PC 1962-1963-809C~
`:~
RESOLUTION NO. 809, SERIES 1962-63
A RESOLUTIOId OF THE CITY PLANNIPIG COMMLSSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CIT'Y COUNCIL OF T~-I E CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION F012 RECLASSIF'ICATION N0. 02'63-12? g~ DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Aneheim did ceceive a verified Petition for Recla'ssifica- ?
tion fcom ELEANQR J< .G-~ELT4N9 c~o Nlary Swift Beeks' 944 Pacific Avenue, Suite 1, Long Beach, ~
~:., ~ Catifornia,.~wner;-FRANK C. ROBIN~N, JRe, 9830 .:tlantic Boulevard; Southgate, California,
~~` Agent of certain real property situated in ine Cfty of Maheim, County of Orange9 State of
~~ California9 described as Lot Nos. 16 and 17 of Tract Noe 1607, and further described as the
~i Northwest corner of West Street and Faye Lane
~;. ~
; end
' WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a pubiic heering et the City 1?all in the City of Anaheim on
Juhe 24, 1963, at 2:OU dclock P.M., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as requi:ed
by law end in accordence with the provisions of the Meheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.72,to hear and consider evi-
dence for and ngeinst said p:oposed reclassifIcetion and to investigate and meke findings and recommendetions in
connection therewifh: end
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation, and study mede by itself and in its behelf,
and after due consideratiou of ell evidence end ceports offered at said heering, does find and determine the following
fects:
1. Thet the petitioner proposes a raclassification of the above described pcoperty from the R-19 One Family
Residential, Zone to the R-3, Multipie Family Residentialy ~one to develop a seven (7)
unit, singYe story apartment buildingo
2e That the proposed reclassification of sub3ect property is not necessary or desirable
for the orderly and proper development of the community.
3e That the pruposed reclassification of sub~ect property is incompatible to the
single family residential ir,tegrity ad3acent to and in close proximity to sub3ect property.
4. That sub~ect property is developable for l~vr density single family use.
5e That past history in zoning actions on sub3ect property indicate that subject
property had two similar request denied for multiple family development by the City Council,
and that rights possessed by other propesty in the sa~+e vicinity and zone had not been
den~ied sub3ect propertyo
6< That two (2) persons appeared in oppc,sition tu sub~ect petitione
....: n~.:, ~ 5 ~ .
. ..."'__~........ _... _ _... ._"'_"`
f
f
~ • . ~ 1~ ~',~ 1
_ / _~
NOW, TH~REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Plennir,^. Commission does heeeb~ recommend
to the City Council of the City of Aneheim thet subject Patition for Reclassification be denied on the besis of the
aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING F.ESOLUTION is signed end approved by me this 24th day Of Juttey 1963.
/
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
PRO TEM
~
ATTEST:
SECRETARY ANAfiEIM ~ITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY 01 ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM ) •
I9 Ann Krebs9 Secr^_tary of the ~ity Planning Commission of the City of Maheim, do hereby ce~ify that the fore-
going cesolution was passed and adopte3 et e meeting of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on
June 24y 1963, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the membeis theceof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allredy Gauer9 Pebley~ Rowland9 Sideso
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None,
ABSTAINs QOMhRISSIONF~Ss Perrya
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Camp9 Chavos9 Mung211o
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand th:~s 5•th day of Julyy 1963e
~ G~~~~i~Z(//'V . ~.
SECRETARY APIAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0. 609 ~
R2-D .~
~ !
4,
~ 1
... ..._K~~wr~ . _ ~~''a._-.. .
. ' I"L'3i1 . .
` "._.~.__.~_.~._.'_'_-_.__._.__~.___~_ . '~'_-.-....__r..~~_-_.._........,...... .... ~. ~ ~- ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ . . . . . . .'. .'._-_._ ._ .."____..
, . . . . ' ~...~.~" . . .