PC 1964-1965-1491~ .,, -
RESOLUTIOI~F N0. 1491, SERIES_ 1964-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE CTfY PLANNIIdG COlO~.•SI~~V OF THE CITY OF AI~TAHE~!
THAT PETITION FOR CONDTfIONAL USE PERYIT NO.bbtLBE DENIED
,. r
~'r r~
AHEREAS. th~ Clqr Plwnin` Commiuiaa of the City of An~hdm did meiw ~ ved9ed Petitlon foc CaadtUon~l
Use Permlthom ~ASSOCIATES FUNDING, It~ORPORA'fHD, 914 East Katella Avenue~ Anahein~ California,
Owner~ CHA.<LES H. GLAZER, 13801 York Street~ Garden Grove, California, Agent of certain r~al
property situated in the City of Maheim, County of Orange, State of Califcrnia, describe~.l
as Lot No. 6 f Tract No. 5084 .
; aad
WF{EREAS~ tha~iqr PImUa~ Commi~sioa dld hold ~ pnblic heaLt` ~t ths City H~11 in th~ City oE Aa~helm on
January 18, 1965, ~t 4:00 o'dock P.M., amu. of ..id pabiic he.da~ h.vtn~ b..n dulr ~iv.n u nqnind bY
l~w ~ad ih ~ecoeduce with th~ pravl~im~ of th~ Aa~heim Mnnidp~t Cod~. C6~ptsr 18~64, to hs~e ~nd caisidsc svid~nce
for ~ad ~pfa~t ~dd pcopos~d condltlon~l nss ~nd to iavatipt~ ~nd mcla 6adfnp ~nd ncomm~ad~Uoas in ooanection
thsnwitht wd
WHEREAS, ~dd Commisaloa~ ~fta dne in~pection, inv~stl`atioa~ ~ad stndy m~de bq ihalf wd in it~ behdf,
~ad ~ENr du~ coa~id~e~tioa oi ~il wld~ncy ~ad s~poeb off~d ~t ~dd hMela~, doa 9nd ~nd d~b:mfa~ ths 60llo~ln` h~b:
L Th~t th~ propa~d ns~ is ptop~dq oa~ tor whick a Conditlon~l U~~ P~emit i~ ~nthods~d bq tWs Cods, to wi:: ~
establiah a hofbrau restaurant in an M-1 subdivision.
2. ihat the propoaed use will adversaly affect the ad~oining land uses and the growth ~
and davelopment oP the area ir. which it is propoaed to be located. ~
3. Ihat the eize and ehape oE the site proposed for the use is not adequat: to allow the '
full developuent of the propoaed usa.3n a.manner.not detrimental to the particular area nor to ~
the peace, health, safety, and generai welfare of the Citizens of the City of Maheim. g
4. That the~granting of the Conditional Uae Permit under the conditions impoaed, if any,
will be detrimental to the paace, heaLth, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the
City of Maheim based on `.he factthatthetsepaoposed is to be located distantly removed from
any existing development that adequate policing of the property would be extremely difficult.
5. That the proposed uss'is not the highest and best use for the property.
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
~
Cl-D '~'
. ~ ~
~ _.
__- ~ ___-- --....
{
4." y~ r
~ ~
NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED that the Aa~hsim City Pl~naiae Commis~ioa doe~ hereby dmy wbJsct
Pstitlon Eor Conditioed Uie Psemit oa the bui~ ot the ~foramentionsd flndlnas.
THE FORE(i0II1a RESOLUTION i~ ~i~n~d oad approvsd by me.thi~ 28th day of January~ 1965.
~
. ~
CHA~tMAN ANAHE~1 C1TY P d COMNISSION
ATTEST:
SECRETARY ANAEIEAI CITY PLANNWd ^Ob[I~ISSION
STATE OF CALIFQRHIA )
COUNTY OF ORANdE ) ~•
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Anrt..Krebs~ Secretary ot the City Pl~min~ Commissioa of the City of M~helm, do 6eceby cedifq that the fore-
Qolaa n~olutioe wu pu~ed ~nd adopted at ~ maetic~ oE the Gty Pl~eniea Commiuloa of th~ City of Aa~heim, hsld on
January 18, 1965~ , at 2:00 o'dock P.M., by the Eollowia` vate of the membaes theceof:
AYES: C01~ALS'SIONERS: ~11red, Camp, Gauer, IAungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COIMbIlSSIONERS: NENtv.
ABSENT: C01V~IISSIONERS: None.
II1 WTfNESS 1PHEREOF, I havs haenato s~t mg h~nd tWr 28th day of January~ 1965.
SECRETARY ANAHEW QTY PLANNIIdG COIIIiQSSION
RESOLUTION N0. 1491
C~D -2-