Resolution-PC 2002-59~~ ~
RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-59
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-04528 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for
Conditional Use Permit for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State
of California, described as:
PARCEL 1 AS PER MAP DESCRIBED IN BOOK 25, PAGE 19 OF PARCEL MAPS,
LOCATED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center
in the City of Anaheim on April 22, 2002 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, Chapter 18.03,
to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate
and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation 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 determine the following facts:
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by
Califomia Government Code Section 65852.1 to permit and retain an un-permitted granny unit in
conjunction with an existing single-family residence in the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) zone with
waivers of the following:
(a) Sections 18.06.050.010.011 -
18.06.050.010.013.0132
and 18.26.066.010
(b)
(c)
Section 18.26.063.011
Section 18.26.064.030
Minimum number and dimensions of parking spaces.
(5 spaces with minimum 2 spaces in a garage required;
5 spaces with 1 space in a garage proposed)
Minimum front yard setback.
(20 feet required between Cherry Way and a front-on garage
with a roll-up door; 6.5 feet existing and proposed)
Permitted encroachment into required yards.
2. That waivers (a) and (b), minimum number and dimensions of parking spaces and
rninimunn front yard setback, are hereby denied on the basis #hat there is no justification for said waivers
based on the characteristics of the property (its size, shape and location); and that there are no special
circumstances applicable to the property such as size shape, topography, location or surroundings, which
do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity.
3. That strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity because no similar waivers
have been granted in the vicinity.
4. That waiver (c), permitted encroachment into required yards, is hereby denied on the
basis that it was deleted following public notification.
5. That the proposed use is hereby denied on the basis that the existing granny unit, as
proposed to be retained on the property, does not satisfy the objectives of a conditional use permit for a
granny unit as authorized by the California Government Code and the Anaheim Municipal Code.
6. That the existing granny unit was intended to be garage parking and, as such, the un-
permitted conversion adversely affects adjoining land uses and the growth and development of the area
CR5344DM.doc -1- PC2002-59
~ •
in which it is located by creating substandard conditions whereby vehicles associated with this property
cannot be accommodated by available on-site parking and therefore block the public sidewalk.
7. That the size and shape of the site on which the second unit is built is adequate to allow
the full development of the second unit without the need for waivers and in a manner not detrimental to
the particular area nor to the peace, health, safery and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of
Anaheim.
8. That the traffic generated by the second unit as developed on the property imposes an
undue burden upon the streets and highways designed and improved to carry the traffic in the area.
9. That two people spoke at the public hearing in support of the proposal; and that three
people at the hearing filled in "speaker cards" in support of the proposal.
10. That no one indicated their presence at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal;
and that no correspondence was received in opposition
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: The Planning Director or his
authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of
Categorical Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in the State of California Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby deny Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-04528, on the basis of the
aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of
April 22, 2002.
• ~ ~ Cy"~k.~
CHAIRPER , ANAHEIM CI LANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
/( O~ w' i ~...~- V~/Y~ ~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORMA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, E~eanor Fernandes, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning
Commission held on April 22, 2002, by the follo~vi~g vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ARNOLD, BOSTWICK, BRISTOL, EASTMAN, KOOS, VANDERBILT
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BOYDSTUN
/ T~
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this CO day of
, 2002.
~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-2- PC2002-59