PC 71-161, . ,.
RESOLUTION N0, ' ~
PC71-16).
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNIN(i COMMISSION OF' TEiE CITY OF ANANEIM
; RECOMMENDINa TO TNE CITY COUNCIL OF TNE CITY OF ANAHEIM 1'HAT
'' PETITION FOR RIsCLA5SIFICATION N0,
-~~-=1~-:~.. BE DISAPPROVED
WHEREAS, tha City Planning Commisalon of the City of Anaheim did receive e vertfied Petitlon for Ra
classi~ication from ORVAL M. F[tOWN, 1779 W. Castle Ave., Anaheim, Californie 92804, UNION
D~VELOPM~NT COMPANY, 8555 Artesia Avenue, Bellflower, California 90706, FRANK R, DUTRO,
Rk. 1, Box 1S9-A, Corona, California 91720, and LCILA M~ RAHM, 10281 Pimlico Drive, Cypre:as,
Cal.lEornia 90630, Owners; BOB MC ADAMS, % rOItEST C. OLSON, 7820 La Palma, IIuena Park,
California 9062Q, AgenC o£ certain real pcoperry ai.tuated in the City of Anaheim, County
o£ OrAnge, State of Cali£ornie, described ~a Loc Nos, 1, 2, 64, 6;, 66, 67, and 112 of
Trac~ No, 109$,
; end
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hell in the Clty of Anaheim
on August 9, 1971at 2:00 o'clock P.M. notice of seid public heering heving been duly given as required by
lew and in accordence with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chepter 18.72, to hear and conslder
evidence for artd egainst sa3d propoaed reclassificatian end to investigete and make findings and recommendations
in connection therewith; and
WNEREAS, said Commission, efter due insprction, investigetion, and study made by itself end in its be-
half, and efter due consideration of ell evidence end reports offered et said hearing, does find and determine the
following facts:
1, That the petitioner proposes a reclassificatlon of the above described property from the R-1, ONE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
2. Thst the proposed reclassification is not in conformance w~th the General Plan.
3. That the property under consideration wa~s part of the Study of Homes Fronting
on Artertal Highways, at which time it was d~termined that reclassification of these
lota woulci be considered "spot zoning"; and thAt since no land use change had occurred
in thia general area it is recommended that the petition be disapproved.
desirableTfor the orderlydandcproper~developmentuofethepcoP~rty is not necessary and/or
mmunity,
5. That the proposed reclassification of sub ect
to the zones and their permitted uaes l~cblly established~inrcloseeproximityptolsubjecte
property and to th~ zones and their permitted uses generalZy established throughout the
community,
~
i
~
.+t~
RD
-1-
~
I
.,.......:,~,,.. ~... ~ --.. . _
. ~• ~ .
.__ .-• :•, _..,,,~.. ._.-~~.z--
~ .
~ ~ r
- , ~,
,. . ,
, .,..,;.,
~ y ~ ,~ ~
~~~ ' "~
~ r. ~~i~~
~
NOW, THEkE~ORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Anaheim Ctty Planeing Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Gouncil of the City of Aneheim that subject Petition Eor Reclessificntion be denied on the besis of the
aEorementionod findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed end epproved by me th s 19th day of August , 1971.
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTFST:
i~~~/I/~../
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNIKG COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Krebs , Secretary of !he City Plenning Commission of the City of Anc~heim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution was passed end edopted at a meeting oE the City Planning Commission of the City oi Anoheim, held on
Augus t 9, 1971 , et 2:00 o'clock P.M,, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS; None.
ABSGNT: COMMISSIONERS: .P.llred.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 19th day~ of Augus t, 1971 .
_ %;~~G~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
~t
r A
~~
RFSOLUTION N0. P C 71-161
R2-D .2.,
, ~ . , .
~ h