PC 80-119RESOLUTlON N0. PC 80-119
A RESO~UTIO~J OF THE APIAHEIM CITY PLANNIhr, COMHISSION
THA1' PETITIOP! FOR VARIANCE N0. 3160 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the Anahefm City Planning Commission did receive a verified
Petition for Uariance from MARY LEAL MYRDAHL, 407 South Ohio Street, Anaheim,
Californta 92805, owner of certatn real property situated in the C1ty of Anaheim,
County of Orange, State of Callfornia described as:
Lot 22 in Biock "B" of Tract 238, as per map recorded in Book 13
Page 23 of Miscellaneous Maps~ in the office of the county
recorder vr said county.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Ctty
Hall En the City of Anaheim on July 2$,1980, at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public
hearing having been duly given as required by lao-r and in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider
evidence for and against said pr~posed variance and to investigate and make findings
and recommendattons in connection there~~ith; and
WHER[AS, said Commission, after due inspectionr investigation and study made
by itself and in its behalf, and after due con~ideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the folla.~ing facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes a~vaiver of the following to ~etain a
fence:
SECTION 18.04.043.101 - Maximum fence hei ht,
and 18.26,Oo4 2 inches permitted in front yard;
e~et existing.
2. That the above-merstioned waiver is hereby denied oii the basis that the
petitioner did not demonstrate that hardship exists due to the size, shape,
topography~ location or surroundings of subject property.
3. That the existing six (6) foot high fencs shall be reduced to forty-two
(42) inches high or be relocated to conform to Z.aning Code requirements within ninety
(90) days from the date herein.
3. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
condltions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property
that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and
zone.
4. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substan*_1a1 property right possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone~ and denied to the property in question.
5. That the requested vari3nce will be materially detrimental Yo the
public welfiare or injurious to th~ property or improvements in such vlcinity and zone
in which the property is located.
PC8o-lt9
6. That five ~5) persons tndicated their presence at sald public hearing
in opposition; and that one letter was recefved tn oppositior. to the su~~ect
petition; and petitians containing approximately 28 signatures were su5mitted in
opposition.
ENVIROtJMENTAL IMPACT FINDING: The Planning Director or his authortzed
representat ve has etermined that the proposed project falls withtn the definition
of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in Paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim
Environmental IRpact Report Guidelines and ts, therefore, categorically exempt from
the requirement to prepare an EIR,
NOW, TNEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby deny subject Petition for Variance on the basis of the aforementioned
findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 28th day of July,
1980.
ATTEST•
~~r'. ~~ ._ ~ ~~,~ ~u,,,i
CHAIRW0~4AN, ANAHEIN CITY PLANNIMG COMMISSION
~~1~J, .~ ' ,~ :
SECRETAR , PlI1EIM CIY~ PLANMING COMMI5510"J
STATE OF CALIfORNIA )
COUFJTY OF ORAP~GE ) ss.
ClTY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Edith L. Harris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planni~g Commisston, do
hereby certify.that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim City Planning Commisston held on July 28, 1980, by the foilowing vote of
the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ BOUAS~ BUSHORE~ FRY~ NERBST, YING, TOLAR
NOES: COPIMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 2F3th day of July, 1980.
~~~. ~ .° ~~~.
SECRETAFY~ ANAHEIM CITY PLA,NNING COMMISS;ON
-2- PC8o-119