Resolution-PC 2002-76• •
RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-76
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2002-04494 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for
Variance for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California
described as:
PARCEL 1: THAT PORTION OF LOT 11 OF ANAHEIM EXTENSION, IN THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A
MAP lV1ADE BY WILLIAN HAMEL, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 95 OF TRACT NO. 1565, AS
SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 49 PAGES 20 TO 24 INCLUSIVE OF
MISCELLANEOUS NAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; THENCE
NORTH 15° 16' 04" WEST 175.00 FTTET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 94
OF SAID TRACT NO. 1565; THENCE NORTH 74° 29' 40" EAST 225.00 FEET ALONG
THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 94 AND ITS EASTERLY PROLONGATION TO
THE CENTERLINE OF PLACENTIA AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF TRACT
NO. 1565; THENCE SOUTH 0° 10' 55" WEST 181.77 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE
TO THE EASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THENORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 95;
THENCE SOUTH 74° 29' 40" WEST 176.58 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL 2: LOT 94 OF TRACT NO. 1565, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF
ORANf~E, STA~E OF EALIFORN~A, A~S-P€R MAP -k~EEO.RD-ED lN B-O.OK 49 _P_AGES 20.
TO 24 INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center
in the City of Anaheim on May 20, 2002, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly
given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter
18.03, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make
findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and that the hearing was continued from the May
6, 2002 Planning Commission meeting; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made by
itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing,
does find and determine the following facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes waivers of the following to retain un-permitted modifications
to an existing freestanding sign:
(a) Sections 18.05.093.020 - Maximum area of freestanding signs.
and 18.44.067 (65 sq•ft• per face permitted; 160 sq.ft. existing and proposed)
(b) Sections 18.05.093.050 - Maximum height of freestanding signs.
and 98.44A67 (8 fset permitted; 31 feet existing and proposed)
2. That the above-mentioned waivers are hereby denied.
3. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to the property or
class of ~se in the same vicinity and zone.
4. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the
property in question.
CR5366DM.doc -1- PC2002-76
C~
•
5. That the requested variance will be materially detrimentai to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property 6s located.
6. That the nonconforming status of the existing freestanding sign was lost when sign
alterations were made without Zoning and Building Division approval; and that Commission has been
approving Code-conforming monument signs for service stations;
7. That there are no special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the
vicinity; and
8. That strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges
enjoyed by other commercially-zoned properties under identicai zoning ciassifiication in the vicinity.
9. That no one indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal;
and that no correspondence in opposition was received.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: The Planning Director or his
authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of
Categorical Exemptions, Class 11, as defined in the State of California Environmental Impact Report
("EIR") Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby deny subject Petition for Variance on the basis of the aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
May_20, 20Q2. _ '
_ ~(~"~-V
CHAIRPER N, ANAHEIM CI PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~~~~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Fernandes, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning
Commission held on May 20, 2002, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ARNOLD, BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, EASTMAN, KOOS, VANDERBILT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BRISTOL
_ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ~°~ r~ day of
~ c~ t~ 2 , 2002.
~i~.~-z- ~.~.+~-~-~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-2- PC2002-76