PC 69-89't~ :r~'%.:
r,'•
RESOLUTION NO.
PC69-89
A RESOLU'fION OF THE CITY PLANNII~IG COIOIISSIC~i OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIY
RECOIOIEI/DWG ?O 7HE CCfY COUNCIL OF TH8 CITY OF ANAHEDI TNAT
PETITIOlf ROR R1:CLASi[/lCAlldtf NO. 68-69-83 BE DISAPPROVED
M~HEREAS, the City PlanninQ Commisslon oE the Cfty o( Aaaheim did receive a veritied Petltion for Re-
cl~~eitic~tion froe~ VE~IIE DANIELS KNEIP, a22 South East Street, Anaheim, California 92805, Owner
of certain real property s:tuated in the City of Anahaim, County of Orange, State of
California, described as Lot Nos. 8, 9, and 10 of Tract No. 1770, and further described
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and referred to herein as though set forth in full
; and
~~} ~
~
.+t*
~'HEREAS, the City Pirinin~ Co~~i~sio~ di~ bld ~ publlc -wrin~ ~t tM City Ildl in tL~ City of M~heim
on Apr i 1 21, 1969, ~t 2:00 o'clocic P.II. wtlc~ ot s~i~ prMlc Iwu~~ hwia~ beee duly ~iven u requlrcd by
l~w ~nd !n ~ccwedre~ MttY tM Provitio~~ o~ tM /h~M1~ iMniciNl Code, (~~pt~r 18.72, to hea ~nd consider
evidoac* for ~nd qaiast s~id proPoMd nclrsltieatiae rwd b i~vwtfpt~ and~~k~ Eindinp ~ndrecomm~nd~tions
in'eonn~ction t6~re~iM; ~nd
NHEitEAS, ~a~d Coa~lstiu., dbr ~u L~p~ctia~, iawstlptlaa, ~nd stuQy m~de by it~dt ~nd in its br
hdt, ~d ~itK dw co~aid~r~tim ot dl ~ridMC~ rd t~o~ts o![~ ~t ~~id h~~dn~, doas Eind ~nd determine the
followln~ t~et~:
1. Th~t the p~titfoner propoNS ~ nclwltlcWoo ot tbe ~bove d~sedb~d property teaa the R-2. Mult i pl e-
Fanily Residential, Zone to the C-1, General Commercial. Zone to establish a convenience
market on a portion of subject property.
2. That the proposed reclassification is not in conformance with the General
Plan, but if approved, does not warrant an amendmeRt to the Gen~ral Plan at the present
time; however, its relationship to the General Plan symbol will be considered at the
next annual review.
3. That no land use change has taken place in the past five months since the
Commission recommended disapproval of an identical propased rec.lassification to
warrant favorable consideration of commercial use of subjer.t property now.
4. That subject property is eurrounded by residential uses both low-density
and medium-density, and the p:oposed reclassification would have a deleterious effect
on the residential integrity of the area.
5. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is not necessary and/
or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community.
6. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does not properly relate
to the zones and thei•r permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject
property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the
community.
7. That one person appeared representing 6 persons present in the Council Chamber
in opposition, and that a petition sfgned by 8 persons and a letter was received all
in opposition to subject petition.
RD .1.
~
*-
_:s~
~ i`~
; ~ -~~
j ;«
, ;ti:
~ i
, ~:
:~
~ i
I
~.
Vesfee:
Vaai~ DaaSol~~ ~ vido.
'•'~__' •.~~.~` .~,~. vincer
~~~.~~~~~~ F~ , ,;
The land refcrred to in this rcport is descriEcd as: ~
All thnt cereain lnad sttu~ted ia eh• Stae• of California, County o! Oa~n~~~
deacribad ~• follows:
~Pnrcol 1: Thc Southorlq SS feet o! tha Hortherly 110 f~st of that portion of
Lot 8~ of llnehcim Exten~ioa, ta the Citq of Aaehoim, a~ per'map ot Survey mad~
by Willima Hmnol, dnted and aclmoraladgad on Dacmnbcr 11~ 1868~ by A. Robinaoa,
Tructce nad filod in tha otfice af tho Couaty Racordnr oP Lo~ Ang~ls~ Couaty~
California~ deacribed aa follarrst Seginaing at tho Southw.~t corner o! Lot,~8~i8g~
thaac~ North~zlq nlong th~ Eeaterly lino of Eaat Streat~ 256,50 l~ati thence~~t ~;•
right aaglee enetcrly and perellul vith Santa Aaa Straut~ 110 fe~t; the~c~ at ' `'~,
right anglea Southcrly aad parallel vit6 Eaot Seraet~ 256.50 fe~t to thi a`rifo~a p
of Snesa Aaa Stroetj thonee i~~rtarly 110 fent to the point of b~girrning. ~ti1V6D ~,
~ ZpNINO r
Parcol 2= The South~rly 55 foot'Qf tha Noreherly 165 le~t o! that por't~oa ofr~s~°K ~~~
Lot 8. Aanhoim F.xteanioa~ ia the City of Aaahoim~ u per map of ~urvay made,bylL1LU~~\
Hilliam Ham~l. dated ead ~ckaowl~dged Docember 11, 1868~ by A. &obin~oa, Trtiit ~
oa filad !a t'~e oflic~ of th~ County xacorder of Lo~ png~le~ County~ Califoraia~ ~
d~~csiDod u follw~t S~Q~~ at th~ Southwe~t aornar o! ~aid Lot 8~ t3~~ac~
~ ~ RECUSS. ~!(l. 6~-~_;
' ! Northerly aloa~ c o~ cr y na o ~ot trect
~ ri~ht an~len Ecctcrly nad porallcled with Snnta Ana Stroatc110 featcaehence at ri t
; r Southcrly nnd pnrallol vith Eoat Strcet~ 256~50 feet to the ceater of Saata Aaa ~~i~
~ • Strcet; thonco Wonterly 110 foot to thc placo of boginaiag.'
Purcel 3: Aportiou of Lot 8, Annhoim Exeeaeion, eo pur i~iyoy ~de ~, pilliam Smanl '~`
~to ucknos~ledged December 11, ~868, by A. Robiaaon~ Trustea, aad filed in th~
offica of the Couaty ttecordar of Los Aagolo^ Couatq, Califorai~~ described as lollow~j
; Bogiaaing at tho Souths~cat coraer of oaid Lot 8j thenco Nasch~rl~ a2oag ehe 8e~terly
lino of Esat Stront, 256.50 feotj theaco at right aagxao 6aaEeriy ead Pnr~lol vith
, ~ Snata Aa.a gtrcat~ 110 feot; thanc• aC right aaglo~ Southasly ~ad para11e1 y~th ~
~ East Stroet~ 256,50 fcot ia tha canzer of Ssota Aaa Str~~cl t~~ac~ p~~~~rlr 110 l~~~
~ to tho poiat oP begi~iai~a~
.ix ;
PXCEPTIIdC tharofrom that portioa oa th~ South vithia S~c c;;,a~ BerNt.
AI.SO EXCEPTINC the Nortbari s~ •
•- -- Y i~3 faat tharaoi~_ _.__ __......_.._ _
6UHJECT T0: . _..-.. _ _~..~,,,~
~~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT P,ESOLVED that the Anaheim City Plenning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that subject Petition for Reclessification be denied on the basis of the
aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this lst day of May, 1969,
~~~ ~~ ~o~ ~
CHAIRM N ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
//li~1iL~YC/ ~~~~i--~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM~CITY PLANNING COMh1ISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGC ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution was pessed and ado~ted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Aneheim, held on
April 21, 1964, at 2:OOo'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: :411red, Farano, Gauer, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Non e.
ABSENT: COhfMISSIONERS: Camp, Herbst, Thom.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hend this lst day of Mdy, 1969.
-G%"UL~ ~2.~~ ~~ ,
~
SECRETARY ANAHF.IM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 89
R2-D
-2-
:; i
1 `a
,~ .+ax ~
~