PC 1962-1963-516I ~, i .
-~~ ~ ~ =~ ~ f Ir, ~
,- :s
RESOLUTION NO. 516~ SERTES 1962-63
~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETiTION FOR VARIANCE N0.1527 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the Ci4y Planwing Commission of the City of Aneheim did recaive a verified Petition for Variance fcom
F~NPIRE INVESTMENTS, 11059'Wrightwood Place, North Hollywood, California, Owner; INT~RATID, INC.~
Attention W. R. Baker, 7666 Telegraph Road, I.os Angeles 22, California, Agents of certain
real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California as
foilows; Lots 15 to 19 inclusive of Tract No. 3222, as per map recorded in book 97, pages
19 and 20 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the county recorder of said county
~ 31t~.
WHEREAS, the City Pienning Commiaeio~ di3 hold a publlc hearing et the City Hell in the City of Anehe;m on
October 29~ 1962, et 2:00 o'clo~k ?.h7., notice of seid public hearing heving been duly given as requ::ad by
law endin eccordence withthe provisioas of the Aneheim Municipal Code, E:hapter 18.68, to hear and conaidex evidence for
end against said proposed variance and to investigete end meke finding's and eecommendetions in connection the:ewith;
and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investlgaUon, end atudy mede by itself and in its behelf,
and after due cronside:ation of all evidence and repods offered es seid headng, does find and detetmina the following
facts:
1. That the petitioner:equests e veciance fcom the Anaheim Municipel Code: SeCtion 18.84.020 as amended
by Ordinance No. 1619 to allow a forty (40) foot encroachment into the required sixty (60)
foot setback along Los Angeles Street.
2. That th~re 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. That the xequested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment '
of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,
and denied to the property in question.
4. That the present C-1 classification of subject and abutting property insures a
sixty (60) foot setback so that all structures constructed thereon may equally profit from
the aesthetic advantages of said sixty (60) foot setback. !
5. That two persons appeared in oppos?tiQn to subject petition. .
\
~
.
`_~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RFSOLVED that the Meheim City Plenning Commission does hereby deny subject
Petition ior Vedence on the baeie of the efoeemeationed €indiage.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is sian~ed end opprovod by me this 29th day of October, 1962.
CHAII2MAN ANAHEIM CxTY PLANNING COMMI
ATTEST: .
J
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) as. ~ ~ ,
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Ann Krebs ~ Secretary of the Ciry Plenning Commission of the City of AnaheIm, do heeeby certify thet the fore-
going resolution was paased and adopted et u meeting of the City Plenniag Cowmiselan of 4tio City of Aneheim, held on
October 29f 1962~ at 2:00 o'clock p,M,, by the foilowing vote ef the membere thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: OpMMISSIONERSs Chavos.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Perry.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I.have hereunto aet my hend this 29th day of OCtober, 1962.
_ ~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0.516
V2-D ' ~ .2.
._._..,-- - - ,
- ____.,_ _ .............
' ?!,
__. . .._ ' ~
:~4 e
:„