PC 77-204~
RESOLUTION r10. PC77-2Q4
A RESOLUi 101! OF TIIE AIlAHEIN CITY PLANtIING COMt1iSS1011
TfiAT PETITIOt~ FOR VARIAtIrE N0. 29G7 4E DENIED
WfiEREAS, the Anaheim City Planniny Commission did receive a verified
Petition for Variance from l1AYNE C. ANU LAURA L. LAt•lHON, 222 West Ball Road, Ananeim,
Califernia 923~5, owners of cert~in real property situated in the City of Anaheim,
County of Orange, Statc of California, described as:
PAP,CEL 1- THE EAST 77•~~ fEET OF THE NORTH 270 FEET OF THE
t~ORTHEAST 2~nR•TFk OF TtiE NORTMIEST QUARTEP, OF THE NORTIIEAST
QUARTEF OF SELTIOt! Z2, It7 TOUNSHIP 4 SOUTif, RAtIGE 10 ~lEST, IN THE
RAtICHO SAN JUAt~ CAJ01~ D[ SAUTA AIJA, AS PER NAP RECORDEU iN BOOn 51
PAGE 10 OF I11SC[LL/iN[OUS MAPS, It~ THE UFFICE OF TNE COUWTY
R[CORUER OF SAID COUIITY.
PARCEL 2- LC~T B If7 TRACT N0. 175E, AS PER Ft/'~P THEREOF RECORDEu IIJ
BOOK 55 PAGES 19 Ai~U 20 OF MISLELLN~IEOUS 15AP5, RECORDS OF SAID
COUI~TY. Ei(CEPTItIG TtiEREFROH 7HE SGUTH 90 FEET; and
WiIEREAS, tl~e City Plannin, Conmission Jid hold a public hearing at the City
Hall in [he City of Anaheim on Sep[cmber 12, 1977, a[ l:j~ p.m., notice of said
public hearing haviny been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Codr_, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings
and recommendations in connection thercwaith; and
W{iEREl1S, said Commission, aftcr due inspection, investigation and study rade
by itself and in its beiialf, anJ afcer Jue consideraCion of all evidence and reports
offcred at said heariny, docs find and determina ihe followin9 facts:
1, That [}~c petitioner proposes a waiver of the following [o retain an
existing wfiolesale [ire storaye yard:
SEC710N 1E.21.020 - Permit[ed uses. (4fiolesale tire storage
yards not permitted in RS-A-43,000 Zone)
2, That the above-m~nCioned waivcr is hereby denied on the basis that the
petitioneY failed to demonsLrr+tc thac a hardship exists in that the size and shape of
subject property would permit developnent of a usc more compatible with surroundfng
properties; and tha[ the existi~g illc~al usc, conbined with thc existing residential
use~ comprisc:s an undesirable dual use oY the property.
3, That there are no exceptional or e:ctraordinary circumstances or
conditions applir.able to tl7c propcrty involvcd or to the intended use of [he property
that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vieinity and
zon e .
4, That the requesteJ variarice is not necessary for Che preservatiun and
enJoyment of a subs[antial property right possesscd by other ;~roperty in the same
vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question.
PC77-204
~
5. That the requested variance will be riaterially detrinental to the
public weifare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicini[y and z~ne
in which the property is loca[ed.
6. That one person indicated his presence at said public h:arbng in
opoositio~; and that a petition containinc,~ 32 siynatures was receive~ in opposi2(~~n
to the subject peti[ion.
Et~VIRONI!EtlTAL IMPA;T FIt1Dii1G: That the Anaheim C~iy Planning Commiss!on ha~,
reviewed the subject project consist~ng of an existiny wholesale t6re storage ya'~~
wiih waiver of permitteJ uses on approximately O.~i acre located at the southe~~sC
corner of Ball Road and Claremont Strcet; and does hereby approve the tlegative
Declaratio~ from the requirernent to prepare an environmental impaci report on the
basis that there would be no si~nifican[ individual or cunulative adverse
environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since the
Anaheim General Plan desiynates the subject prc,,erty for commercial/professional land
uses commensura[e with the proposal; that no sensitive em~ironmental impacts are
involved in the proposal; tliat tlic Ini[ial Study submitte~i by [he petitioner
indicates no siynificant individual or cumulative adverse environmen[al inpacts; and
[hat the I~egative Declaration substantiatin~ thc forc;oing findinys is on filr. in the
City ~f Anaheim Planniny Depar[n~ent.
NOW, THEREFORE, aE IT RESOLVED tnat thc Analieim City Planning Commission
does hereby deny subject Pe[ition for Variance on the basis of the aforementioned
findinys.
T11L FOREGOINC, R~50LUT10!! is signed and approved by me this 12th day of
September, 1~77.
~~~66l~~ ~ 7 (~~/t
CHA RM/1N, AWAHEIM CITY P~ANNIt~G CON 151~SION
ATTEST:
~~.~. ~° i~~~.....,
SECRETARY, At~AfiEl11 CITY PLAI~I11fIG COM1115510I1
STATE OF CAL I FORtI I A)
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF AtlAI1EIM )
1, Edith L. Harris, Secretary of tlie Anaficim City Planning Cnmmisston, do
liereby certify that the foreyoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim City Planning Lommission tield on Septembcr 12, 1977, at 1:30 p.rt~., by the
follawing vote of thc me~~ crs thercof:
AYES: C011t115510NER5: BARNES, DAVID~ IiER45T, KING, lIN1J~ TOLAR
~~OES: C0111115S101~ER5: NOI~E
ADSENT: C011MISSI6~~LRS: JOIiN50lI ,
IIJ NITiJE55 NIiEREOF, I have hcreunto se[ my hand this 12th day of ~eptember,
1977.
~,~ ~' .° ~~~-
SLCRETARY, ANAtlEIM CI~PL't':.~•rNG COMt11SSI01J
-2- PC77-204