PC 86-237, .~.~
'~ ~ . .. . . . ... .. .. . . . . ~ . , . .. . .. . .. I :~x?1
:i
~
~~.)~ . ~,...ew .
:f '
i
I R~SOLU'PION NQ. PCEi6--237
A i~E;SULU`.CTON OP' THE ~1NAHETM CTTY PLANNING C;OMMISSION
'rEIAT PETITI~JN FOR VAR7ANC1. [30. 3595 BF P~NIF.D
WHGREAS, ~he Anaheim City Planni-ig Commission did receive a verified
PPtitior. foC Variance Erom MR. & MRS. RUEBEN DE Lk;ON, 11095 Meads, Orange,
Calif~rni.a 92G6? and MRS. b1AKGARFT ~NNIS, ).41G5 Fortune, E]. Toro, California
92G30, owners und PIFRCO DEVELOPtiGhT, :NCe, 14771 "G" P1aza Drive, Tustin,
Ca.lifornia 92680, ag~nt for certain rea7. property situated i.n the City o£
Anaheim, County of Orange, Stat~ uL- California described as:
LI~T 5 OE TKACT 255, FAS~?' AN.'~HEIM SUB-DIVTSI~JN AS SH~WN UN A MAP
RE;CORDGll IN SOOK 14~ PAGLS 25, OE M1~CELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF
ORANGG COUNTY, ^.AL;rrURPdIA.
LCTS G, 7 AND 8 OF TRACT N0. 255, IN `PHG GITY c)F ANAH~IM, AS PGR
MAP RECORDEL~ ZN BOOK 14, PAGG 25 OF MISCE'LLANFOUS MAPS TN THE
O~ ['ICE GF TEIE RFCORDER OF SAID CUUN'rt .
EXCL''T~T1N~ THEREFROM T[-iF WESTF'RLY 5 FEE:T OF SAID LANll~
W~iLRrAS, the Ci.t-,y Planning Commi.ssion dicl holcl a~ub'lic hearing at
the Civic Center in th~ City uf Anaheim on Se~tember 15, 1986 at i:30 p.m.,
notice of said publi.c hearing ha~~~nr~ beFn c~uly~ given as reguired by law and in
accordance wi.th the ptovisions of the Anaheiir. Muni~ipal Code, Chapter '18.03,
to hear and considec ~vidence for. and against said proposed variance and to
i»vest~yate and make E.indir-gs and recor~~mendatioris in connection th.erewith; and
WI~16fcEA~ said Commissi~n, aEter due inspection, investigation and
:tudy m,~de by it~self and in ~~s behalf, and after dua consideratxon of a11
evidence and rep~rts oEfered at s~.ii.d heati.ng, do~~ i'ind and determine tha
following Lacta;
1. Thar the ~Ptitioner proaoses waiver o£ the fo.ll~winy to cansrruct
e., 36-unit a~ar+-ment c~~mplex:
S~CTTQN 18.3~ .062 .012 - Max.irnuiri .~tructural hPiyht .
(1 st:o!~ (25 feat high) ~er.mitted;
2 stoi•ie; (30 ~eet high) proposed)
2o That the abuve-menl:ioned waivers ate her:eby deniec1 or. the basis
th~~t thpre are ~to spnrial circumstances a~plicahle to the property suuh as
size, shape, i:opography, locati.on and surroundings which c~o not apply to other
idenh ica11~~ zoned prapPrty in ~Fi~ same vicinity; and that strict application
of the 7oning Code does nut deprive tha property of privileges enjoyed by
ot!~er pLoperties in the identical zana and class:Lf.ication in the vic.init~~, and
that the proposed reclassi~ication to ~w_rmit subject dev~lopment wa5 denied.
3. That there are nc~ exceptiorial or extraordtnar.y circumstances ar
conditions applicable L•o the property ir.volved ur ho the intencled use of the
p~:operky that do not apply generally to th~ property or claas of use in the
same vicinitY and zone~
0928r
PC86-237
~ ;~~ ,~;
~~
~
R','
~...
v~~
~, r{•,
4. That
and enjo
mtnt
F r.he r.eque~L•ed varianr.e ls not necessary Eor tl~e preservation
y
o
. ~~ 3ubstantia.l propert.y rlght ~osres~ed by other prop~r.ty in
the :zame viciniCy and zon~, and denied to th~ pr.operl-y in question.
5. Tttia~ the reques~f~d variance will be marerially derrimental to the
~ublic wel£are or injur ious to rhe property c~r improvi~mentc i.n such vicyni~y
and 2one in which rhe pr~~perr,y is loc~te,?,
: C. Thut no one indicaced their presence at said public hearing in
oppvsition; ar~d that no corre:pondence was received in opposition uo subject
~eiiti.on.
GPIVIRONMI?•NTAG IMPACT lINDIN~: That the Anaheim City Planniny
; Commis~i.on has reviewed t<_~ p~upasa.l to recl~ssi[y aubjecc pruperty from the
r~ RS-7200 (Residential, Sinc~le-Camily) Zone to thc RM-1200 (Residentiat,
Multiple-hami~y) 'I,one or ~ i(~JJ inrense zon~ to cor~struct a 36-unit apartm~nt
com~lex with waiver of. m~ximum st~uctural hei.a,ht: on rectangularl;~-shaped
parcels of. land totaling apprnximately 1.1 acres hc;ving a Erontage oE
approx.im~tely 241 Eeet on the r_ast ;,i.de ~F Coffman Street, an~] being 1~^at~d
~pproximately 26U [eet nortt~ of the cenL•erl.ine aE Center Street and furtk~er.
.~ de~cribed a3 .ilf~ r_hrough 1.86 t7~rth Coffman S~reet; and does hereby deny the
Negative Dec.laraticm u~~n finding that it i-~as con~idered tne Negative
Declacation t.ogether with any comments received dur.in~ Lhe public rPView
proce3s and turther finding on the basis oE ~he initial study and an;~ commenhsc
recaived that there ir~ s;ibatantial eviclence that the ~;raject wil.1 havc ;i
significant effecl on thc c~nvironm~nt.
P~OWy TfiF.[ZE:[~'ORG, B[; iT RESOLVED that th~ Anaheim City Planning
Comtinissson do~s hereby ~}eny :~ut;ject Petitiun Lc~r Variance on tt~e basis of L•he
a~orementioned f.indinrs.
ThF h0l2£GOIN, ttfSOLU~i~I;)N is signed and ap~rnved by me this '15th day
c+f SeE~temuer, 1986.
~"" , ~ ~ C' . , ,.,~/
,~ ,..
~~_l ~ ....~ .,-..
CNAIRMAN, ANA EIM CITX E~f.A ~ ING C~JMMISSION
~: AT'1'E ST:
v~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~1 _ _ [il'~ 'J u f /~ - ' Y • _ ~.~ f'~~/ ~?~ '~~i i _ ~-i;l._i
~ St.c.T.~.:.TARY PRO TEMI~ORE
ANAHF:IM Ci.TY PL,ANNIP7C COMMIu:iION
-~"' PC85~237
~
,
„` rr
~ .•~jt ~:i.._ • r. . ~ . ' . .. , - , _._. _ , . . . ..
...~.,' -~: ~. ~,.~~..~..,...~.. ~~- . . . ~~ .. ~.~;r~~ .a... ..
~ ~ ~-~~~ . ~ .
~
STATG OC CALI['O1t~1tA )
(:OUNTY OF ORANGE ) sa.
C.ITY OE ANAH~IM )
I, i~ame.la Sj. Starnes, S~cret•ar.y o£ the Anaheiin City P]ar-ning
Commis~i~n, do i~er~by certii•y lh~t the tar4~~oing ceso].ution w~-~ ~assed and
~{ adopted at a meeting oE the Anahrim City Planni~c~ cammis~.ion held on S~ptember
G 15, 1986, by the ~ollowia~7 vote o~ the m~mbers ~her~o~:
fi,
AYL•'S: COMMTSS:[ONGR.S: k30UASi FRY, FIER~3ST, LA CLAIRE, LAWiC:KI~ Ml; BURNEY~
MES5E
NOES: COIdMTSSIUNERS: NONL
ABSENT: COMt4ISSI0NFRS: NONL
ii
~~ TN WiTNESS WEIGRF~~[', I have hereuntn set my hand L•his 15r.h c~ay of
Se~~ter~iber, 19db.
~ ,~ .9 ~.-' --- ~
~, / e
--~~" . , -t~ ~~_ % ~~ ,~r~~~l ~~.v--,i -
sEC~~,~ranY ~KO ~r~:MPORE
. ANAiiEIM CITY FLANNING (:OMMI.°,.''iION
~
1~ ~, ~~~a
t.f~p.
~t
t..
,~~
-~_ PC96-237
r
.tM ^} ` ` r ~'~~'44'v r ~+,~F'.l,~r';,~P ' y _~.~D ~ ~:. ~
/
t,
, : ~~
;-X~
~
~[ ;~
i.~~r
~f~