PC 80-29,,
:r.~' .
RESOLUT!Qtd ~d0. PC 8o_?y
A P,ESOLUTION OF TIiE APIAHE IM C ITY PLAND! I NG COH111 SS IOPI
THAT PETITIO^1 FOR VARIANCE N0. 3~35 E3E GRAiJTED
tJI1EREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified
Petition for Variance from LIICiA RITTFl CORPORATIO~d, 201E1 Business Center Drlve,
Irvine, California 92715, owner, and VICTOR A. PIASSAB, 2~1~1 Business Center Drive
Irvine, Californla 92714, agent, of certain rea) property situated in the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, 5tate of California descrtbed as: '
Lot ~+ of Tract 8470 as per map recorded in book 352
25 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the Recorder~eor2L and
County. said
WHEREAS, the City planning Commission did hold a pub!ic hearing at the City
Hall tn the City of Anaheim on February 11, 1qBp, at ~;3~ p,m,~ noti~e of said pub~i~
h~aring having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the
provistons of the Anaheim hiunicipal Code, Chapter 1~3.~3, to hear ancl consider
evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investiaate and make findings
and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Ccmmission, after due i~spection, 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:
tennis court; That the petitioner proposes a waiver of the folic.~aing to construct a
SECTIOPJ 13.22,063.010 - Plinimum structural setback.
15 feet required;
5 feet proposed)
2• That the above-mentioned waiver is hereby granted on the basis that the
petitioner demonstrated that a hardship exists in that deniai would deprive subject
property of a privilege being enjoyed by other pr~per*_ies in the same zone and
vicinity; and that the waiver pertains to approximately 77 feet of
chainlink fencing varying in height from about 7 to 12 feet. ter.nis court
3. That there are 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 tn the same vicinity and zone.
4. That the requested vartance is necessary for the
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other Preservation and
vicinity and zone, and denied ta the property in question. Property in the same
5. That the requested variance H~ill nut be matertally detrimental to the
pub2fc welfare or injurious to the property or impro~~ements in such vicinity and zone
tn which tfie property is located.
PC8U-2~
6. That no one indicated their presence at said public hearing in
opposition; and that no correspundence ~•~as received in opposition to the subject
petition.
EPIVIROPIM[hlTAL IMPACT FIPJDItlG: The Planning Girector or his authorized
represenCative has determined that the proposed project falls t,~ithln the definition
of Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in Paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim
Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, tfierefore, cateaorically exempt from
the requirement to prepare an EIR.
PIOW, ThiEREFORE, EiE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby grant subject Petition for Variance, upon *.he follo~•iing conditions which
are hereby Found to be a necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject
property in order to prc:~erve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of th~
City of Anaheim:
1. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance
o-~ith plans and specifications on file erith the City of Anaheim marked Exhibit Plo. 1.
2. That any proposed tennis court lighting shall be directed away from
adjoining residential properties.
BE IT FURTFIER RESOLVED that thr Anaheim C3ty Planning Commission does hereby
find and determine that the adoption cf this Resolution is expressly predicated upon
applicant's compliance with each and all of the cunditions hereinabove set forth.
Should any condition or any part thereof, oe declared invalid or unenforceable by the
final judgment of any court of competent jurisdiction, then this Resolution, and any
approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTIOP! is signed and approved by me this lith day of
February, 1980.
/~~ ~~~~
CHAIRhiAN PRO TEMPORE
ANAHE I M C I TY PLAPItJ i PlG COM!41 SS I ON
ATTEST:
`~°~ ~ ~.~
SECRETARY, APJAHE I~4 C I TY PLANN I P~G COPiM I SS I ON
-2' PC80-2~
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF APlAHEIFI )
I, Edtth L. Harrts, Secretary of the Anaheim City Pianning Commission, do
hereby certify that tlie foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a mPetir,g of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on February 11, 19£3~, at 5:30 p,m., by the
folloaring vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BUSHORE, DAVID, FP,Y, HER[3ST, KIPJG, TOLAP,
NOES: COMMISSIOPIERS: PlOPlE
ABSENT: COPIMISSIONc'RS: E3ARNE5
Itd 411TP~ESS WHEREOF, I hav~ hereunto set my hand this 11th day of FeSruary, 1980.
~~ ~ ~i
SECRETARY~ AMAHEIt1 CITY PLANNIPJr COMMISSION
-3- PCB~-2Q
.~::.