PC 1963-1964-938~ .
;,
;.:'
~;}
RESOLUTION N0. 938, SERIES 1963-5~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECONIMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 63-64-42 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a ve:ified Petition for Recla'ssifica-
tionfrom ALLEN Eo BARDINII.L, ~ Leonard Smith Real Estate, 125-D South Claudina Street; Anahaim
59 California, Ownert LIDNARD SMITH; Leonard Smith Real Estate,125 D South Claudina Street,
Anaheim, California, Agent of cErtain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County
of Orange9 State of California, described as PARCEi, ls Lot 20 of Tract Noo 787, as per map
recorded in book 2~}, page 9 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the county recorder of
said countyo PARCEL 2a That portion of Lot 1 in Block A of Tract Noa 787, as per map record-
ed in book 24, page 9 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the county recorder nf said
county, which lies southerly of the m,~esterly prolongation of the northerly line ~~f lot 20 of
said Tract Noa 787
; end
WHEREAS, the City Pl9nr,ing Commission did hold a public hearing et the City Hell in the City of Anaheim on
October 14~ 1963, et 2;00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public hearing hAving been duly given es required
by lew end in eccordance with the provisions of the Meheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.72,to hear and consider evi-
dence for and ageinst said proposed reclassification end to investigete end make findings and cecommendations in
connection therewith: and '
WHEREAS, seid Commissian, efter due iaspection, investigation, end study made by itself and in its behalf,
and after due consideration of ell evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following
facts
1. That the petitioner proposes a teclassificetion of the above described property ftom the R-A~ Residetttial
Agricnltural, Zone tio the R-3y Multiple Family Residential9 Zone to permit the construction
of a 27-unit apartment building on subject property,. .
2> That this prope•rty is adjacent to single family homes on the west, and the Commission '
felt that although this could be potential R-3 property, that the patitioner had not met the
necessary reGuirement regardinq the height limitation within 150 feet of any R-A, Residential
Agricul~uraly or R-1, One Family Residential, Zone, and thai: the petitioner further stated
tha~ he was in no position to reduce this development to one-story constructiono
3o T'hat a petition was presented with signatures of 27 property owners in support
of the pruposed deve•lopment, and that three persons appeared and one letter with two signatures -
was received in opposition to subject petitiona
Rl-D
_- --------
~'
~ .. - _.__.
-1-
~
~
i...._._.--_
~. ~ r
;,
,~.
`'
;t
~
~-
t ~r
~a
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aneheim City Plenning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Anaheim thet subject Petition for Reclassificetion be denied on the basis oE the
efocementioned findings.
THE FOREGOII~G RCSOLUTION is signed and epproved by me this 24th ddy of OctobEr~ 19ti3o
,~ .
0
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLA G COMMISSION
ATTEST:
1 ~
SE TARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
P EM
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Jo Sullivan9 Secretary of the City Plenning Commission of the Clty of Aneheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
go~ng resolution was pessed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Annheim, held on
OCt~beT 14y 19639 at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: A11red, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, hfiungall, Pebley9 Perry, Rotvlando
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sidesa
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve heceunto set my hend this 24th day of October9 19630
~ ~l /l D ~
~
ETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
T~-7u1
~
ti-
~ _._i
C..~
RESOLUTION N0. 938
R2-D
-2-
~
J