PC 73-172~ ~ ~ 1~ ~
RESOLUTION N0. P~73-17Z
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITX PLANNING COMtAISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF T~HE4 I? Y OB A ISAP ROVED
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICA.TION.NO. _Z '
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City oE Maheim did receive a verified Petition for Re-
classificationfrom FRANK AND LUKRIJA BJAZEVICH, 39~9 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim, Calif-
orr~ia 92804; ALBERT R. AND CECELIA L. SANDUVAL, 3608 West Orange Avenue, Anaheim,
California 92804, Owners; LE ROY ROSE AND ASSG~IATES, 1440 South State College Boule-
vard, Anaheim, California 92806, Agent of certain real property situated in the City
cf Anaheim, County of Ora~ge, 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 Sectio~ i5. Township 4 South, Ranye 11 West, S. B. B. b M•,
as shown on a map recorded in book 51, Page 7 of Miscellareous Maps, records of Orange
County, Caiifornia. Portion 2: The Southeast quar:er of the Southwest quarter of the
Nor:heast quarter, of Section 15, ~n Township 4 So~th, Range ii West, in the Rancho Los
Coyotes, as shown on a map by Charles T. Nealey made upon survey by him about 1870 for
the Stea~~s Ranchos Lcmpany. EXCEPTING THEREFROM the West 427.'i2 feet thereot.
; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing et the CityHall in the City of Aneheim
on August 6, i 973,at 2:~0 o'elock P.M. notice of s9id public hearing having been duly given as requiced by
law and in accordence with the provisions of the Meheim Municipal Code, Chepter 18.72, to hear end consider
evidence far and against said proposed reclessificetion end to investigate and meke findings end recommendetions
in connection therewith; end
WHEREAS, seid Commission, efter due inspection, investigation, end study made by itself end in its be-
halE, and aEter due consideration of ell evidence and reports offeced at seid hearing, does find and detennine the
following Eects:
1. That the petitioner proposes a teclassification of the ebove described propecty from the R-A, AGR I CULTURAL,
ZONE to the R-3, Ml7LTIPLE FAMiLY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE,
2. That the propt,sed reclassification is in conformance with the land use designation
of the General Plar.
3. That the plans p~oposed by the petitioner did not offer proper and adequate pro-
tection for the living environment of the existing adjoining R-1 residents to the west and
north in the City of Buena Park.
4. That the petitioner was unwilli~g to consider preparing and presenting revised
plans upon request by the Plarning Commission to try to resolve the problems of concern
expressed by the Planning Commission and tha adjoi~ing single family residents.
5, That although the Commission was rot adverse to the zonirsg request, the submitted
pla~s of development would not be complimentary to the area because they would provide only
the garage walls as buffering to the existing single family homes to the wes*_ and north
aroe:nd the periphery of the property, and the Pianning Commission in the past has required
that where multiple family clv+ellfngs are proposed adJacent to established single family
developments that landscape buffering as well as dtstance should be promoted ta minimize
the massiveness and invasion of privacy which two seory apartments present when in such
close proximity to single story single family homes.
~
6, That two perso~s appeared representing 14 persons present in opposition.
RD "1"
~ ~
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FINDING:
That the Planning Commission, in connection with an Exemption Declaration Status request
finds ar,d determines that the proposal would have no significant environmental impact, al-
though the E,I.R. Review Committee recommended that the request for Exemption Status be denied
on the basis that the petitioner proposiny two-story construc*.ion within 55 feet of a single
fam9ly zone while the City of Anaheim required a 150-foot separation; however, the Commission
has determined that the City of Buena Park in whici~~ the existing single family homes are lo-
cated requires only a 50-foot buildiny setback for two-story muitiple family construction.
Therefore, the Plann9n9 Commission recommends to the City Council that no Environmental Impact
Statement is necessary.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim City Plenning Commission does hereby cecommend
to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that subject Petition for Reclassificetion be denied on the basis of the
aforementioned findings.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and epproved by me this 16th day of August, 1973.
ATTEST:
% / I~t~~~
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSIOI~
G~~ ~J ~~/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY FLANNING COMMiSSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Krebs, Secretery of the City Planning Commission of the City of Aneheim, do hereby certify thet the fore-
going resolution was passed and edopted at e meeting of the City Plenning Commission of the City of Aneheim, held on
August 6, 1973. at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereoE:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: GAUER, HERBST, KING, SEYMOUR.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: FARANU,
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ALLRED, RO1dLAND,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hend tfiss lEith day of August, 1973•
RESOLUTION NO. PC~3-1J2
~r`_G v~' " c~
S£CRETARY A[~YAHEIn'I CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
R2-D "2'