Attachment 2 - Variance Resolution ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC2023-***
RESOLUTION NO. PC2023-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF ANAHEIM DENYING A VARIANCE TO PERMIT LESSER
STRUCTURAL AND LANDSCAPE SETBACKS THAN REQUIRED
BY CODE AND TO ALLOW PARTIAL SCREENING OF VEHICLES
WHERE COMPLETE SCREENING IS REQUIRED AND MAKING
CERTAIN FINDINGS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
(DEV2023-00002)
(710 AND 818 EAST KATELLA AVENUE)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim (the "Planning
Commission") did receive a verified petition for a Conditional Use Permit to operate an Outdoor
Storage Yard for Oversized Vehicles and Trailers (the “Proposed Project”), on certain real property
located at 710 and 818 East Katella Avenue in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of
California, as generally depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Property is approximately 2.21 acres in area and is developed with a
two-story building and associated parking. The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates
this property for Office-High land uses. The property is located in the “I” Industrial Zone and is
within the Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone. The development standards and
regulations of Chapter 18.10 (Industrial) and Section 18.20.090 (Structural Setbacks) of Chapter
18.20 (Platinum Triangle Mixed Use (PTMU) Overlay Zone) of the Anaheim Municipal Code (the
“Code”) apply to the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center
in the City of Anaheim on July 17, 2023, at 5:00 p.m., with notice of said public hearing having
been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60
(Procedures) of the Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against proposed Conditional Use
Permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendation in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after due inspection, investigation and
study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing with respect to the request for a Variance, does find and determine the
following facts:
SECTION 18.40.050.010 Platinum Triangle Minimum Setback
Requirements (18 feet on Katella Avenue
and 20 feet on Lewis Street required; 0
feet proposed)
SECTION 18.38.200.150.1504.03 Required Screening where visible from
the Public Right-of-Way
- 2 - PC2023-***
1. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property, including
size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, which do not apply to other properties under
identical zoning classification in the vicinity. Katella Avenue requires a 12-foot street dedication
while Lewis Street requires a 20-foot dedication as part of the overall street width pursuant to the
PTMLUP. In addition to the street dedications, the PTMU requires an 18-foot landscape setback
along Katella Avenue and a 20-foot landscape setback along Lewis Street. The proposed screen
wall would be placed at a zero-landscape setback along both street frontages making this the only
project within the Platinum Triangle to not provide the required landscaping. The 0.5-acre property
to the east, across Lewis Street, was recently developed with a new 3,000-square-foot commercial
building and associated parking and landscaping. The 2.21-acre project site is substantially larger
than the half-acre parcel to the east. While the neighboring site is drastically smaller in size, it
provided the required dedication and landscaping per the PTMU. It is feasible for the proposed
project to be designed in a way that could meet the structural and landscape setbacks of the Code
and the landscape design of the PTMLUP.
Additionally, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow partial
screening of vehicles from the public right-of-way where full screening is required. The height of
the concrete masonry wall must be constructed to a height where the on -site storage is screened
from view, or the vehicles must be located a distance from the wall to be fully screened. The
applicant is proposing a height of eight feet; however, the proposed height of the wall does not
fully screen the vehicles from the view of the public right-of-way. There are no special
circumstances applicable to the property that limit the height of the wall to screen the vehicles and
storage on the site; and
2. Strict application of the Zoning Code would not deprive the Property of
privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
Properties in the general vicinity of the project site under identical zoning classifications have
provided the required structural and landscape setbacks. Properties in the general vicinity of the
project site under identical zoning classifications have provided the required structural and
landscape setbacks. Additionally, the proposed outdoor storage use permitted under the conditional
use permit request should not be considered a temporary use as described in the project description
provided by the applicant. The zero-setback and eight-foot concrete masonry wall at the property
line would continue to exist until a new project is brought before the City to redevelop the site.
The placement of the proposed wall would be inconsistent with the Code-required landscape and
structural setbacks as well as the Platinum Triangle Master Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determines that the evidence in the record
constitutes substantial evidence to support the actions taken and the findings made in this
Resolution, that the facts stated in this Resolution are supported by substantial evidence in the
record, including testimony received at the public hearing, the staff presentations, the staff report,
and all materials in the project files. There is no substantial evidence, nor are there other facts that
negate the findings made in this Resolution. The Planning Commission expressly declares that it
considered all evidence presented and reached these findings after due consideration of all
evidence presented to it.
- 3 - PC2023-***
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that pursuant to the above findings, this
Planning Commission does hereby deny the variance petition to permit lesser structural and
landscape setbacks than required by Code and to allow partial screening of vehicles where
complete screening of vehicles is required.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission
meeting of July 17, 2023. Said resolution is subject to the appeal provisions set forth in Chapter
18.60 (Procedures) of the Code pertaining to appeal procedures and may be replaced by a City
Council Resolution in the event of an appeal.
CHAIRPERSON, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
PC2023-***
PC2023-***
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Heather Flores, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Anaheim held on July 17, 2023, by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 17th day of July 2023.
SECRETARY, PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM