PC 81-14RESOLUTiON ?I0. PCR~-1!~
RESOLUTIOt! OF THE ANANEIM CITY PLANWIN~ CONHISSIOF!
THAT PETITIOia F~R VARIAFICE N0, 31n5 t1F GP,q~lTEG
WIIEREAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified
Petition for Variance from f,R~VE CQPlSTRIICTIOM, 5?.15 East Chapman Avenue HS~, Oranqe,
California 92669, oamer, and GLASTRON CARLSON BOAT CO., 1177 North ~rove Street,
Anaheim, California 925~6~ agent, of certain real property situated in the City of
Anahetm~ County of Orange, State of Lalifornia dPscribed as:
THAT PORTIOtI OF LOT 1 OF SECTIOP! 5, T~4~NSHIP 4 Sn(iTH, RANGE ~
WEST, SAN BERNARDIMO BASE AhlD MERIDIA~l, IFI THE CITY OF AtJAHEIM~
COUNTY OF ORAtaGE, STATE OF cALIFORr~IA, ACCORDING Tn THE OFFICIAL
PLAT FILED IN DISTRICT LAND OFFICE, APRIL 13, 1875 DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS: PARCEL N0. 7, AS SH01~I 0~~ A MAP FILED IN BOOK 5~ PAr,E 5~
OF PARCEL MAPS, IN THE OFFICF OF THE COUNTY REC~RDER OF Sl,ID
COUNTY.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a puhlic hearinq at the Civtc
Center in the City of Anaheim on January 12, 1981, at 1:3~ p.m., notice of said
public hearing having been duly given as required by laHr and in accordance wtth the
provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Chapter 1R.Q3, to hear and c~~s~de~
evidence for and against said proposed variance and to investigate and make findings
and recommendations in connec~ion there~oith; and
61HEREl1S~ satd Commission, after due inspection, investictatio~ and stud~ made
by itse~f and in its behalf~ and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, does find and determine the followir~a facts:
i. That the petftioner proposes a watver of the follcriring to retain a non-
comforming fence:
SECTION 18.61.OF8.03n - Required enclosure of outdoor uses.
,C aTn- ink ence nterwoven ~a th reda~ood
cedar slats required;
Chain-link fence without slats existing)
2. That the above-mentioned waiver 's herehy granted on the basis that the
petttioner demonstrated that a hardship exists due to the irreqular shape of the
property~ the ortentation of the buildings on the site wherehy the chain-link fence
provides visual security, and on the basis that the chain-link fence is only fifty-
seven (57) feet long.
3. That there are exceptional or extraordinary clrcumstances 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 in the same vfclnity and zone.
4, That the requested variance ts necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial proFerty right possessed by other property in the same
vlcintty and zone, and denied to the property in question.
PC91-1 ~~
5. That the requested variance v~ill not he materially detrtmental to the
public ti•+elfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the pr~perty is located.
6. That no one indicated their presence at said public hearing in
opposition; and that no correspo~dence o-~as received in opposition to the sub)ect
petition.
EPIVIRONMEDlTAL IMPAC7 FIP~DING: The Planning Dfrector or his authorized
representative as determined that the proposed project falls ~•~ithln the dPftnition
of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as deffned in Paragraph 7 of the City of Anaheim
Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, therefore, categorically exempt from
the requirement to prepare an EIR.
NOW~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anahelm City Planning Commissian
does hereby grant subje.ct Petition for Variance, upon the followin9 conditions which
are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisTte to the proposed use of the subJect
pronerty in order to preserve thc safety and general vrelfare of the Citizens o° the
City of Anaheim:
1. That subject property shall be de~eloped substanttally in accordance
with plans and specifications on file ~aith the City of Anahetn marked Exh(bit No. i.
BE IT FURTHER RESOt_VFD that thc Anahci.^.. City Plannin~ Commission does hereby
flnC and determine [hat adoption of ttiis Resolution is expressly predicated upon
applicant's compliance v+ith each and all of the cnndit(ons her~inabove sr.t forth.
Should any suc~i condition, or any part thereof, '~e declared invalld or unenforceable
by the final jud,yment of any court of cc~mnetent jurlsdiction, then this 4esolution,
and any approvals herein contained, shall he d~em~d null and v~id.
TfIE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is siqned a~d a~proved by r+e this 12th day of
.'anuary~ 1~81. ~ ~;
~L'Ja C~t~ l/" GO~-~--
~T,F{ ~ MAtJ ~ ~I NE 1-1 L I~ Y LAHN NG CONM I SS I ON
ATTEST:
~~ ~ ~GL~~ ~~
SECRETARY~ At1AHElH CITY PLAtININf; COHNISSIQII
_Z_ PCA1-14
~~ ~
STATE OF CALIfORN~A )
COUNTY OF ORAPIGE j ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Edith L. Harris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Plannina Commission~ do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meettng of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on Ja~uary 12, 1?81, by the following vote
of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOUAS, BUSHORE, FRY, KIPIG, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NOPlE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, HERBST
1981.
IN WITPIESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 12th day of January,
~~. ~ ~,~.:.
SEC?ETARY, APIANEIM CITY PLANNIPIG COMMISS~ON
-3- PC81-14
.. ....:~.~
SE:S~U!71~~! ~ln. PC'1-1!
!~ F,ESnLUTi~', OF TH~ "~~1/+.,~Ci~n CITY Pl~ll~;l'ir Cn~~~~~I~Sin~!
T~if~? P[TI i I~!. Fnn ~~LCI~~ ~C= ."I~, jl "~ f?F (:R~'!TF[1
~'~'E~[AS, the ~1n~ihei~ Cit:v Pl:~nninn Con~-issi~n r'i~i r~c~ivc a vrrifiec
Petition for Varianc~ fron GRn~~r f~~!ST°jiCTI~H~ r?~r [~s« (;I~r,~~,~n /1~J~,nLP ~j~, Oranae,
California ~12,<6~~, o~mer, and ~Lr1;TR4"! rn~,i_Sn"; BOf,' C''~., 117j 'lorth Srove Street,
Anahein, California ~2~^~, nnent~ ~F c~rtain rcal nrn~rrr.v sir.uatr~d in the City of
llnaheim, County of Oran9e, Statc o= Califnrnia d~scrihec' as:
TI~AT Pnr,TlOt; OF L~T ~ Or SECTIO~~ 5, Tn!;~iSHIP ~: SrniT~f, 2k~d~E ~
1JEST, ;f~F! [iER~~AR~IP10 f?ASC A~l~ ~1Ef'IDIAt', I~' 7l+E C!7Y OF l1t1AHEl'1,
CQU~JTY OF OP,~I1r;E, ST!!T[ ~F CnL I F~R`! I A, llrr~q~ ~ rir, i n Tf~F ~pF I C I P,L
PLAT FIL~D It: D;ST~IrT LItNp OFFIC[, APP,IL 13, 1%'75 DESCRIBFn qc
FOLL'?l;S: PARCEL tJO. 7, AS S~!O~.RI C1'~ /1 N!" FII Fp I~i [?~(~K ~~ Pnr,E 5n
~F P~P.CEL Mr^,PS, Itl TE~E OFFICF ~~ TNE Co~!;;TY RErn~pFR qF 5~111
CQ!l~lTY.
41HERf.AS, the City Plannina Co^~is=.ion ~1id hold a ~u~~lic hearinn at the Civic
CentPr in the City cf .~naheir on Janu~rv iZ, i~ui, ~t 1:;~~ n.n., noticc of said
public hearing havinn been dulv niven a, re~u~red ~y la~.~ and in acc~rdance with the
provisions of thr Ana!~eim ?lunicipal Code, C`~anter 1~'.^3, tn hear and eonsider
evidence for and against sai~! Nrooosed vari~ncr and t~ investinate an~f r~ake findinas
and reeommendations in cnnnection there~.~~ith; and
WHERE:IS, said Connission, aftcr due inspec[ion, irvestiaation and study made
by itself and in its behalf, and aftr-.r dun c~nsid~ratinn ~` i11 evidenc° anc! repcrts
offered at said hearin~, does find ~~nd d~Cernine the f~lloa~inq facts:
t. That the ~etiti~ncr prnnnses a~;~~iver ~f t!~e f~ilro•~inn to retain a non-
eomforminn fene~:
S~CTI^'! 1.°,.~1.!1F",~3~ - R,~~ii?red enclosurc~ of outdoor uses.
I,C a i n- i n!~ ence i nten~roven i•ri th red~•,ood
ec~dar s lats r~ou i re~f;
Chain-link fenCe ~:rit~'out sl~ts existing)
2. That t!ie atiovc~ ~entioned ~•~aiver is herFhy nrante~l on the basis that T.he
oetitioner denonstrated that a hards'~in e~cists due i~ the irrPnular shape of the
pro~erty, the orientation of t'~e buildin~; ~n the sit~ ~•~herrf~y the chain-link fence
provides vis~,i1 security, and on the hasis that the chiin-link f~nce is nnly fifty-
seven (57) feec lona.
3. That ther.~ ~re ~.xcrptional nr er.traordlnan• circiinstances or cenriitions
applieablc to the oronerty involved or to ttin inton~lcri use ~f thP nronert•~~ that clo
not apoly generally to t~e ~roperty ~r class of u~e in tf~e simr vicinif.y snd znne.
'~. That the requested vr~riance 's n~ces5arv for t'~~ ~res~rvatinn :~nr~
enjoy~nent uF a suhstan:ial prnperty right ~ossesse~ by other prnnerty in th~ same
vicinity and zone, and drnied t~ ttic nrn~~rty in ~ucstl~n.
P('41-11~
5. That the requested variance iii11 net he materially detrimental to the
public ~relfare or injurious [o the ~roperty or improvements in such vicinity and zone
in which the property is located.
6. That no one indicated their presence at said public hearing in
opposition; and that no correspordence vlas received in opposition to the subject
petition.
EMVIRO~UIENTAL IMPACT FINQIFJG: The Planning Director or his authorized
representative has determined that the proposed project falls a~ithin the definition
of Categorical Exemptions, Class 1, as detined in Paragraph 7 of the City of Flnaheim
Environmental Impact Report Guidelines and is, thereforeY categorically exempt from
the requirement to prepare an EIR.
NO~,J, THEREFORC, BE IT RFSOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereby orant subject Petition for ~~ariance, upon the following condttions which
are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisite to the oronosed use of the subject
property in order to preserve the safety and gener~l Urelfare cf the Citizens of the
City of Anaheim:
1. Tnat subject property shall be developed substantially ir. accordance
with p'ans and specifications en file ~•~ith the City of Anaheir:~ marked Exhibit No. 1.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVFD that the Anaheim City Plannin~ Commission does hereby
find and determir.e that adoption of this Resolution is ex~ressly predicated upon
appl:cant's compliance ~~rith each and all of the corditions her~inabove set forth.
Shauld any such condition, or any part thereof, he deciared invalid or unenforceable
by th~ final judgment of any court of com~etent jurisdiction, then this Resolution,
and ary approvals herein contained, shall be deemed null and void.
THE FOREGOING P,ESOLUTIOPI is siqned and approved by me this 12th day of
January, 19oi.
~~ !/" /~G~~
CIIA I Pr1AiJ, ANAHE I M C I TY PLAN^! I NG COMt•1 I SS I Oh!
ATTEST:
%~
SECRETARY, APlANE IM C ITY P!.A~dM I NG COP1M I SS I OP!
_~~_ PC81-11~
STFlTE OF CFlLIFnRN1A )
COUNTY OF ORANG[ ) ss.
CITY OF ANANEIt1 )
i, Edith L. Harris, Secretary of the Anaheir~ City Piannina Commission, do
hereby certify that the `oregoing resolution ti•~as passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on January 17_, 1~£31, by the following vote
of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: QOU/15, QUSHORF, FRY, KI^1G, TOLAn
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: PlOPlF
ABSEi•!T: COMMISSIONERS: DA(tNES, ~IERRST
1981.
IM 4JITM[SS 4JHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 12th day of January,
`~~.~..~. ~ ~~..
SECR[TARY, AtJANE I ~t C ITY PLANN I hlr, CnMM I SS l ON
-3- PC31-i4