Loading...
Resolution-PC 2002-159• RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-159 ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2002-04534 BE DENIED WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Variance for certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as: LOT 4 OF BLOCK A IN TRACT 237 AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 13, PAGE 24 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center in the City of Anaheim on October 21, 2002 at 1:30 p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed conditional use permit and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation 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_petitiooer proposes the following waiver to retain and permit a 6,foathigh wrought iron fence in the required front yard setback: Sections 18.04.043.100.101(a) - Maximum fence heiqht. 18.32.063.010.012 3-foot high fence permitted in the minimum 15-foot front yard setback along a local street in the RM-2400 "Residential, Multiple- and 18.32.64.070 Family "Zone; 5 to 6-foot high fence existing and proposed at the front property line along Lemon Street) 2. That the waiver of maximum fence height is hereby denied on the basis that there are no special circumstances applicable to the property pertaining to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which do not apply to other identically zoned properties in the vicinity; that ample recreation/leisure area exists in the secured rear yard of this property; and that the existing front yard between Lemon Street and the residential triplex is 50 feet, and if the existing fence were set back at 15 feet to comply with the Code requirement, the resulting yard between the fence and the residential triplex would be 35 feet. 3. That strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive this property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity because no other front yard fence height variances have been granted in the vicinity; that the current Code regarding maximum fence heights was adopted in 1999, and prior Code regulations have allowed front yard fences from 3 to 4 feet high, and up to 6 feet high if the fence was at least 80% open; and that although there are some non- conforming 5 to 6-foot high front yard fences in the vicinity (as discussed in paragraphs (12), (13) and (16) of the Staff Report dated October 21, 2002), those fences were likely constructed prior to the current Code requirement limiting front yard fence heights to a maximum of 3 feet. 4. That in 1999, the City Council adopted the Anaheim Colony Historic District Preservation Plan which includes the neighborhood surrounding subject property, and the historic guidelines for the Plan specifically address front yard fencing and suggest that fences within the required front yard "are discouraged because they interrupt a continuous greenbelt and dilute the neighborhood character of the street," and the guidelines fu~ther describe the types of fences that may be appropriate including "picket fences, alternating vertical styte fences, and lattice work panels, all of which give an open-air feeling," and CR5488DM.doc -1- PC2002-159 ~ • the guidelines specifically mention wrought iron fencing as "not recommended"; and that the existing six foot high decorative wrought iron fence is not appropriate for this specific historical neighborhood. 5. That the Primary Record for the subject property indicates the house was originally built in 1863; and that the architect/consultant (Architectural Resources Group) for the Community Development Department submitted a letter, dated August 27, 2002, describing the historical use of fences for homes from the Victorian era and indicting the historical intent of fences was to provide a design element and the front yard served as a transitional space befinreen the public realm of the street and the private realm of the house, and the front yard was not considered a`private area.' 6. That three people spoke at the public hearing in opposition to the proposal; and that one letter in opposition was received. 7. That one person spoke at the public hearing in favor of the proposal. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDING: The Planning Director or his authorized representative has determined that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in the State of California Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an EIR. NOW, THEREFORE, 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 was adopted at the Planning Commission meeting of October 21, 2002. _. ~-- .l C IRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: SE RETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Eleanor Fernandes, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on October 21, 2002, by the following vote of tl~e members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BRISTOL, EASTMAN, ROMERO, VANDERBILT NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BOYDSTUN ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONER: KOOS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BOSTWICK T ~ I_ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ~~" day of /I~r'Vc nr .p@r , 2002. ~~~ ~ SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -2- PC2002-159