PC 72-107~
RESC~T ttTION NO.
~
PC72-107
A RESOLUTION OF TfiE CITX PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIIN
THAT PETITIOLi FOR VARIANCE N0. 2364 HE DENIED
WHEREAS, the Clty Plannin~ ~ommi~sion of tfie City oE Mehelm did teeetve e verified Petltlon far Veriance Erom
ALBERT S. TOUSSAU, Post Office Box K, Piru, California 93040, Owner; COVINGTON BROTHERS, Pnst
Office 3ox 312$, Fullerton, California 92634, Agent of certain real property eituated in the
City of Anaheim, County ~f Orange, State of California, described as all that portion of the
Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section i3, in Townehip 4 South, Range 10 :lest,
in the Rancho San Juan Cajon de Santa Ana, ae per map recorded in book 51, page 10, Miscellan-
eduin book 22c~page 206ofaParceleMapantin thecoffice ~the County Recorder ofrsaid Oran$ecord-
County; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commiaslon did hold • public headag at the City Hall in the City oE Mahelm oa
May 15, 19 i2, at 7:30 o'clock P.M., noticn af said publlc headng heving been duly Qlven ae requirod by
law end in accocdmfce with the provlsions of the Maheim Munielpal Code, Cheptec 18.68, to hear and coneider evidence for
end ageinst said pcoposed vodence and fo investlQete end make finding's and recommendetions ia connection therewith;
end .
41HEREAS, ~dd Commiesioa, pEta due inspeetion, investlQaUon, end study mede by itaelE end in ita bchelE,
end after due coealderatlon oE al! evidence and repoRs offered at said headna, does find end detecmine the Eollowing
feMS:
'I'hot the petltloner cequestsvariancee(rom the Maheim Municip~l Code as follows:
a. SECTION 18.2A.050(1-b) -. Minimum buildin~.eite vidth. (70 an~ et
required; 65 and 55 feet proposed)
b. SECTION 18.28.U50(6-a-4) - Landecaped setback requirement, (15 feet
requirrd; 10 and 7 feet propoaed)
2, That the petitioner propoaes a 22-lot four-plex development on aubject property,
3. That eince the Planning Commission recommended disapproval of the reclaesification
of sul,ject property for multiple family residential purpoaes, the requeated variance ~ould
noC be valid under the exiating zoning.
k. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumetances or conditiona applicable
to tVie property involved or to the intended use of thc properl•y that do not apply generally to
the property or claes of use in the same vicinity and aone.
5. That the requeated variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right poasessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and
denied to the property in question.
6. That the requeRted variance will be naterially detrimental to the public welfare or
ir~juriaus to the property or improvements in auch vicinity and zone in which the property is
located,
7. TViat one person appeared representing fiv~e peraons preaent in the Council Chamber,
all in oppoeition.
Vl-D ~1•
~~
~ ~ ~ . ~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED tnat the Mahelm CIty Plenning Commissian does hereby deny subject
Petition for Verience on the besls oE the eforementioned flndinge.
'fHE FOREGOING RESOLUTIaN is signed and eppeoved by me this 25th day of Mey, 1972.
. i~~~
~~
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~!~!//~Yl~ /~~!GK~I/
5ECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNiNG COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) es. '
CITY dF ANANEIM )
I, Anti Qrebs; Secretery oE the City Plenning Commlesion oE We City of Meheim, do hereby certify thet the fore-
gning resolution was paesed and adopted at a meeting of the City Pl~maing Commisston ofthe City of Aneheim, held on
May 15, 1972 at 7: 30 o'clock P.M., by the toilowing vote nf ~1~6 membera thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED, FARANO, GAUER, HERB3T, KAYWOOU, RO'WLAND, SEYMOUR.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE,
ABSEN'T: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
IN WITNESS W'HEREOF, I heve hereunto aet my hend thla 25th day of May, 1972.
l!~ ~ii'~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. pC72-107
V2-D -Z-