PC 69-221.~ ~; )
,.
~ ~
RESOL,UTION NO. PC69-221
~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMM2~S~ON OF THE C1TY OF ANAHERd
THAT PETITION FOR VARYANCE N0. BE GRANTED
; WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the C'ity of Meheim did receive a verified petition for Verience
~ from LOUIS JCiJFS AND EVERETT DEAN, 903 South Agate, Anaheim, California 92804, Owners; JAMES
' HODGES, 903 South Agate, Anaheim, California 92804, Agent of certain real property situated in
l the City of Rnaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as Lot 15 in Tract No.
. 787, as per map reco.rded in Book 24, Page 9 of Miscellaneous h1aps, in the office of the County
! Recorder of said County, together with that portion of Lot 1 in Block A of said Tract No. 787
~f~^
r lying between the westerly prolongation of the North and South lines of said Lot 15:.
; end
WHEI2EAS, the City Plonning Commission did hold e public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim
on November 3~ 1969~ pt 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public hearing heving been duly given as required
i by law end in accordence wiffi the pmvisions of the Maheim Municipal Cude, Chepier 18.68,to hear and consider evi•
i dence for end against said pmposed varience and to investigate and meke findings and recommendetions in connection
, therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigetion, and study made by itself and in its behali,
end efter due consideration of all evidence end reports oEfered at said hearing, does find and determine the following
facts:
1. That the petitioner requests a variance from the Anaheim Municipal Code as follows, ~o establish
a 52-unit apartment complex on subiect property:
a. SECTIC~ 18.28,020 - Number of main structures. (2 main structures
permitted; 6 main structures proposed).
b. S ECTION 18.28,050(7-a) - Minimum distance between main structures. (28 feet
required; 10 feet proposed).
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions appliceble to the property involved
or to the intended use of the pn~perty that do not cpplv gmerally to the property or cless oE use in the same vicinity and
zone.
3. Thet the requested verience is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a su6stantial propecty cight
possessed by other property in the same vicinity end zone, and denied to the property in question.
4. That the requested variance will not he materielly detrimentel to the public w~lFare or injurious to the prop-
erty orimprovements in such vicinity and zone in which the property 1s locoted.
5. That the revised plan~ submitted eliminated the need for the waiver of the minimum
distance between main structures, therefore, the petitioner withdrew ti~is waiver.
6. That one person appeared expressing concern that the two established dog kennels to
the south would affect the residents of the proposed complex, and complaints would eventuaily
force the owners-operators of the kennels to cease business.
Vl-G
-1-
,
Z
~
~.
;;~ k', ?rt`,?'.~r,~:-U.RE, y?F.. ;i". RESOLVEF '.:.;.t the •,r~heim City Plaor.;nA. ':nmmission does hereby grant snbject
Petition for Var::, =':'. '%r: ~:; ;hr f~..'..!n~ninp_ cr,.';~ions w1r ;~ are here6y .(uu r:o t~ be a necessary prerequisite to the pro-
posed use of tfie sub)e:'t praprriy ii. :z•RK~ ';a preser; •~ !Y~c safety ^~ :' ;~eneral welfare o~` !~ir Citizens of the Ciry of
Anaiieim.
i. T}:2~ ci.is ~da*1n.vse i~ as~ , , _~;t to ^.h~ ., .`;~ti.a~ . ,assification No.
63-64-62.
2. That a perpetual easement ags::::ra^~;t fo* • ! i;~.::~ ~.' dnd egress over the vehicular
accessway= ~roposed in subject deve:op.~nt sha);. :, ~ubmitte:~ to and approved by the City
Attorney's office and then be filed and ^ECOrded :'tn the ofFice of the Orange County Recorder
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
3. That subject property shall be served by underground utilities.
4. That a 6-foot masonry wall shall be constructed along the south and west property
lines.
5. That all air-conditioning facilities shall be properly shielded from view.
6. That Condition nos. 3, 4, and 5, above mentioried, shall be complied with prior to
final bui].ding and zoning inspections.
7. 7hat the owners of subject property shall pay to the Cit~~ of Anaheim the sum of $75
per multiple-family unit, to be used for park and recreation purposes, said amount to be
paid at the time the building permit is issued.
8. That subject property shall be developed s~bstantially in accordance with plans and
specifications on file with the City of Anaheim, marked Exhibit No~. 1, Revision No. 1, and
Exhibit Nos. 2, 3, and 4.
THE FOKEGOING RESOLUTIOH is signed end approved b ine this 13th y of No ember, 1969.
n
~~
n~
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM Y PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~=~ ~'1 `,`- ~~~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby czrtify thet the fore-
going resolution was passed end adopted at a meeting of the City Plenning Commission oE the City of Anaheim, held on
November 3~ 1969, et 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland, Thom.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
~ . ~.
51:. ;
~~~ Y.
;`i '
T`~ ~~~ ~.
~i i a,
a
,i
~
:_~ ,'~~ .
., _ _
ABSENT: C051M[SSIONERS: Nore.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of November, 1969.
RESOLUTION NO. 221
V2•G
(.~"~~.` ..4:i ~ //1 <~ C~!.1/
SECRETARY ANAHEI"d CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-2-
r.