PC 72-168~ . - -_ _. ._.__ __. . . _ ._ ._.-----
RESOLUTION NO. PC72-168
A RESOLUTION CF THE CITY PLANNIl7G COMMISSION OF THE CtTY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. Z395 BE DF.NIED
WHEREAS, the City Planaine Commission of the Ctry of Mehelm did receive e verified Petition Enr Vedence from
RONALD R. COSBY, ET AL, 2230 Horth Westwood Street, Santa Ana, California 92706, O~mers of
certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California,
described as The South half of Che northeast quarter of the North half of Lot 14, Block "K"
of the Kramer Tract as per map recorded in book 12 pages 87 and 88 of Miacellaneous Records,
in the offic2 of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County, California
WH~REAS, the City Plenning Commisslon did hold a public headng et the City Hall in the City ot Anahalm on
July 24, 1972, et 2:00 o'clock P.M., noUce of seid publlc hearing heving bem duly g~~m as required by
lew and ln eccadence wlth the pro~visions of the Anahelm Municlpel Code, Chapter 18.68, to hear and coneider evidence Eor
and ageinst said ptaposed vatlnnce end to investl¢ete end meke findings and cecommmdetions ln connection therewlth;
end
WHEREAS, said Commiesion, efter due inspection, investlgatlon, end study made by itself end in its behelt,
and eEter due coneidantion oE ell evidence and reports offerec~ at seld hearing, does Eind and determine the Eollowing
facts:
1. Thet the,petitloner requeate a vadence from the Anehelm Municipel Code:
SECTI09 18.52.060(3-b) Outdoor el-oraRe screening requirement.
6-foot solid mareonry wall required; 6-foot chainlink
fence propoaed)
2. That the petitioner was unable or unwilling to agree to one of the alternative methode
of prov:di~~ outdoor acreening of storage auggested by the Planning ~ommission; and that
approva; .:he request would be eatablishing an undeairable precedent in the induatrial areas
~-here r.,ac~r i,ldustriea ware requlred to provide the necessary acreening.
3. That appra:a't nf su~jecl• pEtition would be gras~tiag ttie petitioner a privilege not
cc~joyed by the adjoining indveCrial uses.
4. That the petitioner had created his own hardship by erecting a buildLng without taking
into conaideration sll of the aite development atandards of the M-1 Zone.
S. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumetances or conditiona applicable
to the property involved or to the intended uae of the property that do not apply generally to
the property or clasa of use in the same vicinity and zone.
6. That the requested varirance ie not necessary for the preaervation and enjoyrent of a
aubstantial property right poesessed by other property in the same vicinity end zone, and denied
to the property in question,
7. 'That the requeated variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or in-
jurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is
located.
Vl-D -1-
~
~
NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED thet the Mahelm City Plenning Commlesion does he:eby deny aubject
PetlUon for Verience on the besis oE the eforomentioned Undiage.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION ls signed end epproved by me thie 3rd day of August, 1972.
pIRMAN ANAHEIbf CITY ANNING CO SSION
ATTEST:
~!s:~~t/1~~~t~/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLAlINIIVG COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 88•
ClTY OF ANAHEIM )
I, A'n~,c~Ul~~secretery oE the City Planning Commiesion ot the City oE Anehetm, do hereby cediEy that the Eoro-
going resolution wes peased end edopted at e meeting of the Ciry Plenning Commiseton oE the City of Aneheim, held on
July 24, 1972, et 2:00 o'clock P.M., by tha following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, HERSST., KAYWOOD, ROWIAND, SEYMOUR.
NOES: COMMiSSIONERS: GAUER.
ABSEN'f: COMMiSSIONERS: ALLRED,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 3rd day of August, 1972.
RESOLUTIGN NO. PC72-168
V2-D
!e"~,i~~~~fz .W~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS310N
-2-