Loading...
58R-4665 - RESOLUT ION NO. 4665 ,.,..,..........,- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM DENYING THE APPLICATION OF ANAHEIM CONGREGATION OF JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES, INC. FOR VARIANCE NO. 948. WHEREAS, on the 27th day of March, 1958, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a petition for zoning variance from Anaheim Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc., a corporation, the owner of cer- tain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows: The easterly 98.08 feet of the south one-third of the east half of the following described land: Commencing at a point in the south line of Broadway Street at the northwest corner of lands formerly of Lumis A. Evans and thence south 80 rods, more or less, to the south line of the quarter section; thence west 60 rods to a stake; thence north 80 rods, more or less, to said Broadway Street and thence east 60 rods to the place of beginning and containing 30 acres of land, more or less, and being a part of the South half of the Northeast quarter of Section 17, Township 4 South, Range 10 West, S.B.B. & M. EXCEPTING THEREFROM any portion thereof included in the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 17. AND WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim upon said petition on the 21st day of April, 1958, notices of which said public hearing were duly given as required by law and the provisions of Section 9200.17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and studies made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all the evidence and reports offered at said hearing, did adopt Resolution No. 234-- Series 1957-58 denying said Variance No. 948; and WHEREAS, thereafter, within twenty (20) days from the date of the adoption of said resolution, a written ap- peal was filed with the City Council of the City of Anaheim protesting the action of the City Planning Commission deny- ing said variance, and said appeal was set for public hearing on the 20th day of May, 1958, at 7:00 o'clock P.M. in the City Hall in the City of Anaheim, and notice of such public hearing was duly given as required by law and the provisions of Section 9200.17 of the Anaheim Municipal Code; and -"'~ 'ffHEREAS, a public hearing was duly held and con- ducted on said 20th day of May, 1958, and testimony both oral -1- - c_ and documentary, was introduced on behalf of the petitioner, and testimony and reports were introduced on behalf of opponents to the granting of said variance; that said hear- ing was not completed on said date and said matter was con- tinued until June 5, 1958 at 7:00 o'clock P.M., at which time said public hearing was continued and further evidence introduced for and on behalf of petitioner and for and on behalf of the opponents, and that said hearing was thereupon closed and said matter taken under submission by the City Council for study and the rendition of its opinion; and 1.\fHEREAS, after due investigation and studies made by itself and in its behalf and after an inspection of the property of the applicant and the surrounding properties, and the conditions thereof, and after careful consideration of all the evidence presented for and on behalf of the applicant and the evidence presented for and on behalf of the opponents, and all reports received from or on behalf of the parties to said proceeding, and being fully advised in the premises, the City Council does find and determine that: 1. There are no exceptional nor extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property in- volved 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. 2. The granting of such variance is not 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. 3. The granting of such variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare and injurious to the property and improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located. - 4. The granting of such variance will adversely af- fect the comprehensive general plan of tre City of Anaheim. S. The parcel of property upon which said proposed use is sought to be established does not meet the require- ments as to area in the zone in which it is situated; that the minimum size lot or buildinc area located in the R-A Zone where said parcel of property is situated is one (1) acre; that the parcel for which the variance is sought contains 41,552 square feet; and that said parcel is of such shape that it does not lend itself well for the use proposed to be made of it by the applicant. It is a long, narrow lot and cannot be used by the applicant for the purpose for which the variance is sought in a manner to protect surrounding properties; and the Council further finds that the applicant has submitted plans showing a building 33 feet by 70 feet in area, with a setback of 15 feet from the east property line and 30 feet back from the property line on Orange Avenue. Parking is provided for 34 cars, located along the east property line. It is proposed to completely fence the property with a 5-foot fence. The seating capacity of the building is 168. This requires one parking space for each five seats and would require 33 parking spaces. The Council further finds that because of the shape of the land and the narro\vness in width, from a planning -2- .J .... - ,- standpoint, the initial construction would have to be the ultimate construction, and that there would be no room for expansion to provide for anticipated growth in the congre- gation membership and use of the property. That said property abuts a highly developed R-I area upon which are constructed residences of recent con- struction. 6. The evidence shows that there are other R-A zoned properties in the general vicinity of the location for which this variance is sought, and that there are avail- able other locations more suitable for the use sought by the applicant than the property described in this proceeding, and that such other locations would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the prop- erty or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 7. It appears that the subject property cannot be adequately developed and used for the purposes sought for this variance under the present zone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Anaheim that the action of the City Planning Commission denying said application for Variance No. 948 be, and the same is hereby sustained, and that said Variance No. 948 be, and the same is hereby denied. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is approved and signed by me this 29th day of July, 1958. , , /"'~ C"~~' ~ Ivf,AYOR THE CITY OF ANAHEIM. ~ ~ / E~(;F ~~EIM. ".- -3-