PC 75-81~t ~ . ~
ftESQLUTIO~! N0. !'C75-81
A RESOLWTION OF THE C174' PLANPd1NG LOMMISSiqN UF fiNE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETlTION FOR VARIANC~ NU. 26S'3 BE GRAM7ED, iN P~kT.
WNEREAS, t,`1e C'ity Pla-,ning Cammissian of th~ City of A~Yaheim did receive a
verified Petitian for Va~riancP frcm ANAHEIM PLAZA f3U1LDING LIYICTED, 1911 East
~~nter 52reet, yuite 20'3, Anaheim, C.aliforni~ y2B0!i (~+ner); ANDY LYM,CH, 3036
South Oak Streetr 5anta A~at Ct~l~~ornia 92~p7 (Agent~ of certain real property
sitvatec~ in the City of Anaheim, GGVnt~~ uf Orange, 52ate of Calif~r~ta, des~ribed
as:
Lots 48 ;0 55 1n::lusive and idts ~i6 ~b 70 inclosiv-~ of tract no. 1591, as per
map recorded in Book 54 Pages 3b ~0 3'3 inclusive of mistieilaneous maps, in ~Yie
cffice of the CounCy Recorder oF said county,
E~~cept the North 5~•58 feet of said lot 55; and
41MEREA5, the City Planning ~Commission did hGld a public hearin~ at the
City iEa1P tn tih~e City Af ~nahetm on Apr71 14, 1975, at i:3Q p•m., n~t+ce nf
sald public hearireg having been duly giuen as required by Yvw and tr ar,coralance
with the nrovisions of the Anahe.im i~funicipai Code, Chapter 18.03, 'to hear and
c,onsider evid~nee for and aga3n.°,~ said propos~d variance an~i [o investigate and
make findi~gs and recommend~tdons in connection t~c.rewith; ar~d
WHEREAS, sald C~dmmisslort, e`ter due inspecsic~n, investigatian ano study
mad2 by it~elt anci tn its br..h~Jf, and after due ce~nsideretion of al~' evidence
and reports offe.red aX saia hearing, 6ae~ finrti andl de2ermine ehe following
facts;
1. Thst the petstEnn~;r ~e.q~ests tNQ fa1lowin~g ~vaivers ~rc~m thL Anaheim
Munieipal Code, to e2a~stsuct a"ekanair;n ebpy01 ele,:ctronic sig.n:
a. SELTIbN 18.U5.0~ -.PermiYied loca~ticm. (~o f`asfiing s'rgn shall be
locaied withi,~ ~IQ• feet of residenti•al ~tructures;
60,'~eet ~nd 160 feet proposed)
..~.. ~,-...~. • .
b. SECTION i$.05.46~7,Di6 - Maxlmum heiUht. (2 fe~t ~Oermi'tr,ed; 8 feet
pra~pcsedl
c, SEC'TION 18.05.~ ~ FermS~Yed s~q~in~~,. {an-stte business advertising
permitCed; isff~•s(te :wsiness advertising proposed.
2, That Waiv.~r 1-a, ab~ve-me~tloned, 1~ her~:Ly Sranted to permit a"changing
copy" (or mess~5~ sender) S~y{~e sigY~ on the norch, soti¢'n, east and west sides of the
offise buildi.ng struoture at t~ic sub}ect ioc~tian, as proposed, said waiver being
granted on th~e basis that sai3 s4gn wou~cl not be obje~_~ionable at t~n•r.• s.u,b,ject l~ca-
t i ora.
3. That Waiver l~b, above-t~entianed, Ss f.~creby Qrantc.~d an thc~. b,~sis that the
Fe':itio~er demonstrate~' t~a2 a h~rd:•fiip w~u`~c: ~e ..^.reatec! ~f said waiver were not
granYed, ~ince 'the heigh't of tHe sign is for iaent~fitati~in:purposes.
4, That Wai~er 1-c, above-mentione~, i.s h~ereby denied on the basis that off-
site business advertising would set an undesirable precedent for future similar
requests.
5, Thal: the Planning Commission clarified t,hat this varia~ce shall permtt
signing in tliie form flf a"changfng copy" ~iectroriic sign to advertise on-site busi-
ness oniy.
6. Thal: there are exceptional or ex::raordinary circumstances o` conditioins
applicable t~;> the property involved or Co the int:ended use, as granted, of the property
that do not ,!~pply generally r,o the property ur cl'ass af use in the same vicinity and
zone.
RESOLUTION N0. PC75-BI
~` ~ f!!
.
7, That the requested variance, as granted, is necessary for the preservat on
and enjoyment of a substantial ?ropzrty righi possessed by other property in thc,
same vicinity and zene, ar.d denied to the property in question.
8. That the requested variance, as granted, will not be materidily detri~r, tal
to the public welfare or ir,jurious to the property or improvements in such vici~, ;Ly
and zone in which the property is located.
9, That no one indicated their preSence at said public hearing in opposi! on
and no correspondence was received in opposition to subject petition.
ENVIRQNMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING;
That the Director of Development Services has determined that the proposmf
activity falis within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 11 of the City of '~~nahcim
Guidelines to the Requirements ~or an Environmental impact Report and is, the e#ore,
categorically exempt feom the requireme.^.t to file an EIR.
NCW, THEREfORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission ~oes
hereby grant in part subject Petition for Variance, upon the following condi*'ons
which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of ;he
subject property in order to prese n!e the safety and general welfare of the ~( tizens
of the City of Anaheim.
(1) That subject property shall be developed substantiaily in accordanr; w3th
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Mo, ~;
provided, however, that a"changing copy" e!ectronic sign shall ~e permitt:ed.~ri the
north, south, east and west elevations.
(2) That CondiYion No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be complieC with pric~ to
final building and zoning inspections.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved ~y me *.his 14th day c~f april,
1975.
~ ' -
~"'~ IR N, &i CITY PLANNING "1MMISSION
ATTEST;
~~fif~~-~O~/ ~ ~~~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIQN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF GRANGE )ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
i, Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary of the City Plainning Commissie? of - e City af
Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolutfon was passed and adc ted at a
meeting of the City Planning C~mmission of the City ol~ Nnahetin held on Apri' 14, 1975.
at 1:30 p.m., by the following vote of the members th+~reaf:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: uAUER, JOHKSON, KING, MORZi:Y, TOLAR, HERBST
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: CQMMISSIGNERS: FARANO
tN WITNE55 WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 14th day of April, 1975.
~~-- __~~- :~.,~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING G'1M15510N
-2-
RESOLUTtON N0. PC;y-RI