PC 75-60~.: _ j .. ~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. PC75-60
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2682 BE DENIED,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a
verified Petition for Uariance from ELIZABETH M. LYP.PS, et al, c/o Paul A.
McCracken, 9750 Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California 9Z804 (Owner); BARRY STF.PT,
Sun-Cal Investment Company, 1605 North Spurgeon, Suite B, Santa Ana, California
92701 (Agent) of certain real pruperty situated in the City of Anaheim, County
of Qrange, State of California, described as:
Tn~ South 5 acres of the North 10 acres of the West 20 acres of the North one-
half oi` the Northwest quarter of Section 18, in Township 4 South, Range 10 West,
in the Rancho Los Coyotes, as shown on a map recorded in book 51, Page 10 of
Miscellaneous Maps, records of said Orange County; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City
Hal? in the City of Anaheim on March 17, 1975, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said
public hearing having been duly given as required by !aw ard in accordance with
the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings
and recommendations in connection therewith; 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 detPrmine the following facts:
l. That the petitioner requests the following waivers from the Anaheim
Municipal Code, to convert an existing 64-unit apartment complex to condominiums:
a. SECT,ON 18.31.060.012 - Minimum building site area per dwellinq unit.
(4000 square feet required; 2700 square feet
existing)
b. SECTION 18.31.062.020 - Maximum site coveracie. (40% permitted; ~
existing)
c. SECTION 18.31.063.011 - Minimum front setback. (20-foot averaGe
required; 14.8-foot avera4e existing)
d. SECTION 18.31.063.030 - Minimum recreational-leisure area. (1200
square feet per dwelling unit rEquired;
850 square feet existing)
e. SECTION 18.31.065.011 - Minimum distance between buildinqs. (18,
23 and 32 feet required; 10, 11, 15 and 25
feet existing)
f. SECTION 18.31.065.020 - Minimum width of pedestrian accessways. (S
feet required; 4 to 6 feet existing)
g. SECTION 18.31.066.010 - Minimum off-street parkinq. (160 spaces
required; 96 spaces existing. 128 spaces
to be in fully-enclosed garages; none existing)
h. SECTION 18.31.066.030 - Required parkina space location. (~
dwelliny units are ~ot located within 1C0
feet of assigned enclosed parking spaces)
i, SECTION 18.31.~68 - Maximum fence heiqht in front setback. (42
inches permitted; 48 inches existing~
2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the pruperty involved or to the intended use of the property that
do not apply generally to the property or class or use in the saine vicinity and zone.
` ~ ~
3. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question.
4. That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the public
welfare o~ injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in
which the property is located.
5. That the requested waivers are excessive and, tnerefore, a finding of a
hardship is difficult to make, especially since approval would permit a sub-standard
condominium project,in complete disregard of the RM-40U0 Zone which sets forth
the minimum site development standards for condominium canversions, as adopted
by the Planning Commission and City Council.
6. That approval of the requested waivers to convert the apartment complex
to condaniniums would set an undesirable precedent for future requests of a similar
nature, in disregard of the adopted RM-4000 Zone requi.rements.
7. That, by the petitioner's own admission, the proposed conversiai of an
existing apartment conplex to condominiums was being requested for economical
reasons only.
8. That the parking provided in the subject apartment complex does not, in
any respect, relate to the needs of a homeowner, as compared to an apartment-
dweller; and the lack of adequate and appropriate parkiny will tend to destroy
the home ownership concept which the residents are entitled to.
9. That, although a waiver was previously granted by the City Council to allow
a highPr density than permitted in the R11-4000 Zone for conversion of an exis[ing
apartment complex to condominiums, said project was located in close proximity to
the downtorrn area and the Council indicated it would be appropriate to develop
higher densities in said area; and it is hEreby determined that the subject
project is not located in the downtown area, nor in close proximity thereto.
10. That the Planning Commission determined that purchasers of a sub-standard
condominium may tend to have disregard for a maintenance program as may be pro-
vided through a typical homeowners association.
11. That approximately two-thirds of the minimum requirements for recreational-
leisure area will be provided in the subject project and said requirements were
adopted for the benefit of the public health, safety and welfare of the residents
of a condominium-type dwelling.
12. That the Planning Canmission determined that the subject apartment con-
version to condominiums will be generally detrimental to the peace, health, safety
and general welfare of the owners/residenes thereof, and will substantially
disregard the minimum requirements, as set forth in the adopted RM-4000 Zon<,
which said owners/residents arG entitled to enjoy.
13. That no one indicated theii- presence at said public hearing in opposition,
and no correspondence was received in opposition to subject petition.
ENUIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
That the Director of Uevelopment Services has determined that the proposed
activity falls within the definition of Section 3.01, Class 1 of the City of
Anaheim Guidelines to the Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is,
therefore, categorically exempt from the Require~rants to file an EIR.
NOW, THEREFOItE, BE IT RESOL1iED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby deny subject Petition for Variance on the basis of the aforementioned
findings.
THE FOREGOING RESCLUTION is signed and approved by me this 17th day of March,
i975•
~~~
CHP.~KMAN Ph~ EMPORE
M1NAHE4M C4TY PIANNIN6 COMMlSSION
ATTEST;
~~ ~~ ~ ~~~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
' ~-
. ~ ~
S?ATC OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
~
I, Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary of :ne City Planning Commission of the City
of Anaheim, do herby certify the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at
a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on March
17, 1975, at 1:30 p.m., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER, JOHNSOt~, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR', FARANO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMIS~IONERS: HERBST
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 17th day of March, 1g75.
~~i~~ .arJ~ J~~ ~~P.s"`'~""~Z.~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0. PC75-60