PC 1961-1962-75ey ~~
,;N},.
C „ ....
~~~ -...:...!r1^~. t.ne.:._w.r...
~ _ ~mo.~m...ww.__ _ -~.~~~~~.~......,.....~...,~+
. . •...n..........r.~..~............~~.w.......~....r-.....=.~.c....+~,....~..~.~~--_~~
:L;`•:: ~'
~
r
!~~
, ~j
' ~`J.~
:~ . ~
.
~
~`.
' RBSOLUTYON NO
A RESOLUTION OF THB CITY PIANNING C~AlISSI~1 QP 1~ GT~Y OP ANAF~IA[
REC~DING TO ~~2`. CITY COUNCIL OP T!~ CITY OF ANAHBTi1! TAAT
PSTITION POR:, ~;A39IPECATION N0. ~1-62-19 BE DENIED
Y~tiBRBA3, the City Pianning Com~isaion of the City of Aaaheia did ieceive a oerified
Petition for Reclassification fro~ PAUL PLETZ, 3302 West Ball Road, Anaheim, Cal.ifornia, Owner;
proposing reclassification of the foilowing described property: L'egal descri'ption, Exhibit~A,
on file'in the Office.of the Planning Department. '
: ~
Wf~itBA3, the Citq Planning Comaission did hold a pubiic hearing at the eity Hall ia
the City of Anaheim on September 6, 1961, at 2;00 o'clock p,N.~ aotice of said
public hearing having trzea dulq given~as required by]ax and in accordance rith the psovi-
aions of the Anaheim Municipal Code~ Chap4er 18.T2, to hear and consider evideace. for and
against said proposed reclassification and to iavestigate aad aate findinga.an~ reco~men-
dations in connectioa therewith; and
1Vt~RBAS, said Commiasion~ after due inepection~inveatigation, aad atudp aade by it-
self and in its behal£, and nfter due consideration of all evideace and reporta offered
at said hearing, doea find and determine the following facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the abo~e described pro-
perty from tAe R-l, ONE FAMILY"RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-3, HEAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONE for
Parcel No. 1 a^d the C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE for Parcel No. 2.
2. That the propoaed reciseaificatioa of sub3ect progcrty is not neceaear~ or
dQSirable for the orderly and proper deveiopmea# of the comnunity.
3. That the area extending easterly from East Street cor.tains single family residential
development, and that the development of subJect property ,for single family residential ~se
would b.e~,compatible with the existing development, a-d would be suitable for the subject
property provided a wall were installed along East Street.
'4. -7hat verbal opposition, in addition to a petition of protest containing 32
signatures, wes recorded against subject petition.
:3:'ii,i_ r_. ,
.
t R-1
rYlr I
~,w
~ ~
r-
4~
;;.; ~:
~
~
~ ~ `\
'~k i~
~~
~
~
.... _._ - ~
~
..
. .
~. ._ . _ , ._, F~ .
-1-
~, : ~ . . ~ . .. . . -
' `
~. . . . ~ . ..-.,.: ....~ . .. ~. ._. ... . . .. _ .._~...~_. ~
~~
NGbd, Tf~RHPORB, HB IT RBSOLVHD tHat the Anaheim City Pianning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that Petition for Reclasaification
No. F,~_62_~g be denied and, by so doing, that Title 18-Zoning of L•he Anaheim
Municipax Code not be amended to exclude the abovd described property from the
R-1, One Family Residential, zone and to iacorporate said described property ia the
C-3, Heavy Commercial, zone and C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, zone.
THH P~tBWING RB30LUTION is signed and approved by me this 6th day of September, 1961.
,
ATTSS~:
CHAIRMAt7 IM CITY PIANNIPK'v COFII~tI
~ ~
gB ANAHHIM CITY PUNNI Qt~9~lE83I0N
9TA OP CALIPORNIl1 ) ,
COtJNTY OP ORAN(~8 ? ea.
CITY OP ANAF~IM )
I~ JEAN PAGE , Secretsrq of the City Plaaoiag Co~~a.on of thm City of
Aaaheim~ do hereby certi€y tha~t the foregoiag reeoiution uas pspaed sad adoptad at R
meetiag of the City Planaiag Cos~mia~ion of the City of Aasheim~ heid on September 6, 196i,
at 2:00 o'c1oCk P.M., by 4he fol:awitig vote of the members theseofs
Ai'8,9: COhN1IS9I0~B1t8: A11red, Gauer, Morris, Mungall, Perry, Summers.
NOEb: COi~lMI88ION~tBs Nona.
A89~ITs C~lIdIa9I~i8R9= liapgood, Marcoux.
IN ViITNA~B WtIBRHOP~ I have hereua~o aet my haad thfs 6th day of Septomber~ 1961.
~
9
R2-D '2'
Re~olution No.75
. r."'~1., . __ _.._.. . .'_'_"`~'_._.~_... .
~: ... .. - - ..~~._~_:"_"~._~~......_
~ ~ . . ...~ ~ _._' . _ ~' 1 . . . . ~ . ~ , - , ~ ~ . . ~ ~.. . , ._ . . . . ~ _.... . _.._ .-___...