PC 1962-1963-578: . , . _, .. .; . _ _
.
;
~ ~ .r,c~:au:nxr.`9::~:^~kC~~;FLY7LS~azwamu.n..w. ~ . ~ . ~ . _~ ~„ . . _" . . .~..... ~ .. ' . .
. . ' ~ . ' ~ ~ . .
~ ~~
~ ~ ' ~ i
. ~
. ~.
. . ~
. aW~O~ : ~ ~ ~ /. .
, ~ ~~ . . " ~ ' . i~~ .
y
•. ~ .
578 SERIES 1962-63
RESOLUTION NO. ~
~
t;~
. .
;/
'~: ' .. . .. .
~ . . .
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIIVI 4~ .
'
.
` THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 334 gE DENIED -,:~
~ ~
S . : ~
WHEREAS, the City Ple:taing Commissioa of the City of Aneheim did teccive a verlfied P~!tition for Cunditional ~
r, Use Permitfcom HOMELAND~OD:~ A Partnership, (Successor to Loara Co.~ A Partnership), So'
South Los Angeles Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; CHARLES RICHARD l~AND~ h~nsi Trust ;~
''
~ `
~; Buildin 204 North 2nd Street Alhambra California A ent of certain real
9r ~ ~ e: 9 proF°rty sit•-
uated in the City of Anahe2m, County of Orange, State o: California described es Lv~ ivos. ~
~ 9, l0, and 11 of Tract No: 3325, and further described as 1681 Crone Avenue, 1674 and q
`, 1680 Niobe Place
. '~
~ , :~~
~
~r
~
,
~ .
' ; ada .~,
,~ .
WHEREAS, !he City Plenning Commission did hold e public headng at the City Hall in the City of Aneheim on
.
~
~ December 27~ 1962~ at 2:00 o!clock P.h[., notice of aeid public hearing having beep duly given as required by
• ~ lew..end in accordence with the provisions,of the Aneheim Munidpal Code, Cheptet 18.64, to hear and consider evidence
~ for and agelnst said proposed condiflanaY Lse end to investigate and meke findiuge r~nd recommeadetions in connection ~
therewith; and
~
i _ ~
k
~ WHCREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigetion, end study made by.itself end in its behelf, . ;~
and after due consideretion of all edidence and reports offe~ed et seid headng, does fiad end determine the following feds:
~ . ~
' 1. That the proposed use is propecly one for which a
Conditionel Use Permit is anthorized by thie Code, to wit: ~
~
f, ~ - establish a twq-stoxy building.fnr husines~ ana"profiessional offices.in conjunction with '
a residence. _ ,
'~
~ ~ 2.. That the ~ropose8 use.will~adversely affect.the adjoining land usas and the
E growth and ~level.o}ancent _of, .the ,srea:~in. which_it is. proposed to be loca~ed. ` ~
~ 3.;_That the proposed use.of sub~ect..property.'is incompatible with the development
t
of pxoper.ty:ad3acent.and in close proximity to subject property. ~
; 4.. That subject property is projected for'low density residential development on the
i . ' preliminary General Plan.
f 5. That subject property~ presently classified in the R-1, Une Family Resideqtial,
Zone was subdivided and is suitable for R-1, One Family Residential, development.
s
~ 6. That with the exception of two similar:properties, also vacant to the north,
subject,property abuts single family residential development to,the south, east and noi~th:
7. That the owner of subject,property, could orient residential structua~es on these
y lots,,utilizing wall and landscaping for sound buffers in such a manner as to minimize the
' x influ~nce of the Euclid Street traff ic. . • ~ ~
~• ~ B. That the.proposed parking area is inconveniantly located to the proposed residence
t ~ and office building and would most certainly result in excessive on-street parking.
~
x, 9. That a recent reques~ for commeicial zoning of a half dozen single family residential
~ homes to the north of sub~ect property frontfng on the east side of Euclid Street was.denied. ~
~'
4 .~
'~ 10. 7hat no one appeared in oppasition to subject petition.
~ . .~ ~ ~ . ~ .. ~ . . . . . . . . . ~ .. ~ . . . .
~ .
, r
yy ?
}
~
. . ~ ' . . , . . • . .
. . .. . . . . . . ~ ~ . i . . ' .
~ . ~ ~ . . . ~ . , ~ ' ~ . . ..
. . ~ , . , . ~. ;
. :Y
. .
, .
~'
4 .
. - . ~ ~ ~
~
~
~
~
~
~ . . .
~
~
~
~
V ~
~ ~
~ . . .
.
~ . . .. . ~ . . . . ~
~
.
~
'
. . ~ ~ . . . ~ . . . - - . . . .
~ .
.
~ . ..
9
A
h. k
~
.
~ ~
~:
~ a.
~ _
~ '
~. ~ Cl-D _Y_
~ ~ ' . ~
~
~
. _ ,~
~
~
$
_ ;~
`
t
.
~
_~~_.
-~
•
;
k _ _
_, ~
~ ,., .
..
c;t ,. , .. _""_ -
_ .
......,.m.. _, :
~... '.
.
,
..
~ _...._..,.
,
-
~ ~--
.. . .
- -
.,~' ~
,~
,~ S
~
~ . ~ ~ ~ , . . ~ . . .
~ . ~
~ ~
. ,~~~C .
.
• :~
. .
. . . . . . .
. ~ ~ ,. . . , . ~ - :7
~' a
Y
. . . ~ . . ' . ~ . ~
:'Y
( ~
. .. . . . , . , . ' ~ ~ ~ ~~ 7
. .. . ~ . . ~ ~ . . . . ~ ,~ . ,~
. . . ~' ~ ~ '
~ ~
.. ' ~ . ~ . ~ .
~
' ,S
~ . ' . . .
. . .
NOW,..THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Meheim City Planning Commiasion does hereby deny subject i~ 3
PeHtion for Conditionel Use Permit on the bctsis of the aforemeaUoned findinge. . ~
, ~
~ ~ ~
. THE FO~2EGOING RESOLUTION ia aigncd end epproved by me.this 27th day of December, 1962.
;
. . ~ ~ . .~
.~ ~
~
. . . ' .. . ' . .
~ ' 4
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOPI ,
~. ~
ATTEST: ~~ ~
` •
t ~
~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION :
!,~ _~
' STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ~ :~
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. `~
~ CITY OF ANAHEIM ) . ~ ~
I~ Ann Krebs ~ Seccetery of the City Planning Commisslon o£ the City of Anaheim, do hereby certi£y that the fore- ~ !~
~ going ceaolution wes passed end edopted, et a meetiag of the City Plenning Commiseion oE the City of Ansheim, held on ,~
~
~ December 27y 1962~, et 2:00 o'clock P.M.; by the following vote of the membert+ thereof: ~'~ _
g ;
1 AYESh COMINISSIONERS: ~avos, Gauer, Marcoux, Perry. ~ ~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Mungall, Pebley. ~~ j
'ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp~ Hapgood. ~ ~
~
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hacid this 27th day of DeCember~ 1962 ~ ~
~ ~ , . ~ ~
~ ~~~~,
~ ~
~ SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSiON ' ~
~ RESOLUTION NO. 578 i ~
C2-D -2-
~ . ~
•
~ ~
'
~ "
~
.,~~ , :~
..._._...
.
_.______ _.__. __
~
~
_
-
~ ~ ~
_-...-
`~.
. ='•
. . ~
__.
__
_ .,
'.-~
..
-. -_~._..._ _
.
_ ;a;~..
. -- -- ----
,:_..~._...,~ . . ' . . 1 . . . . . ~ . . ~ ~ . . . ~ ~ ' . . . . ~ ..~. . ,_ . ~
.
-- _
-~