PC 72-49RESOLU~ N~. PC i 2-49 ~~
A RESOLUTION OF THh: CITY PI,ANN:Nu COSiMi3SGQC: OF THB C!T, i`F ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR CONDTTIONAL USE PE}2NIT 1~~Y ~y ^F,:filED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the l":1p ot AnehTim di~ ~ Tccive a va:iEicd PeHtica iG. ~..^on-
ditional Use Permit Erom T1ARI0 F, and DIXIE L. SnNCHE2~ ~I~ tiartir Hamptu~ Si'reet, A-eheim,
California 92801, O~mers of certain real property situated in it~e :=ity af P,`.tB~.f:~F County
of Orange, State of Calif4rnia, described as Lot No. 1G of Trac,t Nn, -i41?
; end
WHEREAS, the CityPlenning Commission did hold e public hearing et the CityHell in the City ot Aneheim
on March 20, 1972, et 2:OC o'ciock P.M., notice oE seid public hearing heving been duly given
es cequired by lew end in eccordance with the provisions of the Anahaim Municipel code, Chepter 18.64,to hear
end consider evidence tor end egeinst seid proposed condltional use and to investignte end make findings and
recommendations in connection therewith; end
WNEREAS, said Commission, efter due inspection, investigetlon, e~d study mede by itselE end in its be~
hal[, end efter due consideretion of u71 evidence end reports o((ered et said 'r.earing, does find and determine the
follow:ng Ea~ts:
), Thet the proposed use is properly onc for wh[ch a Conditf.onel Use Permit is euthr,iized bV Code Section
18.64.020(1-b) to wit: establish a chil~ care nursery wiCh six or more children on eub-
ject property,
~. That grenting subject petition would be granting the petitioner a privilege not
en,joyed by other single family homeAwners.
3, That granting subject petition would ~etablish "spet" commercLal zoning in tfie
center of a aingle fami.iy reaidenCial neighborhood.
4. That tlie proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining land uaes and t'he
growth and develepment of the area in which it is proposed to be located.
5. That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit will be detrimental to the peace,
health, safety, an~3 beneral welfare of the Citir.ens of the City of Anaheim.
6. Thet two persona appeared repreaenting 7 persons present in the Council Chamber
in opposition;that a petition sign~d Uy 31 persoro wae received in oppoeition; t{~at 21
lettera, 16 of which aiso stgned a peti.tiar, sig~ied by 46 persona were received, all Ln
favor of subject peti~ion.
Cl•D ' 1"
^ ~ ~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED thet the Mahelm Clty Plenning Commission does hereby deny subjcct
Petition for Conditlonal Uae Permlt on the basls of thc aEorementioncd Eindings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and epproved by me thla 30th day of March, 1~72.
CHAIRMAN ANA}fEIM C.TY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~~T/W~/ ~~~z.e/v'v
SECRETARY ANAHEIM C1TY PLANNIIdG COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ae.
CITY OF ANAHGIM )
I, Ann I'.reba, $eccetary eE the Ciry Planning Commisslon oE the Clty of Maheim, do hereby certify thet the Eora
going resolution wea paseed end edopted et a meeting of the Clty Planning Commlaeion oEthe City of pnaheim, held on
March 20, 1972, et 2:00 o'cloclc P.M., by the ioilowing vote of the membeca thereof:
AYES: COASMISSIONERS: ALLRED, FARANO, GAUER, HERBST, ROWLAND, SEYMOUR.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: KA1'WOOD.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
IN ~l'fTNE5S WHEREOF, I heve hereunto eet my hend thta 30Ch d+ey of March, 197'L.
RESOLUTION N0. PC72-G9
__<<~~-~~z""' " -
SECRETARY /~NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMi5S10N
C2•D -~