PC 80-139RE50LIiTI01J N0. PC 3!1-139
A RESQLUTIOM OF THE AIJAHEI^1 CITY PLAH~IIN~ C~N~~ISSION
THAT PETITIO~I FOF; VAP,IAWCE Pdf1. 316Ei BE GRAMTED, IPJ PART
IJHEREAS~ the Anaheim City Planninq Commission did receive a verifled
Petition for Variance from ANAHEIN BUSIMESS CEMTER, P. 0, Bor. 10~77, Santa Ana,
California 92711, o~•m er, and WILLIAM R. QUFSFIELL~ c/o American National Properties,
1~3Q5 East Dyer Road, Suite 405, Santa Ana, California 9?.7~5, agent, of certain real
property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orin_qe, State oT Caltfornia
described as:
Parcel S as sho~m on a Parcel Map filed in Book 131, pages 1 and 2
of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of Orange
County, California.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission dtd hold a public hearing at the City
Hall in the City of Ar.aheim on August 25, 1980, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public
hearing having been duly given as required by )a~,~ and in accordance with the
provisions of the Ariaheim Municioal Code. Chapter 1~.~3, to hear and consider
evidence for and again~t said proposed variance and to investtaate and make findings
and recommendations in connection thereaiith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection. investiaation and study made
by itself and tn its behalf, and after due consideratton of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does f;nd and determine the follot•~in9 facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes ~~aivers of the folloa~ing to construct a
free-standing sign:
(a) SECTIO~~ 18.05.0"3.n23 - Permitted 'ocatio~.
2 0 eet rom property line required,
and o`-stte business signs not permitted;
!f feet oroposed, and off-site "Toyota Entrance"
sign proposed)
(b) SECTIOPJ i$,OS_.~93.~2~!1 - t1aximum hei~ht.
25 eet permitted;
2 .-'d 5 ~et pro~osed)
2. That the above-mentioned ti•raiver (a) is herehy ~ranted on the basis that
the petitioner demonstrated that a hardship exists in that alinnment of the new
extenston of Cerritos Avenue eliminated street frontage along Anaheim Eoulevard and
adversely affected visibility to subject property and that tlie existing street access
to the "Toyota" property has been modified making customer access difficult without
adequate directional signing.
3. That the above-mentioned waiver (b) is herehy denied on the basis that
the petitioner stipulated at the puhl;c hearing to hrinqinq thP sign into ~onformance
with the slgn ordinance~ thereby eliminating the proposecf hetght waiver.
PC80-139
~}. Thot there are exceptional or extraordinary clrcunstances or conditions
applicable to the prorerty involved or to th~ inten~ed USr.~ as pranted, of t!ie
property that do not apply generolly to the rrr,~,Prt~~ ~,r class of usa in the same
~ir_inity and zone.
5. That the requ~sted variance, as pranted, is nr.cessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a suhstantial nroperty ri~ht po,sesserl by other
property in the same vicinity and z~ne, and denied to the property In question.
L, That the requested variance, as granted, ~~ill not be materially
detrimental to the put•lic welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in
such vicinity and zone in ~;~hich the property is located.
7. That no one indicated their presence at said piiblic hearing in
opposition; and that no correspo~dence ~~ras receiveJ in opposition to the subject
petition.
EhdVIP,OPIMEIJTAL I'1PACT FI~IDItIG; The Planning Dir~ctor or his authorized
representative has determined t!~at the ~r~po5ed project falls ±•rithin t'ie definition
of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in Paragranh 2 of the City of Anaheim
Environmental Impact Report Guidelines ~nd is, therefore, categ~rically ex.empt frc~m
tl~e re~uiremen*_ to prepare an EIR.
tdOt~!, THEREFORF, QE IT RESOLVED that the IlnaFeim City Planning Commission
does hereby ~rant, in part, sul~ject Pet~tion for Variinr.e, upon the following
eonditions ~•~hic!~ are hereby found to be ~. necessary ~rerequisite to thP proposed use
of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and ~r.neral t~!elfare of the
Cittzens of the City of .qnaheim:
1. That suhject oroperty shall he developed suhstantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on filp v~ith the City of Ana`~ein marl<ed Exhibit ~los. 1
through 3; provided, hot~ever, that the ma;;imum sign height shall nct exceed tvienty-
five (2_",) feet.
BE IT FL~RTHER RESOLVED that the Flnaheim City Planning Commtssion does herehy
find and determine that the adoption of t51s Resolution is expressly predicated upon
anplicant~s compliance t~ritfi each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth.
Should any condition or any part tnereof, be declared invalicf or unenforceable by the
finai judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this 4esolution, and any
approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
THE FOREGOIMf, RFSOL!JTIO'! is stgned ancl a~praved by me this 2~th day of
August, 1~)3~.
_~
~. ~ ., ..r._ ic~ ,l~ ~l 1~ -~.~ ._~._~-
CHAIF~trn~ P~~n TEMPORE
Ar1AI IE i~1 C I TY PLl1~1h1 I Id~ C~r~M I SS I~~!
ATTE'T:
l0 ~ ~r~~
~El~}C~Y~,~~~ AN~ F1G COMh11SSI0M _2_ p~8~_~39
STATE OF C/iL I FOR11I A )
COUNTY OF ORAt1GE ) ss.
CITY OF Ar~AHEit1 )
I, Edith L. flarris, Secretary of tfie Anahein City Plannina Commission, do
hereby certify that tfie foregoin~ resolution ~~as passed and ad~pted a*_ a meeting of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission helci on Aunust 2~, 1^^", at t:3n p,m.,by the
folloo~ing vote of the nemLers thereof:
AYES: COt9MISS10'lERS: [3AR~1[S, CUSNORE, f30U.4S, FCY, HE3?ST, !:I~I~
NOES: COM,~ISSIOr1ER5: tlONE
ABSEM1IT: C~'1MISS10?JERS: TOLAR
I~I DlITPIESS 4!liERrOF, I have ;iereunto set m;~ hand this 2~th day of /lugust, 1~P0.
~,~~. ~ ~~
ScCRETA!?Y, At!/~IIE I h1 C ITY PLA~IPI I"!G C4~•1P~ I SS I ~^l
-3- PC8n-t39