PC 76-126~;
~J
RFSnLUTIrnt ~in, Pr.7~-»~
~
A RES~LIIT I QII OF THF AH/1Nf. I M C ITY PLA~IN I t~r C~'1N I SS I ~~~
TNA7 P[TlTlnrl FnR f,MipITIDt1AL I~S[ P[R~11T ~l0. 1~7.3 RE DF!JIF.n,
b1f1ERE115, the Anaheim City P1anninn Commissinn of the f.ity nf qnahPir~ did
receive a verified Petition for Conditional Ilse Permit from ~~ R DISTRIRUT~°.~, c/o
ROBERT A. LOCKE, JR., 318n Id. Lincnln Avenue, Anaheim, California ?2p~2 (Owner); H.
CHAHDERLAItd, 72Q~ Melrose Street, ~3~5, Buena Park, f.alif~rnia ~~~2.1 (AgPnt) nf
certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County. of ~range, StatP ~f
California described as:
The lJest 19f1 feet of the ~lorth 7.1F feet ~f the blest half ~f the `Jorth half nf the
Northwest qi~arter of the Northnast c~uarter of Secti~n 14, in Township ~~ South,
Range 11 West, ln the Rancho Los Coyotes, in the City of Anaheim, as ner man
recorded in book 51, page 11, Miscellaneous !1a~s, in the office of the co~mtY
recorder of said county.
EXCEPT those Portions nf I_inc~ln Avenue and 4!estern Avenue, as conveye~t to the
State of California by deeds of record ar~~nn thPm heing deo~i recorded January 7.~,
1956 in hook 33h~t Pa9P 3~~~ Official Rr.cords, in thP offir.e of the count~
recorder of said ~ran~te County.
bJHERE•A5, the f,ity Plannin~ C~mmission did sche~li~lr. a ouhlic hearinn ~t the
City Ilall in the City ~f Anaheim nn June 21, 1~7~~, at 1:3n p,m., notice of sai~1
puhlic hearing having heen duly ,ryiven as renuired by law and in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim ~li~nicipal Code, Chapter 1P.03, to hear and cnnsider
evidence for and against said pro~osed c~nditional use and tc+ investigate anri make
findings and recommendations in connecti~n therr.~aith; sai~1 puhlic hearinn having heen
continued Yo the Planning Commissi~n meetinc~ of ,1~~y 7, 197F; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigatinn and sturiy m:~de
by itself and in its belialf, and after ~iue consideration of all evidr.ncP and rPports
offered at said hearing, does find ~nd determinp the foll~~•~ing facts:
1, That the pr~poserl use is properly one for ~~ohich a conditinnal use
permit is authorized by Cocle Secti~n 1P.87.~?3, to viit: permit truck and trailPr
rentals from a service station site.
2. That the pro~osed use is denied on the hasis th~t the An~heim City
Planning Commission does herehy determine said use a~ould he ~letrimental to the
existinc~ service station use ~f the pro~erty and to the adJacent ~ropertiPS for the
following reasons:
a. That the proposal ~aoul~i infringe upon the existing ~rimary use of
*_he service sta*_ion site, sald primary use heinq the sale ~f fuel
and luhricants; anrl also that the suhJect site is comnletely
develope~i with the existing service station and ~~~ould he
overdeveloped if the nroposal aiere an~roved.
b. That the retitioner indicated the maxim~im numher of rental
vehicles at the site would vary, possihly exceeding the naximum
number proposed and, theref~re, may result in zoning viola*_ions
for a mi~imuM of two days a week, particularly aieekends; and,
furthermore, the petitioner lias indicated it ~aoulrl he difficult t~
control the maxi~um number of rental vehicles on the sitr., and
that previnus vi~lations of tne Code pertaining to tfie numhQr of
rental vehicles on service station sites have occurred.
c. That approval nf the proposal would set an un~lesirahle nreeedent
for future similar requests.
d. That, althou9h the suhJect site is suitahle for thP maximum numher
of rental trailers and trucks permlttecl by Code, said sit~: is nnt
suitahle for m~re than said permitted numher of such vehicles.
e. That the proposed use is consldere~l inarrropriate at the suhiect
location.
RESOLUTI01l IIO. PC7~-12~
f. Tha~thc proposPd use will adver~y ~ffect the a~Joinin~ 1~n~
• .1 uses an.1 thP gr~a~th and ~PVPlupment of th~ area in which it ~s
propose~ t~ he l~catP~.
g. T:~at the size and shape ~f the SItP. oroposed for the use ts not
adequate to ~lloo+ the full developm~nt of the rroposed use in ~
manner not ~eCrimental to the particu~ar area nor to the peace,
health, safPty, an~ ~eneral welfare of the Citi~ens of the f.ity ~f
Anaheim.
h. That the granting of the Conditional ilse Permit will he
detrimental to the peace, health, safety and general welf~re of
the Citizens of the City of Anaheim. ~
3, Tfiat no onP in~icated their presence at said public hearing in
opposition; and no correspon~ence was received in oprosition to suhJect petiti~n.
EIlV I RONMEi~TAL I!"PACT RFPnRT F I ND I t!G :
That the Director of the Pl~nning DPpartment has determined that the
proposed activity falls within tlie ~lefinition of Section 3.~1~, Class 1, of the City
of Anaheim C,uidelines to the Re~uirements for an Envlronmental Impact Report and is,
therefore, categorically exempt from the reauirement to file an EIR.
N~W, THERfFORF., BF. IT RFSOI.vE~ that the Maheim City Planning Commission
does hereby deny subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit on the basis of the
aforementioned `indings.
THF FOREGO R~R RFSOLUTIOtJ is signed and approved y me this 7th day of
July, 1976.
CHAIRMA~I, APIAHEI .ITY PI_AVNItI~ C~'1MISS1~~~
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, ANAHEt~1 CITY PL~HtilPlr, COM!11SSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COl1HTY QF ORANGE )ss.
CITY OF ANANEIH )
I, Patricia B. Scanlan, Secreta!ry of the City Planning f.ommission of the
City of Anaheim, do herehy certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and
adopted at a meetirg of the City Planning f,ommission of the f.ity of Anaheim, held on
July 7, 1~176, at 1:3~ p.m., by the foltowing vote of the memhers thereof:
AYF.S: CO'1MISSIQPlERS: ~ARAIJO, Y.INR, MORI_FY, JOHMSOPI
IJOES: CQMt115510P1ERS: BARNES, HERRST
AIiSEtJT: C0~1~11S510HFRS: TQI.AR
IN WITPlFSS IJfIERE~F, 1 have hereunto set m;~ hand this 7th day of July, 1q7F.
SECRETARY, ANnNE I!1 C I TY Pl.A~IN I tlr, CO~~~~ I SS I ~~l
_~_ RESOLUTION N0, PC7F-12F