PC 77-197RESOLUTION N0. PC77-197
A RESOLUTION Of TNE AtJAHEiM CITY PLANNING COIiMISSION
Tf1A7 PETITION FOR VARIANCE hl0. 2g37 ~E DENIED
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commissicn did receive a verified
Petttion for Variance from l•fILLIAH M. AtID a[TTY JO CLOW, 2 Rue Valbonne, t7ewport
Deach, California ?2Gu'J, owners of certain real property situa[ed i~ the City of
An~heim, County of Orange, State of California, described as:
The North 93 feet of the South 314.74 feet, measured from the
centerline af [he strect, of [he Nest 2fi2 f~ct, measured from the
centerline of the s[reet, of Lot 9 of Orangewood Tract, as per map
recorded in Uook 7, page 42 of 1liscellaneous Maps, records of
Orange County, California; an~
tJHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did schedule a public hearing at the
City Hall in the Lity of Anaheim on May 23, 1977, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public
hearing having been duly given as requir<~d by law anJ in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.0;, to hear and co~sider
evi~ence for and against said proposed variance and to investiya[e and make findings
and recomn~endations in connection therewith; said public hearing havlny been
continued to the Plan~iny Conmission rneeting of Septenbcr 12, 1977; and
tJf1EREA5, said Conmission, after duc inspection, investigation and study mad~e
by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offerecl at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts:
1. That the pe[itioner proposes a waiver of the following to construet a
10-unit apartment complex:
5[CTION 13.31~.062.01'~ - Flaxinum tuilding heic~ht.
2. Tha[ the above-mentioned waiver is hereby denied on the basis that [he
petitioner submittcd revised plans and withdrew his request for the afore-mentioned
waiver, and that the Planning Commission grar~_ed a I~wer density, multiple-family
resiJential zonc (RM-40~0) ttian was originally proposed (Rt9-1200).
3, That there are no exceptional or extraord3nary circumstances or
conditic~ns applicable to tl~e property involveJ or to the intended use of [he property
that do not apply yenerally to the property or class of use in the same vicinicy and
zone.
4, Thae tlie requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial prooerty right possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone, znd denied to the proper[y in question.
5, That thc requested variance will be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is located.
6. That 53 persons indicated their presence ai said public hearing on
September 12, 1377; 10 on June 2Q, 1977, and 55 on May 2~, 1977, in opposition; that
17 letrers were received in opposition and copies of petitions containing
approximately lEi2 signatures and 293 signatures were submitted in oppositi~n to
subject request.
PC77-197
ENVIRONMEIJTAL IMPACT FII~DlNG: That the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
review~d the subject proposal to reclassify ttie zoning from RS-A-43,000
(Residentiat/Agricultural) [o Rt1-4000 (Residential, Mu~tiple-Family) on approximately
0.5 acre, having a frontaye of approximately 9S feet on the eas[ side of Haster
Street, having a maximum depth of approximately 232 feet, and being located
approximately 173 feet south of tfie cenCerline of Wilken ~lay; and does hereby approve
the I~egative Uetiaration from tiie requirement to prepare an environmental impact
report on the basis that there woul~i be no significant i~dividual or cumulative
adverse environroental impact due to the approval of this Negative Declaration since
the Anaheim General Plan desiynates the subject propcrty for medium-density
residential land uses conunensurate with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental
im~acts are involved in the proposal; tha[ thc Ini:ial Study submitted by the
petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumula[ive adverse environm~n[al
impacts; and that the Negative Gzc~~ration substantiatiny the foregoino findin9s is
on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Departmen[.
I~OIJ, THEREFORE, HC IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Cit>~ Plan~ing Commission
does hereby deny subject Petition for Variance on the basis of the aforementioned
findings.
TfiE FOREGOIt~G RESOLUTIO~! is signed and approved by me this 12th day of
Septe~iber, ty%7.
~ ~ /'
CHAIRNJIN, Al1AFIEIM CITY PLAN~ItIG COMIII~SIOtJ
AiTEST
~e(/.l•u- ~ MA '~^ '-.~
SECRETARY, A~iANEIN ITY LAIINII7G COt;11155101~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORAWGE ) ss.
CITY OF AI~AHEIIi )
1, Edith L. Harris., Secretary of [he Anaheim City Planning Commission, do
hereby certify that the foreguinc resolution was passed and adopted a[ a meeting of
the Anaheim Ci[y Pl~:r.niny Commission hcld on September 12, 1477, at 1:30 p.m., by the
following vote of t::,: riemoers thereof:
AYES: COMHISSIOPIERS: DAVID~ HER85T, JOIi~ISON, KING, TOLAR
NOES: COM1115510NER5: UARtJES
ABSEtlT: GOMMISSIOIJERS: tJ01![
ABSTAItJ: C011Nl5510NER5: LIIdN
II~ WITt~E55 WHEREOf, I have hercunto set my hand ttiis 12[h day of September,
1977•
~7 ~ ~ ~t-d'c'v'-'.a.
SECRCTARY, AtJAHEll1 CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-2- PG77-t97