PC 72-76~ ~
RESOLUTION NO,
PC72-76
A RESOLUTI~N OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF 'fHE CS7Y OF ANAHEIM
THAT PE'f1T10N FOR VARIANCE N0. 2348 BE GRAIITED IN PART
WHEREAS, the Ciry Plannine Commiasion of the City of Mehci~ ~id teceive a verifled PetltIon for Vedence from
ALDOR CORPORATION, 363 South Main Street, Oreage, California `%?~63, Owner; W. C. BARTELS,
4513 Collwood Lane, San Diego, California 92115, Agent of certain real. pr^perty 'situated in
the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as The Nortn on°-half
of the Northeast one-quarter of the North one-half of I~ot 14 in Block K of the Kraemer Tract,
as shown on a map thereoE recorded in Look 12, pages 87 and 88 of Miscellaneoue Recorda of
Loa Angelea County, California. EXCEPTION THEREFRQM the Easterly 355.34 feet thereof; and
WHEREAS, the Clty Plannine Commle~ion did hold ^ publlc headag at the City Holl in the Clty ot Anoheim on
April 17, 1972, ~t 2:00 o'elock P.M., noUce o[ safd public hearing having bem duly alven es tequited by
law ~d in ecoadrnce aith the proviaicns oE the Anaheim Munlelpal Code, Chepter 18.66, to heer and conslder evidmee tot
end eQalnst said proposed varinnce end to inve~dQate ar.d make findtngs and cacommrndetlons ln connection therewith;
and
WHEREAS, ~~id Commiealon, ~Eter due la~peMion, investlgatlon, and ~tudy made by ltself and in it~ behal[,
ond efter due eonaideration of all evldence and repods otfeced at seld headng, doea Eln~ and dete~mine the foll~alne
facts:
1. That the petlrionec requasts varfencee from the Anaheim Municipal Code as follwe:
a, SECTION 18.52.020 - Permitted uses. (Automobile poliahing and waxing
business proposed)
b, :T;t"~"~N 18.52.060(2-a-1-b) - Minimum landscape eetback along an arterial hiRli-
wev• 10 feet required; 3 feet proposed)
c. SECTION 18.52.060(2-a-1) - Minimum arterial hiqhway buildinR setbac_k. (50
feet required; 5 feet proposed)
d. SECT.ION 18.52.060(2-c-3-b) - Interior landecapine requirement. (2 trees re-
quired; 0 trees proposed)
e. SECTION 18.40.070(4-e-2-f - Minimum number of required parkint~ etalle. (8
spaces required; 6 apacea provided)
2. That the petLtioner pcoposes to eetab]iah an automobile poliehing and waxing businese
as a conforming use on subject property.
3. That Waiver 1-a, above mentioned, ir+ hereby granted on thc basie thet the uae wauld
be a compatible use in the area in which it is propoaed to be locaCed.
4. That Waivers 1-b, 1-c. 1-d and 1-e, aUove mentio~ied, are hereby denied on the basia
t;-.at Che aite development atan~urde have been established to guarantee and preserve the con-
Cir~u d quality development of Aneheim's industrisl area, ond since adjoining induatrial firma
have developed in conformance with these etandarde, to approve the requested vaivere would be
granting a privilege not enjoyed by other industrial pxoperties in thie zone throughout the
CiCy,
5. That the City of Anaheim ia deluged with an overebundence of aervice etationa over
the paet aeveral years, which ha9 resulted in an approximate 25% vacancy factor end these
abandoned ser.vice stationa a:e a blight on the community.
Vl• -1-
~ ~
6. That the oil companies are reaponsible for creatiag their. ~wn high vacancy problem
b} developing too many service etations within the city and for creating this blight upon the
community and they should be more cooperative an3 willing to join the commutiiiy and clean up
the blight created by their own industry.
7. That conversions of existing vacan.t service stationa to a producCive uae is a prob-
lem which is recognized by the Planning Commission and consideration should be given to a17.ow-
ing such conversions, but at the same timestheae conversions st~ould be such that it ie an im-
provement to the area.
8. That a waiver of the M-1 site development standards would bzeak down the charactar
of the qua~.ity industrial areas which the City of Anaheim has been able to create.
9. That the petitioner indicated this would be an interim use, therefore, he was op-
posed to removal of the pump islands End canopies.
10. That the petitioner was opposed to complying with Fire Department policy whi.ch re-
quires that the gas tanks be either removed or fillQd r~ith sand.
11. That there are exceptionsl or extraordinary circumstances or conditi~ns applicable
to the property involved or to the intended use of the property, ae approved, that do not
apply generally to the property or class of use in the same viciuity and zone.
12. That the requested variance, as approved, is necessary for the preservation and en-
joyment of a substantial property rl.ght possessed by other property in the same vicinity and
r.one, and denied to the property in question.
13. That the requested variance, as approved, will not be ma:erially detrimental to tlte
public welfare or injurious to the property or imorovements in guch vicinity and zone in which
the property is located.
7.4. That three letters were received from industriea in the area and from the Chamber of
Commerce in opposition to waiver of the ~ite development standards of the M-7. Zone.
NOW, THEREFORE, B~ IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant in part subject Petition for Vari.ance, upon the following conditians which are heraby
found to be a neceasary prerequisite to the prcposed use of the subject property in urder to
preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
(1) That tlie existing gasoline st.orage tanks shall be either removed or filled with a
sand slurry or some other material acceptable to the Fire Department.
(2) That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and
specificatiuns on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2 provid=d, however,
that all site development standards of the M-1 Zone shall be met.
(3) That Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior to the
commencement of the activity authorizad by this resolution.
(4) That in the event the petitioner is unable to resolve meeting the requirements of
tlie aite development standards of the M-1 Zone, he sha'dl be given 60 days from date hereof in
which to vacate the premises with the present operatior..
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and app e by e his 27th day of April, 1972.
CHAI NAN'8' CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~~
SEr1tETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIrIG CONmiISSTON
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY UF ORANGE ) sa.
CITY OF ANAtIE7M )
I, Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of *_l~e City Planning
Comm;~:i~.on of the City of Anaheim, held on April 17, 1972, ar 2:00 o'clock P.M „ by the follew-
ing 'vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED, FARANO, GAUER, HERBST, KAYWOOD, SEYMOUR.
NOES: COMM'LSSIUNLRS: ROWLAND.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
IN WITNESS WHERGOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of April, 1972.
ci~~ 1~~,~zc.,l~.
SECRETARY aNAHEIM CITY YLANNING COMMZSSION
RESOLUTION N0. PC72-76
V2-G