Loading...
PC 73-226.'~ , ~ ~ RESOLUTION NO, FC73-226 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF TSE CITY OF ANAHEIM RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF73HE4I9Y OF AtJAHEIM THAT PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION NO. ~ 7:E APPROVED WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Aneheim did .initiate a ver~fied petition for Reclassification of property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as Portion 2- PARCEL TWO: Lota 5 through 12 in Tract No. 1569, as shown on a map recorded in Book 47, page 17, Migcellaneoua Maps, recorda of Orange County, and Lots 45 through 49 in T:act No. 1633, as ahown on a map recorded in Book 47, page 50, Miacellaneous Maps, zecords of Orange County, and Lote 1 through 8 in Tract No. 1851, as shown on a map recorded in Book 56, pagea 25 and 26, Miacellan- eous Maps, records of Orange County, and that portion of that certain parcel shown on said Tract Map No. 1851 as not a part nf thie aubdiviaion buunded on the north by the south line of Lot S and bounded on the south by the westerly proloagation of the south line of Lot 9, all of said TracC 1851 LIST OF PROPERTY OWNERS ATTACHED ; end WHEREAS, the City Pienning Cammiseion did hold a public hearing at the Clty Hall ln the Clty of Aneheim on October 1, 1973 et 2:00 o'clo^-1c P.M. nodce of said public hearing having been duly given as required Ly law end in eccordence wsth the proviaione of the Meheim Munlcipei Code, Chepter 18.72, to heer end conaider evidence Eor and egainst seid proposed ceclaesificet:on and to investigate andmeke findinge endrecommendetions in conecctton therewith; end WHERF.AS, seid Commiesion, efter due inspection, lnvestigetion, end atudy mado by itself and in its bo- hnlE, end efter due considecation of all evidence and reports offered et seid headng, does find and determine the tollowing fects: 1. Thetthe Coumiission proposea a reclaesification of the above deacribed property £rom the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE to the C-1, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, ZONE. 2. That the proposed ~aclnssificatiun ia in conformance with the General Plan. 3. Thst although the Planning Cnmmisaion coneidered Portion 1(a and b) fnr posai- ble iacluaion into the C-1, or C-0 Zone, it was determined that after evidence was pre- sented the majority of ttie residenta affected by inclusion of the aecond tier of lote for cummercial purposes were in opposition. 4. That no plan of development had been presented by thoae property owners pro- posing to include Che aecond tier of lots (Portion 1, a and b) for consideration to de- termine the manner in which development and circulation might occur that would be the least objectionable to the adjoining aingle family residences, 5. That no 18nd uses have taken ¢Iace eince annexation to the City other than strip commercial along Brookhurst Street tu warrant favorable consideration of inclueion of the aecond tier of reaidential lota a~jacent Ca both sides of the Brookhurat Street frontage lots. 6. That although Residential Profesetional zoning had been on the Brookhuret Street frontage lots for a number of yeara prior to annexation into the City of Anaheim, no effort had been made for larid esaembly or development plans preaented which would include thoae second tier of lota, therefore, the request made befora the City Gouncil for recon- sidermtion of the zoning recommended by the Ylanning Comnission appeare to be unwarranted. 7. Thnt the recommended C-1, GENERnL COMMERCIAL, ZONE.for the lote fronting on both aidea of IIrookhurst Street, and the one lot aidi.ng on the west eide of Sruokhurst StreeC and Woodley Driv~ ahould be the only logical manner for development of the arEa without seriously affecting Che circuletion patterns of the area as well as the reaidenCial living environment of L•he adjoining single family homea. 8. That the proposed reclassificaCion of subject property is necessary and/or deair- able for the orderly and proper development of the coffinunity. RD ' 1' ~ ~ ~ 9. That the proposed reclassification of subject property dc+es properly relaCe to the zones and their permitted uses locally estebliahed in close proximity to sub- ject property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally eetablished through- out the community. 10. That a petition signed by 138 aingle family residents was received in oppoai- tion to co~ercial zaning of the second tier of lota, while three persons repreaenting a nusber of persons in the Council Chamber appeared in opposition; and that one peraon appeared in favor of the reclaesification of the second tier of lots for commercial purposes. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING: That the Planning Commission, in connection with an Exemption Declaration Status request, finds and determines that the propoeal would have no significant environmentel impact and, therefore, recommends to the City Council thaC no Environmental Impact StaCement ia neceasary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Cormnission does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that aubject Petition for R~clasaifi- cation be approved and, by so doing, that Title 18-Zoning of the Anaheim Municipal Code be amended to exclude the above described property from the R-A, AGRICULTURAL, ZONE and to incorporate said deacribed property into the C-1, GENERAL CO[II~'II.'RCIAL, ZONE, upon the following conditione which are hgreb~ found to be a necessary prerequiaite to the proposed use of sub~ect property in order to praserve the safety and general welfare uf the Citi- zens of the City of Anaheim: (1) That the eidewa].ks ahall be installed elong Brookhurst Street as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with standard plans and apecificationa on file in the oEfice of Che City Engineer. (2) ,That the owner(s) of subject property ahall pay to the City of Anaheim the sum of $2.00 per front foot along Brookhuret Street for atreet lighting purpoaes. (3) That the owner(s) of subject property ahall pay to Che City of Anaheim the sum of 60 cents per front foot along Brookhurat Street for tree planting purposea. (4) That traeh atorage areas shall be pzovided in accordance with approved plans on file with the office of Che Director of Public Worke. (5) That fi~e hydrants sl~ell be inaCalled and charged ae required and determined to be necessary by the Chief of the Fire Department. (6) Thet a eix-foot mas•~nry wall shall be constructed along the eeat or weat prop- 2rty Yinp(s). (7) ThaC all air conditioning £acilitiPa ehall be properly ehielded from view, and the sound buffered from ad~acent properties. (8) That any parking erea lighting proposed shall be down-lighting of a maximum height of six feet, which lighting shall ~e directed away from the property linee to pro- tect the residential integrity of the area. (9) That the finEl parking plan shall be approved hy the Development Servicea Depart- ment, and any landacaped areae in the parking area shall be protected w{.Ch six-inch high concrete curbe, and concrete wheel etops sha11 be provided for parking epaces. (10) That drainage of aubject property aha21 be disposad of in a manner that is sat- is factory to the City Engineer. (11) Erior to the introduction of an ordinance Xezoning subject property, Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3,4, 5~6,7, 8, 9 and 10, above mentior.ed, shall be completed. The prov:.siona or righta granted by thia reaolution ehall. become nu~l and void bp action of the City Council unless said conditiona are complied with within one ~ear from the date hereof or such further time as the CiCy Council may grant. THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and epprov2d by me ehis llth day of October, 1973. ~~~i~fl1.//Y~1~Q. (.C~G_/-~ CHAIRi7~.. ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COI~.*fISSI0~7 RESOLUTION N0, PC73-226 '2' .• ~. . . ~~ ~ ~ A~T~~C: /~ J .r 3~C[tETP.itY APIAFi~IM~ PLANNZNG COP4iISSION STr1T~ OF CALIFORNIA 3 CCfUNTY 0~ QFANGE ) es. ~Y.'fY OF ANAt~''Cx! . ) b, Ann Krebtr, Secretary o£ the City Planning Co~iseion of the City of Anaheim, Go 4eY~eby aattify that the foregoing reaolution wae passed and adopted at a maeting of the City Plenning Co~niseion of the City of Aneheim, held on October 1, 1973, at 2:00 o'clock P,M „ by the £ollowing vote of th= members the~eof: AYES; COt~fIS5I0NERS: ALLRED, FARANO, GAUER, HERBST, KING, RdWLAND, SEYMOUR. N0~5: ~OMMI".6IONERS: NONE. QBSBNT: C6~-:FiISSIOvERS: NONE. iN WiT~^I~'SS 4~dEp~'a.F, I hait ::a'reunto eet my hand thie llth day of October, 1973. ~~~ ~~~ SECRETARY ANAHEIM ITY PLANNING CCMMISSION RE~OLUTION N0, PC73-226 •3~ . . r'. ~ClayCqa Iio~c:len I7. 0 tI . F3 rnokMurs t ~ Anahcar.~, Ca. 92B+c`.~ It9 3oris ilnck, et al I26 :~. ll,rookhurst Anaiiein, Ca. 92801 R9 Bill Cooper Bit90 ~• ~roo;churs~ Ana:~eitn, Ca. 9281+"_~ R9 r' ~ ?ioward Auerswald 11U71 LauYianne L~ne Garden Grove, Ca. 92641 R9 Gesnard Iilume P.O. 3oX 158 Lu riirada, Ca. 90638 R9 E<:win AY.a~ine 37EG ~7ilshira Blvd. ' suits 1009 Lbs Anqeles, Cd. `~0010 R9 hbraham II~kgti 210 t~. Srookhurst Anal~~in, ~a. 92801 R9 Howard Auers~aabd fiII22 H. Arookhurst Anahein, Ca. 92801 R9 ~.f]WAY(3 ~~fi:J~10 203 Victorfa, Ave. Costa Mesa, Ca. 926Z7 R9 rinthony Zi]lY 1a12 P7,',.?iacfenda Pl. Anahelm. Cn. 92807 PROPERTY OWNERS F.rnest Fenton Q77G tt. Hrcokhuret Annheim, Ca. 92801 R9 ~tartha Bircher 8761 S. HirchaT Anaheim, Ca. 928071 R": . ~ichard King d812 N. arookhurat Anaheim,.Ca. 928U1 R9 David Huator 2115 Huntington Anaheira. Ca. 92801 R9 Huhert Palwer 8831 N. Brookhurat Anaheim. Ca. 92801 R9 Buron Simpson 221 N. L~rookhurst anr~eim, Ca. 92801 it9 Gassise'n ti.vans 328 Vicki Lanc Anaheim, Ga. 92804 R9 Donald Lo Beaxi 1731 Miramar Fullaxton, Ce. 92631 R9 You Youag Liu 215 U. Hroukhur~st St. An~eim, Ca. 92II01 R9 Arthur'Domsfes •' Z236 9ar.qor Way Anat}eim, Ca. 92805 ~ Helen Groqer Helcn iCOmpaa 5834 F.lba PI. ilobdland Hills, Ca. 9I36~ R9 • ~ohn Marshall Gruber Realty Prop.Kanaqeaent Dept. 1304 5. Maqnolia Anaheim, Ca. 9280A John IIutlar • BB01 N. Drookhurst Anahoim, Ca. 92801 R9 . Harzy Chandler 8871 i3. Brookhurst Anaheim, ~a= 92801 ' &9 Georqe Nakayam.'. 8891 ti. Brookhurst _ Anaheim, Ca. 92801 R9 n`~ R9