PC 69-120RESOLUTION NO. p~69-12U
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AATAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2085 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Aneheim did receive a verified Petition for Verience from
HUGAS CORPORATION, 1786 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92801, Owners; ERNEST F.
PELITIER, 1786 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim9 California, Agent of 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 Ciry of Anaheim on
.June 2, 1969~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public hearing heving been dul
law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim ldunicipal Code, Chapter 18.68, to hear and cons der eviden eafor
, end against said proposed variance and to investigete and ma4.e findings end recommendations in connection therewith;
and
WNEREAS, seid Commission, efter due inspection, investigation, and study made by itself end in its behalf,
end efter due consideretion of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and detennine the following
facts:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Aneheim Municipel Code: with waiver of Section
18.62.090(B-2) - Maximum permitted height of a free-standing sign. (25 feet required;
60 feet proposed).
2~ That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or co~ditions
aoplicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do apply
generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zoneo
' 3. That the requested variance is not re~essary for the preservation and enjoyment
; of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zor.e,
-, and denied to the prope:ty in question.
- 4. That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to t he public welfare
o* injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property
is located.
5. That the petitioner did not submit evidence that a hardship existed, proving that
signing in accordance with Code requirements would be detrimental to the proposed development.
, 6. That approval of subject petition tvould be granting a privilege to the o~vners of
; subie~t property that is not enjoyed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zone.
I 7. Tt,at the service station is not a freeway oriented service station and therefore
~ =ignin~ should not be permitted on subject property simply to allow the service station to be
identi:ied from the Riverside Freeway.
£~ That the approv~l of subject petition will set an undesirable precedent for similar
requests ;rom other businesses in the area which arealso in close proximit~ to single family
h resider.tial developments.
V 1-D
• 1-
~
~
,, ;~~ .
_ .' ~ + 1 •INSU~cD
i ! • ' -,. , ,,. .
I•iUGA;i Ci~~~;f~ui2M i i vh o A OELA~ilAR~ C~RPGRAT : GN. . ~'~~~~ ~~~~ c~;~ J~
~ ,~ ~-
lo i TF;,;:. 'iU Tn[~; 5iF~?~ OR INTEREST COVEftED BY 7HI5 FOLICY Ai 7hE p;~7[
HC•:i ii"~ :.5 V~Slcb iN~
tlLl~i,'1~ ~:;.)~ii'•i)~t~'f:()~Vn q p(:LAk'i11~(; COi~F0~~A7I0N• .
~° i~;~ =:~i,:Tr; ~I2 INiEREST IN THc LAND GESCRir3"tp OR R~~•~~CiC"c'v 7C I,\
~C•rtcDU;.c C C~~VE~ZEO GY 7HI5 POLTCY I5+
, _ . j
~ ` A~:sE ~15 7A F~ARCEL 1 AND• AN cA5E~SGN7 N0~2E PAR7TCULAR~Y J~SCnIS~p
_ AS P;,~;C~L 2o I ~
- /' • I - i .
. I • I ~ 1 0 ~J
I ~ y.. .
~ ! . ~ .
~ ' P~:G~L . •'^•
, • ~, , _,~,..,..,,,._.,_„ _ .
'fhA i^G:2'i i0N Q;" L07 5 0(= 7Nc J~ ~~ rn~~oi? •; r<tic~r : Ir~: TN:. C i i Y
! . c~ r~~:h~;~:~i~ L0:!~1Y QF OR:~AGEp j7A1'~ OF Ci;Lir'Ui:ivIA~ AS FL~? i~i,P
I. - F~CQftD~D :~\ 6COK 36 PAGcS ~IIv 99 rPJD 50 0~ i~:SCcLL,%Ni:0;:5 ;cGGF:DS~
~ IN ,7H~ ~f~~:C[ Or 'iHE COU~V71' RE.COf<DER OF LUS AP~GEL~S CvU,~;Y,
CAL.FGn~~;A~ ~OGETH~?i< l;'I7!•t 1'HA7 POR7:ON OF ;,Oi 4 Ifi S~C'(;0;:
~ 4s tC1'r:\SHTf 4:i0U7H> RANuE ~) :ti~ESTv ~A~; BERNARDIfdO i~ER:~iA,`;
~ I~~ SAiii CI7Yy COU~TY Q'r ORANGE> SiA7[ OF CALIrGi2~Via.s r.CCG~:~ii~G
~ 1'0 TH~ OrFICiAL ~LkT 7FIE~.::OF pESCRIDED A5 A wHGLE p.; ~r,LLC;;Sj
~ i's: G~;•wX:h'v ~\T 7H~ ~10?7Hi~:E57 CGRt~cF; Oi' SNiD L~T E/ THCI~C~C ;-t G~'
THE i:0,~ i;~"R~y r~i~0'tGVGAr I OV OF 7ii~ , `~~~
~ '~'~::SiEKLY LiNC,G~ SA:C LOI
6::OR'iH :%~ p0' 'l.i:° ~lE57 SOa65 'r~E7: 7~iEPlCE NuI~TH %~° 4~' ~4"
rA57 9fi ~~3 Fc:`c i~ 0 7HE TFUE P0. iV7 Cr I3~G i h~: ~~G : TrictiCE ;~:G:~; ~I
~~~° ~*~' ~=.° ~.~ST lOG.f35 FEcT TO iHG CFNTcF LI;i:: GF J~Fr~:;;jp;;
%+~~~~i ~:.OO.QO FEc"T LJID~9 AS DCSCi1:pED I,ti f~Af2CF.! 1 Ur "~rlc: ~;_~~j
,' TO C: i Y OF A~V~aHt'-.iP1 nEC0;1DC.D Wi/~Y ~~ I9 1~)6t3 IN L'OOK f;i~Q:% ~/.Gc
255 GF O~FICiAL RCCQI2D~~ TH`.~PvCE SOUTHL'ASTE:ftLY ALO~\G f,f,:p ~;;;~',-tk
• ~iA:c 'i0 AND ALO`G THE CENTER LIhE OF J~Fr~R~ON Sii:~~T; 1~p,,;;~
`rcci 'rl:DE~ AS DESCRILiED 1N 7HE DE:EU TO TH~ CITY OF AP.r:,Y,c?,v,.,
RcCO:DcD A?,4IL i5: 1968 IN BOOK II572 ?AGE 730 OF O~FiC:h~ n~CORDSs
+0"irl° NOR7HER~Y L:NE Or BATAVIA Si2EcT~ t30~00 F~Ei 91iQE~ ;,ti
. ~NOt;~,1; OV 'fNE ~•itiP Or TRAC7 N~. 4e43 1~5 ?E~ t4AP RcCU°D°D i h: u0v^}:
' i95 ?:;GES 3~ TO 37 iNC1.J5IV~ Or MISCi:L;.lu~:E0U5 MAPSo I~\ ','r;~
C=f,Gc OF TNE COUNTY R~COROc"R OE',SAID COUN.TY: 7Hc,\CE iv0;'~;i~g;;:R~Y
kLOitiG SA:~ BATAVIA STRF.ET TO A LiitiE 41H?CH f~c"KRS P;C~+'~T~i ?.,~ ^.
. 26" 1~1~~7 hA:D t~1H:Cf-i ?AJSEJ il-I(inUGri 7riE TRUE pOINi 0~ !i=G:P;l~:4G7
~ .itiEiVC~ I~~R7H 14~ 14~ 2b~' ~;w57 i0 iHE TkU: POi~VT OF oEGiNi\:1:i~
t ~ .. i ~---~-~-.-~.,.~,~ . .
a
i -~
r:
~'
i:
i
f
t 1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Anaheim City plenning Commission does hereby deny subject
Petition for Variance on the basis of the aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and epproved by me this 12th day of June, 196g,
~~e.-~,.~ ~1 ~oL;.~o~
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~
SECRETARY~ANAHEIM C T PLANNING COMMISSION
PRO-TEM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I Lee, Burgess
~'~~s + Secretary of the City Planning Commission oE the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify thet the fore-
goinv_ resolution was passed and edopted at a meeting of the City plenning Commission ofthe City of Anaheim, held on
June 2, 1969~ at 2:00 o'clock p,M,~ by the foilowing vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Nerbst, Thom, Rowlsnd, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
IN WITNESS ~9HEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hand this 12th day of June, 1969.
~! '
i7
~
:~
1
:~ * ~
~I ~ I
~_~/~ " / ~ i ~).
SECRETARY~ANAHEIM CITY LANNING CUMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0. ~120 PRO-TEM
V2-D
-z-
~`~:.tr>.
J ~