PC 71-113~y~i .~S,ni~ s ~ 7~,i~~~.. ~
.. . . . dis•,. .~~ .TA.~ . ,...,, ,...
\ ~
RESOLUTION NO,~ ~'C71-113
- ~__.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CI'~'Y PLANNMG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANANEt~d
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0, 2262 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commi~rlon of the C~ty of Anaheim d1d receive e verifled Petition for Vorlance from
I'AUL ACKERriAN, 1146 Civic Center Arive, Santa Ana, Cali~ornia 92705, Owner; WALLACG W,
WARREN, 625 South Euc].id, No. 1, Anaheim, CalifornLa 92802, Agent of cert&in real property
aituated in tYie City of Anaheim, County of O:ange, State of Cal.ifornia, described as
Lot 71 of Tract No. 2402, ns per map recorded in Book 79, Yages 37, 38 and 39, MLacellaneoiea
M~ps, in the office of the Cuunty Recardpr of said Cuunty.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commiasion d~u hold a public headng et the City Hall in the City o[ Anaheim ~n
June 14, 19'71, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public heering heving bern duly given as required by
lew and in ecoordamce wlth the proviaions of the Anuheim Municipal Code, Chbpter 18.68, to hear and con••ider evldence for
and egainst aeid proposed veriance end to inveatigate and make findings end recommendetions in connection therewith;
and
WHEkEAS, eaid CAmmiasion, aEter due inspection, investigetion, ~nd study made by itcr `: and in its behalf,
and efter due considecotion of ell evidence and repods otfered at said hearing, does find and determine the following
facts:
1. That !he petitioner requests a variance from the following provisions of the Anaheim Municipal
Code:
a. SECTION 18.24.010(1)
b. S~CTION 18.24.030(1-a)
~ ~~
w, .
~
~
~~
- Permitted uses in ~he R-1 Zone. (The proposed
use is not pertairted in the R-1 Zone.
- Minimum required f.ront yard. (24 feet requir.ed;
10 feet proposed), ~
2. That the petitioner proposes to utilize an addition to ~n existing reside-i~e for a
real estate uffice.
3. Thal- subject pr~perty did not have 4econdary r_irculation deemed necessar~,* wnen
residential structiures were proposed to be used f.or commercial uses.
4. That the petitioner prop~ses dual use of rt~e structure, and it it appears to be
desirable for residential use in conjunction with commercial use, ~hen it would appear t.hat
che residential •3menities already existing should be retair~ed and t~~~ dual. use denied.
5. That Are~ Development Plan No. ~3 was considered in conjuncti.o. with sub~ect petition,
and wa~ aga in recommended for denial on the basis th~t commercial use oF the residential
structures was premature.
6. That sufficient commercia 1 property is avaf.lable ~lsewhere throughout the City without
having to d isrupt this desirable residential neighborhood.
7. That ow*_-iers of nroperties such as this should consider land assembly rather than
proposing c ommercial conversion on a piecemesl basis.
8. That ad~quate parking cou ld tiot be provided on the site it and when the property owner
would want to convert the entire structure to cocmnercial use.
9. That the petitioner hac not demonsrreted that the:e are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstanc es or conditions appl icable to the property involved or to the inten~)~~d use of the
property that did not apply gene rally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity
and zone.
~;,
,? "iy
- !'~~s„ ^ . ..
.. . , , , ~
~
_~
_~
•
~
I
~
r,
.: _ .,.,Y .._..,,,..,. •
,..,..,.,...
.. . ..~..__.. _
-
....._.
.. .~,......,.,
- ,_ ,. _.._..._._._..__ .,
, _.
_. .
' < ~
,, - ~ ; ~ . • ~
10. That the requeated variance ia nok ^ecessary for the preservation and en~oyment of a
aubatantial propQrty right poesessed by othc roperty in the aAme vicinity and zone and denied
to Che property in question,
11. That the requested variance will be materially detrimenta] to the public welfare or
in~urioue to the property or improvements i.n auch vicinity and zone in v;;iich the property is
located,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED t3~at the Anehefm City Planning Commiasion does hereby dec~y subject
Petition for Veriance on the besis of the eforementioned findings.
;~ THE r'OREGOING RESOLUTION is eigned ~nd epproved by me this 24th day of June, 1971,
f ~ ~~/.~ ~ ~
i ~~ -. /
:,:,~ CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSYON
~ ~~
I '~ ATTEST:
- -~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CP.LIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANG~ ) ss, •
CITX OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution was passed and edopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commissic.n oE the City of Anaheim, held on
June 14, 1971, et 2:00 o'clock P,M,, by the fotlowing vote of the mertibers thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: A~.lred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
. NOES~ COMMISSION~RS: ilone. ^r
t :;
AASENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this [4th day of June, 1971.
~.
~Z
~
.it~
~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. ].23
V2-D
~i''2'~yL/ -c/
SEC~"r;TARY ANAHEIM ITY PLANNING COMMISSION
..2-
~
_ .;+~, ~
~ ., ~r' . . .
~
ti