PC 73-173RESOL[J~1N0. PC73-773 ~-
A RESOLUTION OF THE C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITI~N FOR VARIANCE N0. 2532 BE DENIED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Maheim did receive a verified Peeition for Variance from FRANK
AND LUKRIJA BJAZEVICH, 3919 West Orange Ave~ue, Anaheim, California 92804; ALBERT R. AND
CECLIA L. SANDOVAL, 3608 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim, California 9?804, Owners; LE ROY,
ROSE AND ASSOCIATES, 144U South State College Boulevard, Anaheim, California 92806, Agent
of certain real property situated in the City of anaheim, County of Orange, State of
California described as Portion 1: The East 129.50 feet of the West 427.12 feet of the
Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 15, Town-
ship 4 South, Range S1 West, S. B. B. b M., as shown on a map recorded in book 51, Page
7 cr Miscellar,eous Maps, records of Orange County, California. Portion 2: The Southeast
quartzr of the So~thwest quarter of the Northeast quarter, of Section 15, in Township
4 South, Range 11 West, in the Rancho Los Coyotes, as shown on a map by Charles T. Healey
made ~~pon survey by him about 1870 fer the Stearns Ranchos Cempany. EXCEPTING THEREFROM
;:he We=_t 427.12 feet thereof.
WHEREAS, tlte City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at thc City Hall in the City of Maheim on
A~gust 6, 1973 o at 2:00 o'clock p.m., notice of said public hearing having been duly given as required by law and
in accordance with the provisions aF the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.68,to hear and codsiderevidence forand againstsaid
proposed variance and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, snid Commission, aftcr due inspection, investigation, and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after due
consideration of ail evidence and reports offered at said hcaring, does i'ind and determine thc Pollowing facts:
1. T'liat the petitioner requests a variance from the Annheim Municipal Code a s fo l l ows , to const ruct a'
148-u~it 2-story apartment complex:
a. SECT!ON 18.28~.05~~5) - Buildina heiaht within 150 feet of sinale-family ResidPn-
tial zone (1-stor permitted; 2 stories proposed).
b. SECTION 18.28.0 11) - Walis adjacent to sinale-family Bes~id"~+'iaf~~~nne (6-foot
high masonry wall required; none proposed).
2. That the petitiorer withdrew ~Jaiver ~-b, above :nentioned, and stipulated to
providing the 6-foot masonry wall where na carports e+:ist.
3, 7hat the Planning Comrission has recom~~ended disapproval of the reclassification
of subject property, t4~erefcre the varianse p€~tition wculd not be applicahle to the property
u~der the existing zotiing.
4. Tnak there are no exceptio~al er extraordi~ary circumstances or condition~Payp9ic-
abie Lo the property involved ur to the intendec+ use of the property that do not a. 1 en-
erally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
5, That the requested variance is r,at necessary for the preservation arid enjoyment oF
a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zo~e, and
denied to tne property in question.
6. That the requested variance will be materially detrimental to the public e~elfare
or injurious to the property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which the oroperty
is located.
7. That t~e petitioner was unwil'.ing to consider presenting rev~sed plans upon re-
quest by the Planning Commission to try to resolve the problems of concern expressed by tt;e
Fianning Commission and adjoining single family residents.
-";,~s:~$, That two persons appeared, represen~ ing 14 persons present, all in opposition.
DEV-66•E
. . ~ ~
ENVRIORNMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDIN6:
That the Planning Commission, in connection with :n Exemption Declaration Status request,
finds and determines that the proposal would have no significant environmental impact,
although the E.I.R. Review Committee re:ommended that the request for Exemption Status
be denied on the basis that the petitioner was proposing two story construction within
55 feet of a single family zone while the City of Anaheim required 150 feet of separation;
however, the Commission has determined that the City of Buena Park requires only a 50-
foot setback for two-story apartment construction. Therefore, the Planning Commission
reconmends to the City Council that no Environmental Impact Statement is necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED lhat the Anaheim City Pianning Commission does hercby deny subject Petition for
Variance on the basis of the aforementiu~:;;d finds.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is si~ned and approved by me this 16 th day of Augu st , 1973 •
ATTEST:
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
~~~~l~ ~~~~LC~~'~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM C1TY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE UF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANCE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann F:reb s, Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the City ot Maheim, dy hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution was pazsed and adopted at a meeting of the City Planning Commission of tt~~ J of Maheim, he~d on
Augu s t 6, 1973 ~ at 2:00 o'ciock p.m., by thc follow~ng vote of th:. ^iembers ther•os: '
AYES: COMMISSION~RS: GAL'ER, HERBST. KING, SEYMOUR.
NOES: COMMISSIONEItS: ~ARANO.
A6SENT: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED, ROWLAND.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto sct my hand this 16th day of Augu st, t 973.
RESOLUTION N0. PC73-173
SECR TARY ANAHEIM ITY PLANNlNG COMMISSION
V2-D - 2 -