PC 82-54i~ ~,
RESOLUTI011 I10. PC 32-5lE
RFSOLUTIOfI OF TFIE A"IAHEIM CITY PLAF!hIIfJG C01111 1 5 5 1 0!!
TH/1T PETITIObI FQR VARIAN~E ~JO. 3;t5y pE GRA~IT(:D
WHER[AS, the Anaheim City Planning Comrnission did rrcetve a ver•ified
~'etition for Vartance from DFlLI TP,AV[L, INC., 1~57 West [3a11 Road, Anaheim,
Californta 923~2, owner, of certain real property situaCed in the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as:
TH:IT PORTIOF! OF LOT 3~ OF AtJAHE IM EXl'EWS 10"I, I P~ THE C ITY OF
AN/~HFIFt, COU~dTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORMIA, AS SIIOI•RJ ON A MAP
OF SURVEY MADE DY 411LLIAf1 I1At1EL AFlD FILCD IPI THF ~FFICF OF THE
COU~`!TY RECORDER OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORP•IIA, DG~CP,IDED AS
FOLL041S :
[3EGINIJIMG AT THE SOUTHEAST COR!JFR OF SAID LOT 30 3EIPIG THE
ItJTERSECTIOtI OF THE CFfJTER LIPlES OF DALL Rn~p AhJD W[:ST STREET AS
SNOI•1N ON SAID MAP; TNEIdCE SOUT~i 3~ 5II' S6" ~AEST 3'?g,7 FEET ALONG
THF SOUTHERLY LIWE OF SAID LOT 3Q, TO TNE SOUTHFRLY PP,01_~PlGATIOP!
OF THE [AST LIidF. OF TRACT N0. 1G20 AS PEP, h1AP RECORDF.D IM BQ~JY. $4
Pnr,Fs z9 To 3~ IiJCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS t9APS, I~t THE OFFICE OF
THE COU(JTY RELORDER OF SAID OP,AP~G~ COU!dTY; TIIEfdCE ~lORTH 0 1?' 34~~
WEST 3$4.24 FEET ALOIJG THE E/1ST L I'lE OF SA I D TRACT; TIiENCE SOUTH
89 50' 50" EAST 248,3~ FEET TO TfIE SOUTIiIIESTERI.Y LI`IE OF SAII?
WEST STREET; THEt1CE AT RIGHT A~IGLES TO TNE CF.~ITER LI~IE OF SAID
WEST STREET, tJORTN 7G 13' S6" [/15T 33.00 F[~T TO SAi~ CENT[R
LItJE; TIIE,lCE SOUTH 15 40' Olt" EAST 407.50 FEET TO THE P01!dT OF
E3[G I i9!•11 NG.
EY,CEPT THAT PURTIOtd TFIEREOF DC-SCRIBED AS FOLLONS: (3EGI~N1~lG AT A
POIPIT 011 SAID C[NTER LIN[ OF WEST STREET, NORTH 15 40' 04" 4/EST
201•35 FEET FRO~t THE INTERSECTIOD! OF SAID CFNTER LI~IE !JITN THE
LEtdTER LINE OF SAID BALL ROAD; ThIE~:CE SOUTI~ 1> >~0' 04" EAST
201.3, FEET; THENC[ ALQ;lG SI';ID C[~1TCR LlhlE OF bALL R~AD SOUTN SA
5$' S~" WEST 1g6.70 FEET; TfIE~lCE tJORTIi 0 01' 0~~" lJ[ST 154.57 FEET
TO A LINE E3EARING NORTH 74 1~' S6" EAST I1tdD PASSItJG THROUGFI THE
POINT OF 4EGINNItJG; THEtJCE lJORTH 7~t 19' SG" EAST 11F7.73 FEET TO
TI1E POINT OF BEGINfJiNG.
WIiEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City
fiall tn tlie ~~ty of Anaheim on March 22, 1932~ at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public
hearing having heen duly given as required by law and in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18,03, to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and ma!<e findings
and recommendations in connection therewith; and
IJHEREqg, satd Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made
bY itself and in its behalf, and after due consider~tion of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and deternine the following facts:
1, Tha[ the petitioner ~•roposes waivers of tfie following to expand an
existing motel:
PC?32-jG
~r.,;.,,_ ,... .
r.?~ .~:
~~
(a) S~CTIOU 13.Ob.OG0.02h3 - ttinimum number of parl:ing spaces
(150 spaces required; 117 proposed)
(b) SECTIO!•! 1~.~E3.063.~10 - Minimum landsca ed setbacl:
(10 eet required rom an arterial highway;
f+T eet proposed from West SLreet).
2, That the above-mentioned waivers are hereby r~ranted on the basis that
the petitioner demonstrated that a hardship exists in that denial would deprive
subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same zone and
vicinity and on the basis that the petitioner demonstrated at the public hearing that
a certain percentage of the guest arrive by transportation modes other than private
a~tomobile.
3, That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to tfie intended use of the property that do
not apply generally to th~: property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
4. Tiat 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 pr~perty in question.
5, Tiat the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public :~elfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is located,
G. That three persons indicated their presence at said public hearing in
opposition; anJ that no correspondence o-~as received in opposition to the subject
petition.
EIIVIROtJt1E~ITAL IMPACT FIPJDING: Tfiat the Anaheim Cit~~ Ptanning Commission has
reviewed the proposal to expand an er,istin9 motel with ivaivers af tlie minimum number
of parf:ing spaces and minimum landscaPed sr.t~acl: on an i,^rr.3utarl,-shaped paree2 of
land consisting of approximately 1.9 acres located north and arest of the northwest
corner of Ball Road and West 5treet (1057 lJesi Ball Road); and does liereby approve
the Negative Declaration from the requirement to prepare an environmental impact
reporr on the basis that there ~aould be no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative Deciaratian since
the Anaheim General Plan designates the subject property for general industrial land
uses comrnensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are
involved in the proposal; that tlie Initial Study submitted by the petitioner
indicates no significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and
that the (Jegative Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the
City of Anaheim Planning Department.
tJOW, TFIEREFGRE~ QE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Plannin9 Commtssion
does hereby grant subject Petition for Ilariance, upon the folloi,~ing conditions which
ars IiereUy found to be a necessary prerequistte to tlie proposed use of the subject
property in order to preserve the safaty and general welfare of the Citizens of the
City of Anaheim:
1. That subject property shal: be devcloped substantially in accordance with
pians and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Clos. i through 7.
-2- PC87-;4
~
2. That Condition No. 1, above-m~ntioned, shall be complied a~itli prior to final
buildin9 and zoning inspections.
i3E IT FURThiER RESOLVED that the Ana•.:sim City Planning Commission does hereby
find and determine that adoption of this Resolutlon is expressly predicated upon
applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth.
Should any sucii condition, ~r 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.
TI1E fQREG0IP~G RESOLUTIOII is si9ned and approved by me this 27_nd day of
March, 1982.
..~ d (~~ ~..a.~..~-~
CHA I Rt1AtJ, ANAHE I?1 C I TY LAMF! I MG COMM I SS 1 ON
ATTEST:
(7 D~' ~ , /`F~G!/~+.t-.i
SECRETARY, ANANE IM C I TY PLAM~~ I f•JG COM~11 SS I ON
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUt4TY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEItt )
I, Edith L. Harris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do
hereby certify that the foregoing re~olution vras passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission r.~ld on March 22, 1~38?, hy the following vote of
the members thereof:
AYES: C0~1t11S510NERS: BARNFS, BOUAS, BUSfIORE, HERBST, KING, MC [3UP,NEY
NOES: COt•iMIS5101JERS: NOtlE
ADSEtJT: COMIIISSIOtJERS: FRY
1982
IIJ WITNESS WHEREOF, I have liereunto set my han~l this 22nd day of March,
~~~ ~' ~,~..~ .:.
S~CRETARY, A~•IANEIt4 CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOPI
-;- PC82-5~~