Resolution-PC 89-216•. ~
.~~~~,~
,.;A~l>.
1.?ESOLUxTON Nl; PC89-21f~
~f i
^;
~~
A RESOLUTION QF' THE ANl~iE:[id CTiY PLANNTNG COMMTSS]'UN
THAT PETITTON FOR V~RTANCE N0. 3984 BE DENIEll
WFTERF.AS, lhe Anaheim Gity Planning Comm3.ssion did receivQ a
v3riEied Petiti.on £nr Variance £rnm A.xi7~FiEIM AUTO PARTS, IHC., ATTN: LARRY
HAUPERT, 125f; ~. Li.ncoln Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92805, owner £or certiain real
propo.rty si~uated in the Cit;y c~f Anaheim, C;ounty~ of Uran~e, State o£
California described as:
E'AP,CEL 1:
THE FAST 75 FEET OF THE NORTH 185 FEET OF THE WEST 6
ACRES OF THE EAST~:RLY HALF OF THE NQRTHERL`1 HALF OF
LOT 8 OI' A.`IAHETM F.XTENSION, AS SHOWN ON F. MAP OF
SURVEY HY WILLTAM HAM~L, A COPY OF f~HICFI IS SH049N IN
BOOK 3, P1~GES 1G3 AND 164 OR LOS ANGELRS COCJNTY MAP~
IN THE OF'fICE OF THE COUNTX RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE
CUUPITY, ANll
PARCSL 2:
THE SOUTH},P.LY 75 rEE'T ()F THE NORTHERLY 260 FEET,
MEASLIREA FROM THE CENTER LINE OF LINCOLN AVENUE, (~F
THE EA'aTERLY 75 I'EET OF THE W~ST 6 ACRES OF THE
~ASTERLY UNE-HALF OF' T~TE PTnRTHERL'Y QN'E-HALF OF L07' 8
Or ANAHEIM EXTENSION AS SHOWN OPT A MAP OF SURVEY BY
WILLIAM FIAMLL, A COPY OF WFiICH IS SHOWN' IN 90AK 3,
FAGES 163 11I~A 16~ OE' I,OS ANGELES COi1NTY M11PS, ari ~'HE
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY R~CORDER 0~' SATD ORANCE COUNTY.
EXCP:PTING TH~RF.Fi2UM THE SOUTHERLY 52 FEFT OF TH6
W~S'rERLY 61 FEFT TH~REOF.
WHER~AS, the Ci.ty Planninq Commission did hold a pub2ic hearing
at the Czvic Center in the City of AnahQim oxi Augu~t 28, 7989, at 1;30 p.m.,
noticR af said public tiearing having bec~n duly given as required by l~vr and in
accordance with thQ provzsions of the Anaheim Municipal Coc~e, Ctiapter 18.03,
t;o riear and consider avidence for and against said proposed variance and to
xnvestiqate and make finuings and recommendations in conn~ction therQwith; and
WFIEREAS, said Commission, afrer duo ins~ection, investiga~ion
and stua,y made by itself and in its behalf, and after due ~onsicleration of all
evidence and reports oFfe:ed at said hearing, doe~ fxna and determine the
following facts:
l. That the peti~ioner proposes waivers of. tr~e ~ollowinq to
cunstruct a 2-story, 8-unit aparCment complr~x:
1021r -1- PC89-216
:~
''t
:;~
r~
, ~~.
.,~:i~;,~
,JI,`i~.,.
~A) S~~Ti~N ].8.~4,~3102~ - Mixiimum structura~..~ ck.
(5 fe~~ x~aq~.iirer3; 7 .i~n~he~ proposed)
(B) ~E~TT rT 1~~4t 63 p21 - Minimum s•ar~ reguiremen,~,
(33 feet reguired; Z7. feot proposed)
(C) Er'~Y~_1$.3a.~62 032 - Minimum £~~ga*
2. 'Phat th.o propo~ed wa5.v~ers (A) and (Hj aro hereby deni~d on rhe
basis t~iat the Tter.lassi.fication No. 89-90•-04 s~abmitted in conjunaLion with
thi.s Variance ~v~s dQnied, thoreby prot~ibiting proposed anartment camplex.
3. That the proposet3 waiver (A) and (H) were daniea on the basxs
rhat khere are no special c:~rc,~amstances applicabl~ to tkie property sucYi as
size, sh~pe, top~qrapli,w, location and ~urround_ngs which clo not apply to other
industrially zoned propert~• in th~~ same vici.zity and ~trepL• applzca~i~n oE ~he
2oning Code does r-ot deprive th.e ~,raperty of privilege anjoyed by other
prop~rties in the industrial znno and clarific3tion in the vicini.tx.
5. That there are no e~xcoptional or extraordinary circumstances pr
condit.i.ons applicable to the proper.ty in,volv~ed or to the intencied usp of the
pr.oporty tt~at do ~iot apply ganerally to the property or cl.ass of use in the
same vicinity and zono.
6. Tha~ the rQqt~asted variauce is not necassar,y for ~he
preservat•ion and enjoyment of a substantial property right pos~essed by other
progerty in L•tie same vicaniL•y and zone, and Qen3aci to th~: proporty in queskion.
7. ThaL tl.e requestes variarice will be matPria].ly dai:rimental t~
the publ.ic welfare or iujurious to tne propertv or improvemonts in sueh
vicinity and zo~e in wrich ttie property fs loc~ted.
8. That one person 3.ndicated their presence at said pub:l.3.c hearing
in opposition; aiid thal-. no correspan3ence was receivQd in oppo~i~iai~ to
subjeck petition.
9. That the propo~ed waiver ~c) was rielet~~ following publ.ic
advortisemez~t.
~LIF,~~IA ~NVIR NMENTAI~_Lt~~LITY AC FINDIN~; That t;he Anaheim
City Planning Commi.~sion ha~ rev~iewed the proposal to raGlassify subjec~
proporty fz~nm the CL {Commercira]. Limited) zone (north oortfon of gropertl)
anci the F.M-2400 (Resideiztia.l, Multiple-Family) zone (south portion of
proper.ty) to the RD:-1200 {Residential, Multiple-Family) or a loss intens~
zone with waivers of minimum structural setback, minimum yard requ?.reme.n~ and
minimum floor area on an ir.regu.larly-shapecl parcel of lan3 con~isting af
npproximately 0.28 acre~ having a frontage of appronim2-hely 75 feet on the
soiith side of Lincoln Avenue, having a ma~imwn d~pth oE' approxima~ely 207
feet and bei:z~ locate~ approximately 787 feet e~st ~f the cgnterline of East
Street and further descr:bed as 1266 ~ast Lincoln Avenue; arid does her~by
approvo the Neyatfve Declaration up~n finding tna~ it has consid~red the
Nega~ive Declarat.ior~ *ogether with any comments received during the public
review process and furCher ffnding an the basis of the initi.al sCudy and any
comment~ recei~~et~ that there is no sub~tantial evidence tk~at the project will
have a siqnificant effect oa the envir~nment.
il
;.
~; j
.. ;~'-~~;1
<~
~i~~'i~!
~ ~tr,;~u~,~,~
NOW, TFiERCFURE, HE IT RLSCILVED that the Anaheim Ci~y Planning
Gomm,ission doQS herQby deny subject Peti~i4n for Variance o~ the basis of the
aforomention~d f3.ndings.
~ ~ ~~;~a
~;`'G
;,i;
;;; ; ',
TH~ FOkEGqING RESOLUTION is sigxied aad a~proved by me this 28th ~~I!
day of 7#ugust, 1989.
,r
~ 1f ~~ ~`~/ _.....,. ~ ~ . .
~ " _~' ~ ~ -h. _ ...~'t. .
(:HAI.RMAN,~.~.2rAHEIM CITY LANNING C02~4fISSION I
ATT~ST:
~
C~!-~.~1"~--~ ~ r_ . w iv n~
S~ C R ETARY, ANAHETM CITY FLANNING COMMZSSION
STATE OF CALTFORN'IA. )
C~UNTX O£ ORANGE ) ss.
CITY 0~' ANAH~TM )
I, Edith I.. H~rris, Secretarl of the Anaheim Ci~~ Plannang
Commissi~n. do nerehy cerLif~ that the foregoing resolution was passeci and
adopted at a meetin.g of thQ AnahQir~ Citp Planning Commiasion he1c1 on August
28, 1989 by tha foilowing vote of the members thereo£:
AYES : COh4~fISSIONERS : H~R[iST~ HOUAS ~ F~'I.DHAUS ~ MC BURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: CONIIvlISSIONERS: BOYDSTU'N, HELL'XER, MES~E
IN WITNESS WH~;FtEOC, I have hereunto set m~• hazid this 28th d~ay
~f August, 1989.
_ _ ~~~= ~~ ~ --
-~__._
SECRETARY, ANAEiF.Ih1 CITY PI,ANNIhIG COMMISSION
?>
-3-
PC89-216
. ``~ r ::=.~;