Resolution-PC 92-140.. , ,.~.
~,~,SQI.~~ION hb, p •140
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PIANNiNG COMMISSIAN
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0, 4202 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the An~helm Ciry Planning Commisslon dld recelve a verlfled Patition for Variance
for certafn real property situatod U the City ot An~heim, Counry of Orange, State of Californla dascribed as:
LOT 13 AND THE NORTI-I 42 FEET OF LC1T 12, TRACT 3251, IN
THE CI1Y OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF OFiANGE, STATE OF
CALlFORNIA, AS SHnWN ON A MAP THEREVF RECORDED IN
BAOK 100, PAGES 17 ANp 18, MISCEl.1~4PJE0US MAPS,
RECORDS OF aAlq ORANGE COUNTY.
WHEREAS, the Glty Plannlnp Cammisalon dId hold a publfc hearfnq at th9 Civic Center In
the City of Anaheim ~n November 2, t992, at 1:30 p.m„ notice oi said pubiic heAring i:aving beon duly given
as requlrecJ by law snd in accorclance with tha provislons of the Anahelm ~~unicipal Code, Chapter 18.03,
ta hear And consldor evidence for and ag~inat said proposed variance and to investigate and make ilndings
and recomrnendations in co. ''lan therewith; and that e~id public hearing was continued to tho December
2, 1y92 Planning Carnmission meetinfl; and
~1-HEfitAS, said Commission, after due Inspection, investigatlan and study made by itself
and In ItA bohalf, and atter due cor~slderation oF all evidonae and reports oHered at sFOld hearing, does find
and determine tho tollowing i~~cts:
1. That the petftloner proposes waNers of the iollowing to porrtift converslon of a 4-unit,
14,QC0 aq.ft. fndustri~l building to a 4•unit Industrial condominlum ~omplex:
(a) ~e~~,Qns 18.Oa,U60.013
.~d i s.st .o~,S~,~a
(b) Sec;~qns 18.OE.050•0212
18•06,Ogp9~~1.
r,~ 1$:F~Q~.050
(c) 3,@~tion 19.81,069
Mfnlrtlum Iand.SCBDe reaulL8L14~•
(7 trees I iran~~~k required;
nane proposed)
~iAinimum numb,~of r fna_~p~~.
(~ required;
,$ exlsting at 644 South Rase Sxreet;
~,fuso sto~age re r t5.
~na Iranh encl ~rgper n.~,g1 requfred;
non propooed)
2, That the above-menti~ned waivers Are hereby denied on the basfs that there are no
exceptional or extreordinary clrcumstances or corxlltlona applicable to tha property InvolvecJ or to the
intendr~l use of the propeity tiiat do not apply gene~ally to the properry or ciass of use in the same vicinity
and zone.
3. That tra(41c and parking congestion in the 500 biock of South Rose Street would not be
im~raved by the approval of the parking waiver. Currontly ihere are only io:~r (4) useable parking spaces
In the front of each ~rit (tor a totAl of 16 spacas). with tho remainfng parking to tho rear t~eing unaccessible
because of tencinfl, closed chain Itnk gates and outsldo stor~ge.
4. That one of the parcels does not meet current sanitation roqulremonts and ff walver (C)
pertafning ta refuse storage requfremonts wore approved, all four ~arcets would lack adequate refuse
storage aress.
GR1680MS,WP •1- PC92-140
5. Ttu+t Code Enforcement records i~xiicate pr:rvlous nulsance violations pertaining t~ trash
and dobris, and lend usa vidatfona pertalnin0 to outdoor sto-ngo; and duo to the tendoncy of rooccurrinfl
vlo~etions ot the subject IocAtlon, and Ih~ :mpact o( the (our attached unlta upon oach other, multlpto ownership
and multiple tenents of the building would po!entiaily result tn Incroesed steH ttme to resdve vioiotions.
6. That the requested varlance Is not necessary tor the presenratlon and enjoyment ot a
substuntial property rtgM posse3sed by other propeRy In the same vicinfty and zone, arxl denied to the
property In quentlon.
7. That the requ~sted va~iance w(II bo materialiy detrimentr~; to Yne public weltare or tnjurlou3
to the property cx Imptovements In such vicinfty arxl zon6 In whlch the proFerty Is located.
8. That no o-u~ indicated thelr presence et saf~ pubiic hoaring in opoosition; Arxi that no
corresporxfence w~as recefvod in opposit(on to sub~ect petitlon.
CAI.IFORNIA ENYIRONMEN?AL QllALml ACl' FINDIN(3: That tho Ar~aheim City Planntng
Commissian Iws revlewad the propor,al for waNers ol minlmum landscapo requirameMS, minimum number ol
parking apaces and refuse storAge requfrements to permit cornersion ot a 4•unit,14,000 sc~.}t. industrfa! buflding
to a d•unR (ndustrial condomintum compiox on a ror.tanqularlyshapod parcel ot lancl consisting ot
approxlmately 0.5R ecre, having a}rontage ot approximately 140 fedt on the east slde ol Rose Stroet, iwvir,g
a maximum depth of apprrnclmately 177 (eet, beiny IocAted 8pprox~mately 180 toet cwRh of the centertiru~ of
Water Sireet and tunher desaribed as 540•54i6 Soulh Rose Street; arxf does heneby deny Ihe Negatwe
Ceclaratlon upon Mdir-~ that the declaraUon retlocts the Indeperxioni ~udgement ot the le8d egency arxl that
it has considered the Nesative Declaratlon topether wfth any comments roceived durinp tht+ publ(c revlevv
proc~ss and further findtnq on the baais o1 the Inhtal atudy und any comrnents received that ihere is substanttal
ovidence that the pro~ect wAI har~e a signNicant eHect on the envl~onmern.
NOW, THEHE~ORE, BE IT FiESOWED that the heim City Pla ing Commlaslon doen heraby
dony subJect Petttfon lor Varisince on the basis of the afor on nod Oncfin _.
THE FOREaU1NC, RESOLlJTION was e pt at e Plb nln~ Commission meetiny d
DRCOmber 2, t992. ,. _ _ ~ /i~ti.w.n ti
ATTE87:
.S-. :Gr ~'' '/ :'
$ECREfARY, ANAN ' LITY PLANNINd CO~dMiSS10N
PLANNiNG
STAtE Of CAU~ORMIA )
COUh'TY OF Ofi/WGE - ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I. Jangt ~ Jens~r+, SecrMary M Iho Maheim City Planninq Commlaaion. do hereGy cenify thas
che lorepoinp resolulion was pos~d and adopfed at a maotMp d the Mahelm City PIAnMnq Cwnmission
hdd on DeCember 2. 1992. by the lopowit~y vote ol tt~s rttembArE thereol:
AYES: COMMiSS10NEA3: BRISTOI. HtNNlNCiER, ME3SE, PERAZA, tAtT, ZEMEL
NOES: COMMISSIONF.RS: NONF
ABSENY: ~'AMMIS.~',IONERS: NONE
VACANCY: ONE 3EAT
IN WITNESS WHEREOF.1 havt hMeunto set tny honcl fhis ~;,~,~_ day d~•:__,./-~.1992,
.,~ / ," ' .,.
$ECFtETARY, MM-HEIM CtTY PUWNINC3 COMMISSSOV
.2. PG32•t~0