PC 76-213~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. PC76-213
A RE50LUTIUN UF THE AMAHEIM CITY PLANNING COHMISSION
THR.T PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2857 BE D~NIED.
WHEREAS. thc Anaheim City Planning Canmission did receive a verified
Petition for Variance from 111LLIAM E. AND KAY B. THOMPSON~ P,O. Box 1i92. Oxnard,
Callfornia 9303z ~Owncrs); ROBERT F, RYAN, P.O, Box 832~ Oxnard, Caii~`ornla 93032
(Agent) of certain real property situnted in thc Clty of Anaheim, County of Orange,
State of Callfornia descrlbed as:
LOTS 11, i2, AND i3 IN BLOCK 4 OF TRACT N0. 304, !N 7HE ~I7Y OF ANAHEIM~ COUNTY
OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALtFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 14 PAr,E 50 OF
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS~ IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAlD COUNTY.
EXCErT THE WEST 2.75 FEET OF LOTS it AND 13 AS GRAN7ED TO THE CITY OF ANAHEIM BY
DEEDS RECORDED IN BOOK 9z0 PAGE 180 OP OFFICIAL RECORDS~ AND IN BOOK 944 PAGE 322
OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
WHERERS, the City Planning Cortm~ission did hold a public hearing at the City
Hall in tha City of Anaheim on October 27, 1976~ at 1:30 p.m., notlce of saTd public
hearing having been duly given as required by law and In accordance with the
provislons of the Anahelm Hunicipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider
evldence for and agalnst sald proposed varlance and to lnvesLlgate and make flndings
and recommendatlons In connection therewith; and
WHEREAS~ said Commission, after due: inspectlon~ investigation and study mada
by itself and in its behat4~ and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing~ does find and ~etarmine the following facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes ehn foilowing waivers frorn the Anahelm
Municipel Codm~ to establish a retell merket at an existtng se~vice statlon ln the CH
(COMMERCIAL, HEAVY) 20NE:
a. SECTION 18.4b.020 -'ermitted uses, (Canbinatton service station/retatl
marTce't not permitted)
b. SECTION 18.46.068 - Re q~ul~red slte screenin (6-ft, mason~ wall
requ~ec; nol- ne propose ~
2. That the above-mentioned waivers are hereby denied on the basis that no
hardship or unique circu!nstances were demonstrated by 4he petitloner; that the
proposed "duai use" would be an overdeveTopm~nt of the stte; that the proposal to
combine a servlce stntion a~d re2ail market would set an undesirable precedent for
future similar requests; that If foad sales were permitted (n conJunctlon with
service statlons, convenience markeYS mlght be entltled to have gasoline sales; and
that. historically, service statTons h~ve enJoyed speciat privl9eges due to the
nature of the use and should not be granted additlonal prlvileges or rignts.
3. That there are no exceptlonal or extraordtnary clrcumstances or
con~itlons applicabia to the property invotved or to the Yntended use of the property
that do not apply generally to tha property or class of use in the sAme vlcinity and
zone.
4. That the requested varf+ance ls not necessary for the preservation and
enJoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property In the same
vlclnlty and zone, and denled to the property ln yuestion.
5. That the requested variance will be materlatly detrlmentr~! to the
public welfare or inJurlous to the property or improvements In such vicinity and zone
tn which Lhe property is tocated,
6. That no one Indicated their presence at said public hearing In
oppositlon; and that no corraspondence was recelved tn opposition ta subJect
petitlon.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FtEPORT FINDiNG: That the Dfrector of the Planning
Department has determ ned that the prop~sed actlvity falls within the .defTnition of
Section 3.01, Class 1, of the City of Anahelm Guld'clines to the Requlrements for an
Enviranmrntal Impact Report and Is, therefore, categoricaliy exempt from the
req~ilrament to file an EIR.
kESOLU710N N0. PC76-2?3
~ ~
,;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEp th~t the AnaheTm ~ity Pta;;nTng Commission
~' does hereby deny subJect Petitlon for Vartan~e or, ihe basi, ~af the aforementiorsed
findings.
TNE FOREGOING RESaLUfIaN fs slgned end approv ~ by me tF@> 27th day of
october t976. ,~ ~
. ,~.
l~~"""~:~rt:is ~N .. M Ci~~ING COMM SSION
ai a~5'f:
~ ~ ~ ~
~-~~ ~~.,~e,-~~,~:~
SECRE~RN~f~F..c1 G1.Y I~CA~iN~2t a:~;t~'~~~P
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) •
COUNTY OF ORANGE )ss.
C17Y OF ANAHEIM )
I,, Patricla B. Scanlan, Secrotary of the Anahelm City Planning Commisslon,
do hereby certify that the foregoing resolutlon was passed and adopted at e meettn9
of tha Anaheim City Planning Ccmnisslon, held on October 27~ 1976~ at it3Q p.m,~ by
the following vote of the membcrs thereofs
AYES: COMMISSIOWERS: BAR~dES, FARANO, HE{tBST~ KING~ MORLEY~ TOLAR~ JOHNSON
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE .
ABSENT: COMMISSION~RS: NONE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF~ I have hereunto set my hand thls 27th day of October
1976.
~ ~
CR ~~ 1 AN NG COMMtS510N
-2- RESOLUTION N0, PC76-213