PC 68-156` ~ .
PC68-150
R~fOI.UTDlf M0.
A~iOL.U?ION OR T11t QTY ~LAlpf~IG CC11rL4~OM 0~ TN~ CRY 0/ AIIAN~
R?lT~M i'OR~ TMR~Q.A~ACAT1~1 KO~~' -~t~OYA~l~OYm
*MtRtA~ tM City Pf~aiy Carl~aio~ o( tre Ciey ~t Aa~MN~ M/ neNr~ ~ wd8tl P~itl~ tor R•
dwl8e~tla~ b~ DR. G. P. BROOKS, 3341 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California 92804, Owner of
certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California,
described as Lot No. 1 of Tract No. 2839
~ _;
i-
i ~`
ti
j
.,i
i ~
~ rNL~6Af~ W Ctr ~I~rei~ C~i~iM ~II W~ ~ pbt1C YwM~ ~t Ir CMylWI h Ir C1y ~l A~i~
`; MJune 3, 1968, at 2:a ~'d~ok ~.~. Ntlo~ d~~Ylie M~ Uwi~i M~ ~If' ~~ ~~ m!
la~r r/ f~ ;~ ~ tb ~wri~IsM ~( !b ~iM~ ~ici~1 C~r. Cf~ter W.T2. N be~r ~ eoul~
wi~so~ ~r r1 ~~t wi/ ~~ ~clwidatH~ ad e~ h~tlres ~ Mk~ 1~p ~ Npowrtlo~~
ia o~e.tlwi tb~eMdl~: rd
~ ~M~RLAS. ..Y cw..l.~, .terr diu 1w.etlo., l~w~tl~.. .d ~..is y wdt ~/ ia la b.
,' Mi1. ~~ ~w ~ a/ dl wH~o~ ~ e~et~ aNwN ~t ~ M~el~~, iN W r/ dN~ndr eM
, ~i he1s:
;: 1. YM~t ti~ Mtltla~ ~pM~ ~ e~clwUjc~ ol tfe ebsrr dnerlM~ Ma~elr bes t!e R-1, On e
i Family Residential, Zone tr, the C-0, Commercial Office, Zone to establish a chiropractic
office in an existing re=idential structure on subject property.
2. That the scope of the proposed reclassification, if approved, does not warrant
an amendment to the General Plan at the present time, however, its r~lationshio to the
General Plan symbol will r,e consider.ed at the next annual review.
3. That the proposep re:ltassifieation of subject property is not necessary and/or
desirable for the orderly and pr;.~per development uf the community.
4, That the proposed recla:~;;ification of subject property does not properly relate
to the zones and their permitted uces locally established in close oroximity to subject
property and to the zones and their permitted uses gene•rally established throughout the
community.
5. That in the recently adopted Arterial Front-On Study, subject oroperty was not
considered as ~ potential cor.version site since it did not meet the criteria established
' for such conversien, and that there are approximately 176 homes geographically dispersed
" throughout the comrA'~nit;~;~hich would be more appropriate for conversion from residential
to commercial uses than subject property.
` 6. That one oerson appeared in opposition to commercial traffic in the resi.dential
-'! dead end alley to the north; and that one
person aopeared in favor of subject petition.
~
~
•1-
~
~
r
r=..:
±;.i
,,.~ ,
~ /
,
~ .+!
,,~
~ r;
~ :
i .
I
~ ,~
-
~
*
.!x
i~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that subject Petition for Reclassification be denied on the basis of the
aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 13th day ot June, 1968,
JL ~ ~
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PL NNING OMMISSION
ATTEST:
/~/ ~(
G~`- ~2 2'C'~ 'Xj/ ~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Pfanning Commission of tne City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held o~
June 3, 1968, at 2:00 o'clock P.bi., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMA1ISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst. Mungall, Camp.
NOES: COhiMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COAIMISSIONERS: Rowland.
IN NITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 13th day o: June, 1°68.
//~'~ ,/ ~ ~
Li"(~~/L,~.~~ `~-i1 U.. ~~I ~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMh1ISSI0N
RESOLUTION N0. 156
R2-D
-2-
~ -- -- !: ^-v:;i~x.;`- ~
~. . ` ~
~