PC 74-228RLSOLI~)N NO. PC74-228 ~_~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY FLANNING COMblISSION OF THE CI'fY OF ANAIIGIM
7'HAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 261+0 6E GRANTED I N PART
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commissian of the City of Anahcim did reccive a vcrified Pctition for Variancc from
JOSEPH A. MARTINEZ, 815 East Barkley Avenue, Orange, California 92667 (Owner) of certain
real property si:uated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California,
described as Beginning at a point on the South line of the West half of the Southeast
quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 15, in Township 4 South, Range 11 blest, in the
Rancho Los Coyotes, C~ty of Anaheim, as shown on a map thereof recorded in book 5~, Page il,
Miscellaneous Maps, records of said Orange County, 378.51 feet West of the Southeast corner
thereof and running thence West 82.69 feet along the South line of said West half; thence
North parallel to the lJest line of the said West half 535.72 feet to a point on the Southerly
line of the right of way of the Pacific Electric Railroad; thence Southeasterly along said
right of way line 103.16 feet; thence South parallel to the West line of the said West half
4?3.60 feet to the point of beginning; and
1VHEREAS, tlic City Planning Commission did hold a public hcaring ac thc City 1-lall in thc City o( Analicim or~
Novembe r 25 , 1974 ~ at 2;00 o'clock p.m., notice of said public hcaring having bcen duly givcn as rcquired by law and
in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.68, to hear and consider cvidence for and against said
proposed variance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewiUi; and
WHGREAS, said Commission, after duc inspection, investigation, and study made by itsclf and in its bclialf, and after duc
consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does fnd and determine the following facts:
1. That the petitioncr requcsts the fo 1 1 ow i ng va r i ances f rom the Anahe i m Mun i ~ i pa 1 Code , to
construct an 18-unit, two-story apartment complex:
a, SECTION 18.28.050(5)~b) - Maximum buildinct heiaht within 150 feet of sinqle-
family zones. (1 stor permitted; 2 stories praposed)
b, SECTION 18.28.050(6)(a)(2-B) - Minimum front yard setback. (20-foot average
required; less than 20-foot average proposed)
c. SECTION 18.28.050(6)(b)(2)~ - Minimum side yard setback. ( feet and 26 feet
required; 8 feet and 21 feet proposed)
d. SECTION 18.28.050(7)(d) - Minimum width of pedestrian accessway. (8 feet
required; 4 feet proposed)
e. SECTION 18.28.05G(11) - Required solid masonry wall adiacent to the R-A Zone.
(6-foo: wall required; none proposed)
f. SECTION 18.32.050(4-a) - Required recreational-leisure area. (200 square feet
per dwelling unit required; less than 200 square feet
proposed)
2, That Waiver 1-a, above-mentioned, is hereby granted on the basis of the unusual
shape and size of the subject property, and the Planning Commission has granted similar
waivers in the past.
3, That the petitioner withdrew the request for Waivers 1-b, I-d, 1-e and I-f, above-
mentioned, since revised plans were s:ibmitted eiiminating same.
4. That Waiver 1-c, above-mentioned, is hereby granted on the basis that the request
is minimal due to the shape and size of subject property.
5. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved or to the intended use, as granted, of the property that do not
apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
6, ThaY the requested variance, as granted, is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property ir~ the same vicinity
and zone, and denied to the property in question.
7, That the requested variance, as granted, wili not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to :he property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in
which the property is located. -~- RESOLUTION N0. PC74-228
DEV-66•t
`8. That two {2) persdlTs indicated their presence at s~ public hearing in opposition,
and n~ :~rrespondence was received in opposition to subject petition.
ENVIRONME~TAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
That the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the subject p:oject be
exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact ReporC pursuant to the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that tne Anaheim Lity Planning Commissio~ does hereby
grant in part subject PetiCion for Uariance, upon the following conditions which are
hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in
order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
l. Tha*. this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification No.
7~-75-15, now pending.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans
and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exh?bit Nos. 1 through 4
(Revision Nu. 1).
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signe~ and approved by me this 25th ay of November, 1j74.
/ ~
-~~
`.~C IRMAN 'A M TY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
- ~~Glt-~CGr-v
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Pataic+a B. Scanlan, Secretary af thc City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim,
do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the
City Plan~ing Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on November 25, 1974, at 2:00 o'clock
P.M., by :he following vote of the members thereof;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER, JOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS; FARANO
IN WITNE55 WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 25~h day of November, 1971~.
~~~,~~~...~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
_2_ RESOLUTIOiJ N0. CP74-228