PC 81-17~ ~
RESOLUTION M0, PC81-17
A RESOLUTION OF TNE ANAHCIM CITY PLANNIlJr, CnMMiSStOrt
THAT PETiTIOP! FOR Vf+RIAPlCE N0. 31`3f3 BE GRAtJTED
WHEREAS~ the Anaheim City Planninq Commission did receive a verified
Petition for Variance from JUA~1 E. REYNOSO A~IU MARTNA E. REYPlOSO, 516 ~dest Victor
Avenue~ Anaheim, California 92801, oHm~rs of certain reai property situated in the
City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as:
Lot 38~ Tract 132E~, as sho~~n on a map recorded in Book 42, page 3~
of Miscellaneous Maps~ in the office of the county recorder of
said county.
WFIEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a puhlic hearing at the Civic
Center in the City of Anaheim on January 1?., 1~81, at 1:3~ P.m•. notice of said
public hearing havinq been duly given as r~nutred by la~•~ and in accnrdance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Plunicipal Code, Chapter 19.~3, to hear and consider
evtdence for and against said proposed varlance and to investigate and make findings
and recommendations in connection therewith; and
tlHEf;EAS~ said Co^~issien, after due Inspection. investigation and study made
by itseif and in its behalf~ and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and deternine the follm~in~ facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes a~•,aiver of the folloa~inG to retain a
fence:
SECTION 18.04.043.101 - Maximum fence heTght.
and t.2 .0 ~ 2 nches permittecl;
9 an 2 tnches existinn)
2. That the above-mentioned a~aiver is hereby granted an the basls that the
petitioner demonstrated that a hardship exists in that the request is minimal and the
fence is decorative wrou9ht iron and does not create a traffic safetv hazard.
3, That [I~e~e are erceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condittons
appllcable to the property involved or to the intr_nded use of the property that do
not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinlty and zone.
h. Thet the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and
enJoyment of a substantial property right nossessed hy other property in the same
vici~ity and zane~ and denied to the propertY in question.
5, That the reques[ed variancc ~.ai11 not he materiallv detrlmental to the
public weifare or inJurious to the prc~pe.rty ~r imnrnvements in such vicinity and zone
in which thc property is l~cated.
6. That no nne tndtcited their presence at said nublic hearing in
opposOtlon; and that no correspondence vras recelved in opposttion to the subJect
petttton.
PC81-17
ENVIRUPIMEPITAL IMPACT FIPJDING: The Planninq Director or hls authorized
representative has determined that the proposed project falls a~ithin the definition
of Categorical Exempttons, Class 3, as defined in Paragraph 7 of the Ctty of Anaheim
Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from
the requirement to prepare an EIR.
NOW~ THEREFORE, BE IT RFSOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commissian
does hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, u~on the folloa~ing conditions arhtch
are herehy found to be a necessary prarequisite to the pr~posed use of th~~ subject
property in order to preserve the safety and qeneral ~~elfare of the Citizens ~f the
City of Anaheim:
1. That subject property shall be develorse~l substantially in accordance
with plans and specifications on file ~~;ith the City ~f Anaheim marked Fxhibtt Plo. 1.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVFD that the Anaheim 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 herainabove set forth.
Should any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable
by the final judgment of any court of compe.tent jurtsdiction, then this Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void,
TNE F(1REGOING RESOLUTIOPI is signed an~l approved hy me this 1?.th day uf
January, 1981.
ATTEST•
~L;IE~l.lr(W' (/" ~~
CHqI HAM~ ANAHEIH CITY LANNI-l~ C~NMISSIQFI
' ~1 .
SECRETAR ~ NAHE M CI L 4D! Nf, COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFOR~~IA )
COUNTY OF ORHNGE j ss.
C ITY OF APlAHE IM )
I, Edtth L. Narris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Plannin~ Commisslon, do
hereby certify that the foregoino resolutton was passed and adnpted at a meetin9 of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on January 12, tAFil, by the followtng vote
of the memhers thereof:
AYES: COMMISSfONERS: BOUAS, FRY, KING, TQLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: BUSHOPE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARMES~ NERBST
IN WIT~IESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 17.th day of January,
1931.
~ ~ .
SECRf ARY, ~t HE 1 ! LA~lN pIG f.OMMISS (1q
-2- PC81-17
RESOLUTI~~1 tin, Pct31-1
A RFSOLUTIOiI OF T!IE AIJl~Htl't CITY PLPMNI`1~ C~'~MISSI~~I
TIiAT P[T I T 10"; F0~ VAR I ~hlC F ~l0. ' 1°? BF GRAFIT[~
41HEREAS, the Mahe~m City Planninn Commissinn did receive a verified
Petition for Variance from JU.4PI E, REYIdOSO A~1D ~tARTHA E. RFl'~Ifi50, ;16 '.~lest Victor
Avenue, Anaheim, C~lifornia ~23~1, o~•rners of certain real prnperty sit:iated in the
City cf Anaheim, County of Orange, Statc of Califnrnia, descrihed as:
Lot 3~, Tract 13.'_G, as sho~•m on a man recorded in E3oo4: ~s2, page ?!!
of Miscellaneous tlaps, in the office of the county recorder of
said county.
IJ~IERFAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a puhiic hearinq at the Civic
Center in the City of Anaheim on January 17, i^21, at 1:3~ f~.m., notice of said
public hearing havinq been duly given as rr_auired hy la~•~ an<1 in acc~rdance ti•~ith the
pr~visions of the Anaheim ~!unicipal Code, Chantcr 13.^', to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investiaatc and mai<e findings
and recommendations in connection theree:ith; and
IdHEREAS, said Commission, after due insp~ction, investi~ation and study r~ade
by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all ~vidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and deternine the f~llo~•~ing facts:
1. That the petitioner preroses e ~•~aiv~r of the foilo!•~inq to retain a
fence:
SFCTION 1~.Glt.043.101 - Maximum ferce heiqht.
and 1~:.2 .0 ~•+ +2 i nches permi tted;
~ 119 a nd nL i nch°5 ex i s t i nc7/
2. That the above-mentione~l ti~iaiver is herehy c~rante!I ~n the hasis that the
petitioner demonstrated that a hardship exists in th3L the re~uest is mir.imal and the
fence is decorative ~•~rougnt iron and does not cr~ate a traffic safetv hazard.
3. That there are exc~ptional or extraordinary circumstances or c~nditions
apulicable to the (=roperty involved or to the intended use of the property that do
not apply aenerally to the property or clas~ of use in the same vicinity and z~ne.
~F. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property ri9ht nossessed by nther nrnoerty in the same
vieir.ity and zone, and denied to the pr~nerty in ~uesti~n.
~, That t!ie requr,sted ~~:~rianc~ ~•~i 11 n~t he materi~l lv detrimental to the
public ~•~rlfare or injurious to the prnpertv ~r irr~rnver~ents in such vicinity and zone
in ~~rhich the nroperty is l~cated.
6, Tha~ no ~ne indicateei ti~eir nresence at sai~' nublic h~arincl in
opposition; and t~<` r~o correspondenee ,;~s reeeivcd in eppositien tn thc~ Sllh)PCY
pet~tion.
PC81-17
EII~/IP,OiIMEtdTAL IMPACI F(IlDIPIG: Thr Planninq Dirr,ctor or his authorize<I
representative has determined that the pro~osed ~rojrct fa11s ~~~ithin the definition
of Categorieal ExPmptions, Class 3, as de`ined in Paragra;,h 7. of the City of ,4naheim
Environnental Im~act Report Guidelines and is, therefore, catennrically exempt frorn
the requirement tn prepar~ an EIR.
h1041, THFREFORE, BE IT °~S!1L!~EI~ th~~t the Anaheim City Plannina ComMission
does hereby c~rant suhject Petition f~r Variance, un~n the fnlloti•iinc; conclitions ~-~hich
are herehy found t~ be ~ ~ecessar~~ ~rrrequisite t~ the or~nos~d usr_ ~f th~ subjeet
property in order to presc~rve C~~e saf~ty anc' c~ene;a? i:~elfare r~f the Citizens of the
C i ty of l~nahe ir~:
~. That suhjeet property s!~all be develone~i suhstantially in aeeordance
~vith plans and speeifications on file i:~ith th~ Ciry ~f Anaheim m,~~•I<ed Fxhihit Plo. 1,
DE IT FURTHFR RFSOLb'ED ti~at the ~naheim City Plannin~ Commission does hereby
find and determine that ad~ption of this °,esolution is expressly nre~ficated uoon
applicant's compliance taith eac.h and all of the conditi~ns hereinabove set forth.
Should any such condition, or any part thereof, he declared invalid ~r unenforceable
by the final judgnent of any court of cor^~eten*_ jurisctiction, then ttiis Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained, sh~ll he d~emed null an~ voici.
TNE F~RE~~11 "!!: RFS~LUTI Otl i s ; i 9ned ~n~l appmv~d hy me th i s 12th day of
January, 1981,
ATTEST•
/~G~f~ v' ~~
CH/t I.~~APJ, AflAf?E I M C I?Y PLA!1"! I N~ C~""`1 I SS I ~t!
(O ~7C..(-t%fS. ~ ~~.1 ~ a~
SECREiARY, "1AHEIM CITY ?LAM"lI~1G CfIM"11~SIOP!
STATE OF CAL I FOR~dI A)
COUhlTY OF ORAMGE } ss .
C ITY OF AP!AHE I~1 )
~. Ed?th L. Harris, Secreta ry of the ~nahein Citv Plannina Commission, do
hereby certifv that the foregoin~ resolution ~~ras passed and aci~pf.ed at a meetir~g of
the Anaheim City Plannirc7 Commission held on January 1?, t~f3~, hy the following vote
of the memhers thereof:
AYES: C0~INISSIONEP,S: EOUAS, FRY, I:IPif', TOLr,?
NOF.S: COMPIISSIOF~EP,S: BUSHORC
AASEWT: COMMISSIO~JERS: BARMES, FIERBST
I~a WITf1ESS llHEREOF, I have hereunto set ^~~~ hand this 12th dav nf January,
19?1.
r~,~~,w~
SEC~~~R.Y, A~!AHE I"1 C ITY PLArJNI pIG r~~~rq ~ SS I nr~
-2- PC$1-17