PC 70-22RESOLUTION NO.
PC70-22
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2154 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commisaion of the City of An~heim did receive a verified Petition for Veriance from
DOMINIC C. ETCHP,I9DY, 570 Dwyer Drive, Anaheim, California 92801, Owner; THE COVINGTCN
BROiHERS, 2451 East Orangethorpe, Fullerton, California 926319 Agent of certain real
property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, S tate of California, described
;~j~~ as the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 14, Townsnip 4 South, Range
~. 11 West, in the Rancho Los Coyotes, as shown on a map thereof recorded in book 519 page
' ' 11, Miscellaneous Maps, r.ecords of said Orange County. F.XCEPTING THERErROM the South 503
~~ feet thereof, as conveyed to Savanna School District of Orange County by deeds recorded
'` ~' May 19, 1960 in Book 5251, pages 303 and 305, of Official Records. ALSO EY,CEPTING THERE-
~ ~.'fi FROM the West 148 feet of the North 148 feet of the South 651 feet thereof, as conveyed to
; Robert D. Etchandy and wife. by deed recorded May 11, 1954 in book 2725, page 9, Official
' Records. AIS 0 EXCEPTING FROM the remainder the East 533 feet thereof, as conveyed to the
~ Cit~~ of Anaheir. by deed recorded November 1, 1962 in book 6307, page 463 Official Recurds,
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion thereof lying Northerly of the Southeasterly line
. of the 70-foot strip condemned by the Orange County Flood Control District in Decree re-
corded March '. 1962 in book 6025, page 245, Official Records.
WHEREAS, the City Plonning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Heil in the City of Aneheim on
February 25, 1970~ et 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of seid public hearing heving been duly given as required by
law and ln accocdence tvith the provisions of the Aneheim Municipal Code, Chepter 18.68, to hear and consider evidence for
and egeinst said proposed veriance end to investigate end meke findings end recommendetions in connection the:ewith;
and
WHEREAS, eaid Commission, nfter due inspection, investigetion, end study mede by itself end in its behalf,
end efter due consideration of ell evidence nnd reports ofEered at seid hearing, does find and determine the following
facts:
1. Thet the petltioner requests e variance from the Anehelm Municipel Code as follows, to establ ish
a two and three-story, 348-unit, multiple-family residential 'evelopment on subject
property.
~ - ~
.7 ~
JI V 1-~
C:. j ..~~
~~ .
r;, i
1. SECTION 18.28.020(1) - Permitted number of main structures. (2 main
structures permitted; 10 main structures proposed).
2. SECTION 18.28.050(3-a) - Minimum required flo~r area per unit. ~N,inimum of
7U0 s4uare feet required; 72 units at 425 square
feet proposed).
3. ScCTION 18.28.050(5-a) - Maximum buiidinq heiqht. (2 stories permitted; 2
main structures with 3 stories proposed).
4. SECTION 18.28.050(5-b~ -~~iaximum buildinq heiqht within 150 feet of any R-A
or sinqle-family residential zone. (1-story per-
mitted; 2 stories pronosed).
5. SECTION 18.28.050(7-a) - M?n`.~num distance between buildinqs. (14 feet re-
quired; 10 feet proposed).
6. SECTIOPI 18.28.050(10-d)- Enclosure ef carports. (348 enclosed carport spaces
rc~ uired; 246 enclosed carport. spaces and ]0? r~of
only carport spaces proposed).
-1-
4 . .., --rx:~..._
~
__ -
__ 2• That there are no excep~ional or extraordinary circumstarices 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.
3. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation ~nd enjoyment of a
substantiaJ. property right possessed by other property in the sart~e vicinity and zone, and denied
to the prop2rty in question.
4• That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
;, injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which th~ property is
,:;, located.
` 5. That since the Planning Commission recommended ~3pnial of an 1;-3 rez~ning request, filed
in conjunction with subject petition, subject variance was not deemed appropriate ~~nder the
' circumstances.
' Chamber,Tall geVOn persons appeared representing more than 70 persons present in the Council
~„ pposition to subject petition.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Anaheim Ci'y P~lanning;_omm;o~;rn ~„i~s .iptreby deny subject
Petition for Veriance on the basis of the a(orementioned (l~dc:~~•:•.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed end approved by me this 5t~1v, day of March~ 1970.
( ~ I
~ -- ~~~.J
CH NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
V C~ ~~~ z/~2-~ h,/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIAI )
I, Ann Krebs ~,~Secretery of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolntion wes pessed end adopted at a meeting of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on
February 25~ 1970~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the foilowing vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve herPUnto set my hend this 5th day of March, 19i0.
~~,f ~~. ~ ~ ~~~ ~/
/
r./l-~;~-~.->.~ ~ ~: ~,~-<.
r' I: SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY FLANNING COMMISSI~N
~• " RESOLUTION N0.22
V2-D
_Z_
. ,
~ ~
~`J
~
;~ -
..i .
;~ ~
;, I
'~
` , . . ~ _ __-_ --- ____ ~,.~. _.
, .., , -
~~ ----- ,. ~ _>
,
~ ~
2