PC 1964-1965-1618•'
i } ~~
RESOLUTION NO. 1618~ SERIES 1964-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE CTfY PLANNING CONMLSSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMONENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 64-65-126 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Ma6eim did receive e verified Petition for P.eclasaiEica-
tionfrom UNION BANK, 760 South Hill Street, Los Angeles, California, Owner; ALVARO ALVARE2,
11420 Court, Apartment No. 6, Stanton, California, Agent, of certain real property situated
in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as Lot No. 1 of
Tract No. 3676
; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commiasion did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim on
May 10~ 1965~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice oE said public headng heving been dnly given aa required
by law aad in eccordence with the provisions of the Ma6eim Municipal Code, C6epter 18.72, to heor and consider evl-
dence for and against said proposcd rodnssificetion aad to investigt+te nnd make findinas end recommendatione ie
conaection theeewith: and
WHEREAS, said Commisaton, aRer due iespection, inveeUgetion, end atudy mede by ItselE and ia its behalE,
end aEter due consideretion of all evidence and repods offered et said headng, doea flad end determine the following
fects:
1. Thet the petitioner proposes a reclasaification of the above described propeety from the R-1~ Single-Family ~
Residential, Zone to the C-1, General Commezcial, Zone, to permit an addition to an existing
single-family residence for the purpose of estabiishing a beauty shop and a single-family ;
residence on subject property.
2. That sutject petition was heard in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 56e
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is not necessary and~or
desirable ror the arderly and proper development of the community> i
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does not properly relate to ,
the zones and their permitted uses locally es•tablished in close proximity to subject property
and to the zones and their petmitted ust~ generally established throughout the comnunitye
5e That the granting of subject petitiar. would ~et a precedent for similar sommercia?
uses of re~idential properties adjacent to subject propertya
6. That the petitionar praposed to establish two primary uses in a single-family :
residence whish would be granting a privilege not enjoyed by adjacent property owners. ;
7. That otie person appeazed, presenting a petition with 46 signatures of adjacent
homeowners in opposition to subject petition.
Rl-D '1'
P ~~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Aaehelm City Planning Commission does hereby cecommend
to the City Council of the City of Aneheim that subJect PeUtion for Reclaneification be denied on the besis of the
aforcmcntloned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is aigned and approved by me this 20th day of May~ 1965.
~/ ~
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY P NING COMMISSIUN
ATTEST:
%ri7 z c/Y'~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIbI )
Iy ~1nn. Kr~cy Seccetary of the City Plemtiing Commission of the City of Aaaheim, do henby ceetify that the foee-
going reaolution wes peased end edopted et e meet;ng of We City Planning Commission of the City of Maheim, held on
~y l0y 1965' at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the folloaring vote of the members thercof:
AYES: COAAYIISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Gauer9 Herbst, 14unga2l, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: CObriYIISSIONERS: None<
ABSENT: COM~NISSIONERS: None.
IN WITNESS WEiEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hand tLis 20th day of INayq ].965e
RESOLUTION N0. 1618
~~~~Za;~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLP~NNING COMMISSION
R2-D -2-