Minutes-PC 1970/11/16
, ~r
(
~~
~ ;
r J ~
~ ~y
t .p ~
~
~
,r. .
~ _
. ~
~ City' Hall ; ; r ~`t
_ 9aaheim; CaliPornia `r a~'
November`16, 1970
r _
- "_
..
~- ~,~ ;, ` -' ~. '.: .';
` ~~ ~. . .~. : ', , ... . . ~ ~~ ~ .
`. , -; A' REGULAR ~PING~.OF THF~ANAF~I![,CITY~~PLANNING-.CO~dISSION .
~ ~' x'~,~
~~`~~'75 .
`~; ~
~ ~
.
~'. .. .,~' ;. ~ . .~? -" ".~ . ~.;~ ' . ~ J ~~
,7'{ ~f_+~
b"5
'REGULAR ~E'PING A regular meeting~.of the'Anaheim City`Planning Commission.was called '~~ ~
`' to'o'rder by Chairman Herbst at';2 05 0'.oloak.P M, a:quorum being: 4~~~
present
~~~
~~'
~
~ i- ~.
rPRES~~~ CHAIRMAN Herbst
, ! ,. . . `y
~. ~; .
.
- - ,
CO~IS3IOI~AS - Allred, ~Farano,. Gauer,: Kaqwood, Rowleaad,• Seymour.
-
. ~~`~ x
;'~`~
,
: , '
.
.; ',
9BSENT ~ ? : > CO~IISSIONERS None .
=: ;. ~; . ; , .. .
;: ~~
N,
PRESENT : Assistant ,Development Serviaes"Direotors Ronald Thompson `' '~
_ Assistant:City~:Attorneyc John,Dawson:
OfPioe.Engineezc Jay'Titus, _ sx
Zoning Superyisor: ` Charles.Roberts- '
Planning Commission.Seoretary.~ Ann~Krebs . ~1.
Pi~EDGE .OF ;'!
AI;Ik~IANCE ' Commissioaer Allred led~in the Pledge of Allegianae'to the Flag.
.. , ~;
;
_
.
AP ~~
~~
PROVAI;: OF . ~
';TFIDl ~LINUT~S Minutes of ,the meeting 'of November 2,~~1970, were approved 'on
'motion by: ~~
_
` `:: ,~ Commissioner Seymour,,,seoonded'.bq Oo~i.ssioner A11red; snd MOTION
' ~
CARR~D,.with•the`.Yollowing no,rrections: "~'
a;
_ Page 5464,;.last paragraph,~line'1 -"Commissioner Seymour . , .sdoption"
' '~~:~
:
Page 5471;-paragreph.6;:-line 2;°-"reason for,having a larBer'sign`'. . -" ~;;'w~
Pap;e 5472, peragraph 6, line 3-"indioation;that there were no 'op 11oe ~x
~, _. , ~ . ' ' ` problems" -' ;
P
4
4
a
d"' ~
_
age 5
,-1ast p
7
ragraph - ad
The meeting;ad3ourned at 5:20 p.m.° x~
T' '
RECLASSIFICATION CONTINU~D PUBLIC E~ARING." JOHN R AND GEORG~ YP. EHRLE,;1568 North '''~'~
N0 70-:71 7`>; Bernioe;Drive,.Brea,~Cal3fornia, 0aners,._INVESTORS DEVrLOpl~NT.'CORP.,
" ° ' 1345,North Grand ~~ronue, Santa Ana California '
~. . ABent;, property.
' '
r
VARIANCE N0. 2195 desoribed as "Portion A
'An:irregularly:shaped`parael oP land
~
I , looated north and west~oP.the: nor.thwest aorner oY'State College .,
dONDITIONAI,;;USE'. .Boulevard.and.Romneya Drive, having approximate`frontages of 478 feet ;' ~ .,,~:
PEA~IT`NO:.°1195 on the.west'side.of Stete College Boulevard'and 459 feet on the north
~ „'•~
side of Romneye Drive; and Portiori-B - A reotangularly shaped paroel
of,land looated.at the northwest oorner oY State College Boulevard
and Romneya DriVe; haviag approaimate frontages,of 150 feet on the west side of State
College Boulevsrd~,and•150 feet on the north side of Romneya Drive. Property presently
olassiPied R-A,`.AGRICULTUAAL ZONE: '
, •
AEQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: R-3, MULTIPLE-FAE~ILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
, _ r.
:
REQUESTED VARIANCE: WANERS OF (1):MARIMUM BUILDING HEIGIiT WITHIN 150 FTLE'P OF R-A ; ':
' ',
ZONED PROPERTIES; (2) MINIMUM DISTANCE BETV7EEN BUILDINGS; AND ~
'
~ (3) .MIIJI6d[JM DYPELLING UNTE:SIZE~ TO ESTABISSH A 280-UNiT - .
APAEtTMENT COlLPIER. ~ ,
Snb3eat petitions were oontinued Prom the August;l0, September:l0,.and November 2, 1970 ~`
meetings Yor the,submission of.revised'plans inoorporating suggestions made by the i-. '
Co~.ission as to 'inoluding, that 'portion originally.proposed Yor s service`station `"'`'
site~ and to provide better'ameni.ties Por the s3ngle Pemily homes;eaisting.to the west ~
` and nor~th other.than open parking-oarports-driveways., '
.- .. ,
._
_ _ ('
r ,,;
Zoning'Supervisor Charles Roberts-revieaed for the Commission the!location oY subjeat f.
I 'property; uses:established•in olose proaimity,•the proposal to establish a.280-unit one
and two=story~:;apartment oomplex, and the'reason Por the;previous.oontinuanaes. ; ;
~
-5475-
. ~~.
~
~~.-.'~
'.t~ 5 ". ~TS+'4: 5~
~'"~ ~n, y~ ~~ YT. 4,f' ~~M" vti ~.. ~ y .~ r.r v., y ~d
~-Y -. ~ . . ~~, R12 +..;J.~ Ss . .
~ at ~ .
;L ~~ k ''~ ;; 3 '~.w „u.,± in t` >`l; ,ti,~~1
: ,~ ., . ` ... ~
..n ~~ t ~..q~ s ~,,J l0.,. sy ! t::
. _ ..,. -^_h~_ r-. . ,:'4 ....~ . ':' , ~
~ . ~ . ~ . . . ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ .
MINUTES, CITY PLANNING CO~ISSION, November 16, 1970 5476
" RECLASSIFICATION - Mr. Roberts in reviewing the latest revised platts noted that there
N0. 70=71=7 ' ' would:still be. 280:,units;;,that parking would be provided four feet
_,: ~ 'below;grade;'~hat the petitioner was proposing 20-Poot wide land-
VARIANCE N0.:2195 soape!strips`ad~acent to.the north property lines eaaept for the
- ' rear yards:,of the.homes to the west and.the stub ends of the two
CONDITIONAL II5~ street whioh termittste at the westerly boundary`of sub3eat property,
PERMIT N0. 1195 and the`R=A pnoperty on the nortli; that the'outer units:faoing.,the
'(oontiaued) `residerioes to the north and west were aovr proposed to be oonstruoted
;over the depressed parkirig, and e,ssuming"that the proposed oarports
were at' least.50$,below grsde of _the surr,ounding property, the units would st~ll be
aonsideTed single,story; that sin'oe the petitioner was:now~placirig the parking'.be.low the
level of the Tesidenoes to the west and north, a more open oomplex.was aow being proposed;
f and that the.main question before the Plenning,Co~ission was whether or not the proposal
provided:the 20=foot landsoaped strips in the manner indioated by the Commission for the
area,along.the_ west arid north property lines, was suffioient buffering. However, Prom
aomments msde by the.proposed.developers, it would appear the developers would make some
additional..oomments regarding the most reaent plan as they pertained to the proposed lender
of the'.pro3eot.
Mr.,7sok Davis, 1345 North'Grand `Avenue, Ssnta Ana, representing the developers, appeared
be£ore the Planning Commission and noted that the revised plans were designed in the best
manner possible to meet:the Commi'ssion!s reaommendatiotts, attd these plans had.been presented
to the,insuranoe oompattiy who would be the lender on the pro3eot and they had advised him
several hours ago that beoause of the appearanoe of too muoh asphalt in the drives surround-
~ ing the units elong the west and north whioh was an uttdesirable environment,they would wi.th-
draw their finanaing on the pro3eat, sinoe it would be diPfiault to develop the high quality
I epartment they.proposed and have the type of tenents that would be aooeptable in this type
~. of development, but would open it to low rental tenents. Therefore he would suggest that
the plan submitted at the previous hearing exoept that the oarports would then be Pour Yeet
below grade msking:the height of the wall the siz feet generally required; that the oarports
could be set'baok three Peet to allow an area Por the lantin
providing some lsndsoaping bufYer the Co•~mission su ested be g of trees which aould be
the parking would be below gg provided; and that beoause al?
grade along the north and west it would not be visible from these
properties. '
Mr• Uavis, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the height of the wall would
be 4 Yeet beloa grade and 6 Yeet above grade; hoaever, the norme~l height of a oarport wall
wss 8 feet to the oeiling,
,Chairman Herbst was of the opinion that some form of landsoaping would be needed along the
six-Yoot wal],; that the developer had indioated the possibility of plsoing the one story
garden apartments ad3aoent to the ~vall rather than the oarports Pormerly proposed; and that
possibly.a partial 20-foot landscape buffer strip might be added, although now he had
3tated the lender indiasted this would be unaooeptable.
~dr. Davis replied that they had attempted to design the oomplea ed3aoent to the single
femily homes in,many different waqs, but theq always seemed 'to udnd up with a"sea of
asphelt" as well as having the reoreational area to far removed from those units, thus
making the pro3eot a low rental type aomplex, whereas it wss their intent to develop a
high quslity type rental~oomplex.
Commissioner Geuer suggested that in order to have e high quelity renter, the developer
would have to reduoe the~number oP apartment units, sinae people paying high rents did
not want to be jammed intdr a small area.
Chairman Herbst expressed oonaern that this R-3 developmant whioh was proposed immediately
adjacent to the single family homes had not provided the neaessary buffering devices and
suYfiaient amenities deemed neoessary for the protection of these residents, and then
inquired of stafP hoa muoh area was neoessary to provide a solid landscaped berm adjacent
to the west and north property lines, sinae this.would provide some of the buffering that
. would oreate a desdening effeot from automobile noises,becausethe developer had indicated
theq aoul,d have the aarports setbaok three feet, however both a soreen rsnd sound buffer
efYeot would be neoassary.
Mr. Roberts replied that the width of the berm would be determined on how high the berm
was to be and if the Commission wantad a 4-foot high berm a minimut~s of 16 feet would be
necessary for a setbaak based on a 2:1 slope ratio.
,..: , ,
, .. _.
~ ,,:: ~~ . ., ~ . . ~ ~ . ~., . r . ., r
~ . :.
_.. ....
, .,.
.. .'~. ...~. ~ .~~.' ..-.~. ~;,.
r .-..
. .., ... . . _ _.~ .. ~ . .~.., ~ . ;:.::~~
~' ,.. .-::~.,. .,..:' ..~:~~ ..~ . ~ ~.....,. . .;:; . .'"
.. .~~ ~, , ~,~ .~~ ~ .:~~ .. ~. ~ ~ ~ .
MINUTFS, bITY pLANNING CO~SSION, November 16, 1970 ~~~
RECLASSIFICATION The Commission then reviewed .the plaris with..the developer, indicating,
N0. 70=71=7 their",thinki.ng:ott the suggestions just mede.
VARIANCE N0. 2195 Co~i.ssion'Gauer. aas of:the opinion that tlie Commission should not
` spend so.muoh time at a publ'ia hearing to assist in :the design of this
- CONDITIONAL;USE pro3eat',,sinoe.~the,Commission was only required:to determine wHether
PER~.T~N0.:1195 ' or not a pr.oposal was good~land use, and.then suggested that the hearing
(aontinued) ~ be'alosed`so thst aotion oould be-.taken by the Co~,ission.
Chairman Herbst noted,that there might be some opposition, and perheps the Commission might
wi"sh to hear from them. ~ -
Commissioner.Gauer noted:he was willing to hear from the opposition, but did not feel the
Commission shnuTd be designing:this pro3eot for the petitioner or`developer.
Mr.? Davis.advised Cou~i,ssioner Gauer that they mere attempting to design someth3ng that:was
outside the site development standards, and that the development plans_ presented at the last
publio hearing met Code requirements eaoept for the-:waivers requested. •
Co~i.ssioner Gauer advised Mr. Davis.that buYferirig would have to be provided.between the
multiple Yamily development and single family homes beFore he would oonsider the patition
favorably, however, he-would still prefer to see single Pamily homes'ad~aoent to the
eaisting single femi"lg.homes.
Commissioner Seyrmour oonourred with some of .the statments made by Commissioner Gauer, but
noted that the developer had'indioated.he mas ~ust advised bq the lender that the latest
plans uvould riot be finanoed, e,nd he was now attempting to resolve these siifferenoes with
reoommendetions.by'the Commission.
Chairman Herbst wss o~ the opinion that the developer had made an attempt to satisfy the
Planning Commission, however, he did`not meet the Commission's requirements even though
he`showed;;a willingness.to work out something in-tl:e design, and he realized this took
some,time to resolve.
' Mr..Robert Godwin, 1900 East Rosewood Avenue, appeared before the Commis3ion,noting that
he had prepared"a very short,statment on the basis that the letest'plans were considered'
soaeptable,by his neighbors end himself - the'single femily homeowners who would be
effented.,bg.the proposed development - but with the statment ~ust msde by the developer
this beoame irrelevant.. ,Ffowever, he would still like to state that the letest plans
would give the single family.homeowners a 20-foot green bufPer whioh would isolate the
proposed development from these'homes and with the addition of e aaoessway for vehiol~es
this would oPfer tha~yffering theq he,d requested; that if the developer was seriously
Plsnn3iie.to follow this plan this would be eaoeptable, or that the'elternative of R-2
low density single story garden apartments approaime,tely 10 feet from the property line
would slso"be'aoaeptable; that he would agree with some of the Commissioners that the
developer should plan and design his developmen~ and not expeat the Commission to tell
him whi~ to do; that the ma3or thing whioh he would like to reiterate was the faot that
the first plan was grossly unaooeptable - whether there aould be any haggling as to a
reaess of 3-5-10 feet - this pro3eat deserved the same oonsideretion that the Co~ission
gave to another pro3eat two weeks ago when they.required a 20-foot landsoaped bu£fer;
that it appeared to him that the developer was.trqing to psss on to the residents oY
the area his problem of trying to aonvince a lender that he had a suitable plan; that
in his_opinion the developer had only one problem-density, sinoe the projeot had a
density up to maximum allowed, from his rough calculation of 36 units per scre; tha-t
he had attempted before to find out who the lender was, sinoe the developer had alluded
to an insuranoe oompany and he had then aontaoted the original insurenae company whioh
the developer had told him was finanning the pro~eat, however, when he had written a
letter to the president, he reoeived an answer from the offioe of the president donying
any ]rnowledge of the pro,jeot; and that he was interested in who the lender was sinoe he
would`be hagpy to work with tHe developer-lender~~o.try to finance the lat'est-plen.
Commissioner Gauer oYfered a motion to aontinue sub3eot petitions for two to four weeks
to allow time Yor the petitioner to resolve development and finanoing problems, and to
present acceptable plans whioh met the approval of both the Commission snd ad~oining
property owners. Commissioner Kaywood seaonded the motion.
Commissioner Farano inquired of the developer whether or not he wanted sub3eot petitions
to be oontinued.
~ ~ ~.~.w fra .-~z:_xk~- '~.~ ..~ _'+ ' x: n' .a
:,~~. >
~ ~~ ~ ~
F ~ 4~~Y
r MINUTES, CITY PvANNING~CO~ISSION, 1Jovember.l6, 1970.. . 5478 ~~~~-
. ~ ,.
,.
~~~
. , - ,: , ,. ~.: ,, ~~
::. ., ,: < ° ;,,
#- ' RECLASSIF'ICATION ' Mr.~Dsvis replied that k:e would like,the Planning;0ommission to take ~F
N0 _ 70 71 7 aotion on ~,tY~e plan presentedto ths last publio heariag,, and that .he '~
~ ~ no ~longer had time in. esorow y{~~
~ VARIANCPu NO 2195 `, . ;, ' ' ,.. ~' ~ N~.
~ ~: e Commissioner Seymour inquired of Nlr. Dsvis whether:or.not he was aertain ~
CONDITIDNAL IISE f. he we,nted~to have the'Co'mmission vote:.en.the:previous plan.or oould he ~~F~r
PER~P NO '`;1195 , ~ still work out the finsnoing vvi.th another lender on: ttie plan . presented ~ s~~
~ ~' ;(oontiaued) ,this date7.; ~
, , ~ ~ ,; _ ~: ~'t
. ,.. , .
.• . . - _ ' . : l ~
Mr 'Davis Teplied,that he and.the'.leader-were partners in this development,.and he would ~~ ~>
prefer thet the.Commission take aotion this date.; : *``t^,
" ~ ,'; , ~ ^a
~Commissioner Gauer requested'that his`motion'be aoted upori, however, he would not vote ~ "
favorably:;for the old plan.liut?would ~oonsider the:latest plan.. ~ "
Chairman Herbst was of_the o;.inio~a that there were some problems vith the latest plaa as } ,•~%
it, pertained to':height: .; . _ 1 .':i`,
_, . . . , ~
, ; • ': , !
Commissiorier A17.red inquired>~of staYf.whether or not~the plan with apartments over the j
oarports fell-within the limitetions of the height restriotions? ~
., . ~ ~
_ :;
~r ':Roberts advised the Commission that so.,Iott~ $s:the vertiaal height of the oarports ~
was`;50~,or'>more below the,grade, this was not oonsidered a floor or story, and sinoe ~
the'petitioner was proposing`to have the oarports depressed more than.50~ belopv grade '`~~~'~'''
this would not be oonsidered as a story. therefore the [spartments, as proposed over' ~ '~-
the:aerports, were still oonsidered;single:story apartments and within Code requirements. ~ '~~
, , .. ~ ¢~:`:
, • . ;,
Tf~ HEARIlQG WAS:iCLOSED. _
The Planning Co~ission.then voted on Commissioner•Gauer's motion to continue sub3edt °"~.
petitions := the.vote being two Votes (Commissioners Gauer snd Kaywood) for oontinuanoe,
and;.five votes~,against continuenoe.
. , , s; .
~,, - ,;:
r,.,;
Commissioner Seymour,offered Resolution No. PC70-201, and moved Por its passage and adoption, y~
to:,reaommerid to•the City.;,Counoil~disepproval of,Petition Por Reolassifiaation No. 70-71-7, ~
on'the basis that slthough~the proposed reolassiPioation is in oonforme,nae with General Plan "
Amendment:No.'121, the petitioner is`not providing suPYiaient amenities and buffering ,~„'
deyioes as ere deemed rieoessery'`for the protection of the ad~aoent.single family homes;
tHat itt many instanoes in the past where multiple family resideatial uses hcsve been proposed
ad3aoent to single femily-residentiel developments, the Planning Cormmi.ssion has required -
either step:down or trerisitional zoning between these tao types of uses, or some other type `'''
of.bu£Pering teahnique to proteot,.the.integrity of the existing single.femily residential
uses; that even efter numerous attempts by the Planning Oommission to assist,the sppliaant f
in resolving buffering and transitional zoning problems, the spplioant has not submitted ,
a plen:that'is sooeptable to the City.or to the residents in alose proximity; that a plan ~
whioh aould have been oonsidered.soaeptable by the Planning Co~ission was withdra~vn by ~
the developer on the basis tha~.the lending egenay determined that the design was unaooept- ;
able for their purposes; and that reolassifioation of sub~eat propertg.should be granted ~
only upon submissiott oY sooeptable development plans wherein undesirable aottditions not ~
i
oonduoive to'a good living.environment Por the.ad~eoent single~fr•_+~31y residents have been ~
buffered within the,pro3eat rather than plaaing the burden upon the adjaoent single Yemily ;
home owners.(See Resolutiott Book) ~ :,`
_
_
: j ~ ;,
Prior to.i~ting, ~r: Roberts ttoted for the Co~i.ssion that the reolassiPiaation was in !
oonformanae with General P1am Amendment No. 121. ~
The Commission,noted.that it was not their intent to approve zoning.unless soaeptable f
development plans had been submitted in order that the ad~oining single femily homeowners f
mi:ght be given:the neoessary proteotion Yrom an inoreased density use. ~ ~`
Commissioner Rowland noted that this vras the seaond ~
petition bePore the Co~ission sinae a
the R-3 Zone was revised in whioh the Commiss3on had not required some type of step down '
zoning -.the first being_approved at the November 2, 1970 public hearing-for property on
the southeast'oorner of Beaah Boulevard and,Orange Avenue, where the Commissioa required
onlq"a 20-Poot landsoape strip and deemed this aaoeptable immediately ad3aaent to s
high quality developed single.Yemily subdivision; that sinae sub3eot,property mas immed- `
iately ad3eoent to single Pamily homes similer eavironmental problems were appe,rent, ~
therefore, some type of buffering should have been required immediately, so that the
single femily homeowners would not have been sub3eoted to appear beYore the Co~ission
for the past three months,in order that there would be some assurance their homes would j_
be proteoted from less than desirable development on subjeot property.
: ~
L-- -
~,,, - : -
.R
; . ,,. ~ ;. .::v ._,.
~ ~ •'. .. . ~ .
~ ~'. ~
...: . . ...~_ . -~. ~ ' ._..
;~,.~, . -:.: : ~~:~~ ~. . . ..~ . . ;:; : ..:. ;, . ~.... ~.,.;~. ~ , .
.......:. .......::~ . . .,-._.: ...._ ."-:~ ...... .., . ..,.~:. ' ~' . . . .
..',.....,,: .. .,:..',. I ~ , , . .. ~ . ~ .
... . . :.:. ~ :.:. ...... ~.. _. . .' .~ ~ . ,
; MINUTES,:CITY-PLANNING,CO~~dISSION, November;l6, 1970 5479
'RECLASSIF'ICATION - Commissioner'Farano was~of the opinion that:any realassiPioation for
' N0:,70-71-7 ; .sub~eot,;property:,should ouly;be oonsidered;'snd_approqed;sub3eot to
.. . :. .
'.- ' the submission.of speoiYio aooeptable 'development'-plans'whioh veould
VARIANCE:N0..2195 assure the sirigle Yamily.homeowners'.of:the needed bu~Yering.`
CONDITIONAL USE ;. Commissioner Seymour stated the,t although he would agree;with some
PERI~'P~:NO: 1195 .; of (;the oomments?ma,de by Commissioner::Rowlatid, the:'aotion taken by
~_(oontinued) the Planning•Commission'at the last,'.publia hearing regarding the
" ~~ -. property;at Beacki Boulevard'end Orange Avenue•was ~takeri beoause that
property had very parti.oular,problems',and~~was'3udged only on ibs.merits snd should not be
~oonsidered:as•setting a-'preoedent Yor:similar requiremerits oP R-3'proposed ad3soAnt to
~developed:R 1,'!since,the 20=foot~landscape'setbaok was a'manner in.whioh to soZ.e e setbaak
-. ...
problem ,on property Yormerly.zoned:C-l,;and`.when the petitions.sre submitted.to the City
Couaoil it.:should'be msde.olear that the'_Commission,on sub3eot`;petition,had held numerous
meetiags,.with the petit'ioner to try to assi§t him in rede§igning the pro3eot, but a3ter
a:reasonable ooncept had'been presented.whioh met with the Co~i.ssion and ad3oining property
oamers~epproval";;the~developer.>aithdrew these;;plans because oY the eoonomia statments`mede,
and.requested.that the_Commissioa oonsider the plans as presented at the previous public
hearing. .:'
On ro11 oall.the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote:
AYES: CO~LISSIOI~RS: Allred, Farano, Gauer,,Herbst, Kay*wood,`Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: CO~CSSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COl~ISSIONERS: None.
Commissi'oner Seymour,oPfered Resolution No._PC70-i~.02, and moved for its_passsge and adoption
to;deny Petition`for Yarianae No. 2195 on the basis:that the,development'plans submitted
with the",applioant did:ttot inoorporate suffioient amenities and bufPering devices.as were
deemed neoessaiy,for.the proteotion of the ad3soent single family homes and the applioant
fiad?:not, oooperated witli the Planning Co~ission in resolvin~:.the development,problems re-
lated'witfi this pro3eot.;.and that approval of this development as 'proposed would be pleoing
_- ari undue':burden upon the ad3eoent homeowners.CSee Resolution Book)`
Prior to voting „Cou~issioner Rowland noted that even though the latest plans presented
s8tisfied :the residents`of the'erea, in his•estimation it did not meet the requirement
oP 'one story within 150 feet of R-1,sinoe the developer was proposing to oonstruot apart-
ment'units;over'the depressed`aerports,maldng this_a two-story.struoture;.and that it was
his understending the Yire and building oodes slso would aonsider this to be two story.
Mr. Roberts advised the Cocmission thet aonorc?3ng to Code,whiah appeared to be vary olear,
where parking was more than 50$ below grade this would not be aonsidered a storq as to
height, but iY e dwelling unit wess.even 100$ below grade and one wes above grade, this
would be oonsidered two story. .
Commissioner Rowland then stated if the Code read that aay, then perhaps the Commission
should aonsider amending it, sinae one should not be worried about.the parking as an
intrusion, but the residentisl uses whiah aould see over the 6-foot masonry wall,;thus
making aonsideration of the one story over the oarports an intrusion within the 150-foot
height limitation;,. and that it would seem illogioal to aonsider this otherwise.
• On roll oa11 the foregoing rasolutiott was.passed by the Yollowing vote:
AYES: . COM~ISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaqwood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOESc CO~ISSIOIZERS: None.
ABSENT: CO~ISSIONERS: None.
Mr. Roberts sdvised the Commission that a letter was on file from the pstitioner indioating
that they requested withdrawal of the conditional use permit;therefore, he would reaommend
this be :terminated by motion, rather than denying the petition.
Co~issior.3r Seymour ofYered a motion to terminete all proaeedings on Conditional Use
Permit No. 1195, as requested by the petitioner. Co~i.ssioner Allred seaonded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED.
~3 :~k ~e} a. yq'~'a'7i~ ~~ r' ~2+~T 7 E,rr 13 a~~,Ya, `F'w"w sh ~: 3 l~P~'^"° r~y 4 c 3` ~';~. . ~,, f f ... ~i
~ ~ p ,~,. t~ ~ ~. ~.. 'M. ,~ s+ . . . A ~
':~4.~~ r r~'}d ~. ~ ~i 7f.h . .. ,~ r^Y7Y'~~ %i¢~~" ., „~,x r 4 '+ -.
r .,G.. Z4i 1 l. x,' i, ~'~.
y.,`~ \ . ~ :.+. ? .:D ~r.'. ( J e~ .rr ~ z+f. ~ ~JIi~. ~ 'rF f '.:
~ I~~
.~~. ~ . ~ . ~ .~ ~ . .
MINUTES, CIT3G"PLANNIlVG CO1d~ISSION, November 16, 1970 , ~
54&0 9
;
CONDITIONAL USE - pUgi,IC,I~Ag2NG. . PAUL.B. TREAT,:P O. BO% 7,:F4~llerton, ~alifornia,
PER~II'P NO 1210 . Owner; JAMES %. SCHULER d~1SSOCIATEg,•;yp. S. Phelps, 1095 North Msin J
Street, 3u'ite S,:Orange;.Californie,:'Agent; requesting permission to ~
, -' ERECT A 64-tTN2T, 1+py0-STORY MOTEL on property desoribed as: An.irregularly- ~
shaped~paroel of land looated'at the southeast oorner of-Lincoln Avenue and Grand Avenue,
having approaimate.frontages of 305:feet ori the.south side of`Linooln Avenue end 200 feet
on the east side of Grand Avenue. .Property presently'olassified C-1, GENERAL.COME~RCIAL,ZONE ;~
Zonittg Supervisor Charles Roberts reviemed"the lodation of sub~eat property, uses sstablished ~
in;olose;proximity, and the proposal,to establish.a.64_unit two-story motel ranging in size ~
from 437;square Yeet to 600 square feet - all units having kitoheri.feailities; that the .~
required;35-Poot building setbsak was being observed; and thet parking was proposed along I
tha south property line as well as along'the eastern property Iine_which would:be below
' units.
Mr._ Roberts in evaluating.the.proposal noted that the arrangement of this faoility with its
open aourtyard e,nd pool appeared strangely similar to an,epartment aomplex; that the primary ,
oonsideration before the Commission was.whether or not the proposed use was appropriate at
this.particular-looation, and whether or not kitohett faailities`should be permitted in all
the units, sinoe there'had been instanoes`in whioh the'Planning Commission and the City '~
Counail had restriated tha number of diPYerent motels with kitohen faoilities to Yar less
than"100,$:: Flirthermore, the petitioner was elso proposing to take aaoess to the alley
abutting;the property at the southeast, however, in the City Counai], approval of C-1 zoning, }
under the"realassifioation required a 6-foot'me,sonry wall along this property line adjaoent
to;the alley serving the R-3 properties,,therefore, if the.Co~i.ssion deems the use'appro-
priate they would also have to determitte whether eoaess should be permitted to this alley.
Mr...William Phelps, agent Por the petitioner, appeared before the:Coa~ission and noted that
ttie apertments to the south aere also-owned by.the petitioner; that the request before the
Commission was the result of oonditions experienaed in the operation of apartment oomplexes
in that ttiere was e need Yor interim-type apartment hotel-motel Pacilities,:and the proposed
development was his oonoept oY an interim;type use mhioh was an apertment house where people
aould-stay approximately a month sinae living oonditions mere not oonduoide to long range I.
residenoy; that the proposed development would be similar to a motel oomplex approved near ~
Beeah Boulevard whereYn 100,~ of.the units were approved with kitohen faoilitie,s having two- ~
burner,ranges, ao,oven, a 6-aubia foot refrigerator, and a smsll sink unit, said faoilities
being adequate for a person who did not.want to li~e in a regular motel while setting up ~
permanent 13ving.faoilities for his £amily:when they would move to this area; that this
would only be oonsidered as an interim residenae and this facilitity aould oomplement the ;~
two apartment oomplexes to the south whioh were owned by the petitioner as wAll as another
apartment oomplex to the east; that the finding by staff as to.the alley appeared to be
somewhst strange sinoe there elready existed a:publio dediasted alley, ad~aoent to the C-1
looated to the.east, and,then reviewed by indioating on a plot plan the possible routes
whioh oould be talcen 3rom both the apartments and the proposed oomplex and noted that the ~
petitioner had purahased this portion of the alley whiah would be his then to use, however,
if this were required to remain olosed, then all traffia would go down i;hru the R-3 property
out to.Grand Avenue, but by opening up the alley. to the east this would direot the traYfic ~
away from the R-3 units to the south and west.
Commissioner Seymour inquired of Mr. Phelps whether or not he intended that by opening the ,
elley this.then would assist the R-3 units to the east, Mr. Phelps in response stated that 7
it was not their intent but this was quite possible, however there presently.did not exist
s passagewaq; and these residents went baak out to Linnoln Avenue.
Commissioner Seymour then aoted that when the 117-unit apartment aomplex was completed it
would be so ilaveloped to`provide them with egress - did it have to be bui)t that way? j.
~7asn't the doveloper oreating his own problem?
Mr. Phelps replied that it would provide this egress, snd then asked Co~.issioner Seymour I
to exp7ai,n how they,were oreating their own problem:
: - ~:
Commissioner Seymour replied that if in.the development of the 117 units to the south the ;
drive was not developed interseoting with the alleq then these people could not have aoaess,
and if this interseoting was put in the drive would be used by them creating a possible aon-
flict as it pertained to trafPio, sinoe Mr. Phelps stated that now theq wanted to divert it
by dumping this traffio on the C-l property rather than the R-3 whiah he f.elt was sound '
thinking but he still wondered why the developer wanted to provide this egress for the
ad3oining property.
~ ~~rp,~"`i~{ ~'~f ~. S`~~+5'RE'`L~`*,~ "~~.~~~'` . a~+it' fT4G s`+~ ~'i~ t ~ ~ 5''~'~ Zf
~~ S Y .. "5 AS t Y~,~,
~ F`~~ f ~ x, ~ s." ~~r t.~` ~'` h~s~ . ` `s ~ ~ ~,Y ~y '"~ '
- SL h 4~: .: X L y~ 'y. ~,:
( i
J~ ::' Y'
i IliB '~ N~ 7 '~t' f ., X4' Y ~1f 7 ~4£ .~uZ~t1F.~ ~ +~`F~ ~ «y~ ',~
L~Y. 5 3'("`~ ~ C _ '„*".e1~ 'm ~7.~X.,~ ~ l.. ~ df i ,rn'lK ~
~~t
~vxY
f a
~
'x ~ tY '~~,nr - ~ } ~
M '7 J,. k . jj 5" Y
'4
'
~ .iy;
-""
~
.
,
,
~
?, r i
y
s ~ ~ *
Y'Y''S!M ,
2 ~ .e. :
~
~.'s i i„y -
_ "",
'^`
r,~y;
.~~~ °~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ .
~ ~
MINUTES,;CITY PLANNING-'CO~ISSION,~November 16, 1970 gq
gl
' `'
, .
.
~ ~ ~
`y`~.
QONDITIONAL.USE - Mr. Phelps replied thet :this was needed to provide for traffia.flow between
3
PERMIT.NO. 1210 the 117 units, the`parki.ng area,' end to Grand Avenue, and the use of the ~'''
_..
;(continued) . ` alley, part`o;;whioh was:being,used~for' psrking. .
~ ~ .
„. : ~
.,
:- :.,
Commissioner.Seywour ihquired'whether it was possible that the,117-unit complea oould be ~:
;:~
so designed so,as,to preolude'the residents;~of the R-3 .to the east from dumping out'on
Grand.Avenue, whereupn;Mr. Phelps replied he doubted wfiether`this oould be done.-
. . ~'
r
,..
.
. .
Co¢~issioner Gauer noted that the agent.spoke'about the faot that theg wereiproposiag an
~ ,z
n ~;
Sr`~
iaterim.or trans3tion-use.betweeri motel-hotel'uses and apertments,.however,.he felt it would
be one
or the oth
r
`
l
e
w ~~
~
,
e
or
e
s
kie-
ould.be required.to do the thing whiah the Co~ission hed
` '
asked
for-in,the psst`and,.that was to proyide a oertairi;peraentege of the nnits with ki.tohen ~'v?
faoilities and not'have 100%,_sirioe`he Pelt these would then be olassified as spartments
; "'
'
rat2ier
than motel.r.ooms. - ~~
Mr: Phelps noted there,appeared to be no reoord oP an ordinanue or poliay whioh set Yorth
the peroentage:of ki.tahen units in motels,"and the Planning Commission and City Council in
_ the psst.predioeted a oertain living oonditiori of a ldtohen - this was an effioienoy unit
'
in a living unit.with the City's restriotion of`only a two-burner stoye.and no oven(although
this oouTd be'overoome with an eleotrio oven); a small`rePrigerator - this determined the
usability of a kitohen.. Furthermore, he<was sure the petitioner would'Tisten to reason, and
'
he was
willing to oooperate on what the'peraentabe was or what.oould be used; that sinoe the
City in.the past had_,approved motels'heving 100,~ kitohen units, elthough several others had
~
been
limited to:less, those,motels.on Linaoln Avenue.were two-story`over garages and were r_
smaller-units; and that the proposed dedelopment would:oomplement those apartments to the ~,.,
-
3outh while the petitioner Ys hoping to gain Yrom this.
' ::`~;
;
, ," :~;,
Commissioner Gauer noted there was some diPYerenoe between fees aolleoted Prom motels and j'
those oolleoted from apartments; namely motels had a 5$ bed tax while apartments paid an ~ _~
in lieu park and reareation fee presently set at'$75, but whioh would inorease to $125 at ~
the Yirst;o3 1971. F~rthermore, the City;>had established a polioy whiah limited the number j
of baohelor units in;an apartment oomplex to 25$ of the total, whereas the proposed develop ;
ment whioh he Yelt wi~;~e apartmeats.were totally baahelor units.- ~
Co~issioner Farano inquired.what was meent by reasonable, sinoe the Commission had estab- ~
lished'e"polioy:-during the last two:years where the number oY`units thst`would be allowad ~ "-'-
to.have kitohen.itnits.'suoh as those whibh had been demonstrated whioh would be
e
v
ry
aompaat;-wherein it was determined thst a msximum of ?5~,would be perm'itted,iP he oould
~ `7
reoell oorreatlY• ,
"Assistant Development Services Direator Ronald Thompson edvised the Commission that the ~
~
peroentage permitted ranged from 10,~ to 25$. ~
Commissioner.Farano then noted that.it would, therefore, depend on what the petitioner
meant by reasonable and if the petitioner was talki.ng about more than 25~, this in his ~
estimation would not be reasonable, sinoe the Commission had a basio reason for esteb-
13shing this peroeritage at that time,; and that he £elt the proposed development was a
`good attempt to avoid this policy.,
Mr. Phelps replied that the 25~ limitation for kitahen units had not been established ;~
in the past, although the percentage of baohelor units in an apartment oomplex had been ~
established at 25~. Therefore, he felt this should be aonsidered an apartment-motel- ;~
hotel oomplex ahioh was allowed in the..C-1 2one, and this would predioate whether or ,
_ =
_ not a man would be permitted to prepsre.his own meals in his own faaility. ! "
Commissioner Fexano noted that during the last two years at leest 200 oP these types of ,~~
units had been approved - now'there was a question as to the need or a demand for this
type of faoility Yor transient or transferred_persons under the oiraumstanoes whioh the ~
agent had xelated to this ar.ea - sinoe he would rather doubt that, although there were ~.~
no speaifia figures available to the.Commission, espeoially since many of the larger :1
companies were outting down on transYerees where formerly these oompanies had transferred ~
1000 persons a year, this figure was down to 150 persons a year. Therefore, if this was .~
the latest trend he doubted that there was a need for this type of faoility, unless the
petitioner.was:trying to attreat a diYferent type oY transient person who would be of ~
the undesirable type whiah the City was not desirous of having. ~
NO ONE.APPEARED IN OPPOSITION. '~
~
~
. r *', a - ,~~
r.
~~-~ ~< , s ' .
- MINOTES, CITY PLANNING CO~ISSION, No'vember 16;"~1970 ;~5482
CONDITIONAL USE c:Mr Phelps indiaated:he oould not,answer•Commissioner:Farano's statment
PERMIT NO :=1210 :as to;uadesi'rable persons,;but motels were:'lodated both east.and west on' '
~(oontinued) 'Linao7.n Avenue, and he was;:sure,none msre developed with:,the:intent.to_
`attraot the,undesirable or;dishoriest person.~~ `
Commiasioner Allred inquired'es'• to the' peroentage of baohelor units that'-were approved for
,,.
, the;apartme,nt~oomplea to:the south of.sub3eat property -
Mr =?Phelps~repl3ed~that.approximately 10,~ of:the total number"o~ units alth'ougti thero had
beeri a 25,~,limitation on;the pro3ent .~:that perhaps:'e"25,$;limitation ori-tHe-proposed:develop-
ment'oould`do the:;-~ob,'elthougti~:50,2 would do:e better 3ab:3or tlie``'petitioner;'that this was>
:e:oompromise sin:ae the'petitioner had~a great,maiiy:people_movirig,in and`;out,from•the 'apart-
ment':nomplex,'and<the motel'with 13tahen_Peailities;;would do.tfie.:3ob es,'propo,sed,•,sinoe,in
a mutel there_were aontrols beaause the room was bleaned daily, wkieress,'this was not:so
iri.ex- apartmeat, and the~ owner~`would:;only have: aaoess to'the unit'after:'s move::;out,:by e..
tenattt.
i Commissioner Allred inquired wh!tt•the;~peroentage of;baohelor•uaits there would.::be-.if the
property~under;`aonsideration were acmbined,aiith the.`apartment development approved Yor the
property,to'the south -;`both.tieing owned,.by the petitioner:.
Mr ;Phelps'replied.there would'be a total of 181 uriits having 74 baohelor units or less
than:50,$: : -
Commissioner`Allred theri noted i~ this'peroentage having kitohen:Yaailities was reduoed _
then`the aombined:uriits'aould..total .to less;thanr25$.
Mr Phelps~~noted that the one bedroom units,would have to be.inareased'iri size to 700;;squaro '
Yeet; this;was a;,possibility - in`other words the:Qoa~ission wes xequesting that.this' ~ '
property,under corisideration.be:turned:into an apartment house pro3eot.
.. .
, ~ ,:
, > _ :
~
Chairman Herbst.eapressed oonoern as to the.possibility that this:oould be done, sinae:two
~separate paroels,rwere involved~,.,and ;thea inquired of;staff whether or not_this could be
3noluded in;~the other'epartment,:house development as to,density,'::if'this.`mere developed
~ as an apartment pro~eot":rather than a`motel~,';'even though th~re'~were two separate,paroels,
both,_were:oaned by the semo person -~.oould the.petitioner'oome.baok and redesign his
pro3eot es:`suggested by bommissioner'Allred and still meet.Cade:requiremerit§`of an apartment-
` honse for.25$ of,the'tinits to",lie baahelor units instead of tliat as proposed., Furthermore,',
it.appeared to him that ,this wss an-.attampt to~work around the-Code requirements, thu§ it
should be lirought baak with3n Code again. . I
Mr.,Roberts advis'ed the'Co~i.ssio~ that this oould be aooomplished in some manner,but it (
would involve~rezoning sub3eot,property to R=3, then the petitioner.would have'to revise ;
his plans so that this would then be inoorporated into on~ pro3eat. '
: , i.
Cou~issioner Rowland felt there would be several problems, namely the me,tter oP parldng ~
shortage, and the.matt'er oY density, s~.noe iP this aere to be aonsidered as an apartment !
pro3eot this would be a:densit of 42 units re, whereas tha apartment density ;
had a maximum of 36 units per aare. . Per net aa ;
,
~
~r. Rober.ts noted thet his reply to -0hairmanHerbst was based on the statement that the ;
projeot would oomply with the R-3 standards. . ~
Chairman Herbst was of the opinion that the:proposed.development appeared to be an attempt i
to use a rtiotel oode to design small apartments, and he for one could not vote on something i
like:that;'however, iY the petitioner.would like to,.make an attempt;to redesign the project,~
beoause the petitioner owned both peroels, and submit plans showing one pro~eot for these'
two paroels, this would make more sers3 to him. Furthermore, the petitioner then could ~.
oomply with the peroentage oP baohelor apartments whiah have been allowed Yor apartment f
oomplexes in the past,.thus the,PlanninG Co~i.ssion would'not be granting a privilege or ''
preferential treatment that was not giyen to othdr petitioners, and granting this as j
proposed.would be'working eround the apartment,house aode:and airaumventing the Code !:
requirements whioh he was opposed to. j
c
Mr.` Phelps stated it was not their intent to oircumvent the R-3 standards but this type ~
of faoility was needed acoording to a survey, and it was raxe to find s piece of C-1 E
property :that lent itself so well to this need, and the only differenoe between his con- ;:
aept of a motel and e3fioiency:unit's were the ldtohens as well as being somewhat larger ;
than a motel unit. _
s.`
`.i
:r
,;
i
~ :,.
~
~
~~
~ `ii
h
_ _ _
~
. .
~
i .~ ~ . . .
. -. .
.. "
, ~ .~~ . : , . . . '
~ ~ . .
:~
~ ~ : ~
~
'
~ to
'
'
~
:
.
...
,
..
.
:: . . . , ..
. .: . .
. . . ,... ... ; . , . ~ , . . .
MII~U~S, CIT3[ PLANNING .CO1~A.ISSION, : November 16
1970 -
_
t
.
:
r f h,0.,
`~µ
,
_ 5483
. ,; , ,.:; , . . , :.
~ .,:
':• .
~• . :
CONDITIONAL.IISE Chairmen Herbst indioated that-the Commissi~n understood that but did
. ' ~
PERMIT N0. 1210 rioti agree with the oonaept, and although the.Co~aission did permit
;(oontinued) baohelor units
Por 25$-:of an apartment
ple
n ~ 4~
,
oom
a havi
g a square footags
oY 425 square feet, the_question was.whether or not
this a motel o
n `~
.
,
r a
. ...
apartment~.'development.' ., ';• -°-
, . :: . _ -
:
f
~ir. Phelps.indioated this should be.oonsidered a motel complex, and he would reduoe the
~number
..
of kitohen units
'
~ 4f~}4ti
1~
'l
,
.
. ..
. . ,:
~-. ..r .. ; .~ .
: ~ .~ . . ~ ' ~~.~. .. ~ - ~ - .
- i
k ~p
, . . ~. . . . .
. : ., :, . . .
Commi.ssioner Farano inquired'of staff what"` peroentage of kitohen units was permitted
when the.Plannin
Commi
i
a
~ _~
~
g
ss
on.
nd City Counoil approved
a motel development on State College
Boulevard.south~of Orangewood.Avenue: ~s~
, . ,
' .~. .. -. .. , ~..~ . ~,;; ', ' .~ ~~ ". .. .~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . , „~
h~
Mi~;. Roberts replied that this'motel was located in the M-1 Zone'a.nd aes permitted to have
onl
10
~
f th Y~
y
,
.o
e,units•with,kitnhen faoilities. However there,was another motal expansion
n
r
Str
et`'
t o
a '~~
~~3
~
.
e
wes
f St
te College Boulevard:whioh was permitted to have 100$ of the
th, kit'ohen ~ Yaoilities. ' '`~~
,.:;'::
Comm~.ssioner Farano then noted that the Planning Commission had either denied that request,
or h~
d redua
d th
ro
f
,
e
e pe
entage o
units with kitohen faailities:
Chairman Herbst then inquired whether or not the two units having a separate bedroom should
have b
d
een oonsidere
,under the parking regulations of motels, sinae.it was his opinion this
was an•attempt .to'get around:the?parking
e
ui
e
t
w
r
~
r
q
rem
n
s:
hiah apa
tuients had and was more
than the:. one' spaae per, tinit" motels had:
~ ,,~
.
Mr: Ph'elps assured the,Commission that he was not attempting to oiroumvent the Code require-
merits
and th
t
r X:
~
,
a
the apa
tment"development was one'oP tHe fe~v developed in the City that
[ din not request a number of weiver s ~
~~:
,
~ °
' : ~
,
Commissioner Farano,felt that.-the petitioner should either develop this pro3eat within the
aonfines
oY the``
e
o ,:
'
.
requir
menta
f motels with.the:given peraentage oY units having:kitahen i
~adilities, or deveToping it
aithin th
R-3
od
r °
.
e
o
e-
equirements wherein only 25$.of the
units ~oould be less than Code•to s~ve as baahelor apartments. '
?:
Chairman Herbst noted that sinoe the proposed motel would have to be a '
pproved by oonditional ~
use parmit, the.
Commission oould i
po
n
.
m
se any oo
dition that was reasonable. ;
Commissioner Sey!mour advised the agent that the Commission did not oontend that he was ~
`attem
ting t
ir
p
o a
aumvent the R-3 Code,.but the faat was that the Co¢miission had looked ~
at other;pro3eats that oYfered a similar unit
end i
th
,
n
ese projeots there were people
with many ohildren,:tra3.lers, eto; that perhaps that aas not the intent of the petitioner '
b ~~
ut visual observetion by the Co~tission_of similar developments did not benefit the City
or a projeat
the
f
e
,
re
or
the Coaffiission should treat this petition as was done on State
College Boulevard and Orangewood A
i
~
venue
n whioh only 10,$,of the units wera permitted to
have kitohen units.
Mr. Pau1 Treat, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he aould not
o
a
argue
r
gree with the peroentage of units as disoussed by the Co¢~ission without further
study and r
u
t
eq
es
ed this petition be uontinued so that he _nould make an in-depth study.
Co~issioner Allred oPYered a motion to oontinue Petition Yor ConditionaT Use Permit
No. 1210 to the meeting of Daoember 14, 1970, to allow the petitioner time to make a
Purther study on the percentage oP units needed with kitahen faoilities, and to oonsider
the rea,ommendations made by the Coa~ission as to aonversion to apa,rtment developments.
Commissioner Farano seoonded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
VARIANCE N0. 2213 -PUBLIv^ F~ARING,(Readvertised) HU1~LE'OIL 8, REFIN2NG COMPANY, Box 1254,
Orange, CaliYornia, 0umer; H. H. Hansen, Box 1254,_Orange, CaliYornia,
Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MAXIMU~ pEpMITTED SIGN.HEIGHT on property
desuribe3'as: A reotangulsrly-shaped:parneJ. of land located at the
northwest oorner-of Linaoln Ave~lue and Rio Vista Street and having approximate frontsges .
of 150 feet„on Linooln Avenue and 156 Yeet on Rio Vista Street. Property presentZy
olassiYied.C-1, GENERAL COD~AERCIAL, ZOI~.
Zoning Suparvisor Charles Roberts xeviewed the looation of subjeot property, uses estab-
lished in olose prosimity, previous zoni.ng aotion on the property, and then noted that
at the 0otober 5, 1970 publia he&,ring, the Planning Commission denied the appliaant's
request to replaoe an existing sign with a new Pree-~tt~nding sign to advert:tse a carwash,
however they did approve the expansion o~ the modular sign to inolude the oarwash si.gn,
provided the existing sign at the servioe station"point" was removed; that after the
„--~.: : `s
:V;,~
~
I ~~ ~ - r
V St..
~;
'MINU'i~s', OITY `PLANNING CO~SSION, ;November 16
~ 1970
: ~„
,
54
gq. . ~ •~;;:
VARIANCE NO :2213 ~ e lioaiit had studied the feasibilit of the Commission s su
PP g ' ggestion,
-; (oontinued):
he deter
d th ~
^
;
m~.ne
at it would;be impossible;to expand the:existing,
modular;sign.without going to aonsiderable
e
se
o ,;{,
exp
n
t
.provide.new
i; footings`beneath the existinig pump~risland;;that at the~
0atober 19 '
'';?~
.
,
' ~ 1970~.meeting tkie appli'oe,nt then~ requested` that :the Commissiori• permit
the eapanded module,i~ sigri to
'be loo
ted et t
° ~'°
~f
,
a
he.!!point
'oP:the.servioe station,.however,
the Commissioncdetermined that a ' ' -~
;:~
pu
blio liear3ng:
would be•neoess
r
" ~
4:;~
_ .
,
,
a
y:to eaoomplish
this,
, therefore, this petition was nodr-before=the Commission;to oonsider;this r
quest
F
rth
o ?
r
e
.
u
er-
m
re, ~the proposed :sign.would be the same:'he'ght;:'as :the eaisti -~eduler si n- a
oxi
~ r~ y
}~~
-
. , 8 PPr,
mately 40 Peet; whereas Code::would:.permit`:rs me,ximum~25-Poot sign~beosuse of ;the residentiel
uses within 300 feet`
n
'
r.~ ,.
to the
orth
.
,.end that the overall,exea':oP the;,proposed.sign whioh
would iriolude'the additio
l
r
s
n
S~r}
rv}.
ne
.oa
wa
h sig
,,would be permitted by the Sign Ordine,noe. ~~.
",~
~~
Mr H H. Hansen,~agerit Yor the petitiorier, appeared before the Commission and requested
approval'.of the exi'stin
mod
l
si
o ,
,
~if
g
u
ar,
gn rel
oatiori.togettier,with,.the addition as reaommended
by the Qommission at?:the Oatober 5
:1970
ub ~•~~
""
,
p
lio hearing:
Comm~.s§ioner Keywood:.inquire,d oP the agent why he Yelt'it was neoesssry to ereot the sign
to a hei'ght of.40 fe
et sinoe it was now being relooated, instead'.of-the required 25 feet.
Mr Hansen replied that.the sign was a.freewaq oriented`sign:whiah was ereated at the
time the
s
vi
e st
"
.
er
o
ation
was.aonstruoted,:sinoe it wa5 felt signing at this height was
neoessary to.aTert motorists:of their.looation. :
.
. .
.
' ~
,.
~'
. :'
.
..
... , . _~ _.., , . .~'
.' .' . . ~ . . .
'Comm~.ssioner Kaqwood then noted that the Commission had:visited the site and had noted
tliat t
P
e ~ 7b' ~'
~
wo o
th
.other. e9rvioe stations did'not hebe signs at the height being raquested.
': ' '
' '~~~~
.
Mr Hansen noted thet;the two stations having signs at.25 fee~.were not looated on the
ori or
o~f-remps
o? the fre
. ~:~v
';
.
:
eway..
.. . ~ - . . ~:~
-
, . . . .
Commissioner Segmour.inquired of Mr: Hansen mhether or not he knew if'the Mobil and
Shell stati
I
3 ,
J
~~'~
.
ons
ooate
farthest from the freeway would sufPer r~ny loss in business because
n: tn
they did?,not•have the same'height of
i
s
g
Mr`: Hansen replied.that those stations hauing the higher; signs,would have the advantage, ~
beoause
oustomers
using th
ir
uo
.
.
e
..prod
ts„would exit from the freeway, whereas those using f
.the obher produots,would be unaware of th
~
~
e serviae:stations:,being lobated'at this perti- '
,' oular off-ramp, thus.would.not exit..
, ' . .
-
`~"
i
,
Commissioner Seymour then observed that in all likelihood the other sorvioe stations would ~
be ooming in
e
u
ti
r
q
es
ng:higher. signs;
?d0,`ONE APPEARED IN OPPOSITION.
;
Tf~ HEARING WAS:CLOSED.. .
Assistant Development Servioes Direotor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that they
might wish to:r
uire
thi
s
n
eq
.
s
ig
to be 25 feet, and direct a request to the Highway Depart- ;
ment to sign the freeway indiaating et the ofP_ram
th
lo
ti
o
p
e
oa
on
f oer and food serviaes,
thus benefiting`all the servioe stations at this interseation, and then inquired of M
e
r.
Hans
n whether or not this partioular situation ooourred in other cities adjaoent to the ,
freeways? •.
Mr. Hansen replied that some of the freeways in the'Los Angeles area were now being signed ~
whioh in4icated gas and f
od
e
•
o
s
rviaes
at given oPf-ramps, buti this was oniy looal and did
not ooour in other perts oY the oountry: ' ~ ~
Mr. Thompson noted that there would be more and more signs that 'would indioate these servioesi
were available as the Highwsg De
artment got ar
p
ound te signing the various aities, and that ~
he would agree.that a 1ogo.indiaating the brands th
t
re av
i
we
a
ai
able would be ideal, however,~
he he~d argued this with the Highway Department for sometime with
oui, any result.
Commissioner Allred adVised~the agent that the Commission was seriously aonsidering reaom- i
mending
to the Cit
Cou
ail
h
h
'
,
y
n
t
at t
e ordinanae be amended
•r.equiring that all signing in
the City of Anaheim be a maximum of 25 feet within
e
the n
r.t five years. •
Mr. Hansen replied they would;prePer to have the 40-foot sign and hope that wi.thin five
years the City would
ahan
e th
i
i
u
.
g
e
r m
n
s and not reduoe the height of signs in the City.
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ;:!;
u'~ .
n
~,x ~'~,v~~t~e(, kT -~ ~.. sk'v~s~t~,
}~±` {tt'f ~ ... f.'~il~3sr'.H+. ~!- , ~ .. N iJ~` y~' r 2 . zY x 1~a~3F "M"~~ -~ ¢.. ~ a~ ; :5
L 1 ' 1~ ~ ~'~t '~` };. `~y'
. ~~
~v
. sx ~3^.
ehY.~`3'~~
9n'
, ~+,~ M l ~y ,~ i e .
iC r""~ +.P~ 4, ~. ~ ~ 'i' 1 ~. +~ ~ h +~ `Y,~ : ~d~ti .~
~
~
? 5~,SL~..
`„'
~
,~` Y' 3]:`~~~
m "a
[^
„s~
<Wa V` ra~
} '
~f
~`
;
"~ .
Q
e
4'~ ~ F~ ' Y ~ ~ ~ ~
'
~ i
"~ ~J
f '
§
.
~
~ "2
~jf
,
a ,
.
:
r
t,
w~. ~..
.,
i5
.
~~t
x a c x.
~
i
F
: r 4.a; h .~ , ~ ~ •~ ~ , . N3
>r
,
k~
~.'~5 ~.1<~ ~' , . .
~ ~
'
~
~ ~,?
Fi.~}O
~
.
.
.
:.. ~
~
.
..
it ~ '.. , 'i' .. . .... -
:` .:• ~ .~ . J~
t.y
?s~x,, ~ , .
MINUT~S; CITY ~PLANNING CO~MISSION, ~Novemtier
16
1970 ~ ~
4 `
x
i ~ ~
' _
,
5
85
<; > = ~
~ ~ 1
~ ' ~
'
",
~
~
~
~
-';
.
h
N 4
'~" f ~.
~S
`~ . :
'
.i .
. .
>.
.
:. . ~ . :.. , ' . '
,
... 1 ":~ ~.. . .,~ ~~. _'~
~; ~ •' . ` ~ .
.
:.
r~`
;e
~.~ VARIANCE NO 2213 CoIDmissi0I19*' Se
,ymour,noted that the.reque§t amounted:to;~an illegal . ~
~
~r ~ :
,~ x (aontinued)! .,sign being.approved '
~. , ;,
, . , ,and if approved,.,in: all liklihood the~.ottier ~ > ~
~~
.<.
~~A
~ .t
serviae-;,stations at •tkiis interseotion would also be in requesting .
` ~
i ;`:`
i
t -
~~J ;` + ,: ,
~ea inorease
ri`.'the height ot;their',?signs: .However,;he;was_in aom-`
plete favor with M
',
Th
so
'
' ' ` '~^~
''
~
j
x` r
,
om
n
s ;su
p, ggestions regarding requesting the'Division:'of Highways
to si
n:
-
th
off
s ~
;
ri
, ;
g
,
;
e_
ramp
.with this i.nformation, arid:reoommended~that the, staff;investigate;
thi
s
~ ~"~
~,r~
° s po
sibility and;
whether;it would be neoes~ery fon.the Planning Co~i.ssion and/or-the
City Counoil t'a~king Yorme
l aot
're
ti
a
' =
*
~,
~,4
' ,
ion
ques
ng tfi
t off-ramps. be s
igned indiaating`:that food
and ges ;wouldllie ~available ., FurtHermore„he wou'1d elso suggest that ~~the stafY~;star
t work 't f
w~
~'
r
k* .
on preper3ng a:sign abatement ordirianoe ;that Would amor-tize all these freeWay oriented
' a
'
signs :
• " ;'> , > r s;::.,
; ;~>.
Mr Thompson no~ed that a number of~ther'servioe~station signs.were~freeway 'oriented at .'"
heighta?;up to,,JO•feet, and e number:oP.these signs.hadibeen vigorously;opposed by the
; r
esidents in'
given~areas:beasusE ~:'ie
w
re
ia
t
e:
' -T~-
' .
,
y
e
ur
ttrao
iv
and the lights•.from
the signs
`d
~
~
reated~;a nuisanoe
,ThereYore, i~;;. 3 City
oould work;with;the HigtiWay Department to
' }
, bbtaia this
signing, _and thersigns•,thett:were reduoed iss:heigtit
this'bvould add:immeasur- ,
.
ably to .;the aesthet3os•.,of many >aress in; the. oity.'
y ~ Commissioner. Seymour noted that the aost"of signi.ng tkie freeway:in.this Pashion would not ~
be.very,'expensive, but it'would be an impra~ement to the City;o~ Anaheim and it environment
' ~
:if all.the monstrou~
3reewey:orierited signs were.removed.
I
Chairman Herbst inquired-whether or not the new~~Tooation of this sign would be farther ~,~ -
away Yrom the apartments,than.theiexisting loaetion • ~
...
. ~
,
..
Mr Rober,ts noted that the sign at its present looation was only 50 3eet from the apart-
' i .
` ~
~'
ments,,however,' if it
:were~•relooated it• would be;,epproxime,tely'150,feet. away. a,,
~
~ ;~`
Chairmeri Herbst.then:noted;iY the`§ign we.re relooated tHis would be
better for
the resi- i
.
.
dents'oY,the apartc}ent'.aomplea„ that there°were several'things t~o uorisider, even
though
~ ~ ~
.
the
,ordinanoe "stipulated as: to the ~•height oY ~a sign, . he felt it ,ira•s'tkie'.~
obligation of `~
,
the~City, to alert the%;traveling publio on`the~freewey that tHis s.a~vibe was:evailable;
that th
~
i
in
d
e
ea
st
g height an
loaatioa oP the sign was a non oonforming one,'end by re-
Tooating'it another free-
t
ndin
~mould be:
m
e
u ~
,
a
g,
:re
ov
d b
t the,petitioner;would'still be
allowed to advertise;sn additional::servioe on the
premises - this in'his estimation w
uld
,
o
be better for 'all roottoerned:•'; ~•' ~ ` . •: ~ '
, 'r.`
dommissioner Seymour'then.noted that iY this height were allowed then the Shell' and Mobil -
stations would`be in~r.equesting a"similar~;height;.'- thus.establishing a preoedent.
~
`Chairman Herbst;noted.,.that the petitioner~~already was en3oying the height requested
ahile
,
the Texeoo station also had~,a.siga•highar.;than,-the.Code permitted,,;although it was not ~
40 Yeet, and rather tHan depriving..this~•petitioner"of the height he•requested,
the Gommis- '
~
.
siott should
require:;sll:stations.to,•have:signs;'of the seme height; Furthermore
the ~
~
,
petitioner
was ,improving .tYie site by. removing one; of. the ;signs, and relooating the sign
farther away~from the apartments.'`.:
Commissioner ~Seymour_then inquired,of the ohairman whetHer the Co~i.ssion oould deny the
'
.
other servioe~stations at'this looation;the~.right to xequest a higher sign'~thsn.they had ~
at the present time -'to whioh Chairman Herbst', etated !'NO!'. ., -„ .;.
.
,
.
.
Commissioner Allred offered s motiori to grant Petition Por.Varianae No. 2213. This ,
~'
motion lost by a vote of four NOES.and"three.YEAS. ,. .-: . ~ `'
Commissioner Allred noted that he did not favor tall sigas sinae a sign was more readily ~
S
v
.sible at 25 £eet rather thasi 40 feet even iY they were freeway oriented signs, however,
this applioant was onl
att
tin
~ _
y
6mp
g to aarry out some of.the suggestioris made by the
Planning. Comntission, and was o:i].y requesting
relooetion c,f ar. existin
sign
th
r
i ,
_
g
,.
e
e
ore,
he should be allowed to.enjoy the, present sigtt. -
.
Commissioner Kaywood aoted that sha was not opposed to:relooation oY the:sign, haw,ver
,
it was her contention that,the sign should only be.25 faet high whioh-would be in oonform-
- anae with the sign.ordinanoe.
Mr. Hansen advised the Commission that it was his desire to retain the freeway oriented
sign and was:prepared to leeve the sign at its present
looation, however
there would
.
,
be no signing for the oarwash whioh was;.elready in operation.
,"~r; : r ;~
; „~;i..` ` ;:
.~ ~
L' ~
' , ,
~~y,
~ . ' ~'~ . '."
- ~,
~ •.
s:' i,i
'~SINUTES'+ CITY'PLANNING COMMISSION,`~November 16
~,
1970 }~
,
, -
_ , .; .
, , .,
, . . ,. , ,
.
..
; • ., , s;- . . _ .
'
'
,
':
,;- ~: ,~
>.
. ,
. , ; ;:, .
;
,
,
. .. ,,:,.; , . .
-
•.. •, . . ,
VARIANCE NO 2213 Co~i.ssioner Seymour oPfered.Resolution~No. PC70-203, and moved'Yor
(oontinu
d)
t
~
~
K
~
e
. i
s
passege and.-adoption to deny Petition;Por.Varianae:No: 22I3 on
the basis that the a
rov
l ~
f
o
"
' ,
~
pp
a
o
the sign l
oationi
would be establishing
,
; .
cia'undesi`rable.;praoadeiit~in whioh .tYie.remaining:servioe'st
tion ~,~'~'
f
; ~
a
s at
}` tHis interseotion would also'request;erection of frae standing.'signs
3
` ' '
` ~f
~
~
_
in eaoes
;
s'to that permitted~by the sign ordinanoe:?(See.Resolution Book)
_ s
~
~
.
; ;
On ro1L oa11 the feregoing-resolution was;,passed by ihe_'Pollowing vote ~
.
Y<~,
.
~ ~
AYES `
CO~ISSIONERS Allred, Farano, Gauer Ke, , .
, ywood, Rowland, Seymour. - ~'~
s~~
NOES = C06~SSIONERS Herbst ~!* ry <
3
'
.
. , ,, .
, , ~ ',~
r ~.~..
ABSENT . CO~LMISSIONERS , None , • ,
f ~<
~
RECLASSIFICATION PUHLIC HEARIlQG,- VIOI~T:VAN LELDEN, MARGARET GREEN, AND H. H. HAASE, ~
.NO 70-71 18
230
le
C
i
.
Cast
.
irole, Crange, California, Owners; BURGER'KIIVG,.2101 $outh ~
Atlantio Boulevard
;I;os Angeles;
C
li3
nia
~
,
,
a
or
, Agent;~requesting~that ~
proper.ty desaribed`as: A rec~sn~ularl -sha ed
,. ' ~ 8 Y P pexoel of land having
' `
-.. a
;fr.ontage of approximately-193 feet on the`east"side of^State.College i
~ Boulevard,.having a maximum depth
of ~approximatel
190 P
a ¢~
.
y
eet,
nd beirig locsted approxi- ~
mately:500 ~eet south:of the``oenterline of Syoemore Street.be-reolassiPied:from the R-A
A
~
i:
CRICULTURAL ZONE to~the
C-1; GENERAL CO~EE4ERCIAL, ZONE.
<.. ~ ,;.
>:
,
:' t ;
Zoning.Supervisor Charles;Roberts reviewed'the looationroP sub~eot property,.uses,estab-
lished in
ol
e
o
i
i N;~,y'
+~.
.
os
pr
x
m
ty,.and-the:proposal,to;re;olassify sub~eot property to the.C-1
Zone iri order to oonstruot an enolosed restau
nt= ~
~
ra
on the property.. . "
Mr 'Roberts then noted'that.:the,General Plan ittdiaates the frontage on State,,College
Boulevard as-bein
a
e
~ ~`
~~{
g
ppropri
te for oou~eroial development
, thereYore, the proposed zoning
aould eppear to be appropriate, :that at"the~
rese
t time`th
a ':
p
n
ere.was
public elley;whioh ~
stubbed 3nto~the'southeast.edge of::sub3eat property arid?.said.:elley:
served a number::of i
o `'~
~~
,
o
mmeroiel paroels 4ronting,.on State~College BouTevard;'.that;this stubbing would indiaate '
the obvious intent to
terid
' ~;
>?3
ea
;the alley riortherlq;':`and in,the
opinion.of',the ~3ty Engineer
,.tlie elley should;be returned.to State
"College Boulevard'thereby:
r
idi
a
' ~
_
p
ov
ng
:seoondany means
of ingress and~;egress`;Por these propertie§::. Therefore,,:the Commission woul"d heve to"deter- t
mi.ne:wh
th
'th
e
.
e
er.
e all
y esterision is appropriate and 3f 'so, approval oP the'zoning aotion ~
should be made''oontirigent upon'the dedioati
P'a
l ,,.;~
on o
n a
ley across th:'southerly, portion of
sub3eot..proper.ty:exiting to;State:College-Boulevard. ~
.
~
Mr.- Larry 0.'Toole, representing the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Coa~ission
end stated
theg pro
osed
s
:
p
aon
truating an enalosed restaurant to house a'Burger King faoility
whioh would seat JO
e ~;:
p
rsons; that the staff's reoommendation of extending the alley aoross
sub~eot property would be oonformed with;`that
t
k
h
f
.
a
e
ome
ood serviae would only be pro-
vided as an eaoessory use,.:sinoe it was their intent to have sit down din~rs; and th
t
e
a
th
y would agree to ~ediostion of the alley.
, - ,
, ..
:,
~' Com;nissioner Allred inquired whether the petitioner still intended to provide the planter i
strip in the oenter
Y th
o
is.pro3eot. ~
Mr. Roberts also inquired whether it;was the agent's intent to plant the entire area of
82x100 feet. ..: : '
:::
Idr. 0'Too1e replied that;sinae a.dedioated"slley would reduoe the size o~ this paroel
and sinae s
of t
,
ome ;
the perking would-be relooated beuause of this, the proposed pletinter
would heve to be reduoed in width. `
Assistant Development.Services Direo+.or Ronald Thompson noted for the Commission that it
would be rather remote to.extend the 811ey farther to the north, sinoe those properties
e
w
re alreedy developed with'fairly:new aommercial:facilities, therefore, the alley should
b
t
n
d
~
e re
ur
e
to State College,Boulevard at this property.;
t
C o er ~ asked the agent whether tkiere'would any ob3eotion to oreating ber c
r
~inco~~~`°F°~-..~'~cula~ ~ent to 5tate College Boulevard ~~
d
t
g an
ou
going.ve ale ou d~be somewhat screened:
Mr. 0'Toole replied that they had done a two-foot berm on other'sites and he would stip-
ul
te
t
i
'
a
_
o prov
ding a
similar berm for subjeat property.
Mr. John Hood,'2021-Bangor Way, appeared befere the Commission and stated he was not
'
opposed to
subjeot petitiori but was ooncerned that the height,.of the wall would be greater
- i-
~
~
.~.~.._ ~.. . . . .. . . ' ~ . - ~ . - . . ' . ' . . f~-
-~.. . Y'~~:.
~ , ~ ,, ~ ..
.
.S~ ~ y :
tita¢
'~i 3~IlvuTES, CITY PI;ANNING.,COM~EISSION Nov mber 26, .1970
,~ ~ 5487
~ ~
~~ RECLASSIFICATION than~siz Peet sinae this-was also i.mportent lieoause they had a swimming
~,. N0::.70-71~-18, pool; near;-,their rear ~
'~ property~line, and if a two-foot berm mere :to be
~ :(aontiaued) oonstruoted with;a 6 Poot,wall ereoted on top of.the berm this would `
, '~ present a rather unsightlg;barrier.~,~'
'p' ,. ` ' ' . ` ,. ° ` . .
,~y The Co~ssion advised%Mr Hood that;the berm was':intende'd for the oenter of the projeot
~ arid in;Yront ofr:the arkin ~ "
~ ,. ,. p g area froriting.:ori State,College,Boulevard, therefore, his
property,:would not be affeoted~bq,the proposed berm. .
r~'
~. ~
No :one appeared' ~in opposition.';
~ THE HEARING YPAS CIASED: `~,; r• '
Disoussion was held by the Commission and staYf•as to the exant looation of the~alTey,
sinoe the;:existittg alley stubbed into Qub~eot'property on~the:south it`~might.be.neoessary
• „to`hsve a';greater emopnt of land for e partial radius.return,;and:after dishussion it was
determined rather than speoifying the exaot'3ooetion of the.elley, the oondition Yor its
dedioe,tion and loaation shouTd be'spproved by the City Engineer::
Co~u.ssioner Farano'.offered Resolution.No._,pC70-204;•and moved for its;passage'and adoption,
to,:::reoommend .to';the City;Counail thst Petitioa Por ReoTassif'ioation No. 70-71-15 be approved
sub~eat .to ICPS3GYV reoommended aoridition§:amendirig,Condition No. l0 ~o read: ~~That the
stendard.'20-foot`alley shall.,be'dedioated and nonstruoted aaross this pe,roel to State Collee
Boulevard; the..looation-of said a1Tey to be'`approved by~the City Engineer.•,"; and that
Condition-;No. ll;shall;have`added to`it: "provided.however,,that s laadsoaped berm shall
~be'devel'oped wittiin the planting areas along the State College Boulevard 3rontage," as
stipulated to by:the.'petiti.oner.;(See Aesolution'Book)'
On:roll"oall the Poregoing resolution w~s psssed by the .fc,llowin3 vote:
AYES COM~ISSIONERS:` Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst,'Kaywood, Rowland,:Seymour.
; . .., _ ,- , .
NOES: CO~ISSIONERS:; None. ~ .
ABSENT. :CODL~~ISSIONERS: None: ,
. RECESS - bommissioner Seymour:movad for a 10-minute reoes§. Coum~issioner %aywood seoonded
the motion. MOTION CARRIEDr The~meeting'reoessed at 3:57,p.m.
<<u. - ' :
HEl7U'Lf'YliPV1 :- y ~~rL,^3n HBC~f+ reoonvsaed the, meetiri at _4:07
__ g p.m., all oommissioners being
present. _
VARIANCE N0. 2219 - PUBLIC HEARIlJG. IRWIN J..I~N7CON, 9502 Greenwich Street, Anaheim,
` ' ' Californis, Owner; requesting 9PANER OF (1) MINIedUM,I,pT pREA; AND
TENTATIVE MAP OF (2) MINIMtTM LOT pY,'CDTH IN Tf~ R-l, ONE FAMIE,Y RESIDENTIAL, ZONE
TRACT;NO. 6792, on property desoribed.as: An irregularly-shaped paroel of land
k REVISION N0. 2 aonsisting of approxime,tely 3.74'aares having a frontage of approxi-
matelq 165 feet on the west side of Ninth Street, heving a maximum
depth oP approximately 529 Peet, and.being loaated approaimately;
i 860 feet north:oY the oenterline of Orangewood Avenue. Property
presently olassified'R-A, AGRICfTLfiURAL ZONE.
,
_.
TENTATNE TRACT AEQtJEST: ENGINEER: Anscal Engineering;Company, 222 East Linooln Avenue
Anaheim, Califoraia proposing.to subdivide subjeat property into
- 20 R-1 zoned iots.
Zoning Supervisor.Gharles Roberts advised the Co~.i.ssion-that after ane~].yzing the.tract
:` map-it was"determined that sub~eut varia.--oe would have to be readvertised because there..
was an additional waiver of the side=on lot festure.abutting an arterial, and that the
City had advised staPf this aeiver should be advertised legally, ttierefore, he was
requesting that §ub~eat,petition and traot.be oontinued to the November 30, 1970 meetzng
to allow staff.time to.readvertise sll n~oessary.waivers, and that all ad3oining property
owners had been aontaoted by.telephone.regarding readvertisement. '
Co~issioner Allred offered a,motion to.oontinue Petition Por.Varianae No. 2219 and
Tentative Map of Traot No.- 6792, Revision No: 2 to the meeting of November 30, 1970, to
allow time for stsff to.readvertise the varianoe to iriolude,aaiver of lots siding~on
; arteriel highways. Commissioner Kaymood seoonded.the motion. ~OTION CARRIED.
~
; ,
I
Lr :
~. . - ~
, ~ `
b i ~
s ~ , .
~ ' ~ ' ~: '. . . ~~', . ..:. , :, ' . .. .
MINUTES, CITY PLANDT2NG CO~ISSION; November 16, 1970 .
~ ' ! - . : 5488
CONDITIONAL, USE - PUBLIC I~ARIlVC.;.. KI~BRELL ~, ISIS~RELI; .INCORPORATED, 6291 Burnham: Avenue ,
PER~IT NO 1208 Buena Park, California, Owner; BALBOA~PACIFIC DEVELpp~NT CO~ANY,
P. 0. Box 4585;`,Irviae,~.Cal'ifornia;•Agent;requesting permissiott to
ESTABLISH A 95=:JNIT CONDOl~NIUM APART~NT. DEVELOP~NT WITH WAIVER OF
r . (1).REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARI~iG SPACES; AND:'(2)'~ FRONT SETBACK
`" . on property desaribed as: '-An i"rreguls'rTy-stiaped~ paroel of land hadi =approximate
frontsges of .360 feet on the north side=of;Se,nta, Ane,.;Canyon Road and 288'feet:on the
west `side of,Tustiri`:Avenue., and having additionsl frontage,on the.east ~a.~est siaes
'of Kodiak Street ..property presently"olassified R-3,-MULTIPLE=FAT~tTrv gEg~~~,~ ZONE.
Zoning Superv,isor Charles Roberts:.reviewed the looation of subjeot property, uses estab-
lished';in olose proaimity,':previous zotting aotion on the•.properts, and.the proposal to
develop,24 lots with Pour-unit oondominium aomplexes;'thst one lot would be developed
'with s reoreation area'aontaining-a kidcies'.pool end an adult swimming-pool.as tidell as
other r.eareational fauilities; that under urgenay'Ordinanoe"No: 2861,. reoently sdopted
by tlie Ci'ty Counoil,.the propo•9d development would,be required to have 240 parking spaoes
Yor the 96:units~proposed, whereas the petitioner is proposing 168 spaoes and,the standard
<'R 3 requirements would neoessitate 149 park3.ng.spaaes;? that`ooqerage,requirements.under
the.ui~geriay ordinanoe are being met sinoe ooverage meets the 40,~ ooverage;; that the
petitioner is proposing a 17-foot'front.setback as measured from the ultime,te right-of-way
line, however, there would,be a 20=Poot setbaak from :the rear oY the existing right-of-way
line, sinoo sub3eot property was subdividediand the street dedioatioa and improvements
'were made.in aoaordanae:w'ith County standards,while sub3eat propertq was under the juris-
diotion of the.County; that if the proposed pro3eot were to be developed as.a standard
R-3, ttie proRosed density wou13 not seem ine
requirements for.a aondominium oomplex and"the markededeficienot gnv88,=.kin high parlcing
short ;,it would appear that the overall dettsitq of,;the pro3eot~was too high, howeverB3
by reduoing the density, required perking'in aooordanoe with oondominium standards.oould
be.provided. Therefore, if the Commission feels that the use is appropriate, they may
wish to review the design of the.proposed:struotures to determine.mhether the basio
quality:of the'proposed development would be aonsistent with the residences in the erea
and the general goals and ob3eotives of the community.
Mr. Don`Partin, 17811 Skgperk Cirole, Irvine, appeared before the Planning Co~i.ssion as
a representative of the agent, and stated:he wished to oorreot'the numtier.of units they
were proposing`sinoe one lot mould_ba developed with a tri-plex this would reduae the..
number to 95, and under the R-3 Zone parlcii;g requirements :~~.1~ 144 parking spaoes would
be required; that a similar development already eaisted tu the north; that si.n.n9 #re~
were proposing:168 'parking spaoes this w~,~~d pQ, eaaead the minimum required under the ~
A-3: that tne:faot that someona.oaned an apartment rather than renting should not oause
oonsideration of additiona,l parking needs,other thea that they would conform to all the ~
requirements as was required,oY the four-pleaes established in this area, whiah had from
one to three bedrooms in eaoh apartment, and their four-plexes would have two and %hree
bedrooms esah. Furthermore, sinae Mr..Roberts had oovered-the problem of setback he only
wished to state that the design of the pro~eot did not provide for the additional three
feet in the event the Coc~ission deaided to miden the street.
Chairman Herbst noted thst the petitior.er was actually selling each unit which the
individual would own wherein l~ parkiag stalls would be required for two and three
bedroom units - if there were four units to a lot who would get the other parking?
Mr• Partin replied that the purchaser was buying an apartment, and would be a member
of the homeowners assoaiation that assigns parking spaces.
Chairman Herbst noted that the Anaheim Munioipal Code required anyone having a home to
provide two parking spaaes in a garage, and oondominum units could be similarly oompared
to homes, however this proposal was diYferent than a regular apartment complex where
only one owner would have the entire oomplex = while this proposal meant four separate ,
owners with only six pariting spaoes -attd a aomplex of this type could easily have eight
automobiles per four-uriit building.. Therefore; he aould not see how an association
oould be assigning oovered par~.ng whioh might be down the street, sinae the owner
oY the unit would probably park on the street to avoid having to walk to a distant ~
parking spaoe.
Mr. Partin replied that he could not see where gecple residing itt oondominiums would
have more vehicles than a regular apartment projeat; that one of the things he had
Yound out after talking with aonsultants where speaifia plaoes were not assigned,
considerable diffioulty was encountered, and that it would be neaessary to have a
homeowners assoaiation assign the parking places where eaoh owner would have his say.
~, +~ +• r r -. r Is+.w . ..- .
r
,~
>' ~ ` Y : ~ j ~Q
, " ..~n
!"E~j
.
,
F ' ~~ ~` :~ ~ -
~'. ,..:~ -~ ( ~ ~~ .,, , . • ~
~~.. ...~. ,
.
~' . . .. :: •. „ . , -..
. . .....,~.... :.:,,._ ...ti.. . . . .
, ~ .. . ... :e .. . . . ,...:; .-,.; . ,.. _
.:.'.:
:. .,._.: '.... _.~~
:,.
.
. ...:,:
. . ~
)
w
y~
,
,
,
~~
.
, . ... .,..~. ,.. . ,...~:~~,: .. ~ -: ..~~..:.
- ; -... .:.: . ...- '~:, ,... .
, . ;, ._ ... :. ~:' ~
Mlfd[1TES, CITY pLANNIN(', CO~SSION, November 16, 19Z0 ~
` 5489
,. Js~
Y,'''~ :
=h~t~%i
CONDITIONAL'IISE ' Comm.tssioner Farano inquired whether there would be one a~sooiation
~~ PEAMIT NO ~1208 for eaah four unit ~faciTity -`wh
o
` ~k'f"~'
~
ereup
n
Mr Partin replied there would
` (continued) ~ be one associ,atzon'Yor the, entire 95 uriits
' :
; ~ "i`'
:~~
",
+~!
, , '_
;` ..
Commissioner Seymour noted that'the proposal came wi:thin the FHA 234 aondomittium aoncept
regulations; that the petitioner had
sug
ested
• ~
3 ,.;t
.„~
~~~~
,
g
a
` asstune tha t'~oon dominium residents ' P~losophy that..there.;was.no reason to;
. generated more~vehicles than apartment`aomplexes;. and
then.requested thst the petit
ri ~"4'~~
t;=~~
io
er explain hi~ reasoning behind t2iis philosophy:
~ ; r.- •. , . , . . ~
. . _ ., ; . .. , ,. ~., .... :,. . .
,
;,~~..
~
Mr Partin~replied that he•aould see whe
e
o
•
i
, t
~ F~~
r
m
re
park
ng would be~required where
a 10-acre
paxcel was to be developed which would`:have,25 units;per,aare, however they-were proposing
a 4 plex either;rented or sold
s
ap
~ :~
,a
an
artment,tHerefore one
oould not=•require''any;addi
;; tional parking~ and that 'aondominiums themselves enao
a
s i
~
~
mp
s
so many different configuration
; . < - ;: , ~ ;, ',' s
~ ~
'
,,
- Commissioner Seymour note,d that,this was.the same'y~oint to'which he had referred~tu; thai:
i in a~reoent;projeot on!the Yo
ba
r
r
prope
ty which the:Commission fiad"aonsidered."the deeel
' oper.al~o referred'to FHA:234,.and in that FHA had required 2~ parkin
spe
'
iri
e
i
u ~
t
'
g
ae~
p
m
i
am .
r condo
nit: . . ~
r
;
:
`~ .' =. '. , ' , : . , ;
Mr Partin replied:the,t tie was not familiar with the p ojeat referred to, however there
~vas a:po sibility'
that
e
ch
e
t 4 F, a_
;
,
a
r,
proj
.required different par2dng; that in one pro,ject,he
had cheaked,:.which had a 10 acre'development -;guest`parking beoeme a,problem - oausing
FHA to oonsider different
arki
h
;;~+w~~;
.p
ng;
owever, in their particular instance they_'hsd.dedi-
4 catedcand improved_the street, end there were similar units in the
ea
' `G
r
ar
; and
that tfiey.
met the re uired
9 ,parking under the R=3 2one. •
, '
` ' ~ : "'
.
' ,
Commissioner Seymour thenrinquired whether the'.petitioner was su ~
` BSesting that the addi-
-; tional perka
ng.would be-st
t
a
'
~ {-~
'~~ ~
,
ree
, , _
~p
rking
or in the:alley.
. . : • . ~ ~ : . '' . .
, _
' •
~
~-
' ';
' '
~
~
- ,
:
-,.:' q~iY
,
_
. .
.
. .
,
.. ..
:
.
. :~ : ~..
Mr Partin replied`.that there ` -
generally would be'suest parking in the street, however
' he had never;see
a .. f -q
J`~
"' "
,
n
nq perking in.the alley.sinae the:alloy:wes too narrow to permit eny,
' Pex'kin6 Furthermo
re, in breati'ng this condomi ti'~
,
nium everyone would.partiaipate.in a;
` common reareation;area snd this would.riot be.'any differe"nt than the ad3oining
apartment'
four plexes,
d tlia ~
?~
,
,
,`an
t he too was,critical about parking, and,.regardless`of aode`require-
ment ~it never "seemed to be` adequete.
: Coffinissioner ; Farano' inquired under what `.type of reqixir~r.r~ent was the
e
. prop
rty to ~the south
developed, sinae.the Gommi'ssion had visited that proper.ty,and found the parking to be
iriadequate,land iP-it were under single°
g
matta
ement, how could the petitioner prevent`'
~a similar parking defioienay when'eeah unit would be~individually'awned. ,
~ ~;~,
'`
Mr.''Partin replied thet any parking problem would he oovered under the CCBRs and the
` '
assooiation: ~, : . .
sr
Commissioner Farano further noted that the proposed development would have to be diff- ~
erent.thpw what presently exists 3n this area, since about 20,~ of the parking stslls
" !
on the
pro3eot to the south had those spaces taken np with other than parking.
• ~'
,,
Goa~issioner Allred noted that four-plexes were originally developed all under one I!
ownership, but were later sold off, and'that perhaps the proposed development could j
be aontrolled thru:-the CC3Rs, however., he did not recall that the City of Anaheim had
~ -
any aondominiums. _ ~_ ~
:
Co~.issioner Gauer,noted that'the Commission had had some experience with condominiums ~.
,
and it was:his opinion.that they had riot done well in.the upkeep of these projects both
- ,
j `
as.to landscaping.and,exterior appearanoe, and that these units had been in existence .
!' '
approximately six or seven years: Furthermore; they had let these developments "go to pot" ~
Commissioner ICaywood inquirad whethqr.or•not the owrier of sub eat
3 property was also the ~
owner of the,property to the.north and wouId the petitioner lmow the vacancy factor for i
tho.se units.
: i
t..
.
Mr Partin re~lied that subject property was separately owned; that he had tried to deter-
' ~
: mine
the vaoency factor in those units, but found the units were occupied by a transient
` ~
tqpe
person and it would be difficult to determine the vaoancq'fsator without lrnocldnr on ~
every door..
Commissioner I{e,ywood noted trat these units proposed would be purchased.ar,d the purchasers
.would be stuok witki the units if proper measures would not be taken.
,
~ __-.<
Mr. Partin replied that these awners would.have pride`in ownership, and he felt sure theq ~-
would maintain their properties. . ~
... i•
~~.~:--~
„ `
_ _-~ d h.vF.+~ -
. F.
~ -
_
~ ~ "~ .y,'~ . ~~ ~
;
~- '
. .
a
: ~
~y-~
k
~ i
~ ry
~~
~ ~
MIlQUTES, ,CITY P7
AIVNIN(~`COI~ISSION, November 16
1970 ti
~r ,
5490
~ ~:
~
~. ..
I .
' •
~
~
~ N
~~'l~ .
~
r
, . ...
.,
.. . ~'. ' -
'.
. '
.': ''
CONDITIONAL USE~: Commissioner Ka ~ `
yw.,ud then inqui
ed wh
th h
~
~
~~
~ r
e
er. the,patitioner.felt his.
PERMrP.NO 1208; unit's would:be purohased:if
the prospective
u
}i
ti .~
'
'
'
, ,
p
ro
aser saw the ad~oining
i(oontihued) units `
~ y,r
~
~ Mr: Partin replied that durin tHe~ '
psst six
B
months there'had bee
'
" -~, ~~"
'
~
i ,
,
n
a nomplimentary ahange
in;-the area andathe stigma was now;going~away,"thereYore
, he felt his units wo
ur
h
ld tie ~F
~
~~ ,
p
u
o
ased.
: ;
: ; ,
, . " ' , - '
Mr: Partin in reply to';:a qaestion by.Commissioner-Farano stated:he did:.
not own the"~six
lots~frontin
~on Tusti
A i ~..-
~"'~'~
,
g
ri
venue, that=h9 had inquired,about these lots~in a`meeting.with ..
the seller, but;d3.d riot
redeive an answ ~A
_
er.: Furthermore h9 had.heard the owner would.try -
to.'have"these-lots rezoned for oommeTOiel u `'~~
ses.
~
Mr: 7ack:Givens,'229 North Tustin'Avenue, owner of.'the 4-plezes'immediately to the north
of
sub eut' ro ert °
3 p p
a
pe
d• b ~
~'~
`
,
y
p
are
eforb the Gommission" and` noted .that after reqiewin the
plsns, the pro,jeot's'entire one~side;adjoinin
his
o
e ~"'
g
,pr
p
rty aould haye hothing btit.grape-
stelce fenoes on .the baak patios whioh were:oolleators of ell Iri.nd
~
s of debris: Furtliermore,
orie of his apartments would`have to.faoe this.unsightliriess and'he would
e
3eot
e
t i£ s
tit
~J
~
r
qu
s
pe
ub-
3on were apprioved.tkiat a,solid £enoe be:required to isolate'thi~ unit from havin
a':problem`of
ossibl
i '
.p
g
e
nvasion of privaoy from.their back yard to his`apartment's
. . :
` yard ; .
front 'h •
_
..
. ,. , . : , , , . +.
,.~ -. ' ' . `. ~ va'
Mr- Partin indioated ttiat he had.not takeri this into consideration and Mr. Given'~ request
' was a aorthwhile;
one
thereYore
it w
l ;~<
,
,.
,
ou
d be necessary~for him to.review this.complaint
and' see~if some';alterriative`aould not be•provided sino
he
o ,
~~
'
~
e
.w
uld be unable to,reverse~the
Plexg,.and that kie would stipulate to providing a;solid wall for
ll o
'
o ~
'r
"
a
f
th
se lots.
. ~,,h5
~ HEARIAIG WAS .CLOSED.` . ~ _ ~+
TYie,Planning Commission, staff, and Assistant.City..Attorney John Dawson`reviewed the
CC3Rs
'
regulations that`o
` %~
.
.
ould
be applied to subjeat property if;sub3ect;petition were
approved; the deficienc in
Y parking
to that
r
~ ~
`"~;
,
.
.
equired under.the
reoentlq adopted ordinance;
tfiat the..purpose:,of establisliing new=parking.requirements:~as set fo
th
'
~ r
in the urgenay
ordinanae;.was because of
the many problems that.had ooaurred where-units were individually
owned and eaoh pr
i
~ ;;.
r
ospeot
ve owner should have.adequate parking,'partioularly where three
bedroom units wer
o ~ f`~~
e prop
sed sinoe this would indicate aHildren who could possibly;have
their own,`vehiales; ther problems that'
`
could,
arise a~ to adequate parlcing snd who' would
get',the extra perking spaoe; the faot that
Ft~A required the CC3Rs ~
,
_
as a form of proteation
in the matter of ingre~s and egrees and maintenance:
r • ' ;;-
'
, _
Assistant,Development Services Direotor Ronald Thompson advised the Co~ission that ths
urgency
ordina
o
e
t ~
.
~ (~
~
.
n
e was
;dop
ed for specific parlsing standards for condominiums and was
the;resc'1t oP an in-depth study of'
d 1 r
aon
ominium parking. Furthermore, oondominiums,' as
the Planning Commission had pointed out w
e ~
er
different than ordinary apartments and this
was the reason for more aontrols. ~
Commissioner Seymour noted that the urgency ordinanae had been signed by the mayor on
Ootober 6, 1970
a
d th
,
n
e mere Paot that the.ordinanoe was
the petitioner had not subm.itted proof"to justify the a PBSSed in the,last month,
al
f
of this waiver. Ftzrther-
more, where units were individuall PProv
y purchased, the ,parking should be similar to single
family homes i
wh
a~'
,
n
iah a mi.nic.lum o£ two cc._?red parking spaces were required. !
Commissioner Seymour offered Resalution No. ?C70-205 and moved for its pessage and
adoption..ZO den
Petitio
f I
y
n
or.Qonditional Use Permit No. 1208 bn the ba~is that the
Ordinance No: 2861 was
establi::hed as
n ~
:
an urge
cy ordinance approximately one month ago,
wherein a minimum of 2~:parking spaoes was required`of condominium
rojects
d ~
p
, an
no
evidence had been`sulimitted which would jasti£y a aeiver of the
parki.ng requirements
Yor condominiu
a
e
.
'~
ms
s rec
ntly established by.ordinance; and that the parking requirements
for aoridominiums should'be consider
d i
h
' e
n t
e same li ht'as
8 parking requirements for
single family homes, since both represent home ownership and it w
~
~ e,s anticipsted that the
parldng demands for both types of,developments would be similar.(See Resolution Book) ,
On.roll call the foregoing resolutioa was passed by the following vote: '
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Geuer, Herbst, Kaqwood, Rowland, SeymoL .
NOES: COMMISSIONE4S: None.
ABSENT: CONIDQISSIONERS: None.
, ~
'
,
~
L :=~
~.L j ~~.~1 4 ~ . 7 s;; ~~ ~'C'~"~ i'}~u4'`_~~y~t "' ~ »~ s,~~ ~-i ~f ~'ti ?5.~~ ~ t r r ~ .• ~...h rr ~ .~ ~,. K:~
`{Z S ~i l'~~f ~rf'~' i P ._ - ~;,~a
.:Y~~ _..:_~~~~ ?l~
~;~ ' , ' " ~ _' . , - _~
.~-..5
. ' . . . , . _' . . . - . . . .a}
~ . . ~ ... . . . . . ' ~ . . ~'-'~~~
MINUTES, CITy pLANNING~CU~SS20N, November_16,.1970 ' ;
- 5491 r `~,<g
~ ., ; : : R ,
~,CONDITIONAL USE - PITBLIC I~ . ' p , ,
ARING: KtIRbHER d ASSOC2ATES, P.=O. Box 4349, Anahaim, ~ ~
PEHMIT N0. 1209 Ca~,ifornia, Owner; CARL KARCHER E~]TERPRISES~,~~.~ P. ~, gox 4349, ,;
Aiiaheim, Ca7.iPornia,.Agent;._requesting permission to ESTABLISH A i ~?.
COMBINATION `SIT-DOWN AND `DR1VE=THROUGH RESTAURANT WITfi YVAIVER OF
MIIJ~dUM.NUMBER;OF.AEQUIRED pARI{~ SPACES ON PRGPERTY:DESCRIBED AS: ~ w
A reotangularly-sh'aped pe,roel oY land looated at the northwest aorner of.Linooln Avenue l~',~
end Janss Street,.:having,.approximate frontages oY 75.feet,,on.Linooln-Avenue and 147 feet ~ ~~"c~
on Janss"Street,:being looated,approximatel~ 517 feet west.of the-aentFrline of Harbor ~ ~+
Boulevard, and Purther desoribed as 605'V9est Linooln Avenue. Property:presently alassified
C-2, GE~RAL. CO~RCIAL, ZONE. H ,~1'
Zoning Supervisor Charles Roberts reviewed the location of sub'eot ~ ~
in cTose proximity, existing zoning, and the proposal to ectablish an~enolosedsandedrivelthru
restaurant.operation with weiver. of the m~nimum required parking spaces; that the petitioner
was proposing to oonstruct a nea 1320 squara foot building having a seating capacity of
38 persons; that a hend-out window was proposed along the westerlq side of the building for
oar piakup of food; that staff had analyzed the plans,and by alloaating parking for the
building on the basis.of the types of uses included, a minimum of 18.parking spaoes would
be required; whereas the petitioner was proposing only 12 parking spaces; that the petitioner
indioated staoking of 8 vehiales:betwees the pickup window and the rear of the property
where,vehiales would be entering the lot,. and the petitioner evidently felt these spaces
should be aonsidered as on~•site parking, however, this would not provide parking for these
customers,should they desire to eat the food.in tlieir cars on the premises; that landsaaping ~
elong the.Linoola Avenue,frontage would be ~
that due to the-an le provided in aocordance with the C-1 Zone standards; '
8 parking,proposed along the Janss Street side "saw-tooth" landscaping ~
was proposed there which.would not meet Code requirements; that by reducing the width of the
`aisleway this would allow for the additional landsaaping if the Planning Commission required
development in aooordanoe withthe site development standards of the C-1 Zone; and that the
Commission would haqe to,determine ahether the proposed use of the property was appropriate,
~ and if su, determine whether there was ~ustiPioation for waiving the minimum xequired Code
parki.ng for this.type of operation.
Mr. Frank Karoher, representing the agent for the etitioner a I
and noted.that.tHe p + PP88red bePore the Commission ;
y* presently operated 50 restaurants in southern California with 8 being ~
in the City,;of Aneheim; that the,former restaurant operation in this building on sub,ject
property was.a carry out hamburger facility, however, they found it aould be neoessary to
improve this building in~order to operate a Mexican-type food restaurant; that the drive -thru
`operation mentioned by staff was only to serye people who did not want to eat in the rest-
aurant:itself, and was~only an,aocessory use; that the waiver of the parking was being asked
because of the width of the lnt and the proposed width of the new building; that after
reviewing the.plans it was determined not to relocate the building along the Janss Street
side; that they planned,to build a 6-foot masonrq wall on the north property line and on a
portion of the westerly property line, and elthough this was required by Code, it was still
their intent to do so; that it was their oontention that the eight spaces loaated to the
rear of the pihkup tivindow should be aonsidered as psrlcing spaoes, sinae if these people were
to psrk on the premises to take food out they would have to park elsewhere; that upon nhecldng !~
another restaurant they had counted 25 veh~.oles passing thru the drive-thru area in onP hour,
and of the 25 vehiales only four eotuell~ stopped ~n the lot to eat; that this aould t^ a.
quick take home service as it pertained to 4tie Eake out window; that the "saw-tooth° ! 1_ ~
~P~g could be very efYeotive if done prop~rly; that they could provide a 3-£oot stri~, of
landscaping however the bumpers of the vehicles would overhang then - if this type of land-
scaping were permitted; and that the Commission should bsar in mind that the existing •
structure could be re-opened and used, however, the architecture did not fit in with their
proposed plans, and the new building would be a vaet improvement over the existing building.
Commissioner Gauer expressed concern that the drive thru facility aould create a problem
sinoe this was in the vicinity of the high school aad students would ba parking there; and
that Jariss Street was very busy with parents pioking up and bringing their children to the
paroohial sahool. Flirthermore,Linooln Avenue mas a heavilq traveled thorcughfese, thus
creating the possibility of a traffic aonfliot and accidents when vehicles exited from the j
drive-ihru drive to Linaoln Avenue.
i
Commissioner Allred also expressed oonaern that the vehicles aoming from tha drive thru
wi.ndow would be pulling into fast traffin on _T.incoln Avenue, thereYore, he felt this window
should be looated elsewhere with exiting possibl;~ to Janss Stroet.
Mr. Karcher noted that they proposed a 30-foot drive on the Lincoln Avenue frontage, and it
would be a real hindranae i£ this were reloaated.
r „ L~.
~, ' ._- ,
t '- ~ T'-. '.y x", f 7~ 7 (t.'~ 1!
a^ 7 t rt t
~
~ 9i ~.1
~
.j ~~ ~
~ r
~~ ~+ t .
!
~ . }'.~
t
,y .: ~ ;.: { ~ ~ ~
., '_ ~
~~:
.
. . .. ...
': _
N
~~
(
~
' .[
..
,.. ~S ~ ~~'~Y PLANiTJ~TG C05~MISSION, November -16
''.. 7 ~ ;.
x
1970
h-A.
` ~
,
.
, :.
= 5492
~'~ ;~..i .~.. ~, .~..~~:. ~:, :i
.. . ~ ,- ;
,.~ ''', .'
~.. 1-
~
~
~ '
.y ~j~i
'
,
. . . .
..
.
.
CONDITIONAL;USE Comm~.ssioner Allred noted that mhen he was a~,tron of;"
PERMIT NO 1209 out hambur
~ ' P the former take-
e
r
t H s~.~
.
~
~;',~
g
r
es
aui~ant~,_he never.exited on to:I,inoolri Avenue:from the
(aontinued) ~ premises, and~:Prom his observatiori mo~~;peo
l
'ezi
' ~r'`-~~
~`
`
~~
p
e
ted>to Janss
Street
F ;from tHe restaurant,`_c ~ering the"Lincolri Apenue traffio~at:-the.inter-
'* ~seatiori
Th
f
` "
1
Yr~
µ
.
ere
ore,
:to propose aa;additional ezit so`near.an.;intersection
° would tie extremely hazardous, however; tfiis migii"t be
sol
~
~ !`~~
~
`
.:
ved if
: ~
direational
- arrows :indiaeted the 'exiting area.;
~ . ; . -
'` `; ~ : ~~
N.. ;
,^.~
.
` Commsssioner Rowland noted that.if all,'the ciroulation for ~this pro
ect w f
~
l~
'
~
ere entirely from
- Janss Street thus.getting'_away from a.,restricted aonfliat point,.sinoe the Liriooln Avenue
( drivewa
aoo
a§ t
~
y
ess w
proposed only 19~ Yeet from the=`property,line"to curB break'to one.`of
` the five most heauily trayeled'streets.in'Oran e Co
, .
nt
th
B
~ ~
~
_
u
y;
.
at the ';petitioner would not be
`: doing anyone a service.bg'stating the proposed aacess was adequate,, since sub~ect
was ve
o
e
t
s
F}'
r
,pr
p
r.
y
ry re
tricted, however,'the petitY~ner.was only providing what was..best.,for himself
rather than::whet
was best;for
the co ~
k.'.
_
.
mmunity;,that he:was only speaking in relationship'to'
commtinity`planning; that :the'petitiorier was creatirig
his
b
e ~'~
'
,
own pro
l
ms,.and that from a
communitq,standpoirit what,:was:proposed;by .this configurati~n was not the'optimum.because
of the
problem of':traffia c
nfli
t
o
n
' ~
~'
,
o
a
p
i
ts. ,
.
,
,
Mr Karcher noted.that they had a restaurant in,-Fountain Vallaq
where custo
:
" '"
.
mers
could not
exit out of a oertain 'driveway and sales had been reduced by 25~,because of this;.and that
there•were other"businesses whioh also~liad th ,~+4
e same'.type of oonflict which the proposed
development had. Furthermore, ttiere was a possibility that"a seaond d
iv
oo
' ~
'`
r
e
uld be plsaed
on:Janss Street.
,
'
' ~
,
.. .:
'
.
. '
> Commissioner Farano indiaated.that the Commission could not"tell the petitioner how to
' design his~•project, and the,t perhaps the
petitione
sh
ld
i ~~
~
.
r
ou
l
mit the number of busines~es'
a.n this.operation to either a sitdown - or"a take out - or adrive in re'sta
rit
~ f *"~
t''"
ura
, but not -
all three types of.;uses.
' , • ,
~ ~ • ~ . . . ~ • . . . '
~ ~
'
.
Mr Karaher~replied that'they,had at one time planned.to have a drive thru restaurant with
the entrance
from Linooln Avenue`
d .
i iJ
,~
.
an
esiting to Janss:Street, f
Commissioner=Farano:noted'there would be stackin ~
g problems, particularly.from,Linaoln Avenue
when'customers wanted to make;l
ft t
s '~~`
~ ,
}:
e
urn
into the property;'snd that the proposed'development
would'have both dri,v,e thr.u: and regular diners~ qoming `3n
at the same
ti
e y
~
~;~
,
:
m
, where stacking of
cars would ooour w'ith cars parked in the driveway waiting their:turn to give their orders at
the driqe'thru window this
ld !
~~
oou
cause a backing up;"`and;create a-problem for-tHe diner who
was attempting to.pexk his oar. ' ~: '
,.
:,.~,
Mr. Karoher replied that there was spaoe for,five oars to stand from the oorner of the
property to the pickup.window', whioh would be a considerable
e .
~
numb
r, and if this servioe
were not provided there would be,trnuble. ~;
Commissioner,Farano then aited the number of oars that could stack up at the drive thru
window particularly at lunoh ti
e
m
, and;this could in all likelihood occur, since this
location was selected because.it was antioipated the lunoh hour would be b
~
usy. z: ,
Mr• Karaher replied"that theq were,basing cheir sales primarily.on the walk in end sit
dowm business: `
!
. _ _
_ .
Commissioner.Seymour noted that the Commi.ssion would agree that the Karcher name was well- .
,lmown in Anaheim a~ a fine restaurant
hi .. :
,.
i ~~'
w
oh had been,established for sometime; that the
petitioner might oonsider taking the building now proposed and shi£ting it to Y '
,
aoe on ,
Linaoln Avenue thus placing the entrance from Janss Street; then a sidewalk break aould
be provided Yor the walk up traYfia
thi
e
,
s th
n would~provide for the drive thru as well
es the regular restaurant.;.
, , . . '
i
.
~r• Karaher indioated he would hesitate to agree with,that proposal without some study to
determine if it was sound
as
to traffic fl
t i,
:
_
ow,
herefore they would be agreeable to working
out a solution to the problems presented, however he felt that if the drivewa
o
Li
l
!
A ;`
y
n
nao
n
vettue:were.eliminated.that thoy would lose business:, -
~ .
Commiss3on Seymour then noted ;hat the proposed restaurant was fine, but there was a ~•eel '
problem to find'a solution to,'and he felt his proposal just m
d
h
a
e was t
e best solution. !
Commissioner;Allred inqu3.re3 o~`Offioe Engitteer Jay Titus whether or nct studies had been
made regarding ingress and e~.ess on Li
o
l
.
n
o
n:
Avenue, and whether these studies indicated
r any good or bad ef£acts.
` - . ' `. ,
w~ 'rw - __ ~w~ 4
F ~~C, 'f . .J'Si~ 5~ . ~„ ~ 5 ~~ ~ ' T1N ~ ti. ~ - . 2~
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ r L :tt ~
~ ~ ` `
t ~. , t ~ t-. ~
> ~ y ~ ~
. ,~:~ ' ~~' ' ~
r.~ ~ i. t ~ :; , ' ~.. -, t . ~t ~ .
~`'
~ ~ ; ~~,.~,.e
r` 1 ITy pLAN1VING CO t 70~ Y~"
1 ,MINUTES, C M~ISSION, Noyember 16, 19
.:1 l 1 1 Y :~ lY"
r{ t F 5493 i~?
G YY i.'M ~ ~. '~ S :'T '~^ ~,{ Y .~r ( ~ " ~ . '; ,;t.ytT9
'CONDITIONAL~USE , '~ ; ` ' g
Mr Titus replied that>the staff tiad done;no studies on this to his lmow- '
PERMIT NO 1209 ledge', that there we`re~smany;propertzes on.I,incoln~Avenue that%had'aocess ~fi
`~~ `~ (acntinued) '~ Studhis'busg street,;therefore, he~;could ~ive no opinion without~some"
' s~'
~ ,~ y ~„ .:g. =y
t ~ ~.
Coamiissioner,~s~arano noted that if there„were rio dual ~ ~
; turn:intorthe~driveway only 20~feet from Janss Streetyellow lines an east bound,car:oould ~`~
. r ~ ... ~.~. ~ ~ .`. ` r ; i , f ,; : ~1 ',..
~ ~ , ~ , . : i .~...
Mr Titus noted there was very little-~~fy,c on Tanss Street; since,there was orily one
dwellirig unxt on the west,side oY the street,, therefore there would be little,:traffic. >`$Y
exceptr`wl-at might be generated by this restaurant and the churah at aertain times u
~~ ~ ~ F' ~ 7 , ~ ` ~., ... ~ . . '-7~
'Mrs Joen Knigtit , 521 North Dwyer Driae. a ' ' `; ; ;~~„
~~
stated that there was`a 12.foot private easementedrive~elongethe~north~property~line~to8the
i, property to;the west whiah she owned and wheresfive dwelling units~.were;loaated;e,nd that:thi3 r:
acoess easement was the only means Yor her tenants to leave:;;the.property and if the proposal s"
as,pr'esented'.were approved, there would;:be no';way•her?'.tenants.could have.vehicular''access
' because of the drive thru' and walk u restaure,nt.,tr.affic -' 4~
r_~ .
~.., ,. P~ ~
Commissioner~Se + ` ' : ' ~
. ymour no ed that thas would then lesve,._e landlocked ~,,47„. -
; . ' . ,y x~
1~' Karnher advised;the Commission that;aooording to their t_itle.p'olicy there was no easement ~~
'on the:property, sirioe this had been purchased"sometime ago.
~ , . uan,
h . ., i~:. '. ~ . ~ ~ ~ . . ?~~
Mr's ~Knight noted that she.had this easement sinoe 1958,'end had never been advised that it ~.,,,,~
,had been sold
` > ` ' - '~r~
'Mr Carl' Karcher , the ' ,
petitioner, appeared bePore the,~0ommission and noted that,.when the rA~f~~
Tanas~Pem~.ly Pormerly owned the property~~someone had failed't`o.•pay the4,rent of•$2 per year, . ~"a
there£ore, this easement wes sold:acoording to"tha title compe,ny, be.cause'.when this rent
was not paid the easement lieoame riull arid roid, and,•thus they had,title,to the- ~5~'
;Furthermore, he he,d 'never seen any vehioles property: ~~
;parked.there ` I gq'tHru there,•and.did lmow why:.they would be
` ' ii al
I } r'~ .. " ~: ti ~:~, :. ~'' j` '. ''. ':~ .' . , y1 ~
` 1dx's Kn'ight noted that the residents of her units ' ~~~~
there w ~
ed there cars the e. Furthermore
~ .ere two 7businesses. who also parked` there..: -P~k r
. ,. :.. ~ : ~ ` ` t ; ~;,~
"Disoussion xas held betweea;the Commission, ther,opposition,.and.the f~ Y
the easement and a means of`solvin this,,., , Petitioner regardingr' ~.: ~`,
!that the Commission vote on:the plans beforebthem 8since~there hadCbeen~a restaurantrthered 7' a:
~before.and all.they;intended was to improved the property by:ereoting a.new structure; and i"
that the ~ ~' , ~
present drive already.exited ;to I,incoln Avenue. i;
.; ~ ~ , ~ , ~
Commissioner Rowlarid-noted that in.earlier disoussion by the Commission, due to the fact that
'the Commissiori.did not have. suffiaient information.on.drive=thru:facilities, and due to the ~" ,
faot that this paroel was a difficult one to develop for any commeroial venture, that perhaps ;,~
this site was'.too small'for the proposed,operation and`should be cai~efully considered -
something which.he-felt had not been done::from:the standpoint of traffia thru the '
_ , ' ' property 1:
Mr Karoher.was of the opinion that there:was.no traffic of oonsequenae on Janss Street.
Comm~.ssioner Allred noted thst this-mas~the reason which the Commission felt revised plans I '
~ sh~uld indioate that mnre traffic would~be generated to Janss Street. `
: ' - i.
Chairman Herbst advised Mrs.:,Kni.ght that.the Commission could not assist her on the easement i.
problem.since this was a legal matter between her.and.the-Karchers.
Mrs• Knight noted that she had.moved.into Anaheim in 1956, and this restaurant was across ~
the street Prom her property.whiah always.created.undesirable:noises,from its operation, -
therefore it would be anticipated similar undesirable nqises would'emanate from this
development. t•'.
j, , `
Mr: Roberts noted that Mrs. Knight's.living units"were developed on C=2 ~
they would be a;rion-conformirig use. Property, therefore, ! ~
Mrs• Knight elso noted that her tenants were mostly retired Catholic
of horns bq young people, as..we11 8s noises from the trash area late.at~niehtevouldebelowing ~
disturbing to her tenants thus she could foresee;all kinds of complaints. g 4uite
_ ~ _ _.__:
,~.
_ ,,.
_ ~~•
t~- M}
' fj/ m a ioas/sinr7afia°.M~'M~^'a,+rt~iv.x!bl.rlraYnzw~NrlYl'.`.'~+"a~il~r A`fW+Pk.9at~'i~C3cN' axv ~jTL[+~.Rt~v,t€'{J~~id'-•+~f..4~i~~.~"'~~ ~'Y' '~' r
`
4
`
, ~ ~~~
f
.
t ~ ' ~ - *.,
`.
, 4
`
.
'
~ ~
.
. .
1 ;
' r.
~ ~ 3 ~~m
J . - r.
~.
F " . ~ f. ~~ '
t )" ~ 4 _ . . ~ .
' ~MINUT ..
~, .i;r~ ~ta
tµ. .
ti
ES, CITY PLANNIlJG CO~ISSION, November 16, 1970-~ ~ 54,94,. -
,
'
4 ~ ~
~~.~ ~~ '~
~ ' "Yt. .'
,
-
, /
1 ; - ~y ~' ~ .
5 .` ~
r ~. i ~:~ 1 ' : .. : : .- . ~ .. ~ .. . • ~
'..
'
~ '.
' CONDITIONAL USE The Co~ssion:noted that the petit ~ner ~ught have the'ri
ht
to
o
ri '~`
a'
g
~
re
pe
, PERMrP NO 1209 the exist3ng building'for a{'restaurant sinoe one.".had lieon operated there
`" ~, '(oontinued') beYore
':and in all likelih
od th
`:
~ a
~
~
c~~~"`~,"'•
,
o
<
is.property wouTd be used in the Puture
" `
for a resta
rant ` ~~'~' -
a:
<
„
u
-
~ 4 , ~
~,
~
5~
~ Mrs Knight;;noted-she~was~aware of that'but slie would insist on an'.easement to allow her
''~; tenants ingress,and egress
and if the
pla
i
~
'
,
,,
n as; subm
tted were approved w~:
th drive~ ins:it
, , m~.ght~ be 15 m~.nutes bePore her tenants
o
ld ]:
e
i ~,
:c
u
eav
tt
e prop~r ty - ~
T
Commissioner. Rowlarid noted that the onT' o '~~ ~r
~
y pposition the Coumu.ssion;had wes the driveway
`
~
;w;~'
proposed to ,L~.naoln
Avenue, and .if the trafPad` engineer aould assure him; that tliis was `
'
an
de
s ~JM~~
,
.
a
quate
ooess :point, he would w~.thdraw his opposition to the proposa7.
; ,
~"'`
:~
~
Mr Roberts in response toQUestions by Comm~
ssioner Allred ^t
t
d
fi
'
.
a
e
;
e did riot th
ink~the
° traffio engineer had anal`zed the
y proposed
lan
~ ~;"~
, .
p
'
; :: .: . . ` ~~,~~"
= Mr, Titus advised the Co~ssion`-that the City~`Engineer could obtain some'co
n
f
,
.
~~~~~
mme
t
rom.the
traffic engineer if:the Commission so desired.; ~
3y~~
. ; ;; ~, .
~ Mr Jerry Janss, 115 Nortli Jattss~Street; appeered before the Co
n
'
i~
mm .
mm~.ssion a
d aomplimented.
the Comm~.ssion for.;;being concerned oxi,the ple;ining
of this psroel
`
th
t
i
f
h` ~
,
,
.
a
;h
s
ami:ly
ad :
resided at his present locats.on _~or maziy yeers; that';traffia turnirig lePt-;-on to:Lincol
~
~ ~r .;.
r
'
n
M
Avenue from Janss Street
or sub~ect property we,s ext"remely~difficult
that he din~~not lmo
` ,
,
''
,
w
~
whetHer this;,would{:be properly handled:by the:proposed restaurant,'
'or whether it';would:be ~~'
,
a problem, that he.,was not'sure :that tHe existing,building:'oould b~;re opetted, however,:the
r question was;whether or not the new building+and plans would be
g
d
se
'
' ,,,
ry,~
~~`;~
'
a.
oo
..u
of
.
the land;i.that.
; staald.ng of oars for the drive-tliru could baok;lthese ;:oars all t'~e ;veay to the street
creatin~
e '
•
~`5~
:
,
; nois
s and odors from the:,running engines and:theser,w,ould be direotly below his:bedr'oom' ~
wandows, that the=Finight dwelling units-~might'be non`oonforming, but they:thad bee
n there '
;fo
o
ti
e
-
= ,~
,
r s
me
m
,
that
the petitzoner was pro osin '
~ P, B PBrlang one=third;less than required by
~ }
code
,,and this would only;provide;for a'few.oustomers:sinoe if the restaurant had five ; ,~
~
emploqees this wou13 onlq`;leave 7 spaaes left for the~38 sitdovm customers;
thus`;shifting
' ,
,
,,
the requirediparking to~the stree•t whioh wes:not desirable,;~and that J~snss, 5treet would'
<
e
ret
i ^~~~
g
tte
e oon§ideral
- ,,.,
le traffic sinae the ~Catholio soliool had ;-no bussing' seryioe'`which ttieant
': the`:students'
re
t
h
~
d ~''
pa
n
s;
a
:to
bring them and piak them up, ar,d tkiere was also'considerable a
r~
traYYic genezsted;Prom the:ahurdh not.only on:Sunday:but during-tlie week.-' Furthsrmore;
the
'
~' ~
~
.
< number, ox
parking spaoes ,on ,the e:xistirig Paoility, was approximately 22, and that :there :;had
been an access easement to Mrs `Knight's
ro
e
t
f
' ;.~
`
,p
p
r
q:
or
some.time snd to nis lmowledge this
acoess easement still existed
~. fir
~
,
1,~i
`Mr. Aaraher noted that the easement prolilem would have to be..resolved in private;meetings
~ ~~
between his companq-and Mrs. Knight; that comments made that business hours until ll m ` ~Y
..
would be very disturbi:ig to the rest of,Mrs.-:I{nights`tenants would'appear'to be inacaurate f
since:they had not ex arienoed-'an
. P y• noise.s Prom any of their other restaurants; that sinoe E ';;!
Mrs. Knight,'purohased her propertg in 1958, when the restaurant was already in existenoe t, ~;
'
p
,
the noises she contended wHich would emanete from i;he reestablishment were somewhat
incon- f
.
t: •
K
.
gruous; and that it;.was their intent to aonstruct a 6-foot masonry wall ahich should help .
j
to eliminate'eny noises. ~
,
Tf~ HEARIIdG WAS CLOSED. ,
_ .
I ~.;:s.
,
. _ _ _ _ _ ;..
~, _~.~.~
` Commissioner Gauer inquired as to the size of the parnal that was proposed-Yor e drive thru ! ;~
.
restaurant,at I,emon Street;and Ball Road; and tyhich wss denied by both the Co~ission and .
'
the City Counoil because.of possible traffic'conflicts from staoldng up 'of aars: ' ~ "
Mr. Roberts advised the Commission that he did:not lmow ofT=hand the exact size, but it was
'
d i
consi
erably:'smeller than sub~eot`property. _ .
I'.
Chairman Herbst inquired how long it would ta3e the traffio enginser to analyze:the traffio ;
" problems assooiated..with this petition at this intersecti:on: ~ -
f;
'Mr 'Titus replied this could be reviewed:in ~time for the next public hearing.-
~-
Commissioner Seymour inquired whather or:not the Co~i.ssien.could a
pprove subject petition
' !
sub
ect to a
J pproval of the ingress and egress of the traff=c engineer. _ ,
! >
NIr. Titus noted there would be e driveway prablsm if.traffia,entered an1 esited on Linooln
Avenue with a'street,intersection so olose by;' that left:turns would be a difficult problem
from either the drive or Janss Street; ~herefore, he would reoommend a continuanoe so that
the traffio.engineer aould review this in ~etsil.end make recommendations to the Commission. ~
Cocmissioner Kaywood noted that regardless of whe'her or not ~he ingress and egress problem
~-was solved, there still was the problem of one
thiri shorta
f (
-
ge o
the required perking spaoes, '
~
_- ~. ~:l
.. Oommiss-ioner.':Farano'offered.a•moti'on to deny Conditional-Use Permit No. 1209 on the basis.
~ that this.was too intense,;:sinoe the property oould_:only be used for e drive-thru, or a walk
up or a:,regulsr sitdown restaurant but`not far ail three usos:
Continued'disoussion was he].d by the Commission regarding the motion, and the need Yor
revised,plans or review by the trafPic engineer before anp action could be taken. Whereupon
,Commissioneri`Farano;aithdrew his.motion:
Mr. Rob'erts advised the Commission':that-the statement me,de by.Mr: Karcher regarding the fact
that He oould';re-open the existing structure for a restaurant was not entirely oorreat, sinoe
if the'petitioner.was propusing either~a drive-thru`or walk up=restaurant whioh this Yormerly
I~ was,'and whioh we:s a,non-aonforming use,no longer in existenae; before this could be reopened
.~ a oonditional:use permit would hsve to lie approyed sinoe these two uses were,only permitted
'`.to operate under.suah.a CUP:
'Mr. Karoher`then requosted:that subject:petition be continued two weeks to give them time
to revieW tkieir plans for possible.redesign to get more'pe,rking and for a report from the
'trafP3'o engineor.
Commissiorier Farano of£ered.a motion to re-open the hearing and aontinue Petition for
Conditional,Use Permit No..1209 to allow the petitioner time t"o submit revised.pians and
for the;traf~io ei-~ineer to'review these plans.as they<pertain to,ingress-and egress traffia
aonflicts to.LS.naoIn Avenue. Commissioner Seymuur seaondsd'the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
','
VARIANCE N0. 2217 -. Sou~ernE~aT'i~orttia Edison Company, 1241.South Grand Avenue, Santa Ana,
Californie; Ovvner; GEORGE H. BRIMEIALL, 1556 Sauth Herbor Boulevard,
~ -Anaheim;. Californie, Agent., requesting WAIVER OF pEpMI'i'TED FREE-STANDING
SIGN:IACATION on property desaribed as: An irregularly-shaped paroel ot
, land consisting oP approximately 2:59,aares looated at the northeast corner of Harbor Blvd.
' and Freedman.9Pay, having approximste fronteges of 175 feet on Harbor Boulevard and 600 feet
on Freedman VPay, and further desoribed as 1656'South Harbor Boulevard. Property presently
olassiYied C-R, CO~ERCIAL-RECREATION, ZONE.
Commissioner.Seymour left the 3ounoil Chamber at 5:46 p.m.
Zoning Si~nervisor Charles Roberts revievied the location of subjeot property, uses established
in alose proaimity and the request to establish a free-standittg sign adjaoent to Freedman Way
~o direot austomers.to the parla.ng area for ~he miniature golf aourse, said sign to be 16}
Peet high and having.a display area of 48 aq. ft:ahioh'would be located 48 feet west of the
easterlg property,line whereas.node would.require a minimum-of 120 Yeet from the easterly
property line. However, tha applioant hed indinated that.the-sign loaation was neoessary
beosuse it would be ad3aaent to the drivewag that would serve the psrking area in question,
and to looate.it tiny Yasther avast would defeat its.purpose. Tl~erefore, the Qommission would
have to determine whei,her the're was suPPioienu hardship to ju~tiYy approval of the variance.
Mr. George Brimhall, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Co~ission and noted that
their request,avns•to update the eaisting sign, beoause When they originally started this
operation the sign ordinanae did not allov a metal lighted sign, but sinae then they had
reoeived permission from the power eompany to.eraot the proposed type sign; that the sign
would be looat'ed at the entranoe to the parldng area whioh was formerly the entrance to
the d1d.Hotel••Way.leading to.the Grand Hotel, and would thus serve a dual purpose in letting
people destined•Yor the hotel lmow thia entranoe did,,not lead to the hotel and elso to direat
the gol~ players to.tho parking area, gowever, if the sign were required to be located
120 Peet ~rom the easterly property litte they w~uld sti13 have their present problems.
No one appeared in opposition. ~ -'
~ ua;att~v: WAS CLOSED.
i
i r,.
Co~issione-r Kaywood oomplimented the operators of the miniature golf operation in developing '
a verq diffiault paroel with sunh an attreati.~,~ use.
~
i
. ,
~
-.,
.. ,
.~,,.. .._. ,:._ ~_ _ }~s> .~. .
~,
~y ~ : i .-.'.~ !. Wdc ~,~~4'.y~
~ ~ ' . ~ .. `~ :~ '.
. . . . . . . , . . ,. _ . _ , a . . . t . , .. ~. ~' . ~ ~ Y . .
~ - ,: ~ - _
`~ ` ~
:. . : ' ' ...;
l 'h P ~
'- . . ~. :. . ,. . ~'
.
.... . '
. ..
.
..
.
.
~
'
'
'
~;.
/
U
,
,
,
, .
.. , ..
.
. .
.
~ . . ~
~~ .~: ~.~i.
'.
~ ~~ '. . ~~ ~~~. ~ :. ~ ~ ~
; MINUTES, CITY pLANNIN('}.CO~SSION, November 16, 1970 ~^t
V,:
~:
5496
. ; ;,: . ..` •. • . .~ . _ .. : ,
. ,, r:. -
, ` ;,; . , : , '.
~ ,
,~s
~ .~~
VARIANCE-NO 2217 Coum~issioner Gauer offered Resolution No.'PC70-206 and moved for its
(contsnued) ! ~
passage,and,adoption;to grant Petition_for Variance.No.,2217, subjeat
;:
to conditions (See Resoluti
-B
' ~,s
~„~~~
.
on
ook)
On:roll oall therforegoing resolution was passed by.the following votec
:.. i
~~~- ` .•.
~~
~
"r
.
~ ~ ;~
~"~
`~~i
.
.
.
: :.
.
~
,
AYES COMMISSIONERS : Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood,.-Rowland.
.'~ :' . ~" ~ l
``,~~
t t~
NOES bOM~ISSIONERS:_None ` 4.
a~~~J ~
. .
ABSENT CO1~EISSIONERS: Seymour r <;a~:
:~;
<
.
; " . _ , . .
VARIANCE NO 2218 PUBI,IC HEARING, ,GIiANT p, HOOD, 506 South East St
e
t
A
a ~,
`,:;
~~'
r
e
,
n
heim,
;:' ' Californie, Owner; PAULINE d.GEORGE F. EHR,.6?3r1. Agnes Avenue, North
''. HoTlywood;;California, Agents;requesting WAIVER O
'rm~
~'
Y
Rtu
F
D R-1 ZONE
~E~ TO PERM1'P~A BEAUTY SHOP IN AN E%ISTING:RESIDENTIAL .,TRUCTURE WITH WAIVER~OF: (1)
`~ ,
1~dIN2MUM REQUIRED' PARI~JG SPACES;•
AND
(2 ) M;v{I
q
E
P ~
i
.
,
MU~
p
RMIT
ED SIGN AREA on, property desoribed
as: A reatangularly-shaped paroel of ],arid having;a Yrontage of a
r
im
h
t
'
"
~
~`
pp
ox
t
a
e,
ely 61
feet on
east side,oP East Street havi
+. ng a me,zimum depth of approximately l0~ feet, being located
apnroximetely 100,feet south of the ;oenterline.of Santa Ana Stre
t
an '
e
,
d Yurther decoribed as
506 Soutli East Street. ,Propertg presently classified R-1, OATE=FAA~LY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
. .
~*~;
:
Zoning"Supervisor Charles Roberts noted the,looated of subject property, use~ established
~ in close proximity,.existing zoning
and
the ~
,;
.
:_proposal to establish this hon-cori:forming.
one.-operator beauty salon as e; conforming use'snd enlarge`it to two ahairs, together with
a display.sign 4
`.feet square to ide a~~!"
.
ntify the oommercial use" of the structure. Furthermore,
this one-operator`.beauty salon:.wa5 approved as e'home oaou ation b
m
~
~
p ~
u
'
Maq ;
Y per
~.t issued -in
1959;'. and:.it was;.staff'.s uriderstandi' ~ t
ng,. hat.this use.wa~,permitted subjeat to only one ~
beauty operator :.the owner worki
on ; c
~
ng
the premises,and that no signs would be usedi There-
fore the Planning.Commission would have to determine whether there
a
t
was
ny jus
ifioation 1
shown to permit the expan.,ion.of the esisting commercial use in:a
a
n
n are
in
primarily residentiel j
ature,.;sinoe;it could be antaaipa~ded,that ini;ensified oommercial uses iri this area and ,
visual evidence oY.such uses:would lead to similar more intensive'
r
u ~~'t,
,~
`
-
eq
e§ts in the Puture.
Fur.thermore, in view of ;t1ie Residential Front-On Study which did not indicate these propertios~
as being>appropriste for oommercial
s
~
`
u
es, very oe;re£ul consideration`should be
' request. given to this i '
~
Mr.:George.`.Ehr, one of the agents £or the petitioner a ~
ppeered before the Commis~ion and ~
~tated he sn3 his wife proposed to purohase subject property which
s
l
presently had a beauty
a
on in a portion of tfie garage; that it was their intent to aontinue this particular shop '
and make it into e two ohair
o
eration'
i
n
:
p
w
thi
the existing •~,rea; that there was adequate
parking'in:front of the'garage as well as the swing drive for a
roxi
t
l
£
~
pp
ma
e
y
ive vehiales,
and that they also'.proposed'a 4-foot sign to advertise the salon. ~
Commissioner Gauer noted that where there was a one operator shop without any signing at
one time this was considered a home oacupation; however, since the petitioner is proposing
to expand the use,with a seoond chair together with commeraial signing would make this a
commeroiel operation in the R-l,Zone.
A letter of opposition from nearby p.opert3 ocmers was.read to the Cco:mission.
Mr. Ehr, in rabuttal, stated this beauty shop had heen in operatiun Yor ll years, and that
the present owne: was present to answer questions.
` Chairman Herbst noted.that the.petitioner was proposing to expand the existing operation to
a two chair shop toge.ther ti:~ith oommeroiel signing, and th~s would require additional parking.
Assistant -0ity Attorney John:Dawson advised the Commission that a home occupation did not
permit anq signing.
Commi.ssioner,Gauer was of the opinien that granting subject petition would hq breaking down
a lo,ng established R-1 ares.
Commissioner Kaywood inquired whether the home oocupation whioh had been issued to permit
this one-operator salon would go with the land in the edent it was sold. .
Mr. Roberts noted that there was some question as to whether a home oacupatior. should have
been permitted in 1959, however present regulations would not permit a beauty salon under
a home oocupation.
.-1 ,
r - -~. ::? _ ~ -
,f ~ t"
~
~ ,3,y.
~e
~
'
-1'j~4
.
- t .l
~
MINUTES, CITY PLAAiNINC, COMI~ISSION, November'16, 1970
g
. ~f
'
~
~
~
.. . . -, .. ~ '. ' ~ .. ~ ~. .. .
.
- ~ ~
;~''~
'
VARIANCE'NO 2218; Mr 'Grant Hood, the peti,tioner:and present:owner, of',the property
.
(oontinu
d)
' ~ `u F
'°4
,
e
appeared
before;the Commission<and stated~tfiat in 1959 ho and his
'` r'~
w
wife had~ gone to;:.the Planning,.Department a,nd: their: aontaot hsd;,been
` ~ M
M
l a,
.
=~`~-
r
ungal
who had given them:.the home use'perm~.t;`'that the beauty
shop had been operatin
f
ll y ~y~
g;
or
ears w~.th no,complaints, that the existing parking had
been adequate, arid two years ago
when t
st ,~~
~'~
,
he
reet mas widened and parki"ng was,prohibited
on the-~east side"of the'street; they haai
one t
th
en f
~.
g
o
e exp
se of aoistruatittg a'svring drive,
therefore,~:.they had no.parking problems
that h
was
`i "~:
b
,._
e;:
sure.
f the:petitiora were
granted the
prospeotiv`e operator would operate.:tfiis shop in the;same manner:as his:wiYe, had; that it ,
was`his understandi
tkiat
i "~'~'
~r
~-``~~:,
ng
res
dents.w~.thiri 300 feet~were'ottly.advised:oP a pending zoning
action, and the letter subm~.tted must be more than„~300 f
t ~+~~
ee
from;;the property.. ~,,
Chairman Herbst noter that the proposal before the,Commission was somewhat different than
the<"operation had;-been in~the p f~
ast; since.two chairs were:.proposed, and;signing.was also :
being coritemplated. Therefore
'"!the f
t th
r
,
ac
at:a home ocoupation was granted".in 1959.did
not;mean tkie use ooxld be expsnded, §inoe tliis~ivas`a re
uest f
r
"
q
o
.
a waiver of the;:R-1 Zone.
Mr tDawson..`advised .the Planning':Commissiott that when this home,.oocupation was reviewed.and
~; approved Code permitted
i'~; h
weve
'th
2
~
..
o
r,,.
e
oning Code had
been revised during the past eleven
years and this tyge of use would no longer'be
permi
tted und
a
h
m
c
.
.
er
:
o
e o
oupatiori; therefore;
zt-'now was';a non-oonforming use, and.;if it were not.expanded it oould be aontinued und
r
tli
t
'
°''
e
e exis
ing facilities
as a non-conforming use. even"though the.ownership changed: x*"st,~„
Commissioner Kay4reod inquired as to the number of patrons the present operator had at one
time~ on the
remise
~ ~r`•,
p
s.
: . ,` .
' ~ .
,
Mr Hood replied that nri occasion his wife would have one under the drser; working on another
customer
and
a~ tiii
d o
`
+ yk;
„
.
i
~, r
ustomer.,would
be coming into'the,shop, however, she did not:work full
time, tkiere£ore; they had no parking probl
m
F
h
o
r
~'~
e
..
urt
erm
re; the
e:seemed'to be,son:e misunder- ~
~tanding as to the:two
ohairs,,sinoe it we
s;not the
s
e
,
,
pro
p
ative owners intent to have two
operators; the seoond'chair was being:requested as a comb~out bar.
Mrs `;Pauline Ehr,`,.one of~the agents for the petitioners, appeared,>before the Commission and r
stated ther
e appeared to
;b
mia
"
.
~
e e
understandittg as to
the two chairs,,sinoe there was a wet
booth as orie ohair,.and.she proposed to have a ohair with a
`
mirror in front as a comb out
ar9a;only,~`;althQigh it was possible to?`have two operators at one time
'this
ot
e
~
,
was n
h
r
intent,.sinoe she?wanted:a plane,where.she would fiave something.to do on oocasion, and that ~
she felt
th
e
i
n
-
e
x
sti
g salon would.be too small to accoa~odste two operators together with
the number of oustomers:'the
would be w
k
n
y
or
i
g.on. r
Commissioner Allred was of the opinion that this could slmost be considered a three ahair ~
o
operati
n with a wet booth, a dryer, and a comb out axea: ~
.. -
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
-'
,
..~
: . .~:
. .:..
. .
:~ ~. ~ ~. .~
. ~ ~
. .
~
~ r~
.
Chairmen Harbst noted that a varianoe went mith the land, and slthough the pro osed
P puraha~ers
stated it was their int
nt t
e
o operate the existing salon in the same manner as it had been in
the,past, the property could be sold
and the futu
,
re owner would then be allowed to convert
this into e.two-operator.s!.op.
Tf~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. .
Assistant Development Servioes Direator Ronald Thompson noted this request would be an
expansion of a non-con~orming;use whioh was r,ot within the intent of the Zoning Code;
th
t ~~
a
certain businasses were permitted to have.s sign one foot square either on the side ~
oY the h
u
e
i
'-
o
s
or
n.the,,window
suoh as real estate agents had, but where no bus~ness was ~
oonduated on the premises, and that the petitioner
was proposing a free-standing sign whiah
would not be permitted in the R-1 Zane:
Commissioner Allred ofPered Resolution No:.~C70-207 and~moved for.its passage and adoption,
to deny Petition
o
a
i
na
Y
r V
r
a
e No. 2218.on the basis that approval would_establish e commeroiel
use, whiah in effeot would be "spot zonin
°
th
t th
d
g
;
a
e area ha
been established with resident-;
iel nses,.and elthough the use was approved.as a home oaaupation it w
s now •
-
a
., non
aonforming
use,:and any eape,nsion o£ the nonoonforming.i~se would be,granting a privilege to the petition-'
t e
er no
n~oyed.by the ad3oining property owners; and that the signing proposed would establish'
an undesirable preaedent a
d
o
n
en
ourage similar requests from other single femily homeowners
for oonversion of.the homes for oommeroial purposes.(See Resolution Book)
On roll,oall the.foregoing resolution was passed by the £ollov,ing vote:
AYES: CO1~diSSIONERS: Allred, Ferano, Gauer, Herbst, I{aqwood, Rowland. -- -
NOES: CO~SSIONERS: Nono.
ABSENT: COIi~GISSIONERS:• Seymour.
a u., ~ ~ : .~ ~ , .;°~z _
~ , - : ~
` : ~-~ , ~ ~ ;~
~,
t>
MINUTES,:CITY p7,ANNINGiC01~9ISS20N, November 16, 1970 ~
;_ ~ .; ; : 5 ~ 98
< '; : ~ ',
~'s
VARIANCE NO 2220 ` " ~ _
' '- , ~~~ ~t1R2NG' ` SAM D~~TO; P. 0. Boz 3032, Ane,heim, California, Owner
AL;'STOVALL, 1735•South~Harbor
g ~"
i
,
re
Boulevard, Anaheim,.;California, Agent;
uestinB wAl11ER OF MARIM[1M 'pEg~*~TED SIGN:~AREA, TO PERSdi*P
STANDING.'SIGN on pro
ert
~~SIONsOF AN F
d
c
T
b ~
'~
p
y
es
~YIg
ri
ING FRE~_
ed as An,'irre larl _
age of approximately 114 feet'on the`west side
S
B
a
n
a Harbor
Boulevard6
approxime,tely 600 feet;; being `located a g
having a
maximum depth
of
I{atelle Avenue,:and furthe
e
p
mS
e
~
~'
~S
I
r d
aaribed as
1735
erterline of
outh Harbor
olas iYied C 1, GFPuNERAI, ~p~R~~;
Boulevard~ tpro
ZONE ;' P
Y presentlq ,~~
"'``'~^
~
,
r: ,.;, ,: , - ~ '
Zoning Supervisor Cha
le
' -~rt;
r
s Roberts reviewed
tor the Commission the loaation of:subjeat prop-
~erty, use,s established in close proxi.mity, existing zoning
exi'sting:Pree standi
and'the p ,~^~
,
ropo~el to expand an
ng,sign by the addition of an:identiYiaation si
' totaled approximately 496 square.feet and bes
gn;; tHat the existi
n
d
~'~B Si
f
o
o f^
"
g
e
up
o
n the;two=square foot
l front
t oY tlie prope ty, this paroel would_be entitled to only.a.228 square f
additioriel`ss,gn:would add a
l
e
o
h
oot
n
n
si
t
er 143 square feet,-brin in the total square.footeigettot the
approximately~,64p,.whiah was approximately~:three`times thegarea`persitted u
Ordinanoe;'that staff on oth
d
a
n
er oac
er the Sign
sions had pointed out .the cou~ercial-
been oontinually:aited by uarious recreation area had
where ss inin '' ' Publioations as a graphic'illust'rati
8~ g w
:
s
t
,
,
.
a
no
on of what mr;,y ooour
oarefullq aontrolled;'that sinoe there,mer.e a large number of narrow
lots in.the area this tended to assure a multi
l
th ,
p
-o
ioity of signs, and each tended to block the
er and provide for,a+generally unattraotive a
hav,e to determine whether its Yindings i
e
an
t
r
~
~
~
n`Variance
No
2180
in
whiah itewas
determi,n duthat
appr.ovaZ of the sign would enqourage requests for further sign deviati
and that the Commissi
n
i ~
~
k~
o
s
on was opposed to g q
n this C-R area,
grantin an further waivers from the Sign Ordinanoe
.in the C R:;area due to the undesirable unsightly sign
a
pl
u
b
e
°
" '~
"
p
cl
iaa
l
tter in.
t o t h i
s area:
t he area, was still
.
F
~
~'. William 0'ConnelT, representing the agent for the petitioner indioated his
to answer.questions. ~
,
y
prssence
. •
e-'
Commissioner Farano indinated that whst was`proposed by the~petitioner could be incorporated
into the the existzn si
B gn; that as a traveler h
e very rarel f
which advertised that the9.aaaepted oredit oa
d
~
t
Z
r
~t
~
r
s, therefore,
the
area
now devoted~to
cards oould.be replaoed"with the•Great'Western,symbol or name.
credit
l
` Mr. 0'Connel.l noted that'the si~gn £ormerly advertised thet all oredit oards were sooepted
but two year~ ago:aPter an unfortunate inaid
,
ent, this was ohanged,; and,they were selective
in vhioh oredit oards would be aaoeptable. ~
, I
Commysyianer Kaywood noted that the proposal of a ~
what it wes intended to do, sinoe it only repres~ented adbignbluruand1d d ot i
~Zrthermore; b a
sn
i
S
!
mpres
her.
that otfier signs would
nottbe
Position
Visib:Let thisathen~would enaoura
request larger and hi
eeoth
r~
g
e
gher signs.
establishments to also i
Assistant City Attorney John Da,wson noted that the
existing sign if the petitioner was not in reality ohanging the
panel where
the credit
.
ce,rds.were being advertised was ohanged.
Mr. 0'Connell stated that it wa§ his understanding that any alteration to the sign other than
the wording on a readerboaxd would have to be a
pproved by a variance.
M~'• James Stovall; agent for the pptitionar, appeared before the Commission, and noted that •
the present Galaxy Motal had been the Msgia Star Mo
t
1
tel;that they had spent almost $150,000.00
o upgrade this motel to make~the rooms livable ; that in the last two moni
members of the Best West
h
n
t
~
;
er
Mo
s they had become
to hr~ve e business ~i n
el Assooiation, snd sinoe they were members, they vrere required ~
8, snd this was the basic re
.
ason for requesting the expansion of the sign,
Commissio:,er Farano advi
.sed the agent that he could tell Best Western that there would have '
to be a oopy c~~ge; that s great many busines
ses throughout the aountry had ahanges made to
their signs w~ , they were advertising a nationally Imown na
, of chan i
th
;,g
me, and that it was oxil.y a mattc~r '
e iesign to incorporate it into the area whioh now advertised credit oards to !
meet 1:Le~ intent of advartising this natio
ll
na
y lrnoarn motel ahain.
' Commissioner Allred stat•id he:could not underatand wHy anyone in the motel business had to
advertise on their sign that thera were tele
h
p
ones, swiu~ing pools, etc. on the readerboard,
sinoe anyone who traveled accepted this as a feat. Therefore, if the Best Western sign were 1
incorporated wi.thin the panel, there would b
e no need to approve this sign addition.
r~ ~~ '.. ' .': f .: ~': :, ~ . . . 'tl 3 41. . S Y u _ ^'r5^ :
~
; t ~ ~~ "~
~; .
~ ~
C~ .
i
~~
: MINUTES! ~ITY PLANNING CO1~dISS20N, November
l6
1970 :
,r'
.
,
~; ;
. " ' 5499 r
,
•VARIANCE NO.. 222U ' Mr Dawson e,dyised the.Coa~ission that Mr. Robert§ and he had disoussed
(oontinued) the non=bonPormin
g
t
` ~
~
g~si
n regula
ion
under.,Section 18.62.2UU(B) whiah
indioated that'where ~'
a non-aonformin si `had 'oeen a p p r o v e d b y t h e C i ty
C o u n c i l„ C h ie f..Buildirig Inspe
to
o
hi
a
' ~
c
r
r,
s
uthor
ized representative, and
~ . . : , .
whioh~was p r o p o s e d. t o' b e a l t e r e d wou l d require
a
p
o
~
:
~~
.
p
r
val:of the City
' , Counoil'. for
said 'alteration.
. ~
,::,
;,
.
, ;:. ; ; , , . .
Commissioner Farano then,inquired if the Co~ission denied the variance petition, but sent
a_.reaommendation to the City Counoil t .
~'~
`
hat the,petitioner:be alloaed to ahenge that portion
oY the sign as`suggested by the~Commissiori whioh.would
`
" ~z~+~
the
permit him to inolude advertising
Best Western" logo.
~ . ... . ~ ~ . . .. ~ . .
. . . .. .~
'.: . .
~ ~ ~'
' : . , ' '
~
~ 4~;~,'~
L -^
;
.
. .
: .
. .
. ~ -. . .,- , .. ~ . . '~
. Mr Dawson replied.that this ohange.was within the aonfines oY the sign, therefore, the
petitioner me,y:ohange the wordin
t
f .:
~K
~
g
o re
lect the deoal of "Best Western° provided the
C'ity Counail approved'it, and thet the Commission oould
l
,ma
ce suoh reoommendation.
Assistsnt Development Servioes Direotor Roaald.Thompson advised the Commission that similar
sign nhanges had besn spproved e,dministrativel
b
f
y
e
ore where the.appliaent proposed to
inaorporate a ahange withitt the existing sign, 'sinoe:staff felt ~~
this was only copy change.
Commissioner Kaywood offered Resolutio
N ~
~~
n
o. pC70-208,,and moved for its passage and adoption,
to deny'Petition for Varianoe.No. 2220 on the
bas'is
th
t
.
.
a
the petitioner was proposing to
ezpand an existing non-aonforming sign from 496 square feet to 639 s
existing si
ua
fe
t
n
q
re,
g
e
; thet the
.slready exceeded tkie permissible sign area for this parcel by 100$, and by
granting..this;request'the resultin si ~,
a
~
B gn area would be almost 200$ greater than what is
permitted bg Code; and that'.the proposed si g n additio
d
~ "~
n c o u l
~
b e i n o o r p ora te d w i t h in the
e z i s t i n g sign area b~ changing the aopy-of one of the pari
ls
S ,~~
e
.(
ee Resolution Bo o k)
~
~
On'roll 0811 the foregoing resolution.was passed by the following vote: ~
AYES: COM~ISSIONERS:. Allred, Farano; Gsuer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland. •
NOES. ~ ;COERd2S320NERS: None. . "
ABSENT COI~EISSIONER$c; Seqmour. .
SPECIAL RECOMA~NDATIpN = Commissioner Aowland offered a motion to reoommend to the City
RE VARIANCE N0..2220 Counoil t
t
ha
in tHe event the petitioner under Variattae No. 222p
submitted revi§ed sign plans f
r the'
o
Galaxy Motel to inalude the ~
addition of a logo advertising "Best YVestern Motels" withi
t
x
n
he
e
isting sign height and size by ahanging one o£ the panels, that. ~
suah revision be
v
appro
ed as en alternatide'to granting Varianae
' No..2220. Commissioner Kaywood s
o
'
eo
nded
~t,a motion. MOTION
CARRIED.
ADJOURNMENT - There being no £urther business to discuss, Commissioner Rowland offered a
motion to ad3ourn th
e meeting. Commi.ssioner Allred seaonded the motion.
MOTION CARRIED. The meeting ad3ourned at 6:33
p.m.
i
Respeotfully submitted, ;
~
,
C~
Ab1N KREBS, Seo etary ` -
~ Anaheim Citq Planning C~mmission ~
~
,~
'~r;
. s - . 'r ~..~ ..W . ~ }a r :~
ti ' ~ ,~ f
~~~ ~4y~ ~~ ae
: s~ ~'~'~<~a r .
.. ~} ~R~y~i'.~ t::
j. ~~~~ ~~ f l ~
1' y. . S ~ ~ ~'~' ~~
v~ ~ ~'`w~Ni7';Kw
7 ' '''j' ~~y~S`~c7
~: -'Y. N' ~ ~r ~~~~r.i~p3jj,,`~.?
~ -y",x.x '~u .
~ :. ^~
~~ ~~~~~f ~F~t ,l ~
~'i Y ~ ~ I
• .}, rn, j r. ~
~ ~ ~
. ~:, ~ ±:' ' ~ ~~,~~~ ~r f
1 .~~~ ~ ~ ~,~
~j~ . k'S y Y ~~ ~~y, A,~
T #
;1 k ~ ~
:i :s .;,, ~;..~~~~ ~,
~w~
'~.~ "
'' Y•`~`~ r ~ w, s; ~~~~~', r
;~ ~ . ' , ~. 4 ~ t
~'~ < ~
;7 ~ , 5 `y ~' ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ y~ '
h ` `~ F(~~ ~ ~~~~k~ ~ . i
~~ . ~}~~l .~? ~ .,'r '$D' u~ .~c~ s~'~~~~y~$ ?~ :i
'. y'f ~ ' ~r ~. ~ 's. rX~ ~, °fi cCy ~ x~~ ~ ~ ~
~$x n ~y~ct~ ~Y{- ~ 5~:
~ ~ ~`~ ~ ~ ~~r~ ~~~ ~'p ;~s?' ~"~ '
~ ~~ .. r~~hv~~~'" st,~ ,vj.~r '~`it y 7 ;.
,,~k ti ~
* ' ~" y~1+t '~.~~ ~ ~r ~7 ~~~V. ~ }
~ , , ~ ~'~ , . ~'~~ t .~ '~~~Y~ ~ ~ ti iti. ~s-i f~" ri
~ ~y,m ~a e
,e .~ ' S ~`°'Y'~ ~'1. ~~~`~«~£~>~ab~ r"FS ~t~ +-+.~~~yrt x ~`` C;~';~~ ~3'i ^ < >
. ~ ~' ~ ~ F~~~~~~`rf~{ r~ ~'~ ~M~Jd ~ '? f
t ~.~' `r~& .;Irw'~'~~'. x~i~5~'~' ti~i~„'~ :~'"~c ~~ ~~` i
* ~ :. ~~ ¢ • F , ' ~ 4 ' :w ~,~',~~~ ~~~~i~~r`~ i`~..,ry~~.* ~c"`f'~t'S4-t~,P'G5'i ~ ~T 1' r r
r ,1`~T( ,~i,PU~~~ ~; ~hJ` F!~ .n~G 2 ~~i»!.~~"^k1 l'-toy ~ r~'. ~.
q.. `'x ~ , ~''+~Ak~` A ''~'y'~"41~ ~Twf~n rt~,,L"'1x .
~ a . ~Y ~j~~.~" ~,s `~,k ~?ye~a.~ jn.~ - e - ~' ~ ~~ s.rR. a 47' ,. i~,`
n . 1 ~ ~ 1', t,i5~E` t.,~ ?~ .N{r ~ l*.~F~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ h ~.
. u?', ~ . ~'~t+o ~ . `l' ~l an,w'.~ ~'rN~ti~ y~`2 ~'l tf,~~ ~~F' k'q" 't~dr.~'y4 4' ~' tx~ t ) . '
,. ,~ «- . . :ly 9,~. ~. . 9 7 ~ ,~p.,~a ~ r '~~,~~,~~' u v~ +c'7~' H r i. s 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~k ~ , rY~ g ' k,r, . • ~ r ~ '^s~y~,r~'~~i~"~~ '~-c~~f+x ~ °~'~ ~v~ ~ v~x;Y ~
^ ~ . ,, ~+; ~ .r r:s. ~,;4.~',~•~~ ~ a~w`i~~c„z~~i~.pC~~~~'a°ry~' ,~ >{ ~~r~;a
.~ ~+~Jn , ~ . ~ FF1 .~ 1. , , ~~~1~~,~i~ ~ .};.Ld~y'?l~ ,y{Lt Y . ~„4i sk~ ~~ ~' /~a'~~}i"'~b.tJ y ~ 1 .~'. ~ < ~,. ~
~ Y.:~ ~cU~ a. 'ti.tik~~.~~ ~ ~'f~..Y...•..irl.'~.~~:'~w~+id~:t~~1k'*/.§:l'i~S~l~.1..~1~i; ~1.~
: ,> ' $LCi~S;~~-r.,-;F ~. ~r i ~, ~,~~r xitt .~~ra'°~t .._'~'a~i" r~Tn ! ~r - .{ .
",'~.~'fy~''£i' ~~a~~6.~31'a 1~~{ ~.~~ ~'_~~. ~ ~~.'s,*~J ^~+L,3` 7.rt` ~ *~R <,
4r . '~ i.. r- ~. n> ~ C. ..+;~ t~t`y s.~{''~ r`~'~~7Jyl~'nr ~~~ ~ i~j~~s,Y, nc~ Yit. >~ `T tt a 't~~~
.~ st ~ L~ w : r 5~; 7ry"~!t 'T,~j~'i ~ c i~" 4. ! ~~ ,~ k fi{~y..
,~ ~ . ~ ~ o G I,.~SE f' t`~?.`„i I 4`7}~.- f' 1, Fa~'~",'' } ` f.
' ~• ~y 4~j~~~~ ~ t'F'x~?~n~f1 ,~Y~~~.c(~~y~~~x WfT„ ~,
~~ ;:. . ~'a ~,~~ . . ,'~+$. { ~~~ -, a.a ,~,t ~~`~: ~'•c~'"~~~'~~ 1...~'v h 'z`s ~~ r ~,
' . ~. A ~.' , . .
u' ~y ~`~ k " . ~t~x'S j ~' ~'~,,v~,.,.,, k ~,w~t..,a a r~ i C. } ~ ~
~'~ :~ }..~ '~~{r . .'.~,"y2$i S"Ft~y~,w~~~R` ;''~SYSU~~~"s~.+~ ~,a,~,yS~~~'r4'~* ~ ?~~~
s i .~, , ~ ' , ~ ' .. : ' .. , r - +. q~T~, Y f~?'+'° .,SCS'!~.}y"ry ~f 1~..~ a;,.,!"L. x e g
,-. . d1 . . ... t. ' ~..,. ~~ 2 ti t .+ Z~7^~A : a~'` ~r~~~ ~.I
1 ~' +~ '~:a ! S~~ "l: 5~l ~ 1. Y Af
s ~ ~4. ~ w Y 1 ~I
f~ ' ~' . .Tr, ~,mN. .~ ~1 .f i? ~~. ~~ ~5'~~.~,.~ ~,~"~ir~~~~ ~trrrosy~~~~'"*~~:4kt~~~~,.,x x ,
?- ~ ` ~.M... ~ ',, . +y- a * ~~~~,~vG..~j~§.r' `'..a~ ~. 1~f,~ ~S ~ ~t"m ..lv ~~
%X "a .t £ ~ a r .. ,'~3.`~ _. ~,'" Y .~ '`~l~s ~ t"4 Y`m' i ~A 4t,•n~. ~ '~'acr ~~
~
Q ~`k . ~ V. . t~.1 i ryti ~ 7ri Y~. S -it' i~ J~.- L
,/ . ~ y d ~R x "! ~ -a~ r . t. .~ r ~ .
'~. ' ~ r . ~ ~~, ~ ~3~ .iN` ~ '~ ' it1S^L~ s,~it ~~^~i : i wi~vs{/~ .~*`~i'Y.'~.r~ .~ .. f ~ 1 ; w
. ~ 5, . ~ts ~d. ~~ q~41'rNy ~29"i'~'~Aht" ~ia'C9y''",r .r?~v r'~~.C. ~ ~ yr a i
~ . i .. ~ .~ .v 7r' ~y u . :'4,, r~ ~„~ 2 ., . x+ ~rH ~-~' 3~- ~'~sl~ ~ SSZ -z ~ .~~~ ?
~ '.~, t. ~e ^ : ~,-~ ~;E~ ~,§x ~ r ~} ~ 'x"~~ ~ ~ c # r ~`~ ~' Z` .vv~?~„ ~ '~
<. xm: 3 ~~g4,~ ~v ~ ~w~~
'~ ` .~~y- '~}~' - ..~, ~ r ~~~~`4'S~4 `~cf ~i YlY~'4 t . '~~ ' ~ C"cu4~'~ ~,=*~i" `.~,~~ ;Y~~ r m~n~ ~ ~t > ~ ' Mr i ~' #
`~ "R ti' r 'f+ N+.. `: il~""., '~ ~' ~ f Y~ lt ~'tFV '~ h 1 Y
?•,'~ ~ ~'~cxA'~~ ~j 3s ~a'` t'"'~ k~ ^+~~~j ~ T arr -t ?r ~ ,, ~ Jv. a, -c.. ~ . ~
~~ i 4~ t,: ~ 7r . ~7 ~ur '"'p ~1. 4~CY~~~ 'ir~{~, S~.$ , "'' f~ tPau ,~ `t-~,~~~mi t~*~? ~ lg.,i i di v. r~ sas)
-,c~r~iSiti .TI ~ ~~ ~Y7R'~f"'w-~ ,r~"~?F~4+~±~ y~~~~i ~ Y'~t.~ w ) kJ e~ ?! k .
?'~ ~y 1~to`~ Ary~ r ,~ ~ i s~~~ c~~. Y r '~` Y aw s~
i F';'~~ x 7i. ~~~~!yq i'~a+k~d' ~~'Fa~ ~~ r ~` y y~, ~5~+ ~~r ~: ~<~~Y !~a3 l, C~' } j 1 r ''
* ~ ~i~ 1'"u.y,.~. A~Y' . y ,Rrtd' t~ 7( x. twf k "~'°~"a ~K•it. r ~'S~~ ' ^" !t','~ `"'?2~y' ~ "+y~r'1ix ~` ~?' t 4' ~. 4^' i 7li : ~ ,~ .
T T•.y s'l ~ L,.~ ai r~" '~' t1 t~~ ~,`,d~ ~y~rr~~lY . y~rip s ~" t~s~,.y f~ ,.1'4~.}'~`a', )~~ ~r
''P~.~~51~vi7~~r~,, A+~ Rc4 r~r~ ~ hGy., n,,,r > r~ ~!j rqy3a~ "-;~ +` nn ~rii'N -Ir -S ,~.
~,AI:! -i 7~,~ a~ : :$.~~`~SJ qi'Lr~.h~~~-'F$.,,M,+._ ~s~6~~~~5 . ~:. 3 ~',,3~..uv~ r~ ~" ^' l i: "`L FT rL' ,.r x .. ~
~ >x 1~~ ~ ~ ~ r4^ s ~ 4} k..~~ ,~ .:.+„~i. "c~ ~+~ ~+~?7*,,~ t i^h~y 4 ,...~~ c C" ~ :
, ' r ~~"' ~ s• ~~"~.+.Sr~ ~ ~~ ~ ~' ,K-"~-~,~!{~ , ~n ~'ti~ or~~ ~f ~,j,{.y~ '` h ri ~Yr s. ,y ~t'. ~>r 1 , `'` i . l~ ~
: ~R r,r "q ~ ~' lt`i r ~r • 6•~»wki 'gaf<~~y~.~a 't r ~ 1 ~ 4~: 'C'4^i ~ ~ "~"17~' 7 7'~ `~ h 'A ~~t a Y ~ ~ i ~ ~
, `` ~~.~.ti:~~~'~.~~ra-' i . ~~~ 7 ri . ~ ~~ .i~„~ ~`~+,~'S°.~~s, nt zJ ~'~G,~ '...~~'<x'fi'~ s' - 'y ~, i'2. a +- ~ e <~~. ~'~ . .
„ .,n ',!`i •sti~.~ :v7~^i.4~5,~i.~t ,...:~.x ~ i,.r G:~.~.5 ~. r-:'ist~.'r.". w .~S%.r_o. .._ ^~;,.~.~. ~'... . .cz.?:r,F:i: . . . ........_ .. .. ~ ... ...~ ,. „ .+ . . - . . '
~
'~aL ' KS - ~^Sn,,~z TzS.!'~"FY,.',x~~,j~,~%1,~1`.,~i`7rt . r'e "-Y7 ~.~. '"h Lr+S„SS.L~+~r ry"~,~""in ,~K',~$' ~'~h. ~ M1r.`: ~ M„~' z 7 -~.. ~~~ ..
- :.~,'-..'-6ze~.:4:Y'e'r.'x.,.?~.Y,~.,~u,:5, Y " ,. ,. 1 .JK.,,'},~r a~.a~J t~ I'-~' ~ ~
,.,.WK~ _~ : . , . , . .: _t~.~~~-'' ~ ~~~~.o ,..,.: ..~~a~:'_;
. i ~•~ L, ~ ~ ~,'~.'. ..`.J?~- . ~.$ . ~.p - . . . . -~ ~-- - . . . . ~ : ~ .._ , ~' ` .,v ~. -+r- ~~ _r~~ '~~
.. ~ ' - . . . ' . ' , ~ . _.. ... ..
. . .. . . . . ' ' . . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .
. . .. ~ . . .. . .. . . . . . ` . 'i .. i ~ .