PC 72-304- ~ , RESOLUrI~VO. PC72-304 ~
A RES~'.UTiON OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~l 45E CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION. FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERNIIT BE DENIED
WHEREA$, the City Planning Commission of the City oE Maheim did reccive e ve:ified Petition for Con-
ditionel Use Permit from JOHN M, SC1iLUND, ET AL, in care of Frank Schmehr, Referee, 450
Welie Fargo Buildiag, 2323 North Broadway, Santa Ans, Califomia 92706, Owner; BUCCO~
COMPANY, 4501 Bergh, Newport Beach, Cal3fornia 92664, Agent.of•c.ertain property situated
in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as the south
half of the southwest quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 27;•Township 4 aouth,
Range 1G west, in the Rancho Lae Bolsas and Rancho San Juan Ca~on de Santa Ana, partly
in the City of Gerden Grove, as.per map recorded in'Book 51, Fage .'.0 of Miacellaneous
Mapa, in the office e£ the County Recorder of said county •
; end
WHEREAS, tl~e City Planning Commission did hold a public heacing at the City Hell in the City of Meheim
on No.vember 27, 1972~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public heaxing having been duly given
as cequiced by law and in eccocdenee with the pcovisions of the Maheim Municipel code, Chapter 18.64;to hear
and consider evidence for end against said proposed condltianel uae end to flnveatigate end meke findings and
recommendations in connection therewith; end
WHEREAS, said Commisaion, after due inspection, investigation, and study made by itself and in its br '
half,'ar_d after due considecaUan of all evldence and iepods offered at said heacing, does find and detecmine the
following facts:
1. Thet the peoposed use is pmperly one Eor which a Conditional Use Permit is authatized by COde
Section 18.28.040(1) to wit: establish a 222.-unit planned residential development with
waivere of: ,
a. SECTION 18.08.440 - Lot frontage, (Lot frontage muet be ost a dedi-
cated street; propoaed lota wili not be fronting
on a dedicated street)
b, SECTION 18.08.050(1-a) - Minimum buildinR site area. .(7200 equare feet
required; 14Cr aquare feet proposed)
c. SECTTON 18.28.050(1-b) - Minimum buildinK eite widCh. 70 feet sequired;
19 feet proposed)
d. SECTION 18.28.050(5-b) - Maximum building helAht within 150 feet of an
R-A 2one. (One atory raquired; two s!.ories pro-
posed~
2. That the denstty of the proposed development exceeda the standards of a maximum
of 12 units per net acre uaed by the Planning Commission and City Council for plsnned
residential developments. (A reduction of 40 unita fram the proposeci development plan
would bring fhis project into conformity with the density approved for other planned
reaidential.developmenta in the City,)
3. That reaidenta of 40% of the units would havE to uae veh~.cular acceasways
rather than Qedestrian ways to get to the recreation area. r~
4. That there would be an additional 20% site coverage for buildinga for the add+l-
tional 40 units, fn addition to the paving that would be required to provide access to
theae additionr.:, uttits, that would be in excess of that required for normal planned reai••
dential developments as eatabl3ahed by the guidelines.
5. That the extra density forces a leae efficient vehicular traffic pattern.
CI-D ~ 1"
~
~
~...
~
ti. That che proposed uae will adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the
growth and development of the area in Fhich it is proposed to be located. ,
7. That a maximum denaity of 12 uniCS per net acre hAS been deter.mi.ned as being
the density that will provide the proper living envir.onment and amenities for planned
residential developments, aince a comperison of this living environment with atandard
apartment complexes cannot be made becauae in Yhe planned'iesidential development~, the
units will be purchased, which mades it leae likely that people will be relocating if
the environment is not suitable, while apartment~residents would have the opportunity
tn find more amenable living environment, since they would only be renting the units.
8. That two peraons appeared, representing 12 persons preaent in the Council
Chambera at both hearinga, all in oppoeition.
NOW, TH~REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Clty Plenaing Commiaeion doee heroby deny subject
Petitlon fcr Conditional Use Pemit oa ffie baeis of tho efoiemeati~oaed'findings.
TSE FOREG~ING RESOLUTION is signed and epproved ~y me this Jjth day of ~Dec~ember, 1972. ~
ANAHEIM CI'1'~Y
ATTEST:
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) es•
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ilnn Krebe ~ ~~ S~~ery of the City Plenning Cemmiesioa of the City of Anahelm, do hereby cectify •that the fo~o-
going resolutioa was paseed aad adopted et a meeUng of the City F.lenuiag,Commiseioa ofthe City:of paeheim, held oa
November 27, 1972, at 2:OO.o'cloclc P.M., by•the,followLtg vote of the membeta theceof:
l~YES: COMMISSIONERS: KAYWOOD, ROWLAND, SEYcfOUR,
NOES: COMMIS9IONERS: GAUER, HERBST.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED, FARANO.
1N WITNESS WfiEREOF, I have heceueto aet my hend thie 7th day of Decamber, 1972.
., ~~~ ~~~~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISS1013
RESULUTION N0. PC72-3t14
C2-D
.~
~
t