PC 76-84~
I
RESQLUTION NL'. PC7h-84
~
RESOLUTION OF THE AP~AHEIM CITY PLANt~ING CQMMIS510!J
THAT PETITIOtI F~R VARIANCE N0, 28~1 fiE GRAMTED.
IJHEREAS~ the Anaheim City Planning Commisison ~11d receive a verifiecl
Petition for Variance from WILLIAM R. AND JUDY E. Tl10HPSOF7, 1!10 N. Avenida Rio Bravo,
Anaheim, California 92307 (Owners) of cer~ain real property situated in the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as:
Lot 23 of Tract No. 7730, as shown on a Map recordr.d in book 337, panes 4~~ t~ 47
both inclusive of 1liscellaneous Maps, records of Qran~e County, California.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a pul~lic hearing at the Ci[y
flall in the City of Anaheim on April 7.h, 1~176, at 1:3Q p,m., n~tice of sai<! public
hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accorclance with the
provisions of the llnaheim Municipal Coie, Chapter 11i.c13, to hear and conslder
evidence for and against said proposed variance anri t. investigate and make findtngs
and recommendations in connection therewlth; and
WIiEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation an~ stu~ly macle
by itself and in its belialf, and ~fter due consider~tion of all evtdence and repnrts
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following f~cts:
1. That the petitioner proposes the fnllowinq waiver from the A~aheim
Municipal code, to construct a block wall:
SECTION 18.04.043.107. - Maximum wall heiqht. (~+2 inches permitted
~ feet, inches proposed
_. That the ahove-mentir,ned waiver is hereby granted on the basis that the
proposed ~~uall will not generate any visibility prnblems fnr vehicular trafftc; that
waivers have previously been granted under similar circunstances for similar walls;
and that the petttioner demonstrated that a hardship would be created if said waiver
wcre not granted, said hardship being tlie detriment to the peace, health, safety anri
general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim, since said wall will enclose
the rear yard and a swimming pool at the subJect lncation; anci, furtherm~re, said
waiver being granted subject to the stipulatlon of the petitioner that if the
proposed wall exceeds six (6) feet in height, said ~aali will be constructed in
accordance with the Uniform Buildin9 Code requirements prrtaining to structural
walls, and that any necessary encroachment pPrmits will be obtained prior to
construction.
3. That there are excepKtonal or extrao~'dinary circumstances or conditlons
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the praperty that do
not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
4. That the requested variance is necESSary for the preservati~n and
enJoyment of a substantial property right possessed hy ~ther pro~erty in the same
vicinity and zone, and denied to the property ir~ question.
5. That the requested variance wlll not hr, materially detrimental to the
public o~elfare or inJurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is located.
G. That no one indicated their presence at said puhlic hearing in
opposition; and no correspondence was received in opposition to subject petition.
EtJV I ROtlMEtlTAL 111PALT REPQRT F I ND I IlG:
That the Director of the Planntng Department has determined that the
proposed activity falls within the defini:ton of Section 3.~1. Class 3, of the City
of Anaheim Guidelines to the R.equirements for an Environmental lmpact Repert and is,
therefore, categorically exemp: fl~om the requirement to file an EIR.
~~OW, TtiEREFORE, BE IT RESQLVED that thc Anaheim City Planninq Commissi~n
does herr.by 9rant subJect Petition for Variance, upon the follo~~ing conditiuns w?~i~:h
are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite t~ the prorosed use of the subJeet
property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of thc
Ci[y nf Anahcim:
RESOLUTlON tl0, PC76-84
~ ~
1. Tliat subJect property shall bc developed substantially in acc~rdance
with plans and specifications on file with the CTty of Anahelm marked Exhibit Nos. 1
and 2; provided, however, that if the proposed wall exceeds six (6) feet in height.
said ~aall shall be constructed in accordance with Che Uniform Buildfng C~de
pertaining to structural walls, as stipulated f.o by the petitioner.
2. That the property uw:ier(s) shall obtain any necessary encroachment
permits if the proposed wall extends into the easements along Camino Tampico and
Avenida Rio Bravo.
THE fOREG0I~IG RESOLUTIOtJ is signed and approved by me thi, 7.Sth day of
April. 197G.
<~~ ~ -
CNAIR~ 1~~ A~JAHEIM CITY PLANNtNG C011HISSi~)N
ATTEST:
~~~~~~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNItlG CQt1111SS10tJ
STATE OF CAI.I FORt~ I A )
COU~~TY OF ORANGE )ss.
LIT" QF At~AHEIM )
I, Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretar• uf the City Planning Commission of the
City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that th~ fa~egoing resnlution was passed and
adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City ~f Anaheim, held ~n
April 2G, 1976, at 1:3~ p.m., by the following vote of thP members thereof:
pYES: COMMISSIONF.RS: DARqES, HE;SBST, KIt~G, M~RLEY~ FARAMO
lJOES: LOMI1155IOtlERS: flOIJE
ADSFNT: COMMi55lOI~ERS: JOHt150~~, TQLAR
ItJ WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 26th day of kpril, 147Fi
Ow~~,~~~...~~
SECRETAf;Y, AtIAHEIM CITY PLANNINf, COMMISSION
-p- RESOLUTION N0. PC7(+-$4