PC 70-55;r~: ;:"
,`.
'i
RESOLUTION NO
PC70-55
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 2166 BE DENIED
WH£REAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim did reccive e verified Petition for Varience from
FRANK D'AI.~SANDRO, 119 Queensbury Street, Anaheim, California 92806, Onwer of certain real
property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described
as Lot No. 55 of Tract No. 4321.
WHEREAS, the City Plonning Commiesion did hold e public heering at the City Hall in the City of Aneheim on
April 6~ 1970~ et 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice oE seid publlc hearing heving been duly given es required by
law end in eccordence with the provisions oE the Anaheim Municipel Code, Chepter 18.68, to hear and consider evidence for
end egeinst seld propoeed vorience and to investieete and make findings end recommendetions in connectian therewith;
and
1i'HEREAS, eaid Commissian, aEtet due inapection, investigetion, end study made by itself and in its behelf,
and after due considcration of ell cvidence end reports offered at seid hearlrtg, does find end determine the following
Eects:
1. Thet the petitioner requeats a vertance from the Aneheim Municipel Code : S e c t ion 16.24. O10 -
Permitted Uses - to permit a convalescent rest home on subject property.
2. That the proposed r~quest to establish a r.est home on s~bject property would be
deleterious to the integrity of this residential area, since it would encourage and
establish a precedent for similar requests for commercial use of homesin areas devoteo
entirely to residences.
3. Tiiat there are no excepi;ior~al ar extraordinary circumstanr,es or conditions
applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property Lhat do not
apply gen?rally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zorie.
4. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment
of a eubstantia] propert/ right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and
zone, and denied to the property in question.
5. Thai: the petitiorer has not proven a hardship ex.ists to warrant the approval of
a commercial use in a residential neighborhood.
6. That 4 persons appeared, representing 20 persons present in the Council Chamber
all in opposition, and that a petition signed by 174 persons was received in op{~osition.
Vl-D _1_
5
NOW, THEREFORE, IIE IT RE;OLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does herebyl deny subject
Petition for Verionce on the basis of the eforementioned findings. -~
TliE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is si~ned and approve y m this th day o April~ 1
I _ ~~ \1
~~nixmnn ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING ~h{MISSION
ATTEST:
~
`` - ; ~;' ~ : z.~2";',~,/
;':
~ SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMAIISSION
~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
~~ COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
~ I~ Ann Krebs , Secretary of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Aneheim, do hereb certit
going resolution was pessed end edopted at a meeting of the City Plenning Commission of Yhe City of Anahetimhheldron
~ April 6~ 1970~ at 2:00 o'clock p,M,~ by the followin vo e
.,~ I g t of the members thereof:
~ AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Rowland.
; NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
' ~ ABSENT: COMMiSSIONERS: Seymour.
{ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 15th day of April~ 1970.
ii
~~
~j; ~/ .~ ..
-~ l % ' l > C ' !~)~Z <_ ~ •:
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
,~ RESOLUTION NO. 55
~ V2-D '
~ , -2-
~~ ~ '
>j '~ 1
~- ~
;' i
, ,