PC 74-92- ~ ~ .
~ RESOLUTIO'N N0. PC74-92
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNIIvG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANHHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2593 BE GRANTED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Aneheim did receive a verified Petiticn for Variance
from JOSEPHINE MARKOWSKI, 1507 West Romneye Drive, Anaheim, California 5280£, Owner; and
ALLEN MARKOWSKI, Y507 West Romneya Drive, Anaheim, California 9280A, Agent, o£ certain
real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of Californiay
described as follows:
Lot No. 3 of Tract 1994 as shown in book 64, pages 47, 48, of.Miscellaneous t~fa.ps on file
in the Office of the Recorder of Orange County, California
; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commissian did hold a public hearing at the ~City Hall in the City of Anaheim
on April 29 ~ 1974, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public hearing heving been duly given es .requixed
by law and in eccordance with the provisions of the Maheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.68, to heer and considec e~~i-
dence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and meke fin~ags aud recommendetions in connection
therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due iaspection, investigation, and study made by itself and in its beha~f,
and efter due consideration of all evidence and reports offered et said hearing, does find end detennine the following
facts:
1. That the petitioner requests a varience from the Anaheim Municipel Code to conver. t g two-car
garage into additional living area:
SECTiON 18.24.030(5) - Requirement that two parkinQ spaces be providecl in a
are e. -
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the praperty involved
oc to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to the property ~r class of use in the same vicinity and
zone.
3. That the requested variance is necessary for thn preservation and enjoyment of a substential property right
possessed by other property in the seme vicinity end zone,. and denied to the property in question.
4. That the requested varience will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the prop-
erty or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
5. That petitioner stipulated to a time limit of five yeara, and subject to renewal
by the presenC owner-occupant.
5. That petitioner is aware that requirements must be met to uring building up to
building code. .
7. That no one appeared in opposition.
8. That the owner stipuTated that the use would be for her use only as owner-
occupant, and not for renters; and that if the property were to be sold, she would inform the
City of Anaheim o£• the sale.
V1-G -1- RESOLUTION N0, PC74-92
- ~
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDIt]G:
~
~
That the Direceor of Development Sarvices has d~termined that the proposed activity falls
within the definition of Section 3.Oi, Ciass 3 of the City of Anaheim Guidelines to the
Requi.rements for an Environmental Impact Report snd is, therefore, categorically exempt
from the requirement to file an EIR.
NOW, TtiE:tEPOk.^•., BF. IT RESOLVBD.that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
grant subject Petition for Variance, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to
be a necessary prerequisite to thep~oposed use of the subject property in order to preserve
the sa£ety and general welfare of che Citizc;ns of the City of Anaheim:
1. That the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum standards of
the City af Anaheim, including the Uniform Building, Plumbing, EYectrical, Housing,Mechanical
and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim.
2. That sub~ect property shall be deveYuped substartially in accordance with plans
and specifications on file wLth the •^,ity of Anaheim marked Exhibit Nos, 1, 2, and 3.
3. That Conditions Y ar.d 2, above-menCioned, shall be completed within 180 days
or su~h further time as the Planning Commfssion may grant,
4. That a time limit af 5 years 3s granted for the use, after which time considera-
tion may be given as to whether the use should be extended and that the extension could be
considered upon written requ2~t by the present owner-occapant if the hardship continues to
exist,
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 29th day of April, 1974.
~~~~~~~~
C1iAIRMRN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
C;!t~~y~
SECRETARY PRO TEMPO AHEIM CITY PiANNING COMMiSSTON
STATE OP CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORADIGE ) ss
CITV Ot' ANAHEIM )
I, A. Bur~ess, Secretary Pro Tempore of the City PTanning Commission of the Clt~ of Anah~im,
do n~r.eby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting ~f the
City PYanni.ng Commission of the Ci,ty uf Anaheim, held on April 29, 1974,.at 2:00 o°clock p.m.,
by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: COMPTON, HERBST, SOHNSON, KING, MORLEY, GAUER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO
ABSEN'T: COMMISSIONERS: VONE
IN WITN~SS WHEREUF, I have hereunto set my hand this 29th day aE April I974.
~.K 6T~~
SECRETARY PRO TEMPORE .A IM CITY PLANNII~G COMMISSION
V2-G -2- RESOLUTION N0. PC74-92