Loading...
PC 68-302. . . y • . . ~ . , . ~=.•-~~.~C'NI..~ ..... . __.i~ _ ,R^~1f~~T9tlR'S13!i~l1PaN . .. . . YTr'~nr.~~~~. __._ ~ ~ RESOLUTION N0. •°~b8-302 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RECOBIMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 68-69-31 gE DISAPPROVED ,, WHEREAS, t6e City P1annIng Commisaion o[ the City of Meheim did receive e verified Petttion for Re- _ classificatlon Eron J. A. SEYMOUR, 3347 West Bail Road, G. P. BROOKS, 3341 West Ball Road, A. D. H~1'H, 3351 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California 92804, Owners of certain real property _;. situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as Lot Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of Tract No. 2839 ~.,~ : r/ NHEREAS, the City Plaanin` Commi~eion did hold a publIc hMrln` ot the Clty fiell in the City of MahNo ~October 7, 1968 ~t 2:Op o'clock l~.M. ~uc~ ~ said public Iwedae havia` been duly siven as required by law and ie accordance with the pmvidaes of the Me6~Im l~unicipal Code, qiaptQr 18.72, to 6eu aed consider evidence for and ~pintt uid proposed nel~siticatlon and to iuveeti`ete andmeke findin~s andrecommeodattoas in connection thereaith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due 3aepactIoa, investi~atio~, and etudg made by itself end in Its be- half, and aher due consideration af all evidertce and repoKs ot[ered at said hesring, doea tind and determine the following [acts: 1. That the petltioaer pmporas a reclass~fic~tlon of Ihe above described property from the R-1, One Family Residential, Zone to the C-1, General Commercial, Zone to utilize the existing structures for commercial purposes. 2. That the scope of the proposed reclassification, if approved, does not warrant an amendment to the General Plan at the present time; however, its relationship to the General ~lan Symbol will be considered at the next annual review. 3. That general commercial zoning of the property would establish a pattern of development which would have a deleterious effect on the residential integrity of the properties in close proximity to subject property. 4. That no land use change:has taken place since the Commission last considered commercial zoning for subject property, at which time a less intense commercial use was proposed, to warrant favorable consideration of a heavier commercial zoning. 5. That subject property was not considered as a ootential commercial conversion site in the recently adopted arterial front-on study, since it did not meet the criterii established for such conversion, and that there ar~ approximately 176 homes geographically i disp->rsed throughout the community which would be more appropriate for conversion from residential to commercial uses than subject property. 6. That one person appeared to repres ent several ~ and a petition was receiv2d signed by 34 persons, all ineoppositionhtoCsubcectChamber, ~ ,] petition. RD -1- ~ _ y_; . ~:~;~ : ^~- ~ ; r ` ~ ~ .,~ ` ~ ~ . . M~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~~ . .. . . . . ~-* i ~ ~ _ ~ ;- ,. - s ~.~=~~ ._. ~.,.,.~~~__,_. ~. ---.. _._.~ -- _.._.. > ~ - - - , ~ .~ _ ... -., ^ , V.; ,": :~ .. -.,~''k~ ~.J NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that subject Petition for ReclassiGcation be denied on the basis of the aforementioned findings. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 17th day of October, 1968. CHAIRMA ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: /~~+~'~~/~C/ %~~ ~~e'~r/ SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I, At.~. Krebs, Secretary oi the City Plaqning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the fore- going resolution was pessed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission ofthe City of Anaheim, held on OCtober 7, 7.g6g~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ~amp, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Allred. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ~auer. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have heceunto set my hand this 17th day of October, 1966. RESOLUTION N0. 302 R2-D C~~?~~ /Y~I'~ SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -2-