PC 72-38~ ~
PC72-38
RESOL'JTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF TFiE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2334 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Meheim did receive e veriEied Petition for Veriance from
KEYSTONE SAVINGS AND LOAN. 14011 Beach Boulevard, Westminster, California 92683, Owner;
GREEN MANSION INC~RPORAT~D, Attention of Arthur L. Osowaki, 551 North Euclid Street, Anaheim,
California 92801, Agent of certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of
Orange, State of California, described as PARCEL 1: The North 56.58 feet of Lot 55 and all
of Lots 56, 57, 58 and 59 of Tract 1591, as per Map recorded in Book 54, Page 36 of Miscel-
laneous Maps in the office of the CounL•y Recorder of said Orange County. PARCEL 2: Lot 6U
and Lot 61 0£ Tract 1591 as per Map recorded in Book 54, Pages 36 to 39 incluaive of Miscel-
laneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said Orange County,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commiseion dld hold a public heedng at the City Hell iri the Clty of Aneheim on
February 23, 1972, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notlce of seid public heering having been duly givEn es requiced by
lew endln accoidence withthe proviaions of the Anehelm Municipal Code, Chapter 18.68, to hear and consider evidence for
end egalnst said proposed varience end to inveatigete end meke finding's and cecommendetions in connection thecewith;
end
WHEREAS, eaid Commission, aEtet due inspection, investlgntion, end study mede by itself and in its behelf,
end e£ter due conaideration of all evtdence and repoRS offered at seid hearing, does find end deteenine the iollowing
Eects:
1. Thet the.petitioner requesta a varience hom the Aneheim Munialpel Code:
SECTION 18.62.J80 B-~pes of permitted signs. (Free-standing sign proposed;
free-standing sign not ~ermitted)
2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions appli-
cable ca the property involved cr to the intende3 use of the property that do not apply
generally to the property or class oi use in the same viciniL•y and zone.
3. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preaervation and enjoyment
of a substantial property right posseaaed by other property in the same vicinity and zone;
and denied to the property ir~ queation.
4. That the requested variance will be materlally detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which tlie prop-
erty is located.
5. That the granting of thie variance would be extending a privilege that has been
denied to others.
6. ThaL• tiie own~er of subject property has been granted signing privileges for the
entire property.
7. That no one appeared in oppos3.tion.
Vl-D -1-
~ , ~ ~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLV~:D thet the Anaheim City Plenning Commission does heceby deny subJect
Petition Eor Veriance on the besis of the eforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION ?s signed end eppcoved by me 2nd day of M rch, 1972.
~
~ ~ ~~y/
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~
SECiFETARb' ANAH~I~f CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
PRO TEM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) =S• '
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
pro tem
I, LeB. $ut7~eu~ ~ecretery/of thc Clty P!enning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify thet the fore-
going resolution wns pessed and edoptctl et a meeting of the City Planning Commission ofthe City of Anaheim, held on
February 23, 1972, et 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the followiyg vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISS?ONERS: FARANO, GAUER, iiERBST, hAYW00D, SEYMOUR,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ARSEiQT: COMMISSIONERS: ALLREA, ROWLAND.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hend Qhis 2nd day of Merch, 1972.
RESOLUTION NO. PC72-38
SECRE ARY/ANAH TY PLANNING COMMISSION
PRO TEM
V2-D "2"