PC 75-203~`~ ~ RESOLiTrION N0. PC75-203 ~
A RESOLUPION OF TF~ CITY PI~ANNII~TG C(k'II`72SSI~I OF T'rIE CITY OF. AAUII~Ild
TI~,T PETITId!J FOR VARIANCE N0. 2728 IIE DL•TIIE2).
WE~REI+S, the City Planning Cami.ission of the City of Anaheim did receive a
verified Petition for Vaziance frcm C. MICF4IEL, INC., P. 0. Box 273, Midw~y City,
California 92655 (Owaer); RF1AA & BOYER INGIAIEERING O~„, 14487. Beach Boulevard, Suite
R, P]estzninster, California 92683 (glq~Y) of certain real property descxibed as:
All that certain lare3 situatecl i.n the State of California, County of Orange, City
of Anaheim, describecl as follaos:
ihe Westerly rectangular one-half of Lot 17 of Anaheim ~tension, as shaan on a
map made by William H~nel anc3 filed DeceN~er 11, 1368 in the office of the County
ltecorder of Los Angeles County, California.
WIi~;FtEAS, the City Planning Ca~mission did schedule a public hearis?g at the
City I~all in the City of Anaheim on August 4, 1975, at 1:30 p.m., noti~e of said
public hearing having been duly given as re.c~~;recl by law and in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and c~nsider
evidence for ancl agai~st said praposed variance and to investigate and make firulings
and recam~ulations in oonneetion therevrith; said public hearing having been
ronti.nued to the Planning Ccnmi.ssion meeting of October 13, 1975; and
WE~REAS, said Carmission, after due inspection, i.rn~estigation and study made
by itself and in its bP.hal.f, and afi:er due consideration of a11 evidence and reports
offered at said hearing~ does find and determine the follaaing facts:
1. That the petitioner r~.7uests the follawing waivers fran the Anaheim
riunicipal Cod~, to establish a 116-unit, 117-1ot RM-4000 subdivision:
(a) SECTIOP; 18.01.130 - Re irenent that all lot aYxit a public street.
~117 ots rontang on private streets)
(b) SECTION 18.31.Q65,011 - Minim~nn distance between buildinqs.
(18 feet required; 10 feet proposed)
2. That the above-mentior.ed waivers are hereby denied on the basis that
the petitioner did not denonstrate that a hardship c~ould be created if said vraivers
were not granted; that the develognent proposal is designed t~o canbine tko zones (a
single-family zone ani a multiple-family 2one) for the benefit of the developes, and
not tlie future hrn~ovmers in the project, sair3 Proposal includi.ng private ratk~' than
public streets, minimal lot sizes which vAUld be substandard RS-7200 lots, a lack of
the amenities required for a plann~i cattmmity, including the ].ack of true open space
due to the proposal to have 6-foot fences ~siclosing private recreation areas and
preventing access an3 visibility to the catsron open recxeational spaces, said fences
to provide private yards typically associate3 with singlrf~ni.ly zones and not the
RM-4000 Zone; and, furthexmore, that, if develoued, thE project would be detrimen`al
to the Ci.ty of Anaheim in the future.
3. That there are no e~sceptional or extraordinary circiunstances or
condi.tions apglicable to the propert,y irnrolved or to the inte~led use o£ the property
that do not apply generally to ~the property or class of use in the s~ne vicinity and
zone. •
4. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by othPS propertY in th°- same
vicinity and zone, a~l denied to the property in question.
5. That the requested ~rariance will be materially detrimental tn the
public welfare or injurious to t,he prapertY or i~nents in such vicinity and zone
in rahi.ch the property is located.
6. That tv.o (2) persons appeared at sai.d public hearing in o~osition to
subject petitinn; and no correspondence was received in opposition to subject
peti.tion.
FtESOIUrION '.1~. PC75-203
_-~.~
. r'
E• v.Lt~A'~SITA Ir ~ALT FI VDING:
That on the sis that E~virornnental Impact~eport No. 133 sutmitted in
conjunction with develognent of the sub]ect pro~rtY was certified by the City
Council on October 15, 197~l, and since no new erivirotmiental impacts are involved in
the revised develognent proposal, the Planninq Crnmission iioes 2~seby take no
additional action in oonnection ~•rith said EIR No. 133.
NOP7, TI~I2EEbi2E, ~ IT FtFSOLVID that the Anaheim City Plarrning Camdssion
does hereby deny subject Petition for Variance on the basis of the aforenentioned
findings.
Ti~ FOI~ING A6SOLUrION is signed and appraved by me this 13th day of
October, 1975.
~ ~
~.p~ ~ p~g7 CITSC PI~1b7NING (XxR~[ISSI(RI
ATiEST •
' ,~ ~~..~~~
, Aru~nK crrx P~u~~ oor~~ssr~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY uF ORANGG )ss.
CITY OF e'~I1AI~IM )
I, Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary of the City Planning Crnmission of the
City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the £oregoing resolution was passed ar-a
adopted at a meeting of the City Plann~ng Ccnmission of the City of Anaheim, held or.
October 13 1975, at 1:30 p.m., by the follaaing vote of the manb^~s thereof:
AYES: ~ CONA'lISSIONERS: BAIII~S~ HERBST~ JOFINSON~ ICIl~]G~ MDRT~.'Y~ TOIAR~ FARP,~10
IJpES: CQ~'II~'ITSSIONIERS: NOI~
p,BSENT: CO~g'IISSIOI~RS: NOt~
IN WITNESS WF~RRDOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day of October,
Agy~ ANAHE CITSI pLANNII4G OOMr~QSSION
1975.
F~50IIJrldN N0. PG'75-203
-2-