Loading...
PC 1964-1965-1612c1 ~l RESOLUTION N0, 1613~ Series 1964~65 A RESOLUTION OF THE GITY PI.ANIVING COMMISSION OF 7HE CII'Y OF ANAHEIM RF()OMMEImING TD ?HE CITY CnUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT A PRECISE ALIGNMENT FOR JF.FFFRSON-LII~A VISTA STREETS BE AD~PTED AS DEPICIED ON..EXHIBIT "A" ALTFRNATE I~e 4 WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of M aheim did receive a cortenunication frnm the County of Orange that the County Board of Supervisors t~ad adopted a precise alignment for Jefferson-Linda Uista Streets generally in accordance with the general alignment adopted by the Pianning Commission and the City Council in General P1an.Amendment No> 20; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of .Matieim.on F.ebruary 15 and Aprii 26, .1965 at 2a00 0'clock P,Mo, notice of said public.hearing hav~ng been duly given as required by la+v and in accordance wi.th the provi.sions of the M ahe3m Municipal Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against said.proposed precise alignment and to investigate and make findings.and recommendations in.connection therewith; an~ WHEREAS, at the public hearing on Febzuary 15, 1965, !he Comr.iission referred said precise alignment or Jefferson~Linda Vista Straets to the Planning Staff for further study and report, said report to incorporate all findings of the City and t}~e County of Orange; and WHEREAS, said Commissiony after due ir,spection, invest.igation, and study made by itseif and in its behal£, and after due consideiation of al] evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does f'ind and detezmine the foilowing F'3r..t.~~ lo That five alternatives were presented by the Engineering Department w~th a recommendation to.the Commission that Altez•native No~ 4 oP Exhibit "A" was the most feas~ble f~om ~n enginee,cing sLaudpoinL boLti es Lu Iu~.:dLiun and providing the best access to and from the northeast industr.ial area~ 2~ That a representative of North Amer.ican, Autonetics Division pr.eserrted evidence that the proposed alignment was vitaliy necessary for any consideration of the future development of the northeast ind~istrial area, 3e That the representative of the County Road Departmen± Indicated that Exhibit "A", Alternative No~ 4, was a feacible solution and co~~ld be adooted by the various County jurisdir.~ions~ 4„ That no opposition was presented at last public heaiing on the p:oposed precise alignmento NOW9 THEREFORE9 BE IT RESOLVED that the City Planning Commission of the City of Maheim does hereby recommend to the City Councii of the City oi' Anat~eim, tha± tl~e ~+recise alignment of Jefferson-Linda Vista Streets between Oxangetho7pe Avenue or~ the no~±h and the Riverside Freeway on the south be adopted in accordance wtth Exhibit "F", Alternatiae No~ 4, as prepared by the Engineering Department~ _y..:_.,~ BE IT FURTHER RFSOLVED that the City Cou^^il advise the Orange County Boazd of Supervisors of the adoption of the precise alignment of Jefferson-Linda Yista ~ reets as indicated on Exhibit "A", Alternative No. 4. THE cOREGOING RE90LUTION is signed and approved by me is th day of May, 1965e 1 . ~ CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY P NG COMWiISSION ATTEST: 5d~~1.~~ SECRETARY ANAHEI C TY PLANNING OONiMISSION . STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) OOUMTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF AN.AHEIM ) I, Mn Krebs, Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the City of Maheim, do her.eby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Maheim, held nn April 26, i965, at 2a00 0'clock PoM,9 by the following vote of the members thereofs AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. NOES: COMMISSIONERSe Noneo ABSFM: OOMldISSIO~IERS: Allred, Gauer. IN WITNESS WHFR~F, I have hereunto set my hand this 6th day of May, 1965~ %c/ SECkETARY ANAHIIM CITY P',.ANNING COMMISSION Res, Noe 1612 -2~ ~ i ] ~ ~ ~ { ~ , a _ _ _ _ _. .. . . . ~ ~ ~~ /~/ 2 f~ ~~ RESOLUTION N0. '~~~ SERIES 1964-65 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE C1TY OF ANAHEIdI RECOMMENDIIVG TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHF.IM THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 64-65-111 BE DENIED 1VHE2EAS, the City Plenning Commissioa of the City of Mahelm did receive a vedfled PoUtion for Reclwificw tionfrom W~LLIAM D. PROCOPIO, 410 South Euclid Street, Suite 6, Anahefm,~California, Owner, of certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim~ County of Or~nge, State of California, described as Lot No. 3 of Tract No. 2381 ; aed WHEREAS, the City Plannlag Commisalon did hold e pyblic headng et fhe City Hall in the City oE pnehEim oa May 10~ 1965~ et 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public headng having been duly givea aa eequiced by law end in accordence with the provisions of the Anahetm Municipel Cede, C6epter 18.72, to hear aed consider evi- dence for end egeinst said proposed reclasaification and to inveetigate and make findings oad recommendetioae in connect;on therewith: and WHEREAS, said Commtsaion, eRer due inspectioa, invesUgetion, and study made by iteelf and la its behalf, end efter due consideretion of all evidmce and reporte oHeced at said hearing, doea fiad and determine the {ollowing fects: 1. That the etitioner pmpoaes e reclesnificatlon of the ebove descdbed property from the R-1~ Single Family Residential, ~ne to the C-1, General Commercial, Zone, in order to convert an existiny building into a professional office. 2. That subject petition was heard in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 58. 3. That the.propased r.eclassification of subject property is not necessary and~or desixable for the orderly and proper development of the community. 4. That the proposed reclassification of sub~ect property does not relate to the zones and their permitted uses locallg established in close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their .permitted uses generally established throughout the corununitye 5. That subject prbperty is a lot in Tract No. 2381 upon which private deed restrictions have been f iled prohibiting the use of subject property for other than residential purposes~ 6. That if commercial zoning was granted on subject property, this would set a precedent for strip..commercial.development far. R-1 properties siding on and backing upon Fuclid Street. 7. That subject and abutting properties to the east are served by a comnon alley, since vehicular access to Euclid Street was.no.t permitted from ti:ose single family homes fronting on-said street~ and.to._perm3t.commer.cial.and residential use of a common alley would be detr.imental to the peace, health, safet~r and general welfare of that area. 8. That one person appeared representing six persons present in the Council Chamber opposing, and two persons appeared representing four persons in the Council Chamber in favor, of subject petition. Ri-D -1- i i ; ~ ~• 1 ~ ~ '~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL~ :~ that the Maheim City Planning Commiasion does heteby recommend to the Clty Councii of the City of Anaheim that subJect Petition for RecleasificaUon be denled on the basia of the aforementloned findinQa. ,~ ~ THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is aigned ead approved by me this 20th day of May9 1965~ / • CNAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PL G COMMISSION A1"f EST: ~~~~'t ~ %~~Y'l.Cif~~ ~ SECRETARY ANAHEIlIi CiTY PLANNWG COMMISSION STATE OF CAI.IFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) sa. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I~ Ann Krebsy . Seadary of the Citq Plmniag Commiaeion of the City of Aneheim, do hereby certiEy that the fore- going resolution was peased aad adopted at e meeting of the City Planning Commission ofthe City of Meheim, held on May 109 1965 y at 2:00 o'clock P.Id., by the folEowing vote of the members thereof: AYES: COI~liSSIONERS: Ai;red, Camp9 Gaue:., Herbs~, M;;ng;;_, Perxy, Ronlando NOES: COMMLaIONErd: Non?e ABSENT: COl~SSIONERS: Nonee IN WITNESS WFIEREOF, I have 6ereunto set my hend this 20th day of l~.iy, 1965 ~ ~~L(~G.o/ SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION i 3 RESOLUTION N0. 16I2 ~ R2-D -?r _-„'. ."!