PC 83-91~~ '
RESOLUTION I•]0. PC83-91
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSSON
THAT PETITION FOR V:4RIANCE NO. 3330 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verifi.ed
Petition for Var.iance from G. COMMUNITY HO~PITAL CORPORATION, INC., P. O. BOX
1438, Louisville, Kent~cky 40201, owner, AND CALMARK DEVELOPMENT CORPQRATION,
p, O. Box 2128, Santa t9onica, California 90406, agent of certain real property
situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of Califotnia
described as:
THAT PORTION OF THE WEST HALF OF THE SCUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 18~ TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10
WEST, IN THE RANCHO LOS COYOTES, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF
CALIFOP.NIA, AS SAID SECTION IS SHOWN UN A MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 51~ PAGE 10 OF MISCELLANEOUS I,APS, IN THE OFFT_CE OF THE
COUNTY RECOP,DER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 51 ZN TRACT NO.
2563; AS FER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 78, PAGE 19 OF
MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY F.ECORDER OF
SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 89° 22' 14" EAST 360.33 FEET ALONG
TI~E SOUTH LINE OF LOTS 51 TO 55 INCLUSZVE OF SAID TRACT TO
THE WEST LINE OF LOT 57 OF SAID TRACT; THENCE SOUTH 0° 37'
46" WEST 282.69 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF LOTS 57 to 60
INCLUSIVE OF SAID TRACT TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT
60 ON THE NORTH r,INE Or THE ALLEY SHrWN ON THE MAP OF SAID
TRACT N0. 2563; THENCE NORTH 89° 2'%' 14" WEST 360.27 FEET
ALONG THE SAID NORTH LINE OF THE ALLEY TO THE EAST LINE OF
GILBERT STREET SHGWN ON SAID TRACT MAP; THENCE NORTH 0° 37'
00: EAST 282.69 FEET ALODiG SAID EAST LINE TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at
the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on May 2, 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, 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 itsPlf 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 an 85-unit affordable apartment complex:
(a) SECTION 18.34.061.010 - htinimum building site area per
dwelling unit
(1200 square-feet cequired; 1075
square-feet proposed)
PC83-9I
#0608i
(b) SECTION 18.34.062.012 - Maximum structural height
(1 and '2 stories pernitted; 3 stories
proposed)
(c) SECTION 18.34.062.032 - Minimum floor area per dwelling unit
(700 square-f^~t for one-bedroom units
required; 664 square-feet proposed)
(d) SECT70N 18.34.065.011 - Minimum distance t~~tween buildings
(17 feet required; 15 feet proposed)
(e) SECTION 18.06.050.0121 - Minimum number of parking spaces
& 18.34.066.012 (213 spaces: 170 covered and 43 open
required; 186 spaces: 65 covered and 101
open proposed)
That the above-mentioned waivers (a) c,nd (d) are hereby denied on
the basis .that while the Commission recognizes that Covernment Code Section
65915 would otherwise require the City of Anaheim to grant a density bonus
which would entitle the developer k~~ these two w.aivers, they are in
conjunction with three other waivers which are so intricately bound up into
one project that the Commission is denying them and waivers (b) and (c) on the
basis that there are no special ci~~smstances applicable to the property such
as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings which do not apply to
other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and that strict
application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
3. That the above-mentioned waiver (e) is hereby denied on the
basis that the parking waiver will cause an increase in traffic congestion in
the immediate vicinity and would adversely affect adjoining land uses; and
that granting of the waiver will be detrimental to the peace, health, safety
or genera] w?lfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim.
4. That there are no exceptional or exkraordinary ciicumstances 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 enjoyment of a substantial pcoperty right possessed by other property in
the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the propecty 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 approximately 50 persor,s indicated their presence at said
public hearing in opposition and petitions containing approxinately 453
signatures were received in opposition to subject petition.
_2_ PC83-91
. _ ._......~;,~
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDING: That the Anahei.m City Planning
Commission has reviewed ttie pcoposal to construct an 85-unit affordable
apartmenl• complex with waivers of minimum building site area per owelling
unit, max.imum strucr_ural height, minimum floor area pec dwelling unit, minimum
distance between buildings and minimum number of roximatel SP2C33 acresa
rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consicting of app Y
having a frontage of approximately 280 feet on the east side of Gilbert
Street, approximately 210 feet north of the centerline of Ball Road and
further described as 950 South Gilbert Street; and does hereby approve the
Negative Declaration from the requirement to prepare an environmental imgact
report on the basis that there would be no significant i.ndividual or
cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this Negative
Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan designates tl~e subject property for
low density re~idential land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no
sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial
Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negative Declaration
substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim
Planning Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning
Commiss~on does hereby deny subject Petition for Variartce on the basis of the
aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 2nd day of
May, 1983.
CHA RMAN~ ANAHEIM CITY PL G COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~,~~ ,~ ~~~~
SECRETIfDY~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIN~~""-G COMMISSION
STATE OF 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 May 2,
1983, by th: following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS~ BUSHORE, FRY, HERBSi, KING, LA CLAZRE,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MC BURNEY
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have :iereunto set my hand this 2nd day of May,
1983.
9 ~.C~- ~ /~Y~t.s e~
SErRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
_3_ PC83-91