PC 1962-1963-475.__ ~. __......,_,.. _ ........~._ ~~r.-:.v.e..
~.,:Y~;r:, .~ ,
~ {n ) .
p2 j
'~t~ ..~' . . ~ i
1
~ ., .
Y i
~:~?' RESOLIITiN Nn_ 475, SERIES i~62-63 ~~
r;:z: i
(F'_"
.s'`' I
~F-. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
" RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
j~ PETITION FdR RECLASSIFICATION N0.62-63-18 BE DENIED ~
r,:
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verIfied Petition for Recla'ssifica-
tion from DOUSLE Tl~iEE ASSOCIATES, 920 Rodeo .Road, Fullerton, California, Owners of certain
rea2 property situated in.the City of Anaheim, County..Df.Orange, State of California as
follovrs: The South 266.feet of .the.East one-half of the Southwest quarter of the Southeast
quarter of Section.Z,..Township 4.South, Range 10 West, as said section is shown on a Map
recorded in Book 51, page 10 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California,
EXCEPT the Sou~h 40 feet thereof
: end
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a pqblic heering et the City Hitll •in the City of Aneheim on
August 20~ 1962~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of seid public hearing having been duly given as requlred
by law aad in eccosdance with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipel Code, Chepter 18.72, to hear and consider evi-
dence for and ageinst said praposed reclassification end to inveatigate aad make flndings and recommendeUons in
conneMion therewith: and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigetion, and study made by itself ead in its behelf,
end after due consideration of all evidence and reports ofFered et said headng, does find en3 determine the following
fects:
1. That the petitioner pmposes e r~clsssification of the above described property €rom the R-A~ Residential
Agricultural, Zone to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone to permit the estzblishment
of neighborhood commercial storese
2. That the proposed recl.assification of subject property is not necessary and/or
desirable for the orderly and proper development of the cortununityo
3. That the requested use is not in conformance with the Prp~im;~=r.~ re~e~=i D,~~
which pro3ects Business and Professional Office Use of subject ani
the east and west.
4. That two otk~er properties in the vicinity of sub,ject pri
restricted to Business and Proffessior~.al uses only, and to grant :
granting a use to which others in the are are deprived.
5. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Rl-D -1-
. ~ ~ .,~.., r ~ _~~ ~ _.~. . .,,,... . . . ..._..~.._.,~..-.. _ -., ..-~....,.~.,._.....~.~._...._._.__~__.___.-__.~__._.-- -.~_ .......... ...
~9~Ji.tv:!_-~.; .
~~x, ~
,~y r~ . , ~ ~_ ~ {
' S:;' ~, - I
':~i: ~
~~r'
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE50LVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does heeeby recommend
to the City Council of the City of AneheIm that subject Petition for ReclessiIIcetion be denied on the besis of the
afo~ementioned findings.'
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and epproved by me this 20th day of August~ 1962, t
i
o ~
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION a
ATTEST: ?
1
G~'r~-~>~~~~-~ ~
SECRETARY ANAHEA~l CYTY PLANNING COMMISSION . 'z
• i
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ~
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. ' '1
CITY OF ANAHEIM ) i
I~ Ann Krebs~ Seaetory of the City Plenning Commission oE the City of Anaheim, do hereby certiEy thet the fore- ~
going iesolution was pessed end adopted et e meeting of the City Plenning Commission of the City ~f Aneheim, held on ~
August 20~ 1962~ et 2:00 o'clock Q.M., by the following vote of the membe:a theteof: i
~
AYES: COi41MISSIONERS: Camp, Chavas, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Perryo
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nonee
r1IISENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Hapgood, Pebleye.
IN WITNSSS WHEREOF, I heve he:eunto set my hend this 20th day of August~ 1962a
~
f R2-D
[ fi
y ~,
r
` '
C"
},
4' ~~_~~~-..~~___
_~-<_^=--1Y i;.4 ~~
.,.a,~..,Y.. ,._...,;,~
i.~T,~ RESOLUTION NO. 475
c:
/~~!~ZG.~"~
SECREFARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
.Z.