PC 72-221o •
RESOLUTION NO. P~~Z'2'Ll
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY' OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2393 BE GRANTED IN PART
WHEREAS, the City PlBnning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive e veriEied Petition for Verience
from ,TAMES E. JORDAN, 420 South Euclld Street, Suite E, Anaheim, Cnlifu~rnia 92802, Owner;
K. V.. DILI•S, 42~ Snuth Euclid Street, Suite E, Anaheim, Califotnia ~2802, Agent of certain
real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orangc, State of California, des-
cribed ae That portion of the South half of theSoutheast quarter of the Southeaet quarter
of Section 19, Township 4 South, Range 10 West. as the Southeast quarter of said Section is
shown on a Map of Tract No. 2319, recorded in Book 69, pages 43 and 44 of Miscellaneoua Meps,
records of Orange County, Caiifornia, and as ahown on a Map recorded in Book 51, page 10 of
Miacellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California, deacribed as follows: Beginning
at the Northeast corner of said South half; thence South 89° 26' 23" West 294.00 feet along
the Nort:1 line of sa~d South half to Che Northeasterly corner of Lot 22 of eaid Trac~ No.
23~9; thence South 0 21' 08" ~ast lu'3.00 feet along the East line of said lot; thence North
89 26' 23" East 294.00 feet to the East line of eaid Section; thence Ncrth 0° 21' OS!' Weat
103.00 feet to the point of beginning
; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold e public hearing et the Ci':y Nall in the City of Aneheim
on August 21, 1972, at 7: 30 a'clock P.M., notice of seid public heecing having been duly given es requiced
ty laa~ eud in eccordence with the provisions of the Aneheim Municipel Code, ~hapter 1~.b8,to hearand consider
evidence for and ugainst seid proposed veriance and to investigete end make fin3ings end recommendations in connec-
tiun therewith; and
WHEREAS, seid Commissi~n, efter due inspection, investigation, end study mede by itselE and in its behelf,
end aEter due consideretion of all evidence and ceports offered et se~d heering, does find end detecmine the following
fects:
1. That the petitioner requests a ve^ience fror~ the Anaheim Municipel Code: ae followa:
a. SECTION 18.40.070(2-a-5-a) - Zone Sounderv screen landecaping.
(Screen tree planting required; partial ecreen
tree planting proposed)
b. SECTION 18.40,070(3-s) - Maximum buildinQ heiRht witl~in 150 feet of einRle-
fa-nily zone(29 feet proposed; 10.5 feet required).
c. SECTION 18.40.070(6-a) - Minimum zone boundarv wall height
6 feet required; 5 feet proposed),
2. That the petitioner propoaes to conetruct a tWO-story commercial office building.
3. That Waiver 1-a, above mentioned, is hereby denied on the baeis that adequate screening
should be provided wherevar commercial uaes abut residential usea, and the petitioner did
not submit evidence that said waiver wae neceasary for the preservation of rights enjoyed
• by others but denied to him.
4. That Waivers 1-b and 1-c, above mentioned, are granted as it pertain tohthe eoudth
o~e{ty line onl on t e baeis h t t A pa~r~glbe~ueed ~ottot~er f~ian iesid~n~-
~~° Q§~~eupon~u~I~"~im$~°~e$~ve4oe ~n~ ~n e~4 ~~~~f.~~ood w
~l'het t ere ere except~onel or PxtwBr~ e circumstences or conditions appl{ceble to the property involved
s a gran~'e~
or to the intended uce of the property/that do not epply genernlly to the property or cless of use in the same vicinity
and zone, as granl'ed
6. Thet the requested veriancG/is necessery Eor the pceservation end enjoynent ot e substentiel property right
possessed by other property ~n the sert,e vicinit end zone, end denied to the propE::y 1n question.
7.• That the requested verience/ well~o~~e~meterielly detrimentel to the public welEare or injurious to the pm{r
erty or improvements in such ~icinity and zone in which the property is loceted.
8. That the owner of the property to the south submitted d letter indicating epproval
of this pruposal.
9. That 4 persons appeared representing S peraons present in the Council Chamber in
oppoaition to the proposed 2-etory height and waiver of ecreened landscapipg together with
the required height of the wall; and that a petition signed by 48 persone was received,in
opposition.
V1-G -1-
*
~. _.~,._
in part
NOW, THERGFORE, BE IT RE~LVED thet the Anehelm City Plenning C~ission docs hereby grant/subject
Petition for Veriance, upon the following conditions which are heceby found to be e necesaery prerequisite to the pro-
posed use of the subject property in order to preserve the sefety end general welfere of the Citizens of the City of
Anaheim:
1. That this variance is $ranted subject to the completion of Reclassification No. 72-73-2,
2. That subject property shall be developed subetantially in accordance with plans and
apecifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, and ~~.
THE FOREGOII~IG RESOLUTION is ei~ed end appeoved by me thia 31et day of August, 1972.
ANAHEIM CITY
ATTEST:
~~G~ 1~3u~s/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIaN
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Kreba, Secretery of the City Pl:sz:n~ Commission of the Ctty of Aneheim, do hereby certi(y thet
the foregoing resolutlon wes pessed end adopted at a meeting of the Clty Plenning Commission of the City o( Anaheim,
held on Auguet 21, 1972, at 7: 30 . o'clock P.M., by the following vote oE the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Far~ino, Gau~r, Kaywood, Rowlend, Seymour..
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nona.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst.
IN 1VITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto eet my hand thls 31at day of August, 1972.
~'~~
~~~
SECRBTAP.Y ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC72-221
V2-G '2"
.
.