PC 78-264R[SOLUTION N0. PC 78'264
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM C17Y PLANN1~iG COMNISSION
THAT PETIi~ON FOR VARIANCE N0. 3052 BE DENIED
WFiEREAS, the Anahetm Ci[y Planning Cortmission did receive a verifted
Petitlon for Variance from DAVID 5, AND MARION GRAAF COLLINS, 1077 West Ball Road~
Anaheim, Caitfornia 92302, owners, and LOfIG BEACH NEOfj ADVERTISING, INC.. 1812 West
Ntnth Street, Lon9 Beach~ California 90813, agent, of certain real property situated
in the City of Anahelm, County of Orange, Siate of Caltfornia descrtbed as:
That portlon of Lots 30 and 31 and abandoned Oroad Stree[ of
Anahetm Extension, in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, 5[ate
of California, as shown on a map of survey by Wtlliam Nanel and
filed in the Office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles Louncy,
California, e copy of which is shown ~n book 3, p~ge 163 et seq,
entitled "Los Angeles Councy Haps", in the Office of thc County
Recorder of said Orang~ Coun[y, descrtbed as follows: Beginning
at the SoutheasL corner of safd Lot 3~. being the intersection of
the centerlines of Ball Road and Nest Street, as shown on satd
map; thence South 89° 58' Sh" West 388•~0 feet atong the Southerly
line of said Lo[ 3Q. to the Soucheasterly corner of thc iand
conveyed to Fannie Moore, by deed recorded March 2, 1929, in book
251, page 139. Official Records; thence North 0° 23' 00" ~est
785.46 feet along the Easterly linc of said tand to che
Northeasterly corner of sald land; thence North 7G° 20' 00" East
166.00 feet to the Easterly line of said Lot 31, being the center
of said West Streei; thertce Southeasterly 961.95 feec along the
Easterly line of said Lots 30 and }1 to thc point of beginnfng.
EXCEPT that portfon thereof lying Soucherly of the folioWi~g
descrlbed line: Beginning~at a point on the Westerly line chereof
North 0° 17' 34'~ uest 3B4.24 `eei fsa++ Lhc Sautkwes[erly corner
thereof; thence South 89° 50' S0" East '248.85 feet to the
Southwes[arly lTne of said West 5treeC; thence at righ[ angles to
the cenCer line of said Wes[ Street, tJorth 74° 19' S6" East 33.00
feet to the Easterly line ther%~f. AL50 EXCEPT that por[ton
thereof lytng Northwesterly e.` the fo!lowing described line:
8egtnning at a point on the Westerly line ihereof~ Sou[h 0~ 17'
~4" East 151•76 feet from the Northwesterly corner thereof; thence
North 74° 25' 12" East 174.83 feet to the Southwesterly line of
said West Street; thence at ri$h[ angles to the center Ilne of
said West Street, North 74 19' S~" Easc 33.00 feet to the
Easterly line thereof.
GfHEREAS. the City Planning Cummtsslon did hold a publtc hearing at the City
Hall In the Ctty of Anahelm on Novcmber 20, t978+ at 1;30 p,m „ nottce of sald publtc
hearfng havtng been duly giv as requlred by law and in accordance with che
provislons of the Anahcim Municr~:~~ Code, Chapter 18,03, to hear and consider
Pt78-264
evidence for and against sald proposed variance and [o Tnvestigatc and make flndtngs
and recommendations ir. connection therewT[h; and
NHEREAS, said Cor,misslon, aftcr due fnspection, investt9ation and study made
by itself and in its behalf, and after due considera[ton of all evidence and reports
offered at said heartng~ does fTnd and determine the following fac[s:
t, Tha[ the petitioner proposes a waiver of the following to construct a
free-standing sign:
SECTION 18.05.093.0241 - Maxtmum het ht.
25 eet permi[ted;
5~i proposed)
2, Tha[ [he above-mentioned waiver is hereby denied on the basis that the
petitioner did not demonstrate that a hardship exists tn chat [es[imony previously
given (in connectlon with a variance for walver of minimum number of parking spaces
at a motel) tndicated that a substantia) Pe~centage of guests arrive by a
transportatlon mode other [han priva[e automobile, and that the need for a
substantial increase (double) in sign height to advertise the motel towards the
freeway is inconsistent with said testimony.
3, That therc are no exceptlonal or extraordtnary cTrcumstances or
conditlons applicable to the propcrty involved or to [he iniended usc of the proper[y
that do not apply 9enerally [o the property or class of use in the same vicinlty and
zonc.
li, That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoy~ent of a substantlal property right possessed by other property i~ the same
vicini[y a~d zonc, and dented to the proper[y in questlon.
5, That [hc requested variance will bc matertally detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or irpravements in such viclrtity and zone
in whTch tfie property is located.
6. That no one indicated thetr presence at said pub)ic hearing 1~
opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject
petition.
Et~VIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDING: The Pianning Director or his authorized
representative has determined that the proposed project falis within the definition
of Categorical Exemp[ions, Class 11, as defined in Paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim
Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and ts, therefore, categorically exempt f~an
the requtrement to prepa~e an EIR.
t~ON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Plannf~g Commission
does hereby deny subJect Petition for Variance on the basis of the aforementTo~ed
findTngs.
-2- PC78-264
r-----
;,z '
~
~ ;
THE fOREG0ING fiESOLUTION is stgned anJ approved by me this 20th day of
November, 1978•
~ ~. ~~ CiT ANt11NG COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~.~ 1° ~1~-,.~
SECRETAR , NAHEIM CIT PLANtJING COMMISSIOtI
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COU~lTY OF OP,At~GE ) ss.
L~TY OF ANFHEIM )
I~ Edith L. Harris, Secretary of the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim City Planning Cammtssion held on November 20, ~978, at 1:30 p.m.~ by the
following vote of [he members [hereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BUSHORE, DAVID, HERBST~ TOLAR
NOES: COMH(SSIONERS: KIHC
ABSEtlT: COHMISSIONERS: BARNES~ JOHN5011
IN NITNESS 11fiEREOF, I have hereunto set ny hand chis 20th ~'ay of November~
1978.
~ CRE AR , NANEIM ~Y L NNIt~G pMH15 ON
-3~ Pt78-264