PC 1962-1963-791; ° <) ;., .
791. SERIES 2962-63 ~~l
._ RESOLUTION NO.
-----._ ___.__.____------~_...~..___,
?
a
f
!
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE i:ETY OF ANAHEYM
THAT Y~ETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1579 g~ DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Meheim did receive a verified Petition for Variance fcom I
LAV1L JO WLLlt\Vy 1V~i ~,~C~~l. .LO1~1 Dvi4~~ A~1~11Gi:11~' v"'ai'ivTiiiu.~. vL':'~ ^vi v..S.}.ui:: ar~i ^piv~:ui'F~
situated in the City of :4naheim, County'of 0•range, Stata of California, described as Lot No. 51 '
in Tract Noa I620, and fe::riher described as 952 South Flore Street
; and
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commiss;on did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Maheim on
June 10~ 1963 nt 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public hearing having been duly given es zequired by
law end in accordance with the provisions of the Meheim Municipal Code, Chepter 18.68, to hear and consider evidence for
and against said pcoposed variance and to investigate and make finding's and recommendations in connection thecewith;
and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation, end study made by itself and in its behelf,
and after due consideration of all evidence and repods offered as seid hearing, does find and determine the following
facts: ~
1. That the petitioner ri:quests a veriance from the Aneheirn Municipal Code: Section IBo24.0109 t~;hich
stipulates the permit.ted uses in an R~-1, One Fam3'ly Residentia29 Znne, to permit the expansion
of existing basiness and p•rofessional offices on subject prope.rty~
2~ That the•re ase no exceptiona'1 or extraordinaxy circumstances or conditions applicable
to the property in~voYved or to the intended use of the p•roperty that do not apply generally
to the prope•rty or class of use 3n the same vicinity and zonea
3o That the requested va•riance is not necessary for the p:r.eservation and enjoyment
of a substantial pxope•rt•y xight possessed ry other propexty in the same uicinity and zone9
and denied to the property in question~
4~ That t}:e :cequested v~ariance wiil be materially detrimental to the pupli.c welfaxe
or injurious to the p7opert~ o•r impro•vements in such vicinity and zone in which the property
is locatedo
`'~-. That the app•roval of tne existing office u~e was contingent upon the maintainance
of the •residentia'1 appea:cance of the fi'lores Street frontage of said nropertyo
6a That two per.soris at+peared in enoosition ta subject petition~
~
V 1-L~. -~-
I J S .
r.
I '
. .~ ., -'~~ .
~ ~ .. . . •• ",~ ,. 3,. .
~~ \-J
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aneheim City Plenning Commission does heceby deny subject
Petition for Verience on the besis of the aforementioaed findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTIODI is signed and approve3 by me this lOth day of June, 19630
~h~
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS,$IO
P~0 TFM ~
ATTEST:
.(.OO
SECR TARY ANAH ~ CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
PRO TPM '
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. ' '
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I. Ann Krebs, Sec:etary of the City planninB Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hecehy cedify that the fo:e-
going cesolution was pessed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on
June '10, 1963, at 2:00 o'clock P.M„ by the following vote of the members ihereof:
AYES: COMM[SSIONERS: Nli:reds Camp9 ~iia~~OSy G3u2ry °°ti'1?y; Perryo Rowiattd9 Sides~
NO'r.S: COMMISSIONSRS: s~Otie~
ABSENT: COMi~tISSIONERS: Mungall~
IN WITNESS WAEREUr, I have hereunto set m3 ha~sd'.his 7,Oth day of June~ '19630
RESOLUTION N0. ~91
V2-D _2_
~
SECR TARY ANAHE CITY PLANN~IG""COMMISSION
PRO TII~7
~ - , ~` --- - ~-- ---- - --__._ ._ _- _ ~ _._,._ : __......~.