Resolution-PC 2002-173• ~
RESOLUTION NO. PC2002-173
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2002-04540 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 7 IN BLOCK 8 OF TRACT NO. 549, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY
OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK
18, PAGE 23 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the Civic Center
in the City of Anaheim on November 18, 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 variance and to investigate
and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and that said public hearing was
continued to the December 2, 2002 Planning Commission meeting; 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 petitioner proposes waiver of the following to retain and permit an existing 5-
foot, 6-inch high fence within the front yard setback:
Sections 18.04.043.100.101(a) - Maximum fence heiQht.
18.26.063.010 (3 foot hiqh fence permitted in the 25-foot front setback;
and 18.26.064.110 5-foot, 6-inch high wrought iron and pilaster fence existing and
proposed alonp Rose Street)
2. That the above-mentioned waiver is hereby denied on the basis that there are no
exceptional or extraordinary circumstances 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 because the subject lot is in a standard subdivision with rectangular lots and no topographic
contours or irregularities are a constraint on the property in any unique way; and that the subject property
is virtually identical to other lots in the vicinity with regard to size, shape and surroundings.
4. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantiaf property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone and denied to the
property in question because the only other front yard fence height variance that has been granted is on a
corner lot, not an interior lot; and that although several lots in this neighborhood have 4 to 6-foot high
fences in the front yards, those fences were likely constructed prior to the current Code requirement
which limits the height of fences to 3 feei in the required front yard setback; and that approval of this
variance would effectively `exempY the subject property from the provisions of the Zoning Code
concerning non-conforming uses and structures - a privilege which is not enjoyed by identically zoned
properties in the vicinity and, therefore, strict application of the Zoning Code does not deprive this
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties under identical zoning classification in the vicinity.
5. That approval of the requested variance would be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is
located.
cr5507dm.doc - 1 - PC2002-173
~ •
6. That no one indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition to the proposaf;
and that no correspondence was received in opposition.
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
December 2, 2002.
~--
/~ - ~,
AIRPERSON, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ).
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Eleanor Morris, 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 December 2, 2002, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOSTWICK, BRISTOL, EASTMAN, ROMERO
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BOYDSTUN, KOOS, VANDERBILT
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ~~ T~ day of
r, 2002.
.
SECRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
- 2 - PC2002-173