PC 80-25RESOLUTI0;1 "I~. PC ~n-?
1 RESOLUT I Ot; ~F THC AP1/1f!F I M C I TY PLI~.~L'I i ~lr. ~~~1`t I`~ ~^'I
TIfAT PGTITIOI; FOR RECLASSIFICu.T10'I ;10. 7?-~r~_?~ r~C GFAiITf.R.
41tIEREAS, the Anaheim City PlanninG Commission did ~eceive a verified
petition for Reclassification from P.q!1L A. A~lD id.~Nf.Y ~, i,~FT~F~~,qr~, and D:1Vip R, A~ID
N/1FlCY C. MELLD;I, 3;38 East ~destrid9r, Oran9e, L'alifornia n~r.~~, owners, and PAUL A.
41ATERHAhI, 1818 4fest Chanman Av~nue, Oranye, California n~,+,F,~g~ ~gent, ~f certair rcal
property situated in t`~e City of Anaheim, County of nr3,~q~, State of California,
described as follov~s:
That Portion of Vineyard Lot A-1, in the City ef Flnaheim, as sho~m
on a nap of Anaheim, recordr_d in Book 4, Pages ~7.~ an~ E3~' of
Deeds, P,ecords of Los Angeles County. Californi~, described as
foiloti•rs: Geginning at the tlortheast corner of Vineyard Lot "~,1",
as shown on a map recorded in Gook h, Payes !2~ and 63~ °` Deeds,
Pecords of Los Angeles County, California, running thence ~vesterly
alon, thc northerly lin~ of said Lot 1'•1! feet• thenc'- S~utherly
parallel ti•~ith thc eastcrly line of said lot, ~3~ fcet; thence
easterly parallel with tne northerly lin~ o` sai-1 tot, 1(•1~ feet
and tt~ence nortlierly to point of beginning,
t•!HFR[A5, the City Planning Commission did $~~~P<JU~C a~~u51ic hearing at the
City Ilall in the City of Anahein on January 11t, 1~Rn~ ~t ~.3~ ~,,,,,, nottce of said
pubiic hearing having been duly given as renuired hy i~;. a„~1 ;n accordance toith the
provisions of the Anaheim ~".unicipal Code, Chapter 1~,~3~ to hear and consider
evidence for and against said proposed reclassification an~l to investiclate ar;d malce
findings and recommendations in connection ther~with; said ~uhlic hearing hav~ng been
e~~ttr+:ed t~ *_h^ °l~~nni~, ronmi~sio- ..,r,c~ir, of cc~ru ~"^. ~nc.
.7ry ii, i_ ~
41HEREAS, said Commission a`ter due inspection, investin~tion ~-,d study mad~
by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evid~;,ce and renorts
offered at said hearing, does find and determine t5c follovring f=~ts:
1. Tliat the petitioner proposes reclasstfication of suhject oroperty `rom
the RS-7200 (Residential, Single-Family) Zone to RM-21E~~ (^esidentTal, "tultiple-
Family) Zone.
2. That the AnaSeim General Plan clesionat~s subject ?~~Perty for medium-
density residential land uses.
3. That the ~roposecl re:classification is her~hy granted subject to the
petitioner's sti~~ulation at the puhlic hearina to providinn a~iX (F) foot hi9h
masonry bloc4;a~a11 on the west and south property lines. V
4. That the proposed reciassification of su6ject Pr~Perty is necessary
and/or desirablc for tne ordcrly and proper development o` thc r.on^~unlty,
5. That the proposed reclassification of subject property does nroaerly
~elate to the zones and their permitted uses loc~lly estahlished in close ~s'oximity
PL~iO-2 ;
to subjeet property and to tlie -r.ones and Chei r pPrcii ttt~d usr, generai )y establ isned
throughout the con~unity.
~• That the proposed reclassi`ication of suF•ject ~roperty requires the
dedi wtion and improvement of abuttinq streets in accordance t•;ith the Circulation
Element of the General Plan, due to the anticipatecl increase in T.raffi~ r~htcP~ will be
generateJ by the intensification of land use.
7• That four (~E) persons indicate~l their pres~ncc at the January 1~, 19"~
and to-io (2) persons indicated their presence at the February 11, 1~'~~ p~b~ic hearing
in opposition; and that no eorrespondenc~~ 4~as received in opposition to the subjeet
petition.
Et!VI~p~~~1EHTl1L I!4PP~CT FI~IDIt1G; That the Anaheim City Planning Comm?sslon has
revie~•~ed the proposal to reclassify subject property fron the P,S-72!1p (!?ESIDEtITIAL,
SI!1~LE-FA~11LY) Z0~lE to tfie P.~1-2~~~~ (RESIDE~ITIAL, `tULTIPLE-Fi,';;~y) ?q!IF on a
~ectangularly-shaoed parcel o` land c~~sistinu of approxiTat~lv 12,5~n ~qi~are feet
located at Che south~•~est corner of Florth Street and East StreeL, h~ving frontaaes of
approximately ~5~ fcet on the south side of North Street ano 3!1 feet on the 4!n_SL slde
of East Street, and does hereby approve the tle~attvc Declarati~n fror. thc requirenent
to pre~are an environm~ntal inpact rr_p~rt on the nasis that thr_re would be no
signi`ieant individual or eur.iulative auverse environmental iMpaet du~ to the approval
of this IJegative Declaration since the Anahein General Plan designates the subject
property f~~ mediun-density residential land uses comrrensurate with thc proposai;
that no sensittvic environr~ental impacts arc involved in thc proposal; that the
Initiai Study submitteJ by the petitioner inuicates no significant individual or
cumvlative adverse environmental impacts; and that the hlegative Ceclaration
substantiating the foregoing findings is on file in the City of Anaheim p~3nning
Depa rtnent.
~101J~ TNEREFORE, BC IT P,ESOLVED that th~ Anahcin City Plannlnq Conmi;sion
'!oe~ ;;cre~',' ;r;;rt suLj~cC i'e[i~iun iur i~eclassification and, by so doing, that Title
18-Zoning oT the Anaheim ~~tunicipal Code be a~~iended to exclude the abovc-described
property from the RS-7200 (RESIDENTIAL, SI~1,LE-FA!11LY) ZOtJE to RN-21,0(` (~ESIDEt1TIAL,
SI~1GLE-FAFtILY) ZONE upon the follo~iing conditions which are herety found to be a
necessary prerequisite to thP proposed use of subjec[ property in order to preserve
the safetye~d general welfarc of the CiCizens of the City of /lnahcim.
1. That the o~aner(s) of subject property shall dced to th~ City of Anaheim
a strip of land 40 feet in o-~idth from the centerline of the street alonc; East Street
for street tiVidening purooses.
2. That sidewalks shall bc insialled along East Street as requirel hy the
City Engineer ^nd in accordance ~~ith stanjard plans an:i specifications on file in the
Office of the City E~igineer.
3• That tfie o«ner(s) of suhject ~roperty sliall poy to th~ City of Anaheim
a fee, in an ac:ount as determined by the City Council, for sr.rr_et linhting al~r,c~ East
Street.
4. That the oNmer(s) ~f suhject ~rop^r:y shal] pay Lo the Clty of fanaheim
a fee, in an amount as determined by the C(ty Cour.cti, for trec plantinq purposes
alonq East Strcet. ~
-2- PCE30-2,
5. That tiie o~:mer of su':ject property sliall ~ay to thc City n` Anah~im the
appropriate p~rl: and reercation in-1 icu fr_cs :~s cletcrrcined tn he ao^ropriate by th~
City Council, said fees to 5e ~aid at [hc tine the ;,uilc!inn oerr.iit is issued.
(. That the oa~r.er(s) of su!~ject property shnll p~y [hr traffic signal
assessment fce (Ordinance 'Jo. ;"^~) in ~n am~unt ~s %leterr~ined by thc City Council,
for each ne~+~ da~ellina unit orior to thc: issuance of a huil;'i~~~~ p~rr~it.
7. That su:,ject pr~~perr_y shall bc dcveloprc~ su:>stantially in aecordanee
wit`~ plans and specifications on fil^ r~ith the C(ty o` Anahein narLed Ex'~ihit tlos. 1
a~id 7.
~. Prior to the introduction of ar urdinance rezonin9 suhject property,
Condition Ilos. 1, 3 and 4, above-mcntioned, shall tic complet~d. The provisions or
r~ghts granted by this resolution shall bAcor.^. null an~! void hy action of the
Plan~ing Com~ission unless said conditions are compli~d s•~ith arithin one year from the
date herecf, or sucii further tine as the Plannin9 Comr~ission r.iay ~r~nt.
3. 1'hat Condition ',os. 2 and 7, a~~ove-mentione~l, shall b~ complied with
prior to final building and zonin~ insn^ctions.
EiE IT FI!~TN6^ ~ESOLVE~ that the P•nahei-~ City Pl~nnin~ Co~mission does hereby
find and determine that adoption o` thi~ 'tesolution is eiprr~ssly prFdicated upon
applicant's compliance ~:ith e~ch and all of the conditions her^_inabove set forth.
Should any suc5 condition, or ~ny par[ t`~ereoF, he d~cl~red invaliJ or u~enfnrceable
by the fin~l judgnent of any court uf competent ,jurisdiction, then tfiis Resolution,
and any approvals hercin cortained, shall bc deem~d null ~n~l void.
TlIE FOP,FG01'1C ° UTIO': is sic,ned ancl anprovecl by me this llth d~y of
F~~r:.~~r~ . "''"•
~'~a.~,Gc,~~ s~~ ~ . ~~._
Lf IA I°'S~,?!, A';P.FE I~t C I TY PLAlItJ I t'~ C'1~! I SS I OtJ
riTT[ST:
d~ ~ 7~,,,t~:,
SECP.~T~~RY, ANAHE I!1 C ITY PU~1„J I'! ; C~!?'tISS 10'1
ST.'1TE OF CAL 1 FORi~ I A )
COUt1TY OF ORA;IGE ) ss.
C ITY OF A~l;,rtE 1.`1 )
I~ Editl~ L. Harris, Sceretary of thc Anahcin Citv f'lanni~a Co~nission, do
hereby ccrtiry that the furegoiny resolut+on was ~~ssad and ~dopt^~_1 ~t a r~eeting of
the Anaycim City Planniny Cocimission licld on Fc~~ru~ry 11, 1^'1~1, by thc Tallowing votc
of thc members thcreof:
AYES: C("!`il$510~'E2~: uAGi'ES~ '!I$'i'1RE~ .^A~!I:)~ F^.l'~ HF~EST~ 1;1?!~~ TOLA?
:10[5: COt1MI5510t1~.',S: 'JO'!E
AESE':T: C~!1'tlS$10:'lERS; ;1Q'dF
A~35T~1•'!: COt~ttISSIC'!ERS: °~USt!03E
I'1 ~;11T.".[SS l,'!!EREOF, I have ,icrcunto tiet r~y !~~nd this ilth day of February,
19~0. L
~E~Z {?n~ Mfl N_ .~ ~1~ ~(/~rCt/~i~~ ~~~~~~~$5~n~t
-'i- PC30-25