PC 1962-1963-596i
~
~
~~
~
,, , ~
~ ~~~ ' ~~
RESOLUTION NO. 596, SERIES 1962-63
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMINENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATYON N0. 62-63-54 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commiseion of the City of Meheim did ceceive a vedfied PetiUon for Recla'seiEica-
tion from STAM~ON NUF25ERY, IIVC., ~~fi30 West Ball Road, Anaheim~ California, O~lnhss; HAUPTMAN
ISAAC --- R. E. JOHNSON,.1Z41-D .South.Eucl3d Avenue, Anaheim,•California, Agents of certain
real property situated.in.the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, describ~d
a3•the West half of the.Nor.theast quarter of the Northwest quarter of the Northeast quarter
o€ Section 22, Township 4 South, Range 11 West, Rancho Los Coyotes, as shown on a~nap thereof
recorded in book 51, page 11, Miscellaneous Maps, records of said Orange County
; end
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public heating et the City Hull in the City of paaheim on
January 7~ 1963, et 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public headng heving been duly given es requi~ed
by law end in ecco:dence with the provisions of the Anahelm Municipel Co3e, Chapter 18.72,to heor end coasldet evi-
dence for and egeinst seId p:oposed reclessificetIon and to investigate and meke findings end recommendetions in
connectlon therewith: and
WHEREAS, seid Commission, e$er due iaspection, investigetion, end study made by itaelf end in its behelf,
and efter due considecation of ell evidence .nd reports offered at seid headng, doe~ fiad end determine the following
fects:
1. Thet the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the ebove deaccihed propeety from the R-A~ Residential
Agricultural, Zone to the R-2, Two-Family Residential Zone to permit the development of a
single story planned-unit multiple family residential development with carports on sub~ect
property.
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 sub~ect property does not properly relate
to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject
property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the
community.
4. That subject development is incompatible with the proposed density development
of sub3ect property as indicated on the Preliminary General Alan.
5. That subject property is surrov.nded by R-1, One F,~ily Residential Zone development,
and, therefore, should not be developed with a residentia].~density in excess of seven (7)
dwelling units per acre.
6. That two, persons appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Rl-fi -1-
_ ., ----
~ _' , -.,.. _ ~
: ~ -'
~
:
~'
;
. ,; l
3
'•_ ~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Mahetm City Pleaning Commiseloa does he~eby tecommend
to the City Council of the City of Anaheim thet aubJect Petitioa for Recleseification be denied on the besis of the
eforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOIIQG RESOLUTION is signed end approved by me thie 7th day of January, 1963.
ATTEST:
CH.AIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
~ L~~?2P~~/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Ann Krebs~ Seaetary of the City Plenning Commiseion of the City of Maheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
gotng resolution wes pasaed end edopted et e meeting of the City Plenning Commisaion of the City of Meheim, held on
January 7, 1963, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the membera the:eof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have heteunto aet my hend this 7th d$y of January~ 1963.
' r
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMfSSION