PC 72-7., ,. ~ . ~
RESOLUTION NO
PC72-7
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE C?TY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2 321 B~' GRAtiTED
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Aneheim did receive a verified Petition for Varience
from JOHN F. AND CATHERINE Q. GANAHL, 501 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim,
Californiz 92805, Owners; GAYLEN S. COMPTON, 316 East Broadway, P.naheim,
California 92805, Agent, of certain real property situated in the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as Lot Nos. 11,
12, 23, and 24 of Block 3 in the Santa Fe Trac:
; end
14NEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public heedng at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim
on Januarp 24, 1972 , at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of seid public heering heving been duly given as required
by lew and in eccordance with the provisions oE the Analieim Municipel Code, Chapter 18.68,to heerand consider
evidence for and egainst seid proposed varience end to investigate and meke findings and recommendetions in connec-
tior therewith; end
wHEREAS, seid Commission, after due inspection, investigetion, and study mede by itselE end in its behelf,
and aEter due consideration of all evidence end reports offeced et said heering, does find and determine the following
fects:
1. That the petitioner renuests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal Code as foll.ows:
a. SECTION 18.36.010 - Permitted uses in the P-1 2one. (Printing shop
proposed; printing ehop not permitted)
b. SECTION 18.40.070(4-a-2) - Off-street parkin~ requirement. (39 spacea re-
quired; 16 spaces proposed)
2. That the petitioner pro~oses to establish a printing shop on subject property.
3, That there are exceptionol or extreordinary ciccumstances or conditions eppliceble to the property involved
or to the intendr.d use of the property that do not epply generelly to the property or class oE use in the seme vicinity
and zone.
4• Thet the requested varience is necessery for the preservation and enJoyment oE e substential property right
possessed by othrr property in the seme viclnity end zone, and denied to the property in question.
5• That the requested variance will not be materielly detrimentel to the public wetfare or injurious to the pcop-
erty ur impcovements in such vicinity end zone in which the propeRy is located.
6. That the proposed uae would be no more objectionable that the use approved under
Variance No. 1612.
7. That the petitioner atipulated to providing adequate circulation by removal of a
portion of the existing fence to provide acceas to the alleys to the north or south.
V1-G -1-
I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESdLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Com~m~ssion does he:eby ~rant subject
Petition for Veriance, upon the following conditi~ns which ure heceby found to be e necessery prerequlsite to the pro-
posed use of the subject property in order to pmserve the safety and general welfece oE the Citizens of the City of
Anaheim:
(1) That Che owner(sj o£ auUject property shall deed to the City of Anaheim a strip
of land ten feet in width from the centerline of alley on the east side of property for
eliey ~ridening purpoaes.
(2) That the o~wner(s) of subject property ahall pay to the City of Anaheim the swn
of $2.00 per front foot along Topeka Street for street ligl:ting purposea.
(3) ihat trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on
file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
(4) That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum etandards of the
City of Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Housing, Mechanical
and Fire Co~es as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
(5) That CondiCion Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, above mentioned, shall be complied with prior
to the comnencement of the activity e:tthorized under this resolution, or prior to tl.~e time
that the buiiding permit is issued, or within a period of 180 days, whichever occu=s first,
or such further time as the Planning Commission may grant.
(6) That aubject property ahall be developed subatantially in accordance with plans
and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, pro-
vided, however, that the parlcing layout shall be modified to provide easy egress from the
parking lot to the alley to the north, and/or south and that the final parking plan ahall
be sub~ect to review and approval by the Development Sercicea Department.
(7) That the proposed uae shall not be obnoxious or offensive by reaeon of emiesion
of odor, dust, smoke, gas, noise, vibration, electromagnetic diaturbance, radiation, or
o~her similar causes detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare.
THE FOREGOLYG RESOLUTION is ai~ed and approved by me thia 3rd dsy of February , 1972.
CHA1R AN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~°~~ ~'~~~i
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CAGIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ae•
CTfY OF ANAHEIM )
2, Ann Krebs , Seccetery of the City Plannin~ Commiasion of the City of Aneheim, do hereby cer~ify that
the foregoing resolution was passed end adopted at a meeting of the City P1enning Commission of the City oE Aneheim,
held on January 'l4 , 1972 , at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of tl:e members thereoE:
AYES: COMkIIS9IONERS: ALLR~D, FARANO, GAUER, HERBST, KAYWOOD, ROWLAND, S~YMOUR.
NOES: f;OMMISSIUNERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
IN WITNESS WHGREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 3rd day o f February , 1972 .
,. ..,'y, ` ~~
SECRETARY AHANEIhi CT'd'Y PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTiON NO. P ~~ 2' ~
V2-G '2'