PC 72-98~
~
RESOLUTION NO. PC72-98
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE ~ITY OF AI~AHEtM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIAtrCE N0. 2359 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Plannine Commiacion oE the City of Meheim dld taceive e vedfied Petltion for Vadance Erom
STANLEY BOVETZ, 72& South KnoCt Avenue, Anaheim, California 9280i~, Owner of certain real prop-
erty aituated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as Lot
No. 3 of Tract No. 367G
WF{EREAS, the City Planning Commis~ion d(d hold • public headag at the City Hall in the Clty of Aneheim on
May 15, 1972, ~t 2:00 o'clock P.M., noUce of said public hevring having been duly glvm as required by
1ew and !n aocadance avith the provlslous oE the Maheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.68, to hear end conslder evidence for
end aQalnst sdd pmposed vasianee and to investle~te end make Iindfn¢s and recommmdrtlone in connection thereaith;
and
WHEREAS, ..ia ca~~iss+on, ~fter due inspectlon, investlgatlon, and study made by itr.elE end in its behalt,
and after due con~ldention of dl evidrnce and repoets offered ati said hearing, does find and detem~lne the folloaing
fects:
t. Th~t the petldoaer reque~b ~ v~danee from the Anaheim Munieipd Code as followa:
SECTION 18.24.010 - Permitted uses (One single-f.amily daelling permitted;
, two ~ingle-family dWell:ng unite proposed)
2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumatancea or conditiono applicable
to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to
the prapPrty or claes of uae in the same vicinity and zone.
°_. The~t the requested variance ia not necessary £or the preservation and en~oymenl• of a
subatantial property right poaseased by other progerty in the eame vicinity and zone, and denied
to the property in quastion.
4. That the requeated variance will be materially detrimental lo the public welfare or
injurioue to the property or improvementa in such vicinity and zone in which the properl•y is
located.
5. That the petitioner dicl not aulxnit substanti~ting evidence of hardship to warrant
£avorable coneideratlcn of the proposal, and the grenting of it would be granting a privilege
to the petitioner which other eingle family home owners do no:: enSoy.
6. That subject propert; hae been functionir~g adequately for many years as a eingle
family unit with a gueat house and there ie no reason why a apecial privilege ehould be granted
to this R-1 psrcel.
7. That approval of the veriance for two units would be tantamount to "spot zoning."
V 1•D .1.
f
~
~
~
IVOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Aneheim City Planning Cemmissiort does heceby deny subject
Petition for Ve:ieuce on the basis of the eforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOIIQG RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 25th day of May, 1972.
LHAIkMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMN~ISSION
ATTEST:
G~i(/Yr~vf/ `J~~!' `R'" ~-~
SECRETARY ANAHEIlI4 CIT'Y F'LANNIAiG COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORrTA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. '
CITY OF ANAHSIM )
I, Astt}•,~K~e&bAt,, Secreten; oE the City Planning Commission of the City of Anehelm, do hereby cedify thet the fore-
going resolution was passed and edopted at a meeting of the City Plenning Commission of the ~ity oE Aneheim, held on
l~iey 15, 1972, at 2:Q0 o'clock P.M., by the following ~ote of the members theceof:
AY~S: COMMTSSIONERS: ALLRED, FARANO, GAUER, H~RBST, KAYWOOD, ROWLAND.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: SEYMOUR.
ABSENT: COM?niSSIONERS: NONE.
IN WI'fNESS WHER~OF, I have heceunto set my hand this 25th day of May, 1972.
_L~ ~~-~
SECRE'.i`ARY AN~;HEIM CITY PLANNING CONMISSION
RESULUTION N0. p~72-98
V2-D _2_ ~ .