PC 78-224RESOLUTION N0. PC 7~-224
A RESOLUTIO~~ OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLAN~~IN.r, CON415510~1
TNAT PETITIOti FOR VARIAilCE N0, 30~,8 BE GP,ANTED
WHEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Conmission did receive a verified
Petition for Variance firom CHARLES W. /111D GLENDA J. VOUELS, 140 E1 Dorado Lane,
Anaheim, Lalifornia 92d07, owncrs of certain real property situated in the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, Statc of California described as:
Those portions of Lots 19 of Tract I~o. 59, Peralta fiilis Trac[ yo.
2, as shown on a map recorded in book 10, page 18 of Miscellaneous
Maps, records of Orange Lounty, Caltfornia, described as follows:
Parcel 1: Parcel 4 as shown on a Map filed (n boak -F4, page 1Q of
Parcel Maps, records of Orange Lounty, California.
WHEP.EAS, the City Planning Commission dfd hold a public hcarina a[ the Lity
Hall in the Clty of Anaheim on September Z5, 1978, at 1:30 p,n,, no[ice of said
public hearing having been duly 9iven as required by larr and in accordance with the
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 13.03, to hear and consider
evidence f~r and againsi said proposed variance and to inves[igate and make findings
and ~e~ommendations in connection there~+tth; and
WNEREAS, said Commission, a`ter due inspection, investiqation and study made
bY itself and in its behalf. and after due consideratien of ;~11 evicience and reports
offcred at said hearing, docs find and determinc the fotlowing facts:
1, Tha[ the petitioner proposes a waiver of the following to construct a
mult(-purpose game court:
SECTIOt~ 18.22.OF3,01Q - Hinlmum structural setback.
15 eet re.quired;
3 and 10 feet proposed)
2, That the proposed variance is hereby granted for an outside game court
enctosed by a 10 to 12 foo[ high chainlink fence, subject to the petitioner's
stiputation tha[ the court lighting fixtures w(11 be downlight and directed away from
a~jacent and nearby residences so as no[ to adversely affect the residential
cha~acter of the area.
3, That che above-m~n[ioned watver is hereby granted on thc basis tha[ the
pecitioner demonstrated that a hardsliip exfsts in that the Planning Lommtssion has
previeusly gr.~ted similar variances for setbacks to fences enclosing outstde game
couris on the abutting property Co the north and on other propercies in the tmmediate
vtcinity.
k, That the~e are exceptional or extraordinary circumsiances or conditions
aPPlicablc to the property Tnvolved or to the intended use of the property that do
not apply generally to the property or class of use in che same vicinity and zone.
PC78-224
5. 7hat the requested variance is necessary for thr_ preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by othcr property ~~ the same
~Ictnlty and zone, and denicd to the property in question,
6. That the raquested variance will not bc materlally detrimental to the
public welfare or inJurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the Rroperty is located.
7. That no one tndica*_ed their presence at said public hearing in
oPPosition; and [hat no correspondence was received in opposition to the subJect
petition.
E~IVIRON~IF.NT/1L IMPACI' FINpI~IG; The Planning Director or hts authorized
representatlve has dete rn~ined that the proposed P~oJect falls withtn the defint[ton
of Categorical Exemptions, Class 5, as defined in Paragraph 2 of the City of Anaheim
Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and Is, therefore~ categorically exempt from
[hc requirement to prepare an EIR,
NON, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED tha[ the Anaheim C(ty Planning Cortmissio~
does hereby grant subJect Petition for Variance, upon the following conditions which
are hereby found to be a nectssary prerequlstte to the proposed use of the subject
property in order [o preserve the safety and general wclfare of the Citizens of thc
City of Anaheim:
1. That subject proper[y shall be developed suhstanci~lly in accordance
with plans and specifica[lons on file with the ~~[y of q~~heim marked Exhibit No. ~;
P~ovided that the lighiing fixtures for !he 9ame cour[ shall br_ down-lighted and
directed away from adjacent properties.
BE IT FURTHER RESOlVEO that the Anaheim Ctty P1anning Camission does hereby
find and det_rntnc Lhat adopLion a` [his ResaluiEon is expressiy predicar.ed upon
aPPlicant's compliance with each and all of the conditions hereinabove set for[h.
Should any such condition, or any parc thereaf, be declared invalid or unenforceable
bY the final Judgment of any court of ~ampetent Jurisdiction, then this Resolucion,
and any approvals heretn contained, shall be deemed null and void.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 25th day of
September, 1978.
~ a ~ CITY PLA MtNG COHNISSION
ATTEST:
~a~ ,~ l~.
SECP,ETARY, ANhH[IM CITY LANNING COMH~SSIOtI
-2- Pt78-224
:~
STA7E Of GALIFORNIA )
LOUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. ~
CITY OF AhAHEIM ~
I, Edith L. Harris, Secre[~ry of the Anaheim City Planning Lommisslon~ do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at ~ metiby the
the 4naheim Gity Planning Commissi~n held on Seoten6cr Z5, 1978 at 1:3~ P•
following vote of the mernbcrs thereof:
AYES: LOMMISSIO~ERS: BARNES, DAVID, HER~ST, JOHtIS01J, Y,IIlG, TOLAR
N~ES: LONMISStO~~ERS: t10t1E ~g~
ABSENT: COMMIS510NERS: NONE {'
VACANY: ONE SEAT F:
~1~ WITNE55 IJHEREOF. I have he~eunto sei my hand th(s 25th day of September~
~9~s.
~~ .~ ~
SEC~ETARY, NNAHEIH CITY PLAN4111S COMMISSION
-3- Ptl$-224