PC 72-208RESOLUTIO~. PC72-208 ~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR .VARIAATCE N0. 2422 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim did :eceive a verified Petition Eo: Variance
from STANDARD OIL OF CALIFORNIA, Post Office Box 31, Long Beach, Califocnia 90801~ Owner;
AMERICAN PERMIT SERVICE, Post Office Box 364, La Puente, Califc:nia 91747, Agent of certain
real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, des-
cribed as That portion of the eoutheeat quarter of section 17, Township 4 South, Range 10
West, partly in the Hancho Loa Coyotes and partly in the Rancho San Juan Cajan de Santa Ana
ae said section is shown on a map recorded in book 51 page 10 of Miecellaneous Maps, in the
office of the county recorder of said county, described ae follows: B~ginning ak a point
South 2665.87 feet and Weat 30.00 feeC from the northeast corner of said aection 17, thence
West 631.29 feet; thence South 413.82 feet; thence East 630.96 feet; r.hence North 413.82
feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPT the Sauth 247.00 feet thereof, ALSO EXCEPT that
portion thereof lying westerly of a line parallel with and 203.0~ fset westerly from the
center line of Euclid Avenue, ea ehown on the mep of Tract No. 367'L recorded in book 129
page 5 of said Miscellaneoue Mape
; end
Y/HEREAS, the City Plenning Commission did hold e public hearing at the City Hell in the City oE Meheim
on Auguet 21, 1972, et Q:00 o'clock P.M., notice of sald public hearing heving been duly given
es required by lew and in accordence with the pcovisions of the Meheim Municipel code, Chapter 18b S, to heer
and consider eeSdence for and egeinst said proposed conditionel use and to investigete and meke findings end
recommendetlons in connectfon therewith; und
WHEREAS, seId Commission, eEter due inspection, investigatlon, end study mede by itselE end in its be-
half, end efter due consideration of e!1 evidence end reports of(ered at satd hearing, doea find and determine the
following fects:
1. That the petitioner requests variances from the Anaheim Municipal
Code as follows:
a, SECTION 18.62.090(S-1) - Minimum diatance between free-standing
slgns. (300 feet requiredt 16 feet
propos ed)
b. SECTION 18.62.090(H-1) - Maximum number of free-standing signs.
(5 signs pr.oposedt 1 permitted)
c. SECTION 18.62.090(B-5) - Minimum distance to adjacent property.
(58 feet requireds 55 feet proposed)
d. SECTION 18.62.090(B-2) - Minimum sign height.
(8 feet required; 6~i feet proposed)
2. That signing as proposed is far in exceas of signing permitted within
the Sign Ordinance, and to grant subject petition would be establish-
ing en undeairable precedent wherein every other service atation in
Anaheim could request similar signing.
3. That the Planning Commission esrlinr in 1972 had denied a aimilar
request with a finding that approval would establiah a precedent
for mass signing oi other service atations thrauqhout the city, and
no changes have occurred to warrant favorable consideration of this
petition.
-1-
~ ~
4. That the petitioner i~ proposing to increase the number of signs on
these service station sites from four to eight times that permitted
by Code. thereby automatically grantinq the petitioner a privilege
not enjoyed by other commercial and industrial developments through-
out the city.
5. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involued or to the intended
use oi t:~e property that do not apply generally to the property or
class of u3e in the same vi.;inity and zone.
6. That the requested variance is not necessary fc+r the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other
property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property
in question.
7. That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurioua to the property or improvements in such
vicinity aad zone in which the property is located.
NOW, THEREFORR, BE IT RESGLVED thet the Anahelm City P1aunlnQ Commissioa doea hereby deny sabJect
Petition for Verlence on the beuis of the eforementioned flndings.
THE FOREGOLNG RESOLUTION ie slgned ond epproved by me this 31st day of. Augu^t, 1972.
CITY
ATTEST:
C:~~ 1~4i'Z~
SECRETARY ANASiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) se.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Krebe, . Seccetary of the Clty Pienning Commiesion of the City of Anehelm, do hereby ceRify that the fote-
going resolution wes peased end adopted et e meeting oE the City Planning Commission oEthe City oE Aneheim, held on
August 21, 1972, et 2:00 a'clock P.M., by the following vote oE the members thereaf:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: I'ARAPIO, GAUER, HERBST, KIiYW00D, SF.YMOUR.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED, ROWLAND.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hend thie 31st day of Auguet, i972.
RESOLUTION N0, PC72-208
7~S~~te.~-•~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING ROMMISSION
V2-D -2-