Minutes-PC 1968/02/14A
REGULAR MEETING OE SIiE.ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called
to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present.
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Camp.
- COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst (who entered the Council
Chamber at 2:30 P.M.~ Mungall.
ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson
Zoning Supervisor: Rona~d Thompson
Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts
Office Engineer Representative: Robert Jones
Associate Planner: Charles Roberts
Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs
INVOCATION - Reverend LeRoy Miller, Pastor, Faith Lutheran Church, gave the invocation.
PLEDGE OF .
ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Allred led in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Mungall offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gauer,
THE MINUTES and motion carried to approve the Minutes of the meeting of January 29,
1968, as submitted.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ROAERT KESSLER, ET AL, 1101 North Harbor Boulevard, ~
PERMIT NO r 999 Anaheim, California,'Owners;requesting permission to EXPAND AN EXISTING
MOTEL on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land
locatcd at the southwest corner of Harbor Boulevard and Romneya Drive
and having frontages of approximately 155 feet on Harbor Boulevard and approximately 247 !
feet on Romneya Drive, and further described as 1101 North Harbor Boulevard. Property
presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMNlERCIAL, ZONE.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the uses '
established in close proximity, the existing uses on subject property, and the Report to the
Commission.
Mr. Roberts, in reviewing the Report to the Commission, noted that the Circulation Element
of the Ganeral Plan required a 32-foot half-width right-of-way for Romneya Drive, which
had been dedicated to <,ts full width on the north side; however, the south side of Romneya
Drive had only a 20-foot right-of-way and was fully developed as a roadway. Furthesmore,
at such time as Harbor Boulevard is ~9eveloped to the ultimate 45-foot half-width for the
west side of the street, as projected on the Circulation Elemer:t of the General Plan, it
being a primary highway with exception, the motel structure would be located on the right-
of-way line. It was also noted that a field inspection of the property indicated that the ~
three free-standing signs located on-the p roperty were all within the ultimate public right-
of-way after dedication for street widening.'was~given to'the City.
Mr. Robert Kessler, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and in response to
Commission questioning stated that it would be impossible to dedicate the 45-foot width
for street widening purposes because the existing structure r~?s located approacimately 44
feet from the centerline; that engineers had been visitin9 v~i2 property to survey the land
and perhaps a report could be made by them; and that he was aware the signs would have to '
be relocated and two of the signs would be eliminated - the principal sign, although located '
in the ultimate right-of-way, would be replaced at such time as the City decided to widen
the street. Furthermore, relocation of the existing landscaping would provide adequately
for possible street widening of Romneya Drive, and with modifications of the Harbor Boulevard
frontage of the structure, t~he improvement Nr~uld be considerable for that loca, .
3762
_ ~";'.
L , y~~ ~'~`-• C 'C+.i.jq~,arp~X'-~~~ „s ~~~,~ T z ~.,:' t~ ~ ~ t ~ . - ~~J
y,~~~'~. ,~ z E, -
~
~j4
~ ~ ~ ~~ '~
y~K ~" MINUl'`S, CITY PLANNING COA4U~tISSION, February 14, 1968
~~
'~ 3763
CONDITIONAL USE - Office Engineer Representative Robert Jones advised the Commission that
`~+ PERMIT N0. 999 the edge of the existing structure was located 44.2 feet from the center-
r,r (Continued) line of Harbor Boulevard, and that the encroachment into the ultimate
~~t,J,~,. , right-of-way would be approximately .8 feet; however, the pstitioner
could request an encroachment permit of .8 feet from this ultimate
~`, right-of-way.
~~ ~ Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that the
~sT residential structure to the south was
Council. granted a similar encroachment request by the City i.
3 '
`~~' w. ~ Zoning Supervisor Ronald I'hompson noted that Condition :~o. 10 required that all signing
',~ be in compliance with the City's Sign Orda~ance.
~~°~~ ~
~+.~'~ Mre Kessler #hen replied they would eliminate the one sign facing Anaheim Houlevard since
, this was obsolete, and the northerly sign could also be eliminated since it only advertised
; credit cards, which could be incorporated into the major sign in the center of the
~ , and that until the City decided to widen Harbox Boulevard, he requested that considerationY~
~';.,.: ,~ be given to maintenance of the existing sign in the ultimate right-of-way.
~'` `` s
~ No one appeared in o
~, pposition to subject petition.
S:_ .:,r
°s. T1~ HEARING WAS CLOSED.
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. PC68-39 and moveu for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petit+~n for Conditional Use Permit No. ?9g,_
subject to conditions and a finding that the Planning Commission recormnended an encroach-
ment permit be granted to the petitioner for the existing structure since the structure
would be in the ultimate right-of-way, and that the petitioner had indicated the removal
of two of the existing, nonconforming signs and requested an encroachment waiver of the
remaining sign until such time as the City of Anaheim widened Barbor Boulevard. (See
Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CAMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Mungall, Camp.
NOES: OOMMISSIONERS: None.
AHSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Herbst, Rowland.
Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that favorable
consideration of an encroachment permit be made to Robert Kessler of Conditional Use
Permit No. 999, to permit the existing structures to extend into the ultimate right-of-way
of Harbor Boulevard by approx;mately .8 feet, and also a temporary encroachment permit to
allow the existing main sign be located in the ultimate right-of-way until such time as
widening of Harbor Boulevard took place, whereupon the petitioner had indicated said sign
would be relocated behind the ultimate right-of-way. Commissioner Allred seconded the
motion. MOTION CARRIED.
CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. TOM 7AKETA, ET AL, 947 North Euclid Street, Anaheim,
PERMIT N0. 1000 California, Owners; RONALD ALSHJUSE, 11201 Lampson Avenue, GaTds.. Grove,
California, Agent; reouesting permission to ESTABLISH A PONy RiilE IN
CONJUNCTION WITH EXISTING AMUSEMENT FACILII'IES on property described as:
A rectangularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 67.~ feet on the
north side of Lincoln Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 330 feet. •;ne ~nesterly
boundary of subject property b~ing approximately 560 feet east of the centerline of
Magnolia Avenue, and further described as 2535 West Lincoln Avenue. Property r:-~sently
classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the current
zoning, and the number of uses already established on the property by either variance or
conditional use permit, noting that subject petition was an additional amusement operation
to the existing uses.
Mr. Roberts further noted that under Conditional Use Permit No. 791, one of the conditions
of approval for the Superslide was to provide for landscaping in accordance with the C-1
standards for the existing and future parking areas; however, up to the present time only
one-half of the parking was provided, and none of the landscaping had been provided.
Mr. Roberts also noted that the petitioner was proposing to establish the pony ride adjacent
to Savanna High School, utilizing an existing vacant building to stable the ponies end was
providing a chainlink fence - however, the parking proposed was the same a~ that approved
under the Superslide, and the Commission must give consideration to the effects that odors,
-~,~.~,;~ ,. "~ - J.~~
"i~.y ~~ ~~K.w ~i ,... .~y.~:s
~ V , y _f.«~'~c~..;,i.i..ti+~,_.,»;. .. . -
... .s . . .. . .. _ .. .... . ~ . ~. . , . •. ` . . . ~ , . ~
~~~
. ~~ ~
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMB~ISSION, February T4, 1968
~
3764
- CONDITIONAL USE - dust, etc., might have on the a@jacent parcel; furthermore, if the
PERMIT N0. 1000 Commission deemed the use appropriate, they might wish to establish
(Continued) a time limitation and require that adequate parking facilities and
landscaping as stipulated in the Commission's approval of the Super-
slide be a condition of usee
Mr. Ronald Alshouse, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted
that he presently operated a pony ride on Beach Boulevard which was formerly operated by
his father, and they had received no complaints relative to odors, etco; that he was part
owner of the Superslide on Lincoln Avenue; and it was his opinion that the Supexslide and
pony ride would complement each other because the pony ride would take care of the younger
=- customers who were too young to ride the slide; and that there were nine Shetland ponies,
Y l1r'
~~7~`~ six of which would be in operation all of the timeo
/~
Mr. Alshouse, in response to Commission questioning, stated there were no problems relative
to flies since the only thing necessary was to keep things picked up and clean and the use
of fly spray; that the ponies would be housed on another portion of the property for which
he had received permission to use and which was ad,~acent to subject property.
The Cortenission inquired of the staff rohether or not an additional petition would be
necessary since the stables were not a part of sub~ect property; whereupon Zoning Supervisor
Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the entire facility was covered under one legal
descriptiona Furthermore, the City was requiring improvements of the swimming pool facili-
ties to the east, which did not presen+.ly exist,
Mr. Robert Martin, one of the owners and lessees of the property, appeared before the
Commission to answer questions relative to the parking required when the Superslide was
approved and stated they had blacktopped the area in accordance with the City plans;
.~ however, they would like to be informed what to plant in the parking area since the State
;~ would not approve the iceplants that had been planted in the parkway and these were removeda
Furthermore, the landscaping plans were before the State and had never been returned - so
"' they were undecisive as to the steps to be taken relative to landscaping.
! The Commission expressed more concern relative ~o the fact the petiiioner was providing only
,~ one-half of the required parking approved by the Commission at the time the Superslide was
~,:~ ' aPProved.
Sr;;y
r~:`-;:
`,'~`'` Commissioner Herbst entered the Council Chamber at 2:30 P.Me
Considerable discussion w:~e then held by the Commission, the staff, and Mr. Martin relative
to the previously approve~ plans for the Superslide and the required parking, and at its
conclusion, Mr. Martin stated the skateboard facility was not now in operation because of
an insurance problem - therefore there were more than adequate parking facilities with this;
however, their future plans indicated the removal of the skateboard facility and improvement
with a large skating rink; that the skateboard facility had 60 parking stalls, and they
would blacktop the front area if necessary; and that it was their plan to develop subject
property as part of a one-stop recreation facility. Furthermore, the swimming school to
the east was now under the 3urisdiction of the school district, and a reciprocal agreement
could be presented to the Commission which would add 80 to 100 parking spaces since the
swim school facility was utilized during the day and much of their business was during the
evening hours and on weekends.
~,;'.;:~
The Commission was of the opinion that parking as required ur.der the previous petition
should be complied with since the petitioner was proposing a full-size recreational facility,
and whether or not parkino was more than ample was up to tha Commission to d?cide, since the
petitioner had not submitted proof that the parking requirements of the City of Anaheim were
too liberal, but if evidence were submitted, perhaps a waiver of this required parking could
be madee
Mr. Martin then indicated that they would be willing to blacktop the area between the pony
ride at such time as the skating rink was developede
The Commission then inquired whether or not complete development plans of the proposed
recreation facility were available so that the Commission could determine the am~unt and
type of parking necessary for ultimate developmente
Mr. Martin then stated that they would have a master plan of what was proposed for the
recreation facility within a matter of three to four weekse
' The Commission also expressed concern that if the pony facility were not properly maintained,
~; this could cre~te quite a nuisance in the terms of odors, dust, etce, and if subject peti-
.~'x-:' tion were apprcved, a condition of approval would be sanitation facilities meeting the
requirements of the C~range County Health Department.
:< ..`Y~ .
,~ a ; ~`'t -~' r~` ~ " ,• -w ~^.~
~_~~,, ~~. ~"~.:: r~. f,, -~r~
a ~ ~
~ ,..,~ r ..
. . . .. ~ ~-,+ „ .. •:. ~ . 1 t . . . . . . , 4.~; . .. 1 ,
~ ~y, ~ ~ v~"~y.~.t°'""'!"' ~I~&`4iF'~~iz~.'~ ' 7 s 7ir."~ 7L. r ~, ~ ~ ? 'y' 7 : i ~t" n!'.~, i :-r'N 1 '^r :~. t~S i ,~,~ s r. '!5: ~ ';~ §
V~
~ f~ O
f
~' ~ ~~ ~J
1 MINUTES, CITY YLANNING COMMISSION, February 14, 1968 3765
~..
~ r CONDITIONAL USE - No one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
,. F.: .,, PERMIT NO o 1000
(Contiwed) THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo
;r:,.. _ . .
a"" ~~ Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to what type of facilities for parking
~~~ should be required for the pony ride, and whether or not the petitioner should submft a
K reciprocal agreement with the schoo;l board relative to providing additional parking on
= the swim school propertye
,.,n..., ,' ,
`;C:
It was further noted by the Commission that the present pony ride facility on Beach Bouleva:
:~.~, was located in a shopping center which had more than adequate parking facilities; however,
_ the type of facility pioposed should meet requirements of the parki-ng as stipulated in the
. '~ Anaheim Municipal Code.
~:a:'R_.. .
~ ~ ::~
4" ~ Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that Condi-
,. ;, tion Noe 4 could be reworded to include maintenance of the sanitary facilities as required
~ by the Orange County Health Department, subject to the Public Works Department and the
~y '- Orange County Health Department.
<.:; . ;,
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No, PC68-40 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe 1000,
for a period of one year, to be reviewed at the end of the time limitation to determine
whether parking facilities should be increased and whether any complaints had been received
to warrant termination or approval of additional time; that a reciprocal parking agreement
be submitted as required on the swim school property to the east and made a part of approval
of sub~ect petition; that trash storage areas and maintenance of sanitation facilities as
required by.the County Health Department shall be sub~ect to the approval of the Director of
Public Work~ and the Orange County Health Department; and that complete development plans
for the recreation facility now in existence and proposed shall be submitted for approval
to the Planning Commission prior to issuance of a building permit, and other conditionse
(See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
A~S~ ~MMISSIONERS: Allred, Faranc, Gauer, Mungall~ Camp,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland
ABSTAIN: OJMMlISSIONERS: Herbst.
CANDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ELDEN KANEGAc~ 937I Kramer Street, Westminster,
PERMIT N0. 1001 California, Owner; ROBERT MARTIN, 180R West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim,
California, Agent; requesting permission to HAVE ON-SALE LIQUOR IN
An "L" shaped parce~iNofNlandNlocatedNsouthTa d westpof aT125 footPbyY125sfooteparcel at
the southwest corner of Lincoln and Dale Avenues, having frontages of approximately 110
feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 105 feet on Dale Avenue, and further described
as 2810 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently c2assified C-1, GENERAL ~MMERCIAL, ZONE.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of the property, the typesof faci-
lities existing or. the property, together with the proposed request, noting that the beer
bar had been approved by the City Council in 1966, and the pet3tioner was now planning to
have on-sale liquor as a cocktail lounge with incidental sale of food in a neighborhood
shopping centere
+ Mre Robert Martin, representing the owner of the property, appeared before the Commission
and noted the original conditional use permit had been approved by the City Council,
~ although it had been denied by the Planning Commission; that the proposed cocktail lounge
would be an improvement to the property; and that as real estate agent for the property,
~ :; and manager of the property, he did not anticipate any problems since the present operator
~ ;; of the beer bar had operated a reputable facility, and the proposed addition of on-sale
~, liquor would add to the present facilities.
~ ' The Commission inquired of Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts whether or not a cocktail
E,,, ..t
K t' lounge was appropriate for this type of small shopping center.
: ~,
~~ Mre Roberts replied that it would be ~:;he prerogative of the Planning Commission to determine
,~ ~ whether or not to permit this type of use in the C-1 Zone; that the basic distinction
j- between public premises where food was incidental to the serving of liquor and general
' on-sale where food is the principal commodity, was usually the interpretation of other
*` cities in the State - however, the City of Anaheim demanded that where food was to be
~:. served, the specified percentage of floor space for the preparation of said food was
required in order to insure the development would be of sufficien;, caliber to warrant
;~ consideration of more than on-sale liquor and the incidental cerving of sandwiches.
'~ i
, ~~ ,, ,
a~ '~;" * ~ ~x?r ; ~ '~`~", ~
, .. ~ .,
:~~y,.~,~,.}„ ~rt ~ q~~...~nj1~~ tl:R ~ ~s~,.,~~,.l~r n: ~~..
if t Q~T .:~ rr~,tk ~
~ A~r.~~ ' ~~' ~ ?, y~ f r ~. . r.u'-~,-,-':~ . f,r . ~ ,~ 4 r' ;
~..
.. ~ . . . . . '-~--`-•-"- _.'.___'._r .
^!
" ~ ~
. ~ ~ . ~
\'
J. .
~~
a
.
. .
_
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMINISSION, February 14
1968 ,
±~
'~
~
3766 ~
CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Gauer noted that the Planning Commission had
previously
PERMIT N0.' 1001 ~
~
denied the on-sale beer and no evidence had been submitted to reverse
(Continued) the Commission's decision since th
l ;4
ere wou
d be no change in the facilitya `'.^3
Mrs..Roshan Ford, operator of the present facSlity known as "Ali Haba", located on sub3ect
property, appeared before the Commis
i {5,
s
on and indicated that the kitchen facilities she
provided were more than adequate for the type of food proposed to b j
e served; that she
had attempted previously to serve Arabic food, but this was not successful; that ehe would
remove the existing pool tabl
i
th
f ,;;:
~,?
es
n
e
acility~ that the entertainment by "belly-dancers",
formerly a part of the facility~ was no longer bein
of:e
d
i ~'~
''~
g
re
e
nce it had not been successful
and, furthermore, in response to Commission questioning noted that the serving of hard li
uox
would
u ~
q
~
.
pgrade the facility because the price of the alcohol would be much more than the sal~
of beer
and i•
h '-~-~
~~
,
c was
er intent to change the facility for the proposed developmente ,
Commissioner Farano was of the opinion that revised plans should be made a part of the
c
re
ord of subject petition since the petitioner had indicated considerable changes were
proposede
Mrsa Ford noted that when she had applied for her liquor license with the Alcoholic Beverage
Contxol Board
she was xe
ui
ed t
t
t
,
q
r
o s
a
e the amount of improvement she would add to the
facility, and it was her intent to have a st
k
~
ea
restaurant, and it was her intent to remove
one of the wallsa -
Mra Martin again appeared before the Commission and noted the ABC gave the license and they ~'
had certain requirements when serving of food was proposed, and in most instances the approva~ ~~',`'
of the ABC license needed the serving of a certain amount of foode
The Commission noted that approval of the license was also subject to the approval of the
City of Anaheim, and if the ABC Board had a set of plans which had been submitted for their " `
consideration~ these plans should also be submitted to the Commission prior to any considexa-~ '~
tion by the Commission. ::~
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson inquired of Mr. Martin whether or not he was the realtor
handling the leasing of the center, and upon receiving an affirmative answer, replied that
the reetaurent had three illegal signs which must be removed or must be legalized through
the approval of a variancee
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue Petition for Conditional Use Permit Noe
1001 to the meeting of February 26, 1968, in order to allow time for the petitioner to
submlt duplicate plans which had been submitted to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board
for consideration with their license, said plans to be in the Development Services Depart-
ment no later than February 16, 1968e Commissioner Farano seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
'' = VARIANCE NOe 1944 - PUBLIC HEARINGe IAUIS AND MANUHL WALTER COMPANY, 9465 Wilshire
~ Boulevard, Suite 6:9, Beverly Hills, California, Owner; requesting
q the following waivers to permit a free-standing signs (1) MAXIMUM
k AREA OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, (2) MINIMUM HEIGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, (3) LOCATION
~\~ OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, (4) MINIMUM DISTANCE BEIWEEN FREE-S1'ANDING SIGNS~ AND (5) MAXIMUM
NUMBER OF FREE-STANDII~ SIGNS on property described ass A rectangularSy shaped parcel of
_~' land located on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, approximately 260 feet south of the
r centerline of Katella Avenue, having a frontage of approximately 390 feet and a maximum
f~ depth of approximately 405 feet~ and further described as 1840, 1850, and 1860 South
t~i Harbor Boulevardo Property presently classified R-.A, AGRICULTURAL~ ZONE,
~, .
~ Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, existing
~, , signing on the property and the new proposal, the number of zoning actions on the property,
and noted that a wax museum, restaurant, and an office building had been approved - however,
r ,
~`'~"'` ~ the petitioner was now proposing to utilize the wax museum an a restaurant in conjunction
k w with the proposed moteL to the south. Furthermore, that the Commercial-Recreation zoning
a, t on sub~ect property was in the xeferendum period and would be finalized within thirty days;
~~ ; that the total sign area proposed was more than 290~ over that permitted by the Sign
Ordinance; and that the petitioner's reason for requesting the proposed sign was based on
~ i the fact that this was a standard sign for Holiday Inns throughout the country.
r ~ Mr. Louis Walter, owner and developer of the Holiday Inn at 1860 South Harbor Boulevard,
appeared before the Cnmmission and noted that the sign proposed for the Holiday Inn was
~.': a national logo which they have throughout the country} that the sign was manufactured
, ~< in Tennesrwee and shipped to the various parts of the country, and in response to Commission ;
''i~ ..
~ ~, + ~ ~: ~~~{~Yt ~ 1 .Yp^
IJ. ~L~L.~:.~ J {~~
_ . . . . ~ , . . . _ v .. _, .. . . . - . . . . .. ~ . . , . , ~
'~ec.-,~'^c""T ' ri 7'.~r'i'' '. n._4! r~.. r~t ~.~.2 .~~4'k'~. ~~ ..h ~,~.~~. ~ r a 1,' 7 a.a f._ .7 y.a .~ u;
Q t :,~, :!r i j i '
1, i. '~
'. Q . ~ . . . . ~ . ~' .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 14, 1968 3767
VARIANCE N0. 1944 - questioning stated that he was unaware whether or not a smaller sign
(Continued) was available, and there was a probability that if the requested
sign were not approved, the franchise might not be grantede
Mre Walter further noted that Holiday Inn attempted to maintain the family image throughout
the cauntry, giving the same type of service regardless of the location, and that the
building formerly housing the wax museum would be converted into a restaurant in con~unction
with the lobby of the motel needs.
The.Commission inquired whether or not the Holiday Inn Corporation had ever developed in a
city where they had sign control; whereupon Mra Walter stated he was not familiar with it
or was not aware of towns where a reduced eign was required - however, when the plan was
originally submitted, it was his understanding the sign was only 496 square feet~ and it
was impossible to unde,rstand how this could have gone to 1,063 square feete
Zaning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a Holiday Inn was located
in the City of Drar.ge; however, the City of Orange interpreted the size of a sign differentl~
than the City of Anaheim, but even by their standards, the proposed sign would be consider-
ably over their sign ordinance requirements.
Considerable discussion by the Commission is summarized as follows:
1. That regardless whether a concern developing in the City of Anaheim was a national
or local concern, no preference should be made, and all signs should be in conformance
with the Sign Ordinance.
2e That the area in which the proposed Holiday Inn was to be located was an exceptional
area, being in close proximity to Disneyland, the Anaheim Stadium, and the Convention
Center,
3. That signing of the property would be similar to all those properties within the
Commercial-Recreatior. Area - thereforey no problem could be discernede
4. That the petitioner had no hardshap, and that a majority of the commercial develop-
ment in the Commercial-Recreation Area had been required to maintain signs within
the Sign Ordinance, and to grant sub~ect petition would be granting a 290% increase
in the size of the sign to that p~rmitted to the other motels - thesefore granting
a priviiege not afforded themo
5e That both the motel operators and the sign companies had a responsibility to respect
the cities in whtch they develop, and that signs should comply with sign ordinances
if these were a part of the cities' municipal codes, and this was demonstrated by the
automobile manufactura~s'acquSescence to cities who had sign ordinances in develop-
ing automobile advertising signs within the Iimitation of these city ordinancese
Mre Walter. then requested that sub3ect petit~on be continued in order that he might discuss
an alternate signing with the sign people.
Mre Thompson further advised the Commission that the Zaby Hotel sign located in close
proximity to subject property was granted a modification of the sign, and the proposed
sign would be twice the size of that signe
Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to continue Petition for Variance No. 1944 to the
meeting of February 26, 1968, in order to allow time for the submission of revised plans
indicating the sign to be substantially in accordance with the Sign Ordinance. Commissioner
Herbst seconded the motione MOTION CARRIEDa
VARIANCE N0. 1945 - PUBLIC E~ARIN3. FRANK MULI.ER (1'RUSTEE), 606 South Olive Street,
Los pngeles, California; TIMOTHY WEIL, 2550 5th Avenue, Suite 629, '
San Diego, palifornia, Agent; requesting permission to ~NS'fRUCT A '
FREE-STANDING SIGN, WITH WAIVERS OF (1) MAXIMUM AREp OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN AND (2)
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: A rectangularly shaped
parcel of approximately 10 acres, located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue between
Crescent Way and Muller Street and having frontages of approximately 800 feet on Lincoln
pvenue and approximately 570 feet on Grescent Way and on Muller Streete Property presently
classified G?., GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE,
Associat~ Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of sub~ect property and the requested
sign ~uaivers, noting that Fed-Mart, presently located northerly of sub~ect property, would
be relocated on subject property, and the waiver of the height limitation was necessary
~. ~~:
aS~~i ~'t'~t ,"Sy+ 'ht"~h~r' sn t}""'° a,~C~,~q~J'~aAy' `~'-1'4'Zh~/3`~ ~: 5~` ~ ~ ~ r
S ~~„~~
f ~
..
. .. ' -_.__._' __ _ .~iN
. . , . ~
. ~ ~ ~ a~
'~~ ~
.
MINUIES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 14~ 1968 3768
j~
VARIANCE Nt~_e 1945 - because of single-family residential us~s establirhe~ within 150 feet ;~
(Continued) of the pr.cposed si~3. Furthermore~ the commercial signs to the east ";~
had cr~mplied with the Sign Ordinance, and the nonconforming sign~ ,,;,;;
namely the Anaheim Bowl sign •to the west, was constructed prior to Ez
the establi.slvnent of the 51gn Ordinance - however, a number of complaints had been y
received which ~nad be~:n partially instrumental 3n the esta'nlishment of the Sign Ori:i.,*.~iancea ~ ~
Mr.`Timothy Weil,,agp~t fnr the pe~itioner, appeared befare the Commission and requeste9 P!
~
clarification of thc Report to the Commission relative tr~ a 500-foot difference in area
~ of signsa ,
t'~
~
`x_ 1' ;
Assistant Deve.lopment Services Director Robert Mic~:eisr~.n, Zoning Supea'visor Ronald Thompson
`'
i
and Deputy Cit~ Attorney Furman Roberts then rev3;•:~ed ~vi~h the ageflt ~or the petitioner ,
~
the method of calculating the size of a s3gne "°`~:
The Commission noted that the Anaheim Bowl si.gn had ~e.en .~etablished prior to the adoptian
of the Sign Ordi,:ances whereupen Zoning Super~cisor Ri^~ld i:iampson advised the Cor¢~ission
that this was instr.~mental 'ia t:.,?:ablishing a sign or~i;~:~nce, as well as the many modular }
sign~ w•hich vhe oi3 ~omoanies had projected ar,d request:dv, !
The Comruission noted thr;, at the time sub~ect property was before them for reclassificat:lon,
the Comir:•ission had specifically inquired rel;:tive to signing of subject propez•t,y, and at
that tim~ the agent had indicat~d ~;~ey could co~+oly with the reqvirements of th~a Sig.n
Ordir.,anc~e
Mro Weil noted that they had driven around the ..a~ea and had looked at all of ~he signs,
noting that although Fed-Mart could erect three signs, it was their desire to minimize any
sign clutter by incorporating all signs within the on~; that they had attempted to design
a sign that would be acceptable for this 100,000-r,qnar= fooi. building proposed aince it
was their desire to have people recognia.e the area in ac:vance; that they had att~mpted
through the use of balloons to determine what size sign w,~:~ld be necessary to iden~tify,
and it was noted that v~ith the sign clutter along Lincoln ;lvenue, the sign co~3ld no~. be
seen if established within the requirements of the Sign Ordinancee
The Commission noted that if sub~ect petit3on were granted~ this would set an :nda,+ixab_e
precedent for similar requests of aLl commercial proper.ties along Lincoln Aver.~~ :;_:, had
been:required to comply,with the Sign Ordinance - therefore defeating the pu;,pc~~E of the
lerge sign,being requested by the petitioner.
" '"' Mre Ttompsc;; noted that the sign advertising the future ~.ocai:ion of Fed-Mart cculd be seen
~ ,; at a considerable distance.
t'., . .,~;;I
~~ Mr.• We1I stated •that it was their op;n£cn that a 25-foot high sign c~u:s not be seen from
`,~ either directione
`~
The Commisslon advisecl t~~ agent that ozher comme~~ial ventuxes along Lincoln Avenue had
been required to ;_ampl,, wi*..,n the gign Ordinance~ whereupon.Mr. 'Lhompson advised the Commis-
;~ sion that the only wariance granted wus that for the Magnavox sign, and this was necessaay
r°_,:;~ because of the ereci:ion of two free-stand3ng signs within 300 feet of each other - however„
~ the balance was in compliarace with both the height and size of signiso
~~ Commissioner Farano noted tl~a±: the Commission had specificaily ir.;~~,!i~ea of the agent for
` ~ the petitioner when sub,ject property was reciassified whether or not they could comply
~ with the Sign Ordinance since the Commission had been faced wfth similar p~oblems in the
ko ;# past in regard to signing of large par~els, a~d had ceceived thie statement from the agent
~~,,:,;,~,.n~ that they could comply with the require~enta of the S3gn Ordinancee
Chairman Camp noted that the problem f~acing the Comm~ssion was similar to one that had
faced two discount houses recently establ3shed i.n the Cit.y - both houses haHiny f.•ront~iges
on two streets, and they had been requ~red f:p meet Code :requirements as ta si,ze a~.d h~eight
of signs, and in discussion with the repscesantatives, it had.been datermined that these
discount houses had no problems in having th.ir px~ope~t3gs adequately signed and idc~,tifled,,
Furthermore, no one could miss the Fed-Mart ~ven if thQ proporty did not have signiaa sir,ce '
there would-be an 800-foot frontage along Linco?n Avenue w:aich was more than ample to lor,ate'
a sign within the requirements of the Sign Ord'inance.
At the conclusion of Commission discussion, it was determined that no ,evi.dence had been
submitted to 3ustify consideration of the propose~^1 sign,and to permit the proposed s3gn
would establish an undesirable precedent for signing alang Lincoln Aver.ue which ir. the
past had been required to comply with the Sign Ordinance since its adoption.
,,.-.. . , , , - - -
~ ~ "i, ~. ~,.:;, y~.;~ ; ~,~~ ~. "~ ; ,aa``~
~,~ J~`"
;.t ~.'°. ,.. .
r~ .,,.~,~,? ~c~, .n~ '~?`t ,.1 le 1; ~~~.R'`y~ : ~: ~„^~~~~~'~ ~ ~~ ~ ' .z _'. ~ <% - r,,;v f ua
t ~.~
~ ~ . , . . ~ `L.1 ' . \.~
MINUTES~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSLuN~ P9b2'u~ry 14~ 1968 3769
VAR?1`NCE Ap_= 14A5 - No one appeared in oppositi•L~n to sub3ect petitiono
~Continued)
THE HEARING WAS ~LOSEDa
Commissioner,Farano offered Resolutii~n Noa PC68-41 and moved fcr• its passage and adoption~
seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny Petition fnr VarSance Noe 1945 on the basis that
there were no exceptional 2r extraordinary cirr,umstanc2s involved to favorably consider
sub3ect petition; that the rey~uested vari=_:;~~ was not necessary for the preservation and
en~oy~n~nt of a substantial praperty riont possessed by other props° 1es in the area and
denied ~'.o subject p~opertys thai: the requestsd variance would b~ n~.rially detrimental
to the ~ublic welfare and injurious to the propert.ies and imps~ovements in the vicinity
and zone stnce it wau2d'crca~~?.,a y.sual intrusion •~nto the residential .development to the
south~ that the pe~itl.dner 1-,ad nct pi~~ver ~ hz.rdship would exis't since the s{gn couid be
erected within a lar~~s~a;~6c~ areaf that sevex*a~ c.~~mmescial factlicies have been developed
recently on prope~ty iu~rnedis+~ly to the east of sub~ect property and aZ? signing establishec
on these parceYs conformed to the height and area reiuired oi ttze zcnes and that since
sub~ect praperty had an 300-foot frontage along Lincoln Avenae. signing in conformance with
the s~gn regulations s~ould provide adequate identifica•:ioc, cf the proposed facility~
(5ee Res;olution Book?
~rn rall ~all the forego~ng resolution was passed by the fc,llawing vote:
AYES: CO,W~lISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauex, Herbst, ~Iungall, Camp.
NOESs CON;MISSION£RS: Nonee
ABSENT: ~NRIISSIONHRSc Rowland<
VARIANCE NO '9G{ - PUBLIC HEAP.ING. JOfiN PRZ"eM, 254E West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim,
Ca?.ifornia,, Owner; JAMcS ROE, 118~i South Pounds Street, Whittier,
RESIutNl'IAL STRUCTUREar(iR uFFlCEAU$E~fWITHuWAIVERSpOFm(15iNUMBER OFLFREEAST NDZNGNSIGNS
r1ND (2) MINIM(.:5~ DISTAIvCE ;r,ET1~i:;EN FREE-STANDING SIGNS on property described as: An ".L"
shaped parcel of iand hav!ng a frontage of approximately 85 feet on the east side of
Knott Avenue and a reaximum depth of approximately 375 feet, the northerly boundary of
st,cject property 9eing approximately 280 feet south of th~ center-~.i„e of Rome Avenuea
r^^on~rty ~xesertly classified R-A, AGRICULI'URAL, ?_ONE.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed tre lacation of sub~ect property, the waivers
requested, the uses established in clase proxirafty, and the fact that the General Plan
projected cortuRarcial-profossicnal uses for sub~ect nro~erty and tha~ property extending
southerly to Ball Roade
Mr. Roberta further noted that the existing residence would be converted intn ufiice uses
that a 3-foa~ masonry wall was proposed in the £ront setback, with park±;,g being provided
in thF front yard arsas that plans were submitted indicatins s;;tarior alterations so that
a more commercial appearance ~ould be developed on the property~ that the petitioner was
pr~posing a 3-foot wall sign and a 150-aquare foot,free-standing sign on the property -
however, the orimar•y cpncern of the Comm:ssion was not land uee but land development.
Mr. Robertti also noted thai the peLitioner had been informed that the proper procedure
was ±~ file a recl3ssificatfon petition for the use - howeve•r~ the petitioner had indicated
he preisrxed the variance proc.ed~re~ and if the Commission .felt the reqliest was appropriate,
then concideration shouSd be given to the manner in which it was proposed to be develooed -
such as parking in the front yard when aufficlent room was avatlable to park in the rear~
that plar~s submitt~d should be checked tharoughly to determine whether the alterations of
the structure cou~c~ warrant commercial sl,gning for the property, and if not, then only an
8-square foot sign would be permitted) and that an R-1 subdivision wae developed to tha
north of sub3ect property.
~, ~' Mr. James Roe, agent for ti~e petitioner, appeared before the Commission and inquired as to
~. ~~ the definition of a free-standing eign aince it wae felt the proposed wall sign wauld be a
,~,,; part of the decorative portion of tho building~ that the etructure as it existed would bs
"r ~~ as neat and proper ae the existing residences to the northf that it was their desire not '
1'' to develop an objectiona~ble, professional-t
~ ype office building~ that there would be no
,,~ evening hours and no heavy traffic~ that one of the conditione of appr,oval recommended by
"~~ ,~,% ~the staff was the construction of a 6-foot masonry wall around the periphery of the property
x however, due to the shape of theFroperty, it would be difficult tn develop and costly for
t the petitioner since any subsequent zoning for the property might require the removal of
- the wall on the south property linef that parking wae provided in the front se~back or~ly
~" for the convenience of the customers, in order to prevant them from parking on the street,
~~ although he realized there was adequate paxking space to the rear, and in orde= ~o make
•~ : the parking proposed in the front yard more acceptable, landscaping was proposed be;waen
~ ~.
6~' "'t~i~ - jw>p~-.
v` ~ ,
Q `~i~
~ . . ~ ~ ~ , ..,,,.._,
4,.. ..,~-_ -
O ~ . ' . Q . ~~ ~ .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNII~ CONWIISSION, February 14, 1968 3770
VARIANCE N0. 1946 - the street and the parking area; that it was their intent to maintain
(Continued) as much as possible the residential character of the property; that it
was their intent to construct a masonry wall around the portion to ~:he .a:;,
north, which would be utilized for parking purposes, and to erect a
grapestake fence along the rear portion, with an access gate in order to gain.entrance to
the area to maintain it~ that a fire hydrant already existed at the'northeast corner; and
that although he did not know the mini.mum distance between street lights, there was one ~~
within 100 feet to the north of the property, and it was assumed the property owner to the .~
south should be assessed the street light feeo ?'s~';
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advibed the petitioner that if the existing fire hydrant :;~;
were deemed suitable to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief, then the petitioner wou ld not '•-'+
be required to construct an additional fire hydxanto Furthermore' the records did not
indicate that the property owner had contributed to the street lighting existing on the
street, and not every property would have a street ligt~t for the front of the property ~
however, even though street lights did exist, the improvement was required to be paid
when more intense uses for the property were proposed, and that the petitioner would be
hiding the redesigning of the front area with landscaping and parkingo
'•'""''~ Mr. Je Je Rehanek, 832 Rome Place, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting '
that his property was immediately to the north of sub3ect property; that the proposed
i;;: use would disrupt the peaceful manner of living which had been established in the area;
t" that the proposed signs would be ob3ectionable to the four residences to the north of
~''" :~ the property; that the petitioner was opposed to a masonry wall - however, he did not
~ ~` understand which area was to be covered by a wall; that noises from traffic going in and
If ,;~; out of subject property could be ob~ectionable to the single-family residential integrity
~ ~;; of the area; and that'although he was aware the property needed improvement, he was opposed
~` ~~ to the proposed useo
w~
~";s;:;.:r;: ~
ti'^ ~~ Mre Roe, in rebuttal, stated that it was his intent to construct a masonry wall only along
~-;~ that portion of the north property line where parking was proposed - not around the entire
~~"`''~`' eri her of the ro ert and there would be little noise from cars since this would be
~;;_,~};;,;,!~ P P Y P P Y~
~, ~ used as a real estate office, and that no spot or flood lights were proposed, and lights
~ ~~.A2~ reflected toward the ground would be installed.
~~~ ~~"~~
,„,,,,,,, THE HEARII~K'i WAS CLOSED.
Mr. Thompson noted for the Commission that subject property was in an area depicted on ~{
the General Plan as approoriate for commercial-professional development; however, the .~
real consider3tion and question before the Commission was not land use but land develop-
me,r,t standards since the use proposed was commerciai in nature, and a number of questions
had been raised by the staff relative to signing, landscaping, masonry wall, etc., and if ;
the Commission felt the variance was an appropriate procedure, then conditions of approval
~5cut.d be specific enough so that the staff would be able to determine where walls should
be :ocated and the size of signs which would be approved since the C-0 Zone did not permit
a free-standing sign, but it was permitted in the G1 Zone.
After considerable discussion by the Commission relative to the appropriateness of the
variance proced~are, the amount of required masonry wall, the type of signing, etce,
Commis~sioner He:bst offered Resolution No. PC68-42 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Allred to grant Petition for Variance Noe 1946, subject to a
6-foot masonry wall along the north property line for a distance c~f 130 feet from the
right-of-way line nf Knott 9venue extending easterly, with a 6-foot fence along the east
property line separating the parking area from vacant land, elimination of parking in
the front setback, and permission to erect one free-standtng sign a maximum of 15 feet
in height and 100 square feet in area. Furthermore, as a condition of use, the unused
portion behind the 6-foot fence along the east parking area shall be maintained in a
neat and orderly manner, and that a finding be made that the proposed use was interim
in nature and until such time as the property was redeveloped end land assembly was
accomplished for more acceptable commercial structure, use of the property as proposed
was appropriate. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp.
NOES: OOMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CAMh7ISSI0NERS: Rowland.
RECESS - Commissioner Farano offered a motion to recess the meeting
for ten minutese Commissioner Herbst seconded the motione
MOTION CARRIED. The meeting recessed at 4:15 P.Me
~ RECONVENE - Chairman Camp reconvened the meeting at 4:25 P.Me, all Commissioners
s,,:;_;~ D being present with the exception of Commissioner Rowland.
~::: ~,• -
,
. , ,.,., , .. , , . ~•~
VARIANCE N0. 1947 - PUBLIC HEARING. GENOVA ROBINSON WINGER, 3818 Franklin Avenue,
Los Angeles, California, Owner; MRS. }~WARD ABBOTI', 731 Cambria
Street, Anaheim, Califcrnia, Agen_t; requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM
STDE YARD SET.BACKS on property described ass An irregulary shaped p~rcel of land
containing one acre, ].ying approximately 290 feet south of the centerline of Crescent
Drive and•approximately 200 feat east of the centerline of Peralta Hills Drive, and
further described as 4938 G:ascent Drivee Property presently classified R-E, R~SIDENTIAL
ESTATE~ zONE.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of the property, noting that it
was in the Peralta Hills area; that the petitioner was proposing the location of the
garage approximat~ly 5 feet from the south property line; that the existing priva'te road
was ~ot constructed to City standards; and if the petitloner planned to dedicate the
private road, it must be improved to City staod..•.as prior to dedicatione
No one appeared to represent the petitioner.
No one appeared in opposition to subject petitione
THE HEARIIS WAS CLOSED.
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that the location of the proposed residential
structure would be 11 feet from the one property line, 8 feet off another property line,
and aftex contacting the a9ent, he had been advised that they were modifying the plot
plans to provide for the required 15-foot setback - however, the garage still was only
5 feet off the property linea
The Commission determined that it was necessary to discuss the various problems of sub~ect
petition with t,he petitioner or his agent and directed tha•~ the Commission Secretary
inform the petitioner or his agent to be present at the meeting of February 26, 1968, in
~rder to be availabie to answer the questions the Commission hade
Commissioner Farano offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for
Variance No. 1947 to the meeting of February 26, 1968, at which time the petitioner or
his egent should be present to answer que~tions. Commissioner Herbst seconded the
motione MOTION CARRIED.
Commissioner Herbst off'ered a motion to direct the staff to prepare a study for possible
consideration of commercial office uses for properties located on the east side of Knott
Avenue extending from approximately 280 feet south of the centerline of Rome Avenue to
Ball Roado Comrnissioner Allred seconded the motione MO7ION CARRIEDe
VARIANCE N0. 1949 - PUBLIC HEARINGo I. M. RANNOW, 1525 South Euclid Street, Anaheim,
California, Owner; I-IERMAN MARGULIEUX, 1525 South Euclid Street,
Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH FOUR
SIGNS ADVERTISING A VEGETABLE STAND, WITH WAIVER OF MAXIMUM PERMITTED NUMBER OF SIGNS on
property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land locsted at the southwest
corner of Euclid Street and Cerritos Avenue and having a frontage of approximately 635
feet on Euclid Street and approximately 96C feet on Cerritos Avenue, and further described
as 1525 South Euclid Street. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE.
«
';,~
"," ~.
''~
;`;~%
s~
~~
_f;,;
~~..:~~~:5~
;;;;
'.:, w
i~
J[Y
.,:~.e;'rS
,,
;; ,5!
~
':::``~~'~
;:,:.,
;;
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property and the request,
noting that a total of seven signs had been observed an sub3ect property; that only one sign
was permitted to advertise the sale of pro,iuce on an R-A parcel; that the City of Anaheim
Zoning Enforcement Officer had contacted the manager of the produce sta~d, informing him
that ex2sting signs on the property did not conform with the sign regulations, and a number
of subsequent contacts with both the manager of the produce stand ard the owner had been
made - however, up to thp present time no positive response to these requests had been
obtained. Furthermoxe, the City Attorney's offi~e had also contac',;ed both the property
owner ar,d the operat~~r of the produce stand to specify the permitted number and size of
signs for subject pr~~perty. i
Mr. Herman Marguiieux, agent for the pet!.tioner, appeared before the Commission and stated
there were only four signs and there had never been Feven signs as stated by Mr. Roberts;
that the signs were needed to sell merchandise; and that the stand had been in existence
for fifteen years, altho~~gh he had only operated the stand since Septembere
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that he had passed sub~ect property
at 12:15 P.M, this date and had noted there were six signs on the property~ with the seventh
sign posted as a"no trespassing" signa ;
Commissioner Farano noted that he must also be mistaken since he passed by sub3ect property
every day and he had nevcr seen the property when it had only four signs - there were usuall
,<t
~~~~ ++~!~ r~~(1~' ,~^~' .1+~~' }f; ~pht~'RfP ^5`~~ I'~"{y S ~~~~
~~
~ L 7 3 - ~ ~f ~
~,~i°P .1y,,
~
~
, .. ;{. ,
.
~.~ '
~
., .
.
~ . . , ....
~
1
.
, . :
,, .. ._
. . ~ ,
"
..
. , : .
' ":~
. .. x„a'
~.
.
.
t'~ '
:.i.
1 ,. ~ . .
. ~ . .
-----'---
. . .
--- ~
-- --_._._.. .... .
~ ~ ~J ,
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 14
1968
, 37~2
VARIANCE Ix1.
(Continued) 1949 - several more,
i and that he would not vote for approval af subject
pet
tion since it was his feeling the pet itioner should comply with
the Sign Ordinancee Furthermore, he had
signs as w never seen such ob3ectionable
ere
• signs chan
ed constantly being erected on
e
k sub~ect property, and these ~
g very wee
.
Q; Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commissian that the R-A Zone permitted
~~~' seasonal sale of the products grown on the property, including t.he incidental sale of
products not grown on the property; however, the R-A Zone permitted only one sign, a
maximum of 20 square feet in si:;e, and this was limited to advertising the farm produce
` or any uses permitted in the R-A Zonee
;,k= -
~.~ ~;
~'~ The agent then 3dvised the Commission that he operated the stand for the petitioner, and
;~S she was desirous of having these signs erected as requested; that he would remove the
~* signs and they seemed to always reappear; and that he would do whatever the Commission ~
required of him. Furthermore, on January 15, he had removed several signs as requested
+F by the Zoning Er~forcement Officer~ and the sales of their produce dropped considerably ~
,. c~ becau~~ no one was aware the produce stand existed on the street.
{ .
' Zoning Enforcement Officer Wayne West advised the Commission that the signs were put up
'~ and taken down every few days~ and after numerous contacts by both himself and Deputy
? City Attorney Furman Roberts, the problem regarding signs had never been resolved with
= the agent or the petitionere
,.: `;"
Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the permitted signing for sub3ect
property and the fact that the petitioner should comply with the Sign Ordinance, and
advising the agent that if these signs were being Qut up .by othersthan himself, he should
leave notes to inform these persons the signs were in violation of the City of Anaheim
Sign Ordinance; that o~e sign should be allowed regardless of its size and must be a
certain distance from the ground - whereupon the agent stated that he did not want a
sign that was higher than 10 feet, and that he was interested in having it located closer
to the intersection than that permitted.
Rfter additional discussion by the Commission, it was determined the existing siqn was ~
loc~.ted between 15 and 20 from the intersection of Cerritos Avenue and Euclid Street, ~
and that location of the sign closer to the ground thaa 8 feet would not present a safety ~
hazard since there wnuld be no foot traffic due to the fact that sidewalks did not exist
on subject property.
THE HEARING WAS CLOSE::..
Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC68-43 and moeed for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to deny the request for four advertising signs as requested
under Petition for 7ariance No< 1949; however, to grant one sign a maximum of 20 square feet
to be erected to a maximum F~eight of 25 feet, with waiver of the minimum distance between
the face of the sign and the ground, said sign to be located approximately 20 feet from the
intersection of Cerritos Averue and Euclid Streete (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
A1'ES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Far~no, Ga~er, Herbst, Mungall, Camp.
NOE-S: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
ABSENT: OpMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
RECLASSZFICATION - PUBLIC }~A RING. ROBERT qUICK, c~o Freedman Better Cleaners, 6725 Ogontz
NOe 67-68-51 Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Owner; OSCAR WHITEBpOK, 5062 Lake
View, No. 23, Yorba Linda, Califorraia, Agent; requesting that property
described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage
of approximately 540 feet on the north side of Riverdale Avenue and a maximum depth of
approximately 210 feet, the easterly boundary of sub3ect property being adjacent to the
present centerline of Jefferson Street be reclassified fxom the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZANE to
the G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE, '
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of sub3ect property, the requested
zoning, and the Report to the Commission, noting that no plans had been submitted for
development of the property - however, the petitioner had indicated that he proposed C-1
zoning in order to create commereial sites which could accommodate either two service
stations or a service station and a restaurant; and that the Jefferson Street bridge
spanning the Santa Ana River was currently under construction, and when the bridge was
completed, Jefferson Street would extend through subject property to provide additional
access and circulation within the area.
J.s`X
~ ~ t' G `•,~ C ~ ~ _ F . . F(
C~ C~ ~~ \
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COiNMISSION, Fel~ruary 14, 196E3 3773
RECLASSIFICATION `- Mr. Oscar Whitebook, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the
N0. 67-68-51 Commission and noted that although a number of different plans had
(Continur•d) been drawn for subject property, the use of the property had changed
because of the Circulation.Element of the General Plan for both
Jefferson Street and Riverdale Avenue (Batavia Avenue)~ which were
changed to ma3or thoroughfares - Riverdale Avenue providing access to the Orange Freeway,
and with the construction of the bridge, the realignment of Jefferson Street would bisect
sub~ect property, thus making the property mors suitable for commercial uses; that he had
been working with the City in terms of the City's need for dedicatio.n for roads, in order
that no obstruction would be in the way of development of these streets at the time the
County budg~ted for tl^em; that they were attempting to acquire ad9itional pzoperty from
the Water District - however this was a matter of time because o: the manner in which the
Water District operated.
No one appeared in opoosition to subject petition.
TFiE HEARING WAS CIASED.
The Commission noted they had no jurisdiction over the actions of the Water District, and
from their experience they had never sold their property before to anyone - therefore thfs
would be a new procedure.
Mr> Whitebook advised the Commission that they had one definite commitment for development
of the property - namely, the northwes`c corner of the intersection at the time Jefferson
Street bisected subject property was proposed to be developed for a Richfield service
station.
Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-44 and moved for its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassi-
fication No. 67-68-51 be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book)
On roll call the fore9oing resolution was rassed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp.
NOES: ~AAR~AISSIONERS: None:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARII~'i. ROBERT WASSERMAN, 260 South Beverly Drive~ Beverly
N0. 67-68-50 Hills, California, Owner; RUSSELL JAY, 8681 Katella Avenue, Stanton,
California, Agent; property described as: An irregularly shaped
VARIANCE N0. 1948 pa=cel of land having a frontage of approximately 371 feet on the
east side of Knott Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 609
feet, t~,~ ~ortherly boundary of subject property being appror.imately
630 feet south of the cente::ine of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1,
GENERAL COMMERCIAL~ ZONE.
REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENfIAL~ ZONE.
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT WITHIN
150 FEET OF R-A~ AGRICULTURAL, ZONED PROPERTY.
.;"<,
I
~
Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of sub~ect property, the requested
variance, the uses established in close proximity, and the Report to the Commission, noting
that subject property had bern reclassified to the C-1 Zone in April of 1957, and in
January, 1963, the Commission had approved a conditional use permit for a planned residen-
tial development on subject property - however, on February 10, 1965, the City Council
terminated all proceedings relative to the Conditional Use Permit No. 293, based on the
fact that the petitioner had not complied with necessary conditions of approval and also
due to the fact that the G1, GenP~al Commercial, Zone no longer permitted multiple-family
residential development. Furthermore, the plans submitted by the peti.ioner indicated he
proposed to extend Del Monte Dr3ve from its terminus to the east of subject propert;
through subject prope=*_y to Knott Avenue, and to divide the remaining f~roperty into four
parcels, each to be approximately one acre in'area; that the site devplopment standards
of the R-3 Zone would be complied with with the exception that the maximum height limita- :
tion was one story, due to the fact that R-A property existed immedia;,zly to.the east,
an elementary school to the southeast, and northeast, in all probability, would not be
zoned for residential uses, because it abutted Lincoln Avenue.
Mre Russell Jay, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission, noting that it
was their intent to divide the five-acre parcel into four individual lots on which of each
would be constructed a 30-unit apartment building and construction would begin some time
in April. }', -
, .-^t•
, ~ , .,,
~ ~ ._ ~
ej '
~ v
MINUTES, CZTY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 14, 1968
er
.~_._.... __'~._ ' " '_ . . .. p~~f.'i
-y.k
rJ '
3774•
RECLASSIFICATION - No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. f K
ND. 67-68-50 [
THE HEARING WAS CIASED. `
VARIANCE N0 . 1948 ( '. , ,•,
(Continued) Commissioner Allred offered Resolution hfo. P~68-45 and moved for its ~
passage and adoption, seconded by Com~~.5»ioner Herbst, to recomtnend i
~+~'ib the City Council that Petition for i3~classification No. 67~••68-50 I f
be approved, subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) ;
' ~
On roll call the foc~goirig resolution was passed by the following vote: ~ '
i . L=.
AYES: OOMMISSiJNERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp. {_
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~
ABSENT: ODMMISSIONERS: Rowland. i
~''~` `` Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC68-46 and moved for its passage and adoption,
,t seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1948, subject to
conditions. (See Resolution Book)
'.~:' On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foliowing vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, 64~nga11, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~;':;.-;~.~~. r1BSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1
'~ RECOMMENDATIONS Conditional Use Permit No. 95 (Mrs. Aubrey Anderson,
~~ o` 2931-35 West Lincoln Avenue) - Request for approval
~`';-;'''{;~~ of revised plans for a go-cart racetrack located at
;~,.i
, -`'~;~=; ~ 2935 West Lincoln Avenue.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented revised plans for Conditional Use Pez•mit No. 95
for the expansion and improvement of an existing go-cart arena located on the north side of
Lincoln Avenue east of Beach Boulevard, indicating that the petitioner was proposing to
improve the existing go-cart arena approved by the City Council in February, 1961; that
the plans presented indicated a substantial improvement and updatin9 of the development
in ~uestion - however, the staff felt additional landscaping should be provided, and the
Commission may wish to consider requiring trees as a condition of approval. The plans
also indicated some of the parking stalls would be too small to meet Code requirements,
and the Commission would have to determine whether the proposed redevelopment was a sub-
stantial change and would require a new conditional use permit in orde.r to notify ad3oin-
j ing property owners regarding the impe.r,ding improvement.
The Commission noted that if the proposed expans'~on and improvement were to be doubledin
size, then it should be set for public hearing.
Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson advised the Commission that the
staff had recommended the filing of a new petit4~n.
Mr. Myron Van Ells, 9521 Lampson Avenue, Garden Grove, appeared before the Commission and
noted that although the proposed track was being enlarged, it was not quite twice the size
as the staff had indicated; that there was some noise presently existing from the bui.'i~g -
however, in the revised plans the building where xepairs were made would be relocated
towar4 the west, eliminating the possibility of any objection.
The Commission Secretary advised the Commission that a petition had been received, signed
by 131 mobile home residents adjacent to subject property, opposing the noise and lights
from the existing go-cart racetrack, notin9 that complaints had been made to both the
property owner and to the City.
The Commission advised Mr. Van Ells that although the revised plans might indicate a
reduction of the noise factor, since the pl~ns had not been reviewed by the trailer park
reside:,ts, it was deemed advisable that subject petition, or a new petition, be set for
public hearing to put adjoining property owners and residents on record of proposed changes.
Cortunissioner Herbst offered a motion to set for public hearing Conditional Use Permit
No. 95, or a new canditional use permit, for the proposed expansion and improvement of
the existing go-cart arena upon receipt of a filing fee to defray the expense of adver-
tising subject petition. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION C.IRRIEO. ,
~ 1x ry ;; ~„ Y~ 1 ,,'r ,r} ~'rr~t .~ '~, : xn ,~,p.,[~ v ~ s .s ~ 'i M-c ; S , a.:c ', ,. ~
. b. s v .'-_ ; 'L'~ fi „~
"3' ,,i ._...._~_--- __.._... _......_ _ !~
~ •.\ ~
~ ~_~ ~~:
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING ~INMISSION, February 14, 1968 3775 ~
REPORTS AND - II'EM N0. 2 '''
RECOMMENDATIONS Conditional Use Permit No. 791 (Tom Taketa, et al) - y
(Continued) Recreation facility at 2535 West Lincoln Avenue - -:.``r.
Approval of plans to permit "Space Pillow" facility ''
as part of a private recreational facility previously F
approved. i,._~
Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented a request by the operators of the private
recreational facility on which a Superslide and pqny ride facility had bean approved
by the Conmission, proposi~g to have "Space Pillow" facilities between the existing
Superslide and the skate board pit on snbject property.
The Commission determined that tt~e "Space Pillow" facility was substantially in con-
formance with the existing facility, and, therefore, the use could be established
without any further ronsideration by the Commission.
~:=;- Commissioner Farano offered a motion to approve the request to establish a"Space Pillow"
" facility on sub3ect property located on the north side of Lincoln Avenue, east of
~;, - Magnolia Avenue, as being substantial.ly in conformance with plans and uses established
'•~ en ti~e properiy. Commissioner Allred seconded the ~aotion. MOTION CARRIED.
1
ITEM N0. 3
~'~ ~~ Conditional Use Permit No. 830 (Mfchael Kent School -
:i"c;: <.'<}' Mr. and Mrs. Ben
, s gston) - Request to increase the number
; of students from 30, granted under sub~e,t petition on
~ ~ April 21, 1966, to 50 students - on property located at
__ -;;: 1845 West La Palma Avenue.
Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented a request from Mr. and Mrs. Clemis Bengston,
operators of the Michael Kent School located at 1845 West La Palma Avenue, requesting
pormission to increase the number of students from 30, granted when Conditional Use
Permit No. 830 was approved in April, 1966, in Resolution No. 1994, Series 1965-66, on
the basis that thP garage had been remodeled providing for an increase of 400 square
feet of additionaJ. .loor space.
After dis~;ussion by the Commission, noting that the remodeling of the garage had been
approved by the'Building Department provided the number of students was maintained at
30, the fact that sub3ect property abutted R-3 development to the north and unimproved
property to the east, together with the Brigham Young University property to the west,
the proposed increase Nould not affect adjoining praperties, and since the State required
specific square footage of both floor space and play area, any increase in the number of
students would be governed by that also.
Commissioner Allred offered a motion to grant the rec~uest for an increase in the maximwA
number of students for a private elemen:ary school npproved under Resoluti,in No. 1994,
Series 1965-66, on Apri;. 21, 1966, to permit ~;e expansion to 50 students on the basis
that land uses established i,~ c).ose prciximity wouid not be affected by the proposed
increase. Commissioner ?ierb~i :~,econded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ITEM N0. 4.
Variance No. .1898 (John Balaam) - Request for
termi na tio ~~,.
Associate Plannea Gharles P.oberes prasented a request from the petitioner of Variance
No. 1898 for termination ~c~f the: petiti~~n on the basis that due to the high cost involved
and the conditions set forth in approva: of subject petition, it will not be exercised.
Commissionex Gauer offered Resol>>tion No. PC68-47 and moved fpr its passage and adoption,
seconded by Commissioner Farano, to terminate all proceedin9s on Petition for Variance
No. i898 granted by the Planning Commission on July 17, 1967, in Resolution No. PC67-162.
(See Resolution Book'
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENI': COMMISSIONERS: Rowland.
~ P~.~ `ri~ ~~ it1
C~
''~y~~
~'"_Y'~'~_~__ ... , ~ ' ~~ ~5
"'___ ... _.. . _'_.._'_ _.__"_ _„ h~~~
~,>
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 14, 1968
REPOR?S AbID - II'EM N0. 5
RECOMMENDATIONS Conditional Use Permit No. 971 (Reichert 8 Son) -
(Continued) Request for approval of revised plans permitting
the establishment of a mobile home perk on sub3ect
propesty - located between Manchester Avenue on the
east and Lewis Street on the west, immediately adjacent
to the Anaheim city limits on the south and Melrose
Abbey Cemetery on the north.
3776
Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that since the Report to the
Commission had been written, a considerable amount of new information had been assimi-
lated on the Reichert property; that the staff had had two meetings with the City of
Orange representatives and discussed the possible extension of State College Boulevard
over the free~ray which would encompass a portion of the Reichert property; that the
petitioner had compl'_ed with all the conditions - however, the design plans were no
longer applicable because of the many discussions with the State Highway Department;
that numerous studies had been made by the Cities of Orange and Anaheim, and the most
feasible and favorable routes were still undetermined - therefore the staff was request-
ing that they be given permission to administratively approve revised plans since the
State was still indefinite as to the manner in whfch Manchester Avenue would be handled
if State College Boulevard were extended across the freeway. It was also noted that in
the later information, an additional portion of the trailer park and the office building,
as well as other property, would be taken up with this overpass - therefore the staff
was requesting permission for administratively approving revised plans on Conditional
Use Permit No. 971.
The Commission noted that the required landscaping adjacent to a 6-foot masonry wall
along both Lewis Street and Manchester Avenue was not indicated on the revised plans
and recommended that the staff incorporate this in their approval of any revised plans.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to grant the Development Services staff permission
to administratively approve revised plans at such time as the Division of Highways
determined proper circulation for the overpass of an extension of State College Boulevard
over the Santa Ana Freeway; provided, however, that the landscaping required under
Resolution No. PC67-239, along the Lewis Street and Mar,chester Avenue frontages, be
required. Cammissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
~~ '~ ITEM N0,_6
~~ j Conc~itional Use Permit No. 976 (Frank Golemba) -
Approval of revised plans for pre-school nursery
T ' at 715 North Anaheim Boulevard.
,,:.s
~'~. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented revised lans for a
P pre-school nursery pro-
posed at 715 North P.naheim Boulevard, noting that at the January 29, 1968 Commission
meeting thz Commission had approved revised plans~ sub~ect to requiring that a minimum
20-foot wide driveway be provided along the north boundary of sub3ect property, and that
a 5-foot landscape setback be provided ad~acent to the Anaheim Boulevard right-of-way.
' However, the revised plans now before the Commission indicated that the 20-foot wide
t driveway was located along the south boundary and that only a 2~-foot landscape setback
,a was proposed adjacent to Anaheim Boulevard. ~
Mr. Roberts also noted that the petitioners had indicated that if the proposed use for
the structure did not prove successful, it would be converted to regular commercial use,
and that the residential structure would be removed also. Furthermore, the petitioners
stated that if the 5-foot landscape setback were required, this would reduce the number
of students permitted by the State, and that it would not be economically feasible to
utilize the structure for a pre-echool nursery as pro.posed.
After the Commission reviewed the revised plans, the Commission was of the opinion that
a 5-foot landscape setback should be provided to enhance the esthetic qualities of this
area.
Commissioner Farano uffered a motion to approve revised plans on Conditional Use Permit
No. 976, dated February 5, 1968, subject to providing a 5-foot landscape setback along
Anaheim Boulevard. Commissioner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
i~
:'~i
;;.
,: ,,':
;i=a
~
~, .. -
~s@~ fZ` ~ YH s€'!`~ s. ~A~ ~~ac,~ 'f~;'~".'~~ s'Cr~y ~ ~+:ta ; .. ^R' i«°~. 7 r~ t _ n i T, .~. ~ ~{ ~ ~ ;
%~~ `' _~' '-z Sr_, ~~ ~:^;~ ~ . ~ . .'~:.. ,'J ?~~~.. `'~'fy~:~tiq+'` ~ -:} . .. . " ~ , . .. .. . . , . , .. .. . _ ... , .
~ . . . . ~ ~ ~ . ~~
MINUTES, CI3'Y PI.ANNING CAMMISSI01~, February 14, 1968 3~7~
REPORTS AND.- - ITEN! N0. 7
REOOMMENDATIONS Street name change consideration for Jefferson Street
(Continued) within the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim.
Associats Planner Charles Roberts noted for the Commission th~t 3n a communication
addressed to the City Council by the Orange County Street Naming Committee it was
determinec~ that the committee had recommended a ~treet name change for Jef£erson Street
~vithin the City of Anaheim, Linda Viste Stree~, and Rose Dr3ve be changed to Linda Vista
Street; that the Planning~Commission and City Council had recammended this chan9e to
the Street Naming Committee, and the Commission might wish to consider setting this for
pubiic hearing.
Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to set for public hearing on March 11, 1968,
consideratian of a street name change for Jefferson Street to Linda Vista Street within
the jurisdiction of the City of Anaheim,~with the Linda Vista Street aame to be applied
to that portion lying northerly of the Riverside Freeway and the remainder to the south
of the freeway to remain Tustin Avenu=. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
~: ITEM N0. 8
' Variance Nos, 1925 and 1926; Tentative Nlap of Tract No. 4230,
5 Revision No. 9-~Property located on the south side of Lincoln
? Avenue, west of Beach Boulevard and proposin9 developm?nt of
Nu.~r. four-plex vnits with subsequent division of each lot into two
:.,;~~ 35-foot wide lots with duplexes.
'~~ Associate Planner Charles Roberts
,' presented Variance Nos. 1925 and 1926, together with
i*~a:;>=r'.a'
,~~; Tentative Map of Tract No. 4230, Revision No. 9 to the Planning Commission, noting that
~;~_,:;~~: these were referred back to the Commission by the City Council for a report and recom-
t._..;•x...
"`""~~~ mendation to determine whether it would be more desirable to permit the proposed type
~`'~>:~'~° of development by variance or by amending the Anaheim Municipal Code to permit it by
~~~`y"~ right.
s ~~''
~~~`~`~* The staff's viewpoint on the questions raised were
'" presented, namely that this type of
deVelopment could better be administered'through the veriance process at this time
rather than by amending the Code, in or.der to maintain better control until such time
as the City is more acquainted with this type of development and its problems.
~~ ,~-
~~w
Mr. Roberts further noted that in discussions with the City Attorney's office, many
~3,~ inherent problems were pointed out in a development of this type, such as, if a duplex
~.,E is destroyed, ~vould the owner be P
~ 5 ~ permitted to develo in accordance with the R-3 Code;
xrJ and is it the Commission s intent to approve a different type of deveiopment than that
,~;-~~n originally approvedl
Assistant Development Services Director Robert Mickelson noted for the Commission that
the City Council expressed concern that a similar request had been denied by both the
Commission and Counc3l; however, they were not opposed to the proposed variance - they
were only concerned that a right would be granted one developer which had been denied
to another.
Discussion was then held by the Commission, and it was determined the variance approved
. had sufficient guarantees and restrictions in it to preclude many similar requests for
development of multiple-family developments, and that until such time as the staff and '
the Commission had time to peruse in detail the possibility of incorporating the pro-
posed type,of development into the Anaheim Municipal Code, that the variance process
was the best means of retaining control over any future developm?nts that might occur.
Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts a~oted that although the variance procedure did not
guarantee that all problems would be resolved, incorporation of such provisions into the
Code might bring abnpt considerable more problems which might be insurmo+.antable.
Commissioner Mungall ogfexed a motion to recommend to the City Coua~cil that the develop-
ment as proposed under Variance Nos. 1925 an~ 1926; together with Tentative TAap of Tract
No. 4230, Revision No. 9, be handled by variance to 3.nsure adequate control over any
unforeseen problems which might occux in the future. Fuxthermore, until the staff and 1
the Planninq Commission had time,to study in detail developments of this nature, this
should be handled through the variance process in order to maintain the necessary c~ntrole
Commiss3oner Allred seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Herbst
offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Mungall
seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting ad3ourned at
5:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, _
_1y"N.~r/~-l~a,~ecretarv .
Anaheim City Planning Commission ,
_ _ __._.~...._ __ _ _
__.__._ . . _ _ .. _ ____--._.._
_ ...__ __
- __ _ ~.-• ~ _.
~ ,_
~- . ; ,., ;: . ,.. .~ ... ~ , . : ~-~
. ; ~. '
w , ~ I ~
I
-_Tc ~
. ~ ~i
;
, ~
~ ~`~~~•,~~~~ j~.£' ..~~''xx ,~',fi~.'~'~ ~f` ~.+~`„, ?- ~~~~{ k~ '"y ~~ ~k'a.e r,r~N ~ F ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~~ . ~ a
. +~. y~yy Pt~~'i~ ~r" 8t~r~!_~~! ~~~t,~'d ~ f` ~}.~..^Y~2~.,St~~ ~~'~~ karo ~~~ ~ ~F~ ~ y~,r~ 4n ~ , ,d,~~~~ -! ~~ °J} u ~ fp ~ ~ tr ' .': i ',
4,~r~~+ ~w@ k,~'> '~"i~ z ~ t k '~`A ~5'~ ~ }'Y~yr .^`~ s~~ ~,' re `''~ ',^. z~.~ ~ ~~t ( « +-:~' i } t ~ ~ 4 i
r ~~ ,+w n~ ;r~~,{r,fia ~ 1.,4~~ ,~ '~y~ da~~'`~iJ~fi~~`~q,,., ~,'yc" ~~ rY,;~ }~r . t~f ~ F. ~ ~,.,F ~.
"' ~ i,~~ +2 Pt~7~~3 ~~~^H5ts1 d~.~ s~[y~~{'•5~,(~`T ~"a~'~'.+n5~~'$~' A ~~l`.~~5~ ~,~,$S?'~ a lxNe' 3 J~ Y~-3 I ~t'~ a~ .: ~ "' ~' 3
~ t~`I ki~'.,p~,"'+i%~,- ~ .~~'~ ~~~ .~ ~. "~'W'ai»~' V.~Y,+,+~, ~~~~~~~'~ . ~Is'3S,'~ 1~ ~' ~ 4~1 .'',~ ~5 ~{ i~It`5 ro :.';~P31 .t ~ ~ r 1 '4 ~.+ } ~ y` ~~~ i
j,`rs~"~'iXd.f} . e rr,~ '+~I~.}~'+~ 1'ii,"'n~' "[~'~ ~~~ r,i +5 ~ 3""t{x,?fyt~4•f{~.~.y~ ~+. ~ a.~~ ~ ~ J~- i .
. ~ 7 ~~~`~4~~.a . 4 ~e~ ~~~.~c~"~~+ t ~~r .. ~ .5~~w5~ ~~~i:~~n~'~~er~~'~,+i. f. +t- i i3 v ~~ i ~,. ~_ r c ~ .~ r M1~"F ~, ~ ~ ,
. .~. ~~ ~C~ ra'~4 .r~r~,. L 5'- `~,' .'1` ~~ ~. '~. . 'H.(~' .4 k ~ 7~' 1 ~ 4~ ~'" ~l~"~~! T ~ ; v f
~
Z
~ ~~ k~? ~Y,, ~~F~~a~~~ ~? ~~'S F 5~ ~ ~ ~C ~ ^" 4i' y~wv''~ ~~ t~ KC~~n a ~ \ f , '', s ,{ t u ~~"" ` .~ y j
~
i
~ i
a
~'
~
~
~
~
}
S
~
~"~
~ :.
~~u
~, ~
.
n~
l
'$~K`,* N
SF
_.',~'"y~s9 S
1,.
{~i
~r3`k br~
~
~(
~~"~
~p A~i}~ SSS f~{ JP'C ~'TSQ'y~!i7S.2F yM~~TS~ ~~~r ~~ 1it t t ~ ` }`'` ~§3-~.iU- ~,, r a~ t
2
~11
7
~
~`
~
~ ~
"
~
~ ~ ;
~.
~
"
r
y f y~
nl~ .
2'h`t
1
~
' ~'
. 11 i'
C 9
k '~~
~ ~~~,~,,~ ~~ ~~ ~~ rt{z,{ , ~ f, , ~ ' , ~ ;~,,.~.~.*~ ~x ~ ~a ;, ,,; r ,-,, ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ s
~~ ~ 4~~ ~ r , .v x , , , ~- ~,
h. ~ h a C . ~ r~,.~ ~
r
.~~
~
~
~
~
~
.~
~
~n
Ft ly u}.~. ;~ j..
.~:( !
. Y T~ d P~^'1~ ~ C f} 11~ 1 Y~ y~ 7 T A~l
~ t~• T~'~ Y~ r.~
,' 4+ 4
1~'~ r n,~ n. .v i n ~ 7'~ f I 5_s Y ~/ V
~f 5 f ..
4 t 4 Y
~"f-
~
y '4
~
+
~
~ TF
~
"
°
~ ,
1
' }
}
,V }
,~
t
1
~~
S'r i W & '1
`u:y'
~,}~(~ ,~~/~,
,S J
t
3 Y
~,~a'1 A t Wl'~Y ~VI f F'{r ~l . a~1 ~'Jx A. ~~ 4Ct ,~j i I~tR ~ `~ y~ \x~y C a t~, "'~ F`, ~
Fri 1~s 1~ -~ ~
a $~' r 14
`
'~ i
7
~
~y
2 . t } } Y,:~ fi ri ~ h e : k
~'yU4't„~~yf4~~'rf,~y ^St k~'tkC r.p6';~.
rr. '~"~. "~rLC rri r
t
~
3 ~.
~
,
z i .
{ .: ~ }
h ~'e ~ B / '{ 3 .d F "` y
~
Y'.~ f ~
{ ~L~ i J' '9(' ~
r ;
~f M ~a .a^X rfi i
~
t ]
~~ ~ ~ s ~ ;
"~ ~
F
.
i~
tf
~
1
t
1{~'~ y Orfi ~~~1 !i ~
~
i
tf., ~. ~j
I .~
.2
~
,
~
Fa 1
i
~ ...
"~ ~ 'i'4~ y f'x { r t~a~~eri P ~ : G ~~~ ~ y
~
~
~
~
~~
"S . f ~
.~ r i
r..
{, 4
~:: ~
.~~F'le
3.7 z
r ~}~~ ~*~ '
j
i
~
' ! '
H` ~~~y ti 4(~' :'~ ~ ..
.c '~~v ; r~
i- ~
~ ~
%
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
r~
~ h
~ ~
~
~ ~ i f ~
4
~]s~a ~ t ~'
~ '
.
a
1
S 1
~ ~ ~
I ~
!
}~ . F ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~
; ~
`
l
.i:~
~
'
t
1 ~
~ '
y
1
"4,} ( ! A V r b ~ .
1 ~
_
4
4' ~ C '
l '
~~[ i :. ~ - .. 5
. ,
Tf
l S M , i } ~
' I ' ~ ~
,~
..
r ~~;
~. ' . ~
~
'
, ~
,
F'4 1 -. ~ .
* :. .. '.-:, ':: '.., ;
y . . . r
~
'
~ ..~ .
.
~
. ~ .,~ .
.
r ~
~ i [ l. ~ +
t .
.. .
.
t1 1 1 ~~ \ 1 .l ~ f '
~ ,~ . ~'~:
~
~
'
~
~
~ `
{
.
}
~. . t
. : .
I 1 ~ 2
:
1 s ~ -` ~- rI
~
~
a ~
r
~
6
~~~~4 `' ~'~
~
>a F b , ~
a
~
~
~
~
~
~
~~
, s ti
~
-
t i+
, F i=
~a t r 44 ~ ~ a~1 ~kn
~
~ r~ 17i
fs
~~
'r
y
~~s~1
~ s
,
~
~
~
,
ti
;
Z.y~ n~rq;{ F'` I q"~~v- e (Gfih~' i~ ~~n ~k i~ 't 1 n~~ ~
t r ~ ~ r!'
~ ~~ , ~ ry 9 t - 1
(*°~1 ~
'`~ i'~'~~~
~ ~x
~
ti
~1'
R(4
..i ~
44
S~
'~:a
'Ai
,
~
3
y
~
.
~ j
4 ~.
~-
~.
1
A: ~ r~,
~~
?
k
4
~
n
~
}
~
~
.
~
, ~, s 4
q~5
~
Y 4 i `1
~ !
4
1
~ ~
r
~; ~r rr
~j i~ } r
`
'``
~
'
~t
i i
a
,
tYt
~ ,
~ -
t
~ it ~ yt ~t ~ 1 5 z ~ ~ t 5 i:' ~'~.
~
.
~
~~
~.
~ Y ~ ' F
f '~t ~ ~
~ M
>
f ~
t
y
l~
a I h~ l ;S
;
•
~a ' ~
rc
i:
f~
3 r i
Y
~ i .
~
I
'
~ ~ ~ ~
x5 ~
~ ~ ` ~
~ 1 - .
~ y" ~ ~"'~ 4V t .
~
.
~
,.n
' ~ '+ i~.
~
~ ~
y
~ ..
;
:
~.' f ~ . . z ...
~ .
r > a:.~ ~r ~ ~
'
r . .
i
.~` i -
' ~ e.
t ,
.',~ ~~ Y yt _
I
i
`~
'l ~
J-^ .
i , {~
l ~ 1
/
~
~
A,1 ~ > ~ ! ~ ~ ~~
~
d~
_
~' 4
1 f 'e
1 1 4 ~
~
~
~
~
9 ' r ;~ 1
. 1 ,
t5 ~ :.
~-n ~
~' C ~
1 I 1 I '" )
~ '. ~¢I ~
. ~ 1 l'i ! ~ . ,
_
/
~.1 ~ i ~ ', ~ I t~
,+~ ~~
.
~ w~ t ~}
i
~ i: 1 ~
' '
~
; E
f r ,
,
t ti
~~ ~+~ i .
t~'[
~ ~f~ r~ ~- ~ < < '
'
~
.
~
r ~, r~I ~ ~ + r , ' l,
~ ~
t y
~
~
~
,~~
ti~. '~ i~ f ~ t
r. ~' r 7~ ~
'
~
~
', .
,
_
i
ii
~
~
,
.
r t
~ ~It A
~ k I , 1.' J
~ S~ !~ / t
1~ t
~` 2~ i:~ 1 rt
W ,
J
Lh
y
'
f
w t 1
i
t
4 -~`~ 1 i ~}
'~:
~ ~
~~
~
.
.
, a.
r
k ~ ir
k ` .~ i~tii ; ~a.4t~X~~~' i ~ ,
~f ~-i .
.
, , .. ~ ,..r~_'Y'..~ . .... . ~. ~~
..~ __'~_~~ . . .. 1 T+::. ~'1. -.~ ~, . ., t~;y,-
~ . .. .. . ..~. . . . . . . . . . . . ~~ ~ ~ .~... ~ ~ .