PC 1962-1963-764-, ,
' ~ ~ <<.,t ~~
RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~64, SERIES 1962-63
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNIIdG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHBIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL GF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0.62-6~-111 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified Petition for Reclhar,iflca-
tion from IDVYARD N. and MARY ROSE, 1545 West Katella Avenue, Anah~im, California, Ownera of
certain real property situated ..in the City of Anaheim, County of drange, State of Califr,-rnf.4,
aescribed as Lot No. 1 of Tract No. 2210, and further described as 10972 Cornelian Stre~3t,
Anaheim, Califarnia
; and
1VHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission did hold e public hearing et the City Hell in the City of /;neh~?m oa
May 13, 1963, et 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public heering having been duly given as required
by law and in accocdance with the provlsions of the Anahelm MunicIpal Code, Chapter 18.72, to heer and consider evi-
dence for and egalnst said proposed recless:iicetion end to investigate and meke ~ndi:~gs and recommendations in
connection thecewith: and .
VlHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation, and study mede by itself and in its behelf,
end aEter due consideration of all evidence and repedc offered et said heering, does find end determine the following
facts:
1. 'ihat the petitioner proposes a reclessificetion of the abov~ described property from the R-1~ One Family
Residential, Zone to the G1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone to permit the use of ar, existing
residence on sub,;ect property for a real estate office and professional offices.
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is not necessary and`or
desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community.
3. That the petitioner had not proven any physical change in the area to justi£y the
Commissi:on's previous decision to deny subject petition.
4. That subject property has deed restrictions limiting the use ~f aubject property to
residential uses only.
5. Thai: three persons appear~d in opposition to subj?c± pet=ti^^.
Rl-D -1-
.. ._ _..~ '
-~.
., $
~,~'
~a
~~~
~
NUti7, TIiERFFOR~, BE IT P.ESOLVED that the Anaheim City Plenning Cort~mission does he:eby recommend
to the City Counci.l of t.he City of Anaheim thet subject Petition foc Redessi$cation be denied on the besis of the
eforementioned findings. '
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed end approved by me this 13th da of May~ 1963.
CHAIRidAN ANAHEIM CITY ?L ING COMh1ISSI0N
ATTES'~:
;~.__._~~
SECRETAP,Y ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIIIG COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) as.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~, Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do heceby cectiEy thet ihe fure-
going cesolution was pessed and adopted at a meeting of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Ansl;eim, hald on
May 13~ 1963~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of tha members theceof:
AYES: CoMMI5SI0N~RS: A11red, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sideso
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: ~~ COMMISSIOI3SRS: None.
xN W1TIdESS WHEREOF, I heve heceunto set my hand this 13th day of May~ 1963.
~~ i
SECRETARY ANAHEIhI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
fi:ESOLUTION NO. 764
R2-D -2-
`__