PC 1962-1963-684- -- :_ ~-~--~=~
:~o~:~`~ ~.~~~~
.,
~
~o
~.
RESOLUTIJN NO. 684~ SERIES 1962-63
__ - ,
i
A RESOLUTION OF TEIE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE :,ITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANA1iEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 62-63-85 gE DETIED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commicsion of the City of Anaheim did receive a vetified Petition for ReclessiEica-
tion from MII.VIN F. BENTJENy 619 Buttonwood Avenue, Anaheim, California, and ARTHUR E.
BENTJEN, 439 Barkley, Orange, California, Orvners; LeROY ROSE, AIA, 600 Nori:h Euclid Street,
Suite 686, Anaheim, California, Agent of certain real property situated in tl~e City of Ana-
heim, County of Orange, State of California, described as Lot No. '10 of the Anaheim Homestead
Tract, as shown on a map thereof recorded in book 26, page 10, Miscellaneous Records of
Los Angeles County, California; EXCEPTING THER~ROM the North 630„98 feet, measured from
the centerline of the 60-foot street commonly known as Nurth Street
; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Aneheim on
MarCh 18~ 1963, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required
by law and in accordance with the provisions of the Aneheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.72,to hear and consider evi-
dence for and against said proposed xeclassification and to investigate and meke findings and reco~amendations in
rnnnection thecewith: and
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspe~tion, investigation, and study mede by itself and in its behalf,
end efter due consideration of ali evidence and report~ offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following
fects:
1. That the petitioner pcoposes a reclessificetion of the above described pcoperty ftom the R-0~ Residential
Sliburban, Zone to the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone to construct a two-story planned
multiple family residential development with carpo•rts on subject property.
2. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is not necessary and~or
desirable for the orderly and proper development of the cotmnunity,.
3e That the proposed reclassification of subject property does not properly relate to
the zones and their permi~ted uses local~•r established in close proximity to subject property
and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the communityo
4. That the proposed development is incompatible to the 1ow density residential
development adjacent to an3 in close proximity to subject propertyo
5. Th3t the proposed development is in conflict with ~the p~ct policies of the
Cormnission as r~~flected on the proposed General P1an„
6. That three (3) aersons, represenEing a large nvmber of persons present in the Council
Chamber, addressed the Commission, and a petition signed by one hundred fifty-two (152)
persons was received in opposition to subject petition~
-1-
'l}
Q
~ - ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~,~ ~'~ .1.
~.I
.~ _...__'_.__ _._'"`_~...~'~_..._...__._.."~."_~___.__'.__.____'" „"______._ ._____.-__ _._.. .. "__. _'__-._ _'
l:
~ ~
~:-
F' I
/
~ '
}
E:
i ~
NOW, THERErORE, BE TT RESOLVED tfiat tfie Aaaheim City Planaiag Commission does heceby tecommend ~
to the City Couacil of the City of Anaheici tfiat srbject petition for Redassification be denied or. the basis of the
aforrmentioned findiags.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is sigaed aad appiuved by me tfiis '+~ day of klarCh~ 1903.,
,
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIhi CITY L NING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~
v v~' '~ /~~Y~:l=~?/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLA.N'1L'~G COSflSLSSIO,t
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. '
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
_~ I~ Ann Krebs, SecrMary of the City Plaaning Commission uE the City of Anaheim, do hereby cedify thet the fore-
',•y going resolution was passed and adopted ai a meeting ofthe City Planaing Comwission ofthe City of Aneheim, held on
'?j MeiCh 18~ 1963~ at 2:00 o'cFocic P.3d., bp tfie folloaving vote of the members thereof:
",~ AYES: COf~4SiSSIONERS: Allred, C~, Chavos, C:aig, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry,
Sides>
';;~ NOES: COh'AlISSIONERS: tioneo
~i
;~ ~ ABSENT: C03~4SSIONERS: h`onev
`~~ h IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hezennto set my fiaad tlus i8::t day Gf MarCh~ 1963„
~ii~/f'vYV ~~L~/'!~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 684
R2-D
-2-
~
~ '~
c
f .
...
~~.
'
~
~
~ ~--- -- -,
,
-.
-
.
~ _.`_._.. _ . : ."
.,..?