Loading...
PC 1963-1964-1008I _ f _~ .... ..... . ~..... ....... .... ...,.....~ iti:~ ~ ~ . . ~T.. ''k . -~ ~ ,.,.,~ _ +Gb~ RESOLUTION N0.- 1008, SERIES 1y6~-64 ~' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITP ~LAICNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT • PETYTION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 63-64-20 BE DENIED WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anahatm did receive a verified Petition for Recla'ssifica- tionfrom RAE.OAKES, 746 Diamond,..Laguna Beach, California, Owner; RINKER DEVELOPMENf ' '~ BORFORATION,..10600.Katella..Avebue,..Anaheim,-Califoraia,.Agent of cextain.zeal property '-s:i~ttate2i in'the City. of.Anaheim, County of Orango, State of California, as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and referred to herein as though set forth in full <` , and WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission did hold e public hearing et the City Hell in the City of Anaheim on ' .ianuary 6~ 1964~ at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of seid public heedng heving been duly given es eequired by law and in accordence with the provlaions oE the Aneheim Municlpel Code, Chapter 18.72,to hear end coneider evi- dence Eor and ageiast seid proposed reclassificetion end to inveatigate and make findinga end recommendatione in connection therewith: and WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inepection, investigation, end etudy mede by itself end in its behelf, end after due considecetian of all evidence and raporte offered at said hearing, does flnd and determine the Eollowing fects: 1. Thet the petidoner p:oposes a reclessificetion of the above deacrIbed propeety from the R-A Residential Agricultural, Zone to the R-3, Multinle Family Residential, Zone to establi_sh a one and +,wn- story.multiple family planr,ed residential development with carports. '' 2. That the development of subject property is being proposed by a new agent, who has `` incorporated subject and abutting property into one plan of development which wili be one and ' two-story, whereas the petitioner originally proposed single st~ry multiple family development. 3. That the ~roposed reclassification of sub~ect property is not necessary and~or des- irable for the orderly and proper development of the community. 4. That access roadways are inadequate to handle the inc.reased traffic load which would result if sub~ect property were developed for multiple family use. 5. 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 their inherent value~ beauty, and safety, and to provide all living areas with a full ~ range of community facilities", together with their logical extension into ad3acent undeveloped areas where practical. , 6. That seven single family subdivisions have been filed in the general area in which ' sub~ect property is located and for which developers have executed utilities annexation ~ agreements with the City, subdividi.ng approximately 155 acres into 682 single family lots, ~ thus setting the pattern of development for sub~ect and abutting properties for single family • ` subdivision devalopment. ~ 7. That because of the City's previous comm9.tments to single family developexs, the Orange Unified School District has projected its school needs on the basis of low density ' residential development on subject and abutting properties which, if altered, would require ' immediate reassessment by the Orange Unified School District of their school needs. 8. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. i g~` fCl-L -1- _ f7 ~~ ~. . . ~: • i i F, • ~ .._ ~ . , .... ' ~~ . - ~ _. .~- ~ . _. . ~0 ~ RESOLUTION NO. 1008 SERIES 1963-64 A RFSOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF~T3 64 I20 ~F BEHD N EDAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. m ~ WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim did ceceive e verified Petition foc Reda'saifica- tionfrom RAE OAKES, 748 Diamond,.Laguna Heach, California, Owner; RINKER DEVELOPMENf '"~-DORFORATION,..10600.Ka.tella.Avelwe,_.Anaheim,-California, Agent of certain.zeal property '..si~uateZi 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 ; nnd WHEREAS, the City Planning Commiseion did hold a public headng et the City Hell in the City of Aneheim on JanuaTy 6~ 1964~ et 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of seid public heetinq having been duly given as cequiced by law end in acco:dence with the proviaions of the Anaheim Municipal Cod~; Che~p!ec 18.72, to hear end conaider evi- dence for and against said proposed reclessificetion end to investigete and make findings end cecommendetiona in rnnnection therewith: end WHEREAS, seid Commission, after due inspection, investigation, end atudy mede by itself end in its behelf, :~__ ,., a e~~ noi~ii+nr,q and renods offeced at said hearing, does find end determine the following and eiier uiie Cui~s,~~.~:.o.. o- --- fects: ~ 1. Thet the petitioner pcoposes a reclessification of the ebove 3escribed propecty from the R-A Residential Agricultural, Zone to the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone to establish a one and two- si:ory multiple family planned residential development with carports. 2. That the development of sub~ect property is being proposed by a new agent, who has incorporated subject and abutting property into one plan of development which will be one and two-story, whereas the.petitioner originally proposed single story multiple family developmento 3. That the.~roposed reclassification of sub3ect property is not necessary and~or des- irable for the orderly and proper development of the community. 4. That access roadways are inadequate to handle the increased traffic load which would result if sub3ect property were developed for multiple family use. 5. 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 their inherent value, beauty, and safety, and to provide all living areas with a full range of community facilities", together with their logical extension into adjacent undeveloped areas where practical. ti. Tnai seven single family s~.hd'z±~isi~ns have been filed in the general area in which subject prope.rty is located 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 development. 7. That because of the 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 development on subject and abutting properties which, if altered, would require immediate reassessment by the Orange Unif ied School District of their school needs. B. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Rl-D ~1 ; . ' ~ ' , ~ ~ . _ -__ ~ - _, ~ _ ' ~ -, - NOW, THEREFORF„ BE IT RESOLVED thet the Aneheim City Planning Commiseion does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that subject Petition for ReclessificaUon be denied on the besis oE the efo:ementioned findings. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and epproved by me this 16th day of January~ 19640 / ~ ~~/ Ri~'C/ ~ CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PL ING COMMISSION ATTEST: ~~~ SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ANAHEIM ) I~ Ann Krebs ~ Seccetary of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Aneheim, do hereby cectiEy thet the fo:e- i gaing eecolutlon was pessed end edopted at e meeting of the City Plenning Commiesion of the City of Meheim, held on JanUary 6y 19b4~ aE 2:00 o'ciook P.L7., by tkc follo:^ing vote of the membera thereof: ' AYES: COMMISSIONERS:Allred, Cam~y Chavos9 Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland. ~ 1 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ~ ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Pebley, Sideso ~ i IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hend this 16th day of Jdnuary~ 1964. ///,~ :7~/~,r.Y?~r~/o~ SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1006 R2-D "2'