PC 1963-1964-1099~.,
~. ~." ~ + J
/ ~ s ... ~iy..
RESOLUTION N0. 1099y Series 1963-64
A RESOI,UTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHfiIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1622 BE DENIED
WHERERS, the City Planr.ing Commission of the City of Anaheim did initiate a petition for Variance ~
on certain real proper•~y situated in the City of Anaheimy County of Orange, State of California,l
described as Loi No., 6 of Tract Noa 1428
~
; end
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hoid a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim on
March 169 1964 at 2:00 o'clock P.M., natice of said public hearing heving been duly given as required by
lew and in acoocdence vr'th the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chepter 18.68, to hear and consider evidence for
and egeinst said proposed veriance and to investigate end make findings and recommendations in connection therewith;
end
WHEREAS, soid Commission, after due inspection, investigetion, and study made by itself and in its behalf, ''
and efter due consideration of all evidence and reports offered as said hearing, does find and detecmine the ~following
facts:
1. That the peti,tioner requests a varience from the Anaheim Municipal Code: Section 18038~0209 whiCh
stipulates that.no structure designed or intended for residential use shall be used for
commercial act3vityy to permit the use of the residential structure for an escrow office
on subject propertyo
2. That the Plann3ng Commission in Resolution Noo 1066, Series 1963-64, dated
February 17, 19649 did recommend an amendment to 5ection 18a38 of the Anaheim Municipal
Code to permit the use.of existing residences in the C-09 Commercial Office, Zoneo
3, That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involve~ or to ~the intended use of the property that do not apply generally
to the p.roperty or c2ass of use in the same vicinity and zone.
4< That a letter was received in opposition to subject petition.
r,~..~
, ~t
.....\
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aneheim City Planning Commission does heceby deny subject
PetiUon far Variance on the basis ~f the afocementioned findings.
THE FOREGOIIQG RESOLUTION is signed and appcoved by me this 26t1~ day Of March9 1964.
i /
, • CHAIRMAN AN9HEIM CITY PLAN G COMMISSION
ATTEST:
(~'~~~ `~ %~" "`~" ~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF OIZANGE ) ss. ' '
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I9 Ann Krebs 9, Secretery of the City Plenning Commission of the Citr,~ of Anel~eim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going cesolution wes pessed and adopteu c~Y a meeting of the City Planning Commission of Lhe City of Aneheim, held on
March 16~ 1964, et 2:00 o'clock P,M., by the following vote of ~e members thezeof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred9 Campo Gauer, Mungall! Perry~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ~havos, Pebley, Rowland, Sideso
IN PIITNES3 WHEREOF, I have he:eunto set my hend this 26th day of March~ 1964.
~/~I~/~~
SECP.ETA~Y ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. '
,
• s
V2-D ~ -2- i
~ '~
Y
i