PC 1962-1963-707y ~. )
~• . RESOLUTION NO. ~07, SHRIES 1962-63
A RESOLUTION OF TFiE CITY PLANNAG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
THAT PETITION FOR VARIANCE N0. 1558 gE DENIED ~
{YHEREAS, tfie City Plenning Commission of the City of Anaheim did receive e verified Petition for Vadence from
IVAN J, and IVA L. SCOTT, 141 Thirteenth Street, Seal Beach, ~alifornia, Owners;
TaM B. LE3~1IS and/or MORRI BITI{Btt, '220 Hast 17th Street, Costa Mesa, California, Agents
of certaia real property situated in the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, 3tate of
Californi.a as described in Exhibit "a10 attached hereto and referred to herein as
thongh set forth in full •
; end
WHEREAS, the City Plenning Commission did hold a public hearing at the City Hall in the City of Anaheim on
April 1, 1963 at 2:00 o'clock P.M., notice of said public hearing having been duly g~ven es required by
law aad in acaaclaace With tfie provisions of the Maheim Municipal Code, Chapter 18.68, to hear and consider evldence for
and against said proposed variaace and to investigate and meke finding's end :ecommendations in connection therewlth;
aad
WFiERFAS, said Commission, after due inspection, investigetior., end study made by itself and in its behalf,
aad after dae coasideration of all evider.ce and reports oi_°ared es said hearing, does find and determine the following
fads:
l. ThaL the petitiuaer cequests e variance Erom the Anaheim Municipal Code: Section 18.32.060 whiCh
limits th~ struc±ural heighc on subjec:t property to one story, and Section 18.32.120, which
requires that 14 garages per dwelling unit be provided, to permit the development of a two-
story apartment building with carports on subject property.
2. That there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicab2e to the property invotved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply
generally to the property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone.
3. That the requested variance is not necessary for the preservation and en~oyment of
a substantial proparty right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone, and
denied to tne oroperty in question.
4. Taat the petiticner proposes the establishment of an overcrowded living environment.
5. That the proposed development would be incompatible to the existing uses, and would
be detrir.aental to the highest and best possible land use development of property adjacent
and it~ close proximity to subject property.
o. That tno (2) persons appeared, one of whom represented four (4) property owners, in
opoosition to subject petition. •
Vl-D. -1-
. ~ '~ ~ ~ '- ~'
t ~~~^ ~ ~' ~ '~ ~ ~.~ .
~ ~
~ i~. . P-116A•R (Ao+. W7) - r' ti
R ~ ~ ~~.. . S~:~U~~' ~'~T '~'~ ~~_~~.E
~ ~ ~' '. ~ INSURANCE COMPANY
~ 825 Nodh Broadway; Santa Ana, Califosnia
~ ' . , Tclr.pl~oAO HII11boI~y ~'7ZS1
: .~
Your No..........~: . :. -'•....... .................. ' PRE.LIIVII~tARY T•~EPC~3T
~ J
Our C~rder No........23;;o.51-I:BT........ . • .
, ' ~ .
i • ' . ~
' rr:t::: ~:i,y Hills EscroYr
1720 ~~:est. La Pa1ma '
~ Ans:~im, Californ3a
~ Attn: Alice V. Cararud
. ~ .
;, ' This roport i:. ti.:.uod preliminary to rernrdai:on, linal cw:;:a„ and i:suanco of {h.lic, o: :~;.~: ::. r.:nco
~~ in conneclion with this order. Our liability is solely that e_Ypressed in such policy. No sepu::.to Iict-
~ bility is assumed by this report'excopt that II no policy is issued under this order the amount paid
'•Eor this report shall be the maximum liability of lhe comp~y.
I' ' • ' •
• SECURTfY TT1ZE INSURANCE COMPANY
' .. ' r , oQ,~. 6'~' '~„...~,~
, . .r~~Ri
; By .................... Y....... ......._........
'i .. Dated as ot 7:30 A,M. on ranuary 22, 1g63 Wi1138ID B. Th011k~8 •
, .
~. _ ,
. Vestoo: . ~
I
; TVAN ~'. SCOTT and IVA L. SCOTT,~husband and wife, as ~oin~ tenants.
i . .. , . ..
~ ~ .
, Tae land referred to In this report is in the state of Califomia, county oI Or~~
' That portlon of the West one-half of the Southwest quarter of Lhe
', Southeast quarter of Section 13, in Toranship 4 South, Ran~e ~1 ;Iest,
~ Rancho Los Coyotes, as shot,m on a map thereoi' recorded in bco:_ ~l, •
. pa6e 11, Official Records, described as follows:
i •
i ~ Co:~ur.encing at the Southwest corner of said West~one-half oP the
; Sc,u~hr~esi: quarter of the SoutY:east quarter, a~unning thence Eas ~
alon~ the ~Southerly line of said t~]est half 2],4.5 Peet to a point
~+~0 ~ee~ West of the East line oF ~~.3d ~~Test one-ha].f; 3aid »o:.zt ,
b~.._:•:~ the ~rue point of beginnin~ oi ~ne land herein dc~cr~.'. .:;
~ ~i:.;nce Northerl;~ parallel ti~ith sa3d East line 365 *ec;;; ~h:,:~. .':':~~-
erly para].lel vr3th said Sou~herly line 79.5 feet to a;~•~~~!:~t 137 .Leet
Ea:.L- of the West line of .said j~Tes~ cne-ha1P; th.ence So~:~ ::cx:~;°
;
. ~ ~InRIA~~CE N0. / ~ ~ . ~-~HI~I~I' ".~y~
.
- ~w.~,~
, ~ . 1
-- ~: ~ ~ :~~ ;~ •. _~F
,•
. -
. <
. r + ~ .. f -..,i . , ~~ .
, ,'. ~ 235~5? -j~7ET
_: ;~C ~~-~-
paxallel srith ;~.: ~: t1e~t 13ne 365 rect, mcre or 1es3, to ;::^e So~:~h-
. erly 1_ne o~ :,~:;u t~lest half; thence East along said Sou~llcrly Iine
79•5 fcet, more o~ less, to the true point oP be~innir~.
ATOTE: Sa~d land is describcc; oii ;.~.c Ccunty Tax Assessment Roll fo=
the fiscal year 1962-63, ~s A., P. Nce I26-220-6.
~ ' $v ~ta. l.r.'.Ci:.' ~'0:
Z• •'• C~^,.SCIwCilv fl:i i'C3C1~~ i':.i.Zrokc:r• and di.vC~1C3 OV~.I' .{'.t1C S'OL'avi:°i~f
30 fec ~ oS caicl land; al3o the u:.e ~nd con~rol oF ciene~;l~J anc?
na~ural stre~~ oP water, if any, nuturally upon, flc:•:in~ ~croaa,
~.a~o or b~ 3aid tract, and the rig:rc of' wa.y for :-:..: ~o co:.awruct
irr?~a~ion or dra3na~{e ditches thro~,h sa9.d tra~` ~o irri.~ate or
drain the ai9~acent land, as reserved in deeds ef -record.
~ 2. :~Sat-~,.^:•:: .-~•'c?; ::••;~ ~ffect the title unless e2icctxiated by state.:.2n~
oi ide:iLi ~~' '_ _... . a:il partles.
~ ~a~~~*~~t*~~
NOTE: Taxes for the fiscal year 1g62-63 have~ been p~~.i.d. A~o-.:::i:~
for pro-rat3on purposes are: Total $126.70; fYrs~ ^~tallment Yo3.33;
. second installment ~63.37• . . •.
- .. . ' ~t~~~*
-~
` I ~~
'; i;
`.i
, ~
±--
~ ~:k~ - '-- `_'.....~`~
~•~ ~'~ ~:. ~ ..~4
~' ' f~ J I i
., ' \~ t__~
i
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED tliet Che Anaheim Clty Planning Commiesion ~oes hereby deny subject
Petition for VarIa~ce on the bosis of the efotementioned findinge.
THE FOREGOING kESOLUTION is aigned and approved by me this lst day of April~ 1963.
~ .
CHATRMAN ANAHEIM CITY F NING COMftfISSION
ATTEST: •
<~ /~/
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ~
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. •
CITY OF ANAHEIM )
I, Ann Krebs, Secretary of the City Plenning Commiseior. of the City of Aaeheim, do hemty ceKi£y that the fota i
going ceaolution was peasod and adopi~d et a meeting of the City Planning Commission ofthe City oE Anehoim, hmld on I
April 1~ 1963, et 2:00 o'clock p,M„ by the foilowing vate of the membors theceof: '
A~IES: COMMISSIOivERS: Chavos, Craigy Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Sides.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAINs OOMMISSIONERSt Camp.
ADSENT: COMMISSIONERS: AI lri .9. ,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I.have hereunto set my hnnd thle lst day of April, 1963.
SECRETARY ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 707
V2-D ~ .2.
;
~
A
~
• ~
,
_..
~
,
,,
- - ~-- - -.--._..._...-~-------....
..
,.;'.. ._ _ _ __ _
_ .-~ ,----
... _ . -~ ~
::~