PC 66-106
RESOLUTION N0. ~66-106
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF6~'FI~Cf~Y OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOP. RECLASSIFICATION N0. BE APPROVED
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Aneheim did receive a verifted Petition Eor Reclessifice-
tionfrom BUTLER AND HARBOUR, INCOR3~RATED AND ADOLPH SCHOEPE, 22R3 N'est Lincoln P.venue, A~:ei.eim,
' ~ Ca?ifornia, a,vners of certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange,
; , State of California, described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and referred to herein as though
~f4 set forth in full
; end
tYHEREAS, the City Plenning CommiBSion did hold e public hearing et the Clty Hell in the City o( Aneheim on
October 1Q, 1966, at 2:00 o'clock P.M. notiee o( said public heering heving been duly givm es required by
law end in eccordance with the provisions of the Aneheim Municipel Code, Chapter 18.72, to hear end conslder evldence
for and egeiist seid proposed reclessi(icetion end to investigete end make tindings end recommendetlons fn connection
therewith; end
WHEREAS, said Commission, alter due inspection, investigetion, end study mede by itself end in its behelf, end
after due consideration of all evidmce end reports offered et said hearing, does [ind end determine the (ollowing fecta:
1. Thet the petltioner proposes a reclesel[Icetlon of the above described propeRy fram the R-<^. , h;u ; t ip 1 e
Family Residential, Zone to the R-2, 5000 One Familv, Zone.
2. That the ~roposed reclassification is considered in cor.junction r~i+n G,;ncr~? Pi:~r.
Amr-ndrnent No. R7,
3. Thet the proposed reclassifieatlon ot subJect property is neceeaery end/or deaireble for the orderly end pra
per developnsent of the community.
4. Thet the proposed reclessiflcAtion of aubJect propetty doea properly relate to the zones and their permftted
uaes locally eateblished in close proximity to subJect property and to the zoner end their permitted uses generally estab•
lished throughout the commualry.
5. I'hat the proposed reclassification of suoject property requires the deuication and
improvement cf streets proposed in accordance with the Circulation Ele:nent of the General
Plan, due t:o tiie anticipated increase in traffic which will be generated by the jntensification
of land use.
6. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
-
•~ ~x
R-A
~ . .~~.
-1-
F
,-
4 ~1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Aneheim City Planning Commission does he:eby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Aneheim thet subfect Petition fot Reclessificetion be epptoved end, by so doing,
thet Title !8-Zoning of the Aneheim Municipal Code be emended to exciude the above described property from the
R-2, Multiple Family Residential, Zone, and to incorporate said described property into the
R-2 5000, One Family, Zone upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a
necessary prerequisite to the proposed use of subject property in order to preserve the safety
and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim~
la 1'hat a final tract map of subject property be approved by the City Council and
~ recorded in the office of the Orange County Recorder.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed ~nd opproved b~ me this ?_Oth day of October, 1966.
~_ -- lc~l-~/ ~c~~
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNRVG COMMISSION
ATTEST:
C/~ -~.-Z_,,, ,,._ '2~ .~.-~/
SECRETARY ANAHEIAS CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFURNIA )
COUNTY CF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Ann Krebs ~ Secretery of the City Plenning Commission ot the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify thet the fore-
going resolution wes passed and edopted at a meeting of the Clty Planning Commisaion of the City of Anaheim, held on
October 109 1966, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the membera thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Rowland, Campo
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Noneo
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hend thia 20th day of October, 1966.
~
: ' . ~'L " , L , L ' ~~?! c, ~~ "
! * SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLAN?IING COMMISSION
I~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. 106
a ~
~ R2''A _Z_
S