Resolution-PC 94-118,g~_Q~yfION NO.,ps;94-118
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINC3 COMMISSIQN
THAT PETITION FOH VARIANCt NO. 4256 BE GRANTED
WHEREAS, the Anahelm City Planning Commission d~i receive o verHi9d Petltlon for
Verlance for certain real property situateci In the City nf Anahaim, C~unly of ~range, State of Ca~d~rnia
described as:
THE 1NESTE7LY 210 FEE7 OF 7HE EAS7ERlY RECTANGULAR HALF OF
VINEYAAD LOT I~-1, IN TNE CIIY OF ANAHEIM, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 4, PAGES 629 AND 630, DEEDS, RECORDS OF LOS ANGEL~S COUN7`; ,
CAUFORNIA.
SAlD lANO IS Sl10WN ON A MAP qF SURVEY, RECORDED MARCH 13, 1953, IN
BOOK 26, PAGE 10 REf;OFiD OF SURVEYS, IN 1'HE OFFICE OF TNE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAID ORANGC COUNTY.
WHER[AS, the City Plennin fl Commisslon dkf hdd a public hoaring ai the CNic Canter In
tho City of Anahelm on July 25, 1954, at 1:30 p.m., notice of aaid public hearfng havliig been duly givon as
required by law and in accordance wiih the provisiona of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to
hear rarxi considor evidence !or and against said praposeci variance anci to Investigate and make flndinge
and recommendatlone in connection tharewith; and that subject publlc hearinq was continurad to the
Septembsr 7, 1994 PlAnning Commfasiun meeting; ancf
Wt1EREAS, Tentatlve Percel Map tVu. 91-1&l, to cr9ate a 2•lot Su~dNislon was approvecf
by the City Council on May t0, 19A4;
WHCRFAS, epproval ot :ald map inclucles the tdlowinq two conditions:
'1. That the legal prope-ry owner shall frrevocably oNer to ded~ate to the Chy of Anaheim the tdlowing
easement on the tinal parcel map, as requtred by tt~e Clty Engineer: a comer cut~ff at the northvrest
corner of South Streot and Roso Street.
2. Thet en Improve~ ~em cortlficate shalf be aacecf on the !Inel parcd map to acknowladg~ that strcwt
fmprovements alonp Fiose Street and South Struet arxl aley ImprovemeMS alung th~ north propr~rty
li~o (or the proposecf Parce{ No. ? shall be reyui-ed prior to further dovelopmerit o( the pr~purty."
WH~REAS, the ~,titbner requeats d~ie~~on of the decfication arx! (mprovement requirements
speci0ed In Cordhfon Nos. 1 and 2 al Tentative Percel Map Wo. 9t-164;
WHEREA3, tho Plenninq Commissbn, after due inspec:tbn, irr~esti~atbn end stucfy n~do
yy itsell end in {ts behalf, arxl eher dus consWeratbn d ell evklonco and report~ offered At sak! hea~fn~,
d;fes find and determin4 the tdlo~winq facta:
t. That Iha petfltoner proposes walver d the folic~wU~:
Sectf4n~ 1~yQ$,~Q • ~Ilred d' t q end imnrovomoittr iur TontatNa Percel
17.08.860 f~ tlo. 91 •1 B4.
an~, 18.04.080 080 unQV~61e oMer c~l ded~a~t~(o- canar c off at nnrthweat
comer d South StreM and Ro~e Streat requlred, ~Q proposed;
lmntovetronLcertlticate for at~@~j~D~p~ aiony South 5treet
a~d Ro:e Stroel requirod or~ 8nel parc~l ~-ep, ~g propoaed: arxf
ImQrovume certNicate tor al~@y Imorovomants elong north propeny Iine
of Parcel No. 2 req~irod on lu-al µarcel map, ~ proposed)
CR218~MS.WP -t • PC9d-t 18
2. 71iat, in accordance wlth Sectfon 18.04.080.080 of the Anaheim Munic(pal Cocie, thore Is no
reas~nable relAtionship betweon the need for tF~ requlred dedication and improvements and tha
dovolopment prnposai on which ~uch requlrements wor~ Imposed (a 2-lot tontative parc~l mAp with no
further develo~ment of the underlying propert,y being proposed than that which currontly exists) and that
the cost of the raqulred dExilcation and fmprov~ments unre~sonably axceeds the burden or impaci creatc~d
by sald dovelopment pro~act.
3. That, by Plann(ng Cc~mmission's approval of thls varlance, Condition Nos.1 and 2 contained
(n Tentative Parcel Map ~o. 91-164 aro deferred and that the dedication and improvemonts required in
connectfon with those conditions bo pt~ced on the f inal parcel map to acl<nawledge that, as rvquired by the
C(ty Engineer, street dedfcation and improvements ~long South Street end Rose Street an~J alley
improvements along the north proporty Ifne for tho proposed Parcel No. 2 may be ret~uired prior t~ any
turther dovelopmont of the subject proparty.
4. That no one Indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposltion; and that no
corrospondenco was racoived in opposit(on tu subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIHQ,P(„MENTPL QUALITY ACT FIfVDING: That tho Anahoim City F'Ianning
C~mrnission has reviewed the proposal for w~iver ot requirecl de~!lcation and Imprnvements for Tentative
Parcel Map No. 91-164 on a rectangularlyshaped parcel oi land consistfng ol approxlmAtely 3.6 acres
locatecl at the nortl~west corner of South Street and Rose Street, having approxfmate irontages of 200 feet
on tlie nort~i side ot South Street and 797 feet on the west side of Fiose Street and further dascribad as 919
East South Stroot and doos hereby approve tho Nogative Doclaratfon upon f(nding ttiat the declaration
reflects the fndependent ~udgement oi tha lead ugency ar~d that it has consldered the Negative C~ciaratiun
tugothar with any comments received during the public review process and further ifnding on tha basis of
tho Inltfa! study and ~ny comments received th.~t there is no subs4antial evidonce that the proJect wiil huve
a signi(icant eHer,t on the envfronment.
NQW, 7HEHEFORE, BE IT RESOWED that the Anal~elm City Planning Comrr(ssion does
hereby grant subject PetNion (or Variance.
THE F~)REGOIN~ HESOLU'TION was ted at the PI fng missi meeting of
Septsmber 7, t994. ~
CHAIRMAN PRO-TEMPORE
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
1c~'~~
CRETARY, ANA =1M CIT'Y PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CAUFORNIA )
COIiNTY OF ORANCiE ) ss.
CITY OF ANPHEIM ~
I, Jnnet L. Jenson, Secretary ot the Anahaim City PlAnning Commission, do hereby coriily
that tho foregoing re3oliAion was passod end adoptod at a meetinp of the Anaholm City Plannfng
Comm(ssfon held on Septemk,er 7, 1994 by ihe (ollowing vote of thR mombors thcreot:
AYra: CAMMISSIONERS: CALDWELL, HENNINGER, MAYER, PFRAZA, TAIT
NOEG: C4MMI$SIONERS: NOME
ABSENT: COMMiSSIONERS: ElOYUSTUN, MESSE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hern~~nto sM my har-d this ~_ day of ~~~~~ 9~J4
-~:-~~~ '^ 'O ~'
,~. „RE'TARY, A EIM CIT~ PLANNING CVMMiSSfOfV
~~
.p. PC9~I• t t 8