PC 66-142A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL GF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TNAT
~ PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. E6-67-35 BE DENIED
; and
WHEREAS, seid Commission, aEter due inspection, investigetion, and study mede by itself end in its behalf,
and after due corsideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following
facts:
RLSOLUTION N0.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did ,~eceive e verified Petition for Reclassifice-
tion from THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST UF I.ATTER DAY SAIDTIS, 2022 Ames (:ircle, Anaheim, California,
Ovrners; LYNN E. THQMSEN, 625 Soulh Euc,id A~enue, Anaheim, California, Agent of certain real
property situated in the City of r1naheim; County of Orange, State of Cali~ornia, described as
the East 31R feet of ihe Northwest quarter of the Nort'r,west quarter of the ~ortnwest quarter
of Section 13, Township 4 Soutn, Rang e 10 'Nest, in the Rancho San Juan Caion oe Sar.ta Ana, as
snown on a map thereof recorded in beok 51, page 7, et se~., Gliscellaneous Maps. *ecords of
said Orange County
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold e public hearing a*, !he City iiall in the City of Aneheim on
November 7, 1966~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of sai?i p~.~:rlic heating heving been duly given es required
by lew end in eccordence with the provisions of the .Aneheim M~tiicir,~al Code; Chepter 18.72, to hear end consider evi-
dence for end egainst said propo~~:d rr,c!nssificaiion and to investigafi? an$ meke findings and recommendetions in
connection therewith: end
PC66-142
1. That the petitioner proposes a rec!~~;sification o( the above described property from the R-A~ Agricultural,
Zone to the R-3, Mul;iple Family Residential, Zone,
2. That the propos~d rectassification of subje~t property is not necessary and/or
desirable f~or 'the orderly and proper development of the communitya
3. That the oroposed reclassification of subject prope:ty does not properly re'.ate to
the zones and their permitted uses estabiished in close proxiinity to subject property.
4. That the area stirrounding subject property is developing as a single family
residential neignborhocd, and the injection of high densi*y residential uses would have a
deleterious eff'ec', on the residential integrity oti the area.
5. That sub,ject property is develop~ble for R-1, One Family Residential. Zor,c~?
subc_;ision.
6. Tiiat no one appeared in opposition to subject pet:tion.
t~v~
R 1-D
1-
i{ ~
li ~
~i ~
L,
._. .. . _. _ ,
,. _ _
.. _ , ; --- -- -- ~
~
f
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Anaheim City Plun~.ing Commission does hereby recommend
to the Clty Council oE the City of Anaheim thet subject Petition for Reclassification be denied on the basis of the
aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTICN is signed end epproved by me this 17th day of November, 19hE..
CHA MAN ANAHEIM CITY P'LANNING COMhiIS ON
ATTEST:
~
~ /%G ;2'Z~'.'~v / 1~ i A•.~ /
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF URANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Ann Kr ebs, Secretery of the City Planning Commission of the City of Aneheim, do hereby certity that the (ore-
going resolution was passed and adopted at e meeting of the City Plenning Commission of the City o( Anaheim, held on
November 7, i966, et 2:00 o'dock P.M., by the [ollowing vote of the members thereof:
I '
~; AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rotivland, Car;ip.
NOES: COMMISS[ONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hend this 17th d-ay or November, 1966.
I
i
; ~ ~G~ ,z,'~C',G!.~
~ SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COh1MISSION
,~ i :
_~ ~~
~ -
i ~
; j ~ !'
i
,~
.i ,
RESOLUTION N0. 142
R2•D
-2-
r--,:.a ,~
5
e