PC 69-94~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. n~~y-9n,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COAlMISSION OF TNE CITY OF ANAHEIM
' THAT PETITION FOR VARIAFCE N0. 2~82 HE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commia~ion of the City of Anaheim did recefr~ a ~eriEied Petition for Variance from
P.ETZ CORPORATIO~~I, ]901 Galatea Terrace, Corona Del Mai, Calitornia 92625, Owner; SFIELDOI~ POLLPCK
CORPORATION, 3344 La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeie~, California, Agent of certain real property
sit~.~ated~ in the Citv of Anaheim. Cn„ntv nf nranna. C+a+c .,f rnlifnrnia, deSCr1Y~'~ .n Exhibit "
L°t$ 4f3 'to 55 inclusive of Zract il'o. 1591, as shotir.z on a i~ap recorded in boo'r, j~., ~,;,ges
~- 3~ to 39 inclusive of N,iscelluneous Naps, recorda of Orange County, Ca1i°orni~.
' y~ ~ FX.Cc^,PT the North 56. 58 feet o~ swid Zo ~ 55.
4 ~ ,-T~;.~
~~-.;~ -,--~ ~
` ~ •. Ai50 r"~CC~rT all miner~ls o3I ' <'•.- -~_;._:. '_ ,
, , gas, as~h;lturn, and o~ner hydxocarbor, substa~ ces
I r in and under said la.~d, as ~,~n;,~~ ~ Virg~n_a ;r. 3~z.:.,~,,n~ by de^c? record~d
`j Jz.nuary 15, 1994, in Book 2652, pag~ 61, Of~icia]. necords, which 8eefl ~ro•ridcs c~
i follows: aitn no right of entry u~n said real pro~ertf except below a dero~n o~
: I ~ 500 feet".
~. '.f WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission did hoid a public heniing at the Citr H~11 in the City of Anaheim on
~.~ ' May 5, 1969 at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public heorins hovin~ beon dul
; I !aw and in accordunce with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 28.68, to he~r and cons der evidence or
` I ? and against said proposed variance ond to inveStigate ond make findings end recommrndetions in connection therewith;
~ and
.~,I ~
{ and ofterHdueE onsiderat on of all~evidenceaandlreports~o[fend at±gsaid Iheaangtudoes f ndb ndtdetermme'the fob Wanf,
~ ~! facts: g
`~j 1. That the petitioner requests e variance from the Aneheim Mur,icipal Code as follov~s, to establish a
~:~ j 6-story office buildiny and 2-story parking structurc- on subjuct oropert~:
~
' a. SEC7IOfd 18.40 070(3-a) - Maximum buildinq hPi nt. A
- U, (il f_et permitted•
.; ~ 77 feet proposed). '
} b. SECTION i8.40 070(4-~-1_~ - N~inimum number oi reouired qarkina stalls.
- ~ ~ (230 required; 110 proposed).
~`~ c. SECTION 18.40 070(7) - Minimum acreotable trash collection ar~as.
1 ~4 trash e~closures reouired; none oroposed).
i ~~
2. That althouoh qronerties abuttinq the alley adjacent to sub;ect propert/ to th?
west are zoned R-1, Area Developinent Plan IJo. 3, as recommended for considera±i.on by the
Planning Commission, projected uti:ization of those lots fror,tinn on the east side of Fairtiaven
Street for commercial parking purpos?s at such time as the lots fronting on Euclid 5~reet
were developep; therefore, the waiver of the height limitation may be considered technical as
it pertains to the R-1 lots on the east side of Fairhaven Street only. However, thz waivcr
wouid not be tecnnical as it nertains to the R-1 lots at the southwest corner of PJestmont
Diive and hiariposa Place.
3. That the City Council, in approving keclassification tJo. G3-64-68 for C-0 ZoninG
Por five lots on the east sioe of Fairhaven St:eet, established the pattern of develooment
for the remaining parr,els along the east side of Fairhaven Street; and that appi•oval of the
proposed structures without utilizing such parcels for parking purpos~a, would be deleterious
to +he existing single family residences.
4. That the requested waiver of the requi.red number of parking snaces, if qranted, v~ould
create an undue burden of on-srreet parking in the residential area to the west and southv~est
of subject property, which :vould be : ~r;..,~,,~tal to the residential environment of these
residenres.
5. fhat ~vaiver of the required number of oarking spaces raould be granti.ng a privilege
not e:,joyed by oth~r established comm<_rcial uses to the north, e.ast, and west of subiect
proNerty. _
6. That the p^titioner is attempting to o„~,; ~~_,~_.~~~ ~~E,,.,.t nroperty ;a~ith a struct.;re
~nhic!; would reouire approximately llc~~ more pa*king spaces than is proposed.
7. That two persons appear~d, representiny four persons present in the Counci] Chamber,
~n oc:"~osition to waiver of the number of parKino soaces and height of the st^ucture; and that
two lctters were received also in opposition.
~ ~ ~:
.r ,.
~ i
NO~Y, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Aneheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny subject
Petition tor Variance on the basis of the aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed end approved by me this 15th day of May, 1969.
~ -`-'~ n ~:.: `~ n .~i(
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~ ~-z -~ ~. % /~ <~ .~~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIAI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certity that the fore-
going resolution was passed and edopted at a meeting of ihe City planning Commission ofthe City of Anaheim, hcld on
May 5, 1969, at 2:00 o'clock p,h~,~ by the to:.lowing vote o( the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Thom, Allred.
NOGS: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT; COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve heceunto set my hand this 15th day of May, 1969.
. ~ 72 - -? , i2 . -~ .
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0. 94
vz-n
-2-
- ~^