PC 76-45~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. PC76-A5
A RESOLUTION OF THF CITY PLANt~ING COP1h1ISSI0tl OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIt4
THAT PE~1Ti0P~ FOR VARIA(JCE N0. 2773 BE DEP~IED.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a
verified Petition for Variance from NICKLaS URSIPII, 1338 N. Padonia Avenue, tJhittier.
Calirornia 90603 (Owner); PEGGY HUFF!•1APl, 110a E. Cherry Street, Santa Ana, California
92701 (Agent) of certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of
Orange, State of California described as:
That portion of the Southeast quarter of Section 22, To~~mshin 4, South, Range 1~
lJest, in the Rancho San Juan Cajon de Santa Ana, as shown on a ma~ recorded in
Book, 51, Pa9e 10 of Miscellaneous t•1aps, records of Orange County, California,
described as follows:
Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Southeast quarter; thence North 675.00
feet along the 4lest line of said Southeast Quarter; thence East 833.51 feet
parallel with the South line of said Sou~theast Quarter; thence South 0° 16' 30"
East 675.11 feet to the true point of beginning~ said point being also the
Southeasterly corner of the land described in Deed to Alwyn 5. Jewell and Lucille
G. Jewell, recorded October 5~ 1959 in Book 4912, Page 102 oF Official Records;
thence North 0° 16' 30" West 360.00 feet along the Easterly line of said land;
thence East 150.00 feet parallel with the Southerly line of said Southeast
quarter; thence South 0° 16' 3Q" East 360.00 feet oarallel ~aith said Easterly
line of the land ~onveyed to Je~aell to the Southerly line of said section; thence
~~est along the Southerly line of said section 15Q.00 feet to the true point of
beginning.
WIIERcAS, the City Planning Cortrnission did schedule a ~ublic hearing at the
City Hall in the City of Anaheim on February 2, 1976, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said
public hearing {iaving been duly given as required by la~~~ and in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Plunicipal Code~ Chapter 1II.03, to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findinns
and recommendations in connection therewith; said aublic hearing havinq been
continued to the Planning CommiSSion Meeting of March 15. 1976; and
WHEREAS, said Comm9ss9on, after due insaection~ investigation and study made
by itself and in its behalf~ and after due consideration of a11 evidence and reoorts
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the fallo~iing facts:
1. That the petitioner requests the foliowinq waiver from the Anaheim
Municipal Code~ to establish a massage, sauna and health club tn the C-R (COMt~ERCIAL-
RECREATION) ZONE:
SECTIQN 18.7.1.020 - Permitted uses. (Massage sauna, and
ea t c u not permitted~
2. That the above-mentioned waiver is hereby denied on the basis that.
although the use has been in existence for a period of approximately eleven ,Years,
said use was established illegally on sub~ect property and should nat be nermitted to
continue since the sub~ect use sets an undesirable orecedent for future similar
requests in the area designated for comnercial-recreation uses by the Anaheim General
Plan.
3. That the uses granted for the sub~ect property under 1'ariance No. 131~!
are considered broad enough to provide suffici?nt use of the pronerty wi*.hout undue
restriction~ said uses be9ng broader than those generally permitted in the
surrounding C-R area; that denial of sub~ect use would not deny oetitioner of rights
en~ayed by other in the C-R area; and~ therefore, the pronosed additional use is
considered un~ustified.
4. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the aroperty
that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and
zane.
5. That the requested variance is not necessary for the oreservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same
vic9nity and zone, and denied to the property 1n question.
RESOLUTION ~~O.PC76-45
• ~ ~
6. That the requested variarice will be r~aterisllv detrimen~al *o the
public welfare or injurious to the arooerty or imorcvements in such vicinity and zcne
in which the property is located.
7. That no one 9ndicated their presence at said public hearin~ in
opposition; and no correspondence was received in onposition to subject petitien.
ENVIROP~MEr~TAL IM?ACT REPORT fINDING:
That the Director of the Planning Department has determined that the
praposed activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 of the City
of Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements f~r an Environmental Imaact Renort and is,
therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR.
N04l, T11~REFORE, SE I7 RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Cor~r.iission
does hereby deny sub~ect Petition fQr Uaria~ce on the basis o` the aforementioned
findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTIOIJ is signed and aPProved by me this 15th daY of
March, 1976.
~ ~
~ { ~IfIITJi~'"Z~r
ATTEST:
.. . ,.~. ,s ).B
SE 'F~t , P~ HE • L YPIIPI 11 STbN
STATE OF CALIFORP~IA )
COUfITY OF ORAtJGE )ss.
CITY OF Af~AIiEIM )
I, Patricia B. Scanlan~ Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the
City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was nassed and
adopted at a mee~ing of the City Planning Commission of the Cit,y of Anaheim~ held on
hlarch 15, 197G, at 1:'s0 p.m.~ by the following vote of the members therrof:
AYES: COt4t•1I~SIOt~ERS: BARFlES, HERBSTf JOHNSON~ KI°~G, MORLEY, TOLAR~ FARAf~O
i~OES: C014~4ISSIONERS: NONE
A6SEt~T: COPIMISSIOWERS: NOIIE
1976.
Iti WI7ttESS IJHEREOF~ I have hereunto set my hand this 15th day of t4arch,
~: ~ c~.
_2_ RESOLUTION t~0. PC75-45