PC 73-196v- ~ ~
RESOLU'11~I No. ~~73- ~ 96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSI4N OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2543 BE uENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planaing Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified Petition for Variance from
SIifELDS KRL'iZSCH .ANC FEN(vETH ROSS, 1230 Somerset Lane, Newport Beach, California 92660,
Cwners; SHlELD~ KP.U7ZSCH, i208 Scuth Bay Frent, Balboa Island, Cali'~orria 92652, Aga~t
o` certain r~al property sizuated in the City o` Anaheim, County of Orange, Stat_ of
Cali`or~ia des~ribed as Tnat portion of Lot 6 of the South Placentia Tract fJo. 2, a~
shown e~ a Map recorded in 5ock 5, pag~ 42 0` Miscellaneous Maps, records of Ora~ge
Countyn Caiifernia, d°,cribed as ~ullows: Be9inning at the intersection o~ tf~e cen*_ar-
line o~ V3a Bu~ton Stceet, as des~ribed in the deed to the City of Anahsim reccrde~
Sept~mcer 3, 1959 ~~ B~Q~< 4868, page 525 of Official Records, reco~ds of said Ccunry,
with th~ North~rly prol~nga~ion of the Easteriy line of the land convPysd to Bert Bledsoe,
and eth~rs, reccrdsd March 6, 3964 in Book 6952, page 57 of said 0" icial Rec~;rds; th=nce
Rortn 8°,° 56' 44" East, along s,=id cen:erline, 220.00 feet to tne True Point or 5egcr,nin~;
:h~nce Sou*_i; C^ 03' ~6" East 3z3.00 ~eet te the Southerly 1?ne of th° la~a d~scribed i~i
°arc~? 2 of the d~sd 2o Hcustcn Land Ccmpam,~ reccrded March 1, 1957 ~n book 382i, pa9°
285 of said C~~icizl R~cords; th~nc~, along tne Sou~dary of said Houston La~d CcrnpanY
land, horth 89° 56' 44" East, i°2.08 `~et, arrd Ncrth 00° 03' ~6" West 145.42 `~et t~
an a~gl~ poi~: in said bo~ndary; th4nce ccntiiiuing horth 00° 03' lE" West i77.5g `Q2=
to t~e. said cen:srii~s of Via Burt-on Strast; :ne~ce along said centerline Sou:h 89°
5ti' 4~" Wes= f92.~8 ~~~~Z ~o the True Point of ~9eginning. EXCEPT 7fiEREFFOM ~hs Scutli~riy
1.00 foct thereo4
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public he :ring at the City Hall in the City of Anal~eim on
S epterr:bs r 5, ~ 97? , at 2:00 o'clock p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly ~iven as required by law and
in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.68,to hearand considerevidence [orand againstsaid
proposed variance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection !hercwith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investieation, and study made by itself and in its belialf, and after due
consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hcaring, does find and determine the following facts:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from thc rlnaheim Municipal Codc:
SECTION 18.52.060(4)(A) - Minimum required number of perkEng sceces.
(35 spaces required; 27 spaces proposed)
2. That the petiticner did not prove a hardship would result if subject pe:i~ion
were not granted except that which would be of his own making. ,
3. That the City has in the past granted waiver of required parking wher~ or.~y a
mini-wareho~se was proposed, and because of the mixture of uses proposed for tliese strec-
tures, the structures could be.easily converted into other permitted M-1 uses, ti~ereLy
creating possible addiCional parlcing problems,
4. That the use could not be termed as being a mir.i-warehouse operatioa, ~herefora,
granting waiver of the required parking would be inapproprtate.
5. That aithough m:,r.i-warehouses appeared to be one of the major deveiopmenta o~cur••
ring in Orange Couaty and, while many uses proposed were service orien!•ed businesses pr~-•
marily serving commerce and industry, the builders of the~e types o£ structures were aow
recognizing the need for adequate parking and were providing parking in accordance with
concnercial standards.
6. That there are no exceptionai or extraordinary circumsta•t.ces or coadi~~oas applf-
cable to rhe property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not appiy
generally to the property or class of use in l:he same vicinity and zone.
7. That the requested variance is not nPCeasaty fot the preservation ar.d enjay:nznt
of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicin'_cy and zone,
and denied tc the property in question.
S. Thet t}~e requested variance will be materially detrimental to tlie pubiic welfare
or injuriou~ to the pcoperty or improvements in such vicinity anll zone fn which ehe propert~l
is located.
ENVIRONMENTAi IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
That the Planning Commission, in cc^rerr_.ion with an Exemption Decl~ration Status reyuest,
finds and determines that the propocal caould have no signifirant enwiron:nentai impac~ und,
therefore, recommends to tne City Council that no Environmental Impact Statemeat is :~ecessaryc
Vl-D - ~ -
DEV-66•E
~
~
~'Ww~e
~~
~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny subject Petition for
Variancc on the basis of the aforementioned finds.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUfION is signed and approved by me this 13th day of September, 1973 •
~O,~~fl~7l-/.//~I.tC ~~
CHAII'iMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO~
ATTEST:
L~~~~n`-~ ~
SEC'ttETARX ANAH IM CITY PLANNINC COMMISSION
STATE QF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann K reb s, Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hcreby ccrtify that thc
faregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of thc City of Anaheim, hcld on
September 5, 1973. at 2:00 o'clock p.m., by the followingvote of the members thereof:
AYES: CONIMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER, HERBST, KING, ROWLAND.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE,
ASS'PAIN: COMhtISSIONERS: SEYMOUR.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I havc hereunto set my hand this 13th day of Septembe r, 1973 •
----~~!~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CGMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0. PC73-196
V2-D - Z -