PC 1964-1965-1613~ ~_~ ~
RESOLUTION NO. 1613, SERIES 1964-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COhONISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARUNCE NO• 1697 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planniag Commisaion of tf~e City of Aaaheim did ceceive e verified Petitlon for Vadance from
WILLIAM D. PROCOPIO, 410 South Euclid Street, Suite 6, Anaheim, Californfa, Owner, of certain
real property situated in t5e City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described
as Lot No. 3 of Tract No. 2381
; end
WFIEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public headng at the City Hall in the City of Maheim on
May 10~ 1965, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said publlc headag having been duly given as required by
leav and In acaocdou~ce avith U-e provleions of the Maheim Municlpal Code, Chapter 18.68, to hear and consider evidence for
and egeinst said pmpoaed vadance end to invesUgate and make fiadings and recommmdetlons in connection therewith;
end
1VHEREAS, seid Commiesioa, after due tnspection, iavestlgatioa, and atudy made by iteelE and in its behalf,
end afier due considcraUon of all evidence end xporta o4fered as esid heering, doee find end determine the following
feds:
1. That the petitionec requests e vedance (rom the Aneheim Municipel Code: SeCtion 18.40.050(a) for i
waiver of required landscaping :n front setback to convert an existing building into a
pro.'essional office.
2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions appiicable '"•
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 vicir~ity and zone. 'a
3. That the requested variance is not ner.essary for the preservation and enjoyment of ;
a substantial praperty right posse~sed by other property in the same vicinity and zone,' _
and denied to the property in Guestion. ~
4. That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the public welfare a
or injurious to the p:operty or improvements in such vicinity and zone :n which the property ;
,
is located. °
5. That one person appeared representing six persons pr.esent in thc Councui Chamber
opposir~g and ±wo persons appeared representing four persons present in the Coun~il Chamber
in favor of subject petitione
Vl-D, '1'
Y ~ ~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Maheim City Planning Commission does hereby deny subject
PeUtlon Eor Vedance on the besis of the eforemen:!oned findinga.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed end approved by me this z0 y of May, 1965~
~ 1 '
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY P ING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
G~~/ ~~-~~.~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) sa.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ A~9Ki'9bw, Secretary of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Meheim, do hereby ceAify that the fore-
going cesolutioa was Qassed end adopted et a meeting of the City Pienning Commtssion ofthe City of Aaeheim, held on
May 10~ 1965~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the followiag vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COM6IISSIONERS:~lred, Camp, Gauer9 Herbst~ Mungall, Pe:ry, Rowiand~
NOES: CObIbIISSION~RS: None~
ABSENT: COIYQ~ISSIONERS: None,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve heceuato set my hend this 20th day of N{ay' 1965 ~
l~-
SECRETARY ANAHE CITY PLANNu G CaMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0. 1613
V2-D -2-