Minutes-PC 1961/02/20.-
~ ~
~
REGULAR'"MEETING
PRfSENT
qBSENT
M TNUT ES
PRESENT
T~ENT/iT1VE MAP OF
,`TRACT N0. 4081
--- ---- ~~,
. ~ ~ '
CITY HALL
ANAHEIM~ CA~IfORNIA
FEBRUARY 20, 1961
REGILAR MEETih ~F THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ;
- A REGULAR`MEETING OF THE CfTY PLANNING COMMISSION WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT ~
2:00 O~CLOCK P.M. BY CHAIRMAN GAUER~ A QUORUM BEING PRESENT. '
-"'CHAIRMAN GAUER: COMMISSIt)NERS: ALLRF_D~ Ma~coux, MoaR~s. MUNGALL~ AND ,
SUMMERS. COMMISSIONER HAPGOOD ENTEREO THE MEETING AT 3:00 P.M.
- COMMISSIONERS2 NONE. ~
- THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6~ 1961 WERE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.
- ACTING PLANNING DIRECTOR - RICHARD REESE ~
PLANNING TECHNICIAN - MARTIN KREIDT
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ~ JOE GEISLER ;
COMMISSION SECRETARY - JEAN PAGE j
1
- A TENTAT~VE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4081 WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMM~SSION.
DEVECOPER• JOHNSTON-NELSON REAL ESTA7E INVESTMENTS~ 10582 KATELLA AveNUe, ~
ANAHEIM; CALIFORNIA. THE TRACT IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH StDE OF ANAHEIM
POSEDTK-i,2SINGLE FrtMILYRRESInEN71AL,F~oTSE CSus~ecrErRncT WASTCONTINUEDRO- ~
FROM THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6 1961 AT THE REQUEST OF THE PET~TIONER TO ~
ALLOW SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE ~LANNI•NG $TAFF AND THE C17Y ENG~NEER TO RE-
SOLVE PROBLEMS WITH THE STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTIdENT IN RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED ~
FREEWAV TO BE LOCATED EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. a
4
THE PET;TIONER WAS PRESENT AND DISCUSSED THE LAND USE AND THE ROAD IMPROVE- i
MENTS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA WITH THE COMM~SS~ON. ~
A LETTER OF OPPOSITION~ RECEIVED FROM THE CITY OF PLACENTIA~ WAS SUBM(TTED ~
TO THE COMMISSION~ WHICH INDICATED THAT THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL TRACT WAS
TO BE LOCATED ADJACENT TO M-1 ZONING ~N THE CITY OF PLACENTIA AND THAT THE ~
PLACENTIA PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT CONSIDER THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL i
AREA TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE M-1 20NINa, i
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLONING FACTS REOARDING TENTAT.IVE ~
MAP OF TRACT N0. 4081:
1. SUBJECT TRACT IS LOCATED IN AN AREA PROJECTED FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ~
ON THE PREI.IMINARY GENERAL PLAN. ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE {
INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE PROJECTED INGUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. ~
1
2. A'LETTER OF OPPOS~TION WAS SUBMITTED FROM THE CITY OF PLACENTIA WHICH I
INDICATED THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WAS TO BE LOCAYED.AOJACENT TO '
AND NOULD BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE M~1 ZONING IN THAT CITY. ~
COMM'f5510'NE'tt~MORR15 OFFERED A MOT~ON~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNGALL AND I
CARRIED~ THAT TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4081 BE DENIED ON THE BA515 OF THE ~
AFOREMENTIONED FINDINGS.
' vARilfWGf N0. 1336;, - PU6i~~~ MFJtRING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev EVERETT AND KATHRYN M. JILES, 1173i
" I{ASTER STREET~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OwNeRS; ARTHUR W. GRAY~ JR. 914 WE57
CENTER'STREET ANAXE4My CALIFORNPA~ AQ6NT•~ FOR"PERM1-SSION TO OP~RUTE A
BEAUTY SHOP'l~l GARd~GE ON PROPERTY'DESCRIBED''AS`: A""PARCEL 69 FEET 6Y 110
FEET W1T'H A FRONTA6E OF 1'lO.FEET ON HASTER STREET'AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH~
WEST"CQRNER OF HASTER STREET AND TILLER AVENUE~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS
105 YlEST TILLER AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R~1~ SINGLE
FAMILY RESI~ENTIAL.
i+IR. AYtTH11R'•GRAY~ ATTORNEY REPRESENTIN~ THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE
COMM'1'SSS6N~ AND STATED THAT THE PETITIONER iiAS REQUESTINO THAT SHE BE ALLON-
ED TO CONTINUE THE OPERATION OF A BEAUTY SHOP BUStNE55 MHICH HAD EXISTED
PRIaR''TO THE ANNEXATION AND PRESENT ZONIN6 OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ THAT
THE Et751Nf55 WAS CONDUCTED IN THE ~ARAGE OF THE EXISTIN3 RESIDENCE~ THAT
THE'APPEI~itRNCE OF THE 6ARAGE HAD NOT BEEN ALTERED~ THAT THERE MERE NO SIQNS~
N015E OR TRAFFIC RESULTING FROM THE OPERATION~ THAT THE BUSINESS MAS OPER~
ATED 59LELY BY THE RESIDENT ON THE PROPERTY~ THAT THE USE WAS PERMITTED,
WHILE THE PROPERTY WAS UNDER COUNTY JURISDICTION AND THAT ThE USE YIOULD
NOT 9E DETRIMENTAL TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. THE H~ARING MAS CLOSED. i
~ I1 LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR SUBJECT PE7lT10N~ S10NED BY D. B. COLEb1AN~ PRESi~
DENT BfAUXW00D HOMES~ INC.~ WAS SUBMITTEO TO THE COMMt5510N.
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FCLLOWINO FACTS REOARDING SUB,JECT
PETITIONS
1. P~TITIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM CODE~ SECTION 18.24.010~ WHICH ~
STIPULATED PERMITTED USES !N THE R~1~ SINGLE FAMILY RE516ENTIAL~ ZONE
TO PERMIT THE CONTINUED USE OF AN EXISTIN~ RESIDENCE FOR A dEAUTY SHOP
IN AN ~1 20NE.
2. TIiA7 THE REQl1E5TED USE WAS PERMITTED AND ESTABLISHBD ON THE SUBJECT PRO-
PERTY PRIOR TO ANt:EXATION OF SAID PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF AYAF:EtM.
3. NO 4NE APPEARED IN OPP051710N TO THE SUBJECT PETITION. A LETTER IN
I FAVOR OF SUBJECT PETI710N MAS FILED MITH THE COMNISSION.
- 61 -
`
---.._...~...- _
. ,`` _.~ ' ~ _`-_""'~.! _ - . . . ..~._
~
.. :
. - , ,;
l.1 ~ ~
62
MINU1'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 20, 1961, CONTINUED: ~
VARIAPlCE N0. 1336 - COMMI55lONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 176., SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED ~
CONTINUED FOR ~TS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUMMERS~ TO GRANT
VARIANCE No. 1336 ro OPER6tTE A BEAUTY SHOP IN GAR/tGE OF AN EXISTING RESI- ~
DENCE, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDIT!OHS: ~
1. NO EMPLOYMENT OF HELP.OTHER THAN THE MEMBERS OF THE RESIDENT FAMILY. i
c
2. NO SALES OF PRODUCTS OR SER~~ICES NOT PRODUCED ON THF_ PREMISES.
3. THE USE SHA~L NOT GENERATE PEDESTRIAN OR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC BEYOND THE ~
NORMAL AMOUNT FOR THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED. ~'
4. THE USE SHALL NOT INVOLVE THE USE OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES FOR DELIVERY '
OF MATERIALS TO OR FROM THE PREMISES.
5. NO OUTDOOR STORAGE OF MATERIALS AND/OR SUPPLIES.
6. IN NO WAY S!iALL THE APPEARANCE OF THE STRUCTURE BE 50 ALTERED OR THE
CONDUCT OF THE OCCUPATION WITHIN THE STRUCTURE BE SUCH THAT THE
STRUCTURE MAY OE REARONABLY RECOGNIZED AS SERVING A NON-RESIDENTIAL
USE (EITHER BY COLOR9 MATERiALS OR CONSTRUCT~ON~ LIGHTING~ SIGNS~
SOUNDS OR NO~SE59 VIBRATIONS~ ETC.).
7. SUCH HOME OCCUPATION SHALL NOT CREATE NOt5E9 ODOR~ DUST~ VIBRATION~
FUMES OR SMOKE READILY DISCERNIBLE AT THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARiES OF 7HE
PARCEL ON WHICH SITUATED~ NOR CREATE ANY ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCES AD-
VERSELY AFFECTING THE OPERATION OF ANY EQUIPMENT NOT ON THE SAME ~
PARCEL.
THE FOREGOING CONDIT~ONS WERE REC~TED AT THE MEETING AND NERE FOUND TO BE
A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE FOR THE USE OF THE PROPERTy IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGO~NG RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FJLLOWING VOTE: ''
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUERs MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGA~L~ SUMMERS. I
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; HAPGOOD. ~
_yARIANGE~NO. 1337 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev FRANK E. AND CLRRA L. KOSS, 322
WEST SOUTH STREET9 ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA OMNERS• FOR PERMISSION TO W~IVE ~
SINGLE' STORY HEIGHT LIMITA'~IONS TO PER~tIT CON~~RUCTION OF TWO STORY
APJCRTMEflTS~ AND ro W,RIVE S.IDEYARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT ON CORNER LOT, oN
PROPERTY DESCR(BED A5: AN IRREGULAR SHAPED PARCEL MITH A FRONTA6E OF 115 1
FEET ON EAST STREET AND 105 FEET ON BELMONT AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE ~
NOP.THEASTERLY CORNER OF EAST STREET AND BELMONT AVENUE~ AND FURTHER DES~
CRIBED AS 1104 NORTH EAST STREET. TF!e. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R~3~
MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. j
MR. FRANK KOSSa THE PE7ITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ DESCRIBED
THE PROPQSED DEVELOPMENT AND INDICATED THAT HE HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY
WITH THE INTENTION TO CONSTRUCT TMO STORY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS~~
AND SUBSEQUENTLY DISCOVERED THAT THIS MAS NOT PERMITTED BY PRESENT ZONING '
REQUIREMENTS FG~ SUBJEC7 PROPERTY. HE STATED FURTHER THAT YAIVER OF THE !
i5 F00T SIDE YARD •REQUIREMENT MOULD PROVIDE A MORE DESIRABLE CONSTRUCTION 1
LAYOUT BY ALLOWING PRIVATE PATIO AREAS FOR EACH APARTMEN?~ THAT H= WOULD
RETAIN OWNERSHIP OF THE DEVELOPMENT~ THAT HE INTENDED TO CONSTRUCT TEN
UNITS AND THAT ADEQUATE OFF-57REET PARKING FACILITlES WOULD BE PRJVIDED.
THE H~ARING WAS CLOSED, s
THE COMF{{SSiON FOl7ND AND DETERMINED SH£ FOLlOW1NG FACSS REGARDING 7HE
SUBJECT PETITION:
1. PETITIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM COD'e~ $ECTION 18.32.050. WHICH
LIMITS THE STRUCTURAL HEI6HT OF ANY 2VILDING UN SUBJECT PROMERTY TO
ONE STORY IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY~ MULTIPLE-FAMILY DWELL-
ING~ AND ~ECTION 18.32.080 (1) MHICH REQUtRES FOR THE SOUTH SIDE OF
SUBJECT PROPERTY A 15 F00T SIDE YARD TO PERMtT ENCROACHMENT OF FIVE 1
FEET INTO THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD.
2. SUB:JECT PROPERTY~ PRESENTLY VACANT~ ABUTS TMO STORY MULTIPLE-FANILY
DEVELOPMENT ON THE NORiH~ SINGLE STORY MULTIPLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON
. THE EASTp AND TMO STORY SIN(iLE FAMti. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACROSS
BELMONT AVENUE ON THE SOUTH. ,
3. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETiT10N.
CLMMf5610NER MUNGALL OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 177~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED
FOR fT'S"PASSAGE AND ADOPTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED TO ORANT
VARIANCE No.1337 To WXIVE HE3GHT LIMITATION ANU SI~E YARD SET~ACK REQUIRE- -.
Atlr'T; SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOMING CONDITIONC
1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTtALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED.
THE FOREG01'M(i CONDITION HAS RECITED AT THE MEETING AND NAS FOUND TO BE A
NECESSARY PREREQUISITE FGR THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE C1T12EN5 OF ANAHEIM.
j
V ~ ,.' ~
63
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNIN6 COMMISSlON~ FEBRUARV 20~ 1961a CONTINUED:
VARIANCE N0. 1337 - ON ROIL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BV THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
~ CONTINUED
AYES:' COMMISSIONERS: AILRED~ GAUERo MARCOUX9 MORRIS~ MUNGALL' SUMMERS
' NOES: COMMISSIOlJERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COHMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD,
~ CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev ANAHEIM COMMUNITY CONGREGATIONAL
PERMIT NO. 102 CHURCH, 515 NORTH PLACENTIA AVENUE ANAHEIM. CALIFORNIAa OWNERy FOR PER-
MISSION TO ADD TO EXISTIN6 CHURCH ~'ACILITIES~ ON PROpERTY DESCRIBED A5;
I ~ AN IRREG~LAR SHAPED PARCEL MtTH A FRONTAGE ~F 265 FEET ON PLACENTIA AVENUE
AND A FRONTAGE OF 423 FEET ON SYCAMORE STREET AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHMEST-
ERLY CORNER OF PLACENTIA f1VENUE AND SYCAMORE STREET~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED
AS 515 NORTH PLACENTlA AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R~A~
~ RESIDENTIAL AG-iiC:lITURAL.
MR. CHARLES HORNER~ REPRESEN7AiIVE FOR THE PET1TlONERS~ APPEARED BEFORE THE
COMMISSiON AND STATEL THAT :HURCH SERYICES NAD BEEN CONDUCTED ON THE SUB~
JECT PROPERTY FOR THRI'.E Y~:AitSa THAT l'HE CHURCH HPJ RECENTLY PURCHASED
ABUTTtNG PROPERTY IN OFiDER 70 EXPAND THEIR FACILITIES~ AND THAT THE PROPER-
TY WOULD BE DEVEIOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED.
MR. CLAUDE SENEFELDa ARCHITECT FOR THE PETlTIONERa APPEARED BEF'ORE THE COM-
MISSIOko DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION PLANNED FOR THE 111MEDIATE FU-
TURE~ OUTLINED THE ULTIMA7E DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECTa AND Dt5CU55ED THE
IMMEDIATE AND THE PROJECTED PLANS MITH INTERESTED PARTIES PRESk.NT IY THE
AUDIENCE. HE STATED FURTHER THAT THE EXISTING RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY
WOULD BE UTILIZED AT THE PRESENT TIME BUT WOULD BE REMOVED FOR THE :1LTIMATE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY9 THAT A NEW SANCTUARY WOULD BE CONSTRUC7ED~
THAT LANDSCAPlNG MOULD BE PROVFDED~ THAT MALLS MOULD BE PROVIDED WHEREVER
NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE PROdECTa AND THAT THE ENT~RE DEVELOPMENT !'JULD BE
COMFLETED ~N ACCORDANCE W[TH PLANS PRESENTED, THE HEARING WAS CLqSED.
THE COMMiSSION DISCUSSED CODE REQUIREMENTS IN RESPECT TO NALL CONSTRUCTION
AND PARKINa FACILITIES FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY. MR. SENEFELD INDlCATED THAT
THE PETtT10NER5 tNTENDED TO UTlLIZE THE EXI571Na PARKING FACILITIES AT THE
PRESENT TIME AND.:70 PROVIDE ADD9TIONAL PARKIN~ TO COMPLETE THE ULTIMAT6 DE-
VELOPMENT IN ACCORDANCE MITH THE PLANS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION.
THE COMMISS~ON FOUND ,~ND DETERM(NED THE FOLLOMIN6 FACTS REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITION:
1. PETITIONER REQUESTS A COND~TI•~NAL USE PERMIT FOR WH:CH PROVa510N IS MADE
IN CODEa SECTION 18n64.O20 (1~-C~~ IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL CHURC~
FACILITIES ON SUBJECT PROPERTY.
2. SUBJECT PROPERTY~ PRESENTLY OCCUPIED BY A CHURCH ANP ASSOCIATED STRUC~
TURES~ ABUTS ORANGE GROVES ON THE WEST AND NORTH/ VACANT AREA ACRO55
PLACENTtA AVENUE ON THE EAST~ AND SINGLE~FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
ACRO55 SYCAMORE STREET ON THE SOUTH.
3. NO ONE APPEARED itJ OPPOStT10N TO SUBJECT PETITION.
COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED R"aOLUTtON N0. 17^. SERIES 1960^61~ AND MOVED
FOR !TS PASSACaE AND ADOPT[ON~ SECOADED EY COMM.oStONER ALLRED~ TO GRANT
CONDITIONAL Use PERMlT No. 102 ro CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL CHURCH FACILITIES,
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS;
1. DEVEIOPMENT SU65TANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED.
2. DEDICATION OF 53 FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF PLACENTIA AVEkUS
(30 FEET EXISTING).
3. DEDICATION OF 32 FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF SYCAMORE STREET
(24.75 FEET EXISTINfi).
4. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND tNSTALLATION OF ALL ~MPROVE-
MENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CITY ENGINEEP. ON BOTH STREETS.
5. PAYMENT OF 52.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES ON BOTH
STREETS.
6. CONSTRUCTION OF A 6 FOOT FENCE OR WALL ON THE NEST PROPEP.TY LINE.
7. CONSTRUCTION OF A 6 F00T MA50t:.^.Y WALL ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE~ OR THE
POST~N6 OF A BOND FOR THE PERIOD OF 2 YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
THE RESOLUTION TO ~NSURE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID MALL WHEN THE ABUTTING PRO~
PERTY IS DEVELOPED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPUSES. AT THE CONCLUSION OF SAID
2 YEAR PERlOD OF TiMEp IF THE ABUTTINta PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED
FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSESn'A REQUEST FOR AN EXTEN516I: OF TIME~ PROPERLY
FILED~ MAY BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION.
8. CONSTRUCTION OF A 4 F00T MASONRY WALL 10 FEET NORTH OF AND PARALLEL TO
THE SOUTH PROPERTY L~NE ABUTTtNd SYCAMORE STREET THE FULL LENGTH OF THE
PARK~NG AREAy EXCEPT FOR THOSE AREAS RESERVED FOR IN~RESS AND EGRESS~ OR
THE POSTIN(i OF A BOND POR THE PERIOD OF 2 YEARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE
QF THE RESOLUT ION TO 1 NSURE CONSTRUCT I ON OF SA1 D MALL WHEDI THE PAF.!C i 1~Ca
` ~ __._~,.._-
~ _. ~.~.. - ~ `. .
. .. . . ---_....__ ,~
~ ~ ~ i
64 ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 20, 1961, CONT~NUED:
CONDiTIONAL USE ~ AREA HAS BEEN fMPROVEO fUP. UTiLIZATION BY THE CHURCH AS INDICATED ON
PERMiT NO. 102 PLOT PLAN SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 20a 1961. AT THE CONCLUSION OF Sti1D THO
CONTINUED QUESTPFOR~AN~EX7ENSfONFOFHTIMERKPROPERLY FILEDOTMAYEBE'SUBMITTEDATOETHE
CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION.
RECLASSIFICAiION -
N0. 60-61-58
9. INSTALLATION OF A 10 F00T LANDSCAPED STRIP ALONG SYCAMORE STREE7 IN~
ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTEO,
THE FOREGOING CONDITIONS WERE RECI7ED AT THE MEETING AND kERE FOUND TO BE ~
A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITlZENS OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOiNG RESOWTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOMING VOTE: '
AYES: COMMlSSIONERSS ALLREDp GAUER9 MARCOUX~ MORRIS' MUNGALL9 SUMMERS. ~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ;
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: H~4PGOOD. ~
PUBLiC HEARIN6. ?cTiTiON SUBtAlTTED sY 6UY D. AND VIOLA M. H/,RREN, 2130 ~
NORTH BROADWAY~ SANTA ANA~ CALIFORNlAD OWNER59 REQUEST~NG.THAT PROPERTY ~
DESCRIBED A5; A PARCEL 190 FEET BY 338 FEET WiTH A FRONTAGE OF 190 FEET
ON KATELLA AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF KATELLA AVENUE BETNEEk
CARNELIAN AND BAYLESS $TREETS~ lT5 SOUTHME:aT CORMER BE~NG APPROXIMATELY ~
285 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CARNELIAN STREET AND KATELLA AVE-
NUEY EXCEPT~NG A PARCEL 10 FEET BY 12.5 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 12.5 FEET ~
ON RATELLA AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF KATELLA AYENUE BETWEEN ~
CARNELtAN AND BAYLESS STREETS~ !TS SOUTHNEST CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY
462 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CARNELIAN STREET AND KA7ELLA
AVENUE9 AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1585 WEST KATELIA AVENUE BE RECLASSIFIED
FROM THE R-0, ONE-FAMILY SUBL'REAN, ZONE 'ro THE C-1, NEIGH~ORHOOD COMMERCIAL,;
20NE. ;
MR. GUY WARRENa THE PETlTIO~~ERa APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION9 PRESENTED i
A RENDERING OF THF PROPOSED BUILDINGn DESCRIBED THE INTENDED LAYOUT~ READ ~
A LETTER OF SUPPORT SIGNED BY MR. PAUL TURNER~ AND INDICATED HE HAD THE ~
APPROVAL OF THE NEIGHBORS tN THE SURROUNDING AREA. 4
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE DtFFERENCE IN THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPnCES ~
FOR THE PROPOSED DEYELOPI[ENT SHOWN ON THE PLOT PLAN AND 7HOSE SH9WN ON THE ~
RENDERING~ AND INDICA7ED THAT THE PARKING AREA MUST BE PROVIDED IN ACCOR-- :,
DANCE WITH CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE USE OF THE PROPERTY. THE PETITIONER
STATED THAT PRELIMtNARY PLANS FOR THE USE OF THE BU(LDING WERE TO ESTABLISH ~,
A MEDICAL CENTERo INC W DING A PHARMACYD BU' ~NAT CONSIDERATION MIGHT BE
GIVEN FOR A COMFlINATION OF PROFESSIONAL USES~ AND THAT IN EITHER CASE CON~
FORMANCE WITH GODE REQUtREMENTS MOULD BE MAINTAINED. ASSISTANT CITY AT70R- '
NEY JaE GEISLEk ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT MODIF~CATION OF THE PLANS ,
COULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE CQDE REQUIREMENTS.
THE COMMISSION NOTED THAT THE SUBJECT PROPER7Y PRESENTLY CONTAINED THE ;
HOWELL ACADEMY~ A PR(VATE SC400L9 AND THAT IT ABUTS A NURSERY SCNOOL ON I
THE NESTa SINGLE FAMILY RE°IDENCES ON THE NORTH AND EASTo AND NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIA~ USES ACROSS KAT'cLLA AVENUE ON 7HE SOUTH. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.,
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND ~ETERMiNED THE FOLLOMING FACTS:
1. PETITICa~_R REQUE5T5 A RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE
20NE T~OEPERMITYTHE CONSTRIlCTNONTOFTAETNENTYNFOURB(24)oUNCT~~MEDICAL~
CENTER WITH PHARMACY.
2. PROPOS£D USE OF SUBJ~CT PROPERTY NOULD BE COMPATIBLE NITH THE LAND USES
IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
~. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETlT10N.
COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED RESOLi1TI0N N0. 179~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED
FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTIONy SECOND^cD BY COMMISSIONER SUMMERS~ RECOMMEND-
iNG TO THE CITY COUNCtL THAT RECLASSIFICA?ION N0. 60-b1~58 BE GRANTED i
RECLASStFYING SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE R-Oa ONE FAMILY SUBURBAN, ZON~` TO
THE C~lp NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAI, ZONE, SU9JECT TO THE FOLLOMING CONDITIONS'~.I
1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE W~TH PLANS PRESENTED.
2. PROVISION OF PARKING FACIl171E5oAND MODIFICATION OF PLANS THEREOF~IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR
EITHER BUSINESS-PROFESSIONAL OFFICES OR A MEDI~AL-CENTER.
3. INSTALLATION OF A SIX F00T MASONRY WALL ON THE NORTH9 EAST AND NESTi
PROPERTY LINES. '
4. DEDtCAT10N OF 60 FEET FROM MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF KA7ELLA AVENUE
(40 FEET EXtSTING~. ,
5. PREPARATION OF STREL•T tMPROVEMEN7 PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL IMPROVE-
MENTS IN ACCORDANCE YiITH APPROVED STAN~ARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF TkE CITY ENGINEER.
(CON7INUED)
__ -~~,~~• - ~
~
V
~---. . . _ . ~.
: ,`
' ;~ ~
65
MENUTES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 20~ 1961, CONTINUED:
RECLASSIFICATION ~ ' 6. PAYM2NT OF $2.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STRFET LI~HTING PURPOSES. ;
N0. 6C-61-58
CONTINUED 7. T~MC• LiMITATION OF 90 DAYS FOR ACCaMPLISHMENT OF ITEM NOS. 4~ 5~ AND 6.i
THE FOREGOING CONDITIGr.S WERE RECiTED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO BE A'
NECESSARY PREREQUISITE ?O THE U5E OF THE PHOPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESEkVE THE
SAF:TY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREOOING RESOLUT~ON NAS PASSED BY THE FCLt.4~:~i~l VOTEt
AYES: COMMISSIONERS~ ALLR[Dt GAUERo MARCOUX~ MORRISo MUNGALL' SUMMERS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ,
ABSEM : COMMISSIONERS: HAPvOUD. ~
t
RECCASSIFICATION - PUBLIC NEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev ANDREW G. AND EMMA B. UNGRA7H, 1460 ~
NO. 60-61-59 SOUTH EUCLfD AVENUEo ANAHEIM~ C<.LIFORNIAo ONNERS9 RECUESTING THAT PROPERTY
DESCRIBED A5: A PARCEL 100 ~.°.ET 8Y 212 FEET NITH A FRON7AGE OF 100 FEET ON
EUCLID AVENUE AND LOCATED ON TrIE EAST SIDE OF EUCLID AVENUE BETWEEN BUENA
V15TA AVENUE AND CERRITOS AVENUEr ITS SOUTHMEST CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY
85 FEET NORtH OF THE ~OF7HEA5T CORNER OF EUCLIU AND CERRITOS AVENUES' AN~ 2
FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1460 SOUTH EUCLID AVENUE9 BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE ~
ft-i, SINGLE F/~MILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE To rr+e C-i, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ~
ZONE. ~
MR. ANDREW UNGRATH9 THE PETITtONERo APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND
STATED THAT HE WAS SELLING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR USE AS A DENTAL OFFICE
CONTINGENT UPON APPROV~~L OF THE SUBJECT PETITION AND THAT THE PROPERTY
WAS NO LQNOER SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC AND
N015£ GENERATED BY EUCLID AVENUEo
DR. PERNci.Z APPFARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND INDICATED THAT HE INTENDED
TO UTILIZE THE CXISTING RESIDENCE FOR A DENTAL OFFICEa THAT HE WOULD BE
THE OH!_Y DENTIST IN THE OFFICEy THAT THE BI~ILDtNG kOULD NOT BE USED FOR
RES!DEPITIAL PURPOSES~ THAT HE WOULD LANDSCAPE THE PROPERTYy THAT HE WOiJLD 999
NAKE VARIOUS CHANGES TO MODERNIZE THE BUILDING AND TO GIVE IT A PROFESSION- I
AL APPEARANCEa AND THAT EVENTUALLY HE INTENDED TO REMOVE THE EXISTING ~
BUILDING IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A MODERN DENTAL OFFICE. THE HEARING NAS
~
CLOSED.
THE COMMISSfON DISCUSSED THE nMOUNT OF PROPERTY INVOLVED IN SUBJECT PETI- i
TION AND THE PETITIONER INDICATED THAT HE HAS INTERESTED ONLY IN THE PRO~
PERTY D'cSCR18ED AS PARCEL 1. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED I
THE COMMISSION THAT SHOULD APPROVAL 8E 6RANTED' THE CORREC7 LEGAL DESCRIP- "
TION OF PARCEL 1 ONI.Y SHOULD BE SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL AND SHOULD BE THE
ONLY LEGAL DESCRtPTtON ON THE RESOLUTION.
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING SUBJECT
PETITION:
1. PET~TIONER REQUE5T5 A lECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE
~
R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIliLa ZONE TO THE C-19 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~
ZONE TO PERMIT THE CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING RESIDENCE INTO A MEDICAL~
DENTAL BUILDING. ~
2. SUBJECT PROPER7Y IS PARCEL N0. 1 ONLY AND DOES NOT INCLUDE PARCEL NOS. i
29 3o AND 4 CONTAINED IN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION SUBMI'fTED BY THE PETI-
~
TIONER.
3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CO~iPATIBLE WITH EXISTING ~
COMMERCIAL DEVk:LOPMENT LOCATED SOUTHERLY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ~5 +
COMPATIBI.E WITH PREVIOUS CONSIDERATION FOR COMMERCIAI.. DEVELOPMENT OF ~
PROPERTY I.OCATED FROM BUENA ~`ISTA AVENUE AND CERRITOS AVENUE.
4. PETITIONER INDICATED THAT ONE DOCTOR OSfLY~•MILL U7ILIZE EXIST~Na BUILD- ~
ING FOR A DENTAL OFFICE.
5. PETITIONER INDICATED THA7 LANDSCAPINQ WOULD BE PROVIDED AND THE FRONT ~
~
OFFICE UNT~L ,
OF THE BUILL'ING WOULD BE hiODERNIZED FOR USE AS A DENTAL
SUCH TIME AS THE EXlSTING BUILDING IS REM9YED.
6. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO Si1BJECT PETITION.
COMMISSIONER MUNGALL OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 180~ SERIES 1960~61/ AND MOVED
FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTIONo SECONDED BY COMMISStONER HAPGOOD~ RECOMMEND~
ING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60~61-59 BE (iRANTEDr' RE-
CLASSIFYING SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE R~lo ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZO~IE TO
THE C~1' NEIGHBORHOOD CO~~IMERCIAL, ZONEa SUBJECT T0 THE FOLIOWING CONDITIONS;
1. INSTALLATION OF SIDENALKS AND DRIVEWAY.
2. PAYMENT OF $2.00 PEIt FRONT F00T FOR STREET L!~HTING PURPOSES.
3. TIME LIMITATIQR: OF 90 DAVS FnR THE ACCOMPLiSHMENT OF ITEM NOS. 1 AND 2.
4. RECLASSIFICATION FROM THE R~A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULI.~RALt ZONE TO THE
C~lo N6~OHBORHOOD COMMERC-AL~ ZO~IE SHALL BE LIMITED TO t'ARCEL N0. 1
ONLY AND THE CORREGT LEQAL DESCRIPTION COVERING SAID PRJPER7Y SHALL BE
SUBM~TTED FOR APPROVAL AND FILINCi MfTH SUBJECT PETITION.
~
~
i
~
MI'NUTES, CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION, FEBRUARY 20, 1961, CONTINUED:
RECLASSIFICATION -• THE FOREGOlNG COND(TIONS MERE REGITED AT THE MEETINa AND WERE FOUND TO BE A
VE THE
NO
9 OMERTY IN ORDER TO PRESER
T
~
T
E
S
P
A
joNO~UED ANAHE
OF
ITIZENS
THE
OF
MELFARE
P.ND
SAFETY
ON ROLL C.4LL 7HE FOREGOINCa RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOMING VOTE;
AYES: COF1MISSIONERSg ALLREDy GAUER~ HAPGOOD9 MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~
• ~
SUMMERS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERSS NONE. ~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSC NONE. ~
RECLAS3iFICATION • - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev BELONO~AND sABSON INVESTMENT. COMPANY~ i
~
IG GRAINGER
• CRl
NO. 60~61-60 ~
~
2828 EAST COAST HIGHWAYo CORONA DEL MARa CALIFORNIA' ONNERS1
REQUESTING
GENT
D
A
~
~
UTHORI2E
A
125 SOUTH CLAUDINA STF.EETa QNAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~
THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5: PARCEL 1; A PARCEL 335 FEET BY 645 FEET WITH A
F ANA~
y
FRONTAGE OF 355 FEET ON ANAHEIM ROAD AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE O
HEIM ROAD BETWEEN QONLINQ AVENUE AND MILLER STREET~ ~TS NORTHWEST CORNER ~
D
R
OA
BEING APPROX(MATEI.N 970 FEET EAST OF THE SOIiTHEAST CORNER OF ANAHEIM
305 FEET NITH A FRONT- g
665 FEET BY 1
A
~
PARCEL
AND DONLfNG AVENLE~ PARCEL 2:
OF 665 FEET ON DONLING AVENUE AND LOCA7ED ON THE EAST SIDE OF DOWLING E
G
A
E
AYENUE BETWEEN ANAHEIM ROAD AND LA PALMA AVENUE~ ITS NORTHWEST CORNER BEING j
APPROXIMATELY 645 FEET SOUTH OF THE SQUTHEAST CORNER OF ANAHEIM ROAD AND ?
UOWLIN(i AVENUE AND ITS NORTHERLY BOUNDARY ABUTTINa PARCEL 1 ON THE SOUTH~
M-i
, 1
sE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R-A, RESIllEM IAL /tGRICUL7URAL, ZONE ro rfie
LIGHT MANUFACTURING, ZONE. I
THE PETIT~ONER WAS PRESENT AND INDICATED THAT THE ONNERS DID NOT HAVE DEFIN~ j
ITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS FGR THE SUBJECT PROPER7Y AT THE PRESENT TIME. !
MR. ROBERT WISCNNACK~ 2650 TROJAN ;?,ACE' ANAHEIM' CALIFORNIAp APPEARED BEFORE
THE COMMISSiON AND INQUIRED ABOUT THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPFRTV~ ABOUY
STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS~ AN~~ ABOUI' PROTECTION FOR THE
REStDENT1AL USES ON AD~ACENT PROPER7Y. ~
THE COMMt5510N INDICATED THAT ENCa1NEERING DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS PROVIDED ;
I
ST
A
T
N
A
T
I
~
5
THAT
AWD
PROPERTY
FOR THE SUB3ECT
20NE
LAN SCAPINGE
PARK/Na
FOOT
PDL'
A
50
SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS WERE NOT STIPULATED IPJ THE CODE FOR MANUFAC~ ~
'fURING zot~es. TNE HEAF.ING WAS CLOSED.
~
CHAIRMAN GAUER STATED THAT THE PROPOSED 20NE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE SUBJECT
AND SURROUNDINO AREAS AS PROJECTED ON THE PRELIMINARY GENERAL PLAN~ INDICQTED
ESTABLISHMENT OF M~1~ LIGHT MANUFACTURING~ ZONE 1N THIS AREA~ AND THAT AL~
THOUGH BUILDING PLANS WERE NOT SUBMITTED FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY A7 THIS TIME~
IT WOULD BE JUDICIOUS OF THE COMMI55(ON TO ENCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
T CITY
PROPEP~Y IH CONFORNANCE MITH 7HE PRELIFIINAR': GENERAL PLAN. ASSISTAN
THE MUNICIPAL
ATTOF.~!E'! ~OE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT ACCORDING TO
'HE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE M-1 ZONE FOR TH£ SUBJECT PROPER7Y MITHOUT
CODE
9
DEFINITE CONSTRUCTION PLANS COULD PERMIT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY FOR COMMER-
CIAL ~R RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES UNLE55 RESTRICTED TO M~1 USES ONLY.
THE COMMISSION FO~JND A~JD DETERMINED TNE 'OL~OMING FACTS REGARDING SUBJECT
PETITION:
PETITIONER REQUESTS A RECtA551FICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE R-A
1
.
RESIPENTIAL liGRtCULTURALD ZONF TO THE M~1~ LIGHT MAN~~ACTURIN6~ ZONE.
PETITIONER INTENDS NO DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJEC7'PRO.PERiY'~~'f 7NE PRtSENT
TIME. ~
SUBJEC: PROPERTY IS INDICA7ED ~OR THE F1-1' U GHT MANUFACTURiNG~ AND THE
2
.
P-L~ PARKING-LANDSCAPING~ ZONeS ON THE PRELIMINARY GE!:F-RAL PLAN~ AirD
~
ABUTS THE M~1 AND P~L 20NE ON THE EAST.
3. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITtON TO SUBJECT Pl71TtON. ~
COMM'f5510NER MUNCALL OFFERED RESOU:~1~?: ~;~• 181~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND MOVED
FOR ITS PASSAQE AND ADOPTION~ SECUNDED 9Y COMMISSIONER MARCOUX~ RECOMMENQ^
ING TO THE CITY COUNCIL 7HAT RECLASSIFI{:ATION N0. 60~61-60 BE 6RA'7TED R€~
~
'
QNt
TIAL AGRICUCT.UkAL
CLASSIFYINO SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE C~Ai RESIDEI~'
5UB-
9NE~
~T
'
~
A
ING
.
.
~SC
~
P
r
To THE Po~-lo LIVHT MANUFACTURING/ AND P-!,~ PARKIN3-LAl
JECT TO THE FOLLOWINC CONDITIONS:
1. FILING OF DEED RESTRtCTlONS LIMITfNa DEVELGP.MENT OF SU6JECT PROPERTY,TO
' M'~1~ LIGNT MANUFACTURINGy USES ONLY. .
2. DEDICATION OF 53 FEET FROM 7kE MONUMENTED CEIiTERLINE OF DOMLIN(i AVENUE ~
(20 FEET EXlSTINa~.
3. DEDICAT,ION OF 45 FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF ANAHEIM ROAD
~
(20 FEET EXlSTING).
FREPARATION OF STREET IMPROYEMENT PLANS AND IN57ALLATiON OF ALL IMPROVE~
4
~
.
MENTS IN ACCORDANCE MITH APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CITY ENGINEER AT TIME OF DEVELOpMENT OF SUBJEC7 PROPERTY. ~
~
RECLASSIFICAT(ON TO THE P`~L~ PA1tKIN0~LANDSCAPlNG~ ZONE OF 50 FEET AFTER
i
5
.
`STF.EET'DEDICATION Fh;~M THE FRONT PROPERTY IINE ABUTTIN~ DOMLfNfi AVENUE
LINE ABUTTtNGj
"
FRONt PROPERTY
AND 50 FEET AF7ER STRG~T DEDICATION FROM THE
ANAHEIM ROAD~ AND RECLASSIFICATION TO THE M~1~ LItiHT MANUFACTUKiNG~ 20NE i
OF`THE 9ALANCE OF PARCEL N0. 1 AND ~ARCEL N0. 2 QF SUBJECT PROPERTY.. .
" (CONTiNUED) ,
~ . ----°----~--•---
. . . ~. ; . --..
,
_._~
~. : y_~ _.,: _ ?~ ._... _. __ . '
~~ ~.~ `~ ~
67
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSI~N~ FEBRUARY 20~ 1961, CONTINtlED; ~
RECIAS$IFICATIQN ~ 6. PAYMENT OF 32.00 PER FItONT FOOT FOR STREET LIGHTING PtlRPO5E5~ T TI E ~
NO. 6D~61-60 OF DEVELOPMENT~ FOR DOMLIN~ ~VENUE AND ANAHEIfA ROAD. ~.
CONTINUED
7. UTILITY EASEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED ALONG EXTERIOR BOUNDARlES AS DETER- ~
MINED BY DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES.
8. TIME LIMITATION OF 90 DAYS FOR ACCOMPLI9HMENT OF ITEM NOS. 2 AND 3. '
~
THE FOREQOING CONDITIONS MERE RECITED AT THE MEE7[NO AND WERE FOUND TO BE ~
A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO 7HE tlSE tlF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE j
:'HE SAFE7Y AND MELFARE OF THE CITIZEN4 OF ANAHEIIA.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREOOINO RESOLUTION MAS PASBED BY THE FOLLOMlNO VOTE: ~
AYES: COMMISSIONERS~ ALLRED~ GnueR, NAP~OOD~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUN~ALL~ ~
SUMMERS. ~
NOES: COMyISSIONERS: NONE. ~
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ~
RECI:ASS1FiCATION - PUBLIC HEARIN6. PETITION 5l78MtTTED er BELOND AND BABSON INVESTMEM' COHPANY, I
GALIFORNIA~ OWNER~ CRAIG GRAINGER, ~
CORONA DEL MAR
T COAST EIlGHNAY
2828 E
NO. 60-~61-61 ~
~
AS
125 SOUTH CLAUDINA STREET~ ANAHEIM~ CALlFORNIA~ AUTHORIZED AOENT~ REQUESTIN~ ~
THAT PROPERTY ~ESCRIBED A5: AN IRRE3ULAR SHAPED PARCEL NITH A FRONTAOE OF t
290 FEET ON ~A PALMA AVENUE AND AN AVERA~E DBpTH OF 11300 FEET AND LOCATED
i
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LA PALMA AVENUE 6CTMEEN DONLING AVENUE AND ~EFFERSON
STREET~ ITS SOU7HWE5T CORNER BEIN6 APPROXIMATELY 4~240 FBBT EAST OF THE ~
NORTHEAST CORNER OF LA PALMA AVENUE AND DOkLINQ wVENUE~ AND RllRTHER DES~
RESIDER~ t
IFIED FROM THE R~A
~
CRIBED AS 3463 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE~ BE. RECLASS
TIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE ro,THE M-1, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, ZONE. ~
ADD TO ~
HE THE HEARING MASTCLGSED
~
N
T
N
~
E
W
~
~
ION
PETIT
THE
INED
(N
CONTA
ON
THE INFOREAAT
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE PROJECTED' ZONING FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ ~
ANCE Wi7H Tiiff PR6lIMINARY GyN6RAL ;
THAT IT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN CONFORM
PLAN FOR THIS SECTION OF TH@ CITY~ AND THAT IT ABUTS LA PALMA AYENUE ON THE s~
SOUTH. ' ~
THE COMMIBSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACT9 RCGARDINO THE
SUBJECT PET1710NC
~
' 1. PETITIONER REQUESTS A R6CLABSIFICATION OF DU9J6CT PROPr.:~TY FRON THB R~A~
~ s
P
N
T
F
'
e
R
L
L
69ENT
THL
P
AT
PROPLRTY
SUBJ6CT
DEVELOPMLNT OF
INTENDS
NO
PETITgONBR
~
TIME.
SUBJLCT PROP6RTY IS INAICATCD ROR THL ~I~1~ LIQNT MANUFACTURINO~ AND THE !
2
.
p~1,~ PARYING-LANDBCAPINO~ YONL ON THC PRLLIMINARY ~LN•SRAL PLAN.
3. NO ONE APPEARED IN OF~POSITION TO 8UOJLCT PLTITION.
COMMISSIONBP. ~dUNOALL ORFSRCa RCSOLUTION N0. 182~ S~RILS 1960~61~ ANO ROVED I
FOR ITS PASSAQE AND ADOPTION~ SLCONDCD BY COMM10510NLR MARCOUX~ RLCONNCNDINO(
TO TH6 CITY COUNCIL THAt RLCLASSIFICATION p0. 60~bi~61 ~L ORANTLDl R[CLABS~
NE TO TNE ~
IRA
L
Z
.
~
V
IFYING SUBJECT PROPtRTY` FRQM THL R~A I~~~S,~DENT IA ~~[~lCULi~
ww ccr To ,
Zo~vBS
-IANDS~A iu~~
~R
,
~
IC N
M-1, LIGHT•MANUFAC7URING~ AND P-L~ P
THE FOLLOWING CONCIT~ON!!: ~
1. FTLINB dF.DEED RESTRiCT10NS LlkllTlMQ DEYEL9PNLNT 4F 4UBJLCT PROPERTY TO ~
M-1~ LI.GHT MANUFACTURINO~ USES ONLY. ~ ~
2. D6DICATION OF 33 FEET FROM THE MONUMLNT6D CENTBRLINE OF LA PALMA AV~~ ~
NUE (20 FEET EXtST{WG}.
3. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVElAENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF Al.L IM~: ~
PROVEMENTS tN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED BTANDARD PLAN8 ON FILE IN THE
OPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPER~
OF DEV6l
.
OFFICE OF TkE CITY ~N3INEER ~T~M!
TY.
4. RECLASSIFICATION TO THE P-L~ PARKINO~LANDBCAPINQ~ 20NE OF 5Q FEET AFTER
A PALMA AVENUE
T
IN~ (
~
T
.
STREET DEDICATIOF FROM THE FRONT PROP6RTY LINE ABU
AND RECLASSIFICATION TO THE M~1~ LIOHT MANUFACTURIN3~ 20NE OF TNE BAL~
" ANCE OF SUBJECT PROP6RTY.
~ 5. PAYMENT OF =2.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR 87.°.°_LT L13HTING PURPOSES~ AT TIME
~ DEVELOPMENT~ FOR'LA PALI~IA AVENUE. •
6. UTILITY EASEFIENTS.TO BE PROVIDED ALONO EXTBRIOR BOUNDARIES AS GETER~
MINLD BY DIRECTQR d~' UTILITIES.
7. TINE IiMITAT'TON'OF'90 DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITEM N0.2.
~ THE FORE60IN0 CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETlNO AND MERE FOUND TO BE A~
NECESSARY PR6REQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRBSERVE THE
S::FETY AqD MELFARE OF THE C1T7ZEN'a OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FORECi01Na RE:TOLUTION MAS PASSED BY THE FOLIOMIN~ YOTE;
.
---~----- -----~------~-- ---s~A~~xe~;wcsa' ..._. `...
iv ~_
( ~ ~~ • :
~ ~
~ ~
~ 6B ~I
I ' '
j S
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRiiARY 20~ 196i, CONTINUED: j
RECLASSIFICATION - AYES: COMMISSIOyERS: SUMMERS,GAUER~ HAPGOOD~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ i
N0. 60-61-61
' CONTINUED NOES: CpMMISSIONERSi NONE. ;
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION 5UBMITTED ev ROBERT L. AND BERTHA L. PAYAN, 712
NO. 60-61~62 EAST TOUSSAU DRIVEp FULLERTON~ CALIFORNIAy ONNERS~ REQUESTING THAT PROPERTY
DESCRIBED AS: AN IRREGULAR SHAPED PARCEL LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF LA PALMA AND ~EQUOIA AVENUE~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS A PORTION OF LOT
34 OF TRACT N0. llfil~ DE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R-1~ SINGLE F/~MIIY RESIDEN-
TIAL, ZONE To rHe C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
MRs ROBERT L. PAYAN~ THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ DES-
CRIBED THE IRREGULARLY SHAPED PARCEL OF LAND~ INDICATED THAT IT NAS DIFFI-
CULT TO DEVISE A SUITABLE USE FOR THE PROPERTY~ AND STATED THAT COMMERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE THE MOST SUITABLE AND THE MOST COMPATIBLE MITH THE
SURROUNDING LAND USES. HE STAIED FURTHER THAT HE INTENDED TO CONSTRUCT A
2~000 SQUARE F00T COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR A RESTAURANT AND TAVERN USE~
THAT ADEQUATE pARKING FACILITIES AND ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY MOULD BE PRO-
VIDED~ THAT HE HAD ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY FROM THE STATE AS SURPLUS PROPER-
TY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SANTA ANA FREEMAY~ AND THAT THE PROPERTY WAS
NOT SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAI, DEVELOPMENT. THE HEARING MAS CLOSED.
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED CODE REQUIREMENTS RELATIVE TO PARKINO AREA~ SIDE-
WALKS~ AND CURB AND GUTTER IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ AND IN-
FORMED THE PETITIONER THAT THE RESTAURANT AREA FIUST BE SEPARATED FROM THE
TAVERN AREA AND THAT DEFINITL PLANS FOR SUCH DEVELOPMENT MUST BE PROVIDED,
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER IGGICATED 7HAT 7HE EXISTING CURBS ON
SUBJECT PROPERTY DID NOT CORRESPOND MI7H THE STANDARD CURB IMPROVEMENTS
REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIM~ THAT THE EXISTING CURBS WOULD ALLOW IN-
GRESS AND EGRE55 AT ANY POINT~ THAT THEY MADE IT IMP9551BLE TO DESIGNATE
THOSE AREAS RESERVED FOR IkGRE55 AND EGRESS~ AND THA7 STANDARD CURB 1M-
PROVEMENTS SHOULD BE REQUIRED IF APPROVAL liERE GRANTED.
THE PETITIONER INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT THE PROPERTY WAS IN THE PRO-
CE55 OF REZONING TO COMMERCIAL USE MHIIE IN COUNTY T6RRITORY~ BUT THAT
THE REZONING WAS N07 COMPLETED BEFORE ANNEXAT'ION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
MR. RUSSELL ~. MURRAY~ 9593 SEQUOIA AYENUE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~
STATED THAT HE OWNED THE VACANT STORB BUIL~INGS iMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY~ THAT HE WAS PRESENTLY EYiGA6ED IN RENOVATING HIS PROPER-
TY~ AND THAT Hf PLANNED TO APPLY FOR COMMERCIAL 20NING FOR HIS PROPERTY
WHEN THE PROPERTY IS PRESENTABLE BECAUSE HE CONSIDERED THE AREA SUITABLE
FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES.
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOMIN~ FACTS REGARDtNG THE
SUBJECT PETITION; ~
1. PE7ITIONER REQUESTS A RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE
R-1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ZONE TO THE C~2, GENERAL COMMERC~AL~ ZONE
IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 2~000 SQUARE F00T COMMERCIAL
BUILDIN6 CONTAINING TMO OFFICES AND A COMBINATION RESTAURANT AND TAVERN.
2. BUSINESS OR PROFESSIONAL USES ONLY APPEAR TO BE THE MOST SUITABLE USE
FOR TNE SUBJECT PROPERTY. PETITIONER INDICATED THAT HE NLU~D LIMIT~.
THE USE OF THE PROPER7Y TO C~1~ NEIpHBORH00ii V~(YjpERGIAI.~'USES.
3. NEIGHBORH00D COMMERCYAL"USES WOULD BE COMPATIBLE MITH THE LAND USES OF
THE SURROUNDING AREA. "
4. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUBJECT PETITION.
COIAMiSSfONER ALLR£D OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 183, SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED
FOR ITS PASSAOE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUMM@R5~ RECOMMEND-
ING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT RECLASSIFiCAT10N N0. 60~61-62 BE GRANTEDj. RE-
CLASSIFYING SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE R-1~ ONE FAMILY RESInENTIAI~ ZOIVE TO
THE C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWINQ CONDITIONS:
l. FILIN~ OF DEED RESTRICTIONS LIMITING USE OF SUBJECT.'PROPERTY'TO C~1~
NEIaHBORH00D COMMERCIAL~ USES ONLY.
2. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE NITH PLANS PRESENTED.
3. INSTALLATION OF STANDARD CURB~ OUTTER~ AND SIDEWAL~CS~ MITH PLANS TO 8E
SUBMITTED TC AND APPROVED BY 7HE ENGINEERINa DEPARTMENT.
4. INSTALI_ATION.OF SIDEWAL::S AT ACCE55 LOCATIONS TO PARKIkG AREAS TO CON-
SIST OF SIX INCH THICKNE55.
5. TIME LIMITATION OF 90 DAYS FOR ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITEM NOS. 3 AND 4.
THE FOREQOINO CONDITIONS MERE RECITED AT 7HE NEETING AND NERE FOUND TO BE A
NECESSARY PRERE~UISITE TO THE 'JSE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE
SAFETY AND MELFARE OF 7HE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FORE40ING RESOWTfON MAS PASSED BY THE FOLLONINQ VOTE; 1
d
---_. _._.___---~•----~_..,r.,.~.:----•------ ~
~-_ _ ___ . -----~---~ - •--_____----- ,
, -, _~___. __ _ ___.r~'' ,
. ,
. . . . ._. _.... . ____
_ . i . ~-.._.
_. . _ . ,
1..~ `-' ' ~ ~._1
69
M{Nt1TES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ FEBRUARY 20~ 1961~ CONTRNUED:
RECLASSIFICATION
N0. 60-61-62 - AYES: COMHISSIONERS: ALLRED~ ~AUER~ HaPaoou~ MARCOUx~ NoRnis, MUNGALL
CONTINU
D ~
SUMMeRS.
E NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE, ~
REC UiSSIFICATION• -
NO. 60-61-63 PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev RICHARD E. WINELAND) er n~, 1673
HEST BROADWAY~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA
ONN6R
JOHN M
~
~
. KENT~ 1i8 SOUTH LOS AN-
GELES STKEET'~ ANAHEIMt CALIFORNIA~ AUTHORI2ED AOENT
RE
UE
~
Q
STINO THAT PRO~
PERTY DESCRIBED A5: rARCEI 1. A PARCEL 130 FEE7 BY 282 FEE7 WITH A FRONT~
AOE OF 130 FEET ON BROAD
A
W
Y AND LOCATSD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BRQADMAY BE~
7'WEEN EUCLID AVENUE AND ~OARA STREET: ITS SOUTHWEST CORNER BE
1NG AppROXI-
MATELY 476 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EtlCL1D AVENUE AND $ROADNAY
PARCEL 2; A P
.
ARCEL 200 FEE7 BY 630 FEET MlTH A FRONTAOE OF 200 F~ET ON
flROADMAY AND EXTENDINfi NORTH TO PAMPAS LANE AND
IOCATED ON THE NORTN SIDE
OF BROAGWAY BETNEEN EUCI.ID AyENUE AND LOARA.. STREET~ IT.S SOJ7HMEST COR~
t
A
AVENUE
AND
BR0AD41AY~EAND2eT~5FEA5TERLY B
O
S
C
~
C
OUNpARY
ABJTT
NO
PARCEL
1 ON
TFIE
EAST~ BE RECLASSIFIED.FROM THE R~A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICl11TURAL~.20NE To THE
C-i
NEIGHBURHOOD C
M
E
~
O
M
RCIAL~ ZONE. .
MR. JOHN KENT~ ATTORNEY FOR TNE PETITIONER~APPEARED BEFORE T•HE COMMISSION~
SUBMITTED A REVISED PLOT PLAN
FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MEDICAL CENTER AND
INDICATED THAT THERE NOULD BE NO DEVIATION FROM THE PLAN. THE.HEARIh~ iIAS
CLOSED..
MR. DAVID TERltOLA APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ INDICATED THAT HE NAS
THE BUILDER FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPIAENT OF PARCEI 1~ AND PRESENTED A
RENDERINa Of THE PROPOSED RJILDINO WITH PARKIN~ FACILITIES TO BE PRJVIDED
UNDER THE BUILDINa.
MR. KENT DESCRIBED THE P.ROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF PARCF.L 2~ INDICATING THAT
ADDITIONAL FACILITIES NOULD BE CONSTRUCTED TO CONFGRM ARCHITECTURALLY NITH
THE EXISTING MEDICAI OFFICES AND ALLIED SERVICES.
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOMIN~ FACTS REOARDINO SUBJECT
PETITtON:
1. ?ETI7IONER REQUE5T5 A RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM TNE
\ A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ 20NE,T0 C~1~ NEIOHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~
ZfINE TO PERMtT THE COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR BUS1+
Nc55 AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES.
2. ~ROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULO BE COMPATIBLE MITH THE
ZONING AND LAND USE OF THE SURROUNDING AREA.
3. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO f,UBJECT PETITION.
COMMISSIONER ALLRED OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 184~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED
FOR ITS PASSAOE AND ADOPT{ON~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAPOOOD~ RECOMMEND-
ING TO THE CITY COUNCiL THAT RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60~61-63 BE ORANTED~
SUBJEC7 TO THE FOLLCNINO COND~TIONSt
1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN'ACCORDANCE'WIT}f PLANS PRESENTED.
2. DEDICATION OF 45.FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF BROADMAY OF
EASTERLY 130 FEET~ PARCEL N0. 1~ (30 FEET EXISTIN~). ,
3. INSTALLATION OF SIDEWALKS ON BROADiiAY AND PAMPAS LANE.
4. PAYMENT OF $2.00 PER FRONT•F00T FOR S7REET LIGHTING PURPOSES ON 807H
STREETS.
5. UTILITY EASEMENTS 70 BE PROVIDED ALON(i EXTERlOR BOUNDARIES AS D~TER-
MINED BY DIRECTOR OF UTILITlES.
6. TIME LIMITATION OF 90 DAYS FOR ACCONPLISt~MENT OF ITEM NOS. 2~ 3~ 4~ AND 5
7. F~LINO OF DEED RESTRICTIONS LIMITtNO USE OF SUBJEC7 PROPERTY TO BUSINESS
AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ONLY~ ~NCLUDINQ PHARMACIES.AND LABORATORIES.
THE FOREGOING CONDI710N5 NERE RECITED AT THE p1EETING AND NERE FOUND TO BE A
NECESSARY PREREQUI4ITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE T~iE
S!•~'r•TY AND WELFF;RE OF THE CITIZENS OF ANANEIM.
ON RC..L CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION MAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWIq6 YOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: AL~RED~ GAUER~ HAPGOOD~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~
NOES: CAMMISSIONERS: NONEERS.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONEitS: NONE.
RECTAS51F1C/KTION- --P!,aUG~}I£kRiNG. PETITION SU9MITTED sv MELVIN R. AND MERRIAM E. SCtiAMZ
,.~_I+~O. 60~61-64 1741 MEST KA7ELLA AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ QMNERS~ ROBERT N. MncMAHbN,
; 403 CALtFDRNI'A BANK•BUfLDlkti;.:!ANAHEIMy Cal'1FORN9'k~-•AJJTHORI2ED AGENT~ RE-
QUEST~NO THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5; A PARCEL 74 FEET BY 100 FEET WITH A
~i FRONTAOE,OF 100 FEET ON KATELLA AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE NORTHLAST CORNER
{ O~ VARNA STREEF'RMG~KATEL'L-A ~'VENUE.y AND•~F111LTHER'DESCRIBED AS 1748 VARkA
I STREET BE RECLASSiF(ED FROM TNE R~1y..S'INGLE fltM~ly'R~SIDENTIAL~ ZONE TO THE
i
C-1~ N~16HBO~HOOD COMHERCIAL~ ZONE.
i
~~\ -- _-
;_.~~ . --
. ~ •~
~~` ~ ~ v~--_---- ~..
~o
j MINpTES, CITY PlANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 20~ 1961, CONTINUED;
RECLASSIFICATION - MR. ROBERT MACMAHON~ ATTORNEY REPRESENTIN6 THE PETITIONERS~ APPEARED BEFORE
~
NO.'60-61-64 THE COMMISSIONo DESCRIBED THE PRQPOSED DEVELOPMEN7~ AND INDICATED 7HAT THE
~ CONTINUED RESIDENCE INTENDED FOR CONVERSION TO A MEDICAL BUILDING WOULD BE UTILIZED
t. BY NO MORE THAN JMO DOCTORS. THE HEARING MAS.CLOSED...__ .. ~
_ . ..
~ THE PETITIONER~3 AGENT INDICA7ED THAT THE EXISTING GARAGE ON THE SUBJECT
' PROPERTY MOULD BE REMOVED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PARKING FACILITIES~ THAT THE.
i DANGEROUS CONDITIONS EXISTINd AT THIS INTERSECTION ON KA7ELLA AVENUE COULD
BE ELIMINATED BY THE.REMOVAL OF THE OBSTRUCT.IONS AS P.R0.POSED.FOR COMPLETION
~ OF THE DEVELOPMENT~ THAT LANDSCAPING MOULD BE PROVIDED~ THAT THE PARKING
~j AREA WOULD BE IMPROVED~ AND THAT A WALL NOULD BE INSTALLED ON THE NORTH
~ PROPERTY LINE WHERE SUBJECT PROPERTY ABUTS THE R-1 S~NGLE FAMILY RESIDEN-
TIAL DEVELOPMENT.
~ THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLONING FACTS REGARDING SUBJECT
PETITION:
1. PETITIONER REQUESTS A RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM R~1~
SIN~LE FAMILY RESIUENTIAL~ ZONE TO THE C~1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~
ZONE TO PERMIT T-IE CONVERSION OF AN cXISTtNG RESIDENTlA1. STRUCTURE TO
PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL-DENTAL OFFICES.
2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTIN6 USES IN THE
AREA AND WOULD CONSTITiJTE AN EXTENSION OF THE C~1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMER-
CIAL~ DEVELOPMENT ABUTTINa SUBJECT PROPERTY ON 7HE EAST.
3. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD ELIMINATE A HAZARDOUS CONDITION AT THE INTER-
SECTION OF KA?ELLA AVENUE AND VARNA STREET AND WOULD CONSTITUTE AN IM-
PROVEMENT OF THE AREA. ~
4. NO ONE APPEARED ~N OPPOSITION TO THE SUBJECT PETITION.
COMMlSS~ONER ALLREL' OFF~RED RESOLUTION N0. 185~ SERIe5.i960-6.1~ AND MOVED
FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX~ RECOMMEND-
INO TO THE C~TY COUNCIL THAT RECLASSIFICATION NO,. GQ~61-64 BE GRANTED~
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE i2lTH PLANS PRESENTED.
2. DEDtCATION OF 57 FEET FROM THc MONUMEN7ED CENTERLINE OF KATELLA AVENUE
(40 FEET EXISTIN6) DUE TO LOCATION pF EX1571NG DMELLING.
3. PREPARAT~C~N OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL IM-
PROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE MiTt1 APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENG~NEER.
4. PAYMENT OF $2.00 PER FRONT F00T FOR STREET LI~HTING PURPOSES ALON~ KA-
TELLA AVENUE ON?Y.
5. TIME LIMITATION FOR ACCOMPLiSHMENT OF ITEM NOS. 2~ 3~ AND 5.
THE FOREGOING CONDITIONS WEkE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO BE
A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
THc SAFETY AND MELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
R~'ES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ HAPGOOD~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~
S~TAMERS.
NDeS: COMMlSSIONERSi NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
RECLASSiF'1CATi0N - PUBLIC HEARiNG. PE7ITION SUBMITTED ev DAVID M. ROPER, 937 SourH KNOTT AvE-
_NO. 60-61°-65 NtlEy"'ANAilE'IM~ CALIFORNIA~ ONNER~ REQUESTINO THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5C A
PARCEL lE0 FEET BY 276 FEET LOCATED NORTH OF THE INTERSECTION.OF STONYBROOK
DRIVE AND KENMORE STREET A7 THE TERMINUS OF KENMORE STREET BE RECLASSIFIED
FROM rHe R-/~, RESI~ENTIAL KGRICULTU.RAL, ZONE To R-1~ SINGL~ FIEMILY RESIDEN-
TIAL,ZOHE.
MR. DAVID ROPER~ THE PETITIONER~APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED
HE HAD'NOTHINa TO ADD TO THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE PETITtON. THE
HEARING MAS CLOSED.
THE COMMlSSION DISCUSSED THE DIMENSIONS OF THE PROPOSED LOT SPLITS~ THE EX- !
TENSION OF KENMORE STREE7 THROUGH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ AND THE FIVE FOOT ~
STRIP kBUT;INa THf"KENMORE'STREET'EXTEN54ON-A7"'TNE NORTH BOUNDARY LlNE.
ASSiSTANT'CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE"COFIMISSION THAT THE PETI°
TIONER COULD'DESCONAxE'THE"FI'VE FOOT RlCRCEL•'-AS rOT"A AND DED~CATE 17 IN FEE T0~
lFf CITYy1HICH WpULD PREVENT.' ACGE55 UNTIL SUCH 7'IME AS THE VACANT PROPERTY TO
THE NORTH MAS DEVELOPED~ THEREBY pROVIDINd PR07ECTION FOR 7HE PETITIONERiS
PROPERTY AND PR'OVIDING.'ACCESS' FOR FUTURE""STREET IlAPROVEMENTS. ~
THE PETITIONER INDICATED THAT HE DID NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO PROVIDE
STREET LIGHT?NQ FACILITIES FOR THE SUBJECT PROPcRTY AT THE PRESENT TIME
AND THAT HF 1iA5 IN FAVOR OF INITIATING A LI~HTINO DISTR~C7 AT SUCH TIME AS
ADJACENT PROPERTIES WERE DEVEIOPED AND THE STRBET LIGHTIYG IMPROVEMENTS BE-
CAME A NECESSI7Y. A55157ANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE (i.°.ISLER ADVISED THE COMMIS-
SION THAT !T MAS MITHIN THE PROVINCE OF THE C(TY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE
WAIVER OF STREET tIGHTING REQUIREMEN75.
`~ ~- -~-'~-~- ------ -- . - - g~
. . .. ... .. , .. .. . . • ~ . . - ~ . . . ~ . . . . ~ - . . • - . . . ~~ ~.rc. r. ~ . ---- ~-• ~^-~.
~:~ ~) ~ ~
;
, i _ .
t:%
~ }.
•
, t.
:
.. ' ~ ~
y •
i
'M .
7~
~
~ ~J V/ . .
~
M.I~~~~~'~~.'($Y,~NNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 20~ 1961~ CONTINUED: ••
...1~ ~.l ~
R~C~S~Ins~~vc~seUM `". THE CCMM.ISSION FOUND AND.DETERMINED THE.FOLLOMING.FACTS REGARDING THE SUB-
NO. 60~61~69 JECT PETIT~ON:
CONT'INUED
l. PE7ITIONER REQUE5T5 A RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE R~A~
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE TO THE R~i~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE
TO PERMIT THE SPLIT OF SUBJECT PRQPERTY IN70 FOUR R~1~ ONE FAM.ILY.RESI-
DENTIAI~ L075.
. 2.. PROPOSED LOT SPLITS OF SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO S1NCi~E FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
LOTS IS COMPATIflLE WITH THE ABUTTINO Rr1~.SINGlE.F.AU.ILY.RE5IDENTIAL~
ZONIN6 CN THE.SOUTH AND WEST~ AND MITH THE SURROUNDIN6 LAND USES.
3. NO ONE APPEAItED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION. Q.
C~RIMISSIONER ALLRED OFFERED RESOWTION N0. i96~..SER1ES..19bOr61~ AND MOVED
FOR ITS PASSAOE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUMMERS~ RECOMMEND~
INO TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT RECLASSIFICATION NQ. 80~61~85 BE aRANT6D2 RE~
CLASSIF'YINa SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE R~A~ R~~IRENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ LONE
TO THB R~1.~ ONE.FAMILY.A.ES.IOENTIAL~.ZONE~. SUti~~lEG7..TD.THE FALLOMI.NQ.COND1~
TIQNSO
1.. DLGICATIGN OF A BTRIP OF LAND 60 FEET WIDE '~ND 1~0 FffET CLEP TO TM6
CITY OF ANAHEIM FOR THE.EXTENSION OF KENMORE STREET 70 THE NORTH BOUN~ ;
DARY LINE,OF SUBJECT PROPER7Y~ OR THE DEDICATION OF A BTRIP OR LAND 60 ;
FLET WIDE AND 175 FEET DEEP FOR TNE EXTENSION OF KCNMORL STRBET PLUS THE ~
D[DICATION IN F[E TO THE CITY OF ANANEIM OR A STRIP OF LAND BO FEFT MIDf x
AND S FLCT.DGEP~,DRSIGNATED AS LDT A~ STUB9INO.T.H6 NORTHERLY EXTBNSION OF ~
KEMMORt.$LRLLT AND ABUTTING TNE NOR?M PROP[RTY LINL OF SUBJECT PROPLRTY.
_
2. PREPdRATION OF STREET IMPROV6M6NT PLAN8 AND INSTALLATION OR ALL IMPROVE- ,~
iALNT! IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROYBD STAkDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THB OFFICL
OF THS CITY ENGINBER.
3. PAVMENT 1F 52.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STRL6T LIOHTINO PURPOSES. ~
4. P,AYMENT OF ~25.00 P~R DW6LLIN0 UNIT PARK 6 RECREATION FEE TO BE COLLECT~ ~
ED AS PART OF BUIIDINa PERMIT. 3
~
'3. RLCORDATION OF A RECORD OF SURVEY MAP BHOWING DCDICATION OF K6NMORE
STREET TO THff NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF BUBJLCT PROPERTY~ OR BHOWINO THE DE- S
DICATION OF A STRIP OF LANC 60 FEET WID6 AND 17'3 FELT DEEP FOR TNE EXT,EN~ 1
BION OF KBNMORE STREET PLUS THB DEDICATION IN FCL TO THC CITY OF ANANE~IM +,
OF A STRIP OF LAND 60 FEE7 WIDE AND 8 RECT DLEP~ DESIGNATED AS LOT A~ - 1
STUBBING THE NORTHERLY 6XTLNSION OF KENMORE STR6ET AND ABUTTING THE
NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF SUBJ6CT PROPERTY. '
6."''TIME LIMITATJON OF 90 DAYB FAR ?HE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITEM NOS. 1~ 2~ 3~
4 AND S.
THE FORBOOING CONDITIONB WERE RECIT6D AT THE MEETINO AND WERE FOUNO TO BC A
NECESSARY PREREQUIBITE TO TNB USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE
SAF6TY AND NELRARE OF THB CITIiLNS OF ANANEIM.
ON ROLL CALL'THC ROREGO'ING RE80 WT'fON WAS PA9SLD.BY TN6 FOLLOWINO VOTLO
AYES: COMMISSIONERSSALLRED~ GAUER~ HAPOOOD~ MARCOUX~MORRI8~MUNGA4L~SUMMERS. ~;
NOES: COMMISSIONERSSNONE. •
#C9SENT: COMMISSIONERS:NoN~.
RECUKSSIFICl~T10N - PUBLIC HEARIN6. PLTITION SUBMITTLD ev SHELDON CHIP CHASIN~ 12911 BBLRAST
N0. 60-ES-68 ',DRIVE GARDLN GROVE~ CALIRORNIA~ OWNER~ R6QUB5TIN0 TNAT PROP~CRTY DESCRIlED
~ A8: ~ PAIiC6L 223 FCLT BY 391 FLET WITH A FRONTAG6 OF 223 R6LT ON DAI.C AVL~
NUC AND LOCATLD ON TNE SOUTHNLST CORNER OF DALL AVLNUL AND BALL ROAD~ AND,
FURTH~R DESCRIBED AB 2600~2824 W6ST BALL ROAD Bff RCCLABSIFI6D FROM TNB R~A~
RESI~ENTIAL ItGRICUITURAI, ZONE TO THE C-i, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAt„ ZONE.
MR. JACK FtNNEGAN MAS PRBBENT AND iNDICATBD HE REPRESiN7ED TH6 PETITIONER.,
MR. RE% NLti140N~ 277'3 NEST BALL ROAD~ APPBARED BEFORB THE COMMIS910N~ AND
STATED THAT THE AREA BURROUNDIN3 SUBJECT PROPERTY WA9 20NBD FOR kESID6NTIAL
PURPOS6S AND THAT HB CONSIDERBD IT D681RABL6 TO PRES6RVE AND RETAIN THE RE~
SID6NT1'AL'CHARACTBR OR THB ARBA.
MRS. MARY CAMPBELL~ 1204 SOUTH DAL6 AVBNUB~ APPEARED BEFORE TFIE COMMISSION
AND STATED THAT SHE MAB OF THE OPINION THAT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMBNT MOULD
REMOVB THE NA2ARDOUS CONDITIONS IN EXISTENCE ON BAL~ ROAD AT THE PRESENT
T IME~ THAT'THE'7RkFFP6 PROBC~0.1"Wbi':L' 9E"A43R'AYAT[C"I"F'THE CONTEMPLATED DE~
VELOPMENT OF+~BALL ROAD INTD A.81X.LANE+Hlt4HWAY"4,8 ACCOMPI.ISNED~ AND T{AT .
THERB 1iAS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPM6NT ALREADY ESTABLISHED ON BALL ROAD. 7HE P~Ti~
TIONER~8 AQENT STATED THAi A TRAFFIC COUNT INDICATED A LAROE VOLUMF~ OF TRAF~
FIC' ON BAI.L ROAD DAILY~ AND THAT ALTHOU~H~THERE WA8 SOME RESIDENTIAL DEVEL~
OPMENT IN THE AREA~TMERE NAS A LAR~E PORTION OF VACANT PROPERTY FR~NTIN~ ON
BALL ROAD WHICH~IN HIS OPINION~APPEAREO TO BE MORE SUITABLE FOR COMMERCIAL
DEVCLOPMENT.
MRS. SFIARP APPEARED BBFORE THE COMMISSION STATINQ THAT SH6 WAS A FORMER
OWNER OF PROPEPTY IN THE SUBJ~CT AREA AND THAT SHE SOLD NER PROPERTY ES~
CAU9E SHE DID NOT CONSIDER TFIE PROPERTY DESIRABLB FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES
DUE TO TNE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ON BALL ROAD. '
`~L- . -.. -~ . ~- - _ .~._.e,-~ -~-::._ -.- . _-~_..-
~
;~
,, _~ `
' 72
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, FEBRUARY 20~ 196i, C6NTINUED;
RECLASSIFICATION ~ THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE PROB~EM OF UTILIZATlON OF THE 5UBJECT AND AD-
60-~61-66
NO JACENT PROPERTIES FOR THEIR H~OHEST POTENTIAL~ THE POSSIBILITY OF CREATING
.
CONTINUED STR~P 20NING BY RECLASSIFICATION OF SINGLE PARCELS~ AND THE DIECESSITY FOR
THE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION BY THE COMMISSION AND THE AFFECTED PROPERTY OHN-~
~ ERS BEFORE ESTABLISHMENT OF A DEFINITE 20NE AND LAND USE PLAN.
• COMMISSIONER MUNGALL OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMNISBIONER ALLRED A~ID
CARRIED~ THAT THE PLANNING STAFF ANALY2E AND PREPARE A STUDY OF THE SUBJEGT
AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES FOR DISCUSSION AND CONSIOERATION AT THE MEETIN~ OF
MARCH 6~ 1961~ THA7 THE PROPERTY OWNERS iNVOLVED BE NOTIFIED OF THE PUBLIC
DISCUSSION IN ORDER TO PROV~DE ALL INTERESTED PARTIES AN OPPORTUNITY.TO
DISCU55 AND DELIBERATE UPON THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION AND THE POSS~BLE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES~ ANO THAT SHE PUBLIC
HEARING OF PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60-61-66 BE CONTINUED UNTIL
THE MEETING OF MARCH 6~ 1961~AT WHICH TIME THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF AND THE
POSSIBLE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEMS INVOLVED SHALL'BE CONSIDERED.
CORRESPONDENCE ~ ITEM No. i: RECONSIDERATION oF BUENA PARK~S PRECISE PLAN N0. 123 AND 20NE
N0. Z-186 REQUEST'FOR RECLASSIFICATION FROM R~1 (SINGLE FAl11LY)
CHANGE
_
DISTRICT TO C~1 ~NEI6HBORHOOD COMMERCIAL) DI57RICT:
COMM~SSIONER MORRIS REQUESTED THAT THE COMMISSION RECONSIDER THEIR RECOM~
MENDATION THAT PRECISE PLAN N0. 123 AND ZONE CHANGE N0. Z~186 BE`DENIED BY
THE BUENA PARK PLANNING~ COMMISSION ON THE BASIS THAT THE PROPOSED COMIIERCIAL
DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BECAUSE iT MOUL'D
JEOPARDI2E THE AREA FOR ITS HIdHEST POTENTIAL~ THAT THE AREA MAS RESIDEN~
TIAL IN NA7URE~ AND THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT COMMERCIAL 20NIN0 AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF KNOTT AVENUE ANO BALL ROAD.
A D~SCUSSION WAS HELD RELATIYE TO THE EXISTIN6 AND PROJECTED 20NING AND
LAND USES OF ABUTTING PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE CITY OF Bl1ENA PARK AND AD~
JACENT PROPERTIES LOCATED IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. COMMISSIONER MORRIS IN-
DI~ATEO THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS A PORTION OF A TRI-AN(iULAR AREA.
WHICH CONTAINED APPROXIMATELY FIVE PARCELS~ TWO OF WHICH HAO BEEN RECLAS51~
FIED TO COMMERCIAL 20NIN0~ ANb THAT IT WAS ADJACENT TO SINOLE FAMlLY RESl~
DENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF BUENA PARK.
A STAFF REPOR7 NAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION NOTING THAT THE PROPERTY,IN
QUESTION ABUTS A LAR4E R~1 TRACT TO THE WEST~ CONSEQUENTLY~ IT MOULD APPEAR
UNLIKELY THAT THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA NOULD SPREAD AkV FURTHEI
WEST. HOWEVER~ IT .PRESUPPOSES THAT THE ENTIRE AREA~ CONTAININ(i APPROXI~
MATELY 14 ACRES~ EASTERLY TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS~ MUST AL50 DEVELOP COMMER-
CIALLY.
THE COMMISSION DISCUS~ED THE POSSIBiLITY THAT APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT PETI~
TION WOULD ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT FOR COMMERCIAL ZONING FOR THE BALAtdCE OF
THE AREA AND THAT RESIDENTIAI DEVELOPMENT NOULD CONSTITUTE A MORE DESIRABLE
USE. CHAIRAtAN GAUER REQUESTED THAT THE PLANNINQ OEPARTMENT TRANSNI7 A
NOTICE TO THE BUENA PARK PLANNING COMMISSION REAFFIRMINQ THE P.ECOMMENDATION
BY THE ANAHEIM PLANNIN6 COMMISSION SUBMITTED ON FEBR~SnRY ,5~ 1961.
ITEM No. 2;. ORRNGE COUNTY CONDITIONAL PERMIT NC~. C-929:
A REVISED PLOT PLAN WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION FOR ORANGE COUWTY CON~ ~
D~TIONAL PERMtT N0. C-929, WHICH ORANTED PERMISSION FOR ~HE CONSTRUCTION OF
A CHURCH AND A P/.ROCH~AL SCHOOL IN THE A~1 GENERAL AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT.
A STAFF REPORT WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION NOTINfi TNAT AN OR161NAL 1
APPL~CAT~ON FOR A CHURCH AT THE SUBJECT LOCATION MAS CONSIDERED FAVORABLY. i
BY THE pivA'r.E!!A PLAHNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL AND BY 7HE ORANGE COUNTY :
PLANNIN~ COMMISSION IN SEPTEMBER~ 1960. THE REPORT INDICATEO FURTHER THAT
TlIE AMENDMENT TO SUBJECT PETITION INVOLVES A CHAN6E IN PLANS TO THE EXTENT
THAT THE PARKIN6 AREA IS TO 8E RELOCATED~ THAT AN EXISTING DWELLIN~ IS t0
BE USED FOR TENIPORARY ClAS5R00M5~ AND TNAT A CLASSROOM WiN6 IS TO BE DE~
LETED.
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWIN~ FACTS REOARDING THE SUB-~
JECT PET IT ION: '
1. THAT THE PLANNINfi COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL HAD ORIOINALLY RECOMMEND-
ED APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT PET~TION ON SEPTEMBER 13~ 1960. ,
2. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PLOT PLAN MOULD NOT SUBSTANTIALLY AITER
THE OR161NAL DEVELOPMENT.
COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER HAPQOOD
AND CARRI'ED~ THAT THE PLANNINfi DEPARTMENT TRAtdSMIT TO THE ORANOE COUNTY
PLANNINO COMMISSION A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE AMENDMENT TO C~924 BE APPROVED
ON THE•BAStS'OF''THE A'FOREMENT'fONED'°FINDINOS.
DISCUSSI~N " THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED SETTIN6 A DATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF A WORK SESSION
AND AQRE6D THAT A WORK SESSION BE CONDUCTED STARTINO AT 9t30 w.M.~ THURSDAY~
MARCH 2~ 1961.
ADIOURNMENT - THE MEETINQ WAS ADJOURNED AT 5:15 O~CLOCK P.M.
RESPECTFULLY SU TED~
, ~ ~ ECR~ R~
.,~
~
~
~_ . .
. ..._.__~_. -~ ~
_ ~~
, ~ . . : .
( ' . ' _ ' _~.__......,,_....~
~ . . . . ~ ~ . . . .. . ~ , ~i~; ~. .~ . . ...