PC 82-87~!liarh;:~;_n. .. ..
RESOLUTIO'l IlO. PC 82-f37
RESOLUTIO~! OF Tii[ AMAHEIH CITY PLAtRIINr, C!1~1MISSIQN
TIIAT PETITIO?! FOR VARI/1~ICE NO. 3~71 DE r~AfJTF.D
WIIEREAS, the Analieim City Planning Commtssion did recetve a verified
Petition for Variance from YUSEI AtlD AI;IKO Y.. ARAY.AKI, 254n East Elsiena tJay,
Anaheim, California 9230G, a•mer, and EDidARD DF UJNA, J~., ~31; South Rouri
Drive, Anaheim, California ~2304, agent~ of certain real property situated in
the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California dn_scribed as:
LOT 15 OF TRACT PJO. 65~~~ AS PER MAP RECOPDED In 3onK 31~, PA~ES
40, 41, and 42 OF MISCELLAN[~US MAPS, REC(1RDS 0~ 5~10 OpP.~lr,E
COUFlTY.
WNEREAS, the City Planning Commission did
Hall in the City of Anaheim on ~•tay 17, 1937., at 1:3~
hearing having been duly given as required by
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chanter
evidence for and against said proposed variance and
and recommendations in connection there~atth; and
iold a puhlic hearing at the City
p.m., notice of said public
la~•~ and in accordance with the
13.03, to hear and consider
to investigate artd eke findings
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and study made
by itself and in its be!ialf, and a`ter due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the folloaring facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes ~aaivers of the following to construct a
room addition:
(a) SECTIQIJ 18.2G.062.020 - t1aximum lot coverage
0~6 permitted; 2.7~ proposed)
(b) SECTION 18.26.063.~3~ - Minimum ~rear ard _s_,e_tback
10 feet required: b~eet proposed)
2. That the above-mentioned waiver (a) is herehy granted on the basis that
the Petitioner demonstrated that a hardship exists in that similar variances have
been granted in the past and denia) aiould deprive subject property of a privilege
enjoyed by other properties in the same zone and vicinity; and on the basis that the
request ts•m~inimal amounttng to 7„
3. That the above-mentioned waiver (b) is herebv granted on the basis of
the size of the property and the surroundings tn that the proPosed addition would be
located six (6) feet from a block ~~all adjacent to the alley at the south property
line and, therefore~ the actual open area between the proposal and the nearby
residential lot Pxceeds the ten (1~) feet required by Code.
4. That there are exceptt~nal or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
appticable to the property involved or to the intended use of the orooerty that do
not apply 9enerally to the property or class of use in t~~e same vicinitY and zone.
PC82-87
. .. , ..,~.'...'~},~
5. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possesse~+ by other property in the same
vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question.
6• That the requested variance ~aill not be materially detrimental to the
pubiic welfare or in.jurtous to the property or imorovements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is located.
7. That no one indicated thetr presence at s~io public heartng in
opposition; and that no correspondence ~aas received in opp~sition to the subJect
petition.
EtJVIRONME~JTAL 1~1PACT FIP1DItJG: The Plannin9 Director or his authorized
representative has determined that the proposed project falls arithin the definition
of Categoricai Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the State EIR Guideiines and ts,
cherefore, categorical);~ exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
N~41, TtiEREFORE~ BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Plannfng Commission
does I~ereby qrant subject Petition for Variance, upon the follaving conditlons 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. That subj ect property sha11 be developed suhstantially in accordance wlth
plans and specifications on file ~•~ith the City of Anaheim marked E:chibit
Nos. 1 and 2.
2. That Condition No, 1, above-mentioned, shall he complied with prior to ftnal
building and zoning inspecttons.
BE IT FURTfiER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commisston does herehy
find and determine that the adootfon of t!~is Resoiution is o~cpressly predtcated upon
appiicant~s canpliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth.
Should any condition or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable by the
final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any
approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void,
TIiE FOREGOIPIf RESOLUTIOtJ is signed and approved by me this 17th day of May~
19u2.
H I M PRO TEMPORE
ATTEST: A~`-A~~EIM CITY PLAPJDIIN, MISSIOM
lD ~.G.~ .!-
SECRETARY~ AVqHLIM CITY PLANtJINGr~OMf91SSI0t~
-2- Pc82-87
!"~
STpiE OF CALIFORWIA )
CCJt~TY OF ORl1NGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAIiEfPt )
~~ Edith L. Harris~ Secretary of the /lnaheim City P~nning Commission~ do
hereby certify that the forogaing resolution k~as passed and adopted at a meettng of
the Anaheim City Planning Canmission held on May 17, 1~37~ at 1;3~ p.m., by the
f ollowing vote of the memhers thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIOtlERS: DAR!lES, E30UAS~ FRY, HER(3ST, IUtJG, MC BURMEY
NOES: COMMISSIOtJERS: ~IOIJE
A(3SElJT: COM~1ISSIOPlERS: DUSHORE
IN WITIJESS WtIEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 17th day of May, 1982,
~ ~,c..~l~. ,~ ~,~,.u.:,
SECRETARY, ANAHE 111 C I TY PLq~lFl l FIS COMM I SS I OP!
-3- PC82-87