PC 76-33~ ~
RESOLUTIOU P~O. PC7b-33
A RESOLUTIOtI OF 711E CITY PLAt~NI~~G C0~1t1ISS.T,O~J OF THE CITY OF At~AHEI'9
THAT P!'iITIOt~ FOR VARIANCE 110. 27R~ BE DCt~IED.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim ~id rece ve a
verifi~s: Petition for Variance fron PAUL J. HUD~S, 1~0 4!. Ualley (loulevard~ R~~:itn~
California 92376 and D. RAYt10t~D 8 ADA i1AY 1dOLL. Ir365 Newoort Ceach Coul~ ard,
Tustin. California 926IIQ (Uwners); GERARD F, IJARDE. 4337. E. La Palma Avenue, An~ieim,
California 928C6 (Aryent) of certain real p~onerty situated in the Citiy of Ar'ne'.~~
County of Orange, State of Califorr.ia, described as:
PARCEL 1:
The East 94 feet of the West 6G3 feet of Lot 15 ~n hlock 3G of Yorba Lind~ 'ract,
in the county of Orange, State of California as per man recorded in book 5 nages
17 and lII of Niscellaneous ?1aps~ records af sa~id Orange County.
PARCEL 2:
The East 94 feet of the tJest 5f9 feet of Lot I5 in block 3fi of the YorE~ Linda
Tract, in the county of Orange. State cf Califnrnia~ as per mao recorded in hook
5, pages 17 and 1ti of ~1lscella~~ec~us tlaps, records of said Oranqe County.
Lot 15 in Dlock 36 of "Yorba Lynda Tract", as shown on a 11ap recorGed ir. Cook 5,
pages 17 and lII of ~liscellaneous flaps~ recards of Orange County, Califo!^r a.
Excepting tLerefrom the West Gf,3 feet.
llHEREAS, thz City Planning Conmission did hold a public hearinq at the City
Nall in the City of Anaheim on February 18, 197fi, at 1:~0 p.m.~ notice of se d public
hearing having bcen duly given as required by law and in accordancc '~rith the
provisions of the Anaheim tlunicipal Co~e~ Cliapter 13.Q3~ to hear and :ansider
evidence for a~d against saici proposed variance and to investigate and mak~~ Findings
and recomnendations in connection there~aith; and
WIIEREAS, said Commission~ after due inspection~ investigatior. and Cudy made
by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of al1 evidence a•~.~1 reaorts
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the follu~ain~ facts:
i. Thati the petitioner requests the follo~aing waivers from he Anaheim
14unicipal Cod~e. to establish a large equipment renta'1 yard in the ML(SC) (..qDUSTRIAL~
LIP1I'iEU - SC''NIC CORRIUUR OVEftLAY) ZO~IL:
a. S[CT?0~~ 1F;.61„QG3.011 - t4inimum l~ndsca ed setbacY.. (1~1 f~et
requ re ; none propose
b, SECTION 13.61.L'G4.Q20 - 14aximum ~•~all hei ht. ;30 inches
perm tte ; ~eet prrpose
c. SECTI011 1II.61.OG3.030 - Prohibited encroachment of cutdoor use:~
rto s'i- etba~c c: ut oor use nrooose
to encroacl-into rer,uired sethack area'
d. SECTI~f~ 18.61.OG(i.032 - Re uired tree screen. (35 trees
requ red; none ~rooosedT
e. SECTIOt~ 10.Q4.071.On0 - PermiLted uses•. (Large equioment
~torags and rental yard not p~rmltted
in the Scenic C^~~1dor 4vQrlay Zone)
2, ?hat ~~atvers 1-a, 1-b, 1~c, and 1-d~ above-mentior~rd~ are heret:~ denied
on the basis that said waivers pertaYn to the 50-foot minimum setbacY, we~~~,~rements
along Lakeview Avenue and, since tn~ petitioner indicated a time 1ir~itatior imposed
on the nroposed use was unacceptable, the Planr~tr~~ Co~anission determtred fiat to
grant the a~aivers on a per.~an2nt b~sis would set an undesirable E~recedent fc" future
similar requests in the Canyun Industrial Area, endt furthennore, that the ne:itinner
did nflt demonstrate that a hardship would be created if sald ~aatvErs ~P.re not
granted.
RE50LUTI.Ot~ tiG P.'7o-33.
R:, ~ ~ ~
3. That Waiver 1-e, above-mentioned, is hereby clenied on the basis that
the petitioner indicaterl the pronosal ~~iould not be pursued if the reouested waivers
pertaining to tlie 50-foot setback requirements ~long Lakeview Avenue were not ~ranted
on a oermanent basis.
4. That there are no exceptional or extraordinarY circumstances or
conditions applicable to the nroperty invalved ar to the intended use of the nronerty
that do not apply generally to tne pronerty or class of use in the same vicinitY and
zone.
5. That the i•equesteci variance is not necPSSary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial prnperty riqht possessed bY other nroperty 9n the same
vicinity and zone, and denied to the nronert.Y in question.
6. That the requested variance will be materiall,Y detrimental to the
public 4~elfare or injuriaus to the property or improvements in such vicinity and znne
in ~~~hich the property is l~ocated.
7. Tliat no one indicated tlieir presence at said public hearing in
opposition; and no correspondence was received in op~osition to subject oetition.
EWVIRONh1EPdTAL I!•iPACT REPOR7 FIi~DItIG:
ihat the Anahe9m City Planning Comnission does hereby recommend to the City
environmentalthe1mpactct reportt bpursuant~ tor~the~hprovisionsmeof the ~California
Environmental Quality Act.
t~Old, TIIEREFORE, DE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Pla.nning Commission
does hereb,y deny subject Petition for Variance on the basis of the aforementioned
findings.
THE FOREGOIP~G R[SOLUTION is signed and approved by me this lf3th day of
February, 1?76.
l~~ ~~~/
~{ , N, P~ HEIh tlPl r~ c.~ s r~
ATTEST:
~~~~,a~~
SECRE~IC~P, I~~EII1 C TY PL i7tITl1 Ot~14I5S Qtl
STATE OF CALIFORP~IA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ss.
CITY UF AWAtIEYM j
I, Patricia B. Scanlan. Secretary of the City Plann9n~ Commission of the
Cit•y of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the forE~oing resolutior. was nassed and
February lS,a1976tiat 1f30 p.mityby~theifollootringsvote ofttheCmembersAthereof;held on
AYES: COMIIISSIONERS: 6ARNES, HER6ST, JOfitISON, KI(~G, 140RLEY, FARANO
NOES: COt1t•1ISSIOiJERS: TOLAR
ABSEP~T: COMt4ISSI0PICRS: ~~ONE
IN 41ITt~ESS WffEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this lEth day of February,
1976.
~~ ~.aJ ~ ~~.~/
CR RY, At~AHEI~4 CITY PLAtJPIING COt1t9ISSI0N