PC 1963-1964-1018!~ .
;=~ ..~ ~ 7~ ~ -~~ ~ , `,
- .. ~Y
- ~ • z~r T`r .
RESOLUTION N0. 1018~ SL•RIES 1963-64
A RESOLUT?ON OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEL4I
RECOIVIMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF63-64 I71 ~F BEHDENIEDAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0.
(;'.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified Petition for Recla'ssifice-
tionfrom MELVIN f., ARTHUR Ea, FRED and ALMA NJ. BENfJEN, 619 Buttonwood Avenue, Anaheim,
California, Owners; LE ROY ROSE, 600 North Euclid Street, Suite 686, Anaheim, California,
..:~..r Agent of certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of
p California, as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and referred to herein as though
r set forth in full
!< ; end
y': i
? ~ ~,I
;;i ~ WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City oE Aneheim on
'' `' January 6~ 1964~ at 2:00 o'clock P.NL, notice of said public hearing heving been duly given es :equired
b, ii
~~ by law and in ecco:dance with the p:ovisions of the Anaheim Municipel Code, Chapter 18.72, to hear and considet evi-
` dence for and against said proposed reclassificetion and to investigete end make findings end recommendations in
~~ ~ `~ connection Uierewith: and
~....:a r~m~,;scion; efter due inspection, investigation, and study made by itself and in its behalf,
~ i:
'~ - irriER~~.~, ~~. :ka :o::cer-^
~~ ' and after due considewtion of all evidence and ceports offered at said heating, does iind and deietitti;~~ •.•e
} f ~: fects: '
t ~i
1. That the petitioner proposes a ceclessification of the ebove described propecty fcom theR-0~ Single Family
s Suburban, Zone to the R-0, Single Family Suburban, Zone for Portion "A" and R-3, Multiple %I
[ Family Residzntial, Zone for Portion "B", to establish a single and multiple family residential
development. ;
2. That the p~oposed reclassification of subject property is not necessary and~or des- ;
irable for the orderly and proper development of the community. !
3. That the proposed multiple family development is incompatible with the existing j
residental development to the east and south of subject property. ~
~ 4. That no ph•ysical change had taken qlace since subject property was zoned for single
'~ family suburban use to warrant the proposed recl.assification. '
5. That fou* persons appeared representing 55 persons in the Council Chamber, and 36 +
=~ letters were received in opposition to subject property.
r~
::~
`I
;~
•i
s~ '
,.~
;;,
; 'Y,
~'I '
.~~ I
;7 ~
:`i
s:~
'ii
'~
c. i
~'I
`~ _1_
s:~~~l gi-U
, `:~
t
- ._.,~;;,;,;
I ,
~ £
~ ~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Aneheim thet subject Petition for Reclassification be denied on the besis of the
aforementioned findings.
1HC~ P~UliCtiVlNl~ itLJVLUIiVId is ~igneti anu dppcovau uy me uiib ivi.i ~"" vi ~8 ;uuTr~ i~v~o
1
1
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PL ING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
!~~~~~/ ~/rL~l~
SECFETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIr ORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Ann K'rebs ~ Secretery of the City Planning Commission of the City of .~naheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution wes pessed end edopted at e meeting of the City Plenaing Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on
January 6~ i96n, ut 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the membe~s thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowlando
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT. COMMISSIONERS: Sidese
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Y heve hereunto set my hend this 16th day of January~ 1964.
C~v°~~u~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMN(ISSION
RESOLUTIOI~ N0. 1018
R2-D
-2-