PC 1962-1963-406A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE C£TY COUNCIL OF TFTE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 62-63-4 gE APP120VED
PIHEREAS, ihe City Plenning Commisaion of the City of Meheim did reaeive a vedfled Petition for Reclesaifica-
tionfrom ~AUL S.. LONG,. 6Q6~Marigold, Corona De1 Mar, California. Owner; RAY00 INVESTMENT ODM-
PANY, INOORPORATED~ 10502 West 1Ca~ella, Anahei.m, California, Aqant of certain real prop-
erty situated in the City of.Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California as followsi
Lot Nos. 18, 19, and 20 in the Lorelei Tract,~ and•further described as 129,203 and 205
Rose Street, Anaheim, California ~
; and
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission did hold a public headng et the City Hell in the City of'Aneltelm on
July 9~ 1952~ et 2:00 o'clock P.M. notice of seid public hearing having been duly given as required •by
law end in accordence with the provisions of the Maheim Municipal Code, Chsptee 18.72, to hear end considet evidence
for end against seid ptoposed reclassificetion and to investigate and meke findinga end eecommendetions in coanaction
therewlth; and ,
WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspectian, investigetion, and study medc by itself and in ite behelf, end
efter due consideretion of ell evidence nnd reports offered at suid hearing, does find end determine thr, following . fects:
1. Thet the petitioner proposes u reclassificetion of the eb~ve described property from the R-29 Two Family
Residential, Zone to the R-3, Multiple Family Resida-tial, Zone to construct one four unit
single story apartment building on each of the three (3) lots comprising subject property.
2. Thet the piopoaed reclossiEication of subject property is necessery end/or desireble for the orderly and pro-
~ per development of the community.
3. That the proposed reclassificetion of subject property does properly relate to the zonea end~ thelr permitted
uses locelly established in clase proximity to aubject property end to the zones end their permitted uses generelly eateb-
lished throughout the community. •
4. That the proposed.reclassification of subject property does no+, require dedic3tion
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, which
will be generated by the permitted uses, in accordance with the cixculation element of the
General Plan. •
5. That lots of sub~ect petition are substandard lots of record.
6. That !~o one appeared .in opposition to subject petition. •
Rl-A
-1-
__ __.----- --.. _.. . ._._ . _- __ .. - -- _.__. __ _.. _ _
_ y7:! ' -•- - - --
~;ryq • !
i ' `~ .
~'
; _ _ ~... ~~.a , .
~
~' • ~.. w.
~.~
~_!
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED th~t the Aneheim City Plenning Commission does hereby recommead
to the City Council of the City of Aneheim thet subject Petition for Reclassi~cation be appmved and, by so doing,
that Title A&Zoning of the Anaheim Municipel Code be amended to exdude the above riescribed property from the
R-2, Two ~amily Residential, Zone and to incorporate said describ2d property in the R-3,
Multiple Family Residential, Zone upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a
necessary pre:a.;~~tsite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to preserve the
safety and genera'_ welFare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim.
1. Repair of damaged and~or hazardous sidewalks on Rose Street in accordance with the
adopted standard plans on f.ile in the Office of the City Engineer.
2. Payment of a Park and Recreation Fee of $25.00 per dwelling unit to be collected as
part of the Building Pesmit.
3. Provision for nine and one-half (~#-) foot garaoes with a nine (9) foot clear opening
into the garages, anci the provision of a seven and,one-half (7-~) f~ot trash storage area on the
center lot of subject property, said trash storage area to be designed so as to meet the approval
of the Department of Public Works. Sanitation Division.
4. Payment of $2.00 per fron~ foot £or street lighting purposes on Rose Street.
5. Time limitation of one hundred and eighty (180) 8ays for the accomplishment of Item
Nos. 1 and 4, '
6. Development substantially in accordance with Exhibit Nos. 1,2,3,4,5, and.6, as
amended.
THE FOREGOING R~,a~LUTION is signed and epproved by me this 9th day of July~ 1962.
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CETY PLANNING COMMISSIO
ATTEST:
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CIT PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY CF OR~NGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Ann Krebs~ Secretery of the City Planning Commission of the City of Aneheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
going resolution was pes~ed end adopted et a meeting of the City Plenning Commission ofthe City of Aneheim, held on
July 9~ 1962~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the mem6ers thereof;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux, Mungall, Perry.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood, Pebley,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hend this 9th day of July~ 1962.
~~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION N0.406 '
R2-A _2_