PC 76-39~ ~
RESOLUTT9t~ N0. PC76-39
A RESOLUTION OF TfiE CITY PLAf~P~I~~G COMMISSIOW OF THE CITY bF ANANEI~A
TNAT PETITIOW FOR VARIAt~CE t~0. 27II3 QE GRAP~TED, If! PART.
WNEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a
verified Petition for Variance from 0£, T LEASING, 406 Fernhill Lane,
Anaheim, California 92II07 (Owner); TAYLOR-Dl1NP~t4ANUFACTURIfJG C014PAt~Y, Attn: R. Davis
Taylor, 2144 W. Ball Road, Anaheim, California 928Q4 (Agent) of certain real pronerty
situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as:
The east a8 feet of Lot 3 of Tract No. 162~ ~n the County of Orange, State of
California, as per map recorded in beok 12 page 6 of htiscellaneous Maps, records
of said Orange County; and also
The west 132 feet of Lot 3 of Tract ~~o. 162, in the City of Anaheim, as ner mao
recorded in book 12, page G of t4iscellaneous Maos, in the Office of the County
Recorder;
EXCEPTING therefrom the easterly 106 feet of the northerly'100 feet of the
westerly 132 feet of Lot 3 of Tract 1G2, in the City of Anaheim, as per man
recorded in volume 9, page 54 of Idiscellan~ous P4aps, records of said County.
IJI~EREAS, the City Plannin9 Commission did hold a nublic hearing at the City
Hall in the City of Anaheim on March 1, 1976, at 1:3Q p.m „ notice o` said nublic
hearing having been duly given as required by T841 and in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Plunicipal Code, Chaoter 18.03, to hear and consider
evidence for and against ssid proposed variance and to investiqate and make `indinas
and recoromendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, af±er due inspection, investigation and stuci,y nade
by itself and in its behalf, ar,d after due consideration of all evidence and reroorts
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts:
1. That the petitioner requests the followin~ waiver rrom the Anaheim
Municipal Code, to expand an existing manufac*.uring facilit,y:
SECTIOPJ 18.G1.OG3.011 - Minimum Re uired landscanin (10 feet
requ re ; 1.5 ee~ ~ronose
2. That the above-mentioned waiver is hereby r,Nanted for "D" fe~t of
landscaping v+ithin the required setback are~ ad3acent to the planned highway ri~ht-
of-way; provided, however, that said required 10 feet o` landscaping shall be
provided elsewhere on the property, and preferably next to the fii•ont of the
buildin9s, and landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Planning Commi~sion for
approval, as stipulated to by the petitioner.
3. 'ihat the petitioner stipu~ated that the number and location of the
proposed driveway accesses to Oall Itoad and the traffic cirr,ulation pattern will be
submitL•ed to the Traffic Engineer for approval.
4. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
a~plicable to the property involved or to the intended use~ as granted, of the
property that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the sane
vicinity a~d zone.
5. That the requested variance, as granxed, is necessar,y far the
preservation and en~oyment of a substantia'I property right possessed by other
property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the pronertv in question.
6. That the requested variance, as granted, will not be materially
detrimentai to the public welfare or irtiurtou~s to the ~ro~erty nr imnrovements in
such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
7. That no one indicated their presence at said vublic hearin9 in
opposition; and nc correspondence was received in oponsition to subject petition.
RESOLUTIQP~ N0. PC76-39
~ ~
ENVIRONMENTAL IP•1PACT REPORT FI~~DItVG:
That the An~heim City ?lanning Corr~nission does hereby recortenend to the City
Council that the subfect pre~ect be exempt from the requirement to prenare an
environmental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
NOW, TIIEREFORE, t~E IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Comrrission
does hereby grant, in part, sub~ect Petition for Variance. uoon ttie following
canditions which are hereby found tu be a necessary prerequisite to i~~~ ^~^^^~Pd use
of the sub~ect property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the
Citizens of the City af Anaheim:
1. That this variance is granted subject to the tomqle~ion of
Reclassificat9on No. 75-76-25, now pending.
2. That sub~ect property shall be d2veloped substantiall,y in accordance
with the plans and speciffcations on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos.
1 and 2; provided~ however, that precise landscaping plans shall be submitted for
Planning Corr~ission approval prior to the issuance of a building oermit, said plans
to show 10 feet of landscaping ad~acent to the front of the buildings, as stipulated
to by the petitioner; and, further, that the number and location of the pronosed
driveway accesses to aall Road and the traffic circulation nattern sha11 be submit'ted
to the Traffic [ngineer for approval, as stipulated,~to by the petitioner.
TfIE FOREGOIP;G RESOLUTIOt~ is signed and approved by me this lst day of
March, 1976.
%'~'~~~ 11~~l~
H IR'1 N, N HE h1 C L Nt{ N CO'1~1ISS ~
ATTEST: ~
~~c.J
SECRE~1 R, N N 1.T PL ~~f~ING COtit1 SSI t~
STATE OF CALIFORPIIA )
COUGTY OF ORANGE )ss.
CITY OF ANAHEII~1 )
I~ Patricia B. Scanlan~ Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the
City of Anaheim~ do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and
3dopted at a meeting of the City Planning Cortmissioa of the City of Anaheim, held on
t~arch 1~ 1976, at 1:30 p.m.. by the followinq vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIOt1ERS: dAR~~ES, NERBST. JONP~S~P~, KING, t10RLEY, TOLAR, FARRt~O
NOES: COt114ISSIGNERS: NO~~E
ABSENT: COMMTSSIO~~ERS: P~ONE
1976.
IN WITNESS 1J11ERE0F, I have hereunto set rr~y hand thls lst day of March~
~JA%~Ll~c-erJ ~~O~nr~r~rc/
~ , ~ ~ ~~f~
-2- RESOLUTION N0. PC76-39 .