PC 76-211~ ~
i ~',
RESOLUTIf1N N0. PC7f+-211
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAf1E1M CITY PLAtlNING COMHISSIQH
TI1AT PETITION FQR VARIAIIf.F N0. 2865 [~E f,RA~~TED,
WIEEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Comrr7sslon did receive a verifled
PetitYcr f;.~:°`Jariance from HELF.t~ NC:TTLES, 910 Arden Place, Anahelm, Californla 9?R~2
~Y~wr.;?r); RQr+ER E. 511ELSER, 20:i3 W. Chateau, Anaheim, California 92804 (Agent) of
aertudn r:ed' ~r~(;erty situated in the Cfty of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of
C~t"~7~rnia de"scribed as: ~
Tfie South one-half of the North one-half of the f~llowing described land;
The Norl•hcast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of
Sectlon 17, in Townshfp 4 South, Range 1(1 West, in the Rancho Los Coyotes, as
shown on a map thereof recorded in Book 51, Page 10~ Miscellaneous Maps, records
of sald Orange County;
Ei!.'iPTIN~ THEREFROM the 5outh (~ acres;
Ai.50 EXCEPTINC FROM said South one-half of the Nor[h one-half of the East 330
Tr,et thereof.
WIIEREAS, the City Planning Commisslon did hold a public h~car(ng at the City
Hall in the City of Anaheim on October 27. 197G, at 1:30 p.m., notlce of satd puhlic
hearing having been duly glven as requl:ed by law and In accordance with the
provlsions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18,03, to hear and conslder
evidence for and agalnst said proposed varlance and to Investigate ind make flndings
and recommendations in connectlon therewith; and
~WH[REAS, sald Commission, after due inspection, investl~atlon and study made
by Itself and in its behaif, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearin9, does find and determine the following facts:
i. That thc petitloner proposes the foilowing watvers from thc Anahcim
1lunicipal Code, to establish two RS-7`LQf1 lots:
a. SECTIQN 18.26.OF,1.01Q - Minimum lot area, (72Q0 s uare feet
required; ~93 square eet proposed
b. SELTYON 18,26.061.020 - Minlmum lot wldth. (70 feet
requ red; ~~. eet proposed)
c. SECTION 18.26.n63.f)30 - Minlmum rear yard sethack. (10 feet
required; cet proposed
2. That the above-mentioned walvers are herehy granted on thc hasis that
the petittoner demonstrated that a hardship would be created tf sald walvers were not
granted, due to the size and shape of the sub)ect property and the location of the
existing single-famlly dwellin9 on the site; and sub]ect to the stipulations ~f the
petitioner to rev~:rsing the proposed building plan on the site, relocating the
proposed residence ,approximately threc feet tr~ the north, thereby increasing the
front structural setback to 21 feet, relocating the proposed g~ragr, t~ the easterly
side of subJect property~ and removing the existing g~rage; and, furthermore, that
revised plans shall be suhmitted to the Planning Department for appr~val prior to the
issuance of a bullding"permit.
3. Th~t there are exceptional or extraordlnary circumstances or condltions
appltcable to the proper[y I~volved or to the Intended usc, as granted, of the
property that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same
vfcinlty and zo~e,
4. That the requested vartance, as granted, Is necessary for the
preservatlon and enJ~yment of a substantlal property rl9ht possessed by other
property in the same vicfnity and zone, and denied to the property in question.
5, That the requested variance~ as grantr.d, will~ not he material!y
detrimental to the p~blic welfare or inJurious to the property or improvements Ir;
such vicinity and zone in which thr. pr~perty is located.
6. That three (3) persons appeared, representing approximately four (4)
persons present at satd puhlic hearing ln opposition; that a petition signed nY
RESOI.UTION N0, PC76-211
~ ~
approximately 15 area residents and property owners was presented aC the public
hearing; and that no correspondence ~ras received in appositlon to subJect petiti~n.
ENVIRONMEHTAL IMPACT REPORT FI~~DINC; That the Anahelm City Planning
Commission does hareby recommen~i to the City Cauncil of the City of Anaheim that a
neg~tPve declaration frcm th~e requirenent to prepare an environmentel fmpact report'
be approved for ttie suhject proJect, purs~ant to the provisions of the Califor~la
Environmental Quality Act.
N~W, THEREFORE~ BE IT RESQLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon
does hereby grant subJect Petition for Variance, upon the following conditions ~•+hich
are hereby found to be a necessary prerequlsite to the proposed use of the subJect
property in order to preservc the safety and general welfare of the Cltlzens of the
City of Anaheim:
1, That this variance ls granted suhJect to The completlon of
Reclassification •!!o. 76-77-21. •
2, That revised plans shall be s~:;~mitted for Planning Department approval,
prior to the issuance of a buildln~ pr,rmit, sald plans to shoo~ a reversal of the
Jevelopment plan on the sice, relocating the pron~sed residence ao~roximately tfirer.
`eei to the north Increasing the minimum front structural sefhack to 21 feet,
relocating the the prop<>sed 9arage to the easterly side of suhject prnperty, and
removing the existing garage, as stipulated to by the petitioner; ~nd that the
subJect property shall be developed suhstantially ln conformance ~•~lth the revised
plen..
TiiE FORE~,OINR RESOCIITION ls signed
October 1976.
ATTEST:
/ , _ <~)1~~~
SECRETARY, ANAHF.IH ITY PLAt~tII1J~ COMMISSIOU
and approvc y me this 7.7th day o`
f,IlA1RM N, At~A CITY PLANNRIP, C~FihISSI(1N
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COIINTY OF oRAtIr,E )ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Patricla B. Scanlan, Secretary of the Anahr.im City Planning Commisslon,
do hereby eertify tl~at lhe forc9oing res~lution w~is p~ssed and adoptecl at a meeting
of the Anahelm City Planning Lommission, held on Qctober 27, 197F, ~t 1:3~ p,m., by
the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: CQMMISSIOPlERS: 8l1RNE5~ FARANO, HERRST~ KIN!~, MORLEY, Tf11.AR
NOES: COMI4ISSIONERS: JOHNSOtJ
ABSENT: COMMiS510NFRS: N~I~E
• IN WITNESS WHERE~F, I have hereunto set my hTnd this 27th day of Octoher
1976.
~ _~ ~_Qii~nc/
5ECRETARY, APIAHF.IM CITY PLAPIN~tIf, COMMISSI~N
_2_ RESOLUTION N0, PC7b-211