PC 1961-1962-259i~ :~
.~.
_ ~ ~ ~; :~
RESOLUTION N0. 259. SERIES 1961-62
A RESOI:UTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOh4~7ENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF ?HE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 61-62-84 BE DEPI~ED
WHEREAS, the City Plenniag Commission of the City of Meheim did ~eceive a vedfied Petition for Recla'ssiflca-
tionfrom MARY B. DQ&SKF.N, 2748 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Owner; G. G. Lamkin,
730 iNest Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agent; proposing reclassification of the
following described property: All that certain land situated in the State of California,
County of Orange, City of Anaheim, described as follows: The west 132 feet of the east 661
feet of the north half of the northwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Sectior. 24,
Township 4 South, Range 11 West, in the Rancho Los Coyotes, as shown on a Map recorded in
Book 51, page 11 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of Orange County, California
; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning CommA,sion did hold e pqblic hearing et the City Hall in the City of Aneheim on
March 5, 1962 at 2:OU o'clock P.M., noUce of said publir_ hearing heving beea duly g,iven as required
by law and in accordence with the paovisions of the Maheim Muaicipal Code, Chepter 18.72,to hrae end coasider evi-
dence for and against seid propcsed reclassification and to investlgate end meke ~indings aad recommeadatioas in
connection therewith: end •
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigetlort, end study mede by itaelf aad io ite bahelf,
end efter due consideration oE all evidence and reporis offered at said hearing, does fiad end determiae the following
facts:
1. Thet the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the ebove desaibed prop~rty fcom the R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL
AGRICULT[TRAL, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDfiNTIAL, 20NB.
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is not necessary or
desirable for the orderly and/or proper development of the community.
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does not,properly relate
to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject
property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the
community.
4. That at the present time there is a problem of drainage and flooding in the
subject area.which necessitates consideration before development of subject area is
established.
5. That the proposed two story multiple family residential development. of subject
property would permit an encroachment into the R-1, One Family Residential, development
in subject area. ~
6. That a more suitable plan for the ultimate development of the subject and
abutting propGrties is possible and it is hereby suggested that the petitioners endeavor
to develop plans which would promote the highest and best use of the subject property and
for the ultimate development in the subject area.
7, That verbal opposition, in addition to a petition of protest containing 33
signatures, was zecorded in protest to subject.petition. That verbal support by two
owners of abutting properties was recorded in favor of subject petition.
Rl-D
, --_ .. _.._.`_.
i
- -•- . J~r'~" ,
-1-
. .. _.._._____. _-- -- -- --._ __._.._-- - ,;
.. .
~ .. , ,. . ._..._
,.<,
: , ,
i:
- ~:-~ ~ :~ ~~~ e
., ~.
~,
~
NOW, THEREFORc, HE IT RESOLVED thet the Anaheim City Planniag Commiaeion does hereby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Anehcim thet subject Petition for ReclesaiQcation be denied on the basie of the
eforementioaed ~indings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed end approved by me this Sth, day of March, 1962.
ATTEST:
~
SECR Y ANAHEIM CITY PLA G COMMISSION
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CYTY PLANNING COMMISSI
STA"fE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Jeen Page, Secretary of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Meheim, do heeeby ceetify thet the fore-
going resolution was passed end adopted at e meetIng of the City Planning Commisaion of the City of Meheim, held on
March 5, 1962 at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the membecs thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perry~
HAPGOOD.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None .
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hend thia Sth, day of March, 1962.
Q l~~
SECR RY ANAHEIM CITY ANNI-YG COMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0. 259
RecSassificatirn No. 61-62-84
R2-D _Z.
t
~
~
i
f !
k_ _ ,
~. i .~ . . s ,
~
_~_ ._.__...__...._ _....___.
-- ._.._ _ ..._.._.._- --
. -- -- - --.
~ ~•~ . ..... - . . . . -
i
'.~
'„~
;
3
5
i,
~I
„~
'~
.,
~:i ~
,,; =7