PC 82-15RESOLUT10~1 N0. Pr,87_-15
A RESOLUT Ibtl OF T~iE AMA!iE I M C ITY PLANPI I tIG Cn"1M I SS I ~^1
TNAT PETITIO~! fQR VARI/1P!CE il~. ;251_ BE GRA"1TEn
1lI1EREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified
Petition for Variance from SUtISET OF CALIFOR~IIA H011ES, A Cali`ornla Corporation,
1855 E. Valley Ooulevard, Rosemead, California ~3177~, o!•lner, ~ERAL~ RclJERS,
1!~771 Plaza Drive, Sc;ite A, Tustin, California 92C8'?, aacnt, of certain real
property situated in th~ City of /lnaheim, County of Orangc, StaCe of CalifornTa
described as:
PARCEL 4, I tl THE C ITY OF ArJANE 114, COUPlTY OF 04A"lr,F ~ STATE OF
CALIFOR~~IA, AS SHOIdN 0"! PAP.CEL ~1AP `l~. 3~-7_32, FILE7 IN B~OK 150,
PAGES 7 TO 11, ItJCLUSIVE QF PA'?CEL t1AP5, 1~1 TH~ OFFICF OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COU'ITY.
IJHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a puhlic hearing at the City
Nall in the City of Anaheim on February 2, 1~32, at 1:3^ P.m., notice of said public
hearing having been duly given as required hy la~•r anci in accordance r~ith the
provisions r~f the Anaheim Ptunicipat Code, Chapter 1`i.~'13, to hear and consider
evidence fnr and an~enst said proposed variance and to investigate and m:~ic~ findin_qs
and recort.nendat~^_,~s in connection there~•~ith; and
WI~ERf:AS, said Commission, after due inspection, invr_sttgation and study made
by itself and in its hehalf, and after due consideration of ~11 evidence and reports
offered at said hearing. does find and determine tlie follo~~ing facts:
i. That the petitioner proposes i•reivers of the followinq to construct a
three-lot, 64-unit condominium subidvision:
(a) SECTIOtJ 13.31.OG2.012 - Maximum building hetght.
one-story perm tted vrithin 15~ feet of
RS-72~0 zoned property; twu stories proposed),
(b) SECTIO~! 18.31.063.011 - ~4lntmum landscaned sethaclc.
average 20 eet ti•r th a minimum of 15 feet
required alonn an arter(al highway;
10 feet proposed along Romneya Drive and 15 feet
proposed along La Palma Avenue)
(c) SECTIOM 1(3.31.!16~i.070 - Maximum fence height
and 1R,~~F,01+3,101 (- nc g oc ~•rall permitted in
ront sethacks; ~- oot hiqh hlock wall proposed)
2, That the above-mentionr.d ~~~aivers are hcreby ~ranted on th~ basts that
the petitioner demonstrated that a hardship exists due to location and surroundings;
and that denlal Hrould deprive suh,ject property nf privile9es enioyed by other
adjacent properties in the same zone and vicinity; and that the ttvo-story buildinos
with ~~~lndo~,rs facing RS-7200 residences to the south ~otll not impact the residences
due to the separation afforded I~y La Palma Avenue, a primary arterial highway,
PC32-15
,..~
3. That there are ~xceptional or exrraordi~ary circumstances or conditions
applieable to the p~operty tnv~l~~ed or to the intencled u,e of the ~ropcrty that do
not apply generally to ths pruperty or class of use in the same vicini[y ancl zone.
4. Tiiat the requested variance is necessary for the preservatton and
enjoymr_nt af a substantial propertv right possessrd by other proper`y in the same
vicinity and zone, and denied to thr_ nroperty in question.
5. That tlie requested variance ~,~i 11 not !~e naterial ly detrtmental to the
public weifare or injurious to tiie pronerty or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is located.
G. That one person indicated their presence at said oublic hearing in
opposition; and that no correspondence ~ras received in ooposition to the subject
petition.
EtJVIRONMEPJTAL 1~1PAf,T FItJ01hl~: [nvironmental Impact Report ~Jo. 113 was
previously certi ied by the City Council on !larch lh, 1~71~ in conjunction tirith the
approval of the ~naheim Shores Planned Community. (Reclassification PJo. 73-7~+-36)
IJO~d, THE.°.EFORE, BE IT RESOI.~/ED that the Anaheim City Planninn Commission
does hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, upon the following conditions ~~hich
are fiereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject
property in ordcr to preserve the safety and 9eneral a:elfare of the Citizens of the
City ot Anaheim:
1, That this Variance is granted subject to the completion of Reclassification
tJo. 31-82-12~ noti~~ pendina.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file witli the City of llnaheim marked Exhibit
Nos, 1 throi~gh 5,
BE IT FURTfiER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
find and determine that adoption of thTs Resoluti~n is expressly predicated upon
applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth.
Should any sucli condition, or any part thereof~ be declared invalid or unenforceable
by the final judgment of any court of competent ,jurisdiction, then this Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained~ shall be deemed null and void.
TNE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this Rth day of
February~ 19a2,
..~.r.l ~• • Jt~-~--,~
CHAfRMArl, /111AHE!~1 I~Y~'~.A~J~~ P~~ "1. ~$T(1~T
ATTEST:
~~ ,~ ~a,~,~~
SGCRETARY, ANAHE IH C I~Y ~LAtIN Nr, co~•~rtT ~~J
-z- Pca2-i5
~
STATE OF CALIFORMIA )
COUPJTY OF ORr1NGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHE111 )
~
i, Edith L. Harris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and ado~ted at a meetin9 of
the Anaheim City Planning Commtssion held on Fehruary ~3, 194?, by the following vote
of the members thereof:
AYES: COI•1PtISSIONERS: 4ARNES, BOUAS, 6USI10RF, FRY, HERBST, KINr,, MC BURMEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NOPIE
ABSENT: COM~4) SS I OPJf_RS: NnNE
i982.
IN WITNESS IJFiERFOF, i have hereunto set my hand thts 8th day of February,
`~°~.C.~, ,~° ~~
SECRETARY, AMAHEIM CITY PLANPIIM~; C~MMISSION
-3- PC82-15
3'~.. v ? :,;: _ _. ~~