PC 73-74. _. ----,~-
1 .~
RESOLU'1~( N0. PC73-74
A RESOLUT[ON OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OP THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0.2493 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Maheim did receive a verified Petition for Variance from
MABEL H. AND HOWARD A. WEST, 759 North Resh Street, Anaheim, California 928U5, Owners;
JOSEPH C. STEYHENSON, 822 West Jede Way, Anaheim, California 92805, Agent of, certain
real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California,
described as The East 225 feet, saf.d 225 feet being measured from the center of North
Citron Street of that portion of Lot 39 of Anaheim Extension, as per map of survey
made by t~~illiam Hamel and filed in the office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles
County, California, a copy of which,is shown in boak 3, pages 162, 163 and 164, en-
titled "Los Angeles Cov.nty Maps", on file in the office of the County Recorder of
Orange County, described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot
39, and running thence No•cthwesterly along the Northeasterly line of said lot, 97.8 .
feet to the Southeast corner of the land described in the deed to L. Dale Vilott and
wife, recorded June 18, 1947, in book 1529, page 320, Official Records, in the office
of the County Recorder of said Orange County; thence Southwesterly along the South-
easterly line of said land, 594.84 feet to the Southwest corner of said land; thence
Southeasterly along the Southeasterly extension of the Southwesterly line of said land,
97:80 feet to the Southeasterly line of said Lot 39; thence Northeasterly along the
Southeasterly line of said lot, 594.87 feet to the point of beginning. EXCEPTING
THEREFROM that portion included in the street along the Northeasterly line, as shown
on said map; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hcaring at the City Hall in lhe City of Anaheim on
April 16, 1973, at 2:00 o'clock p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and
in accordance with the provisions ot the Maheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.68, to hear and consider cvidence for and against said
proposed variance and to investigate and makc findings and recommendations in connection thercwith; and
WHCREAS, said Commission, aPtcr due inspection, investigation, nnd study made by itself and ?n its behalf, and after due
consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine thc following facts:
1. That the petitioner requests • variancea from the Anaheim Municipal Code as followe:
a. SECTION 18.32.050(3) - Maximum lot coverage. (55% permitted; 58.8%
proposed) '
b. SECTION 18.28.U50(6)(b)2 - Minimum required setbacks. (15 feet required;
7 feet propoaed) 8 feet required; 6.8 feet pro-
" posed) (]1 ~eet required; 7 feet proposed) LS
fe .eC required; 5.8 feet proposed)
c. SECTION 18.28.050(])(a) - Minimum distance between buildinRS. (34 'feet
required; 27 feet proposed) (20 feet required;
'19.8 feet proposed)
d. SECTION 18,28.050(7)(d)_ - Minimum width of pedeatrian passaRewav. (8 feet
required; 6 feet proposed)
e. SECTION 18.28.050(10)(a~ - Minimum number of parking spaces. (15 sQe_ces re-
quired; 14 soaces proposed)
2, That the petitioner proposes a ten-unit one-story aparCment development.
3. T.hat the Planning Commisaion has recommended disapproval of the reclassification
of the property, therefore, development of the property could noL• be accomplished under
the exiating zone within the waivers requested.
Vl-D
PEV-66•E
r
. ...
4. That there are na ~eptional or extraordinary circ~tences or conditiona appli-
cabl.e 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,
x~
5. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservatian and enjoyment of
a substantial property right possesaed by other property in the same vicinity and,zone,
and denied to the property in question.
6. 3hat the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the progerty or improvements in such viciniCy and zone in which the prop-
erCy is Zocated.
7. That seven persons appeared representing twelve persons present in the Council
Chamber, all in opposition,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
That the Planning Commissiun, in connection with an Exemption Declaration Status request,
finds and determines that the proposal would have a significant environmental i~pact,
therefore, the petitioner should file an Environmental Impact Report, and recommends to
the City Council that an Environmental Impact StatemenC is necessary,
NOW, THEKEFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny subject Petitlon for
Variance on the basis of the aforementioned finds.
THE FOREGOING RESOLLTfION is signed and appraved by me this 26th day of April, 1973.
/
./
C AI ~AF ~ M CI Y-~' G COM ION
ATTEST:
C%2~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Planning Cemmission of the City o[M~heim, do hereby certif'y that thc
foregoing resolution was passed nnd adopted at a mceting of the City Planning Commiuion of the City of Maheim, held on
April 16, 1973, at 2:00 o'clock p.m., by the followingvote of the members thereo[:
AYES: ~OMMISSIONBRS: FARANO, GAUER~ HERBST, KAYWOOD, ROWLAND, SGYMOUR.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: C4MMISSIONERS: ALLRED.
IN WITNESS WEiEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 26th day o f April, 1973.
RESOLUTION N0. PC73-74
VZ_p
~~v~v/~~~~
SECRETARY ANAIiE1M CITY PLANNING COMMISS[ON
-2- .,