PC 1963-1964-1154 `
,
. ~ ,; ; ~
~ ;.
.~
; -",
i,
'
~. " `
RESOLUTION NO. 1154, SERIES 1963-64
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 63-64-115 ~E pFn?IED
`l ~i
;~: <
_ _; .._.~~,
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a vecified Petition for Recla'ssifica-
tionfrom R:ICHARD C. AND PATRICIA KAMPLING AND JOHN F. AND MARY R. KIRSCH~ 2240 East Scuth
Street; Anaheim, California, Owners; CENTRAL MANAGEMENf COMPANY, 1905'East 17th Street,
Suite"101, 5anta Ana, California, Agent of certain real property situated in the City of
Maheim, County of Orange, State of California, as all that certain land described
as the East half of the Northwest quarter of the N~rthwe::t quarter of Section 13, Township
4 Sonth, Range 10 West in the Rancho San Juan Cajon de San;a Ana, as shown on a Map recorded
in Bvok 51, page 10 of Miscellaneous Maps~ records of Orange County, California; excepting
there~'rtim the West 330 feet of the North 650 feet thereof; also excepting therefrom the
Eas't"255 feet of the North 160 feet of the West 585 feet thereof; ALSO, the East 130 feet of
the West 585 feet of the North 160 feet of the East one-half of the Northwest one quarter of
the Northwest one quarter of Section 13, Township 4, Range 10 in the Rancho San Juan Cajon de
Santa Ana, as shown on a map recorded in Book 51, page 10 of Miscellaneous Maps, ;and
Records of Orange County, California
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission did hold a public heeting at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim on
May 11~ 1964~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of seid public hearing having been duly given es requiced
by law and in accordance with the p:ovisions of the Maheim Municipel Code, Chepter 18.72,to hear and consider evi-
dence for and egainst seid pcoposed reclessificetion and to investigete and make findings and recommendations in
rnnnection thecewith: end
WHEREAS, said Commission, efter due inspection, investigation, and study mede by itself and irt its behelf,
and after due cousideration of all evidence and ceports offered at seid hearing, daes find and deter.nine the following
fects:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassificaE~n of the ebove described prope~ty from the R-A~ Residental
Agricultural, Zone to the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone to subdivide subject property '
into 46 R-3 lots.
2. That the.proposed reclassification is being considered in conjunction with a proposed
.^,inendment to the General Plano •
3e That the proposed reclassification of subject property is not necessary and/or
desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community.
4e Ti•~ai: to a~prove sub,ject petition would ea,~mark the development of ~i0 acres o: land,
among properties already developed for single family subdivision purposes, for multiple family '
residential development.
5. That property easterly of suk+ject property at the southwest corner of Sunkist and
South Strettis was denied for multiple family development by both the Commission and City Council;
but was approved subsequently, for church facilities and a recorded single family residentia.l
subdivisione
6. That the area in which subject property is located is partially developed for single
family residential subdivision and, fur+,her, that the City has encouraged a policy of continued
development of single family homes wherever said development would be a logical extension and
completion of partially developed single family areas.
7. That the Planning Commission on May 4. 1962, adopted Alternative No, 2 of Planning
Study 45-114-4, which proposed subject and abutting properties for low density single family
subdivision, and that, since no evidence was presented to substantiate the position that a
land use change is warranted in the Study Area, the Commission reaffirms its position as to
mainta;ning the Study Area for low density residential development,
8. That three persons appeared representing 15 persons present in the Council Chamber,
petitions signed by 445 per=ons, and 4 letters were ~eceived opposing subject petitiona
Rl-D
-1-
~''~
~
{,,~ ~
L:_'.:
,i• ;(
'I
;°~
`:;~
r,,,
E~
i'•S
~;~
:~ i
~:~ ~
'~~ " 0
al 7
i ~ . ~.~
.f:
'.:, ,.
~_..~
~ `~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT D^c30LVED thet the Anaheim City Planning Commission does he:eby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Aneheim .thet subJect Petition for Reclassification be denied on the basis of the
afosementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTIUN is signed and epproved by me this day of May~ 1964.
. ~
.
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM TY LANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
G~~f~~~~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CI1Y PLANNING COMMIESION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Ann Krebs~ , Sec~etery of the City Plenning Commission of the Ciry of Anaheim, do hereby cerfify that the fo:e-
going resolution wes pessed end adopted et a meeting of the City Plenning Commiseion of the City of Aneheim, held on
Mdy 11~ 1964~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the membecs the~eof:
AYES: COMMISSIUNc.RS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Febley, Sideso
IN WITNESS WI:EREQF, I have hereunto set my hend ffiis 21st day of May~ 1964.
~L~ ~i~/v~
SECRETARY ANAHEIk! CITY PLAPINING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0. 1154
R2-D '
-?-
~ ~
3
~
_ ~
. ~
~
y1
rl
i; 1
1
-~._ ~