PC 78-216~a.
+
RESOLUTI0~1 N0. PC 78-215
A RESOLUTION OF T~iE AHAHEIM CITY PLANPIINf, CO`1~115510N
TliAT PETI710N FOR VARIANLE N0. 3045 BE DENIFD
WHEREAS, the Anahelm City Plannin9 Commission did receive a verified
Petition for Variance frorn FRAtJK G, AND PAULINE C. SMITH, 215 Broadview Street,
Anaheim, Californla 9280, owners of ce.rtafn rea) propcrty situated in the City of
Anahefm, County of Orange, State of Caltfornia descrtbed as:
Lot 18 of itact t1o. 22??, as shown on a Map thereof, recorded in
Book 7Q, Pages 44 to 49 inclusive of Miscallaneous Maps, Records
of sald Orange Coun[y, California,
NHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City
Hail in the City of Anaheim on September 11, 1978, at 1:30 p.m,, notiee o` said
public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed variance and to (~vesttgate and make findings
and recommendatlons in connection [herewl[h; and
WHEREAS, said Lommission, after due inspectfon, investiga:ion and study made
by itself and in its behaif, and after due consideration of ali evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determfne thr_• following facts:
1. Tha[ the petitioner proposes a waiver of thc followfng to permit an
iltegal garage conversion:
SECTION 18.2G.O6E - Mlnfmum num6er and tvpe of arkfnq spaces.
2-car garage requlred; none proposed
2. The proposed variance is hereby denied on the basis that the illegal
garage conversion has created oark.in9 problems in [he neiahborliooJ because adequate
on-si[e parking cannot be provided on su6Ject propcrty.
3. That there are no exceptfonal or ex[raordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved or to the inte~ded use of the property
that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in che same vicinity and
zone.
4. That the requested variance is nat necessary for the preservation and
enJoyment of a su6sCantial property right possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in quesiion.
5. That the requested variance vrill be materla?ly detrimental to the
public welfare or inJurlous to the property or improvements in such victnity and zone
in which the property is loca[ed.
PC7b-2t6
i ,b
6, That tvro persons inJicated their presence at said public hearing in
opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subJect
pe[ition.
EFlVIRONh1ENTAL IMPAC7 FIN41t7G; The Planning Director or his authorized
representative has detcrmfned that ihe proposed proJect falis within the definition
of Cate9orical Exemptions, Class ;, ?s defined in Paraaraph 2 of the City of Anaheim
Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and ls, therefore, categoricaliy exempt from
the requirement to prepare a~ EIR.
NOW, TIiEREFORE, 8E IT RESOLVED that Lhe Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby deny subject Petition for Uariance on the basis of the aforementioned
findings.
TtfE FOREGOItJG RESOLUTIOtI ts signed and approved by me this ilth day of
September, 197$.
A MAtI, A A E L Y PLAH~~ I tIG COMN I SS I ON
ATTEST:
~~rl ,t~ ~a.~...:.
SECRETARY, ANAHEIN ClTY PLAN~IItlG conyissian
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUFITY OF ORA~lGE ) ss.
CITY OF AtIAHEI!1 )
I, Edi[h L. Narris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Pianning Commission, do
hereby certify that the fore9oing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim City Planning Conmissian heid on September ii, 19?8 a[ 1:30 p.m., by the
follawiny vo[e of thc r~e:~bers :hcrcof;
AYES: COM~115510NER5: BARP~ES, DAVID, HERBST, KING, TOIAR
NOES: COMHISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIOIIERS: JOHNSUN
VACANY: ONE SFAT
1978.
IDI NITNE55 uHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this llth day of September,
• ~ ~Aw~
SECRETAR , ANAHEIM CITY PLA~NING COHMISSION
-2- PC78-2t6