PC 73-211: -. ~ ~ •. .-_
RESOLUTION N0. P~~3-2~~
A RESOLUTION OF THE C1TY PLAI~NIIVG COA4MSSSION OF TtYE CITY OF ANAI~IEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2551 BE DENIED
1VHEREAS, the City Planning Commusion of 2he Cityr of Anaheim did xeceive a veriGed Petltion for Variance from
JOE L. At~D BARBARA E. LANE, Bar-Du Company, 1720 West La Palma, Suite I Anaheim, Calif-
o:'nia 92801, Owners of certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, Cou~ty of
Orange, SCaCe of Cal~fornia described as Thq So~th=_rly 222 feet of Lot 16 of Tract No. ~F703,
as shown on a Map thereof, recorded in book 16g, pages 25 ard 26 nf Miscellaneous Maps, Re-
cords of said County, lying Southerty of the Northerly 'l43.00 fee: nf said Lot 1~i; and
WHEREAS, ihe City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim on
Sep tembe r 17 , 1973 o at 2:00 o'clock p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly ~iven as required by law and
iii accordance with the provisions of the Maheim hiunicipal Code, Chapter 18.68, to hear and coe~cider evidence for and against said
proposed rnriance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, aher @ue inspection, investigation, and study made by itsclf and in its behalf, and aftcr due
consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determi.:c the following facts:
1. That the petitioner rec~uests a variance trom the Maheim Municipal Code a s fol 1 ows :
SECTION 18.52.020 - Permitted uses (Dance hall riot permitted in an M-1 Zone;
• dance hall proposed in an M-i Zone).
2. That when the original variance to permit a billiard hall and pizza parlor
facility was approved, the Commission expressed concern over the possible problems that
could arise which could render the app~oved fa~ility a nuisance to the industrial neigh-
bors, and bassd on t~stimony submitted at the public hearing on Variance 2551, the existing
billiard hsll and pizza parlor has become an incompatible neighbor as originally a~~icipated.
3. That approval of the proposed use - a dance hall charging fees - would compound the
nuisance factor already existing.
4. That the existing use as a bflliae'd hall/pizza establishment granted under Vari2nce
No. 1896 could be terminated if subject petition : were approved, thereby leaving only the
dance hall which is a highly undesirable use ir the indus'trial area.
5, 'ihat evidence was submitted by the adjoini:~g industrial property ow~ers and lessees
that the present use was imcompatible due to the major portion of the buslness in the facility
being conducted after working hours of the industries when surrounding properties were un-
attended resulting in damage to the buildin9s and the property as well as illegal use of the
adjacent industrial parking areas.
6. That no evidence was presented by the petitioner that a hardship wc~uld exist if ~
subject petition were not 9ranted except for:those created by the petitioner In the establish-
ment of the existing use which includes dancing permitted under a dinner-dancing place permit
granted by the City Council.
V1-D
DEV-66•E
.
. . ~ ~ ~
7. That the City Couc~cil should reconsicar their approval of the dinner dancing
place permit at this facili!y because of the nuisance that the existing use is creating,
and that it should etther not be renewed or it should be revoked.
8. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not
apply generally to tFe property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone,
9. That the requested variar~ce is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substa,itia] property right possessed by qther property in the same vicinity and zone,
and denfed to the property in question.
10. That the requested variance will be materiaily deYrimental to the public welfare
or tnjurious to the property or improverc~ents in such vicinity and zone in~which the property
is located.
11. That two persons appeared representing 4 persons presenY in the Council Chamber
all in oppositlon; and that a lettar from owners of industrial property adjacent to subject
property and a perition signed by foi.tr adjoining tenants or industrial property owners
was received also in opposition to the existing and p~oposed use of the property.
ENVIRONMEhTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
Th~at the Planning Commission, in connection with an Exemption Declaration Status request,
finds and determines that the proposal would have no significant environmental impact
and, therefore, recommends to the City Council that no Environmental Impact Statement is
necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVGD that ~he Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
deny subject Petition for Variance on the basis of the aforementioned finds.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is sig~ed and approved by me this Z7th day of September, 1973.
~~~~.~
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM ~ITY PLANNING COMM15514N
ATTEST:
SECR ARL~~ C~PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )ss.
CITY OF ANRHEIM )
I, Ann Krebs, Seeretary of the City Planning Commission of the Citiy of Anaheim, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meetiry of the City Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim, held. on September 17, 1973, at 2:00 o'clock p.m., by the
following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED, FARANG, GAUER, HERBST, KING, ROWLAND, SEYMOUR.
~OES: COMMISSIONERS; NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hav~ hereunto set may hand this 27th day of September, 1973.
~~~ ~~Y~~
SECRETARY ANANEI C1TY PLANNfNG COMMfSS10N
RESOLUTION N0. PC73-211
-2-