PC 77-161RESOLUTI011 N0. PC77-ill
/1 RESOLUTI~~~ ~F THE ANAHEIM CITY PL/~1NItlG COMMISSIOI!
TiIAT PETITIDt; FOR VARIAI~CE N0. 2~~!9 EiE DENIED
WtiEREAS, the Anaheim City Planninq Comr7ission did receive a verified
Petition for Variance frarn FR[D H. AI~D NELLIE J. RULE, 1227. West Pearl Street,
An~hcim, California 92$~1, awners, anJ QILL FERRY, 1]121 McFadden, Ap[. r13, Tus[in,
California 92bu0, agent, uf cerYain rcal property situated in the Gity of Anaheim,
County of Qran~~e, State ~f Califnrnia, described as:
LOTS j, u, 9 AND 10 I;i dLOCi: 2 OF SU11ME?FILLD ANU OPPENHEIH[P,'S
SU3DIVISIO;~ OF THE SPOERL THACi, AS PER NAP THEP,E~F REGORDED IF!
UOQt: 19, PAG~ ~+~~, OF HISCEL~At1E0U5 REI.ORDS OF LOS A~IG[LES COU'lTY,
CALIFCRIIIA.; and
41eiEkEr~S, the Cic, Planninq Cocimission did schedule a public hearing at the
City tlall in the City of Anahcim on July 1;?, 1~~77, at 1:3~ p.m., notier_ of said
public hearinn haviny been July 9iven as required Ly la4r and in accordance with the
provisions of t1~c Nnaheim ".unicipal CoJc, Chaptcr 1,.0?, to hcar and considr.r
evidence for anu aaainst s::iu proposed variance and [o investiciate and nake flndinqs
and recocurn~nda[ions in connection therewith; said pu5lic hearing having been
eontinue~ to thr Planniny Co^u~ission rnreetir~g of Aur,us[ 1, 1977; and
LlNEREAS, said Comrni;sion, aftcr due inspecCion, inves[igation and study made
by itself and ~n its behalf, and after due considerati~n of all evidenc~ and repor[s
offered at said t~eariny, does find anJ deterciine [hr_ following fac[s:
1. That thc pe[itioner proposes the foilwriny o-~aivers from thc A~aheim
1lunicipal Lode, to perriit the construction of a six-unit apartment complex:
(a) SECTION 1~.3'~.;ib1.010 - Ninimurr, buildinn site area er dwellinq unit.
2~~0 sq. ft. required; 2,'.0'.? sq. t. proposed)
(b) SECTIOti ic.3"2,065,020 - Minimum pedestrian accessaiay width.
(c) S[CTIOP~ 1i;,32.OGF,,062 - Vehicular access requirem~:nt.
2. That waiver (a) was denied on thc basis that the petitioner did no[
dernonstrate that a hardship would be created if said waiver aias no[ granted sinc~ a
proposal of a lessr_r density could be constructed on [lie property.
3. Ttiat waivcrs (b) and (c) were deletc~ by revised plans submitted by the
peti[loner.
4. That tliere are nu exceptional or extraordinary circurstances or
condi[ions applicable to the property involveJ or to thc intended use of the property
that do not apply generally [o the property or class of use in the same vicinity and
zone.
5. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoymen[ of a substantial property right posse:sed by other property in the same
vicinity and zo~e, and denied ta the property in question.
PC77-161
6, Tfiat the requested variancc will be materially detrimental to the
public wcifare or injurious to the prapcrty or improvcnents in such vicinity and zonc
in which the property is iocated.
7. That approximately fif[een (15) persons in~icated [heir presence in
opposition to this request at said public hcaring; tf;at a pcti[ion containing fifty-
nine (59) sign~tures was rnceived expressing opposition; and [hat two letters werc
received indicatiny opposi[ion.
EIJVIRUNH[~~TAL IIiPi;CT FI~~GING: That [he Anah~in City Planning Conmission has
revlewed tfie subject property, consistin~+ of a six-unit apartment complex with waiver
of minimum buildiny si[c arca per dwclling, on a rectangularly-shaped parcel
consi<_ting of ap~roxir;ia[~ly 0.3 acre havinq ~ frontaye of approximately 100 feet on
the south side of Pearl Strcet, and beiny located approximately 62~ feet west of the
cen[erline ~f lJest Street, and further d~scribed as 171G and 1222 West Pearl Street,
and does hcreby approvc a Negative ~eclaration from the requireMent to preparc an
environmental inpac[ r~;porC for tfie subject property on the basis that tfiere Hrould be
no significant inJividual or cumulative adverse environmen[at impact due to the
approval of ttiis Neyative Declaration sir,c~ the Anaheir~ General Plan designates the
subject proper[y for racJiurrdensity residential land use comrnensura[e wi[h [he
proposal; tha[ [here arc cr.is[iny rncJium-densi[y mwlti-far,iily units in the
nci~~hborhnod; that no senstive environmental inpacts are involved in thc proposal;
that the Ini[ial Study suhmitted by the neti[ioner indie~tes no signifieant
individual or cumula[ivc advcrse cnvironmen[al impacts; and thai the Ner~aYive
Declaration substantiatinq [hc foregoing finilin~is is on file in [hc Cit~ of Anahetm
Planninc; Departc~ent.
110'a, TIfERE~OCC, BE IT RESOLVLG that the Anahcim Ci[y Planning Cormission
does hereby deny subject Pe[ition for Variance c~n the basis of the aforementioned
findinr,s.
THE FOBEf01NG RESOLUTIOI! is siqned and approvcd by nc [his lst day of
August, 19/7.
ATTEST:
v'
CH IRMP.N, ANAfiEIM LITY P A1 JINf, COM111SSION
SECRE:TARY, AI~ANEfH CITY PLA'INING OMMISS1011
STAT[ OF CAL I FOR11 I A)
COUNTY ~F ORAUGE ) ,,,
CITY OF h:,AHEIFI )
I, Edith L. Ilarris, Secrctary of the Anaheim City Planniny Commission, do
hereby w rtify that the for~uoing resolution was passed and adopted at a mee[ing of
the Anatieirn City Planniny Comrnission held on Auyust 1, 19/7, at 1;j0 p,m,, by tfie
following vcte of the mer~ ers dicreof:
-2- PC77-1G1
AYtS: COH~11 ~f, la1{k:tSi : H~i`c~IJES , DAV l D, H~Li"FlST, JJi:f~501~, Y.I tIG, L l pt~, 70LA2
IIOES: t~Ht11SSIGt?C•RS: N01~[
Af35Et~7: COM1'IlSSIQtlFRS: 17G~If
1977
IN "!T.'IESS 'AIfi~~~CF, I h~v~ ~ierer~nt~ s~t my hand this ist day of August,
SECRETAP.Y, A~JAH[IM GITY PLANllllif C011NISS10~~
-3- PC77-161