The URL can be used to link to this page

Minutes-PC 1967/10/09~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~f ~~ P~ ~f` y~ ~ 7( ~"„1 ~.;v..~,~~ ~ .~~ ~`~ . ~ ~~{~ 4 ' '~~b.,rt' ~ ~~ ~' ~ s ~ ~ ~ ~ T t~~t~ r^y .~",+~y ~~".,k . 'KS f'~~y~` ~i1 ~i ~ 'Ft S ~ ~/ . ~ ~ ~ ,h ,~, ' r ~A ~1$ i~"' Sn ~ t c~ri} ~,N~7 r ,~ h v2i r.~ ~~,~f~~~~~ ~fa4:~;t ~~i^f k'G~l ~'~+~F r1 ~.. S .'i ~ ~ ~ k . .. ! ~ „~ ~ r ~ ~ X ~ ~~ ~ ' L ~~ 'S ~-„ Z ~~ Y :. "" ~1 rn7 bt t A .y i < ~ t ~ s,~ - .y?~ ~~t ~.~~_?~~~ i..v,A ~t~ ~ ~ _ 't `~ ty"~t i .`I ..~i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ' r , y _ .~ t 'r ~ ~ li ~ 6 ~ x ... -~ y u ti ~ ~ f 'al i-. Y. ~ ~.~.~ '~ ~ _ ( S~ f ll . .. .- .(~~ 1 1 r ~ ~ 'E w ii ~ v ~.g ~ ' ~ . ,~v e ~ r ~~ N.' _ 4 ~ ~ .. ~, '~ ~ ;~ ~4' { n. ~ ,.. . a~fi + ~ _ P ~ ~ ~ ~J' - J i • ~ t f ~ F } ~ k ~ ~' ` t 1 , ~ J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ., I 1 _ {'1 [ . .{ 4klk .{~ ~ - 4 • .p ~ ~- ~ f -f . ~ u ~AA~ .~.. ~ ~•1 5 t Y , ~ ~ ~-~ ~1 . f .~ } Y 1 ~;: ` " . ~ r ~ i ~ ~ ~ ~. ~~~ ; ~ ~~ , , ~ ~~ ~'*a + r ! ~~ r,~ X'~ t T~~ r ~~ r ~ 4" ~ ... . ..y ... . ~'y ~ . . . ' ' ' .. . ' ~ ( t :. .. ..' . .. .~ . .,'. . ' . . , ' - ~ ~ , ~ . ~ . ° . , . . ,. . . .. '' .:~.~ .., ~ ' rC ~,r:. ~ . ,_~. ... . . , , .~.~ . ~ . . ' . . ' _ . .. _~.{ ~ ' 5 _ . - ~ ~ . .- ;,= ^ ' ' . .. ~ . . ~ ~ . ~ ~'i a ; ° , a . .. . ~ . . - . . . _ . ~ . . _ . ~ ~ . - ~ ~ ~ ' ~ . ~~ ~' ~ ~ ~ - . . . . . . . . . .. ~ ~ . . ~ , . . . . ~ - . , . . a. .. ~.,,' •~ . ' ~ , .. .~~. ~.. . . , . . . ~. . . ~ . . . ~ ~ , . . ~~' ~ ~ . ~ - '- . 'r . . . _ , ~ .. . , . . . ~ ~.= . ~.. ` : r ~aa ~ , L _ . . . . . ~ , .~~.~ N ~ . ' ~ • . . ~~ ~i . . ,~. ~ z . ; ` ro . . .~ ~a t ~ ~ ~ ~ . N ~ a ~ ` ~, ; ° o : ~ ~ ~ ~ e~y . ~ ~ , . ,N~[n.. . . ~ u ~ . . \ ~ ~ ,; ~, ~p ~~._ . . . .. ~ _ ~ ~z , ~ ~~ '~ _ c~ - ~ ~,. I ~ ~; _ x Y _~. , . ~ ~ ., ~ , . . . ~ . - . . . ~ ~ - ~ ~ . . ~ . ~ . . , ' . . ~ . - ~ ~ ~ . - ~ ~r ~ .. ~ ~ . ~ ; 4,, . , . ~ _ . ~ . . ... . ~ . . ~ , , ..n:~.-.r~w. r .. ry . . . ~ . .. ~ .. ~ . ~. . . . . .. . , . . . . . . - .. ~ .. . . . . ~ . . ~; ~ ~ . . ~' . . ~. ~ , . - ~ ~ ~ . .. ~ ... . . . . , . ~ . . - . . ~ ' . ~ : . ~ , ~ . , . . . ~ . . ~ ~ .. . , - ~ ~ ~ . . .. . , E~i : ~ . . ~e ~.tw~ ' _ ..aJa.i~fi'...~.'°'r ~5: _ .y~^'~.'l:.nL.r..~~ '.~ . ... _..~.~,9.. ,w f~ ~ -I'a ~ ~r.~° \ ' 4 rk ~ y-} - ~fl-~w y, r ~,'R S A~t~ ~ ~ h ~ S ^c~ ~ . . `r ` ~ ~ i ~ ~ l ~ ~. i ~ ~k ? ~ t ~7 f ''~ ~~ ~;~/~S{~i+~,~'~ f ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ `7 4 ~ ~ +i~.~q : ' j ,A ~..,,~~ ~ ~" ~~ ~ t '- , . t ,. e ~' '~~.r ~ , `~~ ~ ? ,,r,r. ,.. . , u. nr,.fµ..a'~.: .t.ii~~rf,.m',!x~ 4a~.~~; s:; . ~ ~~.t~Y~.'CI .~"~?~".~, ,~,~ .. ~~~ . _ ,. ~ .. , a ' ,,. K~ . __ , r: ~f,..,Y~` ..+ .. , ?; J e_Y'S:!d'F'.h _ ~„5~. f.r +^' . ~ ~~ ~ ~~. ~ ~ ~ City Hall Anaheim, California October 9~ 1967 A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIN.,,; s~;,~'":~'~a.~~`n~?,`;~t;?;y';8;: ~MMISSION REGULAR MEETTNG - A regular meeting of the Anah.;~:~?~ ; s,~.~ :~;t:san3ng Commission was called to order by Chairman Camp at 2s:`r'J *s'~_~e~ p.I~ll,, a quorum being present. PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Campe - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, RoN~land~ ABSENT - COMMISSIONHRS: Nonee PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson Zoning Supervisor: ~ Ronald Thompson Planning Supervisor: Ronald Grudzinski Assistant City Attorney: John Dawson Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Associate Planner: Marvin Krieger Assistant Planner: Charles Roberta Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Gauer led in the Pledge of Allegiance +.? the Flaga APPROVAL OF •- The Minutes of the meeting of September 25, 1967, were approved with THE MINUTES the followino rrection on motion by Commissioner Mungall, seconded by Commissioi-,:: Farano, and MOTION CARR IED: Page 3601, last paragraph should read, "Commissioner Rowland e ~ ~ • support the concept of an additional ac cess point to Noso 6 and 7 ~ 0 0 o point"e 1FARIANCE NOe 191? - PUBLIC f~ARING< MRo AND MRS. PETER WARNOFF, 920 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim~ California, Owners; requesting permission to ESTARLTSh A COMMERCIAL BUILDING, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) NtINIMUM SIIJE SETBACKS, (2) PERMITTED ROOF SIGN LOCATION~ AND (3) REQUIRED SCREEN LANDSCAPING on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 50 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and having a maximum depth of ., approximately 125 feet, the easterly property line being approximately 80 feet west of the centerline of Bush Street, and further described as 920 East Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of sub,ject property, uses established in close proximity, and the Report to the Commissiona Mrso Audrey Warnoff, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Commission, noting that the existing real estate of:ice located in a residence would be removed and replaced with a new structure which would act as a regional office for a national concern; that although the properties to both sides were now zoned R-3, they were being utilized for a real estate office, a beauty shop, and an accounting office; that doctor o£fices existed on the noxth side of Lincoln Avenue, opposite subject property; and that she had talked with sixteen property owners in close proximity, some af whom were single-family homeowners, who had signed a petition approving the proposed development. The Commission noted that if parking were redesigned, eliminating parking directly off an alley, the required parking could still be accomplished. Mre Dan Langbaum, architect for the development, noted that he would contact the staff to determine the exact design the Commission recommended for parking facilitiese No one appeared in opposition to sub~ect petition. THE H'tARING WAS CLOSEDo 3612 Ii~Nf ~ 1 ~~ "_ ~~ 'N ,. ~' ~ * _'"^~ "_^.. MINUfES., ~ PLANNING COhLUIISSION, Octobe~~ 1967 ~~ ~ `'~ 3613 , ?1 VARIANCE N0~ 1917 -__Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that Office (Continued) Engineer Arthur Daw recommended that the Comr.~ission require dedica~tion of access rights to Lincoln Avenue in addition to the recommended conditions since this would permit the City the control of access to Lincoln Avenue when other properties were proposed for development along said street, Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution Noe PC67-228 and moved for its paseage and adoption, seconded:by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Variance Noa 1917, sub~ect to dedi- cation of access rights to Lincoln Avenue, redesign of the parking area to pernit easier access from the alley, and conditions. (See Resalution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: ~MMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst~ Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERSs Nonea ABSENT: ~MMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE NOe 1918 - PUBLIC I~ARING. BROOKMORE, INCORPORATED, LESSEE, 1665 South Brookhurst Street~ Anaheim, California; JAN~S ALLEN, 800 South Brookhurst Street~ Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permissicn to ESTABLISH AN 'AUTOM~BILE PpRICING LOT WITH WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED 6-FOOT MASONRY INALL on prop~rty described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 63 feet on the east side.of Brookhurst Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 292 feet, the northerly. boundary of eub~ect property being approximately 450 feet south of the centerline of Niobe Avenuee Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONEe Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed sub~ect petition, the location of subject property and uses established•in close proximity, together with the Report to the Commission, noting the problem the Sherwood Medical Center had in providing adequate parking for both patients and employees, and that although subject property had a resolution of intent to C-1, General Commercial, Zone, it was still zoned R-A; therefore, the only wall the staff recommended to be constructed would be adjacent to the R-1 lot at the northeast corner of subject propertye Mre James Allen, the agent for the petitioner, indicated his presence to answer questionso Thft ~ommission inquired of the agent whether or not a wall existed adjacent to the R-1 pzoperty9 whereupon Mr. Allen noted that a grapestake fence existed; however, if the Com- missiAn required a 6-foot masonry wall, they would comply with this requirement; and that parking ;facilities would be for employees and doctors onlye No one appeared in oppoeition to sub,ject petition. TE~IE 3-1[ARING WAS CIASEDa Zoning Supervisor Ronald I'hompson advised the Commission that if a masonry wall we.re required, as well as the screen lendscaping - a.requirement of the C-1 site development standards - ad~acent to sc~id wall, the size of the parking areas for the last six spaces along the north side of subject property would allow only sport or foreign cars to parke Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC67-229 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant in part Variance Nos 1918, subject to construction of a 6-foat masonry wall alon9 the r;orth property line ad3acent to the R-1 property, waiver of the required scxeen landscaping adjacent to the wall abutting residential use, and development of the balance of the parking facilities in accordance with the site development standards of the C-1 Zone, and subject to conditionse (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: OOMMISSIONERS: None. ~I`1~'~~F~J'fi ~'KZ G T^ .'} Ty `}F 'jN 1 ~S 2~0.e}y~ ~ f '~ry ~l ,.y.i 'PS x n'I. (4 ./~'t' k W ~~ ~ ' ~ f 1~ F b ~'~ ~' 1 l f ~ f,~ : ; ; t ~.4 ._.._.."" ' - '-'- - '-' - ._ _._ _.~ . ' '- ~~ ~ , . / . . . ~ .. - _.. V! . ~ ~' ~- ~~ ". . MINUTES, CITY PLRNNING CAMMISSIONS October 9, 1967 3614 r ~} VARIANCE NOo 1419 - PUBLIC HEARINGo ELTINGE 8 GRAZIADIO DEVEIAPMENI' CAMPANY, 1840 West ' i y cNGINEERING ' Smperial Highway~ Los Angeles, California, Owner; ANACAL ~ CAMPANY, Po On Box 3668~ Anaheim, California, Agent; reoueBting x ' ~pes.mission to E•STABLISH TWO FREE-STANDING SIGNSy WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM SIGN AREAS ~ AND (2) MAXYMUM SIGN HEIGHT on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel lying :~ north and west of the se~vice station at the northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Beach '~ Boulevard and having frontagee of approximately 455 feet on the west side of Beach Boulevard .,~, and aeproximately 470 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue> Property presently classi V~ ;a fiec~ C-1, GcNr.RAI, COMMERCIAL9 ZONEo ~ '":%~ M Aesistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed sub~ect petition9 the location of subject property `~ and usea established in close proximitya and the Report to the Commission, emphasizing the ;.•,~, J;~ fac~ that the ar~a of the sign~ at the new Zodysy located at Lemon Street and Orangethorpe K~.¢;; Avenuey conformed to the area provisions of the Sign Ordinance, and that the sign area at ,;,;~,f that location was apparently adequate since no request was made for greater arease The >-;~ Commission was advised that the waiver of the sign height is necessary for the sign proposed on the Lincoln Avenue frontage because a single-family home still exists adjacent to the west prope•rty line although the remainder of the Lincoln Avenue frontage between Beach Boulevard and Grand Avenue had b~.en approved for more intense land useo It wss also noted that when the originai plans for Zodys were submitted, a bank building was also included along the Lincoln Avenue frontage, and that if the proposed Zodys' sign utilized the maximum permissible sign area, this would preclude a sign for the bank or create a situation where an additional sign variance would have to be approved before the bank could establish a signe Mro Jeff Lodder, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission ~ and noted that the proposed bank on the original plans was not anticipated for development .~,,; ,4 for at least ten•years; that it was their intent at that time to request waiver of sign requirementsf and that the existing residence, in all probability, would be removed within and the property developed for commercial purposeso Furthermore, the the next few years ,;~ . signing on the commercial property to the east and the sign for the restaurant to the north necessitated the request for additional signing on sub3ect propertye The Commission inquired as to the reason for requesting waiver of the sign areas since the signing of the department store at Lemon Street and Orangethorpe Avenue seemed to be more than adequateo Mre Lodder replied that it seemed to be necessary to have adequate identi£ication due to the location of the property, and it was the petitioner's desire to analyze and sign each property on an individual basise I I The CommisrioFl inquired as to the height of the sign if the residence did not exist to the west9 whereupon Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that if the residential etructure ~ were not there, the height could be 53 feet; furthermore, if consideration were given to the i residential use of trailers in a trailer park, then the height could be onl,y 34 reeto Commiss:oner Herbst then noted that subject property could be adequately signed by maintain- ing the code requirement of 350 square feete Mr, Freedman, Vice President of Zodys department store, appeared before the Commission and noted that after listening to comments made by the Commission, he was inclined to agree with the Commission that sub~ect property could be adequately signed with a slight modifica- tion to the proposed sign to maintain the 350-square foot limitation, and this reduction of the sign would not materially affect subject property; therefore, he would request that this waiver be deleted from consideration by the Commissiono No one appeared in oppositioh to subject petitione THE I-~ARING WAS CLOSEDe Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution Noo PC67-230 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant in part Variance Noo 1919, denying waiver of the maximum sign area and permitting the maximum sign height, on the basis that the petitioner had stipulated to the reduction of the sign area and it would be maintained within the code requirement, and subject to conditionse (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: OONWIISSIONERS: Allred,'Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campe NOES: OONIMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSL-NT: OONWIISSIONERS: Nonea Commissioner Rowland osfered a motion to direct the staff to consider drafting an amendment to the Sign Ordinance recognizing that non-conforming uses, such as single-family residences adjacent to established commercial uses, not be considered as requiring a variance permit to construct signs in conformance with the C-1 Zone, rather than penalizing the commercial uses where single-family r~~sidential development is still establishede Commissioner Herbst seconded the motione MOTION CARRIED. ( 1, ~=s~, ~ • ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 9, 1967 ,' _ x:~ ~ t,.~ ~ '~ 3615 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HHARINGo SAGA DEVEIApMENT ODMPANY, INC~, 1426 North Fullerton ..NOo 6?-68-27 Raad, La Habra, California~ Owner; GEORGE KARCHER, i426 North Fullerton - Road, La Habra, California, Agent; requesting that property described as: ' A rectangularly shaped parcel, consisting of seven lots, having a frontag~ •of approximately 570 feet on the south side of North Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 120 feet, the westerly boundary of subject property being approximately 580 feet east of the centerline of Loara Street be reclassified from the R-0, ONE~-FAMILY SUBURBAN ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. , Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of sub3ect property and uses establiehed in close proximity, past zoning action on subject.proper.ty, and noted that the previous request for R-3 zoning.on subject property had been withdrawn; however, at public hearing opposition of the neighbors was expressed~ with the residents asking that it be part of the.Minutes and record that a petition signed by 64 property owners was submitted to the Commission in.opposition to multiple-family use cf subject property; and that a previous reclassification to zone subject and adjoining properti2s had been disapproved by the City.Council, and the subsequent owner - the petitioner - submitted an~R-0 tracty to- gether with a variance, requesting waiver of the minimum size of R~-0 lotso Furthermore, at the time-the Commission considered said variance, they expressed considerable concezn that these seven lots were proposed to front rather than back onto North Street, and the variance was not,approved until the petitioner stipulated he would record loans on these seven lots to insure development as sinole-family lotse Mre George Karcherg 10301 Perdido Street (County)~ agent for the petitionery appeared before the Commission and noted that after the last reclassification petition had been withdrawn, he had contacted.80,~ of the property owners in the area to acquaint them with the development proposed, and also at that time the petitioner made a determined effort to develo~ these lots for single-family use eince the lots represented a$100,000~p1us investment in land alone; however.~ they wer+~ unsuccessful, and the reason for sub~ect petition was based on a letter from the Coast Federal Savings & Loan Association noting that it was undesirable to finance development of the propexty for R-0 since it was across the street from R-3 developmento Furthermor.e, the petitioner had one of two courses to take - either ,:,••elop the lots with inferior homes and take a financial loss as only $18,000 to $19,00) ~.,,mes could be built, or develop with high quality9 single-story, multiple-family development which would compli- ment the R-0 already established in the area, and yet give the orner an opportunity to develop these lots more in keeping with development to the nortY,.~ that traffic had increased consider,ably on North Street a~~d would continue to increase after the YMCA was constructed; that a 6-foot masonry wall, together with the one-story apartments, would act as a buffer between.the.R-O to the south and the traffic on North Street; that 1~000-square foot apart- ments,were.proposed, with large garages and would be self contained with lease agreements requiring off-street parkinq for all apartments; that rental would be in excess of $200 per month9 which would limit the type of residents for these apartments; and that the development would compliment the area which was now in weeds since financing was not obtainable for construction of $50,000 to $60,000 homeso Chairman Camp noted that the petitioner was proposing R-3 developmentfor these lots on the basis that R-3 across North Street made it undesirable to develop for R-0 uses; however, this could also be applied to the homes to the south of these lots where only a 6-foot masonry wall would separate the two uses rather than utilizing the width of a street - 60 feet - to separate the two uses, ar.d this would be an encroachment on the residential integrity.of the Park Avenue and Lancer Drive residentse Commissioner Farano noted that the same principle applied-as to the incompatibility or un- desirability-to the seven lots as would apply to the lots backing onto subject property, and ' the fact that a wall was proposed did not seem adequate to grotect these homess Commissioner Herbat noted that at the time the variance and subdivision map were approved by the Commission, the R-3 development had existed, and even after the Commission had ex- pressed a great deal of concern that the subdivision should be oriented to back these lots onto North Street, the petitioner had indicated he was not interested in apartment develop- ' ment; therefore, the petitioner was well aware of the shortcomings of fronting these lots on North.Street, but proposed to subdivide the property in the manner approved in order to obtain the maximum number of lots. ~~ .;~ s '~;a Mro Karcher. in response to Commission questioning, noted that he was a.resident of Anaheim for a number of years; that with the 6-foot masonry wall it would be quite difficult to have ' any direct access to Price School; and they were willing to dedicate a 4-foot walk-way for the children to have easier access to go to the school from the R-0 properties to the southo Mr> Ra1ph Callen, 1443 Park Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and sub- mitted a petition signed by 53 property owpers opposing the proposed reclassification of subject property, advieing the Commission that he and his wife had filed an action enjoin- ing the petitioner from violating the private deed rastrictions recorded on sub,ject property;; ~,. ' ' . . . .. . - . . - , , , .. . ~ ~. . . . • ~ . ' ~.. . ~.e~ , ~ ..~A MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ October 9, 1967 3616 : RECLASSZFIGAT~ION - that the agent had contacted him regarding the walk-way, which he would NOo 67-68-27 consider favorably - however, this did not mean he was in favor of R-3 (Continned:) zoning for,sub~ect property; that at the time the subdivision was filed • with the variance, the shortcomings of fronting these severr lots on North Street were pointed out by the Commission~-~therefore the proposed zoned change had no basis since the developer had created his own problem when.the tract map was filed; that there was no basis to proposing $18,000 homes on the lots when homes southerl~ of these seven lots were sold for over $50,000; that North Street could act as a good buffer zone between the R-0 and the multiple-family zone; that two-story construction had existed on the north side of North Street when the tract was laid out, and the tract owner had no legal basis to stand on since he was aware of the situation when the property was subdividedo ~ Mrso Sonanberg, 1402 James Way, appeared in opposition, stating that when they'purchased the lot that they constructed their home on,at $17,500 for the land alone, they were assured that all sievelopment would be for single-family residential use; that the school had advised them that they could not accommodate an increase of children in this area, and the developer had acted in bad taith when they assured the Commission the seven lots fronting on North Street would be developed for single-family use; furthermore, 80,~K of the people did not go along with the:proposed zoning of the lotsa Mr, Malcolm Dawson, 1227 Park Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition~ noting that in the slidee presented by the Cortunission, his home was also shown since his property ad~oined .to the southeast corners and it was his opinion that a 6-foot masonry wall was not adequate to,separate two uses since a 60-foot wide street could act as a good buffer to separate the heavier density residential use from the low density on the south side of North Street9 and it was incongruous to think that land costing $100,000 could be developed for $18~000 to $i9.,000 homes, and it was his desire to see the types of homes that have already been developed in the area constructed on sub~ect property since all property owne~s in this trsct had considerable investment in their properties, and the value of the properties had been establishede Mro Co J< Martin, owner of property at 1449 Park Avenue, anoeared before the Commission in opposition,. noting that his property backed up to some of •i.:ase lots, and at the present time he had a single-family home on the drawing board awaiting the zoning action of subject petition,.and the statement made by the agent that financing could not be acquired was erroneous since the Gibraltex Savings 8 Loan Association assured him they would finance his loan for:the R-O type development provided; however, that R-O lots were developed abutting his property rather than the R-3 proposede Mr, Karcher, in rebuttal, stated that he did not wish to give the impression that 809b of the people were in favor of the proposed zone change - he had only meant he had contacted 80~;, and he estimated that approximately 75% of the 80~ were opposed to any zone change. A showing of hands indicated sixteen persons present in the Council Chamber in opposition to subject reclassificatione THE HEARING.WAS CLOSED~ Commissioner Farano offered Resolution Noe PC67-231 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi- fication Noe 67-68-27 be disapproved on the basis that approval of the reclassification would set an undesirable precedent for more intensive land use adjacent to low density, residential (suburban) use, and a masonry wall would be inadequate to screen the two uses from each other; that approval of the proposed reclassification would pro3ect multiple- family development into a one-family suburban area, creating a much more untenable living environment for the adjoining lots separated only by a masonry wall than if a width of a street were used for delineation of the two uses; and that private deed restrictions had been recorded, liiniting the use of subject property to single-family residential develop- ; ment only, and the petitioner stipulated at a previous public hearing-in conjunction with a variance and tract map-to the recordation of loans limitin9 the use to single-family ~ residential use only: (See Resolution Book) , On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the follow~ng vote: AYE:S: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee , ~ ':: ~y ~ { ~ _ ' ~ . . ~ ~ . . ~ ' ~ ~ . . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 9, 1967 3617 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Rowland in voting on sub~ect petition stated that he NOe 67~i8-27 wanted to go on record as having a vested interest in„the..~djacent -(Continued) property~ and he'was voting "aye" on the motion with ttie understanding ~ - that it was the express concern of every property owner in a community like Anaheim or any other community which is developing repidly that a person•'.B property rights were not a given right - it was something the property owner must vigorously defend with every opportunity because if he did not, no one else would look after his interests, and that he was voting on this even though he might have a conflict of 3n~erest~ however~ in his own mind th'ere was~no conflict of interest since he was defending his property rights which9'in his estimationy was a personal interesto RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARINGo ZNITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ 204 East NOo 67-68-7 Lincoln Avenue,~ An.aheim9 Californ+_a9.Proposing,_that property described ass An irregularly ehaped area of land consisting of appxoximately 406 acres which is generally located south of Santa Ana Canyon Road and east of the Newport Freeway on the north and south sides of Lincoln Avenuee Sub~ect property is further described as: Portion Noo 1- That zesidential subdivision bounded by the Newport Freeway on the north~ Nohl Canyon Road on the east~ Lincoln Avenue on the south~ and the Orange city boundary on the wests Portion Noo 2- That residential sub~ division bounded by ganta Ana Canyon Road on the narth~ Gatewood Lane on the southy Peraita Hil].s area on the west~ and a line coinciding with the rear property line of the homes fronting on the-east side of Orange Hill Road on the east; and Portion Noe 3- All that remainin9 area bounded on the west by Nohl Canyon Road, on the south and east by the Anaheim city boundary, and on tne north by the southerly boundary of the Peralta Hills area and Santa Ana Canyon Road and consisting of land on the north and eouth sides of Lfncoln Avenuey be reclassified from the R~-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE for Portion Noso 1 and 2 and R-A, AGRICUL'IURAL, ZANE for Portion Noo 3 to the R-•H-10,000 RESIDENTIAL HILLSIDE~ LAW DENSITY~ SINGLE-FHMILY, ZONEo ~ssistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed sub~ect petition, the location of subject property °~'~# i;he uses established in close proximity, noting that the Commission's action in initiating ;`~ this petition would establish the most appropriate zone for the hillside areas covered under ~.~ the Hill and Canyon General Flan encompassed within the City of Anaheim`s boundaries; that ,~~* ordinances would be read on the presenily existing residential subdivision and on the exist ~~ ing church eite at the northeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Nohl Canyon Road, and the ;~.~~ resolution of intent to the R-H-10,000 would then be applied on the remai~ning area to '}~ facilitate low density develooment, thereby eliminating the necessity for the filing of' j~g reclassification petitions each time a portion of the property was proposed for development> E~~ Mre Robexts further noted that a lesser density than established in the R-H-10,000 Zone ~~ could be appropriate and desSrable; however, these could be considered for greater or lesser (~ density by the filing of a reclassification petition and being'approved by the Planning ' Commission and City Councilo Mre William Lusk, representing iusk Corporation, Burruel Land Company, and Mro Louis Nohl, ' apoeared before the Commission and indicated those companies he representeci, covering a ~ ma3or portion of the property under the proposed reclassification, concurred and approved the proposed reclassification of sub~ect propertye A letter from Mr., Bernardo Yorba was received and read to the Commission, indicating his approval of the proposed reclassification. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono TE~ HEARING WAS CIASED~ Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noe PC67-232 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi fication Noe 67-68-7 be approved, establishing a resolution of intent to the R~H-10,000 Zone for subject property, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CON6~AISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campo NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee -_`~+- ~ ~~~+. ~s ' ,, . F ._ ,,_.v~-'~~,:;r.,~~ k ... .,, .. ~ _ . .. ._. _ +r .~.'A'px' ~,,fs ~~~ ~ ~ i ~ -y,w~pr .~ ~. :- ~ ~.. f ~: 1, t ~ , ~ . 1 . 1 ra . ~> z „y,~ .t: .r - " -_' - - ~ ., ~ ~ ~ c~: ' ~ 3618 ~ ~ ~ , MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, October 9, 1967 ? ~ ~ RECIASSIFICATION - PUBLIC F~ARINGo INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East 4" Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim~ California; propo6ing,that,property described ner o£ t th = ,~ + ~,~ ~" cor wes 1 NO 67 68 irregularly shaped parcel located at the sou A . ~ ~ ~ n as: Lincoln Avenue and Villareal Drive, containing approximately 2060 acres e O ,i ~ of•land,•and.having appxoximate frontages of 270 feet on LincoZONEvtouthenC-K~ MM~RCIAL CA AGRICULTURAL - ~'•r ' , A, Villaieal Drive, be recl'assified-from the,R !~HILLSIDE~,ZANEo Assistant Planner Charles Roberts reviewed sub~ect petition, noting that the property was C-1 zoning was approved in November, ~ ~ ~ ` zoned;R-A; however~ under Recl'aesification Noa 65-66-51y pproved a n e ~ J_ ~, the for having been specifically writte 1965~ but the c~nhave thehCaH Zone~esaid zone '' did no it h ~ W ~ '~' S ~.~„~ ~`~ . y. e ,C t Of ~ properties-in formityUwithethe overall character h u e y a rc ~;y: , 4 d in con be would which zoaing ial omme - to,establish c - d development to occur in accordance with its site ~ ` , `the Hill and Canyon General Plan an hich took into account the unique scenic resources and natural re b a ~s ~ `' e mo rds w '.development stand in the hiilside areay in order that commercial areas could 'xy ' amenities found only ith highWquality, residential development that is anticipateda ry '~ compatible;w No one appeared in oppositlon to subject petitiono 'IHE HEARING WP.S CIASED< Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted for the Commission that if the Commission felt ission might wish to terminate the C , : } omm the"proposed zoning was appropriate, then the rovede FurthermorE, a,number of conditions C~1 zoning app h ,~.r° e ~reclassification covering t proval of Reclassification Noo 65-66-51 had been met, end if Recostiny a namely p 9 d in t h i ,f ' , p , , e ! s establ fication Noo 67~68-14 was approved9 these conditions which had been me uirements along Lincoln Avenue and e i e q ng r er of'a bond to guarantee installation of engin d street tree fees,and the recordation of a ht ~, k` an Villareal Drive, payment of street lig f the Commission inititated petition~ and that the balance t f o paicel map could become par uired to be completed prior to final building and zoning s . were req of;the condition ~ `~ inspectionso ,i: ~, ~ , Commissioner Rowland offered'Resolution No~ PC67-233 and moved for its passage and adoption, Council that Petition for Reclassi-; Cit th ~~ . y e @'econded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to establishing Commercial Hillaide Zoning for subject ~ proved a 14 b 68 , ~~ ~ ,, p e - ';fiication Noo 67- pxoperty, subject to conditionsa (See Resolution Book) j f fr helfreewayrtostaketcareeofithe needs i Considerable d~ ~ tm h a s o west ~us facilities co ercial uate ntial uses should be established on sub~ect propertya~ there wer,e adeq id d ' e res of the residents of that area, an ~ Commercial~Hillside ZonemsitC•devel- Thompson not Mr sth t l h nm t h ; ', , e that an; P General Canyo and Hiil facility on the compatible with the R-H development than the C-1 e 3 s more . opment standards would make these us commended termination of the reclassification to the C-1 Zone if ff ~" re Zone; and that the sta .~ sub3ect petition were approvede tablishedgonemain thoroughfares~,iand issioner Allred U Com n t n a r el m es be should uses that commercial in that area who fe ilities to serve this area, it ~vas important to "hold f .~. ac _ since.Tustin Avenue had adequate etain the residential integrity of the Hill and Canyon t o r the line" as much as possible ~ Area~ missioners Camp, Farano, Gauer and Herbst noted that since commercial uses had already consider its incompatibilityo C _ #` om been approved on subject property, there was no reason to re ~~ ~~~ Chairman.Camp reopened the hearingo o William Lusk, representing Burruel Land Company, Lusk Corporation, and the Louis Nohl velopment of the Nohl ranch property pro- ~Mr d f r , e or ' ranch property, noted that the master plan i proposed commercial facili- 3e,cted commercial uses rospectiveebuyerse the dmtoY t Piehix w p e esen •when subdivision lots p cofradditional in tio ~ ' ta e W W a i ,~ ~ ~ n projec ties were the tha and located, torbe ities werehpr posed i h area since these shopping facilities would ehopping fac 1 ~~ traffic would affect only residents of the ranc ide the areao t A s not attract people from ou ~,f~'.` ~+* Assistant Development Services D3rector Robert Mickelson brought to tha commercial`symboln+ al Plan was adopted, ,~; , tion the fact that when the Hill and Canyon Gener bject proper$y since the Commission had already f l i ~~r~~ ,~,~~; su a wae placed in the general location o and this was consider.ed in the overaJ.l commerc that acreage f ~ ,,,: , or _ approved commerciel uses x yA, ~ ~ *~ ,~ ~ ' . . . :._... ... . ..... _~~~:'~: ~Y"~4 < ~ cf `L4 ~ l Sd 9 f'~' 0. ^~~ ` ",~~.' s :.~. ~r 4i - .~~~ ,~ a:i x ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ " '~ -:... .~~' ,; r ~ t. si s r 5 a '~ ... s. ..;~:.._ f, i~~:r+- u,.,..•~? /.~x,i~} C~ a 's ~.~: r "ti !4 f~; y ~': t ~ _ ri.,, d ~.s~ .t.. ~~ . ~ . . .. . ' .. ' ' "- -- ' . . .-. . - ~ , ~ ~ ~.~. _ _.. .. `~9~ . -. ~ - . . . . . . ~.J .. ~ . ~UIINUTES9 CITX PLANI3ING OOMMISSION~ October 9~ 1967 3619 RECLASSIFICATION ••- element to serve this'area~ and if the Commission deviated from this NOo 67~68-Z4 ' in disapproving sub3ect petition9 then the commercial elemeot would (Continued) not be a true picture of that approved on the Hill and Canyun ~eneral Plano Commissioner'Farano then noted that if the Commission had the feeling that subject property would revert to`the R-H Zone, a study should be initiated to determine whether or not the Hi11 and Canyon General Plan would be affected by the desires of the property owners in this area to retain subject property for residential purposese Commissioner Allre:i stated that although the ad3oining pr~perty owners were aware of the ~ designation for commercial uses of subject property, this did not necessarily mean tnat they felt it should be retained for commercial uses although the pro~ection of commercial uses by Lusk Corpcr'ation should be continued, and that at the time the propErty owners in the area had discussed with the City of Orange pro3ections of commexcial uses in the Hi11 and Canyon ; Area under the ~urisdiction of the City of Orange on the east side of~ the Newport Freeway, the property ownere had indicated their wishes to retain the area for residential usese i'* _ . On roll call the foregoing resolution was paesed by the following vote: AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: Farano~ Gauer, f~erbst, Camp, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungall, Rowlando ABSENT: COMMT.SSIONERS: Noneo Commissioner Rowland9 in voting "no"~ stated that after ail the discussion by the Commission, he felt his original motion did not indicate the confusion; therefoxe, he felt ~e was not quaiified to vote "aye" on his own motiono Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo PC67-234 and moved for its passage and adoption9 seconded by Gommissioner Mungall, to terminate reclassification proceedings on Fe tition :or ReclasslfScation Noo 65••66-51 for Portion Noo 39 encompassing the C-1 propertyo (See Resolution Book) On :oll call the :oregoing resolution was oassed by the following vote: : AYES: COMMISSIONERS: A11red, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Campe NOESr COMMISSIONERS: Noneo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo AB5TAIN: C09NdISSIONERS: Rowlando REPORTS AND - ITEM NO,. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS Conditional Use Permit Noe 963 - Interpretation and clarification of Commission's intent in granting . , subject petition on September 13, 1967, Assistant Planner Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that a letter had been received from the agent fox the petitioner of Conditional Use Permit No, 963, for which the Commission had approved a Christian day school on property located just west of the intersection of State College Boulevard and South Street, said letter asking for an interpretation of the findings and conditionsf that the staff had verified the tape recording of the publi.c hearing and the findings were clearly statedi that the day school was granted for a period of one yearg and that the school attendance durin9 that time could not exceed 40 studentse These facts were not only stated in findings, but in conditions of the zesolution as wello The resoTution.further stated that upo~~ expiration of the use, the petitioner could request review of the conditional use permit by the Planning Commission to determine whether the use could be extended fox an additional period of time, and if the extension of time were granted,, a 6-foot masonry wall must be erected along the west property line separating the church- school from the single-family residenceo i A letter from.the agent ior the petitioner was then read to the Commissione Mrs< Ann Madison, agent for the petitioner, noted that in her recollection -0ommissioner Farano had asked what she thought would be the appropriate number of students, and she had stated 50 to 554•however, it was anticipated there would be only 14 for the first year, and she understood that after the first year when the Commission reviewed the use, permiseion would be granted for 50 to 55 students; that the petitioner was unable to obtain a loan for use of subject property for one year; that it was her interpretation that the use would be extended after the first year - however, this Nas not as it was written in the resolutiono - -----~___.____.._ ~_~.:»,;:.... ,~~ ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMI$SION, October 9,'1967 3620 REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS - TTEM NOo 1 (Continued) Commissioner Farano advised the agent that at the time he voted for Conditional Use Permit Noo 963~;it was,hfs understanding that the use was granted for cne year; and at the end of that time•the Commission-would determine whether or not the use should be extended or terminated; that he would like to review at the end of the year any reaction of the adjoin~ ing;propert~.owners:as to the compatibility of the school and its activitiec,~and the requireW ment of a wall would be made only if the use were extendedo Co~mnissioner Rowland noted that land use of the property was the basic reason he voted for a one-year time limitation and not the number of studentso Commissioner Farano noted that tI1e Commiesion definitely piaced a restriction of a maximum of 40 students;during the first year of operationo Commissioner Rowland noted that at the review of the petition in one year, the Commission should decide as to the compatibility of the use to the area, not necessarily the number of students; that his understanding of the approval wasy if upon Commission review at the end of the year the neighbors indicated the use was undesirable~ then the Commission cou'..d terminate the day schoole Gommissioner lierbst noted that since this particular school did not come under the jur2s•~• diction or regulations of the State, this was his basic concern - the number of children pe.~mittede . Mrso Madison noted that State regulations for nurseries repuired more play aree, and the future building and play area for the proposad school would permit approximately 5203 students, and if the remaining land wex~e developed with buildinge, 208 students could be accommodatedo Considerable discussion was held by the Commission, the City Attorney's representative, the staffy and,the.agent regarding whst the Commiasion's intent was, and at its conclusion, the agent was informed that it would not be necessary to file a new conditional use permit, ,just a letter :equesting extension of the use, at which time the staff would advise the adjoining property owners this was being considered by the Commission, end their viewa would be appreciatedo Mrs> Madison then inquired whether or not this extension of use, if grantedy would be of a permanent nature and/or increase number of studentse The Commission noted that no one could predict what would happen in a year, and if the Commission could predict, then therc would be no reason for limiting a use for one year, and that the lanii use was etill the prime concern of the Commissior.-as to its compatibility with the residential uses to the west and northo Mrse Madieon noted that commerciai uses existed to the east and south, residential to the west, and homes to the north were projected for C-0 uses, and it was her understanding that after the year the Commission would determine whether or not additional students would be permittede Mre Roberts then read the findings and conditions of the Commission's resolution approving Conditional Use Pexmit Noo 9630 2oning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted for the Commission that the City Council had set sub3ect petition for public hearing before their body, and it was his desire to know exactly what the Commission intended. Commissioner Farano then stated it was the Commz;sion's intent that the use be granted for one year with a maximum of 40 students, and after the one year, the Commission would review subject petition to determine whether or not the land use was compatible with the adjoining propertyo ~ ITEM NO„ 2 City policy regarding home occupations in mobile home parkso Assistant Planner Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that s request for a home occupation permit in a mobile home park at 501 East Orangethorpe Avenue had been received; that the City zoning ordinance did not permit using mobile homes for home occupations, and then reviewed Sections 18o08a390, Home Occupations; i8o08o260, Dwelling; and 18o08a140, Building~ /i1 ,`~.f_~~ ~kt~~~^"1~' ..3: ~~:.? '`~^~1'FtiX. "'~.~?„~~i,P",.+~t' `,j~,'~'t°.~rv~W" ,lyy~ ~I +~`l~k..~.^r`~~ ) !~; ri 'Y.{ix 4 ~_~* c ~77."" . ~,ri 5 P7-~ r_+ x~ .;'.r.~r.L -•`l~ _ ~ .t. _ _ . . ' ^' r .. . . ~~ . . -~ ``•~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . - ..~~ ~ .~' . ~ . . .. ~ . MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COAMIISSION, October 9, 1967 3621 REPORTS AND RECAMMENDATIONS - ITEM N0. 2 (Continued) The definition intent of a home occupation was also reviewed by Mro Roberts who stated that the character of a mobile'home park had changed in recent years from highly transient to a more permanent facility~ therefore, the Commission might wish to consider offering the mobile home residents the same protection and privileges enjoyed by single-family and multiple-farnily residentso Commissioner Gauer noted that the City must be careful about permitting limited commercial uses in mobile home parks because these trailers were located too close to each other; that they had no-carports or garages to reduce any noisess that granting permission would in~ ' fringe upon other peopl.e in the mobile home park; and that most home occupations were permitted in detached homes„ many times usin9 their garage areas for this work, while mobile homes.many times were not as large as a garageo Commissioner Herbst inquired as to the type of occupation that was proposed in the mobile home park, whereupon Mr, Roberts stated it was the intent to have a telephone in the mobile home to ba used by an individual representative of a firm having headquarters in the valleyy and the phone would be used to take care of contract bidso Commissioner Rowland noted that if this type of home occupation were permitted, this would have some repercussions fram other,mobile home owners since the layout of a mobile home park was not the same as a residence fn which a home occupation was permittedo Commissioner Rowland offered ~ motion to deny any consideration ~f home occupations in mobile home parks, ~nd that the Anaheim Municipal Code~ Zoning, not be amendedo Commissioner Allred seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo ITEM NOo 3 Suggested planting material for setback areas and interior parking areaso Associate Planner Marvin Krieger presented to the Commission a list of trees, shrubbery, and ground cover which was prepared by the Parks and Recreation Department who.were experienced in this type of planting, noting that this listing would assist commercial and industri,al develop.ere and encourage the use of hardy plant stock that would meet the intent of the olanting requirements for setb;ick areas and the interior of parking areas, and that if the Commission felt this planting list would provide the service for which it wae intended, they might wish to recommend to the City Council that the list be adopted by regolution as a suggested list of planting materiale in conjunction with the landscap~ ing requirements of commercial and industrial areaso Commjssioner Gauer recommended that the l;st be sent to the Women`s Division of the Chamber of Gommerce, whose group was organizing the "Anaheim Beautiful" club similar to that formed ' in"the City of Los Angelesa Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council the adoption of a suggested list of plant material, marked Exhitait "A", for commercial and industrial devel- opment where conditions of approval require landscaping as part of the site development standards; said suggested iist would encourage commercial and industrial developers to use hardy plant stock for the planting requirements of the setback and interior parking areaso Commissioner Herbst seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDo ITEM NOo 4 Placentia School District - Proposal for continuation high school at the Esperanza School locationa Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that communication with the architect, Robert C, Martin, for the proposed Esperanza High School to be located on Orchard Drive north of Orangethorpe Avenue considered by the Planning Commission July 17, 1967, at which time the Commission recommended that othex alternatives be considered for access to the continuation school rether than pro3ecting it through a si~gle-family subdi- vision tract~ indicated that it was proposed to have a private drive between the continua- tion school site and Orchard Drive along the northerly boundary of the exi,ting single-family residential subdivision - however, complete plans had not been submitted to the staff for submission to the Planning Commissiono __ _. _ _. _ . _ - - - __ . ~ .~~ -- - ~4.?'9... Cirl ~ ~ ~ i .~~ l Y ~ F t ,h?..4.~{ . ~a ` ~ ~ j ft~~ ~~rY 3 ~ Y '~~''~J 1 1' ; Y 't ! : l ,i• y~C`'~,, t t ~~~, G:' i t ~ r o, -r r ~ ~.~, ~; ~1F ..~ ~"f. ~ F'T 1 ~ 'f u. ; x• . ~F,~ l - f . s ..:Zf , f ~ _. _i_ .~.. _ __ -..~.. . __. ~ .A'..?i ~ ~ ; ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ :Sµ. :~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ' .~ . ' '~' . . . . ` ,-:..iX ~ MINUTES~ CITY PI:A1dNING CONINIISSION, October 9~ I967 3622 ~ ; , ~~` REPORTS AND. ~ RECOMMENDATIONS --ITEM NOo 4 (Continued) --- ' ~~ - : ,;ir Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Placentia ~ ~~ Unified Schonl Dietrict be urged to consider approval of the establishment of a private . i:~a drive between the"continuation school site and Orchard Drive for the Esperanza High ;~;~¢ School site••located north of Orangethorpe Avenue on Orchard Drivee Commissioner Herbst `"$ seconded the motiono. MUTION CARRIED. . ~ . :'~, ; ;~ -ITEM NOe 5 :; :;~ ~ Boundary Zoning Adviso:ry Committee for the Cities of~ •"~~' ~ Anaheim, Brea~ Fullerton, Placentia, and~'the County ' ''Y of 0 rangeo Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson reported to the Commission the results of the first meeting of the Boundary Zoning Advisory Committee held at Stonewood Inn in Placentia with the City of Placentia being the host city, noting that problems relative to adjoin- ing jurisdictions were discussed, and it was noted that the City of Anaheim was-the only city notifying property owners within 300 feet, regardless of their location as to city so long as they were within the boundaries of said 300 feet~ and that the other cities were now considering going back to d9.scuss the possibility of notifying property owners adjoining their cities,who might be basically affected by any proposed zone changeo ITEM NO o 6 Initiating zoning petitions for ihe Disneyland area, encompassing Disneyland propexty9 in order to update past and proposed zoning ~ acttonso Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that numerous discussione had been neld with representatives of Walt Disney Productions relative to the parcels held l~y Disneyland which had been developed and undeveloped, and that they wexe now willing to go along with the staff's recommendation relative to initiation of conditional use permits for expansion of the park, and requested that the staff be directed to initiate petitions for public hearinga Commissioner Farano offered a motion to direct ~s.he staff to initiate zoning petitions on properties held by Wa2t Disney Productions covering properties under the jurisdiction of Disneyland previously developed and undeveloped propertiesa Commissioner Mungall seconded the•awtioao MOTION CARRIED, ADJOllRNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Farano offered a motion to adjourn the meetinge Commissioner Allred seconded the motiono MO1'ION CARRIED. The meeting ad~ourned at 3:50 P.Mo Respectfully submitted, • ~ ~; ~/vy'L'/C/ ~ jF'_•l~c/ ANN KREBS~ Secretary Anaheim City Planning Commission v'+~'~~}/ ~' i 1~F t~. . C \ hr' t ~ tl ~ ri f •~ M1 ~.'~ ~ ~ ~ J, + yKli~ ~.~ ~~R'K~~44j~~y ~ 1 Y L, ~ ~ ~ 1 f ~0.R {~ n} . iv~ ~F~ Ll. ~ ~y~` ~,^'~ y, r .. ~ ~ ~ ; - ,+ {,* ~I ~~1~. f 1 s i ~ f ., . 7 t i ~. ~ ~ 1 r,s ~ ~ ~:. 4,.+ ~ +~t .,~, i. r ~ ; . y`~; ~;? _ , . r .,. -~,. . ~:. . . `~. ~ . . . :~. ,~ ? . . > ^ r s_ _ ^ l 4 ~ - .. 'ij y ) x ' ~ ~ $-~ ' . . .,. ~ ~ * " - . . . ., f ~ - ~. . , . - , ~. -., ~, .; ,~ i - ~~ 1 iy ~ A~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ {, T ~ y ~ ~ . yh ~ k f ~ . I ~ .~ I ~ C . . fj l ~.. Y 2~~ - I `r ~ . y y :. r '. ~ft L ~ ~ ~ } { } ( ! ~ ~ 1 r F Y G ~a ) ~ ~' ~ f ~ ~.~ t k . '~ ~ 1 ~ ,r ~~' . ~~ ~ ~ ~ - '. : ... '. -_~~ .~.. ~ ' .- ~ ~ . ~ . . '. ~ ~ ~ ~ ...; . ,.-..:1 . ~ ... -. ... . ~ . ! . .. ~ Y ,~ . . .. .~ . - . ,. ~ j 7 ,i ~ . ~... . ~ ~ ` ~ ~ .~~ ~ . ,: ;: ... .~ . , ~... ~ .. . ~ ,~ •. ' :': ~ ~, .~ i ' . . . . . . .. . 1 ~ I 1 ~ ~i.~ . ~''~( . .~-' ...i .-.-F .~ t . '.'~ r-, - S qj a ' t , , ', ... ~..f : . ~.. ~. ,. ..,t ~ a \ Y r I' ! ~ p ~ ~ * ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ .L~ } S 5 - . i _ ~ ty ~ . e ~ ~. ' ( 4$ `[ ~ I i .S ~"~ ` , ~4 5~ ~ r - ~ ~ ~~~ ~/ ~ _. ^ s - ,~ 1 n M . ~ ~i -. ~ ' _ .. ~ „