PC 80-32RESOLUTION P10. PC AQ-32
A RESOLUT I OtJ OF TFIE ANAHE I M C ~ TY PLAPJPI I P!G C011M I SS 1011
THAT PETITIOF! FOR VFlRIAPlCE DIO. 3~32 DE GRFlNTED
k'~IEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Cominission did receive a verified
Petition f~r Variance from BEAM DEVELOPMEPIT COMPANY, 1164 North Euclid Street,
Anaheim, Ca!ifornia g2301, owner, and ROBERT D. HICKELSON, 13<< South Glassell,
Orange, California 92666, agent, of certain real property situated in the City uf
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as:
PARCEL 1 as sho4m on a map rccorded in Book 137, Pages 15 and 16
of Parcel Ptaps, records of Orange County, Califiornia.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission dtd schedule a pubiic hearing at the
i.ity Hall in the City of Anaheim on January 28, 1g80, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said
public hearing having been duly ~iven as required by law and in accordance with the
provtsians of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and mal:e findings
and recommendations in connection therewith; said public hearing having been
continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 25, 1980, and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made
by itself and ir, its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the foilowing facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes walvers of the followtng to construct a 1-
)ot, 24-unit condominium subdivision:
(a) SECTIOPI 18.31,062.012 - ilaximum structural height.
(1 story permitted ~vith n 15~ feet of
single-~amiiy residential zoning;
2 stortes proposed)
(b) SECTION 18,84.052.~20 - Permitted building location.
50 foot setback from arterial hi hways re utred,
10 to 25 eet proposed
2. That the above-mentioned waivers are hereby granted on the basis that
the petitioner demonstrated that a hardship exists in that subject property is
triangularly-shaped with a grade level 5 to 25 feet below adjacent properties and
hiliside secondary arterial highways.
3. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the inter,ded use of the property that do
not apply generally to the property or class of use in the seme vicinity and zcne.
4. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservati~n and
enjoyment of a substantial preperty right possessed by other property in the same
victnity and zone, and denied to the property in question.
PC£30-32
5. That the requested variance will not be materially detrimental to ths
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is located,
6. That eight (8) persons indicated their presence at the January 2~, 1980
public hearing in opposition and fourteen (1!E) persons indtcated their presence at
the February 25~ 1980 public hearing in opposition and that no correspondence was
received tn opposition to the subject petition.
ENVIROPJMENTAL IMPACT FINDING: That the Anaheim City Planning Commisston
does hereby find that Environmental Impact Report Plo. 234 for the proposed
develooment, hav:ng been considered this date, and evidence both airitten and oral,
having been presented to supplement draft EIR ~40. 23~!, potential environmental
impacts of the project may be reduced to an insiqnificant level by conformance with
City Plan, poitcies and ordinances and draft EIR No. 134 i~ in compliance with the
California Environnental Quality Act and ~~~ith City and STate EIR Guidelines and,
therefore, based upon such information, the Anaheim City Planning Commission
certifies EIR No. 234.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anahe3m City Planntng Commission
does hereby grant subject Patition for Variance, upon the folioaiing conditions which
are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject
property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the
City of Anaheim:
1. That this Variance is granted subject to the com~letion of
Reclassification PJo. 73-74-46, noor pending.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with t:ie City of Anaheim marked Exhibtt PJns. 1
~hrough 11.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Plannin~ Commission does here6y
find and determtne that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon
applicant's compitance with each and all of the condttions hereinabove set forth.
Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable
by the final judgment of any court of competent jurtsdiction, then this Resolution,
and any approvals here~n contained, shall be deemed nuil and void.
THE FOREGOIPIG RESOLUTIOPI is signed and approved by me this 25th day of
February, 1980.
~%a~Cu-LG..-~ ~ S~ Q2N~.s/
CHA I RWOMADI, ANAHE I M C I TY PLAND! I PIG COMM I SS I OP~
ATTEST:
~~ ~ ~
SECRETARY ~ ANAHE I h1 C I TY PLAtdPI I FJG COMM I SS I Otl
-7.- PCIIO-32
; ~:.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUtJTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF AN~IHEIM )
~, Edith L. Harris~ Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commtssion~ do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution o-ias passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on February ?5, 1980, by tiie following vote
of the members thereof:
~'~~~;
,`; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, BUSHORE, D,4VID, FRY, NEREST, KIMG, TOLAR
NOES: C0~4MISSIONERS: NOtJE
~
~~' ABSENT: CGMMISSIO~JERS: NONE
~N WITNESS WHEREOF, i have heree.nto set my hand this 25th day of February,
1980.
~
~~ ~ Z~1~.~.~,
~ SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLAN~lING C011MISSION
~
-3- rca~-3z