PC 1962-1963-486, ~.
~~~
RESOLUTION ~. 486, SERIES 1962-63 ~~ ~~_
~ .. . r-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CYTY OF ANAHEIM
~iT?AT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0.1522 BE DENIED
'l':~;; ) ~YHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City o£ Meheim did receive s ve~ifled Petition for Varience £om
~;`,";;:~ RAYNq1VD Jo YOUNG, 236 North Normandy, Anaheim, California, Owner; JOHANNA K. HEGEL~ 855
/ 3;;~:~ South Placentia Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent of certain real property situated in the
="~~ City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as the Southerly 62 feet
;~::
'~;_~;', of the Northerly 124 feet of the Westerly 170 feet of the South half of the North half
of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 12, 7ownship 4 South, Range
,-r.
~~~ 10 West, in the Rancho San Juan Ca~on de Santa Ana, as shown on a Map recorded in Book 51,
~~ ~ page 10 of Misceilaneous Maps, records of Orange County~ California
; end
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim on
'SeptembeT 5~ 1962, et 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said publlc heaeing having been duly given es cequired by
lew and in ecrn:dance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chepter 18.68, to heer and consider evidence for
and ageinst said proposed variarice and to investigate and muke finding's end eecommendetions ia connection thecewiih;
and
NHEREAS, seid Commission, after due inspection, investigetion, and study made by itself end in its behelf,
end after due consideration of all evidence and repoda offered es seld hearing, does find and detecmine the following
facts:
1. Thet the petitioner requests a varience from the Anaheim Municipal Code: SeCtion 18016.010 to pern?it
the establishment of a real estate sales office in an existing single family residence.
2. That a request to establish the use should have been processed under a Petition
for Reclassification, as xecommended by the Planning Department, but which the petitioner
refused to doo
3. That incompltte plans were submitted by the PPtitionero
4. That one person appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
/f ~ ~ :.`
", '~..~ '~- . ~
NOW, TH~REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Meheirp City :Plent ~,~ Commission does hereby deny subject
Petitlon for Variance on 4he basis of the afoiemeationed findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION ?s signed end epproved by me this 5th day of September7 1962.
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: •
,
SECRETARY AhAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. •
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Ann Krebs~ Seccetary of the City Plenning Commission of the .City of Aneheim, do hereby cedify that the fore-
going resolution ~was pe~sed and adopted et a meeting of the City Planniag Commission of the City of Aneheim, held on
SeptembeT 5~ 1962~ at 2:00 dclock p,N(„ by the followdng vote oE the mem6ers thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: ~OMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavos, Hapgood, Perry.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I.have heceunto set my hend this 5th day of September~ 1962.
~ "" ' ~'f' " ~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMidISSION
RESOLUTION N0. 486
V2-D ~ -2.
_ _.
._.._~..__.__ . .__
._____~ - ~ ;; '~ .
_._ ._ ~ .. .... . ~