PC 76-252., ~ ~ ~
RESCLUTIOP~ td0. PC76-252
A RESOLUTIOt7 OF THE AtJAIIEIM CITY PLANNIIIG COMM.ISSION
THAT PETI710N FOR VARIANCE N0. 2831 BF GRANTED, IN PART
GlNEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission d~id receive a verified
PetiCion ior Variance from JANE W. ItdCH, 908 West Bay Avenue, Newport Beach,
California 9.2660 (Owner) and DALE L. INGRAM, P. 0. Box 5922. E1 Monte, California
9173~F ~Agent) of c.ertain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of
Orange, State of California, described as:
TlIE SOU7HWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTNWEST QUARiEF OF TNE NORTHEAST QUAR7ER OF
5E~CTIOtJ 27, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTIi, RAP~GE 10 WEST, IN THE RANCHO SAN JUAN CAJON DE
SAIlTA ANA, CITY OF ANANEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER t1AP
RECORDED IN BOOK 51 PAC,E 10 OF 14~SCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUtITY
RECORDER OF SA10 .COUPlTY, LYINf EASTE.°.LY OF TfiE EASTERLY LItJE AtID THE NORTHERLY
APlD SOUTNERLY PROLOPlGATION THEREQF, OF THE LAPID DESCRIIiED IN A LEASE TO THE BAP~K
Of AMERICA, PIATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION RECORDED 1N BOOk 6226 FAGE
806, OFFICIAL REC~RDS.
EXCEPT ANY PORTI01l THEREOF LYING WITHII~ TItE LAND CONFIRMED TO JOHP! VINCENT
THOMPSON, ET UX., BY JUDGMEtJT RENDERED UNDER CASE IJO. 41958 AND PJO. 4ogto IN' T{iE
SUPERIOR COURT OF 7HE STATE OF CAU FORNIA A COPY OF WHICH WAS RECQRDED SEPTEMBER
1, 1943 IN BOOK 1208 PAGE 287 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
WIiEREAS, the City Planning Commissioc~ did schedule a public hearing at the
Cicy ~'all in the City of Anaheim on August 2, 19J6, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said
public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance wi[h 'the
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consSder
evidence for and agatnst said proposed variance and to investigate and make findFn9s
and recommendations in connection therevrith; said public hearing having been
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of DECember 6, 1976; and
~JHEREAS, said Commisslon, after due inspect:on, investigation and study mad•~
by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the fol9owi~g facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes the following waivers.from the Anaheim
Municipal Code, ~. construct a 139-unit apart~nt canplex:
(a) SE~?IC~h 18.34.~62•~13Z ' ~ij~imum floor area. 700 s uare feet
requ red; 550 square feet proposed
(b) SECT1~14 18.34.065•~11 - Minimum distar.c? between buildings.
2, That Waiver 1-a, above-mentioned, is herc:by granted for 20 dwelling
~nits on the basis that the Planning Commission has granted similar o-saivers
previously for the development of efficiency-type un~its when said units did not
exceed approximately 25$ of the total number of units, and wher. the floor area was
not less than approximately 450 square feet. ~
3. That Waiver 1-b, above-me~tioned, was deleted by revised plans.
4, That the petitioner sti~ulated to providing 25-foot tursiing radVi ~Fo~r
all parking and driveway areas. ~
5, 7hat the petttianer further stipulated to previding enclo~sed car~porRs
fn accordance with Code standards.
6. That there are excepCionat or extraordinary circumstances or conditiars
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use, as granted, of th~
property thax do not apply generally to the pr~perty or class of use in the same
victnity and zone. •
7, That the requested vartance, as granted, is necessary for the
preservation anJ enJoyment of a substantial property ri9ht possessed by other
prope~•ty in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in questton.
RESOLUTION N0. PC76-252
. ~ ~
8. That the requested v~riance, as granted, wc11 not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or inJu~ious to the propert'y or improvements in
such vicinity and zone in which thr, property is located. ,
9, That no one inc:icated their presence at said public hearing in
opposition; and that.no corresaondence was received in o~position to, the .subject
petition.
EIIVIR~NMEPITAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING: That the Anaheim City Planning Commission does
hcreb.y recommend to tiie City Council of the City of A~~aheim that a negative
declaration from the requirements to prepare an environmental impact report be
approved for the subject project,. pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act.
t40W, THEREFORE', 8E IT RESOLVED that the Anah~eim City Planning Commission
does hereby grant, in part, subJect Petition for Variance, upo~ tFie following
conditions w,?ch are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use
of the subject property in order ta preserve the safety and general welfare' of the
Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
1, That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of
Reclassification No. 76-77-7, now pending.
2, That subject property shall be developed suostantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1
through 10 (Revision No. 1); provided, however, that the enclosed carports and all
turnir.g radii for parking and drlve~aay areas shall be provided in accordance with
Code standards, as stipulated to by the petitioner. .
TIIE FOREGO,IIdG RESOLUTIOIJ is signed and approv y me this 6th day oF
December, 1976.
CHAIRNIAP~ AtdAHEIN ITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTESt:
~
SECRETAR , NANE~ IT PLAt~WING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORAIIGE )ss.
CITY OF AIJANEIM )
I, Patricia 6. Scanlan, Secretary of the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission,
do hereby certify that the foregoing resoiution was passed and adopted at a meeting
of the Anaheim City Planning Cortmission, held on December 6, 1976, at 1:30 p.m., by
the following vofe of the members thereof:
AYES: C011h11SSI0NER5: BARNES, FARAt~O, HERBST~ KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, JOFINSOtI
NOES: COMI115510NERS: hIONE
ABSEtJT: COMMISSIONERS: NO!VE
19 76
IN WITNESS WHER[OF, I have hereunto set my hand this 6th day of Dec~mber
~ ' ' z.«~La~/
SECRETARY, ANAIIEIM C17Y PLANFIIGG COMMISSION
..Z- RESOLUTION N0. PC76-252