PC 76-234~ ~
RESOLUTfON N0. PC76-23~~
A RESOLUTION OF THE ANAHEIM CI7Y PLANNING COMM1551QN
RECOMMENDIN!; TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF TNE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT THE REQUEST FOR DELF?ION OF CONDITION PERTAItJING TO
A SIX-FO~T MASONRY WALL ADJACENT TO FAIRHAVEN STRFET,
IN CONN~CTION WITfi RECLASSIFICATION N0, 6f3-69-100, B~ DISAPPROVED.
WHEREAS, the petitloner submltted a request for an amendment to the conditions
of approval contained In Clty Council Resotution No, 69R-432 and Ordinance No. 287.3
adopted in connection with Reclassification No, 6A-69-100 on property consisting of
approximately 0.7 acre, having a frontage of appr.,ximately 3~3 feet on the east side of
Fairhaven Street, havi~g a maximum depth of approximately 10fi feet~ and being located
approximately 9~ feet north of the centerline of Westmont Drive; and
WHEREAS, the petitioner requests deletion of the folloo-ring condition contained
in the above-referred to resolution and ordinance of the City Council:
"That a 6-foot masonry wall shall he ca,~structed along Fairhaven Street
to the rear of the required front landscaped setback area,"
and
b1HEREAS, the Anahetm City Planning Commisslon did hold a public hearing at the
City Hall in the City of Anaheim on November 8, 1976, at 7:3~ P.m., notice of sal~1
oublic hearing having been duly given as required hy law and in accordance with the
provislons of the Anaheim Municipal Code, to hear and conslder evidence for and agatnst
said proposal to amend the conditions of approval of Reclassification No. F,R-F9-100,
and to investigate and make findings and ~'~commendatfons in connection therewith; and
WHEREAS, safd Comm~ssion, after due inspection, investig~tlon and study made
by itself and in its behal4, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports
offered at said hearing, DOES HERERY HEREBY FIND:
1. That three (3) persons appeared at said puhlic hearing, representing
approximately eleven (11) persons present in oppositlon; and that one (1)
letter was received tn opposltion to the subJect petition.
2. That the petitioner has blatantly ignored the original condition of
approval of the reclassification of the subJect property requlring the
six-foot high masonry wall be constructed adJacent to Fairhaven Street to
protect Yhe residentlal integrity of the area, and the statement by the
petitioner at the original public hearings that no access was proposed to
Fairhaven Street.
3. That the Planning Commisslon does hereby recommend that the existing
pedestrian opening tn the required sl:-foot higli masonry wall be closed
by December 24, 1976, or the Zoning Enforcement Officer be directed to
cl*e the pettttoner for violatlon of the reclassificaYton.
4. That thA Plarnirog Comrrl~~lon does further recommend that the closure of
the wall be architPctvrally tastefu~.
5. That the ?lanning Commisslon does further recommend that the peCitinn~r
be instructed to comply with all of the condttions of the ortginal
approval of the reclasslfication of the property, including the provision
of three feet of landscaping ad)acent to the six-foot high well, as shnwn
on the approved plans, and wtth sald landscapin~ to be permanently
maintalned ln a neat and orderly manner, as speclfied 6y tfie CQ site
development standards.
6. 7hat the proposal to prov-de access to Fairhaven Street from the subJect
prnpP~ty will be detrimental to the public health, safety and general
welfare,
]. That the proposal is not necessary ~nd~or desirable for the orderly and
proper development of the community.
8. That the proposal does no~.properly relate to tlie zones and their per-
mittea uses locally established in close proximity to subject property and
to tha zones and their permitied uses generall;; esteblishad throughout
the oammunity.
RESOLUTION N0, PC76-234
~ ~
ENVIRONMENTAL tMPACT REPORT FtNDING: That the ~irector of the Planning
Department has determined that the proposed activity falls within the definition of
Section 3.01, Class 3, ot' the City of Anahelm Guidelines to the Requirements for an
Environmental Impact Report and Is, tnerefore~ cate9orically exempt from the
requtrement to flle a~ EIR,
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED that the Anaheim Cit~ Planning Commission does
hereby recommend to the City Councl~ of the City of Anaheim that the request to delete
the subJect condltion of approval of Reclasstfication No. 68-69-100 be disapproved on
the basis of and subJect to the foregoing findings and reco^mendations.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is slgned and approved~y me this $th day of
4ovember, 1976. /// / „ p
ATTEST: .
~ , Cet.rc.~-~Gc~/
SECRE~I1'R'~, A~AHEIM CI LANF~ING MMiSS 0
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF QftANGE )ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
~ I~ Patricia B. Scanlan, Secretary of the Anahetm City Planning Commission, do
hereby certify that the foregotng resolutlon was passed and adoptec~ at a meettng of the
Anaheim City Planning Cortmisston, held on November 8, 1976, at 7:30 p.m.~ by the
following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARNES. FARANO~ NERBST, KIhlG~ MORLFY, JOHNSON
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLAR
t976.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 8th day of November
~/~ ~~~r 45~~t~~'.~
SECRETARYy ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINf, COMMISSION
-2- RESOLlITION N0. PC76-234