PC 85-02RESOLUTION N0. PC85-02
A RESOLUTION O~ '1HE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMb1ISSI0N
TF,AT PETITION FOR VAnIANCE N0. 3445 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commissiqn did receive a
verificd Fetition for Variunce from RUTH C. SPENCER AND RZCHAkD H.
SPLNCER, 3C3 Black Oak Road, Anaheim, California 92807, owners, of
c~rtain real prooerty situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange,
State of California described as:
LOT 38 UF TRACP NO. 4689, AS PER MAP RECO~DED IN BOOK 193
PACES 3 to 5 INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS b1APS, IN THE QFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
WHEREAS, tl~e City Planning Commission did hold a public hearin9
at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on December ]0, 1984, at 1:30
p.m., notice of said public hearing having be2n duly given as required by
law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim pfunicipal Code,
Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider evidence for and against said
proposed variance und to investigate and make findings and
recommendations in con:,ection therewith; said public hearing having
continued to t1,e Flanning Commission meeting of January 7, 1985; and
WIiF.REAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation
and study made by itself and ir~ its behalf, and after due consideration
of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and
determine the followi.ng facts:
1. That the pel:itiorier pruposes waivers of ::he followiny to
retain 30 rabbits in the RS-HS-10,000 (Residential, Single-Family,
Hillside) Zone.
(a) S~CTIONS 18.02.U52.012 - Minimu~n sechack for rabbit hutch^^
AND 18.24.030.050 (20 feet from the property line required;
none ~xisting)
(b) SECTION 18.02.052.0133 - Maximum number o€ rabbits.
(5 rabbits permitted on 29,600 square
£oot lot; 30 rabbits existing)
2. ^'hat the above-mentioned waivers are hereby denied on the basis
that the illegal use has created a nuisanca in the neighborhood and further on
the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property
such as size, shape, topography, location and surroundings which do not apply
to other identically zor.=d pcoperty in the same vicinity; and that strict
application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the identical zone and classification in the
vicinity.
3. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property invol~~ed or to the intended use of the
property that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in che
same vicinity and zone.
~a 8~399c
PCBS-02
~
L
4. That the reques~ed variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantiai property right possessed by other pruperty in the
same vicinity and zone, and deni~d to the property in question.
5. That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to
the public welfa~•e or injurious to the property or improvemcnts in such
vicinity and zone in which the property is located.
6. That six persons indicated their presence at said public hearing
in opposition; and 6 people indicated thei.r presence at said public hearing in
favor and that petitions were submitted in opposition to subject petition.
ENVIRON6IENTAL IMPACT FINDING: That the Anaheim Citv Pianning
Commis~ion has reviewed the proposal to cetain 30 rabbits in the RS-HS-10,0~0
(Residential, Single-Family, Hillside) Zone with waivers of minimum setback
for rabbit hutches and maximum number oP rabbits on a rectangulary-shaped
parcel of land consisting of approximately 9,600 square Ceet located at the
southwest corner of Maple iree Drive and Black Oak Road, further described as
303 Black oak Road; and does hereby approve the Negative Declazation upon the
Pinding that it has considere~ ~t~e Negative Declaration together with any
commencs received during tl~e public review process and furtt~er finding on the
ba~.is of the initial study and any comments received that there is no
substantial evidence that the pro;iect will have a significant effect on the
erivironment.
NOW, TEIEREFORE, RE IT RESOLVED that L~ rlnaheim City Planning
Commission does heceby deny subject Petition for Va, ce on the basis of the
aforementioned Eindings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTiON is si.gned and approved by me this 7th dav
of Jatiua:y, 1585.
/ / t/ ~
~<. ~~ ' ~~.,
/ ~--~.-'~ e~-' ? ' ~~7„
CHAIR6fAN, ANAH^cIM C TY PLANNZNG COD1h1ISSI0N
ATTEST: n
~./ / /~ ~ -
lo~t%Ci j ~=J~/ a.~
SECRETARY, P.NAHEIDI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OE ORANG.°. ) ss.
CITY OF APJAF1EIh1 )
j~ Edith L. flarris, Secretary of the Anaheim City nlanning
Commission, do hereby cprt~fy that th= foregoing resolution was passed and
adopted at a meeting of tl~e A~iaheim City Planning Commission held on January
7, 1985, by the following ~ote of the members thereof:
AYES: C06fyISSIONERS: BUSHORE, CRY, HERBST, RING, LA CLAIRE,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: DOUAS, MC BURNEY
ABSENT: COb11+lISSIOtJERS: NONE
IN FiITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 7th day of
~enuarY. 1985. '~
_ ~!C~C'~~S.c ~ / ~~ G~Lc.~
SECRETARY~ ANAHElM CI;Y PLANNING COMMISSIOt7
-Z-
°C85-02
.. .
:^:,