PC 87-209~"' ~~
RESJL TION td0, PC$7~2U~
A FESOLLJTION OE' THE A.NAHEIM CITY PLANNITIG COM'dISSION
THAT c~E'TI7'TON FOR 'VAt2TANGE Np. 370Yi Bk: D~NIED
WHLI2EAS, L•he Anaheim City Planning Commis~io:~ dicl receive a
verit•ied P~~ition for V~~riance trom P~RALTA LTD., 3154 E, Birch, B~ea, CA
92627., owi~er arid VTC PELOQUItv', 3150 E. Birch, Brea, C'A 92621, agent L•or
certain real property situai:ed in the City of Anaheim, County of OranSe, SLate
o~ California clescribed ~s:
~ LOTS 1 TO 42 TttACT 7.257G, IN THG ^ITY OF AN,~HEIM,
'. COUNTX OF ORANGF, STATE OF CALTFORNIA AS ~HQI^lN QN MAP
RECORDFb IN BOOK 573 F'AGES 7.0 TO 16 ItiCLUSIVE,
MI~CGLLAN~OUS MAPS, OFFICE OF TFiE CQi1NTY RECORDER`' OF
SAID COUNTY,
WIiEREAS, tht; City Planning Comm.ission di.d holc~ a gub.:.ic hearing
at t.he Civic Cent~r in the Cit.y p~ Anaheim on September iEt~ 19t3'1, ~t 1:30
p.m., notice of said public hearing having beeri duly given as reguirod by law
and in accordanr.e with the provisioris oP the Aiiaheim Municipal Code, Chapter
~8.03, to heai~ and consid~r evidence for ana against saic; pruposed variance
and to inv~stic~ate and make findings and rQCOmmendations in cnni2ection
l-.1•ierewitli; and continued lo October 12, 1987; and
WH~REAS, said Couu~ission, after. due insoection, invastigation
~nd study rnldc~ b,y itsel; and in its behal.E, and af~er due cozisid~ration af a11
evidencr: and reports o~f~rc~d aL• sazd hearing, does £ind and determine the
folloiving
~ facts:
1.. That tlie petitioner proposes waivers of the following t;o
complete consL•ruct.i.c~n of ~~ G-fooc: high soli.d b lock wall with 7-foot
3-1l2
inch higb pil~sters: ,
SSIIQN_ 1a.04.g43 ~lQi, - M~xim!~~r _f.gnc.~ h~ic,~ht.
r~ (,~~~ permitted: 7~f~.~~
;+ ~~1/2 inc.~:es propcsed) .
2. Z'hat ~he abovP-mentioned waiver is Yiereby denied on the bas:is
that th~re ~re na sper.ial circ.umstancers applicable to tlia property such ~s
size, shape, topo~raphy, location or surrc;uridings, wlxich do noL apply to oL-Yic3r.
identi.cally zonecl ~roperties in the viainity; and thaC str.ict applicaLion o.E
hhQ 'Luning Code do~:s not d~pr::ve th~ proper.ty ot privileges enjo~ed Uv oth~r
prop~~r.tie5 .in identical zoning classifica~ian in the vic.inity; and that ~ha
~lesign of the wall wi.th '! - 3 1l2 higti pilasters, in ar3cliCion to the si;t-Poot
higki solid ~;1ock wa11, is a selt-createci hardship.
3. That there are no ~sxceptional or exkraoxd~.nary ~ir.cumstances or
c:r.;:ditions applicable to L•l~e ~ropQr~ty involved o: ho the intenaec~ use of lhe
proparty that do not applt genar~illy Co the property or cla~s or use in the
same vicin.ity and zoe~a.
' ' ~~ ~0083r~ ~
Y~~*`~u' ,
~ -~ ,{~ ~~'~~-, '~ : .:
.~'rarN'W!~*+~n+
Pce~-xo9
~`i
Y ~'~Oi
}~'Y~
~ . ~ ~.~~-.',
:~
. ~ . . ~.~`~I
F~
4. T.P~at t•he requested variance is not necessary for the
pr.eservation and ~njoyment of a substantial p:oper~y right possessed. by okher
property .in the same vic.init~ and zane, and deni~rd to the property in c~uestion.
5. That the requestod variance will be materially uetz•imential to
the public wnlLaro c~r injurious to the properL-y or improvemen~s in such
vic.inity anCl zone in which the properY.y is located.
6. That 27 pez•;;ons ind.icatad their presen~e at the October 12, ].987
public hearing in ogpos.ir.io:~; and that tspprox.imately 50 pex3ons indicated
their presence in opposition at the SepGember 2F1, 1987 pub.lic 2ieari.ng; and
t;naL- 7 and 10 persons indicated ~heir pre,er~ca in tavor ot ttte request at the
September 2N, 19a7, and October 1?„ 198', public hearings; Rnc( thaL- pwtitions
contaiiling approximately 1,f360 signatuzes was received in opposition ro
sub~iect peL•ition.
' CaLIFQRNIA Eh*VIRONMENTAI~ QUAr,IT_i ~~T ._ FINnING: Thai-. the ,~naheim
C.ity Planning Commission has reviQwed the propa~a.l to compl~~~• ~ons~ruction
of a 6-f.ooL- high solid block wa11 with 7-f.oot, 3-1/2 incl: «igh pilasters
along rt-e entire length ~f the suuth pronerty line with t~aivez• of ma:~9.mum
Eence lieight o~~ a ir.r~cJularly-sh~tpe~ parcel of '!~nd consistinq of•
approximately 40 ~cres, having a t:rontage o:E approximately 3,230 feet on the
north s3.ae oi Nohl kancl•i koad and b~ing locat~~d appr.•o~cimately 304 feet
nortlxeast ~f. the c~nterline of Old BuckeL• Lane; arid does hereb,y approve the
Plegative Declaration upori firidinq that it has consicler.ed Y.hF Negative
lleclaration ~ogetrier with ~ny aomments recaivel diiri.iq the piiblic re~riew
~ pr.•ocess and furt•her tinding on the basis of the initi~l study and any
' commeiil:s received t2iat ~here is no substantial evideitr_e that the pzeject will
~ Y~ave a significant ef:f.ect on the envirorirnent.
NQW, 1HEItEFORE, BE I1 RESOL~IED that the Arieheim City Planning
Comm.i.ssion does hereb~• deny subjecL• I~etit;inn for Va.ri:ince on the basis of the
afo*-emeri+;,ioned finc~ings.
THE rOR~GJINC RESOLUT_TON is signed ancl apprQVed by me ~his 12th
of Octabe.r, 19E%.
/~= J ~ ~
~ 1 ia.• C,~~, j~ , /
~ s" ~ G ~ ~---i-jry~ .L.~ .1 ',f~-.+~ ;_' ,.~ ... '~--"
AC:I'I:NG CHAIP.MXN PRO TEMPC~K~, . ~
ANA~IEIM CITY k~LANNING CrMMISSIOtd
ATTEST:
_ __- __ ~~!/_. ~ •~Y`~~LL.~a.,:..~ ------ ------
SECP.BTARY, ANAHEIt4 f.'7TY PLANNING COMII~IISSIOTS
-2- PC67-209
~:~
t ~~~
`,";
~~~:
STATE Ot CALIFORNIA )
COZ7DTTY OF ORANGF. ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
T, Edith L. Harris, 5ec.retary o~ the Anaheim ~~ity Planning
Commission, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolurioxi rvas passed and
aclopted at a meeting of thP Anaheira City Plannin~7 Commi~sior~ i~eld on October
12, 19a7, by tho fallowing v~h,e of the member.s thereoE:
AY~S: COMMISSIUNERS: CARUSTLLq, HERHST., MC IIl'TRNE'Y
~IOES: COMM:[SSIONERS: ~SOYDSZ'UN, E'ELPIiA'(J~
ABSEIJT~ COMMISSIONERS: k30UAS, MEESF~
IN WITNESS W:i~REO~', T hG~e hereunto set my hand this 12~h day oE
Octoher, 1g87,
---- ~~~~ -_L~ ____
SE(,RETARY, ANAHEIM PLANNING COMMI,;~ 1TOtd
-~- PC87-'l09