PC 68-195„ ~ . ...'._.-.....-..,,+nws~+'~' „~".y.~tSC_~.''~ /i .
. _...~~.~v..~lrn.~.~..,~..~
_ ~ .~_ ______
:~~ ~,
< <-~
..
PC68-195
RESOLUTION N0.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIl1
THAT PETITIC';I FOR VARIANCE N0. 1987 BE DENIED
. __~~_._. . t
WHEREAS; the City Plannin6 Commiseion of the City of Anaheim did recelve ~ verifled Petitlon Eor Vuiance from
EVERETT DEAN, 419 North West Street, P.~aheim, California 92801, OWner of certain real property
situated in the City of Anaheim, County~of Oranoe, State of California, described as Lot 16 in
Tract No. 787, as per map recorded in :,ook 24, page 9 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the:
County Recorder of said county, together ~vith ttiat portion of lot 1 in block A of said Tract No.
787, lying between the westerly prolongation of the north and south lines of said lot 16
; ~nd
^,Y WHEREAS, the Clty P1annIae Commiseion did hold a public hearin~ at the City H~11 in th~ City of Anaheim on
;~ July 1~ 1.968 rt 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice o€ seid public he~rinQ havinQ been duly Qiven as cequired by
; lovv ~nd !n ~etnede~ce with yu provisions o( the Anoheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.68, to hear ~nd consider evidence tor
'~~ ~nd apintt uid ~ropoied v~ti~ace and to investigate and mako findin`s ~nd recommmd~tlorte in connection tl~erewith;
~('~ ~d
MiiEREAS, s~id Commis~ion, after due inspection, invesaQation, ~nd ~tudy m~de by itselt and in ite behalf,
and •fter due con~id~utloa ~t ~11 evldence ~nd reports offered at aaid heode~, does [ind and determine the followin~
tects:
1. That the petitIooer requests ~ variance from the Anaheim hTunicipil Code as follows~ to permit the
establishment of a 30-unit a~artment compiex on subject property:
SECTION 18.32.050(3) - Maximum buildin site covera e, (A maximum of 55~ permitted;
57% proposed .
S~CTION 18.28.050(9-b) - Maximum oermitted distance of a dwellinq unit from a standard y
street. (A maximum of 200 feet permitted; approximately 240 ;f
feet proposed). ;Y
2. That the requirements established for 18 dwellin units ?
g per net acre or existing parcel~
is necessary in order to maintain a balance between the population density in this area and ~
community facilities. A
3, That the proposed request would set an undesirable precedent for not only the establish;
ment of more~dwelling units on small parceis on Webster Street, but throughout the City, ~vhich 1
could create insurmountable traffic, park, and school pr~bl~ns. ~
4. That the traffic that would result from the increased densities, if the City's policies:;
were changed, could not be handled by the existing street width. ~
5. That the widening of Webster Street would not be physically f easible because of the 'i
recently constructed single family and multiple family developments, and if Webster Street were '
upgraded to secondary highway standards, the City at some time in the future undoubtedly would s
b~e invo?ved in extremely expensive condemnation proceedings. '
6. That any further increase in density in the Webster Street area, as a result of changes~
in policy would upset the balance 6etween the people and community facilities and could only be f
detrimental to the area.
7. 7hat ther,e 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 l
the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. ~
8. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a ~
substantial property.right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied :;
to the property in question. f ~
9. That one person appeared in opposition, and one person appeared in favor of subject ~
petition. ,
Vl-D.
-1-
~
~
>'~:
` ""5''~-°~.y.~„-,~', J' , _ --- - ~
.. .. . .~ . . ,"~. ~~. i :.~'tx.~;.
. . . ~. , . . , i.~ ~.
~
~ . . . - . ~ . ~ . ~ ~
. ~ ~. . . .. il..; .~ , . . ,
,~ . • ' ... . . .. .. . . , . . . . .
~ . .s . .. . . .5~i:q'~.w1~@ . . wewm-'arrer+
~ ', '
. ~ ~~
NOW, THEI~EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Aneheim City Planning Commission does heceby deny subject
Petition for Veriance on the basis of the aforementioned findings.
THE I'OREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this llth day of July~ 1968.
~--~
CHAIRMA ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: .
__L~'t%~i-c
SECRETARY A IHEAN M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. •
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Ann Kr ebs ~ Secretery of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Aneheim, do hereby cedify that the fore-
going tesolution was passed end adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on
July 1~ 1968, et 2:00 o'clock P,ry-„ by the foilowing vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
AHSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this llth day of July, 1968.
/ /~ ~~~2•C~i
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMIyIISSION
RESOLUTION N0. 195
V2-D
-2-
~' .
~ ~~.
~ F~4 Y r ~' ~ ~iad ..: r '~ ~ ;S. ti
. . / . .,,~ ~ ~ ~ i
. -i .