PC 1964-1965-1642~
RESOLUTION N0. 1642, SERIES 1964-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNIIQ(i COlOiISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIN
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1705 BE APPROVHD IN PART
NHLREAS, the'Citq Plw-ie~ Commission oE the Clty of Aaahdm did ceceive ~ verified PetiUoa for Vad~ace &om
'SAMUEL AND ALMA k!. rOP, 420 South Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, CalifornieS~(~+ars; RAY STOBER
COMPANY, P. 0. Box 2377, Gardena, California, Agent, of certain real property situated in the City
of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as the souther'2y 200.00 feet of the
~easterly 203.00 feet of lot 3 of Golden State iract No. 2, as per map recorded~ir book 4 page 68 of
Miscellaneous Mlaps, in the office of the county recorder of said countys EXCEPT that portion thereof
included ~ithin the fallowing described land: Beginning at the southeasterly corner of said lot 3,
the easterly line of said lot being the center line of State College Boulevard'{~f~'merly Cypress
Street), 60.00 feet wide, shown on said map.as an unnamed street along the eas~eTlz side of said lots
thence North 0°00'S0" East 85.48 feet along said center~inej thence North 89°59'10 West 30.00 feeti
thence South 45°27'07" West 49.09 feet th~nce North 89 04'57" West 596.27 feet parallel with the
southerly line of said lot; thence Sou~h 0 05'29" West 50.01 feet to said southerly line~ thence
South 89°04'57" Fast'661.33 feet to the point of beginninq~ ALSO EXCEPT the easterly 30.00 feet
thereof ; and
WHEREAS, the City Pl~ania` Com~ doa did hold a public heariaa ~t We Ciry H~11 in the Ciry of Ae~helm oe
May 24~ 1965, at 2:00 o'clocY P.M., noUce of sdd pubIIc he~rin~ h~ving beai dnly dveu ~s requieed bY
Inr aad ia ~ooadmce wlth the peovieloes of tha Aa~heim Municip~l Code, Ch~pter 18.68, to he~r aad condder evideace for
and apiaat sdd propo~ed wri~nce utd to investi~te ~nd make findlnQ~ wd recommendotlorts ia connection therewith;
~nd
WHEREAS, sdd Commission, afta due ia~pection, iaveetlQatlon, ~nd study made by itself and ia its behdf,
oad after dne con~idaatlon oE dl ~wid~snce and cepotts offeced as sdd headng, does find and deteemine the followine
fads:
1. Th~t the petiUoaer requesb ~ v~d~nce irom tlie M~heim Municipd Code: Section 18.62.090(b-2) which
raquires t}iat the maximum height of a free standinq sign shall be 30 feet to permit a 50-
foot high free-s£anding signs Section .18.62.090(d) which limits the location of a free
standing sign within 300 feet of a roof signs and Section 1R.62.100(a) which prohibits a
roof sign in the M-1, Light Industrial, Zone.
2. That the Commission does hereby d~ny the requested waiver of the maximum height of
a free standing sign, based on the fact that no hardship was proven or evidence submitted
which would wazrant the Commission granting the requested waiver.
3. That the requested roof sign waiver is permitted based on the fact that it is
considered a wall sign since it is part of the structure, but shall not be erected higher
than the permitted 30 feet.
4. That the location of the free standing sign within 300 feet of the proposed roof
sign is deemed a permitted location based on the fact that thE proposed roof sign is
considered a wall sign.
5. That a letter of opposition was received~
Vl- A '1'
.: ;s
N~N, TI~REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Plann~ng Commission of the City of Anaheim does
hereby deny the request for waiver of Section 1R.62.090(b-2) maximum height of a•free-•standing
sign on the basis of the foregoing findings.
f
BE IT FUR'IHER RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby grant the reaminder
of subject petition for V~rianceyupon the fallowing conditions which are hereby found to be a
necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of t~e subject property in order to preserve the
safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim.
1. That the owners of subject property shall pay to the City of M aheim the sum of S2.00
per front foot along Via Burton Street and State College Boulevard, for street lighting ptaposes
2. That Condition No. 1, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the time that
the Building Permit is issued or within a period of 1R0 days from date hexeof, whichever occurs
first, or such further time as the Commission or City Council may grant.
3. That adequate clearance of existing electrical lines shall be provided as required
by the Electrical Division, Department of Public Utilities, and the State of California G.Oo95~
4. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and
specificatione on ffle with the City of Anaheim, mazked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, provided
however, Lhat all signs both free-standing and wall or roof sign shall not exceed the 30 foot
height limitation.
THE FOREGOIIdG RESOLUTION is si~ed ~nd ~pproved by me this 3rd d f June, 1965.
(A~i!~ ~`~3 G[~/~/
SECRETARY ANAHF.IA1 C1TY PLANNIIVG COM6[ISSION
STATE OF CALIFORMA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ~~.
C1TY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ I~: KT9bRt, Seccetacy oE the City Pl~nain` Commiasioa of the City of M~heim, do heroby certify th~t the fore-
~oing tewluUon w~s p~ssed ~nd adopted at ~ meetin` of the City Pl~nnine Commi~~loa of the City of Anahdm, held oa
May 24~ 1965, at 2:00 o'dock P.M., by the followiae vote oE the membecs theroof:
AYES: COh11SISSIONERS: Cacnp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland"
NOES: COI~lIISSIONERS: None.
ABS~NT: COIU[1SSIONERS: Allred.
IId WffNESS WHEREOF, I e~ve herennto set my h~ad thi~ 3rd day of June~ 1965.
J ~
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PL G COMMISSION
ATTEST:
RESOLUI'ION NO. 1642
V2-G
SECRETARY ANAHEDI CITY PLANNING COiOAISSION
_2.
_ ~~ ~..:, ......_-x:, .. ..., . _.. -.,..... _ . _ - - -- -- ~