PC 1963-1964-885j
~
(.. ~ ~~~
RESOLUTION N0. 8859 SERIES 1963-64
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMTCS:~N OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 63-64-22 BE DENIED
WfiEREAS, the City Pianning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a vecified Petition foc Recleasifica-
tion fror~ TEiL ESTti1'E OF TILLIE FLUE~GE, c% Talt, MacMahon 8 Nelsony 1695 Vlest Crescent Avenue,
Anaheia, California, Ownerf TALT, MACMAHON 8 NELSON, 1695 West Crescent Avenue, Anaheim,
California, Agents of certain real property situated in the City of Anahoim, County of Orange,
S~ate of California, described as the North half of Lot 2 and the North half of Lot 5, Town-
send a"ubdivision, as shown on a map thereof recorded in book 5, page 40, Miscellaneous Maps,
recor~s of said Orange County
; end
WHEREAS, the City Plaaning Commis3ion did hold a public hearing at the City Hell in thc City of Anaheim on
August 19~ 19639 et 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of seid public hearing having ~ac; ~c!; ~;~!! as cequired
by lew end in eccosdence with the provisions of the Meheim Municipel Code, Chapter 18.72,to hear end coneider evi-
dence for end egeinst seid pcogosed reclessificetion and to investigete and make findings and recommendetions in
connection the:owith: and
WHEREAS, seid Commiaeion, efter due inapection, inveatigation, and atudy made by itself and in its behelf,
and oftet due cons3deeation of all evidence aad reports offered at seid heering, does find end determine the following
fects:
1. Thet the petitioner proposes a reclessification of the abot•e descrIbed property fcom the R=A~ Residential
Agriculturaly Zone to the R-3, Multip'le Family Residential~ Zonea
2. That the proposed reclassification of sub~ect proper~y is.not necessary or
desirable for the orderly and proper development of the communitya
3. That the proposed reclassification would adversely affect the single family
residential environment presently developed to the south and east of sub3ect property~
4. Thet it is the policy of the Planning Commission that adequate evidence be
submitted hy the petitioner to intelligently 3udge the merits of any proposed reclassification,
and that said evidence submitted in con3unction with subject petition is ir.~dequate to make
such a judgement.
5e That four (4) persons appeared, one of whom represented 18 persons present in the
Council Chamber opposing sub~ect petitione
Rl-D -1-
i
' ~.
'~ '~
- ;~.
-.. -_~
.
t_.,~ ,
{ :} ~
s
i
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Plenning Commission does he:eby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Aneheim thet subject Petition for Reclassificetion be denied on the basis of the
eforeroentioned findings. ,
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed end approved by me this 29th day of August~ 1963.
s
CHAIRMAN•ANAHEIM CITY ANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST: '
,/~'~~/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Ann Krebs, Secretery of the City Pienning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution was pnssed nnd edopted et a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the CIty of Aneheim, held ou
August 199 1963~ et 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the membecs thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONEF.S: Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides.
NOES: C0111NISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Campo
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve he:eunto set my hend this 29th day of August~ 1963.
~~i~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM GITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 885
R2-D -2-