PC 74-220~ ~¢ RESOL NQ. _ PC74-220
A RESOLUTION'OF THE CI'IY PLAI~IvING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEl~i
THAT PETITION FOR I/ARIANCE N0. 2647 BE DENILD
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of tlae Ciry of Anaheim did receive a verified Petition for Variance from
IDA AND MARION RANNOW, 1515 5outh Euclid Street, Anaheim, California 9z802 (Owners) of
certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County o'r OrangP, State of
California, described as The N~ of the NEl/4 of the SE1/4 of section 20 Township 4 Range 10
as vecor~d~drl.n the .off ice of the covrsty recorder of said county~; a~d
WHEREAS, thz City Planning Commission diii hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim on
Novembe r 1 1, 1974, at 2:00 o'clock ~.m., nctice oC said public hcaring having been duly ~iven as required by law and
in accordance with the provisions of the Maheim Municepal Code, Chapter 18.68, to hcar and consider evidencc for and against said
proposed variance and to investigate and make Cindings amd recommendations in connection therewiUi; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, aftcr due inspection„ investigation, and study made by itsclf and in its behalf, and after due
consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hcaring, does ~nd and determine the following facts:
1. Thatthepetitionerrequests tha.fol low6ng variances from the Anaheim Municipal Code, to
allow an existing commercial produce market;
a. SECTION 18.04.030(b) - Minimum parkina dimensions. (Space length: 1 feet
required; 14 feet existing, and access drive width:
25 feet required; 18 feet existing).
b. SECTION 18.16.020 ~ F~ermitted uses. (Commercial produce stand not ~~ ~
permitted in the R-A Zone)
... SECTION 18.16.050(511a,) - Minimum front yard setback. (2 feet required; none
existing)
2, That the petitioner stipulated to compliance with suggested conditions of approval,
as set forth in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission, with the exception of any set-
back reGuirements, and he cautioned regarding the requirement for a 6-foot masonry wall
along the south property line whi h may cause a small, hazardous alley between said south
proFerty line and an existing woo~en fence situated on the adjacent property to the south.
3. That on february 24, 1970, the City Council granted temporary use of the produce
market for a period of three years and, subsequently, a one-year extension of time was
granted; and that since the temporary use was granted, additional zoning violations have
occurred, giving the Planning Commission no reason to believe that the petitioner intends
to rectify an extremely dangerous situation.
4. That the continued conduct of the subject business is not pursuant to the best
interest of the community, inasmuch as it violates the community health, safety and welfere
conditicns.
5. That the subject produce market ~~a~ continued to operate for the past' several years
in c~mplete disregard, neglect and abandonrent of the Codes, despite repeated requests and
demands by the City to bring the structures up to Code.
6, That the parking situation at the subject establisl:a!ent possesses a potentially
dangerous circumstance in relationship to ingre.ss and egress from Euclid Street.
V1-D _1_ RESOLUTION N0. PC74-220
DEV-66•E
~ , -- ,- --- -. ~ ~
7. That if the o~titioner does not intend to bring thc property and structures inta
strict compliance with the Codes and without approval of a variance, then it is recom-
mended that said produce market cease and desist to operate on the subject property;
however, if the petitioner is desirous of ine~ting the requirements of the Codes to
continue the use, then a written proposal reciting specifically how they would comply is
requested and no verbal representations, as made at the Planning Commission public
h~aring, will be accepted.
8. That there are no exceptional or e:ctraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the preperty involved or to the intended use of the property that do not
~pply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
9. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a substantial prop~rty right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zore,
and denied to the property in question.
10. That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare
or injurious to the property or improvements in s~ch vicinity and zone in which the
property is located.
11. That four (4) persons indicated their presence at said public hearing in opposition,
two (2) of whom appeared and no correspondence was received in opposition to subject
petition.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
That the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council that the subject project be
exempt from the requirement to prepare an Environmental Impact Repo,rt pursuant to the
orovisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maheim City Planning Cammission does hereby deny subject Petition for
'ariance on the basis of the aforementioned finds.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUflON is signed and approved by me this 1 1 th day of N vembe r, 1974.
AIRMAN ANA TY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~~~,t~c~a~ /~ ,~c~A~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIbi CITY PLANNING COI~4MISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
CQUNTY OF ORANGE ) sa.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, P a t r I e 1 a B. S ta n 1 an , Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the City of Maheim, do hereby certify that the
faregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, hcld on
Novembe r 1 1, I 974, at 2:00 o'clock p.m., by the following vote of tlie members thereof:
AYES; COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER, KING, MORLEY, HERBST
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: JONNSON, TOLAR
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hand this 1 1 th day of Novembe r, 1974.
n~~~/~. ~~,~~
SECKETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMkfiSSION
V2-D - Z -
RESOLUTION N0, PC74-220