PC 69-132~r~otunoN No. Pc~U-ls2
-----. . ~......
{~
~.
~
A RESOLU'T7q~1 OK THE CiTY p(,I-NNIIVG C010(1SS[ON OF 'I'F;E CITY OF ANAHEW
~~~1~I1DQfd TO 7HC GTY CWNClL OF 'fHE CITY OF ANAHEp~E TyAT
PETITION l~OR RLCLAt$~1CA'npN Np, 68-69-97 HE DISAPPROVED
R~HER6AS, tbe City Pl~mip~ Camsluton ot the City ot M~hefm did recelve a veritied Petltion for Rr
sla~ilic~tlon [row SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISI5, 9707 Magnolia Avenue, Riverside, California 92503,
Ovmer; AFOLLO DEVELOPMENI' ~RPORATIOtd, 1104 East 17th Street, Santa Ana, Californi:, 92701,
Agent of certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, ;tate of
p California, described as Portion A: The East half of the Southeast yuarter of ihc Southwest
~ Quarter of Section 13, Township 4 South, Range 10 West, San Bernardino Base an~ ;deridian.
'i EXCEPTING THEREFROM the North 665 feet. Also excepting therefrom the SouthF~'y 203 feet of
the Easterly 265 :eet. ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM that portion described in '.;: Leed in the
I County of Qrange, recorded March 23 1967 in Book 8206
the office of the Recorder of said Orange County. PortiontlBpand3C~r The1Soa •~,;~ords, in
of the Easterly 265 feet of the East half of the Southeast Quarter of the ~:~.u~~,westOQuarter
of Section 13, Township 4 S outh, Range 10 VJest, San Eernardino Base and Neridian. EXCEPTING
THEREFROI~i that por±ion ~' scribed in the Deed to the County of Orange, recorded f~iarch 23,
1967 in Book 8206, page ;~03 of Official Records, in the office o: the Recordar of said
Orange County.
~ ~nd
N'HEREAS, the Cfty Pl~~h~ CoMIwJa~ W~Old ~ publk A~uln~ ~t tb~ City H~11 ln tM Clty ot M~hNm
~ June 2, 1969~ ~ 2:pp o'~~ P.r. rotl:~ ot ~~ld pWic burln~ h~vla` beee duly ~Iv~n u roquirsd by
l~w ~nd !n ~cea~l~ct ~It6 tM provlMo~~ ot tM M~6~ie Yuai~i~ coae, Ch~pter 18.72, to he~r ~nd con~lder
evld~nce tor rd ~~~t W~ ~opNy ncJydlle~tioa ~ to inv~stiQ~te tndm~ice tindinp andreconmend~tJoae
tn :onnectiw tM~rMtr; ~rd
NHEREAS, ~d~ Cow~i~~{o~, ~ V~ i~~tiw, inv~sti~rtlo~, rd ~tudy m~de by ibelt ~nd in !b b~.
h~l[, ~nd ~tt~r dw oo~~id~r~tla~ o[ dl ~IM~e~ rd rpat~ otlw~ ~ wyd d~~Nn~, dr.~s tind ~nd det~nela~ tA~
followtn~ (~cts:
1. T-~t tA~ petidoe~r ~iopo~y ~ tKl~s-pc~tion ot the sbove deMCribed property trom the Co~rity A1,
General Agricultural, District to City of Anaheim R-3, Multiple-Family, 2one on Portion
A. County A1, Genera: Agricultural. District to City of Anaheim G 1, Ge;c.•ral Comr~ercial,
Zone or Portions B a~d C.
2. That tne proposed reclassification of sub,ject property is not necessary ano/or
desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community.
3, That the proposed reclassification of subject property does not oroperly relate
to the zones and their permitted uses locally established tn close pr~ximity to sub~ect•
property and to the zones and their permitted uses genere'ly est.;blished throughout the
community.
4. That the Anaheim General Plan designates this ~,rea as being appropriate for
low medium density development and the density o.' the proposed apartment complex exceeds
the maximum permitted in the low medium class;.fication.
5. That i:he proposed reclassifica;:ion would be incompatib2e with the existinn
R-2-5000 subdivision to the north and thE existing and proposed R-1 subdivisions to the
northeast and east.
6. That resider.ts of the A-?_-5000 subdivision to the north purchased their h~mes
under the impression that the property to the south would be d~veloped fnr single family
uses and not for epartments.
~. That R-2-5000 developments fall wi~hin the low medium density category and
therefore the continuance of R-2-5000 development to Bs!1 Road would be logical.
8. That th~ request for C-1 zoning at the inte-section of Sunkist Street and Ball
Road is not war:: ~ed due to the fa„t that cort~mercial zoning has already been approved
at the northeasr :orner of Sunkist Street and Ball Road, and a comrr~unity shopping center
has been deve'o~: ~ one-half mile to the west at the intersection of Bzll Road and State
College Pouic ~ ,
9. Tha~. :•. :sons appeared in opposition and a petition with i50 signatures vras
presented.
JY • RD
, -z-
"r
t
e
~
~.
r ~
~
~ c
n
c
r t
4
Y
C. ~
r ~
i !
~ ;
~.
i
i
e
~ °~:~~ -
~~~ :.~
~:. ..
' ~1 n '~i
' j rj.~
,.~ II:
~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission does hereby recommend
I_; to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that subject Petition for Reclassification be denied on the basis oF the
',-~,~ aforementioaed findings.
i' ~
';~ THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 12th d'dy of June, 1969.
~~
--C.c.~,i .~~ 1~0.~~~~
t"` CHAIRMA ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COM!NISSIOPI
ATTEST:
i
.~
.~J ' / ~
e;`. SECRET.4RY ANAHEIN CI PY PLANNING COMMISSION
~' ?RO-TEM -
`. STATE OF' CALIFORNIA )
~.~~ COU'NTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
; ; CITY OF ANAHEIM )
~ Lee B~ur Sss
;:~ i
;.~ I' + Secretary of the City Planning Commission of t~ie City of Annheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
~~; going resolution was passed and adopted at e rneeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on
~= June 2, 1969~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
c ~ :
AYE;S: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Camp, Herbst, Farano, Rowland, ThOm.
~;
NOGS: COMMISSIONERS: None.
'.
' ABSENT: COA9MISSIONERS: Gauer.
l :
y7 ~ IN WITNESS WHEREUF, I have hereunto set my hand this 12th day of June~ 1969.
o; ~ ~
F i ~~
~ ' ` ~~ ' ~ ~ -
~~ • SECRETARY ANAHEIM CIT~Y LANNING COMMT5510N
~' • PRO-TEM ,
RESOLUTION N0. 132
~+
?: ' R2-D
r '~ -2-
~ .