PC 82-7~^`°`•
RESOLUTION NO. PC82-7
a'"~•
A RESOLUTIOP! OF TIIE ANAHEIM CITY PLANMIN~ COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 37_53 BE GRANTED, IN PART
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commisston did recelve a verified
Petition for Variance from PHILIP A, and THELMA SCUKA, 51~2 Vallecito,
Westminster, California 92~~a3, o4m er , of certatn real property sttuated in the
City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as:
Lot 7 of Tract No. 2378 as per map recorded in Book 92, Pages 33
and 34 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the County of Orange, State of
California.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commtssion did hold a public heartng at the Civic
Center in the City of Anaheim on January 25, 19$2, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said
public heartng having been duly gtven as required by law and in accordance w(th the
provistons of the Anahelm Muntcipal Code, Chapter 1R.03, to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings
and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WNEREAS, said Commtssion, after due inspectior,, investigation and study made
by itself and in its behalf~ and after due consideration of all evtdence and reports
offered at said heartng, does ftnd and determine the following facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes waivers of the following to retain an
existing room addition and fence:
(a) SECTION 18.26.063.020 - Minimum side ard setback.
5 eet required; 3 eet existing)
(b) SECTION 18.26.063.03D - Mfnimum rear yard setback
(10 feet required; 3 feet 7 lnches extsting)
(c) SECTIOtJ 18.0~.043,101 - Maximum fence hei ht
and 18.2G.o64 2 nch cha nl nk ence permitted tn front setback;
4 i8- nches existing)
2. That the above-mentioned waiver (b) is hereby granted on the basis that
the room addition (s existing and has had no detrimental effect on the surrounding
properties.
3. That the above-mentioned waivers (a) and (c) are hereby denied on the
basis that the petitioner :;tipulated at the public hearing to comply with code
requirements.
4. That there are excepttonal or extraordinary ci~cumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the intended iise, as granted~ of the
property that do not appiy generally to the property or class of use In the same
vlcinlty and zone.
5. That the requested varlance, as granted, ls necessary for the
preserva_ton anJ enjoyment of a substantial property rlgltt possessed by other
property in the same vtctnlty and zone, and dented to the prnperty in question,
pca~_~
~,.'t .. .
6, That the requested variance, as grantsd, wi11 not be materially
detrtmental to the puhlic welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in
such vicinity and zone in which tfie property is located.
7. That no one indicated their presence at sald public hearing tn
oppositton; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject
petition.
ENVIRONttENTAL IMPACT FINDING: The Ptanntng Director or hts authorized
representative has determined that the proposed project fails wfthin the definitlon
of Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in the State EIR Guidelfnes and ts,
therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR.
NOW~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEQ that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby grant, in part, subject Petition for Variance, upon the following
conditions which are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use
of the subject property (n order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the
Ciiizens of the City of Anaheim:
i, 'hat the existing structure shall be brought up to the minimum standards of
the City o` Anaheim, including the Uniform Builc'.ing, Plunbtng, Electrtcal~
Housing, Mechanical and Fire Codes as adopted by the City of Anahelm.
2, That subject property shali be developed substantialiy fn accordance with
plans and specificatio~s on file with the City of Anahetm marked Fxhibit
Nos. i and 2.
3, That Condition Nos. 1 and 2~ above-mentioned, shall be completed within a
period of sixty (60) days from the date herein,
BE IT FURTHER QESQLVED that the Anaheim Ctty Planning Commission does hereby
find and determine that adoptlon of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon
applicant~s compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth.
Should any such condltion~ or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable
by the final j~~dgment of any court of competent jurlsdiction, then this Resolution~
and any epprovals herein contained, shatt be deemed null and void.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 25th day of
January, 198?_.
T~ ~Z . ~t~K~-~
CHAIRMAN, ANANEI~1 CITY PI_ANNING COMMISSIQN
ATTEST:
D ~Gl~k~ .
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY LANNI~lG COMMlSStON
-2- PC32-7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUN7Y OF ORANGE ) ss.
C17Y OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Edith L. Harrls, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on January 75, 19$7, by the following vote
of the members thereof:
AYES: COt1MI5SI0NER5: BARNES, BOUAS, BUSHORE, F4Y, HERBST, KIti1r,, MC BURNEY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NOhiE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
IP~ WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand thts 25th day of January,
19II2.
~~ ~ ~
SECRETARY~ ANAHEIH CITY PLP.NNIMG COMMISSIQN
-3- PC82-7