PC 78-6RESOLUTION t~0. PC79-6
A RESOLUTI0~1 OF TNE ANANEI'7 CITY PLAN4IHG CONMISSION
THAT PETITION FOR CONDITIO~IAL USE PERMIT N0. 1743 BE DENIE'J
WIIEREAS, thc Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verifted
Petition for Condttional Use Permit from RILY, AND DO'JIJA LEE LICHTE"1WALTER, .4N0
BERNARD V. AND PHYLLIS E. MAXSOt~, 5300 East Quail Rldge Terrace, An~heim, California
92807~ owncrs, and NILLIAM TRENT A~lD CAROL WILSON, 6200 Palo Alto Drive, AnaheTm,
California, ?2807. agents, of certatn real property situated in the City of Anaheim.
Coun[y of Orange. State of California, described as:
That portion of Lot 45 of Anahcim Extension, in the City of
Anaheim, as per map made by 4Rn. NaMel, and itled in the office of
the County Recorder of Los Angeles County, California, described
as follows: Beginning at a point tn che Southerly Iine of satd
toi 45~ said potnt being dis[ant along said Southerly line Soutfi
74° S~' S0" Nest 4G7 feet fror the Southcasterly corner of said
Lot 45~ said Southeasterly corncr bcing thc intersection of the
Northerly line of East t~orth Street, 6E.0~ fee~ in aidth, with the
Nesterly line of North East S[reet, 66.00 feet Tn width, said
potnt of beginning also being the Southwesterly corner of the land
conveyed to Thomas J. Whieldon, by deed recorded June lE, 1~5f1, in
book 2027, page 350. Official Records. in the office of the County
Recorder of said Orange County, and running thence North 15° ~6'
25~~ West aiong [he Northwesterly line of sald land conveyed to
Nhieldon, 115 feeY; thence Northt:esicrly, parallel wlth ihe
Southcrly line of Lot 45: 146.53 fcet. more or less, to a point tn
the Southeas[erly line of the land conveyed to Hugo H. Wiehardt
and wife, by deed recorded April 25, 1~50, in Bool: 2~03, page 459,
Official Records, in the office of the County Recorder of said
Orangc Coun[y; thence Southerly alona said Southeasterly line~ 115
fcet to the Southerly line of sald Lot 45: tfience Horth 74° 5~'
20" East along satd Southerly ltne, 14E.53 feet to the point of
beginning.
Tha[ po~tion of Lot ~~5 of Anaheim Extention, in the City of
Anaheim, Coun[y of Orange, State of California, as per map made by
Nilliam Namel, recorded in the office of [he County Recorder of
Los Angeles County~ Californta. described as follows: Beginning
at a point in the Southerly Iine nf said Lot 45, and in the
Northerly line of East North Street, sald point being distant
Southwesterly along satd Southeriy Iine~ 71E,53 feet frae the
cencer line of North East Street; thence from said point of
be9inning and entertng said Loc 45 ai right angles to sald
Southerly boundary and tn a Northwesterly direction~ 150.00 feet;
thence Northeasterly and parallel with said Southerly line, qf1.00
feet; thence SoutheasLcrly and at right angles to said Southerly
Ilne, 150.00 fett; thence Southwesterly along said Southerly line,
90.00 fect to the polnt of beginning.
WHEREAS~ the City Plan~tng Commission did hold a public hearing at the City
Hall in the CTty of Anahetm on January 4, 1978~ at 1:30 p.m,~ notice of said public
PC78-b
hearing havlnh been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the
provisfons of the Anaheim Muntcipal Code, Chapter 18.03, to hear and cons(der
evidence for and against said proposed conditional use and to investigate and make
findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
IJHEREAS, said Commission, after due fnspe~tion, investigation and study made
by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideratlon of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearin9, does find and determine the following facts:
1. That the proposed use is properiy one for which a condltional use
permit is authorized by Anaheim Muntcipal Code Section 13,7.6,050•040 to wit: to
permit a Frivate school taith yaiver of:
SECTI0~1 18.04.042.020 - Minfmum rear ard setback.
15 feet required; ee[ existing.)
2, That the proposed use is hereby denied on the basis that subject
property is not large enough to provide an adequate large outdoor recreational area
for the number of young students proposed (85); that the increased traffic resulting
fran parents dropping off and picking up children during peak ho•.irs would be
detrimental to the surrounding single-family residential nelghborrood; that the
existing intersection at North Street, East S[reet and La Palma Avenue inadequately
controls [he current traffic volumes in ;he area and that th~ resulting poor traffic
circulation in the area vrould be worsened by increased traffic volumes generated by
the proposed use.
~. That the proposed use will adversely affect the adjoining land uses and
the growth and development of the area in which it is proposed to be located.
4. That the size and shape of the site proposed for the use is not
adequate to allow the full deveiopment of the proposed use in a manner not
detrimental to the par[icular area nor to the peace, health, safety, and general
welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim.
5. That the arantinq of the Conditional Use Permit will be detrimental to
the ~eace, health, safe[y and generai welfare of the ti[izens of the C(ty of Anaheim.
6. That one person indicated Mer presence a[ said public hearing in
opposition; and that no correspondence was received in opposi[ton to the subJect
petition.
ENVIRONMENTAL IHPACT FINDING: That the Anaheim City Planning CommtssTon has
reviewed subject proposal to pernit a private school with waiver of minimum rear yard
setback~ on an irre9ularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.7 acre
having a frontage of approximately 237 feet on the north side of North Street, having
a maximum depth of approximately 150 feet, being located approximately 476 feet wast
cf the centerline of East 5treet, and does hereby approve the Negative Declaration
from the requirement to prepare an environmental Tmaact report on the basts that
there would be no significant ii~dividual or cumulative adverse environmental impact
due to the approval of r_his Negative Declaration since the Anaheim General Plan
designates the subject prope~ty for medium-density residenttal la~d uses commensurate
with the proposal; that no sensitive environmental impacts are involved in the
proposal; Lhat the Initial Study submitted by the petitioner indicates no significant
individual or cumulative adverse environmental impacts; and that the Negative
-2- PC78-6
m.
f .~
Declaration substantiating the foregoing findings is on ftle in the City of Anaheim
Planning Department.
NOW~ THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Planntng Lommission
does hereby deny subjcct Petition for Con~itionat Use Permit on the basis of the
aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOII:G RESOLUTION ts signed and approved by me this 4th day of
January, 1978.
/ /.",
~~/'%~ ,~~~ U %l~'"_.
CHAIRMAN, AMAHEI`1 CITY PLANNING LOMMISSION
ATTEST:
~~l,G~, !. ~~ ~ -
SECRETARY, A~IAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STl1TE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Edith L. Harris, Secretary of the Anaheim City Planning Commisslan, do
hereby certify that the foregoin9 resolution was passed and adopted at a meeting of
the Anaheim City Planning Commission held on January 4, 1978, at 1:3~ P.m•, by the
following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONER5: BARNES, DAVID, HERBST, JOHNSO~~, LltlN, TOLAR
NOES: COMMISSIOtlE°5: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: KING
WITNE55 WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 4th day of January.
197a
~_~ 0 ~t~ ~ ~Gt.~-~
SECRETARY, ANAHEiH LITY PLANtI1NG COMMISS ON
-3- PC78-6