PC 68-304* i
:~':;' ',~~~ r ~r~.iF...,--_._._.. ~.:..mor. ~!!ar.~b+mcra.u~- _
. .____ ~..~.._~_____.___ 1 __ .
~ 4t• ,"' ~ l__`
'" RESOLUTION N0. PC68-304
}1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING WMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM RECOMMENDING
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM FXECUTE A WRITTEN OONSENT TO
_. AN AMENDMENT OF DEED RESTRICTIONS HERETOFORE IMPOSED mN RECLASSIFICATION
, N0. 61-62-SB ON THE FOLLOWING DESCRIB£D PROPERTY AT THE REQUEST OF
'~ ~'' SAID CITY OF ANAHEIM~ AND FURT~IER RE~MMENDING DISAPPROVAL OF
DELETIOiJ OF SAID DEED RESTRICTIONS AS REQUESTF~'IN
RECLASSIFICATION N0~ 65-69-30, THERETO
WFiF.F2EAS, the City Council in Resolution No. 62R-506 approved Reclassification No.
F~ ` 61-62-88 subject to the filing of Deed Restrictions limiting the uses to business and
-, -..~:.` professionai only on the property described as:
,,Lr.
,~,..
~ ''' Lot No. 139 in Tract No. 2779, as shown on a map recorded in Book 92, Pages
,,'•'~ ii 35 to 40, both inclusive of Miscelianeous Maps, records of Orange County,
r~~ City of Anaheim, State of California.
"° ; and
~~°~j WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission received a request to delete the deed re-
strictions asrrequested in Reclassification No. 68-69-30; and
i•'
~ •:~.
i~
- y WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hali
~r~ in the City of Anaheim on October 7, 1968, at 2:00 0'clock P.M., notice of said pub:.ic
hearing having been duly given as r~quired by law and in accordance with the provisions
of the Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.72, to hear and consider evidence for and
agai~st said proposed reclassification and to ir.vestigate and make findina: and re-
:r. comriendations in connection therewith; and
~' WHEREAS, said Commissinn, afier due inspec±ion, investigation, and study made by
_;,~ itself and in its behalf, anci after due consideration of ail evidence and reports
;,~ offered at said hearing~ does find and determine ti:e following facts:
>~
~~~ 1, Tnat the petitioner proposes only an amendment to the existing deed
.~'
restrictions to permit a beauty salon and bouz?que for subject property.
'' 2. That only interior changes wili be made to subject property, and clients
~, will be by appointment only, which would be similar to professional office
-- i` clients.
~I~ 3. That although subject property is zonad G 1, General Commercial, Zone and
limited to business and professional of€ice use only, these deed restrictions
were imposed prior to the City of Anaheim establishing the C-0, Commercial
~~ Office, Zone.
~
,{ ~
~ 4. That although the petitioner originally requested deletion of the deed
restrictions, and then amended the request at public hearing, del,etion
of all the deed restrictions would set an undesirab].e precede~t for
':,; adjoining commercial-professional uses, and have a deleteriqus effect on
the residential uses and the school in exi~tence for some time.
'` 5. I'hat the petitioner stipulated to signing of the property in accordance
/ with the sign ordinance and no garisk~ siqning would b? proposed.
. 6. That 3 persons appeared representing 15 persons present in'the Council
Chamber, and two letters and a etition ' ned b _
si
25
p r
9 Y pe sor.s were re
!,'~ ceived, all in opposition to deletion or amendment of the deed restrictions.
z
. ..,- _ - '~. .~'; ~
. - r9'~„-~~ ^i.. ~*rn ~'$ e~ ,
. . ~ . ~' @„y~ . ...
~ . "._~, 1
__ ___ i f
' ~
,. _
, ,;~
• _.
-... ~.x'nLtrf.~.+m---_.__. ~ -._.............~..~.........._____ ~
y~':j .., ~ `._) I
~~ i
~ .; NOW, THF.FtEFOEtE, BE IT RESOiVED that the City Planning Commission does hereby ;
'' recommend to the City Council that the request for deletion of the deed restrictions I
. as requested in Petition for Reclassification be denied, on the basis that the petitioner i
-' ha,d.amended 'nis original request to amendment of these restrictions to include the beauty
' ~` sa.lon and boutique; and further that the full range of commercial uses would have a
• '•' deleterious eff ect on the estabiished residential, professional-office environment ~
~~ established in the area. i
' BE IT FURI'HER RESOLV~D that the City Planning Commission recommends to the City ~
~~! Council of the City of Anaheim to execute a written consent to the amendnent to Deed
''• Restrictions imposed in approving Reclassification No. 61-62-88, by adding the foliowing: ~
"Beauty Salon and Boutique", and subject to the following conditions.
, >: »~
1. That trash storage areas shall be provided in accordance with approved
plans on file with the office of the Director of Public Works.
2. That any air-conditioning facilities proposed shail be properly shielded
from view.
3. That Condition Nos. 1 and 2, above mentioned, shail be complied with prior
to final building and zoning inspections.
4, That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with
plans and specifications on file with the City of Anaheim, marked Exhibit
No. 1, Revision No. 1, and Exhibit Nos. 2, 3, and colored renderings marked
Exhibit Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4.
THE FOR~OING RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 17th day of October, 1968.
~ ~,~~D~e~
CH IRMAsd"ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING OJMMISSION
ATT£ST:
~%vl~/ ~%~~Zr~o/
SECR6TARY f~NAHEfM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALII~RNIA )
~UNTY OF ORANGE ) ss.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Krebs, Secretery of the City Pianning Commi.ssion of the City of Anaheim, do
hereby certify that the foregoing resolut:.on was passed and adopted at a meeting of the
City planning Commission of the City of An+:iheim, held on October 7, 1968, at 2:00 0'clock
P.M.~ by the following vote of the memb~rs thereof:
AYES; COMMISSIONF.E2S: Camp, Farano, Herbst, Mungall, Allred.
NOES; COMMISSIONERS: A~one.
ABSENT: CAMMISSIONERS: Gauer, Rowland.
IN WII'NESS WHER~F, I have hereunto set my hand this 17th day of October, 1968.
~~2~J2~1~!~J ~%c~/
SECRETARY ANAH M CII'Y PLANNING OOMMISSION
Res. No. 304
,,~
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~. h ,'I
' ,f~,~.~. S 4 .1-_:, -
i +~ .
h ".~
~ ~