PC 83-70RESOLUTION NO. PC83-70
A RESOLUTION OF T~E ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR VARIAfICE N0. 3328 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Ylanning Commission did receive a verif.ied
Petitior, for Variance from PAUL T. SALAZ'A, 2950 Airway, U-3, Costa Mesa,
California 92626, owner, and STATE-WIDE DEVELOPERS, INC., 5182 Katella Avenue,
Suite 106, Los Alamitos, California, agent of certain real property situated
in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as:
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER AND THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE NORTH~AST QOARTER OF SECTION 22, TOWNSHIP 4
SOUTH~ RANGE 11 WEST IN THE RANCHO LOS COYOTES, AS SHOWN ON A
MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 11 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS~
RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing aC
the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on March 21, 1983, at 1:30 p.m.,
notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in
accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chzpter 18.03,
to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed variance and to
investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith;
said public hearing having been continued to the Planning Commission meeting
of April 4, 1983 and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, inver*_igation 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 determine the
following facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes waivers of the following to
construct a 388-unit affordable condominium conplex:
(A) SECTION 18.31.OG1.012 - Minimum lot area per dwellina unit.
(3000 sq, ft. required; 2087 sq, ft.
proposed)
(B) SECTION 18.31.062.020 - Maximum site covera e.
(C) SECTZONS 18.31.062.0322 - Minimum floor area.
and 18.31.062.0323 (750 sq. ft. for 1-bedroom units
and 950 sq. ft. for 2-bedroom units
required; 700, 828 & 900 sq. ft.
proposed)
(n) SECTION 18.31.063.031 - Minimum recreational-leisure area.
(1000 sq. ft, per unit required;
738 sq. ft. proposed)
~0566I
PC83-70
~s~<, ,, . , ..
2. That the proposed variance is hereby denied on the basis that the
petitioner did not demonstrate that hardships exist due to the size, shape,
location, topography or surroundings of siabject property; that the proposal
does not comoly with the City Council's Policy establishing a maximum 258
density bonus for projects including affordable units; and that the units were
to be offered as affordable rental uni.ts for the first three to five years
rather than being sold as condominiums.
3. That subsequent to the advertisement of Conditional Use Permit
?_427 with waivers of code requirements, and following further review of the
City's Zoning Code by the City Attorney's Office; it was determined that this
project should be considered through the variance process rather than tne
conditional use permit process and, therefore, Conditional Use Permit No. 2427
was kiLhdrawn by motion of the Planning CommiUsion and replaced with this
subject Variance No. 3328.
4. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the
property that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the
same vicinity and zone.
5. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation
and enj~yment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in
the sartie vic`_n'_ty and zone, and denied to L•he properL-y in question.
6. That the 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.
7. That no one indicated their presence at said public hearing in
opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to subject
petition.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDING: Environmental Impact Report No. 247
was previously certified by the City Council on December 8, 1981, in
conjuncvion with General Plan Amendment No. 166. The .EIR considered the
maximum permissible density under the medium density r.esidential land use
desiynation (36 d.u./ac.) established by the GPA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning
Commission does hereby deny subject Petition for Variance on the basis of the
aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this April 4,
1983.
~~~ .~~
~i~%i'`% ~~~
CHA~MAN, ANAHEIM CITY PLrF~i ING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~~ ~/ ~~Gl~ ~ ~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSZON
-2- PC83-70
STATE CF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Edith L. Harris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning
Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoin9 resolution was passed and
adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on April 4,
1983, by the £ollowing vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE
MC BURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 4th da~ of
April, 1983.
- ~t /7L~~~ ~.1y~.~ . ~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-3-
PC83-70
1........_._.._.._.. _