PC 80-113RESOLUTIOtI N0. PC 30-i13
RESOLUTI01! Of THE ANAHEIFI CITY PLAN~IINf; C~~IMISSIO~!
THAT PETITIOP! FQR VARIANCE N0. 3158 BE DEP~IED
WHEREAS, the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission did receive a verified
Petition for Variance from LINDA M. GRAfiAM, 1233~ East Howard, Whi~ttier, California
90601, owner, and APITJE FIENDERSO~J~ 600 West Roberta Avenue, Ful)erton, California
92632, agent~ of certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim~ County of
Orange~ State of California, described as:
That portio~ of Record of Survey I3ook 1 Page 55 of Record of
Surveys~ in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of
Lalifornia, shown as Parcel No. 2 on a 14ap filed in Book 25 Page
19 of Parcel Maos~ in the 0`ftce of the County Recorder of said
County.
WHEREAS~ the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearina at the City
Hall in the City of Anaheim on June ;~~ 1330. at i:30 p•m., notfce of said public
hearing having been duly given as required by low and tn accordance with the
provlsions of the Anaheim Municipal CodP, Chapter 13.n3~ to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed varlance and to investigate and make findfngs
and recommendattons in connection therewith; and
41HEREAS, safd Commtssion, after due Inspection~ investioa[ion and study made
~Y itself and in (ts behalf~ and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing~ does find and dete~nine the following facts:
1. Tha[ the petttioner proposes waivers of the following to construct a 4-
unit apartment buildiny:
(a) SECTION 18,34.062.012 - Maximum structural hei ht.
on~-story permitted within
15J~et+of sinqle-family zoning;
tvro stories proposed)
(b) SECTION 18.34.063.023 - Minimum landsca ed setback.
5 eet requtred;
~eet proposed)
2. That the above-mentioned waivers are her~by ~ienied on the basis that
the peLi[toner did not demonstrate that a hardship exists an~l that the request for
reclasstficatlon to alla~ this proJect was denied and this vartance would be valid
only for apartments as proposed 6y the reclasstfication actton.
3. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intencied use of the property
that do not app)y generally to the property or class of use i~ Lhe sar~e vtcinfty and
zone.
PC80-113
4. 7hat the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same
vtcinity and zone, and dented to the property in question.
5. Tha~ the requested variance will be matertally detrimental to the
puulic welfare or tnJurious to the property or tmprovements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is located,
6. That approxtmately fifteen (15) persons inclicated their p;esence at
sa(d public hearing In opposftion; and that no correspondence was received in
oppositlon to the subJect petition.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINOIMG: That the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed the proposa to reclassi y subject praperty from the RS-720~ (P,esidential,
S(ngle-Family) Zone to the RM-1200 ~Resldential~ Multiple-Famlly) Zone to const~uct a
4-unit apartment complex a~tth waivers of maximum structural hetght and mtnimum
landscaped setback on a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of
approximately 5770 square feet, having a fron:age of approximately 50 feet on the
east stde of Cherry Way~ having a maximum depth of a~proximately li5 feet and being
located approximately l5b feet sQUth of the center line of Ronney~ Drive; a~d does
hereby disapprove the Negative Declaration from the rAquirement to prepare an
enviranmental Impact report on the basis that there ofould be stgnificant individual
or cumulative adverse environmental tmpacts due to the approval of this Negattve
Declaration in that reclassiflcatton ~aould be "spot zoning" on Cherry Way; that
sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that the Initial Study
submitted by the peti[toner indicates sPgnificant indivtdual or cumulative adverse
environmental impacts.
KOW~ THE4EFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Pianning Co~xnission
does hereby deny subject Petition for Varlance on the tasis of the aforementioned
findinas.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTIO~~ is slgned and approved by me this 14th day of July,
19ao.
ATTEST•
~~ii.C~ ~ .~ . , Ati ~j
~ -Q
CNAIRtlOMAN, MAH IM C L NM N, COMM~'TSSION
~ ~•
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CI Y LANNING COMM SS10~!
-2- PCBo-113
STATE OF CA(.IFOP,DIiA )
C;OUNTY OF ORADlGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIN )
1~ EditF~ L. Narris, Secretary of the Anaheim Cfty Planning Commission do
herieby certify that the foregoing resolutfon was passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on July ilr, 1980, by the following vote of
the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, BUSHORE, FRY, KIF1G
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COM~915SIOIvERS: HERBST
ABSTAIN~ COMMISSIO~lERS: TOLAR
VACAtJCY: O~IE SEAT
I~J WITNE55 WHEREOF, I have hereunto se; my hand this l~~th day of July, 1g80.
~~CTE~A ~~ M T Alt~ NG OMM S ON
-3- PC80-113