Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />HEARING <br />(Service <br />Station- <br />Richfield) <br /> <br />e: C>>1V <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />17 :6 839 <br /> <br />stated in part that he realized there is some hardship on the part of <br />the appellants which arises out of the property being in a tran- <br />sitional zone so to speak; that there has to be a dividing line; that <br />to grant the request would impose hardship on additional properties <br />and that in his judgment there has not been sufficient showing <br />whereby the unanimous decision of the Commission should be overruled; <br />that in his opinion the City Council is obligated to sustain the <br />Commission except where a very clear case of error has been madeo <br /> <br />Roll call vote was then taken on the motion. <br /> <br />AYES: <br />NOES: <br />ABSENT: <br />ABSTAIN: <br /> <br />Councilmen Butterworth, Considine, Rage, Forman <br />None <br />None <br />Councilman Arth, who did not participate in the discussion <br />or in the vote due to his affiliation with the Oil Company <br />owning the Harbor Service Stations, Inc. <br /> <br />~. <br /> <br />Appeal from the decision'of the planning'Commission (Res. No. 592) in <br />the denial of an application for a conditional use permit to construct <br />a service station on property located at 600, 604 and 610 N. Santa <br />Anita Avenue by the Atlantic Richfield Company. <br /> <br />The Planning Director explained that the subject property is in Zone <br />M-l, P.I.D., light manufacturing zone - Planned Industrial District <br />and is presently developed with four non-conforming residential <br />structures and garages; that the Commission determined that the <br />location does not meet the criteria of essential services as provided <br />for in the legislative intent section of the M-l Division of the <br />Zoning Ordinance; that there are two other service stations within <br />500' of the subject property to serve the needs of the industrial <br />area and that the granting of the application would be adverse to the <br />comprehensive general plan. Projecturals were viewed by the City <br />Council. <br /> <br />Mayor Forman declared the hearing open and the following persons <br />spoke: <br /> <br />M. J. Sullivan, representing the Atlantic Richfield Company, stated <br />in part that the location is an ideal one due to the on ramp to the <br />proposed freeway; that in reviewing the Central Area plan for 1963 <br />the average traffic along Santa Anita Avenue and Newman Street at the <br />subject intersection was estimated at 13,000; that the estimate for <br />1980 is 30,000; that the two existing service stations would not <br />adequately handle the needs of the traffic due to the freeway. He <br />referred to the proposed rustic type of design which would compliment <br />the area and to the selective personnel employed by the Company. He <br />urged the granting of the conditional use permit. <br /> <br />John Gascoyne, 610 N. Santa Anita Avenue, owner of a portion of the <br />property in question, stated in part that in his opinion the objections <br />voiced at the Planning Commission public hearing were invalid; that <br />he realizes according to the Wilsey, Ham and Blair Plan the entire <br />area is to become one of industrial uses, but that he does not want to <br />see manufacturing facilities with their heavy vehicular traffic. He <br />urged the City Council to consider the appeal; that if it is denied <br />he would ask that the property owners in the area be advised in which <br />direction the development of this property will go. <br /> <br />Those speaking in opposition: <br /> <br />William Ball, speaking on behalf of the owners of property on the <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />8-2-66 <br />