PC 73-100, ~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. PC73-100
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 1398 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified Petition for Con-
ditional Use Permit from JAMES A, AND ERANA OLSON AND JOS~PH AND BETTE K. DAVIDSON, , 414
North State College Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92806, Owners;JAMES OLSON; 875
South Hilda Street, Anaheim, Caiifornia 92806, Agent of certain real property.situ-
ated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as'
Lot Nos. 115 and 116 of Tract 2205, as per Map recorded in Book 64, Fages 33 to 35,
inclusive, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said
Orange County •
; end
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City oE Maheim
on May 14, 1973, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public hearing having been duly given ,
as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal code, Chapter 18.64,to hear
and consider evidence for and egainst said proposed conditional use end to investigete and make findings and
cecommendatiens in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation, end study mede by itself end in its be-
half, and aiter due consideretion of ell evidence and repods oEfeced et seid hearing, does find end determine the
Eollowing facts:
1. Thet the proposec use is properly one far which e Conditional Use Permit is authorized by Code Section
18.38.040(3) to wit: establish a commercial office compiex in two single-family resi-
dences with waivers of:
a, SECTION 18.38.040(3)(d) - Requirement that all parkin~ be located to
the rear of the site.
SECTION 18.62.080(B)
b - Types of signs permiCted. (Free-standing
. revolving sign not permitted; free-etanding
revolving sign propo:~ed)
SECTION 18.38.050(1)(A)
c - Minimum site area. (20 000 aqua_re feet re-
. quired; approximately 13 000 aquare feet
proposed)
SuCTION 18.38.050(2)(c)
d - Requirement that a three-foot planting strip
. be maintained adiacent to riPht-of-wav line
on a local street; and to permit a six-foot'
block wall in required setback area.
SECTICN 18.38.050(2)(D)(1)
e - Required setback area alonR site boundary
. line not abuttin~ a atreet or hiKhwey. (10
feet required; 5 feet exiating and proQosed)
SECTION 18.3$.050(3)(A)
f - Maximum building height within 300 feet of
. a sin~le-familv residen~ial zone boundarY.
(2.5 feet permitted; 16 feet proposed)
SECTION 18.38.050(4)(A)(1)
g - Minimum. reguired number of parking sPaces.
, (16 sPaces required; 15 apaces proposed)
CI-D ~ 1-
~ ~
2. That the Planning Co~ission has recoumended disapproval of the reclassification
of subject property, therefore, the requested conditional use Fermit could not be exercised
within the requirements of the existing zoning an the property.
3. That the petitioner is proposing too many waivers nf C-0 Zone site development stand-
ards, and the manner in which the property is proposed to be developed would have a tendency
to deteriorate the integrity of the adjacent residential area.
4. That commercial uses at this intersection would present extremely hazardous traffic
conditions due to the angle of Savoy Avenue and &tate College Boulevard, and it would be nec-
essary for coimnercial traffic desiring to enter the property to make a series of right turna
within the residential area.
5. That the proposed use will adversely affect the ad'joining•land uses and the:growth
and development of the area in which it is proponed to be located.
6. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is not adequate to allow
the full development of the proposed use in a manner not detrimental .to the particular area
nor. to the peace, health, safety, and general we4fare of the Citizens of the Ci*_y'of Anaheim.
7, That the granting of the Conditional Use Permit under the conditions imposed, if
any, will be detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the Citizens
of the City of Anaheim.
8. That four persons appeared representing seven persons present in the Council Chamber,
all in opposition to subject petition.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
That the Planning Commission, in connection with an Exemption Declaration Status reyuest,
finds and deCermines that the proposal would have si~nificant environmental impact and
would, therefore, recomcnend to the City Council that the petitioner be required to file
an Environmental Impact Report prior to consideration of the proposed reclassification.and
conditional use permit.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the An~lieim City Planning Commission doea hereby
deny subject Petition for Conditional Use Permit on the basis of the aforementioned findings.
1973.
I, Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby
certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City:Plan=
ning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on May 14, 1973, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the
following vo~te of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED, E~;4RAN0, GAUER, HERBST, KAYWOOD, ROWLAND, SEYMOUR.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONF..
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand thia 24th day of May, 1973.
~,~~~1~
SECRETARY ANP,H~ CITY PLAN.NING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0. PC73-100 '2"
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ).
COITNTY OF ORANGE ) B8:
CITY OF ANAHEIM )