PC 67-50PC67-50
RESOLUTION N0.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AP7AHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. 66-67-52 gE pppROVED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified Petition for Reclassifica-
tion from WILLIAM A1. Sh1ALL, 1632 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Owner; BETKER '1~:iSTRUCTIO'~
COh1PANY, 524 West Commonwealt~, Avenue, Fallerton, Cali`ornia, Agent of certain re~.! ~~roperty
situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State oi G~;ifornia, described ~ " tJorth
150.00 feet of the south 450.00 feet of that portion of Lot 2. or" Anaheim Investment Comnany's
Tract, as per map recorded in book 7 pages 33 and 34 of MisceL'~neous A4aps, in the o::'i:a of
the county recorder of said county, lyino westerly of the westerly line of Tract 'rJo. 2402, as
per map recorded in book 115 pages 45 and 46 of N~iscellaneous h1aps
; and
WHEREAS, the City Pler.ning Comrt~ission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim on
February 27, 1°67, d, ~:00 o'clock P.M. notice uf said public hearing heving been duly given as required by
law and in accordense with the provisions of the Aneheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.72, to hear and consider evidence
for end against seid proposed reclessification end to investigete and make findings end recommendations in connection
therewith; end
WHEREAS, seid Commission, after due inspection, investigation, and study mede by itself and in its behalf, and
efter due consideration of ell evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the followinR fects:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclessification of the above described property from the R-A, Aqricultura' ,
Zone io the R-3, Multipie Family Residential, Zone.
2. ?hat the orooosed reclassification is in conformance with the General Plan and
consistent with the land use and zoning in this area.
/
3. That the propose~.l reclassification of subject property is necrsserv and/or desirable [or the orderly and pro-
per developm~ent of the cos~munity.
4. That the proposed reclassificetion of subject 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 esteb-
lished throughout the •:ommunity.
5. That th~~ proposed reclassi`ication of subject property does not require dedication
but does require improvement of abutting str2ets in accordance ti~~ith the Circulation Element
of the General ?1~~, due to the anticipated increase in traf.`ic which wil] be aenerated by
the intensiiication of land us2.
6. That no one aoreared in opnosition to subject oetition.
~
~x.
- R-A
,w..,<~~.,.-.
-1-
~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT Rn~OLVED thet the Anaheim City plenn-ng t;ommission does hereby recommend
to the City Council of Che City of Aneheim that subject Petition for Reclessificetion be approved end, by so doing,
that Title 18-Zoning of the Aneheim Municipal Code be emended to exclude the ebove described property from the
R-A, Agricultural, Zone, and to incoroorai:e said cieccribed nroperty into the R-3, Multiole
Family Res_dential, Zone upor, the followin9 conditions whicn are hereby found io be a necessary
prerequisite to the proposed use of subject property in order to preserve the sa;ety and
general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim
1. That street improvement plans sha:l be prepared and al'. engineerinc, requirements of
the City of Anaheim along Palm Lane, such as c+arbs and gutters, sidewalks, street gradinq and
pavin9, drainage facilities, or other appurte~~~.~t work sha11 be completed as required by the
City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and speci.`ication=_ on file i~ the office
of the City Engineer; or that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim
shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of said engineerinq recuirements.
2. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City of Ananeim th~ sum of $2.00
per front foot along PaJm Lane, fox street ?ighting purposes.
3. That the owner of subjec'c property shall pay to the City of Anaheim t~~ _,,,~. of 15¢
oer front foot along Palm Lane, ior tree planting purposes.
4. That a?arcel h9ap to zacord the apor.oved division of sub;ect property be su:~~itteo
to the City of Anaheim ;or approval and then be recorded in the office of the OranGe County
Recorder.
5. That the owner of subject property shall pay to the City o` Anaheim tne =u:~, of ~25.00
per dweliing unit; to be u~ed for park and recreation purno=_es, said amount to be oaid at
the time the building perr,iit ?s issued.
6. That any air-co•iditioning facilities proposed shall be orooerlv shieideo .`rom view.
7. That Condition Nos. l, 2, 3, and 4, above mentioned, sha]! b2 complied witn ~•rit:~in
a period of 1A0 days from date hereof, or such further time as the City Coun~il may grant.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed snd approved by me t is °th d~y oi ~darch, ? 96 i.
~ ~i
i
~ ~ ._- / r ,~ ~
~CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CI'I'Y PL NING C MMISSION
ATTEST:
7 ~ - '-"
/~'~~~:~,> ~ ~.~i. {:, _~'
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY CF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Krebs, Secretery of the City Planning Commission of the City of Maheim, do hereby certify thet the fore-
going resolution was passed and edopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of tI~e City of Aneheim, held on
February 27, 1967~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Farano, Gauer, Herbst, Rowiand, Camp.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: "~one.
ABSENT: CONMISSIONERS: Mungall.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hend this 9th day of March, 1967.
1 „~ ~ RESOLUTION N0. ='0
~"~ ,
~'~'..?. ' ~r .~~,
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
R2-A _2_