PC 71-112R~SOLUTIUN NU, £~C71-112
A RESOLU'rION OC TI~G CITY PLANNING COA'QITSSION Ur TI~iL C1'TY 01~ ANAIi[:1M R~COMMIsNDIN(7
TO THG CITY COUNCIL OF THF, CITY OF ANAI3~IM DENIAL 0~ ARIsA DT;VEI,UPMCNT PLAN
N0. 93, ANp REArCIEtMING PRI'VIGUS RGCOI~1~NllATION 01~' bTsNTAL~, TEII;LtGT~
WHfsRCAS, rhe Anaheim City Planning Commiseion on June 3, 1968, conaidered and
recommended denisl ot AreA DevelQpment Plan N~, 93 in Resolurion No, PC68-1i3; and
WH~RCAS, the City Council on July 9, 1968 sustained the Planning Cnmmiseion's
recommendation and deniecl Aaid Are a Development Plan; and
WtI~RCAS, when the Plannir~A Commission considered Variance No. 2262 on June 2,
1~71, it was determined that Area Development Plan No, 93 tshou].d be set f:or publi.c
hearing ta be considered in conjunction with Variance No. 2262; and
WIIEREAS, the City Plannind Commission did hold a public heAr.ing ae che City
Nall in the City of Anaheim on June 14, 1971, at 2;00 o'clock 1'.M., notice oL said
public hearing htavin~; been duly given as required by law and in accordance witt~ the
provisione of the Anaheim Municipa 1 Code, to hear and consider evidence for and against
said proposed area development pla n and to investi~ate nnd make findings and recommenda-
tiona in connection Cherewith; and
WHCRLAS, said Commiasion, aft er. due inapecGion, investigation, and atudy made
by i.Csel.f and in its behalf, aad a fter due conaideration of a11 evidence and reports
of.Eered at said hearing, doPS find and determine the following facts:
1. That no land use chAnge h ad taken place to warrant altering the Planning
Commissi.on's previous pos ition that approvai of Area Development Plen No, 93
would destroy the residen ti.al character of the area.
2. Tt~nt consideration ef commercial uses for the study area was d~termiiYed to
be premature.
3. Thet eve~1 after ultimate dedicatioii, the size and shape of the lots would
be such that they woiild s till be usable fur residential p~~rpoAes.
4. That office spac:e and commercial zoning is available in abundance else-
where throughout the City and there is no reason to continue to nversaturate
the commercial property market ta the detriment oF this desiraule. residential
neighborhood.
5. That one person appeared representing f.our persons present in the Council
Chamber i.n opposition to said area development plan.
NOW, THEREFOTt~, B~ IT RFSOLVE D khat the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereb~
reaffirm its previous Action and does t~ereby recommend to the City (:ouncil of. the City
of Anaheim that Area Develonment P~an No, 93 be disapproved or the basis ol the foregoing
f inclings .
~
n
~~
~
TIiE FOREGO:NG RGSOLUTTON is aigned and approv2d by me thia 24th day ot ,Tune , 1971.
,
,, ,
i5 , ,
;;. j ~~ ~si~~r~; L_ ~ ,~
';i~ CF1AI[L'YfAN AN H~ CITY PLANNING COMb1ISSI0N
'' ATTEST:
:'r,
1, / •~.~ ., c.~~.. ;~~..
f l I.
+ , _ . ! ~ . . : . ~/
1~~ S~.CRLTARY ANA~IEIM CITY PLA NING COMMISSION
f STATL O1~ CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY Or ORANGE ) ss,
~ ~;ITY OF ANAHEIM )
~ I, Ann Krebs, SecreCary of thp CiCy Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do
,~ h.-eby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed aad adopted at a meettng of tl~e
,~ Cil-y Planning Comnission of the City of Anaheim, held on June 14, 1971, at 2:00 o'cloc.k
P,M., by the following vote of ~he members thereof:
,, .
~
:~~ AYES: COi~IISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, ,'~wland, S_eymour.
!'~•. NOES: COMMISSTONERS: None.
'~ ~
iy
~ . ABS~NT: COMMISSTONERF: None.
- i `t
IN W?TN~SS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand khis 24th da~ of June, 19i1.
~~ i C~ ,,• ~ ~ u~; , ~
`~ -~ '~„C~~
~ SECRETARY ANAHEIM CI PLP,NNING COMMISSTUN
~'~, j~'~ Res, No. 112
.:~ .
~~~
~ , ;
~ i
~ ~
~ ~ I
`
~ •,
h