PC 1963-1964-997r _ __._».,~-._- .. .. . .. ...... :..
F
~~ .
E
RESOLTITION NDo 997, SERIES 1963-64
A RFSOLUTION OF THE CITY P~ANNING Q~MMIS5161 OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PEfITION FOR VARIANCE NJ, BE DENIIDo
WHERFAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified
Petition for Variancc fr~m EUGENE Ao FAHRIbN, 625 North Claudina Street, Maheim, California,
Qwner of certain real property situated in ~the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of
Californiay described as Lot Nose i and 2 of Tract Noo 3160
and;
WHERFAS9 the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the
City of Anaheim on December 23y 1963y at 2a00 o'clock pomo, notice of said public hearing having
been duly given as required by law and in accordance vfith the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal
Code, Chapter 18~689 to hear and consider evidence for and against said proposed variance and to
investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS9 said Commission, after due inspection investigation, and study made by itself '
and in its behalf and after due consideration of all e~idence and reports offered as said hearirn~y '
does find and determine the following facts:
le That the petitioner requests a w•ariance from the Anaheim Municipal Codes Section
18.040100, which requires that side yards be increased one-foot in width per exit where dwelling
units rsar upon said yards, to permit a 7~foot side yard in lieu of the required 10~-foot side
yard; Section 18o32o0II0(1-a) which requires a street side yard of 15 feet to permit the dev-
elopment of a 12~-foot street...sid ard; Section 18.3201209 which requires 10 garages, to permit
the establishment of eight carport~and two open parking spaces; and Ordinance No. 1684, which
requires "that all buildings constr cted on the lots abutting Broadway Street shall be limited
to one story in height" to permit ttie construction of a one and two-story apartment building on
subject proper;;;o
2o That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantflal property right possessed by other property in the same vici.nity and zone9 and denied
to the property in questiono
3o That the requested variancE will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is
locateda
4e That subject property can be developed under the existing ordianance, that no evidence
has been submitted to substantiate the validity of the proposed Variancey and that an undesirable
precedence would be established in allowing any development of subject property substandard to
Ordinance Noo 16640
5o That one person appeared in opposition to subject petitiona ~
\ ~~E \ ~
, . . . , ,.~,..:.,:,,_.....---._.
,. _...~_.,. . .. ..._ _ ::: .. . _ .._
~
~i'
.i:'.:~,~('fr J .
~' ),
~~`~
~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Plenning Commission does hereby deny subject
Petition for Varience on the besis of the af.orementioned findings.
THE FOREG~JING RESOLUTION is signed and epproved by me this 2n January~ 1964e
. D w•' ~ .
CHAIRMAN ANAHE1711 CITY PLANNI , COMMISSION
ATTEST:
,~ ~~ivi~x~~P.~i~
SECRETARY ANAHF,IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORAIQGE ) ss. ' '
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Ann Krebs ~ Secretery of the City Planning Commission of tlie City of Anuheim, do hereby cedify thet the fore-
voing resol~tion was passed and edopted at e meeting of the City Plenning Commissian of the City oE Anaheim, held on
December 23~ 1963~ at 2:00 o'clock F.M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:Camp, Chavos9 Gauer9 Munga119 Perry, Rowiando
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Pebley, Side=.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve heceunto set my hand this 2nd d~y of January~ 1964e
o- .
RESOLUTION NO. 997
V2-D
~
`
}.
E
~ . C:
i' /17.~!iG~2/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIODI
-2-
~
~
i ~
; ;
a
!1
f 1~
i y:.. -
~ -~.~.._.-n~ . _1....." _~.'~
', . ..... ..- . ~.11~. ~.