PC 1964-1965-1567'i
.. ~ `~
~ ~
~
RESOLUTION N0. 15~7. SERIES 1964-65 ~
~
;
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY pLANNING COIHMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHBDI "
RECOI~ENDIDIG TO THE CITy COIJNCII. OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIMI THAT ,
pgTITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 64-65-100 BE DENiED
WHEREAS, the CitY Plenning Commiasioe oE the Gty oE Maheim did recaive ~ veri8ed Peti~loa ta Reclaisi$ca
tionfrom (~pRGF J~ pND MARY R. t~DDICK, 200 East Wilhelmina Street, Anaheim, California,
Owners~ GAIL VARY, P. 0. Box 67, Anaheim, California, Agent, or certain real property
situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as
Lot No. 9, Block B, of Tract No. 158, Elk Park Tract
; ~ad
WFiEREAS, the City Planniag Comminsion did hoid a pqblie hearing et the Citq Hdl io the City oE Aa~hhdm oe
March 29, 1965, et 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of sdd pnblic hearing h~vine bswi dnly ~iv~n q s~qn~eed
by lew md in accordance with the pmvlaions of the Maheim Mnnlicipel Code, Ch~pter 18.72, to he~c qtd cauid~e avi.
dence Eor aad againet eald proposed reclasaificaUon aed to inwbtlgate and make 6adiags ~na ncommead~tlon~ la
connection thecewith: end
WHEREAS, soid Commission, aRa due inepectloa, inve~tiuation, aad study m~de by !lself and Ia its b~h~1(,
end aEtec due connideratioa of all evidence and repods oEfered at said heariag, does find ~nd dsteemine th~ foAowiea
facta:
1. Thet the petitionec Proposes a reclweification of the nbove dacribed propeKy from the R-2~ Multi~le Family
Residential,.Zone to.the R-3, ldultiple Family Residential, Zone to esta~lish a four-unit
multiple.family residential development..
2. That the proposed reclassification of sub~ect property is in conformance with the
General Plan.
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is not necessary and/or
desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community.
4. That the propnsed.reclassification would set a precedent for :he establishment of
multiple f amily deue.lopment on ~arcels.af land presently developed.for.one and.two residences.
5. That the traf.f.ic.flnw and parking of cars in an area developed for a less dense
residential use would create a problem if subject property were developed with substandaTd. .
parking facilities.
6. That four persons appeased representing eight persons in the Council Chamber who
were opposed, and one person representing two other persons appeared in favor of sub3ect
petition.
Rl-D
-1-
-__~+
~ ~- : ~~ t~
~ .~ "
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Meheim City Plenning Commisaion does hereby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Aneheim thet subject Petition for Reclesaificatlon be denied on the basis of the
eforementioned findings•
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed end appmved by me this St day of April ~ 1965.
. ~
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CI PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
C~~1~ ?/J'(/ ~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) 88•
CITY OF ANAHEIM ~
Iy Ann Krebs~ S<'M~B~' of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution wes p+-~~ ~d adopted at a meeting of the Ciry Plenning Commission of the City of Meheim, held on
MarCh 29~ 1965~ et 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the followiag vote of the members thereoE:
AYES: COblMISSIONERS: Camp~ Gauer, Herbst, Mungall~ Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: CON~SSIONERS: Allred.
IN WITNESS 1YHEREOF, I have hereuato set my hend this 8th day of April, 1y65.
~~~ ~!r~
SECRETARY ANAHEAN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 1567
~.D -1-