PC 70-35,c j
PC70-35
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANi;E N0. 2162 BE P.PFROVED IN PARI
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commiseion of the City of Meheim did receive a verified Petition for Variance from
GEOR3E M~ ELTINGE, 1840 West Imperizl Highway, Los Angeles, California 90047, Owne: of certair,
real property situated in the City of Anaheimy County of Orange, State o~ Calirornia~
described as the southeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the southeast qualter of
Section 11, Township 4 South, Range 11 West, in the Rancho Los Coyotes, as pFr map rerorded
~ in Fook 51, page 11 qf Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said
cuun{y~ C-xcept that portion thereof, included within a strip of land 110.00 faNt nide,
lying 55.00 1'eet on each side of the following described line: Reginring at the southeast
rorner of s~id Section 11: Thence along the east line of said Section 11, said east line
being also the center line of Stanton Avenue, 60.00 Feet wide, as ~eclared by action at ;.he
Aoa!•d of Supervisors of said county, North 0~ 11' 10" west 612.23 feet to the 5e~inni.n~ oi
a curve concave westerly having a radius of 2527.00 fset; thence Nortnerly 8Y,1.2;; ieee alony
said curve through a cen±ral angle of 19° 58' 50". Also except that portion of said i~r,d
corveyed to the State of California by deed recorded .7une 10, 1952~ in book 23-':0, pa,e =i~,3
_ of Official Records. Also excepting i;he East 190.00 feet of the South 175.G0 r'ert thvreof.
';; ~tx
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commisaion did hold a public hearing et the City Hall in the City of Anaheim on
i MdT~h 9~ 1970, ut 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said publlc hearing heving been duly given as required by
''; law mid in accordence with the provisions of the Aneheim Municipel Code, Chepter 18.68, to hear and consider evidence for
i.~ end against seid proposed varience end to investigete end meke findings end recommendetions in connection therewith;
''' and
~I
!~ ? WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspectlan, i~vestigation, end study made by itself and in its behalE,
aad of:er due consideretion of ell evidence and reporte otfered at seid hearing, does find end determine the following
fects:
1. Thet the petltioner requests e vecience from the Aneheim Municipal Code as follovrs Y t.o erec t' wo
:;7di!iona~ free-,tanding signs on subject property:
d~ SEC'?'ION 18.62.090(p) - Maximum aqqreqate siqn display ar~a. (;-,~~ ~> ,,,.~r.
~ feet permittedg 530 squa_e feet propo>c;;i.~~ ~~
b. SECiION 18.62.090(B~•1) - Maximum n~mber of and distance bet:,rr.; ;:r:••.;~.d;,;,~~1
. si ns. 1 frae-standing sign in any ,~i~ven~OU ;o~f
~ frontage oermitted; 2 free-standinq siq~•; r,:i,po_::,d),
c. SL•l";1'ION 18on2.090(S-2) - Minimum round clearance of a free-standim si~n'
(8 Feet required; 7 feet proposed „
~ d. 5ECTION 18..~2.U90(B-2) - Maximum height within 300 feet of a re,idential
structure. 25 feet permitted; 30 feet, 9 inche;;
~ proposed ~ - -._-__
I 1. iha+ the petil.ioner withdrew his request under waiver 1-cy to erect a sm:~ll Iree•
~ standin~ signy stating he would erect a directional sign instead and wouid compiy ,,itl:
± Code :equirements for directional signing.
3. That the height of the proposed m2in free-standing sign at 30 feei, 9 inch~s would
noi, be deleterious te the residents of the mobile home park or single•-family fQ$1C~PIICB
located to the west ~f the proposed sign location, since the proposed height is or~ly sliyt;t~
ly over the maximum permitted height. Furthermore, the existing Zody sign, locar~~ dp~;oxi-
mately 350 feet from the mobile home park and the residence, which was previously granted by
`.he Planniny Commission and the City Council, exceeds the height of the proposed ^iyn by
a:most 23 ieet.,
4. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicahLa to
i:he propert,y involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply yen~.•al;~ t,o
the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone~
5. That *he requested variance is necessary for the preservation and ~njoymee~ of a
^ubstantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinit:y and ~:oney and
denir:d to the prop?rty in question.
-, e ' t
.~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant subject
Petition Eor Variance, upon the following conditions which are heraby tound to be a necessary prerequisite to the pro-
pased use of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of
Anaheim.
1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and
specifications on file with the City of Anaheim, marked Exhibit No. 1; provided9 however,
that the proposed directional sign shall be in accordance with the Siqn Ordinance, as
stipulated to by the petitioner.
2. That adequate clearance of existing electrical lines shall be provided as required
by the Electrical Division, Department of Public Utilities, and the State of Californie
G.O. 95.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTIOI3 is signed and
by ~e this ]~Qth da1~ of
, 1970.
.: 'f
i
'i
ATTEST:
I
AN
NING COMMISSION
' %c//i%?, [_ ~ / ('~¢/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STA„TE OF CALIFORNIA )
~ COUNTY OF ORANGE
) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann KT'ebs ~ Secreiary of the Ciry Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution was passed end ada;rted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of thc City of Anaheim, held on
Mai•ch 9, 1970, et 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMM;SSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: COh1MISSIONERS: Farano.
ABSENT: COMAtISSIONERS: None.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have herEUnto set my hond this 19th d,3y of Marclt, 1970.
~!2" l C'~ ~a
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0. 35
V2- , 2
~ .