PC 1965-1966-1976~LSOLUTION N0. 1976~ SERI~S 1~~5-G6
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF' TNE: CITY OF ANAHEIM
RCCUMMENDING TO THE C[TY COUNCIL OF xF{ C Y OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLASSIFICATION N0, 6~ ~~ ~ BE APPROV~D
`I .~;~.
,'~~ ' f ~
;
i
~
~
;
i
I
i
': .. ~
~; ~
i
~' I
, I
1
~
i
~
j
i
I
~
I
1
~.~
~; .
J
~ _
~= i
•
,' i
'~i
1 ' i
A '
".'.:! ,,,tx. ~
=~- i
~ ~
J
. 1
F?=
~~~
2~~~..
'ri ~h '.
-~r
.>~.
WHEREAS, the Clty Plenning Commisslon of the City of Aneheim did receive a varified Petition for Reclasaiflce-
tlon from C. ~~ COLEBROOK, 1R41 Ci~elsea D.r~ve, Anah~im, California, Owner of ceri:ain real
~ property situated in th~~ City of Anahei.m, County oF Orange, St;ate of CaliFornia, described
as Lot No. 104 of Tract No. 1697
; ond
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim on
hiarch ln~ 1966, at 2:00 o'clock P,14, notice of said public hearing having been duly given as reGuired by
law and in eccordance with the provisions of the Anaheim M11unicipal Code, Chepter 18.72, to hear and consider evidence
for end ageinst said proposed rec?+'sssification and to iqvestigAte and make ;indings and recommendetions in connection
therewith; end
WI~IEREAS, seid Commission, after due inspection, investigation, end study made by itself end in its behalf, and
efter due consideration of all evidence and reports ofEered at said hearing, does find and determine the foliowing f~cts:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclessiEicetion of the above described property Erom the R-1, Qne Family
Residential, Zone to the C-1, General Corn~nercial, Zone to establish an ani;ique shop on
subject property.
2. That the proposed reclassification is in conformance with the General Plan.
3. That the proposed reclassification of subject property is necessary and/or desireble (or the orderly end pro-
per developrment of the community,
4. Thet the proposed reclessificetion of subject property does properly relate tc the zones and their permitted
uses locally ~steblished in close proximity to subject property and to the zones and their permitted uses generally estab-
lished throughout the community.
5. Tl~at the proposed reclassification of subject property does require dedication for
and standard improvement of abutting streets because said property does reiate to and abtit
, upon streets and f~ighways whicti are partially improved 1:o carry the type and quantity of
traffic which will be genPrated by the permitted uses, in accordance with ~the circulation
elerl~ent of the General Plan.
6. That the petitioner stipulater~ to developmer~t of subject property for an antique
shop, hours of operation to be 9:00 a.m., to 6:00 p.m., and +~hat the northerly curb cut
on subject property would be eliminated.
7. Thai; one person appea.red and one letter was recei.ved in opposition to subject
petition.
F.-A -1-
.:.~ . -~:,
.- - ,•r. ;~ . . ~Li t~,
~
w
~
sE
\ s ~
i
~
`
~
~
~ i
• i
I
• I
.;
l
I
i
~.
~
i
I
,~
, '~ ~
, j
N~W, TF1E'RErORE, 6~; 1T F2FSOLVFD that the Aneholm Clty Plennlnq Commieslon does heteby rocommend
to the City Councll uf the City ot Anahelm thet eubject Petition for Reclo~s-tfcation be approved and, by eo doing,
thet Tltle 18-2oning of the Anehelm Munfr,lpel Codn be emended to exclude tha above described property trom the
R-l, On~-Family Reeidential, Zone, and to incorporate said described proper.ty into lhe C-l,
General Cornmercial, Zone, upon the fol.lowing condit.ions which arc hereby found to bc~ a
necassary prercquisil:e to th~ proposed use af sub,ject property in ordc~r to preserve the
saEety and e~c~neral wc~lfar~.~ af the citizens oC the Clty of Anat~~ims
1. That i;he nwner oF sub,~ecl: property shall derd Lo th~~ Clty of Anaheim a strip of land
53 feet in width, from the renter line of the street, alonc~ State Colle~c f3oulevard, for
street widening purposes, including a 15-foat x•adius corner return.
2. That th~ owner uf r ~bject pi•operty shal l pay to f,he Ci{,y of Anaheim the surn or g2.00
per front foot along State College F~oulevard and Chelsea Dr1ve, for street lighting purposes.
3. That the awnei• of subject prc,perty s}~~all pay to the CiLy of Anaheirn the sum of 15~
per front foot: along Si,ate College 1?oulevard and Chelsea Qrive, for tr~~e planting purposes.
A. That i:rash storage area, sh~ll be provided tn acr.ordance with approved plans on
file with the uFfice of Lhe Direc:tor of Public Works.
5. That t'~e existiny drtveway sha11 be removed an~3 side~~alks, curb and qutter construcled
on Chelsea Drive, as required by the Ci.ty Engineer and in accordance witl~ st.andard plans and
specifications on filc in the offlce of the City Fnginee.r.
6. ThaC the c~nver~ion of the exi~ting structure Cor commercial use shall he in accorciance
with the Uniform E3uilding Code as adopted by the Cit,y of Anaheim.
7. That Condition Nos. 1, 2 and 3, above mentioned, shall be complied with within a
rFriod of 1~0 days from the C~8~,2 hereof, or such further time as the City Cotmcil may grant.
}~. Thal; Condition Nos. 4 and 5, above mentioned, shall be complied witl~ prior to final
building inspection.
9. Thai; any air-conditioning facilities shall be properly shiel~ed from vi~~w from
abuttiny streets.
10. That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with ~~lans and
specifications on file with tne City of Anaheim, marked Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, and 3, provided,
huwever, that the curb cut proposed near the northerly F~ro~,~~rty line shall be elirnir~ated as
stipulated to by the petitioner.
THE ~OREGOING RESOLIJTION is signed and approvod by me thie 24th day of Marcti~ 1966.
~~~~ . ~ ~
~
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING C MISSION
ATTEST;
~ :r"~ ~
, _-l L~:' ~
- ~ ~/ -~/~
~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY CF ORANGE ) se,
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Krebs, g~cretary of the City Planning Commieeion of the Clty of Anaheim, do hereby certify thet the fore-
going resolution wes passed and adopted at e meetln~ of the City Planning Commie~ion of the City oE Anaheim, held on
March 14, 1966, et 2:00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the membere theraof;
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Carnp, Gauer, Herbst, Mungall, Perry, Rowland.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None.
IIv WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto aet my h~and this 24th day of hlarch, 1966.
~
'i
; '~~ RESOLUTION N0.
R2-A
~
}:~`.1
,;,
~i.i .
~ ~ ~
C, ~,2L.?,~.:~~~. ~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
-7-