PC 68-299,
;
~,
, , . , .~ ^^:i~~..,~ - -- _ --- - -- --
~~
RESOLUTION NO
i
. _.:_~__------------
~~
PC68-299
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2019 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planrting Commission of the City of Aneheim did receive a verified Petition for Veriance from
KATELLA ASSOCIATES, 1661 East Chapman Avenue, Fullerton, California 92631, Owner; HEATH AND CO.,
INC. 3225 Lacy Street; Los Angeles, Cali~fornia 90031, Agent of certain real property situated in
the City of Anaheim, Cnunty of Orange, State of California, described as the West 240.00 feet of
that portion of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of
Section 23, Township 4 South, Range 10 West, in the Rancho San Juan Cajon de Santa Ana, as per
map recorded in book 51 page 10 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the county recorder of
said county, lying East of the East line of the West 1000 acre of said southeast quarter of the
southwest quarter of the southeast quartPr. EXCEPT from said West 240.00 f eet that portion
lying within the North 10,00 feet of th~ 8ast 60.00 feet of the West 336.00 feet of said south-•
east quarter of the southwest quarter of the southeast quarter.
; and
„~ ;=~ WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Aneheim on
r, October 7, 1968 at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public heating heving been duly given as required by
'? law and in eccordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chepter .18.68, to hear and consider evidence for
:;~~ and egeinst said proposed variance and to investigate end make findings and recommendations in connection the~ewith;
~ and .
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation, end study mau~ by itself and in i4s behalf,
and efter due consideration of all evidence and repods offe:ed at said hearing, does find and detennine the following
facts
1. That the petitioner requests a veriance from the Anaheim Municipal Code as follows~ to permit the
installation of a free-standing sign:
S~CTION 18062.100 (b-1) - A7aximum area of a free-standina sian. (100 square
feet permitted; _i82 spuare feet proposed).
2. 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 use in the same vicinity and zone.
3. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other properiy in the same vicinity and zone, and denied
to the property in question.
4. That the request for an increase of 82,~ over the permitted size sign in the M-1 Zone
would establish an undesirable precedent for similar requests on properties in the industrial
area, eso?cially those properties immediately to the east and west presently being used for
res identi.al , purpos es.
5. That the approval of subject petition would be granting a privilege not enjoyed by
other industrial properties, and the size and shape of the parcel is adequate to permit develop-
ment in accordance with the requirements of the zone.
6. That no hardship had been proven that the petitioner was being deprived of a privilege
generally accorded other property owners in the area, and that the originai plans of approval
indicated signing that would identify the use adequately.
7. That signing in conformance with r=quirements of the M-1 Zone would be adequate for
identification of subject property and any industrial property affording the best protection
for any development in the industrial zone.
Vl"D• -1-
1
;
Y
:7
~s°°"~`~"o~..e..~'~L~
_..'.:'"~-A.S,~.~.r.!;~/' '~ ~~~ ~~~
.,~
'~
.n~;!
:r,;~w~ ~._ .. V,~
~ ~,_~i`:..s . . _~...
~ ~§ . . . . ... . ~
r
~
.~
4 .; ~ ~ .....~ .
t t , ~ ~~
' sA..+~--.~__..._..._...
:~
~
/ ~
~
__ . '"_"'_ __.......1__"__
t:.~~ t~
~
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 appcoved by me this 17th day of October, 1968.
...~C +
CHAIRMA ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
L~2~
SECRETARY ANAH IM CITY PLANNING COINMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORRNGE ) ss. •
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, • Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
..•~._
going reso~ufion was passed end adopted at a meetinR of the Cit}~ Planning Commission of the City of Aneheim, held on
OCtober 7, 1968~ at 2:00 o'clock P,M,, by the foilowing vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ~amp, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ~auer.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 17th day of October, 1968.
~~~~!/vN/ `~~'(.E~tl-.z/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 299
V2-D '
-2-
)
~
i
~
I
i
;
' '~
~
xi
~;_.:~
-.:~
;7
~ ~
! ~vn..Y.i '.l A Y "_ ~, - ^~. ~ : ! '~s~:.. I.~ y~ '
t ^~ ~ ~I! ~~ 4~S.fi~~. __i~~4_ ~•.•
r - :~ .. i ~ . .. ~~
, , , . . ...,; . . .., . . .. . . . \ . ~. . . ..r ....~~ . . ._