PC 80-65~
,
,;';
FESOLUTIOIJ ~IO, PC 80-65
;1 RESOLUTIQh! OF THE Ah~AliElf•1 CITY PLAhltlltlG C01•IF?ISSIOtI
TIIAT PETITIOP! FOR VARIAN~E N0. 31i~3 BE GRAIJTED
WFIEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified
Petition for Variance from CFIESTER B. BARRY A~JD LAV[RA V. BARRY, 138 South Gain
Street, Anaheim, California ~2II04, owners of certain real property situated in the
City of Anaheim, Coun[y of Orange, State of Califor~ia descri5ed as:
LOT 7~' OF 7RACT N0. G691, AS PER 11FlP RECORDED IW E3QOt: 250 PAGES 20
AIJD 21 OF MISCELLAFlEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COU~l7Y RECORDER
OF SAi D COUPJTY.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City
Hall in the City of Anaheim on April 7, 19II0, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public
hearing hav(~g been duly given as required by latv and in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 1~.03, to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed variance anJ to investigate and make findings
and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investiyation a~d study made
by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered s~~t said hearing, does find and determine the following facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes a waiver of the following to construct a
room addition to an existing single-family resiaence:
SECTIOW 78.27.062.020 - Maximum lot coverage,
35~G permitted;
39.1~i ~roposed)
2. That the above-menCioned waiver is hereby granted on tfie basts that the
petitioner demonstrated that a hardship exists in that denial would deorive subject
property of a privilege being enjoyed by other property under identical zoning
classification in the vicinity, and that thP proposal is minimal amounting to an
increased coverage of less than Sb.
3. That there are exceptional ar extraordina ry circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do
not apply generaliy to the property or cla,s of use in the same vicinity and zone.
4. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in yuestion.
5. That the requested variance will not be mate-ially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or in,provements in such vicinity and zone
in whict~ the property is located.
PC80-G5
6. Tliat no one indicatecl their presence at said public hearing in
opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject
petition.
EIaUIROPJMEFlTAL IMPACT FINDI~JG: The Planning Director or his authorized
representative has deiermined that the proposed project falls within the definition
of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in Paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim
Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from
the requirement to prepare an tIR.
NOW, TfIEREFORE, E3E IT RESOLVED ttiat the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, upon the following conditions which
are hereby found to be a ~ecessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject
property in order to preserve the safety and general a~elfare of the Citizens of the
City of Anaheim:
1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos. 1
and 2.
BE IT FURTfIER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon
applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth.
Should any such condition, or any part thereof, ba declared invalid or unenforceable
by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
TI1E fOREG0ING RESOLUTIOtJ is signed and approved by me this 7th day of April,
19 80 .
~ , /' /"~' / ~ ~ ~C~ ~i i i'
CHAIR4lOMAIJ, ANAHEIM CITY" PLANNIF!G COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~~ ~ ~~
SECRETAFY, APJAHEit~t CITY PLA~NIPaG COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORIJIA )
COUPdTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF AWAHEIf•1 )
I, Edith L. Harris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Plarining Gommission, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on April 7, ty80, by the following vote of
the mambers thereof:
AYES: COMt115SI0tdERS: BAR~dES, BUSHORE, DAVID, FRY, HERCST, KIfJG
PlOES: COPIMISSIONERS: NOt9E
ABSEiJT: COMMISSIGt~L•h~: TOLAR
IN WtTtJESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 7ih day of April, 1g80,
~~-1~~. ~ ~~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLAPItIIPlG COMMISS
-2- Pc8o-65