PC 79-130f
RESOLUTION N0. PC79-130
A RESOLUTIOH OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING LONMISSIOfI
THAT PETITIOH FOR VARIANCE N0. 3092 BE GRA~ITED.
llHEREAS, the Anahelm City Planning Commission did receivc a verifled
petition for Variance from ALFRED ~. PAINO AND JOSEPHIHE PAINO, 711 South Beach
Boulevard, Anahetm, Catifornia 92804, ormers, and G. D. GARDNER G ASSOCIA7E5, 2404-B
Glassell 5trect, Orange, California 92b65, agenc, of certai~ real property sit~ated
ln the City of Anaheim, Lounty of Orange, State of Californta~ described as follows:
Tha[ portion of the Norihcast quartcr of the Southeast quarter of
Section 14, ln Tarrnship 4 South, Range 11 West, in the Rancho tos
Coyotes, shown as Parcel B on a Map recorded in BooN 12, page 34
of Parcel Maps, records of said Orarge County.
VlHEREAS, the Ct[y Rlanning Commisston did schedule a public hearing at the
City Hall in the City of Anaheim on May 7, i°79, at 1:3~ p.m., notice of saTd publtc
hearing having been duly gtven as required by larr and In accordance with [he
provisions of the Anaheim Huntcipal 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 thereo~i[h; said public hearing having been
continued to thc Planning Conrnission mecting of July 2, 1979; and
L1}iEREAS, said Commission aftcr due inspeciion, investigation and study made
by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at safd hearing, does find and determine the following fac[s:
~
1. That the pctitioncr proposes waivers of the following co escablisli two
residential lo[s:
(a) SECTION 13.04.Q~+3.162 - Maxiroum wall hci ht.
ect perm tted;
t~eet proposed)
(b) SECTIOt~ i$.26.061.010 - Minlmum lot arca.
200 s uare eet required;
7000 square eet proposed)
2. That the requested watver {a) is hsreby granted on the basis that the
fiftecn (15) foot high screening wall is requtred to nitigatc the pfltentlal noises
caused by the proposed and exTsting recreational use of the property, and on the
basis that the adJacent property is owned by the same property owner and witl be
developed for his residential use.
3. That the requested o~aiver (b) is hereby granted on the basis that the
difference between the requtred and proposed lo[ slzes is minimal.
4. That there are exceptTonal or extraordinary circumstances or condlttons
applicable to the property involved or to the tntended us~ of the property that do
not apply generally to the property or class of use in [he same victnlty and zone.
Pc~~-iso
5. 7hat thc requcsted variancc fs necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property riyht possessed by other property tn the same
vicinity and zone. and denled to the propcrty in question.
6. That ihe requested variance will not be matcrially detrimental to the
public weifare or injurious to the pr~perty or improvements in sucti vicinity and zone
in which the property is lncated.
7. Tha[ no one indicated their presence at satd publlc hearing in
opposttion; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subJect
peti[ton.
EHUIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Lity Planning Canmission has
reviewed the proposa to rec ass y subject property from CL (Commercial, Limtted) to
RS-7200 (Residential~ Single-Famtly) zoning and to establish two residentlal lots
w(th waivers of maximum wall height and ninimum lot area o~ Portion A of subject
property consisting of approximately 0.3 acre, havtng a frontage of approximately 140
feet on ihe east side of Hayward Strect, having a maximum depth of approximately 100
feet and being located approxtnately 1190 feet south of the centerltne of O:ange
Avenue; and to permit a bat[ing cage and recreational complex with a waiver of
maximum structural heiqht on Portion B of subject property consisttng of approximately
1.0 acre, having a frontage of approximately 140 feet on the west side of Beach
Boulevard, having a maximun depth of approximatcly 3~2 fee[, hedng located
approximately 11?0 feet south of the centerline of Orange Av~nuc. and does hcreby
approve the Negatlve Declaration fron the requirement to preparc an environmental
impact report on the basis [liat there would be no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of [his ~~egative
Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates the subJec[ property for medium
denst[y residential and general corrr.iercial land uses comensurate with the proposal;
that no sensitive environmental tmpacts are i~volved in thc proposal; tha[ [he
Initial Study submitted by the pe[i[loner indicates no slgnificant indlvidual or
cumulative adverse enviro~mental inpacts; and that [he Hegative Declaration
subs[antia[ing the foregoing findings is on file in the City oF Rnaheim Planning
Department.
N04l, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that thc Anahelm City Plar.ning Corcrntssion
does hereby grani subject Peiitlon for Variance, upon the follorrt~g conditions r~hich
are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisi[e to the proposed use of the subJect
property tn order [o preserve the safrty and generai welfare of the Citizens of the
Clty of Anaheim:
1. That this Variance is granted subject to the completlon of
Reclassification No. 78-79-43, novr pendfng.
2. Tha[ the orrner(s) of subJect property shail pay to the City of Anaheim
a fee, in an amount as determined by the City Louncil, for stree[ lighting along
Hayward Strcet.
3. Tha[ the oamer(s) of subJect property shall pay to the Ctty of AnaheTm
a fce~ in an amount as determined by che City Council, for tree plantt~g purposes
along Hayrrerd Strcet.
4, That the owncr of subJect property shal) pay to the City of Anahelm the
appropriatc park and recreation tn-lleu fecs as determined to be approprtate by the
City Council, sald fces to be pald a[ the time thc building pernit is issued.
-2- PC79-i30
5. That the owner(s) of subJect property shall pay the traffTc slgnal
assessment fee (Ordinance 110. 3896} ln an amount as determined by the Ctty Council,
for each new dwelling unit prior to the lssuance of a buTlding permit.
6. That subJect proper[y shall be developed substantlally in accordance
with plans and specifications on file ~oith the Ci[y of Anaheim marked Exhibit No. 1
and Ravlslon No. t of Exhibit No. 2.
7, That Conditlon Nos. 1, 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shail be complted wlth
prior to the commencement of the activity authortzed under thts resoluticn, or prior
to the time that [he building pcrmlt is issued, or within a period of one year from
date hereof, v:hichever occurs first, or such further ttme as the Planning Camnisslon
may arant.
8. That Londition No. 6, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to
final building and zoning inspectlons.
BE IT FU°THER R'cSOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
find and determtne that adoptlon of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon
applicant's compliance with each and all af the conditions hereinabove set forth.
Shauld any such conditlon, or any part thereof, be declared invaitd or unenforceable
by the finat Judgment of any court of conpetent Jurisdictlon~ then this Resalution,
and any approvals hcrein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
THE FOREG01!tG RESOLUTION is signed and approved by mc this 2nd day of July.
~°79•
t N~ A1 t! CI Y PLA~NI4G COMHi5SI0N
ATTEST:
`~~ .~.° ~,~.;
SEC RETARY ~ ANAHE I M C i TY PLAtItI I taG COMH I SS I Ot~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COIiiiTY OF ORi~t1GE } ss.
CITY OF AtIAH[IH )
I, Edith L. tiarris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Comnission, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolutlon was passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anahcim City Planning Cornsnission held on July 2, 197?, by the following vote of
the membcrs [hereof:
AYES: COPt!11S5lONERS: BARtlES, DAVID, FRY, HERBST, KING, 701.AR
NOES: COt1M15510NER5: ~USHORE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
IN WITNE55 WHEREOF~ I have hereunto set my hand this 2nd day of July, t979•
1- d~sL+ K • /~wT/L,w
SECRETARY~ ANAt1EiM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-3- PC79-130