PC 69-142,~ F
RESOLUTION N0. PC69-142
RESOLUTI~N ~F THE CTTY P.LANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANA;iEIM
RECAMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAH[IM T4AT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0. 68-69-100 BE qppROVED
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did receive a verified Petition for Reciassi--
fication from BETZ CARPORATION, ET AL, 1901 Galatea, Corona Del Mar, California 9~62°~,
Owner; S HELDON POLLACK, 3344 S outh La Cienega Boulevard, Los Angeles, Califo:nia 90016,
Agent of certain real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of
California, descri.bed as Lot Nos. 66, 67, 68, 69, and 70 of Tract No. 1591
;and
WHEREAS, the City Plarning Cemmission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in
the City of Anaheim on June 30, 1969, at 2:OU 0'clock P,M,, notice of said public hearing
hav3ng been duly given as required by law and in accordance with the provisions of the
Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18,72, to hear and consider evidence for and against said
proposed reclassification and to investigate and make findings and recommendations in
connection therewith; and
WHEtEAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigation, and stud~~ made by its?1;-
and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence ano reports offered at said
hearing, does find and determine the following facts:
1. That the pet~tioner proposes a reclassification of the above desc:ibed from the
R-1, One Fa;iiily Residential, Zone, to the C-0, Commercial Office, Zone.
2. That the proposed reclassification is in conformance with land use and zoning
in the geneial area as depicted on the Ge~eral Plan.
3. ~hat the proposed reclassificati.ori of subject property is necessary and/or
desirablr for the orderly and proper development of the community.
4. That the proposed reclassification of subject propezty does propPrly relate to the
zones an~ their permitted uses locally establisheiiin close proximity to subject pi~operty
and to the zones and their permitted uses aenerally established throughout the community.
5. That ±he proposed reclassification of subject property does not require the
dedication but does require improvement of abutting streets in accordance with the
Circulation L•lement of the General Plan, due to the anticipated increase in trafiic whicli
will be generated by the intensification of land use.
6. That on May 5, 1969, the Planning Ccmmission denied Variance No. 2082 which re-
quested waiver of the maximum building height and minimum number of required parking spaces
for a 6-story office building proposed on the seven parcels fronting on Euclid Street
immediatel~ east oi• subject property, primarily on the basis that there was no jistification
for the requested 50,~ reduction in the number of required parkino, spaces for the proposed
use.
7. That the propcsed reclassification of subject property was initiated for th~ p~spose
of providing additional land for required parl:ing for the proposed office building to the
east; however, the variance application was not readve.~tised in conjunction with subject
reclassification.
8. That the proposed reclassification along with additional evidence submitted in
connection with existing parking star.dardssatisfied the previous objections of the Planning
Commiss.:on to the proposed variance; however, since the variance was not readvertised the
Planning Commission could not make an offical recommendation on said variance without
furth~r delay to the applicants.
9. That the parking as now proposed on subject property and the parcels to the east
wouid appear io be adequate for the proposed office building based upon a recent study
made by the Dnvelopment Services Department.
10. That if the City Council dete*mines that the currently required number of narF;ing
spaces (249) should be waived to permit the proposed 191 spaces, it is recommended that the
Council incl~~~!e the following conditions in its approval of Variance No. 2082:
a. That this variance is granted subject to the completion of keclassification
No. 68-69-100.
b. That subject property sh:ll be developed substantially in accordance v,~ith plans
and specifications on file vrith the City of Anaheim, marked Exhibit !~o. 7,
Revision No. 1 and Exhibit IJos. 2, 3, and 4.
i ,rtx
NOW, TF;EREFORE, HE IT ~SOLVED th~t th~ Aa~hd~ Cit~r 1lyd: )CIMUlMIo~ b~s hareby recommmd
to the ~ity Council of the City o. 'Anaheim that ~ubJ~et P~tltiaa d~t ~tMs w~Tt~v~d ~nd, by so doing,
that Title 1&Zonieg of the Mrheim Municip~l Coc~~ b~ ~mnd~ M ~opd~ M~tti d~saibsd property tmm the
P,-1, One Family Residential9 Zone and to incorporate said described property into tt~e C-0,
Commercial Office, Zor.e, upon the following conditions which are hereby found to be a nec-
essary prerequisite to the proposed use of subject property in order to preserve the safety
and general welfare of the Citizens of the City of Anaheim.
1. That all engineering requirements of the City of Anaheim along the alley, including
preparation of improvement plans and installation of all improvements, such as street grading
and paving, drainage facilities, or other appurtenant work shall be complied with as required
by the Citv rnaineer and in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the
office of the City Engineer; and that street lighting facilities along Westmont Drive and
Fairhaven Street shall be installed as required by the Director of Public Utilities and in
ac~ordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the office of the Director
of Public Utilities; and that a bond in an amount and form satisfactory to the City of Anaheim
shall be posted with the City to guarantee the installation of the above mentioned requirements.
2. I'hat Condition iJo. 1, above mentioned, shall be complied with within a period of 180
days from the dat° hereof, or such further time as the City Council may grant.
3. That the vehicular access rights to Fairhaven Street, shall be dedicated to the City
of Anaheim.
4. That trash storac~e areas shall be provided in accordance with approved plans on file
with the office of the Director of Public Wozks.
5. That fire hydrants shall be installed as required and determined to be necessary by
the Chief of the Fire Department.
6. Th~t a 6-foot mason:y wall shall be constructed along Fairhaven Street to the rear of
the required front landscaped setback areao
7. That any parking area lighting shall be lighted with dowr.-lightin9 a maximum 6-feet in
heic,ht and shall be directed away from t!~e property lines to protect the residential integrity
of the area.
8. That any air-conditioning facilities ;:oposed shall be properiy shielded from view,
and the sound shall be buffered from adjacent residential homes.
9. That Condition IJos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, above mentioned, shall be complied with
prior to final building and zoning inspections.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is signed and ~pproved by mv tlls lOth day of July, 1969~
i.TTEST:
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OH CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
C1TY OF ANAHEIM )
_~
- ~ ~j;' it. -C~L-%~LC.cC
.~'~r-"- L, !% / '
CHAIRIIAN ANAHEIY CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
I~ Ann Krebs ~ Secretary of the City Planning Commission oi the City ot M~heim, do hereby certiEy that
the foregoing tesolution wes passed end odopted et e meetine of the Clty Pl~nnln~ Coomiseion of the City of Aneheim,
held on June 30, 19699 at 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the tollowin~ vct~ of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Herbst, Thom, Allred.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSF_NT: COMMISSIONERS: Farano, Rowland.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, f heve hereunto set my hend this lOth day of July, 19690
:i ~ RESOLUTION N0. 142
~ 1 .~
;;1 R2-A
~ I
~I
'`
~~ . ;l ` /'
~ -- ---
SECRETARY AI~IAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-2-