PC 72-225RESOLUTIC~10. PC72-225 ~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION QF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1336 gE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did raceive e verified Petition Eor Con•
ditionalUsePermitfrom HERMAN L. LENZ, 930 South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, Cali:ornia
92806, Owner; S~,ND S C047STRUCTICN COMPANY, 8383 Wilehire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, Cali-
fornia 90211, Agent of certain real property situateii in the City of Anaheim, County of
Orange, State of California, described as Beginning at a point in the South boundary of
Tract No. 2350, as ehown on map recorded in Book 69, pages 45 to 47 inclusive, of Miecel-
laneous Maps, records of said County, distant Soutli 89° 58' 14" East 53.00 feet from the
centerline of State College Boulevard (formerly Placentia Avenue), said point being a
point in the easterly line of said State College Boulevard, 106 feet wide; thence along
said South tract boundary South 89° 58' 14" East 661.12 feet to a point in the West bound-
ary of Tract No. 6809, as ahown on map recorded in Book 266, pages 15 to 19 inclueive, of
Miacellaneoue Maps, records of said County; thence along said West tract boundary South
0~ 05' 15" West 617.80 feet to a point in the Northerly sideline of Wagner Avenue, 90:00
feet wide, thence along said Northerly eide line South 89° 59' 32" West 583.07 feet to the
beginning of a tangent curve concave Northeneterly, having a radius of 25.00 fee~ and
being tangent at its terminus with the afor?said East line of Stete College Boulevard;
thence Westerly, Northwesterly and Northerly along said curve 39.31 feet and through a
central angle of 90° 05' 43"; thence tangent to said curve North 0° 05' 15" East along
said Eeet line of State College Boulevard 593.15 feet to the point of beginning
; end
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission did hold a public hearing et the City Hell in the City of Anaheim
on Auguat 21, 1972, at 7: 30 , o'clock P.M., natice of seid public hearing heving been duly given
es required by lew and in eccordence with the provisions oEthe Meheim Municipel code, Chepter 18.64,to hear
er.d consider evidence for end ageinst said proposed conditional use and to investigate end meke findings and
recommendetions in connectian therewith; end
WHEREAS, seid Commission, eEter due inspectian, investigetion, and study mede by itself and in its be-
helf, end aEter due consideration oE ell evidence end reports offered et seid hearing, does Eind and determine the
foli~wing fects:
1. Thet the pcoposed use is properly one foc which e Condltionel Use Permit is nuthorized by Code
Section 18.64.020(1-e) to wit: establish an 85-unit planned residential development
with waivere of: '
a, SECTION 18.28.05Q(1-b) - Minimum buildinu eite erea
(1850 square feet proposed; 7200 square feet required).
b. SECTION 18.28,050(1-b) - Minim~im building aite width
70 fiaet required; 20 feet proposed).
c. SECTION 18.08.4k0(3) - Requised frontaRe on a dedicated atreet.
(Lots proposed with no frontege on a public atreet)
d. SECTION 18.28.050(7-a) - Minimum diaXance between buildinRe
(15 f~eet praposed; 20 feet required).
e, SECTION 18.28.050(6-a) - Minimum front setback (3 and 8 feet proposed;
20 @,t, required) .
2, That since the Planning Commiesion has reco~¢nended disapproval of the
reclasaification of aubject property, the requested conditional use permit together
with waiverc cou13 not be exercised on the property within the exieting zoaing on
the property.
3. That Waiver 1-e, above mentioned was denied on the bssis that a reduction in
the front setback along Wagner Avenue and State College Boulevard to the extent requeated,
would not allow for adequate viaual screening of the garage doors and garage door openinge
along these two arterial highways.
4. That the propose2l use will ad~ersely affect the land uses adjoining and the growth
and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located,
5. That the size and shape of the aite proposed for the uae is adequate to allow the
full development of the pro~+osed use, but in a manner detrimental to the particular area
and to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the Citizena of the City of
Anaheim.
, ~ ~
NOW, TEiEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Meheim City Pienning Commiseion does heteby deny subJect
Petition for Conditlonal Use Permit on the baels of the afocementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is eigned and epproved by me this 31st day of August, 1972.
._ ` /
AN ANAHEIM CTTY P NING COMM fON ~
ATTEST:
`%~~K".~ ~%MG~e~
SECRETARY ANAHE C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 88•
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Krebe, , Sectetery• of the City Planning Commiseion of the City of Anaheim, do hereby cedify thet tr~e fore-
going resolution was paseed end edopted at e meetlng of the City Plenning Commiesion of the City oE Aneheim, held on
Auguat 21, 1972, at 7:30 ~ o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereoE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fareno, G&uer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMI5STONERS: None.
ADSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Herbst.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve heceunto set my hand this 31st dey of Auguet, 19'12.
RESOLOTION NO.PC72-225
~~/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
i
C2-D "2'