PC 70-70; RESOLUTION N0. PC70-7U
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISS[ON OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR CnNDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1163 HE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified Petition for Con-
ditiunal Use Permit from STATE COLLEGE MEDICAL CENIER, 215 S North St,ate Colleg? Boulevard9
Anaheim, California 92806, ~w~er; ?AMES A.CARTER, 1540 East Santa Ana Canyon Roaa, Orange,
Calfiornia 9?667, Agent of c_rtain r?al property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of
Oranne, State of Califo:r.ia, described as ~arcel 2: That portion of Lot 7 of Anaheirn
Extension, as shown on a Map of Survey by UJilliam liamel, a copy of which i; shown in Look 3,
_ pages 162 to 164, inclusive of "Los Angeles County Maps", ir. the office of the County Re••
,,,:~ corder of Oiange Ccunt~. Commencing at a point on the monumental centerline of StatF Colleg=
' i '~oulevard (Placentia Avenue) being on the Easte=ly ]ine of said Lot 7, North 0° 07' 30"
:iE ' East 509.22 feet from the Southeast corner of said L~t 7; thence ~eaving ;aid cente.line or°
;.;~ State College Bouievard ar.d Easterly lin~ of said Lot 7, South 74 38' 30" N!est 331.58 fee'c
~ to the +rue point or' beginning of this oascription; tnence South 7~°3P,' 30" UJest 270.?]
feet to r-point in Che Northeaste.ly line of Tract oo. 255, re;ce*ded in Book 14, page _~,
'~~ =eco~ds of Crsnye County, said point ~eing t•lorth 12 08' 05" West ~56.90 feet from a 4 x 4
~ reowood post markir;g the ;outl,east corner of Lot i of said Tract tJo. 255; thence tJorth
•~ 12 OB' 05" ~7est 155.2U feet Northwesterly along the Northeasterly line of said Tract No.
' ?_55; chence leavinq said T_~acr. No. 2~~; PJorth 74° 34' 15" Ea,t 261.29 feet along tne South-
_,`, erly line ~f Farcr-ls :dentified as Stowe, Merritt and Beck, as shoK~n on a fdap recorded :n
.K~" Book 20y page ;i4 of Recordsof 5urve s Oran e Co~.~nt to a
~ y+ 9 y, point beir,g South 74° 34' 15"
~ Ylest 375.01 feet f:om the Easterly line of said Lot 7; thence ieaving the ~outherly linc o~
said Rec:ord of Su.rvey 20/34, South 15° 25' 45" East 155.29 feet to the true point of
beginning.
; end
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold e pub(ic hea;ing at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim
on t~'ay A, ] Si7p at ?:00 o'clock P.M., notice oi seid public hearing having been duly given
as required by law and in accordance with the provisions o[the Anaheim htunic;pal code, Chapter 1R.64,to hear
and consider evidence for and ageinst said proposed conditional use and to investigute and make findings and
recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, a(ter due in~~ection, investigation, and study made by itself and in its be-
half, and after due consideration ot all evidence .~nd reports offered at seid hearing, does find and determine the
foltnwing facts:
1. That the proposed use is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is euthorized by Code :
Section 1°.G4,020(?_-c) to wit: expand an existino motel with waivers of:
a. SLCTIOP! 18.08.440(?) - Reguii~.ment that a lot or parcel have frontaoe
on a nublic street or alley.
b. SLCTIOI] 1E.3P.050(3-aj - Liinimum requi:ed structural setback from resi-
dentiallv zoned ~ropertv. (37 feet required;
5 and 10 feet proposed).
2. That the proposed expansion of the existing motel onto subj~ct p:operty will
have an und~sirabie effect upon the living environment of the a~jacent single-family
re~idrn u and upor. the ar~a ir. general.
3. Tha+ ;;aiver 1-a, above mentie~ed, is heieby oenied on tne basis that the
P~ofosrd mears of access ~o this parcel is inadequate.
4, That ~vaiver 1-b, above menti~ned, is hereby d-nied on the basis that t.he pronosed
two-story motel buildinqs would be located too close to the adjacent R-1 parcels, and
these single-family homeor~ners shou:d be afforded the same protection from two-story
comme:cial o~velopment as they are granted from two-story nwltiple-fami]y developnient.
5. That the yeneral design of the c,roposed motel expansion is very pooi and has the
appearance of a substandard apartment pioject ratFer than a mote] since eaclz unit is
proposed ot iiave °_t, own kitche~ facilitils.
5. That the proposed parkino desiqn is inconvenient and located an excessive
distance from the motel un`i;s.
7. 'I'hat tiie ,r,.oposed use will adversely affect the adjoini:iq lard uses and the
c~rowth and deve~opment: uf the area in which it is proposed to be locat_•d.
8. That the granting of' this conditiona] use permit will be detrimen*a] to t.he
pcaace, he~ith, safety, and general ~rielfare of the CiCizens of the City of Anaheim.
9. Tl~at one person appeared in oppesition.
~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Aneheim City Plenning Commission does hereby deny subject
Petition for Conditional Use Permit an the besis of the aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approvq3 by me.this l~lth day o ay, 1970.
r
T 1
~..
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
[/~- 2L a-~'~ ~2G - lc.J,
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORN?A )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Krebs, Secretery of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anehelm, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution wes passed end adopted et e meeting of the City Plenning Commisaion ofthe City of qnaheim, held on
May 4, ] 970, , et 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the membere thereof;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, I~erbst, Seymour, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: tJone.
ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
W WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hend ffiis 14th day of May, 1970.
~~~;. , , ~ ~ ~:L-
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLCTION NO. 70
C2-D
-2-
-
~