PC 1960-1961-108 'ESOLUTION NO. 108 - SERIES 196~ %1.
A RESOLUTION OF TFLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
RECON~V~ENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT RECLASSIFICATION
NO. 50-61-37 BE D~NIED.
WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission of the City of Anaheim has received
a Verified Petition from the property owner(s) of certain real property situated
in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State of California, described as follows:
Lot 106 of Trac~ No. 1453, in the City of Anaheim, as shown on a map thereof recorded
in book 42, pages 41 and 42 of Miscellaneous Maps, records of said Orange County.
Owners:
ROBERT R. and ~tA/tY M. PITCHER
4642 Wood/~aven Drive
Yorba Linda, California
WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission did hold a Public Hearing at the
City Mall in the City of Anaheimupon said VERIFIED PETITION of RECLASSIFICATION
NO. F- 60-61-37 on the 17th day of October , 19 60 , NOTICE of which said
Public Hearing was duly given as required by law and the provisions of
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE, Section 9200; and
WHEREAS, Said Commission, after due inspection, investigation and studies
made by itself and in its behalf, and after due consideration of all evidence
and reports offered at said Hearings, does find and determine the following facts:
1. The petitioner requests a reclassification from R-1 to C-l, to utilize existin§
residence for professional offices.
2. Petitioner does not desire a variance and does not intend to remodel the home
if granted the reclassification to C-1.
3. A reclassification to C-1 would permit a n~mber of uses not suitable for the
existing residential structure and no~ compatible with the surrounding ~rea.
4. A recent Reclassification No. F-59-60-21 was granted for a medical center on
nearby property with a deed restriction prohibiting the use of an existing
dwelling for residential purposes.
5. If reclassification were granted such reclassification would provide the only
opportunity to require the removal or alteration of existing residential structure.
This could be done by deed restriction or by stipulation that the plans for
construction or alteration be submitted prior To establishment of the reclassification.
Since the applicant does not intend to alter building nor does he have ~ny desire for
a variance, the Commission finds it impossible to recommend approval of the reclassifi-
cation. This is done in view of the basic desire of the Commission to permit the use
of the subject property for professional use.
6. Am adjacent property owner appeared in opposition to said reclassification if findings
similar To those attached to his Reclassification No. F-59-60-21 to C-1 were not also
imposed on subject reclassication.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOL%~ED THAT THE ;-NA~EIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
HEREBY RECOMMENDS T0 THE CITY COUNCIL 0F THE CITY OF ANAHEIM THAT RECLASSIFICATION
NO. F-60-61-37, BE D~NIED FOR C-l, N~IGHBCRROOD COmmeRCIAL.
-1-
TME FOREGOING RESOLUiION is signed an'/ appro';od by u~ this 17th day of October, 1960.
I, RICHAP. D R~w~, Secretary of tho City Planning Commission of the City
of Anaheim, do hereby certify that the foregoing RESOLUTION NO. ~ 10S, S]~RIEE
1960-61was passed and adopted a~ a Regular Meeting of the City
P1snning Commission of the City of Anaheim, held on the 17th day of October , 1~0
by the following vote of the members thereof:
AYES: C0.ESSIONERS: Gauer, Hapgood, Marcoux, Morris, Mungall and Summers.
NOES: COM~9iSSIONERS: None.
ABSE.NT: C0.~,~,~ISS!01{ERS: Allred.
IN WITNESS W-n-EREOF, I have hereunto sot r-M hand this 17th day of October, 1960.
.-ECaEf"A:..Y 3~I~AHEIi~ CITY P~I{NII{G C0~,~,!ISSION .
-2-