PC 76-88~ ~
RESOLUTIOt: N0. PC76-$8
A RESOLUTIO~ OF THE ANAHEIM CITY ?LANNINf, C~MMISSION
THAT PETITIOtJ FOR VARIA4CE N0. 28~R BE GRAIJTED.
bINEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verifie~i
Petition for Variance from MINDIIE D. DIERBERfEP,, 1439 IJ. Damnn Avenue, Anaheim,
California 92802 (Owner) of certain real property situ:~ted in the City of Anaheim,
County of Orange, State of California descrihed as:
That portion of the West half of the Northwest quarter of t'~e Northeas[ qu~rtPr
of Section 21, Township ~j South, Range 1~ West, S. C. B. E M., descrihed as
follows:
Be$inning at a point in the North line of said West half distant there~n North
89 33' 28" Easi 344.nh feet from the NorLhwest corner thereof, and runninq thence
South 0° 10' S9" East, 195 feet; thence South A?° 33' 23'~ West ~.57 feet; thence
South 0~ 10' S9" East 55 feet; thence South 8?° 33' 28" West 125.5° feet; thence
North 0° 09' 3~~'~ West F?.85 feet to the beginning af a tanae~t uirve concave
Easterly and having a radius of 50 feet; thence Northerly ainng sai~1 curve,
through a central angie ~f 36° 52~ 12" a distance of 32.1£i feet to a reverse
curve concave Westerly and having a radius of 50 feet; thence Northerly, along
said curve through a central angle of 12b° 52' 12" a distance of 11~,7n feet;
thence North 9° 09' 3~" West 70 feet to the North line of said West half; thence
North £i9° 33' 28" EasY, 16u.Q7 feet; more or less, to the point of heginning.
WNEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City
Hall in the City of Anaheim on May 10, 1976, at 1:3~ p.m., ~otice af said puhlic
hearing having been duly 9iven as required by law and in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Nunicipal Code, Chapter 18.~3, to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings
and recommendations in cannection therewith; and
WIiF.REAS, said Commission, after due inspection, inves.tigation and study made
by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and rep~rts
offered at safd hearing, do~s find and determine the following facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes the following waiver from the Anaheim
Municipal Code, to establish a four-lot subdivision:
SECTION 1R,27.~65.~10 - Re uirement that all lots re<-r-on arterial hiqhoia s.
One side-on lot proposed
2, That the above-mentioned waiver is herehy granted on the basis that
there are existing residential lots whtch side-on Ball Road in the immediate area;
that similar waivers have been granted previously and, furthermore, that the
petitioner stipulated to providing a b-foot hlgh masonry wall adJacent to Bal) Road.
3, That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
that City Council Policy No. 538 requiring a 40-foot minimum building setback
adjacent to arterial highways be waioc~± to permit the proposed 5-foot setback for one
lot adjacent to Ball Road, on the basis ti~at other properties are developed aiith
similar setbacks in the irrmediate area.
4. That the Planning Commission does hereby determfne that an earthen berm
need not be part of the sound-attenuation measures ad)acent to Ball Road, on the
basis that a berm would not be consistent with other adJacent residential development
along said arterial; and, fur:hermore, the petitloner stipulated to cnnstructing a E-
foot high masonry wall adJacent to said arterial in addition to other sound-
attenuatt~n steps whlch may be necessary to reduce the noise level generated hy
arterial traffic to 65 dBA in the rear yard of the proposed lot ad.jacent to said
arterial and to 45 dBA inside the home, with windows and doors closed, as specified
by Council Policy No. 5~i2.
5, ;h~t there are exceptional or extraordi~ary circumstances or conditions
appticable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do
not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zont.
RESOLUTIOM N0. PC76-8H
~ ~
6. That the requested variance is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone, and denied t~ the property in quesY+nn.
7, That the requested variance will not be materiatly detrimentaand~zone
public welfare or inJurious to the property or inprovements in such vicinity
in which the property is located.
8, That two persons appeared, representing three persons present at said
public hearing in ooposition; and no correspondence was received in opposition to
subject petition.
ENV~kONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
That the Anaheim City Planning Comrt~isslon does hereby recommend to the City
Council that the subject proJect be exempt from the requirement to prepare an
environmental impact report, pursuant to the provtsions of the Caiifornia
Environmental Quality Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby grant sut.ject Petition for Variance, upon the follov~ing conditions which
are hereby found to be a necessary prerequislte to the proposed use of the sub.ject
property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the
City of Anaheim:
1, That this variance is granted suhJect to the completian of
Reclassification No. 75~7~'33, now pending.
2, That subJect property shall be developed substantially in accordance
a~ith plans and specificaEions on file with the City of Anaheim marked Fxhihit No• 1:
provided, however~ that in accordance with Counctl Policy ~lo. 542, a 6-foot high
masonry wall shall be constructed adjacent to Ball Road in addition to o*_her sound-
attenuation steps which may be necessary to reduce the noise level generated by
arterial traffic ta 65 dBA i~ the rear yards of Lot Nos. 1-4 and to 45 dBA inside the
homes, with windows and doors closed, as stipulated to by the petitioner, however, an
earthen berm need not be a part of the proposed sound-attenuation measures; and,
futhermore, that the minimum building setback on Lot No. 1 shaCouncil~ fWaives,asaid
to eall Road, per City Louncil Po11cy No. 538~ unless the City
policy and permits the proposed 5-foot building setback for said lot.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this lOth day of
t1aY. 1976.
. ~ ~
~~ ~ •
H RMAN PR HPORE
ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~~~~ ~~~',~~~,J
SECRETARY, At1AHEIM CITY PLAWPlIFIG COMMI~SiON
ST~TE OF CALiFORNIA )
COUIJ'tY OF ORANGE )ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary of the City Planning Coimnission of the
City of Anaheim. do hereby certify that the foregoing reso{ution was passed and
adopted at a meettng of the City Pianning Commission of the City of Anaheim, field on
May 10, 1976, at 1:3~ P•m., by the following vute of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARI~ES, JOHNSON, KING~ MORLEY, TOLAR, HERBST
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONER~: FARANO
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 19th day of May, 1°7~~
1~4i ' ~GL~iL~C~/N
SECRETARY, AN HEIM CI7Y PLANNINf, COHHISSION
-2- RESOLUTION N0, PC76~88