PC 81-59P,ESOIUTIQ>I ~IO. PC u1-5'?
!'+ R~SOLUTIOt! OF TIiE A~1,4HEIH CITY PLANIIIIdS C~!1~11~S1~~1
THAT Pi=TIT10~; FnR vnr~in~JCE N0. ;19, f3[ r,Rn~ll'E~
blIfEREFlS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission d1d receive a verified
Petition f~r Variance from KErJT LA"!D CO'iPl;IJY, Post Office Box 1~55p, Irvine,
California 92713, owner, and Jl1i1CS E. C,;053Y Etd;INF_ERS, iC7r1 Eask Deer llvenue, Suite
100, Santa Ana, California ~27~5, ag~:nt, of ~e~~~~n real propPrty situated in the
City of Anaheim, County of Qran9e, State of California described ~5:
Those portions of Lots 1 and 2 of Tract Ilo. F'F,~~ in the City of
Ananeim, County of Oranoe, State of California, as shoam on a-~a~
recorded in hool; 2J, page 18 of Miscellaneous Maps, in ~he office
of the County Recorder of said County, lyina Southroesterly,
Seutherly and Southeasterly of the land descrthed in che: Ffnal
Order of Cordemnation Cast 'Jo, 16u~1~, a certified copy of ~,h1ch
~•~as recorded October i4, 1~7~, in bool: ~h;i, page (i~, Official
Records.
WHEREAS, tfie Citv Planning Commission did hold a puhlic hearing at the Civtc
Cen2er in the City of Anaheim on ~•larch .'.3, 1~~1, at 1:3~ p,~,~ notice of safd public
hearing having been duly given as required ?,y ia~•i and in accordance w.ith the
P~ovisions of the /lnaheim Nunicipal Code, r;hanter 1"„ ~3, te hear and consider
evidence `or and against said proposer~ vari~nce ,~nd to investi~ate and na~:e find~nqs
and recomnendations in connec[ion therev~ith; and ~
WNEREAS, said Comnission, after due inspection, inv~sti4ation and study made
by itsel` and i~ its behalf, and after due consideration of a11 evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determine t!;c followinn facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes o-~aivers of the follot•~fna to estab)fsh a
164-Iot, 162-unit R.M-300~~(SC) (F,esidential, 'lultiple-Familv ~,-,,.,f,- ~___~
Uv~~rlay) condomini~~~, ,~,~+r -
_ ,._..,_,c~~. _ ..~, ~::oi
(a) SECTIOhJ 18,j1,0~;2,,~~2 _ Haximum structural height.
1-story permitted ~•~ithin 7~'? feet
o~si~i~)e-family resi~i~~ntial zoninq:
.2-story proposed at a ciinimum of ?0 feet)
(b) SF.CTIOtJ 1~.31.063.024 - Minimw7 la~dscaped sethack.
Z~ eet rer~ulred adjacent to
single-f2mily residentlal 7onfng;
~ ' ~.___~t nroposed)
2. That the above-mentior~ed waiver (a) is herehy qranted on the ba,is that
the petitioner demonstrated that ~ hardsnin exists due to the hilly terraln and
topography ~f subject property which r~duces the imE:aci of 2-stnry buildin~s.
the request isTminimal at~plyin~nt~~~~)y~y,p~~~ (t'),is herFhy qrante~f on the basis Lhat
~4~ lots anrl d~ni~il ~.,~ni~lr+ dP~ri~,s
Pf 31->9
subjeet property of a privilepe enjoyed i;y pro~erties ~lith similar nrade and
topograhhie differentials adj~cent to singie-famiiy re~idential zoning.
ft. That thrrc are exception~l or extranrdinary circ~i~stanc~s or eonditions
appl icahle to the pro~erty ir.volved or te the intendecl use o` thc~ property tliat do
not apply generally to the nroperty ~r class of use in *_he san~~ vicir,ity and zone.
S. That the requested variance is necessarv f~r the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possesse~lf~y ~tl;er ~roperty in the same
vieinity and zone, an:l denied tn the property in ~t~~e~ti~n.
G. That tlie requested variance ~•iill no~ he materially detrimental to the
public ~•rc)fare or injurious tr~ the ~roperty nr inprovements 1n such vicinity and -r.one
in which the property is locateJ.
7. That no cne indicated th~ir preser.ce at said puhlic hearing in
opposition; and that no correspondence ~~as received in opposltion to the subject
petition.
Et1VIRON~1EfJTP,L IPIPFlCT FIr~DIr~G: That after considerin9 Environmental Impact
Feport No. 2E1 for the residen;ial and commercial development in the Bauer Ra~ch
Planned Community ~nd reviewing evidence, both written and oral, presented to
supplenent Draft EIR tJo. 24i, the Anaheim City Planning Commission finds that Draft
EIR No. 21F1 is in compliance a~Ith the California Envircmment:~l Quality .Act and U~ith
thc City and State EI° Guidcline;; that Dra`t CI~~ tlo.~'~1 i~lentifies tne Foliowing
signirieant im~+acts ~~~hici said nroject could have on th~ environment:
a. Extensive grading of the land ~~iill rnodify the tonoqran`~y, change the
drainage and eliminatr or ~isplace flora and f~;~na in tne project area;
b, l~e~iicular traffic will qenerate congestion, noise and air pollution in the
area;
c. The increase in nonula[ion ~rill nl:~c~ ~n ~~i~iir~~~al hur~~~ ~~ rti~ nr,,,~~
Unified School District in ar~ area ~:~here schools are npernT.inR near or ab~ve
capacity;
d, The nroject wili have a groarth-inducin~ impact hv stimularina residentia?
and commercial development in prasently undevalo~e~i areas;
ho~•;ever, such enrironmental impacts t~~ill he mitigated hy connliance a~ith City codes,
policies and procedures; the pr~~ject t~ill i~ring substantial soc.ial ;nd econ~mic
benefits to the city and its residents hy providing emnloyment and hiqh quality
resldential facilities, and these economic and social considerations make it
infeasi~le to eliminate the significant env;ronmental ir~pacts or implement the
pro.ject alternativFS identified in the EIR; tlierrfore, the Piannfna Commission does
hereb~ certify Environm~ntal Impact Report No. 7.!it and adopts the ahove-statement of
overriJi~~ considerations.
tJObi, THER[FOfiE, BE IT kES01_VED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does „ereby grant subject Petition for Variance, unon the follo~iing conditions b!I'!ICII
are hereby f~und to he a necessarv prereGui>it~~ to t.h~ ~ro~~sc~! ~is~ hf the subiect
-Z- PC31-"°
property in n,-cler Co preserv~ the safety -~nd ~~~~r~) ~.~~~fare o:` thc Citizens of the
City of E~nal~cim;
~• Th~t this variancr. Es granted suhject to .-3~proval of the tentati~ie .Maps
of Tra~t IJos. 10953 and 10934.
2. That prior to issuance of';uiiding permits, R~1-;~Cn(g~) Zoning shall he
finali~ed or sut;ject pr~Perty.
3. That suhject property shall he developrd suhstantially in accor~!ance
wlth plans and specifications on file ~::ith the City o` Anaheim mar~~d Exhibit 1ios. 1
through 7.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLV[D that ttie Anaheim City Planning Cor~mission d~es herehy
find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicate:! upon
applicant's compliance ~•;ith each and all of the cunditions hereinabc~ve set forth.
Shouid any such condition, or a mi part therrnf, he decl-3rPd inval~d or un~nforeeaole
by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolutior.,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null ano' void.
THE FOP,Er,O~,yG RFSOLUTIO!; is signed and aporoved hy r~c thts ?3rd day of
March, 1981.
~ ,
CHA IR!~A~1,J qt~qHE I"+, C/ITY PLAN~I'I ~I~
ATT[ST: Crn~~~I S5 i~ra
~ r~~ a •~~~,
SECRCU~RY, A~1AHElM CIfY PLA~lNI'JG COHMISSI~'!
ST/1TE OF CAL i FORt! IA )
~OUtdTY OF ORA'!(;E ) ss.
CITY OF ANAkEI!t )
~, Edith L. Harri;, SecreCa ry of th~ Anaheir~ City Pi~~nning Commission, do
hereby certify that the foreg~ing resciution ~.~as passed and acionted at a meeting of
the Anaheim CiCy Planning Corrmission held on Narch 23, i~ui, by the `ollowin~ vote of
the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIOYERS: BAR~lES, 60UAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HEREST, I;I~1G, TQLP.^
NOES: CO~MMISSIO~~ERS: "lONE
AB5ENT: COHMISSIOVERS: 'lOtJE
IPl WITNESS 4/HEREOF, I have hercunto set my hand `his 23rd day of March,
1981.
`~'~=~ ,~° ~~ ~
SFf,RETARY, A~JANE i M C I TY PLF.N~! I PIG C0~111 I SS I ON
-3- PCSt-5~