PC 72-186. '. ~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. PC72-186
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIAi
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF P.NAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. ~2-~3-16 gE DISAPPROVED
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Maheim did receive e veriEied Petition for Re-
clessification from MR, AND MRS. DONALD L. MC INTOSH, 109 South Gilbert Street, Anaheim, Cali-
fornia 92804; MRS. HAZEL R. EPKENS, :151 Teranimar Drive, Anaheim, California 928Q4, Owners;
BILL ASt~WA, 806 South Beach Boule~•ard, Anaheim, Calif.,~rnia 92804, Agent of certair. real
property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange~ State of California, described
as Lut Nos. 1 and 2 of Tract No. 1940
; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold e public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim
on Augu~t 7, 1972, at 7:30 o'clock P.M. notice oE seid public hearing havin~ been duly given es required by
lew and in accordence with the provisions of the .Meheim Municipa: Code, Chepter 18.72, to heer and considar
evidence ror and against said proposed reclessification end to investigete endmeke findin~a endrecommendetions
in connection therewith; and
N'HEREAS, seid Commission, after due inspection, investigetion, and study mede by itselE and in its be-
half, and efter due consideretion of all evidence end reports offered at seid hearing, does Eind and determine the
following factc:
1. Thet the petitioner proposes e reclassification of the ebove described property from the R-1, ONE FAMILY
RESIDENTTAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.
2. That the propo5ed reclaesification is not in conformance with the land u~e des-
ignation of the General P1an.
3. That the proposed reclassification of eubject property is not necessary and/br
desirable for the orderly and proper development of the coimnunity.
4. That the proposed reclassification of dub~ect property does not properly relete
to the zones and their permitted uses locally established.in closeproximity to subject
property and to the zones and their permitCed uc~es generally establiehed throughout the
coimnunity.
5, That no land use changes have taken place on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and
no evidence has been presented to whrrant•.~8neiderrtion o£ cNanging the existing zonir~g of
sub~ect property.
6. That the pro~oaed commercial zoning would be an encroachment into a primarily low
deneity residential area.
7. That eubject property was not in an ar.ee coiisidered by the Planning CommiSSion and
City Council in the Study of Reaidential. Homes Fronting on Arterial Highways, therefore the
commercial usea proposed would be contrary to said etudy.
S. That the propoeed C-1 zoning is contrary to the reaolution of inLent to l:-0 zoning
that the City Council placed on a portion of subject pxoperty in 1970.
9, That one pereon appeared, representing the single family residents of this general
area, in opposition to the proposed reclessification.
-1-
~
~
..~
~
NOW, THEREF'ORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Plenning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Aneheim thet subject Petition Eor Reclessificetion be decied on the basis of the
aEorementioned findings.
THG FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed nnd npproved by me this ,i7th day of~ugust~ 1972.
ANAHEIM CITY
ATTEST:
(~~~%~ Sr~r3~f/
SECRETARY ANAHEI CITY PLANNING C:OMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA }
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Plenning Comiuission of the City of AnAheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution wes passed and adopted at a meeting oE the City Plenning Commfssion of the City oE A~iaheim, held on
Augut?t 7, 1972, at 7:30 ' o'clock P.M., by the Eollowing vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED, FARANO, GAl13R, HERBST, KAYWOOD, ROWLAND, SEYMOU~.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 17th dey of August, 1972.
~r~~~2:L/f~/
SECRETARY ANAH M CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NU. PC72-186
R2-D -2-