PC 1964-1965-1488~
~- . .
~
~
RESOLUTION NO. 1'~6, Series 1964-65 _ ~
A RESOLUTION OF THE C1TY PLANNIIiG C010LLSSI~N OF THE C1TY OF ANAHEDI
RECOIOHENDIl~iG TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE QTY OF ANAHEO[ THAT
pETITION FOR RECLASSIF'ICATION N0, 64-6.9"52 HE DF.NIED
WEIEREAS, ffie City Pl~nning Commistioa of tha Citq oE Aao6elm did tecaive ~ wei8ed Petlti~ouu fa Reel~iai6ca
tion from RQBFAT W. N+m IAUISE Id. lQtATZ, 1252 Narth Brnckhurst Street, Anaheim, California,
Owners of certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State
of California, described as Lot No. 28 of Tract No. 2197.
~ ; ~sd
WHEREAS. tbe City Pl~nnfa ~ Camalnion did hold ~ pqblia 6e~da` ~t th~ Gtr Hali h th~ Cit~ d~-u~hN~ on
January 18, 1964 ~~:~ o'~ P.M.~ sotto~ of sdd poblic hwela~ hrla~ bNn ddy dMn u r~qaLnd
bq l~w ~nd in ~nae wltb tb~ provisians oE tb~ Aa~Mlm YmWPi1 ~e~ Ch~ptee 1s.7~. to he~e ~ed ooasil~c M-
dmcs tor e+d ~~in~t sdd P~~~d nclassiBaHon ~nd to lswsttpb a~d m~k~ 8adiep ad t~oom~laa~ in
oomection thK+wltb: ~nd
WHEREAS, s~id Commi~sion, aR~c dne in^pxtton, iowstlptlao~ ~md ~r wrd• by ia~llE ~sd !n lb b~h~lE.
aed ~Ree due consldentlaa ot di evideQa ~nd e~po~ti oI[Ked ~t ~~id Leala{, das 9sd u~d A~~ W~ ~ollowia~
hcts:
1.1'6~t the petitlaner peopo~e~ ~ eeclwi8atlon ot dt~ ~bore deoaiMd ptop~ety irom tM Ral~ One I~emily
Res3dential,._Zone to..the. CRQ. Commarcial Office, Zone to parmii the use of an existing.
rocideacs. fos an eccourating office.
2. Ihat the.proposed reclassification would introduce an incampatible land use in an
araa.coopocod..of eingle family residential homes.
3. I'het..the.rsquQSted.zoning could not be complied with beceuss of the requirement of
20,000 aquarQ.feat for minimum lot size.
d. That.any sigas {~e~mitted with the requeated zoning would havs an immediate detrimental
aff,act..on the ad~oining aingle family residences.
5. That at the prasent..time none of the adjoining.property.owners expressed.an tnterest
in the.raclassif3cation of thaiz ptoparties, either individually or collactivelys tc a
cammer.cial zflae e
6. That seven persops appaared and petitions signed by 88 persons were received in
opposition, and that one person appoared in conditional approval of subject petition.
~~' . ~ ~~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the An~hdm City Planning Commisaion does hecebg ~ecommend
to tl-e City Conndl of the City of Anaheim that aab)cct Petition for Recl~ssi$ation be deaied on the basie of the
dorementloned $ndinQa.
THE FOREGOING RESQLUTION is sigped emd ~pproved by me this 28th day of January~ 1%5.
CHAIRf[AN /~iAHEDI C('Py p G COIOIISSION
ATTEST:
~i~~'~~%~;,~~~
SECRETAAY A,vAHEIM CITY PLANNING COM~SION
S?ATE OF CALIFORNiA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
C1TY OF ANAHF.A~ )
I~ A-t~ •!Erlbfy Secretery of the Citq PlanninQ Commission of u`_s City of b-n~Leise, do hexa[w catify that the fore-
goine resolution aes pasaed aad adopted at a meetlng of t6e r+M °l~nning Cati.:~saion .f the -'"ii; of M~hdm, 6eld on
January 18y 1965~ at 2:00 o'clock P.N., by the foUowing vote of t6e c~embees thc••: t
pyES: COl~IISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer, Mimgall, Perry, gorrland.
NOES: COb~lIS5I0NERS: ~~e• {
ABSENT: C01~SSIONERS: None. ~
IIQ WITNESS WHEREOF, I hove heeennto set mq h.nd dds 28th day of January, 1965.
a
~
~% / ~ , i
SECRETARY ANAHID[ CITY PLANNING C0101LSSION R
RESOLUTION N0. 1488
~.a -?r