Loading...
PC 72-211~ ~ RESOLUTION N0. PC72-211 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANHING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT PETIT:ON FOR P.ECiASSIFICATION N0. ~2-~~~~ 3 BE DISAPPROVE:D WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Maheim did receive e verified Petition for Re- classificetion from CATHERINE A. LILES, 426 West Alberta, Anaheim, California 92805, Owner; LEW SINOR, 504 North East Street, Anaheim, California 92805, Ao,ent of certain real prop- erty situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as PARCEL 1: The SouCherly 75.00 feet of Lot 13 and the Southerly 75.00 feeC of the Easterly 20.00 feet of Lot 14 in Block C of the Lorelei Tract, as per map recorded in book 29, page 24, Miscellaneous Recards af Los Angeles County, California. YARCEL 2: The Northerly 50 feet of Lots 13, 14, 15 and 16 in Block C of the Lorelei T.ract, as per map recorded in buok 29, page 2G of Miscellaneoue Recorde of Los Angeles County, California ; end WNEREAS, :he City Plenning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim on August 21, 197~t2 :00 o'clock P.M. notice of said public hearing having been duly given es requixed by lew and in accordence with tiie provisions of the Meheim Municipel Code, Chapter 18.72, to hear end consider evidence for and against said proposed reclassificeiion end to investigete endmeke findings andrecommendetions in connection therewith; end WHEREAS, said Commission, aEter due inspection, investigetion, and study made by itself and in its be- helf, nnd after due consideration of all evidence end reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following facts: 1. Thet the petitioner proposes a reclassificetion of the ebove described property from the R-2, MlTLTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the G-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. 2. That the proposed reclassification is not in conformence with the land use designa- tion as depicted on the General Plan. 3. That there have been no land use changes in this general area to warrant favorable cons2deration of establishing commercial uaes in an area completely surrounded with resi- dential uses. 4. That the approval of subject petit3on would be "spot zoning" and would have a det- rimental effect on the residential characteristics of this general area. 5. That the propoeed reclassification of aubject property is not necessary and/or deaireble for the orderly and proper development of the community. 6. That the propoaed reclaeai£ication of subject property does not properly relate to the zones and their per.mitted uses locally establiahed in close proximity to aubject property and to the zonea and their permitted uses generally establiahed throughout the comm4nity. 7. Tnat there are adequate commercial facilities within close proximity of subject ptoperty as well as the downtown area to serve the commercial needs of this area of the City and that if the proposed reclassif9.cation were appreved, it may further deter any potential redevelopmeat of the downto•,m area. RD -1- ~ ~ ~ , NON, THEREFORE, ~E IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Plenning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Aneheim thet subject Petition far Reclassification be denied on the besis of the aforementioned findings. THE FOREGOYNG RESOLUTION is signed end approved by me tSis 3j~st dey of August~ 1972. ATTEST: L~~%/viL/ ~~l~lG'l.C/~"~/ SECRETARY ANAHEI CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Ann l:reba, Seccetery of the City Plenning Commission oE the City oE Aneheim, do heceby certify that the iore- going resolution wes passed nnd adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission ofthe City of Aneheim, held on August 21, 1972, et 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER, HERBST, ICAYWOOD, SEYMOUR. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED, ROWLAND. IN WIT[~ES~ WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hend this 31st day of August, 1972. ~~~~~ /~i~ "'r - _ SECRETARY ANAIiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. PC72-211 R2-D -2..