PC 77-224`t; /
i
RESOLUTI01! N0. PC77-221i
A kESOLUT I 01J OF THE AIJAFtE I M C I TY PLAtJN t t!G CONM I SS I ON
TIiA7 PETITIOtI FOR VAR1AttCE t~0. 297~i BE GRI~tITED
WliEREAS, tt~e Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verifled
Pe[ition for Variance rrom DEVERLY ANN COf4PT011 AtJD CNESTER A, PE7ER50N, 221 Nor[h
Maplewood, Orange, California 926G6, owners, and PHILLIP STIVERS, 1+20 South Euclid
Strect, Anaheim, California 92b02, age~t, of certain real propcrLy si[uated in the
City of Anaheim, County of Orange, S[ate of Califor~ia, described as:
PARCEL 3, AS SIIOWIJ ON A PARCEL MAP FILED ItJ BOOf: 6~E PAGES >, 6, 7
At1U 8 OF PARCEL 11/~PS I~~ Tt1E OfFICE OF Tt1E COUtITY RELORDER OF SAID
CUJt2TY; and
WH~R[AS, thc City Planning Commission did hold a public hcaring at the City
Nall in [hc Ci[y of Anahcim on October 2G, 1977, at 1:30 p.m., noticc of said public
hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim t1un?ci~ai Lode, Cnapter 18.03, to hear and consider
evidence for and a9ainst sai~ proposed variance and to inves[igate and make findi~gs
and recommendations in connection [herewith; and
WHLREAS, said Commission, after duc inspection, investiyation and study made
by itself and in its behalf, and af[er due considera[ion of all evidence and reports
offered at ~aid hcariny, docs find and detcrminc [he follor!ing facts:
1. That [he pctitioncr proposcs a waivcr of thc following Co eonstruet a
commercial officc buildiny:
(a) SLCTION 1:;.1~Ii.0u2.011 - Maximiai structurai hei~.
5 tcet permitteci; 2b ~t proposed)
(b) SECTIQti ~a.a~~.06Z.01~+2 - Minimum landsca cd setback.
10 eet required; 5 ee[ and 1 foot
proposed
2. That the above-ment?oneJ waivers (a) and (b) arc hcreby granted on the
basis that thc petitioner demonstrateJ [hat a hardship exists in that, although the
adjacent property to [he nortli is currently zoned as-A-43,~00(SC)
(Residential/Agricultural-Scenic Corridor Overlay), it has a resolution of intent to
the ML (Industrial, Limited) Zone, is de,ignateeJ for general commercial land uses by
the Anaheim General Plan, and is presen[ly developed with a restaurant.
3. That there are exceptional or extraorJinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to tlie property involved or to Cfie intended use of the property that do
not apply generally to [lie property or class o` use ir. the same vicinity and .zone.
G. That thP requested variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyrncnt of a subs[antial p n~per[y riglit possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone. and denied [o thc property in ques[ion.
PC~7-224
`,
T.
5. That the rcquested variance will no[ be materially detrir~ental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or impruvements in such vicinity and zone
in wliich ttie property is located.
G. That no one indicaCed [heir presence at said public hearing in
opposition; and [hat n.i crrrespondence was reccived in oppositian to the subject
petition.
Et~VIR0IJM[IJTAL IMPACT FI~~DItIG: That thc Anahcim City Planni~g Cormission has
reviewed the subject proposal [o reclassify tlie propcrty from the RS-A-43,000(SC)
(Residential/Agricultural-Scenic Corridor Overlay) Co thc CL(SC) (Commercial,
'~im(ted-Scenic CorriJor Ov~rlay) Zon~ on propcrty consisting of approximately 0.7
acre located at the nor[fiwes[ corner of La Palma Avenue and Imperial tiighway, having
approximate frontayes of 1~7 `cet on thc north side of La Palma Avenue and 150 feet
on thc wesC side of lmperial Hiyhti~~ay, with waivcrs of maximum structural height and
lanJscaped se[back; aneJ does hcreby approve the Negative Declaration from [he
requirement to prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that there would
be na significant individual or cumulative adversc environmental impact due to [he
approval of this I~eya[ive Declara[ion since th~ Anaheim General Plan designates ihe
subject property for yeneral commercial 4and uses comme:nsurate with the proposal;
tliat no sensitive cnvironiru:ntal impacts arc involved in the proposal; that tlie
Initial Study subnitted by thc petitioner indicates no siynificant individual or
eumulative adverse environinen[al impaccs; and tha[ the IJegative Declaration
substantiatiny thc forcyoin9 findin9s is on filc in thc City of Anaheim Planning
DepartRent.
NOII, THERLFORE, B[ IT RESOLVED that [he Anaheim City Planning Cormiission
does hereby grant subject Pe[ition for Variance, upon [he following conditions which
are hereby found [o be a necessary prerequisite to tlie proposed use of the subject
propertY isi rrder to preserve the safety and general wclfarc of Chc Citizens of the
Ci~y of Anahcim:
1, 7tiat tfiis Variance is yranted subject to [fie completion of
Reclassification t~o, 7'J-78-22, now pcnding.
2, Tha[ subject property slwll be developed substantiatly in accordance
with plans and specifications on file wi[fi the City of Anaheim marked Exfiibit Nos. 1
through 5.
TI1E FOREGOII~G RESOLUTIOtI is signcd and approved by mc this 2Gth day of
October, 1977.
`
I MA~1 R TEI RE
At1Al~[IM CITY PLN~NIt~G COM11155101~
ATTLST:
~~ ~ ~~~
SECRETARY, AIIAtIEIM CITY PLANNIIlG COMMISSION
-2- PC77-221~
STATE OF CALIFORtJIA }
COUtITY OF OftAfIGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAtiElM )
I, Editti L. liarris, Secretary of the A~aheim City Planning Commission, do
hereby certify that thc foreyoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim City P1anning Comrnission held on October 2G, 1977, at 1:3~ P•m., by the
following vote of the merabers thcreof:
AYES: COM1115510'lERS: 6ARNES, DAVID, HERBST, F:It~G
Id0[S: COHMISSiOtlERS: tJOt~E
AEISEiJT: COMMISSIONERS: JOIINSOtI, TOLAR
A[ISTAItJ: COMMISSIOIJERS: Llllt~ (was not present for entire hearing)
I1J uITUESS 1JHEREOF, i havc hereunto set my hand this 26th day of October,
~977•
~ ~~ ~ ~~~
SECRETl1RY, ANAIIEIH CITY PLAlIt~ING COMM1551011
-3-
Pc77-224