PC 76-124.' ~ •
RrSnLUTI~tJ PJO. PC7fi-12~~
A RESOLII7I ON OF TtIE AtdAHE I M C ITY PLAqrI I rlr, COr!it I551 nu
THAT PETITI(1t1 FQP, VARIAI~CF. t~0. .'.R17 BE DENIF~.
WHEREAS~ the An~h~im City Plannin~ Commission ~Iid recPive a verlfierl
Petition for Vartarce fr~n RQRERT J. A17f1 L~RFTTA M. ~+~CKEIIP.ERRY, ~1~+ 5. State f,ollepe
Roulevard, Anaheim, California ~^'3nf, (Owncrs); •I~AH t?If;IiFAD, 17?1 E. Vermont,
Anaheim, California ~1.$05 (Agent) of certain real nroperty situated in the City of
Anaheim, County of Qrange, StatP ~~ C~lifornia described as:
The land referred to in tftis rennrt is situ~ted in the State of California,
County of ~range, and is descrihed as fnllrnas:
Lot 90, Tract 235n, in thc City of Jlnahr.im as shoa~~ on a man thereof rr_c~rdr.d in
Book ~9 Pages 45, ~~~, an~i 4,7 Mi~.:~~llaneous "1aps, recnrds of said Orange County.
WNEREAS, the Lity Plannin9 Lommission did hold a puhlic hearin~ at the Cit'y
Hall in the Lity of Anahcim nn June 21, 197~, at 1:3~ p.m., notice ~f said pi~hlic
i;~arin7 having ber_n duly 9iven is required by law and in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Municipai Code, Chaatr.r 1~.~3, to '~ear and ennsicier
evidence fot and agains: sald orop~sed variance and to investigate and make findin~s
and recemmendations in connPciion ther~vriih; and
IJHFREAS, s~id Ccxnmissi~n, after due inspection, investi~ati~n and study ma~i~
by itself and in its behalf, anct aftPr due cnnsidrration of all evi~lence anrl report~
offered at said h~~rin9, d~es fin.1 a~~1 determine the folloa~ina facts:
1, That thr. petitioner proposes the follov~ing vreivers frnm the Anahe=~
Municipal f.ode, to r_stablish an incnme tax officr. in ~ converted r~sidence:
a. SF.f,TI0t1 1n.2~.'?~n - Permitted primary uses. (Offices not
pPrmitted in RS-72~~ l.one)
h. SEf.TION 1".?f,~(7,nin - uaximum sign area. (1 sn. ft.
pr.rmitte~l; ?. sq. ft. pP~nosed
2, That the above-r~entioned waivers are hereby denied on the basis t'at
the suhject property is part of a residential neighborhood which hes not h~en
infilkrated hy non-residential or commercial development; that approval of s~id
waivers would set an undesirabte precedent for future similar requests for comr~erc el
uses in converted rr_sidential structures on typical residential lots fronting m
State Colle~e Poulevard; that commercial uses such as the proposal oiould break ci~~m
thc residential integrity and environment of the surrounding neighhorhoo~l; t at
access [o the subJect property is via ~ d~ad-end alley ~•ihich currPntly sr.r•~s
residentiai lots only, and the use of 5aid alley by commerclal traffic would res~ t
in an undesira~le impact on the adjecent residentt~l uses; and, therr.fore, -ie
sub;ect locaiton i~ determinecf to he inappropriate for c~mmercial use.
3, That the An~heim City Planning Commissi~n noted that in order o
protect the residential intr_grity nf suhject property, measures to mitig~te t e
impact of traffic along State Collge Houlevard on the property could be undrrtak r
and, ~urthr.rmore, recommen~ir.d to the property ~tvner(s) that an '~-foot high mason y
wall could he construc[ed ~long the street frontage t~ p mtect s~ir1 residenti 1
environment.
4. That the Ana!~cim f,eneral Plan designates the subJect ~rr,nr.rty fnr l~o~•
density residential usc.
5, That there are no exceptional or extra~rdi~ary circumstances c~
conditions applicable to the prnperty involvnd or to the intn.ndr.d use c,f the nropert'
that do not apply generatly to the property or ciass of use in the 501i1P, vicinity an~
zone,
S. 7hat the requested variance ts not necr,ssary f~r th~ preservation an~
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the sam,
vicinity and zone, an~ denlecf tn thr. propr.rty in question.
RESOLIITI~N t~Q. PC7~+-' ~~+
~ ~
~ 7. That the requested variance will be materially detrlmental to the
public welfare or inJurious to the property or improvements ?n such vicinity ~nd zone
in which the property is located.
8. That one (1) person appeared, representing approximately seven (7)
persons present at satd public hearing tn opposition; that six (6) letters were
received in oppositlon; that a petition signed by approximately nir,ety-six (96)
residents and property owners in the area was received in opposlticn; and that
three (3) letters were recelved in favor of subJect petltion.
ENV I ROtJF1ENTAL I MPACT REPORT F I ~~D I NG:
That the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon does hereby recommend to the City
Council of the City of Anaheim that the suF]ect proJect be exempt frorr the
req~iirement to prepare an environmental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act.
NOW~ THEREFORE, DE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby deny subJect PetiLion for Variance on the basis of the aforement!oned
findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 21st day of
June, 1976. ,
e~~~
CHAIRMAN~ ANAHE CITY PLAPlNIPIG COMMIS5101
ATTEST:
~~~:~,~~L'~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUtJTY OF ORANGE )ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Patricla B. Scanlan~ Secretary of the City Planning Commissio~ of the
City of Anahetm, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and
adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on
June 21~ 1976~ at 1:30 p.m.~ by the foll~wing vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COM14t5SI0NFR5: BARNGS, NERDST, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR~ FARA~lO
PJOES: COM1115510NERS: NOIJE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JOHNSON
IN WITNESS WHr'.REOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 21st day of June, 1q76.
~ .~~.~.~.:~,~ ~~~~
SECRETAR ~ A~lAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-2- RESOLUTION N0, PC76-124