PC 86-236•;,: ,~<.,, ..,~.
~ _
,._
.
,, , ..
;~ , ~~;:
~~,:`?
, - ,;~
',';
RESOLC'Z'ION NU. PCB~-236
A RESOLUTTON OE' THB ANAHEI~1 C.ITY PLANNING COMh1ISSIUN
;;
TEIAT PETITiON FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 86-87-6 BF' DENIFD
, ;;
WFt~,REAS, th~ Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified R
r;
petiti~n Eor Reclassification froir, MR. & MRg~ R(JGg~;N p~ LEON, 1:1.095 Meads, ~~tu
,.~. Orange, CaliFurnia 92667 and MRS. MARGAR~T ENNIS, 24165 Fortune, EI Toro, ,i
. California 9263p, owiiPz~ ~qd PIE;RCO D~VELOPMENT n. ~ ~~~~~
Tusti.n, Ca1iE'ornia 926a0, agent: Eor c~~:tain rea~~ ~NC., 14771 C Plaza Drive, ",~f
1 (:~
of Anah~im~ Coun~~~ cr Orange, State of California Pd scribeolasapo~loWSthe City ''
L~T 5 UT' TRACT 255, ~~g~~ ~~AHEIh1 SUB-UIVISION AS SEiOWN UN A MAP
RECORDED '!N BOOK 19, PAGGS 25, Or MISCFLGANECIJS MAPS, RECORDS 0[
O.RANGE CUUN'PY, CALIFORNIA,
,;
' LUTS G, 7 AND ~ OL' TRAC'i' N0. 255, 7i~ 7'HF CT'rY OE ANAHGIM, AS PER
Ma1' RECORDEI) IN BOOK 1~}, L~~'~GE 25 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS IN 'I'HE
OFt~ TCR OB' THE RECOI'tDCR OF SAIll COUtiT'Y .
EXCEPTTNG 'I'HERLP'.ROM TE1G WES'Pk:RLY 5 FE~'1' OL SAID LAND.
WfiEREAS, the Ci~}• .Planning Comrnission did hold a~ub~ i;, hearing at
the Civ.i.r Cente~ in the City of AnahEim on Sept;em~eX 15, 1986 at 1:30 p.m. v
notice of yaid ~unlic hearing having b~en 'ul ,,
accordance w.ith the Y 9i~'en as required by J.aw and in ~~
p~:c,visions of the Anaheim Municipal CoGe, Chapter 18.p3, I`
to hear and cansider evidence far and against said propused rec].assification ~
a~d to investigatc and make findi-igs alid recommendations in connect~on ,
tl~erewith; and ~~
WH~R1;A5, said Commissiun, after raue in,pection, investiyation and
study made by i.t~~lf and in its behalf, and af.ter due consideratinn o.~ ~ll
evide:ice and re1aorl:s eEfered at said hez~rir~g, does Lin~3 and deh:ermine th~
following ~acts:
l. That the~ petitioner ~r,~poses rec.la:;si,[icati.ort Qf
from th~ RS-720p (l~~sidential ~~ =ubject prop~r~~,
(Residential, Multi.ple-E'amily) Zone orJds~g~esFintense zonre t9 the RM-120U
2. That the Ar.aheim General Plan designal;.es subjecL• pruperty for
low-mediuin densit~~ residentia.l lanci uses, w!~ich desiqnation does nok permit
FtM-12G0 residcntial densi.ties.
3. That the proposed rec.lassiEicati.on is liereby denied on thp basfs
that the use w~u1d have an ac~~erse impact on surroundiny residential uses, and
on the ba~is that Gener.al Plan AmeiidmEnt N~~. 7.2~ L•o red~si,yriate -.he ar.ea for
mPdium-d~nsity residentiaJ. 1a;~~~ usny was der.ied.
~
4. Tnat the proposed r.ec.lassiFication of subjer_t pr~pErty is not
necessary nor desicab.~e foz tt~c arderJy anc3 proper developmNnt of the
cornmunity.
~. That the propo~ed reelassi.Eicati.or, of subject ~roperty does not
prope~rly relate 'to the zun~;. <~nd their permiL-ted u:,es ].ocally establ.i.shed in
, close proximity to subject property and to the zones and h.he.ir
gene.rally er~tabla,shed khroughaut the community. P~rmitted uses „
,~.;
, ~; ~~ 0927r
r iJ, . ~ ~' ~
~ ~ ~'W~~ ~t'+ ° ~
r,,~, ~ R c ~ ~ , PC$6-~3
~i,~~~'~'~~E',5a ~i~ ~ ,.~ Ra;,~:''?~ ~ ' , 6
,.~,~:, a ,:s.;.
~~ ~
~~.
6. That no one indicaced their presence at sai~ o lbion toa subject
opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opp
perition.
E:IVIRONh1LN`rAL, IMpAC7' FII~DING: That the Anaheim City Plar~ning
~ammis~ion has reviewed the pcoposal to rec].assity subject property fzcm th~
RS-7200 (Residentia:~, Single-Family) Zone to the RM-1200 (Residecitial,
MultipJ~e-I'amilyl Zone or a less int~nse zane ta construct a 36-unit apartment
complex with waiver of maximum stcuctutal height an rectangularly-shaped
parceis of l.and totaling appr~xa.mately 1.1 acr~s having a.frontage of
approximately i4i Lact -~" ±-},e eaat side oF Cof~man Street, and being tocated
approximately 260 Feet north of L-t7e c°nterline of Center Stre~t and further
descr.ibed as 118 through 186 Norkh ~ofEn;an Street; and does hereby deny htie
iVeg~.t.ive Declaration upon f.inding thaL it has considered the Negative
Declacation togett~er with any comments received ~luring the public review
process and further finding un the basis of thc-; initial s~udy and an;~ comments
received l~hat there is substantia.l evidence 1:hai: the project will have a
significant effect on the .~nvironment.
NOW~ 'PH~~EFOF2E, BE TT RESdI~VED l-.hat the Anaheim City ~lanning
Commission does l~ereb~~ ~'.en~ Petition Eor ReclassiEi.catio~z on the basis of the
aForem~ntioned findings.
THL FOREGOING 12ESOLUTION is sign~d ancl approve~~ by me this 15rh day
of Septembec, 1986. ~'' /
~ ~~' ~ ~r /
~" :~ ~ G~,~, o.r;
~~~-,r'.~:~':~ ,.C:~i /,.'.~r - ,.
CHAIRt9AN, ANA~~M CI'~Y PLAN .~NG COMMISSIObI
AT'lEST:
~ %~' )~'l '/..i,~'~L.L'L_~c./~~' ~ ~ . r~
;;ECP.ETARY PRO TEMPORE:
Atii~~iEIM C7TY P'LAI~NING COMMIdSIQN
STATE OF CALIEORNIA )
COUt~'rY OF ORA.NGI~ ) ss.
CITY O1~ APdAHc:IM )
I, Pamela H. Starnes, Secretar.y ~k l.he Anahei.m City ?1•annicig
Commi.ssion, do hereby cer~.ify that the foeegoing cesolutior41eid$on Sept mber
adopted at a meeting ~E the Anaheirn City Planr~i.ng Commission .
15, 1986, by t~e fo.ll.o~ving voL•e of the members the~eoi:
AYES :
tdOFS :
ABSENT:
-':•:ii;
.. . : ` ::_,^,r:
?
~
~.
CCNiMISSIOI~ER ~: BQUAS ~['RY. r EIPRBST ~ LA CLAIRE ~ LAWICKI r MC BURI~EY ~ %Y
ME:,SE
COMMISSIGNLRS: ~~~~ I~~'~
COMMISSION~RS: NONF
IN ~4ITNES5 WHGRL:OE~, I have hereunto s~t rny hand this 15th day ot
September, 1996. ,~ /r
~ ~~ / ,%,A_
~:.%.:i~_.G'" ' ~i•~~`: .-~'~
S~CRETARY PRO '1'BMl'ORE
ANAHE.LM CITY PLANNI[~G COMMISSIC)N
-2-
PC86-23 5
,,
"b~
i. (