PC 1961-1962-324„'r '
1 ~ ~ ~ ~:~ ~~" -
~~
RESOLUTION N0.3gQ SL-RIES 1961-62
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 N0.61-62-104 SE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive e vedfied Petition for Recla'ssi£ica-
tion from WILLIAM E. and GLENNA Z. ALLEN, 1713 East Sycamore, Anaheim, California, and LARRY E.
and PATSY P. MOORE, 916 East Everett, Orange, California, Owners of certain real property sit-
uated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as described in Exhibit
"A" attached hereto and referred to herein as though ~et forth in full
; and
WHEREAS, the City planning Commiasion did hold a pyblia hearing et the City HaII in the City of Aneheim on
May I4~ 1962~ at ~:00 o'clock P.M., notice of seid publlc heariag heving been 5uly given as required
by law end in eccocdence with the provisions of the Meheim Muaicipel Code, Chegter 18.72, to hear and consider e•;i-
deace for and .ageinst sald proposed recleasificetion and to iavestigate end make $ndiugs and recommendaUons in
conaection therewith: end
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due. inspection, investigation, end atudy made by itself and in its behelE,
end efter due consideration of 811 evidence end repods offered at eaid headng, does flnd ettd determine the following
facts: '
1. Thet the petiUoner propoaes a reclassification of the ebove descrIhed property from the R-A~ Residential
Agrictural9 Zone to the R-3, Nlultiple Family Residential~ Zone, to permit the establishment
of a triplex on subject propertyo
2a 7hat the proposed reclassification of sub~ect pxoperty is necessary or desirable for
the orderly and proper development of the community. ~
3o That the proposed reclassification of sub,ject property does properly relate to the
zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject property
and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established throughoat the community.
4. That the proposed reclassification af subject property does not require dedication
for and standard improvement of abutting streets because said property does relate to and abut
upon streets and highways which are improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic, v~hich
will be generated by the permitted uses, in accordance with the circulation element of the Gen-
eral Plan.
5. That no.one appeared in opposition to subject petition.
6. That subject petitioner planned to leave existing structure and garage, that subject
property is considered suitable for R-3 development, but that ail existing buildings on subject
property should b~ replaced with a new single story R-3 construction.
Rl-D -1-
, ~V t~•. .~~.r ~ ~ ~~~ 1'' ~~. .~
t .~ "~ . ;' .r,.
. ~'he innd referred to in this policy is in the Statc of Cnlitorniu, County of' I`EtT~B '.~
, and ia described ns followa: ~''~ ; j
That portion of Lot 4 oP ^ract DTo. 153, ~ the City of ~heim, as ,
• sh.ot•rn on a map thereo~ recorded in book 11, page 46, riiscellaaeous
Itaps, recc~ds of said Osange County, desca~ibed as follcros: ;• .
Coaunenc3,ng at the Southeast corner oP the land conveyed to t#lenn ~. .
Fry and others by deed recorded 2•Saxch 29. 1955, ~~~ 3012, page
442, Official Records, in the oPfice oP' the County R~corBer oP said
Orange County, said corner being in the Easterly line of said lot
distant thereon 229.95 feet South~Iy from tue I~ortheasterly corner ~• •
of,said lot, aad rurming thence L•Tester~y aAang the Souther3y line of •.
sa3d laad af'I~y, 125 feet mAre or lesa„ to an intersectioa mith •
the Norther].y prolongation oF the W'esteslq lirre of t.he land conveyed •.
. bo L. D. Sbeere aad wife, by floed recorded APr31 4, ~955, in beolc 3038,
' (contiaued ~t succee83i~g page)
. . .RF~~.~~ ~,o: ~ c. c~ ~ _ EXi~TIBIT «~„ . ~ ~
. ~ to
. . .x-,: ~ .,,..~~„-~..,. . _.._..V..._
, --
~ ~ • {--,) SCF~DULE A tcontinuei~ • . •
. . • i
;i'~;:: page 547, Offiaial Roaards, in the ofPice t~:' 4;ha Caunty Reeorder
of' said Orange Coun'ty, said point being the true point oS beg9.nning
~~~ : of the boundary of the land aescribed hereixa~ thenae aontinuing
4Jestexly~ along the Southerly 11ne of said ].and of Fry, 74.28 Feet
~ ruore or less, to the Easterly line of ~he land eonveyed to Jcaeph D. ~
,-~ , HuartQ and w1Fe, by deed reaorded April 13, 1954, in book ~'j08, page ;r„-
;.~ 555, Offiaial Records, in the office of the County ,Reeorder oP said .
.,:~ ,. Gran~e County; thence Southcrl~y alor~ said Easterly line, tend the ~
;;~ : Southerly exL•ension bhereoS; 2d0.12 feet more ar less, to the eenter
~~ line oP Sycamore Street, 60.00 feet in widthj~thence Easterly along
I~~ ?' said eenter line 72.84 Peet more or lesa, to th~ iriterg~etion with ~'
" the Southerly prolongation of the 4lesterly line oP ~sld land oS L. D.
`~ "~ Steore rci'orrod to abovej thence Northexly along sald i~Jeaterly line,
'.~ ~; and its Southerly and Nortnerly proloa~gations, 280.11 Peeb more or
_,~ :',: lasa, to the true poinb oP beginning,
~ ,'
~ ~ EXI-~I~IT `~1~„
~~ .~ . ,
~., ; . ~ ~
"j _.• ~ . ;
~,~ _~ . __..__ .
,
. ' ~ ;~
' ~
,~ ,~ ~, ~
NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED thet ffie Anehelm City Plenning Commlaeion does hereby recommend
to the City Council of the City of Aneheim thet subject Petition for ReclassiEicatlon be danied on the beais of the
aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and epproved by me this 14th day of May~ 1962.
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMIS
ATTEST: .__ .
;~ ~~~ ~~,~~
; ~ SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
I '
,I STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
I COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
+ CITY OF ANAHEIM )
~ I~ Ann Krebs~ .iecretary of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify thet the fore-
~; going resolution wes pessed end edopted et a meetIng oE the City Plenning Commission of the City oE Maheim, held on
M8y 14~ 19629 ai 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
' ~; !
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Hapgond, Marcoux, Mungall, Pebley, Perryo
i
i
) NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
,
', ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred.
! IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand thia 14th day of May~ 1962.
`I
i ~
l SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C4MMISSION
~ RES~JLUTION NO. 324
i_..-_.._ R2-D
.2..