PC 87-42~.
r~~~
',
~.:~
;
RESOLU`PION NO. P~.87-42
A 12ESOLUTION OF THE ANAHETM CITY PLAN:d:ING CON,~IISSION
THAT PETITION FOR RECLASS.l'FICATION N0. 66-t37•••22 IIE DEIJIEU
WHEREAS, the l,nahei~ City Plannittg Concmission did receive a ver.tFi.~d
1' petit.ion for Reclassification Erom fiARTMAN CORPORA'PION, ~36 West Linealn
Avznuc, Anah~im, Calif.orni.a 92Q05, owncr and 8~NC0 D~VELOPMBNT GROUP, 4201
Long I3nach Boulevarci, Suite 4U3, Lonc~ t3each, California 90807, ~gent for
cer.tain r!a1 propnrty si.tuated in tne Ci~y oF Anaheim, County of• Orange, State
oL CaliPorni.a, ~9escribed as follows: ;~'
PARCELS :~ .~1ND B, AS 9HOWN ON A MAP I`IL~D TN BOUK 22, PAG~; 32 OF
, ~'AFtCFL MAPS, IN THE OFFICP OF TFII: COUNTY RECORDER OI' ORANGE
COUN'PY, CALIFORNIA.
"AF2CE:~ 2
AN C;ASEMP•.N'!' 8.34 FEE7.' TN 't4IDTH FOR INGRESS ANU F'Gl?~SS OVER THAT
PUFtT.iUN OI' I~OT 5 OL' TItAC'I'S N0. 71, A~ SHOWN Oid A EdAP RBCORDEA IN
~ BC;OK lU, E~AGF 22 ~JE MISCCLLAi7G0US MAPS, IN THE OI'FICE OF TFi~
~t COUN'PY 12ECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, `.,HE SOUTH LINL•' :)F SAID EASEMENT
BEING UESCRIBEi; AS FOL ~OWS;
F3EGINNING I~.T A POINT ON 'CEIE CP:I•ITERLIN~, OF THE 60 FOOT ROAD AS
SHOWN ON 7.'HE MAP OF TRACT NU. 71 (SArD RGAD DFING ti0W KP:OWN AS
STATF. COLLfGE BLVD. ) SAIp PUIN'P BCING 2$0.?4 E'LFT SnU•:H,
(MEASURF,D ALUNG S~ID CLidTERLINE) FkOM TH~; NOR'PHWEST. CORNER OF
SEClION 25, `P04VNSf~IP 4 SOGTH, R}1NGE lt~ W~ST, cF~N BEftNARAIDIO BASE
AND M~'RIDTAN, THENC'F. CAST, pARnLLEL WTTH 'PEiE ':~OU'PH LINE OF SAID
LO'P 5 ~ 250 ['EeT.
EXCEPTING THEREt~RGM 'i'HAT PURTTON INCLUD~D F1T'PHIN SAID 50 E'OOT
R011D AS S:IdWD! ON TFiG MAY UF SAID 7'RA(:T N0. 7'l.
WEiERGAS, khe City Planning Commis:i.on did ho]d a publie hearing a~ *_hF_
Civic Center. in the City of Anaheim on Cebrua~y 2, 1987 at 1:3G p.m., notice of
said public h~aring having been du].y given as requir.~ed by la~v and in accordanr_~
with the provisions of lhe Anaheim Municipal Cade, Chapter 18.03, to hear and
c:onsi.dec evidenr,~ Eoc and aga.inst said propos~d r.eciassiEication and L-o
investigate and make L-indings and recommendations in connectior~ ther~wiEh; said
public }~Earing naving been co~tinued to t;he P.lanninq Commission mee~ing of
t'ebruary 18, 1987; and
WHERE~~S, said Commission, aEter du~ inspecli<. investigatio<< and study
made by itself and ir~ its behalf, and a~l•er ~3ue consia~: ~•it,~t uf all evi.denee
and reports offered at said heacing, does .£ind and determine ~h~ f.ollowing :f'.acts•
l. 'Chat the ~elitioner prapose:; reclassification ~f s~t~j~~ct property
from L•he MT.~ (Indu::~triaZ, Lim:it?d) Zone to th~ CL (Commercial, Lfmited) Zone.
2. That che Anaheim General Plan designat~~ subjec~ property ~or
Comrn~rcial Recrearional land ~xsc~. ;
3. That the proposecl reclaysification o£ aub eck
necessary nor desirable for the orderl and ~ E~COPprry is not
Y pro~er de~elopmenC ~f thz community. -
1053r
PC87-42 ~~
r~;
,.
,~ ";
~- - _ . . .. . ... .. . ., j.zj
~
'i a:~ri
%~ ~,~
, ' i
4. That L-he proposed r.~~r,las~iEicatiora of subjcct property does not
properly relate to t'he zones and their permit~.ed uses ].oc~lly esl:ablished :in
c].uae proximity to subject propK,rty Gnd to the zones and their perm3.tted uses
generally e~tablished L•hroughout ~he cornmunity.
5. That one person ~n~'iica~ed his preCence at said public hear.ing in
opposition; and that no corres~ondence was received in opposition to auhject
petition.
E~IVIRONMEP~TAL IMPACT FTNDING: ~P:~at the Anaheim Ci.t.~~ Pla,ining
Comtnisszon has reviewed the proposal r_o .reclassify subject property from the ML
(Tndustrial, Limite~) Z~ne to the CL (C.ommercial, Limiteo~ Zone to construct a
com,mer.~cial renter wi.th waiver.s of mi.nimu:n number oP parl,ing spaces, maximum
n~imber of EreeUtanding signs, per.mitted locati~n o~ freestanding siyns and
mi-~imum disi:ance between freestanding ~igns on an irregularly-shap~G parcel ef `
land consis~ing of approxi-nately 2.86 acres ].acatec7 south and east of the
southeast corner of Katella Avenue and State College Boulevarcl; and does hereby
ap~rove the Neyative Declarac!on upon finc)ing that it has considered L-he
Negative ner,laration kogether with any ccmrnents received diaring thc publ'ic
review process ~-~n~J f~irth~r finding ori the basis of the i,nitial study and any
comments reccived that there is no sub~tantial evidence that rhe project wi11
have a signi.ficant effect~ on the c~nvir.onment.
NOW, THFREf'012E, BE I'r RESOLVCD that the Anahei.m City Planniny
C~mmission daes hereby deny Petitic~n for Reclassification on t:he basis of the
aforementioned Findinys.
THE FOREC;OING 12ESOLUTIO[1 is sign~~ and ap~roved by me this 18L-h day of
February, 1987.
/.i= ~.~~ / // ~
I'
,-r,lt,~.
CHA:CfiMAN, AN EIM CTTY P~eN~COMMTSSYON
ATT~;ST : ~
---~5~~1x.c""'-'a.'_..i2~--~--~F`~•{ ~1,G~.t~.~~ `
SECRETAR!", ANAHGIr1 CTTX P:,ANNTNG COMMISSTON
STATE OF CAI.IFURNIA )
COUNTY U[' ORANGE ) 5~,
CITY QI' Ap7AHEIM )
?' I, Edith L. !-Iarris, Secretary nE the An~h~im City ]?lanning CommissiUn,
; do heceby certify that the Eoregoing resvlution was passed ar~d adopted at ~
; m~etiny of the Anaheim City P7.anning Commi.ssion held un February 18, 1987, hy ~`~
:; the f~.ll~wing vote of Y,he members thereof: ~~+
i
~ AYES: COMMISSTONERS; gOUAa^, r^RY, HERIIS`I', LA CLAIR~, LAW:CCKI~ MC ~3URP7CY,
i ~'RSSE
; NOEB: COMMI~SIUNERS: A10NG
~
; AHSRN'P: COMMISSIUNf:RS: NON~
'J
~ IN ~~I'PNESS WF[EREOF, T hav«~ hereunto set my lzand thf.s lath day of
February, 1987.
~
' '.1x~.~ ~ .
~ SECRB'.PARY~ ANAH~IM CJ.TY P1'~AN[~IING COMMISSION
I , ~:
1 -2^ PC87-42
~ ~ ~ ~~~i~~
t
t ~M1~ , ~1Y ~ N -~ ~ ~ . . . .. ~
~ ~ iY~,n+y l~n~ ..~~ .~~5 ~i Y ;~. ~ f .:•.: . . .-:. : ~,.~ . :. ~ . . ' ~-- _" . . .. . . , . , ; L ;' *1
~X~,rr.,~,u'r' rr+ s _ ':. ~'~+rJtn.s~