PC 1963-1964-1042A RESOLUTION ~".~F THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM TH4T
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATI6N N0. 63-64-61 BE DENIED
WHEREA3, the City Plenning Commission of the ~ity oi Anaheim did receive a vecified Petition for Recla'ssifica-
tionfrom FRANK C. and NORA Mo BECKETT, 2147 South Lewis Street, Anaheim, Cali..fornia; RUSS
arrd NATALIE BOOREY, 2501 Harbor View Drive, Corona Del Mar, California; and DOROTHY ROHAN,
430 Sou.th Sycamore, Santa Ana, California, Owners; So Vo HUNSAtCER $ SONS, P. 0.. Box 1216
Fleetwood Annex, Covina, California, Agent of certain real property situated_.in the City
of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described.as the.East one-haLf of Lot 12
an~ the East one-half of Lot 13; of the Orangewood Tract, as per map recorded in Book 7,
Page 42, of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County
; and
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hell in the City of Aneheim on
Febrvary 3; 1964, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public hearing heving been duly given as re~ulced
by law end in accordance with the proviaions of the Anaheim Municipel Code, Chapter 18.72,to hear and consider evi-
dence for end againat said propos~d c~classification and to investigate and meke findings and recommendations in
connection thecewith: end
WHEREAS, seid Commission, after due inspection; investigation, and study made by itself and in its behalf,
end after due consideration of all evidence and repods offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following
fects:
1. That the petitioner proposes e ceclassification of the above desccibed property from theR-A Residential ~
Agricultural, Zone to the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone to develop a 98-unit
single story multiple family planned residential development with carports. i
2. That the proposed reclassif ication of sub3ect property does not properly relate i
to the zones and the.ir permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject
property.
3. That the proposed reclassification is incompatii'nie io ihe single family residertial
development to tha ivest and south of subject propertyo
4d That sub~ect property is developable into a standard single family subdivisiono ~.
5. That the Cammission desires to maintain the development for multiple family ~
residential use of any undeveloped property in the vicinity of subject property to the
north side of Orangewood Avenue.
6o That 4 persons appeared representing 30 persons in the Council Chamber opposing
subject petition. - '
Rl-D '1'
~
s
i
1'.
i
~=
~ r . ._ ._ _.__~..
~ ---- ~_~..._a..._,.. .. .. _ _.__ _ . . _ .. _ ._
;~; ~ r
l: ~c ~ {(:
\>
I
f,•:
'
A.
f::
;.
Y
.~
ti~
I.. ~
r 2
•~n
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aneheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that subject Petition foc Reclessification be denied on the besis of the
aforementioned findings.
;' i'; THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and epproved by me this 1 y of •February~ 1964a
a.-J :
i~ 7
1. l
ti: CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CIT PLANNING CtlMMISSION
F: s
ATTEST:
~..1~ e~eifi~.a/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) as.
CITY 0~' ANAHEIM )
I~ Ann Krebs~. Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheirt~, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution wes passed and edo~ted at e meeting of the City Plenning Commission ofthe City of Aneheim, held on
February 3~ 1964~ s:t 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members :hereof:
AYES: COMMISSIOTVERS: Allred, Camp, ChavosY Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowlando
NOES: CO.MMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sideso
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have heceunto set my hand this 13th day of February~ 19640
/,~i~~ /%~~1
SC~RETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0. 1042
R2-D
-2-
6
c
k
~.• ~. _ _._._..,.~.,
+~ . __ _