Loading...
PC 73-213, _ .---__ __- -- ---~- -,.._ .. . ~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. PC73-213 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF 73 E 4I ZY~ OF ANAHEIM THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. BE DISAPPROVED WFiEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Maheim did :eceive a verified Petition for Re- classification from JOAN BERRY, ET AL, 10282 Wesley Circle, Huntington Beach, CaTifornia 92646, Owner; WILLIAM H. MILLER, 9732 Hazard Avenue, Santa Ana, CaYifornia 92703, Agent of cer.tain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California described as Portion 1: The Westerly 75 feet of the Easterly 242.50 feet of the Northergy 120 feet of the East one-half of the Northeast one-quarter of. the South- east one-quarter of Section 12, Township 4 South, Range 11 West, in the Rancho Los Coyctes, as shown on a Map recorded in book 51, page 11 of Miscellarceous Maps, records of Orange County, Caiifornia. Portion 2: The North 346.00 feet of the East half of the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quaiter of Section 12, Township 4 South, Range 11 West, in the Rattcho Los Coyotes, as per map recorded in Book 51, page 11 of M£scellaneous Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of Orange County, California. EXCEPT the Westerly 75.00 feet of the Easterly 242.50 feet of the Northerly 120.00 feet thereof. ALSO L•XCSPT the South 125.00 feet of the East 270.00 feet thereof. Porcion 3: The South 125000 feet of the North 346.00 feet of the East 270.00 feet of the Southeast quarte!r of Section 12, Township 4 South, Range 11 West, in the Rancho Los Coyotes, as per map recorded in Book 51, page 11 of Miscellaneous Maps ET AL: STEPHEN F. AND GERALDINE GALLAGHER, 106 North Claudina Street, Anahelm, California 92805 MASAZKI"YOSHIZAI:r9 428 Primrose, Anaheim, California 92804 JAY J. WALL, 1345 North Grand Avenue, Santa Ana, California 92701 DAP.RIL L. WALKER, 2122 East Virginia, Ansi:eim, California 92806 WILLIAi4 SANDERSFIELD, 518 South Manchester, Anaheim, Calffornia 92802 ; and WHEREAS, the City Plenei.r.g Commission did hold e public hearing at the City Hall ir the City of Aneheim on September 17, 1973, at 2:00 o'clock P.M. notice of ~eid public hearing having been duly given as requiced by law and in accoxdence with the provisions of the .~t~eheim Municipel Code, Chepter 18.72, to hear end considet evidence for and ageinst seid proposed ceclessification end to investigate endmeke findings andrecommendetions in connection therewith; and WHEI2EAS, said Commission, efter due ins~~ection, investigation, end study made by itself and in its be- half, and efter due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said hearing, does find and determine the following Eacts: 1. That the petitioner proposes a reclessification of the above described property from the R-A, F,.GRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAZ, ZON~. 2. That the proposed reclassification is not in conformance with the land use des- ignatiow of the General P'lan. 3. That the petitioner d:d not demonstratE that the highest and best use of the property was for commercial deveYopment at this Iocation. 4. That the petitioner by his own admission stated this would Ue a difficult par- cel to develop for commercial uses. 5. Tl:at the petitioner did not submit evidence that a land use change had occurred to warrant favorable consideration of coeimercial use over medium dengity residential land use as depicted on the General Plan. 6. That the Commission in the past had required a 20-foot Iandscape buffer screen i~nediately adjacent to single family residential uses as weli as an alley between com- meraial ard residential ~ses whereas the petitioner was proposing loading and unloading doc?cs in close proximity to single faml;.~ residential uses, thereby destroying the use of th•a rear yards for outdoor activity of these hones. 7. That the reclassification of subject property and L•he proposed use would create a health and safety hazard to the entire area, particularly to the children whu would have to pass this facility to and from school; and that the traffic engineer estimated an increase of from 4,000 to S,OOQ vehicles per day at this intersection if the proposed commercial use were estaLlished. 8. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is not necessary and/or desirable for the orderly and proper development of the co~nunity. 9. That the proposed reclassification of subject prope=~y does not properly Yelate to the zones and their permitted uses locally established in close proximity to.subject property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally established throughout the community. 10. That five (5) persons appeared representing eight (8) persons pr~sent in the Council Chamber in opposition; petitions,signed by 211 persons and 19 letters from con- cerned parents and r.esidentsg and one letter from the Board af Trustees of the Magnolia School District, and a lettpr from the principal of the elementary school to the north weLe received, all in opposition. Furthermore, one letter was received in favor of sub- ject petition. -1- . . - ~ ~ ENVIFONMENTAL ZI~LpACT REPORT FINDING: f That the Planning Co~ission, in coanection with the filing of Environmer.tal ImpacC Report No, 99, finds and determines that the E.I.R. Revisw Committee deeermined that the Report is adequate as an in£ormative dflcument and follows the City's established guidelines, and that there would be no signific~trt adverse environmentel impacts; therefore, the Planning Co~nission reco~nends to the City Council that said report be adopted except that under "Environmental Impact - Whole Concept" Parngraph B sub- parsgraphs 8 and 9 should be relocated to Paragraph F, as the Council°s Environmental Impact 5tatement. NOW, THEP.EFORS, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Citp Plenning Commission does hereby recommend to the' City Council of the City of Aneheim that subject Petition Eor Reclassification be denied on the basis oE the aforementioned findings. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTTON is signed and approved by me this 27th day of September~ 1973, ATTEST: ~. ~ CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSI ~~ i~2~ ~~YZ~G6~/ SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION STATC OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. C1TY OF ANAHEIM ) I, Ann Krebs ~ Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the City of Aneheim, do heceby ce:tify thet the fore- going resolution wes passed end adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on September 17, 1973, at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the followino vote of the members !hereof: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: ALL•RED, FARANO, GAUER, HERBST, KING, ROWLAND, SEYMOUR. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I heve heceunto set my hand this '~7=h day of September~ 1973. RESOLUTION N0. PC73~213 Lit/y'~~ %~~YU~v~ SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PL~.NNING COMMISSION R2-D -2"