PC 86-3~.:.
RCSOLUTION N0. PC$6-3
A RL50LU7'ION OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CCMt9ISS:ION
TIiAT PEiI'PTON FUk RECLASSIFICAT.TON NU. 8~-86-15 BE DGNIEA
Wx~P.EAS, the Anaheim City Planning Commission did receive a verified
' petition ior Recl.~ss:ificai:ion from AHMGD JAlIANPANAH, ~'~ tiL, 520 Nor,th Rexfard
c.
r~~ Drive, i3everly Hills, Ca.li[orr.ia 9~210, owner, and ~4AGAY fiA1QNA, 440~ MacAzkhur
Bou.Levard, ~b80, Newport~ ~each, Californi.a 9'166~3, agent foz cert-.ain real
propecty s.ituat.zc! in the City ot Anah~im, Co~anty of Orange, State of
CaZiforni~., described as tollows;
R PUR'PTOPI QE' T~OT 7 IN BLOGK 17 OF A SUI3DIVTSION OE THi' SOUTF?
HALF OF SEC'PION 21, TN 4'OWNSHI~ 4 SOUTHr RA[JGF 10 WES'~', IN TH~
° T2ANCI~O LOS BOI,SAS, :CN TFIF' CITY OF ANAHETM, COUNTY OF OFtANGE,
STATE OE CALIFURNIA, AS PBR hiAP R~C0~2DF;D IN BOOR 51 PAGE 7 AND
~'~ [`ULLOWING MISC.ET,L7,NEOUS MAPS, TN 2'HE OFF'ICE OI' THE COUNT.II
h1fi0RDER OE' SAID URANGE CUUNTY, AND AS SHOFIN ON A FI11F RECORDED
IN BOOK 1 PAGE 33 OI•~ MISCBLT~ANEOUS R~C(7RUS Or LOS ANGELBS COUNTY
llESCRIBED AS COLLnS+1S:
ti•
BFGINNII~G A~.' TtIE SOU~PHWES'.C CORNER aT SAID LO'P 7; THENC~ NORTH 0°
49' 20" EAST Fi69.60 FE~`P ALONG TFIL WGST LINE O~' SAID LOT TQ 'PfiE
~ NURTHWri;ST CORNGR 'PfiLREC)F'; 7'HBNC~ SOUTH 85° ~3' 5U" EAS~ 339.00
E~~T ALONG THE NORTH L2NE OF SAID LO'1'; iHEP1CE SOUTH 0° 33' 10"
WEST 668.87 PE.G`S '.i'0 `1'HL•' SOUTH LIt:L OF SAID LvT 7; THENCL NOR7'EI
8U° 51' .'tL~" 'iJE~iT :~4U.40 EF.'c;T I+LUPJG SAID 40UTH LINE; i0 THk: POTNT
' UF' IiEGINNINGo
EKCEPT "i'HE WFS'1' 15U.00 FE:'u2' `SH~R~U[`.
AL~SO EXCGP`!' 'PHE tdORTH 3GU.00 k'EE7' T.E?EHBOr .
ALSO BXCEP'i` Z~:~FREFktOM AIV UNllTVIDLD ~~/STHS :f.NTER~S'I' IN 'PfiF SOU`rH
50.00 kL'LT OF' T;{E ~AST 1'1,.5 FPL•'T UF uAlU T AP1D.
wHI:RLAS, ~h~~ City P.lanning Commission did hald a public hearing at
the Civir. c~=nter in the City oi Anahea.m on January 6, 1~a6 ~t 1:30 p.m.,
no~ice oi said public he~rinq ha~ing been 3uly given as iequ9.red by law and in
accor.rl~nce taith the pr.ovisions of the Anaheim Municipal Cade. Chap'ter 18.03,
Lo hear ancl consider evidence Eor ancl against said ~r~posecl ceclas~iE~cation
~nd to investiyate and make f:indinys and recommendations in c~nnection
i:herewith; anc~
WEiF,I~E11S, said Commission, af.L-er due insper.tion, investigation and
stucly made by itself and in iL•s +~ehalf, and a[ter due co~siderai:ion of all
evicience at~d reparts ~ffered at saici h~aring, dues find and detecmine the
~oll~wing facts:
1. That the petitioner pro~oses reclac;,iFication of subject ~~ropet~ty
from the ItS-10,0~0 (Ftesidenr_a,a]., Siny1E-Fam~ly) zone t~~ the i2M-1200
(Residential, hluZtii~l.e•-Fam.ily).
Of75r PC86-3
~ :~;
;;
~
; 2• Thah the Ananeim Gener.al Plan d~signat•es subject property ~or.
cammecci~l prot'essional land uses. Gen~ral Plan Amendment No. 2Ub, nroposing
rPdesignat-ion to mec~ium dens:ity resicl~n'r.ia1 land uses was denied by the
Planning Commissior. on January G, 198b.
3. 'Phat the proposed ieclassi~:icati~n oF subject propertx is not
necessar.y nor ~i~sirable f.or the orderly ar.d p.ro~~er development af the
communitv.
•. 4o That the pron~s~d reclassificatiun of sul~ject ~roperky does not
~:;
pror~erly relate to the zones and L-heir p+~rmitted uses lc,cally escablished in
close pco.cimic~ to subjer.t pr~per.ty and to the zones and their permitted uses
, yener~~lly estab'lished thrnughuut the com~iuniLy.
,.~ 5. Tl~a~ 5 persons in~icated th~ir pres~nc~ aL• said public hearing in
~;,; opposition; an~~ that no correspondence was reccived ira op~asitiora ko SUbject
, ~ ~:etition.
ENVIRUNMFNTAL IMPAC7~ FINDING: 7.~hat the esnaheim ~ity Planning
Comrnission has .reviewe~ th~ ~ropusal to change the General P1an de~igna~ion
ir4m Gommercial Proiessional ta Medium Density Resident.al or Low-medium
7ensity Ftesidential and to rec.lassif~ subjecl• property frc,m the RS--10,000
(RFai~r-_~ntia.l, Single-Family) Zon~ to the hM-i200 (Resid~ntial,
M.u:~Liple-Family) 7one L-o consCruct a 48-unit aparLment cUmplex with a w~zver
of maximum structuc~.l heiyhL• on a rer_tangulatly-•sh~ped parcel o:E land
coasi~tina aE 4ppzoxi~. ~tely 1.3 acr~~s, having a Frontage of approximately J.9Q
feet on the n~rth hid~: of Katella Avenue, anc3 further described as 1535 West
Katella Av~nue; ~nd do~s hereby a~prove L•he Negative Uecl~xation up~n .findin~?
thst it }tias cuns:dered the Ne~ative Ue~laration t~qeth~r wi~h ar.y comments
received durit:g tir~~ publ.ic revi~w procpss and fucther ~inding n~l tr,e basis of
the i.niti~l study ar,d any comrnents reeeived tha~ hhere is nr~ sub~tantial
evidence that thc ~~rnjecl wi1.1 have a si.gnificanl• effect on the enyirc~;~mertt.
Nr~W, THERP;F~~TtF', i3L I'P RESOL.VED thak the Anaheim Citv Planning
Commission does her~:by der~y Petit:ion i:o~ 12cc1?ssifica~ian on ~hp basis of the
aforemention~d ~,.nding:;.
2'H~ Fi;REGUING ItL'SOLUTIUN is ~aigncd and approved by rne this 6tt~ day of
January, 1986.
l'~, : ~! G%~c. ~~~..',~<..c_ ,r'/J r''~ ~~-'L /
~ " ~.t:~-~~"~.' e
Gt1AZ12WOrtAC~, ANAI-IF'tM CITY PLANNING COMMZSSION
AT`Pk;S'P ;
C~;'' _ ,1/ / r .
..~~~ti,~--
SECR~;TARY, ANAH~IM C:C:I'F PLANNING CGMMxSSTON
-2-
PC86-3
~A;~~
' ;;
;;`s
Iyry
~~~~
l.i,
STATL O.E CALIFORNIA )
COUN'PX pe UIlANGE: ) ss.
G1`~'Y OF ~~NAHEIM j
r, Edikh L. EIarris, S~cretary uf
Y Planriing
Commissic 1, do hereby certify L-h~t the foregoingt,~-esoluti n~rast c
pas„ea and
adopted ~c a meetiny of the Aizaheim City Planning Commission hel.d on Ja-~uaLy
6, 1986, by the Poliowing vote c~ the members ther.~of.
AYLS; COMM3SS'lOIJERS: BOt3A.S, F'RY, HERBST, LA CLAZP,E, MC dURNEY, MESSE
NO}~S; CQMMISSIUNERS: NONE
ABSEN'.P; COMbITSSIO~~RS: liAWICKI
IN ~^lITNS'SS WHGRNpF, " h~ve hereunto ~
January, 19g6, ~et ~~~y hand this 6~h day of
4•~'JfJ ~ ~ '~ y
~ ~,
SECI2ETARy, AN~IH~IM CT.TX PLANNING C~j ~-'
MMISSION
~ r
~~n~ r
~. ~e ~----: . . .
_3_