PC 68-149t ~.:.
'r :
~
~
0.
~~h ~. PC68-la9
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNiNG COh1h11SSI0N OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMA9ENDlNG TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT1' OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. ~' -~'8's? gE DISAPPROVED
:I
'~'1:<~€ ~
;;,~,.,..i c
' ~
.;~ i
~~. ~1
(~. ~
`I
'. I
~', I
WNEREAS, the City PlsnAiai CammlWioo of the City of M~heiw did eeoeire e reritied petit~a (m Ra
drsitie~ ~ THOMAS H. VETTER, h1.D., 1701 South Euclid Street, Anaheim, California 92802,
Owner of certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orang~, State of
~alifornia, described as Lot No. 17 of Tract Dlo. 2177
7 a9i
~
I
•~ i
~
tz:,
yF
r.;, .
;, ; I
i
'~ I
~`~; ~ ~a i
'` E ~..:^
_~ _ _
k~~
~. ~..
O:t~
IYM~R~AS, tla City Pimela~ Cowmissian did ~old ~ public t~rinQ ~t the qtr li~U i~ t~ Citr ot M~b~ie
~e May ?0. 1968, ~t :QO o'clock P.M. ~otlc~ ot wid ~blic Wrln~ Ar-io6 MM Mip ~lra ~a w~iw~ -1
~.. .d i~ ..c.w.~o. .ia~ w M..hk.. d Ir. A..~.1. ~ioyy c~/,, CV/+« 1~.7Z. r r.....~ a.w~..
~vldw~~ ir r~~t ~sM ~sd ~eel~ sr lo ~~~~ fy~~ r/ No~ewi~tl~
i~ ow~efM~ Irra~ill; rd
Y1RRAi. NI/ C~o~i~~6K ir ~~1~, l~v~tl~tha. ~~e~' ~~ y leMi! r/ if ib Y-
hr[. w~or ~w orp~y~ ~~ll s+rYra w w~t~ ~M ~t ~ Mri~, i~ do! ~ irl~e~ir~ ~
i~io~ ~~els:
1~ h~ ~~~0~ ~~ ~~~ °~ 1~ eMw ~Mb~ ~e~l~ 6e~ 1V R-1, S inal e Fami ly
Residential, Zone to the C-1, General Commercial, Zone in order to permit the office use of
dn existing residential structure on subject property.
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is not necessary and~or
desirable for the orderly and prooer development of the community.
3. That a single family re9idential subdivision was recently ap~roved for the 20
acres of vacant land to the north, which is indicative that residential uses siding on
arterial streets'are still being developed.
4.-•That in the recently adopted arterial street front-on study, suoject oroperty
was not considered as a potential conversion site since it did not meet the criteria
established :or such conversion; and that said study did designate aoproximately 171
homes geo~raohically dispersed throughout the community which would be appropriate for
conversion from residential to commercial uses.
5. That the size and shape of the parcel is inadequate to pzovide for proper
conversion to meet the criteria of the site development standards of the C-1 Zone.
6. That the proposed reclassification, if approved, would establish an undesirable
precedent for similar requests co convert other homes ad;acent to subject oroperty into
commercial development.
RD _1.
`
~
~ {
~)£
.,,.. ; ~
;~ ; .:
~
,`, i
:i
~1
,
~.'
c _~
~
. ,
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 the basis of the
aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this lst day of h1ay, 19
r-
CHAIRMAIQ ANAHEIM CITY PLA NING MMISSIOh
ATTEST:
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMh1ISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Kr2b5, 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 meeting of the City Planning Commission ofthe City of Anaheim, held on
i~~ay 20, 1968~ at 2:00 o'clock P.h1., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farann, Guaer, Herbst, hiungall, Rowland. Camp.
• NOES: COh9MISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COh1MISSIONERS: ~lone.
IN IVITNF.SS IUHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 315t doy of May. 1968.
Li~Z~~~~~Z{~/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM11 CITY PLANNING COM~1ISSION
RF,SOLUTION N0.149
R2-D .2_
~ _ . ~.!R• _. ~ - ---..,~.-.+..
- ,:i _. , . -. ;ui~;:' '+'~'~~}'.=.7+~ ~
~~ •
~,a. ~
~-ai n