Loading...
Minutes-PC 1961/08/071 C "t ~w.A vL y~.i'~kF~.'..~"F!~!lYmi)vtl'n .l..S...v.. ~~ T~li .. ~..:.5. i M1y;in~ ~:i.~nh~~.nU.. ~ti r'.-. ~~' ~ _I x ~ 5 f ~ , '~~ ~~~ ~tir . . . 9~ Y •. ~, '...,.. . ~ . . .. ~.. ~.~. . .... ~ . ~ .. . . ~ . . . . . . _ ~i:•. t -y.'. ,. . - _~.v_ ' . . f;. y ~' . . . ~ ~ . . ' ~ .. . ~ . '. . , ~~ . . CITY-HALI: ' ANAHElM~ CALiFORNtA' Au0U5T 7~ 1961 ' REGULAR HEEiING M[NUTES OF THE REGt1LAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CIT.Y fIANNLING COMMISSION = A Reou~nrt MeeriN~ oF THE CITY PLANNIN~ COMMiS5I0N MAS CA~LED TO ORDER BY CHAIRNAN'GAU,ER~ AT 2;00 O~CLOCK P.M.~ A QUORUM:BEING PRESENT. . PRESENT - CNAIRMAN: GAUER; COMMISSIONERSS ALLRED~ MARCOUX~ MUNfiALL~ PEOLEY~ i PERRY~ SUMMERS. COMMISSIONER MORRIS I ENTERED THE MEETIN6 AT 2i30 P.M. ABSENT - COMMISSIONERSC HAPOOOD. ~ ' ~ PRESENT ~ PLANNIN4•DIRECTOR - RICHARD.REESE C ~? SENd~OR RLANNER ~ MARTIN KREIDT F' . • ASSlSTANT CITY ATTORNEY ~ JOE CaE15LER I ~,..,,,_ COMM1SS10N SECRETARY ~ -JEAN PAQE } 1NVOCATION ~ REYEREND VJRGIL N1X/ PASTOR OF TRINITY SOUTHERN BAPTiST CHURCH~ GAVE ~ 7NE INVOCATION. PLEDGE OF ~ COMM15510NER MUNGAI.L LED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. ~ ALLEGIANCE • . •• ~ APPROVAL OF MINUTES ~ FHE M~t1UTE5 OF THE MEETING OF JULY 24~ 1961 NERE APPROVED AS SUBMI'~l'ED WITFI THE FOLLOWING CORRECTION: • ~~ ~; PAGE 271. ~COMMISSIONER PERRY LED THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE ' FLAG.N • r: ; . . . p VARIANCE N0. i3s3 - CONTINUED PU.BLIC HE4RING. F~TITION SUBMITTE~ BY PAUL LEITER, 1535 t SOUTH LOS ANGELES STREET ANAHEtM~ CALIi'ORNtA OWNER~ REQUESTING PER- ~ MISSiON TO (1) WAIVE MAXPMUM HEIGHT LIMITATIO~IS: (2) ESTABLISH OFFICE BUtLDiNG IN M-1 ZONE: (3) flAIVE MiNIMUM PARKING SPACE REQUiREMENT FoR i? PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5; AN 1RREGULARLY,SHAPED PARCEL LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH LOS ANCaELES STREET AND ~ THE SANTA ANA FREEWtiY.AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1535 SOUTH LOS ANGELES q STREE7. PROPERTY PRESENTCY CLASSIFIED M~l~ LIGHT MQNUFACTURING, ZONE. ' $UBJECT PETITION WAS CONSIDEREO AT THE~MEETING OF JULY 24 1961~ AT f MHICH TIME A MOTSON FOR APPROVAL OFFERED BY COMMISSIONER ~ARCOIfX WAS l.. WITHDRAWN' AND THE HEARlNG WAS CONTINUED UNTIL THE MEETING OF AUGUST 'r 70 3961 1N ORDER TO I~ROVIDE THE PETITIONER NITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ,," PRESENT TO THE COMMISS(ON A LIST OF POTENTIAL USES FOR THE SUBJECT E PROPERTY 50 THAT THE COMM15SfON COU4D CONSIDER AND INCORPORATE ANY ti SPECIFIC USES TNAT WGRE DEEMED TO BE SUITABLE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE REQUESTED L1STa,SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON AUGUST 3~ 1961 APLD S1CiNED BY DONALC L. GITTELSON~ WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION. THE COMMISS~ON DISCUSSED THE LIST OF PROPOSED USES AND IT WAS NOTED THAT l THE ACTUAL OFFICE TYPE USES SHOULD BE SO DESIGNATED AND THAT ANY OTHER INCIDEN7AL OR ACCESSORY USES SHOULD•BE STIPULATED SEPARATELY. THE PETITIONER WAS PRESENT AND INDICA7ED THAT HE HA'S NOTHIN(i TO ADD ~ TO THE 1NFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE SUBJECT PETITIOt. OR PRESENTED AT THE PREVIOUS MEETiNd. ASSISTANT CITY AT70RNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT THE APPROVAC OF THE USES WAS W}THiN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION~ THAS xHE USES WERE ALLOWED PRIQR TO THE ADOPTION OF TME PRESENT ZONING ' ORDINANCE~ AND SHAT BARS WERE PERMITTED AT THAT TIME IN THE M~1~ LIGHT f MANUFACTURING~ ZONE IN WHICH TlIE SUBJECT PROPERTY fS CLASSIFIED. k THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. . f . ": THE C,OMMISSION REVIEWED DEVELOPMENT PLANS.AND DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTIOh OF THE NINE STORY OFFICE BUILDIN~ 1N ~:ONJUNCTION WITH A TMO STORY OFFICE BUILDINfi. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMIFIED THE FOLLOWINO FACTS REGARDINO THE SUBdECT PET1710NS 1. THAT THE PET1T10NER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE A~YAHEIM MUNICI- PAL CODE~ $ECTION 18.52.010 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A COMMER~IAL BUJLDINfi ON SUBJECT PROPERTY; SECTION 18.52.020:70 PERMIT CON~ ~ STRUCTION OF A BUILDING HAVINa A HEIaHT IN EXCESS OF SEVEkTY~FtVE (.75) FEETj-AND SECTION 18.04.030 TO PERMIT•THE PROVISION OF PARKINO ON THE BA515 -0F ONE PARKING SPACE f~ER TWO MUNDRED AND ' EIFTY (250) SQUARE,FEET OF GROSB FLOOR SPACE. r~ • 2. THAT THERE:AI2E E:CEPTIONAL 0i7 EXTRAORDINARY ~IRCUMSTANCES OR , z CONDIT.IONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY INVOLYEO OR 70 THE INTENDEO ,+~~ USE':OF.THE PROPERTY THAT'DO N07 APPLY fiENERALLY TO THE PROPER7Y '~'~' ' OR.CLASS OF USE IN'THE SAME VICINITY AND 20NE. ~ u~tr;~~ ~ - .'s ~ ~t`~~~d r ~ - 294 - ~l~rr.JT:' . . . . . . - ~ . .. . ~ . .. . . . , . . . . ~ . . . . . . I ' ~ . .~~ - ~ . ' .. //~ A7 Y ~y y F ~a `l f ' . . '. R~w .,.,.~,w~a, . . 4r4.. . _.L.. . . . ~ .~, .,,.. ...,r~,_ C _.,,. ~ ,?~i . ,...~~,.J ..,f,c~,t.t,nl:r~r,. . . 7.;.<it r,,,.i.. .,~i~ S'i;~.}a~+`v- ~,.;..~~.rr,~r.~~° .':f kt Y~ .:... : ~:.~i. ~...•::. : .. ... . .. ..~. ..• ~:" ,. . ~.~ ... ~t~~~ ~•r~ . . . . . .. , .•`:l: . . . ~ .. ' .. . ' ~ . ' ~ '~~ . ~ ' . 295 _ . . • ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Auausr 7, 1961~ CONTINUED: ~ ~ E- .. • i ~ F i ~ r VARIANCE N0. 1383 ~ 3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCB l5 NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ~ CONTlNUED ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTlAL PROPERTY RIOHT POSSESSED BY OTHER ' PROPERTY IN T.HE.SAME V1CINiTY AND ZONE~.ANO DENIED T9 THE PROPERTY . 1N .QUESTION. .. . . 4. THAT THE REQUESTED•VARIANCE•W1Ll NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC MELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPER7Y OR IMPi±OVEMENTS . lN SUCH V1CINlTY AND ZONE IN WHLCH 7NE PROPERTY~15 tOCAT:O. •. 5. THAT.THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPRG- ~ HENSIVE GENERAL PLAN. ~ • 6: TMAT THE.PERMITTEC USES OF THE OFFICE BUILDINaS SHALL BE LIMITED ~ TO THE USES STIPUTATED IN CONDtT10N N0. 4 OF RESOL~ITION N0.,28~ SER1E5 1961-62. • ••• • • 7: ••THAT.NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION. . ~ COMNISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 28~ SERIES.1961~62~ AND MOVED FOR I7S PASSA~E AND ADOPTIOM~ SECONDED BY CONMISSIONER PEBLEY~ TO 6RAN7 PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1383~ SUBJECT TO 7HE FOILOWING CONDITIONSf • 1. PRbVI510N OF 154 PARKINfi SPACES~ MITH A FULL TIME PARKING ATTEN- DANT ON DUTY DURIHD BUS1NE55•HOURS. ~• ~ . 2. .PROVISION OF LANDSCAPINQ AS•INDICATED•ON EXHIBIT MI~ ~•PLANS FOR , : SA1D LANDSCAP1Nfi TO BE SUBMITTED TO AND SUBJECT TQ THE APPROVA~ OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKWAY MAINTENANCE PR10R TO ISSUANCE OF THE•FINAL BUILDING INSPECTdON. ~ . 3: OEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY 1N ACCORDANCE MITH EXHIBITS ~IN~ r~~w~ AND•III". . . 4: LIMITATION OF THE USE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE FOLLOWING PERMIT- TED USESS A. MEDICAL AND DENTAL OFFICES. B: aU51NE55 AND.PROFESSIONAL OFF-CES AND REAL ESTATE AOENCIES. C. INCIDEN7AL OR ACCESSORY USES STIPULATED AS FOLLOWS. . (1) BOOK OR STATIONERY STORES'. (2) CONFECTIONERY STORES. ' " (3~ ORE55 OR M7LLINERY SHOPS. (4~ DRUQ S70RES. (5) NEWSTANDS. ' ' • . (6~ NOilONS STORES. (7~ RESTAURANTS AND COFFEE SHOPS (DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE ~ W1TH FLOOR PLANS SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL). ~ ~8~ Tp~LOR~ CLOTHINO,OR.. WEARING APPAREL SHOPS. (9) BLUE PRINi'lN3 OR PHOTOSTATI.NO STORES. (10~ BAINMENT)Eg (DEVEL PMENTNPLANSNTO BENSUBMNTTED TODANDTER~ APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNC~L~. ~ (11) INTERIOR DECORATING 570RE. (12) BA7H9~ TURKISH AND THE LIKE. (13) N6WSPAPER OR PRJ.NT1Na ESTABLIBHMENT., ' (14) RAD10 OR TELEVISION BROADCASTlNG STUD105 OR STATIONB. ~ (15), MEDICAL~ INDUSTR(AL CLINICB., 5. PROVIBION OF UTILITY,EASEMENTS ALONfi EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES AS DETERMINED BY THE QI,RECTOR OF.PUBLIC UTiL1T1E5. ' 6: BROVISION OF SEWER EASEMENTS A{.ON~ EXTERIOR BOUNDARtEB AS DETER~ I MINED,BY THE CITY Et131NEER. 7. PROVISION OF ADEQUATE ACCE89 FROM ?HE FRONTAGE ROAD '~0 THE SAT15- FACTION OF THE CiTY ENOINEER.- ; - _. , 1 i' > .. . Il~f.hir:+rr.iilr :~t~.Yr ~.i.:::.~ l,Y.~~.'.. . _..,._ ~. . ~.1'~..':l.n ~a';f1'.~n.. .~. ~4..~R:"x'r..X^t..'!:u`~-, .- ~ ., ,.~. ~~v.~; ~ 5 'i.: . . . . . . ~ ' i ' .. ~ . . ' . ~.' ~ ~~.: ~ . 296 .t . MiNUTES~ C1TY PLANNING COHNISSION, Aua~sr 7~ 1961, CONTINUED; VARIANCE N0. 1383 ~ 8. PAYMENT OF t2.04 PER FRONT F00T FOR STREET LIaHTIN~ PURP0565 ON CONTINUED THE FRONTA~E ROAD. • ~ 9: TIME tiMITATION OF ONE HUNDRED AND E1aHTY (180) DAYS FOR TtiE ACC~MPLISHMENT OF ITEM NOS. 5~ 6~ AND 8. • THE FORE~OINQ CONDITIONS MERE RECITED AT THE MEETIN4 AND WERE FOUND TO BE•A NECESSARY.PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE TkE SAFETY AND NELFARE OF THE CIT12EN5 OF THE C1TY Oi ANAHEIM. • • • •• •• • ON ROLL CALL THE FORE~i VOTE: . AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISS,IONERS: ABSENT: CQMMISSIONEitS: )IN6 RESO~UTION WA5 PASSED BY T11E FOLLOWINa ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MUNGALI~.PEBIEY~ PERRY~ SUNNERS. NONE. HAPOOOD~ NORRIS. RECLaSS1FICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED sr NELSON-pYE CONSTRUC- I HO.• 61-62-7 TION, INC. 212 SOUTH TNALIA STREET~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ AfiENTS~ ~ REQUESTIN~ THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED.AS; A PARCEL 72 FEE7 BY 269.FEET. WITH A.FRONTAOE OF 72 FEET ON KATELLA AVENUE AND•LOCATED ON THE.SOU7H ~ STDE OF KATELLA AVENUE BETWEEN•MOUNTAINVIEW AVENUE AND HASTER STREET~ ~ ITS NORTHMEST CORNER BEIN~ APPROXI.MATELY 485 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTH- EAST CORNER OF HA87ER STREET AND KATELI.A AVENUE AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 300 EAST KATELLA AVENUE BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R~A~ RE~iD~NTIAL AGRICUtTURAI,•ZONE.ro rHe C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. . SUBJECT PETITION MAS CONSIDERED AT TM~ MEETIN~ OF JULY•24~ 1961~ AT WHICN TIME IT WAS CONTINUED UNTIL TH~ MEETING OF AUOUST 7~ 1961~ IN ORDER TO PROYIDE THE PETITIONER AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT INFORMATION IN RESPECT YO THE SPECIFIC TYPES OF OPERATION PROPOSED ~'0 UTILIZE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE RE~ADVERTISEMENT OF BUBJE4T PROPERTY WITH THE CORRECTION OF THE 57REET ADDRE55 FROM 300 tiIEST KATELLA AVENUE TO 3Q0 E~ST KATELLA.AVENUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CODE REQUIREMENTS. . , •~ MR. R. L. DYE~ THE PETITi(~NER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT HE WAS NOT At~ARE THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS NECES- $ARY TO DE9CRIBE HIS INTENTIONS IN RESPECT TO THE TYPE OF USE PROPOSED FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. HE STATED THAT ONLY A SMALL AMOUNT OF EQUIPMENT WOULD BE STORED ON TNE PREMISES AT ONE TIME~ AND ,THAT NO MORE THAN ONE DUMP TRUCK AND AIR COMPRESSOR WOULD BE BTORED. HE 9TAT6D FURTHER~ 1N REFERENCE TC THE CABINET BHOP~ THAT IF THE PETITIONER~S FOUND IT TO BE PROFIYABLE IN THE FUTURE THEY WOULD MANUFACTURE THEIR OMN CABINETS~ BUT THAi IT MOULD BE A SMALL OPERA- TION~ THAT TME EQUiPMBNT WOULD BE OF 8MAL~ POWER AND LOW NOf.BE FACTOR~ AND TNAT THE OPERATION WOULD NOT CREAT6 A GREAT AMOUNT OF NOISE. HE ADDCD THAT THE SAME SITUATION APPLIED TO THE PLUMBING FACILI7IES. MR. DYE STATED THAT HE CONS[DERED A PREClDEN7 HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BY TML ORAKE SlRV1CE BUSINESS APPROVRD EV PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1212~.AND THAT TqC PROPOSED USE OF TUE SUSJECT PROPCRTY WOULD NOT CRCATC.AS MUCH NO186 AND CONFUSION AQ TNC BRAKE SLRVIC6. HE DEB~ CRI![O TH6 iONING AND LAND U!L Of.TH11 5URR0UND1N0 AR6A~ AND INDICATED THAT HE CONSID[RLD THE PROP08RD.USE TO BC COMPATIOLE W17H THC ARCA AND THAT TME OWHER OF ABUTTING~PROPERTY ON TH[ SOUTH WAS IN FAVOR OF THC BUSJECT PB7ITION. MR.~CLARCNCE MCN6E5~ 1844 NABTEA,_$TREET~ APPEAtIED BEFCRE THE CCMMIS- SION~ SYATBD TNAT HC DWNED TNE YACANT PROPERTY ABUTTING SUBJ6CT PROPERTY ON THE WEBT~ AND PRESaNTED A RBNDERING OF TH6 PROP08ED DLVLLOPMLNT OF THE.VACANT PRRC6L OF PROPERTY 1NDfCATING DEVELOPMENT OF A.'SERVICC bTAT10N~ A RESTAURANT~ SMALL CONMERCIkL SHOPS~ AND PARK- 1NG AA6A i0R MHICH A RiCLASS1FlCAT10N J0 TML C-3~ HLAYY COMMERCIAL~ AND 7HL C~S~.NCfGHBORH00D COMM6RC1'AL~ ZONE~i NAD.BEEN OOTAINED. THE • COMMISSION DISCUSBED THE RENDERING AND INDICATCD APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSBO COMMCRCIAL DEVEL02ieEN7 IF COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE NITH THE RCNDERING PRESCNTED. MR. MCNE[S 8TA7ED THAT NE WOUID N07 OBJECT T0 THE ESTABL'ISHMENT OF THE CONTRACTORIS OFFIC C 0~: TNE BUBJEC7 PROPERTY BU7 THAT HE WOULD 09JECT ' T0 TH~ PROPOBED,CA8INET AND'PLUMB.IN3 SHOPS. THE HEARIN~ WAS CLOSED. THC:COMH19810N-D18CU68lD~AT SOME LENGTH 7HE P0881BIL1TY';THAT A VARI- ANCE FOR"TMC.,PROPOSED USE OF.:;TNg'SUB.lECT PROPERTY WOULD BE 9UITABLE FOR..A LiMITED:PBAIOD OP.:TIME~;.'AND COMMIBSIOF:CRS MARCOUX AND ALLRFD 1NDICA760 THAT',A VARIANC6 MIOHT'BB CONSIDERED APPROARIATE A7 THE PRCSLNT T1M6~ HOMEVfR~.'TH6 PROPOSED`U9E,OF'7H6:EXl8TlN0 RESIDCNCE: ^~`? : ~~~ ; ° ~ t r : ` f~ ,. ' ~~~ ~,.-'t .n,i- . ~,~ .~.. , t ~,.._.it., ..._.~. . . :-,tl; I'..._„ ~r~<n:~:l\~::z .r.~:_..~~~t~%;'i15',tbt~~,_i~~~ . ~'~.~...'.'~P ~ c c1 ~_^~ :'.;r~'~; ~ ~~~ iv ~4T s ~~ 297 - MINUTES, CITY PI.ANNiNG COMMISSION, Au~usr 7~ 1961~ CONTINUED; • RECIASSIFICQTION ~ FOR A PERIOD OF T1ME~ EVEN WITH ALTERATIONS~ MIGHT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL NER AL RED STATED 61~62~-7 NO L EFFECT•UpON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA. COMMISSIO . CONTINUED THAT HE WOULD NO.T FAVOR A RECLASS~FICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY UNLE55 THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WAS REMOVED AND A SUITABLE COMMERCIAL BUILDINCa WAS ERECTED. ~ ~ ' ' ' ' ' THE PETITIONER ADDRESSED THE~CO~lbI15510N AND STATED THAT HE N15HED TO ' T ' S A H E S FOR THE SUBJECT BE GRANTED ZONE AL~ COMMERC HEAVY REQUESTED CD3~ PROPERTY~ AND HE STATED THAT HE WOULD LIMIT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY TO•A•GENERAL CONTRACTOR~S OPERATION. COMMISSIONER MORR.15 ENTERED THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT.2:30 O'CLOCK P.M. ASS~SSANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT TNE C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE PERMITS PROFESSIONAL OFFICES~ SERVICE BUSINESSES~ AND RETAIL STORES. HE STATED THAT IT WOULD ALLOW AN OFFICE TYPE BUSINE55 BUT THAT THE INCIDENTAL STORAGE OF EQUIPMENT iIOULD NOT BE PERMIT?ED NOR WOULD IT PERMIT A CABINET SHOP. HE . STATED FURTHER THAT TME OUTDOOR 570RAGE OF CONTRACTOR~S•EQUIPMENT OR LIGHT MANUFACTURING CONSIDERED AN M-1 ~ ~ OTHER TYPES OF EQUIPMENT IS GEISLER ADVISED THE•COMMISSION THAT THE•CLASSIFICATION OF MR U E . S . THE PROPERTY TO THE MORE RESTRICTIVE C-1~ NE~GHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE COULD BE CONSIDERED PROVIDED THE USES WERE LIMITED TO THE USES PERMITTED BY THE CODE. "' COMMISSIONER ALLRED STATED THAT A VARIANCE FOR THE PROPOSED USE MIGHT BE SUITABLE~ BUT THAT HE WOULD NOT CONSIDER THE SUGGESTED C-1~ NE~GH- BORHOOD COMMERCIAL~•ZONING ADVISABLE BECAUSE~ IN NIS OPINION~ THE • AREA SHOULD BE UP-GRADED AND IMPROVED~ AND THAT THE USE OF THE EXIST- ING STRUCTURE FOR ANY BUSINESS OR PRO~ESSIONAL USE WOULD BE ESTABLISH~ ING A USE THAT COULD CONTINUE FOR YEARS AND WOULD CREATE THE POSSIBIL- ITY OF•THE PROPERTY NEVER BEING•IMPROVED. • • THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FO~LOWING FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJECT PETITIONi THAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ABOVE DES- 1 . CRIBED PROPERTY FROM THE R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL9 ZONE TO THE C-3~ HEAVY CONMERCIAL~ ZONE. ~ 2. THAT THE PROPOSED REC'LASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT NEl.ESSARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMUNITY. • 3. THAT THE PROPOSED UTILIZATION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE SUBJEC7 PROPERTY IS NOT COMPATIBLE W~TH THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. 4. THAT VERBAL OPPOSITION WAS RECORDED AT THE MEETINGS ON JULY 24~ 1961 AND ON AU6UST 7~ 1961 BY ONE OWNER OF ADJACENT PROPERTY~ AND VERBAL SUPPORT BY TWO PROPERTY OWNERS WAS RECORDED AT THE ~IEETING ON ~ULY 24~ 1961. COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 29~ SERIES 1961-62~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PERRY~ TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT PE7ITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 61-62-7 BE DENIED ON THE BASIS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED F~NDINGS. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOT E 1 MARCOUX~ MUNaALI~ PEBLEY~ AYES: COMMISSIONERSS Q D~ SUMIAERS, ERRY NOES: COMMiSS10NERS: NONE. ABSTAINED; COMMlSS10NERS: MORRIS. ABSENTe COMNISSIONERS: HAPGOOD. CONDiTIONAL USE - REVIEW oF sue~ecT PETITION. PETITION SUBMITTED ev ANAHEIM COMMUNiTY PERMIT YO. 102 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH~ 515 NORTH PLACENTIA AVENUE ANAHEIM CALIFOR- N1A~ OWNER~ FOR PERMISSION TO ADD TO EXISTING CHUf~CH FACILITIES~ ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5: AN IRREfiULARLY SHAPED PARCEL NITH A FRONTAGE OF 265 FEFCT ON PLACENTIA AVENUE AND A FRONTA6E OF 423 FEET ON SYCA~ MORE STREE:T AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF PLACENTIA ' AVENUE AND SYCAMORE STREET~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 515 NORTH PLACENTIA A:'ENUE. THE PROPERTY !S PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R-A~ RESI~ ~ENITAL AGRIG,~LTURA!, 20NE. A.STAFF REPORT WAS SUBM~TTED TO THE COMM15510N 1NDICATING THAT T HE SUBJECT PETITION WAS APPROV~D BY THE PLA1JNiNQ COMMISSION ON F6BRUARY ~ ~ ~ 298 MlNU7ES, C11'Y PLANNIN6 COMMISSION, AuousT 7, 1461, CONTINUED: ,at ~ ~;:: . . ,:~~i.:.+'„ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NU. 102 CONTINUED - 20, 1961~ BY RESOLUTION ~0. 178! $ERIES 1960-61, THAT IT HAS COME TO 7NE•ATTENTION OF THE PLANNINO DEPARTMEN7• THAT SAID APPROVAL WAS BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT PLANS SU8MITTED BY THE PETITIONER.DID NOT COVER AN 1DENT1CA1. AMOUNT•OF PROPERTY INCLUDED 1N 7HE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF.THE ^UBJECT PROPERTY OF SAID PETITION~ THAT THE MESTERLN 200 FEE7 OF THE ULTIMATE PLAN OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CHURCH PROPER7Y•WAS NOT 1NCLUDED I.N THE LEQAL DESCRIPTION~ AND THAT 7HE PETITIORERS•.HAVE SUBMITTED A LETTER FROM THE OWNER OF THIS 200 F00T PARCEL INDICATI.N~ THAT THE CHURCH HOLDS AN OPTION TO BUY THAT PROPERTY AND•AUTHOR121NCa 7!IE IINAHEIM COMMUNITY CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH TO•ACT AS THE•OWNER~S AUTHORI2ED•AQENT IN RECOpIS1UERATION OF THE SUBJECT.CONDITIONA4 USE PERM•IT. THE STAFF REPORT ALSO RECOMMENDED TMAT A RESOLUTION BE PASSED•RESCINDING•RESOLUTION N0. 178~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND GRANTING APPROVAL OF SAID CONDI7IONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY INCORPORATING THE REVISED LEGAL DESCRIPTION AMD SUBJECT TO SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: THE HEQRING WAS CLOSED. • THE ~OMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJECT PETITION: • • • • 1. THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS PROPERLY ONE FOR WHICH A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS AUTHORIZED BY THiS CODE~ TO WIT: EXPANSION OF CHURCH ' FACILITIES. ~ • • 2. THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFfECT THE ADJOIN~PIG LAND USES AND THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA iN WHICH 1T • IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED. 3. THAT THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE SiTE PROPOSED FOR THE USE IS ADE- QUATE TO ALIOW.THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED USE IN A MANNER NOT DETRI'MENiAL TO 7HE PARTICULAR AREA NOR TO THE FEACE~ HEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND GENERAL MELFAf:E OF THE CIT12EN5 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 4: THAT THE TRAFFIC QENERATED BY THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT IMPOSE AN UNDUt 9URDEN UPON THE STREETS AND H16HWAY5 DESIGNED AND PROPOSED TO•CARRY THE 7RAFFIC 1N THE AREA. • 5. THAT THE QRANTlNG OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER THE CONDI- TIONS IMPOSED~ IF ANY~ WILL N07 8E DETRIMENTAL TO 7HE PEACE HEALTH~ SAFETY, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITI2ENS OF THE ~1TY OF ANAHEIM. 6. THAT RESOLUTION N0. 178t. SERIES 1960-61~ IS FieREeY RESCINOED AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IYO. 102 IS HEREBY ~RANTED FOR THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED AND REFERRED TO HEREIN. 7. THA7 k0 ONE APPEARED 1N CPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION. COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 30~ SERIES 1961-62t AND MOVED FOR 17S PASSADE AND ADOPT10Ne StCONDED BY COMMISSIONER MU1:3ALL~ RESCINDING RESOLUTION N0. 178~ SER1E5 1960-61~ AND GRANTINa PETITION FOR CONDTTIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 102~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOW'IN~ COND1- TIONS: 1. DEVELOPMENT IN 7W0 STA~ES BU85TANTIALI.Y IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED AhD MARKED EXHIBIT NI~. 2. DEDICATION OF 53 FEET FROM TNE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF PLACEN7IA AVENUE (30 FEET EXISTINa). ' 3: ~6DICA710N OF 32 FEET FROM THE MONUMEN7Ei~ GENTERLINE OF SYCAMORE STREET (24.75 FEET EXISTIN~) FOR A DISTANCE: OF 456.70 FEET, MEASURED FROM THE CEN7ERLINE OF PLACENTIA AVENUE. 4. DEDICATION OF 32 F4ET FROM HE MONUMEN7CD CLNTERLINE OF SYC:,tAORE STRELT (24.75 FECT BXISTIN3~ FOR TH! MLSTERLY 205.95 FElT OF SUB- JECT PROPCRTV AT SUCH 71M[ AS TH6 IMPROVEMBNT BOND~ REQUIRED BV CONDITION N0. 9 LXPIR~S OR PR'IOR TO TN6 INlTALLATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS AS REQUIR6D BY CONDITION N0. S. 6~ PRLPARATION OF BTREET IMPROVEMGNT•PLANS AND 1NSTALLATION OF ALL IMPROVCMLNTS IN ACCORDANCL NITN TNL APiROV6D STANDARD PI.ANS OH PILL IN THC OFRICE OF 7HE CITY ENGINEER ON BOTH STRfE78. 6. PAYM[N7.OF :2.00 PER FRONT FQOT FOR 9TREET LIGHTING PURPOSE8 ON ON 907H STREE7S. . . 7'. CONSTRUCTION OF.A SIX (6~ FOOT MASONRY WALL ON THE NOR7H PROPERTY LINE~ OR THE POSTIN3 OF A BOND FOR A PERIOD OR TMO (2~ YEARS FROM 7HE EFFECTIVB DATE OF THIS RESOLUT(ON TO lNBURE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID WA1,~ WMEN THB ABU7TlN0 PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED FOR REBIDENTIAL ~, s ~ a,;. v.:~~ ...R;Y.~~..r~.. ._.:--- ------ ~ ~ ' • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 299 MINUTES, CITY PLANNIN6 COMMISSION, Iiu~usT 7. 1961~ CONTINUED; CONDITIONAL USE ~ PURPOSES. A7 THE CONCLUSION OF SAID TWO (2},YEAR PER10D•OF TIME~ PERMIT N0. 102 lF THE ABUT7INQ PROPER7Y HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED FOR,RESIDENTIAL CONTINUED PURPOSES~ A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME~ PROPERLY FILED~ MAY BE SUBMITTED~TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION. THE PETI- TIONHR SHALL HAVE THE OPTION OF INCORPORATING THE BOND FOR THE REQUIRED MALL ALOIiG THE WE51'ERLY 200 FEET OF THE NORTHERLY PROPER- TY LINE INTO THE BOND REQUIRED BY CONDiT10N N0. 8. 8. CONSTRUCTtON OF A FOUR (4~ FOOT MASONRY WALL TEN (10) FEET•NORTH OF AND PARALLEL TO lHE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING $YCAMORE STREET THE FULL LENG'~11 OF THE PARKING AREA AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT ~I„~ EXCEP7 FOR THOSE AREAS RESERVED•FOR-INGRE55 AND EGRE55~ OR THE POSTI.NG OF A BCND 10R A.PERIOD OF TWO (2~ YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE•OF•THE RESOLUTION TO INSURE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID WALL WHEN THE PARKING AREA NAS BEEN APPROVED FOR UTILIZAT~ION BY THE CHURCH AS INDICATED AS .riTA~E N0. 2 ON THE P~OT PLAN DATED JULY 17/.1961. AT•THE CONCLUSION•OF SAID TWO (2~•.YEAR PERIOD OF TIME~ IF THE PARKING AREA HAS NOT QEEN ~MPROVED/ A REQUEST. FOR AN .EXT~NSION OF TIME~ PROPERLY ~ILED~ MAY B~ SUBMITT.ED TO 7HE CITY COUhCIL FOR CONSIOERATION. THE F~TITtONER SHALL HAVE THE OPTION OF.INCORPORA7ING THE BOND FOR THE REQUIRED WALL ALONG THE NESTERLY 205.95 FEE7 OF THE SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE tNTO THE 90ND REQUIRED HEREIN. 9. INSTALLATION OF A TEN (10) FOOT LaNDSCAPED ST.RIP ALONG SYCAMORE STREET~ PLANS FOR SAID LANDSCAPING TO BE SUBMITTED T6 AND SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKWAY MAINTENANCE. . 10. POSTING OF A TNO (2) YEAR IMPROVEMENT BOND FOR TF1E IMPROVEMENTS~ AND THE PAYMENT FOR STREET.I.ICiHTING A7 $2.00 PER FRONT FOOT ON THE WESTERLY 205.95 FEET OF SUBJECT PROPERSY MEASURED ALONG SV'CAMORE~STREETj EOR THE..SA~ISFACTION OF CONDITi0N5 5~6~708~ AND 9. 11. TIME I.IM!TATION OF ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY (180) DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT~OF ITEM NOS. 2~ 3~ 4~ 5~ 6~ 7o S~ 9~ AND 10. THE FOREGOING CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETtNG AND WERE FOUND TO 8E A NECESSARY PREREQU1SiTE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERSY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND WE~FARE OF THE CIT12EN5 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. ON ROLL CALL THE FORE60iNa RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING i VOTE; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD. VARIANCE N0. 13e6 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev SIERRA DONMS ~!3 INC. 2283 NEST.LINCOLN AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNER• JACK ~OCHRA~J~ 2283 NEST LINCOLN AVENUE ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA~ A6ENT REQUESTIN(i PERMISSION To WAIVE MIN1~tUM LOT S~ZE AND LOT NIDTH R~QUIREMENTS IN R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURQL, ZONE FoR PROPERTY DESCRIBED ns: A PARCEL 100 FEE7 BY 212 FEET NITH A FRON7AGE OF 100 FEET ON ORANOENOOD AVENUE AND I.OCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ORANaEN00D AVENUE BETMEEN LOARA STREET AND EUCLID AVENUE~ 1T5 NORTHEAST COR- NER BEIN~ APPROXIMATELY 410 FEET NEST OF TNE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ORANGEWOOD AVENUE AND LOARA STREET AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1634 WEST ORANCiEWOOD AVENUE. PROPEASY PRES£NTLY CLASStFtED R-A~ RESI~ DENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. MR. L. B. HARBOURD JR.~ 2283 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE~ THE DEVELOPER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THE REASONS FOR THE RE- QUESTED VARIANCE. HE STATED THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 15 PART OF TRACT N0. 3816 COMPRISJN~ OF LOTS 1 THROUQH 6 AND A 7TH. PARCEL EXTENDI":G NOR7HERLY 70 ORANGENOOD AVENUE. HE STATED FURTHER THAT HIS COMPANY OBTAINED SEVEN BUILDING PERMITS~ ONE FOR EACH PARCEL~ AND BE~AN CONSTRUCTION. IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DETERMINEG THAT THE SUB3'eGT PARCEL HAD NOT BeEN iHCLUDED IFi THE l~PPROVwL 8F THE TRACT MAP~ THAT A BUILDIN4 PERMIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR TNE CONSTRUCTION~ AND THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO OBTAIN A VARIANCE 1N ORDER TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUC710N. AS A CONSEQUENCE~ A STOP WORK ORDER WAS PLACED UPON THE CONSTRUCTION~ AND AFTER CONFERENCE WITN THE VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS.RELATIVE TO COMPLYIN~ WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS~ THE WORK WAS AQAIN COMMENCED. MR. HARBOUR ADDED THAT ALI. REQUIREMENTS HAD BEEN MET AND THA7 THE STREET LIOH7S 1NSTAlLATION WILL BE COMPLETED AS A PART OF THE TRACT DEVELOPMENT. HE DESCRlBcD TNE SUBJECT PROPERTY* IND]CATINQ THAT 7HE LOT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 71 FEET IN M1DTH~ APPROXIMATELY 187 FEET 1N DEPTH~ AND WILL CONTAIN APPROXiMATELY 13~000 SQUARE -~-v ~ ~ ~ ... ~ ~~~.:.~'~: ;e:..-...:..i::si~--=..__~_, i ~ ' ~-. . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMIS~l~iN, AuausT 7, 1961~ CONTINUED: V~~•;ANCE N0. 1386 - FEET'MMICH IS IN EXCESS.OF CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE R-1~ ONE FAMILY ~..dNTINUEG RE519ENTIAL~•ZONE. HE STATED 7HA7•DED1CA710N HAD BEEN MADE FOR.THE EXTENSION•OF DELLA LANE~ THAT THE LOT WILL BE VALUABLE~ TftAT THE RESIDENCE BEINCi CON57RUC7ED MILL HAVE A.SELLI.NQ PRICE Of :28~000.00 AND.THAT JT M1LL BE AN ASSET TO TH~ NEI~HBORHOOD. •. .. MRS. SYPERDA~ ONNER OF ApJACENT PROPERTY~ APPEARED~BEFORE THE COMMIS- 510N•AND INQUIRED ABOUT THE 1NSTALLATION OF A RETAINING YALL AND THE 1NTENTIONS OF THE DEVELOPER IN RESPECT TO THE DRAINA~E PR09LEM5 IN THE AREA.. . ~ MRS. EUGENE THOMAS~ 2080 SOUTH LOARA STREE7' APPEARED BEFORE THE CONM1SSlON~ 1NQUIRED ABOUT THE METHOD U7ILIZED BY 7HE DE~IELQRER IN COMMENCING•THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE..SUBJECT PROPERTY WITHOU7 APPROYAL OR•A VARlAF1CE~ AND A80UT THE PRECEDENT THAT••WOULD BE ESTABLiSHED FOR A REDUCTION•IN THE SIZE OF LOT DIMENSIONS FOR THE REMA1NiNG UNDEVEL- OPED.PARCELS IN THE SUBJECT AREA. MRS. THOMAS STATED THAT•OTHER PROPERTIES 1N THE•AREA MA1NTAiN LOT N10TH5 OF FROM 100 FEET T0 112 FEET~ AND SHE COMPLAINED ABOU7 THE PRESENT DRAfNAGE PR08LEM IN TME AREA~•THE POSSIBILITY THAT 7'HE SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT M16HT INCREASE T!{E PROBLEM~ THE POSSIBLE EX7ENSION OF DELLA LANE~ AND 7HE EXISTING TRAFFIC•CONDITIONS ON ORANGENOOD AVENUE. THE COMM15510N REVIEWED 7HE H15TORY OF THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE SUB~ JECT PROPERTY AND NO'GED•THAT THE WORK•~NAS~COMMENCED IN•VLOLATION OF THE ZON1N0 ORDINANCE. IT WAS•AL50 NOTED THA7 nLL OF THE REQUIRE- MENTS FOR.THE INSTALLAT(ON OF IMPROVEMENTS AND DEDICATIONS HAD.BEEN MET NITH EXCEPTION OF THE 1NSTAI,LATION OF.STREE7 LIGHTS NM1CH ARE TO• BE INSTALLED BY THE DEVELOPER PRIOR TO THE RELEASE OF THE FINAL • BUlLDIhp INSPECTION. THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE EXTENSION OF DELLA LANE AS INDICATED ON THE PL07 PLANS SUAMITTED•AND NOTED THAT DEDICA- TION•AND iMPROVEMEN75 WOULD BE COMP~ETED AND THAT DRAINAGE FACILITIES WOULO BE REQUIRED IN ACCORDANCE W1TH THE REQUIREMBNTS OF THE CITY EN6INEER. COMMISSIONER PERRY SU~GESTED THE•POSSIBLE CONTINUATION OF THE SUBJECT PETITION 1N ORDER TO STUDY THE DRAINAGE PROBLEM FUR- THER. MR. HARBOUR STATED•THAT THE C1TY ENGINEER HAD CONSIDERED THE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS AND THAT ALL FACILiT1E5 WOULD BE 1NSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE NITH C1TY REQUIREMENTS. - COMMISSIONER MORRIS STATED THAT IN HIS OPINION DELLA STREET SHOULD BE EXTENDED TO INTERSECT NITH ORANGEWOOD AVENUE IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE FROM THE STANDPOINT OF FIRE AND POLICE PROTECTION AND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND NOTED 7H AT THE PRO- POSED VARIANCE WOULD NOT CREATE A SUBSTANDARD LOT~ THAT IT WOULD BE IN EXCE55 OF R-1~ ONE FAM7LY RESIDENITAL~ ZONE CODE REQUIREMENTS~ AND THAT THE SELLING PRICE OF THE RESIDENCE WOULD IN6~CATE THAT IT WOULD NOT BE A DETRIMENT TO THE AREA. COMMISSIONER MORRIS NOTED TNAT HE CONSIDERED THE PROPOSED DEVELOP- MENT SUITABLE FOR THE AR~A~ THAT THERE HAD BEEN MANY REQUESTS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG ORANGENOOD AVENUE EXTENDING EASTERLY FROM EUCLID AVENUE~ AND THAT IT HAD BEEN THE CONSENSUS OF THE OPINIONS OF THE COMMISSION THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES WITH LOTS CONTAININ6 10~000 SQUARE FEFT WOULD BE THE BEST USE OF THE LAND. THE COMMISSION FQUND AND DETERMINEL~ THE FOLLOWIN6 FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJECT PETiSION: 1. THAT THE PETIYtONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICI~ PAL CODE~ SECTION 17.08.100 (C) TO PERMIT THE CREATION OF A REVERSE CORNER LOT HAV'IN~ A WIDTH OF 70 FEET AND SECTION 18.60.030- (4~B) TO PERMIT UTILIZATIOk OF AN R-A~ RESIDENTWL AGR~CULTURAL~ PARCEL GONTAIMiNG LE55 THA1~ ONE 4CRE IN AREA. 2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR COND~- TIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY INVOLYED OR TO THE INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY OENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR CLA55 OF USE IN THE SAME VICiNITY AND ZONE. 3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARtANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PRO~ PERTY tN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 4. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE pUBLIC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR ~MPROVEMENTS IN SUCH VICINITY'AND ZONE 1N WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 5. THAT TNE REQUESTED VARIANCE MILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPRE~ HENSIVE GENERAL PLAN. ~'~k% ~ . P `~ , . , -o:+.+rv.... . . , . ~1 . , . . ~ _. . . ~ . ,. . . /-. . ,..., ...... ... . .4.,}e~, ~: _.~ ._ ... -. ~ ~ ~~ ~ 300 ~ ~ ~ .. 301 f MiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Au~usr 7~ 1961~ CONT~NUED; I VARIANCE N0. 1386 - 6. THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJFCT PROPERTY FOR RESIDENTIAL I CONTINUED PURPOSES,WItFi LOTS CONTA~NING A MINIMUM OF 10~000 SQUARE FEET ~ ~ OR MORE AND A FRONTAGE OF 70 FEET OR MORE WOULD BE YHE HIGHE~iT AND BEST USE OF THE PP.OpERTY IN THE SUBJECT AREA.• ~, 7: THAT•THE EXSENSION OF DELLA $TREET.SMOULD BE CONTINUED NORTHERLY ~ ~ TO INTERSECT WITH ORANOEWOOD AVENUE IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE~CITY OF ANAHEIM. 8. TNAT VERBAL OPPOSITION BY TWO ONNERS OF PROPERTY N THE SUBJECT ~ AREA WAS RECORDED AGAINST SUBJEGT PETITION. , E ~ ~ I MOVEDSFORNETSMPASSAf3EFANDEADOPT/0N~'SECONDED1BYSCOMMISS90NER2ALLRED~ E I TO GRANT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1386~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWiNG ! ` j CONDITIONS: s 1. DEDICATION OF 45 FEET FROIA THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF ORANGE- ~ MOOD AVENUE. , ;, ~ 2. DEDICATION OF ONE-HALF THE NIDTH OF DE~LA LANE 70 TIE IN WITH TFIE NORTHERLY STUB~END OF DELLA LANE•AS PROVIDED ON FINAL MAP OF ~ TRACT N0. 3816 AND AS.SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT PLOT PLAN FILED WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND STAMPED BY THE FLANNING ` DEPARTMENT ON APRIL 3~ 1961. ~ } 3. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL INPACCORDANCEFWRTHRAPPROVED STANDARDNPLANSLONLFNLE IN THE'OFFtCE OF THE CITY ENGINEER. . , , ~ 4. PREPARATiOW OF ENGINEERiNG PLANS FOR DRAINAGE FACILiTIES AND THE ' ~NSTALLATION OF SAID FACILiTIES AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEERf./G ~ DIVISION TO PROVIDE FOR NATURAL DRAINAGE FROM TRACT N0. 3816 i WESTERLY ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH PROVISIONS MADE FOR DRAINAGE UNDER DELLA LANE TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SUBJECT pROPERTY. , ' S. PAYMENT qF 52.00 PER FRON7 FOOT FOR ORNAMENTAL STREET LIGHTINQ• PURPOSES ALONG ORANGEWOOD AVENUE AND DELLA ~ANE~ SAID FOOTAGE TO BE CALCULATED ON 7HE FRONTAGE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AFTER DED1~ CATtON FOR SAID SFREETS~ OR INSTALLATION OF STREET LlGHTS IN . CONJUNCTION WITH THE STREET LIGHTlNG PLAN FOR TRACT NO. 3816 TO THE SATISFACTION OF 7HE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC UTILI~IES. 6. PAYMENT OF f25.00 PER DW~I.LINQ UNIT PARK AND RECREATION FEE. 7. TIME L1111TATION OF ONE HUNDRED EIpHTY (180) DAYS ~~~R THE ACCOM- PLISHMENT OF ITEM NOS. 1~ 2~ 3~ 4~ .°,~ AND 6. THE FORE~OINO CONDITIONS WERE RECITE. AT 7HE MEETINO AND WER6 FOUND ~ TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAFETXPND NEl.FARE OF THE CiTIZENS OF THE ClTY OF ANAHEIM. ON ROI.L CALL THE FOREQOIN~ RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING . VOTE: ' ~~YES7 COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ HUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SUMMERS. I~OES: COMMISSIONERSS NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSO HAPOOOD. F-.~~ ~ ~ ~ r p VARIANGE N0. 1399 - PUBLIC HEARING. PEFITION SUBMITTED ev GErZALD J. AND VIRGINIA M. GRANT~ 1414 AR120NA PLACE ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA ONNERS; REQUESTING PERMISS~ON ~ ro NAIVE MINIMUM R~AR YAR~~ ~EfBACK REQUIREMENT FoR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: A PARCEL 69 FEET BY t!9 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 69 FEET ON AR120NA PLACE AND LOCATED ON TNE SOUTH S1DE OF ARIZONA PLACE BETWEEN LIME AND AVOCADO STREETS~ ITS NORTHEAST CORNER BEINa APpROXIMATELY 140 FEET WE$T OF THE 54JTY.klE,°,T CCniicR 3~ At2iI'6NA PLACE AND LIME STREET AND ~ FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1414 ARIZONA PLACE. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CL,ASSIFIED R-1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. THE PETITIONER WAS PRESENT AND INDICATED HE HAD NOTHING TO ADD TO THE lNFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE SUBJECT PETITION IN RESPECT TO THE REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO ENCROACH THREE FEET INTO THE REQUIRED REAR YARD ~N ORDER TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITIONAL BATHROOM FOR AN EXISTINQ ~ RESIDENCE. '~~ ~~'.` THE HEAR I NG MAS CLOSEO. t' THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOI,LOWINO FACTS REOARDING THE ~ ~ SUBJECT PETITION: . r~.'rt -~. . , ~X7k ~'i . ~ • . .. ~ ~ . . ~ ~ _ . . ~ . . ' . .' ' ~ ~ ~ .. , - ~. . .. . . . . . ~ ~ . . , . . . . .: ~ . ~ . ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ . .. .. F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f r" ; ~._.. . T_._... , . , , `..~ . '4_.. . . , ~:J~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES~ C1TY PIANNING COMMISS,ON. Au~usT 7~ 1961, CONTINUBD: VARIANCE N0. 1389 CONTINUED ~ 1. THAT THE DETITIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE~ANAHEIM MUNICi~ PAL•CODEy SECTION 18.24.030 (3) TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF THREE (3) FEET INTO REQUIRED REAR YARO TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL BATHROOM ATTACHED TO AN E%ISTING RESIDENCE. 2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CI.RCUMSTANCES OR CONDI.TIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PRORERTY INVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERA~LY TO THE PROPERTY OR CLASS OF USE IN THE•SAME VICINITY AND 20NE. . 3. THAT THE REQUESTED•VARIANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSSANTtAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. • . 4. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE.PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN•SUCH VICINITY AND ZONE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY !5 LOCATED. 5. THAT THE RBQU:STED VARIANCE WILL NOT ADV~RSELY AFFECT THE COMPRE- HENSIVE GENiRAL PLAN.• . . . , 6. THAT NO ONE APPEARED 1N OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION. . COMMISSIONER~PE@LEY OFFERED RESOI.UTION.NO. 32~ SERIES 1961-62 AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSADE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ~ARCOUX~ TO 6RANT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1389~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:• • . . , 1: DEVE~OPMENT. SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXHIBITS NI„~ „II„~ MIII„~NIVN~ „V„~•AND „VI.„ . .. THE FORE~OIN~ CONDITION WAS RECfTED AT THE ME_TINQ AND WAS FOUND TO 9E • A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRE- SERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREQOINQ RESOLUTION NAS PASSED BY THE FOILUWINa VOTE:, AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLREDp GAUER' MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGA~Lp PEBLEY~ PERRYo SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSiONERSO NONE. ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: HAPa00D. VARI ANGE N0. i?go - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITtON SUBMlTTED ev HERMAN E. AND LEILA~~I MILBRAT, 519 DALE AVENUE~ RNAHEIM CALIFORNIA REQU~STINO PERMISSION TO CONTINUE BEAUTY SHOP OPE~ATION IN EXISTING RESIDENCE oN PROPERTY oE - S CRIBED qg; A PARCEL 100 FEET BY 245 FEET WITH A FRONTAOE OF 100 FEET ON DALE AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DALE AVENUE BETWEEN ~ . CPESCENT AND TYLER AVENU~S~ 175 NORTHEAST CORNER BEINa APPROXIMATELY 45O FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHWE57 CORNER OF CRESCENT AVENUE AND DALE AVENUE AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 519 NORTH DALE AVENUE. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R-~A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. ' MR. LESTER CARDEN~ 914 WEBT CENTER STREET~ ANAHEIM~ AT'FORNEY REPRESENT- ~ IN~ TH4 PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMNI581'ON AND STATED THAT THE . PETITIONER WISHES TO CONTINUE THE OPERATION OF A HOME OCCUPATION BEAUTY SHOP IN THE EXISTING RESIDENCE ON SUBJECT PROPERTY. HE STATED ~ FURTHER THAT THE APPEARANCE OF THE PROPERTY NILL NOT BE ALTERED~ THAT THERE WIL~ BE NO S1GN5 DISPLAYED~ THAT THERE WILL BE NO PARKIN~ PRO- ~ BLEM~ THAT ONLY ONE OR TWO CUSTOMERS W1~~ 8E SERVEO AT ANY TIM~~ AND TNAT THE CUSTOMERS WOULD BE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD. HE REQUESTED THAT THE VARIANCE BE aRANTED~ LIMITIWQ IT TO MRS. MILBRAT PERSONALLY~ THE SOLE OPERATOR~ AND STATED THAT THERE HAD BEEN SOME MISUNDERS7ANDIN~ AND RUMORS RE~ARDINO TIiE REQUESTED VARIANCE INDICATINa THAT THE REQUEST WAS IN ORDER TO BELL THE PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIA~ PURPOSES. MR. CARDEN - DESCRIBED THE ZONING AND LAND USE OF THE BURROUNDINd AREA AND INDICATED THAT HE DID NOT CONSIDER THE BEAUTY SHOP IN THE SAME CATE~ORY AS A CHICKEN RANCH PR~SENTLY IN OPERATION ON NEARBY PROPERTY~ OR A dARAOE IN OPERATION 1N T:iE IMMEDIATE VICINITY. MR. LOUIS MEVERS~ 533 NORTH OALE STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMI4~ SION~ 8TAT6D THA7 HE OBJECTED TO THE PROPOBED UBE AND THAT THERE WAS NOTHINO pERSONAL IN H'IS -0BJECTiONS~. BUT THAT THE AREA CONTAINED ABOVE , AVERAGE CUBTOM TYPE HOMES~'THAT IT WAS BTRICTLY A REBIDENTIAL AREA~ THAT THE pROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FOR RF8IDENTIAL PURPOSEB~ AND THAT ' THE PROPOSED USE WOULD DEVALUATE THE BURROUNb~W~ PROPERTIES. HE DEB- CR~BED OTHER AREAS IN WHICH HOM6 OCCUPATIONS WERE Pn^n::!TTED TO ENCROACH ':` AND THE REBULTINa DBTERIORATION OF THE AREA~ AND HE INDICATED THAT HE °-?~ DID NOT WISH TO SEE THIS'OCCUR IN THE SUBJECT AREA. MR. MEYERS STATED FURTNBR THAT REQUESTS W6RE CONTINUALLY BE1N0 FILED FOR VARIANCES AND 20NE CHANOES IN THE SUBJECT AND SURROUNDIN3 AR~A~ WH]CH CREA7ED AN n : ~ ' . . f ., ; .. f a. ,~ R.~~"hk.~if . . ~ . ' . ' ~ ~ . f . .; .: , r a~ ~- . ~ . . . . , . .. ~ ~ . . . . , . . --~-^ ..-- _.. ~-^~ ... .. . ' . . _.._ .:4'. ~ ._~._~5-~ .... . ~.. . ~ . ~:~~. ..... , .i~_. . "', . . ,.y'+ .~... .:~_. .. . . "f ..l ,J .. . ~:~~..~ e MINUTES, CITY P~ANNIN6 COMMISSIQN, Aususr 7~ 1961, CoNTiNUED: VARIANCE N0. 1390, - INCONYENIENCE FOR THE A~~;CENT pROPER7Y OWNERS~•AND HE REQUESTED THAT CONTINUED THE PROPERTY OWNERS BE ALLOWED TO CONSULT WITH A CITY OFFICIAL AND . ~ETERMINE WHAT ~5 THE BEST USE•OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GE~SLER ADVISED MR. MEYERS THAT ANYONE IS PERMITTED TO FIL.E A PETITION FOR USE OF ANY PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITV LIMITS AND TH<T THE CITY IS PROHIBITED FROM DELEGATING ANY RESPONSIBILITY OR AUTHORII'V TO A GROUP OF RESIDENTS TO DETERMINE THE USE OF PROPERTY. HE STA7ED~ HOWEVER~ TMA7•THE PROPERTY OWNERS MAY IMPOSE~RE57RICTIONS UPON PROPERTY BUT THAT IT IS A PERSONAL MATTER THAT MUST BE ACCOMP~ISHED BY DEED RESTRICTIONS. HE RL50 57ATED THAT A VARIANCE CAN NOT BE GRANTED TO AN INDIVIDUAL~ THAT IT WAS PLACED UPON THE PROPERTY~ AND THAT IT WAS BASED PRIMARILY UPON A HARDSHIP IN RESPECT TO USE OF THE PRppERTY. . CHAIRMAN GAUER READ,A PETITION SIGNED BY 75 OWNERS OF PROPERTY IN THE SUBJECT ARF.A AND FI~ED IN PROTEST AGAINST THE SUBJECT PETITION. A LETTER OF PROTEST~ SIGNED BY V. L. PETERSON AND EDNA PETERSON OF HUENA PARKp WAS ALSO'SUBMITTED. MR. A. T. ZAMORAo 523 NORTH DALE STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMIS- SION ANO READ A STATEMENT OF PROTEST STAT~NG THAT THE BEAUTY SHOP WOULD BE HAZARDOUS TO THE CHILDREN IN THE AREA~ THAT THERE WERE NO SIDEWALKS PROVIDED WHICH WOULD NECESS~TATE THE USE OF THE STREETS BY THE CHILDREN GOING TO SHCOOL~ THAT HE.HAD LIVED IN AN AREA OF MIXED RESIDENTIAL~COMMERCIAL USES AND AS A CONSEQUENCE HAD CHOSEN THE SUBJECT AREA IN ORDER TO,PROVIDE A SUITABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR HIS CHILDREN~ THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTAINED CUSTOM BUILT HOMES AND WAS A VERY DcSIRABLE ONEo THAT THE CHICKEN RANCH WAS GOINT OUT Of BUSINE55~ THAT THERE ."..^.C NOT ENOUGH fINE RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN ANAHEIMy THAT THE :<EQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFFCT UPON THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES~ AND THAT HE WOULD BE DEPRIVED OF THE ENJOYMENT OF HIS HOME !F THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS GRANTED. HE MADE REFERENCE TO A PREVIOUS USE OF THE PREMISES FOR A BUTCHER SHOP A~iD CITED AN INCIDENT WHEREBY A FENCE WAS DAMAGF.U BY q MOTORIST IN 6RDER . TO AVOID STRIKING ONE OF Hi5 CHILDREN. MRS. MILBRATy IN REBUTTALo STATED THAT THE PREVIOUS USE OF THE PRO- PERTY COMPRISED OF INCJDENTAL WRAPPING FOR THE SCHOOLS~ THAT THE ACCIDENT WAS CAUSF.D G~~THE CHILDREN NOT THE AMOUNT OP TRAFFIC~ AND +'HAT THE USE OF THE PROPERSY FOR A 9EAUTY SHOP WOULD NOT BE A DF.TRI- ~ENT TO THE NEIGH80R5. MR. SAM COFFMAN~ 511 NORTH DALE STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMh115- S~ON AND COMPLA~NED THAT THE ABSENCE OF A SIGN WOULD NOT BE AN ADVANTAGE TO THE NE~GHBORHOOD BECAUSE AT THE PRESENT TIME CUSTOMERS CAME TO HIS RESIDENCE REQUESTING DIRECTION TO THE BEAUTY SHOP. ?HE HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FO~LOWING FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJECT PETITIOYt 1. THAT THF. PETITIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICI- PAL CODE~ SECTION 18.16.010 AND SECTION 18.08.390 TO PERMIT THE 1NCIDENTAL OPERATION OF A BEAUTY SHOP IN AN EXISTING RESiDENCE. 2. THAT THE hEQUE57ED VARIANCE IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVA- TION AN.D ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE SAl.;E VICINITY AND ZONE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 3. THAT THE SURROUNDING PROPER71E5 ARE RESIDENTIAL IN CHARA.iER AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMERCIAL USE ON SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT. 4. THAT VERBAL OPPOSITION BY THREE OWNERS OF PROPERTY IN THE AREA AND A pETITION OF PROTEST~ CONTAINING 75 SIGNATURES IN ADDITION TO A LETTER OF PROTEST CONTAINING 2 SIGNATURES~ WE;:~ RECORDED AGAINST SUBJECT PETITION. COMMISSIONER ALLRED OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 33~ SER1E~i 1961-62 AND MOVED FOR ITS pASSAGE A.ND ADOPTION~ SECOND[0 BY C0~'aMISSIONER ~ORRIS~ TO DENY PET1710N FOR VARI4NCE N0. 1~90 ON TKE 9A5!5 0~ ?ME AF~P.£- MENTIONED FINDINOS. • ON ROLL CA~L THE FOREGOING RE50LUT)ON WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER' MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMiSSIONERS;. NONE. A@SENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD. ~ i. , ._ p, ,.",..;::.~. { MINUTES, CITY PLANNIN6 COMMISSION, Au~usr 7, 1961, CONTINUED: VARIANCE N0. 1391 - PUBLIC HfARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev THOMAS R. auo JEAN COUGHLIN, 1124 NORTH HIGHLAND AVENUE~ FULLERTON CALIFORNIA~ ONNERS~ REQUEST- ING PERMISSION TO ESTABLISH SELF-SERVICE LAUNORY ON PROPERTY DES- CRIBED A5: A PARCEL 150 FEET BY 320 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 150 FEET ON KATELLA AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF KATELLA AVENUE BETWEEN HARBOR BOULEVARD AND HASTER STREET~ iT5 SOUTHWEST CORNER BEiNG APPROXIMATELY 775 FEET MORE OR LESS EAST•OF THE NORTH- EAST CORNER.OF HARBOR BOULEVARD AND KATELLA AVENUE AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 401-~409 WEST KATELLA AVENUE. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLA55IFIED R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. • MR. THOMAS COUGHLiN~ THE P£TITIONER~ WAS PRESENT AND INDICATED HE HAD NOTNiNG TO ADD TO THE SUBJECT PETIYION. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSiON•REVIEWED DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SELF^SERVICE LAUNDRK IN A BUILDING PRESENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THE PETITIONER IND(CATED THAT PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL FACIL7TIE5 HAD ALREADY BEEN ItlSTALLED FOR THE PROPOSEO USE BEFORE HE WAS AWARE THAT THE USE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE PERMITTED USES APPROVED BY RESOLUTION N0. 132~ SERIES 1960-61~ WH1CH GRANTED PETtTtON FOR VAR~ANCE N0. 1314 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. • THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING T4E SUBJECT PETITION: • ~ 1. THAT•THE PETITIONER REQI!ESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNIC~- PAL CODE~ SECTION 18.16.011 TO PERMIT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SELF- SERVICE LAUNDRY. • ' 2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPi!ONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES aR CONDITtONS APPLSCABLE TO THE•PROPERSY INVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR CLA55 OF USE IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE. 3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE 15 NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE SAME VICtNtTY AND ZONE~ AND DENIED TO TNE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 4. THAT THE REQUESTED VAR:ANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC NELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN SUCH VICINITY AND ZONE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPRE- HENSIVE GENERAL PLAN. . 6. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOStTION TO SUBJECT PETITlON. COMMISSIONER PEBLEY OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 34~ SERIES 1961-62~ AND MOVED FOR JTS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSiONER MUNGALL~ TO GRANT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1391~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1,~ DEDICAT~ON OF 60 FEET FROM THE.MONUMEN7ED CENTERLINE OF KATELLA AYENUE (40 FEET EXISTINa~. 2. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL JMPROVEMENTS FOR KATELLA AVENUE~ IN ACCORDANCE WITN THE APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN TFIE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER. 3. PAYMENY OF ~j2.00 PER FRONS FOOT FOR STRrET LIGHTING PURPOSES ON KATELLA AVENUE. 4. TINE LIMITATION OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180~ DAYS FOR THE ACCOM'~ PLISHMENT OF ITEM NOS. 1~ 2~ AND 3. THE FOREGOING CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETIkCa AND WERE FOUND TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREQOING RESOLUTfON NAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOW~NG VlJTF~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALI.RED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SUMMERS. NQES: COMMISSIONERSt NONE. .-0 ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD. ., . _ . _,_ :.:~r ~-,;. ~ ~ ~ e 304 MiNUTES, CI~Y PLA~.iilP~G CCMHlSSIOAl, Au~usT 7, 1961, CONTINUED; CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HERRING. PETITION SUBM1TTEb av LEEHMAN H. AND JEANETTE A. PFRMIT_NO. 142 VAUGHAN, 10802 WOODWARD LANE GAR^.EN GROVE CALIFORN~S ONNERS - REQUEST~NQ PERMISSION To SER~E BEtR AND WI~E !N CONJUN~TION VItH RESTAURANT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED ASS A PARCEL 100 FEET BY 145 FEET NITH•A FRONTAQE OF 100 FEET ON BROOKIIURST•STREET AND LOCAiED ON THE WEST SIDE OF BROOKHURST STREET BE7wEEN BALL ROAD AND PALAIS ROAD~ t75 NORTHEAST CORNER BEING APPROXIMATEI.Y 500 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BALL ROAD AND BROOKHURST STREET AND FUR- • c~nssiFiEO~CEi~ANE1GHBORH00D COMMERCIAL,SZONET~ PROPERTY PRESENTLY THE PETITIONER APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT HE HAD ALWAYS WANTED TO ESTABLISH A TAVERN SERVING BEER AND WINE WITH FOOD AND THAT HE WOU~D BE OPERATING THE ESTABLISHMENT HIMSELF. HE STATED FURTHER ~HAT THE PROPERTY WOUID BE IMPROVED AND THAT IT WOULD BE AN ASSET TO iHE AREA. THE COMMISSION REVIEWED DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED TAVERN AND CHAIRMAN GAUER NOTED THAT THE BAR PORTION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT WAS NOT SEPARATED FROM THE DININu AREA. THE PtT1Ti0NER ~NDICATED THAT H~ WOULD PROVIDE BOOTHS AND TABLES BUT THAT HE HAD NOT MADE APPLICATION PRIMARILY FOR A R^_STAURANT AND THAT THE SERVING OF FOOD NOULD ONLV BE INCIDENTAL TO THE TAVE~N OPERATION. THE COMM15510N DISCUSSED AT SOME LENGTH THE POSSIBILITY THAT FAMILIES MIGHT PATRONIZE•THE ESTAB~ISHMENT~ WHiCH WOULD MAKE A SEPARATION BE- TWEEN THE BAR AND THE DINING AREA DESIRABLE~ AND THE PETITIONER INDICATED THAT IT NOULD BE THE CONCERN OF THE PARENTS WHETHER THEY WISHED TO BRINQ CHILDREN INTO THE BUILDING. IT WAS NOTED THAT IT HAD BEEN A COUNCIL POLICY GEHERALLY TO REQUIRE A SEPARATION BETWEEN 7HE BAR AND THE RESTAURANT PORT~ONS OF ANY ESTABLiSHMENT SELLING•ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. COMMISSIONER MORRIS NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS CLASS~FIED IN 7HE C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE~ WH1CH WOULD PERMIT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RESTAURANT~ AND THAT IT WAS THE SELLING OF BEER AND W1NE THAT REQUIRED THE APPLICATION FOR THE SUBJECT PETITION. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COMMISStON REVIEWED THE PLOT PLANS SUBMITTED WITH THE SUBJECT PETITION AND DISCUSSED MALL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE PE71TlONER POINTED OUT THAT THE ABUTTtNG PROPERTY HAD INSTALLED AN ATTRACTIVE WOODF.it FENCE ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY. THE COMMIS~ BOUNDARYCLINEDANDSITBWASEPOlN7EDN0UT THATBIFCTHEAAREANWERE BLACKERLY TOPPED~ IT WOULD PROVIDE ACCE55 FOR THE ABUTTING COMMERCtAI PROPER~ TIES. ALCOHOLiCGBEVERAdE5E5H0ULD~BENREQUIREDNTONPROVIDE5AA5EPAR4T10N58EL~NG ITEADVISABLENTO~RELAX THE INTERPRE7ATIONNOFTTHE COUNC/LNSTPOLNCyDER THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJEC7 PETITION: l~ PERMITHISPAUTHORIZEDEBYSTHISPCODE~~TO W/T:WHSERVINGOBEER'ANDLWUNE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT. 2. THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJOINING LAND USES AND THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA IN WHICH IT IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED. 3. THAT THE 512E AND SHAPE OF THE SITE PROPOSED FOR THE USE IS ADE~ QUATE TO ALLON THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPQSED USE IN A MANNER NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE PARTiCULAR AREA NOR TO THE PEACE~ HEALTH~ SAFF.TY~ AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE C1T12ENS OF THE C1TY OF ANAHEIM. 4: 7HAT THE TRAFFIC GENER.ATED BY THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT fMPOSE AN UNDUE BURDEN UPON THE STREET°• AND HI~HWAYS DESIGNED AND PROPOSED TO CARRY THE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA. 5• THAT THE ~RANTIN4 OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER THE CONDI- TIONS IMPOSED~ IF ANY~ WILL NOT BE DETRtMEN'(AL TO THE PcnCE HEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE ~17Y OF ANAHEIM. 6. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOS1TtON TO THE SUBJECT PETITION. COMMISSIONER PEBLEY OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 35~ SERIES 1961~62 AND 7QVARANTRPETITI0N5FOR CONDIT/ONALNUSEEPERMIT NO.C142oS5U8JECT~TOaTHE~ FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 306 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Au~usr 7~ 1961~ CONTINUED: CONDITIONAL USE ~ 1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH.EXH181T•NI.n PERMIT N0. 142 • • • CONTINUED 2. PROVISION OF A SIX (6) F00T LANDSCAPED STRIP~ EXCLUSIVE OF ACCESS DR1VE5 AND WALKS~ ADJACENT TO THE~FRONT PROPERTY LINE. SAID LANDSCAPING TO BE INSTALLED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKWAY MAINTENANCE PR10R TO FINAL BUILDINa INSPECTION. • 3: INSTALLATION OF A SIX (6~ F00T MASONRY WALI. ON THE WEST PROPERTY ~ I_INE. 4. PREPARATION OF STREE7 IMPROVEMENT•PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL IMPROVEMENTS FOR BROOKHURST STREET~ IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE C17Y ENGINEER. 5. TIME LIMITATION OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) DAYS FOR THE ACCOM- PLJ SHMENT OF ITEAi NOS. 3 AND 4. THE FOREQOING CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO BE•A•NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE C1TY OF ANAHEIM. • • ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOlNQ RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWINa VOTE: . AYES: COMMISSIONERS: MbRCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PERRY~ SUMMERS. ' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ PEBLEY. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAP~OOD, . CONQITIONAL USE - P.UBLIC HEARING. PETI7ION SUBMiTTED ev RAVMOND B. TERRY ET a~ 711 PERMIT kJ. 143 YIEST KATELLA AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNER~ CHARLE~ B. FRANK; 433 NEST LINCOLN AVENUEy•ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA~ A~ENT~ REQUEST1Na PERMISSION TO ESTABLiSH A iRAILE~ PARK oN PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: AN IRREGULARLY SHAPED PARCEL CONTAININ~ APPROXIMATELY 11 ACRES AND Hi4VIN~ A FRONTA~E OF APPROXIMATELY 130 FEET LOCATED ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF MANCHESTER AV&NUE BETWEEN ORANaEW00D AND KATELLA AV6NUES AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1939 SOUTH MANCHESTER AVENt7E. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLABSIFIED R-A~ RESlDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. MR. C. B. FRANK APPEARBD BEFORE THE COMMIS810N~ STATED THAT HE REPRE- SBNTED THE PETITIONER~ AND PRESENTED A TENTATIVE ELEVATION OF THE PROPOBBD DEVELOPMENT OF A 103 SPACE TRAIL[R PARK. HE DEBCRIBED THE PROPOSBD CON9TRUCTION OF A CLUB NOUSE~ A SWIMMING POOL~ AND RECREA~ TION AREA~ AND INDICATED THA7 GUEST PARKINO NOULD BE PROVIDED. HE STATLQ TNAT THE SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT MOULD BE ADJACENT TO BUT NOT CONNECT6D WITFI~A TRAILER PARK DEVLLOPMENT THAT 18 PRBSEN~'{.Y UNDLR CONSTRUCTION. MR. FRANK STATED FURTH6R TMAT AS MANY ORANG6 TREEB W14L OC SAVLD A8 15 P08S'IBLC FOR TNE DEVLLOPMENT OF 7H[ TRAILER PARK~ AND ML A55URLD TN6 COMM18810N THAT TMO TRE6~ WOULD BL PR041DED FOR EVLRY TRAILRR B~ACE. THE HEARING MAS CLOSED. TNL COMM16510N FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWINQ FACTS RC~ARDIN~ TH6 SUOJLCT PETiT10N: 1. THAT THL PROPOSCD U5E IB PROP&RLY ONL FOR WNICN A CONBITIONAL US[ PERMIT 1S AUTHORIZ6D BY THIS CODC~ TO W1T: A TRAILER PARK. 2. THAT TNL PROPOSLD USE W1LL NOT ADVERBELY AFFECT THE ADJOININQ LAND USLS AND TIIL OROW7H AND DCVELOPMLNT OF THE AREA IN WHICH lT IB PROPOSED TO 8C 6.OCATED. 3. THAT THE SIZE AND SHAPB OF THE BITE PROPOSED FOR THE USE lb ADE- QUAT! TO ALLOW THE FULL DEVBLOPMENT OF THB PROPOSED USE 1N A MANNER NOT DETRIMEW7AL TO THE PARTICULAR AREA NOR TO THE PEACE~ HEALTH~ BAFETY~AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE C1TY OF ANAHEIM. 4. THA7 THE TRAFFIC OENERATED BY THE PROPOSED USE WILL h0T IMPOSE AN UNOU6 BURDEN UPON THE STREETS AND HIQMMAYS DESIQNED AND PROPOSED TO CARRY THE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA. 5. THAT THE GRANTING OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMtT UNDER THE CONDI~ TION9 IMPOSED~ IF ANY~ W14L NOT BE D6TRIMENTAL TO THE PEAC6 HEAE.TH~ SAFETY~ AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITI2BNS OF TME ~ITY OF ANANEIM. 6. THAT NO OME APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJBCT PETITIQN. ~ - ~ ~ ~,:..s..4'r ~` ~ ~ ~ . :.. :. ; , :::.;: ,. ~ ~ ;' ,°; ~ 307 MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, Au~usT 7, 1961~ CONTINUED: CONDITIONAL USE - CoMntissioNert MUN6ALL OFFERE~ RESOLUTION N0. 36~ SERIES 1961-62~ AND PERMIT N0. 143 MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTIOfV~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX~ CONTINUED TO 4RANT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 143, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: • • 1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXHIBITS ~IM AND NII.„ 2. INSTALLATION OF A SIX (6) FOOT MASONRY WALL ON THE P~tU4ERTY 90UNDARIES~ EXCEPT NHERE BUII.DINGS ARE PROPOSED ABUl'T;NG SAID BOUNDARIES~ AND EXCEPT FOR THOSE AREAS RESERVED FOR INGRE55 AND EGRESS. 3. PROVISION OF A DESIGN PLAN FOR THE PARK ENTRAiS~E AREA SUBJECT 70 THE APPROVAL OF THE QRCHITECTU:'.AL REVIEW COMMITT~E.• 4. PROVISION OF TNf` TREES PER TRA~LER SPACE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKWAY MA~N7ENANCE PRIOR TO 7HE FINAL BUI~DING INSPECTION. • • 5. PLANS FOR PROPOSED RECREATIONAL BUILDINO TO BE SUBMITTED TO AND SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW AND AppR~VAL OF THE /~RCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. 6. PROVISION OF THE NECR:SSARY EASEMENTS FOR DRAINAGE AND CONSTRUC- TION OF DRAINAGE FACIL(TIES TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE C~TY ENGINEER. 7. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT P~ANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL IMPROVEMENTS FOR MANCHESTER AVENUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED STANOARD PLANS ON FILE 'I~1 THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER. 8. PAYMENT OF a25.00 ?ER TRAILER SPACE PARK AND'RECREATION FEE TO BE COLLECTED AS PART•OF BUILDING PERMIT. ~ 9. PROVISION OF U7ILITY EASEMENTS ALONO EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES AS DETER- MINED BY THE DIRECTUR OF PUBLIC UTILITlES. 10. T~ME LIMITATION OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180~•DAYS FOR THE ACCOM- PLISHMENT OF ITEM NOS. 2~ 3~ 60 7~ 89 AND 9. THE FOREGOING CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETIN6 ANO WERE FOUND TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQUi51TE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND QENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. , ON ROLL CAtI THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD. RECLASSIFICATION - FUBLIC HEARING. PESITION SUBMITTED ev UNITY CHURCH OF TRUTH AND N0. 61-62-9 RELlGlOUS EDUCATIONAL CENTER 2015 NortrH BROADWAY~ SANTA ANA~ CALI- FORNIA~ OWNER~ HAROLD L. WEII~ICH, 420 SOUTH EUCLID ~A~~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNiA~ LESSEE~ REQUESTIN~ THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED lc5: A PARCEL 155 FEET BY 250 FEET WITH A FRONTA(iE OF 250 FEET ON BUSH STREES AND LOCATED ON THE EASTERLY SIDE OF BUSH STREET BETWEEN L.~NGOLN AVENUE AND BROADWAY~ ITS SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER BEINO APPROXIMATELY 141 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNEI2 OF BUSH STREET AN~ BROADWAY~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 204 SOUTH BUSH STREET~ BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R-1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE To THE R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILV RESI- DEN~'IAI, ZONE. SUBJECT PETITION SIiBMITTED IN CONJUNGTION WITH PETlTION FOR VARIANCE No. 138e. MR. HAROLD NEIR:CH. AGENT FOR THE PETITIONER APPEARED BEFORE THE COM- MISSION AND STATED THAT THEY CONSIDERED THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF SIX UNITS CONTAINING TWO STORY APARTMENTS "V EACH OF FIVE LOTS WOUI.D FIT THE PATTERN THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISNED IN THE SUBJECT AREA FOR MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND TWO STORY CONSTRUCTION. THE COMMISSION REVIEWED DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND 1T WAS NOTED THAT THE pLANS WERE FOR ONE SEdMENT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THE ENOINEER FOR THE PETI7IONERS APPEARED BEFORE THE COMM~SSION AND STATED THAT 7HE PLANS PRESENTED WERE FOR 7HE NORTHERLV LOT OF THE SUBJECT PROPER- ~ TY AND THAT CQ+??LIMENTARY BUILDIN65 MOULD BE PtACED ON THE BALANCE OF THE PROPERTY FACING INWARD AND THAT SOME OF THE BUILDINGS MOULD BE " REVERSED. HE STATED THAT THE REQUIRED WALLS MOULD BE INSTALLEO. IT WAS P0INTED OUT THAT A PLOT PLAN~ INDICATINQ THE ENTIRE LAYOUT OF THE MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Auausr 7, 1961, CONTINUED: _~...__~_. ~ a 308 ~ ~ i RECLASSIFICATION - PROPOSED•DEVEIOPM'r.NT~ SHOULD BE SUBMITTED IN ORDER TO CONSlDER DEVEL- NO. 61-62-9 OPMENT 1N ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED. THE PETITIONER INDICATED CONTINUED THA7 ADDITIONAL PLANS COULD BE MADE AVAILABI.E WITHIN A TWO WEEKS PERIOD OF T1ME TO SUBMIT TO THE COMMISSION FOR•CONSIDERATION. COMM~SSIONER MUNGALL NOTED THAT THE PLANS SUBMITTED 1NDICATE TWO STORY DEVELOPMENS NITHIN 150 FEET OF PROPERTY CL.ASSIFIED IN THE R~1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE~WHICH WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE VARIANCE FILED IN CONJUNCTION WITH SUBJECT PETITION. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE SNOULD BE RE-ADVERTISED REQUESTING PERMISS~ON TO WAIVE ONE•STORY HEIGHT LIMITA- TIONS FOR pROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN 150 FEET OF PROPERTY CLASSIFIE6 IN THE R-1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENT-AL9 ZONE. THE COMMISSION lNDICATED THAT CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBJECT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFiCAT10N SHOULD BE CONTINUED UNTIL SUCH TIME.AS PLANS FOR THE ENTIRE DEVE40PMENT WERE AVAILABLE AND UNTIL THE PETITION FOR VARIANCE~FtLED IN CONJUN:710N WITH THE SUBJECT PETITIOND COULD BE ADVERTISED CONTAINING THE PRO- POSED WAIVER OF CODE REQUtREMENTS.• COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED A MOl':Ok~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED AND CARRIED~ THAT PET1T10N FOF RECLAS5IFICATION N0. 61-62'~9 BE CON- TINUEO UNTIL THE MEETING OF AUGUST 21' 1961 AT WHICH TIME THE PETI- TIONER 5HALL SUBMIT PLOT PLAS15 INDICATING THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT PRO- POSED FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY. VARIANCE N0. 1388 PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev UNITY CHURCH OF TRUTH AND RELI- GIOUS EDUCAFIONAL CENTER, 2015 NORTH BROADWAY~ SANTA ANA9 CALIFORNIA9 OWNER~ HAROLD L. NEIRICH9 420•SOUTH EUCLID °A~~ AMAHEIM CALIFORNIA~ LESSEE' REQUESFlNG PERMISStON To WAIVE MINIMUM SIDE YARb SETHACK RE- QUIREM~NTS FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS' A PARCEL 155 FEET BY 250 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 250 FEET ON BUSH STREET AND ~OCATED ON 7H' EASTERLY SIDE OF BUSH STREET BETWEEN L1NCC:LN AVENUE AND BROADWAY~ ISS SOUTH- WEST4RLY CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY 141 FEE7 NORTH OF THE NORTHEAST~ ERLY CORNER OF BUSH STREET AND BROADWAY AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 204 $OUTH BUSH $TREET. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R-1v ONE FAMI!Y RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. SUBJECT PET1TlON IS FiLED IN CON,lUNCTION WITH PETIT~ON FOR RECLASSI- FtCATION N0. 61-62-9. THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT DEVELOPMEN'P PLANS FOR SUB,fECT PETI'fION CONTAINED THE.PROPOSED CONSTRUCTI~N OF 'iW0 STORY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL APARTMEN75 WITHIN 150 ~EET OF THE R-1~ ONE FAMILY RE51~ DENTIAL~ ZONEe WHlCH WOUID REQUIRE WAIVER OF CODE~ SECTION 18.32.060~ THE INSTALLATION OF CARPORTS INSTEAD OF GARAGE59 WHICH REQUlRES WAIVER OF CODE~ SECTION 18.32.120~ AND THE MODIFICATION OF THE CODE REQUIREMENT OF 25 FOOT REAR YARD VEHICI.E ACCE55 AREA IN ORDER TO PROVIDE 24 FOOT VEHICLE ACCE55 AREAe WH1CH REQUIRES A WAIVER OF CODE~ S~CTION 18.32.080 (3). COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALIRED AND CARRIED~ THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1388 BE CONTINUED UNTIL THE MEETING OF AUGUST 21~ 1961 AND THAT THE SUBJECT PETITION BE RE- ADVERTISEO TO INCLUDE THE AFOREMENT~UNED WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENTS. ~ ~ • ~ "i S' ;~ : < ~~ ti++i:w~ RF~ - COMMISSIONER MARCOUX MOVED TO RECE55 FOR FIVE MINUTES AT 4:30 O'CLOCK P.M. COMMISSIONER ALLRED SECONDED THE MOTION. MOT10N CARRIED. AFTER RECESS ~ CHAIRMAN GAUER CALLED THE MEETIN6 TO ORDER AT 4:40 O~CLOCK P.M. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBIIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED er VALJACARL, INC., Box 2251, ND. 61-62-10 ANAHEIM~ CAI.IFORNIA~ OWNER; MATTHEW E. ASTA~ 915 SOU7H LOARA STR£ETo ANAHEIM~ CAL~FORNIA~ AGENT~ REQUESTIN~ THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5: A ~ PARCEL 70 FEET BY 150 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 70 FEET ON LOARA STREET AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SiDE OF LOARA STREET BETWEEN CRONE AND ,JUNO AVENUES~ ITS SOUTHEAST CORNER BEtNG APPROXIMATELY 210 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOARA STREET AND JUNO AVENUE AND FURTHER DES- CRIBED AS 911 SOUTH LOARA STREET BE RECLASSIF~ED FROM THE R-1 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE To rHE I~-3, MULTIPLE FAMIlY REStDENTIdL, ZONE. MR. MATTHEW E. ASTA~ 915 SOUTH LOARA STREET~ AUTHORI2ED AGENT FOR THE PETITIONERS~ APPEP.RED BEFORE TME COMMISSION AND INDICATED THAT HE WAS THE OWNER OF SINGI.E STORY APARTMENT UNITS ABUTTINa SUBJECT PROPERTY~ AND THAT HE WISHED TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE STORV TRIPLE% THAT WCULD CONFORM WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. MR. RICHARD A. MCGOUGH~ 907 SOUTH LOARA STREET~ APPEARED BEPORE 7HE COMMi5510N AND STATED THAT THE HISTORY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD INDlCATE THAT IT WAS SET ASIDE FOR R-1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVEL- OPMENT FOR A SPECIFIC REASON. HE STATED FURTHER THAT HE WOULD RATHER roe ~ ~ e ~: . ~ ~ ~= i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMiSSiON, AususT 7, 1951, C4NTINUED: RECLASSIFICATION - t+nve A VACANT LOT ABUTTINa HIS PROPERTY THAN TO HAVF_ THE PROPOSED HB COMPLAINED A90UT THE PARKING OF VEHI- S NO. 61-62~10 . MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE PRESENT•TIME AND EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT ADDITIONAL UNITS AT THE CONTINUED • CLES NOUID ENCOURAGE VEHICULAR PARKINQ IN FRONT OF HIS PROPERTY AND WOULD THE C9MMISSION ~ CONSTITUTE AN iNVA510N OF PRIVACY. UPON INQUIRY BY N OF A BLOCK WALL M~GHT•BE OF BENEFIT HE STATED•THAT THE INSTALLATIO MCGOUGH AL50 STATED THAT HE HAD BRIEFLY VIEWED THE DEVE~- MR IM . . TO H OPMENT PLANS AND THAT HE WAS NOT INTERESTED ~N REVIEWING THE DEVELOP- D IN HAVING ERTIPRONERFAMBLYARESIDENTIAL~NZONESTE T PROPERTY REMAIN THE A LETTER SIGNED BV L. W. P17T5~ 16?4 BEACON AVENUE9 WAS SUBMITTED TO ROPOSED F P ~TION I P G T ~ EXlSTING DEVELOPMENT THE TO SIM/LAR DEVELOPMENT115 MR. ASTA STATED THAT HIS TENANTS WOULD NOT BE RESPON518LE FOR ANY AS AN ASSET TO THE PARKING PROBLEM~ THAT THE EXiSTING DEVELOPMENT W AND THAT THE STAND-PIPE PRESENTLY ~CH HE WAS PRQUD O ~ NE OF WH AREA AND ON THE PROPERTY WOULD BE REMOVED FOR A COST OF 535.00. THE HEARING NAS CLOSED. ' ' ASSISTANT C1TY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT•WHEN MUL- R-3 FIED IN rHE . , THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH NERE CLASSI THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS CLASSIFIED•IN ZONE NTIAL R ~ ~ ESIDE TIPLE FAMILY ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE BECAUSE AT•THAT TIb1E IT WAS THE R-1 RES~- ~ CONSIDERED ADVISABLE THAT THE BREAK BETWEEN.THE R~l~ ONE TAMILY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONING ND THE R~3 ~ DENTIAL~ ZONING A SHOULD BE SUSTAINED BY THE JWNER OF THE R"3~ MUL.TIPLE FAMILY RESI~ DENTIAL~ PROPERTY. TDIRECTLY`OP D PE T S ~ THE PROPER7Y AND THAT RESIDENTIAL USE FAMILY INGLE FOR S PLE M E N ' E RESI FAMILY R 1~ ONE ABUTSSTHE FAMILY RESIDEMTIAI.N ZONEWBECAUSE BT PROPERTY PROPERTIES A7 THE,IR REAR YARDS DENTIAL B H A E ~ YARD, ~ONE SIDE THE AT A8UT5 THE R-1~ ONE F%~MILY RESIDENTIAL~ THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETEkMINED THE FOLLOW~NC FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJECT PETITIONS AONECFAMILYIRESIDENTtALHEZONEVTODTHE ~FROMPTHE~REI H 1~ ~ PROPERTY CRIBED R~3 ~ MU~TIPLE FAM~LY REStDENTIAL~ ZONE. TSOFETHE T N I L E Z~ DEVELOPMEN AND PROPER ORDERLY THE DES/RABLE FOR SARY OR COMMUNITY. 3. THAT T4E PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES PRO- TED USES LOCALLY ESTAB- PERLY RlIATE TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PERMiT E PROXIMITY TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE LISHED IN CLOS ZONES AND THEIR PERMITTED USES GENERALLY ESTABL~SHED ?HROUaHOUT THE COMMUNITY. DNIMPROVEMENT OF~ABUTTINGESTREETS S C D / 4~ T STANDAR AND FOR ON DEDICAT QUIRE AID PROPERTY DOES RELATE TO AND ABUT UPON STREETS AND E S BECAUS HIGHWAYS NHICH ARE 1MPROYED TO CARRY THE TYPE AND,QUANTITY OF IN ACCOR- TRAFFIC~ MH1CH WILL BE GENERA7ED BY TNE PERMITTED USES~ E GENERAL PLAN T . H DANCE WIT'! THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF TNAT VERBAL OPPOSITION BY ONE OWNER OF PROPERTY IN THE SUBJECT 5 IN . AREA WAS RECORDED AGAINST SUBJECT PETITION AND ONE LEYTER FAVOR OF SUBJ~CT PETITION WAS SUBMITTED AND FIIED. COMMISSIONER PEBLEY OFFEREJ RESOLUTION N0. 37~ SERIES 1961~-62t AND Y COMMISSIONER ALLRED~ MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED B CATION S T r T C ONS FOLLOWING CONDIT THE TO SUBJECT NO.R61-62E10 BE APPROVED~ EANDBLIMITING,CON~ w A A 'N , S E 1~ AREA YARD FRONT N FENCE F007 OF SIX DELET/ N STRU~TIOH TO 4kE STORV IN HEIaHT. 2. RECORDATION OF STANDARD R~3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RES~OENTIALo ZONE DEED RESTRICTIONS. 3. PROVISION OF A SIX (6) FOOT MASONRY WALL ON THE NORTH PROPERTY ZONE EXCEPT THA7 IAL ~ ~INE ABUTTINO THE R~1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENT F (3~~ FEET 1N T C SUBJECTDPROPERTY OF THE TH£DREQUIREDAFRON7 YARD AND RECREATION FEE TL' T N D L O Z 4 Y PERMI7 LDINa BU OF A PART AS COLLECTED ~ BE ,-~•: :::A: •R_,,_r._ ..-... ...~ ~~ .:.~. ~'~.. ~ F ~5. .. .:~..:~ i~~. ~!w~,'~ V ~~ . ~ 309 ~. . { ! ~ E ~. .. V ~ ~ 310 t41!lUTES, Cl7Y PLANNING C4MMISSIO!!, Aususa 7~ isbi, CoHSt!~u~a: RECLASS•IFICATION - 5. TIME LIMITATION 0~ NINETY (90) DAYS F~it 7'Y.E .1CCOMPLISHMENT OF N0. 61-62-10 OF ITEM NOS. 2~ 3~ AND 4. CONTtNUED THE FOREG07NG CONDITtONS WERE RECLTED AT 7HE MEETING AND WERE FOUND 70 BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND MELFARE OF THE CITI2EN5 OF THE CITY OF QNAHEIM. • ON ROLL CALL TFtE FOREQOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: . . . • . AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOLX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIQNERS: HAPGOOD. RECtASSIFiCATION - pUBL1C HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTEO ev KARL L..AND ROSE A. NIERMANN, NO. 61-62-11 9262 CORNER STREE7~ ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA~ ONNERS~ ~OUIS E. DISfNGER, 1815 NEST LA PALMA AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ AGENT~ REQUESTING THAT PROPEP.TY•DESCRIBED AS: A PARCEL 50 FEET BY 154 FEET MITH A• FRON7A~E OF 50 FEET ON I.OS ANQELES STREET AND LOCATED ON THE EASTERLY SiDE OF LOS ANaElES STREET BEiWEEN VALENCIA AND VERMONT AVENUES~.ITS NORTHWESTERLY CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY 165 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOS ANGELES STREET AHD VALENC~A AVENUE~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 870 SOUTH LOS ANGELES STREET~ BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R-3 MULTIPIE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE ro THE C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAI. ~LONE. . ~ MR.•LOUIS DISINGER~ AUTHORI2ED AGENT FOR THE PETITIONERS~ APPEARED BEFORE THE CO;dMI5510N~ DESCRIBED•THE PROPOSED USE OF AN EXISTING RES'IDENCE FOR A RAD10 AND TELEVISION SALES AND SERVICE BUSINESS~ AND DESCRIBED COMMERCIAL USES ESTABLISHED AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS ON LOS ANGELES STREET WITH VARYING FRONT YARD SETBACKS~ IN SUPPORT OF SUBJECT PETITION. • MR. MORGAN LOMERY~ ATTORNEY REPRESENTING MR. AND MRS. GATOR~ PROSPEC- TIVE PURCHASERS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMIS- 5'ION AND STATED THAT THEY HAD SiGNED AN AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE REAL ESTATE AGENT~ MR. DISINQER~ AND WITHOUT BEING ANARE OF THE PROBI,EMS AND EXPENSE INVOLVED IN RECLASSIFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE IMPROVE- MENTS THAT MI~HT BE REQUIRED 1F APPROVAL WERE (iRANTED. MR. I.OWERY STATED THAT HIS CLIENTS HAD SIGNED AN OPT10N TO BUY THE PROPERTY AND 7HAT UPON INVESTIQA710N HAD D15COVERED THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED~ AND SOON ENCOUNTERED FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES. THEREFORE~ HE SiATED~ IN VIEN OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES~ THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD BE JUSTIFIED 1N DENYING THE SUBJECT PETITION. ' MR. D18INaER~ 1N REBUTTAL~ STATED 7HAT HE HAD NOT IMPLIED THAT THE RECI.ASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD BE EASY TO OBTAIN~ AND THAT HE HAD NOT SUPPLIED THE INFORMATION ,tN RESpECT TO THE IMPROVE- MENTS AND REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED BECAUSE SAID INFORMA- TION HAD BEEN SUPPLIED BY THE PL}1NNIN(i STAFF. MRS., NIERMANN~ THE PETITIONER~ APpEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT MR. GATOR HAD S1(iNED A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AND SUBSEQUENTLY HAD ENDEAVORED TO TERMINATE THE TRANSACTION. COMMISSIONER MORRIS 1NpUIRED ABOUT THE IN7ENTlONS OF THE PURCHASER AND INDICATED THAT HE MAS NOT SURE FROM THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD 8E OPERATED AS A RADlO AND TELEVISION SALES AND SERVICE SHOP. THE HEARING WAS CI,OSED. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED 7HE FOLLOWINa FACTS REQARDINQ THE SUBJECT PETITION2 1. THAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICP:f10N OF xHE ABOVE DES- CRiBED PROPERTY FROM THE R~3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE TO THE C~2~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. 2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFlCAT10N OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT NECESSARY OR DESIRABI:E FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMUNITY. 3. THAT THE C~2~ GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE WOULD NOT BE SUITABLE FOR THE SUBJECT AREA. 4. THAT VERHAL OPPOSiTiON BY THE PROPOSED ACCUPANT NAS RECORDED AQAINST SUBJECT PETITION. COMM(SSIONER MUNQALL OFFERED RESOLU710N N0. 38~ SER1E5 1961-62~ AND ~ MOYEO FOR 1T5 PASSAQE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED~ ~ ~ u J,f L , ~. - . ~" ' I ~ ~ S,. . ~' ~.~:' : :; ~ ~;);'. ' ,' ~ E';:~.'-.:~;.. - ~ ~_ 4~' /.6a 311 MlNUTES, CITY PLANNlN~ C4MMlSSlQN, Aua~s'r 7. 1461, COkTlHUED: REClASS1FICATION - ro RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT PETIT~ON FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 61-62~11 N0. 61-62-11 BE DENIED ON THE BA515 OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDINGS. CONTINUEn ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOIN6 RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGAIL~' PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NoNE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev KEN GEORGE D01, 2958 Wesr f~O. 61-62-12 LINCOLN AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNERt• M. L. MCGAUGHY~ 2966 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE~ ANAHE~M~ CALIFORN~A~ AGENT~ REQUESTING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5: PARCEL 1; A PARCEL 275 FEET BY 275 FEET NITH A FRONTAGE OF 275 FEET ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF I.lNCOL,N AVENUE BETWEEN BEACH BOULEVARD AND DALE AVENUE~ ITS NORTHWEST CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY Z70 FEET EAST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BEACH BOULEVARD~ AND LINCOLN AVENUE. PARCEL 2: A PARCEL 338 FEET BY 1~000 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 338 FEET ABUTTING PARCEL 1 ON THE SOUTH~ ITS NEST BOUNDARY BEING APPROXINATELY 332 FEET EAST OF 7HE . CENTERLINE OF BEACH BOULEVARD AND FURTHEE` DESCRIBED AS 2956 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE~ BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R-A RESIDENTIAL AGRICUL- TURAL, ZONE ro THE C-i NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20~JE. • SUBJECT PETITION IS FIIED IN CONJUNCTION WITH TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT No. 4261. , . A ~ETTER DATED JULY 19~ 1961~ RECEIVED FROM M. L. MCGAUGHY~ AUTHOR- • ~ZED ~C+ENT FOR THE PETITIONER~ AND REQUESTING THAT THE SUBJECT PETITIOr: BE CONTINUED UNTtL THE MEETINCa OF AUGUST 21~ 1961~ NO REASON GIVEN~ WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION. IT WAS NOTED THA7 THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE SUBJECT PETITION INDICATE TWO STORV MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 150 FEET OF PROPERTY CLASSIFIED IN THE R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICU~~ TURAL~ ZONE AND THAT THE PETITIONER WOULD BE NOTIFIED OF.THE NECESSITY OF HIS FILING A PETITION FOR VARIANCE. COMM~SSIONER MORRIS OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PEBLEY AND CARRIED~ THAT THE SUBJECT PETITION BE CONTINUED UNTIL THE MEETING OF AU~UST 21~ 1961 AND THAT THE PETITIONER BE NOTIFIED IN RESPECT TO THE NECESSITY FOR FILING A VARIANCE FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS SUBMITTED WITH PET1710N FOR RECLASSI~ICA- 71oN No. 61-62-12. TENTATIYE MAP OF - SUBDIVIDER: M. L. McGAUGHY, 2966 Wesr LiNCOtN AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ TRACT NO. 4261 CALIFORNIA. SUBJECT TRACT IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LINCO~N AVENUE 332.08 FEET EAST OF STANTON AVENUE ANP CONTAINS 22 PROPOSEP R-~3~ MUITIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ LOTS AND ONE PROPOSED C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ LOT. SUBJECT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IS FILED IN CONJUNCTION WITH PETITION ~OR REC~ASSIFICATION N0. 61-62-12. THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT THE PETITIONER HAD REQUESTED THAT SUBJE~T TRACT AND THE PETI710N FOR RECLASSIFICATION BE CONTINUED UNTIL TNc MEETING OF AUGUST 21~ 1961~ AND THAT A VARIANCE WOULO BE NECESSARY IN ORDER TO ESTABL~SH 7HE PROPOSED MUL7IPLE FAMILY RESIDEN'iIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTAINED IN SA~iD PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION IN ACCOADANCE W{SH SHE DEVELOPMEtiT PLANS 5138MSTTED. COMMISSIONER MORRIS G:FERED A MOT~ON~ SEC6NDED BY COMMISSIONER PEBLEY AND CARRIED~ THAT TENTAT"IVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4261 BE CONTINUED UNTIL THE MEETING OF AUfiUST 21~ 1961. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION susM:TTED ev h1AX .^.yo DONNA McHENRY, 6455 (~f0. 61-62-13 ROLAND STREET~ BUENA PARK~ C;+LIFORN~:.~ JWNERS, REQUESTING THAT PRO- PERTY DESCRIBED A5: A PARCEL 100 FEET BY 37q FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF lO~ FEET ON BAI.L ROAD AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BA~L ROAD BETWEEN KN07T AVF,NUE AND MESTVALE DRIVE~ ITS SOUTHWEST CORNER BEING APPROXIMl+7ELY 30U FEE~ EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF KNOTT AVE.NUE AND BALL ROAD~ BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R~A RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZON~E ro THE R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIA~, ZONE. ' MR. HARRY KNISELV APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT HE REPRESENTED THE PET~TIONERS~ THAT HE HAD REVIEWED THE STAFF REPORT CONTAININQ RECOMMENDATIONS IF APPROVAL NERE QRANTED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THAT THE PETl710NER WOULD COMPLY WITH ALL ~ ' ~ .. '~ ~ /~ ~1L ~ ' , MINUTES, CITY PIANNiNG COMM1SS10N, Auausr 7, 1961~ CONTINUEO: RECLASSIFICATION - REQUIREMENTS~ AND THAT A VARIANCE WAS BEING REQUESTED TO PERM17 TNO i NO. 61-62~13 STORY CONSTRUCTION MITlt9H 150 FEET OF THE R~A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICUL- CONTINUED TURAL~ ZONE AND Ta ALLOW A MAIVER OF NALL•REQUIREMENTS ON THE EAST ` AND WES7 BOUNDARY L1NES UF SUBJECT PROPERTY. HE DESCRIBED THE ZONINO ~ AND LAND USE OF•THE SURi01JNDINa AREA AND INDICATED THAT THE SUBJECT ( PROPERTY WAS PROJECTED FOR~R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ DEVELOP- ~ i ON THE PRELIMINARY GENERAL PLAN. HE STATED UPON REVIEWING THE ~ MENT . DEVELOPMENT PLANS~ THE PLANNIN~ STAFF HAD 1NDICATED THAT PERHAPS THE I PLANS COULD BE IMPROVED UPON B~CAUSE•OF THE DEPTH OF THE PROPERTY. HE REQUESTED THAT THE SUBJECT P£TITION BE APPROVED AT THE PRESENT TiME BECAUSE THE PETlTIONER~ 7HE DESIGNER~ AND TI1E LEND1Na A6ENCY HAD REVIEWED THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS~ HAD CONSIDERED THEM TO BE THE BEST USE OF THE LAND~ AND BECAUSE THE LOAN FUNDS WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE UPON APPROVAL OF THE•REQUEST AT THE PRESEN7 TIME. MR. KNISELY ADDED THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT NOULD BE DIFFERENT FROM THE ORDINARY TYPE OF MULTiPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT~ THAT INSTEAD OF A BLANK SIDE AND REAR WALL~ ORNAMENTAL'RAILINGS~ PRIVATE PAT105~ AND SUN DECKS WOULD BE PROVIDED TO ENHANCE THE DEVELOPMENT. HE INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT THE CENTER LINE SHONN ON THE PLOT PLAN DID NOT INDICATE A LOT SPL1T~ BUT THAT 1T HAS NECESSARY FOR THE LENDINQ AGENCY TO MAKE TNO LOANS AVAILABLE FOR THE PETITIONERS~ AND THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD REMAIN ONE PROPERTY UNDER ONE ONNERSHIP. NE STATED FURTHER THAT TO DELAY ACTION UPON THE SUBJECT PETITION WOULD CREATE A HARDSHIP FOR 7HE PETIT~ONERS. . • i MRS. ROBERT HANELINE~ 3421 NEST BALL ROAD~ APPEARED.BEFORE THE COMMIS- SION AND INDICATED SHE HAD SUBMITTED A LETTER CONTAININ~ EIGHT SIGNA- TURES•REQUESTING INFORMA710N IN RESPECT TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT 7HE RECL•ASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY MIOH7 JEOPARDIZE THE RECLASSI- ' FICATION OF THEIR PROPERTIES FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. SHE DESCRIBED THE PRESENT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACROSS BALL ROAD ON THE SOUTH AND INDICATED THA7 SHE HAD RECEIVED INQUIRIES IN RESPEC7 TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF HER PROPER7Y. MRS. HANELINE STATED FURTHER THAT AT THE PRESENT TIME THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY CEFINITE PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES BUT THAT THEY NERE INTERESTED IN OBTAINING COMMER- CIAL 20NIN~ BECAUSE OF.THE.INQUIRIES. SHE REQUESTED INFORMATION ~N RESPECT TO THE NUMBER OF APARTMENTS PROPOSED AND WHETHER GARAGES OR CARPORTS YlOULD BE PROVIDED~ AND IND~CATED THAT IF THE SUBJECT PETITtON ~ WERE APPROVED THAT A SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL SHOULD BE REQUIRED. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT GARA6E5 COULD BE REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL AND THAT THE PE7ITIONERS WERE REQUESTING A WAIVER OF CODE WALL REQUIREMENTS. CHAIRMAN GAUER SUBMITTED A LETTER OF PRO7EST A~AINST THE SUBJECT PETITION SIGNED BY MP.. AND MRS. PARKE H. YOUNG. MRS. YOUN6 APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ STATED THAT TWO STORY APART~ MENT DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE AN INVASION OF PRIVACY FOR THE GUEST HOUSE LOCATED ON HER PROPERTY~ AND COMPLAJNED ABOUT THE CONDITION OF ANOTHER PARCcL OF PROPER7Y 1N THE AREA. i MR. KNISELY~ IN REBUTTAL~ STATED THAT TH~ OBJECTIONS TO THE SUBJECT I PETITtON SEEMED TO BE BASED UPON THE W~SH FQR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA~ THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE ASKINO FOR A MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONIN(i~ THAT 7HEY HAD DEFINITE PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT AT THE PRESENT . TIME~ THAT THEY WOULD BE W1LL1N0 TO POST A BOND TO INSURE THE IMSTALL- ATION OF WALLS~ THE NECESSITV OF WHICH COULD BE DETERMINED AT A LATER DAT~~ AND THAT THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COULD NOT BE CONS~DERED AN INVASION OF PRIVACY UPON 7HE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DESIRED.6Y THE OWNERS OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES. IN RESPONSE TO INQUIRIES FROM THE AUDIENCE~ RELATIVE TO THE EFFECT THAT R~3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ DEVELOPMEN7 NOULD HAVE UPON THE POSS1BiL1TY OF FUTUAE COMtAERC{AL DEVELOPMENT~ CIiA1RMAN GAllER NOT£D 7HAT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT MOULD BE AN ADVANTAQE OR NOT~ THAT QENERALLY R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ DEVELOPMENT SERVED AS A BUFFER BETWEEN COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND SINaLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT~ AND THAT THE MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVEL~. OPMENT WOULD PROBABLY SUpPOR7 THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMEN7. COMMISSIONER PEBIEY INDICATED THAT THE COMMISSION SHOULD STUDY THE AREA AND THE PROPERTlES ABU771N~ SUBJECT PROPERTY ON 7'HE EAST AND ON THE WEST. HE STATED FURTHER THAT HE TNOU~HT THAT 7H£ OHNERS OF THE PRO~ PERTIES IN THE AREA SHOUI.D DEVELOP 9.PRECLSE PLAN FOR THE UI.TIMATE DEVEI.OPMEN7 OF THE AREA IN ORDER TO.UTILI2E THE PROPERT.Y M~THOUT HARM- IN~ ADJACENT PROPERTIES. COMMISSIONER ALLRED lNDICATED THAT.PAST EXPERIENCE HAS SHOWN THAT MOST PROP,ERTY OWNERS WANT TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTIES 1NDIV,IDUALLY AND THAT IT JS DIFFICULT TO ~ET A aROUP T0 WORK OUT A SUITABLE i'LAN 70 THE SA7ISFACTION OF ALL OF THE INTERESTED PARTIES. COMMISSIONER MORRIS STATED THAT ,IN HIS OPINION~ THE RECLA55- IFICATION OF THE SUBJECT.PROPER7Y 70 THE ~-3~'MULTIPLE FAMILY RESI~ DENTIAL~ ZONE MI~HT BE OF BENEFIT 70 THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES~ AND THAT THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS HAV~ iND1CATED THAT THEY ARE LIVIt~Q IN •• THE EX15TINQ HOMES SITUA7ED;ON THE LAR~E PARCELB AND AT THE SAME TIME IMDICATE THAT THEY WISH TO:DEVELOP TNEIR PROPERTIES FOR COMMERCtAL PUR~ POSES. , . -+-~'T- - ~'__ . ,< s . --~-r-- --^---....^'--^-~*"- .--,-•. ~. , , L~ . . _ . , . ~l . ' t, c ,i~~} ; ~...~-._ ^------ 313 MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Auausr 7, 1961~ CONTINUED: RECLASS•IFICATION - THE HEARING NAS CLOSED. •• ND. 61-62-13 CqNT1NUED • • THE COMM15510N DISCUSSED THE PRESENT.COND1710N OF BALL ROAD AND WHETNER IT iJAS SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. ••• • COMMISSIONER PEOLEY OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMIuSIONER MAR~ COUX~ THAT•THE 5:1-`~JECT PETITION BE CONTfNUED UN71L THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY EXTENDINQ FROM KNOTT AYENUE EASTERIY TO THE EXISTIN6 SINf3LE FAMILY RESIDEN7IAL SUBDIVISION HAVE'pEViSED A PLAN FflR THE DEVELOP~ MENT OF THE SUBJ~CT AREA AND SUBMIT SAID PLAN TO 7HE COMMi5S10N FOR CONSLDERA710N. PLANNIN~ DIRECTOR RICHARD REESE NOTED THAT THE PLANNING STAFF NAD RECOMMENDED.IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT THE SUBJECT PETITJON BE CON- TINUED UNT1L A S7UDY COULD BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED TO PROVIDE A PRECISE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJEC7 AREA. • • . COMMISSIONER•MUN~ALL OFFERED A MOiION TO AMEND.THE ORIOINAL NOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMTSSIONER ALLRED At~D CARRIED~ THAT 7HE•SUBJEC7 PETI- T10N BE CONTINUED UNTIL•THE MEETIN~ OF AUDUST 21~ 1961 AT WHICH TIME THE PLANNING STAFF SHALL SU9MIT A STUDY FOR COMMISSION CONS1~ DERATION FOR THE~ESTABLISHMENT OF A•PRECISE PLAN FOR THE ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT AREA~ AN.~ THAT THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY IN THE AREA SHOULD MEET WITH THE PLANNING STAFF IN RESPECT TO THE REQUESTED STUDY. VARIANCE N0. 13e7 - PUBLIC HEARiNG. PETITION SUBMITTED ev MAX AND DONNA McHENRY~ 6455 ROLAND STREET~ BUENA PARK~ CALIFORNIA OWNERS~ REQUESTINQ PERMIS- o YIAIVE SINGLE STORY HEIGHT REQI~IREMENT AND NAIL REQUIREMENTS stoN r ~ FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: A PARCEI 100 FEE7 BY 370 FEET WITH A FRONTADE OF 100 FEET•ON BALL.P~AD AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BALL ROAD BETWEEN KNOiT AVENU~ AND WESTVALE DRIVE~ 1T5 SOUTHWEST ' CORNER BEIN~ APPROXiMATELY 300 FEE7 EAST OF THE NOR7HEA5T CORNER OF KNOTT AVENUE AND.BALL ROAD. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSlF1ED R-A~ RESIDENTIAI AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. SUBJECT PETITION tS FILED !N CONJUNCTION WITH PETITION FOR RECLASS~ iFICATION N0. 61~62~13. THE COMMI9SION NOTED THAT THE SUBJ'ECT PETITION~ FOR THE WAIVER OF WALL REQUIREMEN75 AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF TMO STORY APARTMENT UN11'8 WITHIN 150 FEE7 OF PROPERTY CLASSIFIED I,V THE R-A~ RESIDEN- TIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE SHOULD BE CONTINUED UN11L THE MEETIN~ OF AUGUST 21~ 1961 AT WHICH TIME A S7'UDY AND PRECISE PL'AN FOR THE ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT AND ABUT7ING PROPER7IHS WOULD B6 BUBMtTTED TO THE COMMISSION FOR CONSTDERATION. TENTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: J. A. PHILLIPS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 1584 MESr KATELLA TRACT N0. 3fi91 AveNUE, ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA. ENG1~'EER: HERBERT M. PHILLIPS & ASSOC. 1876 MEST KA7ELLA AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA. SUBJECT TRAC7 IS LOCATED ON TME NORTHNEBT CORNER OF ORANQEHOOD AND HA9TER AVENUES AND CONTAINS 16 PROPOSED R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ LOTS. A R6VISED TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 3691 WAS BUBMITTED TO THE COU~ MISSION. NO ONE WAS PRESENT TO REPREBENT THE DBV6LOPER. A STAFF REPOR7 1NDlCAT1NG THAT THE REVISED MAP WOULD CONFORM WITH THE REQUIR6MCi~TS OF THE INTERDEPARTMENTAL CONMIT'fEE NAS SUBMITTED TO 7HE COMMfS510N AND IT WAS NOTED 7HAT THE 7Ri~CT MAP MOULD CONFORM W1,TH THE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE COMMITTEE. (T WA.°~ AL50 NOTED 7HAT THE RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN COFtPLE7ED AT TME PRE8ENT TIME. COMM15810NER MUNGAI.L OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMlSS10NER ALLRED AND CARRIED~ 7HAT THE TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 3691 BE APPROVED AS REVIBED AND SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNINQ DEPARTMENT ON ALGUST 3~ 1961~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWIN~i CONDITIONS: 1. SUBJECT 70 THE APPROYAL OF PET1T10N FOR RECLASSlFICATION N0. 59-60-93. 2. REQUIREMENT THAT SHOULD THIS 9UBDIV1810N BE DEYELOPED AS MORE THAN ONE BUBDIVISIOq~ EACH 8UBD1V18JON THEREOF SHALL BE SUBMIT~ TED IN TENTATIVE PORM FOR APPROVAL. 3. PERTiNENT PLOT AND BUILDINQ PLANS~ IN CONNECTIOH WITH SUBJECT SUBDIV1810N MAP~ WILL N07 BE REYIEWED BY THE CITY COUNCIL~.BUT NlLL 8E SUBJECT TO THE REVIEM BY THE PLANNINQ AND BUILDIN~ DEPARTMENTS IN ACCORDANC6 M1TH CITY COUNCIL POLICY ADOPTED ON NOVEMBeR 30~ 1960. . . ; -i I .. ::;" '; ~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~...~ ~ ~ h ~ ~ . . . ~ . . . ~ . ~. ~ '. ~ ~ ... ~ ..'~~ 5 ~' . . ~~ ... . ' . . ~ ~ . ~ ' . , . . .: ~.. . ",' . • ' . .. , - '~ ..., ~.~. .t~~ ~~ ' ._ ~...._. . +. ~ ..~~ •.~~~.o. . . . ~ . . . . ~ . ~ ~ . _~._..•~ ~ ( ~ 314 ~ I ~ I MINUTES, C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION, Auousr 7, 1961~ CONTINUcD:. , ~ ~ Ti;NTATIVE MAP OF - DEVELOPER: HOME UiND COMPANY 887 SouTH Los ANGELES S7REET~ QNAHEIM~ ~ACT No_ 43~i~ CALIFORNIA. ENGINEER: McDANI~`L ENGINEERING COMPANY, 222 Ensr LtN- NORTHEASTUCORNERHOFM~ERRIT05 AVENUESANDENUTWOODTSTREETCANDDCONTAHNS 20•PROPOSED R-1~ ONE FAMILY F~ESIDEN7IAL~ LOTS. MR. A. R. MCDANIEL~ ENaINEER FOR THE DEVELOPMENT~ AppEARED BEFORE•THE COMMISSION~ STATED THAT THE HOME LAND COMPANY MAS OWNED BY THE GRIFFITH BROTHERS COMPANY~ AND THAT THE DEVELOPERS WOULD COMPL,Y WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS STIpULATED 8Y 7HE INTERDEPARTMEN7AL COMMITTEE. COMMISSIONER PEBLEY OFFERFD A.MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PERRY AND CARRIED~ THAT THE TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4323 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWINQ COND~7ION5: . 1. DEDICATION OF 56 FEET.FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF HARRIET LANE AND LULLABY LANE. 2• IMPROVEMENT OF CERRITOS AVENUE TO PROVIDQ A MINIMUM NET PLANTING AREA OF 5.5 FEE7~ SAID LANDSCAPINO PLANS TO BE SU8611TTED TO AND SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SUPERIN7ENDEN7 OF PARKWAY MAIN- TENANCE. , 3. ACCESS TO BE PERMITTED TO CERRITOS AVENUE ;'?R LOTS 1~ 2~ AND 3. 4. REQUIREMENT THAT•SHOULD.SUBJECT SUBDIV~SION BE DEVELOPED AS MORE THAN ONE SUBDIVt5I0N~ EACN SUBDiVISION THEREOF SHALL BE SUB- MITTED IN TENTATIVE FORM.FOR•APPROVAL. • 5.' PERTINENT PLOT AND BUILDINQ PLANS~ IN CONNECTION N17M SUBJECT WI~LL'BESSUBJECT~TO'THENREVBEWRBY'THEDPLANNHNQ~AND BUILDING DET PARTMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH C1TY COUNCIL POLICY ADOPTED ON NOVEMBER 30, 1960. C9RRESPONQEt.C~F - ITEM N0. i; ORr4NGE CObfttTY TRACT iJO. 3614, RHVISED: SUBDiVIDER: BUTLER-HARBOUR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY~ 22A3 WEST LINCOLN ENGINEER: McDANI~'LaEN6lNE~RING~COMPANY~ 222 EasT LINCOLN AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA. SUBJECT TRACT 15 LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LA PALMA AVENUE ON THE WEST SIDE OF R10 VISTA STREET~ COVERS APPROXIMATELY 20.5 ACRES~ AND IS PROPOSED FOR 79 SINGLE FAMILY RESfDENT1AL~ 10T5.• NOTlCE RECEIVED FROM THE ORAN~E COUNTY FLANNINQ COMMISSION~ RELATIVE ~ TO TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 3614 WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION. SAID MAP REVISED AND JATED JULY~ 1961. MR. A. R. MCDANIELo ENGINEER FOR THE DEVEI.OPER~ AppEARED 'n~FORE THE J ANMEXSST/NQATRACTACONTAHNINGHTHEUNINFLUENTIAL'WHOMESNONTHA7ATHENTRACT WAS FILED 1N TNE COUNTY~ THAT IT WOULD PROBABLY BE COMPLETED BEFORE ANNEXATION TO THE CITY~ AND THAT•CITY FACILITIES WOULD BE t7TIL12ED. A DISCUSSION WAS HELD RELAj~yE TO ORANGE COUNTY WALL REQUIREMENTS FOR SINOLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL L075 THA7 ABUT UPON ANY ARTERIAL HIQHNAY~ REQUIRINQ THE INSTALLATTOW OF A SIX F00T MASONRY WALL ALONQ SAID BOUNDARIES EXCEPT FOR 7HOSE AREAS RESERVED FOR INGRESS AND E6RESS TO THE PROPERTY. MR. MCDANIEL DESCRIBED 7HE PROPOSED WALL CONSTRUC- TION~ Iti ACCORDANCE WITH COUNTY REqUjREMENTS~ EXCEp'T FOR 7W0 LOTS FRONTINO ON R10 V15TA STREE7 NHiC!{ HE STATED NOULD HAVE CIRCULAR DRtVENAYS~ ONE OF WHICH WILL SERVE AN EXISTING RESIDENCE THAT WtLL REMAIN. COMMI5510NER MORRIS OFFERED A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAR- COUX AND CARRIED~ THAT THE PLANNING ~OMMJSSION SECRETARY YRANSMIT NOTICE TO THE ORAN~E COUNTY PLANNINQ COMMi5510N INDICATIN~ THA' 7HE ANAHEIM PLANNINa COMMIS510N RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE TENTA7'IVE KAP OF TRACT N0. 3614, SUBJECT TO THE COMPLIANCE NITH THE CaUN7Y MALL REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBJECT TRACT~ AND 1N ACCORDANCE NITH ?HE REVISED MAP DATED JULY~ 1961. ITEM N0. 2: ORANGE COUNTY TRACT N0. 4321: SUBDIV~DER: KEITH A NEILSON, 485 S~ERRA MADRE VtLLA~ Pqy'qDENA~ I ' CALIFORNIA. ENGINEERt C. C. BONEBRAKE, 1115 EAST ORANOE GROVE AVENUE~ GARDEN, ~ GROVE~ CALIFORNIA. SUBJECT TRACT COVERS AppROXIMATELV 54.29 ACRES 'AND IS PROPOSED FOR 218 R-1~ ONE FAM'ILY RESIDENTIAL~ LOTS. SUBJECT~PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN COUNTY TERRITORY~ EASTERLY OF R)0 VISTA STREE7 AND ABUTS THE ORANOE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL. • a,"^'N.!.r-~ r,*~ .~~,m~,:t~.~'i7~'~,mi~:A::~..J; I i 1~~ ~ ~ .. ~ ,~ ,.~~:i.~,.t'~ ~ x~~.:i c .!~/;..."'~ ! t ~~x.v:;, . ?~~.r~..~.._~„!:: ~ ,_,,, , m~ ._~~. x.. _ ,.~ '~ ~.r» --?i". .~ .. . . ~`:~ .. .. . ~ .. . ',5.1 ~;, ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ . . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . - '/ . .. ~ ~ ~ 315 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Au~usT 7~ 1961~,CON7INUED: ~:. ,: CORRESPONDENCE - ITEM N0. 2, CONTINUED: ORANGE COUNTY TRacr No. 432i:. ~ CONTINUED ~ NOTICE WAS SUBMITTED T0 7'HE PLANNING COMMISSION RELATIVE TO ORANGE COUNTY Tf.NTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4321. i. ~. . ~. . . ~ . f. ,I THE COMMISSION REVJEWED THE TRACT MAP AND NO~ED THAT THE SUBJECT j J PROPER7Y WAS I.OCATED SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY•20NED IN THE COUNTY M~1-O DISTRICT AND THAT THE COUNTY HAD~ESTABLiSHED A 100 FOOT BUFFER STRIP BETMEEN THE MANUFACTURING ZONE AND THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE. IT WAS ~ ALSO NOTED THAT THE PROPERTV ABUTS THE NESTERLY BANK OF THE ORANGE ' COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL. I UPON•INQUIRY BY TNE COMMISSION~ THE DEVELOPER STATED THAT HE WOULD ~ ~ 1NSTALL A WALL ON THE•NORTHERLY BOUNDARY L1NE IF IT WERE:REQUIRED. ~ p COMM~SSIONER PEBLEY SUGGESTED THAT EITHER THE MALL BE INSTALLED OR A i € BOND BE pOSTED FOR THE INSTALLATION OF SAID MALL. • i " A STAFF REPOR7•AND INTERDEPARTMENT.~L COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE ~ SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION AND THE DEVELOPER INDICATED THAT HE WAS I IN AGREEMENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND THAT THE HOMES WOULD RANGE r IN PRICE FROM ~18'000 TO 520~000. INFORMATION WAS GiVEN TO THE I ~ DEVELOPER THAT THE CIT'i CODE PROVISIONS REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF ~ 1~525 SQUARE FEE7 PER DWELLING UNIT. • , ~` ' COMMISSIONER ALLRED RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMMISSION POINT OUT TO THE ~ I¢ ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMIS51-0N THAT THE SUBJECT TRACT MAP INDI- f' CATES THAT ONLY ONE ENTRANCE WAS PROVIDED TO SERVE THE TRACT~ THAT E DINKI.ER AVENUE PR9VIDED THE ONLY POSSIBLE IN6RE55 AND EGRESS TO THE F . ° LARGE DEVELOPMENT. r COMMISSIONE.R PEBLEY OFFERED A M0710N~ SECONDED BY COMM(SSIONER SUMMERS AND CARRIED~ THAT THE PLANNING SECRETARY TRANSMIT NOTICE YO 7HE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION•THAT THE P~NAHEIM PLANNING COMM15510N RECOMMENDS PPPROVAL. OF THE TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. E 4321~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLONING CONDITtONS: ~ ~ ~ 1. DRAINAGE FROM SUBJECT 7RACT SHOULD BE DISCHARGED INTO THE ORANGE ~ COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL. ~ 2. THEOJUANA STREET9 ALTMAN AVENUEn GREGG STREET AND DINKLER AVENUE 4 SHOU~D REQUIRE A D~DICATION OF 60 FEET WI7H A ROADWAY OF 40 ` FEET. i t 3. DINKLER AVENUE SHOULD HAVE A CON7INUQUS ALIGNMEN7 AT THE INTER~ ~ i SECTION OF THEOJUANA STREET. ': ITEM N0. 3: ORANGE COUNTY USE YARIANCE N0. 4e0T. ~ NOTICE RECEIVED F'ROM THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION~ RELATIVE ~ TO USE VARIANCE N0. 48079 WAS SUBMITSED TO THE .^,OMMISSION. SUBJECT i i • PETIT~ON REQUESTS PERMISSION FOR THE FOLLOWING: FRONT YARD VARIANCE FOR 6 FOOT BY 15 FOOT SIGN. FRONT YARD VARIANCE FOR 5 FOOT BY 8 F00T FEATURE SIGNS. , SIDE YARD VARiANCE FOR 10 F00T BY 30 F00T AND 6 FOOT BY 15 F00T SIGNS. HE16HT 1~ARIANCE POR PYLON SIaN. ' THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT ~N ADDITION TO THE REQUESTED YARD AND HEIGHT VARIANCES~ THE PETITION A150 REQUESTED THE CONTINUED USE OF (1) A i _ TEMPORARY REAL ESTATE OFFICE~ (2) FOtIF MODEL HOMES~ AND (3) .17 TEM- ~- PORARY SIGNS IN CONNECTION THEREWiTH~ FOR THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR IN ' THE Al GENERAL AaRICULTURAL Dl5FR1CT. i4 PLOT PLAN OF SUBJECT PROPERTY ~'.> . WAS SUBMITTED TO TH£ COMM15510N AND 1T WAS NOTED SHAT SHE PET'tTtON ~ INDICATES THAT 7HE REAL ESTATE OFFICE IS IN A 20 F00T BY 64 FOOT TEMPORARY BUILDING AS INDICATED ON PLOT PLAN AND THAT MODEL HOMES WOULD BE LOCATED AS IND~CA7ED. THE PETITION DESCRIBED THE TYPES~ DIMENSIONS AND LOCATION.OF THE PROPOSED SIGNS~ AND STATED THAT OFF- STREET.PARKIN(i FOR APPROXIMATELY 31 CARS WOULD BE PROVIDED. THE PETI- TION STATED FURTHER THAT THE SALES OFFICE~ MODEL HOMES~ AND SIGNS ARE 1N CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF LOTS AND DWELLINaS IN SEVERAL TRAC75 TO THE SOUTH AND NE57 IN THE CITIES OF BUENA PARK AND CYPRESS. THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY iS ON THE SOUTH S1DE OF LINCOLN AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 145 FEE7 WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF KNOTT AVENUE BETWEEN ANAHE~M AND BUENA PARK AND THE PRESENT USE OF THE PROPERTY IS FOR A REAL ESTATE SALES OFFICE~ MODEL HOMES AND SIQNS.. C A STAFF.REPORT FINDINQ~ INDICATINa THAT THE PROPOSED USE WAS AN ESTAB- ~ 41$HED U5E WHICN DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE NEI(iHBORINa ~ AREA AND THA7 THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN WELL MAINTAINED~ WAS SUBMITTED TO ~ r ~~ THE COMMISSION. ~ ~ tr~ THE COMM~SSION DISCUSSED THE NECE5517Y FOR.THE REMOVAL OF THE Sf4N5 AT `°~' ' THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THE VARJANCE. t^,c, n7 ~ , r7yM_r 1 . .. . . . . . . . , ' . . . ~ , . . . ~o~~!F~~ / . ~ ~ .._ . ~~ ~ ~ ~ . . . . . . . . ~ ~ _:..~ . ~..~ ~ ':. ~~. ... . ~~ . ...~,. ., , ..~. .'... ~ .... A.c.._.~~at?k.ft,. ., ... ~i~l?i:~ .v ., ..'I~ ...`-•~.-_,t .. , . , ...f.. . .. .. . ~ ,./,~ ~ . . . .. 4.4`: , .t'!Jjrf.~,..'.._ ~-~~~~~.~_~-.~...-.-~...~ ~ ~ ~;' ~ ~... e .: ~ ~~.:,'~~~~~ ~ ~ I ~. CORRESPONDENCE - ITEl1•N0. 3~ CONTINUED: ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 4807: CpNTINV.E'~~ COMMI~SIONER ALLRED OFFERED A MOTION~•SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS SECRETARY TRANSMIT NOTICE AND CARRIED~ THAT THE PLANNING COMlA~SSION TPERMIANNOEIM G A N N C Y ANCE VNR USE OF APPROVAL RECOMMENDS PLANNINGRCOMMISSION ND BE POSTED TO INSURE REMOVAL 4807 SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT A 80 NS AT THE EXPIRATION DA7E OF SAID USE VARIANCE. ' 'HE SIG Oi REPORTS AND - ITEM N0.•i: REVIEW•- VARIANCE No. 1372: RF(`OMMENDATIONS A LEGAL INTERPRETATION SUBMITTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY~S OFFICE WA SERIES 294 N N0 ~ . REFERRED TO THE COMMISSION iN RESPEC7 TO RESOI.UTIO L OF PE7ITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1372. 1961J-61~ WHICH GRANTED APPROVA ASS~STANT CITY QTTORNEY•JOB GEISLEP. ADVtSED 7HE COMMISSION THAT $ERIES 1960~61~ WOULD CREA7E 294 N N0 7I ~ ~ . U ~ONDITION N0. 4 OF RESOLU A HARDSHIP UPON THE PETITIONBR~AND THAT IT•WAS NOT NECESSARY OR GEISLER MR . REQUIRED TO IMPOSE DEED RESTRICT10N5 UPON A VARIANCE. lON AMEND CONDITION N0. 4 OF SAID RESOLU- RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMMISS ' TION TO READ AS FOLLOWS: ' (4) ~CHQT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1372 BE GRANTED FOR A THREE (3) YEAR PERIOD OF,TIME. V:MMt5510NER MORRIS OFiERED RESOLUT~ON N0. 39. ~'kIES 1961-62~ ND RESOLU'PION N0. 294~ SECONDED•BY COMMISSIONER SUM41ER5~ TO AME W~TH THE RECOMMENDA~- C T O ATTORNEY. ASSISTANT CNTY THE TIONESU3M6TTED~BY ON ROLL GALL THE FORCGO~NG RESOL.UTION WAS PASSED BY ThE FOLLOWiNG VOTE: ' ~ , MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: P EBLEY~ PERRY~ SUMMERS NdES: Cdi~ii~iiSS{ONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HaP~ooo. ~ ~ ~ 316 MINUTESr'CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ AuGUST 7~ 1961~ CONTINUED: ITEM N0. 2: REVIEh - CONDITI~NAL USE PERMI~ N0. 127: A REPOR~ WAS SUBMITTED TO SHE COMMISSION RELATIVE SO CONDiTION NO. 2 OF RESOLUTION N0. lo SERIES 1961-62. IT WAS NOTEJ THAT THE CONDI- TION WAS IMPOSED AS A COND!'ilON OF APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 127~ WHICH WAS GRANTED !N ORDER 70 PERMIT THE EXPANSION QF A DAY NURSERY ON PROPERTY LOCATED A1' 1632 CATHERINE DRIVE. SAID CONDITION REQUIRED THAT THE PARKINi AREA BE PROVIDED IN BACK OF iHE FRONT BUILD-' ING SETBACK LINE. SUBSEQUENI' TO TME ADOPYION Of 7HE RESOLUTION~ THE PESITIONERS FOUND THAT IT WOUI,D CREAT[ A HARDSHIP~ IN COMPLYING WITH STATE REQUIREMENTS IN RE5PECT TO THE AMOUNT OF Ol3TD00R PLAYGROUND AREA TO BE PROVIDED PER CHI~D~ i0 U'fIL~7.E TNE FRONT YARD PORTtON DESCRiBED IN THE CONDISION~FOR PARKING PURPOSES. UPON INVESTIGATfOA: OF THE POSSIBLE PROVISION OF PARKiNG AREA AT THE REAR OF THE SUBJECT TOOACCE55 WOULDDPROHNB~ITTTHE'USE OFATHATUAREAREQU~REMLNTS IN RESPf.~T THE COM'MISSION DISCIiSSED THE REFERRAL OF THE PARKING PROBELM TO THE :ITY ENGINEER~S OFFICE FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS. ASSISTANT ;ITY AT70RNEY JC~E GEISLER ADV!SED THE COMMISSION THAT THE SUBJECT INT RDER TO~COMPLY WETMDTHETGENERALDPR CF.DURE POLRCYGOFHTHEDCBTYHEND VIEW OF THE PROPOSED CHAN6E iN THE USE OF A SPECIFIC AREA OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ COMMISSIONER MUNGALL NOTED THAS' THERE WOULD BE ONLY A LIMITEU AMOUNT OF PARKING NECESSARV FOR THE DAY NURSERY AND OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMi5510NER ALLKED AND CARRIEDt THAT THE SUBJECT PETITION BE RE- ADVERTISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SHE HTTORNEY~S RECOMMENDATION. THE MEEYING ADJOURNED AT 6:00 O~CLOCK P.M. RESPECTfULLY SUAMITTED~ ~ ~ ~ ECRETARY ~ ~ - , ~:'. , . - ~ ., _ ., ~-'r~' . +~ ... ~. ,.,, . . . ....._........_... ' :,