PC 88-36~,~
,
R~~i~l)T~ON~ NQ ~ ~~Q}j~C~
A RESUI~UTI(.1N OF TliE 7~1dAHEIM CITY PLANNING COh4rtISSI~N
THAT PE1'I.'ION "OR VAFtIANCE Y0. 3747 Bk~ DENI~D
WHCRF~~S, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receivo R
verifi.ed Petition for V~riancQ from P~RALTA LTD., 3150 E. Birch, Brea, CA
;,; 92621, AT~N: VIC . ELCQLiTN, owner of c.~rt~+in real propar~y siCuated i,n the
'
V~ City of. Anat-eim, Cuunty cat Orango, State of Califarnia doscribed as:
LOTS 1 TO 42 TP.ACT 12576, IPT THE CI'T7C OP'
]~NAHEIM, COUNTX OF ORANGE, STATE; QF' r~LIFORNIA
IS SHOWN UPI M,AP REC~IHUED IN b00K 57a PAGES 10 TO
16 INCLUaT~~E, MTSCELLANF.OUS 2r1APS, OFFICE OF xHE
'
~ ~. COUNTY :tEC~~itDERS OF SAtD COUNTY.
WHFREAS, t;he City Planning C~mmission did hold a pul~lic hearing
at the Civic Center in tk~ct City oi Anatieim on February 1, 1988, at ~:30 p.m.,
~ noti.ae of said public hQr,ring having bee;~ duly given as requir~d by law ancl in
accordanc~a with thQ provisions of the Anahaim Munir.ipal Code, Chapter 18.03,
_ ~o he3r ,~ncl consider ev:idence L•or and against sai.d proposed variance and t~
~ inv~~tigat~ aiid make fii-dznqs t~nd recommQndations in r.oa~necti~n therewith; and
P7l1F.ItEAS, ;said Commission, after due inspection, invQStigatipn
a,id skudy mHde by itself and in its behalE, and :,fter due con3zderation or' all
evi~3Qnce anci report:s off~r~d at said hearin~, d~QS find and determinQ the
Lcl.lowing facta•
1. Thut L•he petitiunAr ~roposes waivc~rs of the follow.fng to
con:;truct up to 38 single-•family resid~nce~ at a hoight noL• Lo exceed 95 feQt:
S:'~TIQNS 18,.~~1L041.011 - M~ximum~truc:tura~h~ig~
.(_7,~f,~~t permi:.ted for single-Eamily
residences in she Scenic
Corridor 7.one Ov~rlay; ~~fe~~
proposQd)
?. That Che 3bo~•e-mentioned waive_ is haroby denied on the
~ b~sis rhat thQre are no sp~cial circumstances app].fcable to the property such
~s :;fzs, shape, topogz~aphy, lor_ation and surroundings which do not apply to
r~, othe~ ider.tlc~lly xoned ~roperty in the samc~ vicinity; anc: that str.ict
Tpp7ication o[ thc 2oning :08o doQS not dep:ivcs the proper.ty of privilegeu
enjoyed by ot}~er proportie~ in l•he ictc~ntica.l zono and classi fication in the
o. t~icini~y.
3. xhat therQ ~.rQ no excaptional or oxCruordinary circum-
starces or condit.ions applicable to thP property involved ~r to the intendec]
use nt the property that clo not ~pply genea•a11y t~ the proparty or al~ss of
use in L-hQ same v.icinit,y and zone.
0186r PC88-36
.; .-~ --- t Y'- .t;i
~~ '';;
• ;•~
r°
~ii
4. That tho reque3~ed waiver for a blanket appxo~ral withou~
~~Y specific development plnns end for upt to 38 ;• i~
set an ~uidosirablo prr~cPdenh inth Sceni,c Corric3or. 'ingle-~amily rec~iences would ~,~~'~
5. That t1'e request:ed varisnr.e is not necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a 3ub~tantial property ri•ght posst~sseci by othc~r
property in thc~ same vicinity and zone, and dQnied to tho ~ropert-y in quRStion.
~. That t•he requ~sted variancP will be materiallX detrimenral
to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvement~ in such
vicinity and zone in which the prop~rty is located.
~• That 9 peop1e zndicarad thc~ir preaencc~ at said public
hearing in opposi~ion; and ~hat no correspondence was received in upposifion
to subject petilion.
j'° AL,II' F3N~A F9TVIR N
• C.ity Plannin ~~N~AL Q~L-I~Y A~T . 1NpIN~: ~hat the Anaheim
g Commission has reviowed the proposal to cons~ruct tip to 3A
single-family residonces ~at a height ziot to exceed 35 Eeet with a waf
ma~;imum structural hoighC on t~n irreyularl Ver ~£
o~ npproximately 40 acres located on tl:;~ ~narthg s de cof Nohl p Ranch f R*~n~
;~ approximat~ly 300 foet northe a s t o~ h h o c e n t e r l 3ne of Old Buckst Lane,~~~d
f u r t her descraibed as Tract No. 1257 6; a n d d o ~ s h ero by approve the
~ D e c l a r a ti.on upon Findin g t h a t i t h a s consi dared the ~Eg~~~.Ve D N e g a t i v a
toget hQr w.ith any comments r3ceived durir. eclaration
; further findi.nq on the basis of the initial t 8ypandl allY@commentg Cr s~ ~nd
th~t: tiher~ x5 na substantia~ evidencR nceived
significant effQCt ~n the gnviro:iment, that th~ projQCt will haye `.
a
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE:SOLVE~ thu~ the Anaheim Ca.ty pl~nning ,I~
Commxssion does hareby deny subject Petition for V~r.iar.ce on the k~asis of the
aforemsnt•ioned finding~s.
THE FOREGOIr1G RE:SOLUTIOP! is signod and appxoved by me this lst
day oF ~ebruary. 1988.
/ ,;
-------~~e-~.~' _ ~ ~i.-.s -e...
CHAIftMAN, 1-NAHEIM CI~ PLANNING C~IdtdISSZON'
ATTEST: ~; ~;, ~ . ,
/
i
----___..-~ ~ ~,~`~' ~ ; . ;J ~;/ ~,f , ~
SECRETARY.. AN '. _.._._.~ .~,~ `. . ,~_- ~ L~~_
AHETM CITY PLAN2iING COMMISSION
~ ~
STAT~ OF CALIFORNIA )
GOUN'.CY' OF ORANGE ) q y,
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
. . , , . . i ,' ~
'~f .~
4'/
~~~r I
I, Edith L. Karxis, Searetary a.`. the Anaheim Ci.ty P~anning
Commission, do hereby aertify t:~~t the foregU~.ny reselution was passed and
adoptt~d at a meetiiig of the Anahsim City Plr~nning Comtr~ission held on Fehruary
1, 1y88, by ~he following vote of the membei•s thoreof:
A.YES: CAMMISSIONrCS: BUUAS, Ei0YA5TUN, CAR'i1SILL0, F'ELDHAUS, IiE22BST,
MC BUR23EX
NOES: COMMIS~IONERS: NONE
ABSE!!T: COMMI5SION~RS: MESSE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereurito set my hand this lst day of
Februaiy, 1988. ` ~ _ ~ ~
~~? .~'L~~'~~'~~5.:_ ~/ ~ - ,
~ ~~
''~CRFTARX, AN.~1FI~:IM PLZNNING COh4yfI5SI0N
''i
-3-
PCOS-36
~