PC 72-16~ ~
RESOLUTION NO. ' P ~~ Z-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY Or ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. ~0-7I-56 gE DISAPPROVED
WFiEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Meheim did ceceive a verified Petition for Re
clessification from CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JE: US
CHRIST OF LATiER DAY SAINTS, 10 South Main, Room 214, Salt Lake City
Utah 84111, Owner; SHOWCASE HOMES, 14482 Beach Boulevard, Suite W,
Westminster, California 92683, Agent of certain real property situat~:d
in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of Ca.lifornia, described
as the North 5.00 acres of the South 10.00 acres of the West half of the
Northw~st quarter of the Southwest quarier of Section 28, Townshi~ 4 South,
Range 10 West, in the Rancho Las Solsas, partly in the City of r.naheim and
partly in the City o£ Garden Grove, as per map recorded in buok 51, page
10 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said
County
; and
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commiss;on did hold e public hearing at the City Hell in the City of Meheim
o~ Fe b. ~, 19 7 2, at 2:00 o'clock P.M. notice aE seid public headng having been duly given as required by
law and in accordence with the proviaions of the Meheim hiunicipal Code, Chapter 18.72, to hear end consider
evidence for and egeinst seid proposed reclessificetion and to investigete endmeke findings endrecommertdetions
in connection therewith; end
WHEREAS, said Commission, efter due inspection, inveatigetion, end ctudy mede by itself end in ite be-
helf, and a[ter due consideration oE al! evidence and reports offered et said heering, does find end determine the
following fects:
1. Thet the petitioner pcoposes a reclessificetion of the above described property from the R-A, AGRI-
CULTURAL, ZONE to the R-3, DNLTIPLE-FAMILY RESLDENTIAL,ZONE to eatablish a 57 unit
planned reaidential condominiu:n development.
2. That the propoaed reclaeaification ia not in conformance wi.th the land usea
pro~ected for this acea on the Aneheim General Plan.
3. That the propoaed reclaesification of subject property does not properly re-
late to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to
subject property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally estabiished
throughout the community.
4. That the proposed reclassification of aubject property is not necessary and/or
desirable for the orderly and proper development of the connnunity.
RD '1'
~
R
~ ~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Aneheim City P1anning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Aneheim thet subfect Petltlon for Reclessitication be denied on the basis oE the
aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed end appraved by me is 17th day~f February , 1972.
~~
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
SECRETA Y~ANAHEIM CIT}~/ LANNING COMMISSION
pro tem ~
STATE OF CALINORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
pro tem
I, Lee Burgess, Secretery,bE tfie City Plnnning Commission of the CIty of Aneheim, do hereby certify the
going resolution wes pessed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commisslon oEthe City of Anehei
February 7, 1972 , et 7.:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER, HERSST, RAYWOOD, ROWLAND, SEYMOUR.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO.
ABSENT: COME7ISSIONERS: hLLRED.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hand this 17 th day of k ebruary , 1972.
t the fore-
m, hcld on
5CCRETARY~ANAHEIM CIT~ PLANNING COM~dIS5I0N
pro tem
RESOLUTION N0. PC72-16
R2-D -2-