Loading...
Minutes-PC 1961/07/24 . . ' '--"_..~.~. ~ ~ Pr ~ p ~. ',; ! ~ REGULAR Ms s'. ; t~y PRESENT AFiSENT PRESENT ~ INVOCATI~N PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINU7ES CONDITI~NAL USE e~M~r No. is7 .i ~ q; - ,:.. .y + yY~... ~;I. ~ ..a~ , . ~ ..~ ~, .~ ~ ~ . ~ .. . ~~.c 'l,,,,~° ~ . ~ . CITY ;iw',.~ AN.•1NE!d., CNLIFORNIA JI;LY 2~~,, :;961 MINUTES OF TFj~ REGULAR ME ING OF THE ANA,~IEIM CITY F;,(~'tiNiNG COMMISSION - A RFOtJLi+1R MEETING OF THE CITY PLANNING 1:01NMI551CN W~~S CALLED TO ORDER yY CHAIRMAN GAUER~ AT 2i00 O~CLOCK P..~.~ !~ QUORW'. BItING PRESENT. ~^uHAIRMAN: GAUER; C~'I`~MISSIONERS: ALLR6D~ ;'IARCOUX~~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ ('EBLE1'~ PERRY~ ~UMiAERS. -- COl~MISSiONERS: HAPGOOD. - PLANNING DIRECTOR - RICHARD REESIE SENIOR P~ANNER - MART~N KRE!JT ASSISTANT CITY AT'I'ORNEY - JOE G515LER COMMISSION SECRETARY ~ JEAN PAGE - REVEREND JOHN K. SAVILLE~ PASTOR OF ST. MICHAEL~S EPISCOPAL CHt1RCH~ GnVE THE INVOCATION. ~-= COMMISSIONEP. PEBLEY LED THE PLEDGE OF ~LLEGIAN~E TO THE FLAG. ~ THE MINUTES OF 'iHF. hfEET(NG OF JULY 10~ 1961 WERE APPROVED AS SlIBM1T1'ED ~ WITH THE F~L.LOWINC'. CORRECTION: . PAGE 259: DELETE C:ONDtT10N N0. 2 OF RES(...~~TtON N0. B~ SERIES 1961-62. - CONTINUED PUell(' HEARING. °ertTion SUBA'ITTED R~ JtiHN.NUNEMANN 419 ~ EA.ST ORANGEWOOD Y~VFN.I'°~ A'IAHEIM~ CA:.lFCi~.N1A, ~tiI.~ER; FLOYD R. LbEN~ 1223 ~ YIESi' 124TH. STR! ET .?S ANGElES ~44 CAI.:~ORk1A .",~ENT~ REQUESTING PER- ~ ~ MISSION To CON~~G.:'.:i SING:E AND'fWb S1t'~RY 6A,RD~N APAtiii~ENTS oN PROPEf2TY DESCRIBED A5; A PARCEL 330 FEET BY 64:~ FEE1' WITN A FRONTAGE OF 33C~ FEET ON ORAN6.EWOOD AVENUF. AND L~CATEI? ON THE NORTlI SIDE OF ORANGEWUOD ~ AVENUE BETWEE.N HASTER STUEET AND THE SANTA ANA FREP.W~Y~ 175 SOUTHWEST CORNER BEING APPRO}i!MATeLY 1~290 FEET EAST OF THH p10RTHEAST CORNER OF HASTER STREET ANU ORANGEWOOD AVEMUE AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 419 EAST ORANGEWOOD AKENUE.. PFOPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFtED•R-A~ RESIDENTIAL ~ AGRlCULTURAL, ZOW.E. SUBJECT FE^ITIO:i WAS CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF JULY 10~~1961 AT ~ TtiE REQUES'C OF THF PETITIONER~S ATTOi'NEY. MR. FLOYO LOEW~ THE PEi?TOONER~S AGENT~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMI55!JN ~ AND SL'BMITTED REVISED PL~77 PLANS AND INDICATED THAT THE PLANS S~~BKITTc.D ~ EXCLUDED THE SOUTHEAST f,'C~RNER OF THt SUP,JECT PROPER7Y~ IN ORaEN !0 PER- MI7 AN ~X1571Na SING4E 1°AiAILY RESPDENCE TO R6MAIN~ AND REMOVCU FOUR ~ UN1T3 IN ORDER TO PE:'MIY THE E~TENSIUN OF A DRIVEWAY WH!~H'WII.L CIRCLE ~ TYt PROPER'CY CN THE :.AST~ NQRPH~ AND WEST BUUNDARY LfNES OF SUBJECT j ?ROPCRTY. ~R. I,".N SUBMITTED A REt.JERING~ WHICH HE INDICATED WAS AN EXACT Re:NDITIGN 6F'7HE tR0'e'OSED DEVELCPMENT AND SHOWED THE TYPE OF ~ ROOF ANF LANDSCAPING THA7 MOUf~D 'dE PROVIDED. Hc INFORMn9 THE COMMIS~ S:vid '.HAT THE PRpPERTY IiA~ BElNu PURCHASED FROM 1Hf: PETITiONcR~ THAT THE PROPOSEp DEVELOPMEN7 WOULD OMtT THE EXiSTING REStDENC~ I°ROM THE ' DEVE~..LPMEN~ AT THE,Pk~5ENT TIME BECAUSE TNE PETITIONER WI.SY,ED TO REMAIN ! :tVING IN THE HOUSE~ AND THAT TkE DEVELOPE.RS HAD OBTAINED AN OPTION TO ~'URCHASE TNE EXISTING RESIDENCE UPON THE GeATH OF THE PETiT'IONER. ~ THE COMkI5510N'PISr,U55E0 TnE NEC=55ARY IMPROVEMENT 0-' ORANOEWOOD AVE~ NUE~ AND THE'pETITfONF.R~S Ab1C:iT STATED T`iAT THE PEYITIONER WOULD NOT NANT ALL OF THE STIPULATED SMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED iN FRONT OF HIS RESIDENCE BECAUSE 1'f WJULD L'L!«INATE THE PORCH 0'~ THE FRONT OF TH: D~IELLING AN~ HOULD BRIF!G THE: SIDEkALK TO HIS FRONT DCfOR. HE STATEU THAT THE IMPROVENE~~TS WOL~LD BE INSTALLED ~N THIS PORTlUN OF THE PRO- PERTY UPON THE ACQUIS~TION BY T~lE DEVELOPERS BUT THAT THEY HAD NU CONTROL OVER T1i15 PROPlRTY AT THE PRE:SENT TIME. ' THE HfARING WAS CLASFD. ' THE COMM15510N DISCUciSED FUR?HER TS',E PROBLEM OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS FOR THF. SUBJEC7 PROPERT'f AND TSIE P8r~T10N T0 9E EXCLUDED FROM THE DEVEL- OPMENI'~!N ACDIT{ON TC ~'HE POSSl81LITY THAT eriE PROPERTY Ul16HT BE SOLD WITHOUT COMPLETIO?! OY 'iHE IMPftqIEpENTS. IT WAS hOTED THAT TkE ENTIRC PARCEL HAD'BEEN ADVER715EU AN>^ THE lL•6AL D~SCicIPT10N MAS INCLUDED IN 7HE SUBJECT PET1'iION. CHAIRMAN GAUER NOTED THAT A OND .r,u::LD 8E POSTEJ TO INSURE THE INSTALL- A71bN OF THE STRE£T IMPROVE~~ENTS wITH:~: A gpEC1F1ED PER10D dF Tt~SE. ~7 - 271 ,_ ~:COMMISSIANER PERRY LED T{t5 PL~D~E: OF ALLEG;,INCE TO THE FLAO. ~ .._ . , . ._ , , ...~ F .. .. .., ~., . .. . ~ . .. ....:1 rf~,~:tr4.n"i~.',~.fi•~:.~.~a..~..w..._~e.ev- ~ k l.~~..r..:r..;:~:, ~ . .j~ ~' u ~' ..A ~~~ ~-.t,~f' ~y~iSr~~{ ~; .F S;~ 1 !~ . . . ~ ~~ i :~F . . ; .~ . . " . ..~ : .. . 'I : . C . ~ ~Ci . , I ~ ' . . ' . . . . . N. .~. ~ .;'.. , ' ~. . .. ...~. . ~: ". .. .-...~.., .. .. . . '~_ P~ . ~._...._.-..__ _'_- ,. . . ~ . _ . ~ . .. -,~.~ . ~. ~ \..Y oY/ ~ ~. ,I 2~2 ~ . . I ' MIN~~TF.S, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Ju~v 24, 1961~ CONTINUED: ~• - ~ CONDITIQ"!~`.t. USE ^ WAS POINTED OUT THAT SECTION 1B.i6.U40 (8) REQUI.RES 7HAT THE MiNIMUM PERMIT Nt~. 13: AREA•OP PARCELS OTHER TMAN DESIGNATED LOTS•IN A SUBDIVISION SHALL NOT CONTiNUED BE LESS THAN ONE ACRE ANp THAT TO EXCLUDE THE PORTION CONTAININQ THE ~ EXISTINQ RESIDEtiCE ViOULD CREATE A SUBSTANDARQ PARCEL IN THE R~A~ RESIDENTIAI..AQRICULTURAL~ ZONE. • ~_ ~ a5515TANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMISSiON THAT A TWO '{EAR BONO COULD.BE R~QUlRED TO PRpVLDE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE ~ IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN.SAI.D PERIOD.OF T)ME. THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE DLSIRABILI7Y .OF EITHER G$ANTING A COND1710NAL USE PERMIT FOR THE IARGER PORTLON OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY UNLY WITH THE POSTtN~ OF A BOND F!1R THE REMAININC, PORTIONy OR TO GRAN7 THE ~ONDITI.ONAL USE PERMIT FOR • THE ENTIRE PARCEL OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 7HE PRESENT T[ME~NiTH THE REQUIREMENT•OF PROVIDING FOR.STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON THE ENTIRE PARCEL. ~ THE PETI.TIONER!S A4ENT INFORME!) THE COMMLSSION THAT THE.PETITIONER ~ WISNED TO REWAI.N LIVING IN iHF. RESIDENCE AND THAT H15 ONLY OBJECiION ` TO THE INSTALlATION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS WAS THAT SAID INSTALLATION WOULD E!.IM1i~ATE THE FRONT PORCH AND WOULD LOCATE THE SIDENALK ALONG THE FRONT pqRT10N OF THE DWELLINQ. ASSISTANT CITY AT.TORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED TH~ G~MMISSION THAT~SINCE THE ENTIRE PARCEL WAS ADVERTISED FOR THE DEVEL~.MENf~ AND IN ORDER TO ~ R$SOLVE TViE PROBLEM~ THE CURBS~ OUTTERS~ AND STREET (MPROVEMENTS COULD BE INSTALLED AS OUTLINED~ AND THAT Tl1E SIDEWALK REQItIREFfENT FOR THE SOUTHF.AST CpRNER OF SUBJECT PROPERTY COULD.BE.WAIVED~kITH THE POSTING OF A BOND 'PO INSURE THE INSTAI.LATION OF THE SIDEWALKS lN THE EVENT THE PROPSRTy TO THE EAST OF ?HE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DEVEI.OPED OR THE PROVISION OF SAIC SfDENALK IMPROVEMENT WITHIN A TWO YEAR PERIOD OF T I.dE. • THE COMMISS:ON FOUND APlD DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE ~' SUoJECT PETITIGN: ~' ~ ~ 1. THAT THE PROPQSED USE 15 PROPERLY ONE fOR WHICH A CONDITIONAL USE ~ PERMIT t: AUTHOk12ED BY THIS CODE~ TO WIT: CONSTItUC7 SINaLE AND E Tk0 STORY fiARDEN APARTMENT DEYELOPMEd7. 2. THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECS THE ADJOININa LAND USES AND THE GROWTH ANG DEVELOPMEN7 OF THE AREA IN WHICH >T IS PROPOSED TO BE i.OCATED. 3. THAT THE 512E AN6 SHAPE QF THE 51'fE PROPOSED FOR YHE USE IS ADE- QUATE TO ALLOW THE FULL DE`/ELOPMf_'NT OF THE PROPOSED USE IN A MANNER NOT DETXiM~aTAL TO THE PARTICULP,R P.'.=A NQR TO THE PEACE~ HEALTH~ ~' SAFETY~ ANU 6E'-IERAL WELFARE OF 'fn~ CITI.YENS OF TH~ CITY OF ANAHEIM. 4: TNAT TNL•: iRAFFLC 4E!IERATeD BY THE P~JPOSED USE WILL NOT IMPOSE AN UNDUE BUR6EN UPON THE STREETS P.!:~ HI4HWAY5 DES'GNED AND PROPOSED TO CARRt' TH: TRAFFIC IFI THE Ai.EA. 5. THAT THE GRANTINCi OF 1'HE COND11'IJNAL ~~SE PERMIT UNDER 7'HE CONDI~ TIOMS IMPaSED~ IF' ANY~~ W.I.L k(~T BE DETRIMEN7AL T~1 THE PEACEf HEALTH~ SAFESY~ AND QENERA~ WIELFARE Of tiHE CITIZ6NS OF ThE CITY OF HNAHEIM. 6. THAT CODE~ SECTI.OII 18.~.8;03b (1-~1) IS HEREBY NAIVED 1N ORDElt T~1 PERMIY THE CONTINU'ED ENCP,OtiCNME4T 6F AN EXISTINQ RESID~4CE AHD (iARA~E.(NTO THE RE~UIR~C~ F.,?NT YARC SETBACK 0' SUB.iECT PROPERT`! UND'eR ':HS A~:THORITY 3RANTEu BY ~fSDGT $ECT16N S~).64.070. 7. THAT NO ONE APREARED IN OPP~!SI'.lQN TO SOBJECT V~TITION. COMMISSION£R HARCOUx OFiERED h650WT10N N0. 14~ SERIES 1961~`62~ AND MOYeD FOR (T5 PASSACsE AND ADQPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNQALL~ ,'~ . 70 fiRAtiT F'ET1.710N FOR CONDIT,IONAL USE PERMIT N0. 137~ SUBJECT TO 7SiS FOLIOWIN6 CONDIT4.ON5: 1. OEDICATION OF 4.ri ~EET FROIG THE MONtlMENTED CEN7ERLlNE OF ORANCiEW00D aVENUE (20 FHET EXISTINO). ' 2. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEFIENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL IMPROVEMENTS FOR ORANGEWOOD AVENUE IN ACCORDANCE MITH APPROVED STANDARC PLANS ON FILE !N 7HE OFFICE OF ThE CITV EN(i1NEER~ WITH THc EX~:EPTION AUTLINED ~N I7EM N0. 11. 3: PAYMENT OF' ~2.00 PER FRONT FO~T FOR STREEY LI~HTI.N(i PURPOSES ON ORANOEWOOD VENUE. 4: PAYMENT OF ~2°.00 PER DWEL~LN~ UNIT PARK AND RECREATION FEE TO BE '` COLLECTED A~ PRkI OF BUILDiN41 FERk17. ~~7:;t 's 5. PROVi510N OF Ap.E:~ft FOfi AUEQIDATE 1'RASH SYOkA6E AND P1CK~UP AS ~"' DE7fLRM1NED BY ThY DF^AR7MEMT OF RUi1Li,C MORKS. k~ . ~'6+^'~ 6. MOD~F'ICA'f10N OF 7M~ :%ISTIN(i CURB A;lD t~UTTER AT THF EAST END OF ~. . r~ t ~~ ,~,:~~. ~~ ~ "i~ 273 ~`'` ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY 24~ 1961. CONTINUED; ~:; :. ' CONDITIONAL USE - PEARSON AVENUE FOR STREET CLEANING PURPOSES AND TURN-AROUND~ NITH ~.• PERMIT N0. 137 THE ENGINEERING BY THE CITY OF ANAHEIIJ. Cowr~au~o 7. PROVISION OF LANDSCA~ING IN THE PARKWAY PORTION OF THE DEDICATED ~' STREET~ PLANS FOR S~ID LANDSCAPING TO BE SUBMI.TTED TO AND SUBJECT €', TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SUPERIN7ENDENT OF PARKWAY MAINTENANI~E. ~ 8. TI.ME LIMITATION OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) DAYS FOR THE ACC,OM~ PLI.SHMENT OF ~TEM NOS. 1~ 2~ 3~ 4~ 5~ 6~ 7. AND 11. . 9. PROVi51.ON OF.A SIX (6) FOOT MASONRY WALL ALONG THE WEST~ NORTH~ AND EAST BOUNDARIES OF SUBJECT PROPERTY EXCEPT FOR THE FRONT YARD E' SETBACK AREA~ WHEP.~ SAID WALL SHALL 8E REDUCED TO THREE AND ONE- ~ HALF (3}) FEET i +'IGHT. 10. DEVELOPMENT SU1;5 ~;TyALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH PLANS PRESENTED ON K _ JULY. 24~ 1961~ ~' :?ARKED EXHIBIS NA°~ WITH THE EXCEPTIONS OUTLINED IN ITEM NOS..S AND 11~ AND WITH THE REVISION OF THE FLOOR E P~ANS.FOR THE PROPOSED ONE BEDROOM APARTMENTS~NHICH ARE PROPOSED ti YO CONTAIN A MINIMUM OF 660 SQUARE FEET OF LIVEABLE FLOOR AREA~ ~.; TO CONTAIN A MINIMUM OF 700 SQUARE FEET JF LIVEABLE FLOOR AREA IN ~: ORDER TO COMPLY WITH COD& REQUIREMENTS. ~ ~ 11. TEMPORARV NAI.VER OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR SIDENALK IMPROVEMENTS FOR THAT PORTIOK OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ INDICATED AS „NOT A PART OF E TH15 DEVELOPMENTN ON EXHIBIT ~A°~ LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER { OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. SAID WAIVER TO BE EFEECTIVE FOR 7HE MAXIMUM k TIME PERIOD OF TWO (2) YEARS OR UNTI.L THE ABUTTING PROPERTlES TO THE EAST OF SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE DEVELOPED~ SUBJECT 70 THE POSTING t OF A BOND TO INSURE THE INSTALLAT7.ON OF SAID SIDEV:ALK IMPROVEMENTS E•. WITHIN SA10 TMO (2) YEAR PERIOD OF TIN1E OR AT SUCH TIME A5 THE ABUTTING PROPERTIES TO 7HE EAST ARE DEVELO?ED. ~~ THE FOREGOING COND1710N5 WERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND HERE FOUND TO ~ BE A NEC~SSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND IIELFARE OF THE CIT12EN5 OF THE COTY OF ANAHEIM. ~~`' ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOtNG RESOLUTION WAS PASSED.BY THE FOLLOWING.VOTE: ~ . ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALI.RED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ ~10RR15~ MUNGALL~ , PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SUMMERS. t ~ NOES: COMMISSIONERSi NONE. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSS HAPGOOD. r RECLASSIFECATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. PErtrioN INITfATED ev THE CITY PLANNING ' 204 EAST LINCOLN AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ CAIIFORNIA~ PROPOSING NO. 6.-61-105 COMM!SSION ~ ' THAT PROPERTY DESCkIBED AS. THAT AREA BOUNDED ON THE NORYHEAST BY THE ' ~ SOUTHERN PAGIFLC RAILROAD RIGHT~OF-WAY~ ON THE NORTH BY THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY~ ON THE NE57 BY EUCLID AVENUE~ AND ON THE SOUTH BY LINCOLN f. : ' AVENUE BE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE M~1~ LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND THE ZONES ro THE C-3 HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ oR ANY PARKING LANDSCAPlNG ' P-L ~ , ~ MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE AND THE M~1~ LIGHT MI-NUFACTURING~ OR ANY MORE ! RESTRICTIVE ZONE. SUBJECT.PROPERSY FURTHER DESCRIBED AS PARCELS N0. { 1 TNROUGH 7 AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT ~A• PREPARED 6Y THE PI.ANNINa DEPARTMENT. ~ SUBJECT PETITION WAS CONTINUED FROM THE MEETING OF JUNE 26~ 1961~ AT WHICH TIME THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WAS DIRECTED TO PREPARE A STUDY OF THE SUBJECT AREA AND TC CONTACT THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES INVOLVED F: TO 087AIN OPINIONS OF TNE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF THE AREA. ~ A REPORT NAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION I.NDICATIN~ THAT THE ONNERS OF ~ TNE SEVEN PARCELS COMPRiSINa THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WERE CALLED IN RES- ~ P'ECT TO THE MEETING HELD IN THE PLANNINa DEPARTMENT ON .IULY 17~ 1961. AN ANALY515 OF THE RESULTS OF THAT MEETING WERE SUBMI.T7ED IN THE STAFF REPORT. MR. ~EORGE SMITH~ REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RAYCO SEAT COVER COMPANY~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT THE RAYCO SEAT COVER , ESTABLISHMENT NAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE 22 FEET OF PROPERTY THAT BELONGED • Ttl THE S7ATE~ THAT 75 FEET OF THE PROPERTY CONTAININ~ THE DEVELOPMENT WAS LEASED FOR A PERIOD OF 18 YEARS~ AND THAT AN ADDITI.ONAL 100 FEET HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY TME COMPANY FOR THE I,NTENDED CONSTRUCTION OF A ' BUILDING. HE COMPLAINED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PRESENTLY [SOLATEO BY. A SEA OF TRAFFIC AND THAT TNEY HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO PURCHASE THE 22 ~ ~ FEE7 FROM THE STATE IN O.RDER TO PROTECT:THEIR I.NTEREST. MR. SMITH ~i' STATED 7HAT THE COMPANV WOULD LI.KE TO MORK 007 AN ENTRANCE ARRANGFMENT T0 THE RAYCO PROPERTY FROM EUCLID AVlNUE AND A SEPARA710N OR BREAK IN i,~; : THE D(VIDER FOR ENTftANCE FROM LINCOLN AVENUE. ~•G r MR: LOUIS GOOOMAN APPEARED`BEFORE THE COM~1dSSlON~ STATED THAT HE WAS 4~;%'t,; ;.`. PLANNINCi TO ERECT A BUIL~IN~ AS SOON AS ESCROW ON THE NEWLY ACQUIRED f~ ~j{, t... , ~ . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . . . _ . . . ~ ~~ f ~ : . . . ~ . . r k~`,r ., .: _ I 4 .~ .,Y. ..,...~iwh ~ . .. ~ . . . ' ~ ~ . ~ ' ' ' . . . . . . , . , . . . .' . ' .. . ~ . ~kilS'.:.'~'!;~ . , . 4:' __...`~ a "~ .. . .. . ~. ~ . . . ~ .. .... :~» .. ~~.. . 'l ._:'. ._ t.,. _. ~ +~~. , ~, . . ?1-~_`. ... . ~,.i., , _ . .i ,. . .. ..... , A .~ ~ . ~' F~'< ~ ~ ~ :~ 274 MR. CHARLES KINGSLAND~ OWNER OF THE °ROPERTY UP04 MHICH THE LA HABRA STUCCO COMPANY IS LOCATED~, APPEARED BEFOP.E TH~ COMMISSION AND RE- . QUESTED THAT THE PROPERTY REMAIN IN THE M-1~ LIGHT MANUFACTURING~ ZONE. HE STATED THAT HE HAD A NAIVER OF THE P-l~ PARKlNG LANDSCAPING~ ZONE REQUIREMENTS GRANTED BY CITY COUNCIL ACTION. THEREFORE~ HE CID NOT OBJECT TO THE RECLASSIEICATION OF THE P~L ZONE PROVIDED IT DIJ NOT AFFECT HLS PROPERTY. IN RESPONSE TO COMMENT REGARDING THE PRESENT APPEARANCE OF HIS PROPERTV~ HE STATED THAT HE NAS IN THE PROCE55 OF BUILDING A LOW WALL AND GATE NNICH MQULD IMPROVE CONDITIONS. MR. RUSSELL NELSON APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT HE HAD A VARIANCE FOR THE PRESENT OPERATION ESTABLISHED ON 7HE PROPERTY AND THAT MOST OF THE OPERRTtON MAS OF A RETAIL NATURE~ ALTHOUGH SOME MANUFACTURING OF STEpPING STONES AND LtGHT CONCRETE PRODUCTS WAS PERFORMED. MR. NELSON STATED FURTHER THAT HE PREFERRED THAT THE PROPERTY REMAIN IN THE M^1~ LIGHT MANUFACTURING~ ZONE ~.THAT THE PROPERTY WAS CLASSIFIED IN TNE M-1~ LIGHT MANUFACTURING~ ZONE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE~ AND•THAT HE 61D NOT OBJECT TO THE ELIMINATION OF THE P~L~ PARKIN6 LANDSCAPING~ Z~NE BECAUSE HE DID NOT CONSIDER IT PERTINENT TO H!5 PROPER7Y. MR. GIL BURN APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSIOY AND ASKED HOW THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION WOULD AFFECT Hla PROP~RTY~CONTAINING THE ADVANCE MUFFLER COMPAMY. HE STATED THAT Hc WAS CONTEMPLATING EXPANDING HIS AUTOMO:'IVE LINE WHICH HE CONSIDERED A SUITABl.E USE FOR THE M-1~ LIGHT MANUFACTURING~ ZONE. ASSC.~TAN'f.C17Y ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER INFORMED HIf~ THAT THE USE WAS PERMIT'!'ED IN THE C~3~ HEAVY COMMERCIA~~ ZONE BUT NOT tN 1'HE ~A-1~ LiGHT ~ANUFACiURi'r7G~ ZONE AND THAT 7HE PRESENT OPERATION WOULD BE CONSIDERED A NON-CONFORMING USE AT THE PRESENT 7IME. MR. ROBERT WONG~ 1701 EAST SYCAMORE Sl'RFET~ OWNER OF PARCEL N0. 7~ AppEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED 7HAT A PORTION OF HIS PRO- PERTY WAS OCCUPIED BY '~HE ADVANCE MUFFLER SHOP~ 7'HA7 A~L IMPROVEMENTS HAD BEl.N INSTALLED~ AND TMA7 TNE VACANT PORTION.W0.5 DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP. AS A CONSEQUENCE HE STATED1l 1.T WOULD BE NECESSARY TO OBTAIN A RECLASSIFICATION TO THE L~-3~ HEAVY I.OMMERCIA_~ ZONE IN ORDER TO PERMIT COMMERClAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD BE PROHIBITED IN THE M-1~ LIGHT MANUFACTURING~ ZONE. MP.. WONG STATED FURTHER THAT HE WISHED TO COMMEND THE MANNER iN WHICH THF_ PLANNING STAFF HAD PREPARED AP1D CON-~ DUCTED THE STUDV~AND THA; THE OYHER PROPERTY OHNERS INVOLVED HAD COMMENTED UPON THE CONCERN AND ATTENTION GiVEN TO THE PROBLEMS PRE- SENTE~ BY THE INDIVIDUAL PARCELS. MR. JAMES WILL14M5 APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ Sl'ATED THAT THE OPERATION OF THE J AND R FENCE COMPANY D0~5 NOT iNCLUDE THE MANUFAC- TURING OF ANY ITEMS~ AND THAT ALL MATERIALS ARE MANtlfACTURED ELSEWHERE. THE COMMISSIQN DISCUSSED THE TYPE OF OPERATION CONDUC7ED BY THE QUALITY CONCRE7E PRODUCTS COMPANY WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED AS AN M-2~ HEAVY MANUFACSURING~ OR M~1~.LIGHT MANUFACTURING~ USE' AND ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER STATED THA7 THE OPERATION CONDUCTED BY THE ~ AND R FeNCe COMPANY APPEARED TO BE MOSTLY OF A RETAIL NATURE OR A CONTRACTOR~S SALES YARD WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED AS A C-3~ HEAVY COMMERCIAL~ USE. MR. GEISLER STATED FURTHER THAT FOR CLARIFICATION IT SHUULD BE NOTED THAT THE PROPERTI.ES CONTAINING THE QUALI7Y CONCRETE PRODUCTS COMPANY AND THE LA HABRA STUCCO COMPANY NERE CONSIDERED AS MANUFACTURING OR M-1 USES AND THAT ALL TNE OTHER OPERATi0N5 COl1LD BE CdtiSiDERED AS C~3~ hEAVY ~OMMERCIAL~ USES. THE HEARING MAS CLOSED. CHAIRMAN GAUER 57ATED THAT THE COMMISSION DESIRED TO ESTABLISH THE MOST SUITABLE ZONING FOR THE SU?~lECT PROPER71E5~ AND THAT THEY MERE CONCERNED WITH THE APPEARANCE OF THE AREA AND WERE ENDEAVORING TO BEAUTIFV THE PR9PERTIES WH1CH HAVE THE EFFECT OF BEING A7' THE ENTRANCE TO THE DOWNTOWN ANAHE;M AREA. ' i THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED AT SOME LENGTH TH6 NECE551TY FOR ESTABLISHINO A BUILDING SETBkCK LINE AND THE PROBLEMS CREATED BY THE VARYING SET- BACKS OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. IT MAS INDICATED TNAT TO REQUIRE A 50 F00T SETBACK WOUI.D PLnCE SOME OF THE BUII.DINGS MITHIN THE HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-NAY LINE AND IT WAS POlNTED OUT THAT THE SALES OFFICE FOR THE SUNRITE PAT10 COVERS COMPANY NAS APPROXIMATELY 15 FEET FROM 7HE FRONT PROPERTY LINE AND THAT THE NEWEST INSTALLATIONS WERE SET FROM 38 EEET 'f0 42 FEET FROM TNE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SETBACK FOR PARCEL N0. 7 WAS DISCUSSEO AND COMMISSIONER MORR15 INDI- CATED THA7 THE BUILDING SETBACK MOULD NOT CREATE ANY PROBLEMS FOR ., THIS PARCEL BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS. ~ ~1~.d::-is:i ~~.-~~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COM~IISSION, ~ULY 2a, 1961~ CONTINUC.D; RECLASSIFICATION ~ 100 FEET OF PROPERTY IS COMPLETED~ I,NDICATED THAT HE NAS IN AfiREEMENT NO. 60~61=105 WITH THE BREAK IN THE DIVLDER PROPOSED BY THE RAYCO REPRESENTATIVE CONTINUED BECAUSE IT NOULd BE OF BENEFIT T'? H1.M~ AND STATED THAT HE DID NOT OBJECT TO ANY RECLASSIFICATION 0~. THE PROPERTIES. HE EMPHASIZED~ i10WEVER~ THAT HE Wl5}IEO TO HAVE TNE ZONE CLASSIFiCAT10N OF THE PRO~ PERTY ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE BUILDIkG THAT HE INTENDS TO CONSTRUCT HAS BEEN COMMENCED IN.ORDER TO PROTECT HIS INTEREST. 2~s ~k `; j:. r ~~: ! MINUTES, CITY PLANNtNG COMMiSS10No JULY 240 1961~ CONTI,NUED; RECLASSIFICd1T1QN - CoMMiss~oN~R MORRiS ALSO lNDICATED THAT~~INCE SOME OF YNE PROPERTt,ES NO. 60-61-105 ARE SE7 BACK 50 FEET~ TO DRAN A LINE BETWEEN THE 9RAKE SHOP AND THE CONTINUED RAYCO SEAT COVER COMPANY WO:1LD PROYIDE A GOOD BOUNDARY LiNE FOCi S~sT- BACK. IT M:.', i+i1TED TIi4".' THE SE'PBACK LINES WOULD VARY i117'HIN TEN FEEZ. ~I.SCUSSEON ENSUED.RELAi1VE TO 7HE LANDSCAPING OF THE SUBJECT PROPER- TIES IN ORDER TO I,MPROVE THE APPEARANCE OF 1'HE AREA AND THE R~COM- MENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORY WERE SUBMITTED TO THE COM- MISSION. •THE GOMM15510N ALSO Dt,5C1155ED REFERRAL TO THE STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT OF THE MATTER OF THE IMPROVEMENT OF THAT PROPERTY OWNED 9Y THE STATE~ ANp COMMISSIONER MORRIS ),NDICATED THA? HE D!D NOT CONS(DER I.T WITHIN THE COMMISSDON~S REALM TO REQUEST A DIVIDER SEPARATION (N ORDER TO PROVIDE ACCE55•TO THE COMMERCI.AL PROPERTY ON THE NORTHEASF CORNER OF EUCLID AND LINCOLN AVENUES. TNE COMMISSI.ON FOUND AkD DETERMINED 7HE FOLLOWING FACTS RE6ARDING THE SUBJECT PETI'COON: ~ 1. THAT THE PLANMING COMMISSiON OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM~ AS PETITIONER. PROPOSES RECLASSIFICAl'ION OF SUBJECI' PRO?f.'RTY FROM THE M-1~ LIGHT MANUFACTURING~ ZONE :0 THE C-3~ HEAVY CUMMERCIALa ZONE OR ANY MORE RESTROCTIVE ZONE~ AND F'ROM THE P~L~ PARKING LANDSCAPING~ ZONE TO THE M~lo LIaHT MANUFACYURING~ ZQNE OR ANY MORE RESTRICTtVE ZONE. 2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECt~ASSlFOCA710N OF SUBJECS PROPERTY IS NECES- SARY OR DESI.RABLE FOR YHE ORDERLV AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMUN~TY. 3. TMAT THE PROPOSED RE~LASSiF~CAT70N OF SUe,lEC7 PROPERiY DOES PROPERLY RELATE TO :'HE ZONES AND 1'HEIR PERM17'TED USES LOCA~LY ESTABLISHED 1,N CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE 20NE5 AND THEIR PERMiTTED USES 6ENERALLY ESTABLISHED THROUGHOUT ThE COMMUNITY. j ... 4. THAT THE PROPOSED RECL.4S54FICATOOPI OF SUBJECT PROPERY'! DOES REQUIRE ST•ANDARD IMPROVEME:N'f OF ABUTTING STP.EETS BECAUSE SAID PROPERTY DOES RELATE TO ANQ .4BUT UPON STREET'S AND HiGHWAYS NHICH ARE PROPOSED TO CAf2Rl FHE TYPE AND QUANTil'Y UF TRAFFIC~ WHICH WILL BE GENERATED 81r' THE PERM1~1'ED USESa IN ACCORDANCE HITH THE CIRCU~ATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFi'ERfiD RESOLliTION N0. '15~ SERIES 1961-62, AND MOVED FOR 175 PASSAGE AND ADOPiION~ SECONDED 8~ COMMISSIONER A:.LRED~ TO RECOM- MEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL il{A7 PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 60-61- 105 BE APPR.pVED~ SUBJEC°. ZO THE FOLLOWING COND1710N5: 1. REC~.ASSIFICA't'ION FROM TME M-1~ LI~H: MANUFACTURINGo AND P~L~ PARK- ING LANDSCAPING~ ZONES OF PARCELS N0. ~.~ 2~ 5~ 6~ AND 7 TO THE C-3~ HEAVV COMMEP.CIALo LONE SUBd~CT TO THE PREPARATIGtV OF 51'REET IM~ PROVEMENT Pt.ANS AND THE INSTALLAI':~N OF ALL IMPROVEMENTS IN AGCOk- DANCE 411'CH iHE APPRaVED STANDARD e~LANS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGIHEER MHERE SAID IMPROVEMENTS DO NOT PRESENTLY EXIST~ AND THE INSYALLATION OF LANDSCAPING EN 1'HE PARKWAY POR7'ION OF THE DEDICA7ED STREET WHERE SAID PARKWAY IS NOT FULLY CEMENiED IN~ PLANS FOR SAID LANDSCAPING TO BE Si18MITTED TO AND SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SUPERIN~ENDENT OF PARKWAY MAlNTENANCE. 2. RECLASSIFICATION FROM THE P-L~ PARKI.NG LANOSCAP1NGa ZONE OF PARCELS 3 AND 4 TO THF M^1~ LIGHT MANUFACTURING~ ZONE FiUB.lECT TO TH~ PRE- PARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE MT7H THE APPROVF.p STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENOINEER WHERE SAID (MPROVEMENTS DO NOT EXIST OR FOR WHICH PROVI510N HAS NOT PREVIOUSL~ BEEN MADE BY THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION OR CI?Y COUNCIL~ AND~YNE INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPING I.N TME PARKWAY PORTION OF THE DEDICATED STREET WHERE SAID PARKNAY IS NOT FULLY CEMENTED IN~ PI.ANS FOR SAID LAND- SCAPINa TO BE SL'BMITTED TO AND SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF YHE SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKWAY MAIkTENANCE. ' 3. POSTING pF STREET IM°ROVEMENT BONDS FOR A PER(OD OF TWO (2) YEARS ~ 1'F REQUESTED BY OWNERS OR OCCUPANTS OF SUBJECT PROPERTI.ES. r 4. PROVISION OF A FRONT SETBACK ON PARCELS 1~ 2~.3~ 4~ 5 6~ PND 7 ESTABLISHED BY A LINE E:XTENDING FROM THE FACE OF TFiE ~AYCO SEAT COVER COMPANY BU1LDiNG TO THE FACE OF THE ADVAN~.E MUFFLER SHOP BUILDING. THE FOREQOIN(3 CONDI,TIONS WERE REC~TED AT THE MEEYINQ AND WERE FOUND TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQULSITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO . PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY Of" ANAHEIM.~ ON RO~L CALL THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOYE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRen, CaAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSlONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAP~OOD, '.T..~~._„ . . .. . ~ , ' /. ;. , . . , :.. . f . 7:.;~;' .~... . _ _ _ --, _ . . ....v---- ~ ~ ~ . ,}~°• , yr~ :w;~ ~ . ~ . w. , . . .. _t. .. ~~ .. ,- ? ::.~,k~ _.~_ ~" .: . ~ ~, 6: .< ~ 276 MiNUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ JULY za~ 1961, CONT1Nl1ED: RECLQSSIFICATIDN COMMISSIONER MORRtS OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 16~ SERtES 1961-62~ SECONDED ~ B`: CUMMISSIONER ALLRED ND NO. 60-b1-105 C A CARRIEO. TMAT SAfD RESOLUTION BE FORWARDED TO THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWA`/S REWJEST{NG THAT THE PROPERTY OWNED BY ONTINUED ,~~ THE STATE~ LCCA'iED ^.N THE NORTtiEA57 CORNER OF EUCLID AN~ LINCOLN AVENUES AOJOIN(NG PARCEL N0. 1, BE IMPROVED !N ACCORDANCE W{TH 1'HE APPROVED STANDA120 PLANS CN F~LE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGiNEER OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HFARING. PETITION SUBMITTED ev DONALD H. AND JEAN N0. fi0-61-108 . 1C. FU~KERSQN 1916 WEST BALL ROAD~ ANAHEJ,My CALIFORN~A OWNERS~ JENNINGS-HALbERMAN iNC 20 W ~ ~ .~ 0 EST WASHINGTON AVENUE~ ANTA ANA~ CALIFORN(A' aGENTS~ REQUESTING THAT PROPERTY OESCRIBED AS: A PARCE~ 123 FEET 3Y 365 FEEY MITH A FRONTAGE OF 123 FEEY ON BALL ROAD AND LOCA7ED ON YHE SOUTH SIDE OF BALL ROAD BETWEEN EMp~RE AND NUTWOOD STREETSo iT5 NORTHEAST CORNER.BElN~ APPROXIMR.TELY 190 FEET NEST OF THE SOLTHWE57' CORNER OF NUTNOOD STEtEET AND BALL Roao AND FURTHER DES- CRtBED AS 1916 WEST BALL ROAD~ 8E RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R-A~ RESIDEN- TiAL A6RlCULTURAL, ZONE ro rHe C-i~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE. SUBJF.CT PETITION MAS CONS4DERED AF THE ptEETING OF JUNE 26' 1961 AF WHICH TIME IT WAS CONTINUED UN)I,L 7HE MEETING OF JULY Z4a 1961 IN ORDER SO PROVlbE THE PETITIONERS AN OPPOR7UNlSY SO PREpARE AND SUBMIT DETAItED P4APl5 POR THE llL77MA7E.DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. MR. GEORGE MAUSERy 19112 BALBOA~ BAI.BOA/ AGENT FOR THE PETITI.ONERS~ APPEARED BEFORE TNE COMMISSION~ STASED THAT THE PETITIONERS WISHED TO 1i~TNDRA41 THE SUBJEC7 PEII,TION FOR RECLASSI.FICATION BECAUSE THEY D1D NOT HAVE DEVELOPMENT S+LANS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT THE PRESENT ' TIME~ AND REQUES',-ED THAT 1'HE COMH15510N CONSIDER A PETITION FOR VARIANCE IN ORDER TO UTILIZE THE PROPERTY FOR A REAL ESTASE aFFICE ' UNTIL SUCH TIME AS TNE DEVELOPERS ARE PREPARED TO PROCEGD WITH DEVE~- OPMENT OF 'iHE PROPERTY. HE IND~CATED THAT THE ESFABLI.SHMENT OF AN OFFICE.BUI.LDING WAS CONSIDERED PREMATURE AT TNE pRESENT 7AME BUT THAT ~HE PETITIONERS WISHED TO OPERATE A REA~ ESTATE 0.°FICE IN THE EX75TINa RESIDENCE. TNE COMMISSION DASCUSSED THE NECESSITY FOP, FLL)NQ OF AN APPLOCdTiON FOR A PETITiGN FOR VARIANCE AND ASSISTANT CITY AT70RNEY ~OE GElSIER ADYISED THE PETIFIONER THA7 tiHE SUBJEC7 PROPERTY HAD BEEN ADVERTISED FOR RECLASSIFiGATtON AND THAS I.l' WOULD BE NECESSARY TO PROCESS A PETITION FOR VARI4NCE ON ACCORDANCE NITH CODE REQU'AREMENSS. COMMISSIONER MUNGALL OFFERED A M0710N~ SECONDED BY COMMISSLONER MARCOlJX AND CARRIEL~~ THA7 PETITION FOR RECLASSIFRCATION N0. 60-61-108 BE MITHDRAWN IN ACCORuM~:~E NITH 7HE PE'PITIONER~S REQUEST. RECLASS~FiCATION - CONTINUED PUBL(C HEARING. Perlr~oN SUBMITTED eY ORA E. AND EVELYN D, N0. 61-62-a HARDACRE) MURRAY W. SPORN AND MARTIN SORKIN, 1016 NortrN MAGNOC.tA A YENiIE~ HNAHEIM' CALIFORNIA~ ONNERSa MARTIN SORKIN, 1016 NORTH MACaNO- LIA AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA' AGENT~ REQUE571NG YHAT PROPERTY DES- CRiBED A5: A PARCEL 100 FEET By 127 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 127 FCET ON MAGNOLIA AVENUE AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MAGNOLIA AVE- NS1E BETWEEl1 LA PALMA AND GREENBRIER AYENUESy ,1T5 SOUTHWEST CORNER 8E1NG APPROXIMAYELY 128 F'EET NORTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MAaNO- LIA AYENUE AND GREENBRIER AVENUE AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 1U16 NORTH MAGNOLIA AVENUE~ BE RECLASSIFIED FROM YHE R~i ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE ro rHe C-i, NElGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZON~. SUBJECS PETI.YION MAS CONTINUED FROM THE MEETONO OF JULY 10~ 1961 AT WHICH TIME.TNE PLANNING DEPARTMFNT WAS DIRECTED TO SUBMi7 A REPORT VERIFYING YHE STATUS OF TkE CLASSIFICATION OF THE ABUTTING PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. ., HR. MARSfTi SORKIN~ THE PE71':1pNER~ APPEARED HEFORE THE COMMlSSION~ RE~ VIEWED THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED AT THE MEETI.NQ OF .JLLY 10~ 1961~ AND STATED THAT THE PETITIONER5 WISHED TO CONTINUE THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE SUBJECT AREA BY PR041DING ORNAMENTAL FENCIN~ AND LANDSGAPING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE HFI~RING WAS CLOSED. A STAFF REPOR7 WAS Sl1BMITTEO TO THE COMMISSION CONTAlNING THE INFORMA~ TION THAT 7HE ABUTT.INfi PROFER7Y TO Tt:E NORTH WAS CLASSIFIED FROM THE R~A~ RESI.DIENT,(AL AORICULTURAL~ ZONE TO THE C-1~ NE~IGHBORHOOD COMMER~ ~ C IAL~ ZONE.ON NOVEMBER 29~ 1960 eY C1TY COUNCIL ORDINANCE N0. 1528. THE pASSApE OF SAID ORDI,NANCE COMPLETED PETITLON FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 55-56-30. HR. SORKIN STATED TNAT THE SUBJECT PROPER7Y NAS SUITABLE FOR CONMERCIAL USE BECAUSE i,T LS NOT CONDUCJVE TO RESLDENTIAL LI'VINQ DUE 70 THE HE~VY AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC ON MA(iNOL1,A AVENUE~ THAT 7HE PRESEtiT USE OF A RES)DENCE FOR A CERTIFIED PUBI.IC ACCOUNiAN7~5 OFFI,CE HAS BEEN OPERA7E0 H17HOUT COMPLAIN7S FROM THE SURROUNDINa AREA~ THAT THE PRO- P.OSED CONVERSION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY MOULD BE AN ASSET TO TNE NE1aHBORH00D~ 7HAT 17 NOULD SERVE AS A BUFFER FOR THE SINOLE FAMILY RESl;OENTLAL DEVEI.OPMENT TO THE EAS7~ AND THAT NO FUR7HER EXPENDI~URES WOULD BE MADE ON THE PROPcRTIES UNTIL ~NE ZONE CLASSIFICATION ~5 CHAN(iED. .,'T,i .w~ ; ~ ~ .q;..,. r .. ,~,. _ ~_ , .-_. , .. C:'..~ .._., . . , .. .~ ... r .....,._.~. ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~~, ~-:, „ s '. _,.._. , __._.~_~ , A ~ ~ ~ ~ 2~~ . n~riuTcS~ C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Ju~v 24~ 1961~ CONTINUED: RECLASSIFICATION ~ THE COMMISSION.DISCUSSED AT SOME ~ENGT.H;SIMILAR PROBLEM~ (N OTHER AREAS 61-62-3 NO . AND.NOTED THAT IN A REC~NT 5TUDY CONDUCTED BY THE.COMMISSION FOR PRO- CONTiNUED POSED CONVERSION•OF RESIDENTIA[. PROPERTY TO COMMERCtAI USEy WHICH IHVOLVED THREF. PAR~ELS~ THAT ONE PARCEI. kA5 RECOMMENDED,FOR USE FOR OFF-STREET PARKING PURPOSES ONLY. COMMISSIONER MORR15 INDICATED THAT SiNCE TWO PARCELS WERE INVOLVED IN THE.SUBJECT pETIT10N~ IT MOULD PERMIT ENCROACHMENT UPON THE REMAINING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO TNE SOUTH ~ ' SHOULD THESE PARCELS BE RECLASSIFIED FOR CUMMERCIAL USE~ YHAT THE ALLEY TO THE EAST WOULD INVLTE COMMERCIAL USE~ AND THAT 7HE PROPOSED USE i MLGHT CREATE A pRECEDENT FOR THE COMMERCIAL ~EVELOPMENT OF OTHER RESI- D~NT(AL PROPER7IES. COl9WISSIONER SUMMERS NOTED THAT RECLASSIFICATION TO THE C-lo NEIGHBOR- HODD COMMERGIAL~ ZONE HAD BEEN DENIED FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED SOUTHERLY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THAT THERE,WAS APPROXIMATELN.A 40 TO 50 ACRE PARCEL OF VACANT PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHERLY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY SOME OF MHICIi WAS CLASSIFIED i,N THE C-1~ NEIGHBURHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. AS515TANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT IN COMMERCIAI ZONES 50 PERCENT OF THE LOT MUST BE DEVOTED TO PARKING AREA~ WHICH MUaT BE BLACK-TOPPED~ AND THAT THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT OOES NOT LEND ITSELF TO THE PAVING OF HAI.F OF THE PROPERSY. THE COMA115510N FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOMING FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJECT AETITION: . 1. THAT SHE PETITIONER PROPOSES.A RECLASSIFlCATION OF THE ABOVE DES- CRIHEU PROPERTY FROM THE R-1~ ONE FAMtLY RESIDENTIAI.~ ZOHE TO THE . ~ C-•1~ NEIGHBORNO6D COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. 2. THA7 THE PROPO5"J RECLASSIFICATION OF Sl18JECT PROPERTY IS NOT ~ NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND pROPER DEYELOPMENT OF THE COMMUNI7Y. 3. THAT THE PROPOSEp RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECY PROPF.RTY WOULD pERMIT A USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE R-1 ~ ONE FAMIIY RESIDENTIAI.~ DEVELOPNENT OF THE TRACT OF WHICH SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A PART. 4. THAT A LARGE AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL ACREAGE LOCATED NORTHERLY OF SUBJECT PROPERiY IS AVAILABIE FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 5. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OpPOSITION 70 SUBJECT PETITION. COMMISSIONER MUNGALL.OFFERED RESOLUTIOPI N0. 17~ SERIES 1961-62~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSA6E AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER SUMMERS~ • TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT PETITION FOR~RECLASSIFICATION N0. 61-62^3 9E DENIED ON TNE BASIS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDtNGS. ON ROLL CALL :HE FORE~OIN(i RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRISo MUNGALL~ PE6LEY~ PERRY~ SIIMMERS. NO~S: COMMISaIONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COl4MlSSIONERS: H/.POOOD. RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED sv CARRIAGE ESTATES er AL 433 NO . 61~62-4 WEST CENTER STREET~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ ONNER~ PHILIP H. ~tOBERTSbN ~ ~ 1825 WEST BALL ROAD~ ANAHElM~ CALIFORNIA~ AGENT~ REQUESTING THAT ~ PROPERTY DESCRIBED A5• A PARCEL 70 FEET BY 140 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE Of 70 fEET ON EUCLID AVENUE AND LOCATED ON TNE EAST SLDE OF EUCLID AVENUE BETWEEN ALOMAR AVENUE AND BROADNAY~ ITS SOUTH4EST CORNER BEING APPROXIMATE~Y 320 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ALOMAR AND EUCLID AVENUES AND FURTNER DESCRIBED AS 610 SOUTH EUCLID AVENUE~ HE RECLASSIFIED FROM THE R-A RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE TO THE C~1~ NEIG f HBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ONE. SUBJECT PETITION HAS CONTINUED FROM THE MEETIN(i OF JULY 10~ 1961 BECAUSE A MOTION FOR DENIAI FAILED TO ACHIEVE A MAJORITY VOTE. AT THAT 71ME TNE COMMISSION INDICATED THAT THE HEARING WOULU NOT BE RE- OPENED, THE COMMlSSION HOTED 7HAT THE STAFF REPORT INDICA7ED THAT PLANS HAD BEEN SUBMITTED'FOR f~EVEI.OPMENT OF PROPERTY A9UTTINO SUBJECT PROPERTY - TO THE NORTH;AND 7HAT THE ONNER OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY WISHED TO DEVELOP li~S PROPERTY !N COHJUNC710N NITH THE DEVELOPNENT OF THE PRO- PERTY CONTAINED IN SUBJECT PETITION. THE PLANS WERE SUBM~TTED TO THE COMNISSION A D ' N IT WAS NOTED THAT TNE PROPER7Y OMNERS -0F THE TWO PARCELS WISHED TO DEVELOP THE FRONTAQE ON EU.LID AVENUE TOGETHER~ . THEREBY UTII:121N6.THE TWG PARCcLS AND PROVIDINO ACCESS FOR BOTH PARCELS. ASSISTANT CITY RTTORNEY Joe G'cIS1.ER ADViSED THE COMMISSION THAT A MOTtON - F ~ 1 r _ ... ....... .. . i :. , .._r. ~3 ... ...~ . . .. .. ~. ~. ._ . ..,... ~ .. ..~ .. . . . . ,_ . , _ t .__'_ ' ~ `. i ~ 278 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ju~v 24~ 1961, CONTINUED: RECLASSIFICATION N0. 61-62-4 CONTINUED - FOR DEMIAL OF SUBJECT PETIT•ION HAD BEEN OFFERED AT THE MEETING OF JULY 10~ 1961~ UPON WHICH THE COMMISSION COULD VOTE AT THIS TIME. HE STATED~HOWEVER~ THAT A NEM MCTION WAS THE BEST PROCEDURE IN VIEW OF THE ADD.I.TIONAL INFORMATION °~BMITTEO. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJECT PETITOON: 1. THAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ABOVE DES- CRIBED PROPERTY FROM THE R-A, RESIDENTIAL QGRICULTURAL~ ZONE TO THE C-1~ NEIGHBORHOOD CObMERC1AL~ ZONE. 2. THAT THE pROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NECES- SARY OR DE5IRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY~AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE COPIMUNITY. • 3. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES PRO- PERLY RELATE TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PERMITTED USES LOCALLY ESTAB- LISHED IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE ZONES AND THEIR PERMITTED USES GENERALLY E57ABLISHED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. 4. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATiON OF SUBJECT PROPERTI' DOES REQUIRE DEDICATION FOR AND STANDARD IMPROVEMENT OF ABUTTING STREETS BECAUSE SAID.pROPERTY DOES RELATE•TO AND ABUT UPON STREETS AND HIGHWAYS WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO CARRY THE TYPE AND.QUANTITY OF 7RAFFIC~ NHtCH WILL BE GENERATED BY THE PERMITTED USES~ IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. 5. THAT VERBAL OPPOSITION BY ONE PROPERTY OWNER MAS RECORDED AT THE MEETING ON JULY 10; 1961•AGAINST THE PROPOSED USE OF THE ALLEY~ ABUTTING SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE REAR~ ALTNOUGH FAVOR WAS EXPRESSED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. . COMMISSIONER PERRY OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 18~ SERIES 1961-62~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSA6E AdD ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER PEBLEY~ TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 61~62--4 BE APPROVED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOMING CONOOTIONS: 1. DEDICATION OF S3 FEET FROM THE MONUMENTED CEn.'ERLINE OF EUCLID • AVENUE (30 FEET EXISTING), 2. PREPARATFQN OF 57REET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND 7NSTALLATION OF ALL IMPROVEMENTE FOR EUC~ID AVENUE IN ACCQR.4NCF WITH THE APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE ~JF TN~ CiTY ENGtNEER. 3. PAYMENT OF ~2.00 PER FRONT F00T FOR 5r~a~(,'! LIGHTING PURPOSES ON EUCLtD AVENUE. 4. INSTALLATION OF A SIX (6~ F00T LANDSCAPFO SETBACK ABUTTING PLANNED HIGHNAY RIGHT-OF-WAY ~INE AND INSTALLA710N OF LANCSCAPiNG IN THE PARKNAV PORTION OF THE DEDICATED STREE'~5~ PLANS FOR SA10 LANDSCAP- ING! TO BE SUBMITTED TO AND SUBJECT TG THE APPROVAL OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKWAY MAINTENANCE. 5. FIIING OF DEED RESTRICTIONS LIMITING THE USES OF SUBJECT PROPERTY • TO BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES ONLY. fi. LIMITATION OF ONE (1) SIGN WITH A MAXIMUM SIZE OF THREE (3) SQUARE FEET ATTACHED TO AND PARI:LLEL NITH THE FACE OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING. 7. INSTALLATION OF A SIX (6) F00? MASONRY HALL ALONG THE SOUTH AND EASTERLY BOUNDARIES OF SUE'::T PROPERTY. 8. PROVISION OF TWELVE (12) PARKING SPACES AS PER CODE REQUIREMENTS. 9,. DEVELOPMEN7 SUBSTANTIA~LY IN ACCORDANCE NITH EXHIBIT °A~. 10. DEDICATION OF THE ACCESS RIGHTS TO THE ABUTTING PUBLIC AL~EY TO THE CITY OF ANAHEtM~ 11. TIME LIMITATION OF NINETY (90) DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF ITEM NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7~ S, AND 10. TIIE FOREGOING G~DNDITIOtlS MERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQU151?E TO THE USE OF THE PiiOPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAfETY AND MELFARE OF THE CITlZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. ON ROLL CALL THE-FOREGOING RESOWTION WAS PASSED 8Y THE FO±LOWING VOTES AYES: COMMISSIONERSS ALLRED~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SUNMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERS:'~ NONE. ABSTAINED:COMMISSIONERSC GAUER~ Mnacoux. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD. . . .. , ,~ - . ,..~__~_, . .. ,_.. . ._.~ . .. .'~.;.. . ,~ . . ... , }t ..~.iC'l~h<i~-~.-~ ';i ;.; , ; I~i . ~ .. . ~~.~.~1 >" i ~.f ~ ' ~ ' . - 1 C~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 279 H:NUTES, CiTY PI.ANNING COMMISSION, Ju~v 24, 1961. CONTINUED; VARIANCE ~i0. ?378. - PUBLIC HEARIN6. I'ETITION SUBMITTED ev MR. AND MRS. LESTER B. H'eRR, 543 JAN55 WAY ANAHEIM CALIFORNlA~ REQUESTING PERMISSIJN TO WAIVE REAR YARD SET~ACK REQIlIREMENT ON PROPER7Y DESCRIBED AS: AN IRREGU- ' I:ARLY SHAPED PARCEL kITH A FRONTAGE OF 58.FEET ON JANSS WAY AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 543 ~ANSS WAY AND ALSO DESCRIBED AS LOT 53 OF TRACT N0. 2237.. PROPER7Y PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R-O~ RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN, ZONE. THE PETITIONER WAS PRESENT AND INDICATED THAT HE HAD NOTHING TO ADD TO THE INFORMATION CONTAINED 1H THE SUBJECT PETITtCN. THE HEARING MAS CLOSED. . THE COMMISSION REVIEWED DEVELOPMENT PLANS OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION OF A FAMILY ROOM CONNECTING AN EXISTING DWELLING WITH AN EXISTINfi GARAGE.ON SUBJECT PROPERTY. TNE COMMISSION FOUND AND ~ETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJECT PETITION; 1. THAT THE PETITIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICI- PAL CODE~ SECI'i0N 18.20.030(3-A) TO PERMIT ENCROACHMENT OF 20 FEET IN THE REQUIRED 25 FOOT REAR YAR6 AREA IN ORDER TO CONStRUCT A FAMILY ROOM ADDITION. 2. TM.AT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CON- DITIONS APpLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY INVOLVED OR TO THE LNTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR CLASS OF USE IN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE. 3. THAT THE REQUESTED VAtIANCE (S NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTAtiTIAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPERTY IN SME SAME {'ICINITY AND ZONE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 4. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT BE bIATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE P!IBLIC NELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVE- MENTS IN SUCH VICiNITY AND 20NB IN WHICH THE PROPER7Y l5 LOCATED. 5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE COMPRE- HEN57VE GENERAL PLAN. 6. T~1AT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION. COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED RE~•OLUTION N0. 19~ SERIES 1961-62~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MUNOALL~ TO GRANT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1378~ SUBJECT TO 1'HE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIA~'LY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ExHte~~rs„A^ AND NB,„ 2. TIME LIMITATION OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) DAYS FOR THE ACCOM- • PLISHMENT OF ITEM N0. 1. THE FOREGOING CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT ~HE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE TMi. SAFETY .4ND W~LFARE OF THE CITl2EN5 OF THE C~TY OF ANAHEIM. ON ROLL CALI THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORR1~~ MUNaALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMlSSIONERS2 HAPGOOD. VARIANCE N0. 1~7g - PUBL[C HEARING. PeririoN SUBMITTED ev IRVIN~, M. LOENENTHAL. 513 SYCAMORE INGLEMOOD~ CALlFORNIA OWNER~ REQI;ESTING PERMISS'ION TO WAIVE SIIVGLE STORY HEIGHT LIMITdT10N~ oN PROPERTY DESCRIBED ns: A PARCEL 68 FEET BY 142 FEET WITH A FRONTAGE OF 68 FEET ON NILKEN d~AY AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH S~DE OF WILKEN WAY BETWEEN VERN AND HASTER STREETS~ ITS NORTHWEST CORNER BElN6 APPROXIMATELY 203 FEET EAST OF THE SOUiHEAST CORNER OF HASTER STREEI' AND WILKEN NAY~ AND FURTHER DESCRIBED AS 120 EAST WILKEN MAY. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. MR. NEIL REITMAN~ 6417 GREENBUSH AVENUE~ VAN NUYS~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT HE MAS PURCHASING THE SUBJECT PROPERTV. HE INDICATED THAT HE CONSIDERED THE REQUEST TO PERMIT 1'HE CONSTRUC- TION tlF A TWO STORY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT TO BE SUITABI.E FOR THE SUBJECT PROPEP.TY BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA CONiAININa TMO STORY APARTMENTS. ~ ~ ~ 280 MINUTES~ C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION~ Ju~v 24~ 1961, CONT~NUED: VARIANCE N0. 1379 - THE HEARING•WAS CLOSED. CONTINUEO THE COMMI.SSION REVIENED DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND NOTED THAT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO COMPLY MITH CODE REZUIREMENTS LN RESPECT TO THE FLOOR AREA PER DWELLING UNIT. .. THE COMMISSION fOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLON~NG FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJECT PETITION: • • 1. THAT THE PETITIONER REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE~ $ECTION 18.32.060 TO PERMIT.TNE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 150 FEET OF PROPERTY CLASSIFIED IN THE R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE. 2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CI.RCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY INVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTV THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERA~LY TO THE PROPERTY . OR CLASS OF USE IN 7HE SAME VICINI.TY AND ZONE. 3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE JS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY RIGH7 POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE SAME VICINOTY AND ZONE~ ANO DENIED TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. 4: THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE MILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE GK INJURIOUS TO TNE PROPERTY OR IMPROYEMENTS IN SUCH VICINITY AND ZONE IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WI~L NOT ADVERSE~Y AFFECT THE COMPRE- HENSIVE GENERAL PLAN. . . .. 6. .THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION. . ~OMMI.SSIONER MUNGA~L OFFERED RESOLUTION.NO. 20~ SERIES 1961-62~ AND MOVED FOR (TS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED~ TO GRANT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1379, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:• ~ 1. DEVELOPMENT OF APARTMENTS WITH A MINIMUM LIVEABLE FLOOR AREA OF 800 SQUARE FEET AS PER CODE REQUIREMENTS. 2. PROVISION OF LANDSCAPING IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND THE PARK~ WAY PORTION OF 7HE DEOtCATED STREET~ PLANS FOR THE LANDSCAPIN6 OF THE PARKWAY TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXHIBIT ~A~ AND/OR PlANS FOR SA7D LANDSCAPING TO BE SUBMITTED TO AND SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKWAY MAINTENANCE. 3. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY tiN ACCORDANCE WITH EXHl81T MA„ kITH THE EXCEPTION NOTED IN ITEM N0. 1. 4. PROVISION OF OARAQES AS PER STANDARD CODE REQUIREMENT~. 5. 'IME LIMlTAT10Y OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180~ DAYS FOR TNE ACCOM- PLI.SHMENT OF ITEM N0. 2. THE FOREGOING CpND~T10N5 NERE REClSED A7:TNE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO BE A NECESSARY P~EREQUISITE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAFE7Y AND WELFARE OF THE C1T12EN5 OF TME CiTY OF ANAHEtM. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREDO{Na RESOLUTiON MAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWIN6 VOTE: AYES: COMM{SSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SUMMERS. NOES• COMMISSIONERSI NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HnP~ooo. VARIANCE N0. 13eo - PUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED er RINKER DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, P. 0. BOX 2025~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ ONNERS• NALTER A. FROME JR. AGENT~ REQUESTINd PERMISSION ro WAIVE SINGL~ STORY HEIGHT LI~ITATION~ ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: A PARCEL LOCATED BETWEEN 318 FEET AND 740 FEET SOUTH OF 7HE CENTERLlNE OF LINCOLN AVENUE~ 1T5 WEST BOUNDARY BEING 990 FEET EAST OF THE CENTERLINE OF KNOTT AVENUE AND ITS EAST BOUNDARY BEING 660 FEET MEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF WESTERN AVENUE. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSI.FIED R-~A~ RESIDENTIAL A6RICULTURAL~ tONE. MR. WALTER FROME~ JR.~ REPRESENTATIYE FOR THE RYNKER DEVELOPMENT COM~ PANY~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMI.SSION~ DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED CONSTRUC- TION OF A MUL7~PLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMEN7 OW PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHERLY OF SCHOOL PROPERTY~ AND P.EAD A LETTER SIGNED BY FIVE OWNERS OF ADJACENT PROPERTY ~.NDICATING APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT PETITION AND THE APPROVAI OF R-3~ NULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ DEVEL- OPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE HEARING NAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSION ~EVtEMED DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND NOTED.THAT TENTATIVE "" ~~~ . . . ~_ , , _ ' . ~..._... . _, .. . . . . , .._ i t ,~ ~. _ :1 - ~., - ..~ ~: . ~; ,. ~ ~ ~ za~ ~. `~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ju~Y 24. 1961, Coariroueo: F VARIANCE N0. 13~0 ~- Thncr.No. 3886 HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION AND CITY COUNC-L CONTINUED ~ FOR THE R~3~ MULTIPLE FAMl,LY RESIDENTIAL~ D:VELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERiX. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMI.NED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REQARDiNQ 7HE SUBJECT PETITIpN; 1. THAT 7HE PET•6TdONER REQUE575 A VARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE~ SECTION 18.32.060 TO pERM1T CONSTRUC710N OF TWO S70RY APART- MENT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 150 FEET OF PROPERTY CLASSIFIED IN THE R-A~ RESIDENTIAL AGRtCULTURAL~ ZONE. 2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTI'ONAL OR EXTRAORD(NARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CUND1.~ TIONS APPLICABLE TO THE PROPERTY INVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY QENERAtLY 70 THE PROPERTY OR CLASS OF USE !N THE SAME VlC1N17Y AND ZONE. . 3. THAT THE REQUESTED.VARIANCE I.5 NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTAN7IAL PROPERTY ::3'!T POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPERTY IN THE SAME VICINfTY AND ZONE~ Ati: DENIED TO THE PROPERTY ' IN.QUESTION. . .. 4. THAT THE REQUESTED YARIANCE.WILt N07 BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO TNE PUBLIC W~LFARE OR INJURIOUS 70 THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS ' IN SUCH VICINITY AND 2~NE I,N WHICH THE PROPERTY 1.5 LOCATED. •• 5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE GILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT 7HE COMPRE- HENSIYE GENERAL PLAN. . 6: THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION AND THAT A LETTER~ SIGNED BY FIVE OWNERS OF ADJACENT PROPERTY~ INDICA7ING APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT PETITION WAS FILE4 WITN SUBJECT PETITION. COMMI,SSIONER PEBLEY OFFERED RESOLli71ON N0. 21~ SERtES 1961-62l AND MOVEO FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMLSSiONER f1UNGALL~ TO GRANT PETITI.ON FOR VARIANCE N0. 1380~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONOITIONS: 1. SUBJECT TO REC~ASSIFICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE R~3~ MULTL~- PLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ Z0~1E. 2. DEVEI.OPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXNIBIT °A; 1-11.N 3. INSTALLATION OF A SIX (6) F007 MASONRY WALL ALONG ALL BOUNDARIES OF SUBJECT PROPERTY EXCEPT FOR THOSE PORTIONS RESERVED FOR FUTURE . STREE7 EXTENSlON WHERE ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT WI~L REQUIRE ACCE55 TO PROPOSED STREE75 A AND C~ OR THE POSTIN~ OF A TWO (2) YEAR BOND FOR SAID WALL CONSTRIiCTION.FOR THOSE PORTIONS EXCEPTED HEREIN ONLY. , 4: TIME LIMITATION OF ONE HUNDRED EI.GHTY (18Q) DAYS FOR THE ACCOM~ PLI.SHMENT OF ITEMS 1~ 2~ AND 3. 5. RECORDATION OF A FfNAL MAP G: SUBJECT PROPERTY. 6. PAYMENT OF :25.00 PER DWELLIN3 UNI.T PARK AND RECREATION FEE TO BE COI.LECTED AS PART OF BU~LD~N(3 PERNIT. THE FORE~0INQ CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETING AND NERE FOUNG TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISI7E Tp THE USE OF :HE PROPERTY Iw ~Ri+:R TO , PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND NELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF THE I:ITY OF ANAHEIM. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREliOLNfi RESOLU7I,ON MAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWINQ VOTE: AYES: C.OMMISStONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ F'{AACOUX~ MORR15~ MUN6ALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SUMMERS. . . NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HAPGOOD. vARIANCE N0. 13ei - PUBLIC HEARING. PETtT10N SUBMITTED eY LIGHTHOUSE MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC.~ 1535 SOUTH LOS AN6ELES STREET~ A?{RHEIM CALLFORNLA OWNER REQUESTINQ PERMI55ION To MAIVE OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR REQUIREMENT~ ON PROPERTY DESCRf9~D A57 A PARCEC 188 FEET 8Y 920 FEET WiTH A FRONTA~E OF 920 FE=T ON CATAEPA ~RIVE AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CATALPA DRIVE BE7WEEN EUCLID AVENUE AND I,OARA ST~iEET AND FURTHER DESCRlBED AS LOTS 12 THROUQH 23 OF TRACT N0. 3372. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASStFIED R-3~ MULTIPLE FAMlLY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. MR. DONALD GITTELSON~ REPRESENTATIVE FOR.THE ~IaHTH0U5E MORTGA~E COMPANY~ APPEARED'BEFORE THE COMMISSION. DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF MULTIALE FAMILY RESLDEN7IAL APARTMENTS WITH ~ARAGES~ AND REQUESTED TMAT THE OARA(iE DOOR REQUIREMENT BE MAI.VED FOR SUBJECT PROPER7Y. HE JND{,CATED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF ADDITIONAL --~.--~-.T -.~ .~ ' ~.~~1r:~ J, ~+. , . <:C:~. . ~... . r.. . -.:: . .;.. ;: . _ , . ,... . , , . =-.t.a _......,. .1.9. w. .. •~~n~i~e~.4tr, , B: :'__ : ~ E `:" ~ + ~ ~. 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~ 282 MINUTES, CiTY PLANNING COMMISSION. Ju~v 24, 1961~ CONTINUED: VARIANCE N0. 1381 - UNITS REMA4NED TO BE COMPLETED~ AN'D THAT OTHER APARTMEN~•DEVELOPMENTS CONTIMUED IN TNE SUBJECT AREA DO NOT PROVIDE GARA~ES M1TH DOORS~ THEREFORE~ THE REQUESTED WAIYER WOULD CONFORM WITH THE EXISTINQ UEVELOPMENT. ~ THE HFARING•WAS CLOSED. THE COMMISSI.ON DISCUSSEG THE•PRESENT COND1710N OF BROKEN MALlS IN TFIE EXISTIN~ DEVELOPMENT I,N THE AREA WHERE BUMPER GUARDS ARE NOT PRQVIDED 70 PROTECT THE STUCCO~AND COMMISSlONER MUNGALL SUGGESTED THAT STEEL POSTS BE UTILXtEC ?0 RESOLVE THLS•PROBLEM. TH:. PETITIONER~STATED THAT THE•CONSTRUCTION OF THE REMAINDER.•OF THE.UNlTS NOULD CONTAIN STEEL.P0575 PROVIL`ED THE YAIYER OF THE GARA(iE DOOR REQUIREt4ENT• NAS OBTALNED. •UPON QUESTIONINCa BY 7HE COMMISSION~ HE I.NDICATED THAT A STORA6E AREA WOULD BE PROVIDED FOR REFUSE AND AGREED TO THE INSTALLA- TION OF BUHPER GUARDS TO PROTECT THE iN7ERtOR WALLS OF THE 6ARAdES. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMLNED THE FOLLOMING FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJECT PETITION: ' 1': THAT THE PETITIONER REQUESTS A VARI.ANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUN]CIPAI. CODE~ SECTION 18.32.120 TO PERMIT THE ELIMINAT~ON OF OYERIiEAD GARAGE OOORS FOR THE MULTIPLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPEkTY. " 2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS APPLICABLE TO iHE PROPERTY INVOLVED OR THE INTENDED USE OF 7HE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE PROPEI2TY OR CLA55 OF.USE IN TFtE SAME VIClNITY AND 20NE. • • 3: THAT THE REQUESTED VAR~ANCE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTfAL PROPERTY RIGHT POSSESSED BY OTHER ' PROPERTY IN THE SAME VICINITY AND 20NE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY • IN QUE57'ION. ~ • ` 4: THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE MILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL 70 S THE PUBIIC WELFARE OR INJURlOUS 70 THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS ; IN SUCH VICINITY AND ZONE I.N WHLCH THE PROPERTY ~5 LOCATED. ~ 5.. TNAT THE REQUEST~~D VARIANCE WILL NOT ADYERSELY AFFECT THE COMPRE- -HENSIVE GENERAL PI.AN. . 6~ THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITIAN 70 SUBJECT PETITLON. ~ COMMlS510NER ALLRED OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 22~ SERI,ES 1961-62 AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSI,ONER ~EBLEY~ TO GRANT PETlT10N FOR VARIANCE N0. 1381~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLONI.NG CONDITIO'r15: 1. PROVISION OF ENCLOSED REFUSE STORAGE AREAS FOR :ACH GROUP OF APARTMENTS. 2. F~NISHlNO OF 7HE INTERIOR NALLS OF THE (iARAQES TO CONFORM WITH THE EXTERI~R STUCCO FINISH WITH THE PROVl510N OF BUMPER GUARDS TO PROTECT SAID WAi.LS~ AND 7HE PROVISI.ON OF CABINET DOORS ON ANY STORAGE AREAS Wi7HIN SAID GARAGES~ I.N ADDITION 70 THE PROVIS10tt OF STEEL POSTS FOR GARA~E SEPARATIONS. 3. SUBJECT TO THE A'RCHLTECTURAL APPROVAL BY THE CHIEF BUILDINC INSPEC- TOR. THE FOREGOING CONDITIONS MERE RECITED AT THE MEETIN6 AND WERE FOUND TO BE A NECESSARY PR!'.REQUSSITE TO THE U5E OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE TyE SAFETY AND WELFop~_~F THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOIN6 RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VCTE: AYES: CGMhiISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX. MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PEBI:EY~ PERRY~ SUNMERS. NOES: COkMIS~•IONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS. HApG00D. VARIANCE NU. 13a2 - PUBU C HEA~iNG. PETLTION SUBMITTED ev ~ME OMEN COMPANY 621 Saur-t HOPE STREET~ LOS ANf3E1.E5 17~ CALIFORN1Ay OMNER~ UNITED ~ALIFORNIA BANK~ 600 SPRLNG STREET LOS ANQELES 14~ CALI.FORNAA LESSEE REQUEST~ tN~ PEaMrssiod ro ESTAB~lSH A BANK_IN THE M-i, LIGHf MANUFA~TURING. i`.ONE, ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS• A PARCEI. 14U FEET BY 350 FEET MITH A;FRONTAGE OF 140 FEET ON I.OS ANGELES STREET AND LOCATED ON THE EASTER- LY SIDE OF LOS ANCiELES STREET'BETMEEN BACI AHD PAlA15 ROADS~ ITS NORTH~ MESTERLY CORNER BEIN~ APPROXIMATELY 330 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF BALL ROAD AND SOUTH LOS`AN~ELES STREET.. PROPERTY PRESENTLY c~nss-FtEO M-i~ LIGHT MANUFACTURING, ZONE.ANO P-L, PARKING LANDSCAPING~ ZONE., h • i i -,` ~:~.'. : :. ~ ;'i ~ ~~.. 4~ 283 e ~ .: MINUTES, C1TY PLANNINQ COMHISSION~ ~ULY 24, 1961~ CONTINUED: ~ VARIANCE NO. 1382 - M~t. JAMES LAMRENCE~ REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE pETI,TI0NER5~ APPEARED BEFORE CONTtWUED THE COMMISSaON~ DISPI.AYEO.A RENDERING OF THE PROPOSED DE4ELOPMENT OF A ~': 9ANK BUl1.DXNfi~ AND INDqCATED 7HAT HE HAD NOTHINfi TO ADD TO THE INFORMA- 710N CONTA(NED IN THE SUBJECT PE71TlON. ~ THE HEAR1 ~ I I ~ ~~ ! F-: i` ~ 4 r S NG•WAS CLOSED. .. THE .COMMlS510N REV.I,ENED DEVEI.OPMENT PLAHS AND NOTED THAT A BANK BUl,LD~ CN~ MOULD BE A MORE RESTRICTIVE USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAN AN fNDUSTRI:AL DEVEL~PMENT. THE COMMLSSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOMI~N6 FAC7'S REGARDING THE SUBJECT PETITION: „ 1. THAT••THE PETlT10NER REQUESTS A YARIANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL COOE~ SECTION 18.52.010 AND SECTION 18.60.010 T0 PERMlT THE ESTAB- LISHMENT OF A BANK BUILDING ON PROPERTY PRESENjLY CLASSIFIED 1N THE M~1~ LIGHT MANUFACTURINQ~ AND 7HE P~L~ PARKINQ LANDSCAPING~ • ZONE. 2. THA7 THERE ARE EXCEP710NAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDI- TIONS APPLICABLE TO THE•PROPERTY I.NVOI.VED OR TO THE INTENDF_D USE OF TNE PkOPERTY TNAT DO NOT APPLY ~ENERALl.Y TO THE PROPERTY OR ~ CLASS OF USE IN THE SAME VXCIN;L7Y AND ZONE. . 3. TNA7 THE REQUESTED•.VARIANCE 15 NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTtAL PROPERTY RLaHT POSSESSE6 BY OTHER PROPERTY (N THE SAME VICIN,[7Y AND 20NE~ AND DENIED TO iHE PROPERTY ~N QUESTION. , 4: THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MATERIALLY DE7RlMENTAL TG THE PUBL);C NELFARE OR 1NJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN SUCH VICI.NITY AND ZONE 1N WHICH THE PROPER7Y 15 LOCATED. 5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARLANCE WILL N0T ADVERSELY AFFECT 7HE COMPRE- HENSIVE GENERAL PLAN. 6. TMAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSiT1ON TO SUBJECT PETITION. COMMISSIONER MUN6ALL OFFERED RE50 WTION N0. 23~ SERIES 1961-62~ AND MOVED pOR lT5 PASSA(iE AND ADOPTI.ON~ SECONDED BY COMMl5S10NER MARCOUX~ TO GRANT PETI.TION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1382, SUBJECT TO 7HE FOLLOWINQ CONDITIONS' . 1. PROYIS(ON OF LANDSCAPI,NG IN THOSE AREAS IND~CATEO ON EXHI.BI7 „A~ ' BUBMITTED WI.TH SUBJECT PETI.T~ON~ PLANS FOR SAIO LANDSCAPIN6 TD BE ~, SUBMITTED TO AND SUBJECT TO '[HE AppROVAL OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKMAY MAINTENANCE. 2. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIAILY IN ACCORDANCE MITH EXHLB/T MAR AND EXHIOIT "B.~ 3. INSTALLATION OF SLDENALKS AND DRIyEMAYS ~N ACCORDANCE WITH APPROYED STANDARD PLANS ON FI.LE J.N 7HE OFFJ,CE OF THE CITY EhQINEER. 4: T'IME LIMLTATtON OF ONE HUNDRED ElaHTY (180~ DAYS FOR THE ACCOM~ PI.~SHMEN7 OF ITEM NOS. 1~ 2~ AND 3. THE FOREGOINQ CONDITIONS NERE REC(TED AT jHE MEETLNG AND WERE FOUND TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQUI,SLTE TO THE USE OF 7HE PROPERTY IN ORDER 70 PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND MELFARE OF THE CYTIZENS OF THE CTTY OF ANANEIM. 'ON ROLL CALL THE FOREf30LNQ RESOLUTION WAS PASSED BY THE FO~LOWING VOTE: AYES: CilMMISSIONERS: ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUXy MORRIS~ MUN(iALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: NaPaooo. ~ VARIANCE N0. + e - PUBLIC HEARING.. PETITION SUBMlT7'EC er PAUI LEITER, 1535 SourH Los ANaEI:ES STREET ANAHELM CAL~FORNLA OWNER REQUESTLNQ PERAIISSION T 0 (i)<MAIVE MAXI~IUM HEIGHt LIMITATION~S• (2)~STABLISH~OFFICE fiUILDING IN ~ M-i ZONE; (3) WA:IVE MtN1MUM PARKING S~PdCE REQUIREMENT FoR PROPERTY DESCR4BED,ASC AN 7 RREQUtARLY SHABED PARCEL LOCA7ED,AT THE NORTNWEST ~ ~ CORNER OF THE INtER5ECTI,ON OF ~OUTN LOS'ANfiELES'S7REET AND THE SANTA `' ANA FREEWAY AND FURTNER DESCRI9ED hS 1535 SOUTH'LD8'AN~ELES S7REET. PROPER7Y ` pRESENTLV CLASS ~ F ~ Ee.' M~7 _ 1 IC41T YAWIICMTIID l lue ~nur 1 ~ v ~ 284 . I I { ~ '~ N. i~! ~ •: 1t ~, ~,f :, ~. ~~ti HINUTES, CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION, Ju~v 24, 1961, CONTINUED; VARIaNCE N0. 1383 ~ LUCKMAN ASSOCIATES~ ARCNITECTURAL ENGINEERS FOR THE PROPOSED CONSTRUC- . CUNTiNUED TION•OF TWO OFFI.CE BUlLDlNGS ON SUBJECT PROPERTY~ CONTALNINa NINE STORIES AND TNO STORlES RESPECTIVELY. MR..Gl7TEL'SON 1NFORMED THE COM- Mt.5S10N THAT TNE INITLAL PLANS «'cRE T.0 CONSTRUCT .THE TWO STORY BUILDINQ~ 70 BE OCCUPIED BY 7HE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY~ MITH THE ULTIMATE DEVELOP- MENT OF THE N~NE STORY OFFlCE.8UI.LDING. HE 57A7ED FUR2HER THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE REQUESTINCa THE WAIVER OF THE HE4GHT L1~11,TATION IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUC7ION OF THE NLNE STORY BUILDING~ THAT THE SIZE AND STATURE OF THE BULLDlNQ•NOULD.ESTABLISH A LANDMARK V151BLE FROM 7HE SANTA ANA••FREEMAY AND bIORE REC06NIZABLE.THAN TME DISNEYLAND MMATTERHORN~~ AND THAT T.HE 9UILDINCa WLLL BE MORE BEAUTIFUL THAN THE .. DISNEYLAND.DEVELOPMENT•BECAUSE OF lT5 DESI,GN. MR. GITTELSON INO~CATED THAT THE~CURRENT M-1 ZONING OF THE SUB.IECT PROPERTV•CREATES A PROBLEM~ TNAT THE PARK~Na REQUIREMENT WOULD.BE DI,FFLCUL7 T0 MEET FOR THE AMOUNT OF FLOOR AREA TO BE CONTAINED IN•THE DEVELOPMENT~ AND THAT HE CONSIDERED.THE•PROPOSED PARKLNG FOR AP°ROXIMATELY 154 CARS TO.BE ADEQUATE FOR THE PROPERTY. IN SUMMATION~ MR. GITTELSON 57ATED TNAT THE PROPOSED pEVELOPMENT WOULD BE AN I.N7EGRAL TH1NG OF BEAUTY~ THAT THEY WOULD BE SELECT7VE ABOUT THE TENANTS OCCUPYING THE BUILQING~ THAT THE.DEVELOPERS WERE ENDEAVORING 70 LEASE ADDITIONAL LAND FROM THE STATE FOR POSSLBLE USE AS YARKAN~ AREA~ AND THAT THE TRI,ANGULAR SHAPED•PARCEL NAS DIFFI.CULT TO DEVELOP. THE COMMISSI.ON DISCUSSED THE P05516LLtTY OF UTILIZING A.TWO LEVEL PARKING FACIIITY AND MR. GITTELSON INDLCATED THAT THE MATTER HAD BEEN CONSIDERED•.9UT THAT THE EXPENSE DID N07 kARRANT THE ADDI.TIONAL AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT WOULD BE MADE AVAiIABLE.~ IN RESPONSE TO QUESTlON1NG . HY THE COMM15510N~ MR. G17TEt50N I.NDICATED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE TNO•STORY BUlLDING WOULD COMMENCE SUESL7LME IN THE FALL~ TNAT THE COqSTRUCTION OF THE NINE STORY BUILDING D'ePENDED UPON THE FINANCING ARRANGEMENT W(TH TENANTS~ AND THAT 7HE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LARGER BUILDING MIGH7 COMMENCE AT 7HE SAME TIME AS THE SMALLER BUILDING OR FROM~SIX MONTHS ?0 A YEAR LATER. THE COMMfSSION DISCUSSED THE LOCATION OF T'HE ENTRANCE AND EXIT AREAS FOR THE SUBJECT DEVEIOPMENT AND MR. GITTELSON LNDICATED THAT THE LOS ANGELES STREET FRON7AGE ROAD NOULD BE UTI.LI.ZED FOR ACCE55 PURPOSES~ AND THAT NO ACCESS WOULD BE POSSIBLE FROM TF1E SANTA ANA FREEWAY. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED A MOTION~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIQNER PEBLEY~ TO GRANT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1383~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWIN~ CONDITIONSI 1. PROVISI.ON OF 154 PARKJNG SPACES WITH A FULL TIME PARKING AT7EN- DANT ON DUTY DURIN6 BUSINESS HOURS. 2. PROVISION OF LANDSCAPING A5 INDICATED ON EXHIBIT °A~~ PLANS FOR . SAID LANDSCAPING TO 8E SUBMITTED TO AND SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKWAY MAINTENANCE. 3. DEVELOPMENT SUSSTANTIALLY lN ACCORDANCE WITH EXHIBITS ~A°~ „B„~ AND „C.„ 4. PROVISION OF UTILITY EASEMENTS ALONG EXTERIOR BOUNDARlES AS DETERMINED BY THE DIRECTOR'OF PUBLIC UTLLITIES. 5. PROVISION OF SEWER EASEMENTS ALONG EXTERIOR BOUNDARIES AS DETER- MINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. 6. PROVISION OF ADEQUATE ACCE55 FROM THE FRONTA6E ROAD TO THE ~SATISFACTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER. 7. PAYMENT OF =2.00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STREET LIGHTING PURPOSES ON THE FRONTAGE ROAD. 8. TIME LIMITATION OF ONE HUNDRED EtGFi7Y (180~ DAYS FOR THE ACCOM- PLISHMENT OF ITEM NOS. Z~ 4~.5~ AND 7. ASSISTANT C1TY ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT BEFORE A VOTE WAS TAKEN UPON THE n:pT10N IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY IS PRESENTLY ZONED 1N THE M~1~ I.IGHT MANUFACTURING~ ZONE WHICH WOULD PERMIT USES THAT MAY NOT BE COMPATIBLE NITH THE DEVELOPMENT~ THAT THE PETI,TlONER SHOUI.D dE REQUESTED TO SUBMIT A LIST OF THE TYPE OF COMMER- CIAL OFFICES THAT MILL BE UTjLLZINfi THE PROPOSED BULLDlNQ~ AND THAT THE SPECIFIC USES SHOULD BE INCORPORATED IN ANY APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT PE7ITION FOR VARIANCE. COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFC•RED TO NITHDRAW H1.5 MOTION.AND.COMMt551.ONER PEBLEY WITHDREN THE SECOND. COMMISSfONER ALLRED OFFEREO A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMI,SSIONER MARCOUX AND CARRIEDt TtIAT PETITION FOR VARLANCE N0. 1383 BE CONTINUED UNTIL THE MEETIN6 OF AUdUST 7~ 1961 AT NHICH T1ME THE'PETITIONER SHALL SUBMIT A LIST OF THE POTENT'lAL U5E5 OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. ~ ~ 285 MItJUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ju~v 24~ 1961~ CONTINUED: ~ . . . VARIANCE N0. 13£,4 = PUBLIC HFARING.~ PEriT~od SUBM4TTED BY RICHARD B..NEMCOM 1032 Wesr LA VETA~ ORAN~E~ CALIFORNIA~ OMNER~ QLVIN R. STITCH~ 862~L MILSHIRE B6ULEVARD BEVERLY H1LL5 CALlFORNI.A AQEN7~ REQIJESTINQ PERM15540N ro MAIVE.~IINIMUM FRONTAG~ REQUIREMEN'~S OF.THE CITY OF ANAHEIM R-i, ~ ONE FQMILN RESIDENTIAL, ZONE~ FOR PROPERTY DESCRl8E0 A5: AN I.RRE- GtlLARLY SHAPED PARCEL WITH A FRONTAGE OF 762 FEET•ON SOUTH STREET ~ ~ AND A F'RONTAGE OF 762 FEET ON RIO VISTA STREE7~ AND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RIQ VISTA AND $OUTH STREETS I.N THE COLlNTY OF O~tANGE. PROPERTY PRESEN7LY CLASSIFIED IN TME A-1~ COUNTY ZONE. i SUBJECT PETI,TLON 15 FLLED yN CONJUNCT)ON MITH TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4165 AND HAS BEEN SUBM[TTED TO THE ClTY OF ANAHEIM FOR APPROVAL ~ IN THE EVENT SUBJECT TRACT 1,5 ANNEXED TO THE C1TY PRIOk TO RECORDA- i, TION OF THE EINAL MAP. . ~ MR. MCDAN~EL~ EN(i1NEER REpRESEN'fING THE PETIT~ONERS~ APPEARED BEFORE t THE COMM~SSLON AND STA7ED TNAT THE SUBJECT PETIT~ON LS SUBMITTED RELATIYE TO TENTA7IVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4I55 NHI.CH IS BEING PROCESSED ~ THROUGH THE Cf.UNTY OF ORANGE AND THE CITY OF ANAHELM SIMULTANEOUSLY. HE STATED THAT ALL OF THE LOTS lN 7HE TRACT CONFORM TO ORANGE COUNTY ; STANDARDS~ THEREFORE~ TNE NECESSITY FOR OBTALNLNG A YARIANGE IS IN k THE EVENT THAT THE PROPERTY :o ANNEXED TO J'H£ CITY OF ANAHEIM BEFORE THE RECORDATIUN OF THE FINAL ~RACT MAP. THE VARl.ANCE••IS NECESSARY ~ FOR.SIX LOZS NHICH DO NOT kiAVE THE M1.NlMUM LOT FRONIAGE OF 70 FE@T ` IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIREMENT FOR THE ~ R-1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ ZONE. IT WAS 1.NDICATEDy HOWEVER~ THAT TNE OVER ALL AVERAGE FRONTA6E OF THE BALANCE OF THE 49 LOTS IS . 6REATER 7HAN 70 FEET AND ALL OF THE LOTS HAVE A MINIMUM AREA OF 7~200 r SQUARE FEET. r TNE HE4RING WAS CLOSEO. THE COMMISSLON FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJECT PETiT10NC ~ 1. THAT THE PET(TIONER REQUE5T5 A VARI.ANCE FROM THE ANAHEIM MUNICI.PAL ~ CODE SECTION 18.24.030 (4-A) TO PERML7 THE WI.DFH OF LOT NOS. 29~ ~30,.33, 35~ 37~ AND 40 AS INDICATED ON TENTAT/VE MAP OF TRACT No. 4165. ` 2. THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTlONAL OR EXTRAORDINARY CLRCUMSTANCES OR CONDI- j TIONS APPLICABIE TO THE PROPER7Y (NVOLVED OR TO THE INTENDED USE ~ ' OF THE PROPERTY THAT DO NOT APPLY GENERALLY TO THE PROPERTY OR j CLASS OF USE LN THE SAME VICINITY AND ZONE. 1 3. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANC.E 1S NECESSARY FOR THE PRESERVATION AND ~ ENJOYMENT OF A SUBSTANTIAL PROPERTY R1GHT POSSESSED BY OTHER PROPERTY I,N THE SAME VICINITY AND ZaNE~ AND DENIED TO THE PROPERTY ~ IN QUESTION. { 4. THAT THL• REQUESTED VARIANCE MILL NOT 8E MATERI'ALLY DETRIMENTAL TQ j THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO THE PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN SUCH VIGI.NITY AND ZONE 1N MHICH THE PROPERTY IS lOCr1TED. ~ 5. THAT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT ADVERSELY i+FFECT THE COMPRE- ~ HENSIVE GENERAL PLAN. ~ 6. THA7 NO ONE APPEARED fN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION. COMMISSlONER MORRIS OFFERED RESOLUTLON N0. 24~ SERIES 1961-62z AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSADE AND AGOPTION~ SECONDED BY CONMI.SSIONER JUMMERS~ i ?0 aRANT PETITION FOR VARI.ANCE N0. 1384~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLI.OWING ~:' CONDITLONS: , 1. SUBJECT TO THE RECORDATION OF A FINAL MAP OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. ~' 2. SUBJECT TO THE ANNEXATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY I.NTO THE CITY OF t ANAHEIM PR10R TO RECCRDATION OF A FINAL TRACT MAP OF SUBJECT PRO- PERTY. IF SAID TRACT MAP IS RECORDED PR10R TO ANNEXATION TO THE C.17Y OF ANAHEIM~ PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1384 SHALL BECOME NULL AND VOlO. 3: TiME LiM1.TATION OF ONE HUNDRED EIQHTY (180~ QAYS FOR JHE ACCOM~ PLISHMENT OF ITEM N0. 1. ~ k THE FOREtiO1N(i CONDITI0N5 MERE RECITED AT THE MEETI,NQ AND NERE FOUND P TO oE i, NECESSARY-PREREQULSi?E TO TSi£ !!SE 4F THE $ROPEHTY 1N 4RDER TQ ~ PRESERVE TNE.SAFETY AND.MELFARE OF TNE CI,TIZENS OF THE C1TY OF ANAHEIM. ON ROLL CALL THE FORE(i01N0 RESOtUTION MAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWI,NG VOTE: F t ~'~ ~r ~ . ~ . . . . . . ~ . ~ . . ~ ~ . . x'' ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERSC' ALLR£D~ raAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORR15~ MUNaALL~ ~. f ~;T'~` ~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~ $UMMERS. 9 ';r Yr'';_ , NQES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ~ "'~et ~,~ ABSENT: COMM1SS10NERS: HAP~OOD. ~~ _ . ~` . ~ ~ . ~ ~ . . . . . . ~ ~ . . . .F ~. ' . . . ~ . . {~ ,~ ~1{~ 1.. ~. ~ ~ . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . 5 ~ i-Y, ~~~~..h,in;17~.7~-..^~-~~-~,~.1'f31pXa T;?x ,2.a:..~r. . ~,.... . ,. ...,..,. .. .c r~. , , . .,~ . i~:-:.?: . 1 ..,;I ~ .. ns Sti..,X~_.:.a~ ,.r . . ._ . .c. ~:: ,' . ~, ~ . ~..~~~~~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 286 ~ HINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ju~Y 24, 1961, CONT~NUED: TENTATIVE MAP OF - SUBDIVI~ER: :A. R. STITCH~ 8622 MILSHIRE BOULEVARD~ BEVERLY HILLS~ TRACT N0. 4165 CALIFORNLA. TNE TRACT LS LOCATED AT.THE SOtlTHEAST CORNER OF R10 VISTA AND SOUTH STREET5 IN THE COUN7Y OF ORAN6E AND CONTAINS 49 PROPOSED R~1~ ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ LOTS. SUBJECT TRACT IS SUB- MITTED•LN CONJUNCTION WITH PETITLON FOR VARI.ANCE N0. 1384. A STAFF REPORT RECOMMENDATION RELA7IVE TO THE 1N57ALLATION OF A SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH COUNTY STANDARDS NAS,SUBMIT7ED TO 7HE COMMLSSION.. . MR. A. R. MCDANIELy EN6INEER.REPRESENTIN(i THE SUBDIV'1DER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION•AND STATED THAT HE WAS LN AGREEMENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATION RELATIVE.TO THE WALL INSTALLATION~ WITH THE RECOM~ MENDED FULL SIDEWALK INSTALLATION~ AND WITH THE INSTAlLAT10N OF LANDSCAPING MITH MAIN7ENANCE BY THE CITY. COMMISSIONER MORRIS OFFERED .1 MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MARCOUX AND CARRIED~ 7HAT THE TENTATIVE MAP OF TRACT N0. 4165 SUBMITTED ,JULY 249 1961 IN CONJUNC7ION WITH PETISLON FOR VARIANCE N0. 1384~ BE APPROVED~ SUBJECT TO THE FOLLONING CONDITION51 1. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL , 1MPROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF 7HE CITY ENGiNEER WI.TH THE EXCEPTION THAT THE SIDEWALK ALONG RIO VISTA STREET SHALL BE SEVEN (7) FEET WIDE AND SHALL 8E LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE CURB OF RIO VISTA STREET~ THAT THE REMAININQ FIVE AND ONE-HALF (5}) FEET OF THE PARKWAY PORTION OF R10 VISTA STREET BE LANDSCAPED BY THE DEVELOPER. PLANS FOR SAID LANDSCpPING TO BE SUBMITTED TO AND SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF 711E SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKNAY MAINTENANCE MITH THE PROVISION THAT THE EXTENT OF THE LANDSCAPI,NG SHALL BE IDENTICAL TO THE EXTENT OF THE BLOCK WALL REQUIRED ALONG R10 VISTA STREET. MAIN- TENANCE OF SAID LAN~SCAPING SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE CITY. . 2. INSTALLATLON OF A SIX (6~ FOOT MASONRY WALL ABUTTING ~OT NOS. 15~ 36~ 17. 18. nNU 19. 3. SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF PETI.TION FOR VARI.ANCE N0. 1384. CONDITIONAL USE - RUBLIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED sv LEO FREEDMAN, 2018 COI.DWATER PERMIT N0. 140 CANYON DRIVE~ BEVERLY HII.I.S CALIFORNIA~ OWNER „REQUESTI.NG PERMISSION TO ESTABLISH A SERVICE STATION~ ON PROPERTY DESERIHED A5: AN 1RRE- GULARLY SHAPED PARCEL MITH A FRONTAGE OF 115 FEET ON HARBOR BOULEVARD AND LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HARBOR BOULEVARD BETWEEN KATELLA AVENUE AND MIDWAY DRIVE~ ITS SOUTHWEST CORNER 9ElN~ APPROXIMATELY 1~085 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HARBOR BOULEVARD AND KATELLA AVENUE AND FURTHER .DESCRiBED AS 1660 SOUTH HARBOR BOULEVARD. PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSLFlEO R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. MR. LEO FREEDMAN~ Ti1E PETiT1,ONER~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION~ DESCRIBED THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A SERVI,CE STA1'ION ON PROPERTY CONTAINING THE CHARTERHOUS~ HOTEL~ AND STATED THAT HE WOULD SIGN A LONO TERM LEASE WITH THE STANDARD OIL COMPANY~ THAT lT WOULD BE A COMPANY OPERATED DELUXE SfRVICE STATION~ THAT IT WOULD BE AN ASSET TO THE PROPERTY~ AND THAT THERE ARE OTHER SERVICE STATIONS iN THE IMME- D1ATE AREA. ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. THE COMMI55l.ON DI,SCUSSED AT SOME LENaTH THE TYPE OF MERCHANDISE THAT NOULD BE DISPLAYED AND THE NECESSITY OF LIMITt.Na THE OUTDOOR S70RAGE AND D15PLAY 1N ORDER NOT TO DETRACT FROM THE OISNEYLANO AREA. MR. FREEDMAN STATED THAT HE HAD A THREE ML~LION DOLI.AR INVESTMENT IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ASSURED THE COMMISSION THAT AN ATTRACTiVE AND DESI.RABLE APPEARANCE WOULD BE MAINTAINED FOR THE INSTALLATION~ 7HAT THE STATION ARCHITECTURE WOULD RESEMBLE THE TYPE UTILIZED FOR THE CHARTERHOUSE HOTEL~ THAT THEY WOULD CAPITALiZE ON THE DISNEYLAND AREA~ AND THAT THE IN5TALLA710N WOULD BE BEAUTIFUL. ASSISTANT CITY ATTURNEY .IOE GEISLER READ THE DEFINISION OF A NSUPER SERVICE STATION~ AS OUTLI.NED lN CODE~ SECTION 18.08.720 NHICH 75 THE ONLY DEFIN~TION PROVIDED FOR MSERVICE STATIONS~ IN THE PRESEN7 CODE. THE COMMISSiON DISCtiSSED VARIOUS ASPECTS OF TME PERMlTTED USES~ WHICH THEY DID NOT CONSIDER DEStRABLE FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ SUCH AS TiRE R'eCAPPiFIG~ CERTAiN iGti4Si0N SERVICES~ A~SD 6ATTERY REPALP.:H4. MR. FREEDMAN STATED THAT HE CONSIDERED THE CODE DEFINITION TO BE SATIS- FACTORY~ THAT 1T MI4HT ESTABLISH A PRECEDENT TO RESTRICT THE PERMITTED . USES~ AND THA7 THE COMPANY WOULD BE INVESTIN~ A CONS'IDERABLE SUM OF MONEY AND WOULD PROTECT.THEIR INVESTMENT BY MAINTAIN[Np AN APPROPRIATE 1NSTALLATION. . MR. A. R. MCDANIEL~ REF`RESENTATIVE OF-,THE MCDANIEL.ENa1NEERINa COMPANY~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND ASSUkED THE COMMISSION THAT THE ~ . _ c~ ~~~i ~ ...... .- , ~. .. .i.. Y __9016r. '~}. _~ ~::`f, .( ..,~.Y.,.JI?h- i.::=~. .~ ~ . I r . . .ti, , _ ~ ~ ~ . a r-~ .~ - . .~3 ~ .~ ' ~ 297 3 ~ _7 MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ju~v 2a, l9ei, CONTIHUED: CONDiTIONAL USE ~ STI,TION.•MOUID BE A COMPANY OPERATED UNI.T AND THAT 7HE OPERATION ~ PERMIT N0. 140 WOULD NOT BE CONDUCTED S1M(LAR TO ONES OPERATINa UNDER A IEASE ~ CiONTiNUED ARRANGEMENT. ~ ' ~~ ,„ QSSLSTANT CITY ATTORNEY JOE GEI,S~ER ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT IN CONCERN~INERESPECTETOLTHETAPPEARANC~~DTHAT~7HENCOMMI53{ONCCOULDSI-0N~S STATIONS„TAS STIPULAT.EDTINOCODE~PSECT10N18508.330t'INED FOR "FILLING ' THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMI.NED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJECT PETLTIANI 1~ PERMITHISPAUTHORl2EDEBYSTHISPCODE~oTO W/TCMNFILLINQOSTATIONAL USE F~•""' 2. THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE ADJOINING LAND USES AND THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA IN NHICH IT LS PROPOSED 70 BE LOCATED. 3. THAT THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF TNE 517E PROPOSED FOR THE USE IS ADE~ QUATE 'f0 ALLOW.THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED USE IN A MANNER N07 DETRIMENTAL TO THE PARTICULAR AREA NOR TO THE PEACE~ HEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND fiENERAL MELFARE OF 7HE CITIZENS OF THE CITV • OF ANAHEIM. 4~ ANAUNDUE BURDENCUPONE7HEESTREETSEANDOHIGHWAYSEDESIGNED7ANDPPRO- POSED TO CARRY THc TRAFFIC IN THE AREA. 5~ TIONSTIMPOSED~'AF ANY~HWLLLNNOT'BEADETRIMENTALTTONTHE PEACEONDI- HEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE C(TI,ZENS OF THE ~ITY OF ANAHEIM. ' 6. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION. . COMMISSIONER MUNGALL OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 25~ SERI65 1961~62~ AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTLON SECONDED BX COMMISSIONER PERRY~ TO GRANT PETITI.ON FOR CONDtT10NAL ~SE PERMIT N0. 140~ SUBJECT TO THE FOL~OWING CONDITIONS. ' 1. SUBJECT TQ THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEN OF THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR. 2. DEVELOPMEIVT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE W1TH Pl.ANS OF DEVELOP~ MENT SUBMITTED TO AND APPROVED 8Y THE CHIEF BUILDING INSPECTOR AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 3~ SURVEYTSITE PLAN ASEPREPAREDEBYRAPOREDMCDANIELAS SHOWN ON THE 4. PREPARATION OF STREET 1MPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATION OF ALL LMPR~VEMENTS FOR THE I~ROPOSED STREET~ AS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY SITE PLAM AS PREPARED BY A. R. MCDANIEL~ I.N ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ENGINEER. 5~ THEMPROPOSEDZS~TREETR ASOSHOWNOONFTHESSURVEYLSGTE'PLANUPREPAREDNBY A. R. MCDAN4EL. 6. TtME LIM4TATlON OF ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY (180) DAYS FOR THE ACCOM- ~ PLISHMEN'~ OF ITEM NOS. 3~ 4~ AND 5. THE FOREGOI.NG CONDITIONS WERE RECITED AT 7HE MEETING AND WERE FOUND TO PRESERVEETHERSAFETYEANDSWELFARETOF THE CITIZENSROFE7HE CITYROFR ANAHEIM. ON ROLL CALL THE FOREGOINQ RESO WTION YIAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTEC AYES: CQMMISSIONERSI PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SUMMERS, MORR~S~ MUNGALL~ ~ ~ NpES: COMMISSIONERS: NoNE - f~BSEiti: COF~kISSlOl~ERSS NAPCaQOD. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARlN6. ~PETlT10N SUBMI.TTED ev 7HE WES1 ANAHEIM METHODIST ', ~ ~RMIT N0. 141 CHURCH4 2O45 HEST BAL1. ROAD ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA~ OWNER~ ARTHUR M. GRAY~ Jft.~ 914 NEST CENTER ~TPEET~ ANAHEIM CALIFORNIA~ AQENT~ REQUEST~ y~:~ ~' ING PERMISSION FOR EXPANSION OF CHURCH FACILiTfES:oN PROPeRrv oESCRiaEo :~5~ ~ AS: AN IRREQULARLY SHAPED PARCEL I.OCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF EMPIRE ° r' ~ STREET BETWEEN $ALL ROAD AND JUNO PLACE~ AND FURTHER DESCRI9ED AS LOT 1 ~v1~~~s OF TRACT N0. 3022~ AND:FURTHER.DESCRIBED A5 2045 MEST BALL ROAD. ~n~jk k~ PROPERTY PRESENTLY CLASSIFIED:R~3~ MULTII'LE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. , , , , , ,,: _ 1 . . . . . . . . ... vv~,~s '•`C1f ! . ~ T / Y . . . ~i: i~`:c.S~_,...~ . .,i.., - ., ~1.,. i __..k. ,. ..'} . ~?~,.... x, ~... .~,i....,r~1 ~11~ti::~.'.. -.... _._ ,.... __..a~:L.~,.. ~ ~ ~i ~., . 1,~ ':S i:~:i ~ ~ '~ ~~ 1 :~~ . ~ ~ 28g ~¢ ~ P ~ '~. ~ . r „~ ~, ~ ~ , ,._,.... ,. _ _. ~ MINUTES~ CITY PLANN~NG COMMISSION, Ju~v 24, 1961, CONT~NUED; CONDITIONAL USE ~ Mh. ARTHUR GRAY~ ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE PETITIONERS~ APPEARED PERMIT N6. 141 BEFORE THE COMMLSSJON AND STATED THAT THE CHURCH WAS REQUESTLNG PER- CONTINUED MISStON TO EXPAND IN ORDER TO COMPLETE TY.E PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHURCH FACILITY. THE HFARING 1iAS CLOSED. •. .• . . IN RESPONSE TO INQUI.RY FROM COMMISSIONER MARCOUX~ REVEZEND DESLER~ PASTOR FOR THE CHURCH~ APPEAREO BEFORE THE COMMISSION 11ND STATED THAT THE PAVLNG OF THE PARKING AREA HAD NOT BEEN COMPLE7ED 'BECAUSE IT ~w5 NOT NEEDED AT THE PRESENT T1ME~ BUT THAT 1.T WdLL 3E COMPLETED I;N Ar,CORDANCE•MITH THE PROPOSED U~TIMATE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPER" ~AND THAT THERE NAS PARKING AVAILAB~E FOR APPROXIMAiELY 80 CARS AT TY;, PRESENT TIME. HE STATED FURTHER THAT TH° PROPOSED SANCTUARY WO' .D ACCOMODATE APPROXIMATELY 600 PEOPLE. THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED THE INTENDED HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED SANCTUARY AND THE PASTOR INDICATED THAT THE HELGHT NOULD PROBABLY EXCEED THE 35•F00T HEIGHT LIMITATION STlPULATED BY THE CODE. ASSISTANT CtTY• ATTORNEY JOE GEISLER ADVISED THE COMMISSION THAT A SPECIFIC HEIGHT ~ LIMISATION SHOULD BE STtpULATED BY THE COMMISSI,ON FOR THE DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE SUBJECT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE COMMISSION AL50 DISCUSSED THE NECESSITY FOR PROVLDING A WALL ON . THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY RATHER THAN TO PERMtT THE USE•OF THE EXISTING NOODEN~FENCE. THE COMMISSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS REGARDING THE SUBJECT PETITION: 1. THAT THE PROPOSED USE IS PROPERLY ONE FOR WHICH A CONDITlONAL USE PERMI7 IS AUTHORiZED BY THIS CODE~ TO WIT: EXPANSION OF CHURCH FACILITIES. 2. THAT THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE AOJOINING LAND USES AND THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA IN WHICH IT IS PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED. ~ 3. THAT THE 512E AND SHAPE OF THE SITE PROPOSED FOR THE USE IS ADE- QUATE TO ALLON THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPOSED USE IN A MANNER NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE PARTICULAR AREA NOR TO THE PEACE~ MEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND GENERAL NELFARE OF THE CITI2EN5 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 4. THAT THE TRAFFIC GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED USE NCL4 NOT LMPOSE AN UNDUE BURDEN UPON THE STREETS AND HIGHMAYS DESI~NED AND iMPROVED TO CARRY THE TRAFFIC IN THE AREA. 5. THAT THE GRANTING OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNDER THE CONDI- TIONS IMPOSED~ IF ANY~ MILL NOT BE DETRItAENfhL TO+THE PEACEt HEALTH~ SAFETY~ AND MELFARE OF THE C1712EN5 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. 6. THAT Tt?E HEI,GHT LIMI.TAT~ON IS HEREBY WAIVED BY THE AUTHOR~TY PROVIG~D FOR IN CODE~ SECTION 18.64.072 TO PERMIT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF SEVENTY-FIVE (~5) FEET FOR 7HE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. 7. THAT NO ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION. COMMISSIONER ALLRED OFFERED RESOLUTION N0. 26~ SERlES 1961~62 AND MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION'4 SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ~EBLEIC~ TO GRANT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT;NO. 141~ SUBJECT TO'THE FOLLOW(NG CONAITIONS: , 1. INSTALLATION OF A SfX (6~ FOOS MASONAY MALI ALONG THE EAST£RNMOST - • BOUNDARY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY. 2. PROVISION OF LANDSCAPING IN ALL PARKMAYS OF BALL ROAD~ EMPI.RE STREET~AND JUNO PLACE ABUTTI,NG SUBJECT PROPERTY~ PLANS FOR SAID lANDSCPPING TO BE SUBMITTED TO AND SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PARKMAY MAINTENANCE. 3. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIA~LY lN ACCORDANCE WITH EXHIBITS °A„ AND ~B.~ 4. TIME LlMITATION OF ONE H?~S_~ED EIaHTY (180) DAYS FOR THE ACCOM~ , PLISHMENT OF ITEM NOS. 1 AND 2. ~~HE FORE~OING CONDITLONS WERE RECITED AT THE MEETI,Nd AND WERE FOUND TO BE A NECESSARY PREREQUf51TE TO THE USE OF THE PROPERTY 1N ORDER TO PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND M'eLFhnE OF THE C1T12EN5 OF THE C1TY OF ANAHEIM. ON ROLL CALL THE FORE(i01Na RESOLUTI,ON WAS PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING NO7EQ AYES: COMMISSIONERSC ALLRED~ ~AUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNaALt~ PEBLEY~ PERRYti SUMMERS. NOES: COMMISSIONERSC NONE. ABSENT; COMMISSIONEttS: HAPQOOD. f .... .,i. ..... . . .. . .,. ~.. ti'~ ,,.;~+, _,-.. f ------- C~ E.' .._,,._::~.~..o. ~ - MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ju~v 24, 1961, CONTINUED: ~ ~ ~ 289 RECLASSIFICQTION - PUBIIC HEARING. PEiLTION SUBMITTED er NELSON-OYE CUNSTRUCTION. lNC.~ NO_ 61-62-7 212•SOUTH THALIA STREE7~ ANAHEIM~ CALIFORNIA AGEN7~ REQUESTING THAT PROPERTY DESCRI9ED A5: A PARCEL 72 FEET BY ~G69 FEBT•WITH A FRONTAGE AVENUEFBETNEENkMOUNTA1NYlEMEAVENUEOANDEHASTERHSTREETH ITSENOR7HWESTLA HASTER STRE TAAND~KATELLAYAVENUEEANDEFURTHERTDESCRIBEDAAS 300NWESTF KATELLA QVENUE BE RECLASS1FlED FROM THE R-Q~ RESIDENTIAL AGR1CUtTURAL~ i- ZONE ro rHe C-~~ HFAVY COM~IERCIAL, ZONE. INFORMATION NAS SUBMLTTED TO THE COMM155(ON THAT THE SUBJEC7 PETITION ' HAD•BEEN 1NCORRECTLY ADVERTISED I,N RESPECT TO THE ADDRESS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE PETITLONER~ R. I.. DYE~ APPEARED BEFORE THE COMNISS;ON AND STA7ED THAT 7HE OCCUPANTS LN THE•SURROUNDING AREA WERE AMARE OF THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATI,ON.AND THAT TMO INTERESTED PAR- TIES MERk: PRESENT FOR THE SCHEDULED HEARINQ. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PROPERtY POSTED BUT THAT THE LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT APPEAR- INO !N•TH~i NENSPAPER ADVERTYSED THE PROPERTY AS BEJNG AT 300 MEST KATELLA AYENUE RATHER THAN THE CORRECT ADDRE55 OF 300 EAST KATELLA AVENUE. ' '" QSSISTANT CLTY AT70RNEY JOE GE~SLER ADVISED THE COMMLSSION 7HAT THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE RE-ADVERTISED IN ACCORDANCE NITH STA7E LAW~ AND 1N RESPONSE TO A REQUE5T BY THE COMMISSION~ STATED THAT THE PUBLIC HEARIN~ COULD BE CONDUCTED PROVIDED THE PE7ITI.ON MAS CONTINUED UNTIL SUCH TIME.AS THE LEGAL ADVERTI.SEMENT HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. THE PE7ITIONER APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY WISHED TO ESTABLISH A PERMANENT LOCAT[ON IN aNAHEIM.~ AND THAT THE PROPERTX MOULD 8E DEVE~OPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH. THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED IN THE.SUBJECT PETITtON. HE.STATED THAT THE APPEARANCE OF THE.PROPERT:' MOULD BE IMPROVED~ THAt THE 57REE7~ CURBS~ GU7TER5~ AND•SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT6 NOULD BE INSTALLED~ TNA7 PARKING WOULD BE PROVIDED~ THAT THE CONSTRUCTION NOULD BE FOR A MODERN OFFICE BUILDING~ AND THAT ~EYELOPMEN7 MOULD COMMENCE AS SOON AS ESCROW PROCEEDINQS ARE CONCLUDED. THE OWNER OF THE TRAILER PARK ~OCATED SOUtHERLY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TOPTHEEESTABLISHMENTC FMASCABj,NETDSHOP~EWHLCHTHEECON5IDERED TO~BED NOISY AND DUSTY AND SHOULD @E LOCATED IN AN M~2~ HEAVY INDUSTRIAL~ ZONE~ AND THAT HE THOUaHT A BETTER USE COULD BE MADE OF TNE PROPER7Y• TNE PET1710NER' STATED THE ESTABLI.SHMENT OF THE CABINET SHOP WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE IMMEDIATE PLANS FOR 7HE D=YELOPMENT~ THAT AN OFFICE WOULD PROBABLY BE REPiTED TO A PLUMBlNG SUB~CONTRACTOR~ THAT SOME EQUIPMENT MIQHT BE STORED ON THE PREMISES AND TNERE MtGHT BE HOURSMNOULDABEETHEYORDINARYAOFFICEVHOURS~NTHAT AABRAKEHSERVlCEWSHOpNG MAS LOCATED ON NEARBY PROPERTY~ AND THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE A~ ASSET TO THE AREA. MR. R. E. WILLIAMS APPEARED BEFORE THE COMMXSSION AND STATED HE OWNED AND~DIDNNOTRSEERANYTHINQTOBJECTIONABLE TOVTHE PROPOSEDBOPERATIONTION THE COMMISSIONRANDE87ATED THATRHEGOWNEDNLOT 7A OF TRACTANOEA498~BANDRE THAT HE WOULD FURNISH FUNDS 7,N CONJUNCTION tlITH THE PETlT10NER FOR 7HPROVEMENT OF THE SUBJECT AND ABUTTING PROPERTY ~F APPROVAL NERE GRANTED. HE STA7ED FURTHER 7HAT THE BRAKE SHOP OPERATION ON ADJOIN- tN6 PROPERTY ESTA6LISHED A CHANQE FROtd 7HE RESLDENT.IAL ZONING OF THE AR~A. THE COMMISSION THEN DISCUSSED THE POSSIBLE LIMITATION OF THE USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO SPECjFIC USES. COMMLSSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMLSSLONER MUN~ ~ALL AND CARRIED~ TO CONT~NUE PETl,T10N FOR RECLASSIFICATtON N0.61-62-7 UNTLL THE MEETANa OF AU6UST 7~ 1961 A7 YHICH TIME THE PETlT10NER SNALL SUBMI.T THE SPECIFI.C TXPES OF OPERATION PROPOSED TO UTLLIZE 7HE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ AND THAT THE PROPERTY BE RE-ADYERTISED LN ACCORDANCE WLTH _ CODE REQUIREMENTS. RECLASSIFICATION gQ. ei-ez-a - PU~LIC HEARING. PETITION SUBMITTED BY JENETT BROTHERS REAL ESTATE, CALI,FORNIAVOMNERS~MREQUE52tNfi~7HAT PROPERBYQDESCRI.BED~AS: ~PnRC~~sN' 1 AKD 2 COMBI.NED~ LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF VERMONi AVENUE BETMEEN CITR~N ~TREET AND THE SANTA ANA FREEWAY AND HAVING.A FRONTA6E OF APPROX(MATELY 335 FEET MORE OR LE55 ON VERMONT AVENUE AND AN AVERAQE DEPTH'OF APPROXLMATELY 280 FEETj ITS-NOR7HEAST CORNER BEJNG APPROXI,~ MATELY 357 FEET NEST OF THE SOU'CHMEST CORNER OF CITRON STREE7 AND VERMONT AVENUE~ BE RECLASSIFIED FROIh THE R~3 HULTIPLE FAMILY RESI~ DENTiAL, ZONE nNO R-A R~SIDENTIAL AGRiCULTU~2AL, tONE To THE C-i, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIT-L~ ZONE. ~ . . . ' . . . ... i . t.! ~~ .~~_.~~~~~ 290 C.. : I MlNUTES~ ClTY pLANNlNG COMMISSION, Ju~v 24, 1961, CONTINUED; ~ . , RECLASSIFICATION ~ MR. MAURICE B. DILLOW~ REPRESEN7ATIVE FOR THE PETITlONER~.APPEARED 61-62-8 NO BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND REVIENED RAST ACTION ON 7HE SU9JECT PRO~ . CONTI_NU~Q PERTY BY MHICH A PE7I.TION FOR RECLASSLFI;CATION TO THE M-1~ LIGHT F MANUFACTURiNG~ Z04E.HAD BEEN DENiEO. NE 57ATED THAT AT THE TIME O THE PREVIOUS•ACTInN THE CITY COUNCIL HAD ADVI,SED HIM TO SUBMIT A ~ PROPOSAL FOR A SPE.LFI.C U5E FOR THE PROPERTY iHAT WOULD BE COMPATIB~E WITH THE AREA AND MOULD BE ATTRACTIVE BECAUSE OF 1T5 CLOSE•PROXIMLTY TO THE FREENAY. HE STATED THAT SLNCE THAT TIME ADJACENT PROPERTY HAD BEEN PURCNASED AND THAT HE CONSIDERED THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF A PROFESSiONAL OFF~CE BUILDING WOU~D CONSTlTU7E A SUBSTANTIAI. IMPROVE~ MENT OF THE AREA. ' MR. DILLOW PRESENTED A RENDERI.NC.~ OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND INDI- CATED THA7 PARKI.NG WOULD BE LOCATED.AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING~ THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD OCCUPY A 150 FOOT BY 160 F00T COP.NER PARC6L~ THAT IT WOULD EXTEND TO THE FREENAY~ AND THAT ANOTHER LOT WOULD BE ~ (MPROVED IN THE FUTURE FOR WHICH NO SPECI.FLC PLANS WERE AVAILABLE AT THE PRESENT TIME. ~ THE HEARiNG•M'AS CLOSED. ~ ~ THE COMIMISSION DISCUSSED PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND REYIEWED THE DEVEL- OPMENT °LANS FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY~ AND I.N RESPONSE TO INQUIRY RELAT.IVE TO THE I,NDICATED MCOLORED GROUND COVER„ FOR THE PROPOSED ~ LAMDSCAPING~ THE PETITLONER STATED 7HAT lT MQULD NOT BE GRAVEL AND THAT IT•NOULD BE VEGETATION. • THE COMMI,SSION FOUND AND DETERMINED THE FOLLONING FACTS REGAROING THE SUBJECT PETITION: 1. THAT THE PETITIONER PROPOSES A RECLASSIFICATION OF THE ABOVE DES- CRlBED PROPERTY-FROM THE R-3~ MULTIPLE FAM(LY RESIDENTIAL~ AND THc R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGR'ICULTURAL~ ZONES TO THE C-le NEI.GHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL~ ZONE. 2. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSIFICATLON OF SUBJEC7 PROPERTY IS NECES- SARY OR DESlRABLE FOR THE ORDERLY AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT OF THE • COMMUNITY. - 3. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSI.FICATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES PRO- ~ PERI.Y RELATE TO THE 20NE5 AND THEIR PERMITTED USES LOCALLY j ESTABLl5f1ED I.N CIOSE PROXIMI7Y TO SUBJECT PROPERTY AND TO THE • ZONES AND THEIR PERMITTED USES GENERALLY ESTABL75HED THROUGHOUT THE COMMUR,ITY. 4. THAT THE PROPOSED RECLASSLF)CATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DOES RFQUIRE .°.TANOARD .IMPROVEMENT OF :ABUTTLNG STR~ETS BECAUSE SA1D FROPERTY DOES RELATE TO AND ABUT UPON STP.EETS AND HIGHWAYS b1H1CH ARE PROPOSED TO CARRY THE TYPE AND QUANTfTY OF TRAFFIC~ NHICH YIILL BE GENERATED BY THE PERMITTED USES~ IN ACCORDANCE M1T4i THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAI PLAN. 5. TI?AT NO ONE APPEARED 1N OPPOSITION TO SUBJECT PETITION. SSIONER ALLRED OFFERED RESOLUT~ON N0. 27~ SERIES 1961-~627 AND COMMI . MOVED FOR ITS PASSAGE AND ADOPTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORR15~ TO RECOMIAEND TO 7HE CITY COUNCIL~ THAT PETfTLON FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 61-62-8 8E APPROVED~ SUBJECT TO 7HE FOLIONI,NG CONDIT:ONS: 1. DEVELOPMENT SUBSTANTIALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXHABIT ~Ap AND „B.~ 2. PROVISION OF PARKING AREA 1N ACCORDANCE NITH CODE REQUIREMENTS. 3. PROVISION OF LANDSCAPIN6 IN THOSE AREAS SHONN FOR LANDSCAPlNG ON BIT „A° AND KB~~ PLANS FOR SAt~ LANDSCAP{NG TO BE SUBMlTTEO EXHI , TO AND SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE St1PER1NTENDENT OF PARKWAY MA~NTENANCE. 4. PREPARATION OF STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND INSTALLATLON OF ALL IMPROVEMENTS FOR VERMONT AVENUE~ EXCEPT FOR THE PORTLON PRESENTLY '1MPROVED~ IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED STANDARD PLANS ON FILE 'I'N THE OFF4CE OF TNE C1TY ENGINEER. 5. PAYMENT OF SZ•00 PER FRONT FOOT FOR STREET I.IGHTINa PURPOSES ON VERMONT AYENUE FOR THE EASTERLY 125 FEET ONLY. 6. TIME LIMITATION OF NINETY (90~ DAYS FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMEN7 OF ITEM NOS.~ 3~ 4* AND 5. . 7. RECORDATION -0F -0EED RESTRICTAUNS L1MiTIN6 USE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY TO BUS~.NESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFLCES ONLY. THE.FOREQOING CONDlTJONS NERE RECITED AT THE MEETIN~ AND.WERE FOUND ?0 BE A NECESSARY PREREQUISITE TO~THE USE OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO M 'TY OF ANAHEI C ' . . t THE CLTIZENS OF THE PRESERVE THE SAFETY AND WEI.FARE OF ~~~.iu:., ~ . . ... ~ ~. . . ~ . . . ~ 1~ . 291 ~ ~ MINUTES~ ClTY PLANNIN6 COHMlSSION, JutY 24; 1961, CONTtNUED: ~ ~;. RECLASSIFICATION - ON,RO~~ CALL THE FOREDOIN6 RESOLU7I,ON MAS PASSED,BY THE FOLLONLNG.y07Ei ~ N0. 6i-62-8 , , , CONTtNUED QYES: COMMISSIONERS; ALLRED~ GAUER~ MARCOUX~ MORRIS~ MUNGALL~ PEBLEY~ PERRY~ SUMMERS. NpES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ~ ABSENT: COMM1SSfONERS: HAPQOOD. . CORRESPONOENCE - li'eM No. i. ORANGE COUNTY TRAC7 N0. 4286: • ~~ NOTICE RECEIVED FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RE4ATIVE TO ~ ORANGE COUNTY TRACT N0. 4286 WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION. SUBJECT ~ ~. YRACT~ COVERING APPROXIMATELY 10 ACRES 15 PROPOSED FOR 45 R~1~ ONE ~ FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 1:0T5 AND IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF r WALNUT STREET AND ~EE ANA STREET IN THE NORTH~AST lNDU5TRIAL SECTION ~ ~+ ' OF THE ANAHHIM AREA. PLANNIN6 DIRECTOR RICHARD REESE OUTLLNED THE LOCATION OF THE TENTATIYE ~ TRACT INDICATIN(i THAT IT WAS PROPOSED TO BE SITUATED NORTHERLY OF THE. ~, PROPOSED LA PALMA AVENUE EXTENSION. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE PROPERTY MAS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH S[DE OF MALNUT STREET BETWEEN RICHFIELD RAAD AND TAYLOR STREET. ~ . ~ MR. REESE DESCRIBED THE LOCATION OF ARTERIAL STREETS AND HI(iHWAYS SERVING THE NORTHEAST AREA AND INDICATED THAT LA PALMA AVENUE NILL SERVE AS A COI.LECTOR FOR..THE ENTIRE NORTHEAST INDUSTRIAL AREA AND l5 r PROPOSED TO EVENTUALLY EXTEND FROH PLACENTIA AVENUE TO THE IMPERIAL s FREEMAYz AND THAT ANAHEIM ROAD IS ALSO PROJ::CTED TO EXTEND EASTERLY TO Ti4YLOR JTREET. HE STATED THAT 7HE AREA BETMEEN THE ORANGE AND IMPER- F. IAL FREEWAYS FROM ARANGETHORPE AVENUE TO THE•SANTA ANA RIVER HAS BEEN PROPOSED FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE PRELIa11NARY GENERAL PLAN. HOWEVER~ MUCH OF THE SUBJECT AREA IS PRESENTLY OUTSIDE OF THE ANAHEIM ~ CITY LIMITS AND UNDER THE COUNTY~S JURISDlCTION. k- ' ~ MR. REESE STATED FURTHER THAT THE AREA APPEARS TO BE IDEALLY SITUATED FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMEN7. THE FREEWAYS AND THE PLANNED HIGHMAYS S' AFtE EXCELLENT TO SERVE THE AREA. HE STATED~HOWEVER~ THAT'HE BELIEVED ~ TFIAY 7HE TRAFFIC SITUATION~ AS IT NOW EXISTS~ IS'.A TEMPORARY DETERRENT . F TO INDU57RIAL DEVELOPMENT IN TN,lS AREA BUT THAT WITHIN 3 TO 5 YEARS WITH THE COMPLETION OF THE HIGHWAYS AND FREEWAYS~ THE DEVELOPMENT OF ~ , TH: AREA WILL BE ACCELERATED. WE ALSO STATED THAT THERE ARE EXCELLENT ~ ~ '",'L FACILITIES SER:ING THE AREA~ THAT SEWERS~ WATER~ AND OTHER FACIL~ q ..IES ARE AVAIIABLE~ THAT SOIL CONDITIONS WERE EXCEI.LENT~ THAT IT IS a ~. IN CLOSE PROXINITY TO FINE RESIDENTIAL AND COHWERCiAt AREAS TO HOUSE ~ AND SERYE THE EMPLOYEES OF THE iNDU5TRIAL DEVELOPMENTS~ THAT THERE IS i r AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE AN INCREASIN~ DEMAND FOR (NDUSTRIAL LAND IN j ANAHEIM~ THAT THE SUBJECT AREA COMPARES VERY ~AVORABLY WITN COMPETI~ i T1'~E COUNTV INDUSTRIAL AREAS~ THAT THE AREA 15 BOTH SUITABLE AND r DESIRABLE FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT~ THAT WATER AND POWER STATION FACILITIES HAD BEEN DE516NED WITH AN ANTICiPATEO INDUSTRIAL OEMAND AND ~ THAT ADVANCE KNOWLEDpE OF N~N-INDUSTRIAL USE EAST OF JEFFERSON STREET 1 COULD HAVE RESULTED IN A REDUCTION IN SIZIN~ OF THOSE FACILITIES~ THAT ~ THF. DEMAND FOR LAND IN INDUSTRIAL AREAS IS DIRECTLY REI.ATED SO THE ~ 1NTE~RITY OF THE AREA ~ ANG THAT TNE MIXING OF RESIDENTIAL AND INDUS- ; TRIAL USES COULD SERIOUSLY AFFECT THE POSSIBILITY OF LOCATINQ ADDI- i , TIONAL INDUSTRIES IN THE AREA. MR. REESE AADED THAT A BROAD LAND USE POLICY SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE ENTIRc NORTHEAST AREA~ NOT FOR ONE LOT OR 5 OR 10 ACRES AT A ' TIME~ AND THAT AREAS OF INCOMF:.~in~E USES SHOULD BE SEPARATED BY ~' MAJOR OPEN SPACE FEATURES SUCH AS THE RAlLR0A4 RlQHTS-OF~WAY~ THE ~;. RtVER OR FLOOD CONTROL CHANNELS~ AND THE MAJOR HIQHNAYS AND FREEYIAYS. HE NOTED THAT SINCE THE AREA WAS IN BOTH CITf AND COUNTY TERRITORY~ ~^ THAT PERHAPS BOTH JURISDICTI,ONS COULD COOPERATE IN ESTABLISHINQ A MASTER PLAN FOR FUTURE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT AND THE DESIONATION OF PRECIBE ALI.GNMENTS FOR 7HE EXTENSION OF,LA ~ALMA AVENUE EAST OF JEFFERSON STREET AND OF THE.OTHER PROPOSED ARTERIAL HI~MWAYS. ~ MR. REF.SE'THEN STATED THAT~ BASED ON THESE 085ERVATIONS~ 17 WAS HIS SU6~E5'lION THAT A RECOMMENDATLON BE MADE THAT NO RESIDENTlAL DEVELOP~ MENT BE APPROVED IN THE AREA.UNTIL THE'ORANOE COUNTY PLANNINa DEPART- • ' MENT HAS COMPLETEDj AND THE.ORAN6E COUNTY PLANNINfi CONMISSION HAS ~ ADOPTED~ A MASTER t'LAN FOR THE AREA~ LNCLUQtNG MAJOR LAND USE AND PROPOSED ALIaNMENTS FOR ARTERIAL HI(iHWAYS. HE SU~DESTED FURTHER THAT ~ THE ANAHEtN PLANNINQ COMMISSION COOPERATE LN`ANY WAY POSSIBLE I.N THE ~ DEYE60PMENT ANO ADOPT~.ON_OF THE PLAN AND~ FU.RTHER~'TNAT A RECOMMENDA- TION BE MADE TO THE.COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS THAT ANY NECESSARY MEA5URE5 8E TAKEN T~ PREVENT'RESIUENT:IAL DEVELOPMENT IN T.HE NORTHEAST AREA UNTIL'S~7CH K PLAN CAN BE COMPLE7LG ANO..AOOPTED BY BOTN'THE COUNTY t , AND THE CLSY OF ANAHeIM: X.S.~.~. . , . . . . h ~ ~ . / . . . .. . _ _ ~ . . . . . . . . . . f~,., . COMMISSIONER MARCOUX OFFERED A lA0Ti0N~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ~e`,,;,; SIiMMERS AND CARRIED~ THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OUTLINED BY MR. REESE ~ ~ yc :~ 5"y~~VS~,,j . . . .. . . ~ ~ .. . , , . iSf~~~+r'~;~ ' . . .. . . . ~ ' . , . . ..' .. .. ~ F .: ~.. .. ...1'..':. ~ . ~ . . . . . . ~ . ~ . .._. . . ~.~.: ". . ~:~." ~ ~ ~ ~ , . ' ' ~ . . '. . . . ; . ~' . . ~ 4lr < ~_~. _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - --~5^r----~r~^---^+.w • > -~ v.~-i .:~,....".. .,- . . . , /:..~.-:. _ ~ - :.,~. t ~. ~tSl~Stkt~'atnrm.:aa.~i, ~ . . , .~. ._ _ , ... .~ , . _.~.. . . ._. . . ,_.t .. .. . I . Y ~: lyq~ i ~ .. ; ~ , ..4;~~ ~,;; MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Ju~v 24, 1461, CONTINUED: CORRESPONDENCE - IreM No, i: ORANGE COUNTY TRACT N0. 42e6, CONTINUED: ~CONTINUEO ~ - ~ SHOULD BE FORNARDED TO THE ORANaE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISStON AN~ BOARD OF SU?ERVISORS~ AND YHAT THE PLANNIN~ SECRETARY SHA~I TRANSMIT ANAHEIMTPLANNINGACOMMCSSION RECOMMENDS~DENIAL OF,ORANGE'COUNTYT THE TRACT N0. 4286 BEASED ON THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDINGS. COMMISSIONER PEBL~Y INDIC4TED THAT HE CONSIDERED THE TII.IE APPROPR!' '. FOR THE.CITY COUNCIL AND TNE COMMISSIJN TO GET TOGETHER TO EXPLORE THE COMMISSIONBDISCUSSEDSTHEEADViSABILITYLOFYSOMEONEECONTACTING THEA' PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 50 THAT THEIR MISHES COULD BE - DETERMINED. ,''`.-;""` COMMISSIONER PEBLEY OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER ALLRED ~t . AND CARRIED THAT A REQUEST BE SUBMIT'~ED TO THE CITY COUNCIL REQUEST- ~ + TING A JOLNT MEETING NITH TnE PLANNIN6 COMMI.SSION TO DISCU55 Tt1E THATETHEFCITYDCOUNCiL AND THETCI7YTMANAGER SHOULDMDECIDENTHBGBEST~D ~ MANNER IN WHICH THE PROPERTY OWNERS COU~D BE BROUGHT INTO THE MATTER. ITEM No. 2: BUENA P•4RK TRACT N0. 4268: ,~ ~ ~ . i. TENTATIVECMAPEOFFTRACTHNOBu4268PMA5 SUBMITTED TOMTHE,COMMISSIONE TO SUBJECT TRACT~ COVERING APPROXIMATELY 10.6 ACRES AND.PROPOSED FOR 53 R-1~ SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL~ LOTS IS LOCATED P- THE WESTERLY ANAHEIM CITY LIMITS. ~ A STAFF REPORT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COMIMISSION INDICATING THAT BE" . CAUSE OF THE PRESENT LOCATION OF THE CITY LIR~ITS OF ANAHEI.M :N THE GENERAL AREA OF THE SUBJECT TRACT AND THE P~ESENT LAND USE WITHIN SUBJECTYTRACTNWOULD NOTTBE DETRIMENTALRTO~THE POTENTIALEDEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES PRESENTLY L~CATED WITNIN THE CITY LIMITS OF 7HE CITY OF ANAHEIM ADJACENT TO SUBJECT TRACT. COMMISSIONER MORRi3 OFFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMiSSIONER ALLRER AND CARRIED~ DlREC71NG THE SECRETARY OF THE COMM15510N TO TRANSMIT NOTICE TO THE BUENA PARK PLANNINO COMMISSION INDICATING THAT THE OFATRACTPNONN4268CONMTHE~BASISCOFMTH£EFINDlNGVCONTAINED INr+THE'STAFFP REPORT. ITEM No. 3: MEMORANDUM RE~ARDING HELICOPTERS: ~ ~ . ::: _' CHAIRMAN GAUER READ A MEMORAN6UN~ DATED JULY 21~ 1961~ RECEIVED FROM ~, S..A. FREEDMAN~1714 CHALET AVENUE~ ANAHEIM~ OUTLINING FACTS IN RES- ' PECT TO THE ROUTES AND OPERATION'OF HEL[GOPTERS I.N THE CITY OF ANAHEIM~ lN ADDITION TO OUTLININfi CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONTAINED IN THE RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL ~RANTING PERMISSION FOR THE OPERA710N~ AND STATIN4 THAT ADEQUATE CONTROL MEASURES BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT ~ ARE NECESSARY TO P.R07ECT THE PUBLI.C INTEREST. COMHISSIONER ALLRED OPFERED A MOTION~ SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORRIS AND CP,RRIED~ THAT THE MEMORANDUM BE REFERRED TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION. COMMISSIONER MORRIS INFORMEO THE COMMISSION THAT HE HAD RECEIVED - NUMEROUS CALLS RELATIVE TO THE HELICOPTER FLIGHTS OVER RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND THAY ONE CITIZEN HAD.STATED THAT HE'WOULD OBTAIN A~PET1~ TION CONTAININ~ 10~000 51GNATURES'TO PRESENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING THAT THE SERVICE BE DISCONTINUEDt - REPORTS AND - IrEM No i: SUGGESTE~ ~LANQSCAPING STANDARDS": I RFr.oMMENDATtONS A OIRECTIVE RECEIVED FROM THE•CITY COUNCIL~ FOR COMMISSION CONStDERA- T'ON OF NLANDSCAP.ING STANDARDS~ AS SU~6ESTED BY LETTER FROM MR. DAVID S. COLLINS~ NA5 SUBMITSED TO THE COMMISSION. PLANNING,DIR£CTOP. RICHARD REESE STATED'2HAT'THE SUfiGESTI0N5 WERE THAT THE CITY~COUNCIL CONSIDEit FOR.COMMERC~AL AND 1NDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT ONE (1) OR TW0 {2) SQUARE,FEET OF„L'ANDSCAPING PER LINEAL FOOT OF FRONT.AGE BE, REQUIRED FOR'A GIVEN DEVELOPMEN7. . _ ,.. _ „_ ,. , ~ ' f ... . , ~ . . ~.,.~~. . .. , ~.. ... . , . ,.,.. .. y _ , .. ,~ . . ~~ ., ~ .. ~.; .',~., ~~.. ,,...:.~ ~-; . .~~~: ~~~. . ~.~ ~ :.. . .. ; ~ ~Y-_ - F . . . . . ... . . .... . ~ .. ,,:. , ~ a y r.^ ~ r Ua~ .. .. ; y~ ._ ... . :T:.3~Y...41r5~.< E . ............~'.~,e_.c~_._.+.a.. ., ....x.F~.~rw~..c~,.t.w:r~~~~.Stc~~ni~a~i~l;(~!~i~!~'r ...'~:.+._.r..__..._,...s.t.t..~.~_....... ,/.., ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ .. ,~ ~ ~Mi 293 MINUTES~ Cil'i PLANNING COMMISSiON, Ju~v 24~ 1961, CONTINUED: REPORTS AND - 1'reM No. i~ SUGGESTED ~LANDSCAPiNG STANDARDS"~ CONTINUED: 'RECOMMENDATIONS CONTINUED COMMISSIONER PEBLEY N07ED THAT IN SOME lNDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTS~WHERE ~ANDSCAPING IS REQUIRED~THE TENANTS DO NOT MAINTAIN THE LANDSCAPING~ RESULTING IN A POOR APPEARANCE OF THE PROPERTIES. ~ CHAIRMAN GAUER NOTED THAT THE BASIS FOR REQUIRING ~ANDSCAPING WAS IN r ORDER TO IMPROV&'7HE ASTHE7IC APPEARANCE OF THE CITY~ AND HE CITED THE LA'NDSCAPING PROGRAMS UT~LIZED IN OTHER AREAS THAT ADDED TO THE BEAUTY OF THE COMMUNITY. • i THE COMMISSION DI.SCUSSED THE NEED FOR A DEFINITE LANDSCAP•ING PROGRAM AND ,INDICATED.THAT SERIOUS CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN BEFQ~E ESTABLISHING LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS THAT WOULD NOT ACCOMPLISH THE OBJECTIVE. CHAIRMAN GAUER REQUESTED THAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDER THE PROBLEM AND THAT FURTH~ER D15CUSSION BE HELD BEFORE REACHING A CONCLUSION IN RESPECT TO THE MATTER. ITEM No. 2: REVIEW OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE: DISCUSSION WAS HELD.RELATIVE TO THE POSSIBLE REVISION OF THE PLAN- NIN~ COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULE. PLANNLNG DLRECTOR RICHARD REESE 1NFORMED THE COMMlS510N THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAD REQUESTED THA7 THE , PLANNING COMM15510N.G1VE CONSIDERA710N TO A WEEKLY MEETIN(i SCHEDULE. A RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE~ HONEVER~ THAT IN ORCcR TO POSSIBLy ALLE- VIATE ANY SUCH NEED~ THAT THE COMIdIS51.ON.GIVE SEk10U5 CONSIDERATION T0 7HE SCHEDULING OF SIXTEENt RA7,HER THAN THE PRESENT TWELVE~ PUBLIC HEARIN65.FOR THE MEETING OF AUGUST 21~ 1961~ WITH THE MEETINCa BEGIN- NING AT 2:00 O!CLOCK P.M. AND CONTINUING UNTIL 5:00 O~CLOCK P.M.~ AT ~ WHICH TIME THE COMMISSION WOULD RECESS FOR DINNER~ AND RESUMING THE MEE7ING AT 7:00 O~CIOCK P.N. AND;CONTINUING UNT(L THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED. ADJOURNMENT - THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 6:00 O~CIOCK P.M. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED~ ~ ~ ECRETARY ~ . . . . ..-•~,~~ ~ k ; ,