PC 66-141,b i
<
PCo6-141
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 1R4~~ BE DENIED
~~~
,i
~~ ~
~„
;~Y'!lE'REAS, the City Planning Commission oE the City of Anaheim did receive a verified Petition for Varience from
f+:. ~~:'•-:D S. DEV~LOPMENT NMPANY, 5GC South Main, Orange, California 92701, Owners; DOMINICK
SFRL'"'"+~LA, 1604 South Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, Califorr~ia 92~U2, Agent o: certain real
property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and referred to herein as though set forth in full
; and
_, WHEREAS, the City planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim on
November 7, 1966, et 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public hearing having been duly given es required by
law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.68, to hear and consider evidence for
end against said proposed variance and to investigete and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith;
~ and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation, and study made by itself and in its behelf,
and efter due consideration af all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the Eollowing
fects:
1. Thet the petitioner requests a veriance from the Anaheim Municipel Code: `. ection 1~.6?_.090(B-1 ~ number or
free-standing signs permitted and mini.mum distance betvueen free-standing signs (1 si9n permitteo
per 300 lineal feet o: street or highway frontage; 2 signs proposed) on subject property.
2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstan~~es er conditions applicab!e
to the property involved ur to thz intended use of the property that do not apply ge~erally
to chc property or class o: use in the sam~~ vicinity and zone.
3. That ti~e requested varianr.e is not necessary fo: the preservation and enjuyment of
a substantial property right possessed Uy other property in the same vicinity and zone, and
denied to ihe properiy in question.
4. That the approval of subject petition would es~a~lish a precedent ror similar multiple
sign requests in the area.
5. Tnat the large number of signs in the area now t.end to block each other, and ti~e
addition of another sign v;ould on;y serva te benefit one property owner, possibl•~~ ai the
ezoense of anutner.
b. That no ore appeared in opp~sition to sutject petition.
~ V 1-D,
I1`
a
~
-1-
~
, :,._
. ~:... _.:.._
' _ , i
5
~-
,~ : ' %.~_.
~ f 'i
.;
„' ~
~ _.._.__ . .
~ ~ .
~ AL711 LO~N I'OLICY - 11DDITIONAL f:OVFR11f.F - 19fi2
S C H E D U L E A
Am~iunl 4 210,0OO.OU
Namc ~~f Insurc~l ~~~~ ~RT~~ and Iti~GTiLiNT CGTG'O.NY
l. The tiUc t~ thc fes oimplo
in said land is at Ihc iialc hcrcof veslcJ in:
I7 6 ~ Di:V~IAPi•,^+i.WT CO~iPANY, a jo1oC venturo, ec~po~ad of D~2iI1IICK SFiti:COIA
nnd A. IIGRNARD MUTii
~
~
~ .2. Th~~ mortgagc and assi~nmcnls, if any,•rc~vcrcd hy Ihis policy are ilcscrihcil at follows:
IL Dcod o4 TruuC [o accura nn tndob[ednco~ oC fj110,000.00, anJ nnq othoY
. cu~ovnta poynUlo undor tha Ccrmo thcrooE~ racors7ed OcCober 16~ 1963~ io
Book 67G3, P~g~ 801 of QLticinl Racarda.
i Datad: ~etobar 14, 19G3
TtuYtosi il G S Dova]opmcnC Comonnv .. ~--~-• .---~.~ ...•
1 ~ ,
Continued from Page 2 '
•• DESC;iI i,PTZON
estate
.,a ,
~; .
. That; portion of L-he rrore~,~~re~b nu2.rter of the Southeast quar•~er of
• Section 22, in To~~m:,hip 4 Soul:l~, r~an~;e 10 l~lesb, San Bernardlno Base
~~
~•
~~~;
•~~.
~ ,.
i ~"
. , ,~ '
,' and I+Ieridian, ln t;he Ciby of l,i~.~heim, County of Oran~e, Sta~~e of ~
California, described as fol].o~r:;: ,
~,,~~, l3e~innin~ at; a point in the 4lc.:t; Line of the Southeast quar~er of ;;:
'ij sald S~ction 22, sa:Ld point bc:ing located G39.26 feet South G°14~30" ~:;
' ~a.st from the cenber oi' said :1•~r.tian 22, sald ccn~er point bein~ tne +,::
intersrcbion of L-he center 17.r~~ oC Cerritos Avenue from L•he lJes~ with ~; ~~~
~~` the NorLh and South quarber cect;~on llne of sald Sect:ion 22; thence •~'
° , " „~ ~ho~~rn -~n , . r ..
.'North 8 0 i.a~t- 660, i'c. _t: to a 1-inch iron 1 e• as ~
955 7 Pn,
3 5
, a. Nap of survey recorded in ~a~lc 15, pagc 4, Record of Surv~sys, in '. i
' the offiae of Lhe County Recoi~ilr_r oi said Orange County; th•~nce ;;,; .
. SouLh 0°14~45" Last 165.00 feeL- 2.long the Soutl~erly extension of and . ~
. L-he Ea~t line of tihe Northi~rest; c~uarter of L-he Northt~res~ qua,^ter of the ~.~~ ~!
~~ quarter o: said Sect;ion 22; 1;hence Soutih 89°55'30'' 41est ;, 4,
. Southeast ' ~
'~~ 660.77 feeb to a point in the s~.id Ylest 1~ne of bhe Southea3ti quarber ,~ =•
~~ oi' Sectiion 22; thence North 0"'l~E'30° Westi 165.00 feet tio th~~ point of ,' ~``
I `,~'; be6lnnin~,; . `. ~
~ ~` c ~•'i
~a;:.,_,n_:.EXC~PTTDIG TH~REF'130M the North 75 feeb. /~~~ ~ ~ , . ;;~
.,
• , : "~^°.~-^°~ -- - ---~ ',;.':
~
:~
~i -.~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aneheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny subject
Petition for Variance on the basis of the aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 17th day of November9 1966.
~ i
CH IRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM SION
ATTEST:
C-'C ~~i2i~ ~i ; ~ /
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Kc•ebs, Secretery of the City Planning Commission of tFe City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution was pessed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission ofthe City of Anaheim, h.:ld on
November 7, 19069 at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote oE the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, He:bst, Ro~Nland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Munqalle
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: •A• ~= ~~•
IN WITNESS WNEREOb, i nave here~nto set my hand this 17th day of November, 1966.
iL ?'L J2~ ~~. C,_/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
1~
, ~ ~~
RESOLUTION I~`O. :41
V2-D
' .- . - ;,
-2-
_~~ . - ,:,r~
sa