CHURCH MAS CONTEMPtATIN~ FU7URE
EXPANSAON OF THE CHURCH FACCL}71E5 NHXCH NDULD NECESSITATE REMOVAL
OF THE BtQCK WALL. HE S7ATED FUR7HER THA7 THE PROPOSED CHURCH ADDI-
TION MOULD PROV(DE SEAT7Nfi CAPAC~TY FOR 5DO PERSONSp AND ~HA7 THE
CHURCH MAS ACQU~;R1.Nfi 33 FEET ?0 7HE NDR7H FOR PARKINa AREA.
?HE HEARING NAS CLOSED. '
THE COIIM15510N DJSCUSSED THE EX157~NQ WALLS ON 7HE SUBJECT PROPERTY
AND.THE PETITIONER LNDiCATED THA7' THERE NAS.A SI,X FOOT MASONRY WALL
ON ONE-Hq~f.nr,Twr:n~erau~e eun ~ gr,v, r~~r ~Q~~gu ~~u~~ r~e
REMAXNOER -0F THE DJ'STAN~.E ALONQ THE SOUTH PROPER7Y LXNE~ ANDTA~CHAIN
U,NK FENCE WAS I,NSTALLED AT SOME EXPENSE BY.THE -0HURCH ON THE EAST
PROPERTY L(NE WH).CH THE:OMNER OF THE PROPERTY~ABUTTlNQ THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY AN'xHE EA57~HAD LNDICATED THAt HE'PREFERRED. ,IT MAS POlN7ED
OUi 7NAT THE INTERDEPARTNENTAL COMMI,7TEE RECOMNENDATI.QN INDICATED
THAT AN EXiEN51,ON OF THE pR~,VATE .BTREET FROM CONLEy STREET NOULD NOT
BE NECESSARY AND y.T,.MAS N07EQ TNAT 7HE PE~l.71,ONER HAD`~NDICATED AT
~ 7HE MEETJ,NQ OF.:JUNE 12~ 1961-:7HAT THE CHURCH,WISHED TO ACQUIRE THE
:
:
~
. . .
,
,e.:;»~w.J:v.:. . .rw,:,..
..._~^.. ~..... ~. rt..l.;. ~ ~
.-'., .~.~::`-.. S , .~ ...
„r:.--° ... .-.
~~ X
. ~ , J...... ,.~t~..n.. -. . . .:~ .
i^ .5......YF~tJT'I•_ ~ .. . .,... ~ .. .
, ,::
`
~.. -
~ :` <
` ~~~
i_ . : -:i
~
~ ~ , i.l
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
MiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMM~SSION~ .IUNE 26, 1961, CONT~NUED;
225
CONDITIONAL USE - FROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE EASEMENT BY A QUITCLACM OEE6.
PERifIT N0. 130 .
CONTINUED THE COMMLSSION ALSO DI.SCUS6ED THE HEIQHT OF THE PROPOSED SANC7UARY
AND THE CAMPANILE~AND 7HE PETLTLONER xND~;CATED TFiAj THE SANC7UARY
MOULD BE 39 FEET~HLfiH AND SHE CAMPAN~LE NOULD•BE 70 FEET HLGH.
QSSI:STANT Cl'TY AT70RHEY JOE CZE~,SLER ADYI.SED THE COMMJSS•ION THAT 7HE
1NSTALLATLON OF,BLOCK,WAtLS IN ACCORDANCE MI;TH CODE REQUI.REMERTS
COULD BE ASSURED~ 1N CASE OF FU7URE RESLDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF ABUT~
71NQ PROPERTIES~ BY 7HE P0571NQ OF A BOND BY THE PET1TlONERS.
THE COMMI:SSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOW~NG FACTS REGARDING
THE SUBJECT PETI'T1.ON:
1'. THAT THE PROPOSED USE 1.5 PROPERLY ONE FOR MHTCH A CONDI.TI.ONAL USE
PERMIT XS AU7HORT2ED BY THAS CUDE~ 70 N1~T; CNURCH EXPANSION.
2. THA7 THE PROPOSED USE NILL N07 ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJOINING
LAND USES AND'7HE aROWTH AND DEVELOPMEN7 0~ TKE AREA IN MHI.CH 1.T
LS PROPOSED TO B: LOCA7ED. .
3: TNAT THE SjZE AND SHAPE OF THE SYTE PROPOSED FOR TNE USE 15
ADEQUA'(E i0 aL40W THE FUtL DEYELOPMEN7 OF THE PROPOSED USE IN A
MANNER N07 DE7RlMENTAL TO THE PARTICULAR AREA NOR TO THE PEACE~
HEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND (iENERAL MELFARE OF THE ClT1,ZEN5 OF THE CI.TY
, OF ANAHEXN. .
4: THA7 THE TRAFFIC QENERATED BY THE PROPOSED USE WILL N07 ~MPOSE
AN UNDUE BURDEN UPON THE STREETS AND HIGHMAYS DESfGNED AND ,~MPROVED
70 CARRY THE TRAFFIC l,N THE N2EA.
5. THAT Tk1E (iRAN71Nti OF THE CONDXTJ.ONAL USE PERM'IT UNDER THE COND1-
710NS 1NPOSED~ -F ANY~ WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL 70 THE PEACE~
HEAL7N~ SAFETY AND GENERAt MELFARE OF THE CIT];ZENS OF 7HE CITY
OP ANAHELM.
6. TNAT THE MAGNOLLA ifAPTTS7 CHURCH HAS BEEN ESTABL~SHED ON THE
'SUBJECT PROPERTY SCNCE 1957 AND 7HE PROPOSED EXPANSION WILL BE
CONPATl.BLE MITH TNE EXlSTIN~ DEVELOPMENT.
7: THAT jHE MALL AND FENC),NQ PRESENTLY ];N EXJ57ENCE ON THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY AS ADEQUATE FOR THE pRE5EN7 TINE AND THE POSTINQ OF A
90ND FOR A 7W0 (2) YEAR PER[OD OF T(ME NLLL ASSURE THE IN57ALLA-
iION OF WALLS IN ACCORDANCE MITH CODE REQU~REMEN75 I,F A9UTTING
PROPERTIES ARE DEVELOPED FOR RESApENT1AL PURPOSES.
8. THAT THE HE(aHT LLMI,TA7J,ON FOR THE SANC7UARY AND THE CAMPANXLE
PERMLTEAYMAXIMUM~HELaH7~OFD7H~'RTY~N~NE~(3~~SFEETOFORBTHE~SANCTO
TUARY AND A HEJ.~HT OF SEVENTY (70~ FEE7 FOR THE CAMPANiLE.
9; THAT NO ONE APPEARED ~N OPPOSITI,ON TO SUBJEC7 PETITI:ON.
COMIt/SSIONER MUNQALL OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 293~ SER1E5 1960-61~ AND
MOV%tD FOR 175 PASSAQE AND ADOPTI.ON~ SECONDED BY COMM'1SS70NER PERRY~
TO 6RANT CONDIT'1ONAi USE PERM,LT N0. 130~ SUGJECT TO 7HE FOLLOMI.NG
CO{SD~T,IONSC
1. DED~,CATI,ON OF. 53 FEE7 FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLONE OF MAGNOLIA
AVENUE (30 FEET EX'YSTJ.N~~.
2. PAYMENT OF =2.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STREET L1:GHT1'Na PURPOSES. '
3. DEVELO'MEFI7 SUBSTAN.TI,ALLY IN ACCORDANCE MI?H PLANS PRESENTED.
4. INSTALLATION OF A SLX (6~ FOOT.MA50NRY MALL ON THE EAST PROPERTY
LINE AT SUCH TI,ME AS THE ABUTTLNG PROPERTY 15 DEVELOPED FOR
RESIDEN71,A1 PURPOSES. POS71,N(i 0~ A BOND FOR A TNO (2~ YEAR
PERtOD OF 71ME I0 ASSURE SAtD WAL~. INSTAL5.ATION.
5: 1'OSTLNG OF A BOND FOR A TWO (2~ YEAR PER10D OF 'fIME FOR THE
['ASTAI.LA7XON OF A SlX (6~ FOOT Mf+50NRY WALL A~ONQ THE NORTH
F•ROPERTY I~NE AT SUCH T1ME A5 7HE ABUTTi,Il~ PROPER7Y T0 7HE NORTH
f5 OEVELOPED FOR RESI,DENTLAL PURPOSES.
6. TIME LIMI,7AT'lON OF ONE HUNDRED AND E16HTY (180) DAYS FOR THE
ACCOMPL];SHMENT OF ~TEM NOS. 1~ 2~ 4~ AND 5.
THE F~RGQOI;NQ CONDITT.ONS NERE FfECXTED AT THE MEETLNa AND WERE FOUHD
TO BE A WEC!?SSARy-PREREQUIS~TE TO THE USE OF 7HE PROPERTY I.N ORDER TO
~ PRESERVE THE~SAFETY AND~WELFARE ~F TME C~ITIZENS ~F~TNF CITV fiF AMANFiM_
~ ... ~
~ 1
~ ._
~ ~' . ..<. ~:a~.....:<.~~,
4.fFn~k,,`~`.,,~,~§~~r~.I'i 1,~.~ r : ..;i ,+,~....t.~~`~~a?'~!+E''ia:';.."~:.'~.4~. ~'; .
, ,...
:i ~ .
'~.
'~ ~ ~r ,
. y,,' r'~ ~.i~ - . . ~ ' . ~ '
~
.-. . ~ - ~ ~ ~~ ~ ' .
226 ~
~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMFI1SS10N~ JUNE 26, 1961, CDNT[NUEA:
VELRIItNCE N0. 1372 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETI,T1IUN IN~71A7ED.BY THE CITY PLANNIN6 COMMISSION
~~, BY ACTxON ON MAY 15~ 1961 AS A'COkSEQUENCE OF A BU8l1.C HEAR1NCi ON
PEt1,TlON FOR RECLASSlF1CATlON N0. 60~61-93• RICHARD E. AND BERTFIA ,,
€ Y~L~IAMS~ 1829 SOU7H MOUNI'A1NVI,EM AVFNUE ~NAHEI:M CAIlFORN1A
r• ~~ OMNERS REQUES7INC~ PERMI,SS~ON 70• (1 ESfA8L1SH A1V OFFICE iN °t7CIST-
~ IN6 RE~SIDENCE• (2). OUTDOOR STORA6E 0~_EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLESp
(3) !aAINTENAN~E AND.REPAIR OF EQUIP4E NT AND VEHICLES, or+ PROPERTY•
~' DE5CR~9EG ASC A PARCEI 62 FEET BY 360 FEET W17H A FRONTAQE pF 62 ;l
~ ; FEEt OH MOUNTA1NVi~1t••AVENUE AHD LOCATED ON:xHE WES7.51DE OF MOUNTAIN- "
~. V;C£W.QVENUE BETMEEN KATELLA QYENUE AND..7NE.DEA~-~END~ [TS~NORTHEA5T
CORNER BE•ING:APPROXIMA7ELY 269 FEET SQU7Fi OF THE SOUTHMEST CORNER
;j OE KATELLA AND MOUNTAINVIEM AYENUES AND FUR7HER DESCRIBED AS 1829
" SOUTH MOUNTAJ.NV(EW QVENUE. PROPERTY PRESEN7LY CLASSIFLED R-A~
~,._,,,~ RESIDENT)AL.AGR.ICULTURAL~ ZONE.
THE COMM~SSION NOTED THA'J AT 7HE NEE7I;NG OF MAY ~.5~ 1961 THE PETI-
T.[ONERS (NDJ.CATED 7HEY HAD APPLI,ED FOR TH~ RECLA55(F~CAT(ON,OF THE
- SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE M~1~ L1GH7 MANUFAC7URCNQ~ aONE IN Oi;~~R TO••
06TAiN.A BUSINESS 11.CENSE 20 CORDUC7 AN EXISTING BUSRNE55 AND 70~•
UT1,l1ZE AN EX1STlNG pWELI]NQ FOR RESLDENTIAL PURPDSES. AT THAT TIME
.
THE COMMISS~ON pE'~'ERMxNED•THAT • 1,N~ ORDER 70 U71,tKZE THE PROPERTY ]N
TNE REQUEBTED MANNER~ A.VqRLANCE WOULD BE REQU,~RED.• AS A CONSEQUENCE
~
THE PLANN~N(i COMMX5510N D~D 1,N~TIATE AND SET FDR PUBLlC HEARSNG QETi-
TTON•FOR VARIANCE N0. 1372 70•CON5~DER TWE REQUEST FOR PERMt55lON
TO
.
ESZABL~,SH THE OU7DOOR STORAQE OF TRUCKS AND EQUIPNEN7~ THE MA1
N-
.
TENANCE AND REPA(R OF SA~D VEHl;Ct~S AND EQUIPNENT ON THE r'REM15E5~
AND 7'O ESTABL~SH.AN OFFI.GE ~N AN EXxST~NQ REStCENCE. ,
MR. RICHARD WILLIAMS~ THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ APPEARL•D
BEFORE TNE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT HE MAS REQUESSINQ PERMISSION TO
" CONTINUE THE BUSINE55 AND TO l1YE ON THE PRENlSES AS HE HAS BEEN D~IAG
~ S1NCE 1937. .
MR: STANLEY ROSEN~ATTORNEY~ 318 WEST CENTER STREET~ ANAHEIM APPEAREO
BEFORE THE COMM15510N AND STATED TNAT HE WAS NOT OPPOSED TO THE SUB-
JECT pETIT10N PROVIDED THAT PERMISSION FOR THE PROPOSED USE.WAS NOT
OIVEii,FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD OF TINE. HE STATE~ FURTHER THAT FH=
SUBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE IN~A TRANSITJONAL STAGE~ THA7 A
LARGE TRAII.ER PARK.DEVELOPMENT WAS LOCATED ACRO55 THE STREET~ THAT HIS
CLlENT OWNED A LAR~E PARCEL IN THC AREA UPON WHICN ME WAS PLANNING TO
ERECT A LARGE UN1T AND THAT QU~TE A NUNBER OF RESIDENCES STILL REMAIN
IN THE AREA. MR. ~OSEN EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE USE OF THE FRONT
PORTION OF THE PROPER7Y AND STATED THAT HE NOULD N~T BE OPPOSED TO THE
SUBJECT PETITLON PROVIDEQ N0 NAJOR CHANaES MERE Ml~DE 1N THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITIES AND PROVIOED THAT ALl STORAQE AND kAINTENANCE MAS RES?RiCTED
TO THE REAR OF SHE PROPERTY.
MR.. M1ILIAMS INfOR,4IED ?HE COMMISStON THAT THE FRONT YARD OF THE SUB-
JECT PROPERTY NAS NOT LARQE ENOU~H TO CONTAIN THE TYPE OF NEHICLES HE
NnJLD BE UTILI21Na IN HI,S BUSINE55 AND THAT HE HAD SUFFICtENT AREA AT
THE REAR OF TNE PROPERTY FOR THE INTENDED PURPOSES.
IN RESPONSE TO I.NQUIRIES:BY MR. ROSEN RELATIYE TO THE aRANTIN6 OF A
.
CONDITIONAL USE PERM17 FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ ASSISTANT CITY ATTOR-
NEY .JOE ~ELSLER ADVISED HIM TF{AT TNE PETIT~ON F9R VARIANCE WAS THE
PROPER METHOD FOR ESTABLI.SHINa THE REQUESTED USES ON THE SUBJECT PRO-
PERTY AND THAT A CON~ITIONAI. USE PERMIT WAS THE VEHICLE 8Y WHICH
SPECIFIC USES STIPULATED IN THE MUNICIPAL CODE WERE ESTABLISHED. MR.
GEISLER STATED FUR7HER 'tHAT (.F TNE COMMI.SSION 50 DESIRED~THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITIES COULD BE RESTRICTEC TO THE REAR OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND
A TIME LIMITATD'ON COULD 9E IMPOSED.
THE HEARtNG 41AS CtOSED.
THE COMNISSION FOUND AND DEiERMINED THE FOLLOWINQ FACTS RE~ARDINQ THE
SUBJECT PETITIONS
1: THAT THE PEYITIONER REQUBSTS A VARIANCE FROM COUE~ SECT(ON 18.16.010
TO PERMIT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RN OFFICE ~N AN EXISTINQ RESIDENCE~
TO PERMIT THE OUTDOOR STORA~E OF EQUIPMENT KND VEHICLES~ AND TO
PERMIT THE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLE4 ON THE
SUBJEC7 PROPEkiY.
2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAI. OR EXTRAORD~NARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDL-
' _ TLONS>APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY INVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED USES
~
,; ~ OF THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR TO
I THE CLASS OF USE IN THE SAME V~.CINITY AND ZONE.
r,f~
' ~ 3~ THAT 7HE.REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERYATION AND
~:
t
~~'`7xi' ENJOYMENT':OF A SUBSTANTIAL,pROPERTY RIaHT POS5E55ED'BY OTHER PRO-
` PERTY=1N THE SAME ViCINITY AND 20NE~ AND DEN:ED TO THE PROPERTY
~Y{~%x„~~;
, .
y{ k~ 1 N QU EST I 0 N r _
~? 4: THAT,JHE REQUESTED.'VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAl. T0
~~ THE PUHLIC AELFARE:OR,~NJURIOl15 T0',THE PROPERTY OR'7MPROVEMENTS.
lN.SUCH VIC1NiTY AND ZONE jN MH1CH.7HE PROPERTY-IS,LOCATED:: '.:
• ' 5. THA~T THE REQUESTED VpRIANCE N(LL"NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE.COMPRE-
~)
~ ,..:; ,:; HENSIVE GENsRAL'PLAN.
,._.,
.,~, ~ . .
. _ . ... . .' . ~
~ .r~:;' '
.. .:,~ .~ ..'. . ~. ~. - . . r -. .. _ .. . . ~
. .' ~. . ~:. .; -: . .. .. ' ~ . . . ~.-, ~. '. ~ . : , -
~ , .,. ~ .. . -; .. . . ..
.
: :.;~::. . . . : ' .. .
~~ ~:
~i' .. ... . .. , ~ .. . . . . . .. . . .. ~..
...-
t.~^
, ; . ~~, * t'ji;~,t7',~,'' `h ~1..,. ~ ~ ~ .nY K;. . htJ .~. 5 tr,
y~ ~~4 ~ ~ ....? t .Jn d.?,i '.n.. ,s~irqa zf , . ~.:.r?'t.~.; ., ~ :Aa'F;«. :G.. _ .N§i5'~„~ .
1 ~
:~
~ ~~ Y'' ~r^ • . ~
~ . .. ~ ~ ~ .. ~ . - .. .. ~ . . ..
.
~ ' .,.,-., . . . . . .... ... ~~. ~ . ~ ~ .
~ 227
~
` '! MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMM1SS10N, JuNe 26~ 1961~ CONTINUED:
~' ~
vaR~aNCE No. 1372 - 5s THA7 THE PREPARATIAN OF•STREET IMPROVEMENT P~ANS AND lNSTALLA-
~ CONTINUED TION OF ALL INPRD'JEMEN75•IN ACCOR6ANCE WITH THE APPROVED STANDARD
~ , PLANS ON.F6LE (N THE OFFICE OF TFRE CITY ENGINEER IS O~EEMED TO BE
UNNECESSARY AT~THE PRESENT TIME AND SNALL NOT BE NECESSARY UNTtL
THE BALANCE OF 'GHE AREA (S DEVELQPED ~ND IMPROVED.
7. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPROSITIAN TO SUBJECT pETiTI~DN.
8.. THAT THE SUBJECT.PROPER7Y ~S PRE;iENTLYt:BEING UTIL'EZED FOR THE RE-
QUESTED USES.
i- . ~ ~CONMISSIONER MUNGALL OFFERED RESU WTI.AN N0. 294 SERIES 1966-61 .AND
~ ! MOVED.FOR ITS'PASSAOE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY~C:iNMiSS:,UKSR PERP,y~
~i TO GRANT PET17lON FOR VRRIANCE N0. 1372, SUBJEC'f TO THE FCLLOWiNG
'- j CONDITIONSC
t..- ~
t" 1. MAINTENANCE OF THE EXISTING OFFICE IN THk: F.X1571NG RESIDENCE ON
~ ' SUBJECT pROPERTY.
y j,`;;j"'r;i;'. 2. LOCATION OF THE OUTOOOR STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT AND VEHIGLES SHALL
?~;''' ` BE RESTRICTED TO THE REAR OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
~ 3. LOCATlON OF THE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ~~PERAYION FOR SAID EQUIP-
MENi AND VEHICLES SHALL BE RE~Tf.ICTED TO THE REAR OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY.
4. RECORDA7~ON OF DEED RESTRICTIONS L1M1?ING USE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
• FOR A THREE (3) YEAR PERIOD OF TYME FOR THE PURPOSES OUTLINED I,N
CONDITION NOS. 1~ 2~ AND.3.
~'
5: PAYMENT OF ~2.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES ON
MOUNTAIN VIEW AVENUE.
6. Tf#fE L1M17AT1ON OF•OHE HUNDRED EIGkTY (180) DAVS ~OR THE ACCOM-
PlISHMENT OF CONDITION N0. 5 AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 18.68.040
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNI,CIPAL CODE.
THE FORECa00NG COND~T10N5 WERE RECITED A7 THE p1EETING AND WERE FOUND
~ TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE 70 THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO
! PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF TNE CiTIZENS OF THE C1TY OF ANAHEtM.
ON ROLL CALI THE FOREGUING RESOLUTIOH HAS °ASSED BY 7ME.FOLtOWING VOTEi
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HAP~OOD~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~
:iUMNERS.
:' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COHMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ CaAUER~ MARCOUX. '
VkRtANGE NO. i3~4 - RUBLIC HEAR(NG. PerlrloN SUBMITTED ev ALVIN F. AND BERNADINE N
NELLE-
.
SON~ 1173 CHERRY WAY~ ANANEIM~ CALI.FORNIA~ OWNERSD REQUESTINO PERM!SSION
FOR LOT SPLIT~.ON PROPERTY OESCRl.BED A5: A PARCEL 121 FEET BY 129
FEET WITH A FRONTAaE OF 121 FER'f ON CHERRY MAY ANO LOCATED ON THE MEST
SIDE OF CHERRY NAY BETWEEN C;LEN STREET AND ROMNEVA DRIVE~ ITS NORTH-
EAST CORNER BE~NQ qpPROX~V,~TELY 370 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF CHERRY WAY AND ROMNEYA D
RIVE AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1173 CHERRY
MAY. PROPERTY PRESEN;LY CLASSIFIED R~A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICUL7URAL.
MR. ALVIN NELLESON~ TNE PETITIONER~ APPEAREG BEFORE THE COMMISSION
AND STAiED THAT 7HE SUBJECT (~!:OPER7Y WAS A LAR~E PqRCEL WHICH PRESENT~Y
CONT~IN& AdRICULTURAL USES AND THAT THE CODE REQUIRES THAT THE MINIMUM
AREA OF PARCELS OTHER THAN DESl6NATED LOTS (N A SUB-DIV1510N~ WHICH "
ARE CLASSIFIED (N TNE R~A~ RESIDENTIAL AQRICULTURAL~ ZONE~ SHALL CON-
TAIN NOT LESS THAN ONE ACRE. THEREFORE~ IN OR~~ER TO PERMIT THE SPLI'f
OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO TMO LOTS~ EACH HAVINQ A FRONTA~E OF 60,5
FEET AND AN AAEA OF 7~441.5 FEET~ A YARIANCE,15 NECESSARY.
THE HEARING NAS CLOSED. •
THE COMMlS510N FOUND AND DETERMLNED TF!E FOLLOWlNQ FACTS RE(iARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITION:
1. THAT THE PETITIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHElM MUN]CIPAL
CODE
S
1
1
~
LCTION
8.
6.030 {4-B) TO,PERMI.T THE SPLIT OF SUBJECT PRO-
PERTY fNT0.TM0 I.OTS~~EACH HAVLNQ A FRONTAGE OF 60.5 FEtT AND AN
AREA OF 7~441.5 FEET. :
2. THAT"THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR'EXTRAORD(NARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CON-
DITIONS APPLIC~BLE 70.THE PROPERTY INVOLVED OR TO THE IN7ENDED
USE.OF',THE PROPERTY THAT DQ NOT APPLY ~ENERALLV T.0 THE PROPERTY
'
: OR
CLASS OF USE IN THE SAME V].CINITY AN9 7aNE: •
3:,_`;`(HAT THE REQUESTED VARXANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND
"ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTI,AL PROPERTY RI~HT POSSESSED BY OTHER PRO~
_ PERTY IN THE SAME VICINI7Y AND'ZONE~ AND DEN[ED TO THE PAOPERTY
'~
IN QUESTION. " - , ,. . , :,,
' 4. THAT THE REQUESTED.VAR~.ANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRlMENTAL TO
7HE.PUBLIC:;WELFARE OR INJURI,OUS TO THE~PROPERTY OR INPROVEMENTS -
'..: . ', ,. _
^
~ . •,.
:'_ ., :c
_ .
. , ~ _ ~
,
.~
; .
. ...'~ ... _
i . .
'
~ -. ;
~ .in
Y
~
;
.,
..
, .~ . .. .
~. .
, '. .~. •.
.: ... ~ . .~. '.. ~~. ... . .~..:'~ .
..
. . . .
~-
.
~ . .
. .' .~ ~.
~ .
' ~
.~ ,~{
..
:
,
1
. . .
.
. .
. .
.
~_~:a~~.~wi~?,k~. ~-~~1~;:: w.~e.:,z,e: ,n.:~.:c~. :.r...:~t~~rar:,~~;+~~.r.:.x-.....a.~.r.,Rr.~:~,nia.•.k..xtr.r_-h-u.~a~:~.:z•.:_..,.v,.,s-.r~.:..ja~~,..;~~.,~. ...::. .., ~.._.., . .. ~... ,
z,~~:!;-.` n..~A~~
~ .
~ .
~
~ ~ ~ ~
28
2
MINUTES, C1TY PLANNlN6 COMMISSION, JuNE 26, 1961~ CONTINUED:
VARIANCE N0. 1374 ~ LN SUCH VICINITY AND ZONE 1.N WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED.
~ONTtNUED •
5. THAT THE REQUESTED VAR7.ANCE MILL N07 ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPRE-
HENSIVE GENERAL PLAN. "
6: THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOS1710N TO THE SUBJECT PETITiON.
COMMISSIONER PEBLEY OfFERED RESOLUTION N0. 295~ SERIES 1960-61~ AN~
ALL
~
C
M
~
Ff'LLOWING
TO
THE
NSUBJECT
ETNON~1374
N
V
S
R
Y
~
ARAA
C
FOR
PETITION
GRANT
TO
COND I.T I ONS: ~~
1: RECORDATION OF A RECORD OF SURVEY MAP OF SUBJECT PROPERTY INDI-
CATING THE SUBDIVISION OF SUBJECT PROPER7Y IN ACCORDANC~ WITH THE
PLANS PRESENTED.
2. INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS AND DRIVEWAYS IN COMPLIANCE NITH 7HE
E OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER.
APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FIIE IN 2H
PERMIT~NO ~134E
3. PAYMENT OF $2.00 PER FRON7 FOOT FOR STREET LIGNTING PURPOSES ON
CHERRY WAY.
4. TIME LIMITATION OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) DAYS FOR THE ACCOM-
PLISHMENT OF ITEM NOS. 1~ 2~ AND 3 AS REQUrRED BY SECTION 18.68.040
OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE.
THE FOREGOING CONDlTIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO
BE A NECESSARY PREREQU(SLTE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO
PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OP THE CiTY nF ANAHEIM.
ON RO~L CALL THE fOREG0ING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~
SUMMERS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. .
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: AL~RED~ GAUER~ MARCOUx.
- PU9LIC HEARING. Perlrtoe SUBMI,TTED ev JOHN KRAJACIC, 1212 SouTH WEST
STREET~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORN~A~ OWNER~ THOMAS C. NILSON, 728 PROVENTIAL
DRIVE~ ANAHEIM CAL7FORNIA~ AGENT~ REQUESTONG PERMISSION TO ESTABLISH
A 22 UN1T MOTE~~ ON PROPERTY DESCRI.BED AS: A PARCEL 91 FEET BY 246
FEET 1itTH A FRONTAGE OF 91 FEET ON LINCOLN AVENUE AND LOCATE~ ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF LfNCOLN AVENUE BETWEEN KATHRYN AND MONTEREY STRcETS~
ITS SOUTHMEST CORi:ER BEIN~ APPROXIMATELY 265 FEET EAST OF THE NORTH-
EAST CORNER OF MONTEREY STREEi AND L~NCOLN AVENUE AND FURTHER DES-
RRA,ERESIDENTIALEAGRICUL7URAL~E20NE, PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSI.FIED
THE PETITIONER WAS NOT PRESENT.
MHE~COMM~ISS~IONEVSTATEDWTlIAT~HERRPROPERTYNABUTS T^HENSUBJEC7EPROPERTY RE
ON THE REAR~ AND TNAT SHE NOULD BE OPPOSED TO THE SUBJECT PETITION IF
THE PROPOSAL WERE 70 EREC7 TMO STORY UNITS~ IF AN ALLEY WERE PROVIDED
AT THE REAR OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ OR IF A RESTAURANT WERE LOCATED
ON TIiE PEAR OF THE PROPERTY~ ON TH~ GROL"NDS THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT
WOULD GON571TUTE AN INVASION OF PRIVACY. SHE INQUIRED ABOUT 'LNSTALLA-
TION OF MALLS AND ABOUT THE LOCATiON OF AARKING AREAS.
THE COMMi5S10N REVIENED DEV~LOPFIENT PLANS AND INDICATED THAS THE PLANS
SHOW-D THE PROPOSED DEVELQPMENT TO BE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE
PROPERTY~ THAT IT WO~LD BE TNO STORY CONSTRUCTION~ THAT NO WINDONS
NOULD BE LOCATED ON THE REAR PORTION OF THE BUILDING~ THA7 THERE WOULD
BE A SIXTEEN FOOT REAR YARD SE7BACK~ THAT NO ALLEY WOULD BE PROVIDED~
AND THAT A PARKO,NG AREA WOUID BE PROVIDED ON THE Es,ST SIDE OF THE
PROPERTY.
SHE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
THE COMMISSION D'(SCJSSED THE HEL4NT OF THE PROPf15ED PASSAGEMAY TO THE
UNITS AND NHETHER OR NOT FIRE EQUIPMENT WOULD BE ABLE Tu ENTER TNE
AREA. IT MAS NOTED THAT THE PLANS SHOW A TNIkTY-FIVE FOOT FRONT 'fARD
RESPECT TO~WHETHERLA SWIMMINaNP00LE15~1N7EN ED TOPSESLOCATEDCINNTHE
FRONT SETBACK.
COMMI.SSIONER PERRY OFFERED A MOTLON~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONEk SUMMERS
AND CARRIED~ TNAT PE71'CI.ON FOR COND1710NAL USE PERMIT N0. 134 BE CON~
TINUED UN7IL THE MEETIN~ OF JULY 10~ 1961~. AND THAT THE PETITIONERS
BE NOT1FlE0 i0 ATTEND SAID PUBLIC HEARl.NG IN ORDER TO PROVIDE INFORMA~
Tl.ON IN RESPECT TO THE HEIaM7 OF THE EMTRANCE PASSAfiEWAY~ THE PURPOSE
FOR THE PROPOSED FRON7 YARD SE78ACK~ AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT DETAILS.
r • _
. L ~..'.'. ~~t ;l9`i~;i . . _ _
_ ~ ;, ~
.~
229
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. JuNe 26, 1961, CONTINUED:
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. PE7ITION SUBMLTTED ev ROBERT aN~.BARBARA RANKiN, !
THOMAS AND ~
OWNERb'
~
PFRMIj NO. 135 3500 STOCKTON BOULEVARD~ $ACRAMENTO~ CALIFORNIA~
1837 WEST CERRITOS AVENUE ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA~
MAPLE NEi18REE
~
LESSEESy REQUESTI.N~ PERMISSI.ON TO OPERAT~ A BOARDING HOUSE~ ON PRO- '
PERTY DESCRIBED ASS A PARCEL 100 FEET BY 105 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE _
OF 100 FEET ON CERRITOS AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE NQRTH SIDE OF
CERRITOS AVENUE BETWEEN HACIENDA STREET AND EASY YIAY~ ITS SOUTHEAST
CORNER BEINO APPROXIMATELY 106 FEET WEST OF THE NORTHMEST CORNER OF
AS 1837
CERRITOS AVENUE AND HACIENDA STREET AND FURTHER DESCRiBED
ONE FAMIlY
ASSIFIED R-1
C
~
L
YIEST CERRLTOS AVENUE. PROPERTY PRESENTLY
RESIDEM'IQL, ZONE. -
PEARED
E
RT
N
P
~
R
E
FI,VE
BOARD
O
PROPOSED
THAT SHE
STATED
COMMiSSION AND
BEFORE THE
ELDERLY LAp1E5 BETWEEN THE AGES OF 80 TO 90 YEARS. SHE STATED TMAT
SHE WOULD NOT BE CONDUC7ING A REST HOME BECAUSE THE LADIES WERE ALL
AMBULATORY~ THAT SHE MERELY INTENDED TO PROYIDE A HOME FOR THESE
PERSONSa AND THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE•REQUEST WAS 50 THAT SHE COULD
SHE
ES
.
KEEP ONE MORE PERSON THAN lS•PRESENTLY OCCUPYING THE PREM~S
STATED THAT THE PET(TIONER~ MRS. RANKIN~ HAD BEEN MAONTp~NING FOUR
PERSONS AND THAT SHE wISHED TO INCREASE THE NUMBER BY vNE MORE LADY.
QSSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMIS5IJN THAT CODE~
SECTION 18.08.130 DEFlNES A~BOARDING HOUSEN AS A BUILD:iiG WHERE
LODG'1N0 AND MEALS ARE PROVIDEO FOR COMPENSATION FOR FIVE't BUT N0T tAORE
ERMIT IS
U
SE Y
THAN FIFTEEN~ PERSONS. CONSEQUENTLY~ A CONDITIONAL
REQUI.RED IN ORDER.TO MAINTAIN MORE THAN FOUR PERSONS FOR COMPENSATION.
HE STATED THAT A°R~57 HOME„ PROVIDED DIETARY AND NURSING CARE WHICH
~
IS NOT PROVIDED I.N A MBOARDl.K3 HOUSE.°
MR. GERALD POBANZ' 1451 MACIENDA STREET~ QNAHEIM~ APPEARED BEFORE THE ~
COMMISSION AND STATEP THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS SURROUNDED BY
R~1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONING AND DEVELOPMENTy TNAT HE WAS ~
OPPOS~D TO THE ESTABL'iSHMENT OF THE BOARDING HOME~ AND THAT ANY USE
bF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OTHER•THAN FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTlAL PUR~
POSES WOULD HAVE A DELETERJOUS EFFECT UPON THE VALUE.OF THE SURROUND- ~
ING PROPERTIES. •HE STATED FURTHER THAT HIS~PROPERTY ABU1'S THE ALLEY
NORTHERLY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE AREA
RESYRiCTED AND WOULD REF~Ai=: StNEt: PAMlLY RESlDENTIAL. AND THAT
WAS
.
IF THE SUBJECT PETIT{ON WERE aRANTED IT WOULD ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT
FOR OTHER CUMMERCIAL USES SUCH AS DAY NURSERIES OR DOG KENNELS.
MRS. CLARICE BLAMER~ 1817 LIiLI.ABY LANE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ ~
• STATED THAT SHE WAS OPPOSED TO THE SUBJECT PETITI.ON BECAUSE SHE DID
NCi' CON5IDER THE 1~400 SQUARE FOOT LIVING AREA TO BE LARGE ENOUGH FOR
THE INTENDED USE. '
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~
TNE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE PRESENT NUMBER OF PERSONS UT1.LL2ING THE ~ i
SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE ~
COMMISSION THAT THE ANAHEIM MUNI,CIPAL CODE9 SEC7ION 18.08.320 DEFINES
Y ASS~ONE INDI.VI.DUAI~ OR TWO OR MORE PERSONS R.ELATED BY BLOOD
A FAM1l
.
OR MARRIAOE~ OR A GROUP OF NOT MORE THAN 5 PERSONS WHO ARE NOT RELATED
~
NG Up17
..
BY BLOOD OR MARRIAGE LIVING TO~ETHER AS A SINGLE HOUSEKEEPI
MRS. HEMBREE INFORMED THE COMM1551.ON THAT SHE OCCUPtED THE EXISTING
TY
C
I
RESIDENCE MITH HER HUSBAND AND FOUR ELDERLY LADIES. ASSLSTANT
TO CODE ,
ATTORNEY JOE GEISLE.R ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT~ ACCORD~NG
PROV151.ONS~ ONLY THREE PERSONS NOT RELATED TO THE PETITlONERS COULO
WITH CODE REQUIREMENTS. HE INDICATED~
•
BE MAI.NTAINED IN ORDER TO COMPLY
HOWEVER~ THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY THA7 THE COMMISSION DETERMINE THAT
THE PRESENT USE WA5 IN VIOLATLON OF THE CODE PROVISI.ONS.
~ THE COMMI.SSIAN FOUND AND DETERMINED SHE FOLLOWI.N(i FACTS REGARDlNQ THE
SUBJECT PETITION:
L USE
'
/
C
/
wH
~
P
E
S
H
P
1
HOUSE
NG
80ARD
A
TO N
TS
CODE~
THIS
BY
AUTHORIZED
IS
~ PERMIT
THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL :1DVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJ01'NINfi LAND
2
.
USES AND THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMEN7 OF THE AREA I.N WHICH IT IS
PRGPOSED TO BE LOCATED.
THAT THE PROPO:,ED USE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT COMPATJBLE MITH
3 '
.
THE R"1~ ONE FhMLLY RESI,DEMTI.AL~ DEVELOPMENT.OF THE SURROUNDING
~
.
. MREA.
4. THAT VERBAL OPPOSITION MAS RECORDED AGAINST SUBJECT PETITION. -7
COMMISSIONER PERRY 9FFERED RESqLU7lON N0. 296~ SERIES 1960-61 AND
~ `~
EBLEY.~
MOVED:FOR.ITS PASSA~E'AND 1DOPTION~ SECON~ED BY COMMISSIONER
CONDITtONAL USE PERMXT N0. 135 ON THE BAS15 OF
~
TO DENY PETlT10N FOR
THE AFOREMENTI.ONED,FINDIN6S. '.~
ON ROLL CACL THE FOREDO1Na;RESULUTI.ON WAS,,PASSED BY.THE FOLLOWING VOTES s
AYES: COMMISStONERS: HaPOnoo, MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~' ~
SUMMERS.
. . . . . . ~ _ ~ . ~ ~ . . . . .. ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . .
. .
~
~
. . . . .
~ r3
~;i
~•~;~,
,
. .
.
.
: . .
. . ' ... .. . .' , . . .... : . .. . ~ -. . . '. . . '. '. ' . ~':. . ~ " ~ . . ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~._: ~:
~ 7
~~' ~ .. ~ . . `~ ~ -:l
.,..i_,~~„~d. 4i..... . . . , . r .. .~.t.r ., .'~,{ , , ' ~. !.t i .. .rJ.n, , ., ~~:~K.ri.:.3:; ~','~i.,~ .5,$.~~~r ~. ~ . ,. 4... . .... ~ . .. ~~`.,,~7
1 Y
_ ~..`v 1 ~'.~~i 'L v~' . i~ } , `i•'~ ~~ 9 '
-
.
' . .
:
~
_ .
.
" . . . I k,~
.
~~
.
. _ . '
~ . .
I ~~
.
.
' . . . ~ ~s ~ . . .
~
. . . . . . .,.: : - ., fM ,~~;r ~' ~_~ .:. ~.. , . ~ -'-~
. . .._.....~ : ~ , . .. ~ .. . .
. . ,. .
' ~ i
. ..
. ~ ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~~
230 ~
~
~~t:l1TES, C1TY PLAPiNS~iG COHHISSIO~ie ~JU17E 2G, 13bi~ Co~;:.ba;~o: ;
' I
~
CONDITIONAL USE - NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. .
PERMIT N0. 135 '
I
CONTINUED ABSENT: CpMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GaueR. MaRCOUx.
RECLASSIFICQTION - RUBLIC HEARING. PErIr1oN 1NITIATED BY THE CiTY PLANNING COMM)SSION, -
.. ~
NO. 60-61-105 204 EAST LINCOLN AYENUE' ANAHEIM„ CALI.FORNIA~ PROPOSING THAT PRO-
PERTY DESCRIBED ASS THAT AREA BOUNDED.ON.7HE NOR'fHEAST BY THE
~ SOUTHERN PACIF~C RAILROAD R1aHT~OF-WAY~ ON THE NORTH BY THE SANTA {
~
~ ANA FREEWAY~ ON THE WEST BY EUCLI'D AVENUED' AND ON THE SOUTH BY
• L1NCOlN QVENU~ HE RECLASSIF7ED FROM 7HE ~1-lo LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND
P-L
PARKI~
A
D
A
I
i THe
,
JG L
SC
P
NG, ZONES ro rHe C-3 HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ort ,
N
ANY MORE RESTRICT7VE ZONE AND THE M~lo LIGH7 MANUFACTURING~ OR ANY
, MORE RESTRICT4VE ZONE.
$UBJECT PETITION 1NlTIA7ED BY THE PLANNI.NG COMMISSION AT THE DI.RECTIVE
~ OF THE CITY COUNCIL IN ORDER TO CONDUCT A PUBL:C HEARING RELATIVE TO
THE POSSIBLE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE P~L9 PARKING LANDSCAPlNG~ ZONE ON
THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES TO CORRESPOND W~TH THE PRESENT DEVELOPMENT OF
THE~SUBJECT AREA.
MR. WALT GOODENp OWNER OF PROPERTY ON•THE SOUTH SIDE OF LiNCOLN AVE- ~
- NUE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMiSSiON AND REQUESTED :NFORMATiON IN ~
RESPECT 70 7F1E PROPOSED RECLASSiFOCATiON OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES. ~
THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE ~AST ACTIONS ON TF1E SUBJECT.PROPERTIESo
(
AS OU7LI.NED IN THE STAFF REPORT~ AND THE E57ABLi5HMENT OF THE VARIOUS
TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT WHICH INCLUDE C~3'.HEAVY.COMMERCfAL~ USEt M^~1~ (
LIGHT MANUFACTURINGo USE AND M~2o HEAVY MANUFACTURING' USE. 17 WAS
~
' NOTED THAT THE P-Lo PARKtNG LANDSCAPINGp ZONEy CONTAIN4N0 A MAXiMUM
NIDTH OF 48 FEE7~ D5 PRESENTLY AN EFFECT ON THE THREE WESTERNMOST ~
PROPERTLES AND THAT THE P-L 20NE VARIED ~N WIDTH FOR THE REMAINDER ~
OF THE.PROPERT[,ES.
. i
_
MRt G00DEN SUGGESTED THAT CONSODERAi1.ON BE GlVEN TO THE INSTALLATION ~
OF A LOW WALL ON THE PROPERTY LINES OF TkE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THAT
I
THE•CITY PROVIDE LANDSCAPING BE7WEEN THE NALL AND THE CURB. HE STATED
THAT THIS TYPE OF 1MPROVEMENT HAD BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN OTHER AREAS AND I
TNAT [T WOULD ELIMINATE THE PRESENT OFFENSIVE APPEARANCE OF THE ~
SUBJECT PROPERTIES.
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE ESTABL.ISHMENT OF THE ORIGINAL P~L~ PARK-
LNG LANDSCAPINGJ ZONE ANO TNE VARYI.NG DIMENSIONS CREATED BY THE
IMPROVEMENT OF LINCOLN AVENUE WHICH ENCROACHED INTO THE P-Lo PARKING
LANDSCAPING~ ZONE. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE SUB~ECT QROPERTIES PRESENTLY
CONTAIN THE RAYCO SEAT COVER COMPANY WHOCH i5 A C~-3~ HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ i
USE~ THE HOLIDAY CONCRETE PRODUCTS MHICH IS AN M~2~ HERVY MANUFACTURING~
~
USE,•+~ A PARK~.NG LOT WHICH IS A C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ USE~ THE
L
A FIABRA STUCCO COMPANY WH]CH LS AN M-1~ LI.GHT MANUFACTURING9 USE~ THE ~
SAFETY BRAKE SERVICE WHICH IS A C~3o.HEAVY COMIAERCIAL~'USED THE J 8 R
FENCE COMPANY MHICH l5 AN M~1' I.~GHT MANUFACTURING~ USEa AND A VACANT
PARCEL~ RESPECTIVELY~ EXTENDING FROM EUCLOD AVENUE TO THE SOUTHERN
. PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF~WAY. ~
~ ASSISTANT CITY ATTOR:lEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMI.SSION THAT IN- I
ASMUCH AS THE COUNCIL HAD MAIVED THE P"L~ PARKLNG LANDSCAPING~ REQUIRE~- i
MENT FOR ONE PARCEL~ THA7 THE BUSlNESSES 7HAT DID NO7 C011PLY WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF THE P~L~ PARKONG LANDSCAPING~ ZON£ ~OULD PROBABLY BE•
RELIEVED OF 7HE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLIANCE Ir' YHEY NI5HED TO CON7INUE
THEIR PRESENT USE. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT LINCOLN AVENUE WAS
FULLY DEDICATEp AND IMPROVED~ 7HEREFORE~ NO DEDI.CATION WOULD BE REQUIRED
OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES~ AND TNAT THE PARCEL OF PROPERTY GONTAINED IN
PET).TION FOR VAR7ANCE N0. 1220 HAD NEVER BEEN RECLASS~FIED INTO THE
~ P~L~ PARKI.NG LANDSCAP1.N~p ZONEr
THE COMMISST.ON 7HEN DISCUSSED THE MOST SUITABLE ZONJ.N~ FOR THE SUBJECT
PAOPERtfES AHD {T NAS NOTED 7KAT {F THE PROPERT{ES MERE 1NSEND£D FOA
DEVELOPMENT FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES~ THE C~3~ HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ ZONING
WOUI.D'BE'THE MOST SUITABLE BECAUSE THE COMMERCIAL USES PERMLTTED IN
THE M~1~ LIGHT MANUFACTURINd~ ZONE ARE VERY RESTR)CTIVE. ASSISTANT
CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED 7HE COMMISSIAN THAT IF TNE COMMl.SSION
DIO NOT CHANCaE THE PRESEN7 ZONIN~ FROM THE M~ip LIGHT MANUFACTURING~
ZONE TO 7HE C-3~ HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ ZONE~ THE ONLY REASON THAT A PROPER7Y
OWNER MOULD CARE TO MEET THE CONDITIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT WOU~D BE IN
c ORDER TO.ACCOMPLOSH A CHANdE OF ZONE. HE STATED FURTHER THAT THE
r EXISTINQ COMMERCIAL USES WOULD BE CONSIOERED NON~-CONFORMANG USES IN
E TNE PRESENT M~1~ L16HT MANUFACTURLNa~ ZONE AND COULD NOT EXPAND OR
ALTER ANY EXISTINQ STRUCTURES. HE POI.NTED -0UT THAT THE EXISTIN6 NON-
CONFORMIN6 USES WERE PROBABLY PERMITTED.IN THE M~1~ LIaHT MAHUFACTURING~
ZOH£ IN TNE 'PREVIOUS CODE BEFORE THE PRESENT CODE MAS ADOP7ED~ ANO THAT
?HEY COULD CONTINUE UNTLL SUCH 71ME AS THEY WERE ABANDONED~AL7!:~UGH
THEY COULD NOT EXPAND,.
.. .. . ... . . -d
COMMI,SStONER PEBCEY YNDrGATED~THA?,NE CONSIDERED THE SUGGESTED.INSTALL- I i
ATION OF A LOM WAIL~ IN ADDI.TION TO THE INSTALLATION OF CURBS AND ~ `'j
~UTTERS~.WOULD.PROVIDE A CONSLDERABLE AMOUNT.OF lMPROYEMENT TO THE ,
SUBJECT AREA AND ?HAT SUCH 'lMPROVEMENT NOULD ELIMINATE THE EXISTINQ ' '~
HA2ARDOUS CON6I.TION FOR 7HE CHfLDREN OF THE AREA WHO ARE PRESENTLY
WAl.K~NQ AN I,1,NC01.N AYENUE WITHtN TME'STREET •RI.aHT-OF-WqY. j
;~
~
~ `
} f'~+.h'-x ,~- ,,...., ._.~iL .. . a~~_i ~... . . -r„ .Ieoa~+u..~r.+~
~ ~
:''~,; }.. ..':,2: ~~ Y~x..,,:~dr~t .. ~ . . , . •~`t . .. ~ . .~, ~ .?r]i
~; .
W
x,;~
~~
~ ~ • ~
231
MINUTES, CITY PLANNiNQ COMMISSION~ JUNE 2fi~ 1961, CONTI.NUED;
RECLASSIFICATION - MR. LLOYD MOUNT DISCUSSED THE HISTORY OF THE CONSTRUC'iION OF THE BUILD-
NO: 60~61-105 ING CORTAINING THE.NATIONWIDE BRAKE SERVICE, JNDICATINO THAT THE
CONTINUED BUILDING NAS SET.BACK A DESTANCE OF.TEN FEET BECAUSE AT THAT TIME
THE P-L~;PARK].NG LANDSCAP]NG~ ZONE WAS NpT ESTABLISHED AND THAT THE
SAME SITUATION APPLIED IN THE CASc OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE
MUFFLER SHOP. THE COMMI.SSION DISCUSSED FUR7kER 7HE VARYING SE7BACK5
OE THE.BUILDINGS OFI THE SUBJECT PR9PERTIES.
COMMISSiONE~t MUNGALL O.NDICATED THAT HE CONSIDERED,THE MOST.SUlTABLE
20NIpG AT THE PRESENT TIME~TO BE TO RECLA551•FY THE P~L9 PARKING
LANDSCAP'ING~ ZONE TO THE M-1~ I,JGHT MANUFAC7URING' ZONE~ THAT 7HE
1NSTAl,LATI.ON•OF IMPROVEMEN75 BE REQUIRED~ AND THAT THE EXISTING
COMMERCIAL USES BE PERp1,lTTED TO CONT'ONUE. THE PROBLEM OF ENFORCING
7'HE INSTALLATION•OF IMPROVEMENTS MAS DISCUSSED AND IT WAS POI.NTED
OUT THAT THE PROPER7Y OWNERS INVOLVED MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN EXPRE55-
INO tHEdR VI.EMPOINTS IN THIS RESPECT AND I.N REGARD :O THE MOST
SUITABLE 20NING.. THE COMMISSION INDICATED THAT FURTHER STUDY OF THE
MATTER AND PERSONAL CONTACT MIFH THE PROPERTV OWNERS CONCERNED MI.GHT
RESOLVE 7HE PROBLEM.•
COMMISSiONER PERRY OFFERED A MO710No SECONDED BY COMMISSION~R HAPGOOD
AND CARRIED~ THAT PETI.TION FOR RECLASSIFI'CATION N0. 60~-61-105 BE
CONTINU~. UNTIL THE MEETING OF JULY 24~ 1961~ THAT 7HE PLANN~NG DE-
PARTMENT PREPARE A SYUDY OF THE SUB.lECT AREA' AND THAT THE OWNERS OF
THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES BE CONTACTED TO OBTAIN OPINIONS ON THE PROPOSED
RECLASSIFICATION OF THE AREA.
RECLASSIFICaTION - PUBIIC.HEARING. QETI,TION I.NITIATED av THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION,
NO. 60-61-106 204 EAST~LINCOLN AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ PROPOSLNG THAT PROPERTY
DESCRI.BED AS: A PARCEL 255 FEET B\~ 359.FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 255
FEET LOCATED 281 FEET NORTH OF TH& CENTERLINE OF LA'PALMA AVENUE AND
ITS WESTERLY BOUNDARY BE~,NQ APpROXlMATEI.Y 410 FEET EAST OF THE
EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF BROOKHURST STREET AND EXTENDING NORTHERLY TO THE
DEAD END OF LOTUS STREET BE RECLASSOFI.ED..FROM THE C~1 NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIQL, ZONE ro rHE k-i, ONE FAMiLY•RESIDENTIAL, ZaNE.
SUBJECT PETlTJON FILED IN CONJUNCTION NISH TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0.
4233 AND PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 13?3. SUBJECT PETITION INIT~ATEO
BY THE PLANNING COMM75510N LN OR~JER TO ESTABLtSH A PROPER ZONE FOR
THE ORDER~Y DEVELOPMENT OF A SI!IGLE FAMLLY RESIDENT7AL TRACT ON
SUBJECT PROPERTY.
MR. MCDANlEL9 ENGINEEk FOR THE DEVELOPER1 APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMIS-
SION AND 57ATED HE WOULD PROVODE ANY NECESSARY INFORMATION RELATIVE
, TO THE SUBJECT PE7'ITION.
MRS. RLCHARO HILL~ 2135 WEST FALMOUTH AVENUEo APPEARED BEFORE 7HE COM-
M1S510N AND REQUESTED (NFORMATDOk RELATIVE TO THE 512E OF THE SUBJECT
PARCEL. IT MAS NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY CONTAiNED 2.1 ACRES AND WAS
PROPOSED FOR ELEVEN R~1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDEN7IAL~ LOTS.
MRS. MALCOLM CLIFF APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMI.SSION ANDo {N RESPONSE TO
'
H
ER LNQUI.RIES~ WAS INFORMED THAT TKE SUBJECT PROPERTY D1D NOT EXTEND
TO BROOKHURST STREET AND TNAT 7HE C~1~ NEIaHBORN00D COMFIERCIA~' ZONE
ON DROOKHURST STREET MOULD NOT HE RECLASSlF1ED.
INFORMATION JN RESPECT TO THE HEI~HT OF THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES WAS
REQUESTED. THE COMMl.SStON IAFpRMED THE AUDI,ENCE 7HAT THlRTY~FIVE (35)
FEET WAS THE MAXIMUM HE16HT FOR SIN~LE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND THAT
UNDER THE EXI,STING C-1~ NEIpHBORH00D COMMERCIAL~ ZONINQ OF 7HE SUBJECT
PROPERTY~ THE PETITIONER COULD CONSTRUCY TWO STORY RESIDENCES WITH
TNIRTY-FIVE FOOT MAXIMUM HEiGHT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE PROVISIONS.
MR. W. K. KEPPEL~ 1142 NORTH LOTUS STREEYo APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMIS-~
SION AND STATED THAT HE NOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO 7HE SUB.lECT PETITION
IF TWO STORY RESIDENCES MERE NOT CONSTRUCTED ON THE PRi)PERTY BECAUSE
HE CONSIDERED SUCH CONSTRUCTION 70 BE AN INVA510N OF PRIVACY AND
WOULD NOT BE COMPATIBLE NIYH THE SURROUNDING SINGLE FAMALY RESIDEN-
TIAL DEVELOPMENT. HE EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT TWO STORY RESIDENCES
MIdHT BE BUI.LT ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY LINE OF ABUTTING PROPERTIES~
AND HE WAS (NFORMED THAT ALL DEVELOPMENT MUST CONFORM NITN THE STIPU-
LATED SETBAC% REQUIREMENTS OF 7HE CODE.
AS5ISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER INFORMED THE AUDIENCE THAT THE
COMMl.5SI0N HAD 1NITI.ATED THE SUBJECT PET1710N WITH THE DEVELOPERS FULL
KNOWLED6E 1N ORDER TO FACILITATE A PROPER AND ORDERLY SINOLE FAMILY
RESIDEN7I.AL bEVELOPMENT~ WN1CH MAY OR MAY N07 CONTAIN TMO STORY HOMES~
THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIpAL CODE THE PETITIONER
COULD AT THE PRESENT TIME CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMI,LY RESlDENTIAL DEVEL-
OPMENT IM THE EXJ,STI,NG C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCI.AL~ ZONE WHDCH WOULD
PERMIT COMMERCIAL USES~ AND THAT IF THE PROPER7Y IS RECLASSIFIED TO
7HE R-1~ ONE FAMILV RESI,DEN71ALa,ZONE THE.SI,NOLE FAMiLY RESIDENCES CAN
NOT BE U71L1.2F_D FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. MR. GEISLER AL50 INFORMED
THE AUD~EHCE THAT 1N THE R~1~ ONE FAMLLY RESLDENTIAL9 ZONE AND THE C~1~
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE A7 THE PRESENT T1.ME ANYONE MAY CON57RUCT
'~ TMO STORY BUILDI,NGS WIJHOU7 ANY ACTI.ON BEFORE THE PLANNlNd COMMISStON:
i
. ,' ..
,.,. .., .~.~. , , , J
.~ .......... . .. 'I . .. . ,... ~ .... ~.. .., i'~.._.. r~...r~,.zr's,~... .~. .....t .-..
~
~
~ h:;:
~ ~
.I
~
~' ,''
~
~
,~
232
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
UPON QUESTION'ING BY THE COMMISSION~ MR. MCDANIEL STATED 7HAT THE PRE-
SENT DEVELOPMENT PLANS AS SUBMATTED TO THE ENGINEER~NG STAFF {NDtCATED
SINGLE STORY DEVELOPMENT. HE STA7ED~ HOWEVER~ THAT THE PETITIONER
NOULD NOT LIKE TO BE RESTRICTED TO SIN~LE STORY DEVELOPMEN'7 IN CASE
PLANS WERE AL7ERED AND THAT HE HE PERMITTED TO DEVELOP TO WHATEVER
HEIGHT IS PRESENTLY ALLOWED BY THE CODE AND MHICH WOULD BE PERMI.T~'ED
FUR ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT IN THE.R-1~ ONE FAM.ILY RESIDENTIAL9 ZONE.
THE COMMISSI.ON DISCUSSED THE ADVISABILITY OF REQUIRING A TiME LIMITA-
T'ION FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE CONDIT,IONS THAT WOU~D BE NECESSARY
TO ESTABLISH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE NECESSiTY FOR THE INSTALL-
AT10N OF A SIX FOOT MASONRY HALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE REQUIREMENTS
MHERE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ABUTS THE EX157ING C~'1' NEIGHBORHOOD COM-
MERCI.AL1 ZONE FOR THE PROTECTtON OF THE.PROPOSED RESEDENTlAL DEVELOP-
MENT WAS ALSO DISCUSSED. .
MR. STANLEY BELL~ THE DEVELOPER~ APFEARED BEFORE iHE COMM75510N AND
STATED THAT THE DEVELOPMEN7 WOUI.D'BE COMPRISED OF ELEVEN HOMES CON-
TAINI.NQ 1~400 TO 1~550 SQUARE FEET OF LIVING AREA AND THAT 7HE PRO,CE
RANGE NOULD BE FROM SZOiO00 T0~~22~000. ~ ~~
THE COMM15510N FOUND ANU DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FAC:S REGAR~3NG THE
SUBJECT PETITI.ON:
1. THAT THE PETITIONER PF.OPOSES RECLASSIFICATION OF }•HE ABOVE DES-
CRIBEO PROPERTY FROM THE C~1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAta ZONE TO
R~l~ ONE FAMILY RESIDEN.TIAL' ZONE.
2. THAT TNE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NECES-
SARY OR DESIRABIE FOR THF: ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE
COMMUNITY.
3. THAT TNE PROPOSED RECLASSJFI.CATION OF SUBJEC7 PROPERTY DOES PRO-
PERLY REIATE TO THE ZONES AND THEJ,R PERMlTTED USES LUCALLY ESTAB-
LJ.SHED IN CLOSE PROXIM'ITY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE ZONES
AND THEIR PERMITTED USES GENERALLY ESTABLISHED 'CHROUaHOUT THE
COMMUNITY.
4. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES REQUIRE
DEDICATION FOR AND STANDARD IMPROVEMENT OF A STREET BECAUSE SAID
PROPERTY DOES RELATE TO AND ABUT UPON A STREET WHICH IS PROPOSED
TO CARRY THE TYPE AND QUAN7ITY OF TRAFFJC~ WHICH HILL BE GENERATED
BY THE PERMITTED USES~ IN ACCORDANCE WL'TH THE CIRCULATlON ELEMENT
OF THE CaENERAL PLAN~ BUT THAT SAID DEDICATION AND IMPROVEMENT WILL
BE COMPLETED IN CONJUNCTION NI.TH 7HE RECOADATION OF FINAL MAP OF
TRACT No. 4233.
5. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSAFxCAT10N OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM
THE C~lo NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIALy ZONE TO THE R~1~ ONE FAMlLY
RESIDEN7IAL~ ZONE NILL PROVADE FOR THE PROPER ZONE AND 7'HE ORDERLY
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND NI.LL BE COMPATIBLE WlTH•
THE Sl.N6LE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF TNE PROPERTIES ABUT7ING
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE NOR7H AND ON 7HE EAST.
6. THA7 7HE SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT WI.LL CONSIST OF ELEYEN (11) SINGLE
FAMlLY RESI.DENCES CONTAININQ FROM 1~400 TO 1~550 SQUARE FEET OF
LIVINCi AREA AND RAN6ING !N PRJ,CE FROM ~20p000 TO ~22~000.
7. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETI.TION.
COMMI.SSIONER MUNaALL OFFEREp RESOLUTION N0. 297~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND
TOVRECOMMENDSTOATHE~CI.TYDCOUNCIL THATEPETITIONYFORMRECLASSIFICATIONS~
N0. 60-61-106 BE 6RANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWIND CONDITIONS:
1. RECORDATION OF A FINI(L MAP OF SUBJECT PROPERTY.
2. SUBJEC7 TO THE APPROVAL OF PET1.1'IOM FOR VARIANCE N0. 1373.
THE FOREQOING CONDIT~ONS WERE RECI.TED A7 7HE MEET1Na AND WERE FOUND TO
BE A NECESSARY:PREREQUISI:TE TO THE USE OF TNE PROPERTY (N ORDER TO
PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
i
j
A
MINUTES, CITY P~+1NN1NG COMMISSION, JuNe 26, 1961, CoNrrz:uec:
RECLASSIFlCAT10N ~ MR. JAMES R. DALE~ 2102 WEST GteN AVENUEo REQUE57ED INFORMATION ON
NO. 60~61~106 REGARD TO THE EXTENSION OF LOTUfa STREET AND.~LlN AVENUE AND COMMIS-
CONTiNUED SIONER MORR~S INFORMED HIM THAT BOTH STREETS WOULD BE EXTENOED WITH
THE SOUTHERLY EXTENSION OF LOTUS SSREET JOINING WIl'H SHE WESTERLY
EXTENSION OF GLEN AVENUE~ AND THAT THE ELEV~N LOTS WOULD BE FACING
LOTUS STREET.
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE LOT SIZE DIMENSIONS OF 60 FEET BY 100
FEET AND LOT AREA OF 6~000 SQUARE FEET. MR. DALE EX°RESSED THE
OPINION~THAT THE PROPOSED LOTS WERE CONSIDERAtILY LE55 1'HAN THE LOT5
~ OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE COMMISSION INFORMED HIM 7HAT THE 7RACT
MAP f.NDICATED THAT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES CONTAIN LOT DIMENSlONS
THAT CORRESPOND WiTH THE SUBJECT TRACT.
~:~;
• I
..... ' .'f . .
~
~
~
~
4'
~ `~r
F.,
~
~
MfNUTES, C~TY PLANNING COMMISSION, JUNE 24~ 1961, CONTJNUED:
RECLASSIFICRTION
y0. 60-61-106 ~ ON ROLI CALL THE FOREGO'fNG RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY 71{E FOLlOW1.NG.YOTE:
CONTINUED AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD~ MORR15~ MUNGALLa PEBLEYa PERRY~
SUMMERS.
NQES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.~
QBSENT: COMMISSIONERS: IQLLRED~ GAtIER~ MARCOUX.
VARIANGE N0. 1373 - PUBLIC HEARING. PET1TlON SUBNITTED ev STANIEY BELL
2560 WES7 LtN-
,
COLN AYENUE ANAHEJM CALJFORNI.A AGENT REQUESTINa PERMI.SSION 70
NQIVE FRONTAGE AND LbT AREA REQUIREMENTS~ oN PROPERT
Y DESCRIBED ns:
A PARCEL 255 FEET BY 359 FEET W~,TH A FRONTAGE OF 255 FEET LOCATED
' 281 FEET NORTH OF THE CEN7ERLI.NE OF LA PALMA AVENUE AND ITS MESTERLY
BOUNDARY B£ING APPROXlMA7ELY 410 FEET EAST OF THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY
OF BROOKHURS7 STREET AND E
X7ENDlNG NORTNERLY TO THE DEAD END OF
LOTUS STREET. PRESEN7 CLASSIFICATXON~OF PROPER7Y C-1
NEIGHBORHOOD
~
COMMERC?AL; ZONE.
StlBJEC7 PE7YTION IS SUBMITTED LN CONJUYC710N MJTH PETITION FOR RECLA55-
I.F~CATION N0. 60-61-106 AND TENTATLVE MAP OF TRpCT N0. 4233.
THE COMM1551,ON NOTED 7HA7 7HE SUBJECT PETITION REQUESTED A VARIANCE IN
ORDER TO DEVELOP 7HE SUBJECT PROPER7Y TO CORRESPOND W~TH THE SINaLE
FAMILY RESIDENTLAL DEVELOPMENT OF 7HE SURROUNDINQ AREA BY THE SUBDI-
ViSION OF ELEVEN LOTS EACF! CONTA7.NING A Ml,NINUM FRONTAGE OF 60 FEET
AND A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 6~ 000 SQUARE FEET.
THE HEAR 1 NG • WAS CIOSED, .
THE COMMI.SSION FOUND AND DETERMI.NED THE FOLIOWIN~ FACTS REGARDING TN~
SUBJECT PET~TION;
1: THAT THE PET'iT10NER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE
SEC
1
2
~
TION
8.
4.030 (4~p AND B) TO PERMIT THE SUBDIVISION OF
SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO ELEVEN (11) LOTS EACH CONTAINlNG A MINIMUM
FRONTAGE OF 60 FEET~ A MINIMUM AREA OF 6~000 SQUARE FEET~ AND A
MI.NIMUM LOY AREA PER DWELLING UNIT OF 6~000 SQUARE FEET.
2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDI-
TlONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY•1NVOLVEO OR TO 7HE INTENDED USE
OF THE PROPERTY TF1AT DO NOT APPLY ~ENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR
ClASS OF USE IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE.
3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE 15 NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND
ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RI,GHT POSSESSED BY 07HER
PROPERTY IN THE SAME V1.CINITY AND ZONE~ APIU DENIED TO THE PROPERTY
~N QUESTION.
4. THAT THE REQUESTED VARI,ANCE MILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO
THE PUBLIC NELFARE OR INJURJOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR I.MPROVEMENTS
1N SUCH VICINITY AND 20NE IN WH1CH THE PROPERTV IS LOCATED.
5. THAT THE REQilESTED VARIANC! MILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPRE-
HENSIVE uENERAL PLAN.
6. THAT THE DIMENS10N5 AND AREA CONTAINED IN THE PROPOSED LOT SUB-
DIVISIONS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE COMPARABLE NITH THE DIMENSIONS
AND AREA OF LOTS IN THE SLN6LE S'AMILY RESIDENTIAL TRACTS ABU7TING
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE NORTH AND EAST.
7. THAT THE SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT N1LL CONSIST OF ELEVEN (11~ SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCES CONTAIN1Nf3 FROM 1~400 TO 1~550 SQUARE FEET OF
LIVINfi AREA AND RANGING IN PRICE FROM s20~000 TO =22~000.
8. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION.
COMMISSIONER HAPGOOD OFFERED RESOL11TlON N0. 298~ SERI.ES i.960~-61~ AND
MOVED FOR 1T5 PASSl1GE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUMMERS
~
TO GRANT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1373~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOMING
CONDITIONS:
1. RECORDATION OF A FINkL MAP..OF.SUBUECT PROPERTY.
2. SUBJECT TO THE RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJEi:T PROPERTY TO THE R-1
~
ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZOkE.
3. PROVlSION OF A SfX (6) FOOT MASONRY MALL ON THE SOUTH AND NEST
BOUNDARY LINES OF THE SUBJECT PROPER7Y MHERE SUB,IECT P.ROPERTY
ABUTS THE C-1~ NEIaH80RHOQD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE.
4: TYME LIMI.TATION OF ONE HUNDRED EIGH7Y (180) DAYS FOR THE ACCOM-
PLl5HF7ENT OF ITEM NOS. 1~ 2~ AND 3 AS R.°.QUIRE6.BY SECTION
18.64.040 OF THE ANAHEI.M MUNJCIPAL CODE.
THE FOREQOINQ CONDLTIONS MERE RECITED AT THE MEETINO AND NERE FOUND
70 BE A NECESSARY PREREQUI,SITE TO THE USE OF TN~ PROPERY IN ORDER TO
PRESERVE TNE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITtZENS OF THE C1TY OF ANAHEIM.
~ _ ~ !`'~ - ---
~.
~
W
~: .
MINUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION, JuNe 26, 1961~ CONTINUED;
4ARIANCE N0. 1373 - ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOINO'RESOWTION WAS.PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING.YOTE;
- ~ CONTINUED ~
- AYES: COMMISSIONERS7 HAPGOOD~ MORR1.5~ MUN4ALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~
SUMMERS.
F;` •
~ . ~ NOES: COMM1SS10NERSC NONE. . .
t I ' ABSENT: COMMISSI~JNERS7 ALLRED~ GAUER~ MAFCOUX.
~ 4 TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: STANLEY BELL~ ~560 WEST LtNCO~N VENUE~ QNAHEIM~ CALIFOR-
~ ~ TRACT_NO. 4233 N)A~ TRACT LOCATED AT THE S7UB END OF L.OTL. STREET AND GLEN AVENUE
; COVERS APPROXIMATELY 2.1 ACRES AND IS PROPQ i:D FOR ELEVEN R~1~ ONE ~
; .' FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,.~ors. i~
~"`" ' SU9JECT TRACT IS FILED IN CONJUNCTLON W1TH PETITION FOR RECLASSIFlCA-
! TiON N0. 60~61-106 AND PETITION FOR ~ARIANCE N0. 1373.
i.
MR. MCDAN'IEL~ EN~INEER FOR THE DEVELOPER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMIS-
' SION AND REQUESTED THAT THE ~NTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDA-
TIONS BE READ RELATIVE TO THE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP.
THE STAFF REPORT AND THE INTERDEPAR7MENTAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
RELATlVE TO THE SUBJECT TRACT WERE SUBNITTED T0 THE COMM1551,ON.
G IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRI.ES FROM THE AUDIENCE~ MR. STANLEY BELL~ THE
DEVELOPER~ STATED~THAT THE PROPOSED LOTS WOULD CON7AIN SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCES RANGtNG JN SfZE FROM 1~400 TO 1~550 SQUARE FEE'f OF LIVLNG
AREA AND THAT THEY WOULD B~ PRICED FROk 320~000 TO s22~000. .
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINEO THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE
SUBJECT TEN7ATIVE TRACT MAP2 .
1. THAT THE DIMENSIONS AND AREA CONTAIN~D iN 7HE PROPOSED LOT SUB-
~ D1Vl.SIONS OF SUBJECT TRACt ARE COMPARABLE WjTH THE DIMENSIONS AND
~' AREA OF THE LOTS IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT.IAL TRACTS ABUTSING
' ' THE SUBJECT TENTATIYE 7RACT ON THE NORTH AND EAST.
2. THAT THE SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSIST.OF ELEWEN'(11) SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENCES CONTAI.NING FROM 1~400 TO 1 550 SQUARE FEET OF
LIYING AREA AND RAN~I.NG IN PRICE FROM SZOy00b T0~=22.000.
3. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION 70 SUBJECT TENTATlVE TRACT MAP.
~ COMMISSIONER SUMMERS OFFERED A MOTJON~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PEBLEY
AND CARRI,ED~ THAT TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4233 BE APPROYED AS SUB-
MITTED~.SUBJECT T0 THE FOLLOWIN~ CONDITIONS:
1. MODIFICATION OF CURVE ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION
OF LOTUS STREET AND GLEH AVENUE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY
ENGINEER. .
2. SUBJECT TO 7HE APPROVAL OF PETI.TJON FOR VAR~ANCE N0. 1373.
3. SUBJECT TO THE RECLASSIFtCAT1AN OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE R~1~
ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE.
THE FOREfi01.N~ CONDJTIONS MERE RECJ,TED AT THE MEETINO AND WERE FOUIJD
, " TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQUl51JE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO
PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND MELFARE OF 7HE C1,7LZEN5 OF THE C1TY OF ANAHEIM.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEaR1NG.' PE7ITION SUBMITTEO ev EDNARD ANDERSON, 2770 Mesr
il NO. 60-61~107 LINCOI.N AYENUE~ ANAHELM~ CALIfORN10.~ OMNERj REQUESTING THAS PROPERSY
DESCRIBED A5: A PARCEL 108 FEET BY 222 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 108
FEE7 ON LiNCOLN AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LtNCOLN AVE-
NUE BETWEEN DALE AND HAGNO~).A AYENUESy I.TS NORTHWEST CORNER BEING •
APPROXINA7ELY 408 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTHEA57 CORNER OF DALE AND
LINCOLN AVENUES AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 2766 WEST LYNCOLN AVENUE BE
R~CLASSIFIED FROM THE R-A RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAI~ ZONE TO THE ~-1~
NEIGHBORH00D COMMERCtAL, ~ONE.
THE PETIJI,ONER APPEARED BEFORE THE COMM1,SSlON AND STATED HE HAD NOTHIN~
TO ADD TO THE INFORMATI,ON CONTAINED TN THE SUBJECT PETlTION.
THE HEARING NAS CLOSED.
THE COMMlSS10N REVI.ENED DEVELOPMENT pLANS ANQ NOTED THAT THE PROPOSED
RESTAURANT WOULD BE 19 FEET BY 30 FEET !N 512E~ TNAT ADEQUATE PARKI.NG
WOUI.D' HE AVAI.LABLE~ AND 7'HAT. LANDSCAPING .SNOULD BE PROYI.DED TO CORRES-
POND` MITH THE,TYPE OF LANDSCAPLNQ,PRESEN7LY 1N TiIE AREA.,
. . ...... . _ . . ~ _ .~_ . . . ~ ~ ~~. . . . ~ . . . . F
THE PETITIONER STATED ?HAT HE.OMNED THE TRA~LER PARK SITUATED.ON 7HE
SUBJECT:PROPER7Y~ THAT THE RESTAURANT MOULD BE OPERATED IN CONJUNC-
~ TrON WITH THE 7RAILER PARK~ JHAT THE.DEVELOPNENT.WOULD BE,AN ASSET T0
TNE COMtAUNITY~ THAT PARK NQ MOULD BE PROYIDED LN THE FRONT AND REAR~
AND THAT ADDITIONAL PARK~N~ TO ACCOMMODATE APPROXIMATELY TEN.CARS.MOULD
BE AVA]LABLE AS DUEST PARKI,NQ FOR THE TRAfLER PARK. --
..~:~.•~~,,,~a r . ..__~,. ,:~'~c:.'~ ~.. ..L.c:~ . . ,..,• ,~~ . . ~ ~ . {..~..., ~. ~, . ,. rv,n"f4,~`7'i,~:.i_ R,3 ...:,C_.:.. .kR:~*..:vd: i'E~..-j~s:-r,,. ., . ~ ~ .~ ,.. . . ~. ~ ..
* ;
:
~ ~
.i
i . ~
~
~
MINUTES, CITY PUiNNiNG COMMISSION, JuNe 26, 1961, CONTyNUED:
'~ = THE BUILDING WOULD ELIMINATE SOME OF THE LANDSCAP(N6`AREA.
_:.'.._ ~ ., .,. . .. .. ~ ... ,. a- .Q ... ~ . .;.... J..... . . ,"~:' .h: ....ci~. rJt..}.;.C,rr1 _, . . ... . ...
~
'~
23~
RECLASSIFICQTION - CoMMissioNett PERRY NOtED 7HAT THE PROPOSED PARKING IN 7Hk. iF,v`:' C•~
ND. 60~61~1Q7 ==1'HE BUILDING WOULD ELIMINATE SOME OF THE PARKI~NQ AREA. TNti +'4 S i~'r('•~e~;.
CONTINUED IND~CATED•THAT HE WISMED 70 E57ABL7SH PARK(NG IN 7HE FRONT U? ~iiE
BU~ILDING~RATHER THAN TO LINIT ALl•OF THE PARKIN~ 70 7HE REAR~BECAUSE
HE.DID NOT WISH T•0 QOMMIT THAT REAR AREA FOR PARK'I.NG 1N ORDER TO PERMIT
FUTURE EXPANSION•OF-THE•TRALLER.PARK. THE COMMISSION DlSCU55ED AT
SOME LENaTH THE APPEARANCE OF PARKLNG IN THE FRONT AND THE EFFECT.OF
StlCH PARKLNG•UPON THE PROPOSED.LANDSCAPLNG. THE PETITI,ONER INOLCATED
7HAT THE PROPOSED•pARKING MOUID LINE UP W1TH TME PARKING IN THE FRONT
OF THE EXISTING TRAJLER PARK~.AND HE POINTED OUT TNAT OTHER RESTAUR-
ANTS WERE UTtL12tNG THE FRONT AREAS' FOR•PARKING FACILITIES. THE
PETITI.ONER ASSURED THE COMMISSION THAT SUITABLE LANDSCAPING WOULD BE
PROVIDED~ AND STATED THAT HE
NANTED TO KEEP THE 2/3 ACRE AT THE REAR
~
OF THE PROPOSED RESTAURANT C4EAR 1N ORDER 70 EXPAND~ AND THAT THE
PARKING LAYOUT WAS DESI,GNED BY 7HE OPERATOR OF THE RESTAURANT.
CODE PARKING REQUIREMENTS NERE READ AND IT NAS NOTED THAT FI.VE PARK-
ING SPACES MOULD BE REQUtRED FOR THE 1~260 SQUARE FOOT•AREA OF THE
PROPOSED RESTAURANT AND THAT TO UTiLIZE THE FRONT AREA POR PARKING
W~ULD E~,IMINATE A PORTION OF THE LANDSCAPING. THE PETITIONER ASSURED
:HE COMMISSION THAT THE AREA COULD BE UTILI.ZED FOR PARKINa AND STILL
BE LANCSCAPED TO CORRESPOND Y11TH THE APPEARANCE OF THE LANDSCAPING IN
THE AREA.
THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE PLOT PLANS AND NOTED~THAT THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY CONTAINED A 93 F00T FRONTAGE WHICH COULD PROVIDE FOR ADEQUATE
PARKING AREA AND PROVIDE FOR A LANDSCAPING STRIP.
THE COMMISSI,ON FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWIN~ FACTS REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PET7TION:
1. THAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE A90VE DES-
~RIBED PROPERTY FROM THE R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRI.CULTURAL~ ZONE TO
THE C~1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE.
2. THA7 TFiE PROPOSED RECLASSIFJCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NECES~
SARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER D'cVELOPMENT OF THE
COMMUN/.TY.
3: THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICA710N OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES PRO~
1PERLY RELATE TO THE ZONES AND 7HEIR PERM!'TTED USES LOCALLY ESTAB-
LISHED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SUBJECT PROPER7Y AND TO THE ZONES
AND 7MElR PERMITTED USES QENERALLY ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT THE
COMMUNITY.
4: THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES RE-
QUIRE DEDICATION FOR AND STANDARD 1MPROVEMENT OF ABUTTING STREETS
BECAUSE SAID PROPERTY DOES RELATE TO AND ABUT UPON STREETS AND
HIaHMAYS WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANSITY OF
TRAFFIC~ MHICH W1L1. BE 6ENERATED BY THE PERMITTED USES~ IN ACCOR-
DANCE WITH THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF 7HE GENERAL PLAN.
So THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUBJECT PETITION.
AND
COMMISSIONER PERRY OFFERED RESOLUTION No. 299~ SERIES 1960-61
r
MOVED FOR jT5 PASSACiE AND AOOPT]ON~ SECONDED BY COMNISSIONER MUNaALL~
TO RECOMMEND TO 7HE CITY COUNCIL 7HAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION
N0. 60~61-107 BE GRANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWI.Na CONDITIONS:
1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACC6RDANCE WITN PLANS PRESENTED.
2. PREPARATION OF STREET INPROVEMENT PLANS AND ~NSTA4LATION OF ALL
1MPROVEMENTS FOR LINCOLN AVENUE IN ACCORDAir~E NITH THE APPROVED
STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF 7HE C17Y ENGiNEER.
3. PAYMENT OF 52.00 PER FRONT F00T FOR SiREET LIGHTING PURPOSES ON
LINCOLN AVENUE.
4. PROVISION OF UTILITY EASEMENTS ALONG EXTERI.OR BOUNDARIES AS DETER-
MINED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILITIES.
5. T1ME LI.MITATION OF NI,NETY (90) DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF
ITEMS NOS. 2~ 3~ AND 4.
6. PR041510N OF PARKLNG FACILITI.ES I.N ACCORDANCE WITH CODE REQUIRE-
MENTS.
7. PROVISION OF A TEN (10) FOOT LANDSCAPED STRIP ALONG THE PLANNED
H16HWAY RIGHT-OF-MAY 1lNE~ 5A1D LANDSCAPING TO BE SUBJECT TO TNE
APPROVA~ OF THE SUPERIN7ENDENT OF PARKWAY MAI.NTENANCE.
THE FOREGOING COND)TIONS HERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND MERE FOUND
TO BE A NECESSARY'PREREQU151TE TO THE U
SE OF THE PROPERTY 1N ORDER TO
.
PRESERVE 7HE SAFETY AND MELFARE OF SHE G1T12EN5 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THc FOREGOING'RESOLUTION NAS PASSED BY 7HE FOLLONI.NG VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: HnPCOOO, MORRIS~ MUNQALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~
SUMMERS.
i
:~
`~
~
, :"'i
I
~ `
.' i
. ,
,:
1 ~ ~
~ ~
~3 ~
~ ~ "'MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~UNE 26 1961 ~^~~~~~~~^•
~ ~ ~ .
`~ ;~
_ s
,
~
_ a
<
-_. a
~ ~~: ~
236 ~
;
RECLASSIF1CATlON - NOES: COMMISSIONERSS NONE. !
N0..60-61-107
CONTINUED _ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX. ~
itECi:itSS1FtCQTiON PUBLiC HEARiNG. PET1TtON SUHM7TTED eY DONALD H. aNO..JFAN K..FULkERSON, .
'N0. 60-~61-108 1916 NE57 BALL ROAD~ ANAHEIM~ CALIfORNXA OWNERSj JENNINGS-HALDERMAN,
INC.~ 200 WEST YASHLN4TON AYENUE~ SAN7A ANA~ CALIFORNIA~ I~QENTS~ RE- -, ~
QUE5T6NG YHA7 PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: A PARCEL 123 FEET.~BY 365 FEET .:
WITH A FRON7AdE OF- 123.FEET ON BALL ROAD AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF BALt ROAD"BETMEEN EMPIRE AND NUTWOOD STRC•E7S~ ITS NORTHEAST.CORNER ~~ .
BEINQ APPROXIMATEIY 190 FEET MEST OF THE SOUTHMEST CORNER OF NUTNOOD ~
STREET AND BAIL ROAD.AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1916 NEST BALL ROADz BE
RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R-A RESIQENTIAI AGRICULTURAL,.ZONE To THE l:-1~
NEIGHBORH00D COMMERCIQL; fONE; .
MR. GEORQE MAUSER~ 19112 BALBpA~ BALBOA~ AGENT FOR•THE PETITIONERS~
APPEARED BEFORE 7HE•COMMI5510l1 AND STA7ED THAT THE DEVELOPERS OF
PROPERTY LOCATED ON NUTWOOD STREE7 NERE CON57RUCTINa A•TRACT CONTAIN-
'ING 58 RESIDENCES AtdD•THA7 THEY WERE DESLROUS OF ESTABLISHANG A REAL
ESTATE OFFICE FOR THE•TRAC7 IM AN EXxSTINO RESI.DENCE ON 7H& SUBJECT. ~
PROPER7Y. HE 57AT'ED FURTHER THhT 7HE.SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ADJACENT i
TO A CHURCH ANO SITUATED BE7MEElI 7W0 PUBLIC SCHOOLS~ AND THAT A REAL
ESTATE OFFICE COULD BE GEVELOPED IN THE PROPER MANNER SO AS NOT TO BE ~
DETRIMENTAL TO•THE AREA. .
THE INFORMATION SUPPLLED ON THE SUBJECT PETITl.ON WAS SUBMITTED TO THE
COMMISSLON AND THE COMMI.SSION NOTED THAT PLANS FOR THE ULTIMATE DEVEL- ~
OPMENT OF 7HE SUBJECT PROPERTY WERE NOT AVAILABLE,
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
COMMISSIONER MORR1.5 INDICATED THA7 HE DID NOl' CONSIDER IT ADVISABLE
TO RECLASSI:FY A LARfiE PARCEL WlTHOUT PLANS FOR THE ULTIMATE DEVELOP-
MENT OF-THE PROPERTY~ THAT HE D(D NOT CONSIDER A REAL ESTATE OFFICE "
OR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TO BE OBJECTIONABLE FOR THE PROPERTY BECAUSE
OF ITS LOCATION ON BALL ROAp~ THAT CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO
THE REMOYAL OR ALTERATION OF THE EXISTING RESI,DENCE J,F THE SUBJEC7 '
PETITION WERE APPROVED~ AND THAT TO APPROVE THE SUBJECT PET'~TION WITH-
OUT ADEQUATE PLANS WOULD CREATE PROBLEidS SUCH AS HAS BEEN EXPERIENCED
IN THE PAST AND MOU~D CAUSE THE COMMISSION TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE ~ t
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPER7Y. .
THE PETITIONER INFORMED THE COMMI5510N THAT AT THE PRESENT TIME DEVEL- ~
OPNENT PLANS FOR A PROFESSIONAL OFF~,CE HAD NOT BEEN PREPARED BECAUSE •
THEY CONSI.DERED SUCH AN lNVESTMEN7 TO BE PREMATURE WITHOUT THE RE-
QUE54ED ZONING. HE STATED FURTHER THAT PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY WAS
PENDANa• ~
THE COMMISSI.ON DI.SCUSSED 7NE NECE551.7Y OF OOTAININa ADEQUATE PLANS FOR
7HE ULTIMATE DEVELOPM~NT OF THE PFtOPERTY AND THE PETITIONER INDICATE6 ~
THAT PLANS COULD BE SUPPLIED M1.7HIN A MONTH. ,
COMMI.SSIONER PFRRY OFFERED A MOTIAN~,SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUMMERS ,!
AND CA7tRIED~ THAT THE SUBJECT PE?~TION FOR RECLASSIFI.CATl.ON N0. 60-61- . !
108 BE CON7INUED UN71L THE MEETIN~ OF JULY 24~ 1961 ." WHICH T1ME 7
DE7AILED PLANS FOR THE ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE Sl.BJECT PROPERTY
SHALL BE SUBMfTTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE COMM155,1ON FOR CONSI.DERA-
T ION. ' i
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBU C HEARING. PETd710N 5UBM1T7ED BY EMMA K. AND THOMAS J. NlLU S,
NO. 60-61-109 OwNeRS, GE0RGIA C. MANESTAR~ 9752`KATELLA AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~
A(iENT~ REQUESTIN~ ~'HA7 PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5. AN IRRE~ULARLY SHAPED
PARCEL 440 FEET BY 650 FEET MITH A FRON7.AQE OF 440 FEET ON DOWLINQ
STREET AND I.OCATE0. DN THE ME57 SIOE OF UOWLLN~ STREET BETMEEN PLACEN-
TIA-YORBA BOULEVARD AND ORANGETHORPE AVENUE~ ITS SOUYHEASTERLY CORNER -
BEING APPROXIMATELY 350 FEET NORTH OF THE.NORTNMESTERLY CORNER OF
ORANQETHORPE AVENUE AND DOWLI.N(i STREET BE RECLASSI,FIED FROM THE R-A~
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE ro rHe:~-3,.HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ ZONE.
MRS. GEORGIA MANESTAR~ A3ENT FOR 7HE PETI,TIONERS~ APPEARED BEFORE THE
COMMISSI.ON~ PRESEN7ED A RENDER~N~ OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF ~
SUBJECT: PROPERTY'A?iD D157Rt8{7TED 9ROCNtlRES CONTA1H1N0:lNFONMATlQN !N :
REIiARD,T~ THE PROPOSED:DEVELOPMENT'. SHE DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED CON~ ?
STRUC7lON OF A~80WLING ALLEY~ COCKTAIL LOUNQE~ AND.AppUR7ENANT SHOPS y-~
TO BE"LOCATED ON.A PORTION`OF PROPERTY RECEN7lY RECLASSIFIED BY THE
CtTY COUNCI.L TO PERMtT'THE,DEYELOPMENT OF AN,LNTEQRATED'SHOPPIN6
CENTER: SHE 57A7.ED:THAT'7HE.DEVELOPMENT.MOUta'BE LOCATED ON A MAJOR :!
Hl6HWAY 1N CLOSE PROX1M1,7Y 'f0'TWO FREEWAYS~ THAT THE_ALLEY NOULD BE ~
CONSTRUCTED BY THE BRUNSWlCK C'ORPORATlON~ AND THAT THE FACILITY NOULD
BE,AN ASSET T0 7HE'COMMUF147Y:AHD i0 THE SUBJECT AREA.. IN RESPONSE TO
I:NQUIRlES'FROM THE COMN1.5510N~'+MRS. MANESTAR 9.NDICA7ED THAT DEVELOP- `~
MENT OF SOME PORTlONS OF THE SHOP?1NQ'CENTER WOULD COMMENCE (N THE ~
NEAR FUTURE.
.. , . ^~
~ , _ `~
THE HEARING WAS _,CLOSED. ,
THE COMMISBION REV4ENED DEVELOPMENT ELANS.AND NOTED TNAT.THE SUBJECT _~'~
,. ~ !~;
. ;n:
': ' ~~ . ~ . . . ... '~::. ~. _ :~~.. ~ ~, ' ~.~'; •FI
.. . . .. . ., " ~ T
. . . i ~ .. " .' ' _~ ' . '
_ `y
~~
. , ' . .. . . 11~.,~
V
'~s~`,"?.w _ .;.;,_: ~~.:;:'a~'~~..t4 ~:k!"_.r.-.1~_c. ~Ba.~....? .,_~~~'~.,.c'_ss.t,.~r~t.,d~'r-iYrA 4.7~_u`~1:5^F.;:!fYr.dk.9i3+1*ia~~iye ... ...... .. ....x... .... .. ....,!4.i'}n._~.1
~' . i
i
~
~
. i
~
~ ~
~... R~- T6~:; ~: ~
~ ~
c ~ ~
_ 237
MINUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMM1SS10N, JuNe 26, 1961~ CONTYNUED:
i
~~
.` .~
a.._ '. •~
~ ~
~
. ~
B i
RECLASSiFICATION - PROPERTY WAS•PROP.OSED FOR THE DEVELOPMEN7•OF A BOWI.ING ALIEY~ SERVICE l
NO. 60-61~109 SHOPS~ PARKING AREAS~ AND A 7RASH AND SERVI.CE YARD. MRS. MANESTAR • ~
CONTINUED 5?A7ED 7HAT THE REQUES'~ED RECLASSXFLCATION TO THE C~-3~ HEAVY COMMER~ ,
~IAL~ ZQNE WAS IN ORDER TO PERMIT 7HE.80MLJNQ ALLEY TO SERVE ALCOHOI.IC
BEVERA6ES~ AND THAT 7HE SHOPS WOULD BE SMALL COMMERCIAL SNOPS.
RSSI.STANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEI.SLER•ADYISED THE COMMLSSION THAT iNE i
C~3~ MEAVY COMMERCIAI~ ZONI.NG•WOULD PERNi.T THE SALE OF LtQUOR ANY •
PLACE WITHLN THE BOUNDARI,ES OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN 7HE Sl7BJEC7
~ PE7ITION~ BUT THAT.THE ES7AB~~SHMENT OF SUCH BUSINESSES MOULD BE
SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF THE ALCONOLIC BEVERACaE CONTROI BOARD. THE
'
IL
COMMISSI.ON DISCUSSED TkE POSSCBLE LOCATION OF ADDLT(ONAL COCKTA
LBUNQES OR BARS (N THE AREA AND NOTED THAT THE LIQUOR SALES COULD SE •
CONFINED TO THE BOWLINQ ALIEY BY DEED RESTRICTI,ONS.
THE COMMISSION AL50•DISCUS5ED 7HE NECE5517Y FOR THE PROVISI,ON OF LAND-
SCAFINQ ON DOWLINQ STREET TO CONFORM MITH THE LANDSCAPIN~ REQUIREMENTS
IbIPOSED•ON THE REMAINDER OF THE SHOPPING CENTER.
THE COMM15510N FOUND AND DETERMI,NED THE FOLLOWINa FACTS REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITI,ON: '
1; THAT THE PET(TIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICATA.ON OF THE ABOVE DES- .
CRIBED PROPERTY FROM 7HE R A~ RESI.DENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ZONE TO
THE C~3~ HEAYY COMMERCIAL~ ZONE RESTRICTED TO THE BOWLINfi ALLEY
AND COCKTAIL LOUNGE AND/OR ANY OTHER C°ly NEIGHBORH00D COMMERCIAL~
USE. •
2. THAT THE AROPOSED RECLASSIFI.CATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NECES~
SARY OR DESIRABLE FOR 7HE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE
COMMUNITY.
3. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIF').CATLON QF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES PRO~
PERLY RELATE TO THE ZONES AND 7HEIR PERMLttED USES LOCALLY ESTAB-
LISHED iN CLOSE PROXI,MI.7Y 70 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE ZONES
AND THEI'R PERMITTED USES ~ENERALLY ESTABLE.SHED 7HROIlGHOUT 7HE
COMMUNIT.Y. • • ~
4. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSI.FICA710N OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES RE~
QUIRE DEDICATI.ON FOR AND STANDARD IFIPROVEMENT OF ABU7TIN(i STREETS
BECAUSE SAID PROPERTY DOES RELATE TO AND ABUT UPON STREETS AND
NIQHWAYS WHLCH ARE PROPOSED TO CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANTlTY OF
TRAFFIC~ MH1CH WILL BE GENERATED BY TNE PERMITTED USES~ IN ACCOR~
DANCE Wl7N THE CIRCULATtON ELEMEN7 OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
5. THA7 NO ONE APPEARED ),N OPPOSI.TION TO SUBJECT PETI,TION.
COMMJSSI.ONER MUNQALL OFFERED RESOLUTI,ON N0. 300~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND
MOYED FOR 1TS PASSAGE AND.ADOPTI,ON~ SECONDED BY COMMLSSI.ONER HAPGOOD~
TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCI,L THAT PETI,TION FOR RECLASSIFICATION
N0. 60~61-109 BE QRANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOMIN~ CONDITIANS:
1. DEVELOPMENT SU857ANT,IALLY LN ACCORDANCE W1TH PLANS PRESENTED.
2. RECORDAjiON OF DEEp RESTRICTi0N5 LLMI.TINQ THE C~3o HEAVY COMMER~
C:IAL~ USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO 7HE BOWLING ALLEY NITH A
COCKTAIL LOUNQE AND/OR ANY C~1~ NEl,QHBORHOOD COMMERCI.AL~ USE.
3: OEDICATION OF 53 FEET FROM THE MONUMEN7ED CEN7ERLLNE OF DOWLING
STREET (20 FEET EXI.STI,NQ).
4~ PAYMENT OF 52.00 PER FRON'j F007 FQR STREET LIaHT,ING PURPO5E5 ON
DONLINQ STREET AT THE TI.NE OF DEVEtOPMENT.
5. PROYI.SION (1F UT(l1,TY EASEMENTS ALON(~ EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES AS DE7ER-
M1NED BY THE:DI.RECTOR OF PUBLI,C U71LI.TIES.
6: PREPARATION OF STREE7 IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND 1N4TALLATION OF ALL ,
IMPROVEMEN75 FOR DOMCINQ STREE7 A7 THE TI.ME OF DEVELOPMENT.
7. TIME LIMI.TATION OF'NINETY (90) DAYS FOR 7HE ACCOMP~ISHMENT OF
ITEMS N0. 2~ 3~ AND 5..
- 8: PROV1S10N OF A.SIX (6).FDOT tANDSCAPED STRIP ABUTTINQ TNE.PLANNED
HLGHMAY R1.GHT-~OF~WAY LINE OF SUBJECT I'ROPERTY~ AND 7HE PROVI.SION
OF FIVE`(5} FOOT BY F1.VE (S~ FOOT'7REE kEL65 AT FORTY (40) F00T
i 1NiERVALS A~JACENT TO THE"PLANNED HIGHMAY Rl.(iHT-OF~WAY LINE~ AND
THc INSTAClA71Ok OF STREE7.TREES THEREiN. AI.:L PORTIONS OF SAID
' PARKWAY N07 FI.LLED-`1.N WLTH CONCRETE ~SHALL BE `PROPERLV LANDSCAPED
1N 7HE.MANNER PROVIDED FOR:HEREI,N. PLANS.FOR SAID LANDSCAP(NO AND
NATER'SUPPLYy.1NCLUDING THE 5PAC1,N~ OF StREET"TREES AND SHRUBS~
SHALC BE SUBJEC7 70 THE APPROVAL OF THE SUPERINTENDEN7 OF PARKMAY
MAlNTENANCE.
THE FOREQOI.N~ CONDITlON4 WERE RECITED AT THE.MEETI.NQ AND IiERE FOUND T0
BE A`NECESSARY:PREREQU157.TE"r0`THE USE OF THE:pROPERTY IN,ORDER 70
PRESERVE'7HE SAFETY.AND WELFARE OF THE,CITI.ZENS OF TNE CfTY OF ANAHEI.M.
ON ROLC CALL THE FOREQOlNQ RE50LUT1,ON NAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOMINQ.;;VOTE:
~r
J ~
t~:.a ~. . . . . ,: ~ ~ ~. . . ,.. _ .:.,; ~it~H~x..u~Kr.:t:.~. ~o ~ ....~'t f iti ~;..t. ~ =~,
_ S1 ~~
'~taGb._ _, i~..1~.:5 ~.:Ar~.. ~w....C':4.7'C .i ,....ii„3. 4<._i.. .~, . ~..:_. rA.., i . ~...Yrtt ,..~~1f.w.~ ,'~~"s1.~7 . .. ,A.~~~ ll. ~ `.. ~ ~r .i~ -.
~
~
238
MINUTES, CITY PIANNIN~ COMMISSION~ JuNE 26, 1951, CoNr~.wusu:
RECLASSIFICATION - AYES: COMM1SSlONERS: HAPQOOD~ MORR1,5~ MUNGALI~ PEBLEY~ PERRYa
N0. 60-61-109 SUMMERS.
COPITINUED NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. .
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MhRCOUx.
RECt,ASSIFICATION - PUB!IC HEARING.. Pert7toN.5ueMXT7eu ev.S. M dLACKLY, eo7 NORTH w00D5
ND. 60-61-110 AVENUE~ FULLERTONt CALI.~ORNIA~ OMNER~ THOMA:, BIRMINGHAM~ 139 NORTH'
NtCHOLAS AVENUE7 FULLER70NZ CALI~ORNIA~.RGENT~.REQUESTJNa THAT PROPERTY
DESCRIBED
lO
ASt A PARCEL
1~FEET BY 140 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 102
FHET ON D'J.ANE NAY AND LOCATED ON 7HE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DIANE WAY AND
DAHLIA DRI.VE BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R-1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~
Z~
'
ZONE,TO THE
-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIQL,
LONE.
MR. THOMAS B7RMI.NaHAM~ AQEN7 FOR 7HE PET171,ONER APPEARED BEFORE THE
COMMISS70N AND.STATED THAT 7HE SUBJECT Pnu:ERTY WAS I,N ESCRON~ THAT
7HE•BUNER WISHED 70 RECLASSIFY THE PROPERTY FROM RESI.DENTtAL USE TO
CbMMERC~IAL USE~ 7HAT THE PROPERTY.HAS BEEN A PROBLEM TO DEVEIOP FOR •
RESI.DENTIAL PURPOSES~ THAT RESTRI.CTIONS ON THE PROR~RTY PREVENTED
DEVELOPMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS~ THAT A PRECISE PL.AN FOR COMMERCJAL
DEVELOPMENT WAS SUBMITTED 1i1.TH THE SUBJECT PETdTl.ON~ THAT THE PROPERTY
WAS IN CLOSE PROXIMI7Y TO COMMERCIAI DEVELOPMENT~ AND THAT THE DEVELOP-
MENT ALONG LINCOLN AVENUE WAS PREDOMINANTLY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
MRS. RAY SMlTH~ OWNER OF PROPERTY ON DAHLIA DRIVE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE
COMMlSSION AND STATED HER•OPPOSLTION TO THE SUBJECT PETITION. SHE
STATED THAT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY COUI.D NOT DLSPOSE OF THE PRO-
PERTY FOR RESLDENTlAL PURPOSES BECAUSE OF THE SALE PRICET 7HAT THE
102 FOOT BY 140 F00T PARCEL WAS N07 ADEQUATE FOR COMMERCI,AL DEVELOP-
MENT~ THAT WI,TH•7HE TRAFFS' ;':NERATED BY THE BOML(NG ALLEY ADEQUATE
PARKING FOR T}1E COMMERCIIt ',.CIL17'Y COULD NOT BE PROVIDED~ AND THAT
TNE PROPOSED DEYELOPMENT ,.~ULD HAVE A DELETERIOUS EFFEC7 UPON THE
RESIDENTIAL TRAC7. . .
MR. ELMER WALTHALL APP~.ARED BEFORE THE COMMISSlON~ STATED TN.`.7 HE WAS
THE OMNER OF.PROPER7Y 1N THE AREA~ THAT THE SUBJECT PROPER7Y COULD NOT
BE SOLD BECAUSE•THE PRICE WAS UNREASONABLE~ THAT THE PROPERTY NAS A
SMALL PARCEL~ AND THAT HE NAS OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION
OF THE PROPERTY.
A PETITION OF OPPOSIT).ON~ CONTAININa 66 SI,GNATURES~NAS SUBMITTED TO
THE COMMI.SSION BASED UPON THE OBJECTIONS 7HAT THE AREA WAS A RES{DEN-
TIAL AREA~ THAT 7HE PARKINQ OF CARS MOULD CREATE A PROBLEM~ 7HAT
AUTOMOB~,LE TRAFF).C NOULD BE I'NCREASED THUS ENDAN6ERIN~ THE CHI~DREN 1.N
THE TftACT~ THAT THE I,NVASION OF COMMERCIAL BUILDI.NGS INTO A RESLDENTJAL
SECTI,ON WOULD DECREASE PROPER7Y VALUES~ AND THAT 7HERE NAS NO NEED FOR
THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE 7HERE MERE VACANT STORE BUJ:LDINGS
ON LINCOLN AVENUE AT THE PRESENT TI.ME.
MR. BIRMIN~HAN~ 1N REBUTTAL~ 57A7ED THAT THE PROPOSED USE OF jHE PRO-
PERTY NOULD BE DESJRABLE AND A7TRACTI,VE~ 7HAT ADEQUATE PARKINa WOULD
BE AVAiIABLE~ THAT 7HE PROPERTX 1,5 PRESEN7LY A BL,~GHTED AREA~ THAT THE
PRI.CE OF THE PROPERTY WAS NOT FEASI.BLE FOR SfNGLE FAMILY RESD.DENTI.AL
USE~ AND THAT AN A7TRACTIVE PROFESSLONAL BU)LDING MOULD ENHANCE THE
AREA~ BE AN ASSET TO TNE COMMUNITY~ AND NOULD PROVI.pE ADDITI.ONAL TAX
REVENUE TO THE CITY. HE STATED FUR7HER 7HAT THE AREA HOULD EVENTUALLY
BE RECLASSI.F].ED TO COMMERCIAL USE AND THAT 7HEY MERE PRESEN7ING A
PRECISE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT A7 7H1S 71ME.
THE HEARiNa MAS CLOSED.
THE COMM1SS10N REVIEWED DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND NOTED 7HAT THE PLOT PLANS
DID NOT PROVIDE PARKIN~ 1.N ACCORDANCE WITH CODE REQUIREMEkTS.
THE COMM1S510N FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDINa THE
SUBJECT PETITIONO
1. THAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSJFICA710N OF THE ABOVE DES~
CR18ED PROPERTX FROM THE R-1~ ONE FAM,ILY RESIDENTI,AL~ ZONE TO THE
C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCiAL~ ZONE.
' 2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIF~CATION OF SUBJEC7 PROPERTY 15 NOT
NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF
THE COMMUNITY.
3. THAT. 7HE.PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJEC7 PROPERTY DOES NOT
PROPERLY RELATE TO THE 20NE5 AND THElR PERMI.TTED USES LOCALLY E5~
TABLISHED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SUBJEC7 PROPERTY AND TO THE ZONES
AND THEJR PERMITTED USES GENERALLY ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT THE
COMMUNI,TY.
4: THAT THE SUBJEC7 PROPERTY J,S.LOCATED I.N THE R-1~ ONE FAMILY RESI-
DENTIAL~ ZONE AND 1.5 SURROUNDED BY S1.NaLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT~ 7HEREFORE~ THE HL~HE57 AND BEST t15E OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERiY 15 FOR TMO S'~:NaLE FAM).LY RESIDENCES.
~ 5. THAT A PET1710N OF PROTE57 CONTAINI:NO 66 SI~NATURES~ I.N ADDITION
TO VERBAL OPPOSITION~ MAS RECORDED A~AINST SUBJEC7 PETIT),ON.
~
~ ~ , ~
~
e
~
v v~
MINUTES, CiTY PLANNING COHMISSION~ JuNe 26, 1961~ CONTINUED;
~ .
239
RECLASSIFICATION - CoMMisstoNeR PEBLEY OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 301~ SERlES 1960-61~ AW~
NO. 60-61-110 MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE.AND ADOPTI,ON~ SECONDED.BY COMMISSIONER PERRd~.
CONTINIIED TO RECOMMEND TO 7HE CI.TY COUNCII THAT PE7ITION FOR RECLASSIFICATJON
N0. 60-61~110 BE DEN,IED ON THE BASIS OF THE AFOREMEN710NED.FINDINGS.
ON.ROLL CALL THE FOREGOINQ RESOLUTION NAS.PASSED BY THE FOlLOW1,NG.VOTE;
/IYES: COMM1SSi0NERS: HAPGOOD' MORR~S~ MUNOALLo PEBLEY9 PERRY~
SUMMERS.
NqES: COMM1SS10NERS7 NONE. . , .
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: AtLRED~ GAUL'ft~ MARCOUx.
RECLASS1FICaT10N - PUBLIG HEARING. Pe;isloN SUBMIT?ED av HENRY AND FABIOLA BOWRIiSSQ
NO. 60-61-111 2730 WEST BALL ROAb= ANAHE•IM~ CALIFORNIA~ OwNeRS; ROBERT W. MC CQI~TER,
PROPERTYrDESCRtBEDDASANAAEPARCELL132RFEET eYE63~ FEETENITHGATFRON7AGE
OF 132 FEET ON BALL ROAD AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SI:DE OF BALL ROAD
BETMEEN DALE AND MAGNOLIA AVENUES{ 175 NORTHWEST CORNER BE1NG APPROXI-
AVENUE AND FURTHERSDESCRI,BEDSAST2730TWESTNBALLFROAD~ BEAR~CLASSIFIED
FROM rHe R-A RESiDENTIQL AGRICULTURRL, ZONE ro THE C-2, GENERAL
COMMERC.IQL, '~ONE. .
MR. ROBERT MCCARTER~ A(iENT FOR THE PETITIONER APPEARED BEFORE THE COM-
MISSION AND STATED THAT 7HE PROPERTY AT THE PRESENT TlME CONTAINS A
CHICKEN RANCH~ THAT AN ED~SON COMPANY HI.aH TENSION POWER LINE ABU7S -
THE SUBJECT PROPER7Y ON 7HE EA57~ THAT A SCHOOL JS LOCATED ACP.O55 BALL
ROAD ON THE NOR7H N(TH NQ ENTRANCE FROM~BALL ROAD~ AND.THAT ~'"~~.~
CHLCKEN RANCHES AND A SMAL:L NURSERY ARE LOCATED I.N THE AREA.
STATED.FURTk1ER THAT THE SUBJECT PROPER7Y.ABUTS THE NORTHERLY COUNDARY
L,I,NE OF THE.CATY OF STAN70N~ MH1CH CONTAINS SJNCiLE FAMI,LY RESODENTI.AL
D~VELOPMENT~ AHD THAT A COMMERCIAL USE IS ES7ABLI.SHED ON THE PROPERTY
TO THE NEST.
THE HFIIRING WAS CLOSED,
~RiE PETITIONER~S AGENT INDJCA7ED THAT THE PE7ITIONERS WiSH TO ESTAB-
LISH A RETAIL NURSERY COMBINED N~7H '~HE QROWJ,NG OF FLOWERS AND PLANTS
_ ON TNE pARCEL CpNTA)NANG A 600 FOOT DEPTH~ THAT THE USE NOULD NOT BE
A HEAVY COMMERCIAL USE SUCH AS SERVI,CE STA710N5~ MANY OF WHICH HAVE
BEEN ESTABLJ.SHED ALONG BALL ROAD~ AND 7HAT THE NURSERY WOULD BE Aq
ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY,
LAND USE AND ZONINa STUDIES~ PREPARED FOR THE SUBJECT AREA BY THE
PLANNINa DtPARTMENTy MERE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION~ I,N ADDITION TO
A PRECiSE PLAN STUDY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJEC7 AREA. THE
PRECISE PLAN INDICATED R^3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESLDENTIAL~ DEVE~OPMENT
ALUN6 BALL ROAD WaTN R-1~ bNE FAMILY RESIDENTI,AL DEVELOPMENT EXTEND-
PRESENTrUSELOFT7NEHPROPER7Y~1NrTHE AREA,IS,PREDOMINANTLYTAGRICULTURAL
IN NA7URE AND THAT THERE WAS THE POSSIBIL).TY 7HAT SOME PORTIONS OF
THE DEEP PARCELS MAY BECOME LANDLOCKED !F A DEVELOPMEN? SIMI.LAR 70
THE PRECISE PLAN STUDY I.S NOT ADOPTED FOR THE SUBJECT AREA.
IT MAS POINTED OUT TO TNE COMMISSION 7HAT AT THE T1ME OF FIIINQ OF PHE
SUBJECT pET1.T).ON~ THE PETITI.ONERS HAD INDICATED TNA7 THEY MERE PRI-
MARJLY INTERESTED :ti THE GROW~NQ OF FLOWERS AN~ PLANTS ON THE NORTHERLY
240 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE USE OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES
I.N CONJUNCTION N17H THE GROWINO AND SELLING pF THESE PLANTS.
TNE COMM(SSION DJSCUSSED THE ApV1SA91LITY OF 7HE PE7ITIONERS Mi?H-
DRAM]NQ 7HE SUBJECT PETJT),ON AND REpUE571NG A VARIANCE FOR A THREE
YEAR TIME PERIOD BECAUSE THE RECLASSLFI.CATI.ON OF THE PROPERTY MIOHT
DEVELOPMENTEHASDBEENUESTABLISHEDECL~OMM15570NER~MUN~ALL,OND).CATEDDTHAT
HE CONSIDERED THAT 7HE REQUESTED USE OF 7HE PROPERTY SHOULD BE CON51-
DERED UNDER A PETITJ,ON FOR VARI,ANCE IN Y1EW OF THE EXTENSIVE AMOUNT
OF UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY 1N THE SUBJECx AREA.
ASSI.STAN7 CITY ATTORNEY ~OE GE~SLER ADVISED 7HE COMMISSION 7HAT THE
fiROW1.NG OF AGR.ICULTURAL CROPS IS PRESENTLY PERMITTED IN 7HE R-A~ RESI~
DENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE~ BUT THA7 A RFTAIL NURSERY MAS CONS,IDERED
A C-2~ GENERAL COMMERCJAL~ USE.
THE COMMISSION D'~,SCUSSED THE POSSLBI,LITY OF LN!71.AT1NQ A VARIANCE FOR
TNE PROPOSED USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERtY FOR A l.IM1.TED PER)OD OF TIME~
OR THE POSS78LE RECLASSI.FICATION OF TM: FRON7 PORTION OF THE PROPER7Y
~ TO THE C-2~ GENERAL COMMERCI,AL~ ZONE St98JECT TO DEED RESTRICTIONS.
THEy I.NDJ,CATED~ HONEYER4 THAT-AT THE Pn55ENT TIME THE PROPOSED G2~
GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE DID NOT APPEAR 70 BE THE BES7 USE ~F THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE COMMJSSI.ON DJ,SCUSSED THE NUMBER bf XEARS THAT NOVLD BE REQUI.RED TO
UTILI2E THE PROPERTY FOR THE QROMLNQ '1F PLAN75 AND THE AQENT /ADI.CATED
THA7 .SOHE' STOCK REQUI,RED A PERIOD OF '1'Ip1E: 1.N WHICH TO REALIZE A PROFLT
ON THEJR I.NVE57MEHT~ AND THAT THE BUYER AND THE OWNER OF THE SUBJECT
~`.
~.
~
~: ~
i
,i
,t , ~•sly.yiir~.n'"'~
~ . . . ~ ,
MINUTES, Cf7Y PiANNING COMMISSION, JuNe 26, 1961, CONTINUED:
~ .__.___.__ ~
~
240 d
RECtASS1F1CQT10N - PROPERTY WOULD REQUlRE A DEFINITE TIME PER)OD STA7ED BEFORE THEY
NO. 60-61^111 . COULD CONSI.DER TME PROPOSED TIME LIMI7ATION. •
~ CONT'1 NUED •
THE COMl115510N I.NFORMED THE PETITIONER~S AGENT THAT THE SUGGESTED
VARLANCE WAS AN AL7ERNATIVE TO.THE DENIAL OF THE SUBJECT PETITtAN
BECAUSE 7HE COMMLSSION D-,D NOT CONSa.DER THE RECLASSAF1CATi,ON OF THE
DEEP PARCEL OF LANC TO THE C~2o GENERAL COMMERCfAL9 ZONE TO•BE ADVdS-
ABLE•AT THE PRESEN7 TIME BECAUSE DEF.1N1:7.E DEVELOP~tENT PLANS FOR 7HE
SUBJECT PROPERTY AND 7H~ SURROUNDINa AREA HAYE NOT BEEN.ESTABLISHED.
IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE PROPOSED RETAIL NURSERY MOULD NOT BE
CONSI.DERED DETRIMEN7AL A7' 7HE PRESEN7.'71ME l.F IT WERE ESTABLISHED BY
A VARIANCE FOR A L~MITED PERDOD OF T1.ME.
THE PE'~1TlONER'S AGENT INDICATED THAT THE PETI.TI.ONER AND THE BUYER Op
THE PROPERTY WOULD BE NI,LLING TO DEDICATE A PORTION OF PROPERTY FOR
THE EXTENSION OF HACDUFF STREE7. UPON QUE5710t:1.NG BY THE COMMISSION~
' THE AGENT INDI,CA7ED THAT THE AMOUNT OF T1ME REQUIRED FOR THE PROCESS-
ING•OF A VARIANCE M'AGH7 CONFLI.CT Ml.TH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BUYER
OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~•AND THA7 THE PROPOSED THREE YEAR 71ME LIMITA-
TLON FOR THE USE OF THE PROPERTY BY A VARIANCE MIGHT NOT BE SUFFICIENT
FOR THE (iROWTH OF SOME OF THE PLANTS. ~
• ASSISTANT CI,TY.ATTORNEY .IOE GEISLER AGAfN INFORMED THE PETITI.ONERS
THAT THE GROWO.Na OF PLANTS COULD 9E CONTINUED UNDER THE PRESENT 20NINQ
AND~THAT THE•ESTABLISHMENT OF A RETAIL *IURSERY~ 1NCLUDING THE DISPLAY
AND;SALE OF STOCK~ WOULD REQUI,RE tHE RECLASSIFICAT(ON OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY TO THE C~2~ GENERAL COMMERCI.AL~ ZONE. HE STATED THAT THE
. PETITIONER COULD DISPOSE OF THE PLAN75 I.N THE MANNER PERM~TTED FOR
AGRICULTURAL•CROPS~ BUT THAT A COMMERCIAL OUTLET COULD NOT BE ESTAB-
LISHED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AT THE PRESENT T•tME. HE STATED FURTHER
THAT~THE COMMISSION CONSLDERED TNE RECI.ASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT
PRQPERTY FOR A GENERAL COMMERCIAL USE TO BE PREMATURE AT.7'HE PRESENT
TIME. Mli. GE.I,SLER ADVISED THE PETI.TIONERS THAT THEY COULD CONTINU~ TO
OPERATE AN AGRICUI.TURAL USE AND•THAT I.F~.AT A LATER DATE~ THEY DESI.RED
TO INITIATE THE SUGGESTED VARIANCE PROCEDURE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A
TEMPORARY STRUCTURE FOR COMMERCIAL SALES~ 7HE COMMISSION WOULD CON50~
DER 7HE PETI,TJ.ON BASED UPON A TIME LIMITATION. HE INDICATED THAT ALL
EX157JNa AQRICULTURAL USES ARE ACTUALLY OPERATING FOR A LIMITED TIME
BEI~AUSE MOST OF THE PROPERTIES k1.LL BE EVEN7UALLY DEVELOPED FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
THE PETITIONER INDICATED THAT HE Y115HED TO WITMDRAW THE SUBJECT PETI~
TION FOR RECLASSiFlCAT1,ON AND THAT HE M1.GHT BE (NTcRE5TED ON REQUEST-
iNG THAT THE COMM155lON INIT)ATE A PETITION FOR VARIANCE W1THD.N A SIX
MONTHS PERIOD OF TI.ME.
COMMISSIONER MUNGALL OFFEREp A M0710N~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS
AND CARRI.ED~ THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSOFICATION N0. 60~-61-111 BE WITH-
DRAWN AT THE PE71TlONER~S REQUEST~ AND THAT THE PE7ITIONER.SUBMIT A
LETTER TO THE PLANN).NQ DEPARTMENT WITHIN A S]X (6) MONTHS PERIOD OF
~
tON FOR
TIME REQUESTIN~ THAT THE COMMISSION 4N1.T)ATE ACTION FOR, A PETIT
VARI.ANCE 6F THE PETtT10NER 50 DE51'RES. . ,~
~ THE PETjTIONER ADDRESSED THE COMMl551.ON~ STATIN~ 7HAT HE HAD DISCUSSED
USES OF AaR1,CULiURAL PROPERTY N(TH MAYOR SCHUTTEy AT WHOCH TIME THE
MAYOR.HAD I.NFORMED HIM THAT ON A~RI.CULTURAC:PROPERTIES A PROPERTY
OMNER MAY EREC7 A STAND FOR THE SALE OF CROPS ~ROWN ON THA7 LANDo AND
THAT AS LONG AS STOCK AND OTHER 1TEM5 ARE NOT 1.MPORTED FROK OTHER
AREAS~ 7HEY COULD N07 BE FORCED TO DISCONTI.NUE SAI,D SALES.
ASSI5TAN7 CI.TY ATTORNEY ~OE ~EI,SLER ADViSED '~HE COMMI.SSION THAT HE HAD
NO KNOWLED6E AF ANl' I.AW WNICH WOULD PERMJT THE TYPE OF Oi~ERA7lON DES-
. CRIBED BY THE PETITI,ONERy AND THAT MANY STANDS ESTABLISHED BEFORE
ENTRY INTO 7HE CI.TY COULD CONTJ:NUE 70 EXI,ST AS A NON~CONFORMDNB USE
UNT LL SUCH TIME AS THEY ARE ABANDONED.
RECLASSIFICA710N - PUBLIC HEARIN6. PET{t1.ON SUBMITTED BY FRANK X. AND MARTHA VELTEN~
NO. 60~61-112 1903 NORMA LANE~ ANAHEIM~ CAL)FORN.1'A~ OWNERS~ JOHN BUCKHALTER~ 1320
R7,CKEY LANE~ ANAHEjM~ CALIFORNI.A~ AGEN7~ REQUESTI.NQ THAT PROPERTY DES-
CRIBED AS: A PARCEL LOCATED ON THE SOU7HEAST CORNER OF LOS ANGELES
. AND HAV1N(i A Fi20N7AGE OF 94 FEET ON LOS
STREET AND VALENCIA AVENUE
,
ANQELES STREET AND A FRONTA~E OF 154 FEET ON VALENCIA AVENUE AND
FUR7HER DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2 OF BL~CK 4 OF TRACT N0. 2219 BE
ED FROM THE R-3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE To THE '
RECLASSIFI
.
C-i, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCJAL, ZONE.
MR. JONN BUCKHALTE:t~ AQENT FOR 7HE PETITIONER APPEARED BEFORE THE
COMM15.°I.ON AND STATED HE WAS PRESENT IN ORDER TO FURNISH ANY NECESSARY
INFORMATION.
MR. HENRY SEQELKE} 862 SOUTH I.OS ANGELES STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE
COMMI,SSION AND STATED THAT HE WAS THE OMNER OF THE APARTMEN7 BUlLDINQ
ABUTiJ.NQ THE SU8JEC7' PROPERTY ON THE SOtlTH~ AND EXPRESSED CONCERN IN
RESPECT 70 THE ESTABLISHMENT'OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDlN~ ON 7HE PROPERTY
LINE lN CLOSE PROXIFIITY TO H15 P~PARTMENTS.' HE STATED FURTMER THA7.HE
DID NOT CONSiD~R A P!.IS,LHE9S,ADJACENT TO RESI,DENTIAL PROPERTY TO BE
GESIRABLE~ THA7 1T 'AOULD HAYE A DETRIMENTAL.EFFEC7 UPON H15 PROPERTY~
.
"._.~.,^""~..E,~m i ..,.r~-i, ~ 1 ~~. Y " . ;".' ,. ,_~ _
~ ~~ ..t,., ~...~. ,. ,.. ;.;.. ..,., ~ _ : ., ,. ~~! . _~ ,, ~..";;.: G ,4.{..~~,t'a .: ;;.. g,r-0. •~. :..;; .
i
~
~t l :f,~x.~~Y1.fk.;y,~,,.,ii,~3J?i~2~"'7',t~ Y.,.Y'.Y_s::.~.::a`=.e-,4:i.h~~Oei1Y:~~+~1,~~'~~.utii'~,~,~."3.r`' ,Rx
~ i
~..
} . .
~
~~ ~ ~j,
v± .
,
:.~
~
" F
- . .
. . . .,,{~ . ti
_
. .. . . ~ .'' d ~
.. . , . . . , i . i j
. .
.. . ~ ~ ~ ~
~ . , , '`~ . . . . . . . ~
~ r
~ .
~x. 241 ~
'
i
~
~
. .
i
'
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JuNe 26, 1961~ CONT~NUED:
RECLASSIF1CATlON i~ THAT IT WOULD REDUCE THE OPEN SPACE BETWEEN THE BUI.LDiNaS~ AND TH.4T ~
60-6I~112
NO
T
O
D ~
~ . .
1
M
UL
CREATE A HARDSHIP l,N OBTAI,NINQ RENTERS•FOR THE APARTMEtd7~. i
: CONTINUED~
~
~ . . , .' . .
' , . . . . ,
MR. BUCKHALTER~ IN REBUTTAL~ STA7E~ THAT THE•EXI.STING D1iELLINQS.ON ~ ..
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WERE IN POOR CONDJ'J~aN AT THE PP.ESEN7 7lHE~ ~
' THA7 ONE HOUSE WAS APPROXIMA7ELY 2} FEET FROM THE PRUPERTY LINE~ ~
THAT THE HOUSES WOULD BE RAZED FOR 7'HE PROGOSED CONSYRUf,T10N~ AND ~
~ THAT THE CONSTRUCT)AN PLANS M1.aHT BE REVISED TO PROVI~E FOR A SIDE I
~ YARD ON TME SOUTH SIDE OF SUBJECT PROPERTV.
MR~. LLOYD MOUNT~ 924 NORTH CITRON STREE7~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COM- •
~ ~ MISSION AND STATED THAT•ADJACEN7 pROPERTLES WERE FOR SALE FOR COM~
~ MERCIAL USES. HE DESCRI.BED THE DEVELOPMENT ALONG LOS ANGELES STREET
~
IND~,CA7.ING•.7HAT MANY CONNAERCIAL~ USES WERE. ESTABL.ISHEDp AND THAT THE
PROPERTl,ES FRONTJNG ON LOS ANGELES STREET WERE I.N A STATE OF TRANSI~
~
' TION TO COMMERC~,AL USES. HE STATED THAT A S1DE YARD SETBACK NOULD
L!`
s.
"
~
`
`~' PRODUCE A CLU7TERED EFFECT (N THE EVENT 7HAT ADJACENT PROPER71E5
'-
" NERE DEVELOPED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES IN THE FUTURE.
~ THE HFAR I NG . MIiS CLOSED.
THE COMMi.5510N REVIEWED PLOT PLANS AND N07ED THAT REVISED PLANS
~ 1ND).CATED THA7 AFTER DEDlCA710N POR THE IMPROYEMENT OF LOS ANGELES
STREET WAS MADE TO THE C1TY~ THE 6U[LDIN~ kOULD BE SI.TUATED CN THE
FRONT PROPERTY LINE. IT NAS POI.N7ED OU7 THA7 THE PE71710NER WAS UNDER
THE IMPRESSION THA7 IF THE BUILDINa NERE SET BACK•40 FEET FROM THE
MONUMENTED CENTERCLNE OF LOS ANfiECES STREE7~ HE WOUt.D BE A9LE TO• •
MAIN7AIN A 7EN (10) F00T tANDSCAPJN4 AREA. HONEVER~ THE REQUI.RED
DEDI.CATlON WAS FOR 45 FEE7~ THEREBV SETT)NG TNE BU7LD]NG ON THE FRONT
PROPERTY L)NE. ....
MR. BUCKHALTER INFORMED THE COMMISSIAN 7HAT HE NISHED TO PROVIDE A
, LANDSCAPINfi S7R1P AND REQUESTED THAT REV~SED PLANS BE ApPROVEp PER~
~
MJTTINO A T~10 F00T BUI.LDIWG SE78ACK. ~
, THE COMMI.SSION FOUND AND DE~'ERMCNED THE FOL~OWING FACTS REGARDING THE I
i,
SUBJEC7 PETITi,ONi
1. THAT THE PETIT~.ONER PROPOSES A RECLASSI.FICATION OF THE ABOVE DES~
CRIBED PROPERTY FROM 7HE R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMLLY RESIDENTLALo ZONE
TO THE C~1~ NEI~HBORHOOD COMMERCI.AL~ ZONE. .
2. THAT THE pROPOSED RECLASSIFl.CA710N OF Si1BJECT PROPERTY 15 NECES-
SARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE
COMMUN I,TY.
3. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLqSS1F1CAT~
ON OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES PRO-
,
PERLY RELATE 7'0 7HE ZONES AND THEIR PERMITTED USES LOCA~LY ESTAB- ~
LI,SHED LN CLOSE PROXI.MI.TY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND 70 THE ZONES AND
THEIR PERMITTED USES QENERALLY ESTABIISHED THROU(3HOUT THE COMMUNITV.
' 4. THA7 7HE PROPOSED'RECLASSLFICATI,ON OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES REQUI.RE •
DEDOCATION FOR AND 57ANDARD 1MPROVEMENT OF ABUTTIN~ STREETS BECAUSE
SAID PROPERTY DOES RELA7E 70 AND ABUT UPON STNEETS AND HJ,OHWAYS' .
WH1CH ARE PROPOSED TO CARRY 7HE 7YPE AND QUANT,I:7Y OF TRAFFIC~ NHI.CH ~
MILL BE QENERATED BY THE PERM)T2ED'USES~ IN ACCORDqNCE N,ITH 7HE
CIRCULA7].ON ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
5. THAT VERBAL OPPOS1.T10N BY ONE OWNER OF ADJACENT PROPERTY WAS
RECORDED A6AJ,NST SUBJEC7 PETITION.
COMM,15510NER PERRY OFFERED RESOtUT10N N0. 302~ SERl,ES 1960-61~ AND MOVED
FOR I.TS PASSA(iE AND ADOPTI,ON~ BECONDED HY COMbti55LONER SUMMERS' TO
RECO!•1MEND`TO THE CITY COUNCI.L THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSl
F
1CAT10N N0.
` ,
,
60~6i-112 BE ~RANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOMJ,NG CONDL7IONS:
~'
F 1. DEDJ,CATI,ON OF 45 FEET FROM THE UIONUMENTED CEN7ERLINE OF LOS ANOELES
i STREE7 (34.75 FEE7 EX,ISTI.NO~.
2. TIME L1M1,TA7lON OF N,LNE7Y (90) DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPL7SHMEN7 OF ITEM
No. i:
3.. DEVELOPMENT.SUBSTANTI,ALLY 1'N
ACCORDANCE Y117H PLANS PRESENTED
WITH
,.
.
THE BU]LDINa;SETBACK LINE ESTABLjSHED TW0 (2) FEET EAS7 OF THE
PLANNED HIOHVAY R1,aHT-OF~MAY,LLNE OF LOS AN~ELES $TREE7'.
64
'
~ ' 4: PROVI,Sl,ON AND MAINrENANCE OF A,TWO (2~ FOOT LANDSCAp1N~ STRI.P !N
THE TWO;(2)'FOOT SETBACK FROM•7HE PLANNED HI,~HWAY RIOHT~OF~WAY
~ ' LJ,NE .OF- LOS AN~ELES STREE7:
,
~ r
~
Fl `t' ;
,
'
" ` ~ THE FOREQOJ.NQ CONDITLONS MERE REC~TED. A7 7HE`MEE71N0 AND NERE FOUND T0
''
~
° $ BE`A-NF_CESSARY PREREQUI.SI;TE-TO'.-THE USE OF THE PROPERTX IN ORDER TO
`
~
~
f
~ ~~u i PRESERYE THE SAFETY AND WELPARE OF THE',C1,7..2EN5 OF<THE'C1TY,OF ANAHEIM.
,~ ~ ~
~ i~~~~~~
fa w;~. ~ ON ROLL CALL THE;,FOREQOIN~ RESOLUTION .YIAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWINa' VOT_E:
.
: :
~~ c
~ AYES: ' C.OMMISSIONERS. NAP~00D~ MORRIS~ MUNaALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRYy '~
,
~~ ~ SUMMERB.
`y .
, ~ c
~ ~ J ~ ~ " . . .
b
p t
[r<
°'
. . .
i'..
7
~
r i
.
Y ~
<
... . .. . .. , .. ... ..., ~
~ ~
' c',
t
f i F
`
E~~ "(f Y
y{,~ ~ty1 U{r:~~ ~
CA',~~41 ..fl.l~~ i " ' '
~ .. . , ~ . . . R ~
Je ...r U,,.J ...h1 ~.~ 1~i .. Rc.df.'9~. ~XFf ~.ti!'+~ ~. ..1yj Y. t.L ...i~-.r. i.l. . : ~~ur:j'SfXI ~_ ~4 K ,..'11~. :l. t..fv. ( 1 i:.F'~ {TC/~hil.'}«_"N°.Ii4?IYYdFFdlR.4r~ r~~ !_~ • ..t ~,4. ,.. , h. .L~ :;
rr~'
.
. _ ). S. ~:%~ ~ .. ~t'
, ,__;.,. ~. ., ..
_ .. . ,
.
~
~ . ~
e MINUTES CITY PLANNING C ISS ON
~ ~ ~::~, ;
' i'
~ ..
242
~ OMM I~ JUNE 25~ 1981~ CON7INUED:
RECLASSIFICATION - NOES: COMMISSJONERS7 HONE. .
N0. 60-61-112 '
COMTI.NUED ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX.
RECLASSIFICQTION - CONTIAIUED HFJIRING. P~71.TION SUBMJ.77ED eY R. L. L`OONS~ OWNER~ C/0
ND. 60-61-4g LEONARD
SMITH~ 125 SOUTH CLAUDINA STREE7~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~
.
AGEN7~ REQUESTI.Nfi THAT PROHERTY DESCRIBED A5: A.PARCEL 100 FEET BY
132 FEET WITH A FRONTA6E OF 100 EEET ON EA57 LINCOLN AVENUE AND
LOCATED.ON THE HORTHWE57ERLY CORNER OF V1.NE STREET AND EAST LINCOLN
AVENUE.AND FURTHER DESCRLBED AS 913 EA57 U NCOLN AVENUE~.BE RECI.A53°
I,FLED FROM THE R-3 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTlQL, ZONE To rHe C-3,
HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ~ONE RESTRICTED TO SERVI.CE STATION USE~ AND 70
UNRESTRICTED C-i, NEIGHBORH00D..COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
SUBJECT PE7IT~QN•CON7INUED FROH THE MEE71Na OF JUNE 122 1951 BECAUSE
A h10TlON FOR DENI.AL AS OFFERED AT THE MEE7ING OF MAY 2yr 1961 BY
• COMMf5510NER MORRl.S AND SECONL~~D BY COMMlSStONER SUMMERS~ FAILED A
SECOtiD .TIME TO ACH,I.EVE A MAJOR,I,TY VOTE.
VtCE-CHAIRMAN MORR15 STATED THAT THE SUBJECT PETITION MAS NOT OPEN
FOP. PUBLIC HEARING~ THAT TWO PUBLIC NEARIN~S HAD BEEN CONDUCTED ON
THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION,OF.SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR SERVICE STA~ .
TI.ON.USE~-THA7'•A MOTION FOR DENIAL HAD FAILED TO ACHIEVE A MAJORITY
VOTE A7 THE MEETING OF MAY•29~ 1961 AkD TNE MEETING OF ,JUNE 12~ 1961~
AND~TMAT SHOULD THE SUBJECT PETITION ADAIN FAIL TO ACHIEVE A MAJORITY
VOTE,EITHER FOR DENIAL OR APPROVAL~ P.AlO PETITION WOULD BE FORWARDED
TO THE CITY COUNCIL WITH AN AU70MATIC APPROVAL LN ACCORDANCE NITH
CODE REQUIREMENTS. .
MR: LEONARD SMITH~ AGENT FOR THE PETITI.ONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COM-
MISSION AND STATED THAT A SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL WOULD BE ONSTALLED ON
THE WEST PROPERTY LI.NE OE SUBJEC? PROPER7Y 1F THE SUBJECT PETITION
WERE APP.ROVED. •. ~
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEV JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMI.SSION THAT A
VOTE MUST BE TAKEN UPON THE MOTION FOR DENIAL BEFORE SUBJECT PETITION
MAY BE FORWARDED TO THE C1TY COUNCIL. .
ON ROLL CALL THE MOTION FOR DENIAL OF THE SUBJEC7 PETITIONy AS OFFERED
AT.,THE MEE1'ING OF MAY 29r 1961 BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS AND SECONDED BY
COMMISSIONER SUidMERS~ FAILED TO ACHIEVE A MAJORITY VOTE BY THE FOLLOW-
IN~'VOTE.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ~,
,
NOES: COMMISSIONERSS HAPGOOD~ MORRIS~ MUNQALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~
SUMMERS.
ABSENT:: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX.
THE COMMIBSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLONlNG1 FACTS REQARDING THE
SUBJECT PETI,TION:
1. THAT TNE P~T,/710NER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICAYION OF THE ABOVE DES-
CRIBED PROPERTY FRON THE R~3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAI.~ ZONE .
TO THE C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL ZONE ttesTrtlcrE~ To SERVICE STATION
usE ONLY AND TO THE C-i, NEI~HBORH00D COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFiCAT1ON OF SUBJECT PROPERTV 1,5 NECES-
SARY OR DESIRABLE FOR 7HE ORDERLY. AND PROPER DEVELOPMEN7 OF THE
COMMUNI.TY.
3. THAT THE PROPOSE~ RECLASSiPlCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES PRO-
PERLY.RELATE TO THE 20NES AND THELR PERMITTED USES LOCALLY ES-
TABLISHED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE ZONES
AND THE7R PERMI.TTED USES dENERALLY ESTABLiSHED THROUGHOUT THE
COMMUNITY.
4: THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF.SUBJECT PROPERT\ DOES NOT
REQUIRE.DEDICATION'FOR AND.STANDARD IMPROVEMENT OF ABUTTING STRFETS
BECAUSE SAID PROPERY.DOES REI.ATE TO AND ABU7 UPON STREETS AND
HIGHWAYS,WHICH ARE IMPROVED TO CARRY tHE-TYPE AND QUANTITY OF
TRAFFIC~ WHICH:WILL BE.GENERATED BY THE PERMI.7TED.USES~ IN ACCOR~
DANCf,NITH"THE'CI.RCULAT,ION`ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
5. VERBAL OPPOSITION~,I.N ADDITION TO..A PETITION,OF PROTE57,CONTAIN-
IN0 84 SIfiNATURES~,WERE RECORDED AGAINST THE SUBJECT PETITI.ON:
COMMISSIONER MUNaALL OFFERED RESOLUTIAN No.-303, SERIES 1960~61~'AND
MOyED F~SR:1T5 PA55AGE'AHD ADOPT:I,ON~ SECONDED.BY COMMI;SSiONER PERRY~
TO RECOMMEND TO THE CIT.Y COUNCIL:THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSPFICATION
N0. 60~61-99 BE QRANTED~.SUBJECT TO THE FOCLOWINQ CONDITIONS,
1., CONSTRUCT(ON~`OF Sl~EW'A,LKS ON Y.INE:STREET. _
, .
` 2. ~NSTALLATION OF DRIVENAYS.r , '
° 3:.,,REPLACEMENT.OF DAMA~ED AND/OR HA2ARDOUS SIDEWALKS AND)CURBS.
, _ teev y ...._.~ .. ..~ ~...,,~ ~.l .,..,,. .. ,~ ._..,., .. . .. ,.. ,. .. «~ .. ...~... ~.,.._. ~_ .~. ~. _.~.,,.,,..~...e_... _ .. . . . ~ . ~...
~ 4
1
/ -
l
~
p .) 1~ ~
~ '
\'^'
~
243
~_
•~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COHMISSIQN~ JuNe 26, 1961~ CONTINUED:
~ RECLASSIFICATION - 4: PAYMENT OF =2.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STREET LIGHTIN~ PURPOSES ON
NO. 60~61-99 LINCOLN••AVENUE AND VINE STREET.
~ • CONTiNUED
5. TIME t.IMITATION OF NINETY (90~ DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMEN7 OF
_ ITEM NOS. 1~ 2~ 3~ AND 4. .
6: INSTALLATION OF A SIX (6) FOOT MASONRY NALL ON THE WEST PROPERTY
' LINE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TO WOSHIN 7WENTY~FIVE.(25) FEET OF THE
~ , FRONT PROPERTY LINE WHERE SAID MALL SHALL BE.REDUCED TO THREE AND
• ONE-HAIF (3}~ FEET IN HEIGHT~
~ 7. RECORDATION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS LIMITINO THE C~3' HEAVY COMMER-
r CIAL~ USE OF THE_SUBJECT PROPERTY TO SERVICE STATION USE ONLY
AND PERMITTINa ANY C~1~ NEItiHBORH00D COMMERCIAI.~ USE.
~ r;a,,
~'~ ~'~~"' THE FOREGOING CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT 7HE MEETINa AND WERE FOUND TO
BE A NECESSARY PREREQU15~7E 70 THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO
fj ~ ''
~°'' PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND MELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREQOI,NG RESOLUTION WAS PhSSEb BY THE.FOl,.LOW_ING.VOTE:
~ AYES: COMM1SS10NERS. HAPGOOD~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~
SUMMERS.
` NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. .
AHSENTI COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX.
STREET NAME CHANGE: AUDRE AVENUE ro AUDRE DRIVE.
A BASE MAP PREPARED BY THE PLANNINfi STAFF~ CONTAINING THE LOCATION OF
THE PROPOSED STREET NAME CHANGE~ WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMI.SSION IN
ADDITlON TO.A STAFF REPORT RECOMMENDATION THAT THE NAME QF QUDRE AVE~
NUE BE CHANGED TO AUDRE DRIVE. IT WAS NOTED THAT TRACT NO. 2436 WAS
RECORDED WITH THE NAME OF AUDRE AVENUE MHICH DOES NOT CONFORM WITH
THE'STREET:NAME EXTENSION EXISTING ON PROPERTIES LOCATED EASTERLY
AND WESTERLY OF THE SUBJECT TRACT N0. 2446. THE COMMISSION AGREED
THETNAME OFEAUDRECAVENUEU5H0ULDtBE CHANGEDETONAUDREEDR/VETIONS THAT
COMMISSIONER SUMMERS OFFERED RESOLUTION NO. 304, SERIE5.1960~61~ AND
MOVED FOR ITS PASSAQE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COiAMI55i0NE;t HAPQOOD
AND CARRIED T.0 RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT'THE'CHANGE"IN NAME
OF.'GHAT CERTAIN STREET ;.OC.4TED'WITHIN TI~E TEP.RlTORIAL LIMITS OF THE
C4TY OF.ANAHEIM AS FOLLOWSO
~~ ~ LOCATION
AUDRE AVENUE AUDRE DRIVE BESSES7REETRINSTRACT NOD 2446.
~ ~RESPONDENCE - lTeM No. ic ORANGE.COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 4777:
N07USE VARIANCE N0 M4777 WASNPRESENTED TOATHENC MMISSION N SUBJECTE
PETITION REQUESTS PERMISSION TO ESTABLlSH A 265 UNIT TRAILER PARK ON
400PFEE7 EASTTOF REDTGUMSSTREETtAHD ONLTHEANORT.HEASTERLYPSIDEMOFELY
MHITE STAR AVENUE APPROXINATELY 700 FEET SOUTHEAST OF CA PALMA AVE~ ~
F NUE.. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN 7HE NORTHEAST JNDUSTRIAL SECTION
~ OF 7HE:ANAHEIM AREA.
PLOT PLANS AND LAYOUT OF THE PROPOSED TRAILER PARK WERE SUBM~TTED TO
~ SIQNCATMTHE'ENTRANCENTO`THEC'PARK~TTHATTAEMAIN'LOUNOE WOULDUBEEPROCE
~, VIDED~ AND THAT A RECREATION AREA MOULD BE SITUATEO IN THE CENTER OF
THE PROJEC7'.
A'P1.ANNINO DEPAR7MENT STAFF'REPORT MA5 SUBMITTED T0 THE COMMI.SSION
HAT ANY COUNTY APPROVAL OF A TRA6LER PARK IN 7H15
D' ~
T
WNl.CH INDICATE
AREA MILL;SET: A SERlOUS:PRECEDENT ~A THE PROPOSED':INDUSTRIAL AREA
HE ULTIMATE.DEVELOPMENT.OF TME tNDUS~
T0
T
DETRIMENT
'
_
.
.
A
pqD WOULD:BE
'TRIA~ AREA.' THE:'REPORT. BTATED FURTHER THAT~ IF THE TRAILER.PARK IS
7HERE WILL BE NOT ONLY REQUESTS FOR OTIIER
E
`
A~
AR
ALLOWED TO ENT.ER-:THIS
TRAILER PARKS BUT NUMEROUS:.OTHER COMMERCI;AL USES WiLL BE REQUESTED F'OR
AT
THIS ,AREA THAT d5 PL'ANNED FOR :1,NDUSTRIAL USE. IT`WAS REQUEST,ED TH
EN 70 THE'RECOMNENDATION TG THE COUNTY THAT RE-
E
.QIV
CONSIDERATtON B
F1CATI~ON OF THE SUBJECT .AREA TO TME H^R~ MANUFACTURINQ RESEARCH~
• CLASSt
N
.
D
ZONE,Ml,QHT BE ].NSTITUTED FOR,THE SUBJECT AND ABUTTIN(i PROPERTIES~ A
DIRECTJVE TO THE PtANNINd QEPAR7-
IDER
CO
'
'
A
NS
ION.M1aH7
COMM[95
'~HAT THE,
ERATE WITH TME-ORANQE'COUNTY PLANNINa COMMISSION
COO
L
°
P
Y.,
ACTIVE
MENT T0
''::- IN''A'ZONI.Ne(PI:AN. FOR CAND.USE,DEVELOPKENT:FOR 7M1S AREA.: _ '
MR. BtLL WEBB~.;AT~ORNEY REPRESENTANQ'7HE PETIT~ONERS~ APPEARED BEFORE
SUBJECT,PROPERTY,-IS NOT DESIRABLE,
AND 87ATE~;THAT THE:
THE COMMISSION
,.,;~ r~ .•
+
,_
,
:FOR 1.NDU5TRI,AL USE BECAUSE OF';7ME LLNI,TED FRONTAQE OF'APPROXIMATELY :
'2OO FEET.;ON LA`'.PALMA'AYENUE,:AND 7'HAT~';ALTHOU~H .INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY :
~,
;, r+y
:y 5
~
~
~ ~L~~~~
~
; ..~~.. '~ ..~ .~ .
.
': ._'-.
_ , . . _ . . . .
~ ~~ '~
~4Y
. 1
I. ....+ ~:... ,.. ~~3' m '~~LY17'pi 1..._~ale~':w~1.L..N.~,.A~ r~a.a _~1I,~y1~ .~y~~t_~Tb.r.'Y'`1.S~T.. vG~M
.raY/lu~ ~v~i .s N.. ... ~
...+~_')~._. 7~.~~~
~~
~ ~ ~~ • ~
,,:,r< <, ~ ...1x 2~1k .i.i~"`)_, ~at.i., ~' ~ a :.
ii~ ~~^
t;; .
:F~.
~ ~
244
~ h!I~iUTES, GITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JuNe 26, 1961, CONT(NUEp:
?• ~ CORRESPONDENCE - ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 4777, CONTINUED:
~` ,
;.~ " .
c,
C9NT~NUED
MAS MORE PROFI.TABLE~ THE PROPOSED USE WAS THE BEST USE THAT COULD
BE DEVISED FOR THE.SUBJECT PROPERTY.
MRS. KATHERINE YOUNGs THE OWNER OF THE SUBdECT PROPERTY~ APPEARED
BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT SHE HAD NOT BEEN A6LE TO SELL
THE PROPERTY FOR.INQUSTRIAL P.URP.OSES AND THAT THE TRAILER PARK WAS
THE ONLY DEVELOPNENT FOR WH1CH TNE PROPERTY WAS SUITED BECAUSE OF
7HE LIMITED.FRONTAGE ON LA PALNA AVENUE. •
MR. Boe <OWRY APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ 57ATED HE WAS THE REAL
E57ATE BROKER INVOWED~ THAT HE WAS••A SPEC1AL15T LN LAND SALES IN
THIS AREA~ tHAT THE PROPERTY NAS DIFFI.CULT TO SELL~ AND 7HAT HE
CONSIDERED THE TRALI.ER PARK DEVELOP:CENT TO BE THE HIOHEST AND BEST
USE OF THE LAND. • • •
MR. HARVEY BURNHARD APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMI.SSION~ STATED HE REPRE- .
SENT~D THE PURCHASER•OF THE PROPER7Y~ THAL lT WOU~D BE A DELUXE
TRAILER PARK-WHICH•WOULD COST APPROXIMATELY f2o000 PER.PAD TO DEVELOP~
THA7 7HE RECREATi011 AREA NOULD BE UNEXCELLED~ THAT ONLY LEtUXE ~
TRAILERS WOULD•BE AL.LOMED~ THAr IT WOULD BE LANDSCAPED~ AND THAT IT
MOULD BE WELL RIAINTAINED. HE STA7ED FURTHER THAT THE CONSTRUCTION
WOULD BE EXCEL4ENT~ AND THAT IT.WOULD BE AN ASSET TO THE AREA.
MR. MELSH MORNIN~STAR~ A7TORNEY~.APPEARED BEFORE.THE COMMISSION~
STATED THAT HE REPRESENTED OWNERS OF PROPERTY LOCATED ACRO55 TNE
STREET FROM THE 5UBJECT-PROPERTY~ AND THAI HIS CL.IENTS WERE NOT ~
OPPOSED TO THE SUB:IEGT PETlTtON PROVIDED THE TRAILER PARK DiD NOT
BECOME A SOURCE.OF COMPLAINT AGAi.NST H15 CLIENT~S OPERATION. HE
STA7'ED THAT H15 CLI.ENT~S PROPERTY'R~NTALNED A FIFTEEN ACRE ORANGE
GROVE WHICH NAS RECENiLY PLANTED MOTH NEW TREES~ AND 7HAT THE GROVES
MOULD REQI{i•RE PR07ECTION FROM THE LARfiE NUMBER OF FAMILIES THAT WOULD
BE HOUSED IN THE TRAi4ER PAP.K. HE STA7ED THAT N1.5 CLIENTS NANTED THE
TRA1lER PARK OPERATORS TO BE AFIARE OF THE USE OF POI.SONS~ THE LOCA~
710N OF MIND MACHINES~ AND THE NECESSITY FOR A BLOCK WAL~ IN ORDER TO
PROTECT THE QROVE. HE POINTED OUT THAT THERE MERE TWO EX05T1Na OIL
FIELLS•THAT WOULD AL50 REQUIRE.PROTECTION. .
MR. RO55 LANSINa APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMLSSI,ON~ STATED HE REPRE~-
SENTED THE BUJ,LDER AND THE BUYER~ AND THAT THE PROPERTY MAQ BEEN
SERI.OUSLY STUDIED.BEFORE DE7ERMINING THAT IT WAS SUI7ABLE FOR A
TRAILER PARK DEVELOPMENT. HE STATED THAT THE BUYER MOULD COMPLY
WITH ANY~CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMISSION~ THAT NALLS WOUL~
BE 1.N57ALLED~ TkAT THEY W15HED T0 ESTABLI.SH A DESI.RABLE OPERATI.ON
THAT HOBLD HE AN ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY~ THAT IT WOULD BE A LUXURY
TYPE OF.DEVELOPMENT~ AND THAT A PROPER DEVELOPiAENT NOULD BE INSTALLED
MHICN MOULD MEE7 ALL REQUIREMENTS.
CQMNISSI.ONER MUNaALL INQUIRED ABOUT THE COMe'ARISON OF COUNTY TRAILER
PARK JtEQU1REMENTS WITH 7HE REQUfREMENTS (NCORPORATED IN THE PROPOSED
TRAILER PARK ORDI,NANCE AND IT WAS N0;'ED THAT COUNTY REQUIREMENTS WERE
NOT AVAI.LAiiLE.
THE COMMISSI.ON D15CUSSED A RECENT PET),TION 70 ESTABLISH A TRAtLER
PARK lN THE INDUSTRI.AL SECTION MH7CH HAD BEEN DENIED BY TNE COMMIS-
SION BU7 WHICH HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL~ AND IT WAS
POLNTED OUT THAT 7HE TRAILER PARK APPROVED 8Y THE COUNCIL WAS NOT
IN THE SUBJECT AREA AND THAT 1,t MOULD BE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FROM
THE SUBJ~CT PROPERTY BY THE ORANQE FREEWAY. •
COMMISSIONER MORRIS NOTED TNAT TO P6RM,1,7 USES OTHEn THAN INDUSTRIAI
DEYELOPMENT 1N TNE SU6JECT AREA WOUID BE ALLOMlNQ FURTHER ENCROACH~
MENT 1NT0 THE DES!RABLE INDU57Rl.AL SECTION OF THE C1TY.
COMMl5S10NER MUN4ALC OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSI.ONER HAP-
QOOD AND CARRlED~ MI'fH COMM1.S510NER MORRI.S VOTIN4 N0~ THAT THE PLAN-.
NINQ DEPARTMENT TRANSMI.T NOTLCE TO THE ORANQE COUNTY PLANN1Na COMMIS-
S:ION OF THE COMMl551,ON~5 RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF USE VARIANCE N0.
4777. `IT 1iA5 REQUE57ED FURTHER THAT A COPY OF,THE PROPOSED.TRAILER
PARK ORDINANCE BE FORMARDED TO THE COUNTY FOR THEIR CONSI.DERATION 1N
CASE OF THE POSSIBLE APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT PETITJ,ON~ AND THAT 1T
BE NOTED THAT THE PETITIONER HAD AQREED T0 THE 1N57ALLATION -0F BLOCK
MALLS FOR THE PROTECT.1'ON" OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
ITEM N0. 2; BUENA PARK ZONE CHANGE N0. Z-198:
NOTLCE RECEIVED FROM THE BUENA PARK PLANNfN~.COMF115510N RELATIVE TO
ZONE CHAN~E NO. Z~198 WA5 SUBMITTED TO THE,COMM15510N.
SU8JEC7'PROPERTY I5 COCATED "AT AP?ROXlMATELY THE 5700-BLOCK OF CRES-•
CENT AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 660 FEET-MEST.OF THE INTERSECTION OF KNOTT
AVENUE AND ~RESCENT AVENUE.''SUBJECT PETI,TION PROPOSES A-RECLASSIFI~
~ CATION OF THE.SUBJECT'PROPERTIES FROM THE.R~I~.ONE FAMI.LY RESIDENTIAL~
ZONE•TO,THE A~~ADMINkSTRAT7VE AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE~ ZONE'. THE
PRESENT;USE OF THE'.PROPERTY I.S FOR"SFNQLE-FAM~LY RESIDENTfAL-USE WI.TN
THE.EXCEP.710N.O.E A VARIANCE TO PERMI,T THE E57ABLISHMEN7 AF AN M~1~.,
LIOHT'MANUFACTURINO~-USE. '
~a~;:< u:.,_; ~'~.'r ~: ~:_ _""""
.,.i _r:._..~..4}/..:~~t..i..,. ...~.x:. ._..~,~~.i:.$...,'.._'_:r~.t~+'i;~~l_.~YfC~:['~".<•a~~'YiY•,:,'~x
~r~~n~i~irss~. s '1t''~`5 N~.~..ii~
. . ~ . ~ . .. ~ ~ ~. ..
Z4~J
MINUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JUNE 26~ 1961~ CONTINUED:
i
CORRESPONDENCE - BUENA PARK ZONE CHANGE N0. 2-198~ CON7I.NUED: '
CONTINUED- ' . . .- ~ ~.' ~ •~ .
THE COMM155~~t~N DJ,~SCUSS~D THE LOCAT,~ON OF THE SUBJECT PROPERT)ES AND
. NOTED 7HAT,T}1~ 'AREA NAS A CONSIDERABL& DISTANCE FROM 7HE ANAHEIM
~ CI7Y•LIM(75~ ~`HEiYEFORE~ THE COMM1.5516N DI6 NOT COHSIDER 17 NAS WiTHiH
~ THE1R .7URTSDIC7~ZOM TO MAKE A RECOMtdENDAj14N REQARDINa 7HE SUBJECT
PtTITI.ON.
' COMMIS510NER MORRIS bfFERED A MOTION~.SECONDED 8Y COMMISSIONER SUMMERS
~ AND.CARRIEDj THAT THE PLANNINQ DEPARTMENT TRANSMI.T NOTICE 7Q THE
J BUENA PARK t'LANNIN~ COMM7SSION INDlCATING 7HAT THE ANAHEIM PLANNING
~ COMMISSION DID NOT,HAVE ANY RECOMMENDA710NS RELATIVE TO THE SUBJECT
~ ?ETdTJON. IT MAS FURTHER•INDJ.CATED THAT THE QNAHEIM PLANNING COMMIS-
S!ON APPRECIA7ED~THE COOPERATION EX7ENDED BY THE BUENA PARK PLANNING
CONk15510N I.N SUBM1T71N0 NOTICES OF ACTIONS THAT MIGHT BE OF 1N7ERE5T
F 70 TKE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
AOJOURNMENT ~ THE M-ETlNQ MAS ADJOURNED AT 6t30 O~CLOCK P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SUBNl7TED~
~ ~ ECRETA
~i~
i'c="~~:
~: ~.n,i