PC 84-225~~~,
RESqLU'L'ION N0. E'C£34-225
.~~~.
A R~:SOLUTION ~[' 'CHG ANAHGIM CITY PI~ANNING C:OMMISSION
THAT PC:`i'ITTOIV I'OR VARIANCE N0. 3~33 BE GRANTEU
WHER~AS, 4he Anaheim City Planning Co~lunission did receive a veCified
Peti.tian f.or Variance from I.GO FREEDMAN EN'I'ERE~RISE, 468 Sauth Roxbur.y Dr.ive
(PT H), Bever].y Hi.lls, Califarnia 90212, owner of certaici real property
sit~iatecl in r.r~e City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California
described as:
THE EA~'I' G50. UO FEE'i' OF T~E WEST 72~. UO I'EET OF THE NOR'rH
585.OU EEET OF THE SOUTH 1"l60 FEET OF THE SUUTHEAuT QUARTER OF
SE(:TION 22, TOWNSEiIP 4 SOU'rH, P.ANG13 10 LJEST, IN THE 1RANCHO SAN
JUAN CAJUN DE SANTA A~JA, CITY OF ANAHEZM, COUNTX OE ORANGr.,
STATE 0~ CALIFARNIA, AS PEI2 MAF RECORD~;D IN BOUK 51 PAGE 1Q QF
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, TN THE OFI'ICF. OE' THE CUUNTY RECOkDER OE'
SAID CUUNTY.
~XCEPT THAT PURZ'ION THEREOr DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT
THE NORTHWEST CURNER OF SAID LAND; THENCE SOUTH 0° 13' 22" EAS`.C
141.11 EEN:T ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF HARt30K BOULEVARD; THENCE
NORTH 89° 54' 30" EAST 20.00 FEET; Z'HF.NCE NORTH 49° 54' 30"
EAS'P 36.77 F'EET; THENCE NORTH 89° 54' 30° FAST 65.2$ FEET;
THENCE: NQRTFI 0° 13' 22" WEST 30.75 FE:ET; THENGF. NORTH 89° 54'
30" r~AST 38.li6 FLET; TEIFNCE NOR'PH 0° 13' 22" WES'P 84.36 F~ET;
THENCF SOUTH F~9° 54' 30" WEST 150.00 EEET TO THE POINT OE'
BEGINNING.
WHEREAS, the Cit~+ Planning Commission c]id hold a public hearing at
the Civic Center in the City nf Anaheim on October 29, 1984, at 1:30 p.m~,
riatice of said publi~ hearing having been duly yiven as required by law and in
accordance with the provir~ions of. the Anaheim ~lunfcipal Cude, Chapter 18.03,
to heGr and consider evidence for and against said proposed v~~riance and to
investigate and make findings and recommendations .in connection therewith; and
WHEKEAS, said Commi.ssion, after due inspection, investigation and
study made by iteelf and in its behalf, and after due consi~iecation of all
evidence and reports offered ar_ said hc:aring, do~s find a~~d determine the
following facts:
1. That the petitioner propuses a waiver of the following ta retain
25 roof-mounted Elxgs:
Section 18.05.074.030 - Permikted n~mber and tYFe of flags.
(3 flags: nakional, state~ religious or
lr~ternal permitteds 25 flaqs: national,
statQ and international existinq)
2. That the a~ove-mentioned wafver is hereby granted on the baRi3
that there are special circum~r.ances applicable to tht ~roperty such as size,
sha~e, topugraphy, location and ~ucroundings which do not apply t~o other
identically zoned proaerty in r_he saine vicinity; and that strict application
of th~ Zaning Cnde c~epr.iv~s the property of privilege~ ~n;~oyed ~y other
pcoperties i~ the identfcz~.l zonn and cla~sification in khe vicin{ty.
~0357r Pr.84-225
.
~,~
3. That there are exceptzonal or exlraurr]inary circumstar~ces or
conditions applicable to the property involved or to lhe intended use o£ the
property tha.*. do noC apply generally to ~.:he pr.operty or class of use in the
same vicir~.ity and zone.
4. That ttie requ~sted variance~ is necessary for khe preservation
and enjoym~nt of a substantia]. property riyht ~:ossesyeci by other property i.n
ths same vicinity and 2one, and denied tc t:he ~~raperty in question~
5. That th~ rEquested vari~nce will n~t be materially detrimental
to the ~ub~ic welrar~ or injurious to the property or impr~vements in such
vicinity and zone in whict~ the property is located.
6. That no on~ indicated their presenc~ at said pubaic hearing in
opposition; and that n~ corcespondenre was received in op~osition to s~xbj~;:t
petition.
ENVIRONMEN7'AL IMPACT FINDING: The Planning Directar or his
authorized representative has determined thaL- the proposed project fall~
within the definition of Cateqorical Exemptions, Class 1]., as defined in the
Statn EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, c~tegorically exempt From the
requirement to prepare an EIR.
NOW, ~I'HEF2EFORE, BE IT RESOLVGD ~hat the Anaheim City Planning
Commi~sion does }~ereby gran~ subject Petition for Var.iance, upon the following
conditions which are hersby foun~ to be a necessary pcerequisitE to the
proposed use af khe subject pruperty in order to pr~~erve the saFety and
general welfare of the CitiLens oC r.he City of Anaheim:
1. That subject property shall be developed sub~L-antfa_lly in accordance
with plans and specifications c+n file with the City of AnaF~eim marked
EXhibit No. 1.
2. That Condition No. 1, above-mentionec~, shall be com~leted within a
period of thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution.
B~ IT FURTHER RE50LVED that thN An~heirn City Planning Conmission does
hexeby find and deteGmine that adoptien of this Rpsoluti.on is expressly
predfcated upan applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditfons
hereinabove set fo:th. Should ar-y such condition, or any part lhereof, be
declared invalid or unenforceable by tt-i~ final judyment of any court ~f
compe~ent juri~diction, then thia Resolution, and any approvals herein
contained, shall be deemed null and void.
'~HE ~'pR~GOING RGSOLJ'rIUN is signed and approved by me this 29th day
of October 1984.
2 ~ 1 ~ _.
CIiAYRWOMAN, PRO iEMP RE
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIMG COMMISSI~N
ATTEST; ~'
~ ~J~- .
~`
5ECRETARY, ANANFIM CITY PLANNING CUMMISSIAN
-2" PC84-225 ;`
i`
1,;
r
4-:;
1
~` ~
..~~-~. .«~r
~
STATE ~F (:AT:TFORNSA )
COUNTY U~' QRANGG ) ss.
(:I~Y OF ANAEiEIM )
l, Edi.th L. i3arris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning
Commission, da hereby c~rtify tha~ the forega.ing resolut•ioti was passed and
adopted at a meetin; of the Anaheim City Planning Commission l~eld on October
29, 1984, l~y the following vo~e of the mem5ers thereof:
AYES: (;OMMISSIONERS; BOUAS~ ~RY, ICING, LA CLAIRE~ MC BURN~:Y
NOES: COMMISSIANERS: BU~HORE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HEFtBST
:[N WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 29th day of
October 29, 1984.
,,,~ ~ .
~~
5ECRE'rARY, ANAHEIM CITY PS,ANNING COMMISSION
-3- PC84-225
. .. _~~~