PC 73-131RESOLU'ITON N0. P~~3-131 ~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNENG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PET!.TION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2516 BE DENIED
WIiEREAS, the City Pianning Commission of the City of Maheim did receive a verified Petition for Variance from
Eh:ERSON ELECTRIC COMPANY, 8100 West Florissant Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri 63136, O~rner;
NORMAN MIiKES, 9776 Katella Avenue, Anaheim, CaliEornia 92804, Agectt of certain real
property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described
as That portion of the Southwest quarter of Section 6, Township 4 South, Rar.ge 10 West, in
the Rancho Los Coyotes as shown on a map recorded in Book 51, page 10 of Miscellaneous
Maps, records of said CounCy described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Southerly
1:ne of Parcel 1, as shown on a Parcel Map filed in Book 40, page 16 of Parcel Mapa, rec-
ords of said County distant thereon South 89° 21' 00" West, 265.OO~feet from Che Southeast
cor,ter of said Parcel 1; thence South 0° 39' 00" East parallel ~rith the Easterly line of
said Parcei 1, a distance of 352.67 feeC, thence, South 89° 17' 15" West, 393.00 feet to
the Westerly line of said Southwest one-quarter; thence, North 0° 39' 00" West, along said
Wes~erly Yir.e, 353.10 feet to the Westerly prolongation of the Southerly line of said
p~rcel 1; thence, NorCh 89° 21' UO" Easi, along sgid Southerly line, 393.00 feet to the
pofn: of beginning; and
WIIEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hcaring at tlie City Hall in che City of Anahcim on
June lY, 1973, at 2:00 o'ciock p.m., no:ice of said public hearing having bcen duly given as required by law and
in accordancr, with the provisions of the Maheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.68, to hear and consider evidence for and against said
proposed variance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREhS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation, and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after duc
consideration oC all evidence and reports offered at ~aid hearing, docs find and determine the following facts:
1. That tl~c petitioncr requests a variance from the Maheim Municipal Code as follows to esCablish a ware-
house, office and retail sales distribution facility:
SECTION 18.52.03U(6) - Permitted uses. (Retai2. distribution of products
produced on premises permitCed; reCail distribution
of products not produced on premises proposed)
2, That the propesed retail sales distribution (dress chop) would not be an inciden-
tal use since the s3ze of the retail area proposed would be comparable to a staldard re-
tail store in any co~nercial center, and the use could geaerate mare retail activity than
stores in commercial centers due to the variety of prices for soiled and damaged goods,
and past seasons' fashions, and due to the tremendous inventory capacity of the proposed
faciiity.
3. That Yhe proposed retail distribution facility would not be primarily seraing
commerce and industry but would be geared tawaid serving the generaZ public and such a
fuil-blown retail use couZd generate considerable traffic into an area developed or being
developed for industrial uses.
4. That granting subject petition wouid be grent3.ng the pe'titior.er a privilege not
enjoyed in other indu~ttrial areae.
5. That there are no exceptianal or extraordin~+ry circumskances or conditions appli-
cable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply
generally to the pr~perty or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
6, That th^ requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial proparl•y right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,
and denied to the property in question.
7, That the reque2Ced variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property or tmprovements in such vicinity and zone in which Lhe prop-
erty is located.
8, That two people appeared in opposition.
Vl-D - 1 -
DEV-66•E
. ~ ~
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDItiG:
That the Planning Commission, in r.onnection with an Exemptian Declarati.on Status request,
finds and determines that the proposal would have no significant environmental impact and,
therefore, recommends to the City Counci.l that no Environmental Impact Statement is
necessary.
NOW, TliEREF~JRE, 6r Ie RESOE:,VED 4hac the Anaheim ~ity P;ennirg Commissiori does hereby deny subject Petition for
Variance on the basis of the afure~entioned fmds.
THE FUREGOING RESOLUPION ss signe~ and. epprovsc~ h'y mc ftils 2ZSt day o£ June, 1973.
~ ..L ~ )
y
ATTEST:
~/ ~/
~'~~~} n i
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Krebs, Secretary ot lhe Ci.y Pianning Commission oi the Ciry oC Anuheim, do hereb; certiCy that thc
forcgoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on
T„„a ~ i i a~z at 2:00 o'clock p.m., by the fellowingvote of the members thcrcof:
--•-- --~ --•-~
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED, GAU~R, HERBST, 1CAYWOOD, ROWLAND, SEYMOUR.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: / iMMISSIONERS: TAR[1N0.
IN WITNESS WIiEREOF, I hnve hereunto set my hand this 21st day of Jun•E, 1973.
//i7//'~i.7 / ~PYIO~G'P/ _
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0. p~~3-131
V2-D
-2-