PC 81-37RESOLUTIO;! ~!!I.PC°1-37
A RFSOLI~T 10~1 OF TfiE Flr~AFtE I!~~ C I TY PL/'.yrl I tlr, Crn1~+l SS I o~i
THAT P[TITIOt; F~P VQ.RIA!ICE 'J0. ;197 f~[ GpA~lTFD
WHEREAS, the Anahelm City Plannina Cormi~sion did receiv~ a verified
Petition for Variance from Rl1Yh1UtlDO I. RAMOS A~l~ C~fARLOTTE H. 4AP~05, 241$ East
Oshkush Avenue, Anaheim, California 9230u, oa;ners of cert~in real property situated
in the City of Anaheim, County of Oranne, State of Caiiforni~, described as:
Lot 2p of Tract No. 4443, as per map thereof -ecorded in [3ook 156,
Pa9es 32 and 3; inclusive of Fliscellaneous Maps in the office of
tfie fiecorder of sa id C~unty.
WHEREAS, the City Planr~in9 Comr^ission did hold a puhlic hearinn at the Civic
Center in the City of Anaheim on February 9, 1~31, at 1:3!~ p.m., noticc of said
rublic hearing having been duly given as required by lat~~ and in accordance with the
provis~ons of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chanter 1R.~3, to hear and consider
evidence for and aqainst said proposed varlance and to investigate and make findings
and reCOmmendations in connection thereviith; and
WFIEREAS, said Commission, after due insnection, investigatlcn an~! 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 follo~~inn facts:
fence:
i. That the petitioner prnposes a~•~aiver ef rhe following to retain a
SECTION 18.~4.043.1~1 - Maximurr fence height
„.t ~Q ~!, n(.I~ ._ /~~ ,-h.,o :t~r..l ~ Frnn~ c.+rF.a~k•
~~hes^existina)
2. That the above-mentioned waiver is her~by granted on the basls that the
petitioner demonsLrated that a ha;:±ship exists in tF~at denial 4+ould deprive subject
property of a privilege enjoyed by other properties in the same zone and vici~ity and
that no vlsual obstruction is caused to traffic in the area.
3. That there are e;:ceptienal or extr:,ordinary circ~mstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the intende.l use of the prooerty that do
not apply generally to tne property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone,
4. That the requested variance is r.ecessary for the preservatfon and
enjoyment of a substantial propcrty right possessed b~~ other property in the same
vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question.
5. That the requeste.d variance will not he materially detrimental Yo the
puhlic welfare or injurious to t'~e ~rooerty or impr~~ements in such vicini[y and zone
in rlhich the prc,~erty is loc~~tec1.
G, That ne one indicated their oresence at said ~uhlic hearinc~ in
oppositlon; and that no correspondence a~as recefved in oppos~tion to tne su6ject
petition,
PC81-37
EpiVIRONMENTAL 9MPACT FINDIPJG: The Planning Director or his autharized
representative has determined that the proposed project fails o-~ithin the definition
of Categorical Exemptions, Class 3, as defined in the State EIP, Guidelines and is,
therefore, categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare an tIR.
NOIJ, THER[FORE, 6E IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, upon the follo~~ing conditions which
are hereby found to be a necessary pre~equisite to the pr~p~sed use of the subject
property in order to preserve the safety and general tivelfare of the Citizens of the
City of Anaheim:
1. That subject proper~y shall be developed substantia'ly in accordance
with p1ans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim markad Exhibit No. 1.
2. That a building permit shail he obtained, as required by the Building
Divtsion, for the existing brick and wrouqht iron fence.
;, That Condition Nos. 1 and 2, ahove-mer.tioned~ shall be complied with
wittiin a period of s6xty (60) days from the date hereof or such further time as the
Planning Commission may grant.
BE IT FURTHER R~SO~VED that the Anaheim City Planning Commisston does hereby
fin~ and c~etermine that adoption of this Resolution is expressly predicated upon
applicant~s compliance ~aith each and all of the conditions hereinabove set forth.
Shouid any such condition, or any part thereof, be declared invalid or unenforceable
by tne final iudgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall be deemPd nuli and void.
TfIE FOREGOItJG RE50LUTION is signed and approved by me this 9th day of
February, 1931.
,~~~~ v ~~_
C.FiA f nMAiJ, AiJAHc iFi C i TY PCANN i NC, COM!1 f SS I UN
ATTEST:
'~~~ ~ ~~
S~CRETARY, ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-2- PC81-37
~ ,
1'
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COIJNTY OF ORANGE ) ss,
CITY OF ANAHFIM )
t, Edith L, Harris. Secretary of the Anaheim City Planiiina Cammissfon, do
hereby certir'y that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on February 9, iQ31, by the following vote
of the members tliereof:
AYES: COMt11SSI0NER5: DARNES, BOUAS, FRY, HERBST, K!NG, TQLAR
IJOES: COMMISSIOt9ERS: BUSHOR[
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: tJO~IE
!N W17F1ESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto sct my hand this 9th day of February,
198t.
~~~ ~ x{-~
SECRETARY, ANANEIM CITY PLAPJPIING COMMICSION
-3-
PC81-37