PC 1964-1965-1364r L~ ,
i \ ~
RESOLUTIdN NO. 1364, SERIES 1964-65
A RESOLUTION OF THE C1TY PLANNING CQL.^.uiSSION OF THE CTfY OF ANAHEIM
RECONQ~IENDIIJG TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 64-65-16 BE DENIED
NRiEREAS, the City Plaaniag Commiasion of the Ciry of Aaeheim did receive a verified Petition for Reclassifica-
tion from JOHN F. AND NWRY R. KIRSCH and RICHARD G~ AND PATRICIA KAMPLING, 2240 East South
Street, Anaheim, California~ Ormers~ CENfRAL MANAGEN~Nf COMPANY~ 1905 East 17th Street, Santa
Ana, California, Agent of certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of
Orange, State of California~ described as Parcel 1~ The east half of the NorthNest quarter of
the +:orth~est guartar a; S2ctian 13, Toym~hfp 4 South, F,a^g~ 10 West in the Rancho San Juan
Cajon de Santa Ana, as sh~wn on a 1Nap recorded in Book 51, page 10 of Miscellaneous Maps,
records of Orange County, California~ excepting therefrom the West 330 feet of the North 650
feet thereof~ also excepting therefrom the East 255 feet of the North 160 feet of the West 585
feet thereof~ Parcel 2s ihe East 130 feet of the West 565 feet of the North 160 feet of the
East one-half of the Northrest one quarter of the Northwest one quarter of Section 13, Township
q, Range 10 in the Rancho San Juan Ca~on de Santa Ana, as shown on a map recorded ie 9ook 51,
page 10 of Miecellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California :and
WHEREAS, the City Plenaing Commission did hold a public hearing et the City Hell ia t1~e City oE Aaaheim on
September 28~ 1964, et 2:00 o'clock P.M., notlce of said public b~earing heviag been duly given as required
by ls~ and ia eccordeace cvlth the provisions of the Aneheim Municipel Code, Chepter 18.72, to hear end coneider evi-
dence Eor aad againet sefd proposed reclasaificetioa end to inveaUgate and meke findiags ec-d recc~menr!stloas in
comectioa therewith: and
WHEREAS, aaid Gommissioa, aRer due inspection, iavestigetion, end study made by itself end ia its behalf,
and aftec due coaaideration of all enideace and reposts offered at seid headng, doe:. .:•.d end d~cermine the folloaing
facta:
1. Thet the petitioner pmPos~s a reolassification of the ebove deacribed propedy from the R-A> Residential
Agricultural, Zone to the R-2, Multiple Family Residential, Zone to permit the subdivision
and.devalopment of sub~ect property into 87 R-2 lots.
2. That the proposed reclassification is considered in con~unction with General Plan
Amendment Noo 19.
3. ihat the proposed reclassification of subject property is not necessary and/or
desirable for the orderly and.proper. development of the community.
4. ?hat the.-proposed reclassifica~ion, if approved, would set a patta:n of development
for the.zemaining undevelopad.properties on close proximity to sub~ect property specifically,
and within the East Maheim area generally.
5e That the proposed reclassification would be incompatible to the existing single
family residential development ta the west, north, and southeast of subject property.
6e ibat the proposed development, although submitted as a planned residential development
does not qualify as a planned residential.development and does not meet R-2 subdivision
standardse
7. That the nearby church and school are compatible to single family residential develop-
ment and, thereforey da.nat.establish grounds for approval of apartment development on the
property.
8. That the property is suitable.for single family residentfal svbdivision.
9. That the property at the southwest corner of South and Sunkist Streets was recomaended
for denial by the Commission and denied by the Council .in May, 1963 and, further, that
single family homes and a church are being constructed on the property at the present time.
10. That six pessons appeared, two of whom presented petitions signed by 226 property
owners and who also represented 30 persons present in the Council Chamber opposing, and that
tlu'ee persons appeared in favor of sub~ect petition.
Rl-D -1-
,..1 - s .
- ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ i
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED th~t thc M~heim City Plwii~~ Cammis~ioa doei herebq eecommend ~
to th~ Gty Coandl oE the Gty of Aa~6Nm th~t sabjrct Petltlon Eor Reclusi8c~tion be deaied oa the bads of the ;
~6oe+m~ntioned 8ndia~a. ~
THE FOREGOING RESOLUI'ION is sip~ed ~nd ~pptoved by me this 8t of OCtober~ 1964. ~
4
~ ~ I ' i
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM QTY P ING COl[I[LSSION ¢
~
.
ATTESI': ~
~~2~'hin~
SECRETARY ANAHED( CITY PLANNIIQG COIIMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CIT'Y OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Mn Krebs~, Secretary :i the Clty Pl~onlne Commis~lon of the City of Aan6eiw, do hereby cerUfy th~t the fore-
~oint cesointiQn wo paaed ~nd adopted ~t ~ meetia~ oE t6e City Pl~nnfn` Commiuion of the City oE Anaheim, held oa
Ssptsmbor 28i 1964~ ~t 2:00 o'clock P.Y., by tDe followlt-g vote of the memben theroof:
AYES: COIOQSSIONF.ttS: ~llred, Chavos, Gau~r, Mungall, F~land.
NOES: COAORSSIONERS: (~1one.
ABSENT': COIO~QSSIONERS: ~~P• PerrY•
iH 1Ii1`NESS WHEREOF. I h.ve heeemto set my 6and this 8th day of Octobe~', 1964.
Li~/~!/l/1'C/ %~~V 2~-~(/P/
SEC[lETARY AIdAHEII( C1TY PLANNING COII![ISSION
RESOLUTION N0. 1364
R~D -~