PC 1960-1961-230. ~ t t .i i•
r \
~, , ~ ~ ~ ~
A ~ ~' ~ i .
y ~ '3"
i Y S'.
' } ' o~
~~ _
RBSGLVY'ION NO 230 SHRIES 1960-61
A RBSOLUTI0~1 OP THS CITY PIANNING COMk1ISSI0N OP THS CITY OF ANAfiIBIb[
RBCOt~iBNDING TO THH CITY COUNCIL OP THB CITY OP ANAHHIM THAT
pgTITIpN pOR RBCLAggIPICATION N0. 60-61-78 BB GRANTEP
~HA3, the City Plaaning Commission o~' the ~itq of Anaheim did ~eceipe a veriYied
Petition for Reclassifica4ioa frnm Michael L. 0°Donnell, Downey, California, Owner;
Milfozd M. Hrown, 901 5outh Roanne, Anaheim, California, Agent, proposing reclassificatioa
of the following described property: The noxtherly 100.00 feet of the southerly 200.00 feet
of the northeast q~rarter of the northeast quart•~r of 4he southwest quarter of Section 27,
in Township 4 South, Range 10 West, parily in the Rancho San Juan Cajon de Santa Ana and
partly in the Rancho Las Bol~as, City of Anaheim, as shown on a map thereof recorded in
book 51, page 10, Misce'laneous Maps, records of said Orange County; BXCEPT the westerly
330.'JO feet thereof. ~ ~d
WtffittHAS, the City Pianning Commission did hold a public hearing at the eity Hall in
the City of Anaheim on April 17, 1961 at 2:00 o'cloct P.Id,~ notice of esid
public hearir.g having l~een duly given as required by]avr aad in accordance with 4he provi-
sions of the Anatieim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.72, 4o hear and consider evideace for and
against said prop~~sed reclassification and to investigate and make findings and recoamen-
dations itt connection tbQrewith; and
WHBRBA3, said Commission, after due inspection,investigation, aud study atade bq it-
se1£ and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence and reports offered
at said hearing, does fiad and detesmine the foilowimg facts:
i. That the petitioner proposes a reclassification of the above described pro-
perty from tIle R-p, RHSIDENTIAL AGRICULT[JRAL, ZONE i:o the C-2, GBNERAL COMMFRCIAL, ZONB.
2. That the praposed reclassification of subject property ~~_. , aecegbar~ or
desirable foa the orderly and proper develupment of the community.
3. That the proposed reclassification of sub,~ect property does properly
relate •to the zones and their permitted uses locally established ia close pro~simity te
subject property and to the zoaes amd Yheir permitted usea generally establiahed 4hrough-
out the co~unity.
q. That the psoposed reclassification of sub3ect property doea =equire
dedication for and standard improvemeat of abutt3ng atreets because said property
does rel~te to and abut upon streets and highways which are nrop~ed to cars~ the
type ancl quantity of traffic, which will be generated by the persit4ed uses, in •necord-
unce with the circulation ei~:ment of the General Plan.
5. That no one appeared in opposition to subject petition. However, a request
that the subject petition be held in abeyance until the petitioners concerned with
Petition for Variance No. 1283 had decided whethar or not to develop their property for a
use identical to the proposed use contained in subject petition, was recorded at the meet-
ings held on March 20, 1961 and April 3, 1961.
-1-
R_1
, ___---.-..._-~
~ ~ ,:
__.----~ _ ~ ..____.______.__.__ ..._.____. ........__ _,____ . _._ ._
~.. ....
- _
~ C,
~. ts. t ~. ~:: i ~ i
t ~`, r ~ ~ ~ ~ 1~. `~ 1 ~ ~, ~ ~
i
` i+ ,1
i ~ L.J _
NOW, TfIBR:.FORH, &E IT RBSOLVED that the Anaheim City Planning Commission hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Anaheiu~ that Petition for Reclassification
;i~ No. 60-61-78 be approved and, by so doing, that Title 18-Zoning o£ the Anaheim
, Municipal Cnde be amended to exclude the above described property from the R-A, RESIL~BNTIAL
AGRICULTURAL zone and to in::orporate said described property in the C 2, G~NHRAL COMMHR-
j~ CIAL zone, upon the followiag conditions which are hereby found to be a neces-
sary prerequisite to the proposed use of the subject property in order to prsserve the
safety and general welfare of the Citizer.s of anaheim:
1. Preparation of street improvement plans and installation of aJ.l improvements in
accordance with appsoved standard plans on fite in the office of the City Hngineer,
2. Payment of $2,00 per front foot for street lighting purposes.
3, Time limitatio~ of 9u days fcr the accomplishment o: Items 1 and 2.
4. Maintenance of a 60 foot building setback on Harbor Boulevard.
5. Development substantially in accordance with plans pcesented with the location of the
restaurant in the front portion of the building separated from the cocktail lounge, and
with the location of the cocktail lounge in the rear portion of the building.
6. Provision of twen:y C20) feet of landscaped area abutting front property line on
Harbor Boulevard, plans for said landscaping to be submitted to and approved by the
Superinter3ent of Parkway Maintenance.
THB PORHGOING RBSOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 17t1i day of April, 1961.
ATIBST:
.riiv/
SEC Y ANAHEIM CITY P NING C(]~fMI3SI(?~i
S OP CALIPORAIIA )
COUNTY OF ~xANGE ) ss.
CITY OP ANAFf3IM )
CHAIRMAN ANAHHIM CITY PIANNING CQP4>fISSI
I, JFAN PAGH, , Secretary of the Clty Planning Commission of the City of
Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a
meeting of the City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held un April 17, 1451
at 2;00 o'clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: CONA9ISSIONBRS: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Morris, Mungall and Summers.
NOB3: CQ~4IISSIONBRS: None.
ABSHNT: C01~9~lI3SIONBRg: Hapgood.
IN WITNBS3 WHHRHOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 17th day of April, 1961.
' R2-A
, ;
,
. ---_.-----_.___~. _ .___ ____ __..
_... - ---- --- . ~
~
SE~tS Y ANAHSTM ~I~lf P 'NING CO[~9~9I33ION
-2--
i
-- .-_._. _ _ _ ... ,.__. __ ___ -_. __ .__.._ .
_.
~