PC 73-134h~50LUTT~'0. PC73-134 ~
A RESC~LUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Oi 02E ~BE DENIEDAHEIhi
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the City Planning Cflmmission of the City oE Anaheim did receive a verified Petiticn for Con-
diti~nal Use Permit f~om JAMES MATTHEWS, In care of Leonard Smith, 125-D South Claudins
Street, Analieim, California 92805, Owne:r; LEOt3ARD SMITH, 125-D South Claudina Street,
Anaheim, ~alifornia 92805, Agent of certain real proparty situated in the City af
Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California,described as Lot I in Block "D" of '
the Lorelei Tract, as per map recorded in Book 29, Page 24 of Miscellaneous Records
oE Los Angeles County, Californis
; end
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a publie h~oring et the CityHell in the City oE Aneheim
on June 11, 1973, et 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public hearing heving been duly given
as cequired by law und in ecc~rdance with the provisions of the Aneheim Nlunicipal code, Chapter 1b.64, to heer
and consider evidence for nnd egainst seid proposed conditional use end to investigete end make findings end
recommendations in connection therewith; and
NHEREAS, soid Commission, eftec due Inspection, investigation, and study mude by itself end in i1s be-
haSi, and eEter due considerution oE ell evidence end reports oEfered at said hearing, does (ind nnd determine the
following Eacts:
1. Thet the ptopased use is pcopecly one for which a Conditional lise Pecmit is authorized by Code Section
18.&4.020(3-c) to wit: esteblish a smell nnimal hospiCal with waiver of:
SECTION 18.40.070(2-a-5-a) - Minimum buildin~ setback from a residential
zone boundary. (1^ feet required; 0 feeC
proposed)
2. That subject petition ia hereby denied on the basis that the use would not be
permitted in ~!te exlsting zone, since the Planning Co~aiss:un recommended disapproval
of the Reclassification of the property.
3. That the pr~~posed use will adversely effecr th~ adjoining land uses and the
growth and develop~nent of the area in whir,h it is proposed to bc located.
4. That L•he si~:e and shape af the sil•e proposed for the ui;e is not adequate to
allow the full development of the propoaed use in a manner not detrimental to the par~•
ticular area nor to t:he pea~e, hea1L•h, safeCy, and general welfare of r.he Citizens of
the City of Anaheim.
5. Thal- one person appeered in opposition.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
That the Planning Commission, in connection with en ExempCion Declaration Stetus request,
finds an3 determines that the proposal would have no signiftcant ~nvironmental impact a.r,~,
therefare, recommettds to the City Council that no Environmer;~al Impact Statement is neces-
sary.
Ci-D ~ 1
~
~
~
NOW, THEREFG::E, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Aneheim City Planning Commiae;nn does hereby da~y subjr.ct
PPtitIon for ~onditionel Use Permi! oo the besis of the eforementloned findings.
1HG FOREGOING Rc.SOLUTION is signed and epproved by me this 2',st day of une, '1973.
ANAHEA~N
ATTEST:
~~~~~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFARNIA )
COUNTY OF ORAI3GE ) Sg•
CITY OF ANAHETkI )
I, Ann KreUs$ecretery of the Cify Plenning Commission of the City of Aneheim,:do,hereby cedify that the £ore-
going teaolution wes passed and adoptet et a macting oE the City T~lunn.ing Commission of!the City of Aneheim, held on
June 11, 1973, et 2:00 o'ciock P.M., by tFe following vote of the members theieoE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: 9LLRF.D, GAUER, HFRBST, KAYWUOD, SEYMOUR,
NOES: COMMTSSIONERS: NON~.
ASSEN'T: COMMISSIONERS: PARANO, ROWI.Af]L.
IN WITNESS WHEREO~, I heve hereuato set my hand L'sia 21st dey of June, '19i3.
i1~~~~~~i'
SECRETARY APIAAEIM CITY PLANNIDIG COMMISSION
RFSULUTION NO. PC73-134
C2-D -~
r