Resolution-PC 96-91. +~
~
RESOl.UTION NO. PC96-91
A RESOLUT60N OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
TNAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFlCATION NO. 95-96-05 BE GRANTEt~
WHEREAS, the situated n the Ci~,~tof Anahefm~CountY of Oran9e~ Stateof Caiffomar
Redass~fcation for real properry
desc~ibed as fdlows:
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH,
RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE RANCHO LOS COYOTES, AS SHOWN ON A IU1AP
RECORDED IN SOOK 51 PAC~E 10 OF MISCELLANEOI:S MAPS, RE~ORDS OF
ORANGE COUNTY, CAl.1FORNIA DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: gEGINNING AT
THE INTERSECTION QF THE SOUTH UNE OF SAID SECTION 8 WITH THE
SOUTHER~Y PROLONGATiON QF THE CENTER LJNE OF MULLER STREET, 60.00
FEET WIDE, A3 DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 1 OF THE DEED TO THE CITI' OF
pA FFICEAL RECQRDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY, TNENCE NORTHGO DEG. 02'
24' WEST 835.43 FEET ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION AND SAID
CENTER UNE TO A POINT SOUTHERLY 480.01 FEET FFiON{ THE INTEFiSECTION
OF SAID CENTER LlNE WITH THE EASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE
NORTHERLY LJNE OF TRACT NO. 1775, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 50
PAGE 1S OF SAID MISCELLANEOUS MAPS; THENCE NORTH 89 DEG. 37' 14`
WEST 351.68 FEET PARALLEL WITH SAID NORTHERL`r UNE TO THE EASTERLY
LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 1775; THENCE SOUTH 1 DEG. 16' 54' EAST 835.16
FFET ALONG SAID EASTERLY UNE TO SAID SOUTH UNE OF SAID SECTION;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEG. 31' 00' FAST 333.59 FEET ALONG SAID SOUT~! LIPJE
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. IXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION
DESCRIBED AS PARCELS 1 AND 4 IN THAT CERTAIN FlNAL ORDER OF
CONDEMlVATION, SUPERIOR C~JURT CASE NO. 70691, A CERTIFIED COpY OF
`° i::-!!CH WAS RECOF?DED MARCH 28, 1958 IN BOOK 4242, PAGE 85 OF SAID
OFFICIAL ^n~CAIRDS. ,
WHEREAS, the City Planning .^.ammission did hdd a publlc hearing at the CNtc Center in
the Ciry of AnaPielm on Fet+ruary 5~ 1996 at 1:30 p.m., noi~w of said public hearing havin9 baen duly given
as requirecl by law and In accordance wfth the provisions of the Arx~~~m Municipal Code, Chaptee 18.03,
to hear arxi cons(der evidence for and ~gainst said p~oposed redasst8catiun srti+_to investlgate and make
ftndi~gs and recommendations (n connection therewith; and
WHERFJIS, sald Commfssion, after due inspection, investigatior~ and studY made by tiself
and in its behalf, and after due con~ideration of all evidence and reports offered ffi said hearing, does flnd
and determine the following tacts:
1, Thet the petftioner proposes redassHicat~on oi aubject properry ftom the RM-Z240
(Residential, Multiple-Family) zone to the RM~000 (Residental, Multipie-FamAy) or a less intense zone;
2. That thd Anaheim General Plan designates subject property for m~dfum densfry residential
land uses,
3. That the praposed redassiflCatbn of subJect properry is necessa~Y and/°r desirable for the
orderly and proper development of the communiry;
q ~~~ proposed redass~iqtion of subject properly does properlY reia.e to th~ x~RSSand
their pemskted uses locally establlshed in dose proximfty to subject P~aP~Y and to tha aoreas ~nd thei:
permitted uses generaily established throughout the communfty; and
-1- 5'~.~3^r91
CR2729DM.WP
~ ~
5. That na one indlcated thetr presence at said publk hearing in opposition and no
correspondence was received in ap;~osiUor to subJect petition; howaver, 3 people spake with ~ncems and
a petftion with approximately 200 signatures was submitted.
CAUFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUAI.ITY ACT FINDING: That the Anaheim City Planning
Commtssion has reviawed the propasal to redassiiy subject property fran the RM-1,200 (ResideMial,
MuRiple-Famqy) to the RM~3,000 (Residential, Muhtple-Famity) or a less imense zone on a rectangula~fy-
shaped parcel of land consisting of ~pproxtmately 5.67 acres located at the northwest comer of lJncoln
Avenue arxl Muller Sueet, having frontages of approxlmately 279 feet on the north side of Uncdn Ave~ue
and 770 feet on the west skJe of Muller Street, and further described as i 925 West Uncoln Avenue; and does
hereby approve the NegatNe DedaraUon u~on finding that the dedaratton reflects the (ndependerd
judgement of tha lead agency and that ft has considered the Negative Dedarat(on together with any
comments received during the public review process and further findin9 on the basis of the inittal study and
any car~~ments receNed that there is no substanNal evidence that the project will have a signfficaM effect
on the ernlronment. ,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anahefm City Plannfng Commisston does
hereby approve the subJect Petit(on for Redassiflcation to authorize an artsendmerrt to the Zoning Map of
the Anaheim Mu~icipal Code to exdude the aboveeiescribed propeity from the RM-1200 (Rosidential,
Rlultiple-Famqy) Zone and to incorporate said descdbed proPerh~ Into the RM~000 (Residentiaf, Mulftpie-
Family) Zone upon the fdlowing condftfons whtch are hereby found to be a necessary prerequisfte to the
proposed use of subject property in order to preserve che safety arxJ general welfere of the Cftizens of the
City of Anaheim:
1. That the owner of the subject properry sha~~ submft a letter requesting terminatiosi of Corxiftiona~ Use
PeRnft No. 572 (establishfng a non-cor~foRning bowlfng alley with restauraM and cockta8 iourge as a
conformtng use and expanding sald use) and Varfance No. 4215 (waNers of pem-ftted residential
StNCtUfBS, maximum struCural height within 150 feet of a single-famqy zone, minimum struct~ral
setback abutttng a single-famUy zone and minfmum distance between para~lel walts to consiruct a 74
un~, 2-story, detached condominium complex) to ttie Zontng Divfsion.
2. That ~rior to piacemeM of an ordinance rezoning subJect Property on an agenda for Ciry Council
constderation, Corulftion 1, above-mentfoned, shali bo completed. The City Councp may approve or
disapprove a zoning ordinance at its d(scretlcn. If the ordinanc Thed ovisions ort~ ~r~ted b
'orth IR Anaheim Municipal Code Section 18.03.085 shall appty. p 9• 9 Y
this resoiution shall become null and~ ~o~a~~e date afthis rfesdutionmior~ such further~time es~he
are complled with, within one (1) Y
F'lanning Commission may granL -
3. That approval of this applicaUon constitutes approval of the {xoposed~ request only to the exter~t that
ft compl(es with the Anahelm Mvnicipai Zoning Code arod any other appl~able Ciry, State and Federal
regulationra.. Approval does not indude anY gcUon or firxlings as to compliance a' aPProval of the
request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulatfun or requiremeM.
BE IT FURTHER RESQLVED :hat the Ar~ahefm City Planning Cornmfsslon does hereby find
and determine that adoption of this Resdution is expressly ptedlcated upon applicaM's compliance wkh
each and all of t~~e cond~losis hereinabove set forth. Should any such condRions, or a~Y PaR thereaf, be
declared irnialfd or unenforceable by the ftnal Judgment oF any court oF competeM Jurlsdlction, ihen thfs
Resolution, arxl any approvals hereln contalned, shall be deemed null and vold.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this resdution shal! not constitute a rezoning oF, or a
commftmert by the Ciry to rezone, the subject propeRy; any such rezoning shall require an ordinance of
tho Ciry Councp which shall be a leg(staWe act whfch maY be apP~°`J°d ~ denied by the Ctry Councii at
fts sole discretion.
-2- ~'(:'96-91
~ ~
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION was adopted t the Pianning Commtssbn meeting of
September 4, 1996 1 L
~
CHAIRMAN, ANAHEIM FLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
c~~i ) S~ruG
SECRETAfiY, ANAHEI•~1: ~:~ P~NINC COMMiSSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNT`! OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Margarita Sdor(o, Sec.~etary of the Anahefm City Planning Commisslon, do hereby certHy
that the foregoing resdution was passed and adopted at a meeting of the Anaheim Cfry Planning
Commission held on September 4, 1996, by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BOSTWICK BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, MAYER, MESSE, PERA71~
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MAYER
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this _ jsl_"ay °f '
1996.
~I~C~?~e~fl~,u~u
SECRET Y, EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-3-
PC96-9t