PC 1965-1966-1813RESpLUf ION NOo 1H 13 ., Se.r 1 es _ G5-66
~w_~.
A RFSOLU7IUN OF THE C.1TY PLANNING qOMMI~~ION OF 1'HE CITY OF~ ANAfiE:IM
REGUMMEHDlNG TO 'f1iE ~ITY ~UNCIL OC 1'H~ ~,ITY OF ANAHF.IM THE
AD~PTION OF AREA DEVELOPME.NT PLAN NO,, 22
WHEREASy the City Planning Commission ciid receive a verif'ied Peti~Lion for
Reclas,iFication No. 65-~6G~•~37, requesLiny Ganeral Commercial Zoning for the est~blishment
of a f.,o-•story i~t'fice building,; ~and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did initiate p.roceedings E'or Area
,i "~~"' Development Plar. No. ?_2, after c~nsiderinc re uesl:^ b ad
_I q ~ y jaceni: property owners
'~ for a study of' the area .al; t,he puulic hearing of the aforementioned Petition for
Reclassif i:.ation; and
\ ,
~ WHEFtEAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing ai: the City
~ ' }iall In t;he CiLy of Anaheim on Oc;tober 18y 196~iy at 7:00 0'c:ock P~M,,, noLice of
~' said hearing ha~~.nq been duly yiven as required by ]aw, to hear and consider
'~ evidence fo.r and against :,aid proposed Petition for Reclassif'ication No~ 65•a66-•37
,;,~ ~ and Area Devclopment P.lan No~ 22Y and to investigate and make E'inr3ings and rPCOmmenda-
- I tlons in eonner,tion therewit.h; and
!
,ti~ ~ WHEREASy said Commission after due inspcction, investigationy and study rnade
~ by itseif and In its behalf, and afte.r :1ue ct~nsideration of a11 evidence anc reports
~ i offered aL said h~aringy does iind and determine the f'ollowing }a~t:s=
i
i
~ l~ Subject properties of' Area Development P1~n No, ??_ ace located on
t:he east s:ide oi= Ea~t. Street between Wi;heimina ar~d La Pa'lma Avenues
and on the soir~h side oC La Nalma Aven~e east of' Ea~t Street for a
distance of' approximate'ly 9?5 feet,
~ 2, The l and use of sub, ec t pr.~pert ies con ~ ists of s ing :e f ami ly t~omes ~
i
~ 3~ 'the arcels of
! P pcnpecty are all deep lots varyin9 f'rom i46 to 270
I fer.t and havinq widths of 75-~9U feet.~
i ~ r
;• f - 4„ Eleven of' the lots front on La Palma Avenue eastei•ly of the service
; - station site; even of the lots have frontage on East Street; and twa
" i lots have frortage on Wi1F~elmina Avenue„
j
' 5„ East Street a 66••~foot wide secondary highway is prese~t:ly carryiny
15,000 vehicles per day and .is projected to carry 22,500 vehicles per
' day within the next ten years. La Palma Avenue is designated as a
~; primary highway on the Circulation Flemenl: of The General Plan and
; will ultimatety be developed to a width ot 106 feet~, Although traffic
; volurnes are presently 4,A00 vehicles per dayy when the grade crossiny
-! uver the A„T~ 8, S„F,.R~R„ and the Riverside fireeway overcrossing is
~ ~ cump'leted within the next twc yearsy a traffic volume of' 12y500 vehicles
i I per day by 1968 is anticipated with a vo:ume of 1f~y000 vehicles per day
by 1974~
~ 6.. The land use aro,~nd subject property is to the north low densityy single
. family residential~ to the northwest the Orange County Flood Control
retarding basin; to the southa westY and east, low density single family
~ residenceso
~i '
~ ; 7. None of the deep lots have secondary access, and if' develooment occurs
! for other than the present single farnily use, an alley may be provided
~ to separate any heavier use from the single family subdivision development
adjacent to said deep lots~
~
~
' ~i
'i
~
~ -
~
R
~
~~
~
' ~
~ ^„~°a^~...~ ~-,...4..~--,,:__:__~:,~ ;;s~,v„
~----
, . "~7"•..~~,yY,_ .~' ~ - ~ wrO~s~.~e~~ Rv +m.a
~-_3 • , ,~+~+,L.'F~',~ ~.~.~..~.~....~
~' ' 3
~
i.;~,: C
~3., That two plans of f'uture development. were presented px~oposyng sugge5ted
secondary access~ whethez or not Lhe propertl~~s are devoloped f'or
commerclal oz•rnulLiple family resid~~ti~l or single family residentia1
use in order to minimize the number of primary acces,po~ints to 1;he
arterlal streets~
9~ That sevE~~• property owners~ representiny a number ot ~roperty owners
who wi11 be affected appeai•ed to exprss their viPwpoints~
_ j ...::.~Kts. ;~
~'~~
~ `I
~ ~
~
~
; _
. .~I
~
~~
'i
1'~
~~~
NOW, THERE~RE,, BE :['I' RESOLVED thak the Ctty Planning Commi.s~ion of the C~ty
of Anaheim does hereby :rer.ammend to the City Counci:l of the City of Anaheim that Area
Dev~~l.opmont Pian No, ?_2, Exhibit "B",, bo approved as a logical plan of re;iev~lopment
of the deep lots f'ronting on the east side of East Street hetween W'ilheirr~na and
La Palrna Avenue~ and the sout.h side of La Pelma Avenue between East Street and a
distance approximately .1.10 Feet west of Haw~ho.rn SL.reety said exhibit indicating the
type ~i' secondary access which could be provided if development takes pl~~ce; furl,her
that iF development do~s take placP that land assembiy should be en~ouraged and any
development, should have proposed access points approvNd b~• the ~ity Traffic ~ngi.neer.
7'HF FOREGOING RCSOLU7ION is signeci ~nd approv~c! ~y me this 2~th day of Octobery
'1965 •.
~.TTES"I :
,~~;~ ,~ ~~~~ r...~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING ~MMISSTON
S'T A'f E 0 F CAL I PO RN 1 A )
CUUNTY OF ORANGE )ys„
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
Res., No, 1813
Iy Ann Krebsy Secretary of the City Planniny Commission of the City of Anahe.im
do hereby uertify that the f'oregoing resolution was passed and adopted dt a meeting
of the Ci~y Planning Commission oi' the Ci~y ofi Anaheirny he'ld on October 18Y 1965,, a±
7s00 0'ciock P~M~,, by the f'ol~owing vote ot the members theieofe
AYES~ COMMISSIONERS~ A'll:red; Camp, Gaucr, Herbsty Perry., Munqall~
NO ES~ CCM~MISSIONER5y None~
ABSFN'I: COMMISSIONERS~ Rowland,.
IN WITNESS WHERE~Fy I have hereunto set my hand this ZBth day of October,
1965~
,i
;;.
~
` ~'
_ , ., ~
~
~~ .
i
~ ~~.
-- I
~
~
~: ~'~
~~. -i
-=-~-
~
~ Z~L~'~ ' ,
CfiAIRMAN~ANA IF EIM CITY qNNING QON~MISSION
~~ / . ~ v ! , ~~'~..~ .~ ,~.~-,
SECRETARY ANqHEIM CITY PLANNING CAMMI5SION
~ . , . :~'+~ti :~~ . -,.~..~, .,Y,=.,,~,,
~
~