PC 75-222~
RESOLUTION N0. PC75-ZZZ
0
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLAMNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF AP~AHEIM
THAT PETITIO~~ FOR VARIANCE N0. 2742 BE DENIED
WIIEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a
verified Petition for Variance from the VALENCIA BANK, Attn: Edward E. Schmidt,
1235 North Harbor poulevard, Fullerton, California 92632 (Qwner) of certain real
property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of Lalifornia,
described as:
A portion of Parcel 6 as shown on a map filed in Book 38, Page 21 of Parcel Maps,
records of said Orange County, and more particularly described as follows:
Deginning at the most Southeasterly corner of said Parcel 6 and the fdortherly
right of way line of La Palma Avenue (106 feet wide); thence along said ri9ht of
way line South 73° 37' 14" West 199•20 feet to a point on a tangent curve concave
tJortlieasterly, having a radius of 25•00 feet; thence IJorthwesterly along said
curve through a central angle of 90° Ol' 3°", an arc distance of 39.28 feet to a
point on a tangent line, being the Easterly right of way ling of Kraemer Place
(60 feet wide); thence along said right of way line North 16 21' 07" 41est 234•99
feet; thence, parallel to La Palma ~~venue, Nor*_h 73° 37' 14" East 204.21 feet;
thence South 16° 21' 09" East 110.00 feet; the~ce, parallel to La Palma Avenue,
North 73° 37' 14" East 20.00 feet; thence South 16° 21' Q9" East I50.00 feet to
the point of beginning.
WHEREA5, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the
City Hall in the City of Anaheim on October 29, 1975, at 1:30 p.~.m., notice of said
public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with
the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make find-
inc~s and recommendations in connection therea~ith; and
IJHEREAS, said Commission~ after due inspection, investigation and siudy
made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of ail evidence
and reports offered at said hearing, does find and d~~termine the following facts:
1. That tlie petitioner requests the follcwir.g waiver from the Anaheim
Municipal Code, to construct a free-standing sign in tiie ML (ItlDUSTRIAL, LIiiITED)
ZOtJE:
SECTION 18.05.098.bj1 - Maximum sign area. (100 s uare feet permitted;
200 square feet prcposed
2. That the above-mentioned waiver is hereby denied on the basis that tfie
proposed sign is intended to advertise a bank which was permitted in connection with
a previous zoning action (Variance No. 2742), at which time it was indicated that
the size of the future free-standin9 sign would be in conformance with industrial
code standards; that the bank at subject industrial location is intended to primarily
serve commerce and industry and, therefore, a sign which is la'rger than permitted in
an industrial zone would tend to generaie business with the general public; that the
proposed sign would be permissible if relocated to the rear of the parking-landscape
setback; and that the petitioner did not demonstrate that a hardship would be created
if said waiver were not granted.
3. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved or L•o the intended use of the property
thaC do not apply 9enerally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and
zone.
4. Tfiat tfie requested vartance is rtot necessary for the Qreservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property i~ the same
vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question.
5, That che requested variance o-~ill be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in
which the property is located.
RESOLUTION PlO. PC75-222
_ ~ ~ ~
6. That no one indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition;
and no correspondence was received in opposition to subject petition.
EtlVIRONHfNTAL IMPACT REPORT' FINDItIG
That the Director of the Planning Department has determined that the
proposed activity f~lls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 11~ of the City
of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is,
therefore, categorically exempt fr~m the requirement to file an EIR.
NOt•1, THEREFORC, BE IT RESOLV[D that the Anaheim City Plannin9 Commission
does hereby deny subJect Petition for Variance on the basis of the aforementioned
finJings.
THE FOREGOItJf RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 29th day of
October, 1975.
CH IRMAN, P 0 TEMPORE
ANAFiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~~
SFCRETARY, ANANEIM CITY PLAWNING C~MMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COU~lTY OF ORAPIGE ) ss.
CITY OF APIAHEIM )
I, Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the
City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resoiution was passed and
adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held
on October 29, 1975, at 1:30 p.m., hy the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIOPJFRS: BARNES, HERBST, JOHPlSOPl, KING, MORLEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ADSEPIT: COMNI~~!OPlERS: TOLAP,, ~ARA~10
1975.
IN WITNFSS WHEREQF, I have hereunto set my hand this Z~th day of October,
~ ~ ~
S~CRETARY, AFlAHEIM CITY PLAFlPlING COMMISSION
-2- RESOLUTION tJO. PC75-22Z