PC 80-49R[SOLUTIOP~ N0. PC "n0-49
P,ESOLUTIO~! OF THE ,4~IAHE I M C ITY PLAMtt I MC, C(1'1!+I SS I ON
TNAT PETITIO~d FOR VIIRIAFJCE N0. 3137 ~E DEMIED
b1HEREAS, the Rnaheim City Planning Comnission ~iid receive a verified
Petition for Variance from CQPlRAD J. LETTER AND JOSEPHINE P!. LETTER, 3~n2 West
Valiejo Drive, llnaheim, California ?2~304, oivners, and W,4LTE° K. 6QbR1A`d, ]93E Cerritos
Avenue, Stanton, California 906(~n, agent, of certain real property situated in the
City of llnahetm~ County o` Orange, State of California descrihed as:
That portton of Lot 1 of the Anaheim extension as shoam on a map
of Survey made by 4!illiam Hamel and filed for recording in thc
office of the County Recorder of Los P.n~eles County, California,
described as fo11o~•is; Beginning at a point in the North line of
said lot being in the South line of La Palma llvrnue, distant
thereon 255.33 feet West of the Plortheast corner of said lot
running thence West along the North line of said Lot 7~.Q1 feet,
thence South parallel o-~ith the Easterly line of said Lot ~, ~
feet thence rlorth 73° 54~ 25~~ East 7? feet to a line r~hich~is,
parailel with the Easterly line of sald lot tl;ru a point of
beginning. Thence t~ortherly along said lat mentioned parallel
line 279,~49 feet to the point of beginning. Said iand is sho~m
on a iicensed Surveyors Plap filed in Rook 1C, Page 9 of Records of
survey in the office of the County Rer_order of said County.
4lHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a puhlic hearing at the City
Hall in the City of Anaheim on March iQ, 1980, at 1:3~ p.m., notice of said pub)ic
hearing havtng been duly given as required by laa~ and in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, t~ hear and consider
evidence for and against s=id proposed v~rlar,ce a„~ tc ;nvestiyate and make findln9s
anu recommendations in conn~•ction ther?~•rith; and
WFIEREAS, said Commission, after clue inspection, investfgation and study made
bY itself and ~n its behalf, and after due consideration of all evldence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the folioti•iing facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes a waiver of tfie folloo-iing to construct a
7-unit apartment complex:
SECTI0IJ 1$.34.p52,p~2 - ~qaximum structural heiqht.
one-story permitted aiithin 15^ fee*.
o R~S-720~ Zoning;
two-stories proposed at (~2 feet)
2. 7hat the ahove-mentioned watver is hereby denied on tlie basis r_hat the
petitioner did not demonstrate a hardship, that the structural height a~ould restrict
light and air circulation and othertiaise adversely impact nearhy single-family
r~esidences, and that an undesirahle precedent coul.~ he estahlished.
3. That there are no exceptional ~r extraorclinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to tfie property involved or to the intended use of the oroperty
PC3~-~~q
that do not apply generally to the oroperty or class of use in the same vicintty and
zone.
l~. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantia) property right possessed by other property in *_he same
~icinity and zone, and denied to the ~roperty in question.
5. That the requested variance ~~~ill be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is located.
6. That three (3) persons indicated their presence at saicf public hearing
~n opposition; and that no correspondence o-ias received in opposition to Y.he subject
Petition.
ENVIROMMEPJTAL iMPACT FINDIPI;: That the Anaheim City Planning Commisston has
~eviewed the proposal to construct a 7-unit aoartment complex with waiver of maximum
structural height on an irre~ularly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of approximately
~.65 acre, having a frontage of appro-:;mately 8!t feet on the south side of La Paiir,~
Avenue, having a maximum depth of approximately 2~;f1 feet and being located
approximately +~00 feet east of the centerline of East Street; and does hereby
epprove the P~egative Declaration from the r~quirement to prepare an envtronmental
impact report on the basis that there o-~auld be no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental impact due to the approval of this tJegative
~eclaration since the AnaF~eim General Plan designates the subject property for
medium-density residenttal land uses commensurate with the proposal; that no
sensitive environmental impacts are invalved in tlie proposal; that the Initial Study
submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or cumulative
adverse environmental impacts; and that the ~leqative Declaration suhstantiating the
foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning Department.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT Rf_SOLV[D that the Anaheim City Planning Com!~ission
does hereby deny subject Petttion for Variance on the basis of the aforementioned
findings.
THE FOREGOIMG R[SOLUTIO"d is signed and approveci Ly me this tOth day of
~larch, 1980.
ATTEST•
( -fli~i /,.. ~ ~4 s d
CNA I RIdOMA'!, ANAHF i M C I TY PLAN~11 ~! ; COhiN I SS I ON
~~C..~W ~ `V-~itiL,~
SECRETARY, ANAHE I,M C I TY PLANP! I P1G C0~1M I SS 10~!
-2.- PC3o-4~
: ~i
,
STAT[ UF CALIFOR!11A )
COUIJTY OF ORAPlGE ) ss.
'~~ CITY OF APIAHEIM )
I, Edith L. liarris, Secretary of tfie Anaheim Cfty Planninc~ Commission, do
; hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of
~~ the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission held on March 1~, 1~°~, by the fo)1oo-~ing vote of
i the members thereof:
~
AYES: COM141SSIOh;FRS: E3ARPlES, EUSHORE, D/IVIQ, FRY, IiCRBST,, KIN~, TOLAR
i NOES: CO!1111SSIOhJERS: PlONE
ABSENT: COM'~ISSIOtJERS: !JOtIE
~
IP! bllT~lES5 6lHEREOF, I have hereunto set r,iy hanrl this lOth day of March,
1980.
~~~~ ~ ~~ ^ ~
SECRETARY, A`;AHE I N C I TY PLAPlN I D!~ COt1M I SS I ON
i
~
f
i
-3- PCl3f1-1~~ '
~_. - t