PC 82-188~ ~
i2ESOLUTION NO. PC82-188
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 3295 BE GRANTED
WHEREAS, the Anahein City Planning Commission did receive a verified
Petition for Variance from ROBERT B. AND SNIFI,EY M. FORD, 2761 East Viking
Avenue, Anaheim, California 92806, owner of certain real property situated i~
the City of Anaheim, County of orange, State of California described as:
LOT 31, OF TftACT 4057 AS PER MAp RECORDED IN HOOK 143, PAGES
23 AND 2~ OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE CqUNTy
RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUN;Y, CALIFORNIA.
Z~7HEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at
the City Hall in the City of Anaheim on October 4, 1982, at 1:30 p.m., notice
of said public hearing having been duly qiven as required by law and in
accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03,
to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed variance and to
investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and
study ma3e by itself and in its bchalf, and after due consideration of all
evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the
following facts:
1• That the petitioner pronosee a waiver of the following to
construct a room addition:
(a) SECTION 18.26.063.030 - Minimum rear yard setback.
and 18.26.064.020 (10 feet required; 5 feet proposed)
2. That the above-mentioned waiver is hereby qranted on the basis
that the petitioner demonstrated that a hardship exists in that the proposed
room is an existing patio which will be converted; that tl~e existing patio has
had ao detrimental effect on the surrounding neighborhood; and that denial
would deprive subject property of a p-ivilege enjoyed by other properties in
the same zone and vicinity.
3• That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved o= to the intended use of the
property that do not apply qenerally to the property or class of use in the
same vicinity and zone.
4. That the requested variance is neces~ary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a substantial. property right possessed by uther property in
the same vicinity and zone, and denied to the oroperty in question.
5. That the requested variance will not be materially det.rimentai
to the pubii^ welfare or injurious to the property or impzovements in such
vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
0248I
PC82-188
~aa. ..
-~
6. Tliat no one indicated their presence at said public hearing in
opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposi*_ion to subject
petition.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDING: The Planning Director or his
authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls
within the definition of Catego~ical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the
State EIR Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the
requirement to prepare an EIR.
NOS4, THER~FORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Pla.nning
Commission does hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, upon the fullowing
conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the
proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the safety and
general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim:
1. Plans shall be submitted to the Building Division showing compliance
with the minimum standards of the City of Anaheim, including the
Uniform Building, Plumbing, Electrical, Housinq, Mechanical and Fire
Codes as adopted by the City of Anaheim. The appropriate permits
shall be obtained for any necessary work.
2. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked
Exnibit Nos. 1 and 2.
3. That Condition No. 2, above-menti~ned, shall be complied with prior
to final building and zoning ins~ections.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that tYe Pnaheim City Planning Commission does
hereby find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly
predicated upon applicant's compliance wit'.i each and all of the eonditions
hereinabove set forth. Should any s~.~h condition, or any part thereof, be
declared invalid or unenforceable by the final judgment of any court of
competent juri~diction, then this Resolution, and any approvals herein
contained, shall be deemed null and void.
TH~ FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and apnroved by me this 4th ~ay of
October, 1982.
HA , ANAHEIM CITY PL G COMbIISSION
ATTEST:
~~ .~ ~~^.~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIL:G COMMISSION
'2' PC82-188
~ ~~.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF OP.ANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Edith L. Harris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning
Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resalution was passed and
adopted at a meeting of the Anahc•im City Planning Cor.unission held on October
A, 1982, by the following vote of. the members there of:
AYES: COMAIISSIONERS: BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY, HERBST, KING, LA CLAIRE,
MC BURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABS~NT: COMMISSIONERS: NON~
IN S9ITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 4th day of
October, 1982. n ~ - -
~.6 ~ ~~~ ~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-3-
PC82-188