PC 76-57~ ~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. PC76-57
A RESOLUT I ON OF THE C I TY PLAtJP71 P!G C014M I SS I ON OF THE C ITY OF ANAHE I!4
THAT PETITION FOR VAR~APlC[ N0. 2791 BE DEWIED.
WHEREAS, the C;ty Plannin9 Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a
verified Petition for Variance from LOWELL W. HAUCK, 9252 Imperial Avenue, Carden
Grove, California 92644 (Owner) of certain real property situated in the City of
Anaheim, County ~f Orange, State of California descrihed as:
Lot 3~+ of Tract No. 2537, as shown on a Map recorded in book 75, Pages 3~ and 3°
of Miscellaneous t4aps, records of Orange County, California.
WHEREAS, the C1ty Planniiig Commission did hold a public hearing at the City
Hall i~ the City of Anaheim on March 29, 1975, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public
hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings
and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHF.REAS, said Commission, after,due inspection, investigation and study made
by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following fa~ts:
1. That the petitioner requests the following waivers from the Anaheim
Municipal Code, to establish a commercial off'Ice:
a. SECTIOM 13.~F4.o63.~10 - Hinimum buildin setback. (10 feet
required; (~0 fee~feet existing)
b. SELTION 1'.4~~.063.~4~ - Minimum side ard setback. (10 feet
required; none proposed
c. SECTIOP! 10.44.06~F.012 - Reeuired tree screen. (Screening not
proposed
d. SECTION 18,44.068 - Required masonry wall. (6-foot high
masonry w.all required; wood fencing propo<_ed)
2. That the above-mentloned waivers are hereby denied on the basis that
the Anaheim City Planning Commission is recommending disapproval of the requested
commercfal zoning.
3. That there are no exceptlonal or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions 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 and
zone.
4. That the requested variance is ~ot necessary for the preservation and
enJoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question.
5. That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is located.
6. That two (2) persons appeared, representing five (5) persons present at
said public hearin~ in opposition; and no correspondence was received in opposition
to subject petition.
ENVlRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PINDING:
That the Directoi• of the Pianning Department has determined that the
proposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1, di the City
of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is,
therefore, categorically e>cempt from the requirement to file an EIR.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby deny subJect Petition for Variance on the basis of the aforementtoned
findings.
RESOLUTION N0. PC76-57
~ ~
THE FOREGOING RESOLUT{OPI is signed and approved by me this 29th day of
March, 1976.
~ _
CHAIRMA ~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINf COMMISSIQN
ATTEST:
V G%'TLriGGE~i~~ ~~--v~/
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Pairicia 3. Scanlan, Secretary of the City Planning Commission of ths
City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and
adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commisston of the City of Anaheim, held on
March 29, 197b, at 1:30 p.m., by the following vote of the members thRreof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, HERBST, JOHNSON, KING, TOLAR, FARANO
NOES: COMMISSlONERS: MORLEY
ABSENT: . COMMISSIONERS: NONE
1976.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I'have hereunto set my hand this 29th day of March,
~u;~-a~,~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
..2_ RESOLUTION N0. PC76-57