PC 71-18~ ~
~.. ~
~.
I2ESOLUTION N0.- ~~71'1$ __„_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNINd COMMISSION QF THE CITY O1~ ANAHEIM
THAT ± ETITION +~OR VARIANCE N0, ~ B~ APpROVED IN PAR'f
WHEREAS, th~ l':ity Plpnning Commloslon of the Clty of Anahelm did recnlve a verified Potitlon for Verlance trom
BEtJ W. SANDK:JOP, ET AL, ~6 J. GRAYSON, 26292 Ridgemore Drive, Sun City, California 92381,
Owner; DEL BROWN, P. 0. Box 432, Santa Ana, California 92702, Agent of certain real property
sit~~ated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, Si:ate of Califoxnia, descxibed as the
West 150.00 f~et oP ttie East 898.00 feei: of the North half of the ~larthe~st quarter of the
Northeast quarter of Se~ction 13, Township 4 Sout.h, Range 11 West, in the Rancho Los Coyotas,
as per map recorded in 6ook 51, Page 11 of M.iscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County
Rocorder of saicl County. Cxcept that portion thereof lying Nori:herly of the Southerly
line of the 70.00 foo~: strip of land described in the final order of condemnation filed in
conneci:ic,n witl~ Case Na. 73187 in the Superior Court of the State of California, iri ancl for
tlie County oF Orange, a copy of said final order was recorded September 12, 1958 in }~ook
44~4 Page 337 of Offlcial Records.
' i~
~~
~`
~ ,~;
, ,~
~
; -~~
~ ~;~
;,<,
~,!t
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commiesion did hold a public hea~ing et the Clty Hell in the City oE Anaheim on
February 8~ .1971, at 2:00 o'clock P,M,~ notfce of eald publlc hearing having been duly given es required by
lew end ln sccorclance with the provisions of the Aaaheim Municipal Code, Chepter 18,b8, to heer and consider evidence for
enci ngeinst seid proposed varience and to investiQete end meke findi~gs end recommendations in connection therewith;
and
,;
~ ~i;~
~i ~
~i _
~_ WHEREA~S, said Commiasion, eftee due inapection, investigation, end study mad~ by itself end in its behalf,
'~- end efte~ due consideration of ell evidence nnd reporta offarad at said hearing, does .°lnd and determ~ne the followiag
`~ ~t
: ,~ f~cts:
;-c~
M M1
~'~~ 1. That the petitioner requesta a varience from the Anaheim Municipel Code as follows:
' ~~
;`~ a. SEC,iTION tg.2g.050(5-b) - M~ximum buildina,}~~qht within~50 feet oc an
~~ ~~ R-A, Zone) ~
'`~ b. SE~TION 18.28.050(6-a-4) - Minimum ren~air d andscan d setbaclc.
' - ( 5 f et
'~' required; 7 feet. 6 inches ~~~
proposed).
;~ c. SECTION 18.2~3.050(b-2) - Minimum repuired side vard. ~8 feet required;
's~ 5 feet proposed).
'?,~ d. SECTIOP~i 18.28.050(10-c) - M~ximum distance fr~m a cov~red parkinq space
,~ to the dtivetlinq unit. (200 feet permitted; ?_30
~ ~~; _fg t proposed) .
e. SECTION 18.28.050(11) - Reauired 6-foot masonr wa>>. (6-foot wall is
~~:-r required along the south and east property lines;
;~ a 6-foot fence proposed).
., f. SECTION 18.28.050(6-a-5) - C~de reauirement that access to caroorts be from
' `', the allev onl .
!:' (Access directly to Stinson
~` Street is proposed).
~;~ 2. That the petitioner pruposes to develop subject property with 18 one and two-story
.Y~ apartments.
,~ 3. That waiver 1-a, above mentioned, has been determined not to be necessary, since the
:,~~ R-A property within 150 feet has been developea for either commercial or multi.ple family
~ uses.
~:~ 4. That waiv~r 1-b, above mentioned, is herby granted on the basis that the landscaped
?: portion proposed for on;y 7 feet, 6 inches is the portion adjacent to open parking, and
with adequate landscape screenii~g tt~is waiver would not be detrimental to the area.
~. Tt~at alaiver 1-c, above mentioned, is hereby granted on the basis that due to the
oblique a'~rynment between the property line and building, portions of the side yard are
only five (5) feet while the other portions are greater than the required setback, therEfore,
the average yard would exceed Code reauirements.
6. Tt~at waiver 1-d, ak~ove mentioned, is hereby granted on the basis that only one dwell-
ing unii: will be 230 feet from covered parking, however, granting of this waiver shall not
be consa.dered establishing a precedent, since the size and shape of the parcel makes it
A
-^:--w,~; . . ,
~
~
~
~ . • _ . _
~ ~ ~
,~ "~. ~ ,
~, d~fficult to develop.
~ 7. That waiver 1-e, above menti~ned, is hereby deniad on •the basis that said wall particularly
along ~Clie south proper.i;y line is needed to provide the n~cess~ry separatian be~tween th~ two
~ resident:3al ~.ises.
~ 8. Tha~ v~aiver 1°f, ak~ove mention~d, is hereby granted on the basis that although access
~ to carpor~ts ancl parking fc,x a poz~tion oE the par.king spaces is not from an alley, said veh.icles
; will not be backing onto Stinson Str.eet.
j 9. T'hat the petii;ioner stip~alated to provfding tl~e required G-foot masonry wall and a 12-
~ foot gai;e on •the single fami).y prop~r.ty to tf~e south of the alley, provided that permi.ssion is
~ given by said property owner.
~ J.O. That thare are ~xcep~ional or extraordinary circumstance s or conditions app'licable to
;; the property invalved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally i:o the
'~ pruperty or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
11. That the reques•ted variance as approved will no~ be materially detrimental to the public
,welfare or injurious to the property or impravernents in such vir,inity and zone in which the
~ ~property is located.
"?' 12. Tha~t the single family home owner abutting the aJ.ley to the south of sub,ject property
;'~tipulated that he would grant permiss.ion to construct the 6-f~ot masonry walJ. on his property,
'^.provided thai: the petitioner would als~ place a 12-foot gate in said wall for ingress and egress
r;he pre,ently en3oys to the a] ley to t.he north of his property.
;~ 13. That two persons appeared in opposition.
~• '~? iJOW, Tf~IEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby gran~
+'~~ubject Petition for Variance, upon tha following conditions which are hereby found tc be a
;x'hecessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject pr.operty in order to preserve the safety
';it~nd general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim.
i;;' 1. That this variance is granted subject to i:he comple~ion of Reclassification No. 70-71-24,
; ,.~'
, ow pending.
~'" 2. That subjec•t property shalJ. be developed substantiall.y in accordance with plans and speci-
i~fications on File wi•r.h the City of Anahei.m, marked ~xhibit Nos. 1 2 3~{ and 5
','ever, that a G-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the ea s~t~property line, ~and1ondthe~R-1
j;'~proper;,y soiath of the existing alley, and that a 12-foot wide gate shall be provided within said
;j~;~vall to provide the R-1 property owner ingress and egress to the alley w~hich he presently enjoys,
~~vas stipulated tu by the petiticner, and in accordance with permission given by the single family
;':,~~ome owner for said construction.
:~
; ;'t
~~,~ THE FORtGOING RESOLUTION is si ned and a y
;,.:' 9 pproved b me this lSth day of February, 1971.
_ ' ~-- ~='~ ~, / ~ ~
~
`' - CHA MAN ANA EI CITY PLANNINi~ CUMMISSION
ATTEST:
!~
,;; , ~'
~ ~~ .
; l~'a-l2- ' 2~. ~~-~_? •-~
~.;SECRETARY ANAHEIM CiTY PLANNI~'G COMMISSION
4''STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
y CWUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss .
! CITY ~F ANAliEIM )
~~ ;;;
;_ I, Ann Krebs, Secretary of the (;ity Planning Commission of
~certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at
' Cammission of the Ci~ty of Anaheim, held on February S, 197~,, at
;following vote of the members thereof:
'~' AYES: COMMISSION~RS: Allred, Gauer, Herbsl;, Kaywood.
4'" NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Kaywood.
~1'~" ABSENT: CObIMISSIONERS: Rowland.
~' :~.:
I~ r IN WITNESS WHEREOP I h
the City of Anaheim, do hereby
a meeting of the City Planninq
2:00 0'clock P.M., by the
,,:~s , ave hereunto set my hand this 18th day of February, 1971.
~ti
~ ',~ ~- '` 7 ~" ~~~ ; =~;Z` ~`"`~
_ ,
'~'` SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMM~ISSION
'',:
~1
;;5~
~ -
~ i :;S
* ' Res. No. 18
~ ~ ~ .r.
---,. ~,
~
~,
~