PC 80-97~..
RESOLUTIOM M0. PC $D-~7
/1 RESOLUTIO~! 0~ THE .1tlAHEIM CITY PLA'IPIIMG L0~1'~ISSI~tI
TF!AT PETITIOH F7R VA.RIA'IC[ t10. 3152 B~ GR/1PITED
blHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission clid receive a verified
Petition for Variance from JAPIES E. HUtIDLEY /11!D LOIS A. HUt!DLFY, q3(1 South P)acentia
Avenue, Suite A, Plcentia, California ~257~, o4mers of certain real property sttuated
in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as:
~ots 3 and 4 of Tract 255 ofi the East Anaheim Subdivisio~ as shown
on a map recorded in bool: 1'~, page 2S of Miscellaneous Maps,
records of Orange County. EXCEPT THERFFRO"t the Westerly 5 feet of
each lot.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission dicf hol~i a public nearing ai the City
Hall in the City af Anaheim on June 1~, 1^$t?, at 1:3p p,m „ notice of sald public
hearing having 6een duly given as required by laU~ ancf in accordance ~aith the
provisions of tlie Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 1°.0^y, to hear and consider
evidence for and against said prooosed variance and to investigate and make findings
and recommendations in connection tnerewith; and
WNEREAS, said Comnission, after due inspection, investigation and study made
by itself and in its behalf, and after due cor.sideration of a11 evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the follorring facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes a waiver of the folloaring to construct a
two (2) story office building:
SECTIOtJ 1~.1E1.063.030 - Mlnimum landscaped setbacl:.
1^ eet required along the
easteriy property iine;
none proposed)
2. That the ahove-mentioned i~~aivPr is hereby granted on the basis that the
petitioner demonstrated that a hardship exists due to the irregular shap~ of the
property and the limited size of the property; and due to tFe fact that one of the
parcels to the east is zoned CH (Commercial~ Heavy) and there is no similar setback
requirernent in that zone.
3. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to tfie property involved or to the intended use of the property that c1o
not apply generally to tlie property or class of use in the sar~e vicinity and zone.
~+. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right ~ossessed by ottier property in tf-e same
vieinity and zone, and denied to tlie property in question.
5. That the requested variance :~~ill not bc materi~lly detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to tl~e propcrty or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is located.
PC8o-97
6. That no one indicatcd their presence at said publtc hearing in
opposition; and that no correspondence ~1~5 received in ooposition to the subject
petition.
EIIVIROtUiF~ITA~ IMPACT FIFlDItdG: That the ~lnaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed the proposal to reclassi y subject property from thc P.5- 2nr1
SIt~GLE-FAt11LY) ZO~IE to the CO (CO1fMERICAL, OFFICE AMD PROFESSIOMAL) ZONE(tosconstruct
a t~~o-story office buil~ling r~ith ti~aiver of minimum landscaped setback on an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately ~.5 acre located at the
northeast corner of Center Streec and Coffnan Street, and having frontages of
ePproximately F,7 feet on the north side of Center Street and 2(16 feet on the east
side of Coffman Street; and does hereLy approve tlie Negative Declaration from the
requirement to prepare an environmentai impact report on the basis that there a~ould
be no significant individual or cu7ulative adverse environmental ;mpact due to the
approval of this taegative Declaration since the Anaheim feneral Plan designates the
subject property for commercial-professional land uses commensurate atith the
proposal; that no sensltive environmental i~pacts are involved in the proposal; that
the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant individual or
cumulative adverse environmental inpacts; and that the ~Jeaative neclaration
substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim Planning
Department.
~~OIJ, THEREFORE, QE IT RFSOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby grant subject Petition for Uariance, upon the fo))a.~ina conditions which
are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject
property in order to preserve the safety and general aielfare of the Citizens of the
C i ty of Analie i m:
1. That tEiis l~ariar.tc i~ r,;~r~tc~ suhject to the completion of
Reclassification N~. 7~-80-4n, ~a.~ pending.
2. That subject property shall be developed suhstantial~y in accordance
with plans and specifications on file ~~ith the City of Anaheim marked Exhihit Nos. 1
through 3.
f3E IT FUP,TIiER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
find and determine tliat adoption of tliis Resolution is expressly predicated upon
aPplicant's cempliance with eacF~ and all of the conditions liereinabove set forth.
Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable
bY the fina? Judgment of any court of cor~ipetent jurlsdiction, then this Reso]ution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be decmed null and void.
TIIE FOREGOING r?ESOLUTI0~1 is signed and approved by cie Chis 1(;th ~lay of June,
t~sn.
~~~~ ~°. 1d°~~
CHAIRUO!^;,", q•i.~,~,[I~! CITY PL~1~~riir~~ COFIMISSIQN
ATTEST:
!~ ~ ~ l~t~..s.
SECRET/4RY, A!~AHEIM CITY PLfIP:tll~l.:~ C~~1"11SSjC~~
-2- PC80-~7
STATE Or CALIFQRtIIA )
COUNTY OF ORAPIGE ) ss.
C ITY OF AtIANE l t1 )
~, Edith L. Harris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and ~dopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on June 16, 1~.°.•0, by thr_ foliowing vote of
the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIOPJERS: BAP,NES, nnvio, FRY, TOLAR
NOES: COM!11S510~lERS: BUSHORE, HEReST, IUt1~
ABSEt1T: COPIHISS10tlERS: ND'!E
Ihi 411Tt![SS WHEP.EOF, i have hereunto set my hand this 1(th day of June, 1Q80.
`~~..~. ~ ~~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLAFRlIP!, COMMiSSIOtJ
-3- PC8n-97
.^