PC 69-249RESOLUTION NO. PC69-249
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLpNNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2140 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Aneheim did receive a verified Petition for Variance from
GEORGE F, DOH~RTy, 9774
pro ert
real p y situated inathela Avenue, Anaheim, California 92g04
described as Lot 83 of City of Anaheim, Count '~IIeL of certain
inclusive of Tract 1591 as Y of ~range, State of California,
Miscellaneous Ma s Ner °1dP recorded in IIook 54, pages 36 t~~ 39
County. P, in the office of. the County Recorder of said Orange
NrHEREAS, the City Planning Commission dId hold a ou6lir. heering at the Cit
December 15, 1969, et 2:00 o'clock P,
lew and In eco~~~ ~th the provisions of the p~e mtice of said public henring having been ~d~~he City of Anaheim on
aed egainst seid proposed voriance and to investi ete and'c~P~~ Code, Y B~ven as required by
~d Chapter 18,68, to hear and consider evidence for
g meke findings and recommendations in connection therewith;
NWHEREAS, eaid Commission, efter due inspection, investigation, and study made b
fects: y itself and in its behelf,
and efter due considerotion of all evidence and reports offered at seid heari~g, does (ind end determine the followin
1• Thet the petltioner requests a variartce from the qnaheim Municipa! Code as g
tion of an existing single-family residential structure
SECTION 18,2 ~ollaws, to permit utiliza-
4.010 - Pertnitted Uses in as g~` grC studio:
Z. That the petitioner submitted no evidence thatZane.
were excenttonal or extraordinary circumstances or g hardship exisCed
involved or to the intended use of the conditions a . nor tlia~ Lliere
residential properties Pr~Perty that do PP1ic:abTe to the propert_v
in the same vicinity and zone, not appiy geqerally [o o~her
3• That appro~$1 of subjett petition would es[ablish a
from many single-family homeowners in this area and throu hout the Ci[
arterial liighways, precedent for similar
~ requescs
4. That with the adoption in 1967 op ~~ Y whose homes stde or:
Fronting on Arterial Highways" ~~ Study of the Problem of Itesidential Homes
areas located throughout the Citthe Planning Commission and Cit
commercial uses without Y where residences could a y Council designated cercain
areas, having detri.mental effects upon otherousestinYtt~e ar~aerte~ to
containing 176 h~me~. were designated as havina this commercial conversion
and that with this supply or potential sites added to ~~liat 17 sucl~
commercial development, it is the Po~encial;
commercial sites available withoutP1annin those areas already available for
g Comr.iissiun's determination that ti~ere are ample
5. That the requested variancer~~ecting new commercial uses Lnto tliis residential arra,
injurious to the propert or 111 be materially detrimental to the
located. Y improvements in such vicinit P~lilic welfare and
6. T~~at II Y end zone in which tlie property is
notice was received from a nearby property owner in favor of suEject petition.
Vl-D
-1-
..., i~ ---- -
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hcreby deny subject
Petition for Variance on the besis of the aEorementioned findings.
THE rOREGOING RESOLUTION is signcd and approved by me this 2~Sth day uf ecember,
I 1969.
',( ~ ~ ~ l
~
CHAIRMAN AHEIM CITY PLANNING COh1MISSION
ATTEST:
~ = --L_ ~~ ~ ~ `c, ~ /
SECRETARY ANAHEIIYT CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM ~
I, Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Annheim, do hereb certif
going resoinr:;,n was passed and adopted at a meeting of tbe City Planning Commission of the Cit of Anahat the fore-
December 15, 1969, at 2:00 o'dock p,M, by the foilowing vote of the members thereof: y heim, hcid on
~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Farano, Gaur_r, lierbst, Rowland.
I NOES: COMh1ISSI0NERS: Thom.
' ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
i
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hend thi~ 24[h day of December, 1969.
I
~~
r j
~; ~ ~ ~
~ __.- ,,
z. -_ _ .-t.- <'-c" Z ,i
i SECRETARY ANANEIhf CITti' PLANNING COMh11SSION
RESOLUTION NO. 249
V2-D
-2-
~j ~~
'~