PC 73-66Y RESOLtJ'~11 NO. PC73-66 ~_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANN[NG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2489 BE . GRANTED IN PART
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a vcrifed Pctition for Variance from
ANAHEIM HiLLS, INCORPORATED, attent.ion of James Barisic, 380 Anaheim Hills Road, Anaheim,
California 92806, Owner; RICHARD B. SMITH, 17802 Irvine Boulevard, Tustin, California
92680, Agent of certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange,
State of California, as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and referred to herein
as though set forth in full; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Analicim on
April 2, 1973 at 2:00 o'clock p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly ~iven as required by law and
in accurdance with t~e'provisions of the Maheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.68, to hear and consider evidence for and against said
proposed variance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewiUi; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation, and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due
consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts:
I. Thatthepetitionerrequests• •variances from'the~Anaheim Municipal Code as follows: ~
a. SECTION 18.26.050(1)(c) - Minimum lot width on cul-de-sac. (45 feet
required; 40 £eet proposed for one lot in
Tract No. 8220)
b. SECTION 18.26.050(3) - Maximum lot coverage. (35% permitted;
42% proposed)
c. SECTION 18.26.050(5)(a)(~ - Required setback between front oroperty line
and ~araKe. (6 to 10 feet or 25 feet required;
3 to 5 feet and 10 to 25 feet ptoposed)
d, SECTION 18.04.075 - Requ•irement that sint~le-familv residential
atructures rear on arterial highway~•
2. That the petition~r proposes to subdivide subject property into 229 RS-5000 zoned
lots in four tracts (Tentative Msps of Tract Nos. 8220, 8221, and 8222, and 8223), having six
lots siding on an arterial highway.
3. That the requested•Waivers 1-~, 1-b,'and 1-c,'above mentioned; are hereby denied on
the basis that subject property is lArge enough to develop a project of this nature without
these waivers, and the developer should re-design the tracts to eliminate the waivers.
4. That Waiver 1-d, above mentioned, ia hereby granCed on the basis that the grade
differential between the subject lots and the adjacent streets is such that potential con-
version to commercial use is unlikely.
5. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved or to the intended use of t::e property, as granted, that do not
apply generally to the property or clasa of use in the same vicinity and zone.
6. That the requested variance, as granted, is necessary for the preservation and en-
joyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and
zone, and ~enied'CO the propert•y in question.
7. That the requested variance, as granted, will not be materially detrimental to the
publ2c welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in
which the property is located.
, .. -1-
DEV-fi6•E
~
:
0
r
.
~ ~ ~.~. ~ ~,~. -' - F.-;. ~..~_R~ c c ~ ~r
~ ~'~~ ~ -ft. ,i .e.
: Title Insuran~~ ar~d Trust Company
000 NORTH ,uAIIV STREET •,P. O. DOX BB • SANTA ANA. CAIIFORNIA 92702 ~ TELE?HONC (7141 547•3333
.`~NAN~.ii~t HILLSy iNC, , , •ORDER N0, 5156~3:
~ti0 .~`:.4~1Eit•i iiItLS ROAD ' D10RTHRIDGE 4
?itd:~H_Yt•1, C/',;.iFp2~JIA 92II60 '~ YOUR ~IOe
AT i tJ : HORST SCHQP,V . .
It.i ~E5P0~~5~ T~ 7HE A60VF REFERENCED APPLICATION FOR A POLICY OF TITLE
IidSUP,P.NC=~ TITLE IMSURANCE Ai4D .~TRUST COt•1PANY H~REBY RE°ORTS 71-!AT IT
iS PR=?AR: D i0 ISSUc, OR Cr'~USc T.7 [iE iSSUcD~ AS OF THE DATE HEREOt=~ '
A CALiF^RNTA LA~JD TIiLE ASSOCIATI0~3 Si'ANDARD COVERAGE FORr1 POLICY OF
TTTLE IPISURAP~CE DcSCR.IBING THE LAP7D AND THE ESTAT~ 'OR INTEREST •
Tti~F£:N ticREIrlar=TcR Sc7 FORTFI, ,INSURTrJG AGAINSi" LOSS 1~lHICH t•1AY oE.
SUSTAINE~ kiY RcA.SON OF ANY DcFECT~ LIEN OR E~1CUt•t3RANCE PIOT SH01'!N OP.
R~F~P,R=D TO AS AN ~XCEPTION BELOti'~ OR f~OT ~XCLUDED FRni•1 COVE'P,AGE
PURSUA~IT TO iHE Pt:INTFD SCHEDULES~.CONUITIONS AND STIPULATIONS OF~
SAID POLICY FCRP•1, .. . ' . • ~. , ' ' ,
iHIS P,=POP.7, r1~~D ANY SUPPLEPIENTS OP, AP•IcA1Dhf°_MT5 THER~T~~ IS ISSUED .
.SOL=LY FOR TfiF_ PURPOS~ ~JF FACILI7ATING THE ISSUANCE OF A POLICY OF
'_?ITLF Ii~ISURANCc AND N0. LIABILITY IS' ASSUt•tEU HEREBY. IF IT IS
D~SIREU THAi' LIAt3ILITY t~E• ASSUMED PP.iQR TO TtiE ISSUA`{CE OF•.A POLTCY
Or= TIT! c INSURANCc~ A L'iNDE.°. OR COi~IMITI4~NT SHOULD [i~ REQU~STED>
~ATcO AS OF JANUARY 22~ 197~ AT 7:30 Ao~1, .
. ~ ~ . C ~ ~~.~_ . .
. ~~
~ CHARLES .Ca METTE ~ TITLE.,Gt•TICcR •
TH~ ESTA'fE OR INTERcST IN•7`H~ LAND NEREINAFTER DESCP.ZBED OP,
REFFRR~C 70 COVEP,~D BY THIS' REPORT IS: • '
A FEE., .
T•iTt~ TO SAID EST.4'iE JR INTEREST. AT 7H~ DATE FiEREOF i5 VFSTED ~I~~:
TE;CAC7 \'~h7iURE5 IPJCo, .A DELA4~lARr COP.PORA7ION, AS YO AV UNDIVIDED 1/2
I~•tTE?.c:ST AtJO Ar•iAIIEIht HILLS, INC,, A CALIF02NI.4 CORP~PRTIn~J, AS TO
T~iE .^,~li",IPJD~°„ • • . • ,
AT iti~ U.A7'E HE~FOF E:<CEPTIO~IS TO COVERAGE IP~ ADDI7SON TO THE
?P.IPf7;U EXCE?T1D~J5 ANU EXCLUSIONS CO~~'~1LMED; I~7- SAID ?OLICY F~F:M
l~lOULU GE A~ F~LL01'!S: p~`' ~ ~*~~
n, y ~ • s, .
~ Pa~°~~ y~~
L :,,
. r'.: ~y ~~~~~°~ ~u~ ,~ t~. ~ F i
. ~ ~4i>`'°~y ~•/ ~k1~,Eh~'~,~,~: it -• s
r ~" o~
~
d` p ~~,,
• ~~y~5i S'~`~~Z2~:
, ~
~' S15GOE PAGE 5 ~ .. . ..
D~SCRIPTION: ' . • • '
~AT PORTION OF SECT?ONS 6 AND 7, T01•lNStiIP 4 SOUTH, Rf1NGc 8 1dEST,
t;ilD OF SECTICNS 1 AND 12~ T01•1NSIiIP 4 SOUTH~ RANGE 9 ti•~EST~ IN THE
P..^,iJCHO SANi'IAGO D~ SANTA ANA~ CITY OF i1NAHEIi•1~ COU~ITY OF ORANGc~
SiA'f~ OF CALIFORNIA, I3EING ALSO A PORTION OF THE~LAND ALLOTED TO
PAULA PERALTA DE DOMINGUEZ~ AS DESCRIBED IN THE FINAL DECREE OF `
?i\P,TITION OF THE RANCHO SANTIAGO DE SAMTA ANA~ 1~JtiICH WAS EtJTERED •
ScYT_i•tuER 12, 1868 IfV (300K "B"~ PAGE 410 OF JUDGEh1ENT5 OF THE
DISiP.ICT COIJRT OF THE 17,TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT~ Ifd AND• FOR. LOS
AP•IG~L~S COUNTY, DESCRIf3ED AS FOLLOIJS: ,. • . ,'
I3EGI;d~1ING AT A POINT IN THAT CEP,TAIN COUP.SG SNJIJN AS "Pi 75° 02~ ' '
2u" E 2~~264054 FEET" I,~•THE BOUNDARY OF A MAP FI.LED IN BOOY. 41
PAGE ~:D OF RECORD OF SURVEYS ON FILE IN THE OFFICF..OF THE COUDlTY
REG02DER OF SA,ID ORANGE COUNTY; SAID POINT BEI~G DIS7ANT NORTH
75° 02' 26" EAST 376.72 FE~'!' ~ROh1. THE 1~(FSTEFLY TERMJNUS OF SAID
COURSF; THEPJCE: ALOtVG SAID CQURSE AND SAFD (iOUNDARY .THE FOLLOWING.
. THRE£ COURSES:• NORiH'75° 02~ 26'T EAST 1,II87.92 FE~T, SOUTH 69°
Si' S7" EAST 149a42 FEE7, SOUTH 40°• 19' 10" EAST 873.83 FE~T;
TH-PICE LEAVITaG SAID'SOUNDARY SOU7H 18° 38' 10" EAST 224.15 FE[T;
TI-IENCE SOUTH 00° 52' 25`i 1~lES? 45.00 FEET TO A POINl' IN A NON-
7i-,t~1G~iVT CURVc C0~ICAVE SOUTHEASTEP.LY HAVINv A RADIUS OF 500.00
FEET~ A RADIAL• TO SAID ~E~IT1Z BEA4S NORTN 00° 52' 25'•' EAST;~ THEVCc
SOUTH~4=STERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 7HROUGH A CENTRAL'ANGLE OF 15'
28' S5" A DISTANCc OF 135011 FEET; Th1°_NCE TANGENT TO SAID~:CURVE
SOUTH 75° 23' 27" 41c5"f 2IIG>44 FEET TO A TANGEN7 CURVE CONCAVE
NpR3Hb~lE57FRLY N.4VING A RADIUS OF 600,00 FEET; TH~NCE SOUTIiSJcSTERLY
F.!CraG SAID CURVE 7HROUGH A~CEMTRAL ANGLE OF 06° 29' S2" A DISTANCE.
OP 6II.04 FEcT; THENCE TANGENT 70 SAID CURVF SOUTii 81° 53~ 19~~
4~lEST 220a61 FEET TO A TAYGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY HAVING
A RADIUS OF 600000 FEcT; THci~C: SOU7H~JcSTERLY ALONG' SAID CURVE TIiROUGH
q CE~2TRAL ~NGLE OF ~2° 4~ ~~:'~ A DI STr~+NCE OF 342. i"o FccT;
THE~dCc TANGENT TO SAID CURVE SOU7H 49° 12~ 46" WEST lOlo16 FEET
TO A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTH19cS7ERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 1,520.00
FEET; THENCE SOUTHIJESTERLY ANO NORTHlJE57ERLY.ALONG S.aID CURVE ' .
TNP,OUGI-1 A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 57° 32' 47" /`•. DISTANCE"OF 1,526.65 •
F'c~T; THENCE 7AMG~NT TQ SAID CURVE NORTH 73° 14~ 27'r.4~~5'r
145.27 FEFT TO A TANGENT CURVE•CONCAVE SOUTH:•IESTERLY HAVING A ~.
RADIUS OF 920.OD F~LT; THE~CE PJORTH4~~STERLY ALOf4G SAID CURVE
TfiROUGH A CEIJ7RAL AiVGLE OF I1° 02'• 04" A DI57ANCc 'OF; 177.1o FccT;
THENCE TANGENT TO SAID GURVE NORTH 84° 15' 31" WEST 496.63 FEET
70 A TANGcNT CUP,VE COVCAVE SOUTHERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 3U0.00
FGET; THGPJCE :~ESTEP.LY ALONG SAID CURVE THhOUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE
OF 10° OD' 44" A DISTANCE OF 139.8G FEtT; 7HENCE ALONG A RADIAL
LirtE OF SAID CURVE NOR'1'H 04° 1?' 15" ~1JEST iG2, 10 FE~T; TIIENCE
NORTN 32° 03' 13" EAST 63.12 F°ET; THENC~ NORTH 59° 22~ 27'~ EAST
G2o7~ PEET; TI-IENCc NORTH 6G° 22' 02" EAST 126010 FEET; TIi~NCc
NOF;Tti G2° 54~ 55" EAST 112.00 FEE7 TO A TAtJGE~lT CURVE CONCAVF
NORTi14'7ESTcRLY fiAVIPJG A RADIUS OF 465.00 FEET; TFI~NCE ~lORTHEASTERLY
ALOt~G SAID CURVE THROUGH A CEPJ7P.AL APJGL~ OF 2II° 49' 1G" A DISTANCE
OF 233091 FE~T; TMENCE TA~GENT TO SAID CURVE NORTH 34° 05' 39"
- rf8~.7p:,,
EAST G3 0 45 ,ti.~'^ ~M „' ~~
' ~; thPR 1313 ~~
~~: .:;~~~ '°:J v~41~~Ps~~:l~~u. ~.~~ __...
co?ITIi•IU~~ - ~, ~~;~c~~,„"~ <<~
\~: ~~ ~,~,•,;~~' ,..;'~
• FE=T TO A TA~G~~T CURV' CONCAVF SOUTH~ASTERLY HA G A P,ADIUS
~ p~ 155,00 Fc°T; T11=NC~ORTH~ASTERLY ALOi~G SAID ~VE THROUGH
~. A CEPdTF.AL AMGLL 0~ .'>1° 29' 25" A DISTA~CF OF 85•.?9 FEET;,THcNCE
AL7`1G A RADIAL OF SAID CURb'c TvORTH 24° 24t 56" 1•lEST 11.93 FEET~~
Ti?~t~IC:: NORTH 62° .>2' S6" ~AS7 E6,77 F'tET; TH£t•!CE `JORTH 61° 55'
5~~". EP~ST 68<AO FE=T; 7HcNC°_ ~•JO?TN 23° 57' 39" 1~l:-:ST 121.64 FFCT;
• 7H~NC£ ~;ORTH 66° 02' 21" EAST 1~2>94 FEET TO A TANGENT CURVE
C~r~;C~V~ SOUTH~aSTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 250.o0.FEET; THEPJCE
.~l•~RTHEASTE°LY ALOVG SAID CURVE TNRJUGH A C~NTRAL ANGLE OF 20° ,
~;G' 3C" A DISTANCE OF 89.92 FEET; THE~CE ALONG A P.ADIAL OF +
SI~ID CURVE ia'JRTH 03° 21' 09", ~tiEST 121.57 F'c=3 TO TH~ POINT OF
3~GLNDIING•. ~ • •
~
• .. ~ti.
' ~~5g : s 9 io; {~ . .
~~ ~~, ~ '~, , ' .
3 '
. ~ ~,h@R 197 ~, ~ . .
. . ~ ~ ~~~;.~ ~~ ~ ~ VAftIAi~CE f~0. ~~~3~
~o~~,,. ~,
. r , p;V1F.tc~~ ^~ .
~ ~
9. That a letter was received from the City of Orange expressing concern over certain
aspec"_s of the proposed development.
9. That three persons, representing six persons in the audience, appeaxed in opposition.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
That the Planning Commission, in connection with Environmental ImpacC Report No. 90, has
reviewed the findings of the Environmental Impact Review Couimittee, .and racommends to the
City Council that Environmental Impact Report No. 90 be accepted as th~ Council's Environ-
mental Impact Statement.
NOW, THER.EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 9naheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant in part subfect ?etition for Variance, upon the following conditiona which are hereby
found to be a necessary prerequisite to the praposed use of the subject pro~erty in order to
preserve the saiety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City o€ Anaheim:
(1) That this variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclasaification No.
71-72-44 and TenCative MsQ of Tract Nos. 8220, 8221, 8222, and 8223.
(2) That final specff~c plans shall be submitted and approved in accordance with pro-
visions of the PC, PLANNED COMMUNITY, ZONE prior ta the approval of the final tracC maps.
THE FOREGOING R'ESdLUTYON is si.gned and approved by me this 12th day of April,/1973.
ATTEST: //
~/
SECRETARY PRO TEM ANAHEIM Y PLANNING COMMISSZON
STATE OF CALIrORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) es.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
ION
I, AleCha Burgess~ Secretary of the City Planning Commiasion of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting uf the
City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on April 2, 1973, at 2:00 o'clock
p.zt., by the fo7.].owing vote of the members thereof:
AYES; COI~AIISSIONERS: ALLRED, GAUER, HERBST, KAYWOOD, ROWL.II~D.
NOES; C~MMISSIONERS: SEYPIOUR.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 12th day of April, '1973.
~~~
SECRETARY PRO TEM ANAHEIM CITY P I23G COMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0. PC73-66 -Z'