PC 1962-1963-652/
_ ___..._ __-- _..__.__ _._ . --- -._...... . ..____.------- _.._._.._.~_......__~__ _- --._ __ ___. _ _ __
S
1.
~
1 iy~ (^}
`• RESOLUTION NO. 652~ SEFIIES 1962-63
j '
~ i A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANI.VING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEA'[
' i RECONIINENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CI3'i' OF ANAHEIM THAT
i PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 62-63-77 gE DENIED
I~
' WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Aneheim did receive a verified Petition for Reda'ssifice-
tion from JAMES L. SIAAN, et al, 1015 Nortli Acacia, Anaheim, California,Owners; RAY 1Jf£RCpDp, ~`
13016 Euclid Avenue, Garden Grove, Calif~~rnia, Agent of certain real property situated in
the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and referred to herein as though s~:t forth in full
; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hell in the City of pneheim on
February 18~ 1963, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public hearing heving ~een du:•~ given as required
by law and in accordence with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipel Code, Chapter 18.72,to hear and consider evi-
dence for and against said proposed reclassification end to investigete and make ~ndings and recommendations in
cannection therewith: end '
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation, and study made by itself and in its behalf,
and efter due consideretion of all evidence and reports offered at said heering, does find end determine the following
facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above described property from the R-A~ Residential
Agricultural, 2one to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial~ Zone to permit the development of a
pharmacy and medical offices. .
2e Tha+, the proposed reclassification of subject property is not necessary and~or
desirable for the ordErly and proper development of the cortununity.
3e That the proposed reclassification of subject property does not property relate to
the zones and th~ir permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject property
and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the communityo
4. That the approval of commercial use at the proposed location would be at variance
from the land development policies pro3ected on the proposed General Plan, and would be
inconsistant with the present development in the area since it would create "spot coimnercial
zoning" which cannot be ~ustified in terms of service to the area and would result in a
breakdown in the residential living environment.
5e That one person appeare@ as a representative of the su•rrounding residents of
subject property opposing subject petition.
-1-
i ` ,~.
,; •
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED thet the Aneheim City Plenaing Commieafon doea hereby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Aneheim thet aubject Petitioa fot Recless;~cedon be denied on the baeta of the
eforementioned ~indinga.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed end epproved by me this 18th day oi February, 1963.
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLAl7N.*.d+1G COMMISSIO
ATTEST:
_- ~~~yZ~C~
SECRETARY ,4NAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF i;r',~,pFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss,
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ An~ Krebs, Secretery of the City Plenning Commiseion of the City of Maheim, do hereby certify thet the fore-
going resolution wes pesaed end edopted et e meeting of the I:ity Plenning Commisaion of tho City of Maheim, eald on
February 18~ 1963~ et 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the followiag vote oE the membera thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp~ Chayos~ Gauer~ Marcoux~ Mungall~ Pebleyy Perry.
PIOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COhIINISSIONERS: Hapgood.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand thie 18th day of FebTUBTy~ 1963.
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CIZ'Y PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 652
R2-D _~
__._.._._..._ _._ - -----____.__. .._. -- _. ____... _ _.
_.___. _. ..__ _.--.-
.. _ _..._ _ __
. .:F''...:.. ~ . . . i:i