PC 72-187• e
RESOLUTiON N0. PC 72-187
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE Nd. 2406 HE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Comm:saion ~f the City of Meheim did ceceive a verlfied Petition for Varience from
MR. AND MRS. DONALD L. MC INTOSH, 109 South Gilbert Street, Anaheim, California 92E104, Owners;
BILL ASAWA, S06 Soath Beach Bouln.vard, Anaheim, Californi.a 92804, Agent of cerL•ain real prop-
erty situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, deacribed as
Lot No. 2 of Tract No. 1940
WHEREAS, the Clty Planning Commiesion d:d hold e publlc heedng et the Cit~ Hall in the City of Anehelm on
Auguat 7, 1972, at 7:30 o'clock P.M., notice of sald public heering heving bem duly glven es requiced by
lew end in exocdence with the proviaions of the Anaheim Munielpel Code, Chepter 18.68, to hear ead coneider evidence for
end egeinst seid proposed varience end to investlQete nnd meke Eindings and cecommendetlons in connection therewith;
end
WHEREAS, said Commisslon, aEter due inepection, investigatlon, end study mede by itaelf end !n !te behelE,
end after due cor.aidarolton of all evidence and repoRs ofEeied at ae(d heering, doea Eind end detecmino the follow~ng
fects:
1. That the petitior.sr cequests the following variancea from the Anaheim Municipal Code:
a. SECTION 18.40.050 a - Requirement that all parkinR be provided to the
rear of a residential etructure. (Parking pro-
posed in the front aetback area)
b. SECTION 18.40.070(2-a) - Minimum 8-foot seperation for pedestrian access.
(5 feet proposed)
c. SECTION 18.40.070(2-a-6) - Minimum 2% interior parkinK area landscaping.
(No interior ~arking aree landecaping proposed)
d. SEC'CION 18,40.070(b) - Required 6-foot, solid masonry wail abuttinR a
~ reaidential zone. (5-fuot, 6-inch, solid masenry
wall proposed)
2. That there are no.exceptional or extr8ordinary circumstances or conditi.ons applicable
to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to
the property or class of use in the same vicinity end zone.
3. That the requeated variance ia not necessary for the preaezvation and enjoyment of a
aubstantial property right posaessed by other property in the eame vicinity and zone, and
denied to the property in question.
4. Thnt the requested variance will be materielly detrimental to the public welfare ot
injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property ie
locatad.
5. Thah since the Planning Commiasion haa recommended dieapproval of the reclaseifica-
tion of subject property, the variance could not be exercised within rhe existi.ng zone on the
property,
V 1-D -1-
. " ~ A ~
6. That the petitioner had not presented substantiating evidenr.e that the waivers requeated
were necessary nor that a hardship existed.
7. That one percon appeared, representing the single family residents of this general area,
in opposition to subject petition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anahcim Clty Planning Commleslon does hereby deny subject
Petltion for Verlence on the besis of the eforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION ts signed end epproved by me this 17th day of. Auguet, 1972.
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY
ATTEST:
~i~//Y~i •~~'~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORA!~GE ) sa. '
CITY OF ANAHEIM 1
I, A~ecretary of the CIty Plenning Commission of the City oE Aneheim, do hereby ceRify that the fore-
going resolution was passed end adopted at a meeting of the City Flenning Caamieslon ofthe Clty of Aneheim, held on
Auguec 7, 1972, at 7:30 ~'clock P,M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED, FARANO, GAUER, HERBST, KAYWOOD, ROWLAND, SEYMOUR.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE,
AESENT: COMMISSIONERS: PIONE.
. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hend this 17th day o£ August, 1972.
Lwii~~.- 'i'~G~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM TY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0. PC72-1H7
V2-D -Z-