PC 70-46~
~ ~~~ ~`, ~~~:
~. ;; :
;;,;;
~
RESOLUTION NO. _ PC70-46
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH gCITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 69-70-37 gE DISAPPROVED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the C.ity of Maheim did receive a verified Petition for Re-
classificationfrom HAZEL R. EPKENS, 3151 Teranimar Drive, Anaheim, California 9280~, Owner;
ANDREW'S BURGEft5,GU5T KIOUSIS AND JAMES A. UORLIS, 3464 West Orange Avenue, Ar.aheim,
California 92804, Agents of rertain real property situated in th~ City of Anaheim4 County
of Orange, State of California, described as Lot 1 of Tract No. 1940, as shown on a map
thereof recorded in book 82, pages 8, 9, and 10, Miscellaneous Map<,, records of said
Orange County.
; end
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing et the City Hall in the City of Maheim
on March 23, 19709 at 2:00 o'clock P.M. notice of said public hearing having been duly given es required by
law and in accordance with tFe provisions of the Anaheim Municipel Code, Chapter 18.72, to hear and consider
evidence for and egainst said proposed reclassiFicetion and to investigete and make findings and recommendations
in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation, and study made by itself and in its be-
half, and after due consideretion of all evidence end reports ofEered at said hearing, does find and determine the
following facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes e reclassification of the above described property from the R-19 One
Family Residential, Zone to the C-1, General Commercia~, Zone.
2a That the scope of the proposed reclassification, if anpr~ved, does not warrant
an amendment to the General Plan at the present time; however, its relationship to ths
General Plan symbol will be considered at the next annual review.
3. That the proposed reclassification will adversely affect the residential integrity
established for the past 14 years in this general area.
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is r.ot necessary or
desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community.
5. That the Plannin~ Commission recognizes that subject property may be a problem
parcel in terms of what type of use would be appr~priate for the site; however, to
grant C-1, Genes•al Commercial, Zoning, a zone which would allow a variety of commercial
uses, would impose a hardship upon the residential nei.ghbors in close proximity to the
property.
6. That subject property would be more appropriately developed with a less intense
use, perhaps as a small professional office, which would then minimize any adverse affect,
that qeneral commercial uses would have upon the adjacent residential area.
RD
-1-
r,
~
J' t .
~
- n:
a+ ~
~:"j ~
;<., ~
NOW, THEREFGRE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Aneheim City Plenning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Aneheim thet subject .Petition for Reclessification be denied on the basis of the
aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is si ned and e y ~
g pprovedb this 2nd\day of April, 19 0.
1
~~ ~,
CHAI AN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~
-{~~`l t/J~f _/ ~ .~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF A?1AHEIM )
I~ Ann Krebs ~ Secretery of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Aneheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution wes pessed end adopted at a meeting of the City planning Commi~sion of the City of Anaheim, held on
MarCh 23 ~ 19~0~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by ;he following vote of thc members thereof:
AYES: COMMxSSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Seymour, Thom, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 2nd day of April~ 1970.
_ L/~~ vi2~~ /~Z.~~G~/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0. 46
P2-D 2
~ , .