PC 70-101RESOLUTION N0. PC70-101
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2182 gE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission oE the City of Aneheim did receive e verified Petition for Varience from
A. H. SHI~~.EY, INCORPORATED, 420 West Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92805, Owner;
ARTHUR H. SHIPKEY or JAMES MORGAN, 420 w'est Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California 92805,
Agents of certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State
of California, c~escribed as Lot Nos. 26, 27, 28 of Vineyard Lot D-5.
~
r
i
WNEREAS, the City Plonning Commisaion did hold a public hearing et the City Hall in the City oE Aneheim on
Jure :.5, 1970, et 2:00 a'clock P.M., notice of said public hearing heving been duly given as required by
law end in aiccocdence with the provisions of the Aneheim Municipel Code, Chepter 18.68, to hear and consider evidence fot
end against said proposed verience end to investigete end meke findings end recommendations in connection therewith;
and
~ WHEREAS, daid Commission, efter due inspection, investigation, and study made by itself and in its behelf,
and efter ciue conside~etion oE ell evidence and reports offered at seid hearing, does find end determine the follawing
facts:
? 1. Thet the petltioner request:~ e verience Erom the Anaheim Municipel Code as follows to permit the
,:; establ.ishment of a passenger car and truck tire sales facility with outdoor service on
subj~ct property:
SECTION 18.44.010 - Permitted uses in the G 2 Zone.
' (The pr.oposed use is not permitted in the C-2 Zone).
2. That the proposed u:~e of subject property is industrial in character and would be
i.ncompatible wi*,h the exisi:ing commercial uses established in the area.
3. That although the petitic~er contended that only lOj; of the bu=iness would be with
large ~;emi-•trailer trucks, a circulation problem would result if these large vehic~es took
access to and from the property thru a 16~foot zlley used by residential traffic, to a
narrow local residential street.
4. Thzt the proposea operation would be hazardous to the many school children in this
oene~al area, from automobiles and tr»cks, since visibility would be poor.
5. That the proposed u~e would be detrimental tu redevelopment and upgrading of the
Cer.ter City Area.
t~. 'fhat there are no e>:ceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved oi to t!~e intended ~se of the property that do not apply generally
to the property or class of use in the same vicinii:y and zone.
7. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment uf a
.=.ubstaritial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and
denied to the property in question.
8. That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in sucn vicinity and zone in which the property is
located.
9. That three persons appeared in opposition.
a
~
A
~ ~
~~'i ~
~
NO~V, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny subject
Petition for Variance on the basis of the eforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approve ~Hy me this,\25th d~y of June~ 1970.
,I ~
:
C RMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
+,
ATTEST:
i'.
~~ ' ~ ~ - l
-,I /it:~l~(iyC~ ~~~-~~/
' SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ),ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM ) -
I~ Ann Krebs ~ Secretery of the City Planning Commission of the C.ity of Anaheim, do hereby cectify thet the fore-
going resolution was pessed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission ofthe City of Aneheim, tteld on
June 15, 1970, at 2:00 o'clock p,M„ by the following vote of the memberc thereof:
~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Seymour, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano.
I
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 25th d8y of June~ 1970.
~
I;
I : •
~~2'lL ~/~!~-C. Ltc~/
~ SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 101
V2-D _2_
~.~ .~~ 1
~~
~~
h