PC 69-261,`
RESOLUTION NO. pC69-261
A RESOLUTION OF TH£ CITY PLANNJNG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO. 2144 gE DENIED
WHEREAS, the Clty P1anning CommIaslon of the Clty of Aneheim did teceive a vetified Petition tor Verience from
I. M. RANNOW, 1525 South Euclid, Anaheim, California 92802, Owner; HERMAN MARGULIEUX, 1525
South Euclid, Anaheim, California 92802, Agent of certain real property situated in the City
of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as the north half of the north-
east quarter of the southeast quarter of Sect3on 20, Township 4, Range 10 West. Except the
West 339.48 feet.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission dld hold • public hsadng at the City Hall in the City o[ Anaheim on
December 29, 1969, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of sald publlc hearing heving been duly givm es requlred by
lew and in aocadaa~e with the provieions ot the Anahefm Municlpoi Code, Chepter 18.68, to hear end consi~er evldence for
and ageinat said proposed var;ence nnd to inve~tiQate and make Elndings xr,d recommendetions In connection therewith;
and
WHEREAS, s~id Commis9lon, after due inapectlon, investlgadon, end etudy mede by itself and in its behalf,
end eEter due cons-deration of all evldence and reports oi(ered at aaid hearfng, does find and determine the following
[ecta:
1. That the petitioner requesta a v~d~nce from the Anoheim Munlclpul Code Section 18. 16.020 - permitted
uses in the R-A, Agricultural, 2one to allow the continued use of subject property for
a commercial nroduce market.
2. Thot there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions appli-
cable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply
gener;,:]y to the p:operty or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
3. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation ar,d enjoyment
of a substantia] proGerty right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,
and denied to the property in question.
~. 7't~at the petitioner has violated numerous City of Anaheim ordinances relating to
land use, and the bui:ding, plumb;ng, electrical, and health codes in the reconstruction
of the rn~rk?t ctructure.
5. 7hat an operation such as that preseritly existing on subject property should be
located in a commercia] ze~ie and should be subject to all commercial site development
standards as they pertain to parking, streets, improvements, signs, lights, and sales
and storaye in an enclosed building, etc.
h. That approval of subject petition could establish a precedent wherein all codes
ar,d ordinances of the City of Anaheim could be bypassed and negated.
~. That three person~ appeared representing seven persons present in the Council
Gh;mber, and a oetition signed by 4g persons was received, all in opposition to subject
petition.
~ ' 7 Vl-D
,A:t ~ '1'
C
;
~
'
+
~. ~
', ~
~
NOIV, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim (:ity Plenning Commission does hereby deny subject
Petition for Variance on the basis of the aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 8th,~day o~ Januar , 1970.
; CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLXNNING COMMISSION
r. ;
~:; '' ` ATTEST:
y i
4-. '
` J ~ /
~ ~. - ~~~~r-~=~/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOid
~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
1 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
'~~ I9 Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Aneheim, do hereb certi
going resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Plannin Commission of tFq y ~~9t the fore-
DeCember 29~ 1969~ at 2:00 o'cloc1: p, b the fo:lowing vote of the members thereof: City of Anaheim, held an
M., Y
;`~ ~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Alired, Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
_~
ABSEYT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano.
`I I .
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hand this 8th day of January, 1970.
~i ~
I . ;,
~ ~J2 x ~ , c: ~c/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLF..NNING COAtMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 261
r
V2-D _2
: P
`
j_
.,~
~~
,......Y1 , .
pf~ ~
6