Loading...
PC 69-190_.. 4 } < PC69-190 RESOLUTION N0. - A RESOLUTION OF T[iE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2113 F.E DENIED ~ :, ~ :~ ;,~ _ ~.~ A .~ WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Aneheim did receive a vetified Petition for Variance from WILLIAM AND NINA SIMMONS, 903 South Agate Stre?t, Anaheim, California 92804, Owners; JIN HODGES, 903 South Agate Street, Anaheim, California 92804, Agent of certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as Lots 5 and 6, and the North half of Lot 7, of Tract No. 796, as per map recorded in Book 24, Page 2B of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said C~range County. That portion of Lot 1 in Block A of Tract No. 796, as per map recorded in Book 24, Page 28 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said Orange County, said land being bounded as follows: On the North by the Westerly prolongation of the North line of Lot 5 of said Tract No. 796, and on the South by the Westerly prolongation of the South line of the North half of Lot 7 of Tract No. 796. ,}. WHEREAS, the City Planning Commisaion did hold a public heering et the City Hall in the City of Aneheim on S eptember 22, 196y at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of sai~i public hearing heving been duly given as required by lem end ln eccotdence alth tha pravisions of the Annheim Municipel Code, Chepter 18.68, to hear end consider evidence for and egainst said proposed voriance end to inveatigete and meke findings end recommendetions in connection therewith; end WHEREAS, seid Cammission, efter due inspection, investigetion, end study made by itself end in its behalf, and efter due considerotion of all evidence and reporte otfered at seid hesring, does find end determine the following fects: 1. Thet the pe4itioner requests e verience Erom the Aneheim Municipal Code, as follows, to permit the establishment of a 53-unit, one and two-story apartment complex: a. S ECTION 18.28.050(5-b) - One-stor hei ht limit within 150 fee+_ of an R-A Zone. One-story within 150 feet of an R-A Zone required; two- storY within 77 feet of an R-A Zone proposed'). b. SECTION 18.28.050(6-c) - Location of accessory buildinqs. (5 feet from side property lines within the front 75~ Of the property required; 0 feet proposed). c. S ECTION 18.28.050(7-a) - Minimum distance b~tween buildinqs. (20, 37 and 37 feet required; 18, 26, and 10 feet xespectively proposed). d. SECTION 18.28.050(9-b) - Livinp units located within 200 feet of a standard street. (Within 200 feet required; 13 units up to 260 feet from a standard street proposed). e. SECTION 18.28.050(9-a) - Adequate access and circulation for trash and fire vehicles. (Adequate circulation required; inadequate circulation proposed). 2. That there are no 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. V 1-D -1- ~ _ _ _; ~:: , ~ 3. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and i denied to the property in question. 4. That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the public health, welfare and safety of residents, and injurious to the property or improvements in such ~ vicinity and zone in which the property is located. 5. That waivers 1-b and 1-d, above mentioned, are no longer required since recent amend- ~ ments to the site development standards of the R-3 Zone permit this in developments. ~ 6. That although the Fire Chief had indicated that subject property could be served with i fire fighting equipment, he also indicated that the circulation proposed was not desirable ! from the standpoint of easy accessibility which is most important in order to reach fires f auickly . ~ 7. That since the cir~ulation proposed would create less than desirable and efficient accessibility for fire fighting equipment and trash pickup, the residents of the proposed ~~ development would receive a lesser degree of protection than that ~vhich tivould be given to ~~, other residential developments where adequate circulation was provided. s 8. That one person appeared (August 25, 1969) representing owners of 9 R-1 homes in the .~ tract to the northeast, all in opposition to subject petition, specifically to the type of circulation and subterranean parking proposed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEU that the Anaheim City Planning Com ission does hereby deny subject Petition for Variance on the basis of the afo ement'oned 'ndings. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is si ned and a ~ 9 ppro d by m this d da of October, 1969. , ~ 1 ATTEST: CHAIRMP.N AHEIM CITY PLANNTNG COMMTSSION G~L~~/~~1~ ~ SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STqTE UF CALIFORNIA ) CAUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. ' CITY OF APIAFIEIM ) ~ .; ~_ I, Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a r~eeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on September 22, 19b9, at 2:00 0'clock P,M., by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland. ~` NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp. i ABSENT: COMMISSIONERSs Farano. ITI WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 2nd day of October, 19G9. ~ L'l~"z-~,r ~ ~/32~-rGU/ SECRETARY ANAH IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION I (~ Res. No. 190 I I I ,.;~ ~ ~ , ~ ' +' :.i R ' :~ "i:_ j , , ~ I :~ '~ , '4 . Y _~ _~~ ~ , . .