PC 76-111, ~ ~
RESOLUTIQN Nd. PC7F-111
A RESOLUTI~~t OF THE ANAHEIN CI7Y PLANNIMr, CoMHI5510N
THAT PETITI~N FOR VARIANCF. Nf1, 27QP, HE OEIJIEII.
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning C•:':n~ssio:~ did rrceive a verified
Petition for Variance from Dllpl~l PROPERTIES f,ORP., Attn: Ray Cherma~, T.R Rr~n~hollow
Drive, Santa Ana, California 927n5 (flwner) of certain real ornoertv sit~~atr.d in the
City of Anahelm, County of OranAe, State of Californta descrihed as:
PARCEL 6 I N THE C ITY OF AtIANE I'1, CQIiNTY QF ORAN ~E, STATC QF CAL I F~RtI I~, ~5 SHn4~N
ON A PARCEL MAP FILED IN BOQK 71 PA~ES 11 TQ 17 1~!CLUSI~IE QF PARCEL NAPS, It~ THE
OFFICE OF TNF f,!rIINTY RECnRDE4 OF SAID COUNTY.
PARLELS 17 AND 13 IN 7NE CITY OF ANAHEIM, C~Uf~TY OF ORA~~~E, STATF ~F CALIFnR!IIA~
~15 SHOWN ON A PARCEL MAP FiLE'~ IH BOOK 71 PA~ES ~1 Tn 17 INCIi~SI!~E nF PARCFL
MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THf CQIiNTY RECORDER OF SAID CO~~tITY.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did schedule a putilic he~ring at the
Lity Hall In tne City of An~heim on April 12, 197F, at 1:3^ P.m,, nntice of satd
public hearing having been duly given as required by la~•+ anc9 in ~cc~rdance a~ith the
provistons of the Anaheim M~~nicip~l f.ode, Chapte~r 19.~3, :n hear and c~nsider
evl~ence for and agatnst said proposed variance and to investigaY.e and malce findinns
and recommendatloni in connection therewith; said nuhlir. hearina having heen
continued to the Planning Cemmisslon mceting of June 7, 1~7(; and
IdNEREAS, said Commisslon, after rlue ins~+ection, Inv~stlqation an~! stuAy ma~1e
by itself and in its hehalf, and after due conslderatloi: of all evidence and rennrts
offered at sald hearing, does flnd and determine the ~~ilowina facts:
1, That the petitioner prr~poses the ~••iiow~ng t~alver fmm the Anah~tr~
Municipal Code, to establish 15 lots witheut public ~:reet frontane:
SELTION iR.Q1.13~ - P.e ulrement that all lots ~hut a uhiic straPt.
1S ots propesed to a ut private drives
2. That the ab~ve-mentioned waiver is herehy denied on the basis that the
proposed concept of Individual ownership of industrial lots with h~„il~!Ings is not
compatible with private drives because industrial ~roperty o~vnrrs should be entitled
to publlc street for adequate traffic contro'i and circulation; and said puhlic
streets would tend to reduce the industrial density of the area therehy allowing f~r
futu~e expanslon on the individual lots; and, furthermare, the prnnosed rriv~te
drives would function as public streets and~thr.refore, should he pu6lic streets.
3. That there arc~ no exceptional or extraordinary ~:Ircumstances or
conditfons applicable to the property involved or to the ln2ended u5e ~f the p~opertY
that do not apply generally to the properCy or class nf use in the same vtcinlty and
zone.
4. That the r~equested variance is not necessary for the prn_se n~ation and
enJoyment of a substantial property rlght possessed hy other nroperty in the same
vlcinity and zone, and dented to the property in question.
5. That the requested varlance r~ill be materlalty detrimental to the
public welfare or inJurlous to Che property or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property Is located.
6. That no one indicated thelr presence at said vuhlic hearin~ in
opposltlon; and no correspondence was rr.cetved in oppositinn to suh)ect petition.
ENVIRONMENTAL I`1PACT REP~RT FINDI!lf,:
ThaY the Director of the Planntng Department has dEtermfned that the
proposed activity falls within the definytion of Section 3.~1, Class 5, of the C~ty
of Anahelm Guidelines to the Requirements for an Env-ronmental Imnact Repnrt and is,
therefore, categorically exempt from the requlrement to filP an EIR.
RE504UTIOr~ Nn, PC76-111
NOW, THEREf~R~ ~E IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim~City Planninp Commissi.~
does hcreby deny subJect Petition for Varlance on the basis ~f the aforemention:i
findings.
tHF FQRF~OIN~ RESn~nTf~H is sig~ed and approved hv me this 7th ~av of
June, 1~7n.
_,~y~~
CHAIR~AN~ ANAHEI f,ITY PLAtJHttl~ CQ~"'ISSI~N
ATTFST:
11/~GU./LGfifAt/.l/ ~~^~
SECRET~RY, A~lAHEIM ^ITY PI.AMt~I'!~ crnt~~ssln~~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
LOIINTY OF ORAN~E )ss.
CITY OF APlAHEIM )
I, Fatricia B. Scanlan, Secretary ef the City Planntne Cor+riissi n nf the
City of Anaheim, do hereby ccrtify that the for~qolnq resnlution ri~s p~.sed an~1
adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commisslon of the City of Anahein, hel~1 ~n
June 7, 1q7G, at 1:3n ~.m,, hy the followinv vote nf the memhers thereof;
AYES: COMMISSIO~~F.RS: BARNES, HERBST~ JOH~I50~I, H(1RLEY, ?~LAR, FARAr~n
NOES: CQMMISSIQI~ERS: t~0"JE
ABSEI~t: CDMMi551f1NER5: Y.IN,
1M WITNESS WHERE~F, I have hereunto set r~y hend this 7th dav of Ju~e, 1°?~.
~~~ ,~ ,~~._~_
SECRETARY~ ANAHEIH CITY PLAtRI;` , f,~M41551(1N
-Z- RES~LL'TION N+, PC76-111