PC 1964-1965-1374. „ ~.1
'~' ~.~
~~
RESOLUTION N0. 1374~ SERIES 1964-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNIIIG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMI
THAT PETITLON FOR VARIANCE N0. 1663 gE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Plaaning Commisaioa of the City of Mehetm did receive a veri$ed Petitloa for Vadance from
RICHRRD Mo POLENI'Z, 423 Park Way9 Anaheim~ California~, Owner~ HAROLD L. NIEIRICH~
420 South Euciid Avenue, Anaheim,~California, Agent of certain real property situated
in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as the north
65035 feet of Lot Noa 1 of Tract Noe 1071
; ~nd
WHEREAS, tha City Planaiag Commisaioa did hold e pub8c heating at the City Hall ln the City of Anahelm ca
~='tQbe= 19 ~ 1Sf,4 ~ et 2:80 o'cIock P.M„ notice of said publlc hearing having been duly Qiven as required
laa° and ia ecooeLake wlth the provIeions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapt~t 18.68, to hear and considec evideace fo
and egainst seid proposed vedance and to inveatlgete and make findiag's. and crcommendatioas la connection therewith;
aad
WHEREAS, sald Commisaion, aher due iaspectioe, investigation, end study mede by itself end in it~ behalf,
aud after due conatdaation of ell evidence and repods oifered as said hearing, doea find and deteemine the fullowia~
facts:
~~ That the petitioner reqnests a variaace from the Aaeheim Municipei Code: Section 18a24.030(4-a) to weive
the minimum lot area of seventy-two hundred square fee•t to create a R-: parcel to be sold as
a building siteo
2~ ?hat there ar.e'no exceptior.al or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property involved or to.the intended use of the property that do not apply general'ly to
~the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zoneo
3~ That the rern~esLed variance is not necessary for the preservation and en~oyment of a
substantial property r3ght possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone~ and denied
to the property in qwstlono
4o That the requested variance w31] be mater3ally detrimental to the public.welfare or
in~urious,to the property or improvements in such v3cinity and zone in which the property is
located.
5o That tAe division of the property of which subiect oronerty ig a~art 4srou?d crsate
su1,5i,andard R-0 and R-i loteo
6~ 'fhat the proposed R-1 lot would be.in~ompatible to the existing development of
residential suburban lots which have a minimum of 109000 square feeto
7, That two person~ appeared representing five~persons in the Council Chamber and two
letters were received in opposition to subject petitiono
.: : ~
-',
,-.
`~:.r`~