PC 72-202~ ~
RESQLUTION NO. P~72-202 _,__~
A RESOi,UTION OF THE CITY PLANNTNG COMMISSION OF THE CI'IY OF ANAHEIM
TFiAT PETITION FOR VARIpNCE N0. 2416 BE DENICD
1VHEREAS, the City PlnnninQ Commi~~Ion oE the Clty of Meheim did recelve e verlfied Petitlon for Vadence fcon~
STANDARD OIL OF CALIFORNIA, Poat Office Box 31, Long Beach, California 90801, OwnQr; AME'etICAN
PERMIT SERVICE, Poat Office Box 364, La Puente, California 91747, Agent of certain rcal praF''
erty situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, describeZ +le That
portion of the Weat 5.13 acrea of the North half of the Northwest quar.ter of the Nor.the,ast
quarter of Section 24, Townahip 4 South, Range 11 West, San Bernardino Baee and Mer;•di+en, in
the Rancho Loa Coyotes, described as follows: Beginning at the Northweat corne: of ~4~E Ncsrth-
east quarter of said Section 24 and running thence South 0° 12' 35" West 328.90 feet i~loTg the
Weat ].ine of said Northeast quarter; thence South 89° 59' 42" East 338.7: feet to the~ South~
east corner of the land conveyed to Gordon L. Hodge, a married mau, by doed to him rec~sded
August 1, 1962, ir~ Book 6216, page 580, Official Records; thence North 0 12' 35" Eest 37.9.00
feet along the Eaeterly buundary line of naid land granted to Gordon L. Hodge, a married rnan,
to the Northeast corner of the land conveyed to Elmer L. Beeson and wife by deed recarded
May 1$, 1948, in Book 1638, page 150, Official Records; thence Sauth 89° 59' 15" West 338.71
f~et along the Northerly line of said Northeast quarter to the point of beginning. EXCE'r'T
the Southerly 130 feet and the Easterly 146 feet; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commtesion did hold a public headng at the Cit;• Hell in the City of Mahelm on
Auguat 21, 1972, , at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of seid publlc hearing heving bem duly glvm ea required by
lew end in eccadence with Ne proviaions of the Maheim Municipa: Code, Chepter 18.68, to heer end conslder evidmce for
and against enid prop~aed variance end to investiQate and meke findings end recommendetlons in connectlon thecewith;
end
WHEREAS, e~id Commiaeion, aftet due inspection, inveatlgation, end study' mede by itselE end in !te behelt,
and efter due conaidecation oE aIl ~v!deneo and r_poeto ofEeced at said headng, does Eind end detennine the following
facta:
1. That c.he petl.tioner requests variances from the Anaheim Municipal Code
as follows:
a. SEC7'ION 18.62.090(B-1) - Minimum distance between free-standing
siyns. (300 feet required; 19 feet
proposed)
b. SECTION 18.62.090(B-1) - Maximum number of free-standing signs.
(7 signs proposed; 1 permitted)
c. SECTION 18.62.090(B-2) - Minimum sign height.
~ (8 feet required; 6~ feet proposed)
d. SECTION 18.62.090(B-5) - Minimum distance to ad~acent property line.
(60 feet required; 46 feet proposed)
2. That signing as proposed is far in excess of signing pernitted within
the Sign Ordinance, and to grant subject petition would be establieh-
ing an undesirable precedent wherein ev?ry other ~ervice station in
Anaheim could request similar signing.
3. That the Planning Commission earlier in 1972 had denied a similar
request witn a finding that approval would establish a precedent
for mass signing of ot:~er service stations throughout the city, and
no chan,es have occurred to warrant favorable consideration of this
petitio~i.
Vl-D -1-
~ 4. That tne pe~itione~is proposing to increase ~e number ox signs on
these service station sites from four to eight• times that permitted
by Code, thereby automatically granting the petitioner a privilege
not enjoyed by other commexcial and industrial develupments through-
out the city.
5, Tnat there are no Exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to th~ 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 vicinit-y and zone.
6. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation
aad enjoyment of a substant:ial property right possessed by other
property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the property
in question. •
7. That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements '_n such
vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
8. That the petitioner is pro}+osing six signs more than permitted by the
Sign Ordinance, or an increase of almost 600$ over Code, and thus he
would be enjoying a very special privilege if subjeat petition were
approve?.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RFSOLVED :het the Meheim City Plennt~g Commission does hereby deny subJect
Fetltlon for Verience on the besis of the eEorementioned findings.
^
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is sigmed end epproved by me this 31et day of Auguet, 1972.
~~
i
~ ~ i
HAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLAN G COMM SION
ATTEST: G
SECRETARY ANAHEI CITY PLANNING CO6~MISSION
STATE OF' CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
f, Ann Krehs, Secretery of the City Plenning Conmission of the City of Aneheim, do herc~y ceK1Ey thet the fore-
qoir.g resoluti.m was passed end edopted et e meeting of the City Plenning Commlgsion oE the City of Aneheim, hcld on
August 21, 1972, ~! ~:d~ o'clock p,M„ by the following vote of the membecs theroof:
nYES: COMMISSIONERS: F'ARANO, GAUEk, HERBST, KHYWOOD, S.EYMOUR.
NOES: COMMiSSIONERS: rIONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: F~LLRED, ROWLAND.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hand this 31st day of August, 1972.
RESOLUTiON NO. PC72-202
~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNriVG COMMISSION
V2-D 'Z'