PC 80-18~(SOl.:ll iCii !lr,. oC _~^
~, f'"SQUITIOI~ G!" TIiE ,Ul!V!iEl'; CIT" PL/11:'!I~I~; C!1'!'lISS10';
TH~1T P~TITI^~I Fpf' VI~.RIA~1Cr ~ln. Z1'1 gt ~;?~~~T~p
'~1HEREAS, the ~lnaheir~ City Plannin~~ f,omr^is~ion ~li<i r•~ccive i verifie,~',
Petition fcr Variance fror,i RUGF' ~r~TT ~,'{41~:~ ^,;;^ ';;?.T;Il~. LC'_' [?!,1/Ir-S~ 117° 41est
'1ernont A~enue, Anahr_ir,i, California '?7`:"~~~ oi:ner ~f ccrt.iin re~) property situ?ted in
the City of Anahcim, County of ~rnnge, St,~te op !'alifornia de,erih~d ~s;
Lot ?? of Tr~~~ ;(,?n, C i ty oF P.nahc i r.;, as per r.~ap recorde,' i n Bool:
;~, f aqes 2~, 3~ and 31 of '1 i sce 1 laneeus !1ap~ , i r the a"i ce of
the County 'ecorder of saicJ coun~y.
41HEREqS, the City °lannir.g Conriission did hold a p„~lic hearing at the City
h~ali in the City of F~naheim on January 23, 1~°0, at 1:;~ p.n•~., notice of said publlc
hearing having been c;uly ryiven as requir~d ~~y la~:~ and in accordance w.ith the
provisions of the Anahcirn "'unicipal Code, Chapter 1".~;, to heor and consider
evidenee for and a9ainst said proposed variance ar,d to investigate and make findings
ar~d reeormendations in connec[ion ti~ere~,~ith• ard
WI'EREP,S, sei~ Co~r~ission, after due insoerrinn, in~~^sti~i,~ion ~nd study made
~S" ~t~~~` d~~d in its hehalf, and after due consider~tion of a11 evi~lence and repnrts
offered at said hearing, does `ind ancl deternine thc~ follo~•;in~i `aets:
1• That th~ ~eti*ioner oro~oses a
existinc ~.ra11; r ~-~aiver of thr folln~:in~ to retain an
SECTIOIiS 1~i,01~.~4~.1G1
~~~ ~-•~ -•~~+.110 - Maximun ~~a11 height in front setbacl<.
+2 inches ~ermitced;
r----
i~~~ne5 cr,istin~j
2. That the above-mentioned ~.~~aiver is I;erehy nranted on the b~sis that the
petitioner denonstrated that a hardship exist~ in that the er,istin~ six (~) foot hiah
masonry block and a!ooden ;~al) ~~ras constructed prior tc~ annexation of subject property
to the Clty of Anaheim and that the 2? inch dif`erence bet~~reen th~ existing tvall
height and that allo~;~ed hy Code has not and ~•~ill not b~ detrirental to the
surrounding netghborhood hecause traffic visihility has not heen ac!versely af`ected.
3. That there are exceptioral or extraordinary circi.imstances or condirions
ap,~licable to the ~rorerty involved or to the intended u5:~ of the prc~erty that do
not apply generally te the property or class of use in the sane vicinity and zone.
~F. That the requested v-riance is necessory for the preservation and
enjoyr~ent o` o;ubstantiai pro~erty ri_~ht ?ossessed ry nt'~er nrep:~rty ir the same
vieinity .ncl zonc, and Jenied to th~~ propcrCy in quc:tior..
~• 'hat th~~ ;eque,:t~d variancc~ ~rill not „~~at~,riail~;~ dc;riracntal Lo thc
public ~;;cif,~rc or ir~~urious to tf;_• ~r~;~crt; ur ~~prov~=~.n.nts ir~ ~-,uch vicinity and zone
in ~ihich the pro~~,,:rty is located. ~
PC'0-1n
I,. M`..
6. That no one indicated tiieir presence at said public hearing in
opposi:ion; and that no correspondence a~as receivecl in opposition to the subjeet
petition.
EfaVIROhlHEtJTAL IFIPF~CT FIPIDIi•iG; The Plan7ing Director or his authorized
representative has determined that the proposed project falls ti~~ithin the deftniti~n
of Categorical Exemptions, Class 2, as defined tn Paragraph 7_ of the City of Anaheim
Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, cateqortcally exempt from
the requirement to prepare an EIF.
Pl04l, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that tfie Anaheim City Planning Commission
: does hereby grant subject Petition for• Variance, upon the folloa~ing cenditions which
~ are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use o` the subject
property in order to preserve the safety and general a~elfare of the Citizens of the
City of Anaheim:
t. That subject property shall be developed substantially in ar.cordance
with p;ans and specificztions on file with the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit ^!o. 1.
6E IT FURTIiCR RESOLV~D that the .4naheim City Planning Commission does hereby
find and determire that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon
applicant's compli~~ice Urith each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth.
Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceabie
and any arprovalsdherein~contained,tshall~beedeemedUnull'and~vo~d:~en this P,esolution,
TIiE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 28th day of
January, 1980,
1.~~~ ~ ~ ~
A?TEST: CHA I R!1AN, AP~AIIE I M C i fY ?LANP~~ p~,~p.~ I SS I ON
' ~ .
SECRETAR ~ ANAHE I M C I TY PLAtdtJ I t!G C0~4~1 I SS I OP!
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUPITY OF ORAPJGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Edit„ L. Harris, 5ecretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commission, do
hereby certify that the foregoiny resoiu~ion a~as passed and ad~pted at a meetiny of
the Analieim C1ty Planning Commisston lield on January 24~ 1~3Q, by rhe follov~ing vote
of t:~e members therecf:
AYES: COh1111SSI0NERS: BUSHO.'tE, D~VID, FRY, NEREST, KI~lG, TOLAR
~70ES: CO!4MiSSIONERS: PIONE
AaSENT: COMMISSIOMERS: EiARNES
IN WITNESS 4111EREOF, I have hereunto set my hand tfiis 2f3tfi day of January,
1980.
~c~.t.~ ~ i~4?~.~
SECZETARY, AtIAHE I?1 C 1 TY PLA"1M I NG C0~1M I SS I ON
-7' PC80-13