PC 66-7RESOLUTION NO.
P- 66-7
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISS[ON OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOAiMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THF. CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 65-E6-120 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission ot the City of Aneheim did receive a veriEied Petition (or Reclassifice-
tionfrom COALSON C. MpRRIS, 70R North West Street, Anaheim, California, Owner; ROBERT E. VAN,
515 Priscilla Way, Anaheim, California, Agent of certain real property situated in the City of
Anaheim, County cf Orange, State of California, described as the Southerly 125.00 feet of the
Easterly 112.39 feet of that portion of Vineyard Lut B-1 of the Original Anaheim, in the City of
Anaheim, as per map thereof recorded in Book 4, pages 629 and 630, D~eds of Los Angeles County,
California, lying Northerly of the Northerly line of Tract No. 724, as per r~ap recorded in Book
21, page 23, Miscellaneous Maps, reco:ds of said Orange County
; end
WHEREAS, thc City Plenning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hell in the City o( pneheim on
July 1R, 1°66 at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required
by law and in accordance with the provlsions of the Aneheim Municipal Code, Chepter 18.72,to hear and consider evi-
dence for and against seid proposed reclassification and to investigate end make findings and recommendetions in
connection therewith: and
WHEREAS, seid Commission, eher due inspection, investigefton, end study made by itsel[ and in its behalf,
nnd after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at seid hearing, does find and determine the (o;lowing
facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes e reclassification of the above described propeRy trom the R-1, ONE FA~dILY
RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-0, COMMERCIAL OFFICE, ZONE to establish a professional office
buildingo
2. That the General Plan Amendment No. 52 was considered previously and disapproved on
subject property.
3. That the proposed re~~assification of subject property is not necessary and/or
desirable for the orderly ar.d proper development of the community.
4, That the proposed reclassification v,~ould inject commercial uses into an area
established with well maintained single family residential development, and would set a
precedent for similar zoning requcsts of homes fronting on East Street.
5. That the size of the parcel after dedication is inadeq~ate to develop the property
with a desirable development.
6. That a petition signed by 17 property owntrs was received approving, and no one
appeared in opposition to subject petition.
R1-D _1_
~
. ...~ i
~
~
,i- -
`:
, ~~ ~
._~~ ~~~ ,
I
i
. 1
I ~
~
f;.' _ ~
• }j
;{
::. ~ ,
,;
,~`~ *
' ~::~. ~~ ~
~~ .
~;
~:
z: ,
i.. t
1
;~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the the Aneheim City Plenning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Aneheim that r~bject Petitlon for ReclassifIcatlon be denied on the besis of the
aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUT[ON is signed ~-nd approved by me this 2Rth day of July~ 1966.
.Q ~
CHAIRMAN ANA.HEIM CITY PL NNING CO MISSION
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~,2~ ~~,_,/~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING Ca'AMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Kf'ebs, Secretary of the City 1' lenning Commission of the Ci~~y of Aneheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution was passed and edopted at e meeting of the City Plenning Commisslon ofthe City of Aneheim, held on
July 1R, 1966 at 2:00 o'cloci P.M., by the Eollowing vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: AI_RED, GAUER, HERBST, MUNGALL, ROWLA~D, CAMP. ~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Ni' dE. '
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: PERRY.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 heve hereunto set my hand this 2Rth day of July, 1966.
~ ~ J ~'
',~ " l" ~'N • ~,C- -~"- '~
RESOLUTION NO. 66-7
R2-D
tl
j
'i
-2-
~
~ ~.
~
, ,