PC 82-88RESQLUTIOtJ il0. PC 82-$f3
~l RESGLUTIO'! OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLl111NItdG C011MISSION
TI161T PETITIO~~ FOR VARIAtJCE tl0. 327? E3E DENIED
b1fIEP,E~S, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified
Petition for Variance from f~YM~ND D. AtJD DOROTHEA I. SKItlWEF, 3128 West Glen
Ho11y Drive, Anaheim, California 92£30~E, otaners, of certain real property
situated in the City of Rnaheim, Counky of Orange, State of California described
as :
LOT 13 OF TRACT 4679 AS PER NAP THERF.OF RECORDED if! BOOK 175,
PAGES 7 AIID 8 OF ;11SCELLNIEOUS MAPS, IPl TNE OFFICE OF TNE RECORDEP,
OF ORAtJGE, COUNTY.
4/HEREAS, the Ci ty Planning Comnission did tiold a publ ic hearing at the Ci ty
tlall in the Ci ty of Anaheim on March 17, 1982, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said publie
hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Hunicipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings
and recommendations in connection there~ai th; and
WHEREAS, said Corrission, after due inspection, investigation and study made
by itself and in its behalf, and after duu~ consideration of a11 evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the follo~aing facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes ti•~aivers of the follo~~ing to retain a
recreational vehicle enclosure:
SECTIO~J 13.26.OG3.020 -~tinimum side ard setback
5 feet requi red; 0 feet exi sting)
SECTIOD! 18.26.063.030 - f1inimum rear ard setback
25 feet required; 0 feet ex~sting)
2. That the above-mentioned waive~s are hereby denied on the basis that
the petitioner did not demonstrate that a hardship exists due to the size, shape,
topography or surroundings of subject property; and on the basis that the enclosure
does not meet Building Code requirertents.
3. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circ~mstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property
that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vtcinity and
zone.
4. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyrrent of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question.
5. That the rcquested variance wi11 be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or irrprovements in such vtcinity and zone
in wl~ich the property is locatcd.
PC82-88
6. That one person indicated their presence at said public hearing in
opposition; and that no correspondence ~•ras received in opposition to the subject
peti rion.
EUVlR01lf1E~ITAL IHPACT FINDING: The ~'l~nning Director or his authorized
representative has determined t~at the proposed projPCt falls a~ithin the definition
of Categorical Exemptions, Ciass $, as defined in the State EIR Guidelines and is,
therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an Elf;.
tJOW, THERE FOP,E, BE I T RESOLVEU tha t the Anahe i m Ci ty P lann i ng Commt ss i on
dces hereby deny subject Petition for Variance on the basis of the aforementioned
findings.
Tt1E FOREG01 P!G RESOLUTI OtJ i s s i gned and app roved by me th i s 17th day of May,
t982.
~
~
H RF F! PRO TEMPORE
AtJAHE I M C I TY PLfUJt11 ~iG CO 1155 ( 0~1
ATTEST:
`~~ ,~° ~.~~.~,
SECRETARY, AFJAHEIh1 CITY PLqF~~~IPIG COtiF11SSI0N
STATE OF CALI FQRf#!A )
COU~`!7Y OF ORl1t~GE ) ss.
CITY OF AFlAHEIM )
~, Edith L. Harris, Secretaryr of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution ~vas passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on I•tay 17~ tg82, at 1:30 p,m., by the
foliowing wte of the n~ertt~ers thereof:
AYES: CONMISSIONERS: EtARNES, BOUAS, FRY~ FiERBST, KING, PIC BURPlEY
NOES: COPIMISSIOtJERS: NOPJE
ABSENT: COMt11SSI0PlER5; DUSHORE
It1 WIT"JESS WNEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 17th day of May, 1g$2,
~fl.c.Kar .` .° ~.I w~,
SECRETl1RY, AUANEIM CITY PLAUHi~lG CO!iMISSION
-2- PC82-88