PC 76-130~ ~
R[SOLUTIOtJ N~, PC7(~-13~
A RESOUiT I n~~ OF THF nWAHE R1 C I TY PLA~11~ I ~i~ CoH~11551 nri
THAT PETITIr)1! FOR VARIl1HCF. IJO. ?.37.1 f•E pF.~IIED.
1JHEREAS, the llnaheim City Plannin~ Commissi~n did receive a verified
Petition for Variance fron ALf.X R. P1~~lTF7., 113~ 41. Chateau Avenue, /1r,aheim,
California 923Q3 (Qwner) nf certain real prnperty slYuate~l in the City of Anaheim,
County of Oranae, State of California descrihed asE
Lot 5~~ of Tract t3?4, in the City of A.naheim, as per mao recor~ied in RooH 5~~,
Pages 47, ~i", and 4? of t1iscellaneous Haps, recorc!s of said Qran~e County.
1Ji~EREAS, the City Plannin~ f,ommission did hold a public hearing at the City
F1~11 in the City of Anaheim on July 7, 1~7F. ~t 1:3~ P•m•, notice of said ruhlic
hearing having been duly niven as req+i red hy law and in accordance ~aith the
provisions of the Anaheim Nunicipal Code, Ciiapter 1".~3, to hear and consider
evidence for and against s~td proposed variance and t~ investigate ~n~ make findin9s
and recommendations in connection therer~ith; and
tiJNEREl15, sairi Commissl~n, after due ins~ection, investigation and stu~ly m~~le
by itself and in its behalf, an~i after due consideration ~f all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the followt~g facts:
1, That the petitioner proposes the follo~~inq waiver fr~m the Anaheim
!lunicipal Code, to permit a ~!l-inch high chainlink fence within the required front
sethack area in the RS-7.'.~0 (RFSIDF.~~TIAL, SIHf,LE-FA~11LY) 7.QNE:
SECTION 1~.~~i,n43,1~1 - liaximum fence heinht. (42 inches
permitted; •0 inches existin~
2, That the propose~i waiver is denied on the basis that the Anaheim City
Planning Commission does herehy determinr that the proposal t•rould be detrimental to
~earby properties for thr_ f~jirn•i~~~ -'etl§~n5:
a~. ~h,L~ f-h~e ~r~ntirng fl*" the request for the purpose, as snecified 1~y
'she r~aC1,E'jioner~ 'Af pro.v~di:ng a dog enclosure wi 11 he detrimental
t:n tha. ~,~ea~g~ fiL+e,~t4„ ~~f~ty and general ~~~elfarr. of the Citizens
04` ~tMe Ci'ty Of A~ah:r-I'~, dut;e to c?.he possihle undr.sirah~e o~lors and
pF~esence aof ~~lfp~ !wifliti'rt l~d:[` front sethacl: of an RS-77.~0 zoned
lc,c~ nnd cta~;/@ t~i tk'~ tikety disturhances caused hy a dog restricted
~`T'~ly ~;y a chninlinY fPnce, hut able to see and he visihle to
`hii~~ ~^'~~strlam3 ~nd anlm~ls.
n, ~-~h~as EI;I,e ~irupF~sal is detrimental to the resi~iential character of
the r~a,~i~4i~~tirrMoocl because a dog run is not. consi~lPred an
appropr~ate usrv within tlze front setback arca of an RS-77.n0 zoned
1~6:.
(~. That th~ petitioner has made no attempts, such as landscape
screening, to protect the neic~hhors from the ~ietrimental effects
of the proposal.
d. That although the petitioner indicated it would be i~conveniPnt to
restrict the dog to the rear af the lot, thr. Planninq Commission
indicated sald inconvenience would more appropriately he suffere~i
by the petitioner who owns the d~~ and is there.forP res~nnsible
for it, than hy the ad,iacent residents.
e. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary clrcumstances or
conditions applicahle to the pro~erty involved or to the inten~leri
use of the property that c1o nnt apply gencrally to the ~+r~~erty ~~
class of use in thP same viclnity and zone.
f. That the re~ur.sted variance is not necessary for the preservation
and enjoyment of a s~Rhstantlat property riqht ~l)SSP.SSP.II hy other
property in the same vicinity and z~ne, an~ denied to tlie preY~erty
in question.
RESQLUTIOM ~JO, PC7(~-13~
. • ~ ~
q, That the fr.~IJP.SYP.~ variance wi 11 I,r_ riterial ly dPtrimental t~ thr.
public welfare or inJuri~yus to the p~ope~ty or improvPments ~~
such vicinity and zone in ~ahich the pro~erty is located.
3. That t~•~o (7.) ~~rs~ns appeared, r~presentin~ aprr~ximatcly six ~~)
persons present at said publir. hearing in oppositinn; and no c~rresi:~n~iPnce r+as
received in opposition to subject pr.tition.
E1!~~ I R0~!!;EtITAL I MPACT RFPQRT P 1~Sn t tir,;
That the Director of the Planning Department has determined that thP
proposed ~ctivity falls riithin the ctefinition of Section 3.~1, Class 3, of the f.ity
of Anaheim ~uidelines to the Requirements f~r an Envir~nmentai Impact Report and is,
therefore, categorically exenpt from Lhe r?quirement to filP an FIR.
tJQW, TNFP,EFORE, BC IT RFSOU~ED that the Anahein City Planning Cor~missi~n
~foes !~ereby deny subject Per.iti~n for `lariance on the hasis of the afnrementioned
findings.
THE FOREC~lW~ RESOLUTI~~! is signed and approve ~y me this 7th day of
July, 1Q)6.
r~/~
CNA I R'IA^I. AIlAN '1 C I TV PL/11~II I ~IC f,Np~ ~ 551 ~~~
ATTEST:
. ,~~~~J"
S~LRETARY, A~IAHF I!1 C ITY PLAtJ"11II~ C~N111 SS ION
STATE OF CAL I FORII I A )
COUNTY OF ORAIJ~E )ss.
CITY OF ANAHF.111 )
I, Patricia B. Scanla~, Secretin~ of the City Planning Commission of thP
City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the i`oregoing resolution was passr,~i and
ad~pted at a meeting of the City Planning Commissi~n of the City of P.naheim, hel~l ~n
July 7, 1^7E~, at 1:3~ p.m., by the foll~win9 vote of the meMbers thareof:
AYF.S: CO!t~115510NER5: f3AR!~FS, FARAt10, fIF.RRST, Kltlf, NnRLF.Y~ JnNtlSntl
l:OES: CQ!1!41551~~lF.RS: qn~t~
AP.SF.~IT: COMH15510NE!t5: T~L~R
IN WITNESS WIiGRE~F, I have hereunto set my hanct this 7th d~y of Ju1Y, 1^7F•
~~~~ ~~~ .~ ~ ~
CRFTARY, ANAHF I'1 r, I TY PLpr~"I I~~ , C~N'11 SS I QP~
_~_ RESOLUTI(1N H0, Pr,7~-i3~