PC 85-55RESOLUTION NO. PC85-55
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 3457 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, tl~e Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified
Petition for Variance from MARK CROSS AND SUE ANN CROSS, 599 Faseo De Luna,
Anaheim, California 92807, owners, and SALKTN ~NGINEERING CORPORATION, 1215
East Chapman Avenue, Uranae, Califo:nia 926E6, ATTt~: GEORGE KERNS, agent for
certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State
of California desctibed as:
LOT 30 OF TRACT 8455, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF
ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOUK 356~
PAGE{S) 27 TO 29, INCLUSIVE nF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE
OFFICE OF THE ~OUNTY RECdRDER OF SAID COUNTY.
W~EREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at
the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on February 20, 1985, at 1:30 p,m„
notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in
accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Cnapter 18.03,
to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed variance and to
investigate and make findings and recommendations in connectior therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Comrnission, after due insgection, invest.igal•ion and
study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all
evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and d~•termine the
following facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes a waiver of the followfng to
establi~h a two (2) Iot, RS-5000(SC) single-family subdivision:
S~CTION 18.27.061.021 - Minimum buildinq site width for cul-de-sa^ lots.
(45 feet per lot required; 25 feet proposed
for Parcel 21
~. That the atove-mentioned waiver is hereby denied on the basis that
there are no special circumstances applicable to the property such as size, shape,
topography, location and surroundings which do not apply to other identicaily zoned
pcoperty in the same vicinity; and that strict apglication of the Zoning Code does
not deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the identical
zone and classification in the vicinity; and further on the basis that the
topography of subject property makes it undesicable foc building a residenee
because a 208 grade would be necessary for the driveway, and also that it would be
undesirable to pump se~age and drainage up to the street, as necessitated by the
topcgraphy.
3. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved or co the intended use of the
property that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same
vicinity and zone.
#0453r
PC85-55
4. That the requested variance is not necessary f.or the preservation and
enjoyment cf a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question.
5. That the cequested variancE will be materiall,~ detrimental to the
public w~lfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such ~icinity and
zone in which the properky is located.
6. That no one indicated their presence at said public hearing in
opposition; and that no cocrespondence was received in opposition to subject
petition.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FINDING: Tn~.*, the Anaheim City Planning Commission
has reviewed the proposal to establish a two (2) lot, RS-5000(SC) single-fam~ly
subdivision with waivet of minimum building site width for cul-de-sac lots on an
irregularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.46 acres, located
at the coutherly terminus of Paseo de Luna, having a frontage of approximately 70
feet on the south side of Paseo de Luna, and further described as 599 Paseo de
Luna; and does herehy approve the Negative Declaration upon the finding that it has
considered the Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the
public review process and further finding on the basis of the initial. study and any
comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have
a significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby deny subject Petition for Variance on the basis of the aforementioned
findings.
THE FOREGOI:dG RESOLUTION is signed and approyed by me this 20th day of
February, 1985.
~~~ ; ' ~ ~,~
CBAI ~fAN, ANAHEIItf`CYTY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: .if
cj~
% n . r/ /J .~/ / _ .
SECRETARY~ ANAHEIM CI~PY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OP ANAHEIM )
I, Edith L. Harcis, Secretary of the Anaheim City Plznning Commission, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on February 20, 1985, by the following
vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BUSHORE~ FRY, HERBST~ KZNG, MC [3URNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS
ABSEP]T: COMMISSIONERS: LA CLAIRE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 20th day of
February, 1985.
~
G~ ~-C(-~~ ~ /~,[-LLk.~-.
SECRETARY~ ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-Z PC85-55
~r a .