PC 70-121~
RESOLUTION NO, PC70-121
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY p(,qNNiNG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2186 $E DENIED
K'HEREAS, the CIty Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified Petitlon for Vadunce from
THOMAS DORRIE JR., 333f3 Ocean Park Boulevard, Santa Monica, California 90405
J• PATP,ICK, 312 South Brookhurst Street, Anaheim, California 92804
property situated in the Cit ~ Ovmer; DONALD
as Lot 4 in Block B Y of Anaheim, County of Oran e ~ A9~nt of certain real
of Tract No. 13, as shown on a Map recordedtin~Bookl9fornia, described
Miscellaneous ~daps. EXCEPTING therefrom the Southerl 378.44
FROM the Northerly 195.00 feet Y feet. ALSO~EXCEPTING~THERE-
Lot 4 on the Nort. + mEasu:ed from the centerline of the street adjoininq said
h as said street is shown on said tvlap.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commisaion did hold a
July 13, 197p, et 2;00 o'clock p, Public heering et the Cit
law end in ecco~~~~ M., noticr of seid public hearing heving been ~dulhe City of Aneheim on
~~h Zhe provisions of the Anaheim Municipel Code, Chapter 18,68, to hea~ and constder evidence for
end egeinst said proposed variance and to inveotiQete end meke (indin s Y~~en es requlred by
~d B end recommendetions in connectlon fherewith;
WHGREAS, seid Commission, after due inepection, lnvestIgation, and stud
and after due coneideratIon of ell evidence and reports offered at seld hearin
fects; Y mede by itself end In ita behalf,
B, does find end detertnlne the following
1• Thet the petltioner requests a verlance from the Anaheim MunIcl el Code as foi lows
estab:ishment of a second free•-standing sign: P
a• SECTION 18.fi?.090(A) ' ~ to permit the
. - Maximum oe:mitted area Gf si ns. (26p Square feet
. permitted; 306 square feet proposed .
b. S F.-.GTION 18.E2,090(6-i} - Maximum number of free-standinq si ns and~m~m
distance ketween si ns. (Code would require a minimum
_ of :i00 feet between free-standing signs. This would
. permit only one .'ree-standing sign. The applicant is
. Ptoposing a second free-standing sign only 25 feet from
the existing si~n).
c. SEQTION 18.62.09pID_~, '
- Permitted siQn location. (Sign is required to be 52
f_eet south of the north property line; the sign is
_ proposed at 3~t South of that property line).
2• That the Siqn Ordinanc~ v~as designed to discourage the
in each use on the same parcel tivould have its own free-standi.n si n
conglonerate of siyns whicti contributed to the sign clutter inptheo~ed type of signinq wlie:e-
3• That a g 9, thereby creating a
pproval o( subjec[ petition wo~ld not cortribute any aesthetica~aheim.
qualities For this general area, but would, in fact, cornpound the
di=~ddy exists along Brookhurst Street. Y~es'rable
4. That both the exis Si9n clutter proh ~m that
thereby com 1 ting and prop osed signs could be incorporated into one sign st:ucture
p ying with the Siqr~ Ordinance.
5• That property owners
iny needs for individual ~d developers of small narrow parcels should consider the sign-
parcels at ultimate development ratf;er than allowing the first
tenant to utilize the entire allowable signing for a parcel and causing future tenants to
have to apply for variances trom the Sign O:dinance in order to advertise their businesse
s.
.. - -- ~ - --
~ • --
6. That the petitioner submitted no evi~ence that would indicate the presence of a hard-
ship to justify approval of this request.
~. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions 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 vicinity and zone.
8• That the requested variance is not necessary {or the preser~iation and enjoyment of a
: substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and
denied to the property in
9. That the re ueste 9uestion.
q d variance will be materially detrir~ental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the
located.
property is
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVGD that the Aneheim City Plenning Commission does hereby deny subject
Petition for Variance on the basis of the aEorementioned findings,
TNE FOREGOING RESCLUTION is signed and epproved by me this 23'rd da
y of July, 19-,e.
r~ / / ~ / ~
L '
-~~~ CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM C1TY PLANNING COMM?SSION
ATTEST:
' LG'11~2 ~ r / i1 L-' ~~
~ECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNfA )
COUNTY OF ORAIVGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM1; ~
I, Ann Krebs ~ Sectetary oE the City Planning Commission of the City of Aneheim, do hereby cecti
going resolution wos ~~assed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on
July 13, 1970 $'thet the fore-
+ at 2:00 o'clock p,M., by the (oilowing vote of the members thereof:
I AYES: CO.MMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Kdywood, Rowiand, Seymour, Herbst.
NOES: COMINISSIONERS: N one .
ABSENT: COMM?SSIONERS: tJone.
1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of July, 19~0.
I
I
I _
• ~,.,:
_ ~/)2~. / ~ ~~ ,. ~
SECRETARy ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIGN
RESOLUTION N0. 12]
~~,
V2-D
-Z-
~.}~
~
~lx
`~rci~ -
F