PC 66-43,
RESOLUTION N0,
PC 66- -13
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF TFIG CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATTON NO. 66-•57-11 BE DENIED
I
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified Petition for Reclassifica-
tion from ARGUS INVESTMEMSy 449 Soutf; Beverly Di•ive, Beverl~ Hiils9 Californla, Onwers', LESTER
MARSHALL, 513 Las Riendas Drive, Fullertony California5 Agent of certain real property situated
in t~~e City of Anahei^, Coun'ty o~ Orange, State of California, described as Lots 56, 57, 5~,
~ 59< 6~ and 6i oi Tr~ct No„ 4o43y as shown on a map thereof •recorded in book 1959 pages 35y 36
and 37, Miscellaneous Maps, re~ords o; said Orange County~
; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim on
AUgust 159 i'~66~ at 2:00 o'clock P.A4., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required
by law and in accordance with the procisions of the Aneheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.72, to hear and consider evi-
dence for and against said proposed reclassification and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in
connection therewith: and
44HEREAS, said Commission, aher due inspection, investigation, and study made by itself and in its behalf,
and after due consideration of afl evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following
facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above described property from the R-3, Multiple Family
Residential, Zone to the G 1, General Com•-ercialy Zcre to establish an automobi:e servire
~~ation and a:omrenience snepping facility on subject prcperty~
2~ That the s~epe ~;f tne proposed re^lzssifica[ion, if' approved, dc•es not, war:;dnt :ar,
~~Tendment to the Ganera'_ Plan at the p:eser.t ti~•e; howevery its rels*icnship to tne Gene.:;:
Plan symbci wi7i be ~cnsidered at ~ne nert annual review,~
3~ That the proposed reclas~ii'icat:or, of subject property is not necessa_y ~nq%or
desirable !'or the orderly ar:~~ proper deve.opment of tne community9 because the property in
question was subdivided specificaily for mu?tiple f'amily ~esidential use, and is still best
sui!ed f'or that ase..
-~~ Th•it re:ommending aoprova: oP subjec~ pecition ~H~ouid prer_ipitate simi'_ar request.s for
stxip commer~ia'! uses along Jefferson St:eetY and would deter~~ tne consirur.tior. r,i' qualit.y
multipie }'amily deveiopment, due io the noise, dirt, lights, ar.d increase in tra:fi~,~
5. That to ~ommit tnis proper~y to commercial development. simply bE~7use f'.ndnciny is
rot presently av~,i:ab:e for Multiple Fami:y P.esidential constiuction9 wou?d be in direit
contradiction to t.he ef!'orts toward che long range9 orae:ly develop ent of t.he ::ommur-,ity„
6~ That the eristing and pro,7ected (approved) commerciai i'acilities in thi, ~~mediate
area are consiJe~~d tc amply provide fcr the cor.venier.ce shoppir,g needs ei' the residents i.r
the are~~
7. Tnet apprcval of' the service station and strip commerciai deveiopment would gener~te
commercial t:af."ric onto an ext*emely iong residencial alley, which serves as the cr.iy access
for the R-3 property to the west snd nortn of subject p.roperty~
R~ That ti~e o•Nners of the developed multiple family iots have r.;.ide ;onsiderab:e investment
with the assurance thaL the area wou?d be residential, and to approve corrmercial zoninq woUid
be to deny these o~vners the protertion from commercial intrusior they iiad previously enjoyed.
9. That three persons appeared, one representing a savinas ar.d loan associatior, om~ning
a number of parcels, and a letter from the City of' Orange was received4 ail in opoositior to
subject petition.
R1-D _1_
5
~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Anaheim City Planning Commission cioes 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 25th day of August9 1966a
'~~e'-C~ ~
CH IRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI SION
ATTEST:
_ C/~'%C-7'~%~ ~2~ ~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Ar.n Krebs~ , Secretary of the City Planni~g Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on
AUgUSt i59 1~966, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer9 Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campo
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hand this 25th day of Augusty 1966~
/ ~ ~~L : ~C_~ ~'~~i
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
~,:'~ • ~ RESOLUTION N0. 43
R2-D 2_
!i '
~ a
I ~
~
~ . ~ ci. -~ 1 'r-r --~-----,-_~ . . .
T,~ _ ._- .. ~
:t,; +yIG'~`' ~~
, ~