PC 73-73~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. PC73-73
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. ~Z'~3-41 gE DiSAPPROVED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission oE the City oE Maheim did :eceive a verified Petition !or Re-
classification fcoR MABEL H. AND HOWARD H. WEST, 758 North Resh Street, Anaheim, California
92805, Owners; JOSEPH C. STEPHENSON, 822 West Jade Way, Anaheim, California 92805, Agent
of certain real property situated in the C:ity of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of
California, described as The East 225 feet, said 225 feet being measured from the center
of North Citron Street of that portion of Lot 39 of Anaheim Extension as per map of sur-
vey made by William Hamel and filed in the office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles
County, California, a copy of which is shown in book 3, pages 162, 163 and 164, entitled
"Los Angeles County i3aps", on file in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County,
described as follows: Beginning at the Southeast corner of said Lot 39, and running
thence Northwesterly along the Northeasterly line of said lot, 97,8 feet Co the Southeact
corner of the land described in the deed to L. Dale Vilott and wife, recorded June 18, 1947,
in book 1529, page 320, Official Records, in the office of the County Recorder of saicl
Urange County; thence Southwesterly along the Southeasterly line of said land, 594.84 feet
to the Southwest corner of said land; thence Southeasterly along the Southeaster].y exteu-
sion of the Southwesterly line of said land, 97.80 feet to the Southeasterly line of said
Lot 39; khence Dl~ttheasterly along the Southeasterly line of said lot, 594.87 feet to the
point of beginning. ~XCEPTING THEREFROM that portion included in the streeC along the
Northeasterly line, as shown on said map
; end
• WHEREAS, the City Plenning Cammission did hold e public hearing at the City Hell in the City of Moheim
on April 16, 1973 et 2:00 o'clock P.M. notice of seld public hearing heving been duly given as required by
law and in eccordence with tha pcovisions oE the Aneheim Municipal Code, Chepter 18.72, to hear end consider
evidence for and egeinst seid proposed :eclessiEicetion and to investigate end meke tindings end recommendations
in connection therewith; end
WHCREAS, seid Commission, after due inspection, investlgetion, and study mede by itself end in it~ be-
half, end aEter due consideration of all evidence end reports oEfered et seid hearing, does find and determine the
Eallowing fects:
1. Thet the petitioner proposes a reclassiEication of the above described property from the R-0~ ONE FAMILY
SUBURBAN, ZONE to the R-3, MULTIPLE FAPiILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE.
2. That the proposed reclassification is not in conformance wiCh the land uee designa-
tion of the Anaheim General Plan.
3. That the proposed reclassification would establish an undesirable precedent for
similar zoning requests for those properties - all deep lots - northerly of aubject prop-
erty subjecti.ng the adjoining R-0 properties to the south and west with incompatible high
density uses. ~
4. Thet the development proposal eubmikted wiCh this petition result~d in too many
waivers from the development stendarda of the requested zone, and inadequate vehicular
access was being proposed.
5. That the proposed reclassification of subject pxoperty is not necessary and/or
desirable for the orderly and proper development of the community.
6. That Che proposed reclassificaCion of aubject property does not properly relate
to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to subject
property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally estaUlished throughout the
comnunity.
7. That seven persons appeared represenL•ing 12 peraons preaent in the Council Chamber,
sll in opposition.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
That the Planning Commission, in connecCion with an Exemption Declaration Status requeat,
finds and determines that the proposal would liave a significant environmental impact,
therefore, the petitioner should file an Eavironmental Impact Report, and recommends to
the City Council that an Environceental Impact Statement is neceasary.
-LJ
~
~
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thet the Maheim City P1xnning Commission does hereby recommend
to the City Council of lhe ~ity of Anaheim thet subject Petition Eor ReclessificetIon be denied on the basis of the
aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RE~OLUTION is signed and epproved by me this ~6th da~y--~f April, 1973.
ANAHEIM CITY
ATTEST:
~
~il~l~l~ ,`l~~'~'~~
SECRCTARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Krebs, Seccetary of the City Planning Commission of the ~ity. of Anaheim, do hereby certiEy thet the fore-
going resolution was pasaed end adopted at e meeting of the City Planning Commission ofthe City of Aneheim, held on
April 16, 1973, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the membe:a thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANO, GAUER, NERBST, KAYWOOD, ROWLAND, SEYMOUR,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED.
IN 141TNESS WHEREOF, I heve hereunto set my hand this 2bth day of April, 1973.
~~~~i?//iC~ i~i,l u/~"~/
SECRETARY ANAHEiM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. PC73-73
R2-D -Z-