PC 75-169~ ~
FESOLUTIO?~ NQ. PC75-169
A RESOLUTION OF TIIL CITY PLAtdNI:QC CODt~tISSION OF TIiE CI7'Y OF A'JAHEIPt
TIIAT PETITIOid FOR CONDITIO\AL USE PERtitIT N0. 1143 (RF.ADVCRTISL'(1) BF. GRANTF.D.
lti9{EREAS, tl~e City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a
verified Petiti.on for Conditional Use Permit from FRF.D SOTOtIAYEP,, 744 N. East Street
Anaheim, Ca. 92505 (Owner) of certain real property situated i.n thc City of Anaheim,
County of OranEe, State of California, described as:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of the lancl conveyed to Halbert A. Graham
and wife, by deed recorded December 30, 1~47 in book lfill, page 155 of
Official Recorc~s, thence South 15° 22' 30" East along the Westerly line of said
Lot One, 75 feet; thence \orth 7.5° 55' 20" East 270.81 feet; thence *Iorth 15°
22' 30" 19est, parallel ivith the {Vesterly line of said Lot One, 75 feet to a
point wliich bears Ilortli 73° 54' 25" East from the point of beg,inning; thence
South 73° 54' 25" {9est 270.31 feet to the point of beginning.
WIirREAS, the City Planning Commission dicl hol~l a public hearing at the Cit~
Hall in the City of Anaheim on August 4, 1975, at 1:30 p.m., notice of sai~t public
hearing having been ~It~.ly given as required by law and in accordanc~ with the
provisions o: the Anaheim t•tiinicipal Co~e, Cliapter 1°.03, to ]iear and consider
evidence for and against said »ron~sed conditional use and to investigaY.e and make
findings and recommendations in connection therewitii; an:;
WIiF.P.EAS, saicl Commission, aftcr d:.~e inspcction, investigation and study made
by itself and in its belialf, anJ a£ter due ccsysfdaration af all evidence and reports
offere~l at said iiearing, does find and determine tla~ £~s1loWinp, facts:
1. That the proposed use is properly one for whicfi a ea~~itional use permit
is authorizecl Uy Code Section 18.26.050.020, to wit: expan:l an cxi.~ting rreschaol in
the RS-7200 (SI:~GLL•-FA?~lILY, R&SIDI:>ITL'1L) ZONC•, with waivcr of:
SLCTIOy 18.OA.043.020 - Dtinimum sidevard setUack. (1S feet requirCriy
~ 5 •eet prop~sed)
2 That thc above-mentioned waiver is hereby granted on the basis that the
proposed addition is an extension of an existing building wliich is locate~l five (5)
feet, more or less, from the south property line, and, fur2hermore, tlie adjacent
property owner to the south has voiced no objections to the proposal.
3. ThaY the petitioner stipulated to constructing a solid masonry wall six
(6) Eeet above the highest grade level along thc east prorerty linc, since the
subject property is at a lower grade tlian the property to tlie east which is developed
with a single-family residence, said wall to provide a visual buffer between the two
properties.
4. That the petitioncr stipulated to plunting minimi~m five (5)-gallon size,
Arizona cypress trees on two (2)-foot centers, along the east propcrty line to
provide buffering for tt~e adjncent praperty wliicl~ is developed with a sin~le-£amily
residence; and that said landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Development
Services Department for approval.
5, That the Planning Commission expressed concern re~;arding the ~eneral
appearance uf subject property and the petitioner stipulated to cleaniii~ up the
property and to maintaining the 40-foot buffer area which is provided on the easterYy
portion of the subject property and separated by an existinA chainlink fence from the
pre-school area and, fiirthermore, said area sitiall not be used for storage o£ trash~
broken slass, or ot]icr imdesirable material.
6. That the proposed use is granted for 1 maximum of sixty-four (64)
children. ~
7. That the proposed use, as granted, wiil not adversely affect the
adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area in which it is
proposed to be iocated. ~
8, That the size anci shape of the site proposed foz the use, as granted, is
adequate to allow the £ull development of thc proposed use in a manner not
RESOLU'fION N0. PC75-169
~ ~
detrimental to the particullr arn,: nor s.o xhe peace, health, safety, and general
welfare of the Citizens ef the City of bnahezm.
9. Tliat the grantinfi of thc Conditi~:nal Use Perniit im~ler the conditions
imposcrl, ti~ill not be letrimental to the peacc, health, safety ~nd ~;encral welfare of
the Citi~ens of the City of Anaheim.
10. That two (2) pcrsons a~peared at said p~~b2ic heari.ng in opposition, and
no correspondence was reccived in opposition to subject $:rtiiion.
EWIR02Ji•1fi';"fAL If1PACT RF.PORT FI::DI:JG:
Th1t the Director oL• the Development Services Deplrttacnt has determined that
tlie propose;l activity falls within the definition of Section 3.f~2, Class 1, of the City of
Anaheim Guidelines to thc Requiremcnts for an Envircnmental Impact Rc~ort and is, therefore,
categorically exempt from tlie requirement to file an EIR.
;v0i?, TiIEi:P.r~Rf:, AL• IT RCS(1L~'T:ll tliat thc P.naiici;i City ~lan;~ing Commi~sion
does licrcUy grant subject Petition for Coii~itional Usc Permit, upoa t',iC following
conditions which are liereby foiut~l to be a necessary prerequisite to Lh~e propcssed use
of the subject property in orc!er to preserve the safety and reneral welfare of the
Citizens of tlie City of Anaheim.
1. Thnt trasli stora;;e areas shall be provi~leQ in accor<]ance with .~p~roveci
Nlans on file with the Office of the Director of. Public Pbrks; an•1 the 4n-foot buffer
area on tLc easterly portion of the subject pronertv, wliicli is seplrate.l bv an
existini; ch~inlink £ence from the pre-sclioo] are~, shnll not be irtiliz~~l £or thc:
storere of. trlsh, hrokcn ~l~ss, or otlicr un~icsiraUle r~~teria], an~l sai~i aren sha13 1~c
maintained, as stipulate<l tn hy thc petitioncr.
2. That Jrainattc of suhicct prr.pcrtv sliall Uc disnosr.d nf in a nanner
sltis£actory to tlic City Enrinccr.
;. That suUiect praperty siiall Ue .levclapecl snbstsntially i~ accordlnce
witli plans ami spr.cifications mi cilc ~+ith thc City of An~heim mar}:ed fixhihit ':o. 1;
provi~lc~l, iiowever, ti~at for purroses of hufCerin~, 1 snli~l nasonry wall sL111 he
constructe<l alonr thc enst propcrty line, snid wall te be six (6) fect ~ahovc tnc
liirhest gra<'~ levcl as stipulatc~l to hy the ~~etitioner, and that r~inirt~in fivc (5)-
gallon size, Arizona cypress trces, on two (~)-foot centers, sh~ll 1>e pllntr! alonr
tlic cast propcrty line, 1nd a landscapinr plan for snme sh;il] be suhnittr9 to the
Dcvelopmenr. Scrviccs ~epnrtnent for approval, ns stipnlntc:t to by the peti.tioner.
4. Th:tt Con~lition 'dos. l., 2, 1rn1 .i„ nbove-+~ention~ul, shnll be complic~! with
prior to finl] h~iil~li.ng an~l zonint; inspections.
S. Tluit tliis conclitional use nermi~t is nrante~l :~r a maxim~im of si:cty-foiir
(~,4) cliildren.
TtiF F~Rf:GQING RP.SOi:ITIO'1 is sirned nnd anprovc~i hy me tiiis •1th d1y of Au~~ist, ]975.
/
CIIAi.^.'1 .:, AV~.11C1^t CITY PI.~::'~i~,~ C~•.^!ISST.(1:`d
ATTiiST:
~iS l~. / w ~~~/~~` Aw/
SECI;fTAI?Y, A\AIICP+ CiTI FI.AhVTi7G C~FPIISST~"I
S~ATt: QF CALTFOR:JIA )
cnutsrv or or.r.WGE )ss.
cr~nr or• n^~ntiet~~ )
-2- RF.SOLUTInN "!n, PC75-169
0
~
i, Patricia B. ScaTllan, Secretury of t~h,e City Pl~nnin~ Conmission of the
City bf An~lieim,, ~lo iiereby ccrtify thaz th~e fore~oir~ resolution was passed and
adoptc~l at a mee~inF; of t1~e C~'ty Plannin.g Commission of the City of Ana~eim, held on
Augast ~l, 1975, at 1:~0 p.m., by the ~o:l~win~ vote of. the mer.bers thereof:
kY~S: COiS'dS5SI0Nri2S: HER$S`I', JQil:^fSO:~, KING, AfORLEY, TOLAR
h~ES: CO}~fYSS10AtER5: RA[2~IL•S, FARA'JO
AB:SE;~7': CO}f~fISSIO'~!?R5: NQ?!F
I;d iVIT~~~SS 19JlL!~EOF,, I hav~e heretmto set ny hanci this 4th day of August, 1975.
~a~-~~~ ~
SECRCTAI?Y, ANAHEI;•1 CITY PLA?i1dI11G COPA1ISSION
-3- RESOLUfION N0. 7C7:i-169