PC 73-96~
RESOLUTION N~.
~
PC73-96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COh4MISS10N OF THE CITY OE ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOA VARIANCE NO. 2501 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City. planning Commission of the Ciry of Maheim did receive a verified Petition for Variance from
PETER AND DORINE CABRERA, 1532 East La Yalma Avenue, Anaheim, Calif.ornia 92$05, Owners
of certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of (b~ange, State of
Galifornia, described as That portion of Lot 3 of Anaheim Extension, as sha~ on e map
thereof, made by Wm. Hamel and filed for aecord in the office of the County Rec~orde~
of I.oa Angeles County, described as follows:o Beginning st a point in the Northerly
line of said Lot 3, distant thereon South 89 51'30" East 307.81 feet .from the North-
westerly coraer thereof, said point being also the Northeasterly corner af the land
described in Certificate of Ti"le No. 10,435, and running thence Soath 15°7.8'30" East
along the Easterly line of said land described in said Ce.rtificate .of T3tle No. 10,433,
a distance of 200 feet; thence Westerly at right angles to said last mp.ntion2d course
100 feet; thence North 16°28'30" Weat to the North ltne oi said Lot 3; thence South
89°51'30" East along said North line to the point of~..beginning. EXCEFTING THEREFROM
the Northerly 30 feet thereof included witAin La Pa1ms Street; and
WY.EREAS, the City Planning Commiuion did hold u public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Maheim on
May .14, T.973, ' at 2:00 o'clock p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and
in accordana~ with thc provisions of the Maheim Municipa] Code, Chapter 18.68, to hear and consider evidence for and against said
proposed varinnce and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEI~tEAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation, and study made by itself and in its bahalf, arid after due
consideration of all ehdence and reports offered at s~id hearing, does find and determine thc foilowing facts:
1. That thc petitioner requests . varian6ea from • Che Anayeim Municipal Code as follows :
(a) SECTION 18.40.070(2)(a)5a - Required tree screen. (Tree screen requirF:d
ad~acent to residential boundary; uo tree
acreen proposed)
(b) SECTION 18.40.070(3)(a) , - Meximum buildinR hei~ht within 1~0 fPe~ of a
reaidential zone boundary. (9 feet allowed;
23 feet proposed)
(c) SECTION 18.40,070(6)(a) - Re uired 6-foot solid masonrv wall abuttinK
a residential zone. (Masonry wall required;
wood fence existing and proposed)
2. That since the Planning Co~ission recommended disapproval of the reclaasifica-
tion of subjecL• propexty, this petition for variance could not be exercised under the
existing zoning.
3. That the waivers requested from the C-I aite development standards have not
been waived on other coc~ercial uses which were proposed to be establiahed in close
proximity to residential uses, therefora, to grant aubject petition would be granting
a privilese not enjoyed other commercial developments in similar ciTCUmstancea.
4. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumatances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or L•e the intended use of the prop~rty that do not
apply generally to the property or class uf use in the same vicinity and zone.
5. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjroy-
ment of a substantial properCy right possessed by other property in the same vicinity
and zone, and denied to the property in question.
Vl-D - 1 -
DEV-G6•E
- _ .
~
r
6- That the requet~ted variance will be materially detrimental to the public wei-
fare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which,the
property is located,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
That the Planning Commission, in c.onnection with an Exemption Declaration Status request,
finds and determines that the proposal would have no significant envi.ronmental impsct
and, therefore, recommends to the City Council that no Environmental Impact Statement is
necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny subject Petition for
Variance on the Nasis of the aforementioned finds.
THE FOREGOING RESOLiJfION is signed a
ATTEST:
~2//~ %t~2P~
SECRFTARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINf~ COMMISSIQN
SfATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
i, Ann Krebe, Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anahsim, do hereby ceni`y that the
foreaoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commi:sion of the City pf A,nahefm, held on
May 14, 1973, at 2:00 o'clock p.m., by thc foliowing votc of the members thcreof:
pYES; COMMISSIONERS: ALL2ED, GAUCR, HERBST, KAYWOOD, ~Gk?40UR,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, ROWLAND.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
iN 1:'ITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 24th day of May, 1973.
~ S ~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PL~NNIN:. COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO.pC73-96
V2-D
-2-