PC 76-121~` ~ ~
RESOUITIOrJ Mf1. PC76-121
A RESOU1TIOV OF THF ANAHEIM CITY PLANn~r!, CoNMIS510N
THAT PETITIOH FOR COtdDiTiOfIAL USE PERMIT ~J~. 1627 RE DENIF.D.
Whereas the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verifled Petition
for Conditional Use Permit from DU~I.EY B. AND HARGARET R. FRAMK, 1fi51 E, 4Ch 5*reet,
,~123, Santa Ana, California 927~1 (Owners); TH~MAS F. CARY, 601 S. Euclid Street,
Anaheim, California ^2`?O1 (Agent) of certzin real prcnerty situated in the City ~f
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California descrihed as:
That portion of the southeast quarter of section 17, Township 4 South. Range 1~
West, partly in the Rancho Los Coyotes and partly in the Rancho San Juan Cajon ~le
Santa Ana, in the city ~f Anaheim, county of Orange, ctate of California, as said
section is shown on a map recorded in book 51 page lci of Niscellaneous Naps, in
Lhe office of the county recorder ~f said county. ~lescrihed as f~llows:
Beglnnina at a point South 2E55.37 feef and West 3~.n~ fePt from the northeast
corner of said section i?;thence West 631.2q feet; ihencP South 413.87. feet;
thence East h3f1,Q~ fe~t; thence ttorth 413.P2 feet to the point of hex~innin9.
EXCEPT the South 2li7."n fnet thereof.
ALSO EXCEPT that portion thereof lying westerly of a line parallel r~lth and
203.00 feet westerly fror~ the centerlin^ of cuclid Av~nue, as shoa+n on the map of
Tract No. 3672 recorded in hook 129 page S of sairi P'~iscell,ineous H'aps.
WHEREAS~ the City Planninq Commisslon did hold a public hearing at the City
Hall in the City of Anaheim r,n June 71, 1~76, at 1:30 p•~., notice of said public
hearing having been riuly niven as required by 1~~~~ a~d irs accordance with the
provisions of the Anah~im I!unicipal Code, Chapter 1°.~3, to hear and consider
evidence for and 'ayainst said proposed conditional use and to tnvestigate and make
fiiidings and reccv^mendations irr connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due i~spection, investigati~n and study made
by itself and in its hehalf, ~nd a`t~r ~lue considerition of aIl evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, c:oes find and cietermine the follnwin~ facts:
1. That the p+~oposed use is properly one for which a conditional use
permit is authorized by Code Sectian 1t~.~7.073, to wit: permit truck and traiter
re~tals aC ~ service station.
2. That the Anahelm City Planning Comnission does hereby determtne that
the proposed use would be detrimental tn the service station use of the property and
to the adJacent area for the following -easons:
a. Thut the proposal wouid infiringe upon tne r,fficlency and adequacy
of the primary use of the service station site, sald primary use
be(n9 the sale of fuel and lubrieants; and also the subJect slte
is considered to be minimal in area and roould he overdeveloped if
the proposal were approved,
b. That the petitioner indicated r.hP maximum number of rental
vehicles proposed at the site may vary, er.ceeding the maximum
proposed and, therefore, nay resuit in zoning violations for a
minimum of two days a week; and, furthermnre, the petitioner has
indlcateri it ~+muld 6e difftcult to cnntrol the maximum ~umber of
rental vehicles can the site, and that previous violations of the
Code pertainin~ to such rental vehicles on service station sites
have occurred.
c. That the existing and, potentially, the proposed storage of rental
vehicles ad}acent to the west property line blocks the view of an
existing rest home sign, creating a potential hazard to the life,
health and safety nf the residents of said rest home since
arrlvtng emergency vehicles may not have adequats visibility of
the single entrance; and, furthermore, the petitione- did not
indicate a willingness to modify the proposal in this respect.
RE50LUTION N0. PC76-121
~ ~ ~
1'
d, That the pro~osed use is considered ir.appropriate at the subject
locatton.
e. That tlie proposed use will adversely affect the edJotning land
uses and the growtli and development of *_he area in which it is
proposed to be located.
f. That the size and shape of the stte proposed f~r the use is not
adequate to allo~v the full dev~•~~pment of the nroposerl use in a
manner not detrimental to the particular area nor to the peace~
health, safe*.y, and general ~•relfa;r_ of thr Citizens of the City of
Anaheim.
g, Tha[ the granting of the Condi-^_ional Use Permit will be
detrimental to the peace, health, sa`ety and general welfare. of
the Citizens of the City of Anaheim.
3, That two (2) persons appeared at sald public hearing in opposition; and
no correspondence was recelved in oprosition to subJect prtition.
ENV I ROPlMENTAL I MPACT REPQRT f I MD I tlG:
'I'hat the Director of the Planning Depart~e~t has determined that the
proposed activity falls ~aithin the definition oT SecCion 3•O1. Class 1, of the Ctty
of Anaheim GuiAelines to the Rec~uirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is,
therefore, cate9~rically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR.
IJ01•!, THEREFORE, BF IT P,F.SOLVED that the ?lnahr_im City Planning Commission
does hereby deny subJect Petitlon for Conditlonal 11ce Permit on the basis of the
aforeme~tioned findings. , ~
7HE FORE~OIM~ RESOUITIOM is sign~d and approved b~~ me this 21sC day of
June, 1976.
~ ( /~ ~C ss'r'~rt~~
CNAIfir~AliEftl CITY PLANHRJ9 CQMMISSION
ATTEST:
~~~,8 ,~~~a.~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIN CITY PLANNItJ~~ C~MMISSInPJ
STATE OF CAL I FOP,I! 1 A )
COUNTY OF ORAIlGE )ss.
C I TY OF AtIAHE R1 )
I, Patricla B. Scanlan, Secretary of thr City Planning Commission of the
City of Anaheim, do hereby certtfy that the foregoing res~liition was passed and
adopted at a merting of the City Planning Corrrnission of the Cit;~ of Anaheim, held on
June 21, 1??~, :~L 1:3~ P.m., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIOtJERS: BARNES, HF.RBST, MORl.EY, TOLAR, FARAIfO
NCES: COMNISSIONERS: K1Hf
ABSENT: CGt~~ISCIOWERS: ' JOHNSQN
It~ WITPIE55 WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 2isG day of June, 1976.
~~~~~ ~~~
ScCRfTARY, AtflU E1R1 C{TY PLANPIING C~MMISS10~1
_~_ RESOLUTION N0. PC76-121