Minutes-PC 1961/09/06~,y a~~,
r
r
j '
t` c . y ..~ t .~v c . ~_`k
t ?Sg' , i:.~Y.e ~=9: .a t
i ~ ~ t
i;:: < F~,~.
. ,~ •
~
-
`i J
:+
_ ,-t~' n!I~ ,'Yr~y'Ar ~, . .. .
~. :. ~...;, . .~ .. .. ..
.
.~
. .
' I _ ' . ~
•~~~sry~~„~ k
~
f
C .~~ '
_
~
' ~ . ~.. . ~ ' . . ~. . ... . . _ ~ . . ' . . . .. .,:.~. ~ . . . •~'.
.
~ ,~ City.Hali , ~
~~ttaliea~~ C32afo~nia
: ~
Septem~S~r' 6, 1~4b~ .:
~ ,~ I
MINUTBS OP 1i~ ItHGUTAR. MSHTING. Op TFIH.ANAI~IM CITY PIANNING COMHISSI0IV :
~
RBGUTAR I~ffiSTING " - A.Regular,Meeting.gf #he City planniag Commisaion was bailed to order
. ' by Chairman:Gauer, at 2:00 0'C1ock P:M,, a.quorum be3ng:present. ~ .-
f ;~ PRBSENT - CHAIRMAN: Gauer; CO[~1ISSIONffitS:` Alired~ Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Perry~ Summers.
~ ~
i: ABSBNT - Cd~lISSIONffitS: :iapgoaid, Morris. .
PRBSHNT , - Planning Director - Ricliard Reese
~~"' , 3enior Plaaaer - Martin Breidt
r ~ Assistant City Attorney.~ - Joe Geisler.
ti Cosnmission Secretary - Jean Page
INVOCATI~i - Retrerend-Bob Van, Pastor of the Pi;st Presbqterian Gwr,sh, gave the
,
~ : -
.
.
,Iavocation. . ,
:,:•, PLBDGS,OP - Commissioaer Aiired 1ed the Pledge of Allegiance.to the Plag.
,ALLHGIANCS -
';
..,
AppROVAL OP - The Minutes of the Meetiag of August 21, 1961 were approved as submitted
MINUTES with:the following corrections: '
page 330; Paragraph 4,,Liap qe. "stored".
page;:332; Variance No. J'~8,.$aragtAph 4~ First line: "reviewed.°
k':` Page 3:,3, Faragraph 3,-Line 2e, "stated."
.. vae 333,; Desao:ag-_+. 8, Line 3: '~~eta~e~.° _
Page:335, Paragraph 4,.Line 15; "have."
Page 339, Coaditionai Use Permit No. 147, Conditioa,No. 3 of.Resolution
~ ' No 52; Sesies 1961-62, to:read as-follows: No. 3. Installa- ~ `
• 'tioa of a six (6).foot masonrq waii:oa tfie southeily°property'
'line where said property abyts~pioperLq,classified in the 8-1~`
' ~}~ P gRRsideaLiai'; 2one;.beiraeen Norwood Street aad Caadie~
' Page 340, Aeclass~~icdtion No: 61-62-14, Paragraph 4,,add Line 3 as ' '
foilows: "'k'he aoning to; coincide 'r-ith the narrow strip _
abatting''sub3ect p;operty on": '
Page,.3S0, Item. No. 8, Paragraph 1~. Line``3e "Busiaessea," ,i'
RBCIASSIPICATI,ONT -: CONTINUHD PIJBLIC t~ARING: Yetitioa aubmitted by Bffii GHQtGB DOI,
~'..". NO. 61-62-12 2938`Weat Lincola Aveaue,.Anaheim, CaTiforaia, Owne=p M. L. McGAUGHY,
2966:West Lincoia Aveaue; Aaaheim,.Cal3foraia, Authutized Ageat, request-
:_
_ ing that,propertq';described aso'.-.Parcel`1:, A;paicel 2T5'feet by 275 feet
<%~,:: Avenue bet~een
with a.frontage of..'275ifeet on ;the south side of Liacoln .
.~ ;:. ' .
'.. Beach 8oulevard:aad:.Dale:Ayeaue;.its nor'thareat, corner.being.approximetely '
_.- .
270 feet east of the sontheast ;cornei:of Beach Boulevard; and Liacola
'
6y~1;000 feet.':with a frontage of
Ayenue. -pa'rcei 2.;`~..A:parcei•"338`feet.: ~,,~,:
.
338;feet a6uttiag_Parcei'.1 oa the soqth, ita vreat boundary`_being ;
5
,, ~ < approximateiy. 332.feet east~of :the ceaterline'';of_Beach Boulevard aad ~
fuxther described.;~$ 2938;We8t:Liacoin'Aveaue;, be.reciasaified.from.the ~.
~
`~
~
' R A;; RBSIDBNTIAL,AQtICULTURAL~ ,ZODID to.:the C=1, NSIGHBORHOOD CO'Mh~ItCIAI,.
- ,;• . , and-.the R=3; MULTIPLB-.PAMILY~RBSIDSNTIAL, ZONffi.
:"
:
'
~~ ,
;~ .
. .
, :
Sub,~ect petition i's filed ia con3unction with Tentative Map; of. Tract
,
,
;F No :;426Y end we~s`coatiaued fro~i'the mee.tings-;of August 9,,1961 and ,
F " pugust 21~ 1961 ia:.ordei,;lo provide the petitioner'aa opporlunitq;to
}
~~
~~' , appesr befoie the Commisaion
r
~{` ~~~
:;
~ Mr :gea Doi, the petitioner, appeared tiefoxe the Commisaion;aud atated ,
.. :..
. r` ~
° ~'
:
~~ he hsd ao fnrther inforeistioa to,adQ to that contaiAed ia the sub3ect
~
, ~~
c~^ ~ ~~
,
.
petition f;
_ ,
, ,
.
~
~
~ ~ , ,>
.
~,
~+n .
f,r} ~:: ,
~ . .. . .:. . :_. .. . . . . ,.: -. , .., . ,... _ . . . .:. .:
_
_ ~,
, .. .`
~ _. ,:. ~. `n~}ry y~~~ '~M- ~
~ TFIB i~Y~II,v AMJ CLW~/
' ~:~5
~
~
h ~,f
d
ti~~ `S
~ ~ ~ ~ .
:
~ 352
~~~ ~
~ ~,
~' j+ ~ g
``~t u 7.-s. Y
yC ~ 4~ :
~°L ~^ -N ~ ~
-
Y~ t )
J~ 1 ~- 7 5`+~
i ~~~ ~~
~ ~ r"~
.+
ilrf ~~7"~ 7 n
:
'I'~
7
~7
lL
n*
r ~ ..
t ~ ~
, ~ . t
M
.
~~
Z ,
'~'g~ '(i~~t
~
~
'
1
f1
_
~
t
's,..~`c.,_2.-,._. ^
, .
,; ,
.
4 ' .:
.. ,.~......... ,.'. ....... . :: . .. ~. . .. ';..~i .. ..~.'. ... . ...,..... . ,. ..,..,, 1 ~... .... . .... .. _..,.. ,.~.h.v.. ,p ~,
... ?i.,l'~
,,
, ;. ,., . ..,, .; .
- '~.~
€
~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CQ~9dISSION, September 6, 1961, Coa~iaued:
I
~ ' I
RHCIASSIPIGTION - The Commission reviewed development plans and noted that the plaas, ~
~~ N0. 61-62-12 which had been reviewed at the meeting of August 7, 1961 iadicated
d t tor multipie family resideatial 3evelopment within 150
~
G
4. .
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above
described property frnm the R-A, RSSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTUttAL, 20NH to
the C-1, NSIGHBORHOOD COMMBRCIAL, ZONB for Parcei No. l and to
the R-3, MiTLTIPLB FAMILY RPSIDBNTIAL, 20NB for Parcel No. 2. . .
'
,
2. That the.proposed recistssification uf subject property is.necessary '
or desirable for the orderly and proper'development of the community. •
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly .
relate to the zones and their-permitted nses locally eatablished
ia close proximity to subject property and to the zones aad their ~
permitted uses generaliy estabiished throughout the community.
4. That the p;oposed reclassification of subjecY property does
,
require dedication for and standard improvement of abutiing streets
because said property•does.relate to and abut upon streets and
' highways which are'improved to carry the type and quantity of
traffic, which wili b:e generated by the:permitted uses,.in accord-
Aa~e with #he circulatioa elemerit of the General Plan.
5. That no one,appeared in ogposition to sub3ect petition.
'i
: i
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 57, Series 1961-62, and ,
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded.uy Commissioner Pebiey ,
sad carried, that Petition;foc Reclassification No. 61-62=12 be ,
recommended to the City;Councii for approvai, subject to the fol.lowing
:
~ conditions: ' ,
' 1
1
-
'
;. ,~ ~
MF
~ ` ,. p;
i:i
~~
~
~
~ ~
+
`:'• :~
~;
'
I
~ ~
~
~
~
~ ~
-. ., . .
... .e_. ~r~..>,
.n ~_a~ .. ..s.i...w„r ,......y.-.,.~.
dl6C~'a57~'i.'r-^~'TT~C-1~'s~'.5~.. ~.~i-,... u," ~':'; r,. f; p.'~"~.f:
t
Continued propose wo s y
feet of property classified in the R-A,,:i~sideatial Agricultural, Zone,
thereby requiring a va*iance in order 'to develop in accordance with the
plans submitted. it was,pointed out that a Petition for Variance had
aot beea filed for the proposed two story construction. .
Staff and Interdepartmental Committee recommendations were aubmitted I
to tfie Commission. The recommendations noted Lhat the proposed street
pattern enters Lincoln Aveaue offset from an isiand opening, and that
it was feit that the property owners should aliga the street with the '
opening which would require a realignment of approximaLely 32 feet
easterly. It was pointed out that the subdivider had iadicated that
the State would permit said relocation provided that left haad turn
pockets he installed, and that the subdivider would staad the entire
cost of the relocation.
' The Commission discussed acce~s requirements and it was noted that
access couid be considered in conjunctior.. with the Tentative Map of
Tract No. 4261. The necessity of obtaining a variance in order to
develop subject propexty in accordance with the plans presented was
also discussed. Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the
Commission that the proposed reclassification of the property could
be recommended with the stipulatioa that the development be construo-
ted in accordance with Code reqairements, thereby requiring modification
of *.he g3ens that indicate two story construction.
The Commission found and deterained the foilowing facts regarding the
sub3ect petition:
x S.i ~. ~- ~ 1 ~"' r~!,sr~~ .~%~~ESf u~i!~3~~'.t~ii~'~f`.
,
-, ~
~ ~36.',~:"7:9~~~'w~.. h"'.Rk.9'f7~'l ;;+g;y.a+6~?'r`fe`L" t~'S
,
^
~
t
'
_. 4 . ., ,. -
;~ =n
~~)
C`u . ~
.
I
~ . .
, , ,.
'
.- ,.:,.: . ., ... .
. . . ...
~.. . .
~ . .:. . ~i' ~
._.,~.; .....-. ._ . . .
. ...
~:
~ 'I
..
. : ~. .:
. : , .,
.
. .. . : . .~~...
.:. .~ ....._:. ~,..: :.:_..... ...:: ,_... ,... ...
. . .. . . . , ..
. ~
.
. . .
. .-.., . r ;-r..
~ . ~
9 ''1~;
'
.
.
~
~..:,.. .
, ~ .... ~ . ..
._. ..
~ ~... .... ,;. . , . . ..
~ . .'; ,. . ..
~. ~.. , ` ~ ' , --: .' ~' ...::~ ~ . . ~
~
. ,
' . ~ ' ~
~ . ~ ~ . . .
_ ~ ~ . .
_ 354 .
_ 1
~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CO[dMIS3I0N„ 3eptember 6, 1961, Continued: ~
~ RBCIASSIPICATION - l. Subject to secordation of a Pina1 Tract Map of sub3ect property. (
K
,NO. 61-62-12 ` ~
~ Continued 2. Payment of $25:00 per dwelling uait Park and Recreatioa Pee to i
be collected as part of the Building Permit. ~
'~ 3. Proviaioa of a six foot wide,landscaped strip abutting and parallel ~
'~ ' to the plaaned highway right-of-way line of Littcoln Avenue and:the
~ future street, pians for said landscapiag to be submitted to aad ~
: subject to the approval.of the Superintendent of Parkway Mainten-
j ance, aad said landscapiag to be installed prior to Pinal Building
4 Iaspection..
• .;:
4. Provision of walla in accordance with Ca1e requi=ements, or the
?y-z:":~~ postiag of a boad therefor, in additioa bo the installation of a
~` ~ 6 foot;masonry wall on the aorth side of the alley.between
' propoaed C-1 Lot No. i~aad propoaed R-3~ Lot No, 2~for the fuii
s~~'~h of sa~.d' Lot No: 2. ' . _
5. Development subatantially in accordance with 8xhibits 1, 2, 3, ~,
5, and.6 with madification of Hxhibit 3 to comply with Code ;
requirements, unless a Petitioa for Variaace is granted. I
The foregoing ^oaditiona were recited at the meetiag and were found '
to be a neceaeary prerequiaite to the use of the property in order to
preserve the safety and weifare of the citizens of the Gity of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was paesed by the followia6 vote:
AYBSe CO~IMISSIONB1tS: Alired, Gauer, Marcoux, MuAgall, Pr:•bley, Perry,
Summers. .
NOBS: CONA~lISSIOIVBRS: ' Noae:
ABSSNT: COB9~iISSIONBRSs Hapgood, Morris.
; TBNTATIVH`MAP OF`.. _ SUBDIVIDBR: M.Ir McGAUGHY, 2966 West Liacoin.Av,enue, Anaheim, . ;,'.
1RACT N0: 4261 California. :Sub3ect tract is iocated on the south side,of Lincoln
Aveaue 332,08 feet east'~f Staaton Avenue and con4ains 22 proposed
R-3, Muitipie Pamily Reaidentiai~ lots and one propoaed Gi,
Neighborhood Cor~mescial, Lot.
8ub,~ect:Tentative TracL Map is filed'in con3unction with Petition for
Reclesaification No. 61-62-12 and tn~as continued from the meetings of •~
August 7', 1961 and Auguat 21,; 1961 in order to provide an opportunity
for the petitioner to appear before :the Commisaioa.
etitioner for reclassification of aub3ect property
n Doi
~
th
,
e
~
Mr.
e p~
appea=ed±before the Commission aad diacuased the propoaed opening to
. ~._ ~ be in,aerted in the divider atrip oa Lincoin Avenue. He indicated that -'
U ' his enginees, Mr..Bteve Bra3ford,,had attemded a meeting with the State
and that'the State had iadicated that they would,cooperate with anq
~ recommendations;.;made.by the'City. :He atated further that the subdivider ,
..
` ;_. _. _. was prepared to:relocate.the opeaing for the.left hand tusn to the aorth, ;
,+
~, ' aad that they"hoped to obtain'City Council approval for City partici-
pation in. the cost of tlie 'relocation.
~
~,
~,:~-:; Commissioner A;ungall,offered a.motian, aeconded by Commissioaer
. .
5 Marcoux and,carried, that Teatative Map of Tract 2to. 4261 be a~proved
' ~" ~ ti, sub~ect~>to the ?foilowing,conditions:.
~ t ~ ~,
~ r
1 tz . ,
S
~ ~,
P ~ ~ y,~ •
~' `~ '+'~-~ t
K
A
;,,,w ~.
.l/.~. ~ ~1L'L y
y . .
: ~'. ` ~; .. .
'. . ' ; .:
~
~
~=:_i' ~„Ri:~ym: _
.
" . - . . .. . .
' : " . '. , . . ...
E '. r
~~r ~
~`'n
r I
~~~-: A _ ' . . E.
r~ :
s
~~ .
t ~
ft J
'"
1
t
~ ~~
~,
F~~ .~~t~
~
a~~..e nt,~SS ~.
~Ay ~'J+v 4 rti.,f}{
l
} . -
1 Y
' .~~
Y'
n~~
f ~~ :'2; 1J
"W~
CA .. ..~~
~
1~ 1' . i ` 4
.. ' ,..
F' ~ f t.-_ Y ~ f ?.
~, f '~ .
{
,
~
x!~
P ~~~s
:§. :!~.r,
~.P~
.
i
., .~ ~
' ' ;
. ,"
~1 ' ;
t" ~ f ~~ ~ L li~~ ~ '. -, ' ,
~ . . . _. _. . .. .~ , ..~ , ,.1... .,: . -.. ,.
1
.
o wr~ ~
n ,aau~7x,~,-;
~..~ ;,
~ . . ~ .
.. ,._ . .: . ~~ .
~~~~ ..~ . ~.._. .,. .. ~. .. . -;r
.... ..~ .'c~_,
~
~
~ ~
.~,~.
~ ~ ~ ~ .. .. ~ ~ , ~ ~ .. 1 ..
.
. . .
~ . ,
355 .
_..
< ~
MINUTES, CITY P7ANNING COU9~lISSION, 9eptember 6, 1961,'Continued:
~ TBNTATIVB MAP OF - 1. 3ubject to the reclassification of subjeCt property to the
TRACT N0. 4261 CGl, Neighborhood Commerdial, Zone for Parcel No. 1 and to
~ Continued the R-3; Multiple Family Residential,;Zone for Parcel No. 2
~ . (Proposed Lot Nos. 2 - 23). _ .
" 2. Subject to the realignmeat of ^che opening of the dlvider strip
on Lincoin Avenu~ 32 feet eastezly of the eicisting opening with
~:_ , -: the provisiozt of left.hand tu=n pockets, cost of said realignment
a and redesign to be s4stained by the subdivider.
~1: 3, Requirement that should this subdivision be developed as more
'-};' Lhan one subdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted
im teatative form for approval.
~'y ,~~ru::;~
'; ~I
4. Pertinen# plot aad building plans in connection w ith said
Subdivision Map:will not be reviewed by the City Council, but
will be reviewed by the Planning and Builrling Departments.
VARIANCB N0. 1393 - CONTINUBD PUBLIC HBARIA'G. Pet3tion submitted by BDWARD R. STUART,
2214 Po§toria Street, Anaheim, Californ3a, 0~+vner; requesting
peraiission to WAIV3 PBNCB }ffiIGHT LIMITATIONS IN RBAR YAFtD on property
described as: A parcel 90 feet by 90 feet with a frontage of 90 feet
on 0rd Way and located on the northeast corner of Ord Way and Fustoria
Street, and further described as 2214 Fostoria Street. property
presently classified R-1, ONB PAMILY RESIDBNTIAL, 20NB.
Subject petition was,contiaued from the meeting of August 21, 1961 in
order to.provide the petitioner an,opportunity to prepare and.submit
a ree±se~! plot p:~a, dr:;.~ri to scale, fully dimensioned, and iadicating
the existing location of all trees in the vicinity of the proposed
wall construction.
Mr. Edward Stua;t, the petit3oner, appeared before t:e Commission
and 'indicated that a revised plot plan would proVide a three foot
" setback of the proposed wall from the aidewalk and that the large
trees would remain.
THB HRA~ING WAS CLOSHD,
The Cownission found and determined the following facts regarding
the subject.petition:
1, That #he petitioner requests a.variance from the Anaheim Municipal
Code, Section 18.02.090 (h-1) to permit the constructioa of a
six (6) foot fence into the rear and side yard pasY the"normai
building setback line of'the key;lot (propert.y abutting subject
property,to the east),created by the reversed.corner lot (§ub3ect
property),.
2: .That`there are exceptioaal or.extraordinary circumstances or
conditions,applicable t6`ihe~.prop'erty involved or.to:the intended
use-of the property that do not appiy generally to the property
or class of use in the same :'vicinity aad zone,
3. That:the:requested variance is.uecessary for:the preservation and.
enjoyment of a subatantiai"property right possessed:by,other . =!
property,in'the;same vicinity'and zone, and denied`.to the pzo~.~erty ~.,;
_ in; quest'ion:
4r That'the requested;,v.ariance idill aot:be materially defirimeatal
to_the;public weif.are os`injurious to the property or.improyements' ,,,~`
~ ia:such vidaity ar.d zone'in~which the::property is located,:, F,
~
.
.
_ _
,
•~ . . , `;,
.
., ...,
: ., . ~. ,
- -
.
'~
'~ Z73`.
t ,~t6~5
1
~I' I ~~
~ ..~.~~,~~
'j.d
~
1 f~
~
~
~.. (: 1'.
j E} J `
C
~ y ~~Yf
F
,
~~
. _ ... _- _ J f
1,. .it 1 ...t 1
- _ . . .~~ ... .,,. k
~..~,~~~. t ~t ~
r .i ]::..~,.r.7~...~:.
~.
~, _ ;
i
'i
~ ~.
~
1:~..:, ..._.~
;
r:"
' ~ .. .
_ . . ..
.
.
` _
~ MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COI~lIS3I0N; September 6, 1961:
VARIANCB N0. 1393 - 5.
~ Coritinued
<k., ~~.~n : , ~_. ;
~~
~~~ ;
~,., .
~.~' ~ '~
~~ • ;j
- :•
_ ,..
°.~
~ ..
~ ~
That the requested variance will not adversely affect the
Compreheasive General Plan.
6. That no one appeared in opposition to sqbject petition.
35b
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 58, Series 1961-62,and ,
moved for its passRge and adoption, seconded bq Commissioner Alired, ,
to grant Petition for Variance No. 1393, subject to the follow3ng '
condition:
1. Development substantialiy in accordance wzkh Bxhibit No. 1,
dated 8eptember 6, 1961.
The foregoing condition was recited at the meeting and was found
to be a necessary prerequisite to trie use of the property in order
to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of
Anaheim.
On roll cali the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYBS: COMMISSIONSRS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Perry, Summers.
NOBS: CONAIISSIONBRS: None.
ASSHNT: COhMISSIONBRS: Hapgood, Morris.
veaTe,lurrg ,~p, 1398 - CONTINUSB PJBLIC Fi~±I'.Ii:G. Fzti~ian submitted by PRANR ST~I~lBLZ,
851 North Los Angeles Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting
permission to SPLIT HXISTING IAT INTO 1W0 PARCSLS, of property
described as: An irregularly shaped parcel with a'frontage of
96 feet on Cherry Way and a frontage of 132 feet on Glen Drive and
located oa the northwest corner of Cherry Way and Glen Drive.
Property presentiy classified R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NH,
Subject petition was continued from the meeting of August 21, 1961
and the petitioner notified to attend the continued hearing in order
to provide the necessary information in respect to the existing
construction and the Building Permits.obtained for subject property.
Mr. Prank Stilweli, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission
and reviewed the subdivision of the subject and abuttiag properties.
Ae indicated that he owned property containing four parceis of land,
that he had given the City a portion of the property for the
extension of Glea Drive, and that the Record of Survey Map~which
had been approved by the Councii, had not indicated the sp13t of
Parcel No, 7 into two lots. Mr. Stilwell stated fhat he ui-deratood
that Pa=cel No. 7 had been spiit into two pa=cels and that he then
had five lots. However, the map the Council had considered indicaLed
he ownad four lots. Upon his application for.subject variance, he
had beea granted a building permit for conatruction on the subject
property,'and'that he had proceedc~d to sell tne,properLy.
Mr. 3tilwell submitted to the Commission a Record of Survey Map,
dated June, 1960, which he stated he had obtained from the Planning
Department: The Commission reviewed the Record of Survey Map and
noted-that the lots appeared to contein approximately equai amounta
of lot.area.
THH HBA1tING bVAS CIASSD.
;::
I. ;
s;r'.'.
+i
41
~
2 i ~ r r ~, 4 f < l :~~tv.~ ~T,tis.~~;n'fr~^~.~-^~'~`.~:+~u'' •wri.:;,';. .. ~~'ti ..~~'d i~ ^Y?` i5~ _,ba;•.th i~ .
,, (
~ ~ t r ~,
x ,~
'
~
~~
t } ~
,
~ ~ ~
' 1
' '~ ~
. ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ . . . . ' ~ ~ ~ ~~~~
~ ' . . ' ' ' . , . . . . . .
`
.. ••'~
.
R ,~. 357
. .. , . _ , . . . .. .. ' •~
a
'l i
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COhA~lIS3I0N, September 6, 1961: ~
VARIANCB N0: 1398 - The Commission found and determined the foliowing facta regarding
Continued the subject petition: ~
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim '
Municipal Code, Section 18.16.030 (4-b) to permit the split
of an R-9, Residential Agricultusal, zoned parcel into two
F (2) lots, each having less than oae acre in area.
~ 2. That there are exception~l os extraordinary bircumstances or
~ ht
<,; conditions appiicabie to the property'invoiv~d°or to the
,
~
::~ intended use of the property that do not apply generally to the
r property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
~
ecessar for the reservation
3. That the requested variance is n y p
~ and enjoyment of a substantiai property right possessed by
other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to
~ ' the property in question.
~ 4. That the requested variance wilY not be materially detrimental
~ to the public welfare or injurious to the property or impzove-
ments ia such vicinity aad zone in which the property is located,
~ 5. That the reyuested variance wili not adversely affect the
Comprehens3ye General Pian.
6. That no one appea:ed in opposiition to subject petition.
~ Commissioner Alired offered Resolution No. 59, 3eries 1961-62~ and
~ moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Yerry~
~ to grant Petition for Variance No. 1398, subject to the.foliowin~
~ cor~litions:
c, .
~ 1. Installation of sidewalks in accordance with approved atandard
i. glans on fiie in the office of the City Bngineer.
~ 2. Recordatioa of a Record of Survey or Tract Map uf the subject
F
property showing the split of Parcel No. 7 into two lots as
k shown on Exhibit No. 1.
6
~
3. Time limitation of one hsndred eighty (180) days for the
~ accompliahment of Item Nos. 1 and 2:
;
€ The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found
c to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order
it
f
- y.o
to preaerve the safety and weifare of the citizens of the C
Anaheim. „
On roli cali the foregoing resoiution was passed by the following -
_
vote: '
AYBSs CONA~IISSIONffitS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley;
Perry, Summers.
.~
NOSS: COhAlISSIONBRS: None.
4 a r~- AHSHNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood, Moiris. ~
; ~
' z~:~ ,
~
~. ,~ r . ;
,~' ~ a~,_ .
~~
'
~
}, '
2 ,
i J ~~
4.i i~ ~
~ f
~
~ H~. ~~.~.6 - ~.
~
~
~.
.. . ~ °-d , - .. -
.
~
r
..
~
~ r:
.
. ~,~`,,~,~''
~y
.
,
,
,y _
.
,
~
. ,
. . . ~ ~~
, ~
~
v ,~ J ~:, ~ ~. .
. .
_ ~ i~
` ,
~ L '
i
~ ~r
~ 7
y
~~ -~`~5i:i u...
~
` . ,~
• '. .~. ..~~ X/. -1
.
rl-~r' fi ~i
F~p
` ~}i._ 4
'
4~ ~~•
J T
L
`Y L Y1-l
v , J
~' S~'~
~
'31
~
~ ..~, ~~.
~ ; kt~~+•~,i~,.
~
r
1
¢
!h ~
+~~
1'~
y ~'
L~ .
~- ~ , ..' , tr
~' ~ ~
~
-!h ~ '
~~y
..... -a..,.~ .h1~. ~t~ .
_ .aB ~ : ... ,~ win.~.n. .M.: ~ ,..._,..~a. .,... iMr,~ny.~~ ._.~. ..,, _w.Y ~, z .T:.i.'.~-~. -_ _ ~
. ','~`, .~~..~...,.,.~
~ ~dj~.
e~ ;
1'
~.. _ :
.,
. .~~~~~
4~
' .•
r
5
_~
~ -
~
.I
,}~
~ .,
,,~
~
! . ; ~ :.., ._ '!~ $Zs',sF`.t9S.~a'~Y~.v..t~:~:~ C,~'i;d "Ft -'.,'~~CT~yil"',~,~~i~ rfi.r ~~c~.~l. .'r 1
i ._a ~2~. ~ ~
,~
. ~~ ~ ~; _ :_ ~ ` = . .
c . . ~-. . .-. .~. ~..:n •'^'r "~ ,
~ : ., ... ~.
.
:
:..... .,_. .. ~:;
~~; ~.: ' '~. , . '•'... . ~ . ..~ : . ~~~....,,. .,..,-;.. _ ,Y,!CF..~1!"k3~ ? S .
;^ ,~rF.~ r
~ ~ ~ ..~
_
_ i
358 ~
;
MINUT&S, CITY PIANNING COI~AlISSION, 3eptember 6, 1961e ~
RBCTASSIPICI-.TION - CONTINUBD.PUBLIC ~IBARING. Petition submitted by PRAHIt and IDA R.
N0. 6i-62-15 BASILB, 809 South &tott Aveaue, Anaheim, California, Owners;
ROBSRT W. 'Mac MAHOi~i, 403 California Sank Building, Aiiahei~, California,
Agent; requesting that property described as; A parcei 160 feet by
225 feet with a frontage of 225 feet on,Anott.Avenue and located on
the southwest corner of Bnott Avenue and Savanna Street and further
described as 829 South Knott Aveaue, be reclassified from the R-A,
20NB.to the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD CObASffitCIAL,
RBSIDBNTIAL AGatICULTURAL
. i
i
1
.
.
7
.
. i
•
~' ya, ;
~L?
- ,
ZONR. . ,
. . . ~ ~ ~
~
i
:
f ~ . .. . .. . ~ ,
Subject petition was cont3nued from the meeting of August 21, 1961 .
at the request of the petitioner's agent because the agent was no*_
able to attend the meeting at that time.
' Mr. Robert MacMahon, attorney representing the petitioners, appeared
before the Commission and'described the z~ning and land use of the
surrounding area. He indicated that the present use of the property , .
as a residence and a delicatessen store is not the higheat and best
use of the land, because the buildings are old and their repiacement
value for purposes other than commercial use would not constitute
:- the best use of the property, but that the plans the petitioners
~
- had developed would i~prove the properties. He stated further that ,
the plaas;submitted were in error, that the old baiidi~ couid not
be remodeled, therefore it would be removed at a luter date in
accardance :c~tk: the ir_fo*mation coatained in the petition.
~
The Commission discussed.the matter of time in respect to the
removal of the old building and the pet3.tioner's agent indicated ~ ~
that from the time that construction was commenced on the developme~t,
wouid be removed within 180 days time period. He
the old buiidiag
,
stated further that the houses on the rear of the property would
defiaitely tie removed.
THS;.HBARING WAS CL06BD. .
Upon iaquiry by the Commission, Mr. MI~cMahon indicated that the
petitioners were aware of the 3tandard Oii Company Lixie located oa
the properties.
~.
removal
The Commissioa diecussed the advisability of requiring the
.
of the existing building from the front portion of the property and
- it was pointed out that the comple~ke'removal o: the existing buildings
would be necessary.before.Pina1 8uilding Inspection•
~~' The~Commission found snd dete=cained;the following facts regarding the_
:: ' _. subject'petition: ,
;:~ ; 1. That the petitioner proposes a.;eclassification of the aboye ~,
i ;property.from:the R=A, RESIDHNTII~L AGAICULTURAL, 20NB
desc=ibed
. ,. ,. :; ' ,
to ,t~c C-l, ;NBIGHHORH~GD COhA~ISRCIAL, ZONB. . • ,;.
~ 2. That the proposed reclassification of"subjec't property.is.necessary
~ !~ ' or desirable for;the orderly and proper development'of the:`communily '
;' .~ ,~ ~~f ~!
~ ~ 7~t1 ~i
~ 1r~,ry : `::' : : . , ~ ~
p property does pro-
3. That`the roposed reciassificat'ion of,sub~ecL
•
4
~~ca,js
~ y
~ perly relate to the zones and their permitted`, uses locally; ~
'
,,~,~~~'~
~"~
~~ ;ject property aAd to.the
estabiished in-,ciose,proximity.to sub
.
eneraliv establiahed throughout
itt
s
r
th
i
~~'
;
~,~ ~
~'~ : ~"=~ g
ed.uae
r pe
m
e
, zottes and
.. ._ . _
~ tkie ' communitq. ,
~:'_' ~
~~~
,
,.
,:
: ,
;
~.
r.
,_
~
~~~~ ,
<. ,. .
J ~};
3.~4 ~~~.+,~
~~ '.~ E
~lC.°r
~.. ' . ; ti t,~
~f
~'"` `' ` 1,,1'
}
1 ;
"''
~
~
Y ~3
~
p
~
/
1hi
s. ti
~.l
~,+
l~r~~l h .~rl'
~
'
4~. ' s w-
.
~
j
~1Rit .y ~
y
~ ~5.~~w
'~
~ - ,;
~ ~
{~} ~ r ~ '~ '~ ~
,
~1
f>
r
~
';r~
~
~
'
~ Y~~.~•
,y~
`~
~ ~
~ _
~t ~ . . . . . ~ . . . . ~
' 1
~
° ~
~ y F
"~
aH
'~
t,
_
~~,.
f
~=. ~ .
.. . . . ~
,a .-;,' ,
.~
i
. :,;-i . . . _,_ . .,.. _ . v ,_.,>._. . .. ,.:. ._. .. ._.,, ,.,.....~._. .,~.., , ~.,e,n ._. ..,......_. r ... , ... , ,. .. _.
~.... .... . . .~.. ,.~.... . wr .. ...~. __ ~ I ~
~
. :'~~ . ~r~~~~
~ 4
~~
~ ..
~:
1~.
'
4' ~
~
i'
~~
354
1tBCIASSIPICATION. - 4.. .That'the proposed reclassification of subject property does '
(,
N0.`61-62-15 requi~e dedication for and st8ndard improvement of abutting
Coatinued st;eets aad.highways wh?ch are.proposed to carry'the_type
and quantity of traffic, which will be generated by the permitted ~
uses, in accordance with the circulation element of the General
~ Plan
.
5: That the Standard Oi1 Compaay has three oii lines existiag under
prior rights located on the subject ro ert aad that th
. P e
P Y
deveioper has the full responsibility for protection, relocation, -
' lowering, or repiacement of said lines.
6. Thafi no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Marcoux offered. Resolution No. 60, Series 1961-62, and •
moyed for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred,
to recommead to the City Councii that Petition for Reclassification
No. 61-62-15 be approved, subjecf to the following conditioas; '
1. Deveiopmeat substantialiy in accordance with IDchibit No. 1 with
the exceptions noted on said exhibit.
2. Provision Of parking irt accordance with Code requirements and layout ~
of patking ares with dimensioas in accordance willx the approved
open-air paris~ng dimensions adopted by the Planning Commission `
and.on file in the Planning Department. , i
3, Provision of a six,C6) foot masonry wail on the west and south !
property lines of.subject property. ' ~.
4. Provision of a six .(6) foot landscaped strip parallel to and
abutting the pianned highway right-of-way lines of Knott Avenue
and Savanna Street of. subject property; plans for said landscaping '
_ to be submitted to and;subject to the approval of the Superinten-
dent of Parkway Maintenance, and the installation of said ^
'
Sandscaping prior to Pinal
Hui7,ding Inspectioa
~ 5. Dedication of 53 feet from the monumehted centerline of Rnott
Avenue (30 feet existing),
6. Dedication of 30 feet.from:the°monumented centerline of Savaana
Street (20 feet existing):
7. Preparaiion of street improvmeat.plans and installation of all
improvement~ for Rnott Averue and Savanna Street, in accordance -':
with the approved standard.plans on file in the_office of the
City;Hagineei. _
~i.. Paymer.L of $2,00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on
Rnott Avanue and`Savanna.Street. ',;
9. ° Time.limitation of ninety (90) days for the accomplishment of ~
.*.teio.Nos. 5,~-6, 7.,` :and 8.
:The fore6oing.conditions were recited:Iat the.meeting and'were Found ;'.
~ to be a aecessary"p;erequisite.to the'use of: the.?property in order ,
to° preserve the safety and v~eifare'of the,citizens of trie City:'of
Anaheim.
I
_ _
_.
_
, ,,.
__
< ~ i'
-
,;.,
- -
~.
a
;
~
~::.
y
`
~~ ~1 x ,{a
5
~h
'!
.~ - . ~.~r 1
i
~
~t ~ 1
. .:. : ~~ n
~
~t s.:M1~~ y
,
"r'~~~ 4`/%~~-+-~?-~~
~
~~....~0.. L" ~~~~1~~ ~~ 1 C ~ 7Mw~u~ ~~ Vbl~ ~7 2 ~Jl'J 1 ~ ~11~ ~
~ t~ky~ t ~
. IY~ . .I~~ r"„~4`
~ry~~ rfs..
~ a
r~~
~ r 1 r.'. f l, G ~ .; A ,. -~:~4aJ~~Fr,<,t.-.1{.'S~--~'^~i}.~',*N'~ rcij~~t+...1~t~~'~ic1~`~.~•'>a~ In„_~„~`..1F'~- M~y J'2;..
,t t,~., , ~
;1
, r>. ~ -a:~.+~ ~ `~'~ `~f,.
'
: :• :'~31'
~ , ~
~
W7 ~ ~ ~ . ~
-
~ ~
R
_
~~~~f . ._. . .~ ~ . . . ~ - ' . : ' . ~~. . ~ ~ ~ i
- . ~ ~ . . . ....
' ~ ~
. .
. . . .. .
360 ~
, .
~
~. . MINUTSS, CITY PIANNING COhNlISSION, September 6, 1961, Continuede I
E
.
RECIASSIFICATION -_ On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following ~ ~
~ N0. 61-62-15 vote:
,
,
Continued
"? AYBS: COhAlISSIONBRS: Alired, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungali, Pebley,
;.:I
1 Perry, Summers.,
~' NQBS: CObA~IISSiONBRS: Noae.
~~a ;_ ASSHNT: COhAfISSIONHRS: Hapgood, Morris.
~~ .:
sn
, VARIANCB N0. 1399 - PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by MARIB SH00~, 2836 West Lincoln
Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner, requestiag permission to BSTABLI3H
AN ANTIQUB SIiOP IN BXISTING RHSInBNTIAL GARAGH on property described
as: A:parcel 90 feet by.225 feet:with a frontage of 90 feet on
Lidcoln~Rnenue and located on the south aide of Lincoln Avenue between
Dale St=eet and Beach Boulevard; its northeast corner beiag approxi- ~
~:' mately 265 feet west of the southwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and '
Dale Street and further described as 2820 West Lincoln Avenue.
Property presently classified R-A, RBSIDffiVTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONB.
Mrs. Marie.Shdok, the petitioaer, appeared before the Commias3on
arid s4eted that ehe.wished to relocate an exiating aatique ahop~
preseatly in operation;in:an old-building on property abuttiag
sub3ect:property on the`weat~ to a newer and more conveaient buiiding.
8he stated further that.she wouid utilize the garage of the reaidence
for ~he antique shop, that ahe would li,We ia the attached dweiling,
;...
that•.the garage would be adequate for.the amouat:of atock ahe would .
be handiing, aad.that the old buiiding would be abandoned.
,
~
TF~. H8A1tING WA5 CIASHD: '
The Coigmiaeion diacusaed.Lhe advisability of impoeirrg a time
limitation for.the'requeated uae of eub~ect property aad CommiBaioner
~ Mungall iadicaLed that.the petitioner.had`requeatrd permiasion to
utilize the property for a three.year period of time.
. The Comaieaion found and determinea the followiag facta regsrdiag -
~,.;, ' the aub,~ect,.petitiop:
l. That the petitioaer requeata.a varisnce from the Anaheim Municipal
- Code, Section 18:16.010.(1) to permi! :he utilization of an
. : • exietiag;garage attached to an'existiaP reeidence on aub,~ect
;
~ ,
. property.for an antique ehop. `.
` 2. Thpt':there ase exc~ptioasi`or extraordinarq,circamataneee or
;
.~ conditiona applicable,to the property invoived or.,to the intended .
''
; uae:of the property>that_do nat'apply:generaliq to the property
~ ~
3 or class of`uae in the-dame vicinity and zone. (
G
' 3. That;the~reqqeated variance is necessary for the pseaervation ,
~~ . ' and en,~oyment of a'subatantiai.property xight poaseaeed by.ot~er
`
' ~
, ~r , property in the sa~
e.vicinity and.zone,~,aad d
enied to'the property
'`~ a~~. ,
in queation.
fir~+ ~~,.;, ~ 4. That the requested.variaace wiii not be.materially detrimentai to
3 ~~~i"
~
3'~
``~ ~ .the,pubiic..weifare or in3urious~:to the,property or,improvec-enta
~
N
i
' which the proper4q is.located.
in such vicinity and zone in
4r~~~ ~~~ '' I `
~
~~
M~ ~ t W
~~,,~~
t~
~ ~ ' ' ~ . , . .
~
~ y,
,~
4i.:~..~
l:.
7~T~~~'?~IV.
iws rt
. . .. . . . .
. .. . ~
~:•. . ~ .._-~ . ..~..., , .. .~ . ~," ~~
, 1
x:vFl
z
~~ ~~ ~ j
4
~
i t ~ ~ ~~.
,~
`;
~~,~y~
.~
.tlt3ut t e i~,~ ~
~ ~ 4~:.
r :
-~C.~i t L ~f
~{. ~~k`
rr.~ ~
i
~ M
~ ~
k~~
,
~
h77 yyy,,
h~'C~~~ ~ r
~ ~ ~
.
,. „ „. ,~ . . ..m.' - -'. _._ ._-~ .......... ....~_..~„__ ._. ..nat!'~r.-r~7r,7..,. ... ~.. .......... ._ ..._ ._._ _.. : . .. . .. ~`. _,~ ., . t
,
.
` ~(,C"p~r iw{7,,
~ 1..,%~S'fj'.,'f•',.1~~,'
.. - . . . upr,.•._y;;
. . . . . ,i,~:~. ~:yj
~ ~ ~
v
~'
~ MINUTBS,'CITY PU4~INING "DbA4ISSI0N, September 6, 1981, Cont~nued:
~
i .
. ~- . , .."~.
361
f
VARIANCB N0. 1399 - 5. Th~t the iequested variance wi1T not adversely aFfect the
G ~ Continued- Comprehensive General Pia~.
6. That the petitioner has operated aa aatique shop on abutting
property'to the west for a number of yeors aad that said
operation'wili be abandoned'upbn reloc~tion to sub,ject property.
7. That no one appeared in opposition to a-ub,~ect petition.
Comaissioner Mungail offered Resolution No. 61, Series 1961-62; and
moved for its passage and adoption, secon~ded by Commi.ssioner Pebley
aad carried, to grant Petitioa for Variance No, 1399, subject to
the following conditio?s:
1. Development substantially in Accordance with Exhibit No. 1.
2, Limitation.of the antique shop operation to the existing garage
only,.as indicated in Hxhibit No, l, for a three (3) year
period of time, subject to review 3f requested,at tfie ter'mination of
said three C3)`vear oeriod of time.
i ~.i„^~ ~ 1 u _ . ': I t; ._ 4 ~ 5. ~4.l~'6kYa:~=~RLni~.`'a~`~ ~ . ~C.. A.l lr. ~iT'4K,~r'315+t ni . ~ :~ ~4v.'~l':%~.*.~~~ ~ti'
1
!
~
if'
;
f
~
_
Y .
4
~' t 1 ',;
~ .
,. ~
k . ~
"
t
~_.,~
_ ~
_::,{ A
...
. .
~
~.. . . , ~.~;. . ~ ..
~ ,.
~~ , ~.,,
..Nk;r y .
. _
_ . V ..
i ~ ~ . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ . y~~t . • .
. . . .. .~ . , . . . . . ~ . . _~ . ~ : . . ~ ~ . . . .~.
~
r.. 362
~
h ~ . ~ ~ . . ~ ~ . . ~~~
~` MI~TBS~ ~ITy pIANNING CahA~IISSION, September 6,' 196x, Continued:
~.
CONDITIONAL USH -
~ CONTINUBD PUBLIC HHARIi~tr. Petition submitted by MO~tAGA-PULTON I
California, I
n Nuys
V
.
~' 'pBRMIT N0. 146 ,
a
BUILDING COM~ANY, 6305 Woodman Avenue,
PBRMAN BUILDBRS, INC., 6305 Woodman Avenue, Van .+Tuys,
Owners;
.
California,,Ai~thofi~ed'Agent; sequesting permission to BSTABLISH .
An irregularly shaped
~
" p TRpILBR pARR on property'described as:
ith a frontage of 785 feet on the north side of Crescent
l
a w
parce
Avenue between Gilbert and Srookhurst 5treets; its southweat corner
being approximately 640 feet east'of the northeast corner of Crescent
d further described as 2301 West Crescent
~ Avenue.and G3lbert Street an
Property presentiy classified R-A, RB9IDBNT.IAL AGRICULTURAL;
e
n
A
g,~ ::; ..
ve
u
and A-3~ MULTI9LH RAMILY RSSIDBNTIAL, 20NSS.
y` ' Subject petition was cmtinued from the meeting of August 21, 1961
ould sesearch the possibility
in order that the Assistant City Attorney c
ondition of approval of subject
n a
+ t s a c
of imposing a restrictio
limiting the use of the trailer park development: to adults
etition
e ,
` ~ ,
p
aad:to provide an opportunity for the Pa=k Department to prepar
only
d Yo
,.
nd submit a revised park development plan for the park propose
, : a
be locaL•ed adjaceat to the subject propertq. ~
designer of the proposed trailer park, appeared before
Bd Rirby
Mr
~
.
the Commission; stated that meetings had been held wifih the Park
artment arid other City officials in order to resolve development
De
.
• p
problems, and stated that a land analysis had determined that the
t
.
location was valuable and suitable for a mobile home developmen
t there was an abur.dance of R-3, Muitiple Pamily
h
a
He stated further.t
apartment development in the area, therefore, financing
Residential
,
for-an apartmeat-type_deyelopment was not as readily available or
d'submitted a letter fzom Ailied Property
d
e
an
a
adequ&te• Mr. Kirby r
pnalysts; regarding the land aaalysis and the appraisal of bhe parcel
- of land, in~cating.that.the pxoposed iand use wouid be beneficiai
f beautification
'
' ,
tesme o
forthe City and aursounding neighborhood in
traffic flow, and-land use compatibility.
The Commiasion reviewed deveiopmemt plana and the representeLive
' indicated that there would be app.oximately 2400 aquare feet per
Commisaioner
e
a
e
c
.
p
apace with deptha varying frow 60 to-65 feet per
Marcoux pointed ouf that approximately 6 foot aetbacks•wouid be
, and:the repreaentative indicated that the aumber of apaces
necessary
,
aiight.be.reduced in order to'develop the park in accordenae with
' the over all pian.
~ parg aad Recreation Director W. H. Stronach appeared before the
aubmitted, and deacribed
that a zeport had been
dicated
n, i
.
,
n
Commiasio
the revised park development plan~which was displayed for review. He
`- '
' indicated that the<four major probiems, which would require considera- ; '
._
:: , tion in order to estabiish the mobile park development,_are as foilowao
ussed
h dis
o
t c
nac
access, parking, circulation; and drainage. Mr. Str
iginal pian contemplated for the developmeat of
h
n i '
s._, , e or
gth,.t
at some,ie
ies and the reviaed;pian. The aia3or prob.lems were
facilit
t14e park ~:
~ ,
.
discussed'and he'stated thst.if the developer modified hia pian to
share in the dedication of right-of-way these pzoblema could be -
r,
~ ,
i ,.
resoived satiefactorily. . .
~
~
,
, ,
~ `
1 ,
~h ~
~L ~ . ' . , ~ . ' . .
1 ~ ~KH ~~. ~
~¢~t:
T
a - ; ~
y .. ' ' - ' ' . ~ . .
~
rye y
a:r~`:~..- r
~ ..
-
, ,
'
~ ~
=y;~
a~u
~ ~'ofC~{
~'~~~ r .. ~
,
. .
~. ~ . .
~ : . .
. . _ . ~ .
~ ., .., ,.
. . ~
: ~ '~. . ~ ~ .~~.~ ....~..~ '_ .
.;
_
~~;`
~ . ~ .
f . .
~ ~ - . ~ ,
' . . ~ ~ ~
~ '
`~
~
d
~~
. .
.,Y
~t F.
t ;~
~r~
~i~
~ ~~ ~.'G
~ ~^ i- .
. . \
~
lt.l,t~'I r ; r~'
~t~T ° .r f ~~
,~c"~ 5 }~~ ; ~~ ~ : . ~ -
: ~: . ' ~ , ; .. • ~ ~,.:.. F
~ f ~
~. ~. -~ . ~aJ
nt t N
`'~1~+f ""S(~ Ii 1
a
N
s
~`
~
~
~
`
~ - s'.
,,, {`,
~
~, y
4~
. .. ~ ~~
.~. .
:
:. .
.. ..; .. , r
~ Y~i°.~~ui ~: :` .; :. .
j~'~~~S~.C~~1Jr . .. ... ..~-----~ ~. ~ ~, ~ ,~ ~: ~ ti~ « r:, ~ ~ h
.
14 > S.~w' a y~ j~~
~~~ti~t,~l~lelf~it~. ~.., {.r..~:~. ~:+~~.~i~:i~57,q:~ar , 3 7 5v;~'s .,4/ .[y ~ ~l A '~~~/ ~ ~ ,rr .,~. ~.'.~ ~~~
' ...d '„'9 .Rl~A^1:~t7t ~ 14' :~~iC)~(.. "~~(.~4:,2~'I,tdN~.'a.~i.l~.N1f .:F:id ~'~s? Y.~.'rP.SlhkAR.'iS~l+ .',~~.ffSi~i G ':~f~ 'dS'..~:~ :.1w~.F,~.. ,.1.. 1~.. l~%F(N
~
~7 ~»
~
IS ~
1
~ ~
. .
~ '
~,I
4F , . .
i
F
~
. . ,~ .. - ~_~ ~ , .
~ MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING COMAlISSION, September 6, 1961, Continued:
~ .
363
C ,.
s ~ CONDITIONAL USIH - Mr. Jack Piskin, 2427 Greenbriar Street,.appeared before the
F pHRMIT N0. 146 Commission, submitted a petition of protest containing 56 signatures,
~ `~- Continued and stated that he represented the opposition. Mr. Piskin informed
~ ' the Commission that 'ttey were opposed to the proposed trailer park
~ ~ ~ because of~the iacreased txaffic, the increased burden upon the
~; 8chools if the park were not limited to adults only, the increased
burden upon the park facilities, and the transient type of population
that #he trailer park would accommodate. He stated that, in his
E~ff}~` opiaion, areas in the vicinity of a golf course and parks should'be
~=>r:; :>
~'`•~""' developed with luxury type development with high tax potential.
! 4r:,
^` The Commission noted that the subject property wnuld presently
~° permit R-3, Multiple Pamily Residential, development which would
!, accommodate more people and would increase the traffic in the
, area. .
Mr. Albert W. Awley, 2403 West C=escent Avenue, appeared before ,
the Commission, stated that he was 4pposed to the proposed development,
that he owned property that was adjacent to subject property,
that the golf course, the park, and the schools were an asset to the
subject area, but that the proposed development would not be ~
compatible with these facilities, and that the schools were over-
burdened at the present time without increasing the burden. He
reviewed the action in the past by which prope=ty had been traded in
ozder to enlarge the proposed park development, and the Commission '
noted that the trade of land was in order to provide a complete
ark and that it was a very satisfactory transaction and would be of
p
benefit to the community. Mr. Awley.stated further that the trailer
park would be detrimental to the value of his property and that in
his opinion, trsiler parks should be located next to the freeways,
not in the vicinity of a golf coqrse, a park, and the schools. •
Planning Director Richard Reese pointed out the school areas, the
proposed community park area, and the proposed trailer park develop- ~
ment on a map. He stated that the proposal for the development of
the public park includes the extension of the access road~that will
be serving the park~ westerly to provide access and drainage for the
asea, that the park facility was designed as an in:egrated development
as a community center with the junzor high school, the elementary '
school, and the park ali designed and integrated as a singie complex.
Mr. Reese reviewed the acquisition of the park land indicating that
a portion of the park property had been acquired by a trade with~ ,
and through the cooperation,of~ the present owner of the subject
property.
Mrs: Dwayne Duncan, 947 West Siesta Street, appeared before the '
Commission aad stated that she otas opposed to the establishmenf - ~..
o,f a#railer park in closc proximity to the schools in the area.
I
Mr. Jack Perman, the.p2titioner, appeared before the Commission and
: gtated tha*. his original intention £or development of the subject
~
ro ert was to constrnct multiple family;residential units.on the :
P p Y
subject propertq 'but that,the'.negotiations with the City had taken so
'
no
' much 4ime that it became evident that apartR2nt development was
longer feasible: because of,the amount of apartment development that
had been established in the community in the interim: `He stated that
need, however; for: housing for the older person,who has
there'is a
_
retired and wishes to locate in the type of ~levelopment proposed~which
is a nek type of housing cdmmunity: He stated further that the J.sid I
use analysis had determined the need of the proposed deveiopment
.
~ and the compatibility of,the. location.wi#h the surrounding area, that s' '
,.. ,
, :
,
,, ~`.,y~,;
_ ,
~:
s'
_
,
_ ~ ; ~~.. . . ~~ ~:~ ~~ . ~.~ ~. .-::~ . . . :.~- ~,:':: ~~~~-
...
. , . . ~ . ~ ~ .
.. .
. __ ~.< .
,
,:
.
, : a,~.
~...:r -~~a'~
r„
....,
,
.
.
. ~
'
ry
, ~ `~
. '
. ' .
..~. ~. '
,. . -~ ~~ ~. .~. ..:'. ,~ . ~ ~ '•
,~ . .
''' ~ r N T. ~Y
~'tt~~
'.
.
.
,~} ~±!
, .~ , . . 1]Q_~.~If/a.~Ya: Wnf ,t5,.~.~. ~.~{I~rFPC.l' ~.. ."~'~lY~ a,.I v~,:.L~.:l.+7f~'+4"!" ~.~'MI'R~V~,_.f4~i~~E:f1YY.,.~Ejf.~'~~1.'iIQS/.11^e4~~ .. ~~^^:'^~n~Mil~ .. 1. ~.b/
'y (1~5%
.e~ .~.n 1}..~,aY.V
~~ 9",~'.~ t 7
x 1
:
..
1 '...,
.
~ ; ~ ~ .... ~-, ! k ~ y~~~ wd ,'T:n '.~ 5~:~""'~. 4{13~~i.tSs C..~e r^.'"~".~iv~-'1~W,' . :T l
?k..: ~~~
=~rt
t'
,A h
.. _ .; .. ;: . ,., ..
_ .
.?: - _ ~.. . ~. - . ..
~. ~.~ . .' . . ... . .:.,.~:,. ..
.;..., ii~~:.~
...
~1~ ,.n..)^ j'~'~'/~4~,.l.. £.
:. . .v.~....r..,. .~.. .~, ., ... .~-
.~~i ... .~. . . ,
. ... , ,
.,'... -
. . ~ . . . . ,. . . . . . ' : 1'+' A .
1
. . '
~ ,
.. . ... . ~ ~ ~ ~
. ~ . . . . . . ~ . ~ ~ . ' . . . .
. ~ ~
~ ,~ ,
' .
..;..:.~~
....-.
~ . . . .
'
. ~ . . . .. . . . . .
.. . . . . '
. . . . . , ' ~ . . ~.. ~ . . . . . . . . . ._ ' - ,.
~.~.' :'.:.
~
~ .. . . . . . . . . ' . ' . . . . ' . .
~ 364
.
,
~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COhAlISSION, September 6, 1961, Continued:
I
F
S ~ CONDITIQNAL USB - the development would be of benefit to the commuaity, that a mobile ~ ~
PBRMIT N0. 146 home does not require any of the facilities around it~other than the
~ Continued goif course~because it is a aelf-contained community with ita own
' aervices and.faciiities, and tha# it would be less of a burden upon
~~ ~ the monetary.requirements of the City than aay other type of develop-
.' ~I ment. Mr..Perman submitted a letter from the Mutual 3avings and
' Loan Association, indicating that the proposed trailer park develop-
~~y>"~ ment is.the ideal solution for the use of the property and that ~
~`j";:~ the lending agency would provide a eommittment of $2,000 per pad.
,~
~ Commissioner Pebley discus§ed the possibility c. subdividing the
1 subject,property for single'family residential development in
~ view of its desirable location adjacent to the park, the golf course,
- and the schools. Mr. Perma~l'indiCated tha.t he Hras primarily i.nterested
in multiple family residential or trailer park development. ~
Commissioner Pebley stated that, in his opinion, monetary matters ' .
should not be,considered in determining the use of the land, and that
he thought the area was.very desirable for single family residential
development for which there was a demand.
• A discussion was held relative to the increased valuation of the
' subject property and the changed conditiona in the area from the
+ time that the`property was originally purchased by the pefitioner.
T!ffi HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler sabmitted a report~prepared by •
the City Attorney's Office~ relative to the Segality of a Conditional
' Use, Permit for the construction of a trailer park if one of the
conditions'of approval was the requirement that no childreri be
allowed to liye`in said trailer park~and relative to the distribution
of the proceeds of tax reveaue as outlined in the Revenue and Taxation
Code of the State: The Code indicates that the proceeds shail be
, distributed one-third to the City, one-third Lo the school districts,
and one-third to the County. The Report also indicated that the ,
legality of imposing a condition excluding children from a. trailer
park was questionable but that trailer park operators might be
reluctant to contest such`a condition if they were faced with the -
possible loss of the entire Conditionai Use Permit. Mr. Geisler '
indicated that there would be no liability upon the part of ±he
City other than the:defense or prosecution'of a case based upon
the particular situation. Mr. Geisler ad.vised the Co~mnission that, ~
~ if a condition were imposed,lim~ting the occnp~.rtcy of a trailer park
~ to adults ~~n1y~''it ~shou ld'be:done with the consent of the petitionex ~
and that an age limit should 6e stipulated.
~
~
'
~
~
F ~ . . ~ ..~ ~ : .
. .
~
~ :
~ .~~
~. ~ . . ~
:
Chairman Gauer stated that he was i~terested in the Melbourne Gauer .
.
~ School,:as.well as.the entire area, tiecause he was.instrumental in ""
- purchasiag the site for::the.school facility,`and that he wiahed-#o
~' clarify some of the apparent misinformation in respect to.trailer
,
~^ ' parks. He' stated.that he owned a mobiie home iocated.in a beach I
~ ~ city, which.he visited"frequently, therefore, he cou~d speak from
r` ~ ', ', experience and could verify that rules and regulations were strictly
~`r '~ , imposed upon the occupants, that the people,living in the parks were
~
C S= T
Y {
., ~ . ... .. ~
~,.~n
~~ ~ . 1
~y
~ ~
~ ~ . . . .. . .
~ ~._.
n,ry'
. ~. ~. ' ~ . ~ . . .. ~ ~ ~ -
.. ..
~
~
~ ,
'
~r^r gc~.i,tS;~
~
.
..
a . . . . . ...
. . .
.. . . . . _
~
~
~
-
~~: ~
~ .,~ '
.
~
'
....',: ~ , ' . .
.
~
... . . - ~
. .;~
.
.
.
~ . ~ ,
4.,
~ ~t~ . . _ _
. . .
' ' , . .
~i x
ri .f,
~ . . '
+ 5,
~.
~ ' ~ .., t , .
~
k ~ ,t
xF~~~e t . .
G42~ ' 1
. ~ ~
: '1
~,~a
't,~'~Y ~fr
i nt .1
f f? ~?
'
-
~
~~ i
~' 1 5~
~ ~ti
~
~
~p(
~ •,~~~..
ra F rx t r,,
~.~5 <S:?~.. ,
- _
. ,-
; • ` . ,
_ .';
:
. ..._..-~.r~+~.~--Te.r_si--s. . .._. _ . . ._.. ._ . .._ _ __. _ ...._._ ..... , .. _ .._ . . . .. .. . ...__._. _ . ~.~.l.'.~- . ... _ . .. ,. .
W
, k~
k. + ; ~.~t
r_r..~:a.::~,'~z~~,~~
~ir +,.54 .: } ~t, -h ~J',E~._+~7,y~j~~: .. c ~y~ ~ . ~.~r an,o~~Ja,r,{,'~a!, - ~' $".~`y'~:y'. ~ .1~'~'.
`~.~«F..,.4_ , .: ~E..: .fili~e~~diX'a~~r~i~. .n";R ~k.t E. . iF .
- . '~ t
~
_ ;
•. _, _ , ._,.
.... ...:...
~ :. ~~ ~ ~~ . , ~ ..• ';5:3 ,~ ..: :.: ...,. ,-_~.
.t.:
t ~ - ~
`~,~s { - .'. ~
t j
~o ;j
MINUTBS~ CITY PIANNING COHPlISSION, September 6, 1961, Continued:
.,
, ~
365 ~ ,_.,
,'
CONDITIONAL USB - not indigents, that they were ge8erally successful retired
PffitMIT N0. 146 people of high caliber, that the most succesaful parks do not
Continued permit children, that from his experience as a school superintendent
the burden placed upon the schools by the location of a trailer
paxk in the vicinity o£ the sck~ool would be less than that created
by anq other type of reside~itial development, and that there was a
need for this type of housing for older pe0ple who did not wish to
live in single family residences or apartment buildings. Mr. 8auer
suggested that any interested parties visit some of the trailer
parks in the community in order to be better informed in respect to
the ~tand~rds o: operation. Co;wiissioner Marcoux s~bstantiated
Mr. Gauer's statements in respect to the operation of trailer parks.
In response to inquiry from Chairman Gauer, Park and Recreation
Director Stronach stated that it was his understanding that 20
feet of right-of-way dedication would be granted by the developer
to give the City a minimum of 50 foot access to accoamodate ~aral]e 1
parking on both si~ies of the street.
A discussion ensued relative to the instaliation of walls and
landscaped screening of the subject property and Mr. Stronach
indicated that this matter had been discussed in detail with the
developer and that they were agreeable to a combination treatment
of landscaping and fencing.
~
F
~: .
+. -
i. :
E. • .
E:.
k . _
F
F
~.
c;
~
3taff Report recommendations, with amendments,were read and submitted ~
to the Commission. Also submitted was the further recommendation ~
that, if the subject petition were approved, that the Commission, '
by separate motion, reguest that the Planning Department contact ~
the School District relative to providing the extension of the park
street westerly to GilBert Street in order to provide a continuous ~
thorough-fare from Crescent Avenue along the southerly boundary
of the park site to Gilbhrt Street. Chairman Gauer indicated that ~
he thought the plans for the trailer park:should be'revised giving
more specific details an respect to the development~and Planning
Director Richard Reese indicated 'the trailer park could be developed
in accordance with the suggested modifications.
Planning Director Reese described the dedication that would be
obtained and wall and landscaping plans for the trailer park .
dedelopment. He indicated that the landscaping.and wall screening
would be in accordance with the plans for the park and integrated
with the park development. Mr. Ferman stated that he was in agreement
with Mr. Reese's statements. The Commission discussed the advisability
of limiting the occupancy of•the trailer park to adnlts only and it,
was agreed that it should be the grerogative of the t=ailer park
operator whether such restrictions should be imposed.
Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that, if
approval of the subject petition were granted, the proposed trailer
park.should be developed in accordance with the development standards
outlined in the'proposed Trailer Park Ordinance which has been
I
~ recommended to the City Coancil for adoption. I. .
The Commission found and determiaed the foliowing facts regarding
the subject.petition:' :
. . 1
~
; .c
r~
~Y,~
~~~~
. ~. - . ' ~
~ ` , ,} `~wt '{
~ .
^^^^'^~*.
. y. , T4,.,~9~~~
.L4.~?.,..~ ~ ~ 'A~~~.r.ma-r : : . S ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ,•3...
, , ,....., ..,., :~s..,a, : a,r,_,_ r. ~.: n.,. ..t . _5__zrr ,~,~,,.~ ~, . ~ ,,.,r.~.~i.,, ,~.ex,..,..x. ~iA. .~.wi_a.~v,~~. .r~..;.. _..~...,... a . ~..m.. ... <'k`r ~,.
_.. _._..~'F ~~.~•~~~,.
;
. ,
~~~
-
~ ~'
~> ~G°1
. .~ ' .~ . ~ . , ~ ~ . , .. . .. ' .
T ~, .Ji ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . - . . ~ . -
~ . I _
~"
. MINUTBS,.CITY PIANNING CONAlISSION,"September 6, 1961, Conttnued:
r CONDITIONAL USH
~ . ",~' PBRMIT N0..146
~ ~ ~ Coatinued
,.~,
'az
,1,_. ....: . ~
:~,~- . •.._
366
- 1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional
Use Permit is authorized by th'is Code, to wito a trailer park.
2. That the proposed use wiil not adversely affect the adjoining
land uses and fhe grot'vth and development of the area in w~ich
it is proposed to be Socated.
3. That'the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is
adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use in a
manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peacet
health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City
of Anaheim. '
4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose an
undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and proposed
to carry the traffic ia the area.
~
~
~
~
. ~
5. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions
imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
6. That verbal opposition; in addition to a petition of protest
containing 56 signatures, was recorded against subject petition.
~
Commissioner Allred offered.Resolution No. 62, 3eries 1961-62, and
moved for .its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Summers,
to grant ~etition for Conditional Use Permit No, 146, subject to the
following conditionse
1. Development substantially in accordance with ~chitii't Nos. 1, 2, 3, 1
and 4, amended to provide a minimum twenty (20) foot dedicated
right-of-way on the easterly and northerly boundaries contiguous
to the community park street as indicated on Bxhibit No. 5. Ail
street improvements on said right-of-way to be provi.ded by the
City of Anaheim.
2. Development in accordance with the trailer park development standards
as stipulated in the proposed Trailer Park Ordinance approved by
the Commission
3, Provision.of a six (6) foot masonry wall along the boundary of
subject property where subject,property abuts the proposed City
park site, or fencing, landscaped screening, and grading along the '
City Park boundary.to the satisfaction of thc Director"'of the Parks
and Rec=eation Depa=tment,
4. I.imitation of access gates from the proposed trailer park to the
City,park, location for,said gates subject to the approval of the
Director of Parks and Recrea#ion Department. ~'
~
5. Construction of a six (6) foot masonry wali on the westerly ~
- boundaries af subject property, 548.68-feet znd 142.67 feet in ~
width; and on the`northerlg portion of the southern boundary of
the tract, a dist~nce of.:376.87 feet.
6.. Preparation of,.street improvement.plans and installation of all
' improvements for Crescent Avenue, 3n accordaitce wifih tlie approved '
standard plans on fiie in the Office of the City Bnginees. '-
_ . .
7:.', . .. . . . _ .. ~ .
Payment of,$2.OO-per`front foot for street lighting,purposes on ,:~T
, ~„
Crescent AveAUe. r
I
~
'
~~
~ ~
.~ ~
~: ~.
~
L~
-
,;. '
. ,
. ~
5
`'~~~~
r
~
~,
r~J __,"a n..,.t. ~..:.Ir, ~:~ ~ ,L.e.~ENr~im>~xr_a.N.w..~. _
r,53Lw.i,S.i.:/.5.....s.,.:e~ J . ,+7, ,...~:... .. ti~u.^vd~ M'vs&Zr.o~nr.L,-;n.xx?uFlL:1r,~u-xn~vr ~.~ ~,r,: ~ ...~~:.. u~~ y
~,~
t
~ , ~~ .._'y. ,a x.!i:
,.
_ i ~ ..1 . :..Sft r .~5~-£"a~a ~a5-. ~~~ ~ .r,.tii . # . „a~~~ . ,_ ~:..
} ` { ~`r~
3 ~
•3 ~.i
. ., . .. . . ~. . , . ..,:;
. . ' . . . ~ .. ' ~~{t:;
. ~ ~ ~ °~
367
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COWPIISSION, September 6, 1961, Continued:
CONDITIONAL USH - 8. Payment of $25.00 per trailer space Park and Recreation Pee
E`.'. PBRMIT N0. 146 to be collected as part of tfle Bqilding Permft. -
k Continued ~ '
~ 9. Recordation of a Rever§ion to Acreage on recorded Tract
No. 2567 located at the south-westerly portion of subject
' property.
~;;.:; :.
r' 10. Provision of utility easements along exterior boundaries as
~ determined to be necessary by the Director of Public Utilities
~~-;;`. to adequately serve the subject property and other property.
il. Provision cf areas for adequate trash storage and pick-up as
determined by the Director of Public Works prior to Final
Building Inspection.
12. Dedication of 45 feet from the monumented centerlirn of
Crescent Avenue (15 feet existing).~
13. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the
accomplishment of Item Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were
found to,be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property
' in.order to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of
the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resulution was passed by the following
VV!'G:
AYBS: COMWIISSIONHRS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Summers.
NOSS: COMMISSIONHRS: Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
AHSENT: COMMISSIONHRS: Hapgood, Morris
Commissioners Mungall and Perry indicated their negative vote was
based upon the opinion that revised plans for the trailer park
development should be submitted for review in order to determine if
they wauld comply with proposed trailer park development standards.
Commissioner Pebley indicated that he was opposed to the establishment
of a trailer park in the subject area.
VARIANCB N0. 1400 - PUBLIC HBARING.. Petition submi#ted by ROY ROBBRTS, 1442 South
Nutwood Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; HOMH LAND COMPAN,Y, c/o
GRIPPITH HROTHHRS, 887 South Los Angeles Street, Anaheim, California,
Agent; requesting permission to WAIVfi MINIMUM FRONT YARD SBTBACK
RHQUIREMBNTS on property described as: A parcel 310 feet by 645 feet
with a frontage of 310 feet on Cerritos Avenue and located on the
- northeast corner of Cerritos Avenue and Nutwood Street. Property '
presently classified in the R-A, RESIDSNTIAL AGRI~ULTURAL, ZONH.
The petitioner=s agent appeared before the Commission and discussed
the Tentative.Map of Tract No. 4323 with the Commission. He stated,
that the tentative map had been recently approved by the Commissio~
and the City Council~ subject to the approval o£ a Petitioa for Variance
far front'yasd setback requirements for twelve;lots of.varying dimensions.
He stated'further that.the developer was endeavoring to provide as much
,
;.~ , . ... ~ ,
, :
1
, . ,,
_.
,. ,
.. .n.
~- .._. _.~ , .,.. _.....,~. ... .... , ,. ..,_,:.... . ..... „ ,.._ .,..,...~.. .... . _..: . . . .. ...__.. _....,,.._. .~....._._... _:..a 4v f F~ ~.:~wyr_ .. , , . . _
~.
~
~;:,
~
~
~ .. ... ,.~
~ j r :' r ~ .~ ~ ... Y ~(~:'~~`~.~ r ~i~LN'
~." !
~ ~i
. ~
, '
~
~ . . . . .
.
~
~
.
A :~ ~ - , . . . ' .
~
C
~
~ . ., . ~ .. ~~~1.:~~~
. . ~ .. ~ ~ ~ .. ~..~ ~~~~,'.
368
MIN[JTBS, CITY PLANNING CObAlISSION, September'"6, 1961, Cont3nued:
~ '.ARIANCE N0. 1400 _
i.,. '
1
~"
~
;
rear yard space as possible;thus the necessity for the request
for the reduction of front yard setbacks from the Code require-
ment of 25:feet to the proposed 20 foot setbacks~ and that the
tract would be in coaformity'with other tracY developments in
the subject area. . '
THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
the subject petitionq
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim
Municipal Code, Sect~on 18.24.030 (1) to permit front yard
setbacks of 20 feet for Lot Nos. 1, 2; 3; 4; 5, 6, 11, 12,
13, 14, 19, and 20 of Tentative Map of Tract No. 4323.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to 4he propezty involved or to the
inteaded use of the property that do not applq generally
to the property or class of use in the same vieinity and a~ne.
3. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial properfy right possessed by
other property ia the same vicini:~ and zone, and denied to
the property in question.
4, That the sequested variance will not be materially detrimental
to 'the public welfare or injurious to the progerty or improve-
ments in such vicittity and zoae in which the property is
located.
5, That the requested variance will-not adversely affect the
Comprehensive Geaeral Plan•
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resoiutiwi No. 63, geries 1961-62,:
and moved for its passage aad adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Allred to grant Petition for Variance No. 1400, sub,ject to the
following conditiona:
1. Recordatioa of a Piaal Tract Map of subject property.
4
. . ' ' ~ ~. . ..'.i
~
. . ~ ~~.' . . ...
369
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COI~AlISSION, September 6, 1961, Continued;
VARIANCS N0. 1401 - PUBLIC FIBARING. Petition submitted by BILL T. ASAWA, 928 South
Beach Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owner; Lois 3h3shido,
59'il Rand Street, Buena Park, California, Lessee; requesting
permission to BSTABLISH WHOLBSALS CANDY MANUFACTURING HUSINHSS
on property described as: A parcel 330 feet by 575 feet with a
frontage of 330 feet on Beach Boulevard and located on the east
side of Beach Boulevard betweea Orange Avenue and Ball Road; its
northwest corner being approximately 980 feet south of the southeast
corner of Orange Avenne and BQach Boulevard and further described
as 720 South Beach Boulevard, Property presently classified in
the R-A, RBSIDHNTIAL AGRICOLTURAL, ZONB,
Mr. Bill Asawa, the petitioner, appeared before the Comwission
and stated that he was requesting a variance to permit the
i establishment of a whoi~ ~ale candy manufacturing operation in
conjunction with an existing retail candy store business in orde~
that vehicles coulti pick-up merchandise at the present location
. for distributiott.
Tt~ffi HBARING WAS CLO5BD.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
the subject petitioa:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim
T~lunicipal Code, Secti~n 18.16.010 (1) to permit the establishment
of a wholesale candy manufacturing operatior_ fo* a three {3)
' year time period.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicabie to the property invoived or to the
intended use of the property that do not apply generally to
the property or class of use in the same dicinity and zone.
3. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation
' and enjoymeat of'a subst8ntial p'ropefty right posses~ed by
other property in the same viciaity and zone, and denied to
the`property in question.
4. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injnrious to the property or,iu~prove- ~
ments in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located,
5. That the requested va=ias~ce wiil not adversely affect the
Comprehensive General Plan.
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 64, Series 1961-62, and
moved for i#s passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, .
to grant Petitioa for Variance No..1401, subject-to_the.following , ~;
_ conditions•
-.
, 1. Time limitation of three (3) years after which said variance:.
shall become null and void unless written petition is made to
- the City Plaaning CommiSsion for review and an extension of }
" tiine is granted for said variance.
_ _
_
,.
:
~_
. . . . . ~ . ~ .
• . ~ ~ ... . ~ . . . .
..
_. _
~
~
F ~ t
~~.5~
. , . . . . ~ . . . ~ .
~ . ' .. ' ~ ~. . ~~~.' . ....~ . . .:.,~..
,: . " .' ' .... . ~ . :' . . .. . . , .
: . . . . . ' . ' ~ ' , r ~. ~ . . .
. .
i
.. : ~t
,:
1
..
vi 1k~
~ . . . .. . ' ~~, . .. . ~ .
'.,~' ~,. .~'. . .,. -. . ~ ...:•. ' ~ '..'_
~
~
~~ F ~Z
~.t1
4S l4r~~
' ~
,
:.. -.:~~' ~ ~'~,~~. . . . ~~
' ti~tc~
~
'y
~ . , .wai~R:~T-i1:~,,.....,.,. .., ~ -.~,,.....,., tw. .. ,~ , _,.._ _...~._..,..._........,.........~,_~-~.a .. . .. . . . -
}.r i.,~{.,5:~2~
i
! {
r~1 '~ l:. .
n, r, }`ct ~y }a~~~~~ ~h ^.,ir / y;/l~d~14~,;i ~Y; '".kyvs~~,~ ~r.ssF1 ~~,
y._~ .h 'Y.,Y.I..). , N-+I'1vA . q~:4Ma~TVf'.'~~J.:'A4, tkhl .~nSl"~`~~( SZY,.. 'ir
}
'
~ . .
: (
+ -,1 't~, ,
, 1
1
,.. . _ .
- - . _
,
~
~ .._.. _ . _ :_ .._.._
/
~_ ~ _
€ .
~ ~
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1961, Continued:
370
pARIANCB N0, 1401 - 2. Restriction of above described use to the existing sectangular
Continned structure only or the approval of plans for new construction
by the City Planning Commission and/or City Couacil.
3. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all
M improvements for Beach Boulevard (Stanton), in Eccordance with
~ the approved standard plans on file in the office of the City
t Bngineer.
~ ., .
pv `~ 4 Paymen# of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes
4 t~ ...t.::~,'-. . ~ . ' . . .
t• a=~~: :: : on Beach Boulevard (Stanton) .
5. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the
accomplishment of Item Nos. 3 and 4.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were
found to be a necessary prereqaisite to the use of the property
in orde= to preserve the safety and weifare of the citizens of
the City,of Anaheim.
On roil cail the faregoing resolution was passet by the following
vote:
~ AY9S: COMMISSIONBRS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Persy, Summers.
NOSS: COMMISSIONSRS: None.
,
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONHRS: Hapgood, Morxis.
'd
,
~
~
~
a
VARIANCB N0. 1402 - PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by I.INUS J. and PATRICIA H.
Anaheim, California., Owners; requesting
Street
B, 239 Primrose ;
;
,
.
DfpGB
permission to WAIVB 1,tINIMUM RBAR:YARD SSTBACK RBQUIREMBNT on ;
property described asc A parcel 60 feet by 102 feet with a- s
frontage of 60 feet on Primrose Street and located on the west side
of Primrose Street between Embassy and Victoria Avenues; its
southeast corner being approximately 60 feet north of the northwest
corner of Victoria Aveaue and Primrose Street and further described
as 239 Primrose 3treet. Property presently classified in the R-1,
ONB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONS.
Mr, L. J. Magee, the petitic:::t, appeared before the Commission
he had seven chiidren, therefore, the rEquested
and stated that
,
family =oom addition.would ue of great benefit to his family.
He stated further that similar variances had ~een granted for
other properiies in the surrounding area.
THB HHARING.WAS CLOSED.
1
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
~
the subject petitione ~
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Munici-
pa1 Code, Section 13.24.030 (3) to,permiti encroachment of 17 ;i
into the required zea: yard:of subject property in order
'feet
,
to ailow the construction of a room addition to an existing
~
residence. _ . . :
,~~
. ~ . . . , ~ ~ . - .. ~ . . ~ . . . . . , . i
~ . . . ~ . . .... .... . . . ~ .
. . . . . .. . .
. . . . . . . . ' - ~ . .
.. . .. . , ii .
~. . ~ : . ... . . ~ . ~...~.. . ; ~. ~ ~ ' . .. , ~ ~ :.::)
1
.. ~ : .
~~ j
. . ' ' . . . . ' , . .
~~ . . .. ~ ' ~ . . ''. i~
^
.1.
.. . .. ~
.;,.~.:.
` . . . , _ . . ' . "' : ~ '.
" . ;. . ~.~.. . ,'~ ...:~ ~. ... :. ~
.
" .. ~~~.
~~:. l '(i"~~..
~~ ..
. :
. } ~,
~
;:~~ ....:~ . ~~., ~~ , - . ~~~ ~.'~~ ..~: ~~ ~~'~~ ;. T r% k`~~;~'
~xt ~
~ ~~m~~,~
_,_ ~ ~ +•a:. + S ~~ -~:,?~'..t t y ~ ~'. .!~?i . ~ ~ -----"'°~.i ~~~6 .:~n ~ :?~~~. .
,~~~?.~i~~~. ~. _~i .~. ~ r° ,r'~:1Si~9, ., ~. ., ~G..~' ~, i; ,: i . . ~ :4 ¢,?dTra+ ;.Ll`,4~1fYX~k1C'avr.',Ma~ltie~t . Gb _r~: . ,.. _ . . , .. . ... Y~w~ S ~~~~~
... ... .~ rr~.a~
tne properzy or c~ass ~ use ~~~ ~.~~ ~~~~_ •-~-•~_~~ a~.~ ~~..-.
3. That the requested variance is necessary far the preservation
and eajoyment of a substantiai property right possessed by
other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the
property ia question.
~ L' '`
'`L '
4.
That the requested yariance wili not be materially detrimental
to the pubiic welfare or inju=ious to the property or improve-
~ ments in such vicinity and zone in which the pxoperty is located.
"`'
'
S.
That the requested variance will not adversely affect the Compre-
i;: . hensive Generai Plan.
. 6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 65, Series 1961-62, and
- moved for its.passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux,
ta grant~Petition for Variance No. 1402, subject to the following
condition: ;
1. Development substantially in accordance with Hxhzbits 1 and 2,
The foregoing condition was recited at the meeting and was found
to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in order
to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of •
Anaheim.
k _
~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
[ vote:
~ AYBS: COl~"~fISSIONBRS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
~ Perry, Summers.
~ NOES: COMNIISSIONBRS: None.
~ :,~. ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood, Morris.
s
~ ~~ VARIANCH NQ. 1443 - PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by STAR DUST IANDS, INC., ;
P. O. Box 2067, Anaheim, California, Owner; GHORGH D. BUCCOLA, ' I
. ,. .... ,
a... P. O. Dox 1937, Newport Beach,°California, Agent; requesting per-
r'; mission to WAIVH MINIMUM RHAR YARD Sx'~BACR RSQUTAHMEI3T on property
described as: A parcel 330 feet by 1324 feet with a frontage of
330 feet on the east side of Western Avenue between Rome Avenue and z';~
Ball Road; its southwest.corner being approximately 660 feet north
k of the centerline of Ba11 Road and Western Avenue. Bxcepting a
~~ parcel 162 feet by 340 feet with a frontage_of_152~feet on the ~
- - . .,_„ fl,...a. :~e
' SL~
1
:1
,, ~
.,. .'~... . . . .'.
. ~ ... ~ . . .'.~ ~ , ~.
~. . , . :.,~/•.::: . ... ....
: ~ : . . . ~.. ..~. ..~~. '; ~ ..:.~
;~.~ "~~ ~ ~ . . . . . ~. . .
MINUTBS, CITY PIAHIVIN~a CQhAlISSION, 3eptember 6, 1961, Continued:
=k
~
J
.~ ~ ~ . .. . . . .
~72
VARIANCB N0. 1403 - Mr. Walter Worthen, ag~nt for the petitioners, appeared before
Continued the Commission and described the requested encroachment of 10 feet
into the required rear yard of Lot No: 18 and the encroachment
nf 9 feet into the required rear yard of Lot No. 19 of Tentative
Map of Tract No. 3822.
Mr. Thomas Nose appeared before the Commission and requested
inf~rmation in respect to the installation of a wall be#ween the
subject properties and abutting properties. It was'indicated
~ that the installation of walls was not required as a condition
o~ approval of the tentative tract and that the walls would
probably be installed by the individual purchasers of the property
Mr. bielvin McGaughy, 410 South Western Avenue, appeared before
the Commission and requested information in respect to the drainage
ef the subject area. •
Development plans were reviewed and it was noted that the street •
would be constructed so that drainage would flow southerly toward
the inbersection of Western Avenue and Bali Road.
~
. T!~ HHARIlVG WAS CI.OSBD.
The Comm~.ssion found and determined the foliowing facts regarding
the subject petition:
1. That the petitioner requests a var3ance from the Anaheim
Municipal Code, Section 18.24,030(3) to permit an encroachment
of 10 feet into the required rear yard of Lot No. 18 and an ~.
encroachment of 9 feet into the required rear yard of Lot No. 19
of Ter.tative Map of Tract No. 3822.
2, That there are exceptional or extraordinary r.ircumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended
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 requ_sted variance is necessary for the preservation, .
and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by
other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the -
property in questiun.
4. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improve-
ments in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
5. That the requested variance wi1T not adverse2y affect the
Comprehensive General Plan.
' 6. That the rear lot line of Lot Nos. 18 and 19 is thaf lot line ~
which is opposite and mcst distant from the front lot line.
7. That no one appeared in opposi.tion to subject petition• ~
Commissioner Perry offe=ed Resolution No. 66, Series 1961-63, and
maved for iis passage and adoption, seconded by C• ~m+ssioner Allzed,
to grant Petition for Variance No. 1403,`aubjec' ' e following
conditions: •
_ • , r;
• - i:
~
, J`
,,
F
, n
~..~'~ ... ;.~ .
..
~a~.. . . ~ . :~:'J14'Si.~F:~.~!.:~~~.',i.. -:.:~~'~. :i~.:i,t;r:.1~, -l-,.Y.`,~ .....:lt~ ...~..ie.i~',.1,F.Y.,.~SF.w,,..~SidA ..._.. .. . .. . . f~.. +f ry.xw~,
~
' MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING CODAlISSION, September 6, 1961, Continued:
i .
~ . ~
„ ~..
-:~;
.
~
~
~ ~
:
373 ~
VARIANCH N0. 1403 - 1. Development subatantially in accordance with Hxhibit No. 1.
Continued
2. Recordation of a Pinal 1Yact Map of subject property.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were
found to.be a necessary pre=e4uisite to the use of the property
in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of
the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the ioregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing
vote:
AYBS: COMMISSIONHRSe Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Perry, Summers.
NOBS: .CObA4ISSI0I~RS: None.
ABSBNT: COMMISSIONBRS: Hapgood, Morris.
VARIANCB NO, 1404
€ ~
~
~::~ ~
~
~ `: `' a
~
~~
~ •
r,~,. ,..
- PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by PBTBR and AUDRBY WARNOPP,
1309 Iris 8treet, Anaheim, California, Owners; SHIRL&Y JBAN G03S,
1010 South Lemon Street, Apt, 12, Anaheim, California, Lessee;
requestiag permission to BSTABLISH A DANCH STUDIO on property
described as: A pai•cel 71 feet by 326 feet with a frontage of
71 feet on Los Angeles Street and located on the west side of
Los Aageies Street between Vermont Avenue and Ball Road; its
northeasteriy co~ner being approximately 850 feet south of the
souihwesterly corner of Vermont Avenue and Los Angeles Street
and further described as 975 SoutIi Los Angeles Street. Property
presently classified in the C-1, NBIGHBORAOOD COMMffitCIAL, and the
P-L, PARKING LANDSCAPING, 20NBS.
Mr. Peter Warnoff, the petitioner,.-appeared before the Commission
and stated that he was the owner of the subject property, that
the building ~vas constructed for a C-2, General Commercial, use,
that the dance studio would be generally for tap and baliet
instructions, that the studio would be locatedin the rear of the
structure, that the lessee was operating the studio at the present
time with an emergency Sicense, that thtre was no noise connected
with the operation, and that the lesaee was a satisfactory tenant.
Mrs, Shiriey Goss, the lessee, appeared before the Commis eiun and
stated that she was the dancing instructress, that she liked the
location because it was clean and the other. tenants were of high
caiiber, and that her students came from the surrounding area.
THB HHARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commission discussed the present conditiun of the landscaping
of the subject propErty and the petitioner indicated that he could
not praceed with 2andscaping plans for the installatioti of black
topping and trees until such time as the ordinance wns read for
the recl.assification of subject property.
The Commission found and determined the followiag facts regarding
the subject petition:~
-r---
`' .. `~~ . _ ~1 s..~4'1~~ .I+~G?;~i`~' '. . . .
J `
~
~.... ... . ...~~ '~~
~ .j ~
.
~
~ ~.:
• .~
374
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CObAlISSION, September 6, 1961, Continued:
r., . ;
t:` :
E• 4 VARIANCB N0. 1404
S i Continued
~ . .
- 1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim
Municipal Code, Section 18.40.010 to permit the establishment ..
of a dance studio.
2. That there are exceptionai or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicabie to the property involved or to the
intended 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 variance is necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by
other pruperty in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to
the property in question.
4. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental
to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improve-
ment in such viciaity anci zone in which the property is located.
5. That the requested variance will not adversely affect the
Comprehensive General Plan.
6. That m one appeared i:z opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner.Pebley offered Resolution No. 67, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance Ho. 1404, subject to the
following conditions:
l. Provision of landscaping in accordance with ?etition for
Reciassification No. 60-61-98, plans for said laxdscapi~ig
to be sybmitted to and subject to the approval of th.e
Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance and to be installed
within_one hundred eighty (180) days after the approval of
sub,~ect Petition for Var3ance No. 1404.
2. Location of dance studio in that portion of the exist,ing
structure as indicated on Bxhibit No. 1,
Tiie foregoing conditians were recited at the meeting and were
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property
in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the ci.tizens of
the C3.ty of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote: ~
AYHS: COMMlSSI01~RS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Perry, Summers.
NOHS: COhA1I3SI0I~RS: None.
ABSSA'T: CObi~iI3SI0N8RS: Sapgood, Morris.
Hn,,r~s , .. ~
, . , J..=_ .. . viiknt r,1..i.M,tE~~.~. . \~.l•... .. . ..,~ .~
. '_~.e..p° ./ri.`-;..x 4.?~: ,.Sa'1.=:'sl
' ` ~ . ~ ~
375
~•. MINUTBS, CITY PIAIVNING CODA4ISSION. September 6, 1961, Coatiaued:
~ CONDITIO~-L USB - PUBLIC HBARING. Petit3on submitted by BMIL L, and IDA L. PARNLUND,
, PBRMIT N0. 148 1186 West Valeq~da, Fullertou, California, Owners; A. VINCBNf
' McIAUGHLIN, 1717 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent;
i requesting permission to SSTABLISH A HOMS POR TI~ffi AGBD on property
described as:. Qn irregularly shaped parcel having a frontage of
110 feet'located'on the noith side of Romneya Drive between Citron
,,_:., ' Lane and~Robin Street and extending northerly to Slue3ay Lane and
having a froatage of 55 feet on the south side of Blue3ay Lanc
~ and further described as 936 West Bluejay Lane and 845 West Romneya
~ Driye. Property presently classified in the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY
RHSIDBNTIAL, ZONB.
~ Mr. A. V. M~Laughlin, agent for the petitioners, appeared before
the Commission and stated that the property was presently classified
in the.R-3, Afiiltiple Pamily Residential, zone, that they were
asking for permission to operate a home for aged citizens, that the
structure was a three year old residence.contaiaing four bedrooma,
that the residence was situated upoa a large lot which would afford
privacq aad a recreation area for the occupants, that the operators
~ had been operating homea for the agcd for 20 years, that the owners
of•the property xrould retaia an interest in the operation, and that
R:' walis would be inatalied to protect abutting properLies in accord-
~ ance with the suggestion submitted by Mr. Glen Boyles, owner of the
abutting properties located at 827, 831, and 835 Romneya Drive.
~, , Mr. Jack'Baker, 1751 Sumac I.aae, Anaheim, apgesred before the
~. Com~nisaion and stated that he and hia wife intended to operate a
weli orgaaized nursing home for aenior citizena, that they had
~ 23 years experience ia hnndling elderiy people, that they had
choaea the aub,~ect propertq becauae of its howe-like atmoaphere,
^': that they would care for S ambulatory peraoas, that they did aot
intend to alter the exie*~~g residenee, thst they wished to
provide a-recreation sres i:; the rear of the property in sddition
f:- to aatentrance aad parkiag area abutting Roaaeys Drive, aad that
F. .. ,
r- theii operation wouid be uader the ,~uriadiction sad aab,~ect to
E,'_ the approvai of the County Welfare Depnrtment.
i. ~~• The Commisaion diacuased the location of the intended.psrking ares
(:°. , aad the grade of the property at that locatioa.
Mr. Paui Heriow, 940 Blue,~ay Laae, appeared before the Coamieeioa,
atated that he iived next door to aub,~ect property~ aad thst he •
was oppoaed !o the requested uae of the property because there sre
ao parkiag facilities,at the preaeat time, that it would loker the
vaiue of property in the ares, that the existing reaideace waa aoc
coaetructed for the propoaed uae, 4hat there are too many children
in.the eub3ect area which wnpid create aoise and confueion fos the
preposed occupents, and that the propoeed uea would create diffiaul-
tiea in senting`the apartmeata ia the aree~, Mr.• Harlow read.and
aubmitted a petition of proteet coataiaing 16 aignaturea of
zesidents ia the area.
Mre. Harlow, 940 HSue,~ay Lane, appeared before the Coaaisaion and
atated that her property abut~ au3,~ect psoperty and is oniy SO fect
from the bedrooma, that ahe had childrea who would be playi~ ia
:~~,.~..: •;~.~""~'!~ih
~ , . .. ---~--,.
~
r.. ...,.,... ~ , . ~.~.. , ~.... ~ ...: . . ~~. _ . .. . ;, .: ._ ...
~a.~ i ~. ,:, , i .~.~.,i.~ i .(,:.,. + ..-:i':':rJ..~ .-:..:~.~~$F}.Y:~ff-.•:.,
~
k
~
~. _ ~
~,
~.
~-' '. : '1
~ j
k ~
~
~.
_ ,r
.~ `, ,~~
~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSYON, September 6~ 1961, Coiitinued:
~
376
~.'
7~ ~ COI~IDITIONAL.IJSB - their yard which would Create a ni~isance for the elderiy people,
pBRMIT N0. 148 and that ahe'wished to iastall a swimming pool for her children
~~ Coutiaued which would add to the p=oblem.
~.
~ .
Mr. Harlew stated that the existing residence contained four
t I bedrooms which were undersized and that the structure was too
smali to accommodate S elderly people comfortaMq:.
~` Mr. Baker, in rebuttal, state~ ttiat #he County Nlelfare Department
would regulate the aumber"of persons #hat couid be cared for,
and that they determined the amount of space necessary per
i -' individual-. '
i Tf~ffi FIDARING WAS CLOSBD.
The Commiesion reviewed piot plans and discusaed the amount of
parking neceasary, driveway locations, and wali requirements.
Mr. McLaughlin iadicated bhat it was his intention to fence the
recreation area.and that the garage would aot be used for the
~ operatioa.
The Commiseioa found and determined the following facta regardiag
the sub3ect petition:
~'
1. That the.propoaed uae is properlq one for v'iich a Conditionai
Uae Peraiit is~authorized by this Code, to wit:, A reat home
for the aged.
2. That the proposed uae wiii adverseiy affect the ad~3oining land
uses aad the growth and developmeat of the area in which it is
proposed to be located.
3, That a petition of proteat, containing 16 sigaatures, in
addition to yerbal opposition and one letter of supvort we•re
=ecorded-ia*resp'~ct to subject petition.
Commisaioner A1Jred offered Resolution No, 68, ~eries 1961-62, and
moved for ite passage.and adoption, seconded by Commiasioner D:arcoux,
to deay Petition for Coaditional Uae Permit No. 148, based upon the
aforementioned fiudinga.
On ro11 ca11 Lhe foregoing resolution wss passed by the following
vote:
AYBS: CObAfISSIONBRS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, pebley, Perry, Summers.
NOHS: COD9~IISSIONBRS: Muagall.
ABSBNT: CQMMISSIONBRS: Iiapgaod, Morris.
D3SCU3SION - REGARDINGe COI~IDITIONAL USS P&tUlIT N0..146i.
Chairman Gauer 3nformed the'Commiseiott that a motioa was in order,
regarding Conditiot~. Use: Per~-3t: I~b. 146~ requesting that the 8chool
Dsstrict be contacted 3n respect to the extension of the future -
street abutl;ing the southerly.boundary of .the City Park site in
order to provide a continuous exteasion of said street from Crescent
Avenue on the south to Gilbert Street on the west.'
<:;j.:
--
) ~..1'....il ~ ...~ IX
. . . . .. , ,1{,' F,._ ~.f ~~.
. . . . .. . .-.I, .~.i: F'".~f^
_ ~n'1Y' 1yf~ ~.C~,:t•I; ~ . .,.
~
_ . .~. . .. .. . .
.C~ ~~~~ ~ ! ~,i~~~Cl_ S~ r P} .~ f~ ~ .~'yy .~~... ~~~'~~ Ec?..,::$~~hi.:~'^a.~t .+.'A,'~d:~{ ~~' Sv
1
~ J~i- }~. ~'~ C
'~~ t - ~~ .. .
y
_ - :~ ~
.
a
r -
_ :~' ~ ~~'
~.
,_ , ~ ~ ~
.
.
. '
;
~ ,. ... , .
~ , _ i
~ ~. ~ (
377 I
i
i
MINUTES, CITY PIANNING COAIl~lIS3ION, 3eptember 6, 1961, Continued: ~
` ' ~ ~ISCUSSION - Commissioner-Alired .offered a motioa, 'seconded by Commissioaer , ~ ~
Continued Marcoux and carried, that the Yianning Department be instructed I
•
E
~' to coatact the School bistrict reiative to the extension to
Gilbert 3treet of the park site street as iadicated on Bxhitrt No. 5.
~
~~
; .
„ ,
f RBCBS3 - Commissioner Summers offered a mobion at 5 0'Clock P. M., seconded
~
~ ~,
r by Commissioner Marcoux, that the meeting be recessed aAd to :~
o
•
~
~ rec
nvene at 7p00 0
Clock P. M, MOTION CARRIHD.
,
~ Y`
APTBR RBCBSS - Chairman Gauer called~the meeting to order at 7:15 0'Clock P. M.
~~ PRBSHNT: Allred, Gauer, Morris, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Summers.
AHSBN'T: .Hapgood, Marcoux.
F
~ . .
.
CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC FffiAItING. Pet`ition submitted by RAYMOND and HSTELLS R. SPBHAR,
YffitMIT N0, i49- 1532 Beacon Avenue, Anaheim, Califo=nia, Owners; DUANH H. FffiS3,
910 Garden Street, Anaheim, California, Agents; sequeatiag permission
to BSTABLISH A HOPBRAU RH5TAURAIVT on property described as: Parcei 1: •
A parcel 152`feet by 180,feet.with a frontage of 152 feet on the
~ :
~
west`side of Buclid Ayeaue between La Palma Avenue.and Prancis Drive,
r.. its northeast corner being.approximately 130 feet_south_of the
southaiest corner of La Palma and 8uclid Avenues. Parcel 2: A parcei
' S0 feet'by 130 feet with a frontage of SO feet on the south side
` of La Pa1ma Ayenue betweea Buciid and Mohican Avenues; i.ta northeast •
' corner.:being approximately 130 feet west of the southwest corner
of Huclid and La Pa2ma A~enues; its south bouadary abutting Parcei i
, on the north and further descr3bed as 1021-1031 North 8uc2id-Ave~ilte. -
' Property presently ^iassified in the C-1, NBIGHBQRHOOD COhAlBRCIAL,
_ ZONB.
Mr..Raymond.3pehar., the"petitioner, appeared before the Commisaion
and described the proposed establishment of a Hofbrau restaurant
in an existiag.structure on subject•property. He atated that
~
aaiking
strips would be paiated within 30 days on the existing
. ,rkiag area, that the buiiding was formeriy occupied by a liquor
, atore, that the proposed developmeat had beea approved by the Health
Departmeat, and .that the bqilding would be remodeled in eccordance
with plans preseated.
~ Chairman Gauer'~noted that.the`.Commission }~ad received complaiats
` in respect to a Aofbrau:Restau=ant receatly eatablished by Commission
r and.Councii approyal~and :that upon inpestigation i.t appeared the.t
€ the operation was not in conformattce wibh_the restaurant-type use
t • requeated at that time. He indicated that he was concerned about ~
~
establishiag a.definiteobligation by the petitionera that the • ,
~
~ sub,ject petitiott be developed in accordance with the statements I
contained in the subject petition which requests the`-use of the I
~ - subject,property for'a reatauraat:of the Hofbrau`type, i
r
~ Mrs. Duane Hess, the lessee o£ the-proposed eatablishment, appeared
i before #he'Commission, and.stated that the amount of li
ht in the
~
~ '' g
proposed restauraat woald be..suitable, that barbequed meats anct
'
~ ~`~~~
`"'
"~
~ !; . sandwiches would be served'itt conjunction.with beer, that the''
,, waitresses xould be yuitab'ly;dressed according to the restaurant
'
r
rr
~'.~
~ ~ decor;=aad that she would b~:operating-the bus
aness herself and
Jk~~zti:
~,,;;. ~~,,. . , she was ar.
~ , p tlCU1.ar about the,;:manner of ,operat"ioa and the cl3enteTe
, ,y;;
";'k~?;w~t 3 : patronizing the businesa: '" °
~t `~. _ +
`,~v , y . , .,
ti~~ ~
~
,
_
,
~ ;
~'
~
~5
~
`~
' ,.
~^
,~„,
`
r
7 t
f~~
~ -
~' ;
n
n
X
~.~~r~'a ~ ... ,.... ~
~-. ~-;.-~=.~.., .,, ..,~„ ~~,~<, . ,.> _„ ...<,.K , _~ ~- . ,. _, <, . _.. ,.. _. .,<,.... ... .,, . ~, ~..._ . ... ~. y., u,~.. ,.., _~~.-.-;.-..-t..:.....:m. ~
. ~ . . . ^,_t,
r+
k~ 5
J"c~ ,, y, ;,x~3r ~~r^~,~.kk~ ~*s,~ a„jeg,~y'1~i:s`,`z'~ ..~°v~"e,:~''~'^o-r.^:c~e~ss ~ .
.,~ t-aaicr.QS~.It~ ar~., :..~-.7~t.,V t
~S _
y
~
~.. ' -~~ •Y ~~
` .
~ t t
1
~!
t ..
- .
_ ' F
. ~ ~ ..
- ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ . . . ,~ ~~ ~
' .. ' ' , .. . . . ~ . ,
L. .
~ . . ~ ~
. . ~ - . .. . . ~ : . ~ ~ . ~ ~
.. _ . . • .,
.. ~.
~
~ 378
~
t
.
~ MINUTSS, CITY PIANNI NG CObAlISSION, September 6, 1961, Contiaued: '
,
~, . . . . ' . . . . .
~ CONDI'FIONAL USB - Tf~.HBARING WAS CLOSED. ' '
~ PBRMIT N0: 149
The Commission reviewed development p~.ans aad 3t was noted
Continued that the seating capacity would be for 48 persons at tables
~ ~ with 18 stoola to be located at ttie bar.
._ . ..
The Commisaion found and determitted the foilowiag facts
~, ; regarding the subject petitione .
~,., _
~ .,
1. That the proposed use,is properly one for which a Conditional
Use Pezmit is authorized by this Code, to wit: a Restaurant-
- Hofbrau type.
~
2, That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining
land uses and the growth and development of the area in
which it is proposed to be located. '
3. That tHe ~ize and shape of the site proposed for the use is
adeqnate to ailqw the full development of the pr.oposed use
in'a manner not detrimental to the parficular ares nor to
the peace, health, safety, and genera~ welfare of the citizens :
of the City of Anaheim•
the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose
4. That
..
an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and
amproved to carry the traffic in the area.
€,., ,
5. That the grantiag of the Conditionai Uae Permit under the
coaditiona imposed, if any, will not be detrimentai to the
~ peace, health, safety~ and generai weifare o£.the citizens af
the CiLq of Anaheim.
6. ~That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Morris offered Resolution No. 6d, Seriea 1961-62, and
moved for its passage.and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry,
to graat petitioa for Conditional Use Permit No. 149, sub,ject to
'-0, .
the follor~ing coadition:
1. Development substaatially in a.ccordance with Exhibits No. 1
aad 2.
~ The foxegoing-condition was recited at the meeting and was found
neceasary.pre=equisite to the use of the property ia order
• to be a
~ - ,
:to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of
~ Anaheim. -
~ On roll call the foregoing xesolution was passed by the following
~ vote:
pyB3; "'C~1MIS5IONERS:' Allred, Gauer., Morris, Munga~.1~ Pebleq,
`
~
Perry, Suminers. ~
h_ : NOBSc CONA~IISSIONBRS: Noae.
~~` a~{ ABSBNT: COI~R+IISSIONBRS: Hapgood, Marco~~x.
~ , , ,~,
x
1
!._.
~` .,.:.
-,
~~'~L~~
~ _
e,.;: >
s~;.~~. x
__r~~ ~
- . .
~
~ ~
~~ ~ G~4'~ ~ ~ . . . . .
. ; , .
~~!' . . ~ ~. . ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ . ' ~ . .
~ ~
~ ~n . . . ~ ~ . . - .. ~';
CY ' t A t ,•
,,
r ~
~ ~~
_
~°' ~ _
' _
:
~ `
„~
X~~r l~y ,~'y
'
~
'
'
~
. -
-
~ ~:
7; ;.
~ .
J .'
'
~ , . .
.
~ . ..
~ . -
'
~.. [t
~:. S ~
~ r ':'x~
~~~
,.~~ _
'~ ~-
~'
- -~ _
'
-~~f..A~ , 'SH?l 1 . ~ : ):. 4. ~,.~~.` i ~ ~1~'raz ....' ~'. ~ ~:./.: t .:,,~~T 3 x :~,.. ~ . „ .
. ., . - ..,T .. _ _ .. s ,~.. . . . .i ., ~.~_.....r:~??4~d~,~. . .. . , . ...~.. ~ ~'"~y
y~ -- - R,,
r
. ~ 1 ,. 1 i~ . ~ 14~1 ~
Y
y~ ~Z4N1~„~.V~$flT«~.{11d.'O~Jpff~~_Y "•'S-~~ ' . ...~ 1L.. ~ .y;~ ~ .. . ~~C.~~~J~ ,'~.t' j S
l~~
~
u
~
~xy i` , J
4 I
( h
:.L : ~
E~
~ ~ t .
. : :,. .. . .' _.' ~~ .
- .. ~ ~
,~ ` . ~~.1
. .
~
,~~. . :' ~: {
.\
'.~.. ' .. . ;':. . .:.' :. .:.~ ~.' '' ~ . . . ~'..
..: ~' .~" .:.r~-J...:...~ ~
~ ~:. .. . ... ... ,
._. ,
•
~~,
..a;
,
. . .'.. .r ,,.v..
... ~. . ' . . .. . - - ~
~~." '..- ~ .,.. . ,...~,:.~ .. "
'..~ ~" ~
'~
~
~
~
~'§
' . ~ ~ ~
. . ' .
~ , ~ ~ . ' . . ~ .. . .
. _ . . . .. .. . . . . ' . . ' . .. .
. ' . . . . . . . ~ ~
,~5
{
~ ~..-' . . . . ,
.
. . . . . ~ ,
. - . . ~ . . . .
. ' . ' . . . ~' ~ ..
. . . . . ~ - . ~ . ' . . . ~ . . . . _ . ~ t
. . '
_ 379 ! • ;
,. ~
. ' MINUTES,'CITY PLANNING COhAMISSION, 3eptemoer~6, 1961, Continued: '
I
CONDITIONAL USB r itioa submitted b MRS. 0. M. GOODMAN,
- PUBLIC HBARI:~~. Pet Y I .. ~.i
pSRMIT *:0: 150 9712 Webst~•r Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner; JAMBS.W. Det~JLLE, ;
1724:Soutl:.Varaa Street, Anaheim, Califoraia, Agent; requesting
~ ~
ermission to,&STABLISH A PRIVATS SCHOOL'anc! to CONDUCT BOY'S
P
i
CLUB l~ffiBTfNGCi on property described ss: A parcel 118 feet by ~
270 feet with a frontage of 118 feet'on the east side of Webster
' Avenue between 0='ange Aveaue and Bal! Road; its northwest corner
1,065 feet south of the southeast corner of
being`approximately
~ ~' _
and Webster Aveaues and further described as 9712 Webster
Orange
~ ,
Avenue. Propertq p=esently ciassified in the R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL
~ ~ AGRICULTURAL, ZONB.
~ Mr. James DeMuelle, the petitioaer, appeared before the Commission
and stated that he was leasing the subject property for kindergarten
' and first grade instruction for boya and girls~in addition to the
use of the property for the Adventure Soy's.Club meetings. He
stated further that the building'would be brought up to school .
~ specifications, that he expected approximately 35 students in the
school, that the Boy's Ciub wouid average about 20 members in the
~
~ 5 to 12 age gxoup, and that they wouid specialize in physical
~ education'and nature studies.
~ A; Josiin, 9692 Webster 3treet, appeared before the Commission,
1~x'• J•
.
indica'ted that the building was in a substandard coadition, and
~ inquired about the specificationa that would be stipulated in or~3er
to br3ng the building up to.required staadards. He also`inquired
Y about .water= fadlities and ittdicated that he was on the Board of
~
; Direc#ors of the Eureka Water Company aad he eYas not certain
` whether water requirements could be provided by his company. The
~ petitioner ittHicated that he understood that a private well would
provide water for the sub3ect property. Mr. Joslin stated that he
k would not have anq objections to a day operation of the requested
~ use. However, he would be.opposed to uae of the building for
: • evening meetiags or utilized as it has been in the past for a
r theatre group. -
The Commission diacussed bniiding requiremeats for schools and the
~. petitionez iadicated that he was aware of the requirements. • -
s
t
THS HHARING WAS CLOSHD.
r
~
~ _
The Commission discussed wall requirements and the recommended
.e north~rly
L
f wails alon
ti
o
s
. g
,
on o
truc
a~
posting of a bond for the c
'and.southerly:boundaries of subject`p=operty, and it was noted that
'
~ ted
tLe a;ea was ia a state of txansition and that the bond was sugges
in order to insuze the construction of the walls witttin the two
~ year period of time`depeading upon the future ~3evelopment oF.the asea-
Commissioner Hllred indicated that the subject area contained singie_
~ family resideatial development, that the lots in the area were deep ~
,; . •~
lots and tha~:in his opinioa, the property should be developed.for
E ~, ~ ~
„ single:family,`ieaidential.purpoaes.
~~ ~ found and determined the foilowing facts regarding
The Comaisaios
'
~' .`:.,~.
,
=xs .
_.,
the subject petition: - " . .
,
, .'
~
.
rh ' r, ?
y: ~
u ,~
~
,~ ,:
~_ ;., s ~
~-~~ r?~'~
-- ~
~, __ I
,~-;
,, ~
7~,1
1 ~ ~' " G 'J
~
! {`~ ' ~ : ~ . . . ' . .
~' } ~~` ~ ' ~ . . . . . . _
,
.
~.
~ x`.'.
. . ~
~ :,..: ~.: .. . .
. : .~ ::: '~ , ..
. ~ . .
. ,
, . ,' . .,, . ' : ..~ ~. :,
e ....
~ ~ ~ .
':'~~ .. ~
: . -'. . ~ :. ~~. -.. i~ ~,
~ r~ .
..~~ ~ s 4
~~..'~M ,
'~,t'- . L7 se . r, rJ, ~h
~\'~, e"~C:f~L~
^, ir' "' ~ „ i r' '~ ~ 1. ~I ~~ r 1+i i ~rY~ ~1~~- ,. ~.y, ,(LL}µ•~~_._. e-,.~ , i 5..-..~°q~y~
1..,[. i.. .r ...~..~. . . J7.,~1 . . _ .Ii~..: ~I/iC.1'If. ~~~}~`!. ~~~.~76~tTbn'Li.R~iqi.~i't.^.~_.W...,..._~- 4ti-.31.....`__... ' 1 Y.1~ ~$;.
+' ~ Y fy.~'
_ ,~.~'^~'
~ ~~~ '~
~
,
~ ~ #~?`
1 ~ ~
. ~
~ : .~ ' }~
, ~
38u ~ y
I ~
MINUTSS, CITY'PIANNING CCThAlISSION, September b~ 1961, Continued: ~ ~
. • ~ ~ . . ~ -. ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ j . . ~'3
CONDITIONAL USE - 1. That the proposed use is prop'erly one for which a Conditioaal ~i
~ PBAMIT N0. 150 Use Pexmit is suthorized by'}fiis Code, to wit: A private ~° ,9
I Continued achool and Adventure Bo'y's Club: ~ ~
•, { 2,. '11~at the:p;oposed use will not adversely affect the ad3o3.~ing ~
.f land uses an¢ tihe growth aad development of the area in which ~
it is piopoaed to be located.' = l
'7
3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is
~`` ` adequate to allow the full development of the proposed use f
, in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the ~
~ 'I
peace, health, safeky, and gerieral welfare of the citizenr; of
~ the City of Anaheim.
~ 4, That the ~raffic generated by the propo.sed use wiil not im~ose
aii undue burden~upon the streets and highways designed and
proposed to Carry the traffic in the area.
5. Thai the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the
conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the
peace, health,'safety, and general welfare of the cz*3.zens
~
.
r of the City of Anaheim,
. 6. That no one appeared in opposit:on to subject pet3tion.
Commissioner.Ferry offered Resolution No. 70, Series ~.961-62, and
~ , moved'for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner ~ummers
~ to graat petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 150, subject tR the
fo11ow3ag ~~n3itions:
~ • ~ 1. Iastallation of a six (6) foot masonry wa11 along the rasteriy
boundary, line of subject property prior to Pinal F.uild:Eng
F • Iaspection.
`:. 2. Installation of a six (6) foot mas~nry wall along che northerly
~ and southerly boundaries of subject property, or tkie p~sting of
~ a two (2) ~,rc.~• bond to insure instailation of sa:td wetl, subj•.ct
F_ to the approval of the Building and Fire Departments ~rior to
~ - Final Building Inspection.
~
~
~ ., 3. Subject to approval by the State Board of.8ducation. •
~ -
~
4.
Building to be brought tip to City of Anaheim Code requirements
for use as a'schooi to the satisfaction of the Chief Building
i Inspector and Pire Chief prior to Pinal Building Inspection.
z
~~ 5. Dedication of 32 feet from the moaumented centerlim of Webster
~ 3treet, (30 feet existing).
6. Preparation of street improvement pians and installation of all
~ improvements for Webater Street, in accordance with the approved
staadard plaas on fiie:in !he office of the City Ba~~neer.
7. Payment of $2:00 per froat foot for street lighting purposes
on,WebBter Btreet,
' '8, Time limitation of one hundred eighbq (180) days for the
accomplishment of Item Nos. 5, 6, and 7.
.
~,
, {.,._ ti
4 ~:7 4
. ' .
'a
. .. .
~
~ ~
- ~ •.
~
~
`
~
r~?' `~r * . .. .
~ . .
. .
~ ' ~ . .
~ . .
.
. . ,
. .. ~
~ . ~ .. ~ . . . . , .
y, y
Y _
~ T~" ~y .
. .
~
. . . ~ . . . _ .
. . ~ .
'~.~.1Ja_~I . . .
~
'~y#y~'~' ,. . . ..
~ .
. . . . .
~ , . . . ~ . .
. . . . . . ~~ . . .
.. ~ . ' . ~ .
+
.~ t .. ~: V ~ ' '
~ '.:~ . . . ..
• . . . ~ . . • , .
.. ' . ' . . , .' .. ~ .
~
~
+ '~
,Y \
}~. . .
~ ~ '~. ; ~ . . .
., ~:~. . . .
' ..
. . . . .
. . . . . ~ . ~ '~ . .
h1 '. .
j ~, . '
~ ' .. . . ~
,.
. ' '. .
' . .~ ~ - .
. . '
~,(
r~f.~~n ~'1 ~~vr' 5... .
CYL.~.(~ ~ ,
., .
y . ~ . . ~ . . .._.. . . . .:. ~ . .. . .
~.1rl:.~rWL'~:JY:.~{..~Si'., ~~:;~'U~.i~.~"i1~.h.. ~,:.~ ~~ ~E,.. _/..~Y7 G.~ ~It~L~„~~ ll.~.t::q:`A~j~.,KT„_}.'~`,.`~,~:rv ,.:~
~ ~.
,:I
3
~ , _._ _ ;
ti
~ ~
381
F . .I
.:t~NiITIONAL USB - The foregoing coatlit~ens were recited at the mee:ing and were
` ~ pBRMYT N0.` 150 foumd to be s aeiar'ssarq prerequisite to the use of Yhe proper~;y
~ Continued in c~rder to p=, ~ t~rve 'the safety actd r?elFare of the citizer.s af
~. (1 the ~i~Ly of Anab,elq~. .~
F ~
~ ~~ Or rolt aall tH~e fozegoing resol~fion was passed b;* #he follo•xing
+ v~te:
~...~.y~ AYBS: i^.t;MMISSIONPRS: Gauer, Afu'ugali, 'debley, Perry, Summers.
NOBS: COh9~17.S3I0N8RS: Alired, M~3;:ris.
ABSBI~'P: C(WMISSIONHRS: Hapgood, Marcoux,
COPIDITIONAL US8 - Subject ~etition continued uatil lal:er in the meeting at the rex~uest
PBRMIT N0. 151 of the petit.ioner~s P.xent, David S. !:ollins.
'~ COM?ITIONAL USH - PUF¢IC F~ARING. ~~tition submitt~~~ ~~y AS~I~TAA`CS LBAGUB OF t-t;A1t~3M,
~ PBRMl'T N0. 152 1.341 West *.a 7~a?ma Avenue, Anaheim, Califor.nia, awner; requestin,~
F~ermissi~n tt, BXP,4ND. BXISTING THItIFT sHOP AND ADD RF~S'i Rfq~i PACi'LITIi:S
~~n prop,,rly,described ase An irregularly shaped parcel with a L`~•r.ntage
of i35 feet~ ~^,~u:ed on the north s~d: ~f La Palma A~enue ~etweea
; H~erma:;~ Drivc;.~nd A*bor Streefi and extettding ncrtherly for aa aw:rage
: dep.h r,f 270 fs:c#e its southeast r,orner ~_•~c~g approx~.mately 100 feet
, wes~ -~f th2 northrvest corner of Hierw~sa Driv~ and I.a Palma Aveaue ~
attd .urther described as 1341 West La Pa1~a Av~eaue. Property
preaently classified in the R-3, M!7LTIPLB PAMILY iiBSID&'VTIAI,, 2dNB.
Mrs. Charles Bust~, President of the,Aasiatance League, appeared
5efore the Coauoission and deacribed tihe ~ropoaed ~conat~:uction of aa
a~idition to th~: existiag aon-coaforming tarift sho;,; 4he additio~
, of restrooma, and the expaaaion oE the existiaa pa;cking lot at the
rear of t2~ building. Mra. Bush ste;;ed ~:.hat the ad;iitional apace
was ae~ded in osder to display me*.chand~oe aad for siorage purpoaea.
Sh~e ata~ed that parking space ccripes ~ouid be paiated in the parkiag
~ren.
TFl'F HBAFtING k.4S CL03BD.
The Gommission reviewen ~evelopmeat pl~n~ aad discsasec; the ex3stin3
non-conforminP uae in an R-3, Mult3ple Pamily Residea#ial, Zoae i°or.
which there was no record'availabie indicating itP establishment b~
, variance. !!re; Bush staYed that the organization was a philanthropic
group, thafi all merchanuise was donated, and thafi 4he services prov~:ded
were of a voluateer nalruse.
Asaiatant City Attorney Joe Geis!er adviseC the Commiesion that prior
ico the amendment ~f 4he,Zoning Ordiaaace, a fraterns~l organization
or socie~`y, auch as the Assistance Lrague, was parmitted ia an R-3~
~ Mult.ipie Pamiiq Re9idential, 2one, and that the sub~ect Petitioa .
f~r Conditioi~sl Us~ Permit would:permit,the expension of #ha clubhouse.
He atated;'however, that the tLrift shop might be considered a
commercial uae, which would require a variance in oxder te expaad the •
o~aratian~ ~~nlesa iL wran mesely incidentai to the operation of the'
clubhouse~scad could be coneidered to be included in the.general
termfnoloEy or ciubhoudc activity. He indicaLed that it would require
research in order to determine the exact status and nature of the
exis:ing #hrift shop.
'r~ 4.'Rt"'!'"'Y,~k.,`'ik~,.~H . .~:~:•....a.`t f n4.. ~~a s a^c ;~oNh,~.~~ Rt~.•
t S. ~~ SL iL. .i~. -''1 . .-}-.:.. .M.
4
.~ 1
1 :' 1
-. .~
~._. __.: ~~.a' .. .. , ~ . ~ ~,~ . , . . .... . ~ . ~ .. .,...~..m::K~,.~~.4: -.., ;
. . ... ~ . . . ~ . .
~ .~.. .. . . /. ~ . .
.. _ . . ... ' . . . \J . . ~'~ ~. ~ ~~ ~. ' ~~~~ .. ~ ~~•
~
382
~. I MfNU1~3S~ CITY PIANNING CQMMISSION, September 6, 1961, Continuzd:
Continued
t ~~~
F ~
, t
The Commisaion faund and determined the following facts regarding
the subject petition:
1. That the propose3 use is properly one for which a Conditional
Use Permit is authorized by this Code, to vite ~To establish
the Assistaace League Thrift 3hop as a conformiag use and to
permit its expansion.
2. That the proposed use wi11 not adverseiy affect the adjoining
land uses and the growth and development of the area in which
it is.proposed to be located.
3. That i`; size and shape of the aite proposed for the use ia
adequate to aliow the full development of the proposed use
in a manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the
peace, health, safety, and geaeral welfare of the citizens
of the City of Anaheim. '
4. T::at the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose
an uadue burden upoa the streets and highways designed and improved
to carsy the traffic in the area.
5. That the granting of the~Conditionai Use Permit under the "~
conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the
peace, health, safety, and generai welfare of the citizens of
the City of Anahetim,
6„ ~::at no one appeared in opposition to s+abject petition. `
'Com^:.ssia~r I~ngall offered Resolut:;.on No. 71, Seriea 1961-62, ~
' ar.d moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Peb2.~y, to grant Yetition for Conditional Use Permit No, 152, sub3ect
'
, io the :
olYawi~ - conditions;
I. Ir.stallation of a six (6) foot masonry wail along the west, north, '
and Past boun3ariFS of subject property.
~. Provision of parkr.ag in acc~.-dance with Code requirements.
3, Developmeai 3ubstantz..ily in accordance with Sxhibit Nos. 1, 2,
aM 3. ,
, ~~. Payr:~nt of $2.OQ per front foot for street lighting purposes on
La Palma Aveaue.
5. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the '
accoarplishnient of Item No. 4. `,:
The foregoing coAditions were recited at the meeting attd weWe found ,
~
to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the praperty in order
to preserve the safety and-welfare of the citizens of the Csty of ~
Anaheim. _
On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
-SYBS: Cf~A1ISSI0IJHRS: Allred, Gauer, Morris, Mungall, Pebley,
Perry, Summers.
_
Ni?BS : _
CQ~tiS3I0NaEtS: Notte. ,:
,
oBSEN'~: COK!~tIS8I0NBRS „ Hap'good, MarCoux. ` ~
y _ ~
.. ~ . ~ ~ ' . . . . . . , .
. . . . . . .;;
t
:~Y
. ~l iY
' 'i' . . . . . . ' . .
~ ~~ . . ; . .,.
.-.
!
~ ~. ~ _ , :'
y ~C
t~
`k"!
i : .. ..~~, .,~ :' ' . ~ ~~ \ Y ~.
~.. ..~ , 1 ~. ~~ ~- :' Y ~.~ ~, .
t ~, ~~~
~
4~r'Y'TrE~' ~>_1 ~':.'I P+~:?\I ~ '~~~'ri ~. r+.- .f~.~.-T~ ~,. A~ I V y R ~ ~^(3 3YY ~ ~ t ec ~r~em.~..
.~'~.'_~ ~°a4, .'~~1' . ,.,:~ 4 M.. . /, :.r'._.ree."~~.,~-..u..~,~}:.` iai2,,;1'rs __.. q ('~"~
~s
_ ~ i~
i
~
,~
5
,~
~
MINUTSS, ~ITY PIANNING CQMMISSION,September 6, 1961, Continued:
CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC FIDARING. Petition submitted by M. A~RCURIO, Qxner, c/o (
PHRI~lIT N0. 153 LSONARD SMITH, 125-D South C1Audina Street, Anaheim, California,
Aathorized A~ent; requesting per'mission to BSTABLISH RESTAURANT
ANll COCKTAIL~LOUNGE IN M-1, L'fGHT MANUPACi'URING, 20N8, on
property described ss: Parcel 1: A parcei 130 feet by'203 fNet
with a frontage of 130 feet on the north side of Anaheim Road between
Miller and Dowling Street's; its southeast corae* being approximately
650 feet west of the nor~hwest corner of Miller Street and Anaheim
Road. Parcel 2: A parcel 10 feet by 213 feet with a frontage :
of 10 feet on the north side of Anaheim Road between Miller and ,
Dow.liag Streets; its southeast corner being approximately 640 feet
west of the northwest corner of Mi11er Street and Anaheim Road and
further described as 3291 Bast Anaheim Aoad. Property presentiy
classified in the M-1, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, and P-L, PARKING
IANDSGAPING, 7.ONHS.
Mr. Lponard Smith, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
Comdcission and described the proposed construction of a restaurant
witn a cocktail lounge, lie indicated that the subject petition
was necessary because of the emergency ordinance, which was adopted
before plans and Sicensing for the proposed use had been compieted,
and that prior to the adoption of the ordinance it would have been
permitted on the subject property. He stated further that the
;estaurant woald fill a.~need in the area, that it wouid serve
approximately 66 persons in the dining room, that the cocktail
area,would accommodate an additional 22 persons with the seating
capacity at the cocktail bar for 23 persons, that banquet rooms
would be provided in the future when required, that parking would
b8 provided in accordance with Code requirements, that additional
parking area would be provided when needed, and that a study of the
area indicated that a three-par golf course might be a suitable use
for property at the xear of the subject property~to be developed at
a later date.
THS HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
The-Commission reviewed developmen~ plaas aad the petitioaer's agent
indicated that there wouid be a divider between the cocktaii lounge
and the dining area and that a divider would be provided between
the dining area and the proposed future expaasion of the dining
facilities. He also indicated that there was a 50 foot Parking-
Landscaping Zone on Anaheim Road and that 20 feet of landscaping
would be provided in that area along Anaheim Road.
The Comrrission ~ound and determined the following facts regarding
the subject petition:
~ ~
~
384
MINUTES, CITY PIANNTNG COMMTSSTON, September 6, 1961, Contittued:
CONDITIONAL USB - 4. That the traffic geaerated by the proposed use will not impose
PffitMIT N0.'153 an undue bµrden upon the streets and highways designed and
Con~inued proposed to ca=,ry the traffic in the area.
5. That the granting of the Cond3tional Use Permit under the
coaditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the
peace~ health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens
of the City of Anaheim.
6. That the dedication of 53 feet for Anaheim Road was acquired
as a condiLion of approval of Reclassification No. 59-60-66.
7. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioaer Alired offered Resolution No. 72, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Morris, to grant Petition for Conditional U3e Permit No. 152,
subject to the following conditions:
1. Provision of landscaping in the P-L, Parking Landscaping, Zone,
into which the southerly portion of subject praperty is
'classified, plans for said iandscaping to be submitted tu and
subject to the approvai of the Superintendent of Parkway
.Maintenance, said landscaping to be installed prior to
Pinai Building Inspection.
2. Development substantially in accordance with Bxhibit Nos. 1
and 2 with the stipulation that the'plans for the proposed
sign are not to Se considered as a portion of subject petition.
3. Preparafion of street improvement plans and installation of
all. improvements for Anaheim Road, at the time of development,
in accordance with the approved standard plans on file in the
office of the City Bngineer.
4. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting.purposes
on Anaheim Road, at the time of development.•
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were
fourid to be si necessa;y prerequ3.site ta the use of the property
in order tr, preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the
City of I.naheim.
Oa roll call the foregoing iesolution was passed by the foilowiag
vote:
A'YBS: COhMIS3I0AIDRS: Allred, Gauer, Morris, Mnngall, Pebley,
Perry, Summers.
~
•>~~
' ~ :~
~
~ ,1
:,
7
1
S
,
5 v ~" f ( ~' . ~ ~ ~~j._ ~^~,vk~ :~.._~.r~'~.~+U. .C'~s.:.~atax '.~: ~~(~.,~:k. _Ti'b7 ~i:5.'J~~1.~ A~.:~£.~~t~~a.ri"l~+~ll.h~~~.
y
. ..`, ;
~;,
~
y
z} ~
,
^
_ .
F ~ . .
• .
[ N
~
~ - i~. ..Ir '~.'`i.F '~ .~. . . . . ~ .
~ , . . . . . .~ . .. ;:5 F~ , ~M~ .
~ ~ . ~ . ~ . . ~ .. . ~ . ~ . . ~ ~ ~~ -
~ ._. ~_:,. -
..~ ~... .. ' . . . . . ,
. _ . ~ .. .... . ~ . .
. . . . '
. -
. '. •~ ..'~:
~ l _ _ _ .. _
6
~ ' . ~ . ~ . ~ ~
. _ - . .
~ - .~ ~ . .. , . . .
. . ~ . . . .
. ,
~ _
. 385
~
~, MINUTHS, CITY PIANNING
.
i
COhA4ISSI0N, September 6, 1961; Continued:
'
i CONDITIONAL USH -
PBRMIT Mr. H. R. Harrison attosne re resentin the
~ Y p g, petitioners,
~ N0. 154 appeared before the ComQiission and displayeJ a rendering of ~e
~ ~ Continued proposed multi-story hotel to be constructed on the Disneyland
Hotel grounds to be operated in conjunction with the existing
' hotel facility. He stated that most of the property was already
covered by variance for hotel-motel use on three of the four
Fs':?`,' lots contained in Petition for Variance No. 289, I,
I
~~;:;t,~;~ Mr. Weber, the architect for the petitioners, appeared before I
- ~` t th~ Commission and displayed a plot plan of the proposed '
development showing the relation of the building with the
park site, He stated that the building would be 125 feet
~ in height, including the top of the outside elevator tower,
with the actual top floor being 119 feet in height. He stated
_ further that the heliport on abutting property to the north
woiild not be involved, that the golf course will border the
hutel on the west side, that temporary parking facilities are
;ivailable~that additional parking for 400 to 600 cars will be
;.: n~ade available by a shuttle service from the driving range,
_ tiiat the building will contain 145 units with 95,000 square
fe.t gross floor area, and that a cocktail lounge will be
provided in the hotel but that all food services will be
provided in the existing hotel.
r .
The Commission discussed the nomenclature of the requested
hotel-motel building and the petitioner's agent stated it
was stipulated thus because that designation was contained in the
2oning Ordinancey.^ad that the proposed hotel would bc opezated in
the same manner as the existing hotel. The Commission discussed
at some length the amount of parking that would be sequired for the
proposed development~ and Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler
advised the Commission that parking facilities cou].d be provided
on adjoining parcels~as long as the properties were under one
control and the parking.requirements were tied in with the
Conditional Use Permit as a condition of approval. It was pointed
out that Code parking requirements 5*ipulate one space for each
3 rooms which woutd.require 48 spaces for the subject petition.
The Commission also, discussed the height requirements for buildings
in the subject area and it was noted that a maximum height of 115
feet had been es#ablished~ based upon the ground elevation and the
line of sight frnm the Disneyland Park. Mr. Weber indicated that
- the ground elevation of subject property was 10 feet lower than that
'..
' of property located 2asterly of Harbor Boulevard and that the proposed
~. constractionj outlined in subject.petition~would actually be the same
~'
elevation in respect to the line of sight policy.
~ Mr. Chapman, engineer employed by ~the petitioners, appeared before
the Commission and explained tl~e height of 1:he proposed development
~ in relaiion to the surroundzng area.
~.,
~ THH HEARING WAS CLOSfiD.
-
~
~~,
s F
,
' ~ ~ . . '
: . . . . . . .. . ~ . . ~~ ~ . .. . .
r
L
v~ ;
~' ? ~ ~~
:
' ~':~;_~
~~
~u~?l~'
~ ..
N~"u~ , Y. g~ . - . ~ .
~ ~ t
~~r`l
'
~ ~ ... ~
. ~ ~. . . ~
~rr~,~ 1 ~.~ ~
' . .. . . . ... . ~' ~ . .~
~
-
!
lr4
C^'
,. i
. ..~:..i .
. .
.
' .
. .
~.
. .. .
~ ~~ ., : • '..'
:
•
~
' '
~
~
~ ~.. .. .~ : .. . . ,... :
,
. . . .
. ~ .
. .
. . . . ' .
sp'Sli' .j ~
F'.i~5 is~. I~
5 -
~.. :. . ., .
. .. . .
. .
~ ~
,
1
~~~. ~
~~-y,r ~
'~~rrr,Fl~,µ{~
S
._: ,,, ~
, ~.. ,
t ~~~
: ,.
, ,. , :
.
7
9 ,
~{ L ' y:.
t ,~~~L
~
~ .
.
. ~. ,~. .. .., ~. . . z
. . . .~ : lt L
~
',."~.,1. ~e r~.'. : . .i'i~i. s.., .. i ~ c r.. .,._~r!..iar ..e . ~,:s , .~.._ a«.~u._., ,,.. ..,'-~w.f.~.U"s~.~'..~~.iv'µ.~r,~.. :~i'i ~.~'~ . . . .
5~ ~~ x!r ~ C ~ f ~l: .i^ ; t".: yy 1,y: A ~ ~,/E5~ ::'~:~'°i~Y~e~'`"~A'.'.. . ~, :a:9i'a.'r".yp'.1 ''i~ ':•y:Ai,'6y~8r....-. 4~,4 c l
~ r t ~` 3 !
5 ~' ~ ~ ~
{ c
~
~ . . ' ~. ,~'.q T ~~. +. .';-'~^ ~.41s: ~ .
. .. ~ ..5:"s ~ ~ ..
..
. .. p ~ ~ ., ~ . .~~ - . .. ~. .
~~
~ . .
~
'
~ ~ ~ .
.
~
~
~ . ,.
.
. .
. .. .
~ - . . . - . . .
~
~, ,
,
, .
~ ~ . . . .
:... _ .. . . . ~ . . . . . . ~ . .. . . '
. . . . . . ~
...~:: .. .: _~~_.
- - .. . . . . .. . . . . . , . . . ~ ~ . ~ ~ . . . ~r-.
~. ...
_~-
4 . 386 ~..:
~"
F MINt33'aS, CITY PIANHING COMMISSION, September 6, 1961, Continued:
~
~ CONDITIONAL US~ . - The,Commission 3iscussed sidewalk requirements and Plantting
~
PBRMIT N0. 154
Director Richard Reese,pointed out that the wa3ver of aidewalk
~ Continued requirements was a temporary waiver`similar to those granted for
variaus-~nd~[strial sections aad that when the pedestrian traffic ~
~ ~ warranted the installation of sidewalks, an asaessmeat district
would be established for the provision of sidewalks at that time
~ .
The Coamission indicated, however, that they considerec+, sidewalks
i;:: necessary for that area abutting Walnu4 Street.
~
'
' The Commission found and determined the following facta regarding
;. ~,'~.;•.
~.,';
;
~ the subject petition:
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional
Use Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: A high-rise
1
~
~'~ hotel building witb a cocktaiT lounge therein.
~ . ~ ~ - .
~
~ - ~
. . ~
~.
.
~
1
r<r . . '
.
~
2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoi.iing . .
~ land uses and.*he growth and development of the area in which
_t is proposed to be located. '
3, That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is
adequate to allow the fu17. development of th: proposed usE
in a manner.not detrimental to the particular area nor to the
peace, health, safety,.and general welfare of the citizens of
the City of Anaheim. •
- 4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose
an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and
proposed to carry the traffic in the area.
: 5. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit nnder the
conditions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the
peace, health; safety, aad general welfare of the citizens
of the City of'Anaheim.
- 6. That the maximum height of tha proposed.building on subject
property sha11 be 125 feet. The ground level of subject
` property is 10 feet below the grade of_certain properties
situated southeasterly of Harbor Boulevard and Midway Drive~
~2rrefose the maximum`elevatioa oFsub;jecf'hoteT xili be' iden~;~.cai
to the'maximuQ elevation"of'a hotel-motel.recentiy appro`ved sou•~th-
east'eily of`the intersection of Harbor Boulevard and Midway Dri•ve.
~- 7.. Th.at !he re uired 48 Parkin s aces are
9 g p presently located on `"
• the a. 'rtuse golf course property approrred uader Conditiozi
l
a
_ Use Permit ~10: 96. :
. . ~ . - . . . ~ . ~ . . . ~ . ~ ~ i .. -
f 8. That no one appeared in opposi.tion to subject petition.
Commissioner pebley offered Resolution No. 93, 3eries 1961-62, and. ; ` `
` .
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Munga:,:i,
to grant p~etition for Conditional tlse Permit No. 154, subject to the ,
~ Y. following conditions:
I
_
_ _
;
.
~, ,
1: That'the maximum'height..of the proposed building shall not
c~ K';s; exceed 125`feet above grade level. which sHall include L±+e .
~
~r,{ occupiable area,'pliis any. spires or structures placed on the ~
'
,~, `~,.~`.; ~a
r a e~'~,_ .~ top of the building
~ , ~ ... .~. . ~ ~ ::. ... ~ .. . ~ ,
,
~{ ,~'~',~
. 2;', Development;substantiall'~:in accordance with Bxhibit
s
1
2 ~
:
~
`~''
~ No
.
and
, i
,
;
t
4~
.
a~G,y" s~
t
~
~k~ " ~~
`
aiy .
. . ~, . .; e
~~. .). . . . ~~~ tv
~ ~' ',.:L'.:
y k
IS 1
~
`
V
~
L
~§
~.+
.w
¢
~
i{
}~V tt `l J 'I~ _
~~`~"~Y f ~. ~
,i~ }.
S W ) . ~.+T,l: `( . _
/ u ~',
/ t.'
1 ,
4 ~~` 7`~V,}.
'°'r.~~1711 "4~./~
`
" '
~ '~ .-;. '~.. . . '
'
.
~
~
~
~ A. y'~y
' r ~ ,
~
r~
(
a~, i%
l
~'~ ~kr~ 3
~ ~~ai~: .
~
.
..
,
: ~
L„xn9 r-'T`"` Y ~ - °+ "" r # ro r ,~z'"i"~""~
~ ~'1..~~'+kw.::,%, ._..T ... .. _ ._ .. . . ....~. _..... ,,,.. .... ,. ....,.,..,...«...r, ..... _, _. _. .._ .~_ _~. +~.~^:~,?~rn `wt,'s...'~:~. ., ....., ~'_w r
E~
a ~ ~rr*'~
~,_. ..r . f .
387
CONDITIONAL USB -'3. Provision of parkiag in accordance with the requirements
pBRMIT N0. 154 of the Anaheim Mur.icipal Code.
Contiaued
4, Iastaliation of paving oa the easterly aide of Walaut Street
in accordaace with the approved standard plaas on file in
the office of.the.City Hnginee'r:
S. Preparation of street iaprovemeat pians and installation of
~ all impro'ements for Walisut 3treet, including sidewalks,
from the southeriy ettd of existing improvements to the
~''~'>,~ southe;ly property liae in accordance with the approved
~~~'.~ standard plans on file in the office of the City Bngineer.
~ ,~ ' .
~ 6. Paymet~t-of $2.OG per front foot for street lighting purposes
i on West St~eet, Cerritos Avenue, and Walnut Street.
~
~
7. Dedication of 45 feet from the monumented centerline of
~ _
~ Walnut Street (20 feet existing).
.
;''
8. Time limiLation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the
~ accomplishment of I~em Nos. 4, 5, 6, and 7.
The foregoiag coaditions were recited at the meeting and were
~ found to be a necessary.prerequisite to the use of the.property
G
~
in order `o,preserve the safety and welfare of the citizeas of
~ the City of Anaheim.
G On roil call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
~ vote: •
AYBS: GONA(ISSIONIDRS: Allred, Gauer, Morris, Mungaii, Febiey,
~
Perry, Summers.
'
.' NOBS: CONAfISSIONBRS: None.
'
; I ABSBNT: COH4IISSIONSRS: Hapgood, Marcoux.
3
,~~
?'7
' . . ~. . ~ . . . . ,. ~
~~ .t .
~ ~- ...... ... . _ ..
.
.. -. . . . . -. .
. . : -. . . .. . ~. .. ._. ._ . ... .. ~. .
' . ~ . . . . .
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING CObAMISSION,'September 6, 1961, Continued:
3$$
.,
~~ CONDITIONAL USB - Mr. Joseph;An#on, Commandant of the Anaheim Legion Post,
PERMIT N0. 155 ' appeared before the Commission and stated that they planned to
Continued add a storage roo-n and manager's office at the back of the
i existing structure, that they would remodel the inside of the~
~ hall, that air conditioning and acoustical ceilings would be
instailed in the building, that the windows would be permanently
sealed~ and that the improvements would be of benefit to the
~ ~~tt , ; °' neighborhood.
THS HBARING WAS CLOSBP.
The Commission reviewed development plans and discussed the
provision of landscaping and cemented areas in the parkway
aiong La Paima Avenue and Lemon Stree*. The installation of
tree wells was discussed at some length. Thc Commission also
discussed the Interdepartmental Com~uittee recommendation that
sidewalks be repaired after the installation of tc~lephone
conduit on Lemon Street. Assitant City Attorney Joe Geisler
advised the Commission that a requirement could be imposed stipuia-
tittgthat the,hazardous or dangerous sidewalks shall be repaired or
replaced with the provision however, that said repair or replacement
may be postponed until such time as the telephone conduit installa-
tion presently contemplated shall have been completed.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
the subject petition:
g
i~
J
1
S
S
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional
Use Permit is authorized by this Code: to wit: to establish
~ the use of the American Legion Hall as a conforming use and
to permit its expansion.
2. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining
land uses and the growth and develupment of the area in which
it is proposed to be located. •_
3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is :
adequate to allow the fuli development of the proposed uae
in a manaer not detrimentai to the particular area nor to the
peace, health, safety, and generai welfare of the citizens of
the City of Anaheim.
4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will not impose
an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and
proposed .o carry the traffic in the area. ~
. 5. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the condi-
- tions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace.
heaith, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City
o£ Anaheim. _
6. That the Anaheim;Legion Hail was.established and was att allowable
use on the subject property before the.adoption of the R-3,
, Multiple,Family Residential, Ordinance, which created_thereby a :,
' .. .
_ non-coaforming use of said propeity;,and that the proposed ~
impsovement of sai,d proper:ty will not change the present '
.. . conditions that exist on said proper.ty, but.'said improvements
_
_
.
, j
.
,.
will constitute:'an impiovement:`of the property thereby being ;
~ of benefit'to the.surrounding area....
~~ ~ a:~~
s`~
~ J
~ s`
~,
;
_,:. : -
'
,,
,
. ` ~.
, . . , ;
~
'. ~y.
r
'
~
'
~ ~' T ~ ~ - ~'~ ~' ~ ~' „~
r)
` `~~
._ .. . .
.. ' ~.. . . ',.. .
. :~; ' ~
~
i~ •..' '... ~ i31i a.a11~.,7 ' ..a..m.(iT'n'tt'.'Yaff.S.li ~v~~1L.~..erc"...~i'°:.?'`b.?C, d..1J..::.~:~35 ..lFx`d.~E.Gh:F.klti'[1A.ffiiM.w:.hntr~- :;... . i .
' t
~~
' S 1'1C ~¢,f~
..~..~~.'.~a..~.~t1k~9
~
;i
~
i
~
389
~ CONDITIONAL USB - 7. That verbal opposition was recorded by one owner of property
PffitMIT N0. 155 in the subject area.
Continued
j Commissioner Morris offered Resolutiott No, 74, 3eries 1961-62, and
~ moved for its passage and adoptio~, seconded by Commissioner Alired,
"~ to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit, subject to the
,, foilowing condifions:
1. Installation of landscaping, including trees, in the uncemented
parkway portions of the pianned highway right-of-way of Lemon
Street and La Palma Avenue abutting subject property, or the
provision bf tree"wells tfierein, plans fo="said laad§eaping' `
to be submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superin-
tendent of Parkway Maintenance, and installed prior to Final
Building Inspectic~n, with the number aad spacing of trees to
be determined by the Superintendent of Parkway Mainteaance.
2. Development substantialiy in accordance with Bxhibit Nos, 1 and 2.
3, Provision of parking space stripes ia the parking area on subject
property ia accordance with the open air parkiag space standards
on file in the Pianning Department.
4. Dedication of 32,50 feet from the monumented centerline of
La Palma Avenue, (30 feet existing).
5. Repair of damaEed and/or hazardous sidewaiks on La Palma Avenue
in accordance with the approved standard plans on file in the
office of the City Bngineer with the provision,•however, that
said.repair or replacement of said sidewalks may be postponed
until such time as the telephone conduit installation presently
contemplated on Lemon Street shall have been completed.
6. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (1~30) days for the
accomplishment of Item Nos. 4 aad 5.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting an3 were faund
to be a necessary'prerequisite to the use of the property in order
to preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of
Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing
vote: _
'.: ' i
•1
~ >.` I
'7
_::-;
i
~
390
MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COD4dISSION, September 6, 1961, Continued:
RBCIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by PAUL PLBTZ,
N0. 61-62-19 3302 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Owner, requesting that
property described as: Parcei No. 1: A parcei 135 feet by 140
feet with a frontage of 135 feet on South Street and Socated on
the northeasterly corner of South and Bast Streets; and Parcel
No. 2; A parcel 135 feet by 192 feet with a frontage of 192 feet
on Bast Street and its southerly boundary abutting Parcel No. 1
on the north,.be reclassified from the R-1, ONH PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAj.,
ZONB to the C-3, I~ffiAVY COhAfBRCIAL, ZONB for Parcel No. 1 and the
C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD COMMBItCIAL, ZONB for Parcel No. 2,
Mr. Walter Goodin appeared b_~fore the Commission and stated that
he represented the petitianer in respect 4o the subject petition.
Mr. Duncan Vanderbilt;, 705 Grove Avenue, appeared before the
Cammis~ion, submitted a petition cc,ntainimg 32 signatures, stated
he represented the property owner.s in the surroundiag area, reviewed
four past actions upon the subject property requesting commercial
development~which were den?ed, and stated that the pro;~erty was
purchased for speculation with the hope of having #he ~;oaing ciianged
in orrer to make more profi*.
Mr. Goodin, in rebuttal, stated that when the property was purchased
the future deve].opmerrt of the subject area was not determined, that
the subject property was adjacent to the freeway, that the street
was becoming a major street, that the corner was considered desirable
by.the oil company for a service statiott, and that under our system
af government the owner of the property was entitled to take a
chance on his investment.
The number of legal notices,and the.manner in which notices are
distributed~was explained by Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler,
who informed the audience that the only notification required by
State Saw~ and the; Municipal. Code~cvas that the public hearing be
advertised in the newspaper. He indicated, however, that in order
to provide an additional service to the community, the area was
posted and notices were mailed to property owners within a 300
foot radius of the subject propexty.
Mr. Goodin discussed development plans with the Commission and
indicated that at the present time the Richfield Oil Company was
interested in establishing a service station on the northeast corner
of South and'Bast Streets,' the Speedee-Mait Corporation was
intarested in estabiishing a smali market in a proposed commercial
building,and that additional stores would be added as lessees were
obtained. •
^ Y' .
~
391
~.` MINUTSS~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1961, Continued:
~:." .
i :
k . } R33CIASSIPICATIOdd
C, f '
N0. 61-62-19
~ Continued
4 • 1
~. ..
~
and street improvements installed~which wouid be of benefit
to the area, that the proposed business would increase the
tax revenue to the City, and that the company wished to
estabiish good public relations in the neighborhood.
Mr. Hugh Conroy, representative of the Speedee-Mart Corporation,
appeared before the Commission, distributed pictures of the
proposed design of the market, and described the type and
function of the market that was proposed to be established on
Parcel No. 2 of subject property. He stated that the location
was similar to the other areas in the City where Speedee-Marts
were established, that the market was known for providing convenient~
shopping and wouid serve the neighborhood by selling essential
items that were needed quickly in the homes in the area, that
the operating hours would be from 7 A.M. to 11 P.M. :very day
of the year, that the average sale per customer would be less
than one dollar, that it was a franchise type operation leased
to an operator, and that most of the customers would be men
rather than housewives.
A lengthy discussion was heYlrelative to the existing zoning in
the surrourding area and the purpose in establishing a P-L,
Parking Lan~~scaping,Zone across Bast Street to the west to serve
as a buffer between the industrial zoning and the single family
residential development located easterly of Bast Street. The
petitioner's agent indicated that residential dev.elopment on the
east side of Bast Street was not desirable because of the present
traffic flow on Bast and South Streets.
Mrs. Peterson, 135 Margate Street, appeared before the Commission
and reviewed previous t,yuests for commercial zoning of sqbject
property at which time the problem of the use of properties abutting
upon major streets was discussed at some length without arriving
at a definite solution to the prablem. She indicated that, in her
opinion, since the subject property contained five acres, it would
be developed for residential purposes if a wall were instatled along
East St~eet and if access to the residential lots were provided by
a strer.t entering from Crestbrook Place or if a cul-de-sac street
were pcovided. She stated further that approval of the subject
petition would permit the spread of commercial development along
Bast and South Streets and wouid~decrease the value of homes on
South Street. Mrs. Peterson outlined proposals for ingress and
egress of the industrial development located across Bast Street on
the east, stated that the heavy tsaffic presently in the area
would be increased by the proposed commercial development, that
additional driveways would create additionai hazard for the
children in the area, that there is an adequate amount of commercial
development already established in close proximity to the subject
property, that the propa~sed parking facilities would be inadequate,
and that the.use of a dead end alley for service trucks to serve
the proposed commercial development wouid be undesirable.
THH HBARING WAS CLOSSD.
The Commission reviewed development plans and discussed the proposed
Plan A and the alternate Plan B. Discussion was held relative to
the P-L, Parking Landscaping, Zone on the west side of Bast Street
extending from Water Street southerly to South Street.
'rSC.,:''.~'f,j3n.... t,.'~ ~. ...~ i . . ,...,. ~, t ~ ... . . .~ . ~.. . . /, i±;:: H ; ...... ,., ~.tYJ.#'~y.~n~ .~~ . .
I ".'
' i . .t.:"
~ ~ ~.
~~
,~
~
~ ~
392
~'.` MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COhAlISSION, September 6, 1961, Continued:
& ':
~
RECIASSIFSCATION - The Commisaion found and deteanined the following facts
!` ~ N0, 61=b2-19 regarding the subject petition:
~' ~ Continued.
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of
' ~ the above described property from the R-1, ONH FAMILY
- RBSIDSNTIAL, ZONB, to the C-3, HBAVY COMMHRCIAL, ZONS
(Parcel No. 1) and the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOb COMMBRCIAL,
. _ ZONfi, (Parcel No. 2).
s
~
2. That the pLOposed reclassification of subject property
is not nscessary or desirable for the orderly and
proper development of the community.
3. That the area extending easterly from East Street contains ~
single family re~idential development, and that the development
of subject propert~ for single family residential use would j
be compatible with the existing development, and would be suitable ',
for the subject property provided a wall were installed along
~ast S'treet.
4. That verbal opposition,, in addition to a petition of protest
~ontaininQ 32 signatures, was recorded against subject
petition.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 75, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Perry, to recommend to the C'ty Council that Petition fo.-
Reclassification No. 61-62-19 be denied on the basis of the
aforementioned findings.
On roli call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote:
AYBS: CQNMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Morris, Mungall, Perry,
Summers.
NOBS; COMhIISSIONHRS: None.
AB„RHNT: COMMISSIONHRS: Hapgood, Marcoux.
RHCIASSIFICATION
N0. 61-62-20
-?UBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by W. A. and OLI\'B HINRLBY,
31i1 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Owners; RICHARD GUTHBRY,
21~1 "B" West Ba}.1 Road, Anaheim, Ca19.fornia, Agent; requesting
that property described as: A parcel 150 feet by 150 feet with
a front~ae of 1S0 feet on Bail Road and located on the northeast
corner of Ba11 Road and Western Avenue and further described as
3171 West Ba]1 Road, be reciassified from the R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL
AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-3, HBAVY COhAiHRCIAL, ZONE.
Mr. Richard Guthery, agent far the petitioner, appeared before
the Commission aad.described the proposed construction of a
service station on.the subject property. He indicated that
the Qroperty would contain 125 feet by 127 feet aft2r dedication
of the intersecting streets, and stated that since the construction
~
393
~ ~ N.INUTBS, CITY PLANNING CQhAMISSION, September 6, ]961, Continued:
~
w: RBCF.ASSIP~CATION - He stated further chat the dwelling presently on the property
~~ j N0. 61-62-2U would be removed, that the proposed development would not be
+ _ Ccrntinued _ detrimental to the property val~es of other properties in the
1 area, that the subject property was not suitable for residentiai
~. • development, that there were other commercial uses in the sub'ect
~ area, that the oil companies considered the .ize of the ~
'~,, parcel
adequate for a service s2ation development, and that the develop-
~ ment would'not create ar, much of a traffic hazard as a liquour
~ ~' ' store or other t
4 ype of commercial deveiopment might present.
~ Dr, Carroll, 927 South Western Avenue, appeared before the
~ Commission and read and submitted a petit?~~n of protest,
~ coataining 22 signatures, against the subject petition. He
h~ ~ stated that he was the re resentati
p ve for the group and that
they were opposed to the proposed zone chattge for the establish-
` ment of a service station because of the reasons outliaed in
e' the petition of protest and because the area contained many fine
~ homes with which the service station use would not be compatible.
Tf~ HBARING WAS CLOSHD,
The Commission reviewed the plot plan submitted with the subject
petition and noted that a Petition for Variaace had been denied for
a service statioa requested for the southeast corner of Ball Road
and Western Avenue.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding
the subject pPtition:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification o~' the above
described property from the R-A, RBSIDHNTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE
to the C-3, HSAVy COMMSRCIAL, ZONB.
2. That th~ proposed recla~sification of subject property is not
necessary or desirable for the orderly and proper development
of Lhe community.
3. That the proposed C-3 Heavy Commercial, use of the subject
property for a service station would not be compatibie with
the surroundiag resideatial development due to its aize and
• lotation, but that because of its size and location at the
interaection•of Ball Road and Alestern Avenue, the subject
property could be developed for a suitable C-1, Neighborhood
_ Commercial, use limftec! to business or profess3onnl offices
only.
4. ?hat verbal opposition, in addition io a petition of protest I
containing 22 signatures, was recorded against subject petition. I
~
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No, 78, 3eries 1961-62, aad !
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Ailred, '
to:recommead to the City Covncil thaL Petitioa for Reclassificafien
No. 61-62-20 be denied oa tYe basis of the aforementioned findings, I
On roll call the foregoing'resolution was passed by the following vote~.l
: .AYBS: COMMISSIONERS: Allre~i, Gauer, Morris, ~tungall, pebley,
Perry, Sumi4ers.
NOBS: . CQAMISSIONBRS: None. _
ABSENT: COMMISSIONBRS: -Hapgood, Marco~x.":
.,,.-..-.---~-- , -
_vw_Y~i'~.) .........~.."!i~_+GO4...:.1~~. 1.~....1._}lr. .-.i'i,r......iY~..n.. 'Vwv...f~~.~..._...c~v...~Je~'4rl¢..tf~,~",L..,S.:~S~.s6..i.b}~rs. ...~.. 'L.'. ..... ~
t_ ~ _ ~~
r ~~ -
~
~ _.:•-:~ ~
, ._ .:'_:. j ;..' .
.
_ .~;~
~ _
, MINUTB.9, CITY PLAIJNING COMMIS3ION, September 6, 1961, Continued:
,,.
~ ~;
~
,,. .
~~ ', ~
i< ~
~
, ;~
;. ~
. ,
i
s
( ~
394 ~
i
~ ~ ~
' •
~
a
~
F
j RBCIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC I~P,RING. Petition submitted by,HARRY S. RINKBR,OWNER~
I N0. 61-62-21 10600 Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, requesting that
` i' property described as: An irregulariy shaped parcei with
. a frontage of 152 feet on Orange.Aver,ue and a frontage of
:~h~~'r;- 150 feet on Western Avenue and located on the southwest
~"" ~'r corner of-Orange and Western Avenues and further described
as 601 South Western Avenue, be reclassified from the R-A,
RESIDBNTIAL AGRICLRLTU1tAL, ZONB to the C-1, NBIGHBORHOOD
• COhAlHRCIAL, ZONB.
~ Mr. C1yde,Nichols, agent for the petiti.oner, appeared before
the Commissioa_described #he zoning and land use of the
surrounding`area, and.stated that the proposed development
at the southwest corner of the intersection of Orange Avenue
. and Western Avenue would be a suitable use of the land.
THB HBARING WAS CLOSBD,
i
~ ~~ i
, .s
~ "~
The Commissioa discussed a previous Petition for Reclassification ,
'
of: subject property to the C-3, Heavy Commercial, Zone which had
never.been completed, The petitioaer*s agent indicated that the '
petitioner was not aware that the reclassification had been ~
granted by the City Council. . ~
`Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler_inforiaed the Commission that ~
the Commission had denied Petition for Recla.ssification ^;fl. 60-61-43, a
but the City Council`had`approved the ieclassification limited to `~
service station use only and permitting,no.other type of commercial }
development. He stated further that the Council should take action ~
to 4errainate Petition for ReclassificaCion No. 60-61-43 at such ,~
time as the`subject petition is heard. j
' _ ' . :~
` The Commis~oa,reviewed past discussions in reapect to the advisiability -,~
of opposing proposed"com~oercial development'•in the immpdiate~ • • '.~
vicinity of school properties.
The Commissi0n found..and detemiined the following facts regardiag .~
the subject petition: `~
~~
L That the petitioner proposes a reclassificatiott of the above
~ - described property irom-the R-~1, RHSIDBNTIAL AQtICULTtRtAL, ZODffi ~
- to #he C-1,.NHIGHHORHOOD COM~4ffi2CIAL, ZONH. 'a
.. . . . . . . . ' '
. . . .:~t
.,,.. 5
.
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is aot . _
`t
~
necessary or de§irable for the orderly and;proper development j
' of the communitY. ~ ;
` 3, Thet the:proposed reclassifica~ion of subject property does )
;
not properiy relate to the zones and their permit6ed uses
locally•e§tatlished in close-pxoximity to subject property and . ~
to,the zones and their,permitted uses generally estabiished ,._„
. throughout.the:cowmunity.
::,` .. - .. : _. ; ` ,
' ,,. , . . ;: . , , ,:
;:
. .. , ;,:_
, ~
~r
~
:
-~
~, ~
' '
+}
,~
_ ~ r,.
i~
~ ~ ~
- z~
~
` ~ ~
'
~ .` ~ , t~ , ~ ~n`4kk
~
,
~
. . ~
... _ _ ..~....... ~.~_. .. .~.. .... .~..... ..,....:....... ..~........._..~.... . -- . . . .. . . .x......~ ... J:.... .., .
~• ' --
, { ~~~~..
i,_..5..~.5. ..,_+.
~Fn~l~ ~ J t J ~h • A 'i.~ "SV~~ ^' f'..~.~y, - f4fc[~~~C.~~T l~RL..!;ytY .}~y ~U.~. ~ w~is•t~Y... w'b.a~.~t it .
,~
'. 1^~ ']"
17 ~ ~
' h .
~ f
~ +
y
. _--". .~...~ . . .. . ~ . . ~ .. . . . ~ 1:~. M'
. .~
'~': . ~
~ . .
*
. .
~' , . ~ . . . .~ ' ~ . . .. ~~ ~~' .
~ . ;~...' . .. . . . .. . .. . ~. ~ ,. .~~ -. . . .~ _ . . . . . -: . ~ . . . . . . . ~ . . . - - .~ _ .. . ~ -
. . '
. . ~ .
'~. . '
'~~~
. . .
.
. . ~ . . " ~ . . ~ .
..
. . . . ~V
' :~~
395 y
. ~
~
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNING COMMI3SION, September 6, 1961, Continuede ,
_ .
i
~
I _
RHCIASSIPICATION - 4. That the subject pxoperty is in close proximity to the ~'d
:
j N0. 61-62-21 Western High School and the Savanna School District j
Coatinued . elementary school, therefore, residential development 9
~ of subject property would be more compatible with the , j
~ school properties than the proposed neighborhood commercial
i deveiopment. ,.~
~
x 5. That"Petition"'for Reclassification No. 60-61-43 is still ~~
~
'. pending for the reclassification of subject property to the
~; ':
G3, Heavy Commercial, Zone, therefore~ recommendation is ~
made that said petition be terminated by the City Council. `~
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. 77, 3eries 1961-62, aad ''
`
moved £o; its,passage and adoption~ seconded by Commissioaer Mungall, ~
to recommend to the C+t7~ Council that Petition for Reclassific9tfon i;i
No. 61-62-21 be denied on the basis of the aforementioned findings. 1
On roll caii the foregoing resolution was passed by the following ~
i vote:
~
, _,
AYHS: CQbAlISSIONBRS: Alired, Gauer, Morris, Mungali, Pebley, ,
~
PerrY. Summers.
NQBS: CQMMISSIONBRSe None. ~ ~
ABSHNT: CObA{ISSIONBRS: Hapgood, Marcoux. . ~
. ' . :~
~,, RBCIASSIPICATION - PUBLIC F~ARING. Petition submitted by MANCIL F. and HBNRIHITA HBLL, ~
~
; N0. 61-62-22 3434 Drange Aveaue, Anafieim„ Califnrnia, Owners; JOHN GOLLIAN, ~
~ 6310 West Coast Highway, Newpart Beach, California, Agent; requesting .
,
~
that property.described as; A parcei 120 feet by 320 feet east ~
of the'southeast corner of Anott and Orange Avenues, be reclassified ~
F from the R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTIJRAL, ZONB to the R=3, MULTIPLS :
~
PAMILY RBSIASNTIAL ZONS.
_ ~
~ ~
~ Mr. John Collian, ageat_for the petitioners; appeared before the ~
{ Commission, and described the proposed construction of.eight
~" single family"two'bed'room uaitg with attached ga~agea, eacfi ha"ving
a'liveable floox"arearof-927'•sqi~ar~ feet`.which•would-be 3n'~xcess
~ of'the^Cgde^requ3remefit of 800 squ~r~'fee~~liv8able^f3oof::area for
multipie famiiy resideatial deveiopment. { ,:~
F Report was submitted to the Commission which indicated that
A Staff t 3
.
the plans submittea aith the subject petition show single family ~ Y~
~ units rather,than multiple family residentisi development fo~ `
~
which the Code requires a:arinimum of 1225 square feet Iiveabie _
' ~
~ fioor. area. . I ~
The Commission ret!iewed the.development,plans an3 the petitioner -:;
, indicated ttiat he was not aware that the proposed construction
~`r did not coaform with Code requirements. 'Discussion was held,•
r` ~ ' relative to ;e.vising.the plans in brder to comply with'the.Code
r"r'~j~ F ~ and the Petitioner st'ated;•.that he would have revised plans
g 'c~ ,~
y y
~ ~
.
availabie fo=•,Commission consideration within two weeks.
~
~
~ ~~~
r,~ ~u ? .
,
~
~
E~~ ~ ~ {~
s,: _ _~
~
C ~'
x~:
~ , . . ... 4.
f f ~
r~ r+ r
l~
~ ~ ~
~~ < ~
t F~
F :
.~vbti ~ ).~
'
~ ~Y~
~ i S
r~ ..
M1 ~ u4 Y~ 3 i~ ~ :~;
:
,.. . . r
.~ F~
~h t tf' 1 1, t
,~'~ R ;*r~^,r
" ~ ~. _
~ !~
.?.`~a,
~~
aY.~Pe~„{,;'~,
~~
,~S
4
~-
~'~}
.. . ~ . . .. . ,
-
~; i•
r
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~~~
~
.
~; 14~ ~ j,
) ~~~~
.
~
S
b 4
"A$yi~ ~ ~
+
. ,
' ' ~
~ ~
.
~
' .,.
. ~
~
~~
, . ' ' ~
:,
:'
.,.,:
~~~
} . ~r~~'~a'tl~'
.
.
~
•
...~~ _
yy~
, ~~
~ ..~ z~.was.e.~w~r~~ 1'~iQ~l.k11.w14.'_.K~"A'~ Ml:d. t.4iN.~'7iI~Ji'.~V_. Y'J .. :1!'~i~~ Udu~~v.5`. _ f.9 (SG~fM~C/k~~ . lU!,~}I'PdACAiiW34A. .. . . ,.... . _.. ~ , h
_. M~.4Si'.~~
. :.i~S
F
Y f: ~ f..' . a~! x r.~~~i* C~ u .>
. ~,L.{. ~;.~~~Lr+'~ii bS .~~`~
2F i:hM, F~.1~; .-6 .yv.
.
.. S;~ ~
.~ ~. ~.ti ~
~ ^F
. . .
~ . ~ ' , .. ~ . . ,
, :~ . .. ,
~... ..' ~ ' .. , ., ~.~. . . . . ~ ~ i
~.~ ~-.i
.. ...
. ~ '- ,
. .. . ~ ' :.. .. .. ........: -:.:.,.. . ; . . .~:..r~v?~-.~..~...'.P". ;~ ., . . _ . ~ .
~~ ~~
.
.. . .
. .•
~ '
'1..
•.
.
. . ~. ~ . . .. ~
~ . . .. ....
:~~ ~ ... ~. . . _'. .. ~ ..
,
. ,
~
~
. . . . . .: . ..
. ~ .. .. - . . ~ . . . ti
t
396 i
~
MINUTSS, CITY PIANNI NG CQNAtISSION, September 6, 1961, Continued: ~
~ RBCIASSIPICATION - Chairman Gauer advised the petitioner to contact the Planning ~
N0. 61-62-22 Department for information and review o£ the development plans.
Continued
Commissioner Pebley offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner
' ~ Morris and carried, that Petition for Reclassification No. 61-62-22
_
1 be continued uatii the meeting of September 18, 1961 at which
° time revised plans for the proposed development of subject
4'.:'~~;'
~, , ~.:
~1;:.t.t. ~ property shall be submitted for Commission consideration. I
. . .
~
P.4 ~~r
tg.,y?i.:. . . ..
~I
. ~ . ~
`"":` CONDITIONAL US8 - PUBLIC HBARING. Petition submitted by MILDRED M. HAhMffitMAN,
PHRMIT N0. 151 4755 Robertson Boulevard, Heverly Hiils, California, Owner;
,; ;', DAVID S. COLLINS, 1077 West Bal1 Road, Anaheim, California,
Agent, requesting permission to BSTABLISH AN AUTOMOBILB RHPAIR
~
~ as: An irregularly shaped parcel
SHOP on property described
with a frontage of 90 feet located on the east side of North
Los Aageles Street between Adele and ~ypress Streets and
extending easterly to Claudina:Street; its northwest coraer
being approximately 132 feet south of the southeast corner
of Adele and Los Angeles Streets and further described as
'! 312 North ios Angeles Street. Property presently claseified
in the C-2, GHNERAL C~AfBRCIAL, 20NH.
Mr.`David Collins, agent for the petitioner, appeared before
ttie .ummission and informed the Commission tha4 an emergency
busiriess license had been issued for the operation of the
automobile repair shop on June 6, 1961 subject to the processing
of ':he subject,petition. He stated that simiiar action was
taken upon another parcel of property in the neighborhood, and
reviewed the past use of the building presentiy~on subject
property, indicating that the past use had been for an automobile
agency and similar uses in addition of a heavier use as a hosiery
mi1L He described the zoniag and laad use of the surrounding
area, indicating that the use of subject property would conform
with the existing development of other properties in the area, and
sta#'ed that, in his opinion, the propert~! should be classified in
the C-3, Heavy Commercial, Zone.
Tf~ HBARING WAS CLOSHD.
. The Commission discussed Interdepartmental Committee recommendations
relative to the remotral of trees and the damaged sidewalks. It
was agreed that the removal of the trees shouTd be at the discretion
of the Superintendent of Parkway Mainteaance in the event the
. sidewaiks conld not be repai=ed without temoval of .the trees.
The Commission inquired about.the painting of the rear of the pro-
t d' d' tdthtth f th
~
,
~
, ~
~
~
~
' ,~
.. ~
. I . -~
' ~
:j
~
. .~
~
- ~:,~
!.~ :1
~, p~~ty on Claudiaa Stree an, in ica e a e appearance o e ~
~ ~ , .'i area shouid be improved. ~ . ~
~
,.~ ~,
~
397
MINUTSS, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, September 6, 1961, Continued;
i.~ C0~'DITIpIVpL Ugg . - 2, That the proposed use will aot.adversely affect fihe
~ ~ pBRMIT N0. 151 adjoining land uses and the'growth and development of
~ Contiaued the area ia which it is p;oposed to be located.
~. ~ 3. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the
use is adequate to allow the full development of the
~;', proposed.use in a manner not det;imental to the particular
~ ' area aor to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare
`.
~N of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
~:~.~
;,.: ,:.,;::;5;
4. That the traffic generated by the proposed use will nc+t
` impose an undue burden upon the streets and highways designed
~ and improved to carry the traffic in the s:.ea.
, , ~.' :~;
~ 5, That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the
', conditions imposed, if any, will not i~e detrimentai to the ~
, peace, health, eafety, and generai welfare of the citizens •
of.the City of. Anaheim. '
6. That consideration should be given to the beautification
of the Claudina Street Frontage of subject property.
ii 7. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
~
~ Commissioner Allred offered Resolutioa No. 78, Series 1961-62,
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Co~nissioner
Summers, to grant"Petition for Conditional Use Per ' °
mit No
. 151
~
~
subject to the following conditions:
1. Repair of damaged aad/or hazardous sidewalks and curbs on
Claudina Street in.accordance with approved standard.plans
on file ia the Office of the City Hngineer.
2. Removal of trees oa Claudina Street if it is deter.mined to
. 'be necessary by the Superintendent of Parkway D:aintenance
in the event.of potential damage to the sidewalks. ~
3, Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the
accomplishment of Item Nos.'1 and 2.
The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were
, found to be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property •
. in order to preserve the safety and welfare of the citzzens of
, the City of Anatieim. . _ ,
- On roll call the.foregoing resolution was passed by the following
vote: -
AYHS:: COD4dISSIONBRS: Alire6, Gauer, Morris, Mungall, Peble,y,
Perry, Summers.
~
.. . _ - NQBS: . ` COMMISSIONB1tS: .' None. .
~ `
AHSSNT: COh¢~4ISSIONBRS: Hapgood,.MarcOUx,
, .
, -
.. -.
,
.
.
. ;.
>;- ,
_ ~
s ;t
t~
_.
_ .
. .. . _
;
~;
xir
~
, -,. .. ~;,: ., .. .
... ~.- . ~ ....
:' ~ .~
~ ~'
.
-
fsJ :
; ~~
3
t
~
.
.
~. .
.
,
..
., . . . , ~'~.. 1.~ ~nr1..~u. .,Ir1L>.r~ .u im I.nxn..t _ .e. ~ ~n._N.Mt.,e~ r.r... ~.>w.~ue~.~ .u.~.._.._~..~. _ _. _ . . . .. (
~
.
Y
y,
.. ~~l }i.r.5!~:~
fK z ~ : :. ~ t ~~ '`jy,~ ~ ; ,~Siia ~ ` ~.. ~'~w+`~.'~,.,`C~c~ ;~! o-~ *. ;S F'r"~Y~:. V ~'aa.~`~ ~~ { '
.> . . . ..~...
:,, ~
+ ~:~
s
5 t C, ~ ~
_ 1 ~
. -„ ~.:... ~_:~.:: .~,.~:, ~..;.. ~.rrn.,..'y'~ , ~t-~~
i ::< ', ~. .,
/, ' ~ ._ . ~ ~ . '.~
.. ~ ~Wi+ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~~, {~y ~ ~ , ~'~
~ ~. . . ~ ~ . . ~
,~: . ~ .. . .~
y , . . . ~ ~ ' ~ . ~ .. , ~ ~ . ~
__ . .., . . ~.. . - . ... .. : ... . . . . . . ~ . .'~
' 398 ~ ~
I .,
. . . . . . . . . . . ~ i
MINUTES, CITY YLANNING COhAlISSION, September 6,;1961, Continued: ~
' 3
~~
~• CQR1tBSPONDSNCS - Item No. l: LBTTBR REGARDING CHItCHHS AND LIQUf~t .ST~BS: I.'
~ j
i
~. A letter received from_Mr. Harry,Miller was submitted to ~ {
the Covwission: Said letter indica~ed approval of the ~ ~
j granting by the Commission of a petition for the estabiishmeat ?
~ of e church, He also referSed' to a lette= he had written, which '
-, was submitted to the Commisaion at the meetiag ott August 21, 1961~ ~
protesting the approval of a business proposing to sell liquor 'j
~' : in coajunction with a restaurant. ~
I Chairman Gauer read the letter #o the Commission and directed $
the Planning Secretaiy to acknowledge receipt of the letter and i
to thank the aender for his interest in matters affecting the ~
~±ty of Anaheim. ,i
Item No. 2; SOUTFffiRN CALIPORNIA PTANNING CONGRHSS MBBTING:
Notice vras submitted to the Coaimission relative to the regular
mee:ing of the.3outhern California Planning Congress to be
held an Thursday, September 14, 1961 at the Petroleum Club • ;~
in Long Beach, California. d
Item No. 3: ORANGB COUNTY USH VARIANCS NO. 4803;
Notice received from the Oraage County Planaing Commission relative ~
to Use Variance No: 4803 was submitted to the Commissioa.
;;~
Snbjecfi petition was a request to permit the construction of singie `~
£ami,iy dwellings and garages in the front and rear yards oa certain ~
lots within:a'subdivision~and a six foot wail siong the 13acoin ,.;
Avenue property.line instead of the permitted four foot wali~ ~-:~
in the A-1, General Agricultural, District. Subjec4 property ~
~ is Tract No. 4182 and is located on the southerly side of ~
Lincoln Avenue~ approximately 2200 feet eestezly of Rio Vista _.~
Avenue, east of Anaheim.
~
• A tract map of.the subject property and a Staff tteport prepared
by the Blanning Department were submitted.to the Commission. .'~
The report contained information in respect to the lot numbers att!
the various dimensions that were involved in the requested variance. ~
: ~
The Commission seviewed the tract map and aoted the unusual shape '~
of the lots and indicated that a sufficient amounf of yard area
would remain.~va~tlable on the.subject propestiea, i
';;_; ,
:h
Mr. David Coilins appeared before the Commission, stated that he had 'a
sold the subject property, and indicated, that.access would not be ~
provided.onto Lincoln Avenue from the tract.deveiopment. '~
Commiasioner Mungali offered a motion, secoaded by Commiasioner ~
Perry and carried, that the PlAnning Department transmit notice
~. ._, ,'~„ -` to the'Orange~ County Planaing ~oamis'sioa that the `Anaheim planni:g ;,~
r~ ~° Cominission recommeaded approval of Use'Variance No. 4803 as <.: ~:'
' ;; •submitted..
Commissioner.Summers left the Council Chambers at 10:30 0'Clock P.M.
{ ~a ~ _
,~ ~
~
1 ~~~x'~~`'.~i.M~ ~ .. .
' n.~~"+~"~' ~`
T
T.+;• ; ~ 47 y,
+ L ~
h'~ ~ . . . , ~ ~
f ' . . ~
'~i; +n :
1~
~.t.
r~ '~ ~~ - ~ .'1
+ t` sz
9!C L
F ~-{~ ~i e ~I ~~}
};~i:,* ~~, -i l ~
~~~y} 't ~-i
$~'Skf4t }. L ~' i~ -.., .:~. ~:~ . ~ :' ':y ~ri, ~
~~e~j ? 1 .i '~7n If . ~. t . ^ ; t~Q~~
.,~rY;s.~.x~: . . , .. is• Sr.~. .. 5»b~: ^-- _ .., ~«.. -, . ~H. ~ ., , y t_ Rr ;•t', a raL~4t,a~'.. ^..,s..dr. ~ a~.,,.;,. _ t.~it,? x~~vre r . ~ ., usra,y.,. `` . ti. n,.' . ~^~
~
: ' ... `.
~-:
'~:
~`
~~ .. n Y r. ~ . q s -s~ : ~. t :.-
::. ~ y~.
:: ...t
4st . ~ ~. ; ,r, :';„
~'~Lx'~w~t ..:ilfe~~} - ~ ir~r~ ~ _~'w'ri'GW yi ' ~~
~ 1y~
i1
.
.
.
, .
.
.
i
«~' ~'.:~
f; ~~ t
~
_ .~ g: i
-
~~ ~ .~.~~ ~
- ,
... ~_' ~'. ~
~ . ~~ ~
~
1
:~}i ".!
- -
~ ~ . .
. ~ ~ ~
_... . _ .
~
. . .
: - ~
~ ,
'f'i tr~ ~ ~ .
~, , : ~ . .. . , /.~ .~~~~.~' . .
~ . . . - ~ . ~ . ~ . . . . - ~ ~ . : .
. . . .
. . . . . . ~ _ _ . . . ~ : . . ~ .
. . . . . _ . . .
.. ~ .~.~~
• ...',i~
~. .
.
. :~.~
. .
...
. . .
~ ~ ~ ~ .. . . . . ~ . ~ ~ I
399
~ ~ ~ :
- . ~
~
-~
~ ~ ~~~1
~
.
MINUTBS, CITY PLANN3NG CahAlISSION, September 6, 1961,Continued: ; ~
``-i
4 . ;
gBp~tTS pND ' - Item No. 1: PRBCISB PLAN N0. 24-84-1:
RHCON4dHNDATIONS
~ Precise Plan No. 24-84-1 was prepared as a result of City
` Council Resolution No. 7097:"Deaying Variaace No. 1370 and i
j requesting the City Plaru~ing Commission to make a study of the ,'
- ~ ' area from the westeriy boundary of the alley just east of 1
Los Angeles Street, to the easterly boundary of the.alley
~ ~...,. ,..
~ just west of Olive Street and between Water and South Streets."
;
A request for Variance No. 1370 by Mrs. Theresia Rittelberger~
723 South Bmily Street to expand an existing second unit on the
rear of her property was denied by City Planning Commission
Resolution No, 282 C1960-61 Series). Appeai was made and
Public Hearing set for August 1, 1961 by the City Council,
Councilman Thompson suggested }hat a study might be made of
the area to determine if the owners might desire an R-2
Zoning for the entire block. Councilman Chandler.offered the
above noted Resolution No. 7097. The Resolution was duly
passed and adopted.
Fieid, aerial photo, land use, and zoning studies indicated
that any possible R-2 develcpment short of large scale removal
of existing structures could only be justified on a maximum of
seven of the ninety-one lots in the study area. Bxhibit No. 4
graphically illustrate how fragmented and unrelated such spot
development would be.
The Commission agseed, that based ott their field survey, the
study area possesses a good deal of character and stability.
Structures and iandscaping are very well maintained. Owner's
pride is quite apparent. The area seems generaliy free of through
traffic and well insulated from any disturbing influences of ~
nearby non-residential uses.
The Precise Plan report indicated:that while it might be desirab]e
to increase residential densities near central areas, it does not
appear that the type of R-2 development w;:3ch might be expected
to occur, if permitted in the study area, would reallp increase
densities to any measurable extent.
.~
'a
z
i
r~~ ~ ~ C
~}~ f :~,~ : .:~ ~h;c
d ar ~ '- r. ~ L ~.t~h`J~`~~`v~`' x ~.<w ~' "'~~~• `o~x. ti~a'y',~:`~. ~'' (. 5 ~~CN!~:'> ;
r~
~ ~.,
,
, .
. ;,~ ~
~
~~~ , ~1-,
~
g ~~
~:5~ ,
.
: ~ :.h: .
-_. .
_
~ , ..
,
. .
-
.:
'.,..~
~~~ t .
..
,
.. V ~ . - . . . .
~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ . .~ . ' ~ ~.
~
..'•
_ ...
~~~I
.'. . . .
~ . . ~ ~_.
~._..~. ~~.~
. .. -. : ~ . .~~ :'.. ~
..:. . .. :.. . . .. -
. ..
. ... ..... ....
. . :~~ -'::
..
~ .. ;~.
.
~ . ~ . . .. .. . ~ . . .~ . . 4~0. ~ ~ . ~ ..
MI(NPg4, CITy.piANNING COM+IISSION,,September 6, 1961, Continued:
~ ggp~~ ppp - Pollowiag considerable discussion of the Precise Piaa report:
ItHCOMI~NDATIONS Commissioner Mbrris offered a iaotion, secoaded by.Commissioner
- Allred and carried,`recommending the following to the City
Council ia order to preserve and even streagthen the phqsicai
~ appearance, character, and economic value of the study area:
~ `~ 1. That the City Council investigate the feasibility of the
c~~ ., formation of.aa assessment district to fiaance the paving
E~ and improvement of alleys.
x,.
~ 2. That the 4onstruction of new fences and/or solid masonry
walls and areas for the storage of trash barrels along the
~ , alleys be encouraged.
r -
3. That the°area continue to be classified~in the R-1, One
~; ` _ ~ Pamily Residential, Zone.
4, That.private interest in the,developmeat of second
dweli'ing units on individual~parcels such as requested
recently ia Variance No. 1370 be equated~ on the merits of
' each individual request, with the posaible effect of ihese
variances on,the generai welfare of the neighborhood.
Item No. 2: RHVIBW - Petition for Variance No. 1380:
P.. request for ciarification of Condition No. 3, of Resoiution
No. 21, Series 1961-62, which was a coaditioa of approval of
Petition for Variaace Na. 1380 was submitted to the Commissioa.
It was noted that the request was made by the Right-of-Way
Division of the Pub1iE Works Department and was regarding the
stipulation~in~respect to excepLions~for the required installation
of masoary waiis.
~ Commissioner•Alired offered Resolution No. 79~ Series 1961-62~
and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Pebley, to amend Resolution No, 21, Series 1961-62, biy the
amendment of Condition No. 3, to'read as foilowa:
Condition No. 3. instailation of a six t6) fooY masoar.y waii aiong •
ll boundaries of subject psoperty except for thoae
a
portions reserved for future street extenaion or
- where ultimate deveiopmeat wili require access to
•.` proposed S#rr.e,ts A and C. A two (2? year bond
may be poste;c-for said waii constructioa.^
Item No. 3: R8VI8W = Reclassification No. 53-54-9d
,
A request~ forwarded from the Cfty Couacil, that the Commission
pubiic hearing for the review of a proposed'pfian for ~
initiate a'
.
- - the properties`contained 3n Petition for Reciasaification .
No.:53-54=9~ was submitted to;:the Commission.
-.. . , ` ,. :
~: .?;
I .,
~
., ~ ~ . ,
,
- r '
_., ra `.i
- i j'
~, ~~ '
~ r4a;
" ! ~T-
r ~f'r
~ .:
-
' !
' fi,, aA
.: . , .. ".: . ~ . .. .., ,. . .. . '^'~{
.
; , '
'
.,~, . ':, . .
r n
1 , i~ X .~'.M .µ'. Y.~eA4.Y ~5.~~,''y~~,,~w~~;t:~LLC"~>.s tx~.~ +,~~r.~f~,: i f.t..t...:14aw NSl:Q.efksme./ac+~..l.v..w... .1...~v~ t, .:~~..x.` Y
.. . . ,.~. .r.~.:_,1 _ ~ ~,+c~i
.~+ ~ -' .f~ JL1
j n
~M
~ ..... .~_ ..~,
~
r~~{w.
~ 'i ~) r t ; ~'~~~~.:~.~'~G`~l~e.i+rr:i''"•;tis~isF.Yk.~.~K•'`'..>:;~.i.,r.. .1~'i'~.,Ct'~'~8,'~.~~~~.~.-..~.:ie~~'~;~'. :
y
~
x
^•
' +~.
-'1
,~
~~ 7~
^ ..
~
,..'~. - , .
. . ~:-, . ~
~ . _i:., ' -~ ~ , --~. :~:!
~ .:'.. ..:,,. -.,.. y . ~ ~
~
: ,` .~
.;Y 7 ~ ..
,
M ......•~:~i'. . . .._::
,: ~
~ d o:
~"
.~. _
_ : . _ .
-
~.: . . : _ ~ .
401 ~ .
MINUTBS, CITY PIANNItIG CONAdISSION, Septembes (~, 1961, Coatinued:
RBpOItTS AtJ - AssistanL City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission
gBCOMbffiNDATIONS that the proper,procedure would be to iaitiate said public
Coatinued hearing by'the adoption of a resolution and that the matter
be set for public hearing'~on October 2, 1961.
Commissioaer Allred offered Resolution No. 80, Series 1961-62,
aad moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner
Morris that the Planniag Commission initiate a pubiic hearing
for =econsideration of Petition for Reclassificatioa No. 53-54-9
concerning property located southerly of WatNr Street on the
east side of Sast Street:
p1DJp~tHI~SNT; - The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 0'Clock P.M.
" Res+~_ctfully submitted,
2
PAGB, 3ecretarY~
~~µ
:, .:
r?;:` `:;'
~ ;; :_.
K.=;~::<:°._. e
L ~ . . . . . . .. . ~ . . ~
-
~
~ ~
- ~
. .
.yj X .
- .
.. . .. .
~ ~ . .. . . .. .
~ '
.
;I F~~ ~. ~; . . . . .
~ `~~ . . . . . .
. ~
~
r
.
~r ~~,~
. .
r
f ~ ~. ~~~~ ~ . .. . . . ~
~*h-~. ~.~~M ' ' .
G4F_+~~F+T~ "`°1' , . '
t~
~ .
:
~
~
'~
c
j,
~
: ~ .. ' . ;l;I
~
p
~
^~t. . . ~ . ~ ., ~~ _ . ~
~
~~
l..
'
2 .. j . .
tfn
,. .. ,
x y .
' ~;
~..
S
Ci~~ i ~;_ `
A
I' ~ t T . +,~.r, t .
~j
~
u -
~ '
ti
.
t
~ ~
'
J~~ ,~~4
1<
S~~N ` F ~ t ~~~
'
~ i :
y. ~.
~
S
J ~
. ~
~
~ 3~,~, ' ~. {7 ~_
~~ i .
~. Y.,•.
. ,
,
- ... :
~'~ R c'~"ro , . .
~ ~ h
~
i:• . y~.,. A
i..3 t n .t~n t' ¢~ [ arLLl~n i~ .+~. .a Yna u I w ~ l ~ ~
.i,V1~.J1'x,-~ »..__ ~ .. .. .. `S-:an .+.1' . .....,1i< .. . ... .,., rlt+na:~n ..hY.tu.., . . ~ . w...... . w..... .s...,,..~"__. . ;.1...~ . .... ~. .r7!',
~
1
t ~„" .~~
..~..~ ~C Y~