PC 1964-1965-1376_ _. _
- --__---
,_ .,..,,..,..,-...y~,~.._~,r~..:.,,.w._ __..._.__....__
..._,._,._. _ ------------
~.- , ..
. , ~ -~~ ,, . i
RESOLUTION NO. 1376~ SERIES 1964-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE C1TY OF ANAHED~I
RECOAQYfENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIIYI THAT
PETTfION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 64-65-33 BE APPROIIED
4
WHEREAS, the City Plaoniag Commisaion of the Gry of Anaheim did tni'tiate a'v@rified Petition
for R~claseificati~n on certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, Courtty of
Orange~ State of California, described as Lot Nos. 31 and 32 of Tract No. 1161, as shown
on a Mep thereof in Book 36, page 45 and 46 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County,
California~ Excepting therefrom that portion lying aithin the right of way of La Palma Avenue
and Nbraga Street, as described in deed recorded December 6, 1963 in Book 6833, page 847 of
Official ItACOrds of Orange County, California
Property owned by~ Anne T. Westgate~ 340 Poppy Avenue, Corona Del l~lar~ California.
; aad
WHEREAS, the City Planaing Commissioe did hold a public heacing at We City Hall in the City of paaheim oa
October 19~ 1964, et 2:00 o'clock P.M., aotice oE said publlc headag heviag been dulq givea as required
by lew end ia accordance with the provisiona of the Maheici Municipel Code, Chepter 18.72,to hear and coasider evi-
dence Eor and egalnat seid proposed reclassipcation and to investigete ond meke findings end cecommendatioas ia
connectia- therewiffi: and
WHEREAS, said Commisaion, aRer due inapection, investiQatioa, snd study made by itself and in its behalf,
and after due coasideratlon of ell evidence and repods oEfeced at said heacing, doea find and determiae the fellowing
Eects:
1.Thatthe Commission pxoposes a reclassification of the above described property from
the R-1. One Family Residential, Zone to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone to establish
a neighbn*hood market, barber shop and office as a ~onforming use in the C-1, Zone.
2. That alth0~gh the proposed use, if approved, would not be consistant with a strict
interpretatian af land use symbols.on the ~eneral Plan, it constitutes such a minor deviation
that ao immadiate_amendment to the General Plan is necessary; however, its relationship to
the..existing General Plan symbol will be considered in the next annual review.
3. 1'hat the existing usas were established while the property was under the jurisdiction
of the County.
4, That subject property does not have concrete sidewalks or driveway approaches at this
timej noz does it have a paved parking lot with a fence separating it from the adjacent
residenceo Hewevex, thase items should be constructed at such time as the existing facilities
are remodeled or when the property is re-developed.
5. ?hat no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. .
R1=A -1'
.
+
~~.~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE R RBSOLVED t6~t tb~ M~hNm Gt~ P'l~eelo~ Ooeei~sios dou.l~nb~r reoommand
to the City Cooedi of th~ C[ty oE Ae~hMm th~t ~nb)~ct Petition tcr R~clwiSc~tlon M~pp~~d ~nd, br ~o doinR,
thet T3tle 18-Zoning of the Anaheim Municipal Code be amended to Pxclude the above described
preperty fiom the R-1, One Family Residential, Zone to the C-1, Neighborhood Comnercial, Zone
ur::onditionaliy.
~'d..
THE FOREGOIIJG RESOLUTION i~ siened ~nd.ppr~wd by me this 29th day of Octobery 1964e
~ '
. CHAIIi11AN ANAHF.aI CITY Q COWIISS~ON
ATTEST:
/~~~~%C/~/
SECRETARY ~ANAHEW CITY PLANNING COMIQSSION
STATE OF CAI.IFORNU )
COtJNT1f CF OR~II~IGE ) ss.
CTfY OF ANAHEIY )
I s~n •Kr~D~:, Sscrehey oE the City Pl~anin~ Commiaion of the Gtf of M~bNs, do 6~nb~ artiip th~t t6e Loe~.
goin` eaolutloe wu pwed ~nd ~dopHd ~t ~ m~etla` of the Citr Plimaia~ Cc~wlitim of t6~ Cttr oI M~hN^, Aeld m
October 19y i964~ ~t 2:06 o'ciock P.Y., by t6t followln~ vot~ of toe e~aben tLu+o~
AYES: GOYYfSSiONERS: ~~P+ ~havos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COIQQSSiOIiER3: None,
AHSENT: COIOQSSlONERS: Allredo
II~ WTfNESS NHEREOF, I 6~ve hermaW ~~t my 6~nd thi~ 29th day of October~ 1964.
RESOLUTION NO. 1376
R2-A
~ d
j
;
~
f
.7
i
t
/