PC 82-63RESOLUTIO~! N0. PC$2-(3
~ RESOW710N f1F THE At~AHEl11 CITY PLANNitlf, COIiHISS10~1
THAT PETITION FOR VARIA~lCF ~10. 325n [3E GRAIlT[D
WfIEP.EA.S, the Anaheirn City Planning Commission did receive :.i verified
Petition for Variance from DOtJALD YAt! AIJD tR[hlE YAt~, 61~7 Frontier Court,
Anaheim, California ~2&'07, owners, of certai~ real property situated in the City
of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as:
LOT 22 OF TRACT tl0. 97L3, AS SIIOtt~J ON A HAP THEREOF RECORDED i PI
[3001; 473 PAfES 3 TlIROUGfI 6 I1lCLUSIVE OF MISCELLAMEOUS f1l1PS,
RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUt~TY.
WfIEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City
Flall in the City of Anaheim on April 5, 19II2, at 1:3~ p.m., notice of said public
heariny having been duly given as required by law and tn accordance with the
~rovisions of the Anaheim Municipal Codc, Chapter 1R.~3, to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings
and recommendations in connection there4rith; and
WfiEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investiqation and study made
by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes a waiver of the fallo~•~ing to construct a
fence:
SECTION 18.0~~.043.101 and 1~i.2-E.064.iQ0 - Permitted ty e of fence
-foot hiqh Da o en iron-work fence
permitted in front setback; -foot hiqh
48U open iron-work fence proposed
2. That the above-mentioned waiver ts hereby granted on the basis that the
petitioner demonstrated that a hardship exists in that the prc~posed fence consisting
of 48; solid components will not block vehicular lines-of-si~~ht and provides privacy
for the property owner taithout obstructing the views of thre surrounding property
avners.
3. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or ta the intended use of the property that do
not apply generally to the property or ciass of use in the same vicinity and zone.
4. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the s2me
vicinity and zone, and denied to thc property in qucstion.
PC82-63
S. That the requcsted variance a~~ill not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone
tn which tfie property is located.
6. That no one indicated their ~resence at said public hearing in
opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposition to the subject
peti tion.
Ef1VIR01dF1Et~TAL IHPACT FItJDit!(;: The Plannin~ Director or his authorized
representative has determined tliat the proposed project falls a~ithin the definition
of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in the State EIR ~uidelines and is,
therefore, categorically exempt from the rec~uirement to prepare an [IR,
t704l, TfIEREFORE, L'E IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Comnission
does hereby grant subject Petition for Uariance, upon the following conditions which
are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject
property in order to preserve the safety and aeneral~•~elfare of the Citizens of the
City of Anaheim:
1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance arith
plans anJ specifications on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit
Plos. 1 and 2.
2. That Condition No. 1, above-mentioned, shall be complied with prior to final
building and zoning inspections.
BE IT FURTf1ER RESOLVED that the llnaheim City Planning Commission does hereby
find and determine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon
applicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth.
Should any such conditiort, or any part thereof, be deciared invafid or unenforceable
by the final judgment of any court of competent jurisdictir~n, then this Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
TFIE FOREGOIPJG R[SOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 5th day of April,
19i32.
~.~..Q.s~ Q,~~,p.~-~-
CtIAIRt4At1, At~AHEIM CITY PLANPIING COMIIISSION
ATTES T: ,D
_ ~~ ,~ ~~.u..:
SECRETARY, AWAtIEIH CITY 'LANNIIlG COMFiISSIOt~
-2- PC82-63
STATE OF CALIFORNtA )
COUtJTY OF ORA~~GE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
~, Edith L. flarris, Secretary of the Aniheim City Planning Cormnission, do
hereby certify tfiat the foregoing resoiution o~as passed and adopted at a meeting of
the llnaheir.i City Planning Commission heid on April 5, 1~82, by the following vote of
the members Chereof:
AYES: COMftISSI0NER5: Ell1RfJE5~ EOUAS~ [SUSH~P,E~ F~Y, fI~R6.°iT~ t:ING~ MC DURNf.Y
NUES: COFIHISSIONERS: NOtJ[
ABSEIJT: C0~1P11SSIOtJERS; NONE
I~! 411TNESS IJHEP,EOF,
have hereunto set my hand this 5th day of April, 19i32,
~Z~i~v ~ ~r.~ ~
SE CRETAR , ANAfIE I M C I TY PLl1NI11 MG C01•1M I SS I ON
i
~
-3- PC82-63
r ~, .. ,. ,..,
~
~
~ ..
t .
~':, y
r;.,~
~