PC 77-99RESOLUTION t40. PC77-~9
P,ESOLUTION OF THE ANAh1EIN CITY PLANt~IFIG COMMISSION
TNAT PETI''IOIJ FOR VARIANCE l~0. 2930 BE DENIEU
4111EREA5, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified
Petition for Variancc fron RAY AND ESTELLE SP[HAR AI~D HAP.CIA ANN HALLIGAt~, 91; Paloma
Place, Fullerton, California 9203~ (Owners) and PEDICitli-BELL DEVELOPHENT COMPANY,
4405 Riverside Drive, Fiurbank, Calirornia 91y05 (Agent) of certain real property
situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of ~alifornia, described as:
That portion of lands allotted in the Final Decree of Partition of
the Rancho Canon de S~nta Ana, a certifiecf copy of which was
recorded February o, 127~i in book 2L', page 158 of Deeds, records
of Los Anyeles County, California, described ~s Parcr_1 No, 1 as
shown on a tlap filed in bool: Jj~ pages 20 and 21 of Parcel tlaps in
the Gffice of the County Recorder of Oranye County, California;
and
4lfi[REAS, the City Planniny Commission did schedule a public hearing at the
City Hall in [he City of Anaheim on April 25, 1977, at 1:3~ p.m., notice of said
public hearing having been ~iuly given as required by law and in accordance witli the
provisions of the knaheim Municipal Code, Ghapter 12.03, to hear and consider
evi~ence for and a~ainst saiJ proposed variance and to investigate and make findings
and recommendations in connec[ion therewitli; said public heariny having been
continueJ to thc Pianni~y Comrnis>ion meetiny of 11ay 9, 1977; ~~d
1lIiEFEAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigatian and s[udy made
by itself and in its belialf, ancl ~fter due consiJeration of all evidence an~i reports
offered aL ,aid hearing, does finu and determin~~ the folla.~ing facts:
1, That the petitioner proposes the follawiny v~aivers froro the Anaheim
Municipai Code, to construct a commercial shoppiny center.
a. SECTION 1i3.~4.062.013 - Minimum structural se[back.
20 ec:t required; 2 eet proposed)
b. SECTIOtd 10.~4.0i.2.014 - Minimum lanciscaping.
1. feet wide rlith a 3-foot high berm abutting
local strect ron[ages requiredo ect wide with
3-foot hiyh berm proposed)
2, 7ha[ tfie above-mentioned w~ivers are hcreby denied on the basis tha[
the petitioner did not denx~nstrate tfiat a hardship Vrould be created if said waivers
were nol granted; that when commercial zoning of ihe property was approved, the
property owner had already maJc the necessary dedication which modifies access to the
proper*.y, anJ had subriitte~i developrnerit plans in complete compliance witli said access
dedication and Zoniny Code standards; and that there are alternate methods of
developing the shoppiny center in compliance witti Zonin~ CoJe standards.
3. That there are no exceptional or r.xtraordinary circunstances or
conditions, includin9 dedication of access rights to Imperial HigFrv~ay, applicable to
thr. property involved or to tlie in[ended use of tfie property tha[ do nat appiy
ger~erally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
RESOLUTIOtI I10. Pt77-99
j . ~
~
4. That the requested variance is nor necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property ':ght possessed by other property +n the same
vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in ques[ion.
5. That the requested variance will be material3y drtrimental to tne
publ'+c welfare or injurious [o the property or improvements in such v(cinity and zone
in which the property is IocateJ.
6. That no one indicated their presence at said public hearing in
opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject
petition.
ENVI~OtIf1Et~TAL IhiPACT FIIJDING: That the Director of the Planning Department
has determ ne t at :he proposed activi[y falls within the definition of Section
3.01, Classes j and ~i, of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an
Environmental impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt from ttie
requirement to filc an EIR.
NQW, TfIEREFORE, BE IT pE50LVEU that [tie Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby deny subject Petition for Variance on the basis of the aforementloned
findings.
TFi[ FOREGOIItG R[SOLUTIOt! is si~ned ~nd approved by me this 9th day of May,
1977.
~
CHAIRMAIl, AttAi1 ~1 CITY PLAt7tJItJG COMMISSION
ATTEST:
'i r~ ~ / ~
_ ~'/~~~,<.;=;,. ; ,~~ 'Y'%~r;Tir~•%~
5 CRE7ARY PRO TEI4PORE
ANANE I ht C I TY PLA~IIII IJG COf4~11 S5 I Ot7
STATE OF CALIFORNI~~ )
COUIJTY OF ORAt~GE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Pamela N. 5antala, Secre[ary Pro Tempore of 2he Anaheim City Planning
Commission, do hereby certify that [he forcgoing resolution was passed and adopted at
a meetfng of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on May 9, 1977, at 1:30 p.m.,
~y the folla+ing voCe of the menbers thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: EiARtlES, f1ERBST, KII~G, TOLAR, JOIiI~50N
~JOES: COMt11SSi0t~ER5: I~ONE
AIiSE11T: COMMISSIONERS; DAVID
VACANCY: OF~E SEAT
IN WITNE55 WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 9th day of May, 1977.
~~~I J ~~/.l~~i ~i'• ~!~!ll-~:'Gl-G~/rC./
~
SECRETARY PRO TEM
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI01~
-2- RLSOLUTION N0. PC77-99