PC 87-247.!+"'"~
fiESQGUTTQN NC~ P~87~247
A RESOLUTTON OF THE ANAI-TEtbi CzTY FLfiNNI23G COt~4~fISSION
TFiAT PET7'.CIOt~ I'OR VARIANI;G N0. 372$ HG D~NTED
: y.; ~' ' %':i;~,wr
';'1
~ ~;
'~C
W}IGREAS, the Anaheim Ci~y Planning Commisuior~ did roceive a
verxfied Pc~titi.o:~ for ~~ariance f.rom KATHrRIIJE WESOLOSKY, 7t~5 W, Victor Avc~nue,
Anaheim, CA 92801, owner and PQARK KIArAR, 300 N. Tus~in Avanue, li201, Santa
Ana, CA 92705, agent, Ior certain real propert~ situated in the City of
Anaheim, County o£• Oraiige, Sta4e of California, descri.bed as iollows:
I~OT 52 OF iR1~C1' N0. 1326, AS PER AtAP THEREOE REC.URDED
IN ~100K 48, PAGE 324 OF MISC~LTANEUUS MAPS, RECORDS
OF OEtA2lGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
WH~RI;;: ~, the City Pla^.n5.ng Cornmissioii did hold a nublic: hearing
at the Civic Canter in L•he City ~f. At:aheim on clovember 33, 1987, aL' 1:30 p.m.,
notice of said public ]3earing having been duly g.iven as ze~uired by law and in
ac.,ordance with the l~rovisions oE Lhe Anaheim Mun.icipal Code, ChapLer 10~03,
to liear and consider ~vidence L•or and again,sL said prorosed uarz~nce and to
invesl:igate attd mak~ L.incl.ings and recomm~nda.tions in connection therewikh; and
'rIH'ERBAS, sai~t Commission, after due inspectiort, investiqation
anc~ study made by •itself and in its behalf, and af~er due consideration of a17.
evidence and reports offered at s~id hea,ring, does find and determine khe
folZow.inq fac;ts:
1. ThGit tho peti.lion~r prs~poses aaivers of the !'ollowing t~
construcl- a ~-story, II-unit, apa:-tment building:
(A) ~ECTIUN _18.34.0(2.012 - M~xim~m s~ru~tural naig,h~.
(1 ._~tQr~! within 150 feet of
singie-Eami.ly resid~ntial zoz~ing
perroittc~d; 2„~S.Qr~e~ at 62 feet
proposed).
(H) SECTI~N__]~,3_}..OC~?._.Q7Q
i
~
~
0].31r
.1
1~~'~~~...~ ~ : ,i ..Y . .
(C) SECTION 1~_34.0~.2..Q32
(D) SECTTCIl 7.8_,~4.Q¢3 _OZ~
-• rf~x.irn~m~~.~~~v~rage.
( t~~ permittQd; C~~ proposec~) .
- Maximum n,~m~},~ of -~@~h~lo~y~r .~,~^~.
(1 permittea; 2 propossdy.
- t~inim~m__,s~i.~~r~l ~g5t~~k.
( ~f~ requf rcad; Q-4 feet
proposeii) .
(F.) SF4TI.4rL1~~.Q~~2~3.U~.S2 - ~'.€~m~~.~S~~..ri~4_~~m..~~.~~•
1Q._~4...Q.¢4.02Q, (Ba.lccnies and ~xkorior sCairwaya:
2.~_ Yg~~,_f~.~~ parmiktQd into
required yards; ~.~q 4
~~et praposed}.
:i
PC8'1-24'i '',';I
~;A./
',I'b.
A~
~ ~ ~ ''.;x11~a,.
~ I,ry.
,~, ~!:
2, Tra~ '.•.`~o abovo-mc~ntionocl wai•~ors ara hQreby denied an th~ basis
that there are na spe~.ial circumstances applicahle to the propert;~ ~uc.h as qizr~,
shape, topoqraghy, locata.on and ~urroundings whir_h do nor a~ply to ether
idAnt.ic~lly zoned property i.n t:he same vicinity; and th~L• stri~.t ~pplicltiion o~
the Zoning Code does not depr.ive the proport~y o£ privil4sq~as eaj~y4c~ vy o::her
rrope:tiea in the iclenCic~l zone ~nd c].~ssi£ication in the vi~inity an,l subject.
3, That thsre arP no excepL:onal or extrr~ordinary circums:anc~s or
conclitions ap~licable to the properhy involved or to hYie intei~ded use oF the
property that cla not a~ply gener~lly r,o the properr.y c,r ^lass of ixsc~ in the s~me
vicini.ty una zone.
~}, Thak 1.he raquesled variance is not necessary Ear tl~ie preservatian
and enjc~yment n~ a substantial prop~rty right poss~~ssed by ather. praperl-.y in the
same vici.nity ~ncl <<~nc~, and denied to the property in question.
5, That the requestQd variance will be materaally aeCrimental to the
public welfare or injuriaas to +:he property ~r improvPm~nts in such vic3nity and
2one ir. which t,he propert}~ is located.
~, Tha~, r-o one indicated their pr.esence aY saict pub].ic hearing in
oppnsit;ion; a:~d thar nc~ corresponcience was received in ~ppositior, to suaject
~~r.ition.
CI~LIFQRt1IA__ FfiVIFtONMrNZA[,~QQALITY ACT _FINDITIG: That the Anaheim
City Planning Commi~sion has reviewed chc praposal to consr.~uct a 2-story,
8-•uniL•, apartment building with waivers of maximum sti•uctural nea.ghY., maximum
site coveraye, max.imum numi~sr of bachQlor units, minimum structural setback
and permir.ced Encroachments or~ a rectangularly--shaned parcel of land
con~ist.inq ot ap}?roximatc.ly 0.?.7 acrP, having a fr.ontage of approximat~ly 60
fe~t on the nortih side ot Victor Avenu~, havii.q a maximum depth of
~pproximate.ly 201 feet and being loca~ad approsimately 1,000 feet west of t:ze
centerline oE Harhor Boulevard and turttier cle~cribe~l as Y0,5 W~st *hR~ti~
Aven~ze; and does hereb~+ approve the Negative Doclaration u~p~n Pinding
has cdnsiaerad the Negative Daclaration Lo~~Qther with ~nY Fha ~as~sr oE~the
during tt-~ publ.c review nrocess aYid f.~irther tinding on
initial sY.udy and any commetits receivec~ Chat there is no ~ubstankial QvidQnce
that the pro~ect wi.ll have a signif,ican~ Offec:t on Lhn erivironment.
NOW, THGRE['QFtE, F~E I'T RESOI~VED L-hat the Anaheim City P1ar-ning
Comm_~sion does heroby deny sub~ect Pe~iti~n for Variancw an i:tie basis a~ the
a_*•or~;mr_ntiunQd findings.
TEiE; FORr:GC1I2IG RLSOI~UTION i~ signecl and approved by mo tris 23rd
of November, 1987. C
~
CEIATRMAtI, ANAH~:It4 C~[TY PLANNING COMN,i5SI0N
t
ATTEST: , ~
l~.~!l.~^_~L- /~-•--_`_'---°
SECRETARY, AZiAFiE1M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
~ 07.31r
_~_
PC87-247
'~:i
; .,
' ;:a~
L7~~
1F'.,~1~.^S1`2i~.1~! ~j.:.~~ .i"<i~:!}11 A,'M`R~717i~ t r+ r~a; x
~. ~ _: .J '~~. 1 ~~'. y,a..U~.t'Yl~ ,~.., J lY~~y 1.~-"~ I ~':
k14~~ . ,
.,
t.,
Z
R1: ';
~~'
k~`~
.., r
~,~~
STATE OF' CALIFORNIF~ )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ;;s.
CTTY OI' ANAHEIM )
j, Edith L. Harris, Secretary ot tlxe Anaheim ('ity planning
Commissian, 3o hereby certify that ttxe L•oxegoing resoluCion tvas passed and
adopted at a meatinq of ~he ;Anaheim City Planning C~mmission held on
November, 1987, by the fullowing v~te of the members tl~ereoP:
~Y~S: COMMISSIUTiERS: $OUA.S, BOYDSTUN, CAI2UuILLO, Fk,LDFIATJu,
MESSE, MC BURNEY
NOES: COt~fISSI0NFR5: NONE
ADSc,NT: COMMISSIONERS: HERHST
tN WITNESS WHEREOF, I h~ve nereunto seC my hand thi~ 23rd day oE
November. 1987. ~ .
_.._._ i~~JQ~:~~ v~ ,
SECRGrARY., r~N'AHEIM PT.ANN N~ Ct1MMISSIGN
0131r
-3-
PC87-247
`^,
>~ , _