PC 72-111~ ~~
RESOLUTION NO
PC72-111
A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY 1'LANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2369 gE DENYED
WHEREAS, the City PlenninQ Commiaeion of the City of Anaheim did receive e verified Petition for Varience fcom
THOt;aS SARAC, JR., 849 Roxanne Avenue, Long Beach, California 90815, Oamer; JAMES L. GLOVER,
9763 Candlewood Avenue, Cucamonga, California 91786, Agent of certain real property situated
in khe Ciey of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as de~crited in Exliibit "A"
attached herato and referred to herein as though set forth in full; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commieeion did hold a public headng at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim on
May 15, 1972, at 7: 30 o'clock P.M., notice of said public headng heving been duly g~ven as requlred by
lew and ln eccoedonce with the proviaions of the Meheim Municipel Code, Chepter 18.68, to heac and consider evidence foc
and egainst said propoaed vatience end to investigate and meke finding's end cecommendations in connection therewith;
end ,
WHEF.EAS, s~fd' Commission, after due inspection, inveatigatlon, end study made by itself and in Its behelf,
end efter due coneldecation of ell evidence and roports otfered at seid heering, does find end deteimine the Eollowing
fecta:
1. Thet the.peUtioner requ~ ~ta variance~~ ~e Anaheim Municipel Code as follows:
a. SF.CTION 18.28.05~'S-b Menimum buildinQ liei~ht within 150 feet of sin¢le-
, family residential zone. (One story permitted; two
stories proposed)
b. SECT'ION 18.28.050(7-a) - Minimum dirstance between buildinf~s. (37 feet required;
8 ~eet propoaed)
2. 9'hat the petitioner ie proposing u two-story 32-unit apartment complex.
3. That the Planning Coimniasion hereby denies subject petition on the basis that Che pro-
posed two-story units at the north and sou~h ends of the property will disrupt the reaidential
integrity of the adjacent single family residential uses.
4. That granttng tlie above waivers without sufficien: subetantiating evidence would ~e
granting a privilege to the petitioner not enjoyed by others.
5. That there 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
the property or clssa of use in the same vicinity and zone.
6. That the requeated var?ance is not necessary for the preservation and en,joyment of a
substantial propexty right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and de-
nied to the property in question.
7. That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zon~ fn which the property is
located.
Vl-D _1_
~ ST Ar1Eq~ ~
C F~+
4~~ "~~ -~ ~~. !-+R.T~ F~~Tr--r cc „ ,
,Y'•~ , ~ ~~a y.:1 ~ i .'.:.E ~~'~. ~. ~`..
~~~~'~ •~ ~i
~'irst ~rn~rican Titlz`Iizsurance ~;'onzpany
-021 NORTtI MAIN 57FCF.T, (P.O. OOX 2W) Si1NT.A ANA, CALiFORNIA 927UZ •(AREA 714~ 54i-6ti72 ~
April 18, 1972
The follrnaing deccr3bed lead is veated in Thomas Sarac Jr. and WiniYred J. Saxac~
husbsnd and viYe, as Soint tenants.
_^_.~~~'r
~ thtzt
ceri:aitt lan~ situc~ted 3n the Stute of California~ County of Orange~ City
oY Anaheim~ described as folloxs:
R~e Eat~t 103.00 Yset of the West ~+47.00 Yeet o~ the Northeast quarter of the
Northwest quarter of the South~aest quarter of Section 14~ Township ~ South~
Range 11 West~ in the Rancho I,os Coyotes~ us per mcip recorded in Book 51~ page 7
oP Misee].lcc.~eoua Df~ps~ in the ofPiee ~Y the County Reeorcl.er oY said County.
EXCEPTING T1~F~r.PROM that porEion included within the ].nnd convsyed to MichnEl
iiein, by deed recorded April 12~ ~919 ~n Eook 331, page 243, Deeds, ~ecords oY
said Or~t~e County~ de~cr3bed ris ~ol.lowa :
Commencinb at the Southeact corner oP the North hulf oP the Nortlntest quarter of
the SouthKest quarter oY Section 14~ Township 4 South~ Rnr!ge Z]."rlest~ Rqncho Los
Coyotes; thence Nori;h 16 rods; thence in a Southwester]y direction u distance of
25.61 rodc, more or less~ to a point in the South line of the NortYi half of the
Norttnrest qursrter of the Southwest quarter.oP sa3d Section 14~ 20 rods 41est oY the
Southenst corner of caid Plorth half of the Nortlnrest quarter oY the Soutknrest qunr-
ter of aaid Section 'L4; thence East 20 rods to the point of beginnin~.
AISO EXCEPTTNG Tf~FROd thezi: port3on thereof vithin Purcel Il1-515.01 and
Par~el Il1-l~l.l as described in that certain FintU. Order of Coaderanation, Superior
Co•arL-~ Caee 110. 8859a, a certifYed copy of uh3ch xus recorded M~.y l~ 1962 iu
~ Eook 6094~ p~e 602 of Ofgi.cial Recor~ of snid Orange County.
J.~...~...~3~,~
. ~' p ~
,
NOW, THE[2EFORE., BE IT RESOLVEU that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny subJect
Petition far Varience on the basis of the eforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOY.UTION is signed end epproved by me t s 25th day of May, 1972.
~
CHAIRMAN ANAHELM CITY PLP.NNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~~ ~~~~_
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. '
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann KCebe~;: Sectetety of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anahelm, do hereby cedify thet the fore-
going Teaolution wes pessed and a3opted at a meeting oE the City Plenning Commission of the City of Aneheim, held on
May 15, 1972, at 7: 30 o'clock p.M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED, FARANO, GAUER, HERBST, KAYWOOD, RC~WLAND, SEYMOUR.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: .':O;ZE.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto se~ my hP.nd this 25th day of May, 1972.
~~~~ ~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO.PC 72-111
V2-D '2'