PC 76-10.' ~ ~
,,, RESOUJTI011 I~Q. PC76-1~
,1 RESULUTIOI! OF TIIE AMAHEI'1 CITY PLAWfII~I~ CO'1~~ISSIOp
REC014h1E1d'JI(IG TO T!IE C?TY COUtlCIL OF TIiE CI7Y QF AIIAHEI~•1
TIIAT TIIE R[QUEST FOR DELETIO(J OF C0~7DITTOI~S PERTAIhII14G
TO CEi~ET[RY ROAD BE DISAPPP,OVED. •
l•111EREAS, t{ie oetitioner submitted a request ~or an ar~en~imen+. tn the
conditians of arproval cont~ined in City Council Resolution (!o• ~?.Gn and Ordinance.
~lo. 9G3 adopted in connection ~~~ith Reclassification Ilo. 5~-55-1? on o~onertv
consistin9 of approximatel.y 0.7 acre, located on the nartli side nf 'Lincoln Avenue
betv~een La Plaza and~Cemetery Road, havin~ anproximate frontaces of 14~ feet ~m the
north side of Lincoln Avenue, 7.15 feet on the east side of i.a Plaza, ~n~i ?.~Q feet on
the tvest side of Cemetery Road; and
411{EREAS, the pEtitioner requests deletion of the follo!~inn canditions (:dos.
1 and 3) of tl~e above-numbered resolution and ordinance:
1. Tliat there be no entrances on Cemetery.Road.
Tliat that portion of Lot h used for narkin~ nurposes shall be
fenced alon9 cemetery road ~vith a 3-foot ornamental fence to
enclose the narking area;
and
4~lIIEREAS, the Analieim City Planning Commission did hold a nublic hearing at
tlie City {iall in tfie City of Analieir~ on January 19, 197f, ~t 1:3~ o.m., notice of
said public I~earing liavin~ been cluly given as required by la+~~ and in accordance with
tlie provisions of the l~nalieim Pluniciral Code, to hear and consider eviclence for and
against saicl proposal to amend thz conditions of anrroval of Reclzs~ification No. 54-
55-12, ar,d to investi~ate an~1 make findin~s and recomr~endations in c~nnection
tiierewitii; and
~dIIER[AS, said Commission, after due insnection, invest9~ation anrl study ma~ie
by itself ancl in its behalf, ancl after due consideration of all evicience and renorts
offered at said hearing, UOES 11ERECY FIidD:
1. Tliat one (1) ~erson aopeared at said nublic hearin~ renresentinq
aporoximately six (6) residents and/or property o~~~ners in the immediate area nresent
in opposition; and tt~o (2) letters ancl a aetition containinn annroximatelY fiftv (5~)
signatures, all in oppositi,on, tvere received.
2. Tiiat apnroval for ingress and earess to the sub.iect ~ronerty over
Cemetery Road woulcl create a iiardsliip for the acl,iacent residential pronerties an~1 is
not necessar~~ for the advantageous use of the subject nro~ert,Y.
3. That Cemetery Road is not a feasible entrance to tiie subiect oroperty.
4. i{iat it anpears tliat soiae of the cond9tions of the oriqinal approval nf
tlie reclassification nf subject nronerty liave not been met and, in narticular, tliat
i:he three-foot high fence alon~ Cemetery {toad to enclose the parking area has not
been constructed.
5. That tiie above-mentioned tliree-foot high fence is necessary and
appropriate to adequa~ely contr•ol the traffic ~enerated from tiie use of the sut,iect
pronerty, althougfi said fence need not be ornamental; ~nd tliat tlie cable nresently
being used to close the entrance onto Cemetery Road should be replaced immediately bv
the wall.
G. That ti~r pronosil is not necessary and/or desirable for the nrderly an~i
t~roper development of the community.
7. That the ~ro~osal does not properly relate to tiie zones an~i their
perriitted uses locall.y established in close proximity to subject nronertv ancl tn the
zones and tl~eir ner~r~itted uses qenerall.y established tiirounhout the cor~munity.
3. 7he Uirector nf Planninq has determine~i that the nronnsPd ~ctivitv
falls within the definition of Section 3.~.1, Class 1 of the City ^f Mahei~
I2ESOLUTIOid q0. PC76-10
~ ~,
Guidelines to the Re~quirements for an Environmental Im~n:,c~ Report and is, therefore,
% categorically exempt from the requirement to file an EIR.
t~Q4J, TII[ItEFORE, BE IT RESOLV[U that the Anaheim City Planning Cominission
does hereby recommend to the City Council of the City o` Anaheim that the request to
delete certain conditions of approv~l of Reclassification No. 5~4-55-12 pertaining to
Cemetery Road be disapproved on the basis of tlie foregoing findin~s; and, further,
that the Planning Comrnission does hereby recommend that a three-foot high~reaDnof
wall, in lieu of an ornamental fence, be constructed to enclose the parking ~
tlie s~bject property adjacent to Cemetery Road to eliminate any access to Cemetery
Road from the subject pro.pert.y. .
• TII[ FOREGOIqG RESOLUTION is sianed and approved by me this 19th day of ,
. January, 197G. - '
• `! ~/ ~l~'~
`~F-
CII IRI•1 IJ, A~IAIIEItq CITY PL NNItIG CO!1t1ISSI0~l
ATTEST:
~ ~~~~
SECRE('AR , till HEII4 CIl'Y LA~I(~If~G COPih1ISSI0W
STATE OF CALIFORUTA )
COUidTY UF URAI~GE )ss.
C•ITY OF AtJAHCIt1 )
I, Patricia 6. Scanlan, Secretary o` *he City Planning Commission of the
City of Anaheim, do liereby certify that the foreg~in, resolution..was ~assed and
adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commissior~ of the ~ity of Anaheim, held on
January 19, 1976, at 1:30 p.m., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COt114ISSI0NERS: BARNES, FIERaST, JOIINSUN, KIP~G, t40RL[Y, TOLAR, FARAPIO
NOES: C011t4ISSI0PJERS: P~ONE
ABSEWT: COP~11•tISSIONERS: NO(~E
IN WITNESS WIIEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 19th daY of January,
1976.
• ~ ~~s " ~ /~ ~ ~~cJ
SECRETARY, At~AHEIt4 CITY PLAYP~IWG C0~•1t1ISSI0t~
_2_ RESOLUTION N0. PC7f-10