Resolution-PC 2002-40~ •
RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-40
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2002-04485 BE GRANTED
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for
Variance for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California
described as:
THE WEST 150.00 FEET OF THE EAST 345.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 250.00 OF
THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10
WEST, IN THE RANCHO SAN JUAN CAJON DE SANTA ANA AS SHOWN ON A
MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 10 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS,
RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THE LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM RECORDED JUNE 30, 1998 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 19980413349 OF
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF KATELLA AVENUE AND
HARBOR BOULEVARD AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 72, PAGE 32 OF
RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID
ORANGE CQUNTY, THENCE ALONG THE C~NTERLINE OF KATELLA AVENUE
SOUTH 89 DEGREES 54' 21" WEST 195.16 FEET (59.48); THENCE NORTH 00
DEGREES 05' 30" WEST 60.00 FEET (18.29 M.) TO A POINT OF THE EXISTING
NORTHERN RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF KATELLA AVENUE, SAID POINT BEGIN
THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 54' 21" WEST
150.00 FEET (45.72); THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 14' 30" WEST 5.00 FEET
(1.52 M.); THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 54" 21" EAST 109.93 FEET (33.51 M.)
TO A POINT ON A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY HAVING A
RADIUS OF 34.00 FEET (10.36 M.); THENCE ALONG SAID CURVE
NORTHWESTERLY THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGEL OF 12 DEGREES 40' 49" AN
ARC DISTANCE OF 7.52 FEET (2.29 M.) TO A POINT ON A TANGENT LINE;
THENCE NORTH 77 DEGREES 13' 32" EAST 33.40 FEET (10.18 M); THENCE
SOUTH 00 DEGREES 14' 30" EAST 13.16 FEET (4.01 M.) TO THE TRUE POINT
OF BEGINNING.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center
in the City of Anaheim on March 11, 2002, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been 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 make
findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said 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,
does find and determine the following facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes waivers of the following to remodel and expand the existing
4-story,100-room Desert Palm Inn and Suites for a new total of 172 hotel rooms with accessory uses:
CR5317MG.doc -1- PC2002-40
~ .
(a) Section 18.78.100.080 - Minimum interior structural setback and yard requirements
from adjacent interior lots.
(Minimum 10-foot wide fully landscaped setback area
adjacent to interior lot lines required;
no setback area proposed adjacent to the north property
line, and a 4 to 10-foot wide landscaped setback proposed
adjacent to the east property line)
(b) Section 18.78.100.090.0903 - Minimum structural setback from abutting public rights-of-
~•
( Minimum 11-foot wide fully landscaped setback area
required adjacent to Katella Avenue;
zero to 11-foot wide setback proposed)
(c) Sections 18.06.050.020.024.0241 - Minimum number of parking spaces.
and 18.78.110.010.0104 (176 required; 155 proposed)
(v) Sections 18.06.040.020 - Minimum dimensions of parking spaces.
and 18.78.110.010.0104 (8'6" x 18' required;
6 parking spaces at 8'-6" x 17'-4" proposed)
2. That this proposal for 172 new hotel rooms was inadvertently advertised as 175 rooms,
however, the petitioner revised the plans prior to the Planning Commission meeting to provide for 172
hotel rooms and accessory uses.
3. That waiver (a), minimum interior structural setback and yard requirements from adjacent
interior lots, is hereby approved because the submitted evidence identifies special circumstances with
regard to the size of the property which does not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity
and that strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties within The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Zone as described in paragraph (24) of the March
11, 2002 Staff Report to the Planning Commission; that the site is small and constrained by the existing
location of the driveway which serves the site and an on-site driveway easement which serves the
adjacent "7-11" convenience market site, and waiver (a) is needed to accommodate the proposed
building expansion including provision of new parking spaces and a new ramp to the underground parking
area; and that adjacent properties, which are also in The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan, C-R Overlay,
are developed with no interior setback areas (i.e., the Candy Cane Inn is constructed along the property
line and there is no interior landscaped setback area on the "7-11" property adjacent to subject property).
4. That waiver (b), minimum structural setback from abutting public rights-of-way, is hereby
approved because the submitted evidence identifies special circumstances with regard to the size of the
property which does not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity and that strict application
of the Zoning Code would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties within The
Disneyland Resort Specific Plan Zone as described in paragraph (25) of the March 11, 2002 Staff Report
to the Planning Commission; that the reason for the waiver of the required setback area is to replace an
existing portion of the Desert Palm Inn and Suites building, which is currently located adjacent to the
uitimate pubfic right-of-way, with new building construction in the same iocation; that the petitioner is also
requesting approval to construct a new underground parking area under the entirety of the new building
area, which parking would also be located adjacent to the Katella Avenue right-of-way; and that building
farade improvements are proposed which will encroach into the ultimate public right-of-way similar to
existing hotel balconies, but the proposed building elevation treatments for existing and new portions of
the building wilf contribute to an overall enhancement of the building and the property consistent with the
goals and policies in The Disneyland Resort Specific Plan.
5. That waiver (c), minimum number of parking spaces, is hereby approved based on the
City Traffic and Transportation Manager's review and recommendation that the proposed number of
-2- PC2002-40
~ •
spaces is adequate to serve the project based on the analysis described in paragraph (26) of the March
11, 2002 Staff Report to the Planning Commission.
6. That the parking waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not cause fewer off-street
parking spaces to be provided for the proposed use than the number of such spaces necessary to
accommodate all vehicles attributable to such use under the normal and reasonable foreseeable
conditions of operation of such use because the Parking Study indicates that only 102 of the 155 parking
spaces are projected to be occupied at the peak hour of the week and, therefore, the proposed 155
parking spaces will accommodate the peak parking demand associated with the proposed hotel rooms
and accessory uses.
7. That the parking waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and
competition for parking spaces upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed use
because the Parking Study indicates that only 102 of the 155 parking spaces are projected to be
occupied at the peak hour of the week and, therefore, the proposed on-site parking areas will
accommodate the parking demand associated with all on-site uses and will not increase the demand or
competition for on-street parking; and, further, on-street parking is not be permitted on Katella Avenue,
which is the public street adjacent to this property.
8. That the parking waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not increase the demand and
competition for parking spaces upon adjacent private property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
use because the Parking Study indicates that the proposed project will not cause any demand for parking
on private property in the vicinity of the proposed use inasmuch as an adequate supply of parking will be
provided on-site since only 102 of the 155 parking spaces are projected to be occupied at the peak hour
of th~ w~~k.
9. That the parking waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not increase tra~c congestion
within the off-street parking areas or lots provided for such use because the Parking Study indicates that
traffic congestion will not occur within the off-street parking areas, as the demand for parking at the site is
lower than the amount of parking provided, and that a surplus of parking spaces is expected to exist on-
site; and, in addition, two driveways will serve the hotel complex and provide right-in/right-out access to
Katella Avenue.
10. That the parking waiver, under the conditions imposed, will not impede vehicular ingress
to or egress from adjacent properties, upon the public streets in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
use because the Parking Study indicates that the parking area has been designed so that it will not
impede vehicular ingress to or egress from adjacent properties; and, in particular, the anticipated on-site
traffic will usually peak after the on-street rush hour and will be less than the IoYs capacity; and that two
driveways will serve the site with right-in/right out access only to Katella Avenue.
11. That waiver (d), minimum dimensions of parking spaces, is hereby approved because the
submitted evidence identifies special circumstances with regard to the size of the property which does not
apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity and that strict application of the Zoning Code
would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties within The Disneyland Resort
Specific Plan Zone as described in paragraph (27) of the March 11, 2002 Staff Report to the Planning
Commission; that constrainfs are associated with the existing building iocation (site pians indicate a 42-
to 59.5-foot distance between the building and the west property line); that Code-required handicapped
parking spaces are proposed to be provided adjacent to the west side of the building and a 24-foot wide
drive aisle will need to be maintained; that given the fixed location of the existing building (42 to 59.5 feet
from the west property line) and the need to provide for the handicapped parking spaces, the trash
enclosure and a 24-foot wide drive aisle between the building and the west property line, the proposed six
parking spaces along the west side of the drive aisle are 8 inches shorter than required by Code; and
that City Traffic and Transportation staff has determined that the requested 17-foot, 4 inch parking space
length will adequately accommodate a vehicfe.
-3- PC2002-40
• •
12. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to the property or class
of use in the same vicinity and zone.
13. That 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
property in question.
14. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
15. That no one indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal;
and that no correspondence was received in opposition.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim City
Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal to remodel and expand the existing 4-story, 100-room
Desert Palm Inn and Suites for a new total of 172 hotel rooms with accessory uses and waivers of
minimum interior structural setback and yard requirements from adjacent interior lots, minimum structural
setback from abutting public rights-of-way, minimum number of parking spaces, and minimum dimensions
of parking spaces and does hereby find that previously-certified Environmental Impact Report No. 311 is
adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation in connection with this request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to
be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the safety
and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
1. That the granting of the parking waiver (c) is contingent upon operation of the use in conformance
with the assumptions and/or conclusions relating to the operation and intensity of the uses as
described in the Parking Study prepared by Daniel Benson & Associates dated February 21, 2002,
that formed the basis for approval of said waiver. Exceeding, violating, intensifying or otherwise
deviating from any of said assumptions and/or conclusions, as contained in the Parking Study, shall
be deemed a violation of the expressed conditions imposed upon said waiver which shall subject this
Variance to termination or modification pursuant to the provisions of Sections 18.03.091 and
18.03.092 of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
2. That the subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with the plans and
specifications submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the
Planning Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 through 16, and as conditioned herein.
3. That approval of Variance No. 2002-04485 is contingent upon approval and adoption of Final Site
Plan No. 2001-00033.
4. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that
it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and other applicable City, State and Federal
reguiations. Approval does not inciude any action or findings as 4o compiiance or approvai of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon applicant's compliance
with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth. Should any such condition, or 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.
-4- PC2002-40
~ ~
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
March 11, 2002.
.
CHAIRPER N, ANAHEIM CI LANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
S C TARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Fernandes, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning
Commission held on March 11, 2002, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ARNOLD, BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, EASTMAN, KOOS, VANDERBILT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ~-~ ~ day of
~Q~G~ , 2002.
_1! ~~y-~'~ ;?
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-5- PC2002-40