PC 76-228~ ~
RESOLUTION N0, PC76-228
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO~~
THAT PF.TITION fOR VARtANCE N0. 2854 BE DENIED.
WHEREAS, the Anaheim CTty Pianning Commission did receive a verified Petition
for Variance from EARL L. SINGLETON AND JAMES CLAYTON PEACOCK, 1600 E. Mayfair Avenue,
Orangc, California y2567 (Co-Trustees); GENERAL MAINTcNANCE~ INC., P.O, Box 233,
Stanton~ Californla 90680 (Agent) of certain real property siiuated tn the City of
Anahelm~ County of Orange~ State of California described as:
THAT PORTION OF iHE SOUTHEi-~ST QUARTER OF THE PJORTHEA:iT QUARTER OF
SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH~ RANGE 10 WEST~ PARTL"Y IN THE RANCHO SAN
JUAN CAJON DE SANTA ANA~ AND PARTLY IN THE RANCHO LOS COYOTES, CITY OF
ANAHEIM~ COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IPl
BOOK 51 PAGE 10 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAID COUP~iY~ DESCRIBEO AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTER LINE OF BROADWAY WTTH 1'HE
CENTEP. LINE OF EUCLID AVENUE, AS SAID CENTER LINES ARE SHOWN ON A MAP
OF TRACT N0. 2402, P.ECQRDED IN BOOK 79 PAGES 37, 38 AND 39 OF MISCELLP.PlEOUS
MAPS, IN THE O~FICE _F THE CCUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE
tiORTH 89° 02' S0" WEST 203.00 FEET ALONG THE CENTER i.INE OF SAID
BROADWAY; THENCE SOUTH 0° 32' 15" WEST 155.00 FEET PARALLEL WITH TNE
CENTER LINE OF SAID EUCLID AVENUE; THENCE SUUTH 83° 02' S0" EAST 30.00
FEET PARALLEL WiTH THE CENTER LINE OF SAID BROADWAY; THENCE SOUTH 0°
32' 15" ~r1EST 40.00 FEEi PARALLEL '~lITH THE CENTER LTNE OF SAID EUCLID
AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 89° 02' S0" EAST 173.00 FEET PARALLcL WITH THE
CENTER LINE OF SAID BROADWAY TO THE CENTER LINE OF SAID EUCI.ID AVENUE;
TH[NCE N~RTH 0° 32' 15" EAST 195.00 FEET ALONG LAST SAID CENTER LINE
TO THE POINT OF zEGINNING.
EXCEPT THE NORTH 45.00 FEET THEREOF INCLUDED WI71iIN BROADWAY,
AL50 EXCEPT THE EAST 53.00 FEET THEREOF INCLUDED•WITHIN EUCIID AVENUE.
SAID LAND IS I~lCLUDED WITHIN THE AREA SHOWN ON A MAP F~ILED IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, IU BOOK 27 PAGE
11 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS~ IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID
COUNTY.
WHERFAS~ the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the CTty
Hail in the City of Anaheim on November 8, 197G~ at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public
hearing having been duty given as required by law and in accordance with the ,:rovislons
of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03~ to hear and consider evidence for and
against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations
in connection therewith; and
WNEREAS~ sald Commisslon~ after due tnspection, investigatton and study made
by ltself and in its behalf~ and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the followtng facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes the following watvers from the Anaheim
Municipal Code, to permit existing illegal signs at a service station:
a. SECTION 18.05,093.~21 - Maximum number of siqns. (1 free-standing
s gn permitte ; 5 existing
b. SECTION 18.05.093.0z31 ~ Minimum distance between slgns.
300 eet required; 2~et to B6 feet
existing
c. SECTION 18.05.~93.045 ~ Maximum wa11 sign area. (20$ of
wa 1 ace permitted; 24$ extsting)
2. ThaC Walvers 1-a and 1-b~ above-mentioned, were withdrawn by the
petitioner wlth the stipulatlon to c«nply wTth said Code requirements.
3, That Waiver 1-c, above-menttoned, ls hereby denied on the basis that the
petitioner dld not demonstrate that a hardship would be created if said waiver vrare not
RESOLUTION N0. PC76-228
, .' ~ ~
granted; and, furtherRpre~ ars undesirable precedent would be set for future similar
reouests for excessive rign areas at servlce station sites.
4. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary cTrcumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property
that do nnt apply generally to the praperty or class of use in the same vicinity and
zone.
5. That the requested vartance is not necessary for the preservatlon and
enJoyment of a substantlal property right possessed by other property In the same
victnity and zone~ and denied to the property In question.
6. That the requested varlance wlll be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to *.he property or lmprovements in such viclnity and zone in which
the property is located.
7. That no one indicated their presence at sald ;~ublic hearing in
opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to subJect petition.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING: That the Director of the Planning
Department has determ ned that the proposed acttvity ralls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 11. of the Ctty of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an
Envtronmental Impact Report and is~ therefore. catc~~orically exempt fran the
requirement to file an EIR.
NOW, THEREFORE, BF. IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby deny subJect Patition for l'arlartce on the basls of the •~forementioned findings.
November,
ATTEST:
~~~r~~a.~,..~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANtiii:"~ COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )~
I~ Patricla B. Scanlan~ Secretary of the Anaheim Ctty Planning Cortanisslon, do
hereby certify that the foregoln~ resolutlon was passed and adopted at a meetinc~ of the
Anaheim City Planning Commisslon~ held on November 8, 1976. at 1:30 p.m., by the
following vote of the members thereof:
qYES: COMMISSi0NER5: BARNES~ FARANO, HERBST~ KING~ MORLEY~ JOHNSON
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLAR
1976.
THE FOkEG01NG RESOLUTION is signed and approv by me this 8th day of
t976. ~
~
CHAIRMAN, ANAHE ITY PLANNiMG COHMISSION
IN WITNESS WHEREOF~ I have hereunto set my hand this 8th day of November
~ ~ ~ ~~~~
SECRE AR ~ ANAHEIM CIT PLANNING COMNISSION
-2- RESOLUTION N0. PC76-22$