PC 73-259~
RESOLUTION N0.
~
PC73-259
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2567 BS GRANTED I:I PAR~
\VHEREAS, lhe City Plamting Commission o( the City of Anaheim did receive a verified Petition for Variance from
PPELUDE DEVELOFMENT CORPORATION, Attention of Dou Gittelson, 91J1 Wilshire Boulevard,
Beverly Aills, California 902Z1, Owner oC certain real property situated in the City
of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as PARCEL 1: The north-
westerly 230.00 feet of the southwesterly 7.00 acres of the northwesterly 20.00 acres
of Lot 10 of Anaheim Extension as shown on a map of survey made by William Hamel and
filed in the office of the County Recorder of Los Ac.geles County, California, a copy
of which is shown in Book 3 page 163 et seq., entitled "Los Angeles County Maps," in
the office of the County Recorder of said Orange County. PARCEL 2: The southwesterly
7l00 acres of the northwesterly 20.00 acres of Lot 10 of Anaheim extension as shown on
a map of survey made by William Hamel and filed in the office of the County Recorder of
Los Angeles County, California, a copy of which is shown in Book 3 Page 163 et seq.,
entitled "Los Angeles Councy Maps", in the altice of the County Recorder of said Orange
County. Except the northwesterly 230.00 feet thereof. Also except that portion thereof
lying southeasterly of the northwesterly line of Tract No. 6294 as per map recorded in
3ook 234 Pages 37 and 38 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of
said county
WHEP.EAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim on
December 10, 1973, at 2:00 o'clock p.m., notice of said public hcaring having bcen duly given as requ:ired by law and
in accordance with the provis;ons of the Maheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.68, to hear and considcr evidence for and against said
proposed rariance and to investigate and muke findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, aftcr due inspection, invesUgation, and study made by itself and in its bchalf, and aftcr due
consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, docs find and determine the following facts;
1. That thc petitioner requcsts • variances from the Anaheim Municipal Code, as follows :
a. SECTIUN 18.62.090(B)(1)_ - Maximum permitted number of free-standing signs.
One free-standing sign permitted; two free-
standing signs proposed)
b. SECTION 18.62.090(B)(1) - Minimum distance between free-standinR siRne.
(300 feet required; 216 feet proposed)
c. SECTION 18.62.090(B)(5)_ - Location of free-standing sign. (Middle 20% of
property required; middle 20% not proposed)
2. That Weivers 1-a and 1-b, above-mentioned, are hereby denied on the basis that the
petitioner did not prove a hardship would reault if two frea-standing signs were not granted.
3. That Waiver 1-c, above-mentioned, is hereby grnnted on the basis that subject prop-
erty is developed with two driveways and signs located within the middle 20% of said prop-
erty would not relate to the needs for the aigning; and that the petitioner stipulated that
only one sign, as psoposed to be located at the eastern driveway, would be acceotable.
4. That r.here are exceptional or ext-aordioary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved or t~ the intende~ use of the property that do not apply generally
to the properky or class of use in the came vicinity and zone.
5. 'fhat the requested variance, as branted, is necessary for ti~e preservation and en-
joyment ot a subatantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
and zone, and denied to the proprrty in question.
6. That the requested variance, as granted, will not b~ materially deCrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in
which the property ie located.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDIidG:
Thak the Planning Commiesion, in connection with an Exemption Declaration St,atua requeat,
finds and determines that the proposal would have no significant environmental impact and,
therefore, recommends to the City Council that no Environmental Impact Statement is neces-
sary.
DEV-66•E
~ ~
in part
NtlW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED L~at the Aneheim City PlennIng Commission does heceby gran~ subject
Petition for Variance, upon the following conditions which are heceby found to be a necessary preren:f:site to Uie pro-
posed use of the subject property in order to preserve the sefety and generel weltgre of the Cit:zens of the City of
Anaheim:
(1) That sidewalks shall be installed as required by the City Engineer and in accord-
ancp with standard plsns and soecifications on file in the office of the City Engineer.
(2) That sub;ect property strall be developed substantially in accordance with plans
and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 provided~.
however, that the free-standing sign proposed to be located at Che western driveway shall
be dele~IBd..
(3) Tliat Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior to
final building and zoning inspections,
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION ie si~ed and epproved by me this 20th day of December, 1973.
1
~7~~,C1-~~.~ ~~~~~ .
CHAIRMAN ANAf{EIM CITY PLANNING COMAQSSION_~
ATTEST:
- l,~t~~.c_n..J-~~. ~.Cl~ee~et~i~
SECRETARY/ANAHEIM CTTY PLANNING CO:NMISSION
PRO TE~1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORAtlGE ) eg.
C1TY OF ANAHEIM )
pro tem
I, Patricia Bb Sdenlen,Seccetary/of the City Plenning Commtssion of thP City ot Aneheim, do hereby cerUfy thot
the foregoIng resolution wns pessed end adoptecf et e meeling oE thc City Plunning Commission ot the City oE Anaheim,
held on December 10, 1973, et 2:G0 o'clock P.M., by the iollowing vote of lhe members !hereoE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED, FARANO, GAUER, HERBST, KING, SEYMOUR.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIUNERS: ROWLAND.
IN WITNESS WHEREOI', I heve hereunt.o eet m;+ hand this 20t1t day of December, 1973.
ifi~ % c_G,<--cL/~. ~/~%GE-ct~c~t-//-_.
SECi2ETARY/ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
PRO TEM
RESOLU'~:ON N0. PC73-255
V2-G -2-