PC 81-134P,ESOLUTI~I! I10. PC&1-13~!
A RESOLUTIOIi OF THE A(!hH[1~1 CITY f'LA,I~lI~lG C011MIS~10'!
T;IAi PETITIO•'1 FOR V!1(tIA'!Cc IJO. 3%-'~~ ~~= ~~~iIEG
4J;IERE1IS, tiic Anaheim City Plannin9 Cormissian did receive a verified
Petition for Vari~~ce frora IfEI;If:ICIi VIRRO ~tIU F1~P,Tfi/1 VIRf;O, ~'12 florth Ler.~on
St~ect, M~hcim, Cal iforr~a '!28~~, cx~iners of ccrtain re~l property situated in
the City of Anaheir:i, County of Orangc, Statc of Calirornia, described as:
The Sou[h fi0 feet of Lot 6, Biocl: l1, Tract 11E;, as per map
recorded i n E3ook 11 , pac~e i~ of P1i sce! laneous ~taps, records of
Oranyc Co~nty.
IdHEREP.S, the City Planninq Conmi;sion did hold a public hearing at the Civic
Center in the City of Anaheim on June 15, 1~c31, at 1:30 P.m., notice of said publie
hearing I~aving been duly given as reauired by lx~i and in accc>rdance t•~ith the
provisions of the Anahein Nunicipal Co~e, Chapt^r 1f1.03, to hear and consider
evidence for ard against said propo5ed vari~~ncr_ nnd to investic;ate and na4:e findings
and recommendations in conneccion thera~rith; and
4lI1ERE!IS, SaiJ Commission, afrer ~lue ins~ecti~n, investinati~n ~nd study made
by itself an<1 in its behalf, and after :lue consic'~ration of ~11 evidence and reports
offered at sa; ~! hcari ng, docs f i nd anc'. :!etermi nc thc fol lo:•~i nn facts :
1. That the petitioner pro~oses ~`:l~iVr; of thc follo~r~ing to retain a
9ara9c conversion:
SEC710~1 13.;1=.06G.012 - Minimuri number of parking spaces.
5 spaces required; 3 existingT
2. That the above-r~entioned waivcr is hereby denieu on the basis that the
petitioner did not der~onstrate that ~ h~rdship exists and approval could set an
unuesirable ;~recedent for com~erting apartrient 9~rages to o~her uses.
j. That there ar~ no er,ceptional or r_xtraordinary eircumstanees or
conditions ap~licable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property
that do not zpply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and
zone.
h. That *_he requested variance is ~iot necessary for the preservation and
enjoyn~nt of a substanti.~l property ri~~ht possessed by other property in the same
vicinity ~nd zone, a~_: denicd to the property in question.
5. That the re~uested variance ti•~ill be materially detrimental to the
public ~.1elf~re or injurious to tt;e propert~ or ir~prov~_rnents in suc!~ vicinity and zone
1n whieh thc propcr[~ is located.
PC81-134
~~. That no one indie~~tecl thei~ presenee at saicl publ ie he~ring in
opposition; ~nel that n~ eorresponcleneei•ias received in o~~osition to thc subject
petition.
EiIVI ROf;ItE:IT/1L I t1P~CT FIIlDI IlG: The Plann i n~~ bi rectcr or hi s authori zed
representative has deterrnined that thc ~roposr_d project falls o-~ithin the definition
of Categorical Excr~ptions, Class 1, as clefined in the State EIR Guidelines and is,
therefer~, cater;orically e•r.cr;ipt froci the requirement to prepare an EIR.
iJOl1, TIIERCFORE, E3E IT i[SOLVED that thr_ llnahein City Planning Comrnission
does hereby deny subjec: Petition for Variance, on the b~sis of the aforementioned
findings.
TIIE FOREG0IIlG R[SOLUTIOiI i s s i c7ned and apnroved by me th i s 15ti~ day of June,
19~1.
~~_ ~ . ~ ~,~-e^-~
CIiAIRIiFuI PRO TEIIPORE
AIIAIIEl~1 CITY PLl11l~;IiIG C01111 1 5 5 1 0t1
ATi'LST:
_ (D C~-~! . ~ , /~`/-C~1it-c.ai
SECR[TI1RY, AIlAIIEIPf CITY PLAN~iIUG C0111i15510~1
STATE QF C~LIFORIlIA )
COUtITI' Of ORq,yGE ) ss.
C I TY OF A~lAHE I I~ 1
I, Edith L. Narris, ~ecsetiry of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do
nereby certify [hat t(ie roregoing resolution ~das passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission held or, June 15, 1~~1, at 1:30 p.m., by the
following vote of the merrbers thereof:
AYES: COPfMIS510NER5: BARNES, BUSHOR[, FRY, HERQST
P10[S: COFIMISSIOtlERS: BOUAS, I:I(dG
ABSEiJT: COt1111SS10(lERS: TOLAR
IPl 411T(1[SS WHEREOF, I havc hereunto set n~y hand this l;th day of June, 19"ul.
~ ~ ~~ti
SECRET/1RY, AIJAIiEIIt CITY PL PlNI(!„ C~I•1~iISSIOt:
'2' Pc81-134