PC 81-213"[$OLUTIO~! FlO. PC ,~1-21
~ RFSOLUT;OF! OF TfIE A'I,~IfE I`t C I TY Pl.l~.tJ'I I ~l~ C~'1'11 `S 10~•i
TH~T PETITIOri FpR VF.RIl1NCF IJ~, 3?3? E3E DF~!IFD
b;Fl[RFAS, the Anai~eim City Planniny Comnissi~~n ~li~' r~c~iv~ a vrrified
P°tition for Variance from LF.O"I A. CR~DY .A`;D Q^RIS G, Cr,AnY, 1~''3!; ~ainbriige J~venue,
Anaheim, California '17~~7, o~:ncrs ~f certain real nrr~pert~;- situated in the City nf
Anaheim, Lu~,;ty of Orange, State of California descrihed ~s:
Lot j~? of Tract ~lo. ;•'~~~, in thc r_itv of Anafiei ~~, cnunt~ of
Orange, state of California, as per ma~ r~cer~led in heo! 217 pages
L~5 to 43 inclilsive of Mi;cellanrous !1a~s, in tne officP ~f t!i~:
county recorder of said county.
4~JNERE/15, the City P~anning Commission r'id hold a puhlic hearing at the City
Hall in Lhe City of Anaheim on Octoher 1~, 1!?`;1, at 1•3~ n.m., netice or said public
hearing Iiaving been duly given as required hy la~r and in acr.ordance with the
P~ovisions of the Anaheim P!unicipal Code, Chapter 13.43, to hear and consider
evidence for ard against said proposed variance and to inves[igat^ and make findings
anci reeomnendations in connection thereo-~ith; ~n~l
•dtIEREl1S, said Commission, after Jue inspection, investigation ~nd study made
by itself and in its !~ehalf, and after ~'ue consideration of ~ill evidenc~ anci reports
affered at said 'iearing, dnes find and deternin~~ the follo~•iinc~ facts:
1. That the ret i t ioner !~roposF.s a ~,a i v~r ~f the rol l~i~~i ng to reta i n a
fence:
SECTIOh!S 1u.0~t.043,1n1
ana i~~."t.~.,..ic,%;.i l i - rtaxinum rence heiqht.
(+2 inches pernitted in fr~nt sethacl:;
e~et existina}
2. That the af,ove-mentioned ~,~aiver is herehy der,ied on the hasis tnat the
Petitioner did not demonstratc that a hardship exists and *_h.~t approval could sAt an
undesirable precedent.
3. That there are no exceptional or e~ctraordinary circumsta~ces or
conditions 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.
f+. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enj~yment of a substantia' prooerty right possesseri hy other pr~perty in t'~e same
vicinity and zone, and denied to the prop~rty in question.
PC3i-2t3
5. That thc renucsted variancc arill be materiaily detrimental to the
put,] ic ~~~elfare or injurious to t!ie property or improvemenYS in such vicinity and zone
~n ~•,hich the property is located.
6. That one person indicated his presence at said public hearing in
opposition; and that no correspondence 4~as received in ~~~~,ition to the subject
petition.
[NVIROW~tEiITAL i~1PACT FINDING: Tho Planniny Director or his aut`~orized
representativc has determined that the proposed project falls ~•~ithin the definition
of Catcoorical Exemptions, Class 3, as derin~J in the State EI~ Guidelines anci is,
therefore. categorica'ly exempt from the requirement to prep~,re an EIP..
h101d, THEREFORE, E3E IT R[SOLVFD that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does heret~y deny subject Petition for Variance on the bas~s of the aforementioned
findings.
THE FOREG01~lG RESULUTIG~! is si9ned and approved hy me this 19th day of
October, 1~i31,
ATTEST:
-~~-• ~~ ~Il/Lfii~~
SECRETARY PRO TEF1°ORE
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIfORNIA
COUF7TY OF ORA~IGE ) ss.
C ITY Of At~AHEll1 )
I, Pamela H. Starnes, Secretary Pro Tempore af the Anaheim City Planning
Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution ~~as passed and adopted at
a meeting of the F~nai~eim City Planning Commission hcld on Feb-uary n, ln$1, by the
folloriing vote of *_;ie members thereof:
AYES: CONM15S10,![Z5: BOUAS, FRY, IUPlG, TnLAR
NOES: COIdMISSIOidERS: NONE
AaSEFlT: CONr11SS10r~ERS: 6AR~lES, QUSf:a„E, hIERCST
IP! WITNESS WHEREOF, I have ,iereunto set my hand this 1`1Lh day of October,
19~1.
l"~~'.~~X~ Qs:~~~i~t~i .~~
S[CRETARY RO TEMPOP,E
A~IAHE i M C I TY PLANtI I NG CO'1t11 SS I OH
H . .P1AP FRO TEM R. ~~
ANAHEIM CITY PLAPJNING C~f~11SSI0td
_Z- PC81-213