PC 77-108RESULU71Gta N0. PC77-108
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLA6lNIlIG C0~4MIS510!!
THAT PETITI011 FOR VARIANCE N0. 2940 aE GRAtITED
WI1EREiaS, the Anaheim City Planning Corunission Jici receive a verified
Petition for Variance from ROfiERT II. A11D MARJORIE W. FACY.INER, 322 South Sunkist
Street, Anaheim, California 923~6, owners of certain real property situated in [he
City of Anaheim, County of Orange, S[atc of California, described as:
Parcel 1, as shown on a map recorded in book 23, page 7 of Parcel
Maps, records of Orange ~ounty, California; and
WHEREAS, [he City Planniny Coinmission did hol~i a public hearing at the City
Hall in the City of Anaheim on May 23, 1977, at 1:30 p.rn., notice of said public
hearing having been duly yiven as requirecJ by law and in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 1~.03, to hear and consider
evidence for and ayains[ said proposed variance ar.d to investigate and make findings
and recommenda[ions in cunnection th~rewitli; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspeciion, investigation and study made
by itself and in its behalf, and after due c~nsideration of all evidence and reports
offered at saio hearing, does fincl and determine the follawing facts:
1. 7hat the petitioner proposes [hc follawing waivers fron th~ Anaheim
Municipal Code, to establish a 4-lot, RS-7200 subdivision:
a. SECTION 18.01},043.102 - Maximum fence height.
2 inches permi[ted; o fe~t existing)
b. SECTIOU 1u.26.06~.010 - Re uirement that ail lots rear-on an
artcria f~i hy way. 7wo ronC-on ots
proposed
2, That Waiver 1-a, above mentioned, is hereby granted on the basis tha[
tlie fence is existing and partially encloses an existing single-family reside~ce
which is beiny retained; [liat the p~titioner Jemonstrated that a hardship consisting
of a l~ss of privacy would be created if said waiver were not granted; and that an 8-
foot tiigh fence is permissible in tne frontyard setback of subjr.ct lot along Sunkist
Street and would potentially connect to [he existiny G-foot fence.
3. That Waiver 1-d, above mentioneJ, is hereby grarted on the basis that
other nearby lots in the samc zone alony Sunkist Street have been developed in a
similar manner to the proposal and front on Sunkist Stree[.
4. That there are e~cceptional or ex[raordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involveJ or to the intencled use of the property that do
not apply yenerally to tF~e Z~'onPr«y ;~r class of use in the same vi~inity and zone.
5, That the recuested varlance is necessary far the preserva:ion and
enjoyment of a substar,'ial property right possessed by otiier property 1n the same
vicinity and zone, and denicd to the properey in question.
6. That the requested var~ance will nat be rua[erially detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to the, properiy c•r inprovements in such vicinity and zone
in which the. property is located.
PC77-1Q8
7. That one; .rson indicated his presencc ;~t said pubiic hearing in
opposition; and that no correspondencP o+as receivecl yin opposition to subject
petition.
EN~JIRONMEIITAL 111PALT FINDING: That the Anaheim City Planning Commission has
reviewed the subject proposal with waivers of maxirnum fence height and requireme~t
that all lots rear-on an arterial iiighway on property consistiny of 1.£?. acres located
at [he northeast corner of Jamison Street and Sunkist Street, and does here6y
recortmend to the City Council of the City of Anatieim that a Negative Declaration from
ttie requlrement to prepare an environmental impact report 6e approved for the subject
project on the basis tha[ there would be no individual or cumulative adverse impact
on the environrnent due to the approval of this t4egative Declaration since the Anaheim
General Pidn designates the subject propcrty for low-density residen[ial 1~^d uses
cormiensurate with the proposal, and the initial Study submitted by the petitioner
indicates no significant adverse environrnental impact; and that the Negative
Declaration substantiating the foreyoin,y findings is on file in the Office of the
Pianniny Departmcnt.
tJOLI, Ti1EREFORE, 6E IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, upon the following condition which
is hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to ttie proposed use of the subject
property in order to preserve tl~e safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the
City of Anaheim:
1, That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
with plans a~d specifications on file witli the City of Anaheim marked Exhi6it Nos. 1
and 2.
~977.
TViE FOREGOItJG RESOLUTI01~ is siyned and approved by me this 23rd day of 11ay,
1~/.~~ v ~,~.~
CkiAI RMAtI PRO TE"1PORE
AI~AH[iM CITY PLANtaING CONMISSIOF!
A7TEST:
~~~ ~ ~
SECRETAR , ANANE I 11 C I TY PLANtd I NG COM111 SS I Otl
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUIl7Y OF QitAt7GE ) ss .
CITY OF AP~AHEIM )
• I, Edith L. Harris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Cortmission, do
hereby certiiy that rhe foregoiny resolutlon was passed and adop[ed at a meeting of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on May 23, 1977, at 1:3p p,m., by the
follow(ng vote of the nembers thereof:
NYES: COt1MIS5101lERS: BARtlES, DAVID, HERQST, f:ING, LIt~N, TOLAR
NOES: COMMiSSIOt~ERS: ~~Ot![
A4SEi~T: COMMISS I OHER" ; .;~NtiS01!
ft. 1~ITNESS WHE`;.~~ir, 1 have hereunto set my hand this 23rd day of Hay, 1977•
~~ ~ l~~' ,~.~
SECRETARY, At1AHEIM CITY PLANIiING COIiMI5SI01J
-2- P~'77- l 0a