PC 71-91RE50LUTION NA, PC71-91
A RESOLU'~ION OF THF. CITY PLANNIN(3 COMMiSSION OF THE CITY OF ANAH~IM
RECOMMENDINQ TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. ~~-71-45 gE DISAPPROVED
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commisaion of the C{ty of Anaheim did receive a verified Petition for Re-
clasaitication from HUB CITY CONSTRUCTiAN COMPANY, 12053 Paramount Boulevard,
Downey, California 90242, Owner; JAMES K. SCHt1LER & ASSOCifiTES, 1095 North
Mai~l Street, Suite "S", Orange, California 92G67, A,qent, of cert:Ain rQal
property aituated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of
California, as deacribed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and referr.ed to
herain as though sat forth in full
; end
WHERGAS, the City Plenning Commission did hold a public hearing et the City Hall in the City of Anahelm
on May 17, 1971, et 2;pp p~clock P.M. notice of said pabltc hearing having been duly given as reyuiced by
[aw end in eccordence with the provisions of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18,72, to hear end consider
evidence for end against said proposed reclassification and to investigate and meke ~'indings and recammendations
in connection therewith; and
~':~ WHEREAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation, and study mede by itself and in its be-
i";~ h alf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find end determine the
~ ;ib fallowing Eacts:
1. That the petitioner proposes a recl~ssificetion of the above described property from the R-A, AgriculCural,
Zone to the R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone.
2. That the proposed reclassification is not in conformance with the General Plan.
3. That tt~e proposed residential development of the property would be undesirable
dup to the close proximity of both the frepway and arterial atreets which would create
noi_aes and odors detrimental to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the
praspective tenanta.
4. That the proposed reclassification uf subject property is not neceasary and/or
desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community,
5. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does not properly relate
to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to sub ject
pro~~erty and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the
c omiaun i t y.
6. That two persons appeared, representing 15 persons present, in oppositiun to
subject petition,
~
~
s ~
~
~ .+~t
RD
-1-
~
A
_. ..~,.,,;
, E~a"~ ' i
; .
~,
,
;, ,., •~+,~c~r-
r t~~ .v i
.u , ,,,, ,,,,;,,,,
.. .,, ..,,. ..._,_.._. _,_
,.,..___. _ ,_...,...-,...,..,..,~ ................~-...,.....,_....,o.. . . .. ... ..._ . .
.. .. .. ... .~ '
M .
.
r
~, ~ ~
.. ... ~
~ - .
~
~ t
' 1 ~ ~ ; ~ f
• ! , ~. r , . .~. . . ~ . .~ _, ~ ~ ..
.
;~
r~k
' ,
~
-
,~
.
7 a ~i, ~S
-
r,
.,
':l , ~.~ ~ i ,.
;~::•.
.r'n y'i..) : , ~,~~ ,\
. ,• ~ ( •
'
'
1
>~ >
1..
1
iclr tc~ Ihc c,t,itc• nc intrrcal cc~~crc~l h~ thi~ ~,nlicy al th~• J,i~c• licrruf is ~•
st
l i
• '~
'~ ~\
`
c
c~
n
'
"~
ti; 11U11 C77'~' CUIJ`~'1'itJC"1.' , ~ .~. i~. ,
TU;1 (~U:il ,i,;Y, ~i r,ut'~,v~'at:ic
>>t
~
I
,
~t ~ ! .
.
;:~ . . .. . . `
; ;
~' '~ :s:. .
~ ;
..
'
d _ '
~ ~ ` • • '
r~
~
~
"
~
<< - . .
3. 'll« i.~:~.1 i,l'iir~,! i~~ ~n tlii. ,~~li, i i f
~ ,~, ~.~i~:.ir~ ~I in iln ~i.~l~• ~~I c.~I~I~~ iu.~, c ~,u ~l)' "
U1-cUtc1C• ~
~'
' ~
: .
/111.1~)t,}.i~1 . ,ir~~ i•~ ~~~:~ lil~c~~ ,i. I~~II~~~~•.
fi ~
,
: ~ ,~
m~,+:~.::~.
~
t
'
?
7'}t~~sc~ ~~c~rl:a.atts ~~f. 1,c~ts 1, 7. ~~ii~t 3 of. :;~,ullt I'itic~,t~~~,-~ 7'~~tict: r:~. 1, ~i.~
;r , 4 :2~ot~ri~ c~;- t:<t~~ rcc~~rclccl i.i~ 13001: S, ~i~i;~~ ~1:.' of PS~.~;i:r.l];uic,r~u~: tit+r~r;, .'tn tl~~,
;?
~! ;
~ y officc of tlir. County itc~cardel- c~f .,c,S~! Coui~t.y, clc~sscr.il~ccl ~-~:; f~~].Jc~~,~:::
i'
~j ?S
7~
~3C?CJl.llil].iICJ ~1L c"1 r~U].11i. ltl t:tlEtt. CCI'~'Lllil C<71i1'::(t lil T'c11CC~. ~ Of •:it~~tC
~
~, ' ~ ]li.gliway I;cliii~;ui:;hr~~~i~;: Nc~. 557, r.cr~~~-c;r.c1 i.tl I~c~c~E: B70G, T~~~cjc:~ 3~ind 4 0~
.
~; Off:irial Rccards it~ s..~i~ of.fir.e, lit~va.nc~ ,~ 1~c~~t~i.n~J ~u~cl l.cnr~t}i o£ Nc~i'kh
'
~ /Et° ]",' nl ']:~is<< 323.~13 feut, dist:int So~iClnve~st.c~rly tl~crc:on 31.9~ fecG
~
~ yj ir.orn tl~~~ ti~rt-l~ca^tcrl.y ter.rninu ~ t.hci•~~f: ; t.l~ence Norl~h G3° 0?' ?.0" ~`~e: t:
~
s~
~i ,
?.G'l . ~7 f~cL• t•.a ~ t~in~,~ai~t ru~-vr~ concnve Sout~.l~r.r. ly ~I1C~ hcivi.n~.~ a radiuC of
~
~~, ;;: ~•]~.:u.t~•.; f~~r.~; tfir_n~:~~ t;~~stc:i~l.~~ ~~1c>:~~; :;raic3 rurvc:, Ll~i-c~u~lli ~in ~i~i~~]c of. 2.y°
Y ~ ;,~ ~ ' S5' :35" an arc clisi~~~t~ce of 7.Oif .92 ~r,cL Lo a cor~i>ouc~cl c~irve, c~nc~~ve
% j; ;: 5out-.l~cast;ci-7.y ~~ncl 1~~-~vincT n ra~li.u~ of ~i50.0~ fr.r_;:; ~hci;c;~ E~out:hwe: tcrly
~ ', y . aloi7c~ l~i,t r~entinnc•~.l cur.v~~ fihrvunl~ an ai~~Jl~ of ~3° 04' ~{Et"
~-,n ~-~rc
:~
( y
! ,
C~].Srdl'1CC pf ~iQ~. jj ~C`CL~ ~.)1CilCC :iULlt:~l Q° l~~ (}j~~ ~Ql•r;{;~ .g.Ql {C!C~:j t11C11Cr'
~
~~ ° South 72° 5~' l~l" I;~z~i., 52.12 feei: to t:t~c ctii~•i~~cl r.c~rt:irn oi Ltie ycncr.a).
;A
~ ;,~ itortticrly t:~un~::-~r•;~ of sraicl P~r.cel G, ~f.~ 11i~~;~~.;~~~;~ t:c] iTi~l~iis'~r•i~.:r~t No. 557,
'
~'. .:~ heine~ conr;~vc~ P+r~rl.hc~r
l;~ ~-~nc~ havinc~ a r.acli.u:~ c?f. A,97~.~'? fr_c~L; L-l~cnce
Y ,
` `;;
'r F:~i ~tcrly aic~r.~~ :.,iic] hounclar.y to thc poi»L- ot I.~cr.it~ninc~.
~ ,.
.
~ •~~• ,~.,p,,,;«,,,,e.w,~~.~,v.~~.,~~~~.~~ ,,.
M • i;kc:I;PTINr !`1:i;~~t l:~c ;:~!~c;l.r.. of L•hc abavc clc:,c~~~il,c~i T~r~n~~;•L;•, an uncli.viclc:cl
y ,' ;. o-~e-•Lhir.ci ir~t,c:r~~:;r: i.n ill. ail, qas ~~nd oi•.1~~~-- I;yclrc?r.~ii-l~o1> ;iihs~~lnr.c.c.:, nc~~;;
~7nc1 hcrc~~~i"t:er a.;:, on ~n<7 uricler sai.c3 l.ancl,~ ~-~~: rc .erv~~ct in t:l~e dc~cci fa-orr
~
~ - __ ._..._... __
, .
~ ~
~ ~ .
\~yv~S~~
~
~
...; . ... .,
,. .~ . ..... .. ,
. _ __ ......... !
....._.y.....
r
.r ,
.
y NOW, TFIEREFORE, BG IT RESOLVED thet the Aneheim Clty Planning Commission does hereby recommend
`„~` to the City Caunc:l of the City of Anaheim that subject Petition for Reclassification be denled on the besis of the
~'' '',~ aforementioned findings.
THC FOREGOING RESOLUTIUN is signed end approved by me this 27th day May, ~971.
~
CH IRMA~N ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
ATxEST: Pro Tem
' ~~ vv~'`~~'~--'" /XL / .~,c.a
~' ~ SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
I r'
~ ;A
~ I ;~ STAT'E OF CALIFORNIA )
' ~ COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
~ '~'' CITY OF ANAfiEIM )
'~
;w
~ I, ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the fore-
';~ going resolution wes passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on
?;~ Mey 17, 1971, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the followang vote of the members thereof:
.{ '~
;~ AYES; COMMISSIONERS: A'llred, Farano, Gauer, Kaywood, Rowland, Seymour.
' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None,
;Y'{ ABSENT: COMMISSTONERS: Herbst.
~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set m hand 's 27th de of
,,,;~ y thi y May, 1971.
~ -~ r
r~!1 ~- ~-'L- 7`~-~ .. ~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMh1ISSION
'r~ RESOLUTION N0. 91
~~
:~
1 ,';~ R2-D -2-
~ ~
~~
~
~ ,a~t
,z
~~rW~~ t
~
~ • 1
... F
•`