PC 1964-1965-1643,
i=`.: RESOLUTION N0. 1643~ SERIES 1964-65
A RESOLUTION OF 1fIE CTfY PLANNING COMMLSSION OF THE CTTY OF ANAHEDI
~_ RECOI~UiEND1NG TO THE CITY COUNCII. OF THE QTY OF ANAHEIM THAT
f: PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 64-65-128 BE DEIIIED
~
r
WHEREAS, the dry Plwaine Commisaioa oE th~ City of Ano6eim did receiw ~ wd6~d PetiUoa Ea Reclwi8ca
tioe 6om ROBERT•L. PANEK, 1725 Chateau, Anaheim, California, Owner, of certain real p.roperty
situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as Lot
No. 1 of Tract No. 2381
; ~nd
WHEREAS, the City Pl~nalne Commissioa did hold ~ pqblie 6e~tia~ ~t the City H~11 ia the City of An~heim ouu
May 24~ 1965~ ~t 2:00 o'clock P.M., noUce oE s~id public heuin~ h~vin~ been duly `iven ~s rsqnired
bp law ~nd ia ~ccoed~nce with the Peovisions oE the M~helm Mnaiclpd Code, C6~pter 18.72,to he~r ~nd consider evl-
deace tor ~ad ~e~iast ~dd peoposed ceeluslfic~tloa ~nd to iavestl~~te u-d m~ke 8adiep ~ad reeommend~tloa~ !n
oonnection therewith: ~nd
WHEREAS, sdd Commlasioa, aRer due inspectioa, lavesUption, ~nd study m~de by lbelf ~nd le its ba6dt,
~nd ~her due cousidentioe oE dl evideace ~nd reports offend at add he~dn~, does dnd ~nd d~teemiee the followin`
i~ets:
1. Thet the petiHener preposes ~ ceclessiEic~Non of the ~bove de~cdbed peoperty froa the R-1~ One Family
Residential, Zcne to the G1, General Commercial, Zone to establish an ambulance service
and single family residence in an existing single family residential structure.
2. That General Plan IUnendment No. 58 previously considered, encompassQd property in
the proposed reclassification.
3. That the proposed reclassification, if approved, would permit commercial use of a
street primarily designed for res~dential purposes.
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is not necessary and~or
desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community.
5. ?hat the Commission has previously recaomended disapproval of commercial use of
residential structures in close proximity to subject property, and to recommend approval
to subjact petition would be granting a privilege not enjoyed by otherF in the same vicinity.
6. That six persons appeared in opposition representing eleven parsons present in the
Council Chamber and two persons appeared in favor of sub~ect petition.
Rl-B '1"
.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED th~t the Meheim City PlanniuQ Commission does hereby rocwmmend
to the City Council of the City of Anaheim th~t subJect Petitioa for Reclusificadon be denied on the basfa of the
~focemeationed 8adinQs.
~
~ '
j
~~
'fHE FOREGOING RESOLUTION ia si~-ed wd ~pproved by me thin 3rd June ~ 1965.
~ / 1
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLAN CObIMISSION
A1"fEST:
~r~~~C~
SECRETARY ANAHEDN CITY Pi.ANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Ann • Kr~bs; • S~o~Y oE the City Plannina Commissioa of the City of Anaheim, do hereby ceetiEy that the forr
Qoiag resoluttoa was pessed aad adopted et a meetiag of the City Plaaning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on
May 24~ 1965~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the followiag vote of the members thereoE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungell, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COb~4aSI0NERS: N~ne.
ABSENT: COl~NISSIONERS: Allred.
IN WiTNF.SS WEIEREOF, 1 have hereuato set my hand this 3rd day of June~ 1965.
~I ~
I SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COIUMISSION .
RESOLUTION NO. 1643
R?rD '~