PC 72-207i ~
° RESOLUTI~. PC72-207
~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION.FOR.VARSANCE N0. 2421 BE DENIED. ~
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Aneheim did ceceive e verified Petition for "VariancP
from STANDARD OIL OF rALIFORNIA, Post Office Box 31, Long Beach, California 90801, Owner;
AMERICAN PERMIT SERVICE, Poet Office Box 364, La Puente, California 91747, Agent of certain
real property aituated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of C~lifornia, des-
cribed as That part of Lot 3 of Anaheim Extension, as shown on a Mep of Survey made by
William Hamel and filed in the office o£ the Caunty Recorder of Los Angeles County, a copy
of which is recorded in Book 3, Page 163 and fc,llowing entitled "Loe Angeles County Maps"
in the office of the County Recorder, Orange CounCy, California, described as tollows:
Beginning at the Northeast corne: of said Lot 3 being the point of interaection of the
center line of Le Palma Avenue formerly North Street with the center line of P1ACentia
Avenue, as shown on said Map; thencP South 0° 07' 30" West along the center line of said
Placentia Avenue, 200 feet to the Northeast corner of the land dESCribed in the deed to
Anaheim Cormnunity Cqngregational Church, a corporation, recorded June 9, 1959, in Book
4750. page 96 of Official Records; thence oorth 89° 51' 30" 41eat along the North line ~f
said church land, 203 feet; thence North 0 07' 30" Eact parallei to the renterline of said
Plecentie Avenue 200 feet, to the center line of said La Palme Avenue; thence South 89° 51'
30" Eaet, 203 feEt to the puint of beginnin~
; and
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission did hold a public hearing et the CityHell in the C!,ty of Anahelm
on Auguet 21, 1972, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice oE seid public heacing heving been duly given
ac required by lew and in accordence wlth the provisions of the Mnheim Municipal code, Chapler 18.68,to heer
and consider evidence :or end ageinst seid pmpoced conditionel use end tu investigate end moke findings end
cecommerdetions in connection therewith; and
wHEREAS, seid Commission, after due inspection, inveEtigetion, end study mede by itself and in its be-
helf, and efter due consideretlon of ell evidence and reports offered at said hearing, doea find and determine the
following Eacts:
1. That the petitioner requests variances'from the P,naheim Mur.icipal
Code as follows:
a. SECTION 18.62.090(B-1) - Minimum distance betwean free-standing
signs. (300 feet required; 19 feet
proposed)
b. SECTION 18.62.090(B-1) - MPximum number of free-standing signs_.
(7 proposed; 1 permitted)
c. SECTION 18.62.090(B-5) - Minimum diatance to a property line.
(56 feet required; 51 feeL• praposed)
d. SECTION 1II.62.090(B-•2) - Minimum sign height.
(8 feet requiredj 6~ feet proposed)
2. That siyning as uroposed is far in excess of signing permitted within
the Sign.Ordinance, and to grant subject p~tition would be establish-
ing an undesirable precedent wherein every other service station in
Anaheim could request similar signing.
3. That the Planning Commission earlier in 1972 had denied a similar
request with a finding that approval would establish a precedent
fos mass signing of other service stations thraughout the city, and
no changes have occurred to warrant favorable consideration of this
petition.
-1-
r~ e ~
4. That the petitioner is proposing to increase the number of signs on
these service station sites from four to eight times that permitted
by Co3e, thereby automatically granting the petitioner a privilege
not enjoyed by other commercial and industrial developments through-
out the city.
5. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditi~ns applicable 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.
6. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial property right pos~essed 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 in such
vicinity and zone in which the preperty is located.
8. That the petitioner is proposiny six more signs than permitted by
the Sign Ordinance, or an increase of almost.600+k over Code, anci
thus he would be enjoying a very ~pecial privilege if subject petition
were approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Anaheim City Plenning Commiaslon does hereby deny aubject
Petitlon for Veriance on the besie of the aforementioned findinga. ,
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION ia siQned end approved by me thi.s 31a day of Auguet, 1972.
~.~~' -~~/~~6~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY YLANNING COMMISSION
3TATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss•
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Krebs, , Secretery of the Clty Planning Commisalon of the Clty of Anuhelm, do hereby cedify thet the fore-
going cesolution was pessed end edopted et e mee2ing of the City Planning Commiseion oEthe Clty of Anaheim, held on
August 21, 1972, et 2:00 o'clock p.M., by the following vote of the members thereoE:
AYES: COMMISSlONERS: FARANO, GAUER~ HERBST~ KAYWOOD~ SEYMOUR.
I30ES: COMMISSIONERS: N ON E.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED, ROWLAND.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve he:eunto set my hand 2hls 31st day of Auguet, 1972.
~in~1~L~ /~~1'Zl.ks/ _
SECRETARY ANAH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
~--~
J ~ ~
AN ANAHEIM CITY .ANNING C ISS10I1
ATTEST:
RESOLUTION NO. PC72-207
v2-n -z-