PC 76-112~
~
RESOLlITION N0. PC76-112
A kESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM rITY PLAPININr, CQMMISSIOPI
THAT PETITtOPI FUR VARIANCE N0. 2R07 P.E DENIED.
WHEREAS, thie Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a vertfied
Petition for Variance from the RAP~ COMPANY, 17802 Sky Park Circle, Irvine,
Caiifornia 92714 (Owner} MALIRU GRAND PRIX CORP., 174F W. Katella Avenue, Orange,
California 92667 (Agent) of certaln real property situated in the City of Anaheim,
County of Orange, State of California descrtbed as:
THOSE PORTIO~!S OF LOTS G AD![) 7 UF TI•IC TRAVIS TRACT, iP•I TH~ CITY OF
AMAIIEIM~ COUNTY OF ORANi:E, S1'l~TG OF CI~LIFORNIA, !15 SI101~lM OM A t1AP
2F.COP,DED ID! f30UY. 5 PA~[ 120 OF ~4ISCF.LL.APlF:OUS RECOP.DS Ib! TIIE
OFFICE QF ThIE COUMTY RECORDER OF L05 ANGf:LE:S COUNTY, CALIFURP•IIA,
DFSCRIDED AS FOLL01~15:
BEGINNIMG nT TI•IE IMTERSFCTIOtd OF 7iiL" PlURTtiERLY LJPlF QF LAND i~f_SCRIL'ED
IN THE DGED TO 7FI[ ATCHI50N TUPEV:i~ A^ID SAt1TA FC RAI Ll•lAY COP1PANY,
FORMF.RLY THE CALIFORNIA CEt1TRAL RtiILI'IAY~ R[CORD[U ~1AP.C19 2('ir 1£iu~
I~l ~OOY. 407 PA(~E 120 OF D~FDS, F.ECOf:DS OF LOS AMG~LFS COUPdTY 4lITI~I TFIE
41ESTERLY LIP~[ OF TI•If: L/1MD C~E~CRI[3FU IfJ ThIE DEEG P.ECOP.DF~ It~ l'OOY. .^.f~S
PAGE 2 OF DE[DS, P.ECORDS OF SAIU UP.At•IG~ COUMTY; ThiFt1CL' f!ORThI 0°
53~ 56" EAST 531.72 FGET ALUIlG SAID l~l[S1'GRLY LINE "f0 A POIt•:T 0~1 A
PJON-TAPJGfI!T CURVE CONCAVF SOUTFIEASTERLY~ fiAVING A RADIUS QF 9~t0.00
FEET A P.ADIAL TO SAID POINT Il~ARS NORI'Ii 28° 30' 4R" 4![ST; THi:NCF
hIOP,Tf-IEASTERLY ii5.23 FEFT /1LONr, SAID CURV.F. TI-IROU~I•I n CE~ITR~L At•J(;LE
OF 5° 11' 42" l'0 TI1E 1•lESTERLY CORNER OF TFIE LAND DCSCRICGD 1M TFiF
~EED RFCOFDED MOVEP1aCR 1~ 1~7~! IN f50UY 11?7~1 PAGE ~F49 OF UFI'IC1AL
RECORDS; TNEMC[ EASTERLY AND SOUTIII:A;TERLY ALUNG T~iE tdORTIi~RLY A~Jp
EASTCRLY BOUNDAP.Y OF SAI D D[FD TO S/1I D P:ORTI IERLY 1_I N~ ~F 71IF RAI LR(~F,D;
THEP~CE ~~lFSTFI'.LY ALONG SAID LIIdE 70 TfIE P6IP•1T 01= (3[GIh•1MIh1C:.
SAI D•L/1PlD I S I NCLUDFD 4•!I Ttil Pl TI1~ AP.("A SIiO:'~"1 QN /~ t1.~f FI I.f D I hl
[3001; 4G PAFC 2G OF RECORD OF SURVf:YS I~i TIiE OFf=ICC UF TIIE COUF17'(
RECOP.DER OF SAID OP.AIJGE COUPJTY.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did sche~ule a public hearing at the
City Hall in the City of Anaheim on May 10, iQ76, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public
hearing ha~•ing been duly given as required by law and in accordance ~aith the
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consicier
svidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings
and recommendations in connection therewith; satd public hearing havin~ been
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of June 7, 1976; and
WNEkeAS, said Commisston, after due tnspection, investigation and study made
by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said heartng, does find and determine the following facts:
t, That the petitioner proposes the follotoing waivers from the Anaheim
Municipal Code, to construct a second freestanding sign:
a. SECTION 18,05.Oy3.010 - Maximwr. ! n area. (180 s uare feet
permit~ square feet prop~sed
b. SECTION 18,05.093.021 - Maximum number of si ns. (1 permttted;
2 proposed
2. That the above-mentioned waivers are hereby denied on the b~sis that
the petitioner was aware of the potential si9ning hardships resulting from the slze,
shape and location of the subJect property at the time said property was acquired and
developed in connectlon with a condttional use permit, tnctudi~g the lack of street
frontage and the posslble restrictive Impact of the adJacent Anahelm 5!adtum on any
proposed signing; that the proposed sign ts fraeway-oriented and may adversely
affect the view and signing of the Anahelm Stadium from the freeway; and that the
RL50LUTION N0, PC76-112
appropria:eness of th ~oposed sign message ("Race Here~ is considered qvestionahle
for a freeway-oriented slgn.
3. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances nr
conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property
that do not appiy generally to the property or class of use in the same vlcinity and
zone.
4, 7hat the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and
cnjoyment of a sub5tantlal property right possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zcne, and denied to the property in question.
5, That the raques:ed variance wi~l be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or inJurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in ~ahich the property ts located.
6. That no one indicated thelr presence at said public hearing in
opposition; and no correspondence was received in opposition to subjec~~ petitic~.
ENVIRONME"1TA~ IMPACT REPOR7 FIPS9INC,:
That the Director of Che Planning Department has determlr~d that the
proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.~1, Class 11, uf the City
of Anaheim ~uid~.lines to the Requireme~ts for an Environmentai Impact Report and is,
therefore, categor'ically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR.
NOIJ~ TNERE~=ORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby deny subject Petition for Variance on the:~ basis of the aforementioned
findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 7th day of
Jun~, i976.
< ~ l+~t.ar..~~
CHAIRM , ANAHEIM CITY LAMMINf, CO"1MISSIOH
ATTEST:
~ (~L'GLa~
SECRE ARY, ANAHEIM CI Y FLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary of the City Ptanning Commission of the
City of Anaheim~ do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and
adopted at a mee2ing of the Ctty Planning Commission of the Ci:y of Anaheim, held on
June 7, 1976, at 1:3~ p.m., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JQHNSON, KINr,, I1oRLEY~ TOLAR, FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST
ASSEtJT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ! hav~ hereunto set my hand this 7th day of June, 197~. ~
~~ ~~ ~~~~~
SECRETARY, A~IAHEIM CIfY PLANNINf, CQMHISSIOr+
~
i
_2_ RESOLUTION N0. ?C76-112