PC 1961-1962-343~ 1IE i
~ ~ ~ ~ ~'f` }
.r~}:
+ ~ . .
fI ~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. ~43~ SERIES 1961-62
r
? A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF TH& CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
( PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 61-62-108 BE DENIED
~:>
~;
~1'
~;
- WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Aneheim did xeceive a verified Petition for Reclassifica-
tionfrom COVINGTON BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, 160 Guinida Laney Apartment 1, Anaheim, Cal-
_ i ifornia, Ovrnersj LAUNER~ CHAFFEE, HANNA, WARD, STACK and LANGHAUSER, 131 West Wilshire, Full-
erton, California, Agent of certain r2a1 property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of
Orange, State of California, as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and referred to
herein as though set forth in full
; end
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission did hold e pyblic hearing et the City Hall in the City of Anehein on
May 28~ 1962, et 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of seid public hearing having been duly given es requited
by law end in accoedence with the provisions of the Maheim Municipal Code, Chepter 18.72,to hear end conaidcr evi-
dence for end against seid proposed reclassificetion and to investigate and make findings ond recommendations in
connection therewith: end
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigetion, and study mede by itself end in its behelf,
and after due consideretion of all evidence and repods offered at seid hearing, does fInd end determine the following
fects:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the ebove desccibed property from the R-0 ~ RESIDEIdTIAL
SUBURBAN~ ZANE to the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZANE, in order to develop four 4-unit
apartments. '
2. That the proposed reclassif ication of subject property is not necessary or d esirable
for the orderly and proper development of the communitya
3. That twelve persons, three of whom spoke for them appeared in opposition to subjec•t
petition.
4. That the existing pr~per~.y classific~tion in t;~e R-0, RESIDENTIAL SUHURBAN, ZONE
was limited in area, that it would best be developed for its originally intended use in
order to meet the needs of the community fo•r R-0 zoning, rather than the reclassification
into a high density residential zoning.
~"
,
~
Rl-D _1_
_ .__. __ _. _ _. _ _ _.-- __ _ __.._ _ ._ . .
:;
~--_ _
~ FLL/' ~ ~~~ ~ ~.•~ ~'~ ~ ~
':. .~. . • .e ..
.. ~ I
j-_
~: . ~
i ~
~
`:I
;:,,~
.:~
~~i
~~
~
`~
t
•i
' ~~
~
~;
:~
'
`i
~~
!
i
;, i
•~
I~
~1
NOW, THEREFQRE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Anaheim City P~enning Commisaion does heceby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that subject Petition for Reclassi£icetion be denied on the besis of the
aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 28th day Of May9 1962e
~ '
CHAIRMAN ANAY.EIM CITY PLANNII~iG COMMISSI
ATTEST:
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIF~DRNIA ) ,
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) as. ~ . '
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
. ~
I9 Ann Krebs~ Secretery of the Cit}: Plenning Commission of the City of Maheim, do hereby certify that the fore- ~
going :esolution was pessed and edopted et e meeting of the City Planning Commission oEthe City of Aneheim, held on ~
May 2B9 19629 et 2:00 b'clock P.M., by the following vote af the members thereof: ~
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall~ Pebley~ Perryq ,~
Camp, Chavoso ;
NOES: COMh~ISSiONERS: Nonee , ~
i'
a
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood. ~
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hevE hereunto set my hend this 28th day of May9 1962a ~
~ ' ~~ ~ ~
~i~~G~''Z/"~ d
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNLYG COMMISSION ~
RESOLUTION NO. 343
R2-D
p ---__.__. _...~____ .__... .__.
.. . ' __"_._._.. ... ._`:'.J ~
~.u~l
:7
s
~
.
~
-2-
_.__ _ _..._. ___. . _ __ _ ._ ',: !
,,
_..,__ . . .
~... . __ . .. . . ... . .. . . . .