PC 77-195RESOLUTION l10. PC77-t95
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CIT't PLAtJNING LOMMISSIOt~
THAT PETITIOt1 FOR VARIANCE N0. 2936 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the Anahcim City Planning Lommission did receive a verified
Petition for Variance from 1JILLIAH H. AIlD BETTY JQ CLOW, 2 Rue Valbonne, Ne.ipor:
Beach, California 92G6o, owners of certai~ real property situated in Lhe City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as:
Parcel I- The Sou[h 314.7~t feet, rneasured from the centerline of
the strect~ of Lot 9 ~f "Orange~auod Tract" as shown on a map
recorded in book 7, pa~e 42 of Miscellaneous hlaps, records of
Orange Cou,~ty, California. Excepting [herefrom the West 202 feet,
mcasur~d frorn the centerline of the strect.
Parcel II - The Sou[li 220 feet, neasured fron, the centerline of
the street, of Lot 10 of "Orangewood Tract" as shown on a map
recorded in t~ook 7, pay~ 42 of Miscellaneous tiaps, records of
Orange Coun[y, California. Exccpting therefr~m the Easterly 495
fECt; and
4lHEREAS, thc City Pla~niny Cortmission did schedule a public hearing at [he
.+ty !lall in the Ci[y of Anaheim on May 23, 1977, ai 1:3'~ P.m., notice of said public
heari.~g having been duly given as required by law and in accordance wich the
~rovisions ~f the Anaheim Municipai Code, Chapcer 18.03, to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed variance anJ to investi9ate and make ftndin9s
and recom~~~end~tions in connection therewith; said public hearin9 having been
continued to the Planning Commission mceting of Septembcr 12, 1977; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after duc inspection, investlga[ion and study ma:1e
by itself and in its behalf, and after duc consideration af all evidence and reports
offered at said hcaring, does find and detcrmine the following facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes waivers of the followin9 to establish a
12-lot. 41-unit, RM-1200 subdivision:
(a) SEC710~1 10.3~+.062.012 - Maximum buildi~g height.
(b) SECTION 1f3.34•063.032 - Minimum recreatio~al-leisurr_ area.
2. That the abuve-mentio~cd waivers arc herety denied on the basis that
the petitioner submitted revised plans and withdrew his requcst of the aforementioned
waivers and that the Planning ~ommission gran[ed a lowcr-density multiple-family
residenttal zone (RM-4000) than ~ras originally proposed (fU1-1200).
3, That there are no exceptional or exiraordinary circumstances or
conditlons applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property
that do not ~pp1Y generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and
zone.
1~, That the reques[eJ variance is not necessary for the preservatlon and
enjoyment ef a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone, and denied [n the property in questian.
Pt77-195
~-
5. That the YeGuested variance will be matcrially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to [he property or irnprovemenis in such vicinity and zone
in which the property ~s locateJ.
5. 7hat 53 pprsons indi w ted their presence at said pubtic heariny on
September 12, 1977; 10 on Junr_ 20, 1977, and 55 on May 23~ 1977, ~n opposition; [hat
17 letters Nere receivea in opposition and copies of petitions coniaining
approximately 182 siynatures and 2°3 siynatures were submitted in oppositio,n to
subject request.
ENVIROtlMEtITAL IMPACT FINDING: That the Anahein City Planning Corr~isslon has
reviewed Chc subjcct proposal [o reclassify the zonin~ from RS-A-43,000
(Residential/Agricultural) to R11-1~000 (Rcsidential, Multiple-Fanily) on approximatcly
3.3 acres, having a fron[aye ~f approrimately ~43 feet on the north side of Simmons
Ave~iue, fiaviny a maximum ~fepth of appro;cimately 295 feet, and bcing located
appro:cimatcly 232 fcec east of th~ centerlinc of Ilaster S[ree[; and does hereby
approve the tlegative Declarat~on fron tf~e reyuirement to prepare an environmental
inpaet report on the basis ih~t tliere would bc no siynificant individual or
eumulative aciverse environrtx:ntal irnpact due to the approval of tliis ~~egative
Declaration since the Anaheir~ General Plan designaCes the subject property for
mediu~r density residen[ial land uses coironensurate with thc proposal; that no
sensitive environmental impacts arc involved ir: the proposal; that thc Initia~ ~tudy
submit[ed by the pe[itionur indScat~s no si5nifica~t individual or cumulative adverse
environmental imoacts; and that the tlegative Dcciaration substantiating Che foregoing
findings is on file in th~ City of Anaheim Planniny Departrnen[.
NOW, TH[REFORE, EtE IT RESOLVLU th~t thc Anahcim City Planning Commission
does hcreby deny subject Petition for Varianre on the basis of the aforementioned
findings.
TNE FOREG01!~G P,ESOLUTION is siyned and approved by mc this 12th day of
September, 1977.
/ ~ r~ ;~~
CHAIRMAN, AIJWiEIM CITY LANt11NG COMMISSION
ATTEST:
/LR~ .~C ~
SECRE7AR , AtIN~EIM C17Y PLAIINIIIC COMMISSIOIi
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORkt~GE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAt1EIM )
I, Edith L. Harris, Secretary of thc Anaheim Lity Planning Commission, do
hereby cer[ify tliat th~ foregoin9 resolution was passed anJ adopted at a meeting of
thc Anaheim City Plannin~,~ Commission held on Septeu~bcr 12, 1977, a[ 1:3D p.m., by the
followiny voCe of thc members thercof:
AYCS: COMNISSIONERS: DAVID, f1CR45T, JOIit~SOU, Y.ING, TOLAR
NOES: LOMMISSIOtJEP,S: BARIiES
AUSEII7: COHMISSIO~~ERS: NON[
AEiSTAIN: COMMIS510lIERS: Llt~;~
It~ WITt~E55 WIIEREOF~ I have iicreunto set my hand this 12th day of SeptemLisr~
~ 971. d • 1~~.~
SkCRETARY, Al~ANE IM CI TY PLAtJNI NG COMf11 SS ION
-2- ''_71-t95