PC 67-83PC67-83
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESJLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 66-67-58 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive e verified Petition for Reclassifica-
tion from MAX HILTSCHERy Box 156, Hubbard Creek Road, Umoqua, Oregon 97486, Owner; R01' ROAIIdSOcd,
14508 Cornishcrest Road, Whittier, California 90604, Agent of certain real property situated in
the City of Anaheim9 County of Orange, State of California, described as the South 132050 feet
of the West 215.50 feet of the Northwest quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest
quarter of Fractional Section 1, Township 4 South, Range 10 West, in the Rancho San Juan Cajon
de Santa Ana, as saiJ section is shown on a Map recorded in book 51, page 10 of Miscellaneous
Maps9 in the office of the county Record?r of Oranoe County
; and
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission did hold e public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Aneheim on
Apri1 249 19679 et 2:00 o'clock P.h1., rotice of said public hearing having been duly given as required
by lew and in accordence with the provisions of the Aneheim Municipel Code, Chapter 18.72,to hear and consider evi-
dence for and against seid proposed reclassificetion and to investigate anZ make findings end recommendations in
connection therewith: and
WHEREAS, seid Commission, efter due inspection, investigetion, and study made by itself and in its behelf,
and after due consideration of all evidmce and reports offered at seid hearing, does find end determine the following
facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes e reclassification of the above described property from the R-3, Multiole Family
Resider.tial, Zone to the C-1, Genera: Commercial9 Zone to establish a walk-up restaurant on
subject property. •
2. That the scope of the prooosed reclassification, if approved9 does no± wzrrant an
amendment to the General Plan at the present time, however, its relationshio to the General
Plan symboi will be considered at the next annual review.
3~ That the proposed reclassification of subject property is not necessary and;~or
desirable f'or the orderly and proper develooment of the community.
4, That subject property is developable for multiple :amily residential use, sir.ce
similar development has occurred immediately to the north anci east.
5~, That one person aooeared in opposition to subject o2tition.
R1-D _1_
_::i~lE,
, ,;
;4 ,
'~
i; ,
~
~~ '~
NOW, THEREFORE, 9E IT RESOLVED that the Aneheim 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 Gth tiay of May~ 1°67.
l'~ ~ a _ ,
C AIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~ ~'~
/ ~G".~ ~'>.L . ,T~ZC '~`'~'%
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY YLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
C1TY OF ANAHEIM )
I9 Ann iCrebs, 3ecretary of the City Planning Commission oE the City of Anaheim, do hcreby certify thet the fore-
going resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of 4he City oE Anaheim, held on
April 24, 1967, at 2:00 o'clock P.M.. by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Munoall, Carnp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENI': COMMISSIONERS: RoKland.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I ha~e hereunto set my hand this 4th oay of May, 1967.
~Z Z2~ t ~ / ~l `-~-L`'2/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
i_~.
~ -'> RESOLUTION NO. 83
~~ j .:~ . R2-D 2
., '
t•I ~
f' I .~Y.
- _. . _ . . . .._~~... _...: _,. ..,
_- .-- ~ • ~ . . . ^ ~ - --`.r~ '
~