Resolution-PC 2006-30. •
RESOLUTION NO: PC2006-30
- A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR VARlANCE N0: 2006-04679 BE GRANTED, IN PART
(5601 EAST LA PALMA AVENUE) ,
WHEREAS, the Anaheim`Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition.for Variance :
for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as:
PARCEL A: " THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 95-118, IN THE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STA7EAF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A -
MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 287, PAGES 17 THROUGH 20 OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER'' OF SAID COUNTY, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 1 ON L07 UNE ADJUS7MENT N0. 352, RECORDED JANUARY 24, ,1996 AS
INSTRUMENT NO. 96-35111, OFFICIAL RECORDS. `
PARCEL B: THAT PORTION OF PARCELS 1 AND 5 OF PARGEL MAP NO.' 95-
118, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS
SHOWN ON MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 287, PAGES 17 THROUGH 20 OF PARCEL
MAPS, !N THE OFFlCE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, BEING MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 2 ON LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO. 352, RECORDED JANUARY 24, 1996 AS
INSTRUMENT NO. 96-35111, OFFICIAL RECORDS.
PARCEL C: NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS FOR ACCESS, INGRESS, EGRESS,
DRAINAGE, MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, AS`' SAID
EASEMENTS ARE SET FORTH IN SECTION 5.04 OF THAT CERTAIN DECLARATION OF
RES7RICTIONS OF CANYON CORPORATE RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NO. 95-
288660, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the
City of Anaheim on March 20, 2006, at 2:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as
required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.60
"Procedures", to hear and consider evidence 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 at said hearing, does find
and determine the following facts
1. That the petitioner proposes waivers of the following to permit 5 wall signs and a monument
sign for an existing office building:
(a)SECTION N0.18.44.090.010 Maximum number of monumenf siqns.
(1 permitted; 1 proposed and 2 existing)
(b) SECTION NO 18.44.110.010.0103 Maximum heiqht of letters for wall siqns
36 inches permitted; 48 and 60 inches
proposed)
CR\PC2006-30 -1- PC2006-30
~ ~
2. That waiver (a) pertaining to maximum number of monument signs is hereby denied based
on the finding that there are no special circumstances applica6le to the property relating to the proposed
monument sign and the property would not be deprived of a privilege enjoyed by other properties in the
vicinity under the same zoning. In addition, the close proximity of the building to the public right-of-way, and
the high visibility of the building due to its height provide the site with adequate identification opportunities to
the public. An additional monument sign would exacerbate an existing non-conforming situation since there
are already two existing monument signs on the property.
3. That the above-mentioned waiver (b) pertaining to the maximum letter height of wall signs is ,
hereby granted, in part, approving waivers of letter height for the four (4), 60-inch signs, modifying the fifth
wall sign over the entrance to thirty-six (36) inches, on.the basis that the building is unique because it is taller
and longer than surrounding buildings and other buildings are generally occupied by multiple tenants,
whereas this tenant occupies the entire building. ln addition; compliance with code requirementswould
result in signs that are not proportional to the four-story building. The intent of the letter height limitation in
the code is to ensure that proposed`signs are properly proportioned to the building elevation. Submitted .
plans demonstrate that the intent of the code is still maintained with the requested waiver.
4: That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property thaf do not apply generally to the property or class of
use in the same vicinity and zone.
5. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in
question.
6. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
7. That no one indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition; and that no
correspondence was received in opposition to subject petition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: The Planning Director or her
authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical
Exemptions, Section 15311, Class 11 (Accessory Structures), as defined in the State CEQA Guidelines and
is, therefore, exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does
hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a
necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and
general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
1. This condition of approval was deleted at today's public hearing.
2. That the wall signs shall be maintained in good condition.
3. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the sign plans and
specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the
Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1, through 4, and as conditioned herein.
4. That prior to final building and zoning inspections, Condition No. 3, above-mentioned, shall be
complied with.
5. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that
it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Code and apy other applicable City, State and Federal
-2- PC2006-30
~ •
regulations. Approvaf does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.'
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby find and
determine that adoption of thisResolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance with each and
all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition; or any part thereof, be declared
invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
BE 1T FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant isresponsible for paying all charges related
to the processing of this discretionary case application within 15 days of the issuance of the final invoice or
prior to the issuance of building permits for this project, whichever occurs first. Failure to pay all charges
shall result in delays in the issuance of required permits or the revocation of the approval'of this application.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
March 20, 2006: Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in'Chapter 18.60, "Procedures"
of the Anaheim Municipal Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City Council
Resolution in the event of an appeaL , ~,~
~
~ ^
CHAIRMAN, A HEIM LANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: :
.~ Ci~-~aww+.--- ~~ '2?-a~k~ere
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, Senior Secretary of the Anaheim Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim P~anning Commission
held on March 20, 2006, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BUFFA, EASTMAN, FLORES, KARAKt, PEREZ, ROMERO, VELASQUEZ
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
IN W17NESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ~ day of
r , 2006.
~ ,
SENIOR SECRETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMISSION