PC 88-159`f.~ . . .. . .. . . - .--~_-1~
~
~~ r
~~i ~ ~ L~i!
~ ~ 1n ~ J t~~t~~,
4~~ ~
H~ ' ii
~ ; '.if
`, i . . . ~ ., ~i:
~ .~ i;~
~ ;;
S Li~L19~1~.: ?~A$-15? ``~
1 A RESOLLJTION OF THE ANAHEIM CIT.Y PLANNING COMMISSION .`
~~ THAT PETTTICN FOR VARIANC~ N0. 3805 BE DENIED ~,;,~
' 1'r;
,`,
~'ti:• WHEREAS, the Anaheim Cat.y Planning Commission did xeceive a ~Fq
f''' verifiec. PeCition for V,ariance from R~YMOPID L. PHII,LIPS, 9297 Hatavia Strect, .:->
~~` ~range, CA, owner, and N~CK GOME~, 9871 tiunnybrook Avenu~, Buena Park, CA
' ,;Fi
90621, agent, o~ cQrtain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, Count-y `'`a
of Orange, State qf f:alifoxnia described as;
;': #
Lat 22 of Tact 2vo. 743, in the Cit,y uf Anuheim, as ~''S
° shown on a map recorded in book 2~, page (s) ].U, of '`'
', Miscellaneous Maps, in the oifice uf thQ C~untX ~~~
~;,; Rc;carder of said County. ~'';~
WHE1tF~AS, the City Planning Comm;,;sian dic~ hold a public he3ring
at the Civic Center in the City of Anak.eim on June 20, 1988, at 1:3Q p.m.,
~ no~ic~ of said public hearing havinq been duly given as required by .lttw an~ in
s~: accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Dtuniaipal Code, Chapter 18.03,
to 2iear anr~ consider evidence .~or and against said proposed variance and to
investigate and make fir~ding,, and recummendat?o„~ in connection therewith; ~snd
~
• WfIEREAS, said Cammission, after due inspECtiun, investigation
and stuc~y made by itself and in its behalf, and ~fter due con~iderztion of all
evicience and reports offered at sai3 hearing, does find aud determine the
following facts:
'' corstruct a 3-stor~rhat the patitiQncr proposes rraivers of the following to
~. ,~, • 0- •.~nit, apartmont complex:
,; j
~ ~a' '~-~'~-Q~--~$-~-~~-+.2~~. - hSaximum StruCt~ral H +~+
i~ c•, within 15~ fsQt of a
singla-Larnily residenti3l zone
~ermi.',;ted; 3 stor<_es propos~d 21
~ foeL• from RS-A-4~,000 Zonirig and.
v~ 1ti5 feet frr~m ~inglc~-famfly
' resident;ial zoning in Buena Park)
~~
(b) S~ction 18.'~n _ nr,~ n~n _ ~ i m sxte cov~r c~~
(.~ permitted; ~ proposed)
~
~. 'rhat the above-mentioned waivers are hereb,y deuiQQ on the ~
basis that Re~classi~ication 270. 87-88-56 subm.itted in conjunction with
, proposed Va.ia.icc~ was denied by the Plannin Commission, '
~ Re,~olutiun No. ~Ca8-158; and that thero ~sr.~gno zpecial circumstasceson with ;,;
~; ~
; appli~able to the pronerty such as size, shapp_ topography, loc~~iou anQ
~ surroundings which do no~ 3pQ1y tu otlier idsnt:icc.ll• zuned
same vicinit and that strict a ~,cation of the Zoninq Code~~oesynat deprive
y' PP~ ;
~ the prcperty of privileges enjoyed Ay other ~ _
and claysiLicatioa i.n the vicix,ity. p'OP°xties in the identical zons "'~
t ,
~
~
~ ti0349r
'•~fr
', ]~~~~':~~.kii
~'`1
~
~,
~
. ~xr~`.. ~N
~ ~'c~{z#
~ q~
~ ~' y,i~.
. . . . . :; ~..~
3. Tha1: thar.P are no excep~ional or extrgordinary
circumsra~nces or COIll31t102'~S applicable to the , roperty invol~ved or tn ~ha
intonderl use of the property tliat do not ap1~1y Senerally to ~he property or
class o£ use in the same vicinity and zone.
4• Zhat the requQSted varisncQ is not nscessary far tho
presQrvation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possew~~d by other
property in the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the praperty in question.
5~ That the requ~sted v~riance will be materially d~trimental to
the public welfare ar injtirious to the property or improvements in such
vlcinity and zoae iu which the property i~ lacat~d.
6. '1'hat one per,ron indicar.ed his presez~ce at said publi~ hearing in
opposition; and that rio cor:aspondence was recei.ved iri opp~sition to subj9ct
pn~ition.
CALIFORNiA ENVIRONMbSI~AL OUALZTX A~,T FINDT~NG: That tr.e Anaheim
CiL•y Plauning Commission has revxewed the proposal tG rpclassify subject
gropQrty from the RSA-43,000 (Residential/Agricultural) Zone to the RM-1200
(Residential/Multiple-Family) Zone ~nd to construat a~-story, 20-unii:,
apartment complex with ~xivars af maximum structural hQight and maximiun sits
coverage on a~.rregularly-shaped parcel of land consistin~ of approximately
0.59 acre having a fr.ontage of a~pproximately 13?. Eeet on the north side of
Savanna St.reet and being located approximately 20U feet west of the
center.li~.e of Mar.ia:i Wa,y; ~nd cloes Y,erebg approve t:~e Negative Declaration
upon fin~i.ng that .it has considered the Negative D~clar;~tion together wi~I-
any comments reco.ivod during the public review process arid further findiny on
the basis of the iniCial stiicly and any comrnents r~cQived that ~here ia no
~ubstantial evidenca that t.he Pr~ject will have a sign.ificant ef~ect on the
environ.ment.
NOW, THEREFORE, ~i; IT R~SOL'V~D that the AnahPi,m City Planning
Commis~ion does hereby dony subject PetiL•ion ~or Variance, on ~che basi.s af
the foreqoi.ng fittdings.
THE ~OkEG~t~,~ RESOLUTXON is sfgnefl and ~~proved by ma this 20 day
of June, 3988, )
~J~I- ~
~-~'~`~`~- .
CHAIFtMAN, ANAFiEIM CI~.'Y PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTE£x: ~
~~e;w' ~y~ '' ~
~ECRETA' Y, Ah:AHEIM~ pLAN ING COMMI~SIC~.;ti
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANCE ) sa,
CYTY OF ANI-.HRIM j
I, Edith L. Harrie, ~ecretaxy of the Anaheim Ci~y Plnnu~ng
'2' PC08-159
?;4~'~'' i~ ,'• _
1 V~
~,~
~
,~;~
'~~
,,,
=~~:i;~;#i~
: t . . . .. - . . ~ . .. . . _ . . ~ ~ ~ ~. .~ . .. . . , ~,.;'+~~Ja't nl~~+~'f~~
~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ , ~ . r '~:~ jf~
~•..~,~ . ~ , . . . . , ' ~
~ . . ~ = i 1~ 1. ~~
1
~ ~',
~
~:
~ ~~
,. ~ ~i :l:~14~[~
Commiss3on, do herab~~ certify th$t the foregoing resolut.ion was pt,ssed and ~~~
adopted ak a meetinc~ of tha Anaheim City P].anning Commission held on June
20t•h~ 1988, by ~he t:o11ow3ng vote of the mon~bers ~hereof:
AXES: COMMISSTONGRS: $OUAS, BOYDSTUN, CARUSILLO, FELDHAUS, HEFBST,
MC BURNEY, MESSE " ~''~
NOk;S: COMMISSIONERS: NON~ ';i
AB~ENTs COMhSIS5I0i~ERS: NONE "~
'~'t;~
.,;~
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hez~eunL•o set ,ny hand this 20th day oE „.ti
Juiie, 1988.
.~. ~ . %
__ ._._ , ,r,..~
SECR~TARY, ANAHETM ClTX PLANNING COMMISSION
~ ..
-3-
~
i
I,
;r;
• ~>;
;>
: ;,r
~~~~;
+
;;~
`:t;
i.~
: !~'r
,l
~•'~