PC 1962-1963-658\
~ ,~ ... . c ~ )
RESOLUTION-NO. 658, SERIES 1962-63
~
~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNIPTG COhiMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 3'77 BE DENIED
;
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim did ieceive e vedEied Petition for Conditional
~ Use Pecmitfmm GIACOMA LUGARO, 532 North Magnoliay Anahe.im, California, Owner; VILLAGE
~K GREEN ~MPANY, 600 North Euclid, Suite 645, Anaheim, California, Agent of certain rea'1
property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described
` in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and referred to herein as though set forth in full
,
; and
WHEF.EAS, the City Plenning ~,;ommi~sion did hold a public heedng at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim on
February 18~ 1963~ et 2:OG o'clock P.M., nutice of seid public hearing having beep duly given as required by
lew end in accordance with the provisions of tha Meheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18:64, to hearand consider evidence
for and against seid p;roposed conditioael use and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection
therewlth; end •
WHEREAS, seid Commission, after due inepection, investigetion, end study mede by itself end in its behelf,
end efter due consideretion of ell evidence end ceports offe:ed et said hearing, does find and determine the following fects:
1. Thet the proposed use is prope:ly one for which a Conditionel Use Permit is authorized b~ this Code, to wit: ~
construct a one and i:wo story plan~ed unit multiple family residential development with
carports -- and waiver of the one story height limitation.
2. That the proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining land uses and the growth
and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located.
3o That the injection of inedium density resideitial development in excess of seven
dwelling units per net residential acre would be inconsistant with past land use policies .
for subject property,
4. That the subject parcel,,by dimension, would be ideally suited fcr a single family
subdivision development~ • ;
5a That two persons, one of whom represented the single family residents to the east
of subject property appeared 9.n opposition to subject petition.
Cl-D -1-
, I .:~: .~~~ '~~~ .
~ _ ^.J
\
~ ~ Yj:
f 1
s~sJ
•~
I
.~
I
.I
~
.~
~
;
-~
i
:;
',
IZ~W. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aneheim City Plenning CommissIon does hereby deny subject
Petition for Coaditioael Use Permit on the basis of the aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOIIJG RESOLUTION is signed and epproved by me.this 18thday of February, 1963.
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: '
~~~~
SECRETARY ANAFiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CTFY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Ann Krebs ~ Secretary of the C1ty P16nning Commisaion of the City of Aneheim, do hereby cedi[y that the fore-
going resolation wes pessed and edoptecl et a meeting of the City Plenning Commission of the City of qneheim, held on
February 18e 1963~ . aE 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the membera thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
pgg~T: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood.
IN WTTNESS WHEREOF, I have hereuato set my hend this 18th day of February~ 1963.
' ~ .
SECRETARY ANAHEIAi CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
i RESOLUTION NO. 658
!
C2-D -Z-