PC 78-29ftESOLUTION N0. PC 78-24
A RESOLUT I OPI OF THE A"IAHE IN C ITY PLANN I NG CO'1H 155104
THAT PETITI0~1 FOR VAP.IANCE N0. 2990 BE DFNIED
WFIEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did recetve a verified
Petitton for Variance from 630 SOUTH Kt~OTT AVEIIUE COMPANY, 1732 North Mountain View
Place, Fullerton, California 9263~, ormers, and COVINGTOt! BROS., P. 0. Box 3122,
Fuller[on, Lalifornia g2634. aaent, of certain real pro~er[y situated in the i.ity o'F
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as:
TfiE SOUTH HALF OF THE P~ORTH1dE5T QUARTER OF TI1E NORTI~~JEST O.UP.RTF.P,
OF THE SOUTH~dEST QUARTER AND THE 'dEST 123 FEET OF Tt1E SOUTN NALF
OF TNE NORTHEAST QUART[R OF THE ~~ORTNwEST OUARTEP. OF Tf'E SOUTHWEST
RRN,CHOR ~LOSSECOYOTES~,~ INwNTHEP CITYUOF~AIRIANEIM,~CO~JtITY70F fiRAN.r,EE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS SA17 SECTIOtI IS SHOWN ON A NAP P.ECORDED IN
BOOK 51, PAGE 11, MISCELLAt~ECUS MAPS~ I'! TNE OFFICE OF THE CGU~STY
RECORDEP. OF SAID COUNTY. EXCEPT ALL !SINERIILS, f1P,E5, PRECIOUS OR
U~EFUL METALS, SU~STANCES AiID NYDROCAR20N5 OF EVERY Y.I~Ip .41~D
CHARACTER, It:CLUDI~JG 14 P0.RT, P[TROLEUM. OIL, GAS, /15HPLTUM AND
TAP., It~ O~ UNDER SAID LA"1D, LYIM~ BELOU A DEPTY OF 5~r, FEET FROy
THE SURFACE, EUT WITHOUT THE RIGHT TO E,lT[" UP0~7 TNE SURFACE OF
SAID LAND. IIJ At~7 TO THE FOLLO~rI~I~ D~EQCRIf3ED PROPEq~~3 APafEOV9~~~
I11 TH[ DEED RECORDED AUGUST 10, 1 G, It! 900K .
OFFICIAL RECDRDS.
W}'EREAS, the City Planning Comr,ission did hold a aublic hearing at the City
Hall in the City of Anaheim on fehruary 13. 1973, at 1:3~ P.m., notice of said public
hearing having been duly given as required 6y lao+ and in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Lode, Chaot~r 18.03, to hcar an~ ^:;r,sider
evidence for and against said proposed v~rlance and to +nvestiaate and make findings
and recommendotions in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Corunission, after due inspection, investiaatlon anc'. study made
by itself and in its behalf~ and a`ter due consideration of all evtdence and repor[s
offered at said heartn9, docs find and de[ernine tne foliowin9 facts:
1. That the petitioner proooses a waiver of ihe following to convert an
existing °8-unit aoartment comalex into a one-lot condaninium project:
(a) SECTION 18.31.061.011. - Minimum buildino slte area.
00~ square ect pcr unit required;
230 snuare ~et existina)
(b) SECTION 18.31.062.012 - Maxtmum structural heiaht.
rl story permitted; 2 stories
existing
(c) SECTIOhI 18.31.062.020 - Haximun site coveraae.
~$ permitted; 5 existing)
PC78-2?
( . i
(d) SELT101~ 18.31.063.~1~ - Mfnimum front- ard setback.
2Q cet required; 1; eet existing)
(e) SELTION 18.31.063.03Q ~ '1lnimun recreation-leisure arca.
1200 square eet Cer unii required;
670 square ee[ existing
(f) SECTION 18.31.065.01~ - Minimum dista~ces between bulldinqs.
1 2~ 2 and 32 ce[ reou~red;
10, 19, 20 and 25 eet existina)
(g) SECTION 18.31.n65.~20 - Mtnimum width of edestrian accesswa s.
eet reauired; i ce[ ex s[ ng
(h) SECTION 1fl.31.065.01~ - Minimum number and t oe of arkinq s aces.
,22n 17 enc osed n a garage
spaces required; 1L2 (130 covered)
spaces existing)
2. That waivers a, b, c, d, e, f, g and h are hereby denied on the basis
[hat no hardship was demonstrated and [here are no special circumstances which
deprive this property of privileges enjoysd by surrounding property owners, and that
approval rrouid set a precedent allowinq conversions from apariments to sub-standard
condominium units which do no[ comply with the developmenc standards adopted for the
pro[ection of the purchasers of condaniniums and community apartments nor with the
expressed intent of the City regarding such proJects, namely thit condominiums and
co~rmunity aoartments differ from apartments in numerous respects and such projects
shall be treaied differently from apartmen[s for the 6enefi[ of the public heaTth.
safety, and welfare.
3. Thai there are no exceptional or extraordfnary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the oroper[y
that do not apaly aener;,lly to the pronerty or class of use in the same vicinity and
zone.
4, That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservatlon and
enjoyment of a substantia) property right possessed by otfier property in the same
vicint[y and zone, and denied to the prope~ty in question.
5, That the requested variance will bP materially detrimental to the
pub)ic welfare or inJurious to the property or improvements in sucfi vicinity and zone
i~ r~hich the property is located.
6. That 18 persons indicated their presence at said public hearing in
opposi[ion.
ENViROMMENTAL IMFACT FINDING: The Planning Director or his authorized
representative has determined that the proposes proJect falls within the defini[ion
of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as defined in Para9raph 2 of the Ctty of Anaheim
Environmental Impact Repurt Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from
the requTrement to prepare an EIR.
-2- Qcls-2g
' ~. r
NOW, TIIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that thc Anaheim City Ptanning Cortmission
does hereby deny subJect Petition for Variance on the basis of the aforementioned
findings.
TNE FOREGOIPIG RESOLUTIOt! is signed and approved by me this 13Ch day of
February, 1978.
,~~oG:' ~~~
CNAIRMAN, ANAHEIN CITY PLANNING COM.MISSION
ATTE57:
~~. d. ,1° .-,~:,
SECRETAR , ANAHEIM CI Y L HNIN; CONMISSI~H
STATE OF CALIFOR~IIA )
COUPITY OF OR.ANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEI~1 )
I, Edith L. Harris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission~ do
hereby ceriify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim CiCy Plannin9 Commission hcld on february 13, 147g, at 1:30 P.n.. by the
rollowing vo[e of the members thereof:
AYES: COn!11551oNER5: E3AR~lES, DAVID, HERPST, JOHNS~id, KI`7t;, LINN, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONEftS: t10NE
ABSENT: COMN155104ER5: NOME
t978.
IN WITNESS ufiEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand thls 13th day of February.
~dZ t~.[., ,l. M a ~.~-,«
SECRETARY~ ANAHEIn CIT LANNINr, COHH SSION
-3- PC78-29