PC 1964-1965-1647~.
~, '
~
k
x'~
~.
i 7
RESOLUI'ION N0. 1~~+ SERIES 1964-65
A RESOLUTION OP '1~iE CTfY PLANNING COMMYSSiON QF TH~ CITY OF ANAHEI~1
RECOUQIENDII~iG TO THE CI'fY COUNCIL OF THE ATY OF ANAHpM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 64-65-130 BE DEN:ED
WHEREAS, the Gtr Ptrmaia~ Commis~loa of the Gty of An~6Ra did eecNw ~ vad8ed PetiUon for Racl~nl8c~-
Uao 6om WILLIAM P. VISSER~ 701 Msst Lincoln Arienue, Ana~sim, California, Oim~r of certain
real prvperty situated in the City of Anah~im, County of Orange, State of California,
described as Lot: Noe.16 and 17 of Track No. 1507
; ~nd
;•~
~i
~
IIHEREAS, th~ Ctq Pl~enln~ Commiwion dld hold ~ pnblic ha::ng st fb~ City Hdl In tbe City oE An~helm on
May 24, 1965, ~t 2:00 o'cloek P.M., notiee af said pnb~rc hNtl~t~ h~dn~ M~a dnly ~lven as required
by l~w ~nd in ~ecord~nc~ wlth t6e provLtons oE t6~ An~helm Mmidp~l Code, C6~pter 18.72, W n;.ac ~nd cbosidsr evi-
deece ta ~nd ~piest sdd propo~~d ncluslflc~don ~ed to lewsdph ~md m~k~ flndinp ~nd recomma~:~atlons in
aoon~etloe th~nwlth: ~nd
NNEREAS, uld Commialaa. ~Ra dne in~p~etion, lavastiptlm, aod stndp m~d~ by ib~ ~nd in its behdf,
ead eRer dne consideretfoa of ~ll evideeee and ~epo~a o8ered ai sdd hea:la~, doea fiad ead delermine the followlaa
E~eb:
1. Th~t the p~tiUoeer propows ~ nclwiUaUon of th~ above d~saib~d peopetty from the R-1~ One Family
Residential, Zone to the R-3, Multiple Fr.~nily Residential, Zone to establish a seven unit
single story apartaaent development.
2. That the proposed use, if approved, constitutes such a minor deviation, that no
immadiata auendment to the Plan is nacessaryR however, its relationship to the existing
Q+sneral.Plan symhol will be cor~sidered in the next annual review.
3. That a+; the.time multiple family development was approved along Broadway under
Reclassification Na. 54-55-28, subject property was reclassified to the R-1, One Family
kesidential, Zone to act as ~ buffer zone between the existing single family residence
on •;.he east sida of Mest Street and the multiple family r~sidential development, and that
no change has transpired in the area to warrant favorable consideration of multiple family
residential zoning for subject property.
4. That subject property is developable for single family residential use.
5. The Planning Commiseion and City Council have gone on record several times that
these lots remain as R-1 and conditions ~~ave not changed.
6. That three persons appeared and a petition signed by 20 property rnmers was received
in oppositi~n to sub~ect petition.
Rl-D
-1-
.f'.
}
i
C
fik
1
r
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aaeheim Ciry Planning Commisston does hereby recommend
to the City Couacii of the City of Aneheim thet subject Petitioa for ReclessiIIcetion be denied on the besis of the
aEorementioned Elndings.
THE FOREGOIIVG RESOLUTION is signed and epproved by me thia 3rd day of June, 1965 0
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PL~INING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
%~/J2~i~
SECRETARY ANAHEIbI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ~
;
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
C1TY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Anrt IGrebs~ Secretery of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify thet the fore-
going rosolution wes pesaed ead adopted et a meeting ofthe City Plenning Commission ofthe City of Meheim, held on
M~y 24~ 1965~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COA~tISSIONERS: Ca~, Gauer, Nerbst, lAungall, Perry, Rowland. ;
NOFS: COMMISSIONERS: None.
7
A9SENT: COt19~QSSlONERS: Allred.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereiwto eet mq haad this 3rd day of June, 1965. ,~
SEr__~TARY ANAHEIhI CITY PLANNIIVG COMMISSION
R~SOLt1T~ON N0. 1647
R2-D .~