PC 1961-1962-325C : ~, , :
i
~ ~
` , ~< ~ ,~ '~~' ~ ' f ~
t:
t ~'`
~
.. _ ^ ~ +~ ~ ^~
RESOLUTION NO. 325. SPRIES 1961-62
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY .PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THF. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFYCd,TION NObl-62-105 BE DENIED
W(tEREAS, the City F!anning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified Petition for Rccla'sai$ca-
tionfrom C. S. BAUMSTARK,3427 West Orange Avenue, Anaheimq California, and MANCIL F. BELL,
3434 West O.range.Avenue9 Anaheim, California, Owners; H. RALPH LOVETT and~or JERRY A.
PAT'I'ERSON, 4921 Durfee Avenue, Pico Riveraq California, Agent of certain real property situated
in the City oF Anaheimq County of Orartge, State of California, as followss The WESterly 66
feet of the Easterly 225 feet of the South half of the Souihwest quarter of the Southwest quarter
of the Northwest quarter of Section 14, in Township 4, South, Range 11 West, in the Ranchp Los
Coyotes, as shown on a map thereof recorded in bo~lc 51, page 7, et seqa, Miscellaneous Maps,.
records of said Orange County
; end
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold s pqblic hearing at the City ~iell •in the City of Aneheim un
May 149 1962i at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of seid public hearIag heving beea duly. given as requited
by law and in eccordance with the provisions of the Aneheim Mualaipal Code, Chapier 18.72, ~4a heer eaa considec evi-
dence for and egainst said propoaed reclassificetioa end to investigatR and meke.9ndings end recommeadetiaas in
connection therewith: and
WHEREAS, seid Commission, aEter due inspection, investigetion, end study mede by itself,and in ita beheif,
and aEter due conside:ation of all evidence end reports oifered at seld hearing, doea flad and detetmine the following
facts:
1. That the petitioner pxoposes a reclassificetion of the ebove deacribed property from the R-A~ Residential
Agricultural, Zone to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial~ Zone i:o establish a riEighborhood
shopping centera ~
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject prope.rty is not necessary or desirable
for the orderly and proper development of the community.
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does not properly relate to
the zones and their permitted uses locally established in clnse proximity to subject property
and to the zones and their permitted uses generally establis~led ~hroughout the community.
4. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
' 5o That the proposed shopping center does not conform with the proposed General plan
for the area, that the proposed shopping center constitutes a premature development in the area,
and t~at no supporting evidence was presented in conjunction •.;ith sub~ect petitiono
Rl-D -1-
, _._ .._ _...._. ,. ... _ ___ . . ... ........ i
_-----_.- --- __ ..._--.__._. _ _,. _ .. _
~-{ ~ _ _ _ _ _ :
,... , ~s . _ _ _
M~
~:t:,
~~~
~
~~ t 1
I `
lt rr~; ~.~ ~ ~ ~' ~''~ ~F'' ' i-.
' ~
1 ~
... ..... ....... . .
~~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that tiie Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby tecommend
to the City Courtcil of the Ciry of Anaheim thet sibject Petition for Reclessificak+on be denied on the basis of the
aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 14th day of May~ 1962.
~~~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
_~
:i
____ .
__..__.__ ,<
~ ~
ATTEST:
CIiAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIO
~/'i j" ~ ' _ ~-x:~f"/`w
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CiTY UF ANAHFI6t )
I, A.nn Krebsy Secret:~ry~ of u!e City Planning ~ommissio~ of the City oE Anaheim, do heeeby cectify that the fore-
gc:r.6 :eso?ution ::as pu~°ed as,' adopted et a meeting of the City Plannin~ Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on
May 14; 1_902. at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members theceof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Munga119 Perry.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMIS~IONERS: A11red.
ABSTAINEDs CAMr~1SSI0NERS: Pebley (be use he+ g a sent through most of the hearing of
IN WITNESS WHE';EOF, I have hareunto set myk~a~c~~hispg4~~i~~~~ of May9 1962.