Loading...
Minutes-PC 1968/02/26a~ r ~~ ~ ~ 1 ` ' i - r ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~fl* t ~,'7' 1 ~Prt 1 ~ Y ~ f~ x +~` Y c f~ 3 S J Y ~~ ~ tr rT ~. P S A!~ r '~\ 1~ Y k r ? .. ~4 +Yt4 ~ ~ r Y i"d. t n ~u ' ~ 'I"~:, l N -. ~~~~ . 4~ . ~~~~ . . . . . . ~ ~ . . ~ . T . . ~ 4~ ~r ~ fly. r ~ L ~ ~ Cit Hall y °# Anaheim, California a • F b 1968 26 ;i,„;; ,~ ~~`T`? ru ry e , :<' ~:~ `Ai A'~t€GULAR MEE~fNG OF' TF~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION <~~, REGULAR MEETII4G - A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called , ;,;^°`~ ~ to order by Chairman Camp at 2:00 o'clock P.M., a quorum being present. •~ l~ . ;.,,:L '•5,~-~'J PRESENT - CHAIFfMAN: Camp. - - COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland. ABSENT - OOMMISSIONERS: None. PRESENT - Assistant Development Services Director: Robert Mickelson i Zoning Supervisor: Ronald Thompson ~ Deputy City Attorney: Furman Roberts Office Engineer Representative: Robert Jones ~ Associate Planner: Charles Roberts ~' ' Planning Commission Secretary: Ann Krebs I ~,,~,, I INVCCATION - Reverend William Meehan, Pastor, Anaheim Friends Church, gave the i invocation. ~ ~ PLEDGE OF I. ' ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Rowland led in the Pledge of Allegiance to ':he Flag. ~ APPROVAL OF - Commissioner Mungall offered a motian, seconded by Com~nissioner Gauer, { THE MINUfES and motion carried to approve the Minutes of the meeting of February 14, ~ 1968, as submitted. Commissioner Rowland abstained. ~, „F ~ ~~; , RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC H£ARING. INITIATED BY TI-~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East ` ~ '~ !r'';'i " N0. 67-66-55 Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing to establish property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of approximately 300 ~'' '+ acres of land extending easterly along both sides of Santa Ana Canyon P.oad, approximately 4,000 feet from Imperial Highway, the maximum depths of said parcel ~, being approximately 2,400 feet north and 2,100 feet south of the centerline of Santa Ana , Canyon Road, and further described as Santa Ana Canyon Annexation No. 1, from the COUNTY A-1, 80-AR-10,000, 100-E4-15,000, and 100-E4-20,000 ZONES to the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. INITIATED BY TE~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 East N0. 67-68-56 Lincoln Ayenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that property described as: An~irregularly shaped parcel of land located on both sides of Solomon Drive, approximately 730 feet south of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road, the maximum depths of said parcel being approximately 130 feet west and 540 feet east of the centerline of Solomo,n Drive, the southerly boundary being approximately 1,900 feet south of the centerline of Santa Ana Canyon Road, be reclassi- fied from the OOUNTY R-1-8,000 ZONE to i:he R-1, ONE-FAMILY RESIDENI'IAL, ZONE. Associate Planner Marvin Krieger noted that since both Reclassification Nos. 67-68-55 and 67-68-56 were the Santa Ana Canyon Annexation No. 1 property, it was recommended that the Commission consider them jointly; whereupon Chairman Camp directed that con- sideration be given to both petitions. Mr. Krieger then reviewed the annexation boundaries, the existing zoning, and noted that under Reclassification No. 67-68-56 the single-family tracts already were under construc- tion, and that the balance ofi,the property was proposed for the estate zones--however, the City of Anaheim at the present time did not have similar zones, and, therefore, it ~was deeined advisable that ell those parcels that were undeveloped should be reclassified to the R-A, Agricultural, Zone as a holding zone until such time as development plans were submitted to the City for consideration. No one appeared in opposition to subject petitions. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. 3778 F Y ., _v ,-. ... . ,:~ .: . . I ~ V ~ MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING GpMN-ISSION, February 26, 1968 3779 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Farano offered Resolution No. PC68-48 and moved for N0. 67-68-55 its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification RECLASSIFICATION No. 67-68-55 be approved unconditionally„ with a finding that the N0. 67-68-56 recommended R-A Zone was considered a holding zone and was deemed a (Continued) more appropriate zone since the City of Anaheim did not have a comparable zone for comparatively level terrain properties,only having 7200 square feet f~pr R-1 lots and one-acre, R-E lots, and until such time as the property was proposed to be developed, the staff could give further consideration to larger size lots. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowlar~d, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. • Commissioner Faraao offered Resolution No. PC68-49 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 67-68-56 be approved unconditionally, esta~lishing a portion of Santa Ana Canyon Annexation No. 1 now being developed for R-1-8,000 square foot lots~ in t he R-1, ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.(See Resolution Book) On roll call the fore9oing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: ~MMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: OOMMISSIONERS: None. CONDITIONAL USE - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. ELDEN KANEGAE, 9371 Kramer Street, PERMIT N0. 1001 Westminster, California, Owner; ROBERT MARTIN, 1808 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to HAVE ON-SALE LIQWR IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT on property described as: An "I:" shaped parcel of land located south and west of a 125-foot by 125-foot percel at the southwest corner of Lincoln and Dale Avenues, having frontages of approximately 110 feet on Lincoln Avenue and approximately 105 feet on Dale Avenue, and further described as 2810 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified G1, GENERAL CAMMERCIAL, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of ~February 14, 1968, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised plans similar to those presented to the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed subject petition, the location of the property, the uses established in close.proximity, and then noted that the revised plans indicated approximately 20% of the 9ross floor area would be devoted to food preparation, which would appear to be more closely in line with the definition of an enclosed restaurant; however, the Planni.;g Commission might wish to question the applicant further as to whether the serving of food would be incidental to the cocktail lounge use, or the cocktail lounge incidental to the serving of food. No one appeared to represent the Qetitioner. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. I'he Commission discussed the possibility of continuing sub3ect petition in order that the agent for the petitioner might be present to answer Commission questions; whereupon Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson suggested that it be delayed ur~til later on in the meeting. Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue consideration of Conditional Use Permit No. 1001 to later on in the meeting. Commissioner Farano seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. (The representative for the petitioner appeared later in the meeting.) Mr. Robert Martin, agent for the petitioner, appE:ared before the Commission and stated he was available to answer any questions the Commission might have. ~~~~~~°,I~pt4"~"n/~ ..~us ~ S-.' ~ yr ~+' # ~ xir, mr' / 1 .,S ~ ~... ~ ' ~~ . i w ~ r - ~ 5 ~c ~r, ~ e _, .~,w , . ~ ~ ~ t~ t ,~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 26, 1968 3780 , CONDITIONAL USE - The Commission noted that where a bar and dining area were proposed, `_?' PERMIT N0. 1001 it had been the Commission's sequirement that there be a separation '!;; :;> . '~;.:;;:;; (Continued) between the dining area and the bar; whereupon Mr. Martin stated that since thpy were familiar with the Commission's request, they ~ would stipulate to providing adequate screening between the bar and the dining area. The Commission indicated that the screening must be high enough to screen the area, whereupon Mr. Thompson stated that the type of screening and len9th would depend upon ~ whether booths or tables were proposed adjacent to the bar area. ~,~;%`'N`a> ~ No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. z~u ;. ~~' THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. '" Commissioner Mungall offered Resolution No. PC6B-50 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit ~ No. 1001, subject to conditions, and the requirement that adequate screen~ng bc provided 1~ between the bar and dining facilities, as stipulated to by the petitioner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: , ~`: ~+ A'lES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Ro~rland, C~mp. = ~`='~' ivGES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ; .:;;.~ ;. ~,,::`~~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE N0. 1944 - CONI'INUED PUBLIC HEARING. LOUIS AND MANUEL WALTER GOMPANY, 9465 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 619, Peverly Hilis, Californ~,a, Owner; requesting :he following waivers to pe.rmit a fre~e-standing sign: (1) MAX7JVIUM AREA OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, (2) MINIMUFM1 t=1~IGHT OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, (3) LOCATION OF A FREE-STANDING SIGN, (4) MININIUM DISTAlJCE BETW.EEN FREE-STANDING SIGNS, AND (5) MAXIMUM NUMBER OF FREE-STANDING SIGNS on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located on the east side of Harbor Boulevard, approximately 260 feet south of the centerline of Katella Avenue, having a frontage of approximately 390 feet and a maximum depth of apprr~ximately 405 feet, and further described as 1840,•1850, and 1860 South Harbor Boulevard. Property presentiy classi- fied R-A, AGRIC,ULTURAL, ZONE. Sub3ect petition was continued fram the meeting of February 14, 1968, to allow time for the petitioner to submit revised _plans for a sign that would more closely conform to the area requirements of the sign provisions of the C-R Zone. ~~~`F~ ¢ -r Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the waivers requested, and noted that the revised plans had been considerably reduced - however, they still were in excess of approximately 45~ as opposed to the origina7. proposal of a 52-€oot high, 1,~63-square foot sign. Mr. Louis Walter, developer of the Holiday Inn ~:r.oject, appeared .be£org the Commission and noted that although the sign size was calculated as a square or rectangle, any excess space could not be utilized for additional signing because of the national scope of the proposed user of the property, and that the signs were leased from a sign company and were not the property of the Holiday Inn. Discussion was held by the Commission relative to the possibility of a reduction of the proposed sign by deletion of th~ rays around the star, and whether or not the petitioner had contacted representatives of Holiday Inn relative to complying with the Code require- mente of the City of Anaheim. Mr. Walter, in response to Commission questioning, stated that the star was an integral part of the sign; that he had met with representatives of Holiday Inn and had presented to thern the smaller sign which was before the Commission - they having advised him that the sign presente~ would meet with their appro:al, and if the Cortunission desired a' redaction of the si9n, the Holiday Inn people would attempt to comply and design the sign with all the copy within the size sign the Commission approved; and, furthermore, both the Holiday Inn and the sign company f'rom whom the sign would be leased were ' cognizant of the.City of Anaheim Sign Ordinance since they had similar problems with other cities nationally who also had drafted sign ordinances, and that when a franchise was sold, they attempted to obtain the lergest size sign possible, which also represented considerably more expense in advertising than the smaller sign. CJ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 26, 1968 , T ' ~ p !?' ,r ~5~ ' 4 a~ ~ '~",,i„~^'. ~ r,or ;r:F 3781 VARIANCE N0. 1944 - Discussion then was held by the Commission and the staff relative (Continued) to the height of the sign from the ground and inquired whether there was a safety factor involved. Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that there was no great problem, involved - however, the sign had to be measured from the ground because of the direcitional arrow which bordered the main sign, and since the sign was being placed oloser to the access road and the right-of-way, there might bE some line-of-sight obstruction. A"s. Walter noted that a planter box would be located at the bottom ~f the sign; there- fore, there would be no chance for people to walk underneath the sign. It was furth~er noted by Mr. Walter that subject property ~had three separate entities on the property - namely, the Holiday Inn, the Polynesian restaurant, and the Hansa House - which required three separate, free-standing signs, and that the existing wax museum sign would remain the same size and height, the only change being the wordag~. A letter in favor of subject petition was r~ad to the Commission. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. T1~ I~ARING WAS CLOSED. After considerable discussion by the Commission relative to the revised sign and its deviation from the Sign Ordinance, the Commission determined that if the directional arrow were maintained within the borders of the main sign without having the projection of the arrow, and the removal of the rays emanating from the star atop the sign, the square footage of the sign would be almost within the requirements of the Code; further- more, the sign was large enough to be seen ror a number of feet away, and it was not the intention of the Commission to redesign signs at public hearings, and urged that all sign companies try to maintain the signs presented substantially within the Code requirements. The Commission then reviewed the recommended changes with the petitioner; whereupon Mr. Walter stipulated that these changes would be complied with. Commissfoner Allred offered Resolution No. PC68-51 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Rowland, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1944, subject to the deletion of the rays emanating from the star atop the proposed sign and relocation of the pointed arrow to be within the framework of the main sign, as stipulated by the petitioner, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll,call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followinc, vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, ~.~r•~p. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VARIANCE N0. 1947 - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. GENOVA ROBINSON WINGER, 3818 Franklin Avenue, Los Angeles, California, Owner.; MRS. HUWARD ABHOTT, 731 Cambria Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting WAIVER OF MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACKS on property described as: An irregularly shaped parcel of land containing one acre, lying approximately 290 feet south of the centerline of Crescent Drive and approximately 200 feet east of the centerline of Peralta Hills Drive, and further described as 4938 Crescent Drive. Property presently classified R-E, RESIDENTIAL ESTATE, ZONE. Subject petition was continued from the meeting of February 14, 1968, in order that the petitioner might b~ represented at the public hearing. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property and the proposed request, noting that the revised plans indiceted a 7-foot setback at its narrowest point and approximately 13 feet at the widest point where said garage would be located adjecent to'the southwest property line. Mr. Guy W. Gardner, designer of the proposed single-family home, appeared before the Commission and stated that the revised floor plans indicatea the 15-foot side yard could be maintained; however, it was the petitioner's desire to place the garage approximately 7;eet at its nearest point from the re,ar property line, and it would be set 35 feet from the side property line because of the tesrain and the desire to construct a pool on the level portion between the garage and the house. Furthermore, ~ . ~ ~ ~ i o ~ ~ MII~UTES, CITY PLANNING CAMMISSION, February 26, 196fi 3782 VARIANCE N0. 1947 - the proposed garage would be located approximately 35 feet from (Continued) the home, and a carport would also be attached to the side of the house. In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Gardner stated that if the road were to be widened, only a portion of the setback would be obtained, and all lots along this road had rear yards abutting the street. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a 40-foot easement already was granted; assuming that the private drive was dedicated, said drive could be brought up to City standards - however, the staff was concerned that if the petitioner parked his car in the drive, then the car would be setting in the portion of the ultimate right-of-way. Mr. Gardner then stated that since they were designing a carport attached to the house~ the 9arage would be used mainly for storage purposes, and since entrance oould be gained to the property from the front to the garage, it could be reached from either street. Furthermore, the property to the south was developed to within 5 feet of the property line, but this had been developed while under the jursidiction of the County, and that doors were being proposed along the northerly portion of the garage, which would be storage area; thus'the garage doors would be located on the side farthest from the street. In response to Commission questioning, Mr. Gardner stated that it was planned to have a concrete drive approximately 290 feet in length from the access road to the north to~the pri,vate road to the southwest. No one appeared in apposition to sub3ect pet,ition. -F~ '; ~ THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. { . It was noted by the Commission that the private road, which would provide access to ~ the garage area of subject ~roperty, served only two other homes - therefore, there , ~~ would be very little traffic or problems which might create hazardous conditions alor~g said private road. Further ore the titio r h i ' ~~ '~~ m , pe ne ad ndicated the location ot the r garage doors would be in'the widest portion of the setback. ~,~;~~ , :t;~ Commissianer Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-52 and moved for its g p , passa e and ado tion '~~~ 'di+I seconded by Commissioner Mun9a11, to grant Petition for Va'riance No. 1947, subject to provision of 15-foot side yards, a minimum 7-foot rear yard setback from the private '~N~~a road, and location of the garage doors to be at the widest portion of the setback, ~r":i~';~ namely 13 feet, and a finding that the private road would serve only two other homes ;:~!:~ in i:his area - therefore little traffic would result. (See Resolution Book) ' '`'`}~:; ~ . ~,,. On roll cell the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: ~~: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauers Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. ~ f NOES: ~MMISSIONERS: None. ; ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. ' li RECLASSIFICATION - CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING. INITIAI'ED BY THE ANAHEIA:a C.i:I'Y COUNCIL, ; r- NJ. 67-68-35 204 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California; proposing that - ~~ ri property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land ; ' having a frontage of approximately 112 feet on the ~outh side of i ~+f~ ~outh Street and a maximum depth of approximately 159 feet, the easterly boundary of . ' subject property being approximately 265 feet west of the centerlir:: of State College ''~~ Boulevard, and further described as 1906 East South Street, be.reclassified from the ~!" ; R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the G1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. j,':j;.` ~ ~ ~ . . . . . . ~ ~,.~~ `,i~ Sub3ect pE~ition was continued from the meeting of December 4, 1967, in order to allow !; s- additional time for the property owners to determine the future use of the property ~,~ fii and to present plans for development of the property. ~ ~, Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of the property and t~he present ~ use of the property, noting that the use for a Christian day school would expire in Jvne; that subject petition was initiated by the City Council for C-1 zoning and had ; been continued from the December 4, 1967 meeting for development plans - however, the agent had indicated no definite plans for the property were forthcoming and requested that G1 zoning be considered without plans. ---r-, `_ _ __ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ : '. ~, ;?:f: _ ~ -:. 4 t. . I ; ---~~_ ~"~ ~7 ,~~ 1' ~,l .i~ ., ,, ~ ~r,. ^~ '~ ..~'~?..~,"( r r,.ad 1 :•:y~=ar 7. t:'~ . . - ~ -~-~'-..~.~- l ` C ~ .S; .rt ~,:_ ~,0.3,.~ : ~: MINUfESf ;~t;'~,r ~~LpNNIN; C~~NZSSION F b ~ , e ruary 26, 1968 RECLqSSIFICqTION - Mr~, Ann Madison a 3~83 N0. 67_6g_35 before the Co ' 9ent for the Calvary Baptist Church a P (Continued +-~-~ission and stated that when sub3ect ' pP-ared ~ considered by the Plannin continuance was recommendedCto allownthe developer time to c Was~ with ~ two-months to her last Thursda Precise plans; that the developer had ome up requirements of Y' and since he was from out of town Presented precise conditional use the City of qnaheim ~ he Wes not familiar withlthe permit for the " he did not realize he would have to a processing of a conditional useproposed use; and that since time would not permit~the wanted to proceed with ust Permit before this public hearin t time was that if the develo ere ~-1 Zoning on their 9~ he Present owners were turned down at p Proposin an Property as their thinking at this , least they would have thebc_requiring a conditional use go ahead on that basis in develo in Permit time. P g their 1 zoning to fall back on and could property without loss of any more valuable MTS. Madison further noted that the Calvar ga utilize sub~ect property since last Au ustY Ptist Church had been attempting to set of plans for what she believed would be ahat the developer had come u would require a conditional use very compatible use P With a fine permit, she did not think it should be discussed at this time; that the Commission knew the request for the Christian'daut since this use bX the City Council and later the hiqhest and best use of thisrmitted to operate for a ver Y school was denied size of the lot and the surroundinr~perty was obviously no lonlerited tim=, and since the use of 9 ~-1 Zone, and since the Cit R-1, because of the the day school nurser property for a church was no longer compatible with the developmentufronti~d denied College Houlevard and future commercial deve opments alo~ the continued use of the therefore they were requesting consideration b 9 on State the property to the C-1 Y the CommissiontatCthiSge,Boulevard - Zone. .me to reclassify Mrs. Robert Mathison, 1915 East South Street a tion, stating that her ro ~ Ppeared before the Commission in o conce t PPosi- that the same request had comeYbeforeithet ommissiontwithoutet from subject reclassificatio~r the propert plans of developmentror; - however, thisawastresci dedsand continuedYifad decided to deny the and the petitioner now requests consideration of the C- the property without the single-famil Plans would be submitted, objections to commercial uses a Y homeowners having anno Wlth 60 possible uses for' being occupied b 1 nd that subject PPortunity to present their therefore Y the original owners of the property had single-famil~ '~ , consideration should be given to the~rightssof~theesingleafamilythomeowners as well as the pxoperty owner of subject ~ and, T~ ~ARING Property. WAS CLOSED. y. o Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson inquired of the developer When precise de~celo me plans would be available for processing of a conditional use permit. P nt Considerable discussion was held by the Commission,summarized as follows: 1• The number of C-1 uses requested for the adjoinin denied by both the Planning Commission and Cit 9 properties which had been 2• Commercial uses should be established with a S ate Colle e 3• T h a t t h r e e homes on the north side of South Street and the one lhome on hence. south side of South Street were still being utilized for.single-famil and their rights as residen~ts should be considered even thou h in later these single-family lots would be developed for commercial Y homes, 9 years 4• No development Purposes. plans had been submitted for subject p y, and these were pro ert neede~ to afford some protection for the residential 5• That the G properties. with the residentialruseseadjacentctoisubject , many of which were incompatible plans should be reviewed b property; therefore, development tion of commercial uses, Y the Commission and Council prior to any considera- 6• That the single-family homes should have some protection from commercial intrusion of automobiles, and it was felt the Commission did not wish t ePprove a blanket G7, Zone for the propert ._ .._.___._ . . _ ~7 ->q,.. e~k++~rt ~ '{. ~3~"f~`N1 1;- -i,r~ .~ ~ ~ h ..i. {, 3 ,+'x ~' ~ a . ~' ~ . ~ 1^' ~,1 ~ :~.7~ t ~ ~ ~~~. i ~.-. ~ g ::1 ~!~r. ` ~~ ~ ~ .~'.~C'~~~ ~ , ~~ r s. ~i+~,~~ ~y ~ ~~ a ~ h 5 : ~"'S'"'1"sr~"' t ! ~'" _ ,~.,:~l2`*.iA%~a~~7~ .~ r.~.Il~~~,~.~,~?~`.~ M~:r„S.'k`~.~ .n.~ ., , .~~ r~ .. .~... _ ,. ., . . . ~,1~ ._-~ .. .. , .~~:.m~ n ~r 'gv:~ r .~ :,..`..4~+'}C{~ :.,~~.':~.W/ .; ~r i V ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNII~K'i COMMISSION, February 26, 1968 • 3784 RECLASSIFICATION - The developer (no name given) advised the Commission that a motel- N0. 67-68-35 hotel was being planned for the property, and they were negotiating '' (Continued) for entrance and exit from State College Boulevard - however, if their negotiations did not materialize for State College Boulevard, they still would have the South Street entrance. The Commission also noted that at the last public hearing the Commission had first proposed to disapprove subject petition, and later this was rescinded and continued so that the Commission might have an opportunity to review development plans; that it was the duty of the Planning Commission to protect the residents along South Street ~~ya~~ who would have to face the commercial use which was projected 400_feet °.rom State College Boulevard; and that no statement was made that the Commission was in disagree- ment'~vith anything being proposed. ~ The Commission also noted that in the continuance of subject.petition, the development plans under the conditional use permit should also be considered at the same time; that one of the reasons this was continued was to save the church a filing fee for a new application; and that the Commission had no knowledge of what would be said at .~: the Council hearing. I Reverend Arthur Raney, 2780 East Wagner Street, appeared before the Commission, noting that they had anticipated selling their property to the Christian day school at the time the Commission approved use of the property for the school- however, the City Council was of the opinion that the only use for subject property should be for church purposes, and further, they felt the property should be rezoned to C-1; that the church was being hard-pressed financially since they had been unable to sell the property, and the construction of the church on Wagner Street was dependent upon obtaining money from the sale of s~bject property; that the developer of the property was also the contractor for the church; that the pxoperty ownexs were opposed to the school before the City Council as well as the Planning Commission, and since the City Council had the last say as to zoning on the property, their only reason for having it before the Commission was for the Commission to explore all the facets of the proposed reclassification; and that it was his feeling that the neighbors still would oppose anything projected for subject property. Mr. Thompson advised the Commission that if the reclassification were submitted by March 1, 1968, it could be heard on the 25th of March, and inquixed of the petitionex whether this delay of 24 days would hamper them in any way; whereupon Reverend Raney stated that the delay would not affect them - however, since the C-1 Zone was initiated by the City Council, it was anticipated the Commission would approve this without question. ~ The Commission advised interested persons that it was the Commission's duty to review all petitions presented to them - whether initiated by the Commission, Council or private developers - to determine whether or not the land use was appropriate for the area, and it did not necessarily mean the Commission had to agree with the Council-initiated petition since it was the duty of the Commission to study and find out all facts relative to any petition. Chairman Camp noted that if action were taken by the Commission on subject petition this date, either pro or con, and the conditional use permit was later considered by the Commission, the Commission would have to delay any decision on a new conditional use permit until such time as the City Council acted on the reclassification. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Reclassification No. 67-68-35 to the meeting of March 25, 1968, to be heard concurrently with the new conditional use permit proposed to be filed; however, regardless of whether the condi- tional use permit was filed, development plans must be submitted for consideration by the Commission at that hearing. Commissioner Rowland seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARIIS . JAN AND BARBARA SPYKERMAN, 23605 Neargate Drive, PERMIT N0. 1002 Newhall, California, and SALVATION ARMY CARPS, 129 East Cypress Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; ALBERT A. MARCOUX, 129 East Cypress Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to OONSTRUCT CHURCH FACILITIES on property described as: Parcel No. 1- An irregulariy shaped parcel of land located on the north side of Cypress Street, extending from Claudina Street to Emily Street and having a maximum depth of approximately 158 feet from Cypress Street, and Parcel No. 2- A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the northwest corner of Cypress Street and Claudina Street and having approximate frontages of 120 feet on the north side of Cypress Street and 112 feet on the west side of Claudina Street. Property presently classified C-2, GENERAL COMMERCIAL,.and P-1, AUTOMOBILE PARKING, ZONES. ~, F ~.'. ~;;, ,. .,nr Y a~ .~ `~ 6'.'> ~ : k .:v+~. ^'i .f~~ ,~ty~ #_f __ , ". n •t. •. n :~.Y~~{ Y;~ . ' . : :\. V ~ , MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 26, 1968 3785 ' >~ CONDITIONAL USE - Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject `"'' PERMIT N0. 1002 property and the uses established in close proximity, noting that '-.'' (Continued) the present Salvation Army Church was located at the northwest corner of Claudina and Cypress Streets, and'the proposed use for a church and related facilities would be relocat d th ~ ;; e on e north side of Cypress Street between Claudina and Emily Street'ss that physical construction of said new facili- ;- ' t_ ties was scheduled for 1970, and the r'eason for subject petition was to allow time for the Salvation Army to establish.a capital fund-raising campaign~ and that if the Commis- ~.`•~ ''' sion felt this use was appropriate, at the time prec£se plans were submitted a11 condi- `~'< ~~ '~ ~"" tions could be tied into "prior to issuance of a building permit" for the church, rather ~~' `~ 'f r ~ than the usual 180-day time limitat.ion. c M ~, i: : ~` . Mr. Albert Marcoux, agent for the petitioner, appeared before .the Commission and noted ~. - ' that the plans submitted were concept plans, and he would be available to answer any ,~< questions. ~!' '4 ~ - f Mr. Marcoux further noted that the existing Salvation Army Church was established in the old Presbyterian Church, and said building was now over 100 years old - therefore, relocation seemed to be in order, and the existing facility would provide for additional ~ _ parking after the building was removed. Mrs. Frances Backs, 221 North Claudina Street, appeared before the Commission and ~`4;; il requested that consideration be given to the care and maintenance of the properties ~ r, along Cypress Street between Claudina and Emily Streets until such time as actual jr- ~ t development took place since the shabbiness of the property was detrimental to the ~ neighbors and to the City. ; ~; ' ~ , The Commission Secretary noted that a letter requesting a similar clean-up and maintenance ~~t; ;.~ of the property had been received. Captain George Bauden, Salvation Army Corps, appeared before the Commission and stated the.ir immediate plans were to obtain approval of the conditional use permit to allow the closing of escrows now in effect; that plans were being prepared to clean up the property - to remove the ivy and plants.- this property then being used until 1970 when construction would begin, and the parking lot would be used for a play area for the youth program anticipated for the city; that shrubb~,ry would also be used to establish a small park, and the old home at the northwest corner of Emily and Cypress Streets was not rentable since it was condemned and no one had been residing in the home for some time, and it would not be removed, but the landscaping and yard would be cleaned up and maintained. THE HHARIIS'i WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-53 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1002, sub~ect to conditions and the stipulation that the area would be generally cleaned up and maintained in a r-sponsible manner. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the forego3ng resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: OJMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: OOMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Commissioner Farano left the Council Chamber at 3:22 P.M. CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. ARCHDIOCESE OF LOS ANGELES, 1531 West 9th Street, PERMII' N0. 1003 Los Angeles, California, Owner; REVEREND HUGH 0'CONNOR, St. Justiri Martyr Church, 2050 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Representative; ~ requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN EXISTING PLAYGROUND AS A CONFORM- '~ ING USE on property described as: A rectangularly shaped parcel of land located at the ' southeast corner of Ball Road and Empire Street, having a frontage of approximately 415 ~ feet on the south side of Ball Road and a maximum depth of approximately 735 feet, and ~ further described as 2050 West Ball Road.: Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE . Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, the uses established in close proximity, and previous zoning actions on subject property, noting that the petitioner was proposing to utilize the southerly 174 feet of subject property for a playground for the church and school facilities. It was also noted that due to -~~ n rc~~ '~ .~ ,p e. ~ct s:ay~~ v t;. ~_ •y ~ f- w=-s~. i ~., ~~ _ tR _.. 1!7i O ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNII~ COMMISSION, February 26, 1968 . 3786 CANDITIONAL USE - the fact that Empire Street was to be extended southerly from its PERMIT N0. 1003 present terminus, it would be necesaary for the owner of subject (Continued) property to dedicate and improve an appropriate amount of land for street purposes. Reverend Hugh 0'Connor, representing the owner of the property, appearea before the Commission, stating he was available to answer questions, and that all conditions recommended by the s`•aff in the Report to the Commission would be complied with. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~i~'c`~• ~ _ THE FiEARING WAS CLOSED. I~+ i Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No...PC68-54 and moved for its passage and adoption, ~ ; seconded by Commissioner Allred, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 1003, r' ' sub ect to conditions. ~7':. ~,a J (See Resolution Book) ~;~:,'~~_ . ~~ ~ ~~':: . r; ' On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: -. 'i: AYES: COdN~IISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, n!ungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: OOMMISSION~RS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ~` VARIANCE N0. 1951 - PUBLIC fiHARING. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, 1_ River Road, Schenectady, ':: '~ New York, Owner; ROLLIE H. LITTLE, 6900 Stanford Avenue, Los Angeles, r ` California, Agent; requesting permission to ESTABLISH AN OUI'DOOR ~ ',t STORAGE AREA WITH WAIVER OF REQUIRED MASONRY WALL on property described as: An irregularly ,-~ shaped parcel of approximately 6.3 acres of land located on the north side of La Palma J ~j Avenue adjacent to the westerly boundary of the Atchison, Topeka 8 Santa Fe Railroad tracks, having a frontage of approximately 400 feet on La Palma Avenue and a maximum ~ 1 depth of approximately 680 feet, and further described as 3601 East La Palma Avenue. ~~ ~ Property presently classified M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE. ~~~'~~'~~"~ Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of the p y ~t ~t~ pro ert and the uses ,~; ,!~ 'established in close proximity, noting that at the time the plans were submitted for ~~~ ~ reyiew, the petitioner had indicated an 8-foot masonry wall would be constructed around ~ ~;~ the outdoor storage area; however, upon requesting final building inspection, the repre- ~K ~; sentative of the City had noted the outdoor area had a chainlink fence with redwood ~~ ~~ boards interlaced between it - therefore the request for waiver of the required masonry , ~~~ wall to enclose an outdaor storage area fn the M-1 Zone. ~' Mr. Rollie Little, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and noted '?~ that the storage facilities will be expanded in the future, and that the existing ,~ facility would expand into the present outdoor storage area, and, furthermore, that they ~, were not aware they were not in compliance with the requirements of the Anaheim Municipal ~~: Code relative to enclosure of the storage area - however, within three years this area ;;:.;:,~.' would be expanded and thus would eliminate removal of the masonry wall. <<'~ Chairman Camp inquired that if at such time as the building was expended, would the '` ~ new storao2 area be enclosed with the required 6-foot masonry wall. , " Mr. Little replied that it would be relocated as a separate area and would be at the t+ ~k; extreme end of the property, and said storage area would be completely enclosed with 4 the masonry wall required. ,=;; ; ~ ~; Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that if they consider sub~ect ~~ ` petition favorably, that they specify a time limitation with the priVilege of a time ~~;~~~~ extension upon review by the Planning Commission. 1'M ~ ~i~,'~~~t No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. THE HHARING WAS CIASED. Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC68-55 and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Mungall, to grant Petition for Variance No. 1951 for a period of three years, subject to review of any additional extension of time by the Planning Commission. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano. ~ ,. ~i'iS.t,~/ ~Q ~i + ~ T ! T +g. ^ A' ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING OOMMISSION, February 26, 1968 3787 VARIANCE N0. 1952 - PUBLIC HEARING. MERL~.F A. AND Ti~LMA SODEN, 13581 Eppingway, Tustin, California, Gwners; ~DVANCE NEON SIGN COMPANY, 960 North Broadway, Los A:~9~:~s, California, Ayent; requesting permission to INSTALL A FREE-STANDING OOMMERCIAI. SIGN IN THE R-A Z::NE on property described as: An irregularly she~ed parcel of land h~q3_r,g a.frontage of approximately 83 feet on the west 5ide of Manchester Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 130 feet, the northerly bOUndary of~said parcel~being approximatel.y 395 feet south of the centerline.of Katella Avenue, as measured along the Manchester Avenue right-of-way, and further described as 1811 South Manchester Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE. Assoaiate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the looation oY subject property; the requested sign being proposed in the R-A Zone, where one sign 20 square feet in s~izr is permitted while the petitioner was proposing a 40-foot high and 200 square foot ~ign; that although the proFerty was in the R-A Zone it and adjoining properties were developed for commercial and industriel purposes, and the C-1 Zone would permit a 25-icnt h;dh sign due to the proximity of the sign to residentiel uses along 6Lounteinview 5treet, and the maximum size of a sign would be twice the frontege of 83 feet or a 166 square foot sign; that at the time subject property was annexed into the City, it was reverted to the R-A Zone although commercial and industrial uses had been established in that area, t.hereby making all these uses non-conforming. Mr. Roberts further noted that if the Commission so desired, they might wish to direct the staff to take the area under consideration for a study and initiate the appropriate residential, commercial, and industriel zoning covering the entire area. Mr. Merle Soden, one of the petitioners, appeared before the Co~issio~. and stated that subjeat property was approximately 150 feet south of the Katella Avenue overpass, and the building could not be seenuntil after coming off the overpass due to the number of signs already located there, and he was desirous oF having a higher sign than those in existenoe because of the conglomeration of signs which tended to distort the actuel signing for the property; that the size of letters was determined by the distance they intended to be viewed, therefore, this was the reason for their request for a 200-square foot sign, and if subject sign were required to be constructed at 25 feet, as required in the C-1 Zone, the sign would be obliterated oompletely beaeuse of existing signs and ; a telephone pole. No'one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to deny Petition for Variance No. 1952, and after considerable discussion by the Commission relative to the signing permitted under the C-1 Zone and the fact that the residential uses along Mountainview Street were transitional in character, having fiad a number of zoning petitions approved, Commissioner Herbst with- drew his motion of denial. ' Commissioner Aerbst offered Resolution No. PC68-56, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Allred to grant Petition for Varience No. 1952, in part, requir- ing compliance with the C-1 Zone as to size of sign, namely twice the width of the property or 166 square feet, and granting the proposed height and location of the sign on the basis that the location of the sign as required by Code would distort the actuel signing of subject property and waiver of the required 25 feet for height of sign was due to the fact that the homes along Mountainview Street were transitional in character, and subject to conditions.(See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: C06~AISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: CONIDGISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CO~GISSIONERS: Farano. i Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to direot the Development Services staff to review a11 properties along th Ddanchester Avenue frontage southerly of Kstella Avenue to deter- mine what types of zoning should be established £or these properties and to initiate appropriate zoning actions. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. R gA` } .L'~ ~~ -'t.as5 .rsp r {,^at.~, :'4 .,~,~; ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, February 26, 1968 VARIANCE N0. 1953 - POBLIC HEARING. CLARENCE MAUERHAN, 210 Narcissus, Corona del Mar, - California, Owner; L. B. JACKSON, 1166 1Nest Katella Avenue, Anaheim California, Agent; requesting permission to construct a free-standing sign with waivers of (1) Maximum height limitation of a free-standing ~~; sign; and (2) Area of a free-standing sign on property described as: a rectangularly shaped paroel of land located at the southeast corner of Katella Avenue and.Casa Vista Street; having approximate frontage of 195 feet on Katella Avenue and 250 feet or Casa `~! Vista Street, and further described as 1166 West Katelle Avenue. Property presently alassified R-A, AGRICUIf~URAL ZONE. , ,; Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the location of sub'ect '~r' ,7 property, the proposed °~ variance and the permitted uses, as well as the Report to the Commission, noting that Variance No. 1013 permitted the establishment of a 69-unit motel on subject '~i•operty, and ~ on May 22, 1967, the Anaheim Planning Commission had denied Variance No. 1876 to permit the establishment of a 50-foot high 455-square foot sign with flashing sign elements on subject property. It was proposed the sign would replace the existing sign which was a 31-foot high 250-square foot sign looated on the property. Furthermore, the City Council sustained the Commissicn's action on this variance. , Mr. Roberts noted that the pro,posed sign was 39 feet high, and 440 square feet in area i and was proposed to be located approximately six feet westerly of the existing sign, how- ~ ever the existing sign projected into the public right-of-way; and that the reason for the ~ 25-foot height restrictions was based on the fact that multiple family residentiel develop- ment was located immediately to the south of subject property. Furthermore, a 58-foot high sign was established immediately west of subject property, however, this sign was estab- lished prior to the adoption of the sign ordinance and was now a non-conforming sign. Mr. Barney Jackson, agent, and manager of the Anaheim Travelodge, appeared beYore the Commi.ssion and stated that it was their hope to replace the existiag sign with a new modular sign; that the proposed type of sign did not lend itself to reducing it or lowering it, since this would destroy its effect and would not be repressntative of the ~Yravelodge as it was depicted nationally. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson noted for the Commission that the basic problem was tha height of the proposed sign within 300 feet of the apartments on Casa Vista Street. Mr. Tackson noted that the sign would be hidden from view when the motel adjacent to them constructed two story structures, this being the reason for requesting a sign 39 feet in height. The Commission inquired of the agent how important were the globes or spheres proposed for both the top and bottom of the sign, whereupon the agent stated that these ~pheres would be lighted but not flashing and would be part of the design, however, they were ooncerned that the identity would be lost if the sign were reduced in size and height. The Commission again noted that this motel organization was the second national organiza- tion requesting sign waivers this date, h~wever, if these national organizations would comply with the City of Anaheim's sign ordinanae then pe~haps the sign companies would have to make modifications in their specifications for consideration, where signs would be ereoted in cities having sign regulations. The Commission further inquired as to the amount of reservations which came from•referrals, whereupon ~dr. Jackson replied that a considerable amount of their business came from referral reservations and a large sign was not necessary although it tivould be helpful when these referrals attempting to locate their address. The Commission further noted that designers and builders of signs were presenting a considerable problem to the City since they would not recognize the requirements of the sign ordinance and expected the City to grant variances theretip defeating the effectivo- ness of the sign ordinance. The Commzssion then reviewed the sign to determine how it could be reduced and still retain the effectiveness of advertising the motel, and upon sketching the .~sign deletions as depicted on Exhibit No. 1, which indicated removal of the spheres at the top and the bottom and lowering the main portion of the sign to eight Yeet above the ground, the height of ti.e sign would more closely approximate the requirements of the sign ordinance as well as reducing the overall size of the sign. tdo one appeared in opposition. THE HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Comarission and staff reviewed the recommendod changes to the s=gn with the petitioner, whereupon he stipulated to the reduction of the sign as depicted on Exhibit No. 1. ~ U ~ a 1:. r,•7' ? r u.;":.. ` `~ ~ MINUTES, CIT3f PLANNING CO~dISSION, February 26, 1968 3789 VARIANCE N0. 1953 - Commissioner Allred offered Resolution No. PC68-57, and moved for (Continued) its passage and adoption, seaonded by Commissioner Herbst to grant Petition for Variance No. 1953, subject to a maximum height of the sign oY 31 feet, by the removal of the spheres on the top ar..i3 bottom of ';he sign, and relocation of the main portion of the sign to eight feet above the ground, as stipulated to by the petitioner, and as indicated~on ~xhibit No. 1, and subject to conditions. (See Resolution Book) On roll cell the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CO~SSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: CO~LISSION ERS: None. ABSENT: CONINIISSIONERS: Far9no. RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, 1900 Crescent Avenue, N0. 67-68-52 Anaheim, Californie, Owner; requesting that property described as: "~ A rectangularly shaped percel approximately 9.8 acres of land located on the south side of Crescent Avenue, approximately 660 feet west of the centerline of Muller Street. having a frontage of approximately 665 feet elong Crescent .Avenue and a maximum depth of approximately 590 feet be reclassified from the R-3, MITLTIPLE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL.ZONE to the.M-1, LIGHT ~NDUSTRIAL,ZONE to permit the future expansion of the present research facility.located e~t the southwest corner of Crescent Avenue exad•~Muller- Street. Associate Planner Gharles-Roberts-reviewed the location of subject property, uses estab- lished in.close.proximity, and the Report to the Commission, noting that R-3 zoning was established on subjec•t property in July, 1963 along with an additional 30 acres to the south and west of subject property; that the Genersl Plan land use symbology indicated this.area was appr_opriate.for-medium density residentisl use, with the area to the east being approprie:te..for industrial uses; that at the present time Crescent Avenue is dedica- ted to:a 20-foot half width adjacent to subject property and since Crescent Avenue was classified as a secondary highway on the Circulation Element of the General Plan, it would be necessary that the property owner dedicate an additional 25 feet along Crescent Avenue Yor street widening purposes; and that following extensive review and discussion by the Interdepartmental Committee for Public Safety and General Welfare and the Develop- ment Services Department, it was determined that there was a definite need for an addi- tional street to provide for access on to Crescent Avenue, since at the present time there is no street running to Crescent Avenue between Muller Street and Brookhurst St~eet. Mr. George Shepard, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated he was available to answer questions. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the Commission that a letter was on file with this peti•;ion relative to improvements along Crescent Avenue, in which it was stated that they were ~villing to dedicate the additional 25 feet, however, the street improvements should be deferred until such time as the State of California Division of Highways had a~ore definite information relative to the proposed Crescent Avenue overcrossing of the Santa Ana Freeway. F4~rthermore, if in the interim between definite commitment by the State of California £or saidoverpass was made and the time development of subject property they would make the necessary street improvements required by the City of Anaheim, and would be pleased to submit an irrevoaable commitment to cover these contingencies. Offioe Engineer representative Robert Jones advised the Commission that both a bond and the required improvements would be necessary. Mr. Donald Lewis, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and stated that rather than posting a bond, the petitioner was desirous of submitting a letter agreeing to the installation of these improvements. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commi.ssion that the attorney for the petitioner could meet with the City Attorney's office to dra£t the proper letter of agreement, however, an amendment should be me.de to the recommended Condition No. 3 should require in lieu of a bond, that a letter in a form satisfactory to City of Anaheim be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the engineering requirements upon request of the City Engineer. Said letter to be approved in form by the City Attorney's oPfice. No one appeared in opposition. - }~ ~. ~~ `i7y :~ ,ia THE HEARING YVAS CLOSED. ~~ ~~.M~ y~t . ', r- -•k ~~sr ~,F.xq r}.~Spt~. t~ r r~ t c-~_ .r i i L ~r~, - . . . . . ~ . . ~ . ~ . ~ . . ~ . ~ . ~3;~ .. ~ ~~.. . v ~ i ~, '~t~wr ~..J ~' ~c1t, .. . . , ~ . ~ ~ H~d MINOTES, CITY PLANNING CO~LMISSION, February 26, 1968 3790 RECLASSIFICATION - Commissioner Gauer ofYered Resolution No. PC68-58, and moved for its ';^`~~ N0. 67-68-52 passage and adoption, seaonded by Commissioner Herbst to reaommend to '=':'h (Continued) the City Counail that Petition ~ r Reolassifiastion No. 67-68-52 be ;;;i approved subjeot to conditions, and the posting of a dooument approved '-~+ in Yorm by the City Attorney's Office guaranteeing that installation `'~~~~ of street improvements would be completed upon request of the Cit9 `;,.:~%~ Engineer.(See Resolution Book) ;,.;~~; '~.~ On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CONIDQISSIONERS: A1•lred, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: CONAdISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COt~ISSIONERS: Farano. ti;~ RECLASSIFICATION - PUBLIC HEARING. Tf~ODORE 0. ANDERSON, 1735 West Lincoln Avenue, N0. 67-68-53 and Anaheim, Californie, Owner; JAD~S E. BURHI~~R 1717 West Lincoln ~ Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: a rec- Y, ,~ VARI9NCE N0. 1950 tangularly shaped parael of land having a frontage oY approximately ~ 66 feet on the north side of Lincoln Avenue and having a maximum k depth of approximately 290 feet, the easterly boundary of said ~,,:.~„-~ parcel being approximately 395 feet west of the centerline of Euclid Street, and further ~'~;'':~r',? described as 1731 West Lincoln Avenue. Property presently classified R-A, AGRICULTURAL ~~,,', ZONE. :~='>_~';?: REQUESTED CLASSIFICATION: M-1, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, ZONE ~,;;.: ~: ~;:-:r: }i;K..,i . ~1~~ REQUESTED VARIANCE: TO ERPAND AN ERISTING WAREHOUSE FACILITY WITH WAIVERS OF: ~;.y;:y~ (1) FRONT YARD SETBACIf; AND (2) REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK. Associate Planner"Charles Roberts reviewed the location of subject property, existing land uses in the area, and the Report to the Commission, noting that subject property along with the R-A parcels to the east and west were approved for C-2 zoning in July, 1955, however, the conditions of approval were never comp7.eted to finalize the zoning, and the reclassification petition was terminated by the City Council November lfi, 1958. F4~rthermore, the existing structures on subjeot property were established prior to annexing this area into the City in Juney 1952, therefore, appropriate setbacks had not been maintained. Mr. James Burkheimer, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commission stating he was available to answer questions; then in response to Commission questioning, stated that the proposed 2,000 square foot structure would be similar in materiel and design as the existing struoture, and the garage to the rear of the concrete building would be demolished and the others would be relocated. Zoning Supervisor Ronald Thompson advised the agent that,if these struotures were to be relocated, they would have to meet the 13uilding Code requirements. The Commission suggested the possibility of land assembly of these five lots having a depth of approxima.tely 290 feet and a total width along Lincoln Avenue of 397± feet, which would me.ke a very desirable parcel of land £or development, whereas development of each individual parcel wauid ~resent a conglomeration of undesirable M-1 uses, and the land assembly would increase the va~~te of the land, and could present a potentiel location for a concern which would be an asset to the City of Anaheim. The Co~ission also noted that a narrow d^ive would be a hazard to moving materials Yrom the rear of subjeot property to the street. Mr. Thompson noted that when the owners of the residenae and the outmoded buildings were removed, then the owners could possibly c~~ntact the adjacent property owners to the west to.provide for a mutusl access that would be bene£icial to both parcels for better util- ization oY the property; and that only two buildings would either be reloaated or demol- ished,both being to the rear to the present building. Mr. Surkheimer noted that at the time the bui!.ding had been construated when the property was under the jurisdiction of the County of Orexige, it had met all requirements of the County; however, due to the increase in traffic along Lincoln Avenue the width had to be ' increased to accommodate a major arteriel, thus tha existing setbacks were considerably t~_' reduced. ! ~` ~ ~ ,~ ~, c ., .. ~a. ~;~ .,rc,~ ,~ MIN[TI'ES, CITY PLANNIIVG CO~ISSION, February 26, 1968 3791 ;i~~`y~a~F!~9~'ICATION - Mr. Thompson noted for the Commission that the Interdepartmental - ~'°. ~~~~~.{~8-53 and Committee for Safety and General Welfare recommended that the curb ~•~^~'~ - and gutters be installed since the existing w+~rehouse would remain '~7.q~;`;:: ~n'~+',r.~u NO.. 1950 and very little space would remain or be available for a landscape ~`~~~~+{in~5riued) strip in front o£ the building. The a~ent then advised the Commission that the land~caping in the front of the home would ~ remain for the present and the uses woulcl still remain the same for the property Discussion was then held by the Commission relative to the possibility of denying the real~ssification to M-'1 Zone, although the General Plan designated thi.s area for indus- trial uses, in order that the remaining vacant parcels could develop as a group for its highest and best use; that the required 35-foot building setback along Linaoln Avenue could be maintained unless the existing structure were relocated and this could establish a pattern of development for the remeining lots; fur'thermore, parking requirements would be dif£erent for whatever development that would be proposed, since parking for warehouse purposes was less then other industrisl uses, and the deep narrow lots w~ould be very difficult to develop for industrial purposes, if developed individually. Commissioner Herbst was of the opinion that reclassification to the M-1.Zone should not be approved until the petitioner could comply with all the requirements of the M-1 Zone; ,,:,~, whereupon the agent stated that the property was developed in good faith some years ago, `~~.~;;~~ while under ~ha ;urisdiation of the County, and he had no controi over events which had ~.;;•';r transpired si_ ~ its development. Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts advised the Commission that the :eclassification aould be recommended for denial, and approval of the Variance with specific uses permitted designated for the property, therefore, general M-1 uses would be prohibitedr or the approval of the expansion could be made subject to the exhibits on file, thereby main- taining the property as a non-conforming use, and this would remain until such time as the property was proposed for moru intense industriel uses. Commissioner Allred then stated that to permit the expansion of this facility ~ould establish an undesirable precedent for the ultimate development of the.remaining vacant lots which were deep and narrow, since they would be facing the 5ame problem as sub~ect property hed been faoed with, therefore, a desirable M-1 use for development would seer~ to be unfeasible_and.this set.an.undesirahle precedent for the area. Flirthermore, in z•eviewing the plot plan this would indicate spot zoning in the center of several R-A parcels, and no. connecting M-1 property would be adjoining subject property. The Commission then discussed the po:,ible types of uses for ~ubject property and the types of facilities on the property x~',th the petitioner. Mr. Thompson noted for the Commission that there were several solutions, one being the , possible study of the area in.detail, and the initiation of M-1 for all these R-A parcels, and the other alternative was to readvertise the variance to permit this specific use. The Commission also noted that the types of undesirable structures to the rear of the existing structure.and_the•expansion of this same type of struoture could be somewhat detrimental, but since the City could not require the petitioner to oomply with the building setback stipulated in the M-1 Zone., and-the City had inherited the existing use. similar to uses which had been established throughout the City which were non- conforming having.been established while under tha ,jurisdictian of the County, the Commission could.as..a condition of approval.of the variance require specific require- ments such as removal o£ the aaaessory buildings in order to provide access,and the biggest problem would be granting the expansion without providing adequate drives or turning areas at the rear.. No one appeared.in opposition. TF~ HEARING WAS CIASED. Mr. Thompson-noted that if subject variance were approved and granting of the variance was contingent.upon specific.-plans.of development.,_only a limited number of uses of the property could be.me.de; and.that in order to obtain-any more intense use of the .property.an additional variance petition would have to be filed or rezoning of the property would have to occur. ~ ~ ~~: . ~ ~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING C06~IDEISSION, February 26 1968 RECLASSIFICATION N0. 67-68-53 and VARIANCE N0. 1950 (Continued) ,::A t ~' ,.}, J , . _.. _ N _ '!',i; ~<~', I~ : S?S6 ` y S . . ~.~~.'v[~' Y, 3792 - The Commission then inquired of the agent for the petitioner his ''~~« reasons for requesting the ~d-1 Zone for subject property rather than oommeroiel zoning; whereupon Mr. Burkheimer st~ted that because of the parking requirements of the two zones it was more desirous to . have M-1 zoning. Commissioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-59, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner ~ungall to recommend to the City Council that Petition for Reclassification No. 67-68-53 be disapproved although the land use designation of the ,' General Plan indicated M-1 uses, due to the variety of uses permitted in this zone and '~,;;; the variety of zoning already established in this area, approval of this request would constitute "spot zoning"; that due to the location of the existing structure subject property could not be brought up to s~andards of the M-1 Zone without relocating the ( existing building, or demolishing it and reconstructing a ne~v one; that the proposed { reclassification to the t~-1 Zone in the center of five undeveloped R-A parcels would I set a pattern of development for the remaining parcels, thereby denying the owners of these parcels of their right to develop the properties to their highest and best use; that subject property was developed under the jurisdiction of the County of Orange, and the building setback of 35 feet froa the right-of-way line of Lincoln Avenue had ' not been observed, thus a pattern would be established if the properties adjacent to sub3ect property were developed for industriel purposes and would have a deleterious effect on the proper development of adjoining properties, since a 50-foot building setback is required in the M-1 Zone.(See Resolution Book) ~.,.. I On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CONIDAISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, 6Eungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COt~ISS20NERS: None. ABSENT: COM~AISSIONERS: Farano. Commissioner Farano returned to the Council Chamber at 4:50 p.m. I ' '~ Co~i.ssioner Herbst offered Resolution No. PC68-60, and movad for its passage and ~~ adopta.on, seconded by Commissioner Gauer to grant petition for Variance No. 1950, subject to conditions outlined in tha Report to the Commission and the added condition that all unsightly structures along the east side of subject property shall be removed in order to provide adequate turn~around area for storage activities permitted use; tha,t all activities relative to the use and operation should be conducted wholly within a building. (See Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES: CWdMISS20NERS: Gauer, Aerbst, Rowland, Camp. : NOES: COI~AISSIONERS: Allred, ~ungall. ABSENT: COfu1~AISS20NERS: None. ABSTAIN: CO~GISSIONERS: Farano. ~ Commissioner Allred in voting "no" stated that he did not feel that City should compound the non-conforming uses established in this area, sinoe this would deter land assembly for a better development, and the Commission should not e:,aourage this type of facility because of its deleterious effect on the development of the vacant parcels to the west and east. n~ REPORTS AND - ITEE~tE N0. 1 RECONID~NDATIONS City of Plaoentia Use Permit 68/05 Proposing to establish a golf driving range on property located north of Orangethorpe Avenue approximately 2000 feet west of Linda Vista Street in the CM Zone. ` Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented to the Commission City of Placentia Use Permit No. 68/05, noting the location of subject property and the proposed use and further indicating this use would be looated northerly of the City of Anaheim's northeast industrial area, and that contact with the City of Placentia Planning Department they stated that the petitioner proposes the golf driving range as an interim use of the property pending ultimate development of a more intense use. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to receive and file City oY Plaoentia Use Permit No. 68/05. Commissioner Mungall seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. i° '~ Y ::. ~ . O ~ MINUTES, CI7~Y PLANNING COM~QISST.ON, February 26, 1968 REPORTS AND RECO~NDATIONS (Continued) - ITEM N0. 2 <..~ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 942 Request for termination - property located at 312 South Kroeger Street, ;,•~`; proposing to establish a boarding house. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the Planniiig Co~ission on subject property to permit the establishment of a boarding house for Indian students, and noted that none :s';~ o£ the conditions of approval had been complied with,and contact with the pet~~eioner was ^ made who indicated that she no longer intended to follow through with the conditional use `'r~~,~ permit, since she was relocating her residenoe to subject property. Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution No. PC68-61, and moved for its passage and adoption„ seconded by Commissioner Gauer to terminate all proceedings on Conditional Use Permit No. 942, as requested by the petitioner.(Sae Resolution Book) On roll call the foreaoing resolution was passed by ths following vote: AYES: COM~GISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COGLMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: CO~GISSIONERS: None. ITENP N0. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 961 I Request £or requirement of a masonry wall - property located at 1239 South Magnolia Avenue, proposal is to permit the establishment of a pre-school and nursery school in an existing residential structure Associate Planner Charles Roberts presented a request from Mra Merlin Hooker, 8921 Lola Avenue, Stanton, requesting that the Planning Commission reconsider the requirement of a 6-foot masonry wall along the rear of her property which abuts the proposed nursery school approved under Conditional Use Permit No. 961. The background and evaluation of the Report to the Commission was also reviewed, and then noted in discussion with the City Attorney's office relative to the request of the adjoining property owner, the conclusion was reached that the request had been gr~nted without requiring a masonry wall, and it was questionable that the Commission r,ould have the legal authority to require the construction of said wall. Commissioner Herbst offered a motion to take no action on the request of the adjoining property owner of Conditional Use Permit No. 961 for a 6-foot masonry wall, recommending that the best solution would be a mutual agreement with the requestee and the petitioner, since the Commission had no jurisdiction to require a masonry wall at this time. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. ITE~ N0. 4 VARIANCE N0. 1175 - property located at the southeast corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Vermont Avenue, request for clarification of conditions of approval in granting subject petition. Associate Planner Charles Roberts reviewed the request of the petitioner, the location of subject property, uses established in close proximity, noting that the present opera- tor of the Italian restaurant loca',ed on subject property requesting clarification of conditions which permitted the petitioner to operate the restaurant with specific_hours of operation, and whether a small bar with six stools would be permitted in conjunction with the serving of beer:or wine with meals within the restaurant. The findings of the Report to the Co~ission were also reviewed which indicated that the petitioner had. requested that hours of operation be extended to 2:OO.s.m.., and the.small bar having six stools to be used for the serving of beer and wine after the kitchen was closed. Discussion was held by the Commi.ssion relative to the proposed request for clarification it being determined that sinae the petitioner was.asking for uses not originelly approved and thu request was beyund the scope of the Commission's jurisdiction to approve without public hearing, this should be set for public hearing. Commissioner Mungall offered a motion to deny the request for consideration of the pro- posed uses to be permitted, and directed that the petitioner of Variance No. 1175 fila for a new public hearing, expenses.for said public hearing to be bourne by the petitioner, and to be filed within.30 days to preclude the necessity of having ~he Zoning Inforcement Office and a representative of the City Attorney's office taking legal action to cease and desist. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED. £~ ~~ ~ .«~, ~+ a~~.~~~.A'~* Y~ . t ~',~~'t,~ ~~~,~''e~'`~,,~i~~c7 '~'ir ~~y~~ 4'~s~,^R ''y4i~i.`~'" . y t r~ ..:.. ~7r, v ..,^:-„_ i ~e..~. . '~ .~,.....¢d „ 1 3 '~'%3 ~t~, S..>~.e!~ ~'~'..~..~ w x."<•~ ,-b74,~+5!;. a '~ {y, `: „ i`y" ~~~~ ~~~ ::~. . ~~'~ . ~:.~ ~ ...~. . ., , _ ~ ~. .. .. 'MI1ViJTES, CITY ~PLAbIATINGi'COMMI$SION, February.; 26, 1968 : 3794 ADJOURN~SENT - There being.no further business to disauss, Commissioner Rowland ofYered a motiori to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Herbst seconded the motion MOTION CARRIED.: The'meeting edjourned at 4:58 PiM. Respeotfully submitted, ecreta~q ANAF~I~IA CITY PLA~JNING' OOMMISSION ~ " ~ p~`~~ . . , ~ . , . . . . . . . rj~~y ~( ~ ~ - :1" i~` '.`, i~yi'~'~ sv .1 • i{. *;-y +~,, ~i !]... :'f::i ?'^;. 'i c?`,~' 'i f~"~`i~ ~ .J~~ ~~ ~ VN~_y„ i:.: . .. ......-.. : ;.:. . .. , , : ; , - .. ` : ., .. . :... , ~ w 4 n r~,gi~ f s'"i~`~ S" ~ ~ Y ' ' ~~ . ~ . . A ~ 1'E _ ~ .~ . i I ' . I ~ 1 I ~-~~~ --p ~~ n.~&v aYp.;~trs.• 5~~~ ~ zi~fi[.~~',3..~' ~" 16' ~" t 1,~~, i~-e ,~ „-~ xt R~ < ~i~'~.~r. . ~ '"~ ~ ~;~c~ "- 4 ~ i, ,5 1..ii~ - t f ~ r . v. ~"~c ~ ~r~~.~ fM ~ `~irc~~'` S}' ,1~i.., ' ~ w. sri F+e, .n' ~+,, N HF r ~ ~M t i~ 1+ ~i ~_j~ '#~f`.. + . ~n u ?tt p~ ' F~.,~ . . 't° ~~.5~~'~ l~~^~ '~s M 5}>,`~y r~t ~~, ~~'r^~ ~ ~-{ o - ; -~ -~' L a'd ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ,~r ~' -~~.kx.~ ~,a b,t`~'yi 9 ~~i'~~~~~ 1 ~, `~d ~r~~z~~~+~;b~ ~+'~ , $ r"i~~.,~ a ~°.S~ 1 f~ s~y1 ~p'~ ~ r1 t rv u 1 c1 ~ r ~( ~~. ~ . .,,~.1 ~{ ~ ~i'~'•1~ N ~ 1 _CV~ . ~~f' !4 ~ 1'~ 1~ 'i{~ IRxiM{rt'~" ySy~,~, /~5:.~5~ ~~+~{~'1~'•5.~~ 4. „r t ' ,t ~~ ~ ~~V~,~', ~ YA e c r~` ~ ~ , ~ rr JA(,jJnfil"a'~'y~r }h Gu~i "n, ~s'" . ! ~ .~ ~ a ~L' F ~ ! 8 ~ . i 2 rr ~ i. °~x3`+~r E z ~t t ,Ft t S„ `ls~yrµ"7r~ ~,A'~ .~ ~~s ~ ~ ` ?~~~~~~~~ s~`.~l.h" ~',~ . . ~ a. `~ r- "-~'~+M 7~ ~'+~ r~'~. ,,"t ''a '~ ~ .s ~`'~'~" ~~'~~ i~ ~ y '~ ~~ '`~ ~~ { ~ ~ ~ ~~. . ,rn ,k ,• ~ `+~• r ~ ~W.'~ ~~u~f~yx.. *r~~`rx~~,u}7'{i'~~+7~ ~4~'~ t '~~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~;~ t~x ~ ~ ,~ {~ ~¢~~~~ . . ~ ~2M M1~~~ ~ A' i ~t$'kP } l~ a' i ~h ~ b ~1~, k~ „`9 ~., y, . '~ T,~~,~~'~h ^ a~ '~Ft p ~J~~~"" $~'k,~~ti'~~y~ rt"~ ~~ ~~i~q.7~,~",~ki~~~~~~7 <i4"- rJ~a,h :~ r'~y"~s~t~i~~ L ,~~ t F' - ~ . ~ w ~ c ~ ~ °"~- ~.L I ~ ~ )~ j~.t~.~. ~'yb~,i.. ~ r ~ ~~ Sya t~, ~, , . _ : ?~, x''"4 .. ~.X' '~, e~3 x~,~+'J~,~r~ ~ur4`~~~~~~. x ,~ '~ k _ y,: d'u'~iit~SY a *'~$.K i^ t'~.`~Gt $"~Fn ,.a ~'$~ ~+ .~f,~ . ~W ~ ~' ~. ~ 7 0 +~~4~^r 3 i 'G,~~1, ~ ~ . ~ y ~~ . '~1~~ b~~~~ f~, .; ~ v F: ~ ~~ . ~ . ~f~'~"" . a ' • ~{i ~F`i e' ~i -~^~r~ ~~.n. '4~'C~ ~ rs ~ t~P ~~ ,~ ~ 4 ~~ ' z~ ,~~ ,, ~y vti e M w n ~,r ~ r xT'+i `+cz i(x o- ,I~ :~W':,,.~4~,fi,S~.i', ~dp 17rY .,~i:t,~'~~~'~r~'~4 ' ~j r~'ti`~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ;1~~'~Y~~} § ~~' q"~ ~ f. '~S^n. ~'"i.,~.yH'T )~ '~'!S F'~*~.~~" ~ {~ ~2"~', .f ~1 ~~. i;... .*,s r ^i, ~: .,24` +~~~~~i. i ~"1;~. . 4 '~ i ~E , 'fZS' ~~t~ ~~~1'''~`~ti°i ~4'aki~w ~, r~~a~v n"~`. '~. ~ ~;i r~.,,. v t^'~.. } ~ '~" ~ a"Y ~'IM~x' 9~i,~ i ~' ~~.„~~, ,p !y,$~' `f~ , ie ~~. ~ aY' ~ ~ -G ir'.+{ ~{~Y ~.l iLA. a~ ~'4e*~ 7 7 ~Y ~ ~~~,~1^i ~~ ti .+,~y,~E~w; ,c. 'i .~rt. ~x-r r: C } ,~ ~` ~~ e }~.~a v t7~~~ e~~~,'~ ~ 5~yr'-`+,'3~A 4 K d4. z' A $ .~ M~. t ty~ r ~, r kr `'1 _ a~' .~ ,F~~f^ ' ~'4 i•. ~_ u" . rF~~~~~ • ~ ~~i~"` ~ .:,d."t`' -A ~r,~. ;~ i ~'~i~ `~+ k~ ,,.:(:~ . ~g~i u0.FZ~"'t NG 4~,~' .~ v h A.1`;Z ~ 1 +~ ~. q,E` ~ F~~ p ~`r 1 r ~ r Sy 'F ! r '9,~ , ~~ H111~i7~ 1 ~ 5t~3 i?RY`~ r;7 ~~~y. R w . ~,F ~L x,~ Y~~, ~( ~ ~ T 71 ~ ~ ~ ~'~ .,~ ~` a~ied 'J~1 ~y.~~+ ~~`~. ~ ~ •+~ i ' . ..',~.~ ~ YA~ ~~d~''. 'i X L~~Y :!~'d~;~~S~~+ . 1~t.~~ •~i 1 ~~ ..~, ~ ~I ~4 '-(-F Y lt~+t~/J~31~ ''N~ ! ~y~ ~.i^~9 (' '~~ "j~~~~r.i ~~i t~V '~i~, ~~ ~` i ~ k.~~ ~~~ ~~~F .J•,3+~1 yr~}yxTLy[M&an"nP { ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b"'xc ~kl~ C ~/'l~+ ~ '3~ ~ ~^~l,4 Y r 31 E ~, ~s~ x ~~-a 5 ~ .~~ f » ~C ~ l ~~' ~r~ ~_~~ (~.; ~„-,I~~.k~~'~C ^r.4i ~ h e~' ~? ~':~i Fy~ q?y,c~ ~Pyp x. i r 2 u ~ t~.'i ' t~k ~+ --~,t' 4t :t~ ?t ~ ~ ~~ t~'~x~`v~,~T ~" L x4 c> ~ . `.~''F7'i M' ~.I.R'~"}~' ~. ~ Y~ ~f k . ~ . S. ~' l .a §Li r ~ 7,~ ; k~n T~' 4.~,+,~ !' y. t''^~ ,~ f~ " v ,t~n o F 1 'N ~. 5rt ~.'YF ~ y ~ J < ; r . n ~ . .~e~t ,t~ ~ .' ~'"W Nr ~ek.. ,y,:; 4 P ,u -. .y~~'~'5.1, a {'~'~L fi~t~("..'~'G'y, k ,,, `~e~,~ 'sri'~~1 ~. b'~~ 'Ar$yGy~, fx. '7k'~,t~~tetid +s.^~'~ ... ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ '~ u ~xc~~~~k~, r ~ -~d~r`~'~+~s'~~"ty~~'Y~~ ~;~ ~~. u ,~ i ~ x a7 f ~ ~ „~t ~ ti t U y v, ; . . ~ ,ta~ t. ar~ 't .~ , t ~ ~. '~ I}rM~ ~r Tk ~:~ i` ~Ta {~c' e ~ ~ . ~F~t` ~t ~,i ~,ro'.t "~ ~~• x~,. .-~Sax y*~y s"+ ~ _~2'- ~ ~"~.~''3i^tr u ~r` w~ ~rr'ta~ ~r ' y p2,.~(;., a'~` fn'7~ ~.r 4r a.3~'~~'r'1 ~~y1 ~- '.~ yl R2'~. Y ry ) ~ ~ ^N ^i {\ l~~ ~~ ~ [ ti Y f '~' l .! 2 N Y t ~ N'~P 1 . M iP Ltl" -}~s~'t ~. r { ~ i . ~~~{ ~}r t.. a~r~ y r~ t ia, yz ~t'~ Iy x.. . r~ .. `'~" i~!~,i. ia ;r~ v~1. kv ~F yt fi.~R aN ~1 ;~ _ ~ ~ r sv. ~ ,r ~ h ~ cx ~ r,, ~ t7 a 4w ., 'E ~ i Y s ,*a4k < m4,M ~ , f rP lSid Si ~,~ .. ~ 1 } f {~ 4 ~ ~, ,~.~ l.ax r~ S+ 4.y PL~Y ~~ 9 ~. ~ q,t` .. ~s" 4{..t ~;f}?"'t~r{ ~'SS+~Fr Lq*~' w.: L.,.~'C`y{3.~i; ~~,vn, ~~~ t` ~1 iN n~~~n.ri`~ , ti~~^,hdr `,''! '~ c" '`}'. a ~t, ~v Iu'~'~' li r S~n' ~ ~ ~ ~. A ~ ~ i~ .~ f ~ , ~ y ~ 4 ~I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y 7 . ~.~ r5_ c. 7'~ ~ f i .+ ~ V ~ ry ``~ ~ e n~ ~ S. ZY l f ~, ` S~ ~n ~ Y `~ M1 If 5 4 J'~'- l I~~ ~ ~~i Y i,y4 ~ i'~'' 1.~ ~ ;~.. 1~Ut~j ~. L '~ '~ ~ ~. fs : ~ r .~ ~~ ~ t ~ < t y .c+ . . - . , . ~ . ,: ...:..Y~. , .i~'. ~ +,.~~...~''i~. Si ~'.. 5~.~ . ..-~ 2. ~/..... .~;~I. . 4., t'~,~Y i~.~ . .'C~., . . -..4.... 4;. .t'.. INty.:. , S' ~~~ ~ f~'. ~ { ~ k a~~ ,~' ....~..~:»5.:i ..... a=_r F C. 3 1 Y." ~ ~ : ~ ~ 4 ! ~. ~~ { , ~,; 1 ~ ` '~. I ' 1 1 t 1 i !~ - °~~r 4._w..g:_I . . .. . . ., . . . ~'! 1 P... , .. ' ~. . . ~ . . . ~ , t . . .