PC 1962-1963-501_) . ~~.> ~
RESOLUTION NO, 501y SERIES 1962-63 ,
i
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEiM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1524 BE DENI~D
PIHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Aneheim did receive a veci£ied Petition for Vedance from
EDWARD Mo NBGRETTE, 535 Revere Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; DEE SCHAULIS, 1601 Sandal-
wood Avenue, Costa Mesa, California, Agent of certain real property situated in the City of
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as Lot No. 98 in Tract No. 1697,
and further described as 535 Revere Street, Anaheim, California
; and
WH~REAS, the City Plenning Commission did hold a publlc heedng et the City Hall in the City of Anehelm on
October ~ 1962~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of seid public hearing heving been duly glven ae cequiced by
law endin accocdence withthe provisions of the Anaheim Municipel Code, Chepter 18.68, to hear end consider evidence for
and egeinst said proposed verience end to investigete end meke finding's end recammendetions in connection the~ewlth;
end
WHEREAS, seid Commission, after due inspection, investigation, end study mede by itself and in its behelf,
end eftec due consideration of ell evidence and repo~cs offered es seld heedng, does find end detetmine the Eollowing
faMa:
1. Thet the petitioner cequests a varience from the Aneheim Municipel Coda: Section 18.24.030 (1~ which
requires for subject property a twenty-five (25) foot front yard, to permit an encroachment
of twenty-five (25) feet in order to construct a swimming pool in the existing twenty-five
(25) foot front yard.
2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to
the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
3. 'Ihat the requested v~ariance is not necessary for the preservation and en3oyment of
a substantial property riyht possessed by o•L•her property in the same vicfnity and zone, and
denied to the pxoperty in question.
4. That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the pr.operty or improvements in such vicinity and zane in which the property is
located.
5. That the construction of a fence in the front yard abutting the sidewalk would be
detrimental to properties abutting sub~ect property to the north and south.
6. That r~o one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petition.
-1-
i
~
,
~
1
`3
7
,
,~
~
~
:
;
.'
j
%
:~
r, - ~-~ _~ ~ ~ ;',`~~
~: o~
~_~
~
~
9
~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that thc Aneheim City Plenning Commiseion does hateby deny subject
Petition for Verience on the basis of the aforementioned Eindinga:'
T•_iE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this lst day of October, 19620
0 ~
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANfIING COMMIS
A3'TEST: ~
i
SECRETARY ANAFiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) as. '
C{TY OF ANAHEIh4 )
I! Ann KrBbs ~ Secretery of the City Plenning Commissinn of the City of Anoheim, do hereby certi€y that the fose-
going resolution was passed end edopted at a meeting of the City Plannimg Commission of the Ciiry of Meheim, held on
OCtOber ly 1962~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote'of the members theceof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Canip, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, 1Aungall, Pebley.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~
ABSENT: COtAMISSI01rS.2..: iiapgood, Perry. ,
,IN VIITtIESS WHEREOF, I.have heceunto set my hand this lst day of OctobeT~ 1962
~~!~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY pLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0. 501
V2-D ~
_,:,.;i-... __. .... , r`.,.,, . . '1
'2'
,~
'{
;
!.
n
~
i
7
f
~
;
~
~
~
~
i
;
v
3
~
:l
.j
~
;;
3
:'~~