PC 76-192li ~ ~
RESOLI)TION N0. PC76-192
A RESOLlITION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNtNG COMMISSION
THAT PETITION FOi: VARIANCE N0. 2$48 BE DE~dIED.
IJHEREAS, the Anahelm Lity Planning Commisslon did receive a verifiled
Petition for Var(ence frcxn EXXO'i CQMPANY, P.O. Box 21R~, Houston, Texas 770(11
(Owner); CQNROY ~ROUP 11, 1~,524 W, Pico Boulevard, Los Angeles, California g0064
(Agent) of certaln real propert~r situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange.
State of Crllfornia described as:
That portlon of the Southeast quarter of Sectlon 8, Township 4 South, Range 10
West~ S. B. B. E M. described as f~llows:
Beglnning at *he intersection of the Southerly llne of the land described in the
deed to M. F. Schueller and wlfe, recorde~l Aprll 6, 19F6, in hook 7892~ page 458
of ~fflclal Records, wlth the Easterly 11ne of sald Sectlon; thence South 0° 15'
30" East along said EasCerly line 45.~8 feet to the Northeasterly corner of the
land descrlbed ln the deed to the 5tate of California, recor~~d Aprit 2F, 1956,
in book 3~~38~ page 49$ of Officlal Records; thence along the boundary Ilnes of
the tand descrlbed In snld deed, the following bearings and distances: North
89° 31' 10" Nest 33.98 feet~ SouthwesYerly along a curve concavr. Easterly and
having a radius of 210 feet, an arc distance of ~2.55 feet, South 0° 15' 30" East
4.35 feeC, South h5° ~~' 39" Wr.st 7.8.1c1 feet and North 89° 31° 10" West along
sald boundary line and alon9 the houndary line of the iand described in the deed
to the State of Callfornia, recorded Aprit 26, 195~, in book 3467, page 448 of
Gfficiel Records, a dlstance of 151.37 feet to the Westerly line of the land
descrSbed In deed to Edwin E. Heacock and wiPe, recorded November 14, 1q68, fn
book 01Q2, page 451 of Officlal Records; thence North (1° 15' 3A" West along s:,?d
Westerly tine of 15~.~0 feet to the Southerly llne of said land of Schueiler•;
ther~ce South 89° 32` 22" East along sald Southerly iine 221.37 feet to the ~uint
of beginning.
41fIEREAS, the City Planning Cemmission did schedule a publlc hearing at the
City Hall in the City of Anahelm on September 27, 19y6~ at 1:3~ p,m.~ notice of sald
publlc hearing having been duly given as requlred by law and tn accordance wlth the
pr~visions of the Anehelm Municipal Cade~ Chapter 18,03, to hear and co~sider
eviAence for and against sald proposed vartence and to investigate and m~ke findings
and recommendations in connectlon therewith; said public hearing having been
contlnucd to the Plenning Canmisslen meeting of ~ctoher 11, 1976; and
WfiEREAS, sald Commisslon, aft~r due Inspectlon, investigatlon ancl study made
by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideratlon o4 all evidence and reports
offered at seld hearing, docs find and determine the following facts:
1. That the petitloner proposes the following walvers from the Anaheim
Nunlcipal Cede, to canstruct a flower shop:
a. SEC710N 18.Q4,Q43.OkQ - Permitted encroachments tnto re uired ards.
~ nc es perm tte ;~ eet proFose
b. SECTI0~1 18,04,045,Gf4 •~ Mlnimum structural setback.
35 eet requ red; eet proposed)
c, SEC710N 18.45.~20 - Permittr.d uses. (Outdoor flower shop
not perm tted
2. That the proposa{ for nn outdoor flower shop is herehy dented on f.he
basls that passing vehicular trafflc would be encauraged to make impuise purchases
and, slnce the subJect locatlon ts et the corner of a heavlly traveled Intersection,
the proposed use Is not deemed rpproprlete since lt is ant~clpate~ th~t the type of
traffTc generated would lncrease Che number of trat'flc accldents In the vicinity of
said lntersecCion.
3, That there are no exceptlonal or extraordtnary circumstances or
condlttons applicmble to the proparty Involved or to the l~tended use of the property
that do not apply generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and
zone,
RESOLUTION N0. PC76-192
,~ ~ ~
~,.
4, That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantlal ~~roperty right possessed by other property in the same
vlclnity ~nd zone. and denled to the property in questton.
5. That the r~quested variance will be materlally detrimental to the
public welfare or inJurtous to the property or lmprovements in such vicfniCy and zone
In which the property is located.
6. That no one indlcated thelr presence at sald public hearing fn
oppositlon; rnd that one (1) letter was receTved In opposition to the subJect
petitlon.
ENVtRONMF.NTAL IMPACT REI'QRT FINDINP; That the Anaheim City Planning
Camnission does hereby recommend to the City Councll of the City of Anaheim that a
negative declaration from the requlrement to prepare an environmental impact report
be approved for the subJect proJect, pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmantal Quatity Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anahcim Clty Planni~g Commission
does hereby deny sub)ect Petitlon for Vartance on the basis of the aforementioned
flndings.
7HF. FOREf,f'ING RESOLUTION Is signed
Oc*.ober 1976.
ATTEST:
~ ' -Cl~~
S CRE AR , ANhHF.IM C LANNINP CQMMISSIQN
STA7E O(' LALIFORNIA )
COl1MTY OF QRAN~E )ss.
CITY Cf ANAHEIH )
i, Patricla B. Scanlan, Secretary of the Anaheim Clty Ptanning Commisslon,
do hereby certlfy that the foregoing res~lutlon was pnssed and adopted at a meeting
of the Anaheim City Planning Commisslon, h~ld on October 11, 1976, at i:3~ P.m.~ by
the following vote of the members thereof: '
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES, HERRST, KINC~ TOLAR~ JOHNSON
NOES: COHMISSIANERS: MORLEY
ABSENT; LOMHISSIQNERS: FARANO
iN WITNE55 WHEREOf~ 1 have hereunto set my hand thls 11th dAy of October
1976.
~ ' • ~
, N H M L NN N, COMMISS ON
"Z' RESOLUTION N0, PC76-1g2