PC 82-25~~~~~
,-,
r-.
i~ESOLUTIOV M0. PC 82-25
A RESOLUT I ON OF THE ANAHE I M C I TY PLl1~1PJ I NG CGMM I SS I ON
ThIAT PETITION FOR VARIAFlCE N0. 3255 BE GRANTED
WHEREAS, the Aneheim City Planntng Commission dtd recetve a vertfied
Petition for Variance from JOIiN H. AMD Kt1THLEEN R, PE~lNELI. 2313 Uirginia
Avenue, Anahetm, Californta 92$~6, owners, of certain real property situated in
the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California descrtbed as:
LOT 23 OF TRACT N0. 19a7, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 105, PAr,ES
13, 14 and 15 OF !11SCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a publtc hearing at the City
Hall in the City of Anaheim on February 22, 19~2, at 1:30 p.m., notice of sald publtc
hearing having been duly gfven as required by la~a and in accordance with the
provtslons of the Anaheim Muntcipal Code, Chapter 13.03, to hear and consider
evidence for and agafnst said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings
and recommendations in connectfon therewith; and
WNEREAS, said Commisston, after due inspection, investigation and study made
by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evfdence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the folloa~ing facts:
1. That the petitloner proposes waivers of the following to construct a
room addition:
(a) SECTIOtJ 18.26.063.020 - tlinimum Side Yard Setback.
12 eet, inches required; 11 feet,
inches proposed
(b) SECTION (A.26.oG3.03~ - Minimum Rear Yard Setback.
10 eet requtred; 5 eet proposed)
2. That the above-mentioned waivers are hereby granted on the basTs that
the petitioner demonstrated that a hardshtp exists due to the size and shape of the
reversecJ corner lot and that strict application of the Zoning Code deprtves the
property of privileges enJoyed by other properties undPr identical zoning
classlftcation in the victnity.
3. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condttions
applicabl~ to the p~operty involved or to the intended use of the properiy that do
not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vtcinity and zone.
4. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and
enJoyment of a substantlal property right possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question.
5. That the requested variance ~vill not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or inJurious to the prop~rty or Imorovements in such vicin(ty and zone
in whtch the property ts IocaLed.
PC82-25
4-
~'.':~".'._ . . . . ~ . . . ~ .
6. That no one Indicated their presence at said oublic hearing In
opposition; and that no correspondence ~vas received in opposition to the sub.ject
petlt(on,
ENVIROIJMEP~TAL IMPACT FINDIPlG: The Planning Director or his authorized
representatlve has determined that the proposed pro.ject fa)ls within the definition
of Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined tn the State EIR Guldelines and ts,
therefore~ categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
NOIJ, TIIEREFORE, BE IT RE50LVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby grant suhject Petition for Variance, uoon the fol)oH~ino condittons which
are hereby found to be a necessary prerequislte to the proposed use of the subJect
property tn order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the
City of Anaheim:
1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file t•~ith the City of Anahetm marked Exhfhit
Nos. 1 through 3.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
find and determine that adoption of th(s Resolution is expressly predicated upon
applicant's compliance 4~ith each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth.
Should any such condit(on, or any part thereof, be declared invaltd or unenforceable
by the final Judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolutfan,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and vuid.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTIOPI is signed and aoproved hy me this 22nd day of
February, 19$2,
ATTEST:
SECRETARY, ANANEIt CITY PLA NIN, COMMISSION
GHAIRMAN~ qNqNE~r~~~1'y pLANp,~p~r
COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIN )
~~ Edith L. Harris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolutton aras passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim City P)ar,ning Commfsston heid on February 22, 1~32, by the folloa~ing vote
of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, BUSNORE, FRY~ HERPST, KINr,~ MC BUP,NEY
NOES: COMMISSIdNERS: BOUAS
ABSENT: COMMi5SI0P1ERS: NONE
~N WITNESS WIIEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 22nd day of February,
~9II2.
SECRET R, AN HE M C T ,
NNING ~OMMISSION
-2- PC82-25
~,_