PC 1963-1964-1049¢"!.':',
•` ;~
f
i
i M
';
~
~`
~~~.
RESOLUTION N0. 1049, SERIES 1963-64
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF APIAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COCJNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FQR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 63-64-77 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a vezified Petition for Reclassifice-
tionfrom FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE 8 TRUST COMPANY, P, 0. Box 267, Santa Ana, California,
O.vrrer; S'fANTON To STAVRUM, S. Ho I-I~DRICK COMPANY, 900 5outh San Gabriel Boulevard, San Gabriel,
Cai~fornia, Agent of certain real property situated in the Ci.ty of Anaheim,.Cnunty of Orange, '
Sta-te of California, as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and referred to herein as
;,huugh set forth in full
; and
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission did ;~old a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of p,.a'r_eim on
February 3~ 1964~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required
by lew and in accordence with the provisions of the Aueheim Municipel Code, Chapter 18.72,,to hear and consider evi-
dence for and ageinsi seid proposed reclassification and to investigate and mek~ findings and cecommendations in
rnnnectian therewith: end
WHEREAS, seid Commission, efter flue inspection, investigation, and study made by itse?f and in its behalf,
and after due consideration oE all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following
iects:
1. Thet the petitioner proposes a reclessificetion of the ebove described propetty from the R-A~ Residential
tiyricultural, Zone to the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone to construct a one and
two-s~ory multiple family plannec3 x•esid~ntial development with carports.
2, That the proposed reclassification of subject property is not necessary and~or
desirable for the orderly and proper devsiopment of the community.
3. That the pr.oposed multiple family development would be incompatible with the
existing single family subdivision development to the west and north of subject property.
4. That the size and shape of the subject property would be idea~.ly suited for
development into a single family subdivisiono
5a That 3 persons appeared, one of whom presented a petition signed by 139 persons and
who represented 35 persons present in the Council Chamber opposing subject petition.
~ ,,.,_.,„. ~ Rl-D -1-
_._. . _ . _ _- ---- -
.-------- ----- ____- --- _.__ .
~ ~
-.-•-----~-~•-a---~ . ~ • .
F` . . ____' ~ . ..
, i
~~:,
~:
~;,
~i
x~
i; ~
;~
3~
;;
'^~
~~1
~
i
{
~~ . _ ,`-`~_'_
n, ~•
1 ~ ~1~
f
i; •~r.
r. . . .. -
i
s:
i
`~l
;d
;~
:.,
; ~a
i~.~
,'~
~3
~i
;; ~
,~
11
i.I
:~
?~
' "~~ ~ ~`~Ii f` '1 i~i-S~ai~~~~1~~A`G . . . . ~!1~11 ~ ~ .
~ !~ t ~X~ n~v.\ ~'~. ?~~~~~~..r i . + ~ ~~ti ~ O •`'l ~ ~ ' ~ O' ~.~ .
':~d,~ ~'~~`~ , ~ r~, ~1+(" ~'ti'' e.~'~ : • - ~~ !t /, D~
~ '~ ~ y ! M ~'t°• `'~,\! ' L +~
` ~-=~~~- - Orange County ~'~tle Co~p~
~ ~ ~..,._ f ,~
~ A .,., ' r~L~r~L.~ ' ~ . . , ' ' • . . '
'~~~~ ~' ~~~~ ~/E'..y.r'~~1~~ ~ d~lll fTREE•T AT FIFTH, 911NTA AMA, C'ALIFOIItltA ~ XIMBERLY'7•6d92 ~ '
f u , ~
`~ i ~. ~ ,,,~~~ F ~ j~ .~ ( i~i e ~
, ` ~~.Y . ~ ~ ~ ~~~ i~y i { ~ . . . . . ~ . . .
i.34~~ ~ J~v yr t''., t ~,~~ ~, i
~ } , r 1, ,:~ ~ . ~ . ,
t ' •.1
• ~i
~PREUMIT~L~RY REPORT '~' ' ONrNo ~ 851819 ,
r~
'. ~ ~ ' ~-~ t j~Ci: i t ~'I . '~, ' . ~ ' .
~, , ~ ISSUCd fOY SOI@ :.USB Of : ~ l; ,
~ ` . ~; 1~ . Your No. p~
M1:: ~.. ~ ~ _ ..~•. ~ • . . . , .' ..~ • ~ '. ~ '
,~ . ~ .i~ ~, ~ ~~-~~-~~.
~• !re ear~~,attwn wtth your. applicafton for a Policy of Title Insurance on the title to the lend,horeineher descrlbed,
''- this report is tuued as an accommodetion, and is m~de without Ifability and witi~out obllgettori to issue such Poiiry.
'•` . StatemenY•of charges will be ronder~d when PoNty li i~:ued, or'n(ney deyc from entry of appHcation, if Poliry
4~. , is rMt ~ssued prtor to that time. ~. . ' .
;~;
;;- ~ Deta.: as of ~ Jet-ussy '3~ 196{~ • et 8 ~0 A.M '~ I; •
;: i r. ti - ;~; ORANG~'• COUNTY TITLE COMPANY
~ a . , .
c.,. ~ Y 1~~/~( /'~/
~ , ,' . B
, ~~-.~. i ~ ~ i~` , : ' ~ . , . ~ . , ' . ~i{~i ~D. ~:.~ TI FF ER •
,, . ;
r ryvEStEE:. ~.~ ~~sm _~iieax ~~I~r:se ~~c~iRRN~L t~ mfnrnm rmeaeuv; a c!~-1t4~sai.n eoroorntioz: .
~ ' ~~ ~ _ , ' ' • ; .
. ~
`` l -..'~O- y8iQ0~.'yy~~.~ ~pq~Z~liYiY1~YP ~M ara~nW~iGQ~ 'y~i,n ~ yy~T•C~i~Y W ~0~~~ ~
. ..~.
. 1 . • O . ' ; i . . O ' , ~
~ • . 851819
Parcel l. Th~ North he,1P oP the Northeast quaiter;oP the Southxest quarter cf
Section 7~ Qb~mahip 4 8outh~ Range,l'0•West in the~Rancho Los Coy~Dtee, as shoxa on
.:~. Map ~ecarde3 in book 51~ page;l0 oP Mieee]laaeous Mape~ recorde ot' Orange County~~ ;
L`fL~.t01'YS~Y.r ', , • ~ ~, ~ , I . . '
~
~r:ALao~ eaceprting thnr~from tlvst portion ].ying Scutherly of n 13ne pai~e,11e1 ead
,conc~tric xith nud distant Northerly 39.50 t'eet, f'rcan the follaving deacribed line: '
~.:BeBinning at a potat in th~ Easterly 13ne o~ r~.fd.i8outh`reet quarter, aaid point •.
'boing d3ataut 8outh 0" 37' 35"~Eest 668.85 ~aet trom the Nostheest;:orner oS 1~aid '
~ Southves~ qvavterl thonce South.88' ~40' 21" T~eest ~08.58 Yoet to~e'beginning 0~ .8'
- tangent curv~ concave 8outher]zY havin~c s rediua of 1200.00 Peetj th~ca West,er~y °
~~sad 8outhueatc+~rl,y along aaid curve:to a poinL• in ths Weet•line of the Northee~
'quarter, oP ,aai.~.8outhrrest quarter. i'
~Pe~rcel:~E. ~ Ata un83vide8 15.675~'170tbe :intereet ik~!the 8oufi~h• 201.~L0 teat o! the
.NOrtL 36~.~U ZdOL 0I T.IIe i~leleTr LVU zee'G'of Tite j~i6y ~$v =ca[~i 6i vuo q`'vr~.iacao~ .
:quertnr o! the Bouthea~b quns-ter of 8ection 7~ ~h3p 4 Bouth, Range 10 Wee~~
~ ~ S! n• n ~r v _ ~; ' . .. /? / /_ ~ .
. . . . ~.~ (!I `'r(~ ~f' 7/ .
~ **~~*~}
:FIDH.v6 , _ . . _ ...,, ~ , •
;'
i
. ,
J
(
~
~r
L.
;_;
~
~.
~~,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLV~'D that the Maheim City Plenning Commission does heceby :ecommend
to the City Council of the City of Anaheim thet subject Petition for ReclessiEicetion be denied on the besis of the
aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed end approved by me this 13th day of February~ 19640
+~d~iC>'
.
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CI i i P A NING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
~ ~~:~,.~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I~ Ann KTebs~ Secretery of the Citp Planning Commission of the Ciry of Aneheim, do hereby certiEy thet the fore-
going cesolction wes pessed end adopted aE a meeting of the City Plenning Commission ofthe City of Aneheim, held on
February 3~ 1964~ et 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Al1rEd, Camp, Chavos, Gauery °-1~angall, Pebley9 Perry9 Rowland~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Sideso
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve heceunto set my hend this 13th day of February9 1964a
//_ . /~~ ~ /
~~l/~(/!/l/ /,¢'li_~/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 1049
R2-D
-2-