PC 72-194~ ~
PC72-194
RESOLUTION N0.
A RESOLUTION OF TfiE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2408 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Plnnning CommiYalo~ of the City of Aaaheim did eeceive e vecified Petitlon for Vedence from
STANDA~ OIL OF CALIFORN7'A, Poat Office Box 31, Long Beach, California 90801, Owner; AMERICAN
PERMIT SERVICE, Post Office Box 364, La Puente, California 91747, Agent of certain real prop~
erty situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California deacribed as
Beginning at the center line interaection of Katella Avenue snd Placentia Avenue, said point
being the northweat corner of Lot 5 of Tract No. 71 in book 10 page 22 of Miscellaneous Meps,
recorda of Orange County, California, thence South 89° 45~ 20" Eaet along the center line of
Katella Avenue 196.00 feet to a point; thence South 0° 07~ 50" T~est 60.00 feet to the true
point of beginning; thence continuing South 0° 07' S0" West 150.00 feet- to a point; thence
North 84° 45' 20" West 143.00 feet to a point on the East right of way of Placentia Avenue;
thence North 0° 07~ 50" East parallel to the center line of Placentia Avenue 130.00 feet to
an angle point; thence North 45° il' 15° East to a point on the ~outh right of way of Katella
Avenue; thence South 89° 45' 20" East parallel to the center line of Katella ~venue 123.OQ
feet to the true point of beginning; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commiaeion did hold a pubxic headng at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim on
August 21, 1972, . et Z:00 o'clACk P.M., netice of said publlc heering heving been duly given es cequiced by
law and in acmrdence wlth the provisions oE the Anaheim Municipel Code, Chepter 18.68, to hear and consider evldence for
end ageinst aeid proposed voriance and to investiQate end meke findings end cecommendetions in connection therewith;
end ~
WFIEREAS, sald' Commission, efter due iaspection, :nvestigetlon, end atudy mede by itself and in its behelE,
end aEter due consldaation of ell evidence and repods ofEered at sald heering, does find end determine the following
fads: .
1. That the petltioner requests variances f~om the Anaheim Municipal Code as follows:
a. SECTION 18.62.090(B-1) = Minimum distance between free-stendint~ siKne
(300 feet raquired; 0 feet proposei).
b. SECTION 18.62.990(B-1) - Maximum number of free-standinq~aiqns
(7 propoaed; 1 permitted).
c. SECTION 18.62.090(B-5) - Minimum distance to adiacant proper~
(52 feet required'; 38 feet propoaed).
d. SECTION 18.62.090(II-2) - Minimum si~n heiRht
(B feet required; 6 feet proposed).
2. That signing as proposed ia far in ex,cess of aigning permitted within the aign
ordinance and to grant subject petition would be eatablishing an undesirable
precedent wherein every other service station in Anaheim could request similar
eigning.
That the Planning Commisaion earlier iti ~972 had denied a aimilar request with a
finding that approval would establish a precedent for mass signing of other 9ervice
stntiona throughout the city and no changea have occurred tu warrant favorable
consideration of this petitioa.
4. That the petitioner is proposing to increasc: the number of signs on these aervice
station aites from focr to eight (4-8) t.imes that permitted by Code, thereby auto-
matically granting the petitioner a privilege not enjoyed by other commercial and
industrial de~~elopments throughout the City.
V 1-D -1-
5. That there are no exc~tional or extraordinary circums~ ces or conditious applicable
to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply
generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
6. That the requested variance is not necessary fw- the preservation and enjoyment of a
s4bstantial Froperty right possesaed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,
and denied to the pxoperty in question.
7. ThaY the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvemen2e in such vicinity and zone ir, which the
property is located.
8. That the petitioner is proposing six signs more than permitted by Che Sign Ordinance or
an increase of almost 600% over Code, and thue he would be enjaying a very spt~ial
privilege if suUject petition were approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Plannln~ Commiasion does hereby deny subject
Petition for Verience on the besis of the eforementloned Eindinga.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed end epproved by me thie 31at day of August, 1912.
/", s ~ ~
AIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNI 0~!!d1SSI0
ATTEST:
c:Ie~1~l~-~
SECRETARI ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann KreUs, Seccetery of the City Plonning Commission of the Clty of AneHeim, do hereby cedify thet the fote-
going cesolution was pessed and edopted et e meeting of the City Plenning Commiseion ofthe City of Aneheim, hald on
August 21, 1972 at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following voRe of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbat, Kaywood, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Rowland.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hend this 31st day of August, 1972.
RESOLUTION NO.PC72-194
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
V2-D "2'