PC 72-199~ ~
RESOLUTiON NO. pC72-199
A RESOLUTION OF TIiE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARThxiCE N0. 2413 HE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Meheim did receive e verified PeUtion for Veriance from
STANDARD OIL OF CALIFORNIA, Post Office Box 31, Long Beach, California 90801, Owner; AMERICAN
PERMIT SERVICE, Post Ofiice Box 364, La Puente, Califo?-nia 91747, Agent of certain real prop-
erty situated in the City of Anaheim, Coutrty of Orange, State of Califarsiia, described as That
part of Lot 'Itaenty-six (26) of Anaheim Er.tension, as shown on a Map of survey made by Wm. Hamel,
and filed for racord in the office of the County Recorder of Loa Angeles County, California,
described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast eorner of said Lot Twenty-six, said point
being Lhe intersection of the center line of Los Angeles Street with the center line of Ball
Road as ahown on said survey; running thence North 15° 32' 15" West 150.00 feet along the
Northeasterly line of said Lot Twenty-si.x; thence South 74° 27' 45" West 30.00 feet; thence
South 86° 33' 40" Weat 173.86 {eet to a point in a line which ia parallel to and 200 feet South-
westexly from the asid Northeasterly line of Lot Twenty-six; thence South 15° 32' 15" East
131.1.3 feet along tha line pareliel to and 200 feet Southweaterly of the said Northeasterly
line of Lot Twenty-six to a point in the South line of said Lot Twenty-aix; thence North 89°
55' 15" East 207.51 feet along the said South line of Lot Twenty-eix, ssid line being the
center line af Ball Road to the point of beginning; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commiaeion did hold a public heedng at the City uall In the City of Aneheim on
August 21, 1972, et 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of aeid public hearing having been ~~~~ IPven es required by
law end in acrncdence wlth the provieions of the Aneheim Municlpel Code, Chepter 18.68, to heer and cons;der evidence foc
end egainst seid proposed variance end te investigete end meke finding's end recommeaddtions in connection thecewith;
end
WHEREAS, enid' Commission, after duo inepection, investigation, enu study mede by itself end in its behelf,
and efter due cbnaideration of ell et~ldence end repoRs offered at seid hearilg, does find end determine the following
fects:
1: That the petitionpr requests variances from the Anaheim Municipal Code
as follows: . •
a. SECTION 19.62.090(B-1) - Minimum distance between free-standing
signs. (300 feet required; 18 feet
proposed)
b. SECTIUN 18.62.090(B-1) - Maximum number of free-standing signs.
(8 proposed; 1 pexmitted)
• c: SECTION 18.62.090(B-2) - Minimum sign height.
(8 feet required; 6~ feet proposed)
2. That signing as proposed is far in exces~ of signing permitted within
the Sign Ordinance, and to grant subject petition would be establish-
ing an undesirable precedent wherein every other service station in
Anaheim could request similar signing.
3. That the Planning Commission earlier in 1972 had denied recedentr
request with a finding that approval would establish a p
for mass signing of other service stations throughout the city, and
no changes have occuzred to warrant favorable consideration of this
petition.
Vl-D -1-
~ 1
. 4. That the petitione~is proposing to increase t e number of signs on
these service station sites from four to eight times that permitted
by Code, thereby automatically granting the petitioner a privilege
not enjoyed by other commercial and industria'1 developments through-
out the city.
5. That there are no exceptional cr extraordinary circumstances or
conditions 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 che same vicinity and zone.
6. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation
aad enjoyment of a substantial propprty right possessed by other
property in Lhe same vicinity and zone and.denied to the property
in question. '
7. That the requested variance will be materiaJ.ly detrimental to the
pub'lic welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such
vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
8. That the petitioner is proposing seven more signs than permitted by the
Sign Ordinance, or an increase of almost 700~ over Code, and thus he
wou.ld be enjoying a very special prA.vilege if subject petition were
approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Aneheim Clty Plenning Commiasion does heceby deny subject
Petition for Ve:ience on the basis of the efocementioned Eindings.
THE FOREGOIPIG RESOLUTIGN is signed and aooroved bv me this 31at day of August, 1972.
ATTEST:
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORP.NGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Kreb's, , Secretery of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do heceby certify t1~et the fore-
going resolntion wes pessed and adopted et e meeting of the City Plenning Commisaion ofthe Clty of Aneheim, held on
August 21, 1972, et 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the membera theceof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER, HERBST~ KAYWOOD, SEYMOUR.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE .
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED, ROWLAND.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hand this 31et day of August, 1972.
RESOLUTION N0. pC72-199
~~ %~~rGC/L~./
-~-
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
V2-D '2"