PC 76-152:~
~ ~
RESO~UTIO!I N0. PC76-15?
!1 RESOLIiT{QN OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLA~INItlG CONIIISSIO~I
THAT PETITIO~I FOR VaRI/1PICE N0. 2811 BE f;R/1NTED.
IJIIEREAS, the Anaheim City Plznning Cammission did receive a vertfied
Petition for Variance from THE Ol~lEt! COMPANY, 7Q0 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 53~, ~os
Angeles, California 90Q17 (Owner); HARD111 OLDSMQL~ILE, 13~~ S, Anaheim Boulevard~
Anaheim, California ~2$05 (Agert) of certain real property situated in the ~ity of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of Catifornia descrlbed as:
ihose portions of Lots 3 and 4 of Tract No. 3351, in the City of Anahetm~ as per
map recorded in book 110, pages 5 to 7 inclusive, Miscella~eous Maps, in the
office of the county recorder of satd county, together with those portions of
Sections 22 and 23 in Township 4 South, Range 1Q West, in the Rancho San Juan
Cajon de Santa Ana, in the Ctty of Anaheim, as pcr mao recorded in book 51, pane
10, tliscellaneous Maps, descrihed as a whole as follows:
Beginning at a point on the casterly line of said Lot 4, ~Icrth 15° 2$' S~" West
5Q.00 feet from the Southeast corner of sald Lot ~i; thence South 74° 31' 1~"'West
323.30 feet parallel with the s~utheasterly line of said Lot ~~ to the Easterly
line of Los Angeles Street (103.OQ feet wide); thence North 17° 22' S5" West
230.00 feet along said easterly line and alon9 tlie westerly lines of said l.ots 3
and 4; thence North 71~° 31' 10" East 337.59 feet parallel aiith the southerly line
of said Lot 3. to the easterly line of said Lot 3; thence South 15° ZR' S~" East
279.65 feet to the point of begi~ning.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Lommission did schedule a public hearing at the
City Ilall in the City of Anaheim on June 7, 197b, at 1:3~ P•m., nottce of said public
liearing having been duly given as r:quired by law and in accordance with the
p-ovisions of the Anaheim Municipal Lode, Chapter 18.Q3, to hear and considcr
evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings
and recommendations in connection therewith; sald public hearing having been
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of August 16, 1~76; and
WHEREAS, sa1A Commission, after due inspection, investigati~n and study made
by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts:
1. That the pe*.itioner oroposes the follo~•iinq waivers from the Anaheim
Municipal Code, to construct an additional freestanding sign:
a. SECTI~M 18.O,,nq~,011 - Maximum number of freestandtnq sians.
~1 permltted; 2.proposed
b. SECTIOtJ 18.05.093.027. - Maximum sign area. (350 s uare feet
combined area permitted; i3 square feet
proposed)
c. SFCTIOtd 18.05.093.023 - Permitted locatton of freestandin siqns.
112 eet rom a acent property ines required;
5q~eet proposed)
d. SE/TIOt! ',ii.?5.093,0235 - Minimum distance bet:~e?n free~tandinc~
r sign,. ;00 eet requlre~; 155 ;eet
proposed)
e. SEC~fION 18.05.09II,011 - Maximum si n area wtthin the re uired
setback. 1Q0 s uare eet in HL 7.one
' permitted; 3~ square eet proposed)
2. That Waiver t-a, above-mentioned~ is hereby granted on the basis that
the petiCioner is proposing to erect one new sign to replace two non-conforming sians
which have existed on the subJect property for a substantial period of time; and that
said existing signs have not becn detrimental to the area.
3. That Watver i-b and 1-c, above-mentioned, are hereby granteA on the
basls that the petitioner is replacing two non-canforming signs whTch have existed on
the subJect property for a substantial peric;d of time and the maximum sign area
RESOLUTION N0. PC76-~52
enjoyed has been approxim~ately 13 square feet less than t~t propose~ and, therefore,
the request is minimal.
~i. That Waiver 1-c, above-mentioned, is hereby granted on the basis that
the petitioner proposes to replace an existing non-conforming sign with a new sign in
the same location; and that said existing sign has not been detrimental to thP area.
5. That Waiver 1-d, above-mentloned, ts hereby granted on the basis that
the petitioner proposes to advertise two (2) separate and distinct products
(automobiles) and requires two (2) separate signs on the property; and that a
hardship would be created if said waiver aiere not granted since the propr_rty has a
street frontage of only 2r0 feet.
6. That, in approving t!iis variance~ the Planning Commission has taken
into consideration that the subJect properiy has enJoyed the use of three (3)
`reestanding signs for a substantial perlod of time and said signs have not been
detrimental to the surrounding area; and~ furthermore, the petitioner has removed one
nonconforming sign from the property and demonstrated a desire to improve the
property.
7. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditi~ns
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do
not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicintty and zone,
8. That the requested variance is ne~essary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone~ and denied to the property in question.
5. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or inJurious to the property or improvements in such vlcinity and zone
in which the property is located.
1~. That no one indicated thetr presence at said puhlic hearing in
opposition; and no correspondence was received in opposition to suhJect petition.
EI~V I RQNt1ENTAL I MPACT REPORT F I P!D I tJG: That the D i rector of the P 1 ann i ng
Department has determined that the proposed activity falls wichin 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 from the
requirement to file an EIR.
NOW, TNEREFORE~ BE IT RFSOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, upon the following conditi~ns which
are hereby found to be a necessary prarequisite to the proposed use of the sub.ject
property in order to prescr~~e the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the
City of Anaheim:
1. Thwt all existing signs on subJect property for which a building permit
has not been issued or otherwise authorized under this variance petition be removed.
2. That subJect property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anahetm marked Exhibit Plos. 1
through 1~ (Rev(sion I~os. 1).
3. That Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above-mentioned, shall he complled with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is stgned and approve y me h iFth day of
August, 19%6.
~ilr1
ATTEST:
O ' ,~,~oLGVEC.~~~f /
SECRETARY~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNItJG CQMr11S510N
-7- ' itESOLU~ION N0, PC76-152
~ ~
STATE OF CALIFORNIR )
CQUNTY OF ORAIl~E )ss.
C I TY OF AIlAI IE i M )
I, Patric9a 8, Scanlan, Secretary of the llnahcim City Planning Lommission,
do liereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed an:i adopted at a meetinc~
of the /lnaheim City Planninc~ Cor,nnisston, lield an August if.., 1~17h~ at 1:3n p,m., hy
the following vote of the menbers thereof:
AYCS: COMMISSIONERS: IfERBST~ Y.ING, MORLEY, JOHt150~!
NOFS: CO~IMISSIONERS: BARHES~ FA!tANO, TOLAR
ACSEIlT: COMNISSI(1NER5: NOt~E
I~J 411T~lESS 41tIERF.OF, I have hereunto set my hand this 16th day o` August 1'376.
OG%~~-G~~ ~C~C~~i1t..CQ~
secr:~QTr,-nriAH i,"€Ti-c i f ~nr~~~ r~r, cnr~n i ss i on
-3- RESOLUTIOPI N0. 'F'C76-152