PC 1961-1962-29- . . ;,
.. ,r_ ,_ :,_~ ~„~, s~.~ ~ :-~- , ,..:.::., ..,.~-.~. ...~.-.Y..,..,: ,.,:.., _.._,.., _.._...
_ . _...._---_... ._, _ . 7
;~
t ^ ~ ~ `• ~7;
ggSOLUTION RSO 29, SHRIHS 1961-62 ;
~ `.~? .
A RHSOLUTI~d OP TF~ CITY RII.NNING C~ASI~SION OP THB CITI~ OP ANAF~IId
RHCQ+Q~IDING TO TFiB CTTY COUNCIL OP 1~ CIZ'Y OP APiAIiBIM TAAT :;
pH1ZTI0N POR R3CIA387PICATION N0. 61-62-7 BS DSNIHD
NH~tBA3, the City Pianning Commisaion of 4he City of Anaheim dia receiqe a oerified `i
Petition for Reclassification from NHLSON-i1YS CONSTRUCTION, INCORPORATBD, 212 South Thalia
Street, Anaheim, California, Agent, proposiitg reclassification of the following described
property: Lot No. 8 of Tract No. 498, in tY.e City of Anaheim, as shown on a.map thereof
recorded in book 19, page 24, Miscellaneous Maps, records of said Orange County.
; and
@IFIBRBA3, the City Planning Commission did hold a public hearing at the 6ity Hall ia
the City of Anaheim on August 7, 1961 at 2:00 o'cloct P.M.~ aotice of aaid
public hearing having been duly given as required by]ax aad in accordmace ~rith the ~rovi-
sions of the Anaheim Municipal Code~ Chapter 18.72, to hear aad consider evidence for and
against said proposed reclassification aad to iavestigate amd make findinga sad~ recoamea-
dations in connectioa therewith; and
Wf~ItBA3, said Commiasion, after due inapection~investigation, and atudy made by 3t-
seif and in its behalf, amd after due consideration of all eeidence. aad reporta offered
at said hearing, doea find aad determine the folloqtiag facts:
1. That the petitioner proposes a recla~sification of the above described pro-
perty f=om the R-A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULT[JRAL, ZONH to the C-3, HAAVY COMMERCIAL, ZONS.
2. That the proposed reciaesification of sub3ect proper~y not aecess$ry or
desirable for t&e orderly and proper developmeat of the co~unity.
3, That the proposed atilization of the existing structure on #he subject property
is not compatii~le with the development in the surrounding area.
4. That verbal opposition tvas recorded•at the meetings on July 24, 1961 and ~a.August
7, 1961 by one ow^er of adjacent property, and verbal support by two proper4y owners was
recorded at the mt:eting on July 24, 19b1. _
~,
~
i' R-1
S
t
k
• ..._. _ ~.. ~ ..~ ~~~. yTl~.t.
. .. . . .,~ ...µ~
-1-
_ .. ...... ....__..., . .
F~ - ._.. . _
0
/~
{ ~'!~
~ , ' -
.
... { . ...~~'
i ~ ~.
, .~< 1. .~~~ ~i
N~d, TFTBRHPORB, BH IT RHSOLVBD that• the Anaheim City Planning Commission hereby
recommends to the G3.ty Council of the City of Anaheim that Petition for Reclassification
No. 61-62-7 be denied and, by so doing, that Title 18~Zoning of the Anaheim
Municipal Code not be ameu3ed to exclude the above described property from the
R-A, Residential Agsicuitur~l, zone and to incorporate said described property zn the
C-3, Heavy Commercial zone:
THH PUREGOIAIG RESOLUTION is signed and approved by me this 7th day of August, 1961,
J
CHAI ANAHSIM CITX PIANNIHG COI~4~IS
AT3'B3T:
V ot.-dl _
Y ANAHBII~ CI~ PIANNING COMMISSYON
TS OP CALIPQRNII! )
COUN.CY OP ORANvB ) s8.
CITY OP ANAHETM )
I, JBAN PAGB, , 3ecretarq of the City Planning Commission of the City of
Anaheim, c~o hereby certify that the foregaing resoiution was passed and adopted at a
mee~'ing of the City Planniag Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on August 7, 1961
at 2:00 o*clock P.M., by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYBS: COARlIS:lIONffit3: Allred, Gauer, Marcoux, Mun~Zall, Pebley, Perry, Summers.
NOB9: COMMI3SIONBR3: None,
ABSTAINBD: COMMESSIOI3BRS: Morris.
AB3ffiJT: CQ"QMISSIONBRS: Hapgood.
IN WITNBSS WHHRHOP, I have hereunto set my hand this 7th day of August, 1961,
~ .
S ANAHBIM CITY P NG COi~QdI$3ION
i R2'D 'Z'
RBSOLUTTON N0. 29
r
: _.__-------__---~.._....._
- ' _ ' _- . =~~M ' ~