PC 1960-1961-301~< ::..
~. ~ • ~ ~ )
(--~ `
R~3SpLUTION NO 301 SBRIHc ~o~n_at
A RBSOLUTIOd~i OF THB CITY PIANNINFGG C~U[I~SION OP Tf~ CITY ~P AHAE~IM
RHCQAQ4ffi~iDIIdG TO THS CITY COUNCIL OF TFffi CITY OF ANAI~IM THAT
pg~lTIpN ppR ggClpggIpICATION NO 60-61-110_BE_.DHNIHD
` WFffit8A3, the City PZaaaing Commisaioa of the City of Anaheim did receive a~esified
Petition for Reclassification from S. M. BIACI{LY, $07 North Woods.Avenue, Fullerton,
California, Owner; Thomas Birmingham, 139 North Nicholas Avenue, PulYerton, California,
Agent, psoposing reclassification of the foliowing described property: Lots 84 and 85 of
Tract No. 1775, in the City of Anaheim, as shoum on a map thereof recorded in book 50,
page 15, Miscelianeous Maps, zeco=ds of said Orange County.
~ and
WHBRBA3, the ~ity Plaane 6Comm61aion did hold atp2600COhc1oct8PaM.tha tice of~sa d
the City of Anaheim on J4
public hearing havimg beea duly given as required by]ax and in accordaYtce rai~h the provi-
sions of xhe Anaheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.72, to hear and consider evidence for and
agoinst suid proposed reclassificatioa and to investigate and mate fiadings aad reco~meg-
dations in connectioa therewith; and
Wi~QdHA3, said Commisa3on~ after dne iaepection~iaveatigation, and etudq aade by it-
self and in ita behalf, and after due con~ideration of all evidence and reports offered
at said hearing, does find and d,etermine the following facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes a reclasaificatioa of the above deacribed pro-
perty from tne R-1, One Pamily Residentiai, Zone•to the C~1, NeighUorhood Commerciai,
Zone,
2. That the propo~ed reciasaification of sub3ect ~roper4q ~8_utl.t- neceeaary or
desirable for the orderly and proper developmeat of the cox~sxuni:y.
3. That the proposed zeclassification of aub3ect property doea not p=operly
relate to the zones and t+aeir permitted usea locaily e~tabiiahed in close p=oxiaitr to
subject property and to the zoaes and their permitted uses generally establiahed through-
out the co~unity.
4. That the subject property is located in the R-1~ One Pamily Residential, Zone
and is surrounded by single family residentiaZ development, ~herefore, the highest and
best use Of the subject property is for two sirigle family segidences.
5, That a petition of protest containing 66 signatures, in addition to verbal
opposition, was recorded against subject petition,
R-1
_1_
^
_.Y --r------------- ~.-- so
.
--
. .. . . _
_, ~'a l ..~ . . . .. _.
` ~L-~,"~~~ ,~A.
f
~~
`1 !
N04V, THBRBPORB, BB IT RHSOLVED that the Aaaheim City Planning Commiasion hereby
recommends to the City Council of the City of Anaheim that Petition for Reclassification
No. 60-61-110 be denied and, by so doing, that Title 18-Zoning of the Aaaheim
Municipal Code not be amended to exciude the above described property from the
R-1, One Pamily Residential, zone aad to~incorporate said deacribed property in the
C-i, Neighborbood Commercial, zone:
THH PQRHGOING RHSOLUTION is sigaed and approved ~ me '~his 6th day of June, 1961.
~
`~'i~ICH CHAI ANI~Ii~! CITI! PIANNING CQMAfISSIOdV
ATTB3T:
.f~-'`~ ~
S$Q! TARY ANAHBIM CIx7i P ING CQ~MI33ION
'~ATB OP GALIPQRNIA )
COUNTY OP ORANGH ) sc,. i
CITY OP ANAt~IM )
I, J~N PAGH , 3ecretarq of the City Planaing Commissitia of the City of
Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was pass~d and adopted at a
meeti:-g of the Citq Planaing Co~issioa of the City of Aaaheim~ held on June 26, 1961
at 2:00 o`clock P.M.~ 6y the follotving vote of the members thereof:
AYE3: C0~4AI39IONS.R8: Hapgcoil, Morris, Mungall, Pebley, Perry and Summers:
NOH9: CaMh4Y3SI0NBR8: None.
AH3ffidT: COMMI3SIONBRS: Allred, Gauer~ Marcoux,
IN WITNB9S IdHBABOP~ I have hereunto aet mq haad this 26th day of Jun,e, 1961.
~ ~
Y ANAHBIM C TY YNG CQt~SI$$I~1N
R2-D
RHSOLUTION N0. 3Q1
-2-
~ ... 1
!
.,.__....._~...--' ~ ___A'_'__._____~__'...._..._ _.._.,__"'_"-.T___~_.__.___
'= _ ._. _..~ . , .~. . . . - , . , . '.~..-_ ..__.____....-~._... .. . _ ..~__ . .
. ' . . . . ~...,.~ . . . . . :~
- ,. v,r19 ~:..r.,