PC 82-86~. ~
RES~LUTI011 ~10. PC 32-3G
!1 RES~LUTI Otl OF TIIE A!!AH[! M C I TY PLAtlPI I^1G CONMI SS I npl
TNAT PETITI0~1 FOR VARIA~ICE FJO. 3277 DE G°,A!dTfn
4lHERFAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified
Petition for Variance from EISIE R. LUSI:EY, ET AL., G03 East ~3roadway, Anaheim,
California 923~~, owner, of certain real property situated in the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, Sta'.e of California described as:
LOTS 47 AtJD 1+3 I t~ DLOCK F OF TIIE HOTEL DEL CAMP~ TRAr,T, I td THE
CITY OF APIAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORA~dGE, STATE F~R CALIF~RNIA, AS PER
MAP RECORDED It~ B001: 24 PAGES 6~ AND 7~ OF MISCELLA!JEOUS MAPS, It!
Tti[ OFFICE OF TIIE COUtJ7Y RECORDER OF ~OS A~lfEL[S COU!1TY.
EXCEPT THE FASTERLY 1.75 F[ET AS COIIV[YED TO TIIE CITY OF ADlAHEIM
[iY DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1913 It! QOOI: 242 PAr~ 247 pF DEFDS.
LOTS 49 A;JD 50 itl f3LOCK F AWD TNE I10T[L DEL CAMPQ TRACT, I!I THE
C i TY OF A'IAHE I t1, COUtlTY OF URA~IGE, STATE OF CAL I F~RI1 I A, AS PE?. MAP
RECORDED IN B001: 24 PAGES 69 AND 70 OF MISCELLAt1EQUS RECO4DS, IN
TIIE OFFI CE OF T~IE COUNTY RECnP.DER OF LOS AHr,rLES COUNTY,
CAL I FOP,N I A.
LOTS S1, 52 A`!D 53 At~D THE EASTERLY 2 F[ET OF LOT 54 1~! BLOCN. F OF
THE HOTEL DEL CAMPO TRAf,T, IM THE CITY OF A'IAHEI!4, COUNTY OF
ORAPJGE, STATE OF CALIFORtIIA AS PER MAP RECOR9ED It! 6001: 21i, PAGES
69 AND 7~ OF MISCFLLAYEOUS RECORDS OF LOS A}JGFLES C~UNTY~
CAL i FORtJ IA.
LJfIEZEAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City
Nall in the Ctty of Anaheim on t1ay, 17, 1982, at 1:3~ p.m., notice of said public
hearing having been duly given as required by la~•~ and in accordance wTth the
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18,03, to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investi9ate and make findings
and recommendations in connection therewith; and
IJHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made
by itself and in its behatf~ and after due consideration of all evidence and rer~orts
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes waivers of the foilowtng to expand an
existing industrial manufacturing facility:
SECTION 18.61.063.011 - M(nimum landscaped setback
50 eet required from Droad~oay;
3.eet existing and 25 feet proposed)
SECTIO!J 13.61.063.~20 - Plinimum side yard setbacl:
1~.5 eet required rom residential zone boundary;
2 feet proposed)
PC82-86
_ ~rt,~s,`
2, That the above-mentioned waivers are hereby granted on the hasis that the
petitioner demonstrated that a hardship exists in that denial a~ould deprive subject
property of a privitege enjoyed by other pro~erties in ti,e same zone and vtcinity.
3. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
appitcahle to the property involved or to the intended use of tlie property that do
not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
4. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantiai property right possessed hy other property in the same
vicir.ity and zone, and denied to the property in question.
5. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public ~aelfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in a~hich the property is located.
G. That no one indicated their presence at said publlc hearing in
opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject
petition.
EP~VIROPIMENTAL IMPACT FINDItJG: That the Anahelm CitY Planning Commission h~s
reviewed the proposal to reclassi y subject property from the RM-i2~~ (Residential,
Multiple-Family) Zone to the P~L (Industrial, Limited) Zone to expand an existing
industrial manufacturing facility on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting
of approximately 6,'~94 square feet, having a frontage of approximately 52 feet on the
south side of Broadway, 103 feet east of the centerlTne of Kraeger Street (6~8 East
l3roada~ay); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration from the requirement to
prepare an environmental impact report on the basis that there would be no
significant individual or cumulative adverse environmental impactl ne to the approval
of this Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the sub.ject
property for medium density residential land uses commensurate with the proposal;
that no sensitlve environmental tmpacts are involved in the proposal; that the
Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no signifTcant individual or
eumulative adverse environmental fmpacts; artd that th~ `l~9ative D~claration
substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planntng
Department.
NOW~ Tf~EREFORE, E3E IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim CitY planning Commission
does hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, uoon the follcw~ing conditions which
are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the ~roposed use of the subject
property in order to preserve the safety and general ~aelfare of the Citizens of the
City of Anaheim:
1. That this Variance is 5tanted subject to the completion of Retlassification
~~o, 81-82-2Q, no~a pending.
2. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with aooroved plans
on file with the Office of the Executive Director of Puhlic 1Jorks.
3. That subject property shali be develooed substantially in accordance with
plans and speciflcations on file with tlie City of !lnaheim marked Exhibit
t~os. 1 through 3, Provided~ however that the pronosed trucl; driveway from
-2- PC82-86
^, i~
aroadway sfiall be re-designed to the satisfaction of the City Traffic
Engineer to eliminate the baclcin9 of truci<s on to Broadway.
~F. That Condition Flos. 2, 3, and 4, above-mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final bui)ding and zoning inspections.
DE IT FURTl1ER R[SOLV[D ~hat the Anaheim City PlannTng Commission does hereby
find and determtne that the adoption of thts Resolution is expressly predicated upon
applicant's comptiance ~aith each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth.
Should any condition or any part tliereof, 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 nul) and void,
711E FOREG01 IlG RESCLUTI Ot! i s s i gned and approved by mP th i s 17th day of 11ay,
1982.
~ ~
ti~ f RMA`~ PRO TEHPORE
A'JAHE I M C 1 TY PLA~JF~ I'9G C~MM 1 SS I OPl
ATTEST:
~ e~
SECRETARY, AyAHEIN CITY PLAN~IING COMMISSI0~1
ST.qTE OF CAL I FORI! I A )
COUt7TY OF ORAlJGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I. Edith L. Harris, Secretary of the Anaheim Citv Planning Commission~ do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a i eeting of
t!~e Anaheim City Planning Commission held on May 17, 1'~32, at 1:3o p.m., by the
follcwaing vote of the memhers thernof:
AYES: C011MISSIOP~ERS: DARtIES, DOUAS, FRY~ IiERBST, KitlG, Mr, BURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIOt~ERS: NOtlE
ABSENT: COt1MISStO~~FRS: EiUStiORE
ItJ WITNESS WtiEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 17th day of May, 1982.
`~~ ,~° ~~^ _
SECRETARY, A~JANEtM CITY PLA~JNINr, CnMMISSI~rt
-3- Pc82-86
a
'~.. .. _
~