PC 81-3RESOLUTION N0. PC81-3
RESOLUTION OF THE APlANFIN CITY PLAMNING CQN~11S51~~~
THAT PETITION FQR VARIA-ICE' Nfl. 31A7. BF DF~11ED
IJNEREAS~ the Anaheim City Planning Lommtssion cifd recetve a verifted
Petition for Variance from CONRAD J. LFTTF.R AND J~SEPHI~IE M, LETTER, 3107. Vallejo
Drive~ Anaheim, Caltfornia g2804, owners, and WALTER K. BOW~iA-I, 7~36 Cerritos Avenue,
Stanto~. Laliforr~?a 9Q~R~~ agent, of certaTn real property si*_uated in the City of
Anaheim, Ccunty of Ora~ge~ State ~f California described as:
That portion of Lot t of the Anaheim extension as sho~m ~n a map
of Survey mad~ by Willtam Hamel and filed fnr recordinq in the
offtce of the Coun:y Recorder of Los Angeles County, California~
described as follows: Beginning at a point in the ~lorth line of
said lot being in the South line of La Palma ~venue. dlstant
thereon 255•33 feet West of the Noriheast corner of sald lot
running thence West alonc~ the North line of saTd Lot 79•91 feet,
thence South parallel ~•11th the Easterly line of said Lot 307.23
feet thence North 73° 54' 25" East 77 feet to a line which is
parallel with the Easterly line of said lot thr~~ a potnt of
beginning. Yhence Northerly along said lot menttoned parallel
line 279.8-~9 feet to the point of beginning. Said land is shown
on a licensed Surveyors Map ftled in Book 16, Page A of Recnrds of
survey in the offfce of the County Recorder of said Lounty.
V:HEREAS, the City Planning Commission dtd huld a pui.: c hearinq at the Civic
Center in the Clty of Anaheim on January 12. 1~81. at 1:3~ p.^+., noti:e of satd
~ublic hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accc~dance with the
provisin~; of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Chapter 1R.03~ to hear and consider
evidence for and agalnst sald proposed variance and to Investi,qate and make ftndings
and recommendations ln connectlon therewith; and
WHEREAS~ satd Commission~ after due inspection, investigation and study made
by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideratton of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearfng, does find and deternine Lhc follot•rtnn facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes waivers of the following to establish a 1-
lot. 7-unit condominium subdivlston:
A. SECTION 18.31.061.012 - Nintmum buildinq slte area.
(3000 s uare eet per unit reaulred;
2155 square eet proposed)
B. SECTION 18.31.Q62,012 - Maximum structural 'aht.
i storv permttted wi,n~n 150 feet of
st~e-family residential zonina;
2 storfes proposed at 6~ and 113 feet)
C. SECTION 18.31.062,020 - Maxlmum site coveraqe
~„ perm tLed;
5~i proposed)
PC81-3
D. SECTIO`I 1~,31.Q63.~21i - Minimu~ landscaned set~ac~•.
2~ eet a acent to s n~ c-faTTly
residential zonin~ reauired;
3 feet ~r~posed)
E. SE~TIO!J 1P.31.~~3.~31 - Minimum recreational-leisure area.
in00 souare eet per unit renuired;
~1 square eet or~posP~)
F. SECT10~! 1~.31.OF6.~10 - Minimum numbe' oP park.inn SpdCP.S.
25 spaces req~ired;
17 spaces pro~osed)
2. Tha[ the ahove-mentioned walvers are hereby denled on the basis that
the petltioner dtd not demonstrate that a hardship exists due to the size, a'~ce,
to~~graphy or location of subject property and that aoproval o.° the six praposed
waivers would ~et an undesirable precedent.
;~. That there a-e no exceptionai or extraordinary circumsrances or
conditions applicable to the property involved or to ttie intended usP of the prooerty
that do not apply generally to the proper;y or class of use in the same victnitY and
zone.
4. That the requested variance is not necPSSary fr.r the preservation and
enJoyRent of a suhstantlal property right possessed by other prooerty Tn the same
vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in questlon.
5. That the requested varlance will be nateriallv detrimental to the
public welfarc or injurlous to the nroperty or improvements in such vicinitY and zone
in which the property is located.
6. That one person indicated their oresence a[ saTd nubl(c hearino tn
opposition; and that no correspondence was received in oopositlon to the suhject
petTtion.
EMVIRQNMENTAI IMPAf.T F;NDING: That the Anaheim Citv Pla~nina Commisslon has
revtewed t e proposa to estabi sTFi a t-lot. 7-unit condomir~um suhdivTsTon wtth
walvers of minimum bulldine ::ite area, maximum structural height, ~aximum stte
coverage, mintmum londscaoed setback, minimum recreational-leisure area and m(nimum
number of parking spaces on an trre9ularly-shaped parcel of land consistinq of
approxfmately 0.47 acre of land having a frontage of approxiMately °,n feet on the
south s(de of La Palma Avenue. having a maximum depth of approximately 280 feet and
being tocated approximately 800 feet east of the centerlTne of East Street (1260 East
La Palma Avenue); and does hereby approve the Negative Declaratlon from th~
requirement to prepare an envtronmental impact report on the basis that there would
be no signif!cant individual or cumulative adverse environmental inpact due to the
approval of this Negatlve Declaratton stnce the Anaheim ~eneral Plan designates the
subJect property for medium density residentlat land uses commensurate with the
proposal; that no sensltive environmental impacts are involved in the proposal; that
the Initial Study submitted by the petttioner indicates no siqnifteant lndividua) or
cumulative adverse environmental imp~cts; and that the Negative Declaration
_2_ PC81-3
~.
substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anahetm Planning
Department.
NOW, THEREFCRE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commtssion
does hereby deny subject Petition for Variance, on the basis of the aforementioned
fiindtngs.
THE FOREf,QiNG RESOLUTIOt! is stgned and approved by me this 12th day of
January, 1981 •
CFIA t R 4AN, ANAH i M C ITY PLANM I ~!G C~MM I 55l ON
ATTEST: _
SECRETARY, AMAHEIN CITY PLANIviNG COMMISSION
STATE OP CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORAPIfE ) ss.
CITY OF ANANEIM )
i, Edith L. Harris, Secretary of the Anahetm City Planning CommissTon, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolutlon was passed and adopted at a meeting of -,
the Anaheim City Planning Commissfan held on Januarv 12, 19~1~ by the following vote
of the members thereof:
AYE5: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FP,Y, KING, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISStONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARPJES~ HERBST
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 12th day of January,
1a81.
~~ ~ ~~
SECRETARY~ APIAHEIM CiT PLANNING COMMISSION
_ -3- Pc~i-3
RFSOLIITI~'! '!^, P~:&1-?
A RES~LUTI~~1 OF TN~ A~lAfIF'~1 ~(TY PLA'RIIN~ C~~"'~ISSI~~~
TFI1T PF71T10!1 F'1P, VF,RIA'JCF ~1~. 31~2 ['~ r)~-'!IEn
4~!IE4El1S, tf~e Anaheim City Fianninn Commissi~n rlid receive a veriried
Petition for Variance from C~NRAp J. LF?TFR ~~~D J~SE?fll~!E '1. LFTTFR, 3102 Vallejo
Qrive, Anaheim, California ~2~'1~~, namers, and 4;A~TEn K. f30~:!`1A~~, ?~;~ Cerritos ~venue,
Stantnn, Ca 1 i fornia 9'1(,%;~, igent, o° ccrti i n rca 1 propcrty s i tu~t~d i n t,,c~ C i Ly of
Anaheim, County of Orange, Sta[e of t,alifornia dcscrihed as:
That portion of Lot 1 of C7e Anaheim exte~sion as sFo~m ~n a man
ef Survey made hy 4lilliam Hanel and filed fnr recordinn in the
offlce of the Cc~unty Recorder of Los Ange~es County, C.3)ifc,rnia,
d~scrihed as folloa~s: "eginnin9 a[ a po;nt in the tlorth line of
said lot heing in the South line of La Pal:na /lvenue, d(stant
thereon 25;,33 feet SJest o` the Northeast cnrrer of said lot
running thence 41est alonn the .'lor~h 1~ne of said Lot 7°."i f~et,
ther,ce South paralle! i:~ith ''~e Easterly ~ine ~~` said Lot ?~.'.2"i
feet thence North 73° 5~+' 25" Eas[ 7? r~ni =n i line ~~hich is
p~r~lici v~ith the Easter;v iine of said lot chrn a noint of
beginnin~, Thence Northerly alonn said lnt ^~entinred oarall~l
1 i ne ~ 79, ,'jtio feet to thc ~o i nt of bec i nn i n~ Sa i~1 1~n~_' i s shni,rn
on a licensed Surveyors Ma~ filed in Bool; 1~, °aae ~ ~f P,ec~ras o~
survey in the oFfice of the County °ecorder of said Count~~.
HN[R~AS, ~he ~ity Planning Comnissior did hcld a Nuhlic hearlna at the Civic
Center in the City uf Anaheim on January 1?., 1~f31, at 1:3~ p.m,, notice oF said
pubiic hearing f.avirig been duly qiven as require~l hy laai an~l i,~ accordance o-~ith the
provisions of the Anaheim Mu~ictoal C~~iF ('h~ntnr i^. ~? r.. ti„-,~ ,.,.+ ..;a,,..
evidence for and aaainst said proposed variance a~,d [o investlaat:e and r~aE•~ findinqs
and recommendati ~ns in c~nnection tnerea~itf~; anr+
WHEREAS, said Corrmission, after due inspection, invectiaation ancl study made
by its^lf an.i in its hehalf, and ~`trr due consi~ir_rati~n o` all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find ,.nd determine tF~e follo~~~in~ ractc:
1. TFat the petttioner ~+r~~~c~s waivers ~r the folir~~•~inn to establish a 1-
lot, 7-uni' condominium suLdivlsion:
A. SECTIOP! if,31,!1F1,~1? -'linimum huildinq site arc•.,,,
(3'~00 square feet per unit reeuired;
2155 square eet nr~oo~ed)
p. SEC.T10;1 1~,31.^,62.~1^ - ~taximum structural heiaht.
~1 stnrv permitted wi[hin 1~~ feFt ~f
s(nale-family residc~nti~l mninc;
2 stnries aronoseci ai ~:' •;n~i 11 ;~e~~tj
C. SEf.Ti0t1 i S, 31 ,Oc;2,i120 - Max Imum s i te coverane
l +~., ~erm tt~~1;
S~iX prnposed)
Pr~t-3
~. SFCTI~'I 13.31.~~'.'~7~~ - 'linimnr~ l~nrl5canec; sethac~•.
2~ eFt adiac~nt to Sin:t1~-f~Tily
residentiil znnin~ rCrul~~~~;
3 rPet nr~~~sed)
E. SECTIO`! 1?.31.~~3.~31 - Minimum recr~ati~,n~l-leis~~rc ,~r~a.
i~~n0 s~ are~t ~er unit re^~~irr_~';
~1'• Square eet nr~~o;c~ri~
F. SEf."'10" 1?.31.~FG.~t: - Ninimum nuRher of parF~inn snar_~s.
2S spaces renuire~!;
17 s~aces pr~~osedl
Z. That tf•~e ahove-m~ntioned ~,~aivers are herFFy •ienie~ on the basis that
the petitioner did not demonstrate that a hardshio exists due to the size, sha~e,
[opo~raphy or location of suhj~cr_ proper[y anc' that an~rnval ~f t!~e sir. pro~osed
waivers ~~~ould set an undesirahlr ~recedent.
3. That there are no excenti~nal or extrac~r.:~n?ri circ~imstane~s or
conditinns applicahle to the pr~perty inv~lved or t~ tti~ inten~'e~l u~e o` thi pronertv
tfiat ~io not apply gPneril)v tn the nr~p~r~v nr class ~f use ie the s:~me vieinity and
zone.
~i. That the reauested virianc~~ is nnt nec~~ssarv `~r th~ ~reservatinn and
enjoyrr.ent of a suhstantial proper[y right n~ssrssed hy ~t~~r prr,ner[y in the same
v(einity and zone, and denied tn ~!~e proper[v ir, nuestinn.
5. That the rcques[ed var(ance will hc ~,ateri~ilv ~tetrimentai to the
publie weifare or injurious [n the oropertY r~r imnrovenents (n ,uc~ vicinity an~i zone
{fi ~..~~.,. ~~1~. Nfi~(ici-i.y ~~ ~u~~i~._ .
6. That one per,on in~iicate~ [heir nresenct• ~[ said nurl~c hearino fn
opposition; and that no correspondenc~ ~•ras recnived in oooosition to *_he suhjeet
petition.
EFlVIROMME~~TAL IMP.Af,T FIM~I~;G: That the Ana~eim Cit~ Plannino Commission has
reviewed the proposal to estab sh a 1-lot, 7-unlc condoninium suhdlvision with
waivars of r~inimur~ huildinn site area, maximum structural heiqht, maximum slte
coveraqe, minimum landscaped set~acl;, r*inimum recreational-leisure ar~a and minimum
number of parking spaces on an irrenul~rlv-;haped narcel of land consistinq of
approximately 0.47 acre of land havin9 a frontage of aooroxinatelv °.n feet on the
south side of La Palm~ Avenue, having a maximum ~epth of aoor~ximat~iy 28f1 feet and
belnq located approximately 3~~ feet east of the cP~ erlin~ of East Street (12~0 East
La Palma Avenue); and doPS herehy anpr~ve the Neaatlve Declaration frem the
requirement to prepare an environmental imn~ct repert on the basis that there wculd
be no significant individual or cumulati~e adversr. environnent:+l in~ict due to the
appraval of th15 Plegatlve Dec:lara[ion since the A.nahei~~ Srneral Pl~n des(qnates the
suhject prc,~erty f~r r~~diur, ci~nsity re~i~lentlal lanc~ uses cemmcr.sur~te ~•~i±h the
prnposal; that nn sen;itivP envir~nmrntal i~nr,acta »r~ in~i~lv~ri fn thA n~•~~nsal; that
the Initial Study suhmitted hy the n~tltionrr indic~tes n~ sinnff~cant tndivldual or
cum~lative adverse envir~nment~i ir~n~cts; and that tti~ fJeqaT.ive !~eclaratfon
-2- PC8'-5
substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of F\naheim ~lanning
Department.
ND41, THEREFORE, BE IT RFSO!_~~[D that the Anaheim City Planninq Commission
does herehy deny subject Petttion for Variance, on the bas+s of the aforementioned
findings.
THE FOREGOIPIG PFSOLUTIO~! is signed and approved by me this 12th day of
January, 19~31.
/~~.~,~' r~ ~' ~
Ct!AIR AN~1 ,,qDJAh1EIM CITY PI_PN~;IHf, C~MMISSION
Al"fEST:
~~ ~ ~
SECRETARY, AMAHEIM CITY PLANNIPI~ COM~41SS10"!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORAPIt;r ) ss.
CITY OF APIAHEIN )
I, Edith L. Harris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planninq Commission, du
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meetlnq of
the Anaheim City Pianning Commission held on Januarv 12, 19`~1, hy the following vote
of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOIIAS, BUSHORF, FP,Y, KINr,, TOLAR
NOES: C~MMISSIQNERS: M0~lE
AfiSENT: COMMISSIOtJEP,S: BARNES, HERBST
IN WIT~aE55 WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand r.his 12th day df January,
i~ul.
~~.c.c~ .?~ ~[~.~:.
SECRETARY, AMAHE' M C I TY PLAPIP! I~!!; C~Hti~ I SS I ON
-3- PC81-3