PC 72-198~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. P~~Z"19$
A RESOLUTI6N OF TFiE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAFIEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE ,0. 2412 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City oE Aneheim did recelve a verified Petition foc Variance fram
STANDARD OIL OE' CALIFORNIA, Post 0£fice Box 31, Long Beach, California 90801, Owner; AMERICAN
PERMIT SERVICE, Post Office Box 364, La Puente, California 91747, Agent of certain real proper-
L•y situated in the,City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, des~ribed aa The
Southeast corner of Via Burton Street and State College Boulevard being that porCion of Lot 6
of South Placentia Troct 2 as shown on a map thereof recorded in book 5, p$Se 42, Miscellaneous
Mape, records of said Orange County, deacribed as follows: Beginning at the intersection of the
centerline of Via Burton Street, as described in the deed to the City of Anaheim recorded Sep-
tember 3, 1959, in book 4$68, page 525, Official Recorda, with the Easterly line of the land
described in the deed to the State of Cslifornia, recorded in book 2837, page 307, Official
Records; thence North 85° 56' 44" East along said center line, 153.00 feet; thence South 0°
15' 00" East p~rallal to the Easterly line of said land conveyed to the State of California
180.00 feet; thence South 89° 56' 44" West parallel with the centerline of Via Burton Street
153.00 feet to the easterly line of the land conveyed to the State of Californi~; thence North
0° I5' 00" West along said Essterly line 180.00 feet to the point of beginning; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commiaeion did hold a public headng et the Gity Hall :n the City of Anahcim on
August 21, 1972, et 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said pu31lc hearing having betn duly given es requiced by
lew er.d in accoidance wtth the provisions of the Aneheim Municipel Code, Chapter 18.68, to heer end conslder evidence ror
and against seid pcoposed varience and to inveaL'gete end make finding's and :ecommendetions in connection therewith;
and .
WHEREAS, aald Commission, efter due iaspection, investigation, end study' made by itselE end In ita behelE,
end after due consideretion of ell evidence rmd repodrs ofEered at seid hearing, does find.end detecmine the following
facts: ,
'!. That the petitioner requests variances from the Anaheim Municipal Code
as follows: ,
a. SECTION 18.62.G90(B-1) - Minimum distance betw~'~n free-standing
signs. (300 feet required; 19 feet
proposed)
b. SECTION 18.62.090(B-1) - Maximum number of free-standinq signs.
(7 signs proposed; 1 permitted)
c. SECTION 18.62.090(B-5) - Minimum distance to adjacent propertv line.
(60 feet required; 16 fe~_t proposed)
cl. SECTION 18.62.090(B-2) - Minimum sign height.
(8 feet required; 6h feet proposed)
2. That signing as proposed is far in excess of signing pe*mitted w?,thin
the Sigri Ordiranc2, and to grant suUject petition wouZd be cstablish-
ing an undesirable precedent wherein every other servic~ station in
Anaheim could reauest similar signing.
3. That the Planning Commission earlier in 1972 had denied a similar
request with a£inding that approval would establish a precedent
for mass signing of other service stations •~hzoughout the city, and
no changes have occurred to warrant fatiorable co:3sideration of this
petiti.on.
Vl-D -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
bg Code, thereby automatically granting the petitioner a privilege
not anjoyed by other commarcial and industrial developments through--
out the city.
5. That there are no exceptional or extraordinarv circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved or to thc intended
use of the property that do not apply generally to the property cr
class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
6. That the requested variance is not recessary for the preservation
and enjolment of a substantial property right poss.essed by other
property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property
in question.
7. That the requested variance vrill be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such
vicinity and zone ia which the property is located.
NCW, THEREFURE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aneheim City Planning Cammission does hereby deny aubject
Petition for Vecience on the basis of the eforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and appcoved by me this 37,st day of August, 1972.
ANAHEITd CITY
ATTEST:
~~/~~
SE~RETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann' Krebs; Secretary of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anehelm, do hereby cettify thet the fore-
going resolution was pessed end edopted at e meeting of the City Plenning Commission ofthe City of Aneheim, held on
August 21, 1972, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., b~! the following vote of the members thareoft
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER, HERBST, KAYWOOD~ SEYMOUR.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE .
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED, ROWLAND.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have heceunto set my hend this 31at day of August ~ 1972.
RESOLUTION NO. PC72-198
[/l//~riJ'C/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
V2-D '2-