Loading...
Minutes-PC 1968/04/22, r ~ . . ~-~,. ~ ~-' . . - ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ . . ~ . . . . ~ City Hall Anaheim, California Apri1 22,~1968 ~ ,~~ : A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ;~;> ;{, REGULAR MEETING - A_regular meeting of the Anaheim City PTanning Commission was called ,~~ to order by Chairman Camp et 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. '''. _ 't~^~ PRESENT - CHAIRMAN PRO TEM: Gauer. ~: - COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Herbst, Mungall. ~t3~ ~~ , ABSENT - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Rowland. +; PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson Assistant City Attorney: John Dawson Office Engineer: Arthur Daw Associate Planner: Charles Roberts Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs INVOCATION - Reverend Ralph Wilkerson, Pastor, Christian Center Church, gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Farano led in the Pledge o3 Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF - Approval of the Minutes of the mee~ing of April 8, 1968, was THE MINUI'ES deferred to May 6, 1968. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. HERCO PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED, 1505 East 17th Street, PERMI3' N0. 1022 Suite 117, Santa Ana, California, Owner; requesting permission to ESTABLISH A WALK-UP RESTAURANT on property described as: A rectangu- larly'shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 115 feet on the:east side of East Street and a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, the south- erly boundary of said parcel being approximately 360 feet north of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL C~MMERCIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property and existing zoning, noting that the property was undeveloped, and the peti~;oner was proposing a Tastee-Freeze; that no previous zoning had been requested - however, subject property was owned by the same persons who had applied for Conditional Use Permit No. 799 to establish a I'aco Be11 restaurant; and that the staff had discussed with the petitioner the site plan for this development regarding the parking to the east. Mr. James Hodges, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and in response to Commission questioning, stated that if subject petition were granted, the Commission could terminate Conditional Use Permit No. 799, and that he would be willing to work with the staff regarding the parking requirements and the fact that ingress and egress was proposed for one bay of parking to tP~e 30-foot easement to the north, which - was utilized by many persons going into the Alpha Beta shopping center. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the agent and the Commission that the 30-foot easement would be used as a turning island for the on-site parking, and it would be similar to the private easement from Francis Drive adjacent to the Chicken Pie Shop on Euclid Street, and that the staff's only comment relative to the parking was the fact that the layout made it rather awkward for parking. Furthermore, he was not familiar with the amount of parking that would be necessary for employees - however, the rear portion could be utilized for employee parking if the manager of the Tastee-Freeze was desirous of maintaining proper policing of the parking facility. Mr. Hodges'then stipulated to resolving the parking and ingress and egress problems with the DeVelopment Services Department staff. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. 3876 ~ ~b~~ ~ ~;.~; s j'-s -~at ~~ r ~~~%v`Y ~t~~~'" ~ '~,~ y~ ~r ° ~ r fr ~ ---- :y d-.f _ ::r _ 7.. _ ~J O ~~ MINUTES, CII'Y..PLANNING COMMISSION, April 22, 1968 gg~~ CONDITIONAL USE - Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-112 and moved for - PERMIT N0. 1022 its passa9e and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant (Continued) ° Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1022, subject to a finding that the petitioner had stipulated to resolving parking and ingress- egress problems with the staff, and conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: _ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERSe None. ~ ABSENT: .COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland, Camp. . ~ Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-113 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to terminate.Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 799 on the bes_s that the petitioner would no longer exercise the petition, and that he had not met the conditions of approval. (See Resolution Book) On ro11 call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland, Camp. VARIANCE N0. 1971 - PUBLIC HEARING. DOYLE 8 SHIELDS REALTY COMPANY, 1333 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; KEN CRANE ANAHEIM, INCORPORATED, 916 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVERS OF (1) PERMITTED NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS, (2) MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FREE- STANDING SIGN, (3) MAXIMUM AREA OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, (4) PERMITTED LOCATION OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, AND (5) MINIMUM DISTANCE BEIYJEEN SIGNS, TO PERMIT THE REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING SMALLER FREE-STANDING SIGN on property described as: A rec+angularly shaped parcel of land having a frontage of approximately 344 feet on the east side of Euclid Street and a maximum depth of approximately 2b5 feet, the southerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 200 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road, and further described as 912-940 South Euclid Street. Property presently classified C-1; GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, subject petition, and previous zoning actions, emphasizing the fact that the other free-standing sign was permitted by the City Council for a restaurant not immediately located on subject property - however, at the time the Commission considered said sign, it had noted approval of the sign request would set an undesirable precedent for similar sign requests on other commercial oarcels in the area, thereby creating a cluttering of signs in the shopping centers, and that another sign waiver request for roof signs was denied by the Planning Commission and sustained by the City Council. Mr. Roberts further noted that on the petitioner's application he had indicated the waivers were necessary because of the concentration of roof signs and higher pole signs in the shoppin9 center along the west side of Euclid Street, and the sign was necessary in order to compete for a biggex share of attention in this area. However, the staff had suggested to the petitioner that an attempt should be made to modify or redesign a replacement sign within the limits of the Sign Ordinance, or demonstrate conclusively that a hardship did exist to warrant approval `,; the Planning Commission of the variance request. Mr. A. M. Hast, 4900 West 147th Street, Hawthorne, appeared before the Commission, representing the petitioner, and noted that a check of the parking areas of subject property and the shopping center on the west side of the street indicated only 37 cars parked on subject property, while across the street there were 135 cars; that there were five signs 40 feet or higher on the west side, and only one on the east side, with two roof signs; that the proposed sign would be 205 feet from the apartments, w hich had no windows, and therefore, coald not be affected by the proposed sign, and the apart- ments facing the sign were 450 feet away; and that without the benefit of roof signs or higher signs, they were at a disadvantage in trying to attract customers. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a number of signs in the shopping center on the west side of Euclid Street were nonconforming signs established prior to the adoption of the Sign Ordinance, and the shopping center was considerably larger than subject property. The representative of the petitioner then noted that the staff calculated the sign area differently than the sign companies did, and that the sign they proposed had only 244 square feet of sign space. ~ ~, . _ _ ` e~~ _ ~. ..~., , ~_ ..____._ . - t,_.w: : ::: ~. .~~y,:: ~ , . . .. . . . .. . . . . . ... ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Aprll 22, 1968 i iV nT JY* a ' +J :~ . ~___. .._ __~~,\ • F~ µ~ '~~/ yY ~ , tiv 3878 i _. VARIANCE N0. 1971 - Mr. Hast, in response to Commission questioning, stated that they (Continued) did not plan to relocate the sign - only increase its size and height. Mr. Thompson further noted that the staff had recommended an alternate method of sign design to the petitioner; whereupon Mr. Hast presented a revised sign which then was analyzed by the Commission and the staff. Mr. Thompson then noted that the petitioner felt an increase in the height would not affect the residential uses to the north and east because of the existence of commercial buildings between the signs and the apartment; however, it would be the Commission's ~ decision as to how high a sign would be allowable. Mr. Hast noted that a similar sign was being erected to a height of 40 feei in Buena Park. The Commission noted that one of the reasons for a sign ordinance was to prevent the type of signing now existing on the west side of the street; therefore, this was no reason for creating a further sign problem by claiming a hardship existed. Mr. Sam Magid, Long Beach, owner of the shopping center on the west side of Euclid Street, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the types of signs presently exist- ing in the shopping center, noting the largest was erected fifteen years ago when the shoppirg center was established, and that the only other sign higher than 25 feet was integrated into the building in which the restaurant was located. However, he was not opposed to higher signs so long as he would be granted the same privilege in the future, since he had been requested to permit additional signs by his different lessees, but had advised them this would not be permitted by the City of Anaheim. Furthermore, his shopping center was set back 400 feet from the street, which could be considered a hardship also. Mr. Hast again appeared before the Commission and stated they were desirous of complying with the City of Anaheim's requirements; however, he did feel a hardship existed since the commercial shopping center across the street had ten signs in 600 feet, and the small shopping center on the east side of the street had only one sign to identify the center. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Farano noted that the claim of hardship brought up an interesting question - notably that when a merchant on one side of the street erected a sign that was contrary to Code requirements, it seemed to create a hardship for the property owner on the other side of the ~treet - however, those signs on the west side of the street were nonconform- ing and had been constructed prior to the adoption of the Sign Ordinance; therefore, he could not determine whether this was a technical hardship to consider a larger sign for the east side of the street. Furthermore, the owner of the shopping center on the west side of the street brou9ht out the argument the Commission had often used: that if one person was entitled to waiver of the Code, so was the adjoining property owner. Thus, hardships were created by businesses themselves, and brought on by~themselves. M-. Thompson advised the Commission that the revised plan submitted by the petitioner was substantially in accordance with the Code requirements for height and size; however, waivers of the number.of free-standing si9ns and location of free-standing signs were still necessary because the petitioner was proposirig to erect a sign 90 feet from the north property line, and the proposed replacement sign would mean the existence of two signs within 300 feet of the frontage. Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-114 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1971, in part, approv- ing the number of free-standing signs and the •Location of a free-standing sign; however, denying the maximum height and the maximum area of a free-standing sign, since the revised plan submi.tted by the petitioner was substantially in accordance v~xth the requirements of the Sign Ordinance. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland, Camp. ~.Y ~^ .~ ~~ : a~µ uFC~'S~ w ; +fe e ; y i°~ °y: r ~~ ,~'" ! { t[ ~ r ~x •f ~' ~ . _r z' `~ ~, ~ ~ T , , i ~ . . ~ ~.°;'~ ~ t~ (~ ~ ~j c MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ April 22, 1968 3879 ~ VARIANCE N0. 1972 - PUBLIC HEARING. EMPIRE SAVINGS 8 LOAN ASSOCIATION, 6750 Van Nuys Boulevard, Van Nuys, California, Owner; property described as: TENTATIVE MAP OF A rectangularly shaped parcel of approximately 9.7 acres of land TRACT N0. 6509 having a frontage of approximately 657 feet on the east side of Aladdin Street and a maximum depth of approximately 642 feet, the northerly boundary of said parcel being approximately 615 feet south of the centerline of Crescent Avenue and the westerly boundary being approximately 1,350 reet east of the centerline of Brookhurst Street. Property presently classified R-3,. MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE. REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVER OF MINIMUM LOT WIDTH TO PERMIT A SUBDIVISION COMPRISED OF 36 R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONED LOTS. TENTATIVE TRACT REQUEST: PERMIT THE SUBDIVISION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY INTO 36 R-3 ZONED LOTS. Associate Planner Charles Roberte reviewed the location of subject property, the requested ' waiver, and the proposed tract, noting that the property to the east had a resolution of intent to M-1; to the north a resolution of intent to M-1; developed, single-family homes to the south; and an R-3 tract to the west. Mr. Roberts, in reviewing the tentativ~ tract map, noted that the petitioner was propos- ing a peripheral alley along the north, east, and south boundaries of subject property; that no provision was being made for the northerly extension of Aladdin Dri.ve, Berniece Drive, and Carol Drive - three streets within the single-family subdivision; and that after extensive discussions with the City Traffic Engineer, it was determined that addi- tional vehicular circulation facilities should be provided within this area to relieve the tra.ffic congestion presently being created along Brookhurst Street and along Lincoln Avenue, in erder to avoid any future traffic problems. Therefore, the Interdepartmental Committee recommended that a street be provided along the southerly boundary of subject property in order that the three R-1 streets to the south could be extended to provide this needed, additional circulation, and, furthermore, since there was a definite need for redesign of the proposed subdivision, the Plannin9 Commission might wish to consider continuation of these two items in order that the petitioner might submit a revised tentative tract map. Mr. A1 Edelsohn, representing Empire Savings ~ Loan Association, appeared before the Commission and noted he was available to answer questions. The Commission noted that there seemed to be a problem of circulation relative to subject tract - both as to interior and access to main streets; whereupon Mr. Edelsohn noted that if the residential streets to the south were extended through subject property, this might alleviate some of the traffic from Brookhurst Street, but would not alleviate traffic along Lincoln Avenue. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that the Traffic Engineer had requested some type of circulation to Muller Drive; that this was one of the first quarter sections in which there was no circulation provided for the interior, and as the property was developed with increased density, traffic circulation became quite a problem. The Commission noted that in the event of fire, inadequate circulation as propesed would make it difficult for fire equipment to have proper access to subject property. Commissioner Herbst then presented to Mr. Edelsohn the staff's recommendations as to a proposed tract layout. Upon completion of discussion with Commissioner Herbst and the staff as to the proposed layout, Mr. Edelsohn noted that if the Commission felt it was desirous to have a revised tract, he requested continuance of subject petition and tract for 'two weeks in order to allow time to submit the revised plans. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to continue Petition for Variance No. 1972 and Tentative Map of Tract No. 6509 to the meeting of May 6, 1968, in order to allow time for the petitioner to submit a revised tentative tract map. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. 4:'~. ~. .: , - _ , . ~ ~ MINUTES., CITY PLANNING COMMISSION~ April 22, 1968 ~ 3880 GENERA.L PLAN = PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, AMENDMENT N0. 100 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; to considr-r an amendment to the Anaheim General F1an, Land Use Desirnation,.in an area generally bounded on the north by the Orange County Flood Control District, on the south by Orange Avenue, on the west by Dale Avenue, and on the east by a point approximately 166 feet west of Shields Drive. - Assistant Planner David Williamson reviewed General Plan Amendment No. 100 (detailed copy on file in the offices of the Development Services Department) and presented Exhibit "A" which designated approximately 14.5 acres of low density, single-family residential use on the existing General Plan to be amended to low-medium density, multiple-family residential use. Mrs. Jane Rubenstein, 618 Scott Lane, appeared before the Commiesion, notin9 that her property was south of Orange and east of Dale in a tract of homes in a price range of $35,000 - however, the homes ~ast of Magnolia Avenue were in a price range of up to $50,000, and if subject'property were developed with single-family homes, these would be less than $30,000; that the tracts located adjacent to subject property had been developed in the past two years, since it was determined that the City had projected low density residential use for the property - however, if a change in land use were considered, this would be reversing the previous thinking of the Planning Commission relative to this property; and that she was opposed to any change in land use that would be an encroachment into the single-family residential development of the area. Mr. Calvin Queyrel, representing Anacal Engineering Company and the developer of the , property at the northeast corner of Broadway and Dale Avenue, appeared in favor of subject petition, noting that the proposa2 for low-medium density for that property was logical, due to the fact that the property was at the intersection of two arterials, was an odd-shaped piece of property, and was adjacent to the flood r,ontrol channel. However, he took issue with Mrs. Rubenstein's statement that the homes would be less than $30,000 since the proposed builder of the homes was presently building on Crescent Avenue, and the price range was $35,000 and higher. Furthermore, the resale price of the homes would be considerably more because of the additional improvements, together with the fact that the entire area would be developed for single-family homes, and that although subject property was a portion of the General Plan designation,for low density, it had never been developed for that, and the adjoinin9 property owners would not be affected by the single-family.homes being constructed since the property wae a rather isolated parcel and would not be affecting the land use changes for the properties adjacent to it. Mr. Queyrel, in response to questioning by Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson relative to consideration of low-medium density for the property at the northeast corner of Broadway and Dale only, rather than extending it southerly to Orange Avenue, replied that he had not studied the proposed amendment to give a comprehensive viewpoint. Mr. Jack McClean, 310 Rosebay Street, appeared before the Commission, stating that he was the proposed developer, and it was their intent to develop the property at the northeast corner of Broadway and Dale Avenue in the price range of $35,000, and the tracts of homes he had recently built were sold out prior to development of the complete tract - therefore it was his opinion that low-medium density for the northeast ccrner of BroadW,3y and Dale would be a,ppropriate inasmuch as they were not developing apartment units. Mr. Roger Rapp, 2773 Tola Avenue, appeared before the Commission in opposition and stated that the Anaheim General Plan depicted low density for all those properties surrounding subject property, as we11 as subject Nroperty, the exceptions:being the school to the west and the flood control channel to the north; that it was his opinion that to consider low-medium density for subject property when low density surrounded the property, would be setting an undesirable precedent, even though the proposed developer of the property at the northeast corner of Broadway and Dale was proposing two-story, single-family homes. The Commission inquired as to the number of additional lots the proposed R-2~5000 Zone would give the developer; whereupon Mr. Thompson advised the Commission there would be four additional lots over that permitted in the low density zone. Mr. James Wallace, 43~ South Shields Drive, appeared before the Commission, noting that he was not opposed to the type of development p:oposed for the property at the northeast corner of Broadway and Dale; however, he was opposed to an amendment to the General Plan which would permit apartment development for the large portion southerly of Broadway and suggested that perhaps the Commission should consider only that portion of the property north of Broadway for a possible General Plan amendment since the larger portion of the study area south of Broadway was sufficiently large to permit deve,opment with i- -;: ; ~ if t~. 3 ii , ;I ,. ~: ~, ~~~'i+ ~~-~~a~r~i C?,x` P~~rd/,~ti~~'g~ s" >~~`i~~~~}~4 a:~ ,w",~ 7~+' s~ r s s fi-.7 ~ - r'~ ~ ~ ~~ MINUTES,. CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 22, 1968 . 3881 .~ENERAL PLA14 - low density development. AMENDMENT N0. 100 (Continued) Mr. Thompson noted for the Commission that when the staff had revdewed th= General Plan, there were a number of undeveloped parcels in this area which should be given consideration, and that perhaps the Commission might wish to consider modificaiion of the exhibit to refiect i~w-medium to the north of Broadway only. Mr: Ec: Buffington, 417 Dale Avenue, appeared in opposition, regaiding one.of the items in the report made by the staff inembers relative to transient traffic using the streets in this area, stating it was his opinion Dale Avenue and Broadway were almost as heavily traveled as Beach Boulevard, and he would be opposed to any medium density development for that area since this would inject additional traffic into the arterial streets. tAr. Clair Harpster, 425 South Shields Drive, appeared before the Commission and inquired whether there was a difference between the R-2 Zone and the R-2-5000 Zone; whereupon the Commissian advised Mr. Harpster that the R-2 Zone would permit development of apartments up to 18 units per net residential acre, and the R-2-5000 Zone permitted a single-family home on a 5,~00-square foot lot - however, this would be permitted only where the General Plan indicated low-medium or medium density was appropriate, and with such a designa- tion on the General Plan, the property could be developed with apartments. Mr. Harpster then expressed opposition to any change to the General Plan by stating that since the enti~.e area had been developed ror low density, single-family residential homes, any l.dnd use change for that area should be discouraged, and the Commission was urged to retain the low density residential designatior for subje~t properties. Furthermore, it was his opinion that the schools were now overcrowdecl, and any additional increase in density would mean overburdening the existing school facilities. Mr. Glen Bacon, 217 Tola Place, concurred in the previeus statements made by the opposi- tion - that the entire area be retained for low density residential use since the land use in the entire area had not changed to warrant consideration of a heavier residential use for subject properties. A showing of hands indicated fifteen persons present in opposition. Mr. Robert Jones, 621 South Dale Avenue, appeared in opposition, stating that although a portion of the study area was proposed for development into R-2-5000 lots, this zoning was designed for areas which were deemed appropriate for low-medium and medium density, and even i: :he parcel to the north of Broadway were developed into R-2-5000, there was no assurance the lar9er parcel to the south would also develop for that; furthermore, he would suggest that consideration be given to granting a variance from the R-1, 7200-square foot requirement for a lot, rather than consideration of R-2-5000 or a land use change to low-medium density. Mr. Jones, in resFonse to Commission questioning, stated that the following item for reclassification to R-2-5000 for the property north of Broadway was not a true R-2-5000 subdivision since the lots were between 5UOO square feet and 7200 square feet required by the R-1 Zone, and that the R-2-5000 was a zone the City had considered appropriate for low-medium and medium density designations rather than in an area that was designated for low density use - therefore he was opposed to any change to the General Plan. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to consideration of denial of the General Plan Amendment since the area,which was proposed for reclassification and generated the General Plan Amendment, could be developed under a variance petition in the R-1 Zone, and a land use change had not occurred to warrant consideration of low-medium density for the area. Commis,sioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-115 and moved for its passage and adop- tion, seconded by Commissioner Farano, to recommend to the City Council that General Plan Amendment No. 100 oe disapproved on the basis that no evidence was presented at the hear- ing which would justify the Commission recommending a change in ttr.e policies established for the General Flan; that Exhibit "A" did not constitute an acceptable alternative to current policies as illustrated on the General Plan. (See Resolution Book) On ~oll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONER~: Fai•ano, Gauex, Herbst, Mungall. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Ncne. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland, Camp. 'r;'i3 ~ >~~ ;,:~ ~ ;:- . . ,:, ,. ,. .: ~r ~ ~. ._ :,» 'n ; ~^. k~ratr.-. ~' ~~ ~'~7,?' .r- , .' . .. , , • ",.: t . f a "h. ^.~'F;i ... _ ... „ .., . . . . . ~~ . , i ~ , ~ c`S' r :f ;" Z, 1 ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 22, 1968 ~ ~ 3882 RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. LA ROY AND MILDRED TURNER, c~o Kindel 8 Anderson, N0. 67-68-72 1020 North Broadway, Santa Ana, California, Owners; ORANGE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, P. 0. Box 3891, Anaheim, California, Agent; TENTATIVE MAP OF requesting that property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel TRACT N0. 6603 of approximately 3.0 acres of land located at the northeast corner of Dale Avenue and Broadway and having frontaqes of approxima~tely 490 feet on the east side of Dale Avenue and approximately 210 feet on the north side of Broadway, be reclassified from the.R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the R-2-5000, ONE-FAMILY, ZONE. TENrATIVE TRACT REQUEST: Subject tract, located on the northeast corner of Dale Avenue and Broadway, containing 3.0 acres, is proposed for subdivision into 14 R-2-5000 Zoned lots. Associate P.lanner Charles Roberts noted for the Commission that the only other additional information he had relative to subject petition was the fact that R-2-5000 was permitted in an area which was deemed appropriate on tHe General Plart for low-medium and medium density whereas subject property was designated for low density land use on ~he General Plan, and since the Commission had recommended denial of the General Plan Amendment for low- medium density residential use for subject property, the proposed reclassification would be in conflict with the General Plan. =". Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that since R-2-5000 was not `' deemed appropriate for the general area, the Commission still could consider approval l~ of R-1, One-Family Residential, Zone for subject t:; property, and request that the petitioner s, or the staff be directed to process a variance to permit smaller lots because of the size ' and shap'e of the property under consideration as being difficult to develop for regula- , ' tion, 7200-square foot lots. Commissioner Gauer noted that the proposed development, aithough requesting R-2-5000, would be a smaller lot with one single-family home and a maximum coverage of the lot of 40%; furthermore, if a four-bedroom house were proposed, this naturally would be two- story, which would still leave considerable area for landscaping and recreation area on the property - however, it would not mean granting duplexes or apartments. Mr. Roger Rapp, 2773 Tola P.venue, appeared before the Commission and noted that R-2 zoning represented low-medium density, to his way of thinking, and inquired whether or not the Commission would consider designating this for R-1-5000 in order to assure that apartments would not be developed on subject property. ~~ The Commission advised Mr. Rapp that since their body had recommended denial of the General Plan Amendment, and since they also felt the proposed development was a logical ~~ solution to developing a difficult parcel, subject pr.operty could be reclassified to the ~;;~,;;~'g~ R-1 Zone subject to the approval of a variance. ~ ; I ~~ ! 7 '~! ,i ~ , `i s Mr. Thompson then advised the Commission that the most appropriate manner in which to handle zoning for subject property would be to recommend denial for the R-2-5000 and recommend approval for R-1, in order to have more control on the method of developing ' the parcel; furthermore, a variance would be more appropriate based on the fact that this particular parcel had a number of problems as to development, and the granting of R-1 zoni.nq with the variance was more desirable than designating this and adjoining properties for higher density, low-medium use - where R-2, Multiple-Family, Zone and R-2-5000, One-Family, Zone could be developed. Mr. Calvin QueyrF;l, representing the engineer for subject property, appeared before tne Commission and noted that it was rather difficult to understand why a General Plan Amend- `~ ment was necessary when they had applied for R-2-5000; however, he had made all the comments he intended to under the consideration of the General Plan Amendment. : :~i ~Ir. Queyrel,,in response to Commission questioning, noted that the type of home the , builder pro~Josed for these lots was similar to those he was completing on Crescent Avenue, and said homes were being sold for between $34,000 and $38,000, and he was sure that the ei hb h ' ~ n g ors w o were concerned relative to development of subject property would b i e n favor of the development if they had~viewed those lots on Crescent Avenue. ' Furthermore, subject property was being developed with two cul-de-sac streets having access to Dale Avenue only - therefore would not be adding to the traffic problem of the R-1 tracts now developed. Also, Mr. Queyrel stated, the houses on Crescent Avenue were developed on 6000-square foot lots, and the proposed development had all lots of ' more than 5000 square feet. Mr. Rapp then stated that outside of the fact that he fel.t two-story construction within 17 feet of his property was an invasion of privacy, he had no objection to development ` of subject property with the homes proposed. ` ;~ ~ :~~ ~ . Ar~'( 1 ~ '~ ~ ~ ay '~y y~'h 7 ~. ~~~~~~ SL1J~wY~h 14 '1~ ~S ~ • y~ I ~ ~{ ~ ...( > n ~ i i ~ • ~ . ~ „ . ...., ,. ..., . ....... , _, .. ,. . . . , . ~ . . . , , .. . . . . . .. .. ... .. ; i l.+ . A,;~ ~.,; kt~`^ S~~' cS` fi`r~k~5 ~,f .~5 ~t.~~ ~ i a~ r. ~-7 ~~. p t r l. i:; y -5 p, R~ > `'t`^ l t ~ ,a . : .. . . 0 ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ . MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 22, 1968 3883 RECLASSIFICATION - THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. N0. 67-68-.72 Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-.116 and moved TENTATIVE MAP OF for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner iierbst, to TRACT N0. 6603 recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification (Continued) . No. 67-68-72 be denied for R-2-5000, One-Family, Zone; however, the Commission recommended that s~bject property should be reclassified " ~ to the R-1, One-Family Residential, Zone because the depth of the parcel would be difficult to subdivide into 7200-square foot lots, and the Commission had recommended that a veriance petition be filed in conjunction with the tentative tract map,to permit lots of less square footage than Code required for R-1 lots, and subject.to•conditions. (See Resolution Book) On soll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. NOES:,. COMMISSZONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland, Camp. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to continue Tentative Map of Tract No. 6603 to the meeting of May 20, in order to allow time for the staff to initiate, on behalf of the~Planning Commission, a variance to permit the lots proposed, which were less than the 7200 square feet required under the R-1 Zone recommended for approval on subject property, and, furthermore, subject tract should be heard in conjunction with the variance which would be filed. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARkIED. Commissioner Herbst directed the staff to initiate on their behalf a variance petition to permit subdivision of subject property into R-1 lots of less than 7200 square feet, said vaxiance to be considered in conjunction with Tentative Map of Tract.No.. 6603. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. PALMER AND BLANCHE SANDENO, ET AL, 99Q2 East N0. 67-68-73 Orang-r Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; FREDRICKS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, 524 West Commonwealth Avenue, Fullerton, California, VARIANCE N0. 1970 Agent; requesting that property described as: Approximately three acres of land comprised of three parcels - Parcel No. 1: A rectangularly shaped pa.;cel of approximately 112 feet by 265 feet, the northerly bour.dary being approximately 325 feet south of the centerline of Orange Avenue and the easterly boundary being approximately 400 feet west of the ce.nterline of Brookhurst Street; and Parcel Nos. 2 and 3: An irregula rly shaped parcel having a frontage of approximately 322 feet on the south side of Orange Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 330 feet, the easterly boundary being aporoximately 400 feet west of the centerline of Brookhurst Street. Property presently classified C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE (PARCEL N0. 1) and COUNTY R-4-6000 AND PD-4000 DISTRICTS (PARCEL.NOS. 2 AND 3). REQUESTED CLASSIFICAI'ION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENI'IAL, ZONE (PARCEL NOS. 1, 2, AND 3). REQUESTED VARIANCE: WAIVERS OF (1) MINIMUM REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS, (2) LOCATION OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, (3) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN BUILDZNGS, AND (4) MAXIMUM DISTANCE OF A LIVING UNIT FROM A STANDARD STREET~ TO PERMIT A 73-UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, noting that two portions of it were under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange, and a third portion was zoned C-1 in the City of Anaheim. The requested waivers were also reviewed, with Mr. Roberts noting that the petitioner was proposing a 73-unit apart- ment complex for subject property - however, the General Plan indicated low density residential use for subject property and the adjoining parcel, and the Commission must decide whether or not higher density for this area was appropriate. Furthermore, if the Commission determined the area were appropriate for medium density use, considera- tion should be given to the fact that only one drive was proposed along the west property line for ingress and egress to the property, and the Fire Department was seriously con- cerned with the fact that no peripheral circulation would be provided for their service in the event of a fire, and if this H2re to be taken into consideration, the Commission might wish to consider continuing subject petition in order to allow the petitioner adequate time to revi:e the plans by incorporating the suggestions of the Interdepart- mental Committee at their meeting. ~ ~,' , ~;z*c"~ ra ~. ".~,~ ~ ,-'~v..~ ~ A~~'S~~ / ~i ~' I ~ p r~ i ,~ 5 ~ .° ~~ s `.~'..: ~, ,:?u 4~ ! \~/ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, April 22, 1968 3884 RECIASSIEICATION - Mr. Henry Fredricks, representing the agent for the petitioner, N0. 67-68-73 appeared before the Commission, noting that the two homes existing on the property would either be moved or torn down in order to use VARIANCE N0. 1970 the land; that it had been difficuli to assemble these parcels into (Continued) a size parcel which would warrant development of the property for apartments, and these apartments would be similar to those built by their firm throughout the city. ~ Mr. Fredricks stated he would disagree strongly with the statemeni made that the property would not be accessible to fire trucks since they had designed this project specifically to derive the benefit of fire-fighting facilities; that the drive along the westerly property line was 27 feet wide and v~as an open drive, which should be ample for trucks to be able to swing and make a complete circle in the drive; that there i•~as more room than a.standard street, which was only a 40-foot width for two lanes wit ~urb parking; that the fire trucks could move down this thoroughfare and pull thein c~,~es to any section of the proposed development; and that the proposal for a standard street for this development would not be practical, nor would it improve the development. Considerable discussion was then held by the Cc:mmission, the staff, and the agent for the petitioner relative to adequate circulatior for fire trucks to serve each portion of the property in the event of a fire. The Commission also noted;that the pool area designated on the plans would be difficult to reach in the event a resuscitator was needed from the rescue squad, and that approxi- mately 50~ of the apartments in the complex would be deprived of adequate fire-fighting facilities since many private patios were proposed, and it would be difficult for the fire-fighters to scale the walls of these private patios. M*. Fredricks th=n r,~ted that the accessibility to the property was as good or better than any apartment pxoject in Anaheim; that the parcel was only 400 feet deep from Oran9e Avenue, with commercial on one side and to the rear; that his staff had done considerable studying prior to designing the proposed development since one of the requirements was single-story within 150 feet of the R-1 parcels to the southwest; and that development of this property would be an asset to the City. Furthermore, there would be no school problem since they proposed an adult project. Mrs. Robert White, 9821 Clearbrook Lane, appeared before the Commission in opposition, reading the letter her husband had submitted to the Planning Commis~ion regarding their opposition to the proposed multinle-family residential development for subject property, based on the fact that thc County zoning for the proper-ty projected minimum lots of 4000 square feet, and to p~~~mit R-3 development for the property would allow a heavier density since only 1200 s:~uare feet were required per dwelling unit. Mr. 0._W. Rake, 9841 Claarbrook Lane, appeared before the Commission in opposition, noting that there was a public utility easement to the rear of subject property and inquired whether or not the petitioner had received approval fron~~ the utilities company tc permit building the carports under the easement. Mr. Fredricks stated that no actual written agreement had been received; however, the utility company had cooperated very well wiih them in the past, and it was hoped it would be the same for subject property. Mr. Rake then advised the Commission that he was of the opinion that the proposed development was too heavy a density for the area and the groperty involved. Mr. Palmer Sandeno, one of the property owners, appeared before the Commission, stating he had.not intended to present his viewpoints; however, there were some personal problems he felt should be brought to the Commission's attention - namely, that it was not their intent to tear down the existing structures, but they would be relocated, and in order to realize a return for this property, bec ~,se he was unable to work at his trade as a contractor, the higher density was necess ; and that if subject petition were approved, this would assist him in reducing the amou.~ of physical labor he had to undergo in order to obtain a living for his fam_iy and continue his children's education. Mr.Glenn Burchett, 027 South Brookhurst Street, appeared before the Commission and stated that his p:coperty was immediately to the south of the C-1 portion of subject property; that his property measured 100 by 632 feet, and if proper plannin9 werP applied, all the narrow, deep parcels where landlor..ked in this vicinity could be included for development; and that he was opposed to iiigh den::ity for the area if no circulation were provided. `.; -,, cf ~;; ij `:'~ ~~ ~ c~ . , ,. _ . . ~~ _ .~ ~ MENUTES, CITY PLAI RECLASSIFICATION N0. b7-68-73 VARIANCE N0. 1970 (Continued) \~ ~i't .v.: "f ` <:r ~, ,rr' a aa'::¢r i .: ~ VNING COMMISSION, April 22, 1966 3885 - Nr. Burchett, in response to Commission questioning as to suggestions for development of these parcels, stated.he would be happy to work with the developer to resolve problems of.these deep lots for inclu- sion,into a proper development. Mr. Fredricks noted that if Mr. Burchett's property were included, in addition to the large amount of fill dirt which had to be brought in for the small C-1 parcel, at least 300 yards of fill would have to be provided in ordex.to have drainage go to Orange Avenue. ~ Zoning.,Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that about the only way the Burchett property could be included would be as a joint venture with a stub street, and there still were some very unusual problems facing any developer who would attempt to inc.lude all these parcels for one development. ;~ ~ Mr. Richard Stewart, 9846 Clearbrook Lane, inquired whether or not the one-story hei9ht limitati +` ~ on would be maintained within 150 feet of the R-1 property; whereupon the Cornmi i ss on noted that the carports would have a 9-foot high wall to give the R-1 properties privac as w ll i ~'~r' '~ y, e as ma ntaining the one-story height limitation within 150 feet of th e R-1 ~ _ , . . 1'~: ' property to the southwest. ' I`. , ~ Mr. Fredricks, in rebuttal, stated that the opposition felt the higher density was a ~ ~ ; problem; however, his company had made a feasibility study and it had been determined th ~ s; at it would not be interested in developing subject property at a lower density since th .,: ,,~; e study indicated their proposal was the most logical means of developing.the property. f 7; , The Commission noted there was an additional problem, and that was the matter of circul~- ti ~ ~',~ <s ~j on where fire trucks could not readily gain access to a fire, and seconds often meant the difference between life and death. Mr. Fredricks then requested continuance oi subject petiti~ns until he was able to consu.lt with the Fire Chief. Commissioner Farano stated he would not vote for subject petition until the Fire Department had gi~cen its approval as to circulation. Mr. Thompson noted tha•i, the Assistant Fire Chief had reviewed the plans, and he felt that a,pro,ject of this size should have some type of peripheral circulation or a standard street along one side of the property, and if this were done, the density would be decreased. Mr. Fredricks noted that he had studied the feasibility of including the property southerly, but because of the difference in the terrain and orade, they had concluded it would not be practical to include the property since the property to the south would have to drain southerly. Mr. Thompson requested direction from the Commission if they deemed the proposed reclassi- fication request a proper land use so that land use, densities, and circulation could be resolved. Commissioner Herbst stated that subject property was between R-1 and C-1 property, and the proposed development could act ~s a buffer between the twu uses since this property never.would develop for single-family residential uses. Commissioner Farano offered a motion to continue Petitions for ReclaSSification No. 67-68-73 and Variance No. 1970 to the meeting of May 6, 1968, in order to allow time tor the developer to consult with the Fire Department and to provide a revised circula- tion pattern which would be approved by the Fire Department. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. AMEIIDMENT TO TITLE 18, - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY TH~ i;iTY PLANNING COMMISSION, ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing an ~~ amendment to Title 18, Chapter 18.62, amending the definition of a parcel or lot of real property in Subsection 18.62.030(f), and the addition of Section 18.62.076, Future Establishment Signs. Associate Planner Charles R~aerts reviewed for the Cnmmissaon the proposed an~ %* nts to Title 18, Zoning, of the Anaheim Municipal Code ~overing signs, advertising ' , and structures, noting that as a result of direction from the Planning Commiss~ :lative to studying the need for an amendment to permit free-standing signs where a lea. vras "'`~.,~''. " ^xy,,. o'.,~ .~p ~r,u,y - ~ M y '- r ~ ~ _ . . . ,,. ;^_i , . . ._ . . . . . .,:. ' .. . ~ . . . . . . ~ ~. 4 . ~ . . rs±~ ,y { ; "} fi'~ z~- ~a V ' ,n N ~r)a. ~-Yv~ 'ir+~i':a,J a .iLi ~I ~ \`~ 3886 :'i . ~'.'~".~SI MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSI01~, April 22, 1968 A-u~NDMENT TO TITLE 18, - less than 25 years' duration, and that as a result of this ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE study, the staff had recommended that Subseetion (f) of (Continued) Section 18.62.030 be amended to 15 years' duration. Mr. Roberts also noted that as a result of requests made to the Commission through petitions relative to the advertisement of future establish- ment of a:~usiness or activity on a parcel or lot, Section 18.62.076 was compiled as set forth in the Report to the Commission. Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to ~tie recommended change to Section 18.62.030(f), the Commission noting that if somp•;~ie had built and leased property-for ten years, he should be entitled to a sign along the fronta9e.of the property. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted that in research of the many variances which had been before the Commission, it had been determined that most leases were for 15 years'.duration; therefore the recommendation of 15 years was in the Report to the Commission. The Commission determined that the add•ition to the Sign Ordinance as proposed in the Report to the Commission met the requiiements as they had set forth in their request to fhe. staff, except that in Subsection (8}, Time Limitation, reference to the Planning Commission should be deleted. ~,~ ,~: Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC68-117 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Herbst, to recommend to the City Council that ~: `, Title 18, 2oning, of the Anaheim Munici al Code should be.amended by an amendment to ,; ; P ; Section 18.62.030(f), referring to separate leases of at least ten years, and the ~~.- ~ adoption of a new section of the Sign Ordinance as depicted in Section 18.62.076, ~~ '~ referred to as Exhibit "A", (See Resolution Book) ~ ~ '~ ~ On roll call the foregoing ^esolution was passed by the following vote: ~~ ; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall. ~r t~,'f NOES:. COMMISSIONERS: None. ~rw~~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland, Camp. ~;?€:~~~{; , REPORTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 959 (Tamasha Club) - To permit the establishment of a private club and recreational facility with on-sale liquor. and waiver of wall height in the front setback area - Property located at 1025 South Anaheim Boulevard. Associate Planner Charles Roberts advised the Commission that a request had been received for an extension of time for completion of conditions for the orivate club and recrea- tional facility known as the Tamasha Club which was approved or; August 28, 1967, and no extensions of time have been requested previously. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to 9rant a 180-day extensi.on of time for the completion of conditions under Conditionai Use Permit No. 959, approved in Resolution No. PC67-188, dated August 28, 1967, said time extension to expire August 289 1968. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. NATION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 821 (Charles B. Frank) - Request to expand an existing trailer park located on the east side of Mountain View Avenue, south of Katella Avenue. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented a request from Mr. Frank for an.extension of time for completion of conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 821 approved by the Planning Commission March 24, 1966. No extension of time has been requested or granted since that time, and technically, the cunditional use permit would have expired on September 24, 1966, and the staff has recommended an extension of time,retroactive, and to c+xpire September 24, 1968. ~;', Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to grant an extension of time for the completion ,~~`: of conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 821 `'~ 1965-66, on March 14, 1966, said time extension~torexpire1September124,N1~68972Commissioner ;~ Herbst secondad the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ::1 _, .,.._.~..., , , ,.. . ,, - __ , .. . . ,, ~ , -~,,..,,,.. , ~ , . _> -, . , . . . :,~a ~r r, r- ~y= W ~ ~y ,x s,~M ~. ,~:~ f;~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ a ,~ ,.,, . . ; ~ 4 ~- ,~ + ~ Fr>;~~ s ~~ . ~ ti w r ~.~ ~~ c ~ . ~~~ ~'~ ^_-_.._ ' -- ~ ~ . - . . - .. . . ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' MINUTES, CITY PLANNIT3G COMMISSION, April 22, 1968 3887 ~ ;:';`t ;:,; REPORTS AND - II`EM N0. 3 RECOMMENDATIONS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 939 (Ana-Park, Incorporated) - ;T , (Cont'inued) Request for an extensicn of time to complete conditions ~ ~ for the establishment of a private school and related ~~ facilities located at 1557 West Mable Street. <~,s ., , {. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented a request from the Fairmont School for _ an additional extension of time for completion of conditions, noting that the previous extension of time wauld expire as of this date, and the staff recommended a 180-day `i;,?`t~ time ~xtension, to expire November 22, 19b8. ;;:~~; Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to grant a 180-day time extension for the comple- ~' tion of conditions granting Conditional Use Permit No. 939 in Resolution No. PC67-205, ':';;~ dated May 22, 1967, said time extension to expire November 22, 1968. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITEM N0. 4 :;'; Orange County Planning Commission consideration of an ~ amendment to the Master Plan of Arterial Highways by the establishment of a precise plan of highway alignment for Sunkist Street. Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented tc the Planning Commission a proposal to be considered by the Orange County Planning Commission regarding the establishment of a precise plan of highway alignment and an amendment to the County Miaster Plan of Arterial Highways extending Sunkist Street southerly from Ball Road to Cerritos and Howell Avenues in the Southeast Industrial Area. The Commission,reviewed the latest proposal for an alignment extending Sunkist Street, noting that the General Plan did indicate said street extending generally south to Howell Avenue, and that adoption of a precise alignment was vital to the ultimate development of the area south of Ball Road. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to recommend to the City Council that the Orange County.Planning Commission be urged to adopt "a" precise ~alignment for Sunkist Street extens~ing southerly from Ba11 Road to Howe11 Avenue as soon as possible. Commissioner Mungell seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ADJOURNIVI~NT - fhere being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 4:15 P.M. Respectfully submitted, ~:%~~ ANN KREBS, Secre ary Anaheim City Planning Commission ~ ~~ ~ f' t ' l 6 ~ 3i , :.,., ~ _.. _ -- ,,. , , - ; ,. -~ , ..,,. ~ .. I , .. , ~ _ ; ~ _ ~ • 1~ ~ ~ , S'~ rF~ ~ r ~ .. f~ ,.~ ,~5 ,. ?_~ . ~ ~ ~ F 7 - ~~`~~ 1 ~~. ~ v. ~ 1~ t 9u:1 , .. .l'~,s....,.,;.t.., .~:-,.rx,'t_:~t.~. ..,.' ~5..~r.._.A~•ck,. ~.:. ,.t:,: ~ ~'~~ "':. ~.. + . _.'~~~'7 ~ ~~~~ ~ r ~r F r 4 i `~ j~4 ~ ' Y . .~ . . . . . . „ ._ . ...~. . f y ~ ' ~~~f`i ~ t ~ {y F )~ ~ t..'~ ~:1 ~ t "~' 2..." .~t I ~ ~ ' ~. ~ . ! , lWF ~ h . t l. ~ ~ i r 6 k~ 's~ I ~ ~~ ~ ', ~ 1 }~ . K f L l~ `~'~ q Jn ~ ~ ~ ~ ly r ~. f ~ ~ { Y ~ ~ . . ~ • 2~'~~ " ~. l+ . . M : 1 . [ ~ ~ P t t l _ h r ' 1 f ~ .; r`J , f . ~ i/ ~ SK {~ ~~ l L , ~~~ ~ . ~ :.x Y ~ r r ~ t ~ ~ r r ~ ~1 ~~ ` Y ~ ~' ~ ~` ~ . ` ~.. ~ - p . a : ~F ,~~ ~ ,47 - ~ ~ ~ ~: 2~". • ~~, ~ ~ i ~ ~ . 'Y~: a ~ f ; a c i: r r,, ~'~ ~ r' ~ . , ~' ., .. . : .. ~ . ~ ' .:. . - 1' ~ } ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~, , .. ~ ~ .~ ~ ' < . . ~ . . ~ ~ . + ~ ~ ~ , :a . . ' . .. ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~. ~ . , . ~ ~ . . . - . . . . j ~ ~ 1 . ~ .. ~ . ; ~ z ~ c . ~ . ~ . .. ~ ~ . ~ .. ~ . .' . .. .. ~ ' ~ i ~ ~ ,', ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ , -I ' I i r, ~ I , * I ` ~ ' ~? ,. ' ~ ` i . ` ,. , .. , , . , ., . ~ ,A~ 1n , 1 ~. ~, ~~t ,,. ~ .~ _;;- :. a ' ; : .,~ y , . _~ _: ~ ! , c, . ,: , * ^ • - ~ . .