PC 73-251RESOLU~ N0. PC73-251 ~ _
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLAIVNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2537 BF DENIED
NHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Maheim did receive a verified Petition for Variance from
ARTHUR B. WILMSEN, ET AL, in care of Benk of America, 801 North Main, Ssata Ar.e, Caii-
fornie 92701, Owner; ATI.ANTIC RZChT~IELD ~~iPANE, Y786 West Lin~oln Ave^.~e, Ar.aheim,
California 92801, t~gent of certain real p~t°operty situated in Che Citp or Anahe:m,
Counry of Orange, State of Californla, described as The Soath 200.00 feet of the West
200.00 feet of the Sonl•hwest Quarter of Section L,Townsh3p 4 South, Range 10 Wes~, i:z
the Rancho San Juan Cajon de Santa Ana, ae per map recorded in Book 51, Page i0 oE
Misceilaneous Maps in the office of tfie County Recorder of said CourCy. ERCEPT the
West 53.00 feet thereof, ALSO EXCEPT the South 53,00 feet thereof, Said lend is ahowa
on a map ftYed in Book 43, Page 26 of Record of Surveys in the office o£ 'the CoLrty
ftecorder of said CounCy
WHEREAS, Ute City Planning Commission did ltold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim on
November 26, 1973, at 2:00 o'clock p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly gven as required by law and
in accordance with the provisions of the A~iaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.68, to hear and consider evidence for and against snid
proposed variance and to imestigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commirssion, after due inspection, investigation, and study made by itself and in its bchalf, and after due
consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts:
1. Thatthepetitionerrequests: vacier.ces Prom the Araheim Mun~icipal Code as foiYows;
5. SECTION 18.08.33p - Defitnition of a::~omobile aervice station.
(A comuinstion service stetion and conven~ecce
merket ie proposed)
b. SECTION 18.62.090B(1) - Maximum n~mber of free-eCandinQ siKna.
~(One sign permiCted; five signs proposedj
c. SECTION 18.62.090B(1) - Minimum diatarce betweea fsee-sCa:~dir_ e~ ig:?s.
(300 feet reguired; ; 0 si:d P~5 fee•~ proposed)
d. SECTION 18.62.090B 2 - Mrrimum heii~ht of free-st5-~.d•~^.Q s•~,?'~ .
(8 feet re¢~~ired~ 1 foo~, 8 iaohES_ proposed)
2, Thst the petitioner did not prove e hardsF~ip wonid reauY~ £f s~b~ect pe~i:iu^
were not granted.
3. That requests for similer types of uses, speaificeYTy; geao'iir.e saies :r; :o::j::r:a-
tion with convenience food merkete, heve beer, dzn;.ed at several o~her lo:.a'tio:s ;n :f.e
CfCy.
4. That Che dual coAanercial uses proposed by the epplicant on a service statia^. eite
would not c~~mply with Che aite developmenC standards required of oCher co~~ercibT devefloP°
ments.
5. ''Phet the Planning Cocdnission determinEd subject petition, £f grar~ed, wouTd es~sb-
Pish a precedent for other service statioas throughou" Ch~ City to request aimii~r ~ses for
their facilities. ~,
6. That the Planning Cormnissiots determfned seveYaf super. er.d cor.ve:::e,^.ce marke~s Ex-
ist within close proximity to the subfer~ siCe, which could provide the service proposed
at thiF site.
'7. Th&t there are no exceptional or extraordinsry circumsta::ces or conditiona appTi-
cab2e to~the property involved or Co the intended use of the prpPerty that do noC apply
genereily to'~the property or claes of use in the eame vjcln£Cy 9r.d zone.
VI-U -1 -
oev-ee•r_
~
~~
~
8. That the requested variance is noC necessary for the preservation and en,joyment
of a substantial pruperty right possessed by other property in the same vicinity ar.d zone,
and denied to the aroperty in question.
9. That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the pcblic welfare
or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property
is located.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
That the Planning Commisaion, in connection with an Exemption Declaration Status request,
finds and determines that the proposal would have no significanC environmental impact ar.d,
therefore, recommends to the City Council that no Enviranmental Impact Statemen~ ie neces-
sary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny subject Pctition for
Varianca on the basis of the aforementioned finds.
THE FOREGOING RESOLiTfION is signed and approved by me this 6th day of December, 1973.
ATTEST:
~~~.~~ ~ - ~ ~~-
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM C1TY PLANNIN~ COMMISSION ~
~G~iLLe ~ A ~ ~ ~G ^ -f r~2-~cJ
SECRETARY/ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
PRO TEM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
pro tem
I, Patricia Scanl an, Secretary / of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby ccrtify thac the
foregoing resolution was passed aad adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission uf the City of Maheim, held on
November 26, 1973, at 2:00 o'clock p.m., by the following vote of the members thereaf:
pYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED, FARANO, GAUER, HERBST, KING, ROFILAND, SEYMGu'R.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NOIdE.
1N WITNESS WHEItEOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 6th day o f Decembe: , 1973,
~~c.~u-~LJ~ o~' ~ C~ic~'~rc~
SECRETARY/ANAHEIM CTTY PLANNING COMMISSION
PRO TEM
RESOLUTION N0. PC73-251
V2-D - Z