PC 1964-1965-1648RESOLUTION NO. 1648, SERIES 1964-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNII~iG COhSIdISSION OF 14iE CITY OF ANAH~IY
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE NO 17ti, 06 HE DEHIED
WHEREAS, the City Plsnning Commisalon of the City oE Maheim did receiw ~ wdg~d Petitia for V~daae~ 9om
WILLIAM P. VISSEt?, ~Oi ~Jest Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner of certain real
property situated in t.he City of Anaheir~, County of Orange, State of California, described
as Lots PJos, 16 and 17 of Tract No. 1607
; aad
*IiEREAS, ~ City P1~nNa` Commisaioa did hold ~ p~tbllc deadnQ at f5~ Clty Hdl !n the Cfry of Mahalm an
May 24~ 1965, nt 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of ~aid pubUc 6e~rin~ l~rla~ b~ duly dven as aquind by
I6W Itia I~ ~000l~Of VIUI f~L pIOVlY1006 OI ~LE Anaheim Muaiclp~l Code, Cb~pbr 18.6b, to 6Nr ad aoasider evld~n~v foc
~nd ~pia~t utd popos~d vacia~ce and to laveaUBate and make Andinp ~nd ncaAeasd~tiao~ ln connect~ou tberowltb;
~ad
WHEREAS, uid Caamisrioo, after dae ia~pection, invesUQatlon, ~ad ~tndy ~~de by its~lt and in it~ behdf,
and ~ftu dM ao~Nw~tiae of ~11 ~vidaace aad ropores offseed ~s sdd M~ain~, do~s pad ~nd d~te~eice t6~ following
faets:
L 7t~t th~ p~tltio~~c eeqnesd ~ v~ri~mc~ 6om tLe Au~heim Yunldpd Codr. Section 18.28.05C j'; -•e) w},i~i~
requires that the minimum distance between buildings shall be 24 feet to permit the develop-•
ment of subject property with a seven-unit single story apartment development with a 23-
foot building separation.
2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app2icable
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. ihat 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.
4. That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfai•e
and injurious to the property or improvaments in such vicinity and zone in which the
property is Iocated.
5. That subject property is developable into two single family residential lots.
6. The Planning Commission and City Council have gone on record seve:al times tt~at
these lots remain as R-1 and conditions have not changed.
7. 'Ihat three persons appeared and a petition signed by 20 property owners was
received in opposition to subject petition.
ril-D.
-1-
--_-- ~
. ~ {:? ~~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED that the Ma6eim City Planniag Commissioa doas hereby deay subject
Petitloa Eor V~dwce on the basls of t6e aforemeationed Eindings.
TNE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is eianed and approved by me this 3rd of June~ 1965.
•
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PL G COMMISSION
ATTEST:
G/'~ ''".2~
SECRETARY ANAHEI61 CITY PLANNING COMMISS~ON
STATE OF CALIFORNU )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) as.
CITY OF ANAHEDH )
I~ Ann Krebs~ Secretory of t}-e City Pl~nning Commisalon of the City of Aaaheim, do hereby ceRity that the fore-
QoiaQ resolutlon was posed ~nd adopted at a meeting of the City Plannlag Ce>mmission of the City of Anahelm, held on
May 24~ 1965~ ~t 2:00 o'clock P.M„ bv the foilowing vote oE ~e membecs thereof.
AYES: COltMISSIaNERS:Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungal.i, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COIO~ILSSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CO1011SSIONERS: Allred.
IN WTfNESS WHEREOF. I have heremto sat my hand this 3rd day of June ~ 1965.
SECRETARY ANAHED~I QTY PLANNING C04UNISSION
RESOLUTION N0. 1648
V2-0
_~