PC 75-63_ ~' ' ~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. PC75-63
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2685 BE DENIED.
WHEREHS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anrheim did receive a
verified Petition for Uariance from MASAMI OGATA, 515 South Beach Boulev~rd,
Anaheim, California 92804 (Owner)• STEPHEN W. BRADFOR~, P. 0. Box 368, Yorba
Linda, California 92686 (Agent) of cPrtain real property situated in the Cir.y
of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as:
The Easterly 132.00 feet of the Westerly 250.38 feet of the ~lorth half of th~
Northeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of the Northeast quartcr of Section
Z3, Township 4 South, Range ll WesC, in the Rancho Los Coyo[es, as pcr map
recorded in book 51 Pa9e 11 af Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of ~he counCy
recorder of said county; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a oublic hearing a[ the City
Ha11 in the City of Anaheim on March 17, 1975, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said
public hearing having been duly given as required by law end in accordance with
the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Lode, Chapker 18.03, to hear and consider
evide~ce for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make
findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation, and study made
by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered et said hearing, does find and determine the following facts:
1. That the petitioner requests the following waiver from the Anaheim
Municipal Code, to establish a lot without frontage on a public street:
SECTION 18.01.130 - Requirement that all lots abut a public strest.
2. That the above-mentioned waiver is here5y denied on the basis that the
petitioner woul~ be creating a hardship for future development of Parcel B, as
shown on Exhibit No. 1, since the proposed access to Parcel B via an irregular
easement weaving tfirough an existing parking lot located on Parcel A is improper,
awkward and undesirable; and that any existing hardship is of the petitioner~s
own making,
3. That if Parcel B is sold and/or developed with a more intense use than
the 2 existing single-family residences, then further problems will be created
with respect to parking and traffic.
4. That, although the entire property is zoned CL and the proprietor is
entitled to or.cupy the residential port.ion, it ~vas represented by thc petitioner's
agent that the two single-family dwellings are being rented and, therefore, not
occupied by the proprietor.
5. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that
do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the some vicinity and
zone.
6. That the petitioner failed to establish f.hal the req~ested variance is
necessary for the preservation and en,joyment of a su6stantial property ri9ht
pussessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the
property in question, said showing being a prerequisite for the 9ranting of a
variance; and that the granting of this variance would be clearly grenting a use
that others in the same vicinity and zone are being denied.
7. That the requested variance wi11 be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or,in,urious to the property or improvements in such vicinity ar~d zone in
which the property is located.
8. That no one indicated their presence at said public hearina in oppositior~.
and no correspondence was received in opposit'on to subject petition.
RESOLUTION N0. PC75-63
+ ..i ' ~ B
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
That the Director of Cevelopment Services has determined that the proposed
activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class ; of the City of
Ana~ieim Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental I~pact Report
and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement co file an EIR.
NUW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Pl:aaning Commission
does hereby deny subje:t Petition for Variance on tha basis rf *_he aforementioned
findings.
7HE FOREGQING RESOLUTION is s~gned and apprpved by me riis 17th day of March,
1975. .
~ ~..t~
CHAIR N PRO EM'~ORE
ANAHEIM CITY PLA NING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
(~,~:,.~/,B ~~-~.K.~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIfORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM 1
I, Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary of the City Planni g Commission of the City
of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resoluti~n was passed a~d adopted
at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the Cily ~f A.naheim, held on March
17, 1975, at 1;30 p.m., by the following vote of the memt;rs thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, T~LAR, FAkANO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: HERBST
IN WITNESS WHEREOf, I have hereunto s~t my hand thii 17th day of March, 1975.
~~,~/,B ~.~
SECRETARY, ANFiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
_2_ RESOLUTIpN N0, PC75~63