Minutes-PC 1961/12/27;i.w~!~`~~~1lN~ •
~
"~'.:
~' i}~ •
. ~ :.'.~I .~ ~
. .. vuVM1~~~.~
~ ~r ~
t, ~,
• • City Hall
Anaheim, California
, Dacember 27, 1961
REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~~~
.REGULAR MEETING - A Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called to
order by Chairman Gauer at 2:00 0'Clock P.M., a quorum being present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Gauer; COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry,
Summers.
gq SENT - COMMISSIONER: Allred.
PRESENT • - Senior Planner - Martin Kreidt ~
pssistant City Attorney - Joe Geisler z
Commission Secretary - Jean Page ~
~ ~
INVOCATION - Reverend Gerald Grotey, Pastor of the First Baptist Church, gave the
invocation.
PLEDGE OF - Commissioner Pebley led the Pi.dge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ALLEGIANCE
APPRUVAL OF - The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 11, 1961, and the Adjourned
MINUTES Regular Meeting of December 18, 1961, ..:re approvad as submitted with the ,+,
following correction on Page No. 57: ~f the Decembei 18, 1961 Minutes:
"circumference" corrected to read as "diameter". ~,~
RECtASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PURLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by EDWARD D, and VIOLA GRIGGS,~.~
N0. 61-62-48 9181 Knott Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; Southeast Mort9age Company, ':r5
2.i35 West Ball, Suite B, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting tnat pro- ;~
perty describad as: An "L" shaped parcei with a frontage of 80 feet locateu•;~
on the west side of Knott Avenue between Lincoln and Orange Avenues; Its ?
n~rtheast corner baing approximately 935 feet south of the southwast cornar<'`
of Lincoln and Knott Avenues, and further described as 9181 Knott Avenue be '`'
reclassified from tha R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NE to the R-3, r_
~ MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Subject petition is filed in conjuncti~~n with Petition for Conditional Use
Permit No. 17~ and Petition for Variance No. 1420 and has been cc~.tinued
from the meetings of November 27., 1961 and December 11,,1961, at th~~ request..
of the petitioner's agent in order that revised plans could b~: submicted
' which conform to the zoning requ;rements of the City of Anahe.im.
Mr. Harry Knisely, the pct,itioner's ~~;eit, appear•ed ber`ore the Commission
and stated that the proposed develop. +it was to:be'of the garden type apart-
ment unit developmenf as distinguishe from the ordinary tract development.
that an abundance of ~ecreational faci~~t~es and open area would be provide8;
that the'development will be financed ar>d re~ained under one ownership rether
that being sold individually, that *.'v: lr~cation ad;jacent to Knott Avenue,
which is a major traffic artery, 's~ suirai;~_ for the proposed development,
that the only entrance will be 'rrom ,tno~t Avenue, t~~t there are a number of
R-3. Multiple Family Residentit~l, and C-l, Neighborhood Commercial, uses in
the area, and';that the subject property is best suited for a high density
development.
Mr..John Wycoff, 6873 Via Media ~-i•rcle, Buena Park, appeared before the
Commission and stated that he was opposed-;to the proposed reclassification---
in addition to the requested variance for`the proposed two story develop-
ment of the subject property. He stated further that he was opposed to the
- 608 ~ '
e .. .
t
-. ~
~
~ ,,~y
~ ,_1 ~ 1 ti~1.i ~R
~ i~a~ - , __ ---- ~
~ l~ ~ 609 ~
~ MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMiS510N December 27, ~9b1, Continua~: ~
RECIASSIFICATION - r'eclassifica:ion of subject property to the R-3, Multipie Family Residential~,;
N0. 61-62-48 Zone because it was not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, :
SContinued) __ that the property abutting subject property on the west is entirely d'evelop-~
ed with single family residential uses, and that the increased poput~tion ,
density that the proposed devetopment would create would be detrimental to ~
, th~e neighborhood. He expressed concern in respect to the proposed walk-way ~
~ that would be provided for access pvrposes for the chiidren in the area ~
~ going to the Orangeview Junior High School, and indicated that the children ~
would be subject to cac cails and other disturbances with the heavy popula- ~
tion that would be attracted to the area. Mr. Wycoff stated further that
. the proposed development would create an additional traffic problem, that
~ the character of the street was for neighborhood cortmercial development
which he would favor `or the subject property, that the proposed development
wauld set a precedent for the undeveloped property in the area, and that he
was opposed to high density use of the property.
Commissioner Pebley pointed out that the vacant property located northerly
of subj.ct property co~sisted of parcels with narrow widths and 'are ex-
trernPly deep. He stated that it wculd be difficult for the owners of these
prcpartles t~ develop their property unless a development similar to the
subject development could be established.
Mr. Wyc:off indicated that his property did not abut the subject property,
but that it did abut the properties to the north of subject property, and
he expressed concern relative to the precedent that would be established,
by the granting of the subject petition, for the extension of multiple
family residential development to the north. He stated that the reason
additional objections were not submitted by the owners of the abutting
single family residential tract was because many of the homes were vacant
due to the purchase of these homes by land contract, which had resulted in
~ the repossession of the residences when the co~tractor failed to deposit
payments. .
~~ The Commission discussed the narrow strip of property, 33 feet in width,
abutting subject property and extending r~ortherly, which was under separate
~ ownership. Mr. KniSeiy indicated that he was aware of the oWnership of the
narrow strip of land, that it had recently been purchased in a tax sale,
that it might be sold to abutting property owners or the petitioner might
be interested in acquiring it at a later date, and that access was provided
to the strip of land therefore there was no danger of its becoming land-
locked. He stated further that the deluxe type of development would not •
create the hazards outlined by Mr. Wycoff in respect to the children in the
area because the units would not contain the type of construction that
would provide railing or other inducements that would create problems.
Commissioner Pebley indicated that he would not consider the suUject
property or the abutting properties to the north to be suitable for R-1,
One Family Residential, development or that it would eve~r be developed for
such use. -
~ ~ 7HE HEARiNG ivAS CLdSED.
Tne Commission reviewed development plans,and Interdepartmental Committee
recommendations were submitted for consideration. The Commission discussed
the relation between the Petitions for Uariance and Condir,ional Use Permit _
and the subject petition. It was indicated that the subject petition was,
directty related to said petitions, therefore, conditions of approval would ;~
be applicable to all three petiti~ns. The Commissior: also discussed the ,
desirability of requiring landscaping in the proposed entrance-way of sub- ~
ject property because of the considerable amount of distance to the apart- i
ment devalopment area, in addition to the Code requirement that masonry
wells must be provided on the boundary lines wherever the subject property
abuts properties classified in the.R-A, Resi.dential A9ricultural, and R-1, i
One Family Residentia], Zones.. Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised
the Commission that the installation of walis is a standard Code requirement
for the -reclassification of property, but that the requirement may be waived
f
I
l
I ~
I -
4
':.}` . ' ~~ .
z.:. n~
~
~ ~ ~
~` I MtNtJTES', CtTY PtA1~ttNG_ COHMISSION, December 2.Z, 1961, Continued:
~ ~ RECLASSIFICqTION - by the approval of Petition for Variance No. 1420. Commissioner Pebley in- ~
N0. 61-62-48 dicated that he considered the i~stallation of the walis necessary because
C {Continued) of the children in tha area and the possibility of an easement abutting
E ,
~;;~ , the subject property. Commissioner Marcoux suggested the posting of a bond,
to insure the installation of walls, until such time as the devalopment of
adjacent properties is determined. Assis.*..ant City Attorney Joe Geisler ad-
vised the Commission tt~at a finding could be includad in the Commission's `
resolution, indicating that a six foot wall is raquired around the entire
parimeter of the subject property except that portion abutting Knott Avenue :
in accordanca with the requirements of Code, Section 18.32•090, unless such ~
condition were eliminated by the granting of a variance for the waiver of
said requirement.
The Gommission found and determined the following facts regardir.n the
subject petition:
?!•iat the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above described
praperty from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 20NE to the R-3,
MUI.TIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, 20NE.
That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary or
desirable for the orderly and proper+ development of the community.
That the proposed reclassification of subject property does properly re-
late to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close
proximity to subject property and to the zones and their permitted uses
generally established throughout the community.
That the proposed reclassification of subject property does require '
dedication for and standard improvement uf abutting streets because
said property does relate to and.abut upon streets and highways which
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 verbal opposition by one owner of property in subject area was
recorded against subject petition.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 177, Series 1961-62, and moved
for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, to recommend
to the City Council that Petition for Reclassificati~n No. 01-62-48 be ,
approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. Subject to the approval of Petitions for Conditional Use Permit No. 179
and Variance No. 1420.
Development substantialiy in accordance with Exhibit Nos
3, (nstallation of landscaping in the proposed entrance way of subject
property in accordance with Exhibtt Nos. 1 a~d 2, said landscaping to
be installed prior to Final Building Inspection.
4. Dedication of 53 feet from the monumented ce~terline of Knott Avenue
(30 feet existing).
Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all improye-
ments for Knott Avenue, subject tothe approvul of the City Engineer and
in accordance with the adopted standard plans on file in the Office of
the City Engineer.
Payment of $2.00 per front foot for streat lighting purposes on Knott,
Avenue.
Payment of a Park and Recreation Fee of $25.00 per dwelling unit to be
collected as part of the Building Permit.
~ . n;a. Fl. ~:-l .~.: :. ... ..;.:~. . ~ ~., .. . .~
,
~
1. _
~ .
~
~
~
~
~~
~
'
:
~
.'~::~ .
.-'. ~
~
Q:.- : ~
~
r
. . ~.:
611
~ MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27, 1961, Continued:
RECLASSIFICATION - 8. Provision of trash storage areas as determined by the Department of ~
N0. 61-62-48 Public Works, Sanitation Division, which are adequate in size, access- y
(Continued) ibie to trash-truck pick-up, and adequately enclosed by a solid fence
~..:' or wall, prior to Final °~ilding Inspection.
~
s: j
~
~ l
i. . ~
€, 1i
9. Installation of a six (6) foot masonry wall along the westerly 300 feet ~
of the southerly boundary of subject property, along the westerly 34~. ~
feet of subject property, and along the westerly 300 feet of the north- '
erly boundary of subject property, said walls to be installed prior to
Final Building Inspection.
~p, Posting of a bond for an eighteen (18) month's period of time to insure
the installation of walls in accordance with the requirements of Code,
Section 18.32.090, along the northerly and southerly boundaries of the
easterly eighty (80) feet of subject property.
11. Subject to the approval of construction plans for the installation of
carports by the Building and Planning Departments, with the stipulation
that the rear wall of the proposed carports may be constructed,atthe loca-
: tion of the required walls,in which case the rear walls shall be at
least the equivalent of a six (6) foot masonry wall.
12. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplishment ,
of item Nos. 4, 5, and 6. I
The foregoing conditic~s were recited at the meeting and were found to be a I
necessary prerequisi~e to the use of Yhe 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 rhe following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, iiapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry,
$ummGrS.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSt Alired.
CBNDIiiOiVAL USE - COWTiNUED PU6LIC HEARING. Petition subm~tte~ 6y EDWARD and VIOLA GRIGGS, ~
PERMIT N0. 179 9181 Knott Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; Southeast Mortgage Company,
2135 West Ball, Suite B, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission
to ESTABLISH GARDEN TYPE APARTMENTS on property described as: An "L" shaped
parcel with a frontage of 80 feet located on the west side of Knott Avenue
between Lincoln ~nd Orange Avenues; its northeast corner being approximately
935 feet south oT the southwest corner of Lincoln and Knott Avenues, and
further described as 9181 Knott Avenue. Property presently classified in
the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
• • Subject pexition is filed in conjunction with Petition for Reclass;fieation
No. 61-62-48 and Petitian for Uaria~ce No. 1420 and has been conti~ued from ~
the meetings of November 27, 1961 and December il, 1961, ai che request of j
the petitioner's agent in order that revised plans could be submitted which ~
conform to the zoning requirements of the City ofAnaheim.
The Commission reviewed the development plans and noted that the planned
unit development proposed a total of 61 apartment units with the provision
of 79 covered parking spaces. It was noted that a waiver of Coderequire-
ments in•respect to height limitations for subject Nroperty, the installa-
tion of masonry wa1)s, and the provision of carports rather• than garages
, was being requested in Petition for Variance No. 1420.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the sub-
ject petition:
,
, . 1 _.,.. ,. _... ,... ~°,~:: , , ..,>,._..
~ .:.
_ .~..~.~,..~. ~ ~ ~, ~.
~ ~ ~
612 ~
E i
~ MINUTES fITY PLANN~NG COMMISSION Oecember 27, 1961, Continued: ~
~
CONDlTIONAL USE - 1. That the proposed use is properiy one for which a Conditional Use Permit,
~~ PERMIT N0. 179 is authorized by this Code, to wit: A planned unit development. 'i
~ (Continued) ~
~ ~ 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. ~ i `
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 detri-
mental 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 praposed use will not impose an undue
burden upon the streets and highways designed and proposed to carry the
treffic in the area.
5. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions im-~
posed, if any, wili not be detrimental to the peace, health, safety,
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
6. That verbeil opposition by one owner of property in subject area was
recorded against subject petition.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 178, Series 1961-62, and moved
for its passage and adopticn, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux; to grant
Petition for Conditional Ut.e Permi2 No. 179, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Subject to the approval of Petition for Reclassification !<~. 61-62-48
and Petition for Variance No. 1420.
2. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2.
3. Installation of landscaping in the proposed entranceway of subject pro-
prrty in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, said landscaping to be
installed prior to Final Building Inspection.
4. Oedication ~f 53 feet from the monumented centerline of Kno2t Avenue ~
(30 feet existing). , ,
5. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all improve-i
ments for Knott Avenue, subject to the approval of the City Engineer ~
and in accordance with the adopted stsndard plans on file in the Office
of the Citv Engineer.
6. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on Knott
Avenue.
7. Payment of a Fark and Recreation Fee of S25.QQ per dwelling unit to be
collected as part of the Building Permit.
8. Provisiorn of trash storage areas as determined by the Department of
Public Works, Sanitation Oivision, which are adequate in size, access-
ible to trash-truck pick-up, and adequately enclosed by a solid fence
or wall, prior to Final Building Inspecr.ion.
9. Installation of a six (6) foot masonry wall along the westerly 3Q0 feet
of the southerly boundary of subject property, along the westeriy 3~+~+
feet of subject property, and along the westerly 300 feet of the north-
erly boundary of subject property, said walls to be installed prior to
Final Building Inspection.
10. Posting of a bond for an eighteen (18) month's per.iod of time to insure
the installation of walls in accordance with the requirements of Code,
Section 18.32.090, along the northerly and southerly boundarias of the
easterly eighty (80) feet of subject property.
~,~' ~'
e _ .
~ :;
~~ .:
~
~ _ ;.~ ~
~ v
613 ~
.
MiNUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. December 27. 1961 Continued: j
t
CONDITIONAL USE -11. Subject to the approval of construction plans for the installation of i
PERMIT N0. 179 carports by the Building and Planning Departments, with the stipulation ~.
(Continued) that the rear wall of the proposed carports may be construct~d at the j
location of the required walls in which case the rear walls shall be at i..
least the equivalent of a six (6j foot masonry wall.'
12. Time limitation of one hundred eighty (180) days for the accomplishment ~;
' of Item Nos. 4, 5, and 6. ~
~
~
€',`:: ~':.
ii:~. <~`:`;~,
k ~~f .y ,~
~ ~a
~
~. ., .
f,~
~.._ ,
E
~
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. i
i
On roll ca11 the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: i
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry,
Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
VARIANCE N0. 1420- CO.DRINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by EDWARD and VIOLA GRIGGS, 9181'
Knott Avenue, Anaheim, ~alifornia, Owners; Southeast Mortgage Company, 2135 I
West Ball, Suite B, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to '
WAIVE SINGLE STORY HEIGHT LIMITATIONS; ALSO WAIVE ENCLOSED GARAGE ANU WALL '
REQUIREMENTS on property described as: An "L" shaped parcel with a frontage_
of 80 feet located on the west side of Knott Avenue between Lincoln and
Orange Avenues; its northeast corner being approximately 935 feet south of
the southwest corner of Lincoln and Knott Avenues, and further described as '
9181 Knott Avenue. Property~presently classified in the R-A, RESIDENTIAL '
AGRICULTURAL, 20NE.
Subject petition is filed in conjunction with Petition for Reclassification
No. 61-62-4£' and Petition for Gonditional Use Permit No. 179 and has baen
continued from the meetings of November 27, 1961 and December )l, 1961, at
the request of the petitioner's agent in order that revised ylans could be
submitted which conform to the zoning requirements of the Ciiy of Anaheim.
Mr. Harry Knisely, the petitioner's agent, appearea before the Commission,
requested clarification in respect to the requested waiver of wall require-
ments for the subject property, and stated that the peti~:ioners were re- '
que~.ting waiver of the single story heio~,t limitation for the subject pro- '
perty located within 150 feet of property classified in the R A, Residential'
Agricultura], Zore~in addition to the provision of carports rather than '
garages for the subject devE~l~pment. He indicated that the proposed devel- :
opment was separated from th~e abutting R-1, One Family Residential, tract
on the west by a 33 foot wide strip of land classifted in the R-A, Residen- '
tial Agricultural, Zone, therefore, the proposed two story development was ~I
more than 150 feet from the existing R-1 development. He stated also Yhat
the properties abutting subj.ect prop,°rty on the north and south were pre-~ '
sently classified in the R-A, Residrntial Agrtcultural, Zone and that the"se
properties would probably be developed with a use, that would be compatible
with the proposed development, because of their dimensions,and location.
The Commission discussed the possible existence of an easement ebutting the
southerly boundary of the subject property to prov~de access to the schooh
and church properties located southerly of subJect property. Mr. Knisely
indicated that a gate was provided where the school children pass through,in
order to provide access from the residential tract.
Mr. John Wycoff, 6873 Via Madia Circle, Buena Park, appeared before the
Commission and stated that it was his understanding that the access strip
was owned,by the School District, that it was. probably deeded by the•church
facility, that it was wide enough to accanodate use by automobiles, that ~
hundrads of children pass through the property most of whom go the Danbrook
School in addition to those going to Western High School, and that a chain
. ) v: .;.r V' .~. . .
.. . ,`Ln .. . . . .
ii: _
. ~ . . . y~j, . , .
.~ ~ ~. ~ ' . ~ .~"j ~~' .
~ . ' . . .,. . .. . ~ . ~?~ ~ ,
, . ~ - - . .,`~~ ~ .
.+e.s+~..r~a . `
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
, . ,-- ~ ~ .
~ 614
• MINUTI:S. CITY PL:Ak~:'NG COMMISSION, December 2?, 1961. Continued: ~
VARIANCE N0. 1420- link fence 10 feet in height was presently bordering the area end was pro- ~
(Continued) bably installed by the School District. ~ :
Mr. Knisely informed the Commission that the proposed development of subject
property would be compatible with the existing development in the area and j•
the probable future development of the vacant properties, that the develop- ~
~ ~ ment will consist of deluxe studio type units, that only sleeping quarters ~
~ and bathing and dressing facilities would be provided on the second story, ~
' that no railings or similar structures would be provided that would be I
objectionable, and that the proposed carports were of the acceptable arch- ~
~ itectural type that would blend with the development and be more attractive ~
~ than garages. He stated that the petitioners were requesting the waiver ~
of wall requirements because the carports would be provided on the boundary
~~~ :-~- lines of subject property, and that the entire area would be enclosed, thus
~ eliminating the necessity for walis, and that the installation of walls
`c might not be compatible or necessary for the future development of the abut-
~;. .ting properties to the north and soueh.
~ Mr. Wycoff stated that he was opposed to the subject petition because he
F .tonsidered the two story buildings to be an invasion of the privacy of the
. xesidential tract, and that the proposed development would be establishing j
~ a precedent in the area. He stated,however, that the enclosed carports ,
would be acceptable, although he did not consider it safe to utilize the
~: r.ear of the carport structures for wall purposes because of the possibility '
F of cars breaki~g through the structures and entering the rear yards of the
~ abutting residential properties~thereby endangering the children in the
~ area. He indicated that, in his opinion, the standard setback of structures.
~ should be applied and that a masonry wall should be provided because there ;
would be a certain amount of rain water drainage into the adjacent prope rties:,
~
Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler informed the Commission that it was not '
necessary for :he petitioners to request a waiver of the one story height
~ ~ limitation for structures within 1~0 :`eet of the R-l, One Family Residential,~
~ properties because the subject property was surrounded completely by R-A, ~
~ Residential A9ricultural, zoning and that the requested waiver was necessary ,
i because of the R-A zoning in the area.
€
F THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
(. The Commission reviewed development plans and nuted that detailed plans were
~; not provided for the construction of the carports. Mr. Knisely stated that
~: the carports would have a back thereby providing a solid wall, that the
~' project would be completely enclosed with the provision of fencing wherever
y
~ carports were not installed, that the proposed enclosure of the property
would not permit access from adjacent properties, that the only exit would
be providedtn Kno 1 Avenue o~ly. and that the entire develaament would be a
y self-contained unit. He stated that, if the matter of the wall requirement ,
~': became a problem, a bond could be posted until such time as the future
!~., development of.adjacen.,t properties was determined and that the installation
of a wall at the present time could easily be dPtrimentat to the dev~lop-
ment of abutting properties.
Commissioner Pebley indicated that he was agreeable to the proposed develop-
ment with the exception that a block wall should be required.. He stated
that, in his opinion, the installation of the carports without the protec- -
tion of a wall would be detrimental to the neighborhood. In response to
inquiry from the Commission, Mr. Knisely indicateu that the back of the
carports could be provided with a solid masonry type of construction to
correspond with standard wall installations. `
Assistani City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that in the .
R-3, Multiple Family Residen.tial, Zone the Code specified the installation i
~ of walls on the boundary lines where the subject property abuts a single
,, family residential zone except for access drives, walks, and buildings, not
„, to exceed six feet in height. He indicated, however, that where a building ~
~ ~ serves as a wall, the height limitation could not be applied.
~
~r",Ek'k? :
~ i~
~. ~
' " v. yz-----'' - . -- n , : . i<:t .., .. _. _ .. . .. , ..._ .. . .._
~
i
~; ~ MINUTES CITY PlANNlNG COMMISSION, December 27, 1961, Continued:
~. ,
r, ~= -
.r. ? =t..r, - i
~
I~..~:
VARIANCE N0. 1420 - 7he Commission discussed further ~ne lack of detailed plans for the :
(Cor.tinued) construction of carports and Mr. Knisely indicated that the carports ~
would be constructed of a solid material, and that he would be willing
to stipulate a wall on the west boundary line but that he did not con- ~
sider walis to be necessary on the south, north, and east boundaries.
He stated further that he would be willing to stipulate tVie re~;u?re-
ment of submitting detailed plans for the construction~of the carports ~
to the Building and Planning Departments Staff for approval.
It:was suggested that, if the wallwere considered necessary between
the subject property and the Junior High School, the First Christian
Church property, ar.d the strip of property extending easteriy to Knott
Avenue, a bond could be posted to insure the installation of wallsfor
one year or until such time as additional property were obtained to
augment the proposed development, or until the abutting properties
were developed. _.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition:
That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Muni-
cipal Code: Section 18.32.060 to permit the construction of two-
story strur,tures on subject property within 150 feet of property
classified in the R-A, Residential Agricultural, Zone; Section
18.32•090 to permit the construction of a fence along the 6ound-
aries of subject property; and Section 18.'32•120 to permit the
construction of one and one-quarter covered spaces (carports)
per dwelling unit in conjunction with the proposed development
on subject property.
That the requested waiver of Code, Section 18.32.090 is hereby
deemed to be incompatible with the proposed use of subject pro-
perty and the existing development of subject area.
That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances 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.
That the requested 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 question.
That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in
such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
That the requested variance will not adversely affect the Compre-
hensive General Pl~~, ,
That verbal opposition by ~^= owner of property in subject area
was recorded against subject peti:ifln.
Commissione~ Perry offered Resolution No. 179, Series 196i-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley,
to grant Petition for Varia~ce No. 1420, subject to the following
conditions:
Subject to the approval of Petition for Reclassification No.
6i-62-48 and Patition for Conditional Use Permit No. l79•
Davelopment substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. t and 2.
Installation of landscaping in the proposed entrance way of •
..~. .~. .,. . ,..,. .... .~. .. ,.. ,_ . . -
:.~ . , .; _. . . ...i .U ....'.
C_ "
t r ~;
t
~
~ . . .. ' . ~ . ..
~ ~..~~ -. . ~
P ~
a ~ MINUiES CITY PLANNING COMMISS{ON December 27, 1961, Continued: ~
VARIANCE N0. 1420 - subject property in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2, said land- I
~Continusd) scaping to be installed prior to Final Building lnspection.
4. Installation of a six (6) foot masonry wal•l.~along the westerly 300
feet of the southerly boundary o` subject property, along the west-
erly 3t+4 feet of subjoct property, and along the.westerly 300 feet
~'• of the northerly boundary of subject property, said walls to be
installed prior to Final Building Inspection. ~
5. Posting of a bond for an eighteen (18) month's period of time to
insure the installation of walls in accordance with the require-
ments of.Code, Section 18.32•090, along the northerly and souther-
ly boundaries of the easterly eighty (80) feet of subject property.
6. Subject to the approval of construction plans for the installation
of carports by the Building and Planning Departments, with the
stipulation that the rear wall of the proposed carports may be
constructed at the location of the required walls in which case
the rear walls shall be at least the equivalent of a six foot
masonry wall.
7. Dedication of $3 feat from the monumented center]ine of Knott
pvenue (30 feet existing).
8. Preparation of street improvem~nt plans and installation of all im-
provements for Knott Avenue, subject to the approval of the City
Engineer and in accordanca with the adopted standard plans on file
in the -0ffice of the City Engineer.
9. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on
K~ott Avenue. ~
10. Payment of a Park and Recreation Fee of $25.00 per dwelling unit
to be collected as part of the B~.iilding Permit. ~
~
11. .Provision of trash storage areas as determined b.y, the Department
of Public Works, Sanitation Oivision, which are adequate in size, ~
accessible to trash-truck pick-up, and adequately.enclosed by a
solid fence or wall, prior to Final Building Inspection. i
12. Time limitation of on~ hundred eighty (180) days for the accom- •'
plishment of Item Nos. 5. 3, $, and 9.
The foregoing conditions were recitad at tha meeting and were found
to be a necessa~y prerequisite to the use of the property in order to ,
preserve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
Un roll call the foregoing resolution was passecl by the following voEe:
AYES: .COFiMiSSI0NER5: Gauer, iiapgood, Marcoux, Munyail, Petiley,
Perry, Summers.
' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. .
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
VARIANCE N0. 1433 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by GAIL VARY, P. 0. Box
67,•Anaheim, California, Owner; requesting permission to (1) CONSTRUCT
A FOUR-PLEX and (2) WAIVE MINIMUM REAR YARO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS on
, property described as: A parcel 52 feet by 155 feet with a frontage
of 155 feet on North Street and located on the southwesterly corner .
of North and Claudina Streets, and further. described as 761 North
Claudina Street. Property presently classified in the R-2, TWO FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
Subject petition was continued from .the maeting of,December ti, t961,
in order that the petitioner be provided an opportunity to submit
re~.:: , _ : -- F .
+ ~::ry~ ~ i~__~ ~ ... , .. .
.': 1 . . _. ~. ..
. ~ \~~ : ~ ~ . ~ ~,. ~~~•. .
~
~' ~ ~
617
MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. Decamber 27. 1961, Continued:
VARIANCE N0. 1433 - revised developmant plans complying with the requirements of the
(Continued) Anahaim Municipal Coda.
Mr. V. E. McCal]..w4,758 North Claudina, appeared before the•Commission
and stated that he iived across the street and from subject property
and that the subject area was developed predominantly for single family
~residential use with very few two family uses in the area. He indicated
~ that he was opposed to the subject petition because, in his opinion,
lt~constituted '~spot zoning". He stated further that he had been in-
formed in the past that he could not util.ize his property for an ~ddi-
;tionttl; residence, that his property was large anough to accomodate an
additional residence if a variance were granted, that other develop-
ments similar to the development proposed for subject property had
baen stopped in the area, and that the proposed varianca would permit
the construction of a residence too close to the sidewalk in the front
of sc~ject property.
Mr. Gail Vary, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
stated that he had endeavored to conform to the requirements for the
R-3, Multip.le Family Residential, Zone for the proposed development
because he 'did not consider the R-2, Two Family Residential, 2one
requirements would permit the best use ofi the.subject property. He
ind~cated'that the proposed Lnits would contain a total of 3,119 squara
feat, that the two bedroom units would contain over 800 square feet
and the one bed~oom unit would contain less than 700 square feet, and
that this measurement did not includa the laundry or garage area. He
indicated that he did not revise plans to conform to the existing R-2,
Two.Family Residential, Zone because the subject area warrants a higher
density, because the R-2 2one requirements are.not as rastricttva in
the stipulation of minimum living area or the provision of garagas or
walls, and because he would not require the approval of a Petition
for Variance in order to develop the subject property for R-2, Two'
Family Residenti~J, purposes. Mr. Vary stated that the existing
garage on the subJect property would be removed from tha proQar~y, '
that entrence to tha garages wouid,ba provided from the aiiey.abutting'
sub,ject property on the west, and that there was commareiel zoning
and development located wasterly of subJect proparty.
The Commission reviawed davalopment plans and Commissioner Mungali
noted that the 15 foot wida alley would not provide adaquate turning
radius in order to utilize tha proposad garages, Commissionar Marcoux
notad that, as a result, cars would be parkad on the streets thara6y
creating.a trafftc congestion problem. It was pointed out thet ftva
garagas woutd ba required in the R-3, Multiple Family Residentlal,
Zone.
Tha petitioner indiceted that he would sat tha apartmant untts beck 20 ~
feet to giva additional spaca; that a similar plen.had baen approvad
two years previously,and w(thdrawn; that tha•present plens were for ~
a highar calibar development.that would provide a greater 1lving area
in the units; that by moving one partition in the proposad one bed- •
room unit; this unit could be increased to 750 square feat; that the
proposed dave•lopment would be maintaining tha sama setback as the
extsting development in the area; that the subJect property is the
only vacant property remaining in the subJect areaf that the. existing
gerage presently on tha subjact property is not difficult to use;•
that in the past several businesses have operated in the subJect area~
such as a rest home, a real estate office, and a sewing establistiment;
that the proposed development would not be establishing a precedent
in the area because adJacent properties were developed; and that the
subject property warranted'a better development than tha minimum R-2, ,!
Two Family Restdential, use.' • . ~.
THE'HEARING WAS CLOSED. ' ~
The Commi.ssion discv ssed the possibility of revising development plans
' . ~
~ ~ -
_ .
<. ' ~ `i;
. . ~ ~ ' . ~ .. . ' . . .. .. ' .. ;F;.
'~r y ~ ' ., ' ... ' ~ . .. ~ ~ , jff ~~ ~
,.4Y~.M..: ~., . ,. , . ~?:'.:`. ~ -!:w.~... . . . .. , .~ ~ .., ~,. .F .~ .~ . ~ Cr.~ . ti _.. . .v~'~..:'.• .~~ S.. _ ....,. ~ ~ .2/:,..t~'. .hai!5~,..~EStt.s._ .. ~,^ f . .~':~ ~~ ~ .. ~ ., .n,.. .._P,~
l~
rr ~~:. ...,. , :. . .. .' .:~_ ~^1 „~',Syi+~av/~.. }:~~.. ~ti y i _ T ~ .~ a. ~L~.`iL~ ~. S~~-~74~'.
~t ',' ~* `k .
C . " .,.) ~' '
.. ~~~ .~.I~. ff,
6 9 -
. ~ .. .. .T.. .
. ~../ ~ . ~ . . Y . . ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ . .
~ ;. . !
~ . 618
r l MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMM!SSION, December_ >, 19_6_1~ Continued:
~ VARIANCE N0. 1433 - in order to provide three unlts~thereby providing adequate garage
,~Continued) area and property ingress and egress. Chairman Gauer inqui.red about
the possibility of overcrowding the prope~ty if the property were
~• ~ ' developed with the proposed four units.
. ~
i~
Commissioner Pebley noted that a service station was presently located.
across the alley westerly of subject property, that the property need-
ed a suitable development, and that it might not be considered economi-
cally feasible to develop the property with less than the proposed
number of units.
The Commission discussed at some length the possible revislon of
plans~limiting the development to three units,in order to provide an
adequate number of garages and for compliance with other Code require-
ments. The possib•ili.ty of continuing the subject petitia~ until such
time as revised plans were available was discussed~and Mr. Vary in-
dicated that he was in favor of the construction of four units because
of the expense involved. He submitted alternate plans for two family
residential units and Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler notad tfiat
the alternate plans would not rec7uire Commissior. action.
Although the subject petition was not requesting reclassification of
subject property, Commissioner Marcoux expressed strong opposition
to the subject petition on tha basis that to permit multiple family
resldential development in the subject area, consisting.{~redominantly
of single family residential development, would have the effect of
creating "spot zoning". '
The Commisslon found and determined the following facts regarding tha
subject petition:
l. That the petitioner requests a variance from tha Anaheim Municipal
Code, Section 18.28.010 to parmit the construction of four (4)
dwelting units on subJect property; Section 18.2$.03Q t3) to per-
mit an encroachment of twenty (20) faet into the requirad rear
yard; and Section 18.28.030 (4-b) to perm?: tho proposad davalop-
menY of subJect property having a lot area of 2,015 squere feet
per dwelling unit rather than the requtrad 3600 square feat per
dwelling unit.
2. That there are no axceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involvad or to tha iraiandad
use of the property that do not apply generally to the proparty or
class of usa in tha same victnity and zona.
3• That the requeszed•variance is not necessary for the prasarvation
• o~ enJoymant of a substantiai property right possessad by other
pr~perty in tiie same vicinity and zons, and denied to the property
in question:
4. That tha requested variance will be matarially datrimantal to the
public welfare or inJurious to tha property or improvamants in
such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
5. That the requasted variance for the proposed davelopmart v~ rOUf
units_on the subJect property is'not compattbie with tha existing
R-2, Two Family Residsntial, Zoning and the axisting davalopment,
consisting predominantly of single family restdantial usas, of
subJect area. ~
6. That the proposed.davelopmant of subJect property with four multi- I
.. ple family residential untts would permit the over-crowding of ~
sald property, whereas a suitabin devalopment with three units . ~
woutd be more competible with the exisxing development in subJect
area.
~N~y... . . . 1;Mi.~`~ 1: 1'~r..4~1{.... ~ „_ ~.~ .,.. . . . . ,....:,~ . . . ~~. .~ ~.:,... !'r.. .,..''.,~+.j ~[ w 7y~ ~ t , ~ ~.. ~ ._..., . .~.. _ .
_ . ,~ : .
61~
MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27; 1961, Continued:
VARIANCE N0. 1433 - 7. That verbal opposition by one owner of property in subject area
~Continued) was recorded against subject petition.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 180, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Hapgood,
to deny Petition for Variance No. 1433 on the bases'of the aforemen-
tioned findings.
On roll call the f~regoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Summers. ,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred,
t
~
(
I
VARIANCE N0. 1434 - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by WILlIAM A. SIM, 2128 South
Loara Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; R. L. Farrow, 9656 Garden
Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, California, Agent; requesting permission
• to WAIVE MINIMUM FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUlREMENTS on property
described as: A parcel 310 feet by 640 feet with a frontage of 310
feet on Orangewood Avenue and located on the southeast corner qf Orange-
wood Avenue and Loara Street, and further described as 2128 South Loara
Street. Property presently classified in the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRI-
' CULTURAL, ZONE.
~ The petitioner appeared before the Commission and stated he had nothing
to add to the information contained in the subject petiti'on.
Mrs. Eugene Thomas, 2080 South Loara Street, appeared before the Com-
mission and requested information in respect to the requested variance
from Code setback requirements. She reviewed a plot plan of subject
. p~operty and noted that the proposed single family residences would
not face Loara Street. .
The Commission reviewed the tract map of subject property and discussed
the problem of permitting substandard lot frontages on major streets
such as Orangewood Avenue. Commissioner Mungall indicated that the
r~quested variance for certain lots within the interior of the tract
would not be detrimental to the area but that it was his opinion that
the front yard setbacks on Orangewood Avenue should remain at 25 feet•
with the revision of the rear yard setbacks for the affected lots.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSEO.
The Commission found and determined the following iacts regarding the
subject petition: ,
~ t. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal
Code, Section 18.24.030 (1-a and 3) to permit encroachments into
the required front and rear yards as indicated on Exhibit No. 1.
2. That the requested variance will not be mate~ially detrimental to
the pul~lic welfare or injurious to the property or improveaients in
such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
3• That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 181, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux,
to grant Petition for Variance No. 1434, subject to the following
cond i t i o.ns :
l. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit No. 1 with the
exception that Lots 1 through t+ of iract No. 4~17 shali maintain a
twenty-five (25) foot front yard setback with the corresponding ~
• Q ~ ' . ~
~
~
1. (\/~jJ
V
~ . ..
4
~
,..~~~ _ ~'~ -
_. ,
,~
~
~
, /J
h . ' ~ . 620
~ MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION December 27 1961, Continued:
E
' VARIANCE N0..1434 - revisioncf the rear yard setbacks of said lots, in order to permit
~ ,~Continued) said front yard setbacks, in accordance with the revisions indicat-
r.° ed on said Exhibit No. 1•
~. , .
~_ . 2. Recordetion of a Final Tract Map of subject property.
• The foregoing conditions were recited at the meeting and were found to
be a necessary prerequisite to the us~ of the property in order to pre-
k; serve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll catl the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebiey,
Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSlONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
VARIANCE N0. 1435 - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by RAYMOND SPEHAR,.1532 Beacon,
Anaheim, California, Owner; Robert E. Johnson, 1773z West.Lincoln
pvenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to WAIVE
60q, MAXiMUM COVERAGE REQ,UiREFicYTS on praperty described as: A parcel
100 feet by 136 feet with a frontage of 100 feet on Euclid Avenue
and located on the southwest corner of Euclid and Chalet Avenues.
Property presently classified in the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL,
ZONE. '
Mr. Harry Knisely appeared before the Commission, stated that he repre-
sented the petitioner, and reviewed the history of the reclassification
of subject property to the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone. He
described the proposed construction of seven apartment units on subject
• property and indicated that the petitioner proposes to divide .the
development with a petio type inner court; that the court could be
covered if the Commissi.on considered it necessary; that the development
would be a deiuxe high-caliber type of development,complying with every
standard except for the ground coverage waiver outlined in the subject
petition; that the petitioner could develop the property with more units
than proposed; and that the denial of a variance wouid create a hard-
' ship upon the petitioner because it would reduce the size of the patios
and the quality of the entire project.
' Mr. S. A. Freedman, 1714 Chale.t Avenue, appeared before the Commission,
and stated that he owned propE:rty abuttin~ subjec~ property ~n the
west, that the utmost care must be exer~.ised in order to pre:vent the
deterioration of the value of the property in the immediate vi_cinity,
namely the Anawood development; that h~: Was speaking in behalf of his
neighbors in the Anawood tract,who were.perturbed over the prc~jected
~ use of the subject pr~perty; that the subject property was basically
suitabie for single'femi]y residential use oniy; that the rzclassifi-
cation of subjecf property to the R-3~ Multiple Family Residential,
zone was granted over the objections of the nearby residents and pro-
perty owners; that.single family residential development had heen
established abutting Euclid Ave~ue in close proximity to subject pro-
perty by xhe developers of the Anawood tract; that Mr. Spehar had
d him an ultimatum indicating that, untess a
telephoned him ~and serve -
commercial use were permitted on subject property, he would develeo
the property with eight residential uniEs with garages on the alley
abutting Mr. Freedman's property; that the ~lley terminates at the
present time at the boundary of the new high school being constructed
southerly of subject property, therefore; it would be utilized for
utility and other purposes such as ingress and egress`to the school
property; that Mr. Spehar had:stated thet no wall wouid be placed on
the ~ubject property, that the.wall would be installed on Mr. Freed-
man's •property; and that the development plans had been'.kept secre•t. -
Chairman Gauer informed Mr. Freedman that the deveiopment plans were.
b:,farc the~Commi;ssion and were available for review. _
, ,.. „
ti:
~ . .. s . , . . , ._ . ,-,~~ ... , . . . ,. _ _.~_.~..` '
p,':,_ ^ ~ _ ~ i~v ''~ ~+ . :; ~ ' x . .if`.' ~ .::.I,:r ^~t~~~?i!``.~:NC~ . ...ti., . _ _~....~::~:'~:
~~' -. ~=nKF. MN.'di~ .d ...3 ~.- ' _ '^ .f:~l+~:Y Y44~y~Y+`.~'+..rW ;.4~~'m~`~:<'
r
.~ ~. .
~ ' ., ~ :.,T,SK.~~ .~ ~,'
~ .'~ _ . . , . .. ~~~ ._' ~ '
a. ..~. ~ . . ~ ~ . . . ... . ~ ~ . ~ .
MINUTES. CITY PLANNIN_G_ COMMISSION: December 27, 1961, Continued:
: ~~ :
~_
~: ~
.
. 'rr.,~.^ .
~
62t ~ .
VARIANCE N0. 1435 - Mr. Freedman statad further that Gordon Whitnall, who is an authority
(Continued) on planninq metters, had emphasize~ the importance of the proper use
. of variances. Mr: Freedman stated that, in his opinion, a"tough"
. attifude on variances is essentia.l.to good planning and that it was of
extrr~me importance tbat ~ses be permitte3 by vaFiance only in
accordance with Zoning Law. He indicated that he did not consider the
size of the subJect property adequate for the proposed 68% coverage,
~ that the subject property was situated at the entrance to the Anawond
tract, and thet to place too many units on the subject property wou'id
reduce the amount of space available on the'land itself for use for
parking space and the maneuvering of cars, which would result in the
parking of cars on the street.at the entrance to the residential
tract, and that the resultant parking on both sides of Chalet:Avenue
would be dangerous and 'anconvenient. He stated that the southern
boundary of subject property is contiguous to the high school pro-
perty, that the placing of walls around the subject property should
be carefully considered because of the implications in respect to the
school property and the neighboring homes, that careful consideration
' should be given to the development of subject property because of its
relation to the strip of land classified in the R-3, Multiple Family
Residentiel, Zone and extending northe~ly towerd Ba11 Road and the
precedent that would be established for this vacant strip of land,
that the alley adjacent to the residential area would be a disadvantage
because of use for trash disposal and access purposes, that all faci-
1iti.es: necessary for• the maintenance of subject property should be
restricted to the subject property itself, and that the decision of
the Commission and the City Council in respect to the subject property
will affect the entire.vicinity of the subJect property for many years.
Mrs. Highland, 1330 Falcon:Street, appeared before the Commission and
expressed concern in respect to the number of cars that.would be
utilizing the subject property.
Mr. Raymond'Sephar, in•rebuttal, stated that he wished to go on record
as stating that he had not served Mr. Freedman an ultimatum, that Mr.
Freedman had phoned him~at which time Mr. Spehar had told him he did
not wish to make a comment because he had sold the subject property,
and that the reason for selling the property. was to get Mr. Freedman
"out of his hair".
The Commission discussed the ownership of the subject property and it
was pointed out that the petition had been filed by Mr. Spehar. Mr.
Spehar stated that the property had been eold subject to the approval
of the Petition for Variance and that it was presently involved in
escrow proceedings.
Mr. Knisely, in rebuttal, stated that;,i'n response to Mr. Freedman's
remarks relative to the agent's statement regarding the_reduced quality
of the deveiopment if the va~.iance were not granted, the point intend-
ed was thet:the buildJngs would be pushed together,.if the variance
were not granted, and the open,air patio area would be reduced, which
would limit the quality of the living,quarters, thereby having an
effect upon the entire project. He stated further that the subject
property had`been rectessified to the R-3. Multipie Family Residem
tial, Zone,.the~efore the use;for single family'residential.purposes
was not an'issue; that the plans had not been kept secret; that he
had endeavored, a few hours previous to the meeting, to acquaint Mr.
Freedman with the development plans; that the only issue requiring
the Commission's attention wes the matter of the open air patio area
between the buildings;'-that the`development would definitely be of a
' high.quality;and suitable for the R-3, Mult,iple Family Residential,
tone; and,that ttie potitioneh was'not requesting waiver of wali require-
menEs an.d would comply witFi'Code wall requirements.
- ~. . . _. _ ' ._ ... . . ~ . , ' . .~~1. w~ w~w~__~_ w •• .._ _~_.'fJ~.._+ . .
~
' ~
• ~
i
~
. ~- ; : ~
~
1 ~;
'R
~
.....
~ ~
- _- ~ ~
622
MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION December 27. 1961, Continued:
AFTER RECESS - Chairman Gauer reconvened the Meeting at 4:15 0'Clock P.M.
VARIANCE N0. 1435 - THE HEARI~iG WAS CLOSED.
. • (Continued)
Attorney Joe Gaisler advised the Commission that the
Assistant City
.
proposed development plans coristituted basically a singie building •
with an open walkway and that, if the entire area were covered, it
~ would be considered a single building. However, the patio area pro-
vided an opening between the b~ildings, the distance of which was at
variance with the Code requirements, thus the necessity for the request-
ed variance. He stated further that in response to Code requirements•
for the provision of walls, a wall was required whenever the subject
rroperty abuts property classified in a single family residential zone,
and that a wall wo:iid be erected on the subject property unless consent
~
were obtained for i~~.s installation on abutting praperty. He indicated,
' however, *_hat the su!~ject development proposes the installation of
~ ~
garages abutting the alley, thereby satisfying Code requirements as
~, • stipulated in Section 18.32.090 which requires a wall along the zone
boundary excepting therefrom those area reserved for access drives or [
walks and buildings, and that the only wall that might be considered
necessary was for an area approximately 2 feet in width. ~
- The Commission reviewed develapment plans. Commissioner Marcoux in- ~
dicated that he considered the proposed development, with the garages
~, ~
abutting the alley and access provided from the alley, would encourage
parking on the streets which would create a traffic hazard. He in-
~ dicated further that, in his opinion, the property should be classified ~
~~ in the R-l, One Family Residential, Z~.ne.
~ !t was pointed out that the reclassification of the subject property
had been approved by the Commission and the City Council, that the
Council had reviewed and approved development plans for multiple
family residential units, that the original plans had been revised,
and that the revised plans as outlined in the subject petition were
~, ~ referred to the Commission because they would require an approval of
~?etition for Variance due to the Code requirement of a maximum cover-
~ age of 60 percent of the lot area of subject property. It was noted
further that the original development plans were for the construction
uf five units ~ather than the proposed development of seven units as
requested by the subject petition. Assistant Lity,Attorney Joe Geisler
advised the Commission that the petitioner would not need the approval
of a Petition for Variance in order to develop the subject property in'
accordance with original development• plans but that the petitioner
considered the development proposed by the subject petition to be more
suitabie and desirable for the subject property.
The Commission found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petition:
w. -
~;. l. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal i
Cod'e, S°ction 18.3Z•08~-t5) to permit a coverage of sixty-~xight
(68) p.:rcent of the lot area of subject property.
2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property 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 and zone.
3• That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation
and enjoy~nent of a substantial property right possessed by other
properey in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the preperty
in question.
,?i 4., That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the '
~ a;, public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in I
such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. :
;:: ~
r~ars. 't~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~
~e'4JW~_ ~ ~ .. . ' .. ' ' ~ ' . . . I -.. .
I
. . . . . . . . ~ - ~ I... ~ ~:.
~ ''
~ ~ . . . , ' . ' . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ .
. ' .~ .,--~- _
~.,,~ ~: y . .. ._.,,'
.:: u~.......'. . ., ..,:.~ ":'~\ .::_ "':'.. .,:. .':_' y; ;~E:.s~~
~
~~
~;
~ ' _
~
~
623 I
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. December 27, ~961, Continued:
VARIANCE N0. 1435 ' S• Thatverbal opposition by two owners of property in subject area Was
(Continued) recorded against subject petition.
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 182, Series 196~-62, and
moved for its pa:asage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall,
to deny Petition for Variance No. 1435 on the bases of the aforemen-
tioned findings.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
; •, Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONER~: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petitiun submitted by W. C. HIGDON, 20640 Santa Ana
PERMIT N0. 18 Canyon Road, Anaheim, California, Owner; William A. Veach, 955~+ Cedar
Avenue, Bellflower, California, Lessee; requesting permission to
ESTABLISH A HELIPORT on property described as: A parcel 125 feet by
410 feet with a frontage of 125 feet located on the west side of Beach
~ Boulevard betwoen Lincoln Avenue and the north city limits; its south-
east corner being approximately 620 feet north of the northwest corner
of Lincoln Avenue and Beach Boulevard, and further described as 315
North Beach Boulsvard. Pi~operty presently classified in the R-A,
RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Mr. William Veach, the petitioner's agent, appeared before the Commis-
sion and stated that he wished to establish a heliport on subject pro-
perty, and the proposed heliport would be a private operation therefore
he did not have any permits from the Aeronautical Board, that he would
carry passengers in a commercial helicopter, that he was a commercial
pilot, that surveying and aerial photogra;>i~; •~ervices would be provided
' in addition to any other type of service that developad, and that he
did not know how much demand there would be for the service.
Mr. Albert Gentry, 2434 North ~owling Avenue, appeared before the
Commission and stated that. he would'have no objections to the use of
heliports tnat might be established in the industrial area5 but that
he did not believe there was a need for helicopter service as a general
serviFe not in connection with an industrial operation. He requested,
therefore, that the subject petition be denied.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission discussed at some length the matter of the difficulties
that had arisen in the approval of the heliport established in con-
junction with the Disneyland facilities and it was indicated that
adequate information was necesssry in respect to accurate kno~•~ledge
of the fu~ction of the heliport, what the flight and approach patterns
would be, limitations on the approach pattern, the er;ct facilities and
improvements that would be put on the property, the noise.control
factors in respect to the type of helicopters thet would'be serviced,
a time limitation on the anticipated use of the heliport, the fre-
quency and scheduling of flights, in addition to numerous other factors
that required consideration.
Mr. Veach stated that the helicopter would be a Bell 200 horsepower,
which is less than many automobiles; that they were allowed to fly
over cities~as were airplanes~as long as they reached a safe elevation;
that the service would provide passenger sight-seeing trips; that the
flight would go over Beach Boulevard toward Knott's Ber.ry Farm and
Yeturn; that there would be an adequate amount of room for autorota-
tion; that the heliport would be licensed and maintained according
to the Fedei'al Aviation Agency; -~ that the improvements would in-
. . ---^--~~"
._. -_, ; .. , . ,. . . ,, ~,_„-~a
~i : .. - , , . - , .. . . _.
, , ,.
-. ~ ., i
~ .. . ~ . ~ ,,.v c
r : -. .. . ~. . ~ . . , . _ ..'..,~
.,. . . . . ...
~ ~ . . . ~ ~ ~ ,:~"..-~
~ . - . ~ ~ - . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . _ ..
~ ~_..
Y• . _
r i
F i
,.. i
~, ~~ ~
MINUTES,,, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION December 27, 1961. Continued:
~.
624
C~NDITIONAL USE - clude black-topping; that he had spoken with the F.A.A. and was in-
PERMIT N0. 187 formed that, if the subject petition were approved, he would be re-
(Continued) quired to notify that board so they would be aware of the heliport
~
i
~
~ location; that he intended to store the helicopter at Fullerton, that ~
gasoline would be brought to the heliport by trailer; that gasoline
would not be stored on the field; that he could obtain more customers
at the subject location than ~aould be possible in Fullerton, and that I
i he would not fly over homes and disturb the residents. ~
~ Commissioner Mungall noted that a heliport had been established pre-
~ viously on the subject property but that it had not proven too success-
ful. It was also noted that a single family residential subdivisian
was established northerly of the subject property.
The Com~ission discussed the possibility of creating a traffic hazard ~
because of the close proximity to a major thoroughfare, tF~e necessity
of obtaining an epinion from the Civil Aeronautics Board, tha neces-
sity'of establishing a definite flight pattern, and the advisability !
of notifying the property owners in the area although they were be- !
yond the distance that was required for notification of public hear-
ings.
• •Commissioner Mungali offered a motion, seconded by Commissionar ?erry
and carried, that the subJect petition be continued until the meeting
• of January 22, 1962, that the property owners of the southern tier of
~ lots located in Tract No. 2443 be notified of the proposed use of
subject property, and that the Federal Aeronautical Agency be contact-
ed in respect to the subject petition.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted.by BALL-BROOKHURST CORRAL COMPANY,
~ N0. 61-62-57 1214 South Brookhurst Street, Anahaim, California, Ownars; Gail Guthrie,
2235 Coronet, Anahaim, California, Agent; requesting that property
described as: A parcel 150 feet by 150 faet located on tha southeast
cornar of Brookhurst Street and Ball„Road ba reclassified from tha C-1,
l:.;GHBQRHQ4Q C~M.MERGlAL, ZONE t~ the C-3: HEAVY COMMERCIAL, 20NE
lim~ited to Service Station).
• Mrs. Gail Guthrie, 2235 Coronet, Anaheim, the patitioners' agent appear-
- , ed before the Commission and stated she had nothtng to add to the in-
formaiion contained in the subJect petition.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission discussed the proposed installation of a service station
in tha axisting shopping center on subJect property and the petitioner's
agent indicated that she reprasented the ownars, that the tenants In
the shopping conter had•been notified of tha company's intantion at a
merchant's associatton meeting, that most of the tenants approved of
the proposed use, that she did not have slgned stataments of the tenants
indicating tfieir approval or disapprovat of tha proposed davelopment,
that sha was not aware that the tenants should be notified, that the
proposad use~should attract mora bustness to the shopping center, and
that the service. station would be operated by '.}~e Humble Oil Company.
The Commission also discusszd the effect that the proposed use would
have on the tenants in the shopping center, and Commissioner Pebley
indicated that he was not in favor of the location of a service station
on the subject property because of its effect upon the appearance of
the shopping center. Commissioner Pebley indicated further that the '
tenants probably have from 5 to 1D year leases on the shops and that
the service station might be considered to be detrimental to the shops.
It was noted that the p~o~osea use would require the utilization of a
portion of the existing parking area for the shopping center and that,
in order to provide the required amount of parking, the oval fire pit.
located on the premises would require filling and.irnprovement to pro- `
-: ;;t':.,';
, ~ ;. c ~~~
~. , ~::
~ .
a::` .
625
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION December 27 1961 Continued:
RECLASSIFICATION - vide the necessary amount of parking area for conformance with the
N0. 61-62-57 Anaheim Municipal Code. It was pointed out, however, that there was
(Continued) a problem in respect to the use of the area~ presently containing the
oval fire pit~for parking purposes because satd area was not included
in the subject patition and, although it was ownad by the petitioners,
it was actually on abuttin~ ~roperty. Assistant City.Attorney Joe
Geisler advised the Commission that the proyision of adequate parking
area would be an essential part of the approval of the subject petition.
Therefore, notices should be forwarded to the tenants of the petitioners'
intention to i~:ilize that ?rea presently contalning the oval fire pit
in order to provide the required amount of parking.
Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to deny Petition for Recla~ssifica-
tion No. 61-62-57 on the basis that the service station was not com-
patible with the existing development of the shopping center. .The
motion failed for lack of a second.
~ . a
~
.
Commissioner Marcoux offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Perry ~
and carried, that the subject petition be continued until the meeting
of January 8, 1962, and that the tenants or lessees in the Brookhurst- ~
Ball Corral Shopping Center be notified of the proposed installation
of a service station and the uso of the ex.isting ovai fire pit tor
parking purposes. ~ ~
RECLqSSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by MRS. FLORENCE MELANSON, MRS.
N0. 61-62-58 MARY K. R~1S, MRS. LUCY K. CONIGLIO, and MRS. ANNA A. NATHA'.'?Y, Owners;
Georgia C. Manestar, c~b Roberts Real Estate and InvestmE~~.. 9752
Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting thdt property
described as: PARCEL 1: A parcel b40 feet by 650 feet with a frontage •
of 440 feet on Dowling Street and located on the south~sst corner of
Dowling Street and PEdcentia-Yorba Road; excepting a parcel 180 feet
by 210 feet with a frontage of 180 feet on.Dowling Street and located
on the southwest corner of Dowling Street and Placentia-Yorba Road;
PARCEL 2: p parcel 180 feet by 210 feet with a frontage of 180 feet
on 6owiing 5treet and located on the southwest corner of Dowling StreeE .
and Placentia-Yorba Road; PARCEL 3 An irregularly shaped parcel
with a frontaga of 194 feet on the north side of Orangethorpe Avenue
, and an everage depth of 575 feet; its southeasterly corner being
approximately 1,272 feet west of the lntersection of Dowling Street
and Oranctethorpe Avenue; arid'PpRCEL 4: ~An irregularly shaped parcel
with its ;outherly boundary abutting Parcel 3 on the north, and its
easterly ~oundary abutting Parcel 1 on the west; its southeasterly
corner being approximately 587 feet north of the canterline of Orange-
thorpe Avenue and 665 feet west of the centerline of Dowling Street, •
be reclassified from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the
C-l, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (Parcels 1 and 4) and C-3, HEAVY COMa
MERCIAL, (Parcels 2 and 3), 20NES.
Mrs. Georgia ifaneSCer, the petitioner's agent, appeared before the
Commission and distributed brochures to the Commission containing
lex#ers of intent and general informatian regarding the proposed -
development•of a shopping canter~ motal, and service station on subject
property. She describeu the proposed development of the subject pro- ~
perty with a Douglas 011 Company service station on Parcel No. 2, pro-
posed small shops to ba establi5hed in conjunction with the remainder
of the dava~opment on Parcel No. 1, the establishment of a large major
departme~~c store on Parcel No. 4, and the installation af a motel on
Parcel No. 3. She indicated that the department store woutd be con-
structed by the Butler Brothers Construction.Company and that a major
concern from Kansas was interested in the property, that plans had
been submitted for the proposed motel and.the service station, that
a tentative estimate hed been made of the cost of the development
' renging from 10 to 20 inillion dollars, that there would be a sufficient ~
amount of parking area in addition to room.,for future expansion, that ~
the entire project will abut three streets that are projected as major ~
streets in the area, that'there would be a sufficient demand for the
. . I• .
~io'a<,~?"~"':""~.~ ±-... . . ! _, . ~ . .. . . . , L, ,. . * ,... _~„ . ,:.`,.o~N a . r;:., . _ - `... ~'
, \y.' ~l ~
; `;~' ". .
,: ~ ~' ~.~
E 626
~ MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION December 27, 1961, Continued:
RECLASSIFICATION - shopping center because of the residential subdivisions in close prox-
g N0. 61-62-58 imity to the subject property, and that the development of abutting
p (Cor.tinued) property, which had been approved previously by the Commission and
. City Counci.l for commeccial purposes, had not been commenced because
of financing difficulties.
~• . '
Mr. Albert Gentry, 1124 Placentia Yorba Boulev~rd, appeared before the
Commission, inquired about the location of the residential tracts, ex-
~
'~
;.r~ssed concern relative to the patronage of the shopping center, and ~
indicated that residential areas should not encroach into the inaustriai
section located southerly of subject property.
Chairman Gauer read a letter from the City of ~~acentia,filing a pro-
test against the subject petition on the basis that the proposed devel-
opment does not qualify for the proposed use in the subject area and
numarous other factors involved. Enclosed with the lette~ of protest
and made reference to~was a map indicating areas within the limits of
the City of Placentia which have been classified for industrial use. .
The letter requested also that joint efforts bemade by both cities in
the near future for proper streat grades and alignment, and proper
overall devel"opment of the area. Chairman.Gauer noted that a study
a~as being conducted by the Planning Department end the Commission
reiative to`the proper ciassifieation af ~he northeast section of the
City and that a Public Hearing was scheduled for February 5, 1962, in
respect to the matter.
Mrs. Manestar, in rebuttal, stated that the requested reclassification
of:subject property was justified because the City of Placentia borders
the subject property, that a railroad track on Placentia-Yorba Boule-
vard separates the two cities, and that the streets will require grad-
ing. She cited other areas for comparison where shopping centers had
been established adjacent to~separations created by railroads or other
barriers. ~ ~
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. ~
The Commission discussed the grade crossing that might be necessary for
the area,the:possible expense of various methods of installing the '
improvements and the degree of responsibility for the two cities con-
carned, and the need for consideration of the matter in conjunction
with the Precise Plan Study of the area to be heard at the Meeting on
February 5, 1962. , '
Chairman.Gauer noted that the subject area had been a matter of con-
carn for some time, that it was an established fact that cities should
not be operated individually in matters in which the various cities
were affected, that xhe City of Placentia had filed a letter indicat-
ing that the classification of property located no~therly of subject
properfy within the City Limits was for industrial use, thereby limit-
ing from the north the amr~unt of residential support that would be
necessary for a commercial development. .He stated further that tha
development of the entire area should be considered as a regional devel-
opment rather than a City development, that the development of the
area will have a bearing upon the City of Placentia, and that the in-
dustrial development to the south also required consideration. Chair-
man Gauer indicated,that additional information was necessary before
consideration of the,development`of the area could be pursued.
Assistant City,Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that,
should the Commission desire to hear additional evidence in respect
to the subject property, the hearing on the subject petition.could
be re-openad and the matter continued until such time es the Commisr
sion had sufficient evidence,upon which to determine a recommendatEvn
to the City Council. Commissionar Perry offered a motion seconded by
Commissioner Marcoux and carried, that the hear.ing.on Petition for ~
'#tecias5ification No.. 61-62-58 be re-opened,,and that the hearing on the
. - 3f~ y;'~::.~ ~.~~>~r:.:._. .~..._. ... .~~.,-,•_.;;
~StS;Y .. ~ ,.S'. :, ..+~'.. }~.F.,... .,_?r.
~ ~ ;:
't-~.:~_-- , , _ `;,__4~ ~;
, ..
'i ~eset, ~Y.Kia~'~h.r«ai`i«.,_v.. .l ~~`-' ~Y.,GV -.T --9.~.: ~ ~f~-j -
i ti~ri ~
:~~ ~~'t~ ~ .
.
~ ~~~ ~1'~. ~ .
. •
. . . .. .:. ,~. . . . . ~~ ~ . . .
ys4, .
.. ~. ~ . ...~.. .. . '~ ~
.... 1 ..., ~~r
I__ ~ l - --- n . f_ ,::~„~ ~
~ ~.~ `-' ~ . ~
6z, I
~ MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. Oecember 27, t:961, Continued:
' j
REC6ASSIFICATION -.subject petition be continuad until the meeting of February 5, 19b2, ~
No.'~61.-62-58 in order that additional information regarding the subject area may
~ContFnued~,~ be considared for the projacted developme:nt of the~.northeast section
of the C3 ty. •
{~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition submitted by RAYMOND and JACK HAZZA1tI; 15892
~ 17V• 5;.°b2°60~ ~ East~.?..^.ahe3m P.o_d, Anahpim, ~al?f~~-nia; Qwners; John B. Kilroy CompanY,
~ 1360 South Los Angeles Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting l
~. ! that property described as: A parcel 640 feet by 640 feet located
on the southeasterly corner of Anaheim Road and.Dowling Street be
reclassi•fied from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the M-1,
LIGHT MANUFACTURING and P-L, PARKING LANDSCAPING, ZONES.
a~'
~~ Mr. John B. Stephenson, representative of the John 8. Kilroy Compan~,
appeared before the Commission.and indicated that the proposed re-
classification was in order to construct industrial buildings as
~ evidenced on the map submittei! with subJect petition. Chairman Gauer
stated that the Commission was familiar with the ar~a, and expressed
concern in respact to the type of deve1opment that would be establish-
ed on.the property, indiceting that tha Commission was desirous of
developing the area into a fina industrial complex with perhaps the ~ .
installation of a high caliber restaurant,•and noting that the area
had gceat potential provided development was maintatned at a high ~
level. '
' THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Tha Commission reviewed the •plot plan submittad with,subjact patition
and noted that the P-L, Parking Landscaping, Ione would require the
installation of landscaping for tha astablishmant of the requested
zone classifications.
The Commission found and determtned tha foliowing facts ragarding the
subJact patition:
l. That the petitionar proposas e raclassification of the above da-
scribed property from the R-A, RESIOENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to
the M-1, LIGHT MANUFACTURING, and P-L, PARKING LANOSCAPING, ZONES.
. 2. 'fhat the proposed raclassification of subJact proparty is nacessary ~
or desirable fo~ the orderly and propar developmant of the community.
3• That the proposed raclassification of subJect proparty does pro-
' parly relata to the zones and thair permitted uses locally esta-
, biishad in closa proximity to subJect proparty and to the zones
• and their permitted usas generally astablishad throughout the com-
• munity. ' , ~
' ~+. That the proposad reclassification of subJact proparty does require
' dedication for and standard improvement of abutttng streets be- _
cause said property does relate to and abut upon straets and high-
ways which are proposed to carry the type and quantity of trafftc,
which will be generated by the permittad uses, in bccordance with
the circulation elament of the Generel Plan.
5. That no one appeared in opposition to subJect petition.
Cortmis•.;tonar Hungall offered Resolution No. 183, Sar(es 1961-62, and
,';; movad for its passaga and adoption, secondad by Commissioner Summers,
,` ~;; to recanmend to the City,Council that Petition for Reclassification
r? ~4 No. 61-62-60 be approved, subJect to the following conditions: .
s _t, .
~.:_ 1. Development substentially in accordance with Exhfbit No. 1. ~
~- { . ~
~~:i~.~~
~ ~~_ $ .
I
~ -- - ,,
.,,; , l; , ~. _ _ ... a ., ; .;_ :A ~'~~~,~tis:!s~.. , ,,..~~-- ..- ...~_...
~ '
~
~
~ ~`--
~ ~~_.._-------~_.-._ _.-.,..r-~-~-
~-~ --~- -- ._._
~
, 'V~ ~
6as I
d ~
~.' MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION December 27. 1961, Continue .
~ _ ,
RECLA5SIFfCATION - 2. instailation of landscaping in the P-L, Parking Landsceping, Zone ~
N0. 61-62-60 portion-of'subject property, plans for said landscaping to be ~
sContinued) submitted to and subject to the approval of the Superintendent of ~
Parkway Maintenance, and said landscaping to be installed prior to
Final Building Inspection. !
~
h, , ~
4:'. ~
~ (
3. Dedication of 45 feet from the monumented centerline of Anaheim
nnad (20 feet existing).
4. ~e~icatior. of 53 foPt frpm the mo~umented centerline of Dowling '
Avenue (20 feet existing).
~ ~ 5. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all
improvements for powling Avenue and Anaheim Road, subject to the
• approval of the Gity Engineer a~d in accordance with the adopted .
standard plans on file in the Office of the City Engineer, at the
time of development.
6. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on
Oowling Avenue and Anaheim Road at the time of development.
• 7. Time limitation of one hundred eighty(180) days for the accomplish-
ment of Items Nos. 3 and 4.
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 pre-
serve the safety and welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Fiapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
Rc~Lf~SSiFiC;~-TIOh - PUB!!C HEAR!NG. Petition submitted by WISCHWACK, et ai, C/o Robert
N0. 61-62-61 W. Wischnack, 2650 West Trojan Place, Anaheim, California, Owners;
John B. Kilroy Company, 1360 South Los Angeles Street, Anaheim,
California, Agent; requesting that property described as: An irreg-
ularly shaped parcel with a frontage of 465 feet located on the east-
erly side of Dowling Street between Anaheim Road and La Palma Avenue,
its southwesterly corner being approximately 820 feet, more or less,
north of the ~ortheasterly corner of Dowling Street and La Palma
pvenue be reclassified from R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the
M-1, LIGHT MANUFACTURING and P-L, PARKING UiNDSCAPING, ZONES.
Subject petition is filed in conjunction with Petition for Conditional ~
• Use Permit No. 188. •
p~r; ~nhn Stephenson, representative of the petitioners, appeared be-
fore the Commission and indicated that the reclassification of subject
property was requested in order to complete the proposed project for
the devel~pment of subject property.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSED.
The Commission found and determined the folloa~ing facts regarding
the subject petition:
l. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above de-
scribed property from the R-A, RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to'
the M-1, U GHT MANUFACTURING, and the P-L, PARKING'LANDSCA?ING,
. ZONES.
- 2. . That the proposed reclessification of subject property is neoessary
or desirable for the orderly and proper. ' development of the com-
munity. . '
'~~ ~ ~"~ '.~~{t4~ IJ n . rpFr .~ ~ ~ is t :a(r .~~, cr ~r ~:. W ~...a:., -g..a Pp ~ ~ )~~.:..,
.. i_•.. . ~. _~.: ~.. _ -.. ~..,..~. ,. ... : ::_~ .., ,_.., . . ~ .:.C . . _ ° ...,.:~. . YE~.at~~.: t~;t F ~:.~f~~t:~ rr. ~,~'t.~ ._ nw ..'t_:~4-.~:..._,.
~, ~?'..: . ..
~.
`~
'r:
~
;
~ , _ . . ( ~ .~ .. ~~~ nC ~ . ~ ~
U '•''
629 ~ i
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION. December 27, 1961,.Continued:
i
RECLASSIFICATION - 3• That the proposed.reclassification of subject property does proper- j
N0. 61-62-61 ly relate to the zones and their permitted uses tocally established
SContinued) in close proximity to subject property.and to the zonas and their ~
permitted uses generally established throughout the community.
~ ~ 4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does require
aedication for and standard improvement of abutting streets because .
said pr.:perty does relate to and abut upon streets and highways ,
which are proposed to carrythe 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 no one appeared in opWosition to subject petition. ,'
Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. 184, S~ries 1961-62, and ~
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Surtmers,
to recommend to the City Council the approval of Petition for Reclass-
ification No. 61-62-61, subject to the following conditions:
l. Development substantially in accordance with.Exhibit No. l.
2. Installation of landscaping in the P-L, Parking Landscaping, Zone, ~
. plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and subJect to the
aoproval pf the Superintendent pf p~rkway Maint~nanae, said land- ~
scaping to be installed prior to Final Building Inspection.
3. Dedication of 5: S~eet from the monumented centariine of Dowii~ig '
pvenua (20 feet existing). ,
4. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all'im-
provements for powling Avenue, subject to the approval of tha City
Engineer and in accordance with the adoptad standard p,lans on fila '
in the Office of the City Engineer at tha tima of davelopmant.
,
5. Payment of $2.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on' ~
Dowling Avenue at the time of development.
6. Provisi'on of a ten (10) foot utility and drainaga.easament along
the southerly boundary of subJect property to adequately serve :
the subJect proparty and othar propert(es, at the time of the in-
stallation of service facilities.
7. Time limitation of one hund~ed aighty (180} days for the accompiish- '
ment of Item No. 3. '
The foregoing conditions were racited at the meeting and were found to
be a necessary prerequisite to the use of the property in ordar to pra-
serve the safety and welfare of the citizens of tha City of Anaheim.
. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passad by the following vote:
AYES: COMMlSSIJN.RS: Gaucr, Hapgcod, Marcoux, Munyall, °obley, i
• Perry, Summers. '
NOES: COFIMISSIONERS: None.. ~ -
FiBSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
,
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. Petition.su6mitted by~~ISCHNACK et ai, c/o Robart Wc
PERMIT N0. 188 Wischnack; 2650 Trojan Place; Anaheim, California, Ownars; John'B.
Kilroy;Company, 1360 South Los Angeles.5treet, Anaheim,_Callfornia,
Agant; requesting permission :to E:Ti1BLISH A PLANNED UNIT SHOPPING CENTER •
on property.de~cribed as: A percel 400 faet by.465 'feet with a:front-
age;of 465'feet loceted on the easterly si.de of Dowling;Street between
.Aneheim.Road and La Pe.1ma Avenue; its ~.southwesterly corner.being'approx- I
imatel'y 820 feet more,or less north:of ths northeastarly cornar of
9
t e,t~nA,SRES~p and la Palma Avenue. Property presently classiffed in i ;
ENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, tQNE. -
, I
_. ~ `
' ~a
_ :.
_ . ,
.~,~,~~,^ . 3 :: ~ /:.
,,.. ~1:.. iS+JFt.M..7i~_:w~--,~,ttl:~Lc J ~. _,.,.. ,,:~i ............ ... .s~~.,_F'r+.n~'~Y2'?u.{.ye.~'.^o~4;V1:7 ,_._. ..._.,._ .._.,... .t,-.< ~r~
~ ~ .` ~ +~ru.f-, ~...tx ~ .ic.;_ , u .. '~'~h, : ~'~.~ ~ .w'..3c}r' t~'~ 4 . ;
t°~1
: ~ ~.. ~
t . . ..'~ r~~ . ~ :
4 ' ~ ~
k~
~i
.- - "--'- --- i ~~.~.y~ { ia:r r ~ r.~~-~~. ~J;.. ~ . '
. .~ ~ ~•~ V ~ y;~~ Tx .~-
_
. , ,
~ ~~ . :- :~ .
F - 63~ . . .
~~ - MINUTES CITY PIANNING~COMMISSION December 27> 1961, Continued: .
E . , ~ , ., ~,.. .. . . . : . , : . . ~ _ . . . . .: ~, . ~ _ ' .
~.. CONDITIONAL USE .-'Subject petition is filed in conjunction with Petition for.Reclassifi- l
4 PERMIT;NO.`:188 ` cation No: 61=62=61.
~Conti'nued)
~ Deve:lopment plans were submitted to•the Commission and it.was noted
that the lans were for a ortion of the sub'ect ro er
~. .
~~. - P P:..:. ~s ent a eaPedPbety on•ly.
;. Mr. Raymond Spehar, the petitioner ag ,, pp fore the'Com-
~ mission and.reviewed the history of:the approval by the Commission ',
; I and'City Council of Petitio~ for.Conditional'Use Permit No, 163 for
1 the establishment:of,a hofbrau type restaurant on.Anaheim'Road in
~ i close proximity to subject property. He stated'that the John Kilroy 1
~ Company had indicated a desire to purchase th~ property proposed for ~.
; _ the establishment of. the hofbrau in order to complete an industrial !
development in the area, and that in'cooperation with the Kilroy
` Company, the petitioner had ag~eed to relocate the proposed hofbrau
" to the-subject<property provided approval wereobtained from the Plan-
ning Commission and City Council. He stated.further that`he had an
agreement with the lessee of the proposed hofbreu to relocate the
establishment> that plans had.been changed, that some type of com-
mercial development might be more suitable in the area.than the ~
~ ori;ginal.proposal for an industrial building in conjunction~with the
' hofbrau restaurant,'and that there was an easement between the,Fire .
I
~ Stetion and the subject property. • ~
_ Mr. A. Gentry appeared before~the Commission and reviewed the develop- ~
; . ment plens. It was.noted that the easement.wes located immediately
horth.of.the sub;ject property., '
° The Commission'discussed the proposed.esta6lishment of a hofbreu type
; : ;.restaurant and, in response to.Commissioner Perry's inquiry'.about the
¢ possibility that the•area would werrant a hig;i caliber restaurant, Mr.
! Spehar,inilicated':that the area might.support'such;a development but
that.he had an obligation to the lessee`for,the proposed use. 'Mr.
~ , Spehar i.nformed the.Commission that the lessee, Mr: Kramer, had been
; in the hofbrau type..of.operation f~r many~years, fhat he had;operated
~a:similar establishment,in,Downey,._that he'had been..h"ighly recommended,
~~' ~ that the :empioyees • iT Autonetics ~i~ad requesta~ th.. proposed type, of ,
. developinent, and.,that.the license could not'be obtained until a.loca- ,+-
he h~f6rau has been established. •~
tion for E
:. . ~
, Mr. Gentry indiceted that he was opposed to:the subJect Petition for .
CondiEi.onal Use Permit because he:objected to the establishmenf of.a
shoppi:ng center or other uses:in:an area tfiat had;been projected for~
industrial uses,`that:the treffic generated:by the indust~ia,l develop-
- ment would be,incompatible with a,shopping center, that'the Autonetics f-
facilities had been'established in.the area'in good feith which should
• be supported; that although:'a:.restaurant was pcoposed for a portion of '
the property~ no:plans•we.re available for~the rema~nder,;and that he
was.,opposed to:any use of the property in the subj'ect area for.other .
~ _ then high'class;industrial uses:
p ; : ,
~~ Cha~rman,Gauer~'reviewed.the his~ory'of th2:=.previous approval;for the
~ establishment of. a:hof6rau on,Anaheim Road'.and_pointed;out tfiat letters,
had.been su6miEted`sustaining the reputetion of the operator, in add-.
i;tion to:reques;ts thet.the restau'rant.be;established in'the a[ea be- _
` • cause it was..:considered necessary to p'rov;ide luncfies.for the'employees~ '
' ,: of the`,industrial facilties..:, .
:`Mr.°Steplianson reviewed the.progress of the construction of industrial..
buildings for'the Autonetics:faci.li'ties, indicating'the.,.need for the
, ;- '.; ' p p y i~volved':,in thei;previous a proval,for the.~establish-
use.of the ro ert ,. P
'ment of'a hofbreu, in;order~to`continue wi.th the`l~utonetics expansion
', program.;`.
~<~ •.'The Camrtiission.reviewed development;plans'and noted that:the o'nly i
~~,,.~ ~' ' , definite'p~oposal at the present time was for.the estabJishment.of the :'.
.
,
~~,T
~~~ ax,
:~"?~.a,; -
•~
~
;i~.
< ;:
, - ;.
$ ~ ~ ~ ` ,~.• f~ "
.": '.,^::. _~ ~. .'., . ~ - . . ..
k
p `vlr•... l:~ ,s -~(^.~_~.< ~.... ,.. -' t. F;,~.,' ( ....,.:.~: 1 ~.;~:i~.__ I_...~.',~~.a!-}.a.~__r! S,~•..r~~},.:.~~u~ ~ _ . . .... ... '~~~1
MI'ITF$,_ ~1TV PICNNIN. POMMISSION~,gCe(phrr 77„~ 1Q6~ f.nntinuPd;
CONDITIONAL USE - hofbrau restaurar.t and that the petitioners were corisidering the es-
PEh~;i N0. 188 tablishment of a small shopp?ng center, a service station, a bank,
(Continued) ar.d other possible uses in the future. !t was pointed out that the
reason for the ~equest for the additional commercial uses was in order
to avoid the fili~g of a request for the establishment of the planned
unit shoppir.g cer.ter a*_ a late~ date.
THE HEARlNG WAS CLOSED.
It was noted that the Kilroy Company had requested the termination of ~
the action for the establishmer.t of the hofbrau restaurant on.Anaheim
Road, and Mr. Spehar indicated that the property was presently involved ~
ir escrow proceedings pending the approval of the subject petition. ~
Assistar±t City A*_tor^ey Joe Geisler advised the Commission that, since ~
the subject peti*~on was primarily concerned with the establishment of
a hofb:au restaurant. on the subject property, the Commission could
granY, app!'ovai of that portion of the request in view of the lack of
plans for *_he establishme^t of ar. integ!-ated shopping center.
Chai!-man Gauer poirted out that the City Council 'nad expressed concern ~
in respect to the use ot *_he property in *_he subject area for anything
other than industria! purposes and that a study had been requested as
to the feasibility of estabiishing M-1, Light Manufacturing, Zone
classif~cation for the entire area. Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler
advised the Comm~ssion that there were certain commercial uses that
were contempiated Tor tne 'ri-i, Lignt rianur'acCui'ii7g, Ll7~~C aiiu ti7ai ti~era
were other uses which might be approved subject to the granting of a
Conditio~al Use Permit. he stated that the proposed hofbrau could be
established in the proposed building on subject property, but that any
othe~ build~ngs would be subject to the approval of the Commission by
the gra~ting of a Condi±ional Use Permit, unless they were automatically ~
authorized by the M-1, Light Manufacturing, Zone Code requirements.
The Commissio~ found and determined the following facts regarding the
subject petitio~:
l. ~Ihat the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use
Permit is authorized by this Code, to wit: A restaurant with
cocktail lounge.
2. That the remaining requested uses included in the proposed planned
unir. shoppi~g cer.ter are deemed to be premature owing to the lack
of developmen* plar.s for those uses and are thereF~re not included
in *.his resolu*ion of approval.
3. That the proposed use will not adversely affect the adjoining land
uses and the g~ow*h and development of the area in which it is pro-
posed to be located. '
4. Tha~ the s~ze and shape of the site proposed `c,r t;~e use is adequate
to allow the full development of the proposed use in a manner not
detr9me~tal to che par*.icular area nor to the peace, health, safety,
and ger±eral welfa~e of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
5. That the t!'affic ge~erated by the proposed use will not impose an
undue burden upor. the streets and highways designed and proposed
to carry the traffic in the area.
6. That the granting of *he C~nditional Use Permit under the condi-
tions imposed, if any, will not be detrimental to the peace, health,
safety and general welf~re of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
7. That verbal oppositi,on by one owner of property in subject area
was recorded against subject peYi*_ion.
_%'i?r
~ ~ ~
~ 'J ~~
,
~ ~~
-
., ~ ~
o r~.~ ~ e
~.
~: 632
:
~;
MINUTES. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27, 1961,.Continued:
E
CONDITIONAL USE
- Commissioner Mu~gali offered Resolution No.
185, Series 1961-62, and
PERMIT N0. 188 moved for its passage.and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux,
(Continued) to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. ,88, subject to the
following conditions:
~' ~ l. Development substantiaily in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 2, 3,
and 4.
2. Installation of landscaping in the P-L, Parking Landscaping, Zone,
plans for said landscaping to ;:e submit~ed to and subject to the
approval of the Superintendent of Parkway Maintenance, and said lan
scaping to be installed prior to Final Building Inspection.
3• Oedication of 53 feet from the mor:umented centerline of Dowling
Avenue (20 feet existing).
4. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of all
improvements for powling Avenue, subject to the approval of the
City Er.gineer and in accordance with the adopted standard plans
on file in the Offic~ of the City Engineer, at the time of develop-
ment.
~ 5. Payment of S~.00 per front foot for street lighting purposes on '
Dowling Avenue at the time of development. ~,
6. Provislon of a ten. (1~11 f~nr t*i~~*y and ~r~inaae easement alona '
the southerly boundary of subjec~ property to adequately serve the
~ subject property and other properties, at the time of the installa-
tior. of service facilities.
7. Time limitation of one hundred e:ighty (180) days for the accomplish-
ment of ~tem No. 3.
The foregoing conditions were ~ecited at the meeting and were found
to be a necessa~y prerequisite tr the use of the property in order to
preserve the safety and we]fare of the citizens of the Clty of Anaheim.
On roll call the fo~egoir.g resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COM.MISSIONERS: Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: GOMMlSSIOMERS: A]1red.
CORRESPONDENCE - ITEM N0. 1: REVIEW OF COND9Ti0NAL USE PERMIT N0. 147:
Notification from Reverend Wilkerson, in respect to the revised develop-
ment plans for the Christian Center Church, received on November 27,
1961, was submitted to the Commission. It was noted tha*_ the subject
petition had been re~!iewed at the meetinq of Octaber 30, 1961, at which
time the Commission had recommended that revised plans be submitted in-
dicating the provision of cul-de-sacs in accordance with the conditions
of approval stipulated in Resolution No. 52~ Series 1961-62 and Reso-
lution No. 106, Series 1961-62.
The Commission reveiwed the revised development plans datad November
27, 1961.
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pebley
and carried, that the development plans submitted on November 27, 1961,
for the development of subject property be approved and that the Plan-
ning Commission Secretary transmit notice to the petitionar indicating
the.Commission's approval of said plans in accordance with the petition-
er's reGuest outlined ~n h~s ]e*_ter dated November 26, 1961.
~
`~
O
633
MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27, 1961, Continued:
CORRESPONDENCE - lTEM N0. 2: COMMUNICATION FROM ANAHElM CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: ~
(Continued)
A letter, received on December 14, 1961, from the Anaheim Chamber of
Commerce, was submitted to the Commission. Chairman Gauer read the
letter to the Commission, noting that the Chamber of Commerce urged the
Commission to take immediate action to recommend zoning of the City
area within the boundaries of the northeast area to the M-l, Light
Manufacturing, 2one and requesting that only uses permitted in the M-1,
Light Manufacturing, Zo!+e be approved until the zoning of said area was
completed. The letter requested further that no permits be granted for
residential, commercial, or trailer park usage until the new Zoning
Ordinance was completed.
Chairman Gauer direct.ed the Plar.ning Commission Secretary to receive
and file the notification and that copies be made of the letter and
submitted with every case filed for non-industrial use of property in
the subject area, said letter to be read with every petition at the
time of consideratiun before the Commission.
REPORTS AND ITEM N0. 1: REVlEW-CONDlTlONAL USE PERMIT N0. 170:
RECOMMENDATIONS '
A report was submitted to the Commission indicating that the City Council',
had reviewed Resolution No. 148, Series 1961-62 and had taken exception
~ to Conditior. No. 8 in respect to the time limitation of one year for the
. use oi ty~ su~.~2..4 j+'^vj.C~ ty.
Commissioner Pebley r.ated that the Commission had included said time:
limitation in order to police the use of the property to prevent the
petitione!- from dropping the lease, required for the provision of addi-
tional parking a~ea, at the end of said time period. Assistant City
Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that the use of the pro-
perty was being establisfied and that there were a number of uses that
could be made of the property that would not require as much parking
area.
Commissioner Pebiey offered Resolution No. 186, Series 1961-62, and '
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry, that
Resolution No. 148, Series 1961-62, be amended with Condition No. 8 to
read as follows: "8. ~Subject to review annuaily by the Planning
Commission or± proof of a renewed lease from the Pacific Electric Rail-
road Gompany covering *.he southwest portion of subject property."
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMlSSIONERS: Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSlONERS: None.
{
~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
~
: ITEM N0. 2: REV;~k! -`JAR9RNCE Mfl. 1421:
~~. A report was submitted to the Commission indicating that the City
Council had reviewed Resolution No. 152, Series 1961-62, and had re-
quested clarification of Cor~~ition No. 2 relative to the time limita-
tion for the use of a guest house for a period of one year.
Commissioner Marcoux noted that the condition has been placed upon the
use of the property so that the guest house could not be rented at the
end of the one year time period and that the use be confined to the
adult living on the premises or the nurse employed by the household.`
Assistant City Attorney Joe Geisler advised the Commission that the
;k occ~~?ancy of the dweiling could be limited to the person employed on
the premises only and thet it could be subject to revfew at the end of
i ~',~' ;~ the one year period of time. ~
0
,
~:
634
~ ~ MINUTES CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, December 27, 1961, Continued:
G
G
~.
~:.
F
~
i .
f.
i
4, .
u
r
~:. .
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 2, Continued: REVIEW - VARIANCE N0. 1421:
RECOMMENDqTIONS
Commissioner Marcoux offered Resolution No. 187, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Pebley,
to amend Resolution No. 152, Series 1961-62, Condition No. 2, to read
• as follows: "2. Occupancy of the guest house to be limited to the
persons employed on the premises subject to review by the Planning
Commission at the expiration of a one (1} year period of time from
the date of approval of subject petition, said expiration date being
November 27, 1962."
On roll call the foregoing resolution was,passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONFRS: Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Hungall, Pebley,
Perry, Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISS!ONERS: Allred.
Commissioner Summers left the Council Chambers at 6:15 0'Clock P.M.
ITEM N0. 3: REVIEW - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0: 154:
. p report was submitted to the Commission relative to Condition No. 1
of Resolution No. 73, Series 1961-62, regarding the maximum height
, limitation for the proposed building approved by Conditional Use
pPrmit No. 154.
An amendment to Londition No. 2 of City Council Resolution No. 7104~
approving Conditional Use Permit No. 124 was submitted to the Commis-
sion, with a request that a similar amendment of Conditional Use Per-
mit No. 154 be•approved by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 188, Series 1961-62, and
moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Marcoux,
to amend Resolution No. 73~ Series 1961-62, Condition No. 1 as follows:
"1. ?hat the maximum height of said building shall not exceed 125 feet
above naturzl grade level, excluding roof structures reasonably neces-
sary for the huusing of inechanical equipment only."
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley,
Perry,Summers.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CQMMISSlONERS: Allred.
~;
r
~ ADJOURNMENT
~
~: `
~ .
- There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30
0'Clock P.M.
Respectfully 5ubmitted,
• ~ ~
' J AGE, Secretary
~ :, ~{
~ ~ . ' • _ ~
~ ; . _
~~~7~? , ,
krr~r Z ~ ~. . . . ~ , .. ~ ,
. _ ~~
E , , : :,
' l
`,. ;.; >:F:
': C 1 ~ ~„
. ...r~r:.,.-........ _. ..,.. .'_=~.a..... 7~,.i,@a__ i.;~:.f~-" . r._:, t . _.., ..,.a , . , i.!J"~:.., iK.'~.... ..~.r ~:.~.r.f;,~H ~.:`?..rii~lb ~ . . ... .. . , .. ~.e~~~