Loading...
PC 66-173RESOLUTION NO PC66-173 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 66-67-42 _ gE DENIED WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Aneheim did receive a verified Petition for Reclassifica- tionfrom EARL SPRATLEN, 461 West Valley View Drive, Fullerton, California, HECTOR PELAYO, 232 _ San Carlos Way, Placentia, California, Owners; WILLIAM TOPLIKAR, 3505 Mungall Drive, Anaheim, .~,~~ California, Agent of certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim,County of Orange, State of California, descirbed as Lots 43 and 44, Tract 2022, as shown on a map thereof ~~ ~ recorded in book 5R, pages 24 and 25, Miscel3aneous Maps, records of said Orange County ; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Aneheim on Decetnber 19~ 1966, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice oE said public hearing having been duly given es required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Aneheim Municipal Code, Chupter 18.72, to hear and consider evi- dence for an~i against snid proposed re;.lassification and to investigate and make findings end recommendations in rnnnection therewith: and WHEREAS, said Commission, aher due inspection, investigation, and study made by itself and in its behelf, end aiter due consideration of atl evidence and reports offered at said heating, does find and determine the following facts: 1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassificetion of the above described property from the R-1, One Family ' Residential, Zone to the C-1, General Commercial, Zone in order to establish a service station on subject property. 2. That the scope of the proposed reclassification, if approved, does not warran± an ' amendment to the General P1an at the present time; however, its relationship to the General , Pian symbol will be consioered at the next annual review. , 3. That the establishment of a service station on subject property will be detrimental to the residential integri~ty of the area immediately to the north and east of subject property, due to the inherent dust, noise, bright lights, fumes and hours of operation associated with this type of commercial development. 4. That the size and shape of the parcel is too small for the oroposed use wittiout p!acing the service station structure adjacent to the residential zone boundary and providing ingress and egress to the property from a local residential street. 5. That a 15-foot hiqh structural wall proposed adjacent to the east property line would deprive the residents of t}~e normal use of their rear yard and their swimrning pools. 6. That three person.> appeared representing seven persons present in the Council Chamber j opposing subject petition. i NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aneheim City Planning 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 ! eforementioned Gndings. THE FOREGOiNG RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 29th day of December, 1966. ~,~ . HAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY P ANNIN COMMISSION ATTEST: ~ ~~2~ i~/rU~G~o/ J SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) ~'yi ~ I~ Ann Krebs~ Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the fore- going resolution wes passed and adopted at a meeting oE the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on ~'~ ~ t7ecember 19~ 1966~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof: I AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Camp. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hand this 29th day of December, 1966. ~ ~ ~ I ~L%'~ i~~`I'2 C~`-°~ SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0.173 R2-D _2. ~ ~~ `~ ~1 ~ . ~