PC 1961-1962-288. i ~. ~~
~:~ ~~' i~: ~~
i
' - .` { ~ J\
r,~ -- '~ ~ 288y SERIES 1961-62 ti~
RESOLUTI't„ NO. - ' -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0.1463 BE DENIED
WiiEREAS, the City Pienning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified Petition for Veriance fcom
SUPRFME INVESTMINf ~MPANY~ 2180 Harbor Boulevard, Anaheim, California, dwnerj Kenneth B. Kiker
or Albert M. Boss, 2180 Harbor Boulevard'~ Anaheim~ California, Agent; of certain real property
situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as described in Exhibit
'"A" or as foilows; Lot Nos. 1, 4, and 22 in Tract Noe 3b11
; and
WHEREAS, the City Pianning Commission did hold e public headng at the City Hall in the City of Aneheim on
April 16, 1962' at 2:00 ~'clock P.M., notice of seid public headng having been duly g~ven as ~equiced by
law end ln ecco:dence with the provisions of the Aneheim Municipal Code, Chopter 18.68, to hear and consider evidence for
and ageinst said proposed verieace end to investigate and meke f~nding's end cecommendations ~n ronnection thecewith;
end
WHEREAS, aeid Commission, eftee due inspection, invesugation, a1d study made by itself end in its behelf,
and after due conaideration of all evidence and reporta otfered as seid headng, does find end detezmine the following
fecta:
1. Thet the petitioner requests a vadenae from the Aneheim Municipal Code: SeCtion 18e32.100 which provides
that ingress and egress to any garage will be from abutting alley only and not from the street
to PFRMIT VEHICULAR ACCESS FROM THE STREETe
2o That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or con~itions 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 zoneo
3. That the requested variance is not necessary for ihe preservation and enjoyment of
a substantial property right possessed by other property in the ssme vicinity and zone, and
denied to the property in question.
4. That the requested var~ance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the property is
located.
5. That the existing code violation was ihdirectly created by City Council approval of
revised plans in con3unction with the petition by which subject property was reclassified
and that the illegal driveways should be *emoved or lpgalized by the City Council if they so
desire.
'Vl-D,
• - ------ ~- ---r .__ _ . _ ..-
_. _ .,,
_. _ --- ~ ~
._._ .__ ;,,;,~ •
-1-
. 1 ~
,;
~
--- -- ... i
~ ' ' -
~ t
`.< ~, ~ ' ~ ::~ , ~ ,
,
,; _ t;~
~..
~.~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE50LVED thnt the Aneheim City Plnrwin~ Commieaian doea h~reby deny subject
Petitioa for Veriance on the besia aE the aforomentioned findin`s,
{ THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed aad apptoved by mc ^his 16th day of Ap ri 1, 1962 ,
i •
~~ .
~
;~ CHAIRMAN ANAHEIAt CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
~ ATTEST:
!
,.
SECRETARY ANAHEIM GITY PL NNING COMh1ISSIl~N
~j
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. •
CITY OF ANAHEI:N ) •
~~ I, Ann Ktebe,Secretery of the City Planning Commission of the City of. Aneheim, do hereby ceetify thet the fore-
l;~ going cesolution was passed and adopted at e meeting of the City Plenning Commiaeion of the City oE Aneheim, held on
, A p r i 1 16 , 19 6 2, at 2:00 o'clock P,M., by the following vote of the members :hereoF.
'j AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chavos, Gauer, Pebley.
a
,r
;;, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Marc~ux, Mungall.
;~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Hapgaod, Perry.
,:~ ABS•TAINED: COMMI•SSIONERS; ~Camp..
i,i IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I.heve hereunto set my 6end this 16 th day of Apri 1, 19 62.
~i' I/!~'C~~yC/
Y;
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLAN G COMMISSION
`( j
i
: a RESOLUTION NO. 2 g g
,~ uZ'D -2-
~
~
~
~
s , s
i ~
!
1
~1
,
'
f ,
~
~ . .. - . .. • . ... . :
/~
_J