PC 76-580
RESOLUTIQN N0. PC76-58
L
A RESOLUTiON OF TNE CITY PLANNING CONMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2784 BE GRAt~TED.
WHEREAS, the City Planning f.ommission of the City of Anaheim did receive a
verified Petition for Variance from CATHER!';r A. WHITE, 102 W. La Palma Avenue,
Anaheim, California 92801 (Owner) of certain real property situated in the City of
Anaheim, CounCy of Orange, State of California described as:
LOT 3 IN BLOCK "B" Of TRACT N0. t43, WILKE ADDITION, IN THE CITY OF ANANEIN,
COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORnED IN BOOK 11 PAGE 3~ OF
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearin9 at the City
Hall in the City of Anaheim on March 'G9, 1976, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public
hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Municipa' Code, Chapter 16.03, to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings
and r~commendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, sa?d Cortmis:;ton, after due inspection, investi9ation 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 requests the following waivers from the Analieim
Municipai Code, to expand an existing mattrE:ss manufacturing facility in the RM-2400
Zone:
a. SECTION 18.06.060.031 - Minim::m number of parkin9 spaces. (20 required;
. 1~! proposed
b. SECTION 18.32.02~ Permitte~ uses. (Ma"ttress manufacturing
~ot permitted in the RM-2400 Zone)
c, SECTIONS 1~.32.063.~13
AND 18.32.OE3.~23 - Mtnimum building setback (15 and
5 feet required; 10 and 0 feet proposed)
d. SEC1'ION 18.32.068.021 - Maximum wall height. (42 inches
permit~feet proposed
2. That Waiver i-a, above-mentioned, is hereby granted on the basis that
the proposed number of parkin9 spaces is determined to be adequate for the proposed
expanstan.
g. That Waiver 1-b, above-mentioned, is hereby granted on the basis that
the development proposal is an expansion of an existing facility located on the
adjacent praperty to the north, and said facility has not been detrimental to the
subJect area.
4. That Waiver 1-c, above-mentioned~ is hereby granted on the basis that
the proposed addttion will align with the existing building which has a 10-foot
setback from the centerline of the alley; and, furthermore, the proposed addition
wtth a 0-foot setback from the interior lot line will be an improvement or upgrading
~f the area, since the property owner(s) will demolish an old building on the sub]ect
property.
5. That Waiver 1-d, above-mentioned, is hereby granted ~on the basis that
satd wall will provide a visual buffer for the the parking lot ad]acent to
residentially developed property.
6, That the petitiorter stipulated to making additional dedication for
alley widening purposes 10 feet in width from the centerline of the alley.
7. That the petitioner stipulated to providing addittonal directional
signing adjacent to the alley and on the wall of the propose~ structure, said signing
to direct customers to the proposed parktng lot and to dtscourage the amount of
parking in the alley. •
RESOLUTION N0. PC76-58
8. That ther~re exceptional or extraordinar~ircumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do
not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
„ 9, 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.
10. That the requested variance will not be materially detri+nental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or tmprovements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property 1s located.
11. That two (2) persons appeared at said public hearing in opposition; and
no correspondence was received in oppositton to subJect petition.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
. That the Anaheim City Pianning Commission does hereby recommend to the City
Council that the subject proJect be exempt from the requirement to prepar•e an
environmental impact report, pursuant to the provisions of the California
Envir~nmental Quality Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Plannin9 Commission
does hereby grant subJect Petitlon 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 a~d general ~aeSfare of the Citizens of the
C6ty of Anaheim:
1, That the owner(s) of subJect property shall deed to the City of Anaheim
a strip of land 10 feet in width from the centerltne of the alley for alley widening
purposes, as stipulated to by the ~etitioner.
2. That the owner(s) of subJect property shall pay to the City of Anaheim
the sum of $2.00 per front foot alor.9 Zeyn Street for street lighting purposes.
3. That the owner(s) of subject property sfiall pay to the City of Anaheim
the sum of 60 cents per fronC foot along Zeyn Street for tree planting purposes.
~, That subJect property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exi~ibit No. 1;
provided, however, that directional signing shall be provided on the wa?~ of the
proposed structure to direct customers to the parking lot.
5. That Condition Nos. 1, 2, and 3, above-mentioned, shall be complied
~aith prior to the eommencement of the activity authorized under this resolutian, or
prior to the time that the building permit is issued, or within a period of one year
from date hereof, whichever occurs first, or such further time as the Planning
Commission and/or City Council may grant.
6. That Condition No. 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to
final building and zoning inspections.
THE FOREGOING RE50LUTION is signed and approved by me this 29th day uf
March, 1976.
~ ~~~
CH R , ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION
A77E57:
SECRETARY, ANANEIM CITY PLANI~ING COMMISSION
_2_ RESOLUTION N0. PC76-58
!
~ ~ ~
STATE OF CALIfORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the
City of Anahetm. do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution• was passed and
adopted at a meeting of the City Plannin9 Commission of the Lity of Anaheim, held on
March 29, 1976, at 1:30 p.m., by the followinq vote of the members Chereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARt~ES, HERBST. JOHNSON, KiPl6, MORLEY, TOLAR, FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIOI~ERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
1976.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ! have hereunto set my hand this 29th day of March,
~ ~ ~ ,~„~..~.~.~
SECR'ciARY~ ANAHEIH CITY PLANNING C0t1MtSSIOPI
_3_ RESOLUT•ION N0. I'C)6-58