Resolution-ZA 2003-38
DECISION NO. ZA 2003-38
A DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
DENYING VARIANCE NO. 2003-04568
OWNER: Paul R. and Loretta M. Clark
2660 West Stockton Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92801
LOCATION: 2660 West Stockton Avenue
CEQA STATUS: CEQA Categorical Exemption, Class 1
HEARING DATES: July 24, 2003 and continued to the meetings of August 7, September 4 and
October 16, 2003
OPPOSITION: One person spoke at the public hearing on both July 24 and August 7, 2003 with
concerns and opposition regarding the proposal; and that one a-mail in opposition to
the proposal was received.
REQUEST: Waivers of the following to permit and retain an existing unenclosed patio cover which
encroaches into the required side and rear yard setbacks of asingle-family residence in
the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone:
(a) Sections 18.12.060.050 - Minimum side yard setback.
and 18.26.063.020 (5 feet required; none existing or proposed along east property line)
(b) Sections 18.12.060.050 - Minimum rear yard setback.
and 18.26.063.030 (10 feet required; none existing or proposed along south property line)
Having been appointed Zoning Administrator by the Planning Director, pursuant to Anaheim Municipal
Code Section 18.12.040, to decide the above-referenced petition and a public hearing having been duly
noticed for and held on the date set forth above, I do hereby find:
1. That the existing patio cover consists of 2-inch by 6-inch wooden beams on 24-inch centers
with fiberglass panel roofing and open sides (except for one side where the cover is attached to the rear of
the dwelling).
2. That the proposed waivers are denied because there are no special circumstances
applicable to the subject property such as its size, shape, topography, location and surroundings, which do
not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity, because the subject lot is located in a
residential tract where the other lots are the same size and shape; and that a patio cover can be
constructed to meet the side and rear yard setback requirements.
3. That strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive the property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in identical zoning classification in the vicinity because no similar large
additions or patio covers have been identified in the neighborhood.
4. That the waivers for the patio cover, which is proposed to be retained, are further denied on
the basis that the patio cover (648 sq.ft.) is very large resulting in 44% coverage of the rear yard (in
comparison to the maximum 35% permitted by Code when an equal amount of useable open space is
available elsewhere on the lot); that the overall lot coverage (consisting of the house, garage and patio
cover) is 48% which is greater than the 40% permitted by the underlying RS-7200 Zoning; that in addition
to the setback waivers required by the Zoning Code, the patio cover is also in violation of the Building
Code which requires minimum 3-foot structural setbacks from the property lines; and that the patio cover
ZA2003-038.doc - 1 of 2 - ZA2003-38
~ ~
extends to the side and rear property lines for a distance of 23'/2 feet (or 23% of the length of the east
property line) and a distance of 27%2 feet (or 44% of the length of rear property line) which has adverse
impacts, both visual and acoustical, on the neighbors' residences and back yards to the east and south.
5. That in order to comply with the applicable city codes, a similar but smaller patio cover
would have a minimum setbacks of 5 feet from the east property line and 10 feet from the south property
line, and would be 509 sq.ft. or less in area to comply with the maximum 35% permitted rear yard
coverage; and that even if waivers for side and rear setbacks and maximum rear yard coverage were
approved, the minimum side and rear setbacks could be no less than 3 feet in order to comply with the
Building Code.
Based on the evidence and testimony presented to me, ! do hereby determine to deny Variance No. 2003-
04568.
This decision is made, signed, and entered into the file this 23~d day of October, 2003.
Annika M. Santalahti, Zoning Administrator
NOTICE: This decision shall become final unless an appeal to the City Council, in writing, accompanied
by an appeal fee, is filed with the City Clerk within 15 days of the date of the signing of this decision or
unless members of the City Council shall request to review this decision within said 15 days.
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL: I do hereby declare under penalty of perjury that on the date set
forth below, I did deposit, in the United States Mail, a copy of the decision to the applicant and did forward
a copy to the City Clerk.
DATE: October 23, 2003 lit ~Z 1~ [! ~ L CJ _ ~~C fG ~z.
Danielle C. Masciel, Word Processing Operator
ZA2003-038.doc - 2 of 2 - ZA2003-38