PC 66-172i
RESOLUTION ~10
PC66-172
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PET1T10N FOR VARUNCE NO.1R46 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive e vetiEied Petltion for Verience from
WALTER J. AND GLADYS FURIE, 1~00 ~ast Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach, California, Owners; W. T.
MC CLURE, 1354 South Rnaheim Boulevard, knaheim, California, Agent of certain real property
situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described in Exhibit
"A" attached hereto and referred to herein as thouah set forth in full
~.~~
i
~f '
s~
; end
_, WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission did hold a public heering at tiie City Hall in the City of Aneheim on
Dec2mber 19, 1966 at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice oE said publIc hearing heving been duly givm es requi:ed by
lew and in acoordence with the provisions of the Annheim Municipel Code, Chepter 18.68, to hear and consider evidence for
and egeinst seid proposed variance and to investigete and r~eke findings end recommendetions in connection therewith;
' and
' WHEREAS, said Commission, aEter due inspection, investigation, end stady made by itselE end in its behelf,
and efter due aonsideretion of ell evidence and reports offered es seid hearing, does find end detertnine the following
fects:
i
1. Thet the petitioner requests a varience from the Anaheim Municipel Code: to permit er ection of f our
frze-standing signs on subject property:
~ SEC1'ION 1R,62.090(a) - Aggregate area of signs permitted. (250 feet of frontaae
~ permits 500 square feet rraximum sign area; 1,3~~ equare
feet proposed)
;I
j ~ SECTION 1R,62.090(B-1) - h1aximum number of free-stanoing signs (1 oermitted; 4
4 _, proposed).Minimum distance between free-standing signs
~ (300 feet required; 50, 155 and 150 feet respectively
I proposed).
I '
~ SECTION IR.6?.090(B-2) - Maximum sion height (29 f2et nerrnitted due to residential
uses established about 340 feet to the west - 3~s feet
, proposed for one sign).
SECTION 1R,62.090(B-5) - Location of signs near property lines (100 feet required
from the property line; 20 fee' and 60 feet fro~~ adjoinina
prooerty lines proposed). "
I,
~ 2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circLmstances or conditions ap;~licable
I t~ 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 sa~e vicinity and zone.
3. That the petitioner proposes signs totaling a maximurn of 250% more than permitted
' by Code, which would be granting hi~Ta privile9e not en)oyed by his neighbors.
~ 4. That the si9n proposed ~r~ith less than the minimurn clearance required by Code preser.ts
a ~ig}it hazard to the motoring public v~hich it serves.
; 5. That approval of the requested variances would set an undesirable precedent for
~ sirnilar requests from other commercial uses established in close proximity.
6. That the signs presently existinq on subject property are not in confor~rance with
the sign ordinance, sorne navina been established prior to adoption of the o:dinance, and
~ other signs having been established illegally.
I 7. That the petitioner did not appear to present evidence that a hardship existed and
the granting o," subject petition was necessary for him to enjoy his propert.y riahts.
R. That: no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Vl-D, _1_
~ _
~
~
a
~
i .'^-~d~
jt
~S
1
j ~ ~
' _I i
~ :
'r ~ ` l~
TO 101R.1 AB C '
Cail(omlo loM Ti~4 Aualoiton
Slondard Cohrow Pollq 1967
5 Ci 1-~ ~. U~~ L. 1.'. ~~
0
----- "- I
,,
i i
.0 ~~
~/~ /~~ ~ ; ~
Premium S ].$9,00 •
S ~10~ 000.00 Dartc t~Vr
amounc Ivovenber 21, 1g62, at
9 a.m. r~u~Y rro. 339oi8
~.~U~~~~
t;'A~T~ ~• ~~ and GIJIDYS CA1•N037 I^JRir,, •__
T~ .
1. Titlo ro d~e estnte or interest covered by this ~licy nt the date hereof is vested in;
. ~ t~JALTER J. FURIE snd GLADYS CAN\;ON T'URIE, ten~n~$ ~ comruon, husband
a~ wife, each an undivided one_half interest.
co~t(e.nta lo a n,~. n„~i„i„~ o ~,.tt L D U L~ C
Stondord Cowrop~ Pollcy-1967
The ]and reCerred to in tLis policy is described as follo~es;
~
~. ~ ~ That portion of lot 4 of Tract• .~o,
:, couri~~ of Oran;e, atate of California51as~ ~he city of Anaheim,
~ ~oo%~ 110 pa~e 5 of idi3cellaneou~ ;~~ ' ner nap~recorded in
~ county recorder of said county, andpL-hose ~he off~ce of the
~ ha1P of the northrrest quarter of secL-ion 2p°r~ions of the yiest ~
' east 3, and oP ~he north-
Tot~~n3hia ~teSouthth~anorthea:,t quarter of section 22, both in
j i , . • •
., de Santa Ana, as'per m;a 10 t~,e3t, in the Aancho San Juan CaJon
I Idiscellaneoua D1aps, described~sdainho],ekas1tollowg0 of said ~
&°~innin~ at L•he mo3t easterl corner of Lot A oP said ~ract• j
~ thence Z;ort-h 15° 28~ 5p~~ j•~~g~yalo ~ .. ~ ~
' ' ~ said lo~ to a line ~ the nor~heasterly 11ne or !I
~ ' parallel ti:ith and 50 feet norL•hti:esterly from ;~
,, L-he mo3t ~out•heasterly line o~ aaid lot; thence South 74° 31~ '`
~~ 10" T~le~~ along said parallel line to the :,outheasterl '
' i ~7°~22~on oP the southt•ie~terl~ line oT ~aid lot u y pro- ~,
~ ~! 9ou~ht•re~terlEa~t along said soutl~ea~L-erly prolon~ationnto theth t
~ ' said Iot; thence~Northti~n oftthe~~most sou~heasterly line of f'
'`' 7 " 31 10 East '
t, to the point oP beginning €I
I 101tC Orl~ld~ G~nllu 0.36 •
, GIIl~m4 land TIII~ M~INIM ~I
Slondord Ger~ro~. /ellry
c.orii.ni wso S C] I 1; D U L 1: C
r
I '
~.~ i Description o[ lnnd, tiile to ~vhicl~ is insurtKl by this policy:
~ ~
i; - ~. . All that por~,lon o. lo;, 1 or lracti No. '
• oP Anaheim, county of 0•ran;e, :,taL-e ef Califo niaheasip r
'~i ~ nap reeorded in boo~: 107, pa;e~ 31~ Lhro m
+"~ ' of I•7lacellaneou3 T~i~p3~ in the o~iice of the3countyurecorder
or ~aid countg, 1yin; nortnerl,y oi' a line ishich is parallel .'
~ v~ith, and diatant ~outherl~ ~
an~Ze„~ from the no:,t nor•L-~er•00,00 1'eet- nea3ured a~ right '
'~ y iine of said lot 1, !
n i .,., .., , ---•-
__. . ,
t '" '-'- - ~ - ~_,._.......~~__ . ._ ___.._. --__ -- ~
~ 4 ,,,v.,. , ~~~,,.,~,,,M,,.,.
..,..,,~
. _ .«»......,.,..<.-.. ,._..,._... --.
, ~ ._.._....,..~..-.......,~.,,..,,
~
i 3~~
i ~ ~ ~~
I
~
;
i '
i. ';
i
:~ I~
~~~
~~~~)
NOW, TNEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Aneheim City Planning Comm`csIun does hereby deny subject
Petition tor Veriance on the besis of the aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this ?_9th day of December, 19ti6.
. )
C .c~
CH IRMAN ANRHEIM CITY PLANNING COM SSION
ATTEST:
~ L ~~ ~ ~~--~~
SECRETQRY ANAHEIM C1TY PLANMING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORAYGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Krebs, ,, Secretery of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby ceRify thet the fore-
going resolution was pessed and edopted et e meeting of the City Plenning Commission ofthe City of Aneheim, held on
December 19, 1966, at 2:00 o'clock P,M„ by the (o;lowing vote o[ the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSlONERS: Allred, Nerbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMlSSIONERS: None.
AnSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
ABSTA1Ns ~MMISSIOIJERS: Gauex.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hend this 29th day of December, 1966.
RESOLUTIO.N NO. 172
vz-e
/~~ -~
C~~I Z 7~.: "~7jJ1~..~i
- ~ r
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-2-
. ,~
~