PC 1963-1964-1089.~~ ~ _
„-«;i ~ .
~~;~:> .
~= -
;~:
5,~.,
fi,:
~4.
~'.:
`u,
;`:
a;
~ ~; ; .
, ;~' 1.
;
l ~~._ . :~.,~ .
1.
rl
v
AESOLUTTON N O. 1089, Series 1963-64
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY PLANNING CaM&iI5SI0N OF THE CITY Or ANAHEIM
RECOMMENDI?dG TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT
PETITION FOR RECLaSSIFICATION NO. b3-E4-89 BE DENIED
WFiEREAS, the City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive a verified Petition For Reola'ssifica-
tionfromMa C, Pe.WAREI-DUSE ODRPORATION, 424 South Atchison Streety Anaheim, California, Ownersa
CLARENCE C,.TAYLOR9 424 South Atchison Street, Anaheim, California, Agent of certain real
property situated in the City of Anaheim, County uf Orange, State of California, described
as Tract IJoo Hotel Del Camp and Lot Noo 29-32 inclusive, and further described as 406 and '
412 South Kr.eger Streeto
; and
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commiasion did hold s public huezing at the City Hall in the City of Aneheim on
March 169 ~96~9 at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said publlc heariag heving been duly givan ae eayui:ad
by law end in accordence with the proyisions of the Aneheim Municipel Code, Chaptei 18.72,to hear and consider evi-
dence fo: 3nd egeinst said p:oposed reclassificetion end to inveatigate end make flndinge end ~ecommendationa in
cannection therewith: and
WHEREAS, eaid Commiesion, nfter due ins,pectlon, inveatigation, end atudy made by itseif end in its behalf,
and efter due consideeation of all evidence end ~aports offered et eaid heering, does find end determina the following
facts:
1. Thai the petitioner peoposea e eeclaesificetion of tha above deac:ibed pcoperty from the R-3~ Multiple
Family Residential, Zono to.the M-1, Light Industr•ial~ Zone to utilize sub~ect
propeity as a parki,ng lot.
2. That the proposed reclassification Ss ipcompatible to the residential character
of propeities:,,fxonting on Kroeger Street.
3. That although the petitioner proposad t4 use subJ'ect property for eutomobile
parkir~g op employsesT any use permitted in the N~-1' Zone would be permitted by
the proposed reclassificationo
4. T't~at the Cormnission initiated and recommended epprova]. of P-1, Automobile
Parking~ Zone far sub~ect property, in Peti~ion for Reciasaification No. 6~3-64-97,
5a That two persons appeared, one of whom represented 5 persons in the Council
Chambery end a petitio~.signed by 14 persons waa received in opposltion to
sub,~ect potitiona
Ri•D
-1-
~
~
i
~
;~
'z
;i
,z
' :',;.
.,,.
,
.~~._ _._. --- _
>:.-... __..,~ .... . _ _... .
;
~.
~~
~;Ql°, THEP.EFORE, BE IT P.ESQL~IED Yhst !he Anuhein City Planning Commia~ion does heraby rocomncnd
to the Ciry Council of the City of Anaheim that subJect Petition fo: Recleasificetion be denied on the baeis of the
cforement3.oned findinga.
THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION is aigned und epproved by me thia 26t ay of Mazch~ 19640 ~
~ , i
CHAIRMAN ANAHEIM CITY P NING COMMISSION
ATTEST: ~ ~
~i~Z~s-t/
SECRETARY ANl+}IE1M CITY PLANNINf3 COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) se.
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Mn Kreba' Socretary of khe City PlennlnQ Commiseian of tha City of Anahaim, do heeeby ceetify that the foee-
going resolutlon wae pasead and edopted at a meeting of tho Clty Plenning Commieoion oF khe Clty o£ Aneheim, held on .
Merch 16~ 1964, at 2:00 o'clcck P.M., by the following vote of the membeea theceof:
AY'c,S: COMMISSIONERS: ALI~RED~ CAMP~ CHAVOS~ GAUAR~ MUNGALL~ PEBLBY~ PBRr~Y~ AOWLAND.
NOES: COMMISSIOIyERS: NONE.
AB5ENT: COMMISSIONERS: S 7DES ~
IN WITNES5 WHEREOF, I have heceunto aet my hand thie 26th day of Ma'rCh~ 1°640
~/J'(,~ !~!!~~~
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNINa COMMI9SION
RESOLUTION N0~
R2•D •2-
~
~
i
;
;
J
~ ..