PC 1964-1965-1627( j ~~
RESOLUTION NO. 1627, SERIES 1964-65
A RESOLUITON OF THE CITY PLANNING COMNLSSION OF THE CTfY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMERENDIIIG TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIN THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 64-65-124 BE DENIED
1NHEREAS, the Ciry Plmniag Commission of the Gty oE Anaheim did ceceive a verified Petitloa for Redaseiflca-
tlonfrom FRANK K. KROGMAN, 2338 Wagner Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owner, of certain real
property situated in t}~e City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described
as the Northerly 3 a~rts of the East half of the North half of the Northeast qua:ter of the
Southwest quarter of Section 13, in Township 4 South. Range 1G't~est, in the Rancho San Juan
Cajon de S~nta Ana, as shown on a map thereof recorded in book 51, page 7, et seq., Miscel-
laneous Maps, records of said Orange County
; aad
WHEREAS, the City Plwfning Commiseion did hold a pµbllc hearing at the City Hall in the City of AneheLn on
May 10~ 1965~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., aotice oE said public hearing haviag beeu duly Qiven as required
by lew end ln accordance with the provisione of the Maheim Municipai Code, C6apter 18.72,to hear end conaidec evl-
deace for ead egelast aeld proposed reclassiEiceUon end to tavestigete and make Lndin~e and recommeadations ia
coaaection therewith: and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inapection, investigatloa, and study made by itself and ia its behelf,
and after due coesideretion of eli evidence and reports offered at said headng, does flnd snd detesmine the follom3ng
feMs:
1. Tfiet the petitioner proposea a reclasaification of the abov~ descdbed property from the R-A, AgriCUlturaly
Zone to the C-1, General Commercial, Zone to establish a convalescent hospital on Por.tion "B"
of sabject property.
2. That the proposed reclassification is considered in con3unction with General Plan
Art~endioent No. 570
3. That the proposed reclassification is incompatible with the existing single family
residential environment already established on three sides of subject property.
4. T.hat subject property is developable into a single family residential subdivision
of 8 or 10 lots with a cul-de-sac backing to Mlagner Avenue as do existing homes to the north
of subject property.
5. That the propused reclassificat~on of subject property is not necessary and/or
desirable for the orderly and proper development of the cc~mnunity.
6. That four persons appeared representing 17 persons present in the Council Chamber
and a petition siyned by 414 property o•rvners was presented opposing subject petitiono
Rl-D .1.
~ t~~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Meheim City Plenning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Aneheim that aubject Petition for Reclesai$cation be denied on the basis of the
aforemeatloned findings.
THE FOREGOiNG RESOLUTION is signed end epproved by me this 20th day of May9 1965.
r /
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PL G COMMISSION
ATTEST:
i ~Y
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIIN )
Iy Ann Kreus~ , Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the City of Aneheim, do hereby ceRify thet the fore-
going resolution was pessed end edopted at a meeUng of the City Plenning Commission ofthe City of Aneheim, held on
May l0y 1965y et 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the membera thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:Allred, Camp, GauerY Herbst, Mungali9 Perry, RoKland.
I
~ NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMM15SIONERS: Nonee
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereuato set my hand this 20th day of May~ 1965~
~~~~i~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTIOII N0. 1627
R2-D -~