PC 1962-1963-695RESOLUTION NO. 695, SFRIFS J.962-63
A RESOLUI'ION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMA4SSIODI OF THE CTPY C)F ANAHEIDd
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHE[~f THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. Sj2-63-Fi9 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Plsnning Commission of the City of Anaheim did zeceive a verified Petition for Reclassifica-
tionfrom RUSSELL MOORE, 11752 Garden Grove Boulevard, Garden Grove, California, Owner;
BUILDER SERVICE UNLIMITEU, 11752 Garden Grove Boulevard, Gazden Grove, California, Agent
of certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of
California described asi The South 140 feet of the East one-half of the Northeast quarter
of the Southeast quarter of Section 14, in Township 4 South, Range 11 ~9est, in the
Rancho Los Coyotes, City of Anaheim, as shown on a map thereof recorded in Book 51,
page 7, et seq~, Miscellaneous Maps, records of said Orange County;
EXCEPTING THEREFROM the Easterly 40 feet of said land, as conveyed to the State of
California, by deed recorded March 5, 1951, in Book 2153, page 254, Ofr"icial Records, and
by deed recorded March 1, 1951, in Book 2151, page 460, Off icial Records
; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Aneheim on
April 1~ 1963 at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public hearing fiaving beea dnly givea as requized
by law and in accordance with the provisians of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.72,to hesr aad cronsider evi-
dence for end against seid proposed reclassi~cation and to investigate sad maice findings and reeommeadations in
connection therewith: and
WHEREAS, said Commission, efter due inspection, investigation, aad stndy made by itself aud in its behalf,
and after due consideration of all evidence and zegorts offezed at said h~saag, d~ ~..-d ~.:~ de;~iae tYe fo2lo~iag
facts:
1. Thet the petitioner proposes e reclassification of the above described property froci the R-A~ ResideRtial
Agricultural, Zone to the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone to permit the establishment
of a 44-unit two story multiple family planned residential develonment.
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is not necessary and~or
desirable for the orderly and proper development of the co~unity.
3„ That the proposed reclassification of subject property does not proper2y relate
to the zone~ and their permitted uses locally established in close proxi.mity to subject
property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the
community~
4~ That the petition requested that plans as submitted, be used in rendering a
decision, but that revised plans, incorporating a good living environrent requested by the
Commission, were not submitted.
5o That the proposed multiple family development would be incompatible to the
commercial uses already established adjacent to and in close proximity to subject property.
6o That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
Rl-D
-1-
s
1
I
:~~
;- ..
~ ~'a i_,~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Aneheim City Planning Commiasion does heceby :ecommend
to the City Council of the City of Aneheim that subject Petition for Reclessificetion be denied on the besis of the
afo:ementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed end approved by me thi s day of April~ 1963.
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY P NING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
`;t' %~v~/ ~~;~z-~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Ann Krebs ~ Secretary of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify thet the fore-
going cesolutioz wes pessed and adopted at e meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Aneheim, held on
April 1, 19G3 at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by tha following vote of the membecs thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Chavos, Craig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this lst d-ay of April~ 1963.
/'~~~Q~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 695
R2-D
-2-
i
t
I
~
, ...._~_.--•-~=-, .. .. . , ,. .. . .. ~