PC 1962-1963-422~:~
<<
~
RESOLUTION NO. 422~ SERIES 1962-63
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF .~NAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N062-63-6 BE DENIED
WHEEtEAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Aneheim did receive a vecified Petition for Recla'ssifica-
tioafrom ORANGE COUNTY INUESTURS ASSOCIATION~ 478 West Roberta, Fullerton~ California, Owner;
LLOYD MOUNT, 421 East Sroadway, Anaheim, California, Agent of certain real pioperty situated
in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, and described as followss
' The North 211.41 feet of the East 271.2 feet, measured from the center line of Palm Street~
of Lot 6 of Orchard Park Tract, in the City oF Anaheim, as sho~nn on a map thereof recorded
in book 6, page 48, Miscellaneous Maps, records of said Orange County
; und
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did holrl a public hearing at the City Hall •in the City of Aneheim on
July 23~ 1962~ et 2:00 o'clock P.M., no}'^e of seid public hearing having been duly eiven as required
by lew end in accocdance with the provisions of the :.:aheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.72, to hear end consider evi-
dence for end egainst seid p~oposed :eclassificetion and to investigate and make findings end recotnmendetione in
connection tkecewith: and
WHEREAS, seid Commission, aRer due inspection, investigetion, and study made by itself and in ita behelf,
end after due consideretion of all evidence and cepods offeced et seid heacing, doea find end detere~ine the following
fects:
1. Thet the petitioner p:oposes a reclessification of the ebove described property fcom the R-A~ Residential
Agricultural, Zone to the C-2, General Commercial9 Zone, to develop "strip commercial stores".
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is not necessary and~or
desirable'for the orderly and proper development of the community.
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject proper~y does not properly relate to
the Zones and their peimitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject proper- .
ty and to the zones and theix permitted uses generally established throughout the community.
4. That the development trend on Harbor Boulevard north of Ball Road have been
for office and professional uses, and that this trend should be continued.
5. That, following numerous studies related to the formulation of the General Plan,
the Commission proposes Harbor Boulevard north of Ball Road for office and professional use,
where retail sales, if any, would be limited to those customarily incidental to the primary
use.
6. That the proposed development abuts an R-3 alley and a stub street, and that~ if
subject property were developed substantially in accordance with the petitioner`s rec{uest,
a definite canflict of land usage would develop to the particular,detriment of the R-3
development to the west as well as to the subject propertya
7, That no one appeared in opposition to subject petitiono
Rl-D '1'
~ i
i
_ ._' ~ _.-T
~ ~, -~..
(, ,r ;~,,,~:
~.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Anaheim City Plenning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that su6ject Petition for ReclaesiHcation be denied on the besis of the
eforemeatiohed findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed ertd approved by me this 23rd day of July~ 1962.
ATTEST:
C&1IRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMI3SI0
~i~~f~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Ann Krebs~ Secretary of the City Plenning Cammission of the City of Aaeheim, do hereby certify thet the fore-
going resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Aneheim, held on
July 23~ 1962~ at 2:00 o'clock p.M., by the followIng vote of the membera thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall., Pebley, Perry.
ftOES: COMMISSI023ERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood.
Il~ WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hend this 23rd day of July~ 1962.
,~~~~v'~/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING I;OMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0.422
R2-D _~
~, ~ - -
~-J .. . _ _._ _ ~ • ~