PC 1964-1965-1568• ~ 1
I - •
t • _ J l _ ~ 1
RESOLUTION NO. 1568, SERIES 1964-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1694 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commisaion of the City of Meheim did recelve a vedfied Petition for Vedence from
GEORGE Jo AND MARY R. MEDDICK, 200 East Wilhelmina Street, Anaheim, California, Owners;
GAIL VARY; P, Oe Box 67, Anaheim, California, Agent, of certain real property situated in
the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as Lot No. 9, Block
B of Tract Noa 158~ Elk Park Tract
i
;
~
. ~
,
; ead
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commisaion did hold a publlc headag et the City Hall in the City of Mehe;m on
March 29~ Zq6g~ et 2:00 o'clock P.M., noUce of seid publlc headng heving been duly glven es requlred by
lea and in acoorc~rxe with the proviaions of the Meheim Municipel Code, Chapter 18.68, to hear and coneider evidence for
ead against seid proposed vadence end to investigete end meke Eindings end recommendetions in connection therewith;
end
VVFIEREAS, seid' Commiasion, after due inspection, investigation, and study mede by itself and ia ita behalf,
end efter due consideretlon of ell evidence and reporta offered as seid headng, does find end detecmine the following
feda:
1• That the petltioaer r~quests e varience from the Aneheim Municipal Code: 5ection 18.280 050(3-a) whiCh
stipulates a minimum floor area for a two-bedroom apartment to be 825 feet to permit the con-
struction of one urrit-812-square feet and another unit 816 square feet; Sect~on 18.2A.p50(6-b)
whfch set forth yard requirements of 8 feet for the south yard to permit a.6-foot.south yard,
and nine and sixteen feet for the north yard to deve]~p ~he property with a five.and ten foot
north yard; and Section 18~280050(10-b) which requires i covered parking spaces per dwelling
unit or five spaces to develop four spaces on subject property.
2o 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. That the requested 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.
4e That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the public welf are or
in3urious to the property or impravements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is
located.
5e That the traffic flow and parking of cars in an area developed for a less dense
residential use would create a problem if sub~ect property weze developed with substandard
parking facilities.
6e That four persons appeared representing eight persons in the Cauncil Chamber who
were opposed, and one person representing two other p~rsons appeared in favor of subject
petitiono
Vl-D. -1-
_ ~._y
~
R ~.l t~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Aneheim City Planning Commisaion does hereby decy subfect
petitioa for Verience on the besis of We afo:ementioaed fiadings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and epproved by me this 8th day of April ~ 1965 e
. ~ i
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY ANNIIQG COMMISSION
ATTEST:
%~~~Zl~i~a/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. •
CITY OF ANAHEIIYI ) ~
~
I~ Mn KTebs~ Secretery of the City Plenning Comm;ssion of the City of Aaeheim, do hereby cedify thet the fore-
goiag resolution was pessed end adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commiesion ofthe City of Aneheim, held on
March 29~ 1965~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of ~~ membees thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowlande
NOF~: COb~VliSSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allrede
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have heceunto set my hand tLis 8th day of April ~ 1965.
%~~r? ~C~/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CONIIVlISSION
RESOLtTTION NO. 1568
V2-D -2.
T - ,~- _~ ~ ~.~. y-.~