Loading...
PC 1961-1962-351,._.__u.--- - ,,,. ;; ~ ~ ._ Y , ~; ~~ ! , '; ~ i ;p ' .. .. .~._.. ,. ., _,.., __.. , . . ~ :.._:, ,. . ,.. ,... , ..___ ....:.... ... _. _. , , • .-,,,.;r,.,~:....:~.., , . .-, ~ ;' ~ .~, RESOLfJTION N0. 351. SERIES 196~-62 A RESOLUTION OF THE CI'IY PLANNING OOMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHBIM REdOMMENDING PD THE CITY OOUNCIL QF THE CIT1' OF ANAHEIM THAT PETITION I~R RECLASSIFICATION N0. 61-62-113 BB APPROUED WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verifir.d Petitian for Reclassification from PAUL H. PLET2, 3302 West Ball Road, Anaheim, California, Ownerf lAcDANIEL ENGINEERING OOMPANY~ 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Californias Agents of certain reai property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of Cali- fornia as followsi That portion of Lot 12 of Anaheim Extension, as shown'on a map of sur- vey by William Hamel, a copy of which is shown in book 3, pages 163 to 164, inclusive, of "Los Angeles County Maps", in the office of the County Recorder of said Orange County, de-' scribed as followse Heginning at the center line of South Street at the Southwest corner of said Lot 12, and running thence on the said center line of South Street, North 74~° East 9.175 chains~ th~nce North 15~° West 5.45 chains; thence South 74~° West 9.175 chafns; and thence South 15~ East 5.45 chains to the point of beginning ; and . ,~ WHEREAS~ the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall ~ in the City of Anaheim on June 11, 1962, at 2~00 o'clock P.M. notice of said public hear- ing having been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the p^ovisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.72, to hear and consider evidence for and against said j proposed reclassification and to investigate and make findings and recommendations i~n + connection therewith; and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investiqation, and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of ail evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following factsi ~ 1. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above described prop- erty from the R-0, ONE FAMILY SURBURBAN~ 7ANE to the R-1, ONE FAMILY, RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to construct a proposed 2d R-1 single family development. t ~: 2. That ~he proposed reclassification of sub~ect property is not necessary and~or ~, desirable for the n:derly and proper development of the community. ~'I! 3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property doe~ not properly relate ~ i to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to sub~ect prop- ; erty and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the community. :; 4. Tha~ the proposed reclassification of subJect property does not require ded- ;, ication 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 circulation ,f element of the General Plan. ~ ~ 5. Tha~t no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. , , • :i . ~ . i . : • : , '.. „ ~,~ . --- - __ __ ._-- ~ T ~~ ;.~ 1 i ~^~ i'~ RESOLUTICIN NO. ~51. SERIES 1961-62 _ A RE50LUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMIS3ION OF THE CI'PY OF ANAHEIM .RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF At7AHEIM THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO 61-62-113 gg ,4PpROVED WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim dId receive e vedfied Petition for Recles'sifica- tionfrom PAUL H. PLETZ, 3302 West Ba11 Road, Anaheim, California, Owner; McDANIEL F~IGINEER- ING COMPriNY, 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California, Agents of certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California as follows; Beginn- ing at the center line of South Street at the Southwest corner of said Lot 12, and running. thence on the said center line of South Street, North 74~° East 9.175 chains,.th~nce North 15~° West 5.45 chains; thence South 74~° West 9.175 chains; and thence South 15~ East 5.45 chains to the point of beginning , . ; aad it WHEREAS, the CiEy Pla~sning Commission did hold a public. hearing at the City Hell in the City ~f Meheim on ~une 11~ 1962~ et 2:00 o'clock P.M. rtotice of seid public hearing having been duly given as required •by law and in accocdance with the provisions of the Meheim Municipal Code, Chepter ~8.72, to hear and consider evidence for und against said proposed reclassification and to investigate and make findings an~: vecommendations in coanection therewith; and , WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation, and study mede by itself end in its behalf, and aEter due consideretion of all evidence and reports offered et said hearing, does find end determine the following facts: ' 1. Thet the petitioner proposes a reclessification of the ebove described property fcom the R-0~ ONE FAMILY t SURBURBAN, ZONE to the R-1, ONE FAMILY~ RESIDENTIAL, 7ANE to construct a proposed 20 R-1 ! single family development. . ~ . i i 2. That the proposed reclessi~cetion of subject property isnot necessary and~Ur desirable for the order- ~ ly and pro~;;r development of the community. ; 3. .net the propnsed reclassificetion of subject property does not properly relate to the zones ond thF•ir ~ permittcd uses locally established in close proximity to subject property and to the zones and thc~ir pcrmit•~ed uses generally established throughout the community. 4. That the proposed reclassification of sub3ect property does not require dedication for and standard improvement of abutting streets.~acause 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 generateo by the permitted uses, in accordance with the circulation element " of the General Plan. ~ 5. That no or.e appeared in opposition to subject petition. ~ ; `~ Rl-A -- _ - -~`" ..J~i -1- s~~ ' ' r! NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE50LVED that tl~e Anaheim City Plenning Commiasion does he~eby rccommend ` ta the City Council of the City of Aneheim that subject Petition for Reclessification be approved end, by so doing, , that Title 1&ZoninR of the Anaheim Municipai Code be emended to exclude the above described property from the ' R-0, One Family 5uburban, Zone and to incorporate said described property in the R-1, One Family~Resideniial, Zone upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a nQcess- ary prerequisite to the proposed use of the sub3ect property in order to preserve the safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City of Anaheim. 1. Subject to the recordation of Final Tract Map No. 4735 on subject property. 2, Subject to the granting of Variance No. 1487. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed end approved by me this llth day of June~ .1962. ATTEST: ~/V rvvv CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSip SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STAT~ OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY CF OR~NGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) , I' Ann Krebs~ Secretery of the City Planning Commiaslon of the City of Aneheim, do hereby certify 3het the fore- going :esolution was passed end edopted at a meeting of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim, hald on June lly 1962~ . et 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the followi~ig vote of the membera thereof: AYES: COMMISSIaNERS: Allredy ~ampy Chavos, Gauer, Marcoux~.Mnngall, Pebley, Perry. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Kone. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Hapgood. _`_ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have heceunto set my hend this llth day of June~ 1962. /~~i_i2%~/ ` SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 351 ~ R2-A -2- ° ~-'~ --.... _ _ -;-- --------------.__~----- _ _:_.._~ _. ` . - - ~~ , ~ ~ i e ; i ~ 1 'i