PC 76-206~ ~.
RESOLUTION k0. Pt76-206
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIH CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
THAT PEtITIOH FOR ~ARIpNCE N0. 2856 BE DENIED.
WHEREAS, the Anahelm City Planning Commlsston did recetve a verifled
Petltion for Variance from IDA AN^u MARtON RANNOW. 1515 S. Euclld Street~ Anaheim,
Californ!e 92804 (Owners); SCGTT J. RAYMOND~ 3ZA02 Camina Capistrano, Sar. Juan
Capistrano, Califarnla 92675 (Agent) o` ctrtai~ reat property titua:ed in the City of
Anahefm~ Coi!nty of Orange~ State of Californla described asc
BEGIMNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF 7HE EASTERLY EXTEMSIOId OF THE
NORTH LINE OF THE LANQ CONVEYED TO A. B. COFFM,4N BY DEED RECORDED
JULY 3, 1915~ IN BUOK 593, PAGE 204 OF DEEDS, AND TtIE CENTER LINE
OF EUCLID ST., THENCE NORTH 89°05'00" WEST 280.00',THENCE NORTH
200.00~ ALONG A LINE FARALL•FL TO EUCLID ST., THENCE SOUTH
89°OS'00" EAST.280.00' TO THE CEN'ER LINE OF EUCLID, TtiENCE SOUTH
200.00 FC•tT ALONG THE CENTER LINE OF EUCLID ST. TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL BETNG THE SOUTHEASTERLY PORTION OF LAND
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. '
THAT PORTION OF 7HE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THc SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST~ BEING PARTLY IN THE
RANCHO LOS COYOTES~AND PARTLY IN THE RANGHO LOS Bt7L5A5 ALL IN YHE
CITY OF ANAHEIM, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STaTE OF CAl1FORNIA, AS SAID
SECTION IS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51 PAGE 10 OF MISCEL-
LANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
B~GINNING QT THE ~ORTHEAST CORNER OF THE~SOUTHF.AS7 QUARTER OF SAIO
SECTION 20; THENCE WEST 1323.85 FCET ALONG THE NORTH L:NE 7H~REOF,
TO Th1E NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SOUiHEAST
QUARTER OF SECTION 20; THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTIIEAST QUNRTER TO THE NORTH~ES1' CORNER OF
THE LANO CONVEYED TO A. B. COFFMAN BY DEED RECORDED JULY 3, 1925, TN
BOOK 543 PAGE 204 OF DEEDS: iHENCE EAST 1323.30 FEET ALONG '~HE NORTIi
LINE OF SAID COFFMAN'S LAND T~ THE EAST LIPlE OF SAID SECTION :•0;
THENCE NORTH ALONG SAID EAST LIhE TO THE FOIIJT OF BEGTNNING.
EXCEPT THA7 PORTION GESCRIBED A5 FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWE57 CORNER UF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF ThIE
SOUTHEAST QUAR'fER OF SAID SECTION, AS SAID SECTION IS SHOWN ON hl MAP
OF TRACT N0. 2737, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 93 PAGES 17 AND I.8 OF
~1ISCEt.l.ANEOUS MAPS, RECOROS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE SOUl'H E{9°
30' 00" EAST, 339.48 FEET ALONG THE NGRTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEA51'
QUARTEF~ BEING THE CENTER LINE OF CERRITOS AVENUE 40.00 FEET 1N WIDTH;
THENCE SUU7'N 00° 3C' 00" WEST 662,82 FEET PARALLEL WITH THE WES7 L.INE
OF SAI~ NORTHEAST QUARTER, TO THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT N0. 2737;
1'HENCE NORTH 89° OS' 00" WEST 339.47 FEET ALONG SAID NOR7H LiNE AND
TFiC• WESTERLY PROLONG~,T10N THER~OF TO THE W'c5T LINE OF SAIq NURTHEAST
QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 00° 55' 13" EAST 660.35 f-E~T ALONG SA~LD WEST
LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGYNNING.
NHEREICS, the City Planning tonmts~lon dld echedule a public hoering at the
City Hall in the City of Anahelm on October 11~ 1976~ at 1s3~ P.m., notice of sald
public hearing having been duly glven as requlred by lew and in accordonce wlth the
provislons of the Aneheim Municipel Codn, Chnpter 18.03, to hear and consider
evfdence for and aga{n~t ~a{d propoaed var:ence end to Investtgnte nnd mnke flnd4nys
and recommendetlons in connectian tharnwith; said publlc heering having bcen
contlnued to the Pianning Commlaslon meeting af October 27~ 1976; and
WHEREAS, s~e'.d Comrisslon, after due Inspectlon, investigatton a~d study made
by Itself end in its behalf~ and after due consideratlon of atl evldence and reports
offered at sald hearing, does find and determine the following facts:
1, That the petlttoner proposes the following walvers fran the Anaheim
Mun(clpal Code, to construct a produce market:
a. SECTION 1A.21.920 - Permttted uses. (Produce market not permitted
rn ~R~ti~ Zone) -'
b. SECTION 18.21.061 - Minimum lot area.
RESOLUTION N0. PL76-206
~ ~
2. 7hat Waivcr 1-a. above-mentloned, is hereby denied on the basis that
approva7 would constitute "spot" commercial zoning ln the subJect area consisting of
resldanCial uses; that the petitioner dld not dan~nstr~te that a hardship would be
creazed if sald wa9ver were not granted; that severe and hazardous traffic conditlons
would be created if the property were developed in the manner proposed, as evidenced
by the prevlously cnnducted produce market at tEiis tacation on the subJect properey;
that the petitloner reJected the posslbi~lty of rclocating the proposed market away
trcm the adJacent single-family residences to the south and east; that the petitloner
reJected eondltlons requtring rlght-~f-~way dedicatlon and sereet lmprovements atong
Euctid Street and Cerritos Ave:,ue which would provide for safe trafflc conditions in
cor.nectlon with the proRosed market, and also reJected a 20-foot wlde scrcen
landscaped buffar abutting single-family residerttlal devetopment to the south as
typically requlred in slmilar cortmercial deveiopme~r3; end~ further, that thP
proposed davelopment would be dbr,rimental to tha ,".ealth~ safeEy and ge~eral welfarc
of the Citizens oP the City of Anehelm.
3. That M~aiver t~b~ above-mentloned~ is rio longer necessary in connectlon
with thc praposed dev~lopmant since revised piane wcre submitted deleting sald
wsivnr.
4. That there are no exceptional or oxtraordinary clrcumstances or
condfeto~a applicable to the property involved or to the Intended uee ~f the property
Lhat do not apply generally to the property or class of use tn the same vlclnity and
zone.
5. That the requested varlance Is not neces9ary for the preservatlon and
en]oyment of a substantial propcrty right posses9ed by other property In the same
vicinity and zone~ and denled to the property in qucstion.
6. That the requested varlance wlll be mattrlally detrTmenta) to the
publlc welfara or In~urtous to the property or improveme~ts ln such vicinity and zone
tn which the property Is located.
7. That three (3) persons appeared at said pubiic hearin~ in oppositlon;
and that one (1) tetier wes recelved ln opposttion to ~ubJeet petitlon.
cNV1RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING: T~at the A~ahelm City Planning
Commlsslon oes ere y recommen to t e ty ouncil of the City of Anaheim that an
envtronmantal impact reporr, bo ~equired for the sub]ect proJect,
NOW~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission
does hereoy deny subJect Petitlon for Varlance on the basis of the a}orementioned
findings.
7HE FOREGOING RESOLUTION Is signed and approv by e this 27th day of
October 1976. ,~ ? ~ /
ATTES7:
~J '~~
~£ RY~ NAHEIN . LANN NG MM 'SION
STATE OF CALIFQRNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Patrlcla B. 5canlan, Secretary of the Anahelm City Ptanning Commisslon,
do fiere~vi certify that the fo~egoing resol~tion was paseed nnd adoptnd at a meeting
of the Anaheim City Planning Commissl~n, heid on Octob~er 27, 1976, at 1t30 F,m., by
the following vote oP ehe members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES~ FARANO~ MORLEY, TOLAR~ JOHNSON
NOES:. COMMISSIONERS: WER957p KING
ABSENT: COMMISS~OWFRS: NONE
1976.
IN WITNESS WHEREQF, I have hereunto set my hand thls 27th day of October
~ ~
~~, I L NN NG COM141 SS I QN
Pt76-2o6