PC 77-112RESOLUTI~N N0. PC77-112
A RESOLUTION OF TNE At~AHEIN CITY PLANI~INf, CONNISSIOt7
THAT PET1710~! FOR VAkIAflCE N0. 2939 ~E DEt~IED
W{1EREkS, the Anaheim City Planning Cortmission did receive a verified
Petition for Variance from PAUL AttD CAROLYt~ W. KFOESEN, 451 Peralta Hills Drive,
Anaheim, California 92~07, owners of certain real propc:rty situated in thc City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, Sta[c of Laiifornia, describcd as:
That portion of Lo[ 10, Tract Sii, recorded in Boo:c 10, pagc G of
Hiscellancous Maps, described as Parcel No. 3, as shown on a Map
f(led in Book 43, page 4G of Parcel Mans, in the Office of the
County Recorder of Oranye County, California; and
NNEREAS, the Ci[y Planniny Commission did hold a public hear(ny a[ the City
Hall in the Ci[y of Anaheim on tlay 23, 1977, at 1:30 p.m., notice of saicl public
t~earing having been ~iuly givei as required by law and in accordance with the
provisions of [he Anaheim Huniciµai Code, Chapter 1eS.Q3, to hear and consider
evidence for anJ agatnst said proposed varia~ce and to investigate and make findings
and recommendations in connec;tion theraaith; an~
W11[REAS, said Commission, af[er duc inspection, inves[igation and study made
by itself and i~ its befialf, ~nd a`ter due consideration of all evid=nce and reports
offered at said hcarin~~, does find and determine the following fac[s:
1. That [hc pe[i[ioncr requests ~ waiver of thc following to establish two
RS-NS-~+3,OQ0(SC) (RESIUEI~TIAL., SIt~GLE-FA111LY HILLSIDE-SCEHIC CORRIDOR OVEP.LAY) ZONED
lots:
SCCTIOiI lo.Z2.OG1.010 - Minimum l~t area. (43 SGO s uare fect requlred;
Jy, and , 3 squarc eet propose
2, That the above-rt'~cntioned waiver is ticrcby denied on the basis tha[ the
petitioner indicated he was the property owner when previous subdivision of the
property under the existiny Code regulations created [he existing lot which cannot be
re-subdivideJ into two conformin9 RS-115-4;,00~ parcels and, therefore, any hardship
which may exist was self-induce~; tha[ a re-subdivision of the subject property and
adjacent property would result in nonconforminy lo[ sizes; and [hat an undeslrable
precedent w.uld ba: establishecl in Peralta Iliils if the subject o~aiver were granted.
3, 'fhat there are no exceptional or extraordinar•y circumstancss or
conditions applicable to the property involved or to [he intended use of thr. property
that do not apply generally tv the property or elass of use (n the same vicinity and
zone.
4, That thc requested variancc is no* necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property riylit possessed by other prop~rty in the same
vicinity and zonc, and denied to the property in question.
5, Tfiat thc request~d variance will be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to ttie property or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is lacated.
PC77-112
i~
6. That one person in~iica[ed his presence at said public hearing in
opposition and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject
petition.
Ei1VIROtJHEt~TAL 111PACT FIND!'l,r,: That [iic Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed t e subject proposa with waiver of minimum lot area on property consisting
of 1.9 acres located approximately i~S fcet south of the centerline of Peralta Hills
Drive, being iut~tcd approximately 357 fect west of the centerlinc of Calle Dana, and
further described as li51 Peralta Nilis Drive, and does hereby recommend to the City
Council of the City of Anaheim that a I~egative Declaration from the requirement to
prepare an environr,~nCal inpact report be approved for th~ subjec[ property on the
basis that there are no i~dividual or cumulative adverse impacts on the environment
due to the approval of this Neyative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan
designates the subjecC praperty for estate density residential ]and uses commensurate
witfi the proposal, and [lie Initial Study submitteci by Ytie petilioner indicates no
significant adverse environmental impact; and ttiat the Negative Declaration
substantiating the foreyoiny findinys is on file in the Office of the Planning
Department.
tJOW, Tt1Ef;EFORE, BE IT RESOLVEU tha[ the Anahcim City Planni~g Commission
doe~ hereby deny subject Petition for Variance on tlie basis of tt~e aforemenYioned
findings.
7fIE FOKEGOItJG RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 23rd day of May,
1377.
~~' ~ -
CIUIIRMA~1 PRO 7EMPORE
AIU,Ii[ I H C I TY PLA11171 t~G COMN I 55 I OU
AT7EST:
~~..~. ~ ~./a,t,~,
SL'CRETARY, ANAHEIH CITY PLAI~t11~IG COMMISSIOtJ
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUH"fY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAtIEIH )
i, Edith L. Narris, Secre[ary of the Anahcim City Planning Commission, do
hereb~ ccrtify that the foreyoiny resolution was passed and adopted at a meeti~9 the
the Anaheim City Planniny Comnission held ~n Hay 23, 1977, at 1:30 p.m•+ Y
following vote o` the menbers thereof:
AYES: CONt115SI0NERS: (3ARf~ES, DAVID, tiERE3ST, Y.II~G, LtNN, TOLAR
NOES: C011MISSIOI~ERS: IJOlIE
ADS[NT: COM~11 SS I ONERS : JOliN50t~
IN UITt~E55 WtIEREOF, I have fiere~nto set my hand this 23rd day of May, 1377.
(odi.~l~t~ oC. ~~~~/~a/
SECRETARY, A1~AHE111 CITY PLANNING COHMISSION
-z-
Pc77-~~2