Resolution-ZA 2004-29~ •
DECISION NO. ZA 2004-29
A DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
APPROVING VARIANCE N0.2004-04623
OWNER: Craig Brand
525 South Reseda Street
Anaheim, CA 92806
LOCATION: 525 South Reseda Street
CEQA STATUS: CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 1
HEARING DATE: September 2, 2004
OPPOSITION: No one indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal and
no correspondence was received in opposition.
REQUEST: Waiver of the following to expand an existing detached garage for a single family
residence in the RS-2 (Single-Family Residential} Zone:
Sections 18.04.090.010 - Maximum reward coverage.
and 18.74.040.020.0208 35% permitted; 50% proposed)
Having been appointed Zoning Administrator by the Planning Director, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal
Code Section 18.60.020 (Establishment of Zoning Administrator Position), to decide the above-referenced
petition and a public hearing having been duly noticed for and held on the date set forth above, I do hereby
find:
1. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property consisting of its location and
surroundings (a public alley adjoins this property along its north and west property lines, and the alley to
the west separates this residential property from commercial zoning and uses on property which fronts on
State College Boulevard), which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; and
further that subject property was developed with a 2-car garage taking access from the alley to the north
without any off-street open parking and the proposal (a 4-car garage containing tandem spaces) will bring
the property into greater conformance with the current Zoning Code standards (2 spaces in a garage and
2 open spaces in tandem to the garage spaces).
2. That strict application of the Zoning Code would deprive this property of privileges enjoyed
by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity because the surrounding properties
were constructed with adequate off-street parking.
3. That even though the proposed coverage (50% or 812 sq.ft.) of the required rear yard (65
feet wide by 25 feet deep = 1,625 sq.ft.) is 15% (243 sq.ft.}greater than permitted by Code (35% or 569
sq.ft.), additional open space (approximately 1,170 sq.ft.) is available elsewhere on the property in the
18-foot setback between the existing house and the garage as it is proposed to be expanded.
Based on the evidence and testimony presented to me, I do hereby determine to approve Variance No.
2004-04623, subject to the following conditions:
1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and specifications
submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petitioner and which plans are on file with the Planning
Department marked Exhibit Nos. 1 and 2.
Za2004-29.doc -1 of 2 - ZA2004-29
~ •
2. That within a period of one (1) year from the date of this Decision, the appropriate building permit
shall be obtained from the City Anaheim: Extensions foi' further time to complete this condition may
be granted in accordance with Section 18.60.170 (Extension of Time to Comply with Conditions of
Approval) of the Anaheim Municipal Code.
3. That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that
it complies with the Anaheim Municipal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and
Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval
of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement.
This decision is made, signed, and entered into the file this 9th day of September 2004.
Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator
NOTICE: This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied
by an: appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 1515 davs of the date of the signing of this decision or
unless members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days.
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL: 1 do hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on the date set
forth below, I did deposit, in the United States Mail, a copy of the decision to the applicant and did forward
a copy to the City Clerk,
DATE: September 9, 2004 ~~L 1 W l ~- ~ ~ / " ~G'L<S (' {~~r ~f
Danielle C. Masciel Word Processin O erator J
g P ~ t1
Za2004-29.doc - 2 of 2 - ZA2004-29