Loading...
PC 1963-1964-1010 i _ ~ ; ~. ,~ `:~ - - . ~ . - . . __ .., . _.. . , . : .. : _ :. _ . ._... . ... .__.._.._ _ . .. . __ _.._ -- --- ---- ~ ;~:.....~ . . _ ~ . ~. ; _ _ ;;,: ;,~ f : RESOLUTION N0. 1010, SL•RIES 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. 63-64-21 BE DENIED WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified Petition for Recle'ssifica- 4ionf:om RINKER.DEVELOPME1Tf CORPORATION, 10600 Katella Avenue, Anaheim, California, O~vners; DEVELOPMENf COORDINATORS, 4100.West Commonwealth, Fullerton, California, Agents of certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and referred to herein as though set forth in full ; and WiiEREAS, the City Plenning Commiss;on did hold a public hearing et the City Hall in the City of Anaheim on January 6~ 1964~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of seid public hearing having been duly given as requiced by law end in eccordance with the provisions of the Meheim Municipel Code, Chapter 18.72,to hear and consider evi- denca foc and egainat said proposed eeclessificetion and to investigate and make findings and recommendetions in connection theeewith: and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigetion, and study made by itself and in its behalf, and aEter due consideration of ell evidence and reports offe:ed at said hearing, does find and dete:mine the following facts: 1. That the petitioner proposes a reclessificetion o{ the above described property from the R-A9 Residential Agricultural, Zone to .the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone to establish a one and two•- stoxy multiple family.planned residential development with carportso 2, That the development of subject property is being proposed by a new agent, who has incoiporated subject and abutting propexty into one plan of development which will be one and two-s'tory, whereas the petitioner originally proposed single story multiple family developmento 3e That the proposed reclassification of subject propesty 3s not necessary and~or des- irable for the orderly and proper development of the communityo 4, That access roadways are inadequate to handle the increas>d traffic load which wouid result if sub~ect property were developed for multiple family useo 5o That the City's policy as expressed in the text of the General Plan has been to "encourage and maintain the basically low-density characteristics of Anaheim's living areas and iheir inherent value, beauty, ana safety9 and to provide all living areas wi+h a fuil range of community facilities", together with their logiczl extension into adjacent undeveloped areas where practical~ 6o That seven single family subdivisions have been fiied in the general area in which sub3ect prnperty is locatad and.for which developers have executed utilities annexation agreements with the City, subdividing approximately 155 acres into 682 single family lots, thus setting the pattern of development for subject and abutting properties for single family subdivision developmente 7o That because of tne City's previous commitments to single family developers, the Orange Unified School District has projected its school needs on the basis of low density residential develooment on sub3ect and abutting properties which, if altered, would require immediate reassessment by the Orange Unified School District of their school needsa Bo That no one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petition. Rl-D "1' ~ I ~ ~ ~ } _ ~~ ti. ~y . j ~ l . .,.-......""5~~,~r NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Plenning Commission does he:eby recommz=? to the City Council of the City of Aneheim that subject Petition Eor Reclaesification be denied on the basis of the afocemenUoned findings. . , THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and epp:oved by me this 16th day of Januaryy 1964e i' 1 /~1"_ A/~ r / ~ CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLA . ING COMMISSION ~ 4 ATTEST: i ~,!'j/vy~~.~~"l~(/(/~ _ SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANN~IG C0115P~7I55ION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) i I~ Ann Krebsy Secretary of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Mehein, do heceby certify thet the fo:e- going reso!utzon wes pasaed end adopted at a m~E:ting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Aneheim, held on i January 69 1~64y at ~:u0 o~cIock P.~i., by the tollowing vote of :h~ memb~:s khe~eef: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: A2lredy Campy Cha•vosy Gauer, Mungall, Perr•yy Rowiando NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None~ ABSENT: COMh1ISSI0NERS: Peb'ley, Sides~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hend this 16th day of January~ 1964a RESOLUTION NO. 1010 R2-D /~L~~e:~!~2/ SECRETARY ANAIiEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION -2- F ;'!