PC 67-222RE~OLUTION NO
PC67-22~:
A RESOLUTION 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. 67 -6~ • 25 gE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified Petition (or Reclassifica-
tion from iAURRELL T. AfdD SHIRLEY GLASS~ EVFRTOIvy ]09 South Clementine, Ana~~,eim, Ca; i°orria 92^~5,
~w'~ers; DAVID S. OJLiINS, 1077 West Ball Road, Anaheim, Califo:nia 92hG;_, F.oent of :ertain rea:
^_,~~~ prooerty situated in the City of An~neim, County o` Oranoe, State o: Ca'.ifornia, C~ESCZ'1DGCj a=
, Lot ;Vo. 95 of Tract ^Jo. ~101
; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hell in the City of Anaheim on
S?otember 25, 1967, 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 provisions oE the Anaheim htunicipal Code, Chapter 18.72,to hear and consider evi-
dence for and against said proposed reclassification and to investigate and make Eindings and recommendations in
connection therewith: and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation, and study made by itself aad in its Sehelf,
and aEter due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine [he following
facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above described property from the ~- 1~ On e Fa!r i I v
Ra=_idential, Zone to the C-1, Genera'. Cacrce: ial, Zone to e=tab':isi: a ohotoora~aic stuoio :n
a residentiai structure. "
2. Thzt the s~ope of the proposed re:las=_ification, ii aparoved, doe= not :varrzn? ar.
am?ndment to the General Pian at the rresent timey however, its r~:ationship ~o t^e Gener~l
Plar. symbol will be :onsidered zt the r.ext annual review.
3. That the nropos=d rec~~=_si`i~zt.ion o:` sub'ect nroperty i= not ne;.essary or desirab!e
and would not be consistent :v~th the zorina and iand usc in c:iose proxir.:ity.
~. That subiect property ano tne residential lots ;rontino alona the soutn sicie of L~
°alma Avenue in ±his area •nere :onsidered `o: pussibla ~.onver=ion to coimr.er_iai use in the
"F:ont-On Stu~y" :ecentiy approved by tne Pianning Commission, said renort indi.ateo thzt this
area should be retaineo for residen'iai u=_es„
5. Thzt aor.rovai of subieet reclassification wouid set an undesirable orece.ent ror
similar con;mercial requests for the adioinina resioen~es, and ~HOUlo bre~,:: oomrn the intearitv
of an area that =_hould be retained .`or resider.tial purposes. ~
6. That tne "Fron. -0n Stu~y" indicated approximatelv :7o homes in 17 soe:ific arezs in
wideiy separated geoaranhic iocations throuqhout the entire city that ~r~ou:d be suitable for
commercial reuse.
?• That aopi•oval o.` i~:~ivioual zoninq requests such as this in area= tnat =_hould be
retained .='or residentia: use coul~ deter :uai~ty ~omme:cizl de~~~eioornent in appropriate
iocations and ieao to tne ui~imate :ezoning of all 2?CO ho~e= rrontinq or sioina on a:terial
hinhways. -
~. Thz~ no one appeared in ooposition, and a petition ~ian ed by :0 persons u~a= p:esented
by tne agent for the petitione.~, in :avor or sub`ect petition.
R1-D
-1-
~x
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that subject Petition for Reclassification be denied on [he basis of the
aEarementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 5, oay o: October, 190?,
~
~// ~
~ ~~~~.~ ~y
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COb1 ISSION
ATTEST:
_ ~,~~ J ~ ,,
! ~~ ~~12~ G%~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COh1MISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann iCrebs, Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution was passed and adopted at a mee[ing of the City Planning Commission o( [he City of Anaheim, held on
September 2~, 1~67~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the Eollowing vote of the members thereof:
I AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Munnall, Rowlano, Camp.
NOES: COA1MISSIONERS: ~~one.
I
~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ~llredo
i
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereun[o set my hand this 5th day o` October, 1°67.
~ / r ~y/j
L L ~ ~ (/ ~ '
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COD1MISSION
RESOLUTION N0. 222
R2-D _Z_
~
k•1~
~ `
leF ~
{ I' VEC