PC 72-102~
RESOLUTION NO
PC72-102
C~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOII OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCF. NO. 23~53 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Plamine Commi~sion of fhe City oE Anaheim did receive a vedf3ed Petitlon for Verianca from
JERRY F. FARROW, ET AL, Post Office Box 247, Garden Grove, California 92642, bwners; SIMOr J.
SHEEHAM, 403 ~outh Magnolia Avenue, Anaheim, California 92804, Agent of certain real property
situated in the City of Anaheim, County of OranRe, State of California, described as Lot No.
30 of Tract No. 3300, as per map recorded in book 103, pegea 35 and 36, Miscellaneous Maps,
records of said Orange County; and
WHEREAS, the City Planaine Commission did hold n public Leadng at the Clty Held in the C[ty ot Aneheim oa
May 15, 1972, ~t 2:00 o'clocSc P.M., notlce oE said publlc hearing heving baen duly glven as cequlred by
lew and in aooordance alth fhe provislons of the Maheim fllunicipal Code, Chepter IA.58, to tear end conslder evfdenee for
and Qesi~ac said proposed v~daaco and to inve~U¢~te end make findings and reco.mme~dv.tlons ln connection thorewlth;
and .
WHEREAS, •dd Commiseion, ~(ter due inspection, investlgatlon, and atudy ma~a by itselE and in its behalt,
and after due considention of all evldenee and repotta of(eied at eald headng, dc:m Eind and deteenine the following
fede:
1. Th~f the petlHoaer reque~ta a v~riance Erom the Anrheim Mun!cipol Code ap folloWS:
SECTION 18.40.020 - Permitted uses. (All uses to be conducted wholly vithin a
. building; outdoor diaplay prop.~sed)
2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditiana applicable
to the property involved ox to the intended uae ui the property that do not apply generally to
the property or clase of use in the same vicinity and zone.
3. That the requeated variance ie r.ot neceaeary for the precervation and enjoyment c`
a aubstantial property right posaesaed by other property i.n the same vicinity and zone, and
denied to the property in queation,
4. That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the public w~tfare or
injurioua to the property or improvements in auch vicinity and zone in which the proper~y is
located.
5. That approval of aubject pe~ition would be granting the pel•itioner a pri.viiege no~
enjoyed by other commercial uses and this would establish a precedent for similar re~{uests
for outdoor display.
v' D _l.
s o ~,
NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED thet the Mahetm City Plenning Commission does haeby deny subJec'
Petitlon for Vedence on the basis of the aforementloned findingu.
THE FOFtEGOING RESOLUTION is signed end epproved by me this 25th day of Mey, 1972.
CHAIRMA ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~~~~~~~
' -
SECRETAI2Y ANAHEa! CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) sa.
CITY OF ANAHLIM )
I, An'r~'$t~b~`Secret:+ry of the Clty Plenning Commissiun ot the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify thet the Eoro-
going reaolu2ton wes pessed anc~ edopted et e meeting oE the City Planning Commleslon ofthe Clty oE Aneheim, held on
May 15, 1972, at 2:QD o'clock P,M,, by the following vote oE the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER, KAYWOOD, ROWLAND.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED, HERBST, SEYMOUR,
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE,
IN WITNESS WHER~OF, I heve hereunto set my hand thie 25th dey of May, 1972.
RESOLUTION N0. pC72•102
C:2~~~~~2~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
V2-D _2_