Minutes-PC 1961/03/06~
CITY HALL
ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA
MnRGH 6, 1961
REGU UlR MEETING OF THE CITY FLANNING COMMlSSION
1
S
I
f
REGULAR MEETING - D TO ORDER AT
A
N
S
N
E
G
PRESENT
BE
N6
A QUORUN
P!MG BY CHAIRMAN GAUER~
O~CLOCK
2~OO
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN GAUER: COMMISSIONERSC ALLRED~ Maacoux, MottR~s, MUNGALL~ SUMMERS.
ABSENT _ COMHISSIONERS: HAPGOOD.
MINUTES - THe MINUTES OF THE MdETING OF FEBRUARY 20~ 1961 MERE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.
PRESENT - AcTINa PLANNING DIRECTOR ~ RICHARR lZEESE
SENIOR PLANNER ~ MARTIN KREIDT
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ~ .IOE GEISLER
COMMISSION SEGRETARY ~ .IEAN PAGE
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLLC.HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED av SHEIDQN.CHIP CHASIN~ 12911 BELFAST
N0. 60-61-66 DRIVE GARDEN GROVE~ CALIFORNIA~ OMNER~ REQUESTING THA7 PROPERTY DESCRIBED
N DALE AVE~
~ A5: ~ PARCEL 223 FEET BY 391 FEET NITH A FRONTAGE OF 223 FEET O
AND
RNER OF DALE AYENUE AND BA~L ROAD
~
NUE AND LOCATED 0!: THE SOUTHWEST CO
FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 2800~2824 MEST BALL ROAD BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE
EIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
~
,
~ N
R-A RES.ID.EMIAL IIGRICUL7.URAl~ ZONE.ro THE C-
ZON~..
SUBJECT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION WAS CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF
FOR THE P~ANNiNG STAFF
FEBRUARY 20~ 1961 IN ORDER TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY
TO ANALY2E AND PREPARE A STUDY OF THE SUBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES~ 50
THAT AFFECTED PROPERTY OMNERS COULD BE NOTIFIED OF THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION~
AND TO PROV~DE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ALl ItdTERE57ED PARTIES TO DISCUSS AND
-
OF THE
DEI.IBERATE UPON THE P.ROPOSED RECl.ASSIF.ICATION AND THE DEVELOPME~
SllBJECT AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
MR. JACK FINNEGAN MAS PRESENT~ INDICATED HE REPRESENTED THE PET1710NER~
AND STATED HE HAD NOTHING TO ADD TO THE PETITION.
MR. HAROLO JENKS~ 2804 WEST RAVENSWOOD ORIV~~APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMIS-
SION AND IND~CATED HE MAS CONFUSED IN RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN
THE SUBJECT REGLASSIFICATION AND THE PARCELS INCLUDED IN THE STUDY~ AND
THAT HE MAS INTERESTED ~N OBTAININO INFORMATION ON PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF
OF THE PUBLIC NEARING ON THE
THE AREA. HE MAS INFORMED THAT NOTIFICATION
SUBJECT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION MAfi FORMARDED YO PROPERTY OWNERS
WITHIN A 300 F00T RADIUS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ AND THAT THE NOTICE OF A
E OF THE
U
S
PUBLIC DISCUSSIQk ON THE STUDY TO DETERMINE THE H16HE5T AND BEST
SUBJECT PROPERTY AS IT RELATES TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES~ MAS FORNARDED TO
BALL ROAD
T
~
PROPERTY OMNERS IN THE AREA BOUNDED BY DALE NVENUE ON THE EAS
ND THE ANAHEIM CITY LIMITS ON THE
ON THE NORTH~ FERN AYENUE ON THE MEST~ A
SOUTH. '
MR. ROBERT CUNNIN6HAM~ 2820 WEST RAVENSWOOD DRIVE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COM~
MISSION AND INDICATED THAT NE WAS OPPOSED TO ItULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
GE'SUPER MARKET ON TF1E SUBJEC7 PROPER-
DEVELOPMENT OR E87ABLISHMENT OF A LAR
TY. HE STATED THAT HE CONSIDERED C~1~ NEIOHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ DEVELQPMEN7
SUITABLE FOR THE AREA.
MR. CAMPBELL~ 1204 SOUTH DALE AVENUE~ APPEARED BEFORf THE COMMISSION~ STA~
TlN6 HE MAS REPRESENTlNO TMO OF HIS NEI3HBOR5~ THAT THEY WERE NOT OPPOSED
TO THE SUBJECT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION BECAUSE THEY DID NOT CONSIDER
THE PROPERTY ON BALL ROAD SUfTABLE FOR RESIOENTIAL PURPOSES DUE TO THE
TRAFFIC~ ANO 7HAT THE NIGENINa OF BALL ROAD MOULD RENDER HIS PROPER7Y UN-
DESIRABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE ~N GRADE 7HAT
NOULD BE REQUIREO FOR IMPROVEMEN7 OF BAI.L ROAD.
L. B. SHENK~ 1350 NORTH HARBOR BOUi.EVARD~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMM{S-
MR
.
SION~ STATINfi HE REPRESENTED MR. M. M. D12NEY~ ONNER OF LOTS 3 AND 41 WHO
~l
~
MAS IN FAVOR OF THE RECLA55lFICATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE l:
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE.
MR. V. L. DAUSFR~ 2880 MEST BALL ROAD APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND
INDICATED APPROVAL OF TH~ SUBJECT PETITION.
Is
~
D
~
PP
a
7
U
LE
~
E
B
V
ESTABLISHED
wERE
2990
TRACT
NO
N
HOM65
THL
THAT
/NFORMEO
AND
MAB
SRON
FOR SIN6LE FAMILY RE9IDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND MOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR
RECLASS~FICATION. THE HEARING MAS CLOSED.
T'HE COMMISSION REVIEMED THE PlOT PLANS SUBM~TTED BY THE PETITIONER.
CHAIRMAN GAUER AGDRESSED THE AUDIENCE~ STATINfi THAT THE COMMISSION HAD
MADE A THOROUGH AND DETAILED STUDY Of THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE PROBLEM
~F DETERHININ~ THE BEBT USE OF LAND LOCATED ADJACENT TO MAJOR THOROUGH-
FARES. HE INDICATED .THAT •THt CSTA~I:lSHROENT OF' COMMERCIAL ZONING MtGHT
INCREABE THE PROPERTY VALUE GF TME SUBJECT PROPERTY. HONEVER~ DUE TO THE
POSSIBILITY OF CR6ATING.STRIP COMMERCIAL ZONINO AND THE ADEQUATE AMOUNT
OF COMMERCIAL ZONINO ALREADY 68TABLISHED IN CERTAIN AREAS~ IT DID NOT
NECESSARILY SERV6 THE B68T INTERES7 AND MELFARE OF THE ENT~RE COMMUNITY
TO RECLABSIFY THC PROPERTY FOR CONMERCIAL PURPOSES. HE STATED THAT WAS
THE REASOH FOR INSTRUCTIN3 T111 P.LANNING STAFF TO PREPARE AN ANA~Y515 ANO
73
._"'_._~_.'__'"___.._....~_.___~_..._._.-~-...~•rn=T::i:' .
"~"' .. .. ... ........ ...._........_._.--..__ .____._ ..
~ ...'.~_". ..._
i
I ' . . ~ . ( .. - . , : . ~ . , . . . ..+~f Q~ .~ :~....~ . .. .. ..~.._ .. .... ..,~~
i :
.... __
~ ~
~
• ~ 74
~:
€~1l~t~~'ES, CfTY PL'AN NING COMMISSION, MARCH 6~ 196i~ CONTINUED:
~ {~~LASS~~FICATION ~ STUDY OF THE SUBJECT AND 4DJACENT PROPERTIES IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE MOST
FOR DEVB~OPMENT OF THE AREA.
NO. 60-61~66 SUITABLE 20NIN~ ANU TO ESiABLISH A PREGISE PLAN
CONT ~ j~UED
SENIOR PLANNER MARTIN KREID7 DISPLAYED THE STUDY PREPARED BY THE PLANNING
'
STAFF AND INDICATED THAT ONLY THE SUBJECT PETITION FQR RECLASSIFICATION
HE 9ESCRIBED THE ULTIMATE DEVELOP-
E COMlAISSION
.
MOULD BE ACTED UPON 8Y TH
NENT AS PROJECTED ON 7HE STUDY~ INDICATINfi TGiA7 R~3~ MUL71PlE•FAMILY RESI~
DENTIAL~ 20NIN0 ON BOTH SIDES'OF BALL ROAD WOULD BE COMPATIBLE M1TN THE
DEVELOPMENT A'ND 20N~
SIN~LE FAMILY RESIDEN7IAL
~1
~
.a
EXISTINCa AND PROPOSED R
AND THAT THE INSTALLATION OF ALLEYS MOULD SERVE AS BUFFERS
ING IN THE AREA
~
SUFFICIENT
UOF FERNCAVENUE
M
~
S
LN
N
H
,
+IEST
T E
LOCA7ED TO
'^Nl~ifi
COMMERCiw
OF
AMOUNT
NR. SHENK~ MHO STATED HE WOULD F1LE MITH THE'PLANNIN(i DEPARTMENT A LETTER
ED
'
u
D
WOU~p
ZONE
THE~C l
ATRPE7ITEONSSFOR RECLASSIF~ICATEON TO
~
A
I
SSION
TH
THE
COMM
RECLASSIFICATION TO
U
T
'
C
I
PROPERTY
SUBJECT
OF THE
COMMERCIAL~
NE/GHBORHOOD
CEI~
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLONINO FACTS RE~ARDING THE SUB~
JECT PCTITION:
F20NE'TO CFI5UNEIGHBORH00DTCOMMERCIAL~
RAL
S
Q
1~
T
E
~
AGRICULTU
AL
RESIDENT
A~
R
RHOOD 5HOP5
.
ZONE'TO PERMIT THE D@VELOP!':::T OF SMALL NEI6HBO
'RTHENSUBJECTEAND
DEOA
E
D
Y
E
A
C
M
2~
f
EVELOPMEN
THE
FOR
PLAN
PROJECTED
STUDY AND
PARE
A
OF THE STUDY HAD INDI~ATED THAT
• ADJACENT PROPERTIES~ AND CONSIDERATION
R~3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIAENTIAL~ DEVELOPMENT MOULD BE TME HIGHEST AND
BEST USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
3. SUBJI;CT PETITION FOR RECL0.551FICATION•TO THE C^1~ NEI6HBORHOOD COMMER-
CIAL~ ZONE WOULD CREA7E STRIP COMMERCIAL ZONING.
4. VERBAI. OPPOSITION TO SHE SUBJECT PETITION BY ONE PROPERTY OHNER IN THE
AREA MAS R6CORDED AT THE MEETIN6 OF FEBRUARY 2~0} 1951 AND VERBAL SUP~
PORT WAS RECORDED AT THE MEETIN~S ON FEBRlJARY 2U, 196~ AND MAFiCH 6~
196 L
COMMISSIONER ALLRED OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 187~ SER)ES 1960~61~ AND MOVED
TORTHESCITYSCOUNCNL THAT7RECLASSIFNCATiON PIOMM60561N66~MREQUE9TRFORNRENDINQ
CLASSIFICATIOM FROM THE R-a!. RESIDENTIAL RGRICUI.TURAL, Z9NE TO TFIE C-i~
NEIGHBORNOOD COMMERCIAL, ZOIVE BE DENIED ON THE SASlS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED
FINDIN6S.
ON ROLL CAL?.. 7HE FOREGOINQ RESOLU710N WAS PASSED BY TH~ FOLL.OMINB VOT•ES
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:. ALLRED~ GAUER~ MP.kCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNfiALL~ SUMMERS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD.
ASSISTANT C17Y A7TORNEY ~OE GEISLER ADV~SED THE COMMISSION THAT THE SUB~
JECT PETITION~ ALTHOUGH DENIED FOR RECLASSIFICATION TO C~1~ NE~GHBORHOOD
MULTEPLEAFAMILY~RESIDENTEALE20NEEBYESEPARATECACTSONlCATION TO THE R~3~
TME COMMlBBION FOUND ANO DETERMINED THE FOLLOMINCi FACTS REGARDING THE SUB-
JECT PETITION IN RBSPECT TO RECLASSIFYINQ SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE R~3~ MUL-
TIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ 20NE;
1. PETITIONER REQUE5T5 A RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE R~A~
20NEDTOTPERM~ITRTHELDEYELOPMENT OF SMALL NEIOHBORHOOD~SHOpSMMERCIAL~
2~ RuA~ERE5IDENTRAL AGRICUBTURAROAZO/E.THTHEREFORENDRECLASSIfICAT10NYTOHE
THE C~1~ NEIOHBORHOOD COMMERCtAL~ ZONE MOULD CREATE A STRIP COMMERCIAI.
20NE.
3. THE COMM13810N HAD FORMALLY DIRECTED THE'PLANNINa DEPARTMENT TO PREPARE
A STUDY AND PROJECTED PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT AND AD-
JACENT PROPERTIES. CONSIDERATION OF THE STUDY HAD INDICATEO 7HAT
AND~MOULD'PROVFDE'THERHSOHE9T'AND BESTLUSEEOF THELSUBJECT~PROPERTY~TABLE~
COMMIBSION6R NUNaALL RECOMMENDED THAT THE STUDY SUBMITTED TO AND CON5IDER~
ED BY THE COMMISSION RELATIVE 70 THOSE PROPERt1ES BOUNDED BY DAIE /~VENUE
ON THE EAST~ BALL ROAD ON THE NORTH~ FERN AVENUE ON 7HB MEST~ AND THE
tlLTIMATECDEVEL PMENTOASTFOLLOWSF:~ RE3Egi`IUL1'IPLEDFAMILYPRESIDENTIAL~FOR
20NE TO A DEPTH OF APPROXlMATELY 223 F6ET SOUTH OF BALL ROAD AND FOR
R~1~ S~NOLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ 20NE FOR THE R6MAINDER OF THE AFOREMEN~
TIONED PROPBRTIES.
4. R~3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RBBIDENTIAL~. AND R~1~ SIH~LE FAMILY RESIDENTIAI.~
~~_"' _ . '°'"^"'- -~
~ ~i,.i ..... ~
75
, MINUTES, CITY PtANHIN6 COMMISSION~ MARCH 6, 1961, CONTINUED; ~
~
aECtassrFrcnrroN ~ ZONING IS THE MOST COMPATIBLE MITH THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOP-
NO. 60~61-66
MENT OF THE AREA. S
~
CONTINUED •
5. VERBAL OPPOSITION NAS RECORDED BY ONE OWNER OF PROPERTY IN THE AREA. ~
COMMISSIONER MUNGALL OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 188~ SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED ~
~
FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SEGONDED BY CO~iidi5510NER MARCOUX~ RECOMMeND~ !
I E ING TO THE CITV COUNCIL THAT RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60-61-66 BE GRANTED FOR i
I RECLASSIFICATION FROM THE R~A. RESIDEM'IAL AGk~CULTURAL~ ZONE TO THE R~3~
~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESI~ENTIAL, ZONE, suedEC7 ro THE FOLLOWiNG CONDITIONS: ~
' 1. FILING OF STANDARD R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE DEEO RES~ ~
~ TRICTIONS.
2. DEDICATION FOR AND IMPROVEMENT OF A TMENTY (20) FOOT ALLEY ALONG AND ~
CONTIGUOUS TO SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY MITH THE
PROVISION OF A BULB OR TURN AROUND AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SUBJECT
PROPERTY. ~
I
i 3. DEDICATION OF 45 FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLFNE OF DALE AVENUE i
•
i (15 FEET EXISTING). }
i •
j
4. DEDICATION OF 53 FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF BALL ROAD
2
(30 FEET EXIST~NG). ~
5. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL IM- ~
PROVEMEWTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER. j
6. PAYMENT OF $2.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES ON DALE ~
AVENUE AND BALL ROAD. j
7. TIME LIMITATION OF 90 DAVS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ~TEMS N0.~2~ 3~ . ~
4, 5, AN~ 6. t
THE FOREGOING CONDITIONS MERF RECITED AT THE MEETING AND MERE FOUND TO BE
A NECES.°,ARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
THE SAFETY AND NELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CAL1: THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOMING VOTE:
~ AYES: COMM~,aIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS.
~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSL HAF'GOOD. ~
~
VARIANCE N0. 1338 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev 6ENE P. AND RAMONA J. WINGER, 605 ~
LIVE OAK DRIVE ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA OWNERS FOR PERMISSION TO WAIVE REAR
YARD SETBACK R~QUIREMEN'~ TO PFRMIT ~NCROACH~tENT OF e FEET INTO REQUIRED ~
REAR YARD TO WI7HIN 17 FEET OF REIIR PROPERTY LINE oN PROPERTY DESCRIBED as:
RN IRREOULARLY SHAPED LOT AT THE NORTHERLY END OF LIVE OAK DRIVE CUL~DE-SAC~ ~
AL50 DESCRIBED AS LOT 25~ TRACT N0. 1696, AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 605 LIVE
OAK DRIVE. PROPERTY IS PRESENTLY CLASSIFtED R~O~ ONE FAMILY SUBURBAN~20NE.
MRS. RAMONA J. WINGER~ THE PETITIONER~ NAS PRESENT AND INDICATED SHE HAD
NOTHING TO ADD TO THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE PETITION. THE HEARING
NItS CLOSED.
7HE COMMISSION FOUND ANO DETERMINED THE FOL~OWING FACTS REGARDIN6 7HE SUB-
JECT PETITION:
1. PETITIONER REQUESTS VARIANCE FROM CODE~ SECTION 18.20.030(3)~ MHICH g
REQUIRES FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY A TWENTY-FIVE F00T REAR YARD~TO PERMI'i ~
ENCR(1ACHMENT OF EIGHT FEET FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADD{NG A ROOM SO AN
EXISTING RESIDENCE.
2. SUFFICIEN7 AMOUNT 0~ REAR YARD IS AVA~LABLE TO ALLOW FOR PROPOSED CON~
STRUCTION AND STILL PROVIDE AN AMPLE AMOUN3 OF REAR YARD.
3. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TU SUBJECT PETITIOW.
COMMISSIONER MUNGALL OFF'ERED RESOLUTION. N0. 189~ S°_RIES L960-61~ AND MOVED
FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIOYER ALLRED TO GRANT
VAR~ANCE No. 1338 REQUEST FoR W/tIVER OF. REKR YARD SEFBACK REoUIREMENf TO PER-
M 17 ENCROACHMENT OF e FEET I WTO REQU I RED REAR YARD 5 0 PERh11T CONSTRUCT I ON
OF A ROOM ADDITION, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOMtNG CONDITION:
1. CONSTRUCTION SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE M~TH PLANS SUBMITTED.
THE FOREDOING CONDITION f1A5 RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WAS POUND TO BE A
~ NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE
SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CIT~ZENS OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLU710N WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOMING VOTE;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: A~LRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUNMERS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS7 NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS7 HAPGOOD.
~~~ 4R~ '
~ . . . . : . ..---~ . ~ : -- --. -" . , ,. .` ~ _ ~- -~
~
~
~`
76
d
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 6, 1961, CONTINUED;
VARIAN E N0. 1339 - PUBt1C HEARING. PET1710N SUBIAITTED ev WILLiAM AND GENOWEFa HURL)EY 1703 I
CRONE AVENUE ANnHEiM.,r~y~~pNDN~RAaIOMREPA~RFSHOP~R(2)SPERMTT~PAkKiNG IN
EXISTING GARJ-GE FOR A
FRUI3T OF 7HE BUILDING SETBACK LINE. (3) ATTACH A 3 BY 8 FOOT SiGN TO THE
EUCLIU AVENUE SI~E OF 6ARAGE, ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5: A PARCEL 68 FEET ~
BY 112 FEET MITH A FRONTAGE ON EUCLID AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE HORTHWEST I
CORNER OF EUCLID AND CRONE AVENUES~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1703 CkONE
AVENUE. THE PROPERTY IS PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R-1~ Si!~GLE FAMILY RES1UEiV- ,
TIAL, ZONE.
MR. WILLIA~1 HURLEY~ THE PETITfOSIER' APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ SUB-~
ANDTEDREVIEWEDTPAST ACTIONS~BYRTHENCOMMBSSION„ANDRCOUNCILERELATEVE TOTTHEON
SUBJEC7 PROPERTY. HE INDICATED THAT COURT ACTION INITIATED BY THE CITY~
ANDATHE /NSTALLATIONTOFNA CONCRETENPAD ~N 7HELFRONT YARDHEHADNBEEN9CONNANCE
CLUDED.
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT MR. HURLEY
HAD PLEAD GUILTY AND HAD BEEN GIVEN A SUSPENDED SENTENCE IN RESPECT TO THE
CONDUCT OF THE REPA~R BUSINESS. HE STATED THAT MR. NURLEY HAD BEEN IN-
STRUCTED TO INSTAL: tANDSCAPING ~N THE FRONT~YARD AREA9 BU7 THAT UP TO THE
PRE.SENT TIME~ TH~S HAS NOT BEEN DONE. HE STATED FURTHER THAT THE COURT
THE7PROPERTYNPUTSMNSANDORDERL.Y CONDITION~ AND THATSTHEREGilAS NOSOBJECTION~
TO THE MIDENING OF THE DRIVEMAY BECAUSE OF ITS LOCATION ANG THE ENTRANCE
TO THE GARAGE.
HIS FOURTHMAPPEARANCEABEFOREF7HE COMMCSSMONSTONOBJECTTTOETHEHUSETOFSTHES
SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR A T.V. REPA~R SHOP.
MRS. JANES APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THA7 SHE Na5 THE OWN-
PROSPECTIVEYBUYERSRDIDTNOT OBJECT TOETHEOSUBJEC7 PETNT~ONLD~ AkD THAT THE
A LETTER SIGNED BY MR. DAVID MCHAFFIE~ 1702 SIVA AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ MAS
THAT THETPETCTMONSDIDNNOTTCOMPLYTWITHHTHEBREQUEREMENTSEFOR OBTAINENGTA N~
HEARIN6~MASNCLOSED,THE REPEATED REQUESTS WERE BECOMING RIDICULOUS. THE
THE COMMISSIOq DISCUSSED THE REQUEST FOR ERECTION OF A SIGN~ THE PRIVILE;E
THEMCOUNCILYPOLECYOMAINTA~IN~NO SIX MONTHNINTERVALSLFOR REAPPL~ICATRON TOE,
ITYOTOFBECOMEHANARE'OFCOBJECTIONABLE USESTOF PROPERTY8IN'THEOCITYEANDMTON
PROTECT THEIR INTERESTS.
THE COMNISSION FOUND AND OETERMIPIED THE FOLLOMING FACTS REG.::DIi~G THE SUB-
JECT PET~TIONS
1, PETITIONER REQUE575 7HE VARlANCE FROM CODE~ SECTION 18.24.010 WHICH
STIPULATES PERMITTED USES II,THE R~1~ SIN(3LE FAMILY RESIDENIIAL~ 20NE
TO PERMIT USE OF AN EXISTINt3 DARADE ON SUBJECT PROPERTY AS A TELEVI~
SION AND RADIO REPAIR SHOP~ AND SECTION 18.04.030(A) WHICH REQUIRES
THAT PARKINQ AREA FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY MUST NOT EXTEND tN FRONT OF THE
BUILDING SETBACK LINE TO PERMIT SUCH PARKING IN CONJUNCTIC~N MITH THE
7ELEVISION AND RADIO REPAIR BUSINE55. PET1710NER AL50 REQUE5T5 PER-
MISSION TO ATTACH A THREE F00T BY EIfiHT F00T SIGN TO 7HE EUCLID AVE-
NUE SIDE OF THE GARAGE.
Z~ THERSAME VICINBTYAANDAZONE~ANDT DENIED7THESSt18SECTBPROPERTYPROPERTY IN
3~ USEDPASASTIPULATEDEBYUTHECPRESENTRZONEACLASSIFICAT~ONY ~EVELOPED AND
4. THE COMMERCIALIZATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD 7END TO DEPRECIATE
LISHVANUUNDE5IRABLENPRECEDENT'F4RFSIMILAR REQUESTSSE AND WOUI.D ESTAB-
5, (~0 SIGNS OR PARRIN6 iN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD AREA SHALL BE PERMITTED.
6~ pNDBYERBAL ANDTMRNTTENOSUPPORTNWASRRECORDEDAGN'FAVORUOFETHEPPETIT~ION.
COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLU710N N0. 190~ SER~ES 1960~61~ AND MOVED
FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNGALL~ TO DENY
VARIANCE No. 1339 REQUE57 FoR USE OF EXISTING GAR/tGE FOR A T.V. AND RADIO
PLAY~OFSI-~3'evEeMF00T~SIGN kTTACHEDFTOrTHEFGARA6E~N6 SEiBACK LINE, AND OIS-
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREDOING RESOLUTION HAS PASSED BY TNE FOLLOWING VOTE;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUXp MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: CONMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD.
' . ~~. .
_._._~T_
. __ ... .---~- t --- -- --- - - . ~. ~..... - . . . .~ _...
:r
~
~..
~
»
MINUTES, C17Y PLRNNING COMMISSION, MnRCH 6, 1961, CONTINUED:
,y,~$~NCE~NO. 1340 - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev SOUTH GATE TRAC7 COMPANY, 3022 L~ve
OAK STREET HUNTIN~TON PARK CAL~FORNtA~ OMNER FOR PERMISStON TO WAIVE
MINIMUM LQf WIDTH REQUIREMEIVT TO PF.RMIT LOT Y11~THS OF 60 FEET, oN PROPERTY
DESCRIBED A53 AN IRREGULARLY SHAPED PARCEL LOCATEO AT THE SOUTHEAST COR-
NER OF THE INTERSECTION OF HOUSTON STREET AND THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY~ AND
FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 2534~2538 WEST HOUSTON STREET. PROPERTY PRESENTLY
CLASS~FIED R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAI.
MR. JACOBSONe REPRESENTATIVE OF THE MCDANIEL ENGINEERING COMPANY~ WAS PRE-
SENT AND INDICATED HE HAD NOTHING TO ADD TO THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN
THE PETITION. THE HEARING MAS CLOSED.
THE COMMISSION~REVIEMED THE MAP PREPARED BY THE ENGINEERING COMPANY~IND~-
CATING THE PROPOSED LOT SPLiTS~ AND INOUIRED OF THE PETITIONER IF HE WOULD
REPLACE THE WIRE FENCE ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE WITH A BLOCK NALL WHERE
THE PROPERTY ABUTS THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY. NR. J. G. TILLMAN AUTHOR~ZED
AGENT FOR THE SOUTH GATE 7RACT COMPANY~ APPEARED BEFORE THE ~OMMISSION AND
INDICATED THAT THE COMPANY MOULD AGREE TO THE INSTALLATION OF A SIX F00T
MASONRY WALL ON 7HE PROPERTY 116E ADJACENT TO THE FREEWAY.
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE SUB-
JECT PETITION;
1. PET'ITIONER REQUF.STS A VARIANCE FROM ~ODEo S=CT~ON 18.16.030 (4-8~ WHICH
STIPULATES THAT THE MiNIMUM AREA OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL SHALL NOT BE
LESS THAN ~NE ACRE TO 'PERMIT THE SPLIT OF AN R~A~ RESIDENTIAt AGRICUL~
TURAL~ ppRCEL INTO THREE LOTS, EACH H.4VING AN AREA LESS THAN ONE ACRE.
2. PETIT~ONER INDICATES WILLINGNESS TO INSTALL A SIX (6) FOOT MASONRY
WALL ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE CONTIGUOUS TO THE SANTA ANA FREEMAY.
3. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION.
COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 191~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND MOVED
FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED GRANTING
VARIANCE No. 1340 REQUEST To WAIVE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REpUIREMENf TO PERMIT
SPL1T OF PARCEL 1Nf0 THREE (3) LOTS, EACH HAVING LESS THAN ONE ACRE , sue-
JECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX (6) F00T MASONRY MALL ON THE NEST PROPERTY LINE
CONTIGUOUS TO THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY.
2. ABANDONMENT OF THE SOUTH HALF OF HOUSTON STREET~ WEST OF BUCKINGHAM
STR~ET~ SJITH RETENTION OF EASEMENTS FOR SEMER9 WATER~ METERING STA-
TION AND OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES AS APPROVED BY THE CITY EPIGINEER.
3. RECORDATtON OF A RECORD OF SURVEY MAP Fe TER THE ABANDONMENT OF HOUSTON
STREET.
4. PAYMENT OF a2.00 PER FRONT F00T FOR STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES.
5. PAYMENT OF $25.00 PER DWELLING UNIT PARK & RECREATION FEE TO BE COLLEC-
TED AS PART OF BUILUING PERMIT.
THE FOREGOINa CONDI7~ONS WERE RECITED AT THE I.IEETING AND WERE FOUND TO BE
A NECESSARY PREREQUi51TE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
THE SAFETY AND NELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL 7HE F8REG3tWG RESOLUTION MAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOMING VOTE:
AYES: ScOMMISSIONERS: ALLRED9 GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS.
NOES: COMMlSSIONERST NONE.
ItBSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev ROBERT W. nHO HILDRED E. ELLIOTT~
PERMIT NO. 103 3B36 PROSPECT~ CULVER CITYp CALIFORNIAo OMNERS~ ROBERT W. MncMAHON~ 403
CALIFORNIA BANK BUtLDINl3 ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ AGENT/ FOR PERMISSION TO
CONSTRUCT AN 18 UNIT MOT~L, ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: A PARCEL 66 FEET
BY 238 FEET MITH A FRONTAGE OF 66 FEET ON BEACH BOULEVARD AND LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF BEACH BOULEVARD BETMEEN LINCOLN AND ORANGE AVENUES~ ITS
' SOUTHMEST CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY 360 FEET NORTH OF 'HE NORTHEAST COR-
NER OF BEACH BOULEVARD AND ORANGE AVENUE. PROPERTY PRESENT~Y CLASSIFIED
R-A, RESIDEW~IAL AGRICULTURAL.
MR. ROBERT MACMAHON~ AUTHORIZED AGENT FOR THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE
THE COMMISSION~ AND STATED THAT THE PROPERTY MAS IN THE PROCE55 OF BEIN6
SOLD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A MOTEL. HE REQUESTED THE WAIVER OF THE BUILD-
ING SETBACK REQUIREMENT IN ORDER ?0 PROVIDE A SWIMMING POOL AT THE REAR
OF THE PROPERTY~ MHICH NOULD BE MORE DES!RABLE FOR PRIVACY AND RELAXATiO~~~
AND TO COMPENSATE FOR THE OBSTRUCTION CREATED BY A LARGE SIGN LOCATED ON
ADJACENT PROPERTY.
MRS. RAMELIN APPEARE6 BEFORE THE COMMISSION9 STATED 7HAT SHE WAS 7HE ONN-
ER OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY~ AND THAT THE PROPERTY WAS LEASED~ THEREFORE~
, SHE HAD NO CON7ROL OVER iHE USE OF THE °ROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAIN~
TAINING AN ADVERTISIN6 SIGN. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
7HE COMMISSION FUUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOMING FACTS REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITION:
. ... -._
..~.~..___.
.. -1-- . -- - . ~ _ ~
:: .; , .
, • ,_
. --.~.o.- .
` ~~~._ . . :,.~ _ ' ~~., ' . .. . . .." " ' _
- . ', -. ~. . . ..._~..:;,,° . , . _ _ . ..
t
~ ~
~ ;.. . . . ~ ~ . - ~
~(f . • . . •. .. ~ .
IF . ~ ._...._ ..'""'_"___._ ....-._
I ~ , ~
~L',~4 ~12..1'~ ~11 .., ,
`~~
~ •T
~1} ~'
. . . ~ ... .
~ -..... . . ,. ~. . : Y. ~. ,
.
. : .
,
'..
..~.~.~
.
~__.~. ~ _
~.
~~
.._...._....._......- ~
~,
„ ~
•
~
. . . ~ . . ' ' ~
~
~
~
7p ~
~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. MnacH 6, 1961, CONTINUED:
CONDIT'~ONAL USE - 1. PETITIONER REQUESTS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WHICH PROV'ISfON IS
PERNIT NO'. 103 MADE IN CODE~ SECTION 18.64.020 (2-~C) 70 DEVELOP AN 18 UNIT MOTEL. t
•Cotrr~KUeo
2. PROPOSED USE OF SU6JECT PROPERTY NOULD BE COMPATIBI.E M17H THE LAND
USES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.
3. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPUSITION TO THE SUBJECT PETITION. j
COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 192~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND MOVED !
FOR lY5 PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUMMERS GRANTING ~
~
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 103~ REQUEST TQ CONSTRUCT AN 18 UNI~ MOTEL, ~
~
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONUITIONS: i
_
1. DEVELOPNENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE MITH PLANS PRESENTED.
2. PROVISION OF 35 F00T BUILDING SETBACK FROM THE FRONT PRO?ERTY LINE
' ABUTTING BEACH BOULEVARD.
3. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROYEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL IM- ~ ,
PROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH pPPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE ~
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER. i
4. PAYMENT OF 52.00 PER FRONT F00T FOR STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES. ~
i
5. PROYI$ION OF 35 F007 LANDSCAPED AREA ABUTTING FRONT PRCiPERTY LINE. ,
THE FOREGOIN~ CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO BE ~
A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE t15E OF THE PROPERTY•IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM. i
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOtNG RESO:UTION HA5 PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTEC '
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUERs MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUN~ALL~ SUMMERS. ~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NoNe.
ABSENT: COHMiSSIONERS7 HAPGOOD. ,
CONDITIONAL'USE = PUBLIC HEARING. PETI7IUN SUBMITTED ev CHARLES W. AND LAVERNE DAYIDSON
PERMIT N0. 104 AND THOMAS R. AND HENRIETTA C. PATTERSON, 9924 Ensr Vnt~ RU~TEN BELLFLOWER~
CALIFORHIA~ OMNERS~ WILLIAM H..TOWNLEY 13141 ROSALIND DRIVE ~ANTA ANA~
CALIFORNIA~ AGENT~ FOR PERMISSION TO S~LL BEER IN CONJUNCTIO~J WITH RES~
TAURANT~ ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5: AN IRREfiULARLY SHAPED PARCEI WITH A
FRON7AGE OF 330 FEET ON LINCOLN AVENUE ANO AN AVERAGE DEPTH OF 255 FEET~
AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LINCOLN AVENUE BETWEEN EUCLID AVENUE AND
LOARA STREET~ ~TS NORTHMEST CORNER BEING APPROXINATELY 270 FEET EAST OF
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LINCOLN AND EUCLID AVENUES~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED
AS 1652 WEST LINCOLN AVENUE. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED C~3~ HEAVY
COMMERCIAL~ (RESTRICTED TO MOTEL USE ONLY~AND ANY C-1 USE~.
MR. THOMAS R. PATTERSON~ THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION
AND INDICATED THAT THE PROPOSED~ESTABLISHMENT WOULD BE OF THE HOFBRAU .
~
TYrE. HE STATED THA7 BREAKFAST AND SANDMICHES NOULD BE SERVED~ AND THAT
THE SAI.E OF LIQtlOR MOULD BE LIMITED TO BEER ONLY. THE HEARiNG WAS CLOSED. ~
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED FARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUBJECT pROPERTY
AND THE PETITIONER INDICATED THAT PARKINa WAS PROVIDED IN EXCESS OF THE
REQUIREMENT FOR THE PROPOSED USE.
THE COMMISSION FOUND P,ND DETERMINED 7HE FOLLOMING FACTS REGARDINQ THE -
SUBJECT PETITION: '
1. SUBJECT PROPERTY MAS RECLA551FIED TO C~3~ HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ 20NE BY
COUNCIL Rk.50 WTION N0. 4071 ON AUGUST 27~ 1957~ PETITION FOR RECLA55~
IFICATION No. F55-56-41.
2. STREET IMPROVEMENT P~ANS~ APPROVED ON FEBRUARY 21~ 1961~ ARE ON FILE ' ~.
IN THE OFFICE OF 7HE CITY ENGINEER.
3. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION.
COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 193, SERIES 1960~61~ AND MOVED
FOR IT9,PASSAIiE AND pDOPTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNfiALL GRANTINa
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 1~4~ REQUE57 TO SELL BEER IN CONJUN~7ION YIITH •
,A RESTAURANt~ 5U8JECT T0 THE FOLLOMINO CONDITIONSS
1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED. .
2. LIQUOR S1LES LIMITED TQ THE ON-SALE OF BEER ONLY.
THE FOREGOINO CONDiT.IONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND NERE FOUND TO BE
A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
THB SAFETY AND MELFARE OF 7HE CITIZENS OF. ANAHEIM.
ON ROLL CALL THE FORE~OIN(i RESOLU710N MAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOMINa VOTE. .
~"jy};`~' AYES: COMMISSIONERSC ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRlS~ MUNGAL4~ SUMMERS.
'` NOES: COMNISSIONERS: NoNe.
ABSENT: COMMf.SIONERSC HAP~OOD,``
,; ,
ti .,, ,
. Hr~, ) , ,.. , .., ,, ,,y iv Yl~ a~,ry ~i~r.
.~ , . _ _ .__,__ ._..-. ,~~,.,,, :a.,..;Id,.,.i.., .,..... ., ~.. ..~. i .c.., . ., , ,. ..~/.. _..! ,.. ~~:~; ..._ .~.rt _~,,.t,.;~.i..'.~=----i..n;n.~a-4
.
~ ~ > ~.
79
MINUTES, CiTY PLI-NNING COMMISSION, MARCH 5, 1961~.C~N7INUED; ~
RECIASSiFfCATION - PUBLIC HEI4RING. PETITION SUBMITTED sY RAYMOND SPEFIAR~ 1532 BEACON AVENUE~ ~
NO. 60~61~67 ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OMNER~ REQUESTING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5: A PAR-
CEl 100 FEET BY 136 FEET MITH A FRONTAOE OF 100 FEET ON EUCLID AVENUE AND
LOCATED CN THE SOUTHMEST CORNER OF CHALET ANO EUCLID AVENUES BE R¢CLA551-
HOOD COMMERCIAL,1ZONEN(ResrR~icTECRro~PROFessioNONEUse ONLY~-1' NEIGHBOR- ~
MR. RAYMOND SPEHAR~ 1532 BEACON AVENUE~ APPEARED BEFORE Tk1E COMMISSION~ ~
PRESENTED A RENDERIN6 OF A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDIN6~ AND INDICATED THAT
T!iE.8U8JECT PROPERTY MA8 ONE OF SEVEN.L075 20NED R~2~ TMO FAMILY RESIDEN-
TIAL~ IN THE COUNTY~ CHANaED TO R~1~ SING~E FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ UPON ANNEX- ~
ATION TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM~ AND WAS APPROVED FOR RECLASSIFICATION 30 1
R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ BY THE C~TY COUNCIL SIX MONTHS AGO. HE ~
STATED FURTHER THAT HE MAS REQUESTING THE C~1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~
20NING IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE ONLY~ WHICH HE CONSI-
DERED 70 BE OF MORE BENEFIT TO TH6 CITY AND THE AREA THAN MULTIPLE FAMILY 3
RESIDENTIAL OR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEYELOP~tENT~ THAT THE PROPERTV j
NOUtD NOT BE SOLD BECAUSE HE INTENDED TO USE THE PROPERTY HIMSELF; AND
THAT HE HAD CONTACTED RESIDEN75 IN THE ANANOOD DISTRICT MHO HAD NOT IN- j
DICATED OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSAI EXCEP7 FOR ONE PROPERTY OWNER. I
A PETITION OF OPPOStTION!.CONTAININO 157 SIGNATURES MAS SUBMITTED TO THE !
COMMISSION. MRS. BETTY IYEYHART~ 1312 KINGS COURT bRIVE~ APPEARcD BEFORE ~
THE COMMISSION~ INDICATED THAT SHE MAS OPPOSED TC THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL (
DEVELOPMENT~ AND STATEO 'HAT 5ti~ FAVORED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES ~
FflR TtiE ENTRANCE TO THE 1.ttAMOQD D_VELOP11E4T. '
!
MR. HARVEY BERGER APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSIOH AND STATED AS FOLLOMS: ~
THAT HE MAS A RES~DENT IN THE ANAMOOD DEVELOPMENT~ THAT HE QUESTIONED THE ~
VALIDITY OF THE SIONATURES ON THE PETITION OF OPPOSITION~ THAT HE NAS A
CO-PARTNER ~N THE ANAMOOD DEVELOPNENT PRESENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION ACRO55 ~
EUCL10 AVENUE ON THE EAST~ THAT HE MAS INTERESTED IN PROMOTING THE MOST
ECONOMIC AND DESIRABLE USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ THAT HE DtD NOT CON-
SIDER MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIA~ DEVELOPMENT SUITABLE FOR A MAJOR 5TREET~ ~
AND THAT THERE MA5 AN EXCESS OF APARTMENT UNITS AT THE PRESENT TIME ON ~
BALL ROAD,
MR. JOHN WE155~ 1851 CHALET AVENUE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND ~
STATED THAT~IN HLS OPINtON~ CONTRAC70R5 SHOULD NOT BE ALLOMED TO NITHHOLD
CORNERS FOR SPECULATIVE PURPOSES MHENEVER A TRACT IS DEVELOPED~ AND THAT
~ IF THE SUBJEC7 PROPERTY WERE DEVELOPED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES ~T WOULD
CONSTITUTE SPOT ZONING WHICH MOULD BE DETRtMENTAL TO THE COMMUNITY. HE
STATED FURTHER THAT 8Y EXERCISIN~ CARE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF BOTH RESI-
DHNTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTY~ PROPER DEVELOPMENT COULD BE ACCOMPLISkCD~
THUS PROH181TIN6 AN EXCESS OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD N07 BE
SUPPORTED ECONOMlCALLY~ AND PROVIDE FOR NECESSARY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
INSTEAD. HE REAG FROM A BROCHURE~ PUBLISHED BY THE ANAMOOD DEVELOPERS~
WHICH CONTAINED A DESCR~PTION OF THE AREA AS A RESTRICTIVE AND DESIRABLE
LOCATION FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES.
MR. S. A. FREEDMAN~ 1714 CHALET AVENUE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISS~ON~
DISPLAYED A CHART~ AND STATED THAT A NEW 40 ACRE H~GH SCHOOL MOULD BE LO-
CATED ADJACENT TQ THE,SUBJEC7 PROPERTY. HE REVIEMED CIRCUMSTANCES OF AN
INVESTIDATION REGARDINO PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN THE AREA FOR THE DEVELOP-
MENT OF THE SCHOOL FAClLITY~ AND INDICATED 7HAT 7HE DEVELOPERS OF THE ANA-
MOOD DISTRICT HAD ~IVEN 7HE PROPERTY ONNERS ASSURANCE AT SHE TIME OF PUR- ~
CHASE THAT THEIR PROPERTIES WOULD B= PROTECTED FROM UNDE5IRABLE USES IY
THE AREA. HE 4TATED FURTHER THAT HE APPROVED OF THE SCHOOL LOCATION IN ~ ,
AN AREA OF H14H RESIDENTIAL POTENTIAL AND RECOMMENDED THAT THE AREA BE
RESERVED FOR ltE81DENT1Al. DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF THIS FACTOR. MR. FREEDMAN
4NDICATEO HE OBJECTEO 70 THE LOCATION OF A REAL ESTATE OFFICE ON THE MORTH-
ME57 CORNER OF CHALET AND EUCLID AVENUES~ NHICH WAS E57A@LISHED AT THF. TIME
OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE ANAMOOD 7RACT AND WHICH ~5 PRESENTLY IN I~SE BY THE ~
DEVELOPER~ AND TO THE USE OF THEiR ADVERTISINO SI~NS. HE AL50 OBJECTEC
TO THE USE OF THE SOUTHMEBT CORNE? OF EUCLID ANA CHALE7 AVENUES FOR OTHL'R
THAN iiE51DENTIAL PURPOSES.
MR. SPEHAR APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND ItJ REBUTTAL STATED THAT THE.
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMEN7 MOULD BE LE35 OBJECTIONABLE THAI~~ MUITIPLE
FANILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT~ BU? THAT HE MOULD FIND tT NECES:ARY TO ~
UTILIZE THE PROPERTY FOP. NULTIPLE ~MELLINa UNITS IF THE SUBJECT PETITION
MERE OENIED. ~E INDICATED THAT HE HAD REQUESTEO NITHDRAWAI OF A SIMILAR
PETITION FOR RECLASStFICATIOH N0. 60~61~9'ON AU4UST 23~ 1960 BECAUSE~ AL~
THOUQH HE WAS NOT AMARE THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT MAS INTERESTED IN THE
PROPERTY~ HE CONSIDERED IT POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN~MORE MONEY fOR THE PROPERTY ~
IF THE PETITION WERE NITHDRAMN. (NFORMATION RELATIVE TO THE PRESENT STA~
TUS OF THE SUBJECT AND ABUTTIN~ PROPERTIES INVOLVED I~J RECLASSIFICATIOf:
NO.F60~61~4 WAS PRESENTED 70 THE COMMISS~ON~ INDICATINQ THAT THE RECLA55-~
IFICATION IS PENDINO BECAU56 CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THF. RESOLUSION HAVE
NOT BEEN FULFtLLED.
MRS. E. C. ERICKSON~ 1320 FALCON STREET~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~
STATED THAT SHE OBJECTED TO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMEN7 OF THE SUBJECT PROPER~
TY~ AND INDICATED THAT 7HERE MAS A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL DEVEL-
OPMEN~ IN THE VICINITY. THE HEARING YAS CLOSED.
THE COMMlSSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWINQ FACTS REdARDINO THE SUB~ ~
JECT PETITION:
1. PETITIONER REQUESTS A RECLASSIFICATI0~1 OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FFiOM THE ~
R~1~ S~NOLE FAMIIY RESIDEN7IAL~ ZONE TO THE C~1~ NEIGHBORHOOD COt~9MER- ~
QlAL ZONE LIMiTEO TO PROFESSIONA_ OFFICE IJSE ONLY,
~
.. . --- -.._
~ ~_.:~ __•_.____-y_.._.~.. ---- . . . ._' .. .. . -- _""""_"~ - - . .
.:: , ., .. .. • . , .
~. :
_ , .., ~ .. ( . .~ . : .~:. ~..~_. . . _ ._ _....
. ~ _ .~. ' ~.,w.~.... . ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ . -^' . . ~
%
~
_. _ __ ..r. - _-- ------ = .
, ~
MINUTES, CITY PC7CNNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 6, 1961, CONTINUED;
.~....~
eo
RDCLASSIFICATTON ~ 2. PROPOSED DEVEL6PMEN7 DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE AREA.
I~O. G0~61~67 HOFIEVER~ THE PRIMARY DEVELOPMENT IS FOR SIN~LE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE~
CONTINUED THEREFORE~ THE SUBJECT PETITION MOUID NOT BE CONSISTENT MITH THE
EXISTINO DEVELOPMENT.
3. VERBAL OPPOSITION~ IN ADDIYION TO WPI7TFN OPPOSITIO~~ AND A PETITION
~
OF OPPOSITION CONTAININ~ 157 SION\TURES~ WAS RECORD~D AOAINST SUBJECT
PETITION. VERBAL SUPPOR' BY ONE PROPERTY OMNER MAS R6CORDED IN FAVOR ~
OF SUBJECT PETITI~N.
~
COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED REBOLUTI9N N0. 194~ SERiEB 1960~61~ AiiD MOVED
~
FOR ITS PASSAOE AND ADOPTION~ SECOND~D BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX~ RECONMEND~
IN3 TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60~61~67~ REQUEST FOR
RECLASSIFICATION FROM R-i~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE ro C-s~ NEIGH- ?
. 80RHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE BE DENIED ON THE BASIS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED I
FINOINOB. ~
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOINO RESOLUTION WAS PABS6D BY THB.FOLLOMINO VOTEC
i
AYES: COMMISSIONERSS ALLRffD~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORR18~ MUNOALL~ SUMM6RS. ~
NOES: CdMMlSSIONERS: Noee. j
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPOOOD. ~
RECLASSIFICATION - PU~LIC HEARING. PeririoN SUBMITTLD av MARGARET E. OHNSTON, 1024 Wesr
~
~0. BO-B1-68 ~
~ 1112 WEbY COMMON~
SYCAMORl~ ANAHlIM~ CALI-ORNIA~ OWNBRj E. G. LAFIMIMA
MCALTH AV6NUE~ FULL6RTON CA6IRORNIA AQLNT~ RBQUESTING TMAT PROPLRTY
ONTAGL OF 108 FLET
F
i
i
~
R
s4 FQET WITN A
08 F6LT BY
OE8CR18L~ AS: A PARCEL
ON SOU7H L08 ANOCL6S STRLLT AND LOCATLD ON TN6 NORTNeASTSRLY CORNLR OF
SOUTH L05 ANOlLES STR66T AND VLRMONT AVLNUL~ AND FUNTHLR DLlCRIBCD AS
~
89G SOUT11 LOS ANG6LL8 STRLET~ SL RLCLASSIFILD FROM TML R~3~ MULTIPLE FAM~
ILY RESI~ENTIAL~ ZONE To rHC C-9, HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ iONE.
Ma. E. G. LAMMIMAN~ AUTMORIiLD AOLNT FOR THS P~TITIONLR~ APP[ARRD s[FOR[
THf CONM18510N~ DL6CRIBLD THL PROPOOLD SLRVICL STATION D[VLLOPM[NT~ AND
INDICATLD TMAT COMMLRCIAL DCVLLOPMLNT OF TNL 6U~JLGT P110~LRTY WAS TM[ ON~ -
LY -6AbIBLL U5L o6CAUtiL OF TNL LOCATION AND THL COMM~RCIAL D~V~LOPM[NT TO 1
THL 50UTH AND NLBT. HL 6TATLD *HAT THE STATlflN 4l9U6D eS 6SAeSB T0 TMi
~
RICFI/ILLD pIL COMPANY AND MOULD s~ A TY~ICAL lL11VIC~ 6TATION UNIT.
THE HEARINl3 MAS CLOSED.
THL COMM18610N RLVILMLD PLOT PLAtib iUdM:7TLD ^Y THL II«IILfLNTATIVt OF TN! ~
RICHIILLD OIL COMPANY AND DI6CU64:D MALL 11LQUIR~MLNTY AND ACC[0~ DRIVL!
/OR T11L DLVLLOPMLNT.
9
THi COMMIb810N 'OUND AND DLILRMINaD THL ROLLOMINa FACTS 11LGA11DIN0 TH[ •U~~
JLCT PLTITION;
1. ~TITIONLR IILQUQ5T6 A 11LCLA6~IFICATION OF ~U~J~CT ~IIO~LIITV FI10M TNL
~~3~ HULTIPLb FAMILY R~61D,LNTIAL~ iONL TO TM6 C~3~ HiAVY COMMCIICIAI.~
ZOIdL TO PLRiSIY TNL LYTA/LI~NMLNT AND 0~~11ATION OF A~~RVIC~ CTATION.
7
2. 'PROP05LD OLVLLOPMLNT Ib CbMPATI~Li WITH TN< <~IfTINa COMMt11CIAL D~~ ~
VLLOPMLNT~ MMICN INCLUDL~ TWO ~LIIVIC~ ~TATION~~ IN TNi AAiA. j
3. NO 0'AL APILARLD IN OPP061TION TO •USJLCT !~71TION~ '
i
COMMIS510qLR ALLRLD OI~~LRLD RLiOLUTION N0._193 SeRIL{ 1060~61~ AND MOV[D ~
/OR ITd PA55AOL AND ADO-TIQN~ ~CCONDLD ~Y CGMM3~~IONtR MOR111~~ 11LCOMM~ND~
INO TO THL CITY COUNCIL THAT RLCLA~6IRICATIQN N0. 60~BS~68~ R~QUE~T FOR
ALCtASE{fICASION raof~ sKS R-3~ ~tULTIPLE F1~M4LY REBIDENTIA~, ZONE !G !ME
C~3~ HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE~ OL ORANTLD~ 6UiJ~CT TO TNe F9LLOWINO COND1~
TIONS:
1. DLVELOPMLNT iUSiTANTIA6LY IN ACCORDANCi MITN PLAN~ P!1[{~NTiD.
~ 2. OLDICATION 0~ 4S /LLT FROM H~ MONUM~NT~D C~NTEI1LINi OF ~0~ ANOiLr~
STRLLT (34.75 /LLT LXIbTINOj.
i
3. PAYMLNT OF l2.00 PLR MItONT ~T.-OR 6TAC~T LIOHTINa ~UI1~0/~S ON Loa ANO~~~•
STRLLT AND ~ILRMONT AVLNUL.
4. TIML LIPIITATION 0/ 90 DAY6 ~OR THL ACCOM~LIiNMRN7 OF ITLM~ N0. 2 AND
3. I
S. COqSTNUCTION 0- A 4I% (0) FOOT MA~ONIIY NALL ON TM~ N011TFi ~R0~~I1TY I.IN[
TO NITMIN /I~TLLN (1'i) PLLT 0' THL Mi!5T ~ ~iI1TY LIN! 41N~R[ ~AID WAL~
UNTION
i
N
`
,
w
A
~
F
A
~
R
u
T
TM
~RO~~I
1TY
LINt
TO W
MAfONRY WALL ON
TN~
~
~T
%
A
S~%
(6)
/OOT
TMLNTY (20) /LLT 0~ THL bOUTM ~IIO~iItTY 61NL.
THL /ORLOOINO CONDITIONf MLRL RLCIT~D AT TNL MG~TINa AND Yt~l1~ FOUND TO i~
A kLCL55ARY PItrRLQU161TL TO 7HL Y6L 01~ TNi ~IIO~~IlTY IN 0116i11 fi0 PRL~~RV!
TNL fA/LTY AND MLL/ARL OP THL CITIZidi OF ANAM~IM~ ,
ON ItOLL CALL TNL /ORLa01N0 RL~OLUTION WA• ~AiOCD ~Y TMt FOLLOWINO VOTtt
M R t ALLitLD~ OAULR~ MARCOU~~ F1011111`~ MUNaALL~ SUNIMRRI.
A
~
~~~ ~~~~ ~ HA~d00D
~
~
~
R
t
95E
U
f
r>
+r~~, ~s._. .~ Y ' 1 ` .
T. .
.~' ~
~.._ ' _ _ --'~
- .~ ;:;t!~ ~
81
INUTES~ CITY PLIINNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 6~ 1961, CONTINUED;
ECLASS1FICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev PETE AND ELLA HIITSCHER~ 9ie WESr
OMNERS~ HAROCD L'. ME{RICH~'420 SOUTH
ORNIA
~. BD-6S~69 ~
ROMNEYA ORIVE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIF
CALIFORNIA A(iENTy REQUESTING'THAT PROPERTY DES~
ANAHEIM
EUCLID AVENUE
L
" i
~
A
CRIBED ASS A PARCEL 7U FEET BY 20b FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 70 FEET ON
F LA PALMA AVENUE BETMEEN
PALMA AYENtlE AND tOCpTED ON THE NORTH SIDE O
MAYFAIR AVENUE AND•WEST STREET~ ITS SO~JTHEA47 CORNER'BE1Na APPROXIMATELY
ETRCARNRESIDENTIAL'AGRICULTURAL,`ZONELTO THE
H
7
~
TH
RECLASSiFIED FROM
B@
NUE~
~
.
C-i, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZON
APPFA
RA
HE BNFORE
O
E
T
A
E
~
R
C
T
TO
FURTHER
NOTHING
HAD
HE
INDICATED
AND
MHE COMMISSwON
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEC. •
ON
.
FORMATION CONTAINED IN THE PFTITI
NTOPOMRD WEIRICHMENDICATED THATMTHE PET~I~RE-
S
M
a
THE AUTHORI2ED AG~
TH
M
MENTS
TIONERS HAVE NOT DEVELOPED PLI~NS AT THE PRESENT 71ME FOR THE ULTINATE DE-
NOMEVER
ROPERTY
~
.
VELOPMENT OF PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT P
A7 A LATER DATE~ DEVELOP PROPERTY FRONTING
O THEY MIGHT
' ~
THEY HAD INDICATE
ON LA PALMA AVENUE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES~ IF RECLASSIFICATION OF THE
HRT3E MULTIPLERFAMILYERES~IDENTIALxTUSESNG TO
D
E
Y
FOR
VE DEVELOPE
DR
ROMNEYA
TNE COMMISSION FOUND AN[1 DETERMINED THE FOLLOHING FACTS REGARDING TH£
SUBJECT PETITION:
1. PETITIONER REYUESTS,A RECLASSIFIGATION OF SUBJECT PRUPERTY FROM THE
ER-
~
~
H
E
T
ING
ILD
BU
MEDIGANEDENTAI.
A
~IT'THETDEVELOPMENTTOF
E
'
R
PERM
TO
ZONE
CIAL~
SIMILAR
'
S
Y
T
F
E
~
2
PROPERTY,
SUBJECT
OF
MESTERLY
LOCATED
DEVELOPMENT
IAL
~ COMMERC
3. NO ONE APPEAREO IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION.
COMMISSIONER MUNGALL OFFERE~ RESOLUTION ~VO. 196, SERIES 1960-61~ AND MOVED
NDED 8Y COMMISSIONER MARCOUX~ RECPMMEND-
FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECO
ING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60~61-69 REQUEST FOR
ZGNE TO iHE C-1
~
RECLA551FICATION FROM THE R~A, RESIDENTIAL RGRICULTURAL,
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIA~~ ZONE, ~1BJECT TO THE FOLIOMING CONDITIONS:
~
C ORDANCE MITH PLANS PRESENTED.
1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY I
2. PAYMENT OF Z2.00 PER FRONT F00T FOR STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES.
3. TIME LIMITATION OF 90 DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITEM N0: 2.
AFSVE ~25)FFEETMOF THE SOUTHOPROPERTYSLINEOMHERE SAND
I
4~
N
TMENTY
aITHIN
TO
SHALL BE REDUCED ~'0 THREE AND ONE~HALF (3}) FEET~ CONSTRUCTION
WA41
.
ALLWSHALL
E
Y
R
A
Y
S
X
SAID
N
WHERE
LINE
SOUTH PROPERTY
THE
(15; FEET OF
FIFTEEN
STRUCTION OF
~
H
E
3
L
D
,
LINE
PROPERTY
NORTH
THE
WALL ON
AESRXD(6~DFOOTTMASONRY
EHPROPERl'YG~NMORDER~TOOPRESERVEE
E
A
E
R
N
H
' USE
OF
TH
THE
PREREQUISITE TO
NECESSARY
A
THE SAFETY AND MELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM.
ON ROLI CALL Ti1E :OREGOING RESOLUTION MAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWINa VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUN6ALL~ SUMMERS.
NOfiS: CONMISS~ONERS: NoNe.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSS HAPGOOD.
RECLASSIFICA710N - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev ROBER7 H. MILES, P. 0. Box 587,
2703 BEACH BOULEVARD~
SYLVESTER
MILLIAPI ~-
~Q. 60~61-70 ,
.
ANAHEIM~ CAI.IFORNIA~ OMNER~
HUNTINGTON BEACH~ CALIFORNIA~ AGEN7~ REQUESTING THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBEID ASC
R
ANO SANTA
DE OFTCITRONOSTREETOBETWEENEBROA WAY
~
Y
E
A
SI
NEST
THE
LOCATED ON
AND
ANA STREETj ITS NOR7HEAST CORNER 8EING APPROXIMATELY 165 FEET SOUTH OF
~BED
THE SOUTHMEST CORNER OF BROADMAY AND CITRON S7REET~ AND FURTHER DESGR
SINGLE FAMILY
R
ZO~JE
B TWOCFAMILY~RESI~ENTIAL
E
=
S
H 2
TIR
E
RE
I
,
2
THE
R
ONE TO
t1
L
N
S
MR. W. I~. SYLVESTER~ AUTHORI2ED AQENT FOR THE PETI710kER~ APPEARED BEFORE
FILED WITH
THE COMMISSION AND READ A LETTER~ SIGNED BY THE PETITIOi?ERS AkD
THE ZONING AND
M
E
P
E
CLOSED,
WAS
THE HEAR.ING
AREAE
LANDPUSE70FNTHEHSURROUNDRN(i
THE COMM15510N FOUND ANL DETER!.•:NED THE FOLLOWINCi FACTS REGARDING THE SUB-
JfiCT PET IT I ON C
1. PE7ITIONER REQUE5T5 A RECLA55IFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPFRTY FROM THE
E
H
UN/TN
TMO-FAMT LY DNEILING
TIAI~SZONEETOAPERMI7ETHEEDEY~LOPMENT OF A
2. Pa0PO5ED DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE N17H THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE SUR-
ROUNDINfi AREA.
~ . . . , . ~ . . _..,. . . ...... .. ~ . . . . 1 . . . . ~ 1: ~ . . % I . . . . ~. .
~ . - ~ ~
i
~
~_~_ --- ------- -----. . __::____.,~ ----._._ .
;
~ ~~ ~ ~ - _ ..~
f A
E ~
i s2
~ ~ MiNUTES~ CITY PLICNNING COMMIS510N, MnRCH 6, 1961, CONTINUED: '
~R~CLASSTFI~ATTON - 3. NO ONE APPE:IRED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION.
N0. 60-61-70
CONTI'NUED
COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 197~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND MOVED
FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUMMERS~ RECOMMEND-
' ING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60-61-70 REQUEST FOR
R~2
f
~
ONE TO rHe
RECLASSIFICATION FROM THE R-1~ SINGLE FAMILY RE5IDENTidt,
~ TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE~ BE GRANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOMING CONDi-
TIONSC
j
I 1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTtALLY 1N ACCORDANCE NITH PLANS PRESENTED.
' 2. PAYGIENT OF $2.00 PER FRONT F00T FOR STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES.
3. TIME LIMITATION OF 90 DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITEM ~ti0. 2.
• THE FUREGOING CONDITIONS MERE 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 MELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM.
~ ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION'WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLONING VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD.
R;:CIASSIFICAT(ON - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev ROBERT AULT 1214 NORTH DRESDENt
354 ORANGENOOD AVE-
UN~ER
S
NO. 60-61-71 ~
.
APT. MA„~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNER~ ROBERT
' NUE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ AGENT~ REQUESTI~iG THAT PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5:
A PARCEL 80 FEET BY 130 FEET WITH A FRONTAu~ OF 80 FEET ON ORANGEWOOD
EEN HASTER
AVENUE BET
M
AVENUE ANO LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ORANGEWOOD
AND LEWIS ~fREETS~ ITS NORTHWEST CORNER BEING APPROXIMATELY 1~030 FEET
EAST OF TFIE SOUTkEAST CORNER OF HASTER S7REET AND ORANGEWOOD AVENUE~ AND
Fl1RTHER DESCRIBED AS 344 ORANGEWOOD /~VENUE~ BE REC~ASSIFIED FROM THE R-A~
RESIDEN7lAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE ro THE R-i, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENfIAL,
ZONE.
~' MR. ROBERT AULT~ THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND IN-
DICATED THAT I1E HAD NOTHING TO ADD TO THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE
PETITION. THE HEARING WAS ~i.OSED.
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE ZONING AND LAND USE OF THE SURROUNDING AREA~
M~
F
A
AND THE PETITIONER INDI~:ATED THAT HE WAS AWARE OF THE R-3~ MU~TIPLE
ILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONING ESTABLISHED IN THE VICINITY OF THE SUBJECT PRO-
PERTY. THE PETITIONER INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
MAS A RECORDED LOT.
THE COMMISStO!1 FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGkRDING THE
SUBJECT PETITIONS
1. PETITIONER REQUESTS A RECLASSIFICATION tiF 5UBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE
SINGLE FAMILY RE51-
E TO THE R~1
~
R~A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZON
CE
.
DENTIAL~ 20NE TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDEN
2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE MITH TItE DEVELOPMENT IN THE SUR--
ROUNDIN6 AREA.
~ 3. NO ONE APPEAREO IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PE7ITION.
COMMISSIONER A~LRED OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 198~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND MOVED
FOR {TS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SEC~NOED BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS~ RECOMMEND-
ING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60~61-71 REQUEST FOR
RECLASSIFICATION FROM THE R~A?~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZbNE TO THE R-1~
NG
SINGLE FAMILY RESI~ENTIAL, ZOIYE~ BE 6RANTED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWI
CONDITIONS:
1. DEDICATION OF 45 FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF ORAN~EWOOD
AVENUE (2,0 FEET EXISTIN~).
2. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL IM-
PROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE MITH APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENaINEER.
3. PAYMENT OF a2.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES.
4. TIME LIMITATION OF 90 DAYS FOR THE ACCOlAPLISHMENT OF ITEMS N0. 1~ 2~
AND 3.
THE FOREOOIN~ CONDITIONS MERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND 70 BE
A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO TH~ USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
THE SAFETY AND MELFARE OF THL CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM.
~ ~~ ON ROLL CALL THE FOREQOING RE80LUTION MAS PASSED BY THE FOILOMING VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUY.~ MORRIS~ MUNaALL~ SUMMERS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERSC NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSS HAP~OOG.
, . , .. ._ .,W,. ... .--~~ ~ - __.,_,,.
. ~ ~ ~'•,•_.r."""""=..
~ !
. .--- ,-- i
~
83
~ ~
~
~ j
~ 1
MINUTES, C~TY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARCH 6~ 1961, CONTINUED:
RECLASS7FICATION -"PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBNITTED ev PAUL TURNER 1565 MEST KATELLA AVE-
NO. 60-61-72 NUE~ ANANEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OMNER
• DR. CARL E. REMEL3N
207 SOUTH MAIN
p
~
STREET~ $ANTA ANA~ CALIFORNIA~ AGENT~ REQUESTING THAT PROPERTY DESCRtBED
A5: A PARCEL 101 FEET BY 338 FT. MITH A FRONTAGE OF 101 FT.ON KATELLA C,V~.~
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF KATELLA AVENUE BETMEEN BAYLE55 ST'REET A~D
CARNELIAN STREET~ ITS SOUTHEAST CORNER BEING APPftOXIMATELY 250 FEET WEST
OF THE NORTN'NEST CORNER OF KATELLA'AVENUE AND BAYLE55 STREET~ ANO FURTHER
DESCRIBED AS 1565 WEST KATELLA AVENUE BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE Z-O~ RESI~
DEN
I
TIAL SUBURBAN, 20NE To THE C-1, NE
GHBORH00~ COMMERCIAC, ZONE,
DR. CARL E. REMELIN~ AUYHORI2ED AGENT FOR THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED 9EFORE
THE COMMISSION~ STATED THAT HE INTENDED TO UTILIZE THE EXISTINa RESI~ENCE
FOR A MEDICAL OFFICE~ THAT IT NOULD NOT BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES~
AND THAT THERE WAS ADEQUATE PARKINCa AREA AVAILABLE. HE STATED THAT HE
MOULD NQT ALTER THE APPEARANCE OF THE BUILDING AT THE PRESENT TIME~ AND
THAT HE INTENDED TO REMOVE SOME TREES FROM THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
R. D. CROWELL~ OWNER OF.PROPERTY ACRO55 THE STREET FRt~M THE SUBJECT PRO~
PERTY~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT HE MAS OPPOSED TO
RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TO C~1 ZONING BECAUSE HE WAS GON-
CERNED ABOUT THE POSS,IBILITY THAT THE PROPOSED USE MAY NOT BE DEVELOPED
, IN ACCURDANCE MITH THE CONDlTIONS OF APPROVAL. HE MADE REFERENCE TO
ANOTHER PARCE~ IN THE AREA THAT HAD NOT COMPLIED MITH CONDITIONS IMPOSED
MHEN RECLASSIFICATION Nf THE PROPERTY WAS GRANTED. THE HEARING MAS
CLOSED.
THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE PRESENT APPEARANCE OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE
AND THE POSSIBILITY OF A CHANOE OF OCCUPANCY IN THE STRUCTURE AT A
LATER DATE. THE COMMISSION 0.L50 DISCUSSED THE NECESSITY FOR CONTROL OF
THE FUTURE APPEARANCE AND USE Of THE BUILDING~ AND NEED FOR ADDITIONAL
PARKING FACILITIES AND CONSTRUCTION OF MASONRY WALLS TO MEET CODE REQU
IRE-
,
MENTS. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMISSJON THAT
IF ApPROVAL WERE GRANTED~ THE SUBJECT PETITION SHOUID BE SUBJECT' TO RE-
VIEW YIITHIN A SPECIFIED TIME TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE BUILDIKG Si!OULD BE
REMOVED OR ALTERED TO CONFORM TO COMMEZCIAL DEVELOPMEN7 STANDARDS.
7HE OMNER OF A6UTTING PROPERTY MAS Pt3ESENT AND INDICATED THAT SHE INTENDED
TO MAINTAIN HER RESIDENCE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSESt BUT THAT SHE HAD NO
OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED USE IF THE PARKINCi AREA MAS NOT LOCATED ADJA-
CENT TO HER PROPERTY.
THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOMIr~G FACTS RE(iARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITIONS
1. PETITIONER REQUESTS RECLASSIFICA710N OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM 7HE
K~O~RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN~ ZONE TO THE C~1~ NEtGHBORM00D COMMERCIAL
~
ZONE~LIMITED TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ONLY~ TO PERMIT CONVERSiON OF
AN EXISTING STRUCTURE INTO PROFESSIONAL OFFICES.
2. PROPOSED DEYEIOPMENT MOULD BE COMPATIBLE MITH THE DEVELOPMENT ON
KATELLA AVENUE.
3. VERBAL OPPOSlTION BY ONE OWNER OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON KATELLA AVENUE
MAS RECOY,DED AT THE MF.ETING.
COMMISSIONER SUMMERS OfFEREO RESOLUT~ON N0. 199~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND NOVED
FOR ITS PASSAQE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY CQMMIfiS~ONER ALLRED~ THAT RE-
CLASSIFICATION N0. 60~61-72~ REQUEST FOR RECLASSIFICATION FROM THE R-O~
RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN, ZONE TO THE C-i, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE, ee
aRANTED~ 3tIBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONSt
1. DEVELOPMENT SU95TANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE MITH PLANS PRESENTED.
2. PROVISION OF 13 IMPROVED PARKINO SPACES IN ACCORDANCE MlTH CODE RE-
QUIREMENTS FOR SUBJECT PROPERTY.
3. DEDICATION OF 60 FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF KATELLA AVE~
, NUE (40 FEET EXI8TIN0).
4. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALI.ATION OF ALL IM-
~
~
PROVEMENTS IN
ACCORDANCE M
ITH APPROVED 57'ANDARD PLANS ON FILE lN THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY EN~INEER.
5. PAYMENT OF ~2.00 PER FRONT F00T FOR STREET L~OHTINO PURPOSES.
6. TIME LIMITAiION OF 90 DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITEMS N0. 3~ 4~
AND 5.
7. CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX (6) FOOT MASONRY WALL ON THE EAST~ NORTH~ AND
MEST.PROPERTY LINES TO MITHIN TMENTY~FIVE (25) FEET OF THE SOUTH
PROPERTY LINE WHERF. BA:D WALL SHAIL BE REDUCED TO THREE AND ONE-HALF
(3}
~ FEET.
8. FILIN6 OF C~1~ NEIGHBORHOOO COMMERCIAL~ DEED RESTRICTIONS LIMI7IN(i USE
TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ONLY~ AND INCLUDING THE STIPULATION THAT ANY
, MODIFICATION OF THE BUILDING RE SUBJECT TO ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE
APPROVAL.
' 9. TIME LIMITATION OF FIVE (5) YeARS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF TNE SUB-
JECT RESOLLTION~ SUB~ICCT-TO REVIEM MITHIN SAID PQRIOD OF.TIME~ FOR DE-
TfiRNtNAT10N ON THE NECESSITY FOR EITHER REMOVAL OF THE BUILDING'OR
ALTERATIaN TO C~MMERCIAI.BTANDARCS.
~"'`"-~ . .. . . . ~ . . .. . ~~ ~ . . . . .. ..: . . ~ .
~ 1 . _ . ~' ~ _./
~
1
-
.;. ; _. ..., .:;
_. ,,
. :,
~"
.
~
•
°,
°;;::. •
,.,,
~ ;:
~ ~ _ ~
84
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, MARC _~ 1961, CONTINUED:
RECLASS(FICATION - THE FOREGOING CO:.JITIONS MERE RECITEO AT THE MEETING AND WERF FOUND TO BE
ND. 60~61-72 A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE
CONTINUED THE SAFETY AND MELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF ANAHEIM. .
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION MAS PASSED BY THE FOL.LOWING VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GqUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS.
NOES• COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:~HAPGOpD.,
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev JAMES C. AND MARGIIREf HUEBSCH, 1203
NO. 60-61-73 EAST VERMONTt ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNERS~ REQUESTING THAT PROPERTY DES-
CRIBED A5: A PARCEL 65 FEE7 BY 108 FEET N17}1 A'FRONTAGE OF 65 FEET ON
VERMONT AVENUE AND LOCATEO ON THE NORTHEA57 CORWER QF VERMONT /1VENUE
AND EAST STREET~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED A5 12d3 EAST VERNONT AVENUE BE
FECLASSIFIED FROM THE R-1z' SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE ro rHe ~-i
NEIGHBORHO
D
~
O
COMMERCIAL,(KESTRICTED TO PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ONLY)~ ZO
E.
MR. ~AMES HUEBSCH~ 1203 EAST VERMONT AYENUE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMIS-
StON AND STATED THAT HE CONSIDERED THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
TO BE MORE SUITABLE FOR BUSINESS OR PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ONLY BECAUSE
T:iE PROPERTY MAS NO LONaER DESIRABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES DUE TO THE
M•~1~ LIGHT MANUFACTURINO~ 20NlNG AND DEVELOPMENT ACROSS EAST STREET ON,THE
WEST. HE INDICATED THAT HE HAD APPLIED FOR A F.H.A. MORTGAGE INSURANCE
LOAN~ MHICH HAD BEEN DENIED ON THE BA515 OF THE M~1 ZONING IN THE AREA~
AND 7HAT HE HAD FILED.THE LETTER OF DENIAL~ DATED MARCH 25~1959~ WITH
THE SUBJECT PETITION.
COMMISSIONER MUNGALL INDICATED THAT THE M~1 ZONING HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED
ON THE WEST SIDE OF EAST STREET FOR APPROXIMATELY SIX YEARS~ AND THAT THE
ZONING ON THE EAST SI,DE OF EAST STREET CONTAINED R~1 SINGLE FAMILY RESI-
DENTIAL~ ANO R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAI~ ZONING. fHE HEARING WAS
CLOSED.
THE :OMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOMING FACS3 REGARDING THE
SUBJECT PETITION: "
1. PETITIONER REQUE5T5 THE RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTV FROM
T/~HE R~1~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ 20NE TO THE C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD
NVDIINGRI~IpL~ 20NE~ LiMITED Tt7 PROFE39i0N1+L GFtICES ONLY~ TO PERhs~T
THE DEVELOPMENT AT SOME FUTURE DATE FOR THE APPROVED COMMERCIAL USES.
2. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCAT6D IN A TRACT OF SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT AND THE 512E OF THE LOT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR COMMERCIAL
USE.
3. RECI.ASSIFlCATlON QF SUBJECT PROPEftTY TO THE C-1, MElGHBORHOOC COM-
MERCIAL~ 20NE MOULD CONSTITUTE STRIP COMFIERCIAL ZONIN(i.
4. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION.
COMMISSIONER ALLRED OFFERED RESOLU710N N0. 200~ SERIES 1960~61~ AND MOVED
FOR ITS PASSAQE AND ADOP710N~ SECONDED BY COMMIfi510NER MORRIS~ RECOMMEND-
ING TO THE C17Y COUNCIL THAT RECLASSIFICATfON N0. 60~61-73 REQUEST FOR
RECLASSIFICA?ION FROM THE R-i, SINGIE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, fONE To rHE C-i,
NEIGHBQRHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE~ BE DENIED ON THE BA515 OF THE AFOREMENTION-
ED FINDINCiS.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOINO RESOLUTION MAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTEC
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSEN7: COMMISSIONERS~ HAPGOOD.
RECUISSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED er EDWARD P. BACKS, 506 NoRrH Los ANGE-
NO. 60~61~74 LES STREET~ ANAHE114~ CALIFORNIA~ O11NER~ REQUESTING THA7 PROPERTY DES~
CRIBED ASS AN IRREGULARLY SHAPED PARCEL WITH A FRONTAGE OF 110 FEET AND
AN AVERAfiE DEPTN OF 250 FEET AND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF PLACENTI.A
AVENUE BETMEEN CENTER STREET AND REDMOOD AVENUE~ ITS SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER
BEING APPROXIMATELY 630 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTHMEST CORNER OF PLACENTIA
AVENUE AWD CENTER S7REET~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 224 NORTH PLACENTIA
AVENUE ee RECLASSIFIED FRORI rHe R-A R.ESIDEM IAL a6RICULTURAL, ZONE 70
THE C-~, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZO~IE.
MR. EDMARD'BacKS, THE PETITIONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND'
STATED THAT THE PROPERTY MOULD BE DEVELOPED !N ACCOROANCE MITH PLANS SUB-
MITT~'D MITH THE SUBJECT PETITION.
THE COKMISSION DISCUSSED A LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE EiNAHEIM UNION WATER
COtAPANV REGARDIN6 AN IRRIGATION PIPELINE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE
PETITIONER INDICATEO THAT THE PIPEI.INE MAS NOT IN USE AT THE PRESENT TIME.
THE HEARING MAS CLOSED.
THE CQMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED 7HE FOLLOMING FACTS REGARDING THE SUB-
,;,_-, ,, JECT PETITION2
1. PETITIONER REQUESTS A RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM THE
R~A~ RESIDENTIAL AORICULTURAL~ ZONE TO THE C~l~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMER-
CIAL~ ZONE.TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE~STORY MULTIPLE OFFICE
BUILDIN~.
~~;
85
MINUTES, CITY PCANN.ING COIiMISSION~ MARCH 6~ 1961~ CON7INUED:
RECLAS51FfCATION ~ 2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
NO. 60-61-74 AND MOUID BE COMPATIBLE M~TH THE SURROUNDING AREA.
CONTINUED
3. NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO THE SUBJECT PETITION. ,
COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 201~ SERIES 1950-61~ AND MOVED
FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTtON~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALIRED~ RECOMMEND-
ING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60-61-74 REQUEST FOR
RECLASSIFICATION FROM THE R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZbNE TO THE C~1~
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ?ONE SUBJECT r~HE FOLLOMING CONOITIONS:
~~ ~tv~-
1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN A'~CCORDANCE MITH PLANS PRESENTED.
2. DEDICATION OF 53 FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF PLACENTIA
AVENUE (5O FEET EXISTING).
3. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL IM-
PROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE MITH APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER.
4. PAYMENT OF ~2.00 PER FRONT F00T FOR STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES.
5. TIME LIMITATION OF 90 DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITEMS N0. 2, 3~
AND 4.
6. PROVISIONS MADE FOft THE PROTECTION OF THE IRRIGATION PIPELINE~ REFER-
RED TO IN THE LETTER FROM THE ANAHEIM UNION WATER COMPANY DATED
FEBRUARY 27~ 1961 ON FILE NITH SUBJECT PETITION~ TO THE SATISFACTION
OF THE ANAHEIM WATER COMPANY.
THE FOREGOING CONDITIONS MERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO
BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRE-
SERVE THE SAFETY AND MELFARE OF THE CITt2ENS OF ANAHE~M.
ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOINu RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLONING VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS.
NOES: COMMISSiC1NERS: IVONE.
ABSENT: COMMI5SIONERSC HAPa00D.
DISCUSSION -(TEM No. 1: AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 16, CHAPTERS 18.64; 18.20, AND 16.24;
PROPOSED AMEND!MENTS TO TITLE 18 OF THE MUNIC~PAL CODE NERE
PRESENTED TO T'HE COMMISSION.
IT WAS NOTEO THAT SECTION 18.64.020 (1-E~ WOULD P~tOVIDE FOR "PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVEIOPMENT~ IN THE CONDITIONAL USES SECTION OF THE
COUE AND MOULD INCORPORATE THE STANDARD PROVISIONS FOR SAID SITES
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: NPLANNED RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVEIOPMENTS - ON A
PARCEL AT LEAST THREE (3~ ACRES IN SIZE~ WHERE THE STRUCTURES ARE
INTEGRATED 1tITH OPEN AND RECREATfON AREAS SERVING AS A CENTRAL UNIF'Y-
ING ELEMENT~ MHERE PERIPHERAL PARKING AND CIRCULATtON OF VEHICULAR
TRAFFIC IS PROVIDED~ AND MHERE THE LIVING ENVIRONMENT IS DETERMINED
TO BE MORE DESIRABLE TNAN THE NORMAL SUBDIVISION TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT."
SUBJECT TO •PLANNED RESIDENTIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS."
SECTION 18.64.020 (3-V) WOULD PROVIDE FOR THE ADDITION OF °COCKTAIL
LOUNGES• TO THE CONDITIONAL USES SECTI~DN.
SECTION 18.64.OZD (4~G~ WOl1LD ADD ~PLAN.NED INDUSTRIAL SITE DEVELOP~
MENT° TO THE CONDITIONAL USES SECTION ANfl WOULD BE SUBJECT TO ^PLAN-
NED INDUSTRIAL SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.°
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE MERE PRESENTC;, TO THE COMM-S-
SION RELATIVE TO REQUIREMENTS FOR OFF-STREET PARKING IN R-O~ ONE
FAMILY SLBURBAN~ ANO R~l~ SINGIE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ 2'~NES~ DESCRIBED
AS FOLLONS.
• SECTION 18.2p.030 (D-5~ -^FOR ALL R-O USEB THE MINIMUM OFF-STP.EET
PARKING REQUIREMENT SHALL BE TMO SPACES P.E.R DMEILING UNIT IN A ~ARA3E.°
SECTION 18.24.030 (5~ -~~FOR ALL R~l USES THE MINIMUM OFf-STREET PARK~
INO REQUIREMENT SHALL BE TNO SPACES PER DMELLING UNIT IN A GARAGE.„
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE QEtSLER INFORMED THE COMMISSION THAT A
PUBLIC HEARINO~ OUTLININ6 THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN GENERAL TEF2M5~
COULD BE INITIATED BY THE COHMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE PRO-
POSED AMENDMENT5 AND THAT THEIR NEXi WORK SESSION COULD BE UTILIZED
FOR STUDY AND REVIEY OF THE VARIOUS'SEC710N5.
COMMISSIONER ALLRED OFFERED A MOTION SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MAR-
GOUX AND CARRIED~ THAT THE PLANNING ~OAqlSSION INITIATE A PUBLIC HEAR~
INO SCHEDULED FOR HARCFI 20~ 1961 TQ CONSIDER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
TITLE 18.OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE DEBCRIBED AS FOLLOMS: SEC-
SECTION~18.200030 (D-S~ECANDNSECT60No18.24.03b(S~CTION 18.64.020 (4~fi~~
` •
4
- - - --- - ,. ~~ --____-,-...,a~_,,,
,.,.. .... . .. ~ i' . , . _ . ~ ~.- • ---
i
~
~
~
9
S
~
~ •.
86
NINUTES, CITY P1:l~NNING COMMISSION~ MARCH 6~ 1961, CONTINUED: ?
;
IItSCUSSION ~ ITEM No. 2: REVIEW - VARIaNCE N0. 1314: I
cCowr~NUenl i
MR. TOM COUGHLIN APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND REVIEMED'THE'PREVIOUS
ACTION OF THE COMMISSION IN GRANTING VARIANCE N0. 1314~ THEREBY ESTABL~SH~
"" !NQ VARIOUS USES PERp!lTTED,ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. HE INDICATED THAT' AL-
THOUGH SPECIALTY GIFT SHOPS MERE INCLUDED IN THE USES STIPULATED IN•THE
PETITION FOR VARIANCE~ A SPECIALTY FOOD SHOP NAS NOT DESIGNATED. HE , '
STATED THAT HE HAD A TENANT WHO IiI5HE0 TO ESTABLISH A GOURMET SHOP DEAL~ 'i
ING WITH SPECIALTY FOOD AND GIFT ITEMS SIMILAR TO ~URGENSEN~S GOURMET ~
SHOP IN SANTA ANA. AS A CONSEQUENCE~ HE MAS DESIROUS OF OBTAINIpG AN IN- i
TERPRETATION 4F THE COMMISaION~S RESOLUTION AS REGARDS THE INTENDED USE. 3
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ~OE GEISLER INDICATED THAT ALTHOUGH THE RESOLU-
TION DID DIOT INCLUDE SPECIALTY FOOD SHOPS~IT HOULD PERMIT SPEC~ALTY GIF7
SHOPS AND BAKER~ES WHICH MIGHT BE CONSIDERED OF A SiMiLAR NATURE TO THE
PROPSED ESTABLISHltENT. HE ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT IF THEY CONSiDER-
ED A SPECtALTY fi0tlRMET SHOP TO BE SIMILAR TO THE OTHER STIPULATED USES'
IT COULD 8E CONSIDERwD AS INCLUDED IN THE TERNINOLOGY OF THE RESO~UTiON~
BUT 7HAT IF !T WAS N0T 50 DETERMINED THE RESOLUTION SHOULD BE AMENDED.
THIS COULD ONLY BE DONE lN CONNECTION MITH A NEM PETITION FOft VARIANCE.
TF1E COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE POSSIBIL~TY OF OBTAINING A LETTER FROM THE
" PETITIONER OUTLlNING IN DETAIL THE PROPOSED USE' BUT THE PETITIONER RE-
QUESTED THAT THE DETERNINATION NOT BE DEFERRED UNTIL SUCH TIME DUE T'0
BUILDING OCCUPANCY COMMITMENTS. ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GE~SLER
ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT THE SPECIALTY FOOD SHOP COULD BE CONSIDERED
A GOURMET SHOP SIMIIAR TO JUR6ENSEN~S AND THAT THE PETITIONER COULD SUB-
M1T A MRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE INTENDED USE FOR FILING WITH THE PLAN~
NING DEPARTMENT.
' COMM~SS,IONER MORRIS OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIOFE R MARCOUX
~ AND CARRIED~ THAT THE TERMINOLOGY OF RESOlUTION N0. 132' SERIES 1960-619
i BE C^NSIDERED TO ~NCLUDE A GOURMET SHOP OF THE CHARACTER ESTABlISHED iN
P THE fl1RGENSEN~S GOURMET SHOPS~ AS FILED BY THE PETITIONER WITH THE PLAN-
'~. NING DEPARTMENT AND INCORPORATED Ik PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1314.
` OR ,$pONDENCE - IrEM No. i;r SOUTHERN~CALIFORNIA PLANNING CONGRESS DINNER MEETING:
! NOTICE OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PLANNING CONGRE55 DINNER MEETING TO BE
HELD MARCH 9~ 1961 AT LAS POSAS COUNTRY CLUB' CAMARILLO~ CALIFORNIA WAS ~
SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION.
ITEM No. 2; ORANGE COUM Y USE VARIANCE N0. 4714: ~
A NOT~CE OF APPLICATION FOR ORANGE COUNTY USE VARIANCE PERMIT N0. 4714 ~"
WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION. SUBJECT APPLICATION REQUES?£D PERMi15~
SION FOR 7HE ESTABLISHMENT OF A REAL ESTATE OFFICE IN AN EXISTING DMELL-
IWO IN THE R~l SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT' AND INDICATED THAT
THERE MOULD•BE A MAXIMUM OF 4 PERSONS WORKING ON THE PREMISES AT ANY ONE
TIME'~ THAT B OFF-57REET PAFKING SPACES NOULD BE PROVIDEDe AND THAT OkE
SIN4LE~FACED SIdN CON7AININO A MAXIMUK OF 50 SQUARE FEET NOULD BE LOCATED
' ON 7HE EAST SIDE OF THE DNELLINQ.
A STAFF REPORT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION MHICH INDICATED AS FOL~OMS:
~THE 'APPROVAL OF 7HIS REQUEST MOUI.D SERVE AS A DETERIORATINd INFLUENCE ON
' THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF STONYBROOK AVENUE. IT COULD BE USED AS A
CONVENIENT AID TOWARD JUSTiFYINa COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG ANY MAJOR
HI(iHMAY. IF THIS REQUEST I5~ tN FACT~ JUSTIFIED BY VIRTUE OF ITS LOCA-
TION ADJACENT TO A MAJOR 7HOROU6HFARE~ THEN WE MUST 5ANCTION THE EXPAN~
SION OF BUSINESS UBES ALONO ANY MAJOR THOROU(iHFARE. IT IS WELL KNOMN -
THAT THIS HAS A DESTRUCTIVE EFFECT ON RESIDEN7IAL PROPERTY VALUES FOR
THE FULL LENaTH THAT SUCH STRIP DEVELOPMENT EXISTS.N
~ TNE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOMING FACTS REGARDINfi SUBJECT
t APPLICA710NC
~ -
1. PROPOSED SION DIMENSlONB~ AS INDICATEG ON THE PL07 PLAN~ ARE EXCES~
SIVE FOR SUBJECT PETITION.
2. PROPOSED USF. LS NOT .OMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN
THE AREA.
~ COHMIS~IONER ALLRED OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX
~, AND CARRIEU~ THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMIT NOTICE TO THE ORANaE
i COUNTY PLANNIN6 COMMISSION INDICATIN6 7HAT THE ANAHEIM PLANNIN~ COMMISSION
E~ RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE SUBJECT PETITION ON THE BA515 OF THE AFOREMEN-
~ TIONED FINDINGS. TNE COMMISSION INDiCATED FURTHER THAT SHOULD APPROVAI
~ BE CiRANTED~ IT MAS RECOMMENDED THAT 7HE PROPOSED USE NOT BE PERMITTED UN~
~. LESS ESTABLISHED IN A COMMERCIAL BUILDING.
ITe~ No. 3; ORANGE COUM Y T ENTATIVE TRACT N0. 4096:
NOTICE OF ORAN6E COUNTY TENTATIYE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4096 W~AS PRESENTED TO
THE COMMISSION. A STAFF REPORT MAS SUBMI7TED INDICATIN6 THAT THE STREET
LAYOUT WAS SATISFACTORYti BUT RECOMMENDlNO 7HE FOLLOWtN6'CHANGES IN S7REET
- iI1DTN5,
~ ALDEN AVENUE ~ FROM 64 FEET 70 60 FHET. -
STANDISH AVENUE ~ FROM 64 FEET TO 60 FEET.
~ ~Y~ STREET ~ FROM 60 FEET TO 64 FEET. ,
SOUTH STREET ~ FROM 3A FEET ~HALF MIDTH) 70 32 FEET (HALF MIDTH).
~J,
`
%:...
~ ~ ~~ ` „__" i ~~ ....~.-..
i . "~f :.,.r ~~r'~._._.~'.~1~ .. x . l ., ~ . . . . . . . . . ,. . . _~,.... • _ . . . - • . .
e~
MINUTES~ CITY PCANNTNG COMHISSION': MARCH:6, 1962, CONTINUED;
CORRESfONDENCE - ITEM No. 3, CoNriNUE~;, ORANGE COUNTY TENTA7fVE TRACT N0. 4096:
CONTINUED
THE COMMISS~ON NOTED SHAT THE STREET WIDTH CHANGES MERE RECOMMENDED BE-
CAUSE TRAFFIG FR4M~'~HE 10CAL STREETS DRAINED INTO THE COLLECTOR STREETS.
COMMISSIONER.NUNGALI.~•'.OFFERED A NOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS
AND CARRIED~ 7HA7 :THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TRANSMIT TO THE ORANGE COUNTY
PLANNING COMMIS51'ON A RECOMMENDATION THAT TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4096
BE APPROVED SUBJECT:TO 7HE STREET NIDTH CHANGES ~NDICATED ABOVE.
REPORTS AND RECOM- - ITEM No. 1; STUDY,'OF P-L PARKING-LAN~SCAPING, ZONE ESTABLISHED FOR
?lENI?ATIQIdS emiru L^v5 A~:~S.s.~~$ S~'atr~i:
JVY~ 1~
ACTING PLANNIGIG DIRECTOR RICHARD REESE REYIEMED FOR THE COMMISSION THAT
P-L~ PARKINO-LANDSCAPING~ ZONES HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THE PAST IN CER-
TAIN COMMERCIAL AREAS 1N THE CITY AND THAT THE AREA LOCATED BETWEEN VER-
MONT STREET AND BALL ROAD.ON THE MEST SIDE OF LOS ANGELES STREET HAD A
60 F00T P~L 20NE MITH A 60 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK. HE.REQUESTED THAT CON-
SIDERATION BE 61VEN TO AMENDiNG THE 25 FOOT LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT 5T1~
PULATED tN THE P-L'ZONE BECAUSE IT REDUCED THE AMOUNT OF PARKING FOR THE
COMMERCI/.1. BUSINESSES IN THAT LOCATION. HE INDICATED THAT THE MAINTEN-
ANCE OF THE 60 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK LINE NOULD 6~ MOST DESIRABLE FOR
( CONFORNANCE MITH EXISTING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.
I MR. PETER WARNOFF~ 1311 SOUTH LOS ANGELES STREET~ APPEARF.9 BEFORE THE
i COMMISSION~ STATED THA7 ONLY THREE PpRKING SPACES WERE AVAILABLE FOR ~
~ HIS PROPERTY AT THE PRESENT TIMEy AND REQUESTED THAT THE LANDSCP.^iNG
i REQUtREMENT BE'REDUCED TO 6 FEET IN ORDER TO PROVIDE 4 ADDITIO:~AL PARK-
~ INfi SPACES BECAUSE HE HAD DIFFICULTY iN RENTING HIS PROPERTY MITH THE
• I LIM'ITED AMOUNT OF PARKING AREA. HE STATED FURTHER THAT HE WAS DESIROUS ~
OF MAINTAININO THE 60 F007 BUILDING SETBACK 50 THAT ANY FUTURE DEVELOP- i
MENT WOULD CONFORM WITH THE EXISTIN6 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA.
COMFiI5510NER ALLRED OFFERE~ A MOTION~ SECONDED BY CQMMISSIONER SUMMERS
AND CARRIED~ THAT A PUBLIC HEARING BE SCHEDULED FOR THE MEETING OF
APRIL 3~ 1961 FOR RECO~ISIDERATION OF THE EXISTING 60 FOOT P~L~ PARKING I '
LANDSCAPIN6~ ZONE IN THE SUBJECT AREA~ THE E45iERLY 25 FOOT PORTION OF i
WHICH IS REQUIRED.FOR LANDSCAPING~ TO REDUCE SAID LANDSCAPING TO TEN (10~
fEET.
ITEM No. 2: . ORAN~E COUAff Y VARIANCE N0. 4692;
REQUEST FOR RECONSl.DERAT~ON OF ORANf3E COUNTY USE VARIANCE N0. 4692 WAS
SUBI1lTTED TO'THE~CO-iMI55I0N. (T MAS NOTED THAT DENIAL OF THE SUBJECT
PETITION~ REQUESTIN6'PERNISSION TO ESTABLISH A SERVtCE STATION A7 THE
NORTHEAST CORNER>OF ANAHEIM~OLIVE ROAD AND SUNKIST AVENUE~ HAD BEEN
RECOMMENOED:'TJ THE..ORAN~E COUNTY PLANN(NG COMMISSION BY THE ANAHEIM PLAN-
NING COMMISSION.bN:T.HE BASIS OF A STATEMENT OF PROTE57 SUBMITTED 3Y TME
ANAHEIM~SUNK.IST.CIY.IC ASSOCIATION. SUBSEQUEN7 TO ?HIS ACTION IT NAS RE-
VEALED THAT. YARIOttS FINDINGS INCORPORATED IN THE LETTER TRANSMITTED TO
THE ORANOE.COUNTY'PLANNINO COMMISSION WERE INCORRECT. THEREFORE~ IT NAS
DEEMED DESIRABLE FOR THE PURP05E OF ACCURACY THAT THE COMMISSION'S LETTER
BE REVIENED FOR'POSSIBLE AMENDMENT OF THEIR FINDINOS.
„. THE COMMISBION' DISCUSSED ITEMS N0. 2~ 3~ 6~ AND 7~ CONTA~NED IN THE LETTER
OF TRANSMITTAL{.-AND INDICATED THAT ITEM N0. 3. WHICH MADE REFERENCE TO
ANNEXATION 'PROCEED.INGS INVOLV1Na THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ MAS INCORREC7~
THAT ITEM N0.' !`,'r.-MHICH S7ATED THA7 THE USE MOULD CONSTITUTE COMMERCIAL
SiRIP DEVELOPMEN7`~.MAS REOUNDANT AND 7HAT ITEN N0. 7~ STATING THAT THE •
CONSTRUCTION NOULD'CREATE TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO
TNE EXISTIN(i RES{DENTIAL DEYEIOPMENT IN THE AREA~ NAS 1NCORRECS BECAUSE
THE LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ON AN EXISTINO SECONOARY HIGHWAY.
' COMMISSIONER ALLRED GFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUMMERS
AND CARRIED, THAT THE PLANNING DEPpRTMENT TRANSMIT TO THE ORANfiE COUNTY -
PLANNING CGMMISSION AN AMENDED RECOMMENDATION THAT THE SUBJECT USE VARI-
ANCE BE DENIED FOR THE FOLLOMINp REASONS: ,
1. CONMERCIAL DEVELOPMEN7 OF SUBJECT PROPER7Y MOULO BE INCOMPATIBI,E MITH
THE R~1 ZOkIN~ AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. '
2. THE PROPOSED~COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT NOULD ESTAB~ISH AN UNDESIRABLE
PRECEDENT FOR COMMF.RCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON ANAHEIM-OLIVE ROAD AND SUNK~ST
AYENUE.
3. N1NE SERVICE STATIONS ARE PRESENTLY ESTABLISHED WITHIN 1/2 Mi~.c iiADIUS ~
OF THE SUBJECT:PROPERTY. ~
4. PROPOSED DEVELOPMEN7 OF REMAINDER OF AREA INCLI7DED Itd SUBJECT PETI-
TION 13 NOT INDICATED BY THE APpLICANT AND THE ES7ABLISHMENT OF A
SERViCE STATION M~dHT ENCOURAQE OTHER HEAVY COMMERCIAL USES ON THE
REMAININfi AREA.
ITEM N0. 3: REViSED RESOLUTION FORMS:
-- NEW RE50 WTION FOiUA4 MERE PRESENTED TO THE COMMlSSION FOR THEIR CON51- -'
DERATION. ~T MAS NOTED THAT THE FORNS MERE PRF.PARED BY THE CITY ATTOR-
NEY~S OFFICE AND T,H6,.DLANNIN~ S7AFFo THAT THE DUPIICATINfi DEPARTMENT HAD ~
DEVISED A PROCESS FO,R IMPRINTING THE FORMS~ THAT THE NEM FORMS WOULD BE
OF BENEFIT TO 7'HE.SECRETARIAL STAFF AND TO TME CITY COUNCIL FOR TRANSMIS~
SION -0F THE COMkL55.l;ON!5 ACYIONS~ 7CND THAT,THEY MERE APPLICABLE FOR
BPECIFIC PETITIONSCAND GOMMISSION ACTIONS. "
_.~.~~
:.: r : ~ ._ ; .. .. 1_"' :. , , . ~ .~.-^--'_"'-~°• . . ~ , ' ..
~
.
. :i.+ ` . . , . ~ .. ~ ..~.'~ ..... ~ , __,__
, .. ,,. .... .._ . .. . . .. . . 1 . . . _. . ~ . . .. . . . . ' ~..~..^'t"^'" . .. .
~ ~ ~
----_ _ __c._-._ _ .._ . -------
L~.f ~i'
M1NU?ES, CfTY PUCNNING COMM(SS{ON~ MARCH 6; 1961, CONTI4UED;
i
-- ~ ~
I
88
RF~ORfS aNa.RECDM- - ITEN No. 3, CONT!NUED: REVISED RESOLUTION FORMS:
?IEf'IBATTDNS'tCONT . )
" ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER INFORNED THE COMMISSION THAT THE MEH
FORkS INCORPORATED STANDARD FINDINGS Ti1AT NERE REQUIRED FOR LEGAL PUR~-
POSE~ AND THAT ADDITIONAL FINDINGS COULD ALSO BE INCLUDED AT THE COMM~S-
SION'S DISCRETION.
CONMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 202~ SERIES 1960-61' AND MOV ED
FOR ITS PASSAGE AVD ADOPTION~ SECONDED 6Y COMMISSIONER ALLRED ADOPTING
Reso~urioN FoR-e Nos. V-i, VC2-D~ VC2-A~ R-i, R2-A, R2-D, AND ~-1.
ON R0:•L CAIL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTtON MAS PASSED BY THE.FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER' MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ SUMMERS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD. •
QISCUSSION ~ COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED THE SUGGESTION THAT~ IN VIEM OF THE CITY
COUNCIL~S POLICY~ IT MOULD BE PROPER AND DESIRA9LE FOR THE COMMISSION T0
BEGtN COMMISSIOPo MEETINGS MITH A PRAYER TO BE CONDUCTED BY AN ORDAINED
NIHISTER~'AND MITH THE SAWTE TO THE FLAG. HE INDICATED THAT THE ANEHEIN
MINISTERIAL ASSOC~ATION WAS COOPERATING WITH THE COUNCiI IN PROVIDING
ALTERMATE MINISTERS FOR THIS SERVICE AND THAT ALL DElJOMINATIONS MOULD BE
REPRESENTED. THE COMMISSION DISCUSSEO 7;IE BENEFITS OF FO~~OMING THE
COUNCIL~S EXAMPLE AND 7HE WANNER IN MH!CH TO 09TAIN THIS SERYICE.
COMNISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED
AND CARRIED~ THAT EACH PLANNI~lG COMMISSION NiEETING BE COMMENCED MITH THE
SALUTE TO THE FLAds THAT A PRAYER 8E OFFERED BY AN ORGAINED MIN~STER~
AND THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT BE INSTRUCTED TO CONCLUDE ARRA~GEMENTS
FOR THIS SERVICE.
EtECT10N OF ~ THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE MATTER OF THE ELECTION OF OFFICERS OF THE
OFFICERS ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION.
COMMISSIOti_R MARCOUX OFFERED A MOTIONs SECONDED BY COMMISS~ONER ALLRED
ANO CARRIED~ THAT MELBOURNE A. GAUER BE REAPFOINTED AS CHA~RM~.N OF THE
CDMMISStON.
COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED
AND CARRIED~ THAT LEE MORRIS BE REAPPOINTED AS VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE
COMMISSION.
CONMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED
AND CARRIED~ 7HAT JEAN PAGE BE REAPPOINTED SECRETARY OF THE COMMISSION.
~RK SESSION ~ THE COM~tI5510N AOREED UPON CONDUCTING A NORK SESSION ON THURSDAY~ MARCH
16, 1961 AT 9:30 A.M.
THE MEETINti MAS ADJOURNED AT 6C30 P.M.
RESPEC7FULLY SUBMITTED~
~ :
~ ECRETARY
-__~____._-~ ~_._. ..---__.__
. , . ~
~ . . .. . ~~
~ ._ ..~