PC 1964-1965-1588... , . ._+.. _.,.. ..:.............. ..,_.......,.,.,..... .. ,,._. _ ..... .. . ._ _.. .._ ._ ~ ~`:...:__
l~
t~
RESOLUTION NC. 1588, SERIES 1904-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE CTfY PLANNIIVG COMDYlISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. ~ BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City PlaeniaQ Commisaion of the City of Anaheim did receive a vedfled Petition for CondiUoaal
Use Permit from MILTON L. HUGE~S, 9332 Royal Palm, Garden Grove, California, Owner; RICHARD
LAYNE TOM, 1665 West Katella Avenue, Anahefm, California, Agent, of certain real property
situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as Lot
Nos. 144 and 145 of Tract No. 2779
; end
WFiEF.EAS, the City Planning Commie~lon did hold a public headng et the City Hell in the Ciry of Aneheim on
April 12, 1965~ at 2:00 o'dock P.M., notice of aeid public hearing having beep duly given as cequi~ed by
law aad ia ~ccocdence aith the provisioae of the Meheim Muaidpal Code, Chapter 18.64, to hear end consider evidence
for and against sdd pmposed oonditional use aad to iavestlgate aad make fiodinge and recommendetiona in connection
therowith; aad
WHEREAS, sdd Commisaion, after due inspection, investig~tion, end etudy made by itself and in its behelf,
and ~fter due coasidenHon of all evidence and repoRs offered at said headng, doea find and detecmiae the 6ollowing fada:
1. That the pmposed use ie properly oae for which e CoediUonel Use Permit authodzed by this Code, to wit:
establish an on-sale liquor establishment on subject property.
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,
3. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit would be detrimental to the peace,
health, safety and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim.
4. ihat the proposed use is incompatibie to the area in which it is proposed to be
located, due to its close proximity to schools, a Iibrary, and a churcho
5. That deed restrictions have been recorded limiting the uses to business and pro-
fessional only ;n ~he approval of subject property under Ordinance No. 1758, approving
G1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone in Reclassification No. 61-62-76.
6. That three persons appeared, representing ten persons present in the Council Chamber,
one representing the high school and grade schools, one repressnting a nearby church, and
one who presented a petition signed by 114 property owners, and one letter was received in
opposition to subject petition.
Cl-D -1-
.. r -~ ,~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aaeheim City Planning Commissioa doea haeby dmy subJect
petition for Coaditlonal Uee Permit on the basis oE the aforemmtioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION la aigned aad approved by ma.~ 22nd day of April 1965.
~
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING OMMISSIO
Pro Tem
A'fTEST:
,~!1' wr'`~v
SECRETARY ANAHEIIH C1TY PLANNIIQG COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CTfY OF ANAHEiM )
I~ qnn Krabs, Secrotary oE the City Planniaa Commission oE the City of Aaahelm, do hereby certiEy that the fora
goia~ eesolntioa was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the Ciry of Aaaheim, held on
April 12~ 1965, , at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the membecs thereof:
AYES: CODdMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Rowland.
NOES: COII~ISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Mungall, Perry.
IIV WTfNESS WHEREOF, I have hereuato set my h~nd this 22nd day of April ~ 1965.
RESOLUTION N0. 1588
~ ~~¢z-C~<_/
SECRETARY ANAHEIIN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
C2-D -~