PC 66-118RESOLUTION NO.
PC66- ?1R
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY 7F ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. ~6-67-32_ gE DENIED
,; . .-~-;,I
~~ ~,
~. ~
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Aneheim did receive e verified Petition for Reclassifica-
tion from LLOYD R. PETTENGILL, 1564 Tonia Lane, Ar.~,heim, California, Owner of certain real
property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of Caliiornia, described in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and referred to herein as though set forth in fu17.
; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of qneheim on
OCtober 10~ 1966~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public hearing having been dcly given as required
by law and in accordan~e with the provisions of the Aneheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.72,to hear and consider evi-
dence for and against said proposed reclassificetion and to investigate end make findings and recommendetions in
connection therewith: and
WHEREAS, said Cummission, after due inspection, investigation, and study made by itself and in its behalf,
and after due consideration of all evidence and repoRs offered at snid hearing, does Eind and determine the following
Eacts:
1. That the pet;tioner proposes a deletion of deed restrictions (permitting business and
professional office use only) to permit the full range of C-1, General Commercial, Zone uses
on the above described property.
2. That General Plan Amendment Noo 40 was considered on a previous zoning petition on
subject ~roperty and was disapprovedo
3. That the request for unlimited C-1 uses would have a deleterious effect on the
residential integrity of the existing single family subdivision established immediately to
the east of subject propertyo
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is not necessary and~or
desirable for the orderly and proper development of the con~munity.
5. That the incompatibility of the proposed uses, and the rESUltant negative economic
impact on the adjacent homes would be detrimental to the peace, hea?th, safety, and general
welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheir~.
6. That the petitioner proposes access to Buena Vista Avenue which :~~ould create a
hazardous condition bcth at the intersection of Buena Vista Street and Euclid Street, and
would create undue interuption to the residential traffic on Buena Vista Avenue; and that
access to Buena Vista Avenue from this property had been dedicated previously to the City of
Anaheim.
7. That no significant land use has taken place in the general area surrounding subject
property to warrant change from the existing commercial office use to a heavier commercial
us e.
A. That four persons appeared representing eleven persons present in the Council Chamber;
that two letters, one from the principal of a high school located directly across the str.eet;
and that a peti.tion signed by 102 persons was received, all in opposition to subject petition.
R 1-D
-1-
~
,
_~•,~ ,
---- •~.,
~ i
" ~ ~ ' See Schedulo "A" "
(D) Seid land i! NO~ eubject to Declaration of Efomestcad.
,. ,
~1~
(c) A~~a~~::s record owner: ~`-l ~ ~' ~ ? ~ ~
LLOYD R. PLTTLNGILL and PAULINL PLTTLAIGTLL, husUaiid and ~v:Lfo,
ae Joint ~nante.
by De@d8 «~ora~a 2~29~G0~, nook 7526 Page ~Ul O~icial Recorde.
F 19 65 316
(D) Unreconveyed Decde oi Truat:
Tik: Pgc.
Amou~t Dete of Recording or Beneficiury
Doc. No~
None
' PARCLL 1: ine Nor1;h 100.00 feet of the vie3t 435.60 feet of L•he north
10 acr~~ oi' the 3out~h 20 acres of the eouthviest quarter of the north-
~~e~t quarter of Secbion 21, Township 4 South, Ran~e 10 lJeab of the
San ~ rnardino meridia~, in the city of Anaheim, county of Orang~,
,atate of California.
EXCEPT the Easti 182 feet tbereof.
~ ~ • . y
' ' .
P/1RCLL 2: 'i~ at portiion o£ Lot 1 ot~ Tract No. 3303, in the City of
~ Anaheim, County of Oran~e, State of California, ae said lot ie shoain
on a map of said tract recorded in boolc 110, pagea 33 and 34, P2i~cellaneous
Maps, recorde o£ eaid Orange County, lying 41eat of a. line deacri.bed
as followa :
}3e~inning at a point on the Weoterly prolongabion of the most Northerly
line o~' eaid Lot 1 which ie diatant thereon South 89° 5Ei' 00" :~lest
182 feet from the Northv+est cGrner of said lot, and running thence South
parallel with the ce~nter lina o£ Llaclid Avenue, ae ehown on said map
~ of Tract No. 3303, a dietance o£ 103.17 feet~ morecr lese, to tbe
Southerly 11ne o£ eald Lot ~.
~
~ Schedule "A" ~
s
r
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aneheim City Plenning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Anaheim tf~at subject Petition for Reclassificetion be denied on the besis of the
aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 20th day of October~ 1966.
~
i ~ ~ ~-
C AIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
L%L-'~_l~T•:..,~'`~2,. ~.1-,./
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Ann Krebs, Secretery of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution was pessed and adopted at a meeting oE the City Planning Commission ofthe City of Anaheim, held on
OCtober 10~ 1966, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COhiMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 20th day of October, 1966.
~~'
i ~ ~ ~
/, L='".:''r_ 1 L ' ~~ Z,~. ~'L-,-
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 11R
R2-D _2_
S
r