Resolution-PC 89-300~ ;~I.S~: f1 ~ ... Y ~k'FISI/ fr }.~~4~ ~i 1~ ~y~y~'7~~ M54(!_~.)~ ~ } 1l a.:: ~, 1lft i~r.~ ~~ .l t4.,,ty~~111"'k41~~'~ (Y ~t ~).~.~~~''W~~i~TxT~IP~~~PM~ .~., ~
~ , ~ ~ ~~:, ~+ ~ J~~q'yf1 ~ a~~
' ~ • ~ f{kfi! i~j~{~t
~~c~~~rf~ ~
,fi r~ t~
,~
• ~
~'
~ a u~ !
t' ~. ~ . ~ ~ ,. ~ ~I
!].l+.~SCAi.lCi43 1 0. ~~~Y~ . .
~ '~t
A RE~OLUTION Uk' TF1E AN~1FiEIM CTTX PLANN'ING COMMTSSION
THAT PETTTIODI FOR VARIANCG N0. 4Q04 BE DENIEA 1r
WHEREAS, the Anaheim CiL•y Planning Commissian did receive a
vorified Pat.itl.on for qF~rianco from WILLIAM TOKAR, ATTN: PARRY DEVEGnPMFN'.C
CO., 76Q N. Euclid Avanuo, N103, An~heim, CA 928~1, owner of cortain real
property situaYed in ti~a City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State o£
C~lifarnit-, described as follows:
A PORTICN OF LOT TWENTY-I'I1JE OF ANAHFIM EXTENSION, AS
SHOWN 02d A MAp pI• SURVEY BY WILLIAM H71MEL AND
ACKN(JWLEDGED BY AC,r'REU ROf3INSON, TI2U5TEE, ON FTL,E IN
THF: Uk'F'i(:~: UF THu CCU,.T~ :;ECURD~R OF LOS ANGELS
COUNTY, CALIFORt7IA, MURE PARTYCULARLX DESCRIAED AS
H'OLLOWS :
IIEGINNINC AT 1~ PQINT tN TfIE CENTER QF f.OS ANGELI;~
STREET, SAID POINT HEING f,(}CATED G37 , 87 F'EET SOU'rH ].5
D~G. 13' ~AST FROM A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARICING TFTE
I2JTERSE~:TZON OF THF. CE*1TRR LYNES OF SAiD LOS ANGEL~:S
STR~ET ANA VERMONT AVRNUE, SAID POIt7T BEING THE
SOUTFiWEST CORNER OIr THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND
DESCkIk3ED IN A AEEU REC012DED OCTOHER 13th, 1443, IN
BOOK 1218, PAGF, 132, 0~ OFFTCIAL 12ECORLS, RUNNING
THENCE NORTH 73 UEG. 92' 40" EAST 193.55 FEET ALONG
TfiE SOU'TH C,INF OF SATD PARCEL AND THE EASTERLY
EXT~NSIOl7 THEREOF; TEIENCE: SOUTH 15 D~G. 30" EAST
74.75 FEET ALONG A LINE PAI2ALLE[. TO TNE SAID CENTER
LINE OF LOS ANGELES STR~ETp TFi~NCE SOUTH 73 DEG.42'
40" WEST 193.55 FB~T PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINF, OE'
ABOVE DESCRIBED PF.RCEL T_0 A POINT IN TliE C~NTER LINE
OF LOS AIJGELES STREET; THENCE NORTf3 15 DEG. 30" WEST
74.75 FE~T TO mHF pOINT OC BEGINNING.
WHEREAS, the City Plar.ning Commission c]id ho19 public he$rings
at t}ie Civic Csnter i» the Cit;y of. Atiaheim or_ November 20, 1989 ~~ 1:3p p.m.,
noticQ o: sa~id public hHarings ha~•i.ng been duly givQn as requira8 by law a»d
t+~ n~r.~rdance With tl~e provisions of the An~hoim Munic.ipal Code, Chapter
1t~.03, to h~ar and consider evider.ce Eor aad against said Qroposed
reclaasificati~n and to ;nve3eigatrz and makr_ fintlinqa and recommendations in
connect3on therow3tht nnd Aatd petition was c~ntinued te thQ Planning
Commi:,3i~~n meetfng of December 4, 1989~ ~113CI
1168r
-1-
PC 89-300
;
:
i;
t
,.
:,- .
.,~'_ ..,
~ j
'~~ "
, .. _ , _. , , . ,,. ,
~..,_.. . .. .~ .. ~rc ...,
~ ~I
. . ~~~ -.. ~..
i^1HERFAS, ea,id Commi~~ion, after due inspoCtion, investigat3on
and study madR by itaelt rand in its behalf, anc~ aEtex due oonsidE~~~ation ot ~11
eviaence and ra~orts ofLerad at satd hearing, doe~ f.ind t~nd det~rmina the
Eollowinq Fact::
l. Tliat the petitioner pr.opos4s waivors of tit~e following fo
construct ran 8-uni~, 2-story apar.tmont buxlding:
(A) C'r O~TS 1$~.~SS1..~.4~,? - M~~~l. s~~uC~ural helqh~,.
~--1-~+-~~-Q~? ~.~ (Permittedt ~ sto~,, withfn 150 feet oi:
RS-7200 aoning, and building height which is
L~.~~4~ of sQtback distance;
Proposed: ,~~t,~,x1QS at 27 And 32 Eeek, ana
buildinq height rrh.~c:t_ is 104_Et8`~ of sothack
distar~ce [27 and 32 feat])
(II) .~E~TI~~)~J 1$~!1..~~?J~ 2Q •- t~~m~~~~S~Y.~raae.
(~.~~ permii:ted; ,~~~ p;oposed)
(C) ~~.~TT td~~,~.062•032 - M.i_nim~.un tloor arpa~f~wel]ing uni•.
(82_._5, su f~ for 2-bed4oom units required;
Z65 sa _f~s. proposed)
(U; ~E,~TION 18~~Q~~~~2 _ Minimum recr~~~i4na1/1Q~ure arez.
(?QQ sa.ft,_ per dwelling unit roquireds
lg sQ•f~,i proposed)
~. That RaclassiPi::a~ion N'o. 89-90-26 filed in conjunctfon with
subjocl; varianc~ to reclas:~ify the property to RM-1200 "Residential, Multiplo
F~mily" xoning was denied by the Planninq Commissi~n under Resolutf~n No. PC
89-299 on Decemher 4, 1989.
3. xhat L2~e above-mention~d waivers ara heroby denied on th~ basis
that thore are no ,pacial circwns~ancos applicablQ to the pro~,erty such as
size, shape, toppgraphy, location and sui•roundings wh.ich do not epply to other
identically zunEd proporty i.n tho sFamo vicinity~ and. ~hat str3.cY. application
of the Zoninq ~ode cioes not dopxive ~he propertl of privl.lAges enjoyad by
oCher propertios .i.n the identical zone and classificati,on in ~he vicini.ty.
4. ThZt there ard no exc~pti4nal or Qxtra~rdinary circumstancea or
cond.itions ~pp]icaule to the prop~rty involved or to the intended use of the
property that do not apply generally t~ r_h~ pr~perty or elass of usa in the
same vicinity and zone.
5. That tfie reque3~ed variauce xa not necessary for tho
praservation and enjoyrront ~t a subsCantial proFArty cight poseessed by oth~r
pcoperty in the rtame ~vicinity and zono, and denied to the property in question.
5. That the requested variazice wi21 be matctriall.y ddtr` ~n~.al to
the public rrelfnra or injurious to tne property or impro~~em~~.., in euch
vicinity and zone in which tha propcrty !~s located.
7. ThaC ~ive (5) peopl~ inc~icnr.ed t}ieir pres~nce nt said public
hoaring in oppooitfont and that na c~rrespondenc.a was receive8 in upposition
to suLject peti.tion.
-2~ PC 89-~300
`i~t..Rr7..;;;p ....T~%~L, . .~T. ~.1.;:. ;... r .,... .~"a~fl~J. Yq .. u,-.r "'L. ~M„ A ......... 9 ..,-, , .i~... . 't;,"!R. ~.~~• . .i:; " . , . ~
'~ Y V +n`
~~ :
: `~~
~
'' 7'
•
L,I~'ORIZ~A LNVIgON~~TA_L_ QUA~_JTY _.~cx I'INDI~s 7.7iut the Annheim
CiCy Planninq Commirs3or. h~s •rovieYVed ~he proposrsl to amend the~ f.and 'Use
~lement af the Gc~ner~l P1an from the aurreri~ des~,g~~ation of General
Commercial to Meclium Density lte~fdent:ial land use, lo rec;lassify subject
propc~rty Cran the CL (Commercial, Limited) Zone ~o the ~tM-120U (Resideatfal,
Multiple-Family) Zano ancl to cons~ruct an 8-un3t, 2•-stary agar~mont compl6x
with waivers oF inaxlmum structural height, maximum s~te coverage, minimum
flour area of dwelling unit and m.i.nimum recroatzonal/laisuro ~srea on an
irregularly~shaged parcel of. land consist3ng of approxima~oly 0.24 arre
having a frontage of approximare~y 74 .feet or. ~he east side of Aizaheim
Boulevard, having a rnaximum dep~h of approximately 143 £t~er, be3ng locstod
approximatoly 630 foot south of tho centeriine oE ~lormoii~ Avenue and further
described bs 952 S~uth A.naheim E3oulevard; and doea there£ore apQrove Negative
Decla.ration ~n the basis that it has considered the proposed Negative
Declaration together with any comments receivea durixig the publ~c review
process and further finding on c2ie basis of Cne Initial Study and any
comment3 reca:ived that thera is no substantial evidenco that hhe projeat will
have a sic~nificant effoct on t2~e envtroi~mor.t.
NOW, THEREFORr, IIE IT I2ESOLVED that the Anaheit~~ City Planninq
Comm3ss3on d~e3 hereby deny subjecL- PQtition f.or Variance on the basis of the
aforomentionad findings.
TH~ FOR~GOING ?2ESOLU~.IUN is si ied and approved by me this 4th
of December, 19f39. ~ ~ / ~
_ -- ~ , .L
'. j L ._
-CHaL , ANAHE CITX PLANNTNG COt~tISSION
ATTEST:
~ ~' _.
/~ i- ~~~fy~~~a::~- ~>,~ ~~ _l .~, ~~~~iii-~li~..--
~'~-/~-~-~~ ~.._~~.~~ / ~.
ECl2F.~kkR~Y, ANAHEIM C~T PLANNIN(3 COh4dISSION
,~ ~ ~ ~•
:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY QF OItANGE ) ~s.
CITY OF AIJAI~EIM )
I, Edith L. Harris, S~cretary of the Anahaim City Planaing
Commi3sioci, do hereby certffy that the foreyoing resolution was passed and
a(iopted at a moetic~~ u~ the Anaheim City Planninq Commission held on December
4, 1989, by the Eollowfnc~ vote o~ tha members thereof:
AYES: COt~SIS5I0NERS: BOUAS, BOYDSTU~1, k'ELDHACJS, HELLYEK, HBRBST,
MESSR, MC BURNEY
NOES: COh4+tISSIONERS: KOtdE
ABSEN'.Cs COh4rtISSIONERS: NON~
YN WITNESS WHER~OF, I have herounto ~o~ my hand ttifs Ath day of
*~ocember, 1939.
/' '..~. ~ ~..~.~-_.~r.~.s ~ ~-~~. ~ -,~`~.e~c/1~~
~ )S~' . A,v11HEIM Pf.ANN NG COt~lISSIOli
(_ .....-' ~ ~
-3- PC 89-300
~ . ~~~