Minutes-PC 1961/07/10
~
r,'. _ .... ~ . .
~:
f, `.`.. .
~ •
•
.~'f:~~`s.. .
~ ~
CITY HAGL ,
ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA
JULY 10~ 1961
~, _ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING QF THE ITY PI11NN1NG OMMISSION
~' REGULAR MEETING - l4 REGULAR MEETINO OF rHE C17Y PIAMNIN(i COMMISSION WAS CALIED TO ORDER
s .~ , BY VICE CHAIRMAN MORRIS AT 2t00 O~CLOCK P.M.~.A QUORUM.BEING PRESENT..
€ ` PRESENT - VICE CHAIRMAN: MortRts; COMMISSIONERSi ALLRED~ MUNaALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRV~
~ SUMMERS.
~' `ABSENT - COMMiSSIONERS: GAUER~ HAPOOOn~ MaRCOUx.
` ~ PRESENT ~ PLANNINfi DIRECTOR - RICHARD REESE
~' ' SEN~OR PLAkNER ~ MARTIN KREiDT
~- ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ~ THURMIN ROBERTS
~, COMMISSION•SECRETARY . ~ JEAN PA~E • ,
~~ INVOCATION - REVEREND HERBERT KLUCK~ PASTOR OF TNE ZION LUTHERAN CHURCH~ GAV: THE
INVOCATION.
s ,.~
PLEQ6E OF ~ VICE CHAIRMAN MORRIS LED TNE P~EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. ~
ALLEG f F\NCE • . ..
APPROVQ:. OF MINUTES ~ THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JUNE 26~ 1961 WERE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED
WITH THE FOLLOWING CORRECTION51 , . .
PAOE 222. ~AST LINEI •COUNCLL ON SEPTEMBER•27~ 1960.M
PA6E 2235 LAST PARAORAPHS ~SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PEBLEY~~
PADE 235i SECOND LI.NE: ~THE BUILDLNG MOULD ELIMI,NATE SOME OF THE
LANDSCAPIN(3 AREA.° .
RECIASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING.
114 PEN-
PETITlON sua-airTEO~ev~DEON STEEIE
NO. 60-61-91 .
t
FIEI.D~ POMONA~ CALIFORNIA~ OMNER~ M. P. ~1/1SON~ 2966 LINCOIN AVENUE~
ANAHELMt CAL7.FORNIA~ AGENT~ REQUESTINa THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED ASI
• PARCEL 1; A PARCEL 226 FEET BY 335 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 335 FEET ON
~ LINCOLN AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LINCOLN AVE~
NUE BETMEEN BEACH BOULEVARD AND HARDINfi AVENUE~ ITS NORTH-
EAST CORNER BEIN~ APPROXIMATELY 590 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTH~
WEST CORNER OF LINCOLN AVENUE AND BEACH BOULEVAR9.
PARCEL 2: A PARCEL 335 FEET BY 1~050 FEET~ ITS NORTk BOUNDARY OF 335 ~
FEET ABUTTING PARCEL 1 ON 7HE SOUTH~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED
AS 3042 LINCOLN AVENUE
BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R-{l~ RES~DENTIAL A6RICULTURAI ZONE TO THE
C-1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE (PARCEL i) AND THE ~-3~ MULTIPLE ;
~1
19S
`
1
c
i ~ESi~EFii iAt. Zt~i~E (PaRCe~ 2j. j
SUBJECT PETIjION WA5 CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF MAY 1~ 1961~ FROM ~
THE MEETING OF MAY 29~ 1961 A7 WHICH TIME THE PETJ,TION FAILED TO ACHIEVE
A MAJORIiY VOTE FOR DENIAL~ AND FROM THE MEETIN6 OF ~UNE 12 1961 IN
ORDER TO PROVIDE THE PETITIONER AN OPPORTUNfTY TO REVIEW A~RECISE PLAN
PREPARED FOR 7NE SUBJECT AWD ABUTTING PROPERTJES BY THE PLANNINa ~
DEPARTNENT. ;
THE PETITIONER~S A~ENT MAS PRESENT AND INDICATED HE WAS PREPARED TO S
PROVLDE ANY NECESSARY INFORMATION RELATIVE TO S[18JECT PETITION. !
j
MR. JOHN N. BROOKB~ ATTORNEY~ 4047 LONO BEACH BOULEVARD~ LONG BEACH~
APPEARED BCFORE TNE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT HE REPRESENTED MR. O. G. j
BAKER~ OWNER OF FROPERTY IN CLOSE PROXlMtTY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY. ?
~
A LAND~USE STUDV AND A ZONINfi STUDY~ PREPARED BY THE PLANNIN6 STAFF~ OF
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TNE SURROUNDIN~ AREA MERE DISPLAYEO AND REVIEWED.~
THE STUDIES 1NDICATED THE PRESENT LAND USE DEVELOP~tENT AND THE HISTORY
OF'20NINa ACTIONS RELATIVE T0 7HE SUBJECT PROPERTIES.
A PRECLLE;PLAN,STUDY~ 9ROPOSINa POSSIBLE UITiMATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE j
SUBJECT`AND ABUTTINQ PROPERTIES} WA5 PRESENTED FOR REV[EW AND CONSI-
k~
DERATION.' THE PLAN PROPOSED C~1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAI~ DEVELOP-
MENT OF PROP.ERilES FRON7INQ'ON LLNCOLN AVENUE~ R-3~ MUL7IPLE FAMILY
RESlpENT.IAC~':DEVELOPMENT FOR TNE MESTERNMOST PROPERTY OF THE SUBJECT ~
AREA FRONF'INp,ON LINCOLy:AYENUE~:R-3~ MULTI',PL'E FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~
DEVEL6?MENT EXTENDINQ SOUTHERCY T0:1'HE EXISTINQ AND PROPOSED TRAILER
PARK,PROPERTY~ AND:;?ROPOSED'COMMERCLAL AND COMMERCIAL-RECREpT10N
DEYECOPMENT FRONT'1N0`ON BEACH: BOULEVARD. IT MAS POINTED OUT THAT THE
PPtOPOSED:COMMERCI'AL~RECREATION DEVELOPMENT'WOUl.O BE COMPATIBLE WITH
TH~ MOTE~ DEVECOPMENT ACROSS.BEAGH BOULEVARD ON,7HE.EAST. THE PLAN'
ACSO PROPOSEO'SIN4LE.FAMJIY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT::FOR THE WESTERLY
PORTION OF.:.THE SUBJECT,..,PROP.ERTIES WHERE:SAI.D PROPERTIES NOULD ABUT I
P.ROPEF:`i;.PRESENTLY DEVELOPED FOR 51NOLE'FANI.CY RES,IDENTIAL'USE...IT WAS
~IOT.ED 7HAT .THE:STUB STREETS'OF THE ABUTTIN~ SIN~CE FAMILY RESI.DENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT HAD'APPAREN'.'LY-BEEN ESTABLI.SHED FOR THE,FUTURE EXTENSION OF
• THE,RESIDENTIAL`ST.REETS.,.,,DISCUSSION MAS HELD RELATIVE TO'THE STREET
LAYOUTS PROPOSED FOR-TNE MULT(PLE FAMtLV RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT,~ WHICH
, - 246 - .
t+i..:'1~` .4.~.1.F~~n. ~ . ' W~~~..~+rS,~2..i?;~..~,.'!~ l..~~ n.... ,.`f_.w._....~ } ~.::.. ~ i _~i..~ ~ f.:__. ~2',' "".~. ~.r :,~:'~Jiv.~:~ll'J'iiT,~l~ ,. ._ ~ ,.::1 , . .... . . ~..
~.
:
l~
u:;
~
'
~`
:
~
~
~ ,
247
HINUTES~ C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ju~v 10, 1961, CONTINUED:
~ RECLASSIFICATiON -
~ N0. 60-61-91
~. CONTINUED
[ r ;:~:;:~.~~1
WOULD BE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FROM THE STREE~' LAYOUTS OF THE SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMEN7~ lN OR~ER TO CHANNEL THE TRAFFIC FLOW
FROM THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEYEF,ppMENT ANAY FROM THE SINGLE •
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELORMENT. 'IT WAS .•OINTED OUT THAT THE PROPOSED•
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIGENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOUID SERVE AS A BUFFER BETWEEN
TNE SINGLE FApi1~Y DEYELOPMEN7 AND THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
DRAINAOE•FACILiTtES NERE DISCUSSED AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THE DEVELOPER
WOULD BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN EASEMENTS AND TO FURNISH ASSURANCE TO THE
CITY THAT DRAINAGE OF THE PROPERTY WOULD BE PROVIDED !N ACCORDANCE
WITH C(TY STANDARDS. .....
THE ACiENT FOR THE PETITIONER APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED
THAT HE 1•JAS IN AaREEMENT WITH THE PRECISE PLAN AS PRESENTED~ AND THAT
THE DRAINAGE PROBLEM HAD BEEN WORKED OU7 TO THE SATISfACi'ION OF THE
CITY ENa1NEER. , ,,,.
MRS. RFEIL~ 3064 wEST LINCOLN AVENUE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~
R~VJEWED HER OBJECTIONS TO THE•SUBJEC~ PETITION AND STATED THAT.THE
PETITIONER COUCD NOT PROVIOE DRAINAGE FACILITIES BECALSE THE PETI-
TIONER HAD NOT•OBTAINED EASEMENTS FROM MRS. ElIZABETH LANCASTER~ ,
OWNER OF ADJACENT PROPERTYti•OR FROM HERSELF. MRS. PFEIL EXPRESSED
DISSATISFACTIOPI WtTH THE PRECISE PLAN PREPARED BY THE PLANNING STAFF~
STATED THAT IT WOULD ESTABL'ISN 5TR~P COMMERCIAL ZOMING~ AND INDICATED
THAT SHE PREFERRED AN•INTEORATED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMEN7 FOR THE ENTIRE
AREA LNCLUDING TME SUBJECT AND ABUTTING PROPERTIES~ WHICH~ SHE SiATED
WOULD.BE OF MORE BENEFIT•TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND TO THE CITY OF
ANAHEIN. SHE AL50 STATED HER OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
OF TMO STORY•MULTIPLE FAMILY APARTMEN75 ADJACENT TO HER PROPERTY~ AND
INl1LCATED THAT SHE WAS NOT DESIROUS OF DEVELOPIN6 HER PROPERTY AT THE
PRESENT TtME.
MR. BROOKS~ ATTORNEY REPRESENTIN~ MR. BAKER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COM-
MISSION AND STATED THAT HIS CLIENT HAD MAINTAINED ORAN(iE GROVES ON
HIS PROPERTY FOR MANY YEARS AND MAS~ TY°REFORE~ FAMILIi1R WITH THE
DRAINA~E PROBLEMS IN THE AREA., HE STATED THAT PROPEk DRAINAGE OF THE
PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT CONSIDERABLE REGRAOING OF THE
AREA~ AND THAT~ IN HIS OPINION~ PERM]SSION FOR ANY PROPOSED DEVE~OP-
MENT SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN WITHOUT PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION OF DETAILED
DRAINAQE PLANS. MR. BROOKS AI,SO STATED THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
IS PREMATURE FOR THE PROPERTY~ THAT ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS CONCERNED
SHOULD NORK TOOETHER~ AND 7HAT HIS CLIENT CONCURRED WITH THE PROPOSAL
OUTLINED BY MRS. PFEIL FOR AN IN7EGRATED COMMERC~AL DEVELOPMENT FOR
THE ENTIRE AREA. '
MR. ROY STUHLEY APPEARED 8~=0RE TNE COMMISSION~ STATED HE REPRESENTED
THE DEVELO°ERS~ AY.D ASSURcD THE COi~fial'SSION THA7 DRAINAGE fACILITIES
COULD BE PROYIDED WITHOUT RELYINfi UPON THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES. HE
DESCRIBED THE PRO~/ISION OF DRA~NAGE TC BEACH BOULEVARD AND THE
POSSIBLE USE OF ?UMPS~ IF ~~!:ESSARY. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE PRO-
POSED DEVELOPM~NT WOULD NOT C~DNSTITUTE SPOT ZONING~ AND THAT~
ALTHOt!QH MRS. PFEIL (NDICATEG SHE MANTED TO COOPERATE I,N A GROUP
DEVELOPMENi~ SHE SHOULD CHECK THE DEED RESTRLCTIONS WHICH MERE FILED
IN CONJUNCTION WtTH A PREVIOUS PET~TION FOR RECLASSIFICATION FOR THE
SUBJECT AND ABUT7INQ PROPERTIES IN 1955. THE REPRESENTATIVE STATGD
FURTHER TNAT THE PETITIONER WAS ANXlOUS TO DEVELOP HER PROPERTY AND
WAS PREPARED TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE NITH THE PRECISE PLAN FOR ITS
DEVELOPMENT~ THAT THEY HAD ENDEAVORED TO COOPERATE MITH THE OWNERS
OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES BUT THAT THEY HAD BEEN UNSUCCESSFU~ IN ARRIV~
INfi AT A.OECISION ON THE BEST USE OF THE LAND~ THAT THE PLAN PRESENTED
BY THE PLANNIN~ STAFF WOUtD BE AQREEABLE TO THE PETITIONER~ AND THAT
DRAINADE PROBLEMS WOULD BE RESOLVED. THE REPRESENTATIVE PRESENTED A
DUCUMENT CONTAININ6 THE DEED RESTRICTIONS FILED IN CONJUNCTION WITH
PETlT10N FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 55~56~40 AND INDICATED THAT SAID
REC~ASSIFICATION HAD NEVER BEEN COMPLESED.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.AT THE MEETING HELD ON MAY 29~ 196~.
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE PREVIOUS PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF
THE SUBJECT AREA AND IT NAS NOTED THAT THE PETITION HAD REQUESTED THE
RECLASSIFICATION TO THE C-1~ NEI(iHBORH00D COMMERCIAL~ AND THE C~3~
HEAVY I:OMMERC,(AL~ ZONES OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LINCOLN AVENUE AND
BEACH BOULEVARD EXTENDINd SOUTNERLY TO THE PROPERTY CONTAINING THE
TRAILER PARK AND EXTENDINQ WESTERIY TO THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE
SUBJECT pROPERTY. THE PRESEHT STATUS OF PETITION FOR RECLAS5IFICATION
N0. 55-56-40 WAS DlSCUSSED AND ;LT WAS POINTED OUT THAT~ IN ACCORDANCE
WITH COUNCIL POLICY~.THE RECLASSIFI.CATI'ON WAS STI.LL PENDING AND THAT~
SHOULD THE SUBJECT PETIiION BE AppROVED~ A RECOMMENDATiON SHOULD BE
-MADE TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT PETlTION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0.
55~56-40 BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID.
UPON QUESTIONINO BY THE COMMISSION~ TNE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING MR.
BAKER .INDICATED THAT HIS CLIENT HAD NOT DECIDED WHETHER TO COMPLETE
THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE PROPER7Y CONTAINED IN PErIT10N FOR RECLASS-
IFICATl.ON N0. 55~56-40. HE STATED THAT HIS CLIENT D~D~ HONEVER~
PREFER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERiY FOR COMMERCIAL PURpOSES~ AND THAT
HIS PR(MARY CONCERN MAS NITH THE DRAINA~E PR001,EM.
.. .+ , _ ,. . ..,, /"~ ~ . . ~ . ,._ ,, . ,__.,. . ._
t
~..
I
° !~_,
~
;; ~
248
NINUTcS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, JULY 10, 1961, CONTiNUEO;
RECLIISSIFICATION ~ THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY THAT IF PROPER DRAINAGE
NO. 60~61~91 EASEMENTS COULD.NOT BE OBTAINED.BY THE DEVELOPER~ THE DEVELOPMENT OF ~
CONTINUEO THE INTERIOR PORT.ION OF THE•SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES MIGHT CREATE PROBLEMS THAT MOULD BE DIFFICULT
TO SOLVE. THE COMMISSION AL50 DISCUSSED THE PRECISE PLAN PREPARED BY
F;_ _ THE PLANWING DtPARTMENT. I7 NAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNERS HAD BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE PREPARATION OF THE STUDY AND THAT MR, i
BAKER HAD EXAMINED THE STUDY. HOWEVER~ MRS. PFEIL HHD NOT CONS:DERED
~; REVIEW OF IT TO BE NECESSARY IN VIEW OF THE PUBLIC HEARING TO BE CON-
DUCTED UPON THE 5TUDY. FURTHER DISCUSSION WAS HELD IN RESPECT TO THE
DRAINAGE PROBLEM AND THE PETITIONER~S AOENT INDICATED THAT THE OWNER
~ OF THE TRAILER PARK PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTHERLY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
~; . WAS INTERESTED IN COOPERATING IN THE PROVISION OF ADEQUATE.DRAINAGE
r IN THE AREA BECAUSE IT MOULD FACILITATE THE EXPANSION OF THE TRAILER
" PARK OPERATION. MR. BROOKS INDICATED THAT~ IN HIS OPINION~ THE
G:~ DRAlNAGE PROBLEM COULD BE RESOW ED BUT THAT IT SHOULD BE CONCLUDED
~ BEFOR& RECLASSIFICATION OF THE RROPERTY IS GRANTED.~ •
COMMISSIONER MUNGALI OFFERED A A10TION~ SECONDE[~ BY CUTAMISSIONER PEBLEY~
~ TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE SUBJECT PETITION BASF.D UPON THE FOLLOWING
FINDINGS;
's 1. THAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSED A R~CLASSIFICATION OF THE ABOVE DES-
CRIBED PROPERTY FROM THE R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAI.~ ZONE TO ~
THE C-1~ NEIGiiBORH00D COMMERCIAL~ ZONE.
~ ~
2. THAT THE FROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT
~ NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT
OF THE COMMUNITY.
3. THAT THE RECLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT AND ABUTTING PROPERTIES
~.
k SHOULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS AN INTEGRATED PLAN
FOR A COORDINATED DEVELOPMEN7 BY THE OWNERS OF ALL OF THE PROPER^
~ TIES CONCERNED HAS BEEN PREPARED AND CONSIOERED IN ORDER TO
DETERMINE THE HIGHEST AND BE57 USE OF THE SUBJECT AND ABUTTING
S pROPERTIES. ' g
4. THAT VERBAL OPPOSITION~ !N ADDITION TO ONE LETTER OF OPPOSITION~ ~
~ WERE RECORDED AGAINST SUBJECT PETITION. ~
~ ON RULL•CALI THE FOREGOING MOTION FAILED TO ACHIEVE A MAJORITY VOTE BY ~
f THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
. ~
~ • AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Af.LRED~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY. ~
~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MORR15~ SUMMERS.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER~ HAPGOOD~ MaRCOUx.
DUE TO THE FAILURE TO ACHIEVE A MAJORITY VOTE WITHIN FORTY DAYS~ AND IN
ACCORDANCE NITH SECTION'6555_`~:"STnTE PCANNING AC:~ WHlCH PROV!DES THAT
j~ - SAID PETITlON„_SHAT:L~•B~ D~EKED TO BE APPROVED 1~ SAID COMM15510N FAlLS TO
~ ACT•W17HIN STIPULATED~40'DAY PER!OD~.SUBJECTiPETITION'IS HEREBY FORWARDED
i TO THE CITY COUNCIL. FOR ACTION.
~ TENTATIVE MAP OF - SUBDIVIDER: DEON STEELE, 114 PENFI.EI.Dl POMONP CALIFORNIA.
r: TRACT NO. 4230 TRACT IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE BETWEEN BEACH
BOULEVARD AND HARDING AVENUE AND CONTAINS TWENTY-FIVE (25) PROPOSED
i R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMP_Y RESIDENTIAL~ LOTS AND TWO (2) PROPOSED C-1~
4 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ LOTS.
~- SUBJECT TRACT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION AT THE MEETINGS OF MAY
29~ 1961 AND JUNE 12~ 1961 IN CONJUNCTION WITH PETITION FOR RECL.~SSI-
[ FICATION N0. 60-61-91. SUBJECT TRACT MAP WAS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING
r' OF ~ULY 10~ 1961 1N CONSl7NCT{ON Yi1TH THE CONTINUANCE OF PETITION FOR
RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60-61-91.
COMMISSIONER MUNGALL OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONOED BY COMMISSIONER PEBLEY
AND CARRIED~ THAT TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT IVO. 4230 BE DENIED ON THE
BASIS OF TH~ FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF PETITION
FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60-61-91. .
COMMISSIONER MUNaALL INDICATED FURTHER THAT HE ~OULD BE INTERESTED IN
REVIEWING A PRESENTATION OF A PRECISE PLAN9PREPARED IN A JOINT ENDEAVOR
BY THE VARIOUS ONNERS OF THE SUBJECT AND ABUTTING PROPERTIES~ FOR THE
INTPETITIONVFORPRECLASSIFICATION'NO.P60P61E91 INTCONJUNCTION W/THATHED
ABUTTING PROPERTI.ES.
~: CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEw^:N.. PETITION SUBMITTED qY ARTHUR G. AND KATHER-
PERMIT N0. 127 INE C. NEISWANGER, 821 Euc~:~ AVENUE ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA~ OWNERS~
R~QUESTING PERMISSION TO EXPAN~ D(lSfiIN6 PRE-~CHOOL DAY NURSERY oN
~ PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: A PARCEL lO1 FEET BY 125 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE
~ i ~ OF lO1 FEET ON EUCLID AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
' EUCLID AVENUE AND CATHERINE DRIVE~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AT 1632
~c+r CATHERINE DRIVE. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R-1~ ONE FAMILY
~ ~' ;~~, RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
~= ':; r
~ .I I
~
4
` . .~
. ~ . .. . ~ ~ ~ ~
k;
.
6 !
~ ~
.
. V ~ ~~ ~~~ . .
249
P
~. MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, .IULY ~o, 1961~ CONTINUED:
f
. ~,
CONDITIONAL USE - SUBJECT PETITION WAS CONTI4UED FROM THE METTING OF JUNE 12~ 1961 IN
AIN-
N
I
P
J
127 I9 OF
AND
IB
NOS.
L DESCRIP7lONMTOTINCLUDE LOT
'
E
/
r~ONTINUE0 LEGA
A REVISED
NG
Tancr No. 2161.
THE PETI7~ONER WAS PRESENT AND !MDlCATE~ HE HAD NOTHING TO ADD TO THE '
INFORMATION CONTAINED IN 7HE PETiTiON.
TME HEARING WAS CLOSED.
TNE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE NECESSITY OF SPECIFt~•'~LY WAIVING GERTAIN
TO PERMIT DEVELI't~ENT IN ACCORDANCE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE IN ORDER
ANS PRESENTED (N RESPECT 70 THE PROPOSE? DFF-STREET PARKING
WITH THE PL
AREA AND FENCE CONSTRUCTION. IT MAS NOTED THAT PARKING AREA COUID BE
CTURES IN BACK OF THE
PROVIDED WITHIN THE`L SHAPED AREA OF THE TMO STRU
THE COMMISSION AL50 NOTED THAT A WALL
NE
.
FRONT BUILDINQ SETBACK LI
!N
P
E
T
R
L
E
D
RESIDEN
FAMILY
THEREXISTING SINGLE
OF
THE INTE6RITY
PROTECT
TO
ORDER
TIAL DEVELOPMENT ABUTTING 70 THE EAST OF SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITIONL ' ' '
WHACPRE^SCHOOL'DAYL USE
/
O
P
S
E
H
P
1~
T:
TO W
CODE~
THIS
BY
AUTHORIZEO
IS
PERMIT
NURSERY.
,~TNpgLAND
C
E
F
L
R
t
S
P
z
H
WHI
AREA (N
THE
OF
DEVELOPMENT
AND
GROWTH
~ USES AND THE
PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED.
N ASMANNERDNOTATE
T
F
P
E
'
E
3
A
USE
I
PROPOSED
THE
OF
FULL DEVELOPMENT
ALLOW THE
~ TO
DETRIMENTAL TO THE PARTICULAR AREA NOP. TO THE PEACE HEAL7H
ANAHEIM
~
. '
ITY OF
SAFESY~ AND QE"JEF.A!. WELFARE OF THE C3't12tN5 OF THE
4. THAT THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT IMPOSE AN ~
ND HIGHWAYS DESIGNED AND IMPROVED
UNDUE BURDEN UPON THE STREETS A
TO CARRY THE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA.
5. THAT THE CaRANTING OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER TNE CONDI~
E
P
H
N
R
D
~ITY OF I
THE
OF
C1T12ENS
TIONS IMPOSE~~ ~ANDNGENERAL WELFARE
THE
OF
HEALTH~ SAFETY~
ANAHEIM.
6. THAs ~a OHE'APP=AP._Q !H QPPOSIT~ON TO SUBJECT PETITtON.
DNBY COMMISSIONER6M NGALLNDTM~OVED
S
O
R
'
M
SECONDE
ADOPTION~
AND
PASSAGE
ITS
FOR
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CON01-
127
T N0
P
' ~
.
ERMI
GRANT CONDITIONAL USE
TIONS.
1.
OPARKINGWSHALL`BESPERMITTEDDWITHIN
T
A
N
U
E
,
OFF-STREET
NO
THAT
EXCEPTION
HE
THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AREA.
W~TH CODE REQUIREMENTS IN
`
'
F
2
1
SETBACK LINE,
BUILDING
FRONT
0F THE
~ BACK
3. PROVISION OF A SIX (6) FOOT MASCNRY WAL:~ REDUCED TO THREE AND
NT YARD SETBACK AREA~ ALUN6 THE EAST
ONE-HALF ~3}) FEET IN THE FRO
BOUNDARV LINE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY.
TTHEMPROPERTYNINWORDER TOD TO
A
R
R
C
~
E
OF
THE USE
TO
PREREQUISITE
NECESSARY
A
BE
THE C1T12EN5 OF THE ClTY OF ANAHEIM.
PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF
ON ROLL CALL THE FORE~OI.NG RES^'..UTI.ON NAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTEC
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: A~~-teo, MoaRls, MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~
SU'AMERS.
NOES: COMM,13Si0NERS: NoNE.
AGSENT: COMMISSIONERS7, GAUER~ HAPa00D~ Mnacoux.
~ CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARIMG. PETI7ION SUBMOMNER•BTHOMAS C~WILSOIV,1728
A
~RMI N0. 134 ~ . ~
SQUTH WEST STREET~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNI
CALIFORNIA~ A4ENT~'REQUESi1NG PERMISSION TO
ORIVE ANAHEIM
EET
~
P ROVENTIAL
ESTABLISH A 22 U~JIT;MOTEL~ ON PROPER7Y AESCRIBED A51 A'PARCEL:9I.F
GN LINCOLN AVENUE AND LOCATED
BY'.246'FEET'W1TH A`.FRONTA6E,'OF 91 FEEY
E OF>I.INCOLN`AVENUE'BETWEEN KATHRYN AND MONTER~Y STREETS~
ON THE NORTH SID
ITS,SOUTHWEST CORkER 8E1Nfi APPROXIMATELY 265 F.EET EAST OF THE NORTH~
FURTHER DESCRIBED
AVENUE AND
I .
EAST CORNER OF MONTEREY STREET AND'CINCOLN
5 22A5 NEST LINCOLN AYENUEr -PROPERTY PRESEh'LY CLASSIFIED R~A~
A
RESIDENT.IAL AGRICULTURAL,;ZONE.
s ~~~'..~ -r?.,i~~--,~--r-.„-,--t"':..~ • ~ ~, ~~r ±. s ~. ec :t,~ ~~ _``,
_'_~.~..~x'~u., .. ~. , ,. . . ... . . . .. .. .. . .... ..~ .~ .... ~ . , . ~..>. , .. . n , i~. . .... ..
::iS~ [.x ~ _ J . _t ...E _ ., .. r: ~ ~ ~ ~. . .i~u~p?"r-~"aa•5.4: ~l'r.TF,+Y.,.! ~ iI ,.; . w. :
~
. , _ ~
~ e
250
MiNUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMMISSIUN~ JULY 10~ 1961~ CONTINUEO;
CONDITIONAL USE - SUBJECT PETITION CONTINUED FROM THE'MEC'fING OF JUNE 26~ 1961 BECAUSE
PERMIT N0. 134 THE PETITIONER WAS NOT PRESENT T~ FURNISH SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT DETAILS
rONTINUED RELATIVE•TO THE PROPOSED.CONSTRUCTION OF A•TWENTY~TNO UNIT MOTEL.
FORWARDED'TOETHEAPE7ITIONEREAND HIS AGENT~NOTIFYIHGATHEMTOF THE CONN
TINUED HEARIN6 AND REQUESTING THAT A REPRESENTATIVE BE IN ATTENDANCE
AT• SAID CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARIN4. '
FORE THE'COMMIS51 NH~REVIEWED HERO09JECT~I.ON5oT0 TNENSUBJECTFPET/TBON
DEREDDTHE DEVELOPMENT TO BENAN26NVASION OFDPRIVACYTBECAUSE OFETHENSI-
PROPOSED TWO SZORV CONSTRUCTION.
MRS. VICTOR PECK~ 2260 POLK AVENUE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND
THETTWOHSTORYJCONSTRUCT/ONHWOULDPPERMITEAELINEEOF SIGHTEINTO'THEHAT
ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES WHICH SHE CONSIDERED WOULD CONSTI~
TUTE AN INVASlON OF PRIVACY.
THE HFARIN6•NAS CLOSED.
THE COMMISSION FOUFiJ AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDINQ THE
SUBJECT PETITION:
1~ PERMITHISPAUTHORIZEDEBYSTH9SPCODE~~TO WLT:WHACTWENTYNTWO'UN~T USE
MOTEL.
2. TNAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJOINING LAND USES
' AND THE GROWTN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA I.N WHICH IT I.S °ROPOSED
TO BE LOCATED.
3. THAT THE SUBJECT PETITIOtd WAS CONSIDERED AT MEETINGS HELD ON JUNE
26~ 1961 AND JULY 10~ 1961 AT WHICH TIME THE PETITIONER OR HIS
REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT APPEAR AFSER NOTIFICATION OF SAID HEARI.NGS~
TO FURNISM D£VELOPMENT DETAILS IN RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT PETITlON.
4. THAT VERBAL OPPOSITION WAS RECORDED AGAINST SUBJECT PETITION.
COMMISSIONER PERRY OFFERED RESOLUTlON N0. Za ~ERIES 1961-62~ AND MOVED
FOR ITS PASSAGE A!!D ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMi5510NER PEBLEY~ TO DENY
PETITION FOR CONDlTiONAL USE PERMIT N0. 134 ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORE-
~!ENT!OMEfl FINDIN6S,
ON ROLL CALL THE ~~REGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COMMlSSl~P:ERS: SUMMERS,MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER~ HAPGOOD~ Mnecoux.
VARIANGE N0. 1375 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION suaMlrTeo ev CRAIG C. AND BERTHA M. CLARK,
815 NORTH ZEYN STREETe ANAHEIM~~CALIFORNIA~,.. OMNERS~ REQUESTING PERMIS~
A,PARCEL~53VFEETNBYu113LFEETAWITHRA~FRONMAGE OFR53RFEE7TONDZEYN'S7REET~
AND LOCATED ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF ZEYN STREET BETWEEN NORTH AND
LAVERNE STREETS; ITS SOUTHEAST CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY 165 FEET
NORT4i Of THE NORTH4lE5TfiRLY CORNER OF NORTH AND ZEYN STREETS AND FUR~
TKER DESCRIBED AS 815 NORTH ZEYN STREET. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASS1F1Ep
R-2~ TNO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE.
MR. NOEL HATCH~ REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PETI,TIONERS~ APPEARE~ BEFORE THE
COMMISSION~ DESCRIBED THE LOCATION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMtLY RESI-
DENCE ON THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY~ AND STATED THAT IT WOULD NOT BE
FEASIBLE TO ATTACN AN ADDITIONAL UNIT TO 7HE FROhi OF'THE EXISTING
BUILDI.N6 IN ORDER TO CONFORM TO THE R~2~ Two FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE
REQUIREMENTSOFF1~225CSQUAREHFEET OFALIVEABLE FLOOR'AREA PER~ WELLINGE
RESIDENCE~ONETHECSUBJECT~PROPERTY~~CONTAININGN855 SQUARELFEET~LANDAMILY
STILL MAINTAIN THE MINIMUM YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
THE HEARING NAS CLOSED:
AND,THEMPETITIONER~SWA6ENT~I.ND'ICATEDUTHATTACCESSHTOHTHEUEXlST~NpTITION
OARA6E ON THE REAR OF 7:'.~ PROPERTW WOULD BE PROVIDED FRON THE ALLEY
ABUTTINO SHE REAR OF YNE SUBJECT PROPERTY -0 N THE NESTERLY BOUNDARY
LINE.
THE COMM14510N FOUND ANO DETERMINED THE FOLLOWINCa FACTS REfiARDINO 7HE,
SUBJECT PETITJ.ON:
~ . .; .,. , .. -
~;~:,' ~~i"ar_i;'..., 4,.~:'_:,+ : + ,.."5}. k {'~i.t ..:xc"E?,.; ,.T''°' ..,~...,.
.... . . ~ r.._ . ~`1F:! , t . i,. _,,. _~,.Y. . .s., vr's~~: ~ d ...r... . ~.:,.'J..... .
:';:'~.
t^~~.
_... ~ u, Y~. ~
~ '~
~ ~
251
F;;, MINUTES, CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION,•Ju~v 10, 1961~ CONTINUED:
~ YARIANCE N0. 1375 ~ 1. THAT TME PETtT10NER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICI-
~ CONTINUED PAl CODE~ SECTION 18.08.080 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A SINaLE
FAMILY RESIDENCE CONTAINING A LIYEABLE FLOOR ARFA OF 855 SQUARE
FEE7.
P;. ~ 2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR
F:;. . CON01T(ONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPER7Y INVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED
t USE OF 7HE PROPERTY 7HAT DO NOT APPI.Y GENERALLY TO THE PROPER7Y
OR CLASS OF USE t,N THE SAME YICINITY AND ZONE.
~ 3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND
f ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER
- PROPER7Y IN THE SAME ViCINITY AND ZONE~ AND DENIED TO TiIE PROPERTY
~ . IN QUESTlON. •
~. 4. THAT THE REQUESTED.VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO
A.~ ;e:.,>e;: THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR tNJUR10U5 TO 7HE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS
; ~ 1N SUCH VICINI2Y AND ZOPIE IN WHLCH 7HE PROPERTY i5 LOCATED.
S 5. THAY THE REQUESTED VARLANCE NILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFF_CT THE COMPRE-
HEN5IVE GENERAL PLA'~.
G 6. THAT THE PROPOSEO CONSTRUCTION IS COMPA718LE WITH AND WiLL BE Ak
p A$SET TO THE EXISTING R~2~ TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ AND R~3~ MULT1~
PLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ DEVELOPMENT OF THE SURROUNDING AREA.
L
E~ 7. THA7 NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETIT{ON.
t COMMISSIONER ALLRED OFF~RED RESOLUTION N0. 3~ SERIES 1961-62~ AND MOVED
t FOR !TS PASSAGE AND ADOPTIONr. SECONDED 9Y COMMISSIONER MUNGA~L~ TO
GRANT PETITION FOR VARIANCE IVO. 1375~ SUBJECT TO THE °OLLOWING CONDI-
~.. T ION:
i; 1. DEVEIOPMEN]' SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE NITH PLANS PRESENTED.
i
~ TNE FOREGOINa CONDJTION WAS RECt7ED AT THE MEETING AND WAS FOUND TO
BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF T11E PROPERTY IN ORDER TO
PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITl2ENS OF 7HE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
~' ON ROL.L CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLtlT10N WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWIN6 VOTE:
i.
~ AYES: COMMISSIONERSi ALLRED~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~
~ SUMMERS.
~;- ` NOES: COMMlSSIONERSi NONE.
~
~ E: ABSENT: COMMIS510NERS: GAUER~ HAPGOOD~ Mn~tcoux.
VARIANCE N0. 13~7 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITiON SUBMITTFR BY HEIR~ oF CARL FLUEGGE, DECEASED~
C/0 TALT AND MacMAHON, 403 CALIFORNIA BANK BUILDIN6~ ANAH=IM~ CALIFOR-
NIA, UwNERS; ROBERT W. MncMAHON~ 403 CALI,FORNIA BANK BUILCING ANAHEIM~
CALtFORNIA~ A6ENT~ REQUESTING PERIAISSION TO CONSTRUCT b STORA~E GARA6E,
ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5: A PARCEL 132 FEET BY 310 FEET WITH A FRONT-
A~E OF 132 FEET ON ORANOEWOOU AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
ORANQEWOOD AVENUE BETNE~N NI.N7H. AND LOARA STREETS~ ITS NOR7HEAST
CORNER BEINCi APPROXIMAZELY 385 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF
I ORANaEW00D AVENUE AND NINTH STREET AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1532
ORANGEWOOD AVENUE. PROPEPTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R~A~ RESIDENTIAL
A6RICULTURAL, ZONE.
MR. ROBER7 MACMAHON~ ATTORNEY REPRESENTING 7HE PETITIONERS~ APPEARED
BEFORE THE COMMLSSION AND DESCRIBED TH-:' REQUESTED VARIANCE IN ORDER
ED FOR THE PARKING OF VEHICLES AND
0 BE UTILIZ
ARA(iE 7
TO CONSTRUCT A fi
ST6RAQE OF A~RICULTURAL EQUIPMENT AND A BOAT. HE STATED THAT HE WAS
NOT CONCERNED NITN THE BUSINE55 THAT IS PRESENTLY BEIN6 CONGUCTED ON
THE PREMI.SES~ THAT THE REQUESTED YARIANCE HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE
BUSlNE55~ AND THAT R~STRICTIONS COULD BE PLACED UPON THE PROPERTY
PROHIBLTING THE USE .~F THE 6ARAGE FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THOSE STATED
IN THE SUBJECT PETITION. HE STATED FURTHER THAT HE DID NOT WISH TO
DISCUSS THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING USE OF THE PROPERTY~ WHICH HE DI.D
NOT CONS~DER PERiINENT TO THE SUBJECT PET.LTI.ON~ THAT THE PROPERTY WAS
I.EASED AND THE HEIRS ARE NOT OPERATING THE BUSINESS~ ~NAT THE LEASE TO
THE STAUTON Mil~ DID NOT INCLUDE TNE NEW STRUCTURE~ THAT 7HE SLAB WAS
ALREADY POURED WtTHOUT AUTHORIZATION FOR ITS CONSTRUCTION~ AND TNAT THE
COMPLETION OF THE GARAGE MOULD HELP TO CORRECT SOME -0F THE UNSIGHTLY
CONDI,T.IONS PRESENTLY IN EXISTENCE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. MR. MAC-
MAHON ADDED THA7 IF THE SUBJECT PETITION WER2 APPROVED AND RESTRICTIONS
PLACED UPON THE U5E OF,THE STRUCTURE~ I.T.WOULD ECIMINATE THE POSSIBIL-
ITY OF THE STANTON MILL OR ANOTHER BUSINESS LEASINQ THE NEW STRUCTURE
, ~~ FOR`MANUFACTURING PURPOSES.
m.~~: ~ . . .~ .~ . . . ~.
~' 4~'~' HEI26ERT`LICKER~ 11016 GARDEN GROVE BOULEVARD~ GARDEN GROYE~ APPEARED
r.~~a~:°{y; DEFORE'THE COMMISSION~ STATED THAT HE REPRESEkT~D THE RESIDENTS IN
~;.~t;:~,,~ THE IMMEDIA7E AREA SURROUNDINO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ AND OUTLINED THE
~!~?~~,: PROTESTS OF 7HE RESIDENTS A4AINST THE SUBJECT PETITION AND THE PRESENT
':(~ ` USE OF TNE;SUBJECT PROPERTY. MR. L7CKER STATED THAT THE SURROUNDINQ
`;~'.y~ AREA CONTAINS NI,OH QUALITY RESIDENTIAL DEVEl.OPMENT~ AND THAT THE
,,, _ •
~ !
~, <
n+
252
~.
v
';.~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING GOMMISSiON~ Ju~v 10, 1,961~ CONTINUED:
VARIANCE N0. 1377 ~ PRESENT COMBINATION OF LAND USES OF 7HE SUBJECT AND SURROUNDING PRO-
COMTISL4~ PERTIES IS NOT PERMITTED NOR ESTABLISHED ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE COMMUN-
ITY. HE STATED THAT HE HAD TALKED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY RELATIVE TO
THE NON-CONFORMING USE AND THAT THERE APPEARS T0 BE SOME DISPUTE IN
RESPECT TO THE I.EGALITY OF THE USE. MR. LICKER STATEQ FURTHER THAT
THE DECEASED OWNER~ MR. FLUEGGE~ HAD ORIGINALLY BEEN INVOLVED IN THE
SPRAYING OF ORCHARDS~ AND TNA7 ON TNO OCCASIONS HE HAD BUILT A BOAT
ON THE PREMISES~ BU1' NOT AS A BUSINESS~ AND THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF
TWO BOATS I,N THE PAST COULD NOT CONSTITUTE THE ESTABI.ISHMENT OF A
BUSINESS. SUBSEQUENTLY~ THE PROPERTY WAS LEASED TO THE STANTON MILL
' AND A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS BEING UTILIZED FOR A MANJFACTURING
PURPOSE'~ A SIGN WAS PLACED ON ORANGEWOOD AVENUE ABOUT WHICH THE
ASSISTANT CItY AT70RNEY~ JOE:GEISLER~ HAD STATED APPROXIMATELY EIGHT
MONTHS PREVIOUSLX THAT THE SIGN WAS IN VLOLATION OF.A CITY ORDINANCE~
A HOUSE TRAILER••HAS BEEN PARKED ON THE PREMI°ES AND HAS BEEN UTlLIZED
FOR LtVING PURPOSES~ A CONCRETE SLAB HAS BEEN I.NSTALLED IN VIOLATION
OF CITY REQUIREMENTS~ AND THE NON-CONFORMING USE HAS DEVELOPE~ INTO
A MANUFACTURINO TYPE OF OPERATION WH1CH 1NVOLVES VEHICLES AND TRAFEIC~
ANG CREATES AN UNSIGHTLY APPEARANCE HHICH AFFECTS THE VALUE AND
ENJOYABLE USE OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE SURROUN9ING ARFA. MR. LICKER
ADDED THAT IF THE PROPOSED CON57RUCTION OF THE STRUCTURE WAS PERMIT~-
TED AND THE PRESEN7 USE OF 'fHE LAND NAS CONTINUED~ IT WOULD COMPLI-
CATE AN ALREADY COMPLICATED PROBLEM~ THAT IF THE OPERATION NAS
PERMITTED TO EkPAND IT WOULD MAKE 1,T tAORE DIFFICUL7' TO FORCE THE OPERATf
TO CEASE THE OPERATION~ THAT THE TIME HAD COME FOR DEFINITE ACTION
UPON THE PROBLEM~ THAT THE DESIRES OF ONE PROPERTY OWNER SHOULD NOT
BE PLACED ABOVE THE CON5I.DERAT.ION OF ONE HUNDRED FAMILIES LIVIIJG 1N
THE AREA~ AND THAT IT WOULD 8E FOR THE Yi'ELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY AS A
WHOLE (F THE SUBJEC7 PETI710N WERE DENIED.
MR. FRITZ K(tAUTH~ 1570 T~NIA LANE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND
REVIENED PAST HISTORY OF 7HE SUBJECT PROPERTY. HE STATED THAT THE
PROPERTY WAS NOT LEASED TO THE S7ANTON MILL UN71L JANUARY~ 1960
APPROXjMATELY FOUR YEARS AFTER THE PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED TO THE CITY~
THAT IN 1956 THE OWNER~ MR. FW EGGE~ HAD CON57RUCTED A TOTAI. OF TWO
BOATS WNICH HE SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD AND WHICH DOES NOT CONSTITUXE A
BUSINE55~ AND THAT THE ONLY EVIDENCE REGARDING 7HE NON~-CONFORMLNG USE
THAT HAS BEEN OBTAINED FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY~S OFFICE IS THAT MR.
FLUE(iGE HAD MADE THE STATEMENT THAT HE'HAD A'.NOd~CONFORMIN6 USF, .MR.
KRAUTH STATED FURTHER THAT THE PROPERTY MAS SURROUNDED BY LARGE~ INDI-
VIDUAL S~NQI.E FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES,~ THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS
IN AN UNSIGH7LY COND1710N~ AND THAT THE OPERATION WAS NOISY AND DIRTY.
HE CALLED UPON THE CITY ATTORNEY~S OFFICE AND THE CITY OFFICIAI.S TO
DISCONTINUE TNE PRESENT USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
DR. WOODS~ 1569 FLIPPEN CIRC~E~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION .~ND
COMPLALNED ABOU7 THE TAXES BEING INCREASED ON HIS PROPERTY WHILE THE
VALUE 15 BEING MATERIALLY HARMED BY THE CONTINUATION OF THE OPERATION
OF THE MILI.
MR• RAY BATES~ 1559 FLIPPEN CIRCLE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION
AND STATED THb7 IT WAS HI.S UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SUBJECT AREA NAS
PROJ~CTED ON TNE GENERAL PLAN FOR R~1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDEN7IAL~ DEVEL~
OPMENT~ THAT THE CHANOE IN NATURE OF THE PRESENT USE OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY WOULD CONFLICT WITH THIS PLAN~ TNAY THE ORIGINAL USE OF THE
PROPERTY HAS FOR A SPRAYING BUFiJNE55~ AND THAT THE DECEASED OWNER HAD
MADE THE STATEMENT THAT IF THE SURROUNDINO AREA DEVELOPED HE kOULD
CEASE THE SPRAYINa BUSlNESS AND ~LOOK AROUNDM FOR ANOTHER BUSINESS.
MR. MACMAHON, iN REBUTTAL~ STATED THAT THE HOUSE TRAiLER PARKED ON THE
PROPERTY WAS NOT BEIN6 USED FOR L(V1tlG PURPOSES AT TNE PRESENT TIME~
THAT THE NON-CONFORMINO USE NAS NOT 7HE MAT2ER TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE
PRESENT HEARtNa~ THAT THE BUSlNESS hiOULD NOT BE EXPANDED~ THAT THE
ONLY USE REQUESTED WAS OF A PRIVATE NATURE FOR THE STORAGE OF VEHICLES~
A PERSONAL BOAT, AND SOME AfiRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT~ THAT THE PROPERTY
HAS BEEN USED SLNCE 1945 FOR SOME KIND OF ACTI.VITY~ AND THAT THE NON-
CONFORMI.N6 USE CAN LE~ALLY BE CONTINUED IF !T REMAINS CONFINED WITHIN
THE EXISTING BUILDING. HE STATED~ HOWEYER~ THAT HE WAS NOT GOING TO
DEFEND THE EXISTING NON~CONFORMING USE~ THAT HE WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF
ESTABLISHI,N~ MANUFACTURING USES IN THIS TYPE OF NEIGHBORHOOD~ AND THAT
HE DID NOT CONSIDER 7HE QUESTION OF THE NON-CONFORMING USE OR ANY
VIOLATION OF THE LAW TO BE THE ISSUE AT 7HE 'RESENT TIME. HE STATED
FURTHER THAT THE DETERMINATION OF THE LE~ALITY OF TNE PRESENT USE OF
THE PROPERTY WAS UNDER THE JURISD)CTION OF THE CITY RT70RNEY AND THAT
THERE NASN~T ANYTH,INO THAT COULD BE DONE ABOUT THE PRESENT USE UNTIL
SUCN TIME AS A DECISION HAS BEEN MADE RELATIVE TO THE MATTER.
FOUR LETTERS OF PROTEST WERE READ AND SUBMITTED TO THE COMMI.SSION.
TWO PETITIONS OF OPPOSITION~ CON7AININO A TOTAL OF 399 SIaNATURES~
NERE SUBMI.TTED TO THE COMM15510N.
a55lSTAN7 CITY ATTORNEY THURMIN ROBERTS PRESENTED A STATEMENT~ DATED
- DECEMBER 6~ 1960~ SUBMITTED BY ASSISTANT CITY AT70RNEY JOE GEISLER
AS FOLLOWS:
~ ~ ~'I'.. yt""n;'.
~' L 7 .:~~t{',. :tl..~_._.:__ ~ ._
~
, .Y
~
!;
; 9
, ~
. ~• '; ~
r
''',i
;;: ',.,-~..~:~
~ ~ ~
~ ,'.1
~ ~
i
~
;,~
~
~
- ;j
. •~
~ ~
253
G' MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ju~v 10, 1961~ CONTINUED: I
~ VARIANCE N0. 1377 ~ NRE: FLUEGGE PROPERTY~ 1532 ORANGEWOOD AVENUE~ ANAHElM~ CALLFORNIA. ~
r CONTINUED (
6' INVESTIGATION HAS BEEW MADE IN REGARDS TO THIS PROPERTY iN THE
i
t ~ ~ ~
~~
F !~
CONDUCT OF A WOOD-MORKING SHOP IN-A METAL BUILDING UPON SUCH i
PROPERT.Y. BASIC CHECK AND INVESTIGATIQN INDICATES 'fHAT ALTHOUGH
MR. FLUEGGE DOES NOT HAVE A USE PERp7IT FROM THE COUNTY AND THAT
UNDER THE PRESENT ZONINQ OF SNE COUNTY SUCH USE NOUI.D N07 BE AN
ALLOMAB~E USE'IN THE A-1 ZONE (COUNTV'P.~-1 IS APPROXIMATELY THE
SAME AS CITY R~A ZONE)~ BUT A FURTHER CHECK INDICATES THAT THE I
BASIC COUNTY ZONIN6 ORDINANCE WENT INTO EFFECT IN 1949 AND THAT
THE.PRESENT USE OF THE PROPCRTY AS A MOOU-WORKIN~ SHOP WAS ~
COMMENCED SOMETIME AROUND 1945 i1R POSSiIBI.Y EVEN BEFORE AND AT
SUCH TIME AS I.T WAS STARTED IT WOL'LD N07 HAVE BEEN AN (LLEGAL
USE.
THE PROPERTY CAME I.N70 THE CITY OF AN,4HIcIM APPROXIMATELY IN 1956~
IT APPEARS 7HA7 THE USE WAS IN EXISTENCE A7 THAT TIME.AND THE
BUILDING WHICH OBVIOUSLY 15 A HUlLDIN6 CONSTRUCTED FOR SOME TYPE
OF~SHOP ACTIYlI.TY HAS !N EXlSTENCE. AS A CONSECiIENCE~ THE NOOD-
WORKING SHOP WOULD BE CLASSl.FIED AS A NON-CONFOFMING USE OF A
NON-CONFORMIN6 BUI.LDING WHI,CH EXISTED LEGALLY AT THE TIME OF
ANNEXATiON OF THE PROPER7•Y TO THE CITY OF ANAHEaM AND 'JNDER THE
PROVI;ION OF OUR ORDINANCE SUCN USE CAN BE CON7INUED AND CAN BE
EXPANDED 7HROUGH THE BUILDING. THE BUILDING CANNOT BE STRUCTUR~
ALLY•ALTERED OR CHANGED,FOR ANY EXPANSION OF THE AC~'IYITY. IT
WOULD APPEAR AT PkESENi THAT THE ACTIVITY HAS•NOT EXPANDED
OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING~..BUT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT A LARGE
CONCRETE SLAB HAS BEEN POURED AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING IT
AFPEARS THAT THERE IS SOME INTENT TO EXPAND THE ACTI.VITY OUTSIDE
OF THE BUIL~ING AND SUCH SHOUI.D BE WATCHED CAREFULLY. IT WOULD~
HOWIEVER~ API'EAR THAT UNDER OUR ORDINANCE AND THE GENERAL LAW
WE NOU4D NOT BE ABLE TO REQUIRE A CESSAT~ON OF THE ACTIVITY THAT
THEY ARE NON ENGAGED IN AT THI.S PROPERTY.
SIGNEDS J. GEISLER.M
MR. ROBERTS ADDED THAT IN DISCUSSING THE MATTER YlITH MR. GEISLER~ MR.
GE15l.ER HAD STATED THAT UNTIL EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED SHOWING THAT THE
USE IS NOT A LEGAI. NON-CONFORMING USE~ THE CITY COULD N07 PROSECUTE.
HE ALSO STATED THAT'THE S16N~ HOWEVER~ WAS ILLEGAL~ AND THAT THEY HAD
' DISCUSSED THE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO TAKE UPON THAT MATTER ALTHOUGH NO
ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN AS YE7. MR. GEtSLER AL50 JNDICATED THAT AS FAR
AS HE KNEW THE HOUSE TRAILER HAS NOT BEING LIYED IN AT THE PRESENT
TIME.
' GOMkl.55lONFR MUNGALL lNQL~!RE~ !F 7liE PL4l;N:!dC QEPARTNE!!? HP.D ANY !N~
FORMATION RELATIVE TO A VARLANCE BEING GRANTED FOR THE SUBJECT PROPER-
TY BY THE COUNTY PRIOR TO A~INEXATION TO THE CITY~ AND IT WAS NOTED
THAT THE COUNTY HAD NO RECOR~1 OF A VARIANCE FOR THE SUBJECS PROPERTY
~ AND THAT THERE WAS NO RECORD 0~° A VARIANCE HAVING BEEN GRANTED BY THE
CITY.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
THE COMMI.SSION DISCUSSED AT SOME LENGTH THE STATUS OF TNE NON~CONFORM-
iNfi-USE 60TH PR10R T0 THE ANNEXATI,ON 70 THE C1TY AND AFTER ANHEXATION.
MR. ROBERTS INFORMED THE COMMt5510N THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT THE
USE IS JILEDAL 1,5 UPON THE PARTIES I,NTERESTED I,N THE CESSATION OF THE
ACTIVITY~ MHICH WOULD REQUI,RE THE FILING OF A CRIMINAL AC710N FOR
WHLCH-DOCUMENTS MUST BE PRODUCEO CONTAINING THE PROOF.
THE COMMiS51,ON -0ISCUSSED THE FI'ELD TRIP INSPECTION MADE OF THE PR6PER~
I TY~ BY THE COMM15510NER5 PRIOR TO THE HEARINQ~ AT WHICH TIME THE
OCCUPANT OF.THE PREMISES HAD IND(CATED THAT HE INTENDED TO STORE WOOD
kA7HER THAN VEHI,CLES IN THE NEM BU(LD1Nfi.
MR. MACMAHON~ 1N RE9UTTAL~ INFORMED THE COMMISSyON.THAT HE REPRE5EN7ED
THE HEI4S~ THAT HE DID NOT. REPRESENT.THE OCCUPANT~ MR. HUSTON~ AND THAT
THE LEASE DOES NOT COVER.THE AREA FOR WHICN THE VARIANCE HAS BEEN
REQUESTED. HE STATED TNAT:THE PROPERiY ONNERS NOULD NOT PERMIT THE USE
OF THE BROPERTY FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN THOSE STATED ON THE SUBJECT
PETITION~ AND THAT WAS THE REASON FOR HIS SUG~ESTION THAT DEED RESTRIC-~
TIONS BE PLACED UPON THE VARIi.`!CE 1F SAI.D VARIANCE.IS APPROVED.
THE COMMl55JON FOUND AND DETERMI,NED THE FOLLOWI.NG FAC7S REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITION:
1. THAT THE PETLTIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
COGE~ SECTLON 18.04'.050 AND SECTION 16.16.010 (2~ T0 PERMIT THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A 3Q FOOT BY 60 FOOT CiARA~E TYPE'STRUCTURE TO BE
, UTiL1.2ED FOR THE STORA6E.AND P.ARXINa OF VEHICLES~ AGRI~ULTURAL
_EQU,IPNENT~ AND A BOATy AND SEC710N 18.04.OSO TO PERMIT Tt~E EXPAN-
StON- OF A NON~'CONFORMING USE.
2. THAT THERE ARE NO.EXCEPTI,ONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR
CONQlTIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY INVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED
;' - . . . .. . . . . . .' r~- .. , - . . . ~ . . ~ - . .
~
~is,ur!~ .A.~. ::.... ~.~t~,i}i n",Yfr.t.t,7:~t ~ ....,: ~~r ~::,5.:~~'i r~{-..~r,~...,..A~~-~5?~.6Gn:{c{ i.c„'}`h,<LiYniw:.::A~?:~:S.dG~:^.n~i~?.a..1~`.,{xr`~!?".MQ ~'~.: •:,~.,:..~.~ ,... ...
~ ~
~
C.~
MINUTES, CITY PLAtdNING COMMISSION~ JULY lo, 1961~ CONTINUED;
~
1377 ~
VARIANCE N0 7YYANDNZONELY TO THE PROPERTY
E V/CINI
E
A
E
Y
P
H
.
0 T NUED ,
SAM
pR
THE
U5E
tN
6F
CLAS5
•
ON
3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATI
A SUB57ANTIAL PROPERTY RI.GHT POSSESSED BY OTiiER
RTY
AND ENJOYMENT OF
PROPERTY lN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE~ AND DENIED 70 THE PROPE
IN QUESTION.
E?ROFE RTYLOR IMPROVEMENTST'NTHE
L
S
H
4~
THE
OR IHJURIOUS TO
WELFARE
PUBLtC
WHICH 7HE ?ROPERTY I.S LOCATED.
SUCH VICINITY AND ZONE IN
NFORMITY WITH THE NEARBY
'
T
5
DEVELOPMENT
RESIDEN7IAL~
~ RH1~ ONE FAMILY
6. THAT THE REQUESTED VARI~~NCE NOULD TEND TO PERPETUATE AN ALLEGED
NON-CQNFORMING USE.
~NERE RECOR EDSAGA'INSSTEST
9NS~GNATURGS
N
T
O
L
7~
~
39
OF
TOTAL
A
CONTAINLNG
SUBJECT PETITION.
COMM15510NER QLLRED OFFERED RES
BY~COM6ISSSIONER9SUMMERS~NTOMOVEO
ECON ED
FOR ITS PASSf~GE AND ADOPTION~
1377 ON THE BASIS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED
N
0.
DEMY PETITION FOR VARIANCE
FINDJNGS.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTEt
MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ ~EBLEY~ PERRY~
AYES: COMMISSIONERS'. S
UMMERS,
NQES: COMMISSlONERS: Nor+E.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER, HAPGOOD, MARCOUX.
CLEGALiTY OF THE NON,CONFORMINGTY
ET
S
S
M
HE
DETERMINING
FOR
NECESSJTY
AND THE
USE.
5510NER ALLRED OFF~RED RES
D BY~COMMSSSIONER9SUMMERSANREQUE57-
COMMl
D
,
E
ECON
FOR 1T5 PASSAGE AND ADOPI'.ON~
INlT1A7E AN INVESTIC~ATION INTO THE LEGAtITY
IIiG THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE ALLEGED NON-CONFORMI,NG USE PRESENTLY lN OPERATION ON SUBJECT .
T
G
'
SAFE7Y~
PUBLI.C HEALTHA
THE
NTORDERFTONPROTECT
L
T
T
I
BE TAKEN
ACTION
PRIATE
F THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
AND GENERAL WELFARE O
g~CESS ' SECONDEDSTHERMOTIONM'MOTIONACARRIE ~~CLOCK
- POMM~S
Y
I
ALLRED
ONER
COMMISS
AFTER RECESS ~ VICE CHA'IRMAN MORRIS CALLEL~ THE MEETINa TO ORDER AT 4:25 O~CLOCK P.M.
CONDITIONAL USE DRPTRSTE HHOOK; 29 0 WEST
- PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION ~A~jFORrEijaeYOw~RE
~RMIT NO. 136 t
LA PALMA AVENUE~ pNAHE1M~ CALIFORNIA~ AQENY~ REQUESTING PERMISSION
ANAHEIM
Y
~
WEST LA PALMA AVEIdUE~
TO CONSTRUCT A CHURCH ON PROPERTY OESCRIBED A5: A PARCEL 180 FEET B
AVENUE AND LOCATED ON
556 FEET WIZH A FRON7AGE OF 180 FEET ON LA PALMA
AVENUE BETMEEN MAfiN0~1.A AVENUE AND MAYFLOWER
THE SOU7H S1AE OF LA PALMA
STREET~ 175 NORTHWEST C~RNER 8E1NG.APPROXLMIATELY 615 FEET EAST OF THE
D;SCRIBED
R
M
N
R
PRE5EN7LY CLASSIFJED
PROPERTY
05WE5TRLARPALMAAAVENUE.A
U
253
/S
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE.
ACONDUCTINGCREGULARASERVICESRE
C
~
A
H
E
NAS
CHURCH
THAT THE
STATED
COMMISSION~
TIE
DESCRIBED THE PRJPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A
AT THE PRESENT TIME~ AND
WOULD BE AN ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY.
PERMANENT BUILDINO WHICH
A LAND USE STUDY AND A ZON1N6 STUDY PREPARED BY THE PLANNING STAFF WERE
PRECISE PLANS FOR THE DEVELOP~
E
W.
SUBMITTED TO THE COMMLSSION FOR REVI
ROPERTY AND THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY
ION
MENT OF TNE SUBJECT P
ABUTTING TO THE EAST HERE SUBMI.7TED T0 THE COMMISSION. THE COMMISS
F HARON STFEET WITH THE PROV1~
DISCUSSED AT SOME LENCiTH THE EXTENSLON O
CHURCH PROPERTY~ AND INDICATED THAT THE PRO~
SION OF A KNUCKLE ON THE
ON OF HARON STREET WIiH THE PROVISLON OF A KNUCKLE ON 7HE
E PROPER
S
I
POSED EXTEN
SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF THE CHURCH PROPERTY WOULD NOT FROVIDE TH
PROPERTY.
~ DEVELOPMENT OF THE ABUT.TINfi RESL~ENTCAL
ANS
ASY
THE'COMMlSSIONDTHATCHESUN ER7H
NFORMED
EI
R
P
,
.
HOOKS
OR
THE COMMISSION
STOOD FHAT ANOTHER CHURCH MAS ENDEAVORlNO 70 PURCHASE THE ABUTTING
T THEY NOULD BE WILLING TO
PROPER7Y FRONTI.NQ ON LA PA~MA AVENUE AND THA
CHURCH iN PROVIDI.NQ E6RE55 FROM THE FACILI.TY.
COOPERATE NITH 7HE OTHER
~
4..:::.. ..-.Y~ .:....
;<.
a
~ 254
~
c: .
-- .._..
~ ~_
~
~' . . ;
255
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ju~v 10, 1961~ CONTINUED:
CONDITIONAt USE - THE HEARING•MAS ~tOSED.
PERMIT N0. 136
CONTINUED THE CONMISSION DLSCUSSED THE PROPOSED PRECISE PLANS SUBMITTED BY TlIE
PLANNIN6 DEPAR7MENT AND LND'1CATED THAT THE PRECISE PLAN MARKED
EXHIBIT °A~ SHALL BE ADOPTED AS A PRECISE PLAY OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE
AREA. •
ITEMS OUTL~NED IN THE STAFF.REPOR7 MERE SUBMIT7ED TO THE COMMISSION
FOR CONSI.DERA7LON. THE COMMISSJ,ON DJ;SCUSSED PARKING AND NALL REQUIRE-
NEN75 AND THE NECESSITY FOR PROV1.510N OF LANDSCAPING AREA ON THE
FRONT PORTION QF THE PROPERTY. •
THE COMMISSION FOUND ANO DEiERM1,NED THE FOLIOWING FACTS REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PET17(ON:
1: THAT THE PROPOSED USE 15 PROPERLY ONE FOR MH1CH A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMLT IS AUTHORIZED BY TH4S CODE~ TO M12: A CHURCH.
2. TNAT THE PROPOSED USE MILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT iHE ADJOINING LAND
USES AND THE GROMTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA INSiHICH IT IS .
PROPOSED TO 8E LOCAxED.
' 3: THAT THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE S1,TE PROPOSEp FOR THE USE IS ADE-
QUATE FO ALLOM,THE FULL DEVEI.OPMENX OF THE PROPOSED USE IN A
MANNER NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE PARTICULAR AREA NOR TO 7HE PEACE~
HEALTH~ SAFET,Y~ AND GENERAL Y.ELFARE OF THE CIITZENS OF 7HE CITY OF
ANAHEIM.
4. THA'~ THE TRAFFIC QENERATED BY T.HE PROPOSED USE WJ,LL NOT IMPOSE AN
UNDUE BURDEN UPON THE ST.REETS AND HIQHMAYS DE516NED AND PROPOSED
TO CARRY THE TRAFFIC !N THE AREA.
5. THAT THE GRANTI.NG OF THE CONDITJ.ONAL USE PERMIT UNDER THE CpNDI-
TIONS 1MPOSED~ IF ANY,~ WItL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PEACEA
HEALTH~ SAFE7V~ AND GENERAL MELFARE OF 7HE C1,T12EN5 OF THE GITY
~F ANAHEIM.
6. THAT THE PRECISE PLAN PREPARED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMEN7 AND
MARKED ~EXHlB~.i Q• IS HEREBY ADOPTED AS A PRECI,SE PLAN FOR DEYEL-
OPMENT OF 7HE SUBJECT AREA.
7. THAT NO ONE APPEARED 1,N OPPOSITI.ON TO SUBJECT PET171ON.
COMMISSLONER ALLRED OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 6~ SERIES 1961~62~ AND MOVED
FOR 175 PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMM155lONER MUNGALL~ TO
,GRANT PE7ITION FOR CONDI.TIONAL USE PERMI.T N0. 136~~ SUBJECT TO THE
FOL~OMIN6 CONDITIONS:
1. DEVELOPMEN7 SUBSTAN7IALLY LN ACCORDANCE W1.TH PLANS PRESEN7ED AND
1N ACCORDANCE WLTH PRECLSE PLAN „EXHIBLT A.n
, 2. DEDICATION oF 53 FEET fROM TliE tAONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF LA PALMA
AVENUE (30 FEET EXISTING).
3. PREPARATION OF STREET ,IMPROVEMENT ALANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL
IMPROVEMENTS FOR LA PALMA AVENUE IN ACCORDANCE W17H THE APPROVED
STANDARD PLANS ON FI,LE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER.
4. PAYMENT OF s2.00 PER FRONT F007 FOR STREET LI.(sHT1,NG PURPOSF.S ON
. LA PALMA AVENUE.
5. DEDICATION FOR THE EXTENSION UF HARON STREET TO PROVIDE ACCE55 TO
ADJACENT YACANT PROPERTK I.N ACCORDANCE WI,TH FREC(SE PLAN NEXH~BIT
A.• .
6. PREPARA7fON OF STREE7 IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL
IMFROVEMENTS FOR THE EX7ENSI.ON OF HARON STREEj ON SUBJECT PROPERTY
1N ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FIIE I.N THE
OFFICE OF,THE CITY EN6INEER.
7. PAYMENT:OF ;2.00 PER FRONT F007 FOR STREET LI.aHTIN(3~PURPOSES ON
THE EXTENSION OF HA'RON STREET.
8. TIME L1,MlTATION OF ONE HUNDRED EIaHTY (180) DAYS POR THE ACCOM~
PLISHMENT OF ITEM NOS. 2~ 3~ 4~ 5~ 6~ AND 7:
9. INSTALLATION OF A MINIMUM TWENTY (20~ F00T STRIP OF'LANDSCAPI.NCi IN
7HE FRONT SETBACK AREA AND I.N THE PARKWAY PORTION OF THE PLANNED
HXaHWAY R1GMT~OF-NAY OF LA PALMA AVENUE PLANS FOR SAID LANDSCAPIN~
TO BE SUBMLTTED TO AND APPROVED BY :HE,~UPERIN7ENDENT OF PARKMAY
MAI.NTENANCE.
10. INSTAtLAT1.ON OF A SIX (6),~FOOT MASONRY WALL ON TME EAST~ WEST~ AND
SOUTH BOU~JDARY LINES EXCEPT FOR THAT AREA PROVfDIN~ FOR THE EXTEN-
S1,ON Gt HARON STREET. -
~~ s ~: ~ , t 'r '
, _ . • . . . . . , . . . ~ ' . , . , . . .. . . ~ '~.,r
,. . . . ~ . : ~ - . ~ . -, .
.,_9:: .,. ~:4•~ rr3r. ~~~•~ .:tY~:~ .'t: , ~~:~~: t ~';-''~, Y!s"c, ~ `: ."`"~ .~t:~_.~~wqr.,r.-.' .. , ... . , ___..
. , . , . . . . . ~ . . .. . . _. ~.~,T-^-^~T
t
~ ~
~ _,~ ,-~ --
~- •
~
~ -
~
~'
~.:!
256
MINUTES~ C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ju~v 10~ 1961, CONTINUED;
CONDITIONAL USE ~ THE FOREGOING CONDITI.ONS NERE RECITED AT•THE MEETING AND MERE FOUND 70
PERMIT N0. 136 BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISI.TE 70 THE USE OF THE PROPERTY tN ORDER TO
CONTiNUED PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND NELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREQOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWIN(i V07E:
AYES: COMMiSS10NERSt SUMMERS,MORRIS~ MUN~ALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~
NQES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
CONDITIONAL USE - P(16LIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED sv JOHN NUNEMANN 419 Ensr ORANGE-
PFRM~T NO. 137 WOOD AVENUE~ ANANEI,M~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNER~ FLOYD R. LbEW, 1223 WEST
124TH. STREET LOS ANGELES 44 CALLFORNIA {IGENT REQUESTING PERMISSION
To CONSTRUCT ~SINGtE AND TWO S~'ORY GARDEN AP:ARTI~IE~ITS oN PROPERTY nES-
CRIBED AS:• l~ PARCEL 330 FEET BY 645 FEET M1TH 0. FRON7AGE OF 330 FEET
ON ORANGENOOD /~VENUE AND•LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ORANGENOOD QVE~
NUE BE7'WEEN HASTER STREET AND THE SAN7A ANA FREENAY~ ITS SOUTHWEST
CORNER BEING APPROX(MATELY 1~290 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
ORANGENOODEAVENUE.ORPROPERTY PRESENTLYDCLASSIFIEDERCA~BRESIDENTIALAST
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
A REQUEST FI.LED BY ATTORNEY BILL RE4LLY~ 401 WEST EIGHTH STREET~
SANTA ANA~ CALIFORNIA~ REQUESTINQ THA'~ THE SUBJECT PETI.TI.ON BE CON~
TINUED UNTIL THE MEETING OF JULY 24~ 1961 NAS SUBMI.TTED TO THE COMMIS~
SION.
NO ONE APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN RESPECT 70 7HE SUBJECT PETI-
TION.
COMMISSlONER•MUNaALL OFFERED A MOTl,ON~.SECONDED BY COMMISSI,ONER ALLRED
AND CARRIED~ THAT PETtT1.G:J FOR CONDI.T)ONAL USE PERMIT N0. 137 BE
REQUESTESUBMITTEDHBYMTHE'PETI,TIONER~S4REPRESENTATIVERDANCE WITH TNE
~
ABSENT: COMM1SS10NERS: GAUER~ HAPGOOD~ MaRCOUx.
~
CONDITiONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Pert.T~on SUBMITTED ev KENNETH W. NOLT, i557 WESr MABEL
PERMIT N0. 138 S7REETt ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNI.A~ ONNER~ J. W. REAGAN~ 542 WEST 19TH. STREET~
C057A MESA~ CAL4FORNIA~ AGENT~ REQUESTING PERMISSI,ON TQ OPERATE A
f PRIVATE SCHOOL ON PROPERTY DESCRLBED A51 AN IRREGULARLY SHAPED PARCEL
~ W:7H A FROkTACE OF 342 FEET ON MABEL $TREET AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF MABEL STREEj BETMEEN LOARA AIiD ADAMS S7REET~ ITS SOUTHWEST
CORNER BElNQ i4PPROXLMATELY 487 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
STREETSTPROPERTY PRESENTL'YECLASSIFIEpTME2~DLIGHTBMANUFACTURINGSTZONEEL
MFi. KENNETH HOLT APPEARED BEFORE 7HE COMMl55(ON AND STATED YHAT HE WAS
THERSCHOOL ATRTHENPRESEN7ALOCATI NRFORTAPPROXIMATELYHFIVEEYEARSERAHENG
DESCRIBED THE PRESENT ZONINa AND LAND USE OF THE SURROUNDING AREA AND
INDICATED THAT HE NAS REQUESTING THE VARIANCE IN ORDER TO EXPAND BE-
, CAUSE OF A CONSIDERABLE DEMAND WARRANTI.NG THE INCREASE IN THE SCHOOL~S
FACILITIES.
, MR. DAVtD S. COLLINS~ OWNER OF PROPERTY ACROSS MABEI STREET~ APPEARED
BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT 7HE PRESENT OFERATION WAS A VERY
'~~, GOOD ONE AND THAT HE WAS I.N FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED EXPANSIQN.
~ ' PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED DEYELOPMENT NERE SUBMI,T7ED TO THE COMMi5510N AND
ONETHETSLABNAT THE'REAR FORTWHICHTA PERM~.TSNADO9EENE08TA1NED APPROX~ED
MATELY ONE MONTH PREVIOUSLY.
A REPORT SUBM,ITTED BY THE BUIL~aN~ DEPARTMENT NAS PRESENTED TO THE
COMM15510N. THE REPORT 1.ND{CATED A NUMBER OF CORREC710NS THAT MOULD
CODEEREQUIREMEN757HETHErPET1TtONERCINFORMED THEFC MMIS51 NHTHAT'HE'N~
TOUTHEC5TAIRWAYSHTHAT WERE`NOTEDTI.N THE G RRECT1011'LIST~AAN~NMASL~N~VE
FORMED THAT THE STAIRWAYS NOULD HAVE TO CONFORM 70 THE ~UILDING CODE.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMI,TTEE RECOMMENDA~IONS WERE READ TO 7HE COMM15-
SI,ON AND A DI.SCUSSION ENSUED RELATJ,VE TO THE 1.MPROVEMEN7 OF MABEL
STREEi. MR. COLL7NS REQUESTED THAT CONSI,DERATI,ON BE QI.VEN TO THE PRE-
SERVATION OF A RUBBER TREE 7MAT (S LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~
WHI.CH 1.5 ONE OF THE'FEW REMAIN1.Nti TREES OF TH15 TYPE~ AND WHICH MAY BE
~, } AFFEC7ED BY THE ST1,P.ULATED IMPROVEMEN7 AND 7HE 1.NSTALLATION OF CURBS~
(iUTTERS~.AND SIDEMALKS. IT MAS NOTED THAT THE MATTER HAD BEk7d DlS-
]• _
> '' CUSSED AT THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COt~~:7TEE MEETI.NG AND THAT 1.T WAS
'~`,~;:~ fs CONSIDERED POSSLBLE THA7 THE TREE WOULD BE AFFECTED~ BUT THAT SI,NCE
,~,;5.? THE TREE WAS'ONE OF A FEW REMAINI,N6 LANDMARK9~,A METHOD T~ PROTECT THE
i„~~s; ,:~„ ~ .
x7.. ;~, .:~
• _....--..,».--..
` , . ~..<; . , . .. _. . , ,<': ... . 1~. ; '..._..~ , ~,. '' ._ . . __~. . _ .
~
~
~
~
i
y
~
~;' `,.
~~~~- - ~
~ ~
. .
~ :
a
~ ~ ~:'~- ~ \.sv.
2S7
MINUTES~ C1TY PLANNIN6 COMMISSION~ Ju~v 10~ 1961, CONTI.NUED: ~
CONDl710NAL USE ~ TREE MIGHT BE DEVISED PROVIDED ANY MODIFICATION OF THE STREET IMPROVE- i
PERMiT N0. 138 MEN7 PLAYS WOULD NOT BE DE7RIMEN7AL TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND GENERAL I
CONTI.NUED WELFARE OF THE CI.TL2EN5 OF 7HE CITY OF ANAHE'IM.
THE HEARING•WAS CLOSED. •
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERM].NED THE FOLLOWI,NG FACTS REGARDING THE I
SUBJECT ?ETITI,ONi , (
1. THAT 7HE PROPOSED USE 15 PROPERLY ONE FOR WHI.CH A CONDlTIONAL USE
PERMI.T IS AUTHORIZED BY THtS CODE~ TO WIT: EXPANSION OF A PRIYATE ~
SCHOOL. •
1
2. THA7 THE PROPOSED USE WIIL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJOINING LAND
USES AND THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA 1.N NHICH IT IS
PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED.
3. THAT THE 512E AND SHAPE OF THE SI,TE PROPOSED FOR 7HE USE IS ADE-
QUA7E TO ALLOW THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED USE IN A
MANNER NOT DE7RIMEN'[AL TO THE PARTICULkR AREA NOR TO THE PEACE~
HEALTH~ SAFE7Y~ AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE C1T12ENS OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM. '
4. THA7 THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT I,MPOSE AN
UNDUE BURDEN UPON THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS PROPOSED TO CARRY THE
TRAFFIC IN THE AREA. y
5. THAi THE aRANTING OF THE CONDITI.ONAL USE PERMIT UNDER THE CONDI- i
T'IUNS '1MPOSED~ ].F ANY~ WILL NOT BE DETRI,MEN7AL TO PEACE~ HEALTH~ i
SAFETY~ AND ~ENERAL WELFARE OF THE CI7L2EN5 OF 7HE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
6. THAT CONSI,~ERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO 7HE PRESERVAT~ON OF THE
EXISTING RJBBER TREE LOCATED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PROVIDED ANY
MODLFICATION OF THE NECESSARY STREET IMPROVEMENTS SHALL NOT BL
DEEMED BY THE C1TY ENGLNEER TO BE DE7RIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY
AND GENERAL NEIFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
7. TNAT NO ONE APPEARED 1N OPPOS,ITION TO SUBJECT PETITION.
COMMISSIONER ALLRED OFFERED RESOLUTI,ON N0. 7~ SER~ES 1961~62~ AND MOVED
FOR 1TS PASSAGE AND ADOPT'ION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSItinER MUNGALI.~ TO
fiRANT PETITION FOR CONDI.TIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 138~ SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOMJ.NG CONDITlONS:
1. COFiPL{Ai~CE HiTH THE Bt3iLDp.iiG CODE TO TME SAT:SFACT:O!! OP THE CHIEF
SUILDIN6 INSPECTOR FOR THE CORRECTJON OF THE FOLLOWING LTEMS:
A. CORRECTION~~IST ON MAIN BUILDING:
l. EXIT DOOR ON SECOND F600R.
2. REAR STAIRMAY NEEDS RECONSTRUCTION.
3. INSTALI NEW MATER HEA7ER VENT.
4. PROVIDE COMBUSTION ALR TO BASEMENT.
5. IN57ALL VENT OVER RANaE AND QARBAGE DISPOSAL I.N MANAGER~S
• KITCHEN.
6. HAVE GAS LJ,NES CHECKED AND BROUGHT UP TO CODE.
B. CORRECTlON LIST ,O~,CAFETERIA.
• 1: PROVJDE VENT QVER STOVE.
2. INSTALI. GARBAGE DISPOSAL AND INSTALL TNO COMPARTMENT S~INKS.
3. REMOVE WALL HEATER.
4: SEAL DOOR AND i'UT IN 701LET STALLS IN RESTROOMS.
S. PROVIDE ONE-HOUR FIRE.MALLS I.NSIDE.
C. CORRECTION LIST ,0~ @~$,b:
1. MAKE ONE-HOUR FaRE CONSTRUCTION THROUaHOUT.
2. RECONSTRUCT STAIRWAYS 70 COMPLY TO CODE.
" V 3.. RECONS7RUCr..MlNDDWS.
` s;
' t4 '? 4r REMOVE OR BR1N~ FURNACE UP TO CODE.
rt .
R~,
'~hr:; ~;l. 5. WIRlNO TO BE C:iECKED BY ELEC7RlCAL INSPECTOR.
'v'~Yu~
~ ~-~~~a: ,
.>. -: a• . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~. - . . . . . . ,
: . .~ ..~,...~ .
? .'•~- ~,~, ~..~ ~._ ~~ ~ -~~ ~~ ~ .r.~ .,~ .. . . ~. .. ,. .. ~ _ . . .
>i e' ~' .. . ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ .
K..>, .~ ~,.i:2 . . ~I~~_.ii^bi'7~yS<~Y.i%`" ~ ,,...t'' . ~ i}. ... . ...,.~~e .~f,:_ ..,c ... t.::~ . ~ _..~ ~Vlr .'~MS r.~f~~~ ~_.. ._ ...~ev~w~a
~ t::
~ r
~
~;• I MINUTES, CITY Pi.ANNiNG COMMlSS10N, JULY 10~ 196i, CONTINUED:
CONDITIONAL USE - 6. Ex~T oooRS ro SE CORREC7ED.
PERMIT N0. 138
CONTINUED D. CORRECTION~~,L2 A~ BU~LDI~.NGS:
1. INSTALL ALARM SY57EM THROU~HOUS.
2. PREPARATI.ON OF STREET IMPROVEMEN7~P~ANS AND INSTALLATLON OF ALL
IMPROVEMENTS FOR MABEL STREET IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED
STANDARD PLANS ON FILE JN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER.
3: PAYMENT OF f2.00 PER FRONT FOUT FOR STREET IIGHTING PURPGSES ON
MABEL STREET.
4: TLME LIMITATION OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) DAYS FOR THE ACCOM-
PLISHMENT OF'ITEM NOS. 1~ 2~ ANu 3.
THE FOREGOING CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND NERE FOUND
TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO
PRESERVE THE SAFE7Y AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOI,NCa RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ MORR1,5~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SU:AMERS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMM1SS10NERS: GAUER~ HAPGOOD~ MaRCOUx.
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMiT N0. 139
;~E
... -~r'~~ .
- PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION.SUBMITTED ev RUBERT P. RALLS, M. D., 133i2
VERANO~ GARDEN GROVE~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNER~ DANIEL RQLIS~ 9402 dIXBY~
CaARDEN GROVE CALIFORNIA~ AGENT REQUESTING PERMI.SSION i0 OPERATE A
HOSPITAL 1N ~ONJUNCTION WITH A~1EDICAL CENTER oN PROPERTY DE5CRlBED ns; ;
AN (RRE(3ULARLY SHAPED PARCEL LOCATED.BETWEEN 250 FEET AND 350 FEET ~
SOUTH OF THE CENTERLINE OF BROADWAY BETWEEN LOARA STREET AND EUCLID
AVENUE~ ITS EA57 BOUNDARY BEI.NG APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET WEST OF THE MEST
BOUNDARY OF LOARA STREET AND EX7ENDING WESTERLY 330 FEET AND FURTHER
DESCRIBED AS 1640 WEST BROADNAY. PROPERTY PRGSENTLY CLASSI.FIEO C-1~
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, 20NE. '
MR. DANIEL RALLS~ 9402 BIXBY~ GARDEN GROVEy REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PE-
TITIONER~APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSI,ON AND REVIEWED PAST ACT10N UPON
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. HE INDICATED THA7 PLANS HAD BEEN FORMULATED
FOR THE ERECTlON OF A HOSPI,TAL TO PROV,I,PE IN-PATIENT AND OU7-PATIENT
FAC:l7Tt~S FOR TY.E CAP.E OF CAt:CER PAT:E!l35~ THAT LAH~ Y.AS ACQU:RED,
THAT C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONING AND A VARtANCE WERE OBTAINED
TO PERMIT 7HE DEVELOPMENT~ AND THAT 7HE ZONLNG ORDINANCE HAD BEEN
. CMANGED AND THE PETIY~ON FOR VAR),ANCE HAD EXPIRED BEFORE THE DEVELOP-
MENT HAD BEEN COMMENCED~ THEREBY NECESSI,TATI.NG THE PRESENT REQUEST FOR
A CONDLTIONAL USE PERMIT.
MR. EDNARD MHEDON~ 435 ARDEN STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMI.SSION AND
REQUESTED I.NFORMA710N REI.ATI.VE TO THE DATE OF MAILI.NG AND THE NUMBER
OF NOTICES FORNARDED TO OMNERS 1N THE SU RROUNDING AREA. HE STATED
THAT HE WAS OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED HOSPI.7AL B~CAUSE IN HIS OPINION
THERE NERE A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF HOSP17AL5 IN THE AREA TO ADEQUATELY
CARE FOR THE PUBLIC~ THAT 7HE PROPOSED HOSPITAL MOULD BE A NUISANCE
BECAUSE OF AMBULANCES~ THAT )T NOULD BE A HA2ARD 70 THE CHI,LDREN 1.N THE
AREA~ AND THAT A BET7ER USE COULD BE MADE OF THE PROPERTY. ASSISTANT
C'ITY AT''ORNEY TfIURM~IN ROBERTS SUPPLIED INFORMATION RELATI,VE TO THE
NOTIFICATION OF THE PUBLLC HEARING ON St18JECT PETITI.ON IN ACCORDANCE
WITH CODE REQUIREMENTS. ~
MR. RALLS INDICATED THAT THE HOSPITAL NOULD BE A CLOSED GROUP~ COMPRISED ~
OF DR. RALLS AND DR. SAROFF~ FOR THE CARE OF CANCER PA7JENT5~ MHLCH I
WOULD NOT ~ENERATE THE AMOJNT OF TRAFFI,C GENERALLY ASSOCI,ATED HLTH i
OTHER HOSPI,TALS. HE StATED A BLOCK MALL WAS PRESENTLY BELNG CONSTRUCTED j
ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LI.NE OF SUBJECi PROPER7Y ADJACENT TO.THE R-1~ ,
ONE FAMILY RES~DENTJAL~ ZONE. I
THE HEARING MAS CLOSED.
THE COMMJSSION REVIEWED DEVELOPMENT pLANS AND A DISCUSSION WAS HELD
RELATJ.VE TO THE RELOCATION OF THE BW LDLNQ I.N QRDER TO PROVIDE A DR1.VE
AND 7HE POSSI.BI.E REVISION OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS. COMMISSIONER MUN-
GALL I.NDICA7ED THAT HE MOUI.D BE I,NTERESTED JN THE SUBMISSI.ON OF DETAI.I.ED
PLANS SHON7.NG THE ULTIMATE DEVELOPMEN7.OF THE ~NTIRE PARCEL OF PROP~RTY.
COMMI,SSI.ONER MUNfiAI.L OFFERED A MOTI.ON 71iAT 7HE SUBJECT PETj710N BE CON-
TINUED FOR UNE MON7H AND THAT COMPLETE PLANS BE SUBMITTED INCLUDING
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENTIRE PARCEL OF PROPER7Y.
MR. RALLS ADQRESSED THE COMM.fSSt,ON AND STATED THAT THE PETITIO~~ERS DID
NO7'HAVE 1MtdED1ATE PLANS FbR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ENTIRE PARCEL~ AND
THAT THE C(TY COUNCIL HAO REVIEWED 7HE(R REQUEST AND HAD A1,DED 7HE
~ b
258
~ #
l. .
~.
~.:
F
~ .; I
_ r.,.i:i•'~+'W~
~
~J
.~
~ -~~ _ .
:,: .
;;.:-,:
~;
,:: ~
>:- .
~1
259
MINUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION, JULY 10~ 1961, CONTINUED:
CONDITIONAL USE
PERMiT N0. 139
CONTINUED
- PETITIONERS IN THE SUBMl,5510N OF THE REQUE57 IN ORDER TO EXPEDI7E THE I
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. IT KAS NOTED THAT THE NIDTH OF THE DRIVENAY
APPEARED TO BE THE MOST IIdMED1ATE CONCERN IN RESPECT TO THE DEVELOP- I
MENT OF THE PROPERTY.
COMMISSIONER I~UNGALL W.LTHDREM H1,5 M07~.ON I.N VIEW OF THE LACK OF IMME^ ~
DIATE PLANS FUR ?NE DEVELOP67ENT OF THE EN71RE PARCEL. HE INDICATED~
HOWEVER~ THAT IN HIS OPt.NION THE Bli1.LDING SHOULD BE RELOCATED AND THE
DRIVEWAY ACCESS MIDENED.
A DISCUSSION ENSUED RELATIVE TO 7HE DEVELOPMENT LN ACCORDANCE WITH `
PLANS PRESENTED~ WHI.CH WOULD RESULT !N THE VARI:.NCE PETI.TION BECOM~ I
lNG NULL AND VOI,D~ AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THE 9UALDI.tJG WOU~D HAVE TO ~
BE MOVED BACK TEN FEET !N ORDER TO PROVIDE A:i!iiRTY FOOT DRIVENAY
ACCESS. THE COMMISSiON AL50 DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT A VARJ.ANCE COULD f
BE APPLIED FOR AT SUCH TI.ME AS DEVELOPMEN7 FOR THE REMAINING VACANT ~
PARCEL WAS DESIRED.
THE COMMISSION THEN DISCUSSED 7HE TYPE OF HOSPITAL TO BE ESTABLISHED ~
AND INDICATED THAT IT WOULD BE DESIRABLE TO LIMIT THE USE TO THE
PURPOSES I.NDICATED IN THE SUBJECT PETITION.
MR. FALLS INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT THE REQUESTEp USE WAS FOR THE ~
COMBI,NED OUT~PATIENT AND IN-~PAT.I.ENT CARE.FOR CHRONIC AND ACUTE CANCER
PATIENTS AND VARIOUS OTHER CHRONI.C CASES TO BE REFERRED TO THE HOSPI-
TAL BY THE.VETERAN~S ADMINI.STRATION. MR. RALLS INDICATED THAT A TOTAL
OF APPROX~MATELY 54 BEDS WOULD BE PROVIDED AND THAT THE STATE BUFEAU
OF HOSPITALS.LICENSING BOARD CON7ROLLED THE TYPE OF HOSPI.TAL THAT
COULD BE ESTABLLSHED AND SAI,D LICENSI.NG WAS GOVERNED BY THE NUMBER OF
SURGERI°_~ AND OTHEF FACILITLES THAT WERE PROVIDED.
THE COMMISSION F~UND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWiNG FACTS REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PE7I.TIAN:
1. THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS PROPERLY ONE FOR WHICH A CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT IS AUTHORIZED BY 7HIS.CODE~ TO WIT: A HOSPITAL FOR CHRONlC
AND ACUTE !N-PATIENT AND OUT-PATIENT CARE AND THE ESTABLISHMENT
' OF A CANCER DETECTION CENTER.
2. T}1AT THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE A~JOINING LAND
USES AND THE GROWTH AND DEVE~OPMENT OF THE AREA iN WHICH IT !S
PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED.
3. THAT THE SLZE AND SHAPE OF THt SITE PROPOSED FOR THE USE IS ADE-
QUATE TO ALLOW THE Fi1LL D£VELQPKSll7 OF THE PRQPQSED USE IN A
MANNER NOT DETRIMEN7AL TO THE PARTICULAR AREA ~OR TO THE PEACE~
HEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND GENERAL WEIFARE OF 7HE CI.T,IZENS OF 7HE CITY
OF ANAHEIM.
4. THAT THE TRAFFIC QENERATfiD BY THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT IMPOSE AN
UNDUE BURDEN UPON 7HE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS DESIGNED AND PROPOSED
TO CARRY THE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA.
5. THAT THE GRANTIN~ OF THE CONDlTIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER THE CONDI-
TIONS IMPOSED~ I.F ANY~ WI.LL NOT BE DETRIMEN7AL TO THE PEACE
HEAL7H~ SAFETY~ AND 6ENERAL WELFARE OF THE C,ITIZENS OF THE ~ITY
OF ANAHEIM.
6. THAT VERBAL OPPOSITI.ON 9Y ONE OWNER OF PROPERTY I.N THE SUBJECT AREA
MAS RECORDED AQAI,NST SUBJECT .^eTI,TION.
COMMISSIONER ALLRED OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 8~ SERIES 1961-62~ AND
MOVED FOR 1T5 PASSAGE AND ADOPTiON~ SECONDEO 9Y CONMISSIONER MUNGALL~
TO GRANT PETITION FOR CONDJTLONAL USE PERMIT N0. 139~ SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLONiNG COND/TIONS:
1. DEVELOPMENi SUBSTANTIALI.Y IN ACCORDANCE N1TH PLANS PRESENTED FOR
THE 'IMMEDIATE DEVELOPMENT ONLY~ W17H THE EXCEPTION THAT THE BUILD-
INQ BE SE7 BACK TEN (10~ FEET !N ORDER TO PROVIDE DRIVEIIAY ACCESS
THIRTY (30~ FEET J.N WID7H~ AND THAT ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SHALL
BE SUBJECT TO THE FII.I.NO OF A PETITIONr0U7L1.N1,NG SA1D FUTURE
EXPANSION~I.N ACCORDANCE WI,TH CQDE REQUfREMENTS.
r Z~ BROADWAYNTOFPROVI.DETADEQUA7EOACCE55vFORYEMERQENCYGVEHICLES.~Y FROM
3. (NS7ALLATION OF A S~,X (6) FOOT MASONRY WALL ON THE WEST~ SOUTH~
EAST AND SOUTHERLY POP.TION OF THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE.
THE FORE(30LNG CONDJTy.ONS WERE RECI.TEO AT 7NE MEETJNQ AND NERE FOUND TO.
BE A.NECESSARY PREREQtlI51,TE TO THE USE OF THE.PROPERTY 1.N ORDER T0
PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND NELFARE OF 7HE C17,12EN5 OF THE CI,TY OF ANAHEJM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FORE(301,NCi R~50LUT10N MA9 PASSED BY TNE FOLLOWINQ VOTE:
~
~ DELETE CONDITION.NO. 2 OF RESOWTION WO. S~ SERIES 1961~62.'
, . ~ . . . . . . ^" .
~..~~ .. ..~.,: . ~.,
_ . . i,`.:n , 1.~...t . . ,H ... . ,. ~ ~ .~, ~ . . . . . ...., _ . ~ F I.. .i .:'~ .F:;.i.?.:. 1
.. '. fr'-.-_:~•.T......:'l• . : ~____
260
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMM1SS10N, Ju~v 10~ 1961~ CONTlN~JED:
CONDiT10NAl USE - AYES: COMMISSION~RS: ALLRED~ P10RR15~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~
PERMIT N0. 139 SUi~IMERS. ' '.
CONTINUED I~OES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ~ . ~ i.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER~ HAPGOOD~ Mnacoux. i
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMIT7ED ev VICTOR B. SAYRE 530 Vln Lioo.
NO. 61-62-1 NORD NEHPORT BEACHt CALIFORNI.A~ ONNER~ PACIFIC SOUTHN~ST REAlTY
COMPANY, P. O. BOX G097 - TERMINAL AN~'EX~ LOS ANGELES 54~ CALIFORNIA~
AGENT~ REQUESTING 7HAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5: A PARCEL 2$5 FEET BY
295 FEET H1TH A FRON7AGE OF 285 FEET ON KATELLA AVENUE AND LOCATED
ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF KATELLA AVENUE AND NUMOR DRIVE BE RECLA55-
IFIED FROM THE R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTUWiL, ZONE TO rHe C-i, NE16H-
BORHOOD COMMERCIAL, 20NE.
SUBJECT PETITION IS FILED IN CONJUNCTION WITH PETITION FOR VARIANCE
No. 1376. .
MR. EUGENE R. JOHNSON~ AGENT FOR THE SECl1RITY NATIONAL BANK~ APPEARED
BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND DESCRI,BED THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF ONE
OF SEVEN DATA PROCESSING CENTERS TO BE ESTABLISHED IN THE LOS ANGEI.ES -
ORANGE COUNTY AREA. MR. JOHNSON INDICATED THAT THE BANK WAS ESTABLISH~
I.NG SUCH CENTERS IN EACH DIVISIONAL AREA AND THAT THE PROPOSED DEVEL-
OPMENT ON SUBJECT PROPERYY WOULD SERVE THE ORANGE COUNTY AREA. HE
STATED THE PROPERTY HAS IDEALL'. SITUATED SO THAT IT COULD BE UTILI2ED
FOR A COMPUTER CENTER AND FOR A BRANCH BANKING OFFICE.
MR. THEODORE ROELFSEMA~ REPRESENTATI.VE FOR THE $ECURITY FI::ST NATiONAL
BANK~ APPEARED BEFORF.~THE COMMISSION~ PRESENTED RENDERINGS OF THE
PROPpSED DEVELOPMENT~ AND STATED THAT THE CRAWIN6'S REPRESENTE9 THE
BASIC PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT ALTHOUGH THERE MIGHT 6E SOME ARCHITECTURAL
VARIATIONS. HE INDICATED THAT THE PLOT PLANS DID NOT INCLUDE DRIV°_~
IN WiNDOWS AND THAT•AT THE PRESENT T[ME THEY WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IPJ
THE TENTATIVE PLANS. HE STATED FURTHER THAT ACCESS WOULD BE PROVIDED
TO THE BUILDING FROM THE BREEZE-WAY.
THE HE~RING WAS CLOSED.
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE AMOUNT OF PARKING FOR WHICH A WAIVER OF
CODE REQUI.REMENTS I.S BCING REQUESYE~ IN PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1376
AND COMMISSIONER MORRIS EXPRESSED CONCERN IN RESPECT TO THE POSSIBILITY
THAT THE PROPOSED USE MIGHT BE DISCONTINUED AND A COMMERCIAL USE RE-
QUIRING ADDITIONAL PARKING WOULD BE ESTABLISHED IN THE BUILDING. IT
WAS NOTED THAT A CONDITION COULD BE ATTACHED TO 7HE SUBJECT PROPERTY
REQUIRING THE PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR COf;PIIANCE WITH
CODE STANDARDS IN THE EVENT THE USE WERE CHAN6ED.
COMMISSIONER PEBLF.Y NOiED THAT THE SUBJECT PE7ITION WAS TO ESTABLISH
A BANK DEVELOPMENT AND COMMISSIONER MORRIS INDICATED THAT HE CONSI-
DEt.~D THE LAND USE TO BE SUITABLE.
MR. ROELFSEMA INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT THE COMPUTER CENTER WOULD
EMPLOY APPROXIMATELY FIFTY PERSONS AND 1'HAT INITI.ALLY APPROXIMATELY
NlNE PERSONS WOULD BE EMPLOYED IN THE BANK BRANCH OFFICE~ THEREFORE~
IT NOULD NOT BE FEASIBLE TO PROVIDE PARKING FACILITI.ES IN ACCORDANCE
NITH CODE REQUJREMENTS.
MR. JOHNSON INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT THE COMPUTER CEN7'ER I.S A
SPECIALLY CONSTRUCTED BUILOING CON7AINING SPECIAL NIRING AND HOLLOW
FLOORS. CONSEQUENTLY~ SUCH A BUI.I.DING MIGHT NOT BE DESIRABLE FOR
ANOTHER U,SE BECAUSE OF ITS UNIQUE CONSTRUCTION.
~ THE COMMISSION D1,SCUSSED PARKINf~ REQUIREMENTS FURS}fER 1.N RESPECT TO
THE PETITION FOR VARIANCE FILED IN CONJUNCTLON NITH THE SUBJECT PET1~
710N.
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMI.NED THE FOLLOWINa FACTS REGARDING TNE
SUBJECT PETITIONi
1. THAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIF!CAT10N OF THE ABOVE DES-
, CRIBED PROPERTY FROM THE R-A, RESIDENTIi.:. AG121CULTURAL~ ZONE TO
THE C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE.
2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLA55lFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NECES-
SARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERI.Y AND PROPER DEVELOPM[NT OF THE
i COMMUNITX•
•I 3. THAT. THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFI.CA7I,ON OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES PRO-
PERLY RELATE TO T}iE ZONES AND THEIR PERMITTED USES LOCALLY ESTAB-
LI.SHED IN CLOSE PROXl,M1.TY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE ZONES AND
THEIR PERMITTED USES QENERALLY ESTABLISHED 7HROUGHOUT THE COMMUNtTY.
4. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICA710N OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES RE-
QUIRE DEDICATION FOR AND STANDARD IMPROVEMENT OF ABUTTING STREETS
~
~
~ ~ ~
... . ..
, ----- -
~
~
~
261
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ju~v 10~ 1961, CONTI,NUED:
SiECLASSIFICQTION ~ BECAUSE SAID PROPERTY DOES RELA7E TO AND ABUT•UPON STREETS AND
NO. 61-62~1 HI,GHWAYS WHI.CH ARE PROPOSED TO CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANTtTY OF
CONTINUED TRAFFIC~ WHICH WI.LL BE GENERATED BY THE PERMITTED USES~ 1N
ACCORDANCE W•ITH THE ClRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
5.•.•~THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SU6JECT PETITION.
COMMLSSIONER PEBLEY OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 9~ SERIES 1961-62~ AND
MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED~
TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT PET.ITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION
N0. 61-62~-1•BQ GRANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITLONS:
1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTI.ALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED.
2. SUBJECT TO THE APP.ROVAL OF PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1376.
3. PAYMENT OF =2.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STREET LIGHTIN6 PURPOSES ON
KATELLA AVENUE AND HUMOR DRlVE.
4: COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED STANDARD PtANS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CITY ENQINEER FOR THE INSTALLATION OF DRIVENAYS.
~ 5. TIME LIMI?ATION OF NINETY (90~ DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF
• ITEM NOS. 3 AND 4.
6: PROVISION OF LANDSCAPING•IN ACCORDANCE W,ITH PLANS PRESENTED~
SAID LANDSCAPING SO BE SUBMIT:ED TO AND APPROVED BY THE $UPER-
INTENDENT OF PARKWAY MAINTENANCE.
THE FORE601NG CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND NERE FOUND TO
BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO
PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITtZENS OF THE C'ITY OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE,FOLLOWlNG VOTEt
AYES: COMMlSSIONERSS ALLRED~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SUMMERS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.. .
. ABSEM : COMM1SS10NERS: GAUER~ HAPGOOD~ MnRCOUx.
r~;~~', ~
r;:
v. ~%: S . +:•~~.
VARIANCE N0. 1376 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION sueM~,rreo ev VICTOR B. SAYRE 530 VIA Lioo
NORD~ NEWPORT BEACH~ CALIFORNIA OWNER; PACIFIC SOUTHN~ST REALTY COM-
PANY~ P. O. BOX 2047~ TERM!l:AL ~H!!E?( LQS ANGELE9 54 CAI.IFORNIA
AGENT~ REQUESTINQ PERMISSI,ON To WAIV~ MINIMUM PARKIN~ SPACE REQUjRE-
FRONTAC,EPOFP285YFEETCONBKATELLA AVENUEEANDBLOCATEDBON2THEFNORTHEASTA
CORNER OF KATELLA AVENUE AND HUMOR DRI.VE. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLA551-
FtED R-A~ RESIDENTIAI A6RICULTURAL, ZONE.
SUBJECT PETITION IS FILED !N CONJUNCTION WiTH PETITION FOR ~ECLAS51-
FiCATION.NO. 61-62~1.
MR. THEODORE ROEl~SEMA~ REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE SECURITY FIRST NAYIONAL
BANK APPEARED BEFORE THE COFiMIS51ON~ DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED DEVE:LOP-
MENT OF A BRANCH BANK OFFICE AND AN ELECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING CENTER~
ANQ STATED THAT THE PROJECT~D BUSINE55 ACTIVITY OF THE BANK OFFICE
INDICATED THE NECESSITY FOR THE PROVIS~ON OF APPFOXI.MATELY THIRTY-
E16HT PARKIN6 SPACES NITH THE COMPUTER CENTER~ HAVINO APPRCXIMATELY
FIF7Y EMpL0YEE5~ REQUIRINfi A MAXI,MUM OF FI,FTY PARKING SP~•!'E5~ MAKING
A TOTAL OF EIGHTY-EIGHT (88) PARKINQ SPACES 70 SUPPLY ADE~UATE PARK~
ING FACILI.YIES. iiE STATED FURTHER THAT 7HE DEVELOPMENT PLANS INDI-
CATE A TOTAL OF llfi PARKING SPACES~ THEREBY PROV~D)NG AN EXC£55 NlSMBER
OF SPACES FOR THEIR NEEDS. AS A CONSEQUENCE~ HE 57ATED~ THFY WERE
• RBQUESTING A WAIVER OF COOE REQUIREMEN7S WHICH WOULD REQUIRC• THE PRO-
V1510N OF 312 PARKINa SPACES FOR THE SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
THE COMMISSION DLSCUSSED THE POSSJBILITY THAT THE PROPERTY MAY BE SOLU
AND ANOTHER COMMERCIAL USE MAY REQU7RE ADDITI.ONAL PARKI.NG FACILITIES.
IT MAS NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY COULD BE RESTRqCTED LI.MI.TI.N(i THE USE
OF THE BUILDINa TO THE COMPU7'ER CENTER TO ASSURE THAT PARKLNG BE PRO-
VIDED ~N ACCORDANCE WITH CODE REQUIREMENTS I.N THE EVENT THE USE OF THE
PROPERTY 'NAS CHANOEO.
THE COMMISSJON FOUND AND DETERMlNED 7HE FOLLOW1Na FACTS REQARDING 7HE
SUBJECT PETITION3 "
1. THAT THE PET1710NER REQUESTS A VARI.ANCE FR0~1 7HE ANAHEIM MUNICI-
, PAL CODE~ SECTION 18.04.030 70 PERMIT THE PROPOSEp DEVELOPMENT OF
SUBJECT PROPERTY MITH THE PROVJSION OF 116 PARKI.NG SPACES.
'"'.~ •
5
^' ' v,
2. TNAT THERE ARE EXCEPTI,ONAL OR E%TRAORDINARY C1.RCUMSTANCES OR
i
~
>i
~r '
6
~,:.,.
~ ~
262
hiINUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Ju~v 10, i961~ CONTtNUEb:
VARfANCE NU. 1376 - CONDl.TIONS APPLICABLE TQ 'PHE PROPER7Y INVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDEO
~QNTINUEu USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY 70 THE PROPERTY
- OR CLASS OF USE~I,N THE SAME VICINITY AND 20NE.
3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR 7'HE PRESERVATION AND•
ENJOYM~NT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY R16HT POSSESSED BY OTHER
PROPERTY IN THE SAME YI,CINITY AND ZONE~ AND DENlED TO THE PROPERTY
IN QUESTION.
4. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT BE•MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO
THE PUBLLC MELFARE OR 1NJURLOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN
SUCH VICINITY AWD ZONE JN WHI.CH 7HE PROPERTY 15 LOCATED.
5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPRE-
HENSIVE GENERAL PIAN.
6. THAT THE PROPOSED EIECTRONIC DATA PROCESSING CENTER 15 A BUILDING
THAT LS DEVOTED 70 A USE THAT IS UNIQUE AND WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE
THE STANDARD PARKING AREA THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE USUAL TYPE OF
RETAIL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. •
7. THAT NO ONE APPEARED LN OPPOSI.TI,ON TO SUBJEC7 PETITION. .
COMMISStONER HUNQALL OFFERED RESOI.UTION.NO. 10~ SERIES 1961-62~ AND
MOVED FOR ITS PASSAQE kND ADOPT:,lN~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED~
TO ~RANT PETI.TI.ON FOR VARIANCE N0. 1376, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLONING
CONDITIONS:
1. RECORDATI.ON OF DEED RE,~,TRICTIONS LIM171NG THE USE OF SUBJECT PRO-
• PERTY TO A BANK BRANCH OFFI.CE AND AN ELECTRONLC DATA PROCESSING
CENTER.
2. INSTALLATI,ON OF A SIX (6) FOOT MASONRY WALL ON THE NORTH AND EAST
BOUNDARIES OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. ••
3. PROVISI.ON OF LANDSCAPING IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED~ SAID
LANDSf,Ap~Na TO BE SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED HV TIiE SUPERINTENDEN7
OF PARKWAY MAI.N7ENANCE. • •
4: DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCOR~ANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED.
5. SUBJECT TO TkE RECLE:SSiFlCAT1ON OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO 7HE
;-1~ NEI(3HRORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE.
~ THE FOREGOING CONDITIONS NERE RECITEQ AT THE MEETING ANO WERE FOUND TO
' BE A NECESSARY PREREQU151TE TO THE USE OF THE PROPER7Y IN ORDER TO
PRESERVE THE SAFETV AND MELFARE OF THE GITI.ZENS OF TML CITY OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CAIL THE FOREGOIN6 RESOLUTION WAS PASSEG BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ i~UNaALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SUMMERS.
NOES: COFIMISSIONERS: MORRIS.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONFRS: GAUER~ HAPGOOD~ Mnrtcoux.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLfC HEARING. PETITION SUBMJTTED ev EDWARD L. AND IR!S E. ELLIOTT,
NO. 61-62-2 2453 WEST GRANT~ CORVALLIS~ ORE~ON~ ONNERS~ VERA B. OSTER~ 709 SOUTH
~.OS ANGELES STREET~ ANAHEIM~ CAL(FORN,IA~ AGENT~ REQUESTING THAT PRO-
PER7Y DESCRIBED A5: A:'ARCEL 47 FEET BY 158 FEET NiTH A FRONTAGE OF
47 FEET ON BROADMAY AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH S1.DE OF BROADNAY BETMEEN
NAR80R BOIftE;ARD AND CITRON STREETj I.TS SOUTHEAST CORNER BEINQ APPROXI~
NP.TELY 275 FEET MEST OF 7HE NOR7HWEST CORNER OF HARBOR BOULEVARD AND
BROAQWAY AND FURTNER DESCRIBED AS 5I.5 WEST BR!1ADWAY~ BE RECLASSIFIEU
FROM rHe F-2 TViO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE 'ro rt+e C-1, NEIGHBORH00D
' COMMERCIAL~ fONE.
MR. MARK ANDREWS~ 1016 WEST CENTER STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE '7HE COMMIS-
SI,ON AND STATEp THAT THE PROPER7Y HAD 9EEN SOI:D TO AN ATTORNEY~ THAT
IT WAS PRESENTLY 7N ESCROM~ AND 7'HAT T4E ATTORNEY' 1N7ENDED TO ESTAB-
L15H A LAW OFFI,CE IN THE £XISTI.NQ SI.NaLE FAMIIY RESIDENCE.
MR. MEL NIT2 APpEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ STATED 7'NAT THE NROPERTY
MOULD NOT BE USED FOR RESIDFNTIAI PURPOSES~ TNA7 i.T WOULD BE U71L12ED
FOR PROFESSIONAL OFF'ICES ONLY~CONTAININ~ A 70TAL OF FIVE PERSONS~
THAT 'iHE APPEARANI:E OF THE BU~LDIiVQ WOIILD REMAJN THE SAME~ THAT AN
EXISTI.NG GARA3E WJULD BE REMOVED TO PROVIDE PARKI.N~ AREA~ AND THAT
THE EXi5T1.N0 ~UEST C0T7AQE ON TFiE REAR OF THE PROPERTV NOULD REMAIN
TO PROYIDE SSORA9E BUT NOT TO BE UTILIZED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURHOSES.
THE HEARIN6 WAS CLOSE~.
TkE COMML551,Ok DISCUSSED TNE RE5lDENT1AL CHARACTER GF THE SURROUNDINfi
AREA AND THE POSSIBLE 7RANS1TlON OF THE ARrA SHOULD THE PROPERTY
~ ~ ~
~
~
~
_
:
...
~ '
F
€, . _ _
~
~
i:.: . ~. : , ~ .
E. ._
~
~~~
~
' ~~
3
.
..~1, L. . .! ., . .
~
263
`' MINUT~S~ CITY PUtNNaNG COMMISSION, Ju~v 10, 1961~ CONTINUED;
~ `.
RECLASSIFICATION
N0. 61-62-2
CONTINUED ~
~
Ir ,.~~' ~ ~
~ ~ ,y ,
RECLASSIFICATION
N0. 61-62-~
~ ACROSS BROADWAY ON THE SOUTH BE DEVELOPED FOR A CIVI.C CENTER USE.
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED SUG~ESTED CREATION OF A•C~,V1C CEi~TER DIS-
TRICT ZONEK ~N THE FUTURE AND PLANNJNG DIREGTOR RICHARD REESE
7NFORMED•THE COMMI.SSION TFIAT TH~ STATE I,AM.PROVIDES FOR THE CLV1~
CENTER ~ISTRICT FOR ANY AREA SURROUNDING PU81.IC I.ANDS CONTAINING
PUBLIC FACILITI.ES SU~H AS PARKS~ LIBRARI,ES~ OR 80VERNMENTAL BUILD-
NOaASSURANCE57HATEA CIYICDCENTER DEVELOPM~NT MOUI.DNBETESTA9~ISHED4IN
THE SUBJECT AREA. • .
COPIMl5510NER MORRlS INDICA7ED 7HAT IN N1.5 OPINION HE 6I,D NOT CONSI-.
DER THE PROPOSED USE TO BE DETRIMEN7AL TO THE.SURRQUNDING AREA.
HOWEVER~ HE DID.NOT CONSIDER THE RECLASSIFICATION OF A SI.NGL,E LOT IN
CATED'7HAT 7HE PROPOSEDKUSE COULD'BEBCONSIDEREDSUIiDERRAMPETt1'IONNFOR
VARIANGE BUT THAT THE RFCLASSI.FJCATION OF THE PROPERTY AT TtIE PRESENT
TIME WAS NOT DES~RABLE. COMMISSI,ONERS PEBLEY AyD PERRY CONCURRED
WITH H15 5'fATEMENT. .
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REG/+RDIN~ THE
SUBJECT PETITION;
1, THAT THE PETITI.ONER PROPOSES.A RECLASSIF,ICATION OF THE ABOVE DES-
CRIBED PROPERTY FROM THE R-2~ TWO FAMI.LY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE TO THE
C~1~ NEIOHBORHOOD COMMERCI.AL~ ZONE.
2• THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSLFLCATION OF SUBJEC7 PROPERTY IS NOT
NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER OEVELOPMENT OF
THE COMMUAITY.
3. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF.SUBJEC~' PROPERTY DOES NOT
PROPERLY RELATE TO 7HE 20NES AND THE1R PERMISTED USES LOCALLY
ESTABLISHED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE.
20NE5 AND THELR PERMIT7E0 USES GF,NERALLY ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT
THE COMMUNITY.
4: THAT THE PROPERTIES ABU7T.IN6 SUBJECT PROPER7Y ON THE EAST AND ON
THE,WEST ARE DEVELOPED FOR RESIDENTI,AL PURPOSES AND THE RECLA551'-
FICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY COMPRISED OF A SI.NaLE LOT~ 70 THE
C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIA6~ ZONE MOULD CONSTITUTE SPO? ZUNING.
5. THAT 7HE pROPOSED USE OF SUBJECT PROPER7Y COUI.D BE MORE PROPERLY
CONSIDERED BY A PET1710N FOR VARIANCE.
6. THAT NO ONE APPEARED I.N OPPO5ITlAN TO SUBJEC7 PETITION.
COMM15510NER ALLRED OFFERED RESOWTl.ON N0. 11~ SERI,ES 1961-62j AND
TOyRECOMMEND5T0ATHEGCITYDCOUMCILOTHATEPETITIONYFORMRECLA551FICATION
N0. 61-62-2 BE DENIED ON THE 9ASIS OF TNE AFOREMENTIONED FINDINqS.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOlNG RESOLUTI,ON WAS PASSED BY THE FOLIOWJNG VOTE;
AYCS: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ MORRI.S~ MUNOALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SUMMERS.
NOES: CO~S~IISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: GOMM.ISSIONERS: GAUER~ HAPa00D~ ,MnRCOUx.
- PUBLIC HEARING. PErt.rtoN SUBMI.7TED or ORA E. AND EVELYN D. HARDACRE,
MURRAY W, SPORN AND MARTIN SORKIN, 1016 NORTH MAGNOL{A AVENUE j~NAHEIM
CAL(FORNIA~ OWNERS~ MARTIN SORKii~~ 1016 NORTH MAONOLIA AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~
CALIFORNLA~ A6ENT~ REQUESTINa THAT PROPER7X DESCRIBED ASi A PARCEL
100 FEET BY 127 FEE7 NITH A FRONTAGE OF 127 FEET ON MA~NOLIA AVENUE
GREENBRIERDAVENUES~E1,75 SOUTHWESMACORNER BEINGEAPpROXI.MATELYA128 FEET
NOR7H OF THE NOR7'HEAST GORNER OF MAaNOLtA AND GREENBRIER AVENUES AND
FURTHER DESCRI.BED AS 1016 NORTH MAQNOLI,A AVENUE~BE RECLASSIFIED FROM
THE R-1 ONE FAMILY REStDENTIALy ZONE TO THE C-i, NEI~HBORHOOD COMMER-
c1a~, zbNE.
MR: MARTIN SORKIN~ TF(E PETI710NER~ AppEARED BEFORE THE COMMI,SSI,ON AND
NORTHDMAQNOLIA AVENUEEANDNTHE~AtiEN7 FORJTHE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1012
NORTH MAaNOL'IA {IVENUE. HE STATED 7HAT A CERTIFI~D PUBLI.C ACCOUNTANT~S
OfFICE~ EMPLOY,LNO S1X PERSONS~ KAS BEINQ.CONDUC7ED IN PAR7NERSHI° ON
BEENSCONSI.DERABLYRIMPROVEDESI,NCEEESTABLI.SHMENTHOF THE CEt~TIFIEDHPUBLIC
ACCOUNTANT~S OFF,~CE. HE STATED FURTHER 7HAT THE PETITI.ONERS WISHED
TO CONTt.NUE THE )NPROVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY BY THE ADp~T10N OF ORNA-
MENTAL'FENC,I,NQ AND LANDSCAPI.N6 AND THAT HE W),SHED TO CHANQE THE USE
STA7ED FUR7HERRTHATETHE PROPERTYEYIAS NOFLON~ER~DESIRA86ERFORORE5IDEN-
TIAl. pURPOSES pECAUSE OF THE YRAFFIC ON I~ABNOLIA A4ENUE~ TNA7 ADEQUATE
~_~ 7~': . . .,.,. r. .. . .. , ~ .. .. . . . , ~ , ;~.~,. . . , . ,,..,. ., .'; r ; ~ . . _ , .. . .
. . ~ ~~S-'-'--
264
_.~--=-~
MINlJTES, C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ju~v l0, i96i, C~Nr~,NU~n:
RECLASSIFICQTION ~ PARKI.N~ AREA WOULD BE PROVIDE~ WITH ACCESS FROM 7HE ALLEY~ THAT THE
NO. 61-62-3 CERTI.FIED PUBL~C ACCOUNTANT~S OFFLCE DOES NOT ENTAIL A QUANTITY OF
CONTINUED TRAFFIC~ AND THAT 7HERE WAS C~l~ NEI6NBORHOOD GOMMERCIAL~ ZONING ON
wROPER7Y SITUATED NOkTHERLY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE HEARING MAS CLOSED.
A DISCUSSION ENS!!ED RELATI.VE TO THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE,PROPERTY
LOCATED NORTHER4Y OF SUBJEC7 PROPERTY AND MR. SORKIN STATED THAT HE
HAD VERIFIED THAT THE.PROPERYY MAS ESTABLI,SHED !N THE C~1~ NEIGHBOR~
Hr,nD ;OMMERCIAL~ ZONE WITH 7HE R1GHT-OF-WAY DEPARTMENT ALTHOUGH Tl1E
:tECuRDS RELATI.VE TO THE PROP'eRTY COULD NOT BE LOGA7ED. MR. SORKIN
INDICATED 1'HAT THE C~l~ NEIGHBORHOOa COMMERCIAL~ ZONE CLASS'IFICATION
HA~ BEEN 6RANTED BY RETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATLON N0. F~55~56-30 AND
7HA7 THE•CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL HAD BEEN COMPLETED. THE COMMISSION
DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT THE J,MPROVEMENTS TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OF
SAID RECLASSIFICA7LON WERE RECENTLY COMPLETED.
THE COMMISSI,ON NOTED 7HAT THE RECLASSI,FICATION OF THE PROPERTY
LOCATED NORTHERLY OF SUBJEC7 PROPER7Y MAY HAVE A BEARI.NG UPON THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THAT THE RECORDS SHOULD BE CHECKED 1N ORDER TO
PROVIDE.ANY PERTI.NENT tNFORMATION FOR A COMPLETE ANALY515 OF THE
SUBJECT ARCA. .TNE COMM~SSION AL50 DI,SCUSSED YNE USE OF THE ALLEY AND
fT5 RELATI ~ TO THE SUBJECT AND ABU7TlNa PROPERTIES~I,N ADDITION TO
THE POSSLBL.i REVISION OF A SURN-,4ROUND AREA FOR MAINTENANCE PURPOSES.
COMMt5S10NER PERRX OFFERED A MOTLON~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNGALL
AND CARRIED~ THA7 PETITJON FOR RECLASSI,FlCAT10N N0. 61-62-3 BE CON-
TINUED UNTIL THE MEETING•OF JULY 24~ 1961 A7' NHICH TI.ME THE PLANNING
STAFF SHALL SUBM~,T A REPORT VERIFYI,NG THE 57ATUS OF THE CLASSIFICATION
OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
RECLASSIFICATION
NO. 61-62~4 - PUBLIC HEARIN6. PETI.TION SUBMiTTED av CARR,IAGE ESTATES, er AL 433
bIEST CENTER STREET~ ANANEIM~ CALIFORNI.A~ ONNER~ PHILIP H. ROBEI~TSON,
1825 WEST BALL ROAD~ ANAHE~M~ CALIFORNLA~ AGENT~ REQUESTING THAi
PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS' A PARCEL 70 FEET BV 140 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE
OF 70 FEET ON EUCLI,D AVENUE AND LOCATED ON ~'HE EAST SIDE OF EUCLID
AVENUE BETWEEN ALOMAR AVENUE ANC SROADMAYr 175 SUU'fHWEST CORNER.BEING
APPROXIMATELY 320 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTNEAST CORNER OF ALOMAR AND
EUCLI,D AVENUES AND FUR7HER DESCRIBED AS 610 SOUTH ~1CL1D AVENUE~ BE
RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R{1 RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE TO THE C-1~
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ~LONE.
MR. PHIL,IP H. ROBERTSON~ AGEP7T FOR THE PET1710NER~ APPFARED BEFORE
7HE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION ~~IAS IN
~ ORDER TO PERMLT THE :ST:~BLISHMEN7 OF A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING
70 PROVI.DE I.EGAL SERVICES.
A DISCUSSION ENSUED RELATI.VE TO THE OWNERSHIP OF A91T71.N(i PROPERTtES
AND TNE ADENT INDICATED 7HA7 THE FROPER7Y CONTAINED )k SUBJECT FETI-
714N NAS A P'r.RCE~L APPROXIMATELY 70 FEET BY 130 FEET IN SIZE. MR.
ROBERTSON 1NDICATED THAT LETTERS OF APPROVAL Ok' 7HE SUBJECT PETITION
~ HAD BEEN OBTAINED AND FLLED M(TH THE SUBJECT PETITJON~FROM TNE OWNERS
OF FOUR PARCELS O~F PROPERTY S1.TUA7ED W17HIN A 300 FOOT RADIUS OF THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY.
MRS. LOLA BUSCH~ 617 ALVY STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ AND
STATED 7HAT SH~ WOULD BE I,N FAVOR OF A PROFESSl,ONAL OFFICE BUILDJNG
ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTX AND 7HAT 1T WOVLD BE A GREAT 1MPROVEMENT 70
THE AREA. SHE STATED~ HOMEVER~ THAT S~!E MOULD DE OPPOSED TO THE USE
OF THE ALLEY FOR ACCE55 PURPOSES BECAii:;E OF THE HAZARD TO 7HE SMALL
CHTLDREN L1V.1N~ IN 7HE AREA. {T NAS NOTED T,HAS A LESTER 1N FAYOR OF
THE SUBJECT PET171,ON HAD BEEN SUBNIT7ED BY MRS. BUSCH AL50 I.NDICATING
THE OEIJECTION TO ANX USE OF THE ALLEY FOR BU51NE55 PURPOSES.
MR. FRANK TUCKER~ OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE
5:!BJECT PROPERTY APPEARED BEFORE THE COMN~'SSI,ON AND STATED THAT HE
WAS IN FAVOR OF TNE SUBJECT PE7ITION AND THAT THE PROPOSED DEVLLOP-
MENT NOULD ELIMLNATE THE EXISTIAQ TRAFFIC HAZARD ON EUCLI.D AVENUE.
- MR. BARNARD G07TLIEB APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSJ,ON~ DESCRlBED THE
PROPOSED I,MPROYEMENT OF SUBJE9T AND ABUTTlNQ PROPERTIES~ AND OISCUSSED
THE USE OF THE ALLEY WITH THE COMCII.SSI.ON.
COMiAt55lONER PEBLEY INDI.CATED THAT 7HE CNS7ALLA7~ON OF BLOCK WALLS
NOULD E~IMINATE THE NUI.S~NCE OF HAVI.NQ TRAFF/.C GOINQ DOMN THE ALI.EY
~ BEHIND 7w6.51NQLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. MR. ROBERTSON STATED THAT 7HE
PROPOSED I.AM OFFI.CE WOULD N07 OENERATE THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC fiENERALLY
ASSOCIATED WITH A RE~A),L COMMERCIAI DEVELOPMENT~ THAT HE DID NOT
BEL~EYE THAT THE USE OF 7'HE ALLEY MOUI.D CHANNEL TRAFFI.C OVER TO AWY
STREET~ THAT HE NAD DISCUSSED TN@ PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATfON NI.TH
0'JHER PROPER7Y OWNERS ON EUCL10 AVENUE~ THE M~`JORITY OF MHOM: INDI~'
CA7ED THEY MERE J,N FAVOR OF 7HE SUBJECT PETITIAN AND WERE LOOKI.N~
FORMARO TO THE GOMMERC,Iq4 DEVE1.oPMEN7 oF 7HEI.R PROPER'r1E5~ ANr ~rHA7
~ ~ ~ .
~
~
265
~.
f. .:
MiMUTES,.CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ju~v lo, 1961, CONTI.NUED:
RECLASSIFICATaON - iF HE NAS NOT PERMITTED USE OF THE ALLEY HE NOULD NOT HAVE SUFFI~
NO. 61-62-4 CLENT TURN-AROUND AREA FOR H75 PROPER7Y.
CONTINUED
MRS. BUSCH REPEATED HBR CONCERN FOR THE AHIlDREN LIVING ON ALYY
STREE7 IF THE TRAFFIC IN•THE AREA WAS 1.NCREASED DUE TO INCREASED
COMMERCIA~ DEVELOPMENT AND SHE STATED THAT THE ALLEY WAS T00 NARROM
TO PERMIT ADEQUATE PARKINa~ THEREBY ENCOtlRAGING PARKING 1N THE FRONT
OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTI.ES.
THE HF11R1NG WAS CLOSED.
COHMlSS1,ONER MUNQALL NOTED THA.T A 57UDY HAD BEEN YREPARED BY THE
PLANNI.NG DEPARTMENT 1N THE PA~~T RELATIVE TO 7HE SUBJECT AREA AND
THE CONMISStON DJ,SCUSSED FURTHER 7HE USE OF THE ALLEY. MR. GOTTLIEB
1NDICATED THAT HE WOULD NOT HAVE ROOM I.N WHICH TO TURN AROUND ON HLS
PROPERTY AND THAT HE 1NTENDE'. TO UTlL1.ZE TNE PARKING AREA OF THE
ABUTTING PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH FOR ACCE55 PURPOSES.
THE COMM155lON ALSO D15CUSSED THE CODE REQUIREMENT~ RE~ATIVE TO THE
INSTA~LATION OF BLOCK WALLS ADJACENT 70 RESIDENTIAL ZONES~ AND NOTED
THAT TO COMPLY W1TH CODE REQUIREMENiS THE PETISIUNER WOULO BLOCK OFF
THE.USE OF THE ALLEY FOR THE SUBJF.CT PROPERTY.
COMMI,SSI,ONER SUMMERS OFFERED A M0710N~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PEB-
LEY~ TO RECOMMEND TO THE CI7Y COUNCII. THAT PET4T,ION FOR RECLASSIFI-
CATION N0. 61-62-4 BE DENIED ON THE BA51.5 OF THE FOLLOWING FINDLNGS:
1. THAT THE PET1.710NER PROPOSES A RECLASSJ,FICATION OF SUBJECT PRO-
PERTY FROM THE R-A~ RESiDENT1.AL AGRI.CUITURAL~ ZONE TO THE C-1~
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE.
2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJEC7 PROPERTY IS NOT
NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PRO?ERTY DEVELGPMENT
Ov THE COFiMUNISY.
3. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSI,FICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT
RELATE TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PERMJTTED USES LOCALLY ESTABLISHED
~N CLOSE PROXI,MI.TY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE ZONES AND THEIR
PERM7.TTED USES GENERALLY ESTABLI,SHED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNJTY.
4. THAT THE PROPOSED REGLASSJF~CATLON OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES RE-
QUIRE DEDICATION FOR AND STANUARD ,IMPROYEMENT OF ABUTTING STREETS
BECAUSE SAID PROPERTY AOES RELATE TO AND ABUT UPON 57RFET5 AND
H13HWAY5 WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANTITY OF
TRAFFIC~ WHICH WI.LL BE GENERATED BY ?HE PERMITTED USES~ IN
ACCORDANCE MI,TH THE CIRCUlAT10N ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PI.AN.
5. THAT PET{TION FOR REC~ASSIFICATION N0. 59-60-109 REQUESTINQ RE-
CLASSIFICATION TO THE C~1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCOAL~ ZON!C OF THE
SUBJECT AND ABUTT~NG PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH HAD BEEN DENIED BY
COUNCII RESOLU7lON No. 6150 oN JuLY 19, 1960.
6. THAT VERBAL OPPOSI.TION BY ONE PROPERTY OMNER WAS RECORDED AGAINST
THE PROPOSED USE OF THE ALLEY ABUTTIN~ SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE
REAR ALTHOU(iH FAVOR NAS EXPRESSED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMECIT.
ON ROLL CA~L THE FOREp01Na M07'I.ON FAILED TO ACHIEVE A MA'JORITY VOTE
BY THE FOLLOWINa VOTES
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ PEBLEY~ SUMMERS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERSS MORR1.5~ MUNaALL~.PERRY.
ABSENT: COMMlSSIOIIERS: GAUER~ HAPa00D~ Maecoux.
VICE CHAI,RMAN MORRIS 1'NF9RMED THE COMMI.SSION 7HAT PET,lT10N FOR RECLASS-
IFICATION N0. 61-62-4 WOULD BE CONTINUED UNT1L THE MEETING OF JULY 24~
1961 BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO ACHI.EVE A MAJORITY VOTE FOR DENIAL OR
APPROVAL~ AT WHICH 7lME THE HEARlN6 MQULD NOT BE REOPENED.
RECLASSiFICAiiON - PUBLIC HEARING. PET1T10N SUBMJ.77ED av ELBERT P,. PATRICK,26o0 W.CHAPMAN
(~Q. 61-62-5 AVENUE~ ORANGE~ CAIIFORNIA~ OWNER~ ELMO VICKERS, 3409 WEST BEVERLY
BOULEVARD~ MONTEBELLO~ CALIFORN~17~~ A(iENT~ REQUESTING THAT PROPERTY
DESCRIBED A5: A PARCEL 125 FEET BY 250 FEET NITH A FRONTAGE OF 125
FEET ON SYCAMORE STREET AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIL~E 0~ SYCAMORE
STREET BETMEEN CENTURY DRIVE AND PLACENTIA AVENUE~ ITS SOUTHWESTERLY
CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY 192 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER
OF CF.'17URY DRtVE AND SYCAMORE STREET~ EXCE?TINCa A PARCEL 50 FEET BY
120 FiSL'T H1TH A FRONTAGE OF 50 FEET ON SYCAMORE STREET AND LOCATED ON
THE NOIiTI•1 SIDE OF SYCAMORE STREET BETWEEN CENTURY DRIVE AND PLACENTIA
AVENUE~ 9S'S SOUTHWESfERLY CORNER 8E7Na APPROXIMATELY 192 FE[T EAST OF
THE NOR'iWf.A51'ERI.Y CORNER OF CENTURY DRIVE AND SY4AMORE STREET AND
FURTHER D~SC1tIBED AS 1629 E.~ST SYCAMORE STREET~ BE REC~ASSIFIED FROM
THE R-A RESUQENTIAL A6RICULTURAL, ZONE ro THE R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENfIAL~ 20NE.
~ ~ ~
~~
~ 9
- ~ ~ . .- ---- - - ~ s ~ ~~ .
d
~ ~~ ~
~
'
266 ~
~
' '
MINUTES, CITY PLANNSNG COMMISSiON, Ju~v 10~ 1961~ CoNriNUeo: ~
RECLASS1FiCAT10N - MR. ELMO UICKERS~ 3409 WEST BEVERLY:BOULEVARD~ M~NTEBELLO~ APPEARED ~ ~
NO. 61~62-5 BEFORE THE COMMISSION nND STATEO THAT THE PETITIONER HAD PURCHASED •.
~
COdTIkUED TliO AD,lOl~SSN~ PARCEL,S OF PROPERTY~ 0l:C• .OF 41HSCH COlSTAI!!S TWO•~EXISTING ~
DUPLEXES. HE DESCRIBED THE ZONIN~ AND LAN~ USE OF THE SURROUNDING
AREA AND INDICATED THAT MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTI.AL DEVELOPMENT ABUTS
f ~
SUBJECT PROPERTY.ON•THE NORTH.
MR. GORDON BODEN~ 570 CENTURY DRtve, ANAHEIM~ APPEARED BEFORE THE ~ ~
COMMISSION~ STATED THAT HE REPRESENTED THE PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE
~
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DE\!ELOPMENT !N THE AREA~ AND THAT THEY WERE
?
OPPOSCD TO THE SUBJECT PETITION BECAl.SE~ IN THEIR OPINION~THE PROPOSED +'
DEVELOPMENT WOULD MATERIALLY LOWER THE VALUE OF THE R-1~ ONE FAMILY ~ '~
RESIDENTIAL~ PROPERTIES. HE STATED THERE WERE ONLY APPROXIMATELY ~
~
FIVE APARTMENT BUILD~N6S ON SYCAMORE STREET AT~THE PRESENT TIME~ AND
THAT THE PROPOSED APARTMENT UNITS WOULD APPEAR TO BE INCONGRUOUS WITH ~
~
THE EXISTING~STRUCTURES IN THE.AREA. MR. BODEN REVIEWED MAPS OF THE
SUBJECT AREA AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT ABUT i
THE R-1~ ONE FAMfLY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE ON CENTURY DRIVE. MR. BODEN ~
THEN STATED THAT IF 7HE COMMISSION APPROVED THE SUBJECT PET7TION HE ~ a
WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE ENTIRE PARCEL BE DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ~
~
CODE REQUIREMENTS LIMITING THE STRUCTURES TO ONE STORY IN HEIGHT AND ~
THAT.A BI.OCK WALL BE REQUIRED ADJACENT TO THE R~A~ RESI,DENTIAL AGRI- ;
CULTURAL~ ZONED PROPERTIES. i
TWE HEARING•WAS CLOSED.
THE COMMISSION REVIEWED DEVELOPMENT PLANS~ WHICH IND~CATED SINGLE STORY
CON5SitUCTiON~ INCORPORATED BOTH PARCELS OF PROPERTY~ AND WOULD pROVIDE
15 GARAGES AND 8 ADD~TIONAL.UNITS. THE PETITIONER ADVISEO 7H£ COMMIS- i
SION THAT THE PARKING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE PROVIDED AT 7H~ ,
~
REAR OF THE PROPERTY~.THAT PARKING.WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED IN THE FRONT j
YARD SETBACK~ THAT THE PROPERTY NOULD BE IMPROVED AND MADE ATTRACTIVE~
THAT CURBS~ SIDEWALKS~ AND LANDSCAPLNG WOULD BE INSTALLED~ AND THAT
THE CONSTRUCTdON WOU~D•BE LIMITED TO ONE STORY.
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITION:
1. THAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ABOVE DES-
CRIBED PROPERTY FROM THE R-A~ RESIDEN7IAL AGRICULTURAI.~ ZONE TO ~ .
THE R-3~ MULTIPLE FAM14Y RESIDEN7IAL~ ZONE.
2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATtON OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NECES- ~
SARV OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE ~
COHIMUN ITY. ~
~ 3. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES PRO-
PERLY RELATE TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PERMITTED USES LOCALLY ESTAB- ~
LISHED IN CLOSE PRJXIMITV TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE 20NES
AND THEIR PERMITTED USES GENERALLY ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT THE
COMMUNITY. ~
4. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUB,1°CT PROPERTY DOES RE-
QUIRE DEDICATION FOR AND STANDARD IMPROVEGIENT OF ABUTTING STREETS
BECAUSE SAID PROPEkTY DOES RELATE TO AND ABUT UPON STREETS AND
HI.GHWAYS WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANTITY OF
TRAFFIC~ WHICH WILL BF. GENERATED BY THE PERMITTED USES~ IN ACCOR-
DANCE WITH THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.
5. THAT VERBAL OPPOS~TION WAS RECORDED AGAINST SUBJECT PETITlON.
COMMISSIONER SUMMERS OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 12~ SERIES 1961-62, AND
MOVED FOR ITS PASSAdE AND ADOPTlON~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PEBLEY~
TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICA?ION
N0. 61-62-5 BE GRANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: _
1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED
IND~CATING ONE STORY CONSTRUCTION.
2. DEDICATION OF a[ FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF SYCAMOR~
STREET (30 FEET EXISTING).
3. PAYMENT OF $2.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STREET LI6HTING PUkPOSES ON
SYCAMORE STREET.
4. COMPLIANCE WITH THE APPROVED STANOARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CITY EN4INEER FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS AND DRIVE- '
WAYS.
5. PAYMENT OF =25.00 ~°ER DWE~LING UNIT PARK AND RECREATION FEE TO BE
COLLECTED.AS PART OF BUI~DING PERMIT.
6. TIME LIM~TATION OF NINETV (90) DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITEM
NOS. 2~ 3~ 4~ AND 5.
MINUTES~ C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 10, 1961, CONTINUED:
RECLASSIFICATION - 7. PROVISION OF LANDSCAPIN~ IN THE FRONT SETBACK AREA OF THE.EXIST-
NO. 61-62-5 iNa DUPLEX~ SAID LANDSCAptNG PLANS TO BE SUBRITTED TD RND'SUBJECT
COMTINUED TO THE APPROVA~ OF THE SUPER(NTENDENT OF PARKWAY MAINTENANCE.
8. PROVISiON OF OFF-STREET PARK~Nd FACILITIES 1N ACCORDANCE NITH
PLANS PRESENTED AND PROHlB1TIN~ THE USE OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK
AREA FOR PARKING PURPOSES. .
THE FOREGOING CONOITIONS MERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO
BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO
PRESERVE THE SAF.ETY AND WELFARE OF THE CI,T12EN5 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CAIL THE FOREDOIN~ REAOLUTION NAS PASSEp BY THE.FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERSS A~~RED~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SU~MERS.
, NOES: COHMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER~ HAPGOOD~ MaRCOUx.
~
~ ~
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION sueMtrreo ev THRIFTIMART MARKETS,.1489 WesT
NO. 61-62-6 WASHlNG70N.B0ULEVARD~ LOS ANGELES 7~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNERS~ CHARLES
MAGNER ENTERPRISES, 5455 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD~ LOS ANGELES 36~ CALIFOR-
NIA~ AGENT~ REQUESTING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED.AS: AN•IRREGULARLY
SHAPED PARCEL W1TH A FRONTAGE OF 200 FEET ON THE WEST SIDE OF HARBOR
BOULEVARD AND LOCATED IN THE SHOPPING CENTER ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF NARBOR BOULEVARD AND ORANGEWOOD AVENUE~ ITS SOUTHEAST CORNER BEING
APPROXlMATELY 420 FEET NORTN OF THE NORTHMEST CORNER OF ORANGEWOOD
AVENUE AND NARBOR BOULEVARD~ BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R A RESIDENTIAL
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE ro THE C-i, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZbNE.
PLANS WERE PRESENTED RELATIVE TO THE PROpOSED DEVELOPMENT OF RETAIL
COMMERCI.AL SHOPS ON PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE THRIFTIMART MARKET. IT
MAS NOTED THAT THH SUBJECT PETITION INC~UDED THE PROPERTY OCCUPIED
BY THE THRIFTIMART OPERATi.ON BECAUSE THE PROPER ZONIMa HAS NOT BEEN ~
ESTA6LISHED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ~UE TO THE ASSUMPTION BY THE COMPANY
THAT THE.PROPERTY WAS ALREADY ESTABLISHER IN THE C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL~ ZONE RATHER THAN THE R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE~ '
BY ITS ANNEXATIO~ TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
THE HEARING MAS CLOSED.
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED DEVELOPMEN7 PLANS AND 7HE NECESSITY FOR RE- ~
QUIRING LANDSCAPING TO CONFORM MITH THE LANDSCAPING PROVIDED BY.THE
PETER PAN MOTEL~ OCCUPY~N~ PROPERTY ABUT71Na SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE
NORTH~ AND TO CONFORM TO THE POLICY ESTAB~ISHED FOR THE DEVELOPMEN7 '
OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE DISNEYLAND AREA AS DELIM~TE~ ON THE GENERAL
PLAN.
PLANNINa DIRECTOR RICHARD REESE 1NFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT~ALTHOUGH
THE ZON1N(i ORDINANCE HAD PREVIOUSLY REQUI,RED TEN FOOT LANDSCAPING
AREA~IN SOME INSTANCES IT APPEARED i0 BE MORE REALISTIC TO REQUIRE
STREET TREES AND HEDGES. HE STATED THAT SUCH LANDSCAPING HAD THE
AOVANTAQE OF PRESENTING A PLcA5AN7 ApPEARANCE AS NELL AS PROYIDING
SAFETY FACTORS~SUCH AS REDUCING kFADLIGHT aLA~E~BUT STILL PERMITTING
A CLEAR VIEW OF TRAFFIC AND DEFIt, 'i~ THE ENTRANCES AND EXITS TO THE
PROPERTY.
THE COMMISSION DtSCUSSED THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDA-
TION RELATIVE TO THE WATER SERVICE 'AND THE COMMI,SSION CONCLUDED THAT •
THE COUN:IL COULD INCLUDE OR OMIT THE RECOMMENDATION IF THEY SO
DES IRED.
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND OETERN4NED TNE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARD1NCi T1iE ~
SUBJECT PETIT~ON: a
7
1. THAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFI~.pT10N OF THE ABOVE DES~
CRIBED PROPERTY FROM TN.E R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE TO
THE C~1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. , .
2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECI.ASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NECES-
SARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMEN7 OF THE
COMMUNITY.
3. TFIAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES PRO~
PERLY RELATE TO THE 20N~S AND 7HEIR PERMTTTED USES LOCAI.LY ESTAB-
LISHED IN CLO5E PROXIMITY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY ANO TO THE ZONES AND ~
THElF, PERMI.TTED USES CiENERALLY ESTABLISHED THROUaHOUT THE COMMUNITY.
4. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSiFlGAj10N OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES NOT
REQUIRE DEDICATION FOR AND S7ANDARD.IMPROYEMEN7 OF ABUT7ING STREETS
B£CAUSE SAID PROPERTY DOES.RELATE TO AND ABLT UPON 51'REETS AND
H,I.OIIWAYS WHLCH ARE ~MPROVED TO CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANTITY OF
TRAfFIC~ N-OICH NILL BE OENERATED BY THE PERNITTED USES~ 7N ACCOR~
DANCE W~TH THE CIRCtiLAT.ION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. ~
.. __.---~ .
--_~ __ __..__..__...~.__.A....,...ow~•~.,o.Q.~...,-.. -- -- -"
~_, . . ~ , s .. .. . ,. ~~ . - -
• ~
~ ~
~
~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ju~v 10, 1961~ CONTINUED:
• I
RECLASSIFICATION - 5. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATyON 15 COMPATIBLE NITH THE SUR- ~
NO. 61~62-6 ROUNDINQ DEVELOPMENT AND IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROJECTED
CONT4NUED DEVEIOPMENT OF THE DISNEYLAND AREA AS DELIMI'tED ON 7HE CaENERAL
P~Aw. . ~
6: THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITI,ON 70 SUBJECT PETITION.
I COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. I3~ SERIES 1961~62 AND ~
~ . MOVED FOR IT5 PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMNI.SSIONER ~UMMERS~
~ TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT PETITION FOR RECLASS~FICATION
E~ N0. 61-62-6 BE GRANTED~SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1 1. PROVISION OF THREE (3~ F00T I,ANDSCAPF~ STRIP AND HEDGE ABUTTINCa
~~' THE PLANNED HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY~ EXCEPT
~ BYRFIVEE(S~DFOOTSTREEMWELL9 ATDFORTYP(40~SFOOT~INTERVALS,IN~THE
~t PARKWAY PORTION OF SAID RIaHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO THE PLANNED I
i HIGHWAY RIfiHT-OF-WAY LItiE~ AND THE INSTALLATION OF STREET TREES ~
i THEREdN. QLL PORTIOiVS OF SAID PARKWAY NOT FILLED IN WITH CON-
r: CRETE SHALL BE PROPERLY LANDSCAPE~ IN THE MANNER PROV~DED FOR
y HEREfN. PLANS FOR SAID LANDSCAPING AND WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM~
~ INCLUDING THE SPACIN~ OF STREET TREES AND HEDGE~ SHALL BE SUBJECT
TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKNAY MAINTENANCE.
r 2. PAYMENT OF ;2.00 PER FRONT F007 FOR STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES ON
~ HARBOR BOULEVARD. ~
`r.' 3. COMPLIANCE WITH 7HE APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
E.. ,
E OF THE CITY ENGINEER FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS AND
c DRIVEWAYS.
~.
r. 4. TIME LIMITAT~ON OF N~NETY (90~ DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITEM
~ NOS. 2 AND 3.
TNE FOREGOI.PIG CONDITIONS WERE RECITEO AT THc MEETIt~G AND NERE FOUND TO
~~ BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE Tf> THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO
PRESERYE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE C171ZEN5 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
~ ON ROLL ~ALL THE FOREfi01NG RE50LUTI0N WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
~- AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ MORR15~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SUMMERS.
~ NOES: COMM1SS10NERS: NONE.
~ '
g ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSS GAUER~ HAPGOOD~ MnRCOUx.
TENTATiVE MAP OF - DEIIELOPER: WALTER E. HAUPTMAN, 13541 EasT TELEGRAPH Rono, WHiTT1ER~
TRACT NO. 4239 CALIFORNIA. TRACT LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF BALL ROAD~ 660 FEET
EAST OF THE CENTERLINE OF HOLDER STREE7 AND CONTAINS TWENTY (20)
R-1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ LOTS~ AND COVERS APPROXIM.4TELY FIVE
ACRES.
THE SUBJECT TRACT MAP WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION AND IT WAS NOTED
TNAT A VARIANCE MOULD BE NECESSARY IN ORDER•TO ESTABLISH THE PROPOSED
LOT DIMENSIONS. THE TENTAi1VE LOTS PROPOSED FRON7AGE5 OF APPROXI-
MATELY 60 FEET MITH DEPTHS RANQING FROM f00 FEET TO 170 FEET.
COMMISSIONER PEBLEY INDICATED THAT HE D10 NOT FAVOR SMALL LOTS OR
NARROW FRONTAGES BUT THAT A PRECEOENT HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BY PRE-
VIOU= APPROVALS OF LOTS CONTAININQ MINIMUMS 0~ 6~000 SQUARE FEET.
COMMl5S10NER MUNQALL OFFERED A MOT~ON~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED
AND CARRIEO~ THAT TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4239 BE APPROVED AS SUB••
MIT7ED~ SUBJECT TO THE pOLLOWINO CONDITIONO
1. SUBJECT 70 TNE APPROVAL OF A VARI.ANCE FOR LOT WIDTH AND LOT AREA.
THE COMMIBSION WAS INFORMED THA7 THE DEVELOPER HAS SUBMITTED A PETI-
TION FOR VARIANCE AND THAT THE MATTER HAD BEEN SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC
HEARLNO IN ORDER TO CONSLDER THE IAATTER RELATIVE TQ THE LOT MIDT-{S,
AND THE LOT AREA.
CQRRESPONDENCE - ITEM N0. ]. VARIANCE N0. 1314 - REQUEST FOR IN7ERPRETATI.ON OF PERMIT-
TED USES.
REFERENCE WAS MADE ~0 THE REQUEST BY MR. TOM COUGHLI.N~ AGENT FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE APPROVAL OF PETITION FOR VARIANCE
N0. 1314. IT WAS INDICATED THAT A PREVl0U8 REQUEST HAD BEEN SUBMITTED
BY THE AQEfiT FOR AN yNTERPRETATION OF THE USES PERldITTED BY SA10
PETITION FOR VARIANCE AND,THAT.• THE COMMISSION HAD.CONSIDEP.ED THE
TERMINOLOGY OF RESOLUTION N0. 132~ SERIES 1960-~61~ T0 INCLUDE A QOURMET
SHOP.
-~:-~ _ .~~r ' ~~ ~ _ . ~ ; . . ~ .^,: ~ . ^'' . .~ . , ~,;, . ~---•~--~_--°
' y d:
~
.
MINUTES, CiTY PLAPINING COMMISSION, Ju~v lo, 1961~ CONTINUED:
ITEM N0. 1~ CONTiNU.EDC REVlEW ~ VARIANCE N0. 13141
THE PRESENT REQUEST WAS SUBMITTED RELAT~VE TO THE ESTABLISHtAENT OF A
SELF.~SERVlCE LAUNDRY OPERATION AND IT WAS NOTED THAT THE RESOLUTION
N0. 132~ SERIES 1960-61, PERMIYTED UNDER CONDITI.ON N0. 1~•RETAIL
DRY CLEANI,N(i~LAUNDRY A4cNC1E5.•
A DISCUSSION EN.~iiBD RELATIVE TO THE TYPE OI' OPERATION CONTAINED IN A
FtETA1L DRY CLEAN.IN4-LAUNDRY AGENCY. ASS,ISTANT C'fTY ATTORNEY JOE
GEISLER APPEARED BEFORE THE COMM1SS10N A~D STATED THAT~ AS FAR AS HE -
KNEM~THE OPERATIONS NERE TNE SAME. HOWEVER~ UNDER SECTION 18.40.010
USES PERMITTED IN•THE C~1~ NEIGHBORHOOD C01iMERCIAL~ ZONE~ ITEM N0. 17
S7IPULATES „LAUNDRIES OR CLOTHES CLEANING AGENCIES ONLYM AND ITEM N0.
26 STIPULATES MSELF SERVICE LAUNDERI.ES.„
COMMl551.ONER MORRIS DISCUSSED THE INTERPRETATION OF A LAUNDRY AGENCY
AND INDICATED THAT HE DID•NOT CONSIDER A SELF-SERVICE LAUNDROMAT~
WHICH GENERALLY DOES NOT HAVE AN ATTENDANT UPON THE PREMISES~ TO BE
IN THE SAM& CATEQORY AS AN AfiENCY. HE INDICATED THAT THE COMMISSION
fNTENDED~ BY RESTRI.CTING THE I15E5 PERMITTED BY PETITION FOR VARIANCE
N0. 1314~ TO MAINTAIN A H16H QUALI.TY TYPE OF OPERATION ON THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY.
MR.IGEISLER ADVISED THE COMM15510N THAT A VARIANCE LS RESTRICTIVE IN
INTENT AND THAT BY OMITTlN6 CER7AIN USES THE ONLY METHOD BY WHICH
AN ADDITI.ONAL USE COULD BE CONSIDERED WOULD 8E BY THE VARIANCE PRO~
CEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN THE CODE. .
COMMISSIONER MORR(S OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PERRY
AND CARRIED~ THAT THE PLANNING COMMiS510N INTERPRE7ATION OF THE
PERMITTED USES OUTLINED IN RESOLUTION N0. 132~ SERIES 1960~61~ DOES
NOT INCLUDE NSELF SERVICE LAUNDRIES~ BECAUSE SAID USE CAN NOT BE
CONSTRUED AS AN AGENCY IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC TERMINOLOGY OF THE
USES PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 18.04.010 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPA~
CODE. •
MR. TOM COUGHLLN APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND.STATED THAT HE
NAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE USE WAS INCLUDED~ THAT HE HAD DISCUSSED
THE ~iATTER WITH ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOHN DANSON~ THAT CONSTRUC-
TION HAD ALREADY COMMENCED TO PROVIDE THE PROPOSED SERVICE~ AND
THAT PLUMBING HAD BEEN INSTALLED. HE EXPRESSED CONCERN IN RESPECT
TO 7HE AMOUNT OF TIME INVOLVED IN PROCESSI.N6 A PETITION FOR VAR/ANCE
AND IT NAS NOTED THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY F'OR HIM TO COMPLY WITH
THE REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED FOR IN 7HE CODE.
ITeM No. 2: ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 4792:
~ ~
NOTICE RECEIVED FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNIN6 COMMISSION RELATIVE
70 USE VARIANCE N0. 4792 WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION. SUBJECT
PETITION REQiJESTS PERMISSION TO ESTqBLISH A CONSTRUCTION OFFICE AND
STGRAGE YARD FOR A PER10D OF ONE YEAR IN THE A1(O) GENERAL AGRICU~-
TURAL (OIL PRODUCTION~ DISTRICT. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATEO AT THE
NORTHWESTERLV CORNER OF ORANQETHORPE AVENUE AND LINDA VISTA AVEi1UE~
EAST OF PLACENT(A.
A PLOT PLAN OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND STAFF REPORT NERE SUBMITTED TO
THE COMMI.SSION AND 17 WAS N07ED 7HAT THE PROPOSED OFFICE WILL BE
APPROXIMATELY ~p FEE7 BY 28 FEET (N SIZE AND WII.L BE LOCATED A MIN1.~
MUM OF 40 FEET AND 70 FEET FROM THE CENTERLtNES OF LINDA VISTA AND
ORAN6ETHORPE AVENUES~ RESPECTIVELY. TNE PETITION STATED THAT EQUIP-
MENT STORED ON THE PREMISES MILL CONS(ST OF TRUCKS~ TRENCHERS~
aRADERS~ AYD SIMILAR TYPES OF HEAVY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND THAT
THERE WlLL 8E ONE SlNCiLE FACED~ 2 FOOT 8Y 4 FOOT~ Sl(iR L~CATED ON
7HE SIDE OF THE OFFICE.
THE COMM15510k DISCUSSED THE PRESEN7' USE OF THE PROPERTY AS A SAND
PLT AND INDICATEp THAT THE PROPOSED USE DID NOT APPEAR TO BE DETRI-
MENTAL TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUN-
GALL AND CARR7ED 7HAT THE SECRETARY TRANSMIT NOTICE TO THE ORAN(3E
COI~NTY PLANNIN6 ~OMMISSION I.NDICATlNG 7HA1' THE ANAHEIM PLANNINO•
COMMl5S10N RECOMMEMDED APPROVAL OF THE SU6WECT PETITION FOR THE •
USE BTIPULATED ON 7HE APPLICATjON SUBMITTED FOR USE VARIANCE PERMIT
No. 4792.
ITEM N0. 3; LETTEf' OF PROTEST ~ RE~ARDINa HELICOPTER TRAFFICI
A COVER LE77ER RECEIVED FROM MR. PAUL RICKER~ 644 ARCNER STREET~
ANAHE~M~ AND A COPY OF~A LE7TER~ SI,fiREC BY MR. RXCKER AND BEIN6
FOItWARDED TO THE GRAND ~URY FOREMAN WILLARD NELSON~ 1018 EAST HARMONY
LANE~ FULLERTON~ CAL!FORNI.A~ MERE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION FOR
RL'YIEN.
' ti ls
s,' ; P ;:?'~
~.~ . .,:!i::.~' ,
.1~.. ~.w., ~1~~ 1-lii~ ~.-'^~ A.;~ T ~~9 . . . ' .P
~
'S~•.{.
1
f ~
~.
.. , . . . . , . ` '
~ ,.. .. ~ ... . . , " ''~ ~ . .
2~~
MINUiES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ju~v 10, 196i~ CONTINUEa:
CORRESPONDENCE ~ ITEM N0. 3~ CONTINUED: LETTER OF PROTEST REGARDCNa HELI.COPTER TRAFFICC
CONTINUED
THE COPY LETTER CONTAINED A PROTEST REL/tTl,VE TO THE NOISE LEVEL AND
ALTITUbE AT MHI.CH HELI.COPTERS FLY OVER THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND A
SUa6EST10P1 THAT THE FL).dHTS BE POLI,CED TO DETERMINE THAT THEY FLY AT
LEfiAL ALTiTUDES IN 7HE EVENT THEY ARE MADE TO FOLLOW ASSIdNED FREEMAY
ROU7E5.
' THE COMMI55lON DISCUSSED THE CONTENT OF THE LET7ER AND THE FACT THAT
THE HELICOP7ERS HAVE BEEN OBSERYED FLYIN~ OVER RESIDENx1AL AREAS. IT
WAS NOTED THAT THE ILDMINISTRATIVE OFFiCE COULD CONTACT THE CIVIL
QERONAUTlCS BOARD RELATIVE TO THE FLI~IHT PATTERNS U7ILIZED BY THE
HELICOPTERS. . .
COMMISSI,ONER MORRiS SUOQESTED THAT A REPLY BE FORWARDED TO MR. RICKER
ADVfSiNti~H1M THA7 THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE C1TY COUNCIL DEEMED
IT NECESSARY FQR THE PARTICULAR INTEREST OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM TO CONTINUE THE SERVICE PROVIDED BY 7HE HELJCOPTERS I.N
TRANSPOR71N0 PASSENGERS AND MAIL TO ANAHEI.M. HE STATED FURTHER THAT
THE REPLY SHOULD INFORM MR. RICKER THAT THE COMMISSI.ON.WOULD FORWARD
. A DIRECTIVE TO THE RDMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE CITY REQUESTING THAT
THE CIVIL RERONAUTICS BOARD INVESTIGATE THE MAT7ER OF THE FLIGHT
PATTERN OF THE HELICOPTERS FLYIN6 OVER THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AND TO
CONSIDER THE SU(iGESTED POLICINO ACT10N.
COMMISSIONER MORRI,S OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIOdER MUN-
. OALL AND CARRIED~ THAT A REPLY BE FORNARDED TO MR. RICKER AS OUTLINED~
AND THAT A DIRECTIVE BE TRANSM'1TTED 70 THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM REQUE571N0 THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE CHECK WITH THE
CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD ON THE FLIGHT PATTERN OF THE HELICOPTERS
SERVING THE CITY OF QNAHEIM.
QDJOURNMENT - THe MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:10 O~CLOCK P.M.
RESPEC7FULLY SUBMISTED~
~
~ ECRETARY
~ . ~ .,,...
_.. . _....~ F~• .~ ., . ~ _. . , , .,,;;l~. _...... _.... ...,,. .___....