PC 73-87. ~. ~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. PC73-87
4 RE50LUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISS?ON OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2496 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, Uie City Planning Commissiun of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified Petition for Vuricace from
ATLANTIC RICHETELD COMPANY, in care of Robert Walter Stewart, Jr., 1786 West Lincoln
Avenue, Anaheim, California 92801, Own2r; GENERAL MAINTENANCE,INCORPQRATED, 11372
Western Avenue, Stanton, California 90680, Agent of certain real property situated in
the City of Anaheim, Cnunty of Orange, State of California, described ae All that por-
tion of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter ~f Sec. 17, Township 4 South,
Range 10 West, c~ancho San Juan Cajon de Santa Ana and Rancho Los Coyotes, as shown on
a map recorded i:t Book 51, page 10, Misc. Maps, records of Orange County, described as
follows: BEGYNNING at the intersection of the center line of L+roadway with the center
line of Euc7.id Avenue, as shown on map of Tract 2402, recorded in Book 79, pages 37,
38 and 39, Misc. Maps, records of said Orange County, and running thence North 89° D2~
50" West along cer.ter line of Broadway, 203 feet; thence South 0° 32' 15" West parallel
wi=!: r_enter line of Euclid 4venue, 155 feet; thence South 89° 02' S0" East parallel with
the center line of IIroadWay, 30 feet; thence South 0° 32' 15" West parallel with center
Zine of Euclid Avenue, 40 feet• thence South 89° 02' S0" East parallel with center line
of Broadway, 173 feet to center line of Euclid Avenue; thence North 0° 32'• 15" East
along center line of Euclid Avenue, 195 feet to point of beginning; EXCEPTING THEREFROM
the North 45 feet thereof., included within Bro~dway; ALSO EXCEPTING therefrom the East
53 feet thereof, included within Euclid AYenue.
:VHF.REAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall ~n the City of Anaheim on
April 30, 1973, at 2:00 o'clock p.m., :~otice of said public hearing having been duly gven as required by law and
in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheun Municipal Code, Chapter 18.68, to Fear and consider evidence for and agninst said
proposed rariance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in con~ection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, inves:igation, alid study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due
consideration of all evidence and reports offe~ed at said hearing, does Find and determine the following facu:
1. That the petitioner requests variances from the Anaheim Municipal Code as foll.ows: '
a. SECTION 18.62.040(B-1) - Maximum number of free-standing signs. (One
permitted; three proposed)
b. SECTION 18.62.090(B-1) - Minimum distance between free-standing siRns.
(300 fee~ required; 56 and 76 feet proposed)
c. SECTION 18.62.090(B-2) - Minimum hei~ht o£ a free-standin~ si~.
(S feet required; 8 inches proposedl
2. That the petitioner stipulated this would be a completely "self-serve" service
sL•ation; consequently, there is no need to place a"Self-Serve" sign with price signs at
each pump island.
3. That the Planning Commission recognizes that the City ^our.cil h3s granted
"Se1P-Serve" and price signs on appropriate islands at service atations where both
"full service" and "self-service" are available; however, the subject service station
is completely "self-serve" and this fact ceuld be adequaee'!y advertised on the existing
pole sign at the corner of ~'he property along with the price ~igns.
4. That there are no er.certional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions appli-
cable 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.
5. That ~he requested varianca is not necessary ft,r the preservation and enjoyment
of a substsntial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,
and denied to the property in question.
Vl-D -1 -
DEV-66•E
6, Thnt the requested var~ance wi11...be~.: materielly detrimental to the public
welfare or xnjurious to the property or imQrovements:in auch vicinity and zone in which
the psoperty is located.
ENVIRONMEITTAI, IMPACT [tEPORT FINDING:
That the Planning Commiasion, in connection ~aiCh an ExRmption Declarstion StaCUS requeat,
finds and determines that the proposal would have no significant environwental impact and,
therefore, recommends to the City Council that no Environmental Impact Statement is neces-
sary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RES~LVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny subject Petitian for
Var.ance on the basis of the atiorementioned t"inds.
THE FOREGOING RESOLlJfION is signed and approved by me this
ATTEST':
G~~~/~~,}~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
SfATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM ) '
I Ann Krebs Sec~etary of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do he~eby certify that the
foregoing~resolution was~passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on
April ~0, 1973, at 2:00 o'clock p.m., by the following vote of the members thereof:
pyES: CUMMISSIONERS; ALLRED, FARANO~ GAUER, HERBST, KAYWOOD.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ROWLAND, SEYMOUR.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this lOth day of May, 1973.
G~~~~~-~ -
SECRI"sTARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSTON
RESOLUTION N0. PC73.87
V2-D -' -