PC 84-431~L;SOL,UTtON NU. PC:f34-•43
A RI;SULUTI(JN UE' rCHF ANAHL';IM CI`!'Y PLANNINI'i COMMISSTON
'1'HA`i' YC';`.I'l:'1'IQN 1~UI~ VARSAD!c~t: NU. 7376 13L: ~RAN`I'FI)
WftERGAS, the Anaheirn City P.lannin~ c:ommi:~sion d.id receive a verified
Petition far Var.iance frc~m WTLLIAM fl. RLIMt3;iLD & F'ATThE !;. ~EIMEiOI~D, ].000
Norti~ Rnann~ Pls~r,e, Anaheim, Cali..fornia 97.Q01, owr;~rs, an~] MICHAF:L
MC CAItFtEL,I,/K~N FtHODGS, 13012 Crenshaw Bou.levard, Ga~d~na, California y0249,
agent, ~f certain real pr.operly situ~~~ed in t.h~ City of ~n~heim, County of
Ocange, State of Ca.~iiornia d~scri:,ed as:
LU`P 49, OP' TRAC'I' 232~~ AS PER MAP RECOt2DED IN BOOK '73, PAGES 4,
5 AND 6 OL' MiSC'r;LLRN~UU5 f4APS IN '!'HE OFIICL•' OI' THE RECORDER U~
SAID CUUNTY.
FIHEREA~, the City Planning Commissiuci did hold a public hearing at
the Civic Center in the C'i.ty of Anaheim un February 22, .1.984, at .1:30 p.m.,
not~.ce of said ~ublic hearing having bc:~ii duly given as require~3 by law and in
accorciat~ce with the provi.s.ions of the Ariahei.m Muriicipal Code, ChaPter 18.03,
to heat and consider evzdence for. and against sai.d proposed varaance and to
investigate and make findin.gs and r::com~n+.ndations in cunnecti~n therewith; and
WHFREAS, said Commisyion, af.ter due inspectiorl, investigation and
stuclv made by iiselF and i.n its beha? f, an~ af~er d~iP c~nsideration of all
~vidence and repc~rts otierecl at sai~ t~earing, does Lind and determine ~he
fo'llowing facts:
1. 7'hat the petitioner. pruposes a waive~ of th~ roll.owing to
construct a patio addiLion:
SCCTION 18.26.OG3,030 - Minimum rear. yard setback.
^ (1Q £eet minimum requi.rec]; G-1/2 feet pr~posed)
2. That the above-mentioned waiver is hereby gr.anted on the basis
that there are special circumstances applirable to the property such as size,
shape, tapc~graphy, loc~tion or surroundings, which do not apply to other
identically aoried properties in ti~e vicinity; ~1~1t strict appl.ication of the
Zoning Co~e deprives the proper.ty of privileges enjoyed by other pcoperties fn
identical zoniny classiticatio~ in khe vicinity.
3. ~.'hat tliere are exceptional or txtraordin~ry circumstances or
condition:a ai~p.licable to the gr.operty involved or to the intended use of the
property Chat do not alap:ly generally Lo t~ie pr~per.ty or cla.s~ of. use in ttie
samc vicir.ity and zcne.
4. 7'hat the rPquest.ed variance is necessary for ttie preservation
and enjoymeiit of a substantial properL-,y righr_ posse~ ,ed by~ other pro~erty in
Che same vici.r;ity an~ zane, and denied to the ~r~perty in yu~stion.
5. That the re~~uesteci variance wit.l nat be materiall,y detcimental
'co the public wel.tare cr injurious to the properL•y or improvements in such
vicinity :~nd zone in which •~he proF~rty is located.
#0167c PC84-43
~.,~
6. 7'hat no one i.ndicatecl ~hcir pr~sence at said ~~ublic hearing in
op~osition; and that no carresporid~nce was receiv~~d in o~position ~o subject:
petiL•ion.
ENVIROtVMEN`1'AI., TM~~ACT F'tNllING: Z~he Pl~r~ning Director or his
authorizecl representative has determined Lhat rhe proposed pr.oject fa11s
wii:hin the defin~_tiun of C:ategorical ~;xemptions, C1ass 5, as defintd in tk~e
SCate EI12 Guidelines and is, theref~re~ ca~egor.ically exempt from th~
rPquirement to pr~p~rr-_ an ~IR.
NUW, THEREeCJRE~ BE T2~ RF;SOI~VET~ Chat thc t~nahe:.m Czty Planning
Corrmi.ssion does hereby grant suuject Pe~itiors Por~ Variance, u~on t,ie following
cUnditions which are hereby found to be a r~ecessary ~,rerequisxte to the
~roposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the s~.E~ty and
general ~.~elfare of th~ Citizens of tht~ City ot Anaheim:
1. Thal- subject pr~perty shal.l be developed substa[itia.lly in accardance
with plans ancl s~ecifications on fi..le with the City of Anai~eim
marked .Cxhi.bi~: No. 1.
'l. 2'hat ~rior l•o final bui.lding and zcning inspections, Condi.tion
I~o. 1, above~m~nl•ioned, sha.ll. be complie~ with~
}3E IT FJR'L~EtER RESOLVED that the Anaheim City F~ianr~ing Commi:=sian
does h~rer~y Cind and determinF that adoption of this Resolution is ~!cpr~~sly
pr~dicated upon applicant.'s comPliance with each and a.ll of ti~e conditions
hereinabave set fori-.h. Shoiild any such conclition, or any parl thPreaf, be
declare~ inv~li~ or unenforceabJ.e by the final judgment of any c~urt of
competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any appxovals herein
~onka.ined, shall be deemed ;~ull aitd void.
THE EOKEGOING REaOLU'PIUN is signed and approved by tne this ?.2nd day of
Febru~ry, 1y~4. /~
. ~ ~ipy
CHAIRWOMAN, A~T~;IM CITY PLAfaNIN~; COMN{ISSION
ATTEST;
~'Q.C„~~`.-' ~ /~~-~C~Lc~.
SGCRLT,~RY, ANAHEIM CITY .PLTNN:[NG COMMISSIUN
ST;ATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Edith I,. Harri~, Seccetary of L•he Anat~eim City Planning
Commissi.on, d~ hureby certify that. the f.oregoing resolution was passed and
adopted al• a meel•ing ot tl~p Ariar~eim City Plannin~~ Commission held on ~ebruary
22, 1984, by the following vote of the ;nembers thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIC:lERS:
NuES: COMMISSIONEftS:
ABSGNT; CUMMISSIONLRS:
IN WITNL•'SS WEiE.F2Es~
Febcuary, ].982.
BbUAS; AUSHORE, KING, LA CLAIRE, MC BURNEY
~ION E;
FRY, HERB5T
)E', I have hereunto ~et my hand this 22nd day of
~Q~ ~ ~~~L~~-~
S~CREZ'ARX, ANAElEIM C1TY PLI!NNING COMMISSION
-2- PC84-43