PC 74-191r ~ ~ ~
RESOLUTIGN N0. - PC74-191
A RESOLUTION Of TFIE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF BE 6RANTED ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2633
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Maheim did receive a verified Petition for Variance from
SYDNEY P. SNYDER, 1763 South Heather Lane, Anaheim, Califo m ia 92802 (Ownar) of certain
real property situated in the City o` Anaheim, County of Orange, State of C~~ifornia,
described as Lot 2180 of Tract No. 27 as per map recorded in book 62 pages 3~ and 32 of
Mlscellaneous Maps, in the office of'the eaunty r.ecorder of said county; and
VJHEREAS, thE City Planning Commission 3id hold a public hearing at the City H~II in the City of Anaheim on
Sep tembe r 16 , 1$74, at 2:00 o'clock p.m., notice of said public ]iearing liaving been duly ~iven as req~ired by law and
in accordar.ce with tlie provisions of the Maheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.63, to h.ear and consider evidence for and against said
p;oposed eariance and to investigate and make ~ndings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said ComRU~sion, after due inspection, investigation, and study made by itself and in its behalf, and:after due
aonsideration of all evidence and reports ofCered at said hearing, does find aud determine the following facts:
1. That tlic petitioner requests . the fol 1 ow i ng va r i ance f nom the Anahe i m Mun i c i pa 1 C~~de , to
permit an exis:ing house addition: 10 feet re uired; none
SECTION 18.24.03~~3)tb) - Minimum rear yard setback. ( 9
proposed)
2. That the petitioner imdicated a detached storage 6uilding had been constructed
adjacent to tfie rear lot line (within the existing public utility easement) many years
ago; and that he did not realize it would violat.e the City Zoning regulations to attach
the main part oT the dwelling =o the existing storage building.
3. That the petitioner stipulated that the eubject addition would be used for storage
purposes only, and that said addition would n~~t be lived in.
4. That the Flanning Commission was not in favor of granting this variance subject
to the granting of an encroachment permit, but determined that this variance should be
granted only it the City Council epproved the abaridonment of at least that po~ ~n of the
public utility easement along the west property line in which the existing house addition is
located, said abandonr~ent being to protect any future owners of the subject property.
5. ThaL there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property invclved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally
to the property or class of us~ in the same vicinity and zone.
b. That the requested variance is necessary for the przsarvation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right p~~ssessed by other prc+perty in the same vicinity and zone,
and denied tu the property in question.
7, That the requested ~•?riance will not be materially dc*.~imental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which
the property is located.
8, That no one indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition and no
corresponde~ce was received in opposition to subject petition; however, one letter was
received in favor. .
ENVIRONMENTAL INPACT RF.?ORT FINDING:
That the Director of Development Services has deter'mined that the proposed activity Talls
within the definition of Section 3•O1, Class 5 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the
Requirements for an Environmental Impact Report and is, therefore, categorically exempt
from the requirement to file an EIR. _1- RESOLUTION N0. PC74-191
DEV-66-E
m
~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RF,SOLVED that the Aneheim City Planning Commission does hereby grant subject
Petition for Veriance, upon Ene following conditions which ere hereby found to be a necessary pcecequisite to the p:o-
posed use of the subject pcoperty in order to pxeserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of
Anaheim:
l. That aoproval of this variance is made subject to the owner(s) requesting and
receiviny City Council approval of an abandonment of at least that portion of tFe public
utility easement in which the existin9 addition is located.
2. That appropriate building permits shall be obtained and tne existing structure
shall be brought up to the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the Uniform
Building, Plumbing, Electrical, H~using, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City
of Anaheim.
3, That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans
and specifications on file withffnerCity of Anaheim inarked Exhibit IJos. 1, 2 and 3.
4. That Condition Nos. I, 2 and 3, above-mentioned, shall be completed within n~i~nety
(90) dayss of the date of approval or such furthei-.time as the Planning Commission may grant,
5. That the subject house addition shall be used for storage ~urposes only, and said
addition shall not be lived in, as stipulated to by the petitiorser.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is sig~ed end appcoved by me this 16th day f September, 1974.
~ / ~~
C IRMAN ANAHE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
,~ - ~ ~ ~w~~~
SE~RETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF. ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Potr icia B.Scanlan,Seccetary of the City Plenning Commission oE the City of Anaheim, do heceby certify that
the foregoing :eselution was passed end adopted at a meeting •>f the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim,
held on September 16, 1974, et'1:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote oE the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER, JOHYSON, KING, MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
IN WSTI3ESS WHEREOF, I have he~eunto aet my hand this 16th day of September, 19%4.
~1
'C/ ~ ~. J~C~t~Gtit~~
SECRETARY hNAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
V2-G -2'
RESOLUTION N0, ;•C74-191